Strategic Planning and Coordination of Utility Works within the Road
137. Building on previous issues discussed, this section explores the practicalities of the RCA taking a strategic planning and coordination role in the management of the road corridor.
Key Issues
138. NZUAG indicates that there is an inconsistent approach to the coordination and location of services in the road corridor particularly in old and new suburbs. This results in the installation of some services on the basis of available space rather than consistent location.
139. Key Issue:
Is there an inconsistent approach to the allocation of space in the roading corridor with no consistent rule of thumb approach?
Is there a need for greater local government strategic planning and coordination of utility works within the road?
Discussion
140. Space is increasingly an issue as many local authorities express a preference for the under-grounding of new or refurbished works. The ability to control the space issue through the RMA and District Plans is limited. Other than the limited legislative provisions, arrangement for space allocation tends to be on a voluntary basis. The NZUAG has pioneered initiatives such as RoadShare, the development of guidelines and a Code of Practice on working in the road, and the promotion of best practice in District Plans (with the aim of promoting consistency of approach). The NZUAG/Standards New Zealand Code of Practice for Working in the Road18 provides detailed standards for the best practice location of utility works within the road, but is only voluntarily adhered to.
141. The NZCCPTS publication Minimum Separations between Buried Power and Telecommunication Cables19 provides industry guidelines on the minimum separations that should apply between buried power and telecommunication cables. Rules explain how minimum separations should be applied and what exceptions are permitted.
142. An additional issue is the mapping of the location of underground utilities. Incidents in recent history have highlighted the lack of a coordinated registry of location of utility networks within the road corridor. In terms of health and safety, and the planning and coordination of allocating space within the road corridor, a coordinated registry would be most beneficial and practical. There have been recent cases of Local Authorities taking the initiative and creating specific utility ducts in the road corridor and utility operators being required to locate utilities, which is a positive move in resolving this issue. Should this be a requirement of all new road construction and road improvement programmes?
143. The NZUAG has recognised the need for RCAs and utility operators to work together to benefit all groups using the road. Among the resulting Roadshare documentation is the Model Partnering Agreement between Utility Service Providers and Road Controlling Authorities, which has the express purpose of providing a framework for partnership to work together to achieve "mutually agreed outcomes in the best interests of each organisation and the communities they serve".
144. Within the agreement, NZUAG propose the strategic planning and coordination of utility works within the road to reduce the unnecessary traffic disruption and significant additional cost to the public, road users and passenger transport operators caused by the uncoordinated activities of utility works in the road reserve. The agreement further recognises the importance of undertaking works in a "manner that minimises the impact on business and reduces the frequency of digging up the roads".
145. The NZUAG advocate two key principles in this agreement to which both Utility operators and RCAs must adhere:
- The importance of close co-operation and liaison between the RCA and Principal Providers (utility operators) as well as amongst the Principal Providers themselves, including the need to balance potentially conflicting interests.
- An acknowledgement by all parties that the work programmes and practices may have to be adjusted in order to ensure that the objectives of the coordination provisions are achieved.
146. In achieving strategic planning, cooperation, and coordination, the agreement emphasises the importance of sharing information based on excellent communication. This involves regular coordination meetings between each RCA and the Principal Providers. An initial meeting will involve the RCA providing all Principal Providers with a proposed work programme for that financial year, and the Principal Providers will provide a proposed work programme to the RCA and all parties considered likely to be affected. As the process develops, detailed plans showing the nature and extent of proposed works should be provided.
147. NZUAG then proposes that parties take a month to evaluate for any potential conflict of works, meet to discuss and resolve issues, and in particular, consider and agree on techniques and methodologies, and cost sharing arrangements for the works. NZUAG suggests that in following this process, RCAs and Principal Providers who have given advance notice of proposed works, have good reason to expect their works to remain undisturbed for at least two years post completion. NZUAG also suggests that parties could extend planning longer term strategy (e.g. up to 10 years ahead).
148. This regime is designed with the intention of balancing the need for minimal delay and inconvenience to customers with the need to maintain the integrity of the roading and utility service assets with a minimum of administrative effort. For this process to work, all parties would need to implement systems to ensure quality and consistency of management of the processes and the relationships.
149. The Ministry approves of the NZUAG model partnership agreement and the strategy underlying it. The Ministry feels that legislating to impose such a system on stakeholders is beyond the scope of the Government's policy objectives. The Ministry believes industry self-governance of this strategy is more appropriate.
Questions to Consider
Is there a real issue with current practices of allocating utility space within the road corridor that is posing a barrier to infrastructure development?
What solutions do respondents propose as providing the most balanced and effective outcome for allocating utility space within the road corridor in a more effective, efficient, and fair manner?
Should it be a legal requirement for RCAs to install utility ducts in all new road construction and road improvement programmes for utility operators to locate utilities?
Should the RCA be the party responsible for managing utility space within the road corridor through District Plan provisions?
Should the RCA be the party responsible for maintaining a coordinated registry of location of utility networks within the road corridor? If so, how could it be funded?
Should an industry body be responsible for maintaining a central registry of location of utility networks within the road corridor? If so, how could it be funded?
Is it "reasonable" for RCAs to publish 2 year plans and "require" utilities to work only within the timeframes stipulated?
Proposal
That the Ministry support and encourage NZUAG as a facilitator, but that this NOT be extended to legislation.
Back to Top