M8/A8 maintenance: EIR release

Information requested

1. Is there a safety assessment carried out on those category 2 and above defects to determine such things as skid resistance, as stated above, and what are those findings, are they available to view as a report as to how many category 2 defects have been found and how they are determined as category 2?

2. Is there any reports available from the PAG that can be viewed and is the data granular or aggregated over a time period? I believe Amey could treat this as an FOI if needed for perhaps the last 3 financial years?

3. Do the TRISS team respond to reports from the general public or do they actively seek out faults and report them back to the control room for further investigation?

4. If, as Amey says, they have a robust inspection regime then why were roads that were laid with the original SMA material, some over 10 Years ago, not identified and repaired as a priority, even temporarily or as emergency works, if it was known from at least 10 Years ago and beyond, that the surface material is not effective, and degrades rapidly in the Scottish climate? You clarified on 19 May that the safety assessment request relates to the section of road (M8) between Langbank and Erskine, and for the previous 5 financial years. This would apply to the PAG reports as well.

Response

As the information you have requested is ‘environmental information’ for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request.

1. Is there a safety assessment carried out on those category 2 and above defects to determine such things as skid resistance, as stated above, and what are those findings, are they available to view as a report as to how many category 2 defects have been found and how they are determined as category 2?

1. Our Operating Company, Amey, inspects this section of motorway/A class trunk road on a weekly basis and any category 1 and category 2 defects are noted and addressed as required. The collected category 2 information goes forward for consideration in a structural maintenance or routine maintenance scheme.

Amey’s Inspectors are trained to establish the different categories of defects and to note and address those that are seen as category 1 defects, which also includes defects which may develop into a category 1 before the next scheduled safety inspection. Category 2 defects are noted during the weekly inspection as well as in the annual comprehensive inspection. Skid resistance on small potholes or small category 2 defects is not a consideration due to the small surface area that requires treatment. However, Amey’s Pavement Manager will study the skid resistance information among other investigatory items on the whole of the network to identify areas that require further investigation.

Please see Annex A to this response, category 2 defect reports for the last 5 financial years.

The Transport Scotland Trunk Road Information Manual details inspection requirements and defect classification and a copy of this can be found at Annex B to this response.

2. Is there any reports available from the PAG that can be viewed and is the data granular or aggregated over a time period? I believe Amey could treat this as an FOI if needed for perhaps the last 3 financial years?

2. An exception under regulation 10(4)(d) (information to be published in the future) of the EIRs applies to some of the information you have requested. This is because the 2020/21 report has not yet been published and the 2021/22 report is still being finalised.

This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. We recognise that there is some public interest in release because the previous reports are available. However, this is outweighed by the public interest in protecting draft or unfinished material.

The PAG Annual Report details Operating Company performance and contains much of the information you have requested. It is available from http://www.performanceauditgroup.co.uk/. Under regulation 6(1) (b) of the EIRs, we do not have to give you information which is already publicly available and easily accessible to you in another form or format. If, however, you do not have internet access to obtain this information from the website listed, then please contact me again and I will send you a paper copy.

3. Do the TRISS team respond to reports from the general public or do they actively seek out faults and report them back to the control room for further investigation?

3. The principal duty of the TRISS team is to provide a rapid response to incidents on the higher trafficked sections of the South West network. In addition, if they have time they are directed by Amey’s Control room whenever an enquiry or complaint is received. The TRISS unit will also report back to the Control room if it notices anything needing further attention when they are on the network.

4. If, as Amey says, they have a robust inspection regime then why were roads that were laid with the original SMA material, some over 10 Years ago, not identified and repaired as a priority, even temporarily or as emergency works, if it was known from at least 10 Years ago and beyond, that the surface material is not effective, and degrades rapidly in the Scottish climate? You clarified on 19 May that the safety assessment request relates to the section of road (M8) between Langbank and Erskine, and for the previous 5 financial years. This would apply to the PAG reports as well.

4. While we were aware of the deficiencies of the material that did not mean that it had failed or was not fit for purpose nor did it mean that the material failure occurs widely across the road network. Many locations where SMA was laid will still perform well within the serviceable design life of the pavement. The problem was that when it did fail, it was a very rapid failure with no advance warning and the failure mechanism was such that the remedial options available were limited. There was also no pattern to the areas of failure and as each occurred Amey’s Pavement Maintenance and Routine Maintenance teams reviewed these locations and then ranked them against other schemes within the South West unit to allow them to be included into the programme.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at http://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

FOI 202200299524 - Information released

File type

180 page PDF

File size

3.3 MB