Article citation information:
Świtała, M.
Road infrastructure management - the perspective of the local roads
authority. Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport.
2023, 120, 269-283. ISSN: 0209-3324.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2023.120.17.
Marcin ŚWITAŁA[1]
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT - THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LOCAL ROADS
AUTHORITY
Summary. This paper
presents the results of research conducted among 100 local government units
performing the duties of road network administrators, i.e., administrators of
municipal roads (AMR), county roads (ACR) and those
operating within the boundaries of cities with county rights (ACCR). The aim of
the research was to identify and assess management problems related to the
implementation of statutory measures related to the protection and development
of respective road networks. A hypothesis was formulated about the existence of
statistically significant differences between the AMR, ACR
and ACCR groups, which was verified by quantitative analysis of the data
obtained from the online survey. They were analysed and interpreted using the
SPSS package and using measures of descriptive statistics, the correlation
coefficient and the Kruskal–Wallis test by
ranks. The results of the study indicate that the difficulties of providing and
maintaining an efficient road network pavement, as well as the challenges of
developing draft financing plans for the construction, reconstruction, and
rehabilitation of the road network, are currently the main points of focus for
all road administrators. The lack of statistical significance of intergroup
differences was observed in the vast majority of measurements. The exceptions
to this were the differences that occurred in the total number of difficulties
reported, which were greater among the members of AMR and ACR
than ACCR, as well as the differences related to
the implementation of measures undertaken for the maintenance of roadside
greenery, which were more onerous for ACR.
Keywords: road
infrastructure, road infrastructure management, local roads authority
1.
INTRODUCTION
Road infrastructure is one of the
key issues of interest to local government administrators and, like other
assets in a region, requires efficient and effective management [12, 18]. In a
broad sense, such management should not only consist of planning, implementing,
and monitoring all activities related to the maintenance and development of the
road network and its engineering structures, but also of creating conditions
conducive to the interactivity and efficiency of the road infrastructure, while
minimising the associated costs.
Among road infrastructure administrators,
a special place is occupied by local government road administrators, whose role
is steadily increasing in the context of co-creating a coherent and integrated
road transport system across the country [10]. As of the end of 2021, the
length of the national road network was 429,815.6 km, 88.79% of which were
municipal and district roads managed by local government units. The total value
of the road network in cities with county rights, including bridges, tunnels,
and subways, amounted to more than PLN 34 billion at the end of 2020
[20]. Due to the high level of capital invested here, including expenditures on
maintenance and renewal of infrastructure, the decisions of road administrators
should be directed towards the rational management of the budget allocated for
this purpose. It should be borne in mind that infrastructure elements,
especially linear facilities, undergo rapid obsolescence when used too
intensively and lose their utility value. This, in turn, has negative
consequences in the form of a lower level of road safety.
In this article, attention is
focused on discussing the results of research relating to selected road
infrastructure management issues. In particular, management problems occurring
on the part of local government units acting as administrators of the road
network, i.e., the administrators of municipal roads (AMR), county roads (ACR) and the administrators of public roads functioning
within the boundaries of cities with county rights (ACCR), which combine the
features and tasks of the municipality and county [19], have been taken into
account. A hypothesis was formulated about the existence of statistically
significant differences between them with regard to the difficulties associated
with the implementation of statutory activities.
2. DEFINITION OF ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
Within the meaning of Article 3(3) of the
Act, Construction Law, elements of road infrastructure are construction
objects, which are not buildings or small architectural objects. Elements of
such objects include: roads with exits, which are referred to as linear
facilities, as well as bridges, viaducts, flyovers, tunnels, culverts and
above- and below-ground pedestrian crossings [21]. In turn, in the literature,
the term is most often understood to refer to points and places used by means
of transport, both when moving and at a standstill [9]. According to
H. Link et al., road infrastructure consists of all its elements
that are necessary for motorised traffic, including elements related to traffic
safety and noise protection [15]. A similar definition, although limited to the
transport of goods by road, is provided by J. Nieder,
who proposes that the term should be understood as all fixed, permanently
located equipment and facilities that enable the movement of goods [16]. The
road infrastructure also includes the so-called associated infrastructure
elements, i.e., pavements and cycling paths, gantries and signs, lighting and
traffic lights and noise barriers.
3. ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
In a narrow sense, management is
understood as the sum of activities related to the disposal of owned resources
by an organisation, which are undertaken in order to achieve its objectives.
For R.W. Griffin, management refers to 'a set of activities directed at an
organisation's resources (human, financial, physical and informational) and
performed with the intention of achieving the organisation's objectives in an
efficient and effective manner' [11]. Treating management in terms of the
theory of organisational equilibrium, on the other hand, one can quote the
definition according to which this concept is presented as a method consisting
of defining and redefining the criteria of equilibrium and the conditions for
its achievement in the material and social, external and internal dimensions,
and influencing the environment in such a way that equilibrium is restored and
sustained [14].
Considering the object of interest
of this paper, it is worth quoting the definition of A. Zofka, who defines road infrastructure management as 'coordinated
activities of an organisation aiming to obtain value from assets while
fulfilling the organisation's objectives' [23]. In this definition, road
infrastructure is understood as the tangible assets of institutions and
organisations responsible for road infrastructure management.
The literature also operates with
the alternate terms, i.e., 'road asset management'. In contrast, researchers
M.A. Akofio-Sowah and A.A. Kennedy
operate with the term 'transportation asset management' understood as 'road infrastructure
asset management'. According to the authors, the term should be understood as a
structured set of activities that occur in a systematic and regular manner to
maintain and improve the condition of physical assets using economic and
engineering analysis carried out on the basis of high-quality information. The
main task, to which the authors attribute a strategic dimension, is to identify
the appropriate sequence of activities to achieve and maintain the desired
condition of assets throughout their life cycle, taking into account the
principle of cost minimisation. These activities include: maintenance,
preventive maintenance, upgrading and construction work involving changes in
performance or technical parameters [2]. This definition draws attention to two
types of activity, i.e., corrective actions, which are undertaken to eliminate
a defect or other undesirable situation, and preventive actions, which in turn
are undertaken to prevent their occurrence.
Also worth quoting is the definition
contained in the publication entitled Compendium
of Best Practices in Road Asset Management, according to which road
infrastructure management is understood as the optimum allocation of
expenditures for the purpose of maintenance of road network, taking into
account the medium and long-term effects on its technical condition and the
costs incurred by road users [3]. It is also understood as a coordinated
activity which, in addition to the physical activities, consists of tasks in
the area of the budgetary management method and cost-benefit analyses
undertaken in order to obtain value from the resources held. This definition,
it is worth noting, is in line with the ISO 55000:2014 standard [8].
3.1. Proactive road infrastructure
management
The concept of proactive management
of road infrastructure, which refers to damage prevention according to the idea
of so-called pavement preservation,
has been intensively promoted in the literature. This concept is understood as
the sum of all measures that are taken to ensure and maintain a functioning
road pavement, excluding newly commissioned road sections and infrastructure in
need of major rehabilitation or reconstruction. It is important that all
actions are taken at an early stage of damage/failure before they irreversibly
damage the pavement and become costly to repair. The concept of proactive
measures, as emphasised by A. Zofka, focuses on
performing road treatments when the pavement condition index is at a high or
very high level, without the occurrence of structural damage. However, this is
not a one-off treatment, but a long-term maintenance process extending the life
of the road infrastructure, which — importantly — should be adapted
to the specific technical and operational conditions of each facility. This
means that the decision for such a particular prevention is taken by the
administrator separately for each facility, depending on the individual
characteristics associated with its use. In practice, it should be based on a
comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, covering the stochastic nature of
climate-related events together with a determination of the probability of
undesirable phenomena and the magnitude of their impact on the road [22]. It
should be emphasised that understanding the costs and benefits of taking
precautionary measures plays a key role in road infrastructure management, as
it brings long-term economic benefits. Pavement
preservation activities require a customer-oriented approach and should
ensure that the level of service provided is appropriate and cost-effective [7,
22].
4. RESEARCH MATERIALS AND METHODS
The primary research was nationwide
and was conducted in October 2022 using purposive sampling and an electronic
survey questionnaire prepared using a docs.google
form. The invitation to participate in the survey was addressed to
representatives of public road administrators representing local government
units, obtaining responses from 100 units.
The unified part of the
questionnaire investigating the problems associated with the management of road
infrastructure elements by local government units consisted of questions
concerning the difficulties associated with the implementation of statutory
activities and the style and manner of related decisions. The opinions were
measured using two types of scales, i.e., nominal scales with 'yes', 'no', 'do
not know' answers and seven-point ordinal scales with borderline ratings of
'definitely yes' – 'definitely no'. Most questions were closed, single or
multiple choice.
SPSS software was used to process
the results. Standard measures of descriptive statistics, the Spearman
correlation coefficient and the Kruskal-Wallis test
by ranks were used in the statistical description to verify the hypothesis. The
result was assumed to be statistically significant at p<0.05.
The majority of the research sample
consisted of municipal road administrators (AMR) (62%), mainly located within
the administrative borders of municipalities with up to 20,000 inhabitants
(80%). The second most numerous group were the administrators of public roads
within the borders of cities with county rights (ACCR) (21%), coming from
cities of different sizes. On the other hand, the share of county road
administrators (ACR) in the research sample amounted
to 17%; most often the above-mentioned units performed their tasks on the
territory of counties with a population of up to 50,000 individuals. The
characteristics of the research sample in various cross-sections are presented
in Tab. 1.
Tab.
1
Structure
of the research sample
|
No. |
Description |
AMR |
ACCR |
ACR |
|
1. |
Participation in the
research sample |
62% |
21% |
17% |
|
2. |
Number of residents
within the administrative boundaries of a unit |
- up to 20k (80%) - 21–50k (18%) - 51–100k (2%) - 101–200k (0%) - 201–300k (0%) - over 300k (0%) |
- up to 20k (5%) - 21–50k (14%) - 51–100k (29%) - 101–200k (9%) - 201–300k (19%) - over 300k (24%) |
- up to 20k (0%) - 21–50k (23%) - 51–100k (59%) - 101–200k (18%) - 201–300k (0%) - over 300k (0%) |
|
3. |
Gender of a person
completing the questionnaire |
- female (44%) - male (56%) |
- female (19%) - male (81%) |
- female (23%) - male (77%) |
|
4. |
Age of a person
completing the questionnaire |
- 18–25 yo (0%) - 26–35 yo (24%) - 36–45 yo (52%) - 46–55 yo (19%) - 56–65 yo (5%) - over 65 yo (0%) |
- 18–25 yo (0%) - 26–35 yo (24%) - 36–45 yo (52%) - 46–55 yo (0%) - 56–65 yo (0%) - over 65 yo (0%) |
- 18–25 yo (0%) - 26–35 yo (35%) - 36–45 yo (35%) - 46–55 yo (0%) - 56–65 yo (17%) - over 65 yo (0%) |
|
5. |
Education of a person
completing the questionnaire |
- primary (0%) - vocational (0%) - secondary (6%) - higher (94%) |
- primary (0%) - vocational (0%) - secondary (0%) - higher (100%) |
- primary (0%) - vocational (0%) - secondary (0%) - higher (100%) |
Representatives of units taking part
in the survey were senior and middle administrators, mainly men aged
36–45, with a university degree. Respondents were most often employed as
directors, administrators, chief executives, inspectors and specialists.
The survey was carried out within
the framework of a research project called Optimisation
of Road Investments in the Adaptation of the National Road Network to the
Traffic of Heavy Goods Vehicles with an Axle Load of up to 11.5 tonnes,
financed by the Gospostrateg programme (NCBR). The aim of the project was to increase the capacity
of the road management to optimally plan periodic maintenance measures over
many years.
5. ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH RESULTS
5.1. Road infrastructure management from the
perspective of survey participants
As the
research showed, 90% of the total number of road administrators are struggling
with difficulties related to the road infrastructure they manage, with an
average of more than 4 indications in the sample. The results of the standard
deviation indicate a low degree of polarisation of the answers given
(σ=2.50), so that the respondents differed in the number and thus the type
of problems reported. The research indicates that the percentage of respondents
signalling the presence of at least 5 different difficulties in their unit was
42% and was slightly higher than the percentage of those declaring a smaller
number of difficulties, i.e., between 1–3 (40%). The figure below shows
the percentage distribution of responses regarding the number of difficulties
encountered during road infrastructure management tasks.
Fig. 1. Number of
reported difficulties in the subject of activity
Fig. 2. shows
a hierarchically ordered list of results related to the respondents' opinion on
the broad catalogue of activities considered in terms of difficulties that road
administrators have to overcome in their daily operations. They were classified
into three groups based on the criteria of their frequency of occurrence in the
research sample. The first group included four problems for which the range of
mean values measured on a 7-point scale was well above the midpoint of the
scale. This means that, in each case, respondents were more likely to form
opinions confirming than denying the existence of obstacles to the task. The
results of the standard deviation show a similar degree of polarisation in the
answers given.
The results of the survey suggest
that the greatest challenges for the surveyed groups of road administrators are
the difficulties in providing and maintaining efficient road pavements,
engineering structures and traffic safety devices, as well as the challenges
occurring at the stage of drafting financing plans for the construction,
reconstruction and rehabilitation of the road network. In the first case, in
percentage terms, there was a clear predominance of 'rather yes', 'yes' and
'definitely yes' declarations (62.92%) over the denial answers, i.e. 'rather
no', 'no' and 'definitely no' (23.60%). In the second case, the percentage
distribution of affirmative answers was 50.00% and of denial answers –
20.93%. The problem of taking measures to reduce road damage by road users was
also reported quite frequently. On this issue, 47% of respondents answered in
the affirmative, with 12.50% indicating the 'definitely yes' category.
Relatively many respondents (41.33%) also reported difficulties at the drafting
stage of road network development plans.
Fig. 2. Difficulties
related to road infrastructure management as perceived by respondents
The second group consists of six
measures relating to various issues related to road infrastructure management.
The frequency with which each difficulty was reported was lower than that
recorded in group one. As in the former case, the standard deviation values
indicate a similar degree of polarisation of the indications given. In general,
the range of mean values measured on the 7-point scale was 3.43–3.99,
which is below the value of 4. This means that, in each case, respondents
preferred to take a neutral position, more often in denial, rather than confirm
the existence of a non-difficulty in the area. The exception here is the
difficulty of maintaining roadside greenery, where the percentage of responses
from both categories was at the same level (41.38%). More often than not, one
in three organisations experienced difficulties in taking measures to develop
infrastructure related to micromobility (36.76%) and
in maintaining road records in the form of a road book (36.05%). A large group
of respondents, exceeding 30%, reported difficulties in implementing road
restrictions or closures, as well as in carrying out periodic inspections of
both their condition and the condition of road engineering structures. From the
declarations obtained, one in four units reported difficulties in undertaking
traffic engineering measures.
In the third group, there were the
activities that received the lowest rating, i.e., in the surveyed collective,
respondents relatively rarely confirmed the existence of difficulties in
relation to individual variables. This group includes, in turn, activities
related to the coordination of works carried out in the road lane (3.17),
duties to perform the function of investor (3.14) and activities related to
periodic traffic measurement (3.12). The standard deviation values show similar
variation in the results within each variable. The mean scores ranged between
3.12 and 3.17, well below the middle of the scale and only slightly above the
'rather not' rating. The distribution of responses shows that, in each case,
respondents had a high tendency to give denial responses (respectively: 59.77%,
65.88%, and 64,18%). It is worth noting that
respondents were three times less likely to assess the above-mentioned actions
as a difficult situation than as a positive one.
The survey participants were also
asked to express their opinion on the existence of difficulties in accessing
information necessary for the proper implementation of road infrastructure
tasks. The average rating (2.95) generally fell well below the middle of the
scale (4) and was close to a declaration of 'rather not' (3). The distribution
of responses shows that the vast majority of road administrators (69.57%) do
not experience difficulties in obtaining information for their work. The
percentage of affirmative responses in this case was 18.48%, and less than 12%
had no opinion on the matter.
In the opinion of more than half of
the surveyed administrators (56.7%), decisions regarding the management of road
infrastructure are made in the course of teamwork, which is typical of a
democratic management style. Nevertheless, 34.2% expressed the opposite
opinion, indicating the dominance of the administrator with one-person
decision-making, and just over 9% had no formed opinion on the subject. A
similar distribution of responses was noted for the question on the scope of
decision-making. According to 58% of respondents, road authorities make all
decisions related to the road infrastructure management subject to their
administration themselves. The percentage of opinions to the contrary in this
case was 39.0%, and 3.0% of respondents declared no opinion on the subject.
5.2. Statistical analysis
Tab. 2.
shows the results of the statistical analysis of the
respondents' difficulties related to the managed road infrastructure. The type
of road administrator was taken as the grouping variable. Analysing the data,
it can be seen that respondents classified as AMR and ACR
showed a greater tendency to report difficulties in the subject of the
activities carried out than ACCR administrators. The multiple comparisons test
showed that the differences between AMR–ACCR and ACR–ACCR
were highly statistically significant. It is worth mentioning that both AMR and
ACR reported a similar number of difficulties, thus
there were no statistically significant differences between these groups.
Tab.
2
Statistically
significant differences between the compared groups
|
No. |
Description |
AMR |
ACR |
ACCR |
Statistical analysis |
||||
|
|
Σ |
|
σ |
|
σ |
K |
p |
||
|
1. |
Number of
declared difficulties |
4,75 |
2,42 |
5,06 |
2,29 |
2,82 |
2,40 |
11,63 |
0,003** |
Tab. 3.
shows the results of the research aimed at identifying
differences in the analysed range of difficulties between individual groups of
administrators. It turns out that the highest number of them are on the side of
ACR representatives. In half of the scales studied,
the range of mean values measured on a 7-point scale was above the midpoint of
the scale. ACR respondents were therefore more
inclined to give answers confirming than denying the existence of difficulties
in a given management area. The results indicate that respondents most
frequently reported problems with the implementation of roadside greenery
maintenance activities. Overall, the mean score here was 4.81, close to the
'rather yes' declaration. The distribution of responses shows that more than
half of the respondents (56%) admit that they struggle with problems in terms
of landscaping the greenery of the roadside lanes of managed roads as part of
their activities. It was also relatively common for ACR
representatives to declare struggling with difficulties at the stage of
drafting road network development plans. Again, the majority of opinions were
centred around a 'rather yes' assessment. The percentage of declarations fully
or partially confirming difficulties in this area amounted to 41.6% and was
more than twice as high as the denial answers (16.7%).
Tab.
3
Difficulties
related to road infrastructure management as perceived by
different types of road administrators
|
No. |
Description |
ZDG |
ZDP |
ZDM |
Statistical analysis |
||||
|
|
σ |
|
σ |
|
σ |
K |
p |
||
|
1. |
Difficulties exist at the stage of drafting road network development
plans |
4,37 |
1,55 |
4,75 |
1,36 |
3,95 |
1,76 |
1,59 |
0,451 |
|
2. |
Difficulties exist at the stage of drafting financing plans for the
construction, reconstruction and rehabilitation of the road network |
4,59 |
1,85 |
4,30 |
1,70 |
4,57 |
1,80 |
0,38 |
0,829 |
|
3. |
Difficulties exist in providing and maintaining an efficient road
pavement, engineering structures and traffic safety devices |
4,50 |
1,56 |
4,69 |
1,40 |
4,68 |
1,43 |
0,57 |
0,752 |
|
4. |
Difficulties exist in coordinating works carried out in the road lane
and related tasks |
2,91 |
1,28 |
3,31 |
1,30 |
3,64 |
1,43 |
4,69 |
0,096 |
|
5. |
Difficulties exist in maintaining road
records in the form of a road book |
3,46 |
2,01 |
3,73 |
1,9 |
3,95 |
1,56 |
1,17 |
0,556 |
|
6. |
Difficulties exist in carrying out periodic inspections of the
condition of roads and road engineering structures |
3,12 |
1,85 |
4,06 |
2,08 |
3,32 |
1,89 |
2,53 |
0,282 |
|
7. |
Difficulties exist in performing traffic engineering tasks |
3,33 |
1,59 |
4,00 |
1,37 |
3,42 |
1,26 |
3,24 |
0,198 |
|
8. |
Difficulties exist in performing the function of investor |
3,19 |
1,59 |
2,53 |
1,24 |
3,45 |
1,53 |
2,96 |
0,227 |
|
9. |
Difficulties exist in taking measures to reduce damage to roads by
road users |
4,28 |
1,73 |
4,37 |
1,68 |
4,67 |
1,35 |
0,64 |
0,726 |
|
10. |
Difficulties exist in taking measures to develop micromobility |
3,73 |
1,86 |
4,35 |
2,24 |
3,43 |
2,09 |
1,60 |
0,448 |
|
11. |
Difficulties exist in taking measures for road restrictions or
closures |
3,50 |
1,94 |
3,75 |
1,77 |
3,71 |
1,76 |
0,81 |
0,668 |
|
12. |
Difficulties exist in the implementation of measures related to the maintenance
of roadside greenery |
3,37 |
1,65 |
4,81 |
1,64 |
4,29 |
1,92 |
9,69 |
0,007** |
|
13. |
Difficulties exist in carrying out activities related to periodical
traffic measurement |
3,00 |
1,48 |
3,69 |
1,75 |
2,75 |
1,39 |
2,47 |
0,291 |
The representatives of ACCRs most frequently reported difficulties in providing
and maintaining efficient road pavements, engineering structures, and traffic
safety devices, as well as in taking measures to reduce road damage by road
users. The average ratings were, respectively: 4.68 and 4.67, with dominants of
5 and 4. In the former case, the percentage of affirmative declarations
exceeded 68%, while in the latter case it was 38%. It is worth noting that on
the issue of reducing road damage, the majority of respondents (52.4%)
preferred to give neutral answers ('neither yes nor no'), the opposite of the
first case, where the percentage was only 4.5%. Representatives of ACCRs relatively often declared difficulties occurring at
the stage of preparing draft plans for the development of the road network,
which may be due to the fact that they operate in an area with a more complex
structure of the road and traffic network. The average score on the 7-degree
scale oscillated between 4 and 5 with a dominant value of 6, which means that
the respondents most often gave a more decisive 'yes' answer (42.9%).
According to the declarations of the
AMR group, difficulties in managing road infrastructure most often occur at the
stage of obtaining funds for construction, reconstruction and repairs of the
road network and then ensuring its operational efficiency. The average scores
here were, respectively: 4.59 and 4.50, with dominants of 3 and 4. An analysis
of the frequency of responses shows that the percentage of affirmative
declarations was 51.8% in the first case, and 46.4% in the second. Relatively
often, respondents also reported difficulties occurring at the stage of
drafting road network development plans. The proportion of summed 'yes'
responses for this variable was 41.7% and neutral responses were 33.3%.
Analysing the data in Tab. 3,
it was noted that there were significant differences in responses between the
compared groups for one variable, i.e., the implementation of roadside greenery
maintenance activities. The analysis performed using the Kruskal-Wallis
test by ranks showed that this difference was highly statistically significant
(p<0.01). The test of intergroup comparisons showed that statistically
significant differences existed between ACR and AMR
authorities, with ACR being indicated far more frequently.
A noticeable difference was also observed for tasks related to the coordination
of works carried out in the road lane. It is apparent that ACCR respondents
more often declare the occurrence of difficulties in this regard than the
surveyed AMRs, although the differences in responses are not statistically
significant. ACR respondents, on the other hand, are
more likely than the other groups to struggle with problems during the
preparation of directions for the development of the road network. In this case,
the differences in declarations are also not statistically significant.
Fig. 3.
shows the results of the survey on the difficulties
indicated by the respondents in obtaining the information necessary for the
proper implementation of tasks. The average score in the ACR
group was 2.25 and in the AMR group it was 2.65, which indicates that there are
no barriers to accessing information in both cases. The situation in the ACCR
group is somewhat different. There, the average score was 4.00, and more than
27% of respondents admitted that they face a problem in their work in the form
of insufficient information. The differences in ratings between ACCR and AMR,
as well as ACCR and ACR were found to be highly
statistically significant (p<0.01). Statistical analysis also indicated a
significant positive correlation between the frequency of difficulties
occurring on the side of access to information and those occurring in the area
of implementation of periodic traffic measurement activities (Spearman's rho
coefficient = 0.238*, p<0.05).
Road
administrators AMR ACR
ACCR
Fig. 3. Difficulties
in obtaining information in the opinion of ZDG, ZDP and ZDM
Fig. 4.
shows the results of the survey on the extent of
decision-making powers in the area of road network management. The average
score for the ACCR group was 3.18 and for the ACR
group was 3.63. In both cases, therefore, the results fell below the middle of
the scale (4), indicating that in both units not all decisions related to road
infrastructure management are always made. AMR respondents are more convinced
of self-determination in terms of decision-making. The average score here was
5.10, thus being above the 'rather yes' answer. The percentage of respondents
who were of the opinion that all decisions regarding the road network are made
in their unit exceeded 74%. This compares with 37.6% in the ACR
group and 27.3% in the ACCR group. The differences in assessments between AMR
and ACCR proved to be highly statistically significant (p<0.01) and between
AMR and ACR — statistically significant
(p<0.05).
The results
of the study showed that the individual road administrators differed
non-significantly in their assessment of how decisions are made regarding the
road infrastructure under management. In this case, the average ratings ranged
from 3.25 for ACR to 3.95 for ACCR. Thus, it can be
assumed that ACCRs were slightly more likely to admit
that there is a dominance of an administrator with one-person decision-making
in their unit. The percentage of affirmative declarations was 42.1% in the ACCR
group and was more than 8.0% higher than in the AMR, and more than 17% higher
than in the ACR. However, the differences between the
types proved to be statistically insignificant (p>0.05).
AMR ACR ACCR Road
administrators
Fig. 4. Difficulties
in obtaining information in the opinion of ZDG, ZDP and ZDM
6. CONCLUSIONS
Road infrastructure management is a
highly complex issue, as confirmed by both literature studies and empirical
research carried out. In practice, it requires a high level of management
competence, skills in data acquisition, analysis and processing, a significant
resource commitment and considerable capacity required to maintain the desired
condition of road assets while achieving cost efficiency. To make sound
decisions, as jointly noted by experts from FHWA (The
Federal Highway Administration) and AASHTO (American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials), traditional
management methods are not sufficient [5]. In this context, it is worth citing
the opinion of T. Adey et al., who, based on intervention
theory, point out that decisions related to road infrastructure should be made
taking into account the service nature of the road and the impact it has on the
activities of its users [1]. Our own research seems to confirm that the right
direction for local authority road administrators is the concept of proactive
management.
The research shows that the vast
majority of road administrations' representatives, to a greater or lesser
extent, are struggling with difficulties related to the road infrastructure
they manage. In the analysed population, on average, each respondent declared
the existence of more than four difficulties related to the implementation of
the object of activity, marking at least in several cases answers above the
middle of the scale, thus, to some extent agreeing with the statements
confirming the existence of inconveniences in the given management area. The
above may lead to a situation in which the activity of administrators, due to
the obstacles encountered, is performed in a manner far from the expected
results. These conclusions are confirmed by the results of a study of the
technical condition of local government roads in the Świętokrzyskie
Voivodeship, which shows that a significant
proportion of road administrators did not fulfil all of their obligations
specified by law [20].
The results of the research indicate
that difficulties in providing and maintaining an efficient road network
pavement, as well as challenges related to the development of draft financing
plans for the construction, reconstruction and renovation of the road network,
are currently the most common management problems among the surveyed local
government units. These results are not surprising if we consider that these
tasks are closely related to each other and are an important focus of the
activities analysed. It should be borne in mind that the activity of
administrators related to the maintenance of efficient road infrastructure, due
to its high resource consumption, requires considerable financial outlays,
which the surveyed units most often do not have at their disposal. The above
statement is moreover confirmed by a considerable number of the survey
participants, who consider the lack of financial means for statutory tasks as
the main reason for their problems. It can be expected that this problem will
only grow in the coming years, taking into account the current problems of the
financial management of local government units, including the risk of
withholding EU funds for co-financing investments in the new financial
perspective.
The results of the research do not
allow us to accept the hypothesis of the existence of significant differences
between the surveyed administrators with regard to the difficulties related to
the implementation of statutory activities. The lack of statistical
significance of intergroup differences was noted in the vast majority of
measurements. Clear differences only occurred in the number of difficulties
reported, which was higher among AMR and ACR members
than ACCR members, and in the area related to the implementation of roadside
greenery maintenance activities, which was more onerous for ACR.
It is difficult to explain both differences unequivocally; nevertheless, it
seems that the picture emerging from the research can be partly explained by
the specificity of the functioning of the AMR and ACR
bodies, which are characterised by a simpler form of work organisation, as well
as a lack of adequate human resources. Partial confirmation of this thesis can
be found in the statement of the mayor of the municipality of Wodzisław, who pointed to frequent rotation in the
positions related to road construction and maintenance in the office and the
staff not having the appropriate authority as the main cause of irregularities
in the management of the road network [17]. The research shows that the number
of employees in AMR is much lower than the number of employees in ACCR, the
degree of autonomy and decision-making powers in these units may therefore be
much higher than in the other cases.
The results of the research indicate
that in one in three of the surveyed units, the management of road
infrastructure is carried out in an authoritarian manner, i.e., one
characterised by directive team leadership and the dominance of the supervisor
in the form of individual decision-making. Although the results of the present
study did not show a relationship between the scales relating to team
performance and the difficulty of carrying out statutory activities, many
examples of the negative impact of authoritarian leadership on business
performance can be found in the literature [13, 4, 6].
At the same time, the majority of respondents acknowledge that all decisions
related to road infrastructure management are made in the organisational units
where they are employed.
References
1.
Adey Bryan T., Marcel
Burkhalter, Claudio Martani. 2020.
“Defining road service to facilitate road infrastructure asset
management”. Infrastructure Asset
Management 7(4): 240-255. ISSN: 2053-0242. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1680/jinam.18.00045.
2.
Akofio-Sowah Margaret-Avis, Adjo Amekudzi Kennedy. 2014.
“A Critical Review of Performance-Based Transportation Asset Management
in United States Transportation Policy”. IRF Examiner Road Asset Management 2: 6-10.
3.
Asian Development
Bank. 2018. Compendium of Best Practices
in Road Asset Management. Mandaluyong City: ADB. ISBN: 9292610686.
4.
Bhatti Nadeem,
Ghulam Murtza Maitlo,
Naveed Shaikh, Muhammad Aamir Hashmi, Faiz. M. Shaikh. 2012. “The Impact of Autocratic and
Democratic Leadership Style on Job Satisfaction”. International Business Research 5(2): 192-201. ISSN: 1913-9004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v5n2p192.
5.
FHWA. “The AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide – A
Focus on Implementation”. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif13047.pdf.
6.
Foels Rob, James E. Driskell, Brian Mullen, Eduardo Salas. 2016. “The
Effects of Democratic Leadership on Group Member Satisfaction: An
Integration”. Small Group Research
31(6): 676-701. ISSN: 1046-4964. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100603.
7.
Galehouse Larry, James S. Moulthrop, Gary R. Hicks. 2003. “Principles of
Pavement Preservation”. TR News 228: 4-9.
ISSN: 0738-6826.
8.
Glasson Jason.
2017. Implementation quide
for an ISO 55001 asset management system. A practical approach for the
roads sector in Europe. Brussels: CEDR.
9.
Gołembska
Elżbieta. 2010. Kompendium wiedzy o
logistyce. Warsaw: PWN. ISBN: 9788301163419.
[In Polish: A Compendium of
Logistics knowledge].
10. GOV. „PLN 2.73 billion from the Government Road
Construction Fund (GRCF) for co-financing the
construction, reconstruction and renovation of district and municipal
roads”. Available at:
https://www.gov.pl/web/primeminister/pln-273-billion-from-the-government-road-construction-fund-grcf-for-co-financing-the-construction-reconstruction-and-renovation-of-district-and-municipal-roads.
11. Griffin Ricky W. 2004. Podstawy
zarządzania organizacjami. Warsaw: PWN. ISBN: 9788301194802. [In Polish: Fundamentals of organization management].
12. Kenleya Russell, Toby Harfielda, Juliana Bedggooda. 2014. “Road Asset Management: the role of
location in mitigating extreme flood maintenance”. Procedia Economics and Finance 18: 198-205. ISSN: 2212-5671. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00931-9.
13. Khan Muhammad Saqib, Irfanullah Khan, Qamar Afaq
Qureshi, Hafiz Muhammad Ismail, Hamid Rauf, Abdul Latif, Muhammad Tahir. 2015.
“The Styles of Leadership: A Critical Review”. Public Policy and Administration Research
5(3): 87-92. ISSN: 2224-5731.
14. Krupski
Rafał. 2004. Podstawy organizacji i
zarządzania. Wałbrzych: WWSZiP. ISBN: 83-85773-67-3. [In Polish: Fundamentals of
organization and management].
15. Link Heike, John S. Dodgson, Markus Maibach, Max Herry. 1999. The Costs of Road Infrastructure and
Congestion in Europe. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
ISBN: 9780307908-1201-5. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-58660-6_4.
16.
Neider Janusz. 2008. Transport międzynarodowy. Warsaw: PWE. ISBN: 978-83-208-2334-9. [In Polish: International
transport].
17. NIK.
„Zapewnienie właściwego stanu technicznego dróg
samorządowych w województwie świętokrzyskim”. Available at: https://www.nik.gov.pl/kontrole/P/20/064/LKI/.
[ In Polish: “Ensuring the proper technical
condition of local government roads in the Świętokrzyskie
Voivodship”].
18. Osman Hesham. 2012.
“Agent-based simulation of urban infrastructure asset management
activities”. Automation in
Construction 28: 45-57. ISSN: 0926-5805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.06.004.
19. Pawlik Andrzej . 2018. „Konkurencyjność miast na
prawach powiatu województw wschodniej Polski”. Biuletyn KZPK PAN 272: 161-173. ISSN: 0079-3493. [In Polish:
“Competitiveness of cities with poviat rights
in voivodships of eastern Poland”].
20. Sejm.
„Sprawozdanie o stanie mienia Skarbu Państwa – stan na
dzień 31 grudnia 2020 r., Prezes Prokuratorii Generalnej Rzeczypospolitej
Polskiej”. Available at:
https://www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm9.nsf/druk.xsp?documentId=7E6260BD9AE08966C125881C003CD914&SessionID=3231618EC87446F000766BCC534636F4304872F4.
[In Polish: “State Treasury Assets Report - as at 31 December 2020,
President of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Poland].
21. Ustawa z dnia 7
lipca 1994 r. Prawo budowlane (Dz. U. 1994 Nr 89 poz. 414). [In Polish: Act of July 7, 1994. Construction Law (Dz. U. 1994 Nr 89 poz. 414)].
22. Zofka Adam.
2018. “Proactive pavement asset management with climate change
aspects”. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and
Engineering 356: 012005. ISSN: 1757-8981. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/356/1/012005.
23. Zofka Adam. 2019. Proaktywna strategia zarządzania
elementami infrastruktury drogowej. Warsaw: IBDiM. ISBN: 978-83-89252-29-6. [In
Polish: Proactive strategy for road asset
management].
Received 10.11.2022; accepted in revised form 28.01.2023
Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License