Here’s a shocking revelation: most of England’s smart motorways are failing to deliver value for money, and the results are far more concerning than you might think. According to official reports from National Highways, the very agency responsible for their construction, a staggering number of these projects have been deemed either ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ investments. But here’s where it gets controversial: while the government insists these motorways allow more vehicles to travel safely, critics like the AA argue they’ve been a ‘catastrophic waste of time, money, and effort.’ So, who’s right? Let’s dive in.
Out of 11 smart motorway schemes evaluated over five years, only two received positive financial ratings. These projects, which converted hard shoulders into live lanes on major routes like the M1, M4, M6, and M25, were supposed to boost capacity cheaply. Instead, they’ve left many motorists feeling uneasy. Surveys reveal a growing fear of driving on these roads, fueled by fatal collisions following breakdowns—a stark contrast to official claims of improved safety. And this is the part most people miss: despite efforts to add emergency laybys and better monitoring, the safety record remains mixed, with some sections seeing an increase in serious accidents.
The £2.3 billion spent on these schemes (in 2010 prices) hasn’t delivered the promised benefits. National Highways admits traffic growth has been slower than expected, and speeds on some sections haven’t met forecasts. Yet, they argue that without these upgrades, certain routes would’ve been overwhelmed by traffic. Is this a case of flawed planning, or are smart motorways simply a bad idea?
One standout success? The M25 between junctions 16 and 23, where widening the road and retaining a hard shoulder led to faster journeys and better safety. The AA suggests this ‘controlled motorway’ model should be the gold standard, but most smart motorways fall short, failing to ease congestion and costing the economy dearly. Edmund King, AA president, calls it a ‘waste’ that’s worsened motorway safety, while drivers report feeling increasingly anxious—47% in a recent poll admitted to feeling nervous on smart motorways.
Critics like Chris Todd of the Transport Action Network point to a ‘remarkable lack of curiosity’ in the reports about the dangers of stopped vehicles in live lanes. Meanwhile, National Highways defends smart motorways as the safest roads overall, reducing congestion and emissions. But is safety being prioritized over cost-cutting?
As the debate rages on, one question remains: should England double down on smart motorways or rethink its approach entirely? What do you think? Let us know in the comments—this is a conversation that needs your voice.
