Transport Insights

Transport minister Simon Lightwood has published a response to a fellow Labour MP’s written parliamentary question about emergency (refuge) areas on smart motorways but, as part of an ongoing and determined effort to avoid scrutiny, has made no attempt to answer the question.

As I noted on Monday, a question put down by Sarah Champion MP followed up on my revelation that the new Road Investment Strategy said nothing about adding new emergency areas to meet the spacing standard to which the government agreed in 2022:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to the Third Report of the Transport Committee of Session 2021–22, Rollout and safety of smart motorways, HC26, what steps her Department is taking to ensure that emergency refuges on All Lane Running Smart Motorways are spaced no more than 1,500m apart, and no more than 1,000m apart where possible.

Predictably, Lightwood referenced the delivery of what the (Tory) government said it would do at the time, but made no mention of ensuring that the space standard would be met:

National Highways has completed construction of 151 additional emergency areas across the all lane running (ALR) smart motorway network through the National Emergency Area Retrofit (NEAR) programme. National Highways is evaluating the effectiveness of these additional emergency areas, including impacts on live-lane stops, safety outcomes and road-user perceptions. Initial findings are expected in 2026, with a full three-year evaluation concluding in 2028.

If you compare this with what the Department for Transport said in 2022…

A decision on whether to retrofit across the remainder of ALR smart motorways will be considered as part of the formulation of the third Road Investment Strategy, based on evidence of safety benefits.

…not only have they not considered this as part of the new strategy, they have kicked it into the long grass with an evaluation concluding in 2028 that may never see the light of day.

While the DfT’s original pledge was that consideration would be “based on evidence of safety benefits”, it was clear that it would be its decision, as it writes road investment strategies.

It’s not clear whether this is still the case – or even if there is a decision to be made.