Fig. 4 – Railway incursion prioritisation process
C h a p t e r 9 – S t r u c t u r e s L i f e c y c l e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n
9
Fig. 5 – Strengthening Prioritisation Process
Fig. 6 – Simplified BA79 Process C h a p t e r 9 – S t r u c t u r e s L i f e c y c l e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n
9
PM produces schedule of bridges to be assessed Carryout Level 1 assessment Complete Form E1 (review every 2 years)Apply interim measure
Carry out higher level assessment work as appropriate Determine monitoring procedure and include in inspection programme Update results in BMS YES YES YES NO NO YES End End NO Does the structure pass? Substandard Bridge? Is the structure an immediate risk structure? Is monitoring by inspection sufficient? Does the structure pass?
Scheme
Fees
Works
Project Total (£)
Old Weybridge (residual costs
of 2003/04 scheme) 2,500 10,000 12,500
A31 Weydon Lane 10,000 85,000 95,000
A31 Hatch Mill 23,000 220,000 243,000
Slipshatch (major
maintenance contribution) 7,000 70,000 77,000
A31 Bourne Place 10,000 90,000 100,000
Ruxley Farm (residual costs
of 2003/04 scheme) 1,500 5,000 6,500
Puddenhole Copse 22,000 210,000 232,000
A22 Lagham (residual costs
of 03/04 scheme) 1,500 5,000 6,500
A30 Cricketers (residual costs
of 2002/03 scheme) 1,000 1,563 2,563
Tilford (New and West) 68,000 668,000 736,000
Ash Vale 55,000 550,000 605,000
Totals 201,500 1,914,563 2,116,063
Table 9.12 – Bridge Strengthening Programme (2004/05)
In addition, there will still be approximately 400 bridges which have not had the benefit of capital
investment, although it has to be acknowledged that most of the larger and more significant bridges would have been dealt with. Present day calculations indicate that we spend only one fifth of the recommended money on routine structural maintenance. Capital investment is relied upon to make up the difference. Further work is required, in conjunction with the development of the bridge management system, the CSS Bridge Condition Indicator and the continuous assessment programme, to refine the extent of the problem. Work is now underway to determine a second five year programme to the end of the Ten Year Transport Plan which, subject to funding, should enable all bridges to be brought up to acceptable current standards. Consideration will be given to the effect of differing funding levels.
The 2004/05 bridge strengthening programme is given in Table 9.12.
Subways and Footbridges
The Bridge Management Strategy of the LTP included a desire to improve the access to footways and subways where they did not meet current standards. This was part of the overall strategy to improve accessibility as well as to start to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. Details are given in Table 9.13.
Asset Description
Disposal Activity
Drivers
Disposal Programme
Subway Infill of subway Lack of use Lightwater subways
are under review General structures Closing of structures Stopping up of roads No current actions
programmed Footbridges Removal of disused Provision of alternative No current actions
footbridges high quality at-grade programmed facilities
Location
District
Project Cost (£)
2004/2005
Hall Grove Footbridge Surrey Heath 50,000
2005/2006
Stones Road Subway Epsom and Ewell 300,000
2006/2007
Watchetts Wood Footbridge Surrey Heath 200,000
Table 9.13 – Subway and Footbridge Accessibility Programme
9.12 Disposal Plan
Disposal is any activity that removes a decommissioned asset, including sale, demolition or relocation. Disposal of structures assets will generally occur as part of disposal of a larger asset grouping like roads and footways. However, other drivers may result in development of a disposal programme as shown in Table 9.14. Sustainable development objectives also need to be taken into account.
Table 9.14 – Structures Disposal Activities and Drivers
9.13 Sustainable Development
There are many definitions of sustainable development but perhaps the most common is:
‘Sustainable development meets our present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs.’ Brundtand Commission (1987)
Doctoral research work sponsored by SCC at the University of Surrey enabled a method to be developed which would allow environmental pollution effects of bridge management activities to be quantified. Recent
C h a p t e r 9 – S t r u c t u r e s L i f e c y c l e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n
In order to take the longer term view, we will:
•
maximise reuse of existing materials when repair and reconstruction is carried out•
ensure that materials incorporated in works will be recyclable at the end of their useful life•
maximise the use of renewable resources whenever possibleOne of the best ways to demonstrate economic stewardship of assets is to quantify the asset value in monetary terms and monitor how this is changing with time. This will indicate if costs are being passed to future generations and can provide compelling arguments for investing in the preservation of the asset base. It is likely that this approach will form the basis of a future national performance indicator.
Prior to the development of such an indicator a more simplistic approach is to calculate the amount spent on maintenance as a percentage of the asset valuation – as described above.
9.14 Future Developments
It is recognised that the development of a Lifecycle Plan within the overall Asset Management Plan is a continuous improvement process. Future versions of this Plan will cover, and be influenced by, the following topics in greater detail:
•
Implementation of CSS Bridge Condition Indicators•
Interpretation of data from the CSS Bridge Condition Indicators•
Development of a continuous assessment programme•
Development of a bridge strengthening and upgrading programme through to the end of the 10 year Transport Plan•
Introduction of national key performance indicators for bridges•
Development of deterioration models for bridges•
Development of Asset Valuation models•
Introduction of an advanced Bridge Management System•
Introduction of a national Code of Practice for Bridge Maintenance•
Implementation of sustainable development indicators for bridges9.15 References
1. Brooman, H., Implementation of Bridge Condition Indicators, The 11th Annual Surveyor Bridge Conference, March 2003
2. CSS, Bridge Condition Indicators – Volume 3, Guidance Notes on Evaluation of Bridge Condition Indicators, July 2002
3. Johnston, F., Developing Whole Life Strategies for Highway Networks
Assessment for Roads: Development and Implementation, Aston University, November 2003 4. CSS, ‘Funding for Bridge Management’, February 2000
5. Cole, G., Funding for Bridge Management – An Update Report Structures Group Report, December 2003
6. Cole, G., Best Value in Structures, SEABIG – An Interim Report Structures Group Report, February 2001
7. Highways Agency, The Management of Sub-Standard Highway Structures, BA79, 1998
