APPENDIX 3

Traffic Management

The Blueprint proposal is that, where Districts wish to take up the option, the existing arrangements for Traffic Management in full Agencies should continue and be extended to include the present Island and directly controlled Districts. The current position on the procedural and resource implications of this proposal is as follows.

1. Guidelines on Procedures

The revised guidelines (copy attached) which are based on the existing guidelines in full Agencies, have been circulated to Chief Engineers and presented to the County Council Cabinet. Plans showing County Interest Roads in each District are being prepared. In existing agency areas, unless there have been significant changes to the road network, these will be the same as existing plans.

2. Resources

A note has been prepared for each District outside the existing full Agencies showing the following:

(i) Existing County funded resource for "island" area, if any.

(ii) Estimated transfer from HQ Traffic Management Group based on an analysis of traffic management programmes for the last three years and the proportion of work which would be undertaken by the District Council, in accordance with the guidelines defining "matters which may be dealt with by the District Council" and "Reserved matters which are to be referred to the County Surveyor".

(iii) Estimated transfer from the Area Surveyor's office based on records of time spent on traffic management work undertaken in the Area Office, involving signs and carriageway markings.

(iv) In each case the FTEs involved are translated into a budget using the same principles as for existing Agency support, with a 70% oncost less 2% reduction. The 70% oncost includes "central department services" which has always been taken to include the legal fees associated with Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs), although some Districts have charged costs of advertising TROs to the scheme cost in the TRO operational budget.

Spreadsheets are attached summarising the FTE figures for each District resulting from this exercise, and the financial implications for reimbursement to the Districts, based on the existing principles set out in (iv) above. Assuming equivalent overheads, these proposals would be cost neutral.

3. Legal

Where Districts take up this option, a revised legal agreement will be required to formalise the arrangement and allow District councils to make TROs.

4. Cooperation between Highways Sub-unit and Traffic Management Unit

The question has been considered as to the split of work on traffic signs and road markings between the Highways Sub-unit and the District Traffic Management Unit. In principle, it is felt that the best arrangement would be for the Sub-unit to deal with maintaining existing signs/markings and the Traffic Management Unit to deal with any improvements or changes, as well as Temporary TROs, agreeing diversion routes and temporary signing.

Clearly there will be a need for judgement, cooperation and close consultation/liaison between the Sub-unit and Traffic Management Unit staff, eg if the Sub-unit staff identify that there may be benefits in reviewing signing and/or white lining details rather than simply replacing like for like.

7082Ap3