Traffic Regulation Order Advertising: A need to review the regulations

Transcription

1 Traffic Regulation Order Advertising: A need to review the regulations First report published July 2010 Final report published April 2011 (with additional survey on TRO cost recovery added in Appendix 4) Report produced by: Justin Ward, Senior Policy Officer, Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation produced on behalf of the UK Network Management Board Contact: The Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation 119 Britannia Walk London N1 7JE UK justin.ward@ciht.org.uk t: +44 (0) f: +44 (0)

2 Table of Contents Traffic Regulation Order Advertising: A need to review the regulations... 1 Executive Summary... 3 Introduction... 4 Methods... 5 Results... 5 Alternatives better in today s world... 5 The optimum way of reaching the target audience?... 5 Value for money as budgets under pressure?... 7 Local newspapers dominate... 8 What would happen if the current paper channel was no longer available?... 9 Balance towards temporary rather than permanent orders... 9 Cost of advertising Conclusion Recommendation Appendix 2: Technical Report on issues relating to the processing of traffic Orders Appendix 3: Examples of unpublished and published temporary Road Closure Notices are included for Northern Ireland Appendix 4: Cost recovery for TRO Advertising

3 Executive Summary The current legal requirement to advertise all traffic orders in a local newspaper means that the public sector is spending significant sums on a process that does not appear to be delivering the intended benefits. The UK Network Management Board Survey has revealed that Highway Authorities in England alone are estimated to be spending 22.3million per annum on statutory advertising. The legislation also applies to Scotland and Wales with the survey showing an estimated expenditure of 1m per annum in Scottish Local Authorities. 80% of respondents to the survey do not consider the current regulations (that require authorities to advertise all traffic orders in a newspaper circulating in their local area) to offer the optimum way of reaching the target audience and only 16% of them consider this method of communication to offer value for money. There is clearly no one-size fits all solution to this, some authorities strongly supported a shift to internet, whereas others said that such an approach would exclude certain groups of people. The report concludes by providing a couple of options. The first one outlines a more flexible approach for authorities to consider, by recommending that the current requirement is replaced with publish in a form or forms that best targets the local area. Some authorities may wish to continue advertising where newspapers offer good reach and readership levels are high - whereas others might want to move towards a combination of on-street and online notices. What is recommended is that such a balance of choice should be left to local discretion and circumstance. The second option available could be modelled on the approach taken in Northern Ireland. For a temporary road closure in Northern Ireland (or other restriction such as a banned turn or speed limit), the Roads Service is not required to make a Temporary Order but rather complete a Temporary Traffic Regulation. This is undertaken by issuing a Notice, but does not require the publication of a Notice of Intention and/or a Notice of Making. This approach appears to work well. In these difficult financial times, there clearly appears to be both a need and appetite to review the requirement to advertise all traffic orders in a newspaper circulating in the local area. Any change in the process should deliver an approach that is both effective in how much it costs the public sector but more importantly, in how effective it allows the public sector to communicate with the public. 3

4 Introduction The UK Network Management Board carried out an online survey on the advertising of Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO s). The aim of the survey was to investigate the perceived value and actual cost of current requirements to advertise traffic orders in a newspaper circulating in the local area, as it is believed that there are more cost effective ways of reaching target audiences. The results of the survey should assist in the prioritisation of any review of statutory procedures. Traffic Orders, for both temporary and permanent measures in England, Scotland and Wales are made under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act The Act enables procedures to be introduced by the Secretary of State and details how traffic authorities must conduct themselves when introducing traffic Orders. These procedures require an advertisement to be placed in a newspaper circulating in the local area both before and after the making of a traffic Order. That places a demand on Highway Authorities in preparing advertising copy, scheduling to meet publishing deadlines, meeting direct advertising costs and administering the finances. Placing an advert in a local newspaper is often ineffective at reaching people who would be directly affected by the order as they travel through an area, but who do not live or work in the area. Conversely measures advertised locally will not necessarily directly impact on local people. With evolving modern media, highway authorities should now be enabled to publicise measures in a manner that they consider to be most appropriate to local circumstances and not be constrained to following ineffective methods. For temporary restrictions of a non urgent nature, the procedures described above also apply and are particularly onerous. The restrictions imposed can be very short term, perhaps an hour or two in the small hours of the morning. Regardless of scale or duration the same procedures apply and lengthy, expensive processes must be followed. For that reason some firms requiring implementation, suspension or alteration of traffic management controls will resort to unauthorised and uncontrolled measures, without the knowledge and consent of the traffic authority. The impact of quite modest changes to statutory procedures on the industry could be considerable. Opportunity exists for financial and time savings. 4

5 Methods The research was conducted by an online questionnaire (survey ran from April July 2010) which was available on the UK Network Management Board website: Available at Results There were 49 responses and the list of respondents is noted in Appendix 1. Alternatives better in today s world From the 49 responses received, the minority (20%) believed that the current regulations to advertise all traffic orders in a newspaper circulating in their local area offered the optimum way of reaching their target audience. Some respondents did qualify this with a comment noting that this offered the optimum approach when combined with other methods e.g. in conjunction with site notices. This meant that the remainder of respondents (80%) considered the current regulations did not offer the optimum means of reaching their target audience. The optimum way of reaching the target audience? 20% Yes No 80% Response to question: When complying with current regulations to advertise all traffic orders in a newspaper circulating in the local area:- Do you believe that this is the optimum way of reaching your target audience? 5

6 The comments following the question were interesting with a number suggesting the internet would be better: The use of advertising on the internet would be more applicable today, a number of respondents also noted that many people did not read local newspapers. However, this view was not consistent across the board as one respondent stated that the two (newspaper and internet) could work hand in hand We do feel that local newspapers reach the target audience but they should also be on our website. Some did suggest that if both means were used there could be a balance between the two, but one weighted towards online: Online advertising could reach more people as it would not be restricted to those who buy individual newspapers. To include people without internet access, and to direct others to the website, a small notice could be placed in newspapers directing people to the website and saying they can go to their local library for internet access to read more about the particular traffic order. Some respondents noted the limitations of newspapers (limited readership and circulation) and therefore communicate through a wide range of channels: web, notices on street, inform local Town/Parish Councils and circulate through parish newsletters, magazines etc. Others suggested that, although the current method was not ideal, there was no alternative. What yields a response from the public what gets noticed? One response stated: Most response to advertised orders come from notices on site, another said: Currently postal information to households and the use of electronic media attracts a significant response from the public. By contrast newspaper advertising does not produce any additional comment. The number of notices was also questioned: Don't see the value of having to insert two notices per Order. As no real objections are invited one notice should be sufficient. One respondent commented on research they had carried out: Public Consultation responses received recently (in an online survey as part of our countywide speed limit review), revealed that, of those completing the online survey, 65% of people had become aware of the consultation because of large roadside notices advertising the consultation, 20% 'other', 6% the standard public notices on lighting columns, 4% web search, 3% local radio, and ONLY 1% from the PUBLIC NOTICES IN LOCAL NEWSPAPERS. We also regularly received complaints in the past that people were unaware of consultations as they don't read a local paper. This method also excludes those who do not live in the affected area, but drive through it. Perhaps the above points are summarised neatly as follows: We have also had people asking for information on TROs to be posted on our website. 80% of respondents do not consider the current method of advertising in a newspaper the optimum method: letters, notices on site and the internet generally appear to be more effective at reaching the target audience and also in garnering responses from the public. 6

7 Value for money as budgets under pressure? Asked whether communicating this way offered the best value for money, the profile of responses was, as expected, similar to the view on how best the current regulations offer the optimum way of reaching the target audience. Only a limited number of responses concluded that the current method offers best value for money. As expected from the profile of responses, there were a range of complaints with the current process: local press ads are exorbitantly expensive, a drain on budgets, the cost of advertising is too high, costs can be excessive, and costs are going up. One respondent even mentioned that an extreme case being 10k for a Residents' Parking area. The decline of local newspapers also means that local monopolies can emerge which was cited as a cause of the high cost of advertising. The value was also questioned when distribution was sometimes unreliable and readership levels low: How can you be sure you are getting optimum coverage. How can you calculate whether or not you are getting best value? One respondent did feel they were getting good value (and recognised that this view was maybe not consistent across the board): As our advertising currently reaches a very wide audience it gives value for money, however the price for advertising does vary from newspaper to newspaper, consequently some adverts offer better VFM [value for money] than others. Another noted that newspapers did reach parts of the target audience that the internet would not: Communicating via newspapers offers good value for money in reaching a part of the target audience that cannot be reached by other methods e.g. internet. However another commented: Local newspapers do not cover all of the rural areas. A shift away from newspaper advertising was not supported by all respondents, as one listed four potential problems: 1. web based only notification would discriminate against the poor and the elderly who tend not have computers. 2. local newspapers claim that the rise of Council magazine advertising can put them out of business and would be bad for local democracy. 3. notification for special events is variable dependant on guidance rather than legislation. 4. the lead in times for Council magazines is often much longer than that for newspapers and this could seriously delay schemes. The above view was not shared across the board: A far more cost effective medium would be via the CC Website. A page could be set up to publicise all orders in the same format as they are currently are in Newspapers. We would have control of the wording and be able to edit them if changes were required. This would also be a better route for emergency notices which on occasions are too late for publication. As the public sector faces increasing budget pressures, one respondent made the point that the nature of advertising orders in the press adds an additional and expensive layer which is seldom understood or appreciated by the public. Another said that the cost takes up the bulk of the corporate communications budget. 7

8 Value for money? 16% Yes No 84% Response to question: Do you believe that communicating this way offers best value for money? Local newspapers dominate All respondents (100%) publish notices in local papers. A quarter of respondents also used regional papers when they felt this was required, for instance the Highways Agency publish in the most appropriate local newspaper for each individual scheme, and this may be regional newspapers for major schemes. One respondent noted that even though they use the paper with the highest circulation list they still find that people complain that they are using the wrong paper. 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 100% Local Regional National 20% 0% 27% Local Regional National 8% Response to question: Do you publish your notices in a Local, Regional or National Paper (tick all that apply) 8

9 What would happen if the current paper channel was no longer available? Respondents noted that they would need to meet the legal requirement to advertise with some having already done this by shifting to regional/national papers if local papers have ceased to exist. One respondent noted: We have considered setting up our own "newspaper" to reduce costs. If legislation changes allowed, we would make use of our quarterly publication and our website. The shift away from local advertising to regional or national papers is likely to incur more cost as one respondent noted: Regional and national ads are expensive and do not necessarily reach the people concerned, therefore, very poor value for money. One respondent noted that radio might be an option and others note they have to find ways to meet the statutory legislation and evaluate which course of option would meet that. Another respondent discussed the likely impact of their decision to start advertising TRO s on their website; the comment picks up a general sentiment that authorities would favour local flexibility: This function [advertising on the web] will be expanded so as to include all of our permanent and temporary Traffic Orders. However not everyone has access to or the desire to search for such proposals and therefore I would favour retention of the ability to advertise in the local press but not necessarily as a legislative requirement. Balance towards temporary rather than permanent orders Across all respondents the split between temporary and permanent orders was 85% temporary to 15% permanent (this provides an indication of the split but is not exact as some respondents were only able to provide approximations). This shows that the majority of orders relate to short term impacts on the public. This also shows that a reduced capital programme would not reduce demand for orders as most relate to routine maintenance. 9

10 Cost of advertising The cost of advertising from the responses received was just over 10.6 million this is just the cost involved with advertising (including agency costs). 10 Total ANNUAL cost (inc. permanent and temporary orders) Permanent cost Area Temp. cost Aberdeenshire Council 30,000 N/A N/A Bedford Borough Council 70,000 N/A N/A Bolton Council 92,100 N/A N/A Bracknell Forest Borough Council 15,000 N/A N/A Bristol City Council 100,000 N/A N/A Buckinghamshire County Council 101,000 N/A 101,000 Cambridgeshire County Council 174,000 N/A N/A Cheshire West and Chester Council 20,000 N/A N/A City of London 168,000 N/A N/A Derbyshire County Council 155,000 86,000 69,000 Devon County Council 30,000 N/A N/A Durham County Council 174,943 N/A N/A Essex County Council 733, , ,264 Fife Council 46,900 N/A N/A Information not Halton BC available N/A N/A Hampshire County Council 76,000 44,000 32,000 Hertsmere Borough Council 20,000 N/A N/A Highways Agency 4,200, ,000 4,000,000 Kent County Council 350, , ,000 LB Harrow 107,000 87,000 20,000 LB Lewisham 76,781 49,490 27,290 Information not LB Southwark available N/A N/A Leicestershire County Council 250,000 N/A N/A Lincolnshire County Council 250,000 50, ,000 London Borough of Brent 112, ,500 10,500 London Borough of Haringey 225,600 81, ,384 London Borough of Lambeth 72,612 47,479 25,133 London Borough of Newham 107,500 60,000 47,500 London Borough of Sutton 64,000 42,000 22,000 Manchester City Council 300,000 N/A N/A Northumberland 50,000 N/A N/A Nottinghamshire County Council 156,183 31, ,946 Plymouth City Council 70,000 14,000 56,000 Powys County Council Information not N/A N/A

11 Area Total ANNUAL cost (inc. permanent and temporary orders) available Permanent cost Temp. cost Renfrewshire Council 40,000 N/A N/A Rochdale MBC 9,000 1,500 7,500 Scottish Borders Council 42,000 6,000 36,000 Shropshire Council 120,000 N/A N/A South Lanarkshire Council 28,500 18,000 10,500 Staffordshire County Council 106,000 39,000 67,000 Sunderland City Council 106,000 N/A N/A Surrey County Council 244,900 81, ,000 Torbay Council 35,000 8,750 26,250 Transport for London 774, , ,200 Warwickshire County Council 95,000 25,000 70,000 West Dunbartonshire Council 5,000 1,000 4,000 Westminster City Council 75,000 N/A N/A Wigan Council 10,000 N/A N/A Wiltshire Council 117,270 61,893 55,377 Total 10,206,532 1,724,743 6,589,844 Response to question - What is your gross cost of advertising these TROs in newspapers and how much is attributed to temporary orders (include any publishing agency costs, but exclude your staff time)? Total (All respondents inc. England/Wales/Scotland) 10,206,532 From the above figures, permanent Traffic Orders comprise 21% of the total cost, with temporary orders taking a significant proportion at 79% of the total cost. Based on the figures received a baseline figure of 22 million annual spend on advertising for traffic regulation orders is estimated for England. Although this figure is likely to be higher as this figure only represents principle authorities in England. Boroughs LB Harrow 107,000 London Borough of Newham 107,500 London Borough of Lambeth 72,612 Westminster City Council 75,000 London Borough of Haringey 225,600 London Borough of Brent 112,000 LB Lewisham 76,781 London Borough of Sutton 64,000 Average 105,062 London Boroughs 32 Estimate of London Boroughs 3,361,970 11

12 Two-tier shire councils Buckinghamshire County Council 101,000 Derbyshire County Council 155,000 Essex County Council 733,843 Kent County Council 350,000 Leicestershire County Council 250,000 Devon County Council 106,000 Hampshire County Council 76,000 Staffordshire County Council 106,000 Surrey County Council 244,900 Lincolnshire County Council 250,000 Nottinghamshire County Council 156,183 Cambridgeshire County Council 174,000 Warwickshire County Council 95,000 Average 215,225 Two-tier shire councils 27 Estimate two-tier shire councils 5,811,077 Metropolitan Manchester City Council 300,000 Bolton Council 92,100 Rochdale MBC 9,000 Wigan Council 10,000 Sunderland City Council 106,000 Average 103,420 Metropolitan 36 Estimate metropolitan 3,723,120 Unitary authorities Bedford Borough Council 70,000 Bracknell Forest Borough Council 15,000 Bristol City Council 100,000 Cheshire West and Chester Council 20,000 Northumberland 50,000 Plymouth City Council 70,000 Torbay Council 35,000 Durham County Council 174,943 Shropshire Council 120,000 Wiltshire Council 117,270 Average 77,221 Unitary authorities 55 Estimate unitary authorities 4,247,172 12

13 sui generis City of London 168,000 Isles of Sicily Strategic Road Network Transport for London 774,400 Highways Agency 4,200,000 Total estimate (England) 22,285,739 13

14 The annual estimated cost of TRO advertising in Scotland (excluding Transport Scotland) Scotland Local Authorities Aberdeenshire Council 30,000 Scottish Borders Council 42,000 South Lanarkshire Council 28,500 Fife Council 46,900 Renfrewshire Council 40,000 West Dunbartonshire Council 5,000 Average 32,067 Scottish Local Authorities 32 Estimate Scottish Local Authorities 1,026,133 These are very much estimated figures as the number and nature of regions will be very different with regards to the number of Traffic Regulation Orders and also costs involved with advertising spend are likely to vary considerably. Estimating that 22 million a year goes on advertising costs for TRO in England alone is significant and over five years means that 110 million would be spent on advertising alone. 14

15 Conclusion If the requirement to advertise in newspapers was expanded to allow greater flexibility there would be a considerable impact on the newspaper industry. However, this should not be the primary consideration. Value for money 1 - this is the efficiency, effectiveness and economy - for organisations that have to comply with the legislation must be the prime consideration. Placing an advert in a local newspaper is frequently ineffective at reaching people who are directly affected when they travel through an area, but who do not live or work there. Conversely the measures which are required to be advertised locally will not necessarily directly impact on local people. With the balance towards temporary notices, it is likely that for short term temporary measures - perhaps something lasting just a few hours on the street - the procedures that traffic authorities are required to follow are onerous and expensive, taking many weeks to complete. The findings of the survey demonstrate that many authorities would prefer to divert resources and publicise proposed traffic orders on their website, in local community buildings, and by targeted leaflet drops. With the fast pace of evolving technology regulation should not constrain traffic authorities to the use of any particular medium. Traffic authorities should be enabled to publicise information in a manner that they consider to be most appropriate to local circumstances and not be regulated to follow a process in which they become a captive market. Recommendation There are a number of options to consider: 1 st option Local flexibility and decision making : remove the requirement to publish in a newspaper circulating in the local area and to replace with publish in a form or forms that best targets the local area. This will future-proof the process, enabling traffic authorities to direct resources most appropriate to local circumstances, enable measures to be introduced more efficiently and potentially introduce efficiency savings. 2nd option Adopt the approach taken in Northern Ireland : For a temporary road closure in Northern Ireland (or other restriction such as a banned turn or speed limit), the Roads Service is not required to make a Temporary Order but rather complete a Temporary Traffic Regulation. This is undertaken by issuing a Notice, but does not require the publication of a Notice of Intention and/or a Notice of Making. This also means that there is no formal method of objecting to a proposed Temporary Traffic Regulation. The term Notice refers to the legislative process and not the actual notice that is circulated to interested parties. 1 eeiww%3d%3d 15

16 Where a Temporary Traffic Regulation is to be in place for longer than two weeks then the Roads Service would be required to publish a notification in a newspaper. Where a temporary TRO/road closure has a major effect on traffic patterns the Roads Service may choose to advertise even if it is less than 2 weeks. Feedback from Northern Ireland suggests that on site signing (both yellow/black fixed plates and electronic EMS signs) is much more effective and less costly and the overall approach outlined above seems to be effective: with no complaints regarding lack of notification of temporary closures or any concerns regarding the inability to object to a temporary closure. Some example notices are provided in Appendix 3. 16

17 Appendix 1 List of Respondents Westminster City Council, Staffordshire County Council, Devon County Council, Halton Borough Council, Surrey County Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, Bracknell Forest Borough Council, Powys County Council, Hertsmere Borough Council, Leicestershire County Council, Northumberland, London Borough of Newham; Cheshire West and Chester Council; Highways Agency; Sunderland City Council; Warwickshire County Council; Derbyshire County Council; Aberdeenshire Council; City of London; Wigan Council; Torbay Council; Plymouth City Council (Through partnership with Amey LG Ltd); Durham County Council; Bristol City Council; Bolton Council; Scottish Borders Council; South Lanarkshire Council; Buckinghamshire County Council; Rochdale MBC; London Borough of Lambeth; Fife Council; Manchester City Council; Essex County Council; LB Harrow; Nottinghamshire County Council; Wiltshire Council; Lincolnshire County Council; Kent County Council; Hampshire County Council; Shropshire Council; London Borough of Haringey; London Borough of Brent; Renfrewshire Council; West Dunbartonshire Council; LB Lewisham; LB Southwark; London Borough of Sutton; Bedford Borough Council; Transport for London 17

18 Appendix 2: Technical Report on issues relating to the processing of traffic Orders Issues relating to advertising: Traffic Orders, for both temporary and permanent measures in England, Scotland and Wales are made under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act This enables procedures to be introduced by the Secretary of State and these are the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 and the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations Both sets of procedures require advertisements to be placed in a newspaper circulating in the local area before and after making the Order. For the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 this is covered by regulation 3(2) and regulation 5. For the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 regulations 7(1)(a) and 17(2)(a) apply. The advertising requirement introduces delay and activity in preparing advertising copy, scheduling to coincide with publishing deadlines. Issues relating to temporary measures: Measures are enabled by the provisions of sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 repeated below:- 14 (1) If the traffic authority for a road are satisfied that traffic on the road should be restricted or prohibited (a) because works are being or are proposed to be executed on or near the road; or (b) because of the likelihood of danger to the public, or of serious damage to the road, which is not attributable to such works; or (c) for the purpose of enabling the duty imposed by section 89(1)(a) or (2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter clearing and cleaning) to be discharged, the authority may by order restrict or prohibit temporarily the use of that road, or of any part of it, by vehicles, or vehicles of any class, or by pedestrians, to such extent and subject to such conditions or exceptions as they may consider necessary. 14 (2) The traffic authority for a road may at any time by notice restrict or prohibit temporarily the use of the road, or of any part of it, by vehicles, or vehicles of any class, or by pedestrians, where it appears to them that it is (a) necessary or expedient for the reason mentioned in paragraph (a) or the purpose mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above; or (b) necessary for the reason mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, that the restriction or prohibition should come into force without delay. 18

19 So we have 14(1) Orders or 14(2) Notices enabling much the same traffic measures. 14(1) Orders can last up to 18 months, 14(2) Notices can last only up to five or twenty-one days depending on circumstances detailed in S15(7). The difficulty comes from 14(2)(b) where it is a prerequisite to use of the Notice provision for works that the restriction or prohibition should come into force without delay. Initial guidance was issued by the DfT in Local Authority Circular 4/92 and this stated that notices were intended for cases where short term restrictions or urgent action was needed. This was later corrected by letter from DfT dated 17 November 1992 (ref LUT1/2/2/59) stating that the use of 14(2) notices is for cases where short term restrictions and urgent action is needed. That then forces traffic authorities to use s14(1) Orders for almost all short term works. For Orders made under section 14(1) we are required to follow procedures laid down, as described above. So, for planned works requiring a temporary restriction which may be in force for as little as a few hours, Traffic authorities are required to process of full Traffic Regulation Order, including publishing in a newspaper both before and after the Order is made, taking at least a month to process and cost somewhere in the order of 2,000 for each event. For that reason many third parties who require short term suspension or alteration of traffic management measures in order to undertake work on or adjacent to the highway will resort to unauthorised and uncontrolled measures without the proper consent of the traffic authority. 19

20 Appendix 3: Examples of unpublished and published temporary Road Closure Notices are included for Northern Ireland Example of road closure unpublished. 20

21 Example of road closure notice published. (Required as closure is longer than 2 weeks) 21

22 Example of road closure notification that is issued to a database of interested parties. 22

23 Appendix 4: Cost recovery for TRO Advertising It is understood that authorities will recover the vast majority of advertising costs where the TRO was for 3rd party works and restrictions (predominately from utility companies but also event organisers, developers etc.). One of the main aims of the Coalition s Government-wide review of regulation is to reduce the costs that regulations impose on business. It is therefore important that we quantify the saving to the business sector (as well as local authorities) that a potential reform of TRO procedures might have and these further questions are intended to help us estimate that. The select responses are based on authorities that have provided data on their cost recovery. This additional research ran from October 2010 to March Transport for London Overall, based on a typical year, Transport for London recovered 38% of their total TRO costs ( 296,452 out of 774,400), breaking down as 16% of costs recovered for permanent orders ( 29,150 out of 179,200) and 45% for temporary orders ( 267,302 out of 595,200). For permanent orders, all the cost recovery from third parties came solely from property and housing developers. For temporary orders, 57% of the cost recovered from third parties came from utility companies (statutory undertakers) ( 151,986), 22% from Network Rail ( 59,106) and 21% from event organisers ( 56,210). Transport for London Traffic Regulation Order Advertising Costs and Amount Recovered from 3rd parties 800, , , , , , , ,000 0 All orders Permanent orders Temporary orders Total cost Cost recovered 23

24 Warwickshire County Council Based on a typical year, Warwickshire recover 45% of their TRO cost ( 42,500 out of 95,000), breaking down as 10% for permanent orders ( 2,500 out of 25,000) and 57% for temporary orders ( 40,000 out of 70,000). For permanent orders, all the cost recovery from third parties came solely from property and housing developers. For temporary orders, the vast majority - 88% - of the cost recovered from third parties came from utility companies (statutory undertakers) ( 35,000), 8% from Network Rail ( 3,000) and 5% from event organisers ( 2,000). Warwickshire County Council Traffic Regulation Order Advertising Costs and Amount Recovered from 3rd parties 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 All orders Permanent orders Temporary orders Total cost Cost recovered Top line figures from other authorities Bedford Borough Council, Bracknell Forest Borough Council and Leicestershire County Council recovered varying levels of their total cost of TRO advertising at 20%, 53% and 33% respectively. Highways Agency Utility companies are not closing down parts of the strategic network to carry out necessary works and there are no (for good reason) street parties and events held on the motorways. All this means that Highways Agency absorbs the bulk of the advertising costs for Traffic Regulation Orders with limited means for cost recovery. Over the period of the survey they did recharge for Cobham Motorway Service Station Permanent Order costs for 2 adverts recovered from extra services. Given an annual spend of both permanent and temporary orders of 4.2m, the cost for the two adverts is a drop in the ocean of the wider 24

25 costs involved with TRO advertising for the Agency so this report recommends stripping them out of the final analysis for the impact on business - as outlined below. UK wide estimate, saving business money Based on varying estimates from these limited responses (limited compared to the response to the original survey results on TRO advertising as outlined in the report above prior to Appendix 4 that, if approximately a third of TRO advertising costs are recovered, and the estimated annual cost of advertising is 18m in England alone (excluding the Highways Agency as noted for the reasons above), the potential relaxation of legislation could save business 6m. Further research Further research could ask the cost impact of TRO advertising on industry, with the suggestion that the impact on Utility companies could be assessed as they constitute a fair share of the cost: the National Joint Utilities Group could be worth consulting in this regard. 25