Presentation Title Here


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Presentation Title Here

  1. 1. Local Government Roads
  2. 2. Local Government Roads <ul><li>ROMAN I </li></ul><ul><li>Current business processes </li></ul><ul><li>ROMAN II </li></ul><ul><li>Proposed business processes </li></ul><ul><li>Data issues </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion </li></ul>Outline
  3. 3. Local Government Roads <ul><li>Widely used across LG over a long period of time </li></ul><ul><li>Has evolved over several iterations but no longer being developed </li></ul><ul><li>Started as a pavement management system </li></ul><ul><li>Expanded into a road asset management system </li></ul><ul><li>Data structure is cumbersome as a result </li></ul><ul><li>Limited spatial capability; limited access within each LG </li></ul><ul><li>Limited support and expertise now available </li></ul><ul><li>Data interchange with MRWA well established </li></ul>ROMAN I
  4. 4. Local Government Roads <ul><li>Pickup of new asset data is periodic (often spasmodic) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Often using external contractors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data recording practices inconsistent across LGs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Pickup of road condition is periodic (often spasmodic) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Usually using external contractors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Use of pavement management functions is varied across LG </li></ul><ul><li>Use of asset management functions is varied across LG </li></ul><ul><ul><li>eg Point items such as roundabouts </li></ul></ul>Current Business Processes - 1
  5. 5. Local Government Roads <ul><li>Minimum data dictated by Grants Commission requirements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on road hierarchy and length </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Database is transferred in toto to MRWA for updating of IRIS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>LG is unable to update during this time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MRWA cleanse the data and add spatial elements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Database is transferred in toto back to LG </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Responsibility for accuracy of information effectively with MRWA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Frequency dependant on LG and MRWA schedules </li></ul></ul>Current Business Processes - 2
  6. 6. Local Government Roads <ul><li>LG may not rely on ROMAN for financial information in GL </li></ul><ul><li>Limited resourcing and expertise assigned to road asset management </li></ul>Current Business Processes - 3
  7. 7. Local Government Roads <ul><li>Combination of RAMM from NZ and dTims from Canada </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation in second half of 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Well established systems with high capability </li></ul><ul><li>Good spatial capability (MapInfo based) </li></ul><ul><li>System being augmented to add MRWA network model </li></ul><ul><li>Data structures are better defined </li></ul><ul><li>Enable access across the LG </li></ul><ul><li>Most LG will use hosted option over internet </li></ul>ROMAN II
  8. 8. Local Government Roads <ul><li>Capacity for continuous updating of asset information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WALGA can mandate data fields be collected in a consistent manner </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Condition data pickup will continue to be periodic </li></ul><ul><li>MRWA will have continuous access for updating of IRIS </li></ul><ul><li>DEC will have continuous access for updating their roads </li></ul><ul><li>Potential for Landgate and others to access data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NOT in current licensing arrangements </li></ul></ul>Proposed Business Processes
  9. 9. Local Government Roads <ul><li>MRWA will not cleanse LG data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Responsibility for all data will clearly be with LG </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Responsibility for spatial elements will clearly be with LG </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Potential for other data interchange with MRWA and others </li></ul><ul><ul><li>eg traffic counts, accident data, heavy vehicle routes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Potential for linkage with R-Spec for as-constructed pickup of new roads </li></ul>Proposed Business Processes
  10. 10. Local Government Roads <ul><li>Road numbering </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inclusion of LGA number not ideal (amalgamations) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Road number allocation process – LG, MRWA, Landgate </li></ul><ul><li>Road name allocation process – Landgate, LG, MRWA </li></ul><ul><li>Discontinous roads with same name and multiple numbers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Old roads broken up </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New roads not fully constructed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Boundary roads </li></ul>Data Issues
  11. 11. Local Government Roads <ul><li>Inconsistency in the extent of current data capture </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Much may not be captured at all </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>eg point features – roundabouts, medians, islands </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>eg direction of travel, turning constraints </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Permanent features, never mind temporary changes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Roman II will improve data structure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Administrative, condition and treatment data kept separate </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Shift in responsibility from MRWA to LG </li></ul>Data Issues
  12. 12. Local Government Roads <ul><li>Lots of potential! </li></ul><ul><li>Lots of challenges! </li></ul><ul><li>Will require lots of patience! </li></ul>Conclusion