LIVERPOOL CITY REGION COMBINED AUTHORITY...3.5 The Key Route Network represents some 11% of the total Liverpool City Region highway network. It is made up of 801.295 km of adopted

LIVERPOOL CITY REGION COMBINED AUTHORITY To: The Metro Mayor and Members of the Combined

Authority Meeting: 19 October 2018 Authority/Authorities Affected: All EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL ITEM: No

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND STRATEGIC COMMISSIONING

THE CONDITION OF THE KEY ROUTE NETWORK (KRN): KEY ISSUES AND NEXT STEPS

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The aim of this report is to update members on the key issues arising from a

Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan (HIAMP) that has been commissioned in respect of the Combined Authority’s defined Key Route Network (KRN) of local roads.

1.2 This has been undertaken to quantify and rank the condition of the KRN on a

consistent basis across the six constituent local authorities, and to provide a firm evidence base on the condition of this network. This is an important starting point in guiding the prioritisation of future policy interventions and the allocation of funding across the KRN in future years.

1.3 The five appendices to this report highlight the condition of the network on a map

basis and also the top scoring priority sites requiring either structural maintenance or preventative maintenance.

1.4 In the immediate term, the report also seeks approval for two specific actions:-

a) To finalise a Local Government Act 1972 section 111 Agreement to restrict the exercise of the legislative powers that are available to the Authority to assume legal responsibility for the KRN until a later date to be agreed by all parties. This is to avoid ambiguity around KRN responsibilities and liabilities during the current transitional period, recognising that the Authority is not currently in a position to manage this network on behalf of the constituent local authorities; and

b) Approval to disburse £3 million that has previously been allocated by the Combined Authority to support the maintenance of the KRN. Specifically, approval is sought to disburse this as per Option 2a within the table in Appendix Five to this report, as per the rationale set out in section 5.3.

1.5 The report will be followed up by a more detailed report setting out more specific

implications and policy and funding recommendations in respect of the Key Route Network.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 It is recommended that the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority:

(a) Notes the key issues arising from the Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan (HIAMP) developed by Capita and Xais in respect of the Key Route Network, in particular the very significant maintenance backlog, affecting Liverpool most acutely, and the importance of a preventative maintenance life cycle planning regime in providing best value-for- money;

(b) considers a follow-up report on the main funding and operational implications associated with this evidence base and suitable models to allocate funding to support the effective management on the KRN in future;

(c) delegates responsibility to the Authority’s Monitoring Officer to progress a section 111 legal agreement with the six constituent local authorities to confirm that responsibility for the KRN remains with the constituent local authorities until otherwise proposed, and subsequently agreed, to avoid any ambiguity or confusion around liabilities; and

(d) agrees to delegate the disbursement of the pre-agreed £3 million allocation in 2018/19 to support the maintenance of the KRN to the Authority’s Treasurer, as per Option 2a (the allocation of 25% of fund by need and 75% by KRN length), as set out within the table in Appendix Five and as per the rationale in section 5.3 of the report.

3. BACKGROUND 3.1 Members will recall that the establishment of a Key Route Network (KRN) of

strategically important local roads, and the creation of a single asset management plan formed an important element of the 2015 Devolution Deal with Government. The agreement stated that:-

“…[A] Key Route Network of local roads…will be managed and maintained by the Combined Authority on behalf of the City Region Mayor, from May 2017. This will be achieved through a single asset management plan, working towards streamlined contractual and delivery arrangements across the City Region”

3.2 This power and commitment to moving towards a more strategic approach to

management of local roads stems from historic arrangements; the five Merseyside local authorities have been responsible for managing their respective highway networks since the abolition of Merseyside County Council in 1986, and Halton has been the highway authority since its became a unitary authority in 1998.

3.3 Members of the Authority agreed the criteria for, and the definition of the Key Route

Network at their meeting of 15 April 20161. In agreeing this report, members acknowledged the significant benefit that a more co-ordinated approach would deliver in managing this network of roads, including:-

a more consistent approach to delivery and highway standards across the City Region, which may include such elements as lighting standards, maintenance regimes, winter maintenance, cleansing and road works;

significant economies of scale, through the ability to procure and deliver on a cross-boundary basis;

potential staffing benefits for smaller authorities in particular, through the ability to pool services and efforts; and

efficiencies may also be achieved by working towards the amalgamation of delivery arrangements and contracts.

3.4 Members will also appreciate fully the wider, and very significant transport benefits

that stem from the Devolution Deal. These include access to new gainshare funds (£30 million over 30 years) as part of a new Strategic Investment Fund that is funding very significant transport enhancements across the city region, and enhanced powers over local bus and rail networks. The confirmation of the £134 million Transforming Cities Fund allocation in November 2017 came as a further, direct benefit of the Mayoral Combined Authority model of governance.

3.5 The Key Route Network represents some 11% of the total Liverpool City Region

highway network. It is made up of 801.295 km of adopted broken down as follows:-

2 km of Motorway,

669.244 km of Principal A Roads,

61.536 km of Classified B Roads,

12.383 km of Classified C Roads and

56.119 km of Unclassified Roads. 3.6 The spatial extent of the KRN across the local authorities varies, as shown in the

chart that follows. As can reasonably be expected, Liverpool has the largest share of overall KRN, and St Helens has the smallest share.

1

http://councillors.knowsley.gov.uk/documents/s42374/Final%20Key%20Route%20Network.pdf?StyleType=standard&StyleSize=none



source: Capita / Xais, 2018)

4. BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE ON THE KRN’S CONDITION 4.1 As reported to members in June 20172, an important starting point in this process of

managing and improving the KRN entailed the commissioning of a detailed evidence base of the condition of each length of the KRN and to understand its condition on a more consistent footing for the first time. This is because the constituent local authorities currently have their own approaches to measuring the condition of their local highway networks. Capita and Xais were commissioned in early 2017 to lead upon this extensive piece of work, with a total value of £433,000. This brief will also include a review of progress over the next 5 years.

4.2 An objective of the work was to lay out in a clear and transparent manner how the

LCR manages its highway assets, and how it intends to keep them safe for use and fit for purpose. It is important to stress that this condition survey looked only at the carriageway, meaning that this process should be applied in future to wider KRN assets, footways, highways structures, street lighting and drainage shall be evaluated in future productions.

4.3 It is also prudent to note that a new code of practice (“Well Managed Highway

Infrastructure”) has been published by the UK Roads Liaison Group3. This is not a statutory document but it is meant to guide responsible authorities in highway management and is set to profoundly change the future direction of the UK’s highway maintenance and management. This is through the application of good

2

http://councillors.knowsley.gov.uk/documents/s48135/The%20Development%20of%20a%20Key%20Route%20Network%20of%20Local%20Roads%20-%20A%20Progress%20Update.pdf?StyleType=standard&StyleSize=none 3 http://www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/en/codes/

15%

14%

26% 18%

13%

14%

KRN Distribution Across Combined Authoritiy

Halton

Knowsley

Liverpool

Sefton

St Helens

Wirral

http://councillors.knowsley.gov.uk/documents/s48135/The%20Development%20of%20a%20Key%20Route%20Network%20of%20Local%20Roads%20-%20A%20Progress%20Update.pdf?StyleType=standard&StyleSize=none



http://www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/en/codes/

asset management principles and adoption of a risk based approach. Adoption of the new code is expected to be tested in the courts, especially where local highway authorities are seeking to defend third party liability claims, such as damage to vehicles from potholes. The existence of the new evidence base for the KRN, available through the HIAMP, will be especially significant from a legal and liabilities perspective.

4.4 To populate the HIAMP, consistent highway condition surveys have been

undertaken to understand the condition of the KRN on a consistent footing. This was followed by a detailed scoring and value-based assessment based on two principal criteria:

The condition of carriageway and carriageway deterioration rates (e.g. ranging from minor cracking to structural deterioration) and

Site location and safety Information (e.g. the ride quality, economic importance of the route and rate of deterioration)

4.5 Lifecycle planning is essential for asset management. It is the planning of

treatments in a strategic way to extend the life of an asset. To enable lifecycle plans for highways maintenance to have credence and to be useful in any modelling terms there is a requirement to use a standard basket of treatments. The following have “basket” of treatments for modelling:

Planned Works Structural intervention – typically reconstruction

Planned Works Major intervention – typically resurfacing

Planned Works Preventative Maintenance Intervention – typically surface dressing to extend the life of the carriageway

Reactive Maintenance Works – typically emergency works to ensure the road is safe for its users through surface patching.

4.6 The processes described above have resulted in the completion of a suite of

documents that collate and present these results of a comprehensive set of highway asset management activities. The importance in this evidence lies in the fact that it should help to understand service levels and align the LCR’s priorities and spending with the priorities of the residents and users, such as supporting economic growth and facilitating safe and comfortable access for all road users. This information also allows the LCR to plan asset renewal and maintenance schedules in a transparent way and with justifiable and recognised budgets.

4.7 The objective of the HIAMP is to set out in a clear and transparent manner how the

Authority should manages the KRN highway assets and how it intends to keep them safe for use and fit for purpose.

5. KEY ISSUES ARISING FROM KRN CONDITION EVIDENCE BASE 5.1 The condition of the KRN

5.1.1 In headline terms, the principal conclusion from the work is that the condition of the highway network is degrading, and that current funding is not at a level to properly address the maintenance backlog of the highway network. The HIAMP’s analysis shows that to maintain current levels of service (i.e. maintain a steady state) that:

approximately £12 million is required per annum for Structural Maintenance;

approximately £2.5 million is required for Preventative Maintenance; and

the current maintenance need “backlog” is approximately £56.8 million 5.1.2 To provide funding context, then historically, most capital highway

maintenance, whether for structural or preventive maintenance, has stemmed from a Highways Maintenance grant from the Department or Transport. Based on indicative allocations published in 2014, this would equate to around £16.5 million across the LCR for the current financial year, taking into account other top-up payments4. This represents around 25% of the actual funding that is estimated to be needed to effectively maintain the KRN.

5.1.3 That said, these specific allocations from government have now been

superseded by an un-ringfenced £26.5m per annum Transport Budget within the wider Strategic Investment Fund, managed by the Combined Authority. However, the scope of this new fund extends beyond highway maintenance alone and is used to fund a wider range of transport wider demands, such as traffic management, road safety and multi-modal transport enhancements. An immediate issue flagged in the HIAMP thus concerns the need to identify alternative means by which to fund the maintenance backlog and allow a steady state of maintenance to be adopted.

5.1.4 The charts below summarises the significant maintenance that is needed,

given that 16% of the KRN requires structural maintenance and 39% is in need of preventative maintenance:-

4 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-maintenance-funding-allocations-201516-to-202021

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-maintenance-funding-allocations-201516-to-202021

(source: Capita / Xais, 2018)

5.1.5 The chart overleaf shows changes from 2017, notably the worsening in structural maintenance standards and the general reduction in the proportion of “up to standard” highways. This has been exacerbated by the very cold and wet winter of 2017/18.

(source: Capita / Xais, 2018) 5.1.6 Looking at the spatial location of the maintenance backlog, the more detailed

maps in Appendix One and Two highlight the priority areas requiring structural intervention (resurfacing) and priority areas for preventative maintenance within the KRN.

8%

47%

11%

34%

KRN Treatment Distribution Source AEI survey 2017

Structural Maintenance

Preventative Maintenance

Up to Standard

As New

5.1.7 Appendix Three and Four summarise, in rank order, the top 20 sites requiring structural and preventative maintenance, respectively. In other words, the highest priority sites are those in the worst condition, as reflected by their higher scores.

5.1.8 Whilst the backlog is an issue affecting the city region as a whole it will be

appreciated that the majority of KRN roads requiring urgent structural maintenance are within the City of Liverpool. Similarly, the maintenance backlog in Liverpool is especially acute, meaning that interventions on these roads demand the highest priority in terms of evidenced need, having regard to the new Code of Practice described above, and which promotes best asset management practices and the management of risk. In practice, this warrants an increase in the weighting of LCR-wide maintenance funding towards Liverpool’s share of the KRN, as per the evidence presented.

5.1.9 In strategic terms, it will be appreciated that Liverpool, as the largest local

authority area, forms the hub of the city region from an employment, retail, educational, office and transport and commuting perspective. As such, ensuring the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and people within Liverpool is integral to the economic attractiveness and economic wellbeing of the city region as a whole. This does not negate the need to invest heavily in the KRN across the other five local authority areas, given that highway networks do not respect administrative boundaries, but the evidence from the HIAMP demonstrates that the greatest initial needs exist in Liverpool and demand priority action.

5.1.10 In recognition of its legacy, Liverpool City Council is investing from its own

resources in the renewal of the highway network through its Better Roads programme. This includes a £200 million programme of major reconstruction, resurfacing and emergency pothole repairs over the next five years. Other local authorities are also investing in the maintenance of their roads from wider budgets available to them, e.g. as part of transport schemes that are being funded from the Strategic Investment Fund.

5.1.11 The HIAMP document identified a range of lifecycle scenarios and

approaches to guide the way that funds that become available are spent on the right schemes at the right time. It also seeks to ensure that schemes are prioritised using optimisation methodologies to maximise risk reduction and minimise whole life costs. Three scenarios have been used:-

Scenario1 – Carry out typical preventative maintenance measures.

Scenario 2 – Carry out a reactive maintenance regime, ensuring the road is safe for passage. This would involve typically involve reactive maintenance patching

Scenario 3 – Carrying out typical preventative maintenance beyond the optimum time for intervention i.e. sweating the asset

5.1.12 In policy terms, the HIAMP commends Scenario 1 as the lifecycle offering the

best Value for Money and over the other two scenarios. The HIAMP

summarises that for every £203.34 spent on Scenario 1 (preventative maintenance) on a specific hierarchy of roads, the LCR would need to spend £522.04 on Scenario 2 (reactive maintenance) and £227.90 on Scenario 3 (asset sweating).

5.1.13 The issues arising from the HIAMP work are numerous and complex, and will

form the basis of a more detailed follow-on report which will identify some of the main policy and funding issues and responses. This is with the fundamental aim of securing greater consistency of approach across the city region, and to move towards a more consistent and higher standard of KRN. Some of these wider issues will include:-

Maintenance policies across the city region (e.g. on skid resistant surfacing and construction standards)

Intervention policies and criteria across the LCR (e.g. response times to incidents and failures on the network),

Methodologies for allocating funds to best support the recommendations set out in the HIAMP evidence base and which address the imperative to tackle the maintenance backlog in the most effective, and logical way

Staffing implications, including the need for dedicated resources to support the management and maintenance of the KRN

5.2 Legal highway provisions and the KRN

5.2.1 In the immediate term, there is a need to progress legal provisions that concern the management of, and the Combined Authority’s and local authorities’ liabilities for the KRN. The Order that established the Mayoral Combined Authority in 2017 enables the Authority to have responsibilities for the Key Route Network at a future point, including powers to make Traffic Regulation Orders and carry out road safety measures.

5.2.2 At some point the local authorities and the Combined Authority would need to

consent to transfer highway powers over the KRN to the Combined Authority. At the present time, it is recommended that the Combined Authority agrees not to exercise these powers, as the evidence base for the KRN and its future management remains a work in progress. The agreement under section 111 of the 1972 Local Government Act that has been drafted confirms that the local authorities will retain this legal responsibility until a later date in order to avoid ambiguity and clarify where liabilities rest.

5.2.3 Delegated authority is sought to allow the Monitoring Officer to progress this

agreement with the constituent local authorities.

5.3 Disbursing topsliced KRN maintenance funding available in 2018/19

5.3.1 Members may recall that a draft budget has been allocated for the KRN for the current financial year. This was agreed as part of a wider report agreeing

the allocation of the 2018/19 transport budget in November 20175. This committed that the HIAMP approach would inform the evidence base upon which to prioritise a £3m topslice of the Capital Maintenance fund to directly support the KRN.

5.3.2 Although an arbitrary figure, the HIAMP document recommends that this £3m

of top sliced funding should be split into:-

£2.5m for structural maintenance

£0.5m for preventative maintenance

5.3.3 Notwithstanding the clear policy support in the HIAMP, and referenced above on preventive maintenance as well as structural maintenance as part of an effective asset management regime, it is proposed that all of the £3m million that is available this financial year is allocated for remedial structural works only, rather than for any preventive maintenance. This reflects the fact that the funding is available to spend during the current financial year, and it is not possible to procure and complete preventative maintenance successfully, as the working window for such works is from April to September each year. This is considered a pragmatic approach based on the time of year.

5.3.3 The table is Appendix Five to this report sets out a series of options for

disbursing the funding, intended to provide context and transparency. These options range from a “worst first” approach based on the HIAMP’s prioritised list of top scoring structural maintenance schemes in Appendix 3 to this report, to permutations that factor in more established formulae. These formulae factor in the relative length of the KRN in each local authority area, or else historic government funding formulae, and which result in a greater spreading of the funding across the city region.

5.3.4 The evidence within the HIAMP advocates that the funding is disbursed

wholly by need, as per Option 1 in the table. Conversely, disbursing all of the funding to each of the local authorities on an equal share or formulaic basis would not be appropriate, given that such an approach would conflict with the evidence base in the HIAMP. Neither would such an approach maximise its ability to help address the KRN’s maintenance backlog in the most effective way.

5.3.5 However, on balance, and having regard to feedback from members of the

Combined Authority, by allocating all of the funding by need (Option 1) would constitute a very significant and very rapid policy shift, at a time that the KRN concept is still evolving. The retention of formula as part of the approach is a reasonable step and represents a helpful move toward achieving a positive way forward. This is also against a backdrop of a maintenance backlog across the city region’s KRN as a whole.

5.3.6 As such, it is proposed that Option 2a in the table in Appendix Five is applied,

which would entail the allocation of:-

5 http://councillors.knowsley.gov.uk/documents/s50923/Item%206%20-

%20Report.pdf?StyleType=standard&StyleSize=none

http://councillors.knowsley.gov.uk/documents/s50923/Item%206%20-%20Report.pdf?StyleType=standard&StyleSize=none

http://councillors.knowsley.gov.uk/documents/s50923/Item%206%20-%20Report.pdf?StyleType=standard&StyleSize=none

25% of the funding by need, using the HIAMPs’ evidence; and

75% by the relative length of the KRN in each local authority area

The retention of an element of a formulaic approach is considered reasonable, and a pragmatic approach in the transition from a longstanding formulaic reallocation of most monies, towards an evidence-based approach to allocating funds, as advocated by the HIAMP. It therefore demonstrates a move away from historic approaches to allocating funding and towards a more sophisticated way that supports the principles agreed as part of the Devolution Deal.

5.3.7 It is proposed that delegated authority is granted to the Treasurer to confirm the details of the ensuing payments to each of the local authorities, and develop an appropriate funding agreement for this. This would also ensure that the additional funding is used to fund schemes or priorities that have no alternative funding routes, in order to maximise its effectiveness and coverage. It will also be stipulate that local authorities should prioritise their share of the funding allocation to support their highest priority structural maintenance schemes, as per the ranked list in the HIAMP document.

6. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Financial

The implications are potentially significant. The evidence set out within the HIAMP advocates a change in the way that highways maintenance capital funds are allocated, and a move away from a formulaic re-allocation of resources to each local authority towards a needs-based model, based on the surveyed condition of the KRN. As the maintenance backlog is especially acute in Liverpool, the evidence warrants a greater proportion of funding being allocated to the KRN within City of Liverpool. The evidence also highlights the significant backlog of highways maintenance on the KRN across the city region, and the very significant additional resources that would be needed to bring the condition of the KRN up to standard. However, there are also likely to be significant resource implications associated with moving towards a more streamlined and consistent approach to managing the Key Route Network through consolidated contractual arrangements, and as a result of changes to intervention levels and standards. These cannot be quantified at this stage. In the immediate term, the report also proposes a transitional and pragmatic means by which to disburse £3m of funding that has previously made available by the Combined Authority to support the maintenance of the KRN.

6.2 Human Resources

The creation of a centralised or consolidated Key Route Network team is likely to have financial implications for the Authority and/or the constituent local authorities. It is worth noting that most Combined Authorities and Mayoral Combined Authorities either have, or are establishing dedicated teams to deal specifically with the management of their Key Route Networks.

6.3 Physical Assets

This report highlights the maintenance backlog that exists on one of the city region’s most significant physical assets, namely its Key Route Network. The report identifies the need for significantly greater levels of funding to address the backlog, and a move towards a “needs based” approach to the allocation of funding in future.

6.4 Information Technology

There are no direct implications arising from this report. 7. RISKS AND MITIGATION 7.1 A poorly maintained Key Route Network brings with it significant risks to road users

through damage to vehicles and as a consequence of personal trips and falls. This in turn presents legal and financial risks to the local authorities as the local highway authorities. There is also a risk that a poorly maintained highway adversely affects levels of sustainable trip making and potentially, future economic investment decisions.

7.2 The standardisation of service delivery and intervention standards, to bring

consistency to the Key Route Network, may present financial and investment risks, whereby more costly standards are subsequently agreed in recognition of the importance and status of the Key Route Network. This will be the subject of a follow-on report.

7.2 There are also reputational risks associated with a failure to move towards a

streamlined and enhanced Key Route Network management regime, building on the evidence set out within this HIAMP, as this forms a core component of the devolution deal agreed with Government in November 2015.

8. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS 8.1 No direct implications as a result of this report. More detailed workstreams will give

further consideration to the equality and diversity implications of any new KRN operating models, investment proposals or delivery arrangements.

8.2 It is important to note that the underlying aim of the KRN regime is to improve

conditions for all users of the highway and to bring greater clarity and consistency to anyone wishing to use, or work upon the Key Route Network

9. COMMUNICATION ISSUES 9.1 The HIAMP will be important as a communication tool for elected members and

members of the public alike, to aid the public’s understanding the rationale for particular maintenance regimes (e.g. the importance of preventative maintenance) and associated investment decisions on the KRN.

9.2 Should the management of the KRN evolve to a more centralised model of

management at a Combined Authority level, then it will be imperative that a communications plan is developed. This is so that clarity exists as to roles and responsibilities amongst utility companies, statutory undertakers and so forth and so that queries, complaints and fault reporting from members of the public and elected members are directed to the relevant contact points.

10. CONCLUSION 10.1 This report updates the Combined Authority on the key issues arising from a

Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan (HIAMP) that has been commissioned in respect of the Combined Authority’s defined Key Route Network (KRN) of local roads. The work sought to assess the condition of the KRN on a consistent basis across and to provide a firm evidence base on the condition of this network. This is an important starting point in guiding the prioritisation of future policy interventions and the allocation of funding across the KRN in future years.

10.2 In headline terms, the principal conclusion from the work is that the condition of the

highway network is degrading, and that current funding is not at a level to properly address the maintenance backlog of the highway network. The HIAMP’s analysis shows that to maintain a steady state, a significant increase in resourcing is required.

10.3 In the immediate term, the report seeks members’ approval for two specific actions.

The first is to progress a legal agreement to restrict the exercise of legislative powers that are available to the Combined Authority in respect of the KRN until a later date. Secondly, approval is sought to disburse £3 million that has previously been allocated by the Combined Authority to support the maintenance of the KRN. Specifically, approval is sought to disburse this for structural maintenance as per Option 2a in the table in Appendix Five. This would entail the allocation of 25% of fund by need and 75% by KRN length as a pragmatic and transitional approach in moving from a formulaic to an evidence-based approach to allocating funds across the city region.

10.4 The report will be followed up by a more detailed report setting out more specific

implications and policy and funding recommendations in respect of the Key Route Network.

KIRSTY PEARCE Director of Policy and Strategic Commissioning

Contact Officer(s): Mick Noone, Director of Integrated Transport, Merseytravel Huw Jenkins, Transport Policy Lead Officer, Policy and Commissioning Directorate, LCR Combined Authority

Appendices: Appendix One - Areas of Structural intervention (Resurfacing) within the KRN Appendix Two - Areas requiring Preventative Maintenance within the KRN Appendix Three - Ranked list of KRN roads requiring remedial structural maintenance Appendix Four - Ranked list of KRN roads requiring preventative maintenance Appendix Five - Options for disbursing £3 million KRN Funding Topslice in 2018/19 Background Documents:

LCR Combined Authority Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan, August 2018, Xais/Capita

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, Lifecycle Planning & Forward Works Programme, August 2018, Xais/Capita

Management System – Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan, XAIS/Capita

Appendix One Plan showing areas of Structural intervention (Resurfacing) within the KRN

Appendix Two Plan showing areas requiring Preventative Maintenance within the KRN

Appendix Three Top 20 “worst first” ranked list of KRN roads requiring remedial structural maintenance

Rank SECTION ROAD N0 SECTION DESCRIPTION START END LENGTH TREATMENT VM SCORE

DISTRICT

1 19501214/998 A561 SPEKE BOULEVARD(FORDS EXIT) from FACTORY GATES to SPEKE BVAR

300 372 72 CW - Patching (Machine Laid)

311 KNO

2 A5047/120 A5047 Holt Road to LAUREL ROAD 350 400 50 CW - Resurface 223 LPL

3 B5178/107.1 B5178 WOOD LANE to KINGS DRIVE 0 1184 1184 CW - Resurface & Binder 201 LPL

4 B5178/107.5 B5178 WOOD LANE to KINGS DRIVE 900 1184 284 CW - Resurface 158 LPL

5 A5036/125.1 A5036 A5036 to Regent Street 0 694 694 CW - Resurface 156 LPL

6 M62/110 M62 TBC 0 1007 1007 CW - Resurface 153 LPL

7 A580/150 A580 LOWER BRECK ROAD to OAKFIELD ROAD

300 499 199 CW - Resurface 152 LPL

8 A5046/105 A5046 A5038 to A59 0 354 354 CW - Resurface 152 LPL

9 A561/197.5 A561 UPP WARWICK ST to PARLIAMENT ST


10 A580/510 A580 A5058 to MILL LANE 0 940 940 CW - Resurface & Binder 146 LPL

11 A5049/128 A5049 Silverdale Avenue to LOWER BRECK ROAD


12 B5178/116.1 B5178 BARNHAM DRIVE to Paignton Road


13 A580/334 A580 FLORENCE STREET to LANGHAM STREET


14 A5036/126 A5036 SALTNEY STREET to A5054 0 564 564 CW - Resurface 144 LPL


16 A580/150 A580 LOWER BRECK ROAD to OAKFIELD ROAD



18 B5178/106 B5178 CALDWAY DRIVE to WOOD LANE


Rank SECTION ROAD N0 SECTION DESCRIPTION START END LENGTH TREATMENT VM SCORE

DISTRICT

119

A5058/130 A5058 SLIP RD ON N to A57 PRESCOT RD


20 A57/150 A57 KENSINGTON to DAULBY STREET


Appendix Four Top 20 “worst first” ranked list of KRN roads requiring preventative maintenance

Rank SECTION ROAD No. SECTION_DESCRIPTION START END LENGTH TREATMENT_DESC VM SCORE

LA

1 A57/155 A57 ANSON STREET to DAULBY STREET 0 220 220

CW - Micro-Asphalt with >10% Patch

225 LPL

2 A5038/130 A5038 LONDON ROAD to RENSHAW STREET 0 200 200 CW - Maintenance Patch 218 LPL

3 GRP/P102/040 A58 FRECKLETON ROAD TO MARGERY ROAD 0 150 150

CW - High Friction Surfacing

200 STH

4 A580/155 A580 BELMONT ROAD to BRECKFIELD ROAD 0 230 230


183 LPL

5 A5038/115 A5038 RANELAGH STREET to LIME STREET 0 157 157


181 LPL

6 B5178/117 B5178

BENTHAM DRIVE to CHILDWALL VALLEY ROAD

0 226 226 CW - High Friction Surfacing

169 LPL

7 NEW/C198/010 A572 ACACIA STREET TO LYME STREET 0 117 117

CW - Surface Dress with <10% Patch

166 STH

8 A/313115/015 313115

MERTON ROAD A5057 WASHINGTON PARADE TO STANLEY ROAD

0 185 185 CW - Surface Dress with <10% Patch

160 SEF

9 A57/135 A57 ST OSWALDS STREET to GREEN LANE 0 410 410

CW - Surface Dress with >10% Patch

157 LPL

10 A580/338.5 A580 BULLENS ROAD to WALTON LANE 0 851 851


155 LPL

11 GRP/P102/035 A58

STANDRING GARDENS TO FRECKLETON ROAD

0 54 54 CW - High Friction Surfacing

150 STH

12 A5038/190 A5038 BOUNDARY to WESTMINSTER ROAD 0 279 279


148 LPL

13 A561/110 A561 SPEKE HALL RD to WOODEND AVENUE 0 1089 1089


147 LPL

14 NEW/C132/025 A572 MARIAN AVENUE TO CROW LANE WEST 0 299 299


142 STH

15 A57/140.1 A57 B5189 to Frogmore Road 0 572 572


141 LPL

Rank SECTION ROAD No. SECTION_DESCRIPTION START END LENGTH TREATMENT_DESC VM SCORE

LA

16 A5038/186 A5038 Brewster Road to BOUNDARY 0 174 174


140 LPL

17 NEW/C132/010 A572 WHARF ROAD TO COMMON STREET 0 48 48


138 STH

18 NEW/C132/015 A572 COMMON STREET TO SHORT STREET 0 52 52


138 STH

19 NEW/C132/005 A572 BOROUGH BOUNDARY TO WHARF ROAD 0 161 161


138 STH

20 NEW/C132/020 A572 SHORT STREET TO MARIAN AVENUE 0 266 266


138 STH

Appendix Five

Options for disbursing £3 million Key Route Network Funding Topslice in 2018/19

(preferred option in red type)

Local Authority

Option 1 allocate

full £3m by HIAMP need

(estimated)

Option 2 Allocate

full £3m by KRN length

Option 2a Allocate 25% of fund by

need and 75% by

KRN length

Option 2b Allocate 50% of fund by

need and 50% by

KRN length

Option 2c Allocate 75% of fund by

need and 25% by

KRN length

Option 3 Allocate full £3

million by historic

DfT formula

Option 3a Allocate 25% of fund by

need and 75% by

DfT formula

Option 3b Allocate 50% of fund by

need and 50% by

DfT formula

Option 3c Allocate 75% of fund by

need and 25% by

DfT formula

Halton

0 15% £450K

£338k £225K £113k

13.18% £396k

£297k £198k £99k

Knowsley £15k 14% £420k

£319k £218k £116k 10.95% £329k

£250k £172k £83k

Liverpool £2.985m 26% £780k

£1.33m £1.88m £2.434m 24.92% £748k

£1.307m £1.864m £2,426k

St Helens 0 13% £390k

£293 £195k £98k 14.30% £429k

£322k £215k £107k

Sefton 0 18% £540k

£405 £270k £135k 17.11% £513k

£385k £257k £128k

Wirral 0 14% £420k

£315 £210k £105 19.54% £588k

£440k £293k £147k

£3m £3m £3m £3m £3m £3m £3m £3m £3m