The Traffic Management Act (TMA) 2004 and roadworks; and lane rental under the New Roads and Streetworks Act (1991) in England Introduction and purpose of note In view of the review of SRWC functions, this briefing note has been prepared to explain the powers available to and responsibilities placed on English and Welsh local authorities related to roadworks by both roads (highway) authorities and statutory undertakers (called in this note utilities ) that were brought into being by the TMA (2004), which does not apply in Scotland. One of the aims of the TMA was to reduce congestion and traffic delays due to roadworks by utilities and roads authorities. The Act amends the powers in the NRSWA 1991. Provisions particularly relevant to roadworks by roads authorities and utilities and their contractors are: Part 3 Made provision for street authorities to implement chargeable permit schemes. Part 4 Changed requirements on utilities to give notice of works in the road, increased fine levels for non-compliance and introduced fixed penalty notices (FPN) for a wider range of offences. The note goes on to review some evidence of the use of these powers in England. It also reports briefly on two of the trials of lane rental under English regulations made under the New Roads and Streetworks Act (NRSWA) 1991. It is based on local authority committee reports, reports produced Transport for London, and reports by utilities themselves, as listed in the bibliography. A good summary of the English legislative situation is provided in House of Commons Library briefing note SN739 (2014). Permit schemes Roads authorities in England may make a permit scheme, so not all have one, but their use has been increasing particularly since the need to obtain Secretary of State approval was removed in 2015. A permit scheme fundamentally changes the nature of the utility/roads authority relationship. Under the NRSWA in Scotland utilities notify the roads authority and Roadworks Commissioner of where and when they will occupy the road. Under the TMA, for those LAs that have adopted permit schemes, utilities and the roads authority itself must secure permission from the roads authority before going into the road (for emergency openings, they must apply for a permit within 2 hours of the work starting); and roads authorities can refuse, or put conditions on permissions, including those for emergency works. It is also possible to give offer reduced charges for permits for utility companies that meet certain KPIs and improve their performance year on year. It appears from the regulations that permit schemes must be cost-neutral. They also apply to the roads authority s own roadworks. Norfolk County Council adopted its permit scheme in April 2014. First year results are: Utilities requested 29560 permits, of which 24797 were granted (85%). Almost all were subject to conditions. The most common conditions were related to date/time of the works and to working out of hours; to space for traffic; and to traffic control. The proportion of reinstatements that are permanent increased. Total days of occupation of streets by utilities declined from 62668 in 2013/14 to 60108 in 2014/15. TRI Edinburgh Napier University March 2016 1 tri@napier.ac.uk
The 10 Greater Manchester authorities scheme came into force on 29 th April 2013. The first year results were (quoted from the first year monitoring report): Over 138,900 permit applications and variations were made, with 84% being granted and 10% refused. Average number of days of occupation of works reduced from 4.63 days to 3.81 days. Accuracy of information supplied by works promoters improved. The Yorkshire common permit scheme came into force in 6 authorities in June 2012 (a further three joined in 2015). It shows results similar to those in Manchester: Over 54,000 permit applications and variations were checked and coordinated in evaluation period, with approximately 70% being granted and 30% being refused. Permit conditions are applied whether or not the applicant is a utility or the roads authority itself. The proportion of works that started as planned and permitted without cancellation increased. In comparison with the pre-permit baseline data the average duration of works fell from 6.10 days to 4.60 days, with 77,188 fewer days of highway occupation. The London scheme started 11 th January 2010 in 16 of 33 boroughs and on the TfL network. First year results are as follows: Permits cost between 30 and 240 depending on the location and type of works. 335000 permits were granted, 44000 refused (12% of applications). Days of disruption saved through joint working increased from 726 in 2009 to 1793 in 2010: 2.7 million in congestion was therefore saved in 2010 compared to the previous year. 237% increase in the proportion of their own works that are formally recorded by roads authorities. Works by utilities reduced 17% within permitting authorities but only 7% in non-permitting authorities, saving approximately 149,136 days of streetworks in the former. Congestion and unreliability (measured using TfL s standard methodology) worsened less in permitting than non-permitting authorities. Charges, fines and fixed penalty notices The TMA added to the range of offences subject to Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) in relation to utilities work in the road. These offences relate as in Scotland to notification of works in the road, or failure to do so. However, where an authority has a permit scheme, it can issue FPNs to utilities that work without a permit; or those that work in breach of a permit condition. The TMA amended the NRSWA to allow new regulations in relation to existing charges for over-running agreed work periods for road works. These allowed the charges to vary from 250 per day to 10,000 per day depending on the type of street. Where an authority has a permit scheme, the agreed work period is that set out in the permit, making it easier to monitor than in the former NRSWA notification regime. Charges for over-running are not levied in the existing NRSWA regime in Scotland. TRI Edinburgh Napier University March 2016 2 tri@napier.ac.uk
The author of this briefing note has been unable to find any separate evaluation of the impact of the new charging and FPN regime. However, the impacts of the permit schemes described above are likely to have been influenced by the linked charging and FPN regime. Lane rental Lane rental is a charge for occupation of the street by roads authorities and utilities, but only on the most traffic-sensitive streets at the busiest times. It is permitted under regulations to the NRSWA that have not been enacted in Scotland, but so far has only been trialled in three areas in England. The results of the Transport for London and Kent schemes are summarised here. The London scheme started in June 2012 and applies to 56% of the TfL strategic road network (325 km). Rental charges of 800 to 2,500 per day apply only at certain times of day; the more sensitive the location, the longer the period that charges apply (at most, Monday to Friday 06:30-22:00 Saturdays and Sundays 12:00-18:00) and the higher the charge. In the second 9 months of operation the following results were found compared to the first 9 months (these bullet points are taken from the scheme monitoring report (see bibliography): 1% of TfL works and 13% of utilities works paid a charge work was done at other times. There was a 2 per cent increase in the monthly average of disruption days saved. The total number of days subject to lane rental decreased. More planned utility works took place overnight without an increase in noise complaints. The increase in severe disruption was smaller in the lane rental parts of the network than those without lane rental. There was a 15 per cent reduction in user frustration from major delays to a journey by bus, cycle, driving and walking as a result of roadworks and unreliable journeys in regular market research, compared to 2011, before the scheme was introduced. Analysis of two sets of roadworks on the Hammersmith Flyover and Marylebone Road showed that the TLRS prevented over 8 million worth of delay at these two locations. The Kent scheme came into force in May 2013 and covers 5% of the county s total road network, but 40% of the traffic sensitive roads. It has a wider range of charges than in London, from 300 to 2000 a day depending on the type of road and on whether just a lane or the whole road is closed. Charges are due between 0700 and 1900 on some roads, but on others with less traffic, only peak hour occupation is chargeable. The first annual report presents a number of case studies of specific schemes as well as data summarizing all road occupations in the 12 month periods prior to and after May 2013. The conclusions are: Duration of all works fell (except minor works carried out, out of scheme hours). There was a shift to carrying out work outside congested times. Emergency occupations at charge times are completed 25% more quickly with lane rental in place compared to previously. When lane rental charges were due, work was carried out for a longer period of the day, not just 0800-1700; and at weekends. TRI Edinburgh Napier University March 2016 3 tri@napier.ac.uk
The scheme acted as an incentive to utilities to plan traffic management in a way that would minimise disruption. For example, on one road, instead of installing temporary lights, parking bays were closed to permit continued two way running (and no lane rental fee was charged). The total days of occupation of the road by utilities on the part of the network covered by the scheme fell by 3,000 in that one year period. It is estimated that this equates to a travel time saving of 4.6 million at standard WebTAG values. Utilities were unspecific about the impact of the scheme on their overall costs but mentioned a figure of around a 60% increase in labour costs. However, against this needs to be set the reduced days of working in the carriageway. Utilities own experience with the TMA and lane rental It appears that utilities in negotiation with Ofgem may claim an allowance in costs and revenue for the additional costs that the TMA imposes upon them. This may affect the prices that Ofgem permit certain utilities to charge to their customers. In London, National Grid calculated the costs of the London Permit scheme and Lane Rental scheme to them, in terms of fees and FPNs paid, as well as productivity impacts, to be 8.83 million for the financial years 2011 to 2013, at 2011 prices. Enzen, a management consultancy, cite the experience of one of their clients, a utility company, in implementing new processes to deal with the requirements of Section 4 of the TMA. They note that the TMA required the utility to change its processes in Work Management, Scheduling, Mobile Work Force, GIS, Noticing Systems and integration between all these systems. The utility in question achieved compliance and did so without an increase in its workforce on street. Other utilities have noted a need to increase their workforce on street to deal with the requirements of the TMA. Conclusion The experience of permit schemes and lane rental in England is recent and so results from the initial evaluation results must be treated with caution. Nonetheless, this evidence does appear to indicate that permit schemes have led to a reduction in the number of days in which utility companies work on the affected roads and they have also improved roads authorities own behaviour in relation to managing their own roadworks. Lane rental schemes have had a similar effect. This has led to a reduction in congestion and to days affected by congestion caused by roadworks. This has been at a cost to some utilities, a cost which they are permitted by Ofgem to partially pass on through changes in regulated prices, but the limited data available indicate that the financial cost to utilities is lower than the saving in monetized travel time to the travelling public. Bibliography Enzen Ltd (2014) Traffic Management Act (TMA) Transformation UK Gas Distribution Utility TRI Edinburgh Napier University March 2016 4 tri@napier.ac.uk
House of Commons Library briefing note SN739 (2014) Roads: maintenance, repairs and street works London Councils (2011) London Permit Scheme for Road Works and Street Works First Year Evaluation Report National Grid (2013) Traffic Management Act Income Adjusting Event (IAE re-opener) Notification by National Grid Gas Plc to Ofgem in respect of North London Network Norfolk County Council (2015) Norfolk Permit Scheme Annual Report 2014/15 TfGM (2014) Greater Manchester Road Activities Permit Scheme Annual Report 2013/14 TfL (2015) Transport for London Lane Rental Scheme Monitoring Report July 2014 to March 2015 Yorkshire Authorities (2015) Yorkshire Common Permit Scheme Annual Report Year 3 (2014 15) TRI Edinburgh Napier University March 2016 5 tri@napier.ac.uk