Local Government Roads

1. Local Government Roads

2. Local Government Roads Outline • ROMAN I • Current business processes • ROMAN II • Proposed business processes • Data issues • Conclusion

3. Local Government Roads ROMAN I • Widely used across LG over a long period of time • Has evolved over several iterations but no longer being developed • Started as a pavement management system • Expanded into a road asset management system • Data structure is cumbersome as a result • Limited spatial capability; limited access within each LG • Limited support and expertise now available • Data interchange with MRWA well established

4. Local Government Roads Current Business Processes - 1 • Pickup of new asset data is periodic (often spasmodic) • Often using external contractors • Data recording practices inconsistent across LGs • Pickup of road condition is periodic (often spasmodic) • Usually using external contractors • Use of pavement management functions is varied across LG • Use of asset management functions is varied across LG • eg Point items such as roundabouts

5. Local Government Roads Current Business Processes - 2 • Minimum data dictated by Grants Commission requirements • Focus on road hierarchy and length • Database is transferred in toto to MRWA for updating of IRIS • LG is unable to update during this time • MRWA cleanse the data and add spatial elements • Database is transferred in toto back to LG • Responsibility for accuracy of information effectively with MRWA • Frequency dependant on LG and MRWA schedules

6. Local Government Roads Current Business Processes - 3 • LG may not rely on ROMAN for financial information in GL • Limited resourcing and expertise assigned to road asset management

7. Local Government Roads ROMAN II • Combination of RAMM from NZ and dTims from Canada • Implementation in second half of 2010 • Well established systems with high capability • Good spatial capability (MapInfo based) • System being augmented to add MRWA network model • Data structures are better defined • Enable access across the LG • Most LG will use hosted option over internet

8. Local Government Roads Proposed Business Processes • Capacity for continuous updating of asset information • WALGA can mandate data fields be collected in a consistent manner • Condition data pickup will continue to be periodic • MRWA will have continuous access for updating of IRIS • DEC will have continuous access for updating their roads • Potential for Landgate and others to access data • NOT in current licensing arrangements

9. Local Government Roads Proposed Business Processes • MRWA will not cleanse LG data • Responsibility for all data will clearly be with LG • Responsibility for spatial elements will clearly be with LG • Potential for other data interchange with MRWA and others • eg traffic counts, accident data, heavy vehicle routes • Potential for linkage with R-Spec for as-constructed pickup of new roads

10. Local Government Roads Data Issues • Road numbering • Inclusion of LGA number not ideal (amalgamations) • Road number allocation process – LG, MRWA, Landgate • Road name allocation process – Landgate, LG, MRWA • Discontinous roads with same name and multiple numbers • Old roads broken up • New roads not fully constructed • Boundary roads

11. Local Government Roads Data Issues • Inconsistency in the extent of current data capture • Much may not be captured at all • eg point features – roundabouts, medians, islands • eg direction of travel, turning constraints • Permanent features, never mind temporary changes • Roman II will improve data structure • Administrative, condition and treatment data kept separate • Shift in responsibility from MRWA to LG

12. Local Government Roads Conclusion • Lots of potential! • Lots of challenges! • Will require lots of patience!