Changing limits to 40 mph

Nearly_Old

a.turner wrote: »

How is that cheaper than writing a TRO?

Simply because you don't need a TRO for the "slippery road" signs as its an option under the testing rules (HD 28/15) and the sign for an advisory limit is an allowable addition to the "slippery road" sign. For a legally enforceable limit you need to prepare the evidence, carry out consultations, get permission for the change in speed limit, prepare and advertise the TRO, etc all which carries a cost.

a.turner

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Simply because you don't need a TRO for the "slippery road" signs as its an option under the testing rules (HD 28/15) and the sign for an advisory limit is an allowable addition to the "slippery road" sign. For a legally enforceable limit you need to prepare the evidence, carry out consultations, get permission for the change in speed limit, prepare and advertise the TRO, etc all which carries a cost.

And how much is the testing? Given it's a government agency who do it, it'll be way over priced.

Nearly_Old

a.turner wrote: »

And how much is the testing? Given it's a government agency who do it, it'll be way over priced.

Wrong again as you appear to have no knowledge of how the need for highway maintenance is assessed and its procurement is organised. There is no government agency involved and hasn't been since the Highways Agency was abolished.
If you really want to know:
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol7/section3.htm

a.turner

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Wrong again as you appear to have no knowledge of how the need for highway maintenance is assessed and its procurement is organised. There is no government agency involved and hasn't been since the Highways Agency was abolished.
If you really want to know:
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol7/section3.htm

So still the public sector then.

Nearly_Old

a.turner wrote: »

So still the public sector then.

Almost but not quite extinct yet. For motorway and strategic trunk roads for which the Secretary of State is responsible the privatisation of maintenance began in April 1986 with 5 former county areas by the early 90s there were 24 operational areas. The 24 areas were then combined over the next rounds of tenders to give 11 areas. Each area has a managing agent that oversees all operational issues including preparing bids for funds for routine and major maintnenance works. There is monthly reporting (technical and financial) and there is an anuual assessment that can go towards if the agent is included in future tenders. There are technical audits but these are tendered for and the tenders were usually won by one of the existing agents but no agent could audit one of their own areas. There were separate financial audits that used outside auditors. Everything was performance based and audited against agreed targets, technical and financial.


A lot of the larger local authorities (e.g. Birmingham, Sheffield) have let long term performance based maintenance and improvement contracts for their highways. Sheffield's 25 year PFI contract was awarded for £2Bn. There will probably be some areas such as the larger Counties and Transport for London that will continue for the foreseeable future.

a.turner

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Almost but not quite extinct yet. For motorway and strategic trunk roads for which the Secretary of State is responsible the privatisation of maintenance began in April 1986 with 5 former county areas by the early 90s there were 24 operational areas. The 24 areas were then combined over the next rounds of tenders to give 11 areas. Each area has a managing agent that oversees all operational issues including preparing bids for funds for routine and major maintnenance works. There is monthly reporting (technical and financial) and there is an anuual assessment that can go towards if the agent is included in future tenders. There are technical audits but these are tendered for and the tenders were usually won by one of the existing agents but no agent could audit one of their own areas. There were separate financial audits that used outside auditors. Everything was performance based and audited against agreed targets, technical and financial.


A lot of the larger local authorities (e.g. Birmingham, Sheffield) have let long term performance based maintenance and improvement contracts for their highways. Sheffield's 25 year PFI contract was awarded for £2Bn. There will probably be some areas such as the larger Counties and Transport for London that will continue for the foreseeable future.

I guess Birmingham is unique as they have a motorway maintained and paid for by the city council.

Nearly_Old

a.turner wrote: »

I guess Birmingham is unique as they have a motorway maintained and paid for by the city council.

Not quite - Birmingham received a 75% grant from central government on the condition that the A38(M) Expressway was completed by the time the M6 was opened. To achieve this Birmingham used Sir William Halcrow and Partners for the design. The Expressway is currently being maintained under Birmingham's 25 year Highways PFI by Amey although this PFI may be ended early due to some contractual issues.

a.turner

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Not quite - Birmingham received a 75% grant from central government on the condition that the A38(M) Expressway was completed by the time the M6 was opened. To achieve this Birmingham used Sir William Halcrow and Partners for the design. The Expressway is currently being maintained under Birmingham's 25 year Highways PFI by Amey although this PFI may be ended early due to some contractual issues.

Is that what google tells you?

Nearly_Old

a.turner wrote: »

Is that what google tells you?

No - but it probably could. I know through work.

a.turner

Nearly_Old wrote: »

No - but it probably could. I know through work.

Well you'll know funding wasn't the same as the M6 and when the Highways Agency started patrolling the motorway network it wasn't included.