Recent evaluations from National Highways have cast a stark light on the effectiveness of Britain’s smart motorways, with the majority deemed to offer poor or very poor value for money. While government officials assert that the systems enhance road safety and capacity, critics argue that the initiatives represent a significant waste of resources and have exacerbated safety concerns for drivers.
Disappointing Evaluations
The long-anticipated reports, released by National Highways after a delay from the Department for Transport (DfT), scrutinised 11 major motorway projects, including those on the M1, M4, M6, and M25. Of these, only two achieved a positive assessment in terms of financial value. The findings highlight a dismal return on a total investment of £2.3 billion (at 2010 prices) across the evaluated schemes, which have been operational for five years.
Safety and Public Perception
Despite the government’s claims that smart motorways have improved safety, surveys indicate a growing anxiety among motorists. A troubling number of fatal incidents have occurred following breakdowns on these roads, leading to fears that the systems may not be as safe as statistics suggest. Since 2020, efforts have been made to enhance safety, including the addition of emergency laybys and advanced monitoring technologies, but public confidence remains shaken. The AA has reported that nearly half of surveyed drivers feel anxious when using smart motorways.
Mixed Outcomes in Traffic Management
Elliot Shaw, the chief customer officer at National Highways, acknowledged in a foreword to the evaluations that while the schemes are on track to deliver benefits, they are unlikely to meet all originally anticipated outcomes within the projected 60-year appraisal period. He attributed the disappointing value for money to lower-than-expected traffic growth since the 2008 financial crisis and slower speeds on certain smart motorway sections. Conversely, some upgrades have reportedly managed to accommodate increased traffic volumes, preventing further congestion.
One standout project between junctions 16 and 23 of the M25 was noted for exceeding initial projections for both economic benefits and safety, attributed to its maintenance of a hard shoulder alongside the implementation of monitoring technologies. This has led to calls for similar approaches to be adopted more widely.
Calls for Change
Edmund King, president of the AA, condemned the smart motorway initiatives as a “catastrophic waste of time, money and effort,” arguing that many of the projects have resulted in slower journey times and increased traffic congestion, ultimately costing the economy. He emphasised the need for a return to traditional motorway designs that include hard shoulders to restore driver confidence.
Chris Todd, director of Transport Action Network, echoed these concerns, highlighting the worrying increase in danger posed by vehicles stopping in live lanes. He urged for a more thorough investigation into the safety implications of these systems.
A spokesperson for National Highways defended the evaluations, asserting that smart motorways are statistically safer than other types of roads and play a crucial role in alleviating congestion and reducing carbon emissions. Meanwhile, the DfT reiterated that the assessments demonstrate the potential for smart motorways to enhance journey reliability and increase road capacity.
Why it Matters
The findings of these evaluations have significant implications for transportation policy in the UK. As public trust in smart motorways wanes, policymakers face mounting pressure to reconsider their approach to road infrastructure. The debate surrounding safety, cost efficiency, and the future of motorway design will likely shape the country’s transport landscape for years to come, making it imperative for the government to address the concerns raised by both motorists and experts alike.
