Appendix G: Transport Asset Management Planglostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/Data/County...

Appendix G: Transport Asset Management Plan

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 3

2. Summary of Recommendations with cost implications 6

3. The Transport Asset Register Table 9

4. Summary of Asset Valuation 10

5. exor maintenance manager system 11

6. Analysis of Asset Register Table including Recommendations by Asset 12

Appendix A Asset Register Table 34

Appendix B Asset Valuation PIE CHART 54

Appendix C Report to Environment DMT 60

For further details, please contact Mark Dauncey Highway Maintenance Manager Maintenance Coordination Gloucestershire County Council Shire Hall Gloucester GL1 2TH

Tel: 01452 426454 Email: [email protected]

Draft Provisional Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 Strategy Officer: Mark Dauncey, Highway Maintenance Manager i

mailto:[email protected]


Draft Provisional Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 Strategy Officer: Mark Dauncey, Highway Maintenance Manager ii


1. Introduction This draft plan has been produced prior to the publication of “Well Maintained Highways – Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance Management” and “Guidance Document for Highway Maintenance Infrastructure Asset Valuation” by CSS/TAG, July 2005. The development of the final Transport Asset Management Plan will take these documents into account.

1.1 Background

The transportation network is the most valuable asset that the County Council manages and maintains. It is key in supporting nearly all of the County Council’s business objectives, providing the means by which children get to school, the elderly receive home help, waste is transported and County Council staff deliver services around the county.

Travel is an integral part of the local economy in relation to both tourism and supporting economic development. The transportation network is equally important to users from other parts of the country, unfortunately this importance is often only highlighted when parts of the network become unavailable and travel becomes difficult.

To keep the network functioning at as high a level as possible and preserve the asset value, maintenance must be carried out to the various highway components. These include footways, carriageways, drainage systems, verges, structures, street lighting, traffic signals, signing and road markings. Gloucestershire County Council and its agents, Gloucester City Council and Cheltenham Borough Council, maintain and seek to optimise an asset that includes:

5164 kilometres of county roads. 56,000 street lights 800 bridges and structures 334 traffic signals 1.2 Vision statement (taken from LTP2)

‘To enable people in Gloucestershire to enjoy real choices of travel where there are viable alternatives to the car and be provided with high quality access to services on a safe and efficient transport network.’

1.3 Aims and objectives

The Council’s aims are to:

• Provide learning throughout life • Support those most in need in our

communities • Manage and enhance the

environment • Meet local transport needs more

effectively • Support and encourage a thriving

local economy • Promote safer communities • Gloucestershire focus.

The Council’s priorities are to:

• Make sure all children and young people benefit from their education by raising and maintaining achievements in all schools

• Improve the quality of life for children and families at risk

• Improve the quality of life for older people

• Promote sustainable waste management practices

• Manage, maintain and improve the transport network including roads and passenger transport

• Develop an effective Human Resources Strategy

• Improve performance management • Improve customer access

The Council will be guided by the following principles:

• Social inclusion • Sustainability • Fairness and diversity.

Draft Provisional Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 Strategy Officer: Mark Dauncey, Highway Maintenance Manager 1



An extract from the ‘Best Value Review’ report from 2002 also highlights the importance of the Asset Management Plan:

“The highway network is a key and highly visible community asset, supporting the national and local economy, and contributing to the character and environment of the areas that it services.

Effective management of the local road network has the potential to aid regeneration, social inclusion, community safety, reduce crime and fear of crime, health and environment, but this needs a planned long-term programme of investment, efficiently managed and supported by effective technical and management systems.”

1.4 Asset Management Working Group

The Asset Management Working Group was set up on the 1st April 2004. The group was led by the Head of Service for Highway Maintenance, Integrated Transport and Waste Management, with the support of representatives from highways, structures, lighting and IT, transport planning and projects, finance, Cheltenham Borough Council and Gloucester City Council. The objective of the group was to develop and implement an asset management plan providing “a strategic approach (to asset management) that identifies the optimal allocation of resources for the management, operation, preservation and enhancement of the transport infrastructure to meet the needs of current and future customers”.

1.5 Role of the Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP)

This plan is a culmination of a project to assist Gloucestershire County Council’s Transport Asset Management Working Group (TAMWG). The plan concludes the review stage of the project “Development of an Asset Management Plan for highway and transportation in Gloucestershire”. The objectives and outcomes of the group are detailed in the TAMWGs Project Initiation Document (PID), (Reference: Appendix A). Within the PID there is a detailed Preliminary Phase Plan (PPP). This plan forms part of the outcomes for sections 1 through to 6 of the PPP, and should be read in association with the asset register table and the asset valuation report and pie chart.

The TAMP supports the three core objectives, network safety, serviceability and sustainability. Of the Code of Practice for Highways Management (2001) which can be broken down as follows:-

Network safety

• Complying with statutory obligations

• Meeting central government’s casualty reduction targets

• Meeting user’s needs. Network serviceability

• Ensuring availability • Achieving integrity • Maintaining reliability • Enhancing quality • Providing fitness for purpose.

Network sustainability

• Minimising cost over time • Maximising value to the community • Managing environmental

considerations.


The outcome of this plan provides Gloucestershire County Council with a clearer picture of the quality, quantity and value of its assets and can be used as a basis of a proactive planning tool to manage each asset to achieve their desired state.

This plan is submitted with Gloucestershire County Council’s Transport Asset Register Tables; which is cross referenced to the Summary of Asset Valuation and Pie Chart.

Together this will allow Gloucestershire County Council to create an annual programme of Asset Register updating. This will allow better targeting of limited funding, maintaining priority assets in an order that delivers quick wins but also meets the long term goals of the Transport Asset Management Plan.

1.6 Framework for highway asset management

The ‘Framework for Highway Asset Management’ document is intended to be a national reference for any authority wishing to implement asset management. It will also assist authorities to share knowledge on the subject of highway asset management by providing common “ground rules” and terminology. This will be further developed by the County Surveyors Society and the Local Technical Advisors Group to provide detailed guidance on specific elements. The objective of the framework is to provide a reference that promotes a deeper understanding of asset management principles, allowing highway authorities to demonstrate prudent stewardship of their assets.

It is anticipated that the framework will be used to:

• introduce the concept of asset management

• assist with the implementation of asset management

• assist with the preparation of an asset management plan.

1.7 Linkages to other strategies and documents

Other important and related documents that have been considered and referred to within the TAMP include

• Gloucestershire Strategic Partnership Community Strategy

• Gloucestershire County Council’s Corporate Strategy and Annual Plan

• Environment Directorate’s Integrated Service Performance Plan

• LTP1 and LTP2 (in preparation) • ‘Delivering Best Value in Highway

Maintenance Management’ The Code of Practice for Maintenance Management and the Highway Maintenance Hand Book (under review)

• Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures

• Well-Lit Highways: Code of practice for highway lighting management

• The Network Management Plan (in Preparation)

• The Agency agreements with Cheltenham Borough Council and Gloucester City Council (under review)

• Various contractual arrangements.



2. Summary of Recommendations with costings

Table 1

Cost and actions for completion of the Asset Register

Name of Asset Actions Unit Unit Total Unit Price Costs

Carriageway Collect missing data Km 67 125 £8,375

Urban Footways Database to be updated, categorise footways in the same format i.e. types 1 to 4 Week 4 1125 £4,500

Collect data Week 21 1125 £23,625Signs & Bollards (Unlit)

On Principal routes check for route clarity and visibility One off 1 1450 £1,450

Bridges & Structures Identify retaining structures and collect information

(See Structures Asset Register table 6.6) p.a. - - £140,000

Cycleways Data to be collected & database updated Week 21 1125 £23,625

Bus Stops & Shelters All data to be on Maintenance Manager Week 4 1125 £4,500

Trees GCC to update their tree data Week 4 1125 £4,500

Gullies Transfer contract updates to asset register. Week 4 1125 £4,500

Verges Update inventory Week 21 1125 £23,625

Pedestrian Guardrails Database to be updated Week 4 1125 £4,500



Associated Drainage Data

Input paper data already held onto Maintenance Manager Week 10 1125 £11,250

Estimated total cost £254,450

Table 2 (See Recommendation 2.2)

Name of Asset Actions Unit Unit Total Unit Price Costs

Joint Survey (see 2.2) Week 21 2250 £47,250

See Individual Cost

Single Update Cost Saving

Signs & Bollards (Unlit) £23,625

Cycleways £23,625

Verges £23,625

Bus Stops & Shelters £4,500

Pedestrian Guardrails £4,500

TOTAL £79,275 £47,250 £32,025

The above tables 1 and 2 give an indication to the costs involved in updating and completing the Asset Register. Visit price is a conservative estimate of current market prices.



Costs would be saved by collecting site data together rather than individually, on a one visit basis.

For example: Sign & Bollards (unlit), Cycleways, Verges, Bus Stop and Pedestrian Guardrails; could all be collected on site together rather than individual site visits asset by asset.




Recommendations The TAMWG recommends the following for implementation:

2.1) That there is one controlled source of Asset data collection at GCC to keep the Register updated and that a Data Manager is assigned to manage and maintain the validity of all such data.

2.2) GCC will have the Asset Register updated by April 2006 to complement the start of the new Term Service Contract. Costs and actions are defined in Tables 1 and 2.

2.3) Future network adoptions or network changes shall require Asset Register information to be collected/updated on an annual basis. Currently adoptions are approximately 15Km per annum; which means Gloucestershire County Council shall budget £1875 p.a. for Asset Register new adoptions.

2.4) The Asset Register shall be updated for all other Highway Asset changes by the Term Service Provider (TSP). The TSP will update the exor Asset Register on a monthly basis by keeping records of all changes to assets using information derived from completed Works Order Tickets.

2.5) Gloucestershire County Council’s Transport Asset Register shall reside within its existing integrated suite of Environment Applications programs, primarily exor’s Maintenance Manager or any other superseding module.

2.6) That GCC migrate Safety Inspection and Defect data to the exor Environment Applications programs. This information will then be available to interested parties

and other modules to help enable more proactive rather than reactive programming and treatments. This would assist future claims to be met in accordance with the requirements of the Woolf Report


3. The Transport Asset Register Table 3.1 Transport Asset Register Table

The core assets for service delivery are carriageway, urban footways, street lighting, signs and bollards, bridges and structures, traffic signals, road markings, lines and studs, drainage and real time passenger information.

The initial work has concentrated on the assets considered to be of primary importance in relation to the core assets.

The purpose of the table is to review the County’s transport assets as maintained by the Council and its agents. The information held for each asset was reviewed; i.e. where is the asset information held, how it is updated, the quantity of asset data and its condition, the asset data’s network coverage and the unit cost for its replacement.

The tables in Appendix A are broken down into the following columns:-

Column Title

Usage of Data Who uses the data, what is the data used for?

Accuracy of Data How accurate is the data held? (subjective).

User confidence in data Synopsis of users views of the data (subjective).

Quantities Quantities are actual figures drawn from a variety of sources, but mainly the Exor Maintenance Manager module.

Unit cost for replacement Unit cost agreed by Asset Management Working Group taking account of variations in unit cost between Authorities

Attributes These are specific details about an asset which should be held on the Register.

Where does the data sit On what system does the data sit, Environment Applications, GIS, etc or hard copy.

How is information kept up to date Is the information kept up to date cyclically, ad hoc or not at all.

Current condition of asset Appraisal ranging from good to poor or unknown.

Desired future condition of asset This is asset specific and gives a desired state of an asset at the end of LTP2 period (2011).



Summary of Asset Valuation (For Pie Chart see Appendix B)

The Asset Valuation sets out the values of individual assets. The valuation is based on the replacement of the asset.

Unit costs are derived from the Asset Register Table and Maintenance Manager.

The assets have been valued on a replacement cost basis as defined in the Framework. The use of replacement cost has several advantages:

• Provides a current cost value • The costs of maintaining the asset

can be compared with the cost of replacement in real terms

• Can be easily updated • Calculations over whole asset life

provide meaningful results • Provides an objective valuation • Used by County Surveyors Society

for report on bridge valuation.

In making the valuation it has been necessary to make a number of assumptions, depending on the nature of the asset. The following provides background information on the basis, source of information and confidence in the valuation:

1) Carriageway Valuation for reconstruction at £38.73 per square metre for class 1, £30.63 per square metre for classes 2 and 3 and £28.47 per square metre for other classes. Does not include land acquisition costs. Valuation based on information held on Exor Maintenance Manager. High confidence in accuracy of information held on Exor Maintenance Manager.

2) Footway Valuation for reconstruction at £23 per square metre. Does not include land acquisition costs. Valuation based on information held on Exor Maintenance Manager. High confidence in accuracy of information held on Exor Maintenance Manager. 3) Street Lighting Valuation for replacement street light at £750 per column. Includes electricity service disconnection and re-connection costs. Valuation based on information from Street Lighting database. 4) Signs and Bollards Valuation for replacement at £150 for unlit and £400 for lit. Value does not include electricity service connection for lit bollards. Valuation based on information on Exor Maintenance Manager. 5) Bridges & Structures Valuation based on replacement cost of £4,800/m2, stated as the average bridge replacement cost that was determined by the Best Value benchmarking group of the County Surveyors Society SE Area Bridge Conference 2004. Number of bridges and culverts with average deck areas are provided from the bridge record system. Retaining walls are not included in this method of valuation.



6) Road Markings, Linings and Studs

Valuation at £0.94 per metre for broken white lines, £0.63 per metre for continuous white lines, £0.42 per metre for single yellow lines, £0.84 per metre for double yellow lines and £11.60 per stud. Valuation using information on Exor Maintenance Manager.. 7) Urban Cycle Ways Valuation for reconstruction at £23 per square metre. Does not include land acquisition costs. Valuation based on information held on Exor Maintenance Manager. 8) Bus Stops & Bus Shelters Bus stops valued at £100 each and bus shelters at £2,000 each. Valuation using information from Transport Planning. There is some variation in bus shelter costs between councils. 9) Trees – (Urban only) Valuation for replacement of a young tree at £85 each. Valuation based on information on Exor Maintenance Manager. 10) Gullies Valuation based on £194.11 per gully being the average based on 2001/02 works instructions. Valuation based on information on Exor Maintenance Manager.

11) Verges Valuation based on £6 per square metre to topsoil and seed of 2 metre wide strip. Valuation based on information on Exor Maintenance Manager. 12) Pedestrian Guardrails Substantial data held on Exor Maintenance Manager. Valuation at £65.42 per metre (Term Maintenance Contract rates plus Contract Price Fluctuation)

13) Traffic Data Replacement cost nil as data backed up regularly. 14) Traffic Signals Valuation of £27,000 per 3 aspect head. Number of heads provided by Exor Maintenance Manager. Information out of date in some areas. Value per head reworked to provide total replacement cost as advised by Traffic Officer - Signals. 15) Real Time Passenger

Information Valuation at £250,000 per route. Information from Integrated Transport Unit. 16) Associated Drainage Valuation based on £57.77 per metre for Culverts, £58.16 per metre for Filter Drain, £662.40 for Catchpits, £8,648 for Balancing Ponds, £5.48 for Counterfort Drains, £4.10 for Grips and £543.31 for Manholes. Valuation based on information on Exor Maintenance Manager..



5. exor maintenance manager system

exor is key to the creation and maintenance of the asset register. It ties together the LTP objectives, highway maintenance and management policies.

exor should be compatible with Arc view GIS, Gloucester City and Cheltenham Borough Council computer systems as required.

The exor system can:-

Maintain the base network and all hierarchies;

Maintain asset and inventory information;

Schedule and manage routine safety inspections;

Maintain defect information;

Create works orders and manage budget/cost information;

Operate a fully accredited UKPMS;

Manage all sizes of highway maintenance schemes;

Produce national and local performance indicators.

Gloucestershire’s bridge section use exor to manage all bridges, culverts, other structures and retaining walls; while the street lighting section use exor to manage streetlights and illuminated signs.

To make full use of exor’s capabilities and to fully “integrate” data ‘Network Manager 3’ is to be implemented.

It should be noted that the bulk of the inventory was collected 15 years ago (1987/89). Since 1999, with the exception of the highway network there has been limited updating of the exor system. The system holds inventory against 98.7% of the Network. It should be recognised that annual changes to the highway and its associated inventory are not great in percentage terms, therefore a large proportion of the original inventory collected is still valid. However as detailed in section 2 a full updating process has been recommended for development.



6. Analysis of Asset Register Table including Recommendations by Asset

The following part of the plan is broken down into sections on individual assets. Each section starts with the desired future condition/state and/or a cross reference to the Best Value Review, followed by a brief gap analysis, a series of actions, including

where appropriate, a financial estimate for gap closure and/or an implementation strategy.

Index

Section Title Page

6.1 Carriageway 14

6.2 Urban Footways 16

6.3 Street Lighting 17

6.4 Signs & Bollards – Lit 18

6.5 Signs & Bollards - Unlit 19

6.6 Bridges & Structures 20

6.7 Road Markings, Lines & Studs 21

6.8 Urban Cycleways 24

6.9 Bus Shelters and Bus Stops 25

6.10 Trees 26

6.11 Gullies 27

6.12 Verges 28

6.13 Pedestrian Guardrails 29

6.14 Traffic Data 30

6.15 Traffic Signals 31

6.16 Real Time Passenger Information 32

6.17 Associated Highway Drainage Data 33




6.1 Carriageway

The Performance objectives of the carriageway asset are defined under the new Traffic Management Act. The GCC Network Management Plan gives full details of these objectives. The Asset Register within the UKPMS holds details of the carriageway inventory and condition.

Principal roads are subject to a Public Service Agreement (PSA) between Gloucestershire County Council and the Government so that no more than 5.6% of principal carriageways require treatment by the end of the Local Transport Plan (LTP) in April 2006. The remainder of the network (classified and unclassified roads) for this asset has targets set to 5 years

Desired future asset condition

LPT2 details the targets for carriageway condition on all classes of road to 2011. Appendix D gives details of Performance

Indicator targets to achieve top 5 Local Authority Status as required by GCC Environment Department Management Team (DMT). Appendix D also details spending scenarios.

Gap

Analysis Recommendations Implementation

Strategy Estimated

Cost Timescale Responsible

Officer

Data Gap Analysis

There is no inventory for 67kms of carriageway

Update inventory Collect data 67km @ £125 = £ 8,375

6 months Mark Dauncey

There is little carriageway construction information held

Update carriageway construction info when available

To input data for principal roads held on Pandef into exor Take pavement information when excavations are open (Structural Projects)

£1,500 £25 per excavation

6 months As and when

Ian Kerslake

Carriageway hierarchy data – exor has only one method of classification, groups 1-5+8

To update exor ( after NM3 upgrade) so that various categories can be extracted i.e. strategic network or a network by traffic volume or the Highways Act network of A,B,C and Un.

To update data programme and amend existing data. Not programmed in recommendations due to exor update.

£12,000 3 months Mark Dauncey


Gap Analysis

Recommendations Implementation Strategy

Estimated Cost

Timescale Responsible Officer

Asset Optimisation

Structurally maintain the highway monitored by BVPI’s

Increase funding to required levels *See note 1 below

£10.08 million per annum

5 years Mark Dauncey

Carriageway strengthening safe passage & surfacing to ensure good ride quality

Improve quartile figures

*See note 2 below

£12.5 million per annum


Notes

1. Presently there is £8 million per year committed to structural maintenance of the

highway network, this would currently sustain the existing deterioration levels but in order to meet the present DMT levels £10.08 million is required.

2. For an improvement in quartile figures, £12.5 million per annum is the minimum spend

required to achieve the required standards/targets for the proposed quartile positioning.

To achieve Upper Quartile status for Principal and Classified Roads and above average for Unclassified roads the following spend profiles are required. Performance Indicator Road Type % Beyond

Critical Target Required annual spend for

targets by 2011 p.a. BV 96 Deflectograph Principal 4% £1.30m BV 97(a) CVI Classified 10% £6.00m BV 97(b) CVI Unclassified 20% £5.20m Total £12.50 million

% Beyond Critical Target figures are based on CVI. Gloucestershire County Council will continue with CVI surveys for Structural Maintenance and comparison purposes, however during the life of this Asset Management Plan it will move to ‘Scanner Surveys’ and new targets will need to be set to achieve ‘Top 5’ Local Authority Status and the quartile position outlined above




Urban footways

Desired future asset condition • In 5 years the desired condition of class

1 & 2 footways is for no more than 5% to be defective.

• Reduce number of claims paid out by 30%.

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

Footway hierarchy not created

Create footway hierarchy

Implement on exor

£4,500 1 month Mark Dauncey

Safety inspections not held on exor

Collect on Exor ALL footway defects (Type 1, 2, 3 & 4) Train staff (hardware already available)

Defects derived from electronic routine safety inspections

Internal 2 months Mark Dauncey

Asset Optimisation

Reduce % of defects in types 1 and 2 footways to less than 5%

Creation of footway inspection regime based on new code of practice to be issued July 2005. Seek additional funding

Target spending on needs basis

£128,000 pa on top of current footway spend of £1.3 million


Reduction of claims by 30%

Monitor claims against specified network

(Desk monitoring exercise, internal process in place)

Internal 2 months Mark Dauncey



6.3 Street Lighting

This asset was identified in the ‘Best Value Review of Highway Maintenance July 2002’. The goals include:-

• Improved customer access to report faults

• Implement initiatives to reduce fear of crime

• Improve maintenance contract • Minimise energy costs • Improve condition of lighting

columns Street lighting was also picked up in the ‘Walking and Cycling – an action plan’ produced by the Department of Transport in June 2004. Poor quality of some street lighting is a key issue for people currently deterred from walking by fears about personal security. Improved lighting can be helpful in providing a more comfortable environment for both pedestrians and cyclists.

As energy costs soar, energy efficient equipment needs to be explored, in particular solar powered lighting. Also the light pollution challenge requires monitoring.

Desired future asset condition The desired future asset condition is to reduce the average age of stock to a maximum age of 40 years by 2016.

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

Geo spatial data is missing

Collect Data SEC to collect £120,000

1 year To be complete by Dec. 05

Barry Greenaway

Asset Optimisation

Reduce average age of stock so that max age is 40 yrs old

Replace stock more than 40 years old (Total 31,000 columns over 10 years)

Explore Private Finance Initiative (PFI)

£2.34 million per year (Currently £930,000 available for column renewal work)

10 years Barry Greenaway

Improve lighting in accident /crime areas

Improve lighting levels to current standards.

Investigate potential areas

Estimate £500,000 per annum

5 years Barry Greenaway



6.4 Signs & Bollards - Lit

Desired future asset condition The desired future condition for the signs and bollards is:

• To be more energy efficient measured by reduced energy consumption

• to help reduce accidents and congestion

• to be the correct visible sign in the correct location.

Gap


Strategy Estimated


Officer

Data Gap Analysis

Geo spatial data is missing

Collect data for illuminated signs and bollards. Validate technical elements.

SEC are carrying out a survey of signs and bollards to incorporate location, type and condition.

£30,000 12 months To be complete by March 2006

Barry Greenaway

GCC have all data recorded, but only 30% on Exor

Upload data onto Exor

Underway with an expected completion date of December 2005

Internal 1 month

Barry Greenaway

Cheltenham B.C’s data is on paper. Glos. City has incomplete electronic data but not on exor

Upload Glos. City Council and Cheltenham B.C. data onto exor.

Underway with an expected completion date of December 2005

Internal 5 weeks

Barry Greenaway

There is no regular updating of the database

Set up a regime for regular updating of the database. All new assets to be recorded

Urban signs to be updated cyclically, rural signs on an adhoc basis (based on maintenance works)

Internal Ongoing Barry Greenaway

Asset Optimisation

Sign correctness and visibility

De-clutter signs Complete by April 2007 to tie in with LTP

Internal 3 months Paul Crick and Divisional Manager


Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Performance to the community

Electric element to be no more than 2% down and no older than 20 years

Monitor performance through electrical safety inspections

N/A immediate Barry Greenaway




6.5 Signs & Bollards – Unlit

Signs and bollards are put in place to help reduce accidents and congestion. To make this easier for the motorist, pedestrian and cyclist, having the correct clean sign in the correct location is important, as is not being inundated with a lot of signs.

Desired future asset condition • Correct signing and visibility on

all principal roads • Maximise life of signs, supports

and bollards through regular maintenance

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

20% of signs and bollards are missing from the Exor database

Collect missing data for signs and bollards based on road hierarchy

Assign a Technician to investigate and update asset management register

£23,625

By April 2006

Owen Jenkins

Asset Optimisation

Condition of signs unknown

Carry out a sample inventory of the condition of the signs, which could be used to give an overall average condition.

When signs are cleaned, carry out a condition survey at the same time.

£55,000 per annum

Ongoing Owen Jenkins

Sign correctness and visibility

De-clutter. Check all principal routes

Complete by April 2007 to tie in with LTP and community strategy plan

£1,450 3 months Paul Crick and Divisional Manager



6.6 Bridges and structures

This asset was picked in the ‘Best Value Review of Highway Maintenance July 2002’ as a highly visible community asset. The review recommends:

• To implement an inspection regime for bridges and culverts – to minimise safety risks.

• Recording of information to aid a rapid response to enquiries.

• To consider the customers perspective when prioritising and programming bridge works.

BRIDGES

BRIDGES - Desired future asset condition

By 2011 the Bridge Condition Indicator (BCI) for the county’s bridge stock shall be classed as good. (Score >85 target 90). The good classification represents a low risk to public safety. By the same date, less than 5% (40 no.) of the bridge stock shall be substandard for carrying capacity, and there shall also be a reduction in the number of substandard bridge elements to improve safety (for example, upgrading of substandard parapets).

RETAINING WALLS - Desired future asset condition

By 2011, the location and condition of highway retaining walls that support principal and high-risk routes shall be known, with retaining walls posing a high safety risk to the public upgraded.

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

Data for bridges with difficult access and land entry problems is limited

Produce a list of bridges with difficult access and land entry problems.

Assign a Technician to investigate inventory, land ownership and access / safety problems and record. (Discuss with Inspectors).

£20,000 per annum

5 years Liz Kirkham

Data for bridges with substandard elements is limited

Develop a list of bridges with details of substandard elements.

Assign a Technician to investigate and record.

£20,000 per annum

2 years Liz Kirkham

Asset Optimisation

Improve the (BCI) from fair to good

Improve condition of overall bridge stock by reducing number of defects or there

Bring all bridges up to a standard sustainable by cyclic maintenance

£150,000 per annum

5 years Liz Kirkham


Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


of defects or there severity

cyclic maintenance. Target vegetation clearance, repointing, scour avoidance and silt clearance to all affected bridges on an annual basis

£100,000 per annum

Continue with the bridge strengthening programme targeting high risk sites and consider customer’s perspective.

Undertake risk assessments to identify high risk structures with safety implications to the public & inspection teams.

Decrease the number of substandard structures for carrying capacity and those with substandard elements Map substandard

structures Link bridge strengthening and upgrading works to PSA programme and other capital projects to minimise network disruption.

£1,550,000 per annum

5 years Liz Kirkham

RETAINING WALLS / CULVERTS

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

Information is missing for retaining walls and other structures such as culverts and highway boundary walls

Establish location and inventory data for retaining walls and culverts on principal and high risk routes. Photo/ video record and GIS location. (As HA have done) Store on exor

Establish inventory team. The information to be collected could include location, dimensions, construction type, ownership, condition survey and sketches and record sheets. Seek additional funding

£45,000 per annum

5 years Liz Kirkham

Asset Optimisation

Extend life & safety of structure

Monitor high-risk walls / culverts by inspection and effect essential safety repairs.

Technician to inspect principal route High Risk walls / culverts & implement

£55,000 per annum

5 years Liz Kirkham



Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


repairs. necessary safety repairs. Seek additional funding




6.7 Road Markings, Lines & Studs

Desired future asset condition • By 2011 the desired age of road

markings, lines and studs is to be no older than 3 years for principal roads, 5 years for classified and 10 years for unclassified roads.

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

Information is missing for rural white lining data

Investigate, collect and input missing data into Exor

The asset data should be no more than:- 3 years old – Principal roads 5 years old – Classified roads 10 years old – Unclassified roads

Internal 6 month Mark Dauncey

Asset Optimisation

For road markings, lines and studs to be no older than 3 years for principal roads, 5 years for classified and 10 years for unclassified roads

Renew road markings, lines and studs on a regular basis

Establish a policy for lining, remarking and restuding

Road markings and lines £200,000 per annum Studs £290,000 per annum

3, 5 and 10 year rolling programme

Mark Dauncey

Minimise congestion, maximise safety

Use information to assist surface dressing programmes, the Road Safety’s accident prevention programme and support the Network Management Plan

Review line position and accuracy, to tie in with Road Safety and legal requirements

Internal On-going Alex Luck


6.8 Urban Cycleways

‘Walking and Cycling – an action plan’ produced by the Department of Transport in June 2004. The government is currently looking at ways to increase the populations physical activity, to help counteract problems of overweight and obesity as well as coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer in addition to improving mental well being and providing a ‘no-emissions’ alternative to motor vehicles. The Dft want to encourage people to cycle more often. In order to do this cycleways need to be in a good state of repair and regularly monitored.

Desired future asset condition • 5% reduction in the length of cycleway

requiring structural maintenance.

• To increase the number of cycling trips

in line with the LTP2 target labels of HT7,

• Increase the number of children cycling to school by 50% by 2010 in line with target label T8.

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

Gaps in asset register

Collect data including condition

Ad hoc data collection

£20,000 4 months John Lindsay

Expand knowledge of urban cycleway types

Collect data and input into exor detailing various types of urban cycleways

Determine the type of cycleway ie whether it is adjacent to the road, part of the footway or ‘stand alone’ thorough a desk exercise and inspection

£3,625 1 month John Lindsay

Asset Optimisation

Reduction of claims by 20%

Monitor claims against a specific network

Set up an internal desk monitoring exercise

Internal 2 months John Lindsay

5% reduction in length of cycleway requiring structural maintenance

Establish cycleway safety and condition inspection regime

Implement inspection regime Set up a system to monitor

Internal 5 years John Lindsay




6.9 Bus Shelters and Bus Stops

Desired future asset condition • Improve cleanliness of bus stops and

shelters. • Improve visibility of bus stop signs. • More bus shelters to be available, i.e.

not in a state of dis-repair, timetables are to be available and correct, lighting is to be adequate.

• To increase bus patronage and customer satisfaction in line with the LTP2 target labels of BVPI 102 and BVPI 104u.

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

Each Authorities data is held on its own bespoke system

To input data onto the same system – i.e Maintenance Manager and GIS

Input all data onto exor Maintenance Manager and GIS

£4,500 1 month Karen Jackson

Asset Optimisation

To improve general condition of bus stops and shelters

Collect and monitor Integrated Transport Unit to continue visiting on a monthly basis

Internal Ongoing Karen Jackson

Usability of bus shelters

Collect and monitor Integrated Transport Unit to continue visiting on a monthly basis

Internal Ongoing Karen Jackson



6.10 Trees

Trees within the highway will only be removed, prunes and lopped if, following an inspection by a qualified arboriculturist, there is a risk to highway users.

Desired future asset condition • Clear access is required for all road

users, including pedestrians and passenger service vehicles.

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

Information held in different systems

All information to be kept on exor Maintenance Manager including a map on arc view.

Load Glos City and Cheltenham B.C. data into exor

£4,500 1 month Chris Franklin


6.11 Gullies

Desired future asset condition • Increase % of gullies still working when

next cleaned. (year on year improvement)

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

Not all gully information is held on maintenance manager

Update inventory Use gully emptying Contractor reports

Internal 1 year Phil Miller

All new assets to be recorded

Create policy for updating Asset Register

New Term Service Provider

Internal 1 month Phil Miller

Asset Optimisation

Maximise % of gullies still working when next cleaned

Flexible clearing regime

Look at gully emptying schedule. Review cyclic maintenance scheme

Internal Annual Review

Phil Miller




6.12 Verges

The current County policy is to cut a swathe width (approx 1.2m) plus visibility splays.

Desired future asset condition • For 2011, the desired condition for

verges is to remain safe and have good visibility.

Gap


Strategy Estimated


Officer

Data Gap Analysis

There are some gaps in the inventory, in particular urban areas and visibility grass.

All info to be held on Exor Maintenance Manager.

Assign a technician to investigate and update inventory

£23,625 3 months Andrew Turner



6.13 Pedestrian Guardrails

Desired future asset condition

• Only 1% of pedestrian guardrail to be unavailable.

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

Old data with large % missing

All information to be held on Maintenance Manager and all new assets to be recorded.

Assign a technician to investigate and update inventory

£4,500 1 month Martyn Summerell


6.14 Traffic Data

Desired future asset condition • The desired state for 2011 is for the

data to be no more than 5 years old • and for a target of expanded

coverage.

Gap


Strategy Estimated


Officer

Data Gap Analysis

No need to collect more data for existing database, only as and when required.

All data to be on the same system. Currently Glos City Council use VDA Pro software, whilst GCC and CBC use an in-house Oracle based system designed as an integrated part of the Environment Applications suite of programs.

Review systems and needs

N/A N/A Scott Tompkins

Asset Optimisation

Expand traffic sites to give greater data coverage of the network

Expand traffic data to give comprehensive coverage of network

Ad-hoc basis Internal within annual budget

5 years Scott Tompkins




6.15 Traffic Signals

This asset was picked in the ‘Best Value Review of Highway Maintenance July 2002’ as a highly visible community asset. Review recommends that GCC need:-

1) To improve customer access for reporting faults;

2) To develop greater use of remote monitoring for the Maintenance contract.

Desired future asset condition • Reduction in members of public

reporting faults by increasing the percentage of installations with remote monitoring.

• Overall reduction in the number of faults per installation per annum (target: no more than six controller faults per annum – based on some of the South West Traffic Control User Group and National performance indicators). Map on GIS.

• Replace all obsolete control

installations, all currently supported but no longer manufactured control equipment and all control equipment after 15 years when its design life is acheived.

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

No need to collect more data, however different databases hold varying information i.e. sites and signal heads

Collate all information on to one system in the same format

Update Maintenance Manager and create map on GIS

Internal 2 weeks Brian Watkins

Asset Optimisation

To support reduction in reported faults

Replace all obsolete control equipment (13 installations)

No funding at present, currently financed from existing revenue budget as and when funds are available. There will be a short fall.

£25,000 per annum

3 years Brian Watkins

To support reduction in reported

Replace all currently supported but no longer manufactured

Annual replacement programme

£90,000 per annum



Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


faults control equipment (96 installations)

programme * See note 1 below

To support reduction in reported faults

Develop a replacement programme to replace control equipment after its 15 year design life has been reached.

Annual replacement programme

£150,000 per annum


Note 1

The backup is to continue undertaking replacements as when the equipment fails or budgets permit some replacement to be undertaken. The downside is that in the event of a failure such an approach will lead to an installation or system being out of operation for a considerable time (5days at least) leading to increased costs in temporary traffic management and be a safety issue for the stakeholders.




6.16 Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI)

RTPI was introduced in February 2004. It’s satellite technology tracks the buses and sends a signal (every 30 seconds) to the bus stop and the internet informing the public of when the next bus is due to arrive.

Desired future asset condition • To update policy and add data as

more on-street displays and buses are rolled out.

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

There is no need to collect more information at present.

To ensure current information is collated and kept up to date

To establish a system for maintaining this data with a view to it ultimately being held on Maintenance Manager

N/A N/A Derek Lucus

Asset Optimisation

As routes increase, more information will be required.

To ensure the Real Time Passenger Information goals meet the Local Transport Plan targets

As detailed in LTP2 £250,000 5 years Derek Lucas



6.17 Associated Highway Drainage Data

There is a varied selection of associated drainage; this includes culverts, filter drains, catchpits, balancing ponds, counterfort drains, grips, piped grips and manholes Currently some planned works and routine maintenance are carried out reducing the dependence on reactive maintenance.

Desired future asset condition • All piped systems to be operational • Grips to be cleaned at least once a year.

Gap Analysis


Estimated Cost


Data Gap Analysis

It is recommended that any paper data already held should be input in to Maintenance Manager.

Update exor £11,250

10 weeks

Phil Miller

The data inventory is incomplete, but it would be costly to re-collect as much of it is underground.

Update the Asset Register on a scheme-by-scheme basis when works are done.

Ad-hoc basis Input all new data recorded as per NRSWA

Internal or Term Service Provider

5 years Phil Miller


Appendix A Asset Register Table


Asset Management Plan

Draft Provisional Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 Strategy Officer: Mark Dauncey, Highway Maintenance Manager

Appendix G: Transport

36

Asset Management – Carriageways

Usage of Data Accuracy of

Data.

User Confidence in

Data

Quantities Unit cost for replacement

Attributes Where doesthe data sit

How is info. kept up to date

Current Condition of Asset

Desired Future Condition of Asset

GCC Used on a daily basis

Good 90% for road presence &

width

75% surfacing type

Principal (mostly A

roads) 3,095,240

m2

Classified (mostly B &

C roads) 9,637,597

m2

Unclassified (mostly U

roads) 8,794,560

m2

Principal

£38.73/m2

Classified

£30.67/m2

Unclassified

£28.47/m2

Length

Width

Surface type

Construction

Age of pavement

Exor

Mapping system

Bespoke software packages

Initial inventory gathered

15yrs ago. No more than 90% accurate

now

Principal roads 6% beyond critical –

185,714m2

Classified 28% needs treatment –

2,698,527m2

Unclassified 36% needs treatment –

3,166,041m2

By 2011

Principal roads 4% beyond critical.

Classified max 10% needs treatment

Unclassified max 20% needs treatment

Kerbs

To be included in Phase 2 3,618,237 m

Includes City &

Cheltenham

£13.75/m _ Exor To be included on Phase 2

City Used on a daily basis

Highway maintenance

team for design

purposes & queries

complaints


width

75% surfacing type

Principal (mostly A

roads) 341,523 m2


C roads) 355,124 m2


roads) 1 598 219

Principal

£38.73/m2

Classified

£30.67/m2

Unclassified

£28.47/m2

Length

Width

Surface type

Construction

Age of pavement

Construction info from Adhoc

openings

Exor – not used

Mapping system

Bespoke software packages



now


20,491m2

Classified 28% needs treatment – 99,434m2


575,358m2

By 2011






Usage of Data Accuracy of Data.

User Confidence in

Data


Attributes Where does the data sit



DesireCondition

d Future of Asset


1,598,219 m2

Chelt EnvironmentMaintenance

Intergrated transport

The built environment


width

75% surfacing type

Principal (mostly A

roads) 187,023 m2


C roads) 428,746 m2


roads) 1,635,609

m2

Principal

£38.73/m2

Classified

£30.67/m2

Unclassified

£28.47/m2

Length

Width

Surface type

Construction

Age of pavement

Construction info from Adhoc

openings

Cogis – possibly

used in main office but no link to depot

office.

Highway inspection

(safety cat 1 checks)

recorded on paper



now


11,221m2

Classified 28% needs treatment – 120,048m2


588,819m2

By 2011





38



Asset Management - Urban Footways

Usage ofData

Accuracy of Data.

User Confidence

in Data



How is info. kept up to

date



GCC Well used by all.

Inspection Claims

Queries

Planning

Maintenance

Ok Good, whereheld type 1 and type 2

2,701,275 m2

( Urban 2,284,685

m2

Rural 416,890 m2

)

Urban (hierarchy 1) 190,793 m2

£23/m2 Type F 250mm thick

(the figure used in the

Asset Valuation Matrix)

Length

Width

Surface

Safety (routine defects)

Condition info

Paper format division

All access to old info on

exor

For types 1 and 2 info on

data files ready for loading onto Exor

Not kept up to date

County hold for all authorities, 13% of type 1a, 1 & 2 are defective.

No info held for types 3 and 4

No more than 5% defective.

A reduction of 30% in claims payments

and number of claims received.

Back Edging

To be included in Phase 2 Concrete 841,151 m

Timber 5,002 m

£7.05/m

£6.07/m

To be included in Phase 2

City Well used by all.

Inspection Claims

Queries

Planning

Maintenance

Good High, whereheld type 1 and type 2

1,102,447 m2

( Urban 1,089,488

m2

Rural 12,959 m2 )


- Length

Width

Surface


Map Info

Highway register

Computerised ‘Cyclic street

inspection system’

Safety inspection,

footway length Type 1a, 1 & 2

County hold for all authorities, 13% of type 1a, 1 & 2 are defective.

No info held for types 3 and 4

No more than 5% defective.





Usage ofData

Accuracy of Data.

User Confidence

in Data




date



Chelt Good High, whereheld type1a, 1 and type 2

1,120,997 m2

( Urban 1,109,154

m2

Rural 11,843 m2 )


£15/m2 Length

Width

Surface


Paper format It isn’t No more than 5% defective.





40



Asset Management - Street Lighting

Usage ofData

Accuracy of Data.

User Confidence

in Data


Attributes Wheredoes the data sit




GCC Contractors

Chelt B.C.

Glos City

County

Shire Hall – help desk

Good

99%

High

Electric boards want an energy inventory

that is 98% accurate

£750

Made up from (Equipment &

installation £275

Electric supply £475)

Exor

Street lighting

manager

(SLM)

When contractors do the work they

record any changes which

are then updated on the system.

Sec 38’s, major projects are updated on

system

Using the DfT formula, 54% of the stock is over 40yrs

old, therefore there is a 54% backlog to be

cleared by 2011

City Streetlighting team have access

to GCC’s Exor for

maintenance commission,

reporting faults

Good

99%

High

55,951 whole county

£750 Exor When contractors do the work they

record any changes which

are then updated on the system.

Street lighting

manager

(SLM)

Sec 38’s, major projects are updated on

system



cleared by 2011

Chelt Streetlighting team

Good

99%

High 10,000 Cheltlook after

£750

Location

Lamp type

Electric info

Control gear

Condition

Mounting type & height

Access

Paint colour

Distance from kerb

No. & length of mounting

brackets

Switch type

Exor

Street lighting

manager

(SLM)

Maintenance programme



cleared by 2011

To increase lighting in accident/crime areas to

reduce incidents.

To aim for an average age of 20yrs for the stock, with the max.

being 40yrs. i.e everything over 40yrs is

replaced



Asset Management – signs and bollards (lit)

Usage ofData

Accuracy of Data.

User Confidence

in Data




Current Condition of

Asset


GCC Internal Average –gaps in

info.

Poor, not used at present

Bollards 571

Signs 1855

£400 (the figure used in the


Word document

(Apparently GCC info on

Exor)

Routine update after works

Fair Sign visibility, electricup time, correct

signage

City Internal

Public enquires

Good High Bollards 304

Signs 847

- GIS withphotos

Regular updates based on

maintenance

Good Sign visibility, electricup time, correct

signage

Chelt Streetlighting team

Good Poor, notused at present

Bollards 226

Signs 1039

£30 - 800

Type (Warning,

informatory, regularity)

Location

Height – mounting

height & sign dims.

Type of lighting – internal, external, remote

Paper system None Varies Sign visibility, electric up time, correct

signage



42



Asset Management – signs and bollards (unlit)

Usage ofData

Accuracy of Data.

User Confidence

in Data






GCC Very littleusage

10yr old database less than

70% accurate

Low due to old or no

data

Bollards 8,164

Signs 35,749

Exor It isn’t Unknown Sign visibility, correct signage

City Very littleusage

Highway maintenan

ce

Poor Low due to old or no

data

Bollards 605

Signs 7,918


Chelt

Very littleusage

Poor Low due to old or no

data

Bollards 705

Signs 7,047

£150 Type(Warning,

informatory, regularity)

Location

Height – mounting

height & sign dims.

Reflectorised




Asset Management – Bridges and Structures

Usage of Data

Accuracy of Data.

User Confidence

in Data





Asset


GCC

Predominantly Liz &

Adam

Very good

High level of confidence

920 £215k Cogis/Exordatabase

Routine update after works

Shire Hall

BCI fair

(For BCI value see Table 4 in

Report)

BCI good in 10 yrs

Desired future condition by 2011, 90% BCI

availability

Target less than 5% substandard carrying

capacity

City look after

footway /rights of

way bridges & retaining

walls, GCC look after the majority

City Not in a usable format

90% confident in structures that have

been inspected

Unknown, only aware

of some structures

when things go wrong

Unknown Locations &info marked up on paper,

held by Inspectors

Safety Inspected annually as part

of Risk Mgt. Policy

Fair A more proactive approach to maintenance rather than the reactive

approach taken at present

Chelt, looked after by GCC

Refer to GCC

Location, carries, crosses, weight

or height restrictions,

construction, span, date

constructed, parapet type &

material, condition,

inspection data

Refer to GCC



44



Asset Management – Road Markings, Lines & Studs

Usage ofData

Accuracy of Data.

User Confidence

in Data




date


Asset

Desired Future Condition of

Asset

GCC Not used Not good Broken white 773,764m

Broken yellow 6,748m

Continuous white 250,822m

Single yellow 30,513m

Double yellow 97,252m

Studs 92,807 no

Cogis/Exor It isn’t Good where it is a safety

feature

City Maintenance High 99% Broken white 79,505m




Double yellow 68,182m

Studs 672no

GIS Updated byscheme

Good

Chelt Maintenance

All urban and rural yellow line data is in good condition and regularly used with high confidence in the information. All urban white lining is good, whilst rural white lining data is poor or unknown.

Reasonable Broken white 54,949m




Double yellow 55,446no

Studs 1,096no

White screed broken 94p/m, continuous

63p/m

White spray 44p/m

Yellow spray & screed broken 56p/m continuous

42p/m

Studs £11.60/No

Width

Length

Marking type

Studs no

Diag no

Colour

Location

Cogis/Exor It isn’t Good

No older than

10 yrs – principal roads

15 yrs – classified roads

25 yrs – unclassified

roads



Asset Management – Urban Cycleways


User Confidence

in Data




date


Asset


GCC TransportationPlanning,

Maintenance Public

enquires

Good High in info held

9,715m2 £23/m2 Type F 250mm thick



Length

Width

Cross section

Surface type

Excel spreadsheet

Updated regularly

Unknown 20% reduction in claims and 5% reduction in

defective length

City TransportationPlanning,

Maintenance Public

enquires

Good – grade

separated

No info on cycleways

within highway boundary

High in info held

10,083m2 £40/m2 for90mm

Length

Width

Location

Surface

Computerised

‘Cyclic street inspection system’

Updated regularly

Varies 20% reduction in claims and 5% reduction in

defective length

Chelt TransportationPlanning,

Maintenance Public

enquires

Fair High in info held

3,370m2 £15/m2 Length

Width

Location

Surface

Maps Updatedregularly

Varies – generally good

20% reduction in claims and 5% reduction in

defective length



46



Asset Management - Bus Stops & Shelters

Usage ofData

Accuracy of Data

User Confidence

in Data




date


Asset


GCC Transportplanning

Highway maintenance

Bus companies

Good, update near completion!

High 595 shelters Shelter £2,000

6,000 bus stops

Bus stop £100 (the figures used in the


Parish’s are given £1,500 towards the

cost

Excel spreadsheet

Ongoing Fair Visibility, bus stop signs

Bus shelter availability

Decrease in customer complaints

Increase in bus patronage

City Transportplanning

Highway maintenance

Bus companies

Police

Good High 182 shelters

Bus stops unknown

Nil UnknownDatabase

Ongoing Good Visibility, bus stop signs




Chelt Transportplanning

Highway maintenance

Bus companies

Good High 94 Adshelshelters

Shelter £3,500

67 CBC shelters

424 stops

Stop (with kerbs) £800

Bus stops- location Sign

mounting

Bus Shelters- location

Shelter type

Sign mounting

Lit or unlit

GIS Ongoing Fair Visibility, bus stop signs






Asset Management – Trees

Usage ofData

Accuracy of Data.

User Confidence

in Data





Asset


GCC Division

Public rights of

way

Fair Low 19,755 Unknown Ownership,girth

Exor, Paper, Cogis It’s not Unknown Financial target based on claims

City Internal forclaims

Good High 2,479 £100 to supply & plant

Data – location, species,

size, age, condition,

date of last inspection, any work

scheduled

Spreadsheet database

1/1250 maps shows streets with

tree locations

Regularly Good Financial target based on claims

Chelt Internal forclaims

Good High 7,749 Removal ofexisting £30 –

2,000.

Plant new – approx £85 (the figure used in the


Location, height, spread,

condition, ground surface, maturity,

planted date, conservation area, works

required, priority

Excel spreadsheet Regularly Good Financial target based on claims



48



Asset Management – Gullies

Usage ofData

Accuracy of Data.

User Confidence

in Data


Attributes Wheredoes the data sit


date



GCC Maintenance& cleansing

Fair Reasonable 52,045 £194.11(average based on

2001/2 Works Instructions -

the figure used in the Asset Valuation Matrix)

Location

Gully type – pot or pipe

System entry type

Exor

Excel

It’s not Reasonable Reduction in complaints by 30 % for blocked gullies

and standing water

City Maintenance& cleansing

Good Unknown 16,126 - Location


System entry type

Unknown Unknown Reasonable Reduction in complaints by 30 % for blocked gullies

and standing water

Chelt Maintenance& cleansing

Poor Low 13,787 £150 Location


System entry type

Exor It’s not Reasonable Reduction in complaints by 30 % for blocked gullies

and standing water

NOTES: As a benchmark, an assumed figure of 5m of drainage pipe per gully has been allowed 81,958 gullies x 5m = 409,790 m.



Asset Management – Verges

Usage ofData

Accuracy of Data.

User Confidence

in Data






GCC Localcouncils

Term contractor

Public enquires

Reasonable Reasonable 16,047,730m2

Topsoil & seed £6/m2

Length by chainage,

width, area, maintained area, slope, material type i.e grass or

cobble

Excel It’s not Good Safety

Visibility

City Termcontractor

Public enquires

Reasonable Reasonable 608,916 m2 Topsoil & seed £6/m2

Length, width, area, maintained area, slope

GIS

paper

It’s not Reasonable Safety

Visibility

Chelt Termcontractor

Public enquires

Reasonable Reasonable 616,432 m2 Topsoil & seed £6/m2

Length, width, area, maintained area, slope

It’s not Reasonable Safety

Visibility

Document



50



Asset Management - Pedestrian Guardrails

Usage ofData

Accuracy of Data.

User Confidence

in Data






GCC None Poor Poor 27,290m £65.42

(ringway rates + contract

price fluctuation)

Type, location, length of guardrail,

material it is made from

It doesn’t at present

Exor

It isn’t at present. Once on there on

adhoc basis

Unknown Not more than 1% knocked down at any one

time

City None Poor Poor 6,457m £65.42


price fluctuation)




Exor


adhoc basis

Unknown Not more than 1% knocked down at any one

time

Chelt None Poor Poor 1962m £65.42


price fluctuation)




Exor


adhoc basis

Unknown Not more than 1% reduction at any one time



Asset Management - Traffic Data


User Confidence

in Data





Asset


GCC Transport planning unit Area traffic managers

Projects team Development

& control Developers Students

Chelt. B.C.

Glos. City C.

High High 185 sites Excel

GIS

Cogis

Paper

Exor

Good Expanded coverage

Data no more than 5 yrs old

City Transport planning unit Area traffic managers



GCC Glos. City C

High High 60 sites VDA Good Expanded coverage


Chelt Transport planning unit Area traffic managers



Chelt. B.C.

GCC

High High 24 sites

No cost as have got back-

up.

Site cost - £1,800

Counter - £800

GCC sites 12no have telemetry £1,200

Cabinets, carriageway cables, ATC equipment

Excel

GIS

Cogis

Paper

Regular Updates

Good Back up

Good Expanded coverage






52

Asset Management - Traffic Signals


User Confidence

in Data





Asset


GCC Maintenance

Planners

Public enquires

Good Good 230 numberinstallations

‘Exor’ Head £26,983.24

(Exor 305 heads)



Location

Mount method

Energy

No. of heads

Excel Regularly ‘Rolling 5 yearprogramme’ only

one year in

Variable

Reduction in members of public

reporting faults. Contract mgt.

minimising faults

Map on cogis layer

City Maintenance

Planners Public

enquires

Good Good 44 numberinstallations

Ped crossing £10,000

(Exor 349 heads)

Location

Mount method

Energy

No. of heads

Excel As & whenrequired

Variable Reduction in members of public


minimising faults

Map on cogis layer

Chelt EnvironmentMaintenance

Intergrated transport

The Built Environment

Fair Fair 49 numberinstallations

Ped crossing £20,000

(Exor 241 heads)

Location

Mount method

Energy

No. of heads

- It’s not Varies Reduction in members of public


minimising faults

Map on cogis layer



Asset Management - Real Time Passenger Information


User Confidence

in Data





Asset


Asset

GCC Public

GCC Marion

Bus Companies

Good Medium 3 bus routes £250,000 perroute

(For the costs below add

12% project mgt. cost

Replacement shelter £5k, Data

upgrade & re-configuration of

stops £3.5k, Replacement

module on bus £1.8k, Replace

all RTPI equipment on

bus £2.5k)

No. of bus stops with screens

No of buses fitted with tracking device

Omnpimes computerised

system in Shire Hall.

Exported to ACIS (real time on the

street)

Regular updates 80% More bus users, increased bus

patronage, expansion of RTPI

to other routes

City

Chelt




Asset Management - Associated Highway Drainage Data


User Confidence

in Data




date


Asset


Asset

GCC Internal

Maintenance

Cleansing

Term contracts

Public enquires

Sketchy Fair Culvert1,813m

Filter Drain

9,769m

Exor

Paper at Divisions

Adhoc Unknown Reduction incomplaints associated with standing water

City Internal

Maintenance

Cleansing

Term contracts Public

enquires

Poor

Low Culvert2m

Filter Drain

2,235m

None Adhoc Unknown Reduction incomplaints associated with standing water

Chelt Internal

Maintenance

Cleansing

Term contracts

Public enquires

Poor Low Culvert788m

Catchpit 1 No.

Balancing pond 24 No.

Counterfort Drain 2 No.

@ 200m

Grip 62,995 No.

Piped Grip 5,181 No.

Manhole 93,363 No.

Culvert £57.77/m

Filter Drain £58.16/m

Catchpit £662.40/No

Bal Pond £8,648/No

Count Drain £5.48/m

Grip £4.10/No

Piped Grip £164.89/No

Manhole £543.31/No

Dependant on type

To include:-

Number, location, length

None Adhoc Unknown Reduction incomplaints associated with standing water


54



Appendix B Asset Valuation PIE CHART




Analysis of Valuation and Percentages of £ 1,550M of Priority Assets

Verges £43.1M3%

Gullies £15.9M1%

Traffic Data £0M0%

Trees £2.4M0%

Traffic Signals £24.2M2%

Urban Cycle Ways £0.5M0%

Bus Stops & Bus Shelters £2.3M

0%

Markgs, Lining & Studs £2.3M0%

Real Time Passenger Information £0.8M

0%

Associated Drainage £182.2M12%

Pedestrian Guardrails £2.3M0%

Bridges & Structures £304.9M20%

Street Lighting £42M3%

Signs & Bollards £11.5M1%

Footway £113.3M7%

Carriageway £802.4M51%




58


Appendix C Report to Environment DMT



Report to Environment DMT

9th February 2005

Update Report Highway Maintenance Spending Scenarios for 2006-2011 Introduction At the DMT meeting on 11th January 2005 a report on Highway Maintenance Spending was submitted as agenda item number 1. Further information on spending scenarios was requested by DMT to understand spending requirements to meet the LPT targets for 2011. Current Performance Indicators Gloucestershire County Council had set targets that represented the percentage amount of highway requiring structural treatment for Principal Roads and structural or strengthening resurfacing treatment for Classified and Unclassified Roads. Gloucestershire County Council currently reports the following Highway Condition Performance Indicators to Council Members and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Road Type Best Value Performance Indicator

Data used to measure target(Currently)

Principal 96 Deflectograph Classified 97a UKPMS Coarse Visual

Inspection Unclassified 97b UKPMS Coarse Visual

Inspection Proposed Targets by the Gloucestershire County Council Asset Management Working Group (AMWG) The Asset Management Working Group (AMWG) produced Performance Indicator Targets as below to meet Desired Status of the Highway Network to 2011.


AMWG Performance Indicator Targets

Principal 96 6% Classified 97a 20% Unclassified 97b 20%

Proposed Targets requested by DMT Gloucestershire County Council DMT would like to set new targets of:


DMT Requested Performance Indicator



Targets Principal 96 6% Classified 97a 15% Unclassified 97b 25%

Required Spend to meet DMT targets To satisfy the new targets, spending is required as follows:

Road Type Required spend for status quo p.a.

Required spend for DMT targets by 2011 p.a.

Principal £1.08m £1.08m (Target reached at 6%)

Classified £3.00m £5.00m Unclassified £3.40m £4.00m Total £7.48 million £10.08 million

Gloucestershire County Council National Comparability Gloucestershire County Council has set quartile targets which are comparisons of the national BVPIs (as detailed below) Gloucestershire County Council has targets for Upper Quartile position for Principal Roads and Classified Roads and above average for Unclassified Roads. The three current Performance Indicators used to measure the above are shown against the expected Gloucestershire County Council Performance Indicator at 1st April 2006:

Performance Indicator Road Type Gloucestershire County

Council April 2006 MeasureBV 96 Principal 5.6%

BV 97(a) Classified 25.6% BV 97(b) Unclassified 28%

Current comparison on Quartile figures are:

Performance Indicator National Average National Top 25th Percentile BV 96 10.26% 5.8%

BV 97(a) 21.99% 14.78% BV 97(b) 26.43% 17.07%

Recommendations



Without extra investment, the target figures will not, in Halcrow’s opinion, meet the quartile targets outlined in the Gloucestershire County Council Local Transport Plan. It is likely that these National figures will improve over the Local Transport Plan period; particularly as Local Authorities target spending on classified roads. With an improvement in the national Upper Quartile, the Gloucestershire County Council targets outlined in the Local Transport Plan will not, in Halcrow’s opinion, be sufficient to achieve Upper Quartile status for either Principal or Classified Roads and there is uncertainty as to whether Unclassified roads will be above average by 2011. We would recommend the following targets to achieve the required quartile positioning by 2011.

Performance Indicator Road Type Proposed PI Targets BV 96 Principal 4% BV 97(a) Classified 10% BV 97(b) Unclassified 20%

To achieve these recommended targets Gloucestershire County Council will require a spending

profile as below:

Performance Indicator Road Type Required spend for targets by 2011 p.a.

BV 96 Principal £1.30m BV 97(a) Classified £6.00m BV 97(b) Unclassified £5.20m Total £12.50 million

Halcrow consider this total of £12.5 million to be the minimum spending requirements per annum to achieve the required standards/ targets for their proposed quartile positioning. We submit this update for your consideration and would be pleased to answer any questions. Bob Pizzey Team Leader – Network Services Halcrow Group Ltd 9th February 2005



The following tables show the breakdown of spend per year against % above critical for a given deterioration rate of 2% for Principal roads and 3% for the remainder.



Principal Road Spend Requirements

Table A.1 - % beyond critical by various spend over a 5 year period – deterioration rate = 2%

Year £1.08m % BeyondCritical

£1.25m % BeyondCritical




1 April 06 –

Mar 07

18km for £1.08m 6.00%

20.8km for £1.25m 5.69%

21.7km for £1.3m 5.59%

25km for £1.5m 5.22%

29.2km for £1.75m 4.76%

2 April 07 –

Mar 08

18km for £1.08m 6.00%

20.8km for £1.25m 5.37%

21.7km for £1.3m 5.19%

25km for £1.5m 4.44%

29.2km for £1.75m 3.52%

3 April 08 –

Mar 09

18km for £1.08m 6.00%

20.8km for £1.25m 5.06%

21.7km for £1.3m 4.78%

25km for £1.5m 3.67%

4 April 09 –

Mar 10

18km for £1.08m 6.00%

20.8km for £1.25m 4.74%

21.7km for £1.3m 4.37%

5 April 10 –

Mar 11

18km for £1.08m 6.00%

20.8km for £1.25m 4.43%

21.7km for £1.3m 3.96%

Notes:

Network length 900 lane km Current length beyond critical 54 lane km (6%) (As at 1st April 2006 derived from BVPI 96) Current rate of deterioration; approximately 18 lane km (2% of the networks) goes beyond critical each year Cost of treatment per lane kilometre £60,000 (derived from NRMCS returns) Target is for no more than 4% (36km) to be beyond critical by the end of 2010/11



Therefore need to treat 18km (2%) in addition to the annual deterioration rate



Classified non-principal Spend Requirements

Table B.1 - % beyond critical by various spend over a 5 year period – deterioration rate = 3%

Year £3m % BeyondCritical

£4m % BeyondCritical




1 April 06 –

Mar 07

118km for £3m 25%

157km for £4m 24%

196km for £5m 23%

235km for £6m 22%

275km for £7m 21%

2 April 07 –

Mar 08

118km for £3m 25%

157km for £4m 23%

196km for £5m 21%

235km for £6m 19%

275km for £7m 17%

3 April 08 –

Mar 09

118km for £3m 25%

157km for £4m 22%

196km for £5m 19%

235km for £6m 16%

275km for £7m 13%

4 April 09 –

Mar 10

118km for £3m 25%

157km for £4m 21%

196km for £5m 17%

235km for £6m 13%

275km for £7m 9%

5 April 10 –

Mar 11

118km for £3m 25%

157km for £4m 20%

196km for £5m 15%

235km for £6m 10%

275km for £7m 5%

Notes: Network length

3957 lane km

Current length beyond critical 989 lane km (25%) (As at 1st April 2006 derived from BVPI 97a) Current rate of deterioration; approximately 119 lane km (3% of the networks) goes beyond critical each year Cost of treatment per lane kilometre £25,500 (derived from NRMCS returns) Target is for no more than10% (396km) to be beyond critical by the end of 2010/11 Therefore need to treat 594km (15%) in addition to the annual deterioration rate



68



Un-Classified non-principal Spend Requirements Table C1 - % beyond critical by various spend over a 5 year period – deterioration rate = 3%

Year £3.4m % BeyondCritical



£5.2m % Beyond Critical

£6m % Beyond Critical

1 133km for April 06 –

Mar 07 £3.4m 28.01%

157km for £4m 27.48%

196km for £5m 26.60%

204km for £5.2m 26.42%

235km for £6m 25.72%


Mar 08 £3.4m 28.01%

157km for £4m 26.95%

196km for £5m 25.19%

204km for £5.2m 24.84%

235km for £6m 23.43%


Mar 09 £3.4m 28.02%

157km for £4m 26.43%

196km for £5m 23.78%

204km for £5.2m 23.26%

235km for £6m 21.14%


Mar 10 £3.4m 28.02%

157km for £4m 25.90%

196km for £5m 22.38%

204km for £5.2m 21.67%

235km for £6m 18.85%


Mar 11 £3.4m 28.02%

157km for £4m 25.38%

196km for £5m 20.97%

204km for £5.2m 20.09%

235km for £6m 16.56%

Notes: % beyond critical by various spend per year treating 356 lane km plus the133 lane km deterioration rate per year, starting at 28% beyond critical Network length 4449 lane km Current length beyond critical 1246 lane km (28%) (As at 1st April 2006 derived from BVPI 97b) Current rate of deterioration; approximately 133 lane km (3% of the networks) goes beyond critical each year Cost of treatment per lane kilometre £25,500 (derived from NRMCS returns) Target is for no more than 20% (890 km) to be beyond critical by the end of 2010/11


Therefore need to treat 356km (8%) in addition to the annual deterioration rate


Appendix G: Transport Asset Management Planglostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/Data/County...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix G: Transport Asset Management Planglostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/Data/County...