Here’s a shocking revelation: most of England’s smart motorways are failing to deliver value for money, according to official reports that have finally seen the light of day. But here’s where it gets controversial—while the government insists these roads are making travel safer and more efficient, critics argue they’ve been a monumental waste of resources. So, what’s the truth? Let’s dive in.
Official evaluations from National Highways, some of which were delayed by the Department for Transport (DfT) until 2023, reveal that major projects converting hard shoulders into live lanes on highways like the M1, M4, M6, and M25 have been rated as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ value for money. The AA didn’t hold back, calling the smart motorway initiative a ‘catastrophic waste of time, money, and effort.’ Yet, the government counters that these roads allow more vehicles to travel safely—a claim that’s sparked heated debate.
On Thursday, National Highways released 16 long-awaited reports, known as ‘post-opening project evaluations’ (or ‘popes’). Of the 11 motorway schemes evaluated over five years, only two received positive financial ratings. Smart motorways, introduced in England from 2013, were meant to boost capacity cheaply by turning hard shoulders into active lanes and using electronic signs to manage traffic. Sounds innovative, right? But here’s the part most people miss: surveys show many drivers fear using them, and fatal collisions after breakdowns have raised serious safety concerns.
While official statistics claim smart motorways are relatively safe—especially after 2020 upgrades like additional emergency laybys—the data isn’t entirely reassuring. For instance, the M3 and parts of the M1 saw a slight increase in fatalities and serious injuries. National Highways insists most schemes met safety goals, but they’ve since added 150 more emergency areas and better vehicle detection technology. Is this enough to restore public trust?
One bright spot? The M25 stretch between junctions 16 and 23, widened into a ‘controlled motorway’ with retained hard shoulders and advanced monitoring, was rated high value for money. It delivered faster journeys and improved safety—a model the AA argues should be the standard for future upgrades. But the reports show most smart motorways aren’t easing congestion and are costing the economy dearly.
Edmund King, AA president, didn’t mince words: ‘This has been a catastrophic waste… Many schemes cause slower journeys, traffic jams, and worsened safety records.’ He added that 47% of drivers feel anxious using smart motorways, calling for the return of hard shoulders to rebuild confidence. Chris Todd of Transport Action Network criticized the reports for glossing over increased dangers from stopped vehicles in live lanes, calling them ‘more questions than answers.’
National Highways defends smart motorways as the safest roads overall, reducing congestion and emissions. The DfT echoes this, claiming they make journeys reliable and increase capacity. But is this enough to justify the billions spent? And this is the part most people miss: if controlled motorways with hard shoulders are more successful, why aren’t they the norm?
Here’s a thought-provoking question for you: Are smart motorways a bold step toward modernizing infrastructure, or a costly experiment gone wrong? Let us know your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
