"Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Bomag
Member
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Bomag »

Conekicker wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 23:10
Bomag wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 15:16
Conekicker wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 09:19
At least the video seems to be proposing both nearside and offside signs, so drivers should be better informed of the presence of the taper ahead than tends to be the case with overnight relaxation tapers on most of the network these days. Having said that, all this kit will be very expensive, especially if this is a genuine trial and not a "we've installed it at great expense and if there are no incidents or KSI we'll call it a success because we haven't set aside the cash to remove it if it's a failure" trial.
The number of times I have had to remind practitioners that if there is sufficient risk to justify a speed limit, it not a relaxation scheme.
Then it must be very risky indeed at that tunnel if they are showing a 40 (but not starting where Chapter 8 says it should). If it's that risky, why are they using untried kit. And, yes, I know it's been tried overseas but the signs on the barriers they use there are vastly different to the ones used over here.

Someone needs to remind the bozos up in 14 about imposing a 50 for overnight closures then leaving the signs up during daylight with an otherwise unobstructed carriageway. The bozos.

Edit - The barrier has been crash tested, although looking at the video, not with the same kit as installed at the tunnel, which makes the test a bit on the questionable side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY_gExNJn_E

This apparently is what they look like in Canada, totally different and far more visible than the UK iteration:
http://www.versilis.com/fr/realisations ... 1-ontario/
I believe the tunnel crossovers have a low design speed due to the large lateral shift. The US/Canada arrows are like many mVMS in that the light output is at the max on belief than the more like a Christmas tree the better. It may work, but at least the changes should mean its not an increased safety risk.
jay8g
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 04:13

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by jay8g »

This all looks extremely similar to the system that's been in use on the I-5 reversible express lanes in Seattle for decades now. While I haven't seen it in use in construction zones, it seems like a bit of a stretch for them to be claiming this is a massively innovative new thing.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Chris5156 »

Conekicker wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 23:10Then it must be very risky indeed at that tunnel if they are showing a 40 (but not starting where Chapter 8 says it should). If it's that risky, why are they using untried kit.
I believe the kit at the Hindhead Tunnel can only show NSL or 40 - there are no other limits available on the prism signs. 40 is presumably deemed a safe speed when they are operating one tunnel with two-way running, but that means 40 is the only speed other than NSL that can be used.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9706
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by WHBM »

jay8g wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 08:35 This all looks extremely similar to the system that's been in use on the I-5 reversible express lanes in Seattle for decades now. While I haven't seen it in use in construction zones, it seems like a bit of a stretch for them to be claiming this is a massively innovative new thing.
Thank you for the comparison. The Seattle express lanes have long fascinated me, ever since I first saw them on my first day ever visiting the USA, many decades ago. The way I-5 had been woven right through the city is still, I think, one of the most enterprising sections of the whole US Interstate system.

The way the moveable barriers have been done in Seattle is of course far better than this A3 experiment, fully integrated into the centre divider continuous Jersey Barrier when retracted instead of plonked on a hard, sharp-cornered concrete block a few feet from high speed passing traffic.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19202
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by KeithW »

Chris5156 wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:46
Conekicker wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 09:19All of the assemblies seem to be at a height that could be out of the beam of dipped headlights, which might make life interesting for some drivers.
They are weirdly high up compared to most TTM. That's because they have to swing out over the top of the central reserve crash barrier, so the height is inevitable, but I do keep looking at them as I go past and thinking that a low-slung sports car would quite happily just pass underneath them. I'm not yet convinced that an ordinary car wouldn't make it underneath too.
Well the swift gate in this picture at Hindhead looks low enough that very few cars could get under it. a go kart might but we dont see many of those on strategic roads.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... tecrop.jpg

As I understand it these are only intended to be used in a small number of fixed locations not to replace cones in general. Given that a number of Highways Maintenance workers are injured, sometimes seriously or fatally every year this seems reasonable especially if as with level crossing barrier they are frangible if struck which the crash cushion vehicles currently used are definitely not.
https://www.roadsafety.co.uk/products-s ... h-cushions
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19202
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by KeithW »

WHBM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 09:34
The way the moveable barriers have been done in Seattle is of course far better than this A3 experiment, fully integrated into the centre divider continuous Jersey Barrier when retracted instead of plonked on a hard, sharp-cornered concrete block a few feet from high speed passing traffic.
Right behind each barrier is a hard, sharp-cornered concrete block a few feet from high speed passing traffic.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7050421 ... 6656?hl=en

The reality is nothing is 100% safe, humans will always find a way to win a Darwin award.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by RichardA35 »

WHBM wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 09:34..The way the moveable barriers have been done in Seattle is of course far better than this A3 experiment, fully integrated into the centre divider continuous Jersey Barrier when retracted instead of plonked on a hard, sharp-cornered concrete block a few feet from high speed passing traffic.
"Far better" and "fully integrated" as in a hard sharp-cornered block of concrete much closer to high speed passing traffic when the gate is in its retracted position (presumably for the majority of the time)?
Why would anyone design-in this hazard by reducing the height of the barrier and providing a square end?
https://goo.gl/maps/bUKZw9aAE1QsXUeB6
jay8g
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 04:13

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by jay8g »

I believe the barriers on I-5 date back all the way to the original 1960s construction, so people probably weren't thinking about those things as much back then. Here's a newer, better, but abandoned example (which I believe was put in for that ramp to be temporarily used for airport construction).
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by RichardA35 »

jay8g wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 01:56 I believe the barriers on I-5 date back all the way to the original 1960s construction, so people probably weren't thinking about those things as much back then. Here's a newer, better, but abandoned example (which I believe was put in for that ramp to be temporarily used for airport construction).
Only "better" in that the hazard of a square ended barrier is replaced by metal sections attached to the face of the barrier intruding into the roadspace for an unsuspecting vehcle to strike.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19202
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by KeithW »

RichardA35 wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 09:24 Only "better" in that the hazard of a square ended barrier is replaced by metal sections attached to the face of the barrier intruding into the roadspace for an unsuspecting vehcle to strike.
If you look at an older version of GSV they show that am intersection was closed there
2008
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 8,-5.60174,

2021
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4477339 ... 8192?hl=en

The barrier is actually designed to absorb the shock of a collision, the space between the armco is filled with plastic bags of fluid to absorb an end on impact.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.447605, ... 8192?hl=en

This is quite common in the USA, they used something similar at some of the intersections on OH-315 in Columbus.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by RichardA35 »

KeithW wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 14:07
RichardA35 wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 09:24 Only "better" in that the hazard of a square ended barrier is replaced by metal sections attached to the face of the barrier intruding into the roadspace for an unsuspecting vehcle to strike.
If you look at an older version of GSV they show that am intersection was closed there
2008
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 8,-5.60174,

2021
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4477339 ... 8192?hl=en

The barrier is actually designed to absorb the shock of a collision, the space between the armco is filled with plastic bags of fluid to absorb an end on impact.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.447605, ... 8192?hl=en

This is quite common in the USA, they used something similar at some of the intersections on OH-315 in Columbus.
I fear I have not been clear - it is not the arrangement of the slip roads nor the arrangement of two barriers nor the terminal, but the swing out arm with a reasonably heavy steel section that is shown parked in front of the rear barrier, which, during its working life without the front barrier, would have provided a significant hazard for passing vehicles.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19202
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by KeithW »

RichardA35 wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 14:16 I fear I have not been clear - it is not the arrangement of the slip roads nor the arrangement of two barriers nor the terminal, but the swing out arm with a reasonably heavy steel section that is shown parked in front of the rear barrier, which, during its working life without the front barrier, would have provided a significant hazard for passing vehicles.

The swing out arm and barrier is on a slip road that has been closed and abandoned for a long time, to hit it the driver would have to get past the Jersey Barrier.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4478036 ... 8192?hl=en

The whole road and bridge (South 176th Street) has been closed in fact if you look at the top of the intersection.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4451155 ... 8192?hl=en

If you we able to go up that slip road and turn left you would find yourself on the SeaTac airport runway perimeter road. I believe that access was closed when the airport was expanded.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4454216 ... !1e3?hl=en
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Bryn666 »

RichardA35 wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 14:16
KeithW wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 14:07
RichardA35 wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 09:24 Only "better" in that the hazard of a square ended barrier is replaced by metal sections attached to the face of the barrier intruding into the roadspace for an unsuspecting vehcle to strike.
If you look at an older version of GSV they show that am intersection was closed there
2008
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 8,-5.60174,

2021
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4477339 ... 8192?hl=en

The barrier is actually designed to absorb the shock of a collision, the space between the armco is filled with plastic bags of fluid to absorb an end on impact.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.447605, ... 8192?hl=en

This is quite common in the USA, they used something similar at some of the intersections on OH-315 in Columbus.
I fear I have not been clear - it is not the arrangement of the slip roads nor the arrangement of two barriers nor the terminal, but the swing out arm with a reasonably heavy steel section that is shown parked in front of the rear barrier, which, during its working life without the front barrier, would have provided a significant hazard for passing vehicles.
I agree the placement of the steel vertical member that forms part of this is a bad idea, that's at the right height to cut into an errant vehicle running down the concrete barrier, that's an instant passenger serious injury there in a right hand drive environment.

There must be a happy medium between the US non-passive model and the UK lets have huge concrete blocks behind a working width (hopefully) model.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by RichardA35 »

KeithW wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 15:43
RichardA35 wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 14:16 I fear I have not been clear - it is not the arrangement of the slip roads nor the arrangement of two barriers nor the terminal, but the swing out arm with a reasonably heavy steel section that is shown parked in front of the rear barrier, which, during its working life without the front barrier, would have provided a significant hazard for passing vehicles.

The swing out arm and barrier is on a slip road that has been closed and abandoned for a long time, to hit it the driver would have to get past the Jersey Barrier.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4478036 ... 8192?hl=en
I fear I have not been clear enough again. When the slip road was open, in operation, with traffic running in the lane nearest to the barrier, without the second line of barrier present and the arms were present in front of the barrier, they represented a hazard to the driver which would not be acceptable in the UK.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by RichardA35 »

Bryn666 wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 15:49
I agree the placement of the steel vertical member that forms part of this is a bad idea, that's at the right height to cut into an errant vehicle running down the concrete barrier, that's an instant passenger serious injury there in a right hand drive environment.

There must be a happy medium between the US non-passive model and the UK lets have huge concrete blocks behind a working width (hopefully) model.
It's a long time ago but IIRC the WW of a concrete barrier is measured as the distance the striking vehicle oversails the barrier, so the UK model should be outside.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19202
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by KeithW »

RichardA35 wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 16:03 I fear I have not been clear enough again. When the slip road was open, in operation, with traffic running in the lane nearest to the barrier, without the second line of barrier present and the arms were present in front of the barrier, they represented a hazard to the driver which would not be acceptable in the UK.
Runway 34L at Seatac was opened in 1970 which is when that intersection would have been blocked.

So that slip road would have been in use the 1960's when we were using pretty much nothing except a centre strip of Armco and plastic cones placed by hand. I would bet good money that the barriers date back to the construction of the runway and the barriers there to restrict access.

As a point of comparison I present the A1(M) Darlington bypass which is still pretty much as built.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.59467 ... 8192?hl=en

Run off the edge here and the welcome you get is a ditch and trees. Trust me you do not want to hit a tree.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by RichardA35 »

KeithW wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 17:28
RichardA35 wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 16:03 I fear I have not been clear enough again. When the slip road was open, in operation, with traffic running in the lane nearest to the barrier, without the second line of barrier present and the arms were present in front of the barrier, they represented a hazard to the driver which would not be acceptable in the UK.
Indeed but that would have been the 1970's when we were using pretty much nothing except a centre strip of Armco and plastic cones placed by hand. As a point of comparison I present the A1(M) Darlington bypass which is still pretty much as built.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.59467 ... 8192?hl=en

Run off the edge here and the welcome you get is a ditch and trees. Trust me you do not want to hit a tree.
....and there are lots of examples of difference that can be pointed to all over this country and others.
However, even in the 1980's we didn't put things deliberately in front of barriers (other than small diameter signposts) as they tended to get crashed into.
The poster who raised this installation claimed it as "better".
I disagree.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19202
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by KeithW »

RichardA35 wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 17:40 ....and there are lots of examples of difference that can be pointed to all over this country and others.
However, even in the 1980's we didn't put things deliberately in front of barriers (other than small diameter signposts) as they tended to get crashed into.
The poster who raised this installation claimed it as "better".
I disagree.
On that we can agree.
jay8g
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 04:13

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by jay8g »

I'm honestly not sure I understand the concern here, either with the SeaTac design (which appears to be breakaway and also folds close enough to the jersey barrier that you'd have to ride up on the sloped section to hit it, at least before the arms started failing) or the UK design (which is well behind the guardrail from what I can see). Clearly, the UK standards for these things are way more strict than the ones I'm used to!
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Conekicker »

jay8g wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 20:14 I'm honestly not sure I understand the concern here, either with the SeaTac design (which appears to be breakaway and also folds close enough to the jersey barrier that you'd have to ride up on the sloped section to hit it, at least before the arms started failing) or the UK design (which is well behind the guardrail from what I can see). Clearly, the UK standards for these things are way more strict than the ones I'm used to!
"Well behind" - you need to understand the concept of "Working width".

https://www.hwilliams.co.uk/wp-content/ ... une-07.pdf
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
Post Reply