Interpretation of the Road 2000 Network Construction and GPR Data

Road 2000 - London Principal Road Survey Strategic Plan 2005 -2010

Report for LoTAG Highway Maintenance Steering Group

4th January 2005

Chris Britton Consultancy Ltd. 4 Howard Buildings 69-71 Burpham Lane Guildford Surrey GU4 7NB

Tel: (01483) 304364 Fax: (01483) 452264 Road 2000 - London Principal Road Survey Strategic Plan 2005 -2010

Road 2000 - London Principal Road Survey Strategic Plan 2005 -2010

Name Signature Date Prepared By C R Britton 4.1.05 Checked & Reviewed by A Pickett Approved By G Prangnell (LBHF) Issue Status Final Purpose of Issue For LOTAG Gp 2 and HMWG Project Code 38/297 mod 2 File Reference 38/297 mod 2

Chris Britton Consultancy Document Ref: 38/297 Page 2 Version 8 Final Date: 4th January 2005 Road 2000 - London Principal Road Survey Strategic Plan 2005 -2010

Contents

1 Executive Summary 4

2 Introduction 5

3 Review of ROAD2000 6

4 Aspirations of Stakeholders 9 4.1 The London Boroughs 9 4.2 Transport for London 12 4.3 The wider technical community 13 5 Communication 15

6 Conclusions from the Consultation Exercise 16

7 ROAD2000 – a Strategy for the next five years 17 7.1 The Strategy 17 8 Implementation 19 8.1 Action Plan 19 8.2 Deliverables 20 Appendix 1 – Comments from SRMCS 21

Chris Britton Consultancy Document Ref: 38/297 Page 3 Version 87 Final Date: 30 Dec 20044th January 2005 Road 2000 - London Principal Road Survey Strategic Plan 2005 -2010

1 Executive Summary

This document describes a vision for continuing and extending the work on the ROAD2000 Project across all 33 London Boroughs, on behalf of LoTAG Group 2 (and working through the LoTAG Highway Maintenance Steering Group) for the period 2005-2010, which includes the following elements;

1. To develop London-wide surveys in order to advise and provide assistance to the Boroughs; Government, TfL and others in order to assist with identifying maintenance condition and financial need and priorities

2. Specifically to undertake pavement condition surveys on behalf of the London Boroughs to include for example SCRIM, SCANNER (formerly TTS), DVI and GPR,surveys

3. To produce a Works Programme for the proposed London-wide surveys, data processing and related technical developments on an annual basis, taking into consideration costs and resources

4. To provide data to TfL and the Boroughs particularly with respect to support the statutory BVPI’s for road and footway condition

5. To develop performance and condition assessment for London Borough roads and footway assets (primarily on the PRN rather than the non-principal local road networks)

6. To determine maintenance standards and resource needs

7. To keep abreast of the latest survey techniques for condition assessment and data collection and presentation, promoting the implementation of new developments where benefits to London are identified

8. To measure and assess condition to monitor longer term performance

9. To provide regular updates to the Boroughs and the wider community through newsletters, annual events and workshops

10. To network with UK Boards and their sub-groups, CSS, TAG and other relevant national and regional groups to promote maintenance best practice

11. To promote and develop footway standards treating London as a special case particularly with respect to developing a London rule set and footway condition assessment approach

12. To promote best practice in the presentation and dissemination of condition data – using web- based browser and eGIS back-cloth

13. To lobby and promote better use of UKPMS at all levels for maintenance condition assessment, and in developing new an enhanced reporting tools etc.

14. To provide assistance to Boroughs in making best use of data already held on UKPMS

15. To develop approaches to Asset Management both broad and detailed e.g. – inventory data collection, condition assessment, presentation and prioritisation of data and to demonstrate how such data can be maintained as part of ongoing maintenance arrangements

16. To determine optimum maintenance standards and financial need from backlog and steady state calculations

2 Introduction

ROAD2000 was established as project in 1999, to provide a consistent London- wide assessment of the condition of the Principal Road Network for the incoming London Mayor in 2000. With the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham acting as Lead Borough procuring and managing the project , an efficient and effective mechanism was quickly established for delivering the project and this has been maintained each year since then, up to and including the current year (2004-5). Now that the ROAD2000 Project has been running for five years, it was judged an appropriate point at which to review past achievements, and set out a strategy for the future that will build upon the work done and release further benefits to the stakeholders involved in the management and maintenance of the extensive assets of the capital. A review and consultation exercise was commissioned from the ROAD2000 Technical Advisers, Chris Britton Consultancy Ltd., in July 2004. The objectives of this exercise were discussed and agreed with the LoTAG Highway Maintenance Steering Group, as follows;  To develop a Strategic Plan for ROAD2000 for the next five years, by the end of 2004, which will come into effect on 1st April 2005  To carry out a consultation exercise with LoTAG Sector Groups (during September 2004), to learn from past experience and determine priorities for future potential developments that will benefit Boroughs at a grass roots level.  To provide a draft of the Strategic Plan for discussion at the ROAD2000 Seminar on 28th October 2004.  To ensure that the Strategic Plan takes into account other linked initiatives e.g. TTS/SCANNER surveys, Footways, TfL standards & systems, Asset Management, LTP2 etc. The Strategic Plan sets out the revised terms of reference for ROAD2000, the approach to procuring the necessary services, the aspirations of different stakeholders and the benefits of the proposed approach. Now the consultation has been completed, the Plan is being submitted for consideration and approval by LoTAG Group 2.

3 Review of ROAD2000

ROAD2000 set as its original objectives, stated in the first Newsletter;

 To establish maintenance and funding requirements both for those principal roads that will form part of the new Mayor’s Strategic Road Network and for the principal roads remaining with the London boroughs  To enable the Mayor to make judgements based on factual data over the maintenance financial allocations for these principal roads .produce the Audit Commission Performance Indicators for each borough  To help in the development of consistent principal road condition data across London  To develop Best Value across London

The following more specific objectives were set out in the first survey report in October 2000:

 To provide consistent road condition data across London;  To establish the structural requirements of the Principal Road Network;  To assist judgements on future maintenance financial allocations for maintenance of these principal roads;  To provide the borough’s with their principal road structural condition indicator BVPI 96;  To establish common practice across London with Best Value in mind.

Over the past 5 years, the following activities have been undertaken on the Borough Principal Road networks;

. DVI surveys (with some cross-validation with CVI surveys) . SCRIM surveys . TRACS-type surveys (TTS) were introduced from 2002-03 . Ground Penetrating Radar and coring were undertaken in 2003-04 . Pan-London Network Referencing with digitised centrelines . Central data processing using an accredited UKPMS system and dissemination of processed survey results together with local network data, in HMDIF format on CD-R and on printed maps, to each Borough . Establishing a GIS system linked to the PMS

Other activities and services have been provided through the same contract mechanism, as follows;

. Footway assessment (as part of DVI) . Asset inventory/condition surveys on 8 selected items (for TfL) . Asset inventory/condition survey services for Boroughs . General advice to Boroughs in interpretation of their survey results

The key stakeholders in the project have been; . The 33 London Boroughs (represented through LoTAG) Key users of survey condition data, BVPI outputs etc. Chris Britton Consultancy Document Ref: 38/297 Page 6 Version 87 Final Date: 30 Dec 20044th January 2005 Road 2000 - London Principal Road Survey Strategic Plan 2005 -2010

. TfL Street Management Funding (through top-slicing the grant for Borough Principal Roads) . Related national groups (UK Roads Board, the Roads Performance Monitoring Group, NRMCS, TTS/SCANNER Implementation Group, SRMCS in Scotland, etc) Through the exchange of technical information, these initiatives were able to ‘add value’ to each other, and to ROAD2000

In the consultation for this strategy, and in other discussions held with the Boroughs (as key end users of the survey results), we have identified broad satisfaction with the results of the initiative, after some initial teething problems such as network referencing had been sorted out. It is, however, apparent that many stakeholders may not appreciate the breadth of data available from ROAD2000 and its potential to add value, particularly at a local level. As ROAD2000 has extended its activities into different types of survey and into related areas of research and development, including asset inventory surveys for TfL, efforts have been made, through newsletters and the annual ROAD2000 seminar, to inform stakeholders of such developments. Inevitably, however, not all stakeholders and in particular not all practicing maintenance engineers in the Boroughs, have been fully conversant with the results of ROAD2000 and its potential to assist them in their day-to-day tasks.

It is clear that at present, and for the foreseeable future, most Boroughs are severely restricted in the resources at their disposal, and so pooling the funding and technical expertise in the way pioneered by ROAD2000 is a very practical and efficient solution to procuring a London-wide network condition survey.

At a high level, ROAD2000 has clearly been a major success, providing for the first time since the abolition of the GLC, a consistent London-wide assessment of road condition, which meets national current best practice and standards. The key output, in the form of Best Value Performance Indicators (BV96) has enabled a case to be made for increased funding across the capital, but also a more rational basis on which allocations between the Boroughs can be made.

Additional benefits have arisen from the data collected on Footways (a separate report on Footways being published in September 2001), skidding safety (SCRIM), and more recently (2004) on construction using GPR and coring results. However, feedback during the consultation has raised the complex issues associated with footway deterioration and assessment of need and there is a view that the current surveys and processing rules may be inappropriate.

During the consultation, comments were made on the impact that wider political agendas and priorities are having on road maintenance. For example, the emphasis on ‘street scene’ and aesthetics, and even issues such as the effect of increased cleansing regimes on block paved footways (washing out filler and causing premature failure). It is clear that more work is needed on the how such potentially conflicting priorities are balanced, and this links directly to the holistic approach being encouraged through the Highway Asset Management Framework (CSS, June 2004). Boroughs are aware of the need to embrace the new approach towards Asset Management on the highway network, and see ROAD2000 as an important input to this process.

ROAD2000 has been at the leading edge of condition survey development in England, introducing TRACS-Type surveys (TTS) in 2002-03, ahead of most English Authorities and pre-empting the initiative taken in 2003 by the Department for Transport to replace NRMCS using TTS on Principal Roads throughout England.

End-users in the Boroughs generally have a good perception of the ROAD2000 graphical presentation of condition indices (using the red/amber/green banding approach on an Ordnance Survey map background). Although there have been exceptions, most Boroughs feel that these results align with local Engineering judgement. The consultation revealed less familiarity with the TTS results, and perhaps linked with this, a lack of clarity on what benefit the TTS gives the end user.

Maps showing ‘recommended’ treatments (based on the national default set of rules and parameters for UKPMS), are generally seen as a useful guide to identify where further scheme appraisals would be carried out, rather than a detailed representation of the ‘need’. This is consistent with the objectives of UKPMS, when used as a network level condition assessment tool.

The consultation has revealed a view that the raw ROAD2000 data was under- used within the Boroughs, and a considerable number of Boroughs have not loaded their data into a local PMS. The reasons for this vary, but include; lack of resources, lack of PMS skills, and poorly matched network referencing with local systems. This highlights a need for ongoing, and perhaps more extensive, technical support to the Boroughs during future phases of ROAD2000, to help de-mystify and simplify the outputs from the available systems including UKPMS.

4 Aspirations of Stakeholders

4.1 The London Boroughs The consultation undertaken with each of the four LoTAG Highway Maintenance Sector Groups confirmed some broad agreement on both the previous ROAD2000 work and also the aspirations for the future. In addition, some ideas proposed by individual Boroughs or a Sector Group are worthy of further consideration by the ROAD2000 project management group, even though it is recognised that they may have funding implications. These are also referred to below.

In general, the Boroughs had a broad consensus on the following ROAD2000 experiences;

 The original (and still current) range of surveys based on DVI and SCRIM were giving a broadly consistent picture of network condition, and formed a sound basis for further investigation at local level, for schemes. There is still some scepticism expressed about how reliably consistent this picture is, especially where based on visual surveys, however this must be set against the additional benefit of using DVI for scheme development and the commitment by many authorities including TfL to continue using DVI until the correlation with SCANNER is proven.

 The introduction of TTS has yet to prove its value to practicing Engineers. While benefit was expected to come from these surveys on Principal Roads (and indeed is required from this year onwards for the production of BV96), there was widespread scepticism about the application of TTS/SCANNER to unclassified roads and even to the B/C classified roads (planned under current DfT research and development programme).

 The ‘Lead Borough’ approach to procurement has worked well.

 The GIS capability and hence map-based presentation of results of ROAD2000 surveys was found to be very useful.

 Some – but on a straw poll, not the majority – of Boroughs have implemented local PMS systems to obtain further benefits from the data, but there have also been some problems (particularly loading data and matching the ROAD2000 network with the local network).

 The project has been a useful and effective means of disseminating best practice throughout the 33 Boroughs.

 The project has helped to improve the level of understanding of UKPMS and what benefits it has to offer to the Boroughs, but there is still room for improvement helping to make the data more relevant and accessible to practitioners, and to promote the development of UKPMS in such a way as to improve local reporting and in particular, the presentation of local PI’s. Chris Britton Consultancy Document Ref: 38/297 Page 9 Version 87 Final Date: 30 Dec 20044th January 2005 Road 2000 - London Principal Road Survey Strategic Plan 2005 -2010

At the LoTAG Sector Groups, a number of comments and aspirations were expressed concerning the future of ROAD2000;

 There was support for ROAD2000 continuing, for Principal Roads on a single central contract basis.

 There was support for ROAD2000 continuing to focus on network-level condition monitoring basis, but to adapt and change to suit changing Performance Indicator requirements etc. These outputs were expected to continue to be used for backing London-wide bids for maintenance funding.

 There is some concern that, under the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) regime, the Audit Commission and others could read too much into small swings in BVPI, based on the current surveys. This is a national problem, not limited to London. While it is hoped that the introduction of SCANNER will produce more robust results, there is and will continue to be, a need for Engineering practitioners to be able to defend their BVPI results to Chief Executives and others.

 Scheme-level assessments would be best carried out at local Borough level, and additional detailed surveys for scheme purposes would be carried out locally.

 The proposed procurement of ROAD2000 surveys on B/C Class roads might benefit from a ‘pooled’ approach. Most Sectors felt that a smaller grouping, based on the Sectors, would be more appropriate than the pan-London approach with a single Lead Borough, however one sector voiced strong support for the latter approach. The Sector approach raises the issue of whether it would be possible to find a willing and sufficiently-resourced Borough to lead such a grouped approach. It was assumed that SCANNER would become the survey of choice for the Classified roads.

 Similar discussions about further extending the procurement approach to condition surveys on Unclassified roads indicated that the scale, local variations, and practicalities of project management would militate against this. There is still considerable concern about the appropriateness both of existing machine surveys and of SCANNER for use on Unclassified road networks. The current Lead Borough also questioned whether sufficient resources could be brought to bear on such a large extension to the project, using the existing arrangement. As mentioned above, the use of SCANNER on unclassified roads was not supported until further evidence becomes available of its applicability to the minor urban roads.

 The benefits of maintaining a single network referencing model were apparent, and so the Lead Borough should continue to take responsibility for this aspect (this may need to be qualified if the service is extended to non-principal roads, where local networks already exist, and Boroughs may want the network to be based on their local version). This aspect of support may need to be extended if fully geo-coded (GPS) based referencing is introduced at a later date. Chris Britton Consultancy Document Ref: 38/297 Page 10 Version 87 Final Date: 30 Dec 20044th January 2005 Road 2000 - London Principal Road Survey Strategic Plan 2005 -2010

 As new political and technical drivers arise, ROAD2000 should continue to support other LoTAG initiatives in respect of road./asset condition data and modelling. Examples already identified include;

o Asset Management planning (through liaison with LoTAG Asset Management Working Group)

o Improved rating and deterioration models for Footways & Cycle Tracks

While the Boroughs accept the need for change, and the requirements placed upon them by government and others, the limitations on in-house resources means that there is even more support for collaborative working, such as the ROAD2000 initiative. The consultation revealed that there is general support for extending the ROAD2000 Terms of Reference to include some of these areas of common interest. For example, some Boroughs have used the services of the Lead Borough to procure asset inventory and condition surveys. In particular, ROAD2000 could therefore contribute to the development of a London approach to Asset Management (perhaps focussing on the data to support an AM Plan). Specifically, the priority needs of footways have been recognised, which might lead to the development of an improved footway assessment approach and associated model. The Lead Borough has considered introducing a ‘bureau’ type consultancy service for giving specific local advice to Boroughs, for example to calculate BV187 Footway PI’s where data provided locally is merged with the respective elements of the ROAD2000 data to produce the Borough-based BVPI figure.

ROAD2000 has also proved to be useful forum for topical issues such as management of 3rd party claims; there is currently a proposal to develop a London-wide Procedure Manual to act as a ‘model’ for boroughs to use, as the basis, among other things, for rebuttal of claims. This document is likely to be developed based on a recently-produce procedure by Westminster City Council,

Other issues raised through the ROAD2000 project, are to be raised through LoTAG as they do not form part of the current or proposed Terms of Reference. However, the resourcing of any such projects might take a similar ‘Lead Borough’ approach to that used by ROAD2000. These issues include;

. Possible development of a London Maintenance Manual

. Common approach/advice on LIPS Bid Submissions

Some Boroughs are looking to ROAD2000 for support and taking a role as facilitator in providing common consultancy and advice suitable for use locally, and the Lead Borough is also in agreement with this subject to satisfactory funding arrangements being put in place.

There was support from at least one Sector to the idea of extending the duration of the next ROAD2000 survey contract, to 3 or 5 years, as has successfully been done in Scotland. The Lead Borough has confirmed that

this now in hand, and should achieve benefits of scale and long-term consistency. However, the contract will require tight control and QA of the contractor, and flexibility must also be retained to allow for changes and innovations (e.g. the new developments to SCANNER).

Some Boroughs feel that the name ‘ROAD2000’ is sounding dated and should be reviewed, however others feel that now the name is recognised in the industry, change might result in confusion. An alternative suggestion is to retain the title, but change the sub-text (e.g. ‘Improving London’s Roads in the New Millennium’) within a new logo.

4.2 Transport for London

There are thirty-three London boroughs, including the Corporation of the City of London. The demise of the Greater London Council in March 1986 left a political vacuum and an initial lack of strategic direction on the local road network. This void was filled by the London Technical Advisors Group recommending using a ‘lead-borough’ approach. Initiatives such as bus priority schemes were piloted by a lead borough and later rolled out across London. Bridge assessment and maintenance were prioritised for the Government Office for London by collaborative working led by a single borough in a similar manner.

The Road 2000 initiative was a proposal by Hammersmith and Fulham highway authority to undertake a highway condition survey of all London borough Principal Roads with the objective of having a report on the incoming Mayor’s desk in July 2000 on the formation of the new strategic body the Greater London Authority. Transport for London, the transport arm of the GLA, subsequently renewed this commission annually.

Transport for London (TfL) is both a highway authority for their own road network and also, as part of the GLA, the body providing capital funding for the borough’s through the Local Transport Plan annual bidding process.

TfL, in collaboration with the boroughs, developed their own condition surveys and asset management procedures through their Asset Information Management System (AIMS) project. Whilst there were some initial considerations whether TfL would take on-board the Road 2000 work, there were a number of reasons why such an approach was rejected. The boroughs were initially better placed to undertake the work and LoTAG felt that there was local accountability to have the work overseen by the boroughs.

Since these early days where TfL and LoTAG were meeting to discuss asset management, they are now an integral part of LoTAG and working in collaboration with both a strategic and a local voice within the condition assessment and asset management arena. TfL have carried out technical development work in a number of areas that relate to road condition and assessment, including the development of an asset management system (AIMS), and a condition backlog model. Like ROAD2000, TfL has made extensive use of GIS for data presentation and analysis. TfL also use UKPMS (the Exor system) linked to ORACLE Spatial (GIS), They specifically use DVI Chris Britton Consultancy Document Ref: 38/297 Page 12 Version 87 Final Date: 30 Dec 20044th January 2005 Road 2000 - London Principal Road Survey Strategic Plan 2005 -2010

survey inputs to produce BVPI’s, which is fully consistent with the ROAD2000 approach. TfL have expressed a cautious view towards the introduction of SCANNER, and at least will monitor its use in parallel with DVI until fully proven.

TfL’s Backlog Model, which is based on the Overall Condition Index (OCI) from UKPMS visual surveys, calculated at 20m intervals, provides a network- wide probabilistic approach to determination of future need (roads above the OCI threshold of 70) against variable budget scenarios. The typical ‘look ahead’ period is 15 years. This is the first year the model has been used. As part of this model, TfL have collected an extensive amount of information on unit rates for maintenance, and will be making efforts to capture works history data. This was felt to be an important task also for the Boroughs, perhaps through ROAD2000.

TfL in addition have developed a bespoke scheme-level prioritisation model, based on the same UKPMS OCI data. User-selected sections (identified in the GIS) are exported and a length/area weighted scoring calculated for each scheme. This is only used for ranking TfL schemes (under £2m), and not for Borough schemes bid for under LIPS.

Footways are included in TfL’s model, but there is concern about the understandability of BVPI 187. TfL are interested in the outputs of the ROAD2000 work on Footway Backlog.

TfL have been working on an integrated Asset Management approach for all assets for a considerable time, but haven’t yet agreed levels of service for all aspects (currently, the BVPI’s are being used for target setting). TfL are working in partnership with the Boroughs, through LoTAG, to develop a generic HAMP/TAMP approach based on common levels of service.

4.3 The wider technical community

Not only has ROAD2000 contributed technically to other national and regional working groups, but the project has benefit from a mutual exchange of information from these projects. As such, ROAD2000 has been at the forefront of recent developments and with its current developments making use of TTS and GPR, for example, and remains a leader in the technical community nationally.

The SRMCS Steering Group in Scotland has made some positive suggestions in respect of sharing information, in particular experience with local rule sets, and have endorsed continued cooperation with ROAD2000 (see Appendix 1).

The Lead Borough for ROAD2000 continues to be represented on the Project Management Group for the national TTS research programme.

The Lead Borough for ROAD2000 continues to be represented (and indeed currently chairs) the national Roads Performance Management Group and is represented on the Roads Board. Other Groups on which there is ROAD2000 representation include; NRMCS, TTS/SCANNER Implementation Group,

Footways and Cycle Track Management Group, CSS Asset Management Group, and SRMCS in Scotland.

The development of a ‘local rule set’ for London, underway through ROAD2000 will be applicable to all UKPMS-compliant systems and so could be of use not only to the Boroughs but to other similar urban authorities in the UK. This development is important not only for the central project (for example to determine default treatment recommendations that more closely match local Engineering judgement), but also for Boroughs seeking to make use of ROAD2000 and other UKPMS-compatible data processed locally.

The need for technical support to Engineering practitioners to enable them to defend robustly the changes in their BVPI’s year-on-year has been noted. This is a problem not limited to London, and should be raised at Roads Board and perhaps Roads Liaison Group level.

The Department for Transport is developing and promoting several areas of research that could have an impact on ROAD2000. These include; the further development of TTS/SCANNER surveys for local roads, the development of UKPMS, and the development of Asset Management methodologies. The CSS and TAG, through joint Working Groups, also have an interest in these areas, and, for example, has just commissioned a project to investigate valuation methods for local road assets.

5 Communication

A key element of Road 2000 is the provision of information to Stakeholders about the project, particularly the Boroughs. Various initiatives have been introduced to encourage consultation and involvement by those stakeholders. These initiatives include:

. The publication of a regular newsletter about the project . The hosting of an annual autumn seminar . The establishment of a Road 2000 page on the LoTAG website for the dissemination of news and documentation . Regular presentations to national and international conferences and seminars about the project

It is recommended that these initiatives should be continued and developed over the next 5 years. In particular, the development of a Road 2000 website with dynamic functionality that allows Borough users to access, maintain and interact with their own data, using web-enabled GIS tools should be considered. A key objective of communication with the Boroughs should be to assist them to get the maximum added value from the ROAD2000 data, at local level.

Communication with other stakeholders and national project initiatives have been mutually beneficial and so it will be important to maintain and continuously improve communication with these stakeholders, including Transport for London, Department for Transport, SCOTS (through SRMCS), TTS/SCANNER research and UKPMS.

There is a strong need and desire among practitioners in the Boroughs to receive technical back-up and support, and although LoTAG already provides this through its various working groups, there is a case for ROAD2000 to continue to be a focal point for condition assessment, PMS and BVPI support. If this aspect is developed during the next phase of the project, there would however be an ongoing and perhaps increasing impact on the central support team resources.

6 Conclusions from the Consultation Exercise

Based on the consultation exercise the following general conclusions may be drawn;

The condition surveys carried out for ROAD2000 have largely achieved their objectives and the benefit of consistency of approach across London has been widely recognised, though with some reservations about visual surveys. There is support for the continued collection, processing, presentation and interpretation of data on a London-wide basis.

The procurement mechanism using a Lead Borough has worked well, and it is suggested that this now be extended to include surveys on B/C class roads. This should be linked to the introduction of SCANNER on these classes of road.

Technical experience gained on ROAD2000 has aided development of asset condition assessment on carriageways, both within London, and in the national arena. There is potential to extend this, particularly in areas such as footways, and the development of local PMS rule sets, and local indicators to demonstrate performance and service delivery.

ROAD2000 has proved to be a useful focal point for technical support to the Boroughs, particularly given current shortage of specialist resources at local level, and such support should continue and perhaps be extended in its scope.

The extension of ROAD2000 surveys, and specifically TTS/SCANNER to unclassified roads at the present time, is generally seen as presenting problems, particularly for urban unclassified roads.

If ROAD2000 is continued as a centrally-procured and managed project, there will be further opportunities to contribute to London-wide and national developments in Highways Asset Management, in a broader context.

ROAD2000 data, being made directly available to Boroughs at a local level, has encouraged the adoption and use of improved management systems locally and the realisation of added value from the data, but more needs to be done to ensure that the local benefits are maximised.

Liaison between ROAD2000 and other national and regional initiatives has been beneficial and should continue.

7 ROAD2000 – a Strategy for the next five years

7.1 The Strategy

The following Strategy for ROAD2000 in the next five years (2005-2010) has been formed as a result of consultation with all the project stakeholders. The starting point for the ROAD2000 strategy, is to maintain the current pooled resource and single contract procurement approach to surveying and processing the Principal Road condition data for all 33 London Boroughs. This has wide support within the Boroughs, continued support from the team in the Lead Borough (Hammersmith & Fulham), and could easily be extended, subject to funding through TfL. Additional sub-projects, if not funded via the top-slicing of the Principal Road budget, could be added subject to top-up funding equally shared between the Boroughs, or as separately-commissioned projects. This could be a cost-effective way of sharing technical knowledge and best practice throughout London, using the successful ROAD2000 model.

There is considerable support for an extension of the pooled approach to procurement in respect of other Classified Roads (B/C), in particular the introduction of SCANNER surveys, but much less support for this approach on Unclassified Roads. Indeed, discussions with the current Lead Borough indicate that the scale of such an operation would preclude this being achieved at a practical level. The idea of a Sector-based grouping for procuring B/C and, possibly, unclassified road surveys has been put forward, although funding mechanisms have yet to be agreed. If the surveys on B/C class roads go ahead, the benefits would be similar to those realised on the Principal Roads, namely economies of scale, and consistency of data format and quality.

There is support among some Boroughs for ROAD2000 to provide survey and data processing services on a number of related assessments, beyond the ‘minimum’ required to produce Principal Road Performance Indicators. These include;

 Asset Inventory and Condition surveys on classified non-principal roads, and other Borough roads.

 GPR and coring to establish construction on classified non-principal roads (extended to classified non-principal roads).

 Completion of the development of a ‘London Rule Set’ for UKPMS

 Reinstating the analysis of footway survey data collected during DVI

One of the ways in which ROAD2000 has been able to ‘add value’ to the Borough stakeholders is by conducting focussed research and development activities. With the new drivers of Asset Management, LIPS and legislative changes already on the horizon, it is proposed that ROAD2000 could take a key role in coordination of development, on behalf of all London Boroughs, of topics of common interest related to condition assessment. The following are suggestions for such developments already identified;

 Development of footway condition assessment and rating applicable for dense urban networks

 Development of maintenance need (‘backlog’) model(s), suited to local roads but with reference to existing models being produced by TfL and others, nationally.

Technical points raised during the consultation that should also be addressed during the next phase of ROAD2000, include;

 Continued research and development into local London-based rules and parameters for data processing (through UKPMS)

 Review of data presentation methods and formats

 Consideration of new methods of data access and retrieval by the Boroughs (e.g. using a Web-based approach)

 Consideration of making best use of ‘supporting data’, for example;

o Ground Penetrating Radar (for construction)

o Local Hierarchy definitions (e.g. for Footways)

 Consideration of using new survey technology when it becomes available (e.g. extended functionality on TTS/SCANNER currently the subject of DfT research)

 Consideration of the use of ROAD2000 data in an Asset Management context (e.g. for asset valuation and deterioration modelling)

Other issues raised during the ROAD2000 consultation are to be left for consideration by the LoTAG Highway Maintenance Steering Group and Group 2. These include;

 Analysis of the impacts of the Traffic Management Act 2004 on the setting of performance targets etc.

 Investigation into how political objectives (e.g. accessibility, safety, social inclusion, street scene and environment) can be related to road condition data.

 Development of a London Framework for Asset Management (already underway through LoTAG)

ROAD2000 has a deserved reputation for good communication in disseminating the results of the surveys and development work across the Boroughs. There is support for a continuation of the Newsletters in addition to other forms of

communication (including use of workshops and presentations at the annual seminar).

8 Implementation

8.1 Action Plan

The implementation of the ROAD2000 Project Strategy 2005-2010 as proposed, will include the following actions in the first year (2005-6);

. Revised Survey Contract Specification . B/C Class roads . Footways . Development Programme and Technical Innovations . Extend network referencing to other categories of road (B/C Class)) . New forms of data presentation and retrieval (e.g. GPR data) . Introduce new survey technology (e.g. updated TTS/SCANNER) for B/C Class Roads . Updated QM/QA Proposals . Review Project Management and procurement arrangements . Technical Support arrangements . For central surveys and data processing . For local support to the Boroughs . Resource Plan, including composition and resourcing of the support team within LBHF . Confirm Budgets and Funding mechanisms . Project Plan and timetable for introduction of new surveys

If it is decided to proceed with a central procurement of surveys for B/C class roads, it will be essential that the resource plan and project management arrangements are carefully planned, as there will be a considerable workload in year 1 setting these surveys up and extending the network referencing to cover the new parts of the network. This preparatory work will be needed prior to the main survey season starting – i.e. before April 2005, and resource and time constraints may determine how much of the new programme can be completed in the first year (e.g. the introduction of SCANNER on B/C class roads). The first task, therefore, following LoTAG Group 2 approval, will be the production of the first year Work Programme, addressing tasks, costs, resources and work scheduling.

It is envisaged that the Work Programme be revised and updated on an annual basis, to reflect changing requirements, constraints (including funding) and opportunities (e.g. new technology). The programme for subsequent years can only be identified in general terms at this stage, given that it will be influenced by outside factors such as the introduction, nationally, of new SCANNER surveys on lower categories of road, and the development of new Best Value Performance Indicators etc., and will therefore not be described in further detail here.

8.2 Deliverables

Key Deliverables each year from the next phase of ROAD2000 will be described in each year’s Work Programme. The deliverables for the first year are summarised in the table below;

Year Sub-Task Deliverable(s) 2005-6 Develop new project Contract documents management and procurement and QM Procedures procedures etc. Principal Road Surveys Procure and process Visual and Machine surveys, centrally B/C Class Surveys Reference B/C Class networks at Borough level Procure and process SCANNER surveys, by LoTAG Sector or centrally Technical Developments GPR data processing and presentation New approach to Footway surveys and hierarchy Technical Support to Boroughs Improved data presentation and access tools Advice on best use of data and systems (UKPMS)

Appendix 1 – Comments from SRMCS

The following comments were received from the Project Manager of the Scottish Road Maintenance Condition Survey (SRMCS) project concerning collaboration with ROAD2000;

In response to the paper you circulated at the SRMCS Technical meeting I would offer the following comments

Given the common issues shared by the London Boroughs, it would seem desirable to continue to build on the experience gained over the past 5 years and to develop a common framework for highway maintenance into the future

While Hammersmith and Fulham have acted as Lead Authority for the Principal road survey ad for the associated inventory survey, it may be appropriate for other boroughs to take the lead in other aspects, both to share the burden but also to foster a wider share of ownership.

In terms of co-ordination with other initiatives, it would be useful to liaise with other cities throughout the UK, who will share some if not all of the issues which arise in a metropolitan authority While it may well be appropriate to develop "Rule Sets" for London, it would be useful to compare those with those adopted by other large urban conurbations. This would apply not only to the carriageway but to other elements of highway infrastructure.

Similarly a Maintenance Procedural Manual for London would also have relevance for other cities

Although Scotland outwith the cities is radically different in character from London, the Input from Gordon Pragnell in respect of the experience gained from road condition surveys in London has been invaluable to the introduction of TTS in Scotland and consequently I believe I speak for all in SCOTS in saying that we would wish to maintain and develop the links which have been established

Alistair Gow SRMCS Project Manager 8th October 2004

Chris Britton Consultancy Document Ref: 38/297 Page 23 Version 87 Final Date: 30 Dec 20044th January 2005