Traffic Regulation Orders - Advice
From GPG
The following issues may affect the decision whether or not to apply a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and should be carefully considered when contemplating the use of a TRO.
Contents |
Cost
Typically it can cost up to £4,000 to make and apply a traffic regulation order. On cost grounds alone it is therefore sensible to consider, and try, alternative approaches, such as voluntary restraint, or use of volunteers to carry out maintenance, as these may cost much less and achieve an acceptable solution.
Role of PROW Officer
In many authorities TRO procedures will be dealt with by Traffic Management Engineers or other specialist highway engineers. Though there are exceptions it is likely that the specialist PROW officer will have no more than a briefing role in the process. You need to bear in mind that the bulk of the TRO work carried out by such specialist traffic engineers will relate to mainstream traffic and parking regulations on the adopted highway. They will not necessarily be familiar with the use of TROs in rural locations which have unusual exceptions or applications. The PROW officer should therefore make clear to the traffic engineer whether he considers that a TRO need only apply to a limited class of user, or at limited times or periods during the year. Examples may be restriction on four wheel drive vehicles but not on trail motorcycles, or restriction only during bank holidays or bird nesting periods.
Authority Policy
You need to recognise that in some authorities, especially national park authorities, there may well be a policy adopted by elected members which promotes extensive restrictions on vehicular use in significant areas of the authority. Such a policy may well preclude the use of flexible restrictions on a route, even if the officers concerned believe a flexible approach would achieve the desired outcome.
Signing
The signing requirements for TROs are inflexible, are dictated by traffic signs regulations and are primarily designed to cater for adopted highway situations. You need to carefully consider whether such signing requirements may well create further problems in a rural location. The very presence of a traffic sign in a remote rural location may be incongruous, and the practical and financial implications of its provision may also outweigh the value of the restriction.
Don't Over-restrict
Keep restrictions to the absolute minimum required to achieve the desired outcome. Restrictions which are recognised by users as being essential, justified and kept to the minimum are more likely to be complied with.
Physical Barriers
It will often be the case that the only effective way to ensure compliance with a TRO is by the use of a physical barrier to prevent unauthorised use. You need to consider, at the earliest stage of the process, whether this will be feasible. In particular can you devise a barrier which will prevent unauthorised use yet allow legitimate users safe and convenient access. What will it cost to provide and maintain such a barrier for the duration of the restriction. Will a barrier simply encourage unauthorised users to find, or create, an alternative way to access the route and will thus create additional problems.
Disabled Users
You must consider the needs of the disabled both when deciding whether a TRO is an appropriate response and when considering what type of physical barrier is required in order to ensure compliance with a TRO. It may be more appropriate to allow vehicular use of a route to continue without formal restriction, accommodating it by means of maintenance and management, if this has the useful by-product of making the route more accessible to the motorised disabled user. Similarly, if a TRO has been applied to a route, then physical barriers erected must not prevent use by the disabled. This may present you with the impossible task of designing barriers which effectively prevent motorised traffic, yet allow walkers, horseriders AND persons with visual or mobility impairments, or persons in large motorised disabled buggies, easy access. If this cannot be achieved you may need to reject the use of a TRO.
Enforcement
Only the police can take action against persons contravening a TRO. Very often the police will make it clear, in their response to the initial consultation, that they will not be able to spare manpower to enforce the proposed TRO, or that the nature and location of the route, will make it effectively un-enforceable by their officers. In such cases, if you decide to make the order you will need to know how you propose to ensure compliance in the absence of a police presence.
Maintenance
The future maintenance of a route which is subject to a TRO may be an issue in the case of routes which are recorded as unclassified county roads. Whilst byways will, in most authorities, be the maintenance responsibility of the PROW team and be funded from a PROW maintenance budget, it is likely that UCRs will be funded from a Divisional or Area Surveyor's budget. In the case of unsurfaced UCRs, which are likely to be the routes upon which TROs are required, it is quite possible that the Divisional or Area Surveyor has never had to spend any money on maintenance in the past. The imposition of a TRO on such a route will, in addition to the initial costs of the TRO, carry with it future costs and maintenance responsibilities. There will be a continuing cost of maintaining signs and barriers. There may also be a need to actively maintain the route in a suitable condition for the remaining users, e.g. walkers, cyclists and horseriders. You need to establish a clear understanding with your highway maintenance colleagues exactly who will be responsible for those continuing costs, and out of whose budget funding will be found.
In the case of a TRO which is applied to a byway or UCR but which continues to allow vehicular use for access only, the question of future maintenance cannot be overlooked. In these cases the highway authority remains responsible for the maintenance and repair of the route in order to keep it in an adequate condition for the access only use. If one of the purposes of the TRO was to remove the need to maintain the route to vehicular standard, then the existence of the access only use, however small, will probably negate any expected savings.
Status
Though obvious it is worth restating the fact that the application of a TRO does not alter the legal status of a route. It is not unknown for highway maintenance engineers to refer to byways and UCRs, once vehicular restrictions are in place, as footpaths or bridleways. Though understandable from a practical maintenance point of view, such sloppy usage is misleading and can lead to problems in the future. Public Rights of Way officers should attempt to ensure that their highway engineer colleagues clearly understand this distinction.
