Hundreds of thousands of pounds could be saved by stopping the hard-nosed, ill thought out, fact less ‘data’ driven pursuit of smart motorways in the name of benefits to the economy. NH own POPE (Post Opening Performance Evalutions) reports show the impact to the economy has not been anything like what NH predicted.
Causing even those who have been on the fence up to now on smart motorways, to speak out
“Smart motorways losing the economy money, creating jams with mixed safety benefit”
“Safety record on some schemes worse, most mixed”
“In many cases, converting the hard shoulder into a permanent or temporary running lane has reduced the speed of traffic, meaning more jams and congestion across England’s motorway network”
“The only scheme to exceed expectations is the Controlled Motorway [has a hard shoulder] on the M25 between junctions 16 to 23 which was also widened. This section saw faster journey times and an improved safety record, highlighting The AA’s calls for this to be the standard bearer for motorway improvements”
“Some reports use fatality weighted injuries, some personal injury collisions and others KSIs either as a standalone figure or per hundred million vehicle miles. The AA is concerned at the inconsistent nature of the figures as it makes it difficult to draw conclusions from the data.”
“This has been a catastrophic waste of time, money and effort”
all above quotes from AA president”
Further resulting in media headlines such as
“National Highways report reveals smart highways not delivering financial benefits” – RAC
“New update as eight smart motorway schemes in England ‘weak value’ ” – The Express
“National Highways review found the roads provide little economic benefit”- Thisismoney
“Most of England’s smart motorways are poor value for money, official reports find” – The Guardian
Added to that the steady stream of HGV drivers, who over 7 years have been contacting me telling me they now take it on themselves to use their large vehicles to ‘shield’ stranded drivers on smart motorways because they are left in such danger by the removal of the hard shoulder and inadequate technology which doesn’t fill the gap left by such removal.
All the above PLUS the continuing deaths and injuries prove that we need the hard shoulder back and not having to plough millions of pounds into continuing to prop up a failing, deadly project can fill the hole left by the redirection of funds to the defence department.
In 2023 the Labour party manifesto said that if they were elected to government they would get rid of “smart motorways” and re instate the hard shoulders. Doing this would get rid of the expense of having the emergency call centers and make the motorways much safer with the hard shoulders to use in case of emergency. Also it would allow the breakdown services to resume their roll in attending stranded motorists. Many coroners have stated at inquests that if a hard shoulder was available it could have prevented another fatality. What more proof do we need?