Traffic Management Act
[Notes: Journalists are invited to quote and use comment and information from the backgrounder below but all comments should be attributed to Richard Wakelen, CEO, National Joint Utilities Group]
The Department for Transport (DfT) introduced the Traffic Management Act (TMA) in 2004 with the intention of reducing levels of congestion on our roads. Its aim was to provide the basis for better conditions for all road users through the pro-active management of the national and local road networks. A major part of the Act addresses the regulation of street works.
As the National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) is the UK industry association representing utilities on street works issues – there has been an obvious concern about the effects of the TMA on its members. NJUG’s focus is on promoting safety, best practice, sustainability, quality and co-ordination of works as well as representing utilities in discussions with Government and other stakeholders on street work issues.
NJUG’s work on the TMA
NJUG has been actively engaged with the DfT and parliamentarians since the Traffic Management Bill (TMB) was first drafted in 2003. As the utility arm of the Highways Authorities Utilities Committee (HAUC UK), NJUG members also participate fully in the working groups established by DfT to provide advice to the DfT on the drafting of the Regulations. In the interest of ensuring good legislation, NJUG has also had extensive dialogue with government departments to secure balanced and workable regulations that do not place unnecessary costs or burden on utilities and their customers.
Although NJUG supports the aims of the TMA, there have been mounting concerns regarding the outcome of the Act - most notably a lack of reliable baseline figures around the costs and causes of congestion, against which to measure any potential improvements the new regulations might bring, the lack of any mechanism to ensure parity of treatment of highway authority works with utility street works, despite a Government commitment given during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, and insufficient time for the necessary changes to, and testing of, the computerised noticing system.
Lack of robust figures
From the first drafting of the Traffic Management Bill to date, we believe the DfT has been unable to produce accurate figures for either the total cost of congestion, or the proportion attributable to utilities’ works. Nor has it given costs of its proposals or shown in a robust way by how much it expects the proposed measures to reduce congestion. Traffic levels continue to rise in the UK. This means that even if significant reductions in disruption from street works were achieved through these Regulations it is unlikely to result in a reduction of overall congestion. Without a proper understanding of the causes of congestion it is feared that even more regulations could be imposed upon street works activities, possibly impacting service levels to customers.
No level playing field for street works
The latest Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) underestimates the number of works undertaken by utilities by 60 per cent and does not include any estimate of highway authority works. These are widely recognised as making up 50 per cent of works in the streets. The Government has thereby significantly underestimated the costs of the regulations.
The Act cannot possibly result in a worthwhile reduction in congestion while there is still disparity in the treatment of Highway Authority road works and utility street works. Utilities face immediate financial sanctions through issuing of fixed penalties for street works offences, yet highway authorities have no such penalties nor any established measurement of their performance.
The Government gave a commitment during the Parliamentary passage of the Bill to a level-playing field for both utilities and authorities, and has agreed that highway authorities be subject to Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). However we do not believe this has been pursued with sufficient urgency and is only likely to be implemented on a trial basis after 2009. To ensure the TMA delivers it objectives, we believe highway authority works should be subjected to the same or similar incentive and performance measurement system as utilities.
No trial for new permit schemes
The TMA provides for the creation of permit schemes under which utilities, highway authorities and others would have to apply for permission to carry out works on streets. In applying for permits, utilities will have to give up to 3 months notice for major works, which in turn will impact customers. Putting conditions around timing and location of works could not only delay the provision of services but could also have cost implications for customers. In order to protect its members and the public's interests, NJUG secured a commitment from the Government to trial permit schemes before a national roll-out but this has now been reduced to a commitment to scrutinise schemes before approving them and allowing implementation.
The TMA should not be a revenue generation opportunity
As they stand, we believe the Regulations allow ample opportunity for local authorities to generate additional revenue from utilities through financial penalties and permit schemes. The revenue generated is likely to be in excess of the cost of running the schemes. This is despite ministers’ assurances that the measures contained within the Act would not be used to generate revenue for Local Authorities. Given the government's recent statements about how local authorities manage parking fines - only enforcing penalties on repeat offenders - NJUG hopes for a similarly reasonable approach in introducing Fixed Penalty Notices.
Changes in Noticing System (ETON) not implemented satisfactorily
The new noticing system introduced by the TMA could cause potential conflict between the parties involved. Changes to the way authorities must be given notice will require both a rewrite of the computerised noticing system (ETON) and for some companies, corresponding changes to their internal software. NJUG is keen to avoid potential problems brought about by the premature use of untested software. To counter this, a fully tested and robust system must be delivered on time to ensure full compliance with the noticing rules. Therefore we believe the DfT must develop an implementation plan that will give everyone involved the confidence that the implementation date is still on target and achievable. In addition to this, all companies must be given a reasonable time period during which to integrate their systems with the new software.
Better co-ordination key to minimising disruption
Concerns raised by NJUG regarding the TMA need careful consideration by DfT and Parliament. NJUG launched the ‘Vision for Street Works’ in April 2007 which supports the goals of the TMA as well as existing street works legislation and codes of practice. The vision promotes safety including minimising damage to underground assets, best practice, quality, sustainability and greater co-ordination of street works. Many member companies are already actively working together and with local authorities to co-ordinate works. We are committed to making the Vision a reality. It will help to reduce disruption without a need for onerous and unnecessary regulations
-ends-
Notes To Editors
For further editorial information or to arrange an interview please contact the NJUG press office (pressoffice@njug.org.uk) or telephone 020 7609 1900.
About The National Joint Utility Group (NJUG)
The National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) is the UK industry association representing utilities on street works issues. Our members include the Energy Networks Association (representing electricity and gas companies), Water UK (representing water companies), National Grid, BT, Cable and Wireless, Virgin Media and THUS plc. We also have five Associate Members – contractors Balfour Beatty, Skanska McNicholas, Clancy Docwra, Morrison and Morgan Est.
We all rely on gas, electricity, water and telecommunications being delivered to our homes and businesses and being available all of the time. To maintain that level of reliability requires major asset investment programmes and therefore significant levels of street works.
Utilities undertake essential street works for four main reasons – safety, security of supply, to connect or enhance consumer supply, or to divert apparatus to facilitate transport or urban regeneration schemes.