More Related Content
Similar to Building a case for improved road maintenance funding
Similar to Building a case for improved road maintenance funding (20)
More from Advisian
More from Advisian (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Building a case for improved road maintenance funding
- 1. www.advisian.com Wayne Sharpe Senior Associate, Advisian Building a case for improved road maintenance funding
- 2. Road infrastructure asset base is increasing Observations Level of maintenance funding remains static Majority of public asset owners don’t have an asset database Routine maintenance historically driven by engineering based specifications
- 3. Observations Periodic and rehab maintenance approach struggling Treasuries looking for certainty in maintenance funding level Impact of emerging and disruptive technologies unknown
- 4. Value of Asset Increasing vs Maintenance Spend (Vic) $250 $260 $270 $280 $290 $300 $310 $320 $330 $340 $27,100 $27,200 $27,300 $27,400 $27,500 $27,600 $27,700 $27,800 $27,900 $28,000 $28,100 $28,200 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Infrastructure Asset Value ($m) Maintenance Funding ($m)
- 5. Value of Asset Increasing vs Maintenance Spend (NSW, SA)
- 6. A-Typical Spend of Maintenance Dollars
- 7. Benchmarking Comparison Estimated maintenance spend per lane km • SA – $2,300 • VIC - $4,500 • WA – $5,000 • QLD - $6,000 • NSW – $7,000
- 10. Typical Costs
- 11. Knowledge of Assets Most public sector owners have 60 – 75% of their assets in a database Most private sector owners have 100% of their assets in a database
- 12. Knowledge of Assets Lack of detailed asset knowledge determines the levels of partnering/ with private sector for delivery of maintenance • Internal Delivery (SA, Vic, Qld, NSW, Tas) • Lump Sum (SA, Vic) • Alliance / ISA – (Vic/ WA) • Commercial Partnering (SMC, PSMC - NSW) • PPP’s (OSARS – Vic)
- 13. Maintenance Specification • Routine maintenance traditionally based on engineering based specifications • Movement towards defining maintenance based on: • Mixture of engineering and Outputs • Outcome based (PPP - OSARS) • Levels of Service (LOS) • Levels of Intervention (LOI) • Modelling affordability of Routine & Periodic Maintenance for private and public owners
- 14. Future Funding of Maintenance • Treasuries looking to lock in a fixed level of funding • SMC Model in NSW over 10 years • PPP - Outer Suburban Arterial Roads (OSARS), includes Capital Upgrade to network together with 20 year maintenance • Auditor General reports and elections have resulted in Governments increasing level of funding for Periodic & Rehabilitation
- 15. Technology and User Behaviours/Needs • What will be the impact of Connected Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) on existing infrastructure? • Will we see congestion increase or decrease • What will be our requirements for parking? • Reliance on high availability IoT to support mobility • Use of AI and autonomous machinery for maintenance • Possible reduction of maintenance costs through technology use • ITS now safety and mobility critical
- 17. DISCLAIMER This presentation has been prepared by a representative of Advisian. The presentation contains the professional and personal opinions of the presenter, which are given in good faith. As such, opinions presented herein may not always necessarily reflect the position of Advisian as a whole, its officers or executive. Any forward-looking statements included in this presentation will involve subjective judgment and analysis and are subject to uncertainties, risks and contingencies—many of which are outside the control of, and may be unknown to, Advisian. Advisian and all associated entities and representatives make no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of information in this document and do not take responsibility for updating any information or correcting any error or omission that may become apparent after this document has been issued. To the extent permitted by law, Advisian and its officers, employees, related bodies and agents disclaim all liability—direct, indirect or consequential (and whether or not arising out of the negligence, default or lack of care of Advisian and/or any of its agents)—for any loss or damage suffered by a recipient or other persons arising out of, or in connection with, any use or reliance on this presentation or information.
Editor's Notes
- Road Infrastructure asset base is increasing (SA and VAGO) Level of maintenance funding remains static and source of funds (fuel taxes diminishing, in real terms) – huge backlog of maintenance Majority of Public Asset owners don’t have accurate, validated & complete Asset Database Routine Maintenance historically driven by engineering based specifications Periodic & Rehab Maintenance approach struggling to keep up with level of asset (e.g. pavement) deterioration Treasuries looking for certainty in maintenance funding level for a defined level of asset performance Impact of emerging and disruptive technologies and services (IoT, CAVs, smart infrastructure/cities, mobility as a service etc.) unknown 1 ,2 , 3 - Based on: June 2016 VAGO report on Maintaining State – controlled Highways Benchmarking and Review of Road delivery of road maintenance in SA Information based on other States Audit Reports and the Road Agencies Information also based on private sector road owners. 4. – Based on Vic and SA work, which indicate that Specifications for Routine Maintenance, have remained unchanged for last 10 – 15 years. 5. – Level of funding for Periodic and Rehabilitation is struggling to keep pace with the deterioration of the asset base, it is been under funded by 20 - 30% based on the VAGO report 6. – Treasuries don’t understand technical issues associated with road maintenance, and asset owners don't provide a appropriate business case to justify the correct levels of funding required. Asset owners have a de-centralized model in place where they do pci/dtims models every three years, but allocation of periodic and rehab maintenance funding has no linkage to the pci/dtims models, starting to get better in SA at allocating funding to both rural and metro roads, based on LOS and revised specifciations. Also have the squeaky wheel syndrome with where investment is allocated.
- Road Infrastructure asset base is increasing (SA and VAGO) Level of maintenance funding remains static and source of funds (fuel taxes diminishing, in real terms) – huge backlog of maintenance Majority of Public Asset owners don’t have accurate, validated & complete Asset Database Routine Maintenance historically driven by engineering based specifications Periodic & Rehab Maintenance approach struggling to keep up with level of asset (e.g. pavement) deterioration Treasuries looking for certainty in maintenance funding level for a defined level of asset performance Impact of emerging and disruptive technologies and services (IoT, CAVs, smart infrastructure/cities, mobility as a service etc.) unknown 1 ,2 , 3 - Based on: June 2016 VAGO report on Maintaining State – controlled Highways Benchmarking and Review of Road delivery of road maintenance in SA Information based on other States Audit Reports and the Road Agencies Information also based on private sector road owners. 4. – Based on Vic and SA work, which indicate that Specifications for Routine Maintenance, have remained unchanged for last 10 – 15 years. 5. – Level of funding for Periodic and Rehabilitation is struggling to keep pace with the deterioration of the asset base, it is been under funded by 20 - 30% based on the VAGO report 6. – Treasuries don’t understand technical issues associated with road maintenance, and asset owners don't provide a appropriate business case to justify the correct levels of funding required. Asset owners have a de-centralized model in place where they do pci/dtims models every three years, but allocation of periodic and rehab maintenance funding has no linkage to the pci/dtims models, starting to get better in SA at allocating funding to both rural and metro roads, based on LOS and revised specifciations. Also have the squeaky wheel syndrome with where investment is allocated.
- Very Similar profiles for 2 different states
- Other factors that are influencing how the current amount of funding is spent, is focusing on a combination of: Does the specification change Outputs vs Outcomes LOS for the network, which prioritizes where the investment goes Modelling actual costs of Maintenance for the known assets, using it as a Estimate Can run sensitivity models of changes to the specifications and LOS and the impact on overall maintenance costs before you procure the services, we are doing this with private asset owners.
- Treasuries looking to lock in a fixed level of funding over a long period (10+yrs) for a guaranteed asset performance outcome SMC Model in NSW over 10 years PPP - OSARS (Outer Suburban Arterial Roads), includes Capital Upgrade to network together with 20 year maintenance, on hand back of Network in same condition as the handover for non-new roads – (owner pay the real price for maintenance) Auditor General reports and Elections have resulted in Governments increasing level of funding for Periodic & Rehabilitation and in some states Looking for Network outcome solutions. That is not a decentralized approach, looking for holistic approach, but to do this need to: understanding the asset condition of the network Need to understand the current and future traffic volumes on the network Need to understanding the future uses of the network
- Impact of CAVs on existing infrastructure unclear (refer to ecosystem graphic) – what does this mean Higher maintenance standards to ensure on board sensors work properly Less or more infrastructure? Dedicated infrastructure? More technology – increased reliance, safety critical, high turnover/upgrade demands? Impact on Lighting, road marking, signs, traffic lights Increased congestion with CAVs, or not? CAVs for ride sharing, public transport, deliveries, personal “care free” travel Less need for parking, releases road space for other use – some debate over this. Reliance on high availability IoT to support mobility as a Service demands Use of AI and autonomous machinery for maintenance Increased adoption of on condition maintenance by using real time health monitoring may reduce maintenance costs ITS moving from being advisory and supporting to safety and mobility critical – availability, reliability, cybersecurity requirements/demands are rising – this may bring higher costs NOTES: Currently CAVs rely on accurate, clean and readable roadmaking's, signs and road furniture. Current maintenance standards are variable usually not a standard suited for reliable CAV operations Will CAVs require dedicated lanes and infrastructure? Who will pay for this? Will CAVs require high reliability connectivity to other CAVs and surrounding infrastructure e.g. traffic signals, work zones etc. What “smart” infrastructure will be needed and how can the Internet of Things be leveraged? When and how will increased automation and AI impact road maintenance? Technology can be used to remotely monitor the condition of assets reducing the need for inspections – on condition maintenance ITS was once an “extra” on our roads that if not working would have little impact. This is no longer the case with managed motorways (where there are no emergency stopping lanes and safety relies on the electronic signage). How will the issue of cybersecurity be dealt with? Our traffic control systems are fully reliant on ICT.
- For CAVs to operate in the current ecosystem the expectation is that maintenance standards will need to improve or will CAVs remove the need for anything other than a road bereft of signs, road marking and signals?