Local Government Association discovers lane rental

[WHBM]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37065631

Only taken them, what, a generation, to discover the idea.

What is more galling though is that it's yet another council idea floated with both eyes bolted firmly on the revenue. Which is all councils seem to care about nowadays. I'm sure if it was in place they would want the works to go on as long as possible to maximise their income from it.

This is not to say that utilities and their contractors progress works in any way efficiently to the road user rather than themselves, I have written about this in the past. But if it's the road users being delayed, why should a council benefit from any charges levied as a result of the congestion and delay.

[rhyds]

Any scheme like this would need to be sure there's no unintended concequences on either side so that you avoid ridiculous decisions that simply "play the system", such as councils delaying singing off on works completed (so the meter keeps ticking) or utility firms putting work off because its cheaper to pay compensation to customers than it is to pay to do the repair work.

[A9NWIL]

Any scheme like this would need to be sure there's no unintended concequences on either side so that you avoid ridiculous decisions that simply "play the system", such as councils delaying singing off on works completed (so the meter keeps ticking) or utility firms putting work off because its cheaper to pay compensation to customers than it is to pay to do the repair work.

Unless a law was brought in that, on one side utility companies couldnt delay work by more than x amount of time, varying according to the severity of the job, else they get a fine that is equivalent to the amount it could cost to do the job, on top of compensation to customers. On the other side councils couldnt delay signing off a job by a definitive fixed time, of say 1 week, else they forfeit the revenue they could have earned from this idea!

[Nuke]

I have never understood why, in country areas, utilities are not put under the grasss verge or even under an adjoining meadow where available. You see contractors drilling up the road sometimes when there is an 8 ft wide verge (and some of their vehicles are even parked on it). Are they frightened someone will dig into them too easily?

Slightly off-topic, but this would reduce both the work, the obstruction, and the subsequent subsidence and pot-holes.

[c2R]

Sometimes gas, sewage, and water is put under fields, but generally they'd have to be buried very deep to avoid being plouged up, if they were within fields, and probably things like drainage work and people creating/moving field and property accesses could cause the pipes to be disrupted. Also, the road foundation is usually nice and solid, while earth nearby may move.

Electricity and communications tends to be on posts anyway.

[rhyds]

To give a bit of context, my folks' farm recently had a 150mm (six inch) trunk gas main run through part of it, as part of a "resilience" upgrade to the network in the area. This pipeline ran for tens of miles through the local area, and seemed to stay mainly off the roads of the area, except where it was totally unavoidable.

The first big difference between the "road" and "off road" sections was in the width of the works. Under the roads the width was may be 1/4 or 1/2 a lane, whereas through the fields the works were more like the width of an S2 or WS2 with large anchoring frameworks to keep the pipe from shifting.

Also, compensation had to be paid for loss of use of land along the route during and after construction, and also for the fact that until the root systems etc. re-establish the land is generally unusable for its original work (my folks' fields are still not quite back to normal after 2-3 years).

As for telecoms and electricity works, its true most rural lines are overhead, but there's a lot of work being done to install ducting for fibre optic networks underground (fibre's a bit exposed when run along poles). Locally we have a crew who have been trenching 16 miles along the A494 from Dolgellau to Llanuwchllyn. Where possible they've gone along the verge but where the road is on an embankment or the boundary is tight they're going down the road.

[jackal]

It is clearly a very sensible idea. Those that impose costs on the public should pay for it. This will incentivise them to keep the disruption to a minimum, benefiting the public, and raise funds for hard pressed local authorities.

[kit]

As for telecoms and electricity works, its true most rural lines are overhead, but there's a lot of work being done to install ducting for fibre optic networks underground (fibre's a bit exposed when run along poles).

Just had it done through my village and they've generally kept to the verges and have actually taken some care to reinstate with the original material, be that grass, tarmac or gravel.

Definitely agree that utility companies should pay lane rental though, it gives them an economic incentive to complete works as quickly as possible.

Had works recently by Thames Water where they closed off a lane on a very busy S2 primarily to park their vans in as the work was taking place on the verge. They also didn't set the lights up properly (only 5 or 6 cars through at a time) so when I went through, thankfully on a pushbike, the queues approaching were 3 miles long.

When I went back a bit later all the equipment and vans were in a nearby layby with men standing around looking a bit sheepish and the workers were then back two weeks later to finish off the work. I don't know if the police or council pulled them off the road after complaints.

[WHBM]

Had works recently by Thames Water where they closed off a lane on a very busy S2 primarily to park their vans in as the work was taking place on the verge. They also didn't set the lights up properly (only 5 or 6 cars through at a time) so when I went through, thankfully on a pushbike, the queues approaching were 3 miles long.

This sounds like the way TfL conducted the Cycle Super Highway works along The Embankment in the last year or two, which raises the point about whether highway authorities themselves should be subject to lane rental for their own works. London of course already has the scheme, but I believe only for utilities, not highways. Areas of the carriageway at pinch points were further narrowed, just for a convenient compound for the storage of materials and plant which sometimes lay there for months, all just done for the convenience of the contractor. So why shouldn't they do lane rental as well to encourage the works being done in the most efficient manner.

[Fenlander]

I've posted about this one before but 40mph stretch of S3 through the industrial estate with works in the verge behind the path and they close the nearest lane and rather than use the other 2 for both lanes of traffic they put 2 way temporary lights up, running 24/7 for the duration of the works.
Contrast that with ducting currently being trenched less than 6' from the live lanes of the busy S2 NSL A16 between Spalding and Crowland where there's nothing apart from a row of cones between the trench and the traffic. What's the ducting for? The infrastructure for the speed cameras that are to be installed because the road is 'so dangerous'.

[Phil]

I have never understood why, in country areas, utilities are not put under the grasss verge or even under an adjoining meadow where available. You see contractors drilling up the road sometimes when there is an 8 ft wide verge (and some of their vehicles are even parked on it). Are they frightened someone will dig into them too easily?

Slightly off-topic, but this would reduce both the work, the obstruction, and the subsequent subsidence and pot-holes.

Its all to do with legal history and the "An Englishman's home is his castle" attitude that permeates UK common law and contrasts with the way Napoleonic law treats the same principles

When the electricity, gas, water and sewage networks were still being built - most of them being private companies rather than state enterprises, they could pass under public property (such as roads) relatively freely without the need to get express permission of the landowner or pay enhanced compensation. If private property was involved, suddenly costs and objections increased quite dramatically making the whole thing a harder proposition. This is why London Underground routes followed existing streets wherever possible.

For utilities - using public lad also simplified access for repairs as there was no need to get permission to enter private property.

It wasn't until after WW2, that the legal rules surrounding utilities / transport undertakings were altered so as to prevent landowners from obstructing the construction of things under their land or blocking access indefinitely if the owner of the utility needed access.

The problem is that said law changes didn't come into effect until most utility networks were well established - even in rural areas where there was a big push to get homes linked to the fresh water network. As such if a repair or renewal is needed today, its a lot simpler to do a like for like replacement and keep the services where they are. When it comes to brand new infrastructure however (as in installing links that did not exist before) then most utility companies will look at options other than placing them under roads.

[Mark Hewitt]

Exactly. Even with the associated costs of traffic management etc it's generally easier for utilities to route their kit along roads rather than private property.

The most recent big infrastructure install was in the 1990s when cable was installed and that was mostly done along the footway - leaving an obvious scar on tarmac paths, with paving stones they had to put them back.

[Nuke]

The most recent big infrastructure install was in the 1990s when cable was installed

They are still putting cable in around here (rural Monmouthshire). Not that I am going to benefit in the forseeable future - although it goes past my gate (under the tarmac) it seems to be a long distance link.

[Mark Hewitt]

The most recent big infrastructure install was in the 1990s when cable was installed

They are still putting cable in around here (rural Monmouthshire). Not that I am going to benefit in the forseeable future - although it goes past my gate (under the tarmac) it seems to be a long distance link.

Still doing bits and bobs in Teesside too, a few weeks ago they installed a cable in a trench on a grass verge.

[tom1977]

It is clearly a very sensible idea. Those that impose costs on the public should pay for it. This will incentivise them to keep the disruption to a minimum, benefiting the public, and raise funds for hard pressed local authorities.

And those funds will be financed by increasing charges to utility customers. The utility companies won't pay for this out of their profits.

[kit]

And those funds will be financed by increasing charges to utility customers. The utility companies won't pay for this out of their profits.

That doesn't matter if there is an overall net economic benefit, for instance, HGVs being able to travel quicker reducing prices for consumers. If you compare it to other ways of lowering congestion which are paid for by taxpayers, like road widening, it would probably work out good value for money.

It's the old problem of people not using resources efficiently when someone else is paying for them, like people getting paracetomol on prescription or filling up at motorway service stations when it's going on a company credit card.

[tom1977]

And those funds will be financed by increasing charges to utility customers. The utility companies won't pay for this out of their profits.

That doesn't matter if there is an overall net economic benefit, for instance, HGVs being able to travel quicker reducing prices for consumers. If you compare it to other ways of lowering congestion which are paid for by taxpayers, like road widening, it would probably work out good value for money.

It's the old problem of people not using resources efficiently when someone else is paying for them, like people getting paracetomol on prescription or filling up at motorway service stations when it's going on a company credit card.

I'm suggesting there won't be any positive effect. The roadworks will still happen as inefficiently as before, a lane rental charge will be incurred and utility prices will go up to pay it. The council will get increased revenue and council executives will be able to justify a nice pay increase.

[kit]

I'm suggesting there won't be any positive effect. The roadworks will still happen as inefficiently as before, a lane rental charge will be incurred and utility prices will go up to pay it. The council will get increased revenue and council executives will be able to justify a nice pay increase.

I don't think it will. Water charges are regulated as are National Grid's. Regulators are also all over Openreach. The idea that they can pish money up against the wall and regulators will allow them to just put up bills to compensate is quite unlikely.

I work for the NHS which has a £100bn budget but I can assure you we are under constant pressure to save 20p here and £1.40 there.

[A9NWIL]

I'm suggesting there won't be any positive effect. The roadworks will still happen as inefficiently as before, a lane rental charge will be incurred and utility prices will go up to pay it. The council will get increased revenue and council executives will be able to justify a nice pay increase.

I don't think it will. Water charges are regulated as are National Grid's. Regulators are also all over Openreach. The idea that they can pish money up against the wall and regulators will allow them to just put up bills to compensate is quite unlikely.

I work for the NHS which has a £100bn budget but I can assure you we are under constant pressure to save 20p here and £1.40 there.

Talking about the NHS they cut at the expense of patients health sometimes! I have a cousin who has Addison's disease (lack of natural cortisol). The NHS wont pay for a pump so that she can have the cortisol injected directly into her blood stream citing costs, but will pay tonnes more money for all the emergency stays in hospital due to her collapsing!
The governments way of trying to save money is the most inefficient you can ever imagine! They may as well not bother!

[WHBM]

Water charges are regulated as are National Grid's. Regulators are also all over Openreach. The idea that they can pish money up against the wall and regulators will allow them to just put up bills to compensate is quite unlikely.

I can assure you that regulated industries are generally more than a match for the regulators. Creative accounting rules.

A classic example is the new runway at Heathrow. You would think it was in Heathrow's interest to have the most efficient scheme, as Heathrow are footing all the bill. No, regulators have actually made it best for Heathrow to have the most expensive scheme they can get away with, because the airport landing charges are regulated, and based on asset value and a permitted rate of return. So the more asset value in Heathrow, the more the regulator's rules allow charges to be increased.

You may notice that the cost of the runway seems to increase almost monthly and has now got to stratospheric levels (£25 billion latest). This is because a significant part is the land cost, and that's constantly being revalued upwards. Value, not purchase price, because over the years Heathrow has progressively bought up most of the land needed already. However the rules say it's the cost of land required, measured when the scheme starts. The land, and houses, bought up are transferred to an arm's length company to keep them off Heathrow's accounts, and are meantime all rented out. In the regularly trotted-out example of Harmondsworh village being demolished, most people are now tenants. Guess who is the landlord. But this escapes the regulator's rules, and if it does, they turn a blind eve to it.

I've written, as some have seen previously, on other posts here about comparable (on a smaller scale) utility works gaming the system, which leads to the longest possible interruption of roads, all to suit the contractor.