Industry leaders are calling recent commentary on temporary traffic management uninformed and unhelpful, as they work to transition from a ‘one size fits all’ model to a more risk-based approach
Temporary Traffic Management Industry Steering Group (TTM ISG) Chair Dave Tilton says the industry is already making progress in ensuring temporary traffic management is fit for purpose through the transition from the compliance-based Code of practice for temporary traffic management (CoPTTM) to the more risk-based approach described in the New Zealand guide to temporary traffic management (NZGTTM).
Tilton says this work has been underway for the past few years.
“The controls we are using, such as cones and temporary speed limits, and the way we are using them, often do not align with the risks of a specific site or job. This can make it difficult for the public to see the correlation between the temporary traffic management in place and the risks to themselves, other road users and our frontline people.
“There’s an obvious difference in risk in conducting the same work on a busy four-lane, 100km/h motorway compared to a rural road or quiet urban cul-de-sac.
“CoPTTM is prescriptive and can sometimes be implemented as a ‘one size fits all’ approach, which has its challenges, particularly across such a diverse roading network.
“The move to a more risk-based approach enables temporary traffic management that is as safe as possible for the specific risks at a particular site. It will allow the industry to apply more targeted temporary traffic management solutions and will result in a reduction of unnecessary temporary traffic management,” Tilton says.
However, he explains that the industry is focused on success over speed when it comes to the transition.
As highlighted in the Ernst & Young Global Limited (EY) report commissioned by Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown into the temporary traffic management system in Auckland:
‘The current TTM situation did not get this way overnight. It cannot be fixed overnight either … Real progress requires – and demands – a coordinated response with central government providing local government the tools they need to create the right incentives within the TTM system.’
Tilton says it’s a big change to the way the industry has planned and delivered temporary traffic management for more than 20 years.
“It is a big learning curve for everyone involved and important we get it right.”
Civil Contractors New Zealand Chief Executive Alan Pollard says a collaborative approach is needed.
He says while contractors are an easy target for criticism, a more collaborative approach including clients, designers and subcontractors is needed to reach better outcomes, as industry works within health and safety legislation, enforced by WorkSafe as the regulator, with project standards and traffic management plans set by designers and clients.
“Suggesting traffic management is deployed to maximise profit is nonsense,” Pollard adds.
“It’s there for one reason – to keep road users and workers safe during high-risk works.”
He acknowledges that there is always room for improvement, and echoes Tilton’s point that the industry has been moving toward risk-based temporary traffic management for some years. However, Pollard says while this would lead to better safety outcomes and appropriate on-site controls, it would not necessarily lower traffic management costs.
“The way sites are set up is a function of the client requirements and what is needed to meet contractor obligations under health and safety legislation. We will not and cannot compromise people’s safety. It’s something everyone needs to improve on,” Pollard says.
Tilton adds that everyone has a role in improving safety for people who are working at or travelling through road works and, while he acknowledges people’s frustrations, he cautions against the current, unhelpful rhetoric around temporary traffic management.
“How road users respond to temporary traffic management is a critical factor in how safe these environments are for everyone, including themselves.
“The stronger the ‘war on road cones’ narrative, the greater the public disregard for temporary traffic management, the more unsafe our worksites will be – and the more traffic controls, like cones, we need to keep people safe.
“This kind of rhetoric is not only unhelpful, it’s reckless and it actually serves to exacerbate the problem.”
He says road cones and temporary speed limits are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.
“They are a highly visible symbol of ineffective systems and planning. Ensuring the right balance between cost-effectiveness and the safety of everyone who works on or travels through road works will require integrating temporary traffic management earlier in the planning of work activities, rather than treating it as an afterthought at the end.
“Temporary traffic management is used to keep people safe while the work gets done. Effective temporary traffic management should be no more – and no less – than what is required to keep everyone safe.”
