MAV Asset/Transport Management Forum 26 February 2015

Agenda Regional Road Groups Heavy Vehicles: VicRoads/NHVR Consistent data standards: cloud storage RMA CoP Draft Public transport CoP NAMAF/rate capping Trees Telstra Arterial Road maintenance Other

Regional Road Groups

Background Last decade: Freight needs greater productivity Better access (including first and last Km) Effective road investment and maximise network efficiency 2006: COAG establishes Road Reform Group (later known as HVCI): plan and fund HV 2012: HVCI 2014: NHVR commenced operation on February 10 (HVNL = LG responsible for local road access): system problems April 2014: Heavy Vehicle Road Reform (simpler approach) July 2014: Productivity Commission report on public infrastructure July 2014 Infrastructure Australia report: road expenditure in Australia is notoriously inefficient Urgent need for overhaul: need reform for better decision-making The future is regional

PC Establish regional road funds ($ from G3 & industry) and allocate according to regional priorities Seek debt funding Collective procurement, mtce, construction Skills sharing Queensland Roads Alliance & WA RRGs examples: prioritise works, allocate funding

HVRR: Min. Transport Infrastructure Committee Initial steps Simpler model Need consistent data analysis process Regional road asset registers (ARRB) and condition vs service levels (Not condition of road: have we got the right road?) Road usage data (demand forecasting) Regional HV expenditure plans (consistent)

R2R? Regional Strategic Freight Component? Demonstration projects: LG Associations input projects Criteria From Regional Freight Strategy Support from industry Start 2015/16

Closing the gap LoS B A

MAV meeting of Councils (December 2013) Victoria needs to establish RRGs: prioritised regional works program R2R needs to continue Utilise existing groups and regions as much as possible Need for strong asset management skills and consistent AM processes and formats Involve VicRoads and industry RRGs do not need to be legal entities

RRGs: Regions

Regional Road Groups Coord. Comm. Hume RTG Central Murray RTF Gippsland RC Wimmera Region TG Lower Loddon Mallee RG G21 RRG Central Highlands Region Great South Coast RRG SE Metro Western Melbourne Eastern Melbourne Reg. Freight Group VicRoads NHVR

Heavy vehicle access applications: seeking feedback from Councils % applications contain the necessary information to enable Councils to make a decision Level of satisfaction with HV ‘system’

Arterial Road maintenance Distressed road length: C roads 2003/4: 440kms 2012/13: 1085kms

Regional Road Groups

Road Transport Funding Over time general purpose road funding will decline and more funding will become targeted to achieving measurable benefits Allocated to regional priorities focused on improving the transport network Regional focus to get maximum benefit for investment Moving away from specific Council centric projects Evidence Productivity Commission – Inefficiencies identified, form Regional Road Funds National heavy vehicle reform – targeted funding to improve the freight task Infrastructure Australia report – Efficiencies required, LG can do it better Country Roads and Bridges fund (??) – looking for measurable benefits

Productivity Commission report on Public Infrastructure Urgent need for overhaul Need reform for better decision-making Roads Need link between revenue and expenditure Need alternative models Need new road funds and regional road management Need more integrated approach Allocation of funds: Cost Benefit (new) Community Service Obligation Formula (maintenance)

Heavy Vehicle Charging Need to plan and deliver one network Victoria is the only State not to have RRGs (identifying regional road priorities) Need to establish Regional Road Groups Hume region leading the way: regional freight strategy with ranked works priorities: now others doing similar work

Road Funding Flow Traditional Moving Towards Federal Federal State Local Regional General purpose funding Council specific projects Local Greater benefits obtained by allocating funding at a regional level to priority projects New works – CBA Maintenance - CSO

Draft Statement of Intent Regional Road Groups are intended to ensure that VicRoads, the Victorian State Government and Local Governments work co-operatively on areas of mutual interest to provide a robust road and transport network across Victoria.

Draft Goals (What are we trying to achieve?) Establishment of a formal Regional Road Management Group structure To develop regional prioritised capital investment programs to improve the road network for the benefit of users based on a consistent common state wide set of assessment criteria To use the regional programs to support funding application to State and Federal government To facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing between road managers across the state. Transparency and integrity of decisions within and between Regional Road Groups. Develop consistent data standards and frameworks

Draft Strategic Framework Regional Strategic Plan Regional Transport Strategy Council Transport Strategy Regional Freight Strategy and/or Regional Road Plan

Current Plans & Strategies Central Highlands Regional Strategic Plan (2010) Central Murray Regional Transport Study (2011) Freight Futures – Victorian Freight Network Strategy (2008) Gippsland Transport Strategy (2008) Greater Green Triangle Region – Freight Action Plan (2009) Growth Areas Plans (2010 - 13) Hume Corridor Regional Transport Strategy (2009) Hume Regional Passenger and Freight Rail Review (2011) Northern Victoria Regional Transport Strategy (2009) SEATS Strategic Network (2007) South Eastern Transport Strategy (2010) South West Regional Transport Plan (2006) Timber Industry Road Evaluation Study (TIRES) (2011) Western Melbourne Transport Strategy (2012) Wimmera Regional Transport Plan (2005) Others??

Draft Governance Model Councils in Region VicRoads Regional Road Groups Coordination Committee Regional Road Groups Regional Road Group Technical Committee MAV Project Team

Draft Responsibilities of RRCC The Coordination Committee is responsible for: Knowledge sharing between the Groups Development of common frameworks and tools Planning frameworks Data standards Assessment criteria Information platforms Others Overseeing the development and operation of a state-wide information system

Sharing Information - Data Capture What do we need? Which Roads What Information Location and basic information Geometry Classification/Hierarchy – Strategic Importance Asset Management Criteria Traffic Volumes Serviceability How do we Capture, Store and Share information?

Common & Consistent Evaluation Criteria VicRoads five criteria are: Productivity and Economic Growth Community Health and Wellbeing Road Safety Environmental Sustainability Value for Money

Other Benefits Regional Road Asset Registers based on service rather than condition (ie are we investing in the right road?) Regional heavy vehicle expenditure plans Identification of regional freight networks Development of regional forward works programs (4~5 years) Common asset management standards and practices (standard road condition assessment processes) Increased collective procurement Skills sharing

Serviceability Level of Service Distance along Route Above Desired Class 1 Freight Route Road Dimensions 2 lane x 7.6m seal 1.0m wide sealed shoulders Maximum vehicle loading GML – 62.5 t HML – 68 t Rest Stops Every 100 km Heavy Vehicle Design Speed Min - 80km/h Heavy Vehicle Volumes >= 30 hvpd Above Level of Service Desired Unsealed Shoulder Single sealed lane Bridge load restrictions Below Start End Distance along Route

RRGs: Regions

Information Needs

Information Needs Common: Information Platform Data frameworks Assessment criteria Evaluation criteria Reporting Frameworks Information Platform Integrity Transparent

Possible Data Sets Data Item Data Sourced Source Road location and basic information Name, start, end, location GIS and AM System Road locations based in VicMap Road geometry (high level) length, seal width, pavement width, surface type, number of lanes, GIS, AM System , Road Register Classification/Hierarchy Strategic, Link, Collector, Industrial, Access, Unformed GIS, AM System & Road Register Asset Management Criteria Replacement cost, average useful life, intervention level AM System, Road Register & Road Management Plan Condition Road Condition AM System Serviceability ?? RAT Tool Cost/Benefit criteria

Current Data - VGC

Current Data - VGC

Data and Information Sharing

Improvement Opportunities Common Approach by Regional Road Groups Common Data Sets Levels of Service Processes to identify Regional Priorities Regional Freight Networks Cost Benefit Analysis Performance Measurement Consistent Reporting Common standards in asset management and processes to identify regional priorities Regional road asset registers (ARRB) and condition vs service levels (Not condition of road: have we got the right road?) Regional HV expenditure plans  (consistent) Identify regional freight network  (regional freight strategy) Develop projected regional works programs and expenditures (4-5 years) Develop regional road (freight) asset management plans Develop process to rank regional ranked works priorities, cost-benefit analysis Collective procurement, maintenance, construction Skills sharing

Code of practice for the management of Infrastructure on Road Reserves

Main Changes Works affecting public transport Consent for works Reinstatement Works conducted in an “Emergency” Works Management Allocation of Utility space in road reserves Obsolete non-road infrastructure Design standard inclusions

Code of Practice - Operational Responsibility for Public Roads Public Transport

Progress Most issues resolved – Public Transport (trams) remains outstanding Principle - Public Transport is not the responsibility of Local Government. MAV position paper developed Advocating strongly on this issue

National Asset Management Assessment Framework (NAMAF)

NAMAF

NAMAF Progress

Asset Management & Rate Capping

Council Finances

Local Government Rates Rates Raised 2014/15 $,000 2017/18 Annualised Increase Total $4,882,038 $5,823,076 6.05% Rate Capping (@2.5%) – results in a total rate revenue reduction of ~$1,921 M over forward four years

Local Government Salaries Average Salary increase next 4 years (pa) 3.43% Salary cost as a percentage of Rate Income 62.8% Rate Increase required to cover Salary Increases (pa) 2.16%

Capital Works 2014/15 Budget ($,000) Capital Works Renewal $1,035,100 New, Upgrade, Expansion $1,231,645 Total Capital Works $2,266,745 Property Plant and Equipment $73,619,954 Depreciation $1,263,572 Depreciation Rate 1.72% Operations & Maintenance Costs 1.20% Additional Expense - New CW Depreciation $21,139 Additional Expense - New CW O & M $14,780 Percentage of Rates – New Cap Works 0.74% Total Percentage of Rates – New Cap Works & Sal 2.86%

Strategic Service Framework What are the community outcomes Council wants to achieve? VISION SERVICES ASSETS What services are required to meet the vision? What assets are required to support the services? What is the management regime for assets and services? MANAGEMENT 52

Service and Financial Management Framework COUNCIL PLAN Financial Sustainability Service Management Service Strategies Strategic Resource Plan Service Plans Long Term Financial Plan Service Operations Capital Works (New, Upgrade, Expansion) Capital Works Evaluation Capital Works Program Asset Management AMP (Roads) AMP (Drainage) Capital Works (Renewal) AMP (Buildings) Infrastructure Operations & Maintenance AMP (Bridges) AMP (Open Space)

Service Planning Fit Financial Sustainability Service Management COUNCIL PLAN Financial Sustainability Service Management Service Strategies Strategic Resource Plan Service Planning Service Plan Reviews Long Term Financial Plan Service Comparative Choice Evaluation Service Summaries Service Operations Capital Works (New, Upgrade, Expansion) Capital Works Evaluation Capital Works Program Asset Management AMP (Roads) AMP (Drainage) Capital Works (Renewal) AMP (Buildings) Infrastructure Operations & Maintenance AMP (Bridges) AMP (Open Space)

Service Planning/Review Summarize details of all current Services Define current Levels and Cost of Services Prepare draft LTFP Review capital works and services cost impact on LTFP Assess financial sustainability of current Services Stage 1 - Current Position Review alignment of current services with community needs Internal review of the Levels of Service for each Service Develop comparative options to improve alignment Stage 2 - Options Community and customer engagement on comparative choice options between services and within services Identify services for review Resolve associated affordability tradeoffs Stage 3 - Consultation Document revised Levels of Service Stage 4 - Revised Levels of Service Review efficiency of service delivery for each service Revise Operations Plan for each Service Train staff on new programs and processes Stage 5 - Prepare to Implement Develop performance indicators to monitor changed Levels of Service and performance Communicate changes to the community and service customers Implement new service levels Stage 6 - Implementation

SCORING ASSESSMENT - Community

Target Services for Delivery Review Possible Actions Desired Outcome Action Target Services for Delivery Review   Decrease service costs Discontinue service Very low community benefit Identify efficiency gains (no change to level of service) High cost services with numerous, complex processes Identify over-servicing (decrease the level of service) Council service delivery exceeds community needs Align council service delivery with community needs Identify under-servicing (increase the level of service) Council service delivery does not meet community needs

Service Review Framework Project Set Up Data Gathering Analysis Developing Recommendations Implementing Change Evaluating and Reporting

Benchmarking

Useful Life – Rural Pavement

Useful Life - Urban Pavement

Useful Life - Urban Pavement

Unit Rate – Spray Seal

End