Smart motorways have been a catastrophic waste of time, money and effort and worsened road safety, the AA said this week after National Highways released reports that rated them ‘very poor’.
The road agency charged with overseeing the controversial road schemes admitted that the M25 all lane running (ALR) section of the orbital motorway between junctions 23 to 27 and the M6 dynamic hard shoulder (DHS) section between junctions 5 and 8 were losing the economy money and gauged very poor.
A further six schemes around the country were rated ‘not on track – poor’ or ‘not on track – low’ in respect of providing value for money.
The AA added that in many cases, turning the hard shoulder into a permanent or even temporary running lane had been found to reduce traffic speeds and result in more jams and congestion.
However, National Highways stood by the schemes and said its latest analysis showed smart motorways remained its safest roads.
Campaigner Claire Mercer, who set up ‘Smart Motorways Kill’ following the death of her husband on a stretch of ALR in South Yorkshire, questioned why she had repeatedly been told time after time smart motorways were bringing positive outcomes:
“Over the past six and a half years, I have repeatedly asked both National Highways and the department for transport why such dangerous changes were implemented on the stretch of road where my husband was killed,” she said.
“Each time, I was told that these modifications were made to improve journey times and bring economic benefits to the area.
“I never felt this was a fair trade anyway.”
The AA said only three schemes had been found to be on track in relation to value for money and one of those, the M3 ALR section between junctions 2 and 4a, had created faster journey times – but a worsening safety record.
The only scheme to exceed expectations was the controlled motorway on the M25 between junctions 16 to 23.
This section saw faster journey times and an improved safety record.
The AA also highlighted how many of the National Highways reports released this week were dated September 2023 and asked why they had been “locked away for years”.
Edmund King, AA president, said: “After a lengthy wait, these reports finally see the light of day. The reluctant release of these documents, without any announcement feels like an attempt to bury bad news.
“This has been a catastrophic waste of time, money and effort.
“Many of the schemes have slower journeys which causes traffic jams, loses the country cash and worsened the safety record of motorways.
King added: “Motorways which have been widened, the hard shoulder kept, and safety technology added have proved the most successful. We have been calling for this standard for so long and urge any government that looks to improve motorways to use this style as the blueprint.
“We need the return of the hard shoulder to help give confidence to drivers, both now and in the future.”
National Highways said its reports assessed value for money benefits of the schemes over 60 years and at this five-year stage they had been rated between ‘high’ and ‘very poor’.
It said the value for money assessment should be treated with caution as they were based on projections from over a decade ago and the current findings only covered a relatively small amount of time that smart motorways had been in existence.
A National Highways spokesperson said: “Our latest analysis continues to show that overall, smart motorways remain our safest roads.
“They are also providing much needed extra capacity for drivers, helping to reduce congestion and lower carbon emissions.”
