Campaign Against Road Disruption: Highway engineers seek increased powers to reduce traffic disruption caused by utility installation. RAC Foundation press for new legislation to control utilities
London, June 9 -- A survey of highway engineers commissioned by the Campaign Against Road Disruption found that 90 per cent of the UK's highway engineers support additional powers to curtail the disruption to motorists caused by utility installation. The overwhelming majority of highway engineers are in favour of limiting utility access on traffic sensitive routes, believing that detailed economic, engineering and environmental impact studies should precede major utility works. Over 90 per cent also believed that utility access to newly surfaced streets should be restricted and that utilities' unfettered access rights to the highway should be ended.
Commenting on the survey, Edmund King, Executive Director of the RAC Foundation, said:
"There is a growing recognition that local authorities do not have enough powers or resources to cope with the disruption caused by utility companies digging up the roads. We are urging the Government to introduce legislation to set up a permit system which will help to limit the chaos caused by holes in the road."
The survey showed that local authority highway engineers were frustrated by their limited powers to operate roads in the best interest of the community and sought greater powers to control utilities' methods of working, hours of access to the highway and temporary re-instatement requirements to ensure that community disruption is minimised.
One of the most surprising findings of the survey was the acceptance by highway engineers themselves, that the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee (HAUC), the body that advises government on the effectiveness of street works legislation, is not perceived to consider the needs of road users sufficiently. A view held by almost 60 per cent of highway engineers.
Around 40 per cent of highway engineers were sceptical that recent amendments to section 74 of New Roads and Streetworks Act, which introduced charges for utilities overstaying their permitted contract period, would improve traffic flows in urban areas. They were however in support of road pricing mechanisms for utility access and the hypothecation of such revenues to ensure that disruption to the road network is minimised. This was supported by a belief that that the lack of control over utility access to traffic sensitive routes is a major factor in urban traffic disruption and that new powers to restrict the traditional rights of utilities be vested in highway authorities.
There was also considerable support for charges to be introduced on utilities for the considerable long-term damage caused to roads by utility installation.
About the survey
A postal survey of 322 highway engineers was carried out earlier this year. 105 responses were received and the percentage returns and detailed questions are below.
Questionnaire: Percentage responses
Questions Yes No
1. Minimising Disruption to Highway Users
a) Should Highway Authorities be provided with powers to
prevent disruption to traffic sensitive routes similar to those
enjoyed by the Secretary of State in respect of key routes such 90%
as motorways?
b) When major utilities installation and maintenance is
planned that may affect traffic sensitive routes should these
be subject to mandatory economic, engineering and environmental
impact studies to ensure that traffic disruption is minimised? 82%
c) Should Highway Authorities be given a mandate to operate
roads in the best interest of the community? 90%
d) Should Highway Authorities be given the powers to
co-ordinate activities of the various utilities that may
require access to the highway? 90%
e) Where utility activity can only be realistically carried
out in the highway on traffic sensitive routes should the
Highway Authorities have powers to control the method of
working, hours of access and temporary reinstatement
requirements to ensure that community disruption is minimised? 92%
2. 2001 Amendments to section 74 of the NRSWA (1991)
a) Do you believe that the amendments to s74 of the New Roads
and Streetworks Act introducing lane rental charges will
improve traffic flows in urban areas? 56% 38%
b) Where there is no alternative to in-highway installation
of utility services should road pricing mechanisms be mandatory
to minimise disruption? 70%
c) Should revenues received by local authorities in respect
of lane rental be hypothecated to ensure that disruption to the
road network is minimised? 80%
d) Do you believe that the lack of control over utility
access to traffic sensitive routes is a major factor in urban
traffic disruption? 64%
3. Road Structure
a) Do you believe that trenching in highways significantly
reduces carriageway life? 91%
b) Should the utilities be charged to reflect the reduced
design life and long term damage that their installations can
cause to the highway? 91%
4. General
a) Currently the Governments main source of advice on utility
installation in highways is from HAUC, of which NJUG is a major
component. Do you believe that HAUC considers road users needs 63%
sufficiently?
b) Should the UK consider adopting selected overseas best
practice which restricts utility access to newly surfaced
traffic sensitive highways for a certain period or where
traffic flows exceed a certain volume? 89%
c) Should the highway authorities be granted extra powers to
restrict the traditional rights of utilities of unfettered
access to the highway? 88%
Andrew Marshall Marshall Robinson Roe Tel: +44 (0) 207 489 2033 Mobile +44 (0) 7785 297 111
Jonathan Simpson RAC Foundation Contact numbers: Phone: +44 (0) 207 747 3486 Mobile: +44 (0) 7711 776 448