The journey that Auckland is on, of renewal and regeneration, will continue well into the future. We’ve got a lot to do, with transport, power and three waters infrastructure in need of upgrades, a housing shortage, safety crisis and climate emergency to resolve. Plus our public places are in need of greater ecological and social health.
Construction, with all the disruption it brings, is unlikely to slow much in the foreseeable future. But there’s no need to be dismayed by this. There’s plenty to enjoy in the City of Cones. Walkability, after all, includes having new and interesting things to look at. For toddlers, pensioners, and everyone in between, the technology and techniques used in construction and landscaping can be as interesting to watch as any of humanity’s endeavours.
But throughout it all, we need to be kept safe from traffic.
Decades of car dependent planning have resulted in a safety crisis. The safety and convenience of people biking and walking has been eroded. In this already deficient transport environment, there’s no room for temporary works to make things any harder for people on foot or bike.
Nationally, a review of the Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management is underway, and as it’s responding to some tragic crashes, there will be a big focus on safety for roadside workers.
I’m interested to know, though, whether it will address and halt the common practices that so often ignore the needs of the public passersby.
For example, in leaving them with nowhere to walk?:
Is it going to address the problems we face with temporary traffic management signs?
Will guidance be clear that signs shouldn’t be placed to make it difficult to walk two abreast or manoeuvre a wheelchair? (Particularly when adjacent a perfectly good parking lane!)
Will the review place a more realistic upper limit on sign sizes, so that motorway-ready signs no longer dominate urban footpaths? (And does providing a general message like this warrant imposing on footpath users at all?):
And will it do anything about the equipment that just gets left around to trip people up?:
Fundamentally, could we turn the tables, and transform temporary traffic management into a practice with a different set of priorities? What would it look like if we ensured that walking and biking amenity – if affected by temporary work at all – are improved, rather than degraded?
This is possible – it just requires a shift in mindset. Currently, the Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management is better suited for state highways and open roads. There’s a healthy focus on worker safety, but there’s also a requirement to minimise traffic delays. This is what is out of date, irrelevant to multi-modal urban environments, and creating the problems which impact other users. It isn’t mode neutral – the calculations required in the Code are simply for vehicle delays; the delays to anyone else aren’t quantified and therefore decisions ignore them.
To address the climate emergency, modeshift to sustainable travel modes needs to be prioritised above minimising vehicle delays. And in adopting Vision Zero, the same thing holds: both Waka Kotahi and Auckland Transport must eschew the myth that vehicle delays are a more important consideration during temporary works than safety for people outside of vehicles.
As Auckland Transport says:
We will get you there safely, as efficiently as we can. This is a shift from thinking we will get you there quickly, as safely as we can.
Construction is no reason to ignore the principles of the Healthy Streets approach which puts safety and amenity for people walking and cycling central to the decision-making processes. Construction’s disruption is understood, extensive, and able to be planned around.
Indeed, it is an opportunity. Disruption can be harnessed to demonstrate how change can improve liveability. If we rethink our management of temporary traffic management, looking well beyond current practices, we can use its disruption to create a discontinuity in travel behaviour.
This approach can enable permanent modeshift.
Take the example of leaving signs that are not in use on footpaths as tripping hazards.
One obvious solution is to use kerbside parks for storing this equipment. Parking is being repurposed all over the world, for waste and recycling bins, planter boxes for trees, tables and chairs for dining, and bike parking.
A simple, good looking standardised trailer or box to store temporary traffic equipment and get it off the footpath could greatly improve safety. Something like this bike parking unit could be designed to hold standard signage:
- raise public expectations on how to treat pedestrians and the footpath environment,
- help the public gain a wider appreciation of what kerbside parking spaces are useful for. This could lead to some great community initiatives or enterprises to meet community needs, and of course
- establish confidence that the walking environment is safe for all users.
And then there’s the challenge of where to put the temporary signs when they’re in use. In some environments, signs can safely be put on footpaths, without detracting from the walking experience. This occurs where the “street furniture / front berm” zone of the footpath is sufficiently wide.
The recently released Auckland Transport Design Manual’s Footpaths and the Public Realm gives a minimum width for this zone as 2.2 m or 2.8 m, which is ample for temporary signage. Wherever our streets need to be rebuilt as we upgrade our city, Council must ensure Auckland Transport provide these minimum widths for all zones – not just for the through route itself – or we’ll continue to see temporary signage presenting a hazard.
For now, though, we often don’t have those widths available, and so the contractors aren’t left with many options.
Auckland Transport need to find a way to resolve the situation.
Auckland Transport’s Generic Traffic Management Diagrams demonstrate some of the problems. Several of these diagrams guide contractors to create – in an urban environment – a deterioration in amenity and safety for people walking and cycling. As an example, this diagram guides contractors to close the footpath – instead of a traffic lane, and without safe crossing infrastructure to the other side – and to put the signs on the road shoulder where cyclists might ride.
This is not vaguely compliant with Vision Zero.
Christchurch City Council have a document called Best Practice for TTM Impacting Cyclists which has more useful suggestions:
In the Auckland context even these solutions will often not work; our cyclelanes and footpaths often seem narrower than those in Christchurch, and kerbside parking on arterials is often only available outside peak hours, if at all. We need to find our own solutions to radically improve safety, and the perception of it.
Parents need to know their children will be safe to venture out into the street network regardless of what changes have happened in the area since the parent was last there to see. Children, elderly people, and people with disabilities require a higher standard of safety planning than able-bodied, quick-reacting adults do, but our temporary traffic management system seems to assume “we can all cope” with a bit of amenity loss. No, some of us can’t.
If a solution that improves the active transport environment rather than degrading it requires putting signs in the road carriageway by narrowing or removing traffic lanes, that is what we need to do. Yet there are other solutions, too.
Could we make more use of existing poles for mounting temporary signage, or does this put signs so high that drivers would ignore them, like they ignore the signs on Queen St? (If so, why were they considered sufficient there?)
The solution I was wondering about last year was a stand that could straddle a cycle lane, or a footpath, and hold the sign higher up.
So in May last year I asked AT:
Could you please provide me with documentation showing the work AT has done to research and develop signage that can straddle the through-route zone of the footpath (or cyclelane) so that road signs can safely be put on footpaths or cyclelanes?
I thought Auckland Transport might be enthusiastic to tell me if this was an unworkable idea. And I was looking forward to finding out what they are developing instead.
Unfortunately, after the initial confirmation of receipt eight months ago, I’ve heard nothing from them. Even though I followed up in June and August.
Interestingly, when I asked a few advocates for photos of poorly-placed signs to use in this post, some people said they had given up on getting action from Auckland Transport:
Hah I stopped taking photos and now just move them.
This is bound to happen if people see hazards consistently and systematically ignored by the authorities during a safety crisis. But it is far from ideal. I won’t report on local examples, but here’s some guerilla urbanism happening in the US. The twitter thread (by Queen Anne Greenways) starts:
This is just so common I have almost given up
Two days later:
I finally moved it today
I made a helpful sticker to encourage safer sign placement in the future.
So should Auckland Transport wait for the review of the Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management? I don’t think they need to.
The Code isn’t a legal document that limits Auckland Transport. It is only a guidance document to help contractors meet the minimum legal requirements. Auckland Transport can require a higher standard. The personnel tasked with providing temporary traffic management are already required to close sites down if they are not safe. Auckland Transport can lay out an expectation of what “safe” traffic management means in a city struggling to get out of a safety crisis.
Making walking and cycling safer and more convenient in this way will not only prevent unnecessary injuries and death, it will encourage people out of their cars, and help combat climate change. And it’s something Auckland Transport can tackle now.
[Comment deleted – off topic]
“Everything now prioritises cyclists and walkers”, well it doesn’t, that’s the problem. The reasonable compromise is much further into bike and pedestrian friendliness than you think.
Regardless, 80% of the time like you said there is a reasonable compromise, put the signs a couple meters down the road and beside a tree or in the car parking area etc.
There’s no safety crisis either.
This Mike Lowe guy is a troll who makes basically the same unconstructive comments on every GA Facebook post
That sticker is very funny. Great idea.
Usually the car lanes have plenty of extra width, on the order of meters, why can’t they go there? (Only half kidding).
They could also investigate some skinnier, taller signs maybe. Not saying they should replace all the ones they have now, but some of the new ones they buy might be better off as a different size.
I wouldn’t kid at all in suggesting the signs go in the car lanes. Isn’t this the point of the article?
When the street furniture zone is too narrow, the flush median can become a lane at a slower speed allowing a sign to take the traffic lane. If there isn’t a flush median, then a traffic lane will need to be closed.
Anything else is favouring motorists. Signs to advise motorists in order to stop motorists from damaging something or injuring someone are signs that motorists should be inconvenienced by. Not children walking, elderly people on mobility scooters, nor people cycling.
This is basic.
There is a common saying that “the standard you walk by is the standard you accept.” So it is with temporary traffic management (TTM). Enforcement of standards is entirely down to the road controlling authority (RCA, the road owner be that the council or NZTA). Worksafe won’t get involved unless someone gets injured or killed. So the standard of TTM in an area becomes whatever the RCA is happy to walk (or more likely drive) past. Site Traffic Management Supervisors (the workers wearing the yellow STMS vests who are responsible for TTM on site) soon work out what the RCA is happy to accept.
I’ve worked in construction in both cities and Christchurch has it better than Auckland. The Christchurch Transport Operations Centre (CTOC) staff are way more constructive and willing to engage in solving problems than their counterparts in Auckland (ATOC). Also some of the CTOC staff bike to work, hence the specific guidance on cycle protections.
Also the reason having signs you can bike under won’t work is that they’d be too high, above the eyeline of drivers. Those signs pictured on Queen St are completely non-compliant with MOTSAM / TCD Manual (of which CoPTTM is part).
Good to hear your experiences, which don’t surprise me. Thanks for the explanation – I suspected that. It wouldn’t have taken AT much to reply as such. I suppose they have have nothing else they’re developing, or they’d have advised me.
If AT uses non-compliant signage anyway, tactical projects might be better off without them. Too often, their concerns are not aligned with the Council goals anyway, so the projects get compromised.
I have had the odd occasion where they cone off a new bike lane instead of closing it, I was quite surprised (seemed a lot of effort for probably 1 bike per hour). If cars truly did slow to 30km/hr it probably wouldn’t matter if you had to cycle on the road. Maybe speed cameras could help.
Temp signs are very annoying when you have a pushchair, as are cars parked on the footpath, a lack of ramps on corners, etc. If you were in a wheelchair it would be a constant annoyance, very frustrating no doubt.
As a frequent walker my observation is positive for the effort the lolly pop teams put into providing a safe path for pedestrian around road works. Sometimes walkers are directed to cross the road so you need to be careful. My main concern is signs reducing visibility so in some ways its better to have the signs on the footpath or berm than on a cycleway or parking area. I am happy to share the footpath with cyclist if the cycle lane needs to be closed. It is often necessary to temporarily realign the road lanes so pedestrian refuges are often removed prior to work taking place. In fact they are designed for easy removal and replacement.
Its best if work can be completed between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm and have the road return to its normal configuration until work resumes the next day.
I’ve had some success in getting signs moved by contacting the contractors directly. There was one of those big rectangular signs with lights on New North Road practically blocking the footpath. To be fair to the contractors when I pointed out the problem, they moved it within 24 hours and also reviewed the placement of similar signs on other roads.
Not always easy to know who the contractors are and how to contact them though.
ttm book is just for the industry to make money off, it has no correlation with safety. 90% of the time sign placements make things more unsafe for pedestrians but can’t be moved due to the regs.
case in point Hopetoun bridge where CRLL has reduced the footpath to less than 80cm and forced bikes into conflict with traffic just to signpost that Beresford Square/Pitt St intersection is (permanently) closed 200m away
I have asked AT for a better solution for this sign as it is going to be there for a long time. Waiting for a reply.
I asked when they put it up over a year ago. Still waiting.
It’s amazing no one has thrown it over the side
The solution is easy: either no signs, or just install a no-right turn sign at the intersection itself. This is a permanent closure and we don’t usually sign those at all.
One of my particular bugbears is with the sign that says ” Path closed, pedestrians use other side” and the poor placement and lack of a safe crossing in place. Last week, in Henderson, construction work closed down a footpath and road lane. Residents of the nearby retirement village walked down the hill, turned the corner and were faced with a sign saying the path was closed. They were faced with a return up hill to the nearest crossing and an extra 600m walk including 2 crossings with no pedestrian facilities to get to the health centre. Why are the signs not placed to alert people to the issue ahead in good time and it should be a requirement to have at least a temporary crossing at the point where you tell people they must use the other side.
Yes. I’ve come across someone in a wheelchair, too, who suddenly came to a sign like that… I have a photo somewhere. No pram crossing anywhere. He had to go back and do an enormous detour. Close to 1 km I think when I worked it out afterwards.
A closed footpath should have a safe crossing point installed, even if only temporary while the work is being done.
I can remember vividly walking in Auckland once approaching a large round about which was having work done it. About half way along the block approaching it I got to a “path closed pedestrians use other side”, only to look across the wide road to see the footpath on the other side was similarly closed. I’m pretty sure I ignored one or other of them and continued on up the road as I could see a safe way past the works to where I wanted to go. It was just another indication to me of how little importance was placed on pedestrian safety.
We used to have a major safety issue with road works sites on high speed highways. I am not sure it was ever anywhere near as bad in urban streets. However the solutions for the higher speed locations were simply imposed on urban areas which means we have all these pointless road works signs like the one warning of road works on a side street. The signs are probably a greater safety hazard for more people than a few people turning a low speed corner into road cones. Where I live we had two years of ‘temporary’ traffic management to allow a few Watercare contractor trucks to turn into the pony club. It reduced width for cycling and made it difficult for people turning into properties opposite.
+1 the amount of signage and other BS is totally ridiculous in the urban environment. It does nothing for safety (as you point out potentially makes things less safe) while most definitely adding to costs and duration of disruption.
Yes, this is pretty much what happened. Signs were mainly for motorways, and someone decided it would be good if we had these signs for major roads and then for everywhere. I’m guessing someone in the road sign industry was behind it. lol
I asked when they put it up over a year ago. Still waiting.
It’s amazing no one has thrown it over the side
Classic photo there of Queen st, entitled Porsche driving through a red light and a no entry sign as people (including children) are about to cross. Everyday i see people drive the wrong way up Jean batten which is a one way shared zone – meant to be safe and slow for walkers, cyclists, etc. The new Britomart ones are even worse, a 10 m shared zone at Galway and Gore where no cars wait for pedestrians even with the new raised table, and cars clogged up Galway with its new paving and hotel which should be a pedestrian only alley to sit and enjoy. Huge amount of money spent on this for little benefit to anyone other than cars.
How much does a camera cost to put up? Surely all these situations can be enforced with large fines, at least $500 or more. As for the “At transport officers” who walk around in groups of 2-4 doing absolutely nothing in the CBD, perhaps they could be monitoring these cameras instead of pretending to enforce parking.
I wonder how Auckland roadworks can be so damn inconsistent.
One street will have a thoughtfully coned off pedestrian & cycle bypass, with tarmac or plastic ramps over the curb, automated traffic control, clear crossing zones, helpful staff.
Then you go around the corner and are faced with all the worst examples from the post – signs in your way, unsafe crossings, invisible STMS staff, uncovered holes in the ground.
Who signs off these different plans?
I guess it’s part of the DIY city. Some contractors take their responsibilities seriously. Others don’t. Whoever is overseeing it clearly has low standards.
Hire scooters and bikes are also left obstructing cycleways and footpaths. Sometimes at blind corners or at intersections. I don’t think this is always users abandoning them, a good number are the charging people working for the hire companies leaving them in prominent locations or van accessible locations.
Yes, the city should’ve organised a better system by now, with docks taking over car parks.
I’m always surprised Auckland doesn’t have a bike hire / docking scheme. And not a peep about one coming. Some docks at major train stations downtown and some busway stations would be great. Particularly for people from out of town.
Blame the compulsory helmet laws.
There were some very interesting initiatives tabled at the Micromobility conference last week about docking stations, stable 3 wheeled scooters that will be relocated by a remote control ‘driver’ and a bunch of other smart stuff that may make it here in time.
I think a council supported scheme was on the table a few years ago, then Lime and Onzo (haha) appeared, so the council changed to licensing private companies to do the work.
Scooters are probably always going to be preferred by the public because they take less effort than a traditional bike and you aren’t required to wear a helmet.
Now that you think about it, how ridiculous is that. Scooters can go much faster than the average human on a bike (non-e-bike) and a helmet is not required, but it is on a bike.
ChrisW is correct – there were some plans to have a city-run bike share scheme, but with the arrival of dockless bikes (and then scooters), AT decided to shelve it and see what happens with those.
They still have a web page about it: https://at.govt.nz/cycling-walking/research-monitoring/cycle-share/
The bit of Hight St. footpath that’s been widened by the temporary decking was all but blocked by 4 or 5 scooters lying on their sides. I had a wicked thought to just toss them out into the road lane instead, but somehow resisted the urge.
With those hire scooters and bikes don’t they need an apt to hire them , so why can’t they ask these mickey mouse companies ‘who was it that hired it last’ then track them down and do them for littering or disposing of an item illegally . And see if that will stop them just dumping those things .
Removing/putting down signs when they aren’t in use should apply to vehicle lanes too. Happens all the time where there is a 30k temporary sign up and nothing going on. Motorists rightly get fed up with that which in turn leads to complacency about other signs.
Also when these works are carried out there should be a time incentive/punishment in place so that contractors aren’t wasting everyone’s time. They often do works during busy periods simply to save money on overtime/nighttime work at everyone else’s expense.
Just a small part of widespread disdain for pedestrians.
You can come up with a list of additional things you ruin once you ruin walking:
– catching a bus
– living in an apartment
– visiting a shop where you can’t easily park
A really good and helpful post, Heidi.
UK tackled roadworker safety many years ago and developed a standard that worked well for the UK, with clear distinction between urban and rural roads. Notably, the size and construction of roadworks signs is very different.
It is time indeed for national industry rethink (all contractors have the same responsibility, wherever they are working). AT can reasonably be expected to take a leading role in responding to the consultation. STMS guidance and training also needs to consistently follow principles that consider all road users.
Compliance management can be difficult, as huge numbers of CAR applications need to be processed. No excuses, but don’t blame the person with a big workload and not much time – we need the Code to be right in the first place.
Safety for the most vulnerable must come first, followed by safe working space, then accessibility and (if space remains) somewhere for vehicle traffic to go.
How about for a small country of 5m we have:
a) 1 traffic management standard/guideline that’s safe for all road users
b) 1 transport infrastructure design standard/guideline that’s safe for all road users.
The solution is a risk-based approach to traffic management, rather than a Code of Practice that is considered by agencies to be a bible. There should still be guidelines so that wild inconsistencies are avoided (sign colours, layouts etc). It does, however, require the agencies to have some trust in both their own judgement and that of the professional consultants and contractors that they engage. Which they must do anyway as a PCBU under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
As our streets aren’t uniform, this uniform approach doesn’t serve anyone well.
AT is nothing to do with transport efficiency, you have to understand this.
AT is a social engineering agency, with sympathy to the Green Party. It has no regard whatsoever for the economy being the engine-room of the country.
If they were all made redundant, they would not be missed.
Hilarious. If only that were true.
“AT is a social engineering agency, with sympathy to the Green Party”
Biggest load of hogwash since the 45th president retired. What planet are you on McMurray?
Long time reader, first time commenter.
I am a Temporary Traffic Management Planner in the South Island who uses the Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM) on a regular basis. I have a number of comments regarding the traffic management images in this post.
Firstly the image with the Truck parked in the shoulder that appears to be hydrovaccing in the footpath. This is a site that is nowhere near compliant (if I showed it to my colleagues we would all have a laugh about it). For starters as the work is affecting the footpath it is requirement to have footpath management in place, whether it be a footpath closure, diverting the coning off an area around the Truck for pedestrians to walk (what we would call a Temporary Footpath), or even just a dedicated person onsite escorting pedestrians through the site when safe to do so. The site also lacks any form of safety zone, there needs to be longitudinal safety zone in front of the work space and a lateral safety zone beside it, along with a cone taper before the longitudinal safety zone. Also because the cars are crossing into the flush median there should be a centreline of cones separating the cars from the traffic coming the other way.
Next the image with the “Turning Traffic Give Way to Pedestrians” sign placed in the separated cycle lane. It says in CoPTTM that signs must NOT be placed in a marked cycle lane unless a certain minimum width of cycle lane is able to maintained past the sign (1m minimum on the flat, 1.5m minimum on hills). This comment also applies to the other images showing signs in the cycle lanes.
Next the image with the Road Works On Side Road sign on the footpath. The requirement in CoPTTM regarding signs on cycle lanes applies to footpaths as well. In this case the minimum width that must be retained past the sign is 1.2m (2m in a CBD area). There does appear to be the required 1.2m minimum past the sign. I do agree that the sign would be better placed in the parking lane, however, signs of that size must be placed at least 1.25m clear of the travel path of vehicles and the sign itself is 1.2m wide. This means that the parking lane would need to be at least 2.45m wide in order to place the sign in it. Looking at the image it appears that the parking lane is only 2m wide (0.45m too narrow), so that is probably why the contractor placed the sign on the footpath. An alternative would be to place the sign half on the footpath and half on the parking lane, however this could put the sign on enough of a lean that it wouldn’t be possible to be 1.25m clear of the traffic and maintain the 1.2m minimum footpath width.
I can’t say much about the image with the Variable Message Sign (VMS) as I very rarely deal with them. I don’t really know what the requirements for the positioning and size of a VMS are, though personally I would have installed it in the road shoulder.
The images with the unused equipment stacked on the footpath. It is stated in CoPTTM that redundant equipment must be removed from the site or placed in a safe secure location. That has clearly not been done in those images. Also that sign stand in the first of those images should be left setup with no signs on it, as the stand is less visible with no sign on it and therefore more likely to cause an accident. I am aware of a case that once happened somewhere where a motorist crashed into an empty sign stand that had been left up (caused by the reduced visibility of stand due to it not having a sign on it), and the stand ended through the motorists windscreen.
Now the image of one of AT’s Generic Traffic Management Diagrams (GTMDs). This diagram is actually taken straight from CoPTTM, it’s just had the AT logo and an extra note added to it. It is known that the CoPTTM GTMDs are not that great, especially for Mobile Operations. This likely one of the reasons why some RCAs do not allow the use of GTMDs and instead require that Site-Specific Traffic Management Diagrams (SSTMDs) are made.
I should also like to add the RCA for Auckland must not be doing their job properly if they’re not doing random audits on various site to check if they’re compliant, especially the high-profile ones.
I also have some insight into the changes being made to CoPTTM. They are planning to classify the roads by speed profile instead of by traffic level as is currently done. Currently the only change that has been implemented is a qualification specifically for designing traffic management, the Temporary Traffic Management Planner (TTMP). This new qualification requires attendance of a 2 day workshop to become a Non-Practicing TTMP, followed by an assessment to become a Practicing TTMP. From 1st April this year anyone designing a TMP must be a practicing TTMP, until then the requirement is only for Non-Practicing. As an aside I currently have the Non-Practicing portion of the qualification, I have yet to pass the assessment as the assessors are really strict on their marking. If any of them were the RCA they would definitely not allow the sites seen in the above images to be setup.
Very interesting, perhaps Auckland just needs to follow the rules better, no other changes needed.
I wonder who the RCA is for Auckland, do they normally have a number / public name.
The RCA is Auckland Transport.
Thank you Tylerkal. That’s very useful. Many of these images were taken within the last week so your comments do give me the opportunity to see if real time changes can be made, which is always more effective long term than theoretical promises to do better.
Do you know if the qualifications requirements for non-practising and practising TTMP’s are being changed to incorporate the Vision Zero approach? That is, that the training will include specific Vision Zero training?
I think the TTMP qualifications already incorporate some Vision Zero training. Now that I think about it I seem to recall being shown a video about Vision Zero as part of the workshop and a bit of discussion about it.
Looking back at my experiences at as TTMP I think I may have been including principles of Vision Zero in a number of my plans without realizing it.
Thanks for the detailed response Tylerkal. I was thinking the same that the photos showed that the rules are just not being followed and not anticyclist etc, My observations since doing the course is that the rules are followed on major roadworks on highways etc which the rules were designed for but often not for urban or smaller roads. I do think they need modifying to use smaller and less signs for lower speed roads which would make it easier to comply with rules and keep all users happy.
Hiedi – the whole point of the rules are vision zero – ie protect venerable road workers, and road users including cyclists and pedestrians.
“I’m interested to know, though, whether it will address and halt the common practices that so often ignore the needs of the public passersby.”
From having worked on many Temporary Traffic Management plans, I can tell you that when creating these plans we are required to look after all existing road users, be they cars, trucks, pedestrians or cyclists.
As with anything there are always issues with people not doing their job properly, however it is rather unfair to paint the entire industry in a negative light when we are required to balance numerous constraints in what are sometimes almost impossible situations and where ultimately what happens onsite is out of our hands.
In regards to delays, the reason you don’t have calculations for pedestrian and cyclists delays is because they are in the range of seconds. For cars you can get delays of minuets with queues that can take hours to despite. I’m yet to hear of a single TTM site where there has been something like a 10km long queue of pedestrians who’s walk ended up taking 3 hours longer than planned because of road works.
Thanks Heidi great illustration of the inequitable treatment of different road users. Unfortunately I do not think this issue is worse in Auckland than most places in New Zealand. We have a very long way to go before pedestrians are treated equally as ‘real’ road users and these temporary issues are a big barrier to many people going out. Many pedestrians will do a big detour to avoid having to navigate work sites and will be invisible to any vehicle user or worker at the site.
I think you have it exactly right that disruption should be an opportunity to mode shift, and like your ideas for on-road storage of equipment. The changes need to come from the top with better requirements nationally and from contracting agencies.
Great Post! Thank you for sharing usefull information. We are also provider of Traffic Control Signs. Visit our website for more info highway1.co.nz