Lifecycle Planning Toolkit

Technical Note
Project: Highway Maintenance Efficiency To: Working Group
Programme (HMEP)
WP06 – Lifecycle Planning Toolkit
Subject: Response to Comments from Pilots From: Project Team
th
Date: 5 September 2012 cc:
Doc No: 5105774/WP06/19 Rev: 1.0

Purpose of Note
This Technical Note provides a summary of: comments, proposed responses and actions following the pilot
trials of the Carriageway Lifecycle Planning Toolkit. Table 1 below provides a summary of authorities who
participated in the trials.

Authority Key Contact

Leicestershire Harry Godwin
Staffordshire Paul Boss
Medway Phil Moore
Transport for London Garry Sterritt
Westminster David Yeoell
Hertfordshire Chris Allen Smith
Cornwall Andy Stevenson
Highways Agency Clare Griffin

Table 1: Pilot Authorities

Comments, Actions and Progress
Comments received and proposed responses and actions are listed in Table 2 below. These responses
have been reviewed and have been actioned as described in the table. The model is currently being
updated to reflect these actions. The final draft version of the toolkit is programmed to be completed by the
end of September 2012 and will be presented in the next meeting of the HMEP Asset Management Working
Group. This will be supported by updated draft user guidance.

1
 Table 2: Comments, Responses and Actions
No. Authority User Comments and Suggestions Response (HMEP) Action

It is envisaged that potential users will receive training when

Concerned that the current version of the model is too complicated as a first step. Suggest
1 the toolkit is released. Preparation of different version is not None at this stage
producing a standard and simpler version.
covered in the current project scope.
Leicestershire This will be added in the Lifecycle
2 Step by step guidance on the definition of treatment strategies and scenarios. Noted
Methodology document.
Option of cancelling analysis to be
3 Add ‘cancel’ button in ‘Scenarios Worksheet’ Agreed
added
The Toolkit only allows for one treatment type to target one band whereas in reality we would A treatment type can be assigned to multiple treatment bands
4 None
look to address multiple bands with one treatment type. in the ‘Treatment Strategy Worksheet’
A button allowing users to add treatment steps will be
Implement button for adding
5 Add ‘Treatment Steps’ implemented. We the maximum number of treatment steps that
treatment step.
can be added will be limited to 20.
Selecting ‘none’ implies the treatment will not improve
The ‘Treatment Type’ tab does not grey out treatment costs, based on whether that treatment
condition if implemented. This could be useful in ‘what if’
6 type can actually be performed. E.g. Treatment one has no effect on a VG hence there Clarify in guidance document
analysis since budget will be spent without realising
should be a null field in the costing side.
improvements in condition.
The ‘Treatment Strategies’ tab should also grey out those condition bands which the selected This might restrict more advance users of the model. But
7 Clarify in the user guide
treatment type cannot address thereby making it easier for the user. additional guidance will be provide in the user guide
On the ‘Scenario’ tab there is no ‘remove all’ or ‘copy to all’, so each budget constraint or
Add a ‘Copy to the right’ and
performance drop down has to be removed manually or copied over the whole project should A ‘Copy to the right’ and ‘Clear all’ button will be added to the
8 ‘Clear all’ button will be added to
the same target be used across the analysing period. This applies to the transition matrix Scenarios worksheet
the Scenarios worksheet
and treatment strategy too.
If the budget stipulated in the ‘budget’ tab is used on more than one budget constraint Not all users may desire to split budget by length. The ability to
Staffordshire scenario it should be split according to the network length, as opposed to a budget for each define budgets for each asset will provide flexibility to users.
9 None
scenario. E.G. A road has two million spent on it, and I run a scenario with A rural and A More complex budget optimisation techniques are beyond
Urban, it should split the two million budget not give each scenario two million. scope.
Users have to define their own asset groups, condition
We also noted that the national weighting set for our U/C class roads gives an unfair distributions and treatment strategies that reflect local
representation of our network and therefore our treatment types would not be applied at the observations. Examples and defaults included in the model
10 Provided clarity in the user guide
correct levels. We have changed this to a Local weighting set to reflect our network and and guidance documents may not correctly represent local
treatment strategy better. practice and observations, this will be clarified in the user
guide.
We recommend that users refer to relevant sections of the user
The user help file and relevant information for each tab needs expanding upon to help the Review help information and
11 guide. We will review the help information in the toolkit and
user identify what information is required and how it relates to the final output. cross-reference with user guide
cross reference with the user guide.
This is a network level tool that looks at the homogeneous
The lifecycle program does not allow a max treatment per road section in its life. E.g. We can
group of sections but not individual road sections. Furthermore,
only treat a road three times with surface dressing in a 40year period before it will require
12 the toolkit may be used to investigate ‘what if’ treatment None
reconstruction. The planning tool will continue to Surface Dress the road past 40years as it
strategies. Different treatment strategies can be defined in
falls into the ‘Good’ category.
each analysis year.
Modelling depreciation is not within the scope of WP6. Output
Include bar charts in outputs to display the following: yearly expenditure, depreciation etc. Show output graphs as bar charts
13 graphs will be reviewed with a view to changing the area charts
Each ‘bar’ could represent a condition. or stacked graphs.
to bar charts.

Regarding the Homogenous Asset Groups. I found it difficult to interpret how the percentage
breakdown of condition was calculated. Is this based on m2 totals for condition or are they
based upon the number of condition sections divided by the total number of sections for a
Medway specific classification. Initial condition for each asset group is defined by specifying Provide clarity in the help Task-
the percentage of the quantity (area in the case carriageway) Bar and user guide.
14 An example of m2 totals would be: that is known to be in each condition band at the beginning of
Total m2 of "very good" section on Class A Rural / Total m2 of Class A rural * 100 the first year of analysis.
An example of the number of condition sections would be:
Total number of "very good" sections / total number of sections of Class A rural * 100
I completed my trial using the latter.

2
No. Authority User Comments and Suggestions Response (HMEP) Action

I feel that this should be specified clearly in the help screen option when the help screen pop
up is shown.

Only comparison I could make was against the structures life cycle planning toolkit. The
biggest advantage of this carriageway toolkit is the speed and efficiency of data entry, add
15 this to the speed of macro calculation to run scenarios. This tool kit is very good. The graphs Noted None
are clear and concise.

A similar toolkit for footway or the addition of a footway tab and set of tables would be a major Prepare mock-up of footway and
Similar versions of the toolkit will be produced specifically for
benefit. The ability to "randomize scenarios" much like the structures toolkit would be a ancillary assets toolkits. Complete
16 footways and ancillary assets. These will be based on the
benefit. versions to be produced from the
revised piloted version of the carriageway toolkit.
final carriageway toolkit.
17 No bugs found, though testing was limited Noted None
18 Have not had time to really do a lot of testing so can’t comment on bugs, but none found Noted None

The logic/flow seems to work okay Noted None

Stacked bar-graphs should be used for the charts as the line/area graphs can lead to Change output charts to stacked
19 Agreed.
misinterpretation bar-graphs

Deterioration/transition matrix – I understand why the model includes a simply approach for
We will remove the functionality to derive the Transition
calculating the matrix based on asset life, but this (in my opinion) gives a misleading view of
Probability Matrix from asset life from the carriageway and Remove functionality to derive
how this modelling approach is intended to work. The matrices reflect how a homogeneous
footway versions of the toolkit. Transition Probability Matrix from
20 group behaves given it maintain around a certain steady state, if the group moves
asset life from the carriageway
significantly away from that steady state them the make-up of the matrix changes, i.e. the
We propose to keep this functionality in the ancillary assets and footway model. Keep
Transport for matrix is actually dependent on the current state of the homogeneous group. Hence, using
version of the toolkit. functionality in ancillary asset
London (TfL) one matrix to model how one group deteriorates through it’s whole life can be misleading.
model.
Looks good....I really need to read this in conjunction with the Lifecycle Planning
An updated version of the Lifecycle Planning Methodology
21 methodology document, as the latter should include the detail on how you should derive In progress
document is being produced.
transition matrices and set up strategies.
It compares well against the TfL model (although they look very different)
Key differences are:

 The TfL model is a generic framework so can cater for any type of asset Include ability to change
22  The TfL model enables as asset to change to new homogeneous group after treatment, The ability for asset to change homogeneous group following homogeneous groups in the
e.g. if you do a reconstruction then the subsequent group/transition matrix could be treatment will be added. treatment types worksheet.
different. This can be very important if an authority wants to assess the impact of moving
from one material to another.

0 – Input Sheet

a. Requires formatting as some text is masked and unreadable.

b. The analysis period is set at 30 years but this can be changed. This could be
advantageous as it may be possible to set this to 40 years for what if analysis. Review text formatting in ‘input
23 Westminster Texts well be formatted so that they are readable
c. 100 homogeneous asset groups should be sufficient for most authorities. sheet’
d. The scenarios provision allows what-if scenarios to be prepared
e. 10 treatment types should be sufficient for most authorities.

3
No. Authority User Comments and Suggestions Response (HMEP) Action

1 – Homogeneous Asset Groups

a. The table automatically adds asset groups and descriptions based on entries made
in the Input Sheet.
b. Length and width have to be entered and areas are auto-calculated. It is not possible
to enter area direct. This should be reviewed as Westminster (along with other
24
authorities) have areas based on varying widths. At present it will be necessary to
create a notional average width and length to enter into the model.
c. Initial condition is user input from whatever data is available and converted to a
percentage and error messages are created if the percentages do not add up to 100.
The ability to define lengths and widths was added following
recommendations by other potential users of the toolkit. It is
possible to make changes to the toolkit to allow users to None
specify the quantity (area for carriageways and footways) of
homogeneous asset groups directly but we consider this
requirement to be of low priority. In the meantime, we suggest
that users specify notional lengths and/or widths to give the
desired area for particular asset group.

2 – Transition Matrices
 Set default starting condition
for generating deterioration
a. These are just a series of numbers that are generated in the background. Tools are
profile to 100% for ‘VG’ and
available to change these to suit any profile the used wishes to create. What is The current version of the toolkit allows users to generate the
0% for other condition states.
unclear is what the profile looks like as a single curve in the more normally presented deterioration profile for a selected Transition Matrix. The profile
 Validation of inputs to matrix
version. I do not get a feel for the shape of the deterioration curve and I think other is presented as graph showing the progression of each
(e.g. text entries should not
25 condition band in time assuming no works are done over the
users may need this. Also a more readily understood profile may be useful in be allowed.)
analysis. This way, the effects of deterioration can be easily
presenting to Members and the Public. illustrated and explained. Users have the freedom of specifying  Improvements to error
b. I have been modifying some of the entries as I have been viewing the model and the starting condition for the profile. See section 4.3.6 of the message (e.g. ‘entries for
have generated an ERROR message in the validity check. I have not been able to User Guide (Viewing Deterioration Profile) each row should add to 1’)
find out what this error message means.

3 – Treatment Types
26 None None
a. Largely self explanatory.

4 – Treatment Strategies

a. Good error messages directing the user to where to look to correct.

b. The Westminster Investment Planning Model allows for changes in deterioration, i.e.
The ability for asset to change homogeneous group following
27 change NTS to HRA or visa-versa on completion of the operation. It is unclear if this Same as in No. 22 above
treatment will be added.
is available and my initial view is the programme assumes like-for like maintenance.
If this is correct it will not be possible to model the effect of retaining a policy of using
NTS and replacing HRA.

General observations

a. The inclusion of a worked example is a very useful addition for first time users.
b. This Lifecycle planning tool is generally an improvement on the Westminster
Investment Planning Model, however, the option to change deterioration profiles on
28 None None
completion of maintenance treatments needs to be added
c. The best method of testing the programme is to run it against the Westminster
Investment planning Model to compare outputs. (This was not done due to time
constraints.)

Performance targets as an option per year would assist in cross analysis i.e. 'A' roads to be in This is possible but more detailed optimisation is outside
29 two criteria VG = 10% and VP&P <=5%. current scope. This improvement could potentially be made in None
future versions of the toolkit.
Unit of measurements to be added to the tabular outputs
30 Hertfordshire Agreed Add units to outputs

4
No. Authority User Comments and Suggestions Response (HMEP) Action

Within the guidance document there are 2 additional graphs 7.5 and 7.6 that are not part of
the toolkit - can these be added to the automated function within the spreadsheet as these
We will investigate if these graphs can be incorporate in the
are very useful graphs - these graphs build up a profile of several scenarios so if the model is Consider adding graphs labelled
toolkit. Users may alternatively generate such graphs
31 only built to run one at a time could an output tab be formulated to include the necessary as Figures 7.5 and 7.6 in the user
externally by exporting the outs generated by the toolkit and
information as provided within these graphs that can be extracted out into a separate sheet to guide.
generating bespoke graphs using Microsoft Excel.
construct such graphs.

I came across an error when using my own sheet populated within HCC information. From
looking through some fixes the issue arises within the Scenario sheet as there was a run Investigate cause of run-time
32 issue when applying budget constraints. Any budget constraint placed on any road category This will be investigated error and make any necessary
produced a run time error. "Run time error 6: Overflow" corrections

The percentage treated in the ‘Treatment Strategy’ worksheet

Some additional guidance to explain treatment strategy - %age treated??
33 Does the %age treated relate to budget, roads, works ???
I have attached a copy of the example model I have created which is loosely based on HCC
data i.e. 8 homogenous asset groups, asset information, paired effective treatment options
34
and budgets (note that I can not apply budgets as the model gives a run error and therefore I
have only applied a performance target to the operation).
The output shows that there seems to be a sequence of non work required years! This does
not follow the example model which makes better sense when looked across works required
over an x year period. Noting that the VP+P collective percentages for each road
classification is higher than the example model I would have expected a smoother banding of
works but this could be attributable to the uncontrolled budget allowance as the model is set
35
against a performance target. If the model can run the restrained budget sequence this
would give me a clearer perspective of works required. I am not sure why the model will not
run properly, probably something I have inputted incorrectly but if you could advise I can re-
run and look at further examples.
is the maximum proportion of the quantity (area for
carriageway) that can be treated with a particular treatment Review section 4.5 of user guide.
type. Section 4.5 (Treatment Strategies) will reviewed and
additional explanations added as necessary.
Run error occurs because in the example model used in the
pilot, the costs of certain treatments in the treatment strategy Add validity checks to treatment
worksheet have been set to zero. All treatments must have unit unit costs.
costs greater than zero.
Performance targets are investigated by applying treatments in
steps, with treatment assigned to step 1 applied first. If the
target is not achieved in step 1 (i.e. all the treatments defined
in step 1 has been exhausted), treatment assigned to step 2
are applied and so on until the target is met or the limits of all As in No. 34 above
treatments specified in the treatment strategy are exhausted.
Alternate treatment strategies can therefore be investigated to
achieve plausible outputs.

Overall I think the model is good and allows for manipulation within many facets of
LCP. Complete control of budget allowance, application of strategy and deterioration rate
combine to make a model that is completely bespoke to any authority. Further investigation
36 As a given above. None
into the outputs can be discussed when the run error has been resolved which will allow
comparison to HCC deterioration modelling and allow for differential budget constraints to be
applied and effect on condition to be mapped and analysed.