Failure Behaviour of Temporary Traffic Lights

[Conekicker]

They've put roadworks with traffic lights up on a residential road near me - the road normally has parked cars along it either side and so is effectively a one way street (with alternating direction) anyway. So why are traffic lights needed - are roadworks more of a hazard than parked cars? If the concern is over hitting workers, would some decently-sized water or concrete barriers not provide better protection?

You need to consider the width of water/concrete barriers and their working width, i.e. how much they deflect when hit. Also how you would put them in place and remove them, as well as how the workers would access site whilst the barriers are in place. On most residential roads they aren't a practical proposition.

We'll carefully avoid any mention of the fact that water filled plastic barriers deflect a LOT when hit and thus aren't really suitable in the first place, if you want to use them for protection rather than delineation.

It can be that on residential roads a road closure can be the best solution - but that requires a temporary traffic regulation order, which costs money and takes weeks to get made. Far quicker and cheaper to go with signals, even if it's more disruptive than a closure would be. Money talks.

This is frustrating - nothing worse than coming across a 4-way lights in a residential area where closing two of the roads would have been non-disruptive (and result in a net decrease in journey times for all, even those who had to divert.) In some cases a full closure would be even better. Some legal innovation to allow easy closure on minor roads would be very welcome - but I suppose, almost by definition, there's not enough disruption caused by the alternative to justify it.

If only it were possible for a highway authority to have a blanket TRO for it's network, covering everything that might happen on it over a period of a year. Road/footway closures, one ways, contraflows, speed/width/weight/height restrictions, banned turns, bus gates, etc., all "as indicated by traffic signs erected from time to time within the highway boundary". Sadly, it's not lawful to do that. Wouldn't half make life easier for many people though.

[jnty]

You need to consider the width of water/concrete barriers and their working width, i.e. how much they deflect when hit. Also how you would put them in place and remove them, as well as how the workers would access site whilst the barriers are in place. On most residential roads they aren't a practical proposition.

We'll carefully avoid any mention of the fact that water filled plastic barriers deflect a LOT when hit and thus aren't really suitable in the first place, if you want to use them for protection rather than delineation.

It can be that on residential roads a road closure can be the best solution - but that requires a temporary traffic regulation order, which costs money and takes weeks to get made. Far quicker and cheaper to go with signals, even if it's more disruptive than a closure would be. Money talks.

This is frustrating - nothing worse than coming across a 4-way lights in a residential area where closing two of the roads would have been non-disruptive (and result in a net decrease in journey times for all, even those who had to divert.) In some cases a full closure would be even better. Some legal innovation to allow easy closure on minor roads would be very welcome - but I suppose, almost by definition, there's not enough disruption caused by the alternative to justify it.

If only it were possible for a highway authority to have a blanket TRO for it's network, covering everything that might happen on it over a period of a year. Road/footway closures, one ways, contraflows, speed/width/weight/height restrictions, banned turns, bus gates, etc., all "as indicated by traffic signs erected from time to time within the highway boundary". Sadly, it's not lawful to do that. Wouldn't half make life easier for many people though.

And indeed it wouldn't be ideal if you could close a local D2 arterial road for three months with a few cones at zero notice. But some gradation of red tape by importance of road would be welcome. This applies for other types of Orders - RSOs in Scotland to shift a bit of kerb one inch into the road can be held up by public inquires for years by a single objection. This is maybe legitimate for big changes to city centre roads, but totally inappropriate for minor works in suburban estates. I've often felt like the ability to make a blanket order of a similar to type to what you're suggesting would be useful - a text-based description of the standard prescribed for certain groups of road (pavement at least X metres wide, road at least Xm wide, parking banned at corners/junctions, at most one disabled bay per Xm) etc and then any on-the-ground modifications within these parameters don't require any further orders to be permitted. This would be especially useful for when opportunities to implement changes arise at short notice from eg. resurfacing work. (I understand this kind of thing goes on anyway in many councils at an apparently acceptable level of legal risk.) Exceptions can just be subject to the normal order process, but craftily done this would surely lift miles of boring suburban road from the orders process for all but the most major changes.

For the TTRO case, I can understand why a blanket order isn't allowed but it wouldn't seem too unreasonable to permit ad-hoc closure of unclassified roads provided a suitable diversion route of less than Xm was available in both directions. How often do the temporary (or even permanent) orders line up perfectly with the situation on the ground anyway?! A bit of practical realism would maybe save everyone a lot of bother.

[Conekicker]

This is frustrating - nothing worse than coming across a 4-way lights in a residential area where closing two of the roads would have been non-disruptive (and result in a net decrease in journey times for all, even those who had to divert.) In some cases a full closure would be even better. Some legal innovation to allow easy closure on minor roads would be very welcome - but I suppose, almost by definition, there's not enough disruption caused by the alternative to justify it.

If only it were possible for a highway authority to have a blanket TRO for it's network, covering everything that might happen on it over a period of a year. Road/footway closures, one ways, contraflows, speed/width/weight/height restrictions, banned turns, bus gates, etc., all "as indicated by traffic signs erected from time to time within the highway boundary". Sadly, it's not lawful to do that. Wouldn't half make life easier for many people though.

And indeed it wouldn't be ideal if you could close a local D2 arterial road for three months with a few cones at zero notice. But some gradation of red tape by importance of road would be welcome. This applies for other types of Orders - RSOs in Scotland to shift a bit of kerb one inch into the road can be held up by public inquires for years by a single objection. This is maybe legitimate for big changes to city centre roads, but totally inappropriate for minor works in suburban estates. I've often felt like the ability to make a blanket order of a similar to type to what you're suggesting would be useful - a text-based description of the standard prescribed for certain groups of road (pavement at least X metres wide, road at least Xm wide, parking banned at corners/junctions, at most one disabled bay per Xm) etc and then any on-the-ground modifications within these parameters don't require any further orders to be permitted. This would be especially useful for when opportunities to implement changes arise at short notice from eg. resurfacing work. (I understand this kind of thing goes on anyway in many councils at an apparently acceptable level of legal risk.) Exceptions can just be subject to the normal order process, but craftily done this would surely lift miles of boring suburban road from the orders process for all but the most major changes.

For the TTRO case, I can understand why a blanket order isn't allowed but it wouldn't seem too unreasonable to permit ad-hoc closure of unclassified roads provided a suitable diversion route of less than Xm was available in both directions. How often do the temporary (or even permanent) orders line up perfectly with the situation on the ground anyway?! A bit of practical realism would maybe save everyone a lot of bother.

For the TTRO case, how often are they challenged. Even more so, how often are they challenged to the point of not being made? "Never" in my experience. Very, very rarely a local authority might ask for the odd tweak to be made to the TTRO, usually to accommodate something they want to do that the applicant doesn't know about. Beyond that a member of the public challenging it - rarer than rocking horse poop.