Presentation on theme: "National Roads Maintenance Review Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts of Changes in Scottish Road Maintenance Spend Karl Johnston Head of Road and."— Presentation transcript:
National Roads Maintenance Review Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts of Changes in Scottish Road Maintenance Spend Karl Johnston Head of Road and Rail Economics Transport Scotland
What I will cover Membership and terms of reference of the Wider Economic Issues, Costs and Benefits Working Group. Overview of framework and steps in research. Quantitative analysis – measuring and monetising impacts. Qualitative assessment - assessment of other impacts that cannot be or were not measured but may be of equal significance. Conclusions.
Road Maintenance Review Working Groups Co-chaired by SCOTS (Jim Valentine) and Transport Scotland: Wider Economic Issues, Impacts, Costs and Benefits; Standards and Asset Management; Technology and Productivity Innovation; and Resourcing
Wider Economic Issues, Impacts, Costs and Benefits Working Group - membership: Transport Scotland SCOTS COSLA Institute of Advanced Motoring RAC Guide Dogs for the Blind (representing Mobility and Access Committee) Living Streets SUSTRANS Road Haulage Association Ltd Confederation of Passenger Transport Freight Transport Association
Terms of Reference 1. Estimate the economic and social impacts of changes (focussing mostly on reductions) in trunk and local road maintenance expenditure over a ten and twenty year time period.
How did we go about this? Assessment of impact of reduction in maintenance spend on: Trunk roads Local roads Uses Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) criteria as framework for analysis: Environment Safety Economy Integration Accessibility and social inclusion Undertaken by TRL } Basis for quantitative analysis
How did we go about quantifying this (half the story)? Scenarios Scenario 1:Maintain 2010/11 spending Scenario 2: 20% reduction over 10 years, return to base level over next 5, real terms annual increase of 2.5% over following 5. Scenario 3: 40% reduction over 10 years, return to base level over next 5, real terms annual increase of 2.5% over following 5. Subjective allocation of spending reduction Steps Model impact on condition Translate conditions into impacts Quantify impacts over time
Allocating reductions across budget lines: trunk roads Activity Activity spend as percentage of current budgeted activity spend Scenario 2 (Overall 20% cut) Scenario 3 (Overall 40% cut) Inventory, inspection, testing, routine and cyclic activity 8772 Miscellaneous 8871 Structural maintenance – pavements (carriageways) 5624 Structural maintenance – structures 9686 Minor improvements 9375 Total overall budget (%)8060
Allocating reductions across budget lines: local roads Activity Activity spend as percentage of current budgeted activity spend Scenario 2 (Overall 20% cut) Scenario 3 (Overall 40% cut) Capital7550 Traffic Calming9692 Road Safety9692 New Road Schemes8977 Lighting9285 Structural Maintenance (Carriageway)6531 Other8163 Revenue8366 Road Construction8977 Structural Maintenance (Carriageway)6531 Environmental Maintenance7347 Winter Maintenance9692 Lighting8977 Safety Maintenance and Emergency Patching 9692 Routine Repairs6733 Total Overall Budget (%)8060
Modelling the impact on condition (Analyses undertaken by WDM Ltd) Trunk roads: ‐RCI to Residual Life conversion ‐Treatment interventions are based on RCI ‐Distribution of treatment remains constant for future years Local roads: ‐SCANNER data (RCI used for condition) ‐Spending Review budgets ‐SRMCS condition reports Trunk road priority to motorways ‐Remove priority rule after 10 years Valuation of network for trunk roads Calculation of depreciation for local roads
Translating these into impacts Change in vehicle operating costs due to surface condition Change in travel time costs due to surface condition Change in accident costs due to surface condition Change in delay costs at roadworks Change in accident costs due to reduced lighting Change in the carbon emissions, local air quality and noise Change in the (road) asset value (not part of NPV) 6 7
Scaling up the sample of Local Authorities 32 Authorities – time required and cost too high to model all 32 Sample of 8 Authorities (SCOTS Categories - rural, urban, semi-urban, city) (Islands are rural for this study) Rural – Aberdeenshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Highland Urban – North Lanarkshire Semi-urban – Fife and South Ayrshire City – Edinburgh and Glasgow Road types – A, B, C, U each by rural/urban Scaled up for all network based on a combination of authority type (rural, city etc), percentage of network in poor condition, traffic levels and amount of maintenance
Quantitative analysis – results Cumulative discounted costs (£m 2002 Prices) Trunk RoadsLocal RoadsAll Roads Scenario 1 (Base Case) Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 (Base Case) Scenario 2Scenario 3Scenario 2Scenario 3 Financial Costs to Government Maintenance works 2, , , ,027 Impacts on Society Vehicle operating costs 73, ,246+1,485+2,966 +1,861+3,591 Travel time (surface condition related) , Accidents (skid related) N/A 0+21 Delays (through roadworks) , Lighting (accidents) , C0 2 Emissions 5, , Overall impact on society 79, ,4241,2122,4331,5853,079 Economic analysis Works costs reduction Base Case Base Case6881, ,027 Increase in user costs Base Case373647Base Case1,2122,4331,5853,080 Net Present Value Base Case Base Case ,053
Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity tests Trunk roadsLocal roads Scenario 2 (20% cut) Scenario 3 (40% cut) Scenario 2 (20% cut) Scenario 3 (40% cut) Base analysis (20 years, standard growth and indexing assumptions) Reduced (10 year) time period analysis Higher inflation rates on works costs Vehicle operating costs: No traffic growth or fuel price increases Scaling up methodology for local road sample to network effects
Second half of the story –assessment of impacts that have not been quantified Biggest surprise (to me at least). These impacts arguably as significant as the quantified impacts. Some impossible or hard to quantify, some out of scope of the analysis. Literature review: -132 documents reviewed -65 relevant Workshop featuring guest expert presenters “Based on the literature review, the user group most affected by a reduction in road maintenance would be pedestrians. Pedestrians would be affected in every aspect including noise and vibration, global air quality, visual amenity, cultural and landscape, physical fitness, accidents, security, community and comparative accessibility.”
Economy Journey reliability and quality will both deteriorate Increasing road condition deterioration caused by delays in maintenance will mean a rise in temporary repairs and the final costs of roadworks Local economies may be disproportionately affected should there be an increase in emergency incidents (eg, A83 Rest and Be Thankful landslip) There is also an increased risk of emergency incidents on strategic infrastructure. Responding to these would likely divert further resources from maintenance budgets. Wider economic disbenefits such as reduced tourism or local economic activity. The last three, if quantified, would further reinforce the quantitative conclusions.
Safety Lower levels of spending on key structures are likely to increase the frequency of emergency incidents leading to, at a minimum, local economy disruptions and increased journey times. The balance of evidence suggests lower levels of street lighting increases accidents, increases the public's fear of crime and reduces the public's use of footpaths and cycle-tracks. Deterioration in footways and cycle-tracks will cause increased safety risk to pedestrians and cyclists
Accessibility and Social Inclusion Remote communities likely to suffer as priorities for spending a reduced budgets focus on where risks and traffic are most significant Community accessibility will face greatest challenges in the event of emergency closures where alternative access routes are limited or non- existent Vulnerable groups particularly those with a visual or mobility impairment are most likely to be affected from increased defects on footpaths Vulnerable groups are most likely to be affected by increased perceptions of crime caused by poorer levels of street lighting Pedestrians and residents will experience poorer amenity from increased roadside noise and reduced local air quality Cyclists are likely to face poorer cycling conditions
Environment Landscape, visual amenity and cultural effects will be significantly affected - poorly maintained streets and public spaces have a negative effect on quality of life Poor walking environments and transport links leave areas isolated and damage community cohesion Noise and vibration effects will worsen Lower levels of street cleaning lead to increased environmental pollution (dust levels), local flooding along with reduced amenity. Lower levels of street lighting make commercial areas less attractive to businesses Biodiversity will be negatively affected if vegetation control is reduced and weeds spread Global and local air quality may benefit from less planned maintenance activity, but this may then be countered by increased emissions arising from a greater number of unplanned interventions.
Integration Impacts relevant to numerous Scottish Government cross-cutting strategy documents. For example, lower quality footways and cycleways will act as disincentives to physical fitness aimed at increasing improved health outcomes
Conclusions Savings on road maintenance spend would be significantly outweighed by the wider additional costs. (E.g. 40% reduction saves £2 billion, but costs Scotland’s road users and communities £3 billion). A £1 reduction in road maintenance therefore results in a £1.50 cost to the wider Scottish economy and society. Impact greater for local roads. Biggest quantified impact: vehicle operating costs Findings reinforced by the non-quantified impacts. Public dissatisfaction with road conditions is likely to increase Investing in the maintenance of this significant capital asset clearly delivers economic and social benefits to Scotland.