Should M-way traffic use hard shoulders?

Oct 30 2007 by Vicky Anderson, Liverpool Daily Post

Vicky Anderson reports on a controversial plan for drivers to use ‘emergency lanes’

IN THE latest attempt to lessen motorway congestion last week, the Government announced a proposal to open the hard shoulder to cars at peak times.

A trial on the M42 showed using the hard shoulder as a fourth lane provided improvements for motorists, the economy and the environment.

Yesterday, the Daily Post exclusively revealed regeneration group Northern Way is lobbying the Government to roll out the scheme to stretches of the M62, and possibly the M56.

Opponents say allowing motorists to use the hard shoulder could cause difficulties for the emergency services trying to get through gridlock, as well as safety problems for vehicles that break down and need a place to stop.

But statistics show that the scheme has cut week-day journey times by up to 27% and vehicle emissions have fallen by 10%.

The vast majority of users backed the idea, with 84% of motorists saying they felt confident driving on the hard shoulder.

Transport minister Ruth Kelly said the M42 scheme, now set to also be introduced on stretches of the M6, M42 and M40, offers “a practical and cost-effective solution to cutting congestion”.

Northern Way says city regions such as Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Leeds will suffer economically if their gridlock problems are not addressed.

This week, the Daily Post asks: Should the hard shoulder of motorways be opened up to traffic?

vickyanderson@dailypost.co.uk

YES: The Case For - Birmingham is next to trial hard shoulder running

by Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly

FOLLOWING a successful trial on the M42, new ways of managing motorway traffic, including hard shoulder running, will be implemented as part of a £150m scheme on the motorway box around Birmingham, and a feasibility study will be undertaken to consider if similar schemes could help beat congestion on other parts of the motorway network.

The M42 trial shows that using innovative thinking to help drivers beat motorway jams really works.

New traffic management techniques offer practical and cost-effective solutions to cutting congestion.

Other important benefits are less disruption from road works, reduced environmental impacts, better information for drivers and a faster, more effective response to accidents.

The first six months of the full M42 trial saw significant benefits for motorists, the environment and the economy. Use of the hard shoulder in peak periods saw average journey times fall by more than a quarter on the northbound carriageway and drivers' ability to predict their weekday journey times improved by 27%.

Alongside this, overall fuel consumption reduced by 4% and vehicle emissions fell by up to 10%.

Importantly, those involved did not feel road safety was compromised, with 84% of drivers saying they felt confident about using the hard shoulder. Alongside this, since the introduction of hard shoulder running, the personal injury accident rate has fallen from 5.2 per month to 1.5 per month on this section of the M42.

The Department for Transport will now begin a major study to examine the costs and technical feasibility of extending signalling and traffic management systems on a wider scale, as well as looking at innovative ideas for future traffic management.

The Department for Transport's Feasibility Study into extending motorway signalling and traffic management systems on a wider scale will examine a range of ideas and options including whether new systems could offer additional lanes and traffic flow capacity when and where needed, within the land corridors of existing motorways; ideas for lane reservation such as high- occupancy vehicle lanes, heavy vehicle lanes and through traffic lanes; better separation of slower and faster moving traffic, possibly associated with differential speed limits on different lanes.

Active Traffic Management allows existing motorway space to be used more flexibly.

It is a tool box of traffic management measures, including automated signalling and enforcement, driver information displays and comprehensive traffic monitoring, enabling rapid incident detection and response.

NO: The Case Against - There’s a crucial question of safety in an emergency

by Kevin Clinton head of road safety at RoSPA

THE question of whether we should use motorway hard shoulders to relieve congestion has attracted much attention during the past week.

Here at RoSPA, we have been frequently asked to give our views on “hard shoulder running” and, specifically, whether we believe it would negatively impact on road safety.

It is three years since our Road Safety Department responded to a Highways Agency consultation on a proposed pilot scheme to investigate hard shoulder running. The trial in question, along a section of the M42, in the West Midlands, got under way last year and, as a Birmingham-based charity, we have become familiar with how it works.

We raised concerns through the consultation about changing something that has been integral to the concept of a motorway – that the hard shoulder is used only in an emergency.

But we also recognised that congestion was a serious issue on British roads, impacting on travel times and, consequently, the costs associated with transporting people and materials for business and industry.

Our overriding message was that any savings achieved by reducing congestion should not come at the cost of road safety.

Among our concerns was the potential for delays to emergency vehicles trying to reach the scene of major incidents along the motorway – would they find themselves trapped amid four lanes of stationary traffic, when they previously would have had a clear run down the hard shoulder?

There are also issues surrounding the practicality of where drivers can stop their vehicles in the event of a breakdown, plus the maintenance needs associated with keeping the hard shoulder free of the debris.

We have now reached a point when hard shoulder running is being considered for other stretches of the motorway network across the country, and the reservations we previously expressed remain.

However, it must be said that the M42 trial seems to have been successful so far due to the investment in infrastructure and because the speed limit is no higher than 50mph when the hard shoulder is in use as a running lane. If the scheme is rolled out to more locations, it is essential that there is the same level of investment in infrastructure, especially the provision of emergency refuges, where drivers can stop in the event of a breakdown, and overhead gantries with active speed limit signs and clear instructions to drivers.

We would also urge that the speed limit is always lowered when motorists are allowed to drive along the hard shoulder.

And, as we said at the start of the M42 trial, we hope the Highways Agency will monitor the situation carefully, be alert to any new or unexpected issues, and be prepared to change the system if necessary.