Notice of Meeting

 

 

 

 

 

bsc_logo_150dpi_rgb

 

 

 

Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting

 

 

A Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting of Byron Shire Council will be held as follows:

 

Venue

Council Chambers, Station Street, Mullumbimby

Date

Thursday, 15 March 2018

Time

9.00am

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Holloway

Director Infrastructure Services                                                                                           I2018/426

                                                                                                                                    Distributed 09/03/18

 

 


CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

What is a “Conflict of Interests” - A conflict of interests can be of two types:

Pecuniary - an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

Non-pecuniary – a private or personal interest that a Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Local Government Act (eg. A friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

Remoteness – a person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to a matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in Section 448 of the Local Government Act.

Who has a Pecuniary Interest? - a person has a pecuniary interest in a matter if the pecuniary interest is the interest of the person, or another person with whom the person is associated (see below).

Relatives, Partners - a person is taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if:

§  The person’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the person has a pecuniary interest in the matter, or

§  The person, or a nominee, partners or employer of the person, is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

N.B. “Relative”, in relation to a person means any of the following:

(a)   the parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descends or adopted child of the person or of the person’s spouse;

(b)   the spouse or de facto partners of the person or of a person referred to in paragraph (a)

No Interest in the Matter - however, a person is not taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter:

§  If the person is unaware of the relevant pecuniary interest of the spouse, de facto partner, relative or company or other body, or

§  Just because the person is a member of, or is employed by, the Council.

§  Just because the person is a member of, or a delegate of the Council to, a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter provided that the person has no beneficial interest in any shares of the company or body.

Disclosure and participation in meetings

§  A Councillor or a member of a Council Committee who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned and who is present at a meeting of the Council or Committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

§  The Councillor or member must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the Council or Committee:

(a)   at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the Council or Committee, or

(b)   at any time during which the Council or Committee is voting on any question in relation to  the matter.

No Knowledge - a person does not breach this Clause if the person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the matter under consideration at the meeting was a matter in which he or she had a pecuniary interest.

Participation in Meetings Despite Pecuniary Interest (S 452 Act)

A Councillor is not prevented from taking part in the consideration or discussion of, or from voting on, any of the matters/questions detailed in Section 452 of the Local Government Act.

Non-pecuniary Interests - Must be disclosed in meetings.

There are a broad range of options available for managing conflicts & the option chosen will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of the interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with.  Non-pecuniary conflicts of interests must be dealt with in at least one of the following ways:

§  It may be appropriate that no action be taken where the potential for conflict is minimal.  However, Councillors should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

§  Limit involvement if practical (eg. Participate in discussion but not in decision making or vice-versa).  Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

§  Remove the source of the conflict (eg. Relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict)

§  Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions in S451 of the Local Government Act apply (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary interest)

RECORDING OF VOTING ON PLANNING MATTERS

Clause 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 – Recording of voting on planning matters

(1)   In this section, planning decision means a decision made in the exercise of a function of a council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

(a)   including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act, but

(b)   not including the making of an order under Division 2A of Part 6 of that Act.

(2)   The general manager is required to keep a register containing, for each planning decision made at a meeting of the council or a council committee, the names of the councillors who supported the decision and the names of any councillors who opposed (or are taken to have opposed) the decision.

(3)   For the purpose of maintaining the register, a division is required to be called whenever a motion for a planning decision is put at a meeting of the council or a council committee.

(4)   Each decision recorded in the register is to be described in the register or identified in a manner that enables the description to be obtained from another publicly available document, and is to include the information required by the regulations.

(5)   This section extends to a meeting that is closed to the public.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting

 

 

BUSINESS OF MEETING

 

1.    Apologies

2.    Declarations of Interest – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary

3.    Adoption of Minutes from Previous Meetings

3.1       Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting held on 31 December 2017

3.2       Extraordinary Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting held on 13 February 2018

4.    Staff Reports

Infrastructure Services

4.1       Draft Transport Asset Managment Plan (TAMP)............................................................. 4

4.2       Byron Bay (Browning St) to Suffolk Park (Clifford St) Cycleway Investigation............ 76

4.3       High Risk Infrastructure Service Priorities.................................................................... 158

4.4       Bike Plan and PAMP Status Report............................................................................. 164

4.5       Development of a Shire-wide Transport Strategy........................................................ 176   

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                                   4.1

 

 

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

 

Report No. 4.1             Draft Transport Asset Managment Plan (TAMP)

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Blyth Short, Asset Management Coordinator

File No:                        I2018/341

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Asset Management

 

 

Summary:

 

Following the adoption of the Strategic Asset Management Plan and the integration with the successful Special Rate Variation application, a draft Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) has been developed.

 

This plan represents the next level of asset planning and has been prepared using the guidance of the International Infrastructure Management Manual.

 

Following the consideration of the Committee it is hoped the document will be reported to Council and move to a public consultation phase commencing in May 2018.

 

The process of achieving an adopted TAMP will be integrated with the recommendations of the Community Solutions Panel which are due in April 2018.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the draft Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) and associated Community Summary be considered by the Advisory Committee with feedback provided to staff.

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Draft Transport Asset Management Plan V5, E2018/14868 , page 9  

 

 


 

Report

 

A draft Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) has been prepared and in addition a community summary with info-graphics has also been produced to assist customers in understanding the content.

 

The following is provided as a summary of some of the key content of the TAMP.

 

Transport Assets do not include trains, bus or taxi services which are beyond council’s responsibility, and they include the following:

 

·    Sealed Roads 508km

·    Unsealed roads 96km

·    Bridges 33 and Footbridges 12

·    Rural Causeways 88 and Major culverts 90

·    Footpaths/shared paths 89km

·    Roundabouts, islands 727 and street signs

·    Kerb and gutter 257km

·    Road barriers 31 km

·    Bus Shelters 49

·    Retaining Walls 75

·    Car Parks 24 off road

 

Byron Shire Council’s Transport assets enable the community to access and enjoy a range of services and facilities that Byron Shire has to offer. It has an asset replacement value of $364 million for Road and $64.3 million for stormwater, as at 30 June 2017.  The efficient management of these road and stormwater assets is vital to provide safe, reliable and efficient services.

 

Key messages in the TAMP:

 

Ø Asset Management needs to balance Levels of Service and whole of life costs.

Ø The challenge for council is to invest in the renewal of existing infrastructure before building new assets which increase the asset portfolio and further increase operational cost and long term renewal liabilities.

Ø The current long term financial expenditure on maintenance and capital renewal is insufficient to ‘maintain’ Transport assets.

Ø The current spend on road reseals and reconstructions fluctuate from year to year and are affected by maintenance overruns.

Ø Roads and stormwater have big financial challenges with a current Capital Renewal and Maintenance gap of $14.3M.

Ø Road ‘Bring to Satisfactory’ backlog is $24M. Sealed roads have 41% in poor condition.

Ø Assets have much longer operational life prior to renewal than industry average.

Ø There is insufficient maintenance for urban and rural drainage. The challenge is the competing pothole maintenance budget of $1.3M.

Ø To “maintain” the overall sealed road network condition the average renewal investment needs to increase to 10.4M by 2028.

Ø On an average basis, the investment in road reseals needs to target 39km per year for an estimated value of $ 3.8M.

Ø On an average basis, the investment in road reconstruction needs to target 6km per year for an estimated value of $7.5M.

Ø New and upgrade work should be funded through the Section 94 Plan and grants, with the ongoing impact of operational costs considered.

Ø Asset Sustainability and Renewal Ratios appear to be improving as Council has increased spending in order to address the backlog of previously underfunded asset renewals.

Ø Ongoing innovation is necessary, for example five poor condition bridges will be cost effectively replaced with steel Australian Defence Force bridges in 2018/19.

Ø Investment in asset management with the latest technology and innovation should continue.

Ø Asset management systems that are well established and integrated must be maintained.

 

 

In the financial year of 2016/17 Council spent $4.1 million on maintenance and $13.1 million on capital expenditure for road and stormwater assets. Based on the Asset Predictor© modelling for roads (sealed and unsealed), footpaths and bridges current spending with the 7.5% rate increase will see the Transport assets overall condition deteriorate. Capital renewal for sealed roads needs to grow to $10.4 million in 10 years to maintain the overall condition of the road network.  This work is for replacement of assets only and does not account for new assets such as roundabouts and new footpaths.

 

Failure to adequately plan for the replacement of these existing assets and the development of new assets will result in assets not meeting the needs of the community now, and into the future. Councils ‘Bring to Satisfactory Standard’ (BTS) backlog (capital renewal) for Road and Stormwater infrastructure is $35 million out of a total of $38 million for all infrastructure (Special Schedule 7, 30 June 2017).  To address this significant BTS backlog it will take consistent capital renewal effort over the next 20 years.

 

In the financial year of 2016/17 Council spent $4.1 million on maintenance and $13.1 million on capital expenditure for road and stormwater assets. Based on the Asset Predictor© modelling for roads (sealed and unsealed), footpaths and bridges, current spending with the additional 7.5% rate increase will still see the Transport assets overall condition deteriorate. Capital renewal for sealed roads needs to grow to $10.4 million in 10 years to maintain the overall condition of the road network. This work is for replacement of assets only and does not account for new assets such as roundabouts and new footpaths.

 

Recent Level 2 structural inspections of causeways and major culverts have identified 7 urgent ($2.2million) and 16 high priority ($5.5million) poor condition rural drainage assets. The 7 urgent assets are either load limited and or have temporary steel plates and require full replacement.  If the 16 high priority assets are not addressed in the very near future, further load limits will be implemented. There is currently no source of funding to renew these deteriorated and failing rural drainage assets.

 

Figure 1 Transport Assets Financial Gaps

 

Council’s Long Term Financial Plan as adopted by Council in E2017/96003 allows expenditure of $61.65 million on the renewal of its Road asset portfolio over the next 10 years as summarised below.

 

Figure 2 Long Term Financial Plan and Annual Required Renewal

 

This Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) demonstrates how Council will endeavour to achieve its strategic asset management outcomes by applying strategic asset management planning with the available funding. The key elements of infrastructure asset management are:

 

·    Taking a life cycle approach

·    Developing cost-effective management strategies for the long term

·    Providing a defined level of service and monitoring performance

·    Understanding and meeting the demands of growth through demand management and infrastructure investment

·    Managing risks associated with asset failures

·    Sustainable use of physical resources

·    Continuous improvement in asset management practices.

 

A detailed improvement plan generated during the creation of this Asset Management Plan is shown in Section 13, for those activities and processes that need to be monitored, developed and fine-tuned over time. Some of the priority actions include:

 

·    Obtain Council approval/endorsement of this Plan,

·    Develop unit rates to calculate required maintenance for all asset sub-types e.g. guardrails, guideposts etc.,

·    Formalise the new, renewal and disposal policies,

·    Test current levels of service to determine if they’re achievable,

·    Establish and document a Maintenance Plan and

·    Update, revise and expand asset sub-types (e.g. causeways and culverts) in the prediction modelling.

 

The key areas of this Transport Asset Management Plan are the Levels of Service, the Life Cycle Management, Financial Summary and Improvement Plan.

 

It should be noted that this Asset Management Plan is not a stand-alone document, and is closely related to Council’s Strategic Asset Management Plan and other significant Council documents.  Council will measure the effectiveness and application of the asset management plan through:

 

·    Stakeholder consultation

·    Regular condition and maintenance inspections

·    Continued use of Assetic Predictor© to predict renewal requirements

·    Continuous review and improvement to asset management practices

·    Key Performance Indicators (KPI) monitoring and recording of customer levels of service

 

 

Financial Implications

 

The financial implications are referenced in the report.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

The TAMP has been prepared in accordance with the adopted Asset Management Policy.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                 4.1 - Attachment 1

Byron Shire Council

 

Transport

Asset

Management

DRAFTPlan

 

 

March 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Table of contents

 


1.       Executive Summary. 6

2.       Purpose. 10

What is Asset Management?. 10

Objective of Asset Management 10

Benefit of Asset Management 10

Related Council Documents. 11

3.       Current Position. 12

Transport Asset Stock. 12

Replacement Cost of Council’s Transport assets. 13

Present Condition of Council’s Transport assets. 13

Remaining Life. 21

4.       Levels of Service. 22

Technical Levels of Service. 22

Community Levels of Service. 22

Condition Assessment 33

5.       Future Demand. 34

Demand Forecast 34

Demand Management Plan. 34

New Assets from Growth. 35

Changes in Technology. 36

6.       Asset Management Practices. 36

Financial Systems. 36

Asset Management Systems. 36

Accounting Framework. 37

Standards and Guidelines. 38

Risk Management 38

7.       Lifecycle Management Plan. 38

Asset Capacity and Performance. 39

Asset Condition. 39

Useful Lives and Unit Rates. 40

Asset Valuations. 41

8.       Maintenance Plan. 42

Standards and Specifications. 42

Future Maintenance Expenses. 42

Maintenance Challenges. 42

9.       Renewal Plan. 43

Renewal Prioritisation. 43

Road Renewal Targets. 44

Bitumen - Design Life Bitumen  average 12years. 44

(Austroads  AGPT05-11) 44

Asphalt average 15 years (Austroads  AGPT05-11) 44

Concrete. 44

(Austroads AGPT05-11) 44

Bridge Renewals. 45

Impact of Deferring Renewal Works. 45

Managing the Risks and Renewal Challenges. 46

10.    New and Upgrade Plan. 47

Selection Criteria. 47

Developer Contributions. 47

Forecast Upgrade/New Expenditure. 47

11.    Disposal of Assets. 47

12.    Financial Summary. 48

Financial Statements and Projections. 48

Funding Strategy. 48

Financial Ratios. 53

13.    Improvement Plan. 58

Improvement Actions. 58

14.    Glossary. 59

15.    APPENDIX A Special Schedule 7 – Report on Infrastructure Assets as at 30 June 2017  63

16.    APPENDIX B Community Transport Asset Management Plan. 65

17.    References. 67

 


Figures

 

Figure 1 Transport Assets Financial Gaps. 7

Figure 2 Transport Long Term Financial Plan and Annual Required Renewal 8

Figure 3 Asset Management simplified. 10

Figure 4 Transport Asset Stock. 12

Figure 5 Overall breakdown of replacement cost for Transport assets. 13

Figure 6 Transport assets by condition. 14

Figure 7 Asset Remaining Life. 21

Figure 8 Customer Satisfaction Transport Assets Performance Gap. 23

Figure 9 Top 3 Community Priorities (BSC Survey, 2016) 34

Figure 10 Asset Management Systems and Elements. 37

Figure 11 Asset life cycle stages. 38

Figure 12 Actual life comparison between industry average and Byron Shire. 40

Figure 13 Road and stormwater Maintenance 2016-17. 43

Figure 14 Pavement Deterioration and Maintenance Curve (Public Works Training, 2016) 46

Figure 15 Long Term Financial Plan - Transport 48

Figure 16 Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) funding & Annual Required Renewal Expenditure (ARRE) 48

Figure 17 Asset Maintenance Ratio General Fund SS7. 56

Figure 18 Infrastructure Backlog Ratio General Fund SS7. 57

 

Tables

 

Table 1 Related Council Documents. 11

Table 2 Condition Grading Model 14

Table 3 Customer Satisfaction Performance Gap Ranking (Summarised version) 24

Table 4 Sealed Roads Levels of Service. 25

Table 5 Unsealed Roads Levels of Service. 28

Table 6 Footpath and Shared Path Levels of Service. 30

Table 7 Kerb and Gutter Levels of Service. 31

Table 8 Stormwater Levels of Service. 32

Table 9 NSW population projections regional LG data. 34

Table 10 Demand management plan summary. 35

Table 11 Transport assets useful lives. 40

Table 12 Transport assets treatment unit rates. 41

Table 13 Transport asset valuation data (SS7 30 June 17) 41

Table 14 Asset Predictor© Modelling Sealed Roads to “Maintain” at 10%.. 44

Table 15 Road Capital Renewal Annual Targets. 44

Table 16 Reseals for the last 3 years. 45

Table 17 Long Term Financial Plan. 49

Table 18 Capital Funding Predictor© (IS Master Sheet for 10 Year Plan) 49

Table 19 Maintenance Funding Predictor©.. 50

Table 20 Maintenance Funding. 50

Table 21 Maintenance expenditure (2016/17) 51

Table 22 Financial Gaps additional to Predictor© modelling. 52

Table 23 Asset Consumption Ratios. 53

Table 24 Asset Sustainability Ratio Figures. 54

Table 25 Asset Renewal Funding Ratio Figures. 55

Table 26 Improvement actions summary. 58


Asset Management Definitions

 

Maintenance is work performed on an asset that just keeps it in a useable condition, for example:

-     filling potholes,

-     replacing guideposts,

-     repairing broken stormwater pipes,

-     grading a gravel road

 

Capital Renewal is work performed on an asset to bring it back to a good or fair condition. It can include both simply repairing an existing asset (like for like) an existing asset. Examples include:

-     resealing a sealed road,

-     reconstructing a portion of road segment

-     putting new gravel on a gravel road

 

Capital New is work performed to create a new asset or additional work performed on an existing asset to provide more than what is currently there, for example:

-     building a new roundabout or a new road from developer contributions;

-     constructing stormwater pipes where there currently aren’t any;

 

In relation to roads:

 

·    Resealing is placing a new layer of bitumen over the existing pavement. The purpose of a reseal is to the base and sub-base to extend the life of the road. 

 

Resealing also involves new line marking, if required, and often guide post replacement, shoulder/side drain works or vegetation management.

 

·    Re-constructing is tearing up the existing pavement, base course and often also the sub-base and replacement with new material (See diagram below).

 

It also involves the reconstruction of shoulders and often side drains, or where there is kerb and gutter. It often involves vegetation management and working around or with other utility services in the road reserve, for example telecommunications, electricity, water or sewer services.

 

The typical cross section of a road and the names of the different components are:

 

 



1.      Executive Summary

 

Byron Shire Council’s (BSC) Transport assets enable the community to access and enjoy a range of services and facilities that Byron has to offer. It has an asset replacement value of $364 [PC1] million for Road and $64.3 million for stormwater, as at 30 June 17. The efficient management of these road and stormwater assets is vital to provide safe, reliable and efficient services.

 

Transport Assets do not include trains, bus or taxi services which are beyond council’s responsibility. This Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) includes the following:

 

·    Sealed Roads 508km

·    Unsealed roads 96km

·    Bridges 33 and Footbridges 12

·    Rural Causeways 88 and Major culverts 90

·    Footpaths/shared paths 89km

·    Roundabouts / islands 727 and street signs

·    Kerb and gutter 257km

·    Road barriers 31 km

·    Bus Shelters 40

·    Retaining Walls 75

·    Car Parks 24 off road

 

Key messages

 

Ø Asset Management needs to balance Levels of Service and whole of life costs.

Ø The challenge for council is to invest in capital renewal of existing infrastructure before building capital new assets which increases the assets portfolio and increases costs.

Ø The current long term financial expenditure on maintenance and capital renewal is insufficient to ‘maintain’ Transport assets.

Ø The current spend on road reseals and reconstructions fluctuate from year to year and are affected by maintenance overruns.

Ø Roads and stormwater have big financial challenges with a current Capital Renewal and Maintenance gap of $14.3M.

Ø Road ‘Bring to Satisfactory’ backlog is $24M. Sealed roads have 41% in poor condition.

Ø Byron leads asset management with the latest technology and innovation.

Ø Asset management systems are well established and integrated.

Ø Byron Shire Council has longer useful lives than industry average which requires more maintenance.

Ø There is insufficient maintenance for urban and rural drainage. The challenge is the competing pothole maintenance budget of $1.3M.

Ø To “maintain” the overall sealed road network condition the average capital renewal needs to increase to 10.4M by 2018.

Ø The reseals target is 39km per year averaging at $ 3.8million.

Ø The reconstruction target is 6km per year averaging at $7.5M.

Ø Five Poor condition bridges will be replaced with steel Australian Defence Force bridges for $7.5M in early 2019.

Ø New and upgrade work is mostly funded through the Section 94 Plan.

Ø Asset Sustainability and Renewal Ratios appear to be improving as we have increased spending in order to make up the backlog of previously underfunded assts.

 

Failure to adequately plan for the replacement of these existing assets and the development of new assets will result in assets not meeting the needs of the community now, and into the future. Councils ‘Bring to Satisfactory Standard’ (BTS) backlog (capital renewal) for Road and stormwater is $35 million out of a total of $38 million for all infrastructure (Special Schedule 7, 30 June 2017, Appendix A). To address this significant BTS backlog it will take consistent capital renewal effort over the next 20 years.

 

In the financial year of 2016/17 Council spent $4.1 million on maintenance and $13.1 million on capital expenditure for road and stormwater assets. Based on the Asset Predictor© modelling for roads (sealed and unsealed), footpaths and bridges current spending with the 7.5% rate increase will see the Transport assets overall condition deteriorate. Capital renewal for sealed roads needs to grow to $10.4 million in 10 years to maintain the overall condition of the road network. This work is for replacement of assets only, and does not account for new assets such as roundabouts and new footpaths.

 

The current long term financial expenditure on maintenance and capital renewal is insufficient to ‘maintain’ Transport assets.

 

After Level 2 structural inspections of causeways and major culverts council has identified 7 urgent ($2.2million) and 16 high priority ($5.5million) poor condition rural drainage assets. The 7 urgent assets are either load limited and or have temporary steel plates and require full replacement. If the 16 high priority assets are not addressed in the very near future load limits will be implemented. These 23 rural drainage assets totalling $7.7 million is currently unfunded (Figure 1 Transport Assets Financial Gaps).

 

Figure 1 Transport Assets Financial Gaps

 

The challenge for council is to invest in capital renewal of existing infrastructure before building capital new assets which increases the asset portfolio and increases costs.

 


 

Council’s Long Term Financial Plan (E2017/96003) as adopted by Council in 2017, allows expenditure of $61.65 million on the renewal of its Road asset portfolio over the next 10 years as summarised below. The works program and predicted renewal requirements are detailed in Section 12.

 

Figure 2 Transport Long Term Financial Plan and Annual Required Renewal

 

This Transport Asset Management Plan demonstrates how Council will endeavour to achieve its strategic asset management outcomes by applying strategic asset management planning with the available funding. The key elements of infrastructure asset management are:

 

·    Taking a life cycle approach

·    Developing cost-effective management strategies for the long term

·    Providing a defined level of service and monitoring performance

·    Understanding and meeting the demands of growth through demand management and infrastructure investment

·    Managing risks associated with asset failures

·    Sustainable use of physical resources

·    Continuous improvement in asset management practices.

 

A detailed improvement plan generated during the creation of this Asset Management Plan is shown in Section 13, for those activities and processes that need to be monitored, developed and fine-tuned over time. Some of the priority actions include:

 

·    Obtain Council approval/endorsement of this Plan,

·    Develop unit rates to calculate required maintenance for all asset sub-types e.g. guardrails, guideposts etc.,

·    Formalise the new, renewal and disposal policies,

·    Test current levels of service to determine if they’re achievable,

·    Establish and document a Maintenance Plan and

·    Update, revise and expand asset sub-types (e.g. causeways and culverts) in the prediction modelling.


 

The key areas of this Transport Asset Management Plan are the Levels of Service, the Life Cycle Management, Financial Summary and Improvement Plan.

 

It should be noted that this Asset Management Plan is not a stand-alone document, and is closely related to Council’s Strategic Asset Management Plan and other significant Council documents.  Council will measure the effectiveness and application of the asset management plan through:

 

·    Stakeholder consultation

·    Regular condition and maintenance inspections

·    Continued use of Assetic Predictor© to predict renewal requirements

·    Continuous review and improvement to asset management practices

·    Key Performance Indicators (KPI) monitoring and recording of customer levels of service

 

As a result of Council restructuring, an asset team was formed in 2015. This now consists of 4 full time staff dedicated to strategically managing assets. This has provided the opportunity to increase capacity and scale to improve asset management systems and technologies which ultimately will translate into improved operational delivery over the next 10 to 20 years.

 

Fixing our roads will take committed effort for the next 20 years and this Transport Asset Management Plan is councils way to set goals to achieve this.

 

2.     
      Purpose

 

What is Asset Management?

 

Asset management is the planning, acquisition, operation, maintenance, renewal and disposal of assets. In simplest terms, asset management is about the way in which assets are looked after, both on a day-to-day basis (i.e. maintenance and operations) and in the medium to long-term (i.e. capital renewal and forward planning). Asset management ensures that council’s assets are capable of providing services, of an agreed quality, in a sustainable manner, for present and future communities.

 

 

This asset management plan is prepared to meet legislative and organisational requirements for sustainable service delivery and long term financial planning and reporting.

 

Objective of Asset Management

 

The objective of asset management is to maximise asset service delivery potential and manage related risks and costs over an assets entire life. Asset management is about intervening at strategic points in an asset’s life cycle, optimising the performance of the asset and the cost to maintain it. It requires a proactive approach to asset maintenance and planning to identify works prior to costly and dangerous asset failure occurring.

 

The goal set out by this asset management plan is to meet the required levels of service in the most cost effective way for present and future communities (Figure 3).

 

Asset Management needs to balance Levels of Service

and

 whole of life cycle costs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 3 Asset Management simplified

 

 

Benefit of Asset Management

 

Asset management delivers benefits that are realised in the areas of improved accountability, sustainable service deliver, risk reduction and financial management and forecasting.

Improving council’s asset management practices will enable optimised spending by doing more with less through knowing what assets we own, what condition they’re in and by monitoring the effect of our actions.

 

Doing more with less.

 


 

Related Council Documents

 

This Transport Asset Management Plan sets out the implementation of Council’s Asset Management Strategy for the long-term management of its Transport assets in a financially responsible manner. It determines recommended service levels, inspection regimes and proactive maintenance routines to keep the Transport assets in safe and serviceable conditions. In order to do this effectively, other Council policies, strategies and plans must be considered to determine how this impacts on this asset management plan.

 

Table 1 Related Council Documents

Key Council Documents

Relationship

Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) - E2016/100839

Outlines the framework for the management of Byron Bay Council’s General Fund Infrastructure assets to deliver Council’s Vision.

Byron Shire Bike Strategy and Action Plan (Bike Plan) – DM790722

Links to Future Demand, Section 6.

Byron Shire Developer Contribution Plan 2012 (Section 94) - E2015/540

Links to Future Demand, Section 6.

Draft Infrastructure Service Risk Management Procedure (ISRMP) - E2015/23531

Links to the Levels of Service, Section 5

IPART Determination of Council’s Application for Special Variation for 2017-18 – E2017/54521

Links to the Financial Statement Projections and Funding Strategy, Section 13.

IPART Application of Councils Special Variation for 2017-18 –E2017/15274

Links to the Customer Levels of Service tables, Section 5.

MR545 Strategic Study – DM844180

Links to Future Demand, Section 6.

Workforce Plan 2017-2021 – E2017/19709

Links to Renewal, New and Upgrade Plan, Section 10 and 11.

Long Term Financial Plan 2016-2026 – E2017/8695

Links to the Financial Statement Projections and Funding Strategy, Section 13.

Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee Level of Service – Sealed Road Network - I2016/108

Defines the adopted sealed roads levels of service

Community Consultation and Engagement Report – Funding our Future - E2017/80803

Document that relays the key findings of the communities’ expectations of council, it was created for the community engagement and awareness strategy for the Special Rate Variation.

Community Infrastructure Asset Assessment Manual Condition, Functionality and Capacity – DM1101346

Document that guidelines how each asset class is to be assessed for Condition, Functionality and Capacity

 

3.     
      Current Position

 

Transport Asset Stock

 

Byron Council manages the community’s Transport assets in integrated service areas that interact to make Byron a great place to work, visit, live and invest.

 

This Asset Management Plan is designed to take into consideration all Council Transport Assets as follows:

 

 

 


Roads 508km Sealed & 96km Unsealed

 

Bridges 33 & Footbridges 12

 

Kerb and gutter 257km

 

Footpaths/Shared Paths 89km (cyclists & pedestrians)

 

Road barriers 31km

 

Bus shelters 40

 

Causeways 88 & major culverts 90 (Rural Drainage)

 

Retaining walls 75

 

Traffic control devices 727 (roundabouts, islands etc.)

 

Car Parks 24 (off road)

 

Figure 4 Transport Asset Stock

 

Note: Major culverts are defined as barrel(s) entry area >1.767m2. Shared paths include cyclists and pedestrians.

 

Replacement Cost of Council’s Transport assets

 

The replacement value of Council’s Transport asset portfolio is $334.84 million with a depreciated replacement cost of $182.27 million. The annual depreciation is $5.44 million as at 30 June 2017.The break-up of Council’s Transport asset portfolio by replacement value is illustrated in the following diagram. This does not include the 4 new bridges and footbridges on Brunswick Valley Way handed to council in 2016.

 

Figure 5 Overall breakdown of replacement cost for Transport assets

 

Present Condition of Council’s Transport assets

 

By understanding the condition of Council’s assets and the various types of distresses that affect them, Council can utilise this data (to endeavour) to maintain the level of service the community desires. In the context of affordability council can provide intergenerational benefits and also minimise the risk of asset failure. The consequences of asset failures can lead to legal liability if Council is found to have acted unreasonably in the management of its assets.

 

There are many reasons why assets fail/deteriorate and therefore do not meet current performance standards and community expectations. Among the most common reasons for failures at BSC are the following:

 

·    Lack of timely road and stormwater maintenance

·    Delay of timely capital  renewals

·    Damage by service authorities when installing / constructing their infrastructure within Council’s road reservation

·    Movement of the underlying soils

·    Inability to control roadside vegetation and manage  water saturation / run off (no chemical weed control is permitted in BSC)

·    Increases in vehicle heavy loads  on Council’s roads beyond what the road structure can cater

·    Sever weather events and or natural disasters

 

Sealed roads are the largest part of the Road network replacement cost at $230 million (Figure 5). It has 41 % in poor to very poor condition (Figure 6). This presents as a ‘Bring to Satisfactory’ backlog of $24 million (Special Schedule 7). This alone is council’s greatest concern with the condition reaching the end of use life and providing poor level of service.

 

Table 2 Condition Grading Model

Condition Grading

Description of Condition

1

Excellent: Asset in excellent condition. No maintenance required.

2

Good: Asset is in good condition with limited signs of wear.  Only requires cyclic maintenance and is not requiring special attention.

3

Fair: Asset is in useable condition with extensive signs of wear.  Asset requires some attention to prevent further deterioration and to return it to a condition so that it requires only cyclic maintenance.

4

Poor: Asset is in poor condition or is faulty. It needs urgent attention to return it to a useable condition and or significant renewal/rehabilitation is required to reduce risk.

5

Very Poor: Asset has failed or is at the end of its life or is physically unsound or poses significant risk. It requires replacement and is beyond rehabilitation.

 

 

Road ‘Bring to Satisfactory’ backlog is $24M.

Sealed roads have 41% in poor condition.

 

The condition of the footpath network has 28.6% in a fair condition which is likely to move into a poor condition if the future maintenance and renewal budgets are not increased.

 

The unsealed roads have 31% in poor condition and 33% in fair. Council’s unsealed roads do not receive the required re-sheeting maintenance; as such they are affected greatly by wet wether events. Council has consistently relied on natural disaster funding to maintain unsealed roads.

 

The following, Figure 6 and subsequent pages depict the overall condition for each asset sub group. To simplify the condition from the Figure 6 above, Excellent (1) and Good (2) have been combined into GOOD, and Poor (4) and Very Poor (5) into POOR.

 

Figure 6 Transport assets by condition

 

Sealed Roads

 

 

 

Council is responsible for 508km of sealed roads which we are currently spending $5.1 million per year to maintain and renew the sealed road pavement. Generally our roads are in fair to poor condition which manifest as a high level of potholes and other surface defects. To address this, additional and significant long term capital work such as reseals and reconstruction is required to improve the overall network.

 

 

 

 



 

Unsealed Roads

 

Council currently spends $390,000 each year to maintain 96km of unsealed roads in the Shire. A large proportion of unsealed roads are in fair condition overall with only 28% to be considered in a good condition. Many unsealed roads have little gravel coverage and are affected by poor weather conditions. Additional maintenance and gravel replenishment to this network is required to keep these roads trafficable.

 

 

 

 



 

Bridges

 


Council owns and maintains 33 bridges and 12 footbridges. The majority of these road bridges are rated as being in a good to fair condition; however, 40% are rated as poor and load limited. Council spent $74,000 for maintenance and $933,000 capital renewal in 2016/17 on bridges and footbridges.

 

Council was gifted 3 bridges and 1 footbridge on Brunswick Valley Way in 2017 from the Roads and Maritime Services as a part of the highway bypass coming off a 10 year maintenance period. Councils maintenance and capital budgets have not increased accordingly to manage these assets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Footpaths and shared paths

 

Council currently owns and maintains 89km of footpaths and cycleways (shared paths), stairs and kerb ramps across the Shire. We spend approximately $116,000 per year on footpaths and cycleways (maintenance and renewal). The majority of the footpaths are in a fair to good condition with only 7% in poor condition and need complete replacement. A third of the footpaths currently in fair condition need additional replacement in sections to ensure they do not deteriorate into a poor and unsafe condition.

 

 

 


 

Rural Drainage – Causeways and Culverts

 

Council owns 88 causeways and 90 culverts, and 1,311 rural pipes.  The majority of the causeways and culverts are in good and fair condition however, 19% of the culverts and 53% of the causeways are in a poor condition. Council currently spent $248,000 on maintaining rural drainage in 2016/17. After Level 2 structural inspections council has identified 7 urgent ($2.2million) and 16 high priority ($5.5million) poor condition rural drainage assets. The 7 urgent asset are either load limited and or have temporary steel plates and require full replacement. If the 16 high priority assets are not addressed in the very near future load limits will be implemented. The 23 rural drainage assets that require replacement/renewal that totals $7.7 million is currently unfunded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Urban Stormwater

 

Council currently owns and maintains 257km of kerb and gutter, 139km of pipes and 4920 pits (includes kerb inlet pits, field inlets and headwalls). Council spent $364,000 on urban drainage in 2016/17. Most of our road drainage is rated fair. However, much of the road drainage network in fair condition needs additional maintenance and replacement work undertaken to prevent it from degrading to a poor condition.

 

 

Bus Shelters

 

 

Council owns 40 bus shelters with 43% good and 30% fair. However, there are 28% in a poor condition which require replacing and bringing up to the disability access standards by 2020. We spend approximately $1,680 per year on maintenance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Remaining Life

 

 

Based on condition audits and inspections carried out in the years from 2014 to 2017 and 2017 financial asset data, Council’s assets are estimated to be in fair condition as shown in Error! Reference source not found. in the condition barometer chart. On a network basis, as shown below, on average Council’s assets have consumed 46% of their useful life.

Figure 7 Asset Remaining Life

 

Road assets have consumed 46% of their useful life compared to industry average.

 

 


4.            Levels of Service

 

A key objective of this Asset Management Plan is to identify the current levels of service provided by Council’s asset portfolio. The levels of service defined in this section will be used to:

 

·    Clarify the level of service that our customers should expect.

·    Identify works required to meet these levels of service.

·    Identify the costs and benefits of the services offered.

·    Enable Council and customers to discuss and assess the suitability, affordability and equality of the existing service level and to determine the impact of increasing or decreasing this level in future.

 

This section defines the service for Byron Shire Council’s Transport assets. The adopted levels of service for these Transport Assets have been based on legislative requirements, customer research and expectations, and Council’s strategic goals. There are two tiers of levels of service; Customer Levels of Service and Technical Levels of Service.

 

Technical Levels of Service

 

Technical Levels of Service are long term, tactical tools developed to measure, monitor and manage functions of service over time with regards to quality of assets managed, quantities of assets contributed or constructed, operational and capital expenditure (Table 4).These technical measures relate to the allocation of resources to service activities that the organisation undertakes to best achieve the desired community outcomes and demonstrate effective organisational performance. Legislative requirements, infrastructure standards and industry guides combine to strongly influence technical levels of service. For example, the number of crashes per year caused by loose gravel. The following are also defined:

 

·    New Assets, upgraded or reconstructed asset – the design and maintenance standards applicable

·    Maintenance – intervention points and responsiveness

 

Community Levels of Service

 

Community Levels of Service are a reflection of Technical Levels of Service being delivered to the community. They are derived through community engagement, which gauge the publics’ level of satisfaction with service, their utilisation of a service, and their desired levels of service and may also be derived from informal community feedback and complaints. For example potholes on roads repaired within an agreed timeframe.

 

Community levels of service measures used in asset management planning are:

 

Quality                          How good is the service?

Function                       Does it meet users’ needs?

Capacity/Utilisation              Is the service usage appropriate to capacity?

 

During Councils community engagement and awareness strategy for the 2016 Special Rate Variation council used a variety of methods to engage with the community around levels of service. Council consistently provided information about the need for a rate increase and ensured ratepayers were aware of the proposed special rate variation. The council implemented its community engagement and awareness strategy in four phases:

 

 

·    Phase 1 - community satisfaction surveys conducted from July to August 2016, to determine levels of community satisfaction and changes from the 2013 survey results.

·    Phase 2 – an asset survey conducted from August to September 2016, to determine community attitudes regarding priority assets and council investment.

·    Phase 3 – the special rate variation awareness campaign Funding our Future conducted from September to November 2016, to determine ratepayers’ preferred special rate variation option and community support for a special variation.

·    Phase 4 – exhibiting updated Integrated Planning and Reporting documentation, to provide additional special rate variation information to the community and to improve awareness and seek submissions regarding the special rate variation process.

 

In addition to the surveys and public exhibition of the documents outlined above, community awareness and associated feedback came from a variety of engagement methods, including:

 

ü advertising and media release,

ü community forums,

ü council kiosks at community events, and

ü social media engagement.

 

 

The community has consistently told Council that fixing Byron’s roads is a priority. For example, since 2007 Council has regularly undertaken community satisfaction surveys which have consistently demonstrated that Council is not meeting the community’s expectation for the condition of assets such as roads. The community view aligns with Council’s Strategic Asset Management Plan with respect to prioritising the fixing of Byron’s roads.

 

The Strategic Asset Management Plan highlights that unless increased and sustained investment occurs, the progressive deterioration and failure of the road network will accelerate.

 

The most recent Community Survey was conducted in 2016. Significantly, of all the services provided by Council, local roads had the lowest satisfaction score of 1.75, where a score of 1.0 is ‘Not at all Satisfied’ and a score of 5.0 is ‘Very Satisfied’. Local Roads were given the highest importance ranking by the community in both the 2013 and 2016 surveys (Figure 8 Customer Satisfaction Transport Assets Performance Gap). In combination with the lowest satisfaction score, Table 3 shows that the poor condition of roads in Byron Shire has resulted in the largest performance gap score of 2.99 (IPART Application, 2017-18). This information has been utilised when constructing the customer levels of service Table 4 to Table 7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8 Customer Satisfaction Transport Assets Performance Gap


 

 

Table 3 Customer Satisfaction Performance Gap Ranking (Summarised version)

Ranking 2013

Ranking 2016

Service/Facility

Importance Mean

Satisfaction

Performance Gap

1

1

Local Roads overall

4.74

1.75

2.99

5

2

Affordable Housing

4.20

1.96

2.24

2

3

Public Road

4.08

1.98

2.10

5

4

Long term planning

4.68

2.68

2.00

7

5

Parking

4.42

2.5

1.92

3

6

Public toilets

4.29

2.39

1.90

11

12

Bikeways (Shared Paths)

3.99

2.45

1.54

10

13

Footpaths

4.20

2.77

1.43

21

23

Stormwater

4.05

3.08

0.97

Scale: 1 = not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5 = very important/very satisfied

(IPART Application, 2017-18)

 

In addition to the very high performance gap ranking, when satisfaction is compared with other local government benchmarks, the community were significantly less satisfied with the condition of their roads. None of the 27 comparable measures were rated above the benchmark threshold of 0.15. The Byron satisfaction score for Roads was 1.75 and the benchmark variance was -1.05.

 

The 2016 Community Satisfaction Survey concludes that when satisfaction versus priority and investment across 12 asset classes which were analysed, it was clear that “residents want to see an increased investment to address the Road Infrastructure backlog” (IPART Application, 2017-18).

 

The community have expressed concerns with paid parking. However, the return on this is being invested into the Bring to Satisfactory backlog of $31 million for road renewal. This funding strategy was addressed in the 2016 Fit for Future Council Improvement Proposal.

 

Together the community and technical levels of service provide detail on service performance, cost and whether service levels are likely to stay the same, get better or worse. Our current and projected levels of service are documented below. These Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s)for levels of service have been developed using the following tools:

 

·    Councils Customer Request Management System

·    Surveys – community satisfaction survey

·    Focus Groups – Road and Traffic Advisory Committee

·    Facebook feedback

·    Reflect™ inspections and defects

·    Traffic studies

·    Condition assessment e.g. laser Profilometer

·    Roads and Maritime Services crash data

 

 

Residents want to see an increased investment to address the Road Infrastructure backlog.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                                               4.1 - Attachment 1

Table 4 Sealed Roads Levels of Service

SEALED ROADS -COMMUNITY LEVELS OF SERVICE

Key Performance Measure

Level of Service

Performance Measure Process

Performance Target

Current Performance

Quality[1]

Satisfactory and suitable road network

Customer Requests for road surface performance

<500 per year for sealed roads potholes/edge break only)

 

Location in travel lane, Road Hierarchy, and size of hole.

 

Hold Pothole repairs to $1.3M and increase Heavy Patching. Previously nil Heavy Patching budgets. Increase pavement renewals to increase quality.

Customer Request Module (CRM) recording process to be reviewed. Low to moderate confidence level with current processes.

Pothole Requests(CRM = POTHOLE)

2017 = 526

Pothole/Edge Break

$ 1,279,290 maintenance exp. 2016/17

Heavy Patching AC

$ 6,184 maintenance exp. 2016/17

Customer Satisfaction

Road network meets community expectations

Customer Survey

In 2016, 80% of our community said that rural and urban roads should be a priority and more funding needed to be invested.

LGA Benchmark value of 2.7 satisfaction (‘Moderately low’ level of satisfaction)

Rural Roads Unsealed = 2.61

No Met.

2016 Community Research Satisfaction E2016/77989) Scale = 1 Not satisfied, 5=very satisfied

Local Roads = 2.23

Urban Roads = 2.13

Function – Impact of works

Good construction practices during and planning for construction

Business and personal disruptions during construction

<30 complaints per year as a result of recent construction

CRM process to be reviewed to record ROAD CONSTRUCTION COMPLAINTS

 

Function / Safety1

Provide a safe network

 

 

Line marking – Customer Requests

 

Street Signs – Customer Requests

 

Guideposts

 

Roadside Barrier

 

 

·   Prioritise line-marking in accordance with the Road Hierarchy and a Risk Based Approach of Heavy Rural Traffic/High Speed

·   Target Road signs with a risk based approach within the available budget and the Signs

·   Guidepost standards APPENDIX A - Table 1  are achieved within the available budget

·   Roadside Barriers (Prioritise Hierarchy TBC)

Customer Request Module (CRM) recording process to be reviewed to include ROAD SIGNS, LINEMARKING, GUIDEPOSTS, ROAD BARRIERS.

Line marking

$32,245 – Maintenance 2016/17

$58,030 – Capital2

Road Signs

$170,214 – Maintenance 2016/17

$57,734 – Capital2

Guidepost

$12,795 – Maintenance 2016/17

$49,044 - Capital2

Roadside Barriers

$5,553 – Maintenance 2016/17

Function/ Accessibility

Roads will be accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week

Road Closures – Customer Requests/TRIM

<10 complaints per year, except were appropriate notifications were published in advance for special events, maintenance or capital works.

Note: This does not include natural disaster events, causeways/culverts that flood and roads such as Possum Shoot (4.5t) that have permanent Heavy Vehicle load limits from previous slip events.

 

CRM process to be reviewed to record Road Accessibility in the classifications.

CRM = ROAD CLOSURE

Function/ Aesthetic

Provide roads and street that are clean and free from dust and refuse

Street sweeping

<10 complaints per year.

 

Programmed street maintenance of 2,159km/year with current budget of $289,016. Byron Streets CBD Daily & Twice Weekly areas (16.516km/wk) Brunswick Heads CBD Daily (6.44km/wk) Mullumbimby CBD Daily (12.07km/wk) Bangalow CBD Mon, Wed, Fri (6.492km/wk)

CRM process to be reviewed to record Street sweeper

CRM = STREET SWEEPER

 

Street sweeper

$289,016.83

Performance under review.

Responsiveness

Response Times

Response times of Defects in accordance with Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedure (E2015/23531) Road Risk Rating Section 1.6

< TBC% overdue outstanding defects

Surface Pavement Damage = Potholes, shoving, rutting, & joints

Reflect™ Reporting Current Surface Response Performance in 2016/17Avg Target Response vs. Ave. Actual Response days

Regional                          37     97

Distributor      37        99

Rural Major    70        161

Collector         104      88

Local                140      95

Rural Minor    140      194

Rural Access   153      245

Access                          156             138

Travel

Travel delays

Peak Traffic congestions

Based on intermittent audits.

 

<8 minutes on Tennyson Street/Browning Street Roundabout and McGettigans Lane

R545 Study DM844180 – Travel time between the Tennyson Street/Browning Street Roundabout and McGettigans Lane increases from 7 minutes in 2008 to 9 minutes in 2028 is the PM peak (this represents a 30% increase in travel time, which is considered unacceptable)

 


 

SEALED ROADS-TECHNICAL LEVELS OF SERVICE

Key Performance Measure

Level of Service

Performance Measure Process

Performance Target

Current Target

Road Condition Parameter1

Roughness

NAASRA roughness counts/km

Condition 1 = <60

Condition 2 = 60 to 90

Condition 3 = 90 to 120

Condition 4 = 120 to 170

Condition 5 = >170

NAASRA average counts/km

URBAN 130

RURAL 120

 

NAARSA average counts/km

URBAN 172

RURAL 149

Condition – Road Renewal

Reseals

Kilometres resealed

TBC

Sealed Design Life Bitumen  average 12years (335km[TB2] ) =28km/year

Asphalt–  average15 years (165km) = 11km

Concrete – 40 years (1.959km)

(Austroads  AGPT05-11)

Reseals[2]

30km bitumen /year

11km Asphalt / year

2016/17 = 11.4km $631,537

2015/16 – 32.9kms $2,022,669

Reseals 2014/15 – 9.473 kms $481,369

Condition Road Renewal

Reconstruction

Kilometres reconstructed

TBC

Road Design Life 20 years [TB3] 

Reconstruction ** Target6km /year

2016/17 = 5.97km$5,051,321

2015/16 – 3.4km $3,106,518

2014/15 – 1.45km

Maintenance $2,337

Condition – kerb and gutter

Technical Condition Assessment

As per the Asset Condition Assessment document DM1101346

Critical High Risk failed kerb and gutter to be repaired in accordance with the available budget

TBC

Maintenance & Capital Expenditure 16/17

$704,378

Safety1

Provide a safe network

Crash/Accident Data – Roads & Maritime Query: CRASURF = 1 (sealed)

CRAHAZ = ANY

CRAROAD = 3 (other classified road) and 4 (unclassified road)

<20 crashes / year caused by loose gravel on rural high speed e.g. gravel on shoulder, potholes, corrugations/ roughness, slippery surface, flooded/submerged or other hazardous feature

MetCrashes Year (Jan-Dec)

2016 - 2

2015 - 2

2014- 12

2013- 7

2012- 8

Safety / Risk

High Speed > 80km/hr rural areas are given priority for reseals and reconstructions

Crash data analysis

Priority on rural roads high speed (>80km/hr)

 

Injuries = 40

Fatalities = 0

2016 Rural Roads High speed

Crashes = 64

Injuries = 47

Fatalities = 0 (25% Wet conditions, 40% Exceeding Speed limit)

Capacity

Load

Load limits

10km with load limited roads, except those affected by slip sites/ natural disasters

Possum Shoot Roads has a 4.5 tonne limit

Travel

Heavy vehicles

AADT Heavy Vehicle %

Roads do not exceed the Heavy Vehicle Design Loads

TBC


Table 5 Unsealed Roads Levels of Service

UNSEALED ROADS –CUSTOMERLEVELS OF SERVICES

Key Performance Measure

Level of Service

Performance Measure Process

Performance Target

Current Performance

Quality

Provides safe passage commuters

Number of investigations by staff from customer requests management (CRM)

Fewer than 100 requests for maintenance of existing unsealed roads annually

Customer Requests for Grading (CRM=GRADING)

2017=89

2016=49

2015=64

Actual Expenditure of Unsealed roads

$ 390,083.93 maintenance 2016/17

(Including drainage, signs, guideposts etc.)

Function

Road network is appropriate to users needs

Roads meet service hierarchy requirements for traffic volumes, design speeds, width, alignment, access etc.

Rip, add 20-50mm of gravel, profile and maintain drainage every road once every 2nd year

When segments reach a condition 4 or 5 they are possibly graded pending available budgets.

Capacity

Sealed road capacity is appropriate to service hierarchy

Road width and usage is appropriate to service hierarchy.

No reduced speed limits.

Met

 

UNSEALED ROADS – TECHNICAL LEVELS OF SERVICES

Safety

Provide a safe network

Crash/Accident Data – Roads & Maritime Services

Query: CRASURF = 1 (unsealed) CRAHAZ = ANY

CRAROAD = 3 (other classified road) and 4 (unclassified road)

<20 crashes / year caused by loose grave on rural high speed e.g., gravel on shoulder, potholes, corrugations/roughness, slippery surface, flooded/submerged or other hazardous feature

Met

 

2016 = 0

2015 = 0

2014 = 1

2013 = 2

Safety / Risk

High Speed >80km/Rural Areas are given a priority for re-sheeting

Crash Data Analysis

Priority on Rural High speed (>80km/hr)

Injuries= TBD

Fatalities = TBD

2016 High Speed

Crashes = 2

Injuries = 0

50% Wet Conditions

50% Exceeding Speed Limit


 

Table 4 Traffic Control Devices Levels of Service

TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES – CUSTOMER LEVELS OF SERVICES

Key Performance Measure

Level of Service

Performance Measure Process

Performance Target

Current Performance

Quality

Maintained roundabouts, islands and median strips

Frequency of complaints regarding appearance of landscape

<10 requests for maintenance of existing landscape relating to traffic control devices per year (excluding request for capital upgrades)

TBD

CRM process to be reviewed to record Roundabout/Islands in the classifications.

Capability

Capable of use by all vehicles

Designed and constructed to function correctly

Compliance with the emergency services requirements

Met

Function

Achieves desired traffic calming results

Post installation investigations

< 5 complaints per year regarding installation after the first year.

TBD

CRM process to be reviewed to record Roundabout/Islands in the classifications.

Safety

Existing installation fit for purpose

Compliance with relevant standards at time of the installation. Unacceptable hazards identified and dealt with promptly

Hazards found during condition inspection audits. Defects addressed by the end of the financial year.

TBD – in progress

 Reflect™ to include Traffic Control Devices

Safety

New installations are safe and do not present dangers to the public

Designed and installed according to current legislation

All new installations designed and installed as per current legislation

Met

 


 

Table 6 Footpath and Shared Path Levels of Service

FOOTPATHS/SHARED PATHS – CUSTOMER LEVELS OF SERVICES

Key Performance Measure

Level of Service

Performance Measure Process

Performance Target

Current Performance

Quality

Provides safe pedestrian and or cycle travel for commuters

Number of investigations by staff from customer requests management (CRM) regarding insurance claims

Fewer than 5 insurance claims annually

Customer Request Module (CRM) recording process to be reviewed. Add an insurance claim category separate from footpaths REPAIR, TRIPHAZ, MISC, OBSTRUCT. Address categorisation process for reporting.

2016/17 CRM’s

New footpath requests = 2

Clean request = 1

Debris removal = 2

Hazard requests = 28

Customer’s hazards expectations are higher than what can be achieved with available funds (Refer to the Asset Risk Management Procedures).

Capability

Surface

Defect Inspections annually as per Asset Risk Management Procedures

Critical High Risk footpath/Shared Paths to be repaired in accordance with the available budget and condition inspections priority repair program

Highest risk defects addressed with the available budget of $100,000 annually.

 

Function

Compliance with DDA

Compliance requirements

New installations meet Legislative Requirements. Existing facilities to meet DDA requirements when further maintenance work conducted.

Met

Function

Legislative

 

Hard surface, minimum footpath 1200mm wide Shared Path 2000mm wide (AS1428 Parts 1 & 2 & Austroads 2009 GUIDE TO PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST PATHS)

Meets Standards (BSC Shared Paths, Footpaths and Shared Paths Technical Specifications E2018/2497)

Met

 


Table 7 Kerb and Gutter Levels of Service

KERB AND GUTTER – CUSTOMER LEVELS OF SERVICES

Key Performance Measure

Level of Service

Performance Measure Process

Performance Target

Current Performance

Quality

Kerb and Gutter is in a condition appropriate for its use.

Free draining with no ponding of water.

 

TBC (Fewer than 20 requests for maintenance of existing unsealed roads annually)

CRM process to be reviewed to record kerb and gutter requests.

 

Actual Capital Expenditure of Kerb and Gutter

$ 704,378 (majority Renewal)

Function

Kerb and gutter conveys stormwater from roads in a safe, harm free and efficient manner.

Meets road hierarchy requirements for type, location and capacity.

Very Poor – kerb is discontinuous, uneven in grade and ponds water

Overall Condition Fair to Poor

Capacity

Stormwater flow is contained within kerb and gutter.

Over-kerb overflows are minimal.

Poor / Very Poor – Stormwater overflows kerb and gutter over sections or length

Overall Condition Fair to Poor

 


 

Table 8 Stormwater Levels of Service

STORMWATER – CUSTOMER LEVELS OF SERVICES

Key Performance Measure

Level of Service

Performance Measure Process

Performance Target

Current Performance

Quality – Minor Flooding in street

Minimal disruptions associated with minor flooding

Complaints from residents regarding repeat minor flooding

<10 complaints per year

CRM process to be reviewed to record FLOODING STREET

 

Quality – Flooding to properties

Private properties not being damaged by Council drainage

Adequate drainage in place

<3 complaints per year

CRM process to be reviewed to record FLOODING PRIVATE LAND

Quality – Major Flooding

Adequate mitigation of flooding events – warning, reduction of damage, etc.

Adequate systems in place and appropriate knowledge of risk

Complete regional study(ies) and implement recommendations as per the program and funding

Met

Quality

Provide efficient method of collection and disposal of stormwater

Customer Satisfaction survey 2016

LGA Benchmark value of 2.7 satisfaction

Scale: 1 = not at all important/not at all satisfied, 5 = very important/very satisfied

Met (3.08)

 

Quality

Capital renewal of infrastructure

Replacement of aging asset

Replace one causeway each financial year

Not Met

Function – Impact of works

Good construction practices during and planning for construction

Business and personal disruptions during construction

<3 complaints per year as a result of recent construction

CRM process to be reviewed to record ROAD CONSTRUCTION COMPLAINTS

Function – maintenance

Maintenance levels keep the drainage system functioning

Function of the drainage system

<40 complaints per year regarding flooding and <5 insurance claims per year

CRM process to be reviewed to record appropriate classifications for reporting.

CRM = FLOODING INSURANCE, and combined FLOODING STREET / FLOODING PRIVATE LAND

Capacity

Designs meet or exceed industry best practice regarding capacity and Environmental Design

Current Australian Standards and guidelines met

Guidelines met or exceeded

Met


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                      4.1 - Attachment 1

 

Maintenance Levels of Service refer to those service levels delivered on a day to day nature. Refer to the Draft Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedures for further details.

 

The Risk Management Procedure (E2015/23531) outlines:

 

1.         The required response to defects and hazards

2.         The expected inspection interval and frequency

3.         Risk rating procedures and priority rankings

4.         Response times to inspect and/or repair defect and hazards

5.         Resources required to deliver specified services.

 

The service levels do not apply during a weather event within the local region. During such an event all available resources will be allocated to attending to emergency works.

 

This Transport Asset Management Plan acknowledges the link between workload indicators and intervention actions. For example, a substantial increase in road works (through development or upgrades) can materially impact on the ability to maintain and respond to defects and hazards, if not also accompanied by a comparable increase in maintenance budget allocation or resources.

 

The standards of maintenance are considered reasonable, however, it’s noted that community satisfaction is below the acceptable standard of 3 in most cases.

 

Further detail regarding Maintenance levels of service are discussed in the Maintenance Plan Section 8.

 

Condition Assessment

 

The Community Infrastructure Asset Assessment Manual (DM1101346), outlines the strategic inspection plans and the condition, functionality and capacity assessment guidelines for Transport Assets, excluding road surface and pavement. This is a live document which is modified as required to account for changes in technology, requirements and processes. Condition information must be accurate and repeatable to support this Plan, the capital works programs and the asset management predictive modelling.

 

The Community Infrastructure Asset Assessment Manual has implemented mobile android devices for inspections, defects, accomplishments and electronic forms. The use of mobile devices has removed a lot of paper based inspections and accomplishment form completion.

 

Mobile solutions have provided the following benefits:

 

·    Reduced paperwork

·    Reduced error

·    Provided accurate and repeatable data gathering

·    Enabled Byron to outsource repeatable tasks

·    Enabled BSC to generate reports and create KPI’s etc.


 

5.            Future Demand

 

This section evaluates potential factors affecting demand such as:

 

·    Population growth

·    Changing community expectations

·    Development

·    Changes in demographic

·    Strategic network extensions and upgrades

 

These factors will affect the renewal and upgrade of the existing network and addition of assets, which in turn affects the maintenance and operational resourcing and budgeting.

 

Demand Forecast

 

Population trends can be used as a guide in determining future demand. Information from NSW Planning & Environment below indicates that Byron Shire is currently experiencing growth, which is expected to continue (Table 9).

 

Table 9 NSW population projections regional LG data

Forecast Year

Change between 2011 and 2036

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

Total Change

Total Increase Rate

30,700

32,400

33,850

35,250

36,650

37,950

7,250

1.24

 

This population growth may see an increase in maintenance requirements across the Transport asset network along with capital renewals and upgrades.

 

There is also potential for increased developer contributed assets that will alleviate some of the strains placed by an increase in population and the corresponding expectations and requirements. However, this will also see a need for increasing maintenance expenditure and resourcing as the assets begin to age.

 

Demand Management Plan

 

The demand for Transport Assets is expected to increase proportional to the population growth projected for the region. This also aligns with the expectations from the community where sealed local roads in both urban and rural areas scored in the top 3 priorities (Figure 9).

 

Figure 9 Top 3 Community Priorities (BSC Survey, 2016)

 

Managing the demand for services will involve both asset and non-asset solutions.

 

Non-asset solutions put emphasis on providing the required level of service without making changes to the current asset stock. This includes reducing the level of service, reducing demand for the service and providing education to the community to accept appropriate asset failures.

 

Asset solutions include the renewal, upgrade and creation of assets and often places increased strain on current resourcing.

 

Key drivers for demand that have been identified are shown below (Table 10).

 

Table 10 Demand management plan summary

Demand Driver

Impact on Services

Demand Management Plan

Capacity

·    Population growth

·    Tourism

Requirement to upgrade or expand the Road infrastructure network

·    Fund priority works by seeking grant funding and implementing the Section 94 plan

·    Educate the community on the costs associated with maintaining current service levels and increased costs required with increased network

Capital / Maintenance Works

·    Asset growth

·    Aging asset stock

·    Expectation from community for quality road network (as identified in consultation)

·    Increased bike and foot paths

·    Early failure of developer contributed assets

·    Increase costs associated with works due to increase in traffic management

Requirement to upgrade the Road infrastructure network

·    Consult with community on options and funding requirements

·    Inform community and manage expectations. Communicate levels of service and financial capacity to balance infrastructure priorities with what the community is prepared to fund.

Development

·    Increased development to accommodate increased population and demand

Additional infrastructure required to cope with demand

·    Monitor and manage development controls

·    Undertake infrastructure planning taking into account land use changes

 

New Assets from Growth

 

The purpose of the Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 (Amendment 3) (the Plan) is to enable Byron Shire Council to request contributions from developers. These contributions are expected to provide services that are likely to be required as a result of development throughout Byron Shire. The Plan also outlines the programmed work to be completed as part of the Section 94 contributions, a copy of the Plan is available on Council’s website (http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/developer-contributions-plans).

 

The Section 94 plan requires the carrying out of works or the payment of contributions to go towards the provision, extension or augmentation of services and facilities that will, or are likely to be, required as a consequence of development in Byron Shire.

 

The Byron Shire Bike Plan was developed in order to endorse the expansion of the existing network of bicycle facilities in Byron Shire. The Plan is based on extensive research, review of existing infrastructure and future requirements, and community consultation. The Section 94 Plan considers the Bike Plan in the provision of developer contributions and identification of suitable projects.

 


Changes in Technology

 

Byron Shire Council uses mobile android devices for inspections, defects and electronic forms. It utilises Asset Edge Reflect™ which synchronises data to a cloud solution and information can be available simultaneously in the office. As such council does not use any paper systems to manage the Transport Assets. Additionally, Council uses ArcGIS Collector apps for field inspections, data capture and cleansing spatial data. Council has used GPS technology for footpath inspections since 2006.

 

Council has all assets mapped in the Geographical Information System and available to office staff one-to-one with the Authority Asset Register.

 

Council has recently purchased a Drone for asset inspections, aerial photography and video. This solution provides the ability to gain access to difficult sites that would not previously have been inspected or have required expensive traffic control. Examples include under bridges or very high retaining walls on Brunswick Valley Way. It is also providing the ability to engage with the community via Facebook.

 

Council has employed SPOT Satellite Personal Tracker technology for staff working alone doing inspections in remote locations where there is no phone reception. SPOT GEN3 uses Global Satellite with GPS messenger to send messages to supervisors that they are ok, or if the worst should happen it sends emergency responders the GPS location with a push of a button (SPOT, 2017).

 

Byron leads asset management

with the latest technology and innovation.

 

6.      Asset Management Practices

 

This section outlines the decision-making tools currently used to determine long term maintenance, renewal and upgrade expenditure for Transport Assets. As a result of Council restructuring an asset team was formed in 2015. This now consists of 4 full time staff dedicated to strategically managing assets. This has provided the opportunity to increase capacity and scale to improve asset management systems and technologies detailed in Figure 10 Asset Management Systems and Elements.

 

Financial Systems

 

Council currently uses Authority as the financial management and accounting system.

 

Asset Management Systems

 

Council utilises Authority software as the asset management system. Authority contains details of all Council assets, their attribute and condition information. At present 35,300 (Jan 18) assets are linked to Council’s corporate GIS system which is used to show asset locations in a spatial manner in conjunction with cadastral, topographic and aerial information.

 

Assetic Predictor© was used to perform the strategic modelling prediction analysis to determine the future strategies and capital expenditure plans detailed in the Financial Summary section (Figure 10).

 

Asset management systems are well established and integrated.

Figure 10 Asset Management Systems and Elements

 

Accounting Framework

 

The following Accounting Framework applies to local government in New South Wales:

 

·    Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting

·    AASB 13 Fair Value Measurement – prescribes fair value measurement of assets

·    AASB 116 Property, Plant & Equipment – prescribes requirements for recognition and depreciation of property, plant and equipment assets

·    AASB 136 Impairment of Assets – aims to ensure that assets are carried at amounts that are not in excess of their recoverable amounts

·    AASB 108 Accounting Policies – specifies the policies that Council is to have for recognition of assets and depreciation

 


Standards and Guidelines

 

Asset Management practices and processes are driven by a number of legislative requirements and assisted various asset management guidelines.

 

·    NSW Local Government Act 1993 and Roads Act 1993, defines that Council is responsible for the regulation of the Transport Assets within its boundary areas.

·    Australian Accounting Standards set out the financial asset accounting reporting requirements on Local Governments.

·    International Standard ISO55000

·    International Infrastructure Management Manual developed by IPWEA (Provides guidance and direction on asset management policy and plan development).

·    Australian Infrastructure Financial Management Guidelines developed by IPWEA (Provides guidance and direction on asset accounting).

 

Risk Management

 

Byron Shire acknowledges that risk management is an essential part of best practice asset management. The risk assessment process identifies credible risks, the likelihood of the risk event occurring, the consequences should the event occur, develops a risk rating, evaluates the risk and develops a risk treatment plan for non-acceptable risks.

 

The Draft Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedure (E2015/23531), available at Council offices, outlines the process of identifying and managing risks for council’s infrastructure assets.

 

 

7.      Lifecycle Management Plan

 

Life cycle management is an integrated approach to optimising the asset life cycle from the initial idea through to disposal (Figure 11). This section discusses the identification of renewal, new, upgrade and maintenance works that are required at each stage of the asset life.

Asset Lifecycle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 11 Asset life cycle stages

 

 


Asset Capacity and Performance

 

In general, the capacity of the transport infrastructure network is adequate throughout most of the shire. However, there are significant capacity issues associated with MR 545 (Ewingsdale Road to Broken Head Road at the south boundary) and the Byron Bay town centre. There may be intersection capacity issues on Mullumbimby Road in the 10 to 20 year time frame.  

 

The community was extensively consulted throughout the special rate variation process, with the IP&R documentation clearly discussing the full extent of the rate rise. While some earlier consultation material did not clearly outline the base case (no Special Rate Variation) scenario, this was corrected in later consultation by the council.

 

The council used a range of engagement methods to make the community aware of the need for, extent of and impact of the rate rise and to seek community feedback. It gave detailed explanations about the purpose and impact of the Special Rate Variation (SRV), and provided opportunities for community feedback.

 

While the community feedback for the SRV was broadly negative, the council adequately demonstrated the community was aware of the size and need for the SRV.

 

Through community consultation, the council found that large proportions of respondents supported increased investment in:

 

•        buildings and public amenities (88% supported)

•        transport assets, including roads, bridges, and road drainage (83% supported)

•        drainage, including urban and rural stormwater (73% supported), and

•        park facilities (71% supported).

 

The council’s IP&R documents clearly indicate the community is dissatisfied with the current condition of these assets, and supports more expenditure to improve service levels (IPART, 2017-18).

 

Asset Condition

 

Council has a condition assessment manual that outlines the strategic inspection plan for Transport assets. In addition to this Council also undertakes recurring road and bridge inspections. Each asset, or component, is condition scored from 1 to 5, as defined in Levels of Service Table 2.  The condition scoring scale follows internationally accepted good practice.

 

Bridge inspections are carried out as per NSW Roads and Maritime Services inspections procedure manual. The results of these condition assessments are then used in our predictive modelling software, Asset Register and Geographical Information System.


 

Useful Lives and Unit Rates

 

The Byron Shire average actual life of Transport assets is typically longer than industry average. Council tends to run assets to the point of failure due to the nature of aging infrastructure and lack of capital funding. At present council does not have financial capacity to replace or renew assets at optimal points during the life of the asset. This data is represented in Table 11 Transport assets useful lives and Figure 12.

 

Table 11 Transport assets useful lives

Asset Type Component

Material

Byron Shire

Industry Average

Sealed Road Surface

 

Asphaltic Concrete

35

24

Spray Seal

30

16

Concrete

115

100

Slurry Seal

30

16

Pavers

115

44

Sealed Road Pavement

Pavement Base and Sub-base

75

75

Unsealed Road

Gravel

7

15

Footpath

Concrete

70

51

Asphalt

50

30

Timber

30

20

Pavers

45

40

Other(Concrete Aggregate, Asphalt/Pavers, Plastic)

50

51

Figure 12 Actual life comparison between industry average and Byron Shire

 

 

Useful lives are longer than industry average which requires more maintenance.


Table 12 Transport assets treatment unit rates

Asset Type

Material/Treatment

Unit Rate ($/m2)

Unsealed Road

Gravel Re-Sheeting

10.50

Sealed Road

 

Note: Heavy patching AC will move from AC profiling and patching towards “granular patching 300mm deep with road base and primer seal surface (leaving the seal to cure for 3-6months). This is expected to reduce heavy patching costs substantially.

 

Reseal (Single/single Spray Seal & preparation)

Note: Reseals WO 2017 ~ $10.48m2, was $8 used in Predictor©

11.00

AC Overlay (40mm)

23.50

Reconstruction Rural

(300mm pavement, bitumen seal, table drains, driveways, & pipe culverts)               

Note: WO’s 2017 $167.32,was  $70 used in Predictor ©

167.32

Reconstruction Urban

(300mm pavement, AC seal, K&G)

Note: WO’s 2017 $167.32, was $150 used in Predictor©

170.30

Heavy Patching (profiling and 100mm deep)

Note: was $50 in Predictor©

88.00

Footpath

Footpath Renewal

125.00

Footpath Renewal & Widening

150.00

Shared Path Renewal

125.00

Shared Path Renewal & Widening

175.00

Ramp Renewal

150.00

Stair Renewal

150.00

 

At the time of printing the values used in Predictor© were less than those detailed above. As council matures the unit rates are recalculated off Work Orders (WO) expenditure to refine to reflect actual replacement costs of current projects.

 

Asset Valuations

Table 13 Transport asset valuation data (SS7 30 June 17)

Asset

Category

Replacement Value ($)

Accumulated Depreciation ($)

Written Down Value ($)

Annual Depreciation ($)

Sealed Roads

229,941,000

108,104,000

121,837,000

3,396,000

Unsealed Roads

3,911,000

1,232,000

2,679,000

128,000

Bridges

23,909,000

11,079,000

12,830,000

293,000

Footpaths

8,627,000

3,124,000

5,503,000

126,000

Kerb and Gutter

23,973,000

6,661,000

17,312,000

288,000

Other - Retaining Walls and Roadside Barriers

238,000

0

238,000

0

Traffic Control Devices

59,748,000

19,624,000

40,124,000

1,193,000

Car Parks

3,306,000

594,000

2,712,000

68,000

Road Barriers & Retaining Walls

10,424,000

2,147,000

8,277,000

145,000

Stormwater

64,294,000

16,972,000

47,322,000

581,000

 

 

 

8.      Maintenance Plan

 

Standards and Specifications

 

Council uses Reflect™ for inspections, defects and accomplishments, and makes use of Asset Edge Reflect™ on mobile devices with built in response times. A rolling inspection program of the whole Road network is completed by a full time inspector who records defects against each asset. When a defect is recorded, it is synchronised to the cloud and forms part of the prioritised maintenance program. Signs, guideposts, roadside barriers, street sweeping, and vegetation maintenance are managed through defects identified via Reflect™ and customer requests. These too are prioritised and managed based on risk, road hierarchy and available budget.

 

Footpaths and Shared Paths are inspected annually and a prioritised works program is generated in Reflect™. This process allows council to strategically address the repairs with the allocated funds of $100,000 annually. Since implementation the overall condition of the footpath network has improved and council has a reliable and repeatable process to manage the assets.

 

On a rolling annual basis a specialised bridge contractor completes the required bridge inspection (Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 as required by RMS bride inspection policy, Policy Number PN158). A programmed maintenance plan is created from the inspections for operational staff to complete pending available funds.

 

The major culverts and causeways are inspected by internal staff and a programmed maintenance plan is created for operational staff. A specialised contractor is brought in to complete the structural Risk Rating calculation when and where required. Council has identified that there is an increasing risk to the major culverts and causeways infrastructure due to not being able to fund and complete the necessary maintenance and renewal tasks required to keep the assets in safe and functioning order.

 

Future Maintenance Expenses

 

The future maintenance expenses are detailed in Section 12, Table 19. A key point to note in this table is the lack of funding allocated to Rural and Urban Drainage and Kerb and Guttering. As discussed above there is an increased risk to major culverts and causeways due to a lack of funding, this is evident in the maintenance funding allocation.

 

Without adequate maintenance, the major culverts and causeways have a reduced chance of reaching their expected useful life in a reliable and safe condition. Through increased data collection and strategic asset management, a valid figure for required maintenance can be determined to help mitigate future risks.

 

There is insufficient maintenance for urban and rural drainage.

The challenge is the competing pothole maintenance budget of $1.3M.

 

Maintenance Challenges

 

·    Council has a ‘planned reactive’ response to maintenance. This is an on going challenge to move into a programmed and planned maintenance space for council with limited resources for the Transport assets.

·    Maintenance expenditure is 100 % reactive which is possibly more costly than if forward planning occurs.

·    Of that 100% maintenance cost 31% ($1.3 million in 2016/17) was spent on pothole patching. Only long term investment into preventative capital reseal program improve the overall road condition (Figure 13).

·    There are no budget items allocated for roadside barriers, traffic control devices, kerb and gutter, retaining walls, Bus shelters, roadside furniture, rural stormwater, footpaths and cycleways. This is an ongoing hindrance to effective asset management as forward planning cannot be fully undertaken in the current environment without a known funding allocation.

·    The number of identified defects from programmed inspections is far greater than available funds. The use of mobile inspections does provide a built in risk based approach to prioritising repairs if funds are available.

·    A complete audit of the roadside barriers is required to determine compliance with current Australian standards and to prioritise maintenance.

·    Council intends to commence a crack sealing program in the 2018/19 financial year. Previously this has not been a standard practice at this council.

 

 

Figure 13 Road and stormwater Maintenance 2016-17

9.      Renewal Plan

 

Renewal Prioritisation

 

Council uses Assetic Predictor©, prediction modelling software, to prioritise capital works. The objective of this analysis is to model the performance of the unsealed roads, footpaths, sealed roads and bridges.

 

The process includes setting up:

 

·    degradation profiles based on condition and remaining life,

·    identifying current treatments and unit rates to deliver these treatments, and

·    setting up treatment decision matrices defined for optimal interventions for each treatment.

 

By utilising the above process and setting up the criteria and logic within Asset Predictor©, it is possible to model the future costs of road, footpath and bridge renewal requirements and predict the future condition based on different budget options.

 

For those assets that are not included in the modelling process at this stage, a renewal program is developed based on a ‘Risk Management’ approach using comprehensive individual Risk Matrixes containing condition data as well as including social and environmental components for those particular asset classes that have the required information to have these matrixes constructed (in the future all asset classes will either have a modelling process or Risk Matrix process applied). For those assets with no current modelling or Risk Matrixes, a “worst first” approach is used are prioritised based on the maintenance inspection details.

 

Predictive modelling for the road pavement based on the special rate variation scenarios predicted council capital renewal over the next 10 years to maintain the asset was below (Table 14). This is a minimum requirement to hold the network from further deterioration. This will still result in some roads reaching a point of poor to very poor condition which are beyond reseal and require full reconstruction.

 

To “maintain” the overall sealed road network condition the average capital renewal needs to increase to10.4M by 2018.

 

 

Table 14 Asset Predictor© Modelling Sealed Roads to “Maintain” at 10%

(Reseals and reconstruction totals)

Year

Sealed Roads Budget Expenditure

Scenario modelling for Special Rate Variation of 10 %

1

$5,109,800

2

$5,808,629

3

$6,840,236

4

$7,974,985

5

$9,223,266

6

$9,453,847

7

$9,690,194

8

$9,932,448

9

$10,180,760

10

$10,435,279

Note: SRV Predictor© Modelling of 10% (7.5% over 4 years + inflation of 2.5%/annum rate peg) 28/11/16 using old reseals, reconstruction and heavy patching unit rates.

 

Road Renewal Targets

 

The following has been set as a renewal targets for sealed roads (Table 15) this was previous detailed in Table 4 Sealed Roads Levels of Service.

 

Table 15 Road Capital Renewal Annual Targets

Sealed Roads

Treatment

Network measure (km)

Target

Km/year

Estimated

Cost

Status

Bitumen - Design Life Bitumen  average 12years

(Austroads  AGPT05-11)

335

28

$2M

Not met 2016/17

Asphalt average 15 years (Austroads  AGPT05-11)

165

11

$1.8M

Not met 2016/17

Concrete

(Austroads AGPT05-11)

1.959

0

 

NA

Reconstruction (partial or full depth)

 

6

$7.5M

Met 2016/17

TOTAL

 

 

$11.3M

 

 

Council needs to be consistently averaging a total of 39km of reseals each year. In previous years the reseal program has fluctuated and been inconsistent (Table 16 Reseals for the last 3 years). In the last decade the reseal spend was as little as $70,000. Below is the last 3 years spent of reseals:

 

Table 16 Reseals for the last 3 years

Year

Completed

Reseal length (km)

Expenditure

2016/17

12.3

$631,537

2015/16

30.3

$1,801,130

2014/15

9.473

$481,369

 

Councils bitumen reseals cost have increased from $54,000/km to as high as $102,000 /km. This is due to the road network being in poor condition and requires heavy patching, and shoulder grading. To improve the safety level of service, line marking is now standard with new reseals. Asphalt reseals are $23.50 m2 compared to $11 m2 for bitumen. Based on the reseals targets in Table 15 the estimated bitumen reseal budget for bitumen should be $2 million and $1.8 million for asphalt.

 

The reseals target is 39km per year averaging at $ 3.8M.

The reconstruction target is 6km per year averaging at $7.5M.

 

Bridge Renewals

 

Progressive inspections of Council’s bridges resulted in further load limits to protect aging and deteriorated structures. The most seriously deteriorated bridges were Parkers, Booyong, James, O’Meara’s and Scarrabelottis. Replacement of these five bridges with conventional concrete structures would have cost in the order of $16M. This cost was not affordable for Council and not achievable via grant funding because these bridges are not on major freight routes.

 

Council has investigated and is now deploying an innovative renewal solution that involves the recycling of surplus steel Australian Defence Force bridges which is a viable option in these freshwater locations. The total program cost is in the order of $7.5M.The lower overall cost and associated innovation has resulted in the program being more attractive for grant funding and Council has been successful in gaining $5.2M in grant funding. Prior to the success with grant funding Council was considering a loan to fund the program. It is now possible to redirect this loan capacity to the renewal of other critical assets that are in a very poor condition which is a great outcome for the community.

 

Five Poor condition bridges will be replaced with steel

Australian Defence Force bridges for $7.5M in early 2019.

 

Impact of Deferring Renewal Works

 

Deferring renewal works usually only occurs when the renewal requirements exceed the available budget. The impact of deferring renewal projects impacts on the level of service they’re able to provide. In the short term the impact may be acceptable, however continued deferral can lead to an increase in backlog and therefore risk (Figure 14).

 

Det-Curve.png

Figure 14 Pavement Deterioration and Maintenance Curve (Public Works Training, 2016)

 

Managing the Risks and Renewal Challenges

 

As discussed in the Strategic Asset Management Plan, there are increasing risks to infrastructure associated with providing the service and not being able to fund and complete the necessary maintenance and renewal. These risks must be managed. The major risks are:

 

·    Road reseals not completed when needed resulting in water damage to the underlying pavement

·    Significant sections of roads that are so damaged they cannot be resealed and need costly reconstruction. Typically costs for capital renewal ranges from $88m2 for heavy patching, to $170/m2 for full depth reconstruction compared with reseal costs of approximately $11/m2. This alone represents a significant financial risk to the council.

·    Limited stormwater and road side maintenance in rural areas to reduce the risk of road failure and landslides in our high rainfall environment.

·    Potential bridge or bridge component failure, most notably the timber bridges and footbridges.

·    Damaged footpaths with the potential to cause trips and falls in high pedestrian areas.

·    Pavement damage due to water penetration caused by failed kerb and gutter.

·    Aging box culverts and causeways requiring major replacement or repair.

·    Load limiting or bridges, causeways and box culverts.

·    Replacing or installing guardrail to comply with Austroads standards.

 

Council will endeavour to manage these risks within available funding by implementation of asset management systems and inspection regimes, to provide a sound platform for understanding the condition, maintenance and replacement schedule for all assets.

 

10.   
New and Upgrade Plan

 

Selection Criteria

 

New and upgrade works can be identified from a number of sources including community suggestions, internal knowledge, Councillors and strategies and plans, such as the Section 94 plan and Bike Plan as well as Predictive Modelling Software.

 

These suggestions and strategies are assessed for validity, priority, benefit and cost and can then be programmed into future capital works schedules.

 

At this stage the main driver for new and upgrade work is through the Section 94 Plan. The Plan discusses population, demographic characteristics, contributions and the identification of projects.

 

 

Developer Contributions

 

New capital assets provided to council through Developer Contributions are handed to council at agreed Levels of Service which comply with the Northern Rivers Local Government Design and Construction Manuals. These service standards have been developed as a resource sharing initiative involving the Byron Shire Council, Ballina Shire Council, Clarence Valley Council, Lismore City Council, Kyogle Council and Richmond Valley Council. The initiative has provided uniform development standards for the region via a clear and comprehensive set of requirements for development infrastructure design and construction.

 

 

Forecast Upgrade/New Expenditure

 

The current forecast upgrade and new expenditure is presented in the Section 94 Plan in detail.

 

New and upgrade work is mostly funded through the Section 94 Plan.

 

11.    Disposal of Assets

 

While there are no current plans to dispose of Road infrastructure assets, Council has previously downgraded assets in order to better reflect requirements and save on maintenance costs.

 

After assessing the functionality of a road segment it was deemed that the segment no longer required a seal and was placing a strain on the already strained maintenance and renewal budgets. This road then had the seal removed and was reverted back to an unsealed road, which will require less maintenance and capital funding.

 

12.   
Financial Summary

 

This section presents the financial requirements for Transport assets over the next 10 years as determined through Predictive and financial modelling. Note that all figures shown incorporate a 2.5% inflation accounting for future dollars.

 

Financial Statements and Projections

 

The following graphs show the financial projections for operational and capital expenditure. The capital funding is taken from the Renewal Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) while the maintenance funding is determined from the actual funding spent in 2016/17 and projected over 10 years with 2.5% inflation (Figure 15).

Figure 15 Long Term Financial Plan - Transport

 

Funding Strategy

 

The projected expenditure discussed will be funded from Council’s maintenance, operating and capital budgets. The funding strategy is detailed in the LTFP. This plan also details the Special Rate Variation that Council applied for, and received, in 2017. Figure 16Error! Reference source not found. displays the annual required renewal expenditure as determined primarily through Predictor© modelling. Note that the Drainage and Kerb and Gutter assets have not been included in the modelling process, along with other assets, as asset details required for modelling are not currently available. The funding level applied has been determined by Council staff. This graph compares these values to the proposed LTFP.

 

Figure 16 Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) funding & Annual Required Renewal Expenditure (ARRE)

 

The proposed Council approved LTFP (E2017/96003), capital and maintenance budgets are presented below.

 

Long Term Financial Plan (E2017/96003)

Table 17 Long Term Financial Plan

Year

Sealed Roads ($)

Unsealed Roads ($)

Footpath ($)

Bridges ($)

Rural Drainage ($)

Urban Drainage ($)

Kerb and Gutter ($)

2017/18

3,224,600

255,000

246,540

369,100

 755,000

 825,000

 164,360

2018/19

1,978,508

267,750

113,460

360,000

 755,000

 825,000

 75,640

2019/20

3,181,363

281,138

118,620

517,000

 755,000

 825,000

 79,080

2020/21

3,717,506

295,194

123,900

634,000

 755,000

 825,000

 82,600

2021/22

3,623,146

309,954

129,480

522,000

 755,000

 825,000

 86,320

2022/23

3,565,248

325,452

135,300

525,000

 755,000

 825,000

 90,200

2023/24

3,552,776

341,724

141,120

551,000

 755,000

 825,000

 94,080

2024/25

3,747,289

358,811

145,800

554,000

 755,000

 825,000

 97,200

2025/26

4,685,649

376,751

150,240

516,000

 755,000

 825,000

 100,160

2026/27

4,016,611

395,589

283,800

156,000

 755,000

 825,000

 189,200

Total

35,292,695

3,207,363

1,588,260

4,424,073

7,550,000

8,250,000

1,058,840

 

Capital Funding (E2017/86999)

Table 18 Capital Funding Predictor© (IS Master Sheet for 10 Year Plan)

Year

Sealed Road Corridor ($)

Unsealed Roads ($)

Footpath ($)

Bridges ($)

Rural Drainage ($)[3]

Urban Drainage ($)3

Kerb and Gutter ($)3

2017/18

3,224,252

254,838

246,380

368,912

 755,000

 825,000

 164,360

2018/19

1,976,939

266,370

113,370

359,839

 755,000

 825,000

 75,640

2019/20

3,181,300

280,113

118,564

516,853

 755,000

 825,000

 79,080

2020/21

3,717,268

294,612

123,622

633,933

 755,000

 825,000

 82,600

2021/22

3,620,389

309,751

129,409

521,975

 755,000

 825,000

 86,320

2022/23

3,562,915

325,060

135,108

524,796

 755,000

 825,000

 90,200

2023/24

3,550,566

341,548

140,748

550,890

 755,000

 825,000

 94,080

2024/25

3,746,968

358,316

145,564

553,898

 755,000

 825,000

 97,200

2025/26

4,685,301

376,750

149,942

390,363

 755,000

 825,000

 100,160

2026/27

4,015,353

395,069

283,753

2,611

 755,000

 825,000

 189,200

Total[4]

35,281,255

3,202,431

1,586,465

4,424,073

7,550,000

8,250,000

1,058,840

 


 

Maintenance Funding Modelled from Predictor© (Year Level Comparison)

Table 19 Maintenance Funding Predictor©

Year

Sealed Road Pavement ($)

Unsealed Roads ($)

Footpath ($)

Bridges ($)

Rural Drainage ($)3

Urban Drainage ($)3

Kerb and Gutter ($)3

2016/17

2,379,418

390,084

11,180

32,000

 

 

 

2017/18

945,546

340,017

49,925

126,513

 

 

 

2018/19

986,362

448,391

51,260

115,284

 

 

 

2019/20

1,030,374

489,416

52,790

97,523

 

 

 

2020/21

1,075,272

492,665

56,771

74,661

 

 

 

2021/22

1,132,055

481,395

58,801

62,990

 

 

 

2022/23

1,193,621

488,622

61,987

44,922

 

 

 

2023/24

1,249,230

504,470

64,762

26,248

 

 

 

2024/25

1,285,153

515,796

68,607

8,926

 

 

 

2025/26

1,340,469

525,762

72,562

0

 

 

 

2026/27

1,419,383

522,784

78,508

0

 

 

 

Total4

11,657,471

4,809,322

615,975

557,069

 

 

 

 

Maintenance Funding                                                                           

Table 20 Maintenance Funding

Year

Sealed Roads

Corridor ($)

Unsealed Roads ($)

Footpath ($)

Bridges ($)

Rural Drainage ($)3

Urban Drainage ($)3

Kerb and Gutter ($)3

2016/17

2,464,312

375,034

6,784

73,740

96,029

357,928

2,337

2017/18

3,100,200

352,600

31,800

104,400

109,800

357,900

6,500

2018/19

3,340,000

359,600

32,400

103,400

112,000

365,000

6,600

2019/20

3,634,400

366,800

33,000

105,400

114,200

372,300

6,700

2020/21

4,106,200

374,100

33,700

107,500

116,500

379,600

6,800

2021/22

4,201,500

381,600

34,400

109,600

118,800

387,100

6,900

2022/23

4,299,600

389,200

35,100

111,700

121,200

394,900

7,000

2023/24

4,417,200

398,900

36,000

114,500

124,200

404,800

7,200

2024/25

4,538,700

408,900

36,900

117,300

127,300

414,900

7,400

2025/26

4,659,100

419,100

37,800

120,300

130,500

425,300

7,600

2026/27

4,775,600

429,600

38,700

123,300

133,800

435,900

7,800

Total4

43,356,812

4,255,434

356,584

1,188,140

1,304,329

4,295,628

72,837

 

The Maintenance Funding budget for sealed roads includes the entire corridor. This includes: street sweeper, stormwater, grading, slashing, guideposts, signs, street lighting and potholes/edge breaks (Table 20). Predictor© modelling includes pavement maintenance (Table 19). This is why the two tables for Sealed Roads are so vastly different.


The following Table 20 presents the actual funding required in 2016/17 for maintenance for the listed assets and to bring awareness to the minimum funding requirement for each of the asset types. While this is the actual expenditure, there was not originally any budget allocated to maintain these assets. This is an ongoing hindrance to effective asset management as forward planning cannot be fully undertaken in the current environment without a known funding allocation. As a result the work completed is highly reactive and possibly more costly than if planning had occurred.

 

Table 21 Maintenance expenditure (2016/17)

Asset Sub Type

Expenditure 2016/17

Roadside Barriers

$9,132

Traffic Control Devices

$528

Kerb and Gutter

$5,486

Retaining Walls

$1,247

Rural Stormwater

$61,892

Roadside Furniture & Bus Shelters

$5,512

Footpaths/Shared Paths

$10,784

Unsealed Roads (grading/re-sheeting only)

$ 338,978

Total

$433,559

 

The Rural Drainage and Urban Drainage capital funding figures presented above (Table 18) does not include the Stormwater Levy Program. The Stormwater Levy Program is a Stormwater Management Service Charge that is collected through council rates notices. Properties that benefit from stormwater drainage systems can be charged the levy fee. The funds are then used to provide additional stormwater service to eligible properties, i.e. private properties, not council land.

 

The funds levied from this program are dependent on the number of rateable properties. The levy currently generates $320,000 per year. Works under this program do not form part of the renewal program shown above because it is targeted towards resolving drainage issues that affect private land, rather than council land.

 

Financial Challenges and Gaps

 

After Level 2 structural inspections of causeways and major culverts council has identified 7 urgent ($2.2million) and 16 high priority ($5.5million) poor condition rural drainage assets. The 7 urgent assets are either load limited and or have temporary steel plates and require full replacement. If the 16 high priority assets are not addressed in the very near future load limits will be implemented. These 23 rural drainage assets totalling $7.7 million is currently unfunded (E2016/85152 & E2016/85145).

 

The stormwater and road maintenance targets have been calculated using the known identified defects in Reflect™ and council unit repair rates (E2018/11600 & E2016/98731). These calculations establish a level of service off known defects and are in addition to Predictor© modelling.


 

Table 22 Financial Gaps additional to Predictor© modelling

Asset Sub-type

Current Spend

2016/17

Gap

Required

Budget

CAPITAL RENEWAL

 

 

 

Road Capital Reseals

Note: (Table 15)

$1,800,000

$2,000,000

$3,800,000

Road Capital Reconstruction

Note: (Table 15)

(Not including new assets)

$5,828,701

$1,681,820

$7,510,521

Stormwater / Drainage Capital Causeways & Major Culverts

$677,020

$7,700,000

$8,377,020

(E2016/85152 & E2016/85145)

MAINTENANCE

 

 

 

Roads

$3,542,797

$2,290,625

$5,833,422

(Work Orders Roads)

(Reflect™ outstanding defects)

Stormwater

$611,908

$616,139

$1,228,047

(Work Orders SW)

(Reflect™ outstanding defects)

TOTAL RENEWAL AND MAINTENANCE

$12,460,426

$14,288,584

$26,749,010

 

The current spend on reseals and reconstructions fluctuate from year to year and are affected by maintenance overruns.

 

Roads and stormwater have big financial challenges with a current

Capital Renewal and Maintenance gap of $14.3M.

 


Financial Ratios

 

Asset Consumption Ratio

 

This ratio seeks to highlight the aged condition of a local government’s stock of physical assets. If a local government is responsibly maintaining and renewing/replacing its assets in accordance with a well prepared asset management plan, then the fact that the Asset Consumption Ratio may be relatively low and/or declining should not be cause for concern – providing it is operating sustainably.

 

 

Purpose:         This ratio measures the extent to which depreciable assets have been consumed by comparing their written down value to their replacement cost.

 

Standards:      Standard is not met if less than 50%.

Standard is met if the ratio can be measured and is 50% or greater (0.50 or >). Standard is improving if the ratio is between 60% and 75% (0.60 and 0.75).

 

Table 23 Asset Consumption Ratios

Asset Financial Class

Current Replacement Cost

Depreciated Replacement Cost

Ratio

Standard

Sealed Roads

229,941,000

108,104,000

53%

Met

Unsealed Roads

3,911,000

1,232,000

68%

Improving

Sealed Roads Kerb and Gutter

23,973,000

6,661,000

72%

Improving

Footpath

$8,626,000

3,124,000

64%

Improving

Bridge Construction

$23,909,000

$12,830,000

54%

Met

Traffic Devices

$59,748,000

$19,624,000

67%

Improving

Roundabouts, Islands and Speed Humps

$10,424,000

$2,147,000

79%

Improving

Car Parks

$3,306,000

$594,000

82%

Improving

 


Asset Sustainability Ratio

 

This ratio is an approximation of the extent to which assets managed by a local government are being replaced as these reach the end of their useful lives. It is calculated by measuring capital expenditure on renewal or replacement of assets, relative to depreciation expense. Expenditure on new or additional assets is excluded.

 

Depreciation expense represents an estimate of the extent to which the assets have been consumed during that period. Measuring assets at fair value is critical to the calculation of a valid depreciation expense value.

 

 

Purpose:         This ratio indicates whether a local government is replacing or renewing existing non-financial assets at the same rate that its overall asset stock is wearing out.

 

Standards:      Standard is met if the ratio can be measured and is 90% (or 0.90)

Standard is improving if this ratio is between 90% and 110% (or 0.90 and 1.10).

 

Table 24 Asset Sustainability Ratio Figures

Asset Financial Class

Annual Planned Renewal Expenditure

Annual Depreciation

Ratio

Standard

Sealed Roads

$3,528,126

$3,396,000

104%

Improving

Unsealed Roads

$320,243

$128,000

250%

Met

Footpaths

$158,647

$126,000

126%

Improving

Bridge Construction

$442,407

$293,000

151%

Improving

 

While the Asset Sustainability Ratio appears to indicate the Council are over spending, the Asset Consumption Ratio shows that there has been little spent on renewals in the past creating a backlog of poor condition assets (Table 23). The following Asset Renewal Funding Ratio supports this narrative, showing that the minimum financial demand requirements are not being met moving forward.

 

Asset Sustainability and Renewal Ratios appear to be improving as we have increased spending in order to make up the backlog of previously underfunded assts.

 


 

Asset Renewal Funding Ratio

 

This ratio indicates whether the local government has the financial capacity to fund asset renewal as required, and can continue to provide existing levels of services in future, without additional operating income; or reductions in operating expenses.

 

The ratio is calculated from information included in the local government’s Long Term Financial Plan and Asset Management Plan; not the Annual Financial Report. For the ratio to be meaningful, a consistent discount rate should generally be applied in Net Present Value (NPV) calculations

 

 

Purpose:         This ratio is a measure of the ability of a local government to fund its projected asset renewal / replacements in the future.

 

Standards:      Standard is met if the ratio is between 75% and 95% (or 0.75 and 0.95).

Standard is improving if the ratio is between 95% and 105% (or 0.95 and 1.05), and

the ASR falls within the range 90% to 110% and 50% to 75%.

Standard not met if <75%.

 

Table 25 Asset Renewal Funding Ratio Figures

Asset Financial Class

Planned Renewal Expenditure

Required (Unlimited) Renewal Expenditure

Ratio

Standard

Sealed Roads

$35,281,256

$47,036,145

75%

Met

Unsealed Roads

$3,202,431

$7,101,576

45%

Not met

Footpath and shared paths

$955,000

unknown

N/A

N/A

Kerb and Gutter

$249,000

unknown

NA

N/A

Bridge Construction

$4,424,074

$4,424,074

100%

Improving

 

Note: Footpaths and Kerb and Gutter have not been modelled and thus the required Renewal has not been calculated.


 

 

Asset Maintenance Ratio

 

Disclosure of this Ration is reported in Council’s Annual Financial Statements as part of Special Schedule 7 (SS7) – Condition of Infrastructure.  The Ratio disclosed here relates to the Council’s General Fund and this covers the assets subject of this Asset Management Plan with the addition of Buildings. This ratio measures the actual or estimated asset maintenance expenditure against required asset maintenance.  The benchmark for this ratio is 1.00 i.e. maintenance expenditure equals required maintenance expenditure.  If maintenance expenditure is below required maintenance expenditure, this indicates Council is not maintaining its assets as required.

 

To calculate this Ratio, the following formula is used:

 

 

The following graph identifies the outcome relevant for Council for the period 2016/2017 to 2025/2026:

 

Figure 17 Asset Maintenance Ratio General Fund SS7


 

Infrastructure Backlog Ratio

 

Disclosure of this Ratio is reported in Council’s Annual Financial Statements as part of Special Schedule 7 (SS7) – Condition of Infrastructure.  The Ratio disclosed here relates to the Council’s General Fund and this covers the assets subject of this Asset Management Plan with the addition of Buildings. This ratio measures the estimated cost to bring assets back to a satisfactory standard compared to the total written down value of infrastructure assets.  The benchmark for this ratio is to have a backlog on an annual basis of 2.00% or less i.e. costs to being assets back to a satisfactory standard is less then 2.00% of the total written down value of Infrastructure Assets equals required maintenance expenditure.  If the trend of this ratio is above the 2.00% benchmark it demonstrates that Council is not addressing its Infrastructure backlog.  This is the case for Council.

 

To calculate this Ratio, the following formula is used:

 

 

The following graph identifies the outcome relevant for Council for the period 2016/2017 to 2025/2026:

 

Figure 18 Infrastructure Backlog Ratio General Fund SS7


 

13.    Improvement Plan

 

Improvement Actions

 

Table 26 Improvement actions summary

ID

Task

Responsible Department

Target Date

Conceptual Cost

1.  

Obtain Council approval of this Plan

Infrastructure Services

Mar 2018

Internal Resource

2.  

Condition Assessment – regularly review condition data and methodology

Infrastructure Services

Ongoing

 

3.  

Condition Assessment – expand scope of condition assessment to include those asset current un-assessed

Infrastructure Services

Ongoing

Internal Resource

4.  

Condition Assessment –develop condition assessment plan for kerbs, causeways, traffic devices, roundabouts etc. and car parks

Infrastructure Services

December 2019

Internal Resource

5.  

Maintenance Plan – establish and document levels of service for maintenance activities

Infrastructure Services

June 2018

Internal Resource

6.  

Confirm remaining life and useful life of assets

Infrastructure Services

June 2018

Internal Resource

7.  

Update and revise prediction modelling parameters and inputs when new condition data/information is available

Infrastructure Services

Ongoing

Internal Resource

8.  

Test current levels of service to determine if they are achievable with current budget allocation.

Infrastructure Services

December 2018

Internal Resource

9.  

Formalise asset disposal policy

Infrastructure Services

June 2018

Internal Resource

10.

Formalise asset renewal policy

Infrastructure Services

June 2018

Internal Resource

11.

Formalise asset new policy

Infrastructure Services

June 2018

Internal Resource

 


 

14.    Glossary

 

Asset condition assessment

The process of continuous or periodic inspection, assessment, measurement and interpretation of the resultant data to indicate the condition of a specific asset so as to determine the need for some preventative or remedial action.

Asset management

The combination of management, financial, economic, engineering and other practices applied to physical assets with the objective of providing the required level of service in the most cost effective manner.

Assets

Future economic benefits controlled by the entity as a result of past transactions or other past events (AAS27.12).

Property, plant and equipment including infrastructure and other assets (such as furniture and fittings) with benefits expected to last more than 12 month.

Backlog

Estimated cost to bring infrastructure, buildings and other structures and depreciable land improvements to a satisfactory standard, measured at a particular point in time

Capital expenditure

Relatively large (material) expenditure, which has benefits, expected to last for more than 12 months. Capital expenditure includes renewal, expansion and upgrade. Where capital projects involve a combination of renewal, expansion and/or upgrade expenditures, the total project cost needs to be allocated accordingly.

Capital funding

Funding to pay for capital expenditure.

Capital new expenditure

Expenditure which creates a new asset providing a new service to the community that did not exist beforehand. As it increases service potential it may impact revenue and will increase future operating and maintenance expenditure.

Capital renewal expenditure

Expenditure on an existing asset, which returns the service potential or the life of the asset up to that which it had originally. It is periodically required expenditure, relatively large (material) in value compared with the value of the components or sub-components of the asset being renewed. As it reinstates existing service potential, it has no impact on revenue, but may reduce future operating and maintenance expenditure if completed at the optimum time, e.g. resurfacing or resheeting a material part of a road network, replacing a material section of a drainage network with pipes of the same capacity, resurfacing an oval. Where capital projects involve a combination of renewal, expansion and/or upgrade expenditures, the total project cost needs to be allocated accordingly.

Capital upgrade expenditure

Expenditure, which enhances an existing asset to provide a higher level of service or expenditure that will increase the life of the asset beyond that which it had originally. Upgrade expenditure is discretional and often does not result in additional revenue unless direct user charges apply. It will increase operating and maintenance expenditure in the future because of the increase in the Council’s asset base, e.g. widening the sealed area of an existing road, replacing drainage pipes with pipes of a greater capacity, enlarging a grandstand at a sporting facility. Where capital projects involve a combination of renewal, expansion and/or upgrade expenditures, the total project cost needs to be allocated accordingly.

Carrying amount

The amount at which an asset is recognised after deducting any accumulated depreciation / amortisation and accumulated impairment losses thereon.

Component

An individual part of an asset which contributes to the composition of the whole and can be separated from or attached to an asset or a system.

Cost of an asset

The amount of cash or cash equivalents paid or the fair value of the consideration given to acquire an asset at the time of its acquisition or construction, plus any costs necessary to place the asset into service. This includes one-off design and project management costs.

Current replacement cost (CRC)

The cost the entity would incur to acquire the asset on the reporting date. The cost is measured by reference to the lowest cost at which the gross future economic benefits could be obtained in the normal course of business or the minimum it would cost, to replace the existing asset with a technologically modern equivalent new asset (not a second hand one) with the same economic benefits (gross service potential) allowing for any differences in the quantity and quality of output and in operating costs.

Current Replacement Cost “As New” (CRC)

The current cost of replacing the original service potential of an existing asset, with a similar modern equivalent asset, i.e. the total cost of replacing an existing asset with an as NEW or similar asset expressed in current dollar values.

Cyclic Maintenance

Replacement of higher value components/sub-components of assets that is undertaken on a regular cycle including repainting, building roof replacement, cycle, replacement of air conditioning equipment, etc. This work generally falls below the capital/ maintenance threshold and needs to be identified in a specific maintenance budget allocation.

Depreciable amount

The cost of an asset, or other amount substituted for its cost, less its residual value (AASB 116.6)

Depreciated replacement cost (DRC)

The current replacement cost (CRC) of an asset less, where applicable, accumulated depreciation calculated on the basis of such cost to reflect the already consumed or expired future economic benefits of the asset

Depreciation / amortisation

The systematic allocation of the depreciable amount (service potential) of an asset over its useful life.

Economic life

See useful life definition.

Expenditure

The spending of money on goods and services. Expenditure includes recurrent and capital.

Fair value

The amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties, in an arm’s length transaction.

Greenfield asset values

Asset (re)valuation values based on the cost to initially acquire the asset.

Heritage asset

An asset with historic, artistic, scientific, technological, geographical or environmental qualities that is held and maintained principally for its contribution to knowledge and culture and this purpose is central to the objectives of the entity holding it.

Impairment Loss

The amount by which the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its recoverable amount.

Infrastructure assets

Physical assets of the entity or of another entity that contribute to meeting the public's need for access to major economic and social facilities and services, e.g. roads, drainage, footpaths and Shared Paths. These are typically large, interconnected networks or portfolios of composite assets. The components of these assets may be separately maintained, renewed or replaced individually so that the required level and standard of service from the network of assets is continuously sustained. Generally the components and hence the assets have long lives. They are fixed in place and are often have no market value.

Level of service

The defined service quality for a particular service against which service performance may be measured. Service levels usually relate to quality, quantity, reliability, responsiveness, environmental, acceptability and cost).

Life Cycle Cost

The life cycle cost (LCC) is average cost to provide the service over the longest asset life cycle. It comprises annual maintenance and asset consumption expense, represented by depreciation expense. The Life Cycle Cost does not indicate the funds required to provide the service in a particular year.

Life Cycle Expenditure

The Life Cycle Expenditure (LCE) is the actual or planned annual maintenance and capital renewal expenditure incurred in providing the service in a particular year. Life Cycle Expenditure may be compared to Life Cycle Expenditure to give an initial indicator of life cycle sustainability.

Maintenance and renewal gap

Difference between estimated budgets and projected expenditures for maintenance and renewal of assets, totalled over a defined time (e.g. 5, 10 and 15 years).

Maintenance and renewal sustainability index

Ratio of estimated budget to projected expenditure for maintenance and renewal of assets over a defined time (e.g. 5, 10 and 15 years).

Maintenance expenditure

Recurrent expenditure, which is periodically or regularly required as part of the anticipated schedule of works required to ensure that the asset achieves its useful life and provides the required level of service. It is expenditure, which was anticipated in determining the asset’s useful life.

Materiality

An item is material is its omission or misstatement could influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial report. Materiality depends on the size and nature of the omission or misstatement judged in the surrounding circumstances.

Modern equivalent asset.

A structure similar to an existing structure and having the equivalent productive capacity, which could be built using modern materials, techniques and design. Replacement cost is the basis used to estimate the cost of constructing a modern equivalent asset.

Non-revenue generating investments

Investments for the provision of goods and services to sustain or improve services to the community that are not expected to generate any savings or revenue to the Council, e.g. parks and playgrounds, footpaths, roads and bridges, libraries, etc.

Operating expenditure

Recurrent expenditure, which is continuously required excluding maintenance and depreciation, e.g. power, fuel, staff, plant equipment, on-costs and overheads.

Planned Maintenance

Repair work that is identified and managed through a maintenance management system (MMS). MMS activities include inspection, assessing the condition against failure/breakdown criteria/experience, prioritising scheduling, actioning the work and reporting what was done to develop a maintenance history and improve maintenance and service delivery performance.

Rate of annual asset consumption

A measure of average annual consumption of assets (AAAC) expressed as a percentage of the depreciable amount (AAAC/DA). Depreciation may be used for AAAC.

Rate of annual asset renewal

A measure of the rate at which assets are being renewed per annum expressed as a percentage of depreciable amount (capital renewal expenditure/DA).

Rate of annual asset upgrade

A measure of the rate at which assets are being upgraded and expanded per annum expressed as a percentage of depreciable amount (capital upgrade/expansion expenditure/DA).

Reactive maintenance

Unplanned repair work that carried out in response to service requests and management/supervisory directions.

Recoverable amount

The higher of an asset's fair value, less costs to sell and its value in use.

Recurrent expenditure

Relatively small (immaterial) expenditure or that which has benefits expected to last less than 12 months. Recurrent expenditure includes operating and maintenance expenditure.

Recurrent funding

Funding to pay for recurrent expenditure.

Rehabilitation

See capital renewal expenditure definition above.

Remaining life

The time remaining until an asset ceases to provide the required service level or economic usefulness. Age plus remaining life is economic life.

Renewal

See capital renewal expenditure definition above.

Residual value

The net amount which an entity expects to obtain for an asset at the end of its useful life after deducting the expected costs of disposal.

Risk management

The application of a formal process to the range of possible values relating to key factors associated with a risk in order to determine the resultant ranges of outcomes and their probability of occurrence.

Section or segment

A self-contained part or piece of an infrastructure asset.

Service potential

The capacity to provide goods and services in accordance with the entity's objectives, whether those objectives are the generation of net cash inflows or the provision of goods and services of a particular volume and quantity to the beneficiaries thereof.

Service potential remaining

A measure of the remaining life of assets expressed as a percentage of economic life. It is also a measure of the percentage of the asset’s potential to provide services that are still available for use in providing services (DRC/DA).

Strategic Management Plan

Documents Council objectives for a specified period (3-5 years), the principle activities to achieve the objectives, the means by which that will be carried out, estimated income and expenditure, measures to assess performance and how rating policy relates to the Council’s objectives and activities.

Sub-component

Smaller individual parts that make up a component part.

Useful life

Either:
(a) the period over which an asset is expected to be available for use by an entity, or
(b) the number of production or similar units expected to be obtained from the asset by the entity.

It is estimated or expected time between placing the asset into service and removing it from service, or the estimated period of time over which the future economic benefits embodied in a depreciable asset, are expected to be consumed by the Council. It is the same as the economic life.

 

15.    APPENDIX A Special Schedule 7 – Report on Infrastructure Assets as at 30 June 2017

16.   
APPENDIX B Visual Summary

 

 

 

 


 

17.       

References

 

Australian Standards AS1428.1 2009, Design for access and mobility Part 1: General requirements for access - New building work. (2009).

Australian Standards AS1428.2 1992, Design for access and mobility Part 2: Enhanced and additional requirements - Buildings and facilities. (1992).

 

Austroads (2011). Guide to Pavement Technology Part 5: Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Design (AGPT 05-11), (Austroads, Sydney)

 

Byron Shire Council. (2008). Byron Shire Bike Strategy and Action Plan. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.

Byron Shire Council. (2012). Byron Shire Developer Contribution Plan 2012. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.

Byron Shire Council. (2016). Long Term Financial Plan 2016-2026. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.

Byron Shire Council. (2016). Strategic Asset Management Plan. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.

Byron Shire Council. (2017). Draft Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedures. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.

Byron Shire Council. (2017). Workforce Plan 2017-2021. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.

Byron Shire Council. (n.d.). Asset Assessment Manual Condition, Functionality and Capacity. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.

Micromex Research. (2016). Byron Shire Council Asset Management Survey. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.

PublicWorksTraining.com. (2017, August 29). Roadway Asset Management for Counties, Cities, Towns and Villages. Retrieved from PublicWorksTraining.com: https://www.publicworkstraining.com/tam-bundle?lightbox=dataItem-ipqvpzk5

Short, B. (2016). Level of Service - Sealed Road Network #I2016/108. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.

SPOT Satellite Personal Tracker. (2017, September 19). SPOT. Retrieved from SPOT: https://www.findmespot.com/en/

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                                   4.2

 

 

Report No. 4.2             Byron Bay (Browning St) to Suffolk Park (Clifford St) Cycleway Investigation

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Daniel Strzina, Project Engineer

File No:                        I2018/347

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Local Roads and Drainage

 

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide to TIAC the final report on the findings of investigation works by Council’s consultant, PSA Consulting, in relation to resolution 17-403 (Broken Head Road Cycleway - Browning Street to Clifford Street).  This report also outlines potential internal and external funding sources for the recommended cycleway.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee recommend to Council:

 

That Council:

 

1.       Endorse the Byron Bay (Browning St) to Suffolk Park (Clifford St) Cycleway Investigation Report and Preferred Option Concept Design completed by PSA Consulting (Attachments 1-8).

 

2.       Consider during the 2018/19 budget process allocation of funding to support application for the 2018/19 round of Active Transport and Stronger Communities Fund grants for works in 2019/20.

 

3.       Place the Byron Bay (Browning St) to Suffolk Park (Clifford St) Cycleway Investigation Report and Preferred Option Concept Design (Attachments 1-8) on public exhibition, including the staged implementation and proposed 2018/19 funding, comprised of Council funds and grant funds.

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        24.2017.86.1 0734_PSA_BSC_Byron Bay to Suffolk Park Cycleway Investigation_FINAL 180302 V1 - Report, E2018/17376 , page 82  

2        24.2017.86.1 0734_PSA_BSC_Byron Bay to Suffolk Park Cycleway Investigation_FINAL 180302 V1 - Appendix 1, E2018/17378 , page 125  

3        24.2017.86.1 0734_PSA_BSC_Byron Bay to Suffolk Park Cycleway Investigation_FINAL 180302 V1 - Appendix 2, E2018/17379 , page 126  

4        24.2017.86.1 0734_PSA_BSC_Byron Bay to Suffolk Park Cycleway Investigation_FINAL 180302 V1 - Appendix 3, E2018/17380 , page 127  

5        24.2017.86.1 0734_PSA_BSC_Byron Bay to Suffolk Park Cycleway Investigation_FINAL 180302 V1 - Appendix 4, E2018/17381 , page 128  

6        24.2017.86.1 0734_PSA_BSC_Byron Bay to Suffolk Park Cycleway Investigation_FINAL 180302 V1 - Appendix 5, E2018/17382 , page 129  

7        24.2017.86.1 0734_PSA_BSC_Byron Bay to Suffolk Park Cycleway Investigation_FINAL 180302 V1 - Appendix 6, E2018/17383 , page 132  

8        24.2017.86.1 0734_PSA_BSC_Byron Bay to Suffolk Park Cycleway Investigation_FINAL 180302 V1 - Appendix 7, E2018/17384 , page 155  

Background

 

Council at its meeting on 25 May 2017 considered NOM 9.2 - Byron Bay Cycleway Design and Implementation and resolved as follows:

 

Res 17-201

 

1.    Contract the services of a cycleway expert in order to review the current design for on road cycleways along Bangalow road, from Clifford Street, Suffolk Park to Browning Street, Byron Bay; with a recommendation on the best and most cost effective option to come from the consideration of, but not limited to, a continuous single, on road cycleway on both sides of the road, a continuous dual lane on the Eastern side of the road or a continuous dual lane on the Western side of the road.

 

2.    Provide costing and identify a funding source for this work and for its construction.

 

3.    That a report on points 1 and 2 be provided to the Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee prior to being reported to Council for adoption at the 3 August 2017 Ordinary Meeting.

4.    That Council allocate the proposal in the Capital Works program for  2017/18  for  the  Broken Head Road  –  Off Road Shared path with a budget of $292,600 to an On Road cycleway along Bangalow Street, Byron Bay to Suffolk Park.

Council at its meeting on 21 September 2017 considered the recommendations from the TIAC meeting on 17 August 2017 and resolved as follows:

 

Res 17-403

 

1.    That Council:

 

a)    note the report on the Broken Head Road Cycleway – Browning Street to Clifford Street;

 

b)    allocate the carried over 2016/17 budget for Broken Head Road Shared Cycleway to procure a report from a suitably qualified person to:

 

i)     preview existing shared path and cycleways on Broken Head Road and Bangalow Road, between Clifford Street and Browning Street, Byron Bay;

 

ii)    preview existing infrastructure against current standards and advise where upgrades may be required as part of the project;

 

iii)    provide options including indicative costings which meet the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) warrants and would likely receive RMS approval for filling the missing links along the shared path between Clifford Street and Browning Street, Byron Bay;

 

iv)   identify which sections may be eligible for grant funding under the RMS Active Transport Grants Program; and

 

v)    undertake critical analysis for any proposed works including swept path analysis and considerations for emergency services

 

2.    That the Consultants report be reported to an Extraordinary Meeting of the Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee.

 

PSA Consulting was chosen as the favoured respondent to a Vendorpanel RFQ and engaged on 15 September 2017 to undertake an investigation and report on findings and recommendations in a presentation to an extraordinary meeting of the TIAC on 02 November 2017.

 

Council at its meeting on 23 November 2017 considered the recommendations from the TIAC extraordinary meeting on 02 November 2017 and resolved as follows:

 

Res 17-581

 

That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation(s):

 

Committee Recommendation 4.1.1

 

1.    That the Committee:

 

a)    thanks PSA Consulting for the presentation on the draft Byron Bay (Browning St) to Suffolk Park (Clifford St) Cycleway Investigation Report.

 

b)    receive further details and information regarding possible cost of infrastructure relocation and parking implication within the Northern Section.

 

c)    meets for on-site inspection of Northern Section and considers issues arising on extraordinary meeting.

 

2.    That Council consider an active transport wayfinding strategy for the Shire with the particular attention to signage.

 

TIAC at its extraordinary meeting on 6 December 2017 undertook a site walkover of the Northern Section with PSA Consulting and agreed that upon further investigation, that the most suitable option for the Northern Section was one that incorporated unidirectional on-road cycle lanes on either side of the road, requiring removal of parking from the western side of the road and realignment of the road centerline.  PSA Consulting then produced a Preferred Option Concept Design for the entire corridor and presented this to an extraordinary meeting of TIAC on 13 February 2018 for final feedback, conclusion of the investigation and finalisation of the report.

 

TIAC at its extraordinary meeting on 13 February 2018 was presented an updated version of the Preferred Option Concept Design by PSA Consulting and made the following recommendations that will be considered by Council at its meeting on 22 March 2018:

 

Committee Recommendation

 

1.    That the Committee review the details within Byron Bay (Browning St) to Suffolk Park (Clifford St) Cycleway Investigation presentation (Attachment 1; E2018/9404) by PSA Consulting and provide final feedback to the consultant at the meeting to assist report finalisation.

 

2.    That the draft final preferred concept design drawings (Attachments 2-5: E2018/9393, E2018/9399, E2018/9400, E2018/9402) and draft final report be finalised by PSA Consulting for reporting to the 15 March 2018 ordinary TIAC meeting, with the intention of further recommending to Council to adopt the recommendations within the final report and place the final report and proposed concept design drawings on public exhibition.

 

3.    That funding report will be brought to 15 March 2018 meeting outlining internal and external grants funding sources for the cycleway.

 

Report

 

PSA Consulting have concluded the Byron Bay (Browning St) to Suffolk Park (Clifford St) Cycleway Investigation and produced a report that documents the study and details recommendations based on their findings and feedback from previous extraordinary TIAC meetings.

 

The recommendations include an updated version of the Preferred Option Concept Design; a system of cycleways, both on-road and shared path, that effectively complete the missing links in cycling infrastructure along Bangalow Rd and Broken Head Rd between Clifford St, Suffolk Park and Browning St, Byron Bay.

 

The Preferred Option Concept Design was developed by PSA Consulting in conjunction with TIAC over a five (5) month period, starting initially with four (4) options proposed by the consultant and finishing with a preferred option that was deemed by all parties to best meet the option assessment criteria, which were:

 

·    Access & connectivity: This criterion considers the ease of access to/from the proposed corridor and the level of connectivity to population areas, attractors and the surrounding path network

·    Safety: This criterion considers user safety in accessing and using the proposed corridor. This could include the number and type of road crossings required, the type of intersection crossings, the quality and type of infrastructure proposed and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concerns (lighting, passive surveillance, etc.)

·    Infrastructure impacts: This criterion considers the impact on existing and required infrastructure. This could include parking removal, impact on known services (power poles, etc.), road work requirements (alignment, widening, etc.), signs and lines

·    Environmental impacts: This criterion considers the impact on the existing environment. This could include the need for tree removal, water runoff/drainage, coastal impacts and environmental impacts during construction

·    Alignment with user profiles: This criterion considers how well the option aligns with the needs of the identified key user groups (i.e. school students, families, recreational users, tourists)

·    Funding application potential: This criterion considers how well the option aligns with the Walking and Cycling Program and, therefore, how likely the project would be to receive State funding

·    Value: This criterion considers how effectively the above criteria are met with respect to high-level cost estimates for each option.

 

The final Preferred Option Concept Design is detailed in drawings that present the proposed system of cycleways and associated changes to existing infrastructure that would be required to implement the design, including modification of existing infrastructure and construction of new assets.

 

Implementation, staging and potential funding sources for the proposed design are included within the recommendations in the report, and have been discussed in previous meetings of TIAC. 

 


 

Staging

 

The recommended staging is based upon delivering connectivity by prioritising the sections of roadway with the lowest level of service in terms of cycling infrastructure, so as to fill in the most critical missing links in the cycleway first.

 

Stage

Description

Cost Estimate

Stage 1

The Byron at Byron resort to Beech Drive (north)

$0.20M - $0.25M

Stage 2

Beech Drive (north) to Beech Drive (south)

$0.24M - $0.32M

Stage 3

Browning Street to the existing pedestrian crossing near St Finbarr’s Catholic Primary School

$1.00M - $1.20M

Stage 4

Existing pedestrian crossing near St Finbarr’s Catholic Primary School to The Byron at Byron resort

$0.40M - $0.50M

Stage 5

Beech Drive (south) to Clifford Street

$0.06M - $0.08M

 

Stages 1 and 2 are seen as the highest priority as there is currently no amenity for cycling along this section of Broken Head Rd.

 

Funding

 

A recommendation from the extraordinary TIAC meeting on the 13 February 2018 TIAC was that a funding report be brought to 15 March 2018 meeting outlining internal and external grants funding sources for the cycleway.

 

Available funding for this project is approximately $150,000 in Section 94 funds, collected for and currently allocated to the section of roadway from The Byron at Byron Resort to Beech Drive (south). A 2017/18 NSW RMS Active Transport Grant has been applied for that, if awarded, would supplement the currently available Section 94 funds to a total of $292,625.  These funds could be used to undertake Stage 1 (and possibly Stage 5) or Stage 2.

 

All other recommended works are unfunded at this point in time and would need to be considered by Council in the 2018/19 budget process.  Allocation of any further Section 94 funds to this project would require amendment of the Section 94 plan.

 

Additional funding opportunities arise latter this year from the 2018/19 round of grants, however an application will not be possible without Council allocating its matching share of funds in the 2018/2019 budget.

 

2018/19 NSW RMS Active Transport Grant

RMS will open this scheme mid-year to fund projects in the 2019-20 financial year. This fund requires 1:1 funding contribution.

 

Relevant stages of the Broken Head Road Cycleway can be used as the basis of the funding application to RMS.

 

NSW, Regional Growth Fund, Stronger Country Communities Fund Round 2

This fund delivers crucial local infrastructure to improve the quality of life of people living in regional NSW. Funding is provided to local projects such as parks, community halls, playgrounds and amenity blocks. This year there is a focus on sporting infrastructure and general community amenity projects and they have changed the scope of eligible projects to include street beautification and 'place making' activities. Council can request up to $500K in funds, and does not need to match this amount, but a high allocation (1:1 preferable) will strengthen the application.

 

The Stronger Country Communities Fund application is the subject of Ordinary Council Report for 22 March meeting.  

 

Financial Implications

 

Financial implications are dependent on further reporting to Council and adoption of recommendations.  There are no negative financial implications associated with this report.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

There are no negative statutory and policy compliance implications associated with this report.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                     4.2 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                     4.2 - Attachment 2

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                     4.2 - Attachment 3

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                     4.2 - Attachment 4

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                     4.2 - Attachment 5

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                                               4.2 - Attachment 6

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                                               4.2 - Attachment 7

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                                               4.2 - Attachment 8

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                                   4.3

 

 

Report No. 4.3             High Risk Infrastructure Service Priorities

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Blyth Short, Asset Management Coordinator

File No:                        I2018/348

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Asset Management

 

 

 Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to present information on high risk infrastructure assets and the link with the Community Solution Panel Briefing Book. Significantly there is a major funding gap for required renewals of high risk Causeways and Major Culverts.  The recent awarding of $5.17 million grant funding for bridge renewals has created an opportunity for Council to reassign proposed loan funding for the renewal of high risk Causeways and Major Culverts.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the balance of the loan funds previously anticipated for Bridge Renewal now be committed over the coming financial years to the renewal of high risk Rural Causeways and Major Culverts.

 

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

The purpose of this report is to present information on high risk infrastructure assets and the link with the Community Solution Panel Briefing Book. Information on the Panel is available online (http://www.yoursaybyronshire.com.au/byron-shire-community-solutions-panel).

 

The high risk infrastructure assets are identified as below:

 

·    Bridges

·    Rural Stormwater Causeways and Major Culverts

·    Road defects

·    Stormwater defects

·    Building defects and non Australian standard compliant

·    Roadside Barrier defects and non Australian Standard compliant

 

Council has not yet completed a building and roadside barrier condition assessment.  The buildings inspections requires an external specialised consultant to complete and this is planned for 2018/19 year.  The roadside barriers can be completed with council staff who have been specifically trained, but with the very high number of roadside barriers (423 at present), this will take some considerable time.

 

For the maintenance and capital renewal of the high risk assets Council has developed a detailed risk matrix register to determine the order of priority.  This risk register resides in the Authority Asset Register.  The High Risk Asset (Risk Matrix) is identified in Section 6 of Risk Management Procedure (E2015/23531).  These Risk Matrixes not only take current asset condition into consideration, but also many other environmental and social factors that have an impact on that particular asset.

 

The prioritised Risk Matrix calculations for our highest risk assets can be found in Council’s electronic document management system (TRIM):

 

·    Risk Matrix for Rural Major Culverts      (E2016/85145)

·    Risk Matrix for Rural Causeways          (E2016/85152)

·    Risk Matrix for Bridges                           (E2016/85259)

·    Risk Matrix for Retaining Walls              (E2016/85260)

 

Council uses Assetic Predictor© modelling software to enable transparent risk management decision making in regards to sealed roads and bridge repair treatments.

 

There is no industry standard way to prioritise asset classes against each other, other than use experienced judgement on the risk matrix of likelihood and consequence.  The prime consideration is likelihood of fatality or injury.

 

On the next page is a table and figure of the current spend and calculated financial gap additional to the predictor modelling.

 


 

Table 1 Financial Gaps additional to Predictor modelling

Asset Sub-type

Current Spend

2016/17

Gap

Required

Budget

CAPITAL RENEWAL

 

 

 

Stormwater / Drainage Capital Causeways & Major Culverts

$677,020

$7,700,000

$8,377,020

(Reflect™ outstanding defects)

Road Capital Reseals

Note: (TABLE 15 TAMP)

$1,800,000

$2,000,000

$3,800,000

Road Capital Reconstruction

Note: (TABLE 15 TAMP)

(Not including new assets)

$5,828,701

$1,681,820

$7,510,521

Roads

$3,542,797

$2,290,625

$5,833,422

(Work Orders Roads)

(Reflect™ outstanding defects)

Stormwater

$611,908

$616,139

$1,228,047

(Work Orders SW)

(Reflect™ outstanding defects)

Buildings

$1,555,676

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

Roadside Barriers

$9,132

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

TOTAL RENEWAL AND MAINTENANCE

$14,025,234

$14,288,584

$26,749,010

 

Figure 1: Road Asset Financial Gaps

It can be seen there is a major funding gap pertaining to the timely renewal of rural causeways and major culverts. Council has already experienced collapse in these assets as per Figure 2.  Further examples of high risk causeways and culverts are demonstrated from Figure 3 to 7.  It is recommended that the balance of the loan funds previously anticipated for Bridge Renewal now be committed over the coming financial years to the renewal of high risk Rural Causeways and Major Culverts.

 

Figure 2: Durrumbal causeway

 

 

Figure 3: Left Bank Road # 2

 

 

 

Figure 4: Main Arm Road # 14 - Major deterioration beneath slab of box culvert - spalling & delamination (temp steel plate on roadway has been installed)

 

 

Figure 5: Gittoes Lane - 100% causeway width undermined. Water flow under causeway and not through pipes.

 

 

Figure 6: Tweed Valley Way - Pipes severely deformed, this is impacting roadway above.

 

 

Figure 7: Upper Wilsons Creek # 09 - 100% causeway width undermined. Water flow under causeway and not through pipes.

 

There are many more examples.

 

Financial Implications

 

Financial implications have been detailed above.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

The information provided is in accordance with the Asset management Policy of Council.

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                                   4.4

 

 

Report No. 4.4             Bike Plan and PAMP Status Report

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Daniel Strzina, Project Engineer

File No:                        I2018/358

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Local Roads and Drainage

 

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide to TIAC an update on the progress of Council’s Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) and Bike Strategy and Action Plan (Bike Plan), with the intention that TIAC recommend that Council proceed with engagement of the preferred specialist consultant to undertake the work.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee recommend to Council:

 

1.       That a Communications Plan be developed and reported to the Communications Panel.

 

2.       That Council:

 

a)      note the update on the progress of Council’s Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) and Bike Strategy and Action Plan (Bike Plan)

 

b)      note the submissions by preferred consultant, PSA Consulting, in response to Request for Quotations for the PAMP and Bike Plan works

 

c)      engage PSA Consulting to develop the Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) and review and update the Bike Strategy and Action Plan (Bike Plan)

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Background

 

In 2008 Council adopted the Byron Shire Bike Strategy and Action Plan (Bike Plan) to facilitate the expansion of the existing network of bicycle facilities in the Byron Shire.

 

A review of both the PAMP and Bike Plan is required to ensure that they are current and reflect changes to relevant legislation, design standards and guidelines.  It is also noted that Council’s PAMP and Bike Plan are used when assessing funding applications for construction projects.

 

Report

 

Actions to date are as follows:

·    Funding of $60,000 has been allocated to the development of the PAMP.  Funding of $60,000 has been allocated to the development of the Bike Plan.

·    Consultant’s briefs for the Bike Plan and PAMP were developed from RMS guidelines and issued to a selection of four (4) suitable consultants by means of a Request for Quotation.

·    Submissions were received from three (3) consultants and assessed.

 

Of the three (3) consultants to submit responses to the RFQ:

·    Transform Planning’s PAMP submission was inadequate due to poor community consultation recommendations and an inability to meet deadlines.  They did not submit a quotation for the Bike Plan work.

·    TTM submissions were considered adequate for both the PAMP and Bike plan works, however their quotation exceeded budget allocation in both cases.

·    PSA Consulting provided adequate submissions for both the PAMP and Bike Plan works, and quotations were within the budget allocation in both cases.

 

The quotations from PSA Consulting were chosen as the preferred submissions for both the PAMP and Bike Plan due to:

·    Clear demonstration of a comprehensive understanding of the work

·    Demonstrated experience in the field of active transport planning

·    Recent successful engagement by Council on the Byron Bay to Suffolk Park Cycleway Investigation

·    Quotations within allocated budget

 

The preferred submissions are included below for review, with the intent that the Committee recommend that Council engage PSA Consulting to undertake both scopes of works.

 

It should be noted that timing and completion of the PAMP and Bike Plan is dependent on the engagement date, which has yet to be confirmed, and communications strategy, which will be defined as part of the works.  A revised program for the completion of the works will be circulated once developed.

 

 

Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) Submission – PSA Consulting

 

 

1.   Please submit a proposed program for carrying out the work, including the proposed hours of work and working days, and a Gantt chart or similar showing the major milestones and duration of the project.

 

 

2.   Describe the proposed methodology and sequence of works to be performed under the contract.

 

 

The Byron Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) will enable Byron Shire Council (BSC) to coordinate and maximise the benefit of their investment in pedestrian infrastructure and policy to provide safe, connected and legible pedestrian routes. The PAMP is a collaborative document developed through partnership between State and Local Government, along with the community and other local stakeholders. The development of the Byron PAMP will enable BSC to maximise any future funding grant applications. The Byron PAMP will be undertaken in three stages as outlined below.

 

Stage1: Objectives

 

·    Define objectives - during this task, the team will meet with BSC and discuss the objectives that the PAMP will be able to meet, the timeline for the PAMP and any current opportunities within BSC’s funding mechanisms.

·    Select most suitable objectives for Byron – this task will set the focus of the PAMP to allow the most effective use of funding and resources across the pedestrian network. These PAMP objectives will then be rated using local knowledge of BSC staff to ensure that the objectives are able to be measured following the implementation of the PAMP. PSA propose to use the RMS guiding objectives and rating system with BSC to rate the objectives.

·    Form a PAMP team – The PAMP team will be developed during Stage 1 to be called upon for both the preparation and the implementation stages. This team will need to include a range of council officers, including engineers, town planners and community planners. PSA as accredited Road Safety Auditors will be able to provide road safety advice during the preparation of the PAMP to accompany advice from internal BSC officers. An important consideration of the PAMP team will be the involvement of the community. It is recommended that a reference group be created to enable BSC to consult with community groups such as people with disabilities and any other local groups, dependant on the relevant objectives to the Byron PAMP. This will involve setting the charter for the reference group.

 

Stage2: Preparation

 

·    Define the PAMP area and undertake research and review – This task will include a meeting with BSC to discuss the coverage area of the PAMP. Following the definition of the area, a literature review and research will be undertaken to consider the existing documentation, including Local, State and Federal Government policies, standards and plans. This task will also include the collection of data including existing facilities and their conditions, crash data, pedestrian and vehicular counts, social and demographic data and public transport access and utilisation.

·    Undertake a site visit to review existing issues and opportunities – following the review of existing data, a site visit will be undertaken to review the existing condition and to observe user behaviour. The site visit will be undertaken at a time of high pedestrian activity around attractors within the PAMP area.

·    Prepare maps of the study area – Following the site visit, a range of maps will be plotted to demonstrate the existing issues, opportunities, attractors and visually represent the data already analysed.

·    Develop PAMP Routes – this task will take into account the data analysed and the insight gained during the site observations including the issues / constraints, the opportunities, the pedestrian generators and attractors and the design standards required for each user group. PAMP routes will be visually represented to provide functional routes and facilities for safe and efficient pedestrian connectivity within the defined PAMP area.

·    Prepare and undertake community consultation – following the drafting of the PAMP routes, community consultation will be undertaken. It is recommended that this be undertaken through reference groups to allow discussion groups and public exhibition of the Draft PAMP in the local newspapers, libraries and online on BSC’s website. PSA have also included provision to attend two (2) community consultation workshops to facilitate discussion and gain feedback on the Draft PAMP.

·    Audit the routes – following the community consultation, audits will be undertaken to determine the scale of work required along each designated route. These audits are proposed to be undertaken by PSA staff with Road Safety Auditing experience. The PSA team would welcome input from relevant BSC officers for these route audits.

·    Develop an Action Plan – following both the community consultation and feedback and the audits of the routes, the PSA team will develop an Action Plan and works schedule to allow BSC to implement the PAMP. This will be a prioritised list of actions which have an allocated funding source. The Action Plan will not only include infrastructure works, but also policy works required to address pedestrian mobility and accessibility within the PAMP area.

·    Promote the PAMP – Following the development of the Action Plan, the PSA Project team will develop a report for release to the community as a second round of community consultation. This will include a public display of the PAMP in BSC libraries and on BSC’s website. This will allow the community to provide any feedback. The PSA team, through consultation with the BSC team will incorporate any appropriate feedback in an updated finalised PAMP.

·    Finalise the PAMP – the finalised PAMP will include a report, drawings of the PAMP routes, appendices of the staging and action plan and maps and supporting documentation, including community feedback.

 

Stage3: Implementation

 

·    Set budget for the PAMP – following the finalisation of the PAMP, the PSA project team will identify funding opportunities for each of the actions in the plan. These could include grant funding through state and federal government sources, developers, and local community clubs and groups. The identification of funding sources will enable PSA to work with BSC to set a realistic annual council budget to contribute to the implementation of the priority measures of the PAMP.

·    Monitor the PAMP – the PSA team will establish a regime for monitoring the PAMP, which will include a record and database management of works complete, regular collection of data to evaluate and monitor objectives and future periodic updates of the PAMP.

·    Undertake a SWOT Analysis – to allow continuous improvement of the PAMP, a Strengths / Weaknesses & Opportunities / Threats (SWOT) analysis will be undertaken to score the PAMP against its original objectives.

·    Determine the Quality of the PAMP – an RMS rating will be provided on the PAMP, with this rating calculation preparation to be undertaken by PSA.

 

 

3.   Provide details of all personnel who will be nominated to work on the project.

 

Staff member name

Position held

Role on the project

Qualifications and experience

% of time on the project

Hannah Richardson

Director, Traffic & Transport Engineer

Project Director

 

Reviewing analysis, providing input into development of PAMP routes, community consultation.

Bachelor Engineering (RPEQ, CPEng)

Graduate Diploma

Urban and Regional Planning Project Director

Over 10 years of Traffic Engineering and Transport Planning, including over two years experience as Coordinator, Traffic & Transport for Sunshine Coast Council with responsibilities for concept through to detailed planning of cycleways for the Sunshine Coast Local Government Area.

20%

Aaron

Donges

Senior Transport Planner

Project Manager

 

Development of PAMP, undertaking audits, community consultation and data analysis.

Bachelor Urban Development

Aaron has over six years of experience which includes the management of a range of projects and involvement in a number of large, multi-disciplinary projects as the traffic and transport lead.

Aaron has undertaken area transport strategies, pedestrian and cyclist studies, travel demand management studies, multimodal accessibility studies, a city-wide bus network review and redesign project, and many more.

40%

Tim Boxall

Traffic and Transport Engineer

Traffic Engineer

 

Developing Maps, undertaking audits as an experienced road safety auditor, undertaking analysis of data for the PAMP Routes

Bachelor Engineering (Civil)

Tim is a graduate from the Queensland University of Technology with first class honours in Civil Engineering. Since graduation, Tim has quickly acquired knowledge of traffic engineering practices including traffic impact assessments, car parking studies and transport modelling. Tim is the current QLD recipient of the AITPM Young Professionals Award.

40%

 

4.   Provide details of recent contracts (within the last two years) that demonstrate expertise application to the services required.

 

Company Name

Sunshine Coast Council

City of Gold Coast

Brisbane Airport Corporation

Contact name, phone, email

Rodney Zinn

(07) 5420 8004

rodney.zinn@sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au

Casandra Smith

(07) 5582 9079

clsmith@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

Chris Slattery

(07)3406 3050

chris.slattery@bne.com.au

Description of services provided

In 2017 Sunshine Coast Council plan installed ‘smart bollards’ to manage traffic during street closures as a part of a streetscaping upgrade project. The ‘smart bollards’ are proposed to be automatic bollards and the aim is to reduce the requirement for external traffic management companies to be present for recurring street closures for markets and other events. The project sparked a need for guidance on traffic management measures pertaining to the bollard sensor system, the signage requirements (location, height, wording, sequencing and duration of display), sequencing of bollard motion and management of vehicle entry / exit to the enclosed area (including for emergency vehicles).

PSA are in the process of developing a City Freight Plan for the City of Gold Coast. The City Freight Plan project will develop a long-term strategic plan to ensure Council can appropriately respond to the challenges of managing and supporting freight as part of a multi- modal transport system. It will provide an understanding of the economic contribution freight makes to the City’s economy. The Plan will establish a fine grained freight network hierarchy and propose series of actions that will be consistent with and build on the GC2018 initiatives.

PSA Consulting (Australia) was engaged by the Brisbane Airport Corporation to provide traffic engineering advice in relation to the provision of a safe and cost effective design solution for the provision of cycling facilities on Airport Drive.

Date project completed

July 2016 – June 2017

April 2017 – October 2017

May 2017 – August 2017

 

5.   Please attach the following documents to your quote:

RCertificate of Currency for Workers Compensation Insurance

RCertificate of Currency for Public Liability Insurance - $10,000,000

RProfessional Indemnity Insurance - $5,000,000

 

 

6.   Please provide any further information that is applicable to the provision of the goods/services.

 

 

This fee is exclusive of vehicle and pedestrian counts, pedestrian origin-destination surveys and existing footpath condition audits. Following the definition of the study area, the costs of these will be estimated, based on the defined objectives of the PAMP.

 

 

7.   Please complete the pricing schedule below and describe any additional charges that apply

 

Item Description

Amount (ex GST)

Amount (inc GST)

Stage 1 – Objectives

$14,760

$16,236

Stage 2 – Preparation

$29,950

$32,945

Stage 3 – Implementation

$9,970

$10,967

Total of quotation:

$54,680

$60,148

 

Note that prices must include all overheads, profit and other expenses that the successful proponent may incur in relation to the supply of the services.

 

Please describe any additional charges that apply:

This fee is exclusive of vehicle and pedestrian counts, pedestrian origin-destination surveys and existing footpath condition audits. Following the definition of the study area, the costs of these will be estimated, based on the defined objectives of the PAMP.

 

 

 

 

 

Bike Strategy and Action Plan (Bike Plan) Submission – PSA Consulting

 

 

1.   Please submit a proposed program for carrying out the work, including the proposed hours of work and working days, and a Gantt chart or similar showing the major milestones and duration of the project.

 

 

2.   Describe the proposed methodology and sequence of works to be performed under the contract.

 

 

The Byron Bike Plan will enable Byron Shire Council (BSC) to coordinate and maximise the benefit of their investment in cycling infrastructure, policy and promotional programs to provide safe, connected and legible cycling routes. The development of the Byron Bike Plan will enable BSC to maximise any future funding grant applications. The Byron Bike Plan will be undertaken in three stages as outlined below.

 

Stage 1: Objectives

 

·    Review existing planning and delivery documents – this will involve a review of all existing documentation, policies, standards, relevant local, state and federal government planning mechanisms and a review of the land use planning context

·    Define objectives - during this task, the team will meet with BSC and discuss the objectives that the Bike Plan will be able to meet, the timeline for the Bike Plan and any current opportunities within BSC’s funding mechanisms.

·    Select most suitable objectives for Byron – this task will set the focus of the Bike Plan to allow the most effective use of funding and resources across the cycle network. These objectives will then be assessed to ensure they are measurable and unambiguous.

·    Form a team and develop a project delivery plan – The PSA Project team will form a team and identify a stakeholder management/communication plan for use throughout the development of the Bike Plan in the preparation and the implementation stages. This will need to include a range of BSC officers, including engineers, town planners and community planners. PSA as accredited Road Safety Auditors, with experience in active transport planning for councils, will be able to provide road safety advice during the preparation of the Bike Plan to accompany advice from internal council officers. An important consideration of the Bike Plan consultation will be the involvement of the community. It is recommended that a reference group be created to enable BSC to consult with community groups such as local bicycle user groups (BUGs) and any other local groups, dependant on the relevant objectives to the Byron Bike Plan. This will involve setting the charter for the reference group. This task will also include an identification of estimated timings and costs to deliver the project

·    Define area and undertake research and review – This task will include a meeting with BSC to discuss the coverage area of the Bike Plan. Following the definition of the area, a literature review and research will be undertaken to consider the existing documentation, including Local, State and Federal Government policies, standards and plans. This task will include the collection of data relating to current cycling activities, including demographics, Origin – Destination Surveys, and behavioural observations. This task will also include the collection of data including existing facilities and their conditions, crash data, cyclist and vehicular counts, social and demographic data, identification of user profiles, and public transport access and utilisation.

 

Stage 2: Preparation

 

·    Undertake a site visit to review existing issues and opportunities – this will include assessing existing cycling routes and will inform the identification of proposed new / alternative / upgraded routes and infrastructure. This will be undertaken by a site visit

·    Prepare maps of the study area and develop routes – Following the site visit, a range of maps will be plotted to demonstrate the existing issues, opportunities, attractors and visually represent the data already analysed, along with demonstrating a proposed network of routes.

·    Set priorities for routes – following the development of the routes, a prioritisation process will occur to align with the objectives set and to allow a cost effective implementation. This will include an estimation of the costs and benefits of the Bike Plan. This will include provision for other facilities, such as wayfinding signage, mid-trip and end-of-trip facilities.

·    Establish promotional programs – establish a system of promoting cycling and road safety for cyclists within the area to encourage the uptake of those that are not currently comfortable cycling due to a perceived threat to their safety. To complement the promotional campaign, consultation should occur with local businesses and schools to encourage employer and school programs to increase cycling mode share for trips to / from work and school.

·    Prepare and undertake community consultation – following the drafting of the Bike Plan, community consultation will be undertaken. It is recommended that this be undertaken through reference groups to allow discussion groups and public exhibition of the Draft Bike Plan in the local newspapers, libraries and online on BSC’s website. PSA have also included provision to attend two (2) community consultation workshops to facilitate discussion and gain feedback on the draft Bike Plan.

·    Audit the routes – following the community consultation, audits will be undertaken to determine the scale of work required along each designated route. These audits are proposed to be undertaken by PSA staff with Road Safety Auditing experience. The PSA Project Team will appreciate any input by relevant BSC officers in the audits of these routes.

·    Set budget for the Bike Plan –the PSA project team will identify funding opportunities for each of the proposed cycling routes and behavioural programs. These could include grant funding through state and federal government sources, developers, and local community clubs and groups. The identification of funding sources will enable PSA to work with BSC to set a realistic annual council budget to contribute to the implementation of the priority measures of the Bike Plan.

·    Develop an Action Plan – following the community consultation/feedback, the audits of the routes and the identification of funding opportunities, the PSA team will develop an Action Plan and works schedule to allow BSC to implement the Bike Plan. This will be a prioritised list of actions which have an allocated funding source. The Action Plan will not only include infrastructure works, but also policy works required to address cyclist mobility and accessibility within the defined area.

 

Stage 3 - Implementation

 

·    Develop an Implementation Plan – following both the development of proposed routes and behavioural promotional activities, a prioritised implementation plan will be developed.

·    Establish monitoring and evaluation provisions – The PSA team will establish a set of steps to enable the monitoring and evaluation and eventual updating of the Bike Plan, which will include review of the measurement of the objectives identified during the beginning of the plan development.

·    Finalise the Bike Plan – the finalised Bike Plan will include a report, drawings of the routes, appendices of the staging and action plan and maps and supporting documentation for educational and promotional activities, including community feedback.

 

 

3.   Provide details of all personnel who will be nominated to work on the project.

 

Staff member name

Position held

Role on the project

Qualifications and experience

% of time on the project

Hannah Richardson

Director, Traffic & Transport Engineer

Project Director

 

Reviewing analysis, providing input into development of PAMP routes and promotional and educational programs, community consultation.

Bachelor Engineering (RPEQ, CPEng)

Graduate Diploma

Urban and Regional Planning Project Director

Over 10 years of Traffic Engineering and Transport Planning, including over two years experience as Coordinator, Traffic & Transport for Sunshine Coast Council with responsibilities for concept through to detailed planning of cycleways for the Sunshine Coast Local Government Area.

20%

Aaron

Donges

Senior Transport Planner

Project Manager

 

Development of Bike Plan, undertaking site inspections, community consultation and data analysis.

Bachelor Urban Development

Aaron has over six years of experience which includes the management of a range of projects and involvement in a number of large, multi-disciplinary projects as the traffic and transport lead.

Aaron has undertaken area transport strategies, pedestrian and cyclist studies, travel demand management studies, multimodal accessibility studies, a city-wide bus network review and redesign project, and many more.

40%

Kirstin Palmer

Traffic and Transport Engineer

Traffic Engineer

 

Developing Maps, undertaking site investigations as an experienced road safety auditor, undertaking analysis of data for the Bike Plan Routes

Bachelor Engineering (Civil)

Kirstin is a graduate from the Queensland University of Technology. Since graduation, Kirstin has quickly acquired knowledge of traffic engineering practices including traffic impact assessments, car parking studies and transport modelling. Kirstin has experience in working in-house with Mackay Regional Council in the design office and will bring this experience to the project.

40%

 

4.   Provide details of recent contracts (within the last two years) that demonstrate expertise application to the services required.

 

Company Name

Sunshine Coast Council

City of Gold Coast

Brisbane Airport Corporation

Contact name, phone, email

Rodney Zinn

(07) 5420 8004

rodney.zinn@sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au

Casandra Smith

(07) 5582 9079

clsmith@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

Chris Slattery

(07)3406 3050

chris.slattery@bne.com.au

Description of services provided

In 2017 Sunshine Coast Council plan installed ‘smart bollards’ to manage traffic during street closures as a part of a streetscaping upgrade project. The ‘smart bollards’ are proposed to be automatic bollards and the aim is to reduce the requirement for external traffic management companies to be present for recurring street closures for markets and other events. The project sparked a need for guidance on traffic management measures pertaining to the bollard sensor system, the signage requirements (location, height, wording, sequencing and duration of display), sequencing of bollard motion and management of vehicle entry / exit to the enclosed area (including for emergency vehicles).

PSA are in the process of developing a City Freight Plan for the City of Gold Coast. The City Freight Plan project will develop a long-term strategic plan to ensure Council can appropriately respond to the challenges of managing and supporting freight as part of a multi- modal transport system. It will provide an understanding of the economic contribution freight makes to the City’s economy. The Plan will establish a fine grained freight network hierarchy and propose series of actions that will be consistent with and build on the GC2018 initiatives.

PSA Consulting (Australia) was engaged by the Brisbane Airport Corporation to provide traffic engineering advice in relation to the provision of a safe and cost effective design solution for the provision of cycling facilities on Airport Drive.

Date project completed

July 2016 – June 2017

April 2017 – October 2017

May 2017 – August 2017

 

5.   Please attach the following documents to your quote:

RCertificate of Currency for Workers Compensation Insurance

RCertificate of Currency for Public Liability Insurance - $10,000,000

RProfessional Indemnity Insurance - $5,000,000

 

 

6.   Please provide any further information that is applicable to the provision of the goods/services.

 

 

This fee does not include the fees involved in surveys of the current cycling utilisation, demographics or behaviour. An estimate of this fee will be provided to council during the initial stage, while developing the extent of the study area for the Bike Plan

 

 

7.   Please complete the pricing schedule below and describe any additional charges that apply

 

Item Description

Amount (ex GST)

Amount (inc GST)

Stage 1 – Objectives

$13,520

$14,872

Stage 2 – Preparation

$28,300

$31,130

Stage 3 – Implementation

$11,980

$13,178

Total of quotation:

$53,800

$59,180

 

Note that prices must include all overheads, profit and other expenses that the successful proponent may incur in relation to the supply of the services.

 

Please describe any additional charges that apply:

This fee does not include the fees involved in surveys of the current cycling utilisation, demographics or behaviour. An estimate of this fee will be provided to council during the initial stage, while developing the extent of the study area for the Bike Plan.

 

 

Financial Implications

 

Financial implications are dependent on further reporting to Council and adoption of recommendations.  There are no financial implications at this point in time.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

There are no statutory and policy compliance implications at this point in time.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                                   4.5

 

 

Report No. 4.5             Development of a Shire-wide Transport Strategy

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Tony Nash, Manager Works

File No:                        I2018/411

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Local Roads and Drainage

 

 

Summary:

 

Council, at its meeting of 10 October 2016, resolved in support of the 16 August 2016 Transport Advisory Committee (TrAC) recommendation as follows:

 

Resolution 16-516

 

Report No. 5.1   Development of a Shire-wide Transport Strategy

File No: I2016/884

 

Committee Recommendation 5.1.1

1.       That the Committee develop a Shire-wide Transport Strategy which includes:

 

a)      CONTEXT to include consideration of:

·        congestion

·        high tourist numbers

·        lack of local public transport connectivity and regional integration

·        high carbon emissions

·        safety

·        high costs of running private vehicles

·        road condition and the cost of maintenance

·        demographics – (difficult for people who can’t drive or don’t have a licence)

·        access - mobility

·        lack of cycleway connectivity

·        lack of connectivity in general

·        poor location of services – making them more distant than they could   otherwise be

·        high growth area – need to plan for future

·        transport costs to community from planning and commercial decisions

·        impact of future technological and social developments

 

b)      OBJECTIVES to include consideration of:

·        reduce the need for and/or dependency on private motor vehicle trips

·        improve public transport

·        support community transport

·        increase the bike network and/or use

·        improve pedestrian and residential amenity

·        support advocacy, partnerships and/or community involvement

·        improve road user safety

·        improve integration and regional connectivity

·        support climate change adaptation and mitigation

·        further defining and obtaining of these objectives will be the role of the proposed transport strategy

·        support of each objective can be sought via relevant Council instruction through available mechanisms regarding any proposed and/or existing activity, all of which will be explored via development of the proposed transport strategy that will be guided by Council’s vision.

 

c)      ACTIONS to include the consideration of:

 

·        understanding user experience – feedback, surveys

·        develop priorities from user feedback, eg improve user experience by means of improved bus shelters, safer road crossings, shorter travel times, for example

·        develop measurement methods for baseline and future actions

·        integrated land use planning

 

2.       That a draft strategy commence with a review of relevant local, state and federal programs, plans and strategies in efforts to identify funding and partnership opportunities.

 

3.       That Council note staff will apply by 9 September 2016 to meet the RMS Active Transport Funding deadline and it will include seeking 2017/18 funding for the revision of Council’s bike plan and PAMP.          (Richardson/Hunter)

 

 

Since that time there has been little progress on the development of the strategy and the former Transport Advisory Committee (TrAC) has been revised into the Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee (TIAC) 

 

This report seeks to establish a process to move forward with to develop Transport Strategy in reference to resolution 16-516 as the basis of the framework for the strategy.

 

There has been no funding provided yet for the development of a Shire Wide Transport strategy, but funding of $100,000 has been indicated in 2018/19 as part of Council’s future Works Program, noting that the program is revised annually and Council only approves its budget on a year by year basis.

 

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee have an extraordinary meeting in April 2018 to workshop the development a Shire-wide Transport Strategy.

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Policy: Strategic Transport Statement (Adopted 28/5/09 Res 09-371) (Current_Policies), DM861019 , page 185  

 

 


 

Report

 

The Transport Infrastructure Advisory Committee (TIAC) is a committee of Council which operates in accordance with its constitution.  A key objective of the constitution is the development of a shire-wide Transport Strategy.

 

The most recent report (I2016/884) regarding the strategy development was tabled at the 16 August 2016 meeting of the previous Transport Advisory Committee. 

 

That report sought Committee input into the frame work for the development of the “priority actions”.  After much discussion, the Committee recommended numerous objectives that the strategy should contain.  These objectives were endorsed by Council (Res 16-516, as per first page).

 

 

Previous Proposal on the Development of the Transport Strategy

 

The following sections of this report have been extracted from previous reports to the TrAC (August 2016):-

.

Proposed contents of the Transport Strategy

 

The previous direction in terms of the proposed contents of the Transport Strategy was to divided into primary and secondary deliverables.  They are shown at Table 1 and discussed further below. 

 

In essence, primary deliverables take priority; secondary deliverables require third-party funding or partnership and either are undertaken on the proviso they contribute toward meeting the stated objectives, which as per Table 2 are redefined as either a principle or measure.

 

 

Table 1: Deliverables

 

Primary deliverables

Secondary deliverables 


Walking and cycling
More off-road shared paths/connections More on-road bike lanes, bike parking
More footpaths, kerb ramps
Less missing links / network gaps
Improved network/way finding signage

 

Public transport
More bus shelters
Increased DDA compliance

 

Funding
Greater third-party and Council funding
Partnerships

 

Road safety
Road safety program / road upgrades

 

Transport / Traffic Planning
Traffic management / network review Planned road / intersection upgrades
Parking studies/management
Local Area Traffic Management Plans


Secondary deliverables are either complementary to primary deliverables, or can be provided by third-parties either directly or in partnership.

 

Therefore Council involvement in them should be limited, or on proviso of third-party funding contribution and delivery. For example:

 

- direct or indirect partnerships

 

- provision of public and community transport information and/or services

 

- online resources / smart-phone applications e.g. timetables, rideshare, carpool, etc.

 

- other ‘soft’ infrastructure (e.g. telecommuting)

 

- provision of facilities on private or crown land/property, e.g. bike parking, signage, etc.

 

 

Primary deliverables

 

Primary deliverables are to be limited to typical transport modes of walking, cycling, pubic transport and road safety/road upgrades, plus undertaking traffic management / network reviews (i.e. planning) to help determine future projects and priorities, for example to assist with town centre and master planning.

 

As parking management is key to town centre and travel demand management, the parking studies (as currently being undertaken) should both inform and be considered in the context of Transport Strategy deliverables as well.

 

These primary deliverables provide measurable, quantifiable outcomes and often have a distinct purpose as defined at time of project conception or brief, e.g. a parking or network study, a road safety project, etc. and just as often require ‘hard’ infrastructure, such as paths, shelters, seating, road upgrades, etc.

 

Importantly, such capital works are a primary responsibility of local government which Council fund and include annually in the capital works program.  The Transport Strategy (once adopted) would influence such a program. 

 

Thus in summary primary deliverables namely include existing and traditional undertakings of Council. Their inclusion in the Transport Strategy (once completed) is not to recreate or redo such work but ensure such undertakings align with Council goals and objectives.

 

 

Secondary deliverables

 

The secondary deliverables are more intangible, or ‘soft’ infrastructure, such as behavioural programs/promotions (e.g. surveys, information days) or online resources, maps, timetables, ride share apps, etc.

 

These however are often sought or offered by a third-party or require their funding. Therefore it is recommended they are clearly understood to be secondary or complementary projects on the proviso they are delivered either by a third-party directly or via third-party funding.

 

Nevertheless, primary or secondary projects would need to meet the endorsed objectives, plus be consistent with Council’s adopted transport policy, before they are considered; and even then there needs to be a process of understanding how to prioritise the numerous projects expected to be contained within the strategy.

 

 

Prioritising and aligning projects

 

The Transport Strategy will (once adopted) compete against other Council projects for funding. To improve chances of funding would be to align it with other key documents and goals of Council, for example the Community Strategic Plan, plus inclusion in the s94 contributions plans. Outside of Council, aligning with state and federal government objectives, such as the TfNSW Northern Rivers Regional Transport Plan and the Regional Development Australia (RDA) and its funding programs is required.

 

Thus it is proposed the next step of strategy development be a review of relevant local, state and federal programs and plans in efforts to identify funding and partnership opportunities. Examples include the RMS Active Transport Program (cycling and walking funding), TfNSW public transport grants (CPTIGS), state and federal road safety and infrastructure programs, etc.

 

Such a review however need not be limited to public bodies, and as the following highlights there are many local not-for-profit or even private sector enterprises involved in transport.

 

 

Avoid duplication, including with local transport services and providers

 

Local efforts to improve transport options abound. The following are just a few of the more well-known.  They are highlighted here to indicate that Council or its Transport Strategy need to avoid duplicating efforts where possible and not attempt a strategy as an elixir to all transport-related woes.

 

The recent released ‘GoByron’ smart-phone transport application was developed by the Byron Bay taxi company to make bookings of traditional services plus assist with ride share. It is a private undertaking and not required Council involvement. It is available for public use.

 

The now out-of-print, whole of Northern Rivers transport guide and timetable was undertaken and completed by NRSDC with the aid of several Councils and TfNSW contributing toward its costs, and more recently NRSDC are seeking funds for an online, interactive version which would further their already available online timetable: http://www.goingplaces.org.au/

 

Similarly, the Northern Rivers car pool (http://www.nrcarpool.org/) is a third-party project supported by various organisations and which (as of 9 August) had 3,912 registered members who are able to connect as either rider or driver.

 

In regard to public transport, a beach front private development is progressing its proposal to provide a park and ride rail-shuttle service between Byron Bay and 3km west of it at Bayshore Drive. If this is achieved it will replicate Council’s own trial (albeit on bus). 

 

Such private or community enterprise efforts are in addition to traditional providers, such as the public and school transport services provided by TfNSW licensed operators who are contracted to provide such passenger services. In addition there is also various community transport options within the shire and across the region, for example the Tweed Byron Ballina service (http://community-transport.org.au/).

 

While these examples are transport specific, it should also be noted other third-parties are also attempting to address either transport disadvantage or the strategy objectives themselves. Identifying who these parties are not only avoids duplication of efforts or resources but also offers an opportunity for partnership, sharing of resources and knowledge and potentially garnering third-party funding.

 

 

Align objectives and deliverables with the funding and work of others

 

A case in point is Council’s “facilitation” role of the Beyond Zero Emissions (http://bze.org.au) led project entitled “Zero Emissions Byron” (ZEB, https://zerobyron.org/). Recently this third-party project released a baseline report estimating that half of Byron shire emissions are due to energy consumption, while transport was estimated as “the next biggest contributor, accounting for just over one-third of emissions”, to which the ZEB transport working group suggests be mitigated via:

 

 

…encouraging cycling by extending the network of (cycle) lanes, improving local bus services, re-establishing the local railway line for use by trams or other on-car transport, and promoting car share schemes and electric vehicles.

 

Source: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/byron-bay-maps-path-zero-emissions-2025

Accessed 9 August 2016

 

This, like the ZEB project end-goal of 100% renewable energy and zero emissions by 2025, is ambitious, and even more so if government support does not materialise. However, given it is a shire transport matter, and that a member of the ZEB Transport working group is also a member of TrAC, plus the project reflects one of the Committee’s own (now Council endorsed) objective of reducing emissions, the wider committee need to consider what is realistic for Council and the Transport Strategy in regard to contributing toward this end-goal.

 

Assuming however the ZEB working group suggestions are supported, questions then arise of how much cycling, bus patronage, use of rail-line and uptake of rideshare and electric vehicles is required to help reduce transport emissions, if not to zero by 2025 (which is considered unfeasible) but at very least to below current levels? 

 

While such a question can not be answered at this time, and would be subject of a Transport Strategy proper, it does highlight some immediate concerns.

 

Firstly, and clearly, not all is within Council or even state government authority or capability, and without a pragmatic approach being adhered the strategy has the very real potential of being impractical and unachievable.

 

Secondly, objectives while grand and visionary, do still need grounding (e.g. base data, resources, planning).

 

Thirdly, some of the adopted objectives are more akin to an overarching principle (e.g. reduce emissions) than a specific goal (e.g. more bike paths) or general measure (e.g. increased efficiencies, reduced costs).

 

These first two concerns have been discussed prior and can be avoided, namely that the Transport Strategy remain focused on deliverables, not specific or pet projects, and the primary aim being transport infrastructure.

 

Doing so would address the third point; i.e. identify and ensure objectives are clear, quantifiable and produce an outcome (e.g. a specific measure, xxkm of shared path built); and that those outcomes are consistent with the overarching principles of the strategy (e.g. contribution toward reducing emissions) and are measureable (e.g. improving access, sustainable, etc.).

 

Such an approach has been attempted at Table 2 which proposes which of the endorsed objectives are considered as an overarching principle and a general measure, both of which would apply to prioritising projects which once delivered provides a quantifiable outcome.

 

This process is depicted at Figure 1 which also shows the proposed development of the Transport Strategy and the separate development of projects.

 


 

 

 

 

Table 2: adopted objectives – principles and measures

 

Objectives as:

Outcomes

(i.e. specific measures)

Overarching principles

General measures 

a) the desire to move toward zero emissions

 

b) telecommunications

 

f) the ‘measuring’ of outcomesà

 

h) sustainability

 

j) feasibility

 

l) renewable energy (and recycled or zero or low emission resources)

c) access issues

 

d) improvement of public transport

 

e) addressing inter town gaps

 

g) efficiency and costs

 

i) quadruple bottom line assessment

 

k) anticipation and acknowledgement of land use and corridor analysis

 

xxkm of more:

- paths

- bike lanes

- PT services

 

Increased number of:

- bus shelters

- DDA compliance

- PT patrons

- cyclists

- walking

- car pooling/ride sharing

- seats

- shading

- water bubblers/taps

- toilets

- bike parking 

 

Reduce:

- transport emissions

- vehicle numbers

- vehicle trips

 

 

 

Figure 1: proposed framework - separation of strategy and project development

 

 

 

Next steps – review and report

 

As suggested above, and assuming the framework of the strategy development of deliverables, principles, measures and outcomes is supported, it is proposed the next step is to commence the strategy itself via a review of relevant local, state and federal programs, plans and strategies in efforts to identify funding and partnership opportunities. To this end Committee members’ assistance is sought in reviewing each of the following:

 

Active transport

 

It is recommended the review commence with cycling and walking, noting RMS provides fund for revision of bike plans and PAMP. Details of the RMS active transport program is online:

 

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/partners-suppliers/lgr/active-transport/index.html

 

 

Public transport

 

TfNSW and their strategies and goals are online at:

 

http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/content/northern-rivers-regional-transport-plan

 

Other than Byron Bay being elected as a cycling town, their regional transport plan has little in regard to specifics.

 

As for funding, TfNSW manage the Country Passenger Transport Infrastructure Grant Scheme (CPTIGS). This offers funding to develop and improve public transport facilities, for example bus stops and shelters. Details of it are online and liaising with the local public transport operator is recommended.

 

http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/customers/community-transport/community-transport-agreements-programs/cptigs

 

 

Road safety

 

Each year the Federal black spot program provides funding, as does the RMS via their Safer Roads program and local government infrastructure funding programs. Submissions are made via completion of cost estimates and benefit-cost spread sheets. Details are online:

 

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/partners-suppliers/lgr/grant-programs/black-spots.html

 

 

Federal funding

 

Regional Development Australia (RDA) programs provide federal funds for large projects that can meet their often economic objectives. Successful projects are those already planned, designed or even approved. The regional office also has various local demographic and other information that may assist with developing a Transport Strategy and aligning its goals with those of the federal government. 

 

http://rdanorthernrivers.org.au/

 


 

 

Partners

 

The Northern Rivers Regional Organisation of Councils (NOROC) is the peak representative group for the Ballina, Byron, Kyogle, Lismore, Richmond Valley and Tweed local government areas. They have in the past being active in advocating for a regional transport plan. While they rely on member funding they offer advocacy and support.

 

http://noroc.com.au/

 

The Northern River Social Development Council (NRSDC) is a strong advocate for transport improvements and reducing disadvantage.  It offers an important partner and knowledge.

 

http://nrsdc.org.au/

 

 

Proposed Way Forward

 

Current discussion with the Chair of TIAC and staff in relation to development is that the Transport Strategy is that the previous framework and resolution may have put an emphasis on a strategy that would require significant resourcing and development and potentially be at risk of not meeting the current needs of the Council and community.

 

Projects/initiatives that feed into an overall strategy include:-

 

·    Policy 09/004 – Strategic Transport Statement

·    Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan

·    MR525 Study

·    Draft Access and Movement Studies

Byron Bay

Mullumbimby

Bangalow

·    PAMP

·    Bike Plan

·    Multi Use of the Byron Shire Rail Corridor

·    NSW On Demand Transport EOI

·    NSW Autonomous Transport EOI

 

A Transport Strategy should be aimed at leading the Council and setting its strategic direction.

 

It is recommended that TIAC undertake a separate workshop/extraordinary meeting to work through the framework and what will be required in developing the strategy.

 

Financial Implications

 

There are no negative implications proposed in the recommendations of this report.

 

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

There are no negative implications proposed in the recommendations of this report.

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                           4.5 - Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

 

POLICY NO 09/001

 

 

STRATEGIC TRANSPORT STATEMENT
(TRANSPORT POLICY)

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                     4.5 - Attachment 1

INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT
(INTERNAL USE ONLY)

 

Date Adopted by Council

28 May 2009

Resolution No.

09-371

Policy Responsibility

Guide development of a potential Council transport strategy

Review Timeframe

As needed

Last Review Date:

 

Next Scheduled Review Date

 

 

Document History

Doc No.

Date Amended

Details Comments eg Resolution No.

(#PDF 853432)

17/6/09

To accompany Council report #862460

#861019

11/6/09

Res 09-138, 08-776

 

Further Document Information and Relationships

Related Legislation

 

Related Policies

 

Related Procedures/ Protocols, Statements, documents

Improving the Town Centre  #179156

 


 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.    OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................... 1

2.    POLICY STATEMENT / VISION.............................................................................