SCOTS ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT PROJECT STEERING GROUP MEETING HELD IN GLASGOW 27 June 2011

waxspadeΔιαχείριση

18 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 29 μέρες)

48 εμφανίσεις

Page
1

of
5



SCOTS ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT PROJECT


STEERING GROUP MEETING


HELD IN GLASGOW



27 June

201
1


DRAFT
MINUTES



Attendees

Christine Francis

Glasgow
-

( Chair)


Susan MacFadyen

North Ayrshire

Alistair Gow

Gowtrans


Paul Hardy

Exp. Consulting

Raymond S
mith

Falkirk Council


Eddie Preiss

Glasgow

Angus Broadhurst

Fife Council




Apologies

Richard Evans

Highland Council


Donald
MacPherson

Aberdeenshire


AGEND
A

Item

Item

Item

Action





1


Previous Minutes



Agreed






2


Matters Arising







2.
1

From matters arising on previous minutes, item 2.1
-

Structures model.




Similar work ongoing in Wales. Both Scotland and Wales being
worked as a joint model which should be available in 2 months
and
could

be jointly implemented.




Land values issued to au
thorities by AG.

o

An error was found in the WGA reporting form formulae. A
revised form with correction was issued to authorities.

o

AG to put land values on the SCOTS web site

o

AG has issued figures for GRC for carriageways to all
authorities.

o

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.

o

Authorities asked to copy WGA submissions to EP who
will forward to AG.










AG




Exp /
EP

EP






2.2

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.






3

3.1

End of Year Report



With CF for approval.


Page
2

of
5


4


Feedback on Workshop 2 Se
ssions







4.1

Self Assessment Exercise


A
small
number of
delegates

are still turning up
to workshop sessions
without prepared
material

required
to effectively participate
.

Self assessment
exercise was
generally constructive with a peer review
done on

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
most
need
ed

are:

Levels of service

Financial Implications

Risk




Request an update of completed RAMPS from those that have
achieved that status
, giving a two week period for
returns.




Steering Group to review the top 3 scorers
for a couple of RAMP
se
ctions

ever
y two weeks. EP to co
-
ordinate


Self assessment was a worthwhile exercise

and s
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
comparison.


Improvement Plans


this part of the session was less effective as exp felt
that a number of those who attended were not influential enough to effect
change.

CF felt that information reaching He
ads of Service should be more
specific. SCOTS Business meetings on 19 August

in Aberdeen and
4

November
in Edinburgh to be
targeted to impress upon Heads of Service
the need for RAMPS. A briefing paper to be prepared for August meeting
highlighting this
,

the
benefits of having a R
AMP

and the
need to continue
with the project beyond year 4.

Aspects to highlight
include
:

Better prioritisation

Better coding

More realistic PI’s

A common community


EP & exp to identify
cost benefits
of the project and to
show e
xamples e g
cost
savings on road
maintenance,

targeting by
scheme
prioritisation
, cost
benchmarking and financial needs predictions
.


















EP


EP






exp


















exp
/
EP







5


Safety Defects








Definitions ar
e

ok

Code respon
se times have been agreed
(RS)

GCC assessment Matrix (5x5) works well and sample defects sent to a
cross section
of GCC
staff have shown consistent assessment


categorisation
returns
across the board. This should now go out to all
authorities to use in Foo
tway assessments
.


Cost benefits using this methodology are huge
.
A c
ost benefits analysis
should be carried out.

GCC need to produce a handbook for inspectors
.










CF

Page
3

of
5


The Safety Defects Group needs to be resurrected to take matters
forward.

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
a

storage.




EP






6


Minimum Standards








PH to issue
:



A

table

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
assessment and
monetary

implications.

Where code of practice is not used it must be documented as to why.

CF woul
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
authorities.


EP to invite
previous

delegates to a meeting to be arranged for the group
.





exp









exp/
EP



EP






7


Cost Benchmarking


PI

Group update.








RS outlined proposals for cost

benchmarking
. 5 teams repr
esenting
finance, customer services, lighting, structures and carriageways to be set
up to determine cost ben
chmarking
with a 6th managing the processes.

It is initially intended that Groups will look at:




Finance
:

C
onsistency in finance reporting



Customer

Services
:

W
ithin WDM there is a logon which does not directly look

at
related
cost benefits

but
there
can be huge benefits when taking
other criteria into consideration. This will be
investigated.



Lighting
:


L
ook at costs of different delivery models
.

Che
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.



Structures:

No brief

for structures at present

Valuation required

Long term cost projections required

Development of unit costs
is
required but may prove difficult

Best put into blocks of priorities, leading to categorisation
and /

or
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.


















Page
4

of
5


8


SRMCS










Draft legal agreement for next period is vi
r
tually the same as the
previous one.

2013
contract is for
4 years
.



Current s
urvey is progressing and is on target for completion.



Require costs for complimentary indicator. Incorporate outcomes
into PMS

v
aluation exercise.



CIPFA


recognition that The CIPFA model is not
correct,

giving
incorrect figures.



A ‘t‘
value of 7, produces more realistic figures which is the figure
that AG and the group suggested.




AG





9


Whole Government Accounts Submissions










'Illuminated signs' is missing from Task 27 spreadsheet.



All data required for
current

WGA rep
orting
requirements
is on
Task 27 spreadsheet.

Figures to be used are 2010 / 11 figures.



Spreadsheet requires different bands of condition index.
(WDM
was asked for these figures but GCC did not get what
was

r
equested.)



WGA reporting form to be sent to al
l authorities as a reminder that
completion is required by their respective finance sections and
figure
s

to use are 2010 / 11.








EP





10


Year 4 Workshops







10
.1



Workshop 3, September 2011





Task 26 requires to be completed for th
e workshop
. Some
changes to the spreadsheet should be incorporated.


o

Introduce levels of service and cost implications

o

Good practice related to levels of service and Financial
Implications.

o

Good practice from self assessment exercise

o

Carriageway spreadsheet
-

need
new spreadsheet
to
incorporate the proportions of A, B,
C and

U categories in
RCI bands.

o

Possibly include a

lighting element




AG to ask WDM for 2009 / 11 survey figures this should be in
spreadsheet format with the 4 classes



5 bands in each class.

This w
ould help in completing carriageway spreadsheet referred to
above.




Note on Footway Inspections:

o

Are Safety inspectors still doing footway
condition

inspections?

o

Turn red
/amber/green off at junctions only. Do not change
status until junction is reached.

o

Tr
ain
Safety inspectors
to do condition surveys at same
time.

o

Use photographs to state condition 1, 2, 3 or 4

o

GCC
IT to talk to North Ayrshire

IT
to discuss ‘tablet’ set
up for inspections. Contact in North Ayrshire is Graham
Robin Tel. 01294 225222




Donald
Bell from
Halcrow
-

Nicola Blaney looking for example of
a
validation of cost savings
as a result of
using

/ implementing

Asset













AG











CF



CF





exp/EP

Page
5

of
5


Management.



Contact authorities on the need to undertake 25% footway
inspection
. Include inspections into current normal activit
ies and
show cost differentials if done differently.



PI’s need to be issued to authorities now to coincide with APSE

ones
.



EP to issue PI
analysis
results review
. To be discussed at
September Workshop sessions.



EP






EP







10
.2

Workshop 4
,

November 2011










The first objective of the commission was to develop and have a
Rudimentary R
AMP

in place.



Next phase has to be to develop long term planning and target
savings.



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.






1
1


Structures Group








PH discussing this with Scots

Bridges Group






1
2


Reporting Tools










Programme of development still required for issue to Transport
Scotland.



Transport Scotland requires regular progress updates. PH to
provide to EP.



Carriageway section is out for testing for feedback to P
H.



Present carriageway section at September Workshop sessions.



Development to be financially complete by February 2012 to
invoic
ing

Transport Scotland
.

Exp


Exp/EP



Exp


exp





1
3


Beyond year 4








PH to provide details and costs for extending th
e project

exp





1
4


Finance










Costs for year 4 sessions are still awaited.



Invoices required for work already delivered in Year 4.


exp





1
5


Next Meeting


Tuesday
20 September 2011 at
10.
3
0 hrs

GCC

Land & Environmental Services

Richmond E
xchange

20 Cadogan Street

Glasgow

G2 7AD