Asset management is a strategic approach that identifies ... - SCOTS

waxspadeΔιαχείριση

18 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 11 μήνες)

102 εμφανίσεις


1

ASSET MANAGEMENT


LEVELS OF SERVICE



Background


Asset management is a strategic approach that identifies the optimal allocation of
resources for the management, operation, preservation and enhancement of the
highway infrastructure to meet the needs of cu
rrent and future customers.


The main benefit of asset management is the ability to make better use of resources,
normally demonstrated by:



The same or better level of service at reduced cost; or



A better level of service for the same or marginally increas
ed cost.


These benefits also align with the Gershon cashable and non
-
cashable efficiency
savings.


The starting point for asset management is the vision and goals of the authority. This
should then be translated into core transport objectives, having take
n account of
relevant statutory documents and requirements in respect of transport. Taking the
example of London Boroughs, this would include the Mayor’s Transport Strategy,
Local Implementation Plan, Unitary Development Plan, Community Strategy, Best
Valu
e Performance Plan and the local Service Plan.


For these core transport objectives, levels of service need to be developed. These
describe the performance of assets and services in a manner that can be easily
understood and be meaningful to both the gener
al public and to Members.


For each objective, a number of performance measures should be developed. These
should be quantifiable, relevant and easily measurable. From these, current
performance and future performance targets can be determined.



Corporate

Goals and Transport Objectives


As corporate goals and transport objectives are broad statements, it is not possible
to formulate quantitative relationships between them. However qualitative
relationships can be developed, whereby the contribution of a tr
ansport objective to
a corporate goal can be classified as major, moderate or minor.


Descriptions of these classifications are:




Major Contributors



have

a major influence on delivering/achieving the goal
and the relationship between the objective and th
e goal is well understood.

2

Prioritising resources on major contributors are likely to represent a good use
of resources.



Moderate Contributors


have a moderate influence on delivering/achieving
the goal and the relationship between the objective and the g
oal can be
explained, but may not readily be clear. Prioritising resources on moderate
contributors may represent a good use of resources.



Minor Contributors


have a minor influence on delivering/achieving the goal
and the relationship between the objecti
ve and the goal is difficult to
explain/understand. Prioritising resources on minor contributors may not
represent a good use of resources.


A matrix of corporate goals and transport objectives can be developed and the
authority’s priority areas identified
.



Transport Objectives


At Westminster City Council, the core transport objectives have been developed
through a series of workshops and are as follows:


1.

Accessibility and Inclusion



ensure and improve network availability for all
users, including the n
eed for servicing and delivery and availability of space
for essential users. Ensure and improve accessibility to services for all users.

2.

Customer Service



improve customer satisfaction with the service and
improve consultations and feedback with customer
s, respond more effectively
to enquiries and complaints, and involve customers in decisions where
appropriate.

3.

Environment



protect and improve the environment by reducing air and noise
pollution from traffic and highway construction/maintenance work, and

reduce
the impact of traffic, particularly large vehicles, on local residential streets.

4.

Journey Time Reliability



improve journey time reliability for all users,
reducing congestion and the need to travel, and minimising disruption on the
highway.

5.

Safet
y



ensure and improve the safety of all users, reduce the number and
risk of accidents, and ensure new schemes contribute to crime reduction.

6.

Streetscape



improve the quality of the streetscape and physical
environment, and maintain a good state of repai
r.

7.

Sustainability



meet the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their needs by adopting a whole life
approach that considers and compares alternative strategies, e.g. recycling
materials, energy reduction, p
roactive maintenance and distribution of goods
and services.

8.

Sustainable Transport



promote and encourage more sustainable forms of
transport, e.g. walking, cycling and buses, and promote developments that
reduce the need to travel.


3

9.

Value for Money



impr
ove the economy and efficiency of service delivery by
adopting an asset management approach that provides value for money.

10.

Workspace Management



improve the integration, co
-
ordination and
management of works on and around the highway, including works
unde
rtaken by statutory undertakers, and reduce disruption to users.



Levels of Service


Levels of service describe the quality of services provided by the asset for the
benefit of customers. They cover the condition of the asset and non
-
condition related
dem
and aspirations, i.e. a representation of how the asset is performing in terms of
both delivering the service to stakeholders and maintaining its physical integrity at an
appropriate level. Levels of service typically include condition assessment, safety,
availability, accessibility, integration and environmental impact.


The physical condition of the asset has two elements:




the visual condition of the asset as perceived by the public and the road user



the condition as determined by measurement and analysi
s of the relevant
data.


Each transport objective should be assigned several appropriate performance
indicators, each of which will have a defined level of service. The performance
measures should be relevant attributable, well
-
defined, timely, reliable, c
omparable
and verifiable.


At Westminster, descriptions for levels of service have followed the well understood
CPA measurements of excellent, good, fair and poor. There are two sets of
definitions for levels of service, dependent on whether the indicator

is a BVPI or a
local performance indicator.


The performance targets for BVPI’s, in line with CPA performance, are:



Excellent


above 75
th

percentile.



Good


between 50
th

and 75
th

percentile.



Fair


between 25
th

and 50
th

percentile.



Poor


below 25
th

per
centile.


The performance targets for local indicators are:



Excellent


safe, serviceable and sustainable, meeting current good practice
and setting challenging local targets.



Good


safe and serviceable, meeting current good practice.



Fair


meeting statu
tory minimum requirements and core safety requirements.



Poor


fails to meet minimum statutory and/or safety requirements.




4

Determination of Levels of Service


For each indicator, the level of service is assessed by fixing current performance into
one of
the four bands of poor, fair, good and excellent.


An unweighted average of all the indicators assigned to an objective is then
calculated. Scores are as follows:



1


poor



2


fair



3


good



4
-

excellent


For example, an objective with 4 currently measura
ble indicators of fair, good,
excellent and excellent would have an overall level of good (average score 3.25).


The ranges for levels of service of each objective (and for the overall level of
service) are:






1.5

poor




1.5


2.5 fair




2.5


3.5

good






3.5


excellent.


Indicators which are in the process of consideration or development are discounted
for ascertaining current levels of service.


The overall level of service for the transportation service is determined using a
weighted average

of the individual scores of each objective. At this time, there are
no appropriate measurable indicators for environment and, consequently, levels of
service cannot be established, resulting in environment not being considered when
ascertaining an overal
l level of service.


Accordingly, at the current time, the nine objectives to be scored are:


accessibility & inclusion


customer service


journey time reliability

safety

streetscape

sustainability

sustainable transport

value for money

workspace management
.


The weightings for the individual objectives will take account of Member views, the
importance of how objectives relate to the Council’s OneCity vision and the relative
importance of the various indicators.



5

Benchmarking


The proposed targets for the ba
nds are only draft proposals at present. Westminster
has consulted with all London Boroughs through the auspices of LoTAG (London
Technical Advisors Group) with the objective of reaching agreed bandings
throughout London. There is a general consensus on th
e principles and the
performance indicators to be measured, although a minority of Boroughs are likely to
opt out of the arrangement and pursue their own agendas.


The aim is for LoTAG to endorse the agreed bandings so that performance
measures linked to
levels of service can be benchmarked throughout London from
2007/08.


Clearly, these measures are not designed exclusively for London and may be used
by any highway authority.



Performance Indicators


The full list of performance indicators for each trans
port objective, together with the
levels of service banding, is shown in the table commencing overleaf.

7

Objective


Performance Indicator


Poor


Fair


Good


Excellent


Accessibility
& Inclusion

Percentage of applicable schemes with Equality
Impact Assessme
nts


25

25
-
50


50
-
75


75

BVPI 165


Percentage of pedestrian crossings with
facilities for disabled people as a proportion of all
crossings in the local authority area


75

75
-
87


87
-
97


97

CSS RS10
-

Percentage of controlled crossings
(excluding traffi
c signals) with facilities for disabled
people


85

85
-
90


90

100

100

Percentage of uncontrolled crossings with dropped
kerbs


25

25
-
50


50
-
75


75

B2
-

Structures availability indicator


to be
developed

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

CSS NM8
-

Percentage of brid
ges not meeting the
required carrying capacity compared to total stock


90

90
-
95


95

100

100

Customer
Service











CS1


Net satisfaction with the service on an annual
basis

dissatisfied

neither
satisfied
nor
dissatisfied

satisfied

very
satisfied

C
S2


Net satisfaction with consultation and
information
(standard format to be developed)

dissatisfied

neither
satisfied
nor
dissatisfied

satisfied

very
satisfied

CS3


Dealing with requests, complaints and claims
within policy timescales (contract indic
ator)


85

85
-
90


90
-
95


95

Percentage notification of schemes in advance of
works (contract indicator)


90

90
-
95


95

100

100


8

Percentage of sites with emergency contact details
displayed (contract indicator)


90

90
-
95


95

100

100

Percentage of applica
ble schemes with post
scheme surveys


to be developed

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

Environment





Air pollution


to be considered

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

Light pollution


to be considered

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

Noise pollution


to be considered

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

Ind
icator for environmental management systems


under development

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

Journey Time
Reliability

BVPI 100


Number of days of temporary traffic
controls or road closure on traffic sensitive roads
caused by roadworks per km of traffic sensitive roa
d


1.7

0.9
-
1.7

0.1

0.9


0.1

Safety

BVPI 99 (a)
-

Percentage reduction in people KSI in
road traffic collisions since the 1994/98 average


18

18
-
24


24
-
30


30

BVPI 99 (b)


Percentage reduction in children KSI
since the 1994/98 average


20

20
-
30


30
-
40


40

BVPI 99 (c)


Percentage reduction in people
slightly injured in road traffic collisions since the
1994/98 average


2

2
-
6


6
-
10


10

SA1


Percentage of safety inspections completed
on time


90

90
-
94


94
-
98


98

SA2


Percentage of category 1 defe
cts repaired or
made safe on time


90

90
-
94


94
-
99.5


99.5

SA3


Percentage of principal roads SCRIM
surveyed in the current year at or below
investigatory level


90

90
-
95


95
-
99


99

SA4


Percentage of third party claims repudiation
rate over three ye
ars


40

40
-
70


70
-
90


90


9

CSS RS12


Percentage reduction in accidents
after three years on treated sites


under
development

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

Indicator for site safety


to be developed

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

CSS RS13


Percentage of school crossing patrol
s
ites serviced compared to eligible sites


50

50
-
75


75

100

100

BVPI 215 (a)


average number of days taken to
repair a street lighting fault which is under the
control of the local authority

>10

5
-
10

1<5

< 1

Percentage of street lighting outages repair
ed on
time


90

90
-
94


94
-
98


98

Percentage of street lighting safety defects made
safe on time


90

90
-
94


94
-
98


98

B3


Structures reliability indicator


under
development

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc


10

Streetscape

BVPI 223


Percentage of the local authority
prin
cipal road network where structural
maintenance should be considered


15

11
-
15

7<11


7

BVPI 224 (a)


Percentage of the non principal
classified road network where maintenance should
be considered


25

18
-
25

12<18


12

BVPI 224 (b)


Percentage of the un
classified road
network where structural maintenance should be
considered


25

18
-
25

12<18


12

BVPI 187


Percentage of the category 1, 1a and 2
footway network where structural maintenance
should be considered


38

28
-
38

18<28


18

Percentage of the prin
cipal road network where
structural maintenance should be considered


10

8
-
10

5<8


5

Percentage of the non
-
principal road network where
structural maintenance should be considered


15

12
-
15

10<12


10

L(b)


Percentage of street lights working as
planne
d


90

90
-
94


94
-
98


98

B1


Structures stock condition indicator


70

70
-
80


80
-
85


85

Percentage of schemes without significant defects
at “substantial” completion


80

80
-
90


90
-
95


95

Member opinion on scheme prioritisation as a
consequence of the v
isual appearance of the street


to be developed

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

Sustainability

SU4


Percentage of programmed schemes subject
to a maintainability audit


25

25
-
50


50
-
75


75

SU5


Percentage of programmed schemes subject
to a sustainability audit


25

25
-
50


50
-
75


75


11

SU6


Percentage of highway works by tonnage
undertaken with recycled or secondary aggregates


to be considered / developed

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

CSS NM14


Percentage of gullies operating
efficiently


75

75
-
85


85
-
95


95

Sustainable
Tran
sport

CSS RS9


Percentage of schools with travel plans
implemented


50

50
-
75


75

100

100

Value for
Money

SU1


Percentage asset preservation


under
development

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

SU2


Annual reactive maintenance as a
percentage of planned maintenance


to be
considered

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

Percentage of schemes completed where outturn
costs are within budget


75

75
-
85


85
-
95


95

Workspace
Management

SE6


Percentage of works completed within
published dates


60

60
-
70


70
-
80


80

Indicator for utility acti
vity management


to be
developed

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

Indicator for scheme integration


to be developed

tbc

tbc

tbc

tbc

Percentage number of applicable schemes with S74
overruns


15


10
-
15

5
-
10


5

Percentage of schemes completed on or ahead of
time


70

70
-
80


80
-
90


90