Smart motorways: Before and after

Dominic Browne

When Grant Shapps launched the smart motorway stocktake he said: ‘I want all the facts and I want recommendations that could be put in place to ensure that all our motorways are as safe as they possibly can be.’

A perfect benchmark, but one Mr Shapps himself seems to relinquish immediately in the stocktake report. In his introduction, he writes: ‘You may be asking, as I asked: how can a motorway without a hard shoulder have a lower fatal casualty rate than one with a hard shoulder? The answer is that while some risks on these roads are greater, others are less.


‘The risk of a collision between a moving vehicle and a stationary vehicle is higher on non hard-shoulder motorways. But the risk of a collision between two or more moving vehicles is lower. Because when the hard shoulder is removed, technology is installed to smooth traffic flow with variable speed limits, enforced by cameras. Messages warning motorists of incidents ahead are displayed on electronic signs. This means less speeding, less tailgating and fewer rapid changes of speed.’

So technology and other elements are there to mitigate the increased risk of losing a hard shoulder – in short, the system is not the safest it could possibly be.

The report clarifies, as Transport Network has bemoaned before, that there are actually three types of smart motorways. Previously and even in this report, their safety benefits are sometimes lumped together, creating a misrepresentation.

A controlled motorway has new technology to add variable and mandatory speed limits to a conventional motorway and overhead electronic signs display messages to drivers. However, it retains the hard shoulder. A dynamic hard shoulder (DHS) running motorway deploys the same technology but the hard shoulder is only active some of the time. This type of motorway has been abolished now by the Department for Transport (DfT) as it is ‘too confusing’.

The ALR of the matter

That leaves us with the all lane running (ALR) smart motorway, where technology is deployed and the hard shoulder is removed. This is therefore where any safety analysis must focus.

The evidence review by DfT, and the Smart Motorway All Lane Running Overarching Safety Report, released by Highways England, argue the concerns over losing the hard shoulder are offset by the safety benefits of the technology. It found that across the nine all lane running schemes evaluated, the KSI collision rate ‘has increased from 1.03 to 1.18 collisions per hundred million vehicle miles (hmvm), an increase of 0.15 per hmvm which is in line with the national background trend in the same period’.

The DfT claims the ‘most informative performance metric’ is the Fatal and Weighted Injuries (FWI) measure, which counts all fatal injuries, then adds serious injuries with a 10% weighting and slight injuries with a 1% weighting.

Overall, there has been an absolute improvement of 0.10 FWI per hmvm for ALR schemes. The reduction is 0.09 per hmvm better than the national motorway trend.

‘In summary, the results show that the overall performance of the ALR schemes evaluated has improved. Against a background of increasing flows, the safety objective has been met which is no increase in number or rate of FWI casualties.’

So is this the end of it? Not quite. Comparisons between one section of road and the wider network are not the best measurements. As smart motorways are on the busiest routes, they are likely to have the slowest traffic and so arguably these sections of the network would have safety levels over and above the national trend anyway.   

Before and after?

The DfT itself admits that given the number of factors involved ‘to more reliably consider the relative safety of converting a specific section of motorway from one type to another, it is necessary to look at how risks have changed and at the findings of the before and after studies’.

Highways England’s report provides an overarching ‘before and after’ assessment of the first nine ALR schemes, including a counterfactual scenario.

This report found: ‘There has been a 28% reduction in the all casualty rate from 16.8 per hmvm to 12.1 per hmvm when simply comparing the ‘Before’ and ‘After’ period.

‘The counterfactual scenario indicates that a 12% reduction in the casualty rate from 16.8 per hmvm to 14.7 per hmvm might otherwise have been expected.

‘Overall, there has been a statistically significant reduction of 18% in the all casualty rate from 14.7 per hmvm to 12.1 per hmvm when compared to what might otherwise have been expected.

'The fatal and serious casualty rate across the nine schemes has increased by 14% from 1.19 per hmvm to 1.35 per hmvm when simply comparing the “Before” and “After” period, this is in line with what might otherwise have been expected (a 12% increase from 1.19 per hmvm to 1.32 per hmvm).’

A different story

However it also finds that: ‘Overall, there has been an increase (2%) in the fatal and serious casualty rate from 1.32 per hmvm to 1.35 per hmvm when compared to what might otherwise have been expected (though this is within the statistical margin of error).

'Of the nine schemes evaluated, three showed a reduction, while six showed an increase. However, these changes were either within the statistical margin of error when accounting for the background trends in casualty rate, or the sample sizes were too small for statistical analyses to be carried out.’

While the DfT’s stocktake states the increase in fatal and serious injury rates was ‘within the margin of error’ it accepts that six out of the nine schemes show an increase, which in itself seems significant.

Breaking this down by the hundred million vehicle miles (hmvm) travelled, the stocktake paints a different story. It found that fatal casualty rates on ALR (0.11 per hmvm) are lower than on conventional motorways (0.16 per hmvm). Slight casualty rates on ALR roads are higher (11 per hmvm) compared to conventional motorways (10 per hmvm), and serious casualty rates on ALR (1.3 per hmvm) are also higher than conventional motorways (1.1 per hmvm).

Another key point is that the main concern about ALR is the fear of breaking down on a live lane and having to wait an average of 17 minutes to receive help. The stocktake reveals that in ALR schemes 40% breakdowns occur in a live lane compared to 20% in conventional motorways.

The before and after research on this presents perhaps the most worrying facts of all: ‘Looking at the first nine ALR schemes before and after their introduction, total live lane collisions have increased from an average of 3 per year before the ALR was introduced to an average of 19 per year after the motorway had been converted to ALR.

‘This is broken down into: 2.3 slight, 0.3 serious and zero fatal live lane collisions on average before; and 9.1 slight, 7 serious and 2.8 fatal live lane collisions on average afterwards. This confirms the expectation in the risk modelling that there would be increased risks associated with vehicles stopping in a live lane.’

While these numbers are admittedly small in themselves they show an enormous increase in risk with fatal consequences. This is based on a single risk factor but an essential one to the design, and to go from three collisions a year to 19 and from no fatalities to 2.8 on just the nine ALR stretches must be considered significant.

When looking at England’s strategic road network (SRN) motorway casualties compared to road traffic proportion (2015-2018), the DfT unhelpfully lumps DHS and ALR together. However this measure found that DHS and LNR schemes presented another worrying risk.

Taken together the ALR and DHS schemes present a higher percentage of total casualties than the percentage of the traffic on the motorway network, in every single year of the study. In 2015 they represented 10.4% of total casualties on SRN motorways and carried 7.6% of the traffic, while in 2016 it was 11.7% of casualties and 9.6% of traffic. In 2017 it was 13.7% for 11.7% of the traffic and in 2018 it was 14.8% for 13.8% of the traffic.

So the casualties were greater than the percentage of traffic, live lane breakdowns increased as a proportion of breakdowns, and where they did, fatalities increased from zero, and the killed and serious injury casualties increased in six of the nine ALR schemes.

The report also doesn’t address the alarming rise in near-miss incidents that were found after the change to ALR on sections of the M25.

One way to settle the argument is an engineering survey of the inherent safety of ALR routes.

The UK is actually a world leader in analysing the inherent safety of a road design through the iRAP methodology. However, the Road Safety Foundation is still developing the model to ensure it is tailored appropriately for smart motorways and so declined to comment on the entire smart motorway issue.?

Latest Issue

latest magazine issue


Highways Awards 2021 finalists revealed

Harris leads National Highways into new era

View the latest issue

Highways jobs

Network and Programme Manager – Highways & Drainage

£41,881 - £44,863 per annum (Grade 11)
We are looking for an experienced, motivated and enthusiastic person to manage our Network Management and Streetworks teams. Neath, Neath Port Talbot (Castell-nedd Port Talbot)
Recruiter: Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council


£30,451 - £34,728 per annum
We have an exciting opportunity available within the Highways Service at Sandwell Council.   Sandwell, West Midlands
Recruiter: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Structures Inspector

£28,672 - £32,234
This is a fantastic opportunity for someone to join Bristol City Council as a dedicated Highways Structures Inspection Officer. Bristol
Recruiter: Bristol City Council

Executive Director, Climate, Environment and Customer Services

to £160k plus allowance
The strength of Essex is its people... Essex
Recruiter: Essex County Council

Corporate Director, Economy and Environment

Competitive Salary
We’re looking for someone who can engage with a diverse set of stakeholders on a regional and national level, from local businesses to... Hereford, Herefordshire
Recruiter: Herefordshire Council

Senior Technician - Asset Management - Highways & Flood Risk

£23,541 to £29,577 per annum (Grade G)
We are currently looking to recruit to two exciting opportunities who will join us and play a role in improving West Berkshire’s highways. Newbury, Berkshire
Recruiter: West Berkshire Council

Commissioning Officer - Highways Asset Management

£34,728 - £36,922 per annum
We are looking to appoint a Highways Asset Management Officer to join our successful and innovative team. Warwick, Warwickshire
Recruiter: Warwickshire County Council

Traffic Engineering Specialist

£31,272 per annum (Band 6)
Eastleigh Borough Council is an ambitious and progressive council with a good reputation for tackling environmental issues. Eastleigh, Hampshire
Recruiter: Eastleigh Borough Council

Assistant Highway Structures Officer- Project Delivery

£28,672 - £23,234
We are looking for a dynamic competent and relevantly experienced officer to work within the Structures Project Delivery Team. Bristol
Recruiter: Bristol City Council

Structures Asset Officer

£22,627 - £24,491
These are exciting times for the City, and you will play a pivotal role in delivering, maintaining, and improving the highways infrastructure. Bristol
Recruiter: Bristol City Council

Street Lighting Technician

£18,812 - £23,791
This is an exciting opportunity for you to join Lincolnshire County Council's Street Lighting Team as a Street Lighting Technician. Lincolnshire
Recruiter: Lincolnshire County Council

Parking Operations Officer

An exciting opportunity has arisen in our Parking Operations Team. This is a fast moving and dynamic team which... Wandsworth, London (Greater)
Recruiter: London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and London Borough of Wandsworth

Highways Network Inspector

£24,982 - £27,041 per annum
This is an exciting opportunity to join Telford & Wrekin Council’s Highway Maintenance Team to provide technical support within... Telford, Shropshire
Recruiter: Telford & Wrekin Council

Environmental Health Officer (Housing)

£32,910 - £35,745 per annum
We are looking for a qualified Environmental Health Officer to join the Private Sector Housing team. Telford, Shropshire
Recruiter: Telford & Wrekin Council

Corporate Head of Environmental Services

£75,949 - £83,232 p.a. depending on experience
We are seeking an able and experienced manager Surrey
Recruiter: Runnymede Borough Council

Environmental Health Officer

£27,741 to £33, 782
We have an opportunity in our Health and Safety Team for an Experienced Health and Safety Officer Huddersfield, West Yorkshire
Recruiter: Kirklees Metropolitan Council

Street Works Co-ordinator

£21,153 - £23,791
Do you want to make a difference to how Street Works are managed within Lincolnshire? Lincolnshire
Recruiter: Lincolnshire County Council

Principal Transport Planning Officer

£44,863 - £46,845. In addition, re-location expenses may also be paid.
This is an exciting opportunity to join the Strategic Transport Planning Team at Gloucestershire County Council (GCC). Gloucester, Gloucestershire
Recruiter: Gloucestershire County Council

Group Engineer - Highways Network Management

£40,876 - £45,859 Plus market rate supplement of £3,000, reviewed annually
We are looking for a Group Engineer who will support the recovery from the pandemic. Huddersfield, West Yorkshire
Recruiter: Kirklees Metropolitan Council

Group Engineer - Safety Design

£40,876 - £45,859 Plus market rate supplement of £3,000, reviewed annually
We are looking for an experienced engineer to join our Highways Safety Design team. Huddersfield, West Yorkshire
Recruiter: Kirklees Metropolitan Council

Highways Presents

Highways on Fridays

Register now!

Latest Video