Surface Tension

I am by no means a materials expert, but with surfacing materials I know what I like as both an engineer and a user. so this week, some of my thoughts.

About ten years ago I had some development control work dumped on me after a colleague left. One scheme included a short walking and cycling link. It was a typical tarmac path with a white line along the middle. Half for pedestrians, half for bikes. Not great, but not bad. The thing that struck me was that the surface had been machine laid.

The contractor's next job was to coat the cycle side in green surface dressing and I suggested not as the machine-laid surface was far superior that the hand applied surface dressing could ever be in terms of ride quality. Sadly, I didn't get my way as the drawings were all agreed, I was a bit green myself on the development control side of things and the developer wasn't interested, so we got stuck with it. I have since learnt how to play the developers at their own game (when necessary) and the vision of a machine-laid cycling surface stuck with me as the best approach even though this was several years before I got serious about day to day cycling.

Blue resin anti-skid on CS2. It is not pretty and it is not that even.

Last week I posted my thoughts about the upcoming London - Surrey 100 and the need to get some miles in. So, last Saturday I hit the road. Part of my run took me through Stratford and lo and behold, the new protected start to CS2 was closed with cyclists being pushed into the live carriageway. As I went past, I noticed that the blue surfacing had been redone, but it looked like anti-skid rather than the smooth blue "gunk" that was there before.

I need to explain a bit more. Much of the London Cycle Superhighway network is coloured a rather hideous shade of blue which is either the corporate colour of the original sponsor, Barclays, or the Mayor copying what he saw at some junctions in Copenhagen. Whatever was put down originally on the carriageways appears to have failed in places and I am still not 100% sure on all of the materials used.

Blue paint over an already good surface on the A13. Look on the
other side of the road and you can see the original green of the route.
Truly an example of blue paint sold as a scheme.

TfL did test various surfaces in advance as shown in a Freedom of Information request. I suspect much of the surfacing was a kind of paint. Certainly, the section of CS3 by the A13 is a good example of what I mean - you can see that the stones of the tarmac surfacing are simply covered in a thin layer of paint because you can still make them out - probably epoxy modified acrylic.

There are also patches of blue thermoplastic here and there (hot, poured paint which is used for normal road markings) which pick out places which people on bikes may be found overtaking buses. We also have the on-carriageway "stripes" along the carriageway edge or in the cycle lanes (where present) which is a very smooth surface indeed. From my research, I think it is some kind of polymer concrete slurry which gets applied to the surface with a squeegee type arrangement.

The blue antiskid - see how rough it is in the low sun. Great for
stopping vehicles at 30mph in the rain, but not really an appropriate
treatment for a protected cycle track.

Anyway, much of this surface is smooth (apart from the odd pothole), but the anti-skid is nowhere near as good. Anti-skid normally comes in two flavours. Either a thermoplastic which is hot poured or a cold-applied resin which is squeegeed around and then coloured chippings applied. It is well worth reading up on this on the excellent Highways Maintenance website. Antiskid is usually used in areas of high vehicle braking such as on the approach to zebra crossings and is basically expensive stone and other materials which give high levels of grip. 

You have seen it everywhere, green or red antiskid
on a cycle lane. Beyond, you can make out the
ridges of grey thermoplastic antiskid approaching
the crossing.

On cycling schemes antiskid is often used to paint in areas of conflict. London had tended to use green stripes and other parts of the country red stripes in locations such as where cycle lanes pass junctions. the problem is that antiskid has a thickness and can make riding over it uncomfortable. It is also bugger all use at night unless the area is brightly lit with white light.

The thermoplastic option is often quite uneven and even worse to cycle on. Resin can be better, although the loose stones can be an issue in its very early life. The other thing is that if traffic is using it, then eventually it wears out and potholes appear with the coloured versions having a particularly poor design life (perhaps 5 - 7 years). Everyone has there own views about unprotected cycle lanes, but purely in surfacing terms, I am not a fan - I would rather ride on a machine laid surface.

A road planing machine. Image by David Wright.

And that is the point. When we surface a carriageway, we tend to do it with a machine-laid asphalt material. The old surface is planed off with a road planing machine and the new surface laid with a paving machine. Some of this kit is extremely sophisticated using GPS and computer controlled sensors to lay very smooth and flat surfaces. Some even continuously check the temperature of the material being laid for quality control.

Obviously, there is an awful lot more to it, but I wanted to give an idea of what goes on. Of course, even resurfacing works need some proper thought and a new scheme has to be designed to get the levels to work properly anyway. So, rather than all of the blue which went in to the Stratford section of CS2 and all the blue going in again, what would I have done?

Nice narrow pond you have there, Boris.

Well, assuming the levels were right (and some are not as can be seen in on CS2), I would have gone for a machine laid asphalt surface. There are two types of materials I would have looked like and they are known as AC10 and 55/10.

AC10 is an "asphalt concrete" with a maximum stone size of 10mm. It comprises of crushed rock (or recycled aggregates) of 10mm and smaller bound together with bitumen (the "binder"). It is suitable for relatively low stress areas (estate roads and of course cycle tracks). 

We often see AC6 (6mm stone and smaller) laid on footways and cycle tracks which is fine, it is just AC10 gives a little more grip. Then there is 55/10 HRA or Hot Rolled Asphalt with 55% of its makeup comprising of 10mm stone. HRA differs from AC in that it has an awful lot more finer materials within its matrix. Again, it is all bound together with bitumen. You will recognise "normal" HRA on the streets because stones get applied after the material is laid (but hot) and they are clear to see - they are for skid resistance. 55/10 HRA does not need anything applied for grip in the same way because of the high single sized stone content.

A cycle track machine laid in 55/10 HRA.
This is on a site on my patch and is not going
to be coated in rough green antiskid. Pretty
much surfacing perfection for me, although I
would have preferred a higher kerb separation
from the footway and perhaps with the
footway in a contrasting paving.

AC10 is cheaper than 55/10 HRA and I would always go for the latter given the choice because it is absolutely bullet-proof if properly laid and laying is the key. If you really need colour, both can be found in a variety of shades, although AC10 will have more choice.

Unfortunately, most of the cycle tracks I have ever ridden on have been laid by hand and I have been involved in the construction of some. This is essentially the road workers dumping a pile of the surfacing material, spreading it around with rakes and then compacting it with a roller. While some crews can do some fantastic hand-laying, they can never do as well a machine and on a bike, one can feel every bump and ridge - look at a cycle track surface with low sun and the shadows are a give away.

The reason we end up with hand-laid AC6 is generally because engineers and the contractors working for developers and local authorities don't often know better. 

To machine lay, we obviously need the paving machines and even small ones can be quite heavy and the lorries delivering the materials are also heavy. In the UK, we traditionally tip the asphalt from the lorry directly into the paver which is fine for roads designed to take heavy loads, but no good for more lightly constructed cycle tracks and footways. It costs money to make the cycle tracks more heavily constructed and that is often where we are let down - lack of proper budget.

It won't be a surprise that other countries have worked out that mini-pavers are the key. Some are mini-versions of the road going kit and have to have the material placed with a grab or digger (to keep delivery lorries off the cycle track). Some can be fed from the road with the laying part of the machine sticking out the side such as on this US video:

UK contractors are perfectly capable of doing this, it just needs to be insisted on by those running the schemes and it means that we should be writing this into our contracts, drawings and specifications. I had a conversation with a contractor a while back about laying cycle tracks. He was happy to use a mini-paver, but he didn't have a grab lorry he could use to lift in the asphalt (it would need to be dedicated to asphalt really). Also, as much of the asphalt is delivered by suppliers, they won't wait on site to be unloaded by a digger - emptying into standard road paver doesn't take long.

So, back to CS2 - although the blue is all about way-finding, I cannot see anyone getting lost on the protected sections, so why not use a machine laid black surface instead of expensive anti-skid. That is how they do it in Copenhagen. If we need a colour, then use red like the Dutch as UK suppliers often have it available.

Paving flags in the City of London. Fine for cycling over a short
distance cycle track link between two roads. The cobbles in the
foreground form a little ramp and are nice and flat, so a visual
reminder that we are moving to an area a little different (ie. there are
pedestrians here!)

Of course, we have other materials such as concrete and block paving. Both are fine for cycling on if they are laid properly, although concrete has joints which can be felt. Natural stone slabs and the like are fine if properly laid and are machine sawn - I cannot stand cobbles or anything rough because of the ride quality and actually some types of stone and/or their finish is slippery in the wet.

No, for me, simple machine-laid AC10 or 55/10 HRA is my idea of cycling utopia (well from a surfacing point of view anyway!)

Update 30/3/14
Oh and just to show that I am not just a one track HRA dinosaur (Andy R!), I will leave you with a street paved with multi-coloured granite blocks - Lower Marsh near Waterloo Station!

Blogging, Borough, Bread, Boris & Box (Hill)

I am lucky or mad enough to be doing the Ride London 100 mile sportive on Sunday 10th August, although I will be the cycling equivalent of a fun runner at a marathon!

I put myself forward last year after the FreeCycle event I did last year with Ranty Junior, partly because of the amazing atmosphere and partly because I had promised myself that 2014 would see me doing a cycling challenge.

I did the London to Brighton in 2012 as as result of a drunken agreement with old friends at a school reunion in September 2011 which was the end of my first year as someone commuting to work by bike and I guess at the beginning of my journey to learn how we could better provide for cycling as a day to day form of transport.

My father ran the London Marathon twice in the early eighties which has always been an inspiration and as a result, I have always wanted to tackle my own challenge. The trouble is I am rubbish at running and my knees couldn't take it anyway, so cycling it is! 

After walking up most of Ditchling Beacon and after a rest I got
to glide down into Brighton! I wonder what Box Hill will be like?

The London to Brighton Ride was one of the best days I have ever spent in the saddle and while it was billed at 54 miles, I actually did 67 on the day when taking into account the logistics of getting to the start and home again via Clapham Common! At the finishing line, I thought that the ride was the most difficult physical challenge I had ever done and I vowed never again. 

2013 saw my normal commutes and plenty of leisure cycling (including my Summer of Space for Cycling), but nothing challenging. This year is a different matter! I know there are many people out there who can eat up 100 miles for breakfast and they often do. I am not a regular long-distance cyclist and so this is my personal challenge. Although the London to Surrey 100 is nothing to do with everyday cycling the roads will be closed and it will give a brief window on what feeling safe in the saddle could be. 

I am looking forward to the ride, but I need to up my fitness and so will be embarking on my first long ride of the year early tomorrow morning which will be a blast straight into the City, a loop around Westminster, followed by a dive into South London and with a breakfast stop at Borough Market (and I will pick up some interesting bread!). I will then need to summon up some energy to slog it back out East. The thing that also pushes me on is the realisation that Boris Johnson did the 100 last year - if can, then so can I!

So, if you see a sweating lump pedalling through East, Central and South London tomorrow morning, wearing red or orange top (depending on if it is raining at the time) on a grey hybrid, then give him a wave and perhaps a shout of encouragement as it will be me attempting to get a little fitter for the summer. I might even get a chance to take some snaps while I am out as I don't like to miss an opportunity to be a #streetgeek and I might have something else to blog about. See you in the saddle.

Going Local: How can campaigners and engineers work together?

this idea has been hanging around for ages following a question from @angus_fx back in october (thanks by the way!) - "what can local campaigners best do to help?"

The discussion was prompted by my post on the frustrations of bidding for funding against the Mayor of London's Cycling Vision which had the inevitable requirement for "quick wins". I was trying to explain that although slow progress is deeply frustrating, there must be situations where schemes should be planned over say a 3-year programme.

I mentioned that TfL were operating a 14-month lead in for traffic signal works, Network Rail 18-months for track possession and planning consents for major schemes took 13 weeks. In other words, people and organisations external to a project must be built into a programme and those developing schemes should accept this from the start. The tweeting went as follows;

I probably wasn't fair in the way I put things across, but to be fair to TfL traffic signals people and Network Rail, it does take time to design and plan an installation and so the lead-in was not a criticism. The criticism was for those who get a suggested budget and programme from people like me. They then give people like me less budget and a much shorter programme and wonder why we get the arse-ache!

So then, local campaigners. What can you best do to help? There is a long list of things, but it is essentially for you to get an idea of how the "system" works;

• How do budgets get put together? 
• How are bids worked up? 
• Who makes the decisions? 
• When are the decisions made? 
• How are decisions made? 
• Who are the key players?

There are loads of questions which can be asked about a project or the allied processes and my message is don't be afraid to ask and keep asking until you get an answer (even if you don't like the answer!)

As I explained above, engineers are often brought in to do a quick feasibility, but don't see the project again until they are told "here is the money, get on with it" - whether or not there is enough time or money. Perhaps the local campaigner needs to be pushing to be involved in that initial feasibility stage and indeed when the local authority's transport policy/ plan is being developed. 

Local authorities will have various development and transport policies. Campaigner's could get to know the key points with regards to transport and push the decision-makers and designers to consider properly their own policies which can be ignored when it suits. The (development) planning process is key as developers and indeed the local authority development control staff may have no idea about what good looks like in terms of walking and cycling. These are the people making recommendations on planning applications which is key in getting space for walking and cycling prioritised.

I use this advisory lane often to filter past the regular traffic jams, but
it is not going to encourage mass cycling. Three-quarters of the
people I regularly see are on the footway.

Campaigners also need to think about who they are representing. I have had many an argument with local campaigners over the "right" width of advisory cycle lanes and whether advanced stop lines should be provided.

This is the wrong use of everyone's energy as both concepts are not going to especially attract new users, although existing users may appreciate them. 

The focus of campaigning should be on getting local kids walking and cycling to school in actual and subjective safety. It should be about showing how changes to the streets can allow people to leave the car at home and do the same journey in a reliable time. It should be definitely be aimed at the politicians and decision makers so they know that there are lots of people fed up with the status quo. 

I think what all parties need to do is to get away from the "them and us" mentality that we sometimes get. Engineers (and planners) need to be aware that local campaigners are often using up their free time and so they will want to use their energy in the right place. Campaigners need to remember that we are implementing the policies of the authority and that those policies are those of the particular bunch running the town hall. 

We do get accused of making excuses for the schemes we build when they are seen as poor. I am not saying for a minute that local campaigners should compromise on what they want to see, but perhaps they need to understand that sometimes engineers have to compromise because of the funding, time and political constraints we are often under. Understanding if not acceptance. But, every time I think about the issue (and I do quite a lot) it all comes back to one thing and that is the schemes we get are a result of who we are working for. I will leave you with quote I made in the current Highways Magazine (yes, a shameless plug);

“Being an engineer is about being able to adapt one’s skills to new problems. Unless we are challenged by our leaders to change our approach as designers, we revert to type and carry on as before and this is just not going to deliver.”

Traffic Signal Pie: Second Slice - SCOOT Shenanigans

ok, perhaps a small slice this week, but I was intrigued to learn that Transport for London is about to conduct live trials of a new kit to detect pedestrians at junctions which will work with scoot.

My idea for a series of (irregular) posts on traffic signals has been disrupted somewhat by the announcement, but what they hey. Here is a bit on how signals at junctions work and what SCOOT can do to help or indeed hinder.

Imagine a cross roads such as the one to the left which is a relatively simple layout. The job of the signals engineer is to give every movement some time with the skill being how to do so with the actual flows through the junction. I am not a signals engineer and I do not profess to be an expert by any means!

My little example would probably be set up with the north-south arms running together (each road approaching the junction is called an arm), the east-west arms running together and then pedestrians cross all four arms at the same time while traffic is held.

This is the basic "Method of Control" for a junction and all signal controlled arrangements can be unpicked to show who goes when. This is all very good when traffic flows are balanced and pedestrians are happy to wait for a green man. 

My simple example can be shown on a "Staging Diagram" which graphically represents the stages the junction runs through. I have omitted some of the detail from this diagram, but you can see 4 stages. 1 and 2 are the two pairs of arms running together, 3 is the green man for all four arms and 4 is what is known as "all red". In other words, pedestrians and drivers will all be seeing a red signal and this like a safety buffer. 

In general terms, we would be looking at a 90 second cycle time, perhaps up to 120 seconds. Green given to drivers could be simply fixed, or perhaps fixed, but different at different times of the day. Pedestrians press a button to initiate "demand" and so when it is the turn of stage 3, they would get a green man. When setting up signals, actual traffic flows are needed to create appropriate timings for each stage. To get a bit cleverer, we can have vehicle detection ranging from simple microwave vehicle detectors (MVDs) which are the little camera-type units on top of the signal heads, to loops cut into the road surface.

This detection can simply "see" if a vehicle is approaching and initiate a demand. For example, with my example, if stage there are no vehicles detected on stage 2 and no pedestrians are pushing the button, stage 1 can just be left to run on green (sometimes known as "rest on green") - a good example of this will be on a trunk road which stays green until and unless a vehicle is detected in a side road or a pedestrian pushes a button. Loops can do the same job, but also build in cleverer speed detection which can tweak timings to deal with people who may be going a little fast. They are routinely used where speeds are a little high (35mph+ in a 30 limit for example) or on a 40mph or higher speed limit.

SCOOT, or Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique takes detection to a new level. A traditional set up may become inefficient over time if traffic patterns change and so will create a need for costly traffic surveys to recalibrate the signal controller. SCOOT uses detection loops on the approaches and exits of the junction and can count vehicles. It can also detect the speed of traffic which can be used to predict queues. The system can link multiple junctions to a central computer which can then look at the network as a whole. While a driver may be stuck in traffic at one location at one stage, the network as a whole will be operating efficiently.

As SCOOT is linked up to a computer system, we can be even cleverer. By using selective detection, extra green time can be given to an arm to help buses get through, but only if the bus has the correct transponder. It could even be linked to a bus GPS. This can be useful if a bus is running late and needs to catch up. There is much more on the SCOOT website.

If the traffic demand exceeds the junction or network capacity, the smooth flows will become disrupted and congestion created - SCOOT cannot create new capacity, it can only squeeze it out of an existing and fixed physical layout. The trouble is, if pedestrians don't have a green man, then SCOOT can run so well, that opportunities to cross can become more difficult to come by. I have a junction on my journey to work which doesn't have green men/ bikes on the side roads (it's a shared-use cycle track) and sometimes, there is no decent gap between traffic stages which makes crossing more difficult.

The other interesting innovation which is certainly coming to the roads of London (if not already here) is the use of wireless magnetometers. These are buried in the road surface and replace the detection loops mentioned above. Magnetometers are more reliable than loops and don't need all of the ducting and draw pits needed for loops (which cost a fortune in digging the place up to install). They are pretty sophisticated and can count axles which means that it is possible to measure the types of vehicle going through a junction.

Oh look, a bicycle-detecting magnetometer!
Image from Clearview Traffic.

As they are so much less costly to install than loops and don't come with all the digging, it makes retrofitting them to existing junctions a doddle. They do have a drawback in that they have on-board batteries which need replacing every few years, but this is a minimal problem compared to wider signal maintenance anyway. So, using the feedback of what is actually happening on the street, SCOOT does away with the need for manual traffic counts. It is linked to a hub computer system which makes changes relatively easy to model as the data is real time.

So, what has this to do with pedestrians and indeed cyclists? Well, where push button demand is concerned, whether you press the button once or ten times, or there is one person or 10 people waiting to cross, the signal computer only registers one demand when the button is pushed and it has no idea how many people want to cross. The Mayor is obsessed by "smoothing traffic flow" which does often seem to concentrated on motorised traffic and indeed, the speed at which SCOOT is being rolled out across London does seem very motor-oriented.

The Traffic Management Act 2004 "Network Management Duty" does also implies the same at face value, but this does mean users and that includes pedestrians and cyclists. The new pedestrian detection is exciting as it will be able to estimate the number of people wanting to cross. It will be using cameras with image recognition to pick out pedestrians - the technology already being used in airports and shops to track people and so is well established. Of course, there is no reason why the software couldn't be used to track cyclists through junctions as well.

The two trial sites will be outside Balham and Tooting Bec tube stations which are both on TfL's network and both have diagonal crossing elements. In short, very busy for pedestrians. TfL is also going to test "call cancel" where the demand to cross is deleted if nobody cross or they cross before the green man - although this was a feature of Puffin crossings already. I don't know, but I am assuming that demand will still be called by a push of the button rather than being an automatic demand (which traffic generates). Of course, vehicles follow clear paths and so it is an awful lot easier to detect them than pedestrians milling about.

It is possible to give a green man pretty quickly after the button is pushed, but unless it is just before the pedestrian stage, people still need to wait until their turn in the cycle. It is possible to juggle stages on the fly and have extra pedestrian (or traffic stages). So, in my example, we could have north-south, pedestrians, east-west, pedestrians and so on. This will be at the expense of other arms' green time if we are to be within our 90 to 120 second range.

Pedestrian SCOOT certainly enables a good argument to be put for much higher pedestrian priority and where we get people walking outstripping people driving through a junction, surely pedestrians must be given the dominant green time; plus with the ability for cycle detection, we certainly have the kit available. So, let's see what happens and remember that the technology doesn't decide who gets what from the traffic signal pie; that is the political consideration.

Seeking Closure With A Maniacal Manipulation Of Movement

For a number of reasons, I have been thinking about road closures this week. They have benefits for walking and cycling as well as making places more civilised. This post explains the process taken to get a road closed to traffic.

One thing which has me thinking is that we have a scheme in work which is about to start on site which rips out an ugly old fire gate with notional bike bypasses and replaces it with a little bicycle junction. It is a tiny scheme in the grand order of things, but it will be the first one done well (I hope) round our way (I will post before and after when it is done).

The work forms part of a larger, but still modest scheme to introduce a 20mph Zone in some back streets which allow an easy bypass of some busy roads. The area carries a couple of signed cycle routes and so we had the perfect opportunity to sort out the horrible old gate. As with everything in local government, there was a process to follow and the old road closure didn't "technically" permit cycling, so we have sorted it.

Road closure with a gate for emergency or maintenance access which
allows cyclists to pass. Not pretty, but does the job.

I have often said that road closures are a great tool for helpful civilise local streets, although there is a risk that inappropriate traffic gets sent elsewhere (this scheme doesn't!). So, what is involved? Different authorities will have different procedures for formal decision making, but essentially the legal process follows below. 

The archaic way in which highway law evolved in the the UK means that roads are essentially open to all classes of traffic (including pedestrians and cyclists) and any change from this position requires a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) or in London, a Traffic Management Order (TMO - I will use TRO from now on). It also means that local authorities need to keep good records! You might also want to read Parliament's Standard Note on the subject 

First, we have to deal with some legislation and for road closures, this is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and allows all sort of maniacal manipulation of movement. We are interested in Section 1 which gives the power to regulate and Section 2 which tells us what we can regulate. In London, we need Section 6 in London which gives the power to regulate and Schedule 1 which again tells us what we can regulate. No idea why London is different, but it is bound to be a quirk of history!

If you read Section 2 a you will see the following;

(2)(a) requiring vehicular traffic, or vehicular traffic of any class specified in the order, to proceed in a specified direction or prohibiting its so proceeding;

In Schedule 1;

1. For prescribing the routes to be followed by all classes of traffic, or by any class or classes of traffic, from one specified point to another, either generally or between any specified times.

They are basically the same and we don't need to worry too much as the TRO will explain what is prohibited and excluded!

So we have the powers, how to we get a road closed? I am going to stick with permanent closures for this post - the use of temporary or experimental powers will make a post in its own right! The process by which we "make" a TRO is set out in The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and Scotland has its own version (which has differences). Both are similar in they set out the procedure which should be followed (I will stick to England & Wales as I am more familiar with the process!).

Section 6 sets out which organisations and groups should be consulted or could be consulted. This will be another highway authority if the scheme affects it (cross boundary dispute time!), fire and ambulance services, bus/ tram operators/ London Buses, the Freight Transport Association and The Road Haulage Association. It also states:

Such other organisations (if any) representing persons likely to be affected by any provision in the order as the order making authority thinks it appropriate to consult.

Closed to all vehicles, but with bypasses left for cyclists.

It is good practice for a local highway authority to maintain a list of consultees and regularly review them. In my authority, we maintain a standard list and we contact organisations annually to ensure we have the right contact points and if they wish to remain (other than those we are required to consult). Oh, and we consult the police too, although this is buried in Part III of Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984!

In undertaking consultation, the local authority will need to publicise the proposed order and this can or must be done in a number of ways. It must publish a notice in a newspaper circulating in the area where the scheme is proposed. In London, this is also the case and the notice must be published in the London Gazette.

Additionally, Section 7(1)(c) states that the authority should;

take such other steps as it may consider appropriate for ensuring that adequate publicity about the order is given to persons likely to be affected by its provisions and, without prejudice to the generality of this sub-paragraph, such other steps may include—

(i) in the case of an order to which sub-paragraph (b) does not apply, publication of a notice in the London Gazette;

(ii) the display of notices in roads or other places affected by the order; or


(iii) the delivery of notices or letters to premises, or premises occupied by persons, appearing to the authority to be likely to be affected by any provision in the order.

In other words, authorities outside London could use the London Gazette, display notices on site and undertake a letter drop. Notices are often in a written format describing the proposals, but they could include a map which might be a lot easier for people to understand.

Often, a letter is delivered to residents and businesses potentially affected - it doesn't need to include the notice and so could be made more user friendly. Of course, many authorities place consultation information on their websites which is a little more modern!

The authority also has to send a set of the same consultation information to the organisations is must and chooses to consult. A full set of documents also needs to be "put on deposit" which in practice means the documents being available for the public to view at the authority's principle office (Schedule 2). This includes the notice, a copy of the proposed order, relevant maps and a "statement of reasons" - why is the TRO being proposed - this information must remain on deposit for 6 weeks after an order is made or a decision is taken not to make it.

Anyone can object to a proposed TRO, but as a minimum they must do so within 21 days of the proposal being published and that includes those who must be consulted (and also who the authority has chosen to consult). This covered in Section 8. 

(a) be made in writing;
(b) state the grounds on which it is made; and
(c) be sent to the address specified in the notice of proposals,


There is no requirement in law for authorities to take objections verbally (although there will be some people in the community will not be able to give written objections and this should be treated sensitively). Objectors must also give a reason and it must go to the address on the notice - in practice, many authorities provide a written address and an email address, but of course a web form set up for the scheme is another method. There is also no requirement in law to consider representations in support of a TRO!

So, Section 6 states;

(1)  An order making authority shall, before making an order in a case specified in column (2) of an item in the table below, consult the persons specified in column (3) of the item

Therefore, once the consultation process has ended, the authority can then decide whether or not to make the TRO. The decision-making could be by anyone in the authority so delegated and could be a senior member of staff, a committee, a cabinet member, a council leader or an elected mayor (i.e. a Mayor with executive powers).

The authority then needs to publicise that it has made the TRO - this is actually a printed version of the TRO which carries the seal of the authority and is signed off by relevant people (head of the legal department and mayor is common). The publicity requirements are similar to the proposal requirements and are set out in Part III - only the objectors need to be informed, but normally those consulted are informed of the outcome.

A closure which doesn't permit cyclists, but allows emergency
access. No work at all and a slightly smaller gate is all that it would
have taken to make this work for cycling.

The final things is then to make sure that the correct traffic signs are in place and away we go (or not if we are closing the road!). There is actually a procedure for holding a public inquiry which will only affect a TRO for a road closure if it affects public service vehicles - i.e. buses. If a scheme involves closing a road to buses and it has got this far, there are serious problems!

So, what does all of this look like, well first a notice is required to have certain information provided as set out in Parts I and II of Schedule 1 which is essentially the what and where of the TRO - the "why" having been given in the "statement of reasons" I mentioned above.

A notice setting out the proposed road closure (Notice of Proposal) might look like this (many authorities have their own "house" way of doing this, they just need to contain the required information):

TRUMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

THE CHIGLEY STREET (PRESCRIBED ROUTES) (NO. ***) TRAFFIC ORDER 201*

NOTICE is hereby given that the Council of the County of Trumptonshire (“the Council”) 
proposes to make the above named Order under the relevant sections of the Road 
Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended, which if it comes into force will 
introduce the following: 

• Prohibition of the movement of motor vehicles between Chigley Street and Camberwick Green Road

A copy of this Notice, the proposed Order, plan showing the length of road affected and a statement of the Council's reasons for proposing to make the Order, may be seen online at www.tcc.gov.uk/tro. 

These documents may also be examined at the Customer Service Centre at County Hall, Trumpton between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Friday.

All objections and other representations relating to the proposed Order must be made in writing and all objections must specify the grounds on which they are made and should be sent to the Chief Engineer, Highways, County Hall, Pippin Fort Road, Trumpton, TR1 1AA, quoting TRO 001/14 or by e-mail to highways@tcc.gov.uk or online (see details above) no later than 12th April 2014.

Dated: 2nd March 2014
Chief Legal Officer,
County Hall, 
Pippin Fort Road, 
Trumpton, 
TR1 1AA

I have called this TRO a "prescribed routes" order, but it called be called a "prohibition of driving" order or a "road closed to motor traffic" order. There are no hard and fast rules, it will often be down to local practice - the important thing is that the notice has to make sense.


The actual TRO might look like this

In this TRO, I have essentially banned all traffic from using this junction, except for cyclists, but I have left an exemption for emergency vehicles, road maintenance and utility works. This would mean that on the street we would have a gate or drop-down bollard which could be used. I could have left them out, but in the event that the road needed to be opened for such work, it would need the TRO to be temporarily suspended and so it is often to have the exemptions in place of they are ever needed.

OK, this has been a long-winded and probably rather boring post, but I wanted to show that the process takes a fair amount of work and indeed this comes with a financial cost. It is absolutely no difficulty at all, though, to allow exemptions for cyclists although we do need to define them and exempt them as they are classed as "vehicles" for the purposes of TROs - this goes for banned turns, one-ways and so on. 

Of course, it is also worth plenty of "pre" consultation with people who might be affected (positively or negatively) as it could draw out problems or issues early and allow changes to be made before the formal consultation process. If you want to read some more TROs, you could do worse than poke around Brighton & Hove Council's website!