Effective Road and Traffic Management

Written evidence from London Councils (ETM 54)

London Councils welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s inquiry into Effective Road and Traffic Management. Issues relating to traffic congestion, noise and air pollution, road works and road safety are of paramount interest to our members. We are pleased to see that the Committee is taking an interest, and look forward to working with them to develop solutions that will be of benefit to the whole country, including Londoners.

London Councils would make the following points:

1. Repeated digging of the road damages the road surface. While the undertaker will reinstate the road after each dig to a certain standard, over time this will weaken the surface of the road, causing potholes and dangerous surfaces. The local highway authority, which is responsible for the safety of the road surface, cannot charge works promoters for the ongoing repair and resurfacing that will eventually be needed after all the works. We would advocate the development of a mechanism which will help highway authorities to recoup the total cost of highway works from utilities.

The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 gives highway authorities the power (in theory) to require utility companies to contribute to the cost of resurfacing their highways to mitigate the long-term impact of repeated roadworks. Unfortunately, while the relevant section (78) is technically in force, regulations must be made to bring them into effect, and no such regulations have yet been made. At a time when local authority budgets are being squeezed ever harder, this would be an area where the Government could make a real difference at no expense to the taxpayer.

2. We are supportive of a lane rental scheme, and featured outline plans for such a scheme in our Manifesto for Londoners. We understand the need to target such a scheme on the most traffic sensitive roads, and accept that it would make sense to run a pilot on the Transport for London Road Network. However, in due course, we would want schemes to be available to all highway authorities, as long as certain (as yet undefined) criteria could be met.

3. We remain firmly supportive of the London Permit Scheme for Roadworks and Streetworks. At the start of 2010, 18 boroughs, plus TfL, had implemented the scheme. A further seven are awaiting approval to start, with a further two in the process of applying. In the first year of operation, there have been a number of successes, including:

· An increase in the number of recorded days of disruption saved through joint working and collaboration

· An increased discipline amongst highway authorities in recording their own works, providing more opportunity for collaborative working and enhanced public information

· A reduction in the total number of works undertaken by utilities of 17%

· Better quality of information available to make considered coordination decisions

· Demonstrable benefits for average journey time and journey time reliability

However, it should be noted that the scheme does not always allow councils to better coordinate works, because the notice periods involved are so short. It simply allows them to ask for some works to take place at a later date, and keeps them better informed of what is happening on their patch. While this is clearly an improvement on previous ways of working, it cannot be seen as a magic bullet – it must be part of a suite of measures used by local authorities to better manage disruption on their network. The scheme may need to be revised in due course, to see if it is possible to improve the amount of coordination that is achievable.

4. Local authorities need to find better ways of working with utility companies. The London Permit Scheme has already gone some way towards improving relations between various stakeholders by asking them to communicate better with each other. We believe this trend will continue, as promoters get used to the scheme, and further boroughs join. While we continue to advocate use of the scheme, and of introducing lane rental, we note that ever more punitive regimes may increase the division between stakeholders. It is therefore important to introduce new plans with caution, and to give all parties the opportunity to comment on and influence schemes as they develop.

5. We understand work is underway to map the underground asset base. We would suggest investing more in this area; a better record of the location of underground assets could be a relatively quick and inexpensive way of reducing the impact of roadworks. This is because utilities would have to dig fewer trenches to locate their own assets. Moreover, there is likely to be a reduction in emergency works caused by one utility inadvertently damaging the assets of another.

6. London Councils is a signatory, on behalf of our members, to the Road Management Concordat (which can be found here: http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/Item9.RoadManagementConcordat141010.doc). This includes ten principles, including lane rental and use of the permit scheme, to which London’s boroughs have agreed to work in order to improve conditions for all road users. Other principles include membership of the Mayor’s Code of Conduct on Roadworks, use of LondonWorks to better coordinate works, a review of working hours restrictions, and better monitoring of highway assets.

We would be very happy to elaborate on any of the points raised above if that would be useful.

June 2011