Actions Needed to Improve the Management of Street Works
1 April 2019
Authors: Roger Elphick, Roger Culpin and Alan Rainford
Positive actions considered necessary by highway authorities and utility companies to drive forward improvements in street works management are detailed here.
Published in Transportation Professional in January 2019. A fuller version can be seen on CIHT’s website www.ciht.org.uk
Street works management, procedures and regulations
Legislation: Updating existing legislation is essential to ensure it reflects current practices and that street works are managed effectively. Currently, the Highway Authorities & Utilities Committee (UK) is working with Government to look at legislation and necessary actions needed to take account of many changes over the last 25 years. Updating legislation is unfortunately not currently a high priority, so any effective changes will need to be on a self regulatory basis.
Permit schemes: Use of permit schemes should be encouraged, particularly for congested roads, to mitigate works impact on highway users based on the ‘Operation of Permits’ guidance document commissioned by HAUC England. Street Works UK (formerly NJUG) argues that permit schemes should be limited to higher road categories, where work can be more disruptive. Utility companies have raised concerns over a lack of demonstrable benefits from permit schemes in lower road categories. Street Works UK believes where they are introduced, there is consistency for companies carrying out street works across different areas. A set of five or six standard permit schemes (for urban, rural and suburban areas) should suffice.
Lane Rental: An extension of lane rental should be considered by highway authorities for the most congested roads to assist in street works management to mitigate against traffic disruption, particularly on the strategic network and principal roads. Street Works UK is strongly opposed to lane rental, which it says does not provide any tools that do not already exist in current legislation and only adds a layer of complexity on top of existing permit schemes. Highway authorities already possess powers including the duty to co-ordinate and manage street works. Permit schemes allow authorities to direct utility companies to conduct works at certain times and for set durations.
Regulation: Policies vary between utility regulators and their effectiveness needs to be reviewed. There needs to be a greater understanding of the regulations that utility companies are obliged to comply with when installing and maintaining apparatus in the highway.
Skills shortages: There is a diminishing pool of adequately qualified and experienced staff in highway authorities to supervise street works. Equally, an adequately trained utility workforce of accredited personnel is a significant resource issue. Much work is ongoing within HAUC (UK) to review recruitment and training for authorities and utility companies and there is a need for parity across all four domestic countries.
Incentives: There are financial and reputational benefits for utility companies and contractors in ‘doing it right first time’ and minimising the impact on road users. Penalties can be introduced as a last resort to deter poor management. So called ‘level five’ fines are now uncapped and this may act as a deterrent. Furthermore, legislation could be extended to cover other third parties working on the highway under sections 38 and 274 of the Highways Act. Use of fixed penalty notices for more offences may encourage compliance with the legislation.
Duration and safety: The duration and impact of works must be minimised which will also assist in reducing the safety risks to both the utility workforce and the road user. Adopting good practice involves working with local highway authorities to mitigate disruption and ensure the safety of users and the workforce.
Reinstatements, Inspection Regimes and Asset Management
Specification: A review is essential to reflect current practices, improve compliance and the overall quality of reinstatements. Failing reinstatements and delays caused by repeated road works inconvenience businesses and the public and cost the authority. A review of the Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways (fourth edition) is currently under way in England. The review looks to break down barriers to innovation, reduce road occupation and minimise disruption. Concurrent reviews are also being carried out for codes of practice covering inspections and co-ordination, to comply with changes expected when ‘Street Manager’ is introduced by DfT.
Compaction: Short term surface performance of reinstatements is improving, but compaction issues are more complex. The specification for surfacing materials and trench backfills needs to be reviewed. This is now ongoing in England as part of the specification’s review, supplemented by a HAUC working party looking after training and accreditation.
Inspections: Utility companies must also monitor their own performance. Inspection regulations need a review. Work on the ‘inspections’ code of practice has been ongoing for many years and several voluntary guidance and advice papers have been published in England and Wales. Inspections legislation must be overhauled as it is not consistent with current practices and changes in regulations. There are no immediate plans for Government to look at this. The HAUC community will need to consider the way forward.
Place issues: Reinstatements have a significant impact on public spaces. Deterioration of reinstatements together with patchy roads and footpaths remain the subject of public complaints. Concerns have been raised by the Transport Select Committee. In addition, highway authorities’ financial constraints have led to an inability to meet their own levels of road maintenance. Relevant legislation exists in the Traffic Management Act but has not been ratified.
Long term damage: Clauses and impact assessments relating to long term damage in both the New Roads & Street Works Act and the Traffic Management Act have not been implemented. Introducing a reinstatement charge to compensate for failing reinstatements is seen as essential by those maintaining the highway. Six years of research by TRL to investigate the long term performance of reinstated trenches and the adjacent pavements confirmed that reinstatements could contribute to surface, visual and structural deterioration resulting in the need for premature maintenance of carriageways and footways. The total additional maintenance cost of reinstatements in England was estimated at over £70M in 2007/08. A charge structure has been proposed, to be levied against those opening the highway. Street Works UK does not support these proposals.
Communication and data management
Media use: Incorporating programmed road works into media reports will keep the public better informed.
Online information: Real time updating of work programmes should be available on highway authority websites. Their credibility, however, relies on accurate and reliable data.
Data sharing: Co-ordination of programmes depends on regularly updating schedules. Arrangements for sharing data on works progress need to be reviewed. Providing real time information is essential.
Information on site: Information boards, including electronic signs for major works, should be provided both in advance of and during works to reduce the likelihood of complaints.
Increased understanding: There is a need for greater understanding of how the utilities sector and highway authorities already co-operate widely in the management of street works.
Conclusions
The street works industry is generally poor at informing the road user of forthcoming activity. Highway authorities have a network management duty (TMA 2004) to mitigate disruption and with utility companies they try to achieve this. Both parties should use the many channels available to inform the public and the road user, of works set to cause major disruption. Many highway authority, utility and third party websites provide the location of street works, but they need to receive information from sources that provide accurate, real time data. The DfT’s ‘Street Manager’ initiative is being designed to overcome the problem of delayed or inaccurate data, to give road users an opportunity to make informed decisions and utility companies and highway authorities the ability to better plan highway works. Street Manager will provide freely available ‘open data’ which can be published in many ways. Highway authorities and utility companies need to embrace technology, communication and data interpretation to provide reliable information if it is to succeed.
Acknowledgement
This article has been peer reviewed by the CIHT Network Management & Operations Panel.
Positive actions considered necessary by highway authorities and utility companies to drive forward improvements in street works management are detailed here.
Published in Transportation Professional in January 2019. A fuller version can be seen on CIHT’s website www.ciht.org.uk
Street works management, procedures and regulations
Legislation: Updating existing legislation is essential to ensure it reflects current practices and that street works are managed effectively. Currently, the Highway Authorities & Utilities Committee (UK) is working with Government to look at legislation and necessary actions needed to take account of many changes over the last 25 years. Updating legislation is unfortunately not currently a high priority, so any effective changes will need to be on a self regulatory basis.
Permit schemes: Use of permit schemes should be encouraged, particularly for congested roads, to mitigate works impact on highway users based on the ‘Operation of Permits’ guidance document commissioned by HAUC England. Street Works UK (formerly NJUG) argues that permit schemes should be limited to higher road categories, where work can be more disruptive. Utility companies have raised concerns over a lack of demonstrable benefits from permit schemes in lower road categories. Street Works UK believes where they are introduced, there is consistency for companies carrying out street works across different areas. A set of five or six standard permit schemes (for urban, rural and suburban areas) should suffice.
Lane Rental: An extension of lane rental should be considered by highway authorities for the most congested roads to assist in street works management to mitigate against traffic disruption, particularly on the strategic network and principal roads. Street Works UK is strongly opposed to lane rental, which it says does not provide any tools that do not already exist in current legislation and only adds a layer of complexity on top of existing permit schemes. Highway authorities already possess powers including the duty to co-ordinate and manage street works. Permit schemes allow authorities to direct utility companies to conduct works at certain times and for set durations.
Regulation: Policies vary between utility regulators and their effectiveness needs to be reviewed. There needs to be a greater understanding of the regulations that utility companies are obliged to comply with when installing and maintaining apparatus in the highway.
Skills shortages: There is a diminishing pool of adequately qualified and experienced staff in highway authorities to supervise street works. Equally, an adequately trained utility workforce of accredited personnel is a significant resource issue. Much work is ongoing within HAUC (UK) to review recruitment and training for authorities and utility companies and there is a need for parity across all four domestic countries.
Incentives: There are financial and reputational benefits for utility companies and contractors in ‘doing it right first time’ and minimising the impact on road users. Penalties can be introduced as a last resort to deter poor management. So called ‘level five’ fines are now uncapped and this may act as a deterrent. Furthermore, legislation could be extended to cover other third parties working on the highway under sections 38 and 274 of the Highways Act. Use of fixed penalty notices for more offences may encourage compliance with the legislation.
Duration and safety: The duration and impact of works must be minimised which will also assist in reducing the safety risks to both the utility workforce and the road user. Adopting good practice involves working with local highway authorities to mitigate disruption and ensure the safety of users and the workforce.
Reinstatements, Inspection Regimes and Asset Management
Specification: A review is essential to reflect current practices, improve compliance and the overall quality of reinstatements. Failing reinstatements and delays caused by repeated road works inconvenience businesses and the public and cost the authority. A review of the Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways (fourth edition) is currently under way in England. The review looks to break down barriers to innovation, reduce road occupation and minimise disruption. Concurrent reviews are also being carried out for codes of practice covering inspections and co-ordination, to comply with changes expected when ‘Street Manager’ is introduced by DfT.
Compaction: Short term surface performance of reinstatements is improving, but compaction issues are more complex. The specification for surfacing materials and trench backfills needs to be reviewed. This is now ongoing in England as part of the specification’s review, supplemented by a HAUC working party looking after training and accreditation.
Inspections: Utility companies must also monitor their own performance. Inspection regulations need a review. Work on the ‘inspections’ code of practice has been ongoing for many years and several voluntary guidance and advice papers have been published in England and Wales. Inspections legislation must be overhauled as it is not consistent with current practices and changes in regulations. There are no immediate plans for Government to look at this. The HAUC community will need to consider the way forward.
Place issues: Reinstatements have a significant impact on public spaces. Deterioration of reinstatements together with patchy roads and footpaths remain the subject of public complaints. Concerns have been raised by the Transport Select Committee. In addition, highway authorities’ financial constraints have led to an inability to meet their own levels of road maintenance. Relevant legislation exists in the Traffic Management Act but has not been ratified.
Long term damage: Clauses and impact assessments relating to long term damage in both the New Roads & Street Works Act and the Traffic Management Act have not been implemented. Introducing a reinstatement charge to compensate for failing reinstatements is seen as essential by those maintaining the highway. Six years of research by TRL to investigate the long term performance of reinstated trenches and the adjacent pavements confirmed that reinstatements could contribute to surface, visual and structural deterioration resulting in the need for premature maintenance of carriageways and footways. The total additional maintenance cost of reinstatements in England was estimated at over £70M in 2007/08. A charge structure has been proposed, to be levied against those opening the highway. Street Works UK does not support these proposals.
Communication and data management
Media use: Incorporating programmed road works into media reports will keep the public better informed.
Online information: Real time updating of work programmes should be available on highway authority websites. Their credibility, however, relies on accurate and reliable data.
Data sharing: Co-ordination of programmes depends on regularly updating schedules. Arrangements for sharing data on works progress need to be reviewed. Providing real time information is essential.
Information on site: Information boards, including electronic signs for major works, should be provided both in advance of and during works to reduce the likelihood of complaints.
Increased understanding: There is a need for greater understanding of how the utilities sector and highway authorities already co-operate widely in the management of street works.
Conclusions
The street works industry is generally poor at informing the road user of forthcoming activity. Highway authorities have a network management duty (TMA 2004) to mitigate disruption and with utility companies they try to achieve this. Both parties should use the many channels available to inform the public and the road user, of works set to cause major disruption. Many highway authority, utility and third party websites provide the location of street works, but they need to receive information from sources that provide accurate, real time data. The DfT’s ‘Street Manager’ initiative is being designed to overcome the problem of delayed or inaccurate data, to give road users an opportunity to make informed decisions and utility companies and highway authorities the ability to better plan highway works. Street Manager will provide freely available ‘open data’ which can be published in many ways. Highway authorities and utility companies need to embrace technology, communication and data interpretation to provide reliable information if it is to succeed.
Acknowledgement
This article has been peer reviewed by the CIHT Network Management & Operations Panel.
