Committee: EXECUTIVE
Date: 24 SEPTEMBER 2002
Title: HIGHWAY SCHEME PRIORITISATION
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 |
|
Location: |
|
Description of Scheme: |
FACTORS
TO CONSIDER:
|
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 |
|