Annualstatusandoptionsreportappendix
Argyll and Bute Council · 2 March 2023
Back to Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee — 2 March 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … . ANNUAL STATUS AND OPTIONS REPORT MARCH 2023 Appendix 1
Page 2
2 Document Control Document History Version Status Date Author Changes from Previous Version 1.0 First Draft Oct 2022 Update 2021 ASOR report with current available data for management team review 1.8 Working Draft Nov 2022 All updates completed with current available data for management team review 1.10 Managers Final Draft Dec 2022 Data now confirmed and updated to final draft Document Control Version Status Date Comments
Page 3
3 Contents Report Content ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Management of Road Infrastructure Assets ................................................................................................... 8 1.0 Carriageways ............................................................................................................................................ 9 1.1 Road Length .......................................................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Condition ............................................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Asset Valuation ................................................................................................................................... 10 1.4 Investment .......................................................................................................................................... 10 1.5 Capital ................................................................................................................................................. 10 1.6 Strategic Timber Transport Fund ........................................................................................................ 11 1.7 Maintenance Backlog .......................................................................................................................... 13 1.8 Capital Road reconstruction ................................................................................................................ 13 1.9 Winter Maintenance ............................................................................................................................ 15 1.10 CAPITAL RESURFACING INVESTMENT OPTIONS ....................................................................... 17 OPTION 1— £3M .................................................................................................................................. 17 OPTION 2— £5M .................................................................................................................................. 17 OPTION 3 — £8M ................................................................................................................................. 17 OPTION 4 — £11M ............................................................................................................................... 17 1.11 Revenue Funded Preventative Maintenance Investment Options .................................................... 18 2.0 Footways ................................................................................................................................................ 19 2.1 Length ................................................................................................................................................. 19 2.2 Condition ............................................................................................................................................. 19 2.3 Asset Valuation ................................................................................................................................... 19 2.4 Maintenance backlog .......................................................................................................................... 19 2.5 Investment ........................................................................................................................................... 19 2.6 Public Liability Claims ......................................................................................................................... 20 2.7 Investment Options ............................................................................................................................. 21 3.0 Street lighting .......................................................................................................................................... 22 3.1 Inventory ............................................................................................................................................. 22 3.2 Condition ............................................................................................................................................. 22 3.3 Valuation ............................................................................................................................................. 22 3.4 Investment ........................................................................................................................................... 23 3.4 Investment (Cont). ............................................................................................................................... 24 3.5 Energy Consumption ........................................................................................................................... 24 3.6 Investment Options ............................................................................................................................. 26 4.0 Structures ...................................................................................................................................... 27 4.1 Assets ................................................................................................................................................. 27 4.2 Condition ............................................................................................................................................. 27 4.3 Asset Valuation ................................................................................................................................... 28
Page 4
4 4.4 Investment ........................................................................................................................................... 28 4.5 Maintenance backlog .......................................................................................................................... 29 4.6 Flood Prevention ................................................................................................................................. 29 4.7 Match Funding Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 30 4.8 Flood Prevention Maintenance Backlog .............................................................................................. 31 4.9 Investment Options ............................................................................................................................. 32 5.0 Traffic Signals ......................................................................................................................................... 33 5.1 Assets ................................................................................................................................................. 33 5.2 Condition ............................................................................................................................................. 33 5.3 Valuation ............................................................................................................................................. 34 5.4 Investment ........................................................................................................................................... 34 5.5 Maintenance Backlog .......................................................................................................................... 34 5.6 Investment Options ............................................................................................................................. 35 6.0 Street Furniture ....................................................................................................................................... 36 6.1 Assets ................................................................................................................................................. 36 6.2. Condition ............................................................................................................................................ 36 6.3 Valuation ............................................................................................................................................. 37 6.4 Investment ........................................................................................................................................... 37 6.5 Maintenance Backlog .......................................................................................................................... 38 6.6 Asset Data and Knowledge ................................................................................................................. 38 6.7 Electric Vehicle Charging .................................................................................................................... 39 6.8 Weather Stations ................................................................................................................................. 40 6.9 Vehicle Restraint Systems .................................................................................................................. 40 6.10 Investment Options ........................................................................................................................... 42 7.0 Climate Change and a Resilient Network ............................................................................................... 43 7.1 Investment ........................................................................................................................................... 44 7.2 Condition ............................................................................................................................................. 45 7.3 Maintenance Backlog .......................................................................................................................... 45 7.5 Investment Options ............................................................................................................................. 45
Page 5
5 Report Content This report has been compiled based on current available data which may be subject to change as more information becomes available. Where little or no data exists then various assumptions and estimates have been made to provide illustrations or add context to the subject matter. The report provides a snapshot of road infrastructure assets within Argyll and Bute Council based on 2021-22 data for asset condition, previous investment, asset valuation and other relevant information. It provides indicative future investment options for consideration within each asset group based on available information and resource levels to develop same.
Page 6
6 This is a headline summary on the condition of Argyll and Bute Council Road infrastructure assets. It provides key information on inventory, condition and the continued need for greater investment in essential maintenance. Our roads support thousands of journeys every day and are a vital component of a thriving economy for our remote communities. Road transport infrastructure benefits everyone by providing access socially, commercially, educationally and enabling service access for energy supply, communications and the digital network (ie service ducts, maintenance). The covid-19 pandemic interrupted the annual road condition assessment programme which meant island roads were unable to be surveyed. However the latest survey results show a marked improvement in overall condition since the last normal survey from 54.4% to 49.8% as detailed in carriageway section 1.0. This indicates that sustained investment targeted through the road reconstruction programme has delivered improvements contributing towards the council vision “Our infrastructure supports sustainable growth”. The results also show, this is the first time since SRMCS surveys began that more than half our fragile road network is within the green or good condition band which demonstrates the efforts road maintenance teams have achieved across the authority. However, our road infrastructure assets are suffering from long term under-investment creating an aged and deteriorating asset base. The current maintenance backlog for road Infrastructure assets (Roads, Footways, Street lighting, Structures, Traffic Signals & Street Furniture) is circa £140million. The annual investment needed calculated as annual depreciation is £24.9million (201/22 asset valuation) with current funding at £18.3million / Year (2021/22 Asset valuation). Essential safety maintenance works on assets are being prioritised on a risk based, worst first basis due to funding constraints leading to more expensive whole life costs. Because we carry out less preventative maintenance, service life cannot be extended, therefore assets in good condition deteriorate further until defects are identified or reported. This cycle happens over time and does not represent good long term value. Policies and maintenance strategies, combined with longer term financial planning are needed to break this cycle of under-investment and accelerated deterioration. This will support corporate objectives and demonstrate better value through well managed assets. Argyll and Bute Council is driving to improve services for communities within the constraints of resources and funding. The covid pandemic has brought change to many aspects of service delivery with road asset maintenance facing even greater challenge to deliver essential services due to the impact of higher materials costs and energy for street lighting. The service also needs to consider and implement appropriate carbon reduction measures to support the Decarbonisation Plan (2022-25) objectives and its ambition of achieving a 75% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.
Page 7
7 A decade of capital investment has provided almost steady state RCI condition through a planned and prioritised programme of works. The maintenance backlog for carriageways is £112m (2019 SCOTS report). Revenue funding has reduced to the point where almost all activities are undertaken on a reactive basis, effectively when assets stop functioning. Road maintenance services are stretched to breaking point with resources being swallowed up by intensive reactive maintenance demands. This is a vicious maintenance cycle (ASOR Oct 2015) which requires more focus on delivering a planned programme of preventative maintenance works to break the cycle and deliver appropriate level of service standards. The recent £1m investment (2017-20) in footways has dealt with the worst identified areas of concern and brought welcome improvement to localised areas. Third party insurance claims have remained low with only one settled claim in 2020/21. Greater emphasis and planning is required to deliver a sustained long term funding and maintenance regime. Current fluctuation of investment does not provide the best value for the long term sustainability of the asset so that it can continue to meet user demands and expectations. Current investment is £500k for 2022/23. Structures are inspected in accordance with the Management of Highway Structures Code of Practice. This provides data to assess asset condition and prioritise necessary maintenance. Since 2012/13 overall stock condition has declined with 53 structures now subject to special monitoring precautions an increase from 29 last year. Currently 15 bridges are subject to acceptable weight restrictions and 28 bridges have failed the European Standard Assessment which is the same as last year. Asset valuation is £290m with annual depreciation at £1.3m/yr. Infrastructure Design Service secured £5.45m investment from Scottish Government’s Local Bridge Maintenance Fund to help address critical structures. Rising energy costs highlight the benefits of previous investment through the LED replacement programme which has almost halved energy consumption since the project began. This project highlighted further necessary works to replace aged columns and update the obsolete 5th core electricity supply which is a source of many reported dark lamps and outages. A business case shall be developed from collated data obtained via LED project to explore future long term asset needs. Meanwhile continued investment totalling £440k for completion of the LED replacement project and a further £300k for column and cabling renewal will help towards asset improvement and supporting council climate change objectives. Longer term maintenance strategy and investment options are needed going forward to realise further savings The traffic signal asset condition has recently been surveyed highlighting a substantial number of issues to update and modernise assets to comply with current regulations. This requires the use of specialist contractors through a tendering process to undertake the works. The costs are expected to outweigh the current available budget and will require a prioritised list of works to be compiled in line with available funding. The extent and condition of our street furniture asset isn`t fully recorded within the asset database. Vehicle safety barriers were assessed in 2015. This showed significant investment is needed to replace existing obsolete, damaged or noncompliant safety fencing. The estimated cost £2.1m far outweighs current budget allocation of £100k. This requires specialist external services to assess needs and undertake necessary works. Additionally, council data on street assets will now be subject to mandatory reporting to The Street Works Commissioner in 2023. Argyll and Bute Council have reduced carbon emissions by 27% in the last five years. The LED project has contributed to this achievement through much reduced energy use. The Decarbonisation Plan (2022-25) sets out actions for Argyll and Bute to become more climate friendly with aims to be carbon neutral by 2045. More frequent severe weather events increase the likelihood of flooding and damage to road infrastructure assets or property and requires more investment in regular preventative maintenance activities to mitigate the risk. Major projects like the £15.215m Campbeltown Flood Prevention Scheme will provide a range of improvements to reduce the risk of flooding in the town.
Page 8
8 Management of Road Infrastructure Assets Argyll and Bute Council currently manages road infrastructure assets in line with available resources. Resources are very limited, particularly in terms of asset data to support more informed decision making which would reduce reliance on officer knowledge and experience. Robust and reliable asset data is a key driver in realising predictable outcomes through the use of well-established asset management processes. It provides decision makers with confidence whilst delivering better value and demonstrating a well- managed asset portfolio in line with the SCOTS Asset Management Framework. Argyll and Bute Council participates in the SCOTS Road Asset Management (RAM) project with all other Scottish Local Authorities. The project facilitates collaboration and development of a consistent asset management approach across Scotland. The project recently commissioned consultants ATKINS to audit authorities’ progress with developing the SCOTS asset management framework practices. The audit when complete, provides individual authority reports and a national summary report for submission to the SCOTS Executive. The Argyll and Bute audit draft report was completed in August 2020. The report highlighted a key factor limiting asset management progress was resource constraints. It provided three recommendations that are anticipated to provide significant benefits: Develop a Data Management Plan. Focus data collection on business needs, requirements and priorities. Identifies, risks and supports mitigation Documents data management processes ▪ Enables review and auditing of data, systems and processes ▪ Supports consistency of data collection and management. Provides data ownerships and promotes continuous improvements Development of local monitors and KPI’s that: Align with the corporate plan and assist in linking performance across the service to its influence on achieving the corporate objectives / priorities / outcomes. Link monitors to key risks identified in the Road Asset Management Plan. Develop an Asset Management Communication plan Provides key asset management stakeholders Identifies key stakeholder’s asset management knowledge and competency Stakeholder AM knowledge and competency gap analysis Stakeholder AM knowledge and competency improvement plan Officers are organising Members Seminars in early 2023 to inform members and in particular new members, of the engineering and back office asset management processes used to deliver our Capital and Revenue Scheme selections. This will include information around resourcing and prioritising how officers deliver the annual roads maintenance schemes across Argyll and Bute as well as our Asset Management methods.
Page 9
9 1.0 Carriageways 1.1 Road Length A Class Roads 505.3km B Class Roads 613.5km C Class Roads 434.3km Unclassified Roads 733km Total Network Length 2286km The chart opposite shows that nearly one third of our network is made up of unclassified roads (U Class). Most of the carriageway is rural with over 80% of the network in rural areas. It should be noted that 38% of the network is located on an island. This incurs additional cost to maintenance operations through associated transportation and remote working costs. Careful planning is required to make the most of available resources when undertaking island road maintenance works. 1.2 Condition Road condition is measured by the Scottish Road Maintenance Condition Survey (SRMCS) which assesses parameters such as surface texture and cracking, smoothness and rutting. This provides an indication of the residual life of the road structure. The latest road condition survey results show a marked improvement in condition from the last normal survey 54.4% to current 49.8%. This highlights the sustained investment from members recognising the significance of our road network, which has allowed over 50% of our Network to be in the ‘Green’ condition for the first time over the last 8 years of reporting. The impact of covid travel restrictions with much reduced vehicle movements could potentially have reduced road surface deterioration. Road condition results are based on a two year rolling average which overlaps the covid pandemic. Capital investment targeted towards the strategic A- Class network has delivered much improvement with condition now very good at 37.4% RCI compared to B, C & U road classifications. The urban network is also considered to be in very good condition with and RCI value of 31.6%.
Page 10
10 1.3 Asset Valuation The asset valuation for carriageways is detailed within the table 3.7 opposite. It shows the Gross Replacement Cost as £2.35billion. This is the cost of a new replacement asset. The Depreciated Replacement Cost is £2.09billion which is the present value of asset based on condition data. The Annualised Depreciation Cost is £20.81million which is the calculated level of annual investment needed to sustain current asset condition. 1.4 Investment The capital reconstruction programme delivered £7.5m of investment on a range of surfacing projects aimed at improving network condition across Argyll. The table details the surfacing quantities and value within each activity. The percentage split across activities shows the bulk of investment (77%) is attributed to Surface Dressing (SD) and thin surfacing works to maximise network coverage. The aim being to seal and extend surface life with a SD treatment and tackle as much deteriorated surface as possible with thin surfacing works so as to help reduce demand for reactive treatment works. The adjacent table provides an indicative guide on asset sustainability by comparing annual works delivery via capital reconstruction programme against expected service life and asset inventory. This provides an indicative treatment cycle in years. 1.5 Capital The tables and charts below illustrate the relationship between investment and the annual RCI results. By comparing the capital spend average against the RCI average, this shows a steady state road condition budget allocation of £7.688m/year for combined capital and revenue carriageway surfacing treatments would keep the carriageway from further deterioration. This value differs from the SCOTS Steady state figure £11.5m which can be attributed to the SCOTS methodology using a more robust treatment matrix in the context of nationwide networks as opposed to treatments specifically aimed at Argyll and Bute Council’s variable network. Surfacing treatments in Argyll are based on several factors often unique such as island works that are not necessarily truly reflected in a national modelling tool unless specifically formulated for that purpose. Surface Treatment Length (m) Cost (£) Percentage Surface Dressing 82389 £2,263,946 30% Thin/Micro Surfacing (up to 25mm) 1191 £108,125 1% Thin Overlay (>25mm to 60mm) 39010 £2,244,509 30% Moderate Overlay (>60mm to 100mm) 866 £94,181 1% Structural Overlay (>100mm) 1130 £146,570 2% Thin Inlay (>25mm to 60mm) 9079 £1,250,779 17% Moderate Inlay (>60mm to 100mm) 3658 £565,766 8% Structural Inlay (>100mm) 1019 £227,842 3% Planned Patching 0 £24,366 0% Reconstruction (250mm+) 3707 £599,584 8% Total £7,525,669 Treatment Expected Service Life (Years) Quantity Works (Km) Inventory Treatment Cycle (Years) Surface Dressing 12-15 82.4 2286 28 Resurfacing Works 20-30 55.9 2286 41
Page 11
11 1.6 Strategic Timber Transport Fund Argyll and Bute Council has consistently secured significant funding support from the Strategic Timber Transport Fund (STTF). The past decade has seen over £9M additional investment from STTS to support the road reconstruction programme, this has enabled the council to deliver noticeable upgrading on the strategic and other timber transport routes which has improved safety, road user experience and reduced reactive maintenance demands on already stretched budgets. Agreed standard bidding process across all local authorities, final decision being made by STTF. The STTF funding is earmarked for projects which minimise the impact of timber lorries on our rural road network. It means that for every £1 Argyll and Bute Council spend the STTF funding support, on average more than doubles this investment. The works being undertaken will make it easier for local residents and businesses to share the roads. Getting timber off our own road network and improving journey times when shifting timber from forests to processing facilities is another major benefit of improving the network. Roads which have seen improvements from the joint funding between the council and STTF are: A816 Lochgilphead – Oban strategic route; Lochawe haulage routes- B840, C30 and C29; Kintyre B842; and B8000 Strathlachlan, Cowal. Forestry is a key industry sector in Argyll and Bute, growing our economy and providing employment in management and harvesting operations. Forestry also enables community access to forest trails to enjoy outdoor activities and encourage healthier lifestyles. The Strategic Timber Transport Fund (STTS) has enabled Argyll and Bute Council through a competitive bidding process to secure significant 50:50 funding support for a number of identified road reconstruction projects across the authority. These projects are delivered via the capital road reconstruction programme to improve sections of road Year Capital & Revenue Survey year RCI 2013-14 £9,826,466 2013-15 55.6 2014-15 £8,896,996 2014-16 54.4 2015-16 £6,799,499 2015-17 55.3 2016-17 £5,821,104 2016-18 55.5 2017-18 £5,233,219 2017-19 54.4 2018-19 £11,502,343 2018-20 54.17 2019-20 £9,472,398 2019-21 N/A (covid) 2020-21 £8,426,346 2020-22 49.8 Average Spend £8,247,296 Average 54.2
Page 12
12 utilised for timber transport. This investment have provided welcome improvements to our strategic road network that benefits all road users. Argyll and Bute Council continue to explore the possibility of further external funding with the Northern Roads Collaboration and SCOTS to approach the Scottish Government regarding funding from Spirit Based Transport from Distillery's (similar to the STTS Funding) which would provide additional roads funding.
Page 13
13 1.7 Maintenance Backlog The SCOTS Headline Maintenance Backlog figure is calculated every two years using road condition data collected via the Scottish Road Maintenance Condition Survey (SRMCS). The calculation uses surveyed condition data with a surfacing treatment matrix and unit rates to determine the extent of maintenance required to bring whole network surfacing to an ‘A1’ condition. For the steady state calculations the model was run and values were output so that each authorities red RCI percentage was held at the current level by treating any amber RCI values which would otherwise deteriorate into red values in the subsequent year. This has been evidenced as best value. 1.8 Capital Road reconstruction The capital reconstruction programme plays a key role in targeting available funding. The past decade has seen over £86M investment in road resconstruction on sections of road that can provided greatest benefits and value to road users. The table below illustrates the the capital reconstruction budgets over past ten years. ROAD RE‐CONSTRUCTION AND RE‐SURFACING BUDGETS 2011‐2023 Fin.Year Capital Invest. STTS Other Comment 2011‐12 £5,147,793 £4,295,000 £852,793 2012‐13 £8,706,321 £8,137,000 £569,321 2013‐14 £8,012,160 £6,165,640 £599,909 £1,246,611 add cap 2014‐15 £6,922,089 £6,822,000 £100,089 2015‐16 £4,440,987 £4,367,487 £73,500 2016‐17 £4,693,612 £4,616,612 £77,000 2017‐18 £3,616,443 £3,000,000 £616,443 2018‐19 £9,747,042 £8,382,000 £1,365,042 2019‐20 £7,867,469 £6,243,388 £1,624,081 2020‐21 £6,918,222 £4,828,509 £1,255,568 £834,145 add cap ‐ Covid Deferred 2021‐22 £10,809,462 £6,900,000 £1,299,462 £2,610,000 add cap ‐ Incl. Covid c/o 2022‐23 £9,258,445 £8,000,000 £958,445 £300,000 Coastal Communities. TOTAL £86,140,045 £71,757,636 £9,391,653 £4,990,756 The photos below show some of the road reconstruction and resurfacing works being undertaken as part of the 2019- 20 capital investment programme. The photo opposite is part of the Islay retread process which involves churning up existing deteriorated surfacing, adding some bitumen and regrading and compacting the surface to restore surface condition. The process reduces the quantity of new materials required and contributes to lower carbon emissions for the project as well as delivering best value on the Island road network. SCOTS Headline Maintenance Backlog 2019 SCOTS Report Average Annual Investment Headline Backlog Figure Steady State Figure Capital Road Reconstruction (2011-2022) £112,251,000 £11,507,000 £7,178,337
Page 14
14 The photos below show resurfacing works on B842 High Askimol and carriageway widening on A816 Blaran. Photos below illustrate some of the recent capital reconstruction road resurfacing works.
Page 15
15 1.9 Winter Maintenance Keeping our roads ‘open for business’ is vital for our economy and the health and well-being of our communities. This includes carrying out winter maintenance services aimed at keeping our roads safe during periods of snow and ice through the winter months. This requires substantial resources to monitor weather conditions, predict treatments, procure and store de-icing salt, gritters, loaders and drivers to deliver same across Argyll and the Isles every day of the winter period. Climate change is affecting how we deliver the service with winter weather becoming more marginal and less predictable requiring more responsive treatments and actions all within the confines of complying with driver hours legislation. The table below provides some details of the scale of winter operations over the last ten years undertaken on 31 planned treatment routes using a fleet of 33 gritting vehicles.
Page 16
16 The cost of providing this vital service is a significant portion of annual road maintenance spend at almost 40% of existing total revenue budget. This impacts other essential preventative maintenance activities with less works being afforded. Consideration may be needed on alternative funding mechanisms for winter services so that the full extent of revenue budget allocation can be utilised to achieve more extensive planned preventative maintenance to extend service life of assets. Delivering these tasks to appropriate service standards can better support council corporate goals whilst demonstrating well managed assets. Spend Roads Winter Total Winter % 2015-16 £4,173,702 £1,832,248 £6,005,950 30.51% 2016-17 £4,243,332 £1,885,851 £6,129,183 30.77% 2017-18 £3,926,258 £2,669,341 £6,595,599 40.47% 2018-19 £3,765,604 £1,791,150 £5,556,754 32.23% 2019-20 £3,485,315 £2,165,845 £5,651,160 38.33% 2020-21 £ 3,360,100 £ 2,251,432 £ 5,611,532 40.12% 2021-22 £3,516,984 £2,355,154 £5,872,138 33.03% Winter Treatment Information Ten Year Average Total number of planned treatment runs ( equiv Full Fleet) 65 Runs Total aggregate annual treatment mileage travelled by all gritting vehicles on all planned routes 105024 Miles Total tonnage of salt used on carriageways 11030 Tonnes Total Winter actual spend carriageways £2,258,229 Spend Budgets Roads Winter Total Winter % 2015-16 £3,957,298 £1,644,490 £5,601,788 29.36% 2016-17 £3,972,055 £1,836,286 £5,808,341 31.61% 2017-18 £3,832,056 £1,636,828 £5,468,884 29.93% 2018-19 £3,832,056 £1,621,674 £5,453,730 29.74% 2019-20 £3,411,055 £2,122,154 £5,533,209 38.35% 2020-21 £3,506,058 £2,122,618 £5,628,676 37.71% 2021-22 £ 3,422,540 £ 2,119,974 £5,542,514 38.25%
Page 17
17 1.10 CAPITAL RESURFACING INVESTMENT OPTIONS OPTION 1— £3M An annual investment of £3m would lead to a substantial deterioration on overall RCI with 69% of our roads requiring attention after 20 years including 38% of roads considered in the red category, this would significantly increase risk to road users safety. The volume of reactive temporary repairs would steadily rise, year on year as would public liability claims. Customer satisfaction levels can be expected to steadily decrease. OPTION 2— £5M An annual investment of £5m would lead to a slower deterioration on overall RCI with 59% of our roads requiring attention after 20 years including 30% of roads considered as red category. This is almost double the latest result (16.34%) for red category roads. The volume of reactive temporary repairs would steadily rise, year on year as would public liability claims. Customer satisfaction levels can be expected to steadily decrease. OPTION 3 — £8M An annual investment of £8m would lead to steady state in overall RCI with 41% of our roads requiring attention after 20 years including 18% of roads considered as red category which is on par with current red condition (16.34%). The volume of reactive temporary repairs would likely remain similar to current levels over initial period and would be expected to remain similar over time as road condition remains constant. Public liability claims would also be expected to remain similar. Customer satisfaction levels would also remain in steady state. OPTION 4 — £11M An annual investment of £11m for the next 20 years should lead to a substantial improvement in overall RCI with only 27% of roads requiring attention including only 8% of roads in red category, half the current red condition (16.34%). This differs slightly from the projected value from the SCOTS Backlog and Steady State model, due to a different method of predicting future carriageway condition. This would potentially make Argyll and Bute council the leading Scottish authority in terms of RCI. A substantial reduction in reactive repairs and public liability claims can be expected. Demands on limited resources would be lessened and customer satisfaction levels will also be greatly improved through this investment.
Page 18
18 1.11 Revenue Funded Preventative Maintenance Investment Options The value of undertaking adequate preventative maintenance works cannot be over stated. It is the most vital and fundamental function required to extend infrastructure service life, strengthen network resilience and minimise demand for capital investment. Below are a number of initial revenue budget investment options for consideration. These will all require further investigation, research and development to progress more detailed information on which option is best suited to support council objectives within the confines of available resources. Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Less maintenance works afforded Doesn`t support corporate objectives Increased asset deterioration Difficult to demonstrate value Greater demand for expensive reactive works Future demand for capital investment far greater than initial savings realised May compromise current internal service delivery Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Maintains existing budget No council budget saving Supports some corporate goals Retains internal service delivery Requires change in approach Training to focus efforts on prioitised business needs Need more focus on planned works Needs commitment to deliver Some investment in better mobile technology Need better data capture and analysis Development of appropriate service standards Better value works can be afforded Additional resources needed to implement any changes Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Better control of costs No Council budget savings Supports council objectives Delivers better value maintenance services Potential increased budget required Implementing SCOTS Asset Management recommended practices Requires significant cahnges Investment in better mobile technology More informed decision making Needs commitment to deliver Staff training & Additional resources to implement Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Vital maintenance activities delivered Compliance with capital investment rules Supports council objectives Ability to demostrate value May impact capital investment on other assets Implementing SCOTS Asset Management recommended practices Improved asset management Investment in better mobile technology Staff training & Additional resources to implement OPTION 1 Increased pressure on council budgets and the need to realise savings may reduce current investment levels for preventative maintenance activities. This needs careful consideration and will impact the quantity of works afforded necessary to provide adequate protection to vital road assets. It will increase demand for more expensive reactive works which is the vicious cycle essential maintenance activities are currently experiencing. It will increase future demand for capital investment far greater than initial savings realised. Delivers short term budget savings OPTION 2 Maintain existing investment levels and consider prioritising activity funding using a risk based approach. Prioritised activities should be delivered through a planned programme of works to maximise value for money through appropriate service standards. Combined with improved recording of maintenance works asset information can be enhanced to assist driving an improved asset management approach that can break the current vicious cycle of reactive maintenance demands. OPTION 3 Maintain or increase investment levels through a zero based budget approach. This would essentially allocate a percentage budget for reactive maintenance with the balance of funding allocated through planned schedules and programmes of works to effectively justify and approve funding allocation against a measured works quantity to meet appropriate service standards. This would refocus effort on delivering measured work packages whilst improving capture of asset information to assist delivery of the benefits from implementing recognised asset management practices. OPTION 4 Consider funding some maintenance activities using a capital funding allocation. Preventative maintenance is a critical activity some of which can be easily quantified (Ditching, Gully cleaning, Patching etc.). Delivering planned measurable works would greatly enhance ability to demonstarte value and prudent stewardship of assets.
Page 19
19 2.0 Footways 2.1 Length The footway asset is approx. 520km in length as detailed in tables 2.1a & 2.1b opposite. The extent of the asset is not fully known and is updated as new data becomes available. 2.2 Condition Asset condition surveys are not currently undertaken due to limited resources and cost implications. Generally footways are considered safe and fit for purpose with maintenance works undertaken in response to identified defects or public complaints as investment and resources permit. 2.3 Asset Valuation Details of the asset valuation are shown in table 2.3 below; Table 2.3 Footway Valuation by Hierarchy Footway Hierarchy Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Annualised Depreciation Cost Higher Amenity Footways £10,431,218 £8,855,040 £67,272 Other Footways £89,430,884 £69,430,323 £882,053 Total £99,862,102 £78,285,363 £949,325 2.4 Maintenance backlog The maintenance backlog for footways is based on officers estimation of condition calculated as three percent of gross replacement cost of the asset. Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) Backlog Estimate 3% GRC Investment Need based on Annualised Depreciation Cost £99,862,102 £78,285,363 £949,325 2.5 Investment Footways investment of £1m over previous 3 years has tackled some of the worst identified sections of the network aimed at reducing reactive maintenance demands. The planned capital investment for 2021/22 was £900k and a further £500k for 2022/23 Table 2.5a details the extent of capital works undertaken 2019- 20. Table 2.5b provides indicative information on the current footways treatment cycle. 2.5b Footway Treatment Cycle Treatment Expected Service Life (Yrs)Quantity (Km) Inventory (Km) Treatment Cycle (Years) Surface Treatment 15-20 0.802 529 660 Resurfacing Works 30-40 1.913 529 277 Reconstruction 50-60 0.471 529 1123 All Works 3.186 529 166 Table 2.1a Footways Quantities by Hierarchy Footway Hierarchy Length (m) Area (sqm) Higher Amenity Footways 41,977 117,536 Other Footways 470,174 1,001,471 Total 512,151 1,119,006 Table 2.1b All Footpath Quantities Quantity Length (m) Area (sqm) All Footpaths 9,349 11,219 Total 9,349 11,219 2.5a Footways Treatment Length (m) Cost (£) Surface Treatment 802 £20,641.74 Resurfaced 1,913 £139,205.57 Reconstruction 471 £74,045.90 Totals 3,186 £233,893.21
Page 20
20 2.6 Public Liability Claims The number of public liability claims and resultant costs are illustrated in the charts below. The last few years have shown a decreasing trend in the number of carriageway settled claims. The capital reconstruction programme improvements have likely contributed to this although the restrictions in travel during covid pandemic may also be influencing data. Continued investment particularly that targeted towards preventative maintenance measures will extend service life and preserve the functionality of road assets to help mitigate any risk to road users. 5 1 0 0 0 0 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Number of Public Liability Claims Settled
Page 21
21 2.7 Investment Options Below are a number of initial revenue budget investment options for consideration. These will all require further investigation, research and development to progress more detailed information on which option is best suited to support council objectives within the confines of available resources. Investment options should be inked to the long term maintenance strategy for the asset. . Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Continues service delivery for defects Continued long tern asset deterioration Adopting risk based approach to managing the asset Growing demands for capital investment Resource condition survey of asset to gain information on asset needs Rising number of public liability claims Development of long term maintenance strategy for asset group Reactive maintenance is expensive and poor value Resource development of a prioritised list of planned works Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Investment tackles asset deterioration limited asset information and condition data Implementing SCOTS asset management recommended practices Planned works deliver better value resources required to identify, quantify and works Resource development of a prioritised list of planned works Reduced demand for reactive works Level of works limited within available revenue budget allocation Development of long term maintenance strategy for asset group Less complaints Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Investment tackles deterioration and gradually improves whole asset limited asset information and condition data Development of long term maintenance strategy for asset group Demonstrates prudent stewardship of assets resources required to identify scope of works Investment in mobile technology to capture asset data Supports corporate objectives Requires increased levels investment Implementing SCOTS asset management recommended practices Benefits Drawbacks Considerations All asset approach to maintenance requires substantial capital investment Use of SCOTS asset management tools Investment in mobile technology Deveolpment of appropriate maintenace strategy Option 1 Undertake maintenance only on a reactive basis to repair defects within existing revenue budget allocation Option 2 Increased investment in revenue planned maintenance activities Option 3 Develop business case for investment through capital budget for resurfacing/reconstruction of sub standard footways and footpaths. Extend the capital programme of improvements undertaken 2017‐20 via a rolling 3 ‐ 5 year programme of works that can be prioritised in line with available resources. Option 4 Capital investment for improvement in kerbing in conjunction with carriageway surfacing and street lighting projects. Requires a holistic planned approach across all road asset groups to collaborate works programmes to support overall council goals and objectives. A streetscene approach to delivering improvements.
Page 22
22 3.0 Street lighting 3.1 Inventory The extent of street lighting asset is detailed in Tables 3.1a,b,c, d & e below; There is no available data on the extent of cabling associated with street lighting assets. The quantities within table 3.1d have been estimated based on 30 Lin.m per column. The estimated quantities have also been sub-divided into likely cable tracking location as 10% carriageway, 50% footway and 40% in verge. 3.2 Condition The condition of street lighting assets is normally determined based on the age of assets. Unfortunately there is no available historic data on the installation dates for the majority of street lighting assets. However following the recent investment in replacement of luminaires with new low energy LED Lanterns data has been collected on the condition of columns and apparatus across the network. Work is ongoing to collate the data so that it can be fully assessed to determine the extent of asset deterioration. Initial LED replacement works highlighted a substantial number of columns in very poor condition and unsuitable for installing new LED lanterns. Currently identifying the best options to manage street lighting maintenance for future years including replacement columns, 5th core cabling, finalising LED works 3.3 Valuation The asset valuation has been undertaken in accordance with the CIPFA Transport Asset Code recommendations using the SCOTS asset management framework tools and guidance. The valuation is detailed in Tables 3.3a,b & c below; Other Street Lighting Assets Quantity Wall Bracket 1,191 Wooden Pole 110 High Mast Column 0 Control Cabinet 751 Total 2,052 Table 6.2e Other Street Lighting Assets Cable Assets Quantity (m) Cable under Carriageway 43,050 Cable under Footway 215,250 Cable under Verge 172,200 Total 430,500 Table 6.2c Street Lighting Cable Quantities Illuminated Signs Quantity Signs 433 Bollards 46 Total 479 Table 6.2d Illuminated Sign Assets
Page 23
23 3.4 Investment The street lighting asset has seen investment directed towards new LED lanterns as part of spend to save initiative aimed at lowering energy usage to reduce annual energy costs. Reduced energy usage supports council objective to meet its climate change targets by reducing carbon footprint. The LED project is almost completed and has clearly demonstrated the positive impact investment can make towards achieving council objectives. However the project has highlighted a number of issues with the asset as many columns were unable to accept new LED lanterns due to their deteriorated state. An exercise is ongoing to collate data from the project to ascertain the extent of columns needing replaced so that a suitable business case can be progressed. It is known that a large but undetermined quantity of the inventory of street lights is still powered from the “5th core” electrical supply system, which is pre-2nd world war in origin. This dated infrastructure is a source of regular failure requiring the electricity supply company to attend and repair outages. Table 3.4 below details the cost of reconnections in previous year. There are currently 19 power supply defects requiring attention with repair costs to date in Bute and Cowal at almost £20k representing almost 30% of the annual maintenance budget for the area.
Page 24
24 The costs for repairing power outages is unpredictable due to the unknown element of works involved until repairs have commenced to expose the full extent of the fault. This requires further design work and cost benefit analysis to enable the most appropriate solution within confines of available resource. However the continued allocation of individual power connection fault costs to the revenue maintenance budget as part of dark lamp or section fault repairs is unsustainable both in the short to medium term and within the longer term need for asset improvement. 3.4 Investment (Cont). The replacement of deteriorated assets that have reached the end or beyond their expected service life is currently not part of a longer term maintenance strategy or plan. For many years the need to deliver investment savings has over ridden the need for asset renewals. This reduced funding has delayed asset renewal projects creating an even older and more fragile asset base leading to a growing backlog of outages and reactive maintenance demands on very limited resources. Between 2010—2017 lighting column replacement schemes dwindled due to funding constraints with annual renewal of columns averaging approx. 20—50 units per year. The adoption of new roads generally in urban areas added circa 40 additional column assets annually to inventory database. Since 2017 the LED replacement programme has taken precedent over column and cable renewal and has delivered substantial savings in energy consumption and carbon emissions. Over this period no planned column and cable replacement works were undertaken other than as part of reactive works to restore outages. The LED project highlighted the condition of assets and the growing need for urgent action to develop a longer term maintenance strategy for investment in asset renewals. Table 3.4 provides and indicative treatment cycle based on current average expected asset renewal and clearly illustrates the present investment strategy is unsustainable. Table 3.4 Street lighting Column and Cable Treatment Cycle Treatment Expected Service Life (Yrs) Annual Quantity (Ave) Inventory (No.) Treatment Cycle (Years) Column Replacement 30 25 No. 13047 522 Cable replacement 60 750 Lin m. 430,500 (Lin.m) 574 Luminaire (LED) 20 N/A 14640 All new assets 3.5 Energy Consumption Annual energy consumption for street lighting has been significantly reduced since 2017/18 following the investment in new LED lanterns. Table below clearly illustrates the benefits delivered from this investment package. Data supplied from hHums from Power Data Associates. Table 3.5 Annual Energy Consumption Year Total Unit 2014/15 4361341.9 kWh 2015/16 6325655.3 kWh 2016/17 6119183.7 kWh 2017/18 4288415.2 kWh 2018/19 3267835.1 kWh 2019/20 3232557.7 kWh 2020/21 3228999 kWh Table 3.4 Power Supply Outages Year Description No Cost Average 2019-20 Reconnection 20 £65,678 £3,284
Page 25
25 Section 35 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 refers to the provision of lighting by roads authorities in Scotland and states: (1) A local roads authority shall provide and maintain lighting for roads, or proposed roads, which are, or will be, maintainable by them and which in their opinion ought to be lit. At present our current LED replacements allow up to 30% reduced power during the hours of darkness and provide the previously listed savings. Some local authorities in England have taken the decision to switch off street lighting between certain hours (ie from midnight to 0500hrs) to provide further cost savings. This would need to be balanced with road safety and the possibility of an increase in crime. A further option would be to remove sections of street lighting altogether. As a Local Roads Authority we are only required to provide and maintain lighting for roads where in our opinion roads ought to be lit. Again this must be heavily caveated by the possible road safety and criminal activity which could be a direct result of our towns and villages losing street lighting sections. Year Carbon Total Units 2014/15 2325 tonnes CO2 2015/16 3140 tonnes CO2 2016/17 2733 tonnes CO2 2017/18 1636 tonnes CO2 2018/19 996 tonnes CO2 2019/20 889 tonnes CO2 2020/21 810 tonnes Co2
Page 26
26 3.6 Investment Options Below are a number of initial revenue budget investment options for consideration. These will all require further investigation, research and development to progress more detailed information on which option is best suited to support council objectives within the confines of available resources. Investment options should be linked to development of a long term maintenance strategy for the asset. Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Continues service delivery for defects Continued long tern asset deterioration Adopting risk based approach to managing the asset Growing demands for capital investment Resource condition survey of asset to gain information on asset inventory, condition Etc. Rising number of public liability claims Development of long term maintenance strategy for the asset group Reactive maintenance is expensive and poor value Resource development of a prioritised list of planned works Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Investment tackles worst asset deterioration limited asset information and condition data Implementing SCOTS asset management recommended practices Planned works deliver better value resources required to identify and quantify works Current use, Is it needed? Can it be removed? Reduced demand for reactive works Level of works limited within available revenue budget allocation Resource development of a prioritised list of planned works Less complaints Development of long term maintenance strategy for asset group Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Investment tackles deterioration and gradually improves whole asset limited asset information and condition data Development of long term maintenance strategy for asset group Demonstrates prudent stewardship of assets resources required to identify scope of works Investment in mobile technology to capture asset data Supports corporate objectives Requires increased levels investment Implementing SCOTS asset management recommended practices Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Whole asset approach to maintenance requires substantial capital investment Use of SCOTS asset management tools Requires significant improvement in asset data Investment in mobile technology Deveolpment of appropriate maintenace strategy Option 1 Undertake maintenance on a reactive basis to repair defects within existing revenue budget allocation. Option 2 Increased investment in planned revenue maintenance activities Option 3 Develop a business case for investment through capital budget for replacement of obsolete, damaged and deteriorated assets particularly vehicle safety barriers. Align the business case to a suitable long term maintenance strategy for the asset group. Option 4 Business case development for capital investment in conjunction with other asset groups that aligns with the Road Asset management Plan (RAMP) and council priorities.
Page 27
27 4.0 Structures 4.1 Assets Table 4.1 : Structures Inventory Quantity Road Bridges 889 Footbridges 11 Unusual Structures 2 Retaining Walls 1,404 Height, Sign and Signal Gantry 0 Culverts 294 Subways 0 Total 2,600 4.2 Condition Our bridges and structures are inspected and assessed to comply with the Management of Highway Structures Code of Practice. Data gathered from bridge inspections is used to calculate a Bridge Stock Condition Indicator value which can enable analysis and trending of condition information. The condition results since 2012/13 are illustrated in the chart below which shows a steady decline in overall bridge stock condition from a reduction in capital investment with revenue investment being prioritised towards reactive repairs. The long term trendline in blue shows a continued deterioration of assets with condition of less critical structures expected to decline further without increased levels of investment. There are currently 53 structures subject to special monitoring precautions and 28 bridges that have failed the European standard assessment (prior to restrictions). 15 bridges are currently subject to acceptable weight restrictions. Bridges are subject to regular inspections with principal inspections every 6 years and general inspections every 2 years. 88.00 88.50 89.00 89.50 90.00 90.50 91.00 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 BSCIav 90.72 90.00 89.88 89.88 89.28 89.18 89.18 89.31 89.06 89.01 Bridge Stock Condition Indicator BSCIav
Page 28
28 4.3 Asset Valuation Table 5.5 Structures Valuation Summary Structure Type Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Annualised Depreciation Cost Road Bridges £115,251,542 £108,769,286 £1,268,947 Footbridges £2,934,648 £2,924,575 £2,117 Unusual Structures £2,286,856 £1,876,450 £18,390 Retaining Walls £166,492,505 £166,442,331 £20,470 Height, Sign and Signal Gantries £0 £0 £0 Culverts £3,533,754 £3,528,339 £294 Subways £0 £0 £0 TOTALS £290,499,306 £283,540,981 £1,310,218 4.4 Investment Funding for the refurbishment or renewal of bridges has dwindled over time to meet with required budget savings needs. Current funding levels are: Capital Bridge Strengthening and Replacement Programme o £350k per annum for next 3 years o £999k slippage from previous years carried forwards o Strengthening & Replacement of Bridges & Retaining Walls o Current Programme also incorporates Local Bridge Maintenance Fund Revenue Structural Maintenance o £231k per annum confirmed annually o Bridge & Retaining Wall Inspections o Bridge & Retaining Wall Maintenance Repairs o Management of Abnormal Load Notifications o Technical Approval o Asset Management Revenue Structural Assessment o £64k per annum confirmed annually o Assessment of Bridges and Retaining Walls Capital Coastal Protection o £20k 22-23 / £80k 23-24 / £100k 24-25 o Coastal Protection Strengthening Repairs Revenue Coastal Protection o £180k per annum confirmed annually o Coastal Protection Inspections o Coastal Protection Maintenance Repairs o Asset Management Capital Ardbeg Seawall o £750k 22-23 o Temporary repair & Permanent reconstruction of seawall damaged by storm in December 2021 Capital Coastal Change Adaptation o £159k 22-23 o Coastal Change Adaptation Repairs
Page 29
29 Additional funding of £5.45m has been secured by Infrastructure Design Service from Scottish Government’s Local Bridge Maintenance Fund. This was secured for replacing 4 bridges and replacing 5 (9 total) critical infrastructure bridges in Argyll and is expected to be delivered over the following 4 years. A number of structures have been repaired following severe storm damage on a reactive basis to maintain vital transport or community links. When structures are replaced, they are generally larger, very few are the same size, construction or span due to flooding requirements which considers climate change. It has been assumed an average of between one and four structures are refurbished or replaced annually. The table below provides an indicative illustration of the bridge renewal cycle. 4.5 Maintenance backlog The maintenance backlog for structures is detailed in table below. It has been calculated using the SCOTS asset management framework guidance to provide an estimated value for maintenance needed to bring the asset to very good condition in one year. Headline Backlog Figure Steady State Figure Source £24.4m N/A Argyll and Bute Council Asset Management Reporting 4.6 Flood Prevention Argyll and Bute Council has a statutory duty under the Flood Risk Management Act (Scotland) 2009 to reduce the overall flood risk. This includes flood risk assessment, maps, plans and management of the risk. These works are undertaken in conjunction with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) using local historical data to assess the risk and impact of flooding events. The current budget allocation for flood risk management are: Revenue Flood Management o £222k per annum confirmed annually o Flood Management o Flood Incident Investigation o Section 17 Mapping o Section 18 Waterbody Assessments o Section 59 Clearance and Repair Works o Provision Of Flood Consultancy (General Flood Advice) o Flood Monitoring Network o Flood Risk Assessments o Shoreline Management Plan Item Expected Service Life of Assets Annual Replacement Quantity (Estimated) Current Inventory Indicative Asset Renewal cycle Bridge 120-150 years 3 902 301 years Table 4.6 Flood Risk Management Budget Year Capital Revenue Project 2020-21 £387k £323k General Flood Risk Management Plans 2021-22 £955k £323k Campbeltown Flood Prevention 2022-23 2023-24
Page 30
30 Revenue Flooding – Direct Costs o £100k per annum confirmed annually o Works carried out by Argyll and Bute Council’s DLOs Capital Flood Prevention o £474k 22-23 / £305k 23-24 / £305k 24-25 o Current Projects Tigh Dearg Road Rothesay FPS Performance Capital Helensburgh Flood Mitigation o £432k 22-23 Capital Campbeltown Flood Protection Scheme o £6.870m 22-23 / £7.133m 23-24 / £0.05m 24-25 / £0.38m 25-26 4.7 Match Funding Opportunities The Scottish Government currently offers 80% funding opportunity for local authorities towards development of necessary flood prevention schemes. A key factor in securing this funding is participation in the Scottish Governments defined process for assessing flood risk and prioritising investment across Scotland. Efforts should be made to ensure participation in the Scottish Governments defined process to enable capture of any potential funding for Argyll. The Campbeltown Flood Protection Scheme is 80% funded through this. The timescales for the next stage of funding have not yet been confirmed. A paper was presented to Committee in December 2022 which updated on Cycle 2 of the Local Flood Risk Management Plan. This identified the studies and schemes which the Council is obligated to progress under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. Campbeltown Flood Protection Scheme, This is a £15million major engineering scheme which will put measures in place to reduce the impact of flooding on residents and businesses in Campbeltown, the town has suffered flooding at various times in recent decades. This investment will take forward a number of different pieces of work to address the various causes of flooding in the town. The picture opposite uses detailed hydraulic modelling to show the scale of potential flood risk for a 1 in 200 year event. The photos below show the impact of previous flooding events within Campbeltown.
Page 31
31 4.8 Flood Prevention Maintenance Backlog The current maintenance backlog for flood prevention assets is estimated at Circa £250k. This is partly due to designated Flood prevention assets being relatively new. However historically across Argyll there are many un- designed assets which are currently not recognised as part of the flood prevention asset portfolio or owned by the council but nonetheless serve a purpose Eg. The Banks of the Black Lynn Burn in Oban. The backlog of repairs needed for these assets is not quantified but is expected to be tens of millions of pounds to bring assets up to good condition. The photo opposite shows the extent of flooding at Lochavullin Road Oban October 2014 which caused extensive damage to vehicles and property. The photo below shows a similar flooding event at Lochavullin car park in October 2018. Following these incidents some temporary flood prevention works have been undertaken to help protect property from flooding damage. There is a need for much more extensive projects to help alleviate the issues causing these events which are beyond the scope of existing budget allocation.
Page 32
32 Investigations and studies are currently being undertaken for Rothesay Flood Protection Scheme’s efficacy and on Lochavullin Car Park resilience measures. 4.9 Investment Options Below are a number of initial revenue budget investment options for consideration. These will all require further investigation, research and development to progress more detailed information on which option is best suited to support council objectives within the confines of available resources. Investment options should be linked to development of a long term maintenance strategy for the asset. Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Continues service delivery for defects Continued Asset deterioration Development of a long term maintenance strategy Increased risk of more weight restrictions or road closures Strengthen the business case for investment Impacts Economy and vital transport links Explore funding opportunities Etc. (Flood prevention Etc) Reactive maintenance is expensive and poor value Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Continues service delivery for defects Asset deterioration remains greater than investment Development of a long term maintenance strategy Tackles some preventative maintenance backlog Impacts Economy and vital transport links Strengthen the business case for investment Contributes to lowering risk of more weight restrictions or road closures Reactive maintenance is expensive and poor value Explore funding opportunities Etc. (Flood prevention Etc) Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Contributes to development of more sustainable asset management regime Requires investment Development of a long term maintenance strategy Planned preventative maintenance programme of works Requires resource to develop business case Strengthen the business case for investment More sustainable asset condition Explore funding opportunities Etc. (Flood prevention Etc) Supports corporate objectives Resources to undertake increased workload Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Sustaniable asset management regime Requires substantial level of investment Development of a long term maintenance strategy Improves asset condition Requires resource to develop successful business case Resources to undertake/ manage increased workload and projet design and development. Reduced weight restrictions May require additional data capture to support business case development Explore funding opportunities Etc. (Flood prevention Etc) Supports corporate objectives Option 1 Undertake maintenance only on a reactive basis to repair defects within existing revenue budget allocation Option 2 Increased investment in revenue planned maintenance activities Option 3 Develop business case for investment through capital budget for strengthening and refurbishment of structures. Development and implementation of an appropriate long term maintenance strategy for the asset group. Continued improvement in asset management. Option 4 Development of a successful business case for investment to tackle deterioration and improve overall asset condition as part of a developed asset management process.
Page 33
33 5.0 Traffic Signals 5.1 Assets The extent of traffic system management assets is detailed in table 5.1a & b below; Table 5.1a Traffic Management System Quantities Traffic Signal Types Quantity Traffic Signal (Junction) Subtypes Minor Junction 0 Medium Junction 11 Major Junction 0 Complex Junction 0 Traffic Signal (Pedestrian Crossing) Subtypes Single Carriageway 14 Double Carriageway 0 Total 25 5.2 Condition The traffic management system asset is subject to condition survey which is being undertaken by specialist consultants. Survey data is being collated and should provide a comprehensive insight on the current status of assets. Initial survey results show significant evidence of asset deterioration particularly control cabinets and poles. There are a number of issues where existing assets do not meet current standards requiring a number of updates to tactile paving, road markings, traffic lights and detector loops Etc. The full results of the survey will need to be assessed and a prioritised list of repairs compiled. A business case may be needed to support the case for investment to address the issues highlighted within the survey report. Table 5.1b Other Traffic Management System Quantities Other Traffic Management System Types Quantity Information Systems 2 Safety Cameras 0 Variable Message Signs 2 Vehicle Activated Signs 18 Real Time Passenger Information 0 Total 22
Page 34
34 5.3 Valuation Traffic Signal Types Quantity Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Annualised Depreciation Cost Junctions 11 £539,550.00 £333,131.25 £22,481.25 Pedestrian Crossings 14 £305,200.00 £145,923.75 £13,352.50 Total 25 £844,750.00 £479,055.00 £35,833.75 5.4 Investment Traffic management systems require specialist contractors to undertake regular inspection and necessary maintenance. Increasing reactive maintenance costs are being incurred as some assets are functioning beyond their expected service lives and when problems arise replacement of obsolete parts is difficult to procure. Many traffic management assets have had essential works postponed over time due to budget restrictions. Although it is the smallest asset group delays in asset renewal particularly electronic hardware can lead to parts becoming obsolete as advances in technology become available. A recent survey has highlighted the need for some urgent repairs to bring systems up to date. Historically junctions and pedestrian crossing have been replaced ad hoc in response to system failures or inability to obtain replacement components. Generally this equates to approx. one junction or crossing per year. The table below provides an indicative illustration of the asset renewal cycle. Item Expected Service Life Annual Replacement Quantity Current Inventory Indicative Renewal cycle Traffic Control Unit 20 Years 1 24 24 Years 5.5 Maintenance Backlog The maintenance backlog is calculated at £225k based on initial condition survey data and local officer estimate of upgrading assets to meet current standards. It provides an indicative measure of the level of investment needed to sustain the asset in good condition.
Page 35
35 5.6 Investment Options Below are a number of initial revenue budget investment options for consideration. These will all require further investigation, research and development to progress more detailed information on which option is best suited to support council objectives within the confines of available resources. Investment options should be linked to development of a long term maintenance strategy for the asset. Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Maintains existing service Specialised works undertaken by external contractors Revised tender for routine inspection and maintenance Deteriorated asset base drives increasing reactive maintenance costs Requires additional resource to develop appropriate business case. Requires occaissional capital investment to replace obsolete /defective equipment. Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Improved asset relaiability Requires investment Resource and staff training to improve asset knowledge Reduced maintenance costs Requires resource to develop suitable business case for investment using capital budget Development of a suitable maintenance strategy for asset Requires rescoure to procure tenders and administer/supervise potential contract works Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Modernises asset to meet current standards Requires investment Resource to manage and supervise works Improves reliability Requires resource to develop suitable business case for investment using capital budget resource required to procure tender documentation and administration of same reduces reactive maintenance costs Use SCOTS Asset management tools Improves user experience Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Modernises asset to meet current standards Requires investment Resource to manage and supervise works Improves reliability Requires resource to develop suitable business case for investment using capital budget Resource required to procure tender documentation and administration of same reduces reactive maintenance costs Use SCOTS Asset management tools Improves user experience Assess need for individual assets. Can they be removed? Are alternative control measures available? Option 1 Continue to fund Traffic Signals within existing annual allocation of £45k revenue budget Option 2 Utilise latest condition survey data to develop an appropriate business case for investment in renewal of apparatus Option 3 Produce a business case based on latest survey data to upgrade all apparatus to meet compliance with current standards over a three to five year period Option 4 Utilise latest condition survey data to identify asset needs. Address any priority repairs and progress a maintenance strategy as part of the RAMP to develop a long term investment plan over next three ‐ five years to bring asset condition to meet compliance with current standards.
Page 36
36 6.0 Street Furniture 6.1 Assets The street furniture asset covers a wide range of items. The full extent of these items is often unknown with little information currently held on asset database systems. Table 6.1 provides details of the current information held for each of the identified item which is subject to change as more information becomes available. Table 6.1 Street Furniture Quantities Street Furniture Assets Quantity of Assets Unit Traffic Signs (non-illuminated) 5,012 Number Safety Fences 61,628 Length (m) Road Blockers 0 Number Hostile Vehicle Barriers 0 Length (m) Pedestrian Barriers 198 Length (m) Street Name Plates 0 Number Bins 0 Number Bollards 276 Number Bus Shelters 124 Number Grit Bins 583 Number Cattle Grids 162 Number Gates 0 Number Trees 0 Number Seating 0 Number Verge Marker Posts 2,322 Number On-Street Parking Meter 92 Number Electric Car Charging Points 28 Number Milestones 0 Number Information Boards 0 Number Bike Parking Lockers 0 Number Bike Parking Stands 0 Number Automatic Trash Screens 0 Number Watercourse Telemetry 0 Number Weather Stations 0 Number Total 70,425 6.2. Condition There is currently no condition data available other than for some individual items such as vehicle safety barriers. The nature of street furniture assets is such that individual assets are generally not subject to condition survey rather they are replaced when items are no longer fit for purpose or cannot function as intended. Items where possible are generally replaced in response to identified need or public complaints within the confines of available revenue budget allocation. The condition of vehicle safety barriers has been reported previously and requires substantial investment to address. Initial local officer estimates indicate £2.1m investment need which requires resource to develop an appropriate business case. It should be noted that vehicle barriers are a specialist work requiring appropriate national certification and staff training to enable progress. There is currently no staff resource with required certification so design works will need external consultants to survey and quantify full extent of works.
Page 37
37 6.3 Valuation The asset valuation is detailed in Table 6.3 below. The valuation is based on current available data within the street furniture asset group which has numerous different asset types. Table 6.3 Street Furniture Valuation Street Furniture Assets Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Annualised Depreciation Cost Traffic Signs (non-illuminated) £149,257.36 £74,631.66 £7,462.87 Safety Fences £4,403,936.88 £2,201,997.02 £220,196.84 Road Blockers £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Hostile Vehicle Barriers £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Pedestrian Barriers £14,149.08 £6,961.63 £565.96 Street Name Plates £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Bins £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Bollards £16,438.56 £8,072.76 £657.54 Bus Shelters £1,433,912.44 £719,268.98 £71,695.62 Grit Bins £69,437.81 £35,894.07 £4,629.19 Cattle Grids £771,815.29 £378,665.92 £30,872.61 Gates £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Trees £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Seating £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Verge Marker Posts £55,301.91 £28,575.04 £3,686.79 On-Street Parking Meter £361,008.00 £180,896.40 £18,050.40 Electric Car Charging Points £588,608.72 £332,143.49 £58,860.87 Milestones £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Information Boards £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Bike Parking Lockers £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Bike Parking Stands £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Automatic Trash Screens £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Watercourse Telemetry £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Weather Stations £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Total £7,863,866.05 £3,967,106.97 £416,678.70 6.4 Investment The street furniture asset consists of many different individual assets all of which deteriorate at different rates. Generally assets deteriorate to the point where they stop performing their intended function and are replaced with new items in line with available funding. Table 6.4 below provides an indication of the renewal cycle for some street furniture assets based on previous year budget allocation and estimated asset renewal rates to calculate an indicative renewal cycle based on current funding allocation. Table 6.4 Indicative Treatment Cycle for Asset Renewals Item Budget Allocation 2019-20 Current Inventory Data Annual Replacement Quantity Indicative Renewal cycle Cattle Grid £24,000 162 1.6 101 Traffic Signs £52,000 5010 173 29 Vehicle Safety Fence £98,000 616289 653 94
Page 38
38 6.5 Maintenance Backlog There is currently no condition data available for all street furniture assets to assess and calculate an accurate backlog value. However a backlog estimate can be gauged from some of the major items and officer estimates. Vehicle barriers condition previously reported in ASOR estimated investment need at circa £2.1m. This combined with officer estimate for smaller assets at £0.9m provides an indicative value circa £3million maintenance backlog figure for street furniture assets. 6.6 Asset Data and Knowledge There is limited data available on the extent and condition of the street furniture asset. Many items were installed by the previous Argyll County Council or district council. Over time and several restructuring processes for the authority some data has not been retained or local staff knowledge lost due to retirements or redundancies. Consideration is needed on developing a suitable maintenance strategy for this asset group particularly in terms of updating asset data, inspecting and obtaining condition data and associated maintenance records. This will require resource and appropriate investment however there may be scope to combine this with other asset groups needs to achieve better value. Acquiring and maintaining a reliable and robust database will enable future investments needs to be more accurately calculated and the outcomes from same better able to support corporate objectives. This will ultimately allow demonstration of a well-managed asset portfolio with investment tailored to asset needs and council aims. The SCOTS asset management project provides a range of tools and guidance to assist authorities implement better asset management practices. The photos below illustrate the diverse nature of this asset group which can have many bespoke items.
Page 39
39 6.7 Electric Vehicle Charging Argyll and Bute Council currently has 28 public electric vehicle charging points which users now need to pay for using. There is a growing demand for installation of more charging points as electric vehicle numbers on our road network rise. This drives greater demand for availability of charging points in line with customer expectations. The existing and proposed new network installations will also require adequate maintenance aligned with regular inspection regime to ensure charging points are functioning properly to meet growing demand. This will require resource and budget moving forward and likely staff training due to the specialist technical nature of the apparatus. Asset Inventory Type No. Rapid 11 Fast 10 Unknown 7 Electric Vehicle Charging points Year Units 2017 4 2018 3 2019 8 2020 1 Planned Future Installation Year Type of Unit Fast Rapid 2019-20 2 2 2020-21 1 1 2021-22 1 1
Page 40
40 6.8 Weather Stations Argyll and Bute council operate and maintain a number of weather stations situated in key locations to capture weather data. The data includes road surface and air temperature, rainfall, and other key climate monitoring information. Some stations also have cameras that can provide a visual history of conditions at these locations. These stations provide vital information to officers managing the winter maintenance operations across the authority. The enable pre planned winter treatments to be organised in advance of forthcoming sub-zero weather conditions to ensure our roads are safe for road users within the practicalities and resource limitations of service delivery. 6.9 Vehicle Restraint Systems Barrier replacement and maintenance is underfunded and major investment is required across the whole network. It is vital that the Council maintains and upgrades its safety/crash barrier and bridge parapet stock to ensure the safety of road users. Policy, Assessment and Inspection processes need to be revised and at the moment we are currently reliant on specialist contractors and consultants to maintain our barrier stock. Vehicle barriers – A general appraisal / condition survey of our safety barrier inventory was carried out August / September 2015 (See Table below for Results) The survey identified almost 14km (18.5%) of barrier considered to be in poor condition and requiring to be replaced at an estimated cost of circa £2M. The barriers in poorest condition and those that are Non -Compliant because of their construction have been prioritised for replacement/repair within the confines of existing revenue funding at circa £100k/year since 2016/17. The replacement of our barrier stock through utilising the current funding allocation will take up to 20 years dependant on the locus. A follow up detailed survey to identify the condition of all remaining safety barriers is being considered, to fully assess and prioritise future necessary barrier maintenance and inform the budget process. This is likely to require the assistance of a specialist consultant or contractor to deliver this initial data gathering project.
Page 41
41 The table below shows historical investment for each area. District 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 01 Mid Argyll £1,440 £27,322 £6,370 £18,011 £6,590 0 0 02 Kintyre 0 0 £43,959 £5,556 0 0 0 03 Islands 0 0 0 0 0 £22,467 0 04 Lorn £24,368 £15,112 £5,338 £25,136 £16,134 £57,290 £20,095 05 Mull £232 £8,006 £23,132 0 0 0 £18,375 06 Bute £475 £668 0 £110 0 0 0 07 Cowal £183 £11,209 £26,567 £23,257 £8,525 £5,298 0 08 Lomond £18,917 £31,214 0 £25,204 0 0 £20,397 Grand Total £45,615 £93,531 £105,366 £97,274 £31,249 £85,055 £58,867 The photo below shows a new section of barrier erected at Kilmaha. The table below shows the results of the 2015 condition survey.
Page 42
42 6.10 Investment Options Below are a number of initial revenue budget investment options for consideration. These will all require further investigation, research and development to progress more detailed information on which option is best suited to support council objectives within the confines of available resources. Investment options should be linked to development of a long term maintenance strategy for the asset. Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Continues service delivery for defects Continued long tern asset deterioration Adopting risk based approach to managing the asset Growing demands for capital investment Resource condition survey of asset to gain information on asset inventory, condition Etc. Rising number of public liability claims Development of long term maintenance strategy for the asset group Reactive maintenance is expensive and poor value Resource development of a prioritised list of planned works Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Investment tackles worst asset deterioration limited asset information and condition data Implementing SCOTS asset management recommended practices Planned works deliver better value resources required to identify and quantify works Current use, Is it needed? Can it be removed? Reduced demand for reactive works Level of works limited within available revenue budget allocation Resource development of a prioritised list of planned works Less complaints Development of long term maintenance strategy for asset group Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Investment tackles deterioration and gradually improves whole asset limited asset information and condition data Development of long term maintenance strategy for asset group Demonstrates prudent stewardship of assets resources required to identify scope of works Investment in mobile technology to capture asset data Supports corporate objectives Requires increased levels investment Implementing SCOTS asset management recommended practices Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Whole asset approach to maintenance requires substantial capital investment Use of SCOTS asset management tools Requires significant improvement in asset data Investment in mobile technology Deveolpment of appropriate maintenace strategy Option 1 Undertake maintenance on a reactive basis to repair defects within existing revenue budget allocation. Option 2 Increased investment in planned revenue maintenance activities Option 3 Develop a business case for investment through capital budget for replacement of obsolete, damaged and deteriorated assets particularly vehicle safety barriers. Align the business case to a suitable long term maintenance strategy for the asset group. Option 4 Business case development for capital investment in conjunction with other asset groups that aligns with the Road Asset management Plan (RAMP) and council priorities.
Page 43
43 7.0 Climate Change and a Resilient Network Climate change is global but can be evidenced locally through more frequent severe weather events and greater annual rainfall. This requires action to ensure drainage assets are functioning properly and have the capacity to deal with these more regular events. Water is road infrastructures greatest enemy and is capable of destroying structures and transportation links very quickly. Good drainage management is vital to protect valuable assets from the effects of water. The illustrations below shows the affect standing water has on a newly resurfaced road over a relatively short time as vehicles effectively pump the water into the surface accelerating the deterioration process. Lack of investment in drainage assets impacts the outcome and benefits realised from the original resurfacing works undermining the substantial investment made and incurring further avoidable expense in repair of the defect. Carbon Reduction Sustainability through carbon reduction has never been more important in highway asset management, surface treatments and the preparations works required on many roads can be delivered with significant savings in carbon generation over traditional maintenance methods. The Road Industry are now looking at how laboratory testing prior to road trials is enabling further investment into surface treatments, how some companies are on their way to achieving net zero, the CO2 reduction benefits of road maintenance will have positive effects on how road networks are effectively managed. Argyll and Bute Council will monitor these treatments and intend to report back on what can be achieved in reducing Carbon Emissions for our Road Network in future Annual Status and Options reports. Infrastructure projects and climate change strategies – Impact on local roads. Major projects to improve the resilience of the electricity supply in Argyll and Bute, which has been partly driven by the planned increase in renewable energy generation, risks damage and deterioration of our local road network. There are three distinct areas which are affected for differing reasons. However the outcome – rapid deterioration of the fragile rural network - is liable to be similar. 1/ Power Line upgrades in Kintyre, Mid-Argyll, Lorn and sea connections to Islands. 2/ Development of Cruachan PH2 and potential 1.5GW scheme south of Loch Awe. 3/ Developments on Islay, new Distilleries and parallel expansion of Bio-mass units. Powerline Upgrades
Page 44
44 Works have previously been carried out between Carradale and Crossaig in Kintyre including a new sea connector to Hunterston in Ayrshire and Inveraray to Port Ann Mid-Argyll to upgrade the major National Grid power line network and associated electricity sub-stations. Under the Electricity Act 1989, projects to improve the national grid are considered to have “presumed consent” and the planning authority has little control over granting of works, to install new pylon and cabling networks. Associated infrastructure such as upgraded electricity sub-stations are covered under the local planning process, which gives the authority some leverage on the impact of these developments. A programme of work is currently under way throughout 2022 to upgrade the Port Ann to Crossaig overhead lines and also sections from Inveraray to Cruachan and Sloy power stations. Also delivered in 2022 were new sea connectors at, Carradale to Arran and Mull to Coll. In all cases careful negotiation by officers was necessary to mitigate the risk of damage to our fragile road networks and whenever practicable obtain financial contributions to the upkeep of the network from the developer. Development of Cruachan Power Station – Phase 2 600MW extension. The original Cruachan Power Station is rated at 440MW with the proposed 600MW extension resulting in a combined maximum power rating in excess of 1 GW. There is an anticipated volume of approximately 1 million cubic meters of rock to be excavated for from the new generating hall cavern and associated tunnel network. Whilst a small proportion of this rock will be used to form the new tunnel access working platform and re-alignment of the A85 Trunk Road past the site, at the new power station entrance, the bulk of this material will be classed as “waste”. This volume of rock material could be used on several future coastal development improvements throughout North Argyll and beyond. However a safe method of transport, which does not impact on the local road network would be essential. There is also scope for local quarries to be utilised in the manufacture of products for the development, however all of the local sites are on fragile roads and already subject to restrictions on volumes, through current planning approval. Isle of Islay - Expansion of Distilleries and associated Bio-Mass plants. There are several recent or proposed new distilleries planned for sites on Islay, each of which will impact on the fragile public road network. A recent development at an existing distillery at Bunnahabhain, has seen the installation of a Bio- Mass boiler unit. At present (Nov 22) there is no direct local supply of timber or chip, with round timber being imported by ferry and chipped onsite. This is causing considerable strain on the single track access road from the A847 and A846. Should this short term supply issue be resolved and the true benefit of the Bio-Mass unit be realised, there is a potential for more Bio-Mass units to be set up at other distilleries, either retrospectively or as part of new developments. There is a risk that both at the harvesting end of the journey and the delivery to bio-mass unit end, considerable damage may occur on single track roads, much of which are supported over peat bases and subject to deflection and cracking of the bituminous surface. 7.1 Investment
Page 45
45 7.2 Condition The 2015 ASOR provided details of a sample drainage survey with results based on the SCOTS condition index. This survey identified 53.9% of ditches on B, C & U Class roads required attention . 7.3 Maintenance Backlog The ASOR 2015 provided a maintenance backlog figure for carriageway ditching based on results of the sample survey. This clearly illustrated need for investment in road drainage management. Efforts are required to maximise the effectiveness of available investment for cleaning or servicing assets and capturing data on maintenance records to demonstrate prudent stewardship of assets. Reliable and robust data will properly inform the most efficient and effective future management of drainage assets. This can enable a more data driven approach to be developed and the optimum value maintenance programme delivered that aligns with asset needs and customer expectations. The estimated ditching maintenance backlog requires substantial funding to bring existing ditching assets to a good condition standard. At current average spending this equates to a 15 year maintenance backlog timeline generally exceeding the expected normal cleaning cycle. Sustained investment coupled with robust data collection and coordinated maintenance activities is required to prioritise ditch cleaning to ensure roads are protected from damage due to water ingress and flooding. 7.5 Investment Options Below are a number of initial revenue budget investment options for consideration. These will all require further investigation, research and development to progress more detailed information on which option is best suited to support council objectives within the confines of available resources. Investment options should be linked to development of a long term maintenance strategy for the asset.
Page 46
46 - Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Provides budget savings Increase risk to assets from storm events Improved data capture to inform decision making Reduction in expected service life of road asset Review of existing drainage maintenance Does not support Flood Prevention Act Scotland (2009) Explore options for implementing a more data driven approach Increased reactive flooding costs and complaints Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Protects drainage budget allocation Does not provide adequate protection for assets Improved data capture to inform decision making Continues to offer same level of asset protection Lack of data to make informed choices Review of existing drainage maintenance regime mitigates some risk from weather events Existing maintenance is generally driven by reactive needs rather pre‐planned programmes Explore options for implementing a more data driven approach Contributes to Flood prevention Act Unable to clearly demonstrate prudent stewardship Focus on improved record keeping to provide demonstrable service standards and identify areas for improvement Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Provides welcome investment Resources to develop work programmes and measurable outputs from captured data. Investment in mobile data capture devices reduces risk from weather events Potential technical difficulties for data capture Development of 3 ‐ 5 year work programmes supports the Flood Prevention Act Requires leadership focus on achieving goals Review of existing drainage maintenance regime commences a data driven approach Breaking vicious reactive maintenance cycle Development of a data management plan Benefits Drawbacks Considerations Enables improved service delivery Requires leadership commitment to deliver Exploring mobile technology options Enables informed decision making Procurement of mobile technology devices Review options for a progressive staged implementation Mitigates risks and delivers objectives in Flood Prevention Act Initial resource to focus on revised delivery model and achieving change. Development of data management plan Enables a fully optimised drainage maintenance regime to achieve best value Requires additional finance and resource Development of target service standards Drainage improvements would contribute substantially to improving network resilience and arresting deterioration whilst extending asset service life. Likely to require initial capital investment over 3 years to bring assets up to standard and develop an asset management approach to drive continuous improvement. Review of existing verge maintenance regime to enable support for delivery of improved drainage maintenance. Option 1 Reduce existing budget allocation for drianage maintenance Option 2 Maintain existing budget allocation for drainage maintenance Option 3 Moderately increased investment in drainage maintenance based on measurable outputs aimed at improved service delivery Option 4 Substantial investment in drainage maintenance based on implementing data driven approach through improved data capture in terms of inventory, condition, maintenance records Etc.