Home > Local Transport Plans > Provisional LTP July 2005 (version for comments) > Implementation

The 5-Year Maintenance Programme

Carriageway Maintenance

Introduction

Maintenance has much to contribute towards wider transport and community objectives, particularly on sustainability, accident and crime reduction, and local accessibility. It was also rated as a high priority in public consultation during 2004. We will need to take care that in making such contributions, the priority of the 2010 backlog targets is not displaced. We will strive to minimise disruption whilst essential works are carried out, to ensure effective use of our network. We will also ensure the fabric of the network is maintained to the highest practicable standard.

Our Highway Maintenance programme will focus on meeting the mandatory targets for the condition of Principal Roads, Non-Principal Classified Roads, Unclassified Roads and Footways. The detailed approach will be influenced by our emerging Transport Asset Management Plans (see section Transport Asset Management Plans).

We expect that the Birmingham Private Finance Initiative (PFI) will begin to improve highway and footway conditions during our LTP2 period. Birmingham City Council was awarded PFI credits worth £379 million in October 2003 and we anticipate investment of £20 million per year for three years from November 2006, the start of a 25-year programme.

This will substantially boost maintenance expenditure in Birmingham. However, until details of the PFI are resolved, we cannot be precise about the programme. The effect of the Birmingham PFI will be to reduce the total allocation to the Metropolitan Area. We are concerned that the allocation for the next five years will make it extremely challenging for non-PFI authorities to achieve national targets. (Birmingham’s allocation for capital maintenance in 2005/06, including structures and lighting, is £9.816 million.)

We recognise the value of timely maintenance. This avoids the need for more costly remedial action sooner than would otherwise be necessary. Individual Authorities work together to ensure that their programme achieves value for money and responds to policy priorities. Their work takes into account the Best Value recommendations which follow individual inspections.

Many of each Authority’s Best Value recommendations relate to local service issues and have limited transferability. The most common recommendations are to improve internal and external communications, sustainability, and to deliver social inclusion, particularly for disabled people. Recommendations for longer term improvements and with general application are to:

Best Value work will continue to seek to maximise:

Partnership Working

Our District Maintenance Engineers Group has been reorganised in order to create liaison sub-groups which can help realise these initiatives. The Group is making progress in a number of technical areas, notably procurement and condition measurement and comparison. The Group also contributes to Best Value benchmarking groups outside our Area, developing and applying operational and performance data, processes and policies. This allows us to identify our strengths and act on our weaknesses in individual service areas.

Each Authority is represented in each sub-group, so each can keep abreast of latest techniques, guidelines and legislation. Members of the sub-groups also attend national groups, where they can disseminate knowledge and expertise and influence national initiatives.

The District Maintenance Engineers Group identifies and promotes best practice through networking with other professional groups and organisations. It develops the skills of managers and service providers. It also shares knowledge, experience and data to promote Best Value through benchmarking and provides a link to the Chief Officers group on key network maintenance and management issues.

The Condition Survey Group deals with highway pavement maintenance condition surveys. A core objective is to develop and implement a survey strategy which provides accurate, timely and relevant information on the condition of the highway network. The Group acts as consortia for the procurement of joint contracts for condition surveys.

The Street Lighting Group provides a link to the Street Lighting Board. It shares knowledge, experience and data to promote Best Value and looks into the potential of joint procurement of services. It also provides a forum for exchange of expertise and contributes to national technical and management initiatives.

The Structures Group deals with the design, management and maintenance of highway structures including bridges, tunnels, subways, culverts, retaining walls, gantries and high masts. Its remit also covers technical approval of works associated with highway structures and specialist advice on the movement of abnormal loads.

The Winter Service Group deals with winter maintenance and shares knowledge in order to improve the services of individual Authorities. Its remit is to develop an efficient and consistent approach to operations, keeping up-to-date with technology, methodology, guidelines and legislation. It investigates and tries out latest developments in winter maintenance. It maintains consistency on gritting outes which cross boundaries. The Group has contracts with the Meteorological Office and with Findlay Irvine for its Icealert ice detection system.

The Technology Group deals with the procurement and specification of materials and processes and the promotion of sustainable materials, processes and good practices in procuring Highway Maintenance Services. It responds to national and European initiatives and legislation. It seeks to reduce pollution and waste from construction materials. The Group evaluates new materials and processes and exchanges information and expertise in new materials and practices.

Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI)

These indicators are processed through the UKPMS and have generally risen considerably throughout the West Midlands. These rises should be seen as a result of improvements in the data being processed, rather than as a result of increases in the amount of deterioration.

BVPI produced from UKPMS visual surveys of the Principal Road Network in 2001 were found to be considerably lower than those derived from other survey methods such as the deflectograph. This made comparisons difficult. Establishing a benchmark figure and future targets for the condition of the Principal Road Network has proved problematic.

Revised guidelines and methodology were issued in 2002. The Metropolitan Authorities issued joint tender documents for the collection of UKPMS visual condition data over the whole network. They again experienced difficulties in producing repeatable results because of the apparent subjectivity of the Coarse Visual Inspection (CVI) methodology. Similar problems were experienced elsewhere in the country and comments on the validity of CVI surveys were published in the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey (NRMCS) newsletter in March 2003:

“Data for the present series of BVPIs based mainly on visual inspections are not proving as reliable a base for NRMCS as had been hoped.”

The problem of data repeatability was highlighted at national level during a series of workshops sponsored by the DfT and TRL to promote the use of TRACS-type surveys on local roads. The project director of the UK Roads BoardÂ’s TRACS Type Survey (TTS) Scoping Study, John Ekins, said that:

“CVI is subjective… CVI is unreliable as a source of data for performance indicators… CVI results are not comparable between authorities or between survey teams.”’

In an effort to eliminate inconsistencies, the Metropolitan Authorities and survey contractor Scott Wilson Pavement Engineering worked in 2003/04 to set up a quality control check to ensure that data accurately represents the condition of the network. Results from some Authorities have increased more than others. This may, in part, be explained by the methodology problems outlined above. However, it also appears that treatments such as surface dressing, which improves visual appearance without improving structural performance, may also have affected results.

Some Authorities carried out pilot studies to derive condition indicators from Detailed Visual Inspection (DVI) surveys. Results were produced using a nationally accredited conversion software and gave consistently lower figures than the comparable CVI survey. This emerging problem is recognised in the latest BVPI96 supplementary guidance and feedback, published on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s (ODPM) web site:

‘The Department for Transport has considered these concerns but feels that there is deep unease about the lack of reliable consistent and comparable condition data from current survey methods for English local roads. This has also been reflected in the deliberations of the Roads Board, which is made up of representatives from central and local government and the devolved administrations.’

Following reports from the NRMCS sub-group, the Roads Board decided that the lack of reliable condition data should be tackled through a more objective methodology, based on machine surveys. Our Principal Road Network was surveyed in late 2003, recognising the wish to move to TTS. It is regrettable that, after the survey had been carried out, the DfT insisted that data be collected by accredited machines even though at the time of the survey no such accreditation was available. This constraint does not appear in guidance from the ODPM.

The information that we gathered will, however, help Authorities familiarise themselves with the data and help trend analysis and target setting in future. It will also influence the Condition Survey GroupÂ’s contributions to the TTS Implementation Advisory Group and TTS Project Management Group.

Maintenance, Assessment & Strengthening of Bridges

Introduction

Our Bridge Managers belong to a wider regional group where information from Government and other national bodies is disseminated and discussed. This brings uniformity in using information in the LTP2 and Performance Measures.

The Metropolitan Authorities have completed assessments of the load-carrying capacities of all their bridges. Some weak bridges are undergoing further investigation. A very small number of other bridges, mainly owned Network Rail, have yet to be assessed.

We have made good progress in strengthening and maintaining bridges on the Primary Route Network (PRN). It has been impossible to achieve the programmes for structures outside the PRN, due to limited funding in the LTP settlement. Many bridges in our Area have sub-standard load-bearing capacity. Many are on links that are key to achieving objectives and targets of the Plan (to industrial and commercial sites or on bus routes) where weight restrictions are the least acceptable option. We often have to use resources for reactive maintenance, when costlier refurbishment would be more effective and better value for money. Asset Management Plans need pro-active maintenance regimes to address this situation.

We have reviewed the programme for bridgeworks. It has been necessary to revise maintenance programmes in the light of past settlements, and forward programmes have been set to match a less-than-desirable level of funding.

Incursion onto the railway by road vehicles

Following the accident at Great Heck near Selby in 2001, the DfT published ‘Managing the accidental obstruction of the railway by road vehicles’. In accordance, all Authorities completed risk assessments of sites where accidental obstruction might occur. This has enabled Authorities to prioritise sites and appropriate work. We have plans to undertake further work as resources permit.

Performance Measures for Highway Structures and Asset Management

Highway structures form an integral part of the transport network. Asset Management is fundamental to their long term management and preservation. The need for tools and procedures to support effective Asset Management is widely recognised.

The Metropolitan Authorities have adopted the Guidance Documents for Bridge Inspection Reporting and Evaluation of the Bridge Condition Indicator (BCI), produced by the County Surveyors’ Society, as a Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) for highway structures. However, a Condition Indicator alone is insufficient to measure the performance, or fitness for purpose, of a stock of highway structures, or of a highway authority in managing the structures stock.

The drivers and requirements for Asset Management are well documented. There should be measurement of the performance of both management and the stock itself. The main objectives of developing Performance Measures for highway structures are to:

We have proposed Performance Indicators for Condition, Availability and Reliability. These will be implemented in two stages: