City of Westminster
Decision-maker
Item No.
ED&T/2/2006
Date
Title of Report
Cabinet Member for 26 January 2006
Economic Development
and Transport
Maintenance Strengthening and
Management of Bridges and
Other Highway Structures
Classification
Report of
FOR GENERAL RELEASE
Director of Transportation
Wards Involved
All
Policy Context
To maintain and improve the quality of the City
Councils’ streets and buildings through a planned
maintenance and improvement programme.
The costs of capital works recommended in this
report total £1,470,000. Provision of £1,430,00 exists
in the approved capital programme for this
expenditure. The additional £40,000 is to be met by
income.
Financial Summary
1
Summary
1.1
This report provides:
(a)
a review of the strategy adopted in maintaining the City Council’s bridges
and other highway structures.
(b)
an update of the Assessment and Strengthening Programme to cater for
the European Community (EC) requirement to allow 40 tonne vehicles
on UK Roads, particularly in respect of bridges and structures owned by
Network Rail and London Underground Limited where slippages in
programme have resulted in re-phasing of expenditure.
and seeks:
(c)
approval to implement the programme of planned preventative
maintenance to the City Council’s bridges and other highway structures
for 2005/06 and 2006/07.
(d)
approval to continue with the administration of the London Package for
Bridges and Other Highway Structures in 2005/06 and 2006/07.
1
(e)
approval to implement a programme of security improvements to the City
Council’s pipe subway network.
2
Recommendations
2.1
That approval be given to capital expenditure of £540,000 to implement the
2005/06 programme of planned preventative maintenance to the City
Council’s bridges and other highway structures as detailed in paragraph 6.2.
The Additional £40,000 above the Capital Programme is for work in the pipe
subway and all will be charged to the statutory undertakers under the terms of
existing legal agreements and agreed changing mechanism.
2.2
That approval be given to capital expenditure of £450,000 to implement the
2006/07 programme of planned preventative maintenance to the City
Council’s bridges and other highway structures as detailed in paragraph 6.3.
2.3
That approval be given to capital expenditure of £180,000 to continue with the
administration of the London Package for Bridges and Other Highway
Structures in 2005/06 and 2006/07. [Approval to proceed in 2006/07 is
subject to receipt of grant support from Transport for London.]
2,4
That approval be given to capital expenditure of £300,000 to implement a
programme of security improvements to the City Council’s Pipe Subway
Network. All costs to be charged to the Statutory Undertakers under the terms
of existing legal agreements and agreed charging mechanism.
2.5
That authority be given to enter into such agreements with transport
undertakers as may be needed to enable the carrying out of strengthening
works comprised in the above-mentioned programmes.
3
Background Information
3.1
Bridges form a key part of the highway system by virtue of their strategic
location and because of the consequences when they fail or when their
capacity is impaired. Inspection is an essential part of bridge maintenance
and must be conducted systematically and not just confined to those
occasions when there is a breakdown or failure. The emphasis of all bridge
inspection and maintenance in Westminster is on public safety and prolonging
the economic life of the structure.
3.2
The City of Westminster has a high concentration of structures of varying
London Underground Ltd. and many age, size and strategic importance. Many
of these structures date back to before 1922 when the first national loading
standard was introduced. A number of these structures are also of significant
historical value.
3.3
Within the City there are also a considerable number of structures owned by
of these are on the earliest lines constructed, namely the Metropolitan, District
and Circle lines. In addition there are also structures owned by Network Rail,
2
Transport for London (on the TLRN), British Waterways and the Public Utility
Companies.
3.4
Previous reports to the former Traffic Sub-Committee have outlined the
Management Strategy adopted in maintaining the City Council’s Bridges and
other Highway Structures. (A “highway structure” is a structure either over,
under or adjacent to a public highway that may at any time be expected to
withstand the effects of vehicular and/or pedestrian loading).
3.5
In 1987 the Department for Transport introduced a “15-year Rehabilitation
Programme”, to improve the quality of maintenance and to upgrade substandard features. The Assessment and Strengthening programme to cater
for the European Community (EC) requirement to allow 40 tonne vehicles on
UK Roads formed a substantial part of this programme.
3.6
A substantial part of the programme was completed within the 15-year
timeframe. However, there was insufficient funding available nationally for all
necessary work to be undertaken. Recognition of the outstanding work has
been made within the governments’ 10 year plan for Transport and the Mayor
for London’s Transport Strategy which both highlight the objective of the
“…elimination of the maintenance backlog for local roads, bridges and lighting,
as part of a £30 billion programme”. The City Council is working closely with
other London Borough’s, via the LoBEG (London Bridges Engineering Group)
Forum, in producing a strategy for identifying the backlog in bridge
maintenance and producing a forward investment programme to meet this
objective.
4
Inspection
4.1
To ensure that these structures are maintained to the highest standards it is
essential that their condition is reviewed and monitored on a regular basis.
The City Council has adopted the standards set by the Department of
Transport (DoT) and carries out regular inspections and reporting of structures
with the following frequency:




Principal Inspections
General Inspection
Superficial Inspections
Special Inspections
- Every 6 years
- Every 2 years
- Yearly
- Ad-hoc
Appendix 2 explains the inspection regime in more detail.
4.2
The regular inspection process gathers information on a highway structure in
respect of defects and can record deterioration over time (defects are
recorded in terms of extent, severity and priority).
4.3
It is vital that the right information is collected, stored and used in the correct
way. To this end the City Council operates a Bridge Management System,
3
called ‘Bridge Station’, that enables prioritised programmes of work to be
produced. This ensures that the best use of financial resources is achieved.
4.4
The maintenance of bridges and other highway structures is carried out under
the following headings:



Routine and ad-hoc maintenance Planned preventative maintenance Other structural maintenance & improvements -
Revenue expenditure
Capital expenditure
Capital expenditure
4.5
Both Planned Preventative Maintenance and other Structural Maintenance is
work that prolongs the life of the assets and/or maintains the structural
capacity of bridges and structures and is therefore considered a Capital
Expenditure.
5.
Routine and Ad-hoc Maintenance
5.1
Routine maintenance comprises those items of work, such as cleaning of
drains and expansion joints to bridges, walls and ceilings to subways and
underpasses, and the maintenance of services, lighting etc.
5.2
Ad-hoc maintenance comprises ‘reactive’ maintenance work following damage
caused by vandalism and vehicle damage. Also included is the removal of
graffiti and urgent repairs to ensure that public safety is maintained.
5.2
The opening of the Golden Jubilee Bridges to the public in 2002 has resulted
in these structures being added to the City Council’s Routine and Ad-hoc
Maintenance programme.
5.4
In addition there are a number of ‘structures’ that are to be added to the City
Council’s Inspection and Maintenance Programme. These are:



Embankment River Wall and associated lighting (Sturgeon Lamps and
Festoon Lighting)
Harrow Road Egress Ramp Bridge (from Paddington Basin Development)
RAF Memorial (on Embankment)
The funding for the Embankment River Wall is being met from Property
Revenue Account. In respect of both Harrow Road Egress Ramp Bridge and
the RAF Memorial commuted sums have been received from the respective
developers.
5.5
Routine and Ad-hoc Maintenance are both funded from Revenue.
5.6
The current Annual Review Budget for 2005/06 is as follows:
Routine Maintenance
Reactive Maintenance (Ad Hoc)
£728,000
£155,000
4
6.
Planned Preventative Maintenance
6.1
All structures deteriorate over time and any work aimed at maintaining the
durability of the bridge or other highway structure is classed as Planned
Preventative Maintenance. Such work can be divided into two broad headings:
Structural
Non-Structural
6.2
This is essential to ensure the integrity and load carrying
capacity of the Bridge/Structure is maintained.
Such work includes:
Renewal of Mechanical and Electrical equipment
Renewal of Lighting
Major Repainting / Corrosion Protection
Renewal / Replacement of drainage systems etc.
The programme of Planned Preventative Maintenance in 2005/06 for which
financial approval is sought is as follows:
Structural
Strand Underpass
£
Renewal of parapet to access ramp (health
and safety concern)
Resurfacing of Bridge (end of life – will lead to
water penetration to sub structure and
endanger members of the public, causing slips
and trips)
Repainting/Corrosion Protection
Resurfacing (end of life)
Repainting/Corrosion Protection
45,000
Continuation of lighting improvements
(identified from Electrical Integrity Testing)
Strand Underpass
Replacement of ‘cross-over’ drains (end of
useful life)
Strand Underpass
Renewal of internal drain runs (end of useful
life)
Strand Underpass
Resealing of Control Rooms (Comply with fire
regulations)
Piccadilly Underpass
Electrical/Lighting improvements (identified
(North & South Tunnels) from Electrical Integrity Testing)
Piccadilly Underpass
Cleaning/Minor repairs to Plenum Chambers
(required to maintain efficiency of extract fans)
Piccadilly Underpass
Replacement of Entrance Signage (Health
and safety upgrade)
Pipe Subways (Various) Replacement of Signage (Health and safety
upgrade)
35,000
Development of Bridge Management Database – See Paragraph 12.13
Asset Management – See Paragraph 12.12
15,000
30,000
Provider’s Design & Supervisory Costs (West One)
Client (WCC) Costs (4%)
38,000
16,000
Overall Total
540,000
Wedlake Street
Footbridge
Formosa Street
Footbridge
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
55,000
50,000
Non-Structural
Strand Underpass
45,000
35,000
14,000
65,000
32,000
25,000
*40,000
*This work is chargeable to the Statutory Undertakers and will therefore be fully reimbursed.
5
6.3
The programme of Planned Preventative Maintenance in 2006/07 for which
financial approval is sought is as follows:
Structural
Waterloo Bridge
Waterloo Bridge - Link
Staircase
£
Minor Crack repairs
Replacement of stair treads, nosings and
resealing of expansion joints
25,000
140,000
Non-Structural
Golden Jubilee
Footbridge
Waterloo Bridge
Replacement of plastic film coating to glass
20,000
stairway parapets.
Refurbishment/replacement of Navigation
20,000
lights runners (PLA Safety Requirement)
Piccadilly Underpass
Replacement of roller shutters (End of useful 40,000
life)
Formosa Street
Electrical Repairs/Replacement (Identified from 10,000
Footbridge
Electrical Integrity Testing)
Wedllake Street
Electrical Repairs/Replacement (Identified from 10,000
Footbridge
Electrical Integrity Testing)
Strand Underpass
Continuation of lighting improvements
30,000
(identified from Electrical Integrity Testing)
Strand Underpass
Repairs to exit ramp Walls (To prevent tiles
10,000
from falling into carriageway)
Piccadilly Underpass
Continuation of Electrical/Lighting
40,000
(North & South Tunnels) improvements (identified from Electrical
Integrity Testing)
Other
Drainage Investigations in Piccadilly Underpass (CCTV Surveys)
Development of Bridge Management Database – See Paragraph 12.13
Asset Management Plan – See Paragraph 12.12
12,000
12,000
25,000
Provider’s Design & Supervisory Costs (West One)
Client (WCC) Costs (4%)
38,000
18,000
Overall Total
450,000
6.4
The work detailed above has been identified as being high priority and is
essential to prevent any serious safety or structural consequences.
7.
Assessment & Strengthening Programme - Update
Assessment
7.1
The City Council commenced a programme of bridge assessment studies in
April 1991 for those bridges and other highway structures that they own and
maintain. This was completed in March 1996. These assessments resulted in
a number of bridges & structures requiring both interim measures and
strengthening. All strengthening work has been completed to those structures
that are owned and maintained by the City Council.
6
7.2
The necessary structural assessments were carried out in association with the
regular 6-yearly principal inspections. This ensured that maintenance needs
and any sub-standard features, in line with the Department for Transport’s 15year rehabilitation programme, were identified. This also enabled the service
life of the structure to be assessed, before determining the extent of any
necessary strengthening and/or repair.
7.3
The assessment process is split into four stages:




Stage 1 – Inspection and simple assessment
Stage 2 – Detailed assessment
Stage 3 – Risk Analysis and Feasibility Study for Interim Measures
Stage 4 – Feasibility Study for Strengthening
Interim Measures
7.4
Interim measures are an essential and integral part of the assessment and
strengthening programme. Any structure that is found to be sub-standard
needs to be kept in a safe condition pending permanent strengthening or
replacement. It is however not possible to predict in advance of a Stage 3
assessment the need for such measures. A contingency allowance is
therefore made in the capital programme to allow for such measures, in case
they are found to be necessary when the structure is assess.
7.5
In December 2003 interim measures in the form of barriers in the central
reserve were introduced on Lord Hills Bridge spanning the railway in
Paddington. The bridge carries public highway but is owned by Network Rail.
7.6
The need for Interim Measures was identified after a structural assessment
carried out by consultants employed by Network Rail found the bridge to be
sub-standard.
Strengthening
7.7
The final strengthening scheme in the City Council’s bridge strengthening
programme was the strengthening and structural repairs to the elevated
Harrow Road.
7.8
The aim throughout the City Council’s strengthening programme has been to
carry out all the necessary work, where possible, to a structure in one visit
thereby keeping traffic disruption to a minimum.
7.8
All City Council owned and maintained structures have been subject to a
detailed structural assessment. Those structures found not to meet the
requirements of the new 40 tonne loading standards have been strengthened
and all structures have been returned to the routine inspection and
maintenance programme.
7
7.9
Although all structures owned and maintained by the City Council have been
assessed and strengthened, there are a number of structures owned by the
Transport Undertakers, and others, which have yet to be dealt with. An update
in respect of these structures within the City is provided below.
8.
Structures Owned by the Transport Undertakers
8.1
Previous reports to both the former Planning and Transportation Committee
and the former Traffic & Works Sub-Committee advised members of the
limitations of responsibility of the Transport Undertakers (British Rail/Network
Rail, London Underground Limited and British Waterways Board) for
maintaining the load-bearing capacity of their bridges
8.2
Network Rail has a duty to maintain their bridges, however their liability is
limited, in respect of maintaining the load-bearing capacity of their bridges, by
provisions contained in the Transport Act 1968 and the Load Bearing
Standards (Railway Bridges) Order 1972. In simple terms the responsibility for
assessing and upgrading bridges owned by them to the new loading
standards falls to the City Council. This applies to all bridges that carry the
public highway for which the City Council is Highway Authority.
London Underground Limited (LUL)
8.3
London Underground Limited (LUL) had previously advised that they had
completed the necessary assessments to bridges and other highway
structures owned by them that support the public highway in Westminster.
8.4
LUL further advised that they had examined 21 additional structures
supporting station concourses within the City. Of these 20 have failed to meet
the new 40 tonne loading standards.
8.5
LUL’s approach has been to carry out a Stage 1 assessment followed by an
assessment to determine their legal liability as defined in the Transport Act
1968 (see Legal Implications section of this report).
8.6
Consultants have been appointed by the City Council to review the work
carried out by LUL, and to undertake Stage 2, 3 and 4 assessments as
necessary to determine the City Council’s liability. However, LUL have agreed
to carry out Stage 2 assessments at their own expense although there has
been very little progress on this.
8.7
It was anticipated that the assessment work would have been completed by
now. However, LUL have been undergoing significant organisational changes
recently with the creation of the following Infraco’s (Infrastructure Companies)
which has significantly affected their programme:



JNP (Jubilee, Northern, Piccadilly)
BCV (Bakerloo, Central, Victoria)
SSL (Sub-Surface Lines)
8
8.8
At recent meetings between LUL and the City Council, LUL have advised that
at present there is no need to carry out any interim protection measures to any
of their structures. During their assessment studies they have been
endeavouring to minimise the need to carry out strengthening works by further
rigorous analysis and testing.
8.9
Progress has been made this year with the JNP Infraco. There are three
structures that have been determined as under-strength. However, further
work is underway which is likely to show that these may not require any
strengthening.
8.10 On completion of the structural assessments, LUL will determine whether
strengthening works will be required. They will also determine whether each
structure satisfies their own legal obligations.
Network Rail (NR)
8.11 There are eighteen (18) Bridges owned by Network Rail, which support the
public highway within Westminster. These bridges are on routes extending out
of the following rail termini:



Paddington Station (Network Rail’s Great Western Zone)
Victoria Station (Network Rail’s Southern Zone)
Marylebone Station (Network Rail’s Midland Zone)
(A list of the structures owned by Network Rail within Westminster is attached
at Appendix 3). Two structures, Eccleston Bridge and St. John’s Wood Road
Tunnel, were transferred to Transport for London (TfL) on 3 July 2000.
The responsibility for assessing and upgrading bridges owned by Network
Rail to modern loading standards falls to the City Council.
8.12
The majority of structural assessments to determine the load-carrying
capacity of each bridge are now complete and feasibility studies to determine
whether any interim protection measures are needed to safeguard public
safety and the integrity of the structures have been undertaken. The only
outstanding assessment is for one structure over the line out of Marylebone
Station.
Results of the Feasibility Studies for the Paddington Bridges
(Network Rail’s Great Western Zone)
8.13
Agreement ‘in principle’ has been reached with Network Rail over the interim
protection measures needed to protect public safety and the integrity of each
structure and these are as follows:
Westbourne Terrace Bridge (Grade II Listed structure)
A temporary protection barrier is required to protect the sub-standard girders
beneath the footway.
It is noted that an “environmental” weight limit of 7.5 tonnes already applies to
9
southbound traffic using the bridge.
Ranelagh Bridge
A risk analysis carried out on the bridge has placed the structure in the “low
risk” category, therefore interim protection measures are not required.
It is noted that Ranelagh Bridge is already subject to a 7.5 tonne
environmental weight limit.
Lord Hill’s Bridge
Interim protection barriers are already in place.
Westbourne Park Bridge (Great Western Road)
A temporary protection barrier is required to protect the sub-standard girders
beneath the footway opposite the station.
8.14
Detailed proposals will now be drawn up and appropriate bids will be made to
Transport for London to fund the essential works to the above-mentioned
bridges. A Cabinet Member report will also be prepared seeking approval to
their implementation.
Results of the Feasibility Studies for the Victoria Station Bridges
(Network Rail’s Southern Zone)
8.15
There are three road bridges that span the railway lines out of Victoria
Station. These are:



Eccleston Bridge
Elizabeth Bridge
Ebury Bridge
Transport for London (TfL) is the highway authority for the road carried by
Eccleston Bridge and the responsibility for any costs associated with the
assessment and strengthening of the bridge rests with them.
8.16
Agreement ‘In principle’ has been reached with Network Rail over the interim
protection measures needed to protect public safety and the integrity of each
structure and these are as follows:
Eccleston Bridge
Temporary protection barriers are required to protect the sub-standard girders
beneath the footways. These will be installed by Transport for London.
Elizabeth Bridge
A risk analysis carried out on the bridge has placed the structure in the “Low
Risk” category, therefore interim protection measures are not required.
Network Rail has confirmed that it will monitor the structure until such time as
‘tie bars’ can be installed.
10
Ebury Bridge
Temporary protection barriers are required to protect the sub-standard girders
beneath the footways. These will be installed at the same time as the bus
lane and ‘chicane’ are removed. Network Rail has confirmed that it will
monitor the structure until such time as ‘tie bars’ can be installed.
8.17
In view of the close proximity of Eccleston, Elizabeth and Ebury Bridges, it is
essential that the traffic implications of implementing both interim measures
and/or strengthening are co-ordinated and officers are working closely with
Transport for London to develop an appropriate implementation plan.
Results of the Feasibility Studies for the Marylebone Station Bridges
(Network Rail’s Midland Zone)
8.18
A number of the structures in Network Rail’s Midland Zone form tunnels under
roads and all of these have been assessed as able to carry full highway
loading and no further work is required.
Carlton Hill Bridge
There are structural elements supporting the carriageway and footways that
are substandard and proposals for interim protection measures are awaited
from Network Rail.
Rossmore Road Bridge
There are sub-standard elements in a supporting pier and work to strengthen
this is being carried out by Network Rail the same time as they are replacing
both bridge parapets.
It is noted that Network Rail are likely to seek a financial contribution from the
City Council for the strengthening work which will be eligible for grant support
from TfL.
Monitoring of Structures
8.19
Although physical interim measures are to be introduced to protect some of
the bridges in the short to medium term, it will, however be necessary for each
bridge to be monitored to ensure that its structural integrity is maintained.
8.20
It must be recognised that all the structures deteriorate over time and if any
changes to their condition, that may affect its load carrying capacity is
identified, then it may be necessary for physical works to be implemented.
Future Strengthening Works
8.21
Consideration has been given to the extent of strengthening that would be
required to upgrade the sub-standard bridges so that they are capable of
carrying modern day 40 tonne loading. To ensure that the bridges are capable
of carrying modern highway loading then strengthening will be required to the
following structures:
11
Westbourne Terrace Bridge
Repair/strengthen the main bridge beams
Ranelagh Bridge
Repair/strengthen the outer bridge beams
Lords Hill Bridge
Strengthen the main bridge beams
Westbourne Park Bridge
Repair/strengthen the bridge beams beneath footpath opposite station and
narrow the carriageway width.
Eccleston Bridge
Strengthen the main beams beneath the carriageway, to a column support
bracket and support beams beneath the footway.
Elizabeth Bridge
Strengthen or replace a wrought iron cross girder and install tie bars.
Ebury Bridge
Strengthen bridge beams beneath both footways and install tie bars.
8.22
An alternative to strengthening would be to introduce permanent weight
and/or lane restrictions, where appropriate. The retention of the interim
protection measures may provide a permanent solution in certain
circumstances. Such measures would need to be rigorously enforced.
8.23
It is noted that the ‘environmental’ weight limits on both Westbourne Terrace
Bridge and Ranelagh Bridge are often ignored and in times of emergency
these bridges are occasionally required to carry full highway loading.
8.24
Strengthening options for each bridge will be reported to Cabinet Member
once costings have been done/once a detailed programme has been drawn
up and a decision will be sought as to whether permanent weight and/or lane
restrictions should be applied as an alternative. Public Consultation on such
an alternative may be necessary. All such strengthening is eligible for grant
support from Transport for London and bids for any works will be made
through the Borough Spending Plan process as appropriate.
Programme for implementation of Strengthening Works
8.25
To undertake any strengthening work to Network Rail bridges it is necessary
for ‘track possessions’ to be available to provide free access to the underside
of each bridge. This difficulty is compounded for the bridges out of
Paddington due to the presence of overhead electrification. Network Rail have
advised that there is a 3-year ‘lead-in’ time for possessions, therefore the
earliest time that any works could be undertaken would be 2008/9.
12
8.26
However, before a programme for implementation could be developed it
would be necessary to agree the exact extent of works to each bridge,
consider the traffic implications of the works, consider the impact on the rail
network, and ensure that funding was available. A key issue will be to ensure
that Network Rail carry out any essential maintenance work to the structures
of the bridges at the same time to ensure the integrity of the structure in the
long term.
8.27 The implementation plan will also need to consider address the implications of
both the extension of the Congestion Charge zone and Crossrail the overall
objective being to minimise disruption to the local road network.
8.28 Discussions are on-going with Network Rail who are developing strengthening
options in consultation with the City Council’s Term Provider, West One.
8.29 Further reports will be presented when details of required strengthening and
their programme for implementation has been agreed with Network Rail.
Costs of Assessment of Network Rail and LUL Bridges
8.30 The recent delay on LUL's part in progressing the assessment programme
has not resulted in any increases in expenditure. However there has been a
need to reschedule the expenditure over a longer period. It is noted that the
overall cost is still within the original capital approval of £865,000 for this work.
8.31 Expenditure for the assessment of both Network Rail and LUL Structures is
met by 100% Grant from TfL.
8.32 The required re-phasing of expenditure for this work is shown in Section 15 of
this report.
9
Structures Owned by Statutory Undertakers
9.1
The responsibility for the assessment and strengthening of structures owned
by statutory undertakers is considered to rest solely with the undertakers
themselves. However, the statutory undertakers are seeking legal opinion on
this issue.
10
Privately Owned Structures
10.1 There are a substantial number of privately owned structures, which support
the public highway within Westminster. The responsibility for the assessment
and upgrading of such structures, to meet the new loading standards, has yet
to be determined by the Department for Transport (DfT). Once a ruling is
given by the DfT, it will be the subject of a further Cabinet Member report.
10.2 Privately owned structures include vaults lying beneath the highway and
owners have a duty to ensure that they can support the highway but only on
the basis of highway loadings as at the time the vaults were built. Many of
13
these vaults are poorly maintained by the owner and consequently collapse.
A protocol is currently being developed to manage the vault collapses in
Westminster. This protocol will be the subject of a separate Cabinet Report in
the near future.
11
Package Approach for London
11.1
A report to the former Traffic Sub-Committee in March 1997 set out details of
the "Package Approach for the Assessment, Strengthening and Other
Structural Maintenance of Bridges and Other Highway Structures" that was
introduced in London from the 1997/98 financial year. This was set up to
provide a more co-ordinated and prioritised approach to assessment and
strengthening to ensure maximum use of available Government funding.
11.2 Since April 2001, the annual transport capital expenditure settlement for
bridge assessment, strengthening and other structural maintenance in
London, has been provided from Transport for London (TfL) in the form of
direct grant.
11.3 Allocations of funding between the boroughs is based upon an agreed
prioritisation strategy which provides a fair basis for the allocation and ensures
that those structures most at risk and on the most important routes are dealt
with first.
11.4 Throughout the year actual expenditure against allocation is monitored and
under-spends can be re-allocated to those boroughs with over-spends and
new schemes that can be progressed.
11.5 The City Council has taken a leading role in the setting up of the London
Package for Bridges and Structures and acts as lead advisor to ‘Transport for
London – Borough Partnerships’ on behalf of the 33 London Boroughs.
11.6
For 2005/2006 the grant allocation to the City Council is as follows:
 Administration of the London Package
£ 90,000
 Assessments (Network Rail)
£ 125,000
 Interim Measures (monitoring of Lord Hill’s Bridge)
£15,000
11.7 Approval to continue with the administration of the London Package for
Bridges and Other Highway Structures and for capital expenditure of £90,000
in 2005/06 and £90,000 in 2006/07 is sought. The approval to the expenditure
in 2006/07 is subject to receipt of grant support from Transport for London.
12
National Initiatives – Update
12.1 The Department for Transport has set up a national ‘Roads Liaison Group’
(RLG) together with a number of national ‘Boards’ to provide an overall co14
ordinated approach to the identification and implementation of National Policy.
There are three ‘Boards’ covering Highways, Lighting and Bridges.
12.2 The National Bridges Board has identified a number of key areas for
development where the industry is lacking in clear policy and standards.
These are:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Code of Practice for the Inspection & Maintenance Management of
Bridges & Other Highway Structures
Bridge management systems
Best value performance indicators and other performance monitoring
tools
Asset management planning for transport infrastructure
12.3 The City Council is represented on the National Bridges Board and has taken
the lead in the development of the new Code of Practice for the Maintenance
Management of Bridges and other Highway Structures. The new code was
published in September 2005 and is entitled “Management of Highway
Structures – A Code of Practice”.
12.4 The City Council’s policies and standards will be reviewed in the light of the
new Code and the implications reported to the Cabinet Member advising of
any changes that may be required.
12.5 Development of best value key performance indicators (kpi’s) for bridges is
underway. A ‘Bridge Condition Indicator’ was introduced from 2003/04 and
further indicators are under trial by the Highways Agency and may be
extended for use by local authorities from 2006/07.
Asset Management
12.6
Asset management is about using a strategic approach to identify the optimal
allocation of resources for the management, operation, preservation and
enhancement of the highway infrastructure to meet the needs of current and
future customers. Asset management is not a new concept and most highway
authorities are practising elements of asset management already. However,
the service wide application of asset management across the whole of the
highway infrastructure is a new concept.
12.7
It is a requirement of the Mayor for London, and is contained within the Local
Implementation Plan Guidance (LiP Guidance), that all London authorities
should prepare a ‘Five-year Asset Management Plan’. The plan should cover
footways, carriageways, street lighting and bridges and should reflect the City
Council’s objectives for Transport in support of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy
and available resources.
12.8
The introduction of a ‘Transport Asset Management Plan’ (TAMP) within
Westminster would be the first stage in a new integrated approach to street
maintenance.
15
12.9
In 2004 the County Surveyor’s Society (CSS) and Technical Advisers Group
(TAG) launched ‘The Framework for Highway Asset Management’, which has
been adopted nationally as guidance in the way that highways assets should
be managed. The Framework also pulls together three Codes of Practice
(CoP) for maintenance management of highways, lighting and bridges &
structures, encouraging more integration of processes across the whole
service.
12.10 Work is already underway to pull together aspirations from various corporate
documents and by analysing those objectives and targets relevant to the
provision of highways, lighting and bridges & structures services will help to
establish the levels of service required for each asset group. These
requirements will inform improved and appropriate management regimes as
well as providing the means to realise agreed targets to maintain the City
Council’s transport assets at agreed standards.
12.11 It is proposed to develop the City Council’s TAMP during 2005/06 and
2006/07. In addition it will be necessary to determine the ‘value’ of the City
Council’s transport infrastructure assets by the end of 2006/07 to meet the
targets for the introduction of whole of government accounts and resource
account budgeting. An allowance has been made within the overall capital
provision for planned preventative maintenance to progress this essential
work for bridges & structures.
12.12 A key part of any asset management plan and regime is the asset register,
which will provide the core data to inform the decision-making and valuation
processes. A comprehensive set of inventory data is already held within the
existing Bridge Management System however additional functionality is
required to assist in the production of asset valuation information and other
performance data. An allowance has therefore been made within the overall
capital provision for planned preventative maintenance to progress this
essential work for bridges & structures
Bridge Management System
12.13 As stated in paragraph 4.3, the City Council’s Bridge Management System
‘Bridge Station’ is a vital tool in the management of the City Council’s Bridges
& Structures. The need to keep pace with the new National initiative such as
the Codes of Practice and Asset Management requires further changes and
enhancements to the system. An allowance has therefore been made with the
overall capital provision to progress this essential work for bridges &
structures.
13.
Pipe Subway Network – security measures
13.1
The City Council owns and is responsible for a 7.2km (4.5 mile) network of
‘Pipe Subways’ located beneath strategic parts of the City of Westminster.
These structures are basically small tunnels that contain various statutory
undertakers' cables and other equipment. The majority of pipe subways were
16
constructed during Victorian times and facilitate the easy provision and
maintenance of cables etc, without disrupting street traffic.
13.2
A Code of Practice for Pipe Subways has been agreed between London
boroughs and the statutory undertakers and this sets out the obligations on all
parties for the safe operation and maintenance of the network. All costs
incurred by the City Council in managing and maintaining the network are fully
recharged to the statutory undertakers in accordance with legal agreements
and an agreed payment formula.
13.3
The City Council, through its provider for bridges & structures, West One
Infrastructure Services (West One) operates a regular programme of
inspection of the pipe subway network, including a 24 hours per day,
365 days per year emergency service to provide a prompt response to
requests from authorised utilities for access.
13.4
Access to the network is made through specially designed access covers
located within footways. Although access is controlled through a notice
arrangement whereby the City Council’s Term provider is requested to open
the access covers to facilitate access there have been a number of occasions
when unauthorised access and/or forced entry has been made. In addition
unauthorised access to the pipe subways close to the boundary between
Westminster and both Camden and the Corporation of London has been
made. This is due to the lack of security doors at the boundary, where the
pipe subway extends into the adjacent borough.
13.5
In this time of heightened security it is essential that access to the pipe
subway network be controlled more closely and that enhanced security
measures are installed. It is therefore proposed to introduce security doors at
the boundaries with Camden and the Corporation of London and to replace all
access covers with improved locking devices. Both Camden and the
Corporation of London are in agreement with our proposals for gates at their
boundary. The statutory undertakers have been notified of these proposals
and costs and have raised no objections.
13.6
Approval is therefore sought to provide new security doors at the boundaries
between Westminster and both Camden and the Corporation of London and
to commence a rolling programme of access cover replacement.
13.7
A total provision of £300,000 has been made within the approved Capital
Programme for this work. All costs are rechargeable to the statutory
undertakers.
13.8
In addition to the proposed physical measures additional controls over the
access requirements are to be introduced as a result of changes to health &
safety and security requirements. These controls are anticipated to increase
the revenue costs by an annual sum of £30,000. All costs will be re-charged
to the statutory undertakers.
17
14
Financial Implications
Planned Preventative Maintenance Programme
14.1
Approval is sought to capital expenditure of £540,000 in 2005/06 in respect of
planned preventative maintenance to the City Council’s bridges and other
Highway Structures as detailed in paragraph 6.2 above.
14.2
It is noted that the proposed work in respect of replacement of signage (health
and safety upgrade) within the pipe subway network (costing £40,000) is
chargeable to the statutory undertakers. The net expenditure to the City
Council for the programme of planned preventative maintenance is therefore
£500,000 for which provision exists within the approved capital programme.
14.3
Approval is also sought to capital expenditure of £450,000 in 2006/07 in
respect of planned preventative maintenance to the City Council’s bridges and
other highway structures as detailed in 6.3 above.
14.4
The proposed expenditure will be met from the provision that exists in the
approved capital programme for 2005/06 and 2006/07 in respect of ‘planned
preventative maintenance - rolling programme’ funded from the Parking
Places Reserve Account. Some of this expenditure may be entitled to direct
grant from TfL and officers will continue to press for funding from this source.
14.5
The revenue implications of the capital expenditure of £990,000, assuming an
asset life of 10 years, over the next four years would be as follows:
Capital
Charges
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
39,960
146,520
146,520
2008/09
Administration of the London Package
14.6 Approval is also sought to capital expenditure of £90,000 in 2005/06 and
£90,000 in 2006/07 for the administration of the London Package on behalf of
the London Boroughs. Provision exists within the approved capital programme
for this expenditure and is met by way of direct grant from Transport for
London. Approval to proceed in 2006/07 is subject to confirmation from TfL of
their continued grant support.
14.7
The revenue implications of the capital expenditure of £180,000 assuming an
asset life of 10 years over the next four years would be as follows:
Capital
Charges
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
6,660
26,640
26,640
18
2008/09
Bridge Assessment Studies to Network Rail and LUL Bridges
14.8 As stated above, in paragraph 9.29, the delayed bridge assessment studies to
Network Rail and LUL structures within the City has resulted in the need to
revise the current expenditure profile. The revised expenditure profile is as
follows:
£000’s
Previous 2005/06
Years
Capital Programme 865
90
Provision
Revised
708
125
Expenditure Profile
2006/07 TOTAL
nil
955
10
843
14.9 The current delay in progressing the assessment programme has not resulted
in any increases in expenditure. However there has been a need to
reschedule the expenditure over a longer period. It is noted that the overall
cost is still within the original capital approval of £865,000 for this work.
14.10 Up to and including 2000/01 this expenditure was met from the General Fund
and received grant support in the form of Supplementary Credit Approvals
(SCA). From 2001/02 onwards this has been fully funded by Transport Grant
from TfL.
Pipe Subway Network
14.11 Approval is sought to capital expenditure of £300,000 to implement improved
security measures to the City Council’s pipe subway network. All costs will be
recharged to the statutory undertakers under the terms of existing legal
agreements and agreed charging mechanisms.
14.12 The revenue implications of the capital expenditure of £300,000 assuming an
asset life of 10 years over the next four years would be as follows:
Capital
Charges
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
22,000
44,400
44,400
2008/09
15
Legal Implications
15.1
The transport undertakers (Network Rail, London Underground Limited and
British Waterways Board) have a duty to maintain their bridges. However their
liability is limited, in respect of maintaining the load-bearing capacity of their
bridges, by provisions contained in the Transport Act 1968 and the Load
Bearing Standards (Railway Bridges) Order 1972.
15.2
In simple terms the responsibility for assessing and upgrading bridges owned
by them to the new 40 tonne loading standards falls to the City Council. This
19
applies to all bridges that carry the public highway for which the City Council is
highway authority.
15.3
Any strengthening works to these bridges will be the subject of legal
agreements between the transport undertakers and the City Council, which
would cover the design, and implementation of individual schemes and future
maintenance liabilities.
15.4
To ensure that Network Rail take on the full obligations to maintain bridges to
current loading standards in the future it will be necessary to pay them a
‘Commuted Sum’, which could be substantial. This approach has been
agreed nationally between Network Rail (Formerly Railtrack) and the County
Surveyors Society, on behalf of local authorities, for bridges that are to be
strengthened. In the absence of such an agreement Network Rail would only
have an obligation to maintain their bridges to a level that meets their
obligations under the Transport Act 1968 and the Load Bearing Standards
(Railway Bridges) Order 1972. In simple terms this means that the City
Council would need to either accept a weight restriction that matches the level
of Network Rail’s legal liability or re-strengthen each bridge sometime in the
future when the structure has ‘decayed’ to an unacceptable level. Clearly this
is unacceptable and would impose a significant burden upon the City Council
in the future. Payment of a ‘one off’ commuted sum in lieu of maintenance in
perpetuity would ensure that such future on-going liability would be avoided.
16
Staffing Implications
16.1
There are no staffing implications arising from this report.
17
Outstanding Issues
17.1
There are no outstanding issues.
18
Performance Plan Implications
18.1
There are two specific references within the Environment and Leisure
Business Plan for 2005/2006:
18.2
(a)
By March 2006, implement the annual approved essential maintenance
programme of bridges, subways and road underpasses.
(b)
In Westminster’s capacity as the lead London authority, on behalf of
TfL to manage the London Bridges Package by monitoring ongoing
expenditure and advising on reallocation of funds across the London
boroughs. To submit monitoring reports to TfL on a bi-monthly basis.
In respect of the 2005/6 essential maintenance programme all routine
inspection and maintenance activities are on programme. The items of
planned preventative maintenance identified within the report will be
completed by March 2006 except for the corrosion protection / Painting to
20
Wedlake Street and Formosa Street footbridges which are likely to slip into
the next financial year (this is due to the inability to undertake the external
works in very low temperatures).
18.3
All TfL reports for the London Package have been provided on time.
19
Consultation
19.1
This report relates to all wards and therefore ward member consultation was not
required.
20
Crime and Disorder Act
20.1
There are no Crime and Disorder Act implications arising from this report.
21
Health and Safety Issues
21.1
All works undertaken will be closely monitored and carried out to the
requirements of the Health & Safety at Work Act and the Construction Design
and Management Regulations (1994).
22
Co-operation with Health Authorities
22.1
There are no implications arising from this report requiring co-operation or coordination with the Health Authorities.
23
Human Rights Act 1998
23.1
There are no Human Rights Act implications arising from this report.
24
Conclusions and Reasons for the Proposed Decision
24.1
Planned preventative maintenance is required to maintain the structural
integrity of the structures in Westminster and to ensure public safety. If this
work is not carried out, there may be serious public safety implications in
addition to potential financial consequences to the City Council.
The City Council is taking a leading role in managing the London Package for
Bridges and Structures and acts as lead advisor to ‘Transport for London –
Borough Partnerships’ on behalf of the 33 London Boroughs.
24.2
24.3
‘In principle’ agreement has been reached, on a technical level, with Network
Rail to interim protection measures and longer-term strengthening measures
for the road over rail bridges owned by them within Westminster. Work is now
underway to develop these proposals and to prepare a detailed
implementation plan that will consider the wider traffic implications. The
outcome of this work will be the subject of future reports to both the Cabinet
Member for Economic Development and Transport and the Transport and
Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny committee
21
24.4
The City Council owns, maintains and operates a network of 7.2 km (4.5
miles) of Pipe Subways under Westminster’s streets. There is a need for
security reasons to improve control over access to the network and it is
proposed to introduce improved security measures that will be fully recharged
to the statutory undertakers whose cables and equipment are contained
within.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUERIES ABOUT THIS REPORT OR WISH TO
INSPECT ANY OF THE BACKGROUND PAPERS, PLEASE CONTACT
David.A.Yeoell on 020 7641 2622
EMAIL ADDRESS: dyeoell@westminster.gov.uk
FAX NUMBER: 020 7641 2658
BACKGROUND PAPERS
The documents used or referred to in compiling the report were: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Report to Traffic & Works Sub-Committee March 1996
Report to Traffic Sub-Committee March 1997
Report to Traffic Sub-Committee March 1998
Report to P&T Operational Sub-Committee March 1999
Report to T&H Operational Sub-Committee March 2001
Report To Cabinet Member for T&I March 2003
Report to the T&I O&S Committee February 2004.
For completion by Cabinet Member
Declaration of Interest

I have no interest to declare in respect of this report
Signed ……………………………. Date ………………………………
NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Economic
Development & Transport

I have to declare an interest
State nature of interest ……..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………..
Signed ……………………………. Date …………………………………
NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Economic Development
& Transport
22
(N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate
to make a decision in relation to this matter.)
For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled
Maintenance Strengthening and Management of Bridges and Other Highway
Structures and reject any alternative options which are referred to but not
recommended.
Signed ………………………………………………
Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Economic Development & Transport
Date …………………………………………………
If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection
with your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out
your comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the
Secretariat for processing.
Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an
alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Director of
Legal and Administrative Services, the Director of Finance and, if there are staffing
implications, the Head of Human Resources (or their representatives) so that (1) you
can be made aware of any further relevant considerations that you should take into
account before making the decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be
properly identified and recorded, as required by law.
Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to
the Members of the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision
falls within the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented until five working
days have elapsed from publication to allow the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee to decide whether it wishes to call the matter in.
23
APPENDIX 1
Bridges and Structures owned and maintained by Westminster
Structure Name
Ward
THAMES BRIDGES
Waterloo Bridge
Golden Jubilee Footbridges
St.James’s
St.James’s
OTHER BRIDGES
Elevated Harrow Road (Westbound)
Lancaster Place Vaults
Bishops Bridge Road
Westbourne Terrace Bridge
Harrow Road Gyratory
Warwick Avenue
Carlton Bridge
Wedlake Street Footbridge
Formosa Street Footbridge
Hyde Park/ Westbourne/Bayswater
St.James’s
Hyde Park
Little Venice
Little Venice
Little Venice
Westbourne
Westbourne
Westbourne
ROAD UNDERPASSES
Piccadilly/Hyde Park Corner
Strand/Kingsway
Harrow Road (Westbound)
West End
St.James’s
Little Venice/Hyde Park/Westbourne
PEDESTRIAN SUBWAYS
Charing Cross/Strand Complex
Harrow Road/Porteus Road
Lord Hills
Trafalgar Square/Cockspur Street
Parliament Street
Bridge Street
St.James’s
Hyde Park/Little Venice
Westbourne
St.James’s
St.James’s
St James’s
Bessborough Street (Pimlico Station)
Waterloo Bridge Link Subway
Tachbrook
St.James’s
PIPE SUBWAYS
Strand/Aldwich Complex
Kingsway
Charing Cross Road
Shaftsbury Avenue
Northumberland Avenue
Piccadilly Circus
Cranbourne Street
Marble Arch
Marylebone
St.James’s
St.James’s
St.James’s/West End
St.James’s/West End
St.James’s
St.James’s/West End
St.James’s
Knightsbridge and Belgravia
Bryanston and Dorset Square
Victoria Embankment
Garrick Street
St.James’s
St.James’s
RETAINING WALLS
Various
Various
24
APPENDIX 2
Maintenance Management of Bridges and other Highway Structures
Routine Inspection Programme
Principal Inspections – Every 6 years
This level of inspection requires a close examination (within touching distance) of all
inspectable parts of the structure, including access equipment and both destructible and
non-destructible testing.
General Inspection – Every 2 years
This consists of a visual inspection of all external parts of the structure. Access equipment
may be required in some cases.
Superficial Inspection – Every year
This type of inspection consists of a cursory check for obvious deficiencies, which might
lead to traffic accidents or high maintenance costs.
Special Inspections
A special inspection may be required for the following reasons:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
To investigate a specific problem that has been found;
Structures that are either weight restricted, cast iron or have been subject to
impact or fire damage;
Before and after the passage of abnormally heavy loads on a structure that
has been proved sub-standard by calculation.
25
APPENDIX 3
List of All Network Rail owned Structures in Westminster
Great Western Zone Structure – Paddington Station





Bishopsbridge Road Bridge (Reconstruction Works Commenced in Jan 2004)
Westbourne Terrace Bridge
Ranelagh Bridge
Lord Hills
Westbourne Park Bridge (Great Western Road)
Southern Zone Structures - Victoria Station



Eccleston Bridge (Transferred to TfL)
Elizabeth Bridge
Ebury Bridge
Midland Zone Structures – Marylebone Station Bridges



Carlton Hill Bridge
Lodge Road Bridge
Rossmore Road Bridge
Tunnels







Finchley Place Tunnel
Marlborough Hill Tunnel
Marlborough Place Tunnel
Grove Road Tunnel
Circus Road Tunnel
Lords Tunnel (Wellington Place)
St John’s Wood Road Tunnel (transferred to TfL)
26