Page 1
Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Amendment List
Version Issue date Amendment Description
1 Nov 2016 Original Document
2 Jan 2017
5.2.3 page 30 - Link heirachy footways changed to Link and local
access footways.
Part 4 – Drainage added
Foreword V2 – January 2018
Page 2
Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Foreword
It is with much pleasure that I endorse Leeds City Council’s new Highways Infrastructure
Asset Management Plan (HIAMP). The Leeds highway network represents a major and
important feature of the physical infrastructure that impacts all of our lives. This plan marks
a major step forward in explaining and defining how Leeds City Council will deliver its
highway services in the coming years.
I am delighted that this plan will now provide a better understanding for those amongst us
who wish to contribute to future highway services. In this respect, the plan recognises the
need to collect and maintain asset and condition data that will allow objective decision
making with regard to investment and policy and ensure best value is being achieved.
This HIAMP embodies a local approach to asset management which compliments the
national requirements. I believe that this will enable Leeds highways to demonstrate the
basis of its decision making and that it is providing value for money to its highway users. I
am confident that this provides a foundation for successful delivery of highway services for
the people of Leeds, business and visitors.
I welcome it and commend it to all who read it.
Councillor Richard Lewis
Executive Member for Transport and The Economy
Executive Summary V2 – January 2018
Page 3
Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Executive Summary
Leeds City Council’s Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan (HIAMP) has been
designed to direct and inform service users and those involved in service delivery about the
way in which Leeds City Council intends to maintain its highway network over the next
five years. Particular emphasis has been placed upon service delivery improvements and
how outcomes will be realised through the asset management process strategically,
tactically and operationally. This plan should be read in conjunction with, or at least
with reference to, several other important publications such as:
• Current legislation
• Leeds’ Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Strategy
• National code of practice, which is called Well-maintained Highways – Code of
Practice for Highways Maintenance Management (The Code)
This plan will provide an integrated framework for the delivery of Highway Maintenance
services and Asset Management across the City’s road network and optimises resources
for the management of the highway infrastructure. The objective of the Plan is to develop
how highway services are delivered, in a way that makes the process more intelligence led,
customer responsive and ‘joined up’.
An intelligence led approach will ultimately bring greater value for money and help achieve
key Council goals that can be found in strategies such as our Sustainable Community
Strategy, Corporate Plan and Local Transport Plan. In line with all other Highway
Authorities in the UK, our aim is to provide a service that, so far as possible and within
financial constraints, meets the general objectives and requirements of the national code
of practice.
Executive Summary V2 – January 2018
Page 4
Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Leeds City Council’s and West Yorkshire’s Strategic Documents
Main Introduction V2 – January 2018
Page 5
Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Main Introduction
The Best Council Plan sets a priority to deliver quality highways assets, to maintain the
percentage of roads in need of structural repair and reduce the percentage of highways
structures in need of essential repair.
Highways Assets in Leeds are continually monitored for condition and maintenance needs.
Prioritised planned maintenance and strengthening programmes are developed to maintain
the assets in a safe and serviceable condition appropriate for their use together with a view
to minimising whole life costs.
Adoption of the Leeds Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Plan will ensure better
value for money through a sensible and forward thinking maintenance plan for all highways
assets. This Plan takes its lead from national and local policies and outlines how Leeds City
Council will fulfil these.
Leeds City Council is the Highway Authority for all highways in the Leeds area with the
exception of M1, M621, M62 and A1(M) for which the Department of Transport is the
Highway Authority.
Main Introduction V2 – January 2018
Page 6
Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Leeds City Council is represented by 99 Councillors, three for each of the City's 33 wards. The
area is represented at a national level by eight MPs. Leeds also has 27 Parish Councils and
four Town Councils.
The population of Leeds is around 766,000, covering an area of 552 Km2 and is 88% urban.
Leeds has borders with North Yorkshire (to the north and East), Wakefield (to the south
East), Kirklees (to the south west), Bradford (to the west)
Our highway infrastructure is the most valuable publicly owned asset managed and
maintained by the Council.
The major asset groups of our highway infrastructure consist of over:
• 2,800 kilometres of roads
• 5,000 kilometres of footways and cycleways
• 4,000 bridges and other highway structures
• 93,000 street lights
• 26,000 traffic signs
• 600 traffic signal installations
• 140,000 gullies (and other highway drainage assets)
• 58 kilometres of safety fencing
The highways asset also includes drainage, street furniture, road makings, public rights of
way and verges.
Outside of London, Leeds has the third busiest railway station and the sixteenth busiest
airport in terms of passenger numbers for England.
Contents V2 – January 2018
Page 7
Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Contents Page
Part 1 Highways
1 Introduction
1.1 Background ……………………………………………………….....…….............................. 11
1.2 Funding …………………...………….………………….………..………………………….….…….. 12
2 Legal Framework
2.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………..……….……. 14
2.2 Legal Framework …………………………………………………….……............................ 15
3 Asset Management Information
3.1 Introduction...……..……………………………………………………..…………………………..… 16
3.2 Network Inventory ……………………………………………………….……………………….…. 16
3.3 Network Hierarchy ………………..…………………………………….……………………….….. 17
3.4 Carriageway Hierarchy ………………………………………………….……………………..…… 18
3.5 Footway Hierarchy ………………………………….……..…………….…………….………….. 19
3.6 Cycle way Hierarchy ………………………………………….…..……..………………………… 19
4 Asset Condition and Investigatory Levels
4.1 Introduction …….………….…….………….…….………………….……........................... 20
4.2 Principles and Considerations …………..….………….…….…………………………........ 20
4.3 Asset Condition Standards By Element ………………….…………..…………………….. 20
4.4 Levels of Service ……………………….…………………………….…….…………………………. 23
4.5 Investigatory levels and Response times…………………………………………………… 27
5 Inspection, Assessment and Recording
5.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………….…………………………………… 28
5.2 Safety Inspections ………….…………………………………….…………………………………. 29
5.3 Condition Surveys ………………………………………………………………….….….…………. 31
5.4 Service Inspections …………………………………………….…...……………….…….………. 33
5.5 Processing Data ...………………....………..………………..………………….….….….…….. 33
5.6 Reliability of Data and Training …….………..…….………………….….……...….………. 34
5.7 Investigatory Levels ………………………………………….………………….….…..………….. 34
5.8 Risk Assessment …………………………………………………………………………….………… 35
5.8 Inspection, Assessment and Recording Review ………………………………………… 38
Contents V2 – January 2018
Page 8
Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
6 Programming and Priorities
6.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………….………. 39
6.2 Balancing Priorities …………………………………………………………….….………………… 41
6.3 Priorities for Emergency / Reactive Maintenance. ………………….....………..…… 42
6.4 Priorities for Routine Maintenance ……………………………………….…………...…… 42
6.5 Priorities for Planned Maintenance …………………………………………….…….….…. 42
6.6 Lifecycle and Investment Planning ………………….…………..……….……….…..……. 43
6.7 Decision making Process ……………………………………………………………….………... 46
6.8 Producing the Annual Works Programme ….………………………..….……….……... 49
6.9 Materials Products and Treatments …………………..……..………….….……….…….. 50
6.10 Forward Works Plan …………………………………………….…………….….………….…….. 53
6.11 Risk Management ………………………………..……………………………….…………….…… 53
6.12 Efficient Delivery ………………………………………………….…………………..…….........… 54
6.13 Data Management …………………………………………………..…………………….........… 55
6.14 Communication and Consultation ……………………………………….….……..........… 55
6.15 Performance Management Framework ………………………………………..……….… 56
6.16 Benchmarking ……………………….…………………………………….…………….…….……... 58
6.17 Investment Strategy ...……………….……………………………………………….………..….. 59
Part 2 Structures
2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………..………………………………..… 61
2.2 Inventory …………………………………………………………..……………………………………. 61
2.3 Condition …………………………………………………………..……………………………………. 62
2.4 Levels of Service …………………..……………………………..………………………………….. 63
2.5 Programme and Priorities………………………………………………………………………….. 63
2.6 Future Demands…………………………………………….………………………………..………… 65
2.7 Creation / Acquisition……………………..……………………………………………….………… 66
2.8 Disposal………………………..……….………………………………………………………..…………. 66
Part 3 Lighting & Traffic Signals
Lighting
3.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………….….………………………………. 69
Contents V2 – January 2018
Page 9
Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
3.2 Inventory …………………………....……………………………………………..…………………… 69
Traffic Signals
3.3 Introduction …………………….……………………………………………..……….……………… 69
3.4 Inventory ……………………………………..………………………………..….……………………. 69
3.5 Asset Condition and Investigatory Levels ………………………..…….………………… 70
3.6 Levels of Service …………………………….……………………………..…………..………….… 71
3.7 Lifecycle planning (Replacement Strategy) ……………..……………….……………… 72
3.8 Programming and Priorities …………………………………………….…….………………… 72
3.9 Measuring Deliverables ………………………………….……………….…….………………… 73
3.10 Performance Monitoring …………………………….……..…………………….……………… 73
Part 4 Drainage
4.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………..…… 77
4A Highways Drainage ……………………………………………………………………………..…… 77
4A.1 Inventory ………..…………………………………………………………………………………..…… 77
4A.2 Asset Condition Standard by Element .………………………………………………..…… 77
4A.3 Levels of Service …….…………………………………………………………………………..…… 78
4A.4 Inspection, Assessment and Recording ………………………………………………..…… 79
4A.5 Highways Drainage Strategy ………………………………………………………………..…… 80
4A.6 Programming and Priorities ………………………………………………………………..…… 81
4A.7 Forward Works Programme ………………………………………………………………..…… 83
4A.8 Performance ………………………………………………………………………………………..…… 83
4B Other Drainage Features …………………………………………………………………………… 84
Part 5 Service Review
5.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………..…… 87
5.2 Future Demands / Improvement Actions ..…………………………………………..…… 87
Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Page 10
Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
2016-2021
Part 1 - Highways
Section 1 – Introduction V2 – January 2018
Page 11
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Section 1 – Introduction
1.1 Background
Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Plan for Leeds.
Asset management is a means to deliver a more efficient and effective approach to
management of highway infrastructure assets through longer term planning, ensuring that
standards are defined and achievable for available budgets. It also supports the case for
funding and better communication with stakeholders, aiding a greater understanding of the
contribution highway infrastructure assets make to economic growth, improvements to
health and wellbeing and the needs of local communities.
The demand for a more efficient approach to the management of highway infrastructure
assets has come to prominence in the light of the economic challenges faced by both
central and local government as well as the devolved administrations.
As time goes by roads that are currently in good condition will deteriorate, just like any
physical asset such as a house or a car. To keep on top of the deterioration of our asset
continual investment in maintenance activities must be made.
In a climate where budgets and resources are reducing, Leeds City Council is facing
significant challenges in deciding how to manage assets effectively. The adoption of asset
management principles can deliver a systematic approach to this by planning well into the
future and making informed decisions based on sound principles. Our plan is therefore to
consider asset management which will allow us to make best use of resources and deliver
the most effective highway maintenance services.
The definition of Highway Asset Management is:
‘A systematic approach to meeting the strategic need for the management and
maintenance of highway infrastructure assets through long term planning and optimal
allocation of resources in order to manage risk and meet the performance requirements of
the authority in the most efficient and sustainable manner.’
Adopting these principles will enable us to identify the best allocation of resources for the
management, operation, preservation and enhancement of highway infrastructure to
meet the needs of current and future road users. Asset management supports business
decisions and provides longer term financial benefits.
Leeds City Council has a strategy for the maintenance of highway infrastructure which is led
by the principles of Asset Management. This will involve the use of lifecycle planning for all
our assets based upon historical data, current / future usage and design specifications,
allied to anticipated index-linked cost estimates.
Our lifecycle plan looks forward for up to ten years to determine the major maintenance
needs for all of Leeds’ roads. From the plan we are able to provide an indicative five year
rolling works programme of major resurfacing and a 2 year rolling programme of
preventative maintenance. The maintenance backlog is in excess of £100 million and has
been increasing. The lifecycle plan and works programmes are used to make informed
investment decisions aimed at managing this.
Section 1 – Introduction V2 – January 2018
Page 12
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Whilst the five year works plan remains ‘indicative’, the year one programme is confirmed
annually, via our engagement with Elected Members, Parish / Town Councils and through
the Highways and Transportation delegated decision process. Therefore, it is essential that
our approach is communicated clearly to ensure elected members’ engagement at a
strategic level. Asset management principles and methodology will only be successful if key
decision makers are on board and can visualise the long term benefits and savings to be
made from this approach.
1.2 Funding
The funds used to provide highways maintenance services are a combination of capital and
revenue. Capital funding is that which is used to add to the highway asset or significantly
increase its remaining life such as, resurfacing schemes. Revenue funding is used for the
day-to-day recurring activities required to maintain the City’s highway network such as,
pothole repair, grass cutting and gully emptying.
Funding for maintenance of the authority’s highways assets is made available from the
following sources.
• Local Transport Plan (LTP) Capital Grant
• Leeds City Council Capital Resources
• Leeds City Council Revenue Resources
Local Transport Plan (LTP) Capital Grant
Spring 2015 saw the culmination of over five years development work by the Department
for Transport to create a new set of funding models for highways maintenance across the
country. Funding for road maintenance is made available through a formula allocation
topped up with an assessed incentive element. In 2017 there is an opportunity to bid for a
limited ‘challenge fund’ for specific maintenance schemes over £5 million in value.
Formula Grant
Each Year the Government makes a specific formula based allocation to Local Authorities for
carrying out maintenance and strengthening work on highways assets through the LTP. The
allocation is based on road length and condition.
Incentive Fund
The purpose of the incentive funding (worth £578m nationally over the 6 year period) is to
promote the adoption of asset management good practice across all local authorities to
ensure value for money.
For 2015/16 each local authority received all of its funding. However, for each subsequent
year there is an expectation that continuous improvement in efficiencies of delivery will
take place. This level of improvement will be reflected in the funding awarded. Local
highway authorities will be categorised based upon where they are on the efficiency curve
as follows:
• Band 1: Early stage authority - Has a basic understanding of key areas and is in the
process of taking it forward.
Section 1 – Introduction V2 – January 2018
Page 13
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
• Band 2: Mid stage authority - Can demonstrate that outputs have been produced
that support the implementation of key areas that will lead towards improvement.
• Band 3: Final stage authority - Can demonstrate that outcomes have been achieved
in key areas as part of a continuous improvement process.
The Incentive Fund places the need for a robust HIAMP at the heart of its self- assessment
methodology. In 2016 Leeds City Council was assessed as a Band 2 authority.
It is an essential requirement of the Incentive Fund that all highway authorities outline the
steps they are taking and the strategies they will employ to demonstrate their commitment
to the adoption of asset management principles in all highway maintenance activities. This
HIAMP is the document that is used to achieve this and will form an important element of
our plan to progress to Band 3 in 2017.
The Challenge Fund
Part of the government’s 2014 Autumn Statement assigned a proportion of the highways
maintenance budget to a Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund. The purpose of the
Fund is to enable local highway authorities in England to bid for major maintenance projects
that are otherwise difficult to fund through the normal needs element allocations they
receive. The next bid process is in 2017, Leeds will consider the submission of a bid once the
details and conditions have been announced by government.
Leeds Capital
Leeds recognises the importance of its highway network and has made significant capital
investment in roads since 2004. That investment has been impacted by bitumen cost
increases reducing the amount of work afforded and harsh winters have increased the rate
of deterioration of roads and footways. Nevertheless progress has been made with a notable
reduction in liability claims and defect reports.
Revenue Resources
The current economic climate has put pressure on all revenue allocations and whilst
highways maintenance is still seen as a priority for the council there is still a need to make
efficiencies in this area
Section 2 – Legal Framework V2 – January 2018
Page 14
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Section 2 – Legal Framework
2.1 Introduction
The delivery of highway maintenance is largely based on statutory powers and duties
contained in legislation and precedents of case law. Highway authorities have a general
duty of care to users and the community to maintain the highway in a condition fit for
purpose, so far as is reasonably practicable.
2.2 Legal Framework
In addition to the duty of care there are a number of pieces of legislation which provide the
basis for powers and duties relating to highway maintenance these include the following;
• Highways Act 1980
• Traffic Management Act 2004
• New Roads & Street Works Act 1991
• Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997
• Transport Act 2000
• Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
• Traffic Signs Regulations & General
Directions 2002
• Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003
• Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
• Local Authorities (Transport Charges)
Regulations1998
• Environmental Protection Act 1990
• Noxious Weeds Act 1993
• Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
• Construction (Design & Management)
Regulations 2007
• Local Government Act 2003
• The Clean Neighborhoods and
Environment Act 2005
• Disability Discrimination Act 2005
• Flood and Water Management Act 2010
• Management of Health and Safety at
Work Regulations1999
The most strategically significant legislation are summarised as:
Highways Act 1980
The Highways Act 1980 sets out the main duties of Highway Authorities in England and
Wales. Section 41 imposes a duty to maintain highways maintainable at public expense,
and almost all claims against the Council relating to highway functions arise from the
alleged breach of this section. The Act identifies all powers that Highway Authorities
can exercise to undertake activities on or within the highway such as improvements,
drainage, acquiring land, authorising skips, scaffolds etc.
Section 58 of the Act provides for a defense against litigation relating to alleged failure
to maintain on grounds that the Council has taken such care as in all the circumstances
was reasonably required to secure that the part of the highway in question was not
dangerous to traffic.
Traffic Management Act, 2004
The Traffic Management Act places a network management duty that includes the co-
ordination of all works within the highway (including the authority’s own works). It
Section 2 – Legal Framework V2 – January 2018
Page 15
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
also introduces duties associated with reducing congestion and requires the
appointment of a Traffic Manager and close liaison with contiguous authorities
New Roads and Street works Act, 1991
Imposes duties upon the Council to monitor, inspect and co-ordinate the works of others
(especially utilities) within the highway
Section 3 – Inventory V2 – January 2018
Page 16
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Section 3 – Asset Management Information
3.1 Introduction
Asset inventory is the foundation on which asset management processes are to be built.
When inventory is combined with condition data, an overall view and consistent
management approach can be achieved.
Asset data, both inventory and condition is required to enable the following processes:
• Effectively monitoring and reporting on the condition of the highway network, and
its individual assets, at any stage throughout its life.
• Helping to assess the current levels of service and develop future levels of service
along with their associated performance indicators.
• Identifying future investment strategies, modelling future maintenance options,
and developing long term forward programmes, which enable the assessment of
future budget needs.
• Conducting valuation assessments for each of the various assets and for predicting
their depreciation over time, bearing in mind any restorative works undertaken on
them.
• Valuation of the asset which is to be used for the Whole Government Accounts
(WGA) currently being implemented.
• All of the above leading to well informed, cost effective asset management
decisions.
3.2 Network Inventory
The inventory held for the highway network is generally good with all the major asset types
recorded as shown in the following table;
Major Asset Group Asset Element Asset
Quantity
Asset
Unit Highways Carriageways
Principal Roads 398 km
B & C Roads 247 km
Unclassified Distributor Roads 174 km
Local Roads 2065 km
Total 2884 km
Footways & Cycleways
Prestige Area 2 km
Primary Walking Route (1) 27 km
Secondary Walking Route (2) 66 km
Link Footways (3) 389 km
Local Access Footways (4) 2452 km
Cycleways 28 km
Total 2964 km
Section 3 – Inventory V2 – January 2018
Page 17
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Other Asset Group Asset Element Asset
Quantity
Asset
Unit Highways Carriageway & Footways
Road Restraint Systems (crash barriers) 58,673 lin-m
Pedestrian Guardrail 111,629 lin-m
Non illuminated signs 26,613 No.
Non Illuminated bollards ???? No.
Road Markings ???? lin-m
Road Studs ???? No
Privately Owned Infrastructure ???? No.
Green Spaces Managed by Parks & Countryside
Public Rights of Way – Footways (1025no) 620 Km
Public Rights of Way – Bridleways (182 no) 170 Km
Public Rights of Way – Byways (10 no) 9 Km
Embankments and Cuttings Unknown Km
Verges 9.2 Sq-km
Trees 14,397 No.
Hedges 28 Km
Table 3.2 – Asset Inventory for Highways
3.3 Network Hierarchy
The road hierarchy reflects the needs, priorities and actual use of each part of the network
and is used as the main tool in determining policy priorities, maintenance standards, targets
and performance. The hierarchy for carriageways, footways and cycleways is based upon
traffic flows for roads, and defined priorities for footways and cycleways. In addition, a
further assessment has been undertaken to consider the type of road, the role of the route
in a local context, and a consideration of functional factors that may influence how the road
is managed. The current hierarchy is detailed in the following tables.
Section 3 – Inventory V2 – January 2018
Page 18
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
3.4 Carriageway Hierarchy
Carriageways have been categorised in accordance with the National Code of Practice for
Road Maintenance which recommends;
No. Hierarchy Description Detailed Description / Local Application
Pri
nci
pa
l
(A R
oa
ds)
1 Motorway Routes for fast moving long distance traffic. Fully grade separated and
restrictions on use
2 Strategic Route
Trunk and some Principal ‘A’ Roads between primary destinations. Routes
for fast moving long distance traffic with little frontage access or pedestrian
traffic. Speed limits are usually in excess of 40 mph and there are few
junctions. Pedestrian crossings are either segregated or controlled and
parked vehicles are generally prohibited.
Dis
trib
uto
r
( B
& C
Ro
ad
s) 3a Main Distributor
Major urban Network and Inter-Primary Links. Short medium distance
traffic. Routes between Strategic Routes and linking urban centres to the
strategic network with limited frontage access. In urban areas speed limits
are usually 40 mph or less, parking is restricted at peak times and there are
positive measures for pedestrian safety
Un
cla
ssif
ied
Dis
trib
uto
r R
oa
ds 3b Secondary Distributor
In rural areas these roads link the larger villages and HGV generators to the
Strategic and Main Distributor Network. In built up areas these roads have
30 mph speed limits and very high levels of pedestrian activity with some
crossing facilities including zebra crossings. On street parking is generally
unrestricted except for safety reasons
Rural B and C classified routes and major unclassified routes are considered
to meet these criteria in Leeds.
Loca
l R
oa
ds
4a Link Road
Roads linking between Main and Secondary Distributor Network with
frontage access and frequent junctions. In rural areas these roads link the
smaller villages to the distributor roads. They are of varying width and not
always capable of carrying two-way traffic. In urban areas they are
residential or industrial inter–connecting roads with 30 mph speed limits
random pedestrian movements and uncontrolled parking
4b Local Access Road
Roads serving limited number of properties carrying only access. In rural
areas these roads serve small settlements and provide access to individual
properties and land. They are often only single lane width and unsuitable for
HGV. In urban areas they are often residential loop roads or cul-de-sacs.
Section 3 – Inventory V2 – January 2018
Page 19
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
3.5 Footway Hierarchy
Footways have been categorised in accordance with the National Code of Practice for Road
Maintenance which recommends;
Category Hierarchy Description General Description / Local Application
1a Prestige Walking Zones Prestige Areas in towns and cities with exceptionally high usage.
1 Primary Walking Routes Busy urban shopping and business areas and main pedestrian routes
linking interchanges between different modes of transport, such as
railways and bus stations etc.
2 Secondary Walking
Routes
Medium usage routes through local areas feeding into primary
routes, local shopping centres, large schools and industrial centres
etc.
3 Link Footways Linking local access footways through urban areas and busy rural
footways.
4 Local Access Footways Footways associated with low usage, short estate roads to the main
routes and cul-de-sacs
3.6 Cycle way Hierarchy
Cycle routes have been categorised in accordance with the National Code of Practice for
Road Maintenance which recommends;
Category Hierarchy Description General Description / Local Application
A Cycle Lane Forming part of the carriageway, commonly 1.5 metre strip
adjacent to the nearside kerb. Cycle gaps at road closure point
(exemptions for cycle access).
B Cycle Track A highway route for cyclists, not forming part of the carriageway.
This includes shared cycle/pedestrian paths, either segregated by a
white line or other physical segregation, or un-segregated.
C Cycle Trails Leisure routes through open spaces where, exceptionally, these are
publicly maintainable highways.
Section 4 – Asset Condition and Investigatory Levels V2 – January 2018
Page 20
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Section 4 – Asset Condition and Investigatory Levels
4.1 Introduction
Standards for the management and maintenance of all elements of the highway network are
developed through risk assessment and take the needs of the users into consideration to
meet the core requirements of safety, serviceability and sustainability.
4.2 Principles and Considerations
Each element of the network has a variety of condition standards, a minimum level to satisfy
the need for safety, and higher levels, designed to meet local requirement for serviceability
or sustainability.
4.3 Asset Condition Standards by Element
The table below shows the condition standard effects of each highway asset element of the
network towards safety, serviceability and sustainability.
Asset Element Network Safety Network Serviceability Network Sustainability
Carriageways The nature and extent of
surface defects such as
potholes can increase risks to
the safety of the highway
user. Particularly on high
speed roads.
Nature and extent of
surface defects and ride
quality of the surface
Surface noise attenuation
characteristics. Nature and
extent of surface defects and
carriageway deflection
Footways The nature and extent of
surface defects such as
potholes can increase risks to
the safety of the highway
user. Particularly on well used
footways.
Nature and extent of
surface defects. Extent of
encroachment and weed
growth. The slipperiness
and quality of the surface.
Integrity of the network
Convenience and ease of use.
Nature extent and locale of
surface defects.
Extent of damage by over-
running and parking.
Cycle Routes The nature and extent of
surface defects such as
potholes can increase risks
to the safety of the highway
user. Particularly on well
used cycle routes.
Nature, extent and location
of surface defects.
Extent of encroachment
and weed growth.
The slipperiness and quality
of the surface.
Integrity of the network
Convenience and ease of use.
Nature extent and location of
surface defects.
Extent of damage by over-
running and parking.
Section 4 – Asset Condition and Investigatory Levels V2 – January 2018
Page 21
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Asset Element Network Safety Network Serviceability Network Sustainability
Public Rights of Way Nature, extent and location of
surface, kerb and edging
defects.
Condition of surface and trip
hazards.
Defective path furniture and
structures.
Livestock and dogs.
Proximity of PROW to
watercourses.
Obstructions, barbed wire,
surface overgrowth and
overhanging vegetation,
unsafe trees
Shared usage with farm
machinery, private vehicular
use on public paths. Crossing
points & junctions with
adopted roads.
Unfenced precipice
Nature and extent of
surface defects. Extent of
encroachment and weed
growth.
The slipperiness and
quality of the surface.
Integrity of the network
Surface condition.
Poor drainage and muddy
waterlogged or eroded
paths.
Crops on paths or
ploughed out paths.
Defective and out or
repair path furniture and
structures.
Sloping unsurfaced paths
Inaccessibility of PROW’s
for use and maintenance
Convenience and ease of use.
Nature, extent and location of
surface defects. Extent of
damage by over-running and
parking.
Susceptibility to flood damage
and erosion.
Damage by vehicular use,
motor cycles and quad bikes
Anti-social behavior – abuse
and vandalism
Illegal obstructions and
threatening behavior
Litter, fly tipping and dog
fouling
Privately
owned
infrastructure
There is no inventory of privately owned infrastructure but officers react to any safety reports
received and if necessary use the powers of intervention under the highways act.
Embankments
& Cutting
Risk of loose material falling to
injure users or damage facility
Risk of damage or service
interruption
Damage or loss of habitat.
Interruption or pollution of
watercourse.
Extent of damage and
reduce life.
Grass cutting Grass is cut to maintain
visibility for highway users
and to ensure that road and
footway widths are not
obstructed by overgrowing
vegetation. In areas where
no footway exists there may
be a need to provide a safe
refuge on the highway
verge for pedestrians,
particularly on busy roads.
Condition standards for
grass cutting in rural &
urban areas, and on
housing estates are
specified dependent on
location/use on average
thirteen cuts per year are
carried out. Additional cuts
may be added for amenity
purposes.
Between 3 and 14 grass cuts
are undertaken dependent
on road type and location.
Key sight line assets are
identified and mown
accordingly. Where road
speed dictates Traffic
management is in operation
to ensure safety. Naturalistic
grass management is being
introduced to increase
habitat and biodiversity.
Section 4 – Asset Condition and Investigatory Levels V2 – January 2018
Page 22
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Asset Element Network Safety Network Serviceability Network Sustainability
Weed Control The control of noxious and
invasive weeds is a
responsibility for authorities
under the Weeds Act 1959
and The Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 which
specifies control of noxious
and invasive weeks, these
are;
•Spear thistle;
•Creeping or field thistle;
•Curled dock;
•Broad leaf dock;
•Common ragwort;
•Giant hogweed;
•Japanese knotweed.
The Ragwort Control Act
specifies that Ragwort
growing in areas where there
is a risk of spread to land used
for grazing or hay production
should be managed so as not
to spread into neighboring
land
Weeds can cause
structural damage to the
highway, disrupt
drainage, obstruct
pedestrians and appear
unsightly.
The following legislation
controls the use of herbicides:
•Food and Environment
Protection Act 1985;
•Control of Pesticide
Regulations 1986;
•Health and Safety at Work
Act 1974;
•Control of Substances
Hazardous to Health
Regulations 1988.
•Ragwort Control Act
• Environmental Protection
Act
Trees & Hedges Trees and hedges growing on
or alongside the highway can
become a serious hazard to
highway users if they become
unstable or decay or if they
encroach onto footways,
carriageways and visibility
splays. They can also produce
root damage to footways and
adjoining property. Leaf fall
from trees can cause slippery
surfaces.
Trees and hedges are an
important amenity.
Significant pruning or
felling, even for safety
reasons, can be the
subject of strong local
concern. In urban areas if
left unchecked trees may
outgrow their location
giving rise to structural
damage to roads,
footways or drainage
systems or to adjacent
property. Hedges may
restrict widths of
footways or carriageways.
Requirements for
maintenance can be
greatly reduced by careful
selection of trees when
planning planting or
replacement
programmes.
Routine maintenance under
expert guidance provides a
valuable amenity for the public
and wildlife. With the exception
of urgent safety work, work to
trees and hedges should be
undertaken in Leeds outside the
bird nesting season. This
means that maintenance work
should ideally be carried out in
the autumn during September
and October or early February.
No hedge cutting should be
carried out in Leeds from March
to August to avoid disturbance
to nesting birds. It is important
to note that it is an offence to
disturb nesting birds under the
Wildlife and Countryside and
CROW Act.
Section 4 – Asset Condition and Investigatory Levels V2 – January 2018
Page 23
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Asset Element Network Safety Network Serviceability Network Sustainability
Fences, Walls & Barriers Safety fences, walls and
barriers provide separation
for traffic and vulnerable road
users from each other and
other hazards for example,
watercourses.
Unstable fences, walls and
barriers adjacent to the
highway can present risks to
the safety of highway users.
Breaches in boundary
fencing may lead to the risk
of stock escaping onto the
highway.
Fences and barriers in poor
repair may be detrimental to
the appearance of
environmentally sensitive
areas. Appropriate designs of
barriers should be used in such
areas.
Traffic Signs & Bollards The safe and efficient use of
the highway network depends
upon the presence of traffic
signs and bollards, both
illuminated and non-
illuminated. Illuminated signs
and bollards are covered by
the Street lighting PFI
contract
Regulatory and warning
signs contribute to road
safety by assisting highway
users to identify safety risks,
and separating potential
traffic conflicts.
Clear direction signing can
contribute to safety by
reducing driver confusion
and keeping traffic to
appropriate routes.
Contributes to ease of use
or the road network and
network integrity
Signing and bollards can
contribute to the local
economy (tourist signs,
signing for events) and avoid
users getting lost and
travelling unnecessary
distances.
Signing and bollards can
support sustainable
transport modes such as
cycling, walking and bus
services.
Routing of heavy traffic can
reduce the need for repairs
on minor roads.
However, signing can be
intrusive, especially signs in
poor repair situated in
environmentally sensitive
areas, and confusing if too
much signing is present.
Road Markings & Studs Road markings and studs
assist in the safe and efficient
use of the highway network
especially in darkness and
poor visibility.
Potential for damage and
injury if loose.
Road markings and studs
help with ease of use of
the highway in darkness
and bad weather
Support to sustainable
transport – delineation of
bus and cycle lanes and
traffic calming schemes.
Edge markings while being
an essential safety feature
can also reduce damage to
carriageway edges.
4.4. Levels of Service
Levels of service form a key part in the management of all assets. In order to successfully
manage these, it is vital to have defined levels of service that clearly balance users and
stakeholder’s needs and expectations for each asset against the available resources. Levels
of service also take account of the statutory duties of the Council as a highway authority and
the authority’s strategic goals.
The table below sets out the possible and current levels of service for each highway asset.
Section 4 – Asset Condition and Investigatory Levels V2 – January 2018
Page 24
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Asset Element Service Level (minimum�, fair��, good��� and excellent����)
Carriageways,
footways and
cycleways
� Reactive maintenance. Safety inspection regime and responding to reports of hazardous defects
within 24 hours. Minimal intervention to prevent asset deterioration. Safety inspection and
maintenance regime to deal with all potentially hazardous defects within 24 hours. Little or no
repairs for non-hazardous defects. No annual programme.
�� Reactive and routine maintenance and some planned works reducing the dependence on
reactive maintenance. Condition stabilised at a serviceable level. Safety inspection and maintenance
regime to deal with all potentially hazardous defects within 24 hours. Resources insufficient to repair
all required non-hazardous defects. Annual programme with 2-3 year forward programming.
��� Planned investment in structural maintenance leading to improvements in condition,
reduction in backlog and further reducing dependence on reactive maintenance. Majority of arising’s
taken for recycling. Safety inspection and maintenance regime to deal with all hazardous defects. 3-5
year forward programme.
���� Backlog in maintenance significantly reduced, operating at a sustainable level, using
sustainable methods with minimal reactive maintenance. All arising’s taken for recycling. Safety
inspection and maintenance regime to deal with all hazardous defects within 1 hour of Officer
observation. 5 - 10 year forward programme.
Current Service Level for;
Carriageways, footways and cycleways
�� Standard routine maintenance and planned works reducing dependence on reactive
maintenance. Condition currently adequate, at a serviceable level, but likely to fall without further
investment. Safety inspection and maintenance regime sufficient to deal with all potentially
hazardous defects within 24 hours. Annual programme of capital works.
Public Rights of Way (PROW)
� Reactive inspection and maintenance only. Little or no action to increase disabled access.
Maintenance backlog growing.
�� Limited inspection programme. Rectification of signage & furniture faults resource limited.
Cutting back of vegetation reactive. Backlog of surface improvements stabilised. Disabled provision
and action on obstruction cases considered on a priority basis.
��� Routine inspection programme. Rectification of signage & furniture faults by next inspection.
Cutting back of vegetation annually on priority network. Backlog of surface improvements reducing.
Disabled provision and action on obstruction cases considered on a priority basis.
���� Routine inspection of all PROW. Rectification of signage, furniture and surface faults within
3 months. Cutting back of vegetation annually on majority of network. Backlog of surface
improvements eliminated. Annual programme to improve disabled access. All obstruction cases
actively addressed.
Current Service Level for;
PROWs
�� Limited inspection programme. Rectification of signage & furniture faults resource limited.
Cutting back of vegetation reactive. Backlog of surface improvements stabilised. Disabled provision
and action on obstruction cases considered on a priority basis.
Privately Owned Infrastructure
Responsibility for defective infrastructure, e.g. ironwork cabinets and poles, where this is part of the
apparatus installed by a utility, lies with the company. Defects identified during inspection or from
users should be formally notified to the utility, with a follow up procedure to ensure that dangerous
defects are rectified within a specified timescale.
Section 4 – Asset Condition and Investigatory Levels V2 – January 2018
Page 25
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Asset Element Service Level (minimum�, fair��, good��� and excellent����)
Current Service Level for;
Privately Owned Infrastructure
� Reactive only.
Embankments and Cuttings
� Service reactive in nature.
�� Inspection undertaken in response to flooding events. Backlog of minor improvements relatively
stable but some schemes dependant on one-off capital bids.
��� Routine inspection of areas of concern. Backlog of improvements to alleviate know problems
cleared.
���� Routine inspection of all assets. Backlog of improvements to alleviate known areas of
concern cleared. Progressive mapping embankments / cuttings and their condition.
Do geotech keep an eye on susceptible embankments
Current Service Level for;
Embankments and Cuttings
� Service reactive in nature.
Grass Cutting � Routine cyclic maintenance of urban verges at quarterly intervals. Rural verges cut to provide clear
sight lines (reactive) Litter clearance separate to verge maintenance. Annual weed clearance to shrub
and rose borders. Little annual planting. Amenity areas grass cutting & litter clearing less than
quarterly Minimal maintenance to ensure establishment of young trees
�� Routine cyclic maintenance of urban verges 6-8 times a year. No co-ordinated litter clearance.
Rural verges cut one swathe width (1x per year) and to provide clear sight lines including traffic
islands. Litter clearance separate to verge maintenance. Annual weed clearance/ pruning to shrub
and rose borders. Annual planting limited to amenity sites. Reactive maintenance to young trees in a
hazardous state/legal nuisance and in response to customer reports. Amenity areas grass cutting &
litter clearing 6 x year Targeted Annual summer & winter bedding plants & provision of hanging
basket including watering provision
��� Routine inspection and cyclic maintenance of verges and young trees. Urban grass cut
minimum 8 times per year. Rural Verges: Grass cut 3 times per year with additional visibility cuts
where required including traffic islands. Shrub and Rose Borders have Weed cover <10% and pruned
in accordance to species. Litter and Debris removed as part of treatment schedule. Amenity areas
grass cutting & litter clearing 13x year Targeted Annual summer & winter bedding plants & provision
of hanging baskets.
���� Adopted policy for management of "soft estate". Urban grass cut minimum fortnightly,
including traffic islands (sponsored RABs every 7 days) Rural Verges: Grass cut 3x per year with
additional visibility cuts where required. Routine inspection and integrated cyclic maintenance of
verges and young trees Shrub and Rose Borders have Weed cover <5% Litter and Debris removed as
part of treatment schedule. Pruned in accordance to species. Amenity areas grass cutting & litter
clearing fortnightly Annual summer & winter bedding plants & provision of hanging basket
throughout the borough
Current Service Level for;
Grass Cutting
��� Routine inspection and cyclic maintenance of verges and young trees. Urban grass cut
minimum 8x per year. Rural Verges: Grass cut 3x per year with additional visibility cuts where
required including traffic islands. Shrub and Rose Borders have Weed cover <10% and pruned in
accordance to species. Litter and Debris removed as part of treatment schedule. Amenity areas grass
cutting & litter clearing 13x year Targeted Annual summer & winter bedding plants & provision of
hanging baskets.
Section 4 – Asset Condition and Investigatory Levels V2 – January 2018
Page 26
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Asset Element Service Level (minimum�, fair��, good��� and excellent����)
Weed Control The weed control service is an annually planned maintenance activity and takes place in the months
between April and October. The aim of the weed control service is to ensure that the highway
network is kept as free as possible from unsightly vegetation, provide a safe environment for the
travelling public and limit the potential damage to the highway caused by weed growth. To achieve
this weed killer is sprayed along the length of the whole network 2 times per year. Footways and
immediately adjacent to kerbed channels - To be determined locally, best practice indicates that an
integrated approach of appropriate street cleansing activities and minimal use of herbicides should
adequately control weed growth.
Invasive and non-native species of weeds - Where a problem is identified then a one off treatment,
or series of treatments, will be arranged.
Current Service Level for;
Weed Control
�� Weeds in footways are managed via an integrated pest management approach – contractual arrangements are in place allowing for the network to have weeds emerging from cracks, blemishes
and joints in the surface to be spot treated with a translocated herbicide on up to 2 equally spaced occasions during the main growing season. This complements existing street cleansing regimes.
There is a process in place for investigation and prioritization of long term control for Japanese
Knotweed and Giant Hogweed affecting the network. All other species (including horsetail, which is not registered as invasive but is a problem for highway infrastructure and resistant to most herbicides used for footpath spraying) are dealt with on an ad-hoc basis by the Operations Manager
for each area.
Trees and Hedges � Principal Highway Routes - Annual Rapid Tree Survey Reactive maintenance to trees in a
hazardous state/legal nuisance and in response to customer reports. All priority action maintenance
identified carried out (regardless of budget)
�� Principal & Classified Highway Routes - Annual Rapid Tree Survey Reactive maintenance to trees
in a hazardous state/legal nuisance and in response to customer reports. All priority action
maintenance identified carried out (regardless of budget)
��� Principal & Classified Highway Routes - Annual Rapid Tree Survey Cyclical programme of
detailed inspections and management of Principal Routes Reactive maintenance to trees in a
hazardous state/legal nuisance and in response to customer reports. All priority action & planned
maintenance identified carried out
���� Principal & Classified Highway Routes - Annual Rapid Tree Survey Cyclical programme of
detailed inspections and management of Principal & Classified Routes Reactive maintenance to trees
in a hazardous state/legal nuisance and in response to customer reports. All priority action, planned
maintenance & routine maintenance identified carried out
Current Service Level for;
Fences Walls and Barriers
�� Principal Highway Routes - Tree service condition Surveys documented Reactive maintenance to
trees in a hazardous state/legal nuisance and in response to customer reports. All priority action
maintenance identified carried out (regardless of budget)
Fences Walls and
Barriers
� Reactive maintenance only. Growing backlog of maintenance and improvements
�� Reactive and ad-hoc maintenance and refurbishment. Identification of issues requiring attention
Backlog of necessary maintenance and improvement stable.
��� Routine inspections. General repairs undertaken prior to next scheduled inspection. Backlog
in maintenance / refurbishment reducing. Ad-hoc programmed environmental works such as
painting.
���� All fences, barriers and street furniture fit for purpose. Annual inspection and repair
programme with non-urgent works included in FWP. Condition & Tensioning Survey programme
Annual programme of environmental works such as painting.
Section 4 – Asset Condition and Investigatory Levels V2 – January 2018
Page 27
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Asset Element Service Level (minimum�, fair��, good��� and excellent����)
Current Service Level for;
Fences Walls and Barriers
�� Inadequate inventory or condition assessment data. Inspection programme in progress Backlog
of potential necessary maintenance unquantified. Reactive and ad-hoc maintenance and
refurbishment.
Traffic Signs and Bollards
� Signs / bollards maintenance reactive. Signage reviewed as part of improvements.
�� Signs / bollards maintenance reactive. Annual clean of sign faces on priority routes. Bollards
cleaned on reactive basis on priority routes. Signage reviewed as part of improvements.
��� Annual clean of sign faces and reactive cleaning of all bollards. Basic inventory details held in
computerised system. Signs / bollards maintenance reactive.
���� Annual inspection for signs & bollards maintenance. Annual clean of all sign faces &bollards
All signs on priority routes reviewed every 5 years. Inventory details complete
Current Service Level for;
Traffic Signs and Bollards
�� Annual inspection for signs & bollards maintenance. Annual clean of all sign faces & bollards
Maintenance reactive. Signage reviewed as part of improvements. Inadequate inventory under
improvement – data collected by Contractor
Road Marking and Road Studs
� Road marking refurbishment undertaken on a reactive basis following enquiries from third parties
to junctions and regulatory locations,
Cats eyes replaced when missing
�� Annual visual inspection as part of the highway inspection programme. Identifying and
prioritising areas for remedial action
��� Ad hoc reflectivity surveys, Basic inventory details held in a computerised system. Reactive
works programme
���� Bi annual reflectivity survey of road markings and Cats eyes.
Inventory data complete and future refurbishment programme developed
Current Service Level for;
Road Marking and Road Studs
�� Annual visibility inspections undertaken. Ad hoc road marking surveys commissioned. Achieving
bi annual cats eye survey cycle. No road marking data. Reflecting road studs (cat’s eye) data 95 -
100% complete. Works instructed on a yearly reactive programme
4.5. Investigatory levels and response times
Investigatory levels and standards set for response times to inspections and user concerns
are covered in Section 5 of this document.
Section 5 – Inspection, Assessment and Recording V2 – January 2018
Page 28
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Section 5 – Inspection, Assessment and Recording
5.1 Introduction
The establishment of an effective regime of inspection, assessment and recording is an
important element of highway asset management. The regime is designed to meet the
principles of this highway infrastructure asset management plan to:
• Collect data to maintain the network in a safe condition;
• Enable funds to be allocated and priorities to be set effectively;
• Establish the extent of outstanding work and future investment scenarios;
• Monitor trends in the condition of the network, both locally and against National
performance.
Information obtained from surveys provides the basic information for addressing the core
objectives of highway asset management: network safety, network serviceability and
network sustainability. It will also provide basic condition data for the development of
programmes for maintenance.
An effective inspection regime requires clearly defined:
• inspection frequencies;
• items to be recorded;
• investigatory levels;
• action required.
Inspections are carried out by trained personnel on foot or from a slow moving vehicle.
Teams of two operatives are used where a risk assessment has shown this to be necessary.
Additional inspections of specific defects are carried out in response to reports or complaints
from users.
All information obtained from the inspections and surveys, together with the nature of the
response, including nil returns, are recorded consistently to facilitate analysis.
There are three types of inspections and surveys in Leeds:
• Safety Inspections – designed to identify all defects likely to create a hazard to users
of the network or the wider community. These are regular inspections of the highway,
which generate the bulk of remedial works;
• Condition Surveys – machine based and visual surveys to collect data to allow
effective prioritisation of planned maintenance work. These are essential to build up a
comprehensive picture of the asset.
• Service Inspections – are focused on ensuring the highway meets the levels of service
required. They are undertaken as part of or at the same time as routine condition
surveys and coarse visual inspection (CVI) surveys.
Section 5 – Inspection, Assessment and Recording V2 – January 2018
Page 29
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
5.2 Safety inspections
Safety inspections are designed to identify defects that are likely to create a hazard or
serious inconvenience to the public. Safety inspections are visual inspections undertaken
from a vehicle or on foot. The inspection is designed to be able to identify defects within the
adopted highway and determine appropriate risk levels to enable an appropriate response.
Items to be inspected as part of the adopted highway include for example, carriageways,
footways, verges, landscaped areas, barriers and signs. Verges and landscaped areas are not
expected to receive the same level of use as a footway or carriageway and therefore will
receive only a cursory overview during the safety inspection.
The safety inspection also includes a Level 1 tree survey, this survey is for non-specialist staff
with a skill level appropriate to identify any tree issues when more specialist investigation by
an arboriculture officer is required. A system is in place for reporting any concerns to the
Forestry section by either telephone, for serious concerns, or by monthly monitoring report
from the asset management system. Forestry will undertake further investigation in
accordance with their own tree risk management system, which allows them to categorise
and prioritise works.
5.2.1 National Guidance
The ‘Well Maintained Highways Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance Management’
(the national code) recommends frequencies of safety inspection to be used as a starting
point when implementing an inspection regime. The frequencies suggested are not
mandatory but it is accepted that where authorities wish to deviate from the code they may
do so, providing they state the reasons for so doing.
5.2.2 Safety Inspection Frequency
The frequency of inspections recommended by the National code and the frequency of
inspections adopted by the council are shown in table 5.2.2 below:-
Feature Feature type Category
National code
recommended
inspection frequency
Leeds City Council inspection
frequency
Carriageway
Motorways 1 Not specified 1 month ± 5 working days
Strategic routes 2 1 month 1 month ± 5 working days
Main distributors 3(a) 1 month 1 month ± 5 working days
Secondary distributors 3(b) 1 month 1 month ± 5 working days
Link roads 4(a) 3 months 3 months ± 10 working days
Local access 4(b) 1 year Annually within same calendar
month
Footway
Prestige walking zones 1(a) 1 month 1 month ± 5 working days
Primary walking routes 1 1 month 1 month ± 5 working days
Secondary walking routes 2 3 months 3 months ± 10 working days
Link footways 3 6 months 6 months ± 10 working days
Local access footway 4 1 year Annually within same calendar
month
Section 5 – Inspection, Assessment and Recording V2 – January 2018
Page 30
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Feature Feature type Category
National code
recommended
inspection frequency
Leeds City Council inspection
frequency
Cycleway
Part of the Carriageway A As for the carriageway As for the carriageway
Associated with a footway B As for the footway As for the footway
Not associated with a footway
(Bound surface) B 1 year
Annually within same calendar
month
Table 5.2.2 - Safety inspection frequencies
The operational tolerances shown in table 5.2.2 above of “±X working days” or “within same
calendar month” are applied to take account of variations in the available resources due to
national holidays, standard holiday entitlements, absence due to sickness and days lost due
to adverse weather. If ever the allowable tolerance is likely to be exceeded, the reasons and
the mitigation measures taken will be recorded.
5.2.3 Driven Safety Inspections
Driven inspections are carried out by an inspector and a driver in a conspicuously marked
vehicle. The driver follows the defined route, at a slow speed of 20 mph or less. The
inspector acts as the observer and is responsible for identifying actionable defects both in
the carriageway and the footways. The observer makes a note of any defects on the pre-
prepared inspection form.
The Secondary footways are walked, (the vehicle is stopped and a local inspection of the
footway is undertaken on foot). Link and local access footways are inspected from the
moving vehicle. Driven survey routes are undertaken in the reverse direction in alternate
surveys to allow the opportunity to concentrate on the nearside footway but always
providing the opportunity to inspect both footways and identify defects. Some footway
defects may be shielded from view, for example by parked vehicles. Where an inspector is
unable to make a decision from the moving vehicle, closer observation should be made on
foot.
5.2.4 Walked Safety Inspections
When undertaking walked surveys the Highways Inspector walks slowly down one footway,
inspecting that footway and half of the adjoining carriageway. He then returns slowly down
the other footway, inspecting that footway and the other half of the carriageway.
5.2.5 Defects Categories & Response Times
Following the risk assessment (see paragraph 5.8) each defect will be allocated a category
for attention as follows:
Section 5 – Inspection, Assessment and Recording V2 – January 2018
Page 31
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Defect Category Description Response Time
Cat 1 Those defects which, following a risk
assessment, are deemed to require prompt
attention because they represent a potentially
imminent hazard or there is a risk of short term
structural deterioration.
Either made safe or repaired by the end of
next day
Cat 2 Those defects which, following a risk
assessment, require attention but do not
represent an immediate or imminent hazard.
Either made safe or repaired within 28
calendar days.
Category S81 Defective inspection chambers or chamber
covers within the responsibility of statutory
undertakers will be
Reported under the New Roads and Street
Works Section 81 protocol for repair by the
service owner.
In addition to the above there are occasions when defects are found that pose an immediate
hazard to road users. These are items such as missing chamber covers in footways or
carriageways. Such defects are an exception and will be reported by telephone for a rapid
response to make safe and/or repair.
The National Code recommends treatment times of category 1 defects of “within 24 hours”.
Many category 1 defects are recorded each day and given to the maintenance crews to
make safe or repair. In order to attend to defects in the most efficient manner within the
one day period the crews will deal with each defect in the most beneficial route order to
minimise travelling time. The recommended response time of 24 hours is very specific to the
minute of the day from the time at which the defect was recorded and a failure of just one
minute can be caused by the most sensible option to deal with defects on a route basis
rather than travelling long distances to achieve a timescale at the expense of removing a
hazard earlier at an intermediate location. The response time of next day enables the
maintenance crews to remove more hazards more quickly and in a more efficient manner.
For the avoidance of doubt, the response time to attend to a defect will begin when the
defect is recorded and allocated a category for response on the customer management
system.
5.3 Condition surveys
Condition surveys are carried out for the following purposes;
• To identify priorities for planned maintenance;
• To support long term and short term maintenance decisions;
• To support the LTP and other funding bids;
• To report network condition including against National criteria.
There are a number of types of survey used in Leeds, each providing information from a
different perspective, and which in combination can provide a comprehensive picture of the
condition of the asset. Table 5.4 below shows the type and frequency of condition surveys
carried out in Leeds
Section 5 – Inspection, Assessment and Recording V2 – January 2018
Page 32
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Asset sub group Survey
method(s) Coverage Frequency
Data
stored Data used for
Confidence
level in data
Principal A and
Classified B Road
Carriageways
SCRIM 100% in both
directions
Annually –100%
coverage
UKPMS Identifying sites
where skidding
resistance is below a
defined level
High
Principal A and
Classified B & C Road
Carriageways
SCANNER 100% in one
direction only
Annually –100%
coverage every
two years
UKPMS BVPI’s and
identifying sites for
maintenance
funding needs
Medium
Unclassified
Distributor
carriageways
CVI 50% Annually –100%
coverage every
two years
UKPMS BVPI’s and
identifying sites for
maintenance
funding needs
High
Unclassified Local
Road carriageways
CVI 25% Annually - 100%
coverage every
four years
UKPMS BVPI’s and
identifying sites for
maintenance
funding needs
High
Table 5.3 – Type and Frequency of Condition Surveys
5.3.1 Skidding Resistance (SCRIM)
The maintenance of adequate skid resistance on running surfaces is an aspect of highway
asset management which contributes significantly to network safety.
Measurement of skid resistance requires the use of specialist testing equipment. Roads
carrying high traffic levels, particularly those with large numbers of heavy vehicles, are most
prone to loss of skid resistance. The principal (A class) road network and B classified roads
carry the highest traffic volumes and the strategy in Leeds is to survey all of these on an
annual basis using a Sideways-force Coefficient Routine Investigation Machine (SCRIM).
Surveys are carried out in both directions.
Sites with low skid resistance are investigated further, with particular reference to road
traffic accident statistics. Priority sites are identified for improvement.
5.3.2 Road Surface Condition (SCANNER) survey
Surface Condition Assessment for the National Network of Roads (SCANNER) surveys have
been developed to travel at normal traffic speed and measure road profile, texture, rutting
and cracking using laser technology. The survey may also include a forward facing video.
SCANNER surveys produce a similar condition index to the CVIs for each 10 metres of road
surveyed, but for carriageways only. Due to the size and nature of the machine undertaking
the survey, its use is currently limited to classified roads. The results of the survey are used
to monitor road condition and prioritise maintenance works on the classified road network.
SCANNER surveys are undertaken on all classified roads (A, B and C Class) once a year in one
direction only. The survey direction is alternated each year.
Section 5 – Inspection, Assessment and Recording V2 – January 2018
Page 33
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
5.3.3 Course Visual Inspection (CVI)
A CVI is a visual condition survey that follows nationally prescribed standards of data
collection. The surveys record the type, location (by start and end points) and extent of
defects. The CVI is sufficiently coarse to enable data collection from a slow moving vehicle
with a distance meter fitted however practice in Leeds is to do either driven or walked
surveys depending on the road type.
Each street section is assessed and the data is processed to give a condition score for each
length. The condition score generates a view on the total backlog of maintenance work
required and the relative needs between geographical areas. Its main benefits are in trend
analysis and to support the budget process. It also assists in the preparation of maintenance
programmes. Streets which would benefit from specific treatments are identified in
accordance with policies for the use of these treatments.
Coarse Visual Inspections are undertaken on approximately 25% of the unclassified road
network every year.
5.4 Service inspections
Service inspections are focused on ensuring the highway meets the levels of service
required. Service inspections are undertaken as part of and at the same time as the routine
condition surveys and CVI surveys.
5.5 Processing Data
The results of inspections, surveys and assessments are processed within a highway
maintenance management system. The management system used is accredited to the
national specification for maintenance management known as United Kingdom Pavement
Management System (UKPMS).
Insight by Symology Ltd is a computer program accredited to run UKMPS software designed
to assist with identifying and prioritising maintenance needs. Systems are accredited
nationally to ensure a consistency of results for national benchmarking. Carriageways and
“Scanner “ Vehicle
Section 5 – Inspection, Assessment and Recording V2 – January 2018
Page 34
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
footways can be separately assessed and prioritised, with footways being assigned an
independent hierarchy from the carriageway, based on pedestrian usage. Leeds uses the
Insight system developed by Symology.
The City Council is committed to targeting maintenance in order to maximise resources, and
the results of the surveys provide valuable information about surface and structural
condition which allows the development of efficient work programmes. Results from annual
condition surveys enable:
• sections of carriageway/footway that require further or detailed investigations to be
identified with a view to implementing remedial maintenance measures;
• engineers to use the information to support local maintenance planning process and
engineering knowledge;
• data to be used in higher level decision making such as target and budget setting.
5.6 Reliability of Data and Training
Highway inspectors carry out safety and visual condition inspections and surveys. They work
flexibly but are generally assigned areas which allow them to create a familiarity with the
area.
Training and audit of results are designed to ensure consistency between the inspectors and
compliance with the national requirements of UKPMS. Inspectors are trained in-house
through mentoring, internally run training events and courses providing LANTRA and/or City
and Guilds Qualifications
Machine surveys are procured from accredited sources. Machines for SCRIM and SCANNER
surveys are accredited annually to ensure that the data conforms to National standards.
All inspection and survey data is recorded in a consistent manner to facilitate analysis and
enable both visual and machine data to be processed to produce a holistic view of the
network condition and trends.
The highway maintenance management system is provided by a UKPMS accredited
supplier/developer.
5.7. Investigatory Levels
Investigatory levels are the basic definition of defects that require further consideration for
action to be required. If a defect exceeds the investigation level then further information of
its location and the use of the highway at that location will be needed to determine whether
or not it requires attention and if so how quickly it should be attended to.
The basic investigatory levels of the most common defects to be considered within a safety
inspection are shown in the table below;
Section 5 – Inspection, Assessment and Recording V2 – January 2018
Page 35
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Asset Element Highway Defect Investigatory Level
Carriageway
Pothole, sunken trench or abrupt level
difference
Ironwork – cover / frame
Ironwork – cover / frame, depressed or
rocking
Greater than 40mm
Missing
Greater than 40mm
Footway & Cycleway
Trip, rocking slab, abrupt level difference
Dislodged, misaligned or missing kerbing
channels, edging representing a safety
hazard
Kerbing – Loose or rocking
Ironwork – cover / frame
Ironwork – cover / frame, displaced or
rocking
Greater than 20mm
Greater than 50mm horizontally or
vertically
Greater than 20mm
Missing
Greater than 20mm
Table 5.7.1 – Investigatory Levels
5.8 Risk Assessments
Inspectors carry out risk assessments to take into account the severity and location of each
defect. It is not the case for example that anything which is greater than 20mm in a footway
or 40mm in a carriageway is necessarily an imminent hazard, it is simply that anything that
exceeds the investigatory levels must be given careful consideration by the inspector when
they are assessing how to categorise the defect. The risk assessment guides for
carriageways and footways/cycleways are shown in the tables 5.8.1 and 5.8.2
Section 5 – Inspection, Assessment and Recording V2 – January 2018
Page 36
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
5.8.1 Carriageway Defect Risk Assessment
Section 5 – Inspection, Assessment and Recording V2 – January 2018
Page 37
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
5.8.2 Footway and Cycleway Defect Risk Assessment
Section 5 – Inspection, Assessment and Recording V2 – January 2018
Page 38
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
5.9 Inspection, Assessment and Recording Review
This is a continuous process and needs management information and regular reviews to
inform change.
Meetings will be held four times a year to assess information gathered and review the
service levels as necessary. The information discussed may include:
• Progress of safety inspections and formal record of reasons for any delay.
• Changes to hierarchy of carriageway, footway or cycleway as consequence of
changes on site.
• Changes necessary due to changes in other information e.g.: third party claims;
feedback from the public or elected members.
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 39
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities
6.1 Introduction
Developing and implementing effective systems for prioritising and programming Highway
Maintenance activity is a key requirement in the delivery of a user focused highway service.
Priorities are allocated at three different levels;
6.1.1 Strategic Level
The Strategic level is contained in the Highway infrastructure Asset Management Strategy.
This plan focuses on the Tactical and Local levels.
6.1.2 Tactical Level
The Highway infrastructure Asset Management Strategy is underpinned by a model of
deterioration of the network which divides the highway network into four condition groups
based on survey observations and makes use of a Red, Amber, and Green (RAG) rating
system.
Red roads - are sections of roads assessed as being in need of structural maintenance, with a
high level of structural deterioration. Treatment of these roads is aimed at restoring them to
a good condition.
High Amber roads - are sections of roads assessed as being in poor condition, close to the
red ‘threshold level’. If left untreated, these sections of road will deteriorate into the red
category. As the structural integrity of these roads is relatively sound their average cost to
return to a good condition is substantially less than that required to treat red sections of
road. Treatment of these roads is aimed at arresting deterioration.
Strategic Senior Decision
Makers
• Set asset management Policy and Strategy
• Promote Asset Management Framework
• Align Levels of Service with Strategic Objectives
• Agree Performance Targets
• Establish Context for Risk Management
Tactical Senior Asset
Managers
Local Asset Management
Team
• Implement Asset Management Framework
• Provide Information to support Decision
Makers
• Allocate Budget to Asset Groups and Elements
• Allocate Treatment types to Asset Elements
• Produce Annual Works Programmes
• Produce Forward Works Plans
• Track progress against targets
• Record Improvement
• Review performance
• Inspections and safety
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 40
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Low Amber roads - are sections of roads assessed as being in fair condition, with only
localised or general areas requiring treatment. If left untreated, these sections of road will
deteriorate further. Treatment of these roads is aimed at restoring them to a good
condition.
Green roads - are sections of assessed as being in a good condition. They will require some
treatment in the future to make sure they stay in good condition but this will be at lower
cost and aimed at prolonging their life.
The lengths and percentages of Leeds’s road network by condition and asset element at
April 2016 are shown below.
Asset Element Good (Km)
(Green)
Fair (Km)
(Low Amber)
Poor (Km)
(High Amber)
Very Poor(Km)
(Red)
Principal 'A' Roads 234 86 50 11
Distributor 'B&C' Roads 144 56 32 7
Unclassified Distributor Roads 116 32 12 15
Local Access Roads 983 538 321 262
1477 713 415 295
Table 6.1.2 – Kilometres of assets by condition band (April 2016)
Fig 6.1.2 – Percentage of assets by condition band (April 2016)
6.1.3 Local Level
Safety objectives relating to achieving minimum statutory duties are the highest priority for
the maintenance service and must be met, therefore, the cost of undertaking this work will
take priority when allocating budgets. All remaining objectives will be programmed and
prioritised with account being taken of:
• safety implications;
• risk assessments;
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 41
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
• corporate and service group policies and objectives;
• maintenance policies;
• views of highway users and the public;
• the available maintenance budget.
6.2. Balancing priorities
The safety and service inspections are used to determine the highway maintenance needs as
shown in table 6.2 below;
Table 6.2 – Categories of Safety and Service Inspection and Condition Surveys
Data outputs from SCANNER and CVI (road condition) can be shown graphically. This gives an
indication of the maintenance requirements for the Highways Network across Leeds.
Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes
Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Leeds City Council Licence No. LA 100019567
Diagram 6.2 – Example of Graphical Representation of Condition
Priorities and programmes are established for each of the following:
• Reactive Maintenance – attending to defects which represent a potentially imminent
hazard (Cat 1) also these defects that require attention but do not represent an
immediate hazard (Cat 2) and other safety matters arising from inspections or reports
from the Police or members of the public;
• Routine Maintenance – attending to non-urgent defects identified though
inspections and user requests;
Classified A, B & C Road Network Unclassified Road Network
SCANNER Coarse Visual Inspections (CVI)
SCRIM (A & B Roads only) Detailed Visual Inspection (DVI)
Condition Surveys Historic data
Historic data Third party insurance claims
Third party insurance claims Walked safety inspections
Walked safety inspections Enquiries and complaints
Enquiries and complaints
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 42
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
• Planned Maintenance – providing coordinated sustainable schemes and projects to
meet the serviceability requirements of the network;
6.3 Priorities for Emergency / Reactive Maintenance
Reactive maintenance involves rectifying Category 1 and 2 defects. The options to rectify
such defects include:-
• Sign and make safe
• Provide initial temporary repair
• Provide permanent repair
The option selected, together with relevant follow up, will largely be determined by
operational practicalities and also whether the site is already part of a programme for
more comprehensive treatment, in which case a temporary repair may be an appropriate
course of action.
6.4 Priorities for Routine Maintenance
Routine maintenance is the regular ongoing day to day work that comprises of minor work
and patching. The priorities and programmes will be determined largely, but not
exclusively, from
• the outcome of CVIs,
• items from safety and service inspections not requiring urgent attention,
• user requests,
• risk control, safety and serviceability considerations
Activities include but are not limited to:
Asset Element Routine Maintenance Activities
Carriageways Minor works and patching
Footways Minor works and patching
Cycle Routes Minor works and patching
PROW’s Minor works including signage
Drainage Systems Cleansing and repair
Privately owned Infrastructure N/A reactive
Embankments and Cuttings Stability
Grass Cutting Managed by Parks & Countryside
Weed Control Managed by Parks & Countryside
Trees and Hedges Managed by Parks & Countryside
Fences, Walls and Barriers Repair
Traffic Signs and Bollards Cleansing and repair
Road Markings and Studs Replacement
Table 6.4 – Typical Maintenance Activities
Routine activities will be reviewed regularly to establish whether they still represent best
value for money, and adjusted to ensure they deliver the desired levels of service or
outcomes stated in this Plan.
6.5 Priorities for Planned Maintenance
Planned maintenance is undertaken in the interests of providing a sustainable outcome,
seeking to minimise cost over time, to add community value to the network or the
environment. It can also be to enhance safety i.e. to improve skidding resistance.
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 43
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Aquire Routine Renew Replace Dispose
Priorities and programmes are developed for carriageways and footways in respect of the
condition of the asset elements. Whilst planned maintenance schemes are generally more
extensive and therefore more expensive than routine or reactive treatments, they can be
designed to have a lower whole life cost, therefore, giving better value for money.
Planned maintenance schemes make use of condition survey data as well as engineering
judgement, anticipated budget, local priorities and targets to determine schemes to be
included in the indicative five year rolling forward works plan.
The planned maintenance programme is divided between two distinct programmes of work;
• Preventative maintenance schemes – Generally from the high amber category.
Roads that have poor surface / ride quality but which are structurally sound and
which can therefore be treated with lower-cost thin surfacing to extend their working
lives, and
• Structural schemes – Generally from the red category. Roads that are currently in
very poor condition and are in need of structural repair for full resurfacing /
reconstruction.
The balance of spend between these two programmes is critical to the overall management
of road condition. Enough preventative maintenance needs to be completed to arrest the
network deterioration, thus reducing the number of streets needing structural work. Those
streets already in need of major work must continue to be repaired at an acceptable rate to
reduce the maintenance backlog. This balance can be determined by life-cycle planning, the
objective of which is to minimise whole life costs.
6.6 Lifecycle and Investment Planning
Lifecycle planning comprises the approach to the maintenance of an asset from construction
to disposal. It is the prediction of future performance of an asset, or a group of assets, based
on investment scenarios and maintenance strategies. A lifecycle comprises of five stages:
1. Creation/Acquisition – A new asset arising as a result of a new development or capital
project.
2. Routine Maintenance – Cyclic and reactive, designed to maintain the asset in a
serviceable condition;
Inital or
Restored Condition
Deterioration
and / or damage
Condition
after Deterioration
Maintenace
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 44
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
3. Renewal/Replacement – Major work used when cyclic and reactive work will not
sustain the asset (or part of it) which will return the asset to its original capacity and
condition;
4. Upgrading – Improving an asset (or part of it) to a state above its original standard to
meet increased capacity/future needs;
5. Disposal – Decommissioning of an asset (or part of it) by sale, relocation or demolition.
Effective lifecycle planning is about making the right investment at the right time to ensure
that the asset delivers the required level of service over its full expected life at the minimum
cost.
Lifecycle planning recognises that there are key stages in the life cycle of each asset
component and that there are options at each of these stages for the investment required.
The following graph illustrates this principle;
AGE OF ASSET (YEARS)
Graph 6.6 – Lifecycle Strategies for Roads
Red Line (deterioration curve) - This shows how a road deteriorates from the date it is
constructed over its life span of 25-30 years with no treatment. Without intervention it will
generally deteriorate to a point where it needs surfacing after around 10 years. It will then
reach an unacceptable condition and need full reconstruction after around 20 years.
Blue Line (major treatment) - This shows reconstruction of the road when it goes below an
acceptable condition (usually after 20 years) to return it to a “new” condition. At which
point it will again begin to deteriorate over the next 20 years. This is known as the “worst
first” method, where funding is invested into roads that are in a poor state of repair and
need full or partial reconstruction. Costs for reconstruction works are £400,000 per km for
replacement of the top 100mm (surface and base layers) £210,000 per km.
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 45
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Orange Line (intermediate treatment) - This shows resurfacing of the road to renew the
surface at more frequent intervals (usually every 10-15 years) which would be at a lower cost
than reconstruction. Costs for resurfacing works are £150,000 per km for replacement of
the surface layer (surface course).
Green Line (multiple treatments) - This shows how an optimum asset management strategy
works. It involves a combination of regular thin surface repairs. Costs for preventative
maintenance range from £25,000 per km for surface dressing to £35,000 per km for thin
surfacing.
This approach has cost benefits in terms of the whole life investment costs. The following
example shows how the maintenance of a 1km section of road can be planned in different
ways.
Table 6.6 – Examples of Lifecycle Planning Cost Models
Diagram 6.6 – Graphical Representations of Lifecycle Planning Cost Models
Costs decrease notably when lifecycle planning methods are introduced and therefore
significant savings can be realised over time by adopting lifecycle planning over the ‘wait until
failure’ or ‘worst first’ method.
Lifecycle planning
cost model examples
Wait until
failure
Major Treatment
(reconstruct)
Intermediate
Treatment
(resurface)
Optimum
Treatment (Incl
preventative)
AGE OF
ASSET
(YEARS)
5
10 £25,000
15 £150,000
20 £210,000 £150,000
25 £400,000
30 £150,000 £25,000
35
40 £210,000 £210,000
45 £210,000
50 £400,000 £25,000
55
60 £400,000 £150,000 £150,000
65
70 £400,000 £25,000
TOTAL COSTS £1,200,000 £820,000 £660,000 £610,000
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 46
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Network Hierarchy
Condition Assessment
Engineers Assessment
Lifecycle Planning
Value Management
Programme
It is recognised that there is almost never a single solution to achieving the desired objective.
Therefore the evaluation of lifecycle costs plays a large part in deciding which option is the
best in each set of circumstances to deliver ‘minimum whole life cost’ solutions.
A Forward Works Plan is produced each year which includes a definite year one Annual
Works Programme of both structural and preventative maintenance. The Forward Works
Plan includes a further four year programme of structural maintenance (year 2 specific,
year’s 3-5 treatment only). To maximise the benefits of highways asset management the
plan also includes an indicative list of potential works from year 6 onwards. This plan takes
into account the current asset condition through assessment of each road in terms of its age,
condition, usage and hence its ‘whole-life’ cycle.
6.7 Decision Making Process
Initial priorities for highway structural maintenance are established from the results of
technical and economic prioritisation process using the latest assessment information. These
enable the creation of a prioritised list of potential works which enables the creation of;
• Annual works programme
• Forward works plan
• Indicative list
These are reviewed and adjusted to take account of any planned programme of works by the
utilities, local circumstances. Highway maintenance work should realise its potential to add
community value at minimum cost, for example incorporating dropped kerbs to assist
disabled people, modifying unclear signing or road markings and reducing redundant street
furniture.
A preventative works programme of thin surfacing treatments is also developed as part of
the Annual Works Programme for roads that are not necessarily in the worst condition, but
where investment will extend their lifecycles and reduce costs in the long-term. There are
other advantages in adopting this approach it enables;
• longer term planning of works programmes for budgetary purposes; and
• a more efficient and cost effective highways service
This increases the life span of roads by identifying the point at which the road surface can be
refreshed to prevent more serious defects developing. The method by which structural or
preventative maintenance schemes are selected is described below. The key question is
how to decide which roads should have preventative maintenance treatment and which
require a full structural repair. The process of a planned maintenance prioritisation criterion,
where priority is determined by allocating scores under various headings is explained in
more detail over the following pages.
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 47
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Network Hierarchy takes into account the actual use of the highway by
allocating scores based on the hierarchy of both the road and footway.
Hierarchy Road Definition Score
2 Strategic Route - Principal 'A' roads 100
3a Main Distributor - B&C roads 75
3b Unclassified Distributors 50
4a Link Road 25
4b Access Road 10
Hierarchy Footway Definition Score
1a Prestige Walking Zone 100
1 Primary Walking Route 75
2 Secondary Walking Route 50
3 Link Footway 25
4 Local Access Footway 10
Condition Assessments determine the deficiencies of the highway
infrastructure which, if left untreated, are likely to adversely affect its long
term performance and serviceability.
Information on the nature and severity of deterioration is used to determine appropriate
maintenance in line with asset management objectives.
The scores are allocated based on condition survey data obtained historically and part
refreshed annually.
Road Condition Index (RCI) – A machine based condition survey for roads with a hierarchy of
2 or 3a (A, B, C Network) is undertaken. This measures a number of characteristics of the
carriageway such as rutting, longitudinal and horizontal profile, cracking and texture.
Coarse Visual Inspection (CVI) – Driven inspections on roads with a hierarchy of 3b, 4a, 4b
(Unclassified Network) are carried out. This inspection records the type and extents of
defects and produces a score.
Those streets in the greatest need will progress to the next stage of assessments: Engineer’s
Assessment, Lifecycle Planning and Value Management.
Road Hierarchy Assessment Process Score
2 Road Condition Index (RCI) - Scanner 0-100
3a Road Condition Index (RCI) - Scanner 0-100
Road Hierarchy Assessment Process Score
3b Coarse Visual Inspection (CVI) 0-18
4a Coarse Visual Inspection (CVI) 0-18
4b Coarse Visual Inspection (CVI) 0-18
Network
Hierarchy
Condition
Assessments
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 48
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
The streets in greatest need of maintenance receive an additional Engineer’s
Assessment to determine the location and severity of the defects, and make
an accurate assessment of the appropriate maintenance treatment required.
The list of streets is refined to take into account the residual life of the asset
/ potential risk to highway users (on both road and footway) alongside the
degree of deterioration from any previous inspection.
The above assessments produce a ranked list of streets, to which a value
management factor is applied. As a result a number of streets may be either
promoted or deferred for various reasons.
Value Management is a process that is used to help evaluate the competing needs of the
streets within the forward works plan, identified through their condition and lifecycle
planning prioritization process. It provides a structured and consistent approach for
comparing the benefits of maintenance activities on each asset element.
For maintenance schemes the following needs to be considered:
• Combine improvement and maintenance schemes at the same location wherever
possible - This approach is likely to save traffic management costs, minimise
disruption to the travelling public, reduce congestion and travel times, and to bring
about environmental benefits.
• Extend scheme options to include preventative maintenance where possible - This
approach examines the potential to extend the scope or scale of a scheme option at
Road Assessment Footway Assessment Kerb Assessment
Description Score Description Score Description Score
Extensive 80-100 Extensive 70 Extensive 30
Major 60-70 Major 40 Major 20
Minor Works 20 -50 Minor Works 10 -20 Minor Works 10
Acceptable 0 Acceptable 0 Acceptable 0
Lifecycle Definition Score
High Road or footway has reached the end of its serviceable life and
requires immediate maintenance work 100
Medium Road or footway is reaching the end of its serviceable life and
requires maintenance work within the next 24-36 months 50
Low Road or footway has several years of serviceable life remaining
but may require minor works as an interim measure 25
Very Low Road or footway requires no planned maintenance at time of
inspection 0
Value Definition Action
High Value (e.g. coordinate with other Planned works, priority for single element work) Promote
Low Value (e.g. secondary access, ongoing building works etc.) Defer
Engineers
Assessment
Lifecycle
Planning
Value
Management
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 49
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
the design stage, as it may be more cost effective to carry out preventative
maintenance to other asset components at the same time. Again, this would provide
the same benefits as a combined scheme at the same location.
• Determine scheme options that reduce risk and potential liability - As part of the
value management process, risk is assessed, both in terms of the service levels and
service delivery and to assess safety and potential liabilities. For example – where a
street is having multiple/repeat reactive maintenance visits on one element only (i.e.
footway) with the remainder of the street in a good condition ‘single element work’
would be prioritised ahead of a street which is a secondary access / bin store with
little vehicular or pedestrian traffic, the work on the secondary access would be
deferred and re-assessed the following year.
Section Reference 23007011/009
Street Alcacia Avenue
Ward Chapel Allerton
Extents Oak Drive to Church Lane
Length 262
Condition Assessment (SCANNER) N/A
Condition Assessment (CVI) 8.8 Red band
Network Hierarchy (Carriageway) 25 Link Road
Network Hierarchy (Footway) 25 Link Footway
Engineer's Assessment (Carriageway) 80 Extensive
Engineer's Assessment (Footway) 70 Major
Engineer's Assessment (Kerb) 10 Minor
Lifecycle Planning (Carriageway) 100 High
Lifecycle Planning (Footway) 100 High
Value Management Promote Coordinate with other planned works
Total Score 410
Table 6.7a – Example of Individual Street Score Resulting from the Decision Making Process
6.8 Producing the Annual Works Programme
The objective of a good asset management strategy is to determine the proportion of
structural and preventative maintenance work that should be carried out for each hierarchy
of road and footway.
Leeds has developed a whole life highway asset maintenance model which ensures a balance
between structural and preventative maintenance treatments by considering the current
condition and rate of deterioration for each street.
The five criteria described in paragraph 6.7 are used to produce a prioritised list of potential
schemes for roads and/or footways, to be included in the Forward Works Plan.
The final Annual Works Programme will include a mixture of;
Further Assessment Required
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 50
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Preventative Treatments (High Amber) –
The streets selected have been identified from the condition assessments as those that are
not currently in need of full structural treatment but are in the early stages of deterioration.
Structural Treatments (Red) –
• Street sections with the highest score (based on the decision making process
(detailed above))
• Adjacent sections of the same street (financial factors)
• Single Asset sections – road or footway only (economic factors)
• Street sections that have received numerous maintenance visits (economic,
social or political factors)
6.9 Materials Products and Treatments
Roads are constructed in layers, with a sub-base, followed by the structural bituminous
layers made up of the “base” course, “binder course” (layers) with a top “surface course”
layer, which is relatively thin and of a higher quality. It is the surface course that protects
against skidding and prevents water getting into the sub- surface ‘structural’ road layers and
damaging them. The structure of the road is all of the layers that make up that road. These
need to be in good condition, particularly the lower layers (which give it its structural
strength) to keep the road level and safe.
Diagram 6.9 – Road Construction Layers
The purpose of the road construction is to spread the load of the traffic travelling across its
surface. The type of maintenance treatment depends upon which layers of construction
have failed and what type of failure has occurred. This determines the type of treatment
required.
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 51
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
There are two main categories of work with many treatments available within them:
I. Roads or footways with minor defects or those beginning to deteriorate:-
Preventative Maintenance (High Amber) - Surface course is ageing and brittle and needs to
be sealed against water ingress and/or needs an improved skid resistance. These treatments
prolong the life of roads and footways, restore skid resistance, aid waterproofing and arrest
their deterioration to needing structural maintenance.
Treatments include - Surface dressing, micro-asphalt, footway surface treatments.
II. Roads or footways with many defects or problems with base layer:-
Structural Maintenance (Red) - Structurally unsound, i.e. where the sub-surface is failing
causing major slumps and tell-tale surface cracking. These treatments are the most
expensive and disruptive type of maintenance that involves taking up and relaying surfaces
to varying depths depending on the severity of deterioration.
Treatments include - Reconstruction, resurfacing, overlay, recycling and the following
diagrams explain these in more detail.
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 52
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Preventative Maintenance
For Roads Surface Dressing – Any defects in the road are repaired ahead of the
treatment. The road is then sprayed with a hot bitumen binder which seals
the existing road. A layer of new stone chippings will then be spread over it
and rolled. Because the surface is soft the chippings will bed into the binder
and the existing surface. This will continue over the next few weeks under
the normal traffic action.
Micro Asphalt – Any defects in the road are repaired ahead of the
treatment. It is usually laid in two layers, the first layer to fill any defects and
regulate out any dips in the surface. The second layer provides the new
surface. Micro Asphalt is a mixture of bitumen mixed with crushed stone. It
is laid cold and stays liquid for about 20 minutes before it sets (hardens) at
which point the road can be opened to traffic.
For Footways
Footway Surface Treatment (Slurry seal) – This involves the laying of a thin
layer of bitumen mixed with crushed stone over the top of the existing
footway to seal the surface and extend its life.
Structural Maintenance
For Roads
Reconstruction - This is the most expensive type of treatment and usually
involves replacing the surface course, binder course and base with new
materials.
Resurface – The existing surface is removed and the surface course is
replaced. This can also include the binder course.
Overlay – The new surface course is simply laid over the top of the existing
surface.
Recycling - The road is broken up and new bitumen is added, these are then
mixed together and the material can be reshaped and rolled to create a new
solid structural layer. The surface is then sealed with a surface dressing. It is
also known Shallow In-Situ Recycling (because it only goes down 75mm (3")
and ‘in-situ’ because the material is recycled on site).
For Roads and Footways
Refurbishment – Typically this includes all elements (kerb, footway and
road) being treated to varying degrees. The kerbs may require isolated
repairs or the full length either being relayed or replaced with new kerbs.
The footway and road will either be covered with new material or the
existing surface will be removed and replaced.
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 53
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
6.10 Forward Works Plan
The formalised prioritisation criteria ensures that available funding is matched to roads that
have the greatest need or the greatest benefit in a consistent, fair and cost-effective manner
city wide.
Current levels of funding allow approximately 100-200 (structural) and 200-300
(preventative) maintenance schemes to be included in the Annual Works Programme.
Schemes not added to the Annual Works Programme remain on the Forward Works Plan
(years 2-5). If subsequent inspections of these streets reveal additional defects they may be
re-rated and their priority changed accordingly.
The Forward Works Plan will be developed for a particular funding expectation and will be
reviewed if the expectation is not realized. Equally the opportunity for funding can be
allocated efficiently and accurately targeted.
Detail of the listing of the schemes in the Forward Works Plan will vary depending on the
time period the list covers.
Years Programme Objective Description Treatment Level
1 Annual Works
Programme
Schemes implemented in
current year Specific treatment measured and priced.
2 Forward Works
Plan
Firm recommendation Specific treatment, not measured but an
estimated price
3-5 Reasonable assessment Generic treatment, not measured but an
estimated price
6+ Indicative List An assessment of long term
need
Generic treatment, not measured or
priced
The forward works plan is reviewed and updated annually with reference to:
• new condition data;
• changes in anticipated budgets;
• changes in corporate priorities;
• changes in current and desired levels of service;
• changes in public perception of priority;
• changes in procurement.
6.11 Risk Management
Effective Risk Management is essential to achieve strategic objectives and improve outcomes
for local people. It is concerned with managing the barriers to achieving the objectives. It
enables an awareness of potential risks, and identifies what the consequences might be if
they occur. This will enable us to understand potential risks and take the appropriate action
where possible, to control and manage them.
Risk can be defined as an uncertain event which, should it occur will have negative effect on
the performance of the asset and service provided or the asset directly. The level of risk can
be defined as the likelihood of an event occurring, and the magnitude of its impact on the
asset which would result from the occurrence. The Highway Asset is subject to many risks:
• Safety – of staff engaged in works on the highway, or in the much wider remit of
highway user safety
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 54
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Risk
Management Process
Identify
Evaluate
Manage
Review
• Risk to Reputation – both of the Highways Authority itself and those who rely on the
asset in the course of their business.
• Loss or damage to the asset – ranging from total destruction in an instant due to an
extreme event to the steady deterioration of the asset due to wear and tear.
• Service reductions or complete failure – to lose some parts of the road network would
potentially adversely affect stakeholders.
• Environmental – threats both to and from the environment.
• Financial and Contractual Risks – for the Highway Authority and stakeholders.
• And most importantly - combinations of the above!
Risks can be classified according to type and to category. This can assist in the overall
management of risk. There are principally two types of risk that the council faces Strategic
and Operational.
Strategic Risks may be potentially damaging to the achievement of the Council's objectives,
for example risks relating to the environmental impact of the Council's service delivery, for
example energy efficiency, pollution or recycling and significant flood risks.
Operational Risks are faced in the day to day delivery of services, for example physical risks
relating to physical damage such as fire, security and accident
prevention.
The four main steps of Risk Management are;
Identify Risk – identify risk groups, identify risk events and
critical assets.
Evaluate Risk – Likelihood, consequence, overall risk
assessment.
Manage Risk – Reduction/mitigation/elimination, develop risk
action plan, risk register
Review Risks – Effective monitoring, re-evaluate risks, adjust processes
to reflect changes.
By managing threats effectively the council is in a stronger position to deliver its objectives.
Through accepting the need to take proportionate risks to achieve its strategic objective,
knowing that these need to be appropriately identified and managed. By managing these
in a structured process the council is in a better position to provide improved services and
better value for money.
6.12 Efficient Delivery
The funding streams available for the management of the highway asset are set out in 1.2.
To maximise the funding available and generate savings collaborative procurement and
working with other local authorities has been undertaken. Listed below are examples
where this has been put into practice;
• Leeds City Council (LCC) as part of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority
(WYCA), have taken part in procuring Winter Forecasting Services
• LCC has also taken part in procuring a contract (three year period) for
carriageway/footway condition surveys for seven Yorkshire Authorities.
• Procurement of a surface dressing programme has been conducted through the
West Yorkshire Highway Alliance.
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 55
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
• LCC are the lead authority for the procurement of a new salt contract for winter
services across the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA).
• LCC as part of WYCA has taken part in producing a procurement template for
contracts across West Yorkshire Authorities.
• LCC as part of collaborative working across Yorkshire & Humberside, Rotherham
Metropolitan Borough Council are undertaking the procurement of a Highways
Technical Inspections and Testing Services Contract.
• LCC are the lead authority for the procurement of a new Traffic Control Systems
contract. This includes maintenance and supply/install of new traffic signals
equipment.
6.13 Data Management
Asset data describes the highway infrastructure assets that an authority is responsible for,
where they are and how they perform. It is used to support the requirements of the asset
management strategy and in determination of the approach to deliver the strategy,
including performance management, lifecycle planning, forward programming and risk
management.
During the life of each asset component, key interventions in the form of maintenance or
upgrading will be recorded. This is part of the data management regime. Without this
information being regularly and accurately recorded, the ability of the asset manager to fully
adopt the Lifecycle Planning approach could be seriously hampered.
The Insight system is used as the main highways asset management system as it provides the
authority with a robust tool for holding and reporting on Asset Data.
Diagram 6.13 – Main Modules of Asset Management System (Insight)
6.14 Communication and Consultation
Communications with stakeholders is an essential part of the management of highway
assets.
Customer need is identified both through formal consultation processes and regular
contact direct from key stakeholders, elected members, parish or town council
representatives, members of the public and a variety of local interest groups.
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 56
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Ward Councillors and Parish Councillors play a fundamental part in the decision making
process and are consulted and asked for input on Annual Works Programme (AWP) and
Forward Works Plan. The approved AWP is displayed on the Councils website for customers
to access and it is updated regularly.
Communication with statutory undertakers on the proposed the AWP is also crucial to
effectively manage the highway network. Knowledge of intended locations for future
statutory undertakers work provides valuable information in the decision making process for
developing AWP and FWP. These programmes are produced and shared through scheduled
quarterly meetings between works promoters, which include statutory undertakers (water,
gas, electric and telecommunication companies etc.) and highway maintenance
management teams. This ensures works on the highway are coordinated to minimise
disruption on the highway in accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Management
Act 2004.
Where proposed work on the AWP involves potential changes to the highway is an
important part of communication with customers to ensure service users’ needs are
reflected in changes made to the highway network. Therefore consultation is undertaken
with stakeholders affected by any proposed work where there is a significant change to the
existing layout or a change in materials. For example where Yorkshire stone paving is
proposed to be taken up and replaced with bituminous materials.
For schemes on the AWP, contact is made with all residents and businesses fronting the
works prior to commencement of any work; informing them of what work is planned, start
dates, duration and contact details. Where time and resources allow residents affected by
the work will be given the opportunity to undertake a questionnaire on completion of the
work and comment on the scheme in terms of information received, the standard of work
and the contractors performance. This customer information enables the development of
levels of service and shape future strategy and practice for maintenance and management of
the highway asset. Informing the public and stakeholders on how decisions are made and
what can be delivered with the available budget will help achieve a better understanding of
how, Highways and Transportation resources are used and to help shape how they are used
in the future.
6.15 Performance Management Framework
Performance is continually measured to monitor our progress at achieving our aims and to
drive continuous improvement.
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 57
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
The table below sets out the primary performance indicators that will be used to measure
progress against Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Plan standards. The indicators
shown below are consistent with our West Yorkshire neighbouring authorities to provide
opportunities to share success and learn from each other.
Table 6.15 – Showing the suite of Performance Indicators
Ref Description
1 How satisfied are stakeholders with Highway Condition
2 How satisfied are stakeholders with the condition of pavements
3 How satisfied are stakeholders with the speed of repair to Street Lights
4 How satisfied are stakeholders with the efforts to reduce delays to traffic
5 How satisfied are stakeholders with the ease with which they can contact H&T
6 % of customer correspondence responded to on time
7 Number of customer contacts received through call centre
8 % Cat 1 potholes repairs completed on time
9 % Cat 2 potholes repairs completed on time
10 % of Road Gullies cleansed on time
11 % Street Light faults repaired on time
12 % of signalised installations repaired on time
13 % Principal Network (A roads) requiring major maintenance
14 % Non-Principal Classified Network (B & C roads) requiring major maintenance
15 % of Unclassified Network requiring major maintenance
16 % of footways requiring major maintenance
17 % of council owned highway structures in need of significant repair (excluding retaining walls)
18 % of bridges with width or weight restrictions
19 Number of street lighting faults as a % of total street lighting stock
20 % of UTMC Traffic Signal installations exceeding average expected service life
21 Average duration (in days) of all highway works on permit streets (KSM1)
22 % of Street Lighting columns with LED lanterns
23 % of UTMC Installations with LED lanterns
24 Preventative Maintenance completed (in kilometres) as a % of the total km's repaired as part of the Annual Works Programme
25 Average energy used per street light in kwh
Network Sustainability - minimising costs over time, maximising value to the community, maximising environmental contibution
Network Serviceability - ensuring availability, achieving integrity, maintaining reliability, resilience, managing condition
Network Safety - complying with statutory obligations, meeting user needs for safety
Customer Service - consultation, levels of service information etc
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 58
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Information on progress against these and an additional suite of internal performance
indicator targets are monitored on a monthly basis within Highways and Transportation.
Annual measures of performance, providing a year on year comparison of outputs and
therefore progress, will be reviewed by the Chief Officer on an annual basis.
6.16 Benchmarking
Local and national benchmarking is being used to compare performance of the Asset
Management Framework and to share information that supports continuous improvement.
Benchmarking is a systematic process of collecting information and data to enable
comparisons with the aim of improving performance, both absolutely and relatively to
others. It provides a structure to search for better practice in similar authorities that can
then be integrated into an asset management approach. Comparison is made by;
National Highways & Transportation Survey (NHT) – Leeds will
continue to contribute to the annual NHT Survey for the purposes of
both benchmarking alongside similar authorities and gauging the level
of stakeholder satisfaction with our services.
The DfT’s Highway Maintenance Efficiency Programme
(HMEP) provides guidance and tools to support local
authorities in managing their highway assets based on
efficient asset management principles. A lifecycle planning toolkit has been made available
as part of the HMEP resources which uses inventory and condition data to create
deterioration models. This can be used to consider the effects of different maintenance
planning strategies. Leeds City Council has the HMEP guidance at the heart of our approach
to highway maintenance now and in the future. This will ensure the ability to be properly
measured against all other local authorities for all development, programming and delivery
operations with regards to highway maintenance
Asphalt Industry Alliance – ALARM Survey – Leeds participates annually in the Asphalt
Industry Alliance independently commissioned ALARM survey which aims to take a
snapshot of the general condition of the local road network. Although the findings
are a snapshot it is useful to be able to identify specific comparisons that can be
used to inform service decisions. For example;
Average number of potholes filled per authority last year – This is significantly lower in Leeds
than the national average which could be an indication that the strategy is working and that
the highway network is improving.
West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) – Leeds is part of the
WYCA and by benchmarking alongside the other member authorities
it enables us to compare the level of stakeholder satisfaction with
our services against the others.
Section 6 – Programming and Priorities V2 – January 2018
Page 59
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
6.17 Investment Strategy
In a climate where budgets and resources are reducing, local authorities are facing
significant challenges in deciding how to manage their assets effectively.
Asset Management is a strategic approach that enables decisions to be made about what
service the council can provide within its budgetary limits. It enables the best allocation of
resources for the management, operation, preservation and enhancement of the highway.
This plan sets out the general approach to asset management across all highway
infrastructure assets. The investment strategy for highways involves a sequence of lifecycle
planning that forecasts the maintenance needs of highways and predicts the consequences
of various funding scenarios, the lifecycle plan helps us to direct funding to the most
beneficial strategic and long term maintenance treatments.
Current investment of approximately 25% of the planned maintenance budget in
preventative maintenance and 75% resurfacing works and refurbishment schemes over the
next two to three years has been identified as the most cost effective approach to
minimising the highway maintenance backlog.
Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Page 60
Part 1 – Highways Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Part 2 - Structures
Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
2016-2021
V2 – January 2018
Page 61
Part 2 – Structures Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
2.1 Introduction
The road network plays a vital role in maintaining the local economy and businesses,
encouraging new investment, new businesses and regeneration. Within this infrastructure,
bridges, retaining walls and tunnels form the essential link to allow access across obstacles
(rivers, railways, roads etc.). Without adequate maintenance, the structure stock deteriorates,
costing more to repair later, and weight restrictions on individual structures becomes
necessary to maintain structural integrity and safeguard the highway user and the wider
travelling public.
2.2 Inventory
The table below shows details of highways structures, divided into assets groups, numbers of
structures by road hierarchy, total number per group and group gross replacement cost. The
private structures are largely owned by Network Rail, Canal and Rivers Trust, Yorkshire Water
or Highways England. There are also a small number of cellars and service tunnels that fall
within the Highway Structures inventory. The stock is diverse in terms of age, construction
type, material, and engineering complexity, ranging from a scheduled ancient monument,
Otley Bridge built in 1228, to the UK’s first urban motorway. The Leeds Inner Ring Road
(A58(M)/A64(M)) was built in the 1960’s and 1970’s and is a 3km stretch of dual carriageway
road containing over 100 structures, including Woodhouse Tunnel, a 380m long unventilated
tunnel carrying the Leeds General Infirmary.
LEEDS HIGHWAY STRUCTURES STOCK
Type Motorways
Principal Non Principal
Unclassified
Roads
Total
Number
of
Structures
Gross
Replacement
Cost (£M)
Highways Highways
A Class
Roads
B & C Class
Roads
Bridges 14 71 17 122 224 814.54
Tunnels 2 5 0 0 7 574.21
Culverts (>900mm) 0 59 14 132 205 55.37
Subways 1 14 1 7 23 6.74
Footbridges 3 17 1 39 60 21.12
Retaining Walls
(>1.2m)
67 393 98 2167 2725 134.32
(5.2km) (28.8km) (4.9km) (58.4km) (97.3km)
Traffic Signal Mast
Arms and Sign
Gantries
7 87 0 19 113 15.33
Other 2 4 0 19 25 16.08
Private Structures 4 314 101 691 1110
V2 – January 2018
Page 62
Part 2 – Structures Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
2.3 Condition
The condition of the City’s structures is gathered through an inspection regime and scored
using the ADEPT national Structure Condition Indicator (SCI) guidance. F ive main types of
inspection are carried out by the Council’s own in house or Partner organisation inspectors
and engineers, with the exception of underwater and confined space inspections, where
specialist operatives are employed.
The inspection programme follows best practice guidelines derived from the
recommendations in the Management of Highway Structures Code of Practice and Highways
England standard BD63.
LEEDS HIGHWAY STRUCTURES INSPECTION REGIME
Inspection Description Frequency
General Remote visual inspections
1 year for footbridges, subways
1 year for Inner Ring Road structures
2 years for all other structures
Principal All elements are inspected within
touching distance 6 years
Underwater /
Scour
All elements inspected from within
the watercourse only Yearly and after major flooding events
Special
For specific requirements –
• Safety
• Uncommon construction
techniques
• Weak structures
• Monitoring
• Acceptance
As required based on risk analysis
and applicable standards.
Limited General
Similar to general but for private
bridges on the highway network as
a duty of care e.g. railway bridge
over highway
2 years
Routine Surveillance
A part of regular highway safety
inspections carried out by highway
maintenance staff.
x
The data produced and information gathered during inspections, enables completion of an
inspection pro forma and calculation of the Structure Condition Index (SCI). An SCI is
calculated for the structure as a whole (SCIAv) and just for critical structural elements
(SCICRIT). These scores are then combined to give a weighted condition for the whole
structure stock; this indicator is an essential tool for tracking overall condition, informing key
performance indicators, identifying trends within structure groups and feeding into the works
prioritisation process.
V2 – January 2018
Page 63
Part 2 – Structures Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
During a principal inspection a thorough examination of every accessible part of the
structure is undertaken and an assessment of any significant change in condition is made.
These recommendations are fed into a review of the load carrying capacity also taking into
account any change of use or new / revised national standard.
All data relating to the highway structure stock including inspection, spatial location data,
construction details, completed works, photographs and forward programmes are stored on
Leeds Highway Structures Asset Management System – ‘AMX’.
2.4 Level of Service
The desired condition of the structure stock as a whole has not currently been defined.
However, the ‘Best Council Plan’ gives strategic goals and objectives for the City and the
structure stock will need to be maintained or improved to meet these challenges. The SCI
rating system implies that the desired bridge stock condition should be somewhere in the
categories ‘good’ to ‘very good’, scores between 80 -100. T herefore working on the basis
that the desired strategy, subject to funding,
would be to move bridge stock condition into
the ‘good’ category for both critical and
average indicators and then to maintain it at
that level.
Irrespective of the journey towards the desired
‘good’ stock condition, individual structures
must always be safe and fit for purpose, as set
out in the Highways Act 1980. This will
necessitate safety and other related work not
always supported by the drive towards the
‘good’ rating. To give best value and ‘big
picture’ thinking whole life costing principles are being incorporated into the works planning
process.
2.5 Programme and Priorities
Maintenance work is divided into several categories, each addressing a different type of defect
/ issue.
• Routine maintenance activities can be classed as cyclic work and tend to be carried out
on an annual basis with the timings based on historical experience.
• Reactive maintenance is usually emergency work and is dealt with urgently on the
grounds of safety such as emergency repairs following a bridge strike.
• Minor works are items of work minor in nature but outside of routine maintenance.
2016 SCI VA
85.42%74.53%
Very Poor
0 to 40%
Poor
40% to 65%
Fair
65% to 80%
Good
80% to 90%
Very Good
90% to 100%
2016 SCI RITC 2016 SCIAV
85.42%
V2 – January 2018
Page 64
Part 2 – Structures Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
• Safety critical maintenance are defects identified from inspections that have a high risk
of causing harm to the travelling public; these defects are the highest priority and are
completed ahead of all other maintenance work.
• Steady state maintenance is carried out to maintain the condition of the structure by
protecting it from deterioration or slowing down the rate of deterioration. At this time,
with the current level of funding, this type of maintenance strategy is too costly and so
instead a greater focus on risk management is needed to make up the short fall.
• Element replacement can be identified as required through either inspections or
through a cross cutting desk study, for example parapets along LIRR. Once the
structures requiring replacement have been identified, a prioritised programme of work
will be delivered over a number of years.
All identified work, from inspections or desk studies, is stored in the bridge management
systems ‘work bank’. Work is regularly prioritised within each category and issued to
appropriate contractors. Year on year the identified work is greater than the funding to
complete it; this causes a backlog of maintenance. The maintenance backlog currently is
estimated at £54.1m (April 2016).
2.5.1 Forward Works Programme
The majority of future works are planned up to two years ahead with feasibility, design and
planning work undertaken in previous years. This allows major schemes to be delivered
within a specific financial year. The two year forward programme contains a blend of
schemes including minor works, strengthening, scour protection, assessment and asset
management.
A five to ten year programme is currently being developed for all major works based on
structural condition. The future condition is determined utilising the national asset
management toolkit, which reflects the structures current condition, construction,
environment and maintenance regime. Condition is not the only driver for works on a
structure; schemes are also generated from other work streams, for example strengthening,
new standards, and structures susceptible to pier impact or scour and public realm related
projects.
All works on the highway, within Leeds, are coordinated with other promoters using the
West Yorkshire permit scheme; this system gives the benefit of maximising coordination
and minimising conflicting traffic management thus minimising disruption to highway
users. All works on the structure stock comply
with the West Yorkshire permit scheme
requirements.
2.5.2 Works Prioritisation
The current stock of highway structures includes
nearly 3500 separately identified structures. Each
year over 800 inspections are carried out which
generate several thousand separate items of
potential maintenance work for consideration as
part of the annual programme. Added into this
work bank are more strategic items of work including parapet upgrades or scour protection.
V2 – January 2018
Page 65
Part 2 – Structures Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
It would be inefficient and time consuming to try to compare and consider all these
structures and maintenance work items en masse. An automated prioritisation system has
been developed which aids the production of a short list based on quantifiable factors, with
this then being evaluated against ‘softer’ prioritisation issues, engineering judgement and
local factors to produce the annual programme.
2.5.3 Asset Management Toolkit
Leeds has adopted the use of the ‘Structures Asset Management Planning Toolkit’ developed
by the Department for Transport. This excel-based toolkit supports bridge engineers and
managers in their management of the st ructure stock. The toolk i t ass ists with
financial planning, prioritisation of needs, lifecycle planning, risk management and asset
valuation. The toolkit facilitates long-term asset management, financial planning and asset
valuation/depreciation for highway structures. This functionality of predicting future condition
and producing budget estimates for condition based repairs is being integrated into the works
planning and feasibility processes.
2.5.4 Key Performance Indicators
Key Performance indicators are a small set of indicators that are monitored and reported to
help measure progress in delivering the priorities and, over time, to help assess whether any
progress has been made towards the outcomes. The indicators either directly support the
Best Council Plan or help to demonstrate the effective and safe management of the highway
structure stock (Local Performance Indicator – LPI). The 2016 performance indicators are
listed below:
• % of Council owned structures in need of essential repair (KPI)
• Condition of structure stock (SCIav and SCIcrit) (LPI)
• % of Council owned structures with weight or width restrictions (LPI)
• Number of structures being monitored (LPI)
• % of programmed inspections completed (LPI)
2.6 Future Demands
All of Leeds’ highway structures will need to meet the increasing demands of the highway
network in terms of the overall objectives of network safety, sustainability and serviceability.
Specific future demands related to highway structures, include the following:
• Maintain structures to serve 44t vehicles and
improve the capacity where traffic demands
make this necessary
• Improvements in safety
• Strengthen bridges piers where they are
susceptible to impact
• Protect against foundation scour
• Maintain and improve the Leeds Inner Ring
Road (A58(M) / A64(M))
• Maintain Abnormal Loads routes and access
into developments
• Work with strategic partners to complete historic strengthening (Network Rail)
V2 – January 2018
Page 66
Part 2 – Structures Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
2.7 Creation / Acquisition
The creation of structures by the City takes
place as part of new road schemes. In
recent years, there have been a total of 8
bridges, 6 culverts and 18 retaining walls
created on the A63 East Leeds Link, Inner
Ring Road Stage 7 and the A65 Integrated
Transport Scheme.
Highways structures are sometimes
acquired through the adoption of highways
following housing and industrial
developments. Normally the developer is charged a commuted sum to pay for future
maintenance liabilities.
Historically bridges have been acquired from the former British Rail Property Board and the
Highways Agency. The authority acquired 24 bridges following de-trunking of the A6120,
A660, A65 and A63 in 2002 and 2010.
2.8 Disposal
Bridges can become redundant, for example after the closure of a railway line or a major road
scheme or a public realm project. During the decommissioning process every effort is made is
minimise future maintenance liability for the Authority and to landscape the area to remove
visual evidence of the structure.
V2 – January 2018
Page 67
Part 2 – Structures Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Part 3 – Lighting and Traffic Signals
Page 68
Part 2 – Structures Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
2016-2021
Part 3 – Lighting & Traffic Signals
V2 – January 2018
Page 69
Part 3 –Lighting and Traffic Signals Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Part 3 – Lighting and Traffic Signals
Lighting
3.1 Introduction
Street Lighting and illuminated signs maintenance is a significant aspect of network
management, both financially and in terms of its perceived importance to users, providing
direction and advice for all types of traffic. This Plan covers the management of key highway
infrastructure assets. However it does not cover the Street Lighting and illuminated signs both
of which are managed outside this plan and are covered by a Private Finance Initiative (PFI)
contract with Tay Valley Lighting (TVL)
3.2 Inventory
Type of Installation Number
Lighting Columns 93,866
Illuminated Bollards 3,609
Illuminated Signs 6,861
Zebra Crossings 329
School Crossing Patrol Flashers 65
Variable Message Signs (incoming
power supply and poles only) 22
Total 104,752
Traffic Signals
3.3 Introduction
Leeds City Council recognise the importance of traffic signals and other related assets ensuring
an effectively maintained and managed network, which contributes to the local economy and
assists in achieving corporate goals. This section outlines the agreed approach to effective
Asset Management giving clarity around standards and levels of service ensuring that available
resources are appropriately directed to maximise the benefit across Leeds.
Asset management is a tool to establish appropriate budget allocations by demonstrating the
effects of under-investment and the implications of not meeting safety and serviceability
requirements of the customers using the network.
3.4 Inventory
The highway network in Leeds has 632 traffic signal installations. Urban Traffic Management
Control (UTMC) teams are also responsible for the associated communications network and
computing, traffic monitoring CCTV, electronically variable road signs, bus priority units and
journey time measuring devises, and other related equipment. For the list of assets see table
3.4a/b/c below;
V2 – January 2018
Page 70
Part 3 –Lighting and Traffic Signals Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Type of Installation Number
Traffic Signalised Junctions 324
Stand Alone Crossings 308
Wig Wag signals (Fire Stations) 1
Total 633
Table 3.4a - Traffic Signals Inventory
Table 3.4b - Urban Traffic Management Control (UTMC) Installations
System Assets
UTC Yes
UTMC common database Yes
Communications Network Yes
Control Desk/ Room Yes
Table 3.4c - Urban Traffic Management Control (UTMC) Systems
A comprehensive database for all traffic signal installations is maintained. All salient attributes
of each traffic signal control installation are recorded. This allows easy analysis and reporting
of numbers of each physical/electrical unit, energy usage, expansion capability and control
strategies in operation, etc. Records are contained in a database linked to electronic data files,
drawings and photos.
These assets are used to manage traffic safely, balancing competing demands within defined
transport strategies to sustain the social and commercial well-being of the district.
A joint West Yorkshire maintenance contract has been in place since April 2013. As well as
providing considerable cost savings across the 5 districts, this joint contract ensures a uniform
approach and common standards across the area.
3.5 Asset Condition and Investigatory Levels
Electrical equipment needs to be electrically and physically safe, with everything in good
working condition. The communications, computer control and internal logical functions need
to be reliable so that control of timings and automatic fault reporting is fully functional. All
this requires equipment that is reliable to an acceptable standard and can be promptly and
cost effectively maintained.
Asset Type Number
Mast Arms / Catenary 74
Signals with Communications 533
Bus Priority (ACIS units) 37
CCTV Cameras 82
Variable Message Signs (VMS) (sign only) 22
Car Park Signs 12
Vehicle Actuated Signs (VAS) 32
Total 792
V2 – January 2018
Page 71
Part 3 –Lighting and Traffic Signals Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Factors relevant to safety, reliability and performance are the age of the asset, its fault history,
and its present condition.
Age. The asset database gives the age of the installation and the type of controller and
associated equipment. The age gives an indication of the likely condition of the hardware on
street. The equipment type identifies if the electronics are still available, or if spares are
difficult to obtain. The code of practise for traffic control and information systems (MCH
1869a) suggests a life expectancy of 15 years as being the viable limit beyond which major
traffic signal components become difficult to source and the integrity of the installation as a
whole can be compromised. The age of traffic installations across Leeds is given below. It can
be seen that a significant number of the Leeds asset is at risk due to age alone.
Average Age
(Years)
Number Greater
than 15 Years
Junction Signals 11.7 113
Pedestrian Crossings 9.8 70
Table 3.5 Age Profile of Traffic Signals
Asset average age will increase every year unless enough older signals are replaced to
maintain or reduce the average age. An ageing asset can rapidly become a liability.
Fault history. A 24/7 fault management system is in place, with faults automatically
highlighted by the UTMC computer, or by a member of the public or a responsible body. All
faults are recorded and a fault history can be extracted. Sites with a high number of faults are
investigated further, with a view to considering the appropriateness of a new replacement.
Condition. Included in the joint West Yorkshire maintenance contract is an annual inspection
of all signals. This includes an electrical safety test, a physical inspection of the on-street
furniture including rust, correct alignment and lamp faults. Urgent issues are dealt with
straight away with less urgent deterioration in condition being noted. A further site inspection
may be made by council staff. This information is taken into account in prioritising
maintenance.
Energy Consumption. Older signal equipment is very energy hungry, with electrical costs for
an average junction in excess of £1200 per annum. Modern traffic signals use low voltage LED
lamps, which are far more energy efficient. In addition there is a safety benefit as there is no
risk of mains voltage getting to signal poles in the event of a collision. Low voltage signals also
have a lower carbon footprint.
3.6 Levels of Service
For traffic signals Leeds City Council operates efficient economical systems to manage traffic
flow effectively, reduce congestion and allow automatic fault reporting. The systems
employed are maintained to a useable standard to ensure traffic conflicts are avoided and to
maintain safe passage for all highway users.
Pedestrian signals, and variable message signs (VMS) are managed in an effective an
affordable manner keeping the assets fit and safe for use by the community and are
maintained to a standard appropriate to their use.
V2 – January 2018
Page 72
Part 3 –Lighting and Traffic Signals Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
3.7 Lifecycle Planning (Replacement Strategy)
There is a clear need to keep traffic signal equipment working efficiently all of the time. As the
asset deteriorates there is an increased likelihood of failure, and increased frequency of
disruption to traffic, and it can take longer to affect a repair. Traffic signals can be
replaced/refurbished for the following reasons: urgent repair of a major fault, as part of a
specific road scheme, as part of an energy reduction programme, or as part of a planned
maintenance programme.
The aim of an effective maintenance strategy is to reduce the number of emergency repairs,
and to increase reliability and ensure good performance from all traffic signal installation.
Given the fact that planned replacement is much less disruptive than emergency replacement,
it is imperative to have an effective and consistent replacement strategy for traffic signals.
As the asset ages every year, the target of good asset management is to replace/upgrade
enough installations each year to maintain the average age and condition as that which is
deemed acceptable. Given the life of traffic signal equipment is generally calculated to be 15
years, the appropriate target average age should be 7.5 years.
• Consideration of variables. It is recognised that variables in rates of condition and
deterioration means that some signals perform well even after 15 years. Conversely,
some equipment can rust or otherwise become a safety hazard and need replacing
before that time. Sometimes signals are replaced or upgraded, partially or fully, due to
a new scheme for a site, an energy saving programme, or due to accident damage. A
degree of micro management in the programme is therefore essential.
• Factors determining the strategy. The information listed above – age, fault history,
condition and energy consumption – are all recorded in a database, and form an
essential input into the decision matrix. The strategic importance of a site is also
significant. The other important factor is opportunity.
3.8 Programming and Prioritising
Priority is decided on considering projected lifespan in conjunction with a series of key tests
against a scoring system. Allocation of resources is be prioritised against the traffic signal
installations accruing the highest accumulated score, addressing the real issue of risk
reduction in a more informed manner.
1. Test One: Age, Condition and fault history (Maintainability). - Some installations fair
better than others. Our knowledge base permits accurate value judgements of
condition to be made. A total programme of prospective works based on a 15 year
age ceiling and gathered intelligence informs a base wish list against which successive
tests will be made. By inference, all installations considered for the refurbishment
programme must first meet this test.
2. Test Two: Opportunity - To maximise the value of available budgets, opportunities
would be sought to tie refurbishments to other capital and revenue projects.
Inevitably, some of these will be direct asset enhancement projects in their own right
as transportation strategies seek to deliver more from our intelligent transport
systems. Carriageway resurfacing and other work requiring traffic management can
provide an opportune time to replace signals without additional disruption for road
users and additional costs for the authority.
3. Test Three: Strategic Importance. - The strategic value of an installation can be
defined in its commercial, political and social importance to the highway network and
may be considered as being directly proportional to the accompanying risks
V2 – January 2018
Page 73
Part 3 –Lighting and Traffic Signals Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
associated through an extended collapse in operations. Professional judgement
would be used to qualify the low/medium/high strategic importance of specific traffic
signal installations.
4. Test Four: Energy Efficiency. - The fact that replacing an older installation with low
voltage LED signals increases safety, reduces running costs and lowers the carbon
footprint means that there is additional benefit in replacing this equipment.
These factors are combined in a spreadsheet (see table 3.4) to give a priority ranking of all
sites. While this ranking is not static – condition may be found to have deteriorated, or there
may be an unexpected opportunity – it serves as a decision making tool that is objective and
functional.
Site Score Maintainability Opportunity Importance Energy
Efficiency Total Score
Obsolescence,
availability of parts,
fault history
Relation to key
road network
1= low
priority for
maintenance
1 No problems No opportunity Low traffic Extra Low
voltage (ELV)
2 Better than average n/a n/a n/a
3 Average small opportunity
(limited time)
Busy but not
key
Low Voltage
(LV) & LED
4 Hard to maintain n/a n/a n/a
5 Unmaintainable major opportunity On WY key
network Halogen
Junction
A 3 1 1 1 6
Table 3.8 – Asset Assessment Matrix
3.9 Measuring deliverables
The result of a good asset management plan will be maintaining the average age of equipment
as close to 7.5 years as possible, and reducing the number of faults across the whole network.
While there are other less tangible benefits, these two factors are objective, easily obtained,
and in fact serve as a proxy for less tangible benefits such as safety, smooth traffic flow, etc..
3.10 Performance Monitoring
Continued pressure on the Council’s revenue budget, and, in particular, the resulting under
investment in the operation and maintenance budget has required a prioritisation of the
services provided. The performance indicators listed below supports the asset management
strategy by having a systematic approach to measuring performance.
Indicator Ref Description Reported
LKI 1 Percentage of faults where the maintenance contractor attends within the
contract time Monthly
LKI 2 Percentage of faults where the maintenance contractor repairs within the
contract time Monthly
LKI 3 Percentage of periodic inspections performed on time by PEEK Monthly
LKI 4 Percentage of all signals across the city under UTMC control or monitoring Monthly
V2 – January 2018
Page 74
Part 3 –Lighting and Traffic Signals Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
LKI 5 Average age of traffic signals controller (years) Monthly
LKI 6 Percentage of pedestrian crossings compliant with DDA tactile equipment Monthly
LKI 7 Cumulative number of unique visitors to Leeds Travel Info website Monthly
LKI 8 Number of signal switch ons in Leeds (new or modified) Monthly
Table 3.10 – Showing the suite of Performance Indicators
The Local Highways and Transportation Performance Indicators (LKI) are the indicators that
the section manager considers to be of high importance and require a strong focus.
Information on progress against these performance indicator targets are monitored on a
monthly basis within Highways and Transportation.
V2 – January 2018
Page 75
Part 3 –Lighting and Traffic Signals Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Part 4 – Drainage
Page 76
Part 4 –Drainage Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset
Management Plan
Highway Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan
2016-2021
Part 4 – Drainage
V2 – January 2018
Page 77
Part 4 –Drainage Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Part 4 – Drainage 4.1 Introduction
The drainage asset is a substantial asset group within the Leeds City highway network,
comprising of a number of asset elements. Owing to the nature of the differing maintenance
needs these are managed more effectively by splitting then into two main groups:
a. Highways Drainage - Highway gullies, Linear drainage systems
b. Other Drainage Features – Culverts <900mm in width (Culverts >900mm in width are
within the scope of the Part 2, Structures), Debris screens, Catchpits, Pumping Stations,
Petrol Oil Interceptors, watercourses, etc
The condition of the drainage asset is proven to have a direct influence on the deterioration of
other highway assets, in particular the carriageway. Leeds City Council has adopted a
maintenance programme that seeks to minimise deterioration of other highway assets. For
the purposes of explaining the management of drainage assets in this plan the 2 main groups
are covered separately.
4A Highways Drainage
The council will ensure that the highway drainage asset is managed in an effective, efficient
and affordable manner, which limits the potential for blockages, to ensure effectiveness in
removing water efficiently from the surface of the highway.
4A.1 Inventory
Leeds City Council collected an inventory of both gullies and linear drainage assets during
2011-2013. These asset records are constantly updated following the adoption of new streets,
ongoing developments and changes to the highway. Table 4a.1 below shows the current
(December 2016) highway drainage asset inventory.
Asset Type Principal
Roads
B & C
Roads
Unclassified
Distributor
Roads
Local
Roads Footways Totals
Gullies including connection
(number) 15,357 7,422 7,327 113,208 3,105 146,421
Linear drainage - combined kerb
drainage systems (metres) 21,341 2,690 2,986 7,646 0 34,663
Linear drainage - channels with
grills or slots (metres) 2,227 438 857 4,098 291 7,911
Table 4A.1: Drainage Asset Inventory
4A.2 Asset Condition Standard by Element
In July 2016 Leeds City Council invested in KaarbonTech Gully Smart technology which is a
suite of asset management software which assists in the planning of cyclic operations,
monitoring and data capture of drainage activities. The software is used daily by cleansing
teams and data is collected relating to the condition of drainage assets. This information
enables the efficient identification of repairs of any defective assets and will also assist in
future changes to gully cleaning frequencies.
V2 – January 2018
Page 78
Part 4 –Drainage Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
The maintenance implications for safety, serviceability and sustainability of the above drainage
items are shown in the table 4A.2 below.
Asset Element
Network Safety Network Serviceability Network Sustainability
Gullies
And
Linear
Drainage
Systems
Accumulations of water on
carriageways, footways and cycle
routes can increase risks to the
safety of highway users, or
frontagers, particularly on high
speed roads and when standing
water exists in freezing
conditions.
Displaced or damaged inspection
covers and frames can be a
hazard to highway users
Accumulations of water on
roads, footways and cycle
tracks can lead to an
accelerated deterioration
of road surfaces that are
close to the end of their
serviceable life. Also
damage to adjacent
properties due to spray
thrown up by passing
vehicles. In some cases
ineffective or non-existent
drainage systems can lead
to flooding of adjacent
properties.
Pollution of roadside watercourses can
occur due to contaminated run off from
carriageways.
Inadequate drainage will reduce the
effective life of road pavements and may
cause nuisance to adjoining landowners by
flooding.
Roadside gullies require periodic cleansing.
Arising’s may contain pollutants and should
be disposed of at licensed sites
Table 4A.2 Maintenance Implications
4A.3 Levels of Service
Levels of Service form a key part in the management of any asset. In order to successfully
manage an asset it is vital to have defined levels of service that clearly reflect users and
stakeholders’ demands and expectations for each asset group. This must be balanced against
the cost of providing the service, whilst also taking account of the highway authority’s
statutory duties and the council’s strategic goals.
The reason for cleaning gullies and linear drainage systems is to remove detritus to ensure all
elements of the highway drainage system work effectively and efficiently so that surface water
is captured and discharged appropriately. This reduces the likelihood of standing water and
minimises flood risk on the highway.
The frequency of cleansing depends upon the location, volume of detritus, degree of tree
cover, gradient of the terrain, level of rainfall and frequency of sweeping. Cleansing is
therefore arranged on a cyclic basis, dependent upon location and subsequent risks to road
users of flooding should the drainage asset not function properly.
Historically, gullies were programmed to be cleansed three times over a two year period and
outputs were not linked to the maintenance needs of the asset. With the introduction of
KaarbonTech Gully Smart technology, all gullies will be cleansed by June 2018 to identify the
gully cleansing effectiveness. From 2019 onwards a risk based approach will be introduced
based on the data gathered.
Linear drainage system cleansing frequencies have not been defined previously and hence
there has not been a consistent approach to their maintenance. Again, additional data
gathered by 2018 will be used to develop an appropriate risk based cleansing regime.
The levels of service to be adopted for 2017/18 to 2021/22 are shown in table 4A.3
V2 – January 2018
Page 79
Part 4 –Drainage Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Asset Element Service Level (minimum�, fair��, good��� and excellent����)
Drainage Systems
Gully
Linear drainage system
� 3 to 4 years to complete a full cycle of all gullies. Hit and miss service to cleanse known
problematic wet spot gullies at an increased frequency (gullies which are identified by highways/
flood risk management as being in need of a more regular cleanse due to location, historical flooding
issues etc.). Backlog of drainage faults increasing. Ad hoc response to cleansing linear drainage
systems.
�� . Cleansing frequency less than need and prioritised on traffic use. Inspection undertaken in
response to flooding events. Backlog of drainage faults still high but reducing. Planned programme for
cleansing linear drainage systems.
��� Gullies on resilient network cleansed annually, gullies in areas identified as being prone to
flooding cleansed quarterly, all other gullies categorised as low risk will be cleansed bi-annually.
Backlog of drainage faults reduced. Gullies and silt traps contained within linear drainage lengths will
be cleansed at the frequencies stated above. Linear drainage itself will be cleansed when identified
from a safety inspection or when a report is received.
��� � Cleansing frequency is risk based and stated timescales achieved. Backlog of drainage faults
at manageable levels and achieving identified timescales for repair. Achieving cleansing frequency for
linear drainage systems.
Current Service Level
� 3 to 4 years to complete a full cycle of all gullies. Hit and miss service to cleanse known problematic
gullies in ‘flooding hotspots’ at an increased frequency (gullies which are identified by highways/
flood risk management as being in need of a more regular cleanse due to location, historical flooding
issues etc.). Backlog of drainage faults increasing
Proposed Service Level
Introduction of KaarbonTech Gully Smart and other identified improvements will assist in improving
the current level of service and by June 2018 the aim is to achieve a ��� Service Level
Table 4A.3 – Levels of Service for Drainage 2017-2022
4A.4 Inspection, Assessment and Recording
The highway drainage assets will be inspected during the following operations;
• Highway safety inspections,
• Cyclical cleansing operations
Highway Safety Inspections
Item Defect
Standing Water Standing water two hours after cessation of rainfall
1.5m from edge of c/way
Substantial running water across carriageway
Substantial running water across footway
Property inundation as a result of defective highway drainage
Drainage Substantial standing water adjacent to edge of c/way
Gully grate cover and frame damaged or missing
Gully grate cover and frame depressed or rocking >40mm
Blocked gully (silted above outlet)
Collapsed/blocked/ settled items or systems
V2 – January 2018
Page 80
Part 4 –Drainage Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Cyclical Cleansing Operations
During cleansing operations crews will assess;
• The condition of the gully grating and the frame
• The condition of the silt trap and its connection
• Silt levels
4A.5 Highways Drainage Strategy
The approach to cyclical maintenance of highway gullies is to undertake an optimised
programme of cyclical cleansing across the city with cleansing frequencies based on historical
levels of silt recorded during previous cleaning cycles. This risk based approach minimises the
unnecessary cleansing of gullies and ensures gullies requiring higher cleaning frequencies are
attended to.
A GIS (Graphical Information System) showing the position of all gullies and linear drainage is
used to record location details. This will be enhanced by the KaarbonTech Gully Smart
technology to electronically record each gully visited during cyclical cleaning to build a history
of maintenance. This record will include the following details:
• Street name and ward name
• Date and time attended
• A unique gully asset reference / gully type
• Location coordinates (via GPS)
• Percentage of silt found in the gully prior to cleaning
• Defects (if any present)
• Reason if gully obstructed from cleaning (parked car, stuck lid etc.)
The silt level data for each gully is recorded, which is then compared with other gullies along
the same sections of road and an appropriate cleansing frequency for the section of network
is determined. The cleaning frequencies currently used are:
• Once every 6 months – Utilising electronic mapping techniques gully positions have
been mapped against known flooding hotspots. This helps to align and identify any areas
that may affect the highway during prolonged heavy rainfall when for example local rivers
and streams struggle with the amount of rainfall and surcharge the gully network. Whilst
in most cases this will be beyond the council’s control it will assist understanding of
individual locations and their effect on the network in terms of potential accelerated
highway deterioration.
• Once every 12 months (annually) - Utilising electronic mapping techniques gully
positions have been mapped against the City’s resilient network, which consist of principal
roads and routes to emergency services (police, fire, ambulance and hospitals). It also
gives priority to economic links between localities and to the wider national network.
• Once every 24 months (bi-annually) – All remaining gullies not included in the above
cyclic frequencies.
When sufficient data is available in the KaarbonTech Gully Smart system it will be reviewed
and the frequency of cleansing will be increased or reduced as appropriate to ensure gullies
are cleaned at a frequency appropriate to the levels of demand.
V2 – January 2018
Page 81
Part 4 –Drainage Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
4A.6 Programming and Priorities
A risk based strategy to prioritise drainage maintenance is in place and will be reviewed after
2018.
Maintenance is undertaken as follows;
Cyclic
Maintenance
Current Regime Works History Lifecycle Impacts
Gullies A minimum of once every two
years in all locations but more
frequently for those sites
identified as at a higher risk
of blockage or prone to
flooding.
All works are recorded onto the
KaarbonTech Gully Smart
System which records and
monitors gully cleansing
operations.
Regular gully cleaning helps to
alleviate flooding problems and
reduces the rate of deterioration
of the highway network.
Sometimes a gully may appear to be blocked but the problem could be with the piped system into which the gully is
connected. Such blockages can ordinarily be cleared by high pressure water jetting of the connection. Initially this
type of report along with other defects (e.g. gully pot full with concrete/tarmac etc.) will be passed to the jetting
team. The cleansing team will assess the gully location and prioritise any service requests to the jetting teams using
the following risk based priorities:
Work Priority 1: High
• Locations where flooding affects or is quite likely to affect a dwelling
• locations where standing water is at a critical location for braking or turning
• locations where standing water is on a high speed road and may lead to safety issues
Work Priority 2: Medium
• locations adjacent to well used footways
• locations adjacent to footways near elderly person's homes
• locations where flooding problems are frequent and have been persistent for some years
Work Priority 3: Low
• locations not covered by the above two priorities
Reactive
Maintenance
Current Regime Works History Lifecycle Impacts
Gully Repair Isolated gully repairs are
identified from;
1. reports received from
the gully cleaning team
2. reports received from
the public
3. safety inspections
Damaged gullies are recorded
onto the appropriate systems
which will be regularly
interrogated and the
appropriate action taken. This
action will be recorded and the
system updated.
Repairs to gullies are reactive
which when completed can have
the effect of reducing the need for
greater drainage maintenance at a
later time.
Cleaning of linear
drainage.
Identified from safety
inspections or when standing
water is reported.
These are recorded onto the
appropriate systems which will
be regularly interrogated and
the appropriate action taken.
Regular cleaning of these assets
would help to alleviate standing
water problems and reduce the
rate of degradation of the
drainage asset.
Blocked gullies referred by cleansing teams will be attended by a jetting team who will attempt to clear any
blockage by high pressure jetting. If the team is unable to clear a blockage or additional work is identified it will be
placed on a list for routine maintenance and prioritised as per jetting referrals.
V2 – January 2018
Page 82
Part 4 –Drainage Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Routine
Maintenance
Current Regime Works History Lifecycle Impacts
Gully connections and
piped systems.
A list of known drainage
defects is maintained, with
each site being subject to
investigation to establish
proposed solutions. Funds are
then allocated to undertake
repairs based on a priority
rating and within the available
budget.
All works are recorded onto a
computerised database (Insight).
Repairs to the drainage system are
reactive and only if they are noticed
at an early stage can they have the
effect of reducing the need for
greater drainage maintenance at a
later time.
Blocked gullies that cannot be cleared by high pressure jetting may require other works for example
• CCTV survey may be needed to establish if the connection has been broken by other work in the road (i.e.
by statutory undertakers) or penetrated by tree roots.
• Broken gully pot which requires replacing
• Broken or damaged gully lid or frame and requires replacing
• Gully pot filled with concrete, tarmac etc. and requires digging out
• Repair to connection or pipework
Where a CCTV survey or other investigatory works determines that extensive work (beyond one day’s work) is
necessary the work will be placed on a list for planned maintenance and prioritised as per jetting referrals.
Planned
Maintenance
Current Regime Works History Lifecycle Impacts
Gully connections and
piped systems.
A list of known drainage
defects is maintained, with
each site being subject to
investigation to establish
proposed solutions. Funds are
then allocated to undertake
repairs based on a priority
rating and within the
available budget.
All works are recorded onto a
computerised database
(Insight).
Repairs to the drainage system are
reactive and only if they are
noticed at an early stage can they
have the effect of reducing the
need for greater drainage
maintenance at a later time.
Planned maintenance repairs are identified either as explained above or through a number of sources e.g. flood investigation,
stakeholders, and highway inspections. If after the investigation further repairs to the gully, connection or pipe are determined
then a separate works instruction will be created. The work will be included on a prioritised list and subject to funding the work
will be passed to the appropriate contractor to undertake the necessary repairs.
Reports (Service requests)
At present there is a backlog of gullies that require cleansing and as a result the number of
reports is higher than it could be. When a report is received relating to a blocked gully it will
initially be passed to one of the gully teams to cleanse. Currently the aim is to cleanse
reported gullies within 20 days.
Once all gullies within the city have been cleansed and an appropriate cleaning frequency
determined for each gully based on observed silt levels, among other factors including
information from customers and inspector reports, blocked gullies will not be cleaned on a
request basis unless it is part of a response to flooding on the highway.
V2 – January 2018
Page 83
Part 4 –Drainage Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
4A.7 Forward Works Programme
With the introduction of KaarbonTech Gully Smart technology, all gullies will be cleansed by
June 2018 and the gully cleansing effectiveness identified. From 2019 onwards a risk based
approach will be introduced based on asset inventory data and information relating to
observed silt levels.
Forward Works Programme 2017 to 2019 2019 Onwards
Cyclic Maintenance Collect inventory and condition
data for highway drainage gullies
including linear drainage
Risk Based drainage cleansing
programme i.e. gullies and linear
drainage
Reactive Maintenance Not applicable as this work is reactive by nature
Routine Maintenance Prioritised list of work
Planned Maintenance Prioritised list of work measured and priced.
Table 4A.7.1 – Forward Works Programme
A cyclic gully cleansing programme for Leeds has been created. It is available on the Leeds City
Council website in order that stakeholders can see what work has taken place in the year and
the programme for each ward.
The number of locations where planned maintenance (drainage) work is required far exceeds
the budget available and therefore work is prioritised based on road hierarchy (usage of the
affected asset), safety (risk to the public), impact of flooding (structural effects etc.) and traffic
speed. The outcome is a list of ranked streets based on priorities. See table below.
High Priority – e.g. where
flooding to public highway or
properties are imminent
Medium Priority – e.g. where
flooding to public highway or
properties are at risk
Low Priority – e.g. where flooding to
public highway or properties are
occasionally at risk
Work required to be carried
out within a short timescale
subject to funding
Work required to be carried out
within a reasonable timescale
subject to funding
Work required to be carried out within
the Council’s Programme of Works, and
timescale subject to funding being
available
Table 4A.7.2 – Priorities for Planned Drainage Repairs
The ranked list of sites requiring maintenance will form the basis of the drainage planned
maintenance programme of work. The full list contains between three and five years’ worth of
work. In year one each scheme will be fully measured and priced, schemes in following years
are allocated estimated costs.
4A.8 Performance
A number of performance indicators applicable to the drainage asset will be introduced,
however gully cleansing is currently under review and at present there are no defined
performance indicators. The introduction of KaarbonTech Gully Smart will assist in the
collection of gully data and will identify gully cleansing effectiveness.
V2 – January 2018
Page 84
Part 4 –Drainage Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
To be consistent with West Yorkshire neighbouring authorities the following will be used as an
interim measure of performance.
Indicator Ref Description Reported
LKI 10 % of Road Gullies cleansed on time Monthly
4A Other Drainage Features
This section is under development and will be added as soon as it has been
prepared
V2 – January 2018
Page 85
Part 4 –Drainage Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Part 4 – Drainage
Page 86
Part 4 –Drainage Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset
Management Plan
Highway Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan
2016-2021
Part 5 – Service Review
Page 87
Part 5 – Service Review Leeds City Council – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan
Part 5 – Service Review 5.1 Introduction
Improvement actions have been undertaken throughout the development of this HIAMP,
particularly in relation to data collection, works prioritisation and development of forward works
programmes.
Further improvement actions have been identified within this plan that are key to the ongoing
implementation of asset management principles and as such are seen as a priority within the
service.
Leeds City Council is committed to improving the management and maintenance of its highway
infrastructure and is keen to engage all parties in progress towards providing a safe, accessible,
economically viable, environmentally friendly and well maintained asset.
5.2 Future Developments / Improvement Actions
Improvement actions necessary for an asset management approach may have varying impacts on
current business processes and/or the organisation’s culture. Some may take considerable time
and/or additional funding to implement before finally reaping the benefits, while others can be
introduced more easily with little adverse effect on current systems or procedures, giving some
early “quick-wins”.
The following topics are included within the review.
• Adequacy of inventory information/data.
• Adequacy of condition information/data.
• Review levels of service and consult with stakeholders.
• Continuous review of the forward works programmes.
• Review investment strategy.
• Continue to review risk assessment strategy.