Joint Transport Asset Management Plan 11 jtamp.pdfAgenda item 11 Joint Transport Executive Committee...

Agenda item 11 Joint Transport Executive Committee 7 December 2011 Joint Transport Asset Management Plan

Purpose of Report 1. To endorse the latest version of the Joint Transport Asset Management Plan

(JTAMP). Background 2. On 16 July 2009 the Joint Transport Executive Committee (JTEC) endorsed the Joint

Transport Asset Management Plan. Since then, the Plan, as a living document, has been revised and updated in a number of key areas, and JTEC noted a progress update in December 2010. It is timely to consider how these updates have improved the management of the highway network and opportunities for further efficiencies, through endorsing the latest version of the Plan.

Managing the Asset 3. A well maintained transport network is essential for a successful economy and

society. The transport assets making up the highway network are almost certainly the most valuable asset managed by any local authority. The West of England’s network includes nearly 4,700 km of carriageway, 6,000 km of footway, 4,700 bridges and structures, and 110,000 streetlights and illuminated signs. In the West of England area, the Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) of the transport assets has been estimated to be in excess of £8.5 billion.

4. This value is reflected in the wide range of elements making up the transport

network. These include:

• Carriageways and footways; • Segregated Cycleways • Structures, including bridges, retaining walls and culverts; • Signage; • Lighting; • Road Safety and Traffic signal equipment; • Public Transport infrastructure, including Bus shelters, and `Real Time’ information; • Highway Drainage; • Street furniture; and • Highway Verges

5. The maintenance of the network is accordingly a high priority for the authorities, and

accounts for over 40% of their transport investment each year. Over £80 million was invested over the 5 year programme of the Joint Local Transport Plan (up to March 2011) on maintenance of the network, funded through a combination of an annual settlement from the Department for Transport and significant additional funding sourced from the authorities’ own budgets.

1

6. It is increasingly imperative that this funding is invested in a way that maximises value for money. The JTAMP was jointly produced by the four authorities to provide the framework to deliver this objective, through a range of initiatives including the following:

• providing the basis for more efficient targeting of maintenance funding,

supporting good financial management; • enabling decision-making to be better informed with a clear understanding of the

link between the performance of individual assets and the delivery of the service;

• reducing ‘whole life costs’ and promoting the long term preservation of our assets;

• facilitating cross-boundary working and sharing of information and best practice; • facilitating joint working between capital investment and maintenance

programmes; and • development of service delivery that supports corporate objectives and reflects

stakeholder and user needs and expectations. 7. Since 2009, the JTAMP has been updated in a number of key areas. These include:

• Finalising the asset base and characteristics: developing and updating inventory of the assets, with an emphasis on public transport infrastructure, recognising that implementation of the Greater Bristol Bus Network and other major schemes will result in additional assets that need to be maintained, and compliant with national, data maintenance standards;

• `Gap Analysis’: clarifying gaps in current performance (i.e. where the condition

of an asset is below that required to preserve its value and integrity, or the level of service to the user is below the desired level), and more effectively targeting remedial works accordingly;

• better `lifecycle planning’: ensuring we will manage the assets throughout their

life with the aim of achieving the required level of service while minimising whole life costs, by (for example) selection of reactive, planned or renewal maintenance options as appropriate;

• work programmes and finance: further consideration of how available funding

should be targeted to best manage and operate the assets at the required level of service;

8. The 2011 updated JTAMP is attached as Appendix 1. Examples of the successful

application of the JTAMP framework and principles to deliver value for money include:

• Joint procurement of traffic signal maintenance; • the maintenance of 13 kilometres of the A4 following transfer from the Highways

Agency to B&NES in April 2008; • the future-proofing of the Avon Ring Road major maintenance scheme to take

account of the subsequent widening delivered by GBBN;

2

• re-surfacing undertaken on the A432 through Fishponds as part of the GBBN showcase corridor in November 2011; and

• proactive maintenance work on the A370 Long Ashton bypass.

9. The authorities also received £534,500 DfT Element 1 funding for asset management

data collection. This has enabled each authority to improve asset records, and will contribute to the Council Asset Management plan and requirements under Whole of Government Accounts and in accordance with national data standards.

10. Next steps in the further development of the JTAMP will include the development of

`Depreciation Models’, to identify appropriate asset intervention ensuring efficient remedial actions as part of the efficient maintenance of the network.

11. The JTAMP provides a strategic framework for asset management planning. Each

authority will apply the principles in an authority specific annexe to provide detailed information the implementation of asset management in each authority area.

Environmental Impact Assessment 12. The JTAMP will, through optimising the maintenance of the network and the use of

replacement materials, will reduce the use of resources, encourage the recycling of materials and minimise associated emissions. In addition, an emphasis on selecting the most appropriate intervention at key stages in the asset lifecycle will ensure efficient use of limited resources.

Risk 13. The JTAMP includes full allowance of the identification and management of risks to

service delivery. Resources (financial and personnel) 14. Through its key objective of maximising value for money, the JTAMP will reduce the

resource implications of maintaining the transport network and will target resources more effectively to minimise the burden on the authorities.

Equalities Implications 15. There are no specific implications arising from the recommendation in this report. Recommendation 16. That Members endorse the 2011 JTAMP and note progress made since July 2009

and December 2010 Author Bill Davies, West of England, tel: 0117 922 4928 email: [email protected]

3

Appendix 1 Joint Transport Asset Management Plan 2011 Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 Background Papers: None

4

Item 11 Appendix 1 Joint Transport Asset Management Plan 2011

5

DRAFT JTAMP (5) 18/11/2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1 1.1. Setting the Scene ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2. The Challenges Ahead ............................................................................................... 2 1.3. Joint Vision, Aims and Objectives............................................................................ 2 1.4. LTP Progress .............................................................................................................. 3 1.5. Traffic Management Act 2004.................................................................................... 3 1.6. Asset Management..................................................................................................... 3 1.7. JTAMP.......................................................................................................................... 7 1.8. CIPFA Code of Practice on Transport Infra Structure Assets ............................... 8 1.9. Roles and Responsibilities........................................................................................ 8 1.10. Contents of the JTAMP ............................................................................................ 10 2. TRANSPORT ASSET MANAGEMENT .................................................11 2.1. Transport Asset Management Framework............................................................. 11 2.2. Codes and Standards............................................................................................... 11 2.3. Asset Management Planning................................................................................... 12 2.4. Asset Management Systems................................................................................... 14 2.5. Asset Information Management.............................................................................. 15 2.6. Work Planning and Service Delivery ...................................................................... 16 2.7. Operational Plans ..................................................................................................... 17 2.8. Performance Monitoring, Review and Feedback .................................................. 17 3. AIMS, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES........................................................18 3.1. Policy Documents .................................................................................................... 18 3.2. Corporate Plans........................................................................................................ 21 4. ASSET BASE AND CHARACTERISTICS.............................................22 4.1. Overview.................................................................................................................... 22 4.2. Network Hierarchy.................................................................................................... 24 4.3. Asset Classification ................................................................................................. 27 4.4. Carriageway Assets ................................................................................................. 31 4.5. Footway and Cycleway Assets ............................................................................... 33 4.6. Highway Structures Assets ..................................................................................... 34 4.7. Public Lighting Assets............................................................................................. 36 4.8. Highway Drainage Assets........................................................................................ 37 4.9. Highway Verge, Trees and Landscape Areas........................................................ 41 4.10. Non Illuminated Sign Assets Characteristics........................................................ 43 4.11. Public Transport Assets Characteristics ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.12. Segregated Cycleway and Cycle Tracks................................................................ 44 4.13. Traffic and Road Safety Management Assets ....................................................... 46 4.14. Road Markings and Road Studs ............................................................................. 50 4.15. Continuous Development of the Joint Transport Asset Management Plan....... 51 4.16. Inventory and condition gap analysis .................................................................... 54 5. LEVELS OF SERVICE ...........................................................................56 5.1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 56 5.2. Developing Levels of Service.................................................................................. 56 5.3. JTAMP Levels of Service ......................................................................................... 41 5.4. Performance Measures ............................................................................................ 42 6. ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING .....................................................48 6.1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 48 6.2. Option Identification................................................................................................. 49 6.3. Lifecycle Planning .................................................................................................... 49 6.4. Funding Types .......................................................................................................... 51 6.5. Decision Making ....................................................................................................... 53 6.6. Development of Detailed Programmes .................................................................. 53 6.7. Forward Works Programme .................................................................................... 53 6.8. Risk Management ..................................................................................................... 54

DRAFT JTAMP (5) 18/11/2011

6.9. Identify and Structure the potential Risks ............................................................. 54 6.10. Initial Risk Rating ..................................................................................................... 55 6.11. What is needed? ....................................................................................................... 56 6.12. Asset Valuation......................................................................................................... 57 7. LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT PLANS....................................................59 7.1. Carriageway Lifecycle Management Plan .............................................................. 59 7.2. Condition Assessments........................................................................................... 59 7.3. Lifecycle Options...................................................................................................... 61 7.4. Funding...................................................................................................................... 62 7.5. Decision Making ....................................................................................................... 63 7.6. Forward Works Programme .................................................................................... 63 7.7. Levels of Service ...................................................................................................... 63 7.8. Condition Backlog.................................................................................................... 64 7.9. Performance Gap (Implementation Actions) ......................................................... 64 7.10. Footways, Footpaths and Cycleways Lifecycle Management Plan .................... 68 7.11. Condition Assessments........................................................................................... 68 7.12. Lifecycle Options...................................................................................................... 69 7.13. Funding...................................................................................................................... 71 7.14. Decision Making ....................................................................................................... 71 7.15. Forward Works Programme .................................................................................... 72 7.16. Levels of Service ...................................................................................................... 72 7.17. Condition Backlog.................................................................................................... 72 7.18. Performance Gap (Implementation Actions) ......................................................... 72 7.19. Highway Structures Lifecycle Management Plan.................................................. 76 7.20. Condition Assessments........................................................................................... 76 7.21. Technical Surveys .................................................................................................... 77 7.22. Lifecycle Options...................................................................................................... 77 7.23. Decision Making ....................................................................................................... 79 7.24. Forward Works Programme .................................................................................... 79 7.25. Service Levels........................................................................................................... 80 7.26. Condition Backlog.................................................................................................... 80 7.27. Performance Gap (Implementation Actions) ......................................................... 80 7.28. Public Lighting Lifecycle Management Plan ......................................................... 83 7.29. Condition Assessments........................................................................................... 83 7.30. Lifecycle Options...................................................................................................... 84 7.31. Service Levels........................................................................................................... 85 7.32. Funding...................................................................................................................... 85 7.33. Decision Making ....................................................................................................... 85 7.34. Forward Works Programme .................................................................................... 86 7.35. Levels of Service ...................................................................................................... 86 7.36. Highway Drainage Lifecycle Plan ........................................................................... 90 7.37. Condition Assessments........................................................................................... 97 7.38. Lifecycle Options...................................................................................................... 98 7.39. Funding...................................................................................................................... 99 7.40. Decision Making ..................................................................................................... 100 7.41. Lifecycle Treatment Options ................................................................................. 100 7.42. Forward Works Programme .................................................................................. 101 7.43. Levels of Service .................................................................................................... 101 7.44. Condition Backlog.................................................................................................. 101 7.45. Performance Gap (Implementation Actions) ....................................................... 101 7.46. Highway Verges, Trees and Landscaped Areas Life Cycle Plan....................... 104 7.47. Condition Assessments......................................................................................... 104 7.48. Lifecycle Options.................................................................................................... 104 7.49. Funding.................................................................................................................... 106 7.50. Decision Making ..................................................................................................... 106 7.51. Forward Works Programme .................................................................................. 107 7.52. Levels of Service .................................................................................................... 107 7.53. Non Illuminated Signs Life Cycle Plan ................................................................. 111 7.54. Condition Assessments......................................................................................... 111

DRAFT JTAMP (5) 18/11/2011

7.55. Lifecycle Options.................................................................................................... 112 7.56. Funding.................................................................................................................... 113 7.57. Decision Making ..................................................................................................... 114 7.58. Forward Works Programme .................................................................................. 114 7.59. Levels of Service .................................................................................................... 114 7.60. Public Transport Life Cycle Plan ............................................................................ 90 7.61. Condition Assessments........................................................................................... 90 7.62. Lifecycle Options...................................................................................................... 91 7.63. Funding...................................................................................................................... 93 7.64. Decision Making ....................................................................................................... 93 7.65. Forward Works Programme .................................................................................... 93 7.66. Levels of Service ...................................................................................................... 94 7.67. Segregated Cycleway and Cycle Tracks Life Cycle Plan ................................... 118 7.68. Condition Assessments......................................................................................... 118 7.69. Lifecycle Options.................................................................................................... 119 7.70. Funding.................................................................................................................... 120 7.71. Decision Making ..................................................................................................... 121 7.72. Forward Works Programme .................................................................................. 121 7.73. Levels of Service .................................................................................................... 121 7.74. Transport and Road Safety Management Systems Life Cycle Plan.................. 132 7.75. Condition Assessments......................................................................................... 132 7.76. Lifecycle Options.................................................................................................... 132 7.77. Funding.................................................................................................................... 133 7.78. Decision Making ..................................................................................................... 133 7.79. Forward Works Programme .................................................................................. 134 7.80. Levels of Service .................................................................................................... 134 7.81. Road Marking and Road Studs Life Cycle Plan................................................... 138 7.82. Condition Assessments......................................................................................... 138 7.83. Lifecycle Options.................................................................................................... 139 7.84. Funding.................................................................................................................... 141 7.85. Decision Making ..................................................................................................... 141 7.86. Lifecycle Treatment Options ................................................................................. 141 7.87. Forward Works Programme .................................................................................. 142 7.88. Levels of Service .................................................................................................... 142 8. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN...................................................................154 8.1. Forward Plan ........................................................................................................... 154 8.2. Information Management Gap Analysis............................................................... 155 8.3. JTAMP Delivery Management ............................................................................... 155 APPENDIX 1 INVENTORY AND CONDITION GAP ANALYSIS .............156 APPENDIX 2 ABBREVIATIONS ..............................................................165

DRAFT JTAMP (5) 18/11/2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – DECEMBER 2011

The transport assets are almost certainly the most valuable asset managed by any local authority, and the assets used most extensively by the whole community. In the West of England the gross replacement cost (GRC) of the assets has been estimated to be in excess of £8.5 billion.

Preliminary GRC Asset Valuation (£m) (2008)

Bath & North East Somerset

Bristol North

Somerset South

Gloucestershire West of England

£1,310 million £3,236 million £1,105 million £2,923 million £8,574 million

A good transport network is essential for a successful economy and society. It provides access to jobs, services and schools, gets goods to the shops and allows us to make the most of our free time. Local roads are the primary element of the transport network and play a key role in delivering the services people want and need.

In order to fulfil its potential, it is crucial that the local highway network is adequately maintained. The Joint Transport Asset Management Plan (JTAMP) has been written to include not just carriageways and footways but all transport assets. The plan has continued to develop since 2008 to include the whole transport asset from street lighting to street furniture.

Continuing growth in traffic and its attendant problems has brought an increasingly widespread recognition of the importance of highway maintenance, and the high value placed on it both by users and the wider community. Conversely, public concern is increasing about the failure to invest adequately and effectively in highway maintenance and the implications for safety and journey reliability which can be seen from recent NHT Public Satisfaction surveys.

Authorities need to report progress to central government on the development and operation of the TAMP, in the context of effective stewardship of the whole range of transport assets in their area. Asset Management places customers at the core of Asset Planning.

The JTAMP sets out full Asset Management Planning by: -

Customer Care

• Involve stakeholders in the cultural change including elected members, staff and contractors

• Involve the communities and users of the highway network to deliver their needs

DRAFT JTAMP (5) 18/11/2011

Transport Asset Management Framework

• Implement a clear and focused Transport Asset Management Plan, demonstrating compliance with statutory obligations including Whole of Government Accounts and CIPFA reporting

• Define clear highway maintenance objectives and outcomes. Promote the Councils highway maintenance, priorities and programmes.

• Establish contingency plans for unplanned events and emergencies.

Asset Information Management

• Establish inventory systems and procedures to collect and collate asset characteristics and conditions.

• Ensure asset information is accessible by the public, promoted by INSPIRE EU directive.

Work Planning and Service Delivery

• Adopt a policy for sustainable development compatible with predicted West of England growth.

• Plan for climate change and Air Quality improvements.

• Identify maintenance implications arising from new and improved infrastructure projects and plan future maintenance.

• Implement an effective process of risk management.

• Deliver an effective system of inspection

Roles and responsibilities

The implementation of this JTAMP delivers clear guidance and direction resulting in improved stewardship and more efficient and effective use of the resource available for highway maintenance.

The drive to employ the principals of asset management has arisen from the success seen through the privatisation and regulation of the utility companies. There are clear comparisons between the operation of these companies and local highway authorities. Utility companies have been actively encouraged to develop asset management policies and effective policies with rewards for innovation and efficiencies through their funding arrangements. It is entirely possible that similar arrangements will be put in place for highway funding in the future. This approach is true with rewards for achieving performance targets.

The JTAMP will be updated to reflect the experience gained from the application of Asset Management highlighting the progress made and benefits realised. Most importantly, the JTAMP will keep you informed about our continuing asset management practices and plans for the transport network including opportunities for further joint working

DRAFT JTAMP (4) 18/11/2011 Page 1 of 165

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Setting the Scene

1.1.1. The four Councils of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire have joined forces to produce a Joint Transport Asset Management Plan (JTAMP) for the West of England. The JTAMP is a long-term plan that describes how they jointly intend to manage our transport infrastructure assets in order to deliver the agreed Levels of Service and Performance Targets in the most cost-effective way. These assets include:

• carriageways, footways and cycleways

• bridges and retaining walls

• public transport infrastructure

• road markings and traffic signs

• public lighting

• street furniture

• fences and barriers

• drainage

• verges and landscaped areas

• parking and park & ride sites

Figure 1.1 – West of England

1.1.2. The transport infrastructure in the West of England is of local, regional and national importance:


• One million residents use the network on a daily basis mostly in and between the three main urban areas and seven towns’.

• Greater Bristol is the main focus for shopping, cultural activities and education in the South West of England.

• Bath is a significant sub-regional centre and is designated as a World Heritage Site, reflecting its international importance for its architecture, town planning, landscape, archaeological remains and social history.

• The area is vital to the economy of the South West of England and the United Kingdom with Bristol Airport, the Port of Bristol and the M4/M5 motorways acting as gateways for the region.

1.2. The Challenges Ahead

1.2.1. The management of the transport infrastructure has an important role to play in meeting the West of England’s challenges. Challenges specific to the transport infrastructure include:

• Increasing demands from users (vehicular and non-vehicular) for safe and reliable journeys with growth in traffic and car ownership, decreases in average traffic speeds and increasing congestion.

• The development of new homes and major economic development by 2026.

• Financial and logistical constraints on maintenance activities, taking into account the Government’s October 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review.

• A need to derive more life out of existing assets.

• Increasing role of partnerships in the delivery of services.

• A need for greater accountability and transparency, e.g. Whole of Government Accounts and Asset Valuation.

• Increasing awareness of the link between “maintenance” and “business performance”.

1.2.2. These challenges demonstrate the need for a formalised and rational approach to the management of transport infrastructure assets. Asset management is widely recognised as the formalised and rational approach that should be adopted.

1.3. Joint Vision, Aims and Objectives

1.3.1. The West of England Partnership, has agreed the following vision for the area:

• A buoyant economy;

• A rising quality of life for all;

• Easier local, national and international travel;


• Cultural attractions that make the West of England a place of choice;

• Approach to delivery that is energy efficient, protects air quality, minimises waste and protects and enhances the natural and the built environment;

• Makes positive use of the mix of urban and rural areas.

1.4. LTP Progress

1.4.1. The West of England Joint Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (JLTP2) set out how the four councils will together tackle asset management and the progress being made towards the development of this JTAMP. Overall the JLTP2 was assessed by the DfT as ‘good’. The relationship between asset management and the JLTP2 was seen as ‘excellent’. JTAMP describes the framework by which each Authority will develop its individual service levels and action plans. This framework has been carried forward into the updated JLTP3 which will cover the 15-year period from April 2011.

1.5. Traffic Management Act 2004

1.5.1. The Transport Management Act places a duty on local authorities to manage their network to secure the expeditious movement of traffic, including pedestrians, cyclists and powered two wheelers. Each council has appointed a Traffic Manager to oversee implementation of the Act which covers a range of measures that have a bearing on this JTAMP including network management and road and utility works. The four authorities are committed to attend regular cross-boundary Traffic Management Act liaison meetings with representatives of the Highways Agency, Avon and Somerset Constabulary and the main bus operators to discuss network events and incident management; implementation of highway maintenance and utilities; information / publicity; and on-street initiatives to improve bus reliability and journey times.

1.6. Asset Management

1.6.1. What is Asset Management?

Asset management is a modern but well developed discipline that is practised in many countries and across a wide range of industries; including highway, railway, oil and gas, water and wastewater, and aerospace. Asset management is applied to the whole life of assets and determines the optimum way of managing assets to achieve the desired outcomes. The stages of an asset’s life covered by asset management are illustrated below. The ‘operate, maintain & improve’ phase is the core area for whole life transport infrastructure assets.

Identification & Feasibility Disposal

Planning & Design Construction Operate, Maintain & Improve


Figure 1.2 - Asset Management for the Whole Life of Assets

There are a wide range of recognised definitions for asset management, all of which align with a core set of principles. County Surveyors’ Society Framework for Highway Asset Management’s definition is as follows:

‘Asset management is a strategic approach that identifies the optimal allocation of resources for the management, operation, preservation and enhancement of the highway infrastructure to meet the needs of current and future customers’.

County Surveyors’ Society Framework for Highway Asset Management (2004)

1.6.2. The Framework for Highway Asset Management identifies the key themes encompassed in the above definition as:

• Strategic Approach – a systematic process that takes a long-term view.

• Whole Life – the whole lifecycle of an asset is considered.

• Optimisation – maximising benefits by balancing competing demands.

• Resource Allocation – allocation of resources based on assessed needs.

• Customer-Focused – explicit consideration of customer expectations.

1.6.3. Although asset management introduces new practices it does not replace existing good practice. Instead it provides the overall framework within which existing good practice may be more effectively applied and complemented by other practices.

Asset Management and the Management Hierarchy

1.6.4. An important starting point for asset management is to look at the organisational management levels. The management processes in large organisations can be broadly categorised into three levels: Strategic, Tactical and Operational. An idealised hierarchy of these management levels is shown in Figure 1.3.


OPERATIONAL How to do the right things?

STRATEGIC Where are we going and Why?

TACTICAL What is worth doing and When?

Increasing responsibility for long term direction, goal setting and decision making

Increasing day-to-day maintenance management and work delivery responsibility

Increasing resource needs

Decreasing level of detail

Figure 1.3 - Idealised Asset Management Hierarchy

1.6.5. Asset management should align with integrated planning and decision-making at the Strategic, Tactical and Operational levels. The broad scope of asset management functions in the three levels are summarised below:

• Strategic - Where are we going and why? At the strategic level an organisation establishes its overall long-term direction for transport, e.g. policy, goals and objectives, vision, mission statement and targets. These should be agreed in consultation with stakeholders and take into account any necessary internal/external requirements and/or constraints. The JLTP provides a strategic framework for the West of England.

• Tactical - What is worth doing and when? At the tactical level the asset managers translate the strategic goals and objectives into specific plans and performance targets for individual asset types, e.g. roads, structures and lighting. The tactical level involves a performance gap analysis and a formal planning process to identify the required, most beneficial and cost-effective activities and when they should be carried out. The development of the JTAMP is a tactical activity.

• Operational - How to do the right things? At the operational level the asset managers, engineers, technicians and operatives develop and implement detailed work plans and schedules that have a short-term outlook but take account of the work volumes and phasing arising from the JTAMP. Engineering processes include inspection, routine maintenance, scheme design, work scheduling and implementation. The focus is on choosing the right techniques, Value Engineering of schemes and carrying out the work in the most efficient way.

1.6.6. In many organisations Tactical Management is not well defined, resulting in poor communication between Strategic and Operational


Management. Adopting asset management enables staff involved in Tactical Management to translate the overall strategic goals and objectives into specific plans and performance targets which focus and direct operational activities.

The Drivers for Asset Management

1.6.7. A number of important benefits to the West of England have been identified that will be realised from the move towards Asset Management including:

• Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) – a central government initiative to produce a comprehensive set of accounts in line with Generally Accepted Accounting Practice in order to bring the public sector accounting in line with that of the private sector. The objectives of WGA are to promote greater accountability, transparency and improved stewardship of public finances. WGA objectives and procedures align closely with those of asset management.

• The Traffic Management Act – this imposes a Network Management Duty on local authorities to manage their network to secure the expeditious movement of traffic.

• Asset Valuation – robust asset management processes and a JTAMP are required to support the asset valuation process described in the County Surveyors Society’s Guidance Document for Highway Infrastructure Asset Valuation.

• CIPFA – code of practice on transport infrastructure assets. Guidance to support Financial Management and Reporting.

• The Prudential Code – requires local authorities to give due consideration to option appraisal and Asset Management Planning in order to demonstrate that their plans are affordable, prudent and sustainable.

• Best Value – asset management plays a key role in demonstrating that authorities are providing value for money and supporting performance management.

1.6.8. In addition to the above, the Department for Transport (DfT) publication ‘Maintaining a Vital Asset’ clearly identifies asset management as good practice and emphasises the need for all local authorities to adopt an asset management approach.

The Benefits of Asset Management

1.6.9. Asset management supplements engineering judgement with financial, economic and engineering analysis, enabling authorities to understand and manage the relationship between cost and performance and thereby bringing about improved decision-making.


There are a number of specific benefits associated with the asset management approach:

• Informed Decision Making – The provision of better information, and a clear understanding of the link between the performance of individual assets and the delivery of service. It will enable decisions to be made in an informed way that will result in a better level of service.

• Reduced Whole Life Costs - The move towards lifecycle management and long-term investment planning will enable a ‘right place, right time’ approach to investment that will reduce costs over the life of the asset, and promote the long-term preservation of the asset.

• Customer Focussed Delivery - The continued development of effective customer consultation and the development of Service Levels that support both the corporate objectives and customer priorities will encourage more customer focussed decision making, and will help to ensure that services provided by the street network reflect stakeholder and user needs and expectations in accordance with INSPIRE EU directive.

• Transparency & Ownership of Decision Making - Asset management will introduce transparency and objectivity into decision making that traditionally has often been subjective. This will help justification of investment decisions and will also enable decision-makers to take informed ownership of decisions that they make.

1.6.10. The full benefits of asset management will only be realised when it is fully embedded as the recognised and accepted way for working. A long-term plan of asset management learning, development, implementation and continuous improvement is being implemented through the JTAMP. An Implementation Plan is included in Chapter 8.

1.7. JTAMP

What is a JTAMP?

1.7.1. The JTAMP is a long-term plan for the delivery of sustainable maintenance for the West of England. It is the framework for the management of the transport infrastructure asset base in order to deliver the agreed Levels of Service and Performance Management targets in the most cost-effective way.

West of England JTAMP

1.7.2. The West of England JTAMP is a living document running initially up to 2010/11, with subsequent updates. This framework will allow the authorities to develop Depreciation modelling for Transport assets.


1.7.3. In 2011 JTAMP will be fully reviewed and updated to capture all knowledge in AMP and prepare an action plan for implementing asset management in Chapter 8 The Implementation Plan using improvement inventories.

Scope of JTAMP

1.7.4. To derive the full benefits of asset management it is important to consider all asset types and their interactions:

• carriageways

• footways and cycleways

• bridges and structures

• public lighting

• public transport infrastructure

• highway drainage

• highway verge, trees and landscaped areas

• non-illuminated signs

• segregated cycleway and cycle tracks

• public rights of way

• traffic and road safety management

• road markings and road studs

• safety fences and barriers

• street furniture and cycle parking

1.7.5. Other asset types will be added as the JTAMP is further developed.

1.7.6. Important lessons have been learnt during the development of the Asset Management Plan leading to continued improvement in the management of transport assets across the West of England.

1.8. CIPFA Code of Practice on Transport Infra Structure Assets

1.8.1. The purpose of this code is to support an Asset Management Plan based approach to the provision of financial information about local authority transport infra structure assets.

1.9. Roles and Responsibilities

1.9.1. The key roles and responsibilities associated with transport asset management and how they link into the hierarchy levels of each of the authorities is shown in Figure 1.3 and 1.4.

1.9.2. The West of England Partnership was set up to address jointly matters, including (transport infrastructure), that are considered best dealt with by the area as a whole in the best interests of its


communities. They will provide a facilitating role in ensuring that the JTAMP is set within the framework of the West of England’s long term transport strategy.

1.9.3. The JTAMP provides Council Members with a structured view of service delivery in the area of transport infrastructure management. It will provide a better understanding of how infrastructure works are prioritised, programmed and designed to meet national, regional and local objectives as this will, ultimately, make the case for continual, long-term and improved funding over the life-cycle of the assets needing to be maintained.

1.9.4. The Service Directors for Transport in each authority will be responsible for ensuring that all the aspects of JTAMP can be followed within their own authority. They will need to provide information on individual systems and processes which will form part of an approved JTAMP.

1.9.5. Highways and Maintenance Managers will use the JTAMP for the purposes of planning infrastructure improvements, maintenance regimes and life-cycle plans for all of the highway assets in line with individual authority JTAMP annexes.

1.9.6. Professional support and suppliers provide the operational phases of the JTAMP with regard to the design, management, operation, improvement and maintenance of all the transport assets.


Council

South Gloucestershire

Council

West of England Partnership

Councillors from each Council,

strategic partners and agencies

Joint Committee, Transport

Councillors from each Council

Joint Scrutiny Councillors from each Council and Service

Directors of Transport

Bristol City Council

North Somerset Council

Figure 1.4 - West of England Governance Arrangements


1.10. Contents of the JTAMP

1.10.1. Table 1.1 provides a summary of the content of each chapter of the JTAMP.

Chapter Description

1. Introduction Background of transport asset management across the West of England.

2. Transport Asset Management

The holistic and integrated approach that has been developed and adopted in the Joint Transport Asset Management. This includes an overview of the Transport Asset Management Framework, the long-term planning process, asset management systems and service contracts.

3. Aims, Goals and Objectives

Summarises the mission, strategic goals and transport objectives that are relevant to the JTAMP. The impacts of key documents including the JLTP, statutory regulation and codes of practice are identified.

4. Asset Base and Characteristics

Sets out the detail of the councils’ transportation asset infrastructure and the process for asset classification.

5. Service Levels Explains how Levels of Service, and in turn Performance Measures, are derived and support asset management objectives. The proposed Levels of Service and Performance Measures are summarised and their medium/long-term targets defined.

6. Asset Management Planning

Provides a comprehensive approach to managing an asset once a full inventory has been achieved and Levels of Service developed. This includes detailed work options, selection criteria, and prioritisation processes when a full programme cannot be implemented. Forward programmes represent long term planning. Risk management identifies and resolves factors that may affect successful asset management.

7. Lifecycle Management Plans

Describes the procedures to develop lifecycle plans for the transport assets, and explains how asset deterioration and maintenance needs are taken into account.

8. Implementation Plan Future improvements that are required to successfully implement a full Joint Transport Asset Management Plan.

Table 1.1 - Contents of the JTAMP


2. TRANSPORT ASSET MANAGEMENT

This chapter describes the holistic and integrated approach which is being developed and adopted for transport asset management. This includes an overview of the Transport Asset Management Framework, the long-term Asset Management Planning process, asset management systems and service delivery contracts.

2.1. Transport Asset Management Framework

2.1.1. Transport asset management impacts on a wide range of existing working practices and will include the introduction of a number of new working practices. It is therefore important to have a clear understanding of how asset management should be used to complement and enhance existing management practices.

2.1.2. A review of best national and international practice in asset management was carried out; findings from this review were used to develop a suitable Transport Asset Management Approach, this is shown in Figure 2.1. Core components of the Approach include:

• Codes and Standards

• Asset Management Planning

• Asset Management System

• Work Planning and Service Delivery

• Operational Plans

• Performance Monitoring, Review and Feedback

2.2. Codes and Standards

2.2.1. A wide range of codes and standards for highway design and management, including Statutory Instruments, British and European Standards, Highways Agency Standards, County Surveyors’ Society (CSS) Codes, DfT Codes, Institution Guidance (e.g. Institution of Civil Engineers and Institution of Lighting Engineers) and CIPFA are recognised in the West of England.

2.2.2. In addition to the nationwide policy documents outlined in 2.2.1 there are three important local documents: the Maintenance Management Plans for highways, structures and street lighting. These are based on the Codes of Practice, published by the DfT through the Roads Liaison Group. These Maintenance Management Plans set down the objectives, policies, procedures and standards of the service for each of highways, structures and street lighting. As such, they closely relate to and support the JTAMP and provide direction for operational activities.


Figure 2.1 - Transport Asset Management Approach

2.3. Asset Management Planning

2.3.1. The Framework for Highway Asset Management, produced by CSS, provides a generic framework for developing asset management. This generic framework, along with other key guidance, has been used to develop a process for producing this JTAMP, termed the Asset Management Planning process. This is shown in Figure 2.2.

Co

nti

nu

al

Imp

rov

em

en

t

Co

ntin

ua

l Im

pro

ve

me

nt

PLAN

DO

ACT

CHECK

Ca

rria

ge

wa

ys

Fo

otw

ay

s

Str

uc

ture

s

Pu

bli

c L

igh

tin

g

Oth

er

As

se

ts

Organisation & Business Processes

Work Planning and Delivery (Operational Management)

Co

de

s/P

olic

ies

As

su

ran

ce

Performance Monitoring, Review and Feedback

Information Management and Systems

Asset Management Planning (Tactical Management)

Highways and Transport Service Plan(s)

Corporate Plans JLTP / LAA /

MAA

Stakeholder Expectations

Legal, Funding & Other

Constraints


Key characteristics of the Asset Management Planning process are:

• Translation of defined strategic goals and objectives into quantifiable levels of service measured by performance targets.

• Collection of asset inventory, condition and performance data which provides the main inputs for the asset management planning process.

• Determination of current performance and prediction of future demand of assets which accounts for changes in vehicle dimensions and traffic volume.

• Determination of performance targets provide a focus for the asset management planning process and allow better targeting of investment on highway assets to contribute to the delivery of West of England’s long term goals. Ideally, the performance targets, should deliver the required performance (in line with strategic goals, objectives and levels of service) and give due consideration to minimising whole life costs. It is preferable to use recognised performance measures or standards to define targets because they are based on documented procedures that are repeatable and auditable.

• Completion of the performance gap analysis identifies the difference between the current performance and the target performance. Once the gap is quantified, this information can be used to develop maintenance needs that identify the work required to close the gap and to sustain the target performance level in the future.

• Evaluation of the priority for each project using a formalised value management process which assesses the benefits of undertaking maintenance and the associated risks of not undertaking maintenance. Value Management enables the available/expected funding to be appropriately targeted to areas which contribute most to the achievement of the long term objectives.

• Compilation of the work and financial plan which are inputs to the JTAMP.


Figure 2.2 - Asset Management Planning Process

2.4. Asset Management Systems

2.4.1. There are a range of computerised systems that support the management of the transport infrastructure within the West of England as illustrated in Table 2.1.

2.4.2. All authorities use a common street naming index known as the National Street Gazetteer unique street reference number (USRN) and the Ordnance Survey Grid Reference for spatial referencing.

2.4.3. Table of Asset Management Systems currently in use by the Authorities. Opportunities will be reviewed to introduce common systems across the West of England.

Prepare JTAMP

Develop work and financial plan

Value Management (prioritise needs)

Identify maintenance needs

Determine performance gap

Determine performance targets

Determine current performance

Predict future demand

Develop lifecycle plans

Develop prioritisation model

Implement JTAMP (short-term

maintenance plans)

Perf

orm

an

ce m

on

ito

rin

g a

nd

feed

back

Asset inventory, condition and performance data

Transport objectives

JTAMP

- represents an iterative process that is used to identify the most cost-effective solution

Funding considerations

Transport Levels of Service


Bath & North East

Somerset Council

Bristol City Council

North Somerset Council


Council

Public Reporting

SAP CRM / Confirm

LAGAN EXOR PEM Mayrise

Street Works Register

Confirm (MapInfo)

Mayrise Exor Mayrise

Spatial Inventory Database

Oracle Spatial DB, Confirm &

Mayrise

Confirm (MapInfo) Mayrise

Mayrise (MapInfo)

Financial Management

Agresso CFS FMS Civica

Works Ordering

Confirm (MapInfo)

Mayrise FMS Civica

Safety Inspections

Confirm (MapInfo)

Mayrise Exor Mayrise

Condition Inspections

(UKPMS)

WDM / Confirm

(MapInfo) WDM WDM WDM / Mayrise

Bridge Maintenance

WDM

SMS WDM BMX Access Database

Public Lighting

Mayrise Mayrise Mayrise Mayrise

Table 2.1 - Existing Asset Management Systems

2.5. Asset Information Management

2.5.1. An information strategy has been developed to improve the management of the assets. The formal approach to information management has been completed to ensure that accurate, reliable, trustworthy and useful information will fully support asset management and reduce the whole life costs of information collection and maintenance.

The following factors form our strategy:

• Inventory requirements – for each asset the information that supports each of its management and decision making processes is identified.

• Data collection – for each item of information the required quality standards for collection will be established. Specific


information requirements including asset descriptions, terminology and measurement tolerances will be documented to ensure consistency in data collection. The transfer of the information will need to be considered in this exercise to ensure that field collection information can efficiently be transferred in an electronic format. Where appropriate, collection of any missing information will be completed on a joint procurement basis.

• Information storage – the majority of asset information is stored in computerised management systems. These systems will be reviewed to identify whether they are the most cost-effective storage arrangements that meet requirements, e.g. security (including future-proofing), speed of access and information integrity. We will also review the components of the systems that are not fully utilised to see if additional benefits can be gained.

• Information Usage – analysis of how best to make use of the information collected. All stakeholders need to be considered. Efficiency can be gained by producing common reports which meet the needs of more than one stakeholder. We need to ensure the information can be used in a range of applications including complex systems and spatial products.

• Information Management – for each item of information a suitable regime for maintenance needs to be identified, i.e. frequency of review or update. For some items a review may be sufficient, e.g. check dimensions during inspection, while for others the information may need to be completely updated, e.g. update condition at each inspection. Where appropriate, the regime for maintaining information will be streamlined by aligning / combining it with other activities, i.e. condition inspections.

2.6. Work Planning and Service Delivery

2.6.1. Asset management requires developing work programmes for both the short term and the long term. Figure 2.3 shows the three main types of programmes that are developed for each asset. The diagram reflects the results of implemented value management processes which enable proposed schemes to be allocated to each programme.

2.6.2. The Current Approved Programme comprises the schemes which have been allocated funding in the coming year. The condition of the assets in which these schemes are proposed are below the accepted level of service.

2.6.3. The Forward Work Programmes prioritise schemes which have been identified through condition surveys and safety inspections where some form of significant deterioration has occurred. These schemes involve assets that currently provide an accepted level of service will need to be identified to be in line for funding in the coming years.


2.6.4. The Strategic Proposals developed through the JTAMP include all groups of assets which are currently performing above the service levels. These are allocated an approximate life based on predictive deterioration modelling.

Current Approved Programme

Forward Work Programmes (Assets have reached level where signs of deterioration have occurred)

Strategic Proposals as per JTAMP (Assets are currently achieving required service levels. Predicted future work identified through deterioration models)

Figure 2.3 - Work Plan Hierarchy

2.7. Operational Plans

2.7.1. The individual authorities are responsible for completing the operational phase of the asset management process. Individual Maintenance Management Plans which include specifications and standard method of work where necessary.

2.8. Performance Monitoring, Review and Feedback

2.8.1. Wide public consultation on the concept of the JTAMP was undertaken in the preparation of the JLTP and at West of England transport forums. The Government Office for the South West actively contributed to the production of this document. The Councils consult regularly on maintenance performance. Assessment of the effectiveness of our performance will continue to be informed by feedback from all stakeholders. This emphasises that the JTAMP is a living document.


3. AIMS, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The JTAMP provides us with the basis for effective management of our transport assets. It is important to ensure that the JTAMP is closely aligned with our corporate and service direction. This chapter shows how the JTAMP will link with other aims and objectives. Figure 3.1 shows the relationship between the JTAMP and other plans and strategies.

3.1. Policy Documents

3.1.1. The overall transport goals for the West of England and the challenges that the area will face in the period to 2026 are set out in the JLTP3. The JLTP3 lays emphasis on demonstrating the clear link between asset management and wider JLTP goals and challenges. These links are shown in Figure 3.1.

JLTP3 Strategic Goals

JLTP3 Challenges JTAMP Objectives

Goal 1: Reduce carbon emissions

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• Resilient and adaptable transport network.

Effective management of transport assets to benefit all users including buses, cycling and walking.

To actively promote Smarter Choices.

Goal 2: Support economic growth

• Tackle congestion and improve journey times.

• Promote use of alternatives to the private car.

• Encourage more sustainable patterns of travel behaviour.

• Support delivery of houses and jobs through the emerging Core Strategies.

• Access to employment growth areas particularly from deprived neighbourhoods.

• Reduce the adverse impact of traffic.

• Increase the capacity and reliability of local and national transport networks.

• Maintain, manage and ensure best use of our transport assets.

• Address potential issues of peak oil.

To assist Traffic Managers in carrying out the network management duties.

Manage assets in line with the agreed hierarchies and priorities.


JLTP3 Strategic Goals

JLTP3 Challenges JTAMP Objectives

Goal 3: Contribute to better safety, health and security

• Significantly reduce the number of road casualties.

• Improve safety for all road users, particularly the most vulnerable members of the community.

• Encourage more physically active travel.

• Design out crime and the fear of crime.

• Improve air quality in the Air Quality Management Areas.

• Ensure air quality in all other areas remains better than the national standards.

• Improve personal security on the transport network.

Manage assets to improve safety for all users, identifying vulnerable and high risk groups.

Effective management of transport asset to benefit all users including buses, cycling and walking.

Goal 4: Promote equality of opportunity

• Improve accessibility for all residents to health services, employment, digital infrastructure and other local services.

• Assist neighbourhood renewal and the regeneration of deprived areas.

• Improve access to services for rural and remote area residents.

• Reduction in commercial bus network and cost of fares.

• Disability Discrimination Act compliant transport network.


Manage assets to enable access by bus, on foot or cycle.

Goal 5: Improve quality of life and a healthy natural environment

• Minimise the impact of transport on the natural and historic environment.

• Reduce the number of people exposed to unacceptable levels of transport noise.

• Enhance streetscape, public spaces and the urban environment.

• Promote better access to leisure activities and the countryside.

• Enhance the journey experience.

Manage assets to support wider corporate objectives.


Table 3.1 – JLTP3 Goals, Challenges and Asset Management.


Figure 3.1 - Relationship between other Policy Documents and JTAMP

Joint Transport Asset

Management Plan

(JTAMP)

Highway Lighting Maintenance

Management Plan (HLMMP)

Highway Maintenance

Management Plan (HMMP)

Structures Maintenance

Management Plan (SMMP)

Suppliers’ Local Procedures

Government Policies

Joint Local Transport Plan

(JLTP3)

Local Development Frameworks

Local Strategic Partnerships

Local Enterprise Partnership

Value for Money

reviews

Local Area

Agreements

Authority Specific Annex - Asset

Management Plan


3.2. Corporate Plans

3.2.1. All four of the Local Strategic Partnerships in the West of England Partnership have produced Community Strategies and these are reflected in the Corporate Plans of the councils.

3.2.2. There are seven corporate themes:

• Theme 1 – Managing Future Development and Communities

Address challenges faced by new and growing communities in a sustainable and integrated way providing high quality homes, associated employment, local community facilities and a convenient and safe transport network, which meet the community needs and aspirations.

• Theme 2 – Health and Wellbeing

Improve the health of people and reduce the inequalities in health.

• Theme 3 – Valuing the Environment

Respect for the natural environment and historic and cultural environment, take action to protect, enhance and enjoy the environment and live low carbon, sustainable and healthy lifestyles.

• Theme 4 – Promoting Safer and Stronger Communities

Ensure communities are strong and safe, people are encouraged to participate in the life of communities to which they belong and differences are respected.

• Theme 5 – Investing in Children and Young People

Improve life chances and ensure all children and young people are given encouragements and opportunities to learn.

• Theme 6 – Economic Prosperity and Regeneration

Improve the local economy in a sustainable and balanced way ensuring that prosperity is shared by all.

• Theme 7 – Continuous Improvement Programme

Continue to build capacity to deliver first class services to our residents through the best use of resources and fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

DRAFT JTAMP Four 18/11/2011 Page 22 of 102

4. ASSET BASE AND CHARACTERISTICS 4.1. Overview

4.1.1. Key transport asset groups have been identified in the preparation of the JTAMP. It is these groups, rather than individual assets, that are used by asset management to identify long-term work programming and funding needs. Determining these groups and their associated characteristics rationalizes the Asset Management Planning process, enabling detailed data analysis and the effective presentation of technical information.

4.1.2. Transport assets are classified in a number of ways, using an appropriate network hierarchy, i.e. importance of function for road, footway or cycleway. While network hierarchy is an essential consideration providing a convenient way of classifying assets, it is also recognised that asset management requires a full assessment of asset performance. Asset management needs an understanding of how different assets deteriorate, what deterioration mechanisms influence them, what are appropriate performance requirements, and in particular the appropriate management and maintenance techniques.

4.1.3. The following sections are described in detail:

• Network Hierarchy (Section 4.2) –used to classify the transport network performance and future work planning.

• Asset Classification (Section 4.3) – the asset types, groups and sub-groups that will be used for Asset Management Planning.

• Asset Types and Groups (Sections 4.4 to 4.15) – describe the characteristic details of the specific asset types and groups.

4.1.4. An overview of the network and associated transport infrastructure assets as specified in 1.7.4 for the West of England as shown in Table 4.1.

Asset Type Units Bath & North East Somerset

Bristol City North Somerset


West of England

km 1,029 1,117 1,081 1,435 4,662 Carriageway

square kms

7,780 21,461 6,311 18,036 53,587

Footway/ Cycleway

km 1,200 2,000 1,330 1,470 6,000

Highway Structures

units 1,497 1,009 854 1,333 4,693


Public Lighting

units 17,243 37,646 22,680 32,702 110,271

Public Transport Infrastructure

Bus Stops

600 1,100

Highway Verges

Lin km

384 287 877

Segregated Cycleways and Cycle Tracks

Lin km

56

Public Rights of Way

Lin km

852 160 827 1,261 3,100

Traffic and Road Safety Management

units 102 174

Road Markings and Road Studs

Lin km

Safety Fences and Barriers

Lin km

Table 4.1 - Summary of West of England Transport Assets


4.2. Network Hierarchy

4.2.1. The Joint Local Transport Plan has identified the following Transport User Priorities:

• Pedestrians: Increase walking through developing, promoting and maintaining safe, secure, convenient, efficient and attractive infrastructure.

• Cyclists: Increase cycling through providing high quality route networks and infrastructure improvements, including cycle parking, wherever possible.

• Public Transport Users: Recognising passenger needs with measures such as shelters, seats, real time information, interchanges and new services included where considered beneficial and practicable. By recognising the needs of the passenger and benefits of a quality transport system, priority measures should be included in every scheme where considered beneficial and practicable.

• Powered two wheelers: Accommodating the needs of motorcycles and scooters in terms of road space, parking and safety.

• Commercial and business vehicles: Maintain appropriate levels of access to ensure the retail and commercial vitality of city and town centres. Minimise negative impacts by providing facilities such as the consolidation centre for Bath and Bristol and HGV layover areas.

• Access for commercial vehicles: Recognising the importance of the retail and commercial vitality of city and town centres in the face of growing competition.

• Short stay visitors by car: Whether as a tourist or as a visitor to the shops or businesses their contribution to the success of city and town centres is provided for, wherever possible.

• Private car: While this form of transport is the last on the priority list, it is recognised that there must be adequate access, particularly for residents and car borne commuters.

4.2.2. The development of the network hierarchy has given full consideration to the JLTP as well as Well-Maintained Highways, The Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance Management published in July 2005.

4.2.3. A co-ordinated hierarchy review is being carried out throughout the JTAMP area as part of the JLTP, to reflect transport function.

Carriageway resurfacing programme (North Somerset Council)


Category Carriageway Hierarchy Description

Type of Road General Description

Typical Description

1 Motorway/Trunk Roads Highways Agency strategic highway network.

Not applicable (outside control of Local Authorities).

2a National Primary Routes

(A Class)

Principal roads which are the main signed traffic routes for through traffic.

Signed primary transport and bus network which carry large volumes of traffic.

2b Local Primary Routes

(A Class)

Major urban network and inter - primary links. Short – medium distance traffic.

Signed primary or local routes, bus routes or routes which carry significant volumes of traffic.

3a Main Distributor Roads

(B Class)

Classified urban and rural bus routes carrying local traffic with frontage access and frequent junctions.

Signed local routes, bus routes or routes which carry relatively large volumes of traffic.

3b Local Distributor Roads

(C Class)

Roads serving urban/rural areas that warrant a lower priority than Main Distributor Roads from a highways maintenance perspective.

Routes which distribute local traffic and provide access to residential and local centres.

4a Unclassified

(U Class)

Roads serving other urban/rural areas.

Routes which provide local access.

4b Local Access Roads serving other urban/rural areas.

Routes which provide local access.

Table 4.2 - Carriageway Hierarchy


Enhanced pedestrian routes (Bristol City Council)

Category Footway Hierarchy Description

Typical Description

1a Prestige Walking Zones Very busy areas of towns and cities with high public space and street scene contribution.

1 Primary Walking Routes Main shopping and business areas, main pedestrian routes to rail, bus and coach stations.

2 Secondary Walking Route Medium and heavy usage routes feeding into primary routes or serving local shopping centres, schools, bus stops etc.

3 Link Access Footway Most footways serving residential areas and routes linking Local Access Footways.

4 Local Access Footway Low usage footways such as short cul-de-sac and routes linking low usage footways.

5 Shared Streets Streets or pedestrianised areas which permit both vehicular traffic and pedestrians.

Table 4.3 - Footway Hierarchy

Category Cycleway Hierarchy Description

A Cycle lanes forming part of the carriageway, commonly 1.5m strip adjacent to the nearside kerb; cycle gaps at road closure points (exemptions for cycle access).

B1 Shared cycle/footway, segregated by a white line or other physical segregation, and shared with pedestrians.

B2 Shared cycle/footway, un-segregated and shared with pedestrians.

C Cycle tracks through open spaces and away from traffic; only applicable to routes maintained by other parties and those not maintained by the Council.

Table 4.4 - Cycleway Hierarchy


Category Public Rights of Way Hierarchy Description

Public Footpath

A Right of Way for walkers

Indicated with yellow way marks plus a walking person sign

Public Bridleway

A Right of Way for walkers, horse riders and cyclists

Indicated with a blue way marks plus horse and rider and cyclist sign

Restricted Bridleway

A Right of Way for walkers, horse riders, cyclists and horse drawn vehicles

Indicated with a green way marks plus walker, horse, cyclist and horse drawn carriage sign

Byway - open to all traffic (BOATS)

A byway open to all traffic, mainly used as footpath or bridleway, but may also be used by other vehicles.

Table 4.5 – Public Rights of Way Hierarchy

4.3. Asset Classification

4.3.1. Appropriate asset types have been identified for highways and transportation as set out in Table 4.6.

4.3.2. Asset types have been divided into groups based on general construction form, while the asset sub-groups have been based on design features or characteristics that have a significant influence on the management and maintenance requirements.

Asset Type Asset Group Asset Sub-Group

Carriageway Flexible pavements Rigid composite pavements

Criteria for identifying sub-groups include: Carriageway hierarchy Urban/Rural location Dual/Single lane

Footway, Footpaths & Cycleways

Rigid Heritage Rigid Standard Flexible

Criteria for identifying sub-groups include: Footway hierarchy Cycling hierarchy Urban/Rural location

Highway Structures Bridges Footbridges Culverts Subways Retaining walls

Criteria for identifying sub-groups include: Carriageway hierarchy Urban/Rural location



Public Lighting Columns Bollards and Beacons Illuminated signs Zebra crossings

Criteria for identifying sub-groups include: Carriageway hierarchy Column height Lantern type Illumination levels

Highway Drainage Gullies Pipes Inspection Chambers Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUD’s) Ditches Grips Soakaways Petrol/Oil Interceptors

Criteria for identifying sub-groups include: Carriageway hierarchy Flood risk drainage Urban/Rural location Highway/Off Highway Design and construction characteristics Associated features

Highway Verges Material Shrubs


Non-illuminated signs Regulatory signs Warning signs Direction signs Information signs Boundary signs Parking signs Cycle signs

Criteria for identifying sub-groups include: Carriageway hierarchy Urban/Rural location Regulatory/advisory


Bus Stops Bus Shelters Passenger information Real Time Passenger information


Segregated Cycleways and Cycle Tracks

Flexible Unbound

Criteria for identifying sub-groups include: Cycleway hierarchy Urban/Rural location Design and construction characteristics

Public Rights of Way Public Footpaths Public Bridleways Restricted Byways Byways Open to All Traffic PROW Structures

Criteria for identifying sub-groups include: PROW hierarchy Urban/Rural location Design and construction characteristics




Traffic control Automatic Traffic Count sites Enforcement camera

Criteria for identifying sub-groups include: UTMC Traffic signal junctions Traffic signal pedestrian facilities Automatic Traffic Count sites Vehicle activated signs School wig-wags

Road Markings & Road Studs

Road Markings Road Studs

Criteria for identifying sub-groups include: Carriageway hierarchy Urban/Rural location Regulatory/advisory


Safety Fences Safety Barriers


Parking Infrastructure Car parks Bus/Coach/HGV parking Park & Ride On street parking infrastructure

Criteria for identifying sub-groups include: Regulated car parks Unregulated car parks

Street furniture & cycle parking

Street furniture Cycle parking

Criteria for identifying sub-groups include: Carriageway hierarchy Footway hierarchy Cycle hierarchy Urban/Rural location

Highway Trees & Landscaped areas

Material Trees Shrubs


Winter Maintenace Stocks and supplies Vehicle Fleets Salt bins

Criteria for identifying sub-groups include: Transport equipment and winter stores

Table 4.6 - Asset Classification

4.3.3. Other major assets such as depots and car parks are reported by Council Property Services

4.3.4. The JTAMP will progressively consider all transport asset types in accordance with the Implementation Plan. For the purpose of the first JTAMP initial asset types considered are Carriageway, Footways and Cycleways, Structures and Public Lighting. For each type an associated


maintenance management plan will be developed for each authority. Future work will be carried out by the JTAMP to add additional asset types.

4.3.5. A full JTAMP document with all assets included will be achieved within the next three years. A programme has been developed to introduce all asset groups as shown in the Implementation Plan.


4.4. Carriageway Assets

4.4.1. Roads across the West of England are predominantly surfaced with bituminous materials with a small number being concrete and others with a bituminous surface. High friction surfacing is used as a Casualty Reduction measure on approaches to high risk sites such as pedestrian crossings, traffic signals and roundabouts. Road lengths are summarised in Table 4.7 using the appropriate carriageway hierarchy.

Road Lengths reported to DfT (km)


Bristol North

Somerset South


Rural single c/way

75.9 0.9 73.2 60.8 210.8

Rural dual c/way

5.7 0.5 5.3 10.1 21.6

Urban single c/way

32.4 62.8 9.7 30 134.9

Urban dual c/way

2.1 25.3 5.0 19.9 52.3

Principal

All 116.1 89.5 93.2 120.8 419.6

Rural 35.2 0.0 55.4 86.8 177.4

Urban 13.6 54.8 26.9 33.1 128.4 B Class

All 48.8 54.8 82.3 119.9 305.8

Rural 261.6 0.8 191.4 220.0 673.8

Urban 52.2 69.2 57.0 60.6 239.0 C Class

All 313.8 70.0 248.4 280.6 912.8

All B + C Class 362.6 124.8 330.7 400.5 1218.6

Rural 244.2 16.4 267.5 324.7 852.8

Urban 353.2 895.9 442.2 617.7 2309 Unclassified

All 597.4 912.3 709.7 942.4 3161.8

Rural 622.6 18.6 592.8 702.4 1936.4

Urban 453.5 1108 540.8 761.3 2863.6 All Types

All 1076.1 1126.6 1133.6 1463.7 4800.0

Total All Roads (2006)

All 1046.3 1131.7 1110.7 1511.8 4800.5

Table 4.7 - JTAMP Carriageway Lengths 2006


4.4.2. Construction types and depths vary. At present there is insufficient information to accurately classify construction across the West of England. Further data collection is obtained from the design process for schemes included in the annual maintenance programmes.

4.4.3. Typical carriageway construction types are shown in Table 4.8.

Flexible pavement A pavement in which all courses are either unbound or bound with a bituminous binder.

Rigid composite pavement A pavement substantially constructed of reinforced concrete which has no construction or expansion joints, overlaid with a bituminous surfacing.

Rigid pavement A pavement constructed of concrete.

Table 4.8 - Carriageway Construction Types

4.4.4. Condition data for West of England in Table 4.9 shows the amount of road in need of structural repair.

Indicator Performance Indicator Current Value (09/10)

Principal road condition NI 168 5%

Non-principal classified road condition

NI 169 13%

Unclassified road condition BVPI 224b 9%

Table 4.9 - Carriageway Condition Data - West of England (2009/10)

4.4.5. Monitoring of the carriageway condition indicators will be updated to reflect new national indicators being developed by DfT.


4.5. Footway and Cycleway Assets

4.5.1. The West of England footways and cycleways vary significantly according to location and function. Programmes have been developed to ensure the continued expansion of footway and cycleway networks. Footway and cycleway lengths are summarised in Table 4.10.

Footway and Off Carriageway Cycleway Lengths (km)


Bristol North

Somerset South


Footways 1200 2000 1330 1470 6000

Cycleway (Off Carriageway)

10.4 92 56.0 254.4 412.8

Table 4.10 - JTAMP Footway and Cycleways lengths (2007/08)

4.5.2. Construction types and depths vary. At present there is insufficient information to accurately classify construction. Further data collection is obtained from the design process for carriageway schemes included in the annual maintenance programmes.

4.5.3. The asset groups have been classified according to construction types, Rigid Heritage, Rigid Standard and Flexible as described in Table 4.11. Footway condition information is summarised in Table 4.12.

Rigid Heritage A footway in which the wearing course is formed from natural stone flags.

Rigid Standard A footway in which the wearing course is formed from in-situ concrete or modular concrete paving slabs.

Flexible footway A footway with an asphalt wearing course.

Cycleway A cycleway with an asphalt wearing course.

Table 4.11 - Footway and Cycleway construction types

4.5.4. The current footway condition data for the West of England is summarised in Table 4.11. There are targets to improve the condition of footways (30% reduction, Local 187). The target for footways is to ensure continual improvement in footway condition throughout the JLTP period.

Indicator Performance Indicator

Value

Categories 1, 1a & 2 footway condition Local 187 26%

Table 4.12 - Footway condition data - West of England (2009/10)


4.6. Highway Structures Assets

4.6.1. Structures provide an essential transportation function. The majority of structures in the West of England were built many years ago and new bridges are rarely built. Structures across the West of England are classified by structure asset type, in accordance with the Highway Structures Code of Practice:

• Bridge

• Footbridge

• Culvert

• Subway

• Highway retaining wall

A4174 Ring Road Bridge Inspection (South Gloucestershire Council)

4.6.2. A summary of highway structures are shown in Table 4.13.

Highways Structures (Number)


Bristol North

Somerset South


Bridges 309

(111)

320

(97)

162

(30)

574

(182)

1365

(420)

Footbridges 263

(46)

61

(13) 227

72

(23)

623

(82)

Culverts 114

(7)

82

(11) 168

405

(35)

769

(53)

Subways 14

(7)

46

(7)

16

(3)

43

(1)

119

(18)


Retaining Walls

797

(324)

500

(420) 281

239

(69)

1817

(813)

Total 1497

(495)

1009

(548)

854

(33)

1333

(310)

4693

(1386)

*Note: Values in brackets are in private ownership, including Network Rail.

Table 4.13 - Summary of Highway Structures (2007/08)

4.6.3. Some structures within the West of England are owned by other parties including Network Rail. In these cases the authorities are responsible for monitoring the condition of these structures while the owner is responsible for any repairs required.


4.7. Public Lighting Assets

4.7.1. Public Lighting is a generic term for all illuminated street furniture.

4.7.2. Lighting columns have been classified in accordance with DfT criteria Appendix A and TR22 which report unit type, structural form, material and height:

• Structural Form – column, wall bracket and electricity pole mounted units.

• Material – steel, stainless steel, reinforced concrete, aluminium, cast iron, wood and composite.

• Height – less than 5m, 5 to 10m, and greater than 10m.

4.7.3. The inventory items listed in Table 4.14 are based on street lighting inventory, Appendix A is submitted annually to DfT by each authority in the West of England. There is a high confidence level in the quality of this information.

Public Lighting (units)


Bristol North

Somerset South


Public Lighting

15,187 31,437 19,812 28,722 95,158

Illuminated Regulatory

and Warning Signs

731 4,072 1,747 2,057 8,607

Illuminated Bollards

1,325 2,137 1,121 1,923 6,506

Total 17,243 37,646 22,680 32,702 110,271

Table 4.14 - Summary of Public Lighting (2007/08)

4.7.4. Traffic Signs are illuminated in accordance with the Traffic Sign Manual and Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. They are traditionally fixed to either a post or to a lighting column. Non-illuminated signs are managed under the Highway Maintenance Management Plan.

Public lighting, Lansdown Crescent, (Bath & North East Somerset Council)


4.8. Public Transport Assets Characteristics

4.8.1. Public Transport Assets include bus stops, bus shelters and travel information displays and equipment. Bus stops provide a clear point of pick up. Bus shelters provide a safe and dry waiting environment. The Local Authorities are currently working in partnership with various bus and public transport providers to ensure accurate timetables are provided.

4.8.2. Bus stops and shelters provide a source of information on public transport services and each council has a Bus Information Strategy which sets out the requirements for the provision of timetable and other passenger information as required by the Transport Act 2000. The West of England authorities are continuing to work in partnership with various public transport providers to ensure accurate timetable data is delivered. Considerable investment is being made in public transport infrastructure working in partnership with public transport operators for example the Greater Bristol Bus Network where Quality Partnership Schemes are being prepared for each corridor.

4.8.3. Other assets such as bus stop markings and raised kerbs do not form part of this section as they are covered under the Road Markings and Footways sections.

4.8.4. Inventories are generally good for location data using the National Public Transport Access Node (NaPTAN). This database is a national system for uniquely identifying all the points of access to public transport in the UK. It is a core component of the UK national transport information infrastructure. Local authorities are responsible for maintaining the NaPTAN database.

4.8.5. Further detailed Asset Information is required to produce a robust asset management database. Current information is included in Table 4.15.

Bath and North East Somerset

Bristol North Somerset


West of England

BUS STOPS

Flags 800 1100

Free Standing 600 1100

BUS SHELTERS

Council owned 141 488

Advertising Company

100 72

Parish or Other 45

INFORMATION

Timetable Case 550 830

Other Display Case

50 4

Real Time Passenger Information

0 20

Table 4.15 - Public Transport Asset Groups (2009/10)


4.8.6. The Bus Shelter and Bus Stop asset group includes:

• Bus stop flag (mounted on freestanding pole, street lighting column, bus shelter or other structure; most flags owned by councils but some by bus operators)

• Free standing pole (concrete, steel or aluminium, most owned by council but some by operators)

• Bus shelter (usually owned by Council, advertising company or Parish Council)

• Timetable case (usually attached to pole or mounted on shelter)

• Other display case (owned by Council, advertising company or Parish Council)

• Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) display and associated equipment mounted on or attached to bus shelter or bus stop pole

4.8.7. How the Council’s bus shelters are maintained is dependent on ownership and varies between each of the local authorities.

4.8.8. A number of bus shelters are owned and maintained by an advertising company and managed in accordance with the service levels identified in the Inner and Outer Avon bus shelter agreements.

4.8.9. Other shelters are owned by Town and Parish Councils or in a limited number of cases, by other parties for example retail centres, Network Rail and Hospital sites. Bus stop flags, poles and timetable cases are owned by the Councils or in some cases by Public Transport Operators. Other display cases at bus shelters can be owned by an advertising company.


4.9. Highway Drainage Assets

4.9.1. Highway drainage systems exist for surface water run off from the highway and alleviating flooding and protecting the fabric of the highway. The maintenance of which may be the responsibility of the council, the local land owner or in some instances other statutory bodies.

4.9.2. Removal of surface water ensures safe and comfortable conditions for the public. The provision of effective sub-drainage will maximise life of the highway.

4.9.3. Highway drainage can be classified into two elements:

• Surface run-off (Positive drainage systems)

• Sub-surface run-off (Land & ground water collection)

4.9.4. Types of drainage systems are shown in the Table 4.16 below.

Types Of Highway Drainage Systems

Highway Gully: a drainage pit covered by an open metal grating located at the edge of the carriageway.

Combined Kerb & Drain: kerb units that allow the entry of surface water into an internal cavity.

Highway Drain: a pipe carrying the highway water. It may connect to an interceptor, outfall into a utility surface water sewer, pond or water course.

Roadside Ditch: generally to drain adjacent land, provides a water course for highway run off. Often not within the highway limits.

Highway Grip: a shallow channel connecting the carriageway edge to a roadside ditch, it may also be piped.

Filter Drain: an aggregate filled trench with a perforated collecting surface water and sub surface run.

SUDS: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. A porous surface which allows water to move through it and to be captured in a controllable way (look for a description to suit)

Table 4.16 - Types of Highway Drainage Systems

4.9.5. The individual number, lengths and other attributes of the various drainage types employed across the West of England are shown in table 4.17 below.

4.9.6. In common with other Asset classes a data collection and audit process is to be established, ensuring that where possible build details, inspection and maintenance records are established.


Highway Drainage Asset Groups




Gullies Urban 12 Months Rural 6 months Special Attention 3 months A&B Roads 6 Months

Urban kerbed 24 months. Rural 12 months. Vulnerable 6 months

18 months

Combined Kerb & Drain As Above As above Annually

Grips Adhoc Adhoc Annually

Piped Grips N/A As gullies Annually

Filter Drain Adhoc Adhoc Adhoc

Ditch Some annually, remainder adhoc

Some annually, remainder adhoc

Adhoc some checked and hand cleared annually

Highway Drain Adhoc mostly reactionary

Adhoc mostly reactionary

Adhoc mostly reactionary

Interceptor Adhoc Adhoc Reactionary being reviewed

Catch Pit Adhoc Heading towards Routine

Adhoc Reactionary

Balancing Pond N/A Unknown Five yearly

Table 4.17 - Highway Drainage Asset Groups (2009/10)


4.10. Highway Verge Trees and Landscaped area Assets

4.10.1. Highway verges, trees and landscaped areas include a range of green assets contained within the highway boundary. They exist in a variety of forms and for a number of reasons. This includes:

• Provide visibility to road network,

• Amenity Value including hosting trees, shrubs and bedding,

• Host street utility and highway services,

• Provide habitat for birds, animals, wild flowers and fauna,

• Contribute to sustainable drainage feature, and

• Continued presence of native species.

4.10.2. The maintainable items associate with this asset group include:

• Verges,

• Highway trees,

• Hedges, and

• Shrubs.

4.10.3. In some cases the maintenance may be the responsibility of the council, town/parish council and in some instances other statutory bodies and/or private ownership.

4.10.4. Maintenance of these items ensures public safety and is important for the ongoing provision and promotion of habitats that support a variety of diverse animal and plant species. There also exists a legal obligation to actively maintain injurious and invasive plants such as ragwort, Japanese Knotweed and Giant Hogweed. Some verges are identified as areas of local nature conservation interest.

4.10.5. Overall there is a limited record of the type, position and condition of these assets. Even though authorities know the extent of areas or the numbers that they maintain see table 4.18, the total defined asset records are not reliably nor updated. In common with other asset classes a data collection and audit process is to be established.

Highway Verge Asset Groups

Bath & North East

Somerset



Rural Cut Verges (linear m)

989,447.62 687,904 162,400,000

Rural Cut Verges (sq m)

17,279.71 936,575 -

Urban Cut Verges (linear m)

121,755.11 - -


Urban Cut Verges (sq m)

383,604.68 286,698 876,574

Table 4.18 - Highway Verge Asset Groups (2009/10)


4.11. Non Illuminated Sign Assets Characteristics

4.11.1. Road signs perform an important role in road safety, often playing a central part in road safety improvement initiatives. Non Illuminated Signs are designed to:-

• Warn about hazardous locations

• Advise about traffic regulations

• Inform highway users about destinations

• Assist in managing the movement of vehicles and pedestrians in the highway

• The primary aim is to ensure that they are legible, visible and effective.

4.11.2. There are a wide variety of sign types, shapes, sizes and materials, which are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and the Traffic Signs Manual. Destination and direction signs are sited in accordance with national signing strategies and can vary considerably in terms of size and type.

4.11.3. Road signs perform an important role in road safety, often playing a central part in road safety improvement initiatives. There is often limited or restricted space available to position signs and achieve adequate vehicle safety clearances while maintaining width for pedestrian movement in compliance with the DDA. Care is also needed in positioning to ensure overhanging roadside foliage will not obscure signs and the signs are positioned to minimise the hazard to highway users.

4.11.4. Existing road signs are of a varied age and are vulnerable to vandalism and vehicle strikes over time, so a significant number may need to be replaced before they reach the end of their natural life. However, in general terms, modern sign posts have a life expectancy of around 15 to 20 years and highly reflective sign faces up to approximately 20 years before degradation becomes significant.

4.11.5. Technology and innovation in products and materials should be considered in line with DfT guidelines as and when advances are made.

4.11.6. All four authorities recognise that further work is necessary to collect information on the number, type and condition of signs in this asset group as acknowledged in the gap analysis.


4.12. Segregated Cycleway and Cycle Tracks

4.12.1. Segregated cycleways and cycle tracks can consist of a separate road, track, path or lane that is designated for use by cyclists and from which motorised traffic is generally excluded. Segregated cycle facilities are distinct from facilities in which cyclists are integrated with other traffic (i.e., not separated from other traffic by class):

• The term cycleway is generally used to denote a roadway dedicated to cycle traffic on its own separate right-of-way. This may include a separate pedestrian zone or path, or pedestrians and cyclists may be expected to share the same way

• The term cycle track is a legal term for a roadway constructed specifically for use by cyclists, but not by any other vehicles. A cycle track may be alongside a carriageway for all vehicles or it may be on its own alignment. The term does not include cycle lanes or other facilities within an all-vehicle carriageway

4.12.2. The West of England segregated cycleways and cycle tracks vary significantly according to location and function. Programmes have been developed to ensure the continued expansion of segregated cycleways and cycle tracks networks. Segregated cycleways and cycle tracks lengths are summarised in Table 4.19.

Segregated cycleways and cycle tracks Lengths (km)


Bristol North

Somerset South


Segregated Cycleways

35

Cycle Tracks 21

Table 4.19 - Segregated cycleways and cycle tracks Asset Groups (2009/10)

4.12.3. Construction types and depths vary. At present there is insufficient information to accurately classify construction. Further data collection is obtained from the design process for new schemes included in the annual maintenance programmes.

4.12.4. The asset groups have been classified according to their construction, Flexible and Unbound, and type, segregated cycleways and cycle tracks as described in Table 4.20.

Segregated Cycleways Road or path dedicated to cyclists on separate right of way. Used mainly in commuting and leisure.

Cycle Tracks Roadside converted-footway type structure or side path alongside (not on) a carriageway. These are generally leisure routes.

Flexible Usually used on a cycleway with an asphalt wearing course.

Unbound Generally used more on Cycle Tracks

Table 4.20 - Segregated cycleways and cycle tracks construction types


4.12.5. No condition data is currently collected for this asset group.

4.12.6. In common with other Asset classes a data collection and audit process is to be established, ensuring that where possible build details, inspection and maintenance records are established.


4.13. Public Rights of Way

4.13.1. The West of England recorded public rights of way (PROW) vary significantly according to location and function. The maintenance of the PROW network is a statutory function, provided by the Highways Act 1980. Maintenance of the PROW record is a statutory function provided by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside 1949, and Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

4.13.2. A statutory Joint Rights of Way Improvement Plan has been prepared by Bath & North East Somerset, Bristol City and South Gloucestershire Councils. A separate Rights of Way Improvement Plan covers North Somerset. There is an aspiration to produce a joint plan for the West of England as a whole. The Rights of Way Improvement Plans include Statements of Action that set out programmes to guide the development of the PROW networks. The PROW network is summarised in Table 4.21.

Public Rights of Way Lengths (km)

Bath & North East

Somerset

Bristol North

Somerset South


Public footpaths

760 155 704 1,113 2732

Bridleways 41 5 85 123 254

Restricted Byways

2 0 37 25 64

Byways open to all traffic

49 0 1 0.15 50

Total Length 852 160 827 1,261 3100

Public Rights of Way Structures

8,336 ? ? 11,500 ?

Structures include bridges, barriers, signs and sign posts, steps, gates, stiles. NB Generally landowners are responsible for the maintenance of gates and stiles with a minimum of

25% contribution required from the local authority.

Table 4.21 JTAMP Public Rights of Way lengths (2007/08)

4.13.3. The PROW network runs across land in both private and public ownership. The highway authorities have a duty to ensure that PROW’s are adequately signposted, maintained, and free from obstruction and fit for purpose. Each council has maintenance contracts for vegetation clearance and control and there are also agreements with some Parish Councils. Landowners are responsible for the maintenance of stiles and gates and, in some circumstances, clearing overhanging vegetation.


4.13.4. Considerable work has been carried out to verify information on Public Rights of Way using exeGesIS to record asset location and network condition in a full network survey.

4.13.5. Public rights of way surface construction summarised in Table 4.22.

Public Rights of Way Surface Types (km)

Bath & North East

Somerset

Bristol North

Somerset South


Man made Surface e.g. stoned, tarmac

243

Natural Surface e.g. grass or woodland

1018

Table 4.22 Public Rights of Way construction types

4.13.6. The current PROW condition data for the West of England using the Local Indicator 178 is summarised in Table 4.23

Public Rights of Way Performance Indictor (Local 178)

Bath & North East

Somerset

Bristol North

Somerset South


Public Rights of Way Accessibility Survey

72% 72.7%

Target Value 2011/12

70% 75%

Table 4.23 Public Rights of Way condition data - West of England (2010/11)


4.14. Traffic and Road Safety Management Assets

4.14.1. Traffic and road safety management systems exist to maintain the safe flow and interaction of vehicles, cycles and pedestrians. These assets provide vital information to all road users ensuring the effective operation of the highway network. Under the Highways Act 1980, authorities have a statutory duty of care to all users on the highway network. In addition, The Traffic Management Act 2004, places a duty on all Highway Authority Traffic Managers to ensure the expeditious movement of traffic across their own network and co-ordination with neighbouring authorities.

4.14.2. Types of each group and their main usage are shown in the Table 4.24 below:

Traffic and Road Safety Management Systems

Traffic signal junctions

Provided to manage congestion, reduce accidents and providing safe facilities for other users such as pedestrians and cyclists.

Pedestrian and cycling facilities

Signal controlled safe crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

UTMC – Urban Traffic Management & Control

Provides co-ordination between adjacent traffic control installations incorporating remote monitoring and fault reporting system. Enables early intervention and proactive actions. Variable Message Signs (VMS) can be used for car parking guidance and traffic management information. Also includes ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) technologies used for access control, bus lane control, parking enforcement.

Automatic traffic count sites

Collect vehicle data including volume, speed and direction classifying into groups i.e. cars, buses and HGV’s.

Vehicle activated signs

Road side digital signs that display a warning message.

Wig-wag signs Flashing amber signals activated at school opening and closing times to warn of the possible increased hazard. Also used at Emergency Vehicle sites.

Enforcement camera’s

Traffic signal, speed and bus lane camera enforcement

Table 4.24 - Traffic and Road Safety Management Systems types

4.14.3. The individual numbers of various traffic and road safety types employed across the West of England are shown in Table 4.25 below:


Traffic and Road Safety Systems

Bath & North East

Somerset

Bristol North

Somerset South


Traffic signal junctions

39 83

Pedestrian signal crossings

63 91

UTMC (In-station)

1 1 0 1

Automatic Traffic Count sites

73

Vehicle Actuated Signs

50 106

School wig-wags

66 149

Enforcement camera’s

Table 4.25 - Traffic and Road Management Systems Asset Groups (2009/10)


4.15. Road Markings and Road Studs

4.15.1. Highway road markings and road studs are maintained to ensure they are legible, visible and fit for purpose. They convey instructions to road users which is clearly visible both by day and by night. They are designed to:

• Assist the expeditious movement of traffic across their own network and co-ordination with neighbouring authorities

• Assist safe movement of pedestrians

• Warn about hazardous locations and provide information

• Advise about traffic regulations

4.15.2. There are a wide variety of road markings, which are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and the Traffic Signs Manual.

• The majority of road markings are sited in accordance with national signing strategies and can vary considerably in terms of size and type

• Road markings perform an important role in road safety, often playing a central part in road safety improvement initiatives

4.15.3. In is recognised that in many authorities inventories of road marking and road studs are generally poor, consequently many existing markings are faded and require replacement. In addition, work is required to ensure that existing road marking are installed in accordance with the Traffic Regulation Order.

4.15.4. Two methods are generally used when undertaking lining works, screed and sprayed. Screed is a thermoplastic laid using a hand pushed pram or on major installations a specially designed lorry. Sprayed method is mainly used on centre lines.

Road Marking Lengths (km)


Bristol North

Somerset South


Regulatory White lining

Table 4.26 - Road Markings and Road Studs Asset Groups (2009/10)


4.15.5. Safety Fences and Barriers

4.15.6.

Safety Fences and Barriers Lengths (km)


Bristol North

Somerset South


Table 4.27 - Safety Fences and Barriers Asset Groups (2009/10)

4.16. Parking Infrastructure Assets

4.16.1. Parking Infrastructure assets are managed by each authority in different ways and will be described in detail in each authorities Annex.

4.17. Street Furniture including Cycle parking

4.17.1. Street Furniture includes a ranges of assets included in the highway environment:

• Pedestrian Barriers

• Street Name Plates

• Bins

• Bollards

• Verge marker posts

• Grit Bins

• Cattle Grids

• Seating, and

• Cycle parking.

4.17.2. In some cases the maintenance may be the responsibility of the council, town/parish council ensuring street scene amenity.

4.17.3. Overall there is a limited record of the type, position and condition of these assets. In common with other asset classes a data collection and audit process is to be established.


Street Furniture and Cycle Parking


Bristol North

Somerset South


Pedestrian Barrier

Street Name Plates

Bins

Bollards

Verge Marker posts

Grit Bins

Cattle Grids

Seating

Cycle Parking

Table 4.29 – Street Furniture Asset Groups (2009/10)

4.18. Continuous Development of the Joint Transport Asset Management Plan

4.18.1. The remainder of the asset types set out in Table 4.5 are to be added to this document over the next two years. The action plan will deliver the additional asset types as shown in Table 4.23.

Asset Type Year Version Status

Carriageway 2008/09 JTAMP (1) Complete

Footway, Footpaths & Cycleways 2008/09 JTAMP (1) Complete

Highway Structures 2008/09 JTAMP (1) Complete

Public Lighting 2008/09 JTAMP (1) Complete

Public Transport Infrastructure 2008/09 JTAMP (2) In Preparation

Highway Drainage 2008/09 JTAMP (2) Complete


Highway Verges, Trees and Landscaped areas

2008/09 JTAMP (2) Complete

Non-illuminated Signs 2008/09 JTAMP (2) Complete

Segregated Cycleway and Cycle Tracks 2009/10 JTAMP (3) Complete

Public Rights of Way 2009/10 JTAMP (3) Complete

Traffic and Road Safety Management 2009/10 JTAMP (3) Complete

Road Markings and Road Studs 2009/10 JTAMP (3) In Preparation

Safety Fences and Barriers 2010/11 JTAMP (4) In Preparation

Parking Infrastructure 2010/11 JTAMP (4) Complete

Street Furniture including Cycle parking 2010/11 JTAMP (4) Complete

Review CIPFA format and Update 2010/11 JTAMP (4) In preparation

Next Steps (depreciation modelling and implementation)

2011/12 JTAMP (5) Continuous development

Table 4.32 - JTAMP Forward Plan


4.19. Inventory and condition gap analysis

4.19.1. Inventory and condition information is the single most important input in any asset management system. Using the Framework for Highway Asset Management, a base line assessment has been established for inventory and condition data across the West of England. The confidence evaluation utilises a matrix approach comparing the extent and reliability of the information currently available. As an initial stage for gap analysis this information provides an important base line. The challenge is to now consider the future improvements that are required. An action plan is being developed to deliver future improvements.

4.19.2. Extent of Data Collection The extent of data establishes the amount of information currently held by the authorities. This data is either stored in a paper format or contained in an electronic system. There is an aspiration to migrate all information to an appropriate electronic system. The extent of available data has been described using five different levels.

Extent Definition

None No data is stored in electronic or hard copy storage

Partial 10 to 30% of asset has data recorded in either electronic or hard copy format

Average 30 to 70% of asset has data recorded electronically

Above Average 70 to 95% of asset has data recorded electronically

Complete More than 95% of asset has data recorded electronically

4.19.3. Reliability of Data Stored The reliability of data establishes the accuracy of information currently held by the authorities. This data is either stored in a paper format or contained in an electronic system. There is an aspiration to migrate all information to an appropriate electronic system. The reliability of available data has been described using five different levels.

Reliability Definition

None Stored data is less than 10% accurate

Poor Stored data is more than 10% but less than 30% accurate

Average Stored data is 30 – 70% accurate

Good Stored data is greater than 70% but less than 95% accurate

Excellent Stored data is greater than 95% accurate


4.19.4. Confidence Level for Data

Extent

Reliability

Nil Partial Average Above Average

Complete

None None Low Low Low Low

Poor None Low Low Low Low

Average None Low Medium Medium Medium

Good None Low Medium High High

Excellent None Low Medium High High

4.19.5. JTAMP Position Statement March 2008

The full base line assessment is shown in Appendix 1. A summary of the Confidence Levels for each Asset Type is set in Table 4.24:

Confidence Level Asset Type

Inventory Condition

Carriageway Low Medium

Footways footpaths and cycleways Medium Low

Highway Structures High High

Public Lighting High High

Public Transport Infrastructure Medium Medium

Highway Drainage Medium Low

Highway Verges Low Low

Non Illuminated Signs Low Low

Segregated Cycleways and Cycle Tracks Medium Low

Public Rights of Way Medium Low

Traffic and Road Safety Management High Medium

Road Markings and Road Studs Low Low

Safety Fences and Barriers Low Low

Parking Infrastructure Medium Medium

Street Furniture and cycle parking Low Low

Highway Trees and Landscaped areas Medium Low

Other major assets Medium Medium

Table 4.33 Summary of the Confidence Levels for each Asset Type


5. LEVELS OF SERVICE 5.1. Introduction

5.1.1. A key challenge for the JTAMP is to demonstrate a clear balance and link between customer expectations and asset integrity. This will be achieved by applying Levels of Service.

5.1.2. Levels of Service are a mechanism for measuring both the service and the quality of a transport asset. It will demonstrate the way the service is provided and how that service is perceived by local authority customers.

5.1.3. As set out in the Framework for Highway Asset Management, Levels of Service provide an assessment of asset performance, asset condition, and the quality of the service delivered by that asset, and also of the highway authority. Levels of Service will:

• Document and measure the service provided.

• Rationally evaluate the service versus any lost tradeoffs.

• Determine if adequate focus is given to what is important to the customer.

• Establish if operational activities support the achievement of strategic goals.

5.2. Developing Levels of Service

5.2.1. Levels of Service quantify the performance of a transport asset in an easy to understand, non-technical language, which reflect the demands placed on that service. The process used for producing Levels of Service is shown in Figure 5.1, based on the guidance in Framework for Highway Asset Management published by the County Surveyors Society. The development of performance measures allows a comprehensive assessment of asset performance and will establish the relationship between both cost and performance. Performances measures reflect a range of factors, which when analysed collectively provide a full understanding of the performance of the whole asset. This provides an ‘evidence led’ assessment that will support the decision making process on the allocation of resources. This ability to rationally assess between competing demands is at the core of asset management.


5.2.2. Levels of Service are based on the following headings, as shown in Figure 5.2:

• Legislative Requirements

• Customer Expectations

• Organisational Objectives

• Best Practice Guidelines

Legislative Requirements

Customer Aspirations

Predict and consider future

demand

Enter Asset Management

Cycle

Initial Levels of Service

Organisational Objectives

Best Practice Guidelines

Figure 5.1 - Process for developing Levels of Service

Review


Requirements Levels of

Service Performance

Measures


Safety

NI’s

Customer Expectations

Availability / Accessibility

Local Performance

Indicators


Condition

Customer Satisfaction

Surveys


Environmental

Contract Performance

Indicators

Figure 5.2 - Level of Service Development


5.2.3. Statutory requirements and other important legislative framework documents influence the delivery and management of transport assets. It is essential to take these fully into account when developing Levels of Service. In effect these documents and the associated powers define the minimum level of service; Table 5.1 shows the legislation relevant to the management of transport assets.


Highway Legislation Highway Act 1980

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

Rights of Way Act 1990

New Roads and Street Works Act 1991

Transport Act 2000

Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002

Railways and Transport Act 2003

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

Traffic Management Act 2004

Environmental Legislation

Noxious Weeds Act 1959

Environmental Protection Act 1990

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Relevant General Legislation

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

Construction (Design and Management) Regulation 2007

Human Rights Act 1988

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992

Disability and Discrimination Act 1995 and 2005

Freedom of Information Act 2000

The Local Government Act 2003

Audit Commission Comprehensive Performance Assessment - The Harder Test 2007

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community

Table 5.1 – Transport, environmental and relevant legislation

Customer Expectations

5.2.4. Asset Management is closely linked to understanding customer demand aspirations. The customers’ view of the transportation service is regarded as fundamental and a highly important element of delivering value for money. It is important to demonstrate that this customer-focused performance is sought within existing budgetary and other constraints.

5.2.5. Consultation will be carried out in the form of focus groups and customer surveys, to understand the needs and aspirations of both users and to improve overall customer satisfaction. A regional benchmarking exercise has been carried out to assess customer satisfaction in transportation service delivery. The initial results will be available in the summer of 2008 and will be reviewed annually. Results will be published by the County Surveyors’


Society. This approach, focusing on customers’ needs and aspirations provides valuable feedback to the levels of service. Long term improvement plans are being developed to incorporate the resulting needs and aspirations.


5.2.6. The Levels of Service are consistent with the aims and objectives outlined in our corporate and policy documents. These were set out in Chapter 3 Aims, Goals and Objectives.


5.2.7. Codes of Practice for assets including highways, structures and street lighting provide a template to use in Best Value Review, and as an indicator of good practice, against which we can better our performance. It contains clear recommendations and guidance on the appropriate management and standards for our highway network. Whilst not statutory requirements, the codes are likely to be used as a point of reference in any legal proceedings, and must, therefore, be instrumental in influencing and shaping desired Levels of Service.

Other national and local documents that may influence eventual standards include:

• Design Manual for Road and Bridges

• Specification for Highway Works

• Maintaining a Vital Asset

Organisational Constraints

5.2.8. The development of Levels of Service will reflect organisational constraints. While it may be possible to influence and amend some of these, many will remain as permanent restrictions. These include:

• Inadequate or unpredictable financial resources – the desired Level of Service can’t be funded in either the short or long term.

• Resource constraints – we may not be able to attract suitable skilled or experienced resources, which will prevent us from achieving our desired Levels of Service – similarly, our organisation or structure / culture will influence this.

• Procurement constraints – our arrangements or contractor’s limitations may have a similar effect.

• Political constraints – our political approach may not be consistent over the longer-term, it may affect the availability of funding and, may vary certain approaches to our work programmes. Also, there will be variations across the West of England because of the difference local political influences.


CO

RP

OR

AT

E

PL

AN

S

Theme 1

Communities and

Managing Future

Development

Theme 2

Improving Health and Wellbeing

Theme 3

Valuing the Environment

Theme 4

Safer and Stronger

Communities

Theme 5

Investing in Children and Young

People

Theme 6

Economic

prosperity and

regeneration

Theme 7

Continuous

Improvement

JTAMP LEVELS OF SERVICE

Network Management

√√√ √ √ √√ √√ √√

Network Safety √ √√ √√ √

Sustainable Transport

√√√ √√√ √√√ √√ √√ √√

Accessibility √√√ √√√ √ √√√ √√ √√

Condition √√ √√

Customer Service

√√ √√ √√ √√ √ √√ √√√

Value for Money

√√√ √√ √√√

Sustainability √√ √√√ √√ √

Low Impact √ Medium Impact √√ High Impact √√√

Table 5.2 - Transport Themes influencing JTAMP Levels of Service

5.3. JTAMP Levels of Service

5.3.1. Levels of Service have been developed to cover all aspects of the JTAMP which in turn are linked and align to the other requirements in Figure 5.1. Levels of Service describe the performance and service of the assets that can be easily understood and is meaningful to elected members, the public and to engineers. It is essential that the meaning is consistent to all stakeholders.

• Network Management – co-ordination and management of activities on and around the highway, including works undertaken by statutory undertakers.

• Sustainable Transport - promotion and encouragement of sustainable forms of transport, e.g. walking, cycling and buses, and promote developments that reduce the need to travel.

• Condition - quality of the transport infrastructure.

• Network Safety - safety of all users.

• Sustainability - measures and procedures that minimise waste and maximise recycling.


• Accessibility - accessibility to services for all users.

• Customer service - customer representation and satisfaction.

• Value for Money – economic, effective and efficient service delivery.

Level of Service Standards

5.3.2. A defined standard will be attributed to each Level of Service. These standards are clearly defined to ensure that they are understood by stakeholders. Four categories: excellent, good, adequate and inadequate have been identified against each level of service. These standards are defined as follows:

• Excellent – achieves the highest possible standard and / or a level that exceeds the good practice due to improving service or condition through innovations.

• Good – meets recognised good practice and / or acceptable council standard identified through customer surveys.

• Adequate – meets minimum statutory national requirements and / or minimum common practice.

• Inadequate – does not meet minimum statutory national requirements and / or minimum common practice and / or acceptable council standard identified through customer surveys.

5.4. Performance Measures

5.4.1. To demonstrate whether the objectives are being achieved through the Levels of Service; comparisons need to be made based on performance and quality. Performance measures define the criteria for evaluation and characterize performance in a way that is easily understood by the customers. The measures also provide a means of benchmarking against comparable authorities.

5.4.2. There are two main types of Performance Measures:

• National (mandatory): set by the Government and measured over a set period of time. These include National Indicators reported on an annual basis.

• Local, West of England or regional.

5.4.3. Performance Measures have applied the following principles:

• Relevant – to the local authority objectives.

• Avoid perverse incentives – to avoid waste or inappropriate practice.

• Attributable – can the activity being measured be influenced.

• Well-defined – to enable consistent data collection, calculation and use.


• Timely – to produce an output at an appropriate frequency.

• Reliable – accurate and in accordance with its intended use.

• Comparable – with past scores or benchmarked measures elsewhere.

• Verifiable – clearly documented so the process can be checked.

5.4.4. The standards include all the levels of service requirements identified earlier in this section. The development of the JTAMP identified all national, local and regional Performance Measures and linked them with a Level of Service. The key challenge was ensuring that the measure could be segregated into our four standards. Not all performance measures had relevant legislation, or customer views or recognised best practice. For this reason the standards are defined broadly.

5.4.5. Table 5.3 shows the performance measures and corresponding Levels of Service standards.


ASSET(S)

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

EXCELLENT GOOD ADEQUATE INADEQUATE

LEVEL OF SERVICE

ASSET(S) Achieves the highest possible standard and / or a level that exceeds the good practice due to improving service or condition through innovations.

Meets recognised good practice and / or acceptable council standard identified through customer surveys.

Meets minimum statutory national requirements and / or minimum common practice.

Does not meet minimum statutory national requirements and / or minimum common practice and / or acceptable council standard identified through customer surveys.

Network Management

Classified – Principal Carriageway (NI 168)

(NI 168) <6% requiring maintenance.

6-8% requiring maintenance.

>8-11% requiring maintenance.

>11% requiring maintenance.

Network Management

Classified – Non Principal Carriageways (NI 169)

(NI 169) <10% requiring maintenance.




Network Management

Unclassified Carriageway

CVI <4% requiring maintenance.




Network Management

Footways, Footpaths and Cycleways

DVI <15% requiring maintenance.




Network Management

Public Lighting % of street lighting not working as planned.

>98% 95-98% 90-95% <90%


ASSET(S)



Network Management

Public Lighting Average days taken to repair a street light (combined figure of BVPI 215a and 215b).

<5 days 5-7 7-10 >10

Network Management

Structures % of bridges achieving required carrying capacity.

>95% 85-95% 75-85% <75%

Network Management

Bridges Bridge Condition Indicator.

90-100 75-90 50-75 <50

Network Management

Retaining Wall Wall Condition Indicator.

90-100 75-90 50-75 <50


Segregated Cycle paths

CVI <15% requiring maintenance.




Footways, Footpaths CVI <15% requiring maintenance.




Network Safety

All Assets Safety Inspections (% of inspections completed to the correct frequency).

>98% to minimum frequency.

95-98% to minimum frequency.

90-95% to minimum frequency.

<90% to minimum frequency.


ASSET(S)



Network Safety

Carriageway Skid testing (% inspected at or below Investigatory Level).

Operational full skid policy.

Investigate sites from survey under investigatory level.

Survey once per year.

No survey.

Sustainability* Carriageway % of waste material created from highway maintenance activity recycled.

>95% 80-95% 50-80% <50%

Sustainability Public Lighting Policy of energy reduction.

Policy introduced -More than 30% reduction in energy being achieved.

Policy introduced - 20% - 30% reduction in energy being achieved.

Policy introduced – 10% - 20% reduction in energy being achieved.

No energy saving policy.

Accessibility Footways, Footpaths and Cycleways

Controlled Crossing Points (Local 165).

>98% 85-98% 70-85% <70%

Customer Service

All Assets Response to category 1 safety defects within target time.

>98% 90-98% 80-90% <80%


ASSET(S)



Customer Service

Public Lighting Response to urgent lighting defects within target time.

100% 98-100% 95-98% <95%

Customer Service

All Assets NHT Public Satisfaction Survey.

More than once per year.

Once per year 2-5 years Every 5 years

Value for Money

All Assets Lifecycle Costing. Lifecycle plan in operation and delivering sustainable streams of funding.

Lifecycle plan adopted but not implemented.

Lifecycle plan available but not adopted.

No lifecycle plan.

*Process to measure this performance indicator is currently under development

Table 5.3 - Performance Measures and Level of Service Bandings


6. ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING 6.1. Introduction

6.1.1. Asset management planning is an essential mechanism for the JTAMP process. The JTAMP will provide a framework for our future investment strategies. It informs the delivery of Levels of Service by utilising all available information. There are five principal components for asset management planning divided into two separate stages:

a) Option Identification

• Performance Gaps

• Lifecycle Planning

b) Decision Making

• Optimisation & Budget Consideration

• Risk Assessment

• Forward Work Programme

6.1.2. A consistent asset management philosophy is established throughout the West of England for the management of all transport assets. This provides an integrated transport asset management system delivering the benefits identified in Chapter 1 including:

• Informed decision making

• Reduced whole life costs

• Customer focussed delivery

• Transparency and ownership of decision making

Based on the JTAMP, each council has prepared an annex to identify local issues.

6.1.3. The format of this chapter on Asset Management Planning establishes an integrated approach. The principles behind each of the five components are set out to describe the areas approach to Asset Management.

6.1.4. Each component is applied to a specific asset type in the following sections. It is acknowledged that identical processes cannot be applied to all transport asset types. For example importance of individual assets is a reflection of:

• Appropriate hierarchy levels

• Asset function

• Construction form

• Deterioration mechanisms

• Local maintenance priority


6.2. Option Identification

Performance Gaps

6.2.1. Performance gaps represent the difference between the current position and the desired or target condition. There are three categories of performance gap:

• Where an asset condition falls below a desired level.

• To deliver an agreed service level for each asset type.

• Where an asset condition exceeds a desired level.

6.2.2. It is recognised that in some situations the performance gap will exceed the adopted level of service, providing an opportunity of resources to be targeted to other priority areas.

6.3. Lifecycle Planning

6.3.1. Lifecycle management plans address identified performance gaps as part of a long-term strategy. These are created for managing an asset or a group of similar assets, with the aim of providing the required levels of service while minimising whole life costs. The plans show how options have been evaluated before selecting the appropriate solution. It will describe how an asset group or sub-group is managed throughout its life from asset creation to asset disposal, Figure 6.1.

Asset Lifecycle

Asset Creation

Operation & Maintenance

Asset Renewal or Replacement

Asset Disposal

Operation & Maintenance

Figure 6.1 - Lifecycle Phases of an Asset

6.3.2. Lifecycle plans for each asset group / sub-group accommodate anticipated deterioration mechanisms, risks to safety and service loss, the required Levels of Service, maintenance techniques and


maintenance unit costs. This requires a sound understanding of asset performance and prediction models for the following:

• Maintenance and renewal activities for different asset types.

• Asset whole life costs.

Great Stoke Way, structural inspection pedestrian bridge (South Gloucestershire Council)

6.3.3. The national framework sets out five separate stages in the whole life of an asset, summarised in Table 6.1.

Key Stages in Lifecycle Management

Creation or Acquisition

The asset is built in response to a perceived need, or maybe acquired by a change of ownership or boundary change, etc.

Routine and Reactive Maintenance

Carried out to maintain the asset in a safe and serviceable condition and usually meeting defined standards e.g. regular sign cleaning to meet clarity / reflectivity requirements.

Renewal or Replacement

Work that does not increase the asset’s capacity, but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity e.g. bulk lamp changes or road surface renewal.

Upgrading The demands placed on an asset change over time and the asset needs to be upgraded to reflect these changes, e.g. reconstruction or overlaying and widening of carriageways, strengthening of structures prompted by legislation.

Disposal Sections of the asset which are no longer required maybe removed from the highway network and decommissioned or demolished, e.g. rationalisation / removal of signs or traffic signals, or possible removal of highway rights on little used road sections.

Table 6.1 - Asset Lifecycle Stages


6.3.4. Each asset group managed in the West of England will have a documented maintenance strategy based on the appropriate stages as shown in Table 6.1.

A38 Gloucester Road, dismantling redundant pedestrian bridge (South Gloucestershire Council)

6.3.5. A three step process has been adopted to develop these strategies:

Required Asset Performance

The performance information developed in Chapter 5: Levels of Service has considered customers, corporate, legal and engineering requirements. The performance indicators associated with condition provide the core requirements of each asset. In other service oriented indicators assets also contribute. These are also noted in the lifecycle plan.

Asset Understanding

Knowledge of the deterioration rates and service life enable the timing and appropriate maintenance intervention to be assessed. Most of this information is based on codes of practice well supported by engineering judgement and local experience.

Work Options

Provides a description of the options including respective lives and costs for each phase, as described in Table 6.1 and provides the information necessary to develop maintenance strategies for each asset over their service lives.

6.4. Funding Types

6.4.1. In general, the work undertaken by the authority on the transport assets can be classified with regard to the expenditure type, i.e. Revenue or Capital, where these are defined as:

Revenue Expenditure - expenditure on asset maintenance that reinstates a local failure, repairs local damage or maintains the condition of the asset. Revenue expenditure is divided into either


reactive, e.g. carriageway potholes, traffic accident knock down, etc., or routine maintenance, e.g. gully cleansing, road marking, painting of street furniture, etc.

The main source of revenue funding is via the wider local government financial settlement. This is allocated on a formula basis taking into account road length, road condition and other factors. Authorities can provide revenue funding from own resources.

Capital Expenditure - expenditure on full asset base for highway and transportation environment that either renews the whole asset, for example replacement of lighting column, or renews part of the asset to extend its lifecycle, e.g. inlay of a carriageway and footway enhancements.

The main source of capital funding is through the JLTP Capital allocations. JLTP capital allocations are made up of the following two main funding streams.

• Integrated Transport block allocations. This is used by the Councils to fund all non-maintenance transport schemes costing less than £5 million – traffic management, road safety schemes, bus priority schemes, walking and cycling schemes, transport information schemes etc.

• Maintenance allocations. These are provided for structural local road maintenance - major resurfacing, maintenance or replacement of bridges etc, and occasionally reinstatement of roads following natural events or disasters.

6.4.2. Councils can provide capital funding from its own resources. Other funding sources include; grants from various bodies, Prudential Borrowing and Public Finance Initiatives (PFI’s). Contributions from developers as Section 106 agreements are associated with new housing or industrial developments to introduce infrastructure improvements.


6.5. Decision Making

Initial Scheme Identification

6.5.1. Revenue maintenance works for all assets are identified by inspection in accordance with the standard intervention levels set out in the relevant lifecycle plan and managed locally by the relevant Service Team.

6.5.2. Capital maintenance (carriageway and footway surfacing, and drainage improvement) works are identified by condition surveys and visual inspection in accordance with the standard intervention levels set out in the relevant lifecycle plan.

6.5.3. Integrated Transport Schemes are identified to achieve targets within the JLTP and to ensure that the councils’ aims and objectives, as stated in Chapter 3, are achieved. They can also be requested by Members, Parish Councils, user forums and the public. All requests are assessed against JLTP and council policies and targets.

6.6. Development of Detailed Programmes

6.6.1. A prioritisation process for project funding has been put in place for assessing all schemes. The following factors are used within the process:

• Engineering criteria (the need for action)

• Best Value Performance Plans

• Policies and Management Plans

• Legal and Statutory Duties

• Joint Local Transport Plan / Service Plans

• Stakeholder Priority

• Health and Safety Issues

• Options for Improvement

• Social criteria

• Financial criteria

6.6.2. An action has been included in each Local Authority Improvement Plan to analyse and develop weightings for each of the above factors.

6.7. Forward Works Programme

6.7.1. Councils will, as part of the future development of the JTAMP, prepare forward works programmes for each asset grouping based on the evaluation and ranking of alternative improvement projects and maintenance treatments, and including all cyclic routine maintenance functions.

6.7.2. Individual asset programmes will form an Integrated Forwards Works Programme. It will bring all of the proposed works on the network into


one location enabling better co-ordination of works to take place in both the operational sense such as traffic management and in longer term planning.

6.7.3. This forward programme will be built on projections using currently held data and knowledge. As such there will be significant limitations on the reliability of the projections. The reliability of projections regarding the precise nature and location of the works for the later years of the programme will be relatively low; however an aggregation of the anticipated needs is a valid method of predicting future funding requirements.

6.7.4. The anticipated levels of confidence in the long-term programme are detailed in Table 6.2.

Year(s) Description Confidence Level

1 Work is in Progress 95%

2 Firm Recommendation 50%

3-5 Reasonable Assessment 30%

6-10 Informed Assessment

Table 6.2 - Confidence Levels in Forward Works Programme

6.7.5. The latter years of the forward works programme will essentially be used as a planning tool.

6.8. Risk Management

6.8.1. Effective Risk Management is an essential requirement of Corporate Governance. It is concerned with managing the barriers to delivery of asset management. It highlights potential risks, and identifies potential consequences. The full implementation of a Risk Management strategy will enhance awareness of potential sources of risks and ensure that appropriate mitigation measures to minimise the risk.

6.9. Identify and Structure the potential Risks

6.9.1. Documentation of events that have the potential to adversely affect the service delivery to the customer. Risk types are identified in accordance with the Framework for Highway Management:

• Safety

• Natural Events

• Physical Risks

• Economic

• Legislative

• Resources

• Public Liability


6.10. Initial Risk Rating

6.10.1. Risks are evaluated in terms of their significance, potential consequences, and the probability of it occurring. The example used below can be found in County Surveyors’ Society ‘Well Maintained Highways’.

• Risk Consequence

The impact of a risk occurring is quantified by assessing the likely effects should the risk become an incident using a four point assessment:

- Little or negligible impact.

- Minor or low impact.

- Noticeable impact.

- Major, high or serious impact.

• Risk Probability

The probability is quantified by assessing the likelihood of the risk occurring using a four point assessment:

- Very low probability.

- Low probability.

- Medium probability.

- High probability.

• Risk Factor

The risk factor is the product of the risk consequence and risk probability as shown in Figure 6.2 and identifies the seriousness of the risk and a priority order for alleviating that risk.

Probability

Impact Very Low (1) Low (2) Medium (3) High (4)

Negligible (1) 1 2 3 4

Low (2) 2 4 6 8

Noticeable (3) 3 6 9 12

High (4) 4 8 12 16

Figure 6.2 - Risk Factor Example (Source: Well Maintained Highways)


6.11. What is needed?

6.11.1. The risk management process is set out in Figure 6.3

Define the Risk context and focus the process

Identify and structure the potential Risks

Complete initial Risk rating / size uncertainty

Evaluate the potential mitigation options

Clarify the Risk Manager (ownership)

Define the plan for action and monitor and

manage implications and progress

Com

ple

ted i

n R

isk M

anag

er

Decide on an effective Mitigation Measure and

complete mitigated Risk rating

Risk Assessment

Report on Risk profile for projects, divisions, business units,

operating groups and business streams

Ris

k A

udit

an

d M

onth

ly R

evie

w

Figure 6.3 - Risk Management Process

Evaluate Potential Mitigation Options

6.11.2. Mitigation options to eliminate or minimise the risk are identified for a range of options of both short term and long term solutions. Additional resource and financial implications will be identified for each option.

Mitigation Measures and Mitigated Risk Rating

6.11.3. A risk rating following mitigation is identified. Specialist input is required for insurance claims and legal issues.

Risk Manager (Ownership)

6.11.4. Allocating ownership to each risk is an essential component of risk management.

Risk Register (Action/Monitoring)

6.11.5. A risk register is compiled of all the risks and mitigation measures. There are several options how these should be managed in the JTAMP, depending on the size of the risk register. In some cases


there may be more than one relevant risk register for example, highways, structures and transportation.

6.12. Asset Valuation

6.12.1. Asset valuation is an essential component of asset management to improve overall stewardship of the highway and transportation environment. It is an important tool for linking the councils’ asset management and financial planning process. The asset valuation process requires an analysis of the condition of an asset over its life and an indication of the investment needed to keep the asset delivering the required level of service throughout its life cycle.

6.12.2. Councils are required to value transportation assets. A Guidance Document for Highway Infrastructure Asset Valuation provides a framework for analysing the condition of an asset over its life and linking planned maintenance budgets directly to the financial requirements of maintaining the network to levels of service.

6.12.3. The main output of the valuation process is a Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC), which is the cost of replacing the asset to current standards, and depreciated to take account of present conditions. DRC is expressed as follows:

6.12.4. The detailed asset inventory provides base information for calculating the GRC. Unit costs provide the financial component of the GRC.

6.12.5. There are two methods of calculating depreciation for highway and transportation assets:

• Renewal Accounting incorporates assets which are intended to be maintained at a specified Level of Service by continual replacement and refurbishment of its components.

• Conventional Method incorporates assets which have readily identifiable service lives and are routinely replaced at the end of their life.

6.12.6. Impairment represents a reduction in asset value due to decreases in condition and/or performance caused by sudden or unforeseen circumstances such as flooding or subsidence and landslip.

Preliminary Asset Valuation

6.12.7. An initial calculation of the GRC of the transport infrastructure based on current inventory is shown in Table 6.3.

Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) = Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) – (Depreciation (D) + Impairment (Im))


Preliminary GRC Asset Valuation (£m)




West of England

£1,310 million

£3,236 million

£1,105 million

£2,923 million

£8,574 million

Table 6.3 - Preliminary JTAMP valuation (2008/9)

6.12.8. A preliminary JTAMP asset valuation benchmark has been produced in March 2008. It will be repeated at five year intervals. However, interim adjustments reflecting changes to the stock and fluctuation in construction prices will be undertaken annually. The JTAMP valuation is considered to be a conservative value. It is acknowledged that as the principals of Asset Management are shared through all Highways & Transportation service areas and with increasing experience of Asset Management, particularly closing the Asset Information Gap, that a more precise valuation will be achieved.

6.12.9. The asset value represents the current value of capital assets in the West of England. Depreciation value is defined as the systematic consumption of the economic benefits embodied in an asset over its service life arising from use, ageing or deterioration. It is this area of asset valuation modelling that will be developed over future years.

Depreciated Asset Valuation

6.12.10. The next steps in Asset Management for the West of England is the development of asset depreciation modelling which will contribute to the decision processes, ensuring the right maintenance treatment and at the right time. Ensuring cost benefits are realised for highway maintenance.


7. LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT PLANS 7.1. Carriageway Lifecycle Management Plan

7.1.1. The councils manage carriageway assets in accordance with standards set out in a Highway Maintenance Management Plan (HMMP).

7.1.2. The carriageway asset group includes both the surface and substructure of all roads. A detailed description of the specific attributes of the asset group is included in Chapter 4.

7.2. Condition Assessments

Safety Inspections

7.2.1. The councils undertake a system of inspections to monitor the integrity and safety of carriageways on a regular basis. The function is primarily to identify all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider community and allocate an appropriate level of response.

7.2.2. Defects are divided into two categories:

• Category 1 – require prompt attention as they represent an immediate or imminent hazard, or because there is a risk of short-term structural deterioration. Category 1 defects are resolved or made safe at the time of the inspection if reasonably practicable, and permanently repaired within 28 working days.

• Category 2 – all other defects. Category 2 defects are considered not to represent an immediate or imminent hazard, or at risk of short term structural deterioration. Details of these defects are recorded and resolved within a planned programme of work.

7.2.3. Inspections, including defect descriptions, response times and priority rankings, are carried out in accordance with the guidance set out in the Highways Maintenance Management Plan (HMMP).

7.2.4. The frequency of highways inspections varies according to the category of road. Table 7.1 indicates the frequency of inspections for the different categories of road.


CARRIAGEWAYS

Category Name Category Frequency

Motorway/Trunk Roads 1 Not applicable

National Primary Routes 2a 1 month

Local Primary Routes 2b 1 month

Main Distributor Roads 3(a) 1 month

Local Distributor Roads 3(b) 3 months

Unclassified 4(a) 6 months – 1 year

Local Access 4(b) 6 months – 1 year

Table 7.1 - Highway Inspection Frequencies

Technical Surveys

7.2.5. In order to monitor the condition of the network it is essential to carry out regular, objective, condition surveys. This data is used as follows:

• To provide information on the condition of the carriageway network across the West of England.

• To identify a forward programme of maintenance schemes.

• To provide data consistent with the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey (NRMCS).

• To produce appropriate performance indicators.

7.2.6. Table 7.2 indicates the types of survey which are carried out on the different categories of carriageway.

Category of Road SCANNER SCRIM CVI

Principal Roads (A roads) X X

Non Principal Classified Roads (B and C roads)

X X

Unclassified Roads X

Table 7.2 - Technical Surveys

7.2.7. SCANNER (Surface Condition Assessment of the National Network of Roads) is an automated survey, undertaken using Road Assessment Vehicles (RAV) fitted with lasers scanning the road surface at 2mm intervals.

7.2.8. The information obtained from SCANNER includes:


• Road surface defects such as roughness, surface texture and wheel path rut depths.

• A video recording can be used in the day to day management of the highway network. A video sequence of the highway can reduce unnecessary site visits and also improve customer relations allowing specific problems to be reviewed.

7.2.9. Coarse Visual Inspections (CVI) is undertaken on the unclassified road network. They are carried out using a slow-moving vehicle to enable a visual survey of the network. Rather than recording detailed measurements of individual defects, the survey identifies and categorises lengths of features possessing generally consistent defects. CVI’s provide a cost-effective survey that enables councils to cover large parts of the network on a regular basis. The results of these surveys are used to inform works programming and decision making processes.

7.2.10. Condition survey information is used to inform the Carriageway Lifecycle Plan and to produce National Indicators (NI’s) reported to central government.

7.3. Lifecycle Options


7.3.1. The highway network has limited new road construction. Almost exclusively, this is associated with adoptions associated with housing or business developments.

7.3.2. When a new road is built by a developer, it is designed and constructed to an approved design criteria.

Reactive and Planned Maintenance

7.3.3. Reactive maintenance is based on network inspections and deal with the repair of Category 1 defects and other matters requiring urgent attention. It is the responsibility of the Highway Inspector to identify if a defect fits into this category based on experienced technical judgement.

7.3.4. Planned maintenance is primarily to provide a defined standard of network serviceability, maximising carriageway availability, reliability, integrity and quality. The priorities and programmes are determined largely, but not exclusively, from Category 2 defects, together with items identified by customer requests.


7.3.5. Renewal or replacement activities return the carriageway and/or associated features to an “as new” capacity and condition status. This includes upgrading to latest design standards. The following options will be considered:

• Resurfacing

• Surface Dressing


• Thin surfacing

• Strengthening

• Reconstruction

Identification of Need

7.3.6. The identification of the replacement or renewal of carriageways and associated features is based on information from a number of sources, including:

• Condition assessment surveys and technical inspection providing a prioritisation ranking

• Public and member reports

• Accident history

• Detailed local knowledge by area engineers and inspectors, and other officers

• Drainage issues identified from repeated flooding

• Reviews of the long-term programme

• Opportunities presented to carry out works in conjunction with works to other asset components, e.g. footway works.

Upgrading

7.3.7. Specific proposals may arise from time to time which will upgrade a section of highway network to meet a change in demand. These proposals include carriageway widening, traffic management and safety schemes.

Decommissioning and Disposal

7.3.8. Removal of a carriageway is a very rare occurrence, decommissioning would only take place in conjunction with the disposal of a whole street that would only occur in exceptional circumstances.

7.3.9. Small lengths of carriageway might be removed from the network as part of a major development or a traffic improvement scheme. However, such a change of function would not constitute decommissioning.

7.4. Funding

7.4.1. Funding for all carriageway schemes comes primarily from revenue and capital budgets:

• Revenue Budgets – expenditure on carriageway maintenance to reinstate following a local failure, repairs of local damage or to maintain the asset condition. Revenue Budgets are either reactive or planned maintenance.

• Capital Budgets – expenditure on an asset that either renews the whole asset or renews part of the asset to extend its lifecycle.



7.5.1. Decision for planned maintenance, renewals, replacements or upgrade of an asset follows a two step process.

Step 1: Scheme Identification

7.5.2. Following appropriate technical surveys and safety inspections a list of schemes are identified for further consideration.

Step 2: Detailed Assessment

7.5.3. A prioritisation process is defined by the Highway Maintenance management Plan to rank the schemes in an appropriate priority order. The ranking process includes the following attributes:

• Levels of Service

• Corporate priorities

• Customer feedback

• UKPMS outputs and priorities


7.6.1. The ultimate goal of the decision process is to identify a forward work programme. The information from the previous four sections of the Carriageway Lifecycle Plan enable programmes to be developed for subsequent years. These programmes are developed as shown in Table 7.3.






Table 7.3 - Carriageway Forward Works Programmes

7.7. Levels of Service

7.7.1. Levels of Service have been developed using corporate, legal, best practice and customer requirements. All factors contribute to delivering a desired Level of Service. This section illustrates the links between each individual service levels. A budget has been calculated to understand the Level of Service that can be achieved with alternative levels of funding. Note: the specific value for each individual authority will be contained in an authority specific Annex to the JTAMP. Table 7.4 shows the non carriageway condition levels of service. These reflect tasks that are completed to ensure that the asset is managed in the most efficient manner.


7.7.2. The carriageway asset non condition levels of service are shown in Table 7.5. These reflect tasks that are completed to ensure that the asset is managed in the most efficient manner.

7.8. Condition Backlog

7.8.1. The carriageway across the West of England delivers 50% of the desired service levels. The main holding point for not achieving the remaining targets is funds. Simple deterioration models are being developed to understand the various levels of funding and how they affect the service levels.

7.9. Performance Gap (Implementation Actions)

7.9.1. Process planning for each individual authority will identify specific actions in the appropriate annex.


LEVEL OF SERVICE

ASSET INDICATOR EXCELLENT GOOD ADEQUATE INADEQUATE CURRENT

LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL

ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO

MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Network Management

Principal NI168 (% requiring

maintenance)

<6%

(£m)

6-8%

(£m)

>8-11%

(£m)

>11%

(£m)

Comment: Planned maintenance, renewal and replacement programmes targeted to improving this service level

Network Management

Non - Principal NI168 (% requiring

maintenance)

<10%

(£m)

10-13%

(£m)

>13-16%

(£m)

>16%

(£m)

Comment: The planned maintenance, renewal and replacement programmes target improving this service level

Network Management

Unclassified DVI (%

requiring maintenance)

<4% r

(£m)

4-14%

(£m)

>14-28%

(£m)

>28%

(£m)


All % of waste

material recycled

>95%

(£m)

80-95%

(£m)

50-80%

(£m)

<50%

(£m)

Comment:

Table 7.4 - Carriageway Asset Condition Levels of Service


LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Sustainability All % of waste

material recycled

>95%

(£m)

80-95%

(£m)

50-80%

(£m)

<50%

(£m)

Comment:

Network Safety

Carriageway

Skid testing (% inspected at or below

Investigatory Level)

Operational full skid policy

Investigate sites

from survey under

investigatory level

Survey once per year

No survey

Comments: This service level covers the existence of skid resistance policies. The results from the policy could in the future be used to monitor the success of the policy.

Network Safety

All

Safety Inspections (% completed to

correct frequency)

>98%

95-98%

90-95%

<90%

Comments: Safety is a critical level of service and safety inspections form one of the most important methods of monitoring safety levels.


LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Customer Service

All Assets

Response to safety defects within target

time

>98% 90-98% 80-90% <80%

Comments: The results from these surveys allow the councils to understand how well respective assets are been managed. A by product of these surveys could be a modification of the service levels.

Customer Service

All Assets NHT Public Satisfaction

Survey

More than once per year

Once per year

2-5 years Every 5 years

Comments: The result of these surveys allows the councils to understand how well respective assets are been managed. A by product of these surveys could be a modification of the service levels.

Value for Money

All Assets Lifecycle Costing

Lifecycle plan in operation

and delivering sustainable streams of

funding

Lifecycle plan

adopted but not

implemented

Lifecycle plan

available but not adopted

No lifecycle plan

Comments: The object of the lifecycle plan is to ensure that best use is made of available funds. In the long run this service level will affect the condition of the asset.

Table 7.5 - Carriageway Asset Non Condition Levels of Service


7.10. Footways, Footpaths and Cycleways Lifecycle Management Plan

7.10.1. The councils manage their pedestrian and cycling assets in accordance with standards set out in its Highway Maintenance Management Plan (HMMP).

7.10.2. The pedestrian and cycling asset group includes both the surface and substructure of all roads. A detailed description of the specific attributes of the asset group is included in Chapter 4.


Safety Inspections

7.11.1. The councils undertake a system of inspections to monitor the integrity and safety of pedestrian and cycle ways on a regular basis. The function is primarily to identify all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider community and allocate a level of response.





7.11.4. Footway inspections by highway inspectors are combined with carriageway inspections. The frequency of highways inspections varies according to the category of road. Table 7.6 indicates the frequency of inspections for different categories of footway.


Primary Walking Route* 1 1 month

Secondary Walking Route* 2 3 months

Link Footway* 3 6 months

Local Access Footway* 4 1 year


*cycleways are surveyed in the same manner as footways

Table 7.6 - Footway Inspection Frequencies

7.11.5. Public Rights of Way and Cycle Tracks will be incorporated in a future version of the JTAMP in accordance with the Forward Plan.

7.11.6. All category 1 defects are logged into a hand held computer that connects to a computerised system to produce works orders which are transmitted to a contractor to carry out the repairs.

Technical Surveys

7.11.7. In order to monitor the condition of the network it is essential to carry out regular, objective condition surveys. This data can be used as follows:

• To provide information on the condition of the footway and cycle way network across the West of England.


• To produce appropriate performance indicators.

Detailed Visual Inspections (DVI)

7.11.8. Footway and cycleway condition is assessed through visual surveys. At least 50% of category 1 and 2 footways are subject to Detailed Visual Inspections (DVI) each year. A DVI survey is a walked survey which provides a comprehensive list of all defects on the footway. DVI’s provide a cost-effective survey that enables councils to cover large parts of the network on a regular basis. The results of these surveys are used to inform works programming and decision making processes.

7.11.9. Condition survey information is used to inform the Footway, Footpath and Cycleway Lifecycle Management Plan and to annually produce Local Indicator 187.

7.11.10. Cycleways are treated in the same way as footways and form part of the highway inspection routine.



7.12.1. The footway and cycleway network has limited new construction. Almost exclusively, this is associated with adoptions associated with housing or business developments. The Joint Local Transport Plan also identifies the provision of missing links.

7.12.2. When a new pedestrian/cycle route is built either by the councils or a developer, it is designed and constructed to an approved design criteria.



7.12.3. Reactive maintenance is based on network inspections and deal with the repair of Category 1 defects and other matters requiring urgent attention. It is the responsibility of the Safety Inspector to identify if a defect fits into this category based on experienced technical judgement.



7.12.5. Renewal or replacement activities return the carriageway and/or associated features to an “as new” capacity and condition status. This includes upgrading to latest design standards. The following options will be considered:

• Resurfacing

• Slurry seal

• Thin surfacing

• Strengthening

• Reconstruction


7.12.6. The identification of need for replacement or renewal of pedestrian/cycle routes come from a number of sources, including:

• Condition assessment surveys and technical inspection providing a prioritisation ranking.

• Public and member reports.

• Accident history.

• Detailed local knowledge by area engineers and inspectors, and other officers.

• Drainage issues identified from repeated flooding.

• Reviews of the long-term programme.

• Opportunities presented to carry out works in conjunction with works to other asset components, e.g. carriageway utility works.

Upgrading

7.12.7. Specific proposals may arise from time to time which will effectively upgrade a piece of highway network to meet a change in demands. These proposals are undertaken as part of improvement to access to public transport infrastructure and introducing missing links to the pedestrian cycleway network.



7.12.8. Removal of a pedestrian/cycle route is a very rare occurrence, decommissioning would only take place in conjunction with the disposal of a whole street that would only occur in exceptional circumstances.

7.12.9. Small lengths of pedestrian routes might be removed from the network as part of major developments or a local improvement scheme. However, such a change of use would not constitute decommissioning.

7.13. Funding

7.13.1. Funding for all pedestrian/cycleway schemes comes primarily from revenue and capital budgets.

• Revenue Budgets – expenditure on pedestrian/cycleway maintenance to reinstate following a local failure, repairs of local damage or to maintain the asset condition. Revenue Budgets are either reactive or planned maintenance.

• Capital Budgets – expenditure on an asset that either renews the complete asset or renews part of the asset to extend its lifecycle.


7.14.1. Decision for planned maintenance, renewals, replacements or upgrades follows a two step process.




7.14.3. A prioritisation process is defined in the Highway Maintenance Management Plan to rank the schemes in an appropriate priority order. The ranking process includes the following attributes:




• UKPMS outputs and priorities



7.15.1. The ultimate goal of the decision process is to identify a forward work programme. The information from the previous four sections of the Footway, Footpath and cycle way Lifecycle Plan enable programmes to be developed for subsequent years. These programmes are developed as shown in Table 7.7.






Table 7.7 - Forward Works Programmes


7.16.1. Levels of Service have been developed using corporate, legal, best practice and customer requirements. All factors contribute to delivering a desired Level of Service, this section illustrates the links between each individual service levels. A budget has been calculated to understand the Level of Service that can be achieved with alternative levels of funding. Note: the specific value for each individual authority will be contained in an authority specific Annex to the JTAMP.

7.16.2. Table 7.8 shows the asset condition levels of service. These reflect tasks that are completed to ensure that the asset is managed in the most efficient manner.

7.16.3. The non condition levels of service are shown in Table 7.9. These reflect tasks that are completed to ensure the asset is managed in the most effective manner.


7.17.1. The footpaths, footways and cycleways in the West of England achieve 50% of the desired service levels. The main holding point for not achieving the remaining targets is funds. Simple deterioration models are being developed to understand the various levels of funding and how they affect the service levels.




LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE

LEVEL

Network Management

Footways, Footpaths

and Cycleways

CVI (% requiring

maintenance)

<15%

(£m)

15-20%

(£m)

20-30%

(£m)

>30%

(£m)

Comments: The planned maintenance, renewal and replacement programmes target improving this service level

Network Management

Footways, Footpaths

CVI (% requiring

maintenance)

<15%

(£m)

15-20%

(£m)

20-30%

(£m)

>30%

(£m)



Segregated Cycle paths

CVI (% requiring

maintenance)

<15%

(£m)

15-20%

(£m)

20-30%

(£m)

>30%

(£m)


Accessibility

Footways, Footpaths

and Cycleways

Controlled Crossing

Points (Local 165)

>98%

(£m)

85-98%

(£m)

70-85%

(£m)

<70%

(£m)

Comments: Funding for Controlled Crossing Points comes from accident reduction funding provided by the council.

Table 7.8 - Footway, Footpath and Cycleway Asset Condition Levels of Service


LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Network Safety All Assets

Safety Inspections (% of inspections completed to the

correct frequency)

>98% 95-98% 90-95% <90%

Comments: This service level covers the existence of skid resistance policies. The results from the policy could in the future be used to monitor the success of the policy.

Sustainability All Assets % of waste

material recycled

>95%

(£m)

80-95%

(£m)

50-80%

(£m)

<50%

(£m)

Comments:

Customer Service

All Assets Response to safety defects

within target time >98% 90-98% 80-90% <80%

Comments: The results from these surveys allow the councils to understand how well respective assets are been managed. A by-product of these surveys could be a modification of the service levels.

Customer Service

All Assets Customer Survey More than

once per year Once

per year 2-5 years Every 5 years

Comments: The results from these surveys allow the councils to understand how well respective assets are been managed. A by-product of these surveys could be a modification of the service levels.


LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Value for Money All Assets Lifecycle Costing



funding

Lifecycle plan

adopted but not implemented

Lifecycle plan available but not adopted

No lifecycle plan

Comments: The object of the lifecycle plan is to ensure that best use is made of available funds. In the long run this service level will affect the condition of the asset.

Table 7.9 - Footway, Footpath and Cycleway Asset Non Condition Levels of Service


7.19. Highway Structures Lifecycle Management Plan

7.19.1. Highway Structures are essential components of the UK transport infrastructure and their safety and serviceability are vital to the smooth functioning of the transport network. Highway structures are comprised of a number of different elements that are made of different materials exposed to a wide range of deterioration mechanisms. This means that each structure is unique with regard to the type and timing of its whole life maintenance needs. The development of lifecycle plans for bridges and other highway structures, that cover the long-term, is therefore a challenging activity.

7.19.2. The councils manage highway structures in accordance with standards set out in the Structures Maintenance Management Plan (SMMP) in accordance with ‘The Code of Practice for Highway Structures’, UK Bridges Board (2005). The Code of Practice provides a comprehensive approach to the management of highway structure asset’s throughout the entire lifecycle.


7.20.1. The condition of highways structures are assessed through a cyclic programme of inspections and detailed surveys. The frequency of these inspections is determined in accordance with the minimum requirements of the relevant Code of Practice and not by budgetary requirements.

7.20.2. The Code of Practice for Highway Structures states that:

• Routine monitoring is intended to ensure that defects and damage to structures are identified promptly so that appropriate action may be taken.

• General Inspections should take place not more than two years following the previous General or Principal Inspection. These comprise a visual inspection of the structure including the stability of adjacent earthworks, embankments or waterways where they affect the structure.

7.20.3. Principal Inspections should occur not more than six years following the previous Principal Inspection unless a risk assessment has identified an alternative interval. Principal Inspections are a detailed examination of the structure, including any submerged parts, confined spaces and adjacent earthworks, embankments or waterways. Closed Circuit Television may also be used for areas with difficult or dangerous access such as obscured parts, small or confined spaces and underwater inspections. The Principal Inspection may also include a programme of appropriate tests to establish:

• The condition of the structure.

• The extent of any changes or deterioration since the last inspection.

• The need for maintenance and or repair and its relevant prioritisation.

• Record information relevant to an individual structure.

7.20.4. Special Inspections are carried out as required. They concentrate on the condition of individual elements of the structure, and usually arise following


specific circumstances or events, such as problems detected during and earlier inspection, after a bridge strike, following flooding, or to check other concerns.

7.20.5. A Safety Inspection may be undertaken following routine monitoring or in response to reported damage leading to Reactive & Emergency inspection leading Reactive & Emergency works.

7.21. Technical Surveys

Bridge Condition Index (BCI)

7.21.1. Bridge Condition is identified following a General Inspection and is assessed in accordance with the County Surveyors Society (CSS) Bridge Condition Index. The condition indicators for an individual bridge (BCI) or a stock of bridges (BSCI) are evaluated using the data collected during the bridge inspections, which report the condition of individual elements (e.g. main beams, abutments, drainage etc.) according to a predefined scale set out in the CSS inspection procedure.

7.21.2. Structure Condition is assessed for the following structure types:

• Bridges – with a span of greater than 1.5 metres. This category includes subways, culverts, footbridges, tunnels and underpasses.

• Retaining Walls – all retaining walls associated with the highway, those retaining 1.5 metres or above, are included provided their dominant function is to act as a retaining structure.

• Sign / Signal Gantries – a structure spanning or adjacent to the highway where the primary function is to support traffic signs and signal equipment.

• Other Structure Types – structures associated with the highway not covered above.



7.22.1. Newly created structural assets occur occasionally, often where a new route is required or where an existing substandard structure needs replacing.

7.22.2. The acquisition of structures is often associated with the adoption of maintenance responsibilities following construction by a private developer. This is normally managed by the development control team using Section 38 or Section 106 legal agreements.


7.22.3. Reactive maintenance comprises work following damage caused by vandalism or vehicle damage, and other urgent repairs to ensure that public safety is maintained.

7.22.4. Planned maintenance is defined as minor work carried out on a regular or cyclic basis that helps to maintain the condition and functionality of a


structure and reduce the need for future, more expensive, maintenance works.


7.22.5. Renewal or replacement activities is major work that does not increase the asset’s designed capacity, but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity.

Upgrading

7.22.6. The need for upgrading is usually identified during routine inspections or as part of a structural assessment, i.e. components are identified as not complying with current standards, e.g. parapets. Alternatively a structure may be assessed, as substandard where strengthening is required.

7.22.7. An assessment programme is underway and where necessary individual structures are added to a strengthening programme. Bridge assessment and strengthening records are held on a Bridge Management System.

7.22.8. It is not feasible to deal with a notionally weak bridge as soon as it is identified. It is highly likely that further levels of assessment will raise the capacity of bridge. In addition there would be severe network management and funding difficulties unless different approaches were to be adopted.

7.22.9. Other upgrading and major maintenance schemes, for parapets or reinforced concrete rehabilitation schemes are included in a major maintenance programme, which is also held on the bridge database. Since the safety of highway users is always given the highest priority such schemes generally have a lower priority than bridge strengthening.


7.22.10. Disposal is any activity that removes a decommissioned asset, including sale, demolition or relocation. Although disposal of structures is unusual the following examples do occur:

• Infilling culverts which have become redundant because of changes to the drainage regime. This is only normally undertaken in isolation to other programmes of work (e.g. as part of the redevelopment of a site or as part of a highway improvement) and in situations where the economic balance between the cost of infilling compares favourably with the cost of on-going maintenance.

• Infilling bridges – this may be an option for dealing with substandard bridges on disused rail lines.

• Infilling subways – this should be considered in situations where road crossings are installed to supplement or replace a subway.

7.22.11. Stopping-up a highway containing a bridge/structure should consider carefully the future responsibility of the bridge. The land beneath the highway will normally revert to the landowners abutting the highway and this can lead to multiple owners for a structure. Owners need to be made aware of their obligation so that there can be no denial of their responsibility at a later date and to avoid poor management of a structure.


Funding

7.22.12. Funding for all highway structural schemes comes primarily from revenue and capital budgets.

• Revenue Budgets – expenditure on structural maintenance that reinstates a local failure, repairs local damage or to maintains the condition of the asset. Revenue Budgets are either reactive or planned maintenance.



7.23.1. The need to renew elements of a structure or to replace a complete structure is usually identified from inspections.

• Smaller structures, e.g. brick culverts and small footbridges, are often physically too small to repair or the cost of repair is close to that of replacement, consequently replacement is usually the recommended option.

• Medium and larger sized structures are generally more economic to repair rather than to replace. The decision will depend on a prioritisation process which considers a number of factors including the age of the structure, the extent of the defects and any historical value attached to the structure. The development of this prioritisation process is a short term action on the Improvement Plan.


7.24.1. The ultimate goal of the decision process is to identify a forward work programme. The information from the previous four sections of the Carriageway Lifecycle Plan enable programmes to be developed for subsequent years. These programmes are developed as shown in Table 7.10.






Table 7.10 - Forward Works Programmes


7.25. Service Levels

7.25.1. Levels of Service have been developed using corporate, legal, best practice and customer requirements. All factors contribute to delivering a desired Levels of Service, this section illustrates the links between each individual service levels. A budget has been calculated to understand the Level of Service that can be achieved with alternative levels of funding. Note: the specific value for each individual authority will be contained in an authority specific Annex to the JTAMP.

7.25.2. Table 7.11 shows the Highway Structures asset condition levels of service. The Highway Structures non condition levels of service are shown in Table 7.12.


7.26.1. Highway structures in the West of England deliver 50% of the desired service levels. The main holding point for not achieving the remaining targets is funds. Simple deterioration models have been developed to understand the various levels of funding and how they affect the service levels.




LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Network Management

Structures

% of bridges achieving

required carrying capacity.

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)

Comments: Planned maintenance works improve this level of service

Network Management

Bridges Bridge Condition

Indicator

90-100

(£m)

75-90

(£m)

50-75

(£m)

<50

(£m)


Network Management

Retaining Wall Wall Condition

Indicator

90-100

(£m)

75-90

(£m)

50-75

(£m)

<50

(£m)


Network Safety All Assets

Safety Inspections (% of inspections

completed to the minimum

frequency)

>98%

(£m)

95-98%

(£m)

90-95%

(£m)

<90%

(£m)


Table 7.11 - Highway Structures Asset Condition Levels of Service


LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL

ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND SOURCE TO

MEET DESIRED LEVEL

Network Safety

Carriageway

Skid testing (% inspected at or

below Investigatory

Level)

Operational full skid policy

Investigate sites

from survey under

investigatory level

Survey once per year

No survey


Customer Service

All Assets


time

>98% 90-98% 80-90% <80%

Customer Service


Survey

More than once per

year

Once per year


Value for Money



and delivering

sustainable streams of

funding

Lifecycle plan

adopted but not

implemented


No lifecycle plan

Table 7.12 - Highway Structures Asset Non Condition Levels of Service


7.28. Public Lighting Lifecycle Management Plan

7.28.1. The Councils are responsible for the maintenance, repair and management of 110,271 public lighting units, illuminated signs and traffic bollards erected on the adopted public highway.

7.28.2. Management of this asset is undertaken by the appropriate department:

• Public Lighting Team

- Illuminated signs, beacon posts and Vehicle Activated Signs.

- Non-illuminated signs if they form part of an illuminated installation, such as a secondary sign plate.

• Traffic Management

- New installations and changes to existing sign face information.

7.28.3. Public Lighting maintenance and works are governed by guidance “Well Lit Highways: a Code of Practice for Street Lighting”, which has been endorsed by the UK Lighting Board.


7.29.1. The following inspections are completed for all public lights at specific frequencies.

Safety Inspections

7.29.2. The public lighting safety inspections identify all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider community. Each defect is allocated a risk rating which links with a response time from urgent (within 24 hours) to one month.

7.29.3. All lighting units are visually inspected annually during maintenance operations, such as bulk lamp change, painting and routine repairs. All non urgent defects or problems are programmed in the Asset Management System.

7.29.4. Currently condition is only recorded if treatment is required and the streetlight is programmed. To obtain a better understanding of the performance of the asset it is proposed to develop a condition index and then allocate values to all public lights.

Electrical Testing

7.29.5. Electrical inspections and testing are carried out on all street lighting equipment at intervals of up to six years in accordance with the requirements of standards laid down in BS 7671: Requirements of Electrical Installation. Tests include polarity, earth loop fault impedance, insulation resistance and operation of circuit breakers.

7.29.6. The results of the electrical inspections are recorded on an inspection certificate and recorded in the Asset Management System.


Structural Testing

7.29.7. A system of structural testing of lighting columns is in place. To develop the use of this information, an assessment of residual life and a consequent projected programme of replacement should be developed.



7.30.1. There is currently no specific budget currently for new lighting columns at new locations. New public lighting may be installed as part of other schemes, such as safety schemes or new developments.

7.30.2. In the event that Council Members do allocate a budget, the following process is followed:

• Survey – a general survey of the area

• Extent of scheme determined

• Design undertaken / priced

• Consultation with residents

• Design adjusted accordingly / priced

• Orders placed with contractor & electricity supplier

• Installation/Commissioning

• Asset data recorded

Reactive and Routine Maintenance

7.30.3. Reactive maintenance activities are by their nature unplanned and occur when parts of the installation may become a danger to the public as a result of incidents such as vehicle impact, cable damage, vandalism, storm damage and deterioration of components. Such incidents can result in potential danger and require emergency response.

7.30.4. It is the councils’ policy to respond to all emergency faults within one hour of them being reported; this may involve repair, or the faulty unit may be rendered safe and a repair conducted within a certain amount of time. Because of the nature of emergency work, verbal instructions are the most frequent means of arranging for such work to be undertaken. Works orders are raised as soon as possible to ensure that such an incident is properly logged and traced.

7.30.5. Routine maintenance is the regular ongoing day to day work that is necessary to keep assets operating, including instances where portions of assets fail and need immediate repair to make operational again.

7.30.6. The two main routine maintenance tasks are to replace lamps and paint columns. One third of all lamps are replaced each year and one eighth of all lamp columns are painted each year. There is no


identified programme for replacing capacitors and other components; they are replaced when they fail.


7.30.7. The need to replace a unit is identified through routine and reactive maintenance, or through structural testing. The exact requirements for the replacement unit are also identified; such as whether the unit should be relocated or whether improved lighting should be used. The timing of planned works is dependent on the results of previous testing and the age of the column involved.

7.30.8. Works are also occasionally undertaken to help tackle crime. There is no specific programme for this; however, funding is occasionally made available for such projects. The same is true of lighting improvements.

Upgrading

7.30.9. Equipment such as Lanterns and associated gear will be upgraded as required.


7.30.10. It is unusual for a system of street lighting to be disposed of, but occasionally they may be removed as part of a carriageway improvement.

7.31. Service Levels

7.31.1. In Chapter 5 the service levels were developed by assessing the corporate, legal, best practice and public requirements. All the factors above contribute to achieving the desired service levels and this section will illustrate the links for each individual service levels. Under each of the service levels a budget has been calculated to help to understand what service level achieve with various levels of funding. Note: the specific values for each individual authority will be in their respective Annex.

7.32. Funding

7.32.1. Funding for all public lighting schemes comes primarily from revenue and capital budgets:

• Revenue Budgets – expenditure on public lighting maintenance to reinstate following a local failure, repairs of local damage or to maintain the asset condition. Revenue Budgets are either reactive or planned maintenance.








7.33.3. A prioritisation process is defined by the Highway Maintenance Management Plan to rank the schemes in an appropriate priority order. The ranking process includes the following attributes:





7.34.1. The ultimate goal of the decision process is to identify a forward work programme. The information from the previous four sections of the Public Lighting Lifecycle Plan enable programmes to be developed for subsequent years. These programmes are developed as shown in Table 7.13.






Table 7.13 - Public Lighting Forward Works Programmes


7.35.1. Levels of Service have been developed using corporate, legal, best practice and customer requirements. All factors contribute to delivering a desired Level of Service. This section illustrates the links between each individual service levels. A budget has been calculated to understand the Level of Service that can be achieved with alternative levels of funding. Note: the specific value for each individual authority will be contained in an authority specific Annex to the JTAMP. Table 7.14 shows the Public Lighting asset condition levels of service. These reflect tasks that are completed to ensure that the asset is managed in the most efficient manner.

7.35.2. The Public Lighting asset non condition levels of service are shown in Table 7.15. These reflect tasks that are completed to ensure that the asset is managed in the most efficient manner.


LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Network Management

Public Lighting

% of street lighting not working as

planned >98% 95-98% 90-95% <90%

Network Management

Public Lighting

Average days taken to repair a

street light (combined figure of

Local Indicator 215a and 215b)

<5 days 5-7 7-10 >10

Table 7.14 - Public Lighting Asset Condition Levels of Service.


LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Network Safety

All Assets

Safety Inspections (% of inspections completed to the minimum frequency)

>98% 95-98% 90-95% <90%

Sustainability Public

Lighting Policy of energy

reduction

Policy introduced -More than

30% reduction in energy

being achieved

Policy introduced - 20% - 30% reduction in

energy being achieved

Policy introduced – 10% - 20% reduction in

energy being achieved

No energy saving policy

Customer Service

All Assets


time

>98% 90-98% 80-90% <80%

Customer Service

Public Lighting

Response to urgent lighting defects within

target time

100% 98-100% 95-98% <95%

Customer Service


Survey


Once per year



LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Value for Money




funding

Lifecycle plan adopted

but not implemented


No lifecycle plan

Table 7.15 - Public Lighting Asset Non Condition Levels of Service


7.36. Public Transport Life Cycle Plan

7.36.1. Bus stop flags, poles and shelters owned by the local authority are maintained as set out in the Highway Maintenance Management Plan (HMMP).

7.36.2. A detailed description of the specific attributes of the asset group is included in Chapter 4.


7.37.1. The following inspections are completed for all bus shelters at specific frequencies.

Safety Inspections

7.37.2. The Councils or its appointed contractors undertake a system of inspections to monitor the integrity and usability of bus stop flags, poles and shelters in line with Carriageway Safety Inspection Regime. The function is primarily to identify all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to bus passengers or the wider community and allocate an appropriate level of response.


• Category 1 – require prompt attention as they represent an immediate or imminent hazard, or because there is a risk of short-term deterioration. Category 1 defects are resolved or made safe at the time of the inspection if reasonably practicable, and permanently repaired within 3 months.

• Category 2 – all other defects. Category 2 defects are considered not to represent an immediate or imminent hazard, or at risk of short term deterioration. Details of these defects are recorded and resolved within a planned programme of work.

Technical Surveys

7.37.4. Visual surveys to monitor the condition of signage are essential. This data is used as follows:

• To provide information on the condition of the public transport infrastructure across the West of England.


• Public Transport Information.

7.37.5. Condition survey information will be used to inform the Highway Maintenance Management Plan.

Electrical Testing

7.37.6. Direct un-metered supply from the Direct Network Operator (DNO) or a looped un-metered supply from other local authority highway electrical furniture (streetlights or lit signs and bollards). The latter is described as a private supply. The Local Authorities can maintain the looped section; however there will always be a DNO injection in the


cable network that is owned by the DNO. Direct supply means that the DNO are the owner and the local authority must not interfere with the injection point.

7.37.7. Regarding DNO supplies, there is inconsistency throughout the region on who ensures that the housing and the equipment attached to the supply is maintained as per the electrical safety at works act. As a guide, whoever is the account holder (whoever requested the MPAN) with the DNO is responsible for electrical safety and adequate maintenance regimes.



7.38.1. New bus stops are created as part of the on-going management of the highway network and in response to changes in the pattern of bus routes.

7.38.2. Bus Stops and Shelters are placed within the highway predominantly as a consequence of:

• Planned improvement in public transport network such as the implementation of bus showcase routes including the Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN).

• Developments, regeneration and public realm enhancement schemes.

• New bus shelters and/or advertising contract.

• Changes in bus routes.

• Responding to requests from Parish Councils and local communities


7.38.3. The frequency of visual inspections on Council-owned shelters and bus stops varies according to the category of road as shown in Table 7.16.

Bus Stops & Shelters


Motorway/Trunk Roads 1 N/A








Table 7.16 – Bus Stop and Shelters Inspection Programme


7.38.4. Renewal or replacement activities return the bus shelter or stop and/or associated features to an “as built” condition status. This includes upgrading to latest design standards. The following options will be considered:

• Deterioration

• Public Transport Service Routes

• Network Management through the Local Transport Plan

• Enhancements associated with the development of bus showcase routes, rapid transit corridors or public realm improvements


7.38.5. The identification of the replacement or renewal of public transport assets and associated features is based on information from a number of sources, including:

• Condition assessment surveys and technical inspection



• Changes in service routes

• Opportunities to coordinate with other major schemes.

Upgrading

7.38.6. Specific proposals may arise periodically, which will upgrade a section of transport network to meet a change in demand. These proposals include carriageway widening, traffic management and safety schemes and are checked for compliance with the appropriate health and safety legislation.


7.38.7. Removal of bus stop flags, poles and shelters would normally be in conjunction with renewal or replacement programmes. Decommissioning would normally take place in conjunction with changes in the transport network or changes in service routes.

7.38.8. Some bus stop flags, poles and shelters might be removed from the network as part of a major development or a traffic improvement scheme. However, such a change of function would not constitute decommissioning.


7.39. Funding

7.39.1. Funding for the majority of bus stop flags, poles, shelters, timetable and other cases and RTPI assets comes primarily from local authority revenue and capital budgets:

• Revenue Budgets – expenditure on highway maintenance to reinstate following a local failure, repairs of local damage or to maintain the asset condition. Revenue Budgets are either reactive or planned maintenance.











• Public Transport service frequency

• Public Transport operators


7.41.1. The ultimate goal of the decision process is to identify a forward work programme. The information from the previous four sections of the Asset Lifecycle Plan enable programmes to be developed for subsequent years. These programmes are developed as shown in Table 7.17.







Table 7.17 – Bus Stop and Shelters Forward Works Programmes


7.42.1. Levels of Service have developed using corporate, legal, best practice and public requirements. All factors contribute to delivering desired Levels of Service. This section illustrates the links between each individual service level. A budget has been calculated to understand the Level of Service that can be achieved with alternative levels of funding. Note: the specific value for each individual authority will be contained in an authority specific Annex.


Table 7.18 Public Transport Asset Condition Levels of Service

LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE

LEVEL


Public Transport infrastructure

Bus Stop Accessibility

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)

Comment:

Condition Public Transport infrastructure

Public reports of damaged shelters/stops to be attended within target time

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)

Comment:


LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE

LEVEL

Customer Service

Public Transport

infrastructure

Response times repairing or cleansing or reinstatement.

Timetable replaced

>95% 85-95% 75-85% <75%

Accessibility Public

Transport infrastructure

Timetable information

case including RTI

>95% 85-95% 75-85% <75%

Table 7.19 Public Transport Asset non condition Levels of Service


7.43. Highway Drainage Lifecycle Plan

7.43.1. The councils manage Highway Drainage assets in accordance with standards set out in a Highway Maintenance Management Plan (HMMP).

7.43.2. The Highway Drainage asset group includes both the surface features and subsurface drainage network. A detailed description of the specific attributes of the asset group is included in Chapter 4.


Safety Inspections

7.44.1. The councils undertake a system of inspections to monitor the integrity and safety of the highway on a regular basis. The function is primarily to identify all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider community and allocate an appropriate level of response.


• Category 1 – safety defects require prompt attention as they represent an immediate or imminent hazard, or because there is a risk of short-term structural deterioration. Category 1 defects are resolved or made safe at the time of the inspection if reasonably practicable, and permanently repaired within 28 working days.



7.44.4. The frequency of highways inspections varies according to the category of road. Table 7.16 indicates the frequency of inspections for the different categories of road.

Highway Inspections


Motorway/Trunk Roads 1 Highways Agency








Table 7.20 - Highway & Drainage Inspection Frequencies

Technical Surveys

7.44.5. Visual surveys arise from routine gully pot emptying schedules where a problem has been identified, areas of flooding or from public reports. Based on the information available an appropriate treatment will be identified either using rodding or jetting.

7.44.6. CCTV surveys will be used to locate specific problems, damage or blockage within the pipe system and identify an appropriate repair.

7.44.7. Tracing surveys will be used to accurately locate a specific problems, damage or blockage within the pipe system and identify an appropriate repair.

7.44.8. Condition survey information is used to inform the Highways Drainage Lifecycle Plan and to define levels of service.



7.45.1. The highway drainage network has limited new construction. Almost exclusively, this is associated with adoptions associated with housing or business developments.

7.45.2. When a new road with associated drainage network is built by a developer, it is designed and constructed as part of the planning consent in accordance with the specific requirements.

7.45.3. The council may initiate schemes for the purpose of:

• Flood alleviation on a specific highway

• To resolve flooding issues over a significant area

• As part of an improvement scheme for another primary purpose where the opportunity is taken to improve the surface water drainage.


7.45.4. Reactive maintenance is based on flooding reports and other matters requiring urgent attention.

7.45.5. Planned maintenance is primarily to provide a defined standard of serviceability. Condition assessment will be used to inform future maintenance frequency and suitability of drainage network.



7.45.6. Renewal or replacement activities return the highway drainage network and/or associated features to an “as built” capacity and condition status. This includes upgrading to latest design standards. The following factors will be considered:

• Flood history

• Catchment area


7.45.7. The identification of the replacement or renewal of highway drainage and associated features is based on information from a number of sources, including:




• Accident history where surface water is a contributory factor


• Reviews of the long-term capital programme


Upgrading

7.45.8. Specific proposals may arise from time to time which will upgrade a section of highway network to meet a change in demand. These proposals include carriageway widening, traffic management and safety schemes, and developer lead schemes. In such an event highway drainage will be considered and revised accordingly.


7.45.9. Removal of carriageway and associated drainage systems is a very rare occurrence, decommissioning would only take place in conjunction with the disposal of a whole street that would only occur in exceptional circumstances.

7.45.10. Small lengths of drainage might be removed from the network as part of a major development or a traffic improvement scheme. However, such a change of function would not constitute decommissioning.

7.46. Funding

7.46.1. Funding for all highway drainage schemes comes primarily from revenue and capital budgets:

• Revenue Budgets – expenditure on carriageway maintenance to reinstate following a local failure, repairs of local damage or to


maintain the asset condition. Revenue Budgets are either reactive or planned maintenance.





7.47.2. Following appropriate technical surveys and safety inspections a list of schemes are identified for further consideration. Schemes will be prioritised using risk centred maintenance.



• Level of Risk



• Customer reports

7.48. Lifecycle Treatment Options

7.48.1. Treatment options are;

Short term activities Generally these activities are calendar based and are those required to ensure the free flow of surface water. Typically this includes gully cleaning, ditch clearing, drainage investigation and small repairs or replacement of gullies, grips and outfalls

Medium term activities Designed to restore the full function of the asset for its full anticipated life. Typically this includes repair to restore capacity, provide additional gullies and partial upgrades to introduce some reinforcement and additional capacity

Long term activities Provide significant renewal or enhancement, such as network upgrade, flood alleviation and new provision

Table 7.21 - Highway Drainage Treatment Option



7.49.1. The ultimate goal of the decision process is to identify a forward work programme. The information from the previous four sections of the Highway Drainage Lifecycle Plan enable programmes to be developed for subsequent years. These programmes are developed as shown in Table 7.18.




23-5 Reasonable 20%


Table 7.22 - Highway Drainage Forward Works Programmes


7.50.1. Levels of Service have developed using corporate, legal, best practice and public requirements. All factors contribute to delivering a desired Levels of Service. This section illustrates the links between each individual service level. A budget has been calculated to understand the Level of Service that can be achieved with alternative levels of funding. Note: the specific value for each individual authority will be contained in an authority specific Annex.

7.50.2. Table 7.19 shows the asset condition levels of service. The non condition level of service can be seen in Table 7.20.


7.51.1. The highway drainage across the West of England delivers 50% of the desired service levels. The main holding point for not achieving the remaining targets is funds. Simple deterioration models are being developed to understand the various levels of funding and how they affect the service levels.




Table 7.23 - Highway Drainage Condition Levels of Service

LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Network Management

Drainage Gullies cleaned as per schedule

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)


Network Management

Drainage Grips cleared as

per schedule

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)


Network Management

Drainage Ditches cleared as per schedule

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)


Network Safety Drainage Ironwork visual safety check

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)


Table 7.24 - Highway Drainage Non Condition levels of Service

LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Customer Service

Drainage

Public reports of gully blockage to

be attended within target time

>95% 85-95% 75-85% <75%

Customer Service

Drainage

Public reports of flooding to be

attended within target time

>95% 85-95% 75-85% <75%

Value for Money

Drainage

Maintain an emergency

response plan detailing

prioritised actions based on the extent of flood

Achieves the highest possible

standard and or a level that exceeds

current best practise through

continuous improvement

and innovation

Meets recognised

current best

practice, identifying customer

needs through

communication and survey

Meets minimum common practice

Does not meet minimum common practice


7.53. Highway Verge, Trees and Landscaped Areas Life Cycle Plan

7.53.1. The councils manage verge assets in accordance with standards set out in a Highway Maintenance Management Plan (HMMP).

7.53.2. The highway verge, tree and landscaped areas asset group includes all those areas contained within the highway boundary. A detailed description of the specific attributes of the asset group is included in Chapter 4.


Safety Inspections

7.54.1. The councils undertake a system of inspections to monitor the integrity and safety of highways on a regular basis. The function is primarily to identify all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider community and allocate an appropriate level of response.





7.54.4. The frequency of highways inspections varies according to the category of road.

Technical Surveys

7.54.5. Course Visual Inspections (CVI’S) are based on routine highway inspections.

7.54.6. Condition survey information is used to inform the Highway Verge, Tree and Landscaped Lifecycle Plan.




7.55.1. Almost exclusively acquisition or creation associated with adoptions from housing or business developments, which are designed and constructed to an approved design criteria.


7.55.2. Reactive maintenance is based on network inspections and deals with safety related issues and other matters requiring urgent attention. It is the responsibility of the Highway Inspector to identify if an issue fits into this category based on experienced technical judgement.

7.55.3. Planned maintenance is primarily to provide a defined standard of serviceability, maximising reliability, integrity and quality. The priorities and programmes are determined largely by season, together with items identified by customer requests. As appropriate, this will be associated with carriageway, footway and cycleway maintenance.

• Grass maintenance

• Verge maintenance

• Tree maintenance

• Cleansing of verges

• Siding out works


7.55.4. Renewal or replacement activities return the highway verge and/or associated features to an “as built” condition status. This includes upgrading to latest design standards. The following options will be considered:

• Visibility sight lines

• Tree condition

• Drainage grips


7.55.5. The identification of the replacement or renewal of highways verges and associated features is based on information from a number of sources, including:

• Technical inspection providing a prioritisation ranking


• Accident history – visibility sight lines



• Environmental and Habitat issues will be assessed as appropriate



• Highway aesthetics

Upgrading

7.55.6. Specific proposals may arise from time to time which necessitate a change in demand.


7.55.7. Disposal of this asset group is a rare occurrence and usually for safety reasons, decommissioning usually only takes place in conjunction with the disposal of a whole street where there is no disadvantage to the highway users.

7.55.8. Small lengths might be removed from the network as part of a major development or a traffic improvement scheme. However, such a change of function would not constitute decommissioning.

7.56. Funding

7.56.1. Funding for highway verge works comes primarily from revenue budgets:

• Revenue Budgets – expenditure on highway verge maintenance to reinstate following a local failure, repairs of local damage or to maintain the asset condition. Revenue Budgets are either reactive or planned maintenance.

• Capital Budgets – as part of a broader a highway scheme or a non highway initiative.




7.57.2. Following appropriate technical surveys and safety inspections a list of highway schemes are identified for further consideration. Schemes will be prioritised on a risk basis incorporating an appropriate assessment matrix.


7.57.3. A prioritisation process is defined by the Highway Maintenance Management Plan which aims to refine the scheme ranking process in order of business priority order. The ranking process includes the following attributes:

• Level of Risk




• Risk assessment of visibility requirements


• Environmental Management issues


7.58.1. The ultimate goal of the decision process is to identify a forward work programme. This will be a seasonal based programme for grass cutting, pruning and other specific maintenance associated with this asset group:

• Grass cutting

• Tree maintenance

• Verge based maintenance

• Grip cutting


7.59.1. Levels of Service have developed using corporate, legal, best practice and public requirements. All factors contribute to delivering a desired Levels of Service. This section illustrates the links between each individual service levels. A budget has been calculated to understand the Level of Service that can be achieved with alternative levels of funding. Note: the specific value for each individual authority will be contained in an authority specific Annex.

7.59.2. A summary of Tables 4.25 and 4.26 shows what is currently being achieved. The remaining targets have been assessed and all stakeholders recognise that achievement of these targets is essential for the continued improvement of the West of England.


LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Network Management

Tree & landscaped areas

% of Tree & landscaped areas fully maintained

>98%

(£m)

95-98%

(£m)

90-95%

(£m)

<90%

(£m)


Network Management

Highway Verge

Amenity Grass cut as

annual programme

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)


Network Safety

All Asset Safety

Safety Inspections

(% of inspections

completed to the minimum frequency)

>98%

(£m)

95-98%

(£m)

90-95%

(£m)

<90%

(£m)


Network Safety

Highway Verge

Visibility Grass cut as

per

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)


Table 7.25 - Highway Verge, Trees and Landscaped Areas Asset Condition Levels of Service

specification or frequency


Customer Service

Highway Verge

Frequency and removal of litter and obstructions

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)



LEVEL OF

SERVICE ASSET INDICATOR EXCELLENT GOOD ADEQUATE INADEQUATE

CURRENT LEVEL

DESIRED LEVEL

ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO MEET SERVICE

LEVEL

Customer Service

Highway Verge

Response Times for mowing or

cleansing or reinstatement

>95% 85-95% 75-85% <75%

Comment

Customer Service

Trees & landscaped

areas

Response to urgent

defects within target time

>98% 90-98% 80-90% <80%

Comment

Table 7.26 - Highway Verge, Trees and Landscaped Areas Asset non condition Levels of Service


7.60. Non Illuminated Signs Life Cycle Plan

7.60.1. The councils manage non illuminated sign assets in accordance with standards set out in a Highway Maintenance Management Plan (HMMP).

7.60.2. The non illuminated sign asset group includes both the ground surface and pole mounting system. A detailed description of the specific attributes of the asset group is included in Chapter 4.


Safety Inspections

7.61.1. The councils undertake a system of inspections to monitor the integrity and safety of non illuminated signs on a regular basis. The function is primarily to identify all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider community and allocate an appropriate level of response.


• Category 1 – require prompt attention as they represent an immediate or imminent hazard, or because there is a risk of short-term deterioration. Category 1 defects are resolved or made safe at the time of the inspection if reasonably practicable, and permanently repaired within 28 working days.

• Category 2 – all other defects. Category 2 defects are considered not to represent an immediate or imminent hazard, or at risk of short term deterioration. Details of these defects are recorded and resolved within a planned programme of work.


7.61.4. The frequency of highways visual inspections varies according to the category of road.

Technical Surveys

7.61.5. Visual surveys to monitor the condition of signage are essential. This data is used as follows:

• To provide information on the condition of the network signage across the West of England.


• Maintain route hierarchy and road user information to deliver TMA responsibilities such as approved HGV routes.

• Diversionary route management.

7.61.6. Condition survey information is used to inform the Non-illuminated sign Lifecycle Plan and to produce Indicators reported.




7.62.1. Created as part of the on going management of the highway network. Almost exclusively, this is associated with capital schemes or associated with housing or business developments.

7.62.2. Signs are placed within the highway predominantly as a consequence of:

• Accident investigation and prevention works.

• Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s), parking related issues.

• Information signing schemes.

• Continuous reviews of the highway routes and network.

• Replacement of illuminated signs/bollards with non illuminated apparatus.

• New highway schemes and private developments.

7.62.3. Signage is designed and implemented in accordance with Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and constructed to an approved design criteria.



7.62.5. Planned maintenance is primarily to provide a defined standard of network serviceability, maximising reliability, integrity and quality. The priorities and programmes are determined largely, but not exclusively, from Category 2 defects, together with items identified by customer requests.


7.62.6. The replacement of signs as a consequence of damage and destruction is carried out in compliance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. The condition of any sign or signpost is assessed whenever attention is drawn to them, so as to ensure that any works required are optimised to deliver maximum life. Renewals may also be necessary as a consequence of a network review.

7.62.7. Renewal or replacement activities return the signage and/or associated features to an “as built” condition status. This includes upgrading to latest design standards. The following options will be considered:

• Deterioration


• Traffic Regulation Orders

• Road Hierarchy

• Network Management


7.62.8. The identification of the replacement or renewal of non illuminated signs and associated features is based on information from a number of sources, including:





• Reviews of the long-term maintenance programme


• Specific Parking Regulation signs to support civil parking regulations

Upgrading

7.62.9. Specific proposals may arise from time to time which will upgrade a section of highway network to meet a change in demand. These proposals include carriageway widening, traffic management and safety schemes and are checked for compliance with the Traffic Signs Manual and Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions.


7.62.10. Removal of a non illuminated signs is required and decommissioning would take place in conjunction with a legibility and/or structural review.

7.62.11. Signage might be removed from the network as part of a major development or a traffic improvement or maintenance scheme. However, such a change of function would not constitute decommissioning of the hierarchy of the system.

7.62.12. Sign clutter is considered as part of network reviews. Lifecycle planning seeks to reduce and rationalise sign numbers while ensuring that regulations and safety is not compromised.

7.62.13. Signs that are disposed of are recycled as part of each local authority’s individual strategy.

7.63. Funding

7.63.1. Funding for all non illuminated sign assets comes primarily from revenue and capital budgets:













• Hierarchy review






3-5 Reasonable 30%


Table 7.27 - Non illuminated Sign Forward Works Programmes


7.66.1. Levels of Service have developed using corporate, legal, best practice and public requirements. All factors contribute to delivering a desired Levels of Service. This section illustrates the links between each individual service levels. A budget has been calculated to understand


the Level of Service that can be achieved with alternative levels of funding. Note: the specific value for each individual authority will be contained in an authority specific Annex.


Table 7.28 – Non-Illuminated Signs Asset Condition Levels of Service

LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Network Management

Non – illuminated Signs

Amenity Grass cut as

annual programme

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)


Network Safety


Visibility Grass cut as

per specification or frequency

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)


Customer Service


Frequency and removal of litter and obstructions



LEVEL OF


CURRENT LEVEL

DESIRED LEVEL


LEVEL

Customer Service

Non – illuminated

Signs

Response Times for mowing or


>95% 85-95% 75-85% <75%

Table 7.29 - Non-Illuminated Signs Asset non condition Levels of Service


7.67. Segregated Cycleway and Cycle Tracks Life Cycle Plan

7.67.1. The councils manage segregated cycleways and cycle tracks assets in accordance with standards set out in a Highway Maintenance Management Plan (HMMP).

7.67.2. The segregated cycleways and cycle tracks asset group has a detailed description of the specific attributes of the asset group is included in Chapter 4.


Safety Inspections

7.68.1. The councils undertake a system of inspections to monitor the integrity and safety of segregated cycle ways and cycle tracks on a regular basis. The function is primarily to identify all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider community and allocate a level of response.





7.68.4. Cycleway and Cycle Track inspections by highway inspectors are combined with carriageway inspections. The frequency of highways inspections varies according to the category of road. Table 7.30 indicates the frequency of inspections for different categories of cycleway


Primary Cycleway 1 1 month

Secondary Cycleway 2 3 months

Link Cycleway 3 6 months

Local Access Cycleway 4 1 year

Table 7.30 - Cycleway Inspection Frequencies


Technical Surveys


• To provide information on the condition of the cycle way network across the West of England.

• To identify a forward programme of maintenance schemes. Detailed Visual Inspection (DVI) 7.68.6. Cycleway condition is assessed through visual surveys. The results

of these surveys are used to inform works programming and decision making processes

7.68.7. Condition survey information is used to inform the Segregated Cycleway & Cycle track Lifecycle Plan.

7.68.8. Cycleways are treated in the same way as footways and form part of the highway inspection routine.



7.69.1. The footway and cycleway network has limited new construction. Almost exclusively, this is associated with adoptions associated with housing or business developments. The Joint Local Transport Plan also identifies the provision of missing links.

7.69.2. When a new pedestrian/cycle route is built either by the councils or a developer, it is designed and constructed to an approved design criteria.


7.69.3. Reactive maintenance is based on network inspections and deal with the repair of Category 1 defects and other matters requiring urgent attention. It is the responsibility of the Safety Inspector to identify if a defect fits into this category based on experienced technical judgement.



7.69.5. Renewal or replacement activities return the cycle track and/or path and/or associated features to an “as built” condition status. This includes upgrading to latest design standards. The following options will be considered:

• Resurfacing

• Slurry seal


• Thin surfacing

• Strengthening

• Reconstruction

• Unbound Surfacing


7.69.6. The identification of the replacement or renewal of cycle assets and associated features is based on information from a number of sources, including:





Upgrading

7.69.7. Specific proposals may arise from time to time which will effectively upgrade a piece of highway network to meet a change in demands. These proposals are undertaken as part of improvement to access to public transport infrastructure and introducing missing links to the pedestrian cycleway network.


7.69.8. Removal of a pedestrian/cycle route is a very rare occurrence, decommissioning would only take place in conjunction with the disposal of a whole street that would only occur in exceptional circumstances.

7.69.9. Small lengths of pedestrian routes might be removed from the network as part of major developments or a local improvement scheme. However, such a change of use would not constitute decommissioning.

7.70. Funding

7.70.1. Funding for all pedestrian/cycleway schemes comes primarily from revenue and capital budgets:

• Revenue Budgets – expenditure on pedestrian/cycleway maintenance to reinstate following a local failure, repairs of local damage or to maintain the asset condition. Revenue Budgets are either reactive or planned maintenance.


• Grant Funding – Opportunities are available through one off government initiatives.



















Table 7.31 – Segregate Cycleway & Cycletrack Forward Works Programmes


7.73.1. Levels of Service have developed using corporate, legal, best practice and public requirements. All factors contribute to delivering a desired Levels of Service. This section illustrates the links between each individual service levels. A budget has been calculated to understand the Level of Service that can be achieved with alternative levels of funding. Note: the specific value for each individual authority will be contained in an authority specific Annex.

7.73.2. Tables 7.31 and 7.32 shows Condition and Non-Condition Levels of Service for this asset group. The remaining targets have been


assessed and all stakeholders recognise that achievement of these targets is essential for the continued improvement of the West of England.


LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL

ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO MEET

SERVICE LEVEL

Network Safety

All Assets

Safety Inspections (% of inspections completed to the

correct frequency)

>98% 95-98% 90-95% <90%

Sustainability All

Assets % of waste

material recycled

>95%

(£m)

80-95%

(£m)

50-80%

(£m)

<50%

(£m)

Customer Service

All Assets

Response to safety defects within

target time >98% 90-98% 80-90% <80%

Customer Service

All Assets

NHT Public Satisfaction Survey


Once per year 2-5 years Every 5 years

Value for Money

All Assets

Lifecycle Costing Lifecycle plan in operation


funding

Lifecycle plan adopted but

not implemented

Lifecycle plan

available but not adopted

No lifecycle plan

Table 7.32 - Segregated Cycleway and Cycle Tracks Non Condition levels of Service


LEVEL OF SERVICE

ASSET INDICATOR EXCELLENT GOOD ADEQUATE INADEQUATE CURRENT LEVEL

DESIRED LEVEL

ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Network Management

Segregated Footways, Cycleways, & cycle tracks

DVI (% requiring maintenance)

<15%

(£m)

15-20%

(£m)

20-30%

(£m)

>30%

(£m)


Segregated Footways, Cycleways, & cycle tracks

% of urban transport network with segregated cycleways, footways and cycle tracks

>25%

(£m)

15-25%

(£m)

10-15%

(£m)

<10%

(£m)

Table 7.33- Segregated Cycleway and Cycle Tracks Asset Condition Levels of Service


7.74. Public Rights of Way Life Cycle Plan

7.74.1. The councils variously manage their PROW assets according to local requirements however the statutory Rights of Way Improvement Plans (RoWIP’s) suggest the compilation of a maintenance and improvement management plan to increase network usage to deliver health and carbon reduction benefits.

7.74.2. A detailed description of the specific attributes of the PROW asset group is included in Chapter 4.


Safety Inspections

7.75.1. The councils undertake a system of inspections to monitor the integrity and safety of PROW based on the BVPI methodology for a minimum 5% annual condition survey. The function is primarily to identify defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider community and allocate a level of response. In order to provide a baseline data a full network survey for infrastructure and condition has been carried out across the authority’s areas.

Defects are divided into two categories:

• Category 1 – require prompt attention as they represent an immediate or imminent hazard, or because there is a risk of short-term structural deterioration. Category 1 defects are resolved or made safe at the time of the inspection if practicable, and permanently repaired in partnership with the landowner as appropriate.


7.75.2. Inspections, including defect descriptions and response times are carried out and recorded on the asset data base.

7.75.3. PROW inspections are carried out by field officers and volunteers followed by liaison with land owners. Table 7.34 indicates the general criteria for prioritising inspections and maintenance issues.


Promoted Routes PR 6 – 12 months

Locally Important route LPR 12 months

Other PROW 12 – 60 months


Listed Bridge Structures RFB Biennial (every 2 years)

Table 7.34 – Public Rights of Way Forward Works Programmes

7.75.4. All defects are logged into an Asset Management database to manage network maintenance and repair history

Technical Surveys


• To provide information on the condition of the PROW network across the West of England.


• To produce data for local performance indicators and national benchmarking purposes.

Routine Visual Inspections (RVI)

7.75.6. Public Rights of Way condition is assessed through visual surveys. At least 5% of Public Rights of Way are subject to Routine Visual Inspections (RVI) each year using the methodology originally set out by BVPI 178 since 1997. A RVI survey is a walked survey which provides a comprehensive list of all defects on the path. RVI’s provide a cost-effective survey that enables councils to cover the network on a regular basis. The results of these surveys are used to inform works programming and decision making processes.

7.75.7. Condition survey information is also used to inform the PROW Lifecycle Management Plan and annual ROWIP annual plan.


Creation or Diversion

7.76.1. The PROW network has limited new route construction. This is associated with identifying new elements of the network and routes considered necessary for local communities and the public, and routes identified via development opportunities. The Joint Local Transport Plan and Public Rights of Way Improvement Plans promote the development and greater use of the PROW network.

7.76.2. It is estimated that 5% of the Public Rights of Network is unrecorded


7.76.3. Reactive maintenance is based on network inspections and deal with the repair of Category 1 defects and other matters requiring urgent attention. It is the responsibility of the Field Officers to identify if a


defect fits into this category based on experienced technical judgement.

7.76.4. Planned maintenance is primarily to provide a defined standard of network serviceability, maximising path availability, reliability, integrity and quality. The priorities and programmes are determined largely, but not exclusively, from Category 2 defects and partnership liaison with Parish and Town Councils, together with items identified by customer request.


7.76.5. Renewal or replacement activities return the path and/or associated features to an “as new” capacity and condition status. This may also include upgrading to latest design and equality standards where suitable permissions exist. The following options will be considered:

• Rights of Way Improvement Plan (RoWIP)

• Annual Maintenance of vegetation

• Infrastructure improvements

• Rights of Way route surface improvements

• Surfaced Routes to School all weather routes


7.76.6. The identification of need for replacement, renewal or upgrading of infrastructure and surfaces comes from a number of sources, including:

• Condition assessment surveys and technical inspection providing a prioritisation ranking.

• Public, local community and member reports.

• Detailed local knowledge by field officers, and other officers.

• Drainage issues identified from repeated flooding.

• Reviews of the long-term programme.

• Opportunities presented to carry out works in conjunction with works to other asset components, e.g. with land owners and developments.

Upgrading

7.76.7. Specific proposals may arise from time to time which will effectively upgrade a piece of un-surfaced PROW network to provide an all weather surfaced route to schools or other community facilities.


7.76.8. Removal of a right of way is only possible as a result of a legal order and is a very rare occurrence.

7.76.9. Diversion orders may provide for the removal of minimal lengths of path as part of a development or local improvement scheme. Legislation also allows orders to be applied for reasons of crime prevention and security, health and safety on school premises and nature conservation


7.77. Funding

7.77.1. Funding for PROW schemes comes primarily from revenue and capital budgets:

• Revenue Budgets – expenditure on PROW maintenance to restore or replace infrastructure, control of vegetation encroachment or to maintain the asset condition. Revenue Budgets are either reactive or planned maintenance.

• Capital Budgets – expenditure on an asset that either renews the whole asset or renews part of the asset to extend its lifecycle or enhance its functionality.




7.78.2. Following appropriate technical surveys and safety inspections and land owner liaison a list of schemes are identified for further consideration.


7.78.3. A prioritisation process is defined to rank the schemes in an appropriate priority order. The ranking process includes the following attributes:

• Hazard identification

• Local or regional importance



• Customer and community feedback or support


7.79.1. The ultimate goal of the decision process is to identify a forward work programme. The information from the previous four sections of the PROW Lifecycle Plan enable future programmes to be developed. These programmes are developed as shown in Table 7.35.






Table 7.35 - Public Rights of Way Forward Works Programmes



7.80.1. Levels of Service have been developed using corporate, legal, best practice and public requirements. All factors contribute to delivering a desired Level of Services, this section illustrates the links between each individual service level. A budget has been calculated to understand the Level of Service that can be achieved with alternative levels of funding. Note: the specific value for each individual authority will be contained in an authority specific Annex. Table 7.36 shows the non - condition levels of service. These reflect tasks that are completed to ensure that the asset is managed in the most efficient manner

7.80.2. The PROW asset non condition levels of service are shown in Table 7.37 These reflect tasks that are completed to ensure that the asset is managed in the most efficient manner.


LEVEL OF SERVICE


DESIRED LEVEL


Network Management


Public Rights of Way Accessibility Survey (% Accessible)

Easy to Use Indicator

>80%

(£m)

72.5-80%

(£m)

65% - 72.5%

(£m)

<65%

(£m)

Comment

Network Management


Signposts where ROW leaves a metalled road

>90%

(£m)

85-90%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)

Comment

PROW Structures recorded on Highways Structures inspection List


Rural Footbridges

Inspection every 2 years

Replacement every 15 years

Inspection

every 5 years

Inspection every 6 years

Comment

Table 7.36: Public Rights of Way Asset Condition Levels of Service


LEVEL OF SERVICE


DESIRED LEVEL


Network Safety


Safety Inspections (% of inspections completed to the correct frequency)

>7% 5-7% 5% <5%

Comments:

Customer Service


Response to safety defects within target time

>98% 90-98% 80-90% <80%

Comment

Customer Service


Response to request against Definitive Map within target time

<5 working days

5-7 working

days

8-15 working days

>15 working days

Comments:

Table 7.37: Public Rights of Way Asset Non Condition Levels of Service


7.81. Transport and Road Safety Management Systems Life Cycle Plan

7.81.1. The councils manage transport and road safety system assets in accordance with standards set out in a Highway Maintenance Management Plan and as described in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, volume 8, section 1.

7.81.2. A detailed description of the specific attributes of the asset group is included in Chapter 4.


Safety Inspections

7.82.1. The councils undertake a system of inspections to monitor the integrity and safety of transport and road safety system on a regular basis. The function is primarily to identify all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider community and allocate a level of response.




Technical Surveys

7.82.3. Electrical inspections and testing are carried out on all transport and road safety system equipment at intervals of up to five years in accordance with the requirements of standards defined in BS 7671 (IEE Wiring Regulations, 17th edition).



7.83.1. New transport and road safety system may be installed as part of other schemes, such as safety schemes or new developments.


7.83.2. Reactive maintenance is based on network inspections and deal with the repair of Category 1 defects and other matters requiring urgent attention. It is the responsibility of the Safety Inspector to identify if a


defect fits into this category based on experienced technical judgement.

7.83.3. Planned maintenance is primarily to provide a defined standard of network serviceability, maximising availability, reliability, integrity and quality. The priorities and programmes are determined largely, but not exclusively, from Category 2 defects, together with items identified by customer requests.


7.83.4. The need to replace a unit or the whole installation is identified through routine and reactive maintenance. The timing of planned works is dependent on the results of previous testing and the age of the installation.

Upgrading

7.83.5. Equipment upgrades will be programmed as technology requirements and component obsolescence occurs.


7.83.6. It is unusual for complete traffic and road safety system installations to be disposed of, but occasionally they may be removed as part of a wider review.

7.84. Funding

7.84.1. Funding for all Traffic & Road Safety Management schemes comes primarily from revenue and capital budgets:

• Revenue Budgets – expenditure on an asset to reinstate function following a local failure, repairs of local damage or to maintain the asset condition. Revenue Budgets are either reactive or planned maintenance.





7.85.2. Following appropriate technical surveys and safety inspections a list of schemes are identified for further consideration. Schemes will be prioritised on a risk basis incorporating an assessment matrix.


7.85.3. A prioritisation process is defined by the Highway Maintenance Management Plan, which aims to refine the scheme ranking process in order of business priority. The ranking process includes the following attributes:


• Level of Risk



• Customer reports








Table 7.38 - Traffic and Road Safety Management Systems Forward Works Programmes


7.87.1. Levels of Service have been developed using corporate, legal, best practice and customer requirements. All factors contribute to delivering a desired Level of Service. This section illustrates the links between each individual service level. A budget has been calculated to understand the Level of Service that can be achieved with alternative levels of funding. Note: the specific value for each individual authority will be contained in an authority specific Annex to the JTAMP.

7.87.2. The traffic and road safety system asset non condition levels of service are shown in Table 7.40. These reflect tasks that are completed to ensure that the asset is managed in the most efficient manner.


LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Network Management

Traffic Signals

Average time taken to repair Traffic Signals

<4 hours <1 day <4 day >4 day

Network Safety

All Asset Safety

Safety Inspections (% of inspections completed to the minimum frequency)

>98% 95 - 98%

90 - 95% <90%

Table 7.39 – Traffic and Road Safety Management Systems Asset Condition Level of Service


LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Customer Service

All Assets


time

>98% 90-98% 80-90% <80%

Customer Service

Traffic Controls

Response to urgent defects within target

time

>98% 90-98% 80-90% <80%

Customer Service

All Assets

NHT Public Satisfaction

Survey


Once per year

2-5 years > 5 years

Value for Money

All Assets

Lifecycle Costing



funding

Lifecycle plan

adopted but not

implemented


No lifecycle plan


Table 7.40 - Traffic and Road Safety Management Systems Asset non-condition levels of service


7.88. Road Marking and Road Studs Life Cycle Plan

7.88.1. The councils manage Road Markings and Road Studs assets in accordance with standards set out in a Highway Maintenance Management Plan (HMMP).

7.88.2. The road marking and road stud asset group includes all advisory, information and regulatory road markings. A detailed description of the specific attributes of the asset group is included in Chapter 4.


Safety Inspections

7.89.1. The councils undertake a system of inspections to monitor the integrity and road markings and road studs on a regular basis. The function is primarily to identify all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider community and allocate an appropriate level of response.





7.89.4. The frequency of highways visual inspections varies according to the category of road. Table 7.41 indicates the frequency of inspections for the different categories of road.

Road Markings & Road Studs


Motorway/Trunk Roads 1 Highway Agency








Table 7.41 - Highway Inspection Frequency

Technical Surveys

7.89.5. Visual surveys to monitor the condition of road markings are essential. This data is used as follows:

• To provide information on the condition of the network across the West of England


• Route hierarchy and road user information

7.89.6. Condition survey information is used to inform the Road marking and Road Studs Lifecycle Plan and to produce Indicators reported.



7.90.1. Created as part of the on going management of the highway network. Almost exclusively, this is associated with capital schemes or associated with housing or business developments.

7.90.2. Road Markings are placed within the highway predominantly as a consequence of:

• Accident investigation and prevention works.

• Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s), parking related issues.

• On going development in the maintenance of the highway network.

• New highway schemes.

• Private developments and regeneration schemes.



7.90.4. Planned maintenance is primarily to provide a defined standard of network serviceability, maximising reliability, integrity and quality. The priorities and programmes are determined largely, but not exclusively, from Category 2 defects, together with items identified by customer requests.



7.90.5. The replacement of degraded or damaged road markings and road studs should be in compliance with the Traffic Signs and Regulations and General Directions 2002. The condition of road markings or road studs is considered whenever attention is drawn to them, so as to ensure that any works required are optimised to deliver maximum life. Renewals may also be necessary as a consequence of the revocation of traffic sign regulations.

7.90.6. Renewal or replacement activities return the carriageway and/or associated features to an “as built” condition status. This includes upgrading to latest design standards. The following options will be considered:

• Deterioration

• Traffic Regulation Orders

• Road Hierarchy

• Network Management


7.90.7. The identification of the replacement or renewal of lines and road studs and associated features is based on information from a number of sources, including:

• Condition assessment surveys and technical inspection




• Reviews of the long-term programme

• Opportunities presented to carry out works in conjunction with works to other asset components, e.g. carriageway works

• Changes in road classification or route hierarchy

Upgrading

7.90.8. Specific proposals may arise periodically, which will upgrade a section of highway network to meet a change in demand. These proposals include carriageway widening, traffic management and safety schemes and are checked for compliance with the Traffic Signs Manual and Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. These changes may not be completed at time of upgrade/downgrade and could form part of the next resurfacing works.


7.90.9. Removal of lines would normally be in conjunction with renewal or replacement programmes. Decommissioning would normally take place in conjunction with a change in a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).


7.90.10. Some lining might be removed from the network as part of a major development or a traffic improvement scheme. However, such a change of function would not constitute decommissioning.

7.91. Funding

7.91.1. Funding for the majority of lines and road stud assets comes primarily from revenue and capital budgets:













7.93. Lifecycle Treatment Options

Activity Type Activity Service Standard Code of Practise

Preventative Bulk Renewal of studs and lines

Not Currently identified

In accordance with carriageway and footway hierarchy

Condition Monitoring

Safety Inspections In accordance with carriageway standards


Degradation retro reflectivity, deterioration legibility

With safety inspections

Ideally two year daylight and repeated at night

Route integrity Every 3 to 5 years

Repairs to damaged or missing markings

Dependent of severity and safety implications. Yellow parking lines could be prioritised due to enforcement requirements.

Reactive

Isolated new markings or upgrades

Following approval by engineer

Table 7.42 – Road Markings and Road Studs Lifecycle Treatment Options








Table 7.43 - Road Markings and Road Studs Forward Works Programmes


7.95.1. Levels of Service have been developed using corporate, legal, best practice and customer requirements. All factors contribute to delivering a desired Level of Service. This section illustrates the links between each individual service level. A budget has been calculated to understand the Level of Service that can be achieved with alternative levels of funding. Note: the specific value for each individual authority will be contained in an authority specific Annex to the JTAMP.


7.95.2. Table 7.44 shows the Road Markings and Road Studs asset condition levels of service. These reflect tasks that are completed to ensure that the asset is managed in the most efficient manner.

7.95.3. The Road Markings and Road Studs asset non condition levels of service are shown in Table 7.45.


LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE

LEVEL

Network Management

Non-Illuminated

Signs

Non-Illuminated

Signs cleaned as

annual programme

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)


Network Safety

Non-Illuminated

Signs

Non-Illuminated

Signs safety inspections

>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)



Customer Service

Non-Illuminated

Signs

Public reports of damaged

signs to be attended

within target time


Table 7.44 - Road Marking and Road Studs Asset Condition Levels of Service


LEVEL OF


CURRENT LEVEL

DESIRED LEVEL


LEVEL

Customer Service

Non-Illuminated

Signs

Response Times

repairing or cleansing or

reinstatement

>95% 85-95% 75-85% <75%

Table 7.45 - Road Markings and Road Studs Asset non Condition Levels of Service


7.96. Street Furniture Life Cycle Plan

7.96.1. The councils manage street furniture assets in accordance with standards set out in a Highway Maintenance Management Plan (HMMP).

7.96.2. The street furniture asset group includes all those areas contained within the highway boundary not covered elsewhere within the JTAMP. A detailed description of the specific attributes of the asset group is included in Chapter 4.


Safety Inspections

7.97.1. The councils undertake a system of inspections to monitor the integrity and safety of highways on a regular basis. The function is primarily to identify all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider community and allocate an appropriate level of response.





7.97.4. The frequency of highways inspections varies according to the category of road.

Technical Surveys

7.97.5. Course Visual Inspections (CVI’S) are based on routine highway inspections.

7.97.6. Condition survey information is used to inform the Street Furniture Lifecycle Plan.




7.98.1. Almost exclusively acquisition or creation associated with adoptions from housing or business developments, which are designed and constructed to an approved design criteria.


7.98.2. Reactive maintenance is based on network inspections and deals with safety related issues and other matters requiring urgent attention. It is the responsibility of the Highway Inspector to identify if an issue fits into this category based on experienced technical judgement.

7.98.3. Planned maintenance is primarily to provide a defined standard of serviceability, maximising reliability, integrity and quality. The priorities and programmes are determined largely by customer requests. As appropriate, this will be associated with carriageway, footway and cycleway maintenance.


7.98.4. Renewal or replacement activities return the highway verge and/or associated features to an “as built” condition status. This includes upgrading to latest design standards. The following options will be considered:


7.98.5. The identification of the replacement or renewal of highways verges and associated features is based on information from a number of sources, including:

• Technical inspection providing a prioritisation ranking



Upgrading

7.98.6. Specific proposals may arise from time to time which necessitate a change in demand.


7.98.7. Disposal of this asset group is a rare occurrence and usually for safety reasons, decommissioning usually only takes place in conjunction with the disposal of a whole street where there is no disadvantage to the highway users.

7.98.8. Small lengths might be removed from the network as part of a major development or a traffic improvement scheme. However, such a change of function would not constitute decommissioning.


7.99. Funding

7.99.1. Funding for highway verge works comes primarily from revenue budgets:

• Revenue Budgets – expenditure on highway verge maintenance to reinstate following a local failure, repairs of local damage or to maintain the asset condition. Revenue Budgets are either reactive or planned maintenance.

• Capital Budgets – as part of a broader a highway scheme or a non highway initiative.




7.100.2. Following appropriate technical surveys and safety inspections a list of highway schemes are identified for further consideration. Schemes will be prioritised on a risk basis incorporating an appropriate assessment matrix.


7.100.3. A prioritisation process is defined by the Highway Maintenance Management Plan which aims to refine the scheme ranking process in order of business priority order. The ranking process includes the following attributes:

• Level of Risk



• Risk assessment of visibility requirements


• Environmental Management issues


7.101.1. The ultimate goal of the decision process is to identify a forward work programme. This will be a seasonal based programme for grass cutting, pruning and other specific maintenance associated with this asset group:


7.102.1. Levels of Service have developed using corporate, legal, best practice and public requirements. All factors contribute to delivering a desired Levels of Service. This section illustrates the links between each individual service levels. A budget has been calculated to understand the Level of Service that can be achieved with alternative


levels of funding. Note: the specific value for each individual authority will be contained in an authority specific Annex.

7.102.2. A summary of Tables 4.25 and 4.26 shows what is currently being achieved. The remaining targets have been assessed and all stakeholders recognise that achievement of these targets is essential for the continued improvement of the West of England.


Table 7.25 – Street Furniture Asset Condition Levels of Service

LEVEL OF SERVICE


LEVEL DESIRED

LEVEL


MEET SERVICE LEVEL

Network Safety

All Asset Safety

Safety Inspections

(% of inspections

completed to the minimum frequency)

>98%

(£m)

95-98%

(£m)

90-95%

(£m)

<90%

(£m)


>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)


>95%

(£m)

85-95%

(£m)

75-85%

(£m)

<75%

(£m)



LEVEL OF


CURRENT LEVEL

DESIRED LEVEL


LEVEL

Customer Service

Street Furniture

Response Times for


>95% 85-95% 75-85% <75%

Comment

Customer Service

Street Furniture

Response to urgent

defects within target time

>98% 90-98% 80-90% <80%

Comment

Table 7.26 – Street Furniture Asset non condition Levels of Service


8. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 8.1. Forward Plan

8.1.1. The JTAMP provides a common framework to deliver a transportation asset management plan throughout the West of England. The JTAMP is a living document and will continue to add asset types in accordance with an agreed forward plan as follows in Table 8.1. The JTAMP will be updated on an annual basis with a comprehensive review every three years.

Asset Type Year Version Status

Carriageway 2008/09 JTAMP (1) Complete

Footway, Footpaths & Cycleways 2008/09 JTAMP (1) Complete

Highway Structures 2008/09 JTAMP (1) Complete

Public Lighting 2008/09 JTAMP (1) Complete

Public Transport Infrastructure 2008/09 JTAMP (2) In Preparation

Highway Drainage 2008/09 JTAMP (2) Complete

Highway Verges, Trees and Landscaped areas

2008/09 JTAMP (2) Complete

Non-illuminated Signs 2008/09 JTAMP (2) Complete

Segregated Cycleway and Cycle Tracks 2009/10 JTAMP (3) Complete

Public Rights of Way 2009/10 JTAMP (3) Complete

Traffic and Road Safety Management 2009/10 JTAMP (3) Complete

Road Markings and Road Studs 2009/10 JTAMP (3) In Preparation

Safety Fences and Barriers 2010/11 JTAMP (4) In Preparation

Parking Infrastructure 2010/11 JTAMP (4) Complete

Street Furniture including Cycle parking 2010/11 JTAMP (4) Complete

Review CIPFA format and update 2010/11 JTAMP (4) In Preparation

Next Steps (depreciation modelling and implementation)

2011/12 JTAMP (5) Continuous development

Table 8.1 JTAMP Implementation Plan


8.1.2. Following the approval of this JTAMP each Council will prepare an annex to reflect local issues and priorities based on the JTAMP framework.

8.2. Information Management Gap Analysis

8.2.1. The final stage of the asset management process is to complete a gap analysis that will highlight local priorities for each Unitary Authority. Each of the components of asset management will be assessed looking at the current level and then identifying the desired level. The ‘gap’ is the difference between these two levels.

8.2.2. Action plans will be developed to close the individual ‘gaps’. The unification of these plans will become the Implementation Plan for continuous improvement.

8.3. JTAMP Delivery Management

8.3.1. The Implementation Plan will deliver the actions in an agreed timeframe. Each action will be allocated to an owner who is responsible for completion including keeping elected members fully informed.

8.3.2. It is acknowledged that there will be continuous improvement in the application of transport asset management planning with increasing knowledge and experience. The JTAMP is considered to be a living document and will be updated to accommodate progress with the implementation of AMP process.

8.3.3. The principals of Asset Management Planning set out in the JTAMP have been applied to 13kms of A4 Bath Road transferred from the Highways Agency and adopted by Bath & North East Somerset in April 2008.

8.3.4. Each local authority will prepare an authority specific TAMP annex

8.4. Whole Government Accounting

8.4.1. HM Treasury has set a timetable for a gradual transition to report in g on this basis, started with limited, un-audited data submissions for 2009/10, building up to a full audited dry run in 2011/12 and the withdrawal of historic cost-based reporting from 2012/13.


APPENDIX 1 INVENTORY AND CONDITION GAP ANALYSIS

Position Statement March 2008

Extent of Data Collection

Extent: Definition

None No data is stored in electronic or hard copy storage

Partial 10 to 30% of asset has data recorded in either electronic or hard copy format

Average 30 to 70% of asset has data recorded electronically

Above Average 70 to 95% of asset has data recorded electronically

Complete More than 95% of asset has data recorded electronically

The reliability of data establishes the accuracy of information currently held by the West of England authorities. This data is either stored in a paper format or contained in an electronic system. There is an aspiration to migrate all information to an appropriate electronic system. The reliability of available data has been described using five different levels.

Reliability of Data Stored

Reliability Definition

None Stored data is less than 10% accurate

Poor Stored data is more than 10% but less than 30% accurate

Average Stored data is 30 – 70% accurate

Good Stored data is greater than 70% but less than 95% accurate

Excellent Stored data is greater than 95% accurate


Confidence Level for Data

Extent

Reliability

Nil Partial Average Above Average Complete

None None Low Low Low Low

Poor None Low Low Low Low

Average None Low Medium Medium Medium

Good None Low Medium High High

Excellent None Low Medium High High


Data Storage Asset Type Type of Data

Paper Electronic


Information Reliability

Confidence Level

Action Plan

Inventory Partial Average Low

Carriageway

Condition � Above

Average Average Medium

Development of an inventory management

framework

Complete full hierarchy review in accordance with

JLTP objectives

Inventory � Average Average Medium Footway & Kerbs

Condition � Partial Average Low



Paper Electronic



Confidence Level

Action Plan

Inventory � � Average Average Medium Segregated

Cycleways & Cycle Tracks

Condition � Partial Average Low

Inventory � � Average Good Medium Public Rights Of Way

Condition � � Partial Poor Low

Infrastructure survey programmed for 2008/09

to 2009/10



Paper Electronic



Confidence Level

Action Plan

Inventory � � Complete Good High Highway Structures, including Bridges, Retaining Walls,

Subways and Culverts Condition � �

Above Average

Good High

Inventory

� Complete Excellent High

Public Lighting and Lit Signs

Condition

� Above

Average Good High

Complete the full inventory survey to

validate the records and standardize the data.

Input missing data fields following annual



Paper Electronic



Confidence Level

Action Plan

Inventory � Partial Average Low Highway Verges

Condition � Partial Poor Low

Inventory � � Average Good Medium Highway Drainage

Condition � Average Poor Low



Paper Electronic



Confidence Level

Action Plan

Inventory � � Above

Average Excellent High


Condition � � Average Good Medium

Complete data inventory and instigate periodic

inspection routine

Validate public transport inventories and up date where necessary (see

below)

Inventory � Partial Poor Low Road Markings & Road Studs (Cats

Eyes) Condition � Partial Poor Low

Inventory � � Average Poor Low


Condition � Partial None Low



Paper Electronic



Confidence Level

Action Plan

Inventory � Complete Average Medium

Parking Infrastructure

Condition � Above

Average Average Medium

Inventory � � Average Average Medium


Condition � � Average Average Medium

Complete GIS based schedules, validate and add missing data fields

Co-ordinate resources owned by LA’a, Bus

Companies and Parish Councils.

Using best Practice to prioritise maintenance

inspections

Inspection hierarchy



Paper Electronic



Confidence Level

Action Plan

Inventory � Partial Average Low

Non-illuminated signs

Condition � Partial Poor Low

Inventory � Partial Average Low Street Furniture including Cycle

Parking Condition � None Poor Low


APPENDIX 2 ABBREVIATIONS

ADEPT Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport

CIPFA Chartered Institute for Public Finance

CPA Civil Parking Areas

CPE Civil Parking Enforcement

CSS County Surveyors’ Society

CVI Coarse Visual Inspections

D Depreciation (Asset Valuation Modelling)

DfT Department for Transport

DPE Decriminalised Parking Enforcement

DRC Depreciated Replacement Cost (Asset Valuation Modelling)

DVI Detailed Visual Inspections

G General Inspections

GRC Gross Replacement Cost (Asset Valuation Modelling)

HA Highways Agency

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

HLMMP Highway Lighting Maintenance Management Plan

HMMP Highways Maintenance Management Plan

Im Impairment (Asset Valuation Modelling)

INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community

JLTP Joint Local Transport Plan

JTAMP Joint Transport Asset Management Plan

NaPTAN National Public Transport Access Node

NHT National Highways and Transportation

NI’s National Indicators

NRMCS National Road Maintenance Condition Survey

PCN Penalty Charge Notice

PI Principal Inspections

PROW Public Rights of Way

RAV Road Assessment Vehicles

ROWIP Rights of Way Improvement Plan

RTS Regional Transport Strategy


RVI Routine Visual Inspections

SCANNER Surface Condition Assessment of the National Network of Roads

SCRIM Sideway-force Coefficient Routine Investigation Machine

SI Special Inspections

SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest

SMMP Structures Maintenance Management Plan

SPA Special Parking Areas

TRO Traffic Regulation Order

UKPMS United Kingdom Pavement Management System

UTMC Urban Traffic Management and Control

WGA Whole of Government Accounts

Joint Transport Asset Management Plan 11 jtamp.pdfAgenda item 11 Joint Transport Executive Committee...

Documents

Transcript of Joint Transport Asset Management Plan 11 jtamp.pdfAgenda item 11 Joint Transport Executive Committee...