Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Highways Agency
Q31 (Mr Curry): What controls are applied
to slow-moving army vehicles using trunk roads?
Where the armed forces wish to transport an
abnormal load, they are required to notify and liaise with the
Highways Agency in the same way as other hauliers. There are,
however, no formal procedures covering the movement of convoys
of armed forces vehicles on the trunk road network. Although they
do occasionally inform the Highways Agency there is no statutory
requirement to do so.
Q41 (Mrs Browning): A breakdown of the cost
of £3 million for additional TO uniforms?
The initial business case allowed replacement
of uniform once every three years for the original staffing complement
of 800 people. The revised business case allowed for a further
600 staff and altered the rate of replacement of uniforms to once
every eight months, on the basis of benchmarking with the police.
The quoted figure of £3 million covers total traffic officer
and control room staff, or approximately 1,400 people. Changing
uniforms more frequently means, over three years, an additional
four uniforms for each of the additional 600 staff and an additional
three uniforms for the original 800 ie a total of 4,800 uniforms.
This equates to an average cost per uniform across all staff grades
of £625 per uniform.
Traffic officer work has a high manual content,
including clearing debris from the motorway. The package of uniform
includes personal protective equipment for on-road staff, including
boots, dust masks, goggles and torches. Table C below provides
a breakdown of the estimated equipment costs for a Traffic Officer.
The uniform cost of £830 per officer is higher than the average
of £625 across all staff (including those in control rooms).
Costs are estimated and outturns will depend on actual replacement
needs over time.
Table C
Breakdown of cost of Traffic Officer uniforms
UNIFORM COST
FOR MALE
TRAFFIC OFFICER
| | |
| |
| Item | Unit Price
| Price inc
VAT
| Qty
| Total inc
VAT |
| High Vis Light Weight Jacket (Class 3) |
£33.95 | £39.89 | 2
| £79.78 |
| Waterproof 2 Tone High Vis Jacket With Hood (Class 3)
| £57.95 | £68.09 |
2 | £136.18 |
| Waterproof High Vis Trousers (Class 1) |
£17.95 | £21.09 | 2
| £42.18 |
| Fleece | £18.95 | £22.27
| 2 | £44.53 |
| Jumper (Nato style)—Acrylic V-neck |
£16.95 | £19.92 | 2
| £39.83 |
| White Shirt Men's Short Sleeve | £10.50
| £12.34 | 4 | £49.35
|
| White Shirt Men's Long Sleeve | £10.95
| £12.87 | 4 | £51.47
|
| Dark Blue Trousers Men's | £26.50
| £31.14 | 3 | £93.41
|
| Belt | £3.50 | £4.11
| 2 | £8.23 |
| Clip on/off Tie (HA Branded) | £5.95
| £6.99 | 3 | £20.97
|
| Epaulettes (pair) | £8.95
| £10.52 | 3 | £31.55
|
| Hardwearing Protective Gloves | £13.95
| £16.39 | 1 | £16.39
|
| Thermal Windstoppper Gloves | £15.95
| £18.74 | 1 | £18.74
|
| Winter Cap | £14.00 |
£16.45 | 1 | £16.45
|
| Winter Wool Hat | £15.00
| £17.63 | 1 | £17.63
|
| Protective Shoes, COSHH Sole, PPE | £31.95
| £37.54 | 1 | £37.54
|
| Protective Boots, COSHH Sole, PPE | £36.95
| £43.42 | 1 | £43.42
|
| Safety Wellingtons, COSHH Sole, PPE | £10.95
| £12.87 | 1 | £12.87
|
| Holdall (provided by logo leisure) | £10.50
| £12.34 | 1 | £12.34
|
| Dust mask | £0.55 |
£0.65 | 1 | £0.65
|
| Safety goggles | £3.85
| £4.52 | 1 | £4.52
|
| Whistle—ACME Thunderer | £3.50
| £4.11 | 1 | £4.11
|
| Torch—2D Maglite | £25.00
| £29.38 | 1 | £29.38
|
| Hard Hat | £14.95 |
£17.57 | 1 | £17.57
|
| ID Cards (PfM) | £2.00
| £2.35 | 1 | £2.35
|
| Kit Totals | £411.20 |
| 43 | £831.43
|
| | |
| |
Q47-52 (Mr Trickett): Benefit-cost ratios for major schemes
and for traffic management measures?
Typical benefit-cost ratios for different investments in
motorways and trunk roads are given in Table A below. This shows
that generally small schemes and junction improvements have highest
benefit-cost ratios, while traffic management measures are generally
expected to provide lower benefit-cost ratios. These figures need
to be treated with caution, as results are highly site-specific.
For each investment area, the range of returns from a sample of
schemes is shown. In the case of traffic management areas such
as ramp metering, the returns are estimated on the basis of our
work to date.
Table A
Benefit-cost ratios for different motorway and trunk
road investments
CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES
| Investment | Benefit cost ratio (BCR)
|
| Low | High
| Typical |
| Small (under £5 million) safety schemes
| 1 | 200 | 15
|
| Small congestion relief schemes (under £5 million)
| 2 | 200 | 60
|
| Junction improvement schemes (over £5 million)
| 1 | 25 | 13
|
| Motorway widening | 2 | 10
| 6 |
| New Bypass | 1 | 9
| 5 |
| | |
|
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
| Investment | Benefit cost ratio (BCR)
|
| Low | High
| Typical |
| High occupancy vehicle lanes (estimated) |
10 | 15 | na |
| Incident detection and warning (MIDAS) |
2 | 9 | 6
|
| Monitoring cameras (CCTV) | 1
| 4 | 3 |
Ramp metering
(estimated) | 1
| 10 | na |
| Active traffic management (estimated) | 1
| 2.5 | na |
| Variable speed limits (estimated) | 1
| 2 | na |
| | |
|
Notes: The figures in the tables above are based on business cases
for the types of schemes indicated. Results are highly site-specific
and so figures need to be treated with caution. In the case of
traffic management measures not yet widely deployed, the benefit
cost ratios are estimated, and typical returns are not available.
A 30-year appraisal period has been used throughout. In general,
the Highways Agency would not implement a scheme with a benefit
cost ratio under 1.5, unless there were site-specific non-monetised
factors, such as environmental benefits.
Q52-55 (Mr Trickett): How a business case for a traffic
management scheme is constructed?
All Highways Agency network improvement projects are supported
by business cases. These are based on guidance contained in the
New Approach To Appraisal (NATA) which considers the impacts
of a scheme against the Government's five overarching objectives
for transport, ie environment, safety, economy, accessibility
and integration. NATA is used to appraise all transport schemes
and therefore provides a consistent basis for comparison and prioritising
between schemes.
The Department for Transport and the Highways Agency have
developed advice and guidance about how to develop business cases
for different types of schemes. This includes advice about how
to assess the scope and scale of impacts and, where impacts can
be monetised (economy and safety), what values should be used.
For example, in the case of the economy impact, specific values
are used depending upon the type of traveller and mode of travel.
The advice and guidance is based on extensive research managed
by the DfT and HA and can be accessed through the DfT's web site.
A typical business case will consider the current journey
times for different types of traffic and different routes and
compare those with the predicted journey times after the intervention.
Overall traffic impacts are assessed by taking account of current
and predicted traffic volumes. In complex cases, a traffic model
may be constructed to enable predictions of journey times with
and without the planned intervention. Similarly, road accident
casualty numbers before the intervention will be compared with
those expected after the intervention. Assessments are made of
environmental impacts, including areas such as traffic noise,
pollution and where appropriate, landscape impact and impacts
on biodiversity and water run-off. Decisions are based on an assessment
of overall value for money, taking account of environmental and
other non-monetised impacts as well as of the benefit-cost ratio.
Generally the practice in the UK is more rigorous than those
used overseas in ensuring that proposed investments have sound
business cases before any wider application. Pilot studies often
take several years to carry out, but they provide valuable insight
into the impact of measures on road users, and are essential for
the development of sound business cases for innovative measures.
As noted in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the
justification process can hold up the wider application of innovative
techniques, and some techniques will fail to generate a positive
benefit/cost ratio or otherwise not provide good value for money.
Q97-102 (Mr Bacon): A breakdown of the costs of the M25
variable speed limit trials against budget?
The Comptroller and Auditor General's Report, Figure 6, shows
the budgets and spend to date for the M25 Controlled Motorway
System (variable speed limits) as:
| Budget |
Spend to Date |
| M25 Variable Speed Limits Junctions 10 to 15
| £10.0 million | £11.2 million
|
| Extension of M25 Variable Speed Limits Junctions 15 to 16
| £3.9 million | £2.9 million
|
| Total | £13.9 million |
£14.1 million |
| | |
The initial Controlled Motorway Pilot scheme extended from
junctions 10 to 15 of the M25, a total of 22 kilometres and became
operational in August 1995. Most of the infrastructure to support
variable speed limits already existed and the cost of the pilot
was significantly less than it would have been elsewhere. The
initial estimate of the cost of a one-year pilot was £10
million but the final outturn cost was £11.2 million. The
majority of the increase was due to costs incurred in providing
facilities for Home Office Type Approval of the enforcement systems
and in setting up and staffing the office used by Surrey and the
Metropolitian Police to support enforcement of the scheme. These
costs were not anticipated at the time the original estimates
were produced.
It was agreed, in 2000, that the Controlled Motorway scheme
would be extended to include junctions 15 to 16, a further 8 km
of motorway. The initial estimated cost of the extension was £3.9
million, but the Agency was able to achieve cost savings of £1
million by re-using and improving existing equipment and systems
and by adopting a more efficient method of installation to reduce
disruption to traffic.
As a result of the savings achieved on the extension of the
pilot, the total cost for the complete M25 scheme was £14.1
million against a budget of £13.9 million.
Q105-111 Mr Williams): Signing at M4 roadworks at Swindon
and why the 50 mph signs are retained over weekends when no work
is underway?
The roadworks on the M4 between Swindon and Bath at the time
of the Committee hearing are part of a programme to install variable
message signs and incident detection and warning systems (MIDAS)
on the M4 motorway over a three year period.
The works involve installing ducts beneath the motorway for
the installation of fibre-optic cables. In order to minimise disruption
to traffic, the Highways Agency is using trenchless technology
techniques which require large pits to be dug on either side of
the road at regular intervals. These pits are protected by a temporary
safety barrier system called "Varioguard" which is bolted
down to the carriageway. The system is designed to withstand collisions
up to 50 mph only and hence the speed limit has to be maintained
while the pits are present for the safety of the travelling public,
even at times when no road workers are present on site.
The overall project is made up of nine separate contracts,
the first four of which have already been let. The installation
of the fibre optic cable and communications system is programmed
to be completed by the end of March 2006. Temporary 50 mph speed
limits will be required at various times and locations between
Swindon and Bristol until the scheme is completed. Every effort
is being made to keep disruption to traffic to a minimum whilst
these new systems are installed, which will improve road safety
and improve provision of driver information on the M4 motorway.
More recently, works started on 17 January to repair the
westbound embankment between M4 junctions 15 and 16 near Swindon,
to maintain safety on the motorway. The work will involve regrading
the slope of the embankment, to make it less steep, installing
new drainage and replacing safety barriers. The work is scheduled
to be completed by 24 March. Disruption to motorists is being
kept to the minimum. Two lanes will remain open to traffic westbound.
The eastbound carriageway is unaffected.
Q119 (Mr Williams): What traffic information the Highways
Agency envisages making available in motorway service areas and
timescales?
The Highways Agency's vision is that road users should have
accurate, relevant and timely information about their journeys
available on its variable message signs and at information points
across the network. With the national traffic control centre in
place, plans to introduce regional control centres over the next
three years, and the investment already made and continuing in
variable message signs and traffic monitoring equipment, many
of the building blocks for meeting this vision are already in
place or programmed.
During 2005-06, the Highways Agency will implement a first
information point in a motorway service area or other transport
hub in the West Midlands, possibly in partnership with private
commercial suppliers. The information to be provided is likely
to include real time traffic and travel information, details of
roadworks and advice on choice of route. Based on our experience
with this initial site, we will develop a forward plan and programme
for the provision of additional information points across the
network.
Q126 (Mr Williams): How many speed cameras are in place
on England's trunk roads, and of how many there are in place under
safety camera partnerships, for accident blackspot reasons?
There are currently 327 safety camera sites on the trunk
road network as part of the Highways Agency's involvement in safety
camera partnerships with the police and local authorities. The
figures in Table B below give a breakdown by Highways Agency area
and safety camera partnership and represent the best information
available on 20 December 2004. The table includes fixed camera
sites, red light camera sites and mobile camera sites (ie locations
where cameras are deployed from time to time), but excludes cameras
at road works sites and those used in conjunction with the M25
variable speed limits scheme.
Table B
Breakdown of cameras by Highways Agency area and by
safety camera partnership (as at 20 December 2004)
| HA Area | Partnership(s)
| Sites |
| 1 | Devon and Cornwall |
18 |
| 2 | Avon and Somerset
Gloucestershire
Wiltshire
| 24 |
| 3 | Dorset
Hampshire and Isle of Wight
Thames Valley
| 7 |
| 4 | Kent and Medway | 27
|
| 5 | London | 10
|
| 6 | Essex
Norfolk
Suffolk
| 12 |
| 7 | Derbyshire
Leicestershire
Lincolnshire
Nottinghamshire
| 22 |
| 8 | Bedford and Luton
Cambridgeshire
| 39 |
| 9 | West Mercia
West Midlands
| 92 |
| 10 | Cheshire
Greater Manchester
Lancashire
Merseyside
| 8 |
| 11 | Staffordshire
Warwickshire
| 21 |
| 12 | Humberside
South Yorkshire
West Yorkshire
| 12 |
| 13 | Cumbria | 25
|
| 14 | Cleveland
Northumbria
North Yorkshire
| 10 |
| | |
The locations of individual camera sites can be found on
the National Safety Camera Liaison website at www.nationalsafetycameras.co.uk
24 January 2005
| 
