Agenda item

Report by Head of Countywide Improvements)

(1)       The assessment of the condition of the highway network was essentially divided into two Categories: Classified (A, B and C Class) roads and Unclassified (the remainder) of the network.

Classified Roads

(2)       The assessment of the condition of these roads was carried out using a vehicle mounted measurement system known as ‘Traffic – Speed Condition Survey’ (TRACS). This records cracking, deformation, riding quality and surface texture. The process was also linked to identified skid deficient sites which had been determined from a combination of crash details in wet weather conditions and the actual measurement of skid deficiency. Additional testing was used to determine whether the road would fail from heavy vehicle loading.  The combination of the results was verified by site inspections and engineering judgement was used  to determine the most appropriate treatment necessary to prolong the life of the road being considered, e.g. reconditioning, strengthening, resurfacing, surface dressing, etc.

Unclassified Roads

(3)       The assessment of the condition was undertaken by driven visual inspection. Additional sites could be added from other sources such as highway inspectors, Members, the public and Parish Councils.  Whereas the major road network was likely to fail from vehicle loading, the minor network was much more likely to fail from ageing. Subsequent site inspections were therefore undertaken to verify the condition and determine the most appropriate treatment.

Surfacing Needs

(4)       Previous priorities had been based on treatment of ‘worst first’ rating from the database of the condition of the network. A new process had been devised that based the treatment of the network on economic rating and prioritised roads that had been rated on a cost effective treatment basis.  That was to say; if a road was in the ‘worst list’ this year it might deteriorate very little in the next couple of years and the treatment would be the same at the end of the period, however another road might be lower down on the ‘worst list’ this year but over the next couple of years it could deteriorate rapidly and if left untreated would require major works.  Therefore it was more cost effective to treat these sooner than those which appeared to be in a worse condition.

(5)       The current maintenance emphasis was on the reduction of reactive maintenance works, in particular on the minor network.  The aim for the surfacing programme this year was to treat the roads that were more liable to need reactive treatment. It had been decided therefore, that the 2009/10 works programme would contain approximately 70% of sites that were in the Minor & Locally Important hierarchy.

(6)       Significant additional funding (subject to approval) had thus been made available in 2009/10 to redress the balance. The budget for Carriageway and Footway Resurfacing for next year was likely to be set at around £20m compared with less than £10m in this year. 

(7)       From the sites initially prioritised, only 24 were shown as requiring Surface Dressing (in 08/09 there were over three times as many in the Surface Dressing programme).  It was therefore proposed not to have a Surface Dressing programme for 09/10 but to prepare for a larger programme in 2010/11 to benefit from economy of scale and achieve better value for money.

            (8)       Graphs set out in the report showed the split of the programme; and a list of schemes proposed for 2009/10 was set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

(9)       The Board noted the programme and recommended that work began in April.