Oral evidence: All lane running, HC 623Monday 18 April 2016

Oral evidence, 18 April 2016.

Witnesses

Tim Cutbill, Assistant Commissioner, London Fire Brigade, David Bulbrook, Operational Resilience Team, London Fire Brigade, Simon Wickenden, Road Safety Engineering Officer, Metropolitan Police Service, and DCI John Oldham, Metropolitan Police Service, gave evidence.

Chair

Good afternoon and welcome to the Transport Select Committee. Could you tell us your name and organisation, please?

David Bulbrook

My name is Dave Bulbrook from the London Fire Brigade. I work in operational resilience and I deal with operational matters relating to London’s transport infrastructure.

Tim Cutbill

I am Tim Cutbill from London Fire Brigade. I am Dave’s boss and my intention is that, if you ask any difficult questions, I will call on Dave to answer them.

Simon Wickenden

I am Simon Wickenden. I am with the Metropolitan Police traffic management unit. We are responsible for road safety engineering issues when the Metropolitan Police are consulted about such things.

DCI Oldham

I am John Oldham. I am a detective chief inspector with the Metropolitan Police roads policing transport command.

Chair

The written evidence we received from the Metropolitan Police made some very strong statements about concerns on safety for all lane running. Is there anything further that you would like to say to us about your reason for that concern, and any evidence that you might have?

Simon Wickenden

Yes. We acknowledge that so far, where all lane running has been operational, there has been an overall reduction in collisions, that traffic capacity has increased—the throughput of traffic has increased—and journey time reliability has improved. The fact remains, and it was acknowledged at the time by the then Highways Agency, that certain types of collision would increase, in some cases quite significantly, but that this would be set against a reduction in other types of collision. Our primary concern is that the types of collision—one in particular—that would increase are not sufficiently mitigated by the engineering that has been installed on this part of the network. More still needs to be done to further mitigate those risks, even when set against the context of an overall reduction in collisions.

Chair

What type of collisions have increased?

Simon Wickenden

The primary risk that has significantly increased—it was acknowledged at the time that it was in excess of a 200% increase in risk—is that of a broken-down vehicle stopping in a live lane. Clearly, there are certain mitigations in place to try to reduce that risk, but, as I said, it was acknowledged at the time that the increased risk was some 200%. That type of collision is more likely to result in serious or fatal injury than many of the collision types that are being reduced. While numerically they are not a significant number when set against the overall number of collisions, the increase in risk is unacceptable to us with the current level of mitigation that has been put in place.

Chair

Are there any examples of fatalities because of broken-down vehicles in a live lane?

Simon Wickenden

At the time I drafted our submission to this Committee we had only had two fatalities during the operational period of all lane running. Neither of those was attributable to all lane running. Since then, sadly, we have had another fatality. On 29 March, a vehicle containing three occupants stopped on a live lane running section at 1.30 in the morning, we believe as a result of running out of fuel. Although visibility was clear, it was an unlit section of the road where no hard shoulder was provided. A short time after stopping—it is yet to be determined precisely how long the period was between the vehicle stopping and its being struck—it was struck by a following HGV. That resulted in a fatal injury to the rear-seat occupant and serious injury to the other two occupants of the car. That is still a live investigation; it is still under investigation by Essex Police, so we are unable to discuss it further, but certainly on the facts we have that is precisely the type of collision where it was both predicted by police and acknowledged by the Highways Agency at the time that there was an increased likelihood of its occurring.

Chair

I appreciate that if it is a live investigation you presumably cannot go into more detail, but it seems to fit with the strong concern that you raised in the written evidence. Have there been other incidents of that sort?

Simon Wickenden

There have not been any other fatalities. There have been a large number of live lane breakdowns. In total, when we look at the northern section, which is junctions 23 to 27, a distance of 17 miles, and on the south side of the M25 between junctions 5 and 7, there were 3,700 live lane breakdowns during the first 12 months of operation. That sounds a very high figure, but it has to be put in the context of the large number of vehicles using that part of the network. It actually works out at less than the rate predicted by Highways England, which was 0.3 per carriageway mile. It is slightly below that. Until the time of the fatality, only two injury collisions had occurred as a result of those stoppages. We emphasise the point that these incidents, tragic though they are, are rare, but the fact remains that it is extremely dangerous if a vehicle stops in a live lane, particularly during the hours of darkness and particularly if the section of road in question is not lit. At present, of course, there is no automated system to detect individual broken-down vehicles. All lane running relies on a system called MIDAS—motorway incident detection and automatic signalling; basically, that is conductive loops in the carriageway, or radar at the side of the carriageway, which can detect traffic flow and the space between vehicles as they pass. When traffic reaches a certain density and speed, the system will automatically set variable and mandatory speed limits to reduce traffic speeds and smooth out the traffic flow, in effect. It is a form of queue protection. But that system is unable to detect individual broken-down vehicles. It was not designed to do so and it is unable to do so. There are systems currently under development, but at the time of speaking there is no automated system able to detect individual broken-down vehicles that has yet proved reliable.

Chair

Have you expressed this concern to Highways England?

Simon Wickenden

Yes. We were first consulted by Highways England in 2012 and it was one of a number of concerns that we expressed at the time.

Chair

What was their response to that?

Simon Wickenden

At the time, the response was that CCTV coverage would be increased. There is actually almost 200% overlap coverage of CCTV on all lane running sections of motorway, but the CCTV is not monitored continuously. There simply are not enough display screens and staff in a control room. It is beyond human capability to monitor every camera 24/7. We understand that at the time of the most recent incident—the fatality—the vehicle had not been noticed, or it was not detected, until the impact had occurred. It is simply not possible to rely on human beings to monitor a very large number of cameras and to monitor the road effectively in that way. The system requires an automated means of alerting the control room to an individual broken-down vehicle.

Chair

You are telling us that the technology in certain circumstances may not be adequate and that the CCTV cannot be monitored all the time.

Simon Wickenden

It is not practical or possible to continuously monitor CCTV to a point where you can reliably detect every individual breakdown; no.

Chair

Does that mean that you are opposed to the introduction of all lane running in the way that is currently proposed?

Simon Wickenden

Yes. That was our position at the time and it remains our position.

Chair

What are the Fire Service’s views on the issues about access to broken-down vehicles where there is all lane running permanently?

Tim Cutbill

For us, predominantly access to emergency incidents on a traditional motorway is via the hard shoulder. Normally, that immediately gives us a very clear access route to the vehicles. Concepts introduced by all lane running with the Xs and the carriageways being closed are obviously designed to allow us to have a clear carriageway to access. Highways England’s evidence shows—as does the evidence from the RAC and AA—that there are large numbers of members of the public who do not really know how to operate in such a smart motorway environment. That poses operational challenges for us in gaining access to broken-down vehicles.

Chair

What does the phrase “poses us operational challenges” mean?

Tim Cutbill

Effectively, on a traditional motorway we have the hard shoulder, which is clear from when we access the motorway until we get to the site of the crash. With the hard shoulder being used as a live lane, obviously there are vehicles in that lane and the Xs on the motorway are designed as a proactive means to keep a lane clear for us to use, but, as the evidence proves, members of the public do not necessarily know that or comply.

Chair

What kind of exercises or different approaches have you tried to deal with that?

David Bulbrook

There have been two table-top exercises and one live exercise. Those exercises tested a number of scenarios. The limitation of the exercises reflects the absence of a communications strategy for the London Fire Brigade in terms of reverse access arrangements. I understand that Highways England are looking to implement a work stream to resolve that.

Chair

What does that mean?

David Bulbrook

The way the London Fire Brigade works is that we have a traditional analogue radio system that allows incident ground communications. We then have a digital main scheme radio that allows communications from the fire engines to our control rooms. The Airwave system providing information to the control room is particularly important, because it is how we pass critical information about the incident and how our control rooms pass information that they receive back to us at the incident ground. At the moment, there is not a system in place to satisfactorily pass that information back from control rooms to the incident ground and, at the same time, liaise with Highways England.

Chair

Are you saying there is no current system that can do that?

David Bulbrook

No. That is recognised in the regional operating agreement. Highways England, to be fair, have undertaken work to look into that issue and resolve it.

Chair

When did the Fire Service last discuss that with Highways England?

David Bulbrook

I spoke to the representative of the Chief Fire Officers Association, and I understand that the work stream was discussed in March this year.

Tim Cutbill

Our traditional means of communication are exactly as Dave outlined. On the issue to do with M25 all lane running in particular, the London Fire Brigade is only responsible for a very small piece of the M25. Other fire and rescue services around London are responsible for the majority of the M25. That is not to say that the London Fire Brigade does not attend the incidents. We normally go into a pool of fire and rescue services. Certainly, the Committee may look to seek wider guidance from the other fire and rescue services that are responsible for probably over 95% of the M25. We responded to the consultation in good faith, but the Committee should understand that we are only responsible for a small part of the M25. The Chief Fire Officers Association, which is our professional national body, have a working group that are working with Highways England, as they have been over the previous few years. There are two work streams that have recently been set up. One is looking at communications operations and a review of lessons learned. The other one is about incident management during roadworks. The fact that they have been set up acknowledges that there must be more work to do. They have been set up very recently. It is a welcome thing that they have been set up. It also acknowledges that there is work to do.

Chair

How recently, to your knowledge?

Tim Cutbill

March this year.

Will Quince

I want to drill into the operational issues point. Say you are driving along a motorway and a major incident occurs while all four lanes are running; traffic comes to a standstill and two lanes are blocked with everyone else filtering. How do you get a fire engine or a police car to that incident without going back in and going contra-flow to the accident?

Simon Wickenden

It very much depends on the speed at which the traffic builds up. At times of light traffic flow, off-peak or overnight in particular, it is not normally an issue. At times of heavy traffic flow on the M25, it is immediately a problem. Once an incident occurs and more than two lanes are blocked, the queue will go backwards in all four lanes at about a mile a minute. What needs to happen is, first, that the incident needs to be detected as quickly as possible. Obviously, with a major incident, that is almost immediate. If it is a single vehicle stopped, it needs to be detected as quickly as possible and signals set as quickly as possible. Beyond that, it needs understanding and immediate compliance from drivers in order to make the lane available for emergency services, and we are certainly not there yet. It is apparent at the moment that it is not working as well as it might be. In the first two years of operation that we have had so far, reverse access, as we call it, has been called into action effectively 12 times on the 17 miles that we have on the north side, but just once on the south side, which is a notable difference. Reverse access is the only option if we cannot get vehicles through. The minimum standard for lanes on all lane running is slightly less than it is on a standard motorway. They are not necessarily that width, but the minimum standard reduces them somewhat, which makes filtering through difficult, and in some cases practically impossible. In those cases, reverse access is the only option. There are a certain number of procedures that we have to go through and a certain number of challenges that it presents that have to be overcome before it can be safely initiated.

Will Quince

This is an assumption, so correct me if I am wrong. Say, for example, there is a major accident and traffic starts building up at a mile a minute because it is at peak time, and that the first police car able to get there is within five or six minutes. That would not be unreasonable. The fire engine is the bigger issue. Say you have a car on fire and traffic is still going forward so you cannot initially start going contra-flow, because there is still traffic coming onwards, albeit one or two lanes. That is a real problem, isn’t it?

Simon Wickenden

The reverse access procedure cannot be initiated until we have a member of the emergency services or a Highways England traffic officer at the scene. That individual can get to the scene on the with-flow carriageway, approaching in the conventional way. If that is completely impossible, we have to initiate what is called a rolling block on the other carriageway and stop adjacent to it, so that the individual can literally climb the barrier and get across. That is fraught with difficulties, as you can imagine. If the road is completely blocked it is not too unsafe, but if there is still some live traffic passing through the incident it is potentially very unsafe. However, we cannot initiate reverse access until we have an individual actually on the scene who is able to stop all further traffic from passing that point. Thereafter, it is a question of ensuring that the carriageway downstream from the incident to the access that we are going to use—the next junction downstream—is also clear. Quite clearly, the greater that distance, the greater the time it will take to ensure that it is clear and the greater the potential risk in driving the wrong way, in effect, on that carriageway. On the northern section we do not have great distances between the junctions; six miles is the greatest. On the M4 for instance, which is due to begin conversion to all lane running, there are up to 15 miles between sections, which is going to create enormous difficulties. We are in discussion with Highways England about that, and looking towards having some kind of turn-around points installed on some of the bridges that already exist, in order that we can cut that distance down. Quite clearly, 15 miles is much too far to safely initiate that.

Will Quince

As you rightly say, at the moment it is not a significant problem, because on the motorways where it operates there is not an enormous gap, with a few exceptions, between the junctions. But, as you rightly say, the issue is when you start looking at the M4 or other motorways where there are serious gaps. We all know that with RTAs the most critical point is immediately after the crash. If we delay by any serious stretch of time the amount of time for an ambulance or a fire engine to get there, that represents a real uncertainty.

Simon Wickenden

Unquestionably, there is a delay with reverse access. It is difficult to determine precisely what that delay is—

Will Quince

It could be 15 or 20 minutes.

Simon Wickenden

There are so many variables in terms of what we would have been able to do had a hard shoulder existed, and all sorts of other things about the distance to the next junction, how many vehicles are passing through and all the rest of it. It has to be acknowledged that there is a delay of some magnitude inherent in having to do that, yes.

Chair

How long is the delay? You say it is “of some magnitude.”

Simon Wickenden

It is impossible to determine, because there are so many variables. We cannot say categorically how long it would take us to get to one particular incident if we had a hard shoulder, for instance. The sort of things that would delay us further would be the distance to the next turn-around point—obviously that is going to be the first access point—the time it takes for somebody to get to the scene to be certain that the road is clear, and the time it takes to check the carriageway downstream to ensure that there is, for instance, nobody parked in an ERA, an emergency refuge area, who moves off at some point and then we have a situation where they are head to head with the emergency services. It is impossible to say, but factors including the distance to the next turn-around point would obviously increase the time it took to get the emergency services on the scene.

Will Quince

Have you had instances where the police officer or fire engine has underestimated the extent of the traffic and has therefore been stuck behind four layers of cars without the ability to turn round and go back?

Simon Wickenden

Yes, we have. It is impossible to turn around and go back once you are committed to that carriageway. You are committed to providing more resources, because other resources will have to go cross country or find other means to get to the next junction downstream. It is difficult once you are committed, particularly in a fire engine, because obviously the vehicles are larger and wider. Once you are committed to the carriageway approach there are no options. You just have to struggle and try to get through.

Will Quince

Inevitably, the first response vehicle is always going to get stuck before alerting the others that they are going to have to divert and find a different route.

Simon Wickenden

With good communications in the Highways England control room that is sometimes but not always the case. Very often a Highways England traffic officer is the first on the scene, but we have to have somebody on the scene—that is an absolute—in order to be certain that no more vehicles get through. Even in a major RTC there are going to be gaps on a four-lane motorway. Once one driver starts to pass through, others will surely follow and you will not be able to stop that until you get somebody down there to physically stop them doing so. Thus far, we have had one recorded near miss—what we would describe as a near miss. A fire engine and a member of the public passed the scene of an RTC. The fire engine was no longer required and so left the scene. A police car joined the carriageway coming towards them, so they were both on the same carriageway—separated by two lanes because the police vehicle was in the correct lane, which was lane four—travelling towards the incident. However, that was as a result of a communications difficulty, which is a frequent occurrence. By their very nature, motorways cross borders so they often involve multiple police forces, fire brigades and ambulance services. Communication is a vital part of this, and on that particular occasion there was some confusion. That underlines the difficulty that reverse access presents.

Chair

Who is in overall charge? Could you order Highways England to close a lane? Who could do that?

Simon Wickenden

Highways England are generally in a position where they have more knowledge because they have control of CCTV, so they tend to have an overview of the scene when these incidents occur.

Chair

But who is in charge? Who would take a decision like that? Would it be Highways England?

Simon Wickenden

It would be the first emergency responder on the scene. They are best placed to make that decision.

Chair

You could instruct Highways England to close the lane.

Simon Wickenden

Yes, but in practice we are all aware of the attendant risks and difficulties and what services need to get to these scenes. In practice, it is very often Highways England traffic officers who arrive first and close the road. It is not so much the decision making at that point; it is the fact that somebody is there to ensure that it is safe for the other responders to come down. The decision making might almost be taken for granted, but you must ensure through communications that any units that are going to drive on to the carriageway do so safely, or as safely as possible. The only way to achieve that is by having somebody on the scene to physically stop the traffic.

DCI Oldham

I just want to clarify one extra point, to push it home a bit. The time it takes to get to the scene is obviously absolutely critical. The police service nationally is concerned, as we increase the number of these types of motorways, as Simon has articulated, about the amount of extra resources needed to deal with these types of incidents and the fact, as the AA pointed out, that the policing of our roads has got less and less as years have gone by. At the moment, the police force is simply not sufficiently staffed to deal with these increases in workload.

Chair

What is the Fire Service experience on these points?

Tim Cutbill

The key one for us, particularly if you are looking at reverse access, is communication. In the regional operating agreement, it is acknowledged by Highways England that intra-operability communication between all the different agencies is work that is yet to be completed. There is acknowledgment in the document that they will predominantly talk to our control rooms. Our control rooms can talk to our fire engines, obviously. They express a wish that we all use the Highways England hailing frequency, which, certainly for London Fire Brigade, is something that at the moment we are not prepared to do because it would take away from an awful lot of our safe systems of working. On the same page of the document, it says that more work needs to be done on intra-agency communication. One of the things I would like to raise is that, as more of these motorways roll out across the country, the regional operating agreement we have for the M25 is being cited as a model to be followed across the country. As you have heard today, there are some concerns about the M25. That is one of the things we would like to raise as much as possible. The M25 being cited as the model to follow is something that needs to be taken with a bit of caution, because there are issues that we are still working through ourselves.

Chair

You are concerned that the problems you have already experienced are not being registered sufficiently.

Tim Cutbill

One of the things that the working group that was set up in March was tasked to do was to look at the communication issues. On the assumption that those communication issues are solved and we find a work-around for them, that will be fine; but, as we sit here now, we are talking about rolling out more of these motorways across the country, and there are some important issues that need to be resolved.

Chair

Are you saying that there are ongoing issues to do with communication that have not been resolved?

Tim Cutbill

Yes.

Martin Vickers

Mr Wickenden, you said that on present evidence you were opposed to the introduction of smart motorways or doing away with the hard shoulder. I was not quite clear whether you feel that motorways are inherently more dangerous without a hard shoulder and therefore you would perhaps be opposed in principle to the idea.

Simon Wickenden

Motorways are safer when a hard shoulder is provided. There are of course risks with stopping on a hard shoulder; it is not a safe place to be and that must be emphasised, but they are safer with a hard shoulder provided. A lot of the safety benefits with all lane running come from MIDAS and the variable mandatory speed limits, something that could of course be incorporated in any three-lane motorway, even if the hard shoulder was retained. Those technologies mitigate and reduce some risks, but the removal of the hard shoulder creates other risks that are in some cases very significantly increased.

Martin Vickers

During the course of your panel, and the previous one, we discussed various evidence of public concern. Are there any international comparisons evidence-wise that could be drawn on?

Simon Wickenden

I am not aware of any. There are different rules for autoroutes and motorways on the continent: for instance, the use of emergency refuge areas or similar facilities on the motorways. In many cases, it is permitted to use them as rest areas. One of the reasons we are so concerned about misuse of ERAs is that foreign lorry drivers in particular tend to use them for tachograph breaks, when they need a break from driving. We see a large problem in that regard. I am not aware of similar issues regarding all lane running. Many motorways on the continent do not have a full hard shoulder, but of course many do not have the traffic volume that we have. The northern section has something like 120,000 vehicles a day and the south-west quadrant perhaps 220,000 or that type of figure. Those are very high figures; many routes on the continent do not have anything approaching those types of traffic volume.

Mary Glindon

Highways England said that 8% of drivers do not comply with the red X lane closures. What risk do you think that poses? How could that kind of non-compliance be tackled?

Simon Wickenden

There is certainly a large degree of non-compliance with red Xs and, it must be said, with the variable mandatory speed limits, at present. There is a large degree of misunderstanding and ignorance about red X signals. The Highway Code, of course, does not even refer to or depict MS4 signals, which are the type of cantilever signals that have been incorporated on many sections of all lane running, where we do not actually have the red X signals above the lane in question; they are, effectively, above the nearside lane. Those signs are an integral part of all lane running and have been in operation for two years, and they are not actually enforceable until this Friday when the traffic signs regulations change. Certainly it is true that large numbers of drivers fail to comply with red Xs. It is partly ignorance on their part, and partly, I am sure, a desire simply to gain advantage over other traffic. It must be said that the lack of infrastructure contributes to this, in that we have a situation where the signals themselves can be up to 1,200 metres apart. In many cases, there is lack of visibility between them; as you pass one signal, it is not possible to see the next signal downstream. If drivers cannot see either the next signal downstream or the reason for the signal being set, there is a tendency for some—and in many cases many—to ignore those signals. We have had instances of drivers complying with the red X signals and then moving back into the lane that is indicated as closed simply because they cannot see another signal and they cannot see the incident downstream. Lack of infrastructure can contribute to that problem. There is clearly a need for further education. We are working with Highways England at the moment using a Highways England unmarked vehicle to record with ANPR—an automatic number plate recognition camera—drivers who are failing to comply with red Xs, and then we are sending out warning letters. At present, I think we are in excess of 1,000 warning letters sent out on what is only a small-scale operation. Quite clearly there is a large enforcement or education problem. The thing that needs to be emphasised about all lane running is that, although red X signals have been part of the motorway signalling system for decades, all lane running places much greater emphasis on the need for compliance. What we are doing, effectively, is replacing one safety system, which was the hard shoulder, with another one, which is the red X signals and variable speed limits. If drivers are failing to understand or comply with those, we are not adequately replacing what we had before. There is quite clearly a lot of work still to be done in terms of education and ultimately, to a degree, enforcement as well.

DCI Oldham

That leads to the point that being without the hard shoulder takes away a key device that the police use for dealing with offenders under the road traffic Acts; we cannot stop them on that part of the road so we cannot deal with them. Also, if it was a more serious crime, we cannot stop and deal with offenders on that stretch of road. While Highways England say, “Oh well, wait until the next junction,” that may not always be possible, or indeed safe, so we are effectively losing a tool. That was one of our objections to the initial scheme.

Mary Glindon

It was said earlier that there is not sufficient capacity now for the police to bring about enforcement. Is that a particular problem?

Simon Wickenden

At present, the cameras to carry out red X enforcement are still under development; they have not been type approved as yet. The only way of enforcing them is via police patrols. Yes, it is true to say that we do not have the capacity, except in small-scale operations, to carry out very much enforcement. It is a matter that really lends itself to automated enforcement. I am given to understand that towards the end of this year the system may be in place to carry that out, but of course that brings an attendant back office demand in terms of processing the said offences. At present, we are looking at very large numbers of offences—certainly way more than we can practically manage. Enforcement is not the only answer. There is clearly an education need as well.

Chair

Mr Wickenden, you said a system may be in place.

Simon Wickenden

The camera system is being developed. There are certain things that still need to be done in order to ensure that we are able to prosecute with such things. For instance, the image would need to include both the vehicle and the signal being shown at the time, so the camera itself is separated from the signal. We have to have absolute confidence that it is reliable before we take these matters to court. It is being developed. I am not kept in day-to-day contact with how that development is going. I am assured by Highways England that it is in development, but I am unable to say with any certainty when the system will be ready.

Chair

Who is responsible for doing that?

Simon Wickenden

I am not aware of the individuals, but Highways England are certainly actively working on it. As I say, I am not kept up to date with exactly when it will be available.

Chair

You spoke earlier about the absence of lighting being of great concern to you. That is in the written evidence as well. You referred to it in relation to the fatality that you spoke about earlier. How concerned are you about the lack of lighting on motorways?

Simon Wickenden

It is a concern. It must be remembered that the junctions themselves and the slip roads are lit, as are the tunnels on the network, but the links between those junctions are unlit on all lane running. It is a question of how much that increases the risk. The view expressed by Highways England when we were consulted about this was that the cost of installing, running and maintaining street lighting might be better used elsewhere, on other parts of the strategic road network, to bring greater casualty reduction benefits than on those links.

Chair

When was that point put to you?

Simon Wickenden

That would be back in 2012, when we originally consulted about the scheme. It is true that a great many parts of the strategic road network—A roads and dual carriageways—are unlit already. They have not been constructed with street lighting. Motorways in the main, and certainly the bulk of the M25, were. It is a question of degree. There may be some disagreement between ourselves and Highways England as to how much that increases the collision risk, but it is without question that it does increase the collision risk. It also has to be borne in mind that the links on the M25 are relatively short—the stretches of road between junctions. As the junctions themselves and the tunnels are lit, drivers passing along those sections of the motorway are constantly presented with both lit and unlit sections, and in a great many cases your eyes do not adjust properly to driving on the unlit sections because you have just passed through a well-lit section. There is a risk, and the only debate or dispute, if you like, would be the degree of risk and whether the investment in installing and maintaining street lighting would be better spent elsewhere in terms of its casualty reduction benefit. We would maintain that it increases the risk. It also potentially delays collision investigation work, because on a completely unlit carriageway, debris fields, marks and evidence on the carriageway sometimes stretch over a very long section of road. They can be impossible to see correctly, to the point that our collision investigators would simply have to maintain road closures until first light, so that a collision investigation can be properly conducted. Those occasions are rare but they bring difficulties as well as potential delays.

Chair

You have all presented a very disturbing picture of safety on the proposed all lane running motorways. Have any of the points any of you made been listened to? Do you feel that you were in a real consultation, or were you simply being informed about what was going to happen, or what is proposed to happen?

Simon Wickenden

The Metropolitan Police and other emergency services were only consulted late in 2012 about all lane running. I believe the construction began in about March 2013. It was, effectively, presented as analysis complete. We had been consulted but I did not personally feel that our views influenced the subsequent design. Certainly nothing changed in terms of those designs. It is fair to say that Highways England—or the Highways Agency as it then was—presented quite robustly their safety arguments and analysis of the risks, and we acknowledge, as I said at the start of our evidence this afternoon, that overall collisions have reduced. They were predicted to reduce and we never disagreed with that analysis. Everywhere MIDAS and variable mandatory speed limits have been employed on the fast road network, they reduce shunt-type collisions and they reduce many collision types. But it has been acknowledged by all sides that particular collision risks are dramatically increased.

Chair

Collision risks are dramatically increased—

Simon Wickenden

A 200% increase in a particular collision risk must be seen as a dramatic increase in the risk of a collision occurring. That has already been borne out by the most recent incident on the M25, within two years of the road opening in its current form, on what is only a 17-mile stretch of road. That is a relatively small section of the network, and within two years we have had a fatality of precisely the type that we most feared and that was acknowledged had an increased risk of occurring.

Chair

It is extremely disturbing. Mr Oldham, do you want to add to that?

DCI Oldham

All I can say, as Simon articulately stated, is that we had a number of objections. Most of the objections were met with dialogue but no answer to our questions as such. Highways England continue to roll out the scheme, only just after instigating the M25 version, without fully testing it and realising the problems that have clearly manifested themselves. We just worry that this is an ongoing process that will get worse. I cannot overstate our worry about our demand, certainly within the metropolitan area. We worry about the safety not only of the people on the motorway, which Simon touched on, but of the emergency services who have to respond to those incidents. Again, as Simon said, the operation we did demonstrating practically how we would deal with such a situation highlighted a number of really difficult practical problems for us, which we do not want to have to face, quite frankly, but we envisage that we are going to.

Chair

Can I put the same questions to the Fire Service? Did you feel you were being consulted about something or merely informed about what was being proposed? Has anything changed in relation to the points of concern you raised?

Tim Cutbill

If I can, I will answer the question in a slightly different way. The schemes that have rolled out across the country have evolved over the last two or three years. The refuge areas started off being 800 metres apart. We are now up to 2.5 km apart. What is happening on the M25—bear in mind that it is on a reasonably short section of the M25—is being cited in meetings around the country as “This works on the M25.” That concerns me. Reference is being made as to what is happening across the M25 as the way to do it going forward, even though the schemes may change very slightly as they roll out across the country. That raises concerns for me. One of the things in the report about the statistics we have up to now is that they are not reliable. We normally rely on three years’ statistics. The scheme has not yet been running for three years, so we do not have three years’ reliable statistics to show whether it is safe or not. Obviously we have had one fatality, which is very unfortunate and sad, but is that the only one we are going to have or will we have more? For me, if we are allowed to and if we have time, we should take stock of whether this is really working over a fundamental period—the three years that Highways England acknowledge is the best way of monitoring statistics. Over that three years, how many more of these schemes are going to roll out across the country? The consultation about each stretch, to answer your question more specifically, needs to be not, “This works elsewhere in the country,” but, “What is the length and gradient of the road and how long are the gaps between intersections?” Each scheme should be looked at in its own right, with local experts from the different emergency services consulting in true and meaningful style to make sure that each scheme is built safely based on local needs, as opposed to looking at what else has happened across the country and saying that that is the way to do it. Each scheme—the M4 being a great example—is going to pose its own challenges.

Chair

You want schemes to be looked at in their own right to see what risks there might be in a particular place.

Tim Cutbill

Yes. With the schemes that have rolled out across different parts of the country, there probably is some best practice to capture, as opposed to focusing on a couple of junctions on the M25. But that can only give best practice; I do not think it should be a rubber stamp or that people should say, “This is definitely how it works everywhere else,” because every road is going to have its own challenges in terms of gradient, lighting, slip roads and junctions. There needs to be true and meaningful consultation about each one of those schemes as it develops and rolls out.

Chair

Mr Bulbrook, did you want to add anything?

David Bulbrook

No, thank you, Chair.

Chair

Thank you very much for your evidence. Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses

Dave Allen, Negotiations Officer, Prospect, and Neil Turner, Traffic Officer, Highways England and Prospect Health and Safety Officer for Highways England, gave evidence.

Chair

Good afternoon and welcome to the Transport Select Committee. Could you give us your name and organisation, please?

Dave Allen

I am Dave Allen. I work for the Prospect trade union and I represent the members directly in Highways England.

Neil Turner

I am Neil Turner. I am Prospect’s national health and safety lead within Highways England. I am also a serving traffic officer. I stress that I am here representing Prospect and not Highways England.

Chair

Could you tell us what risks have been introduced for traffic officers as a result of all lane running?

Neil Turner

The risks are inherent in the nature of the road—the high-speed traffic. We have the risk of people driving under red Xs and driving down the hard shoulder when it is closed. We face the same risks as our colleagues in the emergency services face.

Chair

In Prospect’s evidence you referred to lot of near misses. Could you tell us any more about that?

Neil Turner

Yes. In respect of the M25, junctions 23 to 27, when I last checked there were 603 near misses recorded since the start of the scheme in 2014.

Dave Allen

Just to emphasise that point, those are 600 near misses reported by traffic officers while they were out on active duty and not necessarily near misses involving members of the public.

Neil Turner

That is correct.

Chair

I was referring to traffic officers. We want to understand how your work as traffic officers has changed with all lane running and what risks traffic officers themselves are subject to now.

Neil Turner

The risk is that most of the time we are actually working in a live lane. Previously we had a hard shoulder, which was a place of relative safety—I stress the term “relative”. Working on the M25, most of the incidents we deal with are actually in a live lane. Occasionally the vehicles pull off on to the hard shoulder, but by and large it is in a live lane. We are quite often first there and we are dependent on our colleagues in the regional control centre setting the signs and signals and closing the lanes while we deal with traffic management to protect the safety of the travelling public.

Dave Allen

We would echo a lot of the concerns in the previous evidence about the potential risks to members of the public of not understanding the signs or smart motorways. Of course, the inherent risks for a regular or semi-regular user of the motorway are much more amplified for colleagues out on the road, because the live lanes are their working lanes. I recall people talking about where they drive. I recall driving at the start of the M3 and listening to the Radio 2 traffic announcer saying that she had driven on the same piece of road a few days earlier and she would like somebody to ring into the station and explain what a smart motorway is. It is that lack of understanding about the way in which people are using the motorways. We are not a traffic organisation, but the inherent risks for the public that others have talked about are much more amplified for our members, because they are there 24/7.

Chair

Is the situation very different when all lanes are running permanently compared with smart motorways where there is no hard shoulder for some of the time?

Neil Turner

I take the contrary view from earlier speakers, in that I actually believe that all lane running is safer than having a dynamic hard shoulder. It takes away the element of uncertainty: “Is lane one open or closed? I don’t know; let’s chance it.” I speak from experience because I actually work on the M1 that Mr Stewart was talking about. We have the dynamic hard shoulder. In 2012, I gave a presentation where I showed vehicles driving under a sign indicating that lane one was closed, and nothing has really changed. They still do that.

Chair

Your evidence refers to single crewing. Could you tell us a bit more about that and if single crewing is more likely to be used on all lane running motorways.

Dave Allen

Mr Turner might want to add to this. The traffic service has been in existence for 10 or 11 years and the way in which it was set up was on the basis of a double crew. Through that period, single crewed vehicles have been used more and more. There was a risk assessment done at the time around their use. Currently, an officer has to have had two years’ experience in order to be single crew accredited. It is about understanding, and the nature and experience of being out there on the road. That risk assessment, through that period, has come to the conclusion that working in all lane running as a single crew is a red risk and simply cannot be done. We are aware as the trade union representing traffic officers that Highways England want to move to more single crewing, and particularly to allow it in all lane running. As a trade union, our first priority in those circumstances is the health and safety of our officers and our members. We are happy to work with the employer, but it has to be on a rigorous basis, looking at the processes and the policies and the risk assessments around how they should operate out there on live lanes. I do not know if Mr Turner wants to add to that.

Chair

What kind of risk assessments have been made? Are you aware of any, Mr Turner?

Neil Turner

I was on the original working group looking at all lane running prior to its inception. My colleague is quite right: single crewed officers working in all lane running was considered a red risk and would not be undertaken. However, there was a pilot scheme that we were involved in on sections 5 to 7 of the M25 down in Godstone, where Highways England were looking at trialling single crewed officers being first on scene in all lane running. It is important to note that while single crewed officers cannot be first on scene in all lane running at present, they can go in support of dual crewed vehicles, so it is the first on scene thing that is the distinction.

Chair

Could you explain to us what that means?

Neil Turner

We receive a call via the radio system and we attend that call. At present, if you have a call on the M25 at junctions 23 to 27 and you are single crewed you cannot go and attend that call on your own, because you are single crew. It has to be a dual crewed vehicle that attends first and then a single crewed vehicle can attend in support: for instance, towing a vehicle to the next ERA or providing additional emergency traffic management, and so on. There was a scheme down at Godstone where they were looking to trial single crewed officers being first on scene in all lane running sections. Unfortunately, the risk assessment had not been done. It is my hope that Highways England will come back to us, we will look at the risk together, carry out a risk assessment and then, hopefully, the pilot scheme will be in a position to be undertaken.

Chair

Have you been told when you will be discussing this with Highways England?

Neil Turner

No. We had discussions towards the end of last year about single crewing in all lane. I have heard nothing since. I have heard that Highways England should be coming back to us with a risk assessment, which we will look at together and hopefully work with them.

Mark Menzies

In simple terms for my benefit, could you explain the advantages that having a double crew as opposed to a single crew would bring in that type of situation?

Neil Turner

Typically, if you are deployed dual crewed, once the emergency traffic management has been placed, one crew member would act as a look-out for the other crew member. Obviously, if you are single crewed you do not have the ability to do that; you are, effectively, looking out for yourself. In an all lane running section you do not have the place of relative safety—the hard shoulder—which you can sit on to make decisions about how you are going to deal with that particular situation. I see an advantage in being dual crewed. However, if the risk assessment says that we are able to operate single crewed and we run a pilot scheme, it may actually indicate that we can operate quite successfully on our own.

Mark Menzies

What is the view of the Department for Transport thus far when it comes to single crew versus a two-crew response in this sort of situation? Do they share your views that it is less safe and really should be avoided?

Dave Allen

Obviously, it is Highways England that are undertaking that. In terms of looking at greater use of single crewing, Highways, to be fair, are involving Prospect in a number of trials and pilots. The trial, or the idea of having more single crewed units and increasing the number of vehicles on the road, so that you potentially get around the look-out, is flowing from a number of pilots. We are involved in those. To answer your question, Chair, we will be involved in that and certainly in the east midlands we are involved in working with the employer on moving single crews on to all points roads, not just the motorway. All of that work is flowing from there. That is the work we are involved in.

Mark Menzies

In the event of an emergency, what is the level of communication and correspondence between yourself and another emergency service, particularly the police? In layman’s terms for the benefit of the Committee, what does that look like?

Neil Turner

We have our hailing channel on which we are able to talk to the police, and we do so quite successfully. We work with the Metropolitan Police, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire. It works quite well. Unfortunately we do not have the ability to talk to the fire brigade. That would certainly be beneficial in dealing with major incidents.

Mark Menzies

Is there anything that your members would like to see done in order to improve the facilitation of all lane running motorways that you have not already touched upon?

Dave Allen

We would very much echo the remarks that have been made in the previous panels. All lane running, as far as our members are concerned, relies upon the technology and the signage. We need more and clearer signage and particular attention paid to sight lines, because it is the signage that colleagues talked about that protects the officers, as well as the public, while they are working on the motorway. It pre-empts and warns road users about what might be coming, which might be officers working in the road. We would also echo the views about ERAs; there should be more of them and they should be more regular, not just to help the public but to assist our officers in taking members of the public and themselves to a place of safety and refuge. Our members working on the roads would echo those things as well.

Chair

You say that general maintenance has to be carried out at night. Why should it be different from a normal motorway?

Neil Turner

In our submission, we touched on the subject of chapter 8 closures. On a traditional motorway you would have the hard shoulder to set the signs from; obviously with all lane running we do not have that ability. We have had some problems with signs at junctions 23 to 27. We had difficulty in getting to repair the signs due to the inability to carry out a chapter 8 closure. They now use roller shutter signs to indicate closures. Unfortunately, because those signs need maintaining, we have not been able to get to them to maintain them, so when they have been needed they have not been working correctly. We have ended up with a situation where an MS4 that relays vital information has been out of action for a number of months. I heard that last weekend, hopefully, the situation should have been rectified.

Chair

Could you temporarily close a lane during the day to do maintenance?

Neil Turner

If it was something such as barrier damage, yes, we could; we would put in the initial closure and then the closure would be reinforced by a support unit with larger cones and the proper signage.

Chair

What is a chapter 8 closure?

Neil Turner

I am not an expert on the subject.

Chair

In general.

Neil Turner

In general, it is a method of placing cones and signs that is standardised throughout the country, so that in theory if you have a closure in the north of England or in the south-west it will look the same and have the same signs. It will use signs called 6.10s, which are white arrows pointing to the left or to the right, no entry signs, and so on.

Chair

Did you say that Highways England could not enact a night closure?

Neil Turner

They can do a night closure, but the problem was caused by the inability to maintain the signs that were needed to set the closure. You have to have signage as well as cones. Unfortunately, they had difficulties with the roller shutter signs. I understand that the problem has now been rectified, but part of the issue is having no hard shoulder in the first place.

Chair

We have heard evidence about the MIDAS system and how important it is, but apparently it has difficulties in registering the presence of lone vehicles stopped in very light traffic, such as at night. Is that correct, and what do you think about the system?

Neil Turner

It is correct, because it depends where the vehicle stops in relation to the loop in the road. I understand that at junctions 5 to 7 on the M25 in Kent they are trialling a stopped vehicle detection system. It was explained to me that it fires a radar beam down the road and, if a vehicle crosses it, it activates the stopped vehicle detection system. I do not know how far forward they are with that, but it would certainly supplement the MIDAS loops.

Chair

Are there any other changes you would like to see on either smart motorways or all lane running motorways that you think would mitigate some of the problems you have identified? Is there a way the system could be improved?

Neil Turner

In respect of the M25 northern section, junctions 23 to 27, I think Highways England made a number of departures from the design specification. It has been accepted that perhaps things could have been done slightly better. I have seen documentation to indicate that they intend to increase the number of signs and the number of ERAs. I would like to see a system where we have MS4s or gantries with a clear line of sight, so you can see from one set of signals to the next set of signals. That would constantly reinforce the message to the travelling public, “This is what we expect you to do.” At the moment, on the northern section, we do not have that. The signs are a good distance apart, so if you have a technology failure, as has happened, it can be 3.5 km between one sign and the next. This is displaying important, even vital, information about lane closures and the type of incident that is ahead.

Chair

Is there anything you would like to add, Mr Allen?

Dave Allen

No, thank you.

Chair

Thank you very much. Oral evidence: All lane running, HC 623 21