Traffic Management Plans for the King Country

Yes. The clearest example is our work with Inframax. We designed the generic traffic management plan its crews use on the Ruapehu District Council road maintenance contract, and we have been producing the equivalent plans for its Waitomo District Council and Ōtorohanga District Council contracts. That project also produced our in-house tool for comparing the public and worker risk of different TTM options on a site, which now shapes how we approach every plan. We also know how a district council reviews plans from the other side of the desk, because the team approved the routine Corridor Access Requests across the Taupō district while acting as Traffic Management Coordinator for Taupō District Council. For King Country jobs we start the design from maps and street-level imagery, and we visit the site when the imagery cannot answer a question, because the plan has to match the road as it is today.

A generic TMP is one approved plan that covers a set of similar, recurring activities across a road network, so a crew doing routine maintenance works from an agreed approach instead of waiting for a new design each time. It suits contractors with repeat work on district roads, which is why Inframax uses one on its Ruapehu contract and has the same for Waitomo and Ōtorohanga under way. It does not suit one-off or unusual work, such as a long closure or a job with complex staging, which still needs its own site-specific plan. If you are unsure which you need, tell us how often you do the same kind of job and on which roads. Our TMP cost guide also explains how a generic plan changes the cost over time.

Two approvals are needed. The PCBU (Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking) chain approves the methodology, and the Road Controlling Authority (RCA) approves the regulatory parts, such as traffic control devices, road closures, temporary speed limits and portable signals. In the King Country the RCA for local roads is the district council, so Waitomo, Ōtorohanga or Ruapehu District Council depending on where the work is, and NZTA is the RCA for state highways such as SH3, SH4 and SH30. Review time is usually the longest step, so getting the plan in front of the right RCA early matters. Our NZGTTM approval article explains why both approvals are essential, and Ashley is one of the lead Technical Advisors to the CoLAB RATA Technical Advisory Group, which helps councils through the move to NZGTTM.

Often, yes, as long as the plan is right and the people running the site are trained for it. NZGTTM is risk-based, so a short job on a low-volume rural road can need a much simpler set-up than the same job on a busy urban street, and for a small contractor, hiring a full crew for the day can cost more than the work itself. We design a site-specific plan with a clear layout drawing that shows where each sign and cone goes, so your own trained people can set the site up with gear you already have. Some councils ask for a particular qualification before they will accept this, so we check that with the RCA first. Where the risk is genuinely higher, the plan says so and sets out what is needed.

Simple plans for minor civil work, utility crossings or a short maintenance job can usually be ready within days. Larger or higher-risk work, such as a long closure, a detour or a job on a state highway, takes longer and often involves a consultation round with the council or NZTA. In our experience the slowest step is usually the RCA's review queue rather than the design itself, so the earlier you call, the safer your start date. Distance adds one more consideration in the King Country: when a detour sends traffic a long way round, the plan needs extra thought about where drivers are warned and how long the alternative really takes, which is the same kind of problem the team worked through on the Tīrau to Waiouru detour plans.