Bay of Plenty 2017/18 Asset Management Scores 2016/17 Prototype 2016/17 New 2017/18 Final Draft Ashburton District Council 53 68 69 Chatham Islands Council 52 53 60 Christchurch City Council 46 56 51 Hurunui District Council 62 62 53 Kaikoura District Council 38 33 41 MacKenzie District Council 46 47 52 Selwyn District Council 61 75 71 Timaru District Council 52 53 68 Waimakariri District Council 57 57 55 Waimate District Council 51 71 68 Avg 52 58 59 Median 52 57 58 Min 38 33 41 Max 62 75 71 THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 28
Gisborne Hawkes Bay 2017/18 Asset Management Scores 2016/17 Prototype 2016/17 New 2017/18 Final Draft Central Hawkes Bay District Council 46 53 56 Gisborne District Council 47 65 50 Hastings District Council 60 62 64 Napier City Council 37 59 51 Wairoa District Council 47 55 51 Avg 47 59 54 Median 47 59 51 Min 37 53 50 Max 60 65 64 THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 29
Southland Otago 2017/18 Asset Management Scores 2016/17 Prototype 2016/17 New 2017/18 Final Draft Central Otago District Council 55 62 58 Clutha District Council 56 61 60 Dunedin City Council 54 55 69 Gore District Council 43 38 54 Invercargill City Council 60 60 64 Queenstown-Lakes District Council 54 62 56 Southland District Council 64 75 77 Waitaki District Council 50 51 49 Avg 55 58 61 Median 55 61 59 Min 43 38 49 Max 64 75 77 THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 30
Taranaki Manawatu Whanganui 2017/18 Asset Management Scores 2016/17 Prototype 2016/17 New 2017/18 Final Draft Horowhenua District Council 46 45 49 Manawatu District Council 54 52 45 New Plymouth District Council 48 53 45 Palmerston North City Council 43 38 51 Rangitikei District Council 56 50 44 Ruapehu District Council 52 65 56 South Taranaki District Council 64 75 63 Stratford District Council 54 55 42 Tararua District Council 45 52 42 Whanganui District Council 56 69 48 Avg 52 55 49 Median 53 53 47 Min 43 38 42 Max 64 75 63 THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 31
Top of South West Coast 2017/18 Asset Management Scores 2016/17 Prototype 2016/17 New 2017/18 Final Draft Buller District Council 34 40 38 Grey District Council 32 40 32 Marlborough District Council 63 63 50 Nelson City Council 47 58 48 Tasman District Council 49 54 53 Westland District Council 47 55 47 Avg 45 52 45 Median 47 55 48 Min 32 40 32 Max 63 63 53 THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 32
Waikato 2017/18 Asset Management Scores 2016/17 Prototype 2016/17 New 2017/18 Final Draft Hamilton City Council 47 67 71 Hauraki District Council 65 78 69 Matamata-Piako District Council 45 55 59 Otorohanga District Council 52 52 73 South Waikato District Council 61 67 57 Taupo District Council 35 50 62 Thames-Coromandel District Council 58 61 40 Waikato District Council 56 68 54 Waipa District Council 58 69 77 Waitomo District Council 65 62 51 Avg 54 63 61 Median 57 65 61 Min 35 50 40 Max THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 65 78 77 33
Wellington 2017/18 Asset Management Scores 2016/17 Prototype 2016/17 New 2017/18 Final Draft Carterton District Council 53 66 61 Hutt City Council 47 34 44 Kapiti Coast District Council 55 65 64 Masterton District Council 45 66 60 Porirua City Council 46 55 45 South Wairarapa District Council 48 53 58 Upper Hutt City Council 60 65 58 Wellington City Council 47 54 52 Avg 50 57 55 Median 48 60 58 Min 45 34 44 Max 60 66 64 THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 34
Please send your feedback about the results or your draft 2017/18 reports to: roadefficiencygroup@nzta .govt.nz Before end of Friday 2 nd November THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 35
Practice Overviews Lack of industry understanding or guidance around the management of key datasets Poor processes for the timely Poor collection and Data recording of maintenance Quality and renewal activity Missed opportunity through ‘doing what always has been done’ THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 36
Practice Overviews Data type: Why we do it: Bring management of network down to a project level and assist greatly with forward Treatment Length Segmentation works planning, dTIMS and maintenance intervention strategies. Maintenance Assists greatly with NPV analysis, FWP development, deterioration modelling and Activity Data asset management decision making and understanding performance. Carriageway Accurate, complete and up-to-date surfacing data is the foundation to enable a robust Surfacing Data forward works programme, deterioration model and other analysis Allows for reliable planning of asset and maintenance management and for more Traffic Count Data accurate estimation on the non-counted parts of the network. A key input for asset management decisions by allowing understanding of traffic input Traffic Estimate Data and loading on roads. Fundamental in how the network is defined and split into lane kilometres. Carriageways Carriageways form the basis for referencing other linear data. Vital for improving safety on the network by targeting investment and measuring the Crash Data benefits of safety improvements. Associates the carriageway surface and pavement layer inventory records with the Work Origin NLTP Activity Classes and Work Categories. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 37
• Take out your smart phone/device • Go to kahoot.it • Enter PIN number • Put in your name • Lets get started! THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 38
REGional Champion Update
Innovation Space
Innovation Space The process of translating an idea or invention into a good or service that creates value or for which customers will… THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 41
Carriageway Sections Why are Carriageway sections important? • Fundamental in defining and classifying the network, including for ONRC. What are they? • Sections of roads as recorded in the RAMM road names table. • Sections should split the road at recognisable landmarks e.g. intersections, bridges, culverts, route stations. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 42
Carriageway Sections • The accuracy of carriageway data is critical as most other data in RAMM is dependent on it. • Poor carriageway data can lead to: • Incorrect reporting of network length • Poor understanding of network demand, including VKT • Poor reporting of network condition, including Smooth Travel Exposure (STE) THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 43
Carriageway Sections What are national results showing us? Rural Lanes 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Ca1a2 Urban Lanes 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Ca1b2 • Overall, ONRC Assigned carriageway data is 90 92 94 96 98 100 Ca2 Rural Short in good condition. 60 70 80 90 100 Ca3a2 Urban Short 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Ca3b2 Sealed/unsealed 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Ca4 THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 44
Carriageway Sections Group discussion: • What issues has your RCA had in the past due to poor carriageway segmentation? • Does your RCA have a special method for maintaining carriageway sections? THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 45
Carriageway Sections When must Carriageway Sections splits occur? a) A significant change in scenery b) Changes in number of lanes. c) Changes in pavement type. d) B and C THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 46
Treatment Length Management • Why do we put roads into Treatment Lengths? • Like eating an elephant. • Brings the control of network maintenance management down to a project level. • Allows for easier recording of all data in RAMM THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 47
Treatment Length Management • A treatment length is a uniformly performing contiguous section of road, and performing differently from the adjacent sections. • Used for: • Forward works programming • Deterioration modelling (dTIMS) • Asset performance • Valuations • Maintenance strategies • Condition trend reporting THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 48
Treatment Length Management • When should treatment lengths be reviewed? • When it becomes obvious that a treatment length is not performing in a uniform manner • Changes to any of the configuration criteria such as road widening, significant change in traffic etc. Who is responsible? • RCAs THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 49
Treatment Length Management When should treatment lengths be managed? • When it is obvious a treatment is no longer performing in a uniform manner. • When changes occur i.e. road widening, change in traffic THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 50
Treatment Length Management Why these metrics? • Underpin the amenity ONRC measures. Not Short TL1a 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 What are national results showing us? • TLs are too long. Not Long TL1b 60 70 80 90 100 Match • STE completeness data is varied TL2 60 70 80 90 100 across sector. STE TL4 80 85 90 95 100 • TL updates to match renewals need Renewal improvement. TL5.1 30 50 70 90 THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 51
Treatment Length Management Activity: • In groups use the practice overview document for treatment length as guidance, • segment the road into as many treatment lengths as required and record why you have placed segments at certain locations. Number/reference segments as you go. • Also record what information was missing or would have made this job easier? THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 52
Pavement thickness Seal widens Leaves the changes city Goes past an intersection Runs over a culvert Runs along a Trees close river to verge Passing lane Surfacing Reduction changes in traffic volume Pavement ONRC thickness category Speed changes change limit change Climbs up Speed Centreline into hump wire rope mountains barrier THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 53
Pavement thickness Seal widens Leaves the changes city Goes past an intersection Runs over a culvert Runs along a Trees close river to verge Passing lane Surfacing Reduction changes in traffic volume Pavement ONRC thickness category Speed changes change limit change Climbs up Speed Centreline into hump wire rope mountains barrier THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 54
Surfacing Data Why do we collect surfacing data? • Foundation of treatment length segmentation • Critical for Forward Works Planning • Reflects a large proportion of RCA investment • Foundation for other data sets and deterioration modelling THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 55
Surfacing Data What is surfacing data? • Record of surfacing works completed on the road. • Location • Dimensions • Date • Material • Expected life • Includes renewals, rehabilitations, new works and other construction projects. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 56
Surfacing Data How can RCAs influence surfacing data quality? • Contract documents • Specifying who is collecting data and what and when it needs to be collected • Data quality plan which indicates: • Level of accuracy • Attributes to be recorded • Level of data checks THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 57
Surfacing Data What are national results showing us? • Cost data has improved, but still In RAMM 0 2 4 6 8 10 Su1 room for further improvement. Location 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Su2 Cost • Work Origin data has a lot of room 0 20 40 60 80 100 Su3 for improvement. Work Origin 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Su4 Newer • Still too many sites with data 0 20 40 60 80 100 Su5 showing that surfacing is older than pavement. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 58
Surfacing Data What should surfacing data include? a) Location b) Date c) Material used d) All of the above THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 59
Work Origin Why is Work Origin important? • Enables better reporting of renewal activity which leads to better analysis of asset performance and likely future needs. • Effects ONRC performance measures for: • Pavement Rehab • Chipseal resurfacing • Asphalt resurfacing THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 60
Work Origin How is Work Origin recorded? • The Work Origin field is currently only available in the Carriageway Surface and Pavement Layer tables in RAMM. This functionality is expected to be available in the future in other asset inventory tables. • A Work Origin code is a valid combination of Activity Class and Work Category. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 61
Work Origin What ONRC performance measures does Work Origin data impact? a) Cost Efficiency 1: Pavement Rehabilitation b) Cost Efficiency 2: Chipseal Resurfacing c) Cost Efficiency 3: Asphalt Resurfacing d) All of these THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 62
Traffic Count and Traffic Estimate Data Why is this data important? • Allows us to understand current and changing demands on network • Estimate data reduces need to count every carriageway section on network • Better planning of maintenance and renewal activity on the network THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 63
Traffic Count and Traffic Estimate Data What are the consequences of poor data? Incorrect traffic management Sub-optimal funding levels decisions Inappropriate renewals Poor understanding of designs renewals need Poor customer service Poor understanding of traffic Poor estimation of patterns uncounted network Poor performance reporting THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 64
Traffic Count Data Quality What are national results showing us? Targeted 10 30 50 70 90 TC1 • Large proportion of RCAs have Historic 30 50 70 90 TC2 poor coverage of traffic count Programme data in terms of VKT. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 TC3 Loading 0 20 40 60 TC4 • Classified data is in a good state Coverage 0 20 40 60 80 TC5 across the country. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 65
Traffic Estimate Data Quality What are national results showing us? Has Estimates 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 TE1 • High Volume/Arterial should be HV to Arterial estimated each year. 0 20 40 60 80 100 TE2a2 Primary to Sec. 0 20 40 60 80 100 TE2b2 • Lower classification roads Access to LV 0 20 40 60 80 100 TE2c2 every 3 or 5 years. Updated 20 40 60 80 100 TE3 Loading • Poor updating of records after 0 20 40 60 80 100 TE4 traffic counts have occurred. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 66
Traffic Count and Traffic Estimate Data What is not a consequence of poor traffic count/estimate data? a) Sub-optimal funding decisions b) Increased heavy traffic on roads c) Poor understanding of renewals need d) Incorrect traffic management levels THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 67
Group activity • Split into 3 groups • Each group to complete the activity sheet provided • Report back on your observations THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 68
Maintenance Activity Data Why is maintenance activity data important? THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 69
Maintenance Activity Data What is maintenance activity data? • Summary of maintenance which has a specific location • Recorded in maintenance cost table in RAMM • Data for all maintenance activities can be recorded THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 70
Maintenance Activity Data Who should record this data? THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 71
Maintenance Activity Data What are national results showing us? • Most RCAs are collecting maintenance data to the expected standard. Complete 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 MA1 Correct 0 20 40 60 80 100 MA2 • However, some RCAs are Location 0 20 40 60 80 100 MA4 still not recording this data in RAMM or at all. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 72
Crash Data in RAMM Why is crash data in RAMM important? • Analysis of wet road loss of control crashes for skid resistance management • Prioritisation of surfacing treatments to enhance skid resistance • ONRC safety performance measures THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 73
Crash Data in RAMM Who is responsible for collecting crash data? • Each RCA What needs to be recorded? • When, where and how the crash occurred Note: CAS data should be used for analysing crash data and statistics. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 74
Crash Data in RAMM What is the national data telling us? • Appears to be a big lag in available RAMM data (latest Recent available data is November 2017). 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cr1 Location 90 92 94 96 98 100 Cr2 • Good location reference of crash records. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 75
We want your feedback! Take our Survey now! • Take out your smart phone/device • Go to kahoot.it • Enter PIN number • Put in your name • Lets get started! THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 76
Implementing Our Improvement Plans
Outline for this Section 1. Context/Background 2. Sharing ALT13 and progress to date (10 minutes) 3. Outlining and feedback on proposal for joint NZTA/RCA improvement plan monitoring and implementation 4. Preparing for next workshop – joint RCA & IA partnership approach THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 78
A Time of Improvement is Ahead • Expectations for accountability in the public sector are rising • LGNZ is very keen to enhance Local Govt's reputation • LGNZ and NZTA want the sector to succeed • REG is the vehicle providing guidance to achieve success • Moving from asset management plans to BCA activity management plans THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 79
Any business case must address 5 key questions: 1. Is there a compelling case for change? 2. Does the preferred investment option optimise value for money? 3. Is the proposed deal commercially viable? 4. Is the spending proposal affordable? 5. How can the proposal be delivered successfully? The BCA is a systematic approach to answering these questions It isn't compliance – it is making sure we do what is right! THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 80
Fundamental challenges BCA helps us address 1. If this was my money would I spend it this way? 2. If I can’t say why I am doing it, then . . . . . . Why am I doing it? BCA helps us better identify, explain and provide the right services It is not a compliance process but a mechanism to help our logic and support us delivering the right services to our communities and road users. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 81
Way back in R11 (Nov 2017) we asked: Is the investment story compelling? 1. Is there a clear understanding of ‘Why’ you need to do something? 2. Is there evidence to support your recommended programme? 3. Is what your are recommending affordable? 4. Does it provide ‘value for money’? 5. Do you have the management capability/capacity to deliver the programme? 6. Can the ‘supply chain’ / market respond and deliver within your required timeframes? THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 82
Where are we currently at? 1. Many of our plans have only just met BCA requirements 2. The requirements will be applied more stringently next time (Not punitive but coaxing us to be more accountable and effective) 3. Even the best plans have identified room for improvement 4. There are challenges to deal with – e.g. the improvement plan will need to address requirements of NZTA Co-funding General Conditions & any specific conditions 5. We must keep what has to be done in mind or we will lose sight of it and run out of time THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 83
March 2017 Observation from Audit NZ on monitoring Improvement Plans “We noted that many AMPs included a statement along the lines of • “Council takes a managed approach to improvement planning, with adequate resources allocated and clear monitoring of performance”. In practice , we found this was often not the case, with insufficient or no resources allocated for working on the actions identified in the improvement plan and/or no monitoring of progress with improvement initiatives”. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 84
Observation from Audit NZ continued “The improvement plan should be allocated sufficient resource to actually undertake the planned work. Progress against the plan should be monitored regularly. If there is limited resource and/or time to carry out all the actions identified as being necessary to achieve the desired levels of asset management sophistication and data reliability, entities need to ensure that the required tasks are prioritised and the most important initiatives progressed. It is better to have a few improvement initiatives that the organisation actively progresses rather than including a long list that ends up being purely academic or that cannot be progressed due to insufficient resources. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 85
NZTA Co-funding General Conditions • Ensuring the organisation’s business systems, planning documents, management practices and reporting integrate the ONRC framework into all transport related decision making . This is to ensure robust evidence investment decisions are made which deliver value for money on a best whole of life basis. • Delivering and reporting the organisation's ONRC and your own key performance indicators. • Delivering and reporting the planned improvements that form part of the programme as submitted and accounted for in the Transport Agency’s approved funding. • Ensuring that the organisation’s investment decisions within the approved NLTP allocation are focused on delivering the outcomes as set out in the draft GPS and the submitted programme of works set out as the basis for the Transport Agency’s approval of your programme. • Ensuring the organisation advises the Transport Agency at the earliest opportunity of any changes that materially affect the planned programme of works and expected outcomes to be achieved over the NLTP period. THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 86
What we are looking for Community Value Added BCA BCA application application Minimum requirements Compliance BCA RCA Owned BCA Implementing AMP Improvement Plan THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 87
Current progress discussion At your table, discuss your organisation’s Improvement Plan Implementation progress summaries. 1. Are you making/monitoring progress? 2. Have sufficient resources to complete before July 2020? 3. Reviewing and adding to your improvement plan? 4. Whereabouts on the Compliance to Ownership continuum? (Being “made to do it” versus “wanting to do it") 5. Any new actions to be added after today? Plenary Share where on the continuum and new actions you have identified THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 88
Looking ahead Joint Monitoring Proposal Based on our learning and development programme as presented to R14 THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 89
Monitoring Proposal – your feedback wanted Ensuring AMP meets standard for 2021 NLTP through • Draft Reporting/monitoring framework for Improvement Plans • RCA example – Linking actions to pillars of success Adopt RCA/NZTA Improvement Plan partnership approach • Improvement Plan conversations and reporting/monitoring including (draft) dashboard • CCC and West Coast examples THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 90
Why were using REGs Pillars of Success 1. Keeps the “Big Picture” in front of us 2. Helps us identify benefits beyond the immediately obvious 3. Develops a better understanding of “Why” 4. Helps move us away from a compliance mentality 5. Develops a more robust and healthy work culture 6. It helps link/reinforce the REG learning programme to real examples 7. Helps identify/prompt any potential ‘gap’ areas across the full activity management system 8. Offers a consistent approach to improvement initiatives and monitoring THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 91
Supporting the Sector to Succeed Do your systems and process work well, what can be improved? Are they ’customer’ focused and incorporate the ONRC and BCA? Do they link your Systems contracts to your AMP. Think of the whole transport system. Is there a clear line of sight from the strategic case to what you are delivering? Are you collecting the correct data? How good is your data quality? Is your Pillars of Success RAMM database up to date? How well have you utilised and understand Evidence People / Culture People / Culture the gaps with the ONRC CLoS and your evidence base? How robust is your analysis and articulation of the evidence your data is providing? How clear is your investment story? Do you have a concise executive summary, the public could understand why they should support your Communications defined programme and cost for it? Have you socialised your AMP investment requirements & programme with your GM/CE/strategic planners, and elected members? Is it aligned with your LTP? Does your council support your AMP and LTP submission? Does your Approval Processes NZTA funding bid meet the IAC? Are there other approvals required? You have engaged with the construction sector? Have you reviewed your Service Delivery procurement strategy and linked it to your delivery model? Have you introduced the ONRC into your maintenance contracts? THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 92
Improvement themes identified in R12 Systems Data Approval Process Communications Service Delivery Improve Data reporting and Improve telling a Better communications Integrate ONRC into Improve data quality RAMM systems compelling robust story content and messaging contracts Improve high level sector Improve information for Improve alignment of Better Audience targeting Improve industry Decision Making systems for monitoring/ sector approval engagement audit/ reporting/ quality processes control linking GPS to delivery across councils. Develop Line of sight Improve data Collection Improve regular Improved sector Improve procurement systems from strategy to communications communication processes strategies work programming to specifications to delivery Improve RAMM Improve Improve Communications Address sector issues communications capability through organisation culture and training Improve support for Improve procurement using data practice Improve Value for Money for data collection and use THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 93
Framework linked to pillars of success Communi Decision Service People / People / Systems Evidence cating Making Delivery Culture Culture • Line of sight • Data quality • Clarity of • Use of the • Smart Buyer • Culture investment story ONRC and • Embed ONRC • Collection ONRC • Procurement • Leadership decision-making PM • Executive strategy • Improve use of • Capability summary • Use of RCA KPIs BCA in AMP • Reporting ONRC • Contract • Principal & PM • Structure of AMP • Links to NZTA • Reporting - use • Bedding AMP Suppliers (use of assessment & integration of • Customer/Stake outcomes on to • Collaboration & principles) process evidence to holder procurement knowledge programme satisfaction • Link to LTP • Links to Council • Embedding sharing processes • Defined LoS • Utilising analysis • Link to GPS ONRC into • Resources framework tools • FWP procurement • Succession • Integrated • Benefit • Linking • Contract planning organisational realisation evidenced as Management / • Structure tools reporting is decisions & FWP QA / Operational included in Improvements • Technology • Benefit evidence realisation • Benefit (intervention / realisation selection links/framework improvement) • Improvement planning THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 94
Example Dashboard THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 95
Example Dashboard continued 50 60 50 60 50 60 SERVICE DELIVERY COMMUNICATING 40 70 40 70 40 70 Execute Execute Execute 30 80 30 80 30 80 Plan Plan Plan 20 90 20 90 20 90 Complete Complete Complete Initiate Initiate Initiate 10 100 10 100 10 100 35 45 50 Asset mgmt plan Procurement strategy Maintenance contract 50 60 PEOPLE / CULTURE 50 60 50 60 DECISION MAKING 40 70 40 70 40 70 Execute Execute Execute 30 80 30 80 30 80 Plan Plan Plan 20 90 20 90 20 90 Complete Complete Complete Initiate Initiate Initiate 10 100 10 100 10 100 40 55 60 Forward works programme Regional collaboration Capability plan THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 96
Preparing the sector for the future REG improvement planning Helping to support RCAs to deliver the defined benefits to their communities, improve their AMPs, achieve higher expectations for the 2021 NLTP, and meet NZTA co-funding conditions. Assessment Areas Outcomes Areas of consideration Focus Questions Desired Fit for purpose Line of sight, Improvement planning, Can the RCA demonstrate alignment between their transport activity planning and their strategic long term planning Systems processes? Embedded ONRC, Use of BCA, Reporting, planning LoS framework, Technology, Integrated Does the RCA have a robust business case supporting their AMP? organizational links, improvement planning How does the RCA demonstrate the transfer of their business planning through to their forward programme? What is the RCA strategy to understand the problems and performance on their network? How do they align with strategic partners? Can the RCA demonstrate the outcomes they need to invest in? THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 97
Worked Examples: West Coast and Christchurch City
Transport Improvement Programme Review 9October 2018
Agenda • Programme overview • Focus areas • Line of sight • People • Process • Decision making • Technology • Knowledge • Progress so far
Recommend
More recommend
