Highways Transport Panel Report TAMP2010

HCC TAMP 2010 APR DRAFT ver.1.9

Contents

Introduction

1 Transport Asset Management 4 Footways 2010 4.1 Footway Network Survey 1.1 New Corporate Plans 4.2 Hierarchy Review 1.2 Local Transport Plan 4.3 Condition and Performance 1.3 DfT Grant for Winter Damage 4.4 IWP Delivery 2009/10 1.4 Financial Reporting (Valuation) 4.5 IWP Delivery 2010/11 1.5 Environment and Climate Change 4.6 Financial Information 1.6 Routine Maintenance 5 Intelligent Transport Systems 2 Carriageways 5.1 Update on ITS Strategy 2.1 Winter Damage and Recovery 5.2 IWP Delivery 2009/10 2.2 Holistic Management - Cat 1 & 2 5.3 IWP Delivery 2010/11 2.3 Investment & Performance 5.4 Financial Information 2.4 Condition Projections Examined 2.5 Investment Scenarios & Options 6 Street Lighting 2.6 Future Condition Targets 6.1 Private Finance Initiative 2.7 IWP Delivery 2009/10 6.2 Service Challenges 2.8 IWP Delivery 2010/11 6.3 IWP Delivery 2009/10 2.9 Financial Information 6.4 IWP Delivery 2010/11 6.5 Financial Information 3 Drainage 3.1 New Flood Risk Legislation 7 Structures 3.2 Surface Water Management Plans 7.1 Condition & Performance 3.3 Drainage Data – HertsDAM 7.2 IWP Delivery 2009/10 3.4 Routine Maintenance Efficiencies 7.3 IWP Delivery 2010/11 3.5 IWP Delivery 2009/10 7.4 Financial Information 3.6 IWP Delivery 2010/11 7.5 Data Issues 3.7 Financial Information 3.8 Ongoing and Future Development Appendix – List of Winter Recovery Sites Funded with DfT Support

1 of 56 09/05/2018 TAMP APR 2010 DRAFT ver.1.9

Introduction

The last year has brought both opportunities and challenges in the field of transport asset management. It started with the second severe winter in a row, focusing public attention nationally once more on the resilience of the transport network in difficult conditions and leaving a further legacy of short- and long-term damage to the road network in its wake.

In March the new CIPFA Code for the valuation of infrastructure assets was published. Based on asset management principles, this code offers the opportunity to ensure that the true value of these key public assets and the costs associated with maintaining them are, at last, properly reflected in public accounts.

May brought a general election during a period of ongoing economic downturn and a new coalition government with a determination to balance public finances by making significant cuts to public spending. The likely impact of which became clearer following the publication of the Comprehensive Spending Review in October.

All this is against the background of the challenge of climate change with more extreme weather events seemingly becoming more frequent and putting a greater strain on infrastructure assets and new responsibilities, powers and duties needing to be incorporated into the way we manage our services.

With all this in mind, Hertfordshire, like local authorities, will be compelled to focus on providing its core services as efficiently as possible and will need to challenge both what we do and the way we do it. All of this is well in hand in the highway service with the ongoing Herts Highways efficiency agenda already delivering substantial savings and new contracts from October 2012 providing the opportunity to reconsider the service and focus on key priorities.

However, the asset management ethos will continue to be a central part of the way we approach these services, not as an added extra but as the core of the strategy. Ensuring that we make considered decisions based on good information with the authority’s objectives clearly in mind is the most effective way of making sure we make best possible use of the available resources and rise to the challenges ahead.

Rob Smith Assistant Director, Transport management December 2010

1 Transport Asset Management 2010

1.1 Changes to Reflect the new Corporate and Departmental Plans

1.1.1 Corporate Plan

A new HCC corporate plan (2009-2012) has been published that supersedes the previous plan that expired in 2009. The corporate plan contains priorities and objectives that are set at a strategic level and many are directly applicable to the TAMP. Some of the current plan’s objectives are similar to those contained within the 2006 – 2009 plan; however there has been some change in focus to address current economic challenges and growing awareness of climate change issues as reflected in the new Priorities for Action shown below: 1. Support economic well being 5. Reduce carbon emissions 2. Maximise independent living 6. Promote safer neighbourhoods 3. Ensure a positive childhood 7. Be a leading council 4. Secure a good education for all

Although the TAMP will contribute to the delivery of many of the Priorities above, Priorities 1, 5, 6 and 7 are most closely linked to the TAMP.

P1. A well-maintained and efficient highway network is critical to the efficient movement of people, goods and services underpinning both the local and national economy. Consequently, the TAMP and the actions and strategies that emerge from it have a major impact on Priority 1.

P5. The highway service has significant carbon implications, both direct and indirect. Selecting the most efficient treatments and lifecycles for highway assets reduces the direct carbon footprint of the maintenance activities themselves while roads in a good condition improve vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce running costs, reducing the indirect carbon impact.

P6. Providing a safe and accessible network with appropriate levels of lighting and good integrated transport links for all types of users contributes significantly to providing safe neighbourhoods and encouraging a sense of place in local communities.

P7. Hertfordshire has been leading the way in highway asset management for 10 years now, promoting and practising a strategy which is now being followed by almost all UK highway authorities to some extent. In doing so, Hertfordshire has delivered significant efficiencies, good value for money and a philosophy of continuous improvement.

P2, 3 and 4. Well maintained and managed roads also help to support Priorities 2, 3 and 4 by underpinning easy and safe travel by a variety of modes of transport and ensuring that all communities are as accessible as possible. Good roads are generally more important to those relying on cycling or on public transport such as buses than they are to car drivers meaning that those in vulnerable groups are often put at more of a disadvantage by poor roads than the community at large.

1.1.1 Environment Department Service Plan 2009-10

Many of the specific objectives contained within the corporate plan have also been addressed in the Environment Department Service Plan for 2009-2010. The key outcomes set out in this service plan show a clear link back to the corporate plan objectives that they have been developed for. These have been shown below: 1. Effective waste management Priority 5 2. Improved transport choice and access Priority 2 & 5 3. Safe and efficient transport systems Priority 2 & 6 4. Improved quality and location development Priority 1,5 & 7 5. Improved protection and enhancement of the environment Priority 2 & 3 6. Strong community leadership and effective partnership working Priority 7 7. Climate change and sustainability Priority 5 & 7 8. A resilient local economy Priority 1 & 7 9. Value for money and a service that listens to community & customers Priority 7

Outcomes 3, 5, 7 and 9 have the most relevance to the TAMP. Applicable performance indicators and specific actions required for each outcome are noted in the service plan.

1.2 Local Transport Plan

The existing Local Transport Plan for the county (LTP2) expires at the end of March 2011. The LTP is currently being reviewed, and a new one (LTP3), is to be published by April 2011. The TAMP was written drawing on LTP2 as one of the sources of strategic drivers; in particular Section 3 of the TAMP draws upon the LTP2 Objectives to help establish the Principles of the Transport Asset Management Plan.

At the time of writing, the draft of LTP3 is out for consultation. The draft LTP3 replaces the Objectives in LTP2 with 5 Goals and 13 Challenges. The table below sets out the draft Goals and Objectives. As LTP3 is currently out for consultation, the document may change between the current draft and the final, adopted version. Once LTP3 is formally adopted, the final version will be reviewed to see how the changes from LTP2 impact on the TAMP and whether changes to the TAMP are required as a result. This process is likely to happen through the TAMP APR 2011.

Table 1.2 Hertfordshire Draft LTP3: Goals and Challenges GOAL - Support economic development and planned dwelling growth 1.1 Keep the county moving through efficient management of the road network to improve journey time, reliability and resilience and manage congestion to minimise its impact on the economy. 1.2 Support economic growth and new housing development through delivery of transport improvements and where necessary enhancement of the network capacity.

GOAL - Improve transport opportunities for all and achieve behavioural change in mode choice 2.1 Improve accessibility for all and particularly for non car users and the disadvantaged (disabled, elderly, low income etc). 2.2 Achieve behavioural change as regards choice of transport mode increasing awareness of the advantages of walking, cycling and public transport, and of information on facilities and services available. 2.3 Achieve further improvements in the provision of public transport (bus and rail services) to improve accessibility, punctuality, reliability and transport information in order to provide a viable alternative for car users. GOAL - Enhance quality of life, health and the natural, built and historic environment of all Hertfordshire residents 3.1 Improve journey experience for transport users in terms of comfort, regularity and reliability of service, safety concerns, ability to park and other aspects to improve access. 3.2 Improve the health of individuals by encouraging and enabling more physically active travel and access to recreational areas and through improving areas of poor air quality which can affect health. 3.3 Maintain and enhance the natural, built and historic environment managing the streetscape and improving integration and connections of streets and neighbourhoods and minimising the adverse impacts of transport on the natural environment, heritage and landscape. 3.4 Reduce the impact of transport noise especially in those areas where monitoring shows there to be specific problems for residents. GOAL - Improve the safety and security of residents and other road users 4.1 Improve road safety in the county reducing the risk of death and injury due to traffic accidents. 4.2 Reduce crime and the fear of crime on the network to enable users of the network to travel safely and with minimum concern over safety so that accessibility is not compromised. GOAL - Reduce transport’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions & improve its resilience. 5.1 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport in the county to meet government targets through the reduction in consumption of fossil fuels. 5.2 Design new infrastructure and the maintenance of the existing network in the light of likely future constraints and threats from changing climate, including the increasing likelihood of periods of severe weather conditions.

1.3 DfT Grant for Winter Damage

As discussed in last year’s (2009) APR the harsh winter of 2008/09 severely damaged HCC’s road network. A claim to recover some of the costs associated with rectifying the deterioration in carriageway condition was submitted to the DfT. Hertfordshire’s winter recovery claim was successful and the total funds received based upon the submission totalled £4.15m. One condition attached to the payment of the claim was that a list of works funded by the money should be published. This list is included as an Appendix to this document.

Further damage to the road network occurred during another harsh winter last year (2009/10). Similarly to many UK highway authorities the DfT awarded Hertfordshire funds to repair the significant number of potholes directly attributed to this weather. In Hertfordshire’s case this amounted to a grant of £1.44m.

This is discussed in more detail in the carriageway section 2.1 on Winter Damage.

1.4 Financial Reporting (Asset Valuation)

1.4.1 Asset Valuation Drivers In many developed economies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, infrastructure asset valuation has, in conjunction with statutory long term financial planning, been a government requirement for some time. This requirement has led the development of asset management practice and the subsequent improvements in asset data.

It is however only recently, with the introduction of Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) that highway asset valuation has become a government requirement in the UK. The progressive introduction of WGA will place the onus on local authorities to value their highway and transport assets using a DRC (depreciated replacement cost) basis rather than current historic cost basis.

The UK Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) were tasked with developing a new Code of Practice on Transport Infrastructure Assets that provided guidance to local authorities to meet the requirements of WGA. This COP was published in March 2010.

This Code was developed in collaboration with the Highways Asset Management Financial Information Group (HAMFIG). This group comprises representatives from local highway authorities across Britain as well as representatives from CIPFA and DfT. Hertfordshire is an active member of this group and in particular has provided substantial input into the development of detailed guidance for carriageways.

Information about the Code and how to get a copy as well as further supporting information on asset valuation can be found on the CIPFA website at: www.cipfa.org.uk/pt/infrastructure

1.4.2 DRC Asset Valuation A DRC valuation is a method of assessing asset value which provides the current cost of replacing an asset after deducting an allowance for the wear and ageing arising from the consumed service life of the asset. The DRC is derived from: DRC = Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) - Accumulated Consumption (AC), where:

 GRC = the cost of replacing an existing asset with an equivalent new (modern equivalent) asset. The GRC does not make any provision for improvements to the capacity of the asset.  AC = the consumption of an asset during its life due to ageing, usage, deterioration, damage etc.

In addition, the valuation process also allows the calculation of Annual Depreciation (AD). This measures the average annual rate at which the asset deteriorates or, to look at it from the other direction, the average amount that would nee to be spent annually in order to maintain the value of the asset in a steady state.

The numbers involved calculated are highly dependent upon the estimates of the service life of components of the asset. Good asset management practice provides all the information required for asset valuation

1.4.3 Implementation Timetable and Progress to date The planned timetable for UK highways authorities to meet the national asset valuation reporting requirements involves: - 2010/11 Local authorities to supply GRC estimates for their carriageway and footway assets with the option to provide DRC figures where these are available. - 2011/12 First full dry run year, with local authority valuations for all their main transport assets, including full DRC balances. - 2012/13 Fully audited local authority accounts for transport infrastructure assets on a DRC valuation basis required.

As Hertfordshire has robust inventory for most of its highway assets, GRC can be calculated for other assets in an addition to carriageways and footways and will be reported on this year. As the carriageway DRC value is calculated through the UKPMS, Hertfordshire will also submit a valuation for this term. We are also using this opportunity to identify gaps within the inventory data to ascertain what information is required for future DRC valuations across the applicable assets.

For 2010, HH have undertaken a GRC valuation of their main highway assets using the new COP guidance. A summary of these figures is provided in the table below:

Asset Group GRC (£000's) % of GRC Carriageways* £4,791,743 73.4% Footways £720,809 11.0% ITS (Traffic Signals) £47,268 0.7% Street Lighting £79,230 1.2% Structures £885,510 14.0% Total £6,524,560 *Note - Carriageways figure includes linear items such as kerbs and drainage

The total GRC value of Hertfordshire’s highway assets is currently valued at £6,525m. A more detailed breakdown of GRC by asset group can be found in the subsequent sections. The graph below shows the split in total GRC by asset group.

% Total GRC by Asset Carriageways Footways ITS (traffic Signals) Street Lighting Structures

The GRC values above represent an updated account of Hertfordshire’s inventory for 2009/10. Additional information has been obtained and subsequently the data has been updated from the original WGA submission to the treasury. Hertfordshire is continually reviewing the inventory data and further updates will be made accordingly as improved information is made available.

1.4.4 Practical Applications for Asset Valuation

For this year, authorities have only been required to calculate carriageway GRC although some, like Hertfordshire, have calculated GRC for other assets as well.

While the GRC is a useful headline figure, highlighting the size and value of the highway asset, it has few practical applications in the management of the asset.

The DRC is much more useful as it provides a current value for the asset and, therefore, allows us to track changes from year-to-year to ensure that the asset is being maintained and managed effectively.

Similarly AD gives a useful indication of the typical annual level of funding needed to maintain and manage an asset.

1.5 Environmental and Climate Change Considerations

The threat of climate change is not simply an environmental or ‘green’ issue; it is an all-pervasive phenomenon, affecting all aspects of our society, economy and environment. It is also a risk-multiplier and has the potential to take all the other critical issues we face as a local authority and transform their severity into a very significant risk.

Hertfordshire County Council now has duties and statutory obligations (through national performance indicators and the Climate Change Act, 2008) to act on climate change both in terms of reducing its CO2 emissions as well as ensuring its services, assets and operations are resilient to the risks presented by climate change. Local authorities have a duty of care to ensure that services can be delivered and maintained under a changing climate.

Climate change is expected to have an impact on the design, construction and maintenance of our highways and transport infrastructure and therefore policies and standards will have to be amended accordingly in order to keep abreast of the changes that will occur. Over the next few decades, Hertfordshire may experience: - As much as 2°C increase in average annual temperatures - Warmest day summer temperatures could increase by up to 5°C in the extreme - Drier summers, with up to 25% less rainfall at the extreme - Increased winter precipitation with up to 22% more at the extreme - More variable winter temperatures with more severe swings likely

HCC may therefore face a number of important risks to service delivery from climate change because transport infrastructure can be significantly influenced by weather and climate variables. Whilst in the immediate future risks are considered manageable, it is the extreme events that pose the greater (material) risks.

In the future drier and hotter summers may lead to a significant increase in pavement deterioration and subsidence and asphalt mixes designed around current mean temperatures will be more prone to rut, melt or ‘fat up’ as the bitumen bleeds to the surface, Wetter winters and more frequent heavy rainfall events may result in more frequent incidences of surface water ponding and flooding, impacting on pavement condition, drainage capacity and highways structures.

The TAMP should therefore begin to consider how climate risk may have implications on the highways asset, particularly where medium to long term maintenance schemes and treatments are being developed. These considerations should include: - Are asset management programmes and treatments that are guided by TAMP influenced by weather variables? - Is any account being made for future changes to weather patterns and thresholds during the lifetime of these treatments? - Will these programmes and treatments continue to be resilient over their lifetime (10, 20, 30+ years) if current weather patterns change and extreme events occur more frequently and become more severe?

1.5.1 Sustainability – Assessing Carbon Footprint Carbon footprint data regarding the volume of carbon emissions produced by the county’s highway assets will be required in the future. These will be extended to cover treatment options to assess their impact on the environment and may form part of the option assessment for the proposed treatment options.

As the provision of carbon footprint calculators are still under development nationally, Hertfordshire is looking to implement an interim measure by which carriageway surface treatment options can be evaluated. This will provide an additional and valuable input driver to treatment selection. The table below provides an example of how this could be applied in practice, where the weighted factored matrix produces a ranked score for each treatment option.

This tool is still under development and the numbers in the matrix below are for illustration at this stage however, one of the key purposes of such a tool is to encourage the designer to consider the full range of factors.

Table 1.5 Illustrative Carriageway Surface Treatment Sustainability Matrix: New Production Recycled Waste Bitumen Site Aggregate Energy Content in Material Content Traffic Content used Material to Tip Weighting Factor (1 – 5 5 1 3 3 3 5) High 1 1 1 1 3 1 Medium 2 2 2 2 2 2 Low 3 3 3 3 1 3

HRA High HRA (5) HRA (5) HRA (3) - HRA (3) (1) Micro Micro Medium SD (6) - - (10) Micro (10) (2) HRA (3) Micro (3) Low SD (15) SD (15) SD (3) Micro (9) Micro (3) SD (3) SD (3) NB: HRA (hot rolled asphalt, traditional surfacing material typically laid 40mm thick) Micro (Micro asphalt, thin surfacing material typically laid 20mm thick) SD (Surface Dressing, bitumen spray and rolled-in chippings)

Summary of example results: (where a high score is a good result)  HRA = 20  Micro = 37  SD = 45

As can been seen from the scores, SD scores the best in the sustainability matrix. This method of carbon footprint evaluation will be assessed over the coming year and will be used informally by designers as a precursor to the carbon footprint calculator. HCC is developing several strategies in preparation of climate change, and will look to provide tactical guidance. These guidance documents will look at the impact of increased frequency and magnitude of storm conditions as well as the rise in temperature, all of which can have a substantial impact upon the transport network.

1.6 Routine Maintenance Efficiency Initiatives

The Hertfordshire Highways Efficiency Agenda aims to deliver a total of £13.8 million of savings by 2012. The Routine Maintenance work stream has contributed £787k of savings over the last two years up to 31st March 2010. The efficiency savings have been generated from a combination of: - Increased value of Cat2 and vehicle crossover work orders attracting discounted rates from the Works Team (by batching work to achieve economies of scale etc) - Fines imposed on the Works Team for the late delivery of Cat2 works - Cleaning of Bus Shelters by Emergency Crews and - A cash-back arrangement from the Works Team in delivering the Cat1 service.

Projected efficiency savings for 2010/11 are around £700k and will be generated by: - Cat1/Cat2 holistic approach (see section 2.2); efficiency savings derived from increased effectiveness, existing and new negotiated rates for Cat2 and Super Cat2 works and re-negotiation of cash-back arrangements for Cat1 service - Grass Cutting on selected high speed roads (frequency based specification with savings derived from reduced traffic management costs), - Road Markings (bulking up of orders to avoid minimum charges / ensuring sufficient works to justify minimum charges) - Route Strategies (cyclical programme of lane closures on high speed roads with reduced amount and cost of associated traffic management), - Continued cleaning of Bus Shelters by Emergency Crews and - Sign De-Illumination (reduced energy and electrical maintenance costs).

For 2011/12 the projected efficiency savings are around £1.2m and will be generated from a combination of initiatives similar to those stated for 2010/11 plus reduced maintenance regimes and associated operating costs for: - Grass Cutting (Rural Swathe Cut) and Gully Cleaning - Street Lighting (including a reduction in levels of service)

2 Carriageways

2.1 Winter Damage and Condition Recovery

2.1.1 Winter Recovery 2009 The winter of 08/09 saw several periods of severe weather including an extended and severe period in February 2009 which was the worst in 20 years. The effect of this extreme weather severely damaged the road network with the worst period of snow, in February 2009, causing damage the equivalent of one year’s normal wear and tear in just two weeks.

This severe weather, and the steps Hertfordshire took to calculate the damage, are dealt with in more detail in section 2.1 of the TAMP APR 2009.

As an immediate response to the damage, Hertfordshire formed a ‘Winter Recovery’ programme which consisted of identifying roads that required urgent works which were directly due to damage caused by the severe weather. A works programme was developed and delivered, initially funded from HCC resources.

A claim to the Department for Transport (DfT) was made for assistance in dealing with the extraordinary circumstances, similar assistance having been given to other authorities in the past for extraordinary weather damage such as flooding. Although many authorities suffered highway damage due to the severe weather, few were able to quantify and substantiate the damage sufficiently well to make a claim.

Hertfordshire’s winter recovery claim was successful and the total finds received based upon the submission totalled £4.15m. A condition of the payment from DfT was that the list of sites treated with the money provided should be published. To fulfil this requirement, a breakdown of 72 sites completed as part of the Winter Recovery Programme 2009/2010 is shown in Appendix A.

Owing to their urgent nature, these works were all initially completed using county funding. The success in securing DfT support for this programme has effectively allowed the County to return some of the funding used on urgent winter recovery repairs to other key projects.

2.1.1 Winter Recovery 2010 The winter of 2009/10 was, if anything, harder on the long-term condition of our roads than 2008/09. A length period of snow in early 2010 meant that, once again, urgent repairs were required to a number of roads and a second Winter Recovery Programme was incorporated into the 2010/11 IWP.

This programme is funded primarily from additional county capital although the previous government did announce £100m for urgent road repairs in the March 2010 budget which the new coalition government retained. Hertfordshire’s share of this money was £1.44m and, although the damage done to the network was significantly more than that (see below), this money has been put to good use helping to repair some of the most immediate problems.

2.1.3 Two Severe Winters in a Row – Cumulative Effects The Hertfordshire road network has suffered from two prolonged snow events that have resulted in considerable damage to roads. The immediate damage to road pavements after each event resulted in considerable additional faults being identified and repaired. The immediate impact of and cost to repair these initial faults is relatively easily quantified through Herts Highways’ fault reporting and asset management system.

The long-term impact of these two events though requires a different approach. To assess the long-term impact the Pavement Performance Model developed and used by Hertfordshire for the past 8 years with support from Opus International Consultants has been used.

Figure 2.1 below shows the actual condition scores and forecasts either to sustain the 2008 score of 9.2 (the base case) or to return network condition to that score following deterioration as a consequence of the snow events.

Sample Network Condition vs Investment Worse 16

14 ) s t l

u 12 a F

Actual Condition e g 10 d BASE £3.9Mp.a. E

g n i 8 2009 £3.9Mp.a. d u l

c 2009 £4.5Mp.a. x E

I 2010 £3.9Mp.a. C A

C 4 2010 £4.5Mp.a. C H 2010 £5.9Mp.a. 2

Better 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Figure 2.1 Sample Network Forecasts

The sample network used for the analysis equates to approximately 1,050 km of unclassified (U) roads. The sections included incorporate lengths that were rated: - Twelve months prior to 2009 snow event and - Following the 2009 snow event and - Following the 2010 snow event and - Have not had pavement renewal works undertaken

As the U road network was part way through being surveyed at that time, the extent of the sample survey is limited to those sections that were surveyed subsequent to the 2009/10 snow event. This is the same sample survey set used to undertake the first round of snow impact assessment after the 2008/09 winter damage. This section of the report updates that work and looks at the cumulative impacts of two consecutive severe winters.

2.1.3.1 Pre-2009 Snow Event Based upon inspection data from the 2008 survey (Prior to the 2009 snow event) the average condition score for the sample network was calculated as 9.2. To sustain that condition over the following five years for this sample of the network only would have required an annual average investment of £3.9m p.a.

Initial Sample Network Whole Condition Investment Network 9.2 £3.9m p.a. £19.0m p.a.

2.1.3.2 Post-2009 Snow Event The 2009 condition survey spanned the January 2009 snow event. The average condition score for those sections surveyed after the snow event was 10.3. If investment was sustained at £3.9m p.a. then network condition would not return to pre-snow levels. If investment was increased to £4.5m p.a. then network condition could be returned to that prior to the snow event.

Initial Condition Sample Network Whole Over 5 years Investment Network 10.3 £4.5m p.a. £21.9m p.a.

Difference to 2008 £0.6m p.a. £2.9m p.a. £14.6m

2.1.3.3 Post-2010 Snow Event Initial Condition Sample Network Whole Over 5 years Investment Network 13.2 £5.9m p.a. £28.7m p.a.

Difference to 2008 £2.0m p.a. £9.7m p.a. £48.6m Difference to 2009 £1.4m p.a. £6.8m p.a. £34.1m

It would take five years of targeted investment to return the network to pre 2009 snow event condition. The investment required to achieve this is £28.7m p.a., an increase of £9.7m p.a. over the 2008 investment level.

When comparing to the 2009 investment level this represents a further £6.8m p.a. or £34.1M over 5 years; roughly 1 ½ years investment when compared to the 2009 forecast.

2.1.3.4 Snow Impact Summary

There are several ways of comparing the forecasts.  To sustain the 2008 network condition, without the two snow events would have taken £19.0m p.a.  As a consequence of the 2009 snow event to return the network to the 2008 condition investment needed to increase to £21.9m p.a. or an additional £14.6M over the following 5 years  This roughly equates to one year’s investment lost as due to the first snow event, as has been previously stated  As a consequence of the 2010 snow event the investment required to return the network to the 2008 condition increased to £28.7m p.a. or an additional £48.6m over the next 5 years  This roughly equates to 2 ½ years investment lost as a result of the two snow events

2.2 Holistic Management of Cat 1 and Cat 2 Service

As part of the County Council’s integrated planning process, the holistic Cat1 / Cat2 service review is a continuation and extension of the risk based assessment methodology and builds upon the permanent work first time approach (e.g. permanent pot hole regime). The holistic approach manages the Cat2 service and as much of the Cat1 service as practically possible, as a system of planned works (including work streaming) to maximise effectiveness and efficiencies of the available budget. In short, to be more planned, proactive and less reactive. This is a positive move towards delivering a service based on affordability, sustainability, opportunity and managed risk, ultimately providing better value or money.

Following endorsement by the County Council’s Highways & Transport Panel in January 2010, the Cat1/Cat2 holistic approach was implemented and became operational from 1st April 2010. However, as a result of the severe and prolonged winter weather as mentioned in 2.1 above, the four main elements of the holistic approach were achieved to varying degrees. These elements comprise: - New levels of service, - A new web based filter, - Systemised ‘holding pot’ of future works and performance management data and - Annual framework programme of Cat2, Super Cat2 and Cat 1 works . Staff training and guidance (with associated process maps) was rolled-out to during late January to early February 2010 and to Customer Service Centre staff during February and March 2010. Automated processes were developed in conjunction with the introduction of the new Confirm system. A communications strategy was developed to manage public expectations and communicate the County Council’s new levels of service. A report was submitted to the Highways Joint Member Panels in late March / April 2010 advising of the Cat1 / Cat2 holistic approach.

The project was subject to internal audit during summer 2010 and found that the embedment of the holistic process had not progressed as far as originally

15 of 56 09/05/2018 TAMP APR 2010 DRAFT ver.1.9 anticipated. This was due to the impact of the severe winter on the highway service, including operation of a winter recovery plan and IT issues with the CONFIRM system. However, the findings also showed that the project was subject to a robust Project Management like process, was strategically well conceived, managed and controlled and that evidence gathered shows that the project is well on its way in achieving estimated annual savings of around £0.5m.

2.3 Carriageway Investment and Performance

2.3.1 History and Projection The last five years have seen significant additional investment in highway maintenance, both through the Hertfordshire Highways and the Highways Extra project. The County Council, itself, has invested at a consistent level over this period, however, it has also been able to secure a number of additional ad hoc grants from the Department for Transport. This additional spend over the last five years has brought a number of tangible benefits.

2.3.2 Direct improvement in the condition of roads.

As the chart below shows, the various nationally-recognised measures of road condition (formerly BVPIs, now NIs) have improved significantly since 2005/06. These measures all measure the percentage of roads of a particular type (such as A roads) which are considered to be in a ‘bad’ condition. As is perhaps to be expected, all categories have shown some worsening over the last two years, in part due to two severe winters in a row. However, Hertfordshire still has significantly fewer poor roads then we did before the additional investment was made.

The Unclassified roads have seen the most marked improvement since this is where much of the additional money has been spent. The A, B and C road have also improved since 2005, although to a lesser degree. These busier, more strategic routes are Road Condition Measures frequently more

o expensive to t

a 18% work on but c i

d 16% are n I

l particularly

n critical to o 12% i U Roads t

a maintaining 10% B&C Roads N / the e 8% A Roads u l economic a 6% V

health of the t

e County.

B 2% 0% 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 Year

Fig 2.3.2 Historical National Indicator Results for HCC Carriageways

2.3.3 Increased robustness of network. The BVPI numbers quoted above only tell part of the story. These national indicators measure how many bad roads we have, but tell us nothing about the health of the rest of the network.

For this reason, Hertfordshire uses its own local indicator, the Average Condition Index (ACI), to look at the condition of the network as a whole. Each road is rated according to its condition – a rating of zero indicates a perfect road and a high score indicates a poor road (few of our roads would rate a score of more than 60 although the scale in theory goes up to 100). The ACI simply takes the weighted average scores of all the roads in a particular category. This means we can look at trends on roads that are not yet in bad condition and we see the benefits of preventative maintenance works, like surface dressing, which act early to maintain a road before it gets into a bad condition whereas the BVPI/NI numbers ignore the benefits of such works.

The graphs below look at how the ACI trends for A roads and non-A roads have changed in the last few years. They also show what the projected trend would have been without the additional investment and several alternative investment options for the future.

A Road - ACI

50 x e d n

n No Investment o i t i

n Base Investment o C Worst First e

g 20 a r 2005 Prediction e

v Baseline A 10 6 1 2 3 7 8 0 7 8 9 0 4 5 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Years

Fig 2.3.3 HCC A Road ACI Trends

The first important point to note is that the ‘baseline’ trend is now flatter than it was in 2005 representing a slightly slower natural deterioration rate. Because we have invested in the roads and, particularly, invested in preventative maintenance, we have slowed down the rate at which the network as a whole is deteriorating. At the moment, because of the additional investment, the natural deterioration of the roads is slightly slower than it was in 2005.

In other words, we are seeing the benefits of the previous investment and will continue to see them for some time to come.

B, C and U Road ACI

e 40 d n I

No Investment n o i t

i 30 Base Investment d n o Fully Optimised C

e 20 g

a Worst First r e v

A 2005 Prediction 10 Baseline

0 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 7 8 9 0 4 5 5 5 6 1 2 3 7 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Year

Fig 2.3.4 HCC B, C & U Road ACI Trends

The second key point is that, as with the BVPI measure, the Average Condition of the network has improved considerably as a result of the additional investment. Again, as is to be expected, the strongest gains were made in the first few years with condition slipping back a little over the last couple of years.

Given the severity of the last two winters, the fact that the condition is, overall, even close to holding steady is a tribute to the earlier investment made. Every extra road treated over the last few years is one that did not deteriorate significantly during the last two winters. Since we treated nearly 20% of our road network in the three years between 2006/07 and 2008/09, it will be apparent just how much worse the recent winter damage would have been, but for the prudent investment over the last few years.

2.4 Condition Projections Examined

As the ACI projections in the previous section demonstrate, the general condition of roads is predicted to worsen over the coming years at the ‘Base’ level of investment. The BVPI/NI numbers are projected to follow a similar pattern. This prediction is a considerable worsening of the performance seen over the last few years; this section examines reasons for this.

2.4.1 Projected Reduction in Level of Investment

The predictions above were based on the then Approved Cash Flow in the Capital Programme in the summer of 2010. This maintained the allocation for Maintenance of the Highway at £26.32m p.a. over the next three years but did not, at that stage, include additional funding such as had been available in recent years. In addition, for the last two years we have benefited from a one-off allocation of around £4.3m over two years for de-trunked roads, which has helped to support the A road programme. To reflect these changes, the future projections were based on the level of investment reflected in the Approved Cash Flow current at the time (Summer 2010),

18 of 56 09/05/2018 TAMP APR 2010 DRAFT ver.1.9 which represented a substantial reduction in available investment for the various highway maintenance programmes.

2.4.2 Increased Cost of Works – Construction Inflation

Over the past ten years, construction industry inflation has consistently outstripped general inflation in the economy. Oil prices, in particular, have a big impact on road maintenance since they drive the cost of manufacture and transport and contribute significantly to materials costs - especially for asphalt which uses large amounts of bitumen.

As the graph below shows, the Construction Index used to set the annual price increases in the Herts Highways contract has risen almost twice as fast as the Retail Price Index since the baseline point for the contract in late 2001. This means that, where road maintenance is concerned, the pound has lost a third of its buying power since the start of the contract.

Construction Inflation vs General Inflation

1.6 ) 1

1.4 = Construction 1

0 1.2 Index 0 2 (

x 1 e £1 buys d n

I (construction) 0.8 n o s i

r 0.6 Retail Price a

p Index

m 0.4 o C 0.2 £1 buys (general) 0

Over the last five-to-six years - the period of sustained investment - the cost of road maintenance works has risen by nearly 20%, which means that the current effective purchasing power of £1 is only 83p compared to what it bought in 2005/06.

2.4.3 Increased Cost of Works – Other Factors

A number of other factors have increased the cost of works over the past few years, not least the requirements of the Traffic Management Act (TMA), which means that more works than previously are now undertaken during restricted hours, at night or at the weekend, all of which directly increase the cost of the works without increasing the amount of work done.

Working on restricted hours adds 15% to the cost of a job while nights and weekends are even more costly. This means that the cost of even a small job can increase by £3,000. In some programmes of work the instances of restricted hours use has doubled over the past three years increasing average basic works costs by 5% even before other factors like inflation are included.

2.4.4 Severe Weather Damage

The additional investment made since 2006 provided a substantial cushion and makes the road network much more resilient than it would otherwise have been. This made the adverse effects of the severe weather less pronounced than would otherwise have been the case and means that, even now, the roads are deteriorating at a slower rate than would otherwise have been the case.

However, the severe weather took its toll on the roads and used up a considerable amount of the additional life that had been added to the network. Roads that had been perhaps five years away from needing a treatment now need one in the next year or two. Although the rate of decay is slower than it would have been without the investment, it is faster than it was before the two extreme weather events. Consequently we need to do more work each year in order to prevent deterioration than was the case two years ago.

The cumulative effect of these various factors means that, while investment has remained consistently high over the last few years, the impact of that investment has started to tail off although the efficiencies delivered by Herts Highways have helped to mitigate that effect to a degree. However, the step-down in available investment next year will throw the other factors into sharper relief, and the overall effect of various maintenance programmes will no longer be sufficient to hold road condition steady.

2.5 Investment Scenarios and Future Options The HCC road ACI graphs shown in Section 2.3 above outline five different scenarios. These are examined and explained here along with the consequences of pursuing them.

2.5.1 2005 Prediction Baseline – This line is shown for historical context and represents the rate at which the network was deteriorating at the then-current level of spend prior to the period of sustained additional investment. The gap between that line and the lines showing what actually happen is the benefit gained to date by the additional investment. The reduction in the rate of future deterioration is further (future) benefit, which we will see over the coming years.

2.5.2 No Investment – This line represents a ‘do minimum’ scenario – the rate at which the roads would decline if we did no planned repairs or maintenance at all but just reactively fixed hazardous defects as they appeared. This is not provided as a recommended option but as a benchmark against which the other scenarios can be evaluated. Needless to say, the reactive costs of the Cat. 1 service would go up significantly under such a scenario.

2.5.3 Base Investment – This is the projected performance based on the previous ‘Approved Cash Flow’ in the medium term financial forecast as it stood in the summer of 2010 applied according to our current strategy. The majority of the works are optimised for best value for money and delivered via workstream programmes for best efficiency. However, some works are determined and delivered locally for maximum responsiveness. This does not deliver the same level of efficiency as the fully-optimised programme but allows the Hertfordshire Highways service to be more responsive to public and local member demands, albeit at a cost.

2.5.4 Fully Optimised – This uses the same budget level as the Base Investment scenario but represents the projected effects of optimising all available resources and delivering them in workstream programmes. It represents the maximum efficiency and gives the greatest possible benefits for the available money but does so at the expense of some responsiveness since programmes such as Super Cat. 2 would be lost. No ‘Fully Optimised’ option is shown for A roads since the majority of significant maintenance works on these roads are already part of the IWP programmes and these works are therefore effectively fully optimised already.

2.5.5 Worst First – This uses the same budget level as the Base Investment scenario but represents an alternative strategy based on giving absolute priority to those roads in the worst condition rather than on optimising efficiency like the standard strategy. Although the worst roads are tackled, a lot less gets done with the money, which means that the network overall gets worse much faster than it would under the normal strategy, even though we are spending the same amount of money. Again, this is not a recommended approach; this information is included to help demonstrate the benefits of the optimised approach to our works programmes that we have been pursuing for nearly a decade now.

In addition to the scenarios presented above there are several other options and factors which deserve consideration.

2.5.6 Localism – None of the scenarios above take account of any potential effects of localism on the programmes. It is hard to assess the precise impact any localism process might have on the outcomes of the maintenance programmes at this stage. However, it is likely that a significant proportion of works selected through any localism process would focus on poor roads in need of repair since these are generally of most immediate concern to members and the public.

Consequently the overall effectiveness of a localism element of the programme is likely to be closer to the ‘worst first’ approach in terms of overall efficiency. If a significant proportion of the available resources were to be prioritised through such a process, it would potentially reduce the overall benefits of the programme for a given level of investment. The current locally-responsive programme elements, such as Super Cat. 2, are not fully optimised and therefore the effect of moving these elements to a localism-based process would likely be broadly neutral in terms of impact on their overall impact on the long-term condition of the network.

2.5.7 Maintaining Current Condition – Based on the analysis in Section 2.3, which was carried out during the summer of 2010, an option was included in the capital budget planning process in the autumn of 2010 to maintain road condition in steady state through further additional funding. Two main options were identified.

2.5.7.1 Additional Funding to Standard Strategy – Increasing investment while keeping the current balance between optimised and responsive works within the programme would require an investment level similar to that available over the last few years in order to maintain current condition. This would consist of an additional £3.3m to the A road programme and £3.1m to the B, C and U roads, for a total of £6.4m in addition to the Base investment identified in the summer 2010 Approved Cash Flow.

2.5.7.2 Additional Funding to Fully Optimised Strategy – It would be possible to maintain broadly the current network condition with a lower additional investment by fully optimising the available investment although this would remove the responsive elements of the current programmes. Doing this would not significantly reduce the additional investment needed in the A roads but would mean that the local road network could be held in current with £1.4m extra, assuming that all funds are fully optimised. This scenario would require £4.5m above the Base investment in the summer 2010 Approved Cash Flow.

2.5.8 Indicative Funding Scenario – At the time of writing, the budgets for 2011/12 and beyond have not been set but the indication is that members would wish to make the additional investment of £6.4m detailed above available in order to maintain the condition of the roads in a steady state while still allowing for a degree of responsive works in the programme. Furthermore the initial indication is that this increase would take the form of an increase to the base budget and, on an indicative basis, would continue in future years allowing forward planning and projections to include the increased resources.

2.6 Carriageway Future Condition Targets Based on the issues discussed above, it is proposed that the future targets for the carriageway condition indicators should to maintain steady state based on the condition measured by the most recent 2010/11 surveys.

If agreed, these revised targets would form part of the TAMP and would also be incorporated into the Local Transport Plan and other corporate measures as appropriate.

2.7 Programme Delivery (IWP) 2009/10

The table below summarises the quantity and value of carriageway schemes delivered under the Integrated Works Programme (IWP) during 2009/10:

Total Scheme / Project Name Code Costs Approx. Length (m) Principal Roads (A roads) (£000’s) A Road Surface Dressing ASD £1,248 32,785 A Road Surfacing ASI £3,559 12,569 A10 Turnford, Major Reconstruction ARC £996 2,824 Total £5,773 48,178 Local Roads (B, C & U roads) Local C/way Surface Dressing CSD/CSP £3,820 261,798 Local C/way Micro-Asphalt CMA £1,750 32,071 Local C/way Surfacing CSI £1,877 15,635 Local C/way Recycling CRY £350 3,433 Local C/way reconstruction CRC £649 5,786 Total £8,446 318,723 Winter Recovery Programme Surface Dressing (A roads) WAD £211 3,604 Surface Dressing (other roads) WSD £650 28,496 Micro-Asphalt WMA £577 12,789 Resurfacing (A roads) WAS £720 4,530 Resurfacing (other roads) WSI £2,083 25,349 Total: £4,241 74,768 Overall Total (all roads) £18,460 441,669

Notes:

 The Winter Recovery Programme covers a number of A roads and local roads adversely affected by the severe weather in February 2009 and includes works of various different types.  Costs include design fees where appropriate  Lengths given are approximate and often relate to the whole road section, not just the length treated. Comparisons should therefore be treated with caution.

2.8 Programme Planned (IWP) 2010/11

The table below summarises the quantity and value of carriageway schemes intended for delivery under the IWP during the current year 2010/11:

Total Approx. Length Scheme / Project Name Code Costs (m) A Roads Programme (£000’s) Surface Dressing ASD £2,250 46,875 Surface Inlay ASI £2,981 11,626 Total £5,231 58,501 Local Roads Programme Local Carriageway Surface Dressing CSD £3,385 226,162 Local Carriageway Micro-Asphalt CMA £1,460 26,106 Local Carriageway Surface Inlay CSI £1,753 10,482 Local Carriageway Recycling/Recon. CRY £334 1,844 Total £6,932 264,594 Winter Recovery Programme WR Surface Dressing (A Roads) WAD £734 9,322 WR Surface Dressing (other roads) WSD £997 37,532 WR Micro-Asphalt WMA £394 9,883 WR Resurfacing (all roads) * £5,122 48,258 Total £7,247 104,995 Overall Total (all roads) £19,410 428,090

Notes:  The Winter Recovery Programme covers a number of A roads and local roads adversely affected by the severe weather in January and February 2010 and includes works of various different types.  Many of the schemes planned for 10/11 increased in cost as a result of the winter damage as schemes required more preparation work or a more substantial treatment than when initially assessed.  The recycling/reconstruction lines include both roads where the chosen treatment was in-situ recycling of the existing road and those where a more conventional reconstruction was required.  Because of the extent of the damage done by the severe weather in early 2010, a number of sites that needed repairs were limited to Major Patching of the worst sections in order to address as much of the damage as possible with the resources available.  Costs include design fees where appropriate  Lengths given are approximate and often relate to the whole road section, not just the length treated. Comparisons should therefore be treated with caution.  The Winter Recovery Resurfacing element covers various treatments including recycling and substantial patching.  10/11 programme is still in delivery hence figures are best current estimates.

2.9 Financial Information

As detailed in section 1.5, all highway authorities will be required to report annually on the value of their infrastructure assets as part of the government’s Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) initiative. This is being introduced over a number of years and, in line with the reporting timetable it has been necessary to supply a GRC value for carriageways for 2009/10. This was calculated using the HAMFIG developed spreadsheet available to download from the CIPFA web site. In addition to carriageways, the spreadsheet can be used for calculating the GRC values for other assets such as. kerbs and drainage, to be included under the carriageways figures. It is also used to calculate the footway GRC.

In addition to asset categories the spreadsheet is split into asset classification or hierarchy for calculating the GRC. Asset inventory data such as lengths and widths are used as inputs into the sheet’s calculations. This data has been summarised in the table below.

Road Road (R199B) length Average Road Width Classification (km) (m) A Urban 379 8.5 A Rural 333 8.5 B Urban 165 7.4 B Rural 164 6.7 C Urban 352 6.3 C Rural 476 5.1 U/C Urban 2,549 6.7 U/C Rural 618 4.7 Total 5,036

Road length as a function of the road classification

4000 Road Length 3000 (km) 2000

0 M Urban A Urban A Rural B Urban B Rural C Urban C Rural U/C U/C Rural Total Urban Road Classification

The inventory data is used to calculate the area for each carriageway classification and then multiplied by an unit rate to calculate a GRC value. In addition to GRC attributed to carriageway area, additional GRC value is also calculated to cover other highway assets that cannot currently be quantified. This includes assets such as kerbs, drainage, traffic signs and road markings. This is undertaken for each road

classification under “linear Items” and is calculated by multiplying the road lengths by another unit rate. It should be noted that, for these calculations, the ‘R199b’ road length is used. This is a national figured named for the form on which it is submitted. R199b lengths are ‘route lengths’ including the linear distance from A to B but not additional lengths such as roundabouts, slip roads and lay-bys; it also only counts dual carriageways once. Hertfordshire prefers to use the ‘section length’ which includes these extra items however, the HAMFIG spreadsheet has been designed to work with the R199b numbers and therefore makes appropriate allowance for these factors.

In line with the Code, national unit rates have been used to derive the carriageway GRC and a regional factor is then applied to adjust the authority’s total GRC accordingly. This has also been provided nationally as part of the support for the code.

The GRC is calculated for each road classification as summarised in the table below

Linear Unit Items Road Calculated Carriageway Linear Rate rate Unit Class Area (m2) GRC (£'s) GRC (£'s) (£/m2) Rate (£/m) A Urban £3,217,637 £136.04 £437,728,616 £604.60 £228,870,186 A Rural £2,826,422 £107.73 £304,490,389 £457.98 £152,287,591 B Urban £1,222,902 £126.86 £155,137,320 £554.47 £91,630,047 B Rural £1,100,752 £100.16 £110,251,327 £255.15 £41,918,939 C Urban £2,218,379 £104.70 £232,264,285 £482.58 £169,927,834 C Rural £2,429,493 £79.92 £194,165101 £217.98 £103,839,400 U/C Urban £17,079,581 £96.69 £1,651424698 £352.39 £898,309,491 U/C Rural £2,903,189 £74.87 £217,347,812 £166.08 £102,588,502 TOTALS £32,998,355 £3,302,809,547 1,789,371,989 Carriageway & Linear Rate Sub-Total £4,977,117,389 East Anglia Regional Factor 94.10% Total Carriageway GRC £4,791,742,826

As Hertfordshire lies within the East of England (East Anglia) Region, a regional factor of 94.10% has been applied to the total figure above. This gives a current total carriageway GRC value at £4,792m. The graph below shows the split in total GRC by road classification.

Carriageway % GRC Value by Road Classification

A Urban A Rural B Urban B Rural C Urban C Rural U/C Urban U/C Rural

3 Drainage

3.1 New Flood Risk Management Legislation

Together with the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 (a measure which was necessary to meet the deadline for transposing the European Union (EU) Floods Directive into domestic legislation) the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (FWMA) defines new local authority roles and responsibilities for the management of local flood risk.

Responsibility for managing river and coastal flooding remains with the Environment Agency. Risk management of flooding from all other sources – primarily surface water, ground water and ordinary watercourses is now within the remit of local authorities. The Flood Risk regulations require that county and unitary councils, as the newly defined Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs), produce a suite of assessments and plans to identify significant flood risk in their administrative area and set out how the risk will be managed. These are: - Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment by June 22nd 2011. - Flood Risk / Hazard Assessment by June 22nd 2013 - Flood Risk Management Plan by June 22nd 2015

This will largely set the framework for active flood risk management by the authority – the role will be supported by further duties and powers defined in the Flood and Water management Act. This includes: - Producing a Flood Risk Management Strategy - Recording, and where appropriate designating, Flood Risk Assets - Investigating Flood events - Approving the drainage element of development / redevelopment schemes - Adopting Sustainable Drainage Systems SUDS (that serve more than one property)

Commencement of the Act will be phased and it is anticipated that the majority of the new duties will commence in April 2011. The responsibility for drainage approval and SUDs adoption is likely to pass to the LLFAs sometime after October 2011 possibly not until April 2012.

3.1.1 FWMA - Implications The Highway Authority needs to participate in the development of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment as flooding of highways will be one of the measures used to define significance.

There is a conditional right to connect new highway drainage to sewer systems provided that it is approved by the approving body, as defined in schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act. More use is likely to be made of roads as components of SUDS. HCC may have to decide whether to adopt a road that forms part of an approved drainage scheme either as Highway or SUDS since the designations are mutually exclusive. A consultation on SUDS standards is

28 of 56 09/05/2018 TAMP APR 2010 DRAFT ver.1.9 scheduled for the later part of 2010 which should help with the understanding of the detail of designation.

In the longer term serious consideration may have to be given to using highways to divert surface water away from areas where local drainage has been, or could be, overwhelmed. This would require using roads as pathways or temporary storage areas for flood water.

In time better understanding of local flood risk will help to identify critical assets, which may range from a run of road drainage gullies to a section of embankment and associated culverts, for which existing maintenance schedules may need to be enhanced to ensure flood risk is minimised.

3.2 Surface Water Management Plans

HCC received early implementation funding from Defra to help with implementing the recommendations of the Pitt review in advance of legislation. The intention was to develop local understanding of flood risk in priority areas. A national modelling of the relative risk of surface water flooding to over four thousand settlements in England was used to prioritise the grant distribution. In total 81 settlements were allocated funding - St Albans and Watford were ranked at 48 and 63 respectively.

Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs) are being developed for Watford Borough and the City and District of St Albans. The first phase of flood risk modelling was completed in August 2010 – this will inform a programme of site visits. Workshops have been held with local partners to examine risk related to (non) performance of assets and to define a range of interventions that could be applied to help reduce flood risk.

The knowledge that is being gained through the process is being shared through presentations at meetings of NETSWA (North East Thames Surface Water Alliance), an informal association of local individuals and organisations with an interest in flood risk and surface water management.

3.3 Improving Drainage Data – HertsDAM

Drainage infrastructure, apart from road-side gullies, is predominantly a “buried” asset that has historically suffered from a lack of inventory and associated condition data. Specialised contractors are required to survey and map drainage routes, typically by CCTV survey methods. These are resource intensive and costly to undertake, making the survey of a highway authority’s entire drainage network prohibitively expensive and time consuming to compile.

In conjunction with developing the SWMPs for St Albans and Watford it has been agreed to use a bespoke software system called HertsDAM (Hertfordshire Drainage Asset Manager) for data capture and recording. It is hoped that over time the methodology used in these two districts for drainage data collection and recording can be “rolled-out” across other key parts of the drainage network as resources and funding allows.

The HertsDAM technology captures drainage asset details such as locations, invert levels, direction of buried pipe runs, construction materials etc but also records

29 of 56 09/05/2018 TAMP APR 2010 DRAFT ver.1.9 condition information and details of any damage that has occurred to the system. The data is recorded in the site based ‘tough book’ computer and subsequently downloaded onto the system back in the office, where it will ultimately be linked to Confirm, the new asset management system

3.4 Routine Maintenance Efficiency Initiatives

A revised maintenance strategy is being developed to streamline routine cyclical drainage activities and reduce costs. This includes routine maintenance works, CAT2 and Super CAT2 works. The amendment will impact and reduce the unplanned CAT1 reactive works.

The proposed maintenance initiative will target different gully classifications within different sub cycles dependant upon their need for maintenance and their optimal requirement for empting. Four strands of works will be delivered to maximise cost efficiencies. These strands include; known hot spot areas, high speed roads, traffic management enabled works and bulk maintenance.

IWP drainage schemes are usually delivered over a 2 year rolling programme. In year 1 selected sites are investigated to identity and understand the drainage problems more fully and generate schemes for prioritisation and construction in year 2. As well as constructing schemes identified in year 1, another round of drainage investigations is commenced in year 2 to prepare for the following year.

During 2009/10 IWP drainage works – either investigation or scheme construction – were delivered on more than eighty sites around the county with a value totalling £894,723. The schemes delivered resulted in the following outcomes:

No Reference Outcome Schemes Sites Investigated (Identifying where more substantial Investigation works are required via IWP schemes in the second or 44 subsequent years) “Quick Win” sites (Problems were solved during Quick-Win 1 investigation, by cleaning the drainage system) Minor Works Minor Works (repair of broken pipes etc) 16 Major works (improvement or installation of new Major works) identified from investigation undertaken in 18 Schemes previous year(s) 3rd Party works (Water Authority outfall issues or 3rd Party 2 damage to highway drainage system by 3rd party) Cancelled Cancelled Schemes (Works no longer required) 9 Total: 90

3.6 Programme Planned (IWP) 2010/11:

The majority of drainage schemes are identified by the local area teams who collate a list of problem sites each year. These sites are then pulled together into a county wide spreadsheet for ranking and prioritising. The ranking and prioritisation process takes into account various factors such as whether properties have been flooded, vehicles and/or pedestrians have been impeded, any history of insurance claims, the level of reactive maintenance and the frequency of occurrence.

We are also developing a more detailed drainage scheme check list that we intend to roll it out to the area offices later this year so they can start collating any data for next years IWP drainage bids. The intention of the check list is to assist the area offices to carry out routine maintenance works such as jetting and cleaning, minor repairs or third party recovery work that may solve the drainage issues before they are escalated to the IWP bid process. This will help to ensure that minor issues are dealt with as quickly and cheaply as possible.

The table below summarises the number and value of drainage work intended for delivery under the IWP during the current year 2010/11: No Total Drainage 2010/11 Schemes Costs Draining Investigations & Works Delivery 52 £800,500

Drainage schemes included in the current (2010/11) IWP are a mixture of sites identified for investigation, schemes developed from investigations undertaken in 2009/10 and or schemes carried over from previous years. These schemes comprise the following: No Reference Proposed schemes Schemes Investigation Sites identified for investigation 25 Minor Works Minor Works (Repair of broken pipes etc) TBA Detailed design, contract drawings, confirmed Detailed estimated costs, Construction delivered in future 7 design years Major works (improvement or installation of new Major drainage systems) identified from investigation in TBA Schemes previous year(s) 3rd Party works (Water Authority outfall issues or 3rd Party TBA damage to highway drainage system by 3rd party) Cancelled Cancelled Schemes (Works no longer required) 4 Total: 52*

Schemes Identified for delivery each year can include the following works: - Repair or replacement of existing drainage system due to structural failure, e.g. collapsed pipe work.

- Replacing non-functioning highway drainage system, due to poor location / lack of maintenance (blocked soak ways remote from the highway) - Upgrading an existing drainage system due to capacity issues or lack of gullies - Provision of new drainage system, where no system previously existed. - Rectifying outfall problems from existing drainage system into receiving rivers/ditches. - Overcoming capacity issues with surface water sewers - Repairing and recovering costs for damage to highway drainage systems by third Parties (e.g. utility company activities)

Due to the UK-wide issue of limited inventory data on “buried” highway drainage infrastructure, the GRC for this asset group is currently covered under the category of “linear items” included in the GRC calculations for carriageways. This category also includes items such as kerbs, traffic signs and line markings. As such, a separate GRC value for the drainage asset is not available. The national methodology for this asset group may be reviewed if or when better drainage inventory is universally available but this is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

3.8 Ongoing Issues and Areas for Development

The main issue remains the incomplete or missing inventory of the highway drainage system. Where historic hardcopy records exist in the area offices there is a real risk that this information could be lost. Each area office holds a record of its “vulnerable gullies” (those requiring more frequent maintenance) but currently there is no process for pulling this information together for evaluation and review over the whole HCC drainage network.

It would be time-consuming and expensive to survey the whole of the highway drainage network and the value gained from such information would not be worth the outlay. The drainage data strategy is therefore that, where surveys are undertaken to investigate or clear a problem, or where historic data is available from paper records or past schemes, this should be captured and recorded for the future. In this way knowledge of the asset will grow over time and will naturally focus on those areas where the system is more vulnerable.

There is currently no comprehensive guidance available for Herts Highways staff that specifically covers the assessment, design and maintenance of the highway drainage system, although this should be addressed in the drainage lifecycle plan currently under development. Of particular concern is the lack of expertise in understanding the complexities behind drainage problems in the current climatic conditions and the solutions that may or may not be available to rectify problem sites.

Design requirements for highway drainage systems to be adopted are included in the HCC document “Roads in Hertfordshire” (currently under review). However current requirements specify that the design of highway drainage systems should comply with 1 in 10 year storm events, whereas equivalent requirements in water company “Sewers for Adoption” requires a much higher standard of design to comply with 1 in

30 year storms events. In addition, the requirements of the F&WMA duties mentioned above may also change our approach to adoption of drainage assets in the future.

4 Footways

4.1 Footway Network Survey

4.1.1 Background The Footway and Cycletrack Management Group (FCMG), a national sub-group of the UK Roads Board, has published a methodology for what it is calling the Footway Network Survey (FNS). Although at the early stages of implementation, FNS has the potential to provide a consistent national condition rating method for a highway authority’s footway asset.

There is an obvious asset management, maintenance and operational need to hold inventory and condition data of the county’s footway asset. Although HCC holds a robust inventory on footway length and width this is less reliable for surface type and the amount of condition information collected regularly is very limited.

Historically condition data has only been collected for HCC’s busier high and medium use footways, some 14% only of the footway network, on a two-year cycle. This condition data has in the past been collected by a Detailed Visual Inspection (DVI) survey, but as the name implies, this survey collects a lot of detail and is therefore very expensive. The amount of detail collected by DVI includes individual faults, whereas the FNS will instead record an overall condition rating on a straightforward scale, which should make it more productive and thus cheaper to undertake.

Currently scheme selection for footways relies mostly on the local knowledge of Herts Highways’ engineers, making it a subjective process and meaning that sites that have not been visited recently may be overlooked. The FNS is therefore likely to provide sufficient information not only to rate the footway network’s overall condition and measure its performance over time, but also identify suitable sites for future planned maintenance schemes. In addition the FNS will also provide the inputs necessary for HCC to meet the new CIPFA DRC financial reporting requirements for highways infrastructure.

4.1.2 FNS Trials Hertfordshire is currently undertaking trials to establish the costs and benefits of the FNS styled survey as well as ascertaining the quantity of footway that can be covered with the available resources. Although the current trials are in their infancy they suggest that it should be possible to survey the whole footway network over a two year period for no more than it previously cost to survey 14% of the footways.

This in itself will allow asset managers and project engineers to have a better understanding of the overall condition of the entire footway network, all within an acceptable period of time. Network wide condition surveys will allow deterioration of individual footway sections to be captured and planned preventative treatments scheduled accordingly to prevent further asset deterioration.

A review of the standard FNS model has been completed and it has been determined that modification to the survey is required to maximise the potential of the surveys being undertaken. The proposed modifications are to enhance certain features within the survey and to streamline the process. Streamlining includes giving the survey

34 of 56 09/05/2018 TAMP APR 2010 DRAFT ver.1.9 inspector the ability of providing a single condition rating for a footway section, reducing the requirement for walking the full length of the footway network. The review has identified two main benefits; firstly this will result in the survey being undertaken at a faster rate and secondly, the detail of the survey will be reduced and therefore computational time to analyse will be decreased and simplified.

In addition to improving the survey process, additional features are to be captured within the survey which will help drive the prioritisation of planned maintenance works. These additional features are to include the impairment factors – the things that are causing deterioration on that section of footway. This could be tree roots on one footway and parked vehicles on another. This will assist the process of site selection and help ensure that appropriate treatments are considered.

4.2 Footway Hierarchy Review

As part of developing the footway lifecycle plan in level two of the TAMP, we are currently in the process of reviewing the current HCC footway hierarchy and its application. There is a specific need for a robust footway hierarchy that categorises the network accurately against its function and user needs. This is fundamental in determining service standards and an acceptable level of asset risk.

A detailed review of the footway hierarchy was undertaken during 2010. The following issues were identified during the review: - The current hierarchy has been in place for sometime (contract start) and not recently reviewed, contrary to COP - It was adopted prior to the publication of the updated highway maintenance COP (2005) and as such does not match the COP suggested (and widely adopted) hierarchy - It is based on a mixture of criteria; function; location; condition and risk - The original process for allocating hierarchy against footway inventory was somewhat subjective and has not been recently updated - HCC has a large percentage of high and medium use footways (14%) when compared with other similar authorities - The current footway hierarchy is primarily used for:  Determining safety inspection frequencies and  Identifying high and medium footways that are DVI surveyed for BVPI 187 (no longer required)

4.2.1 Proposed Options for Consideration In addition to identifying current practice, the review also explored possible options for a new hierarchy. These comprised the following: 1. Status Quo Option: - keep the current hierarchy 2. COP Option: - aligning the hierarchy with the COP 3. Pedestrian Volume Option 4. Pedestrian Volume & Footway Type Option: 5. Footway Function & Pedestrian Volume Option:

In developing the options above we also looked into how the hierarchy could be better utilised in the future. This could include the following activities: - Determining differing service standards for different footway hierarchies - Targeting condition surveys (via FNS) for all categories of footways, not just a continuance of expensive DVIs on the high and medium use footways - Risk Management; Identifying higher risk footways by pulling together Cat 1 reactive repairs, third party claims and pedestrian volume data - Providing an objective framework that could assist with scheme prioritisation and identifying areas for improvement / enhancement

From this consultation it was decided to proceed with developing a new footway hierarchy based on option 4 above; Pedestrian Volume and Footway Type (i.e. its construction and surface standard and anticipated pedestrian footfall)

4.2.2 Pedestrian Count Surveys In developing Option 4 further, the need for more representative localised pedestrian data across the whole footway network was identified. To obtain this data it was decided to undertake some sample pedestrian count surveys across the network. For comparison purposes two different areas were chosen south west area and northern area with various sites chosen from each of a large town, medium town, small town and rural location. An initial inspection of each site has been undertaken to determine the exact location of the survey as in some instances it was not clear where the greatest pedestrian movements were likely to be i.e. in the vicinity of train stations. A brief and maps have been prepared and the surveys are currently underway.

4.3 Condition and Performance

As reporting on the national indicator BVPI 187 is no longer required, the county has discontinued DVI inspections on its high and medium use footways. In the future once the entire HCC footway network has undergone a FNS we will be in a position to provide a network wide condition score split by footway hierarchy.

Because of the ongoing development work on both the hierarchy and the FNS, it has not been possible to produce a footway condition measure to replace BV187 as yet and so no performance figure is included for this year.

The table below summarises the quantity and value of footway schemes delivered under the IWP during 2009/10:

Total Costs Approx. Footway Schemes 2009/10 (£000’s) Length (m) Footway Surface Treatment (Micro-Asphalt) £1,100 60,524 Footway Resurfacing & Reconstruction £846 16,613 Total £1,946 77,137

The table below summarises the number and value of footway schemes intended for delivery under the IWP during the current year 2010/11:

Total Costs Total Length Footway Schemes 2010/11 (£000’s) (m) Footway Surface Treatment (Micro-Asphalt) £789 41,904 Footway Resurfacing & Reconstruction £327 5,056 Total £1,116 46,960

Notes on 2009/100 and 2010/11 Footway Programmes:  Costs include design fees where appropriate  Lengths given are approximate and often relate to the whole road section, not just the length treated. Comparisons should therefore be treated with caution.  10/11 programme is still in delivery hence figures are best current estimates.

Similar to carriageways, the footway GRC is calculated using the HAMFIG developed spreadsheet available from the CIPFA web site. Again asset inventory data consisting of lengths and widths were used as inputs into the sheet’s calculations. This data has been summarised in the table below.

Footway Footway length Average Footway Width Hierarchy (km) (m) 1A Urban 0 1 Urban 745 2.6 1 Rural 2 2.2 2 Urban 1,700 2.0 2 Rural 27 1.9 3 Urban 57 2.0 3 Rural 0 1.8 4 Urban 2,621 1.9 4 Rural 157 1.6 Total 5,310

The raw input data is used to calculate the area for each footway hierarchy sub-set, and then multiplied by a unit rate to calculate a GRC value. This is then totalled to give the total footway GRC. In line with the Code, national unit rates are used and a regional factor then applied to adjust the authority’s total footway GRC.

Footway Calculated Area Unit Rate Footways GRC Hierarchy (m2) (£/m2) (£'s) 1A Urban - £251.69 £0 I Urban 1,937034 £82.35 £159,509,939 I Rural 4,408 £74.84 £329,845 2 Urban 3,400,353 £75.65 £257,245,741 2 Rural 50,923 £68.70 £3,498,430 3 Urban 113,788 £67.44 £7,673,358 3 Rural - £61.24 £0 4 Urban 4,979,485 £64.75 £322,403,122 4 Rural 251,424 £61.02 £15,342,571 TOTALS 10,737,414 - £766,003,005 East Anglia Regional Factor 94.10% Total Footways GRC £720,808,828

As with carriageways, a regional factor of 94.10% has been applied to the total figure above. This gives a current total footway GRC value at £721m. The graph below shows the split in total GRC by footway hierarchy.

Footway % GRC Value by Hierarchy

I Urban I Rural 2 Urban 2 Rural 3 Urban 4 Urban 4 Rural

5 Intelligent Transport Systems

5.1 Update on ITS Strategy

Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) exist to facilitate the efficient movement of traffic across the county. These systems include all current road transport management control systems which are used to control and ease congestion. There are many individual systems currently in place across the county undertaking different control functions. It is planned that all of these systems be integrated in the future. This forms part of an eight staged strategy to improve the ITS system. The eight projects that are being developed under this strategy comprise:

 Traffic Signal Monitoring Control: - Upgrade of unmonitored junctions to UTC (urban traffic control) or RMS (remote monitoring systems) to improve the information available to the ITS. Includes replacement of existing, life-expired and obsolete UTC to reduce failure risk and improve its functionality.

 Inter Urban Monitoring (Loop, CCTV and ANPR systems): - This will allow for an improved and integrated system for inter-urban journey time monitoring.

 Urban Monitoring: - Journey time and bus compliance monitoring via CCTV, ANPR, INGRID and ASTRID. This will provide better data on traffic flows within the urban environment. Used to identify time based issues with the road network.

 AVL / RTPI (automatic vehicle location / real time passenger information): - Extension of the previous project where the data gleaned form the monitoring systems will be displayed for customer information

 Traffic and Travel Information (VMS and EPIP’s): - Involves development of VMS (variable message sign) strategy for the county. This is also includes the ongoing programme of annual refurbishments of existing Electronic Passenger Information Point (EPIP) terminals and information screens.

 Integrated Transport Control Centre (ITCC): - The ITCC will act as the central overarching transport management, monitoring and control centre for the county. The ITCC will enable links with the Highways Agency and neighbouring authorities to be improved.

 Communications Rationalism: - Review and rationalisation of existing communications systems to ensure that they communicate effectively and cost efficiently with each other, and with the proposed ITCC.

 UTMC Common Database: - Key in delivering the transportation services and execution of HCC’s network management duty which forms part of the 2004 TMA act requirements.

Implementing the above strategy is challenging due to the differing ages and current functionality of the existing ITS modules. As equipment is updated, improvements to the transport service will become evident to the travelling public, but not entirely realised until all of the projects within the strategy are completed and the integrated

ITS becomes fully functional. The improved ITS will be maintained using an asset management approach to deliver an efficient, cost effective and sustainable service.

The table below summarises the value of signal schemes delivered under the IWP during 2009/10:

No Total Signals & ITS Capital Code Schemes Costs Signal Refurbishment (Prep & Works Delivery) LSG 8 £405,285 Signal Upgrade (Prep & Works Delivery) LSJ 2 £245,000 Total £650,285

The table below summarises the value of signal schemes intended for delivery under the IWP during the current year 2010/11:

No Signals & ITS Capital Code Total Costs Schemes Signal Upgrade (Prep & Works Delivery) LSG 8 £415,384 Signal Refurbishment (Prep & Works Delivery) LSJ 2 £234,829 Total £650,213

The first stage of calculating the GRC for the ITS asset is to break the asset down into its appropriate level 2 asset groups and level 3 components as per the CIPFA Code. The ITS asset comprises the following:

Asset ITS Asset Type Quantity Signalised Junctions 186 Pedestrian and Cycle Crossings 922 Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) 173 Variable Message Signs (VMS) 16 Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) 131 Safety and Speed Camera Equipment 125 CCTV and Car Park Monitoring 12 Urban Traffic Control (UTC) System 1 Ice Station monitoring sites 13

The next stage involves integrating the inventory to identify the quantity of asset held under each of these categories. Total units for each of these sub groups were

40 of 56 09/05/2018 TAMP APR 2010 DRAFT ver.1.9 established from the inventory and appropriate unit replacement cost rates assigned to each as calculated from works undertaken during the previous year. The GRC is then calculated by multiplying the number of asset under each group by the unit replacement cost. This has been summarised in the table below

Asset Asset Asset Group Asset Sub-Group Group GRC Numbers Value (£) Signalised Junctions (No of Approaches) 186 £6,510,000 Puffin 65 £3,575,000 Pelican 313 £14,085,000 Toucan 43 £2,365,000 Pedestrian Pegasus 2 £150,000 Crossing Zebra 125 £3,750,000 School (flashing amber lights/sign) 124 £496,000 Wig Wags 250 £10,000,000 Display & Remote Communications 103 £1,470,000 Real Time Passenger Electronic Ticket Machines (ETM) 137 £950,000 Information RTPI central server 1 £554,000 (RTPI) RTPI bus depot computer in station 2 £11,000

Variable Signs - 50-100mmm x-height 3 £33,000 Message Signs Signs - 101-175mmm x-height 5 £90,000 (VMS) Signs - 176-225mmm x-height 8 £200,000 Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) 131 £655,000 Safety & Speed Camera Equipment 125 £3,750,000 CCTV (including posts) 12 £180,000 Car Park Monitoring Systems 2 £16,000 UTC 1 £60,000 UTMC common database 1 £20,000 VMS 1 £10,000 Ice Station monitoring sites 13 £39,000

The total GRC value for ITS assets is currently calculated at £47M. The graph below shows the split in total GRC by asset group.

ITS Asset Group % of Total GRC Value

7.9% 0.7% 1.4% 13.8% 0.7% Signalised Junctions 2.6% Pedestrian and Cycle Crossings

Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI)

Variable Message Signs (VMS)

Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS)

Safety and Speed Camera Equipment

Other ITS Assets (incl: CCTV & UTC)

6 Street Lighting

6.1 Private Finance Initiative (PFI)

As discussed in last years APR, Hertfordshire was in the process of pursuing a PFI to renew and upgrade its ageing street lighting stock. A street lighting PFI expression of interest (EOI) was submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT) on 7th December 2009. In February of 2010 the DfT advised that Hertfordshire had been successful.

Since receiving approval of the EOI, there has been a general election in the UK (May 2010) and subsequent change of government. With the current economic climate and precarious state of the nation’s public finances the new government has made the decision during the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) to cancel the current 3rd round of street lighting PFI projects, which included Hertfordshire’s bid.

6.2 Challenges facing the Street Lighting Service

While the PFI has now been cancelled, Hertfordshire will still be burdened with a street lighting service that is becoming more expensive to operate through significant increases in energy costs with a growing future maintenance liability due to its ageing stock of street lighting columns.

As part of the current competitive dialogue process for re-tendering the highways term maintenance contract, HCC officers are exploring more innovative and efficient ways that the service could potentially be managed in the future. This also includes identifying methods for effectively managing the increasing risk from ageing columns.

Table 3 below taken from HCC’s EOI for Street Lighting PFI Credits illustrates the large quantity of street lighting columns that currently exceed 30 years of life.

With industry estimates of reasonable expected service life (ESL) for street lighting columns of between 40 and 50 years we would expect that approx 2% or in excess of 2,000 columns should be renewed per annum. Current column renewal rates are at approx 600 columns pa meaning that the potential maintenance liability from ageing columns will continue to grow.

Now that the PFI has been cancelled, further more detailed work on modelling asset renewal scenarios will be undertaken within the lifecycle plan developed for the street lighting asset during 2011.

The table below summarises the value of street lighting schemes delivered under the IWP during 2009/10:

Street Lighting Capital No Schemes Total Costs Column Replacements (No Schemes) 162 £ 1,444,545 Refurbishment Schemes 1 £14,241 Total £1,458,786

The table below summarises the value of street lighting schemes intended for delivery under the IWP during the current year 2010/11:

Street Lighting Capital No Schemes Total Costs Column Replacements (No Schemes) 105 £879,000 Street lighting Improvements 1 £15,000 Total £884,000

The first stage of calculating the GRC for the street lighting asset is to break the asset down into its appropriate level 2 asset groups and level 3 components as per the CIPFA Code. The street lighting asset comprises the following:

Asset Total Number Lighting Columns (split by height) 110,000 Subway Lighting Units 3,887 Heritage Columns 2,000 Feeder Pillars (small, medium, large) 2,315 Illuminated Bollards 5,726 Externally Illuminated Signs (split by size) 21,000 Internally Illuminated Signs 70

The next stage involves integrating the inventory to identify the quantity of asset held under each of these categories. Total units for each of these sub groups were established from the inventory and appropriate unit replacement cost rates assigned to each as calculated from works undertaken during the previous year. The GRC is then calculated by multiplying the number of asset under each group by the unit replacement cost. This has been summarised in the table below

Asset Group Asset Column Asset Asset Group

Numbers GRC Columns up to 6.0m 81,559 £34,254,780 Columns up to 8.0m 14,770 £7,237,300 Lighting Columns Columns up to 10.0m 12,300 £6,888,000 Columns up to 12.0m 1,371 £918,570 Subway Lighting 3,887 £1,360,450 Units Heritage Heritage columns 2,000 £6,000,000 Columns Feeder Pillar Small 926 £231,500 Feeder Pillars Feeder Pillar Medium 695 £278,000 Feeder Pillar Large 694 £416,400 Illuminated 5,726 £2,290,400 Bollards Sign face up to 600mm 4,000 £2,400,000 Sign face 600 to 1200mm Small 9,800 £3,920,000 Sign face up to 0.75m2 1,500 £900,000 Externally Sign face 0.75 to 2.00m2 1,000 £800,000 Illuminated Signs Sign face 1200mm to 3.00m2 2,100 £1,050,000 Medium Sign face 3.00 to 4.00m 500 £750,000 Sign face 4.00 to 6.00m Large 2,100 £9,450,000 Internally Internally illuminated signs - 70 £35,000 Illuminated Signs Total £79,180,400

The total GRC value for Street Lighting is currently calculated at £79M.

The graph below shows the split in GRC by asset group. Not surprisingly lighting columns comprise the largest proportion of GRC value.

Street Lighting Asset Group % of Total GRV Value

Lighting Columns 24% Subway Lighting Units Heritage Columns Feeder Pillars 3%1% 8% 62% Illuminated Bollards 2% Illuminated Signs

7 Structures

7.1 Condition and Performance

The condition rating of the structures stock is determined from calculating the Bridge Condition Indicator (BCI) for each structure, following a bi-annual general inspection and complemented by principal inspections of 6-10 year cycle. The BCI (ave) is the average BCI for a bridge evaluated taking into account the condition of all structural elements in a bridge. The BCI (crit) is the critical BCI for a bridge evaluated taking into account the condition of those elements deemed to be of a very high importance to the bridge.

The structures that are included in the 2010 BCI calculations are summarised in the table below:

Structure Bridge Retaining Culvert Sign / Subway Underpass Other Total Wall Gantry Stock Inspected 750 95 481 5 267 1 6 1605 Not 33 2 12 0 0 0 1 48 Inspected

Bridge Condition Indicator results as at May 2010 for a total of 1653 structures are shown in the table below: Year BCI BCI Average Critical 2010 86.5 83.5 2009 86.8 84.9 2008 87.0 80.6 2007 87.1 76.7

This show that this years score is a slight improvement over the previous year’s results (NB scores are out of 100, where a high result is a good score). BCI scoring is a relatively new indicator which is subject to an inspector’s survey of the asset; as such year on year minor variances across the BCI values is expected. The trend as detailed within the above table shows that the BCI score has slightly improved over last 4 years. A general conclusion from this trend coupled with the allowance for annual variance shows that the structures asset is at steady state. For future scoring further structural detail will be used to ascertain BCI for assets at a level 2b structural composition. This will create scope for in-depth analysis, for example looking at bridges, level 2b structural componentisation will allow the bridge asset to be broken down into bulk material type; masonry, reinforced concrete, pre-stressed concrete, metal. Breaking the asset group down into this lower level of detail will provide clear performance indicators based upon material type. This will therefore highlight possible asset divisions which are deteriorating in a different mode and have an impact upon the overall BCI score. This information will be used to target specific bridge types to provide bespoke bridge asset management as necessitated by the level 2b material composition.

Trends in the condition of the structures stock; Stock BCI (ave) over the last 4 years are shown in the graph below.

Graph of Structures Stock BCI (Ave) Stacked over time

Note: The results for years 2007 are based on data imported from the HCC ‘BCI’ bridge condition database (pre CSS ‘BCI’) and due to the translation matrix for such conversion, is not considered to be robust when compared with the actual condition inspection data (based on the new CSS BCI without translation) used for determining the results for 2008 onwards.

The split of structures stock; Stock BCI (ave) across asset type is shown in the graph below.

Graph of Structures Stock BCI (Ave) Spread Stacked

In subsequent APRs the aim would be to break down the above BCI results in more detail to improve how performance of the structures stock is reported and so that

48 of 56 09/05/2018 TAMP APR 2010 DRAFT ver.1.9 trends to particular types or groups of structures are more apparent. This is likely to be down to the level of structure type and sub-type; for example bridges might be split into concrete, steel, masonry arch etc.

The table below summarises the value of structures work delivered under the IWP during 2009/10:

No Total Bridges Capital Code Schemes Costs PRN Bridge Parapet Upgrading TBA TBA Programme (works) Bridge Strengthening BST 2 £175,601 Parapet Upgrading BPU 2 £149,000 Rail Protection Works BRP 7 £361,004 Capital Bridge Bridge Waterproofing Programme BWP 4 £564,083 Works (NB Schemes consist of a mixture of prelim, design & works) Total 16 £1,249,687

7.3 Programme Planned (IWP) 2001/11:

The table below summarises the value of structures work intended for delivery under the IWP during the current year 2010/11:

No Total Bridges Capital Code Schemes Costs Strengthening (works) TBA TBA PRN Bridge Parapet Upgrading Programme TBA TBA (works) Bridge Strengthening BST 6 £687,700 Parapet Upgrading BPU 7 £1,652,500 Capital Bridge Bridge Water Proofing BWP 4 £395,892 Programme Footbridge Works BRF 1 £30,000 (NB Schemes consist of a mixture of prelim, design & works) Total 20 2,766,092

The GRC valuation calculation for structures is complex and dependant upon a high level of inventory data inputs. The structures asset comprises many different asset groups including; bridges (vehicular and pedestrian), culverts, retaining walls, high level lighting masts, sign gantries, and tunnels. Individual assets within each asset

49 of 56 09/05/2018 TAMP APR 2010 DRAFT ver.1.9 group needs to be treated separately in the GRC calculations. Hertfordshire has over 1600 assets falling under the umbrella of ‘structures’. Each of these assets has been listed and inventory details extracted from the structures BMX database.

HAMFIG has provided a GRC calculation spread sheet to which key asset data is to be inputted for each structure and an associated unit replacement cost has been provided. The GRC is then calculated by multiplying the number of asset under each group by the unit replacement cost. This has been summarised in the table below

Number of Asset Group Assets GRC Value (£s) Bridge: Pedestrian/Cycle (multi-span) 46 £16,447,335.70 Bridge: Pedestrian/Cycle (single span) 45 £9,277,216.60 Bridge: Vehicular (2 or 3 spans) 131 £185,614,996.87 Bridge: Vehicular (4 or more spans) 27 £125,278,979.30 Bridge: Vehicular (single span) 530 £397,261,391.66 Chamber/Cellar/Vault 1 £480,000.00 Culvert (multi-cell) 75 £9,441,293.53 Culvert (single cell) 409 £94,876,621.17 High Mast Lighting 4 £115,200.00 Retaining Wall (height > 3m) 29 £6,135,291.40 Retaining Wall (height ≤ 3m) 66 £4,522,234.13 Sign/Signal Gantry (Spanning) 4 £427,200.00 Special Structure 2 £325,000.00 Underpass (or Subway): Pedestrian 268 £35,306,859.89

The total GRC value for Structures is currently calculated at £885.5m. The graph below shows the split in GRC by asset group. Not surprisingly vehicular bridges comprise the largest proportion of GRC value.

Structures Asset Group % of Total GRC Value

4.0% 0.2% 1.2%

11.8% Bridges (Vehicular)

Bridges (Pedestrian) 2.9% Culverts

Retaining Walls

Underpass (Subway)

Other (special, gantries, high mast) 80.0%

7.5 Structures Data Issues

7.5.1 Dimension Information

The GRC figures calculated above are based on several assumptions. For instance there are currently numerous (generally minor) structures with unknown dimensions so in these cases average values that had been derived from similar structures with known dimensions were used in the calculations. Out of a total number of 1,637structures, some 590 (36%) are missing some dimension information.

The table below shows the proportion of assets with unknown dimensions. It is intended that these and other critical deficiencies in the structures inventory will be rectified within the coming year.

Number of % Structures Structure group Structures Missing Stock Missing Dimensions Dimensions Pedestrian/cycle multi span 3 0.18% Pedestrian/cycle single span 11 0.67% Vehicular bridge 2-3 span 19 1.16% Vehicular bridge +4 span 2 0.12% Vehicular bridge single span 66 4.03% Chamber 1 0.06% Culvert - Multi cell chamber 18 1.10% Culvert - Single cell chamber 122 7.45% Retaining wall >3m 25 1.53% Retaining wall  3m 55 3.36% Special structures (pumping stations) 2 0.12% Pedestrian underpass 266 16.24%

7.5.2 Other Data Gaps and Key Issues

In addition to the dimension data gap noted above there other data issues for the structures asset that if not addressed will make it very difficult to meet future asset reporting (valuation) requirements and the adoption of asset management lifecycle planning techniques. Generally the data issues can be attributed to the following: a) the data is not currently held in the database, although it should be readily available from the 2 yearly general inspections and or principal inspections b) the information is or will be required for WGA requirements (GRC, DRC, AD etc), but is not currently captured or c) the data is held within the data base but there is no current method for its simple extraction and analysis.

There are several possible methods for obtaining this missing data and the structures asset management team will ascertain the best method for its capture and recording prior to undertaking a more comprehensive asset valuation next year.

Another gap in the structures data set relates to incomplete core asset for retaining walls. It is thought that there are many unrecorded retaining walls to which a survey is required and ownership needs to be established. This is a common problem with many other authorities having incomplete data on retaining walls. It is therefore perceived that the GRC figure presented will likely increase in value as the inventory data is improved and assets are identified and recorded.

As with other highway assets it will be necessary to calculate the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) for the structures asset next year. Component maintenance treatment costs are a key input for this calculation. At present there is no method for recording the works undertaken to each structure and their associated costs. Within the coming year a method will be developed and implemented for capturing the detailed cost breakdown for each structures maintenance scheme.

7.5.3 Other issues from last years 2009 APR

There are still 68 “provisional” substandard structures remaining from the assessment process undertaken in the late 1990’s, which may require additional / interim works to bring them up to standard. A project has been commissioned this year (2009/10) to review and report on these structures using technical standard BD79; Management of Sub-Standard Bridges. However progress on the project is slow to date.

From previous surveys, 606 bridges were found to have sub-standard parapets and a programme was introduced to upgrade or replace these, with high priority sites to be targeted first. Approximately five parapets per year are being upgraded, with some 40 high priority sites still to be tackled. Due to the high capital cost and the consequent slow progress in resolving these sites, a review of the existing prioritisation process should be undertaken to ensure that the parapets at greatest risk are being prioritised for upgrading.

Appendix A: List of Winter Recovery Sites Funded with DfT Support

Works Cost Hermis ID IWP NO Road Name Post Code Hatfield Road St Albans - Lemsford Road £52,156.21 A1057/10 WRC09002 AL1 3NS x'rds to E railway bridge. London Road St Albans - 30mph to HRA jt £84,211.48 A1081/55 WRC09003 AL1 1JQ E Grosvenor Road r'bt Chequers Hatfield - Howlands r'bt to surf jt A1000/125, £236,967.27 WRC09004 S Mill Green Lane Phase 1 the junctions AL9 5NX 130 area Darkes Lane Potters Bar - SMA jt Manor £272,848.00 C116/47 WRC09005 EN6 1AF Road r'bt to (HFS jt?) Church Road Kiln Road/Toms Hill Ashridge/Aldbury - £36,852.53 C70/160, 170 WRC09006 HP23 5SE New Road to SMA jt Stocks Lane Long Lane Chorleywood - S Stag Lane to £40,817.41 C99/20, 25 WRC09007 WD3 5DG rear splitter island M25 Watford Road Chiswell Green - Ragged £36,573.89 B4630/20 WRC09008 Hall Lane to West Avenue Service. South- AL2 3EB west bound c/way. College Road Abbots Langley - Tibbs Hill £86,960.49 C88/10 WRC09009 WD5 0NR to Arundel Road r'bt £90,299.07 A1155/100 WRC09010 Fairlands Way Stevenage - Verity Way r'bt SG1 5TQ Goffs Lane Cheshunt - Newgatestreet £281,449.70 B156/220 WRC09011 EN7 5EP Road to Rosedale Way r'bt Phase 1 Hatfield Road Hertingfordbury - Cole £130,396.45 A414/530 WRC09012 SG14 2NR Green r'bt A602/350, Lytton Way Stevenage - Fairlands Way £192,478.78 WRC09013 SG1 1AG 341, 360 r'bt incl N+S exits Quickley Lane Chorleywood - Heronsgate £19,191.78 8U77/10 WRC09014 WD3 5AF Road to Lower Road Aldenham Road Bushey - Surf jt S Vale £64,914.34 B462/40 WRC09016 WD23 2LX Road to Silverdale Chipperfield Road Bovingdon - DBM jt N £64,893.43 C75/450 WRC09017 HP3 0JR Flaunden Lane to SMA jt 30mph Furzehill Road Borehamwood - Barnet £60,808.00 C85/10, 20 WRC09018 WD6 1HE Lane to Shenley Road Vardon Road Stevenage - Adj to Jessop £55,321.21 7U330/10 WRC09020 SG1 5PZ Road Loop C108/57, 60, Fears Green Sandon/Kelshall - Partridge £46,612.38 WRC09023 SG9 0QZ 70, 80 Hall Lane to W Kelshall Street Oaklea Oaklands - Great North Road to £19,727.86 0U1198/10 WRC09024 AL6 0PU end Cole Green Lane Welwyn Garden City - £8,917.21 0U184/10 WRC09026 AL7 3PW Hollybush Lane to HRA jt Mill Green Road Gaunts Way Letchworth - Surface jt £23,297.84 5U655/10 WRC09027 SG6 4PL Eastern Way to Surface jt Western Way Hollybush Lane Welwyn Garden City - £31,402.30 0U369/30 WRC09028 AL7 4JN SMA jt Howlands to Cole Green Lane Sheepcot Lane Watford - Milner Close to £22,314.84 9U413/110 WRC09029 WD25 7LW A405 Croxley View Estate Watford - Loop £95,123.19 9U120/10 WRC09031 WD186PE around Tolpits Lane various sections Washington Avenue Hemel - St Agnells £77,402.02 2U1077/10 WRC09033 HP2 6AU Lane to surf jt r'bt at end

Hazel Tree Road Watford - Beechwood £14,954.41 9U220/10 WRC09034 WD24 6RQ Rise to Leggatts Wood Avenue Stormont Road Hitchin - Grove Road to £16,304.00 5U518/10 WRC09035 SG5 1SH Strathmore Avenue Cherry tree Road Watford - Surf jt Foxhill £11,391.38 9U86/10 WRC09036 WD24 6SB to surf jt S Leggatts Wood Avenue High Street Berkhamsted - Swing Gate £102,155.52 A4251/70 WRC09038 HP4 1AZ Lane to Total Garage Highfield Lane Colney Heath - HRA jt £27,202.95 C97/30 WRC09039 AL4 0RJ A414 HRA jt S Tyttenhanger Green 1U220/10, Park Lane Paradise/Park Lane Cheshunt - £41,241.80 WRC09040 EN7 6PX 1U462/10, 20 Beaumont Road to Longfield Lane Beechwood Avenue St Albans - HRA jt £230,000.00 C62/30 WRC09041 AL1 4XZ Hatfield Road to Sandpit Lane Bishops Stortford Bypass Bishops A120/100, £226,714.26 WRC09042 Stortford - B1383 r'bt approach to A1250 CM23 1JG 110 r'bt approach. Hollybush Lane Welwyn Garden City - £5,560.74 0U369/10 WRC09043 AL7 4EF SMA jt Acsotts Lane to Boundary Lane Colney Heath Lane Colney Heath - A414 £14,171.49 C174/230 WRC09045 to end of concrete section W Barley Mow AL4 0TP Lane. Mandeville Rise Welwyn Garden City - £6,253.54 0U448/20 WRC09047 AL8 7JU Mandeville Rise to end Widford Road/Hunsdon Road B180/60, 70, £44,452.62 WRC09048 Hunsdon/Widford- Chicane approach 60m SG12 8RZ 80 S B1004 to N side Hollandscroft Sandon Lane Chipping/Mill End - A10 to S £22,221.01 C108/20, 30 WRC09050 SG9 0RX Hyde Hall access Solesbridge Road Chorleywood - Sarrat £63,594.77 C103/10, 20 WRC09051 Road to N Warwick Court excl HRA M25 WD3 6AD bridge 5U597/10, 20, Baldock Lane Letchworth/Baldock - £59,136.42 WRC09053 SG7 6HH 30 Letchworth Gate to Weston Way Brook Road Borehamwood - Shenley £66,501.94 4U492/10 WRC09054 WD6 5RH Road r'bt to Gateshead Road r'bt 3U462/10, The Avenue/The Drive Hertford - Bengeo £65,139.96 WRC09055 SG14 3DF 3U508/10 Street to Dunconbe Road Thornbury Gardens Borehamwood - £30,936.68 4U623/10, 20 WRC09056 WD6 1RE Arundel Drive to Kenilworth Drive incl loop Halsey Drive Hitchin - Loop around £33,908.94 5U410/10 WRC09059 SG4 9PZ Wymondley Road Mill Way Bushey - Park Avenue to Bushey £63,980.55 4U137/10 WRC09060 WD23 2AE Mil Lane Pankhurst Crescent Stevenage - Loop £25,139.67 7U248/10 WRC09061 SG2 0QH around Chells Way Roe Green Sandon - Redhill Road to W £28,194.04 C10/450 WRC09062 SG9 0QE Rushden Road White Horse Lane Woolmer Green - £6,423.32 0U56/10 WRC09063 Mardleybury Road to surf jt N Robbery SG3 6NB Bottom Lane Caxton Way Trading Estate Stevenage - £12,683.54 7U59/10 WRC09064 SG1 2DF Six Hills Way to Bessemer Drive Broughinge Road Borehamwood - £12,467.040 4U493/10, 20 WRC09065 WD6 5AL Brodewater Road W to garages 8U526/10, 20, Mayfare Croxley Green - Sycamore £15,588.94 WRC09067 WD3 3DF 30 Approach to end incl side spurs

Appleby Street Cheshunt - Holbeck Lane £34,806.90 1U9/20 WRC09068 EN7 6QX to Smiths Lane Hazelmere Road Stevenage - Hertford £32,361.32 7U144/10 WRC09070 SG2 8RX Road to Berkeley Close £12,098.25 7U153/10 WRC09071 Hillside Stevenage - Hillcrest to end SG1 1PX 4U477/10, Audley Close/Welbeck Close £11,021.46 WRC09072 WD6 1UF 4U633/10 Borehamwood - Stratfield Road to ends Highfield Lane Colney Heath - HRA jt N £32,967.24 C97/30 WRC09046 AL4 0RJ Tyttenhager Green to Highfield Park Drive Ragged Hall Lane Chiswell Green - HRA jt £18,536.36 6U40/10 WRC09073 AL2 3LD Watford Road to SD jt Furzebushes Lane Babbage Road Industrial Estate £81,202.35 7U367/10 WRC09074 Stevenage - to end ? (r'bt may not be SG1 2EQ adopted) C61/35, House Lane/Sandringham Crescent St £89,430.24 6U1280/10, WRC09075 Albans - St Albans Roadt to Sandpit lane AL4 9HE 15, 20, 25 r'bt Brick Knoll Park St Albans - Drakes Drive £46,191.68 6U1276/10 WRC09077 AL1 5UG for 140m Sherwood Avenue St Albans - £34,814.81 6U485/10 WRC09078 AL4 9PQ Marshallswick Lane to The Ridgeway Greenhill Crescent Watford - r'bt to Caxton £127,649.40 9U199/10 WRC09079 WD18 8QU Way Kingshill Avenue St Albans - HRA jt £23,412.92 6U347/10 WRC09080 AL4 9QB Sherwood to The Ridgeway 5U1150/10, Echo Hill Royston - Sun Hill to end incl £15,781.43 WRC09082 SG8 9BB 20, 30 adopted side spurs. Burford Way Hitchin - A600 to Westmill £37,127.72 5U367/10 WRC09083 SG5 2XE Road Butterfield Road Wheathampstead - SMA £26,513.50 6U88/10/20 WRC09084 AL4 8QH jt The Hill to Brewhouse Hill 6U899/10, Manor Road/Telford Road/Caledon Road £75,567.68 6U915/10, WRC09085 London Colney - SMA joint Shenley Road AL2 1PW 6U882/10 to surf jt E of Telford Aycliffe Road Borehamwood - Surf jt S £15,818.62 4U478/30 WRC09087 WD6 4AA Woolmer Close to Gateshead Road Bury Wick Harpenden - Beesonend Lane £21,925.41 6U594/10 WRC09088 AL5 2AD to Collens Road Morris Road London Colney - o/s no 46 to £8,296.27 6U902/10 WRC09091 AL2 1JJ end Broadstone Road Harpenden - Grove £22,676.24 6U587/10 WRC09092 AL5 1RF Road to end Newark Green Borehamwood - HRA jt £26,385.48 4U581/10 WRC09093 Newark Green r'bt to HRA/HFS jt Balmoral WD6 2QQ Drive r'bt £4,172,572.45 Total

56 of 56 09/05/2018