Footpath Closed. Please wait for an escort.

This simple sign asks pedestrians to wait when their footpath is closed, primarily to keep them safe from significant hazards. However, there are times when no one is available to escort people from this closure point, leading to poor outcomes.

We review many sites and often find the “Footpath Closed please wait to be escorted” notice serves only as a partial solution. While it keeps people away from work areas, it frequently fails to meet the actual needs of pedestrians and other path users.

Ask yourself: If you were standing at that sign with no escort in sight –

• how long would you wait?
• Would you stay if someone was present to help, or might you take your chances by going around or crossing the road?
• Do you think about where people naturally want to go (demand lines)?
• What choices might a student, jogger, or someone with vision or mobility challenges make?
• Would you feel comfortable walking through an active worksite filled with various hazards?

What does good pedestrian management look like?

• Prompt assistance: A pedestrian marshal should be available quickly—ideally within seconds, not minutes—to help anyone waiting at the closure.
• Safe, planned routes: There should be a clearly considered and communicated route for escorting pedestrians, planned ahead of time and shared with everyone involved.
• Hazard-free passage: The escort route must be checked and kept free of hazards, making sure it’s suitable for all users, including those with mobility needs.
• Clear documentation: All plans for escorting pedestrians should be well documented in the approved Temporary Traffic Management Plan.

Why does this matter?
If no one is available to escort, or if the route isn’t safe, pedestrians might try to find their own way—sometimes putting themselves at risk. It’s important to think about what different people might do in these situations.

Reference -

Protecting Vulnerable Road Users in Temporary Traffic Management environments, Practice Note.

Let’s all help friends and family get home safely by making sure pedestrian management is practical, prompt, and truly protective.

This article presents general observations from Auckland Transport’s Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) advisory team. It supports continuous improvement within the temporary traffic management industry and does not reference any specific individual or organisation.

As we move from the Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM) to the New Zealand Guide to Temporary Traffic Management (NZGTTM), it is important to reflect on how different Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) may naturally focus on certain risk categories. This tendency is influenced by factors such as resources, cost, time, reputation, and health and safety, all of which shape effective risk management strategies.

NZGTTM requires all parties to consider risks for all recipient groups, while CoPTTM provided broader, systemic coverage for three main parties/elements at risk: network functionality, road users, and workers. Individual perceptions of risk are shaped by past experiences, knowledge, focus, and other factors, which can lead to blind spots. Similarly, different PCBUs may prioritise certain risks over others, as observed in risk assessments and worksite TTM practices.

Common Risk Assessment Challenges

Many traffic management plans submitted as NZGTTM applications do not adequately consider risks before implementing controls. Assessments are often missing, incomplete, or do not clearly define net risk after controls. Sometimes, risks are only evaluated after mitigations are chosen, without addressing any transferred or residual risks. Changes may resolve one issue but create another, and there is often little insight into why specific controls and trade-offs were selected. Risk matrices frequently overlook details, such as steel plates present during certain phases and considerations for unattended states, especially regarding psychological impacts on road users. Excessive false alarms from unnecessary temporary speed limits or warnings can decrease compliance network-wide, undermining the effectiveness of safety installations where they are genuinely needed.

Importance of Comprehensive Planning

Effective planning, including thorough risk assessment and temporary traffic management mitigations, requires collaboration among project management, health and safety, construction planning, traffic engineering, and stakeholder engagement. This ensures outcomes that are safe, coordinated, and efficient.

Risk Focus Tendency Matrix

The following conceptual matrix, developed from aggregated observations, highlights typical focus areas for different elements assessing risk. It is designed to prompt reflection and discussion, not to serve as a definitive guide for any specific situation or PCBU group. Note that Auckland Transport's functions as RCA, Principal, and Advisory may not all be represented.

The table has been developed as a generalised summary from observations of general behaviours and outcomes by the AT RCA Temporary Traffic Monitoring Team (TTM Advisors) and shows the observed natural focus areas for the different organisations and individuals when assessing risk. We have included it here for reflection and to help us all recognise that it is unlikely that one individual working alone will be able to definitively assess all risks in any specific situation.

Why These Patterns Matter

This matrix demonstrates the necessity of a multi-party approach—the 3Cs: consult, cooperate, and coordinate. Each PCBU’s natural focus can create gaps that others must help address. For instance, a presentation at the 2024 Tarmac Conference illustrated how pedestrian exposure to overhead work zones varies. CoPTTM might call for closing a large section of footpath for the day, while NZGTTM could allow for a more tailored, moving closure that aligns with the location of overhead works. This reduces net risk by minimising site footprint and improving behavioural compliance and network satisfaction. A risk-based approach compels all PCBUs to consider all parties at risk, not just their usual areas of concern. This matrix is just one example for how different parties might have primary or secondary concerns and is for illustrative purposes.

Characteristics of Comprehensive Traffic Management Plans

Traffic management plans (TMPs) that demonstrate a more thorough risk consideration show that PCBUs actively work to identify and address areas needing more attention through:

• Full cross-functional risk consultation involving all PCBU parties (the 3Cs).
• Structured risk assessments that systematically address all three elements/parties at risk, developing solutions using the hierarchy of controls before determining the final approach, making these assessments actionable for those involved at relevant times.
• Measured, digestible risk matrices tailored to specific works, with practical applications for onsite parties and clear protocols for sharing risk information across PCBUs.
• Defined assurance and monitoring actions, roles, and responsibilities to track effectiveness across all risk areas, fostering mutual understanding of chosen approaches and setup rationale.

Auckland Transport’s Role as Road Controlling Authority (RCA)

As RCA, Auckland Transport reviews applications through a holistic lens, considering all risk holder categories and elements. Key evaluation principles have emerged as understanding of the risk-based approach has evolved. These principles reflect a commitment to worker and public safety and network integrity and are applied in line with national guidance and regulatory frameworks.

Towards Actionable Risk Assessments

Adopting ISO 31000 Risk Management Principles can guide improvement:

• Integration: Embed risk management in all organisational activities and decision-making.
• Structured and comprehensive: Take a systematic approach that addresses all types of risk. Note that risk registries are not risk assessments; avoid overloading assessments with too many items to maintain clarity.
• Customized: Tailor risk management frameworks to the organisation’s context and objectives.
• Inclusive: Involve relevant stakeholders to incorporate their knowledge and perspectives.
• Dynamic: Monitor and review risks continuously, recognising they change over time.
• Evidence-based: Base risk management on the best available information.
• Human and cultural factors: Acknowledge the significant influence of behaviour and culture on risk management effectiveness.

Moving Forward Together

Recognising natural focus areas—and where some risks may be overlooked—underscores the importance of collaboration. A risk-based approach encourages PCBUs to:

• Identify their own focus areas and potential blind spots.
• Consult with others to uncover overlooked risks.
• Coordinate systems for monitoring effectiveness across all parties.
• Communicate consistently and in a targeted way as risks evolve throughout a project.

As the transition continues, understanding will develop further, and many organisations are already making progress. By embracing the principles of consultation, cooperation, and coordination (the 3Cs)—in line with WorkSafe and the Health and Safety at Work Act—we can work towards meeting our duties and reveal risks critical to others.

With greater flexibility comes increased responsibility. This is how safer, more resilient outcomes can be created together.

This section looks at how we’re working to make our roads safer and more efficient by tackling unnecessary or redundant worksites!

What does “redundant” mean?

• Redundant worksites are places where Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) is set up, but there’s no risk present. This can cause frustration for road users and lead to inefficiencies.
• On the flip side, there are also unprotected risk sites—places where there’s a risk, but no TTM has been put in place. Both situations are important to address for safety and public trust.

Proactive Redundant TTM Collection Update

Directionz Ltd launched its proactive collection of redundant TTM equipment across Auckland in late March. The company is gradually surveying the Auckland network to identify and retrieve obsolete TTM gear. This project is designed to improve both the efficiency and cleanliness of the network.

We are encouraging industry partners to stay engaged and support this initiative. You can play your part by responding to requests to remove the marked gear we find that belongs to your company.

As of 21st October 2025, a total of 15,046 items have been cleared from the network, while 5,477 exceptions have been noted and left in place. Further updates will be shared in the next newsletter.

Figure 1: Redundant items collected by Ward

Figure 2: Exceptions (locations where gear was not picked up) by ward

How did we do this quarter?

Here’s a summary of TTM site inspection data for the Auckland Transport road network, including both redundant worksites and unprotected risk sites. The data aligns with Road Efficiency Group Te Ringa Maimoa’s (REG) reporting requirements.:

Key points:

• There was a noticeable decrease in the percentage of redundant sites this quarter compared to the previous quarter, although it’s similar to the first quarter of the year.
• Addressing both redundant and unprotected sites helps us reduce unnecessary costs, improve safety, and respond to community concerns.

Who was involved? – Redundant Worksites Q3 2025

These tables show which organizations were linked to redundant worksites during Q3 2025. This information helps us identify where improvements can be made and encourages everyone to keep raising the bar for efficient, safe road management.

By Client / Principal

By Lead Contractor

What’s next?

Auckland Transport is committed to making our roads safer, more efficient, and better for everyone. Here’s what’s on the horizon:

• Reducing unnecessary costs: By identifying and removing redundant worksites, we can save resources and focus efforts where they’re truly needed.
• Improving safety outcomes: Ensuring that TTM is only used where there’s genuine risk helps protect both road users and workers.
• Responding to community concerns: We’re listening to feedback from the public and stakeholders and using it to guide improvements.
• Supporting national TTM improvement goals: Our work aligns with broader industry efforts to raise standards and share best practices.
• Ongoing monitoring and collaboration: We’ll keep tracking trends, working closely with contractors, and refining our processes to make sure TTM is always effective and justified.
• Encouraging proactive reporting: We invite everyone—contractors, staff, and the public—to report unnecessary or missing TTM so we can address issues quickly.

Together, these steps will help us build a safer, more efficient road network for all. If you have ideas or want to get involved in these improvements, we’d love to hear from you

We love recognising the organisations and teams who set the standard for Temporary Traffic Management! Here’s a closer look at the Q3 2025 leaderboards, which showcase performance across three key groups: Clients/Principals, Main/Lead Contractors, and TTM Contractors. The ratings given have been based on independent reviews.

How Leaderboards Work

• KPI %: This is the percentage of satisfactory reviews (High Standard, Acceptable, Needs Improvement).
• Categories: Organisations are grouped by the number of reviews they received—more reviews mean a broader sample of their work.
• Recognition: Only organisations with more than four Site Condition Reviews (SCRs) are listed, ensuring results are meaningful and fair.

Why do these results matter?

These scores help us recognise excellence, encourage improvement, and inspire everyone in the TTM community to keep raising the bar. If you’d like to see more details about your organisation’s results or want to know how to improve your score, just reach out. We’re here to help everyone succeed!

Client / Principal Leaderboard (Q3 2025)

These are the organisations that commission or oversee TTM works. High scores reflect strong leadership and commitment to safety and compliance.

Main / Lead Contractor Leaderboard

Main/Lead Contractors are grouped by the number of reviews they received.

Here are the top performers in each category:

20+ Reviews

Number of organisations in category = 7

10–19 Reviews

Number of organisations in category = 5

4–9 Reviews

Number of organisations in category = 20

Contractors with perfect scores demonstrate exceptional commitment to safety and compliance. Well done!

TTM Contractor Leaderboard

TTM Contractors are also grouped by review count, with several organisations achieving top marks:

20+ Reviews

Number of organisations in category = 6

10–19 Reviews

Number of organisations in category = 11

4–9 Reviews

Number of organisations in category = 24

These contractors may be smaller or newer, but many have achieved perfect scores—showing outstanding commitment to safety and compliance!

Congratulations to all contractors who achieved perfect scores—your dedication to safe and effective traffic management is making a real difference!

TTM Organisational Leader Board

10 to 19 Reviews

Number of organisations in category: 11

4 - 9 Reviews Category

Number of organisations in category: 24

In this section, we provide a snapshot of key performance indicators and reported crash data at worksites, helping to track safety and compliance across the road network.

Key Performance Indicators

We report monthly on key performance indicators (KPIs) to track compliance and performance in Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) across the network. One main KPI is the percentage of Satisfactory TTM Sites.

A site is considered satisfactory if it receives a rating of High Standard, Acceptable, or Needs Improvement. This helps ensure we consistently measure site quality.

The table below shows the monthly trend for the percentage of Satisfactory TTM Sites.

Data can be provided to Principal, Main Contractor, or TTM organisations on request. If you’d like more detailed data on your own organisation, just ask!

Reported Crashes at Work Sites

Worksite incidents are identified through various sources, including contractor self-reports, customer feedback, media coverage, police reports, and other informal channels.

Please note that trend analysis is currently limited due to known underreporting. However, we’ve seen a significant improvement in the number of self-initiated reports over the past year—thank you, and let’s keep them coming!

The graph below presents reported crashes at work sites.

Crash report data plays a vital role in helping us identify areas for improvement across the industry. If you have information about a crash at a work site, please report it via TTM.Crash@at.govt.nz.

The results for the quarter highlight both individual and team achievements, reflecting consistent dedication to high standards in traffic management.

Each month, a diverse group of individuals from various traffic management organisations were acknowledged for their commitment to excellence in site safety, compliance, and best practices.

July 2025 - STMSs with High Standard Result

78 High Standard results out of 223 Reviews (including unattended worksites).

August 2025 - STMSs with High Standard Result

69 High Standard results out of 219 Reviews (including unattended worksites).

September 2025 - STMS with High Standard Result

74 High Standard results out of 250 Reviews (including unattended worksites)

Every month, we love to celebrate the Site Traffic Management Supervisors (STMS) who go above and beyond to keep our worksites safe, efficient, and running smoothly. These individuals have shown professionalism, and a commitment to best practice in Temporary Traffic Management.

Each STM of the Month receives a certificate and a $100 gift card as a small token of appreciation for their hard work and leadership.

A big thank you to our sponsor for this quarter, Advance Traffic Management and to Rex Hunia for making this happen.

July 2025

78 SCRs were awarded a High Standard result (out of a total of 223 SCR’s completed) in July 2025 including Unattended and Special Programme.

Winner: Willem Mangu
Organisation: Visible Traffic Ltd
Achievement: Willem stood out for consistently maintaining high standards across multiple sites, ensuring both safety and compliance were top priorities. Willem’s attention to detail and positive attitude set a great example for the whole team.

August 2025

69 SCRs were awarded a High Standard result (out of a total of 219 SCR’s completed) in August 2025 including Unattended and Special Programme.

Winner: Harold Falwasser
Organisation: Traffic Solutions NZ Ltd
Achievement: Harold was recognised for proactive problem-solving and excellent communication with both crews and the public. Harold’s leadership helped deliver safe, well-managed worksites throughout the month.

September 2025

74 SCRs were awarded a High Standard result (out of a total of 250 SCR’s completed) in September 2025 including Unattended and Special Programme.

Winner: Pradipkumar Dobariya
Organisation: MJ Traffic Services Ltd
Achievement: Pradipkumar impressed with a strong focus on continuous improvement and a willingness to go the extra mile to support colleagues and ensure best practice on every job.