highway asset management

8/2/2019 Highway Asset Management

1/101

Highway Asset Management

Quick Start Guidance Note

Life Cycle Planning


2/101

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 12 The Life Cycle Process ................................................................................................... 43 Objective and Policies .................................................................................................... 54 Inventory and Condition Data ........................................................................................ 65 Cost of Maintaining Each Group of Assets .................................................................. 76 Performance Gaps .......................................................................................................... 87 Demands and Risks ........................................................................................................ 98 Investment Strategy ...................................................................................................... 10Appendix A Carriageway, Leicestershire County Council December 2007 .................. 11Appendix B Structures, Surrey County Council March 2008 ......................................... 21Appendix C Footway, Newcastle City Council October 2006 ......................................... 61Appendix D Traffic Signal & Management Systems, Staffordshire County Council

October 2008 ....................................................................................................... 80

Contributing Authors:

Paul Boss Staffordshire County Council

Andrew Molyneux Leeds City Council

Mark Stephenson Cornwall County Council

Table of Contents


3/101

1

Lifecycle Management Plans form a key part of an Authoritys Highways Asset Management

Plan (HAMP).

Lifecycle planning is listed in the DfTs Start Up Guide as an activity under Growing your Asset

Management practices. Effective lifecycle planning therefore requires several fundamental

asset management activities to have been carried out and considerable asset knowledge to

have been established. Without this knowledge, lifecycle plans will not target the effective

maintenance and renewal of assets, leading to either premature maintenance or deterioration

and possible safety risks to road, and non-road users, and to roadworkers.

Figure 1 (from CSS) provides an overview of the asset management process. This guidance

note focuses on life cycle planning, with additional notes available giving and overview of the

whole process, and further details on boxes 2 and 4.

Figure 1 Overview of Asset Management Processes

1 Introduction


4/101

2

Effective lifecycle planning is about making the right investment at the right time to ensure that

the asset delivers the requisite level of service over its full expected life, at the minimum cost.

However, the lack of knowledge should not stop a local authority from starting these plans as

they will, at least, document the status quo for the asset type or grouping, and help to identify

the data required for effective decision making i.e. the plans should basically describe in detail

how each asset is currently managed, and how investment decisions are made.

Figure 2 below illustrates the typical whole life process for managing assets with particular

emphasis on the deterioration maintenance cycle. This is where asset lifecycle planning will

have the most significant impact on your authority.

Figure 2 Typical Whole Life and Deterioration/Maintenance Process

A lifecycle plan is required for each asset type, or for a group of assets, using a fairly generic

template to help pose questions and steer thinking, without providing the answers. Remember

that there are not any right or wrong answers. The plans (and HAMP/TAMP) should reflect

what is appropriate for the particular authority but the rationale should be documented.

It is important that the people actually involved with the asset management should write the

specific asset lifecycle plan. It will probably take about 3 days of a persons time to write an

initial plan once the template is established.

This need for ownership is essential, but experience is that it is very difficult to get staff to

devote time to this process. If consultants do need to be used, then it is certainly important that

they interview the relevant people, and ensure that the appropriate people sign-off each

specific plan.

The plan should describe the decision making processes associated with that particular asset

grouping, at each stage of its lifecycle, from Creation or Acquisition through to Disposal.

Although, in the case of highways, roads themselves are rarely fully decommissioned, individual

asset components are constantly being decommissioned, and may or may not be replaced,

depending on current demand. The other phases in the lifecycle to consider are: Routine

Maintenance, Renewal or Replacement and Upgrading.


5/101

3

The plan should start with a general description of the asset or asset grouping, and then

document the inventory, condition, and performance so as to identify the funding required for

the current and future needs of the asset.

As a starting point, the following groupings are suggested to help cover the major highway

assets although, in many cases, little will be known about some of the individual elements

within these groupings:

Roads

Footways & Cycleways

Bridges & Structures

Drainage

Public Rights of Way

Street Lighting

Signs & Street Furniture

Environmental Assets

CCTV

It is important to remember that you cant do everything at once, and that the lifecycle plans can

be added to, and expanded over time.

As a service related to highway activities, winter service should be included within the plans,

albeit not specific to the management of an individual asset.

Lifecycle plans need to capture on a robust, consistent basis, all the relevant costs involved in

maintaining the asset over the cycle to the chosen service performance. This information,

when spread appropriately over the duration of the cycle, provides the basis for f inancial

planning and budgeting, and for measuring asset depreciation. The forthcoming CIPFA Code

of guidance will provide further advice on the development of financial information for these

purposes.

When lifecycle plans have been developed for all asset groups or at least the main assetgroups, objective decisions can be made regarding the proportion of funding that can be

allocated for each group to finance the most efficient and effective use of current and future

funding. The options within each lifecycle plan should ensure that where the optimum

proportion of funding is not available, the next or further best option can be assessed in

competition with the options contained in the plans for other asset groups.

As far as possible, selection of options should attempt to minimise lifecycle costs.


6/101

4

Each local authority will have its own established asset and maintenance investment practices

and a view of what processes and activities will make an effective lifecycle plan, tailored to their

own asset hierarchy. This guide sets out the basic activities to establish an initial generic

lifecycle plan following the process in Figure 3. Feedback and improvement loops at all stages

are important but have not been shown for clarity.

Figure 3 Generic Asset Management Lifecycle Process

2 The Life Cycle Process

ProduceInvestment

Strategy

CollectInventory &

Condition Data

Set Objectives& Policies

CollectMaintenance

Costs

AssessPerformance

Gaps

AssessDemands &

Risks


7/101

5

Each local authority will also have their own objectives and policies that determine the priorities

of the authority, and these should be listed in the HAMP and TAMP. These can be included as

part of an introduction to the lifecycle plan and considered when determining the options for

various asset groups. For example, if an authority has a priority of improving the condition of

roads then carriageways could be a priority for funding. However, if an objective is to improve

the safety for pedestrians then footways or pedestrian signal facilities may take a priority.

The underlying statements as to the priorities of the authority will generally include improving

the safety and condition of highways and decisions will therefore be based on the economics

and risk of maintaining each asset group, using proportions of available funding in accordance

with the options contained in the lifecycle plans. Reference to objectives can therefore be a

paragraph or list of priorities at the front end of the lifecycle plan, or as a general statement in

an introduction to a group of plans.

It is also useful for the lifecycle plan to set out the consequences of not achieving the objectives

and highlight the impact of for example lack of investment or ill-informed maintenance

interventions.

3 Objective and Policies


8/101

6

It is important to understand the type and quality of asset inventory and condition data required

to measure performance, and decide on investment options to support the HAMP and other

objectives. A data specification should therefore be established at the outset of lifecycle

planning. This should set out the hierarchy, detail and priority of data attributes. If there are

any gaps in what is collected, these should be fed back into the inspection and survey

programme as a business case for future collection.

All local authorities have a record of the highways they manage. For roads this can be found in

the R199b form that is received from DfT each year. Due to the need to report Best Value

Performance Indicators (BVPIs) to 2007/08 *, all authorities also have easily available condition

data for carriageways and a small proportion of footways that can be used as the basis for initial

lifecycle plans. Due to planned cyclical lamp changes, all authorities should have good

inventory and age related information for their street lighting, illuminated traffic signs and traffic

management systems that is readily available.

The problem areas with regard to inventory are therefore carriageway widths, total footway; and

the lower value assets such as signs, safety fences, trees etc along with the usually unknown

underground highway drainage systems. With the exception of drainage, information from

authorities that have already collected inventory data should be available through regional

highway groups, e.g. The Midland Service Improvement Group (MSIG) and can be used as an

initial estimate for use in an authoritys lifecycle plan, based on the respective lengths of each

authoritys network.

Drainage inventory and condition is more difficult to establish as few, if any authorities have an

accurate record of their highway drainage systems. A business case should be made for

collecting this data against the consequential risk of impact to asset performance and HAMP

objectives.

Where condition data is not available, a coarse assessment should be made using knowledge

within the authority. This can be refined over time.

*BVPI is quoted to 2007/08 as at the time of issue this was the last year there was arequirement for full survey coverage i.e. including unclassified roads. Checks should be madefor any more recent updates for current requirements.

4 Inventory and Condition Data


9/101

7

A specification for the collection of maintenance costs for the purposes of lifecycle planningshould be established. This will identify the priorities, boundaries and ownership of cost data

specifically for this process. Significant overlap is likely to exist with the cost data collected for

maintenance benchmarking purposes, but may require additional manipulation for use in

lifecycle planning.

The costs of maintaining assets should be based on contract rates for reactive and planned

works and take into account inflation and/or uplifts within contracts to ensure future projections

are as realistic as possible. The life expectancy of various treatments or procedures undertaken

should be based on internal and industry knowledge if possible to determine realistic service

lives in addition to design lives.

The determination of a basket of generic treatments will allow the sustainability of each to be

considered and taken into account within the overall strategy derived from service options

identified. With some asset groups such as carriageways, information will again be available

through regional highway groups.

Recording systems should be put in place to allow the refinement of maintenance cost data

over time and hence the updating of projections on an annual basis. For example, the historical

information that is built up within a pavement management system and the continued

development of deterioration modelling software will then refine and increase the reliance that

can be placed upon investment strategies.

5 Cost of Maintaining Each Group ofAssets


10/101

8

Once asset inventory, condition and cost data has been collected the performance of each

asset or asset group should be calculated and compared to the desired or target level. Care

should be taken when relying on historic performance data and appropriate levels of confidence

should be established.

Performance gaps will exist in most if not all of the asset groups, and there will be a number of

gaps between the current performance of the asset and the level of performance that is desired.

These should be documented within the plan and then considered within the context of demand

and risk as below.

Where there is an identified need to change and improve the way that assets are managed,

these changes should also be described in the lifecycle plans and form part of the overall

Improvement Plan, and a business case developed for the changes.

The desired performance levels are defined in national, industry standards, Codes of Practiceand procedures, as well as local standards of the authority. These can also be defined in terms

of business objectives, demands and aspirations.

The current performance is usually established through application of different types of

performance assessment methods. These typically are represented by a formal regime of

inspection and surveys. In reality, although performance is mainly measured according to BVPI

results achieved, prioritisation to improve BVPIs is not necessarily commensurate with good

asset management practice. A balanced view therefore needs to be taken when formulating an

investment strategy to ensure good long term asset management planning is not sacrificed in

the quest for improved PI results in the short term.

As well as condition monitoring measures, other local performance indicators may be useful to

establish the health of the asset groups. These include monitoring the frequency of highpriority condition based defects i.e. those caused by a lack of maintenance; monitoring the

volume of medium priority asset defects, which provides an indication of asset deterioration and

the success of reactive maintenance; and monitoring the % of assets that are renewed

annually, which can be compared to service life predictions.

It is important to capture the lessons learnt from poor performance internally within asset

maintenance practices and for setting revised HAMP and data collection targets.

Performance should, ideally, also include some form of stakeholder satisfaction survey and,

perhaps, a less systematic, ad-hoc reporting approach based on feedback from accidents and

incidents of complaints (which link to Demands and Risk).

There are two categories of performance gaps:

Where the condition of an asset component is below that desired, and Where the level of service provided to the users of the highway is below that desired

The Lifecycle Management Plans should set out details of the authoritys current Service

Standards and Performance Assessment Methods, as well as the processes for managing the

assets.

6 Performance Gaps


11/101

9

Lifecycle plans will need to identify and reflect the demands placed upon the asset and the risks

involved in not maintaining the asset in the correct manner. Demands will be stated in the

authorities HAMP and TAMP and reflect the priority values to which assets are expected to

perform. These usually relate to safety, capacity, disruption, accessibility, amenity and

environment/sustainability. The start up guide on Risk Management provides an appreciation

of typical asset risks that require consideration.

For example, a carriageway may have the demands of heavy vehicles placed upon it, but the

risk of not maintaining it correctly may be mainly economic i.e. the carriageway may need re-

constructing in a few years time whereas correctly maintained it may require more economic

resurfacing at a much lower long term cost.

The economic cost of not correctly maintaining a footway for example may be relatively small

i.e. reconstructing rather than resurfacing, but the third party liability cost could be very high if

users of the footway were to suffer personal injury.

7 Demands and Risks


12/101

10

An investment strategy for each asset group in addition to a strategy for the overall highway

asset will need to be derived from the information within the lifecycle plans. These will typicallybe based on maintaining or enhancing the highway asset to achieve a desired standard and

translated into a forward programme of works. The typical stages of asset maintenance and the

financial impact that these have over time is illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Typical lifecycle maintenance interventions over time

A good starting point for the investment strategy is to consider the total finance available for

highway assets and then apportion this in accordance with service options and their

consequences, identified in each of the lifecycle plans. Although this may not establish the

investment required to meet desired service standards, it will provide a necessary base case.

In the medium to long term future the use of refined deterioration modelling information can

then be used to prove the investment requirements to achieve defined service standards and

hence match the total finance to those standards or levels of service.

It is important to regularly monitor the impact that an investment strategy has on asset

performance and the support to lifecycle objectives.

Example Lifecycle Plans

Examples of Lifecycle Plans developed by authorities to date are attached as the followingappendices:

Appendix A Carriageway, Leicestershire County Council December 2007

Appendix B Structures, Surrey County Council March 2008

Appendix C Footway, Newcastle City Council October 2006

Appendix D Traffic Signal & Management Systems, Staffordshire County Council October2008

8 Investment Strategy


13/101

11

Appendix A Carriageway,

Leicestershire County Council

December 2007


14/101

12

Introduction

1. The background to lifecycle plans and the format of each are described in Section 5. This

appendix provides the lifecycle plan for carriageways.

2. For management purposes, carriageways have been defined in categories 2 to 4b as

shown in the table below. This is based on the national code of practice Well Maintained

Highways. These categories reflect the type and use of different carriageways and so will

form the basis for sound asset management. National funding and financial reporting is

however based on the national classifications (A, B, C and unclassified).

Cat. Hierarchy Type of Road Detailed Description

1 Motorways Motorway N/A

2 StrategicRoutes

Trunk andprimary A Roads.

Routes between primary destinations.

3aMainDistributor

Non primary Aroads and importantor heavily traffickedB roads.

Routes between strategic routes andlinking urban centres to the strategicnetwork. Annual average daily traffic:Urban >30,000 (1500 HGV)Rural >12,000 (1000 HGV)

3bSecondaryDistributor

B roads andheavily trafficked C

roads.

In rural areas link larger villages tostrategic/ main distributor network. In

urban areas usually have a 30 mphspeed limit and high levels of pedestrianusage.

Annual average daily traffic:Urban >20,000 (300 HGV)Rural > 7,000 (150 HGV)

4aLocally ImportantRoads

Routes linking intothe main/ secondarydistributor network,normally C class,with greater localsignificance in ruralareas; plus heavily

traffickedunclassified roads.

In rural areas provide inter-village linksand connect to distributor network. Inurban areas residential or industrialinterconnecting roads.

Annual average daily traffic:

Urban >15,000 (150 HGV)Rural >5000 (100 HGV)

4bAll other metalledRoads

All other C roadsand majority ofunclassifiednetwork.

In rural areas serve smaller villages andprovide access to limited number ofproperties and land. In urban areaspredominately residential.

Appendix A Carriageway Lifecycle Plan

Leicestershire County Council


15/101

13

Levels of Service

3. The desirable levels of service for this asset category are set out in the table below (see

section 2 of main document). These levels of service would fully meet all aspirations whilst

minimising whole-life costs. This lifecycle plan, in later sections, shows how different levels

of available funding will influence the extent to which these desirable levels of service can

be achieved.

Attribute Desired Standard Performance measure

Safety Road surface of appropriate skidresistance and profile to minimiserisk of loss of control accidents.

Measures to be developed forsecond edition TAMP

Availability All roads available for use at alltimes bar periods of essentialroadworks

BV100 surveys for trafficsensitive streets

Serviceability Good standard surface without

unevenness or potholes affectingvehicle ride quality

CVI surveys

MORI surveys

Condition At a level consistent with achievingminimum whole life cost, that isBV223 between 3 and 5%, 224aand 224b between 10 and 12%.

BVPI surveys

4. It will be noted that the levels of service above take a restricted look at, particularly, safety

and serviceability. Wider attributes, including alignment, safety of junctions and other

aspects currently dealt with under the Councils improvements programme, will be

considered for inclusion in future editions of the TAMP.

5. Failure to respond adequately to any of these four dimensions of level of service will

produce risk to the authority. The table below, which details the main risks, underlines the

importance of responding properly to each.

Risk type Description example

Physical Accidents caused by asset defects

Business Legal proceedings for failure in duty of care

Financial Reduction in net book value of the asset because of poormaintenance practice; increased compensation paymentsfollowing legal action;

Corporate image Poor condition roads reflect on the overall image of theCounty Council

Environmental More premium aggregate, natural resources and energy perkilometre of treated network will be used in reconstruction andshorter life materials as opposed to longer life materials,resurfacing and overlay.

Network More disruption to pedestrians and others because ofemergency unplanned maintenance following poormaintenance practice


16/101

14

Asset base and characteristics

6. The extent of carriageways in four categories is shown in the table below:

A Road B Road C Road UC Road

km km Km Km

Urban 106 88.3 425.2 1668.1

Rural 313.7 155.1 886 624.9

Asset Condition and Assessment

7. To assess the extent to which the desirable levels of service are met requires

measurements covering the four dimensions of safety, availability, serviceability and

condition. Where measures currently exist for availability and serviceability they are

inadequate and will be considered further in the second edition of the TAMP.

8. The condition of A, B and C roads is assessed annually by SCANNER surveys. A

proportion of the unclassified network is assessed annually by (Coarse Visual Inspection)

CVI survey. CVI surveys are also done on proportions of A, B and C roads to check trends.

Deflectograph surveys are carried out on proportions of A and B roads. Griptester surveys

are done on a proportion of A roads and on a site specific basis on other roads. NRMCS

surveys are also carried out on the numbers of sites required by DfT. This requirement is

likely to be dropped for A, B and C roads from 2008.

A Roads B & C Roads Unclassified

SCANNER100% (in one

direction) surveyedannually

100% (in one direction)surveyed annually

Not surveyed

Deflectograph20% surveyed

annually20% surveyed annually Not surveyed

GRIPTESTER33% of network

surveyed annuallySite specific surveys

onlyNot surveyed

CVI20% surveyed

annually

50% surveyedannually( may reduce

to 20% in future)

25% surveyed

annually

NRMCS 50 Sites 110 Sites 90 Sites


17/101

15

9. The Council has set its own standards for the frequency of its highway safety inspections.

These take into account national guidelines, issued in the latest Code of Practice for

Maintenance Management Well Maintained Highways (July 2005):

Feature Reference Category Frequency ofInspection

Carriageways 2 Strategic Routes 1 month

3(a) Main Distributors 1 month

3(b) Secondary Distributors 1 month

4(a) Locally Important Roads 3 months

4(b) All other metalled Roads 1 year

10. There are national Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) for all categories of

carriageway. Best Value Performance Indicators BVPI 223 and BVPI 224 are a direct

application of the Road Condition Index (RCI) from the current UKPMS default rule set. Forunclassified roads the emphasis is on a range of condition indices relevant to rural and

urban roads

Principal roads ( A roads) BV223 (BV96)

Non Principal Classified (B & C roads) BV224a (BV 97a)

Unclassified (un-numbered minor roads) BV224b (BV 97b)

The overall condition of the roads in Leicestershire has shown a gradual improvement,

reflected in Table 4 below which details the BVPI results in recent years:

Table 4 BVPI RESULTS (Highlighted cells signify reported figures)

All figures are %s 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07

BVPI 96

Deflectograph Survey.18.14 16.80 11.60 11.28 9.32 11.96

BVPI 96

Condition of Principal roadnetwork based on CVI VisualSurvey.

7.72 10.16 3.42 6.29 1.30 3.01

BVPI 223

Condition of Principal roadnetwork based on SCANNERSurvey.

N/A N/A N/A 19.65 3.0 3.0

BVPI 97a

Condition of Non-PrincipalClassified road network by CVI

11.73 23.53 36.44 29.06 11.26 10.52

BVPI 224a

Condition of Non-PrincipalClassified road network bySCANNER

10 7

BVPI 97b

Condition of (Non-Principal)Unclassified road networkbased on CVI.

13.13 14.67 37.66 9.6 8.416% 4yr

av(10% 1yr)


18/101

16

Asset Valuation

11. The initial gross replacement cost for the carriageway asset is 2.5 billion. The

depreciation is approximately 40 million, which means that the net value is approximately

2.46 billion.

Future Changes in Demand

12. Major new development is planned in the county over the next twenty years as part of the

Regional Spatial Strategy. This expansion will bring substantial lengths of new carriageway

in new housing and employment areas, and will also intensify the use of existing

carriageways. The increase in the extent of the asset will, in the long term, produce a

requirement for additional maintenance expenditure. The likely impact on maintenance

expenditure, and on government funding for this, has not at this stage been quantified.

Treatment options and costs

13. Road surfaces can be renewed, retextured, protected or repaired. Renewal involves

replacing the top layer and will normally require replacement, or patching, of parts of the

underlying layer. Retexturing increases the serviceable life of the surface course and

restores a consistent level of grip. Protection treatments, such as surface dressing, restore

the skid resistance and seal the surface of the road which prevents moisture getting into the

surface and further oxidation of the binder. Repairs are treatments like patching, filling pot-

holes, crack sealing and resetting ironwork.

TreatmentExpected

Treatment Life(yrs)

Average treatmentcost

Reactive Pothole repair 4 months 120.00 per repair

Reactive Odd kerb / ironwork

2 years

40.00

90.00

135.00

Kerb

Gully

Manhole

Reactive Patching 3 years 30 40/m

Preventative Surfacedressing

7-10 years 2.25/m

Planned Haunching 7-10 years 80.00/m

Planned Kerbing 10 + years 20.00/m

Planned Resurfacing 7-30 years 10.00/m

Planned Overlay 10-30 years 5.00 10.00/m

Planned Renewal 20-35 years 12.00 20.00/m

14. A typical stretch of road might be maintained as follows, following the laying of a newsurface:

Inspect at required frequencies looking for potential potholes, problems around andconcerning ironwork; reset ironwork and fill potholes;


19/101

17

Empty gullies and catch pits; sweep channels and hatched areas; weed spray tochannels;

Patch and seal areas to restore surface, especially in channels and around gullies;

Consider surface dressing after 12 to 15 years, depending on road category and usage;more highly stressed areas, like junctions will be resurfaced if necessary, rather thandressed;

Consider more significant roads for resurfacing earlier in their lives; less significant andless heavily trafficked roads may be surface dressed twice or more times beforeresurfacing.

15. The current levels of capital funding have only been available to the whole of the Countynetwork since 2001. The significant improvement in the condition of every category hasbeen achieved using a mixture of resurfacing, surface dressing and revenue-fundedpatching. The programme has been determined on a worse-first basis, because of the initialpoor condition and the available capital and revenue funding, rather than a justified assetmanagement approach.

Management strategy for minimising whole-life costs

16. Whole life costs include not only the direct costs of works, design and supervision and

surveys, but also the indirect costs caused by sub-optimal maintenance regimes, including

inconvenience to users, environmental impacts and third party claims. The main factors

which will affect the whole life cost of an individual carriageway are:

Type and quality of construction

Degree and type of damage and degradation

Type and volume of traffic

Speed and quality of response to damage and degradation

Timing of intervention and quality of medium and long term treatments

17. At present the links between these have not been fully quantified. This is an important area

for research and progress nationally will be used to inform future editions of the TAMP. This

will be a significant exercise, involving renewals, preventative work and reactive

maintenance.

18. Historically, the Councils strategy for maintaining carriageways has been:

to specify a high standard of initial construction

to undertake timely reactive maintenance in order to keep carriageways in a safe

condition and prevent short term deterioration,

to have a programme of preventative maintenance to prevent deterioration of the

surface and lower layers and to extend the life of the carriageway at minimum cost to resurface carriageways (using recycling techniques where possible) when reactive

and preventative work is uneconomic

to renew carriageways which are uneconomic to treat by other means.

19. This strategy is based on good practice but there has been no rigorous financial evaluationof the approach or testing of alternatives, for example the timing of the variousinterventions. The strategy is accepted as best practice for this version of the TAMP butfurther investigation of alternatives will be undertaken for the second version.


20/101

18

Options and targets within the management strategy

20. The analysis which follows analyses levels of capital spending against predicted outcomes

for carriageway condition. Similar analysis in future editions of the TAMP will need to

analyse in more detail the impact of revenue spending on condition, and also assess

whether other aspects of conditions of service need similar consideration. It should be

noted that the causal link between capital spend and resulting condition is complicated and

not necessarily fully explained by the headline figures; this is another area for further

investigation in future editions of the TAMP.

LTP proposals

21. The second Local Transport Plan reviewed the correlation between the achievement of

condition targets and proposed overall spending, within the indicative government

allocations. This capital spending on resurfacing and reconstruction was to be supported

by continued revenue spending on reactive maintenance at a level predicted to be

approximately 5m a year in real terms through the five year period. The table belowshows the LTP predicted spending and targets (targets for principal roads are for

deflectograph surveys and non-principal classified and unclassified roads are for CVI

surveys)

000s 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/115 YearTotal

Principal road carriage-ways

1875 1915 2010 2110 2215 10125

Target condition 10.8% 10.6% 10.4% 10.2% 10%

Non-principal classifiedroad c/ways

2925 2985 3135 3290 3455 15795

Target condition 11.3% 11% 10.6% 10.3% 10%

Unclassified roadc/ways

1140 1165 1220 1285 1345 6155

Target condition


21/101

19

Alternative options

24. The reduced allocations for maintenance announced by the Department for Transport in

late 2006, coupled with uncertainties over the likely outcome of the autumn 2007

government comprehensive spending review, mean that the targets must be reviewed. The

revised spending for 07/08, 08/09 and 09/10, based on the reduced DfT allocations, was

determined as follows: -

000s 07/08 08/09 09/10

Principal road carriageways 1,415 1,410 1,610

Non-principal classified road c/ways 2,835 2,535 3,060

Unclassified road c/ways 1,065 1,020 1,085

25. However, these allocations would have resulted in an unacceptable worsening in the

condition of category 3 and 4 footways. An adjustment was therefore made to allocate

more spending for these, achieved by reducing the spending on principal road

carriageways by 250,000 a year from 08/09. The revised table is shown below: -

000s 07/08 08/09 09/10

Principal road carriageways 1,415 1,160 1,360

Non-principal classified road c/ways 2,835 2,535 3,060

Unclassified road c/ways 1,065 1,020 1,085

26. The reduced spend will result in some deterioration. This is not significant over the three

year period in the context of experimental error in measurement, but if uncorrected in the

longer term could lead to significant problems. The next edition TAMP will examine this

further.

Roads 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Principal roads BV223 3.3% 3.5% 3.6%

Non-principal classified CVI 10.4% 10.3% 10.6%Unclassified roads BV 224b 9.2% 9.5% 9.8%

27. These options for carriageways are assessed in Section 6 against similar options for other

asset categories, to produce the best overall balance within available funding against

desired levels of service.


22/101

20

Lifecycle action plan

28. Most of the actions to deliver this lifecycle plan are, for this first edition of the TAMP,

contained within the wider summary of development contained in Section 9. A separate

action plan is therefore not included here, though it will be in future editions of the TAMP.

Risks

29. The risks involved in implementing the lifecycle action plan have been assessed against the

councils standard grid of likelihood versus impact and are detailed in the table below, with

an outline of the mitigation to be planned. The red risks from each lifecycle plan are listed

in section 7 of the main TAMP document.

Impactofe

ffects

Severe A

Significant B 1,5,6

Moderate C 2,3,4

Minor D

4 3 2 1

Very Un-Likely

Not VeryLikely

Quite Likely Very Likely

Likelihood of causes

Risk LevelMitigation (for red

risks)Responsible

1. Insufficient staff resourcesfor analytical work,particularly given structuralchange in the department

2B

Ensure prioritised withingroup local action plan

GM(NetworkManagement)

2. Insufficient staff resourcesfor customer attitude work

2C

3. Insufficient progressnationally and in the region to

support changes in practice

2C

4. Materials/ labour/ plant/staff costs

2C

5. Reduced capital funding

2B

Review allocationbetween assetcategories to minimiseoverall deterioration

GM(NetworkManagement)

6. Reduced revenue funding 2B Ditto ditto


23/101

21

Appendix B Structures, Surrey

County Council March 2008


24/101

SURREY HIGHWAYSSTRUCTURES GROUP

TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT

STRUCTURES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING


25/101

Issue No.1 Page 23 of 101 Document No.

2227/17

Project Title: Bridge Management

Document Title: Transportation Asset ManagementStructures Asset Management Planning

Client Reference: S/TAA/8

Date: 14 March 2008

Prepared By: Print Hugh Brooman

Sign ................................................

Authorised By: Print Graham Cole

Sign ................................................

Amendment List

Iss. / Rev. Iss. / RevDate

Remove Insert

Page Iss. / Rev. Page Iss. / Rev.

Issue 00 July 2004 All pages 00 All pages 01

0201SF10 07/08/02Filename: S:\GENERAL\AMG\Structures\\lifecycle.doc


26/101

Issue No.1 Page 24 of 101 Document No.

2227/17

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Strategic Goals and Objectives.

3 Asset Inventory

4 Current Performance

5 Future Demand

6 Performance Targets and Levels of Service

7 Performance Gaps

8 Lifecycle Plans

9 Value Management and Risk Management

10 Asset Valuation

11 Work Plan and Financial plan

12 Sustainable Development

13 Improvement Plan

14 References


27/101

25

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Issue No.01

Document No. 2227/17

1 INTRODUCTION

The Structures Group of the Surrey Highways Service undertakes the management of the highway

structure asset. Highway structures are defined as any bridge or other structure that impinges in

any way within the footprint of the highway or that materially affects the support of the highway or

land immediately adjacent to it that meets certain dimensional criteria. Highway structures include

bridges, culverts, subways, footbridges and retaining walls. An important Structures Group goal is

to:

document that the assets for which it is responsible are being preserved at, or above, a series of

key performance indicators originally established for the assets

We will do this by preparing and working to the Asset Management Planning process that is set out

in this document. This is the second edition of this document the first was prepared in July 2004.

It is recognised that the preparation of an Asset Management Plan is a continuous improvement

process and it is anticipated that further versions of this Asset Management Planning document will

be issued on an ongoing basis.

It is widely recognised that a well managed transport infrastructure is vital to the economicstability, growth and social well being of a country. Bridges and other highway structures

are fundamental to the transport infrastructure because they form essential links in the

highway network. It is not therefore in the public interest to allow highway structures to

deteriorate in a way that compromises the functionality of the highway network, be it

through restrictions or closures caused by unsafe structures or the disruption of traffic

through poor planning of maintenance work. [Ref 1]

This Asset Management Planning document is based on the format recommended by the Code of

Practice for the Management of Highway Structures (the Code) [Ref.1]. This document is part of a

suite of resource management plans that support the corporate objectives of the County Council

and the operational priorities of the Group:

Surrey Highways Service Business Plan

Annual Group Management Plan

Quality Management System (QMS) documentation

The relationship between these various documents is shown in Figure 1. The overall process

involved in the Management of Highway Structures is shown in Figure 2. A comprehensive review

of the work of the Structures Group was carried out in the first quarter of 2008 and some of these

processes will change in the near future.


28/101

Issue No. 01 Document No. 2227/17

Fig.1 Key Documentation

Fig. 2 The Management of Highway Structures

Start

Local Input(LTD Schemes)

AssessmentResults

Condition Surv ey ImprovementsDCP and otherurgent safety

issues

Collation into a list

of tasks

Technical

Prioritisation

Cost Options

Rolling

Programme

Bid

BudgetAllocation

AnnualProgramme

Construct

Update

Records

Performance

Monitoring

(KPIs)

Funded

Unfunded

Programme

Reporting

Note: Damage to County Property (DCP)


29/101


2 STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The overall policies and aims of the County Council are currently set out in the Manual of Policies

and Standards (Maps) document. In addition, the Local Transport Plan (LTP) also sets out various

criteria and objectives within the Planning and Maintaining the Highway Network chapter.

Successful management of the bridge stock is fundamental to the implementation of the LTP.

There are five main themes within the LTP and the Structures Group contributes to these as

follows:

Economy: the strategy takes account of the business needs of local communities in

prioritising bridge management activities. Where weak bridges are on routes which provide

access to business parks etc. weight restrictions would have a detrimental effect on the

economy, so strengthening schemes receive a high priority rating.

Safety: the strategy principally contributes to this objective by ensuring that minimum levels

of safety are maintained. In maintenance, the repair of safety-related defects and damages

takes priority. In bridge strengthening schemes, highway safety improvements are included

where possible.

Integration: a robust bridge stock is needed to deliver network flexibility requirements and

accommodate bus routes which may be introduced to improve transport integration.

Accessibility: in strengthening and refurbishing, accessibility for vulnerable users is improved

by adding footpaths and increasing width whenever possible. The maintenance of subway

pumps, anti-slip surfacing, handrails and graffiti clearance are important to provide a

pleasant environment, so that pedestrians are encouraged to use subways and footbridges.

The 2002 Audit Commission Best Value inspection of the Transportation Service

commended the Structures Group on the inclusion of parapet enhancement measures in

bridge strengthening schemes.

Environment: environmental considerations, heritage value and conservation are taken into

account in the selection of materials and methods of working for strengthening and

reconstruction projects.

The Highways Service priorities for 2007/08 include to Improve the Highway Network, Improve

Road Safety and Security, Enhance the Environment and Quality of Life and to Provide Services

to People and Communities in a Way that Meets their Needs. The work of the Structures Group

contributes to all of these Service wide priorities.

The Highways Act 1980 requires that roads are maintained to allow the passage of all Construction

and Use vehicles i.e. those up to 40/44 tonnes. Therefore, the primary service standard is to

maintain bridges to allow the passage of such vehicles, including smaller vehicles with 11.5 tonnes

axles, unless a permanent weight restriction has been imposed at a particular bridge.

In particular, Section 41 (1) of the Highways Act states:

The Authority who are for the time being the highway authority for a highway maintainable

at the public expense are under a duty, , to maintain the highway.

The Act includes provisions for enforcing liability for maintenance (Section 56) that can be

determined by a magistrates court. The Act provides a general power to improve highways

(Section 62) including the provision of subways (Section 69), footbridges (Section 70) and the


30/101


construction and reconstruction of bridges (Sections 91 and 92). More detailed sections of the Act

grant the power to construct bridges over navigable water courses (Section 106).

The Act grants the power to remove unauthorised structures (Section 143), to licence the

construction of a bridge over the highway (Section 176) and to control the construction of

scaffolding (Section 169) and cellars (Section 179). The Act also grants powers to control theconstruction of retaining walls near streets (Section 167). Furthermore, bridgeworks shall not be

carried out unless approved by the county council (Section 195), a duty delegated to the Technical

Approval Authority.

The serviceability standards for the bridge stock will be maintained by seeking to achieve average

and critical values of between 90 and 94 in accordance with the CSS Bridge Condition Indicator

system [Ref. 2]. This reflects the usual practice of adopting a good standard as an optimum level

of service determination [Ref. 3]. Service standards will be further developed as the family of

national performance indicators described below is implemented.

General consultation with the public regarding their interest in highway matters rarely includes

reference to highway structures. Public consultation, which supported the development of the first

edition of the Hertfordshire Asset Management Plan, showed that maintaining the safety of thebridge stock was a primary public objective and Surrey residents are unlikely to have different

views. Local scheme specific consultations show that the public are rightly concerned about the

way works are carried out and how they are involved in the process. We have local performance

indicators that seek to address this matter.

3 ASSET INVENTORY

This asset grouping comprises bridges (both vehicular and pedestrian), culverts, subways (and

their associated pumps) and retaining walls. Bridges are of various types and spans but their

construction is mainly concrete, steel or masonry / brick. The asset group includes right of way

structures as well as those on main roads. In particular, highway structures are specifically definedas:

Bridges, culverts, chambers or subways under or over the highway with a composite span

of 0.9 metres or more.

Retaining walls, where the height of retained fill measured between lower ground level and

upper ground level is 1.37 metres (4 6) or more.

Miscellaneous structures:

Reinforced earth embankments 1.37 metres or more in height and where the angle of

the side slopes is greater than the natural angle of repose of the embankment

material

High mast lighting columns 20 metres or more in height

Structural aspects of sign and signal gantries as defined in HA Standard BD63

Structural aspects of traffic signal mast arm assemblies as described in HA Standard

BD88

We carry out inspections of all SCC owned highway structures. Within the County there are also a

significant number of structures carrying highways and other transport systems that are owned by

other statutory bodies such as the Highways Agency, Network Rail and utility companies. We carry

out superficial inspections of these structures, where appropriate, to safeguard highway users.


31/101


Details of the asset are recorded on the Bridge Management System (BMS), supplied by Futuris,

and known as Bridgestation. Much of this data is readily accessible via the County GIS system or

by SAMS. The extent of the current inventory is indicated in Tables 1, 2 and 3. An indication of

construction materials and year of construction are included in Tables 4 and 5.

The Project Manager makes additions and changes to the asset inventory following significant

maintenance work, completion of developer schemes, creation of new assets or discovery of an

existing bridge or retaining wall. The inspection process is also used to check the validity of data

held on individual structures. Details of the attributes recorded during the inspection process are

included in section 4.1. The reliability of bridge data is high but there is still a need to improve the

extent of the data regarding retaining walls. Monies had been allocated in 2007/08 to continue

additional survey work for this asset sub-group but have now been withdrawn.

Table 1 Asset by Type and District (all owners)

Bridge Culvert Footbridge Subway Ret Wall Other Total

Elmbridge 70 11 33 5 4 2 125

Epsom and Ewell 29 7 14 1 11 3 65

Guildford 192 59 133 17 47 15 463

Mole Valley 166 44 220 9 18 7 464

Reigate and Banstead 90 22 44 8 25 5 194

Runnymede 47 17 40 1 2 0 107

Spelthorne 55 20 34 9 1 1 120

Surrey Heath 61 16 49 7 4 9 146

Tandridge 122 56 191 3 21 5 398

Waverley 157 65 181 2 38 1 444

Woking 55 17 43 1 10 1 127

1044 334 982 63 181 49 2653

Source: Bridge Management System (May 2007)

Table 2 Asset by Type and Road Hierarchy (all owners)


Primary 73 28 12 21 27 10 171

Principal 123 55 21 13 45 10 267

Non Principal 223 91 18 6 35 7 380Unclassified 264 93 11 6 62 15 451

Row 294 63 878 8 12 6 1261

Private 27 2 2 0 31

Other 40 2 40 9 1 92

1044 334 982 63 181 49 2653



32/101


Table 3 Asset by Type and Owner


SCC (Structures) 544 296 565 43 153 31 1632

Network Rail 357 2 48 19 10 436

Other 143 36 369 1 28 8 585

1044 334 982 63 181 49 2653


Table 4 SCC Asset by Construction Material (approximate)

PrestressedReinforcedConcrete

MetalTroughing

SteelComposite

LatticePlate and

SteelGirders

MasonryArches

Timber

46 347 46 24 95 433 457

Source: Adapted from Ref.4

Table 5 SCC Asset by Year of Construction (approximate)

Pre1820

1820 -1840

1840 1860

1860 -1880

1880 -1900

1900 -1920

1920 -1940

1940 -1960

1960 -1980

1980 -2000

100 100 150 200 200 225 150 100 100 123

Source: Adapted from Ref. 4


33/101


4 CURRENT PERFORMANCE

4.1 Condition Monitoring Measures

The condition of all structures is monitored through general and principal inspections as shown in

Table 6. A separate programme of special inspections is carried out for those structures that have

been shown to be sub-standard following strength assessments (see below). Ad-hoc specialinspections are also carried out following specific events such as vehicle impact or flooding.

Inspection activities are detailed in Figure 3.

Fig. 3 Bridge Inspection Process Map

Inspection programmeproduced by PM and

agreed by TAA

Annually

BMS produces schedule

of bridges to beinspected and type ofinspection required

Inspection & riskassessment forms

issued to PEs

Annually

PEs agree programmewith inspectors and

monitors programmeMonthly

Schedule updated andPM informed of

progress

Monthly

Approved Inspection

data entered in BMS

Completed riskassessment forms

returned to PM

Completed inspectionreport returned to PE

Approved inspectionreport (incl Risk

Assessment) placed onBridge File

Structure inspected

Source: QMS Process TS14-02


34/101


In-house or external bridge inspectors carry out inspections. The annual programme is determined

by the Project Manager and implemented by the Principal Bridge Engineers (East and West). The

Senior Bridge Inspector determines technical aspects of inspections. General inspections have

been carried out every two/three years and principal inspections every six/nine years. Following

the publication of the Code, general inspections are now programmed to be carried out every two

years. A risk assessment approach will be established to determine an appropriate interval forprincipal inspections. Safety inspections are carried out on privately owned structures. Inspections

are carried out in accordance with Departmental Standard BD63 in particular, general inspections

are remote visual inspections whereas principal inspections need to be carried out from within

touching distance. The new national Bridge Inspection Manual was published in June 2007. The

recommendations of this document will be reviewed and incorporated into our procedures, where

necessary, in due course.

Table 6 - Bridge Inspection Details

County Roads (A, B, C & D Roads):

Activity Period Asset Type Covered

Superficial Inspections On all privately owned structures

General Inspections On all structures

Principal Inspections Every 6 to 12 years On all structures frequencydetermined by risk assessment

Close Monitor Inspections 1, 3, 6,12 monthly On sub-standard (weak) structures to monitor potential failure modeson unrestricted bridges

Special inspections As required For specific requirements

Post tensioned inspections Once only On PT bridges unless conditiondetermines otherwise

Diving inspections Every 2 years A scour assessment on vulnerablebridges

County Rights of Way:

Activity Period Asset Type Covered

General Inspections On all structures

Principal Inspections Every 6 to 12 years On specifically identified structures

Special inspections As required For specific requirements

Diving inspections Every 2 years A scour assessment on vulnerablebridges

The results of inspections are recorded in accordance with the CSS (formerly County Surveyors

Society) Bridge Condition Index procedures. All of the bridge stock has now been inspected using


35/101


this system. As the Project Manager receives each new completed inspection form the BMS is

updated and the overall condition of the asset is recalculated.

4.2 Current conditions - inspections

The average condition of the bridge stock (BCSIave) was estimated to be 94 in March 2003 in

accordance with the CSS BCI procedure [Ref.2]. The critical elements of the bridge stock were

estimated to have a rating (BCSIcrit) of 82 at March 2003 in accordance with the CSS BCI

procedure. The interpretation of these values is given in Table 7 [derived from Ref.2]. These

figures suggest that the bridge stock was in fair to good condition. However, these values were

derived from a small sample as the introduction of the new system was being trialled. The current

average condition value is 88.

4.3 Current conditions strength assessment

A nationally funded bridge assessment programme was introduced to check the capability of

existing bridges to meet the higher 11.5t axle load and 40/44t gross vehicle weights permitted onUK roads from 1 January 1999. The results of the assessment programme are recorded in the

BMS.

The assessment reports comprise special inspections designed specifically for assessments,

material testing results where appropriate and a mathematical evaluation of the way that a bridge is

assumed to carry traffic loads. The calculation process starts with a comparatively simplistic

approach and continues, where justified, by using more sophisticated analytical techniques. In

total, 301 of the 689 bridges requiring assessment were shown to be not to current standards.

Over 127 of these were either strengthened or reconstructed by the end of 2006. The remainder

are transferred to the Forward Work Programme.

Funding has been secured through the Local Transport Plan to implement a continuous

assessment programme. This will result in the main part of the bridge stock being reassessed

every eighteen years. This will ensure that the safety and reliability of the asset is maintained

whilst providing critical data for performance indicator evaluation.

When an assessment shows a bridge to be sub-standard or provisionally sub-standard then the

risk management procedures contained in Highways Agency Departmental Standard BD79 [Ref. 5]

are followed. This means that interim measures such as a weight restriction, traffic management

restrictions or a regime of monitoring is imposed on the structure. Further guidance is contained in

the Structures Management Manual and QMS Work Instructions. These procedures are in place to

minimise the risk of asset failure.


36/101


37/101

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Issue No.01 Document No. 2227/17

5 FUTURE DEMAND

5.1 County Council promoted schemes

The Code [ref. 1] comments as follows:

Changes in demand in the future may alter how a structure should be managed, e.g. if a

planned route widening will necessitate a bridge replacement in 10 years time then the

maintenance strategy for the existing bridge should reflect this.

The Code [ref. 1] goes on to recommend:

Predict future demand based on current knowledge of any major construction schemes,

changes to HGV traffic volumes, or policy changes planned for the next five to ten year

period, e.g. route widening, congestion charging, etc.

A primary objective of the management of highway structures is to provide safe and reliable routes

for all vehicles, particularly public transport and goods vehicles at all times. The County Council

seeks to contain the rate of increase in vehicle use. Therefore, it is not anticipated that there willbe any significant increase in loading that will affect current management practices. However,

should there be any national change in the Construction and Use Regulations (or Authorised

Weight Regulations) then this would have a significant impact.

There is only one major scheme being progressed at the current time i.e. Walton Bridge. This is

being designed by Costain / Atkins and is currently going through the statutory process. Four

existing structures will be affected as shown in Table 8.

5.2 Developer promoted schemes

Developments of housing and industrial areas can create new structures on adopted highways. All

new highway structures are subject to the Technical Approval procedures contained in BD2 [ref. 6].

Adoption is not completed unless a commuted sum to cover future maintenance expenditure is

paid to the County Council. The Department for Transport is currently preparing national guidance

on this subject. There is at least one scheme being promoted at the current time that will replace

three existing bridges as shown in Table 8.


38/101

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Issue No.01

Table 8 Structures Affected by Future Schemes

StructureNumber

Structure Name Promoter Proposal

A244/10 Walton Bridge (Callender Hamilton) Surrey County Council Remove as part of Walton Bridgemajor scheme in 2010

A244/11 Walton Bridge (New Temporary) Surrey County Council Remove as part of Walton Bridgemajor scheme in 2010

A244/4 Cowey Sale Viaduct Surrey County Council To be converted to pedestrian useand modified as part of WaltonBridge major scheme in 2010

A244/8 Causeway Cantilever Footway Surrey County Council To be removed on completion ofWalton Bridge major scheme in2010

A247/7 Elm Bridge East Woking Borough Council To be replaced by new single spanbridge as part of flood reliefscheme in 2008

A247/8 Elm Bridge West Woking Borough Council To be replaced by new single spanbridge as part of flood reliefscheme in 2008

00055695 Willow Way Footbridge Woking Borough Council To be replaced by new bridge aspart of flood relief scheme in 2008


39/101

__________________________________________________________________________________________________


6 PERFORMANCE TARGETS and LEVELS OF SERVICE

6.1 Service Standards

The activities associated with the management of highway structures are generally carried out in

accordance with the standards and advice contained within the Highways Agency Design Manualfor Roads and Bridges [ref. 7]. Materials and procedures associated with the management of

highway structures are generally carried out in accordance with the Highways Agency Specification

for Highway Works [ref. 8]. The contract documents and procedures for all tendered contracts

associated with the management of highway structures are generally prepared in accordance with

the Highways Agency Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works [ref. 9]. Departures from

the advice contained in the above documents are recorded in Feasibility Reports, Approval in

Principle documentation or Tender Appraisal Reports as appropriate.

6.2 The Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures

The first national Code of Practice for the management of highway structures [ref. 1] was published

in September 2005. The Code sets out the basic legal obligation as follows:

There is a statutory obligation on highway authorities to maintain the public highway

(Highways Act, 1980). The obligation embraces the two essential functions of Safe for

Useand Fit for Purpose. The two functions are not the same:

1. Safe for Use requires a highway structure to be managed in such a way that it

does not pose an unacceptable risk to public safety.

2. Fit for Purposerequires a highway structure to be managed in such a way that it

remains available for use by traffic permitted for the route.

The Code then sets out a number of recommendations for the implementation of goodmanagement practice to deliver the basic legal obligations in three milestones:

One: Safe for Use

Two: Fitness for Purpose

Three: Good Management Practice

SCC is seeking to implement the recommendations of the Code of Practice. Current progress,

where 1 is poor and 5 is high, has been reported [ref. 10]. An extract from this report is included

below:

The current position in Surrey at July 2007 is summarised in the table below:

Milestone Rating Range Number of Ratings(2 or less)

Average Rating

One 2 to 5 5 3.55

Two 2 to 5 6 3.37

Three 1 to 5 7 2.94

It is alarming to note that the scores for all three milestones have decreased since January 2007.

The number of ratings scoring 2 or less for Milestone One has increased from zero in October 2005

to five in July 2007.


40/101

SURREY HIGHWAYS STRUCTURES ASSET MANAGEMENT

PLANNING

STRUCTURES GROUP

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


The score for Milestone One had decreased from when the first report was written in October 2005

because of the restrictions on training budgets and use of consultants that were imposed during

2006. There has been a further reduction in score due to the current level of vacancies that exist in

the Structures Group. An Action Plan for the implementation of the Code has been agreed with the

Head of Service and will be included in the 2008/09 Group Business Plan.

6.3 Performance Measurement

At the present time there are no national BVPIs that relate to the management of the stock of

highway structures. However, a new national document entitled Guidance Document for

Performance Measurement of Highway Structures has recently been published [ref. 11]. The

document was prepared by Atkins on behalf of the Highways Agency and the CSS Bridges Group.

The document proposes the introduction of four performance measures as follows:

Condition Performance Indicator

Availability Performance Indicator

Reliability Performance Indicator

Structures backlog

It is not known whether or not the Department for Transport will adopt these indicators as national

BVPIs. This is felt to be unlikely as the total number of BVPIs has been reduced. However, SCC

will adopt these four measures as local performance indicators. Reasonable experience has been

obtained with the use of the Condition Performance Indicator but more work is required to adopt

the requirements of the other three indicators.

The CSS Bridges Group also developed the following suggested performance indicators:

1. Bridges not meeting highway authoritys required carrying capacity as a percentage

of total stock

2. Annual maintenance expenditure on bridges as a percentage of stock value

3. Annual maintenance expenditure on retaining walls as a percentage of stock value

The performance indicators included in the current Structures Group Management Plan that relate

specifically to Asset Management are given in Table 9.

6.4 Performance Targets

The Strategic Goals and Objectives were set out in Section 2. The public perception of highway

structures was also discussed in Section 2. A sub-group of the Asset Management Plan Steering

Group is currently considering Levels of Service in more detail. This work will allow the

consideration of the different service options that the asset could deliver. These could includestatutory (minimum), existing (what is currently provided), requested (from stakeholder

expectations), and desired / optimum (engineered from lifecycle plans).

The high level targets for the stock of highway structures are as follows:

Reduce the backlog of maintenance work on highway structures

Improve the overall condition of the stock of highway structures

All bridges should be capable of carrying 40 tonne vehicles (unless specifically determined

otherwise by Local Committee)


41/101

SURREY HIGHWAYS STRUCTURES ASSET MANAGEMENT

PLANNING

STRUCTURES GROUP

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Specific quantifiable performance targets are as follows:

Reduce the backlog of maintenance work from 4million to 2million by 2010

Improve the Condition Performance Indicator score from 88 to 92 by 2010

Strengthen all SCC owned sub-standard structures by 2012.

A high level target based on the Reliability Performance Indicator will be added in future versions of

this document.

6.5 A Balanced Scorecard Approach

It is considered that the main activities of the Structures Group can be represented by fourclassifications. Each of these classifications can be further sub-divided into four sub-groups asfollows:

Operations Customers

Condition Feedback ResultsAvailability Committee engagementReliability Area Group relationshipsWorkbank Constructor engagement

Contract StaffProgramme (costs) Appraisal performanceFees Staff meetingsWorks periods Technical engagementProgramme (schemes) Training days

The relative importance of each of these groups and sub-groups will be determined using a form ofmulti-criteria decision analysis. It will then be possible to determine an overall performance figure

for the work of the Structures Group in any one year.


42/101


43/101

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___

Issue No.01

Table 9 - Asset Management Performance Indicators (2007/08)

PI Ref. Performance Indicator Target2007-08

AccountableManager

Frequency ofdata capture

Suppo

SG1 Report on condition of the bridge stockusing the CSS BCI performancemeasure

BSCI ave = 89 HB Quarterly Manag

SG2 Report on assessment capacity of thebridge stock using the Reliabilityperformance measure

Initial score to be reportedbefore setting target

CA Quarterly Manag

SG3 Report on availability of the bridgestock using the Availabilityperformance measure


ZC Quarterly Manag

SG4 Report on the condition of the bridgestock using the Work Bankperformance measure


HB Quarterly Manag

SG7 Subway enhancement and

maintenance painting programme

3 completed schemes per

year

HB and CA Quarterly Manag

SG8 Facilities for the disabled improvingfootbridges and subways

1 scheme per year GC Quarterly Manag

SG15a Undertake programme of bridgestrengthening design and works.

95% of programmedschemes

SAC Quarterly Manag

SG15b Undertake programme of inspectionsincluding data validation

95% of programmedinspections

HB and CA Quarterly Manag

SG15c Undertake enhanced maintenanceprogramme reducing reliance onreactive work

within 5% of allocation HB and CA Quarterly Manag

SG15d Complete planned County AssessmentProgramme

March 2008 CA Monthly GMT

SG15e Develop programme of parapetupgrades and other enhancementworks

Complete agreed programme HB and CA Quarterly Manag


44/101

__________________________________________________________________________________________________


7 PERFORMANCE GAPS

We have prepared a separate report entitled Funding for Bridge Management An Asset

Management Approach (2007 Update) [ref. 12] which reviews in detail the current revenue and

capital allocations for bridge management in Surrey. The report records a level of underfunding

compared with national and regional guidelines. The report also highlights the need to eliminate

the backlog of sub-standard bridges by the end of the Ten Year Transport Plan. Further details are

contained in Section 11.

The performance gaps related to the performance targets are as follows:

Backlog of maintenance work exceeds target

Condition Performance Indicator score is below target

Many SCC owned sub-standard structures still exist on the network

Further work is now required to analyse three possible scenarios as recommended by the Code

[ref. 1] as follows:

1. Enhancement the work and funding needed to enhance performance to a specified

target

2. Steady State the level of work and funding needed to sustain the current level of

performance. This information is required for asset valuation purposes (see Section 10)

3. Deterioration the performance if funding is insufficient to maintain Steady State (if this is

planned it should be referred to as Managed Deterioration)

This analysis will be done by combining the information contained within the Funding Report [ref.

12] and the Performance Targets contained in Section 6.4. It will also be necessary to develop the

individual lifecycle plans discussed in Section 8.

To summarise: the overall key problem areas are as follows:

Sub standard strength assessment bridges

Substandard parapets

Road over rail mitigation measures

Disability Discrimination Act improvements

Shift from reactive to preventative maintenance

Maintenance backlog

It is an objective to reduce this backlog at a rate that minimises whole life costs.


45/101

SURREY HIGHWAYS STRUCTURES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNINGSTRUCTURES GROUP


8 LIFECYCLE PLANS

The purpose of this section is, ultimately, to develop lifecycle plans for each individual bridge and

highway structure within the asset inventory. Asset management practice requires a shift from a

reactive approach to longer term planning. Therefore, it is important that the management of the

asset considers the whole life of the asset and seeks to minimise the whole life cost of ownership.

The initial stages of the preparation of these individual lifecycle plans will be based on asset sub-

groups. Preliminary lifecycle plans will also be developed for the four Thames Bridges because of

their strategic importance and comparatively large deck area per structure. The long term aim of

this section is to be able to identify the optimal investment profile required to deliver a specified

level of service and the cost effectiveness of varied levels of service and thereby allow

economically optimal solutions to be identified.

The Code (Ref. 1) describes a Lifecycle Plan as follows:

A Lifecycle Plan describes the long term strategy for managing a group of similar

structures with a view to minimising whole life costs while providing the required levels of

performance. Lifecycle Plans are used to identify maintenance cycles and intervention

thresholds.

The Code (Ref. 1) goes on to say:

The same lifecycle plans should be used to identify needs for individual structures and

elements. The cyclic / intervention rules established in the lifecycle plans are compared

against the current conditions and performance of a structure / element and the specific

characteristics of a structure are assessed to determine of the lifecycle plan activity is

appropriate i.e. the lifecycle plans should be used as general guidance when identifying

specific maintenance needs.

A significant amount of work is now required to develop lifecycle plans. A typical example of

generic lifecycle plans developed for the Enhancement, Steady-State and Deterioration conditions

is shown in Figure 4. Each lifecycle plan will include a complete acquisition to disposal cycle (see

Figure 5). At the present time the routine maintenance activities and maintenance standards for

highway structures are given in Tables 10 and 11 respectively. We seek to keep bridges in a

serviceable state by carrying out the inspection process and then applying the stated maintenance

standards.


46/101



Figure 4 Examples of Life Cycle Plans (source: fig. 5.2 [ref.1])

Figure 5 Lifecycle phases of a highway structure (source: fig. 3.8 [ref.1]


47/101



Table.10 Routine Maintenance Activities Structures

Asset Type Activity Service Standard

Bridges/Structures Bridge Structural maintenance includes:

Parapet Replacement

Pedestrian Headwall

Wingwall and Retaining Wall

Bridge Waterproofing

Bridge Expansion Joints

Details of the service

standard are fully

tabulated in the Quality

Management System

Bridge refurbishment may include the above

but more often includes the more

superficial non-structural maintenance i.e.:

Re-pointing

Brickwork Clearing vegetation

Painting

Repairing

Comprises:

Steady state

maintenance

Minor fixes andrepairs

Table 11 Maintenance Activity Standards

Activity Comment Expected Life

Brick repairs - minor

- major

4 10 years

10 15 yearsConcrete repairs minor

- major

1 5 years

5 10 years

Brick Arch crack repairs

barrel repairs

1 5 years

5 10 years

Steel painting New epoxy based paints are claimedto last 25 years - but have only beenout for about 5 years

12 15 years

Waterproofing 12 years

Joint replacement 6 years

Strengthening The strengthened element will last120 years however, the parentbridge may deteriorate faster

60 120 years

Redecking The strengthened element will last120 years however, the parentbridge may deteriorate faster

120 years

Reconstruction, New Bridges 120 years


48/101



9 VALUE MANAGEMENT AND RISK ASSESSMENT

9.1 Value Management

Value management is used to prioritise needs. The Code [ref. 1] recommends that:

Value Management should be used because it provides a formalised approach for

assessing the benefits of undertaking maintenance and the associated risks of not

undertaking maintenance. The risks and benefits should cover hard issues e.g. condition

and assessed capacity that can be assessed objectively and soft issues such as local

importance and synergies with other work that may need to be assessed subjectively.

9.2 Risk Assessment

An important part of Value Management is Risk Management. It should be noted that risk analysisis the calculation of a risk, whereas risk assessment is a judgement on the acceptability of the risk.

At the present t ime, the value management process is dependent on the draft risk assessment

exercise carried out as part of the first draft TAMP. An extract from this exercise covering

Structures Group activities has been included as Table 12. Risks were calculated based on image,

process, financial and safety scores. Potential consequences of failure have been determined and

mitigation actions detailed. Operational health and safety risks are excluded from this exercise.

Highway structures have a higher level of associated risk compared with other highway assets

largely because of the higher level of consequential effects. The results of the risk management

exercise may lead us eventually to reconsider optimal service levels, option appraisal and budget

optimisation. A series of workshops were held in autumn 2007 to review risks at service and

corporate levels. The Structures part of the Surrey Highways risk register has been extracted and

will be included in the 2008/09 Business Plan.

The current risk management process is supported by the existing value management

prioritisation tools for determining the following programmes:

parapet upgrade work (Figure 6)

railway incursion mitigation (Figure 7)

strengthening (Figure 8)

The risk management of bridges that have failed strength assessments is covered by procedures

set out in BD79 [ref. 5] (refer also to paragraph 4.3). The simplified flow chart adopted by

Structures Group is shown in Figure 9. Each failed structure has a data sheet, known as an E1

form, together with a Monitoring Procedure, where appropriate. The Monitoring Procedurecontains details of intervention measures to minimise risks. Each E1 form is reviewed on a bi-

annual basis, or sooner if intermediate special inspections determine otherwise.


49/101


50/101

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Issue No.01

Table.12 Risk Identification and Assessment

No. Risk Impact ImageRating

FinancialRating

Safety ProcessRating

Sum LikelihoodRating

1 Increase in costs ofstrengthening workreduces effectiveness ofprogramme

Number of sub-standardbridges continue to rise.Greater risk of restrictions andfailures.

2 33

3 11 3

2 Increase in costs ofmaintenance work reduceseffectiveness ofprogramme

Condition of bridge stockdeteriorates. Reduction inperformance indicator.Maintenance backlogincreases.

3 32

3 11 3

3 Failure of any structurerequiring road closure

High risk of injury. Suddenunplanned traffic diversions.

4 4

4

4 16 2

4 Failure of sub-standardstructure requiring roadclosure

High risk of injury. Planneddiversion to be implemented.

4 44

4 16 2

5 Failure to complete annualassessment programme

Risk of sub-standard bridgesgoing undetected. Reduction inperformance indicator.

2 23

2 9 3

6 Failure to complete annualinspection programme

Risk of defects goingundetected. Reduction inperformance indicator.

2 23

2 9 3


51/101



There are currently 33 bridges on the network that have failed assessments and are only kept

in unrestricted service as a result of the special inspection programme. This situation cannot

continue indefinitely. Current levels of funding are likely to result in traffic restrictions having to

be imposed to ensure public safety.

The value management process will eventually cover:

options for routine maintenance and how they are selected and evaluated

potential planned maintenance schemes and how different treatment options are

identified and evaluated

9.3 Value Engineering

All SCC promoted schemes (strengthening, reconstruction or new works) are subject to a Value

Engineering process that considers load bearing capacity, ground conditions, physical

constraints, traffic management issues, environmental issues, materials and methods of

construction, health and safety issues, maintenance implications, whole life costs and any other

relevant issues. The assessment, design and checking process is subject to the requirements

of the Technical Approval procedures contained in BD2 [ref.6].

10. ASSET VALUATION

Structures Group is a member of the CSS South East Area Bridge Improvement Group

(SEABIG) which seeks to compare bridge management performance across the South East,

thereby supporting continuous improvement.

The CSS reported [Ref. 13] that the average cost of replacing a typical authority bridge was

215,000 (this approximates to a rate of 2,000 per sg.m.). More recent work by SEABIG

sho