Highways Asset Management in Lancashire - Whole of Government Accounting and using data Tom Mercer and Rebecca Makinson

Introduction Overview of Lancashire's approach to inventory and condition data. Our long term strategy. Our approach to scanner data for local roads.

Lancashire’s Approach Highways Asset Management and information for Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) go hand in hand. Lancashire's most visible and largest publically owned asset is the Highway Network (approximately £18 billion including land). Significant differences in approach as the age and condition of assets is different in each authority.

Lancashire’s Approach Lancashire's approach to Highways Asset Management: –Follow the HMEP Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Guidance. –In particular, the key recommendations. –Make the Strategy and Policy unique for the needs of Lancashire. Analysis of all our highways asset data to locate where we had gaps. The same information is also required for WGA.

Lancashire’s Approach The Code of Practice on Transport Infrastructure Assets –A key principle of the code is that the same highways data provides information for both Financial Management and for Asset Management. –Guidance for authorities preparing for the changes in accounting by 2016/17 are provided in CIPFA's LAAP Bulletin 100. –The first part of the guidance is about identifying transport infrastructure assets which are included in WGA and identifying gaps in the current data in an Impact Analysis.

Lancashire’s Approach Lancashire’s Good Practice: –Follow this guidance –Prepare the Impact Analysis –Engage with the Capital Finance Team –Be ready to engage with external auditors to agree principles of how missing data can be identified and reported to accommodate both Asset Management and WGA –Keep informed by attending the CIPFA HAMP events –Member of MSIG, ideas and strategies shared across 21 authorities

Lancashire’s Approach The Transport Infrastructure Code provides guidance on which areas should be prioritised. –Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) for Carriageways and Footways is approximately 80% of the return. –GRC for Structures is approximately 11% of the return. These high value areas should be given priority. Street Furniture Data represents a small part of the total return. The code recognises this and CIPFA have provided ways of estimating this data.

What is Lancashire doing about data collection and how are we using this information? A, B and C roads. –The condition of A, B and C road network in Lancashire is well documented by scanner survey in accordance with national guidelines. –Lancashire are unique in how we are interpreting information from the different parameters not used for the National Indicator.

What is Lancashire doing about data collection and how are we using this information? Unclassified Roads and Footways –Condition data gathered on approximately 40% of our footways last year

What is Lancashire doing about data collection and how are we using this information? Video Surveys –Video surveys are being procured for all our highways. –This will allow condition surveys to be carried out from the office for both footways and unclassified carriageways. Additional benefits of the Video Survey: –Provision of more accurate land areas for WGA. –Selective sampling of Street Furniture to increase the quality of our data each year. –Possibly many spin offs from a detailed video survey. Any suggestions would be gratefully received.

What is Lancashire doing about data collection and how are we using this information? Structures –Bridges data robust. –Retaining Wall data was weak. –Last three years data has been gathered on over 2,000 Retaining Walls. –The information has been gathered at a level suitable for the structures tool kit to enable the Depreciated Replacement Costs to be calculated for the financial return.

Lancashire’s Long Term Strategy Long Term Strategy in the TAMP –High level programme for 15 years. –Three five year phases. The programme is to address the needs of our highway assets in the most efficient manner. Significant departure from a traditional 'worst first' approach. Lancashire are using high value assets where are data is good to drive forward the strategy for the first five years.

Lancashire’s Long Term Strategy Good points about this strategy: –Because the condition data is known, funding is directed to specific areas of deterioration and the process can be refined more at the individual asset. –It encourages the use of Life Cycle Planning to obtain the optimum treatment for that asset. –The strategy also raises the awareness of the areas where condition data is limited. It increases the priority to collect condition data in these areas. –It helps to demonstrate to members why funding has been allocated to assets based on condition data.

Lancashire’s Long Term Strategy Lancashire's first five year programme –Increase funding for the A B and C roads from £5 million to £8 million per annum –The extra funding will be directed into patching and surface dressing programmes. –We anticipate at the end of the five year period the maintenance expenditure to provide steady state will have fallen from £5 million to £3 million –The £2 million saving will be reinvested into assets targeted in phase two of the strategy –For footways the extra funding is intended to reduce the number of defects from approximately 50,000 to 15,000 in five year's time.

Lancashire’s Long Term Strategy For bridges where the data is robust and the average condition is considered to be good, Lancashire will reduce the funding for bridges over the first two phases of the strategy i.e. over the next ten years. This will release some funding normally allocated to bridges to other asset types where the need is seen to be greater.

Lancashire’s Long Term Strategy Lancashire's good practice is: –Managing the deterioration of the bridge stock in a controlled manner. –Using risk based means to increase the inspection regime. –Carrying out structural reviews and re-assessment where the inspection regime highlights deterioration in condition to ensure the safety of the travelling public.

Lancashire Network 11 th Largest Road Network in England Total Road Length 7,000km Mixture of Environments

Scheme Prioritisation pre Asset Management No Data - Schemes selected by District Engineers on local knowledge and customer complaints Worst First Approach Preventative schemes were rarely undertaken in certain districts No evidence to back up why a particular scheme prioritised No transparency No collaboration and analysis of data Budget split on a district basis

Carriageway Network Data SCANNER on A, B and C Road Network SCANNER on some distributor roads CVI from video on the remaining urban and rural road network Skid resistance on A and B road classification Deflectograph as and when required Defects from Highway Safety Inspections Claims Accident Data

Understanding SCANNER SCANNER – “Surface Condition Assessment for the National Network of Roads” Developed to be suitable for principal carriageways Picks up 40 various condition parameters RCI – “Road Condition Indicator” only 6 of the parameters are used.

Does the RCI work for Lancashire County Council? No! % of rural roads Majority of which are Red and Amber Non Strategic network High RCI caused by topography Customer Expectation Issues with the RCI –No upper Texture parameter –Longitudinal Profile triggering high RCI

What did LCC want from the data? Indicator (LCI) that mirrored the network Condition and LCC’s TAMP Strategy Deterioration modeling of the LCI Treatment Plan dependant on the condition parameters and strategy To analyse condition data with other data such as claims, defects strategic network To enable a strategy on a Countywide basis To have a transparent strategy that stakeholders understand and support

Setting up the parameters Replaced some parameters with enhanced alternatives and reviewed the underused SCANNER parameters Specified different treatments dependant on road classification, strategic network and Urban/Rural split Specified different treatments dependant on the condition data gathered by the SCANNER Specified different threshold levels for treatment dependant on classification and Rural/Urban split Treatment costs and estimated Lifespan of the material for deterioration and strategy planning

Treatment Plan and LCI Trial and error Validation on site Green ‘No treatment required’ Amber ‘Preventative Surface Treatment’ Red ‘Inlay Required’ –Results Estimated 80% correlation with Engineering knowledge/experience Increase in Red LCI on some urban/strategic network Less extensive work needed on the rural network

Prioritisation of schemes Deterioration modelling Weighting of the LCI schemes by overlaying data such as: –Strategic Network and areas of Economic importance – Highway Safety Inspection Defects –Public Complaints –Claims

What’s next? Further tweaking of the parameters and thresholds Gap analysis for data collection Treatment plan for the Unclassified network Treatment plan for footways Right first time when resurfacing Share any new ideas! Invest money wisely

Thank you for listening.