|
|
|
|
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
Problems arising from the Coordination of Road openings by Local Authorities and UtilitiesForewordThe Dáil Committee on Public Expenditure in pursuit of its remit inquired into the structure and procedures governing the coordination of road openings by Local Authorities and Utilities. The inquiry was sparked off by the Dublin Corporation road traffic Department response to a question from the Committee “that following preliminary investigations the carriageway and footpath in Merrion Square had been excavated at least 75 times in the period January 1982 - July 1985”. The inquiry did not focus on this particular area but rather from that starting point examined the procedures involved and their effects in terms of cost and inconvenience. The Committee received submissions from all the Utilities, had informal consultations with Dublin Corporation and the Department of the Environment and on two separate occasions in November, 1985 and May, 1986 heard evidence in public from officials of the Department of the Environment and of the various utilities. Having examined the evidence the Committee concluded there were reasons for concern arising from the syste operation which could not ensure value for money to or the minimum disruption to road users. The Committee took the view that the inauguration Dublin Transport Authority and the completion in pilot study on joint utility mapping and data gathering presented opportunity to change the system to the benefit of motorists and consumers of the services of the utilities. This short report and the recommendations contained in it are designed to this end. It is the wish of this Committee that each local authority and each of the utilities involved would recognise the room for improvement in this area and accommodate the necessary changes. Summary of the EvidenceThe pròcedures now governing the co-ordination of utilities in the Dublin area were established in 1981 by the Dublin Transportation Task Force. They require details of the intended work programme of utilities for two weeks with the details for the first week and six weeks’ notice of major works on major commuter roads. They do, of course, refer to the statutory right of utilities to undertake the necessary emergency work. They allow the utilities to make a temporary reinstatement of the excavation themselves which, after it is suitably settled, the Corporation will make a permanent reinstatement and raise a charge on the appropriate utility to cover its costs. It was acknowledged by Mr. O’Duffy, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Environment, responsible for roads and by the Dublin Corporation that the right of the Dublin Transport Authority to direct statutory undertakers would greatly assist in the task coordination. The existing procedures and the powers to be vested under Section 40 of the Dublin Transport Authority is a traffic matter. While this is a major consideration particularly in the major cities, the brief of the Committee requires that it focus on the cost implications and that it seeks the possibility of proposing alternative more cost-effective means. The question of cost-effectiveness arises not within the local authorities per se but, between the various utilities involved including the local authorities. Thus, while the objective at present under the Dublin Transportation Task Force guidelines is to minimise the traffic disruption and for Dublin Corporation to recover the full cost of making good the excavations undertaken by utilities, this does not minimise the total costs involved. The practice of temporary closure by the utility and final making good by the local authority derives from the retention of responsibility by the local authority for public liability arising from road works and the fact that they have a direct labour force to discharge it. The level of charge applied for such work to the utilities derives from the very high costs of mobilising this direct labour force for small fragmented assignments. Ironically this also tends to increase the inconvenience of road excavations to traffic by creating an incentive for the local authority to accumulate the maximum number of temporary infills for reinstatement in one street or road before undertaking the job. It also seems to add to traffic congestion in removing responsibility from the utilities for the quality of one reinstatement. As a result, the necessary compaction provided for in the specification on a layer by layer basis is not undertaken, allowing for the compaction under the stress of traffic. The tendering in the present system - given the bans on overtime and the lack of an incentive or direction to utilities to undertake traffic disrupting work at night, at weekends or at off-peak traffic hours - is to allow excavations to create more traffic disruption than is necessary simply for the purpose of avoiding overtime or out of hours working. Evidence was also provided that there was a serious deficiency of underground mapping, particularly in the older parts of the city, and that this was being compounded by road widening, demolition and other work which led to the removal of benchmarks which were the map reference points by which services were located outside. It was even further compounded by the lack of coordination in the laying down of services. The result was even where mapping of one service was adequate other services criss-crossed its path and these might have been installed since the last excavations were done. The consequences of this situation is that many excavations lead to the breakdown of other services put in place since the last excavation by that utility and unknown to anyone except the utility concerned. In fact, the ESB informed the Committee that they have a supervisor whose sole task it is to guard against excavations by other utilities damaging their lines. Consideration of these various issues led the Committee to conclude that, while Section 40 of the new Dublin Transport Authority should be a welcome addition to the authority to direct utilities and thereby reduce the traffic disruption, it was not enough on its own to minimise disruption nor to the point of concern of this Committee to mimimise cost. The Committee undertook informal consultations with the various interests involved and, in particular, with the major independent utilities in Dublin, new Dublin Gas (in receivership), Telecom Éireann and the Electricity Supply Board. The submissions summarised in Appendices 2,3 and 4 provided a basis for a further hearing on this subject in May, 1986. It emerged from this that there was general satisfaction with the coordination between Dublin Corporation and the utilities but some dissatisfaction arising from the charges applied by the Corporation, the lack of freedom of the utilities to undertake their own reinstatement work and some concern about the increased authority proposed for the new Dublin Transport Authority in relation to utilities undertaking road openings. The following points also emerged from this phase of the inquiry:- 1.That the lack of coordinated mapping of Dublin and other city utilities was a serious deficiency leading to a substantially increased cost in traffic disruption not to mention risk; the problem was the subject of a pilot programme in Cork involving all the utilities in the development of a new Digital mapping system. This was based on the adoption of a U.K. system with a purchase by Telecom Éireann of the necessary computer facilities, the purchase by the other utilities of the necessary linked graphics work stations and an agreed contribution from each utility to Telecom Éireann towards the maintenance and running costs of the computer facility. It appears that the data input for all utilities would take up to two years and from then on maps could be updated and amended in light of changes and developments and new information emerging from excavations in unmapped and inadequately mapped areas and of course in newly laid down areas. The system was also designed to build up a substantial data base which would facilitate the task of planning for the maintenance and review of subterranean plant and hence to reduce levels of breakdown. 2.Despite the general dissatisfaction with the level of charges, it appeared that Dublin Corporation had, in fact, an inadequate power to enforce its charges because of the right of utilities to continue to undertake road openings even without having paid for early reinstatement work. This was further compounded by the practice engaged in by some utilities of not transferring back temporarily reinstated road openings to the Corporation, thereby avoiding the raising of further bills against them. This, in some cases resulted in the Dublin Corporation undertaking temporary reinstatements of openings still held outside their authority for up to two or three years after the work was done and making a charge on the utility for this work. This, of course, inevitably results in higher cost reinstatements and delayed reinstatements resulting in diseconomies both for taxpayers, utility users and road users. 3.It appeared that there would be a willingness on the part of utilities to assume public liability for the road opening reinstatements where they were given the responsibility for undertaking the work. This was a point that had been raised by Dublin Corporation as presenting a fundamental difficulty. 4.There did seem to be general consensus that it was necessary to comply with the requirements of the local authority in replacing the spoil with new material where road openings were undertaken even though this added significantly to cost and perhaps to the length of time within which road opening presented disruption to traffic. 5.That Dublin Corporation charges for reinstatement are high. Some utilities took the view that they were double what their cost might be for the same work and in any event, they were 15 to 20 per cent higher than other Dublin authorities. The Department of the Environment acknowledged this differential but pointed out that there were inevitably additional costs associated with road opening and excavation works in high density, high traffic areas and that the 15 to 20 per cent difference between Dublin Corporation and the Dublin County Council about reflected that cost difference. ConclusionsThe main concerns arising in the course of the Committee’s review of the evidence related to the fact that neither the present system nor the provisions for increased authority in Dublin under the Dublin Transport Authority dealt with the heart of the matter of inbuilt cost ineffectiveness in an inter agency system. While the issue was not at the heart of the matter for any of the agencies involved, it resulted in a considerable and continuing disruption particularly to city traffic and to some avoidable costs. Moreover, it provided clear prima facie evidence of poor coordination between agencies of State and could often provide evidence of incompetence, inefficiency and disregard for public convenience. For all these reasons and, despite the fact that it was not possible to put an accurate figure on the total cost of road openings by utilities, the Committee considered that it was appropriate to bring its conclusions and recommendations before the Dáil. The annual cost to local authorities and to other utilities of road openings, service, repair and road reinstatement can as an order of magnitude be put at £100m.. This does not include consideration of the very considerable damage done to the fabric of the road by these openings which shortens the effective life of the road surface and has cost implications. It does not include consideration of the increased risk of damage or accident arising around the site of road openings or subsequently for the duration of their temporary reinstatements and of the additional contingent public liability faced by the local authorities. It does not include the cost to commuters, city dwellers or city business of increased congestion arising from these roadworks or reduced road quality consequent on them. All of these points give added weight to the need for better, more cost-effective coordination leading to less disruptive, more speedy and better restoration of the roadways after the number of road openings is minimised. The Committee considers that there is considerable room for improvement in the present system on which it concludes as follows:- 1.The Committee is satisfied that there is goodwill within and between the utilities in Dublin for coordination and a minimisation of traffic disruption. The Committee is also satisfied that there is a system in place through Dublin Corporation, which coordinates these excavations and which includes weekly reporting on intended works, six weekly reporting and the seven-day notice in relation to major works requesting utilities to consider undertaking major development works on the services where a road is earmarked for a major development or improvement in advance of that work. While the system is observed it does little to minimise the disruption and nothing to minimise the cost of these operations. 2.The system is inadequately used by some utilities and actually abused by others in such matters as delaying payment and delaying the handback of responsibility for permanent reinstatement to avoid bills being raised. 3.There is no preordained service installation system for new areas. Such a scheme, if established even 20 or years ago would have dramatically alleviated the problems arising. 4.The new authority, which it is proposed to give to new Dublin Transport Authority, is not enough to resolve deficiencies in the present system. The requirement not simply for coordination with the right to issue directives nor is the answer in bureaucracy but rather in reorganising incentive systems and establishing standards and norms which should be met by the utilities. 5.The debt collection system for the local authorities is deficient, given the statutory right of the utilities to continue to open new holes, their obligation and to leave the final reinstatement and the public liability attaching to the work to the local authority. It may be necessary to circumscribe the authority of the utilities in this regard. 6.The charges applied by Dublin Corporation and perhaps by some other authorities are high and substantially in excess of the minimum cost of undertaking the final reinstatement work. In fact, they are operated in the form of tax geared to cover the costs of direct labour forces. There is a laid down procedure for layering and compacting the infilling of road openings which is a proven procedure and is not observed. Its non-observance is the main reason why road openings are so often settled by dent of traffic and have to be left so long in that dangerous state before being finally reinstated. 7.The Cork study on computerised mapping of utilities was worthwhile and showed the value of increased data in reducing the cost and the disruption arising from the maintenance of these services in cities. With the use of saws in effecting road openings, the damage arising to motor vehicles from temporary reinstatement is exacerbated. Their use both demands and facilitates the greater use of lean concrete in reinstatement thus accelerating the final reinstatement stage. A new system, based on proper reinstatement and minimising avoidable traffic disrupti may cost more by imposing more off-peak work on utilities but this additional cost can and should be offset by other economies. Recommendations It is against this background that the Committee formulate the following recommendations: - 1.That immediate approval be given to the utilities in Dublin to establish a coordinating group based on the pilot project in Cork with a view to funding the development of the coordinated interlinked joint utilities mapping and data base. a) that the Department of the Environment provide an appropriate level of grant towards the cost of the project with a view to facilitating whatever grant aid might be forthcoming from the Regional Development Fund or other EEC sources and to encourage the use of this system in Dublin and other cities. b) That this coordinating group develop a new standard for the placing of utilities where new roads are being built in new areas. 2.Impose and enforce a legal obligation on local authorities to maintain benchmarks, identifiable and intact and to restore them where they are disturbed by road widening and other road works. 3.Restore the right of each utility to undertake its own reinstatement work and forcing on it a full public liability for up to two years after the completion of the work. 4.Allow a 30-day period for payment to local authorities by utilities with the statutory right to undertake excavations and insist that local authorities pursue the recovery of the debt through legal channels if, for any reason, arrears were accumulate for a period greater than three months. 5.Introduce a new charge system in urban areas whereby pay a rent for the traffic lane for the period for is disrupted with substantial differentials to encourage and out of normal working hours work where possible. the charge might range from £100 to £3,000 per traffic lane per day and should be payable in advance save where emergency arises. The rate for emergency work should commend a 100 premium, thus putting the onus on utilities to maintain their services in a manner which would minimise the incidence of emergency excavations. 6.Require that all excavations in main thoroughfares be refilled with a colour-coded lean concrete mix and reinstated in accordance with prescribed procedures with final reinstatement done within the minimum period following the excavations. Thus ESB infill might be red, Dublin Gas, green, Telecom Éireann, white and water and sewerage, natural. 7. With a view to encouraging proper refilling and, where possible, immediate final reinstatement, the lane rent for second and subsequent work in the same street or lane in the same year could be a multiple of the original charge (say treble). 8.While it is understood that it is the responsibility of the parks department of Dublin Corporation to protect trees in Dublin they should, as part of the greater coordination of utilities, be able to enter into agency agreements with the utilities with a view to ensuring that they do not interfere with or damage trees, grass margins, hedges and other natural amenities in the course of their necessary excavation works, or that where such damage arises it is made good. 9.Invite AnCo to provide a training course with certification for excavation reinstatement work and, over time, introduce a requirement that at least one operative in each road gang has undertaken the course. 10.Extend the writ of the Dublin Transport Authority extent of the Greater Dublin Commuter belt. 11.Provide for an Arbitration and inspection procedure resolve disputes arising between utilities and authorities. The main effect of these recommendations when with the increased authority of the Dublin Transportation Authority should be to give greater freedom of individual utilities to complete their own reinstatement work to greatly increase the amount and quality of information on the location, relative position and status of subterranean services, reducing the risks of one interfering with the other, and to increase the incentive for off-peak excavations and to minimise the duration of openings in high traffic routes and above all to reduce the number of temporarily reinstated openings. This can be done without increased costs with the prospects of some savings but will require the additional outlay of, perhaps, £1m in necessary computer facilities to facilitate the build up of the necessary data. The level of traffic disruption and the level of dissatisfaction expressed by all utilities concerned including the local authorities involved demand that this matter be taken in hand by the new Dublin Transport Authority as a matter of the greatest urgency. The fact that the work has been done in other countries and the pilot work done in Cork on the data build up necessary for an improved system and that the utilities have given their enthusiastic support to this project suggests that the Authority will be “pushing an open door”. This Committee considers that it should be pushed all the way in the interests of greater coordination, greater cost-effectiveness and a reduced imposition of inconvenience and disruption on the public. AcknowledgmentsThe Committee wishes to place on record its appreciation of those who assisted in its review, in particular, the Department of the Environment, Dublin Corporation, the Electricity Supply Board, New Dublin Gas and Telecom Éireann.
Michael Keating T.D. Chairman 29th July, 1986. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
