Call for evidence
The Transport Committee is examining the effect of street works by utility companies on the maintenance of roads and pavements, and the effectiveness of local authorities’ tools for managing the impact of works, minimising the number of interventions that take place and ensuring good quality remediation. The Committee welcomes written evidence that addresses:
a. The effect of utility works on road and pavement surface quality and on maintenance needs and costs, and how local authorities can manage this.
We are very pleased that the Transport Committee is considering the effect of street works on the accessibility of highways, including on footways and cycle tracks: Consistently accessible and safe provision for walking/wheeling and cycling is critical to Disabled people’s ability to make the journeys we want and need to make, including by active travel and by multi-modal public transport journeys. Inaccessibility caused by street works causes very significant and discriminatory harm to Disabled people’s mobility, breaching requirements of the Equality Act (2010), including the Public Sector Equality Duty.
Utility works carried out on footways and cycle tracks routinely degrade the surface quality and durability of surfaces to a far greater extent than comparable works carried out on carriageways. Reduced surface quality results from damage to footway and cycle track surfaces from heavy vehicle parking and movement, as well as from poor reinstatement: Footways and cycle tracks are not normally built on bases capable of withstanding the weights of works vehicles, so vehicles moving on and parking on footways and cycle tracks will break slabs, create potholes and create cracking which will propagate over future years.
Cycle lanes on carriageway are subject to similar issues, since they are frequently both narrow and positioned on the edge of carriageways. This renders them particularly vulnerable to becoming inaccessible if the surface is damaged at all, or if debris builds up in gutters which form part of the cycle lane’s designated width.
The disproportionate damage caused to footways and cycle infrastructure by utility works has disproportionate impact on Disabled people: We are less likely than non-disabled people to have access to private vehicles and are more likely to be dependent upon walking/wheeling, cycling and multi-modal public transport options to make essential journeys. We are also less likely to be able to cross uneven ground at all or without pain, more likely to be at risk of falling on uneven ground, and more likely to be at risk of serious injury should we fall: Damage to and other inaccessibility of footways and cycle tracks is discriminatory as it disproportionately harms Disabled people’s mobility.
Key changes which we would like to see implemented to reduce the negative effect of street works on Disabled people include:
- Updates to statutory requirements such as Safety at Street Works and Road Works (2013) to improve the mandatory minimum provision for pedestrians, at least in line with Inclusive Mobility (2021): At present, the minimum permitted width of a temporary footway is 1m, despite Inclusive Mobility acknowledging that the minimum width footway a Disabled person using a long cane or guide dog can use is 1.2m. Disabled people moving in accompanied groups have comparable or even greater width requirements. The present standards are discriminatory.
- Updates to statutory requirements such as Safety at Street Works and Road Works (2013) to recognise cycles, class 3 “invalid carriages” and micro-mobility as essential mobility aids for many Disabled people, including requirements to ensure access through works. Access through works for cycles and “invalid carriages” should be provided to at least LTN 1/20 Cycle Infrastructure Design guidance accessibility standards so that Disabled people have equitable access. The Transport for London temporary traffic management handbook and safer provisions for pedestrians at road works documents provide a good starting point for considering what adequately accessible provision for people walking/wheeling and cycling at street works could look like.
- A clear hierarchy of provision at street works in line with the Highway Code hierarchy of road users, so where works require access to be restricted, people walking/wheeling are prioritised for access, followed by those cycling, and only then is access for motor vehicle users permitted: It is far easier for people to follow diversions in motor vehicles than when they are walking/wheeling or cycling – Many Disabled people walking/wheeling or cycling are unable to increase their journey distance and many are unable to follow diversions or re-plan a route to get around obstructions in the way that most non-disabled people can. Guidance documents for works provisions could include options such as 5mph motor vehicle access through some works areas where alternative motor vehicle routes cannot be created, for example when people need to reach homes or other premises in a cul-de-sac, and space limitations due to works mean the only option is a shared route.
- “Road Closed” signs should not be used unless the road genuinely needs to be closed to people using all modes of travel. If a road is closed to motor vehicles but still open to people walking/wheeling and cycling, the signage needs to reflect this. Carelessly or ambiguously used “Road Closed” signs create unnecessary and, again, discriminatory inaccessibility for people walking/wheeling and cycling, since Disabled people in particular are forced to make longer journeys either to divert around the closure, or, if they try to get through and it turns out the road really is closed to walking/wheeling and cycling. This additional effort and uncertainty will force many Disabled people to give up their journey altogether.
- “Cyclists dismount” signs should not be used unless the area has been temporarily or permanently pedestrianised. In this case, “Cyclists dismount except cycles used as mobility aids” or comparable signage should be used (see Wandsworth good practice case study): Many Disabled people simply cannot dismount and push a cycle – we need explicit exemption from “dismount” signage even though the signs are generally advisory, as failure to “obey” these signs leaves Disabled cyclists vulnerable to vigilante harassment and assaults. In some locations, signage reducing speed limits for drivers to 20mph or below and instructing drivers not to overtake cyclists through works will be an adequate alternative where closure of cycle provision is unavoidable and a temporary cycle track cannot be provided. Where a carriageway is too busy for on-carriageway cycling to be safe and inclusively accessible for cyclists under LTN 1/20 criteria, protected temporary cycle lanes need to be provided, with explicit permission for on-footway cycling at walking speed for Disabled cyclists if it is impossible to provide such protected temporary cycle lanes.
- Strengthened inspection regimes and penalties for undertakers who fail to meet their already-statutory obligations to ensure works are accessible for Disabled people. This must include not just Disabled people walking/wheeling but also, as noted above, we need new statutory obligations to ensure works must be accessible for Disabled people cycling and using larger “invalid carriages” and micro-mobility too. Penalties should apply to works equipment and signage, barriers etc that are poorly placed, and/or insufficiently secured against movement such that inaccessibility can be created by the equipment, signage or barriers, and/or that is left in situ for longer than is necessary, reducing accessibility with no good purpose.
- An obligation to provide clear information about upcoming and ongoing works, including providing information in appropriate formats directly to Disabled people in the area who are unlikely to be able to access on-street signage (for example Blind and visually impaired and learning-Disabled people).
- Accessible diversions, including accessible controlled crossing points, where works can be shown to unavoidably require footway and/or cycle provision closures.
- To ensure statutory obligations are met, local authorities need sufficient funding streams to inspect works – and sufficient funding to train inspectors to ensure all have a high degree of expertise in accessibility requirements for people walking/wheeling and cycling. This should include inspections months after works are nominally completed, to ensure that reinstatements have not settled or degraded in a way that creates surface defects which worsen accessibility. Mechanisms such as lane rental (section e, below) could provide a revenue neutral or slightly revenue positive funding stream to ensure local authorities are able to inspect works sufficiently, including to ensure that reinstatements are adequate in the medium to long term.
From left to right, pictures show: 1. roadworks with poor signage causing inaccessibility of the area, 2. abandoned works signage creating narrowing and obstruction of a footway and cycleway, 3. typical settlement of utility works trenches creating trip and wheel catch hazards that will render a footway hazardous and inaccessible to many Disabled people.
In addition to Safety at Street Works and Road Works (2013), resources addressing the impact of street works on people walking/wheeling and using public transport include:
The Wheels for Wellbeing guide to temporary works: https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/wheels-for-wellbeing-guide-to-temporary-works/
Wheels for Wellbeing’s good practice case study on temporary works on Wandsworth Bridge: https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/disabled-cycling-through-wandsworth-bridge-works/
Transport for London’s Temporary Traffic Management Handbook and Safer Provisions for Pedestrians at Roadworks: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/suppliers-and-contractors/traffic-management
b. Whether local authorities have sufficient powers and resources to manage the effect of street works on congestion, travel disruption, pavement access and accessibility.
Evidence from our community of Disabled people who cycle and walk/wheel in locations across the UK strongly suggests that local authorities do not presently have sufficient powers and/or resources to manage the effects of street works on travel disruption for Disabled people walking/wheeling, cycling and using public transport, whether the works are carried out by utility companies or otherwise: Amongst our community, street works are a notorious access barrier, due largely to poor design, poor layout and poor management of works sites.
c. The effectiveness of processes for notification of works and obtaining permits, including the classification of emergency works and opportunities for coordinated works, and what makes for a good working relationship between utility companies and highway authorities.
No response for this section.
d. Whether fines are a sufficient deterrent to poor practice, whether other enforcement mechanisms would work better, and whether the inspections regime introduced in 2023 has improved the quality of reinstatement works.
Evidence from our community of Disabled people who cycle and walk/wheel in locations across the UK strongly suggests that current enforcement mechanisms for street works are inadequate, whether these are carried out by utility companies or otherwise: Amongst our community, street works are a notorious access barrier, due largely to poor design, layout and management of works sites. We are not aware that there has been any perceptible change to the accessibility of street works since the new DfT code of practice for street works inspections was introduced in 2023.
e. Whether lane rental is a successful model, the potential merits of making it available in more areas, and what other tools or best practices could be more widely adopted.
We support use of lane rental, provided that footways and cycle tracks/lanes are given equitable consideration alongside rental of carriageway lanes, and are included in any “lane” rental scheme at least the same, or higher, rental cost compared to carriageway lanes: Providing a rental price for footways and cycleways that matches or exceeds the cost of renting vehicle lanes would help rebalance highway priorities in favour of people who presently have the fewest mobility options. People reliant on walking/wheeling and cycling, including multi-modal journeys with public transport, are disproportionately Disabled people and others with protected characteristics under the Equality Act (2010).
Lane rental:
- More easily enables restriction of work being carried out on the highway to a specific section of the highway, in order to minimise inaccessibility during and after works. This should include ensuring that footways, crossing points and cycle tracks/lanes are not adversely affected by works (including parked vehicles and stored equipment) unless unavoidable, and that mitigations including protected routes are provided:
- Requires utility companies to carefully consider the amount of space required for works, including any plant, vehicle and debris space, since taking up excessive space will be more costly than creating an efficient layout.
- Requires utility companies to carefully consider the amount of time required for works, including for high quality reinstatement of surfaces: Running over time or longer rentals will, again, be expensive for utility companies, so lane rental provides an incentive to companies to put extra resource into jobs to reduce the lane rental time required.
- Provides a clear paper trail to enable inspectors acting on behalf of authorities to ensure that works have not spilled outside their designated area or run over time, reducing accessibility of the highway to people walking/wheeling and cycling in particular. Appropriate fine levels for non-compliance with lane rental could greatly reduce inaccessibility created by street works.
- Has the potential to improve inspection funding to ensure works do not harm accessibility. This should include inspections to ensure works are kept accessible for people walking/wheeling, cycling and using public transport as well as for Disabled users of private motor vehicles throughout the duration of works, inspections to ensure that works are reinstated to good accessibility standards immediately when works are completed and later inspections to ensure reinstatements have not deteriorated (eg via settlement or breakdown) over a period of months.
Measures to encourage good practice during works could include incentives such as discounts on lane rental or even payment by the local authority if “reinstatements” were to include access improvements to the area made by the undertaker in line with local authority requests. For example:
Works which disrupted a side street junction could be reinstated with access improvement measures such as contrasting surfacing, a raised table side-street zebra and tactile paved crossing.
More simply, lengths of footway or cycle track disrupted by utility trenching could be reinstated with surface improvements – pothole filling, surface skimming or full surface reinstatement – which improve accessibility of the whole footway or cycle track width for the length of the trench, rather than simply minimum-quality backfilling and levelling of the trench itself. This kind of work would provide huge accessibility benefits: As mentioned above, a key issue with utility trenches is that they often result in a small step 6mm+ in height along the edge of the reinstatement after the works settle. This creates two linear trip hazards along the whole length of the reinstated trench which reduce accessibility for many Disabled people. Improved reinstatement would not just improve the whole footway width, it would reduce creation of these highly problematic trip hazards.