The Predictable & Lazy End Of The Year Roundup: 2016

That's another year almost over and as I recharge the batteries for the start of 2017, I'm taking my annual look back over the last 12-months.

Because painted advisory cycle lanes
removes driver capacity.

January

The year got off to a ranting start with a post-Christmas, well post, which looked how taking an ideological position is far easier than taking an expert position, inspired by Twitter arguments with some long-blocked self-styled alliance representing the drivers of Britain. It was an omen for wider nonsense which has recurred the whole year away from the world of blogging. I then returned to the evergreen subject of barriers being installed on cycle tracks. The month ended as it had started where I looked at an ideological piece of nonsense from the Institute of Economic Affairs which doesn't like traffic regulations.

Vauxhall Walk.

February

First, I tackled the tricky subject of so-called "shared-space" and concluded there is no such thing. Next I looked at making areas suitable for cycling rather than routes (anticipating London's "Quietway" conundrum). I then looked at the death of a child who was crossing the A127 in Essex and asked why we don't invest in removing the severance these roads create. The month ended positively with a mooch around South London looking at some of the North-South cycle superhighway and the wonder piece of public space at Vauxhall Walk.

Raw cider.

March

The month started with a moan about the lack of cycle parking at my local B&Q (which is still non-existent today) and then the looming (and worrying) push for autonomous vehicles. I then debated whether leadership is a political or professional thing (at least for transport). In a departure from my usual writings, I then gave an account of how one can make cider at home before returning to the annual subject of our failure to invest in highway maintenance.

Safari!

April

Kerb-nerdery abounded with a report on a London Cycling Infrastructure Safari first this month, followed by the depressing thought that the London mayoral candidates were generally ignoring the needs of children in their transport policies in favour of noisy adults. Next was a post with photos from my eldest daughter as her "story from the school run", before rounding the month off looking at cost and value.

Protected tracks makes cycling child's play.

May

The month started with the statistic that 66% of trips were below 5 miles and that transport investment should be made to enable shorter trips to be made by walking and cycling, although nobody had told the dinosaurs at the Chelsea Society. Next post on how cycling on the new central London cycle tracks were child's play for my daughter who rode then a week after learning to ride her bike. The month ended with me wondering how people think roadworks should take place by magic.

Kidical Massive!

June

The month started with some early summer reading and some street positivity in Cromer, before a moan about stupidly wide junctions and why engineers cling to old ideas of street design. A summer storm prompted some thought about the old boiling frog and flooding with the month ending with a wonderful Kidical Mass ride in central London, where I paused to thank campaigners and designers alike.

Quietway 1.

July

Another cycling infrastructure safari this month with a ride along London's Quietway 1 where there is some very good and very bad layouts. Next I wondered how spending £60m on a single motorway junction could ever be rational. Then there was a two part write up on the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain's AGM in Cambridge - Part 1 and Part 2. 

Australia Road.

August

London's Freecycle left me with mixed feelings at the start of the month. A site visit gave me the next post which showcased a project in west London which had transformed Australia Road into something rather wonderful. A trip to Walton-on-the-Naze saw an accidental discovery of some very well executed continuous footways and then the closure of a street to motor traffic in Clacton-on-Sea actually opened it for people to use.

I was really pleased to be involved with this.

September

First up for this month were some thoughts about transport resilience, following by a post on the concept of "space delusion" from those thinking we can build ourselves out of congestion by building more roads. Cycle To Work Day saw me review my own commute (with recently opened piece of infrastructure), with my 200th post on another Kidical Mass ride (on the International Kidical Massive day). The month ended with my praising the use of map type signs.

October

My first post of the month was back in London looking at a maintenance closure of Tower Bridge and how the space could be rethought and then I considered that change is difficult before considering on the rights of individuals, versus the wider community. Oh yes, I then upset a primary school before celebrating London's orbital car park.

High capacity cycle parking.

November

I revisited the primary school issue at the start of this month with some ideas on what school communities could so to change their local streets before reminding us that the word "enable" is far more important than "encourage". Next was a visit to the Ecocycle cycle parking pod in Southwark and then a post about transport carrots and sticks which was inspired by Stockholm. 

December

First this month, I considered filtered permeability and how we can accommodate service vehicles before shaking my head at another load of politically-motivated nonsense to "deal" with roadworks. I returned to trenches for a post about street works qualifications, before ending the year in lazy fashion.

It's been a busy year for me and with a great deal of frustration as an engineer. 2017 looms in front of us and with what is going on at home and abroad, it's hard to be positive. Local active travel remains poorly funded and poorly supported politically. 

I would like to end this roundup on a positive note, so I will extend a huge thank you to all of the wonderful people I have met this year, many have given their time and insight without wanting or expecting anything in return - this continues to make this blog possible.

Of course, I need to thank my family for putting up with my daft idea of a blog post a week, but at least they have been able to join me for some of the adventures I have written about.

This year, I would like to give a special mention to the people organising and attending our Kidical Mass rides. For me, to see the smile on the kids' faces as they bump along in the cargo-bikes or own their own mini-machines serves as a reminder why we must change our streets for people. Happy New Year!

Merry Quaxmas!

Christmas means lots of things to different people and indeed, it means nothing at all to many! For me it's family time and a chance to rest, perhaps to contemplate the year passed.

I will be blogging my (predictably lazy) review of 2016 next week; so this week, I'll just keep it simple and wish you all a Merry Quaxmas!

A View From The Trenches

In a welcome diversion, I was out of the office for a couple of days this week, but it wasn't for leisure it was still work.

I was attending a training centre to re-qualify as a street works supervisor, something which has to be done every five years under the current rules. I realise that this is rather a niche subject, but it directly impacts on how roadworks are managed in the real world.

The "New Roads & Street Works Act 1991" NRSWA1991 is a "double" piece of legislation brought in firstly to provide "new" mechanisms for building and paying for new roads such as the Design, Build, Finance & Operate model (DBFO), tolling provisions and some tidying up. Secondly (and the subject of this post), to regulate street works (England & Wales) and road works (Scotland). Yes, the term "road works" applies only in Scotland if we wish to be pedantic (although it's not important here). For the street/ road works side, the Act was brought in to deal with the poor performance of utility works in terms of how sites were managed and installations/ reinstatements carried out. 

S67 of the Act (England & Wales) and S126 (Scotland) makes it a legal requirement for "undertakers" to ensure that their street/ road works are supervised by somebody with a prescribed qualification and that at least one operative on site (at all times) has a prescribed qualification. These sections also set the level of fines for failing to comply and gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations on who can confer qualifications and how. There are variations within the UK countries, but again, probably a bit detailed for here.

The term "undertaker" generally applies to utility companies who have powers to "install, inspect, maintain, repair or replace apparatus" and this work is known as street works or road works; curiously, this excludes local authority works which are separately known as "works for roads purposes". Of course, the push for NRWSA1991 was partly about the way utility works were being managed and the impact on the condition of public highways. Anyhoo, back to the qualifications.

There are 16 training units. Unit 1 is for both operatives and supervisors, units 2 to 9 for operatives and units 10 to 16 for supervisors and are as follows;

Units of Competence for Trained Operatives

Unit 001 Location and avoidance of underground apparatus

Unit 002 Signing, lighting and guarding

Unit 003 Excavation in the road/highway

Unit 004 Reinstatement and compaction of backfill materials

Unit 005 Reinstatement of sub-base and road-base on non-bituminous materials

Unit 006 Reinstatement of cold-lay bituminous materials

Unit 007 Reinstatement of hot-lay bituminous materials

Unit 008 Reinstatement of concrete slabs

Unit 009 Reinstatement of modular surfaces and concrete footways

Units of Competence for Trained Supervisors

Unit 001 Location and avoidance of underground apparatus

Unit 010 Monitoring signing, lighting and guarding

Unit 011 Monitoring excavation in the road/highway

Unit 012 Monitoring reinstatement and compaction of backfill materials

Unit 013 Monitoring reinstatement of sub-base and road-base in non-bituminous materials

Unit 014 Monitoring reinstatement of bituminous materials

Unit 015 Monitoring reinstatement of concrete slabs

Unit 016 Monitoring reinstatement of modular surfaces and concrete footways

Combinations of these units give rise to the qualifications; 6 each for operatives and supervisors;

Operative

O1 Excavation in the road/highway 001, 002 and 003

O2 Excavation, backfilling and reinstatement - cold lay 001, 002, 003, 004, 005 and 006

O3 Reinstatement - hot and cold lay bituminous materials 001, 002, 006 and 007

O4 Reinstatement of concrete slabs 001, 002 and 008

O5 Reinstatement of modular surfaces and concrete footways 001, 002 and 009

O6 Signing, lighting and guarding 002

Supervisor

S1 Monitor excavation in the road/highway 001, 010 and 011

S2 Monitor excavation, backfilling and reinstatement - construction layers 001, 010, 011, 012, 013 and 014

S3 Monitor reinstatement - hot and cold lay bituminous materials 001, 010 and 014

S4 Monitor reinstatement of concrete slabs 001, 010 and 015

S5 Monitor reinstatement of modular surfaces and concrete footways 001, 010 and 016

S6 Monitor signing, lighting and guarding 010

You can see that there are combinations available. For example, if you are a company which just provides traffic management (the signs, cones and traffic signals for road works) then your operatives will only need unit 002 to give qualification O6 (and supervisors unit 010 to give S6). In the main, most people will have O1/S1 and O2/S2 with a specialism on the type of road construction. For example, those laying/ supervising asphalt will have O3/S3 and so on. Some people have dual qualification as both an operative and a supervisor which is very cool (and hard work).

Many years ago (!) I worked for a telecoms contractor and because we were involved in laying ducts and building inspection pits in all kinds of situations, I was initially trained up and gained qualifications S1 to S6 and over the years, I kept the qualifications up to date. Originally, there was no re-qualification process, one just sent in a form and paid an administration fee. These days, re-qualification (in England, it varies elsewhere) is required every five years and this involves attending a training centre to refresh knowledge and sit mini-exams for each unit (remembering that groups of units give the 6 qualifications); 8 in total for me.

There are various awarding bodies for the qualifications such as City & Guilds and CABWI (a water industry body). Qualifications are registered with the Street Works Qualifications Register and a card is issued (known as the "street works ticket" in the industry. One needs to carry the card on site as a local highway authority inspector can demand to see it as part of a site inspection and failure to produce can lead to a fine being imposed on the contractor.

Having gone through all of this, it might sound strange when I state that I am not a supervisor. In my day job, the work on site is done by contractors and they have their own supervision, I merely inspect works as a representative of the client and most of the time, we're not laying utilities; public lighting and traffic signals ducts/ pits are as close as it gets. Does having this type of qualification make one competent? The easy answer is "no". But it shows that the individual has a standard level of training and are at least capable of being let loose in the real world!

For those not supervising street works on a day to day basis, this type of qualification still has immense value. I am a firm believer that clients should be informed and therefore it's good practice for their engineers (or consultants) to have an appreciation of the processes involved in turning their designs or programmes into reality (and anything which exposes people to the real world is a good thing).

The other thing about gaining and maintaining the street works qualifications is that supervisors and operatives train together and notwithstanding the Chatham House Rule, there is the opportunity for some discussion (often pretty frank). This week, we got discussing a drainage contractor's current workload whereby he had a scheme of undertaking sewer repairs on pipes 8 metres deep. To get to the pipe, it took a hole 4 metres square and a week of digging and this must be a reminder that we have so many people in this country undertaking hard, physical work to keep our infrastructure maintained.

Street works is one of those areas of my industry which draws complaints about disruption, but we turn on a tap and it works, we flush the loo and it works and we expect the lights to come on at a flick of a switch. As I have often championed through my blog, those involved in street works are unsung heroes and perhaps we should pause for thought once in a while that the people you see out on the street have had to undertake training, they have had to gain and maintain their qualifications before a shovel goes in the ground.

The traditional way of thanking them is to bring out a tray of tea on a cold day or a nice cold drink in the summer. So come on folks, show your appreciation!

Schrödinger's Roadworks

The subject of roadworks is one to get some people really angry, but I doubt these people even give a second thought on how it all works.

We've heard it all before and to be honest, I did wonder if there would be any point me blogging about the subject again. But yes, here I am anyway and this week it's been two things which have grated. First is the (re)announcement by transport minister John Hayes of a plan to limit roadworks to 10 mile sections and an investigation to see if speeds through them can be raised to 60mph.

The thinking (I am guessing) behind this is that drivers will put up with 10 miles of roadworks so long as they can drive 10mph faster than the current 50mph norm and thus saving a couple of minutes each time they drive through. To be clear, this is something Highways England has been asked to look at and so only affects motorways and trunk roads under their control; plus we don't know what HE will make of it.

The current state of the art with roadworks on high speed roads has evolved over many years. The use of 50mph speed limits (enforced by average speed cameras), temporary crash barriers, narrow lanes and logical layouts have been developed to keep drivers and roadworkers safe in what can be a risky part of the industry, but it also means that congestion through works can be mitigated and can ultimately keep traffic moving.

This might all prove to be possible, but putting the various safety risks to one side, it will undoubtedly increase the cost of undertaking works. In the article linked above, the president of the AA, Edmund King, is quoted as saying;

"If you look at sections like the M3 on the M25 to Basingstoke you have 25 miles of roadworks with a 50mph limit."

"It's very difficult for drivers to concentrate over a period of time at those speeds. Shortening the length of those roadworks would make it safer and mean less people are caught out."

I'm not sure how sticking to a speed limit is difficult and what the evidence is, but taking a 25 mile section of works down to sections no longer than 10 miles is going to reduce the economies of scale available with a larger scheme and will actually end up taking longer to deliver. The M3 project, along with many, are part of the change to so-called "smart motorways" which include adding lanes (often from hard shoulders) and control systems to try and create new capacity.

Regardless of one's position on whether road building of this kind is justified, it must at least be obvious that it will be disruptive while it takes place. With the government determined to add more lane miles on England's motorways and trunk roads, expect to see lots more works and so any "improvements" by a theoretical 60mph limit and limited sections of works will be lost in the background of the building frenzy.

The second thing to irritate me was the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, commenting as part of his (welcome in my view) announcement on cycling infrastructure funding;

“Our plans include consulting on two new Cycle Superhighways next year, in addition to a new East-West Route. And unlike the previous Mayor, we will continue to focus on how we can minimise disruption and congestion as we push ahead with the construction of new cycling infrastructure."

It is true that the current Central London cycle superhighways (the north-south and the east-west) did create disruption while they were being built. Some of this is down to the previous mayor, Boris Johnson, making a late entry into doing a proper job and so lots of work was happening at once. But if we think about it, these projects were large scale civil engineering projects and were always going to be disruptive.

It's the usual thing about public expectations being unreasonable and politicians not being honest; which creates a gulf (to be filled by talk radio phone-ins and lazy newspaper articles mainly). By that, I don't mean they are lying, I mean that they simply cannot face up to telling the public that if we undertake big projects on streets and roads it's going to cause disruption and it's simply not achievable to maintain the same level of service throughout such work.

At the end of the day and whether or not you agree with a particular scheme, there are people on the ground trying to deliver it. They are pressured into tighter amounts of space, restricted in the times they can work (with more and more being done at night) and often at the sharp end of public vilification. We will always have roadworks of some shape or form, perhaps it's time to accept the fact that it is utterly impossible to have roadworks which don't create any disruption. That is life in the modern western world. Deal with it.

Filtered Permeability vs Necessary Access

"Filtered Permeability" is a term often used by people trying to describe the act of preventing people from driving through an area, but it is a little more complicated when we need to provide access.

At a basic level, "filtered permeability" utilises strategically placed "road closures", or "modal filters", to prevent people driving motor vehicles through (normally) a residential area in preference to a main road. In this case, the road is only "closed" to people driving through to gain an advantage, people who live in an area and wish to drive in and out can still do so. Deliveries can still be made and refuse collected. People can walk and cycle through with no impediment too.

The image above gives a rough idea of how we can use some modal filters to keep access into an area for motors, but prevent it's use as a through route.

A modal filter can take all sorts of forms including gates, bollards, planters, kerbs, concrete blocks and so on. So let's look at a few real examples;

We can put in a gate as above. It's relatively cheap, but doesn't add much to the look of street (and no, those bollards are not going to work for people cycling). We can do this better;

The photo above is the same junction which has been made a little bit prettier. The common thing about the two designs is that the ability to open the filter remains - the gate can be unlocked and opened, the central bollard can be unlocked and removed. 

There are two reasons we may wish to do this, first, if a road elsewhere in the estate needs to be closed for highway works, then the filter can be opened to provide a temporary alternative route. Second, we might need to get an emergency vehicle through. 

I do not speak for the emergency services by any means, but in my own experience, they would generally treat a modal filter as a location to avoid, preferring to use the same route which drivers would normally take. Increasingly, those driving emergency vehicles may not be working a local "patch" and so satellite navigation is increasingly being used and in that case, the modal filters will show as closures.

The ability to open a filter is more generally helpful some time into an incident and the vast majority of the time will be something the fire brigade will do. This is generally because the fire brigade will carry keys to the gate or bollard (normally a universal key, but local agreements operate) and the police and ambulance don't. If there is a fire or large incident with lots of "kit" on the scene, then opening a filter gives another option for moving things and people in and out of the area.

As a basic objective, I would always advocate that filters can be opened up for emergency use. In terms of the space needed, the fire brigade will generally quote Part B5 of the Building Regulations;

For gated (or preferably bollarded) filters, a gap of 3.1m is preferred and this is quite good as with a 100mm bollard in the middle and a bollard either side, we get 1.5m clear space which is perfect for cycling through (actually, we can go a touch wide). The road width of 3.7m would apply if we are using a short section of cycle track as a fire path which would have filters at each end which is exactly what was done in the photo below;

In actual fact, the fire path could be narrower (Manual for Streets gives more advice) because the critical thing is the space needed to open up the equipment bays on the fire pump and for firefighters to get at the kit inside as the photos below;

I digress. For fire fighting, there are some other options. Flexible bollards are useful as there are some designed to be driven over at very low speeds;

The photo above is of the "Neopolitan" by Glasdon. The arrangement has a removable centre bollard which has a special key to pop it off its base (several would have to be supplied to the local fire brigade), but actually, they could just drive over it and if it got too damaged, it would be easily swappable for a new one. Here's a video of the bollard in action;

Other manufacturers are available, but from my own experience, this is a good product (no, I'm not on commission either). The layout in my photo has 1.5m gaps between the bollards and as they are a bit wider than 100mm, we get a slightly wider gap for fire pumps to get through. The bollards are a thick plastic and so fairly rigid to a person giving it a shove. The risk of course is Joe Public gets wind of the system and has a go themselves, but that is a wider enforcement issue. The other real advantage is for people cycling through, there is some give if they are clipped and in a crash, one should come off far better than with a rigid steel bollard.

But we have yet more options. The photo below is Eric Street in East London which is closed to motor traffic (that's what the circular signs mean, despite having the unlawful sub-plate to explain). The lumps of concrete in the centre are there to dissuade car drivers, but allow fire pumps and probably ambulances through too. There is a cycle bypass on each side to, although it's not a great layout for people on foot trying to cross.

The problem is that this layout is likely to get hit and despite the fact there are large and lit prohibition signs, we still have a responsibility to try and design out risk. A variation of this approach can be seen in Cloudesley Street, Islington;

Again, it uses concrete (bumpy blocks this time) to dissuade access. This is more conspicuous and can be driven over by fire pumps and (if the traffic order allows) refuse trucks.

Rising bollards are a way of managing access, just as the example below in Leicester city centre. Such a system if often managed via a control centre and so takes resources to manage. It is a method which will keep non-authorised users out, but it is an ongoing cost.

Many filters are physical because if someone sees an opportunity, they go for it, such is the temptation. However, with many local authorities taking on the enforcement of moving traffic contraventions from the police, solutions exist where just a couple of signs can be used, monitored by cameras.

The photo above is of Orford Road in Waltham Forest. The filter here operates between 10am and 10pm and only permits local buses during that time. In actual fact the circular signs are wrong as they mean "no vehicles", it should be a sign meaning "no motor vehicles" as cycling remains permitted. This filter is part of a network around the local neighbourhood which allows deliveries and access out of the controlled areas, but where there is no possibility of using the area to beat traffic on main roads. If there is a filter with an exception just for buses, it will often be called a bus gate (sometimes bollards are used to keep people out as I mentioned above).

The camera enforcement of this type of filter is very clever. It doesn't rely on someone sitting watching a monitor all day, a computer does the hard work. The camera system will sense movement through the filter and record a piece of video. Software scans the video for a number plate and if one is found it can compare it against a database of registered vehicles (buses, emergency vehicles or whatever) and then if a non-permitted vehicle is "seen" a the video is packaged up and sent to an enforcement officer to review and if an offence has been committed, they send out a penalty charge notice.

Camera enforced filters can be controversial as people (who get fined) often cry foul that the signs weren't clear, or the road layout leads into making a mistake. I do have sympathy as even though a layout might be technically correct, we should make some layout changes to make it totally clear because even totally incorrect bad press sticks in the public's mind.

There are lots of other ways to filter, such as banning movements at junctions, weight limits, width restrictions or using one way streets for motor traffic but which allow 2-way cycling as in the photo below from Cambridge;

One issue which comes up from time to time is that of people using motorcycles to get through filters and so we sometimes end up with crazy tangles of ironwork to stop them as ably demonstrated here at Trinity Street in Southwark;

It's an old filter which was used to try and stop all motor vehicles, including motorcycles. It's now part of London's Quietway 1 and although the central barriers have now been moved out a bit, it's still rubbish. The answer here could be a bollards with camera-enforced "no motor vehicles" signs. Perhaps we could even be pragmatic and not worry too much about motorcycles and let people through given the tiny mode share involved.

We can even close whole streets to motor traffic such as this example at Danefield Road, Camberwell;

The key points when looking at modal filtering is to think at a network level first and also consider that fire, refuse and delivery access will be needed. Try and avoid filters which require the drivers of large vehicles to reverse or perform three-point turns. If there is a bus route, then access is easily maintained with a camera-enforced system.

My important point is that filtering out traffic from an area doesn't need a standard approach. We have a variety of treatments and many ways to write traffic orders and so there is a great deal of flexibility out there.