Hannah Strange and Ben Webster
Hitchcock
The man, the films, those blondes. Free DVD collection starting this Sunday
Navigation - link to other main sections from here
From
October 25, 2007
Hard shoulder scheme cut journey times on motorways
A traffic management scheme allowing motorway drivers to use the hard shoulder during busy periods has cut journey times, car emissions and fuel consumption, the Transport Secretary said today.
Ruth Kelly said today that a recent trial on an 11-mile stretch of the M42 near Birmingham had shown that opening up the hard shoulder helped to reduce congestion without compromising safety.
The trial could be extended to other motorways, Ms Kelly said, after the M42 experience saw weekday journey times improved by 27 per cent, overall fuel consumption reduced by 4 per cent while vehicle emissions dropped by up to 10 per cent.
“It’s a win win situation,” she maintained. The other stretches of motorway that could benefit would be the 'box' of the M6, M42 and M40 around Birmingham.
The scheme will provide some relief but won't eradicate congestion
The hard shoulder scheme has been adopted as a quick and cheap alternative to road widening because the Highways Agency’s road building programme has run more than £3 billion over budget.
The M42 scheme cost £100 million, compared with the £500 million that it would have cost to widen that section of motorway. Hard shoulders can be converted for use by traffic in only two years, compared with up to ten years to plan and construct additional lanes.
But speaking on BBC Breakfast earlier, Ms Kelly denied that the Government was abandoning its long-term plans for road-widening, which was the only solution in cases of severe congestion. “In those situations you just need to maximise the number of cars that can drive on a particular stretch of road.
“But what I am doing today is asking the question are there bits of the network, and it could be bits of the M1 or parts of the M6 for instance, where an active traffic management approach... might not be a better way to get more people to use the motorway network and improve how reliable their journey times are.”
Neither was the policy move a soft response following the Government’s climbdown from national road pricing in the face of widespread protest, she said.
Ms Kelly said tolls could still be introduced in the bid to tackle congestion on Britain’s roads sometime in the future, but it was more of a long-term possibility.
Road safety campaigners expressed reservations about the plan, citing concerns about emergency access should both lanes and the hard shoulder be blocked. They believe that the Government has failed to allow enough time for any problems to merge, as the report only covers the first six months of the trial.
Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said: “Our reservations about using the hard shoulder are that in a major incident it may take emergency services longer to reach the scene as well as the practicalities of where drivers are able to stop their vehicles if they break down."
But Ms Kelly insisted the reverse was true, claiming that emergency refuge spots and increased monitoring would mean quicker access for emergency services.
On the M42, emergency refuges for broken-down vehicles have been built at 500-metre intervals. The limit for all lanes is reduced to a maximum of 50mph (80km/h) when the hard shoulder is in use and enforced by cameras.
Access to the hard shoulder is controlled using a series of gantries across the motorway. Sensors under the road surface detect when congestion is building up and send a message to the Highway Agency’s control centre. Screens on the gantries inform drivers that they can use the hard shoulder. The gantries display a red cross over the hard shoulder when it is closed and a speed limit sign when it is open.
The control centre uses a network of CCTV cameras to spot when a vehicle breaks down and cannot reach a refuge. Signs on the gantries are changed in seconds, telling drivers to leave the hard shoulder and alerting them to a hazard ahead.
However the RAC has cited trials in the Netherlands which found that 40 vehicles an hour used the hard shoulder as a running lane when access was not permitted, exposing parked vehicles to the risk of being hit on average every 1.5 minutes.
Any way for the Government to get more money from us and to help us less, they will do it. This is just another one of those things.
Dartford Bridge? The toll was put in to pay for the bridge and to be removed when it was paid for. That was done in 2003. Their excuse is to reduce congestion...
Seetal Udeshi, London, UK,
Noting that most car drivers never use the inside lane as it is and misuse the fast and overtaking lanes, and the increase of whit van drivers monopolising the outside lane with inpunity does the government have any idea of the low esteem that the public has of it in all aspects from infrastructure to tax collection??? really the performance of the past and current incumbents is absolutelt pathetic.
Jonhson, Windermere,
So the government tells you that fuel consumption is 4% less, and emissions 10% less.
How do they explain 4% less coming into the engine. yet apparently 10% less coming out the back?.
You can.t trust tis load of chancers!
brian swift, windsor,
The M42 sums up the "intelligence" of the present Government.
The varaible speed limit actually creates more traffic congestion , since there is often 50mph speed limits in place when the traffic volume does not necessitate it.
Also, whilst £100 million was spent on the refuge areas and the speed cameras etc-- the physical road surface is at best fit for the Third World.
I avoid using this road whenever possible.
Ruth Kelly misled us with HIPS for house sales, now she is going to squander our money on this misconceived concept.
It should be recalled that the M42 scheme was originally suggested, then rejected as unsafe!!!
Nick Wilson, Lichfield,
Great idea - does this mean that we can use the hard shoulder on the M4 near Heathrow while still being denied the use of the outside "Prescott" lane which creates all the congestion in the first place. Joined up thinking eh?
john williams, London,
"without compromising safety"
These days politicians have no reservations about saying white is black and black is white - remove a lane? well you didn't need it anyway.
This is a stupid idea that will cost lives - of course safety is compromised how can it not be?
B Royle, Manchester, UK
Best open those buslanes back up then :-)
Homer , Newcsatle,
It works, as a sort of cocoa-tin-and-wet-string solution, but we taxpayers have already paid for a proper 21st-century transport system and we've been diddled out of one.
Frank Upton, Solihull,
Silly idea.
If you break down you need the hard shoulder.
If one car breaks down while the shoulder is being used as relief then you're worse off than you were before as traffic tries to filter into the normal left lane.
And we all know how pithy drivers are about you 'pushing in' even on designated filter lanes.
Phill Barlow, The Wirral, England
I think there is an element of smoke and mirrors here if the Government are claiming credit for the reduction in accidents provided by the "hard-shoulder" scheme.
Having travelled frequently on this stretch of the M42 I have observed that the matrix speed control signs generally only open the hard shoulder when the traffic volume dictates a speed of 40mph or below. Drivers adhere to these speeds because of the penalty cameras built into the matrix system on gantries every 500metres or so. When the hard shoulder is open therefore the average car speed is low anyway so the likelihood of accidents is consequently reduced.
I think it would be worth considering for other congested sections of our motorway system. However my recollection is that the construction work on the M42 went on for over three years and did lead to significant traffic problems during that time.
Walter Guthrie, Loughborough, LEICS