1. Technology and Information Transfer. Provide tools for the transfer of information and ideas for asset management between councils, particularly information relating to the interaction between Councils and other asset owners and users of local/regional road infrastructure.
2. Decision Support Information. Provide decision support information to custodians and users of local and regional infrastructure. One example is to develop a model to predict the future maintenance and renewal requirements of infrastructure managed by Councils at individual council, regional and national level.
3. Technology and Information Access.
Give
councils a simple and cost effective asset management model to develop optimised
maintenance and renewal local road programs.
The Commonwealth supported local government through the Local Government Development Program (LGDP). This program has now been replaced by the Local Government Initiatives Program.
In the final
phase of the
LGDP early in 1999, the Commonwealth gave ALGA two $40,000
grants.
ALGA made a separate submission for a
second grant to put an asset management model on the internet that would allow Councils to
assess their future financial liability for their roads. The Victorian Department of Local
Government had completed an infrastructure study of all Councils assets in 1998
and ALGA was keen to encourage all Councils across Australia to apply the same
model to their road network.
The Commonwealth agreed and contracts were
signed between ALGA and the Commonwealth in September 1999 to develop the
Transport Info site including the asset
management model.
ALGA took the view that the application of the asset
management model by Councils was only the first step in what should be
continuous improvement in asset management.
ALGA therefore prepared a paper on the continuous
improvement to provide the context for the asset management model and placed it
on the Transport Info site.
Regional C-ordinators
Unfortunately, the
The intermediary will be in the form of a consultant resident in the region who is already providing services to Councils. In effect, these Regional Co-ordinators will be authorised to use the model within a specified region, similar to a franchise. The consultants who assisted in the LGDP project, namely John Bennett in Ballarat (Vic), Phil Hawley from Nowra (NSW), Steve O'Rourke from Tamworth (NSW) and Mike Wood from Perth (WA) will be the first group of co-ordinators. Chris Starr from Road Network Services in Horsham (Vic) has also agreed to join the group.
Their role will be send the Council a spreadsheet of the the data required for the model and to provide support for that Council to collect the data in the required form. This may require a visit or could in many cases, be achieved through a 'help desk' type service. The Regional Co-ordinator will then run the model and produce the graphical output for the Council. Councils will then review the graphs and clear it for inclusion in the database on Transport Info.
Basic Principles
One key objective is to develop decision
support information for infrastructure for individual Councils as well as at a
regional and national level.
Decision support information means the capacity to model future
infrastructure maintenance and renewal requirements and compare this prediction
with historical expenditure trends.
The model is conceptually very simple but relies on several key input data that would not necessarily be readily available
to Councils.
The key input data is asset economic life, estimates of remaining life, average expenditures, and asset replacement costs. ALGA has a database of expenditure that it has been collecting over the last few years. This information can be accessed through the Transport Info site and allows Councils to compare their costs with other Councils within the context of their asset management strategy.
ALGA also undertook a survey in early 2000 of the
actual
It was decided that Councils should separate their
roads into two classes. The first
was the traditional local roads providing basic access to property. The second was those roads that
performed a regional function linking towns. This second class would carry the bulk
of the heavy loading on the Councils’ local road
system.
It could be expected that these two road networks
would have different age profiles and economic lives.
The concept of an
internet kit has the potential for
involving Councils in any national road study. Councils have found it difficult to
participate in Austroads research projects due to the cost and travel involved
and as a result most of the national research effort has focused on the
arterial road system.
The
establishment of a national set of Regional Co-ordinators will facilitate a
greater involvement by Councils in some of these projects. With this in mind, ALGA sought funding from
Austroads to undertake a study of the impact of heavy loading on low trafficked
roads. This was approved in early
2000 and ALGA contracted to undertake the research over the calendar year
2000. Councils will be kept informed
It is recognised that this is not a simple
distinction to make and ultimately requires though, analysis and judgment by
asset custodians. The principles
used in the model are that the effective economic life of any asset is linked to
the maintenance carried out on that asset during its life. Any estimates of asset economic life
(such as those used in external financial reporting) assume a certain level of
maintenance in order to achieve that life.
Renewal, therefore, extends economic life whilst maintenance does
not.
Most assets will eventually require renewal. The time of renewal (number of years from now) is determined by the renewal strategy adopted.
For example, a road pavement could be
reconstructed because of;
a
perception that it has failed based on condition criteria,
it
no longer satisfies service performance criteria e.g. traffic
capacity
optimised renewal analysis that recommends
reconstruction before failure to reduce life cycle costs
Each of the above strategies may give very different remaining lives and critically impact future expenditures necessary to sustain the asset stock. Remaining life is used as the best actual estimate of future expenditures required for asset renewal
The economic life is the age of a pavement before
reconstruction is required.
For example, it is
expected that it will be different for the property access roads and the heavier
trafficked regional roads. It may
not be all that easy to establish appropriate values as Councils will only have
records of pavements that have failed.
Consideration needs to be taken of those roads that have been in service
for some considerable time and which are not near
failure.
Economic life is used to model overall
averages for asset renewal expenditure required and to determine renewal for
future “asset generations”. For
example, an asset or asset cohort with a remaining life of 5 years (assessed in
1999) and economic life of 20 years needs renewal in 2004, 2024, 2044
etc.
The current replacement cost is consistent
with definitions used under AAS27 and should use the information already
available. In general, it is the
current cost to replace the asset.
For example, the reconstruction of the pavement or replacement of a
section of kerb or footpath. In
general, this is estimated as actual replacement costs using current technology
that the council would actually use.
Expenditure data is used as a guide for likely future levels of expenditure on sustaining the existing asset stock, expanding it, or increasing levels of service in key areas in response to local issues and priorities.
The existing data collected through the
grants commission examines expenditure on existing and new assets. The model seeks to make a more detailed
distinction of expenditure as shown below in order to separately identify
maintenance expenditure and renewal expenditure to sustain current levels of
service and expenditure on higher levels or service or expansion of the asset
stock.
|
Grants Commission
Data Return Category |
More Detailed
Category In the Model |
Definition |
|
Expenditure on
Existing Assets |
Maintenance |
Expenditure on an
asset which maintains the asset
in use but does not
increase its service potential or life, e.g. repairing a pothole in a
road, repairing the decking on a timber bridge, repairing a single pipe in
a drainage
network, repairing the fencing in a park, repair work to prevent early
failure of an asset or a portion of an infrastructure network. |
|
Expenditure on
Existing Assets |
Capital Renewal |
Expenditure on renewing an existing
asset or a
portion of an infrastructure network which increases the
service potential or extends the life, e.g. resheeting part of a road,
renewing a section of a drainage network, major maintenance on bridge
pylons, resurfacing an oval. |
|
Expenditure on
New Assets |
Capital
Expansion |
Expenditure on extending an
infrastructure network, at the same standard currently
enjoyed by existing residents, to a new group of users, e.g. extending
a drainage or road network, the provision of an oval or park in a new
suburb. |
|
Expenditure on
Existing Assets
(although some of this may have been classed as new) |
Capital Upgrade |
Expenditure on upgrading the
standard of an existing asset or infrastructure network to provide a
higher level of service to users, e.g. widening the pavement
and sealed area of an existing road, replacing drainage pipes with pipes
of a greater capacity, building a grandstand at a sporting facility,
replacing an existing bridge with one having a greater carrying capacity,
replacing a chain link fence with a wrought iron
fence. |
The model estimates the future asset maintenance and renewal required for the
asset stock of an individual council and compares this with the projected
average expenditure based on council’s best knowledge. (usually a continuation
of average historical expenditure).
The main variables are:
Asset remaining life (estimated period to
the time renewal will actually be required for whatever reason),
Asset replacement cost (usually using the
existing audited figures used for external financial
reporting)
Asset economic life (period between the last
renewal or construction of the asset and subsequent renewal)
Introduction
For the LGDP project, the Regional Co-ordinators were engaged to assist Councils provide data on replacement costs, current expenditure and economic life by asset type. The data was then entered into a spreadsheet format for input to the asset management model.
The same procedure will apply generally with Regional Co-ordinators appointed by ALGA providing the support role for Councils at the regional level. They will provide the blank spreadsheet, help Council complete the data input and run the model for them.
A key element of the analysis is a reliable estimate of remaining economic. By and large, there is not a great deal of historical data available for Councils to forecast the life of their road assets. In an attempt to fill this gap, ALGA invited all Councils in Australia to provide data on the age of road and bridge assets that they replaced over the last 12 months. The data has been consolidated into an economic life database that can accessed through the Transport Info site.
Councils should continue to send economic life data to ALGA but it can be now sent electronically by using the facility offered in Transport Info.
The data entry forms provide for individual keying of each record, however if a Council has a large table of data (e.g. remaining life profile with > 50 rows) the data should be sent by email to prufford@alga.com.au in Excel spreadsheet / ASCII format and it will be imported in batch mode.
The following guidelines will assist Councils complete the electronic format however Councils should contact a Regional Co-ordinator if they are not sure of the format required.
Asset Types
Assets have been split into categories that are likely to match existing Council categories and groupings of key data such as economic life. They include:
|
Bridge
- Steel/Concrete/Composite |
|
|
Bridge
- Timber |
|
|
Other
- Please Enter |
Enter
Asset Type if Not on the List |
|
Local
Road - Unsealed |
Gravel
or Natural Surface, Local Traffic |
|
Local Road - Asphalt Seal |
AC Surface, Flexible Pavement, Local Traffic |
|
Local Road - Sprayed Seal |
"Flush" Surface, Flexible Pavement, Local Traffic |
|
Regional Road - Unsealed |
Gravel or Natural Surface, Regional Traffic |
|
Regional Road - Asphalt Seal |
AC Surface, Flexible Pavement, Regional Traffic |
|
Regional Road - Sprayed Seal |
"Flush" Surface, Flexible Pavement, Regional Traffic |
Point and Statistical Format
The electronic facility allows for both a discrete record format ie one record for each failed asset and for a statistical format using standard deviation as a measure of the variance in the economic life of the asset. This latter format is more appropriate for a long length of road or a number of bridges of similar type.
The table below shows examples of a statistical data entry.
|
Mean
Economic Life |
Std
Deviation Economic Life |
Sample
Size |
Dimensions |
Primary
Renewal Strategy |
|
20 |
5 |
500 |
m2 |
Condition
- Road Failure |
|
40 |
15 |
65 |
Km |
Condition
- Life Cycle Renewal Before Failure |
|
35 |
5 |
5 |
Km |
Level
of Service - e.g. Traffic or
Safety |
The various terms are described as follows.
|
Mean
Economic Life |
Essential
- Mean (or average) for the sample.
The sample could be an individual renewal project (say 500m2) or
large part of the asset category (65 km). The more samples that are obtained
over time, the better the data.
The example below shows a statistical distribution for average
economic life for one category over a number of
councils |
|
Std
Deviation Economic Life |
Optional
– If the record entered is a single economic life for the whole of the
category or a large component of the category, the standard deviation (if
known) can provide metadata about the variability of economic life data
for the sample |
|
Sample
Size |
Essential
– Enter number (unit s e.g. m2, km are selected by dimensions
below) |
|
Data
Source |
Optional
– Text data entry – e.g. historical records, asset accounting manual, best
estimate |
|
Dimensions |
Essential
– List provided m2, m, km |
|
Primary
Renewal Strategy |
Optional
– List provided |
ØReporting
The results of the analysis will be reported on Transport Info (under the Future Funding Liability button in the Index). This will enable Councils to compare their results with those of other Councils. Unfortunately, these graphs will not be posted at this location until the graphs have been cleared by the Councils involved.