House of Commons - Transport

Select Committee on Transport Fifth Report

3 STREET WORKS

79. The Secretary of State has highlighted road works as one of the main causes of urban congestion. Road works comprise highway works (maintenance works carried out by highway authorities, discussed above) and street works (work carried out by statutory undertakers such as Transco, referred to hereafter as 'utilities'). The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA) gave highway authorities "a duty to "use their best endeavours" to co-ordinate their own and others' (such as utilities') works in their streets, in the interests of safety, and to minimise inconvenience to road users. There is no legal duty on Utilities to co-ordinate works, but they are obliged to use their best endeavours to co-operate with highway authorities and each other".[126] This section examines the extent to which the Act has worked and what changes might need to be made to ensure a balance of consumer protection and practicality.

The extent of the problem

80. A study commissioned by the Department for Transport (referred to as the Halcrow study) estimated that 1.8 million street works were carried out in England in 2001/02.[127] This includes work on roads and in footpaths and represents one street work for every 170 metres of the road network every year.[128] The Department has asked the consultants Halcrow to investigate how this compares with the volumes of work undertaken by local authorities.

81. We took evidence from two national (Transco and BT) and one local (Yorkshire Water) utilities. Transco is the owner, operator and developer of the 275,000km of pipelines that supply gas across Great Britain. It identified 4 different sorts of street work that it is required to undertake:

"Responses to emergencies
30 year Iron Gas Mains Replacement Programme
Customer requested work
Standard repair work".[129]

Transco noted that it received 6.5 million calls last year and responded to 1.4 million gas escape reports. It is clearly impossible to provide advance notification of street works required to deal with emergencies.

THE GAS-MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAMME

82. From the 1 April 2002, Transco has been required by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to replace all iron gas mains within 30m of a property over the next 30 years before they are deemed unreliable and subject to a greater risk of failure.[130] Iron gas mains make up nearly 50 per cent of Transco's distribution network (around 130,000kms). It is inevitable that such a large scale replacement programme will cause significant disruption to traffic, as the majority of the mains are located under the road carriageway. In developing its final ruling on the replacement programme, the HSE asked Transco what it would mean to remove all of the metallic mains within 5,10, 15, 20 or 25 years. Transco's Safety Director responded that "a very short-term programme obviously has the benefit of removing the hazard quickly. However, it is likely to give rise to widespread disconnection, major traffic disruption, and instability in the labour market…Transco believes that a programme to remove the risk in less than 25 years could not be achieved without significant social disruption…".[131] However, Mr Bannock of Transco told us that "Disruption, I think it is fair to say, was not a primary influence on the decisions".[132] Transco is constrained to some extent on the timing of major works through the programme developed with the HSE. We are surprised and disappointed that traffic disruption was not a major consideration in developing the gas mains replacement programme. The HSE should immediately re-investigate whether it is safe to provide greater flexibility in the programme of replacement to allow local authorities greater influence on the timing, and therefore co-ordination, of works.

WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAMMES

83. The water utilities have a similar programme of works involving emergency repairs, statutory requirements, customer connections and a standard repair programme. The drinking water inspectorate enforces the statutory requirements in relation to water. Yorkshire Water for example has "a commitment which is enforceable under statute to refurbish about five or six hundred kilometres of mains every year and the drinking water inspectorate actually stipulate for us which zones - we have about 70 zones on the water network in Yorkshire - have to be done by which date and there are milestone dates each year to comply with".[133] This too can lead to significant disruption. Kirklees Metropolitan Council told us that Yorkshire Water had submitted a programme to work on 2000 out of 8000 streets in the district.[134] We note that here too, the need to comply with yearly programmes approved by regulatory bodies, in this case the Water Inspectorate, allows little flexibility for the utilities and local authorities to delay works for a small number of months to allow for better co-ordination.

THE TELECOMS SECTOR

84. BT have a different profile of work. Out of 5 million requests for new services or repair every year, only 250,000 require excavation and reinstatement of the road surface. BT told us that of these 250,000, 90 per cent do not require work in the carriageway, but are confined to the verge or pavement.[135] Very little of BT's work comprises major planned refurbishment with only 10 per cent being planned over a long time scale (more than three months). BT pointed out that part of its expansion programme was a result of the Government policy of providing broadband access to schools and hospitals and that there is a trade off between customer requirements and associated disruption.[136]

CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION

85. All three of the companies told us that they attended co-ordination meetings with local authorities and shared plans for their forward programme, where possible up to one year in advance.[137] Transco and Yorkshire Water highlighted the extent to which they also undertake consultation and awareness raising campaigns with local communities.[138] Indeed, Transco's recent experience working in the West End of London involved altering working times around matinee performances of stage shows and halting work around the time of the Soho festival.[139] However, it is also easy to think of examples where the logic of the timing of street works is equally difficult for the public to fathom.

Local Authority Co-ordination

86. It is the responsibility of the Local Authority to co-ordinate its works and the works of the utility companies.[140] The National Street Works Highways Group (NSHWG) represents Highway Authorities across the UK responsible for managing street works. It believes that the 1.8 million utility works per year form the vast majority (75 per cent) of all works carried out on the highway.[141] It told us that the 1991 New Roads and Street Works Act was drawn up when utilities were generally in the public sector. Changes to utility ownership over the last decade have placed a completely different emphasis on the working relationship between highway authorities and utilities. The NHSWG believes that the Act needs to be strengthened if local authorities are to be able to co-ordinate the work of the utilities effectively.[142]

87. The requirements of the regulators and demands of customers for uninterrupted clean and safe power, water and communications results in a very large number of road works every year. The volume of work is likely to increase over coming years. The ability of local authorities to co-ordinate such a large programme of works will be severely tested. More can and must be done to reduce the disruption arising from both utility and local authority works.[143] We review changes that might be made to the legislation to support them in this task.

Notification

88. The key tool for co-ordinating road works is the advance notification of such works by all parties. Mr Bayley of East Sussex County Council told us that "If 80 per cent of the works come in saying either they are starting tomorrow or they are urgent works that start in two hours or they are an emergency, we might pick up the odd one to co-ordinate but with the best will in the world you cannot do anything".[144]

ADVANCE NOTIFICATION

89. Utilities are currently obliged to provide advance notification of one month for major works (around 3 per cent of all works) and one week for standard works. As noted above, many works are notified with even shorter periods. Utilities often provide more than the standard one month's notice for major works.[145] The forward programmes are discussed at three monthly co-ordination meetings to which Utility companies "generally turn up".[146] It is clearly not possible to provide advance notification of emergency works. However, improving the co-ordination of major works could have a disproportionately large benefit in reducing disruption. The one-month notification period is totally inadequate for these purposes. The situation regarding smaller routine upgrading and repair works and new connections is less clear.

CUSTOMER CONNECTIONS

90. Utility companies told us that the connections are customer led.[147] Mr Bayley of East Sussex County Council questioned the short notification he was given for customer connections: "What I find very hard to understand is the customer asks the utility for the service today and they need to notify me at such short notice because they are doing it tomorrow. I just cannot believe that it is that short timescale. I may be wrong but I cannot believe it. If I ask someone for a service today I really do not think they would provide it tomorrow".[148] We agree. No other aspect of new service provision at home occurs on such a short timescale without a hefty premium being paid. A balance must be struck between providing speedy new connections and reducing disruption. This is likely to be a more serious issue on the busiest roads in a city than for work on footpaths in suburban areas where disruption is minimal. Local authorities should therefore have further powers to direct the timing of new connections on the most traffic sensitive routes.

91. If works are to be effectively co-ordinated, forward plans from local authorities must also be provided. Mr Tunstall of Durham County Council told us that whilst the vast majority of authorities do provide advance information about major works, "it is fair to say there may be some highway authorities that do not actually provide information of their works".[149] Co-ordination can only be properly achieved if all parties to the problem share their information. We recommend that Utilities and Highway Authorities be required to provide notification of major works 12 months in advance of their planned starting. We also suggest that attendance at co-ordination meetings is made mandatory for all companies wishing to carry out major works. Emergency repairs and reconnections to people cut off from their Utilities must continue to take priority over disruption to traffic. However, the timing of new connections and other minor repair work should be more flexible. We recommend that Local Authorities be given stronger powers to direct the timing of such works on the busiest routes.

Damage Caused to Roads

92. The large gas and water mains replacement programmes and the expansion of new telecommunications companies in the 1990s has led to a large number of excavations and reinstatements in an already poorly maintained road network. The effect is an ugly patchwork quilt of different colour roads and paths. One does not have to walk far anywhere to see an example of where this has led to an uneven footpath with a loose surface or a road with a series of bumps or potholes.

93. Utility companies are required to guarantee the reinstatement they provide for a period of two years. The reason for a two-year guarantee period is that this provides two winters in which to determine whether the repair will fail.[150] Transco told us that if a repair lasts two years "it will likely last a lot longer".[151]

94. Local Authorities take responsibility for the repair following the two-year guarantee period. Their experience of the durability of the repairs is very different from the view espoused by the utility companies. Mr Kendrick told us that water tended to get in between the joint of the original surface and the repair, which caused damage.[152] Mr Walford of the Audit Commission told us that "The fact that the road is disturbed precipitates the problem. The degree of reinstatement does not always address that sudden decline".[153] However, he accepted that "If the pavement is not very good to start with, neither is the reinstatement".[154]

95. The extent to which excavation and reinstatement damages the road surface is currently the subject of a study funded by the Department for Transport and the County Surveyor's Society. The first stage of the project reviewed the literature and found that excavations can reduce the time until a major repair or renewal is required by up to 30 per cent.[155] The guarantee period was previously examined in the Horne Report in 1985.[156] The report advised against extending it beyond two years as it would require a much greater local authority workload. It would also be more difficult to establish with certainty what the cause of any problem was.[157] As new evidence comes to light from the current study, the recommendations of the Horne report may need to be reviewed.

96. The NSWHG pointed out that "there is provision within the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (section 78) for Utilities to contribute to the costs incurred (or likely to be incurred) due to making good long-term damage by a Highway Authority but this remains still to be enacted by Government".[158] It suggested three possible solutions to the issue of long-term damage to the road surface:

Extension of the period of protection for new road surfaces in which time only emergency works and connections are permitted (currently 12 months);
New powers be provided to enable Local Authorities to require larger surface reinstatements to be carried out; and
The activation of the reserved powers of NRSWA section 78.[159]

97. It is frustrating and unnecessary in many situations for a recently resurfaced road to be dug up a year or so later. The current protection of one year on a newly resurfaced road is not sufficient. We recommend that the period of protection for newly resurfaced roads be extended from twelve months to two years. This will help to ensure better forward planning and co-ordination. However, if such a scheme is to work, local authorities will have to provide details of their forward programmes of planned resurfacing over longer periods so that all parties involved can co-ordinate their works.

98. It would be unwise to pre-judge the outcome of the Department for Transport and County Surveyor's Society funded research project into long-term damage from street works. However, if the final conclusions concur with the interim results and confirm that excavation does significantly reduce the useful life of a road or footpath then it is reasonable to expect this cost to be paid for by the utility companies and not the local authorities. If the long-term damage to roads caused by excavations is proven, local authorities should be able to reclaim these costs from utility companies. We expect the Department to bring forward powers through section 78 of the New Roads and Street Works Act to enable this. This will be more practicable than an extension to the two year guarantee period.

Reducing Delays from Street Works

99. A further essential part of the jigsaw of minimising disruption from street works and road works is to reduce the time it takes to carry out works. This can be done by measures such as the increased use of new technology which does not involve excavating (so called 'trenchless technology') and by placing financial incentives on companies to complete works on time. There are two parts of the New Roads and Street Works Act that introduce incentives to be more efficient.

CHARGING FOR OVERRUNNING WORKS (SECTION 74)

100. Section 74 of the NRSWA provides for local authorities to charge Utilities for unnecessary overstaying on site. The powers were brought into force in April 2001 after concern that other powers within the Act were not providing sufficient incentive to minimise disruption.[160] Utilities can be fined up to £2000 per day for each day of overrun, the level of the fine depending on how busy the road is. The system requires utilities to send electronic notification of a request to carry out a street work, complete with details of the job and an expected duration. When the job is approved by the local authority it is carried out by the utility or, in practice, its contractors. On completion of the works, the utility notifies the local authority. Where the work has overrun, the utility can be fined by the local authority.

101. The Halcrow report examined the effectiveness of Section 74 in reducing disruption. The first point that the report highlighted is the extreme difficulties which have been encountered in establishing the new system. Table 2 below shows the estimated number of days overrun and the potential charges outstanding from the first year of operation from the 25 authorities surveyed. Table 3 shows the actual amounts invoiced and paid during 2001/02 for 9 of these 25 authorities.

Table 3: Potential overrun charges from 25 authorities in 2001/02

	Electricity	Gas	Telecom	Water	Total
Days of overrun	19,700	56,000	34,600	93,800	204,100
Potential Charge	£6,716,150	£21,897,900	£23,725,650	£20,870,400	£73,210,100

Data Source: Department for Transport: Halcrow Report

Table 4: Actual overrun charges and payments from 9 out of the 25 authorities in 2001/02

	Electricity	Gas	Telecom	Water	Total
Total invoiced	£921,300	£2,147,500	£786,350	£1,027,350	£4,882,500
Total paid	£62,900	£365,450	£78,500	£88,800	£595,650

Data Source: Department for Transport: Halcrow Report

Mr Roberts of the Department for Transport told us that around £46 million of overrun charges had been billed for by 12 February 2003.[161]

102. The introduction of parts of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 has been badly managed. There is an unacceptably large discrepancy between the overrun charges that could be levied, those that are actually invoiced and those which have, to date, been paid. Transco supports the introduction of charges for street works which overrun. Mr Bannock, London Network Director for Transco told us "It does give us an incentive to plan our works properly and to see them through properly and in a timely way and also to agree the timescales with the local authorities".[162] Transco told us that it had paid a substantial amount of fines to date and explained the procedures it adopts before paying a charge:

"To 31st January 2003, invoices to the total of £48.5 million have been received by Transco from Highway Authorities. As a responsible company, Transco confirms the validity of any invoice prior to payment and of the £48.5 million invoiced, £12.3 million of invoices (25%) have been challenged and subsequently cancelled by Highway Authorities.

Transco has paid £7.1 million of charges where it is agreed that the Company has occupied the highway beyond agreed dates. A further £1.4 million are in the process of being paid, and £2 million are currently subject to further investigations within Transco.

Finally, £25.7 million has been investigated by Transco and we are unable to confirm the accuracy of these invoices. As a result, we are in discussions with the relevant Highway Authorities to confirm the validity, or otherwise, of these invoices prior to making any appropriate payments. Regrettably, in some instances, these have moved into litigation".[163]

103. BT told us that it had paid £3,442,380 in overrun charges up to 7^th January 2003.[164] Yorkshire Water confirmed it had paid £656,500 to 6 February 2003 out of a total amount invoiced of £4,220,650. However, of the total invoiced, £710,750 (17 per cent) have been identified as administrative errors and waived.

104. The Minister for Transport told us that he was "not satisfied with the way that it [Section 74] is working, and that the utilities are not necessarily operating that in the best possible way".[165] The Minister accepted that "Authorities in some cases are not well set up to either receive or process the information. There are administration problems on both sides".[166] BT told us that part of the problem stemmed from a failure by Utilities to send a completion notice even though works had been finished and cleared away. The fines from such errors can be up to £100,000 and "in some cases authorities have allowed fines to accumulate, despite knowing the works have been completed".[167] We note that a recent case between Leicestershire County Council and Transco along similar grounds has ruled that Transco is liable to pay the charge.[168] Mr Tunstall of Durham County Council told us that some of the payments were being withheld, probably pending the outcome of the court case.[169] He noted that Durham has a policy of sending a draft bill to Utilities to dispute before a formal bill is sent out.[170]

105. Mr Bannock told us that the system of charging had been introduced very quickly and the systems and processes were imperfect. He believed that the level of charges were now being reduced.[171] Transco and BT were of the opinion that the scheme had caused them to re-examine the way they work and to reduce the amount of disruption caused. Transco estimate that the percentage of works now overrunning has reduced from 25 per cent to 3 per cent.[172] BT have found that the average duration of works has fallen from 6 days to 3 days and the number of days overstay has also fallen from 14 per cent of the duration of the work to 0.4 per cent.[173] The Halcrow report concluded that the trend is unclear.[174]

106. A visit to Marconi, who co-ordinate the works for BT in the South East of England, showed that considerable investment had been made in improving the electronic notification system that forms the basis for Section 74 overrun control. One of the main problems has been the need to develop bespoke software to link up the systems of the contractors, the utilities and the local authorities. However, this investment, and the training for the operators is now complete. Marconi believed that the system was now working much better than before.[175] However, Transco noted that the system is complicated by the fact that local authorities all manage the process in a different way. Mr Bannock told us that in his area "we have 47 different local authorities with different processes, different systems and actually different interpretations of the legislation".[176]

107. The purpose of Section 74 is to reduce disruption caused by street works which overrun. We do not know that this is yet happening. What is clear however, is that no-one was properly prepared for the introduction of the scheme and that this has led to large numbers of fines being generated that are subsequently waived or are currently in dispute. The Department is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the legislation and must therefore take responsibility for this mess. We see no reason why the current system cannot be made to work properly.

108. The fines from Section 74 are supposed to relate to disruption caused by works overrunning. It is therefore inappropriate for full fines to be levied when works have been removed but notification not sent or when the work is complete but small items have been left on site. These incidents do not cause disruption. However, the system relies on complete and accurate reporting of the start and finish point of street works. The onus has to be on Utility companies to comply with these requirements; "sorry we forgot" is not good enough. We do not understand why it is so difficult to check that a site has been cleared or to provide formal notification that a job is finished. We recommend that a new but lower fine is introduced for failure to notify completion of works or failure to clear a site completely. The Department should review its 2001 Code of Practice to ensure that the interpretation of the Act is consistent amongst utilities and local authorities. Clear guidance will ensure that the Act works to reduce congestion on the streets rather than increasing it in the courts.

CHARGING FOR USING THE ROAD (SECTION 74A)

109. The Department told us that if the powers under Section 74 of the NRSWA "do not reduce disruption significantly, then they [Ministers] are prepared to activate further powers: either a system which will allow utilities to be charges a daily rate from the start of works, regardless of whether they overrun or not (so-called "lane rental") or a permit system for which Ministers are seeking new primary powers".[177] In March 2002, alongside the monitoring of Section 74, the Department established two pilot schemes to test the effectiveness of lane rental in Camden and Middlesbrough.[178] Utilities are required to pay up to £750 per day for the whole duration of each works.[179]

110. Yorkshire Water have taken part in the scheme in Middlesbrough. It noted that if lane rental was introduced in the form it is currently being trialled, it would add about £30 to £35 million to the company's cost base. It noted that the "nature of the regulatory regime that water companies operate in means that such costs are eligible to be passed on to customers and would add between 6 per cent and 7 per cent to customer bills".[180] It believed that were such a scheme to be introduced, it should be limited to the busiest roads and should have an exemption for the first three days.[181]

111. BT and Transco were entirely opposed to the scheme. Both companies believed that they already had enough incentives to reduce the time spent on street and that lane rental would simply act as a tax on customers.[182] In particular, Transco noted that under the lane rental scheme, utilities will bear additional costs irrespective of efficiency and, like Yorkshire Water, it foresaw that these would be passed on to the customer.[183] The National Joint Utilities Group estimates that these costs will add up annually to around £55 per customer.[184] The Department acknowledged that were the lane rental charges simply to be passed on to the customers then it would be unlikely to be effective. However, it is currently evaluating the impact of the trial.[185]

112. We do not believe that lane rental offers a sensible way to reduce disruption caused by street works. The works undertaken by utilities are necessary. The objective of any charging scheme should be to charge for inefficiency in carrying out the work, not for carrying out the work in the first place. The overrun charging system (Section 74) already provides a mechanism to achieve these objectives and should be made to work properly.

PERMIT SYSTEMS

113. The Department has indicated that Ministers are considering bringing forward a "permit system". Such a system would work along similar lines to a system in use in New York. The Department explained how such a system might work:

"In New York, any Utility wishing to dig up the road has to obtain a separate permit for each of its works. Permits are issued to co-ordinate construction whilst minimising the impact on pedestrians and motorists. The New York City Department of Transportation issued over 172,000 permits in the financial year 2002. There are 111 inspectors who enforce the rules and regulations. There are 71 different types of permits in total, 46 of which are types of street opening permits, others include: building operations, sidewalk construction and canopy permits".[186]

Fees are currently between $135 and $380 for 15 or 30 days depending on the business of the street. The permits stipulate where and when the work may be carried out.[187]

114. Mr Tunstall of Durham County Council told us that it would perhaps be beneficial if local authorities, utilities and developers had to seek a permit to work in a road. Fines would still be levied for overrun charges to encourage efficient working.[188] He believed that nationally set charges would also be transparent as all parties would be on a level playing field.[189] Mr Bordiss of Northamptonshire County Council also supported the introduction of a permit system.[190] The Minister told us that the decision about which scheme to adopt had not yet been taken. However, he believed that different schemes would be appropriate for different authorities.[191]

115. We note the arguments put forward by local authorities and the Minister with regards to the potential introduction of a permit system. However, the overwhelming message we received from our investigations is that the current system of charging for overrunning work has not yet been made to function properly. The Department's own consultants have said that it is too early to say whether the current system will work. Considerable investment in IT and training and greater operational experience has and will continue to remove some of the early glitches. The introduction of a new system with a myriad of different types of permits would be complicated. We understand that such a system would also include charging for overruns as at present. The track record of Section 74 does not promise a smooth introduction for any new system. There has not yet been any consideration of the cost of introducing such a system for what could be only a small number of cities. Indeed, whilst the Department was able to describe the New York scheme, it was not able to quantify the benefits that would be brought about from introducing it here. On the basis of such flimsy evidence we question the necessity of introducing a permit system which will further dilute effort and attention away from the key issue of managing the systems currently in place.

Ensuring Quality Repairs

116. The discussion above concentrates on reducing the time in which road works and street works are undertaken. Mr Geffen of the Cyclists Touring Club raised his concern that "the pressure to speed up the carrying out of street works might be detrimental to the quality with which they are done. We are much more concerned that street works are done to good quality than that they are done quickly".[192] The Halcrow report did not find evidence of significant numbers of repairs having to be redone due to their poor quality. However, the report noted that lack of defects "is not borne out by experience or the rate of defects being identified under the inspection procedure".[193] The Department must continue to ensure that the incentives to speed up street works do not compromise the quality and durability of the repairs to the road and path surfaces.

Traffic Managers

THE ROLE OF TRAFFIC MANAGERS

117. The Department has indicated that it is not satisfied with the way in which many different elements that cause disruption in a typical town or city are managed by local authorities. In its progress report on the 10 Year Plan in December 2002, the Department stated:

"The management of street works and that of local authorities' own maintenance and improvement works, along with traffic and parking schemes, and their enforcement, and the way that accidents are dealt with, all combine to affect the efficiency with which local roads operate. If local authorities are to make the most of the investment already made in the existing road network, then it is important that all these elements are brought together; that someone in cities and large towns has clear and unambiguous responsibility for managing works on the roads and for dealing with incidents and problems on a day-to-day basis. We will be working with local authorities, the police and others to improve the overall management of local road networks".[194]

118. The Department has subsequently proposed the introduction of 'Traffic Managers' or 'Congestion Tsars' to "bring together decisions and control all of the elements that affect the operation of a road network (especially in major urban areas), so that the network can be actively managed".[195] The Minister told the Committee that the right solution would vary depending on the size of the urban area:

"the central London position is pretty unique. The situation of the major urban areas of the old Metropolitan Authorities is, again, of a different order to that for many small to medium- sized towns. What we would be looking at is not something where one size fits all, and some of the measures, under the current legislation, properly operated, could well work quite effectively, and not particularly bureaucratically, in dealing with problems in some areas".[196]

The Department currently envisages two types of managers. The first would be internal within an authority. The second would be external and could either manage one authority or a number of authorities, as would be the case in a Metropolitan area. The Traffic Manager would have the power "to override" decisions if the local authority was not acting in accordance with its duty of keeping traffic moving.[197]

119. The Department confirmed that posts would be paid for by the appropriate local authority.[198] The Minister was asked whether a local authority could pursue a claim against itself through the courts if it was in breach of its own Traffic Manager's rules.[199] He told us that this was "an interesting question" but did not proffer an answer.[200] However, he believed that the situation might be more clear cut where one traffic manager oversaw the work of several local authorities.[201]

THE LOCAL AUTHORITY VIEW

120. The Minister told us that "many local authorities are attracted to the concept [of Traffic Managers]".[202] In the light of the Minister's view of the popularity of the concept we were surprised to find almost unanimous opposition to the introduction of traffic managers from the local authority representatives who gave evidence. Mr Bayley of East Sussex County Council told us that the issue was not one of organisational structure but of information overload "if I have got the tools to do it then I can do it. You might say someone could do it better than I and I understand that, but it is having the tools to do it. Nobody can do it at the moment with the vast majority of works coming in at such short notice. It is just not possible, I am afraid".[203]

121. Mr Tunstall of Durham County Council told us that traffic managers were unnecessary and similar goals could be achieved within a local authority if better organised. Durham has recently introduced a new system. Mr Tunstall told us: "I think local authorities can do it perfectly well. There is a question of cost and I honestly feel that as the utilities are undertaking these works why should the public purse bear some of this cost?".[204] Mr Bordiss of Northamptonshire County Council told us that the key aspect to improving co-ordination was greater powers of direction. He told us that "We do not see the need for an extra layer of bureaucracy though. That could and should be done within authorities on an internally robust basis".[205] The witnesses also concurred on the importance of local knowledge and accountability. Mr Tunstall concluded that local people will approach the local authority anyway "so what will happen is you will have three parties and they will all be debating about whose responsibility it was but it will still ultimately come back to the highway authority, the locally elected members and the MP".[206]

THE UTILITIES' VIEW

122. In contrast, the utilities were in favour of the introduction of Traffic Managers. BT told us that under the current system, local authorities were both judge and jury in determining fines yet did not have to provide information about their own works: "it would make it transparent and bring to a single point of accountability without any conflict of interest the decision making that you seek".[207] Transco supported the idea of treating all works on the road under a consistent set of rules.[208] However, the utilities were keen to ensure that a Traffic Manager understood the way in which utilities work.[209] Mr Tunstall of Durham County Council suggested that the needs of the road user should be first and foremost in the mind.[210] We add a note of caution to such an approach. Road users are also utility customers. They have a right to expect a balanced approach taking account of delays, damage to the road and provision of first class utility services.

SUMMARY

123. We were not able to take evidence on the other roles of the proposed Traffic Managers including traffic signal control, managing incidents, deploying traffic enforcement resources, traffic management for events or input into highway design and planning decisions. However, we note that this remit is enormous, particularly in the case where responsibility would cut across several local authorities. It is not clear that any one person would be able to fulfil this role nor where in the country there is a surfeit of skills to fill such posts. If the idea is for an "Office of the Traffic Manager", filled with support staff, then this will require yet further resources and skills. Local authorities do not have the resources to effectively manage all of these functions now. We do not see how an extra layer of bureaucracy will resolve this issue.

124. Part of the rationale for Traffic Managers appears to be the perceived need for an independent adjudicator between the local authorities and the utilities. We do not support this view. The utilities can only be charged for failure to comply with the New Roads and Street Works Act. The rules are laid down and should be transparent. We accept the utilities view that local authorities should also have a duty to minimise disruption. However, local authority performance is already judged through Best Value inspections and ultimately the ballot box. A clear national framework of charges, better guidelines about their application and joint working between the utilities and the local authorities should resolve the outstanding difficulties. Co-ordination will work best through partnership and not an adversarial relationship overseen by an adjudicator.

125. We note that the legislation to introduce Traffic Managers is expected to place a statutory duty on the Manager to "keep traffic moving".[211] We regret the implication that road traffic movement is more important than pedestrians, safety or the environment. Keeping traffic moving is important and already a key function of local authorities. It could and should be done better. However, it must be seen within the wider context of the Government's own Integrated Transport White Paper and within the policies and targets of each local authority. We are unconvinced as to the benefits of, need for and skills available to create Traffic Managers. We recommend that the Government submit any legislation to introduce such measures to this Committee for scrutiny in draft. We also recommend that the Department give consideration to, and report on, the full policy, practical and financial implications of such posts before submitting the draft legislation.

Provision of Information

126. One of the many frustrations for road users and pedestrians is the lack of quality information that accompanies road works. Whilst for major projects, significant community consultation is undertaken and there is liaison with affected parties, smaller works receive far less attention. One such example occurs when repair works are carried out and then left open or filled in with concrete but not surfaced. Our witnesses told us that this was due to either allowing gas mains to "vent" or to allow concrete time to strengthen before the road surface was applied.[212] It would be simple and helpful to inform the public who simply see this as an unfinished job. The Audit Commission highlighted the need for better information. It noted that one-stop shops for information on road works and other public space concerns and better customer focus were important features in those authorities that have good or excellent highway services.[213] It should be standard practice for there to be a single point of contact within local authorities for all queries relating to roadworks. Better information at the road works themselves would also help people understand why work is being carried out. None of these improvements require legislation and could be achieved through better dissemination of best practice. The Department should take the lead in ensuring that this happens.

126 RPM 33 Back

127 Halcrow Group Ltd, Assessing the Extent of Street Works and Monitoring the Effectiveness of Section 74 in Reducing Disruption, for Department for Transport, October 2002 Back

128 The English Road Network is 299,954 km long (Transport Statistics Great Britain: 2002 Edition). Back

129 RPM 45 Back

130 Ibid. Back

131 RPM 45A Back

132 Q17 Back

133 Q48 Back

134 RPM 30 Back

135 RPM 47A Back