Competition time.... what is the best noun for a multiplicity of potholes?

Oxford Place, Rusholme. Street art or obstacle course?

It has long been claimed that some of the UK's roads are a series of holes held together by strips of tarmac!

Whilst cycling over or, more accurately, around this stretch of holes on Oxford Place in Rusholme it struck me that the singular term 'pothole' doesn't really do justice to so many holes.

So, here's the challenge..... what is the best noun for a series, collection, multiplicity of potholes?  and no prizes for saying 'roads' !

Any prizes will depend on the creativity of responses.

Remember... you can report all potholes, caves etc on roads in the Manchester City Council area to "Environment on Call".  Email: contact@manchester.gov.uk

Include your name and address in the email (they will only email asking you for this before logging the pothole).  A photo always helps as well. See previous blog "When is a pothole actionable" for details of how big the pothole has to be before your Council will class it as a pothole requiring action.

Contacts for other GM councils are in the list of 'useful contacts' on this blog site or you can use the CTC's Fill that Hole website.

Good luck and may your wheels never wobble :)


Competition entries:

@ChorltonVelo   A mob [of potholes]
 

No, I don't have to get off my bike!

Oh dear here we go again.... back in October 2010 this blog queried the propensity of contractors digging up Manchester's roads to (mis)use Cyclists Dismount signs - contrary to all the guidance from the Department from Transport.


The Department for Transport (DfT) Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99 (Cyclists at Road Works) section on "Cyclist dismount and footway cycling" states that:

"Where access is permitted for motor vehicles, "Cyclist Dismount" signs should not be used. The hazards to cyclists at roadworks are rarely great enough to justify this measure. In any case, cyclists are likely to ignore such instructions. The only situation where cyclists should be advised to dismount is where the carriageway is closed off but the footway remains open." (Emphasis added).

The photo was taken on the start of Princess Street in Albert Square, next to Manchester Town Hall.   The carriageway is not closed off and access is still permitted for motor vehicles. 


When Manchester Highway Services was previously asked to explain the use of these signs the response was a glorious example of officialese:


"Thank you for your recent email regarding signage relating to cyclist at the above location. I will pass on your comments to the traffic management company working on behalf of United Utilities at this location requesting them to remove any signs that are causing a problem and to also discuss the implications for cyclists at these works.
I would suspect that they need to consider the traffic management implications  in relation to cyclists safety at this location. I believe in this particular case no guidance would have been issued as the company are working for United Utilities. The Authority would work to National guidelines for works affecting cyclists and in view of this I will as stated above speak to the company concerned regarding the removal of the signage highlighted." (18th October 2010).

Which we think translates as - we will ask the contractors to remove the signs.  Unfortunately, there seems to have been very little institutional learning....

The site does not identify which contractor is doing the road works. However,  one traffic cone with a blue traffic arrow sign does have a Manchester Contracts sticker on the back with the telephone number 0161 908 5700.

It is not clear whether these are the contact details for the owner of the sign....  but ironically a Google search for this telephone number finds the "Improved Cycling Facilities in Your Area" document.


Question: Am I supposed to get off an walk on the pavement? What is wrong with cycling in the traffic lane as I would normally do?


A(nother) query has been sent to Environment on Call (Manchester City Council) seeking clarification.
Email: contact@manchester.gov.uk

We can hardly await the response....



Update (1st May) Now you see it....now you don't.

 Well who says that the Council never listens...

The day after details of the "Cyclists Dismount" sign were emailed to Environment on Call (and copied in to an Executive Member) I received this response from the Councillor:

"I can confirm that Officers have arranged for the sign to be removed."

and indeed it was. See photo to the right.  In response to an additional email highlighting the previous (mis)use of these signs the Executive Member stated that Council officers had been requested to:

"arrange for all personnel involved with managing our own MCC works or supervising other peoples works (i.e. utility or developers works) to be reminded / educated as to the correct use of signs at road works.  We will ensure that this particular sign is no longer used."

There was also a request to: 
 
"please let me know if you or your colleagues do still see this sign in use as I suspect that some contractors may still be using older 'procedures' where this sign is still referenced."

By all means post comments, or contact this blog if you see any of these signs popping up on Manchester's roads. So... there you have it.  Only a small issue...but any progress, even if only baby steps, has got to be good !


PS. Am wondering if I will be contacted by a Highways Services person within the 3 working days....
 
"Thank you for contacting Contact Manchester. The details have been logged on our system and your service ticket number is CRM-133-0108. A member of the Highways department will contact you within the next 3 working days." (27th April).

Any ideas ?

Location: Road works on Princess Street approaching the junction with Whitworth Street in Manchester City Centre. 
Three lanes have been reduced to one - so I can understand the Cycle Lane Closed instruction - what I do not understand is why the instruction for Cyclists to Dismount. 

Am I supposed to get off an walk on the pavement? What is wrong with cycling in the traffic lane as I would normally do? Particularly if I was going straight on or turning right.

Would welcome any suggestions or pointers on the traffic regulations or guidance that the contractors / Manchester Highways could consider for this instruction.....

Update 1 (with thanks to Steve from Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign).

The Department for Transport (DfT) Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99 (Cyclists at Road Works) section on "Cyclist dismount and footway cycling" states that:


"Where access is permitted for motor vehicles, "Cyclist Dismount" signs should not be used. The hazards to cyclists at roadworks are rarely great enough to justify this measure. In any case, cyclists are likely to ignore such instructions. The only situation where cyclists should be advised to dismount is where the carriageway is closed off but the footway remains open.

In such cases a white-on-red temporary sign "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT AND USE FOOTWAY" may be used. Under Regulation 41 of the "Transport Signs Regulations And General Directions 1994" this can be done without special authorisation if the sign is not used for longer than 6 months." (Page 6).

From this guidance it would appear that, a) the contractors should have allowed cycling through the road works given that vehicles are still allowed, and b) the sign use may be incorrect as it is the wrong colour, i.e. should be white on red.

A query has been sent to Environment on Call (Manchester City Council) seeking clarification.  Email: contact@manchester.gov.uk


Update 2 : (14th October)  Well at least the sign has been moved...

...onto the pavement.  Am wondering if the sign means that I should get off my bicycle whilst in the road!

Ironically the poster (below right) from United Utilities / Enterprise shows the cycle happily travelling along in a line of traffic. Perhaps their marketing people would like to have a little chat to their road engineering people....

Update 3 : Email from Environment on Call - received 15th October

"Thank you for contacting Environment On Call. The details have been logged on our system. An officer will inspect the location within the next 5 working days."

Hmmm - wonder if the roadworks will have been completed before the officer goes inspecting!


Update 4: Message from Manchester Highway Services - 18th October


"Thank you for your recent email regarding signage relating to cyclist at the above location. I will pass on your comments to the traffic management company working on behalf of United Utilities at this location requesting them to remove any signs that are causing a problem and to also discuss the implications for cyclists at these works.
I would suspect that they need to consider the traffic management implications  in relation to cyclists safety at this location. I believe in this particular case no guidance would have been issued as the company are working for United Utilities. The Authority would work to National guidelines for works affecting cyclists and in view of this I will as stated above speak to the company concerned regarding the removal of the signage highlighted."

Translation? I will ask the contractors to remove the 'cyclists dismount' sign... well at least I think that is what this means but to misquote George Bush (Junior) I may have misunderstoodificated.




 Update 5: Spot the difference!  21st October

So finally.... after seven days the sign has gone. Am assuming it was as a result of MCC Highways requesting that the contractors remove the sign - alternatively it may have been a mildly miffed cyclist deciding to do a little DIY recycling ....perish the thought!













Update 6: 27th October

Oh dear, it would seem that we are back to the drawing board.  It would seem that the contractors have gone away, read the DfT guidance as it relates to the required colour schemes (see above) but ignored the substantive part of the guidance... eg the bit that says very clearly...

"Where access is permitted for motor vehicles, "Cyclist Dismount" signs should not be used. The hazards to cyclists at roadworks are rarely great enough to justify this measure. In any case, cyclists are likely to ignore such instructions. The only situation where cyclists should be advised to dismount is where the carriageway is closed off but the footway remains open. "

So, need to have a think about what to do next. Ideas and suggestions most welcome - please leave a comment on the blog.

Thanks. 

Leading by example.....

Good to hear that Manchester City Council leader, Richard Leese was out and about on his bike last week...

This from "The Leader's Blog"

"Back on my bike this week for the first time since Christmas and a frighteningly close view of the cracks and holes that have appeared in the road surface along my normal route as a result of frost damage. Our Highways people are out inspecting the whole road network and will be putting a remediation plan together but an early estimate is that the extra repair work will cost at least £650,000.

The total additional cost of the freeze is likely to be well over a £1M but we won't be increasing Council Tax or cutting other things to pay for it. Manchester has followed a prudent budget course for many years keeping Council Tax increases to at or below the rate of inflation and making sure we have adequate reserves to cover occasions just such as this."

I am glad to hear that the Highways officers are out and about checking the roads but as an earlier post on this blog has highlighted there is a lack of consistency across Greater Manchester on the criteria used to decide which potholes will be repaired. (See When is a 'pothole' actionable?)

Manchester's criteria for deciding when to repair a pothole is 30mm (eg the pothole must be at least 30mm deep) which is not bad when compared to Salford's (50mm) but not as good as Wigan's 25mm.  Perhaps the new GM Integrated Transport Authority could take on the task of standardizing the size of potholes that cyclists have to avoid!

If you are out and about in Manchester and spot a pothole why not drop a line to "Environment on Call" - you never know they may have missed one!

Environment On Call can be contacted by:
email: contact@manchester.gov.uk
tel: 0161 954 9000
or via the Manchester City Council website reporting form.

Happy pothole spotting!

The criteria used by the 10 GM councils: 50mm (Salford), 40mm (Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford), 35mm (Rochdale), 30mm (Manchester),   25mm (Wigan).
Photo credit: Crumspall Labour blog (October 2007).

When is a 'pothole' actionable?

To take fairly large liberties with, if not to massacre, one of the famous Shakespearean quotes - "To be or not to be a pothole" - that is the question.

Well it would seem that the answer to this question depends on which Greater Manchester borough you live in.

Having had discussions with various cyclists and council officers it seems that despite having a Greater Manchester wide travel authority there is no common agreement of when a 'sharp edge trip' is a pothole and when it becomes 'actionable' e.g. meets the criteria to be repaired.

Each Council uses its own assessment criteria which also takes into account where the pothole is located (busy street or quiet backstreet) etc. But one of the main criteria is how long the 'sharp edge trip' is - or in other words, how deep is the pothole. Basically a pothole in Salford has to be twice the size of a Wigan pothole before being repaired (see details below).

Sharp edge trip Council
50mm Salford

40mm Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford

35mm Rochdale

30mm Manchester (* see update below).

25mm Wigan


It seems strange that one Council can class a pothole 25mm deep as 'actionable' (read potentially dangerous) and yet same pothole would not be repaired by any of the other nine Greater Manchester councils.

Isn't it time we had a common criteria for repairing (dangerous) potholes across all roads in Greater Manchester?


* Update: A race to the bottom ?

A report to the Manchester City Council 'Communities and Neighbourhoods Overview and Scrutiny Committee' on 16th November 2010 detailed how:

"With effect from 30th November 2009, Highway Inspectors are required to record and action footway defects deeper than 20mm and carriageway defects deeper than 30mm on busy City Centre Streets and at well usedcrossing points elsewhere in the City, but the intervention level for all other highway locations is 25mm in the footway and 40mm in the carriageway. Prior to this date the intervention level had been 20mm and 30mm for footways and carriageways respectively throughout the whole of the City. The intervention levels adopted by the Greater Manchester Districts are all slightly different however, the decision to slacken Manchester’s levels brings them more in line with the values used by the other districts. The change also means that expenditure on the repair of defects is not being incurred any sooner than is necessary to offer a defence against accident claims." (Page 31) [Emphasis added].

Definitely a move in the wrong direction.....