Highway Asset Management

Highway Asset Management Quick Start Guidance Note Life Cycle Planning
Table of Contents
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 The Life Cycle Process ................................................................................................... 4 Objective and Policies .................................................................................................... 5 Inventory and Condition Data ........................................................................................ 6 Cost of Maintaining Each Group of Assets .................................................................. 7 Performance Gaps .......................................................................................................... 8 Demands and Risks ........................................................................................................ 9 Investment Strategy ...................................................................................................... 10
Appendix A Carriageway, Leicestershire County Council December 2007 .................. 11 Appendix B Structures, Surrey County Council March 2008 ......................................... 21 Appendix C Footway, Newcastle City Council October 2006 ......................................... 61 Appendix D Traffic Signal & Management Systems, Staffordshire County Council October 2008 ....................................................................................................... 80
Contributing Authors:
Paul Boss Andrew Molyneux Mark Stephenson
Staffordshire County Council Leeds City Council Cornwall County Council
Introduction
Lifecycle Management Plans form a key part of an Authoritys Highways Asset Management Plan (HAMP). Lifecycle planning is listed in the DfTs Start Up Guide as an activity under Growing your Asset Management practices. Effective lifecycle planning therefore requires several fundamental asset management activities to have been carried out and considerable asset knowledge to have been established. Without this knowledge, lifecycle plans will not target the effective maintenance and renewal of assets, leading to either premature maintenance or deterioration and possible safety risks to road, and non-road users, and to roadworkers. Figure 1 (from CSS) provides an overview of the asset management process. This guidance note focuses on life cycle planning, with additional notes available giving and overview of the whole process, and further details on boxes 2 and 4.
Figure 1 Overview of Asset Management Processes
Effective lifecycle planning is about making the right investment at the right time to ensure that the asset delivers the requisite level of service over its full expected life, at the minimum cost. However, the lack of knowledge should not stop a local authority from starting these plans as they will, at least, document the status quo for the asset type or grouping, and help to identify the data required for effective decision making i.e. the plans should basically describe in detail how each asset is currently managed, and how investment decisions are made. Figure 2 below illustrates the typical whole life process for managing assets with particular emphasis on the deterioration maintenance cycle. This is where asset lifecycle planning will have the most significant impact on your authority.
Figure 2 Typical Whole Life and Deterioration/Maintenance Process A lifecycle plan is required for each asset type, or for a group of assets, using a fairly generic template to help pose questions and steer thinking, without providing the answers. Remember that there are not any right or wrong answers. The plans (and HAMP/TAMP) should reflect what is appropriate for the particular authority but the rationale should be documented. It is important that the people actually involved with the asset management should write the specific asset lifecycle plan. It will probably take about 3 days of a persons time to write an initial plan once the template is established. This need for ownership is essential, but experience is that it is very difficult to get staff to devote time to this process. If consultants do need to be used, then it is certainly important that they interview the relevant people, and ensure that the appropriate people sign-off each specific plan. The plan should describe the decision making processes associated with that particular asset grouping, at each stage of its lifecycle, from Creation or Acquisition through to Disposal. Although, in the case of highways, roads themselves are rarely fully decommissioned, individual asset components are constantly being decommissioned, and may or may not be replaced, depending on current demand. The other phases in the lifecycle to consider are: Routine Maintenance, Renewal or Replacement and Upgrading.
The plan should start with a general description of the asset or asset grouping, and then document the inventory, condition, and performance so as to identify the funding required for the current and future needs of the asset. As a starting point, the following groupings are suggested to help cover the major highway assets although, in many cases, little will be known about some of the individual elements within these groupings: Roads Footways & Cycleways Bridges & Structures Drainage Public Rights of Way Street Lighting Signs & Street Furniture Environmental Assets CCTV It is important to remember that you cant do everything at once, and that the lifecycle plans can be added to, and expanded over time. As a service related to highway activities, winter service should be included within the plans, albeit not specific to the management of an individual asset. Lifecycle plans need to capture on a robust, consistent basis, all the relevant costs involved in maintaining the asset over the cycle to the chosen service performance. This information, when spread appropriately over the duration of the cycle, provides the basis for financial planning and budgeting, and for measuring asset depreciation. The forthcoming CIPFA Code of guidance will provide further advice on the development of financial information for these purposes. When lifecycle plans have been developed for all asset groups or at least the main asset groups, objective decisions can be made regarding the proportion of funding that can be allocated for each group to finance the most efficient and effective use of current and future funding. The options within each lifecycle plan should ensure that where the optimum proportion of funding is not available, the next or further best option can be assessed in competition with the options contained in the plans for other asset groups. As far as possible, selection of options should attempt to minimise lifecycle costs.
The Life Cycle Process
Each local authority will have its own established asset and maintenance investment practices and a view of what processes and activities will make an effective lifecycle plan, tailored to their own asset hierarchy. This guide sets out the basic activities to establish an initial generic lifecycle plan following the process in Figure 3. Feedback and improvement loops at all stages are important but have not been shown for clarity.
Set Objectives & Policies
Collect Inventory & Condition Data
Assess Demands & Risks
Produce Investment Strategy
Collect Maintenance Costs
Assess Performance Gaps
Figure 3 Generic Asset Management Lifecycle Process
Objective and Policies
Each local authority will also have their own objectives and policies that determine the priorities of the authority, and these should be listed in the HAMP and TAMP. These can be included as part of an introduction to the lifecycle plan and considered when determining the options for various asset groups. For example, if an authority has a priority of improving the condition of roads then carriageways could be a priority for funding. However, if an objective is to improve the safety for pedestrians then footways or pedestrian signal facilities may take a priority. The underlying statements as to the priorities of the authority will generally include improving the safety and condition of highways and decisions will therefore be based on the economics and risk of maintaining each asset group, using proportions of available funding in accordance with the options contained in the lifecycle plans. Reference to objectives can therefore be a paragraph or list of priorities at the front end of the lifecycle plan, or as a general statement in an introduction to a group of plans. It is also useful for the lifecycle plan to set out the consequences of not achieving the objectives and highlight the impact of for example lack of investment or ill-informed maintenance interventions.
Inventory and Condition Data
It is important to understand the type and quality of asset inventory and condition data required to measure performance, and decide on investment options to support the HAMP and other objectives. A data specification should therefore be established at the outset of lifecycle planning. This should set out the hierarchy, detail and priority of data attributes. If there are any gaps in what is collected, these should be fed back into the inspection and survey programme as a business case for future collection. All local authorities have a record of the highways they manage. For roads this can be found in the R199b form that is received from DfT each year. Due to the need to report Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) to 2007/08 *, all authorities also have easily available condition data for carriageways and a small proportion of footways that can be used as the basis for initial lifecycle plans. Due to planned cyclical lamp changes, all authorities should have good inventory and age related information for their street lighting, illuminated traffic signs and traffic management systems that is readily available. The problem areas with regard to inventory are therefore carriageway widths, total footway; and the lower value assets such as signs, safety fences, trees etc along with the usually unknown underground highway drainage systems. With the exception of drainage, information from authorities that have already collected inventory data should be available through regional highway groups, e.g. The Midland Service Improvement Group (MSIG) and can be used as an initial estimate for use in an authoritys lifecycle plan, based on the respective lengths of each authoritys network. Drainage inventory and condition is more difficult to establish as few, if any authorities have an accurate record of their highway drainage systems. A business case should be made for collecting this data against the consequential risk of impact to asset performance and HAMP objectives. Where condition data is not available, a coarse assessment should be made using knowledge within the authority. This can be refined over time.
*BVPI is quoted to 2007/08 as at the time of issue this was the last year there was a requirement for full survey coverage i.e. including unclassified roads. Checks should be made for any more recent updates for current requirements.
Cost of Maintaining Each Group of Assets

A specification for the collection of maintenance costs for the purposes of lifecycle planning should be established. This will identify the priorities, boundaries and ownership of cost data specifically for this process. Significant overlap is likely to exist with the cost data collected for maintenance benchmarking purposes, but may require additional manipulation for use in lifecycle planning. The costs of maintaining assets should be based on contract rates for reactive and planned works and take into account inflation and/or uplifts within contracts to ensure future projections are as realistic as possible. The life expectancy of various treatments or procedures undertaken should be based on internal and industry knowledge if possible to determine realistic service lives in addition to design lives. The determination of a basket of generic treatments will allow the sustainability of each to be considered and taken into account within the overall strategy derived from service options identified. With some asset groups such as carriageways, information will again be available through regional highway groups. Recording systems should be put in place to allow the refinement of maintenance cost data over time and hence the updating of projections on an annual basis. For example, the historical information that is built up within a pavement management system and the continued development of deterioration modelling software will then refine and increase the reliance that can be placed upon investment strategies.
Performance Gaps
Once asset inventory, condition and cost data has been collected the performance of each asset or asset group should be calculated and compared to the desired or target level. Care should be taken when relying on historic performance data and appropriate levels of confidence should be established. Performance gaps will exist in most if not all of the asset groups, and there will be a number of gaps between the current performance of the asset and the level of performance that is desired. These should be documented within the plan and then considered within the context of demand and risk as below. Where there is an identified need to change and improve the way that assets are managed, these changes should also be described in the lifecycle plans and form part of the overall Improvement Plan, and a business case developed for the changes. The desired performance levels are defined in national, industry standards, Codes of Practice and procedures, as well as local standards of the authority. These can also be defined in terms of business objectives, demands and aspirations. The current performance is usually established through application of different types of performance assessment methods. These typically are represented by a formal regime of inspection and surveys. In reality, although performance is mainly measured according to BVPI results achieved, prioritisation to improve BVPIs is not necessarily commensurate with good asset management practice. A balanced view therefore needs to be taken when formulating an investment strategy to ensure good long term asset management planning is not sacrificed in the quest for improved PI results in the short term. As well as condition monitoring measures, other local performance indicators may be useful to establish the health of the asset groups. These include monitoring the frequency of high priority condition based defects i.e. those caused by a lack of maintenance; monitoring the volume of medium priority asset defects, which provides an indication of asset deterioration and the success of reactive maintenance; and monitoring the % of assets that are renewed annually, which can be compared to service life predictions. It is important to capture the lessons learnt from poor performance internally within asset maintenance practices and for setting revised HAMP and data collection targets. Performance should, ideally, also include some form of stakeholder satisfaction survey and, perhaps, a less systematic, ad-hoc reporting approach based on feedback from accidents and incidents of complaints (which link to Demands and Risk). There are two categories of performance gaps: Where the condition of an asset component is below that desired, and Where the level of service provided to the users of the highway is below that desired The Lifecycle Management Plans should set out details of the authoritys current Service Standards and Performance Assessment Methods, as well as the processes for managing the assets.
Demands and Risks
Lifecycle plans will need to identify and reflect the demands placed upon the asset and the risks involved in not maintaining the asset in the correct manner. Demands will be stated in the authorities HAMP and TAMP and reflect the priority values to which assets are expected to perform. These usually relate to safety, capacity, disruption, accessibility, amenity and environment/sustainability. The start up guide on Risk Management provides an appreciation of typical asset risks that require consideration. For example, a carriageway may have the demands of heavy vehicles placed upon it, but the risk of not maintaining it correctly may be mainly economic i.e. the carriageway may need reconstructing in a few years time whereas correctly maintained it may require more economic resurfacing at a much lower long term cost. The economic cost of not correctly maintaining a footway for example may be relatively small i.e. reconstructing rather than resurfacing, but the third party liability cost could be very high if users of the footway were to suffer personal injury.
10
Investment Strategy
An investment strategy for each asset group in addition to a strategy for the overall highway asset will need to be derived from the information within the lifecycle plans. These will typically be based on maintaining or enhancing the highway asset to achieve a desired standard and translated into a forward programme of works. The typical stages of asset maintenance and the financial impact that these have over time is illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Typical lifecycle maintenance interventions over time A good starting point for the investment strategy is to consider the total finance available for highway assets and then apportion this in accordance with service options and their consequences, identified in each of the lifecycle plans. Although this may not establish the investment required to meet desired service standards, it will provide a necessary base case. In the medium to long term future the use of refined deterioration modelling information can then be used to prove the investment requirements to achieve defined service standards and hence match the total finance to those standards or levels of service. It is important to regularly monitor the impact that an investment strategy has on asset performance and the support to lifecycle objectives. Example Lifecycle Plans Examples of Lifecycle Plans developed by authorities to date are attached as the following appendices: Appendix A Carriageway, Leicestershire County Council December 2007 Appendix B Structures, Surrey County Council March 2008 Appendix C Footway, Newcastle City Council October 2006 Appendix D Traffic Signal & Management Systems, Staffordshire County Council October 2008
11
Appendix A Carriageway, Leicestershire County Council December 2007
12
Appendix A Carriageway Lifecycle Plan Leicestershire County Council

Introduction 1. The background to lifecycle plans and the format of each are described in Section 5. This appendix provides the lifecycle plan for carriageways. 2. For management purposes, carriageways have been defined in categories 2 to 4b as shown in the table below. This is based on the national code of practice Well Maintained Highways. These categories reflect the type and use of different carriageways and so will form the basis for sound asset management. National funding and financial reporting is however based on the national classifications (A, B, C and unclassified). Cat. 1 2 Hierarchy Motorways Strategic Routes Main Distributor Type of Road Motorway Trunk and primary A Roads. Non primary A roads and important or heavily trafficked B roads. N/A Routes between primary destinations. Detailed Description
3a
Routes between strategic routes and linking urban centres to the strategic network. Annual average daily traffic: Urban >30,000 (1500 HGV) Rural >12,000 (1000 HGV)
3b
Secondary Distributor
B roads and heavily trafficked C roads.
In rural areas link larger villages to strategic/ main distributor network. In urban areas usually have a 30 mph speed limit and high levels of pedestrian usage. Annual average daily traffic: Urban >20,000 (300 HGV) Rural > 7,000 (150 HGV) In rural areas provide inter-village links and connect to distributor network. In urban areas residential or industrial interconnecting roads. Annual average daily traffic: Urban >15,000 (150 HGV) Rural >5000 (100 HGV) In rural areas serve smaller villages and provide access to limited number of properties and land. In urban areas predominately residential.
4a
Locally Important Roads
4b
All other metalled Roads
Routes linking into the main/ secondary distributor network, normally C class, with greater local significance in rural areas; plus heavily trafficked unclassified roads. All other C roads and majority of unclassified network.
13
Levels of Service 3. The desirable levels of service for this asset category are set out in the table below (see section 2 of main document). These levels of service would fully meet all aspirations whilst minimising whole-life costs. This lifecycle plan, in later sections, shows how different levels of available funding will influence the extent to which these desirable levels of service can be achieved. Attribute Safety Desired Standard Road surface of appropriate skid resistance and profile to minimise risk of loss of control accidents. All roads available for use at all times bar periods of essential roadworks Good standard surface without unevenness or potholes affecting vehicle ride quality At a level consistent with achieving minimum whole life cost, that is BV223 between 3 and 5%, 224a and 224b between 10 and 12%. Performance measure Measures to be developed for second edition TAMP
Availability
BV100 surveys for traffic sensitive streets
Serviceability
CVI surveys MORI surveys BVPI surveys
Condition
4. It will be noted that the levels of service above take a restricted look at, particularly, safety and serviceability. Wider attributes, including alignment, safety of junctions and other aspects currently dealt with under the Councils improvements programme, will be considered for inclusion in future editions of the TAMP. 5. Failure to respond adequately to any of these four dimensions of level of service will produce risk to the authority. The table below, which details the main risks, underlines the importance of responding properly to each. Risk type Physical Business Financial Description example Accidents caused by asset defects Legal proceedings for failure in duty of care Reduction in net book value of the asset because of poor maintenance practice; increased compensation payments following legal action; Poor condition roads reflect on the overall image of the County Council More premium aggregate, natural resources and energy per kilometre of treated network will be used in reconstruction and shorter life materials as opposed to longer life materials, resurfacing and overlay. More disruption to pedestrians and others because of emergency unplanned maintenance following poor maintenance practice
Corporate image Environmental
Network
14
Asset base and characteristics 6. The extent of carriageways in four categories is shown in the table below: A Road km Urban Rural 106 313.7 B Road km 88.3 155.1 C Road Km 425.2 886 UC Road Km 1668.1 624.9
Asset Condition and Assessment 7. To assess the extent to which the desirable levels of service are met requires measurements covering the four dimensions of safety, availability, serviceability and condition. Where measures currently exist for availability and serviceability they are inadequate and will be considered further in the second edition of the TAMP. 8. The condition of A, B and C roads is assessed annually by SCANNER surveys. A proportion of the unclassified network is assessed annually by (Coarse Visual Inspection) CVI survey. CVI surveys are also done on proportions of A, B and C roads to check trends. Deflectograph surveys are carried out on proportions of A and B roads. Griptester surveys are done on a proportion of A roads and on a site specific basis on other roads. NRMCS surveys are also carried out on the numbers of sites required by DfT. This requirement is likely to be dropped for A, B and C roads from 2008.
A Roads 100% (in one direction) surveyed annually 20% surveyed annually 33% of network surveyed annually 20% surveyed annually 50 Sites
B & C Roads
Unclassified
SCANNER
100% (in one direction) surveyed annually 20% surveyed annually Site specific surveys only 50% surveyed annually( may reduce to 20% in future) 110 Sites
Not surveyed
Deflectograph GRIPTESTER
Not surveyed Not surveyed 25% surveyed annually 90 Sites
CVI NRMCS
15
9. The Council has set its own standards for the frequency of its highway safety inspections. These take into account national guidelines, issued in the latest Code of Practice for Maintenance Management Well Maintained Highways (July 2005): Feature Carriageways Reference 2 3(a) 3(b) 4(a) 4(b) Category Strategic Routes Main Distributors Secondary Distributors Locally Important Roads All other metalled Roads Frequency of Inspection 1 month 1 month 1 month 3 months 1 year
10. There are national Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) for all categories of carriageway. Best Value Performance Indicators BVPI 223 and BVPI 224 are a direct application of the Road Condition Index (RCI) from the current UKPMS default rule set. For unclassified roads the emphasis is on a range of condition indices relevant to rural and urban roads Principal roads ( A roads) BV223 (BV96) Non Principal Classified (B & C roads) BV224a (BV 97a) Unclassified (un-numbered minor roads) BV224b (BV 97b) The overall condition of the roads in Leicestershire has shown a gradual improvement, reflected in Table 4 below which details the BVPI results in recent years: Table 4 BVPI RESULTS (Highlighted cells signify reported figures) All figures are %s BVPI 96 Deflectograph Survey. BVPI 96 Condition of Principal road network based on CVI Visual Survey. BVPI 223 Condition of Principal road network based on SCANNER Survey. BVPI 97a Condition of Non-Principal Classified road network by CVI BVPI 224a Condition of Non-Principal Classified road network by SCANNER BVPI 97b Condition of (Non-Principal) Unclassified road network based on CVI. 13.13 14.67 37.66 9.6 01/02 18.14 02/03 16.80 03/04 11.60 04/05 11.28 05/06 9.32 06/07 11.96
7.72
10.16
3.42
6.29
1.30
3.01
N/A
N/A
N/A
19.65
3.0
3.0
11.73
23.53
36.44
29.06
11.26
10.52
10
8.4
16% 4yr av
(10% 1yr)
16
Asset Valuation 11. The initial gross replacement cost for the carriageway asset is 2.5 billion. The depreciation is approximately 40 million, which means that the net value is approximately 2.46 billion. Future Changes in Demand 12. Major new development is planned in the county over the next twenty years as part of the Regional Spatial Strategy. This expansion will bring substantial lengths of new carriageway in new housing and employment areas, and will also intensify the use of existing carriageways. The increase in the extent of the asset will, in the long term, produce a requirement for additional maintenance expenditure. The likely impact on maintenance expenditure, and on government funding for this, has not at this stage been quantified. Treatment options and costs 13. Road surfaces can be renewed, retextured, protected or repaired. Renewal involves replacing the top layer and will normally require replacement, or patching, of parts of the underlying layer. Retexturing increases the serviceable life of the surface course and restores a consistent level of grip. Protection treatments, such as surface dressing, restore the skid resistance and seal the surface of the road which prevents moisture getting into the surface and further oxidation of the binder. Repairs are treatments like patching, filling potholes, crack sealing and resetting ironwork. Expected Treatment Life (yrs) 4 months
Treatment Reactive Pothole repair Reactive Odd kerb / iron work Reactive Patching Preventative Surface dressing Planned Haunching Planned Kerbing Planned Resurfacing Planned Overlay Planned Renewal
Average treatment cost 120.00 per repair 40.00 Kerb Gully Manhole
2 years
90.00 135.00
3 years 7-10 years 7-10 years 10 + years 7-30 years 10-30 years 20-35 years
30 40/m 2.25/m 80.00/m 20.00/m 10.00/m 5.00 10.00/m 12.00 20.00/m
14. A typical stretch of road might be maintained as follows, following the laying of a new surface: Inspect at required frequencies looking for potential potholes, problems around and concerning ironwork; reset ironwork and fill potholes;
17
Empty gullies and catch pits; sweep channels and hatched areas; weed spray to channels; Patch and seal areas to restore surface, especially in channels and around gullies; Consider surface dressing after 12 to 15 years, depending on road category and usage; more highly stressed areas, like junctions will be resurfaced if necessary, rather than dressed; Consider more significant roads for resurfacing earlier in their lives; less significant and less heavily trafficked roads may be surface dressed twice or more times before resurfacing.
15. The current levels of capital funding have only been available to the whole of the County network since 2001. The significant improvement in the condition of every category has been achieved using a mixture of resurfacing, surface dressing and revenue-funded patching. The programme has been determined on a worse-first basis, because of the initial poor condition and the available capital and revenue funding, rather than a justified asset management approach. Management strategy for minimising whole-life costs 16. Whole life costs include not only the direct costs of works, design and supervision and surveys, but also the indirect costs caused by sub-optimal maintenance regimes, including inconvenience to users, environmental impacts and third party claims. The main factors which will affect the whole life cost of an individual carriageway are: Type and quality of construction Degree and type of damage and degradation Type and volume of traffic Speed and quality of response to damage and degradation Timing of intervention and quality of medium and long term treatments
17. At present the links between these have not been fully quantified. This is an important area for research and progress nationally will be used to inform future editions of the TAMP. This will be a significant exercise, involving renewals, preventative work and reactive maintenance. 18. Historically, the Councils strategy for maintaining carriageways has been: to specify a high standard of initial construction to undertake timely reactive maintenance in order to keep carriageways in a safe condition and prevent short term deterioration, to have a programme of preventative maintenance to prevent deterioration of the surface and lower layers and to extend the life of the carriageway at minimum cost to resurface carriageways (using recycling techniques where possible) when reactive and preventative work is uneconomic to renew carriageways which are uneconomic to treat by other means.
19. This strategy is based on good practice but there has been no rigorous financial evaluation of the approach or testing of alternatives, for example the timing of the various interventions. The strategy is accepted as best practice for this version of the TAMP but further investigation of alternatives will be undertaken for the second version.
18
Options and targets within the management strategy 20. The analysis which follows analyses levels of capital spending against predicted outcomes for carriageway condition. Similar analysis in future editions of the TAMP will need to analyse in more detail the impact of revenue spending on condition, and also assess whether other aspects of conditions of service need similar consideration. It should be noted that the causal link between capital spend and resulting condition is complicated and not necessarily fully explained by the headline figures; this is another area for further investigation in future editions of the TAMP.
LTP proposals 21. The second Local Transport Plan reviewed the correlation between the achievement of condition targets and proposed overall spending, within the indicative government allocations. This capital spending on resurfacing and reconstruction was to be supported by continued revenue spending on reactive maintenance at a level predicted to be approximately 5m a year in real terms through the five year period. The table below shows the LTP predicted spending and targets (targets for principal roads are for deflectograph surveys and non-principal classified and unclassified roads are for CVI surveys) 000s Principal road carriageways Target condition Non-principal classified road c/ways Target condition Unclassified road c/ways Target condition 06/07 1875 10.8% 2925 11.3% 1140 <10% 07/08 1915 10.6% 2985 11% 1165 <10% 08/09 2010 10.4% 3135 10.6% 1220 <10% 09/10 2110 10.2% 3290 10.3% 1285 <10% 10/11 2215 10% 3455 10% 1345 <10% 6155 15795 5 Year Total 10125
22. On the basis of further annual results becoming available using SCANNER data, the 2010/11 targets in the 2007/08 Departmental Service Plan are: Principal roads 4% by SCANNER; Non-principal classified roads 9% by SCANNER; Unclassified - <10% by CVI surveys.
23. The SCANNER results are not directly comparable with those for deflectograph, and neither is directly comparable with those for CVI surveys. The targets for principal and nonprincipal roads (SCANNER) are assessed as being close to those which reflect minimum, perceived whole-life cost. That for unclassified roads (CVI) is still some way off that figure and there needs to be a consistent further improvement over a number of years, down to a figure closer to that for non-principal roads.
19
Alternative options 24. The reduced allocations for maintenance announced by the Department for Transport in late 2006, coupled with uncertainties over the likely outcome of the autumn 2007 government comprehensive spending review, mean that the targets must be reviewed. The revised spending for 07/08, 08/09 and 09/10, based on the reduced DfT allocations, was determined as follows: 000s Principal road carriageways Non-principal classified road c/ways Unclassified road c/ways 07/08 1,415 2,835 1,065 08/09 1,410 2,535 1,020 09/10 1,610 3,060 1,085
25. However, these allocations would have resulted in an unacceptable worsening in the condition of category 3 and 4 footways. An adjustment was therefore made to allocate more spending for these, achieved by reducing the spending on principal road carriageways by 250,000 a year from 08/09. The revised table is shown below: 000s Principal road carriageways Non-principal classified road c/ways Unclassified road c/ways 07/08 1,415 2,835 1,065 08/09 1,160 2,535 1,020 09/10 1,360 3,060 1,085
26. The reduced spend will result in some deterioration. This is not significant over the three year period in the context of experimental error in measurement, but if uncorrected in the longer term could lead to significant problems. The next edition TAMP will examine this further. Roads Principal roads BV223 Non-principal classified CVI Unclassified roads BV 224b 2007/08 3.3% 10.4% 9.2% 2008/09 3.5% 10.3% 9.5% 2009/10 3.6% 10.6% 9.8%
27. These options for carriageways are assessed in Section 6 against similar options for other asset categories, to produce the best overall balance within available funding against desired levels of service.
20
Lifecycle action plan 28. Most of the actions to deliver this lifecycle plan are, for this first edition of the TAMP, contained within the wider summary of development contained in Section 9. A separate action plan is therefore not included here, though it will be in future editions of the TAMP.
Risks 29. The risks involved in implementing the lifecycle action plan have been assessed against the councils standard grid of likelihood versus impact and are detailed in the table below, with an outline of the mitigation to be planned. The red risks from each lifecycle plan are listed in section 7 of the main TAMP document. Severe Significant Moderate Minor
Impact of effects
A B C D 4 Very UnLikely 3 Not Very Likely 2 Quite Likely 1 Very Likely
1,5,6 2,3,4
Likelihood of causes
Risk 1. Insufficient staff resources for analytical work, particularly given structural change in the department 2. Insufficient staff resources for customer attitude work 3. Insufficient progress nationally and in the region to support changes in practice 4. Materials/ labour/ plant/ staff costs 5. Reduced capital funding
Level
Mitigation (for red risks) Ensure prioritised within group local action plan
Responsible GM(Network Management)
2B
2C
2C
2C Review allocation between asset categories to minimise overall deterioration Ditto GM(Network Management)
2B
6. Reduced revenue funding
2B
ditto
21
Appendix B Structures, Surrey County Council March 2008
SURREY HIGHWAYS STRUCTURES GROUP
TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Project Title: Document Title:
Bridge Management Transportation Asset Management Structures Asset Management Planning
Client Reference: Date: Prepared By: Print Sign Authorised By: Print
Sign
S/TAA/8 14 March 2008 Hugh Brooman ................................................ Graham Cole

................................................
Amendment List Iss. / Rev.
Iss. / Rev Date July 2004 Page All pages
Remove Iss. / Rev. 00 Page All pages
Insert Iss. / Rev. 01
Issue 00
0201SF10 07/08/02 Filename: S:\GENERAL\AMG\Structures\\lifecycle.doc
Issue No.1 2227/17
Page 23 of 101
Document No.
Contents
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Introduction Strategic Goals and Objectives. Asset Inventory Current Performance Future Demand Performance Targets and Levels of Service Performance Gaps Lifecycle Plans Value Management and Risk Management Asset Valuation Work Plan and Financial plan Sustainable Development Improvement Plan References
Issue No.1 2227/17
Page 24 of 101
Document No.
25
INTRODUCTION
The Structures Group of the Surrey Highways Service undertakes the management of the highway structure asset. Highway structures are defined as any bridge or other structure that impinges in any way within the footprint of the highway or that materially affects the support of the highway or land immediately adjacent to it that meets certain dimensional criteria. Highway structures include bridges, culverts, subways, footbridges and retaining walls. An important Structures Group goal is to: document that the assets for which it is responsible are being preserved at, or above, a series of key performance indicators originally established for the assets We will do this by preparing and working to the Asset Management Planning process that is set out in this document. This is the second edition of this document the first was prepared in July 2004. It is recognised that the preparation of an Asset Management Plan is a continuous improvement process and it is anticipated that further versions of this Asset Management Planning document will be issued on an ongoing basis. It is widely recognised that a well managed transport infrastructure is vital to the economic stability, growth and social well being of a country. Bridges and other highway structures are fundamental to the transport infrastructure because they form essential links in the highway network. It is not therefore in the public interest to allow highway structures to deteriorate in a way that compromises the functionality of the highway network, be it through restrictions or closures caused by unsafe structures or the disruption of traffic through poor planning of maintenance work. [Ref 1] This Asset Management Planning document is based on the format recommended by the Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures (the Code) [Ref.1]. This document is part of a suite of resource management plans that support the corporate objectives of the County Council and the operational priorities of the Group: Surrey Highways Service Business Plan Annual Group Management Plan Quality Management System (QMS) documentation
The relationship between these various documents is shown in Figure 1. The overall process involved in the Management of Highway Structures is shown in Figure 2. A comprehensive review of the work of the Structures Group was carried out in the first quarter of 2008 and some of these processes will change in the near future.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Issue No.01 Document No. 2227/17
Fig.1 Key Documentation
Fig. 2 The Management of Highway Structures
Start
DCP and other urgent safety issues
Local Input (LTD Schemes)
Assessment Results
Condition Survey
Improvements
Collation into a list of tasks
Technical Prioritisation
Performance Monitoring (KPIs)
Cost Options
Programme Reporting
Rolling Programme
Update Records
Unfunded
Bid
Budget Allocation
Funded
Annual Programme
Construct
Note: Damage to County Property (DCP)
Issue No. 01
Document No. 2227/17
STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The overall policies and aims of the County Council are currently set out in the Manual of Policies and Standards (Maps) document. In addition, the Local Transport Plan (LTP) also sets out various criteria and objectives within the Planning and Maintaining the Highway Network chapter. Successful management of the bridge stock is fundamental to the implementation of the LTP. There are five main themes within the LTP and the Structures Group contributes to these as follows: Economy: the strategy takes account of the business needs of local communities in prioritising bridge management activities. Where weak bridges are on routes which provide access to business parks etc. weight restrictions would have a detrimental effect on the economy, so strengthening schemes receive a high priority rating. Safety: the strategy principally contributes to this objective by ensuring that minimum levels of safety are maintained. In maintenance, the repair of safety-related defects and damages takes priority. In bridge strengthening schemes, highway safety improvements are included where possible. Integration: a robust bridge stock is needed to deliver network flexibility requirements and accommodate bus routes which may be introduced to improve transport integration. Accessibility: in strengthening and refurbishing, accessibility for vulnerable users is improved by adding footpaths and increasing width whenever possible. The maintenance of subway pumps, anti-slip surfacing, handrails and graffiti clearance are important to provide a pleasant environment, so that pedestrians are encouraged to use subways and footbridges. The 2002 Audit Commission Best Value inspection of the Transportation Service commended the Structures Group on the inclusion of parapet enhancement measures in bridge strengthening schemes. Environment: environmental considerations, heritage value and conservation are taken into account in the selection of materials and methods of working for strengthening and reconstruction projects. The Highways Service priorities for 2007/08 include to Improve the Highway Network, Improve Road Safety and Security, Enhance the Environment and Quality of Life and to Provide Services to People and Communities in a Way that Meets their Needs. The work of the Structures Group contributes to all of these Service wide priorities. The Highways Act 1980 requires that roads are maintained to allow the passage of all Construction and Use vehicles i.e. those up to 40/44 tonnes. Therefore, the primary service standard is to maintain bridges to allow the passage of such vehicles, including smaller vehicles with 11.5 tonnes axles, unless a permanent weight restriction has been imposed at a particular bridge. In particular, Section 41 (1) of the Highways Act states: The Authority who are for the time being the highway authority for a highway maintainable at the public expense are under a duty, , to maintain the highway. The Act includes provisions for enforcing liability for maintenance (Section 56) that can be determined by a magistrates court. The Act provides a general power to improve highways (Section 62) including the provision of subways (Section 69), footbridges (Section 70) and the
Issue No. 01
construction and reconstruction of bridges (Sections 91 and 92). More detailed sections of the Act grant the power to construct bridges over navigable water courses (Section 106). The Act grants the power to remove unauthorised structures (Section 143), to licence the construction of a bridge over the highway (Section 176) and to control the construction of scaffolding (Section 169) and cellars (Section 179). The Act also grants powers to control the construction of retaining walls near streets (Section 167). Furthermore, bridgeworks shall not be carried out unless approved by the county council (Section 195), a duty delegated to the Technical Approval Authority. The serviceability standards for the bridge stock will be maintained by seeking to achieve average and critical values of between 90 and 94 in accordance with the CSS Bridge Condition Indicator system [Ref. 2]. This reflects the usual practice of adopting a good standard as an optimum level of service determination [Ref. 3]. Service standards will be further developed as the family of national performance indicators described below is implemented. General consultation with the public regarding their interest in highway matters rarely includes reference to highway structures. Public consultation, which supported the development of the first edition of the Hertfordshire Asset Management Plan, showed that maintaining the safety of the bridge stock was a primary public objective and Surrey residents are unlikely to have different views. Local scheme specific consultations show that the public are rightly concerned about the way works are carried out and how they are involved in the process. We have local performance indicators that seek to address this matter.
ASSET INVENTORY
This asset grouping comprises bridges (both vehicular and pedestrian), culverts, subways (and their associated pumps) and retaining walls. Bridges are of various types and spans but their construction is mainly concrete, steel or masonry / brick. The asset group includes right of way structures as well as those on main roads. In particular, highway structures are specifically defined as: Bridges, culverts, chambers or subways under or over the highway with a composite span of 0.9 metres or more. Retaining walls, where the height of retained fill measured between lower ground level and upper ground level is 1.37 metres (4 6) or more. Miscellaneous structures: Reinforced earth embankments 1.37 metres or more in height and where the angle of the side slopes is greater than the natural angle of repose of the embankment material High mast lighting columns 20 metres or more in height Structural aspects of sign and signal gantries as defined in HA Standard BD63 Structural aspects of traffic signal mast arm assemblies as described in HA Standard BD88
We carry out inspections of all SCC owned highway structures. Within the County there are also a significant number of structures carrying highways and other transport systems that are owned by other statutory bodies such as the Highways Agency, Network Rail and utility companies. We carry out superficial inspections of these structures, where appropriate, to safeguard highway users.
Issue No. 01
Details of the asset are recorded on the Bridge Management System (BMS), supplied by Futuris, and known as Bridgestation. Much of this data is readily accessible via the County GIS system or by SAMS. The extent of the current inventory is indicated in Tables 1, 2 and 3. An indication of construction materials and year of construction are included in Tables 4 and 5. The Project Manager makes additions and changes to the asset inventory following significant maintenance work, completion of developer schemes, creation of new assets or discovery of an existing bridge or retaining wall. The inspection process is also used to check the validity of data held on individual structures. Details of the attributes recorded during the inspection process are included in section 4.1. The reliability of bridge data is high but there is still a need to improve the extent of the data regarding retaining walls. Monies had been allocated in 2007/08 to continue additional survey work for this asset sub-group but have now been withdrawn. Table 1 Asset by Type and District (all owners)
Bridge Elmbridge Epsom and Ewell Guildford Mole Valley Reigate and Banstead Runnymede Spelthorne Surrey Heath Tandridge Waverley Woking
70 29 192 166 90 47 55 61 122 157 55
Culvert
11 7 59 44 22 17 20 16 56 65 17
Footbridge
33 14 133 220 44 40 34 49 191 181 43
Subway
5 1 17 9 8 1 9 7 3 2 1
Ret Wall
4 11 47 18 25 2 1 4 21 38 10
Other
2 3 15 7 5 0 1 9 5 1 1
Total
125 65 463 464 194 107 120 146 398 444 127
1044
334
982
63
181
49
2653
Source: Bridge Management System (May 2007)
Table 2 Asset by Type and Road Hierarchy (all owners)

Bridge Primary Principal Non Principal Unclassified Row Private Other
73 123 223 264 294
Culvert
28 55 91 93 63
Footbridge
12 21 18 11 878
Subway
21 13 6 6 8
Ret Wall
27 45 35 62 12
Other
10 10 7 15 6
Total
171 267 380 451 1261
27
40
2
2
2
40 9
0
1
31
92
1044
334
982
63
181
49
2653
Issue No. 01
Table 3 Asset by Type and Owner

Bridge SCC (Structures) Network Rail Other
544 357 143
Culvert
296 2 36
Footbridge
565 48 369
Subway
43 19 1
Ret Wall
153
Other
31 10
Total
1632 436 585
28
1044
334
982
63
181
49
2653
Table 4 SCC Asset by Construction Material (approximate) Lattice Plate and Steel Girders 95
Prestressed 46
Reinforced Concrete 347
Metal Troughing 46
Steel Composite 24
Masonry Arches 433
Timber 457
Source: Adapted from Ref.4
Table 5 SCC Asset by Year of Construction (approximate) Pre 1820 100 1820 1840 1840 1860 1860 1880 1880 1900 1900 1920 1920 1940 1940 1960 1960 1980 1980 2000
100
150
200
200
225
150
100
100
123
Source: Adapted from Ref. 4
Issue No. 01
CURRENT PERFORMANCE
4.1 Condition Monitoring Measures The condition of all structures is monitored through general and principal inspections as shown in Table 6. A separate programme of special inspections is carried out for those structures that have been shown to be sub-standard following strength assessments (see below). Ad-hoc special inspections are also carried out following specific events such as vehicle impact or flooding. Inspection activities are detailed in Figure 3.
Fig. 3 Bridge Inspection Process Map
Inspection programme produced by PM and agreed by TAA
BMS produces schedule of bridges to be inspected and type of inspection required
Annually
Inspection & risk assessment forms issued to PEs
Annually
PEs agree programme with inspectors and monitors programme
Monthly
Structure inspected
Completed risk assessment forms returned to PM
Completed inspection report returned to PE
Schedule updated and PM informed of progress
Monthly
Approved Inspection data entered in BMS
Approved inspection report (incl Risk Assessment) placed on Bridge File
Source: QMS Process TS14-02
Issue No. 01
In-house or external bridge inspectors carry out inspections. The annual programme is determined by the Project Manager and implemented by the Principal Bridge Engineers (East and West). The Senior Bridge Inspector determines technical aspects of inspections. General inspections have been carried out every two/three years and principal inspections every six/nine years. Following the publication of the Code, general inspections are now programmed to be carried out every two years. A risk assessment approach will be established to determine an appropriate interval for principal inspections. Safety inspections are carried out on privately owned structures. Inspections are carried out in accordance with Departmental Standard BD63 in particular, general inspections are remote visual inspections whereas principal inspections need to be carried out from within touching distance. The new national Bridge Inspection Manual was published in June 2007. The recommendations of this document will be reviewed and incorporated into our procedures, where necessary, in due course.
Table 6 - Bridge Inspection Details County Roads (A, B, C & D Roads): Activity Superficial Inspections General Inspections Principal Inspections Every 6 to 12 years Period Asset Type Covered On all privately owned structures On all structures On all structures frequency determined by risk assessment On sub-standard (weak) structures to monitor potential failure modes on unrestricted bridges For specific requirements On PT bridges unless condition determines otherwise A scour assessment on vulnerable bridges
Close Monitor Inspections
1, 3, 6,12 monthly
Special inspections Post tensioned inspections
As required Once only
Diving inspections
Every 2 years
County Rights of Way: Activity General Inspections Principal Inspections Special inspections Diving inspections Every 6 to 12 years As required Every 2 years Period Asset Type Covered On all structures On specifically identified structures For specific requirements A scour assessment on vulnerable bridges
The results of inspections are recorded in accordance with the CSS (formerly County Surveyors Society) Bridge Condition Index procedures. All of the bridge stock has now been inspected using
Issue No. 01
this system. As the Project Manager receives each new completed inspection form the BMS is updated and the overall condition of the asset is recalculated.
4.2 Current conditions - inspections The average condition of the bridge stock (BCSIave) was estimated to be 94 in March 2003 in accordance with the CSS BCI procedure [Ref.2]. The critical elements of the bridge stock were estimated to have a rating (BCSIcrit) of 82 at March 2003 in accordance with the CSS BCI procedure. The interpretation of these values is given in Table 7 [derived from Ref.2]. These figures suggest that the bridge stock was in fair to good condition. However, these values were derived from a small sample as the introduction of the new system was being trialled. The current average condition value is 88.
4.3
Current conditions strength assessment
A nationally funded bridge assessment programme was introduced to check the capability of existing bridges to meet the higher 11.5t axle load and 40/44t gross vehicle weights permitted on UK roads from 1 January 1999. The results of the assessment programme are recorded in the BMS. The assessment reports comprise special inspections designed specifically for assessments, material testing results where appropriate and a mathematical evaluation of the way that a bridge is assumed to carry traffic loads. The calculation process starts with a comparatively simplistic approach and continues, where justified, by using more sophisticated analytical techniques. In total, 301 of the 689 bridges requiring assessment were shown to be not to current standards. Over 127 of these were either strengthened or reconstructed by the end of 2006. The remainder are transferred to the Forward Work Programme. Funding has been secured through the Local Transport Plan to implement a continuous assessment programme. This will result in the main part of the bridge stock being reassessed every eighteen years. This will ensure that the safety and reliability of the asset is maintained whilst providing critical data for performance indicator evaluation. When an assessment shows a bridge to be sub-standard or provisionally sub-standard then the risk management procedures contained in Highways Agency Departmental Standard BD79 [Ref. 5] are followed. This means that interim measures such as a weight restriction, traffic management restrictions or a regime of monitoring is imposed on the structure. Further guidance is contained in the Structures Management Manual and QMS Work Instructions. These procedures are in place to minimise the risk of asset failure.
Issue No. 01
Table 7 - Interpretation of CSS BCI Values (adapted from Ref. 2) BSCI Range 100 to 95 Very Good Average Stock Condition based on BSCIAve The structure stock is in a very good condition. Very few bridges may be in a moderate to severe condition. Structure stock is in a good condition. A few bridges may be in a severe condition. Structure stock is in a fair condition. Some structures may be in a severe condition. Structure stock is in a poor condition. A significant number of structures may be in a severe condition. Critical Stock Condition based on BSCI Crit Very few critical load bearing elements may be in a moderate to severe condition. Represents very low risk to public safety. Additional Comments If it is a relatively new stock of structures than an appropriate maintenance funding level needs to be identified through the Asset management Plan and Best Value. If it is a mature stock then continuing with the same level of funding is likely to sustain a high condition score and an effective preventative maintenance regime. Historical maintenance funding levels have been at an appropriate level to maintain a good stock condition. These levels of funding should be continued to ensure condition is maintained and resources are concentrated on preventative maintenance activities Historical maintenance work may be underfunded and structures may not be managed in accordance with Best Value principles implementation of an Asset Management Plan is essential. Potential for rapid decrease in condition if sufficient maintenance funding is not provided. Moderate to significant backlog of maintenance work. Historical maintenance work under funded and structures not managed in accordance with Best Value principles and sound asset management. It is essential to implement an Asset Management Plan to ensure work is adequately funded and prioritised and risks assessed and managed. Significant to large backlog of maintenance work, essential work dominates spending. Historical maintenance work significantly underfunded and a large to very large maintenance backlog. An Asset Management regime is essential. Re-active approach to maintenance that has been unable to contain deterioration. A significant number of structures likely to be closed, have temporary measures in place or other risk mitigation measures. Essential work dominates spending. Historical maintenance work grossly under funded and a very large maintenance backlog. Re-active approach to maintenance that has been unable to prevent deterioration, only essential maintenance work performed, Asset management is essential. Many structures likely to be closed, have temporary measures in place or other risk mitigation measures. All spend likely to be on essential maintenance.
94 to 90 Good 89 to 80 Fair
A few critical load bearing elements may be in a severe condition. Represents a low risk to public safety. Wide variability of conditions for critical load bearing elements, some may be in a severe condition. Some bridges may represent a moderate risk to public safety unless mitigation measures are in place. A significant number of critical load bearing elements may be in a severe condition. Some structures may represent a significant risk to public safety unless mitigation measures are in place. Many critical load bearing elements may be unserviceable or close to it and are in a dangerous condition. Some structures may represent a high risk to public safety unless mitigation measures are in place. Majority of critical load bearing elements unserviceable or close to it and are in a dangerous condition. Some structures may represent a very high risk to public safety unless mitigation measures are in place.
79 to 65 Poor
64 to 40 Very Poor
Structure stock is in a very poor condition. Many structures may be in a severe condition.
39 to 0 Severe
Structure stock is in a severe condition. Many structures may be unserviceable or close to it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Issue No.01 Document No. 2227/17
5 5.1
FUTURE DEMAND County Council promoted schemes
The Code [ref. 1] comments as follows: Changes in demand in the future may alter how a structure should be managed, e.g. if a planned route widening will necessitate a bridge replacement in 10 years time then the maintenance strategy for the existing bridge should reflect this. The Code [ref. 1] goes on to recommend: Predict future demand based on current knowledge of any major construction schemes, changes to HGV traffic volumes, or policy changes planned for the next five to ten year period, e.g. route widening, congestion charging, etc. A primary objective of the management of highway structures is to provide safe and reliable routes for all vehicles, particularly public transport and goods vehicles at all times. The County Council seeks to contain the rate of increase in vehicle use. Therefore, it is not anticipated that there will be any significant increase in loading that will affect current management practices. However, should there be any national change in the Construction and Use Regulations (or Authorised Weight Regulations) then this would have a significant impact. There is only one major scheme being progressed at the current time i.e. Walton Bridge. This is being designed by Costain / Atkins and is currently going through the statutory process. Four existing structures will be affected as shown in Table 8.
5.2
Developer promoted schemes
Developments of housing and industrial areas can create new structures on adopted highways. All new highway structures are subject to the Technical Approval procedures contained in BD2 [ref. 6]. Adoption is not completed unless a commuted sum to cover future maintenance expenditure is paid to the County Council. The Department for Transport is currently preparing national guidance on this subject. There is at least one scheme being promoted at the current time that will replace three existing bridges as shown in Table 8.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ Issue No.01 Document No. 2227/17
Table 8 Structures Affected by Future Schemes Structure Number A244/10 A244/11 Structure Name Walton Bridge (Callender Hamilton) Walton Bridge (New Temporary) Promoter Surrey County Council Surrey County Council Proposal Remove as part of Walton Bridge major scheme in 2010 Remove as part of Walton Bridge major scheme in 2010 Action Inspect and safety critical maintenance only Inspect and safety critical maintenance only. Carriageway surfacing to be replaced in 2008. Inspect and safety critical maintenance only. Refurbishment of structure to be included in main works contract. Inspect and safety critical maintenance only Inspect and safety critical maintenance only Inspect and safety critical maintenance only Inspect and safety critical maintenance only
A244/4
Cowey Sale Viaduct
Surrey County Council
To be converted to pedestrian use and modified as part of Walton Bridge major scheme in 2010
A244/8
Causeway Cantilever Footway
Surrey County Council
A247/7
Elm Bridge East
Woking Borough Council
A247/8
Elm Bridge West
00055695 Willow Way Footbridge
To be removed on completion of Walton Bridge major scheme in 2010 To be replaced by new single span bridge as part of flood relief scheme in 2008 To be replaced by new single span bridge as part of flood relief scheme in 2008 To be replaced by new bridge as part of flood relief scheme in 2008
6 6.1
PERFORMANCE TARGETS and LEVELS OF SERVICE Service Standards
The activities associated with the management of highway structures are generally carried out in accordance with the standards and advice contained within the Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges [ref. 7]. Materials and procedures associated with the management of highway structures are generally carried out in accordance with the Highways Agency Specification for Highway Works [ref. 8]. The contract documents and procedures for all tendered contracts associated with the management of highway structures are generally prepared in accordance with the Highways Agency Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works [ref. 9]. Departures from the advice contained in the above documents are recorded in Feasibility Reports, Approval in Principle documentation or Tender Appraisal Reports as appropriate.
6.2
The Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures
The first national Code of Practice for the management of highway structures [ref. 1] was published in September 2005. The Code sets out the basic legal obligation as follows: There is a statutory obligation on highway authorities to maintain the public highway (Highways Act, 1980). The obligation embraces the two essential functions of Safe for Use and Fit for Purpose. The two functions are not the same: 1. Safe for Use requires a highway structure to be managed in such a way that it does not pose an unacceptable risk to public safety. Fit for Purpose requires a highway structure to be managed in such a way that it remains available for use by traffic permitted for the route.
2.
The Code then sets out a number of recommendations for the implementation of good management practice to deliver the basic legal obligations in three milestones: One: Safe for Use Two: Fitness for Purpose Three: Good Management Practice
SCC is seeking to implement the recommendations of the Code of Practice. Current progress, where 1 is poor and 5 is high, has been reported [ref. 10]. An extract from this report is included below: The current position in Surrey at July 2007 is summarised in the table below: Milestone One Two Three Rating Range 2 to 5 2 to 5 1 to 5 Number of Ratings (2 or less) 5 6 7 Average Rating 3.55 3.37 2.94
It is alarming to note that the scores for all three milestones have decreased since January 2007. The number of ratings scoring 2 or less for Milestone One has increased from zero in October 2005 to five in July 2007.
SURREY HIGHWAYS STRUCTURES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING STRUCTURES GROUP _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The score for Milestone One had decreased from when the first report was written in October 2005 because of the restrictions on training budgets and use of consultants that were imposed during 2006. There has been a further reduction in score due to the current level of vacancies that exist in the Structures Group. An Action Plan for the implementation of the Code has been agreed with the Head of Service and will be included in the 2008/09 Group Business Plan.
6.3
Performance Measurement
At the present time there are no national BVPIs that relate to the management of the stock of highway structures. However, a new national document entitled Guidance Document for Performance Measurement of Highway Structures has recently been published [ref. 11]. The document was prepared by Atkins on behalf of the Highways Agency and the CSS Bridges Group. The document proposes the introduction of four performance measures as follows: Condition Performance Indicator Availability Performance Indicator Reliability Performance Indicator Structures backlog
It is not known whether or not the Department for Transport will adopt these indicators as national BVPIs. This is felt to be unlikely as the total number of BVPIs has been reduced. However, SCC will adopt these four measures as local performance indicators. Reasonable experience has been obtained with the use of the Condition Performance Indicator but more work is required to adopt the requirements of the other three indicators. The CSS Bridges Group also developed the following suggested performance indicators: 1. Bridges not meeting highway authoritys required carrying capacity as a percentage of total stock 2. Annual maintenance expenditure on bridges as a percentage of stock value 3. Annual maintenance expenditure on retaining walls as a percentage of stock value The performance indicators included in the current Structures Group Management Plan that relate specifically to Asset Management are given in Table 9.
6.4
Performance Targets
The Strategic Goals and Objectives were set out in Section 2. The public perception of highway structures was also discussed in Section 2. A sub-group of the Asset Management Plan Steering Group is currently considering Levels of Service in more detail. This work will allow the consideration of the different service options that the asset could deliver. These could include statutory (minimum), existing (what is currently provided), requested (from stakeholder expectations), and desired / optimum (engineered from lifecycle plans). The high level targets for the stock of highway structures are as follows: Reduce the backlog of maintenance work on highway structures Improve the overall condition of the stock of highway structures All bridges should be capable of carrying 40 tonne vehicles (unless specifically determined otherwise by Local Committee)
Issue No. 01
SURREY HIGHWAYS STRUCTURES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING STRUCTURES GROUP _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Specific quantifiable performance targets are as follows: Reduce the backlog of maintenance work from 4million to 2million by 2010 Improve the Condition Performance Indicator score from 88 to 92 by 2010 Strengthen all SCC owned sub-standard structures by 2012.
A high level target based on the Reliability Performance Indicator will be added in future versions of this document. 6.5 A Balanced Scorecard Approach
It is considered that the main activities of the Structures Group can be represented by four classifications. Each of these classifications can be further sub-divided into four sub-groups as follows: Operations Condition Availability Reliability Workbank Contract Programme (costs) Fees Works periods Programme (schemes) Staff Appraisal performance Staff meetings Technical engagement Training days Customers Feedback Results Committee engagement Area Group relationships Constructor engagement
The relative importance of each of these groups and sub-groups will be determined using a form of multi-criteria decision analysis. It will then be possible to determine an overall performance figure for the work of the Structures Group in any one year.
Issue No. 01
Table 9 - Asset Management Performance Indicators (2007/08) PI Ref. SG1 Performance Indicator Report on condition of the bridge stock using the CSS BCI performance measure Report on assessment capacity of the bridge stock using the Reliability performance measure Report on availability of the bridge stock using the Availability performance measure Report on the condition of the bridge stock using the Work Bank performance measure Subway enhancement and maintenance painting programme Facilities for the disabled improving footbridges and subways Undertake programme of bridge strengthening design and works. Undertake programme of inspections including data validation Undertake enhanced maintenance programme reducing reliance on reactive work Complete planned County Assessment Programme Develop programme of parapet upgrades and other enhancement works Target 2007-08 BSCI ave = 89 Accountable Manager HB Frequency of data capture Quarterly Support actions and key startegies Management Plan Review meeting
SG2
Initial score to be reported before setting target Initial score to be reported before setting target Initial score to be reported before setting target 3 completed schemes per year 1 scheme per year 95% of programmed schemes 95% of programmed inspections within 5% of allocation
CA
Quarterly
Management Plan Review meeting
SG3
ZC
Quarterly
SG4
HB
Quarterly
SG7 SG8 SG15a SG15b SG15c
HB and CA GC SAC HB and CA HB and CA
Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly
Management Plan Review meeting Management Plan Review meeting Management Plan Review Meeting Management Plan Review Meeting Management Plan Review Meeting
SG15d
March 2008
CA
Monthly
GMT
SG15e
Complete agreed programme
HB and CA
Quarterly
Management Plan Review Meeting
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___ Issue No.01 Document No. 2227/17
PERFORMANCE GAPS
We have prepared a separate report entitled Funding for Bridge Management An Asset Management Approach (2007 Update) [ref. 12] which reviews in detail the current revenue and capital allocations for bridge management in Surrey. The report records a level of underfunding compared with national and regional guidelines. The report also highlights the need to eliminate the backlog of sub-standard bridges by the end of the Ten Year Transport Plan. Further details are contained in Section 11. The performance gaps related to the performance targets are as follows: Backlog of maintenance work exceeds target Condition Performance Indicator score is below target Many SCC owned sub-standard structures still exist on the network
Further work is now required to analyse three possible scenarios as recommended by the Code [ref. 1] as follows: 1. Enhancement the work and funding needed to enhance performance to a specified target Steady State the level of work and funding needed to sustain the current level of performance. This information is required for asset valuation purposes (see Section 10) Deterioration the performance if funding is insufficient to maintain Steady State (if this is planned it should be referred to as Managed Deterioration)
2.
3.
This analysis will be done by combining the information contained within the Funding Report [ref. 12] and the Performance Targets contained in Section 6.4. It will also be necessary to develop the individual lifecycle plans discussed in Section 8. To summarise: the overall key problem areas are as follows: Sub standard strength assessment bridges Substandard parapets Road over rail mitigation measures Disability Discrimination Act improvements Shift from reactive to preventative maintenance Maintenance backlog
It is an objective to reduce this backlog at a rate that minimises whole life costs.
STRUCTURES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING
LIFECYCLE PLANS
The purpose of this section is, ultimately, to develop lifecycle plans for each individual bridge and highway structure within the asset inventory. Asset management practice requires a shift from a reactive approach to longer term planning. Therefore, it is important that the management of the asset considers the whole life of the asset and seeks to minimise the whole life cost of ownership. The initial stages of the preparation of these individual lifecycle plans will be based on asset subgroups. Preliminary lifecycle plans will also be developed for the four Thames Bridges because of their strategic importance and comparatively large deck area per structure. The long term aim of this section is to be able to identify the optimal investment profile required to deliver a specified level of service and the cost effectiveness of varied levels of service and thereby allow economically optimal solutions to be identified. The Code (Ref. 1) describes a Lifecycle Plan as follows: A Lifecycle Plan describes the long term strategy for managing a group of similar structures with a view to minimising whole life costs while providing the required levels of performance. Lifecycle Plans are used to identify maintenance cycles and intervention thresholds. The Code (Ref. 1) goes on to say: The same lifecycle plans should be used to identify needs for individual structures and elements. The cyclic / intervention rules established in the lifecycle plans are compared against the current conditions and performance of a structure / element and the specific characteristics of a structure are assessed to determine of the lifecycle plan activity is appropriate i.e. the lifecycle plans should be used as general guidance when identifying specific maintenance needs. A significant amount of work is now required to develop lifecycle plans. A typical example of generic lifecycle plans developed for the Enhancement, Steady-State and Deterioration conditions is shown in Figure 4. Each lifecycle plan will include a complete acquisition to disposal cycle (see Figure 5). At the present time the routine maintenance activities and maintenance standards for highway structures are given in Tables 10 and 11 respectively. We seek to keep bridges in a serviceable state by carrying out the inspection process and then applying the stated maintenance standards.
Issue No. 01
Figure 4 Examples of Life Cycle Plans (source: fig. 5.2 [ref.1])
Figure 5 Lifecycle phases of a highway structure (source: fig. 3.8 [ref.1]
Issue No. 01
Table.10 Routine Maintenance Activities Structures Asset Type Bridges/Structures Activity Bridge Structural maintenance includes: Parapet Replacement Pedestrian Headwall Wingwall and Retaining Wall Bridge Waterproofing Bridge Expansion Joints Bridge refurbishment may include the above but more often includes the more superficial non-structural maintenance i.e.: Re-pointing Brickwork Clearing vegetation Painting Repairing Service Standard Details of the service standard are fully tabulated in the Quality Management System
Comprises: Steady state maintenance Minor fixes and repairs
Table 11 Maintenance Activity Standards Activity Brick repairs - minor - major Concrete repairs minor - major Brick Arch crack repairs barrel repairs Steel painting New epoxy based paints are claimed to last 25 years - but have only been out for about 5 years Comment Expected Life 4 10 years 10 15 years 1 5 years 5 10 years 1 5 years 5 10 years 12 15 years
Waterproofing Joint replacement Strengthening The strengthened element will last 120 years however, the parent bridge may deteriorate faster The strengthened element will last 120 years however, the parent bridge may deteriorate faster
12 years 6 years 60 120 years
Redecking
120 years
Reconstruction, New Bridges
120 years
Issue No. 01
9 9.1
VALUE MANAGEMENT AND RISK ASSESSMENT Value Management
Value management is used to prioritise needs. The Code [ref. 1] recommends that: Value Management should be used because it provides a formalised approach for assessing the benefits of undertaking maintenance and the associated risks of not undertaking maintenance. The risks and benefits should cover hard issues e.g. condition and assessed capacity that can be assessed objectively and soft issues such as local importance and synergies with other work that may need to be assessed subjectively.
9.2
Risk Assessment
An important part of Value Management is Risk Management. It should be noted that risk analysis is the calculation of a risk, whereas risk assessment is a judgement on the acceptability of the risk. At the present time, the value management process is dependent on the draft risk assessment exercise carried out as part of the first draft TAMP. An extract from this exercise covering Structures Group activities has been included as Table 12. Risks were calculated based on image, process, financial and safety scores. Potential consequences of failure have been determined and mitigation actions detailed. Operational health and safety risks are excluded from this exercise. Highway structures have a higher level of associated risk compared with other highway assets largely because of the higher level of consequential effects. The results of the risk management exercise may lead us eventually to reconsider optimal service levels, option appraisal and budget optimisation. A series of workshops were held in autumn 2007 to review risks at service and corporate levels. The Structures part of the Surrey Highways risk register has been extracted and will be included in the 2008/09 Business Plan. The current risk management process is supported by the existing value management prioritisation tools for determining the following programmes: parapet upgrade work (Figure 6) railway incursion mitigation (Figure 7) strengthening (Figure 8)
The risk management of bridges that have failed strength assessments is covered by procedures set out in BD79 [ref. 5] (refer also to paragraph 4.3). The simplified flow chart adopted by Structures Group is shown in Figure 9. Each failed structure has a data sheet, known as an E1 form, together with a Monitoring Procedure, where appropriate. The Monitoring Procedure contains details of intervention measures to minimise risks. Each E1 form is reviewed on a biannual basis, or sooner if intermediate special inspections determine otherwise.
Issue No. 01
Table.12 Risk Identification and Assessment

No. Risk Impact Image Rating Financial Rating Safety Process Rating Sum Likelihood Rating Overall Rating Mitigation
Increase in costs of strengthening work reduces effectiveness of programme Increase in costs of maintenance work reduces effectiveness of programme
Number of sub-standard bridges continue to rise. Greater risk of restrictions and failures. Condition of bridge stock deteriorates. Reduction in performance indicator. Maintenance backlog increases. High risk of injury. Sudden unplanned traffic diversions.
11
33
PM and Area seek to engage partners and contractors in value engineering methods that increase the amount of work completed. PM and Area seek to engage partners in improved methods of working that increase the amount of work completed.
2 3 3 3 11 3 33
Failure of any structure requiring road closure
16
32
Constructors briefed to be able to respond to such incidents.
Failure of sub-standard structure requiring road closure
High risk of injury. Planned diversion to be implemented.
16
32
Inspect and monitor sub-standard structures in accordance with BD79.
Failure to complete annual assessment programme
Risk of sub-standard bridges going undetected. Reduction in performance indicator.
27
Performance management techniques. Use of consultants Task specific progress meetings.
Failure to complete annual inspection programme
Risk of defects going undetected. Reduction in performance indicator.
27
Performance management techniques. Task specific progress meetings. Bench marking with SEABIG. Use of consultants
There are currently 33 bridges on the network that have failed assessments and are only kept in unrestricted service as a result of the special inspection programme. This situation cannot continue indefinitely. Current levels of funding are likely to result in traffic restrictions having to be imposed to ensure public safety. The value management process will eventually cover: options for routine maintenance and how they are selected and evaluated potential planned maintenance schemes and how different treatment options are identified and evaluated
9.3
Value Engineering
All SCC promoted schemes (strengthening, reconstruction or new works) are subject to a Value Engineering process that considers load bearing capacity, ground conditions, physical constraints, traffic management issues, environmental issues, materials and methods of construction, health and safety issues, maintenance implications, whole life costs and any other relevant issues. The assessment, design and checking process is subject to the requirements of the Technical Approval procedures contained in BD2 [ref.6].
10.
ASSET VALUATION
Structures Group is a member of the CSS South East Area Bridge Improvement Group (SEABIG) which seeks to compare bridge management performance across the South East, thereby supporting continuous improvement. The CSS reported [Ref. 13] that the average cost of replacing a typical authority bridge was 215,000 (this approximates to a rate of 2,000 per sg.m.). More recent work by SEABIG showed that the increased costs of working in the South East were reflected by an average replacement cost figure of 4,800 per sq.m. The use of this simplistic asset value figure was used to show that the asset value of the bridge stock on the Surrey road network was approximately 409m [Ref.14]. From this it was possible to compare the annual budget figures with recommended levels of investment (see section 11). The UK Government has introduced new Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) procedures for all Government Departments from 2001/02. The fundamental objective is to provide a systematic link between allocation of resources (or budgets) and Departmental objectives, outputs and outcomes. The accounting procedures require the value of fixed assets to be shown on balance sheets. It is expected that RAB will be introduced to local authority transport assets from 2008/09. It can be seen that the effective valuation of the bridge stock will become even more important in future years. Further work is being carried out nationally to quantify techniques and to provide advice on deterioration modelling. It will then be necessary to gather and manipulate data to assist in the valuation of assets. Further work has now been carried out as part of the initial valuation of the total highway asset [Ref. 15]. The gross replacement cost has been estimated to be 500,612,000. Consumption has been estimated at 100,122,000. Therefore, the depreciated replacement cost has been estimated to be 400,490,000. The calculation of consumption was based on there being a linear relationship between the gross replacement value of the asset at a BCI value of 100 and a zero valuation at a BCI value
Issue No. 01
of 40. This enabled the consumption to be calculated given that the current average BCI value is 88. Further work has now been carried out by others in order to determine a methodology for the amount of work required to restore the average condition of the bridge stock to the optimum figure. This work will be considered in future issues of this document. This approach is likely to be more realistic than assigning a design life of 120 years to highway structures and assuming a linear deterioration over time given that most highway structures have an indefinite life. However, this does not apply to components and further work is required to consider the effect of component deterioration on the asset value.
Issue No. 01
Fig. 6 Parapet prioritisation process
Issue No. 01
Fig. 7 Railway incursion prioritisation process
Issue No. 01
Fig.8 Strengthening Prioritisation Process
Issue No. 01
Fig. 9 Simplified BD79 process

PM produces schedule of bridges to be assessed
Carryout Level 1 assessment
Substandard Bridge?
No
Update results in BMS
End
Yes
Complete Form E1 (review every 2 years)
Is the structure an immediate risk structure?
No
Yes
Is monitoring by inspection sufficient?

Yes
No
Apply interim measure
Determine monitoring procedure and include in inspection programme
Carry out higher level assessment work as appropriate.
Does the structure pass?
Yes
Update results in BMS
End
No
Update Form E1
Prioritise the structure for strengthening and include in strengthening programme
Issue No. 01
11 11.1
WORK PLAN AND FINANCIAL PLAN Background
Given that there is a percentage relationship between maintenance requirements and the replacement cost of the structural stock, the CSS Funding for Bridge Management report [Ref. 13] recommended maintenance allocations of 1% and 0.9% of the replacement cost of bridges and retaining walls respectively. It is recognised that this is a simplistic approach to optimising budgets but this is currently the best method available until asset management planning is fully developed within the authority. Applying the CSS Report recommendations to the Surrey owned bridge stock suggests that we ought to be spending the following amounts: Maintenance (0.5%) Replacement (0.4%) Inspections (0.1%) 2,503,600 2,002,448 500,672
Maintenance can be divided into routine, preventative and essential classifications. If we assume that 35% of total maintenance should be routine or preventative using Highway Agency figures then this amounts to an annual figure of 876,260 to be funded from the works revenue allocation. Inspections are funded from the non-works revenue allocation. All other aspects of maintenance can be considered to be a charge against the capital allocations. The revenue allocation for structures maintenance in the last three years has been: 2004/05 800,000, 2005/06 - 827,000, 2006/07 951,000. The allocation for 2007/08 is 943,000. Individual allocations within this total are given in Table 16. The amount of money spent on Rights of Way structures varies from year to year but is now budgeted to be 20% of the total remaining allocation after exceptional items have been deducted. Therefore, the amount available for non-ROW bridges, which should be used for comparison against the indicative figure given above, is 650,400. This sum is well below the suggested figure of 876,260. Part of the process of developing the Transportation Asset Management Plan has involved the trial use of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis under the guidance of Dr.Katie Begg from de Montfort University. The initial application of the technique recommended that the bridge maintenance revenue allocation should be increased by 20% (the maximum value permitted in the trial). In the event an increase of 15% was awarded in 2006/07 which was substantial given the overall financial situation. It is now important to continue to maximise the use of this additional money taking into account the recommendations contained in the Code [ref. 1]. At present virtually all of the revenue allocation is spent on reactive maintenance. General opinion is that a robust preventative maintenance programme will, in the long term, improve the condition of the stock at a lower whole life cost. As an example, steel bridges should be repainted every 15 to 20 years. There are approximately 100 steel bridges and, therefore, five should be repainted each year at an average cost of 250,000. A maintenance painting programme would extend the life of these bridges and, in many cases, avoid the need for weight restrictions. Similar programmes are required for the maintenance of expansion joints, drainage systems and other components. RoW structures have not featured in the analysis to date (162,600 allocation for 2007/08). There are 1231 of these structures with an assumed life of 50 years. Therefore, 25 per year should be replaced, which at an assumed cost of 10,000 each, totals to 250,000 per year. The significance of the problem is clear. This situation means that there is:
Issue No. 01
increased risk of injury accidents increased risks of claims for injury increased numbers of bridge closures increased numbers of claims under the Highways Act
The major maintenance of retaining walls and longer footbridges is largely unfunded at present. This activity would clearly qualify for capital expenditure but there are doubts about our ability to use the bridge strengthening programme allocation. There are 63 footbridges on the road network which, given a design life assumption of 50 years, means that we should be replacing 1.26 per year and at an average cost of 200,000 each this equates to 252,000 per year. This figure ignores the similar size of problem with retaining walls. The outcome of the problem is likely to be: spalling concrete poor appearance netting restricted use closure of overbridge restriction on main road
11.2
Routine Maintenance Plan
Routine maintenance is the regular ongoing day-to-day work that is necessary to keep assets operating. Steady State maintenance can be split into Preventative and Essential maintenance. The former covers work to repair defects, replace components and includes repointing, repainting, re-waterproofing, minor concrete repairs and cathodic protection etc. The latter heading covers rehabilitation work undertaken when part (or whole) of a structure is considered to be (or about to become) structurally inadequate; e.g. major concrete repairs, scour repairs, masonry repairs, replacing bearings, steelwork repairs etc. The maintenance allocations for 2007/08 are given in Table 13. Table 13 Revenue Works Allocations Topic Subway pump maintenance Railway bridge works agreements Rights of Way Structures Main Highway Structures Sub-Total Damage to County Property 2007/08 () 30,000 65,000 162,600 650,400 908,000 35,000
TOTAL 943,000 Source: Structures Group Business Plans / SCC Budget Book 2007/08 Maintenance works are ordered from the two Surrey Highways Partnership Constructors, Ringway and Carillion, by way of the integrated works ordering system CONFIRM. The Constructors carry out this work largely in accordance with Particular Specifications agreed at the time of the contract award. Costs are monitored through the SAP financial system and are reviewed at monthly review meetings. Further progress on the development of asset management procedures is possible within the partnerships. Projects over 500,000 are delivered by individual contracts procured on a Most Economically Advantageous Tender basis.
Issue No. 01
Routine maintenance activities are detailed in Table 10. Extensive research has been carried out over the last five years as part of study for an Engineering Doctorate and typical intervention periods for various maintenance activities have been determined as shown in Table 11 and these now form the maintenance standard, although this is subject to review.
11.3
Parapet and Bridge Approach Upgrading Plan
A programme to upgrade bridge parapets where they do not meet current standards, as part of the contribution to improve the safety of the highway network, is being developed. Following the Great Heck incident of February 2001, there is also a programme to upgrade the approaches to road over rail bridges in partnership with Network Rail see Table 14. This is a provisional programme that is waiting for final confirmation from Network Rail.
Table 14 - Bridge Approach Upgrading Programme 2007/2008 Bridge Number D6864/1579
Bridge Name Blundel Lane Railway Smarts Heath Railway Portsmouth Road Railway Tunnel Bridge
District Elmbridge Woking Waverley Tandridge
Project Cost () 15,000 15,000 50,000 40,000
2008/2009 C42/659 C141/1798
Forest Road Railway St.Johns Road
Guildford Woking
50,000 150,000
11.4 Strengthening Plan In 1998 the Government published a White Paper entitled Roads 2000: A New Deal for Roads. This White Paper required local authorities to: arrest deterioration in condition on local roads by 2004 remove the maintenance backlog by 2010
The Bridge Strengthening programme was first presented in the draft Local Transport Plan for 2000/2001 in order to achieve this objective. It was subsequently re-published in the full Local Transport Plans for 2001/2002 to 2005/2006. The structures that required strengthening were identified from the stock that had been assessed as part of the nationally funded bridge assessment programme. The prioritisation process was included in the first Local Transport Plan and enabled a five year programme to be produced. Unfortunately, difficulties with resources and increasing works costs meant that the original programme was not achieved. The second Local Transport Plan included a further five year programme of works from 2006/07 to 2009/10. If the currently predicted level of funding is realised then the bridge strengthening/refurbishment programme, as originally set out in the LTP, is likely to be delivered four years behind the original planned date. By then, approximately 330 out of 725 bridges (45%) will have had major capital investment.
Issue No. 01
In addition, there will still be approximately 400 bridges which have not had the benefit of capital investment, although it has to be acknowledged that most of the larger and more significant bridges would have been dealt with. The 2007/08 bridge strengthening programme is set out elsewhere [Ref. 16]. The longer term 5 year bridge strengthening programme is set out elsewhere [Ref. 17]. . 11.5 Subways and Footbridges Plan The Bridge Management Strategy of the LTP included a desire to improve the access to footways and subways where they did not meet current standards. This was part of the overall strategy to improve accessibility as well as to start to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. Details are given in Table 15.
Table 15 Subway and Footbridge Accessibility Programme 2007/2008 Location Stones Road Subway Debenhams Subway Lightwater Subway South District Epsom and Ewell Guildford Surrey Heath Project Cost () 300,000 250,000 300,000
11.6
Disposal Plan
Disposal is any activity that removes a decommissioned asset, including sale, demolition or relocation. Disposal of structures assets will generally occur as part of disposal of a larger asset grouping like roads and footways. However, other drivers may result in development of a disposal programme as shown in Table 16. Sustainable development objectives also need to be taken into account. Table 16 Structures Disposal Activities and Drivers Asset Description Subway General structures Footbridges Disposal Activity Infill of subway Closing of structures Removal of disused footbridges Drivers Lack of use Stopping up of roads Provision of alternative high quality at-grade facilities Disposal Programme Lightwater subways are under review No current actions programmed No current actions programmed
Issue No. 01
12
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
There are many definitions of sustainable development but perhaps the most common is: Sustainable development meets our present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. Brundtand Commission (1987) Doctoral research work sponsored by SCC at the University of Surrey enabled a method to be developed which would allow environmental pollution effects of bridge management activities to be quantified. Recent receipt of additional funding will allow this research to be disseminated in a practical form. This will then influence future maintenance decisions. In order to take the longer term view, we will: maximise reuse of existing materials when repair and reconstruction is carried out ensure that materials incorporated in works will be recyclable at the end of their useful life maximise the use of renewable resources whenever possible
One of the best ways to demonstrate economic stewardship of assets is to quantify the asset value in monetary terms and monitor how this is changing with time. This will indicate if costs are being passed to future generations and can provide compelling arguments for investing in the preservation of the asset base. It is likely that this approach will form the basis of a future national performance indicator. Prior to the development of such an indicator a more simplistic approach is to calculate the amount spent on maintenance as a percentage of the asset valuation as described above.
13
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
It is recognised that the development of a Lifecycle Plan within the overall Asset Management Plan is a continuous improvement process. Future versions of this Plan will cover, and be influenced by, the following topics in greater detail: interpretation of data from the CSS Bridge Condition Indicators development of a continuous assessment programme development of a bridge strengthening and upgrading programme through to the end of the 10 year Transport Plan introduction of national key performance indicators for bridges development of deterioration models for bridges development of Asset Valuation models introduction of an advanced Bridge Management System implementation of sustainable development indicators for bridges
A more detailed Improvement Plan that takes into account the new Highways Service Business Plan and the publication of the Code [ref.1] is now being developed.
Issue No. 01
REFERENCES 1. A Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures The Stationery Office, September 2005. CSS, Bridge Condition Indicators Volume 3, Guidance Notes on Evaluation of Bridge Condition Indicators, July 2002 Johnston, F., Developing Whole Life Strategies for Highway Networks Assessment for Roads: Development and Implementation, Aston University, November 2003 Palmer J. and Cogswell G Management of the Bridge Stock of a UK County Bridge Management, Elsevier Applied Science, 1990 Highways Agency, The Management of Sub-Standard Highway Structures, BD79, 2006 Highways Agency, Technical Approval of Highway Structures, BD2, 2005 Highways Agency, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Highways Agency, Specification for Highway Works Highways Agency, Manual of Contract Documents for Highways Works The Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures A Commentary on the Recommendations (July 2007 Update) Structures Group Report (2227/11), September 2007 Guidance Document for Performance Measurement of Highway Structures Atkins Report for Highways Agency and CSS Bridges Group, 2007 Funding for Bridge Management An Asset Management Approach (2006 Update) Structures Group Report (2227/15), January 2007 CSS, Funding for Bridge Management, February 2000 Best Value in Structures, SEABIG An Interim Report Structures Group Report (2227/**), February 2001 Asset Valuation Initial Report, April 2006 Executive Report with Programmes LTP2
2.
3.
4.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
11.
12.
13. 14.
15. 16. 17.
Issue No. 01
61
Appendix C Footway, Newcastle City Council October 2006
62
Appendix C: Footways & Cycleways Life Cycle Plan, Newcastle City Council
1.1
Goals and Objectives
There are a large number of goals and objectives set down for footways and cycleways in a number of policy documents, the specific goals and objectives that relate to footway maintenance within the Highway Maintenance Strategy are those which have the most relevance to this lifecycle plan, these can be broken down into three main areas, Policies, Practices, and Reporting, they comprise: Policies Implement proactive policies to identify defects and carry out resulting safety and routine maintenance repairs; Create a safer and more inviting environment for pedestrians and cyclists and provide specific features and facilities within schemes; Improve access for disabled people, for example by the inclusion of dropped kerbs at main crossing points; Adopt a clear streets policy for designated, well used routes; Create an attractive well maintained highway environment through the promotion of good maintenance policy, to contribute to urban renewal and to help attract new businesses to industrial and commercial areas; Develop a customer focussed highway maintenance service; Seek and explore alternative and additional funding for Highway Maintenance;
Practices Implement responsive practices to repair pavements when stakeholders raise concerns, including repairing potentially hazardous pavement trips and potholes within 24 hours; Implement maintenance designs which are appropriate to the style of the area and which help to promote tourism by the enhancement of the street scene; Use appropriate materials to complement the appearance of areas of specific amenity value including conservation areas, the City Centre, and public squares when works are carried out; Use maintenance treatments which reduce the long term reliance on quarrying new materials, disposing of existing materials to landfill sites and minimise the use of road transport of construction materials; Carry out routine inspections in accordance with the code of practice for maintenance management to identify highway defects, particularly trips in the footway greater than 25mm to meet the requirements of the Citys risk management strategy; Carry out additional inspections in response to requests from Members and the public, normally received through the Envirocall system; Review design and maintenance standards so that, where appropriate, flagged footways are replaced with bituminous materials; Options for the procurement of Highway Maintenance services will be assessed, with a view to forming partnerships;
63
Progress the collection of highway inventory data to improve the effectiveness of highway maintenance management and highway asset management; Prioritise the funding for the collection of highway inventory data, preferably as an additional investment from resources outside of existing highway budgets.
Reporting Consult widely on maintenance policies and programmes; Report progress of both implementation and performance indicators; Ensure that national and local performance targets are met or exceeded within the given timescales; Benchmark processes and procurement to ensure cost effectiveness and value for money; A ten year programme of planned highway maintenance schemes will be reported to the Executive annually to meet the targets for the financial year; The annual programme of works will be reported to area committee, with an update provided every 3 months; Stakeholders directly affected by works in their street will be notified in writing of the proposed work, a minimum of one month prior to operations commencing; A second letter will be sent to stakeholders confirming the start date for operations, and giving a minimum of 1 weeks notice; Publish operational standards and work programmes; Review Highway Maintenance strategy and performance and report annually;
The above objectives meet the Authorities Local Transport Plan objectives detailed below: Accessibility - improving access and enhancing opportunities to reach a full range of facilities and activities, especially for those without access to a car and people with particular mobility problems; Economy - supporting economic growth, promoting regeneration and improving prosperity; Environment - reducing transport related atmospheric pollution, and other adverse environmental impact of traffic to enhance the sustainability of transport; Integration - improving the links between public transport networks, closer integration of land-use and transportation planning and better liaison with neighbouring authorities; and Safety - improving road safety and reducing the fear of crime associated with transport.
In addition the Local Transport Plan identifies the following Transport Strategy Themes, which a well maintained footway infrastructure would help support: Access for All; Cycling; Public Transport; Structural Maintenance; Safety and Security; Travel and Demand Management; Economic Development;
64
1.2
Inventory
Information on the inventory of footway infrastructure has been entered onto the Symology database. This is a recently acquired database, which at present only holds details of: Street name (90%) Footway classification (Prestige Area, primary / secondary walking route etc.) (90%) Location (90%) BVPIs (7%) CVI data (50%) CES condition assessment (95%) Date of last inspection (95%) Length (40%) Width (20%) Surfacing material (90%) Kerb type / material (90%) Channel type / material (30%) Planned maintenance history (95% over the past year) Reactive maintenance history (95% over the last 3 years)
It is intended that the Symology database will eventually hold full details of: Street name Footway classification (Prestige Area, primary / secondary walking route etc.) Location BVPIs CES condition assessment Date of last inspection Length Width Surfacing material Kerb type / material Channel type / material Construction date Construction materials / thickness Planned maintenance history Reactive maintenance history
A video survey of 30% of the classified network and 20% of the unclassified network has been completed by DCL, with the roads selected being a representative sample of all of the roads within the network. Following validation of the survey results it is intended that the remaining percentage of the network should be surveyed by video and/or walked inspection within the next 12 months. In addition the highway inspectors and highway control assistants are undertaking an ongoing inventory collection for a number of footway asset elements as part of, and in addition to, their regular work duties.
65
Although at this point a significant amount of the required records are unavailable there is a high level of confidence in the records, which are held. It is estimated that the overall length of footway (including cycleway) managed by Newcastle City Council is 1900Km of which approximately 140Km comprises the class 1, 1a & 2 footways. 1.3 Condition
The condition of the asset is assessed by regular inspection and by using a number of assessment techniques. Newcastle City Council has a condition inspection regime, with information recorded in the Symology database. The highway inspectors give a condition rating for each carriageway during the course of their planned inspections using a, 1 to 5 criteria: 1 Excellent 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 Bad New or no defects, negligible wear Small number of minor defects, few safety repairs required A small number of minor defects, patching repairs required A greater number of minor defects, inspect for possible scheme Higher number of defects, inspect for possible maintenance scheme
Table 1.3.1 identifies the percentage ranges for particular defects (for both flexible and rigid surfaces) for footways and kerbs, which are used to help judge the condition rating.
Table 1.3.1 Condition Monitors Used to Establish Condition Rating. Rating Sub Set Condition Monitor (Defect) Percentage Range
Footways (1) (a) (2) (a) (b) (c) (3) (a) (b) (c) (d) (4) (a) (b) (5) (a) (b) Kerbing (1) (2) (3) (4)
All defects Good but mixture of materials Cracked rigid even surface Minor Flexible Cracked but even surface Minor Flexible Major Flexible/Rigid Cracked or uneven surface Major Flexible/Rigid Cracked Rigid uneven Major Flexible Uneven Cracked and Uneven
Under 5 5 50 5 - 50 50 100 50 100 5 25 5 - 30 25 50 30 - 50 50 - 100 50 - 100
(5)
(a) (a) (a) (b) (a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c) (d)
Good Kerb Height 25mm to 75mm or over 150mm Kerb Height under 25mm Kerbs Tilted/Sunken/Spalling Kerb Height under 25mm Kerb Disintegrating/Laminated Kerbs Tilted/Sunken/Spalling Kerb Height under 25mm Kerb Disintegrating/Laminated Kerbs Tilted/Sunken/Spalling Combination of 4(b) & 4(c)
25 50 5 25 5 25 25 75 5 25 25 50 75 - 100 25 100 50 - 100 50 - 75
66
In addition a number of inspections are undertaken to assess the Governments Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) which are reported annually in the Local Transport Plan (LTP) update. BV187a Condition of footways: This indicator is based on the collection and analysis of Detailed Visual Inspection (DVI) measurements, using the national Rules and Parameters for UKPMS. It is designed to provide the percentage length of the footway network with a Footway Condition Index greater than a defined threshold value (see below). This threshold is indicative of the need for an investigation to determine whether maintenance is needed to preserve the footway serviceability. These rules cover different footway types and the defects associated with the type of footway (e.g. bituminous, flags) on different footway categories (hierarchies). A 50% survey of category 1, 1a, and 2, footways are covered each year, with those receiving a Footway Condition Index greater than or equal to a threshold value of 20.0 being reported as a percentage length of the footways surveyed. The type and frequency of condition inspection or assessment undertaken for each footway hierarchy is detailed in table 15.3.2.
Table 15.3.2 Frequency of Condition Inspections/Assessments Footway Hierarchy Prestige Area Category 1 Primary Walking Route Category 1a Secondary Route Category 2 Link Footway Local Access Footway Walking Inspection/Assessment Type Detailed Visual Inspection (DVI) Highway Inspector condition assessment DVI Highway Inspector condition assessment DVI Highway Inspector condition assessment Highway Inspector condition assessment Highway Inspector condition assessment Frequency Biennially 6 Monthly Biennially 6 Monthly Biennially 6 Monthly 6 Monthly 6 Monthly
In addition to the condition assessments above a number of routine and safety inspections are carried out on the footways and the frequency of inspection against route type are detailed in tables 1.3.3 and 1.3.4 below. Table 1.3.3 Frequency of Routine Inspections Footway / Route Type Prestige Area Primary Walking Route Secondary Walking Route Link Footway Local Access Footway Frequency Monthly Six Monthly Six Monthly Six Monthly Six monthly
67
Table 1.3.4 Frequency of Safety Inspections Footway / Route Type Prestige Area Primary Walking Route Secondary Walking Route Link Footway Local Access Footway Frequency Monthly Monthly Monthly Three monthly Six monthly
Where reports of defects are received from Members or Stakeholders additional inspections will be generated, with safety inspections being undertaken within 24 hours, and routine non-safety inspections being undertaken within 5 working days, the customer will be contacted within 15 working days, and necessary repairs will be undertaken within 30 working days.
Current Condition Table 1.3.5 shows the last 3 years BVPI condition ratings for Newcastle City Council for footway hierarchies 1, 1a & 2. Table 1.3.5 BVPI Condition Ratings Footway Hierarchy 2003/4 Prestige Area (1) Primary Walking Route (1a) Secondary Walking Route (2) BVPI Rating 2004/05 2005/6
34.75
16.66
23.00
The BVPI figure for footway condition has been inconsistent in the past. This is partly due to the subjectivity of the survey methods and the approach to sampling 50% of the network per annum making it difficult to draw any realistic comparative performance figures year on year. However, it is considered that the generally the BVPI figure for footway condition is in the region of 20% +/- 3% and now meeting the targets set. As there are no national performance indicators for the remaining 93% of the footway network Newcastle have introduced a local performance indicator based on CVI surveys and incorporated it in the HAMP to identify investment need and monitor future performance. At present, 43% of the entire footway network has been surveyed. The data is processed using UKPMS to produce an overall condition index (CI) figure for either a residential street or a section not exceeding 250m in length.Backlog is identified by streets or sections considered to be in need of treatment if the CI exceeds 20 in line with the CI used for DVI surveys and the BV 187a. Life cycle replacement costs have been calculated using a linear deterioration rate.
68
Based on the Newcastle method of assessment the current backlog stands at 35.8% of the footway network in need of treatment. Figure 1.3.1 below details the condition backlog and investment requirement determined based on the Minimum, Existing and Optimum service options over the next 25 years, for all footway classes; this is an ongoing assessment and will be revised as part of the annual plan update. Figure 1.3.1 Condition Backlog Footways
CONDITION BACKLOG / INVESTMENT REQUIREMENT FOOTWAYS (ALL CLASSES)
120
MINIMUM (backlog) Budget 1.25m pa

100
EXISTING (backlog) Budget 1.5m pa OPTIMUM (backlog)
80
million 60
OPTIMUM (investment requirement)
40
20
0 2006 2010 2020 Year 2030 2034
1.4
Demands
The demands set on a footway or cycleway can be numerous. A number of particular demands identified by Newcastle City are set out below: Providing safe and inviting routes for all pedestrians and cyclists Sufficient capacity to cater for the number of pedestrians / cyclists using the route to ensure their expeditious movement Sufficient build quality to cope with the general wear & tear caused by the passage of pedestrians and cycles Providing access routes for the disadvantaged particularly people with disabilities To contribute to urban renewal and to help attract new businesses to industrial and commercial areas Provide access to and enhance opportunities for employment, education, shopping, recreation and leisure Enhancement of the environment Creating an amenity value
69
1.5
Performance Gaps
Performance Gaps are a measure of the failures of an asset to meet the demands of its construction, or the gap between the desired/target condition and the actual condition. Failures are measured against individual demands. For example where a footway requires constant maintenance, relaying of slabs or where a number of footways require maintenance but there is insufficient funding available to carry out the work etc. A number of performance gaps identified within Newcastle are detailed in table 1.5.1 below.
Table 1.5.1 Performance Gaps associated with the Footway Asset Item Maintenance of High Amenity Areas Problem Areas of high amenity which have been highlighted as requiring higher maintenance standards, are not budgeted for. Existing funding generally allows for the making safe of footways, rather than the replacement of like for like materials, which may cost significantly more. Some areas also have materials, which are more prone to failure. Particular types of paving materials are unsuitable for carrying anything but light loadings. Where these areas are subjected to vehicular loading they require constant repair and are a major drain on the reactive maintenance budget. E.g. Northumberland Street There is insufficient funding to meet the Councils commitment to provide improved access routes for the disabled, particularly near Public Buildings, Hospitals, Hostels, and Retirement Homes. Possible Response A better understanding of the lifecycle costs of a range of different materials, may lead to different decisions regarding their specification.
Specialist Materials
A better understanding of the lifecycle costs of a range of different materials, may lead to different decisions regarding their specification.
Improving access for the disabled.
Surfacing construction
&
Increasing size of the asset
There has been some failure of the footway surfacing or construction within the life span expected, it is believed that this is due to a number of factors including; poor workmanship, unacceptable materials & insufficient supervision. The continually increasing size of the asset through creation, acquisition (adoptions), and upgrading is rarely reflected in similar increases in the maintenance budget.
A study has been undertaken to cost the improvements required to provide disabled friendly routes to customer service centres and other public buildings. As the existing budget is incapable of meeting these needs outside sources of funding are being actively sought for these improvement works. An increase in supervision and material testing would help to alleviate much of this problem.
A better understanding of the size and worth of the existing asset and its true maintenance costs can be used to better inform the decision makers who set the annual budgets.
70
Table 1.5.1 Performance Gaps associated with the Footway Asset Item Knowledge delineation extent highway Problem In many instances the extent of the adopted highway is not recorded or delineated on site making it difficult to judge where private frontagers are impinging on the highway or where the authoritys responsibility ends. Expectations of the many stakeholders involved with the highway have increased to a level where the funding available is unable to meet the requirements. Possible Response Obtain a more accurate record of the highway boundaries in a system which is accessible to all, and where necessary delineate the highway boundary on site. It would seem that the funding needed to meet customer expectations is unlikely to be made available, which means that realistic levels of service need to be set and communicated to all.
/ of of
Inordinate and increasing expectation of service standards
1.6
Option Appraisal
1.6.1 Routine Maintenance Routine Maintenance is the regular ongoing day-today work that comprises servicing rather than repair and is necessary to keep assets operating, this also covers the reactive or adhoc repair or renewal of minor elements or components which have become unserviceable due to general wear and tear or have deteriorated for other reasons. Routine maintenance activities for footways are detailed in table 1.6.1.
Table 1.6.1 Routine Maintenance Activities Maintenance Activity Cyclic Maintenance Footway Gully Cleaning Footway Sweeping Litter Picking Tree & Hedge Trimming Annually Weekly Inspected Weekly, litter pick ordered as required. Inspected twice per year works instigated as required Environmental Services Environmental Services Environmental Services Environmental Services Maintenance Interval Responsibility
Reactive (Adhoc) Maintenance Pothole Repair Minor Patching Isolated slab relay Gully Repair Removal of Debris Cleaning of drainage channels, Aco drain etc. As required As required As required As required As required As required Street Management Team Street Management Team Street Management Team Street Management Team Environmental Services Street Management Team Environmental Services
71
1.6.2 Renewal/Replacement Renewal/replacement work is major (programmed) work that does not increase the assets designed capacity, but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. (Maintaining a Steady State) Table 1.6.2 details a number of Steady State activities their relative merits and their expected programme intervals.
Table 1.6.2 Steady State Maintenance Activities Treatment type Slab Relay Comments A large number of slabs or a large area of slabs to be taken up and re-laid in a discrete area, of a flagged footway, with replacement of damaged slabs only. Application of a thin screed surfacing to the existing bituminous footway. Addition of new surfacing materials on top of existing bituminous construction, where possible. Removal of existing bituminous footway construction and replacement with new. Removal of existing bituminous footway construction and replacement with new. Removal of existing footway construction, including sub grade, and replacement with new construction. Only undertaken where sub-base layers do not exist at present. Anticipated frequency 25 year
Slurry Seal Overlay
7 years 30 years
Resurfacing Resurfacing Red Reconstruction Bituminous and slab
25 years 15 years 40 years
Creation/Acquisition/Upgrading Creation/Acquisition/Upgrading is major work that creates a new asset that did not previously exist, or works that upgrade or improve an asset beyond its existing design capacity. Examples of Creation, Acquisition & Upgrading activities are detailed in table 1.6.3 with a programme of possible future works detailed in table 1.6.4.
72
Table 1.6.3 Creation, Acquisition & Upgrading Activity Creation Explanation Although it is unusual to have a new footway or cycleway asset created it does occur where a new route is required, or where an existing substandard footway needs replacing. Acquisition of footways and cycleways is normally associated with the taking up of maintenance responsibilities following new developments, this is normally managed by the development control team using Section.38 or 106 legal agreements. A number of upgrading activities, which may take place to improve the existing stock condition, are detailed below. Construction of additional footway or cycleway space adjacent to an existing footway in order to cope with an increased need. Introduction of roundabouts or traffic lights, with associated kerb and footway realignment. Changes & additional construction made to an existing footway to allow the passage of motor vehicles into a property. Introduction of pedestrian crossings, with associated kerb and footway realignment.
Acquisition
Upgrading Footway widening Junction layout improvement Vehicle Crossings Pedestrian crossings
Table 1.6.4 Creation/Acquisition/Upgrading Programme Scheme Name Newcastle Great Development park Reason for work Adoption of private development Anticipated date 2008/9
1.6.4 Disposal Disposal is any activity that removes a decommissioned asset, including sale, demolition or relocation. Although disposal of footways is unusual there have been a number of instances in recent years and table 1.6.5 details the disposal activities and the drivers behind their use. Table 1.6.5 Footway Disposal Activities Disposal Activity Chatton Wynd footpath closure Reason for Disposal Antisocial behaviour
73
1.7
Optimisation
1.7.1 Reactive (Adhoc) Maintenance An overall budget based on historic precedent is made available to the Street Management Team, over the years this budget has been a target for financial cuts and so has decreased below the sum needed to maintain the highway efficiently and to respond to the rising expectations of the residents. The overall footway budget is split up within a number of different budget headings, initially broken down into Principal, Classified & Unclassified roads. A number of sub-headings are then used within these groupings, although in some cases the money from one budget heading is used for works within another heading where funds are insufficient to carry out the necessary work. Table 1.7.1 details actual spend, which relates to the adhoc works on the footway asset. Table 1.7.1 Footway Reactive Maintenance Spend () 2001/02 1.31M inc 2002/03 1.54M inc 2003/04 73K 174K 927K 20004/05 79K 188K 1.42M 2005/06 76K 192K 1.0M
Principal Classified Unclassified
These sums are then allocated against work orders as and when required following inspections or reports from members of the public highlighting footway defects. The remaining budget available is updated as each new order / invoice is placed and is checked on a fortnightly basis to limit any overspend. 1.7.2 Planned Footway Maintenance schemes: Scheme Selection: The identification of planned revenue highway maintenance schemes is undertaken at neighbourhood level using the condition information gained from the surveys. This information is then passed to the Members in the form of a plan. Assessment of this information along with recommendations from the technical staff is used to prioritise the need for work at various locations. Each potential scheme receives a technical assessment before being included into the maintenance programme. Scheme Validation: A BVPI for footways has been introduced, however, these indicators cannot be used to prioritise the majority of schemes as only around 7% of the network is surveyed. The Citys existing highway inspection condition data has therefore been adopted, together with a risk assessment, which identifies those streets where compensation claims have been made against the council. Provisional Programme of Works: Following the selection and validation procedure listed above a provisional programme of works for the following year is developed to include estimated costs for the works. It is proposed to develop a detailed 2-year programme in future. Accessibility: During the course of footway resurfacing works, the opportunity will be taken to install dropped kerbs for improved pedestrian access at no extra cost. In addition, motor crossings will be installed where residents indicate they intend to park their motor vehicles within the confines of their property. There will be no charge to residents for this service if the additional costs of the works are minimal.
74
Consultation: Members are invited to endorse or amend, if necessary, the proposed schemes applicable to their own ward. Following this process, a timetable for the works is prepared. Residents are notified one month in advance of the works commencing, where possible, to advise them of the type of works to be undertaken and determine if they have any special access requirements.
Using the UKPMS reports gained from utilising the CVI data accumulated from a 43% sample of the Citys footways and footpaths, and using the assumption that the areas surveyed are a representative sample of the whole of the footway asset. NCC have produced a model for their footway maintenance need based on a 25 year life cycle assuming that all of the bituminous and in situ concrete footways in the City will be either resurfaced or reconstructed once during the 25 year period depending on condition. Flagged and block paved footways will be relayed on a 70mm or 100mm lean concrete base with 10% of damaged flags/blocks replaced. The assumption also includes for 50% relaying of existing kerbs and 10% replacement of damaged kerbs. Using this model it has been possible to estimate the funding need required to maintain the asset in its present condition over the next ten years. 1.7.3 Backlog Newcastle have introduced a local performance indicator for all footways based on CVI surveys and incorporated it in the HAMP to identify investment need and monitor future performance. At present, 43% of the entire footway network has been surveyed. The data is processed using UKPMS to produce an overall condition index (CI) figure for either a residential street or a section not exceeding 250m in length. .Backlog is identified by streets or sections considered to be in need of treatment if the CI exceeds 20 in line with the CI used for DVI surveys and the BV 187a. Life cycle replacement costs have been calculated using a linear deterioration rate. Based on the Newcastle method of assessment the current backlog stands at 35.8% of the footway network in need of treatment, which equates to a current backlog cost of 54.8 M. 1.7.4 Service Options A developed asset management approach is intended to facilitate better decision making by providing enhanced information to support the decision making process. In practical terms this means the identification and assessment of Service Options. The following are the service option categories selected for inclusion in the HAMP Statutory (Minimum): Meeting statutory or legislative requirements only Existing: Is the effect of a continuance of current funding levels Requested: The amount of additional funding required based on customer expectations and political aspirations Optimum Service: Assesses constraints as well as desires to identify an economically optimal Level of Service. This option is determined from the life cycle planning process. Attainable Service: Re-interprets the optimum option in the light of available resources. (E.g. budget constraints).
75
Table 1.7.2 Footway & Cycleway Service Options

Asset Group General description of each Service Option Statutory Minimum Minimum (Reactive) level of service meeting statutory or legislative requirements only. Minimum The effect of reducing funding levels to current RNF and LTP allocations Existing (2005/6 Budget) The current LoS typically as set out in the Citys MP or national. COPs Requested Additional Funding A LoS that attempts to meet customer expectations and political aspirations 9.0m of additional funds pa over a 5 year period followed by an additional 2.5m pa thereafter Required to meet the levels of maintenance deemed necessary to improve the current BVPI ratings and improve the condition of all footways to an acceptable standard and clear the backlog. Optimum LoS based upon engineering principles & technical judgement Estimated at 11.7m pa for 5 years, thereafter 5.2m pa Will enable a demonstrable improvement in condition of all the Citys footways over a 5 year period, and allow for the continued management o the footways at the new condition levels
Footways & Cycleways
Approx. 1.2m for one year only Rapid and unsustainable deterioration of footway network, causing an increase in both reactive maintenance costs and backlog and a steep decline in asset value
Approx 2.4 M pa The minimum budget would be sufficient to maintain the network in its present condition over the next ten years, but would steadily deteriorate after that resulting in a greater backlog than would be the case for current funding levels.
Approx. 3.7m pa Has been sufficient to decrease the rate of deterioration in the condition of the Citys footways. However the funding is not sufficient to improve the overall condition of the footways (Includes additional budget of 1.0m funded by Prudential Borrowing)
1.7.5 Levels of service Levels of Service identified by Newcastle City Council specific to the Footways asset can be found in table 1.11.1 along with their identified performance measures.
76
1.8
Risk Management Footways and Cycleways Risk is 'the threat that an event or action can adversely affect an organisations ability to achieve its objectives and to successfully execute its strategies (Audit Commission). A simpler definition might be the chance of something happening that will have an impact on objectives. A risk identification exercise has been undertaken and a risk register and matrix scoring system has been developed and is attached to this document as appendix B. The following are examples of the significant risks associated with this asset.
1.8.1 The most common risk with footways is that associated with the trip hazard caused by: Uneven or rocking slabs in a flagged footway Potholes in a bituminous footway Uneven or rocking kerbs
This could result in serious or minor injury, which could lead to a significant financial implication for: Compensation claims Repairs to footway
Consequential costs could be: Poor public image of the Council
This risk can be mitigated by regular safety inspections of all footways and cycleways, which lead to necessary repairs being carried out in a timely fashion, and the carrying out of routine maintenance to prevent deterioration of the footway.
1.8.2 Secondary risks include a number of partial failures: Inadequate drainage leading to flooding of the footway this could lead to pedestrians being put at risk by having to walk in the carriageway Backfall and inadequate drainage leading to flooding of private property
This would lead to financial implications for: Compensation claims Repairs to footway
Consequential costs could be: Poor public image of the Council
77
This risk can be mitigated by regular condition inspections of all footways, which lead to minor drainage repairs being carried out in a timely fashion to prevent or reverse further deterioration, and the carrying out of routine maintenance to prevent initial deterioration of the footway. 1.8.3 An overarching risk is that of: Inadequate maintenance funding leading to a drop in asset condition standards, which could eventually lead to closure of footways or cycleways due to their being unsafe or unfit for purpose. This would lead to financial implications for: Provision and maintenance of barriers or other method of closure Provision of an alternative route
Consequential costs could be: Poor public image of the Council Failure to meet policy objectives
1.9
Forward Works Programme
A 10-year forward works programme has been put in place for all routine and steady state maintenance operations these include: patching, slab relay, slurry sealing, overlay, slab replacement & reconstruction etc. There is a high level of confidence in this programme although the costs associated with the work are the best estimate available at this time and may vary considerably over the 10-year period. A detailed 2-year programme is being prepared for footways and cycleways funded by revenue and partly by LTP capital A forward works programme for creation, acquisition & upgrading is also being developed although this is based on a forward thinking wish list of ideas which may not come to fruition and so there is less confidence in this programme. These programmes are live documents and it is expected that they will be amended and updated on a continuing basis. The forward works programmes are attached as appendix D.
1.10 Physical Works At present works are commissioned through a number of routes although it is envisaged that this is continuously under review. Current Situation i) Generally works for revenue budgeted and minor capital projects are ordered through an internal agreement with the Newcastle City Council Highways & Traffic Signals section. In addition a Highway Construction Services framework partnership has been entered into with Colas (North) Ltd and Cumbrian Industrials Ltd, for a period of two years with an optional third year, for the undertaking of specialist work and any work that cannot be sufficiently resourced by H&TS.
78
ii)
Major capital maintenance works are generally procured through competitive tender following the Councils financial rules and regulations with tenderers being chosen from a select list of contractors using a formally identified process. E.g. the CME major maintenance or the repainting of the Tyne Bridge. Occasionally specialist works will be subject to a competitive tendering or quotation process, which may involve contactors from outside of the select list. On such occasions quality and financial checks are undertaken on all companies invited to quote.
iii)
1.11 Performance Management National and local performance indicators are used to measure performance. Biennial condition surveys are undertaken to report back in the Annual Progress Report for the LTP: BV187 Condition of footways. See section 3.0 for details. This covers only category 1, 1a, and 2 footways. Additional local performance indicators are detailed in table 1.11.1 below. Table 1.11.1 Local Performance Indicators relating to the Footway & Cycleway Asset LEVELS OF SERVICE PERFORMANCE MEASURE REVIEW FREQUENCY TARGETS CORE OBJECTIVES
Inspections Undertake BVPI condition inspections on class 1, 1a & 2 footways as per the recommendations Undertake service inspections on all prestige footways & cycleways monthly Undertake routine safety inspections on all prestige, primary walking route & secondary walking route footways and cycleways once every six months Undertake routine safety inspections on all link footways and cycleways once every three months Undertake routine safety inspections on all local access footways and cycleways once every six months Percentage of inspections undertaken as per the programme Percentage of inspections undertaken as per the programme Percentage of inspections undertaken as per the programme Six Monthly 100% Serviceability, Sustainability
Six Monthly
100%
Serviceability, Sustainability
Six Monthly
100%
Safety
Percentage of inspections undertaken as per the programme Percentage of inspections undertaken as per the programme
Six Monthly
100%
Safety
Six Monthly
100%
Safety
79
Table 1.11.1 Local Performance Indicators relating to the Footway & Cycleway Asset LEVELS OF SERVICE Condition Maintain the condition of all category 1, 1a & 2 footways such that the percentage meeting the BVPI investigatory level remains below 21% Maintain the condition of all category 3 and 4 footways such that the percentage with an overall CVI condition index rating below 20 remains below 37% Maintenance Emergency defects shall be attended to with immediate response (not longer than 2 hours) Category 2 (nonemergency) defects shall be rectified or made safe within 24 hours Repairs on Category 3 defects will be carried out within 10 days Repairs on Category 4 defects will be carried out within one month Percentage of category 1, 1a & 2 footways where maintenance should be considered Percentage of category 3, 4 & 5 footways where maintenance should be considered Annually less than 21% Serviceability, Sustainability PERFORMANCE MEASURE REVIEW FREQUENCY TARGETS CORE OBJECTIVES
Annually
less than 37%
Serviceability, Sustainability
Percentage of defects attended within the allotted timescale Percentage of Cat 2 defects attended within the allotted timescale Percentage of Cat 3 defects attended within the allotted timescale Percentage of Cat 4 defects attended within the allotted timescale
Quarterly
100%
Safety
Quarterly
100%
Safety
Quarterly
95%
Safety
Quarterly
95%
Safety
Refer to section 1.3.0 for details of inspections undertaken. 1.12 Improvement Actions Complete full inventory survey and maintain Collect and maintain condition data for all footways and cycleways Review levels of service and undertake a consultation process to determine attainable levels of service Review forward work programme following review of levels of service Review budget requirements and works programmes Further develop risk assessment system Review current business processes in light of asset management practice to see where improvements can be made to the service provided
80
Appendix D Traffic Signal & Management Systems, Staffordshire County Council October 2008
EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND ITS RELATED EQUIPMENT September 2008
September 2008 Update v2
CONTENTS
Section 1.0
Description Development of a Traffic Signal Asset Management Life Cycle Plan Traffic Signal Inventory Asset Valuation Equipment Condition Condition Rating - Data Evaluation Demands Performance Gaps Service Options Options Appraisal Risks Performance Measurement Improvement Actions
Page No. 3
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
4 7 9 12 16 17 18 19 20 20 21
Appendix 1 - Condition Rating Methodology
82
1.0
Development Of The Traffic Signal Asset Management Lifecycle Plan
This traffic signal Asset Management Lifecycle Plan (AMLP) has been developed to ensure that traffic signal installations are operated and maintained to an appropriate standard to enable the safe and efficient movement of people and goods on the County highway network. The AMLP is based upon the lifecycle assessment of each individual installation. Department for Transport specifications state that a design life of 15 years should be applied to traffic signal equipment. However, for assessment purposes the County Council has considered an operational life of between 15 to 20 years, as this is considered a more realistic design life for the majority of the apparatus which constitutes a complete installation. This criterion has been adopted by Authorities that are members of the Midlands Service Improvement Group (MSIG). To develop the AMLP an initial condition assessment of all existing on-street equipment was undertaken by the current traffic signal term maintenance contractor, as a requirement of the contract, in collaboration with County Engineers. The condition survey was completed in March 2006 and provided the base data from which a forward asset improvement plan has been developed. It is envisaged that a detailed condition survey of each installation will be required on a five yearly cycle to validate inventory records. The plan for the management of traffic signal assets includes the following objectives: To work in partnership with the County Councils Term Contractors to deliver a high level of service to the people using the highway network. To improve maintenance operations and make best use of new technology appropriate to the Staffordshire highway infrastructure. To effectively manage the replacement of traffic signal installations that are operating in excess of the County Councils life expectancy. Where necessary, to upgrade installations to comply with the disability standards established by the now expired Best Value Performance Indicator BVPI 165 (facilities for disabled road users).
A description of the condition assessment methodology applied to the Countys traffic signal installations is detailed in Appendix 1. 2.0 Traffic Signal Inventory
The asset to be maintained is the traffic signal control equipment installed on Staffordshire County highway network. Other subsidiary equipment which falls into the category of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) that is currently managed by the Directorates Lighting & ITS Section will be subject to further assessment to complete an AMLP for all ITS related equipment. The types of ITS equipment presently managed by the County Council are as follows: Urban Traffic Control System (UTC) Variable Message Signs (VMS) Car Park Management System (CPM) CCTV Traffic Monitoring System
83
Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) - speed warning signs Traffic Control Centre System equipment Traffic Signal Remote Monitoring System (RMS) Traffic Signal Fault Management System (FMS)
The AMLP for each of the above categories of equipment will be appended to this document once their individual assessments have been completed. However, costs associated with the gross replacement cost of these assets will be detailed within the main body of this document (See Section 3.0).
2.1
On-Street - Traffic Signal Inventory
All traffic signal junction installations have a communications link to the Traffic Control Room located at the Development Services Directorate, Stafford. With regard to traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings, installations are linked to the Traffic Control Room when an installation falls within a UTC managed region. It is intended to have all traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossing linked to the Traffic Control Centre; however, at the time this document was reviewed (September 2008) approximately 28% of signal controlled pedestrian crossings are linked to the Centre. Strategically located traffic signal installations operating in Stafford, Burton-Upon-Trent, Newcastle-Under-Lyme, Cannock and Rugeley are controlled via the County Councils UTC system, through the application of either Fixed Time Control or the real time traffic responsive system known as SCOOT. Traffic signal junctions which are not monitored by the UTC system are connected to the County Councils Remote Monitoring System. The traffic signal installations located on the County highway network as of September 2008, are detailed in Table 1.0.
Description Controlled Junctions Single Pelican Crossing Dual Pelican Crossing Single Puffin Crossing Dual Puffin Crossing Single Toucan Crossing Dual Toucan Crossing Fire Service Priority Equipment Bus Priority Equipment Total Table 1.0 County Traffic Signal Installations
Total 156 89 15 117 12 71 13 1 3 477
An inventory record is kept of each traffic signal installation which includes a detailed list of the individual items which constitute a complete installation. Inventory data is stored in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet on the County Councils IT system server(s). The existing
84
inventory spreadsheet is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain and is labour intensive when extracting data for reporting purposes. It is envisaged that the traffic signal inventory will migrate onto the Directorates Integrated Highway Management System (IHMS), which is planned for implementation during 2009. The IHMS will be pivotal to the production of the Directorates Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP). Hard copy files are kept for each installation, which are stored in the Lighting & ITS Section, Riverway, Stafford. The hard copy files contain the following information: Controller MCE / TR specification Schematic wiring diagrams Correspondence Inspection records Bulk lamp change records
A high proportion of files are incomplete in terms of as installed drawings and schematic cabling diagrams; however, records are updated upon the completion of refurbishment works. This form of paper copy documentation is vulnerable to being lost, misfiled or even destroyed in the event of catastrophic building damage. The introduction of the Directorates IHMS will see the progressive migration of all data records onto an IT based system that will negate the need to store the above information in hard copy form. Electronic filing structures have been developed to cater for this data transfer and hence until this process has been completed the two data storage systems will operate in parallel. The location of traffic signal installations are shown on a layer of the Directorates GIS system which contains the site reference number along with details of the type of installation in operation. The traffic signal inventory spreadsheet, hard copy filing system and GIS are all updated when a new installation is added to the asset inventory.
3.0
Asset Valuation Gross Replacement Cost (GRC)
The present GRC of on street traffic signal assets owned by the County Council based upon average replacement values, as detailed in Table 3.1, is 29.750 m. Based on the CSS Report (1) the recommended annual cost of maintenance should be 5% of the replacement cost which represents approximately 1.48m. The 2008/09 revenue allocation for traffic signal and traffic control maintenance, which includes the associated ITS equipment, presently resides at 948k. A deficit of 532k when compared with the above recommended percentage allocation for maintenance.
85
Traffic Signal Related Installation Type Large Controlled Junction Medium Controlled Junction Small Controlled Junction Single Pelican Crossing Dual Pelican Crossing Single Puffin Crossing Dual Puffin Crossing Single Toucan Crossing Dual Toucan Crossing Fire Service Priority Equipment Bus Priority Equipment
Replacement Costs (000) Max Min Ave 187.0 135.0 83.0 36.5 52.0 39.5 54.0 39.4 54.0 135.0 83.0 62.0 29.0 41.5 31.0 46.7 31.0 46.7 161.0 109.0 72.5 32.8 46.8 35.3 50.4 35.2 50.4 5.2 20.7
No. 33 108 15 89 15 117 12 71 13 1 3
Estimated Replacement Value (000) 5313.0 11772.0 1087.5 2919.2 702.0 4130.1 604.8 2499.2 655.2 5.2 62.1 29,750.3
GRC - Traffic Signal Assets - Total Table 3.1 GRC Traffic Signal Assets
The current Traffic Signal & Traffic Control maintenance expenditure can be broken down into the following defined sub groups indicating the actual percentage allocation of the total revenue budget: Traffic signal maintenance (46%) Traffic signal energy (23%) Traffic signal refurbishment (21%) ITS - area traffic control (10%)
86
3.1 GRC ITS Assets For completeness Table 3.2 contains details of the GRC of ITS assets that are presently operated in conjunction with the traffic signal assets. Upon completion the lifecycle assessment of the various ITS assets will be appended to this document, as they are considered integral components of the Traffic Management Systems group of assets.
ITS Equipment Installation Type
Replacement Cost (000) 103.7 155.6 8.3 15.5 36.3 12.4 36.3 10.4 8.3 15.5 5.2
No.
1 1 1 1 1 12 1 12 5 16 78
Estimated Replacement Value (000) 103.7 155.6 8.3 15.5 36.3 148.8 36.3 124.8 41.5 248.0 405.6 1324.4
Urban Traffic Control Main System UTC Communications Infrastructure Traffic Signal Remote Monitoring System. UTC Graphical Display Facility CCTV - Instation Equipment CCTV On-Street Camera Units Car Park Management System Instation Equipment Car Park Management System On-Street Equipment Car Park Management System Display Signs Variable Message Signs Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS)
GRC - ITS Assets - Total Table 3.2 GRC ITS Assets
4.0 4.1
Equipment Condition Equipment Inspections and Lamp Maintenance
The traffic signal term maintenance contractor is required to undertake a series of inspections throughout each year in accordance with contractual requirements. These inspections consist of a detailed Annual Inspection and a less rigorous Periodic Inspection. Inspection sheets are completed by the contractor to record the results of each inspection which are subsequently submitted to the County Council for checking and action. The inspection validates the operating condition of each installation and identifies items of equipment that may require remedial works to be undertaken. The completed inspection reports are submitted by the contractor in electronic format for storage within an electronic folder. From 1st April 2007 the inspection reports have been stored in an electronic folder which is used to identify each traffic signal installation as a highway asset.
87
The term maintenance contractor is also responsible for lamp maintenance. A Bulk Lamp Change (BLC) is carried out at each installation twice a year. The frequency of the BLCs has been proven to be the most effective solution to ensure maximum efficacy of lamp life and minimum risk of lamp failure. Upon completion of each BLC details are submitted to the County Council in electronic format and stored electronically in the relevant asset folder. 4.2 Periodic Electrical Testing The electrical safety of each installation is assessed once every year during the detailed Annual Inspection and in accordance with the requirements of BS7671 (I.E.E. Wiring Regulations). The results of the electrical tests are incorporated into each Annual Inspection report. 4.3 Installation Condition Assessment Trained and experienced personnel will undertake a comprehensive survey of the physical condition of each installation every 5 years. Appendix 1 of this report contains details of the method used to score the condition rating of each installation with Section 5.0 containing evaluation details of a five year assessment commencing April 2008. Further analysis of the condition rating values generated from the base line data will be undertaken annually to ascertain a prioritised programme of refurbishment works on a year by year basis. A consistent scoring system is used to rank the condition of installations. The system is based on scoring the following five principle features of a traffic signal installation: Controller unit Cabling and ducting infrastructure Signal heads Vehicle and pedestrian detection facilities Traffic signal poles
Each of the above features is scored out of 20 points thus giving a total maximum installation score of 100. The scoring model would award 20 points to equipment in new condition and 0 points to equipment that has reached the end of its serviceable life. This method was considered as the most appropriate solution to determine the service life of each installation due to the considerable lack of information regarding the initial service date of installations and to align with the finite life expectancy of installations with recorded initial service dates. At the start of each financial year the deterioration of equipment is modelled by initially deducting 1 point from the points allocated to each of the five features (i.e. five points in total) unless the score is already zero for that feature. However, installations do deteriorate at different rates and hence the points profile may be modified during their life. The scores are adjusted to reflect actual condition and are used to prioritise refurbishment work on the basis of need. Other planned works on the highway network are also taken into consideration during this process. The Authorities who are part of the Midlands Service Improvement Group (MSIG), Traffic Signals Task Group, have adopted the above condition assessment process.
88
4.4 Controller Configuration Assessment Changes relating to the use of the highway network (e.g. traffic growth, new developments) are constantly affecting traffic flows on the network and therefore over time controller configurations can become inefficient in terms of the direct management of current traffic conditions. Out of date controller settings can lead to unnecessary vehicle and pedestrian delays with the resultant road safety implications. The County Council currently has no proactive policy to periodically check the validity of controller configurations but does react to complaints and issues raised as a consequence of degraded performance. 4.5 Installation Maintenance The traffic signal term maintenance contractor carries out all maintenance work on the installations with County Council staff responsible for the management and supervision of contractor activities. Works orders for chargeable works are issued via the Corporate SAP system and fault reports are raised through a Fault Management System (FMS). The FMS is used to collate information regarding contractor performance in accordance with contractual requirements. The specification of the term maintenance contract places a duty upon the contractor to maintain the equipment in a safe and fully operational condition. The contractor is paid an annual fee, per installation type, to rectify all faults and to undertake the required inspection and BLC regimes. Faults which occur as a consequence of third party damage are charged separately. The value of the maintenance work undertaken increases annually due to the following pressures: New installations The increasing age of equipment The increasing complexity of installations Increased costs associated with unrecoverable third party damage Energy
4.6 Safety Public safety is provided for traffic signal installations through the application of the following processes: Design processes in accordance with local and national guidance and design regulations. Road safety audits in accordance with HA 42/94 and HD 19/94 Periodic inspections Electrical safety testing Investigations following increased accident statistics Investigation following complaints
89
5.0 Condition Rating Data Evaluation The collection of on-site condition data was completed early in 2006 and re-examined in January 2008 to verify its accuracy. The data was then used to establish the base data to quantify the numbers of installations which fall into each respective condition rating category, as defined in section 4.3. This data was then used to develop a five year profile of assessment, taking into consideration the current level of expenditure of 200k per annum committed to improvement and refurbishment works. Maintenance improvement works was applied to the six worst ranked pedestrian crossing installations and the single worst ranked junction for each year to be assessed. This strategy was considered the most efficient use of funds to balance the demands for each respective installation type when considering the most vulnerable users of the highway network. 5.1 Five Year Results During this evaluation and to ascertain the short term funding requirements, a period of assessment of five years was determined as sufficient. The data generated does not take into consideration new installations installed after the date the assessment was undertaken. However, due to the five year profile of the assessment this will not affect the results which determined the requirements for maintenance improvement works to be undertaken. Installations evaluated with a condition rating of Very Poor will be ranked in Urgent need of renewal. Installations evaluated with a condition rating of Poor will be ranked as High Priority for planned renewal. Installations that fall into these categories will therefore be programmed into the proposed maintenance improvement programme for the following financial year, subject to budget provisions. The following graphs detail the results of the condition survey and associated condition rating for each installation type for the initial five year programme, 2008/09 to 2010/11:
C o n d it io n Su r ve y Re s u lt s 2008/09
14 0
Quantity
Graph A 2008/09
12 0 10 0 80 60 40 20 0 V Po o r 0 0 0 Po o r 18 10 0 A ve 65 67 16 Go o d 57 119 16 V Go o d 23 73 7
Junct io n Sing le Ped D ual Ped
C o nd i t i o n R a t i ng
90
Graph B
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Junct ion Single Ped Dual Ped V Poor 1 0 0
Condition Survey Results 2009/10
2009/10
Poor 29 10 1
Ave 61 83 21 C o nd it io n R at ing
Good 54 138 13
V Good 18 38 4

140 120 100
Graph C
2010/11
80 60 40 20 0 Junction Single Ped Dual Ped V Poor 3 0 0 Poor 40 24 6 Ave 80 104 22 Condition Rating Good 33 117 8 V Good 7 24 3
Graph D
150 100
2011/12
50 0 Junction Single Ped Dual Ped
V Poor 9 0 0
Poor 50 38 10
Ave 73 117 21
Good 27 95 5
V Good 4 19 3
C o ndit io n R a t ing
91
Condition Survey Re sults 2012/13 Graph E 2012/13 150 100 50 0 V Poor Junction Single Ped Dual Ped 14 0 0 Poor 65 57 14 Ave 57 119 16 Good 23 73 7 V Good 4 20 2
C o ndit io n R a t ing
5.2 Financial Requirements
Examination of the output data generated for each year of assessment indicates that the current rate of revenue expenditure for maintenance improvements of 200k per annum will be inadequate to maintain the equipment at a steady state condition level within the timeframe of the assessment. This particularly applies to the refurbishment of traffic signal junctions which require an average expenditure in the region of 110k for refurbishment and upgrade works. The proposed strategy to upgrade the six worst pedestrian crossing installations and the single worst junction installation will fall into disrepute at the end of the five year period of assessment. Graph E of section 5.1 indicates that during this particular year, 2012/13, fourteen junctions will require urgent renewal, with a further 65 junctions and 71 pedestrian crossings ranked as condition Poor achieving a High Priority for planned asset renewal. With an average junction refurbishment cost of 110k this equates to an additional budget requirement in the region of 1.54 million just to combat the installations ranked as Urgent priority for asset renewal. This figure does not take into consideration staff resource requirements, which would be considerable in order to complete this volume of works over a single financial year.
6.0 Demands Traffic signal installations are expected to provide the safe and efficient control of conflicting traffic demands including facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people. The County Council operates a number of installations that do not comply with the requirements for disabled access, which was previously monitored by the Best Value Performance Indicator BVPI 165. The present situation would require an estimated 550k to achieve 100% compliancy with the standards established by BVPI 165. However, the County rating upon the demise of this indicator resided in the upper
92
quartile (99.3% - 2007/08) and therefore improvement works at installations that do not presently achieve the established standards established will only be completed as a consequence of programmed maintenance refurbishment works. The Traffic Management Act 2004 places a statutory duty on highway authorities to manage their networks with the objective of minimising congestion and unnecessary delays. Well maintained traffic signal installations whose operation is co-ordinated with other network management activities can assist the County Council to comply with this legislation. Safety of operation, for the road user, is the highest priority when considering the provision of resources. Any unsafe installations will either be repaired or replaced, subject to the availability of funds. The County Council does not have the option of leaving installations in a non-operational mode due to its obligation under the Highways Act 1980. New installations are provided through:

The County Councils capital programme for highway works Private developers to provide access to a new development site or to mitigate the impact of increased demands upon the highway network.
There is no direct link between the Councils policy on building new traffic signal installations and the revenue budget for traffic signal maintenance. However, Developers can be charged commuted sums for installations that are required to service a development. Commuted sums equate to actual maintenance costs over a fifteen year period. These monies are then offset against the Lighting & ITS budget as an income stream, and therefore assist with the management of the Directorates finances. Over the previous five year period (March 2003 to March 2008) there has been significant network growth in traffic signal control installation with 139 new sites installed over the period. This volume of growth represents an average annual growth rate of 6.6%. The level of growth achieved in previous years may reduce as a consequence of the current financial climate; however, the existing equipment will continue to degrade at its present rate and will require additional financial support to maintain the assets to a standard that does not compromise the safety of the highway network.
7.0 Performance Gaps

7.1 Performance Gaps - Condition
Assessment of cost effectiveness of operations associated with the term maintenance contract. Lack of regular controller configuration reviews. Gaps in record system. Vulnerability of paper records. Non-compliance with the previous BVPI 165 standard for disability access requirements, at a number of installations.
93
7.2 Performance Gaps - Demands
Network Management Systems to comply with the Traffic Management Act 2004. No direct link between the aspirations for new installations and associated maintenance and operating costs. Investment in new technology to improve network performance in terms of management and operational activities.
8.0 Service Options The following service options are available for consideration:
8.1 Do Nothing
The County Council adopts no comprehensive asset management plan (Base Line = 948k 2008/09 Revenue Budget Allocation)
8.2 Steady State Service Level
Financial and service levels are set with the objective that the asset condition is maintained at its current condition level. (Estimated Cost = 350k pa above Base Line)
8.3 Improved Service Level
Financial and service levels are set with the objective that the asset condition is improved from its current condition level to that recommended by the Department for Transport to achieve a traffic signal design life of 15 years. (Estimated Cost = 800k pa above Base Line)
8.4 Reduced Service Level
Financial and service levels are set with the objective that the asset condition will deteriorate from its current condition level. (Estimated Saving = 200k pa below Base Line)
94
9.0
Options Appraisal
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS / SAVINGS
OPTION
BENEFITS
DISBENEFITS
BASIS OF ESTIMATE
Do Nothing Continue funding at existing levels Save cost of developing a HAMP Does not enable decisions to be taken on service levels and funding of assets 0 (Base Line) Base Line (See Section 3.0) 2008/09 revenue allocation = Base Line = 948k
Steady State Increase spending to arrest deteriorating condition of the asset Overall condition of the assets does not deteriorate Improvements to operations can only be achieved through efficiency savings Does not take into consideration installations which do not presently adhere with BV165 Improved Service Accelerate refurbishment programme to adhere with DfT design life criteria of 15yrs. Enables improved operations and facilities to be provided to comply with Traffic Management Act. 100% adherence with BV165 standard Enhanced facilities require additional funding Costs = 800k Base Line (Above Base Line) Accelerated Refurb BVPI165 Costs can be Total Cost reduced upon completion of 100% compliancy with BV165 = 948k = 700k = 100k = 1.748m Costs = 350k Base Line = 948k (Above Base Line) Maintain Steady State = 350k Total Cost = 1.298m
Reduced Service No refurbishment programme. Moderate cost savings Unable to deal with the requirements of the Traffic Management Act. Increased unreliability of equipment. Inability to repair obsolete equipment. Increased level of risk to the travelling Public. Savings = 200k (Below Base Line) Base Line = 948k Deduct Refurb Costs = 200k Total Cost = 748k
95
10.0 Risks
Defined Risks
Physical Financial Risk Network Risk Electrocution. Accident damage. Corrosion. Installation component failure. Installation controller failure. Obsolete equipment. Cable fault. Electrical supply failure. Controller configuration fault. Collision involving vulnerable road users. Collision involving vehicles. Damage by other operators on the highway. Traffic signal operations are high profile and attract public and media attention immediately. Image of the County Council. Growing backlog of aging installation. A reduced quality of maintenance is more expensive in the long term. Building new installations that the County Council cannot afford to operate. Increased accident claims. Poorly maintained traffic signal installations can lead to increased congestion levels. Extremely high pollution levels could lead to network closure. Introduction of low energy equipment high capital costs need to translate into lower energy charges. Poorly maintained traffic signal installations can contribute to increased costs to the local economy. Traffic Management Act 2004 Reliable journey times Detrimental effect upon the reliability of public transport
Business Risk
Environmental Risk
96
11.0
Performance Measurement
Performance measurement statistics for traffic signal equipment are generated through national and local objectives. Nationally the local government best value performance indicator BVPI 165 was monitored for compliance until its withdrawal in March 2008. County traffic signal assets that were required to conform to this requirement achieved a rating of 99.3% compliancy for the final year of assessment 2007/08. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are also applied to monitor the performance of the traffic signal term maintenance contractor. Contractor performance has been aligned with the Directorates objective to provide a quality level of service. KPIs have therefore been developed to monitor the following operations:

Programmed Works Commissioning Fault Free Index Fault Information Repeat Visits Planned Maintenance Contract Administration Marginal / Unsatisfactory Response
A Contractor Performance Review report is produced annually, which details the results of the KPI assessment criteria along with other operational non KPI assessed requirements.
12.0
Recommended Improvement Actions Produce an annual report to the asset manager on asset deterioration, schemes to be included in the next five years refurbishment programme, maintenance backlog and term contractor performance. Controller configuration reviews to be undertaken on a five year cyclic programme. Include a review of road traffic accident sites as part of the prioritisation of maintenance schemes. Address the gaps in record systems and back up paper records in electronic format wherever possible. Develop Network Management Systems to comply with the requirements of the Traffic Management Act 2004. Revenue budgets set to take account of new installations added to the asset inventory. Secure increased investment to address the deteriorating condition of the asset and rectify the installations that do not comply with disability requirements.
97
APPENDIX 1 Condition Rating Methodology To develop the asset management plan that will be based upon the anticipated finite life expectancy of each installation a maintenance rating value will be derived for each installation for each year of assessment. The data derived from this process will place each installation into a specific condition category that can then used to identify a proposed maintenance improvement programme for the following year. Installations identified by this process will require further examination to validate the accuracy of the condition rating and to ascertain the estimated cost of refurbishment. If it is discovered that an installation has been given an inappropriate condition rating then data re-evaluation for the year of assessment will be necessary. Condition Survey Method The basic convention assigns values to the five main categories of equipment that exist at each traffic signal installation, as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Controller; Cabling; Detection; Street Furniture; Ducting.
As previously stated the method of assessment is based upon an expected installation life of between 15 and 20 years. Each category has a value of between 0 and 20, and when all values are added together they will give a Condition Rating for each respective installation. A brand new, fully ducted traffic signal installation, commissioned during the year of the survey will have a Maintenance Rating of 100. The Condition Rating value will enable the Authority to accurately quantify the age and condition of all sites, which will assist in the development of comparisons with other Authorities. This comparison therefore may be used for Best Value analysis. Scoring Technique: Generally installations will degrade by one point for each category per year subject to the criteria listed: 1) Controller: 20 19 to 1 2) Cabling: 20 19 to 1 = = installation cabled/fully recabled in current year; ageing cable; = = new controller in the current year; ageing microprocessor controller.
Other factors: known damage, joint problems & cable of mixed age.
98
3)
Detection: 20 19 to 5 5 to 1 = = = new installation, new AGDs fitted, total loop replacement; degraded system, partial upgrade but fully operational; not fully operational, but demand dependant stages ok.
Other factors: individual loop damage should not be categorised as a failing site and should always be repaired ASAP, unless the primary weakness is the associated feeder cables and ducting. 4) Street Furniture: 20 19 to 1 = = new installation, total post and head replacement in current year; degrading equipment.
Other factors: partial replacements for posts, heads, pushbuttons, brackets and aspects must not improve score of the whole site unless they form the majority of the site furniture (i.e. at least 75%). 5) Ducting: 20 19 to 10 10 to 5 5 to 1 0 = = = = = new fully ducted system in current year; degrading fully ducted system; recent proven existing cross carriageway duct(s) with new linking ducts added to make the whole system ducted; proven crossroad duct(s) with otherwise buried cables; unproven or un-located crossroad duct(s) with buried cables.
Other factors: Ducts with small diameter or low capacity & known or suspect ground conditions. Summary The Total Condition Rating for each installation shall be based upon the following ranking system and the outputs from the condition rating hierarchy, in terms of asset replacement, determine the action level for asset intervention. Points Score 0 to 20 21 to 40 41 to 60 61 to 80 81 to 100 Condition Rating Very Poor Poor Average Good Very Good Asset Intervention Urgent Priority for Asset Renewal High Priority for Planned Asset Renewal Standard Priority for Intervention (Following straight line depreciation of a finite life asset) Planned End of Service Life Replacement (Following straight line depreciation of finite life asset) Planned End of Service Life Replacement (Following straight line depreciation of finite life asset)
99

Highway Asset Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Highway Asset Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Highway Asset Management Quick Start Guidance Note Life Cycle Planning

Paul Boss Andrew Molyneux Mark Stephenson

Staffordshire County Council Leeds City Council Cornwall County Council

Figure 1 Overview of Asset Management Processes

The Life Cycle Process

Set Objectives & Policies

Collect Inventory & Condition Data

Assess Demands & Risks

Produce Investment Strategy

Collect Maintenance Costs

Assess Performance Gaps

Figure 3 Generic Asset Management Lifecycle Process

Objective and Policies

Inventory and Condition Data

Cost of Maintaining Each Group of Assets

Demands and Risks

Appendix A Carriageway, Leicestershire County Council December 2007

Appendix A Carriageway Lifecycle Plan Leicestershire County Council

B roads and heavily trafficked C roads.

Locally Important Roads

All other metalled Roads

BV100 surveys for traffic sensitive streets

CVI surveys MORI surveys BVPI surveys

Corporate image Environmental

Not surveyed Not surveyed 25% surveyed annually 90 Sites

30 40/m 2.25/m 80.00/m 20.00/m 10.00/m 5.00 10.00/m 12.00 20.00/m

A B C D 4 Very UnLikely 3 Not Very Likely 2 Quite Likely 1 Very Likely

Responsible GM(Network Management)

6. Reduced revenue funding

Appendix B Structures, Surrey County Council March 2008

SURREY HIGHWAYS STRUCTURES GROUP

TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Project Title: Document Title:

Bridge Management Transportation Asset Management Structures Asset Management Planning

S/TAA/8 14 March 2008 Hugh Brooman ................................................ Graham Cole

Amendment List Iss. / Rev.

Iss. / Rev Date July 2004 Page All pages

Remove Iss. / Rev. 00 Page All pages

Insert Iss. / Rev. 01

0201SF10 07/08/02 Filename: S:\GENERAL\AMG\Structures\\lifecycle.doc

Issue No.1 2227/17

Issue No.1 2227/17

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Issue No.01 Document No. 2227/17

Fig.1 Key Documentation

Fig. 2 The Management of Highway Structures

DCP and other urgent safety issues

Local Input (LTD Schemes)

Collation into a list of tasks

Performance Monitoring (KPIs)

Note: Damage to County Property (DCP)

Document No. 2227/17

STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Document No. 2227/17

Document No. 2227/17

Source: Bridge Management System (May 2007)

Table 2 Asset by Type and Road Hierarchy (all owners)

Source: Bridge Management System (May 2007)

Document No. 2227/17

Table 3 Asset by Type and Owner

Source: Bridge Management System (May 2007)

Reinforced Concrete 347

Masonry Arches 433

Source: Adapted from Ref.4

________________________________________ _ Issue No.01 Document No. 2227/17

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ Issue No.01 Document No. 2227/17