Effective road and traffic management

Joint Supplementary written evidence from Urban Traffic Management & Control Development Group (UDG) and the Institute of Highway Engineers (IHE) (ETM 05a)

1. Current and better systems

Ref Q182: Can congestion be improved by traffic management schemes?

Ref Q183: Which ones? What types of schemes?

Ref Q185: Can any of you give an example of a technology that you think could solve the problem of congestion or go a long way towards solving it but which is not being used enough or being applied? Perhaps you could indicate why you think it might not be being used enough.

1.1 As traffic is generated by many societal factors, so the opportunity to manage it needs to be aware of these factors. In practice this means the integration of disparate computer systems.

1.2 Frameworks such as UTMC have been constructed, and are supported, precisely to allow this kind of integration. This has already had significant benefit around the country but there are many places that it is still underused. There are also a few areas where a stronger central push seems to be required.

1.3 Generally traffic management and public transport systems are working well together. The most significant opportunity probably lies in the use of traffic congestion data to inform bus arrival ("Countdown") predictions. Similarly, integration with car park systems helps reduce congestion by providing directions to vehicles which are searching for a parking space.

1.4 The integration of roadworks data into traffic management systems is less well developed: it currently depends on a considerable amount of specialist coding between local systems, and as a consequence is patchy around the country. This approach is inefficient: a standardised data feed into UTMC systems would allow local authorities to provide better and more timely public information (even over the weekend!). Equally importantly, it would enable traffic management systems to "self configure" around roadworks, which could significantly reduce works-related congestion.

1.5 Another key area where efficiencies could be achieved is the emerging infrastructure associated with electric vehicles. Where networks of charging points are under the control of the local authority, there is an opportunity to design and operate them, and provide information to drivers, in a way that minimises congestion.

1.6 Sponsoring this standardisation and coordination is, we believe, a clear DfT responsibility. Local authorities should then be able to implement it simply and cheaply.

1.7 Mention was made by others and ourselves of "SCOOT" and "MOVA". These are two forms of computer-based dynamic traffic control developed by TRL (and its predecessors) as Government-funded research, and have since moved successfully to the private sector marketplace; both can deliver significant reductions in delay. DfT has published extensive guidance on these techniques [1] .

2. Localism and cooperation

Ref Q130: …On bus priority and more general transport issues regarding congestion, is there an issue where local authorities do not work together? They do not coordinate their transport strategy.

Ref Q188: You think it is a financial issue?

Ref Q191: Do you think there is enough knowledge in the appropriate authorities of what is available?

2.1 There are many practical reasons why specific scheme designs need to remain local: the role of local politicians, the need for public consultation, the dependence on specific local circumstances etc. However for some aspects of traffic management, current highways authorities are geographically too small to ensure good design and coherent operation.

2.2 In metropolitan areas, especially where there is experience of working with a PTE, there is an increasing move towards a collaborative model. However, outside these areas progress is slower.

2.3 Cooperation between authorities, to undertake traffic management over larger areas, would enable skills to be pooled and offers the potential to both improve operations and cut costs (on both systems and people).

2.4 There are things that Central Government can do to help lubricate this process, short of issuing mandates. It can support the production of technical and operational standards, which make collaboration easier; and it can support the exchange of experiences, on where and how collaboration has worked. In addition to our previous evidence, some specific examples are indicated below.

3. Bus priority and other signalling intelligence

Ref Q130: …On bus priority and more general transport issues regarding congestion, is there an issue where local authorities do not work together? They do not coordinate their transport strategy.

Ref Q182: Can congestion be improved by traffic management schemes?

3.1 Bus priority at traffic signals is now widespread around the country. It need not require bus lanes but can be done instead through detection of buses approaching traffic lights. This does require buses to be equipped with location systems, but over half of the buses in the country are now so equipped [1] . DfT has undertaken much work in this area and issued guidance which the committee should be aware of [2] .

3.2 Similar intelligence can be deployed towards other specified vehicles – freight, emergency services, etc. This is much rarer in the UK but is beginning to happen – for example there is a project to give fire tenders priority at certain junctions in Leeds, and other PTEs are also exploring this.

3.3 It is true, as PTEG and Stagecoach noted, that this could weaken the priority given specifically to buses, but there may be areas where other priorities apply. For instance, logistics might be an important cause of congestion in the area around an industrial estate, where buses may be rare.

3.4 There is a continual dialogue between stakeholder groups and DfT to ensure that DfT is kept informed on the community perspective. However it can be challenging to identify who to talk to within DfT. It sometimes appears that local technology systems are more joined up than the relevant sponsors in the Department.

4. Part-time signals

Ref Q196: …Is there an issue over part time signals on safety as well, because there has been talk, on roundabouts, about having traffic control signals at peak times to manage peak flows, and then when the peak flow comes off those signals no longer operate?...

4.1 DfT has published a substantial guidance document on signal controlled roundabouts, which highlights potential issues with operating the same part-time [1] .

4.2 As mentioned at the hearing, DfT is currently trialling "flashing ambers" and will shortly be publishing advice on appropriate forms of traffic control during periods of low flow.

5. Skills gap

Ref Q191: Do you think there is enough knowledge in the appropriate authorities of what is available?

5.1 There is a well-known and long standing challenge within local authorities, to attract and retain staff with the necessary skills in traffic management. This is today more complex than ever, as IT skills and contract management skills have been added to traffic network skills. Moreover, staff establishments have in many cases been reduced at local level, including through outsourcing arrangements. This constraint is both holding back the deployment of new systems, and limiting the use of existing systems.

5.2 As mentioned at the committee, the existing skills "gap" in the transport industry (and in particular in traffic management systems [1] ) is likely to have a significant effect on addressing congestion in the future as the demographic problem of experienced engineers leaving the industry begins to bite.

5.3 We believe that even in such times of economic restraint, for the future good of the economy, urgent work is needed to establish how Local Highway Authorities and consultants can be encouraged and rewarded for directing staff to improve the design and management of the road network. To improve the recruitment, motivation and (perhaps most importantly) retention of skilled staff will require professional registration, training and development, and associated financial reward. The success and immanent expansion of the Highway Agencies Active Traffic Management (ATM) scheme shows what can be achieved with such investment.

6. Guidance and standards

Ref Q191: Do you think there is enough knowledge in the appropriate authorities of what is available?

6.1 The Department for Transport provides much valuable advice on road infrastructure and design and in the past has invested significantly in the development of alternative forms of traffic control and evaluation. We believe that similar benefit would be gained from the production of guidance by DfT, working with professional bodies, on a "congestion management manual".

6.2 Such a manual, whilst not being prescriptive on Local Authorities, Private Sector developers or their agents, would by establishing agreed methods of data collection and modelling, allow for a common method of evaluating congestion before and after works take place.

6.3 Whilst not seeking to fetter their decisions it would allow policy makers/scheme sponsors to balance the many conflicting demands on our already overcrowded highway network and make informed decision cognisant of their effects on all highway users and the effect on congestion of such decisions.

7. Network monitoring

Ref Q200: But how can technology assess the cost-benefit of installing a particular technology?

7.1 Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, local highways authorities have a statutory duty to monitor the state of their network, and collaborate with their neighbours to ensure they work well. "Monitoring" involves the deployment of sensors [1] , and the collection and analysis of the data they provide.

7.2 There is no clear guidance on what kind of data ought to be collected and shared, either operationally (ie with neighbouring traffic managers) or publicly. It would appear to be a DfT role to oversee this process.

8. Incentivising intelligent investment

Ref Q197: …I am just looking at possible ways that we can incentivise authorities to embrace technology and the Invest to Save model. I would be interested in your thoughts as to what that mechanism might be. Would it be a form of a challenge fund from the DfT in a way similar to the Local Sustainable Transport Fund? Do the LEPs or the Local Government Association have a role? What are your views on what might be the way forward?

Ref Q198: How best do we incentivise or encourage local authorities to use that once it is all packaged up?

8.1 At the hearing, our instant response was deliberately careful as it is essentially a matter of central policy how to invest the limited amount of public funding.

8.2 It is undoubtedly the case that dedicated central funding would be helpful in sponsoring more implementation. Whether this is in the form of DfT research, standards and good practice, challenge funds, LTP guidance and scrutiny, ring-fencing or some other form – and how much, and with what scope – is a matter for central policy. However we believe that there is a strong case for more investment to reduce congestion using the "toolbox" of design and operational mechanisms already available.

8.3 Any investment needs to recognise that systems require three separate types of funding, owing to the nature of local authority finance:

· Staff funding, for people to design, implement and operate the system

· Capital funding, to procure and install the system

· Crucially, revenue funding, to maintain and support them once in place.

8.4 There is inevitably a temptation for local authority officers to champion their function. However the governance structures within the authority are more than capable of challenging any project that might be deemed unjustified. We believe that this challenge process, particularly in the current financial climate, is sufficient to restrain vanity projects.

May 2011