More temporary traffic signal woes

[Marty]

I had an exchange of words on Twitter with Severn-Trent Water over a set of traffic signals on the outskirts of Gloucester. Apparently, there had been some works in the grass verge, and these were being protected by orange plastic barriers. However, the temporary traffic lights were still in operation, with cones closing the lane closest to the works site but leaving the other lane open for use, as controlled by the lights.

The old Health & Safety excuse was reeled out for the justification in the lights being used, but further requests about whose health and safety went unanswered. There was no-one on site for three days, no risk to anyone as the works had been barriered, and no earthly point in the traffic being controlled as it was.

I then began to doubt my own sanity and common sense.

And then to compound the problem, I encountered on the outskirts of Hereford a further set of temporary traffic lights allowing alternate use of the one remaining lane. The other lane was coned off and nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) was going on within the isolated area or in the verge adjoining. Enquiries revealed that BT was responsible for this one. Again, my enquiry of them has been ignored. Three days later, I happened along the same road to be greeted by the same situation.

Had I turned into Victor Meldrew? I certainly didn't believe what I saw yet there was I looking directly at it!

Having communicated with the statutory bodies responsible, there is little more I can do to express not only my concerns but also to draw attention to what appears to be a total lack of thought over the need, should there be any, for traffic control and how (and for how long) it should be implemented. Simply hiding behind the mantra "Elf an' Safety" just doesn't do it for me.

Phew!

[FosseWay]

This happens all too often, and ultimately it's the responsibility of the local authority or HA to do something about it.

Anyone who's ever had a parking ticket or been told off by the council for having a skip in the road outside their house will know that the LA has a responsibility to keep the roads passable and not causing an unreasonable inconvenience to travellers. The problem is that they seem only willing to enforce this requirement in respect of private individuals, not utilities.

If there is nothing going on in the coned off area - no actual work, no piles of kit and no holes - then it should be a criminal offence to cone it off. If it is practical (note practical, not economic) to remove obstructions at the end of the working day, it should be criminal not to do so. As said, you can be pretty sure that if you as a private citizen start messing around in the road in a way that affects passing traffic you will get a talking to.

If the nature of the work means that there has to be a gap of some weeks between the initial excavation and the final refilling of the hole, then the hole should be temporarily refilled while no work is going on, so that the lane can be used (albeit with a lower speed limit if necessary). If there doesn't need to be a gap, then there shouldn't be a gap, and the job should be completed as quickly as possible.

Finally, the repair at the end of the works should be as good or better than the road surface it replaced, and should remain such for the lifetime of the surrounding surface. Utilities whose repairs sink or erode should be required to make decent repairs immediately the LA tells them to, at their own expense.

Contractors who regularly flout any of the above should be blacklisted and legally prevented from working on the public highway, and the commissioner of the works (BT, water/gas/electric company etc.) should be fined for not ensuring that contractors under their control obey the law, just as they would be if the contractors breached the HSW Act.

[urbanfox]

I spent ages at a 3-way site last week (compounded by someone not leaving enough room for a bus to pass), where all the works were on the verge and there were no workers on site anyway - that was Severn Trent.

See also: temp lights on a road that normally has a line of parked cars, for an area of cones the length of two cars.

While I'll allow them to claim health and safety while workers are on site, at locations where it's sensible they should be turned off and cones tidied up at the end of the day.

[AndyB]

There are occasions, as happened here a couple of years ago, where the cones have to be left up closing an entire lane while a manhole settles before traffic is allowed over it, but that's different. If there is no danger to a worksite from having traffic pass at the width of a traffic cone because nobody is working at it, then the lane should be open.

[RichardA35]

Did any of these instances have the works in a footway closing it? If so the protocol is to divert the footway into the road which might explain the lights with no work?

[sotonsteve]

I have seen instances like this all too often over the years. There seemed to be a step change 10 years or so ago when suddenly overkill started happening. Here are some situations I have seen.

1. Residential street with parked cars. Temporary traffic lights used, even though the physical closure is no different in scale to a couple of parked cars.

2. Verge works. Temporary traffic lights used. The footway adjacent to the works is kept open, but for some reason they have felt the need to place red barriers "in the gutter" to tell pedestrians not to step off the kerb of the non-narrowed footway.

3. WS2. The scale of closure means that even lorries travelling in opposite directions can pass comfortably, but still temporary traffic lights were used.

4. Traffic management not taken away. Temporary traffic lights in use because the stacked up barriers previously fencing off the works haven't been collected yet.

5. One way street. I couldn't get my head around why temporary traffic lights were needed. Seeing was believing!


Down my way there is one very big offender when it comes to temporary traffic signals. SOUTHERN GAS NETWORKS. The other utilities companies aren't too bad, but SGN are just terrible. You can bet your bottom dollar if temporary traffic signals are "bad" that they are SGNs.

[darkcape]

In marty's example, there can be legitimate reasons why the lights were used. If there's an excavation in the verge then it needs to be barriered off, and that includes from the roadside. If the road isn't wide enough for traffic to pass both ways and the vehicle count is too high to let drivers give way to each other, or there's a significant stretch thats narrow, the use of lights is justified.

[Fenlander]

Did any of these instances have the works in a footway closing it? If so the protocol is to divert the footway into the road which might explain the lights with no work?

2 sets round the corner from here on the same road, road is a 40 limit through an industrial estate with shared footpath & cycle way to the side. The road is 3 lanes wide, one each way and a turning lane/chevron down the middle. Both sets of roadworks were trenches in the footpath, 1 set had 2 way lights with 1 lane coned off as a temp footpath but the other set just had 'path closed' signs and no provision for pedestrians at all.
The set with the traffic lights still had the full width of 1 lane plus the full width of the turning lane available so it made no sense for it to have traffic lights at all.

[Marty]

In marty's example, there can be legitimate reasons why the lights were used. If there's an excavation in the verge then it needs to be barriered off, and that includes from the roadside. If the road isn't wide enough for traffic to pass both ways and the vehicle count is too high to let drivers give way to each other, or there's a significant stretch thats narrow, the use of lights is justified.

In the case I have highlighted, the works, such as they were, were wholly contained in the verge. No intrusion into or onto the highway existed ergo no need for traffic management (at least when no work was being undertaken).

[Pendlemac]

We had one round here recently although, to be fair, the same effect was caused by not bagging up a set of permanent lights.

Main road in and out of town with a T-junction. ( Side road on left as exiting town. )

Side road fully closed so no possibility of conflicting movements.

Lights at junction left in use which meant that every cycle still included a long red for outgoing traffic to allow for the right-turn filter on the incoming side!

Result major queues trying to get out of town.

[AndyB]

And of course if the pedestrian phase was still required, it should have been straightforward to reprogramme the lights to omit the right filter arrow.

[ianwallis]

Since we've had the permit system in Derby this sort of thing is happening less and less although the fines are quite small on a per job basis. But when you're doing lots of work those fines can really add up so the contractor has quite a big incentive to clear up and leave the road usable.

The only problem we have generally is Severn Trent. Apparently they now have an internal performance indicator of No Temporary Reinstatements. Good idea you might think but not when they work on a Sunday and want to leave the temporary signals up on a major route until after Monday AM Peak when they then come in with the tarmac. It's a bit of a battle with them but think we're winning that argument at the moment.

[WHBM]

I've written before about the reasons that can lay behind this.

One is Schedules of Rates that include line items for supply of TTLs, even different rates for 2-way and 3-way TTLs. Often these are put together by those who understand utilities work but not traffic engineering. It can happen that the day rate for TTLs is quite profitable - so the surveyor tries to keep them in for as long as possible ........

But the key issue is, alas, a performance target culture, coupled with subcontracting out all the works. This can lead to a perverse incentive to the subbie to actually drag out the works as LONG as possible, within the performance target, which are often set quite generously compared to reality. The subbie chief wants to have as much work in hand as possible to keep the gang on revenue work. Part of this is that where a gang start a job, it's theirs until they finish.

So, Monday morning, offered a repair job. The chief knows it's about a 2 day job, but the Service Level Agreement penalties cut in at 5 days. So they start and set up TTLs etc. A few hours later they're offered another job. Can they do it ? Well of course, so leave No 1 with the TTLs running and head over to job No 2. This is about 4 days, but they are allowed an SLA maximum of 8. They work digging here until Wednesday. Job No. 3 is offered, about 2 days. Can they do it ? Well of course, leave job No 2, head over, set up more TTLs and make a few desultory digs in the road, then back to No 1 where time is running out.

They need a client-specific part, which the chief knows is often out of stock. Ideally should have been ordered at the start of the job, but actually you order it from the client stores at just on 4.30 pm on Wednesday. Told it will have to be ordered from the manufacturer, and the buying office now won't get the order out until tomorrow morning. That stops the SLA performance measurement because the onus is now on the client to get the item. Should be on site next Monday. So let's go back to Job No 2. By the way, we're getting paid day rate all through the weekend for the TTLs.

There's no more work offered this week, and maybe none the next either. And we only get paid by the job. But do you see what we've done. We've built up enough work in hand to keep our expensive gang (each 4-man gang, plus lorry, plus depot support, costs about £200,000 per year to keep going) in work, and we certainly don't want whole weeks with no work for them. As long as we finish the jobs in line with the SLAs, and have enough TTLs to hand, it's seen as the Right Way to keep the business going.

It's a very simplified example here so don't pick it on detail, but that's The Construction Game.

[FosseWay]

It strikes me that the utilities have far too much power. What they have in the way of performance indicators is entirely irrelevant: the only decision-making body that matters is the public authority in charge of the road being excavated.

Of course, utilities have a right to access, upgrade and extend their networks and it would be unreasonable and illegal of a LA to simply deny them this. But planned work should be submitted for scrutiny beforehand, someone in the LA with engineering and TM experience should arrive at an acceptable timetable for the work based on what is involved, and that should be presented as a fait accompli to the contractor and utility. Stringing out projects for financial gain or internal company convenience simply should not be possible without some kind of comeback.

Emergency work is obviously different, but by its nature it's unlikely to be strung out for ages. And reinstatement after emergency work should be monitored as rigorously as any other reinstatement.

[WHBM]

It strikes me that the utilities have far too much power.

Yes they do. Arising from the days when they were all publicly-owned bodies, they were allowed to set rules that minimised costs for them. Unfortunately, this was all allowed to carry on in privatised and competitive days.

As I understand it from dealing with Continental utilities and their contractors, putting their services under the road in Europe is a privilege, not a right. It's up to them to work their networks around the public highway and transport, not the other way round. This is one of the things that did in the Edinburgh Tram, the sheer cost of utility diversions, and the gold-plated specs that were enforced. In Europe, the utilities have to go out and move their infrastructure to accommodate road and tramway changes, and bear the cost. And if its changed again they have to do it again. Likewise, leaving works opened up because parts are awaited is just not on there.

Emergency work is obviously different

You then have to watch for "all" work being declared Emergency.

[urbanfox]

Drove through some 3-way temporary lights yesterday, can't quite remember where but in the Rugby area (I think!).

As the works were on the 'side road', both directions on the main road got greens together, but because the lights and the signage were in the carriageway, there was only room for one vehicle at a time past the lights

[FosseWay]

In Europe ... leaving works opened up because parts are awaited is just not on there.

Evidently by this measure Sweden is no more "Europe" than the UK is... The area where I live has been cursed by Telia (former state telecoms operator, equivalent in every possible way of BT) installing fibre for 9 months now. They come and dig holes and don't fill them in for months; they even dig trenches right across private land without asking permission (yes, it was my land in question).

[mwacuk]

1. Residential street with parked cars. Temporary traffic lights used, even though the physical closure is no different in scale to a couple of parked cars.

This is one of my pet hates. Occasionally here in East Yorkshire they decide to use common sense and simply add a give way to oncoming vehicles sign.

If the traffic levels on a road is sufficiently low to be able to deal with parked cars reducing it to one lane without queues building up and you can clearly see past the obstruction the traffic signals should not be used. Unfortunately, however due to health and safety, common sense is not allowed!

[Richard (Barrow)]

The only problem we have generally is Severn Trent. Apparently they now have an internal performance indicator of No Temporary Reinstatements. Good idea you might think but not when they work on a Sunday and want to leave the temporary signals up on a major route until after Monday AM Peak when they then come in with the tarmac.

So why can't they fill and repair the hole on the Sunday? If they can dig the thing in the first place it shouldn't be too difficult to fix it again afterwards.

[fras]

It strikes me that the utilities have far too much power.

Yes they do. Arising from the days when they were all publicly-owned bodies, they were allowed to set rules that minimised costs for them. Unfortunately, this was all allowed to carry on in privatised and competitive days.

As I understand it from dealing with Continental utilities and their contractors, putting their services under the road in Europe is a privilege, not a right. It's up to them to work their networks around the public highway and transport, not the other way round. This is one of the things that did in the Edinburgh Tram, the sheer cost of utility diversions, and the gold-plated specs that were enforced. In Europe, the utilities have to go out and move their infrastructure to accommodate road and tramway changes, and bear the cost. And if its changed again they have to do it again. Likewise, leaving works opened up because parts are awaited is just not on there.

Emergency work is obviously different

You then have to watch for "all" work being declared Emergency.

It may not be generally known, but it was the last Labour government, that changed the law to make the tramway promoter responsible for all costs of utility work, even though the tramway operator wishes to use the road for its intended purpose. Utilities are just piggy-backing on the road to avoid having to get landowner permissions and wayleaves.