SCOTS ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT PROJECT
STEERING GROUP MEETING
HELD IN GLASGOW
From matters arising on previous minutes, item 2.1
Similar work ongoing in Wales. Both Scotland and Wales being
worked as a joint model which should be available in 2 months
be jointly implemented.
Land values issued to au
thorities by AG.
An error was found in the WGA reporting form formulae. A
revised form with correction was issued to authorities.
AG to put land values on the SCOTS web site
AG has issued figures for GRC for carriageways to all
Exp to forward
instructions to EP on cut and paste of cells
from Task 27 to incorporate in WGA reporting form. EP to
issue to authorities.
Authorities asked to copy WGA submissions to EP who
will forward to AG.
Items from previous
minutes, matters arising 2.3, safety defects, 2.4
minimum standards and 2.6, Lighting default values and data spreadsheet
versions are covered in this meeting’s agenda.
End of Year Report
With CF for approval.
Feedback on Workshop 2 Se
Self Assessment Exercise
are still turning up
to workshop sessions
to effectively participate
generally constructive with a peer review
the self assessments.
A score of 100 or above indicated that the status of the plan was about
right for where we are with its development at this time.
Reviewers should have given feedback on scoring.
Common areas where
improvement by authorities is
Levels of service
Request an update of completed RAMPS from those that have
achieved that status
, giving a two week period for
Steering Group to review the top 3 scorers
for a couple of RAMP
y two weeks. EP to co
Self assessment was a worthwhile exercise
hould be set as a Task
to be undertaken at end of 2011. Self assessors and peer reviewers to
agree final scores
exp to arbitrate if no agreement.
Date and version of plan to b
e noted as a base line for future reviews for
this part of the session was less effective as exp felt
that a number of those who attended were not influential enough to effect
CF felt that information reaching He
ads of Service should be more
specific. SCOTS Business meetings on 19 August
in Aberdeen and
in Edinburgh to be
targeted to impress upon Heads of Service
the need for RAMPS. A briefing paper to be prepared for August meeting
benefits of having a R
need to continue
with the project beyond year 4.
Aspects to highlight
More realistic PI’s
A common community
EP & exp to identify
of the project and to
xamples e g
savings on road
benchmarking and financial needs predictions
se times have been agreed
GCC assessment Matrix (5x5) works well and sample defects sent to a
staff have shown consistent assessment
across the board. This should now go out to all
authorities to use in Foo
Cost benefits using this methodology are huge
ost benefits analysis
should be carried out.
GCC need to produce a handbook for inspectors
The Safety Defects Group needs to be resurrected to take matters
EP to make contact w
ith group and arrange a meeting.
A brief to be formulated to cover the handbook development which should
include methodology of categorisation
, report information and dat
PH to issue
that was marked up on the day of the meeting
What was agreed on the day.
Code is very vague. Rudimentary standards should be related to risk
Where code of practice is not used it must be documented as to why.
d like to see a table of the recommended standards and who
actually follows these.
SCOTS should undertake a review of the Code of Practice.
Need to see what group has done / covered and then develop a brief for
the group to ensure what is developed will be
adopted by all Scottish
EP to invite
delegates to a meeting to be arranged for the group
RS outlined proposals for cost
. 5 teams repr
finance, customer services, lighting, structures and carriageways to be set
up to determine cost ben
with a 6th managing the processes.
It is initially intended that Groups will look at:
onsistency in finance reporting
ithin WDM there is a logon which does not directly look
can be huge benefits when taking
other criteria into consideration. This will be
ook at costs of different delivery models
ck APSE cost information to see if figures are realistic.
Which authority does it cheapest and why.
Look at and identify best practice.
Advise authorities on outcomes and instruct them to include best
practices that achieve best value.
for structures at present
Long term cost projections required
Development of unit costs
required but may prove difficult
Best put into blocks of priorities, leading to categorisation
level of effect.
Brief is required as it
is difficult to cost benchmark Structures.
Next meeting of the PI Group is
25 July 2011
to review the proposals.
Draft legal agreement for next period is vi
tually the same as the
contract is for
urvey is progressing and is on target for completion.
Require costs for complimentary indicator. Incorporate outcomes
recognition that The CIPFA model is not
value of 7, produces more realistic figures which is the figure
that AG and the group suggested.
Whole Government Accounts Submissions
'Illuminated signs' is missing from Task 27 spreadsheet.
All data required for
Task 27 spreadsheet.
Figures to be used are 2010 / 11 figures.
Spreadsheet requires different bands of condition index.
was asked for these figures but GCC did not get what
WGA reporting form to be sent to al
l authorities as a reminder that
completion is required by their respective finance sections and
to use are 2010 / 11.
Year 4 Workshops
Workshop 3, September 2011
Task 26 requires to be completed for th
changes to the spreadsheet should be incorporated.
Introduce levels of service and cost implications
Good practice related to levels of service and Financial
Good practice from self assessment exercise
incorporate the proportions of A, B,
U categories in
Possibly include a
AG to ask WDM for 2009 / 11 survey figures this should be in
spreadsheet format with the 4 classes
5 bands in each class.
ould help in completing carriageway spreadsheet referred to
Note on Footway Inspections:
Are Safety inspectors still doing footway
/amber/green off at junctions only. Do not change
status until junction is reached.
to do condition surveys at same
Use photographs to state condition 1, 2, 3 or 4
IT to talk to North Ayrshire
to discuss ‘tablet’ set
up for inspections. Contact in North Ayrshire is Graham
Robin Tel. 01294 225222
Nicola Blaney looking for example of
validation of cost savings
as a result of
Contact authorities on the need to undertake 25% footway
. Include inspections into current normal activit
show cost differentials if done differently.
PI’s need to be issued to authorities now to coincide with APSE
EP to issue PI
. To be discussed at
September Workshop sessions.
The first objective of the commission was to develop and have a
Next phase has to be to develop long term planning and target
Whole RAMP documentation has to
be tied together for the RAMP
to operate as a tool to benefit the management of the asset(s).
November Workshop sessions should incorporate a slot aimed at
the sustainability of the RAMP.
PH discussing this with Scots
Programme of development still required for issue to Transport
Transport Scotland requires regular progress updates. PH to
provide to EP.
Carriageway section is out for testing for feedback to P
Present carriageway section at September Workshop sessions.
Development to be financially complete by February 2012 to
Beyond year 4
PH to provide details and costs for extending th
Costs for year 4 sessions are still awaited.
Invoices required for work already delivered in Year 4.
20 September 2011 at
Land & Environmental Services
20 Cadogan Street