Guidance

Methodology used to calculate ratings for local road maintenance

Published 11 January 2026

Applies to England

Local highways authorities are responsible for maintaining local roads in England. They are required to publish information about how they are maintaining their roads.

The Department for Transport analyses this information and:

• rates how well each authority is maintaining its roads - red, amber or green
• publishes a table showing how each authority is performing

Thus guidance gives a detailed technical explanation of how the department calculates the metrics to work out the performance ratings.

See this GOV.UK page for the local road maintenance ratings.

Overview

Every local highway authority in England has received a ratings for each of these 4 elements:

• condition, based on the local highway authority’s road condition
• spend, based on how much money a local highway authority spends on highways maintenance
• best practice, based on how well the local highway authority follows best practices in highways maintenance
• overall, based on all the aspects outlined above

The ratings range from green (highest) through amber to red (lowest).

To work out the ratings for each local highway authority, 11 numeric metrics were calculated. These were then used to work out a numeric score for each of:

• condition
• spend
• best practice
• overall

Table 1 outlines how the 11 metrics contribute to the numeric scores for each scorecard element. All 11 metrics contribute to the overall numeric score.

Table 1 - what the metrics measure and the scorecard element they count towards

Metric	What it measures	Which scorecard element it counts towards
1	Condition of A roads	Condition
2	Condition of B and C roads	Condition
3	Condition of U roads	Condition
4	How much of a local highway authority’s maintenance spend was spent on preventative maintenance, rather than reactive maintenance, as a percentage	Best practice
5a	The percentage of red-rated roads that a local highway authority plans to resurface in the financial year ending 2026	Best practice
5b	The percentage of green and amber-rated roads that a local highway authority plans to apply preventative treatment to in the financial year ending 2026	Best practice
6	How much capital funding a local highway authority plans to spend on highways maintenance in the financial year ending 2026, compared to their allocation from Highways Maintenance Block	Spend
7	Whether a local highway authority has plans to adopt innovation, such as innovative technologies in highways maintenance	Best practice
8	Whether a local highway authority has plans to minimise disruption caused by street or road works	Best practice
9	Whether a local highway authority has plans to decarbonise its maintenance operations and increase climate resilience	Best practice
10	Whether a local highway authority has plans to maintain footways or cycleways	Best practice

After combining the 11 metrics into 4 numeric scores, thresholds were applied to turn the numeric score into a rating.

Table 2 - how the score thresholds were applied for condition, spend and best practice

Numeric score threshold	Rating
From 0 up to 45	Red
From 45 up to 80	Amber
From 80 up to 100	Green

To turn the overall numeric score into an overall rating, different thresholds were used, as shown in Table 3. The threshold for achieving amber on the overall rating is slightly higher than for the scorecards, to reflect that a good standard of performance across all 3 scorecards is needed to achieve an amber overall rating.

Table 3 - overall numeric score thresholds

Overall numeric score threshold	Rating
From 0 up to 50	Red
From 50 up to 80	Amber
From 80 up to 100	Green

How numeric scores were worked out and turned into ratings

This section explains how numeric scores were produced for each of the metrics that make up the overall rating and the scorecards for condition, spend, and best practice.

The data sources for all numeric scores and metrics are outlined in the Data sources section.

Condition scorecard

The condition rating is based on a numeric score that was calculated using 3 metrics.

The 3 metrics used to calculate the condition score were:

• metric 1, the condition of A roads
• metric 2, the condition of B and C roads
• metric 3, the condition of U roads

These metrics were then combined, with each metric given a weighting of 33.3 recurring percent (one third), to produce a numeric score for the condition rating.

This numeric score was then compared to the score thresholds set out in the previous section, to produce a red, amber or green rating.

Condition metrics

Metric 1 (the condition of A roads) and metric 2 (the condition of B and C roads) were calculated using the same steps:

• plus 1 point for every percent of green-rated road
• plus 0.5 points for every percent of amber-rated road
• minus 1 point for every percent of red-rated road

Metric 3 (the condition of U roads) was calculated using the following thresholds:

• 100 points if 0% of roads are red-rated
• 80 points if 10% of roads are red-rated
• 45 points if 20% of roads are red-rated
• 0 points if 35% or more of roads are red-rated

Between these defined points, the score changes linearly. For example, if 5% of a local authority’s U road network is red-rated, then their score would be 90, halfway between 100 and 80.

Metrics 1, 2 and 3 have a minimum score of 20, so scores below 20 were increased. If a local highway authority was not able to provide road condition data for A, B and C and/or U roads for either of the 2 most recent years, then they were given a score of 20 for the relevant metrics.

Spend scorecard

The spend rating is based on the numeric score for metric 6. Metric 6 is the only metric that counts towards the spend rating.

Metric 6 is calculated as follows.

1) Work out how much capital a local highway authority plans to invest into highways maintenance in the financial year ending 2026, compared to their Highways Maintenance Block allocation for the financial year ending 2026, as a percentage:

Capital spend on highways maintenance divided by Highways Maintenance Block allocation, multiplied by 100

2) Define score thresholds using the percentages for all local highway authorities.

Find the median spend percentage for local highway authorities outside of London and City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS) areas. For the financial year ending 2026 this median spend percentage rounds to 130%.

Find the 75th percentile of spend percentages for local highway authorities outside of London and CRSTS areas. For the financial year ending 2026 the 75th percentile spend percentage rounds to 200%.

Find the maximum spend percentage for any local highway authority. For the financial year ending 2026, this maximum spend percentage was 6,930%.

3) Convert the percentage for each local highway authority into a numeric score, by comparing to the following thresholds:

• 0 points if the percentage is 90% or less
• 45 points if the percentage is 99.5%
• 80 points if the percentage is 130%
• 90 points if the percentage is 200%
• 100 points if the percentage is 6,930%

Between these defined points, the scores move linearly.

The metric 6 numeric score was then compared against the score thresholds set out previously, to produce a red, amber or green rating for spend.

Best practice scorecard

The best practice rating is based on a numeric score that was calculated using 3 numeric metrics and 4 binary (yes/no) metrics.

The 3 numeric metrics that count toward the best practice score are:

• metric 4 - how much of a local highway authority’s maintenance spend was planned to be spent on preventative maintenance, rather than reactive maintenance, as a percentage
• metric 5a - the length of carriageway that that a local highway authority plans to resurface in the financial year ending 2026, as a percentage of its red-rated road network
• metric 5b - the length of carriageway that a local highway authority plans to apply preventative road surface treatments to in the financial year ending 2026, as a percentage of its green and amber-rated road network

The 4 binary (yes/no) metrics that also affect the best practice score are:

• metric 7 – whether a local highway authority has plans to adopt innovation, such as innovative technologies in highways maintenance
• metric 8 – whether a local highway authority has plans to minimise disruption caused by street or road works
• metric 9 – whether a local highway authority has plans to decarbonise and increase climate resilience
• metric 10 – whether a local highway authority has plans to maintain footways or cycleways

For the 4 binary metrics, if the local highway authority provided evidence for the metric in their transparency report, their score remained unchanged. Five points were taken away from the best practice score for each metric where a local highway authority did not provide evidence.

The best practice numeric score was then compared to the score thresholds set out previously, to produce a red, amber or green rating.

Best practice metrics 

Metric 4 (how much of a local highway authority’s maintenance spend was planned to be spent on preventative maintenance, rather than reactive maintenance) was calculated using the following thresholds: 

• 100 points if 84% or more of the maintenance spend was planned to be spent on preventative maintenance 

• 0 points if 0% of the maintenance spend was planned to be spent on preventative maintenance 

Between these two defined points, the score changes linearly. 

Metric 5a (the length of carriageway that that a local highway authority plans to resurface in the financial year ending 2026, as a percentage of its red-rated road network) was calculated using the following thresholds:

• 100 points if the length of carriageway to be resurfaced makes up 33% or more of the red-rated road network 

• 95 points if the length of carriageway to be resurfaced makes up 20% of the red-rated road network 

• 80 points if the length of carriageway to be resurfaced makes up 10% of the red-rated road network 

• 45 points if the length of carriageway to be resurfaced makes up 5% of the red-rated road network 

• 0 points if the length of carriageway to be resurfaced makes up 0% of the red-rated road network

Between these defined points, the score changes linearly. 

Resurfacing activities are considered irrespective of whether they take place on the red, amber or green-rated part of the carriageway, but the metric compares the length of carriageway resurfaced against the length of the red-rated network.

Metric 5b (the length of carriageway that a local highway authority plans to apply preventative road surface treatments to in the financial year ending 2026, as a percentage of its green and amber rated road network) was calculated using the following thresholds:

• 100 points if the length of carriageway to receive preventative road surface treatments makes up 10% or more of the green and amber-rated road network 

• 90 points if the length of carriageway to receive preventative road surface treatments makes up 5% of the green and amber-rated road network 

• 80 points if the length of carriageway to receive preventative road surface treatments makes up 4% of the green and amber-rated road network 

• 45 points if the length of carriageway to receive preventative road surface treatments makes up 1% of the green and amber-rated road network 

• 0 points if the length of carriageway to receive preventative road surface treatments makes up 0% of the green and amber-rated road network

Between these defined points, the score changes linearly. For example, if a local authority planned to apply preventative maintenance to 4.5% of their green and amber-rated roads, then their score would be 85, halfway between 80 and 90. 

Guidance on preventative road surface treatments is available through the Local Government Association. 

For metrics 5a and 5b, some local highway authorities have not provided road condition data and so the length of their red, amber and/or green-rated network could not be calculated. In these cases, the percentage of network to be resurfaced or receive preventative maintenance was instead worked out using the whole local highways authority’s road network length. 

Metrics 5a and 5b both have a minimum score of 20, so scores below 20 were raised for all local highway authorities, including those where road condition data was missing.

Overall rating

The overall rating is based on a numeric score that was calculated using all 11 metrics. The metrics were calculated in the same way as for the other scorecard elements, as described in the previous sections.

The 7 numeric metrics were combined into one score using the following weightings:

• metrics 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a and 5b were given a weighting of 11.1 recurring percent (one ninth)
• metric 6 was given a weighting of 33.3 recurring percent (one third)

This score was then adjusted for metrics 7, 8, 9, and 10. These are 4 yes/no metrics relating to different areas of best practice in highways maintenance. For each of these 4 metrics, if a local highway authority provided evidence supporting the area of best practice, their score remained unchanged. Five points were taken away from the score for each metric where a local highway authority did not provide evidence.

The overall numeric score was then compared to the score thresholds set out previously, to produce a red, amber or green rating.

Local highway authorities where data was not applicable

An adjusted approach was taken for some local highway authorities. Where the data used to work out the numeric scores is not available because it is not applicable for these local highway authorities, the relevant metrics were not calculated. The weightings for the other metrics were adjusted so that the ratings are still comparable across local highway authorities.

For Birmingham, Sheffield and the Isle of Wight, metric 6 (how much capital funding a local highway authority plans to spend in 2025/26 on highways maintenance compared to their Highways Maintenance Block allocation) was not calculated and no spend rating has been produced. This is because these local highway authorities have private finance initiative arrangements in place that cover their highways maintenance activity, and so they have limited ability to adjust their spending on a year-to-year basis.

Metric 2 (the condition of B and C roads) was not calculated for the Isles of Scilly.

Metrics 2 and 3 (the condition of B and C roads, and the condition of U roads) were not calculated for Transport for London.

Data sources

Metrics 1, 2 and 3

In most cases, these metrics were worked out using road condition statistics. The most recent available figure from the financial years ending 2023 or 2024 was used.

Where DfT official statistics were unavailable for the financial years ending 2023 or 2024, figures from the 2025/26 highways maintenance transparency reports published by local highway authorities were used.

Metric 4

Estimated percentages of capital spent on preventative and reactive maintenance were taken from transparency reports. These are projected estimates for the financial year ending 2026.

In a small number of cases, adjustments were made to scale the provided percentage so that it was out of 100, or the percentage was not provided but could be calculated using other spend-related information in the transparency reports.

Metrics 5a and 5b

Projected lengths of roads to be resurfaced or to receive preventative treatment in the financial year ending 2026 were taken from transparency reports, where this data was provided. Where it was not provided, local highway authorities were contacted and asked to provide this data.

The complete resurfacing and preventative treatment dataset that was used for these metrics is available as an Excel file on this webpage.

To calculate the total length of red, amber and green rated road in each local highway authority, road length statistics were used alongside the road condition statistics used for metrics 1, 2 and 3. In most cases, road length statistics from 2022 were used, as this was the most recent year with separate data for C and U roads.

Metric 6

Projected capital spend on highways maintenance for the financial year ending 2026 was taken from the 2025/26 highways maintenance transparency reports published by local highway authorities. Where unavailable from transparency reports, forecasts for capital expenditure in the financial year ending 2026 on structural maintenance were used instead from the forecast estimates of local authority capital expenditure and financing for 2025 to 2026.

Funding allocation figures are based on Highways Maintenance Block (HMB) allocations published by DfT in January 2025. Other sources of funding were not included.

For local highway authorities that are within combined authorities, individual allocations were not published. Instead, the individual allocations were combined to produce a total, which was paid to the combined authority. For the purposes of the scorecard, the individual allocation was used, unless a local highway authority confirmed how much they were allocated by their combined authority.

Metrics 7, 8, 9 and 10

Evidence of plans to support 4 areas of best practice was taken from local highway authority transparency reports.