toowoomba regional council: the level of … 2017/papers... · toowoomba regional council: the...

TOOWOOMBA REGIONAL COUNCIL: THE LEVEL OF SERVICE JOURNEY FOR ROAD SERVICES

Justin Weligamge Principal Engineer – Asset Management for the Toowoomba Regional Council Infrastructure Services Department

Graham Jordan Director Lemmah Pty Ltd

Abstract

Toowoomba Regional Council (TRC) was established in 2008 with the amalgamation of eight former councils. The Toowoomba Region is the centre of some exciting new initiatives in transport including the newly opened Wellcamp Airport, the Second Toowoomba Range Crossing and the proposed Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project. To maximise the benefits of these major projects, seamless integration with the TRC local road system will be critical. A key aspect of this integration is to have a clear understanding of the concept of level of service across the transport network. Key levels of service criteria identified include road safety, business expectations and community expectations.

TRC has adopted a strategic asset management approach to the management of its road system and completed the first phase of its asset management plans for Roads, Footpaths, Bridges and Stormwater in 2012. These plans utilised industry best practice guidelines but in their current form still need significant development to better support Council long term financial planning. A key shortcoming of the current asset management plans is a lack of documented Levels of Service (LOS) for the road network and linkages of financial projections to the long term financial plan.

The TRC LOS journey commenced in 2015 to develop a LOS framework for the TRC road network and then to implement the framework for the TRC road network.

This paper presents an overview of the LOS project journey, the results, challenges and lessons learnt to date.

Key Words:

Levels of Service Strategic Asset Management Road Services Long Term Financial Plan Sustainability

INTRODUCTION Toowoomba Regional Council (TRC) is a local government located 125km west of Brisbane on the Darling Downs. It was established in 2008 with the amalgamation of eight former councils. The Toowoomba Region is the centre of some exciting new initiatives in transport including the newly opened Wellcamp Airport, the Second Toowoomba Range Crossing and the proposed Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project. To maximise the benefits of these major projects, seamless integration with the TRC local road system will be critical. A key aspect of this integration is to have a clear understanding of the concept of level of service across the transport network. Key levels of service criteria identified include road safety, business expectations and community expectations.

With a total area of 12,973 km2 and 6,565km of roads (50% of which are unsealed). The current status of the TRC road network is summarised in Figure 1. TRC has adopted a strategic asset management approach to the management of its road system. TRC completed the first phase of its asset management plans for Roads, Footpaths, Bridges and Stormwater in 2012. A key shortcoming of the current asset management plans is a lack of documented Levels of Service (LOS) for the road network and linkages of financial projections to the long term financial plan. TRC is committed to the implementation of strategic asset management processes based on ISO 55000 and industry leading practices as documented in publications such as the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM).

TRC Seal Road Network Condition

Hierarchy Length(km) Good Fair Poor

Regional arterial 197 4% 53% 44%

Sub arterial 311 1% 64% 35%

Distributor 536 2% 82% 17%

Collector 304 22% 62% 16%

Local 1924 17% 59% 25%

Figure 1: Current Status of the TRC Road Network

The TRC LOS journey commenced in 2015 to develop a LOS framework for the TRC road network and then to implement the framework.

The objectives of the project include:

1. To develop a guide on how the LOS framework can be implemented in a pragmatic way for the TRC

road network.

2. To engage with key internal and external stakeholders in the development of LOS

3. To examine the financial impact with the adoption of different LOS scenarios

4. To develop long term renewal and improvement funding estimates for the TRC long term financial plan

5. To develop an appropriate asset management plan template incorporating the LOS framework and

funding estimates

THE LEVEL OF SERVICE JOURNEY Development and implementation of levels of service commenced in 2015 and Figure 2 shows a flowchart of key activities for this project.

Asphalt8%

Formed3%

Gravel47%

Seal42%

TRC Road Network

Figure 2: Implementation of Levels of Service for the TRC Road Network

Approach—LOS for Transport Assets

LEVELS OF SERVICE

Community Levels of Service

The Concepts Communities generally describe services subjectively in terms of what they value about a service (outcomes) rather than what Councils do (activity). Since not all communities want the same things at the same time, their perceptions of service value and quality will vary, as well as their satisfaction with the levels of service Council provides. Developing levels of service is all about managing expectations. Where there is a mismatch between Community's’ perceptions and expectations, an expectation gap is created. This gap can be real or perceived.

Where Community's’ service performance perceptions are significantly less than their expectations, they become dissatisfied with the current level of service, and judge it to be of poor quality.

These gaps become the service drivers. The concepts are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Community Levels of Service Concepts

Community Services Levels are developed from the relevant transport network and link level service drivers. Each service driver is linked to a service objective which is in turn linked to service benefits. Critical success factors link objectives to benefits and tell us if our service delivery is achieving the objectives. Service delivery is concerned with the assets, staff, systems, processes, procedures and programs which provide the services. Key performance indicators link service objectives to service delivery. Technical levels of service and other service enablers assist with service delivery.

Community Level of Service Objectives Community LOS objectives relevant to TRC need to be confirmed through internal and external engagement. A consultation kit will be developed to inform participants in the consultation process. The kit will include background information on the TRC road network including its extent, traffic, condition, projected demand and current funding levels. TRC prepares an annual transport Asset Status report which already provides a lot of this information. A recommended draft of Community LOS objectives for consultation is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Draft Community Levels of Service Criteria

The success of Community LOS objectives is based on how well they achieve the expected benefits.

These are the Critical Success factors.

Examples of Critical Success Factors include:

Improving community satisfaction with roads

Growth in regional economic activity

Reduction in fatalities and serious accidents

Stable travel times on major routes

Improving satisfaction with road environs

Reduction in noise and dust complaints

For Community LOS, measurement utilises trends in regional economic data, road safety statistics, development statistics, customer surveys and customer request system data to determine if the expected benefits are being achieved.

Technical Levels of Service

Concepts Matching infrastructure to service requirements is a complex process requiring consideration of all phases of the asset life cycle. To reduce this complexity and to ensure consistency across the network, road authorities translate community service requirements into technical levels of service.

Technical levels of service are driven by community levels of service, Council priorities, legislative and regulatory requirements; nationally developed standards based on best practice and locally based guidelines based on local experience. Technical levels of service specify how the organisation will respond to the external and internal service drivers. Technical levels of service are enabled by guidelines for initial investment, periodic replacement of key components and maintenance for the repair of defects.

The concepts are illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Technical Levels of Service Concepts

Technical Service Measures TRC has existing design guidelines, renewal targets and maintenance targets. These provide guidance on targets for road and structures for:

Capacity and configuration;

Function;

Condition and;

Maintenance

Specific measures adopted are provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Technical Service Measures

Road capacity and configuration

1 - Width

2 - Pavement Strength

3 - Surface type

4 - Horizontal geometry

5 - Vertical geometry

Road Function

6 - Use (cars, trucks, cycles, pedestrians, public transport)

7 - Risk score

8 - Road accidents

9 - ANRAM risk rating

10- Flood immunity

Road Condition

11 - Roughness

12 - Rutting

13 - Cracking

14 - Potholes

15 - Ravelling

16 - Deflection

Road Maintenance and Operations

17 - Defect intervention levels

18 - Response Times

Structures Capacity and Configuration

19 - Load capacity

20 - Width

Structures Function 21 - Use (cars, trucks, cycles, pedestrians, public transport, drainage, traffic control)

22 - Risk score

23 - Flood immunity

Structures Condition

24 - Load limit

25 - Component Condition

Structures Maintenance and Operations

26 - Defect intervention levels

27 - Response Times

Aligning Community and Technical Levels of Service

For many local government services such as road services there is no direct link between funding and the level of services provided. Roads are funded along with other services from rate revenue supplemented by specific road grants from the State and Commonwealth governments. This detachment of level of service, funding and road service management strategy leads to misalignment of what is provided to what is desired to what can be afforded i.e. the level of service provided by the road network is not directly linked to what can be afforded by the community. Apart from minimum safety levels, technical levels of service can be modified to align with transport service levels that the community is prepared to fund (Figure 5). A structured community engagement process will be used to provide input to Council on what these levels should be.

Figure 5: Aligning Community and Technical Levels of Service

IMPLEMENTATION Technical levels of service are the mechanism through which service providers specify the service capacity and performance of infrastructure. Resources are allocated to deliver these services through the maintenance, renewal and improvement programs. The adopted LOS need to be financially sustainable in the long term. The road manager seeks to balance expenditure on maintenance; renewal and improvement over the long term to sustainable achieve the adopted levels of service (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Achieving Sustainability of the Road Network

Road Risk Rating

To facilitate the management of the road network, roads are allocated a risk rating. There are many risks associated with operating a road network including asset deterioration, driver fatigue, hazardous grades, and inadequate pavement strength etc.

Higher risk roads will have lower intervention levels and shorter response times for the repair of defects. Funding allocation is prioritised based on the level of risk. Initially, the TRC road network risk ratings will be aligned to road hierarchy as shown in Table 3. To manage risks, road assets need to be regularly inspected.

Table 3: TRC Road Risk rating

Road Hierarchy Road Risk Rating

Highways Very High

Regional Arterial Very High

Sub Arterial High

Distributor High

Collector Medium

Local Low

Road Management

The road network is managed at multiple levels:

Short term Maintenance Intervention parameters are set for various defects in terms of intervention level, response time and maximum defective condition. Different targets are recommended based on the road risk rating. To maintain road safety and protect the asset integrity, the road manager needs to initiate repairs within the limits established by these parameters.

Medium Term Renewal Intervention targets are established for each road link in terms of road characteristics such as strength, rutting, roughness skid resistance, surface texture, residual life and deflection. The road manager implements various rehabilitation treatments to maintain the road condition within the nominated targets. The draft TRC defect based targets are provided in Table 4. These targets will be reviewed based on feedback from the Community Engagement process.

Table 4: TRC Renewal Intervention Targets

Long term Improvement Based on the vision for the transport network over a 20 year period, individual link visions and functions are developed. Services and infrastructure are selected that will deliver the function. A gap analysis is undertaken between the current configuration and condition and the vision configuration and condition. This identifies gaps which become potential projects. Investment strategies are developed which outline how the vision standards will be achieved over a twenty year period.

Planning Hierarchy

Transport network hierarchies are useful tools for network planning and management. Historically transport network hierarchies have been commonly used for providing functional road hierarchies to inform integrated land use and transport planning and management, and road network management hierarchies to inform infrastructure planning, design and management. Recently there has been increased interest internationally in developing a multi-modal transport network hierarchy to inform integrated network planning and management. The intent of this is to improve the extent to which the road network planning and management makes best use of the transport network through managing competing demands from different modes, including general traffic, freight, public transport and active transport.

Parsons Brinckerhoff in a report dated May 2014 proposed that TRC adopt a four level hierarchy which defines the multi modal functions of roads (

Table 5). Balancing the traffic and activity in streets is needed to ensure that they adequately service the surrounding land use as well as their traffic function. Streets are classified by the adjoining land uses that they serve and the place that they form part of, irrespective of their traffic function.

Pavement Condition Parameter

Class4

Highways

Class 5

Regional

Arterial

Class 6

Sub

Arterial

Class 7

Distributor

Class 8

Collector

Class 9

Local

Roughness(NRM) 80 80 80 110 120 130

Rut Depth(mm) 12 12 12 12 12 12

Environmental Cracking (%) 5 5 5 10 15 15

Fatigue Cracking(%) 1 1 1 5 10 10

Potholes(%) 1 1 1 1 1 1

Ravelling(%) 10 15 15 15 25 25

Table 5: Four Level Road Hierarchy

Road Classification The road classification currently used by TRC is provided in Table 6. This is the functional hierarchy and represents Level 2 in the four level approach.

Table 6: TRC Road Classification

TRC Road Classification

Highway

Regional arterial

Sub-arterial

Distributor

Collector

Local

Road Service Profiles Level 3 of the four level hierarchies are Service Profiles. Standard service profiles are a predefined group of service targets which are designed to deliver the link vision. Typical characteristics include design speed, heavy vehicle type, maximum grade, bus route etc. The recommended service profiles are based on the IPWEA publication “Complete Streets” and are detailed in Table 7 .

Table 7: TRC Road Service Profiles

Road Service Code Road Service Profiles

UH Urban Highway

RH Rural Highway

UA Urban Arterial

RAR Rural Arterial

AMS Arterial Main Street

UTD Urban Traffic Distributor

UCD Urban Controlled Distributor

SAMS Sub Arterial Main Street

RD Rural Distributor

MS Main Streets

MUS Mixed-use Streets

IS Industrial Streets

RWSF Roads with Street Frontages

RC Rural Collector

SS Shared Street

PM Pedestrian Malls

RRS Rural Residential Streets

RA Rural Access

SLB Streets for Living - Buses

SL Streets for Living

The transport planning concepts of “link” and “place” can be implemented using service profiles. A “link” looks at a street as a movement conduit, while “place” looks at a street as a destination for other no traffic uses such as walking, cycling, entertainment or eating.

Road Asset Profiles Standard road asset profiles are a predefined group of assets which are designed to deliver the target service levels. These profiles have traditional been termed “standard drawings”. The existing TRC Road Asset Profiles are aligned to road hierarchy and are summarised in Table 8.

Table 8: TRC Standard Road Profiles

Road Hierarchy TRC Drawing

Road Profile Code Toowoomba Regional Council

Rural Regional Arterial 101386-001 RS1 4lane/30m reserve/2-10m formation/10m seal

Rural Regional Arterial 101386-001 RS2 2lane/30m reserve/1-10m formation/10m seal

Rural Sub-Arterial 101386-001 RS3 4lane/30m reserve/2-9m formation/9m seal

Rural Sub-Arterial 101386-001 RS4 2lane/30m reserve/9m formation/9m seal

Rural Sub-Arterial 101386-001 RS5 4lane/30m reserve/2-9m formation/8.5m seal

Rural Sub-Arterial 101386-001 RS6 2lane/30m reserve/1-9m formation/8.5m seal

Rural Distributor 101386-001 RS7 2lane/30m reserve/1-8.5m formation/7.5m seal

Rural Collector 101386-001 RS8 2lane/30m reserve/1-8.5m formation/7m seal

Rural Local Access 101386-001 RS9 2lane/30m reserve/1-8m formation/6.5m seal

Road Hierarchy TRC Drawing

Road Profile Code Toowoomba Regional Council

Urban Regional Arterial Greenfield 101384-001 RS10

4lane/41m reserve/2-9.5m formation/9.5m seal/cycle

Urban Regional Arterial Greenfield 101384-001 RS11

2lane/41m reserve/2-6m formation/6m seal/cycle

Rural Local Access 101386-001 RG1 30m reserve/1-8m formation/6m gravel

Rural Local Access 101386-001 RG2 30m reserve/1-8m formation/4m gravel

Rural Formed 101386-001 RF1 30m reserve/1-8m formation Urban Regional Arterial 101384-001 SK1

4lane/27.5m reserve/1-17m formation/17m seal/K&C/cycle

Urban Regional Arterial 101384-001 SK2

2lane/27.5m reserve/1-10m formation/10m seal/K&C/cycle

Urban Sub-Arterial 101384-001 SK3 4lane/29m reserve/1-22m formation/22m seal/K&C/parking/cycle

Urban Sub-Arterial 101384-001 SK4 2lane/29m reserve/1-15m formation/15m seal/K&C/parking/cycle

Urban Distributor 101384-001 SK5 4lane/25m reserve/1-19m formation/19m seal/K&C/cycle

Urban Distributor 101384-001 SK6 2lane/25m reserve/1-12m formation/12m seal/K&C/cycle

Urban Collector 101384-001 SK7 2lane/23m reserve/1-11m formation/11m seal/K&C/parking

Urban Access 101385-001 SK8 2lane/19m reserve/1-7m formation/7m seal/K&C



Urban Access 101385-001 SK11 2lane/8m reserve/1-6m formation/6m seal

Industrial Sub-Arterial 101387-001 SK12 4lane/36m reserve/1-20m formation/7m seal/K&C

Industrial Collector 101387-002 SK13 2lane/26m reserve/1-14m formation/14m seal/K&C/parking

Industrial Access 101387-003 SK14 2lane/24m reserve/1-12m formation/12m seal/K&C/parking

Putting it into Practice

As part of this project we are looking at an approach which allows for a range of standards based on the 4 level hierarchy and incorporates the link and place concepts. The approach is illustrated in Figure 7 and Figure 8 and uses a number of steps.

Figure 7: Selection of Appropriate Road Profile

Step1: Based on

the road classification

the link and place function at the site

select the appropriate service profile

Step 2: Based on

the projected traffic

the expected types of vehicles using the road

adjoining land use

terrain

select the appropriate road asset profile

Figure 8: Selection of the Appropriate Road Profile

Road Management Priorities

Road management priorities are a strategic tool to simplify the management of large road networks. Roads are grouped based on their strategic importance. Road management priorities target available funding to comply with safety/regulatory requirements and to align with Council priorities. A Road Management Priority is

Road Asset Profiles

Urban Arterial 1E

S10- 4lane/41m reserve/2-9.5m formation/9.5m

seal/cycle 101384-001

SK1- 4lane/27.5m reserve/1-17m formation/17m

seal/K&C/cycle 101384-001

S11- 2lane/41m reserve/2-6m formation/6m seal/cycle

101384-001

SK2- 2lane/27.5m reserve/1-10m formation/10m


Rural Arterial 1ES1- 4lane/30m reserve/2-10m formation/10m seal

101386-001

S2- 2lane/30m reserve/1-10m formation/10m seal 101386-

001

Arterial Main Street

1A

SK29- 2lane/31m reserve/2-7.5m formation/2-7.5m

seal/K&C/parking/cycle CS Main 5

Urban Traffic

Distributor 2E

SK3- 4lane/29m reserve/1-22m formation/22m

seal/K&C/parking/cycle 101384-001







Urban Controlled

Distributor 2E









Sub Arterial Main

Street 2A

SK27- 2lane/26.5m reserve/1-14.5m formation/14.5m

seal/K&C/parking/cycle CS Main 3

Rural Distributor 2ES3- 4lane/30m reserve/2-9m formation/9m seal

101386-001

S5- 4lane/30m reserve/2-9m formation/8.5m seal

S4- 2lane/30m reserve/9m formation/9m seal 101386-001

S6- 2lane/30m reserve/1-9m formation/8.5m seal 101386-

001Mixed-use Streets SK24- 2lane/32m reserve/2-9m formation/2-9m

seal/K&C/parking CS Mixed 4Industrial Streets 3E


seal/K&C 101387-001


seal/K&C/parking 101387-002

Roads with Street

Frontages 2C


seal/K&C/parking 101384-001

Shared Street 5A


seal/K&C/parking CS Main Shared


seal/K&C/parking CS Mixed Shared

Regional Arterial

Distributor

Collector

Current Road

Classification

Road Service

Profiles

Traffic Volume - Road Capacity - High to Low

Heavy Vehicle Volume - Heavy Vehicle Type - Heavy to Light

assigned to each road link within the network. The adoption of road management priorities facilitates and simplifies service planning. The allocation of a road management priority gives Council officers clear directions on how Council sees the network being maintained and developed. Allocation of road management priorities is a strategic decision and needs to be endorsed by senior management and Council. For every road management priority there is a complementary road service and asset strategy. A draft set of road management priorities and associated service and asset management strategies are summarised in Table 9

Table 9: Draft TRC Road Management Priorities

Priority Road Service Strategy

Details Road Asset Strategy

1 Achieve Service Targets (AST) over the investment period4

Construct or acquire assets or purchase services to provide and maintain the target service levels over the nominated investment period

Maintain Safety and Preserve Asset

2 Maintain Service Levels 2

(MSL) during the investment period4

Maintain current service levels except for upgrades because of safety/regulatory/economic/

Council requirements

Maintain Safety and Preserve Asset

3 Maintain Safety (MS) during the investment period4

Maintain assets free of defects which impinge on user safety over the investment period.

Maintain Safety

As a first stage of implementation, Figure 9 provides three scenarios which allocate road management priorities at the macro road network level based on road hierarchy and traffic volumes. The percentage allocated to each priority varies between each option. The funding (improvement, renewal and maintenance) associated with each of these scenarios can be calculated and compared with the available funding in the 10 year financial plan.

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Achieve Service Targets 509 16% 197 6% 197 6%

Maintain Service Levels 2240 68% 1683 51% 1429 44%

Maintain Safety 534 16% 1403 43% 1657 51%

Figure 9: Road Management Priority Allocation Options

For the second stage Priority 1 and 3 roads are specifically identified and all other roads are allocated Priority 2. A road management priority list is prepared. A Road Management Priority is assigned to each road link within the network. Based on the adopted priority road managers select the appropriate improvement, renewal and maintenance targets to apply. The adopted strategies are documented in the TRC “Road Management Priority” list. The “Road Management Priority” list specifies the roads and extent of each road which will be improved, renewed and maintained based on the adopted service management strategy. The “Road Management Priority” list will be endorsed by Council as part of the Transport Asset Management Plan.

ALIGNMENT WITH LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN

Road Network Sustainability

Using the adopted Road Management Priorities and Technical LOS, modelling is undertaken to calculate the projected long term funding for road maintenance, renewal and improvement over the investment period. This projected funding is compared to the funding available for roads determined by Councils long term financial modelling. If in balance, the network is being managed sustainably.

What options does the road manager have to achieve to achieve sustainability if the projected funding exceeds the available funding?

Hierarchy Urban/Rural Length (m) Length (km) Traffic HV % Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

REGIONAL Urban 29355 29 H H H

Rural 167980 168 H H H

SUBARTERIAL Urban 56675 57 H M M

Rural 255084 255 H M M

DISTRIBUTOR Urban 110684 111 M M M

Rural 425350 425 M M M

COLLECTOR Urban 70760 71 M M M

Rural 233840 234 M M M

LOCAL Urban 763225 763

vpd >500 164821 165 M M M

vpd >250<=500 164191 164 M M S

vpd >50 <=250 303891 304 M S S

vpd <=50 130322 130 S S S

Rural 1170310 1170

vpd >500 110736 111 M M M

vpd >250<=500 89802 90 M M S

vpd >50 <=250 565328 565 M S S

vpd <=50 404443 404 S S S

Grand Total 3283263 3283

Option 1: Review Road Service Delivery Strategy

Review efficiency of service delivery

Review renewal treatments to extend asset lives

Purchase services rather than provide them

Consider non asset measures

Improve productivity by joint purchasing and resource sharing

Consider joint arrangements

Option 2: Review Levels of Service or Increase Funding:

Seek additional funding

Review levels of service

Prioritise the road network and allocate appropriate road management priorities

Sell surplus assets

Consider user charges

CONCLUSIONS Toowoomba Regional Council has commenced the journey to formalise levels of service for its 6563km road network. Faced with the challenge of managing such a large road network, TRC has adopted a strategic asset management approach which is based on prioritising the road network and assigning level of service targets based on these priorities.

The TRC’ strategic approach includes three key steps:

1. Use Road Management Priorities to prioritise the network.

2. Use assigned Service Targets to determine the desired and acceptable levels of service for each

priority.

3. Use an Asset Management System to examine alternative funding scenarios based on these priorities.

A structured community engagement process will guide the implementation of this strategy.

REFERENCES Reference 1: Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (2011) “International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM)

Reference 2: Austroads,(2002) “Guidelines for Community Input in Setting Levels of Services and Intervention Standards for Road Networks”.

Reference 3: Pavement Management Services,(2015) “Network Condition and Budgetary Analysis Report”.

Reference 4: Toowoomba Regional Council, (2013) “Prioritisation Framework”.

Reference 5: Austroads AP-R289/06: (2006) “Guidelines for the Development of a Level of Service Framework Based on Community Consultations”.

Reference 6: Gray, J.,(2006) “Developing a Manual on Service Standards. Paper presented at the Municipal Association of Victoria National Asset Management Conference”.

Reference 7: D. Platt, G. Jordan, A. Kumar, A. Koronios, (2008)“Towards a Service Ontology to Drive Requirements for Public Infrastructure and Assets”, CIEAM.

Reference 8: Toowoomba Regional Council, (2008)“Non-Current Assets Policy”.

Reference 9: British Standards Institute, (2014) Asset Management ISO 55000, 55001 and 55002.

Reference 10: Australian Government Productivity Commission,(2014) “Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements – Productivity Inquiry Report Volume 1”.

Reference 11: Toowoomba Regional Council, (2015) “Toowoomba Regional Council Planning Scheme Schedule 6 PSP 2 Engineering Standards Roads and Drainage Infrastructure”.

Reference 12: Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited, (2014) “Memo: - Transport Network Hierarchy”.

Reference 13: Toowoomba Regional Council Construction and Maintenance Branch, (2014)“Draft Maintenance Manual – C&M Branch”.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Justin Weligamage, BSc Eng. MEngSc. MBA, MIE Aus, CPEng. RPEQ

Justin is a civil engineer holds a Master Degree in Engineering, and a Master Degree in Business Administration (MBA). He currently leads strategic asset management as a Principal Engineer (Asset Management) within Infrastructure Group in Toowoomba Regional Council, Australia. Previously he was employed as a Manager (Road Asset Strategy) with Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland and has 20+ years of experience in Australia in the area of Asset Management.

Over this time Justin has developed and implemented road asset management initiatives, including the publication of “Asset Maintenance Guidelines” and “Skid Resistance Management Plan”, the strategic application of the Highway Development and Management System (HDM4) for the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. He has led number of research groups with various universities and several research Institutions in Australia, and have written a number of research papers, technical reports, and published and presented at various refereed international conferences.

Graham Jordan

Graham Jordan has extensive experience in Australian infrastructure management. He has qualifications in civil engineering, economics and obtained a Master of Business Administration in 1992. Graham’s professional experience includes state and local government and the private sector.

Within local government, Graham was at the forefront of the implementation of Asset Management to improve the delivery of infrastructure services. Since 1996, Graham has worked as an independent consultant assisting clients to gain asset management skills through recent assignments for in Queensland and interstate. As part of the Queensland Roads Alliance project team, Graham has assisted with the establishment of Regional Road Groups, the development of asset management and program development initiatives for the Road Alliance. Graham’s experience extends across all asset classes including roads, bridges, buildings, parks, water, sewerage, and stormwater.

toowoomba regional council: the level of … 2017/papers... · toowoomba regional council: the...

Documents