22 WINTER MAINTENANCE


Providing an effi cient and effective winter service


Matthew Evans and Barry Cleave from the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) discuss the reasons why it is important local authorities properly prepare for winter


The National Winter Service Research Group was recently tasked by the UK Roads Board to review section 13 and completely rewrite Appendix H, the winter service part of Well-Maintained Highways, the UK code of practice issued by the UK Roads Liaison Group.


This latest revision of Appendix H has been carried out by TRL under the direction of the NWSRG (National Winter Service Research Group), using information from the NWSRG Practical Guide for Winter Service and NWSRG member organisations, as well as other recent winter service research and information from organisations such as the Highways Agency and Transport Scotland. TRL has extensive experience in many aspects of winter maintenance, undertaking research for UK Government, local authorities, and numerous stakeholders in the winter maintenance industry. TRL also supports and is the lead contractor for NWSRG.


The new guidance was disseminated through a series of workshops earlier this year and was offi cially launched at Cold Comfort 2013*. Through these events initial views and feedback have been provided by practitioners on the recommendations and information contained within the guidance. As a result, a number of common questions and important themes have arisen and are addressed in this article, which also highlights the key aims and benefi ts brought by the new guidance.


With current fi nancial constraints, can winter service providers be expected to fully implement the recommendations in Appendix H?


The updated document certainly represents a signifi cant increase in the level of information provided compared to previous versions and gives the necessary information to enable winter service providers to deliver the best service within the resources available. However, it is recognised and clearly stated in the code that local circumstances, for example fi nancial and other resource constraints or political infl uences, can vary widely across the country. It is also recognised in the introduction to the new guidance that implementing


the recommendations will not be a short-term process and, as stated in the introduction to Appendix H:


“Some of the recommendations and practices will, if adopted, also take a number of years to implement. For example, it is recognised that, in certain cases it could potentially take up to around 10 years or so for a major programme of change to be fully implemented.”


What is made clear is that policies and practices should be reviewed against the content of the document to demonstrate an assessment has been made as to when and when not to implement the recommendations. While it is not a requirement and may not be realistic that authorities will fully implement all of the recommendations, the key message is that authorities should identify and explain any signifi cant variance and, where appropriate, develop time tabled implementation plans for the adoption of the recommendations.


Another key point to highlight is that the new code is not simply about potential investment in new equipment and infrastructure. By carrying out a review of current procedures, the updated code will help highlight simple and cost effective improvements that can lead to signifi cant savings over the course of a winter season: for example through improved spreader calibration procedures or monitoring of spreader performance and consequently reduced wastage of salt.


Will the increased requirements from the revised Appendix H leave authorities at increased risk of litigation?


A common concern expressed by authorities is that, should an incident occur on the network during winter conditions, the expanded and more detailed code will leave them at greater risk if they have not implemented all the recommendations.


The fi rst and principal response to this concern is that the code should provide more protection to authorities, by ensuring all critical aspects of winter maintenance are considered in developing the operating procedures of an authority. This will clearly


require some work to review and develop appropriate plans. It will be necessary to record the reasons why recommendations are not being met and it will be useful to have a risk assessment justifying this. This process will ultimately provide the best demonstration an authority has met its statutory duty.


Another important consideration is the status of the code of practice with regard to mandating of practices. Through a number of recent court appeals it has been stated by the courts that the code is guidance and not mandatory. These indicate that it may not place a statutory duty upon the highway authority to carry out a risk assessment if they depart from the code. This clarifi cation of the status of the code of practice should help allay some of the concerns of authorities and provide them with some confi dence that they may exercise their own judgment in developing appropriate plans. However, it is the recommendation from the code that explicit reasons for adopting different policies are recorded to provide the maximum protection for authorities. It is also recommended that individual authorities should make their own assessment as regards to legal requirements and liability.


Another important aspect is how the practices employed by different authorities compare. This is where good communication between authorities is essential in understanding and developing commonly accepted practices. It is recommended all authorities get involved in service improvement groups or other collective groups such as the NWSRG where good practice can be shared.


Should the code of practice take precedent over local experience?


Following the guidance can result in signifi cant salt savings through reduced spread rates, particularly in marginal conditions. The guidance is based around a combination of the most recent research, scientifi c facts and expert practitioner experience from NWSRG members and industry associates. Authorities can have confi dence in the effectiveness of these treatments.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68