Raising Standards and Improving the Quality of Road Works in Scotland

Currently the onus is on Roads Authorities to inspect and locate defects during and after works are completed. Assessment of plans need to take place before the works commence to ensure specifications will be met, not after the works are complete. Quality Plans would spread the responsibility from the RA's to the Utilities to police their own works and raise standards of contractors and sub-contractors.
Utilities, contractors and RA's should be confident in advance that works are to be carried out to specification. The only people to be apprehensive of this approach would be those who are currently poor performing.

If Quality Plans improve standards then it should also follow that the guarantee period should be raised. This should not be an issue for good performing contractors, it would only affect those failing to meet standards or not working to the required specifications.
Increasing the period is a consistent and promising approach and coupled with the introduction of Quality Plans changes the emphasise away from RA's and spreads the responsibility.
This could be taken further and any defects that develop and fail on a reinstatement in the six year guarantee period results in the clock restarting from the date of the remedial repair for another 6 years.

Yes the impact of the QP's should be reviewed after an agreed period. Removing the latent defect process would still be risky though even if standards have improved. It appears it is only not used because it is too expensive to do so not that it is not required. Perhaps another procedure that is not as expensive could be drawn up?

Agree to this proposal as it is clearly the most joined up approach.

It seems that there is a drive to try and make the SRWR more accurate on dates and times of works to improve the public facing aspect. The Register is not accurate enough currently for up to the minute updates or as a useful planning tool for motorists considering their journeys. This proposal should improve the public facing aspect for general motorists, bus companies and haulage companies which should have an impact on our economy.
For this to be successful all users of the Register require to improve or put in place better communication lines within their organisations, particularly sub contractors.
There could be difficulties with this caused by restrictive office hours, local holidays and even the lack of phone signal in some areas. Enforcing this would be difficult.

If the Register is to be of any value as a public facing journey planner then the validity period needs to be reduced. The dates need to reflect when the work is actually going to be there, not just give a 'ball park' period where the dates are only an indication of possible work. Traffic Sensitive roads need to be treated differently than smaller, less vital non traffic sensitive roads.
The Trunk Road Operating companies operate another system alongside the Register to update Traffic Scotland regarding works on the Trunk Road Network. After consultation with Utility contractors and sub contractors the dates actually required for the work is usually a lot less than is indicated on the Register Notice. Traffic Scotland then give more accurate information regarding works on the Trunk Road Network and the dates for works on this system often differ greatly from the dates on the Register.

Make it mandatory and create links from plant systems direct to the Vault system. It should be possible to uplift data directly from our system to Vault by a click of a button.

Support this. Seems an out dated requirement.

It should be possible to make available all information on planned works. Actual works might be more difficult considering currently the works do not require to show as 'in progress' until noon on the day after. So it is presently impossible to know from the Register what works is actually underway on the network at any given time.

If there is works on the road it matters not to the public who is doing the work so all site should be treated the same. Safety is the standard to work to and it should be enforceable if there are any breaches to the code of practice.

It cannot be all operatives. There should be a minimum number on site trained to carry out the task in hand. So as long as there is one qualified in each that should be acceptable but this should also be on a pro-rata basis depending on the number of operatives on site overall.
We have concerns regarding the practice of setting up and leaving Traffic Management on site and the traffic management company are not present if anything goes wrong, such as a vehicle strike. Someone on site from the contractor requires to be trained to a level where they can safely deal with any issues such as standing up and replacing cones or signs.

Depending on the type and location of the works having more than one qualified operative could be difficult to resource and maintain. That said, if the works are of a major type with extensive traffic management or there is a large number of operatives involved then the numbers of qualified operatives should be increased on a pro-rata basis using an approved / agreed formula.
This aspect could be covered in the Quality Plans for each individual work site.

The office of the Commissioner should have full enforcement functions to carry out inspections of all types and to issue FPN fines for non-compliance. Only poor performing organisations should fear this proposal.

It is important that standards improve and the FPN system should be reformed and extended to drive up standards. There should be a sliding penalties scale depending on whether the road is traffic sensitive or not. Delays and congestion on a vital road link is far more serious than on a small housing estate. The current penalty of £120 or discounted £80 is ineffectual.

Agree with this proposal standards have improved since the introduction of a Commissioner and this should improve further with any enhancements of this role.

In principle this proposal has merit. If the restricted period is to be increased following substantial works then it may be necessary to increase the advanced notice period as well beyond the current 3 months. Giving Utilities more time to assess the impact on their works programmes.
The road asset requires to be protected going forward as well as improving the public's perception of the co-ordination that is taking place.

This requires to be addressed.

The Roads Authority is ultimately responsible for co-ordination and should be involved from the outset. RA's have the local and intimate knowledge of the problem areas on their network and are better placed to make these informed decisions rather than a remote Utility which may not even be based in the country.

Agree with the decision made at RAUCS.

The noticing can be the same up to the point of Registration which would be pointless and labour intensive for the RA's. RA's are responsible for the maintenance of all the road outwith those 3rd party reinstatements. Any defect which is not identified as a utility reinstatement is the responsibility of the RA to repair. Not sure there is anything fundamentally wrong with the way noticing is currently set up.

Section 109 agreements cover all that is required.

If the FPN system was extended to cover other aspects within works such as pedestrian or disabled access through works then yes it would have an impact.

The proposal to extend FPN's may have an impact. Roads outside schools and other venues are often traffic sensitive but the FPN system could reflect the increased danger working outside premises of this nature poses and the penalty could be increased for breaches of safety standards.

Spreading the responsibility for policing works to the Utility side will cost more. Any costs that are increased could also be reduced or offset by good standard quality plans.
There would be cost implications if requiring notices to be started / closed within 2 hours. The enforcement of this could also have a cost implication.
If there is an increased requirement on operatives to be qualified or at least more of them per site then there will be a training cost.
If expanding or increasing the role of the Commissioner or extended the responsibilities of the Commissioner's office then that will increase costs.

No

The introduction of Quality Plans may mean improved standards and reduced congestion due to works not being on the road for longer than necessary with the inherent cost reductions that would bring. Anything that reduces congestion reduces pollution and improves the economy.