PAPER D1

Purpose : For Decision

 

Committee:      EXECUTIVE

 

Date:                24 SEPTEMBER 2002

 

Title:                HIGHWAY SCHEME PRIORITISATION

 

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR TRANSPORT

 

SUMMARY

The Best Value Inspection Report on the Highways and Transportation Service, published in December 2001, criticised the Council for a lack of a formal system to prioritise highway schemes.  A Scheme Prioritisation System has now been designed and will be used to produce a programme of Capital Works for 2003/2004.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Within the Highways and Transportation Best Value Inspection Report, under the section dealing with Performance Management Systems, the following statement was made:-

 

AThe service also lacks a structured method for prioritising and scheduling work.    Other councils have agreed criteria that are used in priority-rating systems that clearly demonstrate to the public why some schemes are chosen ahead of others.@

 

The Best Value Inspectorate then recommended that the Council should:-

 

AY.. implement and communicate a system to ensure that schemes are prioritised in line with the standards and priorities of the Council.@

 

In response to the comments made, other highway authorities have been contacted to establish present best practice in the priority assessment of schemes.  Following this, highway schemes undertaken by the Isle of Wight Council have been split into six types for prioritisation:-

 

1.                  Carriageway Structural Maintenance.

2.                  Footway Structural Maintenance.

3.                  Drainage.

4.                  Minor Works and Safety Improvements.

5.                  Safe Routes to School.

6.                  Traffic Calming.

 

Details of the methods used for prioritising follow:-

 

1.       Carriageway Structural Maintenance

 

To provide data for National Best Value Performance Indicators BV96 (Condition of Principal Roads) and BV97 (Condition of Non-Principal Roads), the Council, since 1999, has undertaken an annual Course Visual Inspection (CVI) of all A, B and C classified roads.  Software, to process this information into the respective BVPI, was purchased from WDM Ltd and is known as UKPMS.  In addition, this system does of course allow prioritisation of carriageway structural maintenance using the CVI data.  However, it does not take into account structural deterioration or skidding resistance.


 


Following discussions with other highway authorities, a decision has been taken that prioritisation of carriageway structural repairs should be based on machine road condition information only.

 

The information is provided by three machines:-

 

1)                 Deflectograph B structural condition

2)                 SCRIM B skidding resistance

3)                 MRM B ride quality.

 

Much of this data is already available from previous surveys undertaken on the Isle of Wight by WDM Ltd.

 

To analyse the machine data, software over and above UKPMS will be required. WDM can upgrade their UKPMS software to a full Pavement Management System (PMS) which uses the data provided by Deflectograph, SCRIM and MRM to produce a prioritised and priced list of carriageway structural maintenance schemes, using predetermined criteria. The system can also calculate the required spend on a >year by year= basis, to reach a specified standard  of maintenance.

 

2.       Footway Structural Maintenance

 

Since machine condition surveys are not appropriate for footways, another method of prioritisation is required.

 

With a new requirement in 2002/03 for the undertaking of Detailed Visual Inspections (DVI) surveys each year of 50% category numbers 1, 1a, and 2 footways (these categories refer to well used footways representing about 60% of the total network), to provide data for a national footway condition BVPI, the opportunity exists to use this information for prioritisation.  Within UKPMS, software has been developed for this purpose.

 

3.       Drainage

 

As with footways, machine  condition surveys are not appropriate for drainage schemes and an Ain-house@ priority ranking system is being put in place.  This considers:-

 

·  Potential and actual accident factors

·  Environmental and location factors

·  Cost factors

·  Level of support for scheme.

 

The scoring sheet is shown in Appendix 1.

 

4.       Minor Works and Safety Improvements

 

A similar priority rating system to the above for ADrainage Schemes@ is being introduced to rank Minor Works and Safety Improvements.  It relies on the same factors with the addition of skid resistance.

 

5.       Safe Routes to School

 

This system is based on that for ADrainage Schemes@ but with accident record noting children only and the Environmental and Location Factors taking into consideration:-

 


·  Local traffic congestion problem

·  Potential modal shift.

 

6.       Traffic Calming

 

Again, this ranking is based on the ADrainage Scheme@ model.  Different Environmental and Location Factors are used:-

 

·  Potential speed reduction

·  Potential traffic volume reduction

·  Safe routes to school

·  Shopping area.

 

It is intended to use the proposed prioritisation system to prepare the Capital programme for 2003/04.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

With the exception of the proposed prioritisation method for carriageway structural maintenance there are no financial implications. A business case is at present being prepared for the upgrading of the WDM UKPMS to full PMS at a cost of ,14,000 with an ongoing commitment of ,14,000 per year for a software licence.

 

OPTIONS

 

1.         To approve the formal prioritisation of Capital Highway.

 

2.                  Not to accept the report and recommendation.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Option 1.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND PAPERS

 

None.

 

Contact Point:  Malcolm Smith tel: 823777

 

MIKE FISHER

Strategic Director

Corporate & Environment Services

 

ERNIE FOX

Portfolio Holder for Transport

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

APPENDIX 1

 

PRIORITY RATING SYSTEM B DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS

 

Location:

 

 

 

 

 

Description of Scheme:

 

 

 

 

 

FACTORS TO CONSIDER:

 

POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL ACCIDENT FACTOR

                                                                                                                         Number                Score

 

 

1. Recorded

 

Traffic Accidents in last 3 years K.S.I

 

 

X

 

15

 

=

 

 

accidents relating to

 

Traffic Accidents in last 3 years Slight

 

 

 

X

 

5

 

=

 

 

 

flooding

 

Pedestrian Casualties in last 3 years K.S.I

 

 

 

X

 

15

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

Pedestrian Casualties in last 3 years Slight

 

 

 

X

 

5

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

Cycle Users Casualties in last 3 years K.S.I

 

 

 

X

 

15

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

Cycle Users Casualties in last 3 years Slight

 

 

 

X

 

5

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

Insurance Damage Claims made in last 3 years

 

 

 

X

 

5

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

No of child K.S.I Casualties in last 3 years

 

 

 

X

 

10

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

Total  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                         Yes                       Score

 

 

2. Potential of the

 

Remove standing water/ice

 

 

X

 

15

 

=

 

 

Site to cause

 

Poor Structural Condition

 

 

 

X

 

10

 

=

 

 

 

Accidents

 

 

                                                                                         Total

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND LOCATION FACTORS

                                                                                                                         Yes                       Score

 

 

 

 

Improvement for cyclists

 

 

X

 

10

 

=

 

 

 

 

Improvement for Pedestrians

 

 

 

X

 

10

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

Property suffering internal flooding

 

 

 

X

 

10

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

Property suffering external flooding

 

 

 

X

 

5

 

=

 

 

 

 

                                                                                        Total

 

 

 

                                                                                                                        Yes                        Score

 


 

Location

 

Principal Road

 

 

X

 

20

 

=

 

 

 

 

B Classification

 

 

 

X

 

15

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

C Classification

 

 

 

X

 

10

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

Shopping Area

 

 

 

X

 

5

 

=

 

 

 

 

                                                                                        Total

 

 

 

 

 

COST FACTOR

                                                                                                                                                     Score

 

 

Annual Cost saving of RTA Accidents in last 3 years

 

Cost of Scheme = ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

First Year Rate of Return = %

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Score Rate of Return YYYY..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost Claims within last 3 years - % of scheme estimate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                       TOTAL TECHNICAL SCORE

 

 

 

 

LEVEL OF SUPPORT

 

 

 

 

Elected Member Support

 

 

 

X

 

10

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

Parish Council Support

 

 

 

X

 

10

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

Police Support

 

 

 

X

 

10

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

Public Support

 

 

 

X

 

5

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

Environment Agency

 

 

 

X

 

10

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

Other Bodies

 

 

 

 

 

5

 

=

 

 

 

 

                                                                       TOTAL TECHNICAL SCORE

 

 

 

 

                                                                       TOTAL OVERALL SCORE