Agenda item

Colin Knight, Highway Network Manager, presented the Council’s Highways Asset Management Policy, Strategy and revised Highway Asset Management Plan (HAMP) for the period 2015-2021.

 

The Chairman drew attention to the fact that the Policy had been considered by Commissioner Manzie and was to be considered at the 21^st October Council meeting.  Assurances had been given that any recommendations made by the Select Commission would be conveyed to officers and Commissioners and raised at the Council meeting.

 

Members received the following powerpoint presentation:-

 

Highway Maintenance Background

-          The Council was responsible for maintaining 700 miles of roads and 1,300 miles of footways/PROW

-          The highways network was the Council’s single biggest asset with a value of around £1.72b (gross replacement value)

-          The Authority’s approach to highway maintenance was based on two principles:-

·        Primary objective was to keep Rotherham’s roads and footways in a safe condition and to nationally recognised standard

·        Carry out programmed maintenance works as cost effectively as possible (not necessarily works on roads that are in the worst condition)

-          A deteriorating network means an increasing amount of funding is spent on reactive maintenance (potholes).

 

Assets and Performance Management

 

Asset Type	Quantity	Estimated Gross Replacement Cost (£M)	Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) (£M)
Carriageways	712 miles (1,143 km)	£1,257M	£1,202M
Footways	1,052 miles (1,689 km)	£219M	£192M
Drainage	45,500 chambers, gullies etc. and 35 km of drainage pipes/chambers	Included in carriageway costs	Included in carriageway costs
Street Lighting/Furniture	35,216 street lights columns	£73M	£67M
Structures	185 structures – bridges, culverts and underpasses	£164m	£157m
Traffic Systems	107 traffic signalised junctions and pedestrian crossings	£14M	£6M
	Total Cost	£1.726b	£1.630b

 

Highway Asset Condition

 

Road Classification	RMBC (2013/14)	National Average (2013/14)
Principle – A Roads (In 2008 extra £5M Capital funding injected to improve road network)	3%	4%
Non-Principal – B & C Roads (an extra £3M investment over 3 years)	7%	8%
Unclassified – U Roads (estate roads) (Capital investment in 2015/16 and 2016/17 of £5M to address the deterioration	21%	18%
Footways	25%	Not available

 

Policy – Sets out what we want to achieve and links to the Corporate Vision over the medium to long term.

-          We believe good asset management is fundamental in enabling RMBC to effectively deliver highway services to achieve its long term corporate priorities

-          It will enable informed decisions to be made about investment and maintenance funding

-          Resources can then be targeted at where they are most effective

-          Enable the identification and management of risk associated with our statutory duty to manage and maintain

 

Strategy - Outlines the approach to managing highway infrastructure

-          Corporate objective – to keep highways safe and well maintained

-          Departmental priorities – to national average condition

-          Asset Management Policy

-          Asset Management Strategy

-          Highway Asset Management Plans

-          Rotherham’s Highway Asset Management Plan

·      Good data management (inventory)

·      Levels of Service and Performance Management

·      Asset Lifecycle Planning

·      Risk Management

·      Works Programmes

 

Outcomes

-          To provide safe highway network for all our users

-          Improve customer satisfaction

-          Maximise the funding to repair as much of highway network as possible

-          Reduce the number of properties at risk of flooding

-          Reduce our energy consumption

 

Highway Lifecycle Planning

-          The impact of early intervention treatments (such as surface dressing) can return the carriageway to an almost new condition

-          Lifecycle planning used to develop investment strategies to deliver an agreed level of performance or, where funding becomes constrained, a prediction of the effect of particular funding scenarios on the levels of services that can be delivered

-          Enabled Services to be delivered as effectively as possible allowing a clear and logical allocation of resources to those areas which would contribute most to the overall objectives and priorities of the Council and allow an assessment to be made of the residual risk

 

Decision Making Process

-          Taking into consideration asset condition, safety lifestyle cost, stakeholder interest and how supports Corporate objectives

-          By the use of robust evidence-based decision making processes, the Department was able to optimise assets by the appropriate prioritisation of work within the available funding

-          Potential for schemes to be co-ordinated across asset groups – alignment of schemes within the works programmes was key to optimising available funding

-          Highway Asset Managers regularly met to review works programmes for each of the assets groups.  Locations that appeared near to the top of more than one of the priority lists were to be considered as to whether a joined up scheme may be feasible

 

Long Term Maintenance Investments

-          To bring the unclassified network (estate roads) up to national average or better requires a total investment of £15M

-          Priority to carry out timely maintenance before the road was in poor condition

-          If roads in an amber condition were targeted there would be a 4-5% reduction in those roads that required significant work

-          If the £5M was used on the worst roads, red condition, this would approximately treat 18km.  If the funding was targeted at amber condition roads over a 2 years period 4 times that length would be treated

-          DfT Local Highways Maintenance Capital Block Funding (LTP) and recognition of following good asset management principles.

-          If good asset management principles were not adhered to then the highway condition will continue to deteriorate at an accelerated rate

-          The number of potholes would increase as would the spending on reactive maintenance:-

 

Spend on Reactive Work (potholes)
Year	Number	Cost (000’s)	Cost/Defect
2008/09	12,000	243	£20
2014/15	34,000	435	£12

 

       Additionally the number of third party claims would potentially increase

 

Discussion ensued on the presentation with the following issues raised/clarified:-

 

·           Members now had a greater awareness of the condition of the road network and the challenges the Service faced.  Over 54 schemes would be delivered this year which had been suggested by Members.  Sessions had also been run where Members had been invited out to meet the Highway Inspectors to see what was involved in “the day of the life of a Highway Inspector”

 

·           Intensive weather events had identified significant flooding risks and the capacity of the highway drains to deal with such events.  The Authority worked closely with Yorkshire Water on the capacity of their systems and capability of our gullies etc.  Investment had also recently been made in telematics which would record whether a gully was blocked, half full or clear, enabling the gully cleaning schedule to be prioritised accordingly

 

·           Members found the weekly traffic delay report very helpful although there were sometimes issues with the road signage not being removed as efficiently as they should.  It would also be helpful if a monthly schedule could be provided on which roads were to be treated appreciating that there may be events that overtook planned works.  It would be looked to be included on the website so it could be accessed at any point

 

·           The unclassified roads programme required an extra £10M to the £5M Capital funding and there was currently no possibility of that coming from any other source(DfT), £3.6M has been received in 2015/16 as part of the DfT annual LTP settlement.  A submission would be made to the Council Capital pot for the £10m funding.  This would bring the unclassified network to the national average condition.  It was noted that when a level of performance is reached for the highway network  it then requires £6.5m every year to maintain the roads at that level

 

·           The Council’s approach to highway maintenance, as endorsed at the Members’ workshop in May, 2015, was to prioritise roads in an amber condition as well as picking up several kilometres of “red” roads.   If successful in the bid for funding and the extra £10M secured, this would address all the red roads to a level that would achieve national average condition

 

·           There was currently no single major maintenance projects prepared at the moment. However, bids totalling £12M had been submitted to the DfT last year for maintenance works on Rotherham’s strategic network and bridge structures but had unfortunately not been successful.   Feedback from the DfT had revealed that if the Authority had increased its minimum funding requirement (was submitted as 10%), the chances of success would increase.  Discussions were taking place with regard to considerations for submissions for the second round of funding but more would be known once the assessment criteria for LTP funding came out in November

 

·           If the highways were maintained there would be a decrease in the number of potholes.  The multi-hog served a good purpose and was very useful in estate type roads where it could be used with minimum traffic management.  The national cost for repairing a pothole was approximately £54; in Rotherham it cost £13.  There were no criteria set against the average cost so the Authority had asked a specific question to APSE as to the cost for plant, labour and materials to enable a true comparison to be made.  On average, the national cost was 30-40% more than Rotherham’s. There were very few repeat potholes but was more the case of one developing adjacent to the original

 

·           Engagement had been carried out with key stakeholders on the Strategy for managing Rotherham’s highway assets.  Those that had responded had endorsed the process regarding prioritisation of works and the Policy and Strategy.  A presentation had also been made to the Council’s Learning from Customers Forum about the prioritisation of the works.  However, there was genuine concern that members of public would feel that the worst roads were not being dealt with and it was important to get communication and information out to Members to share with members of the public at surgeries

 

·           There was an action plan attached to the Asset Management Plan which would be reported to Councillors and Commissioners.  It was imperative that the complete document was prepared and endorsed by Council for 2015/21 as part of the submission for DfT LTP funding.  As part of the annual update, an Executive Summary would be prepared

 

·           With regard to pothole cost against quality, the services that delivered highway maintenance had been reorganised into one team in 2010/11 which had brought about efficiencies.   There were also different types of materials and close working with a local asphalt provider to develop materials.  Like all authorities, there would be reports of potholes not lasting/stable but there was not a significant number.  The Highways Delivery Team Manager had been requested to keep a record of all reports and also quality check the work carried out

 

·           Some of the highways in the Highways three year work programme appeared twice as they were phased for engineering and financial reasons

 

·           The Authority’s Street Lighting Team often did the design and build for new developments so that it could control what lighting was provided  

 

·           A number of concerns had been raised at the recent Commissioners’ Roadshows highlighting that highways were seen as a priority to members of the public.  They would be fed into the budget setting process this year and into the Capital budget process

 

·           The Highway Works Programme mid-term review was planned for the following week.  There would be a session for Members in February/March, 2016, regarding the prioritisation and whether the best value for money for the available budget

 

The Chairman stated that the Select Commission would be interested in the Strategy’s performance management going forward as well as a number of the Key Performance Indicators being relevant to the Commission’s area of work.  Once live and in operation, the Select Commission would wish an annual update on progress, any issues/areas of concern.

 

Colin Knight reported that there was criteria associated with the LTP funding of 3 different levels:-

 

Level 1 - the Authority will not receive all the available funding

Level 2 - the Authority will receive full funding for a period of time

Level 3 - was a stretched target and the Authority will be striving to achieve this over the coming years. 

 

Resolved:-  (1) That Highways Asset Management Policy, Strategy and revised Highways Asset Management Plan (HAMP) 2015-2021 be endorsed.

 

(2)  That as part of the annual update, an executive summary be produced for the Select Commission.