Effective road and traffic management

Supplementary written evidence from the National Joint Utilities Group Ltd (NJUG) (ETM 29a)

I am writing further to the National Joint Utilities Group Ltd’s. (NJUG’s) oral evidence to the Transport Select Committee on 10 May 2011, at which my colleague Dave Turnbull gave evidence, as I was regrettably out of the country, and therefore unable to appear before you.

Inevitably, the session went very quickly, and there were a few key points we would like to emphasise to the Committee. These are within the attached supplementary evidence.

However, in addition, I would like to take this opportunity to correct an inadvertent but genuine mistake in the provision of the statistic in respect of the financial cost of a blanket application across England, based on the current proposals of a maximum of £2,500 per day. Dave Turnbull indicated in his evidence that the cost would be £2.5 billion per year, however the correct figures as estimated by NJUG, are between £1.5 billion and £2.0 billion. We apologise for this error and wish to set the record straight.

Finally, we understand that the Committee is visiting a National Grid street works site on 9 June, and we hope that this will provide a useful insight into the practicalities and challenges of undertaking works in the street. We also hope our supplementary evidence is helpful too. However, if NJUG can assist the Committee by providing any further information or clarity please do not hesitate to contact me.

1.0 Introduction

NJUG would like to thank the Transport Committee for the opportunity to provide oral evidence on 10 May as part of the Committee’s inquiry into Effective Road and Traffic Management. We also hope the Committee will find this supplementary evidence useful.

It is worth re-iterating that utility services are part of the essential fabric of the UK economy – and utilities are investing billions each year in maintaining and improving their networks. Network providers undertake street works for four primary reasons – safety, security of supply, to connect or upgrade customers’ supplies, or to divert apparatus for major transport or urban regeneration projects.

There is a myriad of existing legislation available to local authorities to manage street works. Additionally NJUG’s Vision for Street Works / National Code of Conduct are delivering real results. NJUG therefore believes that local authorities already have a range of tools with which to manage their own and utility works. However, use of all these measures is patchy, and so their impact is varied. If the existing legislation is applied more consistently and effectively then it would deliver the reduced disruption everyone wants.

Also, nearly all existing and proposed legislation applies only to utility works, yet utilities only undertake 50% of the works on the highway network, with local authorities making up the other 50%. If Government is serious about tackling disruption from works on the street, similar incentives are needed for local authority works.

NJUG is therefore concerned that Government is considering introducing yet more regulation without first analysing the impact, costs and benefits of all the existing legislation. We strongly believe that the best way of tackling congestion is for utilities to work together with authority colleagues to plan for and co-ordinate works under the existing legislative regime. We continue to urge Government to focus on supporting the self-regulatory initiatives already delivering higher standards and reduced disruption, which will be more effective than imposing yet more regulation and resultant costs on utilities, which ultimately will be passed on to end customers.

2.0 Congestion

As recognised by a number of witnesses, the vast majority of congestion is caused by volume of traffic, with accidents and incidents the next biggest contributor. Only around 10% of congestion comes from works in the street, split equally between utility street works and road maintenance.

NJUG regrets the disruption that sometimes arises from essential street works and is working hard to reduce the duration and size of works, improve communications, and work with local authorities to flex works on major streets to avoid the busiest times.

The NJUG Vision for Street Works, introduced in 2007, has driven a sustained improvement programme delivering real benefits in improved safety, quality and communication of works and reduced disruption.

In 2009 NJUG worked closely with the Mayor of London / TfL to develop and implement a London Code of Conduct focusing on reducing disruption, saving 996 days disruption in its first year. The National Joint Utilities Group Ltd April 2011

Building on the London Code, in June 2010, NJUG launched its own National Code of Conduct (copy attached), and, working with JAG(UK), we are pleased it will now become a HAUC(UK) Code of Conduct for both utilities and local authorities.

The volume of works is not going to go down for the foreseeable future, as utilities continue to undertake sustained replacement programmes and invest in upgrading their networks to meet future UK needs. Therefore utilities and authorities need to continue to work together to co-ordinate works. There are many examples of good co-ordination across the UK – some examples include:

· Staffordshire Kinver Project – Staffordshire County Council worked together with utilities and contractors to co-ordinate works - resulting in a 20+ week job being completed in 7 weeks.

· Borough High Street in London – TfL, London Borough of Southwark, utilities and contractors worked together - saving 384 days disruption.

Copies of these case studies and others can be found at www.njug.org.uk.

3.0 Lane Rental

NJUG does not believe that lane rental will provide additional benefits in terms of reduced disruption, over and above the existing legislation that exists for local authorities to manage street works, which we believe should be used more consistently and effectively. However, if the Government is intent on implementing lane rental, NJUG believes it should be:

· Targeted only at pinch points on strategic roads - where there are very high traffic densities and in cities where there are significant numbers of pinch points e.g. London.

· Operated on an incentive basis – with utilities and highway authorities incentivised to work outside rush hours and to use techniques such as plating to return the road to service where safe and appropriate to do so, in return for avoiding a lane rental charge.

· With a 3-tiered approach (advocated by London First) – whereby lane rental applies to the busiest streets; then permit fees apply to other busy A roads; and the smaller B roads or backstreets do not attract any fees at all – thus allowing prioritisation on those roads where congestion is greatest.

Whilst utilities’ costs would be increased, either through choosing to pay the lane rental charge or avoiding them by working out of hours or using plating, it may not always be possible to avoid charges, as working outside normal hours may be prevented or restricted by the Local Authority Environmental Health Officer due to noise constraints. This would mean that disruption would not be reduced yet utilities would have no choice but to work during the day, thereby incurring lane rental charges, with no consequent benefit.

4.0 S74 Overstay Charge Increases

During our oral evidence to the Committee, there was little mention of the Government’s proposed very significant increases in Section 74 Overstay Charges, over which NJUG has real concerns.

Since its introduction in 2001, S74 Overstay Charges have delivered a step-change in reducing durations. NJUG believes that Government’s proposals for further substantial increases: The National Joint Utilities Group Ltd April 2011

· Will not deliver the same improvement, as much of the possible reduction has already been achieved.

· Will increase utility costs disproportionately to any benefit, particularly for smaller scale works such as utility connections, which customers will have to pay on top of their connection charge.

· Are not necessary, given that Transport for London recognise that on their roads (the busiest London streets) only around 2% of utility works now overrun as utilities are already incentivised to be efficient and minimise the duration of works, through either their regulatory settlements (gas, water and electricity) or commercial pressures (communications).

· Could drive the wrong behaviours by:

o Potentially leading to cutting of corners in order to avoid large costs.

o Encouraging some local authorities to see S74 as an income stream, due to the large numbers of works and figures involved, resulting in spurious issuing of S74 Overstay Charges not in the spirit of HAUC(UK)’s objectives of working together, better.

Utilities recognise the common perception that nothing is happening if there is no-one on site, but there are sometimes good reasons for this, such as – concrete drying, waiting for a unique part to be manufactured (given that gas and water mains can date back to Victorian times) or resources diverted to an emergency. However the Code of Conduct focuses on reducing disruption from works in the street, and NJUG continues to highlight the importance of minimising occupation of the street.

5.0 Permits

NJUG continues to offer assistance to local authorities developing permit schemes to seek to develop workable and robust proposals that focus on reducing disruption whilst not placing unnecessary burdens on utilities and their customers.

We therefore believe that those schemes that focus on major planned works on the busiest streets are the most likely to deliver benefits in terms of reduced disruption, such as Kent and Northamptonshire. This approach enables authorities and utilities to work together to plan and co-ordinate works, whereas those schemes which cover all works on all streets mean that the volume of permit applications impacts on the ability to focus on those works which cause the most disruption. This is borne out by Kent’s scheme which has resulted in 50% less complaints from the public about works in the street in its first year.

However, in addition NJUG is concerned that:

· One-year Review of Permits – The Coalition Government has confirmed that it does not propose to honour the previous Government’s commitment to undertake a review of permits one year after their implementation – thereby missing the opportunity to assess any merits against costs of different types of schemes, which would be invaluable to other local authorities considering implementation of a permits scheme.

· Devolvement of approval of permit schemes – Government devolving approval powers of permits to local authorities is likely to lead to numerous differing schemes. This will create inconsistencies in interpretation, coupled with application of the maximum allowed permit fees, regardless of the actual costs incurred by authorities, resulting in additional burdens and potential inadvertent non-compliance by utilities.

Additionally, Government currently reviews all existing approved schemes prior to approving them. In all cases this lead to amendments before their final approval. Without this independent scrutiny there is a real risk of inadvertent misinterpretation of the permit regulations and potentially high levels of costs being unnecessarily imposed on utilities and their customers, with little or no reduction in disruption.

6.0 Long Term Damage and Potholes

NJUG and individual companies continue to strive to improve the quality of reinstatements and ensure compliance with the recently revised Specification for Reinstatement of the Opening of the Highway Code of Practice, which authorities and utilities worked with Government to develop.

If a utility’s street works are not reinstated to the right standard and this is brought to their attention by the authority, they will return to put it right at their own expense.

However, the UK has definitely seen an increase in potholes as a result of the bad weather over the last two winters. Potholes occur for many reasons – extremes of weather (both hot and cold), the original quality and construction of the road, the frequency and standard of road maintenance, the volume and size / weight of traffic, and reinstatement by either authorities or utilities.

NJUG has therefore agreed with JAG(UK) to form a HAUC(UK) Coring Group to look at the causes of potholes, the quality and methods of taking cores (to assess the reinstatement), the quality of reinstatements and what leads to failures, and raising awareness of the need for both accurate corings and quality reinstatements for every job, whether by a utility or an authority.

Finally, it is worth noting that utilities already pay £1.3 billion for the right to locate their apparatus in the street, and it may be that such monies could be ring-fenced to supplement local authorities’ highway budgets.

7.0 Specific Points Raised by the Committee

Noticing – During the oral evidence session the Committee spent some time examining the detail of the Noticing provisions, which were enhanced in 2008. NJUG wants to make it clear that utilities adhere to the Noticing requirements. Indeed, utilities are routinely achieving 98+% compliance in terms of timeliness and accuracy of Noticing.

All works (except emergency works) require Noticing in advance of them commencing. In respect of emergency works, the Noticing regulations require utilities to notify local authorities within 2 hours of arriving on site. Utilities adhere to this requirement, sending the Notice within the 2 hour period, even if the emergency occurs late on a Friday afternoon.

Specifically, the Co-ordination (Noticing) Code of Practice states.

"Immediate notices must be given as soon as reasonably practicable and, in any event, within two hours of the works starting. Where immediate works are identified and undertaken outside the normal working day the notice should be given within two hours of the start of the next working day, i.e. by 10:00. Some authorities may be able to respond to notices outside the normal working hours and would expect immediate notices to be given. These hours should be set out in the authority's operational district data (ODD)."

As most authorities do not operate their EToN systems (electronic transfer of Noticing system) over the weekend, this sometimes means that they are not aware of works until the following Monday, although if the works occur on one of the main thoroughfares the utility can, and indeed should alert the authority by phonecall, albeit this is not a statutory requirement, more a voluntary initiative which supports HAUC(UK)’s objective of working together better.

Evidence of the Effectiveness of the Existing Legislation – The Committee asked about evidence on the effectiveness of the existing legislation. NJUG would like to stress:

· NJUG continues to be concerned that Government is considering increasing S74 charges and introducing lane rental, when there has been no measurement of the existing legislation, some of which has only been introduced relatively recently – such as permits.

· Since 2001 there have been numerous new regulations, most of which claim the same benefits over and over again, with none being evaluated for their effectiveness against the additional costs to utilities and their customers.

· Government continues to add layer upon layer of regulations on utilities, increasing utility costs and administrative burden. In NJUG’s view, simply applying similar incentives to authority works and encouraging utilities and authorities to work together to plan and co-ordinate works would have a far greater effect on disruption.

· There have only been two reports measuring the impact of street works on congestion - The 1992 Transport Research Laboratory Report on trunk roads, and a more recent TfL report on their network. But there is no definitive report on the costs and causes of congestion, nor the effectiveness and cumulative impact of street works legislation / regulation.

NJUG believes that it is vital that Government establish the:

· Baseline cost and causes of congestion.

· The total costs to utilities – including direct costs such as permit fees as well as one-off costs (system upgrades, process changes, training) and residual administrative costs arising from the street works regulations, which may ultimately be passed on to end consumers.

· The total cost to authorities – including imposing the same permit terms and conditions on their own works as those on utilities, one-off costs and residual administrative costs.

· Reduction in disruption - in terms of saved days resulting from each set of regulations.

May 2011