[jambutty]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

It wasn't dreamed up by our lot though. It has been done elsewhere and the results have been less congestion.

If you think about it, it doesn't necessarily mean 3 into 1. If it is used on the most congested parts of a motorway then not used on the parts which are less congested why does the motorway become less congested? It is because people have used those junctions to leave the motorway because they have arrived at where they are heading. The motorway beyond that point doesn't need the 4 lanes because there are fewer vehicles on it.

Mind you, I still think it is a far from ideal solution due to the access problems for emergency vehicles and the lack of anywhere to go if you break down.

If you really thought about it, it would be obvious that four lanes filtering into just three lanes (not 3 into 1. But hey! Why let reality spoil trying to make a point) is going to cause problems and congestion.

It doesn’t matter where this crackpot idea is used. It will not cure congestion except for on a stretch of motorway between junctions. 3 into 4 will go easily but sooner or later the 4 will have to go back into 3.

If you have traffic on a three lanes motorway and the hard shoulder is used, all the problems and congestion will start when the traffic on the hard shoulder wants to carry on down the motorway. That traffic will have to cross into the nearside lane in order to do so. 4 into 3. But of all the lanes the nearside lane is the one that is most likely to be congested.

This idea is so far from ideal that I would call it an accident waiting to happen, over and over and over.

There is one other point. The hard shoulder was not built to withstand continuously rolling heavy traffic. Its safe lifespan is likely to be vastly reduced so that it will need re-laying.

Sorry I forgot, this piece of crass stupidity is a ruse so that the motorway repair people can make lots of taxpayer’s money, making repairs at greatly inflated costs.