In recent years the Highways Agency has improved the condition of England’s motorway and trunk roads network and has also strengthened the management and delivery of its maintenance programme. But, according to a National Audit Office report, there is scope for the Agency to make further improvements in measuring the condition of the network, targeting resources on the highest priority work, controlling costs and ensuring that maintenance work stands the test of time. It should also measure its own performance better.
Sir John Bourn, head of the NAO, told Parliament today that the Highways Agency had strengthened its management and delivery of the road maintenance programme by making funding decisions more closely based on need. It has also improved how it contracts for work and has reduced the impact of maintenance on the motorist, in particular by carrying out more work at night and at off-peak times of the day. It has also met its national target of ensuring that no more than 7 to 8 per cent of the network requires maintenance in any year.
Further progress could be made, however, in key aspects of the Agency’s work.
The Agency’s performance varies between regions with 5.2 per cent of roads in the South West requiring maintenance in the next twelve months, compared with 9.1 per cent of roads in the North West.
Proposals for major capital maintenance schemes put forward by the Agency’s contractors often lack sufficient detail to enable schemes to be ranked according to the future maintenance cost savings and the safety benefits they would bring. The Agency therefore does not necessarily select the highest priority projects for maintenance work within its regions or across the country as a whole.
Cost control over the lifetime of projects is weak. The Agency concentrates on controlling in-year spending, while projects over-spend by an average of 27 per cent over their lifetimes.
The Agency also loses around £6.2 million each year when, for example, fences or barriers on the network are damaged in road accidents. The Agency does not recover all the costs of repairing the damage because, for example, no culprit can be identified or traced.
Contractors’ work is not guaranteed to last a given time and the Agency does not know whether it stands the test of time. Maintenance work is expected to be free of defects for only a limited time after its completion, and the Agency’s maintenance histories for the network as a whole are not sufficient to allow it to assess how well maintenance performs over the longer-term.