Ten years ago this week on the M25, Britain’s first stretch of all-lane running (ALR) “smart” motorway was introduced, with more to follow. Envisaged as a way to ease congestion without spending money on widening roads, ALR motorways function without a hard shoulder for drivers in difficulty. As they were rolled out, motorists were assured that the emergency lane would not be missed, as new technologies would be able to respond to breakdowns, and control traffic flow.
The public was understandably sceptical about how smart this idea was, and it turned out the public was right. Smart motorways without a hard shoulder have been found to be three times more dangerous than ones where drivers have that option. Behind the data lie horrific incidents, in which stationary vehicles have been ploughed into from behind with fatal consequences. In one tragic case, a passenger in a car which stopped to lend assistance to another vehicle was killed when a lorry crashed into it.
Rightly, Rishi Sunak last year pulled the plug on plans for more ALR motorways, citing a lack of public confidence. But he should go further. The RAC this week called for a hard shoulder to be reinstated on all smart motorways. That advice should be listened to in Whitehall and acted upon. A 2021 House of Commons transport committee report made shockingly clear that before rolling the “no emergency lane” policy out, ministers driven by the desire to save money failed to do due diligence on the safety risks attached. Since then, plans to retrofit refuge areas along motorway routes have proceeded at a snail’s pace. Of the 150 emergency areas due to be in place by next year, only a tiny proportion have been delivered. Even when all are up and running, the risk of a catastrophic breakdown in onrushing traffic will remain.
At a minimum, the government should move to a system of “dynamic” motorways, where emergency lanes are only opened to traffic at particularly busy periods. But the preferable solution would be to reinstate a permanent hard shoulder. This could be done while retaining the benefits of investment in technical innovations that allow traffic to be better monitored and flexibly regulated. As the president of the AA, Edmund King, has noted, “controlled motorways” of this kind are the safest option. That this is the most important consideration should not need stressing. Any concerns over cost should be set against the huge amounts of money already spent trying to rectify a botched policy.
For governments of any political stripe, a degree of overselling and Panglossian spin accompanies the rollout of a new initiative. But the refusal of governments to recognise that there was a good reason why ALR smart motorways were so unpopular has been reprehensible. Mr King has described lobbying 13 transport secretaries and ministers of state on the subject, only to be told he was being too “emotional” about the issue. Mr Sunak did the right thing in bringing a foolish experiment to an end. The next task is to rectify the damage already done.
