Some take away’s from the Transport Committee: The roll-out and safety of smart motorways, HC 26 (Wednesday 30 June 2021)
Number 8
But still Transport Committee says ALR “safer”
Karl McCartney: … There are two different types of motorways. Earlier on you claimed, rightly so, that managed motorways, smart lane-running and all-lane running motorways are often at a lower speed limit than 70 mph. They can be 60, 50 or 40. Normal motorways run 100% of the time mostly at 70 mph. Therefore, are you comparing like for like when you are claiming that smart motorways, all-lane running motorways or managed motorways are safer, whether it is comparing number of vehicles or miles travelled, than normal motorways? I am just asking if you think you are comparing like for like.
Baroness Vere: I think we are. I am trying to figure out exactly where you are going with this. I think we are because we are comparing different types of motorways. Just because the national speed limit is set at 70, remember it is a limit and not a target, as I remind my child. What I was pointing out earlier was that dynamic hard shoulder, when the hard shoulder is running as a live line, operates at a 60 mph limit. That is why, if you look at dynamic hard shoulder, the fatalities are lower. That would probably be expected because of that—
Karl McCartney: But if you ran all motorways at 40 mph, they would all be a lot safer than they currently are, running at 70 mph.
Baroness Vere: Which is why I made the point at the time that, actually, the speed limit question goes much broader than the subject from today.
Chair: I just want to touch on the emergency services. They have told us that they struggle to access incidents on smart motorways when all four lanes are used and the traffic is congested. Do you recognise the concern? If so, do you have a plan to deal with it?
Nick Harris: Yes. When we implement any new scheme, there is the design and construction of the scheme, and then the operating plan. We have a national operating plan that we have agreed with the emergency services, and then a specific plan for the scheme. The emergency services—police, ambulance and fire—are involved in the development of that plan, so that we know how we will access an incident. That may involve, of course, getting through traffic or, in some circumstances, although it does not happen very often, coming at an incident from the reverse direction.
Chair: Logically, I was thinking that you would end up closing a further section and then they would come back on themselves.
Nick Harris: It does not happen very often.
Chair: Is that because they can find a way through?
Nick Harris: Normally, they can find a way through.
Nick Harris: We are talking at the moment to the AA about an emergency lanes approach. That is something that I hope we will bring forward in due course.
Chair: To be fair, I think it might be including provisions for an emergency corridor, where vehicles in stationary traffic create a corridor. Is that in there?
Chair: Minister, as you said, you have inherited this. We have taken evidence that has showed there is real focus, and that is welcome. Indeed, there is renewed focus inside Highways England that has been welcomed throughout the inquiry.
The evidence seems to suggest that smart motorways are safer than a conventional motorway, but perhaps the taking away of the hard shoulder impacts that safety a little. It also seems to suggest that there are bold economic benefits to drive the move to all-lanes running, but that work is still to be detailed.