BRIEFING
Proposed approach to delivering the Road Cones Pilot
Date:
23 April 2025
Tracker #: 250329
Security:
In Confidence
ACTION SOUGHT
Minister
Action sought
Deadline
Hon Brooke van Velden
Note the information in this briefing
Minister for Workplace
Discuss at the upcoming officials
30 April 2025
Relations and Safety
meeting on 30 April 2025
Forward a copy of this briefing to Hon
Chris Bishop, Minister for Transport, for
his information.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Name
Position
Telephone
Contact
Sharon Thompson
Chief Executive
✓
s9(2)(a)
WorkSafe New Zealand
CONSULTATION
NZTA
Comments:
Under the Official Information Act 1982
Released
PURPOSE
To present the initial thinking by WorkSafe and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)
about the 12-month pilot programme to influence the reduction of road cone overcompliance.
In addition, to seek your direction about some of the potential options for the pilot.
RECOMMENDATION
WorkSafe recommends that you:
a.
1982
note that NZTA has been consulted on and provided input into this paper
noted
Act
b.
note that other parties in the Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) system are
undertaking a range of initiatives aimed at ensuring TTM in general, and the use of road
cones in particular, is efficient and fit for purpose
noted
Information
c.
note that NZTA advises that around 80% of Road Controlling Authorities are now
working towards adopting its new risk-based approach to TTM, and some already have
programmes in place specifically to reduce the unnecessary use of road cones
noted
Official
d.
note that WorkSafe needs to ensure that its 12-month pilot:
• adds value to work already underway by NZTA and other stakeholders and does
the
not duplicate effort or cause confusion
• makes the best use of limited resources to accelerate the desired change in
practice, and
• helps Road Controlling Authorities with existing processes for reducing road
cones.
Under
noted
e.
note that there are two key aspects of the pilot where there are design choices to be
made that in our view will have an impact on both programme effectiveness and cost
noted
Released
f.
Indicate your preference about these key aspects as follows:
WorkSafe to implement a 12-month digital road-cone hotline for
Yes/No
the public to report excessive road cones via WorkSafe’s website
Recommended
1982
WorkSafe to implement a 12-month 0800 phoneline for
Yes/No
excessive road cone reporting, to be serviced by the MBIE call
Act
centre
Not recommended due to cost, resource and data
accuracy issues. Availability would be limited to business
hours
WorkSafe to conduct a joint engagement programme with NZTA
Yes/No
and key industry stakeholders to provide education to councils
about NZGTTM
Recommended
Information
WorkSafe inspectors to complete site inspections of TTM it has
Yes/No
been notified about via the public hotline (digital or phone).
Not recommended, as the control sits at Road Controlling
Authority level (once consent is issued) rather than with
the TTM provider or roadside workers
Official
g.
Agree that your office will forward
a copy of this briefing to Hon Chris Bishop, Minister
for Transport, for his information.
the
Yes/No
Under
Sharon Thompson
Hon Brooke van Velden
Released
Chief Executive
Minister for Workplace Relations and
WorkSafe New Zealand
Safety
…… / …… / 2025
..... / ...... / 2025
BACKGROUND
Since your announcement on 31 March about a 12-month pilot programme to reduce over-
compliance for road cones, WorkSafe has engaged with the New Zealand Transport Agency
(NZTA), Auckland Transport, the Temporary Traffic Management Industry Steering Group and
other industry stakeholders to understand the status quo.
Key points of note include:
• Road cones are widely used in Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) in New Zealand 1982
due to their high level of mobility and low cost to deploy. TTM has developed over time
into an industry in itself and employs a large number of people.
•
Act
Since 2000, TTM practice has been largely dictated by the
Code of Practice for
Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM), a document produced by NZTA. This
prescriptive document has since been superseded by a 2023 guide that outlines a more
risk-based approach to TTM, the New Zealand guide to temporary traffic management
(NZGTTM).
• The shift from CoPTTM to NZGTTM is a significant change requiring stakeholders
involved in TTM to make a step change in their work practices. Designing TTM solutions
including the use of road cones based on risk is thought to be a generational change by
the industry. As the risk-based approach is phased in, the outcome will be fewer
unnecessary road cones.
Information
• NZTA already has a comprehensive change programme in place to shift traffic
management practice towards the risk-based approach in the NZGTTM.
• Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs) review and approve Corridor Access Plans for
roadworks and roadside tasks or events. These usually include Traffic Management
Plans (TMPs). NZTA is the RCA for national highways, and Local councils are the RCA for
Official
local roads in their area. Local roads make up 88% of NZ roads.
• NZTA advises that around 80% of RCAs are now working towards adopting the
the
NZGTTM. In addition, some already have programmes in place specifically aimed at
reducing the use of road cones. NZTA reports some of these efforts are well advanced
compared with the more complex issue of adopting the NZGTTM.
• In terms of TTM work practices, including the management of road cones leading to the
removal at the completion of approved work, there are limited incentives to action
Under
removal in a timely manner unless it is contracted or made a requirement under the
Corridor Access Plan. RCAs have reported that there are a reasonable number of
incidences of un-permitted work and unapproved use of road cones.
WorkSafe therefore needs to ensure that its 12-month pilot:
1. adds value to work already underway by NZTA and other stakeholders and does not
duplicate effort or cause confusion
2. makes the best use of limited resources to accelerate the desired change in practice,
Released
and
3. helps Road Controlling Authorities with existing processes for road cones.
In considering how to address issues with any overzealous traffic management approaches,
safety and effectiveness are key considerations. TTM primarily exists to protect the public and
workers.
Between 2019 and 2023, there were 42 fatal and 314 serious injury crashes at sites where
there is a temporary speed limit in place – NZTA uses this as a proxy for TTM.
NZTA figures suggest that most deaths and serious injuries at roadwork sites are road users,
approximately 95%, whereas road workers are involved in approximately 5% of road worksite
death and serious injury.
1982
NZTA’s engagement with the TTM sector indicates that providers are concerned about the
levels of abuse their staff are receiving and see the reduction of unnecessary TTM as a way of
regaining public trust and reducing threats. Motivation for change is therefore high. Act
DISCUSSION
SYSTEM WORK ALREADY UNDERWAY
1.
There are a range of different parties with roles to play in the Temporary Traffic
Management (TTM) ‘ecosystem’, as summarised at
Appendix one. A number of these
parties are already undertaking a range of initiatives aimed at ensuring TTM in general,
and the use of road cones in particular, is efficient and fit for purpose.
Information
2.
NZTA has been working with its contractors and TTM suppliers on specific actions at a
national transport system level, including rolling out a risk-based approach to TTM on
state highways.
3.
This new approach shifts away from prescribed use of road cones and other TTM
equipment towards a risk-based approach which seeks to balance the need to ensure
road workers and road users are kept safe, while keeping costs and impact on road users
Official
under control. This means fewer road cones for low-risk activities, use of new technology
such as robotic systems, and improved project planning shortening project delivery time
frames. These measures are targeting reduced harm to people as well as reduced cost.
the
4.
NZTA’s most recent figures show that relative expenditure on TTM is already dropping
because of its efforts. Quarter 2 reports indicate expenditure of 5.9% on TTM (compared
to the total cost of the roadworks or roadside tasks being undertaken), from a baseline of
9.3% that was calculated on figures from 2021-2024. Noting however, that TTM costs
include much more than road cones and it is not possible to track expenditure on, or use
Under
of, road cones alone.
5.
The Temporary Traffic Management Industry Steering Group (ISG) is a group made up of
representatives from TTM suppliers, utilities, contractors, engineering consultants, road
controlling authorities and road workers.
6.
The ISG is working with the top ten traffic management providers who are responsible
for around 80% of the TTM on the NZ road network on a nationwide “
Use it or Remove it”
campaign. The campaign aims to target the timely removal of road cones and other
Released
traffic management equipment once no longer needed. The group is also working with
smaller council RCAs to support them in adopting NZGTTM.
7.
Several RCAs are proactively targeting redundant TTM. All RCAs are required to report
quarterly to NZTA on TTM inspections and redundant TTM. This requires RCAs to inspect
themselves or require their contractors to regularly inspect sites. NZTA has all its
contractors regularly inspecting sites and removing unnecessary TTM. Some large
contractors have proactively instructed the TTM teams to regularly inspect their sites and
remove any unnecessary equipment.
8.
As an example, Auckland Transport has piloted a website reporting solution (digital) for
abandoned road cones. It has also contracted a firm to do a proactive sweep of the
Urban network for the next 12 months to remove any redundant TTM equipment.
WORKSAFE PLANNING TO DATE
1982
9.
The pilot will be run out of our Strategy Implementation group, and a programme
delivery lead is in place. We want to ensure we deliver on the intent of the pilot while
intervening effectively in the system to achieve the desired outcome of fewer Act
unnecessary road cones on the road.
10. There are two key aspects of the pilot where there are design choices to be made that in
our view will have an impact on both programme effectiveness and cost. We outline
these for your consideration below.
Method of receiving information from the public
11. Given the expected start date of 1 June, our primary focus is on setting up an
appropriate mechanism that allows the public to report instances of road cone use that
concern them.
Information
12. After consideration of the risks and benefits, we do not think it appropriate to allow
anonymous notifications - regardless of the reporting mechanism. We will require those
notifying to provide a name and contact details (either a phone number or email) to
reduce the likelihood of prank notifications and abusive behaviour. A range of prank calls
were received when the UK introduced a ‘cone hotline’ in 1992, and we aim to minimise
Official
this by asking for contact details.
13. We will develop regular reporting mechanisms to show trends in:
the
a. notification volumes
b. a description of issues raised
c. regional patterns, and
d. Under
outcomes.
14. Note that we expect overall data about the state of TTM will continue to be reported via
the NZTA’s Road Efficiency Group, as this is an existing mechanism.
Option 1 (recommended): a digital (online) hotline
15. WorkSafe and NTZTA consider the most efficient and effective mechanism would be for
all public notifications to be made digitally using an online portal on WorkSafe’s website.
The portal would be like that used by Auckland Transport for its ‘lost road cone’ pilot, and
Released
we will explore options to reduce duplication of effort in the Auckland region.
16. This channel would allow more accurate data to be collected from the public, for example
sharing of GPS locations and photographs. It would also lend itself to faster analysis and
transfer of data where necessary.
Option 2 (not recommended): a phone-based hotline
17. We recognise there may be an expectation of an 0800 ‘hotline’ phone number for people
to call, and some members of the public may prefer this method of notification. We are
currently exploring what would be involved in setting an 0800 number up and servicing
it, but it is not our preferred option due to the unknown cost involved, the limitation to
working hours and expectations of call answering and response times.
18. WorkSafe currently uses the call centre at the Ministry of Business Innovation and
Employment (MBIE) to provide public call centre services. These services cover general
enquiries about health and safety, and overflow service for notifications and energy
1982
safety related calls and email enquiries. Calls are charged to WorkSafe at s9(2)(i) per
minute of service (which includes talk time, hold time and after call work time). In 2024
the call centre averaged 1250 WorkSafe calls per month, with an average call handling
Act
time of 9.7 minutes and an annual cost of s9(2)(i) .
19. We are investigating whether the MBIE call centre is able to take on the task of
answering additional calls relating to excessive use of road cones and how it may affect
our current contract for service.
20. The key issue is that it is difficult to predict how many calls a phone hotline might receive
and therefore what the additional cost will be. NZTA advises that it receives
approximately 3000 ‘urgent’ calls per month on its 0800 number which has nationwide
coverage. These calls are about a wide range of matters such as potholes, TTM, or
Information
electronic road signs not working and NZTA is unable to isolate the number of calls
received about TTM. NZTA also notes a much greater number of ‘non-urgent’ calls are
also received on the same number, for example people asking the best route to get from
one location to another.
21. We are still working through all possible options and will have an update on the 0800
number set-up and servicing for our 30 April meeting.
Official
Responding appropriately to information received
22. Once we receive sufficient detail from the public to know where the offending TTM sites
the
are and which business or RCA is likely to be responsible for them, we need to determine
the best course of action that will result in the desired changes being made.
23. Regardless of the way in which our inspectors are involved in the pilot, we will work with
the ISG on securing additional training for a group of them. We have yet to make
decisions about the proportion of our inspectorate workforce that will participate in the
Under
pilot. Noting that this training will be relatively basic compared to the detailed training for
traffic engineers or TTM specialists, but it will provide inspectors with an overview of TTM
principles.
24. We will also have a WorkSafe inspector join the ISG and collaborate with NZTA to provide
education to smaller council RCAs. This will be targeted based on data already collected
by NZTA’s Road Efficiency Group and data received via this pilot. Anecdotal feedback is
that councils are confused about how their duties under HSWA intersect with TTM
Released
practices and are likely over-complying as a result. We have already received an
approach from Tauranga Council for a joined up NZTA/WorkSafe education session.
Option 1 (recommended): focus our inspector’s efforts on working with NZTA and
the ISG to influence change at RCA and other key stakeholder level
25. WorkSafe and NZTA believe the pilot will work best by collecting public feedback on
perceived excessive road cone use, passing it on to the relevant RCA for their action and
then following up after a period of time to find out what has been done in response.
26. This is because layout of road cones on site will reflect what has been outlined in the TMP
- which will have already been approved by the local council RCA as part of the Corridor
Access Plan.
1982
27. As the approving body, the RCA is best placed to directly intervene when complaints are
received and changes need to be made to the TTM layout. NZTA notes that an RCA can
issue a ‘stop work’ if they feel the site is unsafe.
Act
28. Inspectors can also engage with RCAs to provide them with assurance that the risk-
based approach outlined in the NZGTTM is well aligned with their duties as a PCBU under
HSWA, and that a more cautious prescriptive approach is not necessary. The focus for
our inspectors would be on working with RCAs and TTM providers to help them better
manage the risks involved with roadside work and TTM.
29. This option makes the most of WorkSafe’s involvement as the work health and safety
regulator and also maximises the strong relationships and momentum occurring in the
industry and with NZTA.
Information
Option 2 (not recommended): deploy our inspectors directly to the TTM sites
WorkSafe receive complaints about
30. We understand there may be an expectation that WorkSafe inspectors attend roadside
worksites to provide guidance on instances of road cone overcompliance. However, in
discussion with NZTA we have recognised that there will be no ability for our inspectors
Official
to affect immediate change to the number of road cones present in each situation,
because the business is required to operate the site according to the approved TMP which
will already have been approved by the RCA. Additionally, our inspectors will not have
access to the approved TMP without requesting a copy from the RCA.
the
31. This approach is also likely to create inefficiencies. Given the transient nature of some
TTM sites, an inspector may travel to a site that no longer exists by the time they arrive.
Equally, there might be no-one present on site who has any control over the TTM layout.
32.
Under
Our Inspectors could talk with the site TTM manager (if present) about how they have
assessed and managed the risks, however, as they are not traffic engineers, they would
not be able to tell them how to manage that risk or direct them to make any changes to
the layout. Unless having an excess of road cones in a particular situation presents a risk
to a person’s safety, WorkSafe inspectors are unable to rely on their statutory powers
under the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) when dealing with that situation. This
means they are unable to require a person to provide them with any information they
request, or to take a specific action to address the ‘overcompliance’.
Released
33. This would not necessarily present a problem within the context of this pilot, because it
aims to use engagement and education rather than enforcement to influence behaviour.
But we wanted you to be aware that there will be no ability for enforcement or the right
to request additional information because the duties framework in HSWA does not
contemplate overcompliance.
RISKS AND MITIGATIONS
34. Risks and mitigations associated with the pilot programme are presented in
Appendix
two.
COSTS
35. To date, we have identified the following potential costs associated with delivering the
pilot:
a. Building a digital notification portal (or modifying an existing one)
1982
b. securing an 0800 number and call centre service for calls received (if this
proceeds)
Act
c. Assessment/triaging of information received
d. TTM training for inspectors
e. Response/engagement by WorkSafe inspectors and other staff (including
opportunity cost to BAU work in priority sectors)
36. Costs will be tracked over the course of the pilot in order to provide an accurate picture
and inform future decisions. We will meet these costs within baseline as expected.
However, as it is difficult to predict the volume of incoming information, we will provide
regular reports to your office and highlight any risks that may emerge from the cost of
Information
the pilot.
NEXT STEPS
37. Officials are available to discuss this paper with you at our regular scheduled meeting on
30 April.
Official
38. WorkSafe will continue its planning to ensure the pilot is ready for launch on 1 June. We
can work with your office on any associated communications or announcements you want
to make at that time.
the
39. Once the pilot is up and running, we can work with your office to identify opportunities
for you to be involved if you wish. For example, a ride along with inspectors on their
engagements.
Under
Released
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
Under
Released
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
Under
Released
