transportation activity management plan 2018-21... · executive summary transportation activity...

Version 1.4

www.ashburtondc.govt.nz

Transportation Activity Management Plan

2018-21

Transportation Activity Management Plan 2018-21

AshburtonDC Transportation AMP 2018-21 v1.4 28Jun2018 Page 1 of 140

Document Control

Revision Status Author Reviewed by Date

1.0 Draft for NZTA TIO

Initial Bid 2018-21

D Barron B Fauth 31/08/2017

1.1 Edits and updates

from NZTA Initial Bid

review and ADC review


1.2 Edits and updates

from NZTA Firm Bid

review and ADC review


1.3 Draft for consultation

period


1.4 Changes re Draft GPS

2018 and LTP

consultation


Approvals

Name Title Signature Date

Brian Fauth Roading Manager 28/06/18

Neil McCann Group Manager Service Delivery

28/06/18

Adopted by Council 28 June 2018



Abbreviations

The following are abbreviations used within this document;

ADC Ashburton District Council

AMP Activity Management Plan

ARC Aoraki Roading Collaboration (Ashburton, Mackenzie, Timaru, Waimate District Councils)

CAR Corridor Access Request

CBD Central business district

CTOC Christchurch Transport Operations Centre

dTIMS Deighton’s Total Infrastructure Management System

FWD Falling Weight Deflectometer

FWP Forward Works Programme

GPS Government Policy Statement

HCV Heavy commercial vehicle (includes large agricultural machinery)

HPMV High Productivity Motor Vehicle

LTP Long Term Plan (Ashburton District)

NZTA New Zealand Transport Agency

ONRC One Network Road Classification

PGF Provincial Growth Fund

RCA Road Controlling Authority

REG Road Efficiency Group

RLTP Regional Long Term Plan

STL Structural Treatment Lengths

TIO Transport Investment Online

TMP Traffic Management Plan

VKT Vehicle Kilometres Travelled

WIM Weigh-In-Motion



Contents

1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 7

1.1. Plan Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 7

1.2. District Overview .................................................................................................................. 7

1.3. Strategic Direction and Assessment .................................................................................. 12

2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 15

2.1. Plan Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 15

2.2. Relationship with other Documents ................................................................................. 16

2.3. Stakeholders ...................................................................................................................... 20

2.4. Council Objectives and Responsibilities ........................................................................... 22

2.5. Network and Assets ............................................................................................................ 27

3. Levels of Service ........................................................................................................................... 46

3.1. Strategic and Corporate Goals .......................................................................................... 46

3.2. Customer Research and Expectations .............................................................................. 47

3.3. Level of Service Gap Analysis ............................................................................................. 48

4. Growth and Demand .................................................................................................................... 56

4.1. Growth ................................................................................................................................ 56

4.2. Demand Drivers .................................................................................................................. 60

4.3. Demand Forecasts ............................................................................................................. 61

4.4. Demand Impacts on Assets ................................................................................................ 62

4.5. Sustainability ..................................................................................................................... 63

5. Lifecycle Management ................................................................................................................. 65

5.1. Strategic Objectives ........................................................................................................... 65

5.2. Pavement and Surfacing – Sealed Roads ......................................................................... 72

5.3. Pavement and Surfacing – Unsealed Roads ..................................................................... 77

5.4. Bridges ................................................................................................................................ 78

5.5. Drainage ............................................................................................................................. 79

5.6. Footpaths and Cycleways .................................................................................................. 80

5.7. Traffic Services ................................................................................................................... 81

5.8. Streetlights ......................................................................................................................... 82

5.9. Capital Works ..................................................................................................................... 84

5.10. Network Management ....................................................................................................... 96

6. Risk and Resilience ....................................................................................................................... 98

6.1. Risk Context ........................................................................................................................ 98



6.2. Risk Identification .............................................................................................................. 99

6.3. Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................... 100

6.4. Risk Management ............................................................................................................. 102

6.5. Risk Monitoring and Review ............................................................................................ 103

6.6. Resilience.......................................................................................................................... 103

7. Financial Summary .................................................................................................................... 105

7.1. Asset Valuations ............................................................................................................... 105

7.2. Funding Sources ............................................................................................................... 106

7.3. Financial Forecasts .......................................................................................................... 107

7.4. Development Contributions ............................................................................................ 108

7.5. Transportation Funding Forecast 2018-2028 .................................................................. 109

8. Plan Improvement and Monitoring ........................................................................................... 112

8.1. Status ................................................................................................................................ 112

8.2. Improvement Plan ........................................................................................................... 112

8.3. Monitoring and Review Procedures ................................................................................ 114

9. Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 115

9.1. Appendix A - One Network Road Classification .............................................................. 116

9.2. Appendix B – Risk Schedule ............................................................................................. 136

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Strategic Document Connectivity ....................................................................................... 13

Table 2-1 External stakeholders .......................................................................................................... 20

Table 2-2 Internal stakeholders ........................................................................................................... 21

Table 2-3 Council Work Stream input.................................................................................................. 23

Table 2-4 Transportation Roles and Activities .................................................................................... 24

Table 2-5 Road Network 30 June 2017 ................................................................................................ 31

Table 2-6 Drainage Assets .................................................................................................................... 36

Table 2-7 Footpath Assets.................................................................................................................... 37

Table 2-8 District Plan Road Hierarchy ............................................................................................... 41

Table 2-9 One Network Road Classification ........................................................................................ 42

Table 3-1 LTP Performance Measures 2016/17 Results ...................................................................... 48

Table 3-2 Crash injuries per VKT Ranking - 2016 ................................................................................. 49

Table 3-3 Footpath Condition Rating Criteria ..................................................................................... 55

Table 4-1 Ashburton District Land Use by Primary Industry - 2006 to 2016 ...................................... 56

Table 4-2 Traffic Growth 2008 to 2016 ................................................................................................. 59

Table 4-3 Township and Rural 2013-2043 Population Projections .................................................... 61

Table 5-1 2015-16 Falling Weight Deflectometer lengths by Hierarchy ............................................. 67

Table 5-2 2017-2018 Road Condition Rating Visual Inspection lengths ............................................ 68

Table 5-3 2018-21 NZTA Funding Request .......................................................................................... 71



Table 5-4 Rural Sealed “Narrow” Roads by ONRC .............................................................................. 76

Table 5-5 Low Cost / Low Risk Improvements .................................................................................... 92

Table 5-6 Surface Condition Index – Ashburton ................................................................................. 94

Table 6-1 Risk Consequence Ratings ................................................................................................. 100

Table 6-2 Risk Likelihood Ratings ...................................................................................................... 101

Table 6-3 Risk Rating Matrix .............................................................................................................. 101

Table 6-4 Control Effectiveness Rating ............................................................................................. 102

Table 6-5 Resilience principles .......................................................................................................... 104

Table 7-1 Ashburton District Council Roading Valuation 2016-17 ................................................... 106

Table 7-2 Transportation Funding Forecast 2018-2028 ................................................................... 109

Table 8-1 Improvement Activities ...................................................................................................... 113

Table 9-1 Risk Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 136

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Ashburton District Road Network and Major Waterways .................................................... 8

Figure 2-1 Interaction between AMP and other Council Strategies ................................................... 16

Figure 2-2 Map of Ashburton District land area .................................................................................. 27

Figure 2-3 Map of Ashburton District 2013 census population by mesh block .................................. 29

Figure 2-4 Population Growth ............................................................................................................. 30

Figure 2-5 Population by Age Group 2016 ........................................................................................... 30

Figure 2-6 Ashburton District Roads .................................................................................................... 32

Figure 2-7 Ashburton District Bridge Locations .................................................................................. 34

Figure 2-8 Ashburton District Bridge Lengths ..................................................................................... 35

Figure 2-9 Ashburton District Bridge Remaining Life.......................................................................... 35

Figure 2-10 Ashburton Car Parks ......................................................................................................... 39

Figure 2-11 Ashburton District One Network Road Classification...................................................... 42

Figure 3-1 Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes 2012-2017 .......................................................................... 49

Figure 3-2 Smooth Travel Exposure 2009-2017 .................................................................................. 50

Figure 3-3 Sealed Road Resurfaced 2007-2017 ................................................................................... 51

Figure 3-4 Unsealed Road Metalling 2010-2017 .................................................................................. 52

Figure 3-5 Roading CRMs 2013-2017 ................................................................................................... 53

Figure 3-6 Resident Satisfaction Survey - Roading 2010-2017 ........................................................... 54

Figure 4-1 Ashburton District Land Use by Primary Industry – change between 2006 and 2016 ..... 57

Figure 4-2 Vehicle Kilometres Travelled .............................................................................................. 58

Figure 4-3 Traffic Growth Sites ............................................................................................................ 59

Figure 4-4 HPMV Permits issued by NZTA for Canterbury/West Coast region ................................... 60

Figure 4-5 Ashburton District 1996-2043 Population Projections ...................................................... 61

Figure 4-6 Township and Rural 2013-2043 Population Projections ................................................... 62

Figure 5-1 Ashburton District Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 66

Figure 5-2 Number of Potholes Repaired – December 2015-November 2017 ................................... 69

Figure 5-3 Digout Repairs in square metres – December 2015-November 2017 ............................... 69

Figure 5-4 Maintenance Costs per km – December 2015-November 2017 ........................................ 70

Figure 5-5 Renewal Costs per km – 2010-2017 .................................................................................... 70

Figure 5-6 dTIMS Resurfacing Analysis ................................................................................................ 74

Figure 5-7 STL Pavement Rehabilitation Analysis .............................................................................. 74



Figure 5-8 Pavement Rehabilitations Cost and Lengths 2007-2017 .................................................. 75

Figure 5-9 Pavement Surfacing Cost and Lengths 2007-2017 ............................................................ 75

Figure 5-10 Ashburton State Highway 1 Project Sites and ADT Connections .................................... 86

Figure 5-11 Rangitata Diversion Race ................................................................................................. 88

Figure 5-12 Rangitata Diversion Race Bridges Replacement Priority and ONRC .............................. 90

Figure 5-13 Ashburton CBD Roads ....................................................................................................... 94

Executive Summary Transportation Activity Management Plan 2018-21


1. Executive Summary

1.1. Plan Purpose

This plan describes Ashburton District Council’s transportation network, the rationale for the

Council’s involvement in it and the reasons why this plan has been prepared.

Ashburton District Council operates and maintains a large network of public roads and footpaths that enables the convenient and safe movement of people through and within the district. In simplistic terms this is achieved by;

Fixing what’s broken

Improving or altering assets when they do not fit their purpose

Constructing new assets or augmenting existing assets where required

This network is the pathway for transporting products to local and international markets and plays an essential role in supporting the local, regional and national economies. It is also the

conduit for the community to carry out their business, leisure and social activities in a safe and reliable way that is fit for purpose and meets their expectations and needs.

This plan covers all Council vested assets associated with the transport services and includes reference to related matters which may be provided by others, such as road safety education and

car parking enforcement.

The Council’s role, with respect to roading and transportation is to:

Provide effective and efficient core Council infrastructure that meets the district’s needs.

Advocate for effective and efficient transport.

The goal of infrastructural asset management is to meet a required level of service, in the most

cost effective manner, through the management of assets for present and future customers. This

plan’s purpose is to be:

A statement of how agreed services will be provided to defined standards, at least cost, through the management of assets in a way that is sustainable in the long term and that complies with statutory

requirements.

This plan will be used by the Council’s officers to combine management, financial, engineering

and technical processes and procedures to ensure approved levels of service are provided to present and future customers.

1.2. District Overview

1.2.1. Location and Assets

Ashburton District is located between the Southern Alps and the Pacific Ocean, south of Selwyn

District and north of Timaru and Mackenzie Districts. The bulk of the district’s road network and population is located on alluvial plains.

The district has one of the largest road networks in New Zealand, covering 2623km. 1507km is sealed, 1116km is unsealed, and 92% (2422km) of our roads are located in rural areas.

State Highways 1 and 77 run through the district.



Council assets include 181 bridges, more than 3000 culverts, 278km of kerb and channel, 233km of

footpaths and in excess of 9800 signs.

Figure 1-1 Ashburton District Road Network and Major Waterways

1.2.2. Economy and Growth

Ashburton District is the third fastest growing district in the Canterbury region and the fifth fastest

growing in the country with a population increase of 22% since 2001 (approximately 1.7% per annum). Ashburton District’s population in 2016 was 33,700 and is projected to increase 24% by 2043.

Economic growth in Ashburton District averaged 2.4% pa over the last 10 years compared with an average of 1.8% pa in the national economy. This growth has occurred in both urban and rural

areas and is considered to be primarily driven by strong local rural economy growth.

Reliable irrigation expansion (which continues) has underpinned changing land use, mainly to

dairying, dairy support and high value cropping. This has resulted in increases in heavy commercial vehicle numbers and journey frequencies, with agriculture and manufacturing key

economic drivers.



A 2012 Canterbury regional freight impact study predicted Ashburton district heavy vehicle

movement growth of 96% from 2009 to 2041, with a 128% forecast increase for the Canterbury region as a whole.

1.2.3. Finance

Ashburton District is consistently one of the four lowest cost-per-kilometre transportation

networks in New Zealand. The Council’s programmed expenditure from 2018/19 to 2024/25 is;

Maintenance and operations : $ 34.6 million

Renewals : $ 53.0 million

Capital improvements : $ 30.3 million

(from the ADC LTP 2015-25)

The requested 2018-21 National Land Transport Programme budget is;

Maintenance and operations : $ 14.0 million

Renewals : $ 22.5 million

Capital improvements : $ 5.6 million

(from NZTA Transport Investment Online)

Tables 5-3 (Section 5.1.4) and 5-5 (Section 5.9.3) provide 2015-18 and 2018-21 comparisons.

As at June 2017 the replacement value of our transportation assets was $454 million and they are

depreciating at the rate of $7 million per annum.

Ashburton District rates revenue (as at 2015) was 60% of the New Zealand provincial council

median.

1.2.4. Levels of Service

The Ashburton Long Term Plan lists the following levels of service;

We provide quality transportation services for the district

Council contractors respond to transportation network failures and requests within

required response times

The majority of residents are satisfied with Council’s transportation services

Various performance measures are collated to provide evidence that these objectives are being

achieved.

The One Network Road Classification (ONRC) is a national categorisation of roads based on their

functions, and will be used from the 2018-21 period onwards to provide parameters for customer

levels of service, performance measures and targets, and NZTA funding decisions. Changes are

expected to maintenance levels within the district due to ONRC, with low volume roads likely to

experience a decrease and high volume roads an increase.

Network levels of service for sealed roads have fallen over time. This is mainly due to;

response levels unable to match increased road degradation

delayed upgrades and maintenance owing to project deferrals caused by utility renewal

programs or previous earthquake damage (especially Ashburton CBD)



high customer expectations that may be misaligned with the current output

Resident satisfaction with unsealed roads has risen which is largely due to the increased grading, reshaping and metalling components of the current Road Network Maintenance and Operations

contract (commenced December 2015).

Footpath condition acceptability rose from 82% to 98% between 2010 and 2014.

Ashburton District has very low numbers of fatal and serious crashes per vehicle kilometre travelled compared to national statistics.

1.2.5. Factors Affecting the Network

Land Use and Road User Destinations

Most road users in the district are associated with the agricultural sector, either directly or via

supporting functions. Any changes to this sector will be reflected district-wide in vehicle numbers,

trip frequencies and freight loadings.

Urban areas are generally small and wide-spread. Ashburton is the only town in the district that experiences true “urban” traffic issues such as congestion and modal conflict.

The two State Highways carry the bulk of the through-district travellers, creating pinch points at bridges and urban centres.

Tourism is relatively low compared to national figures but specific roads can experience large seasonal variance e.g. Mt Hutt ski field routes in winter and high country lakes roads in summer.

Traffic Composition

As at June 2017 heavy commercial vehicles (HCV) make up 13% of the district’s total vehicle

kilometres travelled (VKT).

13% of sealed road VKT is HCV

16% of unsealed road VKT is HCV

6% of urban road VKT is HCV

16% of rural road VKT is HCV

High Productivity Motor Vehicles (HPMV) were first permitted to operate on 1 May 2010. These

vehicles are allowed to operate on RCA-approved routes with weights exceeding the gross mass limit, as long as they comply with NZTA rules specifying axle configuration and load distribution.

By increasing allowable loads, it was expected that numbers of heavy vehicles would decrease

and thereby reduce congestion and resulting road damage. This hypothesis requires further history and analysis. Bridge weight restrictions and inadequate seal widths are the main limitations to full network access for HPMVs.



The Vehicle Dimension and Mass (VDAM) Rule 2016 took effect on 1 February 2017, and raises the

gross mass limit from 44 tonnes to 45-46 tonnes (dependent on axle configuration). It is unknown what impact this change will have on road condition, but ADC expects some increase in road

damage caused by heavy vehicles.

Weather, Geology and Topography

Ashburton District experiences relatively mild weather through the year with a temperate climate.

With the open plains topography the vast majority of roads are flat and straight with good sight

distances.

Rain events can cause issues due mainly to the flat topography, but this is somewhat alleviated by

the underlying alluvial gravels.

Snow is expected through winter in the higher elevations – generally from the Rangitata Diversion Race (approximate level 300m) and above – but extreme events are infrequent.

Frost and ice in winter can create temporary surface hazards, especially where shelter belts are located on northerly roadsides. Where deep shading occurs moisture can remain for long periods causing lichen formation and pavement damage. Frost heave also causes damage and can be especially destructive if sub-zero temperatures remain for extended periods.

Erosion and fine aggregate removal on unsealed road surfaces is caused generally by

northwesterly winds, which are typically expected through summer and can often reach gale force.



1.3. Strategic Direction and Assessment

Desired community outcomes form the broad base of Council’s planning framework and influence

why Council provides particular services, and the levels to which Council provides them.

Targets are set where specific levels of performance are sought, and performance measures are used to tell whether we are delivering our levels of service.

It is important to ensure connectivity between core national, regional and local policies and plans;

Government Policy Statement (GPS)

One Network Road Classification (ONRC)

Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP)

Ashburton District Long Tem Plan - Transportation (ADC-LTP)

Extract from the Canterbury Regional Land Transport Plan v14May2018:

[….] The revised draft GPS was released on 3 April 2018 and supersedes the previous draft GPS released in 2017. At the date at which this RLTP was published, the final GPS has not been released. [….] Further revisions to this RLTP may be required at a later date to give effect to the

final GPS and/or the second stage GPS. [….]

The draft GPS identifies four strategic priorities:

a. Safety – delivering a land transport system free of death and serious injury.

b. Access – improving people’s ability to connect with people, goods, services and opportunities. [….]

c. Environment – shifting to lower emission forms of transport, and recognising the public health benefits of a well-designed transport system, including through active transport.

d. Value for money – accounting for a full range of benefits and costs over whole of life investments, and greater emphasis on robust decision making and reporting. [….]

The draft GPS proposes an increase of approximately 25% or $2.2 to 3.2-billion in government

funding for transport over the next three years. Funding is allocated across 12 activity classes,

with increases in the maximum funding for all activity classes except State Highway Improvements. [….]

The Government has also signalled that a second stage GPS will be developed [signalled for mid-

2019] to in order fully realise the Government’s vision for transport investment. [….]

Canterbury’s transport strategy as articulated in the draft RLTP is well aligned with the new

direction outlined in the draft GPS. [….]

However, it is difficult to make additions to the programme of transport activities in the short-term, due to;

• the need to develop robust businesses cases that meet NZTA requirements, in order for

improvement activities to be considered for funding from the National Land Transport Fund

• the incongruent timing of the GPS, RLTP, and council annual and long term planning processes

• the significant change signalled in the draft GPS and that is also likely to be made through the

second stage GPS.

This means that some time is required to improve alignment between the investment priorities in the GPS and the funding requested through RLTPs and allocated in councils’ annual and long

plans.



Table 1-1 Strategic Document Connectivity

GPS ONRC RLTP ADC-LTP

Access:

A land transport system

that;

· provides increased access for economic and social opportunities

· enables transport

choice and access

· is resilient

Accessibility:

All road users are able to

reach their destinations with efficiency and ease.

Travel Time Reliability:

Travel times for road users

are predictable.

Resilience:

Impact of unplanned events

on road users is minimised.

Accessibility:

Maintaining and enhancing

accessibility, providing transport options.

Travel Time Reliability:

Improve journey time

reliability on key corridors,

with a focus on freight, public transport and tourism. Improve access to

freight hubs.

Resilience:

Network security - resilience routes are created for

strategic routes that are most at risk of disruption.

A prosperous

economy based on

innovation and opportunity:

The district’s infrastructure meets

current and future

needs.

Safety:

A land transport system that is a safe system, free

of death and serious injury.

Safety:

The roads and roadside are becoming safer for road

users.

Safety:

Improving road safety for all users.

Safer Journeys:

Council is committed to the Safer Journeys

Action Plan.

Value for money:

A land transport system that delivers the right

infrastructure and services to the right level

at the best cost.

Cost Efficiency:

Minimise whole-of-life costs while delivering required

customer outcomes.

Funding and affordability:

Deliver high quality transport options in an

affordable manner within the funding available.

Best use of funding:

Plan and provide fit for purpose services.

Environment:

A land transport system that reduces the adverse

effects on the climate,

local environment and

public health.

Amenity:

The road user experiences comfortable travel and a

pleasing road environment.

Environmental impact:

Managing the environmental impacts of

transport.

A balanced and sustainable environment:

Operations need to

adapt and prepare for

potential impacts of climate change.



1.3.1. Key Issues

1.3.1.1. Ashburton Urban Area - Traffic Congestion

State Highway 1 (SH 1) is the main route through Ashburton and Tinwald, and also functions as a

core traffic distributor. A number of factors combine to sometimes cause standstill congestion through the urban area, and other regions are increasingly reporting effects in their localities from this issue. With the Ashburton River Bridge creating a pinch point, a second bridge has been identified as a critical solution.

Design for the second bridge is currently planned for 2020/21 with physical work likely for 2026.

Council consider this project should be brought forward and connected with the NZTA Tinwald SH 1 Corridor Improvements. Economic growth and productivity, travel time reliability, network resilience and improved road safety are the key drivers for these projects. Section 5.9.1 provides background information and future planning details.

1.3.1.2. Heavy Commercial Vehicles - Network-Wide Access

To enable and improve network resilience, and economic growth and productivity, components of the rural network that restrict heavy commercial vehicle (HCV) movements (including high

productivity motor vehicles (HPMV) and agricultural machinery) need to be dealt with. The main problems are bridge loading restrictions and inadequate seal widths. Council is planning to address these problems via the maintenance program and in capital renewals. Sections 5.2.3 and

5.9.2 provide background information and future planning details.

1.3.1.3. Network Safety, Performance and Capability

Council has a responsibility to ensure all road users experience safe travel on a fit-for-purpose

network. To this end there are multiple individual projects identified and undertaken to ensure

these aims are achieved. These projects are included in the Low Cost / Low Risk Improvements

NZTA work category, and Section 5.9.3 provides background information and future planning

details.

1.3.1.4. Network Maintenance and Renewal

Transportation assets, like any other consumable, require regular maintenance and periodic renewals. The extent and frequency of these works is based on the amount and intensity of use the asset experiences, as well as the intrinsic importance to the network and district. Sections 5.2

to 5.8 provide background information and future planning details, separated by general asset types.

Introduction Transportation Activity Management Plan 2018-21


2. Introduction

Ashburton District is a predominantly rural council responsible for one of the largest district road

networks in New Zealand. The network includes a mixture of settled urban townships and substantial rural road network primarily on the lowland Canterbury plains. In total the road network covers over 2600 km, comprising sealed and unsealed roads. The sealed network is

gradually extending as seal extensions are constructed and new subdivision development roads

are added.

The delivery of transportation related activities covered by this AMP comprises a significant Council service to the community. The rating contribution for transportation was 22% of total rates income in 2016/17.

To a number of rural ratepayers transportation is the primary service provided to them by Council. The road network provides access within and between productive rural land, rural residential

property, townships, and external markets via external distribution hubs and is a key contributor supporting economic and social activity within the district.

2.1. Plan Purpose

This plan describes Ashburton District Council’s transportation network, the rationale for the

Council’s involvement in it and the reasons why this plan has been prepared.

Ashburton District Council operates and maintains a large network of public roads and footpaths

that enables the convenient and safe movement of people through and within the district.

This network is the pathway for transporting products to local and international markets and

plays an essential role in supporting the local, regional and national economies. It is also the conduit for the community to carry out their business, leisure and social activities in a safe and

reliable way that is fit for purpose and meets their expectations and needs.

This plan covers all Council vested assets associated with the transport services and includes

reference to related matters which may be provided by others, such as road safety education and

car parking enforcement.

The Council’s role, with respect to roading and transportation is to:

Provide effective and efficient core Council infrastructure that meets the district’s needs.

Advocate for effective and efficient transport.

The goal of infrastructural asset management is to meet a required level of service, in the most cost effective manner, through the management of assets for present and future customers. This plan’s purpose is to be:

A statement of how agreed services will be provided to defined standards, at least cost, through the

management of assets in a way that is sustainable in the long term and that complies with statutory requirements.

The purpose of this plan, and the factors that influence the need, priority and scope for improved activity management practices within the Council, are summarised as follows:

to demonstrate responsible management

to improve governance and accountability of Council



to improve understanding of risk and risk management

to provide an all-inclusive approach to management of Council’s transportation assets

to improve and support decision-making to deliver financial efficiency

to communicate and justify funding requirements

to comply with regulatory requirements

It also has a number of other functions:

It ensures that the factors required to deliver the agreed levels of service on the transportation network at the lowest long term cost to the community are identified,

documented and included in financial forecasts.

It documents the Council’s asset management, financial and engineering practices for transportation infrastructure and identifies opportunities for reductions in asset life cycle costs.

It forecasts planned changes to these over the next 30 years.

It uses this detail to support the transportation aspects of the Council’s Long Term Plan.

This plan will be used by the Council’s officers to combine management, financial, engineering and technical processes and procedures to ensure approved levels of service are provided to present and future customers.

This AMP considers a 10 year time horizon from 2018 – 2028 and it is intended to review the

content and strategy every year, with a major update planned every three years over the period to coordinate with the Council’s Long Term Plan process (LTP).

2.2. Relationship with other Documents

This plan is influenced by a number of statutes and Council documents with statutory authority. It

is also affected by and influences many of Council’s plans and strategies.

Figure 2-1 Interaction between AMP and other Council Strategies



The AMP will need to remain consistent and be updated to incorporate and reflect changes in the

following key legislation, policies, plans and strategies that affect and influence the activities included in this plan:

2.2.1. Central Governance

Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 and Amendments: Provides a statutory framework for

Local and Regional Authorities to administer and balance land development with sustainable

management of natural resources. The RMA focuses on the effects of activities rather than on the activities themselves.

Local Government Act 2002 (LGA): States the purpose of local government, provides a framework and powers for local authorities to decide which activities they undertake and the

manner in which they will undertake them. In the transportation area it provides for local

authorities to assume a broad role in meeting the current and future needs of their communities

for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory

functions.

Land Transport Management Act (LTMA) 2003 and Amendments: Requires the Minister of Transport to issue a Government Policy Statement.

Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport: This is a Government statement

clarifying the NZ Transport Strategy and confirming the desired outcomes and funding priorities for transportation activities. It sets out what the Government expects to be achieved from its

investment in land transport through the National Land Transport Fund. In detail it focuses activity to achieve national and regional targets.

New Zealand Transport Strategy: This NZ Government document sets over-arching vision, objectives, and outcomes for New Zealand, 2008 – 2040. This strategy ensures consistency with

other Government policy and legislative obligations. The strategy covers all transport modes.

Safer Journeys – New Zealand’s Road Safety Strategy: Is the national strategy to guide

improvements in road safety over the period 2010–2020. Specific activity within this strategy is then described in annual Safer Journey’s Action Plans.

One Network Road Classification (ONRC): Involves categorising roads based on their traffic

volumes and heavy vehicle percentages, as well as some high-level functional criteria. The classification applies to all public roads in New Zealand and will help local government and NZTA to plan, invest in, maintain and operate the road network in a more strategic, consistent and affordable way throughout the country.

National Land Transport Programme (NLTP): The NLTP brings together all the land transport

activities, such as public transport services and road construction and maintenance, which are expected to receive funding from the NZ Transport Agency through the Land Transport Fund. The NLTP is compiled from the proposed Regional Land Transport Programmes in accordance with available funding.

Land Transport Act 1998 and Amendments: Contains guidance to Road Controlling Authorities addressing road user and vehicle safety. This establishes the Rules process governing many technical aspects of Transportation activity. In May 2010 The Mass and Dimension Rule was

amended to allow for High Productivity Motor Vehicles (HPMV). This change facilitated access for

certain truck and trailer combinations, exceeding the (then) standard 44 tonnes in total, to use designated routes. These units must carry a permit and comply with this permit including using



only pre-approved routes. Council approves access for vehicles of this type to use the majority of

roads in the network.

Utilities Access Act 2010 and Amendments: This Act requires compliance with the “National

Code of Practice for Utility Operators' Access to Transport Corridors”, which provides a nationally consistent framework to manage transport corridors in coordination with utility operators.

Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and Amendments: Council’s key source of funding to support its transportation activity is through the ability to levy rates. The flexibility to support

maintenance and improvement activity may be limited by the extent and nature of rates levied from time to time. The Act requires Council to consult and inform ratepayers through prescribed

processes as part of annual works programmes preparation and delivery, including Transportation activity.

Government Roading Powers Act 1989: Although this Act primarily outlines management of

State Highway network assets it does include some sections relating to all Road Controlling Authorities, including Council. Sections 54 to 57 cover management of utilities, structures, and

trees on the roadside.

Health and Safety at Work Act 2015: This Act is intended to reduce and minimise harm to both

people working in and those moving around places of work. There are obligations within the Act for employers and other controllers of places of works. Since the road corridor is often a place of work Council may have multiple obligations to both its agents, other workers, and also the public to manage safety. Ensuring appropriate Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) is employed on

Council roads is a key outcome.

Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 2002 and Amendments: Identifies Council

obligations to be prepared and respond in a co-ordinated way to disaster events. The Council response should link with Regional CDEM planning, led by Environment Canterbury, as well as

being led by its own local policies. Some roads and access are specifically identified through

planning as lifeline assets to support disaster response. Council obligations to maintain and

reinstate access will then carry through to road network management priorities and activity.

Building Act 2004 and Amendments: Any structures to be built or rebuilt within the road reserve

may require consent under this Act. The coverage will include bridges, large culverts, retaining

walls, and underpasses. Even though some work on structures within road reserve may be exempted from requiring a building consent specifically, compliance with the Building Code for

these works is still mandatory.

Biosecurity Act 1993 and Amendments: This relates to control of plant and organism pests. Specifically this relates to Council obligations and responsibilities to control pests within road

reserve land.

2.2.2. Regional Governance

Regional Land Transport Strategy and Programme: The Canterbury Regional Council’s

Regional Land Transport Strategy sets over-arching vision, objectives, and outcomes for the Region. The Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP) lists all of the transport activities currently agreed to be funded through the Regional Land Transport Committee (RLTC), for the

relevant three year period. These strategic programmes then feed into and support applications

for government funding through the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).



2.2.3. Local Governance

ADC District Plan: This is the main document that sets the framework for managing land use and

development within the District. It contains objectives, policies and rules to address resource management issues such as the effects of land use and subdivisions, noise and traffic, and is compiled to meet requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002 (and their amendments). It is reviewed and reissued every ten years. Council planning policy can influence environmental compliance requirements within transportation activities.

ADC Long Term Plan (LTP): This document, required under the Local Government Act 2002, sets

out a local authority’s priorities in the medium to long term over a 10-year period. It defines Council’s long term vision and its links to community outcomes. It is generated to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and its amendments, is reviewed and reissued every three years and includes the Council’s Transportation activity.

ADC Bylaws: These define Council rules, (and penalties for non-compliance), for controlling road

use activities within the District.

ADC Policies, Guidelines and Procedures: These detail or describe Council’s recommended

actions or processes required for road use activities within the District.

ADC Annual Plan: Is Council’s annual statement of activity including financial requirements. It is issued annually to deliver progress against the LTP objectives.

ADC Annual Report: Is Council’s annual review of activity achieved against the Annual Plan. It summarises progress achieved every year against the LTP objectives.

ADC Safety Management System: This ensures that ADC has sound systems and processes to ensure identification and monitoring of road hazards and ensures these hazards are appropriately managed through construction, maintenance, and operational means. This approach is to ensure

the road network is managed to appropriate standards of safety.

ADC Works Contracts: These are the implementation mechanisms for delivery of works as required on the Transportation network. They are issued as required and their durations vary from weeks to years. All contracts reflect performance consistent with AMP objectives and standards.

2.2.4. Industry Best Practice

International Infrastructure Management Manual: is a best practice guide addressing infrastructure asset management to ensure the required levels of service are met, in the most cost

effective manner, through the management of assets for present and future customers.



2.3. Stakeholders

External to Council a number of groups will influence and be involved in the delivery of the processes described within this plan. Council will be expected to establish and maintain long

term relationships with these groups, and engage with key representatives. The following describes these stakeholders and their roles:

Table 2-1 External stakeholders

Group Role

New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) National policies, programme subsidy and

technical support

Canterbury Regional Council (ECAN) Regional policies and public transport

programme subsidy

New Zealand Police Local network monitoring and enforcement

Council suppliers and contractors Physical works and service delivery

Heavy haulage companies and economic

product suppliers Significant network users

Timaru District Council

Mackenzie District Council

Waimate District Council

Partners in the Aoraki Roading Collaboration

Selwyn District Council Neighbouring Road Controlling Authority

District community and interest groups Community and specialist representation

District residents and ratepayers Council customers and financial supporters

Utilities, telecommunications, and irrigation

suppliers, operators and contractors Road corridor users



Within Council a number of groups and activities will influence and be involved in the delivery of

the processes described within this plan. The following describes these groups and their roles:

Table 2-2 Internal stakeholders

Group Role

Mayor, Councillors, Community Boards

Monitor and review delivery of this plan to

represent and respond to community

interests and concerns

Chief Executive and Leadership Team

Monitor and overview Council activity in the

consistent implementation and regular

review of the AMP programme and

documentation

Service Delivery staff Implement the AMP processes and

programme

Community Relations and Planning staff

Monitor implementation and progress

against the AMP processes and programme

(policy and planning)

Environmental Monitoring staff Monitor progress against the AMP processes

and programme (regulatory requirements)

Business Support staff

Monitor progress against the AMP processes

and programme (financial performance and

requirements)

People & Capability staff

Support training and staff development

around AMP process and development

(human resources)

Community Relations and Information

Systems staff

Report and communicate progress against

the AMP programme, collect and collate

customer feedback and requests



2.4. Council Objectives and Responsibilities

2.4.1. Objectives

Council has identified the following Community Outcomes and Levels of Service from public consultation and its Long Term Planning processes to meet its obligations under the Local

Government Act.

Community Outcomes

People : Residents are included and have a voice

Place : A district of great spaces and places

Environment: A balanced and sustainable environment

Economy : A prosperous economy based on innovation and opportunity

Strategic Objectives

Plan and provide fit for purpose services

Work with the community and engage in meaningful conversations

Lead the community with clear and rational decision-making

Represent the district regional/national issues and partner with others as needed

Levels of Service


Council contractors respond to transportation network failures and requests within

required response times


The Transportation Activity supports these objectives through these practices;

Customer service requests are encouraged, and submissions and responses are managed efficiently.

Transportation works and projects are included in Council’s consultative requirements, and contracts and work details are provided to the community through various media.

Roads and footpaths are made smooth, safe and reliable to provide essential links between and within communities, and enable reliable access to essential services.

District and regional economic growth and accessibility is supported through maximising

network access for commercial transport, including HPMVs.

Efficient maintenance practices are planned and undertaken to ensure a robust and accessible road network for economic, leisure and social activities.

Material selection and sourcing, and work practices are mindful of, and adhere to, risk and

sustainability policies and requirements.

To deliver a sustainable transportation network Council works cooperatively with a wide range of stakeholders who hold diverse interests in the road corridor.

Ashburton District Council is part of the Aoraki Roading Collaboration (ARC), and also participates in many regional and national transportation forums and action groups.



All of the assets included in this plan are solely owned and operated by Ashburton District Council.

The assets and their operation form part of the overall Council delivery of core services to meet the needs of the people of the Ashburton District. The activities required to deliver these services

include the creation, maintenance, operation, renewal and disposal of assets.

2.4.2. Responsibilities

Delivering the Transportation asset activity incorporates inputs from staff across four key work

streams within the Council.

Table 2-3 Council Work Stream input

Council Work

Stream

Strategy and

Planning

Financial Process

and Monitoring

Works Delivery and

Programming

Business Support

Develop Long

Term Plan

Supply and

manage information systems

Financial monitoring and reporting

Service Delivery

Asset Optimisation Analysis for LTP

Advice into Annual

Plan processes

Manage and update asset

management systems

Manage and update Annual

Programme

performance with

NZTA

Justify

subsidised works for NZTA

Prepare and manage annual contract works delivery

Monitoring quality

and progress of works

Environmental

Services Monitoring

environmental

performance

People and

Capability

Support training and recruitment of component AM skills



The Transportation activity is delivered primarily through the Roading Team within the Council

Service Delivery workstream. Key roles within this team include:

Table 2-4 Transportation Roles and Activities

Position Role Responsibilities

Group Manager

Service Delivery

Responsible for the service delivery from Council’s assets (including the Transportation

networks)

Leadership in delivery of Transportation Asset Management

Roading Manager Responsible for the provision

and maintenance of Council’s

Transportation network activities, and operations

Coordinate inputs and

expenditure of Council’s annual transportation programme

Management of the Roading Team

Manage operations and maintenance of

Transportation assets

Financial planning and control

Long term forward planning

Annual programme and project coordination

Compliance with legislative and environmental requirements

Liaise with Government Departments and key

stakeholders

Regional Land Transport liaison

NZTA programme liaison

Performance Monitoring

Staff and group management

Asset Management

Engineer

Ensure that operations and maintenance are delivered in an

efficient and effective manner

Input into LTP asset by asset activity in the Transportation area

Prepare programmes of works for renewals

and identify capital projects

Corridor management

Coordination of works

Annual programme monitoring and reporting

across Transportation assets

NZTA funding applications and claims

Monitoring, and reporting progress against annual programmes

Monitor delivery of responses to service

requests from the public

Prepare and implement contracts

Contracts Engineer

(Urban and Rural)

Deliver contract procurement project management and day to

day delivery of Transportation asset maintenance and renewal

works, including network

inspections, and work

scheduling

Road maintenance contracts delivery

Footpath maintenance contracts delivery

Renewals contracts delivery

Monitor contractor progress and programmes for annual delivery to meet budgeted costs

Check Contractor claims against work completed

Inspect the Transportation networks on a regular basis

Action and follow-up from public enquiries and requests

Assist with road corridor management



Position Role Responsibilities

Road Safety

Coordinator

Manage Council’s Road Safety

responsibilities and policy actions

Road safety liaison with emergency services,

community groups and road user groups

Crash statistic monitoring and reporting

Organisation and management of road safety

education programmes

Asset Management

Officer

Manage Council’s RAMM

Database and Transportation asset information

Data update delivery monitoring

Overall data quality management and checking

Assist with development of the Council’s LTP and annual programmes

Technical Support

Officers

Assist with delivering effective

and efficient operations of

Council’s Transportation network

Liaise day to day with applicants for Council

permits and agreements

Process permits, applications and agreements within Council policy

Operate Council’s Corridor Access and Traffic Management coordination systems.

External consultants may be engaged where the Council team is unable to provide the resources required. This is primarily where specialist information, advice or service provision is required, or

where critical timeframes cannot be met by Council without assistance. These areas currently

include but are not limited to:

Bridge Asset Management - Cyclic inspections of bridges with recommendations for bridge asset replacement programmes. Design of replacement bridges as required.

Road Asset Deterioration Modelling - Use of dTIMS and RPP to analyse and assess

treatment options for the Council sealed road network.

Asset Condition Monitoring - RAMM Road Rating, Sealed Road Roughness surveys.

Council’s roading operations are audited regularly by NZTA and Audit New Zealand. These audits

involve financial and technical aspects of the internal procedures for programming, and asset and

contract management. The last NZTA audit (procedural) was carried out in March 2018, with a report expected by June 2018. Informal feedback indicates that recommendations are likely to

include; increasing road safety audits, improving financial end-of-year reconciliation, and updating the contract procurement strategy.

External contractors are engaged for a variety of physical works contracts which cover a range of

activities and services. Contract duration may be long-term covering multiple years (eg. network

maintenance) or short-term over weeks or months for specific projects (eg. renewals). Contract management may be undertaken by Council staff, external consultants or in partnership with the contractor. The scope and content of this management is controlled in the first instance by the specific contractual requirements, but also by Council’s overarching objectives and

responsibilities.



2.4.3. Aoraki Roading Collaboration

In 2014 Ashburton, Mackenzie, TImaru and Waimate district councils entered into a Memorandum

of Understanding (MoU) to “work together in specific aspects of roading asset management and network operations.” The objectives are;

Improve asset management processes, outcomes and consistency in respect of their

respective road networks.

Improve investment decision-making, while recognising and accepting appropriate risk.

Attract, develop, and retain good internal human resources.

Enhance governance through shared policy and strategy.

Provide a sustainable market for affordable specialist resources.

Become “smarter buyers”.

Enhance customer satisfaction.

To further embed safety in the cultures of the respective organisations.

The MoU was in part a response to meet the requirements of Section 17A of the Local Government

Act (2002).

The intent is to develop shared delivery in various aspects of asset management and network

operations such as;

Inventory management

Specialists – geotechnical investigations, bridges and structures, design

Corridor access requests (CARs), overweight permits, etc.

Development of 30 year infrastructure strategies and asset management plans

RAPT (Review and Prioritisation Team) reviews

Achievements to date include a shared maintenance contract (see Secn. 5.1), improved data

management through shared skills and strong technical support through inter-council communications.

Future combined contract procurements may include road condition rating and roughness

surveys, traffic counting, pavement modelling data collection and analysis, and corridor management processes (TMP approvals, CAR management).

Shared professional services are also being discussed, but there are many issues to be resolved

before implementation including cost sharing, physical inefficiencies (large network areas),

agreed governance and staff culture. The advantages however include economies of scale, increased technical skills and available knowledge, strategic purchasing, capacity flexibility and lower overhead costs.



2.5. Network and Assets

2.5.1. Environment

The Ashburton District (617,500 hectares) is bounded in the northwest by the Southern Alps and on the southeast by the Pacific Ocean. Its northeast land boundary (with the Selwyn District) is the

Rakaia River, and from its headwaters through mountainous country to the top of the Southern

Alps. Its southeast land boundary (with the Timaru and Mackenzie Districts) is the Rangitata River and from its headwaters to the top of the Southern Alps.

Figure 2-2 Map of Ashburton District land area

The District's land types include coastal terraces, alluvial plains, riverside and riverbed, rolling hill country, and rugged hill country. The character and underlying resilience of the transportation

network is strongly influenced by the predominant plains topography, with mostly flat straight roads.



The alluvial plains and pasture land is extensively used for agriculture. In general, dairying is

located on the plains, with sheep and beef cattle production on steeper hinterlands. High-value crops are produced predominantly in the northern plains with horticulture areas also present.

Weather is temperate with coastal, plains, and alpine climatic influences. Summers can be hot and dry with strong northwest winds causing erosion and fine aggregate removal. Winters will

bring snow along the foothills and in the higher elevations (generally 300m and above), but extreme events are infrequent. Frost and ice in winter can create temporary surface hazards

across the district, especially where shelter belts are located on northerly roadsides. Where deep shading occurs moisture can remain for long periods causing lichen formation and pavement

damage. Frost heave also causes pavement damage and can be especially destructive if sub-zero temperatures remain for extended periods.

Rain events can cause issues due mainly to the flat topography, and this is somewhat alleviated by

the underlying alluvial gravels, but large events can cause widespread travel disruption and subsequent damage to roads and associated infrastructure.

There are many watercourses traversing the District which interact with the Council transportation network. These include rivers, streams, lakes, and stockwater and irrigation races.

Council seeks, holds and monitors the appropriate consents for mitigating the effects of this interaction. The most significant issues are acknowledged as managing stormwater run-off from roads and the impact of bridges and bridge works within river environments.

To address the impacts of these extremes in weather with a reasonable level of capability Council

needs to apply a flexible approach to operations and also consider a range of asset management

strategies in maintaining its transportation network.

Predicted climate changes may be beneficial to some sectors of the agricultural and horticultural industries with less frost and increased mean temperatures leading to longer growing seasons.

However the District has experienced extremes of drought and flood in the past and climate

change could increase their frequency and severity.

Land use has changed markedly over the last decade and this is detailed in Section 4.1.



2.5.2. Demographics

Ashburton District’s estimated population in 2016 was 33,700.

Ashburton is the main commercial and service centre of the district with a population of approximately 18,000. The smaller urban areas include Methven, Rakaia, Hinds, Mt Somers, Mayfield, Lake Hood and Chertsey. There are multiple rural community hubs and settlements with

various levels of civic amenities and social functions (shown as black dots in Figure 2-3).

Figures 2-4 and 2-5 in the following pages show population growth and age group distribution.

Figure 2-3 Map of Ashburton District 2013 census population by mesh block



Figure 2-4 Population Growth

Figure 2-5 Population by Age Group 2016



2.5.3. Road Network

Ashburton District has one of the largest road networks in New Zealand, covering 2623km.

1507km is sealed, 1116km is unsealed, and 92% (2422km) of our roads are located in rural areas.

State Highways 1 (from the Rakaia River to the Rangitata River) and 77 (from Ashburton to Rakaia Gorge via Methven) traverse the district. Whilst the highways are owned and managed by NZTA

they complement the Council network and provide strategic regional and national roading

network connections. Road users make little distinction between road owners, especially in urban areas, where highways are effectively regarded as local roads by local users.

With a sealed road within reasonable proximity of all properties, vehicle kilometres travelled on unsealed roads are reduced. Extension of the sealed road network is mainly due to urban

subdivisions, with rural intersection sealbacks providing minor additions.

Table 2-5 Road Network 30 June 2017

2.5.4. Transportation Assets

2.5.4.1. RAMM

ADC uses the Road Asset Management and Maintenance (RAMM) system. This is a nationally

standardised database system used by road controlling authorities in New Zealand. RAMM stores

asset inventory, condition information and traffic data. Asset valuation, forward works

programming and treatment analysis and selection are additional functions within the software. RAMM is a key tool in managing Transportation assets in an efficient and effective manner. Council staff are continuously and progressively improving the quality and completeness of asset

data in RAMM.

Budget Area

TOWN Sealed Unsealed All Sealed Unsealed All

Ashburton 142.3 1.4 143.7 143.7

ASHBURTON 116.0 1.4 117.4 117.4

TINWALD 26.3 26.3 26.3

Methven 16.5 16.5 16.5

METHVEN 16.5 16.5 16.5

Rakaia 1.1 1.1 15.8 1.2 17.0 18.1

RAKAIA 1.1 1.1 15.8 1.2 17.0 18.1

Rural 1309.6 1111.3 2421.0 22.4 1.0 23.4 2444.4

CHERTSEY 3.2 0.1 3.3 3.3

FAIRTON 2.0 0.1 2.1 2.1

HINDS 5.0 0.7 5.7 5.7

LAKE HOOD 5.1 5.1 5.1

MAYFIELD 1.8 1.8 1.8

MT SOMERS 3.9 0.2 4.0 4.0

RURAL 1309.6 1111.3 2421.0 1.3 1.3 2422.3

Total 1309.6 1112.4 2422.1 197.0 3.6 200.6 2622.7

Length (km)

Rural UrbanTotal



2.5.4.2. Pavement and Surfacing

The purpose of the pavement is to provide for effective, efficient and safe passage for the

movement of vehicles and people. The pavement includes the road surface, either sealed or unsealed, and the underlying road structure made up of gravel layers.

Layers of construction comprising the pavement are:

The subgrade formation - the preparation of the natural ground.

The subbase and basecourse - the constructed gravel layers which support the overlying layers and surfacing.

The surfacing – either bitumen bound chip (sealed) or unsealed running course gravels.

The pavement of a road should be:

A safe, suitable, all weather surface that is appropriate to its location and function in terms of skid resistance, noise reduction, and smoothness. In other words: “fit for purpose”.

A structure suitable for legal traffic loading requirements.

Full details of the ADC pavement and surfacing assets are recorded and stored in the RAMM

database, but an overview map is shown below in Figure 2-6;

Figure 2-6 Ashburton District Roads



2.5.4.3. Bridges

With many natural and man-made watercourses in the district (including rivers, streams and

races) the Council maintains 181 road bridges (including 14 large culverts classed as bridges for funding purposes as their cross-sectional area is greater than 3.4m2).

This number includes 25 Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR) bridges, which are being formally

transferred into Council ownership. Council and Rangitata Diversion Race Management Ltd. are

negotiating maintenance cost and emergency management issues.

RAMM holds basic location, dimension and class information, while the council’s bridge consultant, Opus International Consultants, maintains a specialised bridge inventory database (Online Bridge Information System - OBIS). This holds details including plans, inventory data,

condition assessments, maintenance and renewal recommendations, photos and related

documentation. Council has access to OBIS as part of the contractual agreement.

Key facts;

9 of the 181 bridges are timber structures, with the remainder concrete

3 bridges have speed/weight restrictions listed in the Bylaws, 6 bridges have 50MAX

restrictions as precautionary measures

3 bridges on the Hinds River are known as “sunshine” bridges since they only span part of

the watercourse and the gravel approaches within the riverbed are expected to wash out in major flood events

The 25 RDR bridges were all built before 1940 and range from 13m to 59m in length

The longest bridge (on Arundel Rakaia Gorge Road spanning the Rangitata River) is 332m long and is jointly owned and maintained with Timaru District Council

There are no bridges in the North East quadrant (see Figure 2-7 below)



Figure 2-7 Ashburton District Bridge Locations



Figure 2-8 Ashburton District Bridge Lengths

Figure 2-9 Ashburton District Bridge Remaining Life



2.5.4.4. Drainage

Maintaining and preserving drainage along and across the road is one of the key aspects to

ensuring the integrity and serviceability of pavement assets. Thus drainage structures are a significant Council asset. The primary purpose of these assets is to prevent water from remaining on or accessing the road pavement layers, either by collecting and removing water from the roads

during a rain event, or diverting existing watercourses that may otherwise naturally flow to the

road.

Asset types include:

Culverts - pipes crossing the road or at accessways

Stormwater channels - including earth swale drains and kerb and channel

Soakpits or sumps – these catch, disperse or hold water at low points on the roadside

Stockwater and irrigation races (and connected culverts or syphons) are the property and

responsibility of the race owner/manager, and are not included in the transportation assets. Historically, as these watercourses became unused through obsolescence or upgrades they were generally filled in or removed. Recent experience in large floods have shown that where they

remained their worth as stormwater channels proved invaluable in either stopping or limiting flood extents. Race closures now will see Council take ownership and responsibility of structures

within the road reserve, and arrange an easement or legal agreement where they are located in private property.

Full drainage asset details are contained in the RAMM database, but a summary is show in Table 2-6 below;

Table 2-6 Drainage Assets

Budget Area

TOWN

Ashburton 76 1609 4 164336 38740 7212 1178 336 5196 1059 13111

ASHBURTON 51 1352 4 139226 27501 6175 643 323 5052 939 8001

TINWALD 25 257 0 25110 11239 1037 535 13 144 120 5110

Methven 10 186 3 23404 1243 0 0 60 41 426 4392

METHVEN 10 186 3 23404 1243 0 0 60 41 426 4392

Rakaia 26 114 12 16851 401 0 0 119 0 0 2396

RAKAIA 26 114 12 16851 401 0 0 119 0 0 2396

Rural 3037 120 178 12224 51 0 4894 202 61 492 735852

CHERTSEY 9 3 0 976 0 0 7 0 0 0 118

FAIRTON 4 6 3 1628 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HINDS 10 32 0 4900 0 0 10 120 0 206 16053

LAKE HOOD 10 52 5 147 0 0 4234 0 35 35 0

MAYFIELD 5 10 1 1503 51 0 0 0 0 0 10825

MT SOMERS 4 17 0 2101 0 0 0 22 26 251 2770

RURAL 2995 0 169 969 0 0 643 60 0 0 706086

Total 3149 2029 197 216815 40435 7212 6072 717 5298 1977 755751

Length (m)Number

Culvert Sump SoakpitKerb &

Channel

Kerb &

Deep

Dish

Kerb &

Deep Dish

& Covers

Mountable

Kerb &

Channel

Mountable

Kerb Only

Kerb

Only

Dished

ChannelEarth Swale



2.5.4.5. Footpaths and Cycleways

Council maintains 233km of footpath, with 83% located within Ashburton Township. The footpath

inventory grows through subdivision construction and annual Council capital programmes.

The Council footpath asset was primarily chipseal surfaced but current Council policy is to use asphaltic concrete (AC) for any new or resurfaced footpaths. AC generally provides a smoother

surface and achieves longer life than chipseal. As at 30 June 2017 87% of footpaths are AC.

There are also footpaths in the parks and recreational areas managed by another Council department – Open Spaces. These are maintained by either Roading or Open Spaces dependent on cost efficiency and resources.

Council have relatively few separated cycleways (5444m) and all function as shared

pedestrian/cycle paths. These are distinct from cycle lanes painted on roads of which there are

8854m. All cycleways and cycle lanes are located in the Ashburton township.

Rating contributions are separated into four areas – Ashburton, Methven, Rakaia and Rural

(remainder).

Full footpath asset details are contained in the RAMM database, but a summary is show in Table 2-7 below;

Table 2-7 Footpath Assets

Budget Area

TOWN

Ashburton 161473 4764 1039 1273 17442 5805 191796

ASHBURTON 133989 3054 1017 1048 14614 5048 158770

TINWALD 27484 1710 22 225 2828 757 33026

Methven 15368 1451 1116 700 824 0 19459

METHVEN 15368 1451 1116 700 824 0 19459

Rakaia 6284 6 0 98 1897 205 8490

RAKAIA 6284 6 0 98 1897 205 8490

Rural 11447 59 0 0 1120 164 12790

CHERTSEY 958 0 0 0 0 0 958

FAIRTON 1142 0 0 0 0 0 1142

HINDS 2197 47 0 0 623 164 3031

LAKE HOOD 4684 0 0 0 0 0 4684

MAYFIELD 1627 0 0 0 30 0 1657

MT SOMERS 765 12 0 0 467 0 1244

RURAL 74 0 0 0 0 0 74

Total 194572 6280 2155 2071 21283 6174 232535

Length(m)

Interlocking

BlocksMetal Chipseal Slurry Seal Total

Asphaltic

ConcreteConcrete



2.5.4.6. Traffic Services

Traffic services assets primarily assist in delivering safety outcomes on the road network and

include the following:

Road Signs and Pavement Markings

Sight and Guard Rails

Traffic Signals

Full details of the signs, road markings and railings are contained in the RAMM database. A summary of statistics shows the Council own and manage;

9852 signs (identifying hazards, providing warnings, regulatory instructions or route directions and location or amenity identification)

8780km of centreline marking, 190 STOP markings and 888 Give Way triangle markings

7.7km of guardrails and 5.3 km of sight rails

Guardrails are typically w-section Armco railing generally located on bridge approaches or at

roadside hazards providing physical separation and protection. Timber sight rails are commonly located at culverts, intersections or corners and provide a visual rather than physical barrier.

Council currently has only two signalised intersections and these were converted to LED displays in 2016. They are maintained and managed by Traffic Control Systems (TCS) in conjunction with

the three signalised intersections on the adjacent State Highway 1 in Ashburton.

2.5.4.7. Streetlights

Full details of the streetlights (separated by pole, bracket and light components) are contained in the RAMM database.

There are over 2800 streetlights, and 80% are stand-alone lighting columns with the remainder

mounted on power poles that are owned and managed by Electricity Ashburton Limited (EA).

Council have a contract underway from March 2018 to December 2018 replacing the bulk of existing traditional high pressure sodium (HPS) lights with LEDs. LEDs require less maintenance and use less electricity than HPS, and also generally provide better visibility and colour

differentiation. This work is subsidised at an increased FAR of 85% that NZTA have made available

specifically for LED conversion.

There will be 2012 lights converted under the contract, leaving around 450 HPS lights. These are either; flag lights (generally at rural intersections), lights on power poles in current undergrounding programmes, or ornamental lights that are difficult to convert. The last group

numbers over 300, and this indicates that there should be more control over vested streetlight design criteria to ensure they are compatible with council standards and policy.

Under-veranda lights are not included as these are privately owned. The operation and

maintenance of lighting within parks and carparks, and of floodlighting for Council statues, features, and amenities is the responsibility of other Council departments (Open Spaces or

Property) so are therefore not considered here.



2.5.4.8. Gravel Pits

There are numerous sites across the district that are gazetted for use as gravel pits, but only 52 are

currently legally designated for either extraction of gravel (38 sites) or cleanfill disposal (14 sites). The designation process is an alternative to obtaining specific resource consents for each site. The Council Property department is pursuing designation for sites where future use will prove

beneficial.

These sites are managed to assist with material supply and cleanfill disposal as part of Council’s roading renewals and projects programme. Council management ensures future gravel resource requirements are easily sourced and disposal of cleanfill is readily available.

Access to these sites is made available to contractors if required under Council’s district-wide

Maintenance, Utilities and Roading Contracts. Some pits cannot be used due mainly to either

exhausted material supply or physical inaccessibility (eg. flooded).

2.5.4.9. On-Street Car Parks

Installation and maintenance of on-street car parking sites in urban areas comprises road

markings, signs, parking meters and electronic monitoring systems.

Figure 2-10 Ashburton Car Parks

The activity responsibility is shared between Council’s Roading (physical asset operation and maintenance) and Environmental Services (enforcement and monies collection) departments.

There are time-limited car parks in Ashburton, Methven and Rakaia, but only Ashburton is patrolled by parking wardens.



In 2016 ADC installed a SmartEye parking monitoring system in the busiest CBD section of East

Street. This was in response to faulty parking machines and local business requests. The system provides live data feeds to Council parking wardens through use of mobile technology. Data

analysis can also provide verifiable evidence for queries or disputes.

An Ashburton CBD revitalisation project is under way which will include probable changes to

streetscapes and parking.

No NZTA subsidy is available for any works relating to car parking.

2.5.4.10. Third Party Assets

There are assets either in or adjacent to the road corridor that are not the responsibility of the Roading team. However as they may affect the transportation network they must be included in

planning decisions (for both long-term strategies and specific projects). These assets may be

owned and/or managed by parties internal or external to Council and include;

Wastewater, stormwater and drinking water reticulated networks and associated structures.

Power and telecommunication poles, cables and junction boxes.

Irrigation and stockwater races, structures and conduits.

Plantations, garden plots, trees and protected vegetation.

Buildings, fences and signage.

Liaison is undertaken with third parties either through regular forward planning meetings or as required for specific events or projects.

There are an increasing number of stock underpasses on the ADC road network as farmers realise the benefit of avoiding public roads for their herd movements (especially for the daily dairy farm

schedules). These structures are privately owned and the owners are responsible for their maintenance under signed agreements (Memorandum of Encumbrance) with Council. These

agreements should be attached to the relevant property titles, and Council is progressively correcting where this is not the case. Building consents are required for construction and costs are

shared between the owner and Council. In terms of their effect on the transportation network they are treated as large culverts.



2.5.5. Road Hierarchy

From July 2018 onwards there will be two road hierarchies used within ADC to inform treatment

decisions and define road corridor management requirements.

The existing Council road hierarchy comprises Arterial, Principal, Collector and Local roads (see Table 2-8) and is only referenced in the District Plan, which sets out the defining parameters.

The NZTA One Network Road Classification (ONRC) consists of eight road classes of which five are

relevant to the Ashburton District: Arterial, Primary Collector, Secondary Collector, Access and Low Volume (see Table 2-9). It is used for national comparative reporting, funding decisions and levels of service (see Secn 3). The intent of this system is to provide road users with nationally consistent service expectations, inform and support activity management planning, investment

choices, and operational decision-making. Detailed information is available on the NZTA website.

Currently the hierarchy used in the District Plan has limited practical reach and can be managed in parallel with ONRC. To remove the possibility of confusion between the hierarchies Council will

consider superseding the current District Plan hierarchy with ONRC, but due to the somewhat

onerous requirements of District Plan changes this would not be enacted in the short term.

In general terms both hierarchies reflect the traffic use in vehicle movements per day (Annual Average Daily Traffic or AADT), with additional functional criteria applied as required.

Table 2-8 District Plan Road Hierarchy

Hierarchy Rural AADT Urban AADT Notes

Arterial > 1000 > 5000 Predominantly through traffic, connect major localities.

Long trips and generally link to other arterial and collectors.

Principal 500-1500 1000-6000

Connect arterials and inter-connect major rural, suburban,

commercial and industrial areas.

Intermediate length trips and generally link to arterials and

collectors.

Collector 150-800 200-2000

Distribute and collect local traffic within and between

neighbourhoods.

Link rural communities, and to arterials. Local spines in neighbourhoods.

Local < 200 < 250 Primary access to adjacent land and properties - through use discouraged.



Table 2-9 One Network Road Classification

Class Rural AADT Urban AADT HCV Daily Additional Criteria

Arterial 3000-10000 5000-15000 300-400 Buses per hour (urban peak)

Pedestrian/cyclist numbers

Linking populations

Critical connectivity

Ports / Inland Ports (tonnage)

Airport Passengers (per annum)

Tourism (significant destinations)

Hospitals (tertiary or regional)

Primary Collector 1000-3000 3000-5000 150-300

Secondary Collector 200-1000 1000-3000 25-150

Access < 200 <1000 <25

Low Volume <50 <200 <25

Figure 2-11 Ashburton District One Network Road Classification



2.5.6. Safety Management

2.5.6.1. Safety Management System

Road safety is managed by the Road Safety Coordinator applying Council’s Safety Management

System (SMS). This process monitors, investigates, plans for, and responds to safety issues as they arise. The network, and the structures located on it, are routinely inspected applying the Safety Management System principles to ensure hazards are identified and addressed appropriately to ensure road users safety remains a priority.

The SMS can potentially cover the following areas:

Physical activities on the road reserve

Design of improvements

Land use activities

Regulatory controls

Police enforcement

Road safety publicity and education programmes

The SMS ensures that the whole road network is managed with a structured approach to meet established standards and achieve a high level of safety for road users. Council will monitor

current best practice, investigate new recommendations, and update its systems as required.

This AMP includes some of the detail required for the operation, management and

implementation of the SMS, but the SMS is published separately and the master copy held by the Roading Manager.

2.5.6.2. Road Crash Monitoring

Council uses the NZTA Crash Analysis System (CAS) as its primary reference for monitoring and

reporting on crashes occurring within the road network. Council’s response to crash trends in either location or type is then developed based on the severity and regularity of crashes as they

occur.

Council’s overall approach to Road Safety is led by both the National Safer Journeys 2010-2020

Roads Safety Strategy and also the Regional Canterbury Road Safety Implementation Plan (Nov 2014). Together these documents discuss implementing “a safe road system increasingly free of

death and serious injury.” Council then uses the Safe System approach applying these higher level

guidelines when investigating and prioritising potential road safety initiatives and projects. Council’s past focus and overall direction has targeted the following key areas:

Intersections

Speed

Drink driving

Out of context curves



2.5.6.3. Community Road Safety Action Plans

As well as considering physical network improvements Council also submits annual

recommendations to NZTA on funding needs for community based road safety projects, targeting education and promotion activity. This plan concentrates more on the users of the transportation asset aiming to improve overall safety behaviour and perceptions.

Once adopted, community projects are coordinated by the Ashburton Road Safety Coordinating

Committee where a number of key stakeholders (including ADC, NZTA, emergency services and local health agencies) are involved in the delivery of community programmes and projects. A number of projects from this process have been included in the 2018/21 NZTA funding submission. Council’s focus for the community education campaigns are the following key areas:

Alcohol and drug Impaired driving

Speed

Intersections

Young drivers

2.5.6.4. Collaboration

Ashburton District Council works closely with neighbouring authorities. Meetings are held quarterly with all West Coast and Canterbury councils to ensure consistency in message and

approach, enable information sharing and provide efficiencies in cost and resources. Council work with Timaru District Council on a more frequent basis with combined campaigns and data sharing.

2.5.6.5. Temporary Traffic Management

Council has adopted the NZTA Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (COPTTM) as a

basis for managing the safety at temporary worksites of both workers and public road users on its road network. Council reviews, approves, and monitors Traffic Management Plans conforming to

COPTTM requirements, to ensure that any work done on the Council road network by Council contractors, other contractors, or members of the public is done by applying best practice in

Temporary Traffic Management.



2.5.7. Technology

Council embraces technology that provides fit-for-purpose solutions which increase staff and

contractor productivity and provide innovative advancements.

RAMM software applications have been used for many years, providing inventory information, valuations, assessments, condition surveys, mapping, contract and corridor access management,

network planning and treatment programmes. Field work is enhanced through use of live or

synchronised data access to the maintenance programmes.

Customer Service Requests are managed with multi-modal functionality, and linked to RAMM Contractor to provide semi-automated updates (see Section 3.3.5).

The latest pavement modelling programmes and data collection tools are utilised to ensure

optimised outputs for forward works (see Section 5.2.3.1).

ADC provide regular updates to the Auckland Motorway Alliance’s online location tool – Mobile

Road. This provides live location and inventory data via mobile technology for all road users.

Levels of Service Transportation Activity Management Plan 2018-21


3. Levels of Service

Levels of Service (LOS) describe the outputs Council intends to deliver to customers and other

stakeholders. They enable monitoring and management of the quality of activity delivery. The LOS should focus on key aspects of the delivery and prescribe the direction, standard, and provide a measure for the overall expected quality of the activity. The setting of LOS requires a balance

between cost and quality that includes and reflects customer consultation and acknowledgement.

3.1. Strategic and Corporate Goals

ADC utilises two “sets” of Levels of Service;

3.1.1. Long Term Plan

The Ashburton Long Term Plan includes the following levels of service;


Council contractors respond to transportation network failures and requests within required response times


In 2014 the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) produced a set of mandatory performance

measures for all territorial authorities to report on, along with guidance for their measurement. These new performance measures do not provide a defined level but rather show how the Council is performing, i.e. the number of complaints received.

Given their strong overlap with the 2012-22 LTP performance measures, it was decided to adopt

these new mandatory measures from 1 July 2015 onwards. Section 3.3 shows the performance measures and latest results.

The reporting of LTP performance measures is formally documented within the Council’s

Performance Management Framework document. The framework outlines the measures and how they are measured. The performance measures are reported every four months and within the Council’s Annual Report.

3.1.2. One Network Road Classification

The ONRC is a national categorisation of roads based on their functions, and will be used from the

2018-21 period onwards to provide;

parameters for customer levels of service, performance measures and targets

comparative data to assist with local, regional and national funding decisions.

The 2018-21 period will be a work in progress for both NZTA and RCAs enabling changes to ONRC in response to practical evidence. Consultation with the road network users should be held over

this period, to ascertain the impact of ONRC where Council may need to address gaps in levels of service, or provide NZTA with evidence of changes required to ONRC.



The ONRC provides much more detail than the LTP LOS. It will, as data is improved and expanded, provide nationally comparative information with true indicators for gap analysis and network performance.

It is anticipated that the ONRC will supersede most of the LTP LOS (Footpath and Resident feedback measures are not referenced in the ONRC). As the mandatory measures are DIA-directed, and Audit NZ also has influence on RCA performance measures, Council expect NZTA to liaise with these bodies to ensure duplicated or conflicting performance measures are not retained.

While there are initial ONRC performance measure results available, Council do not consider these reliable enough at this stage of implementation to use for specific 2018-21 programming. As data accuracy and performance capture is improved then the outputs will be used where necessary to update the programme, with an expectation that there will be national performance measures in place for 2021-24.The ONRC has been used in the network maintenance contract (defining maintenance levels and response times) and pavement renewals (providing preliminary exclusion parameters).

Details of the current ONRC levels of service, performance measures and comparative results are

supplied in Section 9.1 (Appendix A).

3.2. Customer Research and Expectations

The present road network was established many decades ago and has been maintained and slowly upgraded to its current standard. Based on the annual ratepayer satisfaction surveys, CRM

comments and general public feedback it is evident that the community expects an increasing level of service that will require a greater focus on network maintenance and ongoing renewal.

This expectation for increasing level of service across the network has to be managed carefully as the adoption of the ONRC will set new national levels of service that may not align with ratepayer

aspirations. Council needs to balance level of service demands with the funding available both

locally and through NZTA subsidies.

ONRC will influence how RCAs justify and attract funding in a National road network context. If Council decide higher levels of service than that required by the ONRC are to be implemented then it is likely Council will be expected to fully fund the related works.



3.3. Level of Service Gap Analysis

To understand where gaps exist between current and desired performances we compare measured outcomes. The following table compares current and desired LTP performance measure outcomes, and states the actions required;

Table 3-1 LTP Performance Measures 2016/17 Results

Performance Measure 2015/16

Result

Desired Outcome Current Outcome Staff Comments Improvement Action

2016/17 Target 2016/17 Result

Level of Service: We provide quality transportation services for the district.

85% of the footpath network is well maintained [MANDATORY] 83% 85% 98% Footpath survey Nov 2014-Jan 2015 Target achieved

90% of the sealed local road network is well maintained [MANDATORY] 94% 90% 95% ADC RAMM STE as at 14/07/2017 Target achieved

4% of the sealed local road network is resurfaced [MANDATORY] 2.50% 4% 7.50%

2016/17 Resurfacing contract complete. Note this includes portion

of 2015/16 resurfacing that was deferred (1.9%).

Target achieved

48,000m3 of metal replaced on unsealed roads 54,923m3 48,000m3 60,595m3 Period 1/7/16 to 30/06/17 Target achieved

Reduction of 2 or more fatalities on the local road network [MANDATORY] 5 3 or less 1 Majority of this year’s crashes

involved alcohol with vehicles leaving the road and hitting trees or poles.

Road Safety strategies and works programmes will be

enacted where they can improve road safety Reduction of 2 or more serious injury crash victims on the local road network [MANDATORY] 11 9 or less 14

Level of Service: Council contractors respond to transportation network failures and requests within required response times.

75% of roading service requests are responded to on time [MANDATORY] 90% 75% 53% 2016/17 data sourced from RAMM

Contractor. Please note the 2015/16 results are not comparable with 2016/17 results as they are based on

the ADC CRM System.

Work with the Contractor to

identify cause of result. Either

the physical work or reporting methodology is at fault. 70% of footpath service requests are responded to on time [MANDATORY] 99% 70% 67%

Level of Service: The majority of residents are satisfied with Council’s transportation services.

50% of residents are satisfied with Council’s unsealed roads 58% 50% 59% 2017 Annual Residents Survey Target achieved

50% of residents are satisfied with Council’s sealed roads 54% 50% 54% 2017 Annual Residents Survey Target achieved

Where targets have been achieved but results could still be improved, investigation of the target itself should be undertaken. This is to ensure the target is reasonable and matches AMP intents, as well as wider Council goals or policies.



3.3.1. Road Safety

While the District statistics are at the lower end of national comparisons, Council is committed to

regional and national strategies to decrease road crashes. Section 2.5.6 provides details of Council’s safety commitments and plans.

Figure 3-1 Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes 2012-2017

Since RCAs across New Zealand have large variances in traffic volumes and/or network length,

comparisons using crash numbers alone can be misleading. Using 2016 crash numbers per vehicle

kilometre travelled (VKT) as a ranking system (with rank 1 denoting the most fatalities per VKT), the following table shows Ashburton’s results, with the three top-ranked and three bottom-ranked

RCAs for comparison.

Table 3-2 Crash injuries per VKT Ranking - 2016

Territorial

Authority

Fatalities /

VKT

Rank

No.

Fatalities

Territorial

Authority

Serious

Injuries / VKT

rank

No.

Serious

Injuries

Westland District 1 9 Kawerau District 1 23

Kawerau District 2 3 Kaikoura District 2 24

Waitomo District 3 6 Westland District 3 22

Ashburton District 39 3 Ashburton District 60 22

Kaipara District =62 0 Tauranga City 64 22

Lower Hutt City =62 0 Wellington City 65 22

Waimate District =62 0 Lower Hutt City 66 0



3.3.2. Smooth Travel Exposure

Smooth Travel Exposure (STE) is the proportion of Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT) each year on

roads defined as “Smooth”. A “Smooth” road is one with roughness levels at or below a set criteria which varies depending on traffic volumes and road type. NZTA set the criteria and the specific details are available in the annual NZTA RAMM Reports and through NZTA website information. An

increase in STE means that more kilometres are being travelled on “Smooth” roads.

Referring to Figure 3-2 below, rural roads show consistently good results for STE. Urban road STE is improving, but can be improved. Urban areas are always more problematic for roughness due mainly to density of utilities and higher traffic volumes.

Figure 3-2 Smooth Travel Exposure 2009-2017



3.3.3. Sealed Road Resurfacing

Council included rehabilitation of sealed roads as a renewal activity in the 2011/12 programme

using a portion of the budgeted resurfacing funds for this activity, as additional rehabilitation funding requested was declined by NZTA. Since this time the level of funding for resurfacing has remained at this reduced level, although the previous resurfacing budget level had been

requested.

Percentages resurfaced have increased gradually since 2013-14 as a direct result of lower contract rates.

Figure 3-3 Sealed Road Resurfaced 2007-2017

Note that in Figure 3-3 above the programmed 2015-16 resurfacing contract (C636) was

constructed over two financial years (2015-16 and 2016-17). The outlined areas show the physical construction percentages as opposed to the contract year percentages in blue.



3.3.4. Unsealed Road Metalling

This performance measure was introduced as a direct response to an Audit NZ recommendation

that unsealed road performance should be reported in a quantifiable manner. Figure 3-4 below shows consistent increases in metal amounts applied.

Quantities in themselves do not necessarily provide good indications of the state of the asset.

Understanding the maintenance methodology and evaluating specific site performance is

essential. Council will be working with their ARC partners to create effective and practical analytical tools for unsealed roads.

Figure 3-4 Unsealed Road Metalling 2010-2017



3.3.5. Customer Service Requests

Council operates a Customer Service Management system for road users to lodge fault

notifications or service requests. Each input is locally referred to a as a CRM. Information can be provided via email, council website, phone call, letter, in person at council or mobile application (”Snap Send Solve”).

Figure 3-5 below shows the top 6 asset/fault types (by CRM number) over the last five years.

Figure 3-5 Roading CRMs 2013-2017

It should be noted that emergency events generate very large numbers of CRMs (many of which

may be duplicates) that can skew annual reporting numbers. In July 2017 a large flood event resulted in 300 CRMs over 2 days.

While decreases in numbers of CRMs can be good indicators of asset performance, it is unrealistic

to expect very low or zero reports especially with dynamic assets. As ADC is a very large network we rely on customer reports and feedback to assist our staff and contractors with identification of

works required. A better measure is the time it takes to respond to requests.

Response time achievement is reported triennially as part of the LTP performance measures requirements. Prior to the current network maintenance contract (C640 - commenced December

2015) the ADC CRM system included reporting the response times. C640 includes various response

times based on a matrix of asset/fault types and ONRC. The ADC CRM system cannot process this complexity so CRM response times are now (since December 2015) managed and reported via RAMM Contractor data.

Council run a semi-automated procedure where CRMs are directed to the maintenance

contractor, who then manage them as Dispatches in RAMM Contractor. CRM Dispatch data is then

fed back to the ADC system each night to update the CRM progress and status. Customer services

officers are then able to provide current information if customers enquire about progress of their request.

As the response time parameters changed with C640 it is of little use to provide historical

information. The current level of service is falling below Council expectations (see Table 3-1). It has been identified that there are three causes for this;



The maintenance contractor is not completing the required inputs in the reporting process

(within RAMM Contractor)

The contract response times are unrealistic for some asset/fault types

The maintenance contractor is unable to respond in the required time due to resourcing issues and high fault numbers

Council is working with the maintenance contractor to address these issues.

3.3.6. Resident Satisfaction

Council undertakes an annual residents’ survey. There are two Roading questions;

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with sealed roads?

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with unsealed roads?

While the 2016-17 result for unsealed roads (59% satisfied) achieves the desired outcome, the

target (50% satisfied) is a relatively low aspiration. Sealed road satisfaction is not currently a listed LTP performance measure.

In 2016-17 potholes was the highest dissatisfaction reason for both sealed (54%) and unsealed

(30%).

It is intended to expand the range of questions, include a 1-5 level of response (rather than satisfied/dissatisfied), increase the frequency of surveys and undertake more analysis of results. ADC’s collaboration partner Timaru District Council use a survey methodology that is closer to this

intent, and Council will work with them to achieve better feedback that can be used with confidence.

Figure 3-6 below shows the trends in survey results.

Figure 3-6 Resident Satisfaction Survey - Roading 2010-2017

The increase in unsealed road satisfaction is likely due to increased metalling and grading programmes in the current maintenance contract. The decrease in sealed road satisfaction is a reflection of the declining sealed road performance.



3.3.7. Footpath Condition

Footpath condition is measured from data collected during footpath rating surveys. Council uses

the following assessment criteria for footpath walkover inspections.

Table 3-3 Footpath Condition Rating Criteria

Level Description

1 Excellent No observed defects. Footpath well maintained - no work required.

2 Good Showing wear and tear and minor deterioration. Condition causing

minimal influence on performance.

3 Average Functionally sound but showing some cracking, depression etc. Minor

maintenance required.

4 Poor Functionally useable but showing significant cracking, depression etc. Maintenance or replacement required.

5 Very Poor Potentially dangerous, may cause pedestrians to trip. Major surface and base problems. Major rehabilitation or replacement required.

Rating levels 1, 2 and 3 are deemed acceptable in terms of level of service.

Three full network surveys have been completed - in 2010/11 (82% of footpaths rated acceptable), 2014/15 (98%) and March 2018 (93%). The next survey is planned for 2020/21.

3.3.8. ONRC Performance Measures

The ONRC performance measures do not currently include quantifiable targets. They use an

“assess, evaluate, challenge” approach to encourage deeper understanding of the measure

outputs. Results can be looked at comparatively with other RCAs, or introspectively using stand-

alone Council expectations.

A summary list of ONRC Performance Measures is provided in Section 9.1.2 (Appendix A).

Since ONRC is at an introductory level, current results need to be viewed with an understanding of

both the source data and the resulting network performance. Once source information is accurate and trusted then outputs will be valid network indicators.

Council will remain involved with the ongoing ONRC developments to ensure any targets set are reasonable, can be collected or collated with economy (of both resource and cost), and provide

realistic and meaningful outputs.

Council may also, over the 2018-21 period, implement additional targets where necessary to inform programming and work achievements.

An initial report showing Council’s results (in comparison with other Canterbury councils, peer

groups and national figures) is provided in Section 9.1.3 (Appendix A).

Growth and Demand Transportation Activity Management Plan 2018-21


4. Growth and Demand

A number of influences shape the community where we live, and in turn, influence the demands

on infrastructural assets. Significant influences include changing land use, changing levels of service and funding (national and local), natural hazards, climate change, changing population and demographics, and procurement of services. These key influences are discussed below.

4.1. Growth

Ashburton District is the third fastest growing district in the Canterbury region and the fifth fastest growing in the country with a population increase of 22% since 2001 (approximately 1.7% per

annum). This period of rapid, but consistent growth follows an earlier period of little or no growth. The recent growth has occurred in both urban and rural areas and is considered to have been

driven primarily by strong growth in the local rural economy.

Economic growth in Ashburton District averaged 2.4% per annum between 2006 and 2016, compared with an average of 1.8% per annum across the national economy.

Expansion of reliable irrigation has underpinned changing land use, mainly to dairying, dairy

support and high value crops. This in turn supports the local service industries and value-added

manufacturing. The district’s transport network is vital to these industries, which deliver

nationally significant products to multiple markets.

Logging and quarrying are undertaken in the western area of the district, and manufacturing and

construction industries are focussed in the townships.

Other factors, including tourism (ski fields and high country attractions), the Ashburton Business

Estate, and post-earthquake population drift from Christchurch may all have contributed to population growth in the District but are thought to be minor influences relative to the strong

rural economy.

Table 4-1 Ashburton District Land Use by Primary Industry - 2006 to 2016

Primary Use Hectares

2006 Hectares

2016 % Change

Dairying 38193 93263 144%

Store Livestock 188134 204900 9%

Stock Fattening 133654 98364 -26%

Arable Fattening 111280 93690 -16%

Vacant or Idle 11210 12209 9%

Forestry 12948 11415 -12%

Specialist Livestock 7746 4640 -40%

Multi-use 1045 826 -21%

Mineral Extraction 301 220 -27%

Market Gardens and Orchards 440 108 -75%



Figure 4-1 Ashburton District Land Use by Primary Industry – change between 2006 and 2016

2006 2016



Vehicle kilometres travelled is a standard roading statistic which combines network length and

traffic volumes to provide a unit comparable across varying districts. District context should be noted when analysis is undertaken as a short urban road with intense city traffic can provide the

same VKT as a long rural road with sporadic vehicles.

Figure 4-2 shows Ashburton District VKT increasing, with the main cause traffic growth, but some

change is also due to better data accuracy and breadth of capture. Due to major traffic data deficiencies at the time, 2011-12 and 2012-13 data is unreliable.

Figure 4-2 Vehicle Kilometres Travelled

ADC has undertaken traffic counts for over 20 years, but classification counts (where vehicle types are differentiated) have only been standard for less than 10 years. The sites in Table 4-2 below

have good count history and are representative of growth across the network.

While the percentage increases are variable (dependent on the route and related industry expansion) they show solid growth, both in average daily traffic (ADT) and HCVs per day.

Figure 4-3 shows the locations of the sites in Table 4-2.

Numbers of vehicles provide reasonably good growth and loading data, but obtaining HCV weight

information would be especially useful when establishing evidential impacts on the pavement. Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) count sites are currently the only practical sources of this information. These sites collect axle weights as traffic passes over them. The closest site to the district was

installed on SH 1 at the north end of the Rakaia River Bridge in 2014. This does not assist with showing historic changes to loading, but will provide good information going forward.



Table 4-2 Traffic Growth 2008 to 2016

Site

ADT HCV per day Growth 2008-2016

2008 2016 2008 2016 ADT HCV per

day

Arundel Rakaia Gorge Road 48980m 633 1016 95 152 61% 60%

Arundel Rakaia Gorge Road 6070m 676 1277 61 196 89% 221%

Ashburton Staveley Road 9500m 518 619 47 96 19% 104%

Christys Road 8600m 521 804 98 178 54% 82%

Isleworth Road 1700m 118 457 18 89 287% 394%

Pendarves Rakaia Road 6250m 261 327 63 74 25% 17%

Rakaia Barrhill Methven Road 13700m 501 469 40 71 -6% 78%

Thompsons Track 17160m 737 1008 74 157 37% 112%

Thompsons Track 38000m 955 1259 80 214 32% 168%

Tinwald Westerfield Mayfield Road 6410m 524 778 68 113 48% 66%

Walnut Avenue 850m 5956 7453 60 289 25% 382%

Winchmore Lauriston Road 8770m 290 364 38 60 26% 58%

Figure 4-3 Traffic Growth Sites



High Productivity Motor Vehicles (HPMV) were first permitted to operate on 1 May 2010. These

vehicles are allowed to operate on RCA-approved routes with weights exceeding the gross mass limit, as long as they comply with NZTA rules involving axle configuration and load distribution.

Regional figures for HPMV permits are shown in Figure 4-4 below.

Figure 4-4 HPMV Permits issued by NZTA for Canterbury/West Coast region

4.2. Demand Drivers

Demand for services provided is generally measured by how much customers use the assets. Increases or decreases in demand can significantly affect what (and how many) assets will be

needed. Key demand drivers for the Ashburton District are;

Population numbers and demographic types

Land use and development patterns (changing rural land use and growing urban developments)

Government policy/regulations

Freight movement trends

As irrigation of productive land increases, freight volumes are predicted to rise approximately 30% over the next 15 – 20 years, and heavy traffic growth is set to continue over the foreseeable future.

Rural land use changes and accelerated farming practices encourage increases in farm machinery

size, along with heavier and more frequent loads in and out of farms and commercial sites.

In Ashburton and Rakaia there are significant blocks of land zoned for redevelopment as light

industrial. It is expected this land will attract or relocate business and thus move or generate new

traffic into these areas.



4.3. Demand Forecasts

Statistics NZ provide three population projections (low, medium, and high growth) that incorporate different fertility, mortality, and migration assumptions for each geographic area.

Figure 4-5 Ashburton District 1996-2043 Population Projections

At the time of release, Statistics NZ considers the medium projections as the most suitable for

assessing future population changes, and Council has adopted this projection for LTP and

Infrastructure Planning. The medium series is consistent with the median projection (50th

percentile) of the National Population Projections: 2016(base)–2068 (released October 2016). Council staff have reviewed a further five indicators (building consents, school enrolments, business unit growth, filled jobs and GDP growth) to ensure that the medium series best reflects

the population changes in the district.

The adopted long-term projection indicates population growth across the district of around 9600

residents (30% growth) between 2013 and 2043, reaching around 41,900 by 2043. This equates to a 24% increase from the 2016 population of 33,700.

Council will monitor population trends closely over the coming years to identify any departure from the adopted projection, especially any rapid slowing of growth, ensuring that planning

decisions are revised in a timely manner.

Table 4-3 and Figure 4-6 below show population forecasts from Statistics NZ data using the

medium projections;

Table 4-3 Township and Rural 2013-2043 Population Projections

Area2013

Census

2018

Forecast

2023

Forecast

2028

Forecast

2033

Forecast

2038

Forecast

2043

Forecast

2016-2043

Forecast

Growth

Ashburton Urban 19200 20280 20880 21420 21900 22350 22830 19%

Methven Urban 1770 1890 1970 2040 2090 2140 2170 23%

Rakaia Urban 1150 1210 1250 1270 1280 1280 1290 12%

Rural 10190 11300 12200 13060 13900 14730 15610 53%

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/NationalPopulationProjections_HOTP2016.aspx



Figure 4-6 Township and Rural 2013-2043 Population Projections

These projections indicate the highest forecast growth from 2013 to 2043 is in the rural population

(53%), generally reflecting rural land use changes. The three main townships also show steady growth forecasts.

4.4. Demand Impacts on Assets

A 2012 Canterbury regional freight impact study predicted Ashburton District heavy vehicle traffic

growth of 96% from 2009 to 2041, with a 128% forecast increase for the Canterbury region as a whole.

Population growth in the urban townships will involve new dwellings and development of land

surrounding existing settlements. This type of urban expansion includes demand for new road,

footpath, kerb and channel and other infrastructure that would be vested with Council to maintain into the future. Ashburton’s growth will be a combination of new dwellings within subdivisions as well as in-filling within established urban areas.

The need to upgrade the network to meet the requirements from changes in land use, especially

conversions from dry-land sheep farming to irrigated dairying, has been recognised as one of the

most significant issues driving future demand on the network. The uncertainty of which areas will

be converted over time, as irrigation coverage spreads, raises issues for forecasting where road infrastructure upgrade may be required ahead of the conversions occurring.

The trend towards people wishing to reside in lifestyle blocks has also changed the expectations

of the travelling public in the rural sector. These rural roads are no longer used only by local

landowners, but now have a much wider range of users who see the smoothness of the road surface and the condition as being increasingly important.



The Ashburton District Development Plan (Boffa Miskell, 2005) considered development growth

scenarios, and impacts on services due to developments for the Ashburton, Rakaia and Methven townships. While the underlying concepts are still valid, the timeframes and proposals are no

longer applicable. The plan was also nullified in part by the 2010/11 Christchurch earthquakes, which delayed, altered or completely halted planned projects.

The Small Villages Development Plan (Boffa Miskell, 2008) considered the other settlements across the District in similar terms to the earlier work. This focussed on Hinds, Mayfield, Mt

Somers and Barrhill as recognised settlements with services and some growth associated with them. In all settlements there are transportation related issues that will follow through into

strategies and work programmes.

4.5. Sustainability

Council has an obligation to monitor and manage its Transportation assets and network to

minimise environmental impacts and comply with current legislative obligations. Delivering a sustainable network where heritage values and visual amenity are preserved or enhanced is a

priority.

At a national level compliance with the following legislation and strategy guides Council activity:

Resource Management Act 1991

Land Transport Management Act 2003

New Zealand GPS on Land Transport 2018

Most important is that Council operates within accepted best practice and maintains and

complies with current Resource Consents pertinent to Transportation operational and

maintenance activities.

4.5.1. Climate Change

The March 2004 amendments to the RMA 1991 require Councils to consider the effects of climate

change. Conclusive evidence both nationally and internationally shows that the climate is changing, and the Council needs to be aware of, and plan for the possible effects. These include;

More frequent and intense storms which could change flood protection design levels,

increase erosion impacts, increase coastal storm effects, and increase run-off from upper

catchments leading to an increase in sediment transport to lower catchment rivers and coastal areas.

More frequent extreme rainfall events in township areas which can impact stormwater drainage capacity requirements for existing and new works to remain efficient and

effective.

Reduced annual mean precipitation and increased drought conditions affecting soil permeability reducing the efficiency of roadside swale drainage.

Increase in mean annual temperature which increases the drying effects on unsealed roads leading to surface material wind erosion.

Sea level rise which will decrease coastal flood protection levels of service and with increased coastal erosion may degrade coastal roads.

Climate changes are expected to create both opportunities and risks for the Canterbury region and Ashburton District in particular. Agricultural and horticultural industries may see benefits in production levels with less frost and increased mean temperatures leading to longer growing



seasons. Warmer winters will decrease ice and snow hazards over the season, but extremes of

drought, floods and storms may occur with greater frequency and severity.

Climate change effects are built into the design of new assets and on replacement of existing

assets, and Council will continue to use the latest guidance for various asset design parameters. Some assets may need additional capacity, however climate change scenarios indicate there is

sufficient time to plan ahead. It is assumed that guidance will continue to be readily available and Council will adapt as new or updated information from credible sources is produced.

Lifecycle Management Plan Transportation Activity Management Plan 2018-21


5. Lifecycle Management

5.1. Strategic Objectives

Council uses a strategy of preventative and reactive maintenance methods to ensure our roads,

footpaths and other transportation assets are kept in good and reliable condition. This helps to support local industries and offers our residents and visitors safe and easy travel around Ashburton District.

Inherent in this strategy (across all assets and services) is the commitment to strategic drivers within the GPS, RLTP, ONRC and LTP (shown in Table 1-1, Section 1.3). For the Capital Works

(Secn. 5.9) specific objectives are stated. For the maintenance and renewal works all strategic objectives are addressed to some extent, especially safety, resilience and accessibility.

5.1.1. Key Points

Council’s decisions to increase, maintain or reduce investment are based on many

elements, including;

o Past activity costs and work requirements

o Performance and service level requirements

o Forecast growth and demand

o Financial restraints (local and national)

Maintaining or increasing investment is Council’s preferred policy. Where significant

decreases in maintenance or renewals are proposed, there can be serious negative consequences to condition and structure. Planned asset deterioration may be a correct

decision based on current business case justifications, but the cost to rebuild or repair in the future is almost always more expensive than maintaining the asset in the present.

Practical minor investment reduction in specific areas, where previous spending levels are now unwarranted, is a valid and necessary element of financial planning.

Council liaises with internal departments (Utilities, Open Spaces, Development, and

Planning) and third-party utility operators (power undergrounding/new streetlights, irrigation schemes, and telecommunications) to ensure projects are not in conflict, and

assets are not prematurely damaged or altered unnecessarily. In some cases projects may be joint contracts or cooperative efforts to optimise cost and reduce network disruption.

All works are programmed with adjacent asset lives and condition taken into account, so combined-asset schemes may be brought forward or delayed dependent on the whole-of-

site status.

ADC is part of the Aoraki Roading Collaboration (ARC) along with the Timaru, Mackenzie

and Waimate District Councils. One of the group’s initiatives was the creation of a pro forma maintenance contract used by all districts. The intent of this was to promote

consistency in specification, standards, schedules, and contract documents as well as

maintenance costs and performance measures. Although each individual council is separately managing their own district there are regular meetings held to discuss, monitor and compare management, performance and outcomes. Each council procured a separate 5-year Network Maintenance Contract, all of which commenced in December



2015. The contract includes both NZTA subsidised roading maintenance works and any

unsubsidised local elements.

The Vehicle Dimension and Mass (VDAM) Rule 2016 took effect on 1 February 2017 raising

the gross mass limit from 44 tonnes to 45-46 tonnes (dependent on axle configuration),

and increasing allowable vehicle widths. It is unknown exactly what impact these changes will have on road condition, but ADC expects some increase in road damage.

By increasing permitted allowable loads through the introduction of HPMVs, it was expected that there would be fewer heavy vehicle trips. If product volumes remained

stagnant this would be true, but general economic growth has resulted in rising numbers of HCVs. The HPMV axle loading configurations are theoretically designed to create no more pavement wear than those allowable in the previous rule, but some practitioners are warning of possible unanticipated issues. ADC will keep abreast of industry research and

recommendations.

Bridge weight restrictions and inadequate seal widths are the main limitations to Council's

intent of providing maximum network access for HPMVs.

The Council has a five-year traffic count programme, the last four years of which are contracted to AgFIrst Consultants. The contract period is from June 2015 to June 2019 and

includes a total of 720 count sites, comprising annual, biennial and five-yearly counts. This data is crucial to ONRC, forward work programming and network analysis. The map below

shows the network’s traffic volumes as at October 2017.

Figure 5-1 Ashburton District Traffic Volumes



5.1.2. Asset Performance and Condition

General network performance and condition can be gauged through the following information;

Customer feedback;

o With such a large network to monitor, road user feedback provides valuable assistance to the roading team reporting road condition and faults. Road user

opinion and input is essential to the customer-centric principle.

o CRM data (see Section 3.3.5) can provide additional history and background information that helps with fault repair decisions.

Maintenance data;

o The maintenance contract provides assistance for performance indicators and

forward planning through maintenance costs and programmed works.

o The associated fields for maintenance costs (cost groups, activities, faults and

failure modes) and work descriptions (asset types and fault descriptions) must be in combinations and categories that are valid for all uses (modelling, monitoring, reporting etc.). This should also be nationally standardised to ensure fair

comparisons.

Quantifiable network performance indicators;

o Footpath and non-earth surface water channel condition rating surveys are targeted for three-year cycles.

o Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) data was collected in summer 2015/16 on 48 % of the rural sealed roads and 28% of the urban sealed roads. The sites were

targeted based on hierarchy to ensure optimised coverage. Note that the network lengths per hierarchy shown in the table below are as at October 2015 – these hierarchy lengths have since been updated. FWD surveys provide pavement layer

depth, composition and strength information and this data is vital for pavement

modelling.

Table 5-1 2015-16 Falling Weight Deflectometer lengths by Hierarchy

FWD Network% FWD of

networkFWD Network

% FWD of

network

Arterial 105343 105343 100% 3481 3691 94%

Principal 125929 145292 87% 18451 27347 67%

Collector 261087 400449 65% 23691 44585 53%

Local 135960 652846 21% 9867 120053 8%

TOTAL 628319 1303930 48% 55490 195676 28%

District Plan

Hierarchy

Rural length (m) Urban length (m)



o Sealed road roughness – measures longitudinal smoothness. The roughness

measure is intended to reflect the general road surface ride – not provide specific fault types or quantities.

o Sealed road condition rating – measures the quantity of NZTA-defined faults within a 10% sample. These include shoving (major pavement material

displacement), rutting (in wheeltracks), flushing (bitumen on the surface) scabbing (chip loss), edge break, potholes, and various types of cracking. The

historical 10% sampling is a very low rate to validly represent whole network condition and ADC has altered this so recent and future results provide better

evidence.

o ONRC performance measures (see Section 9.1.2 Appendix A) – these will provide increasingly useful outputs over the 2018-21 period.

Roughness and rating surveys are undertaken for all sealed roads in the district as per NZTA requirements. The network is split into south and north areas (to spread the survey costs) and

each area is surveyed every other year.

Road condition rating surveys in the last two years have been modified so instead of the historical

standard 10% sampling on a 500m rating section a variety of sampling percentages and section lengths have been used based on the ONRC of the road. This provides better coverage and data confidence.

Table 5-2 2017-2018 Road Condition Rating Visual Inspection lengths

As technology and modelling practices improve and modify to align with changing practical requirements and customer expectations, it is important that ADC ensure their pavement

condition collection methods and outputs remain fit for purpose and value for money. As such, ADC will, in liaison with ARC, investigate whether changes to the current practices are required, mindful of local needs and optimisation of the available funding.

Inspection

Length (m)

Rating

Length (m)

%

coverage

Inspection

Length (m)

Rating

Length (m)

%

coverage

Arterial 100 200 50% 100 100 100%

Primary Collector 100 250 40% 50 100 50%

Secondary Collector 100 300 33% 50 150 33%

Access 50 500 10% 40 200 20%

Low Volume 25 500 5% 20 200 10%

ONRC

Rural Urban



5.1.3. Historical Data

Figures 5-2 and 5-3 below shows the numbers of potholes repaired and the amount (m2) of digout

repairs undertaken under the current network maintenance contract (C640). The variation over this period is caused by normal fluctuations in fault formation, extreme events, work restrictions and prioritisations.

Figure 5-2 Number of Potholes Repaired – December 2015-November 2017

Figure 5-3 Digout Repairs in square metres – December 2015-November 2017

As at November 2017 there are over 12,816m2 of programmed digouts with an estimated cost of more than $678,000.



Figure 5-4 below shows the monthly costs for the current network maintenance contract (C640).

The variation over this period is caused by seasonal faults, work restrictions, and high-cost emergency events.

Figure 5-4 Maintenance Costs per km – December 2015-November 2017

Figure 5-5 below shows the resurfacing and rehabilitation total financial year cost per kilometre.

Figure 5-5 Renewal Costs per km – 2010-2017



5.1.4. 2018-21 Maintenance, Operations and Renewals NZTA Funding Request

Table 5-3 below shows a summary of the NZTA funding request submitted in December 2017 with comparisons of initial and actual 2015-18 amounts.

Table 5-3 2018-21 NZTA Funding Request

Code Description

111 Sealed Pavement Maintenance $3,300,000 $3,113,871 $186,129 6% $2,850,000 $450,000 14%Pavement failures have increased due to traffic growth and

deferred renewals.

112 Unsealed Pavement Maintenance $1,650,000 $1,469,374 $180,626 11% $1,725,000 -$75,000 -5% Request in line with actual 2016-17 expenditure.

113 Routine Drainage Maintenance $570,000 $533,493 $36,507 6% $656,668 -$86,668 -15%

114 Structures Maintenance $237,000 $221,450 $15,550 7% $150,653 $86,347 36% Request in line with actual 2015-17 expenditure.

121 Environmental Maintenance $1,575,000 $1,491,770 $83,230 5% $1,511,101 $63,899 4%

122 Traffic Services Maintenance $2,100,000 $2,385,405 -$285,405 -14% $2,133,600 -$33,600 -2%

123 Operational Traffic Management $45,000 $59,827 -$14,827 -33% $126,078 -$81,078 -180% Request in line with actual 2015-17 expenditure.

124 Cycle Path Maintenance $15,000 $8,303 $6,697 45% $17,100 -$2,100 -14%

131 Level Crossing Warning Devices $75,000 $194,720 -$119,720 -160% $180,000 -$105,000 -140% Request aligns with 2018-21 Kiwirail programme.

140 Minor Events $270,000 $0 $270,000 100% $0 $270,000 100% Work category not available in 2015-18.

151 Network and Asset Management $4,080,000 $2,617,324 $1,462,676 36% $2,299,145 $1,780,855 44%

Increase in pavement modelling, forward works

programming, ONRC requirements and inter-district

collaboration.

$13,917,000 $12,095,537 $1,821,463 13% $11,649,345 $2,267,655 16%

211 Unsealed Road Metalling $2,700,000 $2,669,165 $30,835 1% $3,653,212 -$953,212 -35% Request in line with actual 2016-17 expenditure.

212 Sealed Road Resurfacing $9,900,000 $6,970,883 $2,929,117 30% $10,526,369 -$626,369 -6%Contract costs have steadily declined since 2014, but lengths

are planned to be increased.

213 Drainage Renewals $1,800,000 $1,582,981 $217,019 12% $1,703,241 $96,759 5% Accelerate renewal of deep dish channels.

214 Sealed Road Pavement Rehabilitation $7,600,000 $5,501,453 $2,098,547 28% $7,023,193 $576,807 8%Pavement analysis shows increase required. $1M enhanced

funding in 2018-19 for Thompsons Track.

215 Structures Component Replacements $258,000 $49,097 $208,903 81% $144,363 $113,637 44%Required increase anticipated due to aging assets and RDR

inclusion.

221 Environmental Renewals $15,000 $5,500 $9,500 63% $16,500 -$1,500 -10% Stock effluent disposal facility upgrade anticipated.

222 Traffic Services Renewals $180,000 $225,384 -$45,384 -25% $358,566 -$178,566 -99% Request in line with actual 2015-17 expenditure.

$22,453,000 $17,004,463 $5,448,537 24% $23,425,444 -$972,444 -4%

$36,370,000 $29,100,000 $7,270,000 20% $35,074,789 $1,295,211 4%

Comments

Total

% change

"B" to "A"

Actual 2015-17 +

Requested 2017-18

"B"

NZTA Work Category Final Bid

2018/21

"A"

Final Bid

2015/18

"C"

$ change

"B" to "A"

Subtotal - Maintenance & Operations

Subtotal - Renewals

$ change

"C" to "A"

% change

"C" to "A"



5.2. Pavement and Surfacing – Sealed Roads

5.2.1. Maintenance

The current maintenance methodology is predominantly reactive. The network maintenance contract provides maintenance levels and response times for various surface faults based on the

ONRC and the fault type.

To better ascertain the current state of the network and consolidate future programming Council

will complete a full network drive-over logging fault types, quantities and locations.

Changes are expected to maintenance levels within the district due to ONRC as a result of the

customer-focus intent rather than the traditional best for asset approach. Low volume roads are likely to experience a decrease in works undertaken and high volume roads an increase.

5.2.2. Key Points

Sealed road maintenance and renewals are, from a customer perspective, the minimum

works expected for Council roading services. They are perceived as business as usual items in funding submissions but nationally there can be large differences in service levels and work content. Council must demonstrate to customers, funding partners and

stakeholders that they are committed to implementing realistic, long-term roading solutions that provide value for money. Innovation is sought where practical and

collaboration with neighbouring RCAs provides useful neutral feedback and learnings.

A large proportion of the District’s urban and rural road network has evolved from tracks

on the existing land materials. Over time these tracks of minimal structure and foundation

have been improved primarily through widening and overlay to provide the current

network layout and pavement structures. There are legacy issues of varying construction

techniques and quality that are consistently being exposed as we perform maintenance repairs. The pavement structure varies but often comprises minimal basecourse with a

seal surface well short of full pavement construction depths currently employed in road construction within New Zealand.

Heavy commercial vehicles are now traversing sections of the network previously carrying very low traffic volumes. VKT has grown 25% across rural sealed roads since 2010.

Council maintains good access across the District to high quality metalcourse materials

sourced from its own pits and local rivers for use in roading construction. Gravel pit designation and suitability needs to be well-documented and regularly updated.

With reduced renewal lengths over the last decade not keeping up with damage caused by increased traffic volumes (for ADC more specifically HCVs) Council is currently in effect attempting to arrive at, rather than maintain optimal road condition. Council intends to

increase renewal quantities to bridge the gap and reach a more acceptable correlation between road condition and repair timing, frequency and extent.

ONRC will affect the prioritisation of roads for subsidised renewal work. The shift from asset to customer focus will inevitably mean that any movement beyond the stated levels of service for each classification requires unsubsidised funding sources. Unsubsidised

roading projects have been carried out over the last few years but this is not assured to continue as it depends on annual council funding decisions



The District Plan requires accessways on sealed rural roads to also be sealed. This reduces

damage to seal edges at accessways and also minimises distribution of loose metal onto the roadway. To facilitate a reasonable implementation rate, any unsealed accesses are

sealed either;

o as part of rehabilitation works - at Council’s cost;

o as part of reseal works - costs shared between Council and the owner;

o or where new construction is taking place on the relevant property (identified

through building consents) - at the owner’s cost

5.2.3. Renewals Plan

5.2.3.1. Network Renewals

Resurfacings and rehabilitations are undertaken through tendered contracts to ensure competitive pricing thus efficient funding spend. Construction periods aim to take advantage of

optimum construction weather, generally from October to March.

Surface treatments are chipseal, with minor areas of AC in urban or high stress areas. Average achieved life of sealed surfaces is 12 years.

Council are intending to increase renewals in the 2018-21 period (including enhanced funding projects) to address the increasing pavement degradation (see Section 5.1.3).

Council is committed to optimised investment decision-making and producing efficient and effective programmes of works. Accurate deterioration modelling is required to achieve these aims and ADC currently utilises two modelling programmes;

dTIMs (for resurfacing programming) – uses condition rating and roughness data, maintenance cost history, budget parameters and pavement strength information (see

https://www.deighton.com/)

Structural Treatment Lengths (STL) (for rehabilitation programming) – created by

GeoSolve utilising Regional Precedent Performance (RPP), uses Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) data, condition rating and roughness data (see

http://www.pavementanalysis.com/)

Both these models still require process and parameter checks and refinements to ensure they are

providing locally relevant and robust outputs.

The initial programme derived from these processes is the first step to creating and updating a long-term Forward Works Programme (FWP). Field verification of the site list is undertaken, and

other factors such as; adjacent works (utilities, corridor operators) off-road projects (development projects, subdivisions) and community concerns (schools, aged care sites, crash rates) all have

bearings on final decisions. ADC plans to have a three-year FWP with updates made each year to account for changes to condition or priorities.

https://www.deighton.com/

http://www.pavementanalysis.com/



The latest dTIMs analysis (June 2017) indicates an average of 78.6km of resurfacing and 0.17km of

AC reconstruction is required between 2017/18 and 2036/37 (20 years).

Figure 5-6 dTIMS Resurfacing Analysis

Sealed pavement rehabilitation according to STL analysis (August 2017) should be 13.0km per

year on average over the next 24years.

Figure 5-7 STL Pavement Rehabilitation Analysis

These analyses thus recommend total surface renewals of approximately 91.8km annually for the

1507km sealed network (with a 16-17 year overall seal life).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

20

17

/18

20

18

/19

20

19

/20

20

20

/21

20

21

/22

20

22

/23

20

23

/24

20

24

/25

20

25

/26

20

26

/27

20

27

/28

20

28

/29

20

29

/30

20

30

/31

20

31

/32

20

32

/33

20

33

/34

20

34

/35

20

35

/36

20

36

/37

km

Financial Year

dTIMS Resurfacing Analysis - Forecast Lengths

Average

78.6km



Figure 5-8 below shows the pavement rehabilitation costs per kilometre and total kilometres

constructed for the 2007-2017 seasons. Over the ten year period both are increasing. Note that in 2009-10 only an urban AC project was completed thus the high cost/km but short length.

Figure 5-8 Pavement Rehabilitations Cost and Lengths 2007-2017

Figure 5-9 below shows the pavement resurfacing costs per kilometre and total kilometres sealed

for the 2007-2017 seasons. Over the ten year period the lengths have decreased while the costs have increased.

Figure 5-9 Pavement Surfacing Cost and Lengths 2007-2017

It’s clear that resurfacing, while steadily increasing in length since 2013-14, remains short of the recommended 78km (the proposed 2017-18 resurfacing length is 71km). Rehabilitation lengths are

also trending up but there is more variability year on year due to eligibility and necessity. 2016-17 included 8km of unsubsidised rehabilitation.



5.2.3.2. Seal Widening

Many core haulage roads are not wide enough for HCVs to pass other vehicles without either or

both encroaching on or past the edge of seal. This causes unnecessary road and berm damage and reduces safety.

Road user safety is reduced where one or both vehicles move off the sealed road surface. This

occurs where the road width will not accommodate both vehicles, or where drivers do not feel

there is enough room to pass safely without pulling off the road.

An optimal sealed road width for safe and comfortable two-way vehicle passage is 7m. “RTS 16 Guide to heavy vehicle management” recommends minimum 3.5m lane widths on two-lane two-way roads. The following table shows current width distribution on rural sealed roads;

Table 5-4 Rural Sealed “Narrow” Roads by ONRC

Rural Sealed Roads

ONRC Total (km) < 7m wide

(km) < 7m wide

(%)

Arterial 0 0 0%

Primary Collector 120 40 34%

Secondary Collector 436 416 95%

Access 580 567 98%

Low Volume 174 154 88%

Total 1309 1177 90%

NZTA undertook a Road Infrastructure Safety Assessment (RISA) for Ashburton district in January

2012. The first area for improvement noted in the report was;

“No roads were observed to have sealed shoulders. Research shows that crash reduction can be achieved with the provision of edgelines and shoulders.”

This corresponded to Recommendation 1:

“Consider the provision of edgelines and shoulders on higher volume roads through reviewing

road cross sections, taking account of the combination of lane and shoulder widths.”

While this recommendation was addressed to some extent in general roading management policy, the 2012-15 period did not achieve the desired level of improvement. Council propose to increase

seal widening in the 2018-21 period. Sites will be prioritised based on analysis of the HCV traffic

volume percentage, historical maintenance costs (edgebreak and berm repairs), crash data and road user feedback, and will only include Primary Collector and Secondary Collector roads. Where

possible construction will be included in renewal programmes.



5.3. Pavement and Surfacing – Unsealed Roads

5.3.1. Maintenance

Maintenance of unsealed roads is largely confined to grading and metalling. The success of the standard unsealed road maintenance of metalling and grading is dependent on;

the existing road’s condition, material and geometry

the additional material’s composition, strength and durability

operator skill and judgment

weather conditions

traffic volumes and classification

location of suitable aggregate relating to cartage distance and costs

Some components can be controlled by Council to varying extents, and where this is the case

management and planning processes are monitored to ensure best practice is achieved.

The dynamic nature of unsealed roads drives a more reactive than proactive approach to maintenance, although there are long-term trends that assist annual programmes.

Grading frequencies are defined per road section and are based on traffic use and condition

history. They are reviewed annually using performance results, road user and grading operator feedback.

5.3.2. Key Points

Unsealed roads make up 43% of the network length but only 7% of the vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT), consequently requiring cost-effective and innovative practices. Unsealed

roads need to be fit for their customer requirements but this must be balanced with

acknowledgement of their low user rates.

The prevalent summer northwest wind dries the surface and erodes the lighter particles of

fine aggregate from the surface, reducing its binding properties. Trafficking of the remaining loose surface metal creates further grinding effects on the underlying surface and the deterioration process is then intensified by further wind effects.

To ascertain actual amounts and rates of metal loss, and identify any seasonal variance,

Council intend to install a number of monitoring sites across the district’s unsealed roads. Changes in metal depth and road shape will be measured at monthly intervals, and sites chosen shall be representative of the differing road usage and environmental conditions. This data will be used for forward planning and to identify problem areas, materials or

methodologies.

Many unsealed roads have poor shape and crossfall, and are lower than the surrounding berms and land, thus turning into ad hoc drains in large flood or rain events. Roads

running east-west are particularly vulnerable owing to the general flow pattern across the district. This problem can really only be remedied by large-scale earthworks, which for

most of Council’s unsealed roads is an uneconomic proposition. Works are undertaken where traffic volumes warrant or where mitigation of the resulting flood damage is essential.

At intersections and bridge approaches, short sections of unsealed road (generally no more than 100m) are sealed for safety reasons. These reasons include providing safe



braking and acceleration lengths, reduced maintenance of corrugations on unsealed

roads and minimising distribution of loose metal onto the adjacent sealed areas. These sections are commonly referred to as sealbacks.


Council has undertaken specific unsealed road rehabilitations since 2004 at various sites. Overall

the treatments have not been cost-effective, but at well-trafficked locations where existing maintenance costs are high (mainly via grading and metalling) the rehabilitations have been both economically and structurally successful. Therefore future unsealed rehabilitations will be undertaken on a site-specific basis, and not at the lengths per year completed previously. Council

is aware however that alternative long-term remedies continue to be sought by contractors and

are always ready to utilise practices that achieve good results at reasonable cost.

Unsealed road rehabilitations carried out between 2011 and 2014 cost on average $34,000 per

kilometre. Using current grading and metalling rates, a road with 12 grades per year (indicating

higher traffic volumes) will cost $38,000 per kilometre in basic maintenance over the expected 10-year life span of the rehabilitation. The cost drops to $20,000 per kilometre if roads with lesser grading frequencies are included.

5.4. Bridges

5.4.1. Maintenance

All bridges are currently routinely visually inspected under the current maintenance contract. As a result of these inspections, minor maintenance works are carried out, such as painting, guardrail

replacement, approach road reinstatement or erosion control to protect the road and abutments.

Council’s bridge consultants (Opus International Consultants) carry out structural inspections of ADC bridges with specialised engineers on a 3-year cycle. This inspection ensures they are safe to

use, allows Council to compile a program of required maintenance (or renewals), and also identifies or updates weight and/or speed restrictions where required.

Bridges have long useful lives and ongoing attention to routine maintenance will ensure these are

fully realised. Council uses posted weight limits with relevant signage to protect vulnerable structures. Regular re-analysis of bridge strengths are completed to ensure appropriate safe

loadings can be sustained. Currently Council has two posted weight-restricted bridges, and 31 (25

of which are RDR bridges) with 50MAX restrictions as a precaution.

The maintenance contractor is required to carry out additional patrols whenever adverse weather

is likely to affect the integrity of the bridge assets. During these patrols they are required to carry

out work to protect and clear the structures if this can be done safely. Where safety is

compromised, monitoring is required until conditions allow work to be completed.

5.4.2. Key Points

50Max and HPMV vehicles are excluded from specific bridges identified by the Council’s

bridging consultant, but no network wide assessment has been completed for the impact



of these loadings over time on acceptable bridges. The most vulnerable structures are the

bridges that are included in the renewals programmes.

There are a number of bridges in remote locations servicing limited users. Council will be

discussing (site by site) the possibility of transferring ownership of these bridges to the

adjacent landowner.


Renewal recommendations are included in the three-year inspections and ADC use these to inform their programming. General replacement strategy is driven by condition surveys and advised loading restrictions.

ADC have recognised that their timber bridges are all nearing the end of their useful lives and have

adopted a bridge replacement/renewal strategy targeted at reducing the number of timber bridges on the ADC network. Priorities and timeframes are guided by the bridge consultant

recommendations.

Rangitata Diversion Race bridges cannot currently carry HPMVs, nor in some cases the VDAM 2016

capacity. A prioritised renewal plan is included in Section 5.9.2.

The remaining lives for the bridge stock is shown in Figure 2.9 Section 2.5.4.3.

5.5. Drainage

5.5.1. Maintenance

Drainage channels, culverts and urban stormwater structures are inspected under a routine maintenance regime by the maintenance contractor. This includes all side drains and swales in

rural areas, and kerb and channel and sumps in urban areas. The frequency and extent of

repair/maintenance is specified within the contract.

Minor repairs are carried out under the maintenance contract but if the contractor identifies critical deterioration of any asset during these inspections, this is brought to the attention of the

roading team for further investigation, and possible inclusion in renewal programmes.

Where a storm event causes large amounts of damage to the drainage assets and the road can’t

be opened, the site is made safe and the scale and cost of the remedial works are documented.

Council staff then prepare and submit an application to NZTA for Emergency Works funding if it complies with current work category parameters.

5.5.2. Key Points

Existing road drainage systems in place are in need of improvement works and in some

locations across the district there is no formal road drainage. The current methods for draining water are in some cases no longer efficient and these require attention to prolong

pavement life and prevent unnecessary flooding. Drainage capacity (including culverts

crossing the road) will be vulnerable to higher intensity rainfall events. See Section 2.5.4.4 for flood mitigation via races.



The latest Falling Weight Deflectometer data provides indicative priorities for drainage

works, by identifying pavement that is either already damaged or susceptible to future water damage.

Many drainage assets need condition, location, dimension and material data validated. There are many rural culverts (most that were part of stock water schemes now superseded or unused) that have been abandoned or buried but RAMM data has not been kept up to date with these changes.

In the main townships of Ashburton, Methven and Rakaia there are deep dish concrete

channels that function as both stormwater and race water conduits. These were initially installed as an expedient solution to the difficulty of moving rain event water volumes along very flat topography without creating overflows. They are now regarded as hazards to pedestrians and vehicles due to their depth, and Council undertakes programmed

replacement of these channels, with priority on locations with more vulnerable road users such as schools and shopping areas.


A long-term programme of kerb and channel upgrades will be developed to reflect RAMM recorded condition, and then prioritisation based on ONRC and related activities or projects, mindful of

funding limitations.

Culverts and drains/swales are renewed when identified as under capacity, beyond standard

repair or requiring upgrading in relation to adjacent projects. These works are generally undertaken in the maintenance contract but may also be included in rehabilitation contracts.

5.6. Footpaths and Cycleways

5.6.1. Maintenance

Maintenance work is reactive (based on CRMs, Council instructions and maintenance contractor inspections) but repairs and faults are monitored to ensure renewals are undertaken where

maintenance levels become uneconomic.

5.6.2. Key Points

From the current condition information only a very small proportion of footpaths are in poor or very poor condition (2%) using the standard rating criteria (see Section 3.3.7).

Maintaining smooth and even paths is critical to delivering on Council’s Walking and

Cycling Strategy. Providing good footpaths supports demographic change towards an aging population.

Council policy dictates that all new or renewed footpaths are constructed with asphaltic concrete (AC). There are exceptions where the footpath is also a commercial vehicle

crossing and requires a more robust construction material - generally reinforced concrete.

Due to the light traffic load on footpaths and cycleways (in comparison to roads) the

critical component of these assets is the surfacing rather than the underlying aggregate layers. The surfacing should provide appropriate skid resistance and smooth travel for

pedestrians and cyclists.



Footpath condition data is updated from condition surveys and also as changes are

identified from the footpath resurfacing contract, vested assets or issues identified through the maintenance contract and CRM system.


Footpath renewals and construction are carried out through tendered competitive contracts

ensuring best use of funding. Council is now using an excavate and resurface inlay approach to footpath resurfacing that replaces existing chipseal with AC while ensuring the thickness of the AC does not cause issues at the kerb or boundary side.

Resurfacing activity is distributed around the townships of the district and prioritised using the condition rating information stored in RAMM along with Council staff input. Condition rating

surveys will follow a 3 year cycle – the last was undertaken in March 2018.

The renewal programme includes replacing existing full width surfaced footpaths with a

combination of AC (1.5m wide surfaced path) and grass (remainder). This approach allows a more cost-effective transition from chipseal to the more expensive AC, while minimising future footpath

surface maintenance and increasing urban stormwater catchments. The berm also acts as an easily renewed corridor for utility works.

A long-term programme of footpath renewals will be developed to reflect RAMM recorded condition, and then prioritised within funding limitations.

5.6.4. New Footpaths

The bulk of new footpaths are constructed through third party works (new subdivisions etc.) and

then vested to council. Council-led new installations are based on increased pedestrian

requirements. These increases result from increased residential, retail and commercial

developments, and also through expanded community activities. Works are included in the

renewal contracts.

5.6.5. Funding Changes

The Draft GPS 2018 provides for subsidised funding for maintenance, renewal and capital footpath works. This is a change to prior years where footpaths were wholly funded by local contributions.

To fund unsubsidised footpath work, Council recover targeted rates. There are four separate

footpath rating areas; Ashburton (including Tinwald), Rakaia, Methven and Rural (all remaining sites). Council have decided to reduce these rates to reflect the anticipated subsidised portion of

the programme.

5.7. Traffic Services

5.7.1. Maintenance

General maintenance practice for signs, markings and railings is reactive. Where changes to standards are enacted these will generally be undertaken as old stock reach the end of their useful

life, unless specific legislative or safety requirements mandate immediate replacement.



Roadmarkings have short lives, less than one year, and are not considered for renewal but are

dealt with on an annual replacement basis through the roadmarking contract.

5.7.2. Key Points

Traffic services covers a wide area of assets (signs, markings, railings and traffic signals) with varying life cycles.

The warranted life for reflectorized materials on signs is generally 10 years. Sign reflectivity and therefore the visibility of the sign at night, drops rapidly as the surface material deteriorates.

Sign upgrades have often been performed in blocks so a large number of signs of a similar type, or at a similar location, may reach the end of life together.

Traffic signals are overseen via the Christchurch Transport Operations Centre (CTOC), which monitors and manages all the signalised intersections in the Canterbury region.

Technical consultation for traffic signal component replacements should be considered to ensure life cycle and cost optimisation is achieved.


The traffic services activity budget for renewals focuses primarily on the required replacement of

signs, sight rails, and traffic signals based on serviceable condition assessments carried out

through the maintenance contract.

The large numbers of signs on the ADC network mean that an active renewal programme may stretch existing budgets and efforts to extend the useful lives of signs will be required. A programme of sign renewals over the next 10 years will be developed to reflect RAMM recorded

condition, and then prioritisation within funding limitations. Sign replacement is principally

carried out through our maintenance contract.

5.8. Streetlights

5.8.1. Maintenance

Council’s Streetlighting Maintenance and Operations contractor Electricity Ashburton (EA) manage these assets on a reactive basis. Their regular inspections and customer CRM inputs

provide monthly repair and replacement programmes.

5.8.2. Key Points

Council is undertaking a lamp replacement programme in 2017/18 to take advantage of NZTA’s temporary FAR increase for installation of Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamps. LEDs

have up to five times the useful life, and use approximately 50% of the energy as the conventional high pressure sodium (HPS) lamps for the same light output.

New technology will be investigated and applied if appropriate and value for money. This

includes options for variable light intensity, smart metering and alternative energy supply.




As at 30 June 2017 20% of Council’s streetlights remain on utility (mostly power) poles.

Council co-ordinates the programme of streetlight renewal and upgrades with EA’s undergrounding of overhead power lines within urban areas, and Council’s footpath renewals.

Where changes in height, angle, location, light spread and intensity etc. are required to comply

with Council policy, these will be co-ordinated with the renewals programme, unless safety

concerns require immediate attention.



5.9. Capital Works

5.9.1. Ashburton River Second Bridge

Identification

State Highway 1 (SH 1) through Ashburton is the main through-route for regional and

South Island vehicle movements, and is the main route for HPMVs. Information from

neighbouring districts indicates that traffic flows and travel decisions in those areas are

influenced by the constraint of vehicle movements in Ashburton.

These constraints are caused by the combination of;

o One two-lane bridge over the Ashburton River (60km+ alternative route) creating a pinch point

o SH 1 average annual daily traffic (AADT) of 23000 vehicles

o Sizable connecting road traffic volumes

o Tinwald corridor access issues and commuter traffic

o South Island Main Trunk Railway crossing 500m north of the river

o Oversize and slow agricultural machinery making local journeys

o Heavy commercial vehicles making local and through journeys

A second crossing over the Ashburton River in Ashburton was proposed prior to the

Ashburton Transportation Study in 2006, which confirmed the necessity of the bridge

with a strong emphasis on local traffic causation and benefits. A number plate survey was

completed in August 2012 which confirmed that local traffic makes up the bulk of the

bridge traffic. With the significant regional growth over the last ten years ADC believe that

“through traffic” has increased, a view supported by anecdotal evidence from adjacent

districts.

The impact of removing the large proportion of local traffic from this pinch point will

alleviate much of the Ashburton SH 1 traffic issues. ADC therefore contend that while the

second bridge is a council project with local benefits, it will provide a solution to some of

the goals NZTA have identified within their Long Term Strategic View on the Christchurch

to Dunedin corridor. In ADC’s view this provides strong support for NZTA to increase their

funding proportion for this project well beyond the normal 51%.

At the time of writing, the Council have decided to pursue a funding proposal with 20%

local contribution. The remaining portion would be sourced via both the NZTA subsidy

and the recently implemented Provincial Growth Fund (PGF).

The bridge proposal will include significant changes to the surrounding road network to

facilitate traffic flows onto and off the bridge and link into the existing road networks of

Ashburton and Tinwald townships. This will include establishing new road corridors and

constructing new roading infrastructure. New intersections where the road links join the

existing network will also impact operations of the surrounding approach and link roads.

The proposal as currently developed includes a resurfacing requirement for a section of

Chalmers Avenue soon after the new bridge is in place.



A Notice of Requirement (NOR) for land designation was confirmed by Council on 22 May

2014 to protect the bridge location and associated road corridor on both sides of the

river. Council has been purchasing properties which sit within the area that has been

designated for the new route.

The Draft June 2018 Canterbury Regional Land Transport Plan currently includes this

project as a Priority 3, with evaluation criteria of high regional priority and medium

urgency.

In the current TIO activity, the Ashburton Second Bridge construction phase (including

investigations and design) is set to start in 2020-21 and be complete by 2025-26. ADC

expects the project to be connected with the NZTA Tinwald SH 1 Corridor Improvements.

Economic growth and productivity, travel time reliability, network resilience and

improved road safety are the key drivers for both the Second Bridge and the Tinwald

Corridor projects.

The overall cost of the bridge is currently budgeted at $30 million.

Supporting data

The SH 1 traffic through Ashburton has grown 20% since 2005.

Additional delays on the route (eg. roadworks or crashes) or heavy flow periods (peak

hours and public holidays) severely affect associated traffic, and tailbacks can reach

beyond the town limits with resulting platoons often remaining through to Timaru or

Christchurch.

Reports and documents providing details of previous investigations and studies are

available on the ADC website at this link http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/our-

services/transport/Pages/ashburton-second-urban-bridge.aspx.

Figure 5-10 shows the traffic volumes of connecting roads and locations of the noted

projects.

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/our-services/transport/Pages/ashburton-second-urban-bridge.aspx

http://www.ashburtondc.govt.nz/our-services/transport/Pages/ashburton-second-urban-bridge.aspx



Figure 5-10 Ashburton State Highway 1 Project Sites and ADT Connections

Policy links

This project (and the others related as noted above) is of such impact and importance

that all policy statements are relevant;

GPS: Access, Safety, Value for money

ONRC: Travel Time Reliability, Resilience, Accessibility, Safety, Amenity, Cost Efficiency

RLTP: Accessibility, Travel Time Reliability, Resilience, Safety, Funding and affordability

ADC-LTP: A prosperous economy based on innovation and opportunity, Safer Journeys,

Best use of funding

Options to achieve outcome

Land purchase and designation is substantially complete, so the next stages include;

o Resource consent acquisition

o Business Case Assessment for design and construction phases

o Design and construction contract preparation

o Construction and commissioning



Funding and timeframe confirmation are required for these stages to begin, and as noted

ADC will promote an earlier approval and connectivity with the related projects.

Benefits of achieving outcome

All policy drivers noted above will be beneficially addressed with a second bridge.

Especially improved will be network resilience, travel time reliability and economic

growth – with regional as well as district effect.

If the NZTA Tinwald SH 1 Corridor Improvements are also delivered the results will be

even better, as the second bridge is only one factor within the entire Ashburton SH 1

route issue.

Consequences of doing nothing

Traffic volumes are only going to increase over time, making all the existing issues worse,

with most to levels unacceptable to road users, road controlling authorities and other

affected parties.

Travel times would become unreliable, road user frustration would increase thus

decreasing safety, and detrimental economic impacts would have both district and

regional repercussions. Resilience levels would remain as current, and the resulting

impact of emergency events (including natural disasters and crashes) involving ever-

increasing traffic volumes detouring over 60km would be heightened.

Doing nothing with this issue is not an option. There is no question it should proceed, but

when, in connection with which NZTA projects and under what funding regime are all

questions to be answered.



5.9.2. Rangitata Diversion Race Bridge Upgrades

Identification

From a whole network perspective Council is committed to network resilience, and

enabling unimpeded economic activity. Both of these goals include the vital component

of heavy commercial vehicle (HCV) movements within and through the District.

Figure 5-11 below shows the entire Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR), with RDR road

bridges as black dots.

Figure 5-11 Rangitata Diversion Race

Currently the ADC RDR bridges cannot carry HPMVs and in some cases will be unable to

safely allow VDAM 2016 weights.

Through road reference groups and heavy haulage feedback it has been identified that

weight restrictions on the RDR bridges are severely impeding normal business practices

for hauliers and their clients (farms, quarries and forests) in the northwest area of the

district (specifically above the RDR).

For those working in this area (and in the Selwyn District north of the Rakaia Gorge), the

favoured route to Timaru is via Arundel Rakaia Gorge Road, rather than travelling the

much longer and busier route on the State Highways.



Arundel Rakaia Gorge Road is also a core detour route for State Highway traffic when the

SH 1 Rakaia River Bridge is closed, as the Rakaia Gorge bridges on SH 77 are the only

alternative route across the river. Network resilience is critical to both district and State

Highway traffic, and especially freight.

There is one RDR bridge on SH 77 which was upgraded in 2016 to full HPMV loading

capacity (0.90HN). This allows access to local roads north of RDR bridge no. 234, but with

longer journeys.

For areas west of the RDR and south of RDR bridge no.234 the restrictions effectively

create an HPMV-inaccessible “island”. This area includes the Mt Somers township, a

quarry and access to high country stations.

Supporting data

There are 25 RDR bridges of varying sizes which were built prior to 1945. Currently they

are all limited to Class 1 HCVs at the recommendation of Council’s bridge consultant. All

but two have initial loading evaluations below 100% of Class 1, varying between 40-80%.

Many hauliers have HPMVs and 50MAX trucks in their fleets which are unable to cross

these structures. The percentage of HCV fleets that are HPMVs is steadily increasing, and

it is becoming a standard expectation that most if not all heavy haulage routes will be

open to these trucks.

When a detour is in place sending State Highway traffic to the Rakaia Gorge bridges, SH

77 via Methven can be used as the route back on to SH 1, but this road can also be closed

as was the case in the July 2017 flood event, stopping HPMVs from traversing the region.

One local haulier has supplied information showing that 116 HCV trips per year would be

saved on only three individual truck routes if the RDR bridges were upgraded to allow

HPMVs. Council is currently sourcing further haulage data from the main operators in this

area to provide further economic backing to the upgrade proposal.

Policy links

GPS: Access, Safety

ONRC: Resilience, Amenity, Accessibility, Travel Time Reliability

RLTP: Accessibility, Travel Time Reliability, Resilience, Safety

ADC-LTP: A prosperous economy based on innovation and opportunity, Safer Journeys

Options to achieve outcome

Undertake analysis of the bridge consultant’s RDR bridges report to ascertain the extent

of works required to enable HPMV access.

Upgrade bridges as required over an optimal period relating to funding availability.

Programming to be targeted to prioritised routes/ bridge structural integrity.

Council propose to submit an activity for RDR bridge upgrades in the 2018-21 plan.

Figure 5-12 below shows the RDR bridge replacement priorities along with the ONRC.



Figure 5-12 Rangitata Diversion Race Bridges Replacement Priority and ONRC

Prioritisation is based on ONRC and route criticality;

o Priority 1 - Arundel Rakaia Gorge Road x 3

o Priority 2 - Tramway Rd, Forks Road, Pudding Hill Road and Mount Hutt

Station Road

o Priority 3 - Ashburton Staveley Road, Ashburton River Road, Dip Road,

Barkers Rd, Rakaia River Road

o Priority 4 – remainder (13)

Local hauliers are providing feedback to ensure that the ONRC matches their actual core

HCV routes. The Priority 4 bridges will in all probability not be upgraded within this

scheme as the economic advantage on those lesser roads is unlikely to meet BCA

minimums. Council currently intend one Priority 1 bridge to be replaced each year of the

2018-21 period.

An alternative option to increasing allowable loading is to restrict the bridges to one-lane

thus reducing required structural capacity. This has been investigated and Council do not

intend to pursue this option. To meet safety parameters for one lane bridges would

require substantial asset additions including guardrail installation, signage and markings.

A greater concern with this option is the resulting reduced road user safety. Introducing



potential stop/start pinch points on otherwise openly flowing rural roads is not a

responsible action where there is a viable alternative.

Benefits of achieving outcome

Increases network resilience (district and region).

Removes restrictions on hauliers’ business practices.

Possible reduction of HCV journeys if larger loads are allowed.

Bridge aging issues pre-empted.

Consequences of doing nothing

Risking complete halt of regional HPMV traffic in the event of large route closures.

Increasing customer dissatisfaction.

Impeding economic development of large and financially lucrative area of the district.

Increasing risk of further restrictions or structural compromise from aging bridge

degradation.



5.9.3. Low Cost / Low Risk Improvements

A number of identified schemes within the district are carried out annually to maintain the existing

levels of service, hit key performance measures and/or improve safety where this has been identified as an issue through the SMS process.

Council each year prioritises these sites as Low Cost / Low Risk Improvement Projects (formerly

known as Minor Improvements).

As part of the NZTA subsidised roading programme ADC receive between 4 – 8% of the total programme for Low Cost / Low Risk Improvement funding. This allows for discretionary safety improvements and other minor capital works to be implemented by Council up to $1,000,000 in value per project.

The list of works is updated in alignment with the three-year funding and budget periods, to re-

prioritise works not yet undertaken, and add any newly identified projects. The latest version can be found attached to the Low Cost / Low Risk Improvements 2018-21 activity (Work Category 341)

in NZTA’s Transport Investment Online (TIO).

The following table shows a summary of the project types with corresponding strategic drivers.

Table 5-5 Low Cost / Low Risk Improvements

Project Type

Requested

2018/21

Budget

Approved

2015/18

Budget

Difference

2015/18 vs

2018/21

Strategic Objectives Comments

Bridge replacements $2,040,000 $335,000 $1,705,000

Maintain accessibility, provide

safe access, enable network

resilience.

Prioritised RDR bridges to enable

freight access and network

resilience.

Pavement

Improvements$2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000

Maintain accessibility, provide

safe access, enable network

resilience, improve road safety.

Enhanced funding for seal

widening/strengthening of

shoulders along high freight use

routes.

Railway Crossing

Improvements$1,920,000 $0 $1,920,000

These works are Kiwirail-led

improvements to the railway, and

require adjacent pavement and

surfacing reshaping.

Intersection

improvements$347,000 $329,000 $18,000

Improve road safety.

Site issues include; high crash rate,

unclear user priority, adjacent

development, road user conflict,

poor geometry.

Intersection and bridge

approach sealing$490,000 $520,000 -$30,000

Improve road safety. Continuing sealback programme.

Stock underpass

construction$75,000 $75,000 $0

Improve road safety.

Increased recognition of underpass

benefits by landowners.

Lighting upgrades $590,000 $516,000 $74,000Amenity enhancement.

Continuing upgrades with power

undergrounding.

Traffic services

improvements$82,500 $25,000 $57,500

Increase road safety, improve

accessibility.

Sign and marking improvements as

per RISA report.

New Footpaths $584,801 $0 $584,801 Maintain accessibility, provide

safe access.

Construction required for

pedestrian safety and community

access.

Total $8,129,301 $1,800,000 $6,329,301



Bridge replacements

Refer to Section 5.9.2 for prioritised RDR bridge replacement works and Section 5.4 for the

general strategy regarding ongoing timber bridge renewals.

Pavement Improvements

Refer to Section 5.2.3.2.

Railway Crossing Improvements

This element is to provide funding for Kiwirail’s programme of improvements to level

crossings throughout the district in conjunction with works upon their network. The costs

are provisional to provide funding in accordance with the programme of works currently

proposed by Kiwirail.

Intersection improvements

These works are a variety of traffic engineering solutions to improve safety for road users

specifically at intersections. They include design/layout changes, traffic calming devices

and priority changes. Sites are chosen based on Crash Analysis System (CAS) data,

Customer Request Management (CRM) requests and reported safety issues identified by

Roading Reference Groups, Councils maintenance contractor and Councils Roading/Road

Safety Engineers through safety inspections.

Intersection and bridge approach sealing

Refer to Section 5.3.2.

Stock underpass construction

This element provides partial funding for stock underpass construction to allow safe

passage of their animals with no disruption to the network and reduced impact on

motorists. Refer to Section 2.5.4.10.

Lighting upgrades

Refer to Sections 2.5.4.7 and 5.8.

Traffic services improvements

The 2012 Road Infrastructure Safety Assessment (RISA) report included delineation and

signage improvement recommendations. Sites are chosen based on the requirements of

the report where indicated through the SMS report and prioritised using CAS and

maintenance data.

New Footpaths

Refer to Section 5.6.



5.9.4. Ashburton Central Business District

Prior to the 2010/11 Canterbury earthquakes, significant Ashburton CBD business and commercial

developments were being planned, and footpath and road upgrades and renewals were deferred to align with these projects. An Ashburton town centre concept plan had been delivered to council

in February 2009, but this is now effectively obsolete with the many changes that were made to planned projects due to demolished buildings and altered structural standards.

Figure 5-13 shows the relevant CBD roads.

Figure 5-13 Ashburton CBD Roads

The consequent delays have meant that CBD road condition is at a much lower level than would

generally be acceptable to remain without remedy. The CBD roads make up a disproportionate amount of the Ashburton township’s urban roads rated as poor condition, as shown in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6 Surface Condition Index – Ashburton

Ashburton CBD

Less than 0 25862 654 3% Excellent

0 to <5 80033 2100 3% Very Good

5 to <10 3475 241 7% Fair

10 to <20 2363 832 35% Poor

20 to 100 (max.) 2121 13 1% Very Poor

TOTAL 113854 3840 3%

Surface Condition

Index*

Length urban sealed roads (m) CBD as % of

Ashburton townshipCondition



*This Surface Condition Index excludes the surface age component to allow comparison based only on condition criteria, as

incomplete surface data may distort results.

Council has a Town Centre Working Group and a project is underway to progress the development

of streetscape upgrades to support the revitalisation of the CDB. Public consultation and developer liaison will help inform final design decisions. Pedestrian facilities, car parking, road

functions and railway crossing changes are included in the CBD revitalisation strategy.

Maintenance is carried out to ensure user safety, and the current asset condition may result in an

increased level of work. There is a possibility that some renewals/upgrades will commence within the 2018-21 period. However there have been no specific funding requests included in the NZTA or ADC budgets for physical works in that period. The length of deferment has created a slight bow-

wave of work and to ensure this does not carry on over time, Council may seek an increased programme quantity specifically for CBD renewals.

ADC will liaise with developers to plan concurrent schedules, but some assets are in a condition where they cannot wait for the associated developments. Some re-work is expected as an

unfortunate but probable outcome.



5.10. Network Management

In addition to physical works there are many other services and tasks required to provide a fit-for-use transportation network. With recent changes in health and safety legislation and NZTA

funding requirements, and the move to more robust and evidential forward planning, these activities have grown in scope and cost.

The introduction of ONRC has required substantial time from asset management staff to ensure it was correctly established. This will hopefully lessen to a large extent when ONRC is fully

embedded and processes become more automated and routine.

The activities required for general network management include;

Safety inspections

Speed limit reviews

Road user approvals (including HPMVs, overweight and over-dimension vehicles)

Consent processing

Corridor management (including Corridor Access Requests, work permits and Temporary Traffic Control approvals)

Forward programming, (including deterioration modelling and treatment selection analysis)

Promotion and information activities (network user information)

Implementation and operation of road asset management systems:

o roughness and condition rating surveys

o traffic count surveys, including pedestrian and cycle counts

o road network inspections and field validation of proposed programmes

o RAMM (asset inventory) updates

Routine information provision:

o Council departmental reports

o Project feasibility reports

o Annual reports

o Annual asset valuation and capitalisation

o NZTA reports and claims

Cycling and walking strategy

Liaison and collaborative work with:

o Technical Officers Group (TOG)

o Aoraki Roading Collaboration

o Canterbury Regional Council (ECAN)

o New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)

o Road Controlling Authority forum

Special road maintenance, renewal or improvement related studies

The majority of these tasks are currently undertaken by Council staff, which provides valuable institutional knowledge and capability.



Specific additions or changes to the Work Category 151 programme planned for the 2018-21

period include;

Pavement modelling

o Continuation of the GeoSolve STL model calibration

o Trialling the GeoSolve resurfacing modelling process (compare with dTIMS)

Condition and performance data

o Investigate (and implement based on outcome) options for collection of pavement condition data – including high-speed data surveys, enhanced visual rating, and

pavement strength testing.

o Install gravel monitoring sites and create data analysis process

o Undertake validation and asset condition surveys for urban sealed road surface treatments, culverts and railings.

Forward Works Programme

o Investigate best options for FWP functions - mindful of use of treatment selection

processes in addition to RAMM Treatment Lengths (which is the basis of the RAMM

FWP programme)

o Implement FWP based on outcome of investigation

Traffic data

o Review the current count programme to inform creation of the next

o Investigate one-off counts for confirmation of assumptions at specific sites

o Undertake network analysis of traffic movements

o Investigate means of obtaining more detailed HCV data (including weights and

seasonal variations)

ONRC requirements

o Set up processes and programmes to fulfil required performance measure outputs

o Continue REG workshop participation and ongoing feedback

Inter-district collaboration

o Continuation of ARC with an expected increase in cross-council evaluations and sharing of processes and practices

o Intention to undertake more Canterbury-wide RAMM workshops

Setting of Speed Limits 2017

o Investigations are required to ensure compliance and determine extent and

effects of changes. This will be undertaken within ARC to maintain a consistent approach across districts.

Risk and Resilience Transportation Activity Management Plan 2018-21


6. Risk and Resilience

6.1. Risk Context

6.1.1. Policy

The Council's risk management policy aims at enhancing opportunities and minimising threats, as

risk is inherent in the Council's operations.

The Council is committed to managing risks that may impact on the delivery of its activities and services and/or have implications on the Council's legal obligations.

The Council is exposed to many risks on a daily and ongoing basis. Risk is inherent across all areas

of activity in the Council's operations including but not limited to, procurement, contract management, employment, health and safety, regulatory and enforcement, management, financial, procedural, service delivery, emergency management and business continuance.

The Council is committed to keeping its risk management framework relevant and applicable to all areas of operation by using the AS/NZ ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Standard as its basis.

Risk management is an integral part of day-to-day operations and not a separate function.

6.1.2. Objectives

The main objectives of the Council’s risk management policy are to:

Increase the likelihood of achieving its strategic and business objectives

Safeguard assets, people, finances and reputation

Improve performance and service delivery to maximise resource utilization

Integrate into the Council's operations and procedures

Ensure clear visibility of the Council's risk management process

Ensure a timely response to risks and issues as they occur

Establish a common language and promote a risk aware culture across the organisation

Aid decision making and encourage innovation

Maintain a flexible risk management framework which is aligned with AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009

6.1.3. Criteria

Council maintains a risk policy and register relating to internal and external services and activities. It considers Operational, People, Business Support, Financial/Economic and Democracy as general risk sources. Types of risks related to each of these sources are listed in the ADC Risk

Management Policy – Appendix A.



6.2. Risk Identification

6.2.1. Categories

The following categories and risk types are used in the risk schedule;

Planning - Compliance, Planning Status, Climate, Assumptions and Projections

Delivery - Management Processes, Relationships, Resources, Control

Physical Assets – Performance, Natural Hazards, Safety/Security

Management - Finances, Resources, Politics

Details including subtypes, potential impacts, ratings and controls are shown in Table 9-1 in Section 9.2.1 (Appendix B).

6.2.2. Critical Assets

The Council risk register indicates the risk profile for the overall failure of the roading network is classed as low and the effectiveness of controls in place are classed as very good, but there is room for improvement.

At the asset network level the following critical areas/assets have been identified:

Pavement condition and life

Bridges with timber beams (failure) and/or restrictions (weight/speed)

Availability/affordability of construction materials including bitumen

Route security/resilience

Traffic signs (failure of hazard or warning types)

Areas/assets that have been identified in the register as requiring further controls include;

Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR) Bridges – ownership, responsibility and funding

CRM completion date reporting and accuracy

Expanding Roading Reference Group influence

Pavement life – long-term network condition degradation through maintenance and

renewal deferrals or reduction

ONRC – impact on programming and funding thus long-term road condition



6.3. Risk Assessment

Risk assessment aims at understanding the level of significance of a risk by assessing its likelihood and consequences and taking into account the processes and controls to mitigate it.

6.3.1. Consequence

The impact descriptors in Table 6-1 indicate the level of possible consequences for a risk.

Table 6-1 Risk Consequence Ratings

Consequence Interpretation

Code Name Image, Reputation and Public Trust

and Council Trust

Financial Direct Costs (Repair, Lost

Revenue, 3rd party

damage, legal costs)

Economic impacts

on users and

businesses

Environmental and

Legal Compliance Public Health and Safety Service Level/ Effectiveness

1 Insignificant No media attention or damage to reputation.

< $10,000 Equivalent to < $10,000

No breaches No health or safety impact. One-off minor failure to meet levels of service

2 Minor No media attention, but minor damage to

image to a small group of people. $10,000 to $50,000

Equivalent to

$1,000 to $50,000

Minor breaches affecting

very small part of the network

Minor safety impact on small

number of people.

Minor failures to meet levels of

service.

3 Moderate

Negative local media coverage,

community concerned about company performance.

$50,000 – $200,000 Equivalent to $50,000 – $200,000

One-off major breach,

affecting a small part of the network

Serious safety impact on small

number or minor impact on large number of people.

One-off major failure or widespread minor failures.

4 Major Negative national media coverage, major

decrease in community support. $200,000 – $1,000,000

Equivalent to

$200,000 – $1,000,000

Several major breaches

affecting a significant part of the network

Extensive injuries or significant

safety impacts, single or several fatalities.

Some major performance failures.

5 Extreme/Catastrophic

Negative international media coverage,

Significant political outfall, loss of

community support, loss of several key staff.

>$1,000,000 Equivalent to

> $1,000,000

Widespread and major

breaches of standards, failure to meet legislative requirements over most of

system area / network

Widespread safety impacts;

large numbers of fatalities.

Major, widespread, unacceptable

performance failure.



6.3.2. Likelihood

The likelihood ratings identify how likely, or often, a particular event is expected to occur, these

are shown in Table 6-2 below. The descriptors are not a mandatory category requirement, but act as a guide to assist in ranking the probability in line with the nature of each risk.

Table 6-2 Risk Likelihood Ratings

Likelihood Interpretation Probability

Code Name

1 Rare Could occur only in exceptional circumstances 0.05

2 Unlikely Could occur at some time in the next 10 years 0.2

3 Possible Could occur annually 0.4

4 Likely Could occur a few times a year 0.6

5 Almost Certain Is expected to occur monthly 0.8

Binomial Distribution: Pe = (1 – (1 – 1/T)^n where T = Return period and n = number of years

6.3.3. Rating Matrix

The Council uses a qualitative approach to the assessment of risks on its transportation network in which risk is “calculated” using a matrix that links the likelihood and consequence of an event.

The inputs to this matrix are the assessed likelihood and consequences of each event.

Table 6-3 Risk Rating Matrix

Consequences

1 2 3 4 5

Likelihood Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Extreme or

Catastrophic

1 Rare L L M M H

2 Unlikely L M M M H

3 Possible L M M H E

4 Likely M M H H E

5 Almost

Certain M H H E E

Key:

E - Extreme Immediate action required to reduce risk

H - High Senior management attention needed to manage risk

M - Medium Specify management responsibility and review risk controls

L - Low Manage by routine procedures



6.4. Risk Management

Once the risks have been assessed and rated, the most significant risks (for example, those of extreme or high risk) are isolated for treatment or control. These may include, for example,

strengthening key infrastructure or installing new assets.

6.4.1. Treatment Options

Treatment options mitigate the assessed risk to acceptable tolerance levels. The treatments or controls are aimed at reducing either the likelihood or the consequence identified. No specific significant project expenditure is currently scheduled for risk mitigation.

Treatment options could involve applying existing or implementing additional controls, and will

entail one of the following conditions;

Risk Accepted: Consider and implement treatment/control options

Risk Reduced: Decrease either the likelihood of occurrence or the negative consequences

Risk Transferred/Shared: Pass the risk in part or whole to others (eg. insurance or third

party)

Risk Retained: Retain the risk if the impact is found to be minimal

The effectiveness of assigned controls needs to be evaluated to define the residual risk. Residual risk is that left after the risk treatment process has been performed and controls applied. Table 6-4

provides the effectiveness rating.

[Likelihood x Impact = Inherent Risk – Control Effectiveness = Residual Risk]

Table 6-4 Control Effectiveness Rating

Effectiveness Description Score

Non-existent Controls are ineffective and urgent attention is needed to implement

new controls 0

Unacceptable Controls manage only some of the risk and attention is required 1

Adequate Controls manage risk at face value but there are no checks or

balances 2

Good Majority of risks are managed but there is potential for failure 3

Very Good Controls are good but there is room for improvement 4

Excellent Controls in place mitigate risk to the maximum level 5

6.4.2. Action Plans

Action plans will comply with the Council Risk Management policy and are detailed in the Risk Schedules in Section 9.2 (Appendix B).



6.5. Risk Monitoring and Review

Risks are constantly changing due to the Council's operating landscape. Therefore, risks must be monitored and reported on a regular basis to ensure they are current.

Furthermore, risk owners and control owners have key risk, control review and updated responsibilities to ensure the information pertaining to those risks are current. The Council's risk register undergoes a periodic review to ensure the information captured is current.

The effectiveness of the Council's risk management framework is periodically monitored and

reviewed. The review process helps refine the Council's risk management framework to facilitate continuous improvement and overall risk maturity within the organisation.

6.6. Resilience

Resilience has become a key issue for the New Zealand transportation sector in recent times, due

largely to the aftermath of the 2011 Christchurch and 2013 Kaikoura earthquakes.

Being resilient means having the capability to;

withstand disruption

absorb disturbance

act effectively in crises

adapt to changing conditions (including climatic)

grow over time

Factors that affect resilience include;

natural disasters

economic events (eg. Global Financial Crisis)

declining populations and resources

changing demographics and social trends

loss of technical expertise

Resilience is tested the most when a low probability/high consequence event occurs. Most organisations accept the risk of such events, and underinvest in mitigation which would reduce or

limit the impact. Consequently, reconstruction or repair costs can be very high, possibly to the

extent where reinstatement to pre-event status is impossible. It is generally accepted that service and asset failure will occur with extreme events, so emphasis should be on “safe” failure and fast

recovery.

Resilience levels of service should be defined taking account of critical customers and their

minimum requirements, since the standard levels of service (see Section 3) are for “business as usual”.

Both technical and organisational principles should be considered when assessment is carried out.



Table 6-5 Resilience principles

Factor Principle Explanation

Technical

Robustness Strength or ability to withstand damage without losing function

Redundancy/backup Asset can be quickly replaced or retained to minimum

function

Modularity/flexibility Independent components or easily modified/improved systems

Safe-to-fail Design to allow controlled, planned failures

Organisational

Change readiness Awareness of potential issues and plans in place to

address them

Networks Communication and relationships established across all

stakeholders (internal and external)

Leadership and culture Council’s mind-set open to change and adaptation

ADC does not currently actively assess resilience specifically, but there are actions taken that address resilience of the transportation network to some extent;

An emergency event road hierarchy is maintained, which prioritises specific routes to be made accessible.

Policy has been changed concerning redundant water races (see Section 2.5.4.4).

The Ashburton River Second Bridge (see Section 5.9.1) will provide (among other benefits) a backup for the SH 1 bridge.

Financial Summary Transportation Activity Management Plan 2018-21


7. Financial Summary

The financial aspects of delivering the Transportation AMP are developed and managed with

support and collaboration between Council’s Business Support and Service Delivery staff.

This section summarises the funding and financial aspects of delivering the Transportation activity. The forecasting included here is required to remain consistent with Council:

Long Term Plan (LTP)

30 Year Infrastructure Strategy

Annual Plan budget

NZTA funding submission

Obligation to balance income and expenditure

Separation of NZTA subsidised and unsubsidised works

7.1. Asset Valuations

Council’s assets are fully revalued every three years. Each year a review and update is completed that adjusts the asset valuation and reissues the Annual Roading Asset Valuation Report. This

report allows for the annual changes that have occurred in:

Value of Unit rates for asset replacement

Review of asset lives for each asset involved

Addition of assets from Capital Improvements

Removal of Assets due to Disposals

Any other changes to the Asset register (RAMM Database)

The valuation is performed to meet New Zealand accounting standards asset valuation best

practice using RAMM database inputs as the basic current Asset Register. Other external Excel spreadsheet information not held in RAMM is also considered where it is able to be attributed to

specific transportation assets.

The Council uses a straight line depreciation model where total annual depreciation is based on the annual consumption of the useful life of each asset. Full details can be found in the Annual

Roading Asset Valuation Report.

A summary is shown in Table 7-1 below.



Table 7-1 Ashburton District Council Roading Valuation 2016-17

7.2. Funding Sources

The range of activities covered by this Transportation AMP have a variety of different sources of

funding. Council’s rates income is supplemented for the roading and associated facilities activity

by central Government subsidy through NZTA. In some situations Council can charge fees in line with its annually reviewed fees and charges structure. For the remaining work proposed on unsubsidised activities Council raises a mix of General and Targeted rates income. The funding

sources outside Council do not fund all activities and their funding is usually conditional on

meeting specific requirements:

Nationally distributed funds (NZ Government financial assistance)

Local rates funding

Developer contributions

Council subsidy from NZTA is based on an agreed Financial Assistance Rate. This rate is reviewed

and applied each year by NZTA as part of the agreement of the Council’s NZTA budget submission process. Following a review of the FAR subsidy, new subsidy rates have been allocated to Road Controlling Authorities (RCA) for the future. Ashburton Council’s level of subsidy was raised to 49% in 2015/16, 50% in 2016/17 and 51% for 2017/18 onwards. This final subsidy rate is the lowest in

New Zealand.

Roading Assets as at

30 June 2017

Optimised

Replacement Cost

Optimised Depreciated

Replacement CostAnnual Depreciation

Berms $3,615,000 $3,615,000 NO DEPRECIATION APPLIED

Bridges $82,833,000 $58,697,000 $561,000

Bridges RDR $11,970,000 $5,070,000 $80,000

Drainage $20,882,000 $10,714,000 $223,000

Footpath $33,147,000 $19,525,000 $802,000

Islands $628,000 $254,000 $25,000

Minor Structures $302,000 $163,000 $3,000

Railing $3,578,000 $388,000 $119,000

Retaining Wall $5,125 $4,100 $103

Signs $1,860,000 $682,000 $143,000

Street Light - Bracket $765,000 $218,000 $37,000

Street Light - Light $1,517,000 $633,000 $74,000

Street Light - Pole $3,683,000 $2,027,000 $91,000

Surface Water Channel $26,722,000 $12,574,000 $332,000

Traffic Facility $25,000 $11,000 $2,000

Traffic Signals $208,000 $151,000 $11,000

Formation $37,708,000 $37,708,000 NO DEPRECIATION APPLIED

Subbase $68,330,000 $68,330,000 NO DEPRECIATION APPLIED

Basecourse $104,494,000 $65,544,000 $1,120,000

Top Surface $51,284,000 $23,428,000 $3,523,000

Total $453,556,000 $309,736,000 $7,146,000



7.3. Financial Forecasts

The financial forecasts for the coming 10 years are established and set-out within this AMP. Since the AMP is linked closely to a number of other Council documents as indicated in Section 2.2 these

forecasts are consistent with Council’s:

Long Term Plan projections

Annual Plan budget

Agreed investment levels within the NZ Government (NZ Transport Agency) assistance programme

The AMP forecasts then indicate a balance between funding and expenditure over time such that investment levels are clear, consistent and where justified Projects are expected to be

implemented.

7.3.1. Range of Expenditure

Across the transportation activity the AMP indicates funds are invested to address the following

categories of work on the transportation assets:

Operations and maintenance

Renewal (Replacement)

Capital (New)

Disposal

7.3.2. Capital and Renewal Project Selection

Project works are programmed to address specific sites or issues to improve the level of service, facilitate growth or development, or asset renewal. Projects can be initiated through a number of

mechanisms including;

Demand due to Growth

Site or network Level of Service analysis

Forward works from deterioration modelling processes

Council will, each year, identify a programme of renewal works that addresses those sites where maintenance costs are rising and renewal is considered the best treatment based on both

quantitative and qualitative evidence.

Initially projects follow Council strategic policy guidance and also NZ Government requirements

(for transportation works funded in whole or in part by NZ Government). Council aligns with inputs including current Government Policy on Transportation funding, locally identified rising

maintenance costs, level of service deterioration and feedback from users. Project assessment

and prioritisation procedures use systems and processes generally derived from NZTA. For subsidised work these processes will seek value for money projects primarily using the NZTA

Business Case process. Unsubsidised works are also assessed using these principles.

Council’s financial commitment to footpath renewal has been tied to the current depreciation as

determined by the Annual Asset Valuation Report.



7.4. Development Contributions

Council is required to have a Development Contribution Policy (the Policy) under section 102 (4) (d) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). Section 198 of the LGA gives Council the power to

require a contribution for developments. Development Contributions provide Council with the means to initially fund infrastructure construction and also maintain these additional assets required due to growth.

Council has a Policy for Development and Financial Contributions and has incorporated this into

the Long Term Plan. There are no specific references to Transportation Asset contributions. Contributions for Transportation asset improvements are included within the general description of Community Infrastructure.

Where developments are undertaken in areas not adjacent to existing infrastructure (generally

footpaths and kerb and channel) there is a cost to Council to connect the existing to the new.

Currently Council negotiate on a case-by-case basis with developers to provide the cost for these

connections. It is planned for this to become a standardised function within Council’s vesting

process, allowing a reserve to be set aside in the budget for these construction costs.

The Ashburton CBD redevelopment may require substantial changes to road and footpath layouts

and multi-mode functions. Council believes a portion of the associated costs should be met by

developers who will gain benefits from the changes.



7.5. Transportation Funding Forecast 2018-2028

The table below is an excerpt from the Ashburton District Council Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-2028. Specific funding sources and applications can be found in the LTP.

Table 7-2 Transportation Funding Forecast 2018-2028

For Transportation

Annual

Plan Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28

$000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000

Operating Funding

Sources of operating funding

General rate, UAGC*, rates penalties 369 194 224 222 226 231 242 244 251 255 259

Targeted rates 7,206 7,407 7,757 8,888 7,775 7,951 8,698 8,674 8,809 9,326 9,105

Subsidies and grants for operating

purposes 2,137 1,954 1,973 2,045 2,530 2,634 2,638 2,806 2,876 2,888 3,036

Fees and charges 25 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26

Internal charges and overheads recovered 41 32 32 30 36 37 36 37 38 37 39

Local authorities fuel tax, fines,

infringement fees and other receipts 416 423 425 431 439 445 450 454 468 478 489

Total sources of operating funding 10,194 10,032 10,434 11,638 11,030 11,322 12,087 12,240 12,468 13,010 12,955

Applications of operating funding

Payments to staff and suppliers 3,442 3,898 4,004 4,110 4,232 4,343 4,454 4,570 4,691 4,811 4,937

Finance costs 45 37 68 101 96 114 133 125 118 207 292

Internal charges and overheads 1,440 1,486 1,520 1,567 1,587 1,623 1,670 1,709 1,729 1,786 1,817

Other operating funding applications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total applications of operating funding 4,928 5,421 5,592 5,778 5,915 6,080 6,257 6,405 6,538 6,805 7,047

Surplus/(deficit) of operating funding 5,266 4,611 4,841 5,860 5,115 5,241 5,830 5,836 5,930 6,205 5,908



* Uniform Annual General Charges

Annual


2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28

$000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000

Capital Funding

Sources of capital funding

Subsidies and grants for capital expenditure 3,305 5,747 5,962 6,077 7,742 7,858 5,879 5,796 16,570 16,905 5,541

Development and financial contributions 10 10 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10

Increase/(decrease) in debt (84) 787 807 (129) 471 447 (177) (175) 2,225 2,129 (367)

Gross proceeds from sale of assets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lump sum contributions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other dedicated capital funding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total sources of capital funding 3,231 6,544 6,777 5,956 8,221 8,314 5,711 5,630 18,804 19,044 5,184

Application of capital funding

Capital expenditure

- to meet additional demand 969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

- to improve the level of service 64 2,364 2,616 2,670 3,968 3,981 1,750 1,380 14,487 14,773 238

- to replace existing assets 7,407 8,894 9,086 9,282 9,461 9,667 9,905 10,128 10,238 10,459 10,832

Increase/(decrease) in reserves 56 (102) (84) (136) (93) (93) (113) (42) 10 16 21

Increase/(decrease) in investments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total applications of capital funding 8,496 11,156 11,619 11,816 13,336 13,555 11,542 11,466 24,734 25,248 11,091

Surplus/(deficit) of capital funding (5,266) (4,611) (4,841) (5,860) (5,115) (5,241) (5,831) (5,836) (5,930) (6,205) (5,908)

Funding Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Expenditure by Activity

Annual


2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28

$000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000

Roading 10,714 11,503 11,853 12,233 12,534 12,875 13,216 13,521 13,865 14,339 14,796

Footpaths 1,055 1,199 1,225 1,251 1,275 1,302 1,330 1,357 1,387 1,422 1,455

Total operating expenditure 11,769 12,702 13,077 13,485 13,809 14,177 14,546 14,878 15,252 15,761 16,252

less depreciation 6,841 7,281 7,485 7,707 7,894 8,097 8,289 8,473 8,715 8,956 9,205

Total applications of operating funding 4,928 5,421 5,592 5,778 5,915 6,080 6,257 6,405 6,538 6,805 7,047

Capital by Activity

Annual


2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28

$000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000

Roading 8,132 12,771 12,858 14,051 13,814 14,414 11,821 11,070 26,969 27,553 13,442

Footpaths 1,278 1,029 1,121 1,155 1,112 1,166 1,252 1,043 1,217 1,215 1,243

Total capital expenditure 9,410 13,799 13,978 15,206 14,926 15,580 13,072 12,113 28,186 28,769 14,684

less vested assets 970 2,542 2,275 3,253 1,495 1,930 1,414 601 3,457 3,531 3,609

Council funded capital expenditure 8,440 11,258 11,703 11,953 13,431 13,650 11,658 11,511 24,729 25,237 11,076

Plan Improvement and Monitoring Transportation Activity Management Plan 2018-21


8. Plan Improvement and Monitoring

8.1. Status

Ashburton District Council is committed to on-going improvement in the quality of its

Transportation asset management practices. Council acknowledges this is a continuous improvement process. This is reflected in the current implementation of asset management systems and associated data collection and maintenance requirements.

This AMP has been produced following the guidance provided in the International Management Manual (IIMM) 2015. The IIMM 2015 incorporates ISO 55000 philosophy and asset management

approaches. ISO 55000 was released in January 2014 and outlines the requirements for an asset management system for achieving a balance between cost, risk and performance in asset

management to help guide asset related decision making and activities.

8.2. Improvement Plan

The Improvement Plan is integral to achieving the Council’s objectives and fulfilling their responsibilities for the transportation network. The key areas of focus are;

Information Management: Data (inventory, condition, age etc.) updates and refinements

to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and reporting of the management and operation of the Council’s Transportation systems. This includes ongoing cyclic monitoring regimes.

Network Knowledge: Gaining a thorough understanding of;

o the factors that affect the network (directly or indirectly);

o how they can be managed or addressed;

o the consequences of subsequent actions (or inaction)

Renewal Strategy: Analysis of physical asset data, performance outcomes and road user

information for use in asset deterioration modelling tools, and programming and treatment decisions. This will ensure that asset replacement or upgrading is carried out at

the most appropriate time and that the most effective outcome is achieved.

Criticality and Resilience assessment (reflects the consequence of the asset failing): To allow assets to be managed more proactively in order to mitigate the risk associated with their failure.

Procurement and Delivery: Council will actively seek to develop and continually improve

procurement and methods of service delivery. The intent is to realise efficiency and quality benefits while building resilience into the roading network.

The Roading Team within the Council Service Delivery workstream is responsible for

implementation of these improvements, whether they are undertaken by Council staff or external

suppliers.

The following table summarises specific planned AMP improvements;



Table 8-1 Improvement Activities

Clause Improvement Action Priority Target Focus

3.1.1 + 3.1.2

Investigate options for replacing/expanding LTP LoS with

ONRC LoS. Dependent on ONRC progress and Audit NZ /

NZTA requirements. Medium Years 1-3 Renewal Strategy

3.3.5

Address CRM response times - work with contractor re

reporting process, resource issues and possible target

change for some assets. High Year 1

Information

Management

3.3.6

Update roading satisfaction survey with increased

frequency, more questions of specific nature with results

able to inform planning and programming decisions. Medium Year 1

Network

Knowledge/Renewal

Strategy

3.3.7

Continue footpath and non-earth surface water channel

condition rating (three-yearly). Medium Year 3

Information

Management

3.3.8

Monitor ONRC preformance targets and

investigate/implement ADC-specific targets if

appropriate. Medium Years 1-3 Renewal Strategy

4.1

Review current traffic count programme (contract ends

June 2019) in preparation for next contract. High Year 1

Information

Management

4.1

Review carriageway sections with only estimated traffic

data and create prioritised list for counts. Medium Year 2

Information

Management

4.1 + 4.2

Investigate sources to enable collection/monitoring of

freight data and land use change. Medium Year 2 Network Knowledge

4.3 Monitor population trends. Medium Annual Network Knowledge

5.1.2

Investigate options for enhanced pavement condition

collection, including high speed data surveys, modified

visual rating and pavement strength testing, in liaison

with ARC. High Year 1

Information

Management

5.2.1

Undertake full network driveover logging fault types,

quantities and locations. High Year 1

Information

Management

5.2.2

Complete gravel pit inventory detailing site references

and legal and material status. Low Years 1-3

Information

Management

5.2.3.1

Continue validation of pavement deterioration modelling

inputs and processes. High Year 1 Renewal Strategy

5.3.1 Review grading programme. Medium Annual Renewal Strategy

5.3.2

Install gravel monitoring sites and establish process for

data collection and analysis. High Year 1 Renewal Strategy

5.5.2 Undertake and complete inventory validation for culverts Medium Years 1-3

Information

Management

5.5.3 Kerb and channel upgrades - FWP to be developed. Medium Year 2 Renewal Strategy

5.6.3 Footpath renewals - FWP to be developed. Medium Year 2 Renewal Strategy

5.7.3 Complete sign and marking inventory validation Low Year 3

Information

Management

6.5

Review and monitor: risk validity and currency, control

appropriateness and effectiveness. Medium Year 3

Criticality and

Resilience assessment

Section 6: Risk and Resilience

Section 3: Levels of Service

Section 4: Growth and Demand

Section 5: Lifecycle Management



8.3. Monitoring and Review Procedures

To ensure this AMP remains up-to-date and addresses Council’s current situation in managing the transportation network assets, it should be reviewed, updated, and reissued at minimum every

three years. This allows alignment with other council and national policy documents, and notably links with the normal NZTA funding block submission.

The three-year review should not preclude changes being made when required outside this cycle. Reasons for mid-cycle review include;

Legislation (local and national) amendments - to ensure compliance

Major policy (local and national) amendments – to ensure alignment

Project inclusion or change – especially if there are significant financial implications

Council process or structure change – if this affects AMP intent or outcomes

Appendices Transportation Activity Management Plan 2018-21


9. Appendices

Appendix A Transportation Activity Management Plan 2018-21


9.1. Appendix A - One Network Road Classification

9.1.1. ONRC Information Sheets

The following pages show information sheets providing background and criteria for each classification.



9.1.2. ONRC Performance Measures

Safety

Customer Outcome 1: the number of fatal and serious injuries on the network [sourced

from CAS]

Customer Outcome 2: collective risk (fatal and serious injury rate per kilometre) [sourced from CAS]

Customer Outcome 3: personal risk (fatal and serious injury rate by traffic volume) [sourced from CAS]

Technical Output 1: permanent hazards (in accordance with RTS-5 and MOTSAM) [field

survey: 10% sample per classification]

Technical Output 2: temporary hazards (no. of TTM sites inspected and no. compliant with COPTTM)

Technical Output 3: sight distances (no. of sites where signs or sight distance is physically obstructed) [field survey: 10% sample per classification]

Technical Output 4: the number of fatal and serious injuries due to loss of control on wet roads [sourced from CAS]

Technical Output 5: the number of fatal and serious injuries due to loss of driver control at

night [sourced from CAS]

Technical Output 6: the number of fatal and serious injuries at intersections [sourced from

CAS]

Technical Output 7: hazardous faults (no. of faults on roads requiring evasive action by road users) [field survey: 10% sample per classification]

Technical Output 8: cycle path faults (no. of faults on cycle paths requiring evasive action by cyclists) [field survey: 10% sample per classification]

Technical Output 9: the number of fatal and serious injuries involving vulnerable users

[sourced from CAS]

Technical Output 10: roadside obstructions (number of unauthorised items in the road reserve) [field survey: 10% sample per classification]

Resilience

Customer Outcome 1: the number of journeys impacted by unplanned events [no. road detours and no. vehicles affected]

Customer Outcome 2: the number of instances where road access is lost [no. closed roads

with no detours and no. vehicles affected]

Amenity

Customer Outcome 1: Smooth Travel Exposure (STE) – roughness of the road (% of travel on sealed roads which are smoother than a defined threshold) [sourced from RAMM]

Customer Outcome 2: peak and average roughness (85th and 95th percentiles) [sourced from RAMM]

Technical Output 1: roughness of the road (median and average) [sourced from RAMM]

*Technical Output 2: aesthetic faults (no. faults as defined by Road Maintenance Visual Guide that detract from customer experience) [field survey: 10% sample per classification]



Accessibility

Customer Outcome 1: proportion of network not available to Class 1 heavy vehicles and 50MAX vehicles

Technical Output 1: wayfinding (no. sites where wayfinding signs or markings do not comply with national standards) [field survey: 10% sample per classification]

Cost Efficiency

Cost Efficiency 1: pavement rehabilitations (lane km, m2, cost and average life achieved) [sourced from RAMM]

Cost Efficiency 2: chipseal resurfacing (lane km, m2, cost and average life achieved) [sourced from RAMM]

Cost Efficiency 3: asphalt resurfacing (lane km, m2, cost and average life achieved)

[sourced from RAMM]

Cost Efficiency 4: unsealed road metalling (lane km, m2, cost and average life achieved)

[sourced from RAMM]

Cost Efficiency 5: Overall network cost, and cost by work category ($/lane km and $/VKT) [sourced from RAMM]

Detailed information can be found on the NZTA website in this document;

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Road-Efficiency-Group-2/docs/NZTA160801-The-ONRC-

Performance-Measures-Final-Published.pdf

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Road-Efficiency-Group-2/docs/NZTA160801-The-ONRC-Performance-Measures-Final-Published.pdf

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Road-Efficiency-Group-2/docs/NZTA160801-The-ONRC-Performance-Measures-Final-Published.pdf



9.1.3. ONRC Comparative Summary Report

Appendix C Transportation Activity Management Plan 2018-21


9.2. Appendix B – Risk Schedule

Table 9-1 Risk Schedule

Co

rpo

rate

ima

ge

Fin

an

cia

l / e

con

om

ic

En

viro

nm

ent/

Leg

al

Hea

lth

& S

afe

ty

Ser

vice

leve

l/ E

ffec

tive

nes

s

Current Controls Further Actions Planned

Eff

ecti

ven

ess

Ra

tin

g

Res

idu

al R

Isk

Ra

tin

g

Inadequate asset management/infrastructure

strategy planning

Insufficient planning undertaken to understand future renewal

needs

Sub-optimal programmes

Incorrect Infrastructure Strategy and other long-term planning

3 4 2 1 4 3 3 M

Improvements to data, modelling

and decision-making processes have

reduced risk.

Improvements ongoing - forward

work programmes to be created for

long-term periods.

3 L

Insufficient business continuity planning

Disruption to service during significant event

No planning to manage continuity of service to customers

during/after events

3 3 1 1 2 2 4 M

None beyond staff ability to step into

vacated role. Increased staff

numbers provide some mitigation.

ARC may be able to assist.

Current Council-wide business

analysis underway.2 M

Inadequate funding

Reduced levels of service

Asset lives extended (by necessity not optimisation)

Reduced safety

2 4 1 3 3 3 3 M

Strong funding applications and

evidence

Optimisation of treatments and

programmes

Improve business case procedure

and forward works programming to

provide strong proof for increased

funding requests

3 M

Inadequate/inappropriate council

policies/procedures/specifications

Assets built/repaired to incorrect or inadequate standards

Lack of compatibility with other districts/national best practice

Inappropriate levels of service

3 3 2 2 3 3 3 M

Collaboration (ARC) information

sharing provides consistent approach

Staff maintain current industry

awareness through peer conferences

and working groups

3 L

Poorly defined or inappropriate Levels of

Service

Unrealistic expectations within the community over service

delivery

Audit NZ expectations not met

Measures unable to be reported accurately and consistently

Customers do not understand level of service or believe they

are relevant

3 1 1 1 2 2 4 M

Current levels of service are

accepted as appropriate, with some

minor changes expected through

ONRC implementation.

Review of levels of service through

2018-21 period.3 M

Incorrect assumptions about the effects of

climate change

Adding too little or too much future capacity to storm water

systems1 3 3 1 3 2 3 M

Ensure appropriate advice is sought

when planning projects.

Remain apprised of accepted

information - especially where

information changes.

3 L

Lik

elih

oo

d R

ati

ng

Ris

k R

ati

ng

Mitigation Strategy Residual Risk

Risk Description Potential Impact

Consequences

Co

nse

qu

ence

Ra

tin

g

Category: PLANNING



Table 9-1 Risk Schedule (continued)

Co

rpo

rate

ima

ge

Fin

an

cia

l / e

con

om

ic

En

viro

nm

ent/

Leg

al

Hea

lth

& S

afe

ty

Ser

vice

leve

l/ E

ffec

tive

nes

s


Eff

ecti

ven

ess

Ra

tin

g

Res

idu

al R

Isk

Ra

tin

g

Inadequate project/contract management

Objectives not delivered

Budgets exceeded

Negative publicity

3 3 3 2 3 3 3 M

Renewal programmes include liaison

with internal and external third

parties

Contracts comply with industry

standards

ADC policy/procedures to be

reviewed/created detailing

management requirements

3 L

Sub-standard construction/repair work

Reduced levels of service and asset life

Poor public reputation - increased user complaints

Possible increase of risk (reduced safety) to users

Third party damage claims

3 3 2 2 3 3 4 M

Contracts include QA compliance

requirements and audits of

claims/work before acceptance

Increased enforcement of contract

penalties where appropriate

Collaborative (ARC) cross-district

inspections

3 M

Contractor non-performance [work not

programmed/completed]

Reduced levels of service and asset life

Increased costs (and subsequent funding requests) where

deterioration continues

Poor public reputation - increased user complaints

Possible increase of risk (reduced safety) to users

Third party damage claims

3 3 2 2 3 3 4 M

Contracts include appropriate

penalties

Work programmes fit for resources

Work packages developed to suit

market conditions and spread risk

More robust contractor ratings need

to be part of future tender

evaluations

3 M

Asset condition not adequately monitored or

analysed

Inappropriate treatments/prioritisations/programmes

Inappropriate maintenance, use or level of service

Reduced user safety

2 2 1 2 3 2 3 M

Condition requirements set in AMP

and through NZTA obligations

Structure inspections undertaken by

independent consultants

ONRC measures include increased

condition collection

Valuation report identifies condition-

related improvements

3 L

Inadequate development

processes/communication

Sub-optimal sites/layouts/asset types


Unbudgeted costs required to service or maintain

developments

Obsolete or unsuitable specifications

Substandard work

3 3 2 2 2 2 3 MDistrict Plan and development

processes in place

Impacts of inappropriate

works/decisions to be communicated

to Development Engineer/planning

4 L

Sub-standard vested assets

Asset failure - reduced asset life

Increased maintenance/renewal costs

Substandard levels of service

Negative publicity

3 3 2 2 2 2 3 M

Development Engineer complies

with Council requirements for

acceptance levels

Impacts of substandard work to be

communicated to Development

Engineer/planning

4 L

Non-compliance with legislation, legal

requirements or standards

Environmental damage

Poor publicity

Costs of investigations/rectifications/legal proceedings


3 4 2 2 2 3 3 M

Development Engineer complies

with Council requirements for

developments

Impacts of substandard work to be

communicated to Development

Engineer/planning

4 L

Ris

k R

ati

ng


Category: DELIVERY


Consequences

Co

nse

qu

ence

Ra

tin

g

Lik

elih

oo

d R

ati

ng




Co

rpo

rate

ima

ge

Fin

an

cia

l / e

con

om

ic

En

viro

nm

ent/

Leg

al

Hea

lth

& S

afe

ty

Ser

vice

leve

l/ E

ffec

tive

nes

s


Eff

ecti

ven

ess

Ra

tin

g

Res

idu

al R

Isk

Ra

tin

g

Bridge failure

Increased risk of death/injury crashes

Reduction in network accessibility

Traffic diversions causing delays and damage to alternative

routes

HCV restrictions could be severe

3 4 2 4 4 3 2 M

Routine inspections under District

Roading Maintenance Contract.

Regular 3-yearly inspection by bridge

consultants, with work prioritised

and completed. Bridge postings on

restricted bridges.

Prioritise and upgrade restricted

bridges.3 M

Inadequate/substandard road surface

condition - asset failure or degradation

Road crashes through loss of control/evasive action

User dissatisfaction


3 3 2 4 4 3 3 M

Resealing programme prioritises high-

use sites

Maintenance contract addresses user

feedback

Increase/enhance collection of

surface condition to better inform

resurfacing programmes and

highlight high-risk sites

Set target intervention levels

3 M

Inadequate/substandard road surface

condition - effluent/debris/detritus

Road crashes through loss of control/evasive action

User dissatisfaction


3 2 4 3 2 3 4 M

ADC by-laws address breaches

ADC policies encourage responsible

disposal and conveyance of materials

Stock crossing mats and underpasses

are actively supported

Increased enforcement 3 M

Inadequate/substandard road structure

condition

Rougher rides

Increased pavement faults


Decrease in pavement life

3 4 2 3 4 3 3 M

Maintenance contract includes

routine inspections and prioritised

repairs

Renewal programmes use modelling

for long-term predictions

Increase/enhance modelling and

supporting data to better inform

renewal programmes3 M

Inadequate/substandard footpath condition

Increased risk of user injury - especially vulnerable users


Adverse publicity

3 3 1 3 3 3 4 M



repairs

Renewal programme prioritises high-

use sites and uses three-yearly

condition rating inputs

Public feedback available through

multiple modes

Increase/enhance forward

programming process3 L

Inadequate/substandard road delineation

(signs, markings)

Increased risk of death/injury crashes

Incorrect routing

Road user dissatisfaction

3 2 1 3 3 2 4 M



repairs

Public feedback available through

multiple modes

Increased edgeline and curve

warnings

Sign validation to ascertain condition

2 M


Consequences

Co

nse

qu

ence

Ra

tin

g

Lik

elih

oo

d R

ati

ng

Ris

k R

ati

ng

Mitigation Strategy

Category: PHYSICAL ASSETS

Residual Risk




Co

rpo

rate

ima

ge

Fin

an

cia

l / e

con

om

ic

En

viro

nm

ent/

Leg

al

Hea

lth

& S

afe

ty

Ser

vice

leve

l/ E

ffec

tive

nes

s


Eff

ecti

ven

ess

Ra

tin

g

Res

idu

al R

Isk

Ra

tin

g

Minor natural event: localised or individual

site [earthquake, flood, wind, snow,

frost/ice, slips/subsidence, fire]

Minor delays and reduction in capacity/accessibility

Some increased risk of injury/death to road users

Minor asset damage - small increase in maintenance/repair

budgets

Traffic diversions may slightly degrade alternative routes

Small number of residents may be isolated

Third party (utilities) damage may affect small number of

residents

3 3 3 3 3 3 4 H 3 M

Significant natural event: large portion of

network affected [earthquake, flood, wind,

snow, frost/ice, slips/subsidence, fire]

Major delays and large reduction in capacity/accessibility -

temporary closure of some roads

Moderate increased risk of injury/death to road users

Major asset damage - significant increase in

maintenance/repair budgets

Traffic diversions will degrade alternative routes

Large number of residents may be isolated - - especially high

country and single-access sites

Third party (including utilities) damage will affect large

number of residents

4 4 4 4 4 4 3 H 3 M

Extreme natural event: majority of network

affected [earthquake, flood, wind, snow,

frost/ice, slips/subsidence, fire]

Long-term delays and critical reduction in capacity/accessibility

- long-term closure of entire roads/areas

Substantial increased risk of injury/death to road users

Extreme asset damage - substantial increase in

maintenance/repair budgets with long-term effects

Traffic diversions may degrade alternative routes to point of

closure

Majority of residents may be isolated - especially high country

and single-access sites

Third party (including utilties) damage will affect majority of

residents - long-term effects could alter transport decisions

5 5 5 5 5 5 1 H 3 H

Crashes

High risk of death/injury

Asset damage

Restricted network accessibility

Traffic diverted onto unsuitable alternative routes with delays

3 3 2 4 3 3 4 H

Road safety strategy

Crash causes are addressed where

practicable

Continued liaison at

regional/national level for crash

reduction/mitigation strategies

3 M

Third party damage - accidental or deliberate

Damage to assets

Reduction in safety/route marking

Increased maintenance costs

3 2 2 3 2 2 5 HMaintenance contract monitors and

repairs as required4 L

Category: PHYSICAL ASSETS (continued)

Consequences

Co

nse

qu

ence

Ra

tin

g

Lik

elih

oo

d R

ati

ng

Ris

k R

ati

ng


Maintenance contract specifies

inspection, action and reporting

regime for emergency events of all

levels

Emergency plans in place [liaising

with Civil Defence and emergency

services as required] including route

prioritisation (lifelines)

Additonal site-specific

contractors/residents are part of

emergency plans (eg. high country

routes, isolated coastal

communities)

Monitoring and long-term actions as

a result of the event are included in

the maintenance contract

requirements, and in general council

policy/strategy

Maintenance contract requirements

include actions that will contribute to

lessening effects of events eg. sump

clearing, drainage maintenance, ice

gritting, removal of vegetation

shading roads)

Conduct reviews of events to ensure

processes are effective and

appropriate

Monitor maintenance works for

timeliness and conformance to

requirements

Review lifeline prioritisation - liaise

with locals to confirm assumptions

Ensure public communications are

multi-modal and timely

Manage customer expectations to

realistic levels of service in

emergency events





Co

rpo

rate

ima

ge

Fin

an

cia

l / e

con

om

ic

En

viro

nm

ent/

Leg

al

Hea

lth

& S

afe

ty

Ser

vice

leve

l/ E

ffec

tive

nes

s


Eff

ecti

ven

ess

Ra

tin

g

Res

idu

al R

Isk

Ra

tin

g

Lack/loss of staff

Standard required management processes not adequately

maintained - possibly not delivered

Inappropriate/inadequate or non- delivered work programmes

Pressure on staff with increased workloads

Business continuity threatened - knowledge/processes lost if

documentation/procedures not in place

2 3 2 2 4 3 3 M

Council human resources manage

staff requirements

Collaboration (ARC) provides some

functionality

Systems and documentation provide

direction for some procedures

Council-wide business analysis

currently underway which will

highlight gaps in continuity

Complete policy/procedure manual

2 M

Lack/loss of suppliers

Higher and less predictable contract prices

Local market decline and capability decrease

Levels of service reduced

Asset lives extended (by necessity not optimisation)

2 3 1 2 2 2 2 M

Works competitively tendered and

undertaken in separate packages

Collaboration (ARC) enables

consolidation and economy of scale

3 L

Inadequate technology/technical

support/equipment

Reduced staff safety through limited mobile communications

Inefficiencies where direct data input not available (errors also

possible through double-handling)

1 2 1 2 2 2 4 M

Pocket RAMM utilised

Information Systems provides

support

Collboration (ARC) provides

experience of alternatives

4 L

Road corridor events not coordinated

Poor publicity

Delays to users and third party works (possible litigation)

Unnecessary asset damage

Unnecessary traffic disruptions/restrictions

Reduced safety

3 2 3 2 2 2 3 M

Corridor Access Requests are

required for all events and are

processed in-house

Road closure policies in place with

NZTA and internal community

relations liaison

Corridor operator liaison meetings

held regularly

Increase liasion meetings and

improve public understanding of

requirements

4 L

Public

discontent/mistrust/miscommunication

Inappropriate customer expectations

Lack of public support for critical projects/works

Reduced reputation of council

Political decisions made reflecting public discontent

4 2 2 2 3 3 3 M

Council communications are multi-

modal and timely

LTP and AMP content shared with

custopmers -feedback sought and

addressed

Road reference groups comprising

broad customer/use base meet

regularly

Enhance roading satisfaction survey

to gauge detailed customer views4 L


Consequences

Co

nse

qu

ence

Ra

tin

g

Lik

elih

oo

d R

ati

ng

Ris

k R

ati

ng


Category: MANAGEMENT