ANNUAL LOCAL AUTHORITY ROAD MAINTENANCE (ALARM) SURVEY 2002

Transcription

1 ANNUAL LOCAL AUTHORITY ROAD MAINTENANCE (ALARM) SURVEY 2002 STRICT EMBARGO NOT FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE HRS, TUESDAY, 21st MAY May 2002

2 Contents Contact Details 3 Foreword 4 Introduction 5 Information Gathering 6 Key Findings Chart 7 ALARM SURVEY 2002 FINDINGS 1a Total Road Maintenance Budget 8 1b Structural Maintenance 9 2 Reactive Maintenance 11 3 Necessary Maintenance Budget 14 4 Percentage of Necessary Budget Received 14 5 Budget Shortfall 15 6 Road Surface Frequency 18 7 Road Surface Frequency by type of road 20 8 Structural Maintenance 22 9 Visual Defects Road-User Insurance Claims Road-User Safety 30 Asphalt Industry Alliance 31 Quarry Products Association 32 Refined Bitumen Association 33 Page Number 2

3 For further information on the ALARM Survey contact: Asphalt Press Office HMPR 14a Eccleston Street London SW1W 9LT Tel.: Fax.:

4 Foreword by Jim Crick, chairman of the Asphalt Industry Alliance For the past seven years the Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance (ALARM) Survey has acted as a conduit for information from local authorities as to the state of their roads and maintenance funding. By conducting and publishing the ALARM Survey and from regular meetings with groups of local authorities the AIA aims to give voice to the views of those directly responsible for looking after 95 per cent of Britain s roads. The main strength of the ALARM Survey is that its findings are based purely on statistical information and evidence supplied by those responsible for the upkeep of our roads. It is not based on projections or suppositions. The fact that nearly half (47 per cent) of Britain s local authorities have responded to this year s survey not only indicates the importance with which it is regarded, but also means that statistically the results of the survey are extremely robust. This year s ALARM Survey findings would indicate that local authorities are not yet realising the increased level of funding for road maintenance which the Government has promised. Those responsible for our roads are forced to juggle budgets, robbing Peter to pay Paul to try and maintain roads. As professional engineers they recognise that they are often just papering over the cracks and that this is going to create greater maintenance problems and disruption to road users in the future. It is clear from all the feedback we obtain from local authority highways departments that there is a problem at a local level in securing an adequate share of money provided from central Government. Highways engineers are well aware that they are bidding against education and health departments for local authority funds and recognise that to maintain roads adequately they need secured funding. One area of prime concern is the amount of money now being paid out by local authorities or their insurers for damage to vehicles or injuries as a result of the structural state of roads. Last year over 120 million was paid out in such claims, this is equivalent to a fifth of local authorities road maintenance budget for last year. And, local authorities are now claiming they pay more in legal expenses than they pay out to claimants. Interestingly, at a time when Government is looking at the possibilities of the further devolution of power to regional assemblies, according to the ALARM Survey the devolved areas of Scotland, Wales and London would seem to have faired worse in terms of the state of roads than England. Those advocating further devolution might want to investigate further the impact it has on local authority services. Finally, thank you to all those in local authority highways departments who made the effort, often in their own time to provide information for the survey. The only way we can improve road maintenance and the funding situation is by highlighting the problem; to do that we are totally reliant on the information you provide. Jim Crick Chairman, AIA 4

5 Introduction The is the seventh Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance (ALARM) Survey. The survey was first conducted, before the formation of the Asphalt Industry Alliance, by the Refined Bitumen Association (RBA) in Members of the RBA were of the opinion that the findings of the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey (NRMCS) at the time did not truly reflect the state of Britain s roads. In particular, the RBA felt that in relation to local authority-controlled roads, the NRMCS findings were not consistent with the views of road users, highways maintenance managers and the highway maintenance industry and anecdotal evidence from these groups. The RBA sought to collect data on the true state of the roads, road maintenance and road maintenance funding, to establish whether or not the anecdotal evidence it was receiving from various sources did reflect the actual situation. The ALARM Survey collects and analyses data and views in relation to local authority-controlled roads only. These roads represent approximately 95 per cent of Britain s road network. The survey does not gather data or examine the situation with regard to the national road network (ie. motorways and trunk roads which, in England, are the responsibility of the Highways Agency). As organisations and companies making up the road-maintenance industry, it is of obvious commercial interest for members of the AIA to encourage more money to be spent on road maintenance. However, the ALARM Survey does not reflect the views and opinions of the AIA or its members. The survey s findings present the facts as supplied by those responsible for local authority road maintenance throughout Britain these are independently analysed. By collating this information from local authorities throughout Britain the AIA is giving voice to the views of those responsible for the maintenance of approximately 95 per cent of the road network. 5

6 Information Gathering The ALARM Survey gathers information and views from those responsible for the maintenance of local authority-controlled roads in England, Scotland and Wales. A comprehensive questionnaire dealing with road maintenance funding, levels of planned and reactive maintenance, road-user safety and maintenance materials is issued each winter to those responsible for maintenance in each local authority. The results are analysed at the start of each year and the findings published in the spring. The level of response to the survey has generally been between per cent of local authorities completing and returning the ALARM Survey questionnaire. The findings of the 2002 survey are based on information supplied by 47 per cent of local authorities with highway maintenance responsibilities in England, Scotland and Wales. To encourage as candid a response as possible, those participating in the ALARM Survey are assured that information they provide will not be made available to any third party and that their data and comments will not be directly attributed to them in any report. Report Comment In April 2002 a focus group of those responsible for highway maintenance in local authorities in Britain met to discuss and place in practical context the findings of the 2002 survey. Comments in this report are representative of the views expressed at that focus group meeting and other comments made directly to the AIA. To encourage candid responses, as with the information provided in the survey s questionnaires, the comments made at the focus meeting are not attributable to any specific person or local authority. 6

7 KEY FINDINGS OF ASPHALT INDUSTRY ALLIANCE 2002 ANNUAL LOCAL AUTHORITY ROAD MAINTENANCE (ALARM) SURVEY ALL ENGLAND SCOTLAND WALES LONDON (exc. London) Shortfall in road structural maintenance budget 1,210m 499m 288m 193m 67m (average per authority) 7.2m 5.8m 9.0m 10.7m 2.1m Percentage of authorities which believe there is a threat or major threat to 80% 74% 86% 85% 90% road users' safety due to road maintenance under funding Increase in claims by road users against local authorities for damage to vehicles or 102% 144% 60% 35% 46% road traffic accidents due to road structural conditions over past 10 years. Amount paid out last year in such claims 121m 92m 2.2m n/a 34m (average per authority) 721k 1,064k 70k n/a 1,065k Staff time per year spent working on such claims 33k days 21k days 3.8k days n/a 4.6k days (average per authority) 194 days 240 days 119 days n/a 143 days Frequency of road surfacing * 1 (10-20 years recommended depending on road type) 84 years 78 years 120 years 47 years 35 years Increase in need for structural maintenance over past 10 years 98% 58% 106% 200% 145% Increase in visual defects *2 over past 10 years 89% 68% 104% 85% 125% Percentage of budget used on reactive maintenance 31% 30% 29% 32% 43% Total road structural maintenance budget 669m 552m 82m 25m 36m (average per authority) 3.9m 6.4m 2.6m 1.4m 1.1m *1 *2 based on current budgets visual defects are defects which can be seen in the road structure and include cracking, deterioration, patching and potholes Data in the ALARM Survey is based on information supplied to the Asphalt Industry Alliance by 47 per cent of local authorities in England, Scotland & Wales between December 2001 and March The information is based on 2001/2002 local authority budgets.

8 ALARM SURVEY 2002 FINDINGS The ALARM Survey investigates the effects of the level of maintenance funding on the condition of roads and the impact on planned maintenance. Apart from question 1a in the survey questionnaire, the survey relates to the maintenance of the road surface and structure, that is the carriageway itself. It does not include structural work to bridges, street lighting, and cyclical maintenance (such as sweeping, grass cutting, checking of traffic signals and replacement of street furniture). The 2002 ALARM Survey findings are based on local authority road maintenance budgets for 2001/ a. TOTAL ROAD MAINTENANCE BUDGET Q. What is your total local authority road maintenance budget for 2001/2002 (including bridge and cyclical maintenance)? ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) million per authority (average) This indicates that overall in Britain the total local authority budget for all types of road maintenance, including bridge and cyclical maintenance is in the order of over 1.7bn for 2001/2002. The UK Government raised around 40bn last year in roaduser taxation (vehicle and fuel tax). 8

9 1b. Structural Maintenance Q. What percentage of this total 2001/2002 road maintenance budget is spent on structural maintenance to carriageways (ie. surface treatment, new surface layer, reconstruction or patching for the road itself)? ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) average 40% 46% 39% 28% 24% percentage million per authority (average) This indicates that overall in Britain around 670m is spent by local authorities on structural maintenance to carriageways in 2001/02. 9

10 Local authority highways engineers comment (structural maintenance): We do no major maintenance to anything other than A roads. Our highway budget is insufficient, unable to meet expectations and demands made upon us by the public. Over the past two years we have seen an increase in what we got previously. But, for my local authority it certainly is not enough to meet the Government s 10-year objectives. We can t plan how to spend because we do not know whether or not our budget is going to be cut. I can t commit staff to design and plan schemes because I don t know how much money I will be getting. 10

11 2. REACTIVE MAINTENANCE Q. What percentage of the carriageway maintenance budget (Q1b) is spent on reactive maintenance as opposed to planned maintenance? ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) average 31% 30% 29% 32% 43% percentage Just under a third of all funds available to local authorities in Britain for carriageway maintenance is spend on reactive maintenance. Reactive maintenance is classified as reacting to repair faults such as potholes in carriageways as they are reported. Reactive maintenance is considerably more expensive than planned preventative maintenance. From experience, the AIA estimates that reacting to maintenance needs costs ten times more than implementing a planned maintenance programme. Reactive maintenance is expensive in labour costs and rarely solves the underlying problem which caused the fault to appear. Reactive maintenance is a make-do-and-mend solution that does not prolong the life of a road but purely paints over the cracks. 11

12 PERCENTAGE OF BUDGET USED ON REACTIVE MAINTENANCE Percentage Year 12

13 Local authority highways engineers comment (reactive maintenance): Reactive maintenance is a result of lack of maintenance. The reactive works are caused by the fact that we haven t done the planned works. It becomes a vicious circle because we re pulling money out of what I would term the planned-to-do action works. That means we re not doing as much planned resurfacing works because we re not doing as much planned resurfacing works we have to do more patching works because we are spending money on doing more patching works we are and it goes on. Reactive maintenance is caused because we re not doing the maintenance we want to. The reason we have to patch is that we re not being proactive in carrying out reconstruction and resurfacing programmes. You go down and patch a road and when you inspect it six months later you ll have to do some more patching. Whereas, if you had gone down the road and resurfaced it, six months later you wouldn t have to touch it that s the difference between planned and reactive maintenance. Maintenance remains responsive with no major resurfacing taking place. The problem is that the patching programme is driven by our highways inspections. The inspector goes out and finds a defect we then have to make it good. Therefore, I really have no control over where that money is spent. You spend a lot of time patching up and resurfacing roads using resources which would otherwise have been spent on maintaining the rest of the network. 13

14 3. NECESSARY MAINTENANCE BUDGET Q. What carriageway maintenance budget would you require to adequately maintain the roads in your area? ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) million per authority (average) 4. PERCENTAGE OF NECESSARY BUDGET RECEIVED AND SPENT ON ROADS ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) average 36% 53% 22% 12% 35% percentage This indicates that local authorities in Britain are receiving just over a third of the budget they require to maintain adequately their roads. Figures for Wales and Scotland are particularly concerning with Welsh local authority highways departments being able to spend just over a tenth of what they claim they require to maintain their roads adequately. In Scotland local authority highways departments last year received less than a quarter of the funds they claim they required to maintain their roads adequately. 14

15 5 BUDGET SHORTFALL ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) million per authority (average) Overall in Britain there is a shortfall in 2001/02 budgets for carriageway maintenance in the region of 1.2bn. This figure has remained reasonably consistent over the past four years, ranging between 1bn to 1.5bn shortfall annually. 15

16 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE BUDGET SHORTFALL 1,600 1,400 1,476 1,319 1,200 1,191 1,210 1,000 1,011 Million Year 16

17 Local authority highways engineers comment (budget): A significant amount of time is spent on purely sorting out budgets. The Highways Department is always such an easy target for the chop. Surely they cannot cut any more! We are not getting our fair share. As long as the money for roads can be used for other things most highway schemes will keep being pushed to the bottom because the member [councillor] wants a social centre or school. These things will always be a higher priority. The decision elected members [councillors] have to make is, do they spend the money on what it has been allocated for, or do they say we re not going to spend it on roads, we re going to spend it on social services? The lack of money means that we are saving up problems for the long term. The physical durability of the carriageway is not being improved and we are going to find that it gives up at some point. We are dealing with politicians whose mindset is the next election. So, if the road looks good they are re-elected. They don t care if it s falling apart underneath. In between elections the condition of roads in people s streets is their number one priority. But, when it comes to election time that doesn t translate to the ballot box. The chairmanship of the council s highways committee is the most unpopular. Nobody wants it, because they know they will never get the money to do things properly. 17

18 6. ROAD SURFACE FREQUENCY Q. What is the average current frequency of surfacing? ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) average 84 yrs 78 yrs 120 yrs 47 yrs 35 yrs no of years It is recommended that, for safety reasons and as part of a cost-effective, planned maintenance programme, in general an asphalt road should be resurfaced every years depending on the road type and the level of traffic it carries. 18

19 PROJECTIVE FREQUENCY OF ROAD SURFACING OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS (ALL ROADS) Number of Years Date 19

20 7. ROAD SURFACE FREQUENCY by type of road (Please answer this question if carriageway maintenance in your area is under-funded) Q. How has the budget shortfall affected the frequency of surfacing on: principal roads; non-principal roads; unclassified roads? Principal roads resurfacing, once per ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) average 40 yrs 34 yrs 60 yrs 33 yrs 25 yrs no of years Non-principal roads resurfacing, once per ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) average 61 yrs 54 yrs 89 yrs 50 yrs 33 yrs no of years Unclassified roads resurfacing, once per ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) average 87 yrs 89 yrs 100 yrs 99 yrs 40 yrs no of years (A high proportion of local authority roads are unclassified) 20

21 Local authority highways engineers comment (road surfacing): Maintenance remains responsive with no major resurfacing taking place. Even if we do resurface all we are doing is producing a good surface, not necessarily doing anything to the structure underneath. Sometimes the surface of the road may seem ok to the public, but underneath the road may be approaching failure which will mean major disruption and roadworks. 21

22 8. STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE Q. By how much has the need for structural maintenance work increased/decreased over the last 10 years? ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) average 98% 58% 106% 200% 145% percentage increase 46 per cent did not respond to this question. Only one local authority stated that its need for structural maintenance had decreased over the past 10 years the decrease stated was 80 per cent. 22

23 Local authority highways engineers comment (structural maintenance): The worrying thing is that we are papering over the cracks. When the public sees smooth roads they don t realise how weak it all is underneath. We had an inspection of our roads and found that 80 per cent of our non-principal roads were basically beyond repair. There are certain types of inspections we have not carried out in five to six years on the basis that we do not have the money to do anything so, what is the point in knowing which bits of the network are falling apart. 23

24 INCREASE IN NEED FOR STRUCTURAL MAINTAINCE OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS Percentage Year 24

25 9. VISUAL DEFECTS Q. By what percentage has the number of visual defects on the roads in your area increased/decreased over the past 10 years? (Visual defects are defects which can be seen in the road structure and include cracking, deterioration, patching and potholes.) Only one per cent (represented by one English local authority) stated that the number of visual defects on roads in its area had decreased. ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) average 89% 68% 104% 85% 125% percentage increase 48 per cent did not respond to this question. Only one local authority stated that the number of visual defects had decreased over the past 10 years the decrease stated by this authority was 50 per cent. 25

26 10. ROAD-USER INSURANCE CLAIMS Q. By what percentage has the number of claims by motorists against your local authority for damage to vehicles or road traffic accidents due to road structural conditions increased/decreased over the past 10 years? Only three local authorities (all from England) stated that the number of claims by motorists against their local authorities had decreased over the past 10 years the average decrease was 40 per cent. Of those who stated that the number of claims had increased the breakdown was: Percentage increase ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) average 102% 144% 60% 35% 46% percentage increase 26

27 10. ROAD-USER INSURANCE CLAIMS (continued) Q. How much has your local authority or its insurer paid in such compensation over the past 12 months? ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London), , n/a* 1,065.0 per authority (* insufficient data received in response to this question) Overall in Britain 121 million was paid out by local authorities or their insurers last year for damage to vehicles or accidents caused by the structural condition of roads. Q. How much do you and your staff spend in work relating to such claims? Approximate hours per month. ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) average 129 hrs 160 hrs 79 hrs n/a* 95 hrs no of hours per month per authority (* insufficient data received in response to this question) The response by local authorities to this question indicates that overall in Britain something in the order of 33,000 workdays per year are being spent by local authorities in processing and dealing with motorists claims which related to the structural condition of the road. 27

28 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN CLAIMS Millions Year 28

29 Local authority highways engineers comment (insurance claims): A council like ours is being sued twice a day for negligence. Ten per cent of our budget is held against claims. It s due to the increasingly litigious nature of our society which makes claims for everything. This is encouraged by solicitors advertising no win, no fee offers. The average level of an accident claim for us has gone up from a couple of thousand pounds to five and a half thousand pounds. That increase is solely due to solicitors costs. On an average claim now we are paying 3,000 to the solicitors. We are paying more to the solicitors than we are paying to the claimants. Sometimes it is cheaper to pay out on claims than it is to carry out highway repairs. Over five years the amount of time we spend on claims has doubled. But, in what we have paid out we keep in control as we vigorously defend these claims. We have inspection procedures and we usually have some sort of defence. Every second person is claiming for alloy wheels. 29

30 11. ROAD-USER SAFETY (Please answer this question if carriageway maintenance in your area is under-funded) Q. In terms of road users safety, does under-funding of your highway maintenance programme crease (please highlight as appropriate): a major threat; a threat; a minor threat; no threat ALL England Scotland Wales London (exc London) major threat 18% 15% 24% 14% 20% threat 62% 59% 62% 71% 70% minor threat 16% 22% 14% 14% 0% no threat 1% 0% 0% 0% 10% not stated 3% 5% 0% 0% 0% This question has been included in the survey questionnaire for the past three years only. The percentage of local authorities which believe that the underfunding of road maintenance causes a threat or major threat to road-user safety has remained consistent at around 80 per cent over the past three years. 30

31 ASPHALT INDUSTRY ALLIANCE The Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) is an alliance of the Quarry Products Association (QPA) and the Refined Bitumen Association (RBA) and draws on the knowledge and resources of each association. It was established in 2000 to increase awareness of the asphalt industry and the uses and benefits of asphalt*. The AIA promotes the benefits of modern asphalt to the industry, specifiers, policymakers and the general public. The Association brings together the two principal bodies which represent the suppliers of the raw materials used to produce asphalt as well as asphalt producers and laying contractors. (*Asphalt is the generic term used to refer to the range of asphalts and coated macadams available in the UK) 31

32 Quarry Products Association The QPA is the UK s national trade association representing producers of aggregates (crushed rock, sand, gravel, slag and lime products) asphalt, ready mixed concrete, mortar and recycled materials. It also represents asphalt-laying contractors as well as companies manufacturing road-construction and quarrying plant and equipment. The Association funds research into asphalt and its uses and operates the Asphalt Information Service which provides general guidance and information on the use of asphalts in the wide range of their applications. The QPA represents its members interests on policy, planning and technical matters with government departments, local authorities, professional bodies and other key audiences at UK national and local level as well as in Europe. Key areas of QPA activities are: product issues, such as technical standards health and safety mineral planning public affairs and public relations European issues 32

33 Refined Bitumen Association Founded in 1968, the RBA is the trade association of the five largest UK bitumen suppliers who between them produce nearly all the UK s bitumen. Over 95 per cent of this is used in the construction and maintenance of bituminous, or asphalt roads these account for 95 per cent of all UK roads. The RBA is a consultative body formed to promote the technical benefits of bitumen to the construction industry, to provide the industry with information and advice, and to fund research into bituminous products. It also works with contractors and authorities on issues relating to the use and recycling of bituminous materials. The Association is involved in the development of industry policy on quality assurance and standards relating to issues such as safety, storage and the handling of bitumen and is involved in the development of specifications and test methods for bitumen. 33

34 34