Leading article: A much needed incentive to keep traffic moving

Tuesday 23 August 2011 00:00 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

In the list of trivial irritations that add up to a bad day, sitting in traffic is as potent as any. Even more so when the hold-up is a hole in the ground that seems to be there forever and rarely even has people working in it. So the Government's plan for local councils to charge utility companies "rents" on lanes they close deserves a toot of support from road users.

To many, the most surprising aspect of the consultation launched yesterday is that it has taken so long. City dwellers in particular are already well aware that the cost of roadworks – in time, money and aggravation – is out of hand. The Government's estimate of 1.2 million streetworks sucking £4bn out of the economy each year is merely confirmation.

While it appears self-evident that utilities should take account of the disruption they cause, local authorities have proved reluctant to turn principle into practice. Although legally possible for more than a decade, lane rental ran into the sand after just two trial schemes, in Camden and Middlesbrough, in 2004.

It is still surprisingly easy to make the case against. One of the most compelling arguments is that the pilot schemes appeared to make little difference. Another is that the cost will be passed straight through to consumers already struggling with ever-rising utility bills.

But naysayers must not be allowed to carry the day. Utilities can be encouraged to be more sparing, co-ordinated and efficient in their digging. London's permit system, for example – which requires would-be diggers to get plans cleared, and levies fines when works overrun – has saved an estimated 1,200 days of disruption since it was introduced last year.

The latest lane rental proposals are also more flexible than previous schemes, with variable rates to target hotspots and allow utilities to avoid charges by choosing to carry out work at weekends. The risk that utilities will simply pass on the costs to consumers is one the relevant regulators will have to consider.

Ultimately, the necessary impetus will likely come from local authorities – as the prospect of central government funding being slashed by more than a quarter concentrates minds on finding new sources of revenue. Britain's frustrated road users can only hope so.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in