Raising Standards and Improving the Quality of Road Works in Scotland

Vodafone would embrace and get behind any process that helps us get it right first time.
Introducing and Quality Plan should improve reinstatements and reduce remedial works. Things to consider are: Utilities independent Coring Programmes, adequate refresher training to high level to assess materials, compaction process, edge & base cleanliness and sealing, material temperature controls & testing, downtime for tool box workshops for innovation, new materials safety issues etc.

It is important that we have consistency and parity across the Roadworks Industry to raise standards. Vodafone sees Quality Plans, for both Utility and Road Authority works as a way to achieve this.

- Reinstatement failures normally emanate within the to 2/3 years guarantee period and are due to lack of compaction and edge/layer bonding problems, so an enhanced guarantee period would not add value. Extra Costs will be incurred as below:

For Road Authorities - if the proposed 6-year period is agreed a new inspection regime will be needed to ensure inspections are available throughout the new period and at the end of the guarantee.

For Utilities - Our contractors normally have 2 or 3 year contracts, leading to retainers or bonds to cater for legacy defects. For new contracts, the costs will ultimately rise with no guarantee of improved reinstatement without the proposed Quality Plans in place as proposed in Question 1.

The state of existing road is an issue if past life expectancy. Roads authority should meet a similar specification and performance monitored.

New material testing might mean we get more quality confidence in quality plans in the future.

There is no need for clarification. The SROR is explicit concerning reinstatement of the road to comply with prescribed materials, standards of workmanship and that it conforms to prescribed performance standards throughout its guarantee period.

Elsewhere in NRSWA there is a Code of Practice for Safety – “Safety at Street Works and Road Works”. The Red Book thoroughly covers Signing, Lighting and Guarding. There is no reason to change it.

However there will be cost implications with this proposal:
Information for the SRWR must be accurate and therefore Supervisors/Operatives will have use smart PDA Location applications to clear/close works on site OR have a reliable process for information upload to the NRSWA Administration Team for onward transmission before the 2 hours’ deadline expires. Cost of new PDA’s/Integrated Software, Licences, Training for all Supply Chain Contractors Operatives/Administrative staff. Also resulting in more FPN’s for non-compliance? Current noticing process is sufficient for Roads authority to carry out network management duty. Could create a back log of information at peak times for Symology

No cost implications other than retraining of Administration/Operative Teams.

Although duct and chamber information is Mandatory. The cable and customer information must be left to the Undertaker to decide whether to give this extra detail based on commercial sensitivity or security.

This would alleviate anxiety expressed by some undertakers as their apparatus would be visible to the general public and therefore encourage undertaker to participate in the VAULT programme.

Having a public accessible portal on the internet would allow only limited prescribed noticing information to be shared.

It’s important all promoters working on public roads are subject to the same safety regime. We all know that there is a cross-pollination of Supervisors/Operatives and other key personnel have and will continue to transfer between Road Authorities and Undertakers organisations so it’s vital that same rules apply. Generally, the public, who we have a duty to safeguard, would not distinguish between types of works but need to know they are safe when around works, whoever promotes these.

All Vodafone employees and their contractors already have qualifications to Signing, Lighting and Guarding. Also Location & Avoidance of Underground Apparatus to work on public roads.

It makes sense to have more than one worker qualified on site to cover for any eventualities for instance sickness, injury or accident of one worker allows management of the site by another.

Perhaps Roads authorities should be subject to “Policing”, however Vodafone is nervous of creating new offences under NRSWA. A more realistic avenue would be to replicate current NRSWA’ s offences with offences for Roads Authorities. Yes, a level playing field would add maturity to the roadworks community and its ability the deliver schemes across the industry for the general public.

Current legislation is sufficient. There is merit in developing FPN Regime which gets away from merely punitive aspects and encourages promoters (Utilities and Road Authorities alike) to improve compliance by working together. There is much to consider to setting a regime:
At what stage would a formal warning be appropriate; for example, the first offence or sliding range with ultimately a FPN determined by seriousness?
Who would serve the FPN, Roads authority as present or left to SRWC?

There is merit in enhancing the SRWC’s role to support an inspection function, however the scope must be regulated to ensure its powers are not exceeded when introduced. A dispute resolution process should be introduced to resolve issues before reaching the SRWC.
A more balanced approach to road works compliance needs to be developed throughout the industry, not just on utility works. It must be considered that the cost of an inspection function is to be paid out of the SWRC prescribed amounts & fees and therefore likely to increase by some margin. Therefore, due diligence is required to ensure value for money in any new proposal which improves the standard for all. We expect this function to have parity across all promoters and to be designed as an exception service for the SRWC, not a “run of the mill inspection” regime.

The amendment in TSA (2005) now defines the restricted period as “such period as may be prescribed” giving flexibility through the CoP for Co-ordination as described in S117(9).
Therefore, a review the CoP to a more pragmatic approach perhaps based on a Matrix Score (traffic/disruption caused by works/location/local needs), is certainly possible.

Foolish not to as the Authority needs to know.

Foolish not to as the Authority needs to know.

S132 provides that a new reinstatement at the same position as an existing reinstatement will take on ownership to the extent of the original works. This NRSWA Section has not created issues for utilities in the past and therefore should remain.

It is important that all road works are notifiable to ensure that the SRWR is up to date so that co-ordination can take place effectively. Roads Authorities Teams should be separate to Road Maintenance Teams so that equal status is placed on information from all promoters to ensure the general public is best served by the roadworks community.

It makes absolute sense to require road works, whether promoted by a Utility or Developer to record road openings and reinstatement details in the SRWR to ensure co-ordination can take place and for safety issues.