Heavy Transport Association - John Dyne

The movement of abnormal indivisible loads (AILs) through planned roadworks is a contentious issue. But can potential conflicts be eliminated by better liaison between the relevant parties?

The focus on managing congestion and reducing peak time disruption has led to the majority of scheduled road works (SRW) taking place at night.  By the same token abnormal indivisible load movements (AILs) are being encouraged to occur at night too.  This has frequently resulted in AIL movements being brought into conflict with SRWs.  Such conflicts give rise to road safety and congestion issues with the inevitable knock on effect of delays and ahem... cue for that old idiom ‘out of frying pan, into fire’ …. congestion and disruption.  The situation had become so serious that a complaint was lodged by the Heavy Transport Association in 2008.

So how is this troublesome state of affairs being resolved?

Understanding the root cause of the conflict is instrumental in its resolution and elimination.  The conflict itself is normally manifested by an AIL arriving at road works and being  unable to proceed along the notified route due to reduced lane width or the implementation of a temporary weight restriction.  Even assuming those executing the SRW have had the presence of mind to set up a diversion for AILs the diversion will take the AIL off route.

Of course, there is no telling if the diversionary route is going to be suitable for the AIL.  The departure from the notified route also renders the operator and driver of the AIL liable to prosecution as the deviation will remove the protection of STGO 2003.  If this conflict occurs, assuming the AIL was properly pre-notified, either the Abnormal Loads Office or the Structure Owning Authorities have slipped up or (more likely) vital information regarding SRWs has not been forwarded to the right organisations.

Better liaison early in the roadworks planning process seems to be the answer.

To deal with the problem the Highways Agency (HA) has published draft guidance on the movement of AILs through planned roadworks.  The aim of the guidance is to specifically target the scenario described above with the stated objective of reducing the frequency and severity of the conflicts.

Note the stated objective is damage limitation not elimination.

The guidance recognises that there have been a number examples of pre-notified AIL movements encountering road works diversions forcing the AILs to depart from their notified routes.  This off-the-cuff traffic management was usurping the power, permitted only to the police, of rerouting or stopping the movement of AILs.  The guidance, not surprisingly, identifies the principal cause of conflict (along with the general gravitation to night time SRW and AIL moves) as lack of liaison between interested stakeholders during the roadworks planning phase.

The guidance strongly emphasises that AILs must not be diverted without prior consultation with the Local Abnormal Loads Police Officer or, in the case of emergency, with the Police Control Room.  More to the point diversions need to be discussed with the Police and the appropriate highways authorities early in the planning stage.  Again no surprises here.

The guidance makes some sensible suggestions, including:
 a) Ensuring that alternative routes an AIL might used are not similarly compromised by roadworks.
 b) Providing windows during the works during which there are no restrictions or restrictions are reduced.
 c) Maintaining a minimum total lane width of 4.6 metres and capacity for a loading of 130 tonnes through the roadworks.
 d) Involving the Police at the works planning stage.
 e) Keeping the SRW information provided to the Police up to date.
 f) Giving consideration to providing early notification to known AIL operators at the planning stage.

The guidance goes on to inform that if, despite all efforts, a conflict occurs then the primary concern is to ensure road safety and then to minimise the impact of congestion.  Above all, AILs must not be diverted as they are restricted to moving on specified routes.

Suggestions for resolving the conflict include positioning the AIL as safely as possible until the situation can be resolved and if possible, removal of the traffic management to enable the AIL to pass.  If this is not going to be possible then emergency traffic management should be considered and an emergency diversion implemented following liaison with the Police Control Room and Structure Owning Authorities.

It seems clear from all this that the elimination of conflicts between SRWs and AILs is the more satisfactory option.  Elimination can only be achieved by better liaison between those planning the road works and the police and other structure owning authorities.  The draft guidance is a useful document because it identifies the root cause and that is always a good place to start when tackling problems.  If the guidance is to be criticised it is only in the aspirational sense given the guidance’s approach is one of damage limitation rather than elimination.

John Dyne is the Secretary of the Heavy Transport Association.  For further information, contact the Heavy Transport Association on Tel: 01829 771774, e-mail: info@hta.uk.net or visit: http://www.hta.uk.net/

Published: 10/02/2010