Transport Insights

The transport stories you won't see in the industry-friendly media

Author

Chris Ames

  • Crash death trial highlights smart motorway failings

    We will all have to be careful what we say about the ongoing criminal trial of Barry O’Sullivan, accused of causing the death of Pulvinder Dhillon by careless driving on the M4 in March 2022, but the overriding message that the public will see is that the technology on this stretch of smart motorway had not been working for some time at the time of the crash.

    The Daily Mail reports:

    A grandmother killed in a crash could still be alive today if safety technology on the smart motorway she broke down on hadn’t been ‘dangerously defective’, a court heard.

    This is the defence case. The prosecution case is that O’Sullivan was nevertheless responsible and the jury will hear the evidence and make up its mind.

    The main theme that the papers are focusing on – that the system to detect stopped vehicles in live lanes and warn other drivers about them was not working – has been known for some time.

    In fact, in May 2022, National Highways’ executive director for operations, Duncan Smith told me that the crash had occurred after the system had detected a stopped vehicle but an error had prevented an alert being raised.

    Pointing out that the vehicle had stopped in lane 4, Mr Smith said: ‘The M4 [incident] was a particular issue with some of our back office systems that were offline at the time – we’ve now corrected the system so that can’t happen. The scheme was still in operational acceptance so, as tragic as it was, this was a shortcoming of a system that [hadn’t yet] been handed into business as usual.’

    (more…)

  • DfT smart motorway cover-up not working

    The AA has reported a sharp rise in the number of drivers who feel nervous or anxious when using smart motorways and called for “greater transparency and consistency in how motorway safety is assessed, monitored and communicated”, including the release of the evaluation reports that ministers are suppressing

    It said its survey of 12,705 drivers shows that the proportion reporting feelings of nervousness or anxiety on all lane running “smart” motorways with no hard shoulder doubled from 23% last year to 46% this year.

    Dynamic hard shoulder “smart” motorways where the hard shoulder is only opened to traffic during busy periods, also saw a significant increase in anxiety, with the number of drivers feeling nervous or anxious rising from 30% to 47% in 12 months.

    AA president Edmund King said:

    It’s not surprising that our members are more anxious about using ‘smart’ motorways. If you break down in a live lane, in effect, you are a sitting duck. The failure of ‘smart’ motorway technology over the last few years has, no doubt, added to the levels of anxiety.

    What the AA and our members would like to see is the return of the hard shoulder in a controlled motorway environment. Until that concern is properly addressed, it’s hard to see confidence in ‘smart’ motorways recovering.

    The AA said the findings underline the need for greater transparency and consistency over smart motorways, pointing out that a number of Post Opening Project Evaluation (POPE) reports looking at the safety and economic benefits of several stretches of ‘smart’ motorway have been awaiting publication for years.

    It said these should be released urgently.

    King added:

    These safety reports are vital in understanding how the smart motorways experiment has fared. By continuously delaying their release, it is feared that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Regardless of what these documents say, they need to be published immediately.

    Especially as hiding the truth is clearly not helping the public’s confidence.

  • We might be told very little a bit later than promised

    National Highways’ regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, has told me that it still expects the new Road Investment Strategy (RIS) to be published in March, despite some loose wording in a newsletter referring to publication “the start of April”.

    Separately, the roads minister has confirmed that the RIS will break down National Highways’ spending across “key categories” such as operations, maintenance, renewals and enhancements, but will not include forecast costs for specific enhancements.

    (more…)

  • Might National Highways turmoil keep POPEs locked up for longer?

    The Sunday Times story about National Highways chief executive Nick Harris being “effectively forced to quit after losing the confidence of board members” is an interesting one, not just in its own right, but in terms of where it leaves the ongoing suppression of smart motorway evaluation reports.

    It is said that Harris’ relationship with the National Highways board broke down over his handling of the speed camera debacle and the paper infers and implies a causal relationship.

    But it doesn’t seem too sure, saying that “sources have claimed” that was Harris pushed out “after” rather than because of losing board members’ confidence.

    The speed camera debacle is of course all about how reliable National Highways’ smart motorway technology really is and the further debacle over the 30-hour closure of one of the tunnels at the Dartford Crossing hasn’t helped.

    The BBC reports:

    It is something that should not happen – an oversized vehicle entering and damaging a tunnel at one of Britain’s busiest river crossings.

    “Baffling” and “unfathomable” were just two words used to describe experts’ confusion over how multiple safety systems failed to prevent the incident at the Dartford Crossing on 23 January.

    The driver caused extensive damage along the entire length of the tunnel to multiple pieces of safety equipment, causing it to close for 30 hours.

    National Highways says an investigation is under way, but MPs say motorists and residents are owed an apology as well.

    (more…)

  • Is Harris the fall guy for smart motorway failings?

    National Highways chief executive Nick Harris has announced what is said to be his decision to step down, but the obvious question is, did he jump, or was he pushed?

    The government owned company’s official announcement pointed out that he had held the role for five years, which is a decent stint, and he is reported to have just turned 60.

    But the suddenness of his departure does not exactly suggest proper succession planning. National Highways said he will stay in post “during a short transition period while the Board confirms interim leadership arrangements”, with recruitment for a permanent successor beginning in the spring.

    Harris said the start of the next five-year Road Investment Strategy (RIS) in April

    is the right moment for me to hand over to new leadership who will guide the organisation into its next chapter

    But the next couple of months, during which the new £24bn RIS will be finalised, are hardly an ideal time to be disrupting the organisation, and not the “smooth transition” promised.

    And although Harris has been in the job for the equivalent of a RIS period, the current interim period between RIS 2 and RIS 3 means his departure is very different from what happened when his predecessor, Jim O’Sullivan, announced his departure in August 2020.

    (more…)

  • How to eat the elephant that’s poisoning our rivers

    In this guest post, Jo Bradley of Stormwater Shepherds looks at National Highways’ plans to address toxic road runoff it the context of the legal and regulatory framework that should be protecting our watercourses.

    Pollution from highway runoff is finally getting the recognition that it deserves, and being discussed in high places. The pollution is acknowledged, albeit very briefly, in the recent Water Sector White Paper, and there is a nod to it in last year’s Environmental Improvement Plan. But this is not enough; this is one of the largest sources of river pollution, so passing mentions in policies and plans are inadequate.

    There are no highway outfalls identified in the River Basin Management Plans as sources of pollution, and the Environment Agency still refuses to regulate the outfalls using the appropriate regulations. We are eating this elephant one bite at a time but it simply isn’t fast enough; we need to put it through the mincer and find a way to eat it more quickly than ever before.

    (more…)

  • Alexander the not-so-great botches West Midlands Metro extension

    The Express and Star reports that:

    The Midlands Metro tramline will open for passengers in Dudley at the end of August – more than two years late.

    At a meeting of Dudley Council’s Communities and Growth Scrutiny Committee, council leaders faced questions on what help was available for traders affected by the delayed works.

    The Metro had been earmarked for a 2024 opening and later for a launch in the autumn of 2025. It was later announced the opening would be delayed until the start of this year.

    The extension to Dudley is the first phase of the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill extension, which is being built by the Midland Metro Alliance (MMA) on behalf of Transport for West Midlands (TfWM).

    Last October MMA said:

    Work on the first phase of the route, between Wednesbury and Dudley town centre, is nearing completion ahead of opening next year

    TfWM has now confirmed in a statement to journalist Peter Plisner:

    (more…)

  • Mayor welcomes NPR funding cap

    I’ve been looking at one of the so-called “compact agreements” on how central government and northern mayors “will collaborate to deliver the next stage of Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR)” and wondering if it is less of an agreement and more of a collective whistling to keep their spirits up.

    For a start, the agreements in fact cover several future stages of NPR and that’s really the point as ministers have chosen to chop the project into chunks to be delivered consecutively.

    An then the agreement between transport secretary Heid Alexander, chancellor Rachel Reeves, communities secretary Steve Reed, and – last but not least – West Yorkshire mayor Tracy Brabin opines:

    We welcome the £1.1bn funding allocated for NPR development in this Spending Review period, allowing development work for the first two phases to proceed without delay, and the certainty implied by the funding cap of £45bn for the overall NPR scheme, which will guide development and future delivery.

    So three cabinet ministers and one mayor, who is definitely not in a hostage situation, applaud a relatively small amount of development cash allocated by central government and a promise not to spend more than a specified amount, in place of substantive funding.

    The agreement goes on to explain:

    (more…)

  • Taxpayers to cough up even more for “privately funded” Thames Tunnel

    The Times story on the Lower Thames Crossing raises further doubts that the £11bn project will be privately financed, even beyond the £3bn that the taxpayer is due to put in before anything happens.

    The taxpayer is set to lose net income of at least £120 million a year as a result of the financial arrangements for a new road tunnel under the Thames, The Times can reveal.

    Government plans for the Lower Thames Crossing are built on handing the revenues from the existing tolls on the Dartford Crossing to a new private operator, which will be allowed to keep them in perpetuity.

    My take on this is that if you are diverting £120m of revenue annually and for ever to pay for a project, you are at least partially funding that project (again, beyond the £3bn) and no amount of smoke and mirrors can disguise that.

    The Times reports that:

    Under the Transport Act 2000, these revenues go directly to the DfT, not into the Treasury’s coffers, and must be used for improving transport. The DfT did not respond to TAN’s question as to whether this income would be “included in DfT’s future budgets as a loss” or if it had been factored into the cost-benefit analysis for the Lower Thames project. The DfT also declined to answer similar questions from The Times.

    This is clear obfuscation from the DfT but, whether the money is a hit to the transport budget or will be refunded by the Treasury, it’s taxpayers’ money.

    Elsewhere in the paper, the piece’s author, Alistair Osborne, comments

    …you’d think that before ministers committed £3.1 billion of taxpayer’s money and started early construction works, they might have bothered to produce a full business case for the link, instead of opting to wait until 2028. Or explained why it’s still a zippy scheme, despite it seeming to fail the DfT’s own “value for money” test. Or actually come clean about the implications of its “preferred financing option”, which would see both the crossing and existing taxpayer income transfer to a private sector owner in perpetuity.

    I made similar observations here last month.

    Having said that, the current revelations on the funding represent great work by TAN (Transport Action Network) and the journalist.

  • Release of POPEs (still) imminent

    With no real sign of the Department for Transport (DfT) allowing National Highways to release the 14 suppressed evaluation reports on smart motorways, the Guardian has picked up on the story:

    Road campaigners and motoring organisations have urged ministers to immediately release a series of “withheld” safety assessments on Britain’s smart motorways – some dating as far back as 2022

    With suggestions that the reports could be released at (last) Christmas having come to nothing, the DfT is still claiming there is nothing to see:

    The Department for Transport has said that the reports, known as Popes (post-opening project evaluations), will be published imminently, and do not undermine the broad case for smart motorways as statistically the safest roads.

    That last bit about a “broad case” is perhaps the key part of the whole article, suggesting that some POPEs may show that individual stretches of motorway have become less safe since the hard shoulder was removed, particularly as they have once again filled up with traffic.

    The article quotes Claire Mercer of Smart Motorways Kill, who has campaigned with me for the POPEs to be released, as saying that:

    If [the reports] showed good news, they’d release them.

    And links to this blog, in which I made a similar point:

    Ames was told that a total of 14 reports would eventually be released before Christmas last year “subject to the DfT agreeing the communications handling plan”. He said the continuing delay suggested the contents “must be really, really bad”.

    Jack Cousens, the head of roads policy at the AA, said: “These safety reports on so-called ‘smart’ motorways have been withheld for far too long, and we urgently need to see them published.”

    He said the reports needed to “show the outcomes of these schemes regardless of their failures or successes”.

    Leave a comment

Subscribe

Subscribe to get our the latest stories in your inbox.