Transport Asset Management Plan Asset … Asset Management Plan Asset Performance Report ......

HCC TAMP Asset Performance Report (APR) 2012

Version 1.1 DRAFT of 76

Transport Asset

Management Plan

Asset Performance Report

2012

www.hertsdirect.org



HCC TAMP Asset Performance Report 2012

Contents

Introduction

1. TAMP State of the Nation

1.1 New Highways Contracts

1.2 HMEP

1.3 Highways Infrastructure Asset

Management Guidance

1.4 DfT Block Funding Formula

1.5 Asset Valuation

1.6 Routine Maintenance Efficiencies

2. Carriageways

2.1 Carriageway Maintenance Strategy

2.2 Carriageway Condition Monitoring

2.3 Carriageway Performance

2.4 2011/2012 Carriageway Programme


2.6 Carriageway Valuation

3. Drainage

3.1 Drainage Strategy Development

3.2 Key Drainage Issues

3.3 2011/2012 Drainage Programme


3.5 Drainage Valuation

4. Footways

4.1 Footway Maintenance Strategy

4.2 Footway Hierarchy Review

4.3 Life Cycle Planning

4.4 Updated Footway Surfacing Policy

4.5 Footway Condition Monitoring

4.6 2011/2012 Footway Programme


4.8 Footway Valuation

5. Intelligent Transportation

Systems

5.1 ITS Strategy

5.2 2011/2012 ITS Programme


5.4 ITS Valuation

6. Street Lighting

6.1 Street Lighting Strategy

6.2 2011/2012 Street Lighting

Programme

6.3 2012/2013 Street Lighting

Programme

6.4 Street Lighting Valuation

7. Highway Structures

7.1 Highway Structures Asset Overview

7.2 Inspections and Condition Data

7.3 Development of Maintenance

Strategy

7.4 Schemes delivered in the financial

year 2012/13

7.5 Future delivery 2013/2014

7.6 Valuing the Bridge Stock



8. New Strategies

8.1 Safety Inspection Manual Defect

Management Approach

8.2 Highway Tree Strategy

List of Appendices:

Appendix A:

Sample Drainage Bid Technical

Form

Appendix B:

Updated Footway Surfacing Policy

Appendix C:

Draft Highway Tree Strategy and

Guidance Document



Introduction

The last year has seen substantial changes in the highways service within

Hertfordshire; new contracts with new providers have come into effect, to

complement them a redesigned highways service is in place and most staff

from all of the core partners are now co-located in County Hall. Highway

Locality Budgets have been rolled out across the county, helping to keep the

service locally-focused, responsive and Member-led while complementing the

value-driven asset management-based programmes.

Asset management principles will be at the heart of the new service,

underpinning our ability to continue to deliver efficiencies while maintaining

agreed service standards. During the competitive dialogue process both

Ringway and Opus-Arup contributed ideas and made contractual promises on

how asset management can be further developed under the new

arrangements. HCC too have continued development work both locally and

nationally, delivering things like the footway hierarchy review and tree strategy

for Hertfordshire and contributing to national work such as the Pothole Review

and lifecycle planning toolkit.

With no sign of an end to the economic downturn, the key challenge facing

the new highway service will be to continue to support the economic vibrancy

of Hertfordshire in order to assist and encourage growth while making the

best possible use of the resources available to the County Council.

Rob Smith

Deputy Director, Environment

December 2012



1. TAMP State of the Nation

1.1 New Highways Contracts

1.1.1 The new suite of highways contracts came into effect on 1st October

2012. At the time of writing this Report the new arrangements are

therefore still bedding in as new partner organisations and a

reorganised client team develop the new service from new offices.

1.1.2 In terms of future asset management development, the experience

that Opus-Arup have been asked to bring to the Whole Client Service

in the form of asset management expertise and Heads of Profession

roles for services like bridges is allowing the service to work towards

the formation of a coherent in-house asset management community.

1.2 HMEP

1.2.1 Overview & function - The Highways Maintenance Efficiency

Programme is a national, sector-led initiative started by DfT following

the 2010 general election to deliver improvements in highway

maintenance, by increasing efficiency and streamlining processes to

create a more effective service through the development of several

projects targeted at different aspects of the highways service.

1.2.2 The HMEP includes a number of different themes covering areas

such as asset management, standard specifications for improved

procurement, collaborative joint working and other efficiency related

initiatives which focus on different aspects of LA highway service.

Many projects are still under development and the programme is

currently set to run until 2018 and is funded through DfT.

1.2.3 The HMEP project looks at the holistic management of the highway

service and will look to provide a full suite of documents to facilitate a

full integrated efficient service. One such project is entitled

‘Collaboration Alliance Toolkit’ which comes under the broader

category of Collaboration and Change. This toolkit looks at



collaboration efficiencies and guidance on process and operation of

such partnerships.

1.2.4 Additional supporting documents which are under development

include; Shared services (collaboration between authorities), Creating

the culture to deliver (organisational culture), LEAN Toolkit

(development of efficient and effective business processes) and Client

– Provider collaboration (business relationships.

1.2.5 Further development works look at the Procurement, contracting and

Standardisation of contracts, Benchmarking and Performance across

the sector and relate back to end user, quality and cost.

1.2.6 Pothole review: It is widely recognised by the highway industry that

potholes create many issues including; asset damage, accelerated

deterioration, customer complaint and insurance claims. In April 2011

the Transport Minister Norman Baker MP announced an initiative to

develop and report on best practise in dealing with potholes. A

‘Pothole Board’ was established with representatives from key

industry and stakeholder organisations to examine the issues;

Hertfordshire represented ADEPT (Association of Directors of

Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport) on the Board. The

final report was published in April 2012 and looks at long term

maintenance planning and details process of reporting, prioritisation

and strategy. The main outcome of the pothole review focuses on

three aspects;

• Prevention is better than cure – intervening at the right time will

reduce the amount of potholes forming and prevent bigger

problems later.

• Right First Time – do it once and get it right, rather than face

continuous bills. Guidance, knowledge and workmanship are the

enablers to this.

• Clarity for the public – local highway authorities need to

communicate to the public what is being done and how it is being

done.



The full report is available to download from the HMEP section of the

DfT website.

1.2.7 Asset Management: The next phase of development in the asset

management theme focused on providing further guidance and some

of the tools required to support good asset management including:

• Lifecycle planning tool

• Deterioration Model

• Drainage guidance

• Revised Asset Management Guidance

1.2.8 To support these initiatives, a working group of senior industry sector

experts has met regularly to guide and challenge the work done by

consultants for HMEP and ensure that the results meet local authority

needs. A representative from Hertfordshire is part of the working

group.

1.2.9 Lifecycle Planning and Deterioration Model: A simple spreadsheet

tool has been developed to help authorities undertake lifecycle

planning. A separate carriageway deterioration model has also been

developed to work with the lifecycle planning tool. As industry leaders

in the field, Hertfordshire contributed their experience to this work and

also formed part of the practitioner group for user acceptability and

testing.

1.2.10 A guidance document has been produced that provides an overview

for the developed toolkits. These tools will be reviewed for the

applicability to HCC and will be used where appropriate.

1.2.11 The lifecycle planning tools have been developed in excel and allow

for asset inventory to be inputted. The result produces asset level

expenditure and condition profile information over a set period.

1.2.12 Several models have been created for specific assets and include;

carriageway, footway and ancillary assets e.g. Street lighting, ITS etc.

Each model is specifically tailored to capture different information.



1.2.13 The LCP tools highlight the requirement and importance of asset data

and the need for continual update. Information used within the

models determines the output and therefore good asset inventory

paired with robust condition information creates a realistic model.

1.2.14 While the tools produced by HMEP are less sophisticated that those

used by Hertfordshire locally for a number of years – particularly the

well-established carriageway deterioration model – they will provide

useful alternatives for some other assets and will by used by

Hertfordshire to check and validate our other methods.

1.2.15 Just as importantly, these tools move the whole industry forwards by

allowing all local highway authorities easy access to some of the

benefits Hertfordshire has gain from this work in the past; the moves

national good practice forwards significantly as well as endorsing

Hertfordshire’s well-established approach.

1.2.16 Drainage Guidance: A further document has been released -

Management of Highway Drainage Assets. This document focuses on

existing good practice examples from the industry and lessons

learned in recent years. This will be reviewed over the coming months

and relevant efficiencies and good practises will be developed and

implemented where appropriate. A drainage strategy will be

developed and further discussion of holistic management of this asset

is detailed within Section 3.

1.3 Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Guidance

1.3.1 A Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Guidance document is

currently under development and will be available early 2013. This

document will be reviewed and a maturity assessment of the current

TAMP will be undertaken. The outcomes of this review will drive the

development of strategic HCC documents.



1.4 DfT Block Funding Formula

1.4.1 The DfT review of the Highway Maintenance Block funding formula

has continued this year. Work was done to explore the possibility of

linking the formula to authorities Asset Valuations however the

valuation process may not yet be sufficiently well embedded to allow

robust and fair distribution of funds at this stage. It is therefore likely

that DfT will update the existing formula at this stage rather than make

a wholesale exchange. A consultation on proposed changes is likely

during 2013.

1.5 Asset Valuation

1.5.1 Financial reporting for Whole Government Accounts (WGA) based on

the CIPFA Infrastructure Assets Code is now in its third year of

reporting. WGA asset valuation requires calculation of the Gross

Replacement Cost (GRC) and Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC)

for all highway assets. The 2011 APR provided a detailed account of

the asset valuation process including specific information for each

asset type. The section below provides an overview of developments

and lessons learnt through this year’s valuation process with detailed

information included in the specific asset chapters where applicable.

1.5.2 A more detailed asset valuation has been made possible in 2012 by

new tools becoming available during the year, such as the national

structures toolkit, which has enabled full disclosure of asset valuation

information to treasury. It is possible that next year’s valuation will be

fully audited although, nationally, there are still questions to be

answered about how such an audit will be undertaken.

1.5.3 Local Authority Accounts: Currently Local Authority accounts report

highway assets on an historic cost basis which significantly

understates their value compares to the DRC method used for WGA.

In the autumn of 2012, CIPFA consulted with local authorities and

other stakeholders on moving LA accounts to the DRC approach in

the future. The results of this consultation have not yet been



announced and CIPFA are not expected to make a decision on any

change until March 2013. Nonetheless, some preparatory work is

being done with CIPFA and several local authorities, Hertfordshire

included, to identify any difficulties that might need to be overcome

before the WGA methodology could be used for LA accounts.

1.5.4 The GRC and DRC of all major asset groups was reported in the

2011/2012 Master Valuation Document (L Pack Returns) and is

repeated here in Table 1.

Table 1.1: Asset Valuation Summary

Asset Group GRC

(£000's) GRC %

DRC

(£000's)

%

Consumed

Carriageway £4,963,454 72.4% £4,457,203 10.2%

Footways £722,798 10.5% £439,140 39.2%

Structures £864,076 12.6% £473,775 45.2%

Lighting £125,734 1.8% £29,706 76.4%

Traffic Mgmt. £56,627 0.8% £32,862 42.0%

Street Furniture £124,857 1.8% £62,429 50.0%

Total £6,857,546 100% £5,495,115 20%

Figure 1 below shows the breakdown of asset valuation by asset

group.

Figure 1.1: Asset Valuation Breakdown



1.5.5 The 2011/2012 GRC has increased approximately 5% from the

2010/2011 valuation due to the following reasons:

• Increase in quantities through highway adoptions etc.

• Changes in contract unit rates and annual uplift percentages.

• Improved quality of the asset inventory.

• An enhanced level of asset detail obtained through data mining

the Confirm System.

Table 2 below shows the change in asset valuation between the

2010/2011 and 2011/2012 years by asset group.

Table 1.2: Change in Asset Valuation

Asset Group GRC (£000's)

% Change 2010/2011 2011/2012

Carriageway £4,718,849 £4,963,454 5.2%

Footways £668,195 £722,798 8.2%

Structures £833,502 £864,076 3.7%

Lighting £123,558 £125,734 1.8%

Traffic Mgmt. £54,045 £56,627 4.8%

Street Furniture £126,051 £124,857 -0.9%

Total £6,524,200 £6,857,546 5.1%

The increase in valuation is evident in all asset groups with the

exception of Street Furniture which reduced by 1%. The information

obtained for the 2011/2012 valuation for street furniture was data

mined from Confirm. The confidence for this data is much higher than

for last year’s valuation due to the robustness of the data set.

1.5.6 Comparing the trend in the DRC as a percentage of GRC provides an

indication of the level of asset consumption. Table 3 summarises the

change in DRC as a percentage of GRC for the last two financial

years by asset group.



Table 1.3: Asset Consumption

Asset Group DRC as a % of GRC

% Change 2010/2011 2011/2012

Carriageway 91.4% 89.8% -1.6%

Footways 61.0% 60.8% -0.2%

Structures Not Assessed 54.8% N/A

Lighting 21.1% 23.6% 2.5%

Traffic Mgmt. 50.2% 58.0% 7.8%

Street Furniture 50.0% 50.0% 0%

Total (excl Structures) 85.0% 83.8% -1.2%

It can be seen from the information in the table above that:

• Carriageways show an indication of asset consumption;

• Footways and street furniture are in steady state;

• The change in street lighting is due to a recalibration of the

calculation as more detail of asset installation date has become

available;

• The large variance for traffic management assets is due to

increased levels of asset inventory detail;

• The DRC for structures was not calculated in 2010/11;

• Excluding structures from the comparison shows that the asset

has been consumed on average 1.2%.

However, it should be kept in mind that this process is still in its

infancy and small variations such as changes in condition data can

have an impact in year-on-year variations. It will be easier to make

more valid comparisons in the future once the process is more

established and longer term trends can be seen.

1.6 Routine Maintenance Efficiencies

1.6.1 The Hertfordshire Highways Efficiency Agenda has delivered a total of

£14.5 million in routine maintenance efficiency savings to the end of

September 2012.



1.6.2 Routine maintenance efficiency savings of £1.4 million for the

2011/12 financial year have been delivered by the following cost

saving strategies:

• Holistic planning, programming, and management of Cat1 and

Cat2 services;

• A reduction in Cat1 emergency and urgent works;

• Better value for money treatments and incentivised delivery of

Cat2 planned and programmed works;

• A reduction in cyclical Street Lighting maintenance regimes and

use of an Independent Electrical Connection Provider;

• Reduced energy and sign electrical maintenance costs due to

Sign De-illumination; and

• Reduced energy and electrical maintenance costs due to low

energy lamp installation in Belisha Beacons.

1.6.3 Routine maintenance efficiency savings for the first six months of the

2012/2013 financial year are estimated at £1.6 million. These

savings have been generated from a combination of continuing

established savings initiatives, and:

• Delivering a greater throughput of work (around 70% of structural

maintenance) via established Cat1/2 efficiency mechanisms;

• Reduced maintenance regimes and associated operating costs

Grass Cutting (Rural Swathe Cut) and Gully Cleaning;

• Street Lighting a reduction in levels of service for public reported

faults;

• Walk & Build procurement for structural refurbishment; and

• A reduction in cost due to re-tendering of Traffic Signal Upgrade

works.

1.6.4 These efficiencies were delivered under the previous Herts highways

contracts but the lessons and service developments which

underpinned them were taken into account in the development of the

new contracts.



2. Carriageways

2.1 Carriageway Maintenance Strategy

2.1.1 Hertfordshire’s carriageway maintenance strategy is to maintain the

asset as effectively and efficiently as possible by targeting the

available resources to where they will give the greatest overall long-

term benefit.

2.1.2 In implementing the strategy account is taken of:

• The agreed objectives (currently to keep the network in steady-

state)

• The Benefits to customers and road-users (so busier roads, which

will benefit more people, typically have a higher priority)

• The potential Costs and Risks to the authority from different

courses of action

2.1.3 The strategy is primarily delivered through the Cat 1, cat 2 and Cat 4

programmes, each of which has its own role to play:

• Cat 1 – Focus on Safety: A reactive service designed to keep the

network in a safe condition and ensure HCC discharges its legal

duties in a robust and efficient way. Cat 1 typically involves fixing

potholes and similar defects. However, as reactive work, Cat 1 is

inherently expensive and inefficient. Ideally therefore, the amount

of work done through Cat 1 will be reduced to the minimum

necessary by promoting planned, proactive work through cat 2 and

cat 4 programmes to reduce the number of cat 1 defects that

occur.

• Cat 2 – Focus on Serviceability: A mixture of planned preventative

maintenance and planned repairs to keep the network serviceable,

prevent the formation of Cat 1 defects and defer the need for Cat 4

maintenance. Generally localised works such as patching and joint

sealing to deal with specific localised defects or areas of

deterioration.



• Cat 4 – Focus on Efficiency: A mixture of planned preventative

maintenance and planned renewals to keep the network

serviceable, prevent the formation of Cat 1 defects and deliver the

best possible value from the available resources by focusing on

the long term benefits and whole-life costs of the various options in

order to deliver optimised programmes of work as efficiently as

possible. Cat 4 works are scheme-type works and, where

appropriate, they are developed and delivered as work streams in

order to get the greatest economies of scale.

2.1.4 The creation of the Whole Client Service has provided an opportunity

to create an holistic asset management driven service. As such a

Head of Profession has been appointed and the CAT1 and,2 strategy

and CAT 4 strategy and delivery are delivered under a single group.

2.1.5 Cat 1 and 2 delivery now sits with Ringway as part of the contractor-

directed service. This puts the day-to-day direction of the Cat 1 and

Cat 2 services in the same team which will help to support the key Cat

2 objective of reducing the demand for Cat 1 activities.

2.1.6 A key task for all concerned over the coming year will be to

consolidate the holistic carriageway maintenance strategy across the

various work types to ensure the strategic objectives are delivered.

Performance review and holistic management will aim to ensure value

for money and enable a joint operation to be effected through the

understanding of the asset need and managing spend offset through

different delivery categories. This intelligence-lead operation creates

opportunity to maximise work impact through all categories and

creates a portal for a value managed service delivery.

2.1.7 Carriageway Targets: The agreed targets for carriageway condition

are based on maintaining steady state, relative to the 2010/11

condition baseline used when the targets were last reviewed as

shown below. The 11/12 data, the latest available at time of writing,

shows that performance is ahead of target for A and U roads but

slightly behind currently for B&C roads. However, single-year



variances should be treaded with caution as condition returns can

vary by up to a few percentage points from year to year based on

survey variances and trends monitored over a longer period give a

more reliable view. The various performance indicators are

considered in more detail in section 2.3 below.

Table 2.1: Carriageway Target Data

PI Description Historic Data Targets

10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15

A Road Condition 8% 6% 8% 8% 8%

B&C Road Condition 11% 15% 11% 11% 11%

U Road Condition 17% 13% 17% 17% 17%

2.2 Carriageway Condition Monitoring

2.2.1 Several survey techniques are currently used to collect robust data for

the assessment of carriageway condition. Table 2.1 summarises the

surveys currently undertaken.

Table 2.2: Carriageway Condition Surveys

Survey Type Survey Scope Coverage Frequency Output

SCANNER A, B, & C roads

100% Annual Surface Defects, Roughness, Rutting

Coarse Visual Survey (CVI)

U roads 100% Annual Surface Defects, Rutting

Safety Inspections

Varies Varies Annual Surface Defects, Rutting

2.2.2 The survey coverage and level of information collected on the

carriageway asset enables a comprehensive assessment of the

carriageway condition and is used to report national, regional, and

local condition indicators as described in section 2.3.

2.2.3 The same information forms a robust base of data for carriageway

condition, deterioration modelling and forward planning of

carriageway works.



2.2.4 As historic survey data is accumulated, a better understanding of

carriageway deterioration can be refined through regression analysis

of actual condition. Hertfordshire now has a substantial amount of

historic data, which is used to calibrate the carriageway deterioration

model to local conditions and identify contributing deterioration

factors. It was also made available to contribute to several of the

HMEP projects mentioned in Section 1.

2.2.5 Robust carriageway deterioration modelling ensures an optimised life

cycle plan of carriageway maintenance and rehabilitation schemes

that provides value for money and manageable streams of work.

2.3 Carriageway Performance

2.3.1 Road condition indicators (RDCs) are reported to national government

annually as part of the single data set. Table 2.3 summarises the

results that have been reported for the following RDCs:

• 130-01: principal road (A road) condition

• 130-02: non-principal classified roads (B&C road) condition.

• 130-03: skidding resistance data

Table 2.3: National Carriageway Performance Indicators

RDC RDC Detail % Road Surveyed

% Maintenance should be

considered

2010/11 2011/12 2010/11 2011/12

130-01

Principal roads

LA maintained A roads

94% 94% 8% 6%

130-02

Non-principal roads

LA maintained B and C roads

49% 50% 11% 13%

130-03 Skidding resistance data*

Not Collected

Not Collected

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

*A full network survey has not been undertaken in recent years.

Information is gathered at accident hotspots and is used in



investigations by the HCC safety teams to determine if skid resistance

is low and if remedial works are required.

2.3.2 Carriageway Treatments completed during the financial year are also

required to be reported to the DfT as RDC 130-04. Table 2.4 below

summarises the carriageway works completed by road hierarchy.

Table 2.4: Carriageway Treatments Completed

Treatment Type Kms Treated by Road Hierarchy Total Kms

Treated A B C U

Surface Dressing 28.8 35.5 66.7 19.0 150.0

Thin Surfacing 0.0 0.2 0.0 60.0 60.2

Resurfacing 16.0 2.1 3.4 7.4 28.9

Reconstruction 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.6

Total 45.0 37.8 70.1 87.8 240.7

2.3.3 Table 2.3 and 2.4 results have been submitted to the DfT via their

online data collection process and will be used for national reporting.

All data collection processes are per DfT guidance and cycle of

repetition is within the stipulated requirements.

2.3.4 Hertfordshire is a member of the East of England Directors of

Environment & Transport (EEDET) Eastern Region Best Practise

Group. This group has identified several local condition indicators

which all members are tasked with reporting on an annual basis.

Table 2.5 below provides an overview of the information reported

against the local condition indicators for the years 2010/2011 and

2011/2012.



Table 2.5: Local Carriageway Performance Indicators

RDC RDC Detail/Local Indicator NI 2010/2011 2011/2012

130-01 Principal roads

168 Red 7.6% 6.3%

168 Amber 24.4% 24.8%

168 Green 68.0% 68.9%

130-02

Non principle B classified roads

169 Red 9.9% 9.9%

169 Amber 30.8% 27.8%

169 Green 59.3% 62.2%

Non principle C classified roads

169 Red 11.7% 14.9%

169 Amber 33.4% 30.9%

169 Green 54.9% 54.2%

LI 224b Unclassified Roads BV224b

Red 17%

Percentage of Safety inspections completed on time

95%

Percentage of CAT 1 defects repaired on time

93% 89%

Priority 1 salting network (%age of total road network)

42% 42%

Number of priority 1 salting run in season

47


2.4.1 Table 2.6 summarises the carriageway treatments completed during

the 2011/2012 financial year by road hierarchy and treatment type.

Table 2.6: Carriageway Programme 2011/2012

Treatment Type Treatment Code

Length (m)

Area (m2)

Cost (£000’s)

A Road Surface Dressing ASD 28,808 213,744 £1,452

A Road Surface Inlay ASI 15,933 132,259 £3,410

Total A Roads 44,741 346,003 £4,862

Local Road Surface Dressing CSD 120,861 686,442 £3,856

Local Road Micro Asphalt CMA/CSH 60,160 324,164 £2,171

Local Road Surface Inlay CSI 12,930 78,210 £2,275




Length (m)

Area (m2)

Cost (£000’s)

Local Road Recycling/Recon. CRY 1412 9,258 £402

Total Local Roads 195,363 1,098,074 £8,704

Total All Roads 240,104 1,444,077 £13,566


2.5.1 Table 2.7 summarises the carriageway treatments planned for the

2012/2013 financial year by road hierarchy and treatment type.

Table 2.7: Carriageway Programme 2012/2013


Length (m)

Area (m2)

Cost (£000’s)

A Road Surface Dressing ASD 32,000 210,000 £1,650

A Road Surface Inlay ASI 23,000 150,000 £3,500

Total A Roads 55,000 360,000 £5,150

Local Road Surface Dressing CSD 90,000 480,000 £4,200

Local Road Micro Asphalt CMA/CSH 35,000 190,000 £2,600

Local Road Surface Inlay CSI 13,000 72,500 £2,300

Local Road Recycling/Recon. CRY 1,000 5,000 £250

Total Local Roads 139,000 747,500 £9,350

Total All Roads 194,000 1,107,500 £14,500

2.5.2 A number of additional sites were added to the 12/13 programme in

November 2012. These were funded from existing resources made

available due to of the close-down of the old highways contracts and

some more advantageous rates in the new contracts. The additional

resurfacing schemes were selected from a combination of sites

planned for work in future years, emerging issues, and the opportunity

to complement other planned works. In addition, the improved rates

and options available in the new suite of contracts has also opened

up a broader range of carriageway treatment options. A Review of the

carriageway treatments in the current IWP and FWP for 2013/2014

and beyond is currently underway to ensure maximum value is

derived from the new contracts.

Final Info To Be Confirmed



2.6 Carriageway Valuation

2.6.1 Table 2.8 summarises the carriageway valuation as reported for the

2011/2012 WGA.

Table 2.8: Carriageway 2011/2012 Valuation

Road Class Calculated Area

Carriageway GRC

Linear Item GRC

(m2) (£’000s) (£’000s)

Urban

A 1,864,917 253,704 £130,050

B 1,316,238 166,978 £93,927

C 2,269,110 237,576 £169,772

U/C 16,663,284 1,611,173 £920,372

Rural

A 2,883,513 310,641 £149,897

B 1,043,640 104,531 £39,803

C 2,455,908 196,276 £103,148

U/C 2,326,420 174,168 £97,324

TOTALS 30,823,030 3,055,047 £1,704,293

2.6.2 Applying the East Anglia Regional Factor of 94.125% and Inflation of

1.10798 to the Carriageway GRC above determines a Gross

Carriageway GRC of £4,963,454,000 or £4,963m.

2.6.3 The carriageway DRC for 2011/12 has been calculated at

£4,457,203,000 or £4,457m giving a depreciation amount of £506m.

The DRC/GRC ration using the Gross Carriageway GRC is equal to

89.8%. This indicates that the carriageway asset is 10.2% consumed.

2.6.4 The 2011 APR provided detail that the GRC value is inclusive of the

whole carriageway asset, much of which is non depreciable. This

figure is over representative for comparing depreciated replacement

costs as it includes non depreciable items such as sub layers and

linear items. Adjusting the GRC using the same ratio as last year

gives a revised GRC of £918m. Offsetting the £506m depreciation

amount calculated above against the adjusted GRC of £918m

indicates that the carriageway asset is 55% consumed.



3. Drainage

3.1 Drainage Strategy Development

3.1.1 The HCC highway drainage system is an evolved asset that

comprises of several distinct asset sub-groups;

• Carriageway and footway gullies (drainage system inlets)

• Inspection and access chambers (manholes and catchpits)

• SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) such as soak-aways and

storm cells etc.

• Highway drains (buried pipework)

• Outfall structures (drainage system outlets to watercourses)

• Roadside grips (shallow un-lined ditch inlet channels cut in verges)

• Road-side ditches (in many cases owned by adjacent landowners)

These assets work in combination to effectively remove surface water

from the highway and transport it into a water course, utility storm

system or SuDS (sustainable drainage system) filtration systems.

Their functionality is key to their performance and ability in

undertaking their function.

3.1.2 The new WCS provides a unique opportunity to manage scheme bids

through a holistic management process. As detailed above all service

streams provide an integrated service delivery approach and this is

reflected within scheme appraisal.

3.1.3 The drainage asset is maintained through several service streams;

• Cat 1 (Emergency/Urgent) works; placing flood warning signs,

cleaning up and jetting pipes from flood events and minor reactive

repairs

• Cat 2 Reactive Maintenance; minor repairs and or ad-hoc

clearance of non-functioning drainage assets such as grips,

ditches and pipe drains etc.



• Cat 4 IWP Drainage Schemes; more significant drainage repairs

or major improvement works identified through Cat 2 and 5

activities

• Cat 5 Cyclical Routine Maintenance; cyclic cleansing / emptying

of road-side gullies and similar drainage assets

3.1.4 The management and interaction of these service streams has been

re-assed over the past year and the new contracts have provided the

opportunity for implementing changes with a view to delivering holistic

management of the drainage service. Detail of effect and stream

integration is briefly provided below although, at the time of writing,

the process of service development is still ongoing.

3.1.5 The Cat 5 service – Cyclical Routine Maintenance: This had already

moved to a risk based targeted approach. This strategy has been

developed to now capture additional information that will further refine

the Cat 5 service. Silt depth of cleaned gullies is now recorded

against each asset item to enable improvements to the cyclical

maintenance scheduling. Profiling of silt levels provides a record of

asset performance and translates into the ability to home in on hot

spot areas, therefore utilising resource to maximum benefit.

3.1.6 Holistic management – Cat 1 and 2 Service: The new contract

structure has helped enable the holistic management of whole service

delivery by combining both functions within the Ringway contractor

directed service. The Cat 1 and 2 service is now being used to inform

the Cat 5 service and will provide further information to identify hot

spot areas. The new Cat 5 service is in its infancy and once

implemented over a sustained period of time in its new capacity the

resultant impact should see a reduction in unplanned reactive works.

3.1.7 Understanding hotspots and site requirements in relation to

maintenance will be informed through the advanced targeted Cat 5

service. Optimisation of resource will enable maximum benefit and

reduction in the need for unplanned reactive maintenance.



3.1.8 The Cat 2 service will also integrate with the Cat 4 service (IWP

Drainage Schemes). Cat 2 will perform investigation or preliminary

works and function in two ways either re-establishing functionality

therefore negating the need for scheme works or provide an

investigative resource to help determine the scope of a proposed

drainage scheme.

3.1.9 As with all drainage work streams a review of the Cat 4 process is

being undertaken. It is envisaged that a strategy will be developed as

outlined above to provide guidance for issues to be considered for

inclusion in the cat 4 programme. Criteria will be set through other

service streams and requirements for scheme investigation will be set

out in a scheme check list.

3.1.10 The holistic management of the drainage service will help to drive

efficiency as targeted maintenance will be risk-based using detailed

information obtained through the Cat 5 service. The aim will be to

reduce the incidence of unplanned reactive maintenance – Cat 1 – by

the implementation of advanced targeted maintenance although other

factors, climate change in particular, may tend to act against this by

creating more extreme weather events requiring urgent, unplanned

responses..

3.1.11 The Cat 2 service acts as a sense check for the Cat 4 service and

ensures maintenance works are conducted prior to being passed

across for scheme appraisal.

3.1.12 Scheme Prioritisation – Cat 4 IWP Schemes: The Drainage Scheme

Check List is to be used as the bid form for proposed drainage

schemes when local engineers promote identified drainage problems

for a significant scheme through the IWP. Each proposal ensures that

the CAT 2 route has been exhausted and preliminary cause

investigation has been undertaken and reported.

3.1.13 This method of data capture creates a foundation for all bids where

cyclical and enhanced maintenance has been undertaken and the



issue has not been resolved. All bids will follow the same process to

ensure compliancy and consistency.

3.1.14 Each bid form will be processed and ranked. A separate risk based

ranking process is used for prioritisation. This ranked list of drainage

schemes creates an optimised bank of projects that are added to the

FWP project set.

3.1.15 The bid form process streamlines the IWP ranking system as

investigation works are conducted under Cat 2 and become a level

platform for ranking purposes. This method of application will ensure

that proposed sites are deemed appropriate for scheme appraisal. A

sample form is included at Appendix A.

3.1.16 The bid process has a further application; identification of third party

issues which may result in additional investigation. Where an existing

drainage system has been damaged by a third party (such as utility

works) we have an established system for recovering our costs, both

of the investigation and any rectification works required.

3.1.17 A proposed procedure for the management of ‘problem sites’ is

included below. The identification of a drainage issue triggers a chain

of events to determine cause and appropriate action.

3.1.18 These issues can be highlighted through several channels and a

robust process is required for the management of issues and their

operational management.

3.1.19 As an overview of the process there are several main categories that

the process focuses on to determine cause and associative action.

• The first stage is to establish ownership as this will drive

stakeholder involvement and determine the duty of care

responsibilities. The processes below assume HCC asset

ownership and management.

• Maintain current asset through the CAT 5/2 service and determine

if further maintenance is required with a revised CAT 5 service.



• Damaged assets are to be assessed for cause i.e. third party.

Investigation into damage will determine cause and if deemed

appropriate remedial work costs will be recharged.

• For sites where the Cat 2/5 maintenance service has proved

ineffective and there are no signs of significant damage an IWP

scheme maybe required/warranted through the bid form process.

• For low ranking sites that are not considered a priority for an IWP

scheme, an opportunity for intervention through Cat 3 (the

Highway Locality Budget) will be suggested to the local member. It

is accepted that drainage issues which are low-priority for both Cat

3 and Cat 4 programmes may just need to be allowed to continue

to occur since such issues are likely to be both low risk and low

impact.

3.2 Key Drainage Issues

3.2.1 Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Update - Hertfordshire

County Council (HCC) as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for the

county is required to produce, maintain, implement and monitor a

strategy coordinating the management of local flood risk. The draft

strategy was put out for consultation between June and September

2012 and the Council’s Environment Economy and Community Safety

Panel endorsed the proposed amendments to the strategy at their

November meeting. The final strategy will go through final approval

stages in February for adoption by the council in March 2013. Further

information can be found at:

HCC Flood Risk Management pages on Hertsdirect

3.2.2 Ordinary Watercourses - From April 6 2012 HCC became the sole

authority with powers to regulate watercourses under sections 23, 24

and 25 of the Land drainage Act 1991, (this is for the majority of

Hertfordshire apart from a small area in North Hertfordshire covered

by the Bedfordshire and River Ivel Internal Drainage Board).

Anyone wanting to carry out works in the channel of an ordinary

watercourse, such as installing or modifying a culvert needs to apply



to HCC for consent in advance of the works being carried out. Work

cannot be consented retrospectively and the authority has the powers

to require un-consented works to be removed. In the case of the

authority carrying out work itself (e.g. highways work affecting an

ordinary watercourse) consent cannot be granted by the authority to

itself, instead the work must be carried out in consultation with the

Environment Agency (EA).

The Environment Resource Planning team in the Environment

department are managing this service, including liaison with the EA

for internal works. As well as consenting and enforcement relating to

structures, the authority can also require riparian owners to manage

watercourses to maintain flow. Further information can be found at:

Ordinary Watercourse pages on Hertsdirect

A risk based assessment of Ordinary Watercourses is being carried

out and the findings will be used to develop service standards for

consenting and enforcement. These will be submitted for adoption by

the authority in Spring 2013.

3.2.3 Register of Structures and Features – One of the requirements of

the FWMA 2010 is for the authority to develop, publish and maintain a

public register of structures and features that have a significant impact

on local flood risk. A risk matrix was published in the draft Local

Flood Risk Management Strategy which will be further developed with

partners and used as the criteria for placing assets on the register.

As well as structures developed specifically for flood risk management

it could also include natural features such as banks and engineered

features such as culverts. Work is ongoing to develop proposals to for

the initial candidate list of entries.

3.2.4 Flood Risk Investigations - Upon learning of a flood, HCC now has

a duty to investigate to the extent that it considers necessary and

report on the findings. This must include identification of the relevant

(flood) Risk Management Authorities and whether they intend to use

their flood risk management powers.



Events that will potentially trigger an investigation are; instances of

internal flooding, closure of a transport link (including roads) for more

than 10 hours; and repeated flooding in an area close to property.

3.2.5 SuDS and SAB - HCC as LLFA will have a role in the promotion of

sustainable drainage following the implementation of Schedule 3 of

the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (F&WMA 2010). The

authority will be required to establish a SuDS Approval Body (SAB)

which will have to approve the surface water drainage proposals for

new development before construction can commence.

The legislation has been anticipated for some time and it is now

understood that it will commence from April 2014. The detail of what

will be required and any linked transitional arrangements are yet to be

confirmed. We are working on the assumption that the required

standards will be reasonably similar in scope to those published in a

consultation document earlier this year and major development. This

would mean HCC being required to adopt SuDS serving

developments of 10 domestic units or more, 100sq m of commercial

development or a 0.5 hectare site.

Local guidance on SuDS plans has been developed and will be

adopted by the authority early in 2013 to facilitate pre-legislative

discussions with other authorities, agencies and developers and

actively manage the local implementation. The value of this work has

already been demonstrated as we are the first authority to engage

with the House Builders Federation and they have responded

positively to the opportunity.

Locally we will need to understand how we will coordinate the SAB

role with the planning function of district authorities and we will need

to carry out some work internally to understand the issues relating to

SuDS adoption and the authority’s highway function.

Defra are setting up stakeholder groups to support the refining of the

proposals prior to commencement and HCC will be playing an active

role.



3.3 2011/2012 Highway Drainage Programme

The 2011/2012 IWP delivered 56 drainage investigation or scheme

construction works resulting in the outcomes described in Table 3.1.

Total cost for the 2011/2012 drainage programme was £880k.

Table 3.1: Drainage Programme 2011/2012

Scheme Type

Outcome No

Schemes

Investigation Sites Investigated (Identifying where more substantial works are required via IWP schemes in the second or subsequent years)

26

Minor Works Minor Works (repair of broken pipes etc) 3

Detailed design

Detailed design, contract drawings, confirmed estimated costs, Construction delivered in future years

8

Major Schemes

Major works (improvement or installation of new works) identified from investigation undertaken in previous year(s)

9

Third Party Third party works (water authority outfall issues or damage to highway drainage system by third party)

20

Total 66

Nine schemes were removed from the programme as works were no

longer required.


3.4.1 Drainage schemes included in the current IWP for 2012/2013

comprise of:

• bid schemes that were investigated through last years IWP

ranking process, have been designed and are ready for

implementation;

• investigation works as supplied through the bid process for works

to progress the following year;

• Small repair works that fall outside the capabilities of Cat 2;

• Schemes carried over from previous years

• 3rd party works where investigations are to be undertaken to look

to recover expenditure.

3.4.2 Total expected cost for the 2012/2013 drainage programme is £950k.



Table 3.2: Drainage Programme 2012/2013

Reference Outcome No Schemes

Investigation Sites Investigated (Identifying where more substantial works are required via IWP schemes in the second or subsequent years)

23

Quick-Win “Quick Win” sites (Problems were solved during investigation, e.g. by cleaning the drainage system)

0

Minor Works Minor Works (repair of broken pipes etc) 5

Major Schemes

Major works (improvement or installation of new works) identified from investigation undertaken in previous year(s)

21

3rd Party 3rd Party works (Water Authority outfall issues or damage to highway drainage system by 3rd party)

11

Total 60

Five schemes were removed from the programme as works were no

longer required due to no problems found, no reported flooding during

ongoing monitoring, repairs completed under cat 2 or resolved

through regular routine maintenance etc.

3rd party schemes are made up of claims for damage to our assets

(usually by utility companies) or Water Authority issues with blocked

or collapsed surface water sewers that they maintain.

3.5 Drainage Valuation

3.5.1 The drainage asset valuation is included in the carriageway linear

items valuation and forms part of the carriageway GRC. It has been

accepted that drainage asset inventory is not a readily available data

set and general assumptions have been made based upon

carriageway classification and modern equivalent design to value the

drainage assets.




4. Footways

4.1 Footway Maintenance Strategy

4.1.1 Hertfordshire County Council has the responsibility of operating and

maintaining over 5000km of footway.

4.1.2 Hertfordshire’s footway maintenance strategy is to maintain the asset

as effectively and efficiently as possible by targeting the available

resources to where they will give the greatest overall long-term

benefit.

4.1.3 In implementing the strategy account is taken of:

• The Benefits to customers and pedestrians (so busier footways,

which will benefit more people, typically have a higher priority)

• The potential Costs and Risks to the authority from different

courses of action

4.1.4 The strategy is primarily delivered through the Cat 1, Cat 2 and Cat 4

programmes, each of which has its own role to play:

• Cat 1 – Focus on Safety: A reactive service designed to keep the

network in a safe condition and ensure HCC discharges its legal

duties in a robust and efficient way. Cat 1 typically involves fixing

potholes, trips and similar defects. However, as reactive work, Cat

1 is inherently expensive and inefficient. Ideally therefore, the

amount of work done through Cat 1 will be reduced to the

minimum necessary by promoting planned, proactive work through

cat 2 and cat 4 programmes to reduce the number of cat 1 defects

that occur.

• Cat 2 – Focus on Serviceability: A mixture of planned preventative

maintenance and planned repairs to keep the network serviceable,

prevent the formation of Cat 1 defects and defer the need for Cat 4

maintenance. Generally localised works such as patching and joint

sealing to deal with specific localised defects or areas of

deterioration.



• Cat 4 – Focus on Efficiency: A mixture of planned preventative

maintenance and planned renewals to keep the network

serviceable, prevent the formation of Cat 1 defects and deliver the

best possible value from the available resources by focusing on

the long term benefits and whole-life costs of the various options in

order to deliver optimised programmes of work as efficiently as

possible. Cat 4 works are scheme-type works and, where

appropriate, they are developed and delivered as work streams in

order to get the greatest economies of scale.

4.1.5 The creation of the Whole Client Service has provided an opportunity

to create an holistic asset management driven service. As such a

Head of Profession has been appointed and the Cat 1 and Cat 2

strategy and Cat 4 strategy and delivery are delivered under a single

group.

4.1.6 Cat 1 and 2 delivery now sits with Ringway as part of the contractor-

directed service. This puts the day-to-day direction of the Cat 1 and

Cat 2 services in the same team which will help to support the key Cat

2 objective of reducing the demand for Cat 1 activities.

4.1.7 Key tasks to ensure delivery of the footway strategy include the

implementation of the revised footway hierarchy and continued

implementation and development of the FNS (Footway Network

Survey) condition surveys; both of which are discussed in detail

below.

4.2 Footway Hierarchy Review

4.2.1 Hertfordshire’s footway network serves an array of settlements across

the county with different levels of footway use. Last year’s APR

detailed a review of the footway hierarchy using a risk based

approach to enable effective response and maintenance works

optimisation. The final proposal for the footway hierarchy review was

endorsed by the Highways and Transport Cabinet Panel in November



2012 and work will now progress on implementing the new hierarchy

by reviewing the existing network.

4.2.2 Revised Footway Hierarchy - The revised footway hierarchy adopts

a risk based approach which enables a targeted service to be applied

consistently across the footway network. The revised footway

hierarchy has been primarily derived by footfall so that services,

activities and resources are targeted to benefit as many people as

possible with some additional criteria added to account for high risk

areas. The revised footway hierarchy has been summarised in Table

4.2 below.

Table 4.2: Revised Footway Hierarchy

Hierarchy Hierarchy Name

Pedestrians Per Day (PPD)

Other Criteria

1 Primary > 5,000

2 Main 1,000 to 5,000

3 Moderate 250 to 1,000 Or includes elderly persons residential home or multiple-unit supported living

4 Standard <250

5 Rural (Low use) <100 and Rural Location

4.2.3 The revised footway hierarchies align with the Well-Maintained

Highways Code of Practise footway categories and levels of service

making the new hierarchy robust, defensible and easy to correlate to

national standards.

4.2.4 A guidance document has been produced which provides details of

how the roll-out of the new footway hierarchy will be managed. The

revised footway hierarchy is being implemented over a period of

months with collaboration from the Whole Client Service in the

following stages:

• Identification and verification of the new hierarchy for all footway

sections;

• Revised footway hierarchy for each section uploaded to the asset

management data base system – Confirm; and



• The commissioned service and operational procedures revised for

each footway section.

4.3 Life Cycle Planning

4.3.1 As described in Chapter 1, a national footway lifecycle planning toolkit

has been developed by HMEP. Prototype testing of this toolkit was

undertaken by the HCC Asset Management Team. The final version

of the toolkit was published in November 2012 and will be reviewed

for functionality and suitability for use in HCC.

4.3.2 The toolkit provides a flexible method of lifecycle planning where

aspects of the programme can be altered to create a bespoke model

based on individual authority’s requirements. Due to the variance of

footway data held by each authority, flexibility of modelling

parameters was required to maximum applicability to as many

authorities as possible.

4.3.3 Testing of the toolkit has given HCC a clear understanding of the

lifecycle planning functions available, and a full analysis will be run

now the final version has been released. It is hoped that the lifecycle

planning toolkit will be a suitable tool to establish performance models

and compare budget scenarios for the footway asset at a network

level.

4.4 Updated Footway Surfacing Policy

4.4.1 Hertfordshire has an established Policy for the selection of materials

for footway resurfacing which is designed to ensure low lifecycle costs

and, consequently, the best level of service for the available funding.

Recent changes to the service including the move away from

Highway Joint Member Panels in most areas in favour of a stringer

role for the local member and changes in the structure of the

highways service under the new contracts mean that some of the

wording in the Policy was out of date. An updated form of words

reflecting these changes and offering greater clarity without changing

the Policy is included at Appendix B.



4.5 Footway Condition Monitoring

4.5.1 Footway condition assessment outputs can be used for an array of

functions including works prioritisation, asset valuation, performance

monitoring, financial forecasting and strategy development.

4.5.2 Historically there have been two forms of footway condition

assessments available in the UK Pavement Management System

(UKPMS) suite:

• Detailed visual inspection (DVI); and

• Course visual inspection (CVI).

DVI surveys provide data rich outputs that can be used at scheme

level, but are time consuming to undertake. CVI surveys are designed

as an overview of condition, are faster to undertake, but contain little

detail or functional benefit.

4.5.3 Historically it was a national requirement to report footway condition

for the busiest categories of footways. The DVI survey was used for

this purpose The level of detail collected and time taken to undertake

these surveys meant that only the ‘high’ and ‘medium’ use footways

(in the previous hierarchy) could be surveyed – around 14% of the

total network.

4.5.4 While some benefit can be gained by surveying a sample of the

network, a full network condition assessment using a robust,

repeatable survey method provides a far more useful output.

Complete network survey coverage ensures all footways can be

considered on their merits for inclusion in the integrated and forward

works programmes.

4.5.5 The DVI survey technique is not suitable as a condition assessment

of an entire network due to the slow survey rate and consequent cost.

The CVI is not suitable either due to the low level of information

collected. This was a widely recognised issue which the Footway and

Cycletrack Management Group (FCMG) of the UK Roads Board

sought to solve.



4.5.6 Footway Network Survey: The FCMG created a new footway

condition assessment technique named the Footway Network Survey

(FNS). The FNS is intended to enable comparatively rapid

assessment of the condition of the footway network, compared with a

DVI survey, by assessing a limited range of broadly defined defects.

The FNS is intended to give a more comprehensive assessment of

the condition of the footway network compared with a driven or

walked CVI survey by continuously recording the condition of the

footway and including an aesthetic assessment.

4.5.7 The FNS is designed to provide:

• Cost effectiveness;

• Identification of sites that required maintenance works;

• Assessment of appearance in addition to serviceability and

structural adequacy;

• Headline statistics reporting; and

• A network level condition assessment tool.

4.5.8 Enhanced versions of the FNS have been defined which include

collection of lateral extent of condition and basic inventory information

as part of the survey.

4.5.9 HCC reviewed the FNS (basic and advanced) and determined that

the survey technique is an improvement on previous methods but

does not completely satisfy the needs of the County. It was decided

that the FNS method be modified to better suit County requirements

and trialled as the preferred footway survey technique for the County.

4.5.10 Modified FNS – The UKPMS FNS has been modified to capture

more information at the time of footway inspection. In addition to the

requirements of the basic and enhanced FNS, information is collected

to update the inventory and to provide more detailed input to the

planned and cyclic maintenance programmes.

4.5.11 The modified FNS incorporates the basic and enhanced FNS

collection methodologies and includes additional information:



• Inventory Information – Footway inventory information (such as

the surface material) has not always been updated following

historic works. The FNS provides an opportunity to review and

update inventory information at the time of the survey with minimal

additional time required;

• Defect Extent – FNS only notes the condition score on a 1 to 4

scale. Providing more detail about the defects on site increases

accuracy during treatment selection and budget predictions;

• Defect Cause – Footway condition frequently deteriorates due to

impairment factors e.g. tree root damage or vehicle over-running.

Capturing this information in the survey helps to inform future

maintenance programmes and treatment selection.

Table 4.3: FNS Information Collected

FNS Survey

Basic Enhanced Modified

Condition Information

• Condition Score 1-4


• Lateral Extent of condition scores


• Defect Extent

• Defect Cause

Inventory

Information • None • Basic Material

Type • Primary and

Secondary Material Type

• Verification of:

o Section length

o Width

o Hierarchy

o Cross section position

Survey Outputs

• Basic Cat 4 programme

• Condition Index based on FNS3 and FNS4

• Basic Inventory Update

• Enhanced Cat 4 programme

• More detailed Condition Index of the footway network

• Detailed Inventory Update

• Informs Cat 2 and Cat 5 Service

• Area in need of Cyclical Maintenance

• Scheme Level Cat 4 programme

• Detailed Condition Index of the footway network



4.5.12 Table 4.3 summarises the information collected for basic, enhanced,

and modified FNS methodologies and the outputs from each of the

survey types.

4.5.13 The modified FNS survey method has been trialled during the

2010/11 and 2011/12 financial years with good success. This

assessment method enabled nearly all footways in HCC to be

surveyed within a two year cycle.

4.5.14 So far results from the modified FNS remain suitable to fulfil the

UKPMS requirements and have met HCC’s expectations:

• Annual survey cost is around the same as the previous DVI

surveys while covering much more of the network;

• The survey coverage meets expectations;

• The survey can be used as a network condition monitoring tool;

• The survey should allow headline footway condition reporting;

• Maintenance treatments are able to be selected from the survey

results with further refinement of the selection process required.

4.5.15 Survey records during the trial phase for the modified FNS were

captured on paper forms in the field and input to a MS Excel spread

sheet by an office based resource. This method was time consuming

and not ideal for future survey collections. Options will be compared

for future surveys to allow electronic capture of data in the field and

automated communication of the data to the CONFIRM database

system. Moving to electronic data capture devices simplifies onsite

processes, increases data transfer efficiencies, provides improved

quality control and should increase productivity.

4.5.16 The modified FNS technique is currently being reviewed prior to the

second round of data collection to ensure the condition banding and

treatment selection are aligned. Minor changes to the survey

technique may be required to develop a more robust generation of

forward works treatment selection.

4.5.17 At time of writing some data still needs to be collected and processed

to complete and report on the full survey.




4.6.1 Table 4.5 summarises the footway schemes delivered under the IWP

during 2011/12.

Table 4.5: Footway Programme 2011/2012

Scheme Type Length (m) Area (m2) Cost

(£000’s)

Surface treatment (micro asphalt) 31,800 63,559 £909

Resurfacing & Reconstruction 6,500 12,978 £772

Total 38,300 76,537 £1,680


4.7.1 Table 4.6 summarises the footway schemes intended for delivery

under the IWP during the current year 2012/13.

Table 4.6: Footway Programme 2012/2013

Scheme Type Length (m) Area (m2) Cost

(£000’s)

Surface treatment (micro asphalt) 33,300 66,593 £902

Resurfacing & Reconstruction 8,460 16,917 £966

Total 41,760 83,510 £1,868




4.8 Footway Valuation

4.8.1 Table 4.7 summaries the Footway GRC Valuation for the 2011/2012

financial year by footway hierarchy.

Table 4.7: Footway 2011/2012 Valuation

Urban/Rural Footway

Hierarchy Area (m2) GRC (£000's)

Urban

1 563,472 £46,402

2 1,004,344 £75,982

3 201,912 £13,617

4 8,184,358 £529,907

Rural

1 4,767 £357

2 17,672 £1,214

3 6,360 £389

4 413,116 £25,208

TOTAL 10,396,001 £693,076

4.8.2 Applying the East Anglia Regional Factor of 94.125% and Inflation of

1.10798 to the Footway GRC above determines a Gross Footway

GRC of £722,799,714 or £723m.

4.8.3 The Footway DRC for 2011/12 has been calculated at £439m and the

DRC/GRC ratio using the Gross Footway GRC is equal to 60.8%.

This indicates that the footway asset is 39.2% consumed.



5. Intelligent Transportation Systems

5.1 ITS Strategy

5.1.1 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) are used to facilitate the

efficient movement of vehicles and ease congestion around the HCC

road network. There are many individual Road Management

Transport Control Systems across the network undertaking different

functions.

5.1.2 The individual systems have been reviewed and integration of these

systems will be managed through work packages as detailed in Table

5.1 below.

Table 5.1: ITS Work Packages

Work Package Work Package Detail

Package 1 Traffic Signal Monitoring and Control

Package 2 Interurban Monitoring

Package 3 Urban Monitoring

Package 4 Real Time Passenger Information

Package 5 Traffic and Travel Information (Urban and Inter-Urban)

Package 6 Integrated Transport Control Centre (ITCC)

Package 7 Communications Rationalisation

Package 8 UTMC Common Database

5.1.3 To date work packages 6 (ITCC) and 7 (Communication

Rationalisation) have been completed and works are ongoing to

advance progress made in other work packages.


5.2.1 Table 5.2 below summarises the value of signal schemes delivered as

part of the 2011/2012 IWP.

Table 5.2: ITS Programme 2011/2012

ITS Schemes Code No

Schemes Cost

(£000’s)

Signal Refurbishment (Prep & LSG 29 £545



ITS Schemes Code No

Schemes Cost

(£000’s)

Works Delivery)

Signal Upgrade (Prep & Works Delivery) (ITS Central Projects)

LSJ 26 £1,832

Total 55 £2,377


5.3.1 The table 5.3 below summarises the value of signal schemes

intended for delivery under the IWP during the current year 2012/2013

Table 5.3: ITS Programme 2012/2013

ITS Schemes Code No

Schemes Cost

(£000’s)

Signal Refurbishment

(Prep & Works Delivery) LSG 10 £605

Signal Upgrade (Prep & Works Delivery)

(ITS Central Projects) LSJ 28 £2,800

TOTAL 38 £3,405

5.4 ITS Valuation

5.4.1 Table 5.4 summarises the 2011/2012 GRC valuation for ITS assets.

Table 5.4: ITS Asset Valuation

Asset Type Quantity GRC (£’000s)

Pedestrian Crossings 676 29,145

Traffic Signals 570 19,950

Safety & Speed Camera Equipment 219 2,190

Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) 186 1,719

School Crossings 157 628

Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) 143 715

CCTV 99 495

Variable Message Signs (VMS) 52 929

ANPR Camera 50 250

Other 16 266




UTMC common database 1 340

Total 2,169 £56,627

The total GRC value for the ITS assets is currently calculated at

£56.6M. The DRC value for ITS is calculated at £32.7m, which

equates to 42% of the asset having been consumed.



6. Street Lighting

6.1 Street Lighting Strategy

6.1.1 In 2010/2011 the street lighting service was reviewed with the

objective of providing a more affordable service with a reduced

carbon footprint. This initiative led to implementation of two strategies

that now form the basis for street lighting operations:

1. The conversion of approximately 70% of the county’s 117,000

street lights to part-night operation; and

2. The move to a more affordable lighting maintenance service that

remains safe and operational.

Full details of these strategies are provided in the 2011 APR and a

brief overview of the salient changes to the service is detailed below.

6.1.2 Part-Night Street Lighting - The Council’s exposure to a large and

volatile street lighting energy bill was a significant driver for the move

to part-night lighting. Reducing energy consumption also supports the

Council’s carbon emissions reduction commitments.

Part-night lighting is now the default operating regime for the county’s

street lights. Lights were converted in a rolling programme between

June 2011 and September 2012. A small numbers of units, generally

those with access or engineering difficulties, are still programmed to

be converted.

Implementing the part-night lighting regime has reduced energy

consumption by £1.3m per year (at current prices) from a 2009/2010

(the last complete year for all night street lighting) total of £3.4m.

Carbon emissions have been reduced by 6,700 tonnes per year from

a 2009/2010 total of 22,700 tonnes pa. This reduction will save a

further £300,000 per year by 2015.

Approximately 30% of the county’s street lights have been retained in

all night operation where:



• There is a road obstacle (a junction on a main road, roundabout,

central island, traffic calming measure, pedestrian crossing, etc);

• On ‘A’ roads or roads with a history of night time accidents;

• In town centres and other areas where there is significant night

time activity; and

• At locations covered by CCTV cameras and sites where the police

may request all night lighting is retained.

6.1.3 Safe and Operational Maintenance - The following is a summary of

the safe and operational street lighting maintenance service which

encompasses street lights, illuminated signs, bollards, beacons,

subway lights and high mast lighting.

• The night scouting, fault reporting and repairs strategy detailed in

the 2011 APR has been implemented.

• The ‘Burn to Extinction’ Lamp replacement strategy avoids

premature replacement and maximises the length of service of

lamps. Replacement is to occur at or near failure to maximise cost

efficiencies and to ensure the full life of the lamp is attained

• Priority response times: Emergency response to lighting

equipment will be made within one hour (electrocution hazards)

and two hours (non electrocution hazards) of being notified.

Further detailing of priority response times are being investigated

and risk management may be used as a tool for development of

this strategy.

• Non Priority response times: Permanent repairs to street lighting

defects will be within 20 working days (unless the defect is due to

an electricity supply fault). The standard has changed from the

previous response time of 10 working days.

• Recycling of used equipment will be allowed in order to reduce

waste, reduce purchase costs and get a better match between the

residual life of the column and all its associated equipment.

• Refurbishment of columns will be utilised to a greater extent as

this will extend the current life of the on-site unit and therefore

maximises the assets lifetime value.



• Replacement will follow a ‘point for point’ strategy. Replacement

columns will be sited in the same position as the existing unit, or

very close to it. The replacement lighting columns will not

necessarily match the existing light source but will be safe and

operational.

• A limited range lantern and lamps will be available for selection.

Once such consequence will include the change from an orange

light source to an energy efficient modem white lamp.

• Newly installed columns will be finished in galvanised steel,

exceptions include; conservation or town centres.

• For newly installed lighting columns electrical testing will not be

undertaken until the 12th year of operation. Older equipment will

be electrical tested on an 8 year rolling programme.

• Structural and Electrical testing of columns will be scheduled

using a risk based approach considering location, height and

previous test results.

6.1.4 National Toolkit – The HMEP suite of tools includes a lifecycle

planning toolkit for Ancillary Assets which has been reviewed by the

HCC Asset Management Team. The toolkit is in the final stages of

development and HCC will make an assessment of tactical and

operational relevance once the toolkit is finalised.

It is hoped the toolkit will provide robust, realistic analysis of the works

projects to optimise the budget spent. A review of the current spend

profile against an optimised lifecycle plan will be developed over the

coming 12months.

6.2 2011/2012 Street Lighting Programme

6.2.1 Table 6.1 summarises the completed street lighting programme for

the financial year 2011/2012.



Table 6.1: Street Lighting Programme 2011/2012

Street Lighting Schemes Number of units

Cost (£000’s)

Replacement Works 936 £1075

Improvement Schemes £14

Major Schemes £232

Highway Locality Budget £17

TOTAL 936 £1338

6.3 2012/2013 Street Lighting Programme

6.3.1 No street lighting improvement schemes were undertaken during the

first half of 2012/2013 i.e. the last 6 months of the old contract, but

481 replacement units were installed as part of the refurbishment

programme at a cost of £510k.

6.3.2 From October 2012 to March 2013 works are to be identified following

the new strategy as presented in section 6.1. Lighting columns will be

replaced on detection of deterioration in accordance with section 6.1.

6.4 Street Lighting Valuation

6.4.1 Table 6.2 below summarises the 2011/2012 GRC valuation for the

Street Lighting Assets.

Table 6.2: Street Lighting Valuation

Asset Type Quantity GRC (£’000s)

Lighting Columns 115,673 108,038

Subway Lighting Units 3,884 1,748

Heritage Columns 2,000 5,000

Feeder Pillars 1,459 584

Illuminated Bollards 5,734 2,294

Externally Illuminated Signs 12,360 8,022

Total 141,110 125,684

The total GRC value for Street Lighting is currently calculated at

£125.7M.

6.4.2 Street Lighting DRC has been calculated at £26m, which equates to

76% of the asset having been consumed.




7. Highway Structures

7.1 Structures Asset Overview

7.1.1 Hertfordshire County Council has a large highway structures stock.

Valued at approximately £865m, they account for approximately 13%

of the calculated Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) of the entire

highway asset. There are in excess of 2400 highway structures on

Hertfordshire’s road network, of which approximately 1700 are owned

and maintained by HCC. The remainder are owned and maintained

by Network Rail, Canals and Rivers Trust (formally British Waterways)

and District and Borough Councils. HCC’s structures are broken down

into the following structure types:

Table 7.1: Breakdown of HCC Structures by Type

Structure Type Count Proportion

River Bridge 363 20%

Road Bridge 137 8%

Rail Bridge 27 2%

Footbridge 121 7%

Viaduct (multi-span) 7 0%

Subway 327 18%

Culvert 390 22%

Small Culvert (<0.9m) 197 11%

Retaining Wall 101 6%

Earth Embankments 3 0%

Tunnel 1 0%

High Mast 114 6%

Other 9 1%

Total 1797* 100%

7.1.2 The asset inventory is refined continually as further information

becomes available through inspections. From time to time new

structures are added to the network by development. For example

the numbers above have increased by 63. This is due to a number of



subway complexes, previously considered as one structure has been

broken down into four or five separate structures.

7.2 Structures Strategy

7.2.1 Scheme Development: Schemes are developed and promoted into

the Forward Works Programme (FWP) in two ways:

• Inspection records: Condition data and identified defects from

the inspections are used to identify required maintenance actions

which are then developed into schemes. Maintenance schemes

are then prepared and promoted in the highways FWP. Once

agreed, bridge schemes are delivered via the Integrated Works

Programme (IWP).

• Asset Management: Bridge Asset Management involves making

strategic targeted maintenance interventions to maximise the life

and value of the bridge stock. By way of demonstration - re-

waterproofing a reinforced concrete bridge will prevent road salts

penetrating the concrete and accelerating the corrosion of steel

reinforcement. Left unchecked corroded steel reinforcement will

expand and cause cracking and spalling of the concrete.

Eventually the corrosion and cracking will become severe and will

result in failure of the reinforced concrete. Therefore it is effective

to intervene and renew the waterproofing layer before it starts to

leak. This relatively simple example provides some insight into the

complexity and inter-dependencies of bridge elements and the

need to understand how interaction will affect the endurance of all

elements.

7.2.2 Over the coming year Hertfordshire will develop bridge life cycle

planning which will identify maintenance interventions (similar to

above) that preserve the future life and value of the bridge stock. It is

an aspiration that each structure will have its own individual life cycle

plan, but due to the number and complexity of the structures involved



generic life cycle plans for groups of structures of similar construction

will be used in the interim.

7.2.3 Life cycle plans will allow Asset Management principles to be applied

to the development of the bridge Forward Works Programme (FWP).

For example, a generic life cycle plan for large span concrete bridges

will be prepared, which will describe the interactions of likely defects

(as show in the re-waterproofing example above).

7.2.4 Maintenance interventions can then be planned by reference to the

life cycle plan. The FWP will then be delivering two objectives. Firstly

it will address known defects on individual bridge elements where

deteriorated condition has accelerated the overall condition of the

bridge. Secondly it will be identifying where timely maintenance

intervention will prevent further deterioration. Over time the FWP will

develop as the data, plans and models used to create it get more

refined.

7.2.5 Nationally a structures Asset Managing Toolkit is being developed.

Hertfordshire’s approach to asset management follows the principles

of this toolkit, but the toolkit itself cannot be used yet as it requires

refinement and development. The next step for the toolkit is for its

algorithms to be incorporated into our bridge management system,

Confirm.



7.3 Structures Condition Monitoring

7.3.1 Overview: Hertfordshire County Council carries out a General

Inspections (GI) on each of its structures every two years. More

detailed Principal Inspections (PI) are currently undertaken on a

selection of bridges, typically all bridges crossing railways and all

bridges with spans greater than 8m. The PI process is being refined

and the PI regime will move to a risk-based approach, in line with the

current code of practice, during the next inspection cycle. A risk based

PI regime provides better value. It alters the interval between

inspection based on the consequences and likelihood of structural

failure.

7.3.2 Inspections: The inspections are carried out in accordance with the

Inspection Manual for Highway Structures. The inspection manual is a

nationally published procedure for inspecting highway bridges.

Additional national guidance is currently being prepared for risk based

approaches to PIs.

7.3.3 The data from the inspections is collated and used to generate a

Bridge Condition Indicator Score (BCI) for every structure. The BCI’s

are combined to calculate an overall score for the entire bridge stock.

Two BCI scores are prepared. The BCI average includes all elements

of the bridge. The BCI Critical score considers only the critical load

carrying elements.

7.3.4 Hertfordshire’s current BCI scores are:

• BCIAVERAGE (Stock) score is 90; and

• BCICRI (Stock) score is 87.



Figure 7.1: Hertfordshire BCI (Stock)

7.3.5 The table below details the number of structural inspections that are

to be undertaken during the 2012/2013 period. It is clear to see that

approximately 50% of the structures are inspected in any one year

and this provides a good historical record of condition. This

information will be used for scheme identification and management of

the asset as demonstrated below.

Table 7.2: Structure Condition Inspections

Structure Type 2011-12 2012-13

Count % Count %

River Bridge 163 45% 156 43%

Road Bridge 73 53% 50 36%

Rail Bridge 16 59% 8 30%

Footbridge 57 47% 51 42%

Viaduct (multi-span) 2 29% 4 57%

Subway 152 46% 133 41%

Culvert 199 51% 148 38%

Small Culvert (<0.9m) 92 47% 80 41%

Retaining Wall 56 55% 38 38%

Earth Embankments 1 33% 2 67%

Tunnel 1 100% 0 0%

High Mast N/A N/A N/A N/A

Other 6 67% 6 67%

Total* 818 49% 676 38%

BCIAVE 2012 = 90

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

100

90

80

65

40

BCICRI 2012 = 87



7.4 2011/2012 Structures Programme

The following schemes were delivered in the financial year 2011/12.

Table 7.3: Structures Programme 2011/2012

Project Name Project Type IWP

Reference Cost

(£000’s)

Fairlands Way Footbridge - Stevenage

Re-waterproofing COM12033 £95

Water Lane – Kings Langley

Strengthening BRG08008 £427

Broadwater Crescent – Stevenage

Parapet Upgrade BRG08009 £221

Rothampstead Farm – Redbourn

Re-waterproofing BRG08012 £166

Two Waters – Hemel Hempstead

Re-waterproofing BRG11012 £88

Verity Way - Stevenage Re-waterproofing BRG1013 £100

Scheme preliminary design Various Various £100

Outside party costs e.g. Network Rail possessions and utility diversions

Various Various £50

Total £1,247

7.5 2012/2013 Structures Programme

7.5.1 In October 2012 Hertfordshire began new contractual arrangements

with Opus-Arup, Ringway and selection of framework contractors.

Opus-Arup are completing the general and principal inspection

programme. The major maintenance schemes are being carried out

through a dedicated specialist design and build framework contractor.

7.5.2 Since 1st October delivery of the inspection programme is on target

(Break down of inspections is included within table 2 above). The

works budget for 2012/13 was delivered by the old contractual

arrangements and was concluded before 1st October. It is anticipated

that the new specialist framework contractor will commence scheme

delivery early in the next financial year.



7.5.3 The current programme delivers £1.1m of capital spend. It is

anticipated that one or two additional schemes will be added to the

programme from the new asset management regime to deliver the

total budget spend.

Table 7.4: Structures Programme 2012/2013

Project Name Project Type IWP

Reference Cost

(£000’s)

Hadham Hall Bridge HCC No. 31

Waterproofing BRG08010 £83

Mole Bridge (Joints Only) HCC No. 1494

Railway Protection Measures

BRG12012 £68

Westmill Rd Sth Interchange Bridge (Joints Only) HCC No 1472

Railway Protection Measures

BRG12014 £42

Little Chishill Bridge HCC No. 239


Sefton Road West End Subway HCC No. 941


Lonsdale Road Bridge Parapets HCC No.971

Parapet Upgrades

BRG10033 £175

Gunnelswood Road Subway HCC No. 910 & 912

Parapet Upgrades

BRG10039 £227

Three Cherry Trees Lane Cycle Bridge

Refurbishment BRG11014 £148

Scheme preliminary design Various Various £280

Total

£1,213

7.6 Structures Valuation

7.6.1 Nationwide (through the Association of Directors of Engineering,

Economy, Planning and Transport (ADEPT)), bridge owners are

beginning to implement an Asset Management approach to bridge

management. The commencement of an asset management

approach is delivered through the valuation requirement. Whole

Government Accounts reporting is a national requirement and intrinsic

structures data is required for this reporting aspect. The valuation




report is divided into two aspects; Gross Replacement Cost (GRC)

and the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC).

7.6.2 Gross Replacement Cost (GRC). Hertfordshire has successfully

calculated the (GRC) of its bridge stock utilising nationally developed

valuation tools. The GRC represents the theoretical cost to rebuild

Hertfordshire’s bridge stock from scratch. The GRC methodology is

simplistic, and in essence identifies unit costs for each generic

structure group and multiplies them by the known deck areas. The

results are calculated through these generic groups of similar

structures and for Hertfordshire are broken down as detailed in Table

7.5.

Table 7.5: Gross Replacement Cost (GRC)

Structure Group Number of Structures

GRC Value (£'000s)

Bridge: Pedestrian/Cycle (multi-span) 52 £22,947

Bridge: Pedestrian/Cycle (single span) 73 £14,384

Bridge: Vehicular (2 or 3 spans) 128 £427,087

Bridge: Vehicular (single span) 363 £284,254

Culvert (multi-cell) 94 £20,905

Culvert (single cell) 537 £38,504

High Mast Lighting 118 £2,338

Retaining Wall (height > 3m) 29 £7,064

Retaining Wall (height ≤ 3m) 67 £5,198

Underpass (or Subway): Pedestrian 273 £41,396

Total* 1734 £864,076

*Note the number of structures in the valuation has not yet been updated to

reflect the breakup of subway complexes (see table 7.1). This change would

have a small effect on the GRC as a whole.

7.6.3 Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC). The second requirement of

WGA is to report the (DRC) valuation. The DRC essentially indicates

the residual value and in effect the useable life of the asset.

Calculating the DRC is complex; the condition (from inspection) of



each bridge needs to be considered and gives an indication of the

residual life of each element and therefore more holistically the bridge

as a single asset. Through the nationally developed tools it is then

possible to calculate the corresponding depreciation in the bridges

value as dictated through the recorded condition.

7.6.4 Deterioration of complex structures like bridges require non linear

inter-dependant relationships of element interaction paired against

influences from external factors. Central Government has recently

published a toolkit which combines element condition data to

calculate the GRC and DRC. The toolkit requires careful programming

and verification to ensure that the inputted information is compatible

with the pre-set format.

7.6.5 Hertfordshire’s Asset Management Team formed part of the national

testing group. The toolkit has two main output streams – Valuation

and Lifecycle planning. Due to time constraints the imposed through

WGA the toolkit was released as a valuation tool with LCP to be fully

developed. It is understood that the toolkit provides a ball park result

for valuation purposes and is a consistent method of calculation for all

authorities. Further developed nationally and locally is being made in

relation to LCP and deterioration modelling.



8. New Strategies

8.1 Safety Inspection Manual Defect Management Approach

8.1.1 The Safety Inspection Manual review was noted and endorsed by the

Highways and Transport Cabinet Panel at its meeting in February

2012 and uploaded onto Herts Direct web site in April 2012. The

Safety Inspection Manual and current operating practice aligns

generally with the Well-Maintained Highways code of practice.

8.1.2 Further development of the Safety Inspection Manual is planned as

part of the re-letting of the Highways HST contract. The Safety

Inspection Manual will be amended and enhanced as part of the new

Defect Management Approach applied by Ringway.

8.1.3 The HST contractor will be required to implement a Defect

Management Approach through the provisions of the HST contract

and in accordance with the Council’s policy and guidance, contained

in the following documents:

• The Safety Inspection Manual setting out the HCC policy and

guidance for inspecting the highway and assessing Emergencies,

Category 1 (safety issues) and Category 2 (asset protection)

defects identified internally by the HST contractor.

• The Enquiry Guidance Notes - sets out guidance for assessing

defects (including service requests) by Ringway as reported by the

public or stakeholders.

• The ‘Assess and Decide’ Strategy - sets out the HCC practice and

guidance for the prioritisation of and commitment by the HST

contractor to Emergency, Category 1 and Category 2 response

work (Contractor Directed Services).

8.1.4 As reported to the panel in November 2012, The Safety Inspection

Manual provides details for the response times for Category 1 and

Category 2 defects, dependant upon footway classification. Once the

new footway hierarchy (see Chapter 4) has been implemented, the

Inspection Manual processes will be mapped to the new footway



hierarchy classifications. Overall service standards will remain

unchanged but may change for individual footways where the

classification has been altered through the review process.

8.1.5 The Inspection Manual; Under the Highways Act 1980 HCC, as a

Highway Authority, has a statutory duty to maintain its highways for

use by the public. This activity contributes to the corporate objective

of promoting safe neighbourhoods. The Inspection Manual sets out

the Council’s standards (no significant change of standards in terms

of intervention levels and response times from that specified in the

previous Safety Inspection Manual) for those carrying out direct

highway inspections. Also how defects are to be assessed,

categorised and coded. The Inspection Manual follows the principles

contained in the DETR document ‘Delivering Best Value in Highway

Maintenance’ and the Road Liaison Group Code of Practice for

Highway maintenance document - “Well-maintained Highways”,

regarding the adoption of a defect risk assessment approach to be

applied to safety inspections. All risks identified have been evaluated

in terms of their significance which has meant assessing defects

against the likely impact should the risk occur and the probability of it

actually happening.

8.1.6 Reactive and planned programmes of work to remedy Defects are

dependent on the physical and financial resources available to the

Council to manage the risks that Defects present. The Inspection

Manual therefore provides guidance on the appropriate identification

and classification of Category 1 and Category 2 Defects and the

prioritisation to be given to remedying them. The basic principle that

HCC set down to guide Highway Inspectors in making these Defect

categorisation judgements is: ‘that the total risk to the public should

be minimised by the appropriate combination of reasonable yet

realistic Hazard Mitigation Time and Defect Remedy Time selections’.

8.1.7 The Inspection Manual also provides the evidence of the programme

of work that facilitates the aforementioned activity that helps address



third party insurance claims against the Authority (currently around

£1.2m per annum).

8.1.8 The HST Contractor carries out Safety Inspections to minimum return

frequencies, ad-hoc inspections in response to defect reports or

referrals and identifies Category 2 defects using an accredited system

of inspection.

8.1.9 The Highway Inspector will identify Defects and assign them to a

Defect Class drawn from the Council’s Common Defect Class Set.

The Highway Inspector will assess the risk of the Defect from a

consideration of the Potential Impact of the Defect and the Potential

Probability of the Defect risk occurring. The Highway Inspector will

use the Risk Characteristics described in the Council’s defect class

policies as a guide when making this assessment. The Highway

Inspector will assign a Common Defect Risk Rating to each Defect in

the range 1 – 25. The Defect Response Standard for each Defect

Class / Defect Risk Rating combination is described in the individual

defect class policies. These describe the Council’s policy for Hazard

Mitigation and Permanent Remedy to the Defect. The Highway

Inspector will set out the responsibility for defect response in

accordance with the guidance given in the defect class policies and

from available on-site information regarding Hazard Mitigation

Responsibility and Permanent Remedy Responsibility.



8.1.10 The Risk Rating defines the Defect Category as being :

8.1.11 The Enquiry Guidance Notes provide a standard approach for

categorising customer reported defects. They seek to emulate the

defect management arrangements of the Inspection Manual. The

associated highway fault reporting codes and scripted 'closed'

questions / mandatory fields within the Herts Direct web filter and

Customer Service Centre will be amended and updated to reflect the

levels of service within the Inspection Manual and Enquiry Guidance

Notes.

8.1.12 The reporting customer will be prompted to supply information that will

enable an effective response to a Defect. This will consist of

Mandatory and Optional information. The information requested

varies by Defect Class and is informed by the Council’s defect class

guides. The general presumption is against the routine transfer of

customer defect reports for direct inspection. This will only occur if the

if customer has provided only a location and description, without the

other mandatory information.

Defect Category

Defect Risk Rating

Hazard Mitigation Response Time

Permanent Remedy Time

Emergency 25 A roads 1 hour, Other roads 2 hours

Not Applicable

Category 1 Defect

20 24 hours Not Applicable

Category 1 Defect

16 Not Applicable 7 days (Permanent Pothole repairs only)

Category 1 Defect

15 Not Applicable 14 days (Permanent Pothole repairs only), 28 days

Category 2(H) Defect

9 to 12 Not Applicable Assess & Decide Strategy

Category 2(M) Defect


Category 2(L) Defect




8.1.13 The customer-supplied information will be used in a Summary Defect

Risk Assessment using rules set out for each Defect Class in the

Council’s defect class guides. The intention is that these rules

emulate the full risk assessment that a highway inspector would

undertake.

8.1.14 The Summary Defect Risk Assessment rules generate a Defect Risk

Rating in accordance with the Common Defect Risk Rating set.

8.1.15 The Defect Response Standard for each Defect Class / Defect Risk

Rating combination will be set in accordance with the defect class

guides. These standards are by policy the same as those applied to

Defects identified by direct inspection.

8.1.16 The reporting customer will be offered active / passive feedback.

Response Descriptions are included in the defect class guides.

8.1.17 The HST Contractor implements the identified Defect Responses

through the Contractor Directed Services: Emergency Service,

Category 1 Defect Remedy Service or Category 2 Service in

accordance with the Assess and Decide Stratgey..

8.1.18 The Assess and Decide Strategy; The Assess and Decide Strategy

sets out HCC’s strategy for the prioritisation and commitment to

Emergency, Category 1 and Category 2 response work from the

limited budgets.

8.1.19 The Assess & Decide Strategy comprises:

• An HCC Budget Manager will allocate a single Service Budget for

the Emergency / Category 1 / Category 2 Services.

• An HST Delegated Budget Holder will be accountable for holding,

best utilisation and reporting on the single Service Budget.

• An Assess and Decide Prioritisation Framework sets out the HCC

priorities for the best use of the single Service Budget.

• A set of HCC Priority Rules direct prioritisation of the Service

Budget use in any year within the Assess and Decide Prioritisation

Framework.



• Annual Planned Work Programme for pre-planned work periods

for specific types of Category 1 and Category 2 responses.

8.1.20 The objectives of the Assess & Decide Prioritisation Framework

comprise:

• To commit to Emergency and Category 1 Response demands.

• To prioritise Category 2 (High) Response demand by Defect Risk

Rating. Not to commit if Defect is to be remedied by other work

planned in Category 4 or 5 programmes within a three month

period. To commit to Category 2 (High) Response demand if

District Category 2 Defect Group Sub Budget is available for the

relevant Defect Group and time period.

• To prioritise Category 2 (Medium) and Category 2 (Low)

Response demand by Defect Risk Rating. Not to commit if Defect

is to be remedied by other work planned in Category 4 or 5

programmes within a six month period (for Category 2 (Medium))

and twelve month (for Category 2 (Low)) period respectively. To

commit to Category 2 (Medium) and Category 2 (Low) Response

demand if District Category 2 Defect Group Sub Budget is

available for the relevant Defect Group and time period. To

prioritise demand by Added Service Value Criteria.

8.1.21 The Added Service Value Criteria applies to prioritisation Levels for

Category 2 (Medium) Demand and Category 2 (Low) Demand and

allow for subjective prioritisation of Defect response to take place after

the objective prioritisation of the defects based on Defect Risk Rating,

according to the potential Added Service Value that may be accrued.

The aim is to further assist in the best value utilisation of the Service

Budgets, allowing differentiation of defect response work that would

otherwise be of similar prioritisation when considered by Defect Risk

Rating alone. The Added Service Value Criteria reflects the broad

HCC service objectives and comprise the following themes:

• Network safety

• Claims reduction

• Contract Critical Success Factors



• HCC Corporate Themes

• Environment Department / Transport Management Group

Outcomes

• Local Transport Plan 3

• Transport Asset Management Principles

8.1.22 The HCC Priority Rules comprise:

• The reservation of Service Budget for Emergency Response,

• Relative prioritisation of District Sub Budgets,

• The reservation of District Sub Budgets for Category 1 Response,

• Relative prioritisation of District Category 2 Defect Group Sub

Budgets,

• The distribution of sub budget profiles month on month through the

year,

• Prioritisation of individual Defect Classes within Defect Groups.

8.1.23 Objectives of the HST Contractor's Annual Planned Work Programme

comprise:

• Creating efficiency by reducing defect response overheads and

unit costs through the ‘bundling’ of work,

• Optimising defect response work quality by planning interventions

to appropriate annual / seasonal periods,

• Reducing network disruption resulting from defect responses by

avoiding known seasonal and calendar network usage peaks,

• Optimising value for money by pre planning service resources and

procurement,

• Creating greater efficiency in Member and customer

communication expenditure.

8.1.24 The inclusion of Defect Responses within the HST Contractor's

Annual Planned Work Programme would include Category 1 Defect

Permanent Remedy (within 7, 14 and 28 days), Category 2 (High),

Category 2 (Medium) and Category 2 (Low) within three, six and

twelve months of commitment respectively.



8.1.25 It is planned for the HST contractor to implement and operate the

Defect Management Approach through the provisions of the HST

contract from early Summer 2013.

8.2 Highway Tree Strategy

8.2.1 Background; The highway tree strategy, as part of the Transport

Asset Management Plan (TAMP) was noted and endorsed by the

Highways and Transport Panel at its meeting in February 2012. The

highway tree strategy and current operating practice aligns generally

with the (CoP) Well-maintained highways and is linked to the County

Councils Safety Inspection Manual.

8.2.2 As reported to the panel in February 2012, further development work

on the highway tree strategy is likely in the near future and the

production of the draft highway tree strategy and guidance document

shown at Appendix C is the result of the development work.

8.2.3 The County Council, in its role as highway authority, and District &

Borough Councils, as agents to the highway authority (through

agency, agreements) provide and deliver the highway tree service as

part of the environmental management of green infrastructure (i.e.

grass cutting, trees, shrubs, hedges and weed control).

8.2.4 The County Council owns and is responsible for an estimated

150,000 highway trees at a total cost (consisting primarily of

emergency, reactive and planned maintenance) of approximately £1

million per annum (including agency agreements).

8.2.5 Under the Highways Act 1980 HCC as a highway authority has a

statutory duty to maintain its highways for use by the public. This

activity contributes to the corporate objective of promoting safe

neighbourhoods. The management of highway trees to ensure they

do not pose a danger to the public or property (and third party trees

that may affect the highway) falls within this duty.

8.2.6 The County Council has developed and produced with arboricultural

advice, a strategy for the installation, holistic management, removal



and replacement of highway trees aligned with the recommendations

in the (CoP) Well-Maintained Highways. The strategy also recognises

the amenity and nature conservation value of trees and seeks to

manage ongoing risk to the authority. Internal and external

stakeholders (i.e. Hertfordshire Green Infrastructure Group

comprising District & Borough Councils, Countryside Management

Service, HCC’s Public Rights of Way and HCC’s Landscape Officer)

were consulted upon the draft highway tree strategy in spring and

summer of 2012 and where appropriate their comments and

suggestions have been incorporated into the draft highway tree

strategy.

8.2.7 HCC seeks to comply with established best practice with regard to:

• Discharging its duty of care and dealing with public liability claims;

• Aligning with its Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP,

daughter document of the Local Transport Plan - LTP) and asset

management approach (i.e. knowing the size and condition of

asset to establish need and service level);

• Procurement and holistic management of affordable services (i.e.

the need to inform potential suppliers of the size and condition of

asset and scope of duties); and

• Contributing to the Green agenda and aligning with Hertfordshire’s

Strategic Green Infrastructure Plan (i.e. increasing the focus on

the benefits of its highway tree stock, seeking to manage and

improve them in a safe and sustainable way).

8.2.8 Hertfordshire stakeholders (including HCC), in response to the

Governments Natural Environment White Paper in 2011, applied to

Defra and became a formally recognised Local Nature Partnership

(LNP) in mid September 2012. LNPs are expected to improve the

range of benefits and services we get from a healthy natural

environment, provide local strategic leadership on environmental

issues and to contribute to the green economy by linking with Local

Enterprise Partnerships (LEP’s).



8.2.9 The highway tree strategy and guidance document; The scope of

the highway tree strategy and guidance document covers the

inspection, maintenance and replacement regimes for highway trees

only (including those on Public Rights of Way with a metalled

(asphalt) surface).

8.2.10 Records of tree inspections and safety related maintenance work will

be retained, maintained and updated on HCC’s Confirm system. The

intent is to establish a standard for data collection across the county

to support an asset management approach to funding bids, to inform

allocation of resource, to achieve best value for money, and to

provide a resource for green infrastructure analyses.

8.2.11 Initial key objectives comprise:

(i) Short term:

• Obtain endorsement for this Strategy;

• Complete the planned service inspections (hazard condition

assessment) and associated prioritised safety related works of

highway trees maintained directly by HCC within high risk zones

by the end of March 2013, subject to outcome of inspections and

programme affordability; and

• Provide an update on progress in delivering the key objectives as

part of the TAMP asset performance report to HCC’s Highways &

Transport Panel in 2013.

(ii) Medium term to be delivered by March 2014:

• Complete the planned service inspections and associated

prioritised safety related works of highway trees maintained

directly by HCC within medium and low risk zones, subject to

outcome of inspections and programme affordability;

• Capture a comprehensive and up to date highway tree asset

inventory for highway trees maintained directly by HCC and

indirectly by its agents recorded in HCC’s Confirm system and in

Herts Direct Web Maps; and

• Highway agency arrangements between HCC and District and

Borough Councils to align with this Strategy.



(iii) Long term to be delivered beyond March 2014:

• Reduce the cost of reactive maintenance and the cost of tree

related public liability claims through preventative maintenance;

and

• Establish and maintain an affordable, deliverable programme of

planting and replanting highway trees based on evidence of need

with an associated whole life cycle maintenance regime through

partnership working and funding (i.e. via internal (e.g. County

Councillor Highway Locality Budget) and external parties (e.g.

District & Borough Council contributions) and organisations).

8.2.12 The highway tree strategy and guidance document provides clear

guidance on the installation, holistic management, removal and

replacement of highway trees. The highway tree strategy and

guidance document will be the first point of reference for tree issues

and makes reference to documents which are available on the

internet in the most up to date version. The final version of the

highway tree strategy and guidance document will be available on line

and the internet links to national guidance will be provided.

8.2.13 Financial Implications; To continue to provide an affordable,

holistically managed emergency, reactive and planned maintenance

service for highway trees from within the existing highways budget

and to establish and maintain an affordable and sustainable prioritised

programme of planting new and replacement highway trees funded

from existing County Councillor Highway Locality Budget

and contributions from external parties utilising the results from the

planned tree inspections to inform allocation of resource to achieve

best value for money.

8.2.14 The highway tree strategy and guidance document will help contribute

to reducing the cost of reactive maintenance and the cost of tree

related public liability claims through reasonable, appropriate,

affordable, sustainable, realistic and deliverable regimes of holistically

managed planned, proactive and preventative maintenance.



8.2.15 Future monitoring / review: Designated responsible officers (HCC’s

Highways Senior Asset Manager) will ensure that systems of

monitoring are put in place. These may be subject to periodic internal

audit. The highway tree strategy and guidance document including

key objectives will be kept under regular review amended and

enhanced on a periodic basis to keep up to date with current best

practice and is formally reviewed every 5 years.



List of Appendices:

Appendix A: Sample Drainage Bid Technical Form

Appendix B: Updated Footway Surfacing Policy

Appendix C: Draft Highway Tree Strategy and Guidance Document



Appendix A: Sample Drainage Bid Technical

Form & Procedure Flow Chart (for

Information)



Appendix B: Updated Footway Surfacing Policy

Hertfordshire County Council - Footway Surfacing Policy

The materials to be used when construction, repair, replacement or renewal of footway surfaces is required within specific area types are to be as follows:

Type A - Town Centre – Main shopping street

i) If the existing surface is already asphalt then replacement /renewal shall be with an asphalt material.*

ii) If the existing surface is of pre–cast concrete paving slabs then replacement / renewal shall remain as slabs or change to another appropriate form of surface such as modular or block paving.*

iii) If the existing surface is modular, block or already enhanced surface then replacement / renewal shall be with a similar standard of material so far as is practicable, although the precise nature of the finish may need to be varied.*

*In Type A streets it may be considered appropriate to enhance the existing surface if a third party is willing to contribute the additional costs involved. However the choice of material should fit the County Council’s long term maintenance needs in terms of durability and sourcing replacement materials.

Conservation areas – replacement / renewal should be of the existing material or an appropriate, similar alternative, except after consultation with the local member.

Type B – Non Town Centre and all other areas including local shopping precincts, residential, commercial and rural areas

i) If the existing surface is already bituminous then replacement /renewal shall be with a bituminous material.

ii) If the existing surface is non – bituminous surface then replacement / renewal shall be with a bituminous material.*

* Exceptionally, at the discretion of the Head of Profession, Asset Management & Maintenance in consultation with the local member, a Type B footway with an existing enhanced surface, such as yorkstone paving may be maintained to that standard rather than being replaced with a bituminous material.

Conservation areas – replacement / renewal should be of the existing material or an appropriate, similar alternative, except after consultation with the local member.

This Policy does not restrict the materials used to address hazards or make temporary, safety-related repairs.



Table 1: Summary of Footway Surface Renewal Options

Existing Surface Material

Replacement Material

Type A Footways

(Main shopping streets

of a town centre)

Type B Footways

(All other areas not covered by type A including, local shopping precincts, residential, commercial and rural areas)

Asphalt Asphalt.* Asphalt

Pre-cast concrete slabs

A range of options for finished surface can be considered including pre- cast concrete slabs, blocks, asphalt or other appropriate surface.*

Asphalt

Modular paving / blocks

Existing surface can be maintained at a similar standard so far as is practicable although the precise nature of the finish may need to be varied.*

Asphalt

Enhanced surface (e.g. Yorkstone paving)

Existing surface can be maintained at a similar standard so far as is practicable although the precise nature of the finish may need to be varied.*

At the discretion of the Head of Profession the existing surface may be maintained at a similar standard so far as is practicable, although the precise nature of the finish may need to be varied.

Table 1 above summarises permitted replacement/renewal surface types for footways based on area type and existing surface material. See the full text of the Policy for details. Note: This was formally adopted as HCC Policy by the Executive Member in consultation with the Director of Environment in November 2005, following discussion by the Highways and Transportation Panel in September 2005. Issue 2 produced in January 2013 to reflect changes to the service following the end of the Herts Highways contracts.

Transport Asset Management Plan Asset … Asset Management Plan Asset Performance Report ......

Documents

Transcript of Transport Asset Management Plan Asset … Asset Management Plan Asset Performance Report ......