Surrey County Council Resurfacing 2014 – 2016

Surrey County Council Resurfacing 2014 – 2016

Contract:
Surrey County Council Resurfacing 2014 – 2016

Client:
LaFargeTarmac

Revenue Value:
£1m per year

Temporary Traffic Management Requirements
Most works consist of full carriageway closures on single carriageway roads.
On accession, lane closures are required for dual carriageway and high speed works.

Specific Contract Requirements
Surrey County Council request that:
VMS units be used on all major approaches.
Gateman – all closure points must be manned.

Challenges:
Throughout the course of the contract to date, Forest operatives have faced abuse and sometimes violent behaviour when manning closure points as gatemen.
Surrey County Council were insisting that all closure points have two gatemen. This created large fluctuations in labour and transport to and from site requirements.
Vehicles stopping at gates to ask directions (and give abuse) causing blockage on the carriageway.

Innovation and Best Practice
Operative CCTV.
To try and alleviate the need for two gateman on every closure point, Forest proposed that we risk assess sites, using a common sense approach. If closure points were remote or high risk because they are in built up area’s, the two gateman were to be used. On all other closure points, single gatemen would be suitable. This was supported by the introduction of operative CCTV units and supporting signs on site approved by Surrey County Council and the Police.

Double Gated Closure Points

  • Whilst the CCTV and supporting signs reduced some abuse, gatemen were still left exposed because:
  • They were being forced to walk outside the closure to deal with the public stopping and asking questions or for direc-tions. This put them in the live lane, outside the safety zone and still liable to abuse.
  • Vehicles asking for directions also caused congestion and a hazard to others with vehicles stopping in live traffic.

To stop this a double gated system was introduced, whereby, the gate-men would stand behind the second barrier, inside the closure and safety zone. The CCTV and supporting signs were still being used; how-ever it was noted that the occurrences of abuse stopped completely and this was because virtually no vehicles were stopping. This essentially removed the Forest operatives as a target from an-gry motorists who, upon coming to the Road Closed sign, had no choice but to follow the diversion and were far less inclined to stop, get out of their vehicle and walk through two sets of barriers to confront staff.

Forest Traffic Management case study
Forest Traffic Management case study
Forest Traffic Management case study
Forest Traffic Management case study
Forest Traffic Management case study