In digging into the approval of Managed Motorways I found this :
2.1 The Case for Evolving the Managed Motorways Design
11 Evaluation of the M42 pilot 3,4 demonstrated that managed motorways are able to deliver clear benefits in terms of: improved journey time reliability through reduced congestion; at lower cost and with less environmental impact than conventional widening programmes; and without negatively impacting the safety performance. The subsequent programme to roll-out managed motorways with dynamic hard shoulders designed to IAN 111/09 (referred to throughout this document as MM-DHS) has delivered similar benefits to conventional road widening programmes, but at significantly lower cost. Experience from these schemes suggests that there is scope to further reduce both the capital and operating costs, whilst continuing to meet the congestion and safety objectives.
Whilst I can appreciate the saving money concept I question if it is truly viable, sensible and safe. I will check into the M42 pilot.
22 The safe operation of all managed motorway schemes is dependent on delivering a controlled, compliant environment; which in turn encourages appropriate driver behaviour. The design features outlined in section 2.2 above are intended to ensure clear, appropriate and unambiguous information is provided to drivers, for example regarding speed limits or lane availability. Information must be delivered to the driver in such a way that it does not cause overload or leave the driver in doubt as to what behaviour is required of them. Simulator work has been used to provide a level of assurance that the design will perform as expected, prior to actual on-road implementation.
That first sentence implies that if 'compliance' is not possible then the whole system falls over. So if it is now widely known that the cameras cannot enforce the limits and it is left to a scarce few officers does it now mean that they cannot any longer retain the MM on that basis ?
6. In an emergency, drivers can exit the network at the next available downstream junction, or stop in a refuge area. The hard shoulder adjacent to an exit slip may also be considered to provide a safe location to stop, however they will not usually be fitted with an ERT;
(Emergency Refuge Area) This is what I have worried about. How can anyone be so ignorant as to believe that ALL breakdowns and emergencies might allow someone to be able to carry on driving to a certain and probably unknown location of safety !! ?? Where are these emergency areas I don't recall seeing any signs for one through any hard shoulder running area - have you ?
3. Operating Regimes
32 The scenarios outlined below do already exist on the network. For example, there are sections of motorways without a dedicated hard shoulder, and this environment is typical on the APTR network. Maintenance work is conducted on these sections, and incidents do occur and are managed. Therefore in many cases, the existing policy and procedures used in these situations will either already be sufficient, or will only require slight modification or extension.
... but where there are no hard shoulders there are signs to inform how long before it continues, providing clear information and a priority shown towards that knowledge being important and of benefit.
Now we are told we can 'dismiss' these no hard shoulder safety areas as any incident (that is not going to be seen by CCTV (apparently) will therefore have to have phones so that it can be reported to the CCTV operators so they can decide how to deal with that information ! Frankly I'd call the Police !
43 One key difference between a conventional and managed motorway is that any speed limit(s) displayed within a managed motorway scheme will be mandatory, whereas on a conventional motorway they are advisory. The speed limit will be enforced using strategically positioned HADECS cameras able to detect and record speeding offences and initiate the prosecution process. It is therefore critical that the displayed speed limit is appropriate to prevailing traffic conditions to protect the credibility of the system and enforcement regime.
Generic Requirements
1. The congestion management system will determine the speed limit(s) necessary to keep traffic flowing smoothly;
These last two sentences recognise how important it is that credibility is retained but the speed limits are often nonsense and so flow is not 'maintained' as conditions alter often far faster that the system reacts to and drivers still have to 'drive (or stop) to conditions. So it has I agree lost any and all credibility.
It goes on to approve that a 20mph drop is acceptable - although feed back is important! Surely they ought to realise that you drop a speed by 20 mph just as you get to a camera gantry you
are going to cause mass braking and swerving ! What
were they thinking !?
46 In designing for and evidencing that compliance can be achieved, Designers should consider the application of the 4 E’s (Engineering, Education, Encouragement and Enforcement) and how, when considered together, these will achieve a compliant and operable environment that meets the scheme objectives.
Failed in Engineering as removing a lane of safety cannot be good engineering IMHO. Education for the signs is around but nothing about the enforcement is widely available and it took me months to be give (here on the forums) about the 1-5 minutes so that has failed the public as it is not widely known and absolutely should be! What encouragement can you produce other than propaganda about a scheme that is created to purely try and safe money from building another motorway lane ! It is just trying to persuade others to the pup that you have been sold and by which others profit! Now failed on enforcement!
Page 14 covers the Speed enforcement .... more later ...