MARK HODGSON ROAD2000 REVIEW KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Road 2000 – The Data Collection Nigel Barrett Barretts Consultants.
Advertisements

ROAD 2000 A UNIQUE PROJECT. A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realises he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the.
Focusing on Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in GPP Green Public Procurement (GPP) - Lead the change National Conference George Jadoun,
Update: Operational Delivery Networks Denise McLellan Transitional Lead, Networks and Senates, Midlands and East November 2012.
Road 2001 and beyond Mayor's Draft Transport Strategy –Improve the effectiveness and quality of London’s street maintenance.
Specification and Procurement Andrej Znak Hammersmith & Fulham Council Group Officer (Development Engineering) Project Manager (Road 2000) Chair LoTAG.
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION State of Minnesota Technology Summary February 24, 2011.
1 Major Highway Program Legislative Audit Bureau January 2004.
1 ROADS Services Training Group LOCAL AUTHORITY ROADS CONFERENCE 2014 Reforms, Challenges and Safety Treacys West County Hotel, Ennis, May 2014.
New Decade - New Challenges Annual Conference September 2010 Water Services Training Group 14 th Annual Conference New Decade – New Challenges 9 th September.
Effective Management and Compliance 1 ANA GRANTEE MEETING  FEBRUARY 5, 2015.
W.D.M. Limited North View, Staple Hill, Bristol BS16 4NX Telephone: Web: London wide skid policy November 2009 Martin Sachs,
It’s Not How Big it is – It’s How You Use it! Peter Andrews Business Support Manager Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead.
Open Budget Meeting Budget and Finance Budget Reduction for FY13 FY 2013 FY 2013 State Appropriations $ 22,799,099 FY 2013 Special Funding Initiative-Nursing.
HELPING THE NATION SPEND WISELY Karen Taylor Director of Health Value for Money Audit NHS Pay Modernisation: New Contracts for General Practice Services.
ROAD 2001 THE ROAD AHEAD. ROAD 2001 and Beyond The Way Forward Vision Policy Objectives Partnerships Best Practice Asset Management Resource Allocation.
Disability Services Value for Money and Policy Review 29/11/20151 Value for Money and Policy Review of Disability Services in Ireland Presentation to the.
1 FY2006 TDA Triennial Performance Audits Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming & Allocations Committee October 4, 2006 GGBHTD (Golden Gate)
The Thames Path London Orla McCarthy Transport for London.
Presentation Aim The aim of this presentation is to: Give an overview of approach to future delivery Outline key priorities going forward Explain what.
Presentation to the Ad-hoc Joint Sub-Committee on Parliamentary Oversight and Accountability Wednesday 20 March 2002 PUBLIC SERVICE MONITORING AND EVALUATION.
Value for Money (VFM) Based on the Audit Commission Report Valuable Lessons –July 2009.
Torbay Council Partnerships Review August PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Date Page 2 Torbay Council Partnerships Background The Audit Commission defines.
Condition Surveys 2011/12 Results Andy Pickett Director Appia Infrastructure Solutions.
David Yeoell Head of Infrastrcuture and Asset Management, City of Westminster Chair LoTAMB LoTAG Conference – 11 th May 2015.
Road Investment Decision Framework
Butte County Climate Action Plan Contract for Services December 11, 2012 Butte County Department of Development Services Tim Snellings, Director.
Key Issues for VET GROUP TRAINING AUSTRALIA NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2016 PROFESSOR PETER NOONAN PROFESSORIAL FELLOW MITCHELL INSTITUTE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY.
1 LoTAG conference – 11 th May 2015 LoHEG - London Highway Engineering Group Update Co-chair – Dale Foden/Ian Hawthorn This presentation.
Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) Transport and Telecommunications Overview and Scrutiny Committee 8 th April 2009.
Road Owners and PMS Christopher R. Bennett Senior Transport Specialist East Asia and Pacific Transport The World Bank Washington, D.C.
Optimisation Modelling for Roads through an Outsourced Service
How to Deliver Value for Money in DFID’s BER Programmes including updates on Economy and Effectiveness Edward Hedley & Gulden Bayaz 29 September 2016.
Midland DHBs Board Development
Andy Pickett and James Wallis
Project monitoring and evaluation
Maintenance BC - NZTA assessment in TIO
Chris Kennedy, Martin Sachs, Mark Stephenson
Austroads Data Standard – Adoption Considerations
Specialist Leaders of Education Briefing for potential applicants
A ‘Value for Money’ monitor that takes account of Customer Satisfaction, Quality and Investment (also know as ‘3 legged stool’) .... helping.
Bristol’s 20 mph experience Peter Mann Service Director, Transport
Transport Asset Management in London: LoTAMB Update
LoLEG - London Lighting Engineers Group
IT Governance is …… ‘an integral part of enterprise governance and consists of the leadership and organizational structures and processes that ensure that.
Investment Logic Mapping – An Evaluative Tool with Zing
Bid Process.
Visit management technology project Proposal
School Development Planning
Federal Grant Programs Conference October 23, 2017
Finance Training for Governors
Council Meeting June 7, :00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. The Capitol
CIMMS – Network Survey Vehicle
Historical problems Tasks being done; just not coordinated and effective. No clear line of sight to client (Highways England) objectives. No defined asset.
Austroads Data Standard – Adoption Considerations
Progress update Dr Sophie Doswell
Use of National Strategies for the Development of Statistics
Optimisation Modelling for Roads through an Outsourced Service
CIMMS – Network Survey Vehicle
Local government performance audit update
FINANCE. FINANCE FINANCE YEAR 1 PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 1 San Benito CISD will work to provide a full day pre-kindergarten program with highly qualified.
The Future of Local Transport Delivery Road Show 2011
Year 10 Research Action Plan
Dr. Ron Atwell Ms. Kathleen Connelly
Stakeholder Event: Local Authority Commissioners of Advice Services   Glasgow, 13th January 2019 Andrew McGuire, Improvement Service.
Trends and best practice of spending review in OECD
EUROSTAT FUNDED PROJECT ON IMPROVING FERTILISER DATA
Budget Reduction for FY13
Governor Induction Part 3
The EU Model of PIC Raymond Hill Team Leader, PIC Task Force
Presentation transcript:

MARK HODGSON ROAD2000 REVIEW KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ROAD2000

2000 – Major political change in London Formation of GLA New Mayor Data requirement to allocate funding UKPMS software accredited, standardised surveys Proposal – survey and process to UKPMS standard 1300km roads and 1800km footways WHAT IS THE ROAD2000 PROJECT?

Aim Provide consistent data in useful and useable format Allocate funds Maintenance programming Monitor long term trends BVPI’s / NI’s Value for money WHAT IS THE ROAD2000 PROJECT?

Facts – over 10 years R2000 has: Surveyed equivalent lane length to circumference of earth (40,000km) £3.5m survey cost £300m allocation 1500 BVPI’s / NI’s WHAT IS THE ROAD2000 PROJECT?

Graph to show annual expenditure v condition

Asset Surveys Transport Commissioner wanted all TfL assets mapped Applied to BPRN 500,000 features, 100,000 changes p.a. 75,000 linked photo’s 125,000 posts & 100,000 signs 66,000 gully’s 57,000 lamp columns 33,000 trees WHAT IS THE ROAD2000 PROJECT?

Confirm still needed If needed scope going forward? 2005 – 5 year business plan Times have changed: 2005 £50m allocation 2011 £15m allocation BVPI / NI halved WHY HAVE A REVIEW?

Scope of review Still needed? Efficient processes? Contract arrangements, value for money? Are range and frequency of surveys appropriate? What is the resource requirement Is specialist consultancy used wisely? WHY HAVE A REVIEW?

R2000 still needed? Proven track record Consistent data NI’s Less money – data more important? Best practice in CSS framework for asset management National and international interest Finding: R2000 successful, new name R2010 Recommendation: Continue HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME?

Are processes efficient, scope to improve? HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME? Finding: Processes efficient and streamlined Recommendation: Continue existing approach

Do contract arrangements provide value for money? Rates 40% lower Benchmarked – R2000 very good rates New contracts being written – more scope for boroughs to access (eg DVI borough roads) Finding: Good VFM Recommendation: Make available for borough use HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME?

Right surveys, right frequency? Full network coverage, both directions DVI, SCANNER, SCRIM Consider reducing frequency / coverage But, rapidly changing network LBHF – 50% reduction: lost consistency and ability to prioritise SCANNER AND DVI? HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME? Finding: Current mix of surveys and frequencies is right Recommendation: Continue

Right Staff Resources? 3 FTE’s Data management and processing CAD and GIS Audit and contract management Finding: 3 FTE’s about right Recommendation: Spare resource directed to other commissions – eg. pan London contract HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME?

Is specialist consultancy used wisely? 5 to 20% of annual budget Recent commissions included DVI v SCANNER comparison, skid resistance policy, supporting FCMG. Other groups also undertake special studies Finding: Used wisely, benefited London Recommendation: Aligned with other groups, agreed by HMSG HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME?

Miscellaneous activities R2000 conference successful - TfL administering created savings Pan London UKPMS license required Website – better VFM if moved to LoTAG website Finding: Miscellaneous activities are necessary Recommendation: Continue to look for efficiencies and VFM HOW ARE KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO AFFECT ME?

Summary of recommendations: 1. Continue ROAD2000 – but change name to ROAD Continue with current mix and frequency of surveys 3. Investigate if any other pan London work can be aligned to the R2010 work 4. Specialist consultancy needs to fully align with other groups (e.g. LoTAMB, HMEG) and be agreed by the HMSG Conclusions

Questions