Transport Committee hears from experts on local roads funding and governance

The Transport Select Committee yesterday took evidence from witnesses as part of its inquiry into local roads funding and governance. 

Witnesses were:

Paul Fleetham, Managing Director Contracting, Tarmac

Alex Wright, Group Manager, Transport Research Laboratory, Road Condition Management Group

Paula Claytonsmith, Managing Director, Gaist

Richard Hayes, Chief Executive, Institute of Highway Engineers

Howard Robinson, Chief Executive, Road Surface Treatment Association

Committee chairman Lilian Greenwood opened the session by asking about roads inspection and data collection methods and, in particular, scanner survey technology. She said there seemed to be a mismatch between road conditions and what was revealed in the road condition reports.

Paula Claytonsmith explained that Gaist used a range of five high definition cameras that captured images of the road. From that, defects were analysed. Alex Wright said scanner technology was limited because the standards for the way in which data was used for national and local assessment had not been updated. The technology was fit for purpose in that it collected the correct data, but there needed to be a step change in the way the data was used.

Paula Claytonsmith explained in depth the differences and synergies between Gaist’s technology and the use of scanners. She said a number of local authorities used their services to understand the deterioration of footways and to devise an ‘auditable trail.’

Members of the panel were asked to comment on the way in which road indexing could be changed. Alex Wright said roads should be based on hierarchy rather than classification.

Ruth Cadbury asked if it would be more cost-effective if Gaist conducted an annual condition survey across the whole of England, rather than delegated it to local authorities. Paula Claytonsmith said that would not be a good idea because there may be a range of indicators that did not require an examination of the entire network.

Daniel Zeichner asked about the proposal to have a new approach to the collection of data. Alex Wright decried the small number of contractors in this area. There was a robust but stringent specification which meant contractors needed to invest heavily. TRL was proposing a loosening of the requirements so more sophisticated and modern technology could be introduced. But there was also a need for national reporting and standards. The idea was for local authorities to be able to get more flexible surveys and still meet national reporting needs.

In terms of ownership of data, Alex Wright said it would be owned by the contracting local authority but would be used by the DfT. Paul Fleetcham explained that Tarmac would employ a company like Gaist to conduct a survey and would then allow a local authority to use that data for planning purposes.

Paula Claytonsmith welcomed the DfT’s review of current indicators. It was a conversation which had to be had not only with engineers but also with, for example, cycling groups, the RAC, the AA, etc.

Daniel Zeichner asked about the alleged lack of investment by the government in data processing since the scanner method was devised. Paul Fleetham said it came down to finances. Gaist may identify a road which needed reconstruction because it was full of potholes, but a local authority may only be able to afford a patch-up job. There was evidence that early intervention would save money in the long-term, as proven in a model done by Gaist in Blackpool.

Howard Robinson highlighted the importance of preventative maintenance. According to statistics, investment in prevention was half that of 30 years ago. So it was not surprising the network was deteriorating. He agreed with Daniel Zeichner that this required a greater investment by the government.

Following up on Paula Claytonsmith’s comment that the indicator was engineering led, rather than focussed on road users, Lilian Greenwood asked if that drove the behaviour of local authorities. Paula Claytonsmith replied that indicators drove a particular type of behaviour. “You report on what you are required to report on.”

Richard Hayes said the allocation of funding to a local authority was determined by the size of the network and the excellence of the bids for the network to be improved. In theory, the level of maintenance between different roads should be similar.

Replying to Grahame Morris, Richard Hayes said the code of practice took a risk-based approach. The number of claims against local authorities was increasing and authorities still had a duty to maintain the network.

Howard Robinson said only a third of local authorities were implementing the code of practice. He wasn’t sure if the DfT knew that.

Regarding the options to improve road maintenance, Lillian Greenwood referred to the allocation of £420m in the budget to fix potholes. Paul Fleetham said local authorities could not spend that easily before the next financial year. It would have been better to have had a long-term plan. Richard Hayes said potholes were the symptom, not the main issue. Howard Robinson added that ministers did not understand the scale of the problem.

Huw Merriman asked about the role of and job done by Highways England. Paul Fleetham said they were doing a good job, given their budget, albeit a little slower than would be liked.

Asked about the use of funds, Richard Hayes said some local authorities did take a long-term view. Howard Robinson said some strategic alliances had been formed to good effect.

Paula Claytonsmith said the Highways Act could benefit from being updated. The other panellists agreed.

Turning to the role of technology and repair methods, Howard Robinson said it was important to standardise techniques. All the witnesses agreed that technology would provide opportunities to maintain the road network with less disruption.

In terms of investment in new technologies, Howard Robinson told Jack Brereton that changes should meet a standard or specification. Richard Hayes said there would be greater pressure on maintenance engineers to improve the condition of the network due to the introduction of new technologies in terms of traffic, autonomous vehicles, lane assist and the like. Alex Wright pointed out it could take 30 years to go from level 1 to level 5 autonomy and the network would have to be transformed.

Paula Claytonsmith said investment in new technologies varied. One of the biggest challenges was the change at TRL, which was considered the industry leader in the field. But it was risky to invest in something that may or may not work.

Replying to questions by Lilian Greenwood, Howard Robinson said it was a big problem that there was not a single standard for repairing potholes. This was made worse by the procurement methods of local authorities who did not always consider companies using new technologies. Paul Fleetham criticised the scheduling of repairs at night in winter, when conditions were at their worst for successful outcomes.

Lilian Greenwood asked if Gaist’s data could inform about the quality of repairs and effectiveness of new technologies. Paula Claytonsmith replied that it could and it had been found that areas where there had been poor reinstatement increased deterioration rates by 30%. Recently Gaist had had utility companies asking for analysis of where their repair works were failing.