Review of Transport Asset Management Plans For the Department for Transport

Transcription

1 Review of Transport Asset Management Plans For the Department for Transport January 2008

2

3 Executive Summary Local Transport Plan guidance encourages local authorities to develop Transport Asset Management Plans (TAMPs) to guide management of their transport assets. In this respect, transport is following the example of other sectors such as water, property and rail, where production of asset management plans is widely recognised as best practice and has been in place for a number of years. There has been some concern about progress made with TAMPs, DfT requirements, guidance, and impact of the process on the service delivered. To further understand and address these concerns, the DfT, supported by CSS and TAG, commissioned a research project to determine progress made not only with the development but also implementation of TAMPs in England, outside London, and to identify examples of good practice. The project used a variety of tools to collect information, including a review of all final LTP2 submissions, a telephone survey of more than 100 local authorities, assessment of 16 TAMPs against current guidance, and in depth interviews with 7 authorities that have embraced asset management and adopted it as an approach guiding their day to day activities. One of the first findings of the work was that the requirements for development of TAMPs are unclear. There is confusion about what a TAMP should include, the difference between a TAMP and a Highway Asset Management Plan, the timeframe for production, and available advice. As a result, progress has been hesitant and inconsistent, with some authorities producing good quality TAMPs reflecting effective practices and realistic targets, and others not commencing the process, or being unambitious in their intended TAMP development. Our evidence shows that delays in the development of TAMPs are mainly due to lack of appropriate resources, uncertainty over requirements, and organisational issues. Smaller local authorities have generally made slower progress than larger ones. However, the vast majority of authorities work in regional groups, supporting each other and offering opportunities to share examples of good practice and move the asset management agenda forward. Local authorities would welcome additional support and guidance on the development of TAMPs. Many local authorities have a good understanding of some of the benefits of adopting an asset management approach, but have limited resources available to deliver the required changes. TAMPs are typically produced by the team responsible for highway maintenance and, in many cases, interaction with the teams responsible for developing and delivering the LTP programme is limited. This can result in TAMPs having weak links to the wider strategic objectives of the authority, potentially weak targets and poor demonstration of how an asset management approach can improve value for money in the use of resources. The research has shown that there are examples of good practice amongst local authorities and that there is evidence that adopting an asset management approach brings benefits to the organisation in delivering an improved service to their customers. Based on the findings of the research, recommendations are made on the additional guidance that is needed, the communications strategy and the future status of TAMPs.

4

5 Contents 1 Introduction Project Objective and Scope Background Project Steering Group and Project Team Report Outline 3 2 Research Methodology Overview Task 0: Project Initiation Meeting and Inception Report Task 1: Review of TAMP Progress Task 2: Review of Completed TAMPs Task 3: Review of TAMP Embedment Dissemination of research findings 11 3 Findings of Task Aims of Task Starting position with TAMPs End Position with TAMPs Current Position of TAMPs 15 4 Findings of Task Aims of Task Task 2 Authorities Task 2 Templates Examples of good practice 26 5 Findings of Task Aims of Task Task 3 Authorities Cornwall County Council Hertfordshire County Council Leeds City Council Liverpool City Council Portsmouth City Council Somerset County Council Tameside Borough Council 32 6 Discussion on Findings Task 1 Overall Progress with TAMPs Task 2 Examples of Good Practice Task 3 TAMP embedment The future for TAMPs 37 7 Summary of Conclusions Recommendations Guidance 44 i

6 8.2 Future status of TAMPs Communications strategy 44 References Acknowledgements Appendices Appendix A Articles and Presentation ii

7 1 Introduction In October 2006 The Department for Transport (DfT) commissioned Atkins to carry out a research project Review of Transport Asset Management Plans. This report explains the background of the project, details the work carried out, discusses the findings of the research and makes recommendations about the future of TAMPs in England. 1.1 Project Objective and Scope The objective of the project was to review the process and quality of TAMPs in order to provide the Department with assurance that TAMPs are being produced to a high quality. This will provide an opportunity for sharing of good practice and will encourage and assist authorities in developing their TAMPs in the future. In accordance with the project brief and the Atkins research proposal, the work was carried out under 4 separate tasks. Task 0: Inception report, aiming to set out the approach for delivering the project. Task 1: Review of TAMPs progress, aiming to ascertain the state of play among all English local authorities (outside London) in preparing and implementing their TAMPs. Task 2: Review of completed TAMPs, aiming to review a number of completed, published TAMPs in order to identify examples of good practice and provide an analysis of the extent to which TAMPs are meeting the original aims set for them. Task 3: Review of TAMP embedment, aiming to review the way in which a selection of authorities are using and embedding their TAMPs in the authority s work. One of the key issues of the research was to identify how the produced TAMPs linked to the second round of Local Transport Plans (LTP) submitted by local authorities in the Spring of Therefore, the scope of the project, as defined in the project brief, covered all local authorities in England, excluding London Boroughs, which did not submit LTPs. 1.2 Background The LTP2 Guidance [Ref. 1] strongly recommends that all highway authorities in England (outside London) should develop a Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP). Unlike other new processes, such as Accessibility Planning and Strategic Environmental Assessment, there is no mandatory requirement for authorities to include their emerging TAMP in their second round of LTP. Asset management is a well established discipline that is practiced across a wide range of industries (including highways, railways, petro-chemical, water, aerospace, and nuclear). However, it has only been adopted recently by authorities in the UK, in particular since the publication of the CSS/TAG Framework [Ref. 2] and the aforementioned statement in the LTP2 guidance. The basis and principles of asset management are well documented and good sources of guidance are available, including: CSS/TAG Framework for Highway Asset Management [Ref. 2]; International Infrastructure Management Manual, UK Edition [Ref. 3]; PAS 55-1: Asset Management: Specification for the optimized management of physical infrastructure assets [Ref. 4]; Well-maintained Highways: Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance Management [Ref. 5]; Management of Highway Structures: A Code of Practice [Ref. 6]. 1

8 Authorities have been using the available guidance and the services of consultants, particularly in the last two years, to develop and implement their asset management practices and to develop their TAMPs. The activities this involves and the benefits it is considered to provide are well documented in the above guidance documents. Also, the LTP2 guidance identifies a number of areas where the development of a TAMP will benefit an authority, including: Providing detailed information on the assets enabling better definition of longer-term corporate need; Establishing and communicating a clear relationship between the programme of work/expenditure set out in the TAMP and the LTP targets and objectives; and Enabling value for money of local highway maintenance to be considered more effectively against other local transport spending. The LTP2 Guidance required authorities to report progress on their TAMP development in their LTP2 submission. As a result, it became apparent that there were a number of issues associated with the development of TAMPs, as described below: TAMP Progress it was recognised that progress on the development of TAMPs varied considerably, with some authorities producing their second or even third generation TAMPs while others had yet to make a meaningful start. TAMP Development it was generally accepted that the quality of TAMPs and the process used to develop them varied considerably, with some based on poor information and unable to demonstrate a link to supporting processes and systems, while others are using good quality data and were linked directly to and supported by robust and reliable processes and systems. TAMP Usage it was also recognised that the usage of TAMPs varied considerably, with some authorities treating it as a paper exercise to gain a tick in the box, while others were linking it to their LTP objectives and using it to challenge existing working practices, to make improvements to their way of working, and to determine and secure long-term budget requirements. TAMP Good practice - many authorities have requested further guidance on the development and usage of TAMPs, for example, the sharing of good practice. The DfT recognised that a number of these issues had the potential to undermine the credibility and value of TAMPs and give cause for concern. 1.3 Project Steering Group and Project Team The project was managed by the DfT and was overseen by a Steering Group with members from both the CSS and TAG. The members of the Steering Group were: Edward Bunting, Department for Transport Bob Barratt, Wolverhampton City Council Robert Biggs, Derbyshire County Council Paul Fearon, St Helens Council Anthony Radford Foley, Bracknell Forest Borough Council Nick Atkinson, Transport for London (watching brief). The members of the Atkins Project Team were: Alan Taggart, Project Director Lila Tachtsi, Project Manager 2

9 Dr Garry Sterritt, Consultant Jonathan Spear, Consultant Mike Bordiss, Consultant Bill Moss, Consultant. 1.4 Report Outline The report includes 8 sections, as described below: Section 1: Introduction includes the project objectives, project background, Steering Group and Project Team. Section 2: Methodology describes the approach adopted to meet the project objectives. Section 3: Task 1- details the work carried out under Task 1 and discusses the findings of the Task. Section 4: Task 2 - describes the work carried out under Task 2 and discusses the findings of the Task. Section 5: Task 3 describes the work carried out under Task 3 and discusses the findings of the Task. Section 6: Summary of Findings summarises the key findings of Tasks 1, 2 and 3. Section 7: Conclusions lists the conclusions of the work Section 8: Recommendations describes the recommendations on the future of TAMPs in England. 3

10 2 Research Methodology 2.1 Overview This Section describes the agreed methodology for delivering the research. The findings are presented in Sections 3, 4 and 5, and further discussed in Section 6 of this report. The project was carried out under four separate tasks: Task 0: Project Initiation Meeting and Inception Report to clarify the project objectives, approach, deliverables and programme. Task 1: Review of TAMPs Progress - to ascertain the state of play among all English local authorities (outside London) in preparing and implementing their TAMPs. Task 2: Review of Completed TAMPs - to review a number of completed, published TAMPs in order to identify examples of good practice and provide an analysis of the extent to which TAMPs were meeting the original aims set for them. Task 3: Review of TAMP Embedment - to review the way in which a selection of authorities were using and embedding their TAMPs in the authority s work. 2.2 Task 0: Project Initiation Meeting and Inception Report A Project Initiation Meeting was held in the Axis in Birmingham on 16 October 2006, attended by representatives of the Project Steering Group and the Project Team. In the meeting, the project objectives together with the proposed methodology were discussed. An Inception Report was prepared and issued to the Steering Group and the Project Team on 19 November The Report stated the agreed objectives of the project, the method of delivery, the project programme and key dates and the project deliverables. An up-to-date list of local authorities that had received or were receiving support from Atkins in the development of their TAMP was also included to ensure that the Steering Group were aware of any potential conflicts of interest and mitigate the risk of bias in the assessment of TAMPs. Following the Project Initiation Meeting, an article was prepared to be submitted to the Surveyor magazine in order to introduce the project to local authorities and motivate them to respond to the Task 1 survey, which was due to follow. The article, which is included in Appendix A, was published in the Surveyor magazine on 30 th November Task 1: Review of TAMP Progress The methodology for delivering Task 1 was based on the following steps: 1. Agree criteria for assessing TAMPs; 2. Agree criteria for selecting local authorities for Task 2; 3. Review of LTP2 submissions to establish starting (benchmark) position and determine when the TAMP is due to be in place; 4. Carry out telephone survey to determine current status of TAMP development; and 5. Select and agree 20 authorities for Task 2. The following paragraphs describe the agreed approach to delivering the steps listed above. It must be noted that, as discussed in Section 1.1 of this report, the scope of the research was to cover all local authorities in England, excluding London Boroughs. Table 1 shows the split of these 117 local authorities in the different types. 4

11 Table 1 Types of local authorities under the scope of the research Type of LA Number of LAs County 34 Unitary 48 Metropolitan 35 Total 117 Agree Criteria for Assessing TAMPs It was agreed that TAMPs were to be assessed in two different ways. Firstly, the LTP2 submissions were to be reviewed to establish the starting position for all local authorities. In LTP2 all local authorities were required to report on progress they had made with the developments of their TAMPs and on their intentions regarding further development of TAMPs. It was agreed with the Steering Group that a review of LTP2s would allow the starting position to be established. During the same exercise, and by recording the intentions of local authorities for future developments of TAMPs, it was agreed that it would be possible to establish the end position for TAMPs, or simply, when did local authorities intend to complete their TAMPs. Agree Criteria for Selecting Local Authorities for Task 2 The aim of Task 2 was to identify 20 local authorities who have completed their TAMPs and assess them to be of high quality, hence identify examples of good practice. From the early stages of the research and based on the experience of the Project Team and the Steering Group, it was agreed that it may be difficult to identify 20 local authorities with complete advanced TAMPs. However, there was confidence that there would be sufficient local authorities that have completed specific elements of their TAMPs and these could be used as examples of good practice. It was agreed that the following criteria would be used to select local authorities for Task 2: Progress made with the TAMP to ensure that the entire document, or parts of it were complete and in a state that could be shared not only with the Project Team, but also with other local authorities, as example of good practice. To this end, local authorities that adopted potentially innovative approaches to developing their TAMPs could be taken forward to Task 2, providing the opportunity to share their experience with others. Type of Authority - to provide a mix of authority types, i.e. county, metropolitan and unitary. It was important to ensure that larger, as well as smaller local authorities were identified for Task 2, as it was felt that the size of the authority had an impact on the resources available to invest on the development of the TAMP and hence, on progress made. Geographical Location to provide a mix of authorities from different regions. It was also important to ensure that local authorities from all parts of England were represented in Task 2, as there was a view that local authorities in some parts of the country, namely the South, may be making faster progress with TAMPs that others. Approach for Developing the TAMP to provide a range of approaches used for TAMP development, e.g. in-house, in groups or assisted by consultants. It was felt that the approach adopted for developing the TAMP would present different challenges to authorities and it would be important to consider the different issues under Task 2. 5

12 Review of LTP2 Submissions (starting and end position) It was agreed that it was important to establish the starting position for all local authorities, by reviewing their statement in LTP2 on progress made with the development of TAMPs. The same review would also establish when local authorities intended to complete their TAMPs, based on their assessment in March 2006 (time of submission of LTP2). It was agreed that the review would be carried out over the internet. In terms of staring position, information was to be collected in three themes, namely status of TAMP, method of development and contents of the TAMP. More specifically, it was agreed that the questions in Table 2 were to be answered. Table 2 Agreed questions to determine starting and end position Theme Status Question Was the TAMP mentioned in LTP2? Starting Position End Position Method Content Was a draft TAMP attached? Had work started when LTP2 was submitted? When did work on the TAMP start? Is the local authority part of a consortium aiming to produce a template TAMP? Is the local authority part of a regional group working on specific elements of the TAMP? Are consultants employed and to what extend? Is the LTP2 referring to a HAMP or a TAMP? What asset groups are covered in the TAMP? What does the LTP2 state as the desirable end status for the TAMP? Did the LTP2 define when the draft TAMP would be in place? At this point in time (time of LTP2 submission), when is the first draft TAMP due to be in place? What asset types does / will the TAMP cover? The review of LTP2s for the purposes of this research started on 6 November 2007 and was completed on 20 November No problems were found in accessing LTP2s electronically. The findings of this element of the research are described in Section 3 of this report. Determine Current Position In accordance with the research proposal, it was agreed that the current position of TAMPs was to be determined based on a telephone survey of all 117 local authorities under the scope of the project. The option of a written or electronic questionnaire had been considered. However, based on the experience of the Project Team, and with the agreement of the 6

13 Steering Group, it was believed that this type of questionnaire was unlikely to generate the high levels of response that would be desired for this research project. Hence, it was agreed that the telephone survey, even though time consuming, would be the most appropriate approach. It was agreed that the information to be collected to assess the current position with TAMPs was to be grouped in three different themes, as per the starting position. Table 3 lists the agreed questions. Table 3 Agreed questions to determine current position Theme Status Question What is the current status of the TAMP? (not started, in progress, draft, complete, advance) Have there been any delays in the development of the TAMP, and if yes, what caused them? When is the final draft TAMP due to be ready? What is the length of the expenditure profile? How would you rate the current quality of the TAMP with regards to Levels of Service, Performance Management, Whole Life Planning, Forward Planning, Risk Management, Data (Inventory and condition), Asset Valuation, Reporting? (not started, basic, improvement needed, near completion advanced) Content Method What asset groups are currently covered in the Asset Management Plan? Is the local authority part of a consortium aiming to produce a template TAMP? Is the local authority part of a regional group working on specific elements of the TAMP? Are consultants employed and to what extend? Is a corporate asset manager appointed in the local authority? Is an asset management working group appointed? What additional support do you need to facilitate the development and/or implementation of the TAMP? At the early stage of the research, it was believed that officers involved with the development of the LTP2 should be contacted to respond to the questions in Table 3. To this end, the DfT provided a list of the LTP officers for all 117 local authorities, together with their contact details. However, after contacting some of the officers on the list, it became apparent that LTP officers had limited, if any, involvement with the developments of TAMPs. This was due to the fact that typically, the responsibility for developing TAMPs falls with highway maintenance officers and their Departments. Consequently, a database was developed with contact details of highway asset managers in local authorities. The information for this 7

14 database was collected from personal contacts of the Project Team. It must be noted that the Highway Asset Management Network from CIPFA provided some valuable information for the names of the people who have the title of asset manager and belong to the network. The prepared questionnaire, after being agreed with the Steering Group, was tried on 3 separate local authorities as a trial, to ensure that the questions were clear, easy to answer and provided the responses that were needed. It was found that there were no concerns about the questionnaire, the type of questions or the length of the interview. The telephone survey began on 6 December 2006 and was completed on 21 January Overall, only one officer refused to answer questions over the telephone and asked for a written questionnaire, which was not provided, as the response rate achieved already was very high. One other officer found the length of the telephone interview excessively long. In total, 101 responses were received. A breakdown of the type of local authorities is given in Table 4. Table 4 Number of local authorities that responded to the telephone survey Type of LA Number of LAs Responded Percentage County % Unitary % Metropolitan % Total % The findings of the telephone survey are discussed in Section 3 of this report. Select and Agree the 20 Authorities for Task 2 Following the findings of the telephone survey, and based on the criteria discussed earlier in this section, 20 local authorities were selected to take part in Task 2 of the research. All of them were contacted and confirmed that they would be willing to support the research. Unfortunately, 3 of these authorities felt that their TAMPs were still under development and would not be able to provide copies to the Project Team. Furthermore, 2 authorities could not provide complete TAMPs, however, they provided information and details on the work they did. In total 17 TAMPS (2 not complete) were taken forward to Task 2. A list of these authorities, together with the rationale for selecting them, is given in Section 4 of this report. Table 5 shows a breakdown based on the type of authority. Table 5 Types of local authorities considered under Task 2 Type of LA Number of LAs County 8 Unitary 4 Metropolitan 5 Total Task 2: Review of Completed TAMPs The methodology for delivering Task 2 was based on the following activities: 1. Develop a Template for Assessing TAMPs; 2. Analyse selected TAMPs and identify examples of good practice; 8

15 3. Select and agree six authorities for Task 3; and 4. Hold workshop to share findings. The following paragraphs describe the details of the method adopted, in agreement with the Steering Group. Develop Template for Assessing TAMPs In accordance with the research proposal and the project brief, it was agreed that the selected TAMPs were going to be assessed in terms of how they achieve the aims set out for them in current guidance. To undertake this assessment, a template was developed based on the CSS/TAG Framework [Ref. 2] as a starting point. Table 6 lists the themes for the questions included in the template. Table 6 Themes for Questions for assessing TAMPs under the CSS Framework Overview Starting point Goals, Objectives and Levels of Service Inventory and Network Referencing Levels of Service Option Identification Decision Making Service Delivery Additionally, a second, much shorter template was developed based on Well-maintained Highways [Ref. 5]. A full list of the questions in both templates is included in Section 4 of this report. Review the Selected TAMPs and identify examples of Good Practice All 17 TAMPs selected for Task 2 were analysed using both templates described above. The results of this analysis are described in Section 4 of this report and are further discussed in Section 6. The elements of the work that were identified as good practice were also highlighted. It must be noted that collating the selected TAMPs was a lengthy process. Some of the local authorities were still working on developing elements or finalising work for their TAMP and delayed making their work available to the Project Team. It was also highlighted that their work was work in progress and changes were made on the TAMPs on a continuous basis. As a result, updated versions of TAMPs were provided during the analysis period, which caused delays in the completion of this Task. Select and Agree Six Authorities for Task 3 The aim of Task 3 was to identify a small number of local authorities that could demonstrate that they had embedded asset management principles in the way they manage their highway network, understand their drivers and recognise potential benefits resulting from their approach. The authorities were to be selected from the ones that were considered under Task 2. The criteria to be employed were the level of completeness of the TAMP and how this was used within the authority. The type of authority and its geographical location was also to be considered to ensure a satisfactory spread of different types and geographical 9

16 coverage was achieved. Initially, 6 local authorities were selected. With the agreement of the Steering Group, a seventh authority was added to the list, to ensure that a variety of approaches was covered under Task 3. A list of the authorities is given in Section 5 of this report. Table 7 shows their breakdown in terms of type of authority. Table 7 Types of local authorities selected for Task 3 Type of LA Number of LAs County 3 Unitary 1 Metropolitan 3 Total 7 All seven selected local authorities were contacted and agreed to participate in Task 3 of the research. Hold Workshops to Share Findings In accordance with the research proposal, two workshops were held as part of Task 2. The aim of these workshops was to discuss the findings of this Task with the authorities participating and hence, ensure that there were no misinterpretations or any points missed. The first workshop was held in Euston Tower, London on 13 February 2007 and the second in the Axis, Birmingham on 14 February Both workshops were chaired by Mike Bordiss. The following topics were covered in both workshops: Overall progress with TAMPs; Levels of Service and Performance Management; Data and Lifecycle Plans; Asset Valuation and Risk Management; and Integration with LTPs. All 20 local authorities that were proposed for Task 2 were invited to the workshops. Furthermore, representatives from other stakeholders (eg. The Highways Agency, CIPFA, the Steering Group) were invited. The issues discussed in the workshops informed the findings of the project and the development of the recommendations in Section 9 of this report. 2.5 Task 3: Review of TAMP Embedment The methodology for delivering Task 3 was based on the following steps: 1. Develop list of questions for assessing TAMPs usage and embedment; 2. Arrange and carry out interviews; and 3. Hold workshop to share findings; The following provides the rationale behind each of these activities and describes how we would approach each of them. Develop List of Questions for Assessing TAMPs Usage and Embedment It was agreed that to investigate the way that the 7 Task 3 local authorities had embedded asset management, a series of one to one interviews was to be carried out with a number of 10

17 stakeholders from each authority. It was agreed that a member of the Project Team would spend a whole day in each of the 7 local authorities and would aim to interview the following: Asset manager Elected member Head of Service Transport Planner Representative from Operations It was accepted, and agreed with the Steering Group that not all stakeholders listed above would be available for all local authorities under considerations, but every effort would be made to ensure that as many views as possible were recorded. Arrange and Carry Out Interviews and Analyse Findings All local authorities contacted were very supportive of the research and it proved very efficient to organise the required series of interviews. The details for these interviews and the findings of the work are discussed in Section 5 of this report. Hold Workshops to Share Findings It was agreed that at the end of Task 3, and in order to complete the research, a final workshop was to be held to discuss the list of findings of the project. The workshop was held in the Axis, Birmingham on 9 May 2006 and was chaired by Mike Bordiss. All local authorities considered under Task 2 of the research were invited, together with other relevant stakeholders. During the workshop, the key findings of the research were presented and discussed, together with possible recommendations on the future of TAMPs and the identified needs for further guidance and advice. 2.6 Dissemination of research findings As required in the project brief, the key findings of the research were to be presented in a national conference. It was agreed that the Surveyor Highway Maintenance would provide an appropriate forum for this purpose. Hence, following arrangements with the conference organisers, a second article was published in the Surveyor on 31 May 2007 and a presentation was given in the above mentioned conference on 5 June Copies of both the article and the presentation are attached in Appendix A of this report. 11

18 3 Findings of Task 1 This section presents the findings of Task 1 of the research. These are further discussed in Section 6 of this report. 3.1 Aims of Task 1 The aim of Task 1 was to ascertain the state of play among all English local authorities (outside London) in preparing and implementing their TAMPs. As described in Section 2.3 of this report, the starting and end position for TAMPs was established through a review of LTP2 submissions. The current position of TAMPs was determined through a telephone survey. The findings are presented in the following paragraphs. 3.2 Starting position with TAMPs Status of TAMPs Question 1: Was the TAMP mentioned in LTP2? 115 local authorities have mentioned their TAMP in the LTP2 submission. One County Council and one Unitary authority made indirect reference to their Asset Management Plan, without specifically mentioning a TAMP or a HAMP. The results are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Was the TAMP mentioned in LTP2? Was the TAMP mentioned in the LTP2? Yes No Other Question 2: Was a draft TAMP attached to the LTP2? 4 County Councils and one Metropolitan authority had attached a draft TAMP. One Unitary authority attached a summary of their TAMP. The results are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 Was a draft TAMP attached to the LTP2? Was a draft TAMP attached to the LTP2? Yes No other 12

19 Question 3: Had work on the TAMP started when LTP2 was submitted? 9 local authorities had started work on their TAMPs when LTP 2 was submitted. A breakdown by type is given in Figure 3. Figure 3 Breakdown of local authorities who started work on their TAMP when LTP2 was submitted. Types of LAs who started work on TAMP when LTP2 was submitted County (Shire) Metropolitian Borough Unitary Question 4: When did work on the TAMP start? The majority of local authorities were unclear about when work on the TAMP started. The results are shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 When did work on the TAMP start? When did work on the TAMP start? 2004 or earlier Unknown Method for producing TAMPs Question 5: Is the LA part of a Regional Group? 89 local authorities (22 Counties, 33 Metropolitan and 34 Unitary) were members of regional groups working on elements of their TAMP. The results are shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 Is the LA member of a regional group? Part of a regional AM group? Yes No 13

20 Question 6: Is the authority part of a consortium aiming to produce a template TAMP? 99 local authorities were not developing a template TAMP. Question 7: Are consultants employed and to what extend? 63 local authorities (18 Counties, 33 Metropolitan and 26 Unitary) have employed consultants for the development of their TAMPs. In the majority of cases, consultants were employed when a group of authorities were working together to produce a template TAMP. The aim of the consultant was typically to customise the TAMP. In other cases, consultants were employed to provide advice as and when needed. The number of local authorities who employed consultants to fully develop a TAMP was very limited. Figure 6 Are consultants employed for the development of the TAMP? Are consultants assisting the authority? Yes No Contents of TAMPs Question 8: Is the LTP2 referring to a TAMP or a HAMP? 80 of the local authorities referred to a TAMP. 35 local authorities referred to the HAMP, explaining that it would be the starting point for producing a TAMP later. Interestingly, no local authority refers to a HAMP as the final product. Question 9: What Asset Groups are included in the TAMP? The majority of TAMPs were covering highways, footways, structures, street lighting, street furniture. A limited number of TAMPs also included (or planned to include) depots, car parks and bus stations. 3.3 End Position with TAMPs Question 1: Did the LTP2 define when the draft TAMP would be in place? Almost all local authorities (apart from 2) described in their LTP2, directly or indirectly, when their TAMP would be in place. It is worth noting that most local authorities referred to a draft or first draft TAMP, at that stage. Question 2: At this point in time, when is the first draft due to be in place? 92 local authorities stated that they planned to have a draft TAMP in place by the end of local authorities stated that their TAMP would be available by the end of 2007, whilst only one local authority planned to have a draft TAMP in place in The results are shown in Figure 7. 14

21 Figure 7 When will the TAMP be in place? When will the TAMP be ready? Current Position of TAMPs Status of TAMPs This part of the telephone survey aimed to determine the current status of TAMPs, by investigating how much progress had been made in preparing the document, what was the reason for any delays and provide an assessment of the quality of the TAMP produced. It must be noted that the data described below were provided by the local authorities and are based on a self assessment approach. 101 local authorities responded to the telephone survey. A breakdown of these by type of authority is given in Section 2 of this report. Question 1: What is the current status of the TAMP? (Not started, in progress, draft, complete, advanced). 3% of Local authorities had not started work on their TAMP, 64% stated that their TAMP was work in progress, 24% said that they had a draft in place and 9% had a complete TAMP. No local authorities had an advanced TAMP. The results are shown in Figure 8. Figure 8 What is the current status of the TAMP? Current Status of TAMP - Overall Not Started In Progress Draf t Complete Advanced 15

22 Question 2: Have there been any delays in the development of the Asset Management Plan and if yes, what caused them? 69% of local authorities acknowledged that there had been delays in the development of their TAMPs. There were no significant variations on this based on the type of authority. The main reasons given for the delays are shown in Figure 9. Figure 9 Reasons for delays in developing the TAMP? Cause of delays in the development of the TAMPs Resources Organisational Issues Unclear Requirements Question 3: What is the length of the expenditure profile? 56% of local authorities developed an expenditure profile for a period of 5 years. 9% of local authorities were considering a time period longer than 10 years, whereas 11% had not decided yet. The results are shown in Figure 10. Figure 10 Length of expenditure profile in the TAMP? Length of Expenditure Profile 1-2 years 3 years 5 years 10+ years Undecided 16

23 Question 4: When is the final draft TAMP due to be ready? 44% of local authorities planned to have their TAMP in place by April 2007 and 27 % by the end of Only 7% of local authorities stated that they planned to have their TAMP in place by the end of Figure 11 shows a summary of the results. Figure 11 When is the draft TAMP due to be in place? When is the draft TAMP due to be in place In place now By April 2007 By December Question 5: How would you rate the current quality of the TAMP with regards to: Overall, Levels of Service, Performance Management, Information, Whole Life Planning, Risk Management, Forward Planning, Asset Valuation and Reporting? (Not started, Basic, Improvement Needed, Near Completion, Advanced). 47% of local authorities rated their TAMP as needing improvement, with no variations based on geographical location or type of authority. Only 2% of local authorities (Unitary and Metropolitan) rated their TAMP as advanced. Figures 12.1 to 12.9 show the results of the survey for the different elements of the TAMP. Figure 12.1 Overall quality of the TAMP Overall Quality of TAMP Not Started Basic Improvement Needed Near Completion Advanced 17

24 Figure 12.2 Quality of TAMP, Levels of Service Quality of Levels of Service v Not Started Basic Improvement Needed Near Completion Advanced Figure 12.3 Quality of TAMP, Performance Management Quality of Performance Management Not Started Basic Improvement Needed Near Completion Advanced Figure 12.4 Quality of TAMP, Information Quality of Information Not Started Basic Improvement Needed Near Completion Advanced 18

25 Figure 12.5 Quality of TAMP, Whole Life Planning Quality of Whole Life Planning Not Started Basic Improvement Needed Near Completion Advanced Figure 12.6 Quality of TAMP, Risk Management Quality of Risk Management Not Started Basic Improvement Needed Near Completion Advanced Figure 12.7 Quality of TAMP, Forward Planning Quality of Forward Planning Not Started Basic Improvement Needed Near Completion Advanced 19

26 Figure 12.8 Quality of TAMP, Asset Valuation Quality of Asset Valuation Not Started Basic Improvement Needed Near Completion Advanced Figure 12.9 Quality of TAMP, Reporting Quality of Reporting Not Started Basic Improvement Needed Near Completion Advanced Contents of the TAMP Question 6: What asset groups are currently covered in the TAMP? It was generally unclear exactly what was covered in the TAMP. Most officers had to refer to documents or state that this element of the work was still under discussion. The majority of local authorities included highways, structures, footways an street lighting in their TAMP. Figure 13 shows the results of the telephone survey. (Where H - Highways, F - Footways, S - Structures, SL - Street Lighting, SF - Street Furniture, Dep - Depots, car parks, bus stations, offices etc.) 20

27 Figure 13 Asset Groups included in the TAMP. Asset Groups Covered H,F H,F,S H,F,S,SL H,F,S,SL,SF H,F,S,SL,SF, Dep Other Method of producing the TAMP Question 7: Is the authority part of a regional group working on specific elements of the TAMP? 92% of local authorities were participating in regional groups working on elements of the TAMP. Asset valuation was the most popular element to be considered by the regional groups. There was no variation between different types of local authorities. Figure 14 shows the results for this question. Figure 14 Local authorities working as part of regional groups. Working in regional groups Yes No Question 8: Is the authority part of a consortium aiming to produce a template TAMP? 50% of local authorities were working with other authorities to produce a template TAMP. There were no regional variations. However, County Councils generally were not producing template TAMPs, whereas Metropolitan authorities were often working with neighbouring authorities to produce templates. All authorities who were producing template TAMPs aimed to customise them. 21

28 Question 9: Are consultants employed and to what extent? 68% of local authorities had employed consultants to support them with the development of their TAMPs. The use of consultants was more common with County Councils than any other type of authority. Of those local authorities who employed consultants, 66% used them to provide advise as and when needed. The results to this question are shown in Figure 15. Figure 15 Consultants support Extent of Consultant Involvement Draf t Advise Review Question 10: Is a corporate asset manager appointed in the authority? Are highways under his/her remit? 42% of local authorities had a corporate asset manager appointed. In almost all cases, the corporate asset manager covered property and highways was not under his or her remit. In many cases, the officer responding to the telephone survey was unsure about the remit or even the existence of a corporate asset manager. Question 11: Is a highways asset manager appointed in the authority? 41% of local authorities had a highways asset manager appointed. However, in many cases, there was an acting highways asset manager in place, or there was a vacant post. Question 12: Is there an asset management working group appointed? Overall, in 74% of local authorities there was an established asset management working group. In most cases, this was formed informally and it was meeting in regular time intervals. It is worth noting that there was significant variation in the results based on the type of authority. 84% of County Councils, 74% of Metropolitan and 69% of Unitary authorities had established an asset management working group. Additional Support Question 13: What additional support do you need to facilitate the development and implementation of the TAMP? 51% of local authorities would like some additional guidance, either written or in the form of DfT supported workshops and training sessions. Asset valuation, levels of service and lifecycle planning are the elements that were mentioned by most local authorities as needing further guidance. A limited number of local authorities would like to have examples of a template TAMP to follow. Sharing good practice was also mentioned under the same concept. 12.5% of local authorities felt that additional resources should be provided by the DfT, mainly financial support to collect the required data. Only 7% of local authorities would like them to become mandatory, as they felt that this would provide the necessary incentive for developing a TAMP. At the same time, 2 local authorities felt strongly that TAMPs should not be made mandatory. 22

29 4 Findings of Task 2 This sections summarises the findings of Task 2 of the research. These are further discussed in Section 6 of this report. 4.1 Aims of Task 2 The aim of Task 2 was to review a number of completed, published TAMPs in order to identify examples of good practice and provide an analysis of the extent to which TAMPs are meeting the original aims set for them.. The findings are presented in the following paragraphs. 4.2 Task 2 Authorities As described in Section 2.4 of this report, 20 local authorities were selected for consideration under this Task. Table 8 lists these authorities and describes the rationale for selecting them, based on the selection criteria agreed with the Steering Group. Table 8 Local authorities for Task 2 Local authority Type of authority Region Consultants Bournemouth Unitary South West Atkins, Opus Cornwall County South West No Stockton Unitary North East Opus Derbyshire County East Midlands Opus through MSIG, Atkins East Sussex County South East Through SE Group Hampshire County South East Opus, Atkins, CBC Hertfordshire County East Anglia Opus Kent County South East Jacobs, Aspen Leeds Met Y & the H No Liverpool Met North West No Manchester City Nottingham Unitary East Midlands Opus Peterborough Unitary East Anglia Atkins Portsmouth Unitary South East CBC Shropshire County West Midlands Opus through MSIG Somerset County South West Atkins Suffolk County East Anglia Opus Tameside Met North West Atkins West Berkshire Unitary South East WSP Wolverhampton Met West Midlands Opus 23

30 4.3 Task 2 Templates Overview Goals, Objectives and Policies Inventory and Network Referencing As discussed in Section 2, three of the local authorities listed in Table 8, namely Bournemouth, West Berkshire and Manchester, were not able to provide access to their TAMP. The rest of the authorities supplied either a complete TAMP/HAMP or elements of it, for the purposes of this project. All of the available TAMPs were assessed against the requirements set for them in the CSS Framework for Highway Asset Management, using the list of questions in the Table 9. Furthermore, the selected TAMPs were assessed against the requirements for developing a TAMP, as described in the documents listed in Section 1.2. Table 10 lists the questions adopted for this assessment. A scale of 1 to 5 was adopted, where 1 is strongly agree and 5 is strongly disagree. This was done in order to identify examples of good practice. Table 9 Template for Task 2 TAMPs, based on CSS Framework for Highway Asset Management Is the TAMP document complete? Is the TAMP available to the public? Is the TAMP presented in a way that is easily understood by all stakeholders? Does the TAMP state the progress made in developing an effective asset management planning process? Does the TAMP state the gaps to implementing an effective asset management planning process? Does the TAMP describe how these gaps are to be addressed? Does the TAMP report on progress towards achieving LTP targets? Is the relationship between asset management priorities and other corporate goals and objectives defined? Do the asset management goals and objectives reflect those that exist within other documentation used in the authority? Is the context and scope of the TAMP established? Is the relationship of the TAMP with other policy documents established? Is a Highway Improvement Plan in place? Is a Network Management Plan in place? Is a Highway Maintenance Plan in place? Is Well-maintained highways being applied? Is the Code of Practice for the maintenance of highway structures being applied? Is Well-lit highways being applied? Is the relationship between the TAMP and other corporate documents defined? Is there an asset register in place? Is the inventory complete? Is the inventory accurate? Is the inventory up to date? Has a data review been carried out? Is there an up to date referencing system available? Is there an integrated referencing system available? Have gaps in data been identified? Has data collection been prioritised? Has a data collection programme been developed? 24

31 Service delivery Decisions making Performance Gaps Levels of service Have levels of service been developed? Do the levels of service reflect the authority's strategic goals and objectives? Are the links between the levels of service and the strategic objectives clearly identified? Are the levels of service in accordance with the legislative framework that applies to the business of highway management? Were the customers' views taken into account in the development of the levels of service? Were customers directly involved in establishing the target performance for the network? Are customer surveys regularly used to establish the degree of satisfaction with current levels of service? Are the levels of service available in a customer charter or similar document? Were best practice guidelines considered in the development of the levels of service? Are performance targets for each level of service documented in the TAMP? Has a desired level of performance been established? Have performance gaps been identified for each level of service? Where performance gaps have been identified, have programmes of works been developed? Have life cycle plans been developed for all assets? Do the life cycle plans reflect show how different options are evaluated and selected? Have long term programmes been developed for all services? Are competing demands addressed through otpimisation and forward works programmes? Where gaps are identified, have the reasons for the gap been established? Is the reason for the gap considered when developing a plan to address the gap? Have the options for closing the gaps been identified and documented? Is the optimal regime for the operation and maintenance of the network identified in the TAMP? Is optimisation applied to the demands on different parts of the physical asset? Is optimisation applied to the different service areas? Is a robust process fro optimisation established and described in the TAMP? Are budget considerations taken into account when optimising and prioritising works? Are organisational constraints taken into account in the optimisation and prioritisation process? Is a risk assessment framework established and documented? Have risk been identified? Have risks been analysed and assessed? Have risk reduction actions been identified and documented? Are risks regularly reviewed? Is a process established for developing a forward works programme? Is a process established for evaluating and ranking alternative improvement projects and maintenance treatments? Is the forward works programme covering at least 10 years? Does the forward works programme integrate the works required from various funding streams? Is good quality condition data available to allow projection of future condition? Are future works co-ordinated to ensure that work carried out is not destroyed by consequent tasks? Are suppliers' commercial needs reflected in the development of forward works programmes? 25