‘devolution’ of transport powers to local government: impacts of the 2004 traffic management act...

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Transport Policy 17 (2010) 64–71

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transport Policy

0967-07

doi:10.1

n Corr

Woodco

Tel.: +4

E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

‘Devolution’ of transport powers to Local Government: Impacts of the 2004Traffic Management Act in England

Paul E. Canning a,b,n, Emma E. Hellawell b,n, Susan J. Hughes b, Birgitta C.M. Gatersleben c,Christopher J. Fairhead a

a Surrey County Council, Intelligent Transport Systems, Services for Communities, Unit 4, Mole Business Park, Leatherhead, Surrey, KT22 7BA, UKb Department of Civil Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UKc Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Devolution

Traffic Management Act

Congestion

Intelligent Transport Systems

0X/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. A

016/j.tranpol.2009.11.001

esponding authors. Present address: Atkins

te Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT18

4 1372 756 726; fax: +44 1372 756 607.

ail address: [email protected]

a b s t r a c t

The concept of ‘Devolution’—the transfer of powers away from the Central Government to more local

bodies of Government, has been used across many different areas of policy and by many different

national governments. This paper examines the devolution of transport powers to the existing Local

Traffic Authorities in England via the 2004 Traffic Management Act. The paper first presents a summary

of how several different nations have undertaken this process of devolving transport powers and

responsibilities to either new or existing bodies. It then presents research from an electronic survey

concerning how English Local Traffic Aut‘horities are choosing to use some of the new powers available

to them and their opinion on complementary areas of transport policy. Research is also presented from

structured telephone interviews, concerning how individual Local Authorities perceive the efficacy and

equity of the new legislation. Overall, the results show that only some of these new powers are likely to

be used by English Local Authorities, with limited variation in how different types of LTA are choosing

to implement these new powers. The structured telephone interviews provided some evidence that

rural Authorities in particular are more dissatisfied with the legislation and consider some of the

measures unhelpful. The results provide some insights on the formulation of devolved policy applicable

to existing Local Government bodies and the varying benefits that can be perceived to apply to different

types of Local Authority. Conclusions are drawn on some of the practical difficulties arising from the

English experience, and lessons of relevance are drawn for other nations considering a similar

devolution of transport powers.

& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Devolution is defined by the dictionary as ‘‘transference (as ofrights, powers, property, or responsibility) to another; especially:the surrender of powers to Local Authorities by a centralgovernment’’ (Merriam Webster dictionary 2009). Whilst thisprocess is sometimes undertaken for political reasons (see forexample Guibernau, 2009), within the transport policy arena, it isgenerally undertaken to make use of the productive efficiency thatcan be achieved from a local level (see for example Tiebout(1956)).

ll rights reserved.

Highways & Transportation,

5BW, UK.

(P.E. Canning).

Existing literature provides us with several examples of whereNational Governments have transferred transport powers andresponsibilities to either new or existing ‘local’ units of theGovernment. In the USA, new bodies, in the form of MetropolitanPlanning Organisations (MPOs), were created by the 1991 USIntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). These newbodies were provided with a legal role in the planning and thedelivery of transport matters for all US conurbations of more than50,000 people (Wolf and Farquhar, 2005). The 1998 TransportationEquity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) further reformed MPOs bymandating collaboration between different transport planning bodiesto improve overall service delivery (see for example Department forTransport, 1998; Taylor and Scheitzer, 2005). Reactions to the efficacyof MPOs vary amongst different published works. Whilst there isgeneral agreement that MPOs have a positive benefit on steeringtransportation using their mandated powers, they do operate withsome difficulties. Taylor and Scheitzer (2005), for example, cite theiruse of local knowledge as beneficial when implementing policy as the

www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.11.001

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE IN PRESS

P.E. Canning et al. / Transport Policy 17 (2010) 64–71 65

consequential collaboration that arises. Haynes et al. (2005), however,cite the problems that can occur with local political interference asMPOs attempt to discharge their powers and the disparity problemsamongst individual MPOs.

In New Zealand, existing regional councils were specificallymandated by the 1993 Land Transport Act with the power andresponsibility to manage and control local transportation matters(Lee and Rivasplata, 2001). The same authors also providebackground on how the Government in Chile has mandated localdistricts with specific transport powers, albeit with mixed results.Elsewhere in the literature, where the clear delegation oftransport powers and responsibilities has not been undertaken,evidence can be found of adverse consequences. Scholler-Schwedes (2009) cites an overly-federalised approach to trans-port in Germany, with inadequate co-operation amongst LocalGovernment units as one of the main causes of post-war ‘failure’to establish a genuinely integrated transport network.

Following the approach of several other nations, in 2004 theUK Government devolved significant transport powers andresponsibilities to the existing 150 Local Traffic Authorities (LTAs)in England via the ‘Traffic Management Act’. The legislation alsocreated a new statutory post within each LTA—that of ‘TrafficManager’, to hold these new powers. The impact of devolvingpowers in this way ultimately depends on the extent to whichthose holding these powers choose to use them. Similarly,individual users’ opinions (in this case, Local Authority TrafficManagers) are important to consider when assessing the likelylonger-term impact of devolved powers and responsibilities. Thispaper deals with that knowledge gap in two ways. Firstly, byelectronic survey, it examines how English LTAs are planning touse some of the new powers devolved to them under the newlegislation and how they filled the post of ‘Traffic Manager’.Secondly, structured telephone interviews were undertaken withseveral Traffic Managers to assess the perceived impact andequity of the new legislation upon their LTA. Any discernabledifference between different types of LTA is noted.

This paper is organised as follows: Section 2 describes somerecent examples of devolved policy in the UK arena and somespecific background information on the 2004 Traffic ManagementAct; Section 3 describes the methodology undertaken for thecollection of data via an electronic survey and structuredtelephone interviews; Section 4 presents the research results;Section 5 presents a discussion of the results and Section 6presents the conclusions from this research and wider policyimplications.

2. Devolved policy in the UK and the Traffic Management Act

Within the UK policy arena as a whole, there has been a long-term trend towards Central Government devolving powers tomore local tiers. Rhodes (1994) identifies this trend, referring to itas the ‘hollowing out of the state’. Rhodes identifies that since the1980s, a series of reforms to the UK public sector have seen powerfrom Central Government ‘flow sideways and down to a myriad of

subsidiary bodies’. Mawson (2007) recognises this trend ofdecentralisation in the actions of the post 1997 UK LabourGovernment. Mawson cites devolution to Scottish, Welsh andNorthern Irish executive bodies, the creation of regional Govern-ment within England and the establishment of a London Mayor asexamples of this delegation of power and responsibility from thecentre.

Transport policy in the UK has similarly been affected by thetrend to devolve power away from the centre. Vigar (2001)identifies several examples of the UK transport policy devolutionin the period between 1950 and 1999. Vigar cites the 1968

Transport Act, which created Passenger Transport Authorities—

with responsibility for public transport functions, as a classicexample of this. Further evidence of transport powers beingdivested to English LTAs can be found in the form of the 1991 NewRoads and Street Works Act (NRSWA). Under NRSWA, LTAs wereprovided with specific responsibilities for the co-ordination ofroad and street works, with the specific aim of minimisingdisruption from works on the highway (Marvin and Slater, 1997).By 2000, the new Transport Act mandated that LTAs draw upspecific ‘Local Transport Plans’ [LTPs] to define an inclusivestrategy for managing local transportation issues in and aroundtheir jurisdiction (Bulkeley and Rayner, 2003). The 2004 TrafficManagement Act continues this trend and creates a new statutorypost whose holder has responsibility for their use. Since theTraffic Management Act itself, the UK Government has sincedevolved more power to Local Authorities in the form of the 2008Local Transport Bill, which provides (amongst other things)greater power for LTAs over local bus services (Travers andGlaister, 2008).

2.1. Background to the Traffic Management Act

Whilst there has been a trend towards devolution in the UKtransport policy, there has also been a change in emphasis on thebest ways to manage a growing demand for travel. For a time, theUK Government followed the policy of so-called ‘predict andprovide’, the view that additional road space should be created tomeet an increase in demand. During the 1990s, the UK Govern-ment Policy in this area changed significantly—with the percep-tion of roads being seen as the solution, changing to roads beingseen as the problem (Dudley and Richardson, 1998). Goodwinet al. (1991) refer to this as the dawn of ‘New Realism’ as a freshemphasis was placed on transport planning that favoured demandmanagement as the dominant principle for both local andinterurban traffic. Part of this new emphasis led to the introduc-tion of several new government laws with the specific aim ofmaking better use of the existing infrastructure. The 2004 TrafficManagement Act (TMA), very much continues this trend, byattempting to deliver more efficient use of the road network byproviding additional powers at the local level and specificresponsibilities for managing the road network.

The TMA delegates new powers and responsibilities to the 150Local Traffic Authorities in England—the smaller units ofGovernment directly involved with the delivery of road networkmanagement. It also creates a new statutory post of TrafficManager within each LTA, who holds these new powers and hasfirst line responsibility for their implementation (Department forTransport, 2004a). Under the TMA, LTAs are now provided with aspecific ‘Network Management Duty’ to ensure that they aremaking the best use of their local, finite road network and thatthey are taking active steps to ‘keep traffic moving’ including co-operation with their administrative neighbours (Department forTransport, 2004b). The fashion in which these new powers andresponsibilities under TMA should be discharged is not prescrip-tive, but the guidance issued with the Act suggests thattechnology, working arrangements with relevant stakeholdersand a network management plan should all be considered(Department for Transport, 2004b). To assist with the NetworkManagement Duty, LTAs can now also introduce a permit systemfor road and street works—effectively allowing the ‘renting ofroad space’ for works upon the highway. The use of technology formeeting the Network Management Duty is commended, andparticularly refers to ‘Intelligent Transport Systems’—the baseplatform for which in the UK is called Urban Traffic Managementand Control (UTMC). LTAs are also encouraged to consider

ARTICLE IN PRESS

P.E. Canning et al. / Transport Policy 17 (2010) 64–7166

‘demand management measures’ (such as congestion charging) tohelp meet the Network Management Duty—though specificpowers to introduce a local congestion charge are provided underseparate legislation.

The bodies holding these new powers and with this newNetwork Management Duty responsibility already existed and arevery diverse in terms of size, nature of the road network,urbanisation, economic prosperity and population. They includelargely rural ‘County’ Councils (that have a separate tier ofgovernment below them), Metropolitan Authorities (generallyrepresenting the urbanised area around a medium sized town),Unitary Authorities (often separated from the more rural CountyCouncil), London Boroughs and Transport for London. They all,however, have effectively the same set of new powers andresponsibilities under the Traffic Management Act. The objectiveof this research was to determine the extent to which some ofthese powers were being used and the perception of both thesenew responsibilities and complimentary areas of transport policythat are supported by the Traffic Management Act. This researchcentres on three key policy themes that are central to the newlegislation. These were the administration of road and streetworks, the use of UTMC and technology and their attitudetowards congestion charging. The research also sought todetermine how individual LTAs had filled this new statutory postof ‘Traffic Manager’.

Given that centralised transport policy often affects differingtypes of LTA, the study also looked to determine if adequateprovision had been made to accommodate the widespreaddiversity amongst the types of LTA charged with the implementa-tion of the Act. During the research therefore, the authors soughtto determine if there was any difference amongst the approach ofdifferent types of LTA towards the provisions of the TMA and thefashion in which they had been affected by its requirements.

Table 1Do you think the scrutiny of road contractors employed by your own LTA is likely

to increase as a result of the Traffic Management Act?

All London Boroughs Urban LTAs Rural LTAs

Yes 50 (83.3%) 9 (75.0%) 23 (88.5%) 18 (81.8%)

No 7 (11.7%) 1 (8.3%) 3 (11.5%) 3 (13.6%)

Not sure 3 (5.0%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (4.5%)

Results not significant (po0.292, Chi-square=4.95, 4 degrees of freedom)

3. Methodology

Each of the 150 LTAs is required to appoint a named individualto the post of Traffic Manager and the contact details for thatperson were obtained from the UK Department for Transport(DfT). An electronic survey was then designed and sent via emailto the 150 Traffic Managers. Data from four theme areas in thatsurvey are presented in this paper. These are the administration ofroad and street works, the role of technology and the TrafficManagement Act, the use of congestion charging as a demandmanagement tool and how Traffic Managers had been appointedto their new position. Congestion charging powers were providedto LTAs under separate legislation, but their use as a demandmanagement measure forms part of the Traffic Management Act’sNetwork Management Duty (Department for Transport, 2004b).Respondents were asked to rate on a 5-point scale to agree ordisagree to what extent they may use some of the provisions inthe new legislation compared to their current practices. Thesurvey was distributed during September 2005.

Structured telephone interviews (which were tape recordedand then transcribed) were undertaken. These interviews ex-plored the perceived benefits and dis-benefits arising due to theTraffic Management Act and the greatest obstacles to itsimplementation—centred around the four theme areas used inthe electronic survey. This was undertaken to better understandthe perceived impact of the new legislation upon individual LTAs.The nature of this format allowed the participants to answer inmore detail and focus on some of the recurring themes thatemerged during the original survey. Four Traffic managers weresought from each of the 3 LTA categories previously outlined. Theoutturn was 11 Traffic Managers agreeing to take part in the

interview phase of the project. Two of the interviewees repre-sented London Boroughs, four represented predominantly ruralLTAs and 5 represented urbanised LTAs (including two Metropo-litan Borough Councils, one unitary authority and two CityCouncils). Those selected represented a good geographical spreadof Authorities, including one from each of the eight Englishregions. These interviews lasted around 45 minutes and wereundertaken over a three-week period in March 2006.

4. Results

4.1. The electronic survey

A total of 61 responses to the original survey were received,representing a response rate of 41%. The responses included agood mix of LTA administrative structures and geographical areas.It should be noted that there is a great deal of variation in Englandbetween different bodies that hold LTA powers (e.g. CountyCouncil, Unitary Authority and Metropolitan Borough). Twentytwo of the respondents described themselves as representing aCounty Council, 16 represented Unitary Authorities, 3 representedCity Councils, 12 represented London Boroughs and 8 representedMetropolitan Borough Councils. Based on the survey results andprincipally on how the respondents described their own areas, the61 survey results were subdivided into three categories. Thesecategories were London Borough (12 responses, including Trans-port for London), Urban LTA (27 responses) and Rural LTA (22responses). Results are presented in tabular form, with thefindings for the whole sample along with a comparative break-down for each subcategory of LTA. Chi-squared tests wereperformed to test the statistical significance of responses to eachcategory of question—to determine if the type of LTA a TrafficManager represented influenced their answer to that question.The specific questions posed are shown at the beginning of therelevant section.

4.1.1. Administration of road and street works

Respondents were asked three questions. Did they think thescrutiny of road contractors employed by their own LTA was likelyto increase as a result of the Traffic Management Act, did theythink their LTA would increase the amount of inspections itundertook of highway street works and did they think their LTAwas likely to introduce a ‘permit system’ for road and streetworks. A large proportion of survey respondents thought that theTraffic Management Act would have a significant impact on theway that road and street works were managed—unsurprisingsince this is one of the key parts of the legislation. It was stated by83% of the Traffic Managers that they thought the implementationof the TMA would result in an increase in the scrutiny that theirown contractors were subjected to. There was little differencebetween the different types of LTA on this matter, as can be seenin Table 1. Chi-squared tests were performed and confirmed nosignificant difference amongst the categories of LTA. A majority ofsurvey participants (70%) also believed that the overall amount of

ARTICLE IN PRESS


inspection would increase. The figures amongst different types ofLTA were again similar although a lesser number of rural LTAsthought their authority would increase the amount of inspectionsit undertook of street works. This can be seen in Table 2.

The use of a permit system for street works is being keenlypursued by around half (51%) of LTAs (with a further 36% unsure).Under this provision, any contractor working on the Highway iseffectively ‘renting the road space’ for an agreed period for a fixedcost. Delays in works therefore have a financial implication for thecontractor. Table 3 shows the results of the question that askedTraffic Managers if they planned to introduce a permitting system.A significant difference of opinion is apparent amongst differenttypes of Authority (confirmed by the Chi-Squared testing), withthe London Boroughs and Urbanised LTAs more likely to introducepermitting. Rural authorities tended to be less likely to implementa permit system.

4.1.2. Use of UTMC and other technology for meeting the Network

Management Duty

Respondents were asked two questions regarding the use oftechnology. Was their LTA using technologies developed as part ofthe UK’s Urban Traffic and Management Control (UTMC) projectand how significant did they see the potential benefits of UTMCfor improving travel within their LTA. Technology is one of theways suggested by the Traffic Management Act for meeting the

Table 2Do you think your authority will increase the amount of inspections undertaken of

Highway street works?


Yes 43 (70.5%) 8 (66.7%) 21 (77.8%) 14 (63.6%)

No 9 (14.8%) 3 (25.0%) 3 (11.1%) 3 (13.6%)

Not sure 9 (14.8%) 1 (8.3%) 3 (11.1%) 5 (22.7%)

Results not significant (po0.55, Chi-square=3.02, 4 degrees of freedom).

Table 3Is your LTA likely to introduce a permit system?

All Lond

Likely to be introduced 31 (50.8%) 11 (

Unlikely to be introduced 8 (13.1%) 0

Not Sure 22 (36.1%) 1

Results significant (po0.023, chi square=11.4, 4 degrees of freedom)

Table 4Is your LTA currently using any UTMC technology?

All Lond

Currently using 25 (43.1%) 2 (2

Planned use in the future 21 (36.2%) 3 (3

No plans at present 12 (20.7%) 5 (5

Results not significant (po0.098, chi-square=7.83, 4 degrees of freedom)

Table 5What do you see as the potential benefits of UTMC for improving travel within your L

All

Promising or very promising 52(89.7%)

Not promising or not promising at all 6 (10.3%)


Network Management Duty and 43% of those LTAs that answeredthe survey were currently using some form of UTMC technologywith an additional 36% having plans to use it in the future. Theinterest of the London Boroughs in UTMC was smaller than forother types of LTA but this is probably to be expected given thenature of the technology favouring more strategic roads. InLondon, the more strategic roads are the responsibility ofTransport for London (TfL), not the London Boroughs themselves.The figures are displayed in Table 4. Chi-squared analysisindicates that the differences are not statistically significant,though the probability is still less than 0.1.

LTAs were also asked how promising they saw UTMC forimproving transport within their LTAs. The vast majority saw it aseither promising or very promising, with only 10.3% seeing it aseither not promising or not promising at all. Chi-squared testsshowed that there was no significant difference amongst differentLTA types. Table 5 shows the breakdown of the figures.

4.1.3. The use of congestion charging

The survey asked two questions. Respondents were asked iftheir LTA was likely to introduce some form of localisedcongestion charging and what was their opinion of the NationalRoad User Charging scheme [which was proposed by the UKGovernment at the time of the survey]. The majority of therespondents did not think that localised congestion charging was

on Boroughs Urban LTAs Rural LTAs

91.7%) 13 (52.0%) 7 (29.2%)

(0.0%) 4 (16.0%) 4 (16.7%)

(8.3%) 10 (40.0%) 11 (45.8%)

on Boroughs Urban LTAs Rural LTAs

0.0%) 14 (53.8%) 9 (40.9%)

0.0%) 8 (30.8%) 10 (45.5%)

0.0%) 4 (15.4%) 3 (13.6%)

TA?

London Boroughs Urban LTAs Rural LTAs

9 (90%) 24 (92.3%) 19 (86.4%)

1 (10%) 2 (7.7%) 3 (13.6%)

Table 6Is your LTA likely to introduce some form of localised congestion charging?


No 32 (52.5%) 6 (50.0%) 16 (59.3%) 10 (45.5%)

Yes, within 4 years 7 (11.5%) 4 (33.3%) 2 (7.4%) 1 (4.5%)

Yes, within 10 years 6 (9.8%) 1 (8.3%) 2 (7.4%) 3 (13.6%)

Not sure 16 (26.2%) 1 (8.3%) 7 (25.9%) 8 (36.4%)

Results not significant (po0.142 chi-square=9.60, 6 degrees of freedom).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 7What is your opinion of the National Road User Charging scheme currently proposed by the Government?


Unlikely to be implemented 7 (11.9%) 3 (25.0%) 3 (12.0%) 1 (4.5%)

Likely within 10 years 30 (50.8%) 7 (58.3%) 8 (32.0%) 15 (68.2%)

Likely within 20 years 17 (28.8%) 2 (16.7%) 11 (44%) 4 (18.2%)

Likely, but not within the next 20 years 5 (8.5%) 0 (0%) 3 (12.0%) 2 (9.1%)


Table 8Did your appointment come about as part of a competitive process?


Yes 13 (22.0%) 3 (30.0%) 4 (14.8%) 6 (27.3%)

No 46 (78.0%) 7 (70.0%) 23 (85.2%) 16 (72.7%)


Table 9Where you appointed internally or externally to the LTA?


Internally 52 (89.7%) 8 (80.0%) 24 (92.3%) 20 (90.9%)

Externally 6 (10.3%) 2 (20.0%) 2 (7.7%) 2 (9.1%)


Box 1–Selected comments concerning the use of permitsfrom the structured telephone interviews.

‘‘This will give us more power over our own works, which isnot a bad thing.’’—Largely urbanised County Council

‘‘Not suitable for a rural area—it will cost too much to setup’’—Rural County Council

‘‘Not suitable for most of our network, it would only beuseful for the main roads and the towns.’’—Rural CountyCouncil

‘‘We’re looking towards a London-wide scheme. It will helpus get our own house [our works] in order.’’—LondonBorough


likely in the next 10 years. This can be seen in Table 6. LondonBoroughs were the most likely to introduce localised congestioncharging. A third envisaged its introduction within the next fouryears. Only 2 urbanised and 1 rural LTA envisaged its introductionwithin the next 8 years. The higher likelihood of London Boroughsintroducing congestion charging may be due to the existingCentral London Congestion charging scheme.

The picture concerning any National Road User Chargingscheme was less clear. London Boroughs opined the strongestthat it would never be implemented although most respondentsenvisaged its introduction on the 20 year horizon. There wasagain no statistical difference between the different types of LTA.Table 7 shows the breakdown of results.

4.1.4. Appointing a traffic manager and his/her role

The survey asked two questions. Had the post of TrafficManager been filled by way of a competitive process and was thepost holder recruited externally from the LTA. The survey resultsshowed that only 22% of the Traffic Managers had been appointedas part of a competitive process (shown in Table 8) and a fewernumber still (10.3%) had been appointed externally to the LTA(shown in Table 9). Chi-squared testing confirms that thedifferences between categories are not statistically significantfor either question.

4.2. Perceived impacts from the Traffic Management Act

4.2.1. Administration of road and street works

Traffic Managers were asked if and how they thought the waythat their LTA scrutinised road and street works would change asa result of the new legislation. They were asked about the newpermitting powers and if their LTA was likely to use these.

All of the interviewees stated that overall scrutiny of road andstreet works was likely to increase as a result of the newlegislation. None, however, were able to strongly articulate howthis would be achieved—although four stated or paraphrased thatany permitting system would probably increase the level of

scrutiny for works. When asked specifically about permitting, adichotomy between rural LTAs and more urbanised areasconcerning permits was noted. All of the rural LTA TrafficManagers indicated that they were less inclined to introducesuch a system. The London Borough and Urbanised LTA inter-viewees were all broadly in favour or permitting—albeit withvarying levels of enthusiasm. Only one interviewee (who wasfrom a rural LTA) seemed set against the idea of permitting persay. Nine of the 11 interviewees mentioned the possibility ofimplementing a permit scheme jointly with the other LTAs intheir region. When asked why this approach might be taken, 7stated or paraphrased that this was desirable so that statutoryundertakers would face the same regulations without variationfrom LTA to LTA. A total of three interviewees mentioned thepotential cost savings associated with a jointly implementedpermitting system. The potential use of any regional system forpermitting also seemed to strongly influence the behaviour ofneighbouring LTAs. Five of the interviewees stated that the tacticsadopted by their neighbours (i.e., not adopt a permit system, to doso independently as a single LTA or to opt for one regional system)would ultimately decide the approach that they took.

Of the 5 rural LTAs that were interviewed, 4 expresseddissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the permitting measurescontained within the legislation for their type of LTA. Three ofthese mentioned the adequacy of the existing noticing system(under NRSWA) in rural areas with low traffic flows. Box 1 showssome of the comments raised during the interviews and the typeof authority they represented.

4.2.2. Use of UTMC and other technology for meeting the network

management duty

Traffic Managers were asked if they were currently usingUTMC technology and if so in what way. They were asked aboutbenefits they might perceive from the technology and any futureplans in this area that they might have. They were also asked forany other comments they had about technology and the TrafficManagement Act.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Box 2–Selected of comments from the structured interviewsconcerning technology

‘‘We need to give people a better picture of what’shappening on the network’’ Paraphrased by 7 of theInterviewees

‘‘We have quite a lot of technology; the trick will be to makethe best use of it.’’ City Council

‘‘The dispersed nature of the area means there are fewtechnological options that are practical for us’’ Rural CountyCouncil

Box 3–Selected of comments from the interviews concerningcongestion charging

‘‘If congestion charging is imposed upon us, the risk is thatit will undermine the regeneration efforts made by thecouncil.’’ Paraphrased by a City Council and a UnitaryAuthority, both with significant areas of deprivation

‘‘The Central London [congestion charging] scheme hasbeen successful. I think it will eventually reach ourBorough’’ A London Borough

‘‘For a dispersed rural area like us, car dependency is high.Either a localised or national scheme brings potentialproblems.’’ A large rural LTA


Seven out of the 11 interviewees stated that they werecurrently using some form of UTMC technology. When asked tostate in what capacity they were using UTMC, 7 of these statedthat they deployed a UTMC Common Database. A total of sixstated that they were using road-side variable message signs(VMS). Nine out of the 11 interviewees described themselves asbroadly positive about the concept of UTMC and other technol-ogies. When asked to describe these benefits that could berealised from implementation, only 3 were able to articulatespecific benefits. The benefits articulated by the first respondentwere that they provided a better picture of network operation inreal time. The second responded that it allowed his team to postdetails of accidents on the nearby motorway network to hisVMS—‘‘which is popular with the public and [elected council]members’’. The third respondent described the main benefit ofallowing him to mix technology from different suppliers and notbe beholden to a specific named company.

Each of the 4 rural LTAs that described UTMC as a ‘positiveconcept’ were asked to describe specific benefits that theyperceived from the technology. One stated that it provided thepotential for an ‘‘integrated approach’’ but doubted that his LTAwould have the available monies to fully exploit the technology.Two others mentioned budgetary concerns within their reply,both mentioning the potential costs of implementation also. Allfour were unable to lucidly describe the types of technology theymight consider. The question concerning technology and theTraffic Management Act elicited few noteworthy responses,though two interviewees replied that the Network ManagementDuty Guidance [which is provided to LTAs by the Department forTransport] was somewhat ‘generic’/‘non–specific’. One intervie-wee noted that whilst they [the Government] were recommend-ing Intelligent Transport Systems be used more widely, his LTAhad been provided with no new money to do so. Box 2summarises some of the comments received.

4.2.3. The use of congestion charging

Traffic Managers were asked if they thought localised forms ofcongestion charging were a promising way of tackling trafficgrowth and could it work in their LTA. They were also askedwhether they thought that any National Road User Chargingscheme was either likely or promising.

A majority (7) of the 11 interviewees stated that they saw thebiggest barrier to localised forms of congestion charging related tolocal political will as opposed to outright objections from LTAofficers themselves. When asked to clarify this, the repliesdescribed either objections of [local] voters and/or a lack ofenthusiasm from elected members as the most significant barriersin using powers for localised congestion charging in their area. Itis also worth noting that these interviews took place prior to theresult of Greater Manchester’s TIF bid referendum—in which

voters overwhelmingly rejected proposals that included conges-tion charging (see for example, Ottewell, 2008). Further researchcould indicate whether this result has changed the opinions ofTraffic Managers in English LTAs with regards to congestioncharging.

When asked about any national congestion charging scheme, 7out of the 11 stated that they thought that such a scheme waseither ‘likely’ or ‘probable’ in the long term, with two of thoseseven stating that such a scheme ‘‘was inevitable’’.

No real preference was discernable from the interviewees for aparticular type of congestion charging and the type of LTA theyrepresented. Three stated that their LTA would eventually have todeal with some form of congestion charging, with a localisedscheme or a national scheme both bringing their own advantagesand disadvantages. Box 3 shows some of the comments from theinterviews.

4.2.4. Appointing a traffic manager and his/her role

Traffic Managers were asked how they had been appointed totheir new role and their career background prior to becomingTraffic Manager. There were asked if they had undertaken anyinternal/external stakeholder consultation when establishing thefunction of their new role. Thirdly, they were asked if they had astaff and/or budget available to them for the purposes ofdischarging their duties as Traffic Manager. Finally, they wereasked if they considered this staffing and budgetary arrangementadequate in order to discharge their duties as Traffic Manager.

Five out of the 11 interviewees stated that they had beenappointed as a result of a competitive process. Four had beenappointed from outside the LTA—all by competitive process. Novariation was noticeable amongst types of LTA. There was somevariety in the previous work experience of Traffic Managers,which was to be expected. Nine of the 11 stated that they hadsome type of background in the road infrastructure and networkmanagement arena—the strongest characteristic of their variouscareer backgrounds. Five of the 11 also had some type of policybackground prior to taking up the Traffic Manager position.

Four of the interviewees stated that they had undertaken aconsultation process upon taking the new role. All of these fourwere able to articulate much more information on each of thetopics covered by the interview. The nature of their appointmentdid not necessarily reflect on the depth to which they wererealising the full benefits of the Traffic Management Act, though.

Eight out of the 11 interviewees had neither a dedicatedbudget nor staff allocated specifically with regards to the TrafficManagement Act. All of those 8 stated that that they did havedirect report staff underneath them and held budgets, but thatthese were principally for other functions undertaken by the LTA.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


One of the interviewees stated that he had an addition to hisbudget but no extra staff to support his new Traffic ManagementAct duties. Two interviewees had both additional staff and budgetprovided to them for the role of Traffic Manager. One intervieweehad two additional staff members; the second interviewee hadone additional staff member.

When asked if their staff and budgetary arrangements wereadequate to discharge their Traffic Management Act responsi-bilities, the responses were mixed. Two stated they were either‘happy’ or ‘broadly happy’ with the current arrangements. Theremaining nine expressed varying degrees of either dissatisfactionor unease with the existing arrangements. Four mentioned orparaphrased that the LTA ‘could not afford’ more monies for thetransport budget due to financial pressures elsewhere in theAuthority. The issue of no additional monies to support thelegislation from Central Government was mentioned by threeinterviewees. Three mentioned that their day-to-day job hadchanged very little and that the Traffic Manager post was ‘justanother hat I wear’ or ‘another part of my job role’. During thisportion of the interview, two interviews separately raisedconcerns that the Traffic Management Act provisions potentiallyconflicted with separate council objectives to stimulate economicrenewal in areas of their locality with significant areas ofdeprivation.

5. Discussion

Several interesting themes emerge from this research. Firstly,our study presents evidence that only to a limited extent wereEnglish LTAs using or planning to use the new powers andresponsibilities made available to them under the Traffic Manage-ment Act. There was a strong evidence, however, of a significantvariation from LTA to LTA.

Secondly, evidence was identified indicating that the specificprovision of powers to undertake permitting for road and streetworks were broadly considered as useful by those taking part inthe research. However, rural LTAs were generally noted as lesslikely to use these powers, citing issues such as their relevance inareas of the LTA with low traffic densitities. A preference wasexpressed by several LTAs to implement permitting on a regionalscale and indeed to wait and see what their neighbours in theregion choose to do with the new available powers. This raises thequestion as to whether these powers should instead have beenplaced at a more regional level of government.

The third theme concerns the use of technology by EnglishLTAs. Whilst there was evidence that the use of technology formeeting the Network Management Duty was broadly supported,specific examples of the perceived benefits to implementation ofsuch technologies was harder to identify from the structuredinterviews. It is also noteworthy that whilst the concept oftechnology and the perceived benefits from implementation werescored highly in the survey results, evidence emerged from theinterviews that a lack of funding available was likely to retardwide-scale implementation amongst English LTAs. This couldsupport the idea that Central Government should make specificfunding available to help implement the policy of usingtechnology to improve road network management that it haschampioned via the Traffic Management Act and other channels.

Fourthly, a mixed picture concerning the use of congestioncharging by English LTAs emerges. The use of powers madeavailable for localised congestion charging did not appear likely tobe used by many English LTAs, particularly within a 10-yearperiod from the time the survey was taken. This may in part bedue to the possibility that some form of national congestioncharging scheme being implemented. The concept of a national

congestion charging scheme formed part of the UK CentralGovernment policy at the time the research was undertaken,which would potentially remove the need for more localisedschemes.

The fifth theme to consider is the potential conflict with otherLocal Authority priorities. The bodies that hold the TMA powersalso deliver a raft of additional public services to their commu-nities. It was particularly interesting to note that two LTAs withareas of economic deprivation noted in their interviews that theTMA might potentially conflict with existing council policies forregeneration. This would presumably derive from economicregeneration leading to greater traffic growth, in conflict withthe priorities of the TMA. As this was not one of the main researchobjectives explored in this research, further work would beneeded to clarify the specific concerns of LTAs operating in moredeprived communities.

Finally, perhaps the most interesting theme concerns how thepost of Traffic Manager was filled and the budgetary allocationsmade available by English LTAs to implement its measures. Thesmall number of LTAs that had chosen to fill the new post bycompetitive process brings into question whether English LTAsare viewing the new legislation with serious intent. Very few LTAsappear to have filled the post with an external candidate and it isparticularly interesting to note how many Traffic Managersappear to have had this role combined with existing or additionalduties. The small number of interviewees who were providedwith a specific budget and/or staff also raises concerns. As nospecific budget was provided by Central Government to imple-ment these powers made available within this legislation, thisraises the question of whether English LTAs are able to fund andmake use of the provisions within the Traffic Management Actfrom within existing budgets. This problem may be madeparticularly acute as all English LTAs form part of larger publicbodies holding much wider public service responsibilities. Theseinclude the provision of education and social services, which canoften be high profile and resource intensive functions.

6. Conclusions

This paper has examined how different English LTAs arechoosing to use some of the new powers available to them underthe Traffic Management Act. It has also looked at how EnglishLTAs have filled their new statutory post of Traffic Manager andhow these post holders perceive several aspects of the newlegislation. Whilst the research has focussed on the specific casestudy of new powers being delegated to English LTAs, there areimportant lessons that can be learnt, which are applicableinternationally. These refer specifically to some of the practicaldifficulties highlighted by the English experience.

The structural fashion in which devolution of this nature isundertaken appears crucial to success. In the English example,these powers were provided to existing public bodies that hold avariety of other responsibilities in addition to transport functions.As no new funds were devolved at the same time, the new ‘TrafficManagers’ must compete with these other functions delivered bythe Authority, such as education and social care, for funding.Results presented here indicate limited success in securingseparate budgets to deploy these new powers and exploittechnology. Consideration might therefore be given to theprovision of ‘ring-fenced’ funding for exploiting devolved powersof this nature. The English experience also indicates that the sizeand the nature of these existing bodies could be an issue. Morerural LTAs appear to be less likely to make use of the new powersavailable to them and find them less applicable to their locality.Some LTAs with significant areas of deprivation indicated that the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


new powers might conflict with existing regeneration priorities.More consideration might therefore be advised on the variety ofthe bodies being provided with new powers and their individualability to use them effectively.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all of those who completed theoriginal survey and took part in the structured telephone inter-views for their time and their comments. Robert Hudleston andTim Brown from Surrey County Council are also acknowledged fortheir guidance and assistance with this project.

The EPSRC and Surrey County Council are gratefully acknowl-edged for jointly funding this research.

References

Bulkeley, H., Rayner, T., 2003. New realism and local realities: local transportplanning in Leicester and Cambridgeshire. Urban Studies 40 (1), 35–55.

Department for Transport, 2004a. In: The Traffic Management Act. The StationeryOffice, London.

Department for Transport, 2004b. In: Traffic Management Act 2004—NetworkManagement Duty Guidance. The Stationery Office, London.

Department for Transport, 1998. TEA-21 – Transportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury – Moving Americans into the 21st Century, a policy overview. hhttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/sumover.htmi.

Dudley, G., Richardson, J., 1998. Outsider groups and British roads policy. PoliticalStudies 46 (4), 727–747.

Goodwin, P., Hallett, S., Kenny, F., Stokes, G., 1991. Transport: The New Realism.Report to the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund. University of Oxford Transport StudiesUnit, Oxford.

Guibernau, M., 2009. National identity, devolution and secession in Canada, Britainand Spain. Nations and Nationalism 12 (1), 51–76.

Haynes, K.E., Gifford, J.L., Pelletiere, D., 2005. Sustainable transportation institu-tions and regional evolution: global and local perspectives. Journal ofTransport Geography 13 (3), 207–221.

Lee, R.W., Rivasplata, C.R., 2001. Metropolitan transport planning in the 1990s:comparisons and contrasts in New Zealand, Chile and California. TransportPolicy 8 (1), 47–61.

Marvin, S., Slater, S., 1997. Urban infrastructure: the contemporary conflictbetween roads and utilities. Progress in Planning 48 (4), 247–318.

Mawson, J., 2007. Regional governance in England: past experience, futuredirections. International Journal of Public Sector Management 20 (6), 548–566.

Ottewell D., 2008. C-Charge: A Resounding No, Manchester Evening News, 12December.

Rhodes, R.A.W., 1994. The hollowing out of the state: the changing nature of thepublic service in Britain. Political Quarterly 65 (2), 138–151.

Scholler-Schwedes, O., 2009. The failure of integrated transport policy in Germany:a historical perspective, Forthcoming in The Journal of Transport Geography.

Taylor, B.D., Scheitzer, L., 2005. Assessing the experience of mandated collabora-tive inter-jurisdictional transport planning in the United States. TransportPolicy 12 (6), 500–511.

Tiebout, C., 1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. The Journal of PoliticalEconomy 64 (5), 416–426.

Travers, T., Glaister, S., 2008. Policy and governance. In: With the Advantage ofHindsight, The Institute of Highways and transportation, London, pp. 12–14.

Vigar, G., 2001. Reappraising UK transport policy 1950–99: the myth of ‘mono-modality’ and the nature of ‘paradigm shifts’. Planning Perspectives 16 (3),269–291.

Wolf, J., Farquhar, B., 2005. Assessing Progress: the state of metropolitan planningorganizations under ISTEA and TEA-21. International Journal of PublicAdministration 28 (13–14), 1057–1079.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/sumover.htm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/sumover.htm

‘devolution’ of transport powers to local government: impacts of the 2004 traffic management act...

Documents