Conclusions and recommendations
On delivery of the maintenance programme
1. The Agency does
not directly assess whether the network is in a good, fair or
poor condition, measuring instead how much of the network requires
maintenance in the following year. The Agency did not introduce
a direct measure of road condition in April 2003 as intended,
but should now agree a firm deadline for doing so with the Department
for Transport.
2. The Agency's Road
User Satisfaction Surveys show that a better road surface is the
public's top priority for improving the network. The Agency should
consider how best to reflect motorists' views in its road condition
performance measures and in determining the optimal level of maintenance
work to be carried out on the network.
3. The Agency should
provide agents with practical training in the use of its scoring
system for evaluating maintenance proposals and, through participation
in Value Management workshops, seek better evidence to support
agents' proposals, thereby improving the quality of maintenance
proposals and the basis of its decisions between projects.
4. The Agency should
assess at the end of the first cycle of its Performance Review
Improvement Delivery (PRIDe) inspections whether they provide
adequate evidence about the quality of agents' work.
5. The Agency should
submit periodic reports to its Board on the management of individual
project costs to demonstrate a stronger focus on cost control
at senior management level. Such a report should consider the
lifetime project costs, as well as in year spending compared to
budget, and explanations for variances, wider lessons arising
and actions proposed.
6. The Agency should
demonstrate that the extra funding provided to agents at the project
proposal stage is reducing variations between planned and actual
work, and hence between planned and actual costs.
7. The Agency should
require agents to identify and prioritise small capital projects,
and to demonstrate to the Agency that the work is genuinely urgent.
The Agency should audit a sample of agents' submissions to check
on need and urgency.
8. The Agency is reducing
the size of the network it manages by transferring responsibility
to local authorities. The Agency should therefore review the level
of its administration costs with the aim of reducing them proportionately
wherever practical.
9. The Agency should
work more closely with insurers, the police and other emergency
services to identify motorists who cause damage to the network,
and to recover the repair costs from them.
10. The Agency should
assess the costs and actual working life of the 'thin surfacings'
now routinely used on major road repairs, and compare them with
those of more conventional surfacings to assess which offer better
value for money, taking account of noise reduction benefits.
On reducing disruption for the motorist
11. The Agency and
the Department should revise the Road Users Charter targets to
discourage or prohibit lanes from being coned-off where no works
are ongoing and to aim for a higher percentage of roadworks where
lanes are reopened on time.
12. The Agency should
assess whether it can provide better and more timely information
to motorists about roadworks, by making greater use of radio,
teletext, the Internet and mobile telephone text services, and
mobile roadside and gantry messaging boards. It should find out
which media, or combination of media, work best.
13. The Agency should
consider with the police, local authorities, motoring associations
and other emergency services how blockages on the network can
be cleared more quickly to prevent motorists from being trapped
in their vehicles for long periods of time.
| 
