The Transport Committee has accused the DfT of “blatantly ignoring” its recommendations in regards the roll out of all-lane running across the motorway network, which one MP has said will “get people killed”.
The committee slammed the government’s plans for 300 miles of all-lane running in July, labelling the move a cost-cutting exercise and “a radical change and an unacceptable price to pay for such improvements”.
This morning the committee published the DfT's response to its report, disagreeing with many of its recommendations.
Smart motorways
The DfT has disputed the Transport Committee’s claim that other forms of smart motorways, such as dynamic hard-shoulders that see the hard-shoulder converted into an extra lane when necessary, were safer.
The government response said: “All-lane running provides a simpler environment than part-time hard shoulder running, and avoids any potential uncertainty”.
“All-lane running is demonstrably as safe as a standard motorway and the M25 [pilot] schemes show that casualty and collision rates are down.”
It also declined to heed the committee’s call for a halt to the project, but said that Highways England had committed to improving the safety of all-lane running with the introduction of new features such as stationary vehicle detection technology.
Emergency refuge areas
The government also committed to a review of emergency refuge areas (ERAs), which the committee said needed to be more frequently spaced in lieu of a hard shoulder.
However it disagreed with the claim that the standard 30m size of the ERA was too small to allow recovery vehicles towing broken down vehicles to build up sufficient speed before re-joining the motorway. The committee had said vehicles towing HGVs, it suggested, were at particular risk.
The government responded: “Procedures are in place for the police and Highways England to assist vehicles re-entering the carriageway from an ERA”.
Red X compliance
The committee’s July report highlighted concerns at the low levels of compliance with the red X symbol that marks closed lanes.
The DfT agreed that compliance with the red X was too low, and said Highways England would “continue to monitor and report red X non-compliance and develop further interventions to tackle it”.
Responses
Despite these measures, Transport Committee chairman Louise Ellman said the DfT was “blatantly ignoring” its safety concerns, and that the go ahead that was given to an all-lane running scheme on the M4 had gone ahead too soon.
The committee, she said, had “barely received” the government response to its report when the M4 scheme was given the green light.
Ellman added: “The committee remains concerned about the size and spacing of ERAs. While we are pleased that Highways England has committed to a review, the M4 proposal should not have gone ahead until the review is complete.
“We are not the only people who are worried about this incarnation of all-lane running schemes. In the course of our inquiry, there were genuine concerns raised by the emergency services, road workers and recovery operators. The government cannot ignore them.”
At the time of the original report’s release, the RHA accused the Transport Committee of being “too cautious” in its approach to all-lane running.
In light of the latest document, the association’s national director of policy Jack Semple told Motortransport.co.uk: “All-lane running has much to offer" and that the committee’s report was too negative.
“The DfT’s comments reflect that view, while recognising that safety management is an evolving matter,” he said.
However Rob Flello MP, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Road Freight and a Transport Committee member, said the government was taking “a massive risk” and that all-lane running “looks like a cheap option in financial terms but will end up being disastrously costly in lost lives”.
He added that he was particularly concerned for those in the recovery sector, echoing the sentiment of the committee itself.
He said: “What chance will a tow driver have of getting up to a safe speed from a standing start with an HGV on the back if they’re having to do so in a live lane of fast-moving traffic? The government’s own figures say the risk is three times greater. It’s madness.”
