Many smart motorways are currently failing to offer the value for money expected when they were originally planned, according to newly released reports from National Highways.
According to the BBC, Two of the schemes,involving sections of the M25 and the M6, were found to be offering “very poor” value. Just three out of a total of sixteen projects across England were on track to deliver the financial benefits expected, although in most cases they were delivering safety benefits in line with original forecasts National Highways said.
The AA said the schemes had turned out to be a “catastrophic waste of time, money and effort”
Edmund King, president of the AA said as a result smart motorways had a “mixed safety record”.
While controlled motorways, using additional technology, were safer, he said, several of the others had seen “more people killed and seriously injured”.
He said the current situation was “frightening” with drivers who had broken down having to rely on a quick response from other drivers to move out when signs said a lane had been closed.
The schemes had been a way of “widening motorways on the cheap”, King said, but that they were a “failed experiment” which were “not really working on any level”.
“We need the return of the hard shoulder to help give confidence to drivers, both now and in the future.”
The National Highways’ periodic reviews of England’s smart motorways check the projects against their original objectives, including looking at the impact on safety, environmental benefits and their effects on congestion and journey times.
National Highways says that in most cases safety and environmental criteria have been met. Many of the motorway sections would have been unable to cope with today’s peak-time traffic had they not been converted, it said.
Traffic growth had been lower than was originally expected when the schemes were conceived so fewer drivers are benefiting from the changes, the organisation said.
As a result, value for money has generally been lower than anticipated in the majority of cases.
Among the worst performing projects is a section of all-lane-running motorway on the M25 to the north of London, which originally cost £180m, but failed to deliver the improvements in journey times that had been forecast.
Similarly, a £118m dynamic hard shoulder section of the M6 near Birmingham was meant to make journeys quicker for road users at peak periods. It did so in the morning rush hour, but not in the evening, when in fact they were slower, National Highways found.
Both schemes were deemed on course to deliver “very poor” value for money through their 60-year lifetimes.
In terms of safety, National Highways argued that the five-year evaluations that have so far taken place “demonstrate that smart motorways are delivering safety benefits in line with or above those originally forecast”.
It said most schemes evaluated had lower collision rates than would have been expected on the conventional motorways they replaced.
A National Highways spokesperson told Highways News:
“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.”
(Picture: National Highways)
