Andy Pickett and James Wallis London Borough Principal Road Condition Survey 2014/15 Quality, Consistency and Reporting Andy Pickett and James Wallis TRL Appia

Agenda Survey Regime DVI Survey Guidance DVI Quality Regime Data Reporting

Survey Regime DVI – all Borough principal roads including footways SCRIM – all Borough principal roads SCANNER Borough Principal Roads Classified Roads

DVI Inspector Guidance Local Guidance COMPLEMENTS and interprets UKPMS Manual. Common guidance for both TfL and Road2010 survey

London Inspector Guidance Defect Recording and Classification of Defects: Cracking Rutting Chip Loss Survey Procedure: XSP Referencing Recording areas and running defects

Wheel Track Cracking – Local Rules Where Major Cracking is identified the area of Whole Carriageway Major Cracking should ALWAYS be recorded. Individual, linear cracks should ONLY be recorded as Wheel Track Major Cracking if that cracking occurs along the wheel paths. Area Cracking that occurs in the wheel path should also be recorded as Wheel Track Major Cracking If Wheel Track Major Cracking is recorded, the defect is not left running beyond the point where cracking ends or where it stops affecting the wheel paths.

Wheel Track Cracking – Local Rules Change from previous years to align with TfL procedure The defect is recorded if either or both wheel tracks are affected Since full XSP referencing is used for both the Road 2010 and the TfL DVI survey the number of lanes affected is always “1”

Other Defects Wheel Track Rutting: collected from the SCANNER survey and should NOT be recorded as the DVI survey. Chip Loss: ONLY be recorded where the original road surface has had had surface chippings applied to it as a treatment.

Cross Section Position Referencing: Bus Lanes

Cross Section Position Referencing: Parking Bays

Cross Section Position Referencing: Cycle Lanes Change from previous years

Cross Section Position Referencing: Cycle Lanes – Seperated by Kerb Change from previous years

Cross Section Position Referencing: Side Junctions (Public Highways) Footway with greatest width determines referencing

Cross Section Position Referencing: Side Junctions (Private) Change from previous years

Survey Quality: Training Training and accreditation of LBHF staff both as inspectors and auditors All inspectors used for the survey carry out induction training prior to carrying out surveys to ensure common/consistent understanding and interpretation of the DVI survey

Survey Quality Regime Audit surveys as part of a process to validate and accept survey data 5% Random sample of each batch of data (usually for a borough) for audit survey Audit surveys by accredited UKPMS auditors The audit checks that both the UKPMS Visual Survey Manual (DVI) and the local guidance for the survey are being applied and interpreted correctly Increased sample size and repeat audits in the event of failures Rejection of data in the event of repeat failures The following rules are applied during the auditor will take into account of and make allowances for the following in applying the scoring: The time elapsed between the original survey and the audit survey Any works that may have occurred since the survey The traffic conditions and presence of parked cars which will make it difficult for the inspector to identify all defects Defects which are borderline between recording and not recording and/or between classification as one defect or another in which case the benefit of doubt will be given in favour of the original survey.

Audit Scoring 1 2 3 4 5 Score Criteria Very poor quality. Survey data bears little or resemblance to conditions on site and is likely to indicate that the wrong data has been supplied or that the incorrect location has been assessed. 2 Poor quality. The survey data is not representative of the condition of the site. 3 Acceptable quality. Whilst data is, for the section as a whole, generally indicative of section conditions, there are more generalised issues with defects being missed, or under/over-recorded or mis-categorised. 4 Good quality. General correspondence between survey data and site conditions, with isolated issues where defects have been missed or under/over-recorded or mis-categorised. 5 Very good quality. Only minor differences between survey data and site conditions which could be explained by the time elapsed since the survey. Half points also used (e.g. 2.5) Data for boroughs with a mean audit score of 3 or greater, with no individual audit sites with an audit score of less than 3 will be accepted and no further action is required. For boroughs with a mean audit score or 3 or greater with individual sites of less than 3, data for those sites will not be accepted and the data must investigated, corrected and re-submitted. Data for boroughs with a mean audit score of less than 3 will not be accepted and must be investigated, and the data corrected and submitted. A new 10% random sample of sections from the re-submitted data shall be sampled and audited (which may or may not include sites from the previous 5% audit sample) and be deemed acceptable according to the criteria above prior to the data being accepted.

Survey Audit and Data Acceptance Process

Data Provided HMDIF: Shapefiles for data and PDF mapping DVI (Borough Principal Roads) including paved surface inventory SCANNER (Borough Principal Roads) SCANNER (B and C- Roads) SCRIM (Borough Principal Roads) Shapefiles for data and PDF mapping

Data Reporting Performance indicator reports: SCANNER Data Topic 130-01 (principal roads where maintenance should be considered) (Percentage Red plus green and amber breakdown) Data Topic 130-02 (classfied roads where maintenance should be considered) (Percentage Red plus green and amber breakdown by road class) SCRIM Data Topic 130-03: Skidding resistance surveys (percentage at or below investigatory level) DVI former BV96 (percentage with structural condition indices < 70)

Map Reports

Demonstration – Live Reporting