200 likes | 213 Views
MARK HODGSON ROAD2000 REVIEW KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ROAD2000. WHAT IS THE ROAD2000 PROJECT?. 2000 – Major political change in London Formation of GLA New Mayor Data requirement to allocate funding UKPMS software accredited, standardised surveys
E N D
MARK HODGSON ROAD2000 REVIEW KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WHAT IS THE ROAD2000 PROJECT? • 2000 – Major political change in London • Formation of GLA • New Mayor • Data requirement to allocate funding • UKPMS software accredited, standardised surveys • Proposal – survey and process to UKPMS standard 1300km roads and 1800km footways
WHAT IS THE ROAD2000 PROJECT? • Aim • Provide consistent data in useful and useable format • Allocate funds • Maintenance programming • Monitor long term trends • BVPI’s / NI’s • Value for money
WHAT IS THE ROAD2000 PROJECT? • Facts – over 10 years R2000 has: • Surveyed equivalent lane length to circumference of earth (40,000km) • £3.5m survey cost • £300m allocation • 1500 BVPI’s / NI’s
WHAT IS THE ROAD2000 PROJECT? • Asset Surveys • Transport Commissioner wanted all TfL assets mapped • Applied to BPRN • 500,000 features, 100,000 changes p.a. • 75,000 linked photo’s • 125,000 posts & 100,000 signs • 66,000 gully’s • 57,000 lamp columns • 33,000 trees
WHY HAVE A REVIEW? • Confirm still needed • If needed scope going forward? • 2005 – 5 year business plan • Times have changed: • 2005 £50m allocation • 2011 £15m allocation • BVPI / NI halved
WHY HAVE A REVIEW? • Scope of review • Still needed? • Efficient processes? • Contract arrangements, value for money? • Are range and frequency of surveys appropriate? • What is the resource requirement • Is specialist consultancy used wisely?
HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME? • R2000 still needed? • Proven track record • Consistent data • NI’s • Less money – data more important? • Best practice in CSS framework for asset management • National and international interest • Finding: R2000 successful, new name R2010 • Recommendation: Continue
HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME? • Are processes efficient, scope to improve? • Finding: Processes efficient and streamlined • Recommendation: Continue existing approach
HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME? • Do contract arrangements provide value for money? • Rates 40% lower • Benchmarked – R2000 very good rates • New contracts being written – more scope for boroughs to access (eg DVI borough roads) • Finding: Good VFM • Recommendation: Make available for borough use
HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME? • Right surveys, right frequency? • Full network coverage, both directions • DVI, SCANNER, SCRIM • Consider reducing frequency / coverage • But, rapidly changing network • LBHF – 50% reduction: lost consistency and ability to prioritise • SCANNER AND DVI? • Finding: Current mix of surveys and frequencies is right • Recommendation: Continue
HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME? • Right Staff Resources? • 3 FTE’s • Data management and processing • CAD and GIS • Audit and contract management • Finding: 3 FTE’s about right • Recommendation: Spare resource directed to other commissions – eg. pan London contract
HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME? • Is specialist consultancy used wisely? • 5 to 20% of annual budget • Recent commissions included DVI v SCANNER comparison, skid resistance policy, supporting FCMG. • Other groups also undertake special studies • Finding: Used wisely, benefited London • Recommendation: Aligned with other groups, agreed by HMSG
HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME? • Miscellaneous activities • R2000 conference successful - TfL administering created savings • Pan London UKPMS license required • Website – better VFM if moved to LoTAG website • Finding: Miscellaneous activities are necessary • Recommendation: Continue to look for efficiencies and VFM
Conclusions • Summary of recommendations: • 1. Continue ROAD2000 – but change name to ROAD2010 • 2. Continue with current mix and frequency of surveys • 3. Investigate if any other pan London work can be aligned to the R2010 work • 4. Specialist consultancy needs to fully align with other groups (e.g. LoTAMB, HMEG) and be agreed by the HMSG