Research and analysis

Road condition data and technology review: position paper

Published 13 August 2021

Applies to England

Executive summary

We, the Department for Transport, are currently undertaking a review of road condition data and technology. This paper sets out:

• our current position
• how the outcome of this review will impact local highway authorities and potential suppliers

Based on the evidence gathered to inform the shaping of this review, we will:

1. Remove the current prescriptions around road condition data.
2. Introduce a new data standard.

Local highway authorities will have flexibility to choose whichever surveying technology best supports their asset management strategy, providing the technology aligns to this new data standard. This will open the market, driving choice and technological innovation while still ensuring that data will be sufficiently comparable for us to maintain a national view of the condition of the highways network.

We, in collaboration with an external standards agency, will form a steering group of representatives from:

• local highway authorities
• potential suppliers
• relevant sector bodies

as well as consulting with devolved administrations (DAs).

The steering group will agree the principles and requirements for the standard and oversee its implementation.

Issue

The highways network is essential to the UK economy and to the daily lives of citizens. We require accurate and comparable data on the condition of local highways in order to monitor this national asset. To meet this requirement, local highway authorities must submit road condition data to the us annually as part of the single data list. Currently, we prescribe that this data must be collected using Surface Condition Assessment for the National Network of Roads (SCANNER) survey vehicles.

SCANNER technology continues to be robust and valued by many local authorities, however an increasing number of competing technologies now offer alternative choices to local authorities. These emerging suppliers are already establishing a growing presence in the sector, but the current prescriptive requirements create a barrier to entering the market which discourages innovation.

The Transport Select Committee’s October 2019 report ‘Local roads funding and maintenance: filling the gap’ (PDF, 1MB) identified problems with, and obliged government to review the regime around, local road condition monitoring data. We commenced a review into the technology and data on road condition in response. As part of this review, we will also consider whether to collect condition information on the wider roadscape, including:

• bridges
• structures
• lighting

Evidence from local authorities

To start the review, we surveyed local highway authorities in England, asking how local authorities currently monitor road surface condition and seeking suggestions for the future. The responses showed a wide variety of views.

The positives of the current prescribed method were:

• it is simpler to have only one accredited technology collecting road condition data
• SCANNER technology was viewed as useful by many, offering reliability and consistency across the network
• a good number of local highway authorities would continue to use SCANNER to collect road condition data even if no requirement was in place

The main themes around changes to future road condition data collection were:

• local highway authorities that use an alternative surveying technology besides SCANNER highlighted the advantages of these technologies for their specific needs. This included the speed of surveying and the area of road inspected at any one time
• local highway authorities noted the tension between the desire:

1/ For flexibility in choosing surveying technology that worked for their specific local circumstances

versus

2/ To have consistent and comparable data across all local highway authorities

• some authorities advocated for expanding requirements to cover unclassified (‘U’) roads
• some also called for more information to be collected on the wider roadscape, including on footways and bridges

Developing options

The responses from local highway authorities helped inform different options for collecting road condition data in future.

Option one: we continue to prescribe how local highway authorities collect road condition data

In this option DfT would continue to mandate that all local highway authorities use a prescribed technology (currently SCANNER) to collect condition data, which is then summarised and shared with the department.

Strengths

The strengths of this are:

• mandating a single technology ensures consistency and comparability
• the sector is already familiar with the processes and outputs
• the SCANNER technology is longstanding which means the data can be used to compare changes in road condition over time

Weaknesses

The weaknesses of this are:

• prescribing a single technology inhibits natural market forces. By creating a high barrier to enter the surveying technology market, this model does not support innovative technologies
• mandating a single technology requires some local authorities to collect data they do not believe supports their asset management strategy.

Conclusion

We have discounted this option because it limits choice and innovation.

Option two: we procure a national survey of road condition

In this option we would commission a national road condition data survey. Local highway authorities would no longer submit road condition data to us and could either:

• run their own road condition surveys

or

• rely on data from the department

Strengths

The strengths of this are:

• the road condition data collected in a national survey would be consistent across different local highway authorities
• this would reduce burdens on local highway authorities if they used the road condition survey data from us
• if local highway authorities chose to run their own surveys this would allow them flexibility to choose a surveying technology that meets their needs

Weaknesses

The weaknesses of this are:

• local highway authorities are responsible for managing their assets. A national road condition survey would be unlikely to meet the specific needs of every local highway authority
• if local highway authorities ran additional surveys to collect road condition data this would be inefficient, with both central and local government paying for similar data
• choosing one technology for a national data survey would restrict the commercial viability of any other technologies and so would restrict choice and innovation

Conclusion

We discounted this option as a long-term solution because it also limits choice and innovation.

We also engaged in non-binding discussions with suppliers over the summer of 2020 about procuring a national dataset as a short-term solution. The purpose for this approach was to try and separate the national data collection from the local authority data collection for a period of time. The practicalities and potential costs however proved to be unfeasible and so was discounted as an interim option.

Option three: local highway authorities can choose any surveying technology that aligns to a new industry data standard

In this option we would introduce a data standard for road surveying technology. This would ensure that data collected by different technologies would be sufficiently comparable for us to maintain a national view of the condition of the highways network in England.

A data standard is a document that sets out rules by which data are described and recorded. This makes it easier to create, share, integrate and understand data. Data standards are available to all potential suppliers to use without restriction.

Local highway authorities would still be responsible for collecting data on road condition and providing summarised data to us, but authorities could use any technology of their choice provided the technology complies with the new data standard.

Strengths

The strengths of this are:

• local highway authorities could choose the surveying technology that best supports their asset management strategy
• the adoption of a data standard would ensure the data remains sufficiently robust and comparable. This allows us to monitor the condition of the national road network over time
• removing the prescription of a single technology would create a more open market, driving greater competition and innovation in the road surveying sector
• better use of data can reduce costs. The Traffic and Technology Forum report that “real-world efficiencies in asset management and planning of up to £300 million per annum could be delivered by data supporting risk-based maintenance programmes that help target where resources are needed most and reducing the costs of site surveys for example.” (PDF, 1.9MB)

Weaknesses

The weaknesses of this are:

• any data standard would need to be sufficiently prescriptive to ensure data is comparable, but sufficiently flexible to align with a range of innovative technologies
• introducing a new data standard may mean that future road condition data is not comparable with data from previous years that has been collected under the existing data requirements

Conclusion

We will take forward this option to maximise choice and innovation. We will work closely with the sector to design a data standard that is flexible enough to encompass different technologies, but prescriptive enough to ensure that future road condition data can be compared:

• across local authorities
• to data from previous years

What are the implications for local highway authorities?

Local highway authorities will still be required to collect data on road condition and share summarised data with us as part of the single data list.

Once the data standard is in place, local highway authorities will be able to collect road condition data using any technology of their choice providing the supplier conforms to the data standard.

Input from local highway authorities will be essential to developing the data standard and so we encourage any authorities that would like to be involved in development of this standard (for example via consultation) to contact us.

How will we implement a data standard?

We, in collaboration with an external standards agency, will form a steering group of representatives from our department, local highway authorities, potential suppliers, and relevant sector bodies. The steering group will:

• be inclusive of the full range of interested parties and take advantage of existing sector expertise and consult with DAs
• agree the overarching principles for the data standard and define the minimum set of road condition information which suppliers must collect and how this should be recorded. Suppliers will be allowed full flexibility to collect data beyond this minimum set of information
• discuss the scope of the data standard, agreeing whether the standard should cover unclassified roads and wider assets for example bridges and lighting columns
• agree the data standard, once drafted

We, in collaboration with an external standards agency, will procure technical expertise to draft a data standard that meets the principles agreed by the steering group and aligns to other relevant transport data standards.

In consultation with the steering group, we will establish a process for ongoing governance of the data standard to ensure the standard remains:

• fit for purpose
• responds to new innovations

As well as the steering group, we will also provide regular updates to all local highway authorities and the wider sector throughout this process.

Indicative timeline for delivery

We plan to introduce a data standard for use in the 2023 to 2024 data collection. This means that a version would need to be introduced prior to this collection cycle in early 2023. Any changes to this timeline will be communicated with the sector accordingly.

2021

Proposed actions are:

• an advisory board will be set up to consult on the framework for the data standard
• we will work with a third party to create a scope for the data standard
• a technical author to begin work on first iteration of data standard specification

2022

Proposed actions are:

• steering group develops data standard through subsequent iterations until completion
• regular engagement by us with industry and interested parties to contribute to data standard development
• early testing of data standard
• completion of data standard planned for end of 2022

2023

Proposed actions are:

• in February 2023 we will review the existing data requirements for 2023 to 2024
• early 2023 introduce a draft of the data standard for local highway authorities to use for their data collection in 2023 to 2024.

2024

Proposed actions are:

• we will publish experimental statistics under the draft data standard
• consultation with the sector on the data standard and making any necessary amendments
• formal implementation of the data standard

2025

Proposed action is we will publish statistics under the new data standard.