1. Local Government Roads

2. ROMAN I Current business processes ROMAN II Proposed business processes Data issues Conclusion Outline

3. Local Government Roads 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 ROMAN I

4. Local Government Roads 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 Current Business Processes - 1

5. Local Government Roads 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 Current Business Processes - 2

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

7. Local Government Roads 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 ROMAN II

8. Local Government Roads 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 Proposed Business Processes

9. Local Government Roads 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 Proposed Business Processes

10. Local Government Roads 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 Data Issues

11. Local Government Roads 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 Data Issues

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