You are:

Local Councils want to take over the motorways

19 August 2010

The union has rebutted this deeply flawed proposal and asked that it be dropped

The Local Government Association (LGA) made this proposition in its report: Place Based Budgets; the future governance of local public services.

In reply the Union wrote, at length, to the Association as below.

Place-based budgets - the future governance of local public services
 

In the above LGA publication, at page 45, the Association makes a recommendation to:

transfer responsibility for many trunk roads (not motorways) from the Highways Agency to local government

We believe that this recommendation is flawed.

First the above recommendation, at least in terms of changing responsibility for trunk roads, does not flow from the analysis given in the body of document.

On page 8 the report states:

“We explore how devolved governance allows services to be more effective and give better value for money through:

• targeting services, bearing down on the deadweight costs associated with some
national programmes that increase the cost per outcome

• integrating services to tackle complex problems

• stripping out the multiplicity of bodies and funding streams addressing the same issue from different perspectives, and through a whole public service approach that cuts out waste and duplication.”

None of those three bullet points can possibly apply to trunk roads.

There are no deadweight costs. The Highways Agency is an integrated whole therefore there is no need for integrating services (this is done already) and as the single body responsible for the strategic trunk road and motorway network there is not a multiplicity of bodies to be stripped away.

It is possible that the LGA was unaware of the major programme of de-trunking that has taken place over the last years. During the Roads Review in 1997-98, a comprehensive review of the existing strategic road network was undertaken. Most of the network was identified as being of clear national significance and should therefore remain the responsibility of the Highways Agency. The most recent report (Eighth Report March 2010) of the Transport Select Committee even went so far as to say “where a de-trunked road continues to meet the criteria for trunked roads and local conditions imply remedies outside the local resources available, the Department should consider the merits of re-trunking or providing additional resources to the local authorities responsible for managing and maintaining the road. (Paragraph 41)”.

These roads were termed the "core network". There were a number of other trunk roads that the review considered to mainly serve local and regional traffic and would be more appropriately managed by the local highway authority. These roads were therefore proposed for detrunking and included within the New Deal Detrunking Programme, and classified as the "non-core network".

The policy of detrunking involved transferring up to 3,200 km (about 30% of trunk road network at April 1999) of non-core routes from Highways Agency control to local highways authority control.

The programme was designed to allow the Highways Agency to concentrate on the operation of a strategic road network that links the main centres of population and major transport hubs; and to allow local highway authorities to set priorities for routes that primarily serve local needs, and to integrate them with local land use planning and local transport plans.

The New Deal Detrunking programme was concluded at 31 March 2009. All routes remaining within the strategic road network are core. Therefore, in a certain sense, the LGA demand concerning trunk roads has been met already. The Select Committee commented that the process of de-trunking has reduced the frequency and intensity of tensions between national and local needs and commended both the Highways Agency and the local highway authorities for working together to minimise conflicts of interests.

Your report could be seen to be re-opening these conflicts since in essence you are arguing that the strategic (i.e. core) network be broken up. Ironically, if responsibly for the trunk roads is transferred to local government then you will, by having a multiplicity of bodies and funding streams addressing the same issue, have a “reverse” Total Place effect.

The analysis set out in table 2, page 28 is incorrect;

It claims that there are no national economies of scale. There are through the letting of national/regional contracts that cover trunk roads and the fact that professional and technical experts within the Highways Agency act as an intelligent client for work on all trunk roads. This has most recently been acknowledged by the Interim report of the independent review of the “Resilience of England’s Transport Systems” published last month. This recognised that the Highways Agency is best placed to acquire, store and distribute as required a national reserve of road salt because it has the necessary competence and experience and has a national outlook.

The table states that there is no expectation of geographical equality. This is true because the trunk roads are being run as part of a strategic network and are being run for the good of the nation as a whole. Having geographical equality defeats the purpose of a strategic network, although there is some argument that parts of England are underprovided for in terms of major roads – another argument for more trunking rather than de-trunking.

The table answers “No” to the question “are there financial risks that have to be managed nationally”. Of course the answer depends on whether you view the roads managed by DfT as a strategic network or not. If you do then the answer becomes “Yes”.

The table also makes no effort to separate the trunk road programme budget from the total national spend of £6.6 billion

Finally under the heading “are there concerns about current performance” the LGA states “Yes – localised congestion”.

It is not apparent how transferring responsibility to local government would solve this? We would be grateful if you could tell us please. The unions are arguing that Traffic Officers (these officers “police”, in the traffic sense, the motorways) should cover the trunk road network and this is slowly being rolled out by the Highways Agency. Also we argue that active traffic management systems in use on motorways be extended to the trunk roads. This would ease congestion and speed traffic flows. In other words part of the solution lies with Highways Agency and not local government.

Given the above I hope that LGA will reconsider its position and drop its demand that trunk roads be transferred to local government. I look forward to your reply”.


 

View all News