BIRMINGHAM BOX MANAGED MOTORWAYS: ‘AFTER CONSTRUCTION’
USER CONSULTATION ON THE IMPACTS OF HARD SHOULDER
RUNNING
Alina Tuerk
Needee Myers
Jo Baker
Mott MacDonald
Dave Cooke
Paul Unwin
Highways Agency
ABSTRACT
This paper reports on the latest stage of a series of research which is
monitoring user reactions to the progressive implementation of Managed
Motorway solutions on the Birmingham Motorway Network. It specifically
refers to the implementation of Birmingham Box Managed Motorways Phase
1 (BBMM1). Managed Motorways provide a range of benefits which include
the use of variable speed limits to manage traffic flow and reduce congestion,
vehicle detection and information systems to minimise the impact of
accidents, and the use of hard shoulders to provide an auxiliary traffic lane in
congested conditions.
Managed Motorways are now a high priority in the UK as they enable
economic growth by tackling congestion for a lower level of investment than
that required for road widening. Moreover, Managed Motorways do not have
the level of environmental impact associated with new roads.
The research comprises a mixture of qualitative research (focus groups) and
interviews with drivers and has demonstrated that the scheme has largely
achieved its purpose. A few key findings are summarised below.
Respondents see the main benefits as:
• Improved traffic flow
• Eased congestion
• Reduced stop-start conditions
Respondents have identified a few residual concerns:
• The need to complete the implementation of Managed Motorways
around the Motorway Box in order to maximise benefits
• Ongoing concern about availability of refuge areas when the hard
shoulder is being used as a running lane
• Drivers would like more advance notice of changes in lane use, such
as on the approach to junctions when the hard shoulder may only be
for exit traffic
The research seeks to establish where there may be a need to modify future
schemes to address emerging issues and where there may be a need to
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
provide enhanced information to motorists to enable them to use the scheme
most effectively.
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background – what are Managed Motorways?
Managed Motorways are a technology-based approach of managing
motorways in order to improve journey time reliability and ease congestion.
The Highways Agency defines Managed Motorways as a motorway with two
main elements: variable speed limits and hard should running. Depending on
the traffic volume experienced at the time, a computer system calculates the
optimal speed limit which is then displayed on variable message signs. Hard
shoulder running is when the hard shoulder is opened as an additional lane
for traffic to use during periods of congestion. Relevant signage informs the
drivers that the hard shoulder can be used as an additional lane. Both variable
speed limits and hard shoulder running aim to keep traffic moving and to
reduce congestion (Highways Agency Online, Managed Motorways).
1.2
Birmingham Box Managed Motorways
Following the successful trial of the M42 Managed Motorways (M42-MM) pilot
scheme on the M42 between J3A and J7, Managed Motorway schemes are
being implemented on other links within the Highways Agency‟s strategic road
network. This includes the Birmingham Box Managed Motorway (BBMM)
project scheme, which is comprised of sites on the M40, M42 and M6 as
shown in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1: Birmingham Box Managed Motorways sites
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
The BBMM scheme is being introduced in three phases:
Phase 1 (BBMM1): M40 (J16 to M42 J3A northbound), M42 (J7 to J9) and
the M6 (J4 to J5). The scheme became operational in
November 2009.
Phase 2 (BBMM2): M6 section between J8 and J10A. The scheme became
operational in March 2011.
Phase 3 (BBMM3): M6 between J5 and J8. At the time of writing, the delivery
of this scheme has been deferred.
BBMM1 became operational on 30 th November 2009. The following
operational regimes have been introduced on each section:
M40 J16 to M42 J3A (northbound only)
This section has been conditioned for Controlled Motorways (CM) with the
ability to operate the hard shoulder during an incident. This type of operational
regime is also known as Hard Shoulder Incident Management (HSIM). This
link is approximately 3.2 km in length.
M42 J7 to J9
This section has been conditioned for CM to provide extra capacity during
emergency and special events. The topology of this section is rather complex
due to the various merge and diverge sections which link three motorways
together including the M42, M6 and M6-Toll. On some parts of this section the
main carriageway consists of five lanes plus the hard shoulder in each
direction. The approximate link length between J7 and J8 is 3.8 km and
between J8 and J9 is 3.0 km.
M6 J4 to J5
Hard Shoulder Running (HSR) has been implemented on this section, except
for the link between J4A and J4 in the southbound direction where CM is
being used. J4A is a restricted movement junction with a single lane
northbound merge and southbound diverge. In the northbound direction, J4A
acts as a merge between the slip road of the M42 and the M6, whilst in the
southbound direction it acts as a diverge from the M6 towards the M42. The
approximate link length between J4 and J4A is 4.7 km and the link between
J4A and J5 is 3.2 km long.
1.3
Aims and objectives
The impact evaluation of BBMM1 is divided into the following categories:
Milestone 1: Traffic Data Analysis
Milestone 2: User Consultation
Milestone 3: Noise Data Analysis
Milestone 4: Safety
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
This paper is concerned with the Milestone 2: User Consultation. Users‟
experience of hard shoulder running was assessed through a combination of
face to face surveys and discussion groups.
A „Before‟ consultation exercise was undertaken in 2008 with motorway users
travelling along the three BBMM1 sections of motorway. The aim of the
„Before‟ study was to explore perceptions and attitudes of local users towards
the existing Managed Motorways scheme on the M42 (formerly referred to as
the Active Traffic Management Pilot scheme) and the proposed roll-out of
Managed Motorways along sections of the M40, M42 and M6. The „Before‟
study was further intended to benchmark users‟ attitudes towards these
sections before any of the traffic management measures were implemented.
To assess the initial impact that BBMM1 has made on various aspects of a
user‟s journey, an „After‟ study was undertaken along the three sections
identified above.
The objectives of the user consultation milestone were as follows:
 To explore the attitudes and experience of motorway users with
respect to BBMM1;
 To measure the attitudes of users (local and long distance) towards
motorway travel in the area of BBMM1 after its implementation; and
 To understand any changes in perceptions before and after
implementation of BBMM1.
As roadworks were ongoing along the M6 Junctions 8 to 10A at the time of
the BBMM1 „After‟ study, it is intended that a further „After‟ study of all the four
sections will be conducted once roadworks is finalised on the last section.
This will allow for a more direct comparison between the „Before‟ study and
„After‟ study as both will include all relevant sections.
This paper only focuses on BBMM1 sections and any comparisons that can
be made with the „Before‟ study. Due to the small sample size of respondents
who only used M6 Junctions 8 to 10A in the „Before‟ study and the limited, if
any, impact this had on the „Before‟ results, we have left this target group in
the „Before‟ data when comparing with the „After‟ results.
1.4
Contributions to further development and roll-out
Hard shoulder running is an innovative approach, making use of technology to
manage the strategic road network in England. In Europe, hard shoulder
running was first implemented in Holland in 1996. Compared to this, it is a
relatively new concept in the UK where the M42 pilot was carried out in 2006.
This study makes two main contributions to current research and helps to
inform our overall understanding and evaluation of the application of Managed
Motorways in Europe.
First, it is important to understand and manage users‟ expectations to ensure
their experience matches these. Inaccurate assumptions about what the
public would find acceptable can lead to the failure of a scheme in the public
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
opinion. Bonsall et al (2005) address this in detail in their paper titled The
differing perspectives of road users and service providers which looks at
survey evidence from 3,000 responses. The evaluation presented in this
paper will help address the above and outline issues to be taken into account
in order to ensure that users‟ experiences are not only positive but also match
their expectations.
Second, there is limited research in current literature on users‟ expectations
and experiences of Managed Motorways. Chase and Avineri (2008)
summarise literature on hard shoulder running and carry out six stakeholder
interviews themselves. At present evaluation in the literature on hard shoulder
running is limited to analysis of traffic flows and accident rates as well as costbenefit analysis. Refer to Chase and Avineri (2008) and articles cited within
their paper for further detail.
The information gained from this piece of research will aid operating and
regulating bodies and authorities to improve the implementation of hard
shoulder running by taking users‟ perception and experiences into account.
This paper highlights the positive aspects and successes upon which to build.
It also outlines where there is room for improvement and which issues need to
be considered when rolling out Managed Motorways in the future.
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
1.5
Structure of this paper
This paper is structured as follows:
Section 2
based.
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
outlines the data and methodology on which the findings are
reports on the results of the face to face interviews and
discussion groups.
discusses and analyses the results presented in Section 3.
draws the final conclusions and highlights next steps.
2. METHODOLOGY AND DATA
2.1
Outline
This study looks at a time frame of two years. It compares the „Before‟
surveys carried out in 2008 with the „After‟ construction perceptions surveyed
in 2009.
2.2
Target population
For both the „Before‟ and „After‟ studies, the target population was made up of
motorway users travelling along the following sections:
 M40 Junction 16 to M42 Junction 3A;
 M42 Junction 7 to Junction 9; and
 M6 Junction 4 to Junction 5.
The „Before‟ study also included the M6 Junction 8 to Junction 10A; however
this has been omitted from the „After‟ study as construction work was ongoing
on this section during the interview period. As mentioned previously, it is
expected that the M6 Junction 8 to Junction 10A will be evaluated as part of a
second wave of „After‟ study to be carried out in the future.
2.3
Face to face surveys
The table below shows the number of responses and survey locations in the
„Before‟ and „After‟ studies.
Table 2.1 Face to face surveys in the „Before‟ and „After‟ studies
Before
After
No of respondents
1,407
1,257
Survey locations
Hopwood service station
Hilton Park service station
Corley service station
Tamworth service station
Gallagher retail park/Ikea
Birmingham City Centre
In most areas, the same methodology as for the „Before‟ study was adopted.
The „Before‟ study used a semi-random approach with a single quota set on
gender. The quota was based on the National Travel Survey (NTS). However,
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
the NTS is not primarily targeted at motorway users and the „Before‟ study
revealed very little difference between gender. It was therefore decided to
conduct the „After‟ study without a quota on gender. In addition, the „After‟
results in this report are not based on weighted gender data as the findings
pre and post BBMM1 implementation are broadly in line, suggesting little
difference between weighted and un-weighted data.
2.4
Discussion groups and interviews
In the „Before‟ study, four discussion groups were carried out with local
motorway users. Three groups were made up of commuters (drivers) who use
the BBMM1 sections frequently and who have travelled along those sections
since BBMM1 has been operational. A further group was conducted with
commercial drivers.
For the „After‟ study, the Highways Agency was keen to explore further
perceptions of lorry/HGV drivers – one of the groups previously only captured
through the quantitative surveys. It was therefore decided that a number of
qualitative exercises would be conducted, which are identified in the table
below. The criteria for selection for the „After‟ study participants has remained
similar to that of the „Before‟ study with the only difference made in the
number of groups and interviews being undertaken.1
Table 2.2 Qualitative consultation
Target Population
Local motorway
users
Commercial drivers
HGV drivers
2.5
Group composition
 2 discussion groups
 Use one or more of the relevant BBMM1 sections of motorways
under study
 Have used the BBMM1 sections since implementation of
BBMM1
 Trips of less than 50 miles three or more times per week
 Journey purpose to exclude commercial trips
 1 discussion group
 Use one or more of the relevant BBMM1 sections of motorways
under study
 Have used the BBMM1 sections since implementation of
BBMM1
 Must travel for three or more times per week but for any journey
length
 Must fit into one of the following categories: taxi drivers,
couriers/delivery drivers or haulage companies
 23 on site interviews
 Use one or more of the relevant BBMM1 sections of motorways
Roadwork during fieldwork
Fieldwork for the „After‟ study was undertaken while construction work was
still underway for the M6 J8 to J10A. The data collection activity sought to
mitigate any bias which may arise by using a structured questionnaire,
experienced interviewers and focussing respondents‟ minds on BBMM Phase
1 improvements through use of visual aids.
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
However, it is worth noting that roadworks during both the „Before‟ and „After‟
study data collection exercise could have impacted on respondents‟ views.
3. RESULTS
3.1
Outline
This section presents the main results of the face to face surveys, discussion
groups and interviews. The sub-headings mirror the key themes and sections
of the questionnaire. Results are then further discussed in Section 4.
3.2
Overall perception of hard shoulder running
Overall the perception of hard shoulder running is positive with 73% of
respondents rating their experience as very or quite good. Only 7% said their
experience was poor. All focus groups felt that the scheme had benefited
them to some extent and had improved the traffic situation. Many commented
that they would rather have the scheme than go back to the way the system
worked before.
It is definitely helping.
(Commercial user)
It is a lane that you wouldn‟t normally have.
l think it keeps it moving, it keeps us guys at 56 miles an hour out of the way
of people who want to get on with their business. (HGV driver)
HGV drivers were also relatively positive about the hard shoulder changes
and generally considered it to have been successful in reducing congestion. It
was felt that using the hard shoulder as an additional running lane reduced
the need for sudden break to make room for other drivers leaving the
motorway at junctions. However, this view was not shared by all HGV drivers
with some commenting that the changes to the hard shoulder were potentially
dangerous due to poor behaviour from car users.
There was however an overall perception from general and commercial users
that the management of the scheme did not reflect traffic conditions. Those
users mentioned that the scheme was not „active enough‟, highlighting that
the hard shoulder was often closed when traffic was heavy with no evidence
as to why.
I‟ve noticed that many a time on the M42 where the hard shoulder is not open
and all the traffic is queuing up and you‟re thinking „why isn‟t it open?‟
(General user)
Most of the time I would like the hard shoulder to be open, it is not. (General
user)
More detail on specific opinions is given in the table below.
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
Table 3.1 Opinion of hard shoulder running
Opinion of hard shoulder running
Better traffic flow / Keep traffic moving
Ease congestion
Good idea / Easy to use
Dangerous / Hard shoulder for emergency only / Concerns
in case of breakdowns and accidents
Don't know / No opinion
Good to have additional lane
Easier at junctions / Less queuing at junctions
Good idea as long as it is used properly by drivers
No difference / No change
Quicker traffic flow / Better reliability / Shorter journey times
Drivers confused / Not sure how it works
Concerns about emergency services access
No reply
Need enforcement cameras to monitor and stop misuse
(e.g. speeding, cutting lanes)
No. of
responses
315
213
184
% of
respondents
25%
17%
15%
180
93
74
69
44
41
41
32
25
22
14%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
21
2%
Note: Excludes responses with answers of 1% or less
3.3
Joining and Exiting the Motorway
Most focus group members were generally very positive about the addition of
the hard shoulder as an extra lane and being able to join the motorway on the
hard shoulder and remain in that lane. Many felt that joining and leaving the
motorway at junctions had actually improved.
Face to face survey respondents however still found the biggest problem to
be with vehicles cutting across lanes to take exits at junctions (59% agree that
vehicles constantly cut lanes to take exits at junctions).
However, when compared to the situation before implementation of BBMM1,
respondents were significantly less likely to agree that it was difficult to
join/exit motorways, that there are queues at junctions and that vehicles
constantly cut lanes to take exit.
It should be noted nonetheless that, while fewer respondents agree that with
those are still problems at junctions, it does not necessarily translate into
more people thinking it is not a problem (percentage of people who disagree).
Instead, more respondents surveyed after implementation expressed no
strong opinion either way (that is, saying they neither agree nor disagree that
it is difficult to join/exit motorways, that there are queues at junctions and that
vehicles constantly cut lanes to take exit).
These data indicate that the implementation of BBMM1 has positively
decreased negative responses, but that the improvements have not been
enough to generate positive ones.
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
Table 3.2 Experience of junction use
Difficulty in joining
Difficulty in exiting
Queue at entry
Queue at exit
Constant cutting
lanes to exit
3.4
Agree
Before
36%
30%
54%
47%
After
23%
18%
29%
30%
Neither
Before
12%
12%
15%
15%
After
23%
24%
28%
27%
Disagree
Before
52%
58%
31%
39%
After
54%
59%
43%
43%
73%
59%
10%
20%
17%
21%
Level of Congestion
Overall fewer respondents feel that the BBMM1 sections are now often
congested compared to before the implementation of Managed Motorways.
The majority of motorway users however still feel that the concerned sections
are often congested (60% compared to 78% before implementation).
Frequent users in the „After‟ study were less likely to feel that the BBMM1
sections are often congested compared to frequent users in the „Before‟ study
(84% of frequent users in the „Before‟ study compared to 78% in the „After‟
study).
This is further supported by 79% of respondents in the „After‟ study who
agreed that allowing drivers to use the hard shoulder as an additional lane
had improved traffic flow.
Changes to the motorway have not increased the occurrence of free-flow
conditions, but have reduced stop/start conditions and helped heavy traffic to
keep moving. 45% of respondents experienced heavy but moving traffic after
implementation compared to 34% before the introduction of BBMM1 and
before the introduction of BBMM1 43% of drivers experienced stop-start
conditions. This figure has reduced to 30% in 2010.
3.5
Journey Time Reliability
Respondents were asked how reliable their journey had been since the
implementation of BBMM1 and specifically, whether allowing drivers to use
the hard shoulder as an additional lane has improved reliability (that is, the
ability to predict how long a journey will take).
70% of the sample in the „After‟ study said their journey was reliable. This has
not changed since the „Before‟ study where 69% of respondents had claimed
their journey was reliable. However, in the „Before‟ study, it appeared that
despite a high percentage of the sample indicating their journeys are reliable,
a significantly large percentage of those factored in additional time.
In the „After‟ study, the percentage of respondents who allow extra time for
their journey has significantly decreased; from 75% who said they allowed
extra time in the „Before‟ study compared to 63% in the „After‟ study. There is
an even starker difference in the percentage of respondents who say they
now always allow extra time. 50% of the „Before‟ sample said they always
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
allow extra time compared to only 24% of the „After‟ sample. Further, the
percentage of respondents who never allow extra time has increased from
25% before to 38% after implementation.
The fact that significantly fewer respondents are allowing additional time for
their journey since the implementation of BBMM1 suggests that they are
better able to predict journey times. This is further reinforced by findings from
the survey when respondents were asked the extent to which allowing drivers
to use the hard shoulder as an additional lane had improved reliability.
Overall, 57% of users agreed that allowing drivers to use the hard shoulder as
an additional lane has improved journey time reliability.
The above survey findings are supported by the outcomes from the focus
groups. Most target groups felt that, as a result of the managed motorway
scheme, journey times along the BBMM1 sections were more predictable.
This is strongly linked to the fact that they feel traffic is now flowing better with
reduced stop-start situations.
I think it is more reliable; it is more accurate timing whereas before you might
fly through or be stuck there forever. (General User)
You couldn‟t predict anything round here before they started doing this.
(Commercial User)
General users identified many of the BBMM1 sections of motorway as running
more smoothly since the scheme had been in operation, resulting in more
predictable journey times. This generally gave them slightly more confidence
in using the routes – the M42 in particular – and allowed more straightforward
journey planning. Some users commented that this reduced the stress of
travelling.
3.6
Signage
Signage is a vital part of Managed Motorways. It instructs users as to when
they can use the hard shoulder as an additional lane. Signage on the BBMM1
sections is generally considered helpful. Around three quarters of the sample
(77%) in the „After‟ study agreed that direction signage was good. Very few
(7%) disagreed. Slightly fewer respondents (61%) agreed that they trust the
electronic signs on the BBMM1 sections; with more (19%) saying they do not
trust the signs.
However, the focus groups found criticism among some general users who
felt the signs did not provide enough notice in advance of any changes to
speed limit or lane use; for example, notice of junctions, or information that
the hard shoulder was for junction use only (“it only says that when you are
approaching the junction”). Many HGV drivers also agreed that signs could
give more notice about upcoming changes and junctions and that, drivers
unfamiliar with the system may struggle to understand it.
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
The only thing that annoyed me was, it will say on the signs, “use hard
shoulder”, so you get on the hard shoulder and you‟re using it and then all of a
sudden the next sign will say, “use hard shoulder for Junction 6 only”. (HGV
driver)
It is definitely improved, definitely. Now you have got a notice of what is
coming up in front of you, sometimes you can be 50 miles away and the signs
are up to tell you. So you are given the choice. (HGV driver)
Others felt that signage provided excessive, conflicting or irrelevant
information or was slow to react to changes (such as reverting back once an
accident was cleared from the carriageway). Some general user participants
commented that there were too many signs to properly take in the available
information. This sentiment was shared by some commercial users who
commented positively that there were more than enough signs, but qualified
their statements by suggesting that in many cases there were too many. That
the signs changed from section to section also added to the confusion,
particularly for people who did not know the area.
3.7
Information Provision
While signage directs motorway users during their journey it is desirable to
give direction even before the start of the journey. Only 37% of respondents
agreed that it was easy to find out how congested the motorway sections
under study are before starting their journey. This is a 17% decline from
before the implementation when around half of respondents (54%) agreed
that this information was easy to find. There has been little change in
disagreement levels between „Before‟ and „After‟ respondents however but a
much larger proportion of the „After‟ sample saying they neither agree nor
disagree with the statement.
This reduction in the percentage of respondents who find it easy to get
information before their journey may be indicative of the possibility that more
respondents in the „After‟ surveys did not look to find information and
therefore took the middle ground („neither‟) when asked about ease of finding
information. However, it is not possible to ascertain this as a fact as
respondents were not asked if they looked for information.
The finding could also be linked to an increase in the number of Through
Traffic (traffic not entering or exiting on BBMM1 sections but just passing
through) respondents in the „After‟ surveys. These respondents might be less
likely to look for information about specific sections.
3.8
Personal Safety
Overall perceptions of safety when travelling along the managed motorway
scheme have significantly improved. Only one in four (26%) respondents in
the „After‟ study said that they had concerns over their safety while driving on
the BBMM1 sections. This is significantly lower than before implementation
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
where 43% of respondents in the „Before‟ study said they had concerns for
their safety.
This perception of safety is further reinforced by 38% of „After‟ respondents
saying there are regular accidents on the BBMM1 sections compared to a
significantly higher percentage of 55% mentioned in the „Before‟ study.
Despite this however, 74% of „After‟ respondents still agreed that drivers did
not leave enough room between them and the car in front. This is a negligible
decline from the „Before‟ study where 77% of respondents said they agreed.
The responses of different sub groups of the sample showed some notable
differences regarding safety concerns when travelling along the BBMM1
sections:
 Managed Motorways respondents in the „After‟ study were significantly
less likely to agree they had safety concerns compared to the „Before‟
study (52% of Managed Motorways respondents had safety concerns
in the „After‟ study compared to 70% of Managed Motorways
respondents in the „Before‟ study);
 Peak users were significantly less likely to have safety concerns in the
„After‟ study than in the „Before‟ study (44% „Before‟ compared 30%
„After‟); and
 Frequent users in the „After‟ study were significantly less likely to agree
that they have safety concerns compared to those in the „Before‟ study
(49% of frequent users agreed they had safety concerns in the „Before‟
study compared to 28% of frequent users in the „After‟ study).
3.9
Other Route Options
Around half of respondents (54%) agreed that allowing drivers to use the hard
shoulder as an additional lane has encouraged drivers to use the BBMM1
sections on a more regular basis.
In line with this, only a small number of respondents (18%) in the „After‟ study
mentioned that they usually alter their route to avoid some of the BBMM1
sections. This is a significant improvement to before the implementation of
BBMM1 when 44% did so.
However, the percentage of respondents who agreed that they prefer using
the BBMM1 sections to other routes has declined from 67% before
implementation to 36% after. This substantial decline in agreement is however
not matched by an increase in disagreement but a greater proportion of
respondents being indifferent.
 This decline may be as a result of significantly fewer managed
motorway respondents saying they prefer the BBMM1 sections to other
routes (72% of managed motorway respondents before implementation
said they prefer the BBMM1 sections compared to 56% after
implementation).
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011

3.10
One other explanation could be that the improvement was not sufficient
to increase positive responses although the measures are enough to
drive down negative responses.
Main benefit of hard shoulder running
Respondents in the „After‟ study were asked what they considered to be the
main benefit of being able to use the hard shoulder.
Two thirds of the sample (67%) saw the principal benefit as better traffic flow,
mainly from the easing of congestion along the BBMM1 sections.
Table 3.4 Perceived main benefit of hard shoulder running
Perceived main benefit of hard shoulder running
Better traffic flow / Keep traffic moving
Ease congestion
Additional lane helpful / More road space available
Don't know / No opinion
No benefit
Easier at junctions / Easier to get on and off
Concerns in case of emergency / Misuse
Good in emergency as keep traffic moving / Safer / Less
accidents
Faster journey time
No reply
Benefit drivers / Benefit commuters / Easier on roads /
Less stressful
Other
Good
Saves time
No of
responses
515
330
103
87
85
69
55
% of
respondents
41%
26%
8%
7%
7%
5%
4%
30
22
19
2%
2%
2%
17
10
3
2
1%
1%
0%
0%
Note: Percentages are based on the number of respondents who answered
the question.
3.11
Comparison with other networks
The majority of respondents (66%) stated that overall allowing drivers to use
the hard shoulder as an additional lane has made the BBMM1 sections better
than they were before implementation. 28% stated it has remained the same
and 7% claimed it made these motorways sections worse.
 Frequent users rated the BBMM1 sections more highly with 72%
stating that conditions are better compared to 62% of infrequent users.
 Those who had actually driven on the hard shoulder when in operation
were significantly more likely to find the BBMM1 sections better than
those who had seen it in operation but not used it (81% compared to
60%).
 There were no notable differences between other sub groups.
6 in 10 (59%) of respondents mentioned that the BBMM1 sections were better
than other motorway sections that did not have a managed motorway scheme
in operation. Only 9% felt the BBMM1 sections were worse compared to other
sections.
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011


Frequent users were significantly more likely than infrequent users to
say managed motorway sections were better than non-managed
motorway sections (67% of frequent users compared with 54% of
infrequent users).
Those who had driven on the hard shoulder itself when in operation
were significantly more likely to say the BBMM1 sections were better
compared to non Managed Motorways (73% who had driven on the
section said the BBMM1 sections are better compared to 52% who had
not driven on the hard shoulder).
The large majority of respondents thought the scheme should be extended to
other motorways (86%). This was made up of 45% who answered yes
definitely and 41% who answered yes maybe.
 A significantly greater proportion of frequent users (53%) compared to
infrequent users (39%) believed that the scheme should be definitely
extended to other motorways.
 Those who had actually driven on the hard shoulder and used the
scheme were also significantly more likely to definitely want the
scheme to be extended (62% who had used the hard shoulder wanted
definitely to see the scheme extended compared to 38% who had not
driven along the hard shoulder).
4. DISCUSSION
4.1
Outline
This section summarises the above results and outlines what can be learned
for the future roll-out of Managed Motorways around Birmingham and their
implementation elsewhere in the UK and across Europe. Regardless of road
expansion programmes, such as in Germany, the use of Managed Motorway
technology should be a focus for future development and congestion
reduction on motorways.
4.2
Overall acceptance of managed motorway schemes
An overall good acceptance of the BBMM1 scheme can be reported and
respondents think the scheme should be extended to other motorways.
General as well as commercial users understand what the scheme is aiming
to achieve and understand what the expected benefits are. This is supported
by the survey results where 73% rated their experience of using the managed
motorway sections as very good or quite good.
What emerged from the focus groups however is that while the overall
benefits of the scheme are acknowledged, users feel that the management of
the scheme does not reflect the actual traffic conditions. Furthermore there is
a lack of evidence why the hard shoulder remains closed during heavy traffic
conditions.
The above suggests there are two points which should be considered for the
future implementation of further managed motorway schemes. First, it is
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
important to assess situations where users feel the hard shoulder should be
operational. It needs to be established whether the management of opening
the hard shoulder needs to be adapted. At the same time it is important to
understand and manage users‟ expectations of Managed Motorways
schemes. To address this it is worth investigating whether signage can be
used more actively to inform users when the hard shoulder becomes
operational and why it may not be in operation at a particular point in time.
4.3
Joining and exiting the motorway
While fewer users find joining and exiting problematic since the
implementation of BBMM1 the scheme did not generate increased positive
responses but more users are indifferent. The main issue to be considered is
that even since implementation of BBMM1 59% still agree that vehicles cut
across lanes to exit the motorway.
For the future implementation of Managed Motorways it should be
investigated whether this can be more actively managed in order to avoid last
minute cutting across lanes to exit. This can be achieved through improved
use of signage, giving clear messages as to how far the next exit is and at
which point vehicles should start changing lanes if they wish to use the exit
concerned.
4.4
Congestion and journey time reliability
Easing congestion is one of the principal aims of Managed Motorways.
Overall a similar amount of survey respondents felt that the motorway
sections concerned were generally congested before and after
implementation of BBMM1. The most important point to note however is that
while users feel that free-flow conditions have not notably improved, they feel
that there is a reduction in stop-start conditions. This makes journeys overall
more reliable. It could in part explain why negative opinions about queuing
and joining/exiting have declined, but positive opinions have not increased.
However, users stated that they did not feel that journey time had become
more reliable since the implementation of BBMM1. Interestingly, this is not
reflected in their actions. In the „After‟ study, the percentage of respondents
who allow extra time for their journey has significantly decreased. Further, the
percentage of respondents who never allow extra time has increased since
the implementation of BBMM1. This brings us back to the point of
understanding and managing users expectations of the scheme in order for it
to be successful.
4.5
Alternative routes
We have reported above that overall free-flow conditions have not significantly
improved since the implementation of BBMM1 (though stop-start conditions
have). The question to be investigated here is whether the opening of
Managed Motorways attracts a larger number of drivers to use the managed
motorway sections rather than alternative routes and therefore the ratio of
traffic volume to network capacity remains largely unchanged. One thing that
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
is certain is that in parallel to implementation of Managed Motorways it is
imperative to maintain good alternative routes in order to be able to spread
traffic across different routes.
4.6
Signage and communication
It is vital for the success of managed motorway schemes that signage is easy
to understand and communications are efficient. This has already largely
been achieved on the BBMM1 sections as confirmed by 77% of survey
respondents agreeing that direction signage is good.
However, in the discussion groups it emerged that some users felt that
signage provided excessive, conflicting or irrelevant information or was slow
to react to changes (such as reverting back once an accident was cleared
from the carriageway). Signage is therefore an aspect of Managed Motorways
to pay particular attention to in their development and roll-out. It is however
also worth noting the average user would not have knowledge of the
management and operation process. If signage takes this into account by
providing continuous and complementing messaging it can make a significant
contribution towards positive user experiences. It is important to alert drivers
allowing plenty of time for action in order to avoid rushed manoeuvres of
drivers changing lanes at exits and therefore endangering other road users.
Additional attention should be paid to the use of in-vehicle technologies and
smart phone applications. These can help provide information to motorway
users in a very cost efficient way – especially when compared to the cost of
roadside infrastructure.
5. CONCLUSION
Overall, the changes on BBMM1 have had an effect on user perceptions. The
scheme has achieved its purpose of improving traffic flow, easing congestion
and reducing stop-start conditions. The main success of the scheme has been
in making congestion manageable and this has resulted in benefits for users.
While there have been significant improvements, the findings suggest that
improvements made to the BBMM1 sections have not made motorway driving
completely congestion free and that users therefore may not see
improvements as going far enough. Overall dissatisfaction with various
aspects of the network has gone down since the „Before‟ study. Unfortunately
satisfaction has not necessarily gone up. In many cases, the proportion of
respondents who are indifferent is greater after implementation compared to
before. For example, the scheme has improved the flow through the BBMM1
sections of motorway, but not to the extent that it has created genuine
satisfaction. The percentage of those saying that the sections are “clear and
able to travel as fast as I like” has remained unchanged. The shift in data is
from people experiencing stop start conditions to heavy but moving traffic.
While there are still a number of areas in which the operation of BBMM1 can
be improved, the scheme has achieved good first results.
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
Group discussions further highlighted that for many, the real success of the
scheme would be revealed once BBMM2 (M6 Junction 8 to Junction 10A) was
operational. For many, this is the worst part of the network. The scheme‟s
primary purpose is only to alleviate current congestion and traffic flow issues
and not eradicate, and in that aspect, user perceptions tend to agree that in
many areas, it has achieved just that.
In the further roll-out of Managed Motorways across the network the
experience made with BBMM1 should be used to understand and manage
users‟ expectations of the scheme and to build on already successful
measures to achieve even greater user satisfaction.
The results from this piece of research show that signage is key to the
effective management of hard shoulder running. Using signage to
communicate consistent and clear information makes a significant step
towards meeting users‟ expectations. Potential future use of signage that
should be considered is: information on when the hard shoulder will become
operational (i.e. displaying the criteria that apply to the opening of the hard
shoulder) and information on distance to the next exit in order to avoid last
minute cutting across lanes. However as the average user would not have
detailed knowledge of the operation and management of hard shoulder
running it is recommended that few and focused signs will achieve better
results than an information overload.
We can therefore conclude that BBMM1 has had positive impacts on traffic
and travel behaviour. The majority of users would like to see a roll-out of the
scheme to other motorway sections. If potential improvements outlined in this
paper are addressed, and at the same time good alternative routes are
maintained, this should contribute to managing and meeting users‟
expectations and make future schemes even more successful.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A particular thanks goes to the service stations and Birmingham City Council
who gave permission for interviews to be carried out on their premises as well
as to the survey team for carrying out the interviews.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bonsall, P. et al (2005) The differing perspectives of road users and service
providers. Transport Policy 12 (4), pp. 334-344
Chase, P. and Avineri, E. (2008) Maximising motorway capacity through hard
shoulder running: UK perspective. The Open Transportation Journal 2(1),
pp.7-18. Pre-publication at
http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/9258/2/chaseavineri_Maximising_motorway_capacity_through_hard_shoulder_running.pdf
(accessed 1st May 2011)
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
Highways Agency Online Managed Motorways
http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/25754.aspx (accessed 10th April 2011)
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011
NOTES
1
In the ‘Before’ study recruitment of individuals to participate was targeted so that the
composition of each commuter group represented the following criteria:
a) Frequent Short Trip Users (x 3 groups)
 Participants must use one or more of the relevant sections of the M42, M40 or M6
 Participants must use the stretch(es) for trips of less than 50 miles three or more
times per week
 Journey purpose to include work, education and leisure but not any of the activities
listed in 2) below
b) Frequent Commercial Users (x 1 group)
 Participants must belong to one of the following groups: taxi drivers and/or couriers or
delivery drivers
 Participants must use one or more of the relevant sections of the M42, M40 and or M6
(see attached map and list of relevant junctions)
 They should use stretch(es) three or more times per week, but can be for any journey
length
 They should be available for local attendance to the group session.
 In addition, each group included a mix in terms of stretch of motorway used, age and
gender.
© Association For European Transport and Contributors 2011