Council Adoption Date Record of Decision

Peer Review Record Date Reviewer Designation

Issue Information Issue Purpose Roading Asset Management Plan Issue Date 20/03/2015 Version Number 9 Report Number

Quality Assurance Statement Task Responsibility Date Project Manager David Hopman MAO Prepared by Tony Pritchard ADSO Reviewed by Hamish Pringle RSM Approved for Issue by

Revision Schedule Approved Rev No Date Description Prepared by Reviewed by by

CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 2.1 Background and AMP History ...... 4 2.2 Goals and Objectives of Asset Ownership ...... 5 2.3 Activity Management Programme Business Case ...... 7 2.4 AMP Framework ...... 7 3. LEVELS OF SERVICE ...... 8 3.1 Customer Research and Expectations ...... 9 3.2 Strategic Needs and Corporate Goals ...... 10 3.3 Legislative Requirements ...... 13 3.4 Current Level of Service...... 14 3.5 Desired Levels of Service ...... 17 4. FUTURE DEMAND ...... 19 4.1 Factors Influencing Demand ...... 19 4.2 Changes in customer expectations ...... 24 4.3 Demand Forecast ...... 24 4.4 Demand Management Plan ...... 25 5. RISK MANAGEMENT ...... 26 5.1 Introduction ...... 26 5.2 Risk Register and Mitigation ...... 27 5.3 Critical Risks ...... 34 5.4 Road Safety ...... 35 5.5 Lifelines and Priority Facilities ...... 35 5.6 Improvement Plan 2011-14 ...... 35 6. LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT ...... 36 6.1 General ...... 36 6.2 Sealed Pavements ...... 37 6.3 Unsealed Pavements ...... 50 6.4 Pavement Drainage ...... 57 6.5 Bridges ...... 63 6.6 Carriageway Lighting ...... 69 6.7 Traffic Facilities & Guardrails ...... 73 6.8 Footpath and Pedestrian Crossings ...... 78 6.9 Parking Facilities ...... 86 7. FINANCIAL SUMMARY ...... 89 7.1 Financial Statements and Projections ...... 89 7.2 Funding Strategy ...... 95 7.3 Asset Valuation ...... 95 7.4 Key Financial Forecast Assumptions ...... 96 8. AMP IMPROVEMENT AND MONITORING ...... 98 8.1 Monitoring and Review ...... 98 9. REFERENCE AND GLOSSARY ...... 99 9.1 References ...... 99 9.2 Glossary (Common to all documents) ...... 100 10. APPENDICES ...... 103

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 1 of 126

CERTIFICATION OF ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Certification of this Activity Plan We the undersigned have reviewed the 2015 transportation Activity Management Plan and are satisfied that it:  Is based on the organisation assumptions adopted by Council.  Reflects the population growth forecasts adopted by the Council.  Is based on reasonable, complete and reliable data.  Takes account of relevant Council policies and strategies.  Includes financial forecasts that: o Reflect the assumptions and are based on reasonable cost information. o Include all relevant activities and cost centers. o Have been appropriately analysed between demand, improved levels of service and renewals.  Includes performance measures that appropriately reflect the major aspects of the activities (i.e. they are things that matter to the community e.g. availability, reliability, quantity, quality, cost, timeliness, customer satisfaction, sustainability, effectiveness) and link to the objectives for activity.  Has been prepared in accordance with the International Infrastructure Management Manual as appropriate to the approved level for this activity (core plus).  Can be implemented taking account of available organisation resources.

Signed: Date: Name

Signed: Date: Name

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Roading Asset Management Plan has been written to provide a comprehensive tool that combines management, financial, engineering and technical practices to ensure that an agreed level of service is provided to defined standards at optimum cost in a way which is sustainable in the long term and which complies with regulatory requirements. This asset management plan should be read in conjunction with the Long Term Plan (LTP 2015-25) which is the Districts overall plan for the next ten years to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of the community now and in the future. The plan contributes towards achieving the Masterton District Councils stated community outcomes of being an easy place to move around, achieving a strong sustainable economy, having an active, involved & caring community. Making us a sustainable, healthy natural environment, and also creating a knowledgeable resilient community. Strategic and tactical asset management also plays a role in improving social and environmental outcomes for Masterton. Roading assets are a significant financial responsibility for the Masterton District Council amounting to a collection of assets which includes elements such as land, formation, pavements, culverts, bridges, and ancillary safety assets to make up the total transportation network.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 2 of 126

Roading is funded through a districtwide Roading charge per property and a smaller allocation through charge of land value. The total optimised replacement cost of access and transport assets as at 1 July 2014 was $599,151,000. With an optimised depreciated replacement cost of $505,905,000. Depreciation on Roading assets is funded through districtwide roading charges. Annual depreciation of Roading assets is $4,570,000. The roading assets represent 56% of the total value of the Utilities in the Council’s asset depreciations. New Roading assets are also funded from private developments. The New Zealand Transport Agency reviewed its infrastructure funding policy in 2014. Under the revised funding rates, the Masterton District Council Roading assets will receive 57% funding assistance for all work categories. An additional 20% of funding will be available for emergency repairs that exceed 10% of the approved maintenance and operations allocation. These allocations apply to the three yearly programmes that New Zealand Transport Agency approves through the National Land Transport Programme. The current three year programme ends on 30 June 2018. Although we currently have a reasonably static population growth at an estimated 2% the Districts primary industry transportation needs create pressures to ensure adequate spending on the maintenance, upgrading and renewal of existing assets. The priority for Masterton District Council is to deliver the best value for money to receive the best performance from its existing assets. Looking to the future a proposed local government amalgamation for the Wellington region is difficult to plan for or even define at this stage but in preparation for change the three Wairarapa Councils are actively sharing services and resources while endeavouring to close gaps in our asset management strategies prior to any announcement of amalgamation. The three Wairarapa Councils not only share a common Roading Asset Management Plan template, but also the same road asset maintenance management software (RAMM). This allows for simplified movement of data within a common program, and also common collection processes by staff. Shared Roading maintenance and lighting contracts were tendered in 2014 and won by Fulton Hogan and Alf Downs respectively. Council’s jointly collects traffic data essential in the new one network road classification (ONRC) introduced in 2014 by NZTA. Shared resources and engineering expertise is jointly provided to MDC & CDC. Masterton has a network of 521km sealed roads, 281km of unsealed roads, 250 Bridges, 201km of footpaths, 3700 signs, 2450 street lights, 1380 car parks, and 3900 culverts. Our roading network spans 229,500ha across all varieties of landscape linking the urban hub with seaside communities with Masterton District is bisected by New Zealand Transport Agency’s state highway 2 and Kiwi Rail’s railway infrastructure. Both entities link entry & exit from our community and can be considered to be the backbones within the MDC’s roading and transportation infrastructure.

The benefits of sustaining, upgrading and renewing assets are numerous. Perhaps less obvious though is that, effective asset management planning plays an important role in achieving road safety outcomes. Masterton is a party to the Government’s strategy of further reducing injuries and deaths on our roads – balancing this with the need to improve the region’s productivity by moving people and goods faster and more efficiently. This Asset Management Plan is a critical tool; we see it as a living document that has a continuous cycle of improvement and will continue to be refined as our organisation moves forward. This plan describes what Roading assets Masterton District Council manages, the plan talks of the expected levels of service, and how these factors may influence the growth, or demand for Roading in the future. The plan talks of the possible risks that may lie ahead of us for Roading, and summarises the levels of maintenance and renewals that the Roading assets will require to remain robust. The plan includes financial data such as the history of expenditure and any projected future expenditures for Roading to explain and be transparent to our stakeholders what path our management of Roading Assets will take.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 3 of 126

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background and AMP History An asset management plan is a tool in which a combination of management, financial, engineering and other practices are applied to physical assets in pursuit of set levels of service and economic life-cycle costs. This Asset Management Plan was first developed in February 2006, revised in 2008 & 2011 and updated in 2015 to share this format with CDC & SWDC (Carterton & South Wairarapa District Councils. It supersedes Councils “Asset Management Plan & Level of Service Roading 1998”. It is amended as required when the assets have changes implemented. The first plan was in 1998. 2.1.1 The Purpose of the Asset Management Plan The purpose of this roading asset management plan “the Plan” is to provide Masterton District Council “Council” with a tool to assist with the management of its roading assets “the assets”. This tool combine’s management, financial, engineering and technical practices and is intended to:  Ensure that an agreed level of service is provided to defined standards at optimum cost.  Be sustainable in the long term.  Comply with regulatory requirements.  Help Council to achieve the outcomes the community has defined. An Asset Management Plan provides a strategy for managing the asset to deliver a service to an agreed level to the customer, at an optimum cost. The key elements in this Asset Management Plan are:  A description of the asset including its various components.  The level of service to be delivered to the customers.  The management strategy to be followed in running the roading network.  The financial impacts of managing the assets.  An improvement plan to enable the asset to be run more efficiently. The International Infrastructure Management Manual (NAMSG, 2011) provides the structure and format for Asset Management Plans. 2.1.2 Relationship with Other Planning Documents The asset management plan is a tactical plan providing a link between Council’s strategic and operational plans. Table 2.1 Linkages between the Asset Management Plan and Other Strategic Documents Strategic Plans: This is Councils broad strategic direction set in the context of current and Towards 2020 (25 year future customer requirements. The asset management Plan is the means for strategic plan) and LTP 2015- developing appropriate strategies and policies for the long-term management 2025 of Council assets. It also forms the basis for analysing the impact of corporate strategy options on levels of service and long term funding needs, which feed into Council’s Strategic Plan, the LTP. Annual Plan The service level options and associated costs developed in the AM plan will be fed into the Annual Plan consultation process. Financial and Business Plans The financial and business plans requirement by the Local Government Amendment Act (3) requires expenditure projections. These will be taken directly from the financial forecasts in the AM plan. Contracts The service levels, strategies and information requirements contained in the AM plan are the basis for performance standards in the various roads and traffic services maintenance contracts Corporate Information Sound AM is dependent on suitable information and data and the availability of sophisticated AM systems which are fully integrated with the wider corporate information systems (e.g. financial property, GIS, customer service, etc.). The Council’s goal is to work towards such a fully integrated system. 2.1.3 Summary of Assets Covered

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 4 of 126

The summary of the MDC roading assets is set out on the table 2.2. The detail of each of the asset components has been described in the respective lifecycle management plan chapter. Maps showing the Urban and Rural areas are in the appendix as Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. Table 2.2 Roading Assets as at March 2015 Item Description Unit Quantity 1. Land Million sq. m 14 2. Carriageway Sealed km 523.659 Unsealed km 278.946 3. Drainage Kerb & Channel km 186.404 Surface Water Channel km 959.606 Catchpit (includes urban stormwater) ea. 1628 Culverts (X-Sectional Area < 3.4 sq m) km 39.777 Bridges & Culverts (X-Sectional Area>3.4 sq m) ea. 250 4. Footpaths Sealed/Paved km 201,470 Unsealed km 3,132 5. Traffic Services Signs ea. 3791 Markings km 477 Edge Marker Posts ea. (approx.) 3,000 Raised Reflectorized Pavement Markers ea. 509 6. Streetlights Urban lights ea. 1,794 Rural lights ea. 95 Under verandah ea. 285 Amenity ea. 27 7. Car parks Number of on-street parking spaces ea. 569 Number of off-street parking spaces ea. 814 Note: See section 6 for a more detailed description of these assets 2.1.4 Key Stakeholders Current customers and stakeholders for Council’s roading assets are listed below: Customers: Ratepayers, residents, business people, local industries, forestry owners, Road Transport Forum, Heavy Haulage Association, AA Wairarapa, Destination Wairarapa, Tranzit Coach lines, Federated Farmers, cycle groups, educational institutions, emergency services. Stakeholders: Ministry of Transport, New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), neighbouring local authorities, NZ Police, Greater Wellington Regional Council, contractors, subdivision developers. 2.1.5 AMP development and Review Process The Plan acknowledges that there exist a number of areas where improvement to the current level of asset management detail is required. Section 9 summarises the recommendations made for developing and reviewing the asset management plan. 2.1.6 Quality Assurance Procedures Formal QA procedures and QA Audit procedures are included in all new maintenance contracts, Audit NZ annually audits performance measures and these are reported in the Annual Plan. NZTA audits financial matters and conducts technical reviews of the roading network approximately every five years, as well NZTA carries out joint inspections of crash black spots approximately every five years. 2.2 Goals and Objectives of Asset Ownership To meet its legal obligations, Council has adopted a funder-provider role with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). Council delivers roading services using a mix of contracted labour (for physical works) and an in-house business unit for professional services. External consultants are engaged by the business unit when extra resources and/or specialised expertise are required. NZTA’s relationship with local authorities is illustrated by Figure 2.4.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 5 of 126

Council attaches a high priority to the role that it plays in the provision of roading services. 2.2.1 Reasons and Justification for Asset Ownership Council’s overall objectives for this service are:  To manage, maintain and construct all roading facilities to nationally accepted standards, with improvements where economically justified, and with New Zealand Transport Agency subsidy where available  To ensure sustained availability of the roading network and passenger transport within the district, especially in relation to the town centre, which provides for: o Personal mobility at levels of service satisfactory to the community and consistent with the Council’s objectives for the physical environment. o Movement of goods at levels of service consistent with efficient business operations To meet these objectives, Council manages, maintains and constructs the roading network as necessary. The Council has developed strategies for continued infrastructural development to meet the community’s requirements, which also aim to minimise adverse effects on the environment and offer continued support for emergency management measures. The roading network comprises pavements, bridges, traffic services and streetlights. Council also maintains footpaths, berms, trees, street furniture and parking areas so as to enhance and complement the roading network. For management purposes, the Council distinguishes between urban and rural roads in recognition of the variations in the type and level of maintenance required. 2.2.2 Community Outcomes and Council Vision Statements

Council’s levels of service contribute to achieving the community outcomes identified by our community – see list below. The Community Outcomes were identified as part of the 2006-16 LTCCP process and were widely

Community Outcome How Roading Assets Contribute A Sustainable, Healthy Roading services are provided in a manner that minimises environmental impact. Environment Provision of footpaths and cycle routes also promote ‘alternative’ transport options. A Knowledgeable Community Contributing to road safety education through supporting the Wairarapa Road Safety Council. An Active, Involved & Caring Providing a roading network to enable people to move around the District is critical Community to social wellbeing for a range of reasons, including enabling people to socialise, attend public meetings and events, go to work, school, medical appointments etc. Providing footpaths and cycle routes helps to promote opportunities for physical activity Road safety activities contribute to safe use of roading networks. Providing for people with disabilities and those using mobility scooters to move safely throughout the community and connect people within the community. An Easy Place to Move Around Providing, managing and maintaining a roading network enables people to move around the District and to neighbouring Districts. Road safety initiatives help to promote safe use of these networks. A Strong, Resilient Economy Roading services are essential for many businesses, commercial industries and for tourism. Roading services are an essential element in any plans to grow and/or develop the District. People need to be able to access and move within the District as well as being able to access neighbouring areas. consulted on at that time. For more information on the consultation process please refer to ‘Shaping Our Future Volume 1: Community Outcomes 2006-16’. The community outcomes must be reviewed at least every six years. Council reviewed Masterton District’s outcomes as a part of the LTP consultation.  A Sustainable, Healthy Environment  A Knowledgeable Community  An Active, Involved & Caring Community  An Easy Place to Move Around  A Strong, Resilient Economy Table 2.3 Community Outcomes that Roading Assets Contribute To 2.2.3 Links to Council Vision and Road Activity Goals Information is supplied in section 2.1.2

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 6 of 126

2.3 Activity Management Programme Business Case The Business case approach (BCA) is one of the new processes we’re implementing to improve how we plan and invest for transport. Roading AMPs will need to apply the principles of the BCA in a fit for purpose way relative to the size and complexity of the programme. This will help to demonstrate a clear strategic case for investment and make sure that through testing and optimisation, programmes identify optimal activities, timing, and price, and are aligned to the right level of service and standards to invest in. To link the AMP to the programme business case is to show that the programme has been optimised by providing robust evidence that a decision to invest in a programme of works represents best value for money. In taking a “Whole of Life” approach, best practice would suggest that a 30 year horizon should be used as this will generally capture a representative portion of pavements that will reach the end of their life cycle. This approach is consistent with the legislative requirements for Infrastructure Strategies which require 30 year forecasts and is also consistent with the role of the AMP. The diagram below provides a high level summary of how the BCA can be applied to AMPs Outcomes we want to achieve Undertake a fit for purpose problem, Strategic context: LTMA, GPS, regional and local strategies and opportunity and consequence outcomes, planning and investment signals, key journeys assessment for the network, informed Stakeholder input including thorough problem definition and by: benefits workshops (ILM).

Strategic assessment: Agrees problems, outcomes and demonstrates clear investment story for the AMP to clarify where and on what investment should focus on, e.g. levels of service, meeting growth demands, renewal of assets as required.

Optimise and test AMP to deliver right activities, right time, right price Identify alternatives and options, Strategic assessment and stakeholder input and LTP public develop range of possible consultation programmes, identify preferred Processes and tools to test and optimise programmes: ONRC programme of activities, informed by: assessment, network operating plans, Safe System approach Consideration of funding, consistency with GPS, outcomes of FAR review, local government long-term planning. Programme case: Proposed programme identifying optimal activities, timing, price, aligned to right level of service and standards to invest in.

Delivery programme: Develop and test preferred programme and detailed implementation plans identifying optimal activities, timing, price, aligned to right level of service and standards to invest in. 2.4 AMP Framework An Asset Management Plan provides a strategy for managing the asset to deliver a service to an agreed level to the customer, at an optimum cost. The key elements in this Asset Management Plan are:  A description of the asset including its various components.  The level of service to be delivered to the customers.  The management strategy to be followed in running the roading network.  The financial impacts of managing the assets.  An improvement plan to enable the asset to be run more efficiently. The International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM, 2011) provides the structure and format for Asset Management Plans. 2.4.1 AMP Framework Statutory requirements set the framework for the minimum standards of service which the roading assets have to meet and are generally non-negotiable. The key legislation relating to the management of roading assets are listed below:

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 7 of 126

Table 2.4 Legislative Requirements Legislation What It Provides and/or Requires of Council Local Government Act Empowers the Council to control all roads (excluding State Highways) in the District. 1974 Local Government Requires Council to comply with certain funding and financial management policies. Amendment Act 2002 (Clause 6 of Schedule 10) Local Government Act Requires Council to consider all reasonably practicable options and to assess the 2002 (Clause 2(1) of economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts of each option. Schedule 10) Local Government Act Requires Council to ensure public consultation in decision-making process. 2002(Sections 76/81) Local Government Act Requires Council to have a policy on development contribution and to include it in its LTP. 2002 (Section 102(4)(d)) Land Transport Requires Council to prepare a Land Transport Programme every year for the next financial Management Act 2003 year. Resource Management Requires Council to: Act 1991  Sustain the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonable foreseeable needs of current and future generations.  Comply with the District and Regional Plans.  Avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment and structures (e.g. adverse effects of surface run-off from roads).  Consult with the Tangata Whenua and take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in the management of roading infrastructural assets. The Building Act 1991 Requires Council to:  Ensure all buildings and facilities constructed comply with the Act.  Produce Project Information Memoranda (PIM's) which supply all available information relating to an individual property. For roading services the relevant information may include details of access restrictions, approvals, leases, plans, relevant records, notices, etc. Local Government Provides local authorities with flexible power to assess, set and collect rates and charges (Rating) Act 2002 on rateable properties within its district to fund activities including roading.

Transit NZ Act 1989 Council works in partnership with NZTA to undertake capital projects and maintenance works in its district which forms part of the national roading programme in return for which it receives financial assistance from the National Roads Account administered by NZTA. This work is subject to the application of competitive pricing procedures and must be carried out in accordance with the performance agreement between the Council and NZTA. Wairarapa Combined This document determines land use and levels of consultation required to undertake certain District Plan kinds of work. District Bylaws 2012 Bylaws set limits around permissible activities.

3. LEVELS OF SERVICE

This Plan intends to match the level of service the asset provides with the expectations of customers given financial, technical and legislative constraints. Asset management plans can be readily co-ordinated with strategic financial planning. Allied to which, adoption of formalised asset management systems and practices will provide the Council with key benefits which, though acknowledged as understood in broad terms, are repeated here in detail:  Improved understanding of service level options and requirements.  Minimum life cycle (long term) costs for an agreed level of service.  Better understanding and forecasting of asset related management options and costs.  Managed risk of asset failure.  Improved decision making based on costs and benefits of alternatives.  Clear justification for forward works programmes and funding requirements.  Improved accountability over the use of public resources.  Improved customer satisfaction and organisation image. The pursuit of formal asset management planning will enable the Council as owner of a comprehensive range of assets to demonstrate to their customers and other stakeholders that services required to be provided are in fact being delivered in the most effective manner.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 8 of 126

The purpose of this document is to report on the service levels currently being provided for the range of significant assets Council operates on the community’s behalf. Further consideration of options will follow to vary the level of service reported therein, ultimately resulting in the presentation of a series of possible options for future maintenance or improvement. The following information was provided:  A service statement - a short definitive statement about why the activity is undertaken.  How we provide the service - the principal means by which we achieve the provision of the service.  Service standards - the levels of service the customer can expect.  Response standards - the type and level of response that can be expected from a request for service.  How we measure our performance - the particular methods used within each key service area.  How much the service costs - the net operating and capital costs and rates requirements for each activity. 3.1 Customer Research and Expectations Council’s knowledge of customer expectations is based on:  Levels of Service Consultation  Community Outcomes consultation  Annual Residents’ Survey  Public meetings on specific projects  Consultation via Annual Plan process  Feedback from the elected members  Analysis of customer service requests and complaint. 3.1.1 Community Survey Results Council conducts a residents’ survey to gain feedback on community perceptions of Masterton District Council. The National Research Bureau (NRB) has carried out Communitrak Surveys for Council from 1993 to 2014. This is a means of measuring Councils effectiveness in representing the wishes and viewpoints of their residents. It provides a comparison for Council on major issues, on their performance relative to the performance of their peer group. It also compares Council to Local Authorities on average throughout New Zealand and to previous Communitrak results, where applicable. The most recent survey was done in 2014. Current performance based on recent survey results and compared to national and peer group averages is assessed as being adequate for the level of service desired by the community.

The following tables show results of the Communitrak Surveys rating the level of service for roads, footpaths, and parking.

Table 3.1 Roading Communitrak Survey Results 2001-2014

Roading Very Fairly Not Very *Very Don’t (excluding Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisf Know % SH 2) % % % ied % 2014 9 70 18 3 0 2012 17 54 28 1 Roading (excluding SH 2) 2011 19 56 25 0 2010 22 56 21 1 Very Satisfied % 2009 20 59 20 1 2008 17 66 17 0 2007 19 61 19 1 Fairly Satisfied % 2006 17 67 15 1 2005 12 64 24 0 Not Very Satisfied 2004 16 65 19 0 % 2003 22 57 20 1 2002 27 62 10 1 * Very Dissatisfied 2001 17 63 19 1 % Peer Group 18 55 26 1 Don’t Know % (provincial) National 25 51 23 1 Average * Readings prior to 2014 had a different satisfaction scale.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 9 of 126

Footpaths Very Fairly Not Very *Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisf Know % % % % ied % 2014 7 57 28 5 3 2012 14 47 37 2 Footpaths 2011 13 41 41 4 2010 15 47 35 3 Very Satisfied % 2009 14 49 32 5 2008 14 58 21 7 Fairly Satisfied % 2007 11 57 27 5 2006 11 56 28 5 Not Very Satisfied 2005 7 49 37 7 % 2004 9 57 30 4 * Very Dissatisfied 2003 13 55 28 4 % 2002 14 59 23 4 2001 7 54 34 5 Peer Group 22 45 27 6 (provincial) National 26 49 21 4 Average * Readings prior to 2014 had a different satisfaction scale.

Parking in Very Fairly Not Very *Very Don’t the CBD Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisf Know % District % % % ied % 2014 9 65 20 2 3 2012 30 52 15 3 Parking in the central business district 2011 21 54 23 2 2010 30 48 18 4 Very Satisfied % 2009 33 51 13 3 2008 28 50 20 2 2007 22 48 29 1 Fairly Satisfied % 2006 26 46 24 4 2005 19 58 19 4 Not Very Satisfied 2004 22 54 21 3 % 2003 24 44 30 2 2002 23 43 31 3 * Very Dissatisfied 2001 9 65 20 2 3 % Peer Group 30 52 15 3 Don’t know (provincial) National 21 54 23 2 Average * Readings prior to 2014 had a different satisfaction scale. 3.1.2 Level of Service Consultation Council’s levels of service contribute to achieving the following community outcomes as listed below. The Community Outcomes were identified as part of the 2006-16 LTCCP process and were widely consulted on at that time. For more information re the Consultation process please refer to ‘Shaping Our Future Volume 1: Community Outcomes 2006-16’. A ‘levels of service’ consultation was carried out with the community in 2014 the results of this will be included into this asset management plan. 3.2 Strategic Needs and Corporate Goals Physical Infrastructure The provision of physical infrastructure provides an important foundation for the role the Council performs in economic and community development. The Council is therefore committed to its role as manager of the range of valuable and essential assets deemed core services. Core services are those services provided by the Council to ensure the physical and economic health and wealth of the community. They include the provision of a safe and efficient roading network. A key task is to put in place long term plans for maintaining and upgrading, when necessary, the roading asset to meet future demand along with management plans to ensure the assets are maintained in perpetuity.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 10 of 126

This will allow the Council to prepare a realistic long term capital programme which will enable it to prioritise the work and to smooth out rates increases caused by capital works. It will also ensure services are reviewed and upgraded when required rather than waiting until they are overloaded. As manager of the roading asset, the Council has the responsibility to ensure the asset management plans are co-ordinated with strategic financial planning. Sustainability The Local Government Act 2002 (schedule 10b) states that a purpose of local government is to promote the social, cultural, economic and environmental well-being of its communities, now and for the future. This statement captures, and is consistent with, concepts of sustainable resource management and sustainable development. Masterton District Council understands, and is committed to, its role as a guardian of community assets. Council’s decision-making processes are structured to ensure a sustainable approach to asset and resource management. Council realises the importance of considering our community’s needs right now, as well as the longer term benefits, impacts and costs of any decisions made. The Council aims to at least maintain the quality of life, environment and community that exist today. Where affordable improvements can be achieved, short or long term, for current and/or future generations, these will be pursued. At a base level, the commitments outlined in Table 3.2 will guide Council decision making in relation to pursuing and achieving objectives of sustainable management and development in relation to roading assets. Table 3.2 Council Decision Making Guidelines for Sustainable Development Community development initiatives will be supported. Social Opportunities for community activities and events will be promoted. Standards to support health and well-being will be maintained. Social needs will be considered in all infrastructural planning. The perspectives and cultural needs of all members of its community will be Cultural considered when making decisions, particularly those of local Iwi. Community activities and initiatives to promote and celebrate diversity will be encouraged. Arts, culture and heritage initiatives are recognized as being the ‘heart’ of our community and will be encouraged. Depreciation will be funded as appropriate to each asset, taking into account the Economic asset’s strategic value, anticipated future of the asset and expectations for the availability of funding for replacement or renewal. Funding policies will include an intergenerational equity clause. Energy efficiency cost savings will be pursued where feasible. Initiatives to attract and retain skilled residents will be supported and promoted. Affordability will be a key consideration in all decisions made. Costs of all activities will be shared across the life of the asset. Initiatives to protect and/or enhance our natural environment will be supported. Environmental Actions consistent with the objectives of the Wairarapa Combined District Plan and the Wellington Regional Policy Statement re sustainability will be pursued. Opportunities to be more energy efficient and to minimise our carbon footprint will be sought. The potential impacts of climate change will be considered and actions to mitigate and/or adapt supported. 3.2.1 Level of Service Statements  Roads and urban streets are provided at a quality acceptable to the community and are maintained to the nationally accepted standards.  Adequate bridges, culverts, surface water channels, streetlights (in urban areas), signage and markings are provided to ensure an efficient and accessible roading network.  Urban streets and verges are clean and street furniture is in a usable condition.  Roads and bridges are provided to a standard that results in an acceptable level of safety on the roading network for all road users.  Footpaths are safe, accessible and efficient for pedestrians. Table 3.3 shows how the levels of service identified for the roading assets contribute to the Community Outcomes identified by our community.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 11 of 126

Table 3.3 Service Levels - Community Outcomes

Levelsof Service Strong A Resilient Economy Sustainable, A Healthy Environment AnActive, Involved and Caring Community A Knowledgeable Community An Easy Place toAround Move

Provide and maintain rural sealed and unsealed roads and urban √ √ √ √ streets Adequate bridges, culverts, lighting etc. for an efficient and accessible √ √ √ roading network Urban streets and verges are clean and street furniture is in a usable √ √ √ √ condition The roading network is safe for all √ √ √ √ road users Footpaths that are safe, accessible √ √ √ √ and efficient for pedestrians This level of service: Aims to ensure the needs of local communities are met with regard to the provision of transport access requirements. This contributes to both the community’s capacity for growth and economic development, now and in the future. Provide roading services in a manner that is acceptable, safe √ √ √ √ and has minimal environmental impact This level of service: Aims to ensure that services are provided in a way that is equitable, whilst maximising public opportunities and minimising environmental impact. Table3.4 Roading Activity Goals Community Outcome How Roading Assets Contribute A Sustainable, Healthy Environment Roading services are provided in a manner that minimises environmental impact. Provision of footpaths and cycle routes also promote ‘alternative’ transport options. A Knowledgeable Community Contributing to road safety education through supporting the Wairarapa Road Safety Council. An Active, Involved & Caring Community Providing a roading network to enable people to move around the District is critical to social wellbeing for a range of reasons, including enabling people to socialise, attend public meetings and events, go to work, school, medical appointments etc. Providing footpaths and cycle routes helps to promote opportunities for physical activity Road safety activities contribute to safe use of roading networks. Providing for people with disabilities and those using mobility scooters to move safely throughout the community and connect people within the community. An Easy Place to Move Around Providing, managing and maintaining a roading network enables people to move around the District and to neighbouring Districts. Road safety initiatives help to promote safe use of these networks. A Strong, Resilient Economy Roading services are essential for many businesses, commercial industries and for tourism. Roading services are an essential element in any plans to grow and/or develop the District. People need to be able to access and move within the District as well as being able to access neighbouring areas.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 12 of 126

3.3 Legislative Requirements Statutory requirements set the framework for the minimum standards of service which the roading assets have to meet and are generally non-negotiable. The key legislation relating to the management of roading assets are listed below: Table 3.5 Legislative Requirements Legislation What It Provides and/or Requires of Council Local Government Act 1974 Empowers the Council to control all roads (excluding State Highways) in the District. Local Government Amendment Act Requires Council to comply with certain funding and financial management 2002 (Clause 6 of Schedule 10) policies. Local Government Act 2002 (Clause Requires Council to consider all reasonably practicable options and to assess 2(1) of Schedule 10) the economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts of each option. Local Government Act 2002(Sections Requires Council to ensure public consultation in decision-making process. 76/81) Local Government Act 2002 (Section Requires Council to have a policy on development contribution and to include it 102(4)(d)) in its LTP. Land Transport Management Act Requires Council to prepare a Land Transport Programme every year for the 2003 next financial year. Resource Management Act 1991 Requires Council to:  Sustain the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonable foreseeable needs of current and future generations.  Comply with the District and Regional Plans.  Avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment and structures (e.g. adverse effects of surface run-off from roads).  Consult with the Tangata Whenua and take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in the management of roading infrastructural assets. The Building Act 1991 Requires Council to:  Ensure all buildings and facilities constructed comply with the Act.  Produce Project Information Memoranda (PIM's) which supply all available information relating to an individual property. For roading services the relevant information may include details of access restrictions, approvals, leases, plans, relevant records, notices, etc. Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 Provides local authorities with flexible power to assess, set and collect rates and charges on rateable properties within its district to fund activities including roading. Transit NZ Act 1989 Council works in partnership with NZTA to undertake capital projects and maintenance works in its district which forms part of the national roading programme in return for which it receives financial assistance from the National Roads Account administered by NZTA. This work is subject to the application of competitive pricing procedures and must be carried out in accordance with the performance agreement between the Council and NZTA. Proposed Wairarapa Combined This document determines land use and levels of consultation required to District Plan undertake certain kinds of work. District Bylaws Bylaws set limits around permissible activities. 3.3.1 ONRC The One Network Road Classification (ONRC) involves categorising roads based on the functions they perform as part of an integrated national network. The classification will help local government and the Transport Agency to plan, invest in, maintain and operate the road network in a more strategic, consistent and affordable way throughout the country. A transition plan to implement this classification system has been appended to this Roading AMP at the end as Appendix 13. The One Network Road Classification project has three elements. The first was classifying roads into categories based on their function in the national network. The second element was the Customer Levels of Service (CLoS), which define what the fit for purpose outcomes are for each category in terms of mobility, safety, accessibility and amenity.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 13 of 126

The third element is the development of the performance measures and targets, which effectively determine how the categories and customer levels of service translate into specific maintenance, operational and investment decisions. ONRC Urban / Rural ONRC Category Length (m) Class Urban Access 7 20,413 Arterial 4 6,203 Low volume 8 30,205 Primary collector 5 14,826 Secondary collector 6 41,421 Rural Access 7 265,297 Low volume 8 208,480 Primary collector 5 17,354 Secondary collector 6 199,968 Total 804,167 3.3.2 Non-Financial Performance Measure Rules Following public consultation the DIA finalised these rules. They come into force on 30 July 2014 and Local authorities are required to incorporate the performance measures in the development of their new 2015-2025 long-term plans. The performance measures will be reported against for the first time in the 2015/2016 annual reports. For Roading these were split into 5 measures; Road Safety, Road Condition, Road Maintenance, Footpaths, and Response to Service Requests. Table 3.8 expands on these measures. 3.3.3 Legislation Statutory requirements set the framework for the minimum standards of service which the roading assets have to meet and are generally non-negotiable. 3.3.4 Bylaws and Policy District Bylaws set limits around permissible activities. 3.3.5 District and Regional Plans This document determines land use and levels of consultation required to undertake certain kinds of work. The Wairarapa Combined District Plan classifies the Council roading network using the following hierarchy:  Strategic Arterial: Road which forms part of the network of nationally or regionally important arterial routes that predominantly carries through traffic and the major traffic movements in and out of the District.  District Arterial: A road which caters for traffic movement within or between major areas of the District and as alternative routes to neighbouring territorial authorities.  Collector: Locally preferred routes forming a link between the arterial roads and residential, commercial, industrial and recreational areas. Although having a major through traffic carrying function they also serve adjacent property.  Local: Roads with the main function of providing access to adjacent properties. 3.3.6 Resource Consents The resource Management Act requires Council to  Sustain the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonable foreseeable needs of current and future generations.  Comply with the District and Regional Plans.  Avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment and structures (e.g. adverse effects of surface run-off from roads).  Consult with the Tangata Whenua and take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in the management of roading infrastructural assets. 3.4 Current Level of Service Current customers and stakeholders for Council’s roading assets are listed below:

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 14 of 126

Customers: Ratepayers, residents, business people, local industries, forestry owners, Road Transport Forum, Heavy Haulage Association, AA Wairarapa, Destination Wairarapa, Tranzit Coachlines, Federated Farmers, cycle groups, educational institutions, emergency services. Stakeholders: Ministry of Transport, New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), neighbouring local authorities, NZ Police, Greater Wellington Regional Council, contractors, subdivision developers. 3.4.1 Customer Levels of Service The adopted levels of service for roading reflect current industry standards and are based on: Customer Research and Expectations: Information gained from the community on expected quality and services. Legislative Requirements: Environmental standards, regulations and acts that impact on the way assets are managed i.e. resource consents, building regulations, health and safety legislation, Transport NZ Act, Local Government Act 2002, Land Transport Management Act 2003. Strategic and Corporate Goals: Provide guidelines for the scope of current and future services offered the manner of service delivery and define specific levels of service which the organization wishes to achieve. 3.4.2 Performance Measures The performance indicators, targets and results reported below (including prior year comparisons in brackets) are designed to give an indication of how the Council is progressing towards achieving the community outcomes listed. Table 3.6 Performance Measures Performance Targets 2013/14 Results Relative to Target Indicators Percentage of Maintain satisfaction Achieved customers satisfied level The 2014 survey of residents indicated 79% were satisfied with the condition of with roads which is 8% more than the previous survey in the roading network 2012. The result is above the baseline of 75% achieved in 2010/11. The peer group average is 73% satisfaction and the national average is 76%. Road pavement and National averages Achieved road surface condition met: The Pavement Integrity Index* for 2013/14 for Masterton indices meet or Pavement integrity sealed roads was 97.5. Aggregated national averages for exceed national 2012/13 were 93.7. The national average figure for averages 2013/14 is not yet available. Records since 2003/04 indicate the New Zealand average pavement integrity has remained between 93.4 and 94.2.

*Pavement Integrity Index is a ‘weighted sum’ of combined pavement defects determined from RAMM data divided by the total lane lengths of sealed road. Performance Targets 2013/14 Results Relative to Target Indicators Road pavement National averages Not Achieved integrity and condition met: The Condition Index* for 2013/14 for the Masterton indices meet or Condition index network was 98.0. Aggregated national averages for exceed national 2012/13 were 98.1 – the figure for 2013/14 is not yet averages available. Records since 2003/04 indicate the New Zealand average condition has remained between 96.9 and 98.1.

*Condition Index is a ‘weighted sum’ of combined surface faults determined from RAMM data for sealed road surfaces. Percentage of sealed At least 90% Achieved roads providing a 96 percent of Masterton roads are currently below the smooth and threshold of 150, based on a road roughness survey on all comfortable ride sealed roads last undertaken in October 2012 by a special-purpose vehicle. This survey will be repeated in

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 15 of 126

(measured by September 2014. roughometer) The roughness value in NAASRA counts is held in the RAMM database and a count of greater than 150 typically indicates a road which is becoming a concern in terms of the number of complaints likely to be generated. The number of Reduction on Achieved crashes causing previous year (five The annual average number of all injury crashes recorded injuries is reduced. year moving within the district for the five year period 2009-2013 was average) 57.6. This was an improvement on the 63.2 recorded for 2008-2012. Cycle usage at key Survey due 2014/15 Achieved sites is monitored to A cycle count survey was undertaken at the four monitor assess demand for sites in December 2013 to monitor cycle usage. cycle facilities. Percentage of Maintain satisfaction Achieved customer satisfied with level The 2014 survey of residents indicates 64% satisfaction the condition of the with footpaths. This has improved since the last survey footpath network (61% in 2012 and 54% in 2011). The peer group average is 71% satisfaction and the national average is 74%. Customers satisfaction Maintain satisfaction Not Achieved with parking control level The 2014 survey of residents indicates 74% satisfaction services with parking in the CBD. This has declined since the previous survey (82% satisfaction in 2012). The peer group average is 70% and the national average is 63%. Table 3.7 Previous Technical Targets Level of Performance Baseline Performance Targets Service Measures 2010/11 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Years 4 to 10 Roads and Percentage of 75% Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain urban streets customers satisfied (Peer group: satisfaction level satisfaction level satisfaction satisfaction are provided to with the condition of 80%) level level ensure a safe, the roading network efficient and Percentage of 96% in 2008/9 At least 90% At least 90% At least 90% At least 90% accessible sealed roads NZ network roading network. providing a smooth 90.9% and comfortable (Source NZTA ride Road Assets) (measured by roughometer) The number of 67.8 2006/10 60 (five year 59 (five year 58 (five year 57 (five year crashes causing (five year moving average) moving average) moving moving injuries is reduced. average 2006 to average) average) 2010) Roading and cycle 252,445m² of 100% completion 100% completion 100% 100% networks are road resealed of annual of annual completion of completion of managed in an 8.6km of rural programme programme annual annual efficient and cost roads programme programme effective manner - rehabilitated complete annual programme on time Annual roading programme completed on time

i) Reseal as Work deferred in 100% completion 100% completion 100% 100% approved - approx. 2010/11 due to of annual of annual completion of completion of 210,000m² of the extending of programme programme annual annual roading (usually 27 the average seal programme programme km of rural roads life from 13 to 16 and 6 km of urban years. roads) ii) Rehabilitate rural 5.7km of rural 100% completion 100% completion 100% 100% sealed and roads of annual of annual completion of completion of unsealed roads as rehabilitated programme programme annual annual approved (usually programme programme 6km) iii) Road pavement 98.3% N/A National National National and road surface National average averages met averages met averages met condition indices 97.9% meet or exceed national averages

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 16 of 126

Level of Performance Baseline Performance Targets Service Measures 2010/11 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Years 4 to 10 Footpaths are Percentage of 54% Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain provided that customers satisfied (Peer group = satisfaction level satisfaction level satisfaction satisfaction are safe, with the condition of 67%) level level accessible and the footpath efficient network Length of footpath Work suspended 100% completion 100% completion 100% 100% upgraded each year to co-ordinate of programme of programme completion of completion of with the programme programme installation of ultrafast broadband (7.1km in 2009/10)

Provide a range Customer 75% Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain of on and off satisfaction with Peer average satisfaction level satisfaction level satisfaction satisfaction street parking parking control 68% level level opportunities services Proportion / number New measure 5% peak times 5% peak times 5% peak times 5% peak times of available parks at but total of 847 10% non-peak 10% non-peak 10% non-peak 10% non-peak peak and non-peak car parks, 243 times times times times times (spot checks) metered spaces, 604 time limited spaces

Levels of service were reviewed by consultation with the community in 2014 & 2015, Table 3.8 has been adopted by Council through the LTP process (2015-2025). Table 3.8 New Levels of Service, Performance Measures & Targets for Roading (2015) 3.5 Desired Levels of Service

Level of Service Performance Baseline Performance Targets Measures 2013/14 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Years 4-10

Roads and urban Percentage of 79% Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain streets are customers satisfied (Peer group: satisfaction level satisfaction level satisfaction level satisfaction provided to with the condition of 73%) over an average over an average over an average level over an ensure a safe and the roading network of the three latest of the three latest of the three latest average of the well maintained surveys and surveys and surveys and three latest roading network within 10% of within 10% of within 10% of surveys and peer group peer group peer group within 10% of average average average peer group average

Mandatory Network smooth At least 90% At least 90% At least 90% At least 90% The average quality of travel exposure: ride on a sealed local 91% in October road network, 2014 measured by smooth travel exposure.

Mandatory New measure. Reduction on Reduction on Reduction on Reduction on The change from the There were 2 previous year previous year previous year previous year previous financial fatalities and 4 year in the number of serious crashes in fatalities and serious the 2013/14 injury crashes on the financial year. local road network, expressed as a number.

Cycle usage at key 4 monitor sites Survey 4 monitor Survey 4 monitor Survey 4 monitor Survey 4 sites is monitored to are surveyed sites annually sites annually sites annually monitor sites assess demand for annually. annually

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 17 of 126

Level of Service Performance Baseline Performance Targets Measures 2013/14 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Years 4-10

cycle facilities

The percentage of the New measure. Maintain the Maintain the Maintain the Maintain the sealed local road The Asset average. average. average. average. network that is Management Plan resurfaced anticipates 5-6% in an average year.

Footpaths are Percentage of 64% Maintain Maintain Maintain Progressively safe, well customers satisfied (Peer group: satisfaction level satisfaction level satisfaction level increase level of maintained and with the condition of 71%) over an average over an average over an average satisfaction to accessible the footpath network of three surveys of three surveys of three surveys equal peer and within 10% of and within 10% of and within 10% of group peer group peer group peer group average average average

Mandatory New Measure 95% 95% 95% 95% The percentage of 89.1% as at 2013 footpaths within the Condition Rating

District that fall within This is lower than the level of service for the target due to the condition of the Broadband footpaths that is set rollout delaying out in the Council’s works. asset management

plan.

Mandatory The percentage of 95% within 95% within 95% within 95% within specified specified specified specified customer service timeframe timeframe timeframe timeframe requests relating to

roads and footpaths to which the territorial authority responds: Urgent requests:

Within 2 days 95% within  Non-urgent specified requests: timeframe Acknowledged within

10 days and placed

on the appropriate 95% within maintenance specified programme. timeframe

Provide a range Customer satisfaction 74% Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain of on and off- with parking control Peer Average: satisfaction level satisfaction level satisfaction level satisfaction street parking services 70% level opportunities

Council’s levels of service contribute to achieving the community outcomes identified by our community – see list below. The Community Outcomes were identified as part of the 2006-16 LTCCP process and were widely consulted on at that time. For more information on the consultation process please refer to ‘Shaping Our Future Volume 1: Community Outcomes 2006-16’. The community outcomes must be reviewed at least every six years. Masterton District’s outcomes are a part of the LTP.  A Sustainable, Healthy Environment

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 18 of 126

 A Knowledgeable Community  An Active, Involved & Caring Community  An Easy Place to Move Around  A Strong, Resilient Economy 3.5.1 Details on the level of service desired It should be noted that the level of services provided through upgrading assets is subject to the availability of capital contributions for that service. 3.5.2 Financial Implications In 2013/14 Roading Services, delivered at current levels of service, cost:  Operating Expenditure $9,649,581  Rates contribution: $4,045,638  Proportion of Total Cost: 41.9% The key actions and issues identified in this section requiring attention and/or intervention, and the costs associated with the proposed work, are outlined in Table 3.9 Table 3.9 Cost of Enhancing Current Levels of Service Action/Issue Driver for Action Estimated Cost How this will be funded Castlepoint seafront road (stage 2) Carriageway upgrading $168,000 Rates Castlepoint seafront footpath Safer pedestrian access $60,000 Rates along Jetty Road (concrete path - option) $325,000 (boardwalk - option) CBD Upgrade (2018-19) Enhanced customer $3,500,000 Development experience contribution & loan Cycle Lane Development Safer cycling access $70,000 Rates & subsidy Lansdowne Village Development Enhanced customer $500,000 Rates & loans experience Items that are not recommended by staff or approved for funding by the Council are not listed in this table. For more detailed financial information see section 7. Knowledge of customer expectations is based on:  Levels of Service Consultation  Community Outcomes consultation  Annual Residents Survey  Public meetings on specific projects  Consultation via Annual Plan process  Feedback from the elected members and community boards  Analysis of customer service requests and complaints

4. FUTURE DEMAND

The objective of asset management is to create, operate, maintain, rehabilitate and replace assets at the required level of service for present and future customers in a cost-effective and environmentally sustainable manner. The asset management plan must therefore forecast the needs and demands of the community in the future and outline strategies to develop the assets to meet these needs. 4.1 Factors Influencing Demand Masterton District Council needs to consider the following factors in order to predict the future demand:  Population  Traffic volume

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 19 of 126

 Traffic mix  Tourism  Land use  Dairying, Forestry Continual demand for improvements in levels of service resulting from:  Advances in available technology.  Improving standards of living.  A greater understanding of customers’ perceptions and expectations.  A higher level of road safety conscientiousness.  Changing legislative requirements.  Change in the strategic management of assets by the Council.  Funding organizations setting higher standards. Another factor that could influence the transport corridors in particular the rural network will be the use of the network by the ‘Wairarapa Water Use Project’ This is a multi-purpose water scheme for Wairarapa to collect and store water then distribute it for a variety of economic and community uses. Masterton District Council with the Project Committee and GWRC will work through the installation process of storage & reticulation. The forecasted commencement of construction for the project is currently 2018. 4.1.1 Population Statistics The population of the District increased slightly during the 1980s, rising from about 22,000 in 1981 to about 22,600 in 1991. The population has been relatively stable since however the most recent 2013 Census data does show an increase to 23,352 (id community profiles). Key characteristics of this population base (NZ Census, 2013) include: 73% of the population lives in the urban area of Masterton. Those of Maori descent represent approximately 19.7% (compared with the national average of 16.2%). Overall, 24.5% of the population was aged between 0 and 17, and 25.8% were aged 60 years and over, compared with 24.6% and 19.8% respectively for the New Zealand. Table 4.1 Population of Masterton District

Year 1991 1996 2001 2006 2013 Total Population 22,556 22,617 22,756 22,623 23,352 Elderly population (age 60+) 3,636 4,179 4,596 5019 5,499 % Elderly of population (16%) (18%) (20%) (22%) (23%) The total population in Masterton is almost unchanged over last fifteen years, but the proportion of elderly population has increased by approximately 1-2% at each census count since 1991. In 2006, GHD was contracted to research trends and formulate growth projections for the Masterton District. Their key projections included, that the Masterton population was likely to remain relatively static. Despite no/low population growth, the number of households was predicted to increase due to smaller household sizes; and areas like Opaki which have the potential to become more intensively developed. Table 4.2 Masterton District Population 1996-2013 1996 Census 2001 Census 2006 Census 2013 Census Urban 18,072 17,793 17,664 18,129 Rural 4,686 4,824 4,956 5,223 Total 22,758 22,617 22,623 23,352 The overall population showed virtually no change between the 1996 and 2006 Census, as Table 4.2 shows. However, there was a small increase of approximately 700 people between the 2006 and 2013 Census’. Whilst the demographic profile of the population is changing (e.g. ageing, a higher proportion of Maori and more diversity), without intervention, the overall population is likely to remain fairly static. Statistics New Zealand 2012 low-medium projections are consistent with this, see Figure 4.1 & Figure 4.2 shows projections by age group and illustrates an ageing population.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 20 of 126

Figure 4.1 Statistics NZ Population Growth Projections

30,000

25,000

20,000 Projection High

15,000 Projection Medium 10,000 Projection Low

5,000

0 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031

Figure 4.1 Statistics NZ Population Growth Projections & Age Groups

9000 8000 7000 Population by age 6000 group 0–14 5000 Population by age group 15–39 4000 Population by age 3000 group 40–64 2000 Population by age 1000 group 65+ 0

Data has indicated a small but consistent increase in the rural population over time, which may reflect development in areas like Opaki. However, with an ageing population and increased transport costs, this trend may reverse as more people choose to reside in the urban area closer to facilities. 4.1.2 Urban Development The Masterton District includes the following Census area units:  Rural: Homebush-Te Ore Ore; Opaki-Fernridge; Kopuaranga; Whareama;  Urban: Masterton Central; Masterton West; Masterton East; Solway North; Solway South; Ngaumutawa; Masterton Railway; and Lansdowne. Figure 4.3 shows population change within these areas. In the rural ward, growth is predominantly north of Masterton’s urban area in Kopuaranga and Opaki-Fernridge where subdivision has occurred and many lifestyle blocks now exist. Within the urban boundary, growth has occurred in Masterton East and Solway (North and South). New housing developments have occurred in these urban areas, for example William Donald Drive, Solway Crescent and Norris Way areas.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 21 of 126

Figure 4.3 Masterton District Population Growth by Census Area Unit 2001 - 2013

4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 2001 500 0 2006

2013

Lansdowne

Kopuaranga

Ngaumutawa

Solway South Solway

SolwayNorth

MastertonEast

Opaki-Fernridge

Whareama

MastertonWest - MastertonCentral -…

Homebush-TeOre - Ore 4.1.3 Rural Land use Being a predominantly rural District opportunities exist for the development of food production. Any increase in activity in this sector will have implications for Asset Managers and possibly for rural water supply management. Land use data shown below is sourced for the Masterton District from GWRC and can be shown as follows: Table 4.4 Land Use in the Masterton Region (Ha’s) Crop & arable grassland 332724 Other grassland 21427 Planted forest 26752 Natural forest 239753 Settlements 1431 Water or wetland 1000 Other 198

Ministry data shows a decline in land use for farming with an approximate 25% reduction (100,000 ha) in the number of hectares being farmed between 1994 and 2007. Over the same period there has been an increase in planted forestry and ‘other sectors’ land use. Overall, a slight decline in total land used is observed. This data is for the Wellington Region as a whole and it is difficult to assess where within the region changes in land use for different sectors has occurred. However, assuming land use trends in the Masterton District are consistent with Wellington regional trends, we could see: Further conversion of farming land for other uses, more forestry and ‘other land’ use; Less land use overall; the conversion of farm land on the outskirts of the urban area and the increase in rural population on the outskirts of the urban area; supports the likelihood of farm land conversion to lifestyle blocks here in Masterton. While harvesting of forestry at the moment is increasing, actual land use for forestry is declining. (Reference: MAF National Exotic Forest Description 2010). Trends need to be monitored and information from other sources obtained to build the picture and enable more accurate forecasting for the Masterton District.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 22 of 126

Whilst more data is needed to enable more accurate projections, changes in land use could have effects on Council assets such as solid waste and roading. For example: Forestry: Increasing or declining land use for forestry ultimately equates to a change in the amount of wood processed and the level of waste by-products from manufacturing, such as sawdust and other process wastage. Forestry acreage changes are time progressive with the impact on solid waste management being at the time of harvesting and processing rather than the time of planting or conversion of land to forestry. The Council’s forecast of forestry impacts on Roading are based on a 1998 study which looked at sealed rural roads, and a 2011 study which looked at the need for a heavy traffic by-pass to the east of Masterton primarily driven by increased forestry traffic. No study relating to unsealed roads has been carried out, but the relevant results of the sealed road study are assumed to apply to the unsealed roads. The main findings of these reports were:  The quantity and location of harvesting cannot be accurately predicted.  The likely quantity of rehabilitation required can be readily catered for in the existing programme.  On the more remote roads, it is more economical to allow for any required heavy maintenance to maintain a reduced level of service during harvesting, and carry out rehabilitation to return the road to the required level of service when harvesting is complete. This is primarily driven by the short notice given of intentions to harvest any particular area (commonly less than 3 months), and is dependent on the time of year harvesting occurs.  The current prediction of harvest volumes (based on MAF Wood Availability Forecast 2009), shows that current (2011) levels of harvesting will continue through to 2015, when they will increase by 60% of current levels over the next 10 years. Farming: The sheep, beef and dairy industry in the Wellington Region is not expanding; there is a reduction in the number of animals being farmed, which suggests less intensive farming than in previous years. The impact from expansion of this industry in the future, if any, will be minimal in the next ten years. As a result, the volume of traffic, and particularly trucks, associated with farming is also likely to decline. 4.1.4 Traffic Statistics Analysis of the car ownership of the households in the Masterton District in 2013 compared to the Wellington Region shows that 86.8% of the households owned at least one car, while 9.6% did not, compared with 84.5% and 11.2% respectively in the Wellington Region. Of those that owned at least one vehicle, there was a smaller proportion who owned just one car; a larger proportion who owned two cars; and a larger proportion who owned three cars or more. Overall, 39.5% of the households owned one car; 33.8% owned two cars; and 13.5% owned three cars or more, compared with 42.0%; 31.9% and 10.6% respectively for the Wellington Region. Figure 4.4 Car ownership - Census Data (2001 – 2013)

Whilst the roading network is designed for all vehicle transport type cars (light vehicles) have a lesser impact on the performance of a road pavement as compared to trucks (heavy vehicles). Because of their comparative weight difference heavy transport have a disproportionate impact compared to their numbers. A comprehensive and ongoing traffic counting programme, using classification counters for all local roads, has been affected over many years. Sufficient data has been collected to use in the analysis of the traffic mix and any changes in traffic mix when required.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 23 of 126

The traffic volume on the MDC’s roading network has remained reasonably static. Figure 4.5 shows a constant trend of the vehicle kilometres travelled on the MDC’s network over the last thirteen years. The negligible growth rate of vehicles travelling through the network is not currently a significant factor for future road maintenance forecasts. Figure 4.5 Masterton VKT 2001-2014

4.2 Changes in customer expectations Customer expectations may influence service levels and demand for services. Changes that are likely to impact on roading services include customers wanting:  Better quality roads in general as a result of higher expectations given improvements in both vehicles and roads over time  Greater emphasis on road safety in roading design due to increased awareness of road safety matters  Both environmental and public health campaigns to promote ‘active transport’ (walking and/or cycling) over using motor vehicles is likely to result in greater demand for cycling lanes, alternative footpaths etc. It is anticipated that the following safety issues will become an increasing priority for the Council in determining design and operational standards:  Road and shoulder widths  Surface condition of unsealed roads  Skid resistance  Intersection controls  Destination signage for tourists  Railway crossing safety  Reduction in the number of loss of control crashes  Footpath issues relating to elderly / mobility scooters Some allowance should therefore be made in programmes for targeting improvements relating to safety. It is important to prepare and implement the Road Safety Action Plan to assist in addressing the safety issues within asset management. Changes in customer expectations can be determined through community consultation (e.g. Communitrak survey) and feedback processes. Customer expectations will be monitored and assessed. Trends will be monitored and this plan updated accordingly. 4.3 Demand Forecast The impact of demand drivers on future roading and footpath assets are summarized below:

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 24 of 126

Table 4.6 Demand Forecast - Roading & Footpaths ROADING Impact in future Future demand (for the next ten years) Demand driver Total population Low No Impact Traffic volume Moderate Increased maintenance and renewal program Heavy Class Vehicles Moderate Lifting weight restriction from some posted bridges Tourism Low/Moderate Efficient accessibility to tourist spots Land use (including Forestry) Moderate/High Construction of an eastern bypass for Masterton was investigated in 2011 and found not economically viable. The report is to be reviewed in 2016. Pastoral Farming Low No Impact Improvement in the service level Low/Moderate Outcomes from service level review, public consultation and annual plan submissions Changes in customer Low/Moderate Improved skid resistance, increased overtaking expectations opportunity and cycle lane FOOTPATHS Impact in future Future demand (for the next ten years) Demand driver Total population Low No Impact Elderly population Moderate Footpath surfaces and widths will increasingly need to be upgraded to accommodate growing numbers of mobility scooters Tourism Low No impact beyond current LOS 4.4 Demand Management Plan Demand for improvement in the level of service can result from:  Advances in available technology  Improving standards of living  A greater understanding of customers’ perceptions and expectations  Changing legislative requirements, including resource consent conditions  Change in the strategic management of assets by the Council  Change in community demographic driving different service levels The demand for improvement in the service level can be determined by:  Reviewing the current level of service through public consultation  Monitoring customer feedback through surveys e.g. Communitrak  Analysing submissions to annual plans Feedback from customers and consultation processes suggest that, in general, the community is happy with the current level of service provided by Council. 4.4.1 Road Hierarchy It is anticipated that the following safety issues will become an increasing priority for the Council in determining design and operational standards:  Road and shoulder widths  Surface condition of unsealed roads  Skid resistance  Intersection controls  Destination signage for tourists  Railway crossing safety  Reduction in the number of loss of control crashes  Footpath issues relating to elderly / mobility scooters Some allowance should therefore be made in programmes for targeting improvements relating to safety. It is important to prepare and implement the Road Safety Action Plan to assist in addressing the safety issues within asset management. 4.4.2 Non Asset Based Demand Management

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 25 of 126

Both environmental and public health campaigns to promote ‘active transport’ (walking and/or cycling) over using motor vehicles is likely to result in greater demand for cycling lanes, alternative footpaths etc. 4.4.3 Capital Works Programmes Table 4.7 Work Required to Meet Growth & Demand Action/Work Driver for Action Estimated Cost Scheduled How this will be For funded Forestry study Review assessment that $10,000 2019 Rates and - Roading identified anticipated traffic subsidy bypass review loads to evaluated requirements for safety and reduction in heavy traffic through town Climate It is possible that climate Potential project 2015-2025 Investigative work Change change impacts will require costs are will be covered by future work to mitigate and/or unknown. existing budgets, adapt. At this stage the extent and impact of climate change is unknown. Solway Bring up to urban standard $598,000 2016-17 Subdivision Crescent $680,000 2020-21 contributions reconstruction Alfredton - Maintenance / Improvements $? 2017-18 (TBC) Funded by the Tinui Road for the wind-farm generation (Project awaiting developer Enhancement installations. permission)

5. RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk Management is the term applied to a logical and systematic method of establishing the context, identifying, analysing, evaluating, treating, monitoring and communicating risks associated with any activity, function or process in a way that will enable organizations to minimize losses and maximise opportunities. Risk Management is as much about identifying opportunities as avoiding or mitigating losses. Risk Management in asset management planning is a requirement of the Local Government Act 2002. It should be used when there are:  Large potential damages/losses  Changing economic conditions  Varying levels of demand for services  Investments that lie outside the ability to fund  Important political, economic or financial aspects  Environmental or safety issues  Threats or changes to service levels 5.1 Introduction The risk management process is defined as ‘the systematic application of management policies, procedures and practices to the tasks of identifying, evaluating, treating and monitoring those risks that could prevent a local authority from achieving its strategic or operational objectives, or plans, or from complying with its legal obligations’. Following are the processes involved in the risk management:  Identify risks  Quantify risks  Rank risks  Plan responses  Implement, monitor and review

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 26 of 126

Masterton District Council is considering managing risks according to New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4360: 2004 and local government risk standards for its services. 5.1.1 Risk Rating Table 5.1 Risk Magnitude & Treatment Matrix

Risk Treatment Risk Attention required by Response Required Key Extreme (11-12) Executive Management Action plans and management responsibility specified High (8-10) Senior Management Management responsibility specified Medium (5-7) Specific monitoring or Management responsibility specified response procedures Low (1-4) Routine procedures Unlikely to need specific application of resources

5.1.2 Likelihood Scale Table 5.2 Risk Methodology & Scores

Community Risk Magnitude Legislation Financial Environment Expectation Commissioners Expectations not Detrimental effects Widespread long term Extreme (4) Appointed obtainable > $0.5m effect Expectations not Adverse Audit Detrimental effects High (3) obtainable medium Long term effect Opinion or Disclaimer > $50k term Qualified Opinion; Expectations not Detrimental effects Short term reversible Medium (2) Warning over non- obtainable in short between $10k - effect compliance. term $50k Minor non- Faults within agreed Detrimental effects Reversible and Low (1) compliance LoS <$10k contained effect. Expectations Negligible (0) Compliance No effect No effect reached Level of Compliance Risk Magnitude: Original [O] Current [C] Residual [R] [E]Existing O C R O C R O C R O C R O C R [P]Proposed/Future [P] Population and demand changes forecast at least 30 years forward, for 4 2 0 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 4 1 16 12 5 individual communities served. District Plan …. 5.1.3 Risk Rating Matrix The assets (both internal and external) that are critical to Councils roading activities were identified and consequences of their failure are discussed in Table 5.3 Assessment of the risks for the critical roading assets requires the analysis and rating of its probability and impact of occurrences, which are given below. 5.2 Risk Register and Mitigation It is generally assumed that there are few risks involved in Roading assets. However, some of the risks involved in this asset have been identified and assessed on the basis of existing conditions below. The higher the risk score, the higher the risk potential.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 27 of 126

Table 5.3 Roading Risk Analysis Level of Compliance Risk Magnitude: Original [O] Current [C] Residual [R] 1 Managerial and Governance [E]Existing O C R O C R O C R O C R O C R [P]Proposed/Future 1.1 Business Continuity Plan [E] No Business Continuity Plan has been developed specifically for this activity. 3 3 0 3 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 0 10 8 2 There are BCP associated M1 with emergency management. 1.2 Succession planning [E] No formal succession planning carried out - insufficient employee 2 2 0 3 3 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 8 8 1 numbers. Ensuring systems, M2 data, records are of good quality. 1.3 Risk Register and Asset Risk Plan [P] Risk Control schedule to be developed for all Roading assets. [E] Current register 3 2 0 4 2 1 4 2 1 2 1 1 13 7 3 M3 based on lifeline requirements 1.4 Corporate Risk Policy [P] Policy outlines Councils strategic approach to risk management. [E] Assets 2 1 0 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 8 7 4 Group Risk management M4 progressing without corporate policy. 1.5 Council Policy Document [E] The council has a corporate policy manual that records all policies. Staffs 3 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 8 4 3 know of the manual’s existence and it is being actively used 1.6 Special Agreements [E] Adequate service agreements are in place in the organisation to ensure that each department 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 4 4 1 /division knows “what, how and when” is expected from it and where it fits in the organisation 1.7 Contracts Supervision [E] Contractors are supervised directly by staff. In some cases contractors on 2 1 0 3 1 1 3 1 0 3 1 1 11 4 2 Capital Works projects may be supervised by consultants. 1.8 Completion of Work [E] Individual responsibility is defined in job descriptions and annual works 2 1 0 2 3 1 3 2 0 3 1 1 10 7 2 programmes. Progress is monitored through staff

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 28 of 126

meetings and other communications. A formal review of staff performance is undertaken yearly. 1.9 Staff Resources [E] Insufficient employee numbers for succession planning; resources adequate 2 1 0 4 1 1 3 2 0 3 1 0 12 5 1 and capabilities are interchangeable. 1.10 Internal Monitoring and Reporting [E] Well developed M & R exists due to National 3 1 0 3 2 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 12 7 4 processes with NZTA Risk Totals; % Reduction if all mitigation completed 96 61 23 76% Level of Compliance Risk Magnitude: Original [O] Current [C] Residual [R] 2 Service Delivery [E]Existing O C R O C R O C R O C R O C R [P]Proposed/Future 2.1 Service Standards [E] Individual responsibility is defined in job descriptions and annual works 3 2 0 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 11 7 3 programmes. Well established NZ Standards and legislative requirements 2.2 Service Levels [E] Council’s Service Levels are defined in its contract 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 11 5 4 specifications. 2.3 Service Level Monitoring and [E] The reporting on Reporting compliance of existing Service Levels is carried out 3 2 0 3 1 1 2 1 0 3 1 1 11 5 2 in a systematic manner and reported annually 2.4 ‘One Network’ NZTA requirements. [P] Factor-in to AMP/LTP. NEW Review requirements and 1 1 0 3 3 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 9 9 3 M8 impact. Risk Totals; % Reduction if all mitigation completed 42 26 12 70% Level of Compliance Risk Magnitude: Original [O] Current [C] Residual [R] 3 Financial [E]Existing O C R O C R O C R O C R O C R [P]Proposed/Future 3.1 Completion of annual Capital Works [E] Expenditure is forecasted, programme but enforcement of completion dates seen as likely to increase costs. [P] 3 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 0 1 1 0 10 6 2 Review cost drivers with contractors to optimize flexibility and timeliness if possible. 3.2 Insurance [E] LAPP scheme does not cover Roads/Bridges. FAR changes mean Council now 3 1 0 4 1 1 4 4 3 4 1 1 15 6 5 M10 liable for 27% of flood damage costs. Have

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 29 of 126

increased self-insurance provision with a flood damage reserve fund. [P]Confirm flood damage funding policy. 3.3 Connected properties charged N/A N/A 3.4 Charges that ratepayers prepared to pay [E] Council’s annual survey demonstrates that ratepayer 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 4 5 1 believe the service they are receiving is of value. Financial forecasts for providing services The financial forecasts level 3.5 portray the true costs for the following: of confidence are as follows: [E] High level of confidence as based on historical costs  Operations and maintenance 2 1 0 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 9 4 3 and known cyclic increases in costs. [E] High level of confidence, costs based on similar  Asset renewals 2 1 0 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 9 4 3 projects carried out in the past. [E] Infrequent new works projects mean that some cost  Future new Capital works components (e.g. new 2 1 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 1 1 1 9 6 6 M5 bridges) less accurate. Rely on consultant knowledge. 3.6 Financial Assistance (external sources) [E] Council is aware of most being taken advantage of. potential external funding sources including major 3 3 0 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 12 12 3 NZTA subsidy process. [P] M11 Assessment of impact of FAR changes. Asset Valuations [E] Valuations comply with 3.7 3 1 0 2 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 0 7 5 0 FRS 3 M6 3.8 Prevention of “Cost Blowouts” [E] The council’s financial accounting system has reporting facilities that allow 3 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 8 4 1 managers to be fully informed of expenditure on all projects. 3.9 Development Contributions appropriate [E] Development contributions are fair, clear and properly enforced. [P] 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 3 1 1 1 0 10 6 1 New LGA requirements will be reflected in next LTP. Deferred maintenance [E] Low-level of deferred 3.10 3 1 0 3 2 1 4 2 0 3 1 0 13 6 1 maintenance 3.11 Delegations [E] Financial authority delegations in place for all 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 6 6 1 staff with defined purchasing authority. 3.12 10 Year Renewal Programme [E] Well-established due to complying with NZTA 2 2 0 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 0 8 7 2 processes.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 30 of 126

Risk Totals; % Reduction if all mitigation completed 120 77 29 76% Level of Compliance Risk Magnitude: Original [O] Current [C] Residual [R] 4 Physical Assets [E]Existing O C R O C R O C R O C R O C R [P]Proposed/Future 4.1 As Built Plans and New Assets Council has a documented process for recording changes to assets that occur during the Maintenance 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 4 5 1 Contract and following Renewal etc. in the RAMM system 4.2 Standard of new construction and of New assets are built to repair work standard specifications, which are aimed at reducing the risk of failure of an asset. Subdivisions are properly inspected and as-builds 1 1 0 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 6 6 4 completed to the required standards. Maintenance and repair work is inspected, supervised and approved by Council staff 4.3 Assets attributes [P] Council’s knowledge and understanding of Roading attributes (condition, criticality, performance and 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 0 5 7 2 remaining life) requires improvement to ensure the replacement program is based on sound information. 4.4 10-year renewal programme [E] RAMM based analysis used to develop renewal 3 2 0 2 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 0 9 8 2 programme. 4.5 Optimisations- Renewals Risk management techniques will be used in the future to 1 1 0 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 7 7 2 optimize the renewal programme. Lifelines Regional Lifelines project 4.6 2 1 0 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 7 6 4 WELA requires update. Risk Totals; % Reduction if all mitigation completed 38 39 15 60% Level of Compliance Risk Magnitude: Original [O] Current [C] Residual [R] 5 Maintenance & Operations [E]Existing O C R O C R O C R O C R O C R [P]Proposed/Future 5.1 Operation/Maintenance manuals [P] Maintenance and operation manuals to be 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 4 5 1 created/updated over a 5 year period. 5.2 Health and Safety Manuals [E] Available, updated and adhered to and project 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 5 5 1 specific in Contracts

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 31 of 126

5.3 Standard of new construction and of [E] Maintenance and repair repair work work is inspected, supervised 1 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 6 5 2 and approved by Council staff 5.4 Service Agreements [E] Maintenance and Operation performed under 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 4 5 1 formal contract. 5.5 Fault Response [E] Faults or requests for service reported by the public are logged on common Council-contractor system. Response times are specified 1 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 2 1 0 7 5 1 in contract and monitored. [P] Integrating work orders against assets would be beneficial. Risk Totals; % Reduction if all mitigation completed 26 25 6 80% Level of Compliance Risk Magnitude: Original [O] Current [C] Residual [R] 6 Legal [E]Existing O C R O C R O C R O C R O C R [P]Proposed/Future 6.1 Legislative Compliance All legislative requirements that impact on Roading 3 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 8 4 1 services being complied with 6.2 Sub-divisional, Development and [E] Appropriate attention to Building Consent processes. detail is being paid to consent applications. [P] Review LGA 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 6 5 1 ‘developer-provided infrastructure’ provision (should we check designs?) 6.3 Councils Warrants [E] All relevant staff has the necessary warrants. [P] 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 6 4 1 Review training needs. Bylaws [E] Bylaws are reviewed 6.4 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 6 4 1 periodically. 6.5 Reserve Management Plans N/A 6.6 Industry standards and guidelines [E] NZTA standard documents adopted and fully 3 2 0 3 2 1 4 2 0 3 1 0 13 7 1 utilised. 6.7 Designations [E] All relevant Roading assets must be properly 3 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 8 5 1 designated in the District Plan Provisions of District Plan taken into [E] All issues in regard to 6.8 3 1 0 3 1 1 2 2 0 3 1 1 11 5 2 Account Roading are considered. Risk Totals; % Reduction if all mitigation completed 58 34 8 86% Level of Compliance Risk Magnitude: Original [O] Current [C] Residual [R] 7 Environmental [E]Existing O C R O C R O C R O C R O C R [P]Proposed/Future All relevant Consents held [E] Council holds all relevant 7.1 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 0 7 5 2 consents

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 32 of 126

7.2 Compliance with resource consent [E] All resource consents are Conditions complied with and new reporting procedures to 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 3 1 0 7 6 1 management to ensure compliance. 7.3 Climate Change [P] MDC proposes to adopt Wellington Regional Council 3 1 0 3 1 1 2 1 0 3 1 1 11 8 2 DM7 policy. 7.4 Energy Management [E] The Government Policy Statement provides direction 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 4 3 M7 and prioritisation. 7.5 Stormwater Discharge Management [P] Review impact; required NEW (Revised Regional Plan) HDC to obtain consent for 2 2 0 1 1 1 3 3 0 4 4 1 10 10 2 M7 SW outlets. Risk Totals; % Reduction if all mitigation completed 40 32 10 75% Level of Compliance Risk Magnitude: Original [O] Current [C] Residual [R] 8 Other Risks [E]Existing O C R O C R O C R O C R O C R [P]Proposed/Future 8.1 Natural Events (severe storms, [E] MDC has an approach for seismic activity, coastal or river managing damage; erosion. assessing the risks (Lifelines), and exercises have been held in the past. 1 1 0 3 2 2 4 4 3 3 3 2 11 10 7 M5 [P] The Lifelines planning/assessments are now old. Review; prepare additional ERP’s. 8.2 Damage by others (excavations, [E] Processes for recovering accidents, vandalism etc.) cost of damage by accidents or unauthorized work. Reactive response only, for tagging or theft of signs and 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 9 7 5 safety equipment. [P] Investigate education/incentive approach). 8.3 Growth or Contraction [E] 3 yearly projections are provided corporately and the impacts of an aging population are assessed and allowed for in asset 4 2 0 4 2 1 4 3 1 3 1 0 15 8 2 management plans. DM1 [P] 30-year projections are made; impact of declining communities provided for in District Plan and AMP. 8.4 Seismic Capacity of Structures [P] Policy on Assessment Priority and programme NEW 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 9 9 3 urgency. Then AMP/LTP to M10 show budget for works. Risk Totals; % Reduction if all mitigation completed 35 25 14 60%

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 33 of 126

5.3 Critical Risks

Critical Assets Critical of Risk Source Probability Impact Score of Description / Consequences Impact Response

MDC ROADING NETWORK Opaki – Kaiparoro Road Liquefaction, Fault D 4 H Network failure causes disruption over a Consider and displacement, Flood large area affecting a significant number assess of businesses. Alternative routes are options for available. mitigation as Whangaehu Valley Rd Liquefaction, Landslide E 3 M Network failure causes disruption over a part of the medium size area. Alternative routes Lifelines are available. project and Te Ore Ore - Bideford Rd Liquefaction, Landslide, D 3 M Network failure causes disruption over a Council’s Flood medium size area. Alternative routes Emergency are available. Management Masterton – Castlepoint Liquefaction, Tsunami, D 4 H Network failure causes disruption for a Plan Road Fault displacement, large area depending on the location of Landslide, Flood, failure. Riversdale Road Liquefaction, Fault D 3 M Network failure causes disruption for a displacement, Tsunami significant number of people and disconnects the Riversdale township. Homewood Road Fault displacement D 4 H Network failure disconnects a large area including the Riversdale township. Upper Plain Road Fault displacement, Flood D 3 M Network failure causes disruption for a significant number of people and property in the west of Masterton. Alternative routes are available. Blairlogie – Langdale Road Landslide, flood D 3 M Network failure causes disruption over a medium size area. Alternative routes are available. Mataikona Road Flood, Windstorm, D 3 M Same as above. Tsunami, Landslide Manawa Road Flood D 3 M Same as above. Mstn - Stronvar Flood D 3 M Same as above. Mstn- Martinborough Flood D 3 M Same as above. Tinui Bridge at Liquefaction D 5 E Network failure causes disruption over a Mstn/Castlepoint Road large area, disconnects Castlepoint township and adjacent areas. Alternative routes are not available. Double Bridge at Fault displacement, D 4 H Network failure causes disruption over a Opaki/Kaiparoro Road Earthquake large area. Alternative routes are available. Taureu Bridge at Earthquake E 4 H Network failure causes disruption for a Mstn/Castlepoint Rd large area. Alternative routes are available. Whakatahine Bridge at Earthquake E 3 M Network failure causes disruption over a Mstn/Stronvar Rd large area. Brancepeth Bridge at Earthquake E 3 M Network failure causes disruption over a Mstn/Stronvar Rd large area. Black Swamp Bridge at Earthquake E 3 M Network failure causes disruption over a Manawa Rd large area. Homewood Bridge (old No. Earthquake D 4 H Network failure causes disruption for a 7) at Homewood Rd significant number of people. OTHERS (NZTA) ASSETS WHICH HAVE IMPACT ON MDC ROADING NETWORK State Highway 2 at Earthquake, Landslide C 5 E Communication with Wellington will be Close liaison Rimutaka Hill area disrupted. Alternative route is available with NZTA- through Palmerston North. State Mt Bruce (Ruamahanga) Earthquake C 3 H Communication with northern cities will Highway Bridge on State Highway 2 be disrupted. Alternative route is required available through Masterton rural area. Waingawa Bridge on State Earthquake E 4 H Communication with southern Highway 2 Wairarapa cities and Wellington will be disrupted. Alternative route is available. Waiohine Bridge on State Earthquake D 3 M Communication with southern Highway 2 Wairarapa cities and Wellington will be disrupted. Alternative route is available. Tauherenikau Bridge on Earthquake D 3 M Communication with southern State Highway 2 Wairarapa cities and Wellington will be

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 34 of 126

disrupted. Alternative route is available. Opaki overbridge on State Earthquake E 4 H Communication with northern cities will Highway 2 be disrupted. Alternative route is available through Masterton rural area. Waipoua Bridges (two Earthquake E 5 H Communication within the Masterton adjacent bridges) in urban area and with northern cities will Masterton town on State be disrupted. Alternative route through Highway 2 Colombo Road is available. Streetlights on State Power failure, Technical E 4 H Failure of streetlights will have serious Highway 2 fault in the distribution line, impact on road safety during night time. Natural calamities. 5.4 Road Safety The Masterton District Council participates in regular 'Wairarapa Road Safety Council’ meetings that facilitates a number of initiatives with partners that include representatives from key road safety stakeholders. These include the local councils, Police, Ambulance Service, Fire Service, Idea Services, Public Health, Automobile Association, Heavy Transport Industry, ACC, Age Concern, Safe and Health Community Councils, Cycling groups and other associated partners. The Road Safety Council was established in 1988 is the planning and advocacy arm for road safety in the Wairarapa. Collectively it has developed and implemented a range of evidence based road safety activities under successive Regional Land Transport Programmes/Strategies and Regional Road Safety Action Plans. The Council supports the vision, Safer Journeys and the Safe System approach to road safety. This approach means working across all elements of the road system (roads, speeds, vehicles and road use) and recognises that everybody has responsibility for road safety Regular road safety reports are also submitted to the Regional Transport Committee who oversee and sign off the Regional Land Transport Programme on the work of the Forum partners. (Follow the link to Wairarapa Road Safety Council - http://wairsc.org.nz) 5.5 Lifelines and Priority Facilities The Wairarapa Engineering Lifelines Association (or WELA) was formed in 1996 following a public meeting to discuss the risks to engineering lifelines from natural hazards, the likely impact on the local community and what was being achieved by other study groups in New Zealand. The Wellington Region Civil Defence Emergency Management Group is made up of a number of agencies from the region who work together to provide civil defence and emergency management to the region. This includes the nine councils, emergency services, lifeline utilities, WREMO and any other agency with civil defence and emergency management responsibility. WREMO has identified strategic facilities that require transport network access in the event of an emergency, and Roading Management of the network will prioritise access according to local agreements. Masterton District Council is committed to making those sites identified accessible to best of its abilities in an emergency. 5.6 Improvement Plan 2011-14 Improvements identified are tabulated below: Table 5.4 Improvement Plan - Roading Ref Item Description Score When Whom M1 1.1 Business continuity plan Develop a business continuity plan 6 Partially SMT Complete M2 1.2 Succession plan Ensure systems, data, records are of good 6 2015 SMT quality. M3 1.3 Risk control schedule Develop a risk control schedule for Roading 7 Partially RSM Complete M4 1.4 Corporate Risk Policy Actively promote Roading risk assessments, 7 Partially SMT mitigation measures and processes Complete corporately to assist with a Corporate Policy development. In the interim ensure insurance cover is reviewed and coverage is agreed corporately. M5 3.5 Future new Capital works 6 Not RSM 4.6 Lifelines Update Lifelines through WELA Project and 6 Complete implement Lifelines projects. 8.1 Natural events 10

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 35 of 126

Ref Item Description Score When Whom M6 3.7 Asset Valuations Complete RAMM update and alignment of 5 On-going RSM Financial Asset register. M7 7.4 Energy Management Monitor Government Policy Statement and 7 On-going RSM adopt where required and align with any future Council policy developed M8 2.4 ‘One Network’ NZTA Factor-in to AMP/LTP. Review requirements and 9 2015 RSM requirements. impact. M9 3.2 Flood Damage Funding Confirm Flood Damage Funding Policy 15 2015 RSM M10 8.4 Seismic Capacity of Policy on Assessment Priority and 9 2015 RSM Structures programme urgency. Then AMP/LTP to show budget for works. M11 3.6 Financial Assistance Assessment of impact of FAR changes. 12 Completed RSM (external sources) being taken advantage of. Key: SMT – Senior Management Team, RSM – Roading Services Manager

6. LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT

The following sections of lifecycle management plans were prepared for these asset groups:  Sealed Pavements (6.2)  Unsealed Pavements (6.3)  Pavement Drainage (6.4)  Bridges (6.5)  Culverts (6.6)  Carriageway Lighting (6.7)  Traffic Facilities & Guardrails (6.8)  Footpaths & Pedestrian Crossings (6.9)  Vegetation & Streetscape(6.10)  Parking Facilities (6.11) 6.1 General Each Lifecycle Management Plans includes the following information:  Asset description (including physical parameters, capacity/performance, condition, valuation, historical expenditure, critical assets, significant negative effects, resource consents, data confidence levels)  Design standards  Maintenance plan  Renewal/replacement plan  Asset creation plan  Financial forecast  Disposal plan 6.1.1 Procurement To meet the requirements of the NZTA Procurement Manual Masterton prepared a strategy in collaboration between the Approved Organisations (AOs) of the Wairarapa, South Wairarapa District Council (SWDC), Carterton District Council (CDC), and Masterton District Council (MDC). This was done to maximise efficiency, share resources and for regional consistency in achieving value for money through robust procurement strategies The strategy utilises a common template but has been customised where necessary to reflect each of the Authority’s specific requirements. The Procurement Strategy generally follows the checklist in Appendix A of the NZTA Procurement Manual 1st edition and provides the required information to meet NZTA’s requirements. This is a review of the first generation strategy which will be developed further through regular reviews with MDC’s Long Term Plan. The objectives of the Roading Procurement Strategy (2013) are to:

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 36 of 126

 provide best value for money over whole-of-life;  provide open and effective competition;  provide full and fair opportunity for all eligible suppliers;  improve business capability, including e-commerce capability;  require sustainably produced goods or services whenever possible;  Have regard to local, regional or national economic, environmental, and social impacts over their life cycle.

6.2 Sealed Pavements The sealed road pavement or carriageway is the part of the roadway that is designed for vehicle travel; in common terms it is the road itself. It can be considered a core transport asset in providing for the movement of vehicles. It is therefore critical that it be of good quality and have adequate capacity to provide the required level of service (LOS) for present and future customers. The design, condition and performance of the pavement can also impact significantly on road safety in general. Road pavement helps deliver an effective and efficient transport system. 6.2.1 Introduction This section covers sealed carriageways that Masterton District Council owns and maintains, this includes all public roads on legal road reserves in the Masterton District (except state highways which are the responsibility of NZTA). The key issues relating to sealed pavements are:  Understanding the road user’s expectation regarding roading levels of service.  Optimising the issue of limited funds to maintain the condition of assets.  Poor quality pavements due to historic road construction techniques.  Moderately high rainfall and low winter temperatures.  Effect of heavy vehicle flows created by dairy and forestry industries.  Lack of adequate seal width capacity.  Impact of possible increases in allowable axle loadings.  High incidence of single vehicle loss-of-control type crashes on rural roads. The confidence level for the sealed roads data used in this plan is shown in Table 6.2.1 Where, A = Highly Reliable B = Reliable C = Uncertain D = Very uncertain Table 6.2.1 Data Confidence Level Attribute D C B A

Physical Parameters

Asset Capacity

Asset Condition

Valuations

Response times

Historical Expenditures

Design Standards

6.2.2 Asset Description (Inc. how asset data is stored) Masterton District Council owns about 523.659 km of sealed roads and these sealed roads are categorised into hierarchical categories to assist with the identification of point of view. However there is a new classification being reviewed for implementation called “One Network Road Classification (ONRC)” and this involves categorising roads based on the functions they perform as part of an integrated national network.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 37 of 126

The new classification will help local government (MDC) and the Transport Agency to plan, invests in, maintain and operate the road network in a more strategic, consistent and affordable way throughout the country. Until implementation of ONRC the Masterton District Council currently has the classification of S1 for all sealed roads and 4 different classes. Table 6.2.2 Sealed Pavements - Category Groups Road type Urban/Rural Class Km Sealed Roads (S1) Urban Strategic arterial 2.623 District arterial 8.530 Collector 9.059 Local 91.633 Rural Strategic arterial 11.130 District arterial 181.877 Collector 56.495 Local 162.312 Total 523.659 *The seal width of sealed roads varies from 2.5m to 7.0m. Table 6.2.3 Sealed Pavements – Lane Lengths Group Single Lane (km) Double Lane (km) Triple Lane (km) Total (km) Sealed roads (S1) 55.100 468.191 0.368 523.659 The Council retains roading plans and records for the significant range of components making up the roading asset. Information has been taken from these plans and from field survey to develop inventories of assets. Such information is available from the RAMM system database (Road Assessment and Maintenance Management) which holds comprehensive inventory data covering the following:  Carriageway, traffic volumes, surfacing, condition rating, roughness, shoulders, surface water channels, pavement layers, drainage, traffic facilities, and minor structures. 6.2.3 Asset Condition and Monitoring a. Pavement Age Historically there had been no records kept of the sealed pavement structural layer. However it is estimated that the age of original pavements varies from 5 years to 50 years. Every year, sealed pavements are upgraded generally by incremental granular overlay or through various stabilisation methods. In general, sealed road pavements in New Zealand are designed for a 25-year life. But from experience it has been observed that a road pavement can last up to 80 years with proper maintenance. The main factor in determining the life and performance of a flexible pavement is the expected traffic loading and the construction materials incorporated within the structure. Surface material types 400000 300000 200000 100000

0

seal

g…

Seal

Seal

Voidfill

Single

concrete

Asphaltic

Coat Seal

TwoCoat Rackedin Interlockin Most of the sealed roads in the district are chip sealed (Chip seal is a layer of sprayed bitumen with a stone chip spread on top as a running surface). A few mainly urban roads are surfaced with asphaltic concrete (AC) hot mix. The AC surface tends to be used where noise and chip loss are a factor. It has the advantage of long service, no stone loss and a pleasant appearance.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 38 of 126

b. Road Roughness Road roughness is a measure of the acceptability of the longitudinal ride and is closely linked to vehicle operating costs. As the roughness of the road increases, the ride starts to deteriorate and the repair effort needed to maintain surface condition increases. At some point it becomes more economical to renew the pavement than to continue with routine maintenance. The Council carries out a roughness survey of its sealed roads on average every two years. The roughness data is held within the RAMM system. Road roughness is measured by a system developed by the former National Association of Australian State Roading Authorities (NAASRA). Values are obtained from a special-purpose vehicle travelling down both the outside lanes of the length of the road. The rougher the road, the higher the NAASRA counts per lane kilometre. The roughness of a well-constructed new road is approximately 60 counts per km. The average NAASRA count for all MDC sealed roads was 78 as determined by the November 2012 survey. The urban survey rated higher with a count of 95 and the rural count was 54. Urban Approved organisations define acceptable levels of service for roughness on their networks. Figure 6.6.6 uses a threshold of 150 NAASRA. A NAASRA count of greater than 150 typically indicates a road which is becoming a concern in terms of its roughness and the number of complaints likely to be generated. Table 6.2.4 NAASRA Historical Counts Survey year – NAASRA count Rural Urban Overall Network Survey 2005 66 90 78 Network Survey 2007 74 99 80 Network Survey 2009 71 98 77 Network Survey 2011 69 97 76 Network Survey 2012 54 95 78 Figure 6.2.1 Road Roughness - MDC / New Zealand

c. Pavement Condition Rating The condition of sealed pavement having ADT>500 is monitored on an annual basis with a complete network survey completed every two years. The most recent survey was completed in 2014. Sealed pavements, like all structures, start to deteriorate as soon as construction finishes. Pavements can be damaged by a number of mechanisms: mechanical damage, overstressing, the ingress of moisture into the pavement etc. Condition rating defect trend analysis indicates potential

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 39 of 126

trends in maintenance performance. These trends could reflect maintenance deterioration or improvements. Over recent years, consistency of rating surveys has improved due to the implementation of limits of variation, refined definitions and a more comprehensive training system for both data collectors and auditors. Pavement defects are surveyed over a 10% sample area that is generally 20 metres of every 200 metres. The following figures show the Pavement Integrity Index (Fig 6.2.2), the Surface Condition Index (Fig 6.2.3), and the Smooth Travel Exposure (Fig 6.2.4) over the last ten years for MDC owned sealed road network. d. Pavement Integrity Index (PII) The Pavement Integrity Index is a combined index of the pavement faults in sealed road surfaces. It is a ‘weighted sum’ of the pavement defects divided by total lane length. PII combines surface faults (CI) with rutting and shoving. Figure 6.2.2 Pavement Integrity Index MDC / New Zealand

e. Condition Index (CI) The Condition Index is a combined index, a ‘weighted sum’, of the surface faults in sealed road surfaces. CI combines alligator cracking, scabbing, potholes, pothole patches and flushing. Figure 6.2.3 Condition Index MDC / New Zealand

f. Smooth Travel Exposure (STE) Smooth Travel Exposure measures the proportion (%) of vehicle kilometres travelled in a year (VKT) that occurs on ‘smooth’ sealed roads and indicates the ride quality experienced by motorists.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 40 of 126

A ‘smooth’ road is one smoother than a predetermined NAASRA roughness threshold. The thresholds used vary with traffic density and road location. Heavily trafficked roads have a lower (smoother) threshold. High volume urban roads have lower roughness thresholds than low volume rural roads. A table of ‘Smooth Travel Exposure’ as supplied for ONRC is attached in appendix 15. Figure 6.2.4 Smooth Travel Exposure MDC / New Zealand

g. Skid Resistance Skid resistance is a measure of tyre grip on the road surface and an important factor for road safety. So far it is not surveyed on the MDC roading network. However it is recommended that this survey be undertaken on the arterial routes and other important roads. The above graphs indicate that current road condition rating figures are reasonably well within acceptable levels of service for the sealed network. 6.2.4 Age Distribution and Life The age of most Council sealed pavement surfaces is less than 16 years. Over the lifecycle of the networks’ pavement length there is an estimated average annual amount of the 6km of pavement rehabilitation. About 33 km of pavements are resealed. The age distribution of sealed road surfaces is shown in Figure 6.2.5. Figure 6.2.5 Sealed Roads – Surface Age & Length Top surface age 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000

0

0 2 5 7 9

39 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 37 11 The above figure shows that a small proportion of the roading network has surfacing older than 16 years. This is thought to be due to the summation of all small isolated sections of unsealed surface and any minor errors in data entry into the RAMM database. In practice, no significant sealed road surface is left for more than 16 years for resealing. 6.2.5 Issues

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 41 of 126

Council is currently rehabilitating 6-8 km of sealed pavement annually. A review of forestry logging on rural roads was completed in 2011. The recommendations were;  The quantity and location of harvesting cannot be accurately predicted.  The likely quantity of rehabilitation required can be readily catered for in the existing programme.  On the more remote roads, it is more economical to allow for any required heavy maintenance to maintain a reduced level of service during harvesting, and carry out rehabilitation to return the road to the required level of service when harvesting is complete. This is primarily driven by the short notice given of intentions to harvest any particular area (commonly less than 3 months), and is dependent on the time of year harvesting occurs.  The current prediction of harvest volumes (based on MAF Wood Availability Forecast 2009), shows that current (2011) levels of harvesting will continue through to 2015, when they will increase by 60% of current levels over the next 10 years.  The need for a heavy traffic by-pass east of Masterton is not economically warranted at current harvesting rates, nor is it likely at the harvest rates predicted for 2025.  The forecast harvesting needs be reviewed from 2016 onward to confirm current predictions and there effect on the roads. Proposed rehabilitation sites are verified as the lowest cost maintenance option before being programmed for construction. Field observations have identified the following road sections as AWPT sites likely to justify treatment over the next three years. 6.2.6 Critical Assets The Wairarapa Engineering Lifelines Project report identifies the important routes on sealed roads vulnerable to natural hazards. See Table 6.2.5. Table 6.2.5 Critical Assets – Sealed Roads Road Name Vulnerable To Masterton – Martinborough (Te Whiti Rd) Flooding Opaki – Kaiparoro Rd Liquefaction, Fault displacement, Flood Whangaehu Valley Rd Liquefaction, Landslide Te Ore Ore – Bideford Rd Liquefaction, Landslide, Flooding Masterton – Castlepoint Rd Liquefaction, Fault displacement, Landslide, Flooding, Tsunami Blairlogie – Langdale Rd Landslide, Flooding Riversdale Rd Liquefaction, Fault displacement, Tsunami Homewood Rd Fault displacement, Upper Plain Rd Fault displacement, Flooding Masterton – Stronvar Rd Flooding Manawa Rd Flooding Mataikona Rd Flooding, Windstorm, Tsunami, Wildfire, Landslide The significant negative effects of the sealed roading network in the Masterton district are outlined in Table 6.2.6. Table 6.2.6 Significant Negative Effects of Sealed Roads Negative Effects How We Will/Do Mitigate Social None identified

Cultural None identified

Environmental None identified Economic Widespread incapacitation of Co-ordinate network network — for example, due to a responses for events and be storm event, bushfire, or assisted by Civil Defence widespread slips) Emergency Management 6.2.7 Asset Capacity / Performance

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 42 of 126

Carriageway capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles per hour that could reasonably expect to traverse a uniform section of roadway during a given period under typical roadway, traffic and control conditions. Roadway conditions refer to the road alignment, number of lanes, road width and design speed. Traffic conditions refer to vehicle type and mix. Control conditions refer to the control devices and traffic regulations applicable to the particular section of road. The assessment of this capacity is usually a qualitative measure describing operational conditions and their perception by motorists (i.e. freedom to select desired speed, comfort, convenience and safety). Traffic counts are undertaken on a continuing basis and as yet no roads within the district have met the criteria for increasing the number of lanes beyond the current situation. It is expected that current levels of service will mean this is unlikely to change within the life of this plan. An example of usage through ‘vehicle kilometres travelled’ as a comparison to the national figures is shown in Figure 6.2.6. Figure 6.2.6 Vehicle Kilometers Travelled

Vehicle kilometres travelled Masterton District 2001/02 - 2011/12

140 0.80% 120 0.70% 100 0.60% 80 0.50% 0.40% 60 0.30%

40 0.20% oftotal % VKT (million km) (million VKT 20 0.10%

0 0.00%

2001/2002 2007/2008 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 Year

Masterton District - LR LR as % of NZ

However, the type of vehicle and the mix of traffic on district roads are continually evolving. The roading network is carrying increasing numbers of heavy commercial vehicles. This is not confined to main strategic roads, and is affecting all levels of the road hierarchy. Thus issues such as road widths and road user safety are key issues. 6.2.8 Design Standards a. Road Width Each road group has a target seal width and shoulder width. Analysis of existing seal widths compared to target width shows a reasonable level of compliance as detailed in the following Table 6.2.7. Data sourced from RAMM. Table 6.2.7 Sealed Pavement Roads – Road Widths SINGLE LANE Austroads target Length (km) Total single lane Difference % compliance width (m) compliance (km) 3.5 36.221 47.019 10.798 77.03% DOUBLE LANE Austroads target Length (km) Total double lane Difference % compliance width (m) compliance (lane km) 6 340.988 476.640 135.652 71.54% On average 74% of the length of sealed roads complies with the target width. Further analysis of the level of non-compliance shows that about 27% or 146.45 km of sealed road network is under width by 1.0 metre or less (Table 6.2.8).

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 43 of 126

Table 6.2.8 Non-Compliant Lanes by Width Single lane <0.4m 0.5 - 1.0m >1.0m Total 38.547 51.395 56.508 146.450 The maintenance consequences of under-width roads are edge break and unsealed shoulder rutting. The expenditure relating to edge break repair has increased in recent years. b. Safety The NZTA gathers crash data on behalf of the Road Controlling Authorities (RCA). Each year NZTA reviews crash data from the previous five years and reports on results, trends and key safety issues. The information is used to assist in the development of engineering, education and enforcement programmes. The number of injury related crashes occurring on the district’s unsealed roads for the last recorded 10 years is outlined in Table 6.2.9. Data is sourced from NZTA and loaded into the RAMM program for access. Table 6.2.9 Sealed Roads Crash Analysis Year No. Fatal No. Severe Minor Total injuries Total Injuries Injuries Injuries crashes 2004 3 6 51 60 153 2005 0 11 53 64 165 2006 1 7 57 65 161 2007 2 12 53 67 175 2008 1 12 59 72 182 2009 2 9 58 69 196 2010 0 7 43 50 160 2011 1 8 45 54 114 2012 0 5 47 52 142 2013 3 12 34 49 103 Total 13 89 500 602 1551 The incidence of crashes on MDC sealed roads appears to be lowering over time along with a slight reduction when comparing the resulting reported injuries. 6.2.9 Maintenance Plan Maintenance is the on-going day to day work activity required to keep assets serviceable and prevent premature deterioration or failure. The maintenance strategy has been developed to achieve cost effective maintenance to maintain the assets to meet the intended level of service. Council has determined that the most effective way to achieve this objective is to contract out maintenance works to commercial contractors. This allows for competitive tendering as a way of ensuring true maintenance value for the works. The term of contract is initially for three years, with rights for extensions to four or five years on a year by year basis, provided the Contractor meets the performance requirements specified in the contract. The current contractor is Fulton Hogan Ltd, with a current contract completion date of June 2019, assuming the rights to extensions are granted. Masterton District Council will review the cost-effectiveness of the current arrangements for meeting the needs of the community within the district for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and the performance of regulatory functions according to the LGA act 2002 (section 17a) in July 2017. As per the contract, the contractor is paid lump sums each month to routinely maintain some components of the sealed carriageway and the shoulders to the required standard. All other work is covered by unit rates or day work rates. The lump sum and the unit rate items cover: Sealed Pavement lump sum maintenance activities include, pothole repair, removal of detritus, & monthly reports and programmes

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 44 of 126

Sealed Pavement and Shoulder unit rate maintenance activities include, dig out repairs, repair surface openings and surface levelling, failure repairs, surface layer replacement, edge break repair, repair of surface defects, ice gritting and snow clearing, shoulder compaction, rut filling, edge marker posts installation, surfacing water tables, side drain formation, side drain cleaning, & vegetation control. The performance of the maintenance contractor during the contract period will be measured by the following criteria:  Requirements of the specification are met.  Pot holes are repaired in a technically competent way ensuring a smooth ride and waterproof surface, within the response times.  Repaired dig outs maintain a smooth riding surface within the surface deviation tolerances specified until the end of the defect liability period.  The chip sealing does not flush, bleed or strip before the end of the defect liability period and there are no loose chips on the road surface on completion of the repair.  Material used for crack filling and sealing shall remain in place, waterproofing the crack, until the end of the defect liability period.  No flushing, bleeding or scabbing of the sealed surface of the repair.  The treatment of flushing, scabbing or bleeding leads to a significant improvement in road condition.  The repair remains an integral part of the pavement structure within the specified tolerances.  All work is carried out with regard to the safety of traffic both during and after completion of the repair. Table 6.2.10 outlines the response times for maintenance works as per the contract document. Table 6.2.10 Maintenance Response Times – Sealed Pavement Roads Work Category Response Times (In days, Cyclic & Identified) Potholes 5/2 Sealing - Arterial/Collector/Urban Within 3 days of repair Sealing - Local Within 10 days of repair 6.2.10 Service Standards MDC currently follows design standards and specifications published by NZTA for the construction, maintenance and rehabilitation of sealed roads. The design standards are either based on the guidelines prepared by AUSTROADS, if the mechanistic design approach is used, or more commonly the NRB State Highway Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual if an incremental design approach is adopted. However, the design of a pavement depends on many factors including traffic volume, material strength, sub-grade soil condition and axle loading. 6.2.11 Financial The Roading asset components were valued as follows, as at 30th June 2014. Data was sourced from the MDC Annual Report 2014 and includes all (sealed & unsealed) land and formation. Table 6.2.11 Asset Valuation – All Roads (2014) Item Optimised Optimised Annual Depreciation Replacement Cost ($) Depreciated ($) Replacement Cost ($) Land 84,951,000 84,951,000 0 Formation 254,159,000 254,159,000 0 Pavement 90,655,000 76,544,000 1,500,225 Shoulder 7,116,000 5,215,000 93,290 Sealed Surfacing 26,558,000 15,802,000 1,087,644 In valuing the roading asset, three components were calculated: the Optimised Replacement Cost, Depreciated Replacement Value and Annual Depreciation.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 45 of 126

The Optimised Replacement Cost is the cost of building the asset “today”. In arriving at this value, it is assumed that modern construction techniques are used but the physical result replaces the asset as it exists. The rates used are current from construction, resealing and maintenance contracts. a. Land The land within the reserve width of the roads has been calculated for valuation. The value of land does not depreciate as regular maintenance will allow them to provide adequate service indefinitely. b. Formation Formation includes all earthworks necessary to prepare the cut and fill batters and bring the road formation up to the underside of the sub-base. The formation does not depreciate. The unsealed pavement structure is assumed to consist of permanent sub-base and base layers protected by a maintenance metal layer, which is replenished as required to maintain the overall structural integrity. c. Pavement An assumed age has been used in the valuation exercise and loaded into RAMM. The remaining service life was estimated from local experience. d. Sealed Surfacing The current sealed surface had its age and remaining life determined from an analysis of the historical RAMM sealing data. Data was sourced from the MDC annual reports. e. Historical Expenditure Historical expenditure on sealed road assets from previous years is summarised in Table 6.2.12 and Figures 6.2.7 & 6.2.8. Data is sourced from financial reports. Table 6.2.12 Historical Expenditure – Sealed Roads Year Pavement Maint. ($) Re-seal ($) Rehabilitation ($)** Total Spend ($) 2000-01 736,971 627,365 934,262 2,298,598 2001-02 577,131 674,858 976,332 2,228,321 2002-03 491,531 649,340 1,041,522 2,182,393 2003-04 574,954 605,214 1,292,288 2,472,456 2004-05 672,462 616,542 1,503,013 2,792,017 2005-06 721,279 756,455 1,417,714 2,895,448 2006-07 1,090,451 1,022,888 1,260,850 3,374,189 2007-08* 667,626 937,675 1,972,384 3,577,685 2008-09 984,199 911,470 1,482,474 3,378,143 2009-10 702,694 859,355 1,275,935 2,837,984 2010-11 620,437 37,905 891,233 1,549,575 2011-12 620,026 1,266,417 1,247,769 3,134,212 2012-13 696,939 479,874 912,246 2,089,059 2013-14 760,980 789,478 706,349 2,256,807 *From this date this figure includes a new work category ‘Associated Improvements’, Associated Urban & Rural Rehab improvements included in the total. Analysis of historical expenditure cost data shows that the average cost per annum of maintaining one kilometre of sealed carriageway in the network over the past fourteen years is: $5,062.40 Figure 6.2.7 Historical Expenditure – Sealed Roads

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 46 of 126

Figure 6.2.8 Annual Historical per Km Expenditure

Council has made a strategic decision to ‘at least’ maintain the current levels of service for sealed roads. To maintain the current operational practise, and considering the increasing trend of expenditure, the annual operating expenditure for this asset in the next ten years, may be assumed as in Table 6.2.13 NZTA currently provides 57% of the cost of maintenance and replacement of sealed pavement assets. The remaining proportion of expenditure is funded from rates. Table 6.2.13 Ten Year Forecast Year Approximate Expenditure ($ ‘000) Renewal Maintenance Total BERL inflation forecast % 2012 – 13 3,706 2,873 6,579 4.3 2013 – 14 3,834 2,980 6,814 8.2 2014 – 15 3,783 3,071 6,854 11.5 2015 – 16 3,919 3,181 7,100 15.5 2016 – 17 4,041 3,281 7,322 19.1 2017 – 18 4,160 3,377 7,537 22.6 2018 – 19 4,296 3,487 7,783 26.6 2019 – 20 4,445 3,608 8,053 31.0 2020 – 21 4,608 3,741 8,348 35.8 2021 – 22 4,767 3,870 8,637 40.5 New maintenance and renewal work, as well as some capital expenditure, has been identified and is scheduled to enable current service levels to be maintained. See Table 6.2.14 Table 6.2.14 New Sealed Roads Maintenance, Renewal & Capital Costs Identified Action/Work Driver for Action Estimated Cost Scheduled How this will be For funded

Rural Roading Condition Assessment; $2,519,000 p.a. 2015 – 2025 Rates & Subsidy – Renewals To maintain current LOS Capital Expenses (sealed roads) Urban Roading Condition Assessment; $890,724 p.a. 2015 – 2025 Rates & Subsidy – Renewals To maintain current LOS Capital Expenses

Urban & Rural Condition Assessment; $325,000 p.a. 2015 – 2025 Rates & Subsidy – Minor Safety Capital Expenses Improvement (Rural – overtaking Projects opportunities for overtaking Urban – Safe cycle lanes.) Mataikona Reliable access for $10,400,000 2025 - 2030 Loan Funded Front Hill residents

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 47 of 126

6.2.12 Renewal/Replacement Renewal work restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. Renewals include resurfacing, smoothing and pavement rehabilitation. The identification of sealed pavements requiring renewal is brought about in a number of ways:  Inspection by MDC engineers  Contractor’s inspection routine reports as described in the maintenance contract.  RAMM condition rating and roughness survey  Forward works programme generated from treatment length algorithms  Age profile of the pavement  Public requests  Annual maintenance costs  Pavement deterioration modelling using dTIMS CT (currently only at preliminary stage of implementation) The required quantity of renewal varies depending on:  The age profile of carriageway surfacing  The condition profile of the carriageways  The deterioration of the top surface  The level of ongoing maintenance demand  The likely future demand on the road  The economic life of the material used This information is used as base data in the generation of road condition forecasts, forward works programmes and road renewal programmes. Pavement layer information and strength data are still unavailable. Appropriate actions should be taken in order to obtain this information generally road rehabilitation is carried out only if a NZTA financial assistance can be obtained. 6.2.13 Asset Acquisition and Creation Plan Asset creation can be defined as those works that create a new asset which did not exist in any shape or form previously; or works that improve an existing asset beyond its current capacity or performance. The development of project evaluation procedures is an ongoing process. NZTA periodically revises the project evaluation procedures in the light of research and information from industry in order to continually improve them to meet the objectives of a safe and efficient roading system. In addition to the NZTA requirements, the Council has adopted a policy for prioritising unsubsidised seal extension projects. Asset creation in respect of sealed roads includes following:  Minor safety projects  Seal extensions of unsealed roads  Road reconstruction  New road construction (often as a result of land subdivision) Council’s asset creation strategy is:  To prioritise works in descending order of benefit/cost  To carry out works where NZTA financial assistance can be obtained. 6.2.14 Programme Pavement rehabilitation treatments provide for the replacement of, or restoration of strength to, pavements where other forms of maintenance and renewal are no longer economic. These may include overlays, rip and relays and chemical stabilisation. Council is currently rehabilitating 6-8 km of sealed pavement annually. A review of forestry logging on rural roads was completed in 2011. The recommendations were;  The quantity and location of harvesting cannot be accurately predicted.  The likely quantity of rehabilitation required can be readily catered for in the existing programme.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 48 of 126

 On the more remote roads, it is more economical to allow for any required heavy maintenance to maintain a reduced level of service during harvesting, and carry out rehabilitation to return the road to the required level of service when harvesting is complete. This is primarily driven by the short notice given of intentions to harvest any particular area (commonly less than 3 months), and is dependent on the time of year harvesting occurs.  The current prediction of harvest volumes (based on MAF Wood Availability Forecast 2009), shows that current (2011) levels of harvesting will continue through to 2015, when they will increase by 60% of current levels over the next 10 years. o The need for a heavy traffic by-pass east of Masterton is not economically warranted at current harvesting rates, nor is it likely at the harvest rates predicted for 2025. o The forecast harvesting needs be reviewed from 2016 onward to confirm current predictions and there effect on the roads. Proposed rehabilitation sites are verified as the lowest cost maintenance option before being programmed for construction. Field observations have identified the following road sections as AWPT sites likely to justify treatment over the next three years. Table 6.2.15 Pavement Rehabilitation Projects

Road Name Site Location 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Future Bute Rd 173 Colombo Rd School to bridge 303 Dixon St SH2 to Bruce St 196 Dixon St Church to Bannister Dixon St Banister to Worksop Guthrie Cres 69 Lees Pakaraka Holmes to Te Whiti 169 169 Lees Pakaraka 127 Manawa Rd 161 Manawa Rd 161 Manawa Rd 46 Manawa Rd 46 Masterton Castlepoint 2 McLaughan to Rockys Masterton Castlepoint 2 Jetty Rd - Guthrie to Basin 72 Morris Rd 137 Mungapurupuru 119 Mungapurupuru 293 Mungapurupuru 199 199 Ngahape Rd Ngahape Rd 169 Ngahape Rd 174 174 174 174 Ngaumu Rd Motukai to Skeets 174 Nguamutawa Rd Cornwall St south 165 Opaki Kaiparoro Bowen Rd 140 Opaki Kaiparoro Bowen Rd 87 Paierau Matahiwi Estate 459 Paierau Millers 160 Te Ore Ore Bideford Rosebank - Bideford Hall to Dursley 271 Te Ore Ore Bideford Mangapurupuru - Berwyn to end 253 Tinui Valley Rd Bartholomews to Bartletts Watsons Rd 89 Whangahu Valley Rd 115 Whangahu Valley Rd 92 Whangahu Valley Rd 69 Whangahu Valley Rd 115 Whangahu Valley Rd 92 Whangahu Valley Rd 115 Whangahu Valley Rd 69 Whangahu Valley Rd 161 *Note – the work sites listed are provisional only, and will be confirmed by the Project Manager prior to each year’s activity. a. Maintenance surfacing Council is currently undertaking approximately 23km of resealing (excluding the rehabilitation sites) Examples of this activity include:  Conventional chip reseals, including second coat seals  Void filling seal coats  Texturing seals

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 49 of 126

b. Seal Widening Seal widening caters for widening of existing seals where this is the least-cost maintenance treatment necessary to overcome edge break or to reduce shoulder maintenance. Work may include shoulder strengthening and/or formation widening where this is necessary to maintain the structural integrity of the pavement. 6.2.15 Disposal Plan Although there are currently no plans to dispose of any significant component of this asset, Council would follow a process complying with its legal obligations under the Local Government Act 2002, which covers:  Public notification procedures required prior to sale  Restrictions on the minimum value recovered, and  Use of revenue received from asset disposal. From time to time, areas of (unformed) legal road reserve, berm areas surplus to requirements, or areas being informally occupied by adjoining landowners may be identified for disposal.

6.3 Unsealed Pavements This section covers the unsealed paved roads that Masterton District Council owns and maintains.

6.3.1 Introduction Masterton District Council aims to provide a surfacing and pavement structure that is appropriate to the location and function of the road. 6.3.2 Asset Description (Inc. how asset data is stored) Unsealed roads, are used throughout the district, they are generally a lower volume road that provides access from individual properties to collector or arterial roads within the transportation network. These unsealed roads are then categorised as local roads from a hierarchical point of view. However there is a new classification being reviewed for implementation called “One Network Road Classification (ONRC)” and this involves categorising roads based on the functions they perform as part of an integrated national network. The new classification will help local government (MDC) and the Transport Agency to plan, invests in, maintain and operate the road network in a more strategic, consistent and affordable way throughout the country. Until implementation of ONRC the Masterton District Council currently has the following classification for unsealed roads: Table 6.3.1 Unsealed Roads – Category Groups Road type Class Total km Unsealed Roads Strategic arterial 0 District arterial 8.613 Collector 1.753 Local 268.580 Total 278.946 Most of the unsealed roads have developed over time from tracks into roads, with the vegetation removed and metal laid over a long period of time. The standards and requirements in terms of width and strength have improved over time. The RAMM inventory records show the Masterton District Council owns about 278km of unsealed roads, and Masterton District Council has adopted the following maintenance classes as summarised in Table 6.3.2. And these classes are used to determine the level of maintenance activity for these roads.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 50 of 126

Table 6.3.2 Unsealed Roads – Summary Road category Average traffic volumes Total (km) U1 ADT =/> 100 85.0 U2 ADT < 100 168.0 Requested Often unused 25.9 Total 278.9 * ADT = Average daily traffic. The lane width of the unsealed road can vary from 2.5m to 3.0m. Table 6.3.3 indicates the lengths of unsealed roads for single and double lanes. Table 6.3.3 Unsealed Roads – Lane lengths Single Lane (km) Double Lane (km) Total (km) 275.373 3.573 278.946 The Council retains roading plans and records for the significant range of components making up the roading asset. Information has been taken from these plans and from field survey to develop inventories of assets. Such information is available from the RAMM system database (Road Assessment and Maintenance Management) which holds comprehensive inventory data covering the following:  carriageway  traffic volumes  surfacing  condition rating  roughness  shoulders  surface water channels  pavement layers  drainage  traffic facilities  minor structures The confidence level for the data used in this plan for unsealed roads is shown in Table 6.3.4. Where, A = Highly Reliable B = Reliable C = Uncertain D = Very uncertain Table 6.3.4 Data Confidence Level

Attribute D C B A

Physical Parameters

Asset Capacity

Asset Condition

Valuations

Response times

Historical Expenditures

Design Standards

6.3.3 Asset Condition and Monitoring The unsealed road asset is in a reasonable but constantly changing condition depending on traffic use, weather, position in its maintenance cycle etc. Routine maintenance work is undertaken to limit defects and to provide an acceptable level of service. The condition is monitored by Council engineers, contractors and consultant inspections, as well as via complaints and queries from users. An assessment for RAMM of condition rating or roughness is not undertaken on unsealed roads.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 51 of 126

The inventory for unsealed roads contains the following types of information, displacement, road type, pavement type, pavement use, and lane width, number of lane, owner, loading, ESA, & traffic volumes 6.3.4 Critical Assets There are currently no unsealed roads classified as more critical than others within the Council’s Transport network. However the following unsealed roads were assessed as being more vulnerable or at risk than others in the Wairarapa Engineering Lifelines Project report. See Table 6.3.5 Table 6.3.5 Critical Assets – Unsealed Roads Road Name Vulnerable To Annedale Road Liquefaction, Flooding / Drainage Kaiwhata Road Fault displacement, Land subsidence Wairere Road Land subsidence Daggs Road Land subsidence 6.3.5 Asset Capacity /Performance Performance of the carriageway assets has been assessed in terms of capacity, customer satisfaction and safety. a. Physical Capacity The present geometric capacity of this asset is generally adequate to meet existing demand. All unsealed roads are well maintained, but there are still unsealed roads of irregular or narrow width which will need widening over the coming years, especially those used regularly by heavy vehicles. b. Customer Satisfaction Public concerns generally relate to issues of roughness, dust, mud, corrugations, potholes and soft areas. These are all issues that are being dealt with to some degree by the maintenance contractors, in keeping the deficiencies within acceptable limits. There are relatively few requests for seal extensions on the unsealed portions of the network and these are usually difficult to justify economically because of low traffic volumes. c. Safety The NZTA monitors crash data on behalf of Road Controlling Authorities (RCA). Each year NZTA reviews crash data from the previous five years and reports on results, trends and key safety issues. The information is used to assist in the development of engineering, education and enforcement programmes. The number of injury related crashes occurring on the district’s unsealed roads for the last recorded 10 years is outlined in Table 6.3.6. Data is sourced from NZTA and loaded into the RAMM program for access. Table 6.3.6 Unsealed Roads Crash Analysis Year No. Fatal Injuries No. Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total injuries Total crashes 2004 0 1 1 2 3 2005 0 0 3 3 3 2006 0 1 5 6 2 2007 0 0 1 1 5 2008 0 1 1 2 7 2009 0 3 7 10 7 2010 0 1 1 2 2 2011 0 0 3 3 4 2012 0 1 1 2 4 2013 0 1 1 2 3 0 9 24 24 40

6.3.6 Design Standards Council currently uses pavement standards based on the NZTA specifications for construction, maintenance and rehabilitation of unsealed roads. The design parameters adopted in case of existing unsealed pavements use are outlined in Table 6.3.7.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 52 of 126

Table 6.3.7 Design Standards – Unsealed Roads Unsealed Road Width of Lane (m) Thickness of Sub- Thickness of Type base + Base Running course (mm) (mm) U1 3.0-3.5 100-150 25 U2 2.5-3.0 100-125 25 6.3.7 Maintenance Plan Maintenance is the ongoing day-to-day work activity required to keep assets serviceable and prevent premature deterioration or failure. The maintenance strategy has been developed to achieve cost-effective maintenance to maintain the assets at the intended level of service. MDC has determined that the most effective way to achieve these objectives is to contract out maintenance works to commercial contractors. This allows for competitive tendering as a way of ensuring a true maintenance value of the works. The term of contract is initially for three years, with the opportunity for extensions of four and five years on a year-by-year basis, subject to the agreement of both parties. The contractor has to perform the following day to day maintenance works on gravel roads:  Grading and reshaping of the road  Providing and laying maintenance gravel  Carrying out widening and strengthening of roads as required  Vegetation control  Marker post and drainage maintenance  Repairing potholes  Digging out soft points  Clearing slips, dropouts and washouts  In situ stabilisation works Each road shall be graded at regular intervals, not less than the required minimum number of times. The minimum number of times per year each road (in the 2 categories) shall be graded is shown in the following Table 6.3.8 Together with an indicated possible average number of times per year that roads may require to be graded to meet the specified maintenance standards. These are guidelines only and are dependent on climatic conditions and traffic loading variations. Table 6.3.8 Grading Frequency Road Minimum grading Probable grading Thickness of

category cycle cycle Running course (mm) U1 3.0-3.5 100-150 25 U2 2.5-3.0 100-125 25 a. Contractor’s performance monitoring The Council needs to be vigilant in monitoring the performance of contractors to ensure that performance standards are continually achieved. The Council’s inspection programme therefore becomes a crucial element in managing these assets. The Council audits the contractor’s performance by inspection and measurement of the contractor’s work and the roading assets. b. Performance criteria  Requirements of the specifications are met.  A pro-active maintenance programme is implemented.  Inspections are undertaken at frequent enough intervals to ensure that the requirements of the specification are met.  Repair works are programmed and completed in a timely manner.  The carriageway, feather edges and tapers retain their widths and cross-fall.  No reasonable complaints are received by the engineer concerning the contractor’s operation or condition of the road during the contract period.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 53 of 126

 During maintenance operations the carriageway shall remain passable to all traffic that would normally be expected to use that road.  There is no debris within the carriageway, which compromises the safety of the road users or threatens the integrity of the pavement.  There is no drift of chemicals during spraying and there is minimum damage to the environment.  Visibility of traffic signs and roadside furniture is not hindered by vegetation. c. Response times Response times for the contract are outlined in Table 6.3.9 and are from section 7.2 of the contract Table 6.3.9 Response Times – Unsealed Roads Work Category Response Time (in days, cyclic/identified) Road Type U1 Road Type U2 Inspections 7/3 7/3 Potholes 5/2 5/2 Grading 4/2 4/2 Pavement failure repairs In programme In programme Supply and placement of maintenance 4/2 4/2 aggregate Cyclic = routine Identified = requested 6.3.8 Service Standards MDC currently follows design standards and specifications published by NZTA for the construction, maintenance and rehabilitation of sealed roads. The design standards are either based on the guidelines prepared by AUSTROADS, if the mechanistic design approach is used, or more commonly the NRB State Highway Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual if an incremental design approach is adopted. However, the design of a pavement depends on many factors including traffic volume, material strength, sub-grade soil condition and axle loading. 6.3.9 Financial The Roading asset components were valued as follows, as at 30th June 2014. Data was sourced from the MDC Annual Report 2014 and includes all (sealed & unsealed) land and formation. Table 6.3.10 Asset Valuation – All Roads (2014) Item Optimised Depreciated Annual Depreciation Replacement Value Replacement Value ($) ($) ($) Land 84,951,000 84,951,000 0 Formation 254,159,000 254,159,000 0 Pavement 90,655,000 76,544,000 1,500,225 Shoulder 7,116,000 5,215,000 93,290 In valuing the roading asset, three components were calculated: the Optimised Replacement Cost, Depreciated Replacement Value and Annual Depreciation. The Optimised Replacement Cost is the cost of building the asset “today”. In arriving at this value, it is assumed that modern construction techniques are used but the physical result replaces the asset as it exists. The rates used are current from construction, resealing and maintenance contracts. a. Land The land within the reserve width of the roads has been calculated for valuation. The value of land does not depreciate as regular maintenance will allow them to provide adequate service indefinitely. b. Formation Formation includes all earthworks necessary to prepare the cut and fill batters and bring the road formation up to the underside of the sub-base. The formation does not depreciate. The unsealed pavement structure is assumed to consist of permanent sub-base and base layers protected by a maintenance metal layer, which is replenished as required to maintain the overall structural integrity.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 54 of 126

Council has made a strategic decision to ‘at least’ maintain the current levels of service for sealed roads. c. Historical Expenditure Historical maintenance expenditure from previous years is detailed in Table 6.3.11 and Figure 6.3.1. Data is sourced from financial reports. Table 6.3.11 Historical Expenditure – Unsealed Roads Year Renewal Costs of Total Expenditure Expenditure ($) Maintenance ($) ($) 1999-00 355,804 355,804 2000-01 325,682 325,682 2001-02 269,691 269,691 2002-03 468,173 468,173 2003-04 511,368 511,173 2004-05 601,021 601,021 2005-06 558,417 558,417 2006-07 524,987 524,987 2007-08 469,059 287,965 757,024 2008-09 385,021 262,846 647,867 2009-10 235,908 406,662 642,570 2010-11 541,148 638,349 1,179,497 2011-12 681,595 647,302 1,328,897 2012-13 949,723 504,520 1,454,243 2013-14 621,720 553,200 1,174,920 *Road metalling redefined as a renewal item from 2007-08 With the inclusion of renewal only in the last seven years analysis of historical the expenditure costs shows that the average cost per annum of maintaining one kilometre of unsealed carriageway in the network over the past seven years is: $3,692.20 Figure 6.3.1 Historical Expenditure – Unsealed Roads

6.3.10 Renewal/Replacement The main parameter for road renewals is the road condition and the cost of maintaining the required level of service. The renewal strategy is based around measuring and forecasting the deterioration

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 55 of 126

of roads and scheduling investments in renewals when the level of deterioration becomes unacceptable. The application of metal to an unsealed road is classified as a capital investment in the pavement. With an unsealed road, deterioration can sometimes be very rapid – e.g. a road that was adequate when used by the occasional heavy vehicle becoming impassable when new logging or farm activity takes place along it. In these circumstances the strategy must be flexible and responsive to change. Proposed rehabilitation sites are verified as the lowest cost maintenance option before being programmed for construction. Field observations have identified road sections as AWPT sites likely to justify treatment. 6.3.11 Asset Acquisition and Creation Plan Asset creation in relation to unsealed roads includes:  Road reconstruction  Minor improvements  Road widening  New road construction MDC’s asset creation strategy is:  To prioritise works in descending order of Benefit/Cost (B/C)  To carry out works where NZTA financial assistance can be obtained a. Road construction/reconstruction As the existing roading network is good enough to carry current traffic volumes, there is little scope for undertaking new construction or reconstruction of unsealed roads. b. Minor Improvement Works Minor improvement projects are defined under NZTA’s work categories and are generally small safety projects that are typically remedial projects identified by crash reduction studies. The following minor safety works are generally undertaken on unsealed roads:  Small, isolated geometric improvements  Intersection improvements  Traffic calming measures  Provision of guide railing  Sight benching c. Road Widening and Seal Extension Desirable carriageway widths are specified in the Wairarapa Combined District Plan and in NZS 4404. Carriageway widths on exiting network are not necessarily consistent with the planning documents. Carriageway widening is carried out to increase safety, and or to reduce road edge maintenance costs. Seal extension need is determined by economic analysis. Where NZTA funding criteria cannot be met Council’s seal extension policy applies. Dust suppression products are applied to unsealed pavements on a needs basis as a maintenance activity. 6.3.12 Programme The unsealed roads require routine maintenance to maintain the required level of service. Table 6.3.14 shows that the annual operating expenditure for this asset has been increased over the last few years. There is currently no major upgrading programme planned for this asset in the next ten years. In order to provide the agreed service level and considering the wave trend of expenditure, the annual operating expenditure for this asset in the next ten years has been estimated as $1,100,000. NZTA currently provides 54% of the cost of maintenance, renewal and upgrading of unsealed pavement assets. The remaining portion of expenditure is funded from rates.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 56 of 126

Table 6.3.12 Unsealed Roads Maintenance, Renewal & Capital Costs Identified Action/Work Driver for Action Estimated Scheduled How this will be funded Cost For Renewal and replacement of Condition $100,000 Year 1 This cost will be incorporated unsealed road assets as part of assessment and into the routine maintenance routine maintenance compliance with $140,000 Year 2 programme and total standards. operating budget. $40,000 Year 3 6.3.13 Disposal Plan Council has no current plans to dispose of unsealed road assets.

6.4 Pavement Drainage Drainage is an essential component of the transport network and helps deliver an effective and efficient transport system. Masterton Council strives to contribute to the resilience of the transport network by protecting the road edge and substructure from stormwater erosion and damage. 6.4.1 Introduction Efficiently diverting stormwater run-off from the road pavement and into the stormwater system has the resulting outcomes:  Prevention of ponding of water on the road or footpath and adjacent properties  Prevention of the saturation of pavement layers that may cause structural deterioration  To provide the clear delineation and safe movement for pedestrians and traffic in the transportation network. This section covers drainage control assets in the Masterton District that Council owns and maintains. Drainage control assets consist of surface water channels (earth and sealed), culverts (up to 3.4m2 including piped vehicular crossings), kerbs and channels (various types), sumps and soak pits. The Council maintains an urban Stormwater reticulation that is fully described in the Stormwater Asset Management Plan – Part B and this works in tandem with the Roading drainage assets. 6.4.2 Asset Description (Inc. how asset data is stored) A summary of the Council’s drainage control assets, taken from the RAMM inventory, is provided in Table 6.4.1 The stormwater assets recorded in the second table are from the Councils GIS data base and these are listed for reference. The management of these assets in the second table is described in detail in the Stormwater Asset Management Plan which is a separate document to this Roading Asset Management Plan. Table 6.4.1 Drainage Assets Summary

Roading Drainage Items Total (m) Urban Stormwater Items Total Dished Channel (Concrete) 1.347m Stormwater manholes 568 Kerb & Channel (Concrete) 178,210m Watercourses 96,283m Kerb & Dished Channel 82m Soak pits 106 (Concrete) Stormwater pipes 46,116m SWC (Deep, >200 Below Seal 815,671m Stormwater sumps 1553 Edge) *Note – This table is predominantly urban assets. SWC (Shallow, <200 Below Seal 143,935m Edge) Mountable Kerb & Channel 6.765m (Concrete) Catch pits 75 Culverts (length) 39,777m Subsoil drain 6,533m *Note – ‘SWC’ is abbreviation for Surface Water Channel.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 57 of 126

The number of culverts per kilometre of rural and urban roads is 5.51 and 0.92 respectively, with an average of 4.84 across the Council’s entire road network. The diameter of the culverts varies from 100mm to 6000 mm. The diameter of the subsoil drains is usually 150 mm. Culvert size ranges Diameter range Small culvert <600mm Large Culvert >600mm - <3400mm Major culvert or bridge structure >3400mm Table 6.4.2 Drainage Assets – Material & Size Item Diameter range Length (m) Asbestos cement 150-300 371 Concrete 100-6,000 39,775 Earthenware 225-375 351 HDPE 160-400 3,942 Poly Vinyl Chloride 150-375 62 Steel 100-1,200 2,085 Timber construction 125-300 74 Natural earth 600 375 Total 47,035

Figure 6.4.1 Drainage Assets – Material & Size Type of pipe material & size range

Asbestos cement 150-300

Concrete 100-6,000

Earthenware 225-375

HDPE 160-400

Poly Vinyl Chloride 150-375

Steel 100-1,200

Timber construction 125-300

Natural ground 600

The general life expectancy of concrete drainage control facilities is considered to be in the range of 80 to 100 years depending on the type of facilities. a. Vehicle Crossings – (bridge crossings) There are approximately 17km of urban roads that have the older vehicle crossing ‘bridges’ amongst an approximate total of 200km of kerb (9%) in the urban area. These crossing points are a variety of construction types from varying ages that allow vehicles to bridge the kerb and channel for access from the public roading network into private properties. These vehicle crossing bridges can be detrimental to swift passage of stormwater in the urban network frequently detaining water flow and also causing the ponding of water. They are a consistent source of public complaint and are an inefficient structure when managing the cleanliness of the kerb and channel structures. However the effect of removing these old structures could have a negative impact with the loss of the detention period provided by the bridges during flash floods, the replacement with newer standard crossings may also cause entranceway gradient complaints, and could restrict cycle lane widths.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 58 of 126

The replacement of older Vehicle Crossing Bridges is currently under consideration by Council as a staged long term project. The bridge crossings in Renall and Essex Streets that were mentioned in the 2011 AMP have been upgraded in conjunction with the kerb & channel that was renewed. These two streets had been nominated previously with a higher priority for replacement due to being in a less favourable condition. The accepted standard required for replacement is in the Wairarapa Combined District Plan as the NZ Standard 4404:2004 – land development and subdivision engineering. Masterton District Council requires all new crossings to be constructed on existing streets to be in accordance with MDC plan 805 A, B or C. This is shown in Appendix 5. Appendix 6 shows the approximate locations of most of the vehicle crossing bridges in the urban area.

Bridge type vehicle crossing Industrial type 805c vehicle crossing

The confidence level for the drainage control asset data used in this plan is summarised in Table 6.4.3. Where, A = Highly Reliable B = Reliable C = Uncertain D = Very uncertain Table 6.4.3 Data Confidence Level

Attribute D C B A

Physical Parameters

Asset Capacity

Asset Condition

Valuations

Historical Expenditures

Design Standards

6.4.3 Asset Condition and Monitoring a. Surface Water Channels and Kerb and Channels The RAMM Condition rating inspects all surface water channels, inclusive of any broken channels, high lips, broken surfaces, uphill grades, blockages, blocked SWC, inadequate SWC and insufficient shoulders. The roading contractor also performs a bi-annual inspection of these assets.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 59 of 126

The summary of the results are shown in Table 6.4.4 And Table 6.4.5 the actual data is held in the RAMM database. The exact age profile of all the drainage control assets is unknown. Planning is underway to assess this information. Condition rating survey results show that the overall condition of SWCs and Kerb and Channels is reasonably good. From these inspection reports and the age profile of drainage assets, a 10-year programme for maintenance, renewal and new construction works can be developed. Table 6.4.4 Surface Water Channel – Condition Item Total length Inadequate Broken surface Blocked sampled channel faults (per km) channel capacity (%) obstruction (per km) Surface Water Channel 70.36 km 17 % 54/km 0.35/km Table 6.4.5 Kerb & Channel – Condition Item Total length Blocked Broken High Lips Uphill Grade sampled channels surfaces (per km) (per km) (per km) (per km) Kerb & Channel 181 km 0.0/km 40.86/km 6.90/km 0.27/km b. Culverts Since 2000 Council has had an inventory for culverts in its RAMM database. Collated data includes details describing the asset. There are some faults with the database but these are being rectified as inspections are carried out. Items such as the age profile of culverts and a detailed size requires more verifying in the field. From inspection by the MDC engineers, and from the contractor’s reporting, the overall condition of the culverts is considered to be satisfactory. The maintenance contractor is required to inspect all culverts in a cyclic programme of one sixth of the network capturing and determine asset condition & cleanliness. c. Sumps and Soak pits The inventory for sumps has been updated however the soak pits inventory is still incomplete. The age profile for sumps & soak pits is also unknown. These assets are not yet fully integrated into the RAMM condition rating survey. But the known overall condition of these assets is considered to be satisfactory. Maintenance works are being done to keep them in good condition. Very few complaints are received for these assets. However it is recommended to include these assets in the next RAMM condition rating survey. All known or identified urban soak pits are within contained the Stormwater Asset Management Plans and that asset information is currently stored in the Council’s GIS system. 6.4.4 Critical Assets All drainage control assets are considered critical in providing an effective drainage system to promote safety and reduce risks such as flooding. The significant negative effects of the drainage control network in the Masterton district are outlined in Table 6.4.6. Table 6.4.6 Significant Negative Effects of Drainage Control Services Negative Effects How We Will/Do Mitigate Social Under-sized or poorly maintained culverts Routine maintenance plus renewal could cause flooding, resulting in isolation and replacement programmes of communities; flooding and associated health risks etc. Cultural None identified N/A Environmental Under-sized or poorly maintained culverts Routine maintenance plus renewal could cause flooding and consequently and replacement programmes damage to the environment.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 60 of 126

Economic Inadequate asset management planning Implementing and developing could result in flooding, which has an asset management systems and economic impact on the community e.g. processes damage to property and crops. 6.4.5 Asset Capacity /Performance Current asset capacity and performance is assessed as being adequate on the basis of recent condition rating results, public complaints and comments from the maintenance contractors. 6.4.6 Design Standards Current MDC drainage standards require assets to be designed for a primary system return period of ten years, and a total system return period of 50-100 years. 6.4.7 Maintenance Plan Routine maintenance is the ongoing day-to-day work activity required to keep assets serviceable and prevent premature deterioration or failure. Routine maintenance activities for drainage control assets include:  Regular inspection  Recording  Repair/fault reporting  Cleaning  Replacement of the damaged portion of structures Unplanned maintenance activities include:  Replacement  Lowering of culverts  Increasing culvert sizes At present, Council engineers identify maintenance needs in the course of their duties, and via public complaints and feedback from the maintenance contractor. The maintenance contractor is currently responsible for carrying out routine maintenance works for all drainage control structures on both day work and a unit rate basis. Asset failures are responded to as quickly as possible to make the drainage network effective and safe using the most economic method available, whether it is minor or major repairs that are required. NZTA provides 54% subsidy for maintenance of the MDC’s drainage control assets. 6.4.8 Financial The Drainage asset components were valued as follows, as at 30th June 2014. Data was sourced from the MDC Annual Report 2014. Table 6.4.7 Asset Valuation – Drainage (2014) Component Replacement Depreciated Annual Cost ($) value ($) Depreciation ($) Surface Water Channels, Kerbs & 19,787,000 11,933,000 191,809 Channels Culverts (Box) 11,476,000 5,078,000 98,050 Culverts (Pipe) 18,487,000 4,851,000 200,153 Historical expenditure on drainage control assets from previous years is as summarised in Table 6.4.8 And Figure 6.4.2 Data is sourced from financial reports. Table 6.4.8 Historical Expenditure – Drainage Year Renewal Costs of Total Expenditure Maintenance Expenditure ($) ($) ($) 1999-00 61,528 223,144 284,672 2000-01 0.00 241,278 241,278

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 61 of 126

Year Renewal Costs of Total Expenditure Maintenance Expenditure ($) ($) ($) 2001-02 40,865 296,155 337,020 2002-03 69,582 245,158 314,740 2003-04 39,729 188,377 228,106 2004-05 34,325 184,560 218,885 2005-06 144,177 400,496 544,673 2006-07 104,845 275,057 379,902 2007-08 441,197 335,277 776,474 2008-09 379,146 305,908 685,054 2009-10 293,196 201,491 494,687 2010-11 285,171 238,849 524,020 2011-12 468,400 230,995 699,395 2012-13 263,194 242,975 506,169 2013-14 279,044 268,124 547,168 Figure 6.4.2 Historical Expenditure – Drainage

6.4.9 Renewal/Replacement Renewal expenditure is work that restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. Replacement/upgrading of drainage assets takes place in the following cases:  Where faulty or damaged structures cannot be repaired because of obsolescence.  Where replacement is more economic than continuing repair.  Where compliance with new legislations is required. Every two years a RAMM condition rating assessment is carried out on the drainage assets (excluding culverts). The most recent report from June 2011 shows that there were very few faults found with the drainage structures and their physical condition is good. a. Soak pits / Catchpits While the maintenance of soak/catchpits is not excluded, Council’s normal policy to install new soak/catchpits rather than attempt to rehabilitate any existing non-functioning soak/catchpits. b. Culvert replacement strategy The following culvert replacement strategy is currently used:  The culvert replacement strategy is based on the location, condition and material of existing culverts. Road sections where pavement rehabilitation is proposed and areas of high risk will be given priority for replacement works.  Culverts smaller than 375 mm diameter or width can get easily blocked. It is difficult to maintain them and keep their waterways clear from debris. If these narrow culverts are located within either a proposed pavement rehabilitation site or a high risk area, they should be replaced with new ones that have a diameter or width 375 mm or more.  The butt-jointed culverts are structurally weak and vulnerable to lateral displacement. They should be gradually replaced according to their importance.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 62 of 126

 After carrying out the condition rating survey, culverts having poor structural capacity should be identified, and replaced with priority based on the consequence of failure at the specific location. Culverts are upgraded in conjunction with pavement rehabilitation works as necessary, at specific sites known to be trouble spots and where the need is flagged by the land use demands. Appendix 11 shows a proposed decision tree for replacing the culverts. c. Vehicle Crossings - “bridges” An estimate of costs to replace all kerbs & channel as well as any associated stormwater assets in streets with these older vehicle bridge type crossings is $2.7m. We currently budget around $100k per annum (approx. 0.5km) for kerb renewal but this is not necessarily where bridges will be removed. We plan to programme approx.1km per year ($140k) with our current operating budgets. 6.4.10 Asset Acquisition and Creation Plan Council currently has no plans to create new drainage control assets. However, Council may acquire new assets installed by developers as part of subdivisional development. Such drainage control assets are installed at the developer’s expense. 6.4.11 Programme There has been significant renewal expenditure for this asset over the last five years. Considering the trend of expenditures over the last six years the expected annual renewal expenditure for the next ten years is estimated at $250,000. This amount is based in current year’s value and no cost fluctuation has been considered. Land Transport New Zealand currently provides 54% of the cost for maintenance and replacement of drainage assets. The remaining portion of expenditure is funded from rates. Table 6.4.9 New Drainage Services Maintenance, Renewal & Capital Costs Identified Action/Work Driver for Action Estimated Cost Scheduled For How this will be funded

Renewal and Condition $250,000 p.a. Per annum This cost will be replacement of assessment and incorporated into the drainage (vehicle compliance with routine maintenance crossing) services standards. programme and total assets as part of operating budget. routine maintenance 6.4.12 Disposal Plan Council has no current plans to dispose of drainage assets. 6.5 Bridges Bridges and structures enable people and freight to move safely, reliably and efficiently across physical barriers on the road network. It is Masterton Council’s objective is that they are appropriate to carry the volumes and weights of traffic that wish to use the surrounding road, footpath and cycleway networks. 6.5.1 Introduction Bridges are described as structures that have waterway area of greater than 3.6m2. Works carried out to repair or renew components of a bridge structure meeting this description are eligible for subsidy from NZTA. 6.5.2 Asset Description (Inc. how asset data is stored) Council’s roading network includes 250 structures that include both bridges and large culverts. These structures are constructed from a number of materials in different styles, as summarised in Table 6.5.1.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 63 of 126

Data was originally sourced from individual bridge files and spread sheets. A more detailed list of Bridges and significant culverts is listed in appendix 14. Table 6.5.1 Asset Summary - Bridges Bridge Material Type Number Concrete 39 Concrete / steel / concrete 1 Concrete / steel /concrete 3 Concrete arch 7 Concrete beam 57 Concrete box 82 Concrete slab 19 Concrete pipe 1 Pre-cast units 5 Steel 5 Steel (Armco) 2 Steel / Concrete 20 Steel / Timber 3 Timber 3 Timber / Steel 3 Total 250 *Note - Bridge Type describes the predominant material used in construction Of these structures 92 are single lane. There are four cattle underpasses in the district. These are maintained by the owner and inspected by the Council in conjunction with the biennial bridge inspections. The bridge data is stored on a combination of spreadsheets, paper files and the RAMM data base. The bridge inventory is also viewable on the Councils ‘Map Viewer’ GIS platform through the Councils website. The confidence level for various bridge asset data used in this plan is shown in Table 6.5.2. Where, A = Highly Reliable B = Reliable C = Uncertain D = Very uncertain Table 6.5.2 Data Confidence Levels

Attribute D C B A

Physical Parameters

Asset Capacity

Asset Condition

Valuations

Response times

Historical Expenditures

Design Standards

6.5.3 Asset Condition and Monitoring Bridges are located district-wide and are subject to the range of local climatic conditions. Wet weather conditions have a big effect on the life of timber structures when they are in service in wet condition. The overall condition of the bridge asset is considered to be satisfactory in terms of structural condition. The Maintenance Contractor inspects all bridges on a biennial basis and also after a significant event, such as a flood or earthquake, to identify report and repair minor maintenance issues that do not require structural design. A more detailed inspection is carried out two yearly by a bridging engineer to identify structural faults. From these inspections, the maintenance programme for the following two years is prepared. The need for further investigation of more serious structural concerns is noted and these investigations determine the need for renewal or upgrading.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 64 of 126

The bridge network is in generally good condition due to these regular inspections and maintenance programme. Repairs are generally made before they threaten the integrity of structures. Where the cost of repairing a structure becomes significant and uneconomic, the option of replacing the structure is considered. Other than routine maintenance, bridges and culverts do not have a regular work programme to maintain their service potential, accordingly a financial provision for the decline in service potential of bridges and culverts is included in the cost of roading service. 6.5.4 Age Distribution and Life The oldest bridge recorded in the bridge database was constructed in 1920. Approximately 35% of the bridges are more than 50 years old. Figure 6.5.1 Bridges by Construction Age

6.5.5 Critical Assets The Wairarapa Engineering Lifelines Project report identified bridges on important routes considered vulnerable to natural hazards. See Table 6.5.3. Table 6.5.3 Critical Assets - Bridges Bridge Name Vulnerable To Tinui Bridge at M/Castlepoint Road Liquefaction Double Bridge at Opaki/Kaiparoro Road Fault displacement, Earthquake Taureu Bridge at M/Castlepoint Rd Earthquake Whakatahine Bridge at M/Stronvar Rd Earthquake Brancepeth Bridge at M/Stronvar Rd Earthquake Black Swamp bridge at Manawa Rd Earthquake Homewood bridge (old No. 7) at Homewood Rd Earthquake *Note - The restricted bridges affecting the roading capacity are shown below Table 6.5.4 Restricted Bridges Bridge Bridge Name Restricted % Speed Priority Comment No. weight (kg) 78 Black Swamp Stop & 10 2 Programmed for renewal 2012/13. (No 3) on Proceed Manawa Rd 212 Waimapu 7,300 50 20 3 Diaphrams strengthening when deck replaced – programmed 2012/13. 26 Coopers No 2 7,300 50 20 4 Diaphrams strengthening when deck replaced – programmed 2012/13. 179* Stoddarts 7,300 75 20 5 Diaphram strengthening on weak span – programmed 2014/14. 213 Waterfalls 7,300 75 20 5 Forestry access – programmed 2015/16. 64* Knights 7,300 50 20 6 Diaphram strengthening when deck replaced. (10 years +). 190 Forest Home 5,500 37 20 6 Diaphrams strengthening when deck replaced. Serves one property? (10 years +) 92 Maringi 7,300 50 20 Ford available for HCV. No requirement for strengthening.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 65 of 126

Bridge Bridge Name Restricted % Speed Priority Comment No. weight (kg) 390 Graham 5,000 45 20 Serves one property, low usage, no requirement to strengthen. 74 McGruddys 7,300 50 20 Bridge has been refurbished. Maintain restriction. 202 Tildersleys 7,300 50 20 Serves one property, low usage, no requirement to strengthen. 21 Jennings 7,300 50 20 Serves one property. HCV by-pass available, no requirement to strengthen. *Note - Work currently being designed. Other than restricted bridges, other significant works identified are timber deck replacements, steel beam painting, and concrete bridge condition investigations. Timber decks will be replaced with either timber or concrete depending on traffic use. Steel beams will be programmed for repainting based on need (generally a 25 year life depending on location – coastal areas require more frequent painting). Concrete bridges nearing age 80 are of concern regarding the condition of the concrete due to carbonation. Inspection and any remedial options will be programmed during the 2012/14 years, with significant works (if any) likely to be programmed into the next three year programme period (2015/18). 6.5.6 Asset Capacity /Performance The capacity of the bridge assets is considered to be satisfactory for carrying existing traffic loadings. A number of different loading standards have been adopted throughout the history of the bridge network. All new structures are designed to either HN-HO-72 or 0.85HN (Class-I) standards. Where there is no documentation available, it has been assumed that bridges have been designed to the approved NZ code of practice of the day. There are currently 14 (6%) weight and/or speed restricted bridges in the network. These are considered to have insufficient capacity to carry Class-I loadings at normal operating traffic speeds. Of these, one bridge is programmed for renewal, 4 are programmed for upgrading over the next 10 years, and the balance will be maintained ‘as is’ due to being on routes with very low traffic counts and a low percentage of heavy vehicles. Their postings have little effect on the operation of the network. The target level of service for renewal or upgrade is to provide Class-I structures. The posting calculations for each bridge are based on an on-site inspection and physical condition of the members and are stored in the bridge database. Both steel and timber structures are assessed for posting on the basis of their defects and an assessment of structural integrity. Currently the only posted concrete structure in the district is at Double Bridges, on Opaki-Kaiparoro Road. There is currently an NZTA led programme to provide routes for larger and heavier vehicles (up to 55 tonne) known as HPMV project. Several routes within the Council’s area are being considered for these vehicles. Bridges on these routes will be assessed against the higher loading requirement, and any upgrades will be carried out to this higher standard. 6.5.7 Design Standards All new structures are designed to either HN-HO-72 or 0.85HN (Class-I) standards. Where there is no documentation available, it has been assumed that bridges have been designed to the approved NZ code of practice of the day. 6.5.8 Maintenance Plan Maintenance is the ongoing day-to-day work activity required to keep assets serviceable and prevent premature deterioration or failure. Maintenance issues are identified both by the MDC engineers and the maintenance contractor during their general duties. Where damage occurs to a structure, a member of the public often reports it before it is identified by the maintenance contractor. Maintenance works include the following:  routine maintenance inspection and reporting

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 66 of 126

 routine cleaning of reflective end-markers  routine cleaning of metal and debris from bridges decks  routine painting of handrails, end posts and sightboards  Replacement of reflective end markers and posts. Routine maintenance issues, such as painting of handrails and sweeping of decks, are carried out on a regular basis. More significant maintenance issues, such as repair to expansion joints or bracing of timber piles, generally requires advice from an external engineering source in terms of design and approval of works. More extensive maintenance or upgrades may be carried out under the road maintenance contract, or let as an individual contract. Contractor response times range from 30 minutes for urgent mobilisation to one month for less important items. All bridges are cleaned at least twice a year, and are programmed so that one-sixth of the bridges is cleaned each month. Maintenance work is carried out in accordance with the terms of the maintenance contracts and with reference to the NZTA Bridge Manual. Repair work is carried out using similar materials to those being replaced, and with materials that will give the longest repair life for the least cost. There is always an element of risk of injury when maintenance work is deferred. To minimise this risk, major maintenance is carried out as soon as practicable after identification. A temporary weight posting limit can also be put on a structure to control traffic using the structure until repairs can be done. 6.5.9 Renewal/Replacement Potential renewals are identified through the different inspection programmes. Where a structure can no longer be economically maintained or upgraded to carry Class-I loads, the structure may be upgraded. Factors such as the number of properties served, the availability of a bypass, and the numbers of heavy vehicles carried are taken into account in determining the need to upgrade or replace the structure. Replacement structures are generally designed using reinforced concrete, as this provides the best whole of life cost. By using precast elements, the on-site construction time can also be kept to a minimum, reducing interruption to road users. Table 6.5.5 Projected Bridge 30 Year Capital Expenditure Program Bridge name Programed year Est. Cost TeMara Road deck Year 1 $70,000 Coopers Road No2 deck Year 2 $70,000 Tanglewood Road No1 deck Year 4 $70,000 Grahams Road deck Year 7 $70,000 Maringi Road No3 deck Year 8 $70,000 Tildesleys Road deck Year 9 $70,000 Waterfalls Road raise deck Year 11 $70,000 Homewood (old No7) deck Year 12 $70,000 Knights deck Year 13 $70,000 Coopers No1 deck Year 15 $70,000 Mataikona No2 deck Year 16 $70,000 Mataikona No3 deck Year 18 $70,000 Springhill No3 deck Year 19 $70,000 Mangapurupuru deck Year 21 $70,000 Northcroft deck Year 22 $70,000 Jennings deck Year 24 $70,000 McGruddys deck Year 25 $70,000 TeMai iti deck Year 27 $70,000 Glendonald No2 deck Year 28 $70,000 Stoddarts deck Year 30 $70,000 6.5.10 Financial The Bridge asset components were valued as follows, as at 30th June 2014. Data was sourced from the MDC Annual Report 2014.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 67 of 126

Table 6.5.6 Asset Valuation – Bridges (2011) Item Full Depreciated Annual Replacement Replacement Value Depreciation ($) Value ($) ($) Bridges 53,189,000 23,368,000 471,547 a. Historical Expenditure Historical expenditure from previous years is outlined in Table 6.5.7 and Figure 6.5.2. Data is sourced from financial reports. Table 6.5.7 Historical Expenditure - Bridges Year Renewal Costs of Total Expenditure Expenditure ($) Maintenance ($) ($) 1999-00 84,224 84,224 2000-01 82,845 82,845 2001-02 89,798 89,798 2002-03 112,431 112,431 2003-04 112,515 112,515 2004-05 35,444 35,444 2005-06 75,024 75,024 2006-07 91,442 91,442 2007-08 50,172 26,980 77,152 2008-09 115,218 29,222 144,440 2009-10 313,882 88,850 402,732 2010-11 389,297 230,157 619,454 2011-12 157,002 151,202 308,204 2012-13 81,729 82,978 164,707 2013-14 268,464 156,010 424,474 Figure 6.5.2 Historical Expenditure - Bridges

6.5.11 Asset Acquisition and Creation Plan Council has no plans to create new bridges at present. 6.5.12 Programme Expenditure for routine maintenance and inspections for bridges over the next ten years is estimated at $641,000 per annum based on current contract rates. The renewal expenditure will be added to this amount in order to determine the total expenditure. See Table 6.5.8. Table 6.5.8 Maintenance & Capital Expenditure Forecast Year Maintenance Component Approximate Total Expenditure Replacement Capital Expenditure ($000’s) Expenditure Replacement ($000’s) ($000’s) Expenditure ($000’s) 2015-16 185 397 582 2016-17 191 410 601

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 68 of 126

2017-18 196 422 618 2018-19 203 436 639 2019-20 210 451 661 2020-21 217 467 684 2021-22 225 483 708 *note - NZTA currently provides 57% of the cost for maintenance, renewal and upgrading of bridge assets, and 64% of the cost of capital replacements. The remaining portion of expenditure is funded from rates and depreciation. 6.5.13 Disposal Plan There are currently no plans to dispose of Bridge assets.

6.6 Carriageway Lighting Street lighting is an important amenity to local communities and an essential component of the transport network. 6.6.1 Introduction Masterton District Council provides street lighting which complies with standard illumination levels. This enables safe and easy movement of vehicle and pedestrian traffic on the road network during the hours of darkness, particularly on urban streets. By lighting up the road corridor environment, street lighting encourages night-time use of local facilities and active transport modes such as walking and cycling. Good street lighting helps improve road safety. It reduces night-time road traffic accidents, improves security for pedestrians and for neighbouring areas, and aids with crime prevention. Following a major upgrade in 2000/01, most of the luminaires in the district are now high-pressure sodium vapour lights. These have a high output for a relatively low wattage, making them efficient and cost-effective to use. Street light assets are managed by the in-house engineering unit with routine inspections conducted by the maintenance contractor, Alf Downs Ltd. The maintenance contractor is responsible for maintaining the light fittings, mounting brackets, outreaches and poles owned by the Council. Most of the Council’s streetlights are installed on poles owned by the line company, PowerCo. Technical issues are provided through Masterton Councils in house Engineering Services. Masterton Engineering Staff are responsible for the confirmation and accuracy of the data entered by the contractor of streetlight assets and calculating the energy usage on a monthly basis. Contact Energy Limited currently supplies electricity to the Council, including that for streetlights. The confidence level for the streetlight asset data used in this plan is shown in Table 6.6.1. Where, A = Highly Reliable B = Reliable C = Uncertain D = Very uncertain Table 6.6.1 Streetlight Data Confidence Levels

Attribute D C B A

Physical Parameters

Asset Capacity

Asset Condition

Valuations

Historical Expenditures

Design Standards

6.6.2 Asset Description (Inc. how asset data is stored)

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 69 of 126

Council currently owns and maintains 2,201 streetlights and 285 under-verandah lights on 105 km of urban streets, which is an average of one light per 47metres. A further 95 lights are installed in the rural area. Council took over responsibility for 285 under-veranda lights including 336 available sockets in the CBD and suburban shopping areas in 2001. Council also manages 286 streetlights on 7 km of urban State Highway 2 on NZTA’s behalf. A diagram showing the full layout of the urban lighting is shown in appendix 9. The numbers of the streetlights by area and type are given in Table 6.6.2. Table 6.6.2 Streetlights Types Area High Mercury Fluro LED Total Pressure Vapour Sodium Vapour State Highway 286 - - - 286 Urban 1,734 58 2 - 1,794 Rural 86 8 - 1 95 Amenity Lights (not 17 4 6 - 27 subsidised) Under verandah - - 285 - 285 Total 2,123 70 293 1 2,487 6.6.3 Asset Condition and Monitoring Currently the condition of the street lighting inventory is not rated. However Alf Downs Ltd the new maintenance contractor will maintain the database of streetlights as their maintenance of the lighting assets progresses. Data will be stored in the RAMM database and will be updated with condition and performance ratings, so that the monitoring of compliance can be measured for the network in future. Maintenance and renewal programmes are being undertaken and implemented on a regular basis. A major upgrade of street lighting was completed in 2001 to comply with Australian/New Zealand Standards NZS/AS 1158; 1999. NZS 4404:2010 now requires any new subdivision to comply with Australian/New Zealand standard NZS/AS 1158. Block changes of street lighting bulbs will result in one fifth of the streetlight bulbs being replaced as a planned rotation; this work identifies any other anomalies that require attention at the same time. Items such as diffusers are a common item reviewed when bulbs are changed. 6.6.4 Critical Assets Failure of any of the street lighting network could have a serious impact on road and pedestrian safety during night time so all assets are considered important. However, the 286 streetlights on State Highway 2 that are owned by the New Zealand Transport Agency could be considered to be of a more critical value due to the higher volumes of transportation than perhaps the streetlight assets on local roads.

The significant negative effects of the sewer reticulation in the Masterton district are outlined in Table 6.6.3. Table 6.6.3 Significant Negative Effects of Street lighting Negative Effects How We Will/Do Mitigate Social None identified Cultural None identified Environmental Light pollution The community benefits by providing street lighting currently outweigh issues that may be associated with light pollution. Economic None identified

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 70 of 126

6.6.5 Asset Capacity /Performance Lighting assets are managed to provide sufficient lighting to maximise safety at the most affordable level. Current lighting levels are considered sufficient to achieve this objective. Of the 336 available sockets in the CBD and suburban shopping areas, only 285 are currently in use, so spare capacity exists. 6.6.6 Design Standards Council’s street lighting assets are currently designed to comply with the new joint Australian/New Zealand Standards NZS/AS 1158. The following general principles for street lighting on residential and local roads are also considered:  Adequate illumination to provide for safe and comfortable pedestrian movement, crime prevention and identification of premises.  Lantern height of between 5.5m and 10m.  Uniform spacing of lighting columns with spacing preferably not exceeding eight times the mounting height or 60 metres, whichever is less. The spacing may be increased up to twelve times the mounting or 80 metres, whichever is less if using existing service poles.  Positioning of lanterns at intersections, sharp bends, noticeable crests and dips in the road.  Designs of the lighting columns in accordance with the joint AS/NZ standards 1158.  Lantern type preferably a 70 or 100 watt high-pressure sodium vapour fitting.  Pole type preferably Oclyte or similar segmental galvanised iron construction. Council practice has been to adopt the latest standards and specifications for streetlight assets in order to reflect current practice. 6.6.7 Maintenance Plan Maintenance is the ongoing day-to-day work activity required to keep assets serviceable and prevent premature deterioration or failure. Maintenance of streetlights includes:  Planned Maintenance: Visual inspections are carried out at monthly intervals at night time to identify faulty lamps. Block changing of bulbs of a planned 5 year programme where a fifth of the lighting networks bulbs are changed for new bulbs. Diffusers are inspected and replaced when necessary while maintenance id performed.  Unplanned Maintenance: Repair works carried out in response to reported problems or defects. Detailed inspections are carried out on poles and outreach arms at the time a luminaire is serviced to ensure the safety and security of the fittings. Alf Downs Ltd, the maintenance contractor for the contract period of 2014-2017, carries out maintenance of the urban streetlight assets including those on State Highway 2, under contract to Masterton District Council. NZTA covers the full cost of maintenance, upgrading and power costs for streetlights on State Highway 2 within the district. NZTA also subsidises 54% of total costs for operating, maintaining and upgrading street lighting assets with the exception of any amenity lighting. 6.6.8 Financial The Lighting asset components were valued as follows, as at 30th June 2014. Data was sourced from the MDC Annual Report 2014.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 71 of 126

Table 6.6.4 Asset Valuation – Streetlights (2014) Item Full Depreciated Annual Depreciation Replacement Value Replacement Value ($) ($) ($) Streetlights 4,425,000 1,830,000 136,321 Historical expenditure on streetlight assets from previous years is summarised in Table 6.6.4 and Figure 6.6.1. Data is sourced from financial reports. Table 6.6.4 Historical Expenditure - Streetlights Year Cost of Renewal/ Cost of Maintenance Total Cost Upgrading ($) ($) ($) 1999-00 40,772 147,917 188,689 2000-01 194,203 106,560 300,763 2001-02 0 126,579 126,579 2002-03 0 137,278 137,278 2003-04 0 147,680 147,680 2004-05 52,612 123,180 175,792 2005-06 0 122,734 122,734 2006-07 0 142,459 142,459 2007-08* 42,044 93,280 135,324 2008-09 61,301 94,354 155,656 2009-10 87,546 101,249 188,795 2010-11 105,394 115,215 220,610 2011-12 129,668 132,195 261,863 2012-13 120,056 133,465 253,521 2013-14 63,134 127,786 190,920 *From this date lamp replacements redefined as renewal item. Figure 6.6.1 Historical Expenditure – Streetlights

6.6.9 Renewal/Replacement Renewal work restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset nearly to its original capacity. An effective life of 30 years has been adopted for luminaries. Poles have an effective life of 60years and 5years for lamps. Old luminaries are generally replaced at the end of their effective lifetime with High Pressure Sodium Lanterns. Replacement/upgrading of streetlight assets also take place in the following cases:  Bulbs replaced on a planned five year ‘block change’ programme.  Diffusers are replaced when inspected during the ‘block change’.  When faulty or damaged lanterns cannot be repaired because of obsolescence.  When replacement is more economic than continuing repair.  To comply with new electrical regulations or standards. Poles and outreach arms are replaced when they are no longer structurally sound. 6.6.10 Asset Acquisition and Creation Plan

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 72 of 126

Council currently has no plans to create new street lighting assets. However, Council may acquire new street lights installed by developers as part of subdivisional development. Such streetlights are installed at the developers’ expense. 6.6.11 Programme Council has made a strategic decision to ‘at least’ maintain the current levels of service for this activity. The replacement and upgrade of streetlights to new technology (LED) will commence in 2016. See Table 6.6.5. Table 6.6.5 New Street lighting Maintenance, Renewal & Capital Costs Identified Action/Work Driver for Action Estimated Cost Scheduled For How this will be funded

Replacement and Efficiency / $80.000 PA 2016 – 2017 to Rates funded / upgrade of Performance 2017 - 2018 Operational budget streetlights to new technology. (LED) 6.6.12 Disposal Plan Council has no current plans to dispose of street lighting assets. 6.7 Traffic Facilities & Guardrails The network of signs and road markings provides for safe and efficient way-finding and movement across Masterton’s transport network. 6.7.1 Introduction The functions of traffic control devices have been defined by the purpose they provide to road-users and they, regulate, warn, guide, and inform. Signs in particular provide instructions to road users, they warn of potential hazards, and offer general helpful information such as street names. 6.7.2 Asset Description (Inc. how asset data is stored) The use of signs, road markings, edge marker posts (EMP’s) and reflective raised pavements markers (RRPM’s) are used for providing delineation, guidance, and control on council owned roads. Sight rails, guardrails and medians are also used to a lesser extent. The useful asset life for signs and road markings assets based on the 2011 revaluation is assumed to be:  12 years for reflective signs but less if the dominant colour is red  20 years for ADS  Seven years for thermoplastic markings. Note that the useful asset life for road markings is assumed to be one year except where they are ‘long life’. a. Road Signs A full sign inventory is maintained in the RAMM database. New signs and any adjustments are recorded in the RAMM contractor’s module of the RAMM system, including any associated posts or supports, an asset description and the assessed condition rating. The data on the following table is sourced from the RAMM database. Table 6.7.1 Sign Inventory Very Sign type Excellent Good Average Poor Unknown Total poor Guide 190 375 176 96 47 49 933 Hazard Markings 58 33 26 10 6 57 190 Information General 4 1 1 1 7

Information 6 1 1 8 Miscellaneous Information signs 91 136 63 37 13 31 371

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 73 of 126

Miscellaneous 45 45

Motorist Services 18 29 2 3 4 56

Permanent Warning 301 259 206 79 39 160 1044 Regulatory General 286 278 119 33 10 117 843 Regulatory Heavy 4 11 10 2 2 29 Vehicle Regulatory Parking 60 86 44 10 10 50 260 Warning 3 2 5 Miscellaneous Total 1018 1200 647 280 127 519 3791 b. Road Markings The Council maintains accurate road-marking data on an Excel spread sheet. Although inventory data was entered on the RAMM system it has not been updated or maintained in this database since 2000. The spread sheet has been continuously maintained and it is estimated to be more than 90% complete. The benefits and costs of maintaining these road marking assets in RAMM need to be assessed and this is identified as a future improvement initiative. Council uses water-borne marking products, below is a summary of the main components of the road marking assets. Table 6.7.2 Road Marking Inventory Item Unit Quantity Centre lines Km 298 Edge lines Lane Km 153 No overtaking lines Lane Km 14 No stopping lines Km 12 Give way controls Each 201 Stop controls Each 14 Pedestrian crossings Each 27 Car park marking Each 245 Raised pavement markers Each 509 Misc. words & symbols Each 1484 The maintenance contractor currently undertakes most of the road marking works using sub- contractors. c. Edge Marker Posts The Ministry of Transport’s guideline for Rural Road Marking and Delineation 1992 (RTS-5) is the basis for the standard that has been adopted for Council’s roads. There are approximately 3000 edge marker posts (EMP) on Council roads. Edge Marker Posts are used to delineate the alignment of the roadway ahead and are primarily of use for night-time guidance. This is especially important at horizontal and vertical curves. EMPs are used in two different ways: to delineate full routes or on isolated curves. Their use on isolated sections of road is for safety reasons, for example where there are sub-standard curves, areas commonly subjected to heavy rainfall, fog or mist, where there is heavy night or tourist traffic flows, or where accident records indicate a need. EMPs have only been installed on gravel roads to delineate isolated safety hazards but the extent of these is not recorded. The high cost of maintenance is a consideration in the number of new posts being installed. d. Raised Reflectorized Pavement Markers (RRPMs) There are about fifteen km of RRPMs in the district. RRPMs are valuable for road delineation both for night time visibility and during wet weather when water enhances their reflectivity. They also provide an audible and tactical warning when crossed by the vehicle. e. Roundabouts and Traffic Islands Roundabouts play an important role in regulating the traffic flow and enhancing safety. They are used as an alternative to signal lights at the intersections where installation and maintenance of signal lights is a concern. They also provide an aesthetic enhancement to the road alignment.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 74 of 126

There are eight roundabouts in Masterton district. Four of them are owned by the Council. The design and construction of roundabouts is determined by Austroads and NZTA guidelines, which aim to ensure an efficient flow of traffic whilst minimising the number and severity of road accidents. Traffic islands are constructed for the purpose of road delineation. There are about 800 lineal metres of traffic islands on the MDC roads. The confidence level for the traffic services asset data used in this plan is shown in Table 6.7.3 Where, A = Highly Reliable B = Reliable C = Uncertain D = Very uncertain Table 6.7.3 Data Confidence Level

Attribute D C B A

Physical Parameters

Asset Capacity

Asset Condition

Valuations

Historical Expenditures

Design Standards

6.7.3 Asset Condition and Monitoring The maintenance contractor provides reports on signs, markings, EMPs and RRPMs on a regular basis. The contractor is directed to replace or maintain a traffic sign or marking as soon as it becomes damaged or loses its reflectivity or visibility. The maintenance contract allows for night inspection of the arterial rural roads and all urban roads. The MDC engineer and the contractor jointly carry out this provision annually. Past joint night inspections reveal that the overall condition of this asset is satisfactory. A complete survey of traffic signage assets was conducted to gather information about the type, actual number, location and condition of assets. A photographic record was also taken. The RAMM database has been updated with the latest information. 6.7.4 Critical Assets Signs posted at all railway crossings, chevron boards, stop and give way controls are considered critical assets. Damage or loss of these assets may cause serious traffic accident and/or injury. The following signs and markings are considered critical to network safety:  Stop and give way intersections  Pedestrian crossings  Speed advisory signs in high-speed rural areas  Clearways & Bus stops  No overtaking and passing lanes  One lane bridges  Keep left signage. The significant negative effects of traffic services in the Masterton district are outlined in Table 6.7.4. Table 6.7.4 Significant Negative Effects of Traffic Services Negative Effects How We Will/Do Mitigate Social Redundant or inappropriate Monitor and improve current practices, markings or definition which Ensure that safety measures / temporary may lead to vehicle accidents. traffic measures are implemented as part of all road works. Review standards (MOTSAM, NZTA specs etc.) and audit controls

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 75 of 126

and control works Conduct ongoing crash reduction studies (in conjunction with police and NZTA) Manage continual safety audits in-house Cultural None identified N/A Environmental None identified N/A Economic None identified N/A 6.7.5 Asset Capacity /Performance Feedback from road users and contractors, and crash data are indicators of traffic services performance. Existing traffic services are considered adequate to provide safe movement for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the district’s roading network. The overall performance of Council’s traffic services is considered to be satisfactory. Residents have expressed their satisfaction through surveys over the last few years with roading assets including traffic services. As can be seen below in the 2014 survey report there was an increase of 7% with the overall satisfaction level of Masterton’s roading, and the 79% satisfaction recorded Masterton for 2014 is 6% better the national satisfaction percentage level of 73%. % Year % Satisfied Don’t know Dissatisfied 2014 79 21 0 2012 71 28 1 Communitrak survey results 2014

The Road maintenance contractor’s inspection reports do not reflect any significant lapse in this asset. 6.7.6 Design Standards Generally NZTA prescribes the standards and performance on these items in the Traffic Control Devices Rule, MOTSAM signs manual, Road Traffic Standards guideline RTS 5 and various traffic notes. 6.7.7 Maintenance Plan Maintenance is the ongoing day-to-day work activity required to keep assets serviceable and prevent premature deterioration or failure. At present, maintenance needs and requirements are identified by MDC engineers in the course of their duties, or via public complaints and feedback from the maintenance contractor. The maintenance contractor is currently responsible for the maintenance of signs, markers, EMPs, RRPMs and roundabouts. Maintenance includes:  Planned Maintenance: Night-time visual inspections are carried out annually to check the reflectivity of signs, EMPs and RRPMs. The traffic signs are also cleaned once a year. All pavement markers are repainted on an annual basis.  Unplanned Maintenance: Repair works carried out in response to reported problems or defects. Irregular detailed inspections are also carried out to identify faulty traffic services. At present, the response time to repair a regulatory sign is two days and for other types of signs 28 days. According to NZTA maintenance guidelines, the targets for missing or ineffective traffic facilities are as follows:  Regulatory signs/markings – 0%  Warning signs – 0%  EMPS – 3 on straight road and 1 on curve  RRMPs – 20%  Pavement markings – 20%  Bridge side rails, Guard rails – 0%

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 76 of 126

 Wire rope barrier, Crash cushions – 0% Safety inspection to record Council’s achievement against these targets may be included in the maintenance contract. 6.7.8 Service Standards Signs are generally replaced when they become faded or damages/wear decreases visibility. All types of signs including chevrons, destination and directional signs are being replaced according to the latest standards and specifications. Most of the traffic signs, EMPs and RRMPs comply with the new standards. Maintenance, renewal and upgrading of these assets are considered to be day-to-day activities. At present, road markings are re-done at twelve month intervals with a partial remark at six months. 6.7.9 Financial The Traffic Service asset components were valued as follows, as at 30th June 2014. Data was sourced from the MDC Annual Report 2014. Table 6.7.5 Asset Valuation – Traffic Services (2014) Type Full Depreciated Annual Replacement Value Replacement Value Depreciation ($) ($) ($) Signs 948,000 487,000 71,322 Reflective Markers 12,000 6,000 Paint Marking 157,000 78,000 160,839 Traffic Islands 779,000 614,000 14,073 Road Structures 2,192,000 1,590,000 42,368 (retaining walls etc.) The assumed life of road markings is one year, and they are renewed each year. Therefore the whole replacement value becomes the annual depreciation. The expenditure on traffic services from previous years is summarised in Table 6.7.6 and Figure 6.7.1. Data is sourced from financial reports. Table 6.7.6 Historical Expenditure – Traffic Services Year Renewal Expenditure Costs of Total Expenditure ($) Maintenance ($) ($) 1999-00 60,103 63,415 123,518 2000-01 61,847 57,379 119,226 2001-02 44,943 55,463 100,406 2002-03 66,765 119,270 186,035 2003-04 65,667 117,983 183,650 2004-05 93,923 87,594 181,517 2005-06 70,386 86,823 157,209 2006-07 79,213 90,485 169,698 2007-08* 139,187 18,347 157,534 2008-09 229,877 20,414 250,291 2009-10 156,993 84,866 241,959 2010-11 185,962 86,506 272,468 2011-12 176,749 87,178 263,927 2012-13 182,976 100,850 283,826 2013-14 188,758 103,414 292,172 *Road marking redefined as renewal expenditure.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 77 of 126

Figure 6.7.1 Historical Expenditure – Traffic Services

6.7.10 Renewal/Replacement Renewal work restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. In the case of traffic services, renewal/replacement is an on-going process, with needs identified by inspection, and via public complaints and reports from the maintenance contractor. Assets in need of renewal are those that do not meet the standards for the level of service expected by road users and the Council; or do not meet the specifications required by NZTA guidelines and/or the traffic rules. There are no replacement plans in place for EMPs, RRPMs, road markings, roundabout and traffic islands. This work is carried out on an as needed basis under the maintenance contracts. 6.7.11 Asset Acquisition and Creation Plan Council currently has no plans to create new traffic services assets. 6.7.12 Programme Council has made a strategic decision to ‘at least’ maintain the current levels of service for this activity. Maintenance and renewal work, as well as some capital expenditure, is scheduled to enable this. See Table 6.7.7. NZTA currently provides 54% of the cost for maintenance and replacement of traffic services assets. The remaining portion of expenditures is funded from rates. Table 6.7.7 New Traffic Services Maintenance, Renewal & Capital Costs Identified Action/Work Driver for Action Estimated Cost Scheduled For How this will be funded

Renewal and Condition $140,000 p.a. Per annum This cost will be replacement of assessment and Markings incorporated into traffic services compliance with the routine assets as part of standards. $83,000 p.a. maintenance routine Signs programme and maintenance total operating budget. 6.7.13 Disposal Plan Council has no current plans to dispose of traffic services assets. 6.8 Footpath and Pedestrian Crossings Masterton’s footpaths are a key link between a journeys origin and destination and provide for a mode of travel in their own right. They are an essential component of the transport system that allows Masterton residents to make smarter transport choices. Masterton’s transport objective is that the footpath network is suitable, accessible, safe and well maintained, so that it will, contribute to the transport network by providing footpaths that are safe and easy to use. And provide an integrated, well planned and well maintained footpath network that meets the needs of the community.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 78 of 126

Footpaths are generally located in the area between the property boundary and the outer edge of the carriageway and allow for connection between road reserves. The footpaths have been constructed of a variety of materials to varying dimensions and standards over the years to suit pedestrian activity and available budgets of the time. 6.8.1 Introduction The criteria for the provision of footpaths are based on a combination of traffic volume, road width, pedestrian demand and the availability of funds. Recent Ultra-Fast Broadband activity has meant the condition and reinstatement of footpaths required closer management by Council while the roll out of this project occurred. Council has used this opportunity to renew some footpath surfaces in conjunction with the Broadband project and this has resulted in less disruption for those residents affected and a reduced expenditure by Council sharing reinstatement costs with the UFB project. Council has staged its renewal of footpath surfaces in the central business district over the last three years having again waited until Broadband was installed and also the new parking meters were sited. Council Roading Staff are currently planning the renewal of the remainder of the central business district footpaths. Other footpath construction includes the completion of the Willow Park pedestrian access which has been constructed in conjunction with the widening of the carriageway. Council aims to provide adequate and well-surfaced footpaths in areas of high level foot traffic and to separate traffic and pedestrian movement for safety. Changing Public expectations for footpath provision may result in a greater Level of Service to be provided by the Council when renewal & maintenance options are considered in the future. 6.8.2 Asset Description (Inc. how asset data is stored) Council currently maintains about 201.470km of formed footpaths mostly located mostly in the urban Masterton area. There is some paving in the rural communities of Riversdale, Castlepoint, and Tinui. There is also paving on Upper Plain Road making the Urban/Rural connection to Fernridge School and on Willow Park Drive (as a part of a seal widening project). Table 6.8.1 Footpath Surfacing Material Total (m) Asphaltic concrete (black) 60,642 Concrete 38,545 Interlocking blocks 1,431 Metal 3,132 Seal 96,891 Slurry Seal 829 Total 201,470 Figure 6.8.1 Footpath Surface by Type

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 79 of 126

A complete inventory of footpath condition ratings is managed using the road asset management system (RAMM), which contains fields of information which include, faults that have been identified & the programming of repairs, age, condition, and any other physical attributes. The confidence level for the footpath asset data used in this plan is shown in Table 6.8.2. Where: A = Highly Reliable B = Reliable C = Uncertain D = Very uncertain Table 6.8.2 Footpath Data Confidence Levels

Attribute D C B A

Physical Parameters

Asset Capacity

Asset Condition

Valuations

Historical Expenditures

Design Standards

6.8.3 Asset Condition and Monitoring An assessment of the condition of the urban footpaths was last carried out by Council Engineering staff in 2013 and resulted in a rating of the condition of the Masterton footpaths placing them into 5 condition categories. Table 6.8.3 Footpath condition rating (2013) Condition assessment Meters 1 Good 143,614 2 Minor defects 32,806 3 Maintenance required 18,727 4 Renewal required 2,326 5 Unserviceable 71 (blank) Not rated 3,926 Total 201,470

Good Minor defects Maintenance required Renewal required Unserviceable Not rated

The rating system basis included safety factors, structural defects, and the aesthetics / visual amenity of the assessed footpath section and is in accordance with the methodology of The New Zealand Institute of Highway Technology. Through condition rating information, the broad condition / level of service of the footpath can be determined. Condition grade rating is on a scale of one to five, where one is very good and five is very poor.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 80 of 126

Footpath condition rating is section based. Each section will have portions of it at different condition grades. Outcomes of the footpath condition rating process, in conjunction with other significant factors, drive the development of the footpath renewal works programme. The renewal programme prioritises footpath sections in the worst condition – those with the most lengths in poor and very poor condition (namely grades four and five). The renewal work is sometimes completed in entire sections of street to prevent patchwork construction and repair work, providing for a more consistent overall appearance of the footpath. As can be seen below in the 2014 survey report there was an increase of 3% with the overall satisfaction level of Masterton’s footpaths, but the 64% satisfaction level recorded for 2014 is 10% behind the national satisfaction percentage level of 74%. Year % Satisfied % Dissatisfied Don’t know 2014 64 33 3 2012 61 37 2 Communitrak survey results 2014 The useful life of base course aggregates used on the footpaths is considered 50 years and is typically reflected in deterioration where vehicles cross the pavement. There are numerous variables that affect the life expectancy of a footpath, ranging from construction material to climate. The main reasons for footpath deterioration are the ageing of surfaces and loss of waterproofing, which create problems such as depression, ponding, cracks and weed intrusion. The useful life of footpaths is also significantly affected by the continuing maintenance by utility operators for assets such as power, telecom, sewer, stormwater, and water that are buried beneath the footpaths. Some patches and repairs made by the Utility Operators made to the footpath have been at times of a poor standard resulting in a reduced lifespan of the footpath. Recent improvements in Council’s corridor management have mitigated most of the non-standard repairs that used to occur however there are occasionally still works being performed that are less than is specified in the code of practice that is accepted by the Council. Most times these failures will result in either subsidence of the substrate or water ingress under the final surface. Council endeavours in each case to restore the surface at the offending parties cost. 6.8.4 Age Distribution and Life The assessed useful life of various footpath surfaces is shown below and consideration is being given to extending the life expectancy of AC paths out to 25 years. This Plan will be updated accordingly if the Council proceeds with the change. Table 6.8.4 Life Expectancy of Different Footpath Surfaces Type AC Chip seal Concrete Metal Slurry Life Expectancy (yr.) 20 10 (1st coat) 60 40 15 15 (2nd coat) Resurfacing records are available back to 1990 and educated estimates for pavement construction dates have been made for older footpaths. The theoretical expiry of footpath surfaces in the Masterton District network has been calculated based on this data. From visual inspection, it is found that the actual useful life of most of the footpath surfacing’s proving to be greater than their theoretical lifetime. It is estimated the majority of what has been calculated for renewal is still providing an adequate level of service. Table 6.8.5 Estimated Expiry Dates for Masterton District Council Footpaths Surface Estimated year of expiry Total Type 2014 - 2020 2021 - 2031 - 2030 AC 21,041 28,175 11,426 60,642 Concrete 3,206 8,972 26,367 38,545

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 81 of 126

Other 1431 0 0 1431 Metal 3,132 0 0 3,132 Seal 72,669 24,222 0 96,891 Slurry 829 0 0 829 Total 102,308 61,369 37,793 201,470 A schematic of the Masterton urban area showing indicative ages is attached in the appendices as Appendix 3. 6.8.5 Critical Assets There are currently no footpaths that are classified as critical to the councils operation. However the footpaths in the CBD area are considered to be of some economic relevance to the District by facilitating a strong link to the retailers of this area. Particular attention is always made to minimise any construction or renewal works that may have an impact within this zone. The significant negative effects of the footpath network in the Masterton district are outlined in Table 6.8.6. Table 6.8.6 Significant Negative Effects of Footpath Services Negative Effects How We Will/Do Mitigate Social Inadequate accessibility for physically and Review and improve the current practices visually challenged persons, wheelchairs, Prioritise renewals of footpaths. strollers, walkers, prams, mobility scooters Review and increase budget levels. Review specifications of footpath design. Injury to footpath users from slips and falls Review and improve current practices and inaccessibility caused by inadequate Prioritise renewals of footpaths footpath quality. Review budget levels (may be caused by settlement, cracking, Set specifications of footpath design tree root upheaval, poor design, Meet response times for public complaints construction, materials, via the call centre lack of funding, & utilities reinstatements) Cultural None identified Environmental Trees and vegetation encroaching over Policy review footpaths Enforcement relating to private trees Arboreal maintenance relating to public trees Meet response times for public complaints via the call centre Economic Installation of a Broadband cable network Budgeted for administration costs to monitor installation and reinstatements. Contractor unable to deliver annual CAPEX Encourage the contractor to secure renewal programme additional resources to deliver the programme, or source alternative suppliers 6.8.6 Asset Capacity /Performance The existing footpath network is currently considered sufficient to enable pedestrians to move safely around the urban area. However as discussed in section 4 (Future Growth & Demand), the ageing population and the increased use of mobility scooters on the footpaths, may impact on future footpath use. This is a trend that should continue to be monitored. There will be a continuing need to identify gaps in the network where links are required to join up new footpaths in residential developments with existing footpath assets (such as Solway Crescent, & Millard Avenue). There are is also a section of unpaved shoulder on Colombo Road on the north/western side that is to be considered for a possible extension. 6.8.7 Design Standards There is no particular design standards set out for MDC footpaths. The Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide (NZTA, 2008) provides a practice guide that comprehensively covers the planning and design for walking.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 82 of 126

The draft Positive Ageing Strategy 2011 had an objective to provide safe, affordable and accessible transport options for older people and set out 4 sub-objectives with proposed actions in the draft that would achieve this. One of the draft objectives that related to footpaths was; Sub-objectives Action Frequency Comment/Progress

To provide safe Review footpaths Three Footpaths are managed with a Lifecycle footpaths in for safety and for yearly Management Plan. Issues identified in Masterton, in mobility scooter 2009 with Disabled Persons Assembly line with our access be (DPA) have been addressed. Next Footpath completed in review will involve both DPA and Lifecycle consultation with Wairarapa Organisation for Older Management relevant community People (WOOPS) Plan organisations Construction and reconstruction of unbound granular pavements is generally covered by the TNZ B/2 specification, and new concrete paths in new subdivisions and developments are constructed to NZS 4404:2010 standards. RTS 14 - Guidelines for facilities for blind and vision impaired pedestrians (NZTA 2003) and NZS 4121:2001 Design for access and mobility are both used for disabled access. Usually the width of footpaths is chosen between 1.2m to 4.0m depending on the pedestrian volume. The thickness of base and surface commonly adopted for footpaths are as shown in Table 6.8.7. Table 6.8.6 Footpath Design Thickness Footpath Type Base thickness (mm) Surface thickness (mm) Total thickness (mm) Asphalt Concrete 120 25 -30 145 - 150 Chip Seal 120 5-8 125 - 128 Concrete 100 75-100 175 - 200 Slurry 120 5 – 8 125 - 128 Metal 120 Nil 120 6.8.8 Maintenance Plan Maintenance is the on-going day-to-day work activity required to keep assets serviceable and prevent premature deterioration or failure. Maintenance for footpaths includes cleaning, ‘making safe’ and minor (expensed) repairs to the footpath networks. The following categories assist with determining the management, programming and reporting responsibilities. Maintenance needs are identified by Council engineers in the course of their duties, via public complaints recorded on the Service request system and feedback from maintenance contractors. Contractors delivering the maintenance services have the ability to programme works on a priority basis Repair works will be undertaken whenever a trip hazard or other safety issue has been identified using materials on a like-for-like basis. All service requests will be assessed by the engineer upon receipt. If the engineer considers the fault to be a safety hazard, the contractor will be notified and will repair the fault within 48 hours of notification by the engineer. Each request or complaint will be recorded in a sequential manner with the date it was received and the date of action noted. The maintenance of footpath assets is fully funded from rates. No NZTA financial assistance is available for this purpose. 6.8.9 Service Standards

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 83 of 126

The table below outlines the different responses required for asset maintenance and renewal. Routine works Week-by-week basis work across the network, sourced from non- urgent, noncyclic enquires from the call centre; network inspections undertaken by Masterton District Council or its contractors (e.g. repairs to roughness, sunken trenches, broken panels, broken vehicle crossings, etc.) Programmed works Identified activity in the forward work programmes (which has in coordinated with utilities works to minimise disruption) Responsive works In response to call centre requests for service 6.8.10 Renewal/Replacement Renewal work restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. Decisions on replacement and/or renewals of components of the asset have and will continue to be based on consideration of the following factors:  Cost of repairs over a period being greater than replacing the component using net present value comparisons and life cycle costs.  The level of service cannot be delivered either in quality or quantity.  The risk to the asset of a failure causing significant effects. One or several of these factors may have a bearing on the justification for replacement/renewal of part of the asset. Renewal work for footpaths includes the replacement of damaged sections of footpath when replacement is more economical than repair. Council had planned to undertake pre-seal maintenance and reseal 7km of footpaths in 2010-11 however this was deferred due to the rollout of the Ultra-Fast Broadband project. Similar annual programme amounts are anticipated for the next five years. The total length of footpath with life expiry before 2019 is 98.09km. The remaining 83.64km of footpath surface consists of either concrete or AC and their default life will expire after 2019. The distribution of 83.64km footpath surfaces is outlined in Table 6.8.7. Given the profile of the lifecycle we currently record for footpaths, Council will continue with the approximately 7km of planned rehabilitation per year. In about 5 years’ time this length could be lessened to approximately 5km after a condition assessment of the footpaths has been completed to justify this. Table 6.8.7 Renewal Lengths Type of surface Length (KM) AC 25.64 Chip seal 22.66 Concrete 34.08 Metal 1.26 On a site by site basis, careful consideration is given to estimating the extent of pre-seal maintenance costs for chip-seal resurfacing, as a more cost effective option can be to hot-mix overlay the original pavement. 6.8.11 Financial The Councils Footpaths asset components were valued as follows, as at 30th June 2014. Data was sourced from the MDC Annual Report 2014. Table 6.8.8 Asset Valuation – Footpaths Etc. (2014) Item Replacement Depreciated Annual Value ($) Replacement Depreciation ($) Value ($) Footpaths 13,225,000 10,241,000 335,831 Central Area Paving 1,629,000 973,000 32,572 Street Furniture 931,000 509,000 26,560 Berms & Street Trees 6,373,000 6,373,000

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 84 of 126

Note 1- The assumption has been made that the total area of footpaths includes the driveways and area of curves.

Replacement cost is the cost of building anew the existing infrastructure using present day technology but maintaining the originally designed level of service. Assuming current technology ensures that no value results from the additional cost of out-dated and expensive methods of construction. Maintaining the original level of service ensures that the existing asset with all its faults is valued, not the currently desirable alternative. Values include actual purchase/construction price plus expenses incidental to their acquisition and all costs directly attributable to bringing the asset into working condition and location. These additional costs include:  Professional fees of all types  Delivery charges  Costs of site preparation and installation  Non-recoverable GST and other duties and taxes The basic value of the assets reduces in accordance with the wear and tear and deterioration undergone over their lives. This reduced value is called the depreciated replacement value and has been calculated as the replacement cost proportioned by the ratio of remaining useful life to economic life on a straight-line basis. This method provides an accurate reflection of the service potential of the assets. The expenditure on footpaths from previous years is summarised in Table 6.8.9 And Figure 6.8.1. Data is sourced from financial reports. Table 6.8.7 Footpaths – Historical Expenditure Renewal Costs of Total Expenditure Expenditure ($) Maintenance ($) ($) 1999 – 00 177,282 117,164 294,446 2000 – 01 216,163 77,205 293,368 2001 – 02 137,022 134,246 271,268 2002 – 03 173,576 83,657 257,233 2003 – 04 197,872 65,476 263,348 2004 – 05 158,240 91,726 249,966 2005 – 06 194,946 60,384 255,330 2006 – 07 172,857 81,648 254,505 2007 – 08 157,774 100,773 258,547 2008 – 09 268,665 45,499 314,164 2009 – 10 238,078 45,004 283,082 2010 – 11 78,697 38,570 117,267 2011 - 12 197,623 57,509 255,132 2012 - 13 89,942 170,053 259,995 2013 - 14 466,665 82,094 548,759 Figure 6.8.1 Footpaths Historical Expenditure

The above table & figure lists the historical maintenance & renewal costs of maintaining the footpath assets. Council’s decision to hold footpath renewals in 2010/11 in anticipation of the possible disruptions caused by the nationwide ‘Ultra-fast Broadband’ project proved fortuitous as this allowed several renewals to be taken in conjunction with the Broadband project.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 85 of 126

The historical renewals for 2011-12 include $140,675 that was specifically used for the foot bridge maintenance. 6.8.12 Asset Acquisition and Creation Plan Council currently has no plans to create new footpath assets, with the exception of some minor construction work to complete gaps in the network. As discussed in section 4, the current network has adequate capacity to cope with anticipated changes in demand. However, Council may acquire new footpaths installed by developers as part of sub-divisional development. Such footpaths are installed at the developers’ expense. 6.8.13 Programme Council has made a strategic decision to ‘at least’ maintain the current levels of service for this activity. New maintenance and renewal work, as well as some capital expenditure, has been identified and is scheduled to enable this. See Table 6.8.8. Table 6.8.8 Footpath Maintenance, Renewal & Capital Costs Identified Action/Work Driver for Action Estimated Cost Scheduled For How this will be funded Footpath Condition assessment $294,000 pa Per annum Depreciation Upgrades has identified need for (based on a %100 (Expected renewal Funds (including upgrades/reseals to hot-mix surfacing lengths reducing to 5km reseals) maintain current LOS. program) in 5years subject to condition assessment.

6.8.14 Disposal Plan Council has no current plans to dispose of footpath assets. 6.9 Parking Facilities This section covers parking facilities that Masterton District Council owns and maintains. 6.9.1 Introduction Parking is an integral component of the transport network and helps deliver an effective and efficient transport system that enables vehicle users to make smarter transport choices. The Council provides, maintains and manages sealed parking spaces at various locations, especially within urban areas, in order to; provide adequate parking for shoppers, commuters, worker, and those with disabilities. The Council collects revenue from selected areas to offset costs associated with this activity 6.9.2 Asset Description (Inc. how asset data is stored) The Council owns and maintains 822 off-street car park spaces; and 648 on-street car park spaces. External staff are contracted to patrol their use and enforce restrictions. There are also 520 privately owned car parks that are available for public usage in the central business area. There are 26 parks available for those with disabilities, and 4 motorbike stands. Table 6.9.1 Car Parks Assets Car parks Unit No. On/Off street time limited car parking spaces ea. 604 Metered car parking spaces ea. 243 Council unlimited car parking spaces ea. 866 Number of on-street parking spaces ea. 648 Number of off-street parking spaces ea. 822 Total Council parking spaces ea. 1,470 Privately owned car parking spaces available for public ea. 520 A complete inventory of parking facilities is stored on spreadsheet by the Urban Roading Manager on the Councils internal ‘K’ drive. Information includes location intended use and any other physical attributes.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 86 of 126

The confidence level for various bridge asset data used in this plan is shown in Table 6.9.2. Where, A = Highly Reliable B = Reliable C = Uncertain D = Very uncertain Table 6.9.2 Data Confidence Levels

Attribute D C B A

Physical Parameters

Asset Capacity

Asset Condition

Valuations

Response times

Historical Expenditures

Design Standards

6.9.3 Asset Condition and Monitoring The overall condition of parking facilities is generally in order. 6.9.4 Critical Assets No parking spaces are considered critical. Significant negative effects of the parking assets are outlined in Table 6.9.3 Table 6.9.3 Significant Negative Effects of Parking Assets Negative Effects How We Will/Do Mitigate Social None identified

Cultural None identified

Environmental None identified Economic Inadequate car parking spaces due Continue to review car park to increasing usage causing a loss of inventory, number of spaces revenue. and levels of service annually. 6.9.5 Asset Capacity /Performance The existing car parking spaces available are considered sufficient currently to enable shopping, worker, & commuter parking to park safely in the central business and urban area. As discussed in section 4, factors such as population growth at about 2% and a fluctuating growth in tourism of up to 14% may have an increasing impact on the usage and type of parking facilities required. A growing trend toward larger shopping establishments outside the central area with their own associated parking facilities will impact on the mix of usage of Council parking provided. These trends for demand will be monitored. 6.9.6 Design Standards Standards described by NZTA in the Traffic Control Devices Manual, NZS 4121:2001 Design for access & mobility, and the Building Act 2004 outline the standards or guidelines for the provision of parking and disabled parks provided by MDC. The draft Positive Ageing Strategy 2011 had an objective to provide safe, affordable and accessible transport options for older people and set out 4 sub-objectives with proposed actions in the draft that would achieve this. One of the draft objectives that related to parking was;

Sub-objectives Action Frequency Comment/Progress

To provide Review of disability Review three Use of disability car parks included in the adequate parking car parks be recent Parking Survey by Traffic Design

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 87 of 126

facilities and completed to ensure yearly Group concluded there was an services for distance apart, appropriate and adequate level of disabled/older closeness to accessible parking places in the CBD with persons facilities/ services additional spaces required only if there and seating/shelter is were changes in services that would adequate attract older people Investigate places As sites Handrails are provided on both sides of where handrails identified the Queen St ramp into the library. would make public places safer Investigate and As sites Location needs to be sensitive to those in review public seating identified adjacent properties.

6.9.7 Maintenance Plan Maintenance is the ongoing day-to-day work activity required to keep assets serviceable and prevent premature deterioration or failure. Maintenance issues are identified both by the MDC engineers and the maintenance contractor during their general duties. Where damage occurs to a structure, a member of the public often reports it before it is identified by the maintenance contractor. 6.9.8 Financial The Parking asset components were valued as follows, as at 30th June 2014. Data was sourced from the MDC Annual Report 2014. Table 6.9.5 Asset Valuation – Car Parks (2014) Item Full Depreciated Annual Replacement Value Replacement Value Depreciation ($) ($) ($) Carpark Sealed 2,034,000 1,235,000 40,003 Surfaces Carpark expenditure data is stored in the Roading operating ledger. Expenditure over previous years is summarised in Table 6.9.5 and Figure 6.9.1. Data is sourced from financial reports. Table 6.9.5 Historical Expenditure – Car Parking Year Total Expenditure ($) 1999-00 94,932 2000-01 65,111 2001-02 63,689 2002-03 90,627 2003-04 67,075 2004-05 84,372 2005-06 95,135 2006-07 84,372 2007-08 108,837 2008-09 101,555 2009-10 140,290 2010-11 112,500 2011-12 107,294 2012-13 133,183 2013-14 135,657

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 88 of 126

Figure 6.9.1 Historical Expenditure – Car Parking

6.9.9 Renewal/Replacement Routine maintenance and renewal works are carried out in conjunction with carriageway maintenance programmes. 6.9.10 Asset Acquisition and Creation Plan The need for upgrading and /or expanding parking space provisions is determined primarily from a triennial review of the CBD Performance or other specific reports. This was last done in 2010 by Traffic Design Group. This Plan is updated accordingly as new findings become available. 6.9.11 Programme The annual maintenance and renewal costs for this asset over the next ten years are to be confirmed, but were previously about $144,000 p.a. This amount included miscellaneous costs such as rates, gardening, maintenance, reseals, and lighting costs. Table 6.9.6 Carpark Maintenance, Renewal & Capital Costs Identified Action/Work Driver for Action Estimated Cost Scheduled For How this will be funded Carpark Reseals – Condition Assessment; $17,360 2016/17 Depreciation to be calculated for To maintain current $17,155 2018/20 Funds – area to be done levels of service $16,335 2021/22 Capital Exp. and cost estimations 6.9.12 Disposal Plan There are currently no plans to dispose of car park assets, but Council is prepared to consider disposal for new development on a site by site basis in the wider interests of the community.

7. FINANCIAL SUMMARY

A financial summary is an important part of the asset management plan. This section outlines the financial expenditures on physical works over the last five years, financial forecasts for the next ten years, rates requirement, financial assumptions and confidence level in MDC roading sector etc. 7.1 Financial Statements and Projections The Draft Long Term Plan for 2015-25 will be out for consultation in April 2015. The Roading activity’s cost of service statement and capital expenditure summary are included as an Appendix to this AMP (17 & 18). Historical Costs

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 89 of 126

The roading expenditure for the last nine years is summarised on the basis of subsidised and non- subsidised works in the following table. The data is sourced from NZTA financial assistance claims and MDC Roading operating accounts. Table 7.1 Annual Historical Claims for Expenditure of Physical Works (LA & NZTA) Financial Year Total Subsidised ($) 2002/2003 4,245,690 2003/2004 5,306,019 2004/2005 5,942,020 2005/2006 5,650,859 2006/2007 6,664,508 2007/2008 6,784,602 2008/2009 6,874,252 2009/2010 6,271,702 2010/2011 6,260,930 2011/2012 6,589,349 2012/2013 7,270,024 2013/2014 6,493,049 Table 7.2 Historical Expenditure – MDC Annual Reports Financial Year Net Operating Costs Capital Expenditure Rates Requirement

2002/2003 3,796,841 2,393,375 3,031,345 2003/2004 5,043,884 2,609,795 3,315,792 2004/2005 5,196,108 4,173,471 3,602,932 2005/2006 5,818,637 3,283,464 3,903,277 2006/2007 6,193,706 3,224,567 4,113,240 2007/2008 6,188,611 4,551,514 4,725,421 2008/2009 7,100,382 11,478,987 4,849,234 2009/2010 7,215,359 3,941,337 4,927,576 2010/2011 7,201,236 3,060,370 5,038,827 2011/2012 7,201,514 5,975,271 5,273,101 2012/2013 7,618,340 4,206,208 5,206,178 2013/2014 7,467,628 3,846,054 5,577,689 Figure 7.1 Annual Historical Expenditure for Physical Works (MDC Ann Reports)

The above chart shows that the annual operating expenditure for roading has increased over the 12year period. Operating costs include depreciation and can be influenced by asset revaluations and the amount of flood damage repairs done as maintenance. The capital and maintenance costs of roading infrastructures over last 15 years are shown on the following Tables 7.3 and 7.4, noting that from 2007/08 the new NZTA work categories are shown. Data sourced from Roading operating accounts. The Council’s future operating and capital expenditure requirements for the total Roading activity are shown on Appendix 17 & 18. In addition a summary showing how the Roading activity will be funded is shown in the Funding Impact Statement in Table 7.5

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 90 of 126

Table 7.3 Historical Maintenance Costs 1999-2007 Old NZTA work categories) HISTORICAL MAINTENANCE COST (SUBSIDISED) ($ ) Item 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Pavement Maintenance 995,799 1,307,644 1,131,919 1,269,907 1,280,520 1,481,573 1,835,629 2,015,903 AWPT 640,848 645,892 925,494 960,102 1,285,588 1,503,013 1,417,714 1,260,851 Major Drainage Control 63,951 573 47,227 12,414 6,858 0 50,813 115,431 Thin Asphaltic Surfacing 34,189 48,717 32,700 29,818 56,248 97,652 60,519 59,066 Maintenance Chip seals 319,602 540,989 624,694 619,522 548,966 518,891 676,974 950,934 Seal Widening 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bridge Maintenance 84,224 77,128 89,798 112,432 112,515 34,367 75,026 91,444 Amenity Maintenance 110,143 125,105 143,515 143,661 254,674 106,450 106,706 172,548 Street Cleaning 90,108 846 107,823 108,345 123,329 103,043 106,440 108,220 Traffic Services 72,912 73,034 49,451 80,434 124,889 172514 157,215 169,702 Carriageway Lighting 188,689 300,763 126,580 131,703 136,599 120,008 122,295 142,406 Cycle way Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minor Safety Improvement 45,042 103,014 61,990 147,294 229,766 253,425 198,561 173,888 Flood Damage 53,769 72,628 19,472 0 585,527 1,002,037 432,896 970,851 Professional Services 350,135 296,628 300,005 311,092 418,957 433,976 336,684 338,503 Preventive Maintenance 14,135 262,138 9,774 12,294 13,319 87,959 0 20,000 Other Roading 16,276 60,714 53,197 36,131 31,796 102,766 0 0 Sub-total 3,079,822 3,915,813 3,723,639 3,975,149 5,209,551 6,017,674 5,577,472 6,589,747 HISTORICAL MAINTENANCE COST (NON-SUBSIDISED) ($) Item 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Rural Roading Activity 96,850 124,102 127,144 142,782 114620 135,733 131,595 120,103 Footpaths 294,446 293,368 271,268 257,233 263,348 249,966 255,330 254,505 Sweeping & Cleaning 125,362 135,110 142,436 151,081 167,835 167,147 178,621 196,005 Vegetation Control 161,791 163,981 177,377 185,098 190,222 238,600 279,190 312,795 Street Furniture 22,882 19,389 35,706 27,142 14,021 29,259 10,145 7,638 Parking Areas 64,932 65,111 63,689 90,627 67,075 84,372 95,135 101,383 Miscellaneous 66,208 71,600 74,317 63,116 64,774 119,986 49,586 61,517 Sub-total 832,471 872,661 891,937 917,079 881,895 1,025,063 999,602 1,053,946 HISTORICAL CAPITAL COST (SUBSIDISED) ($) Item 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Bridge Renewals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 91 of 126

Crash reduction Studies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,516 Cycling 0 0 0 0 0 3,417 11,193 0 Safety Projects 0 0 0 123,658 0 0 0 0 New Roads/Bridges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pavement Smoothing 43,695 290,891 48,941 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Road Reconstruction 0 0 0 81,420 37,706 0 0 0 Seal Extension 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation Studies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 43,695 290,891 48,941 205,078 37,706 3,417 11,193 5,516 HISTORICAL CAPITAL COST (NON-SUBSIDISED) ($) Item 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Footpath Upgrading 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CBD Upgrading (Interest) 62,141 63,880 58,821 48,607 37,644 61,246 48,189 48,845 Sub-total 62,141 63,880 58,821 48607 37,644 61,246 48,189 48,845 Table 7.4 Historical Maintenance Costs 2007-2014 (New NZTA work categories) 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 MAINTENANCE COSTS (SUBSIDISED) ($) 111 Sealed pavement maintenance 667,626 984,199 702,695 620,436 620,026 696,939 760,980 112 Unsealed pavement maintenance 287,965 262,846 406,662 638,348 647,301 504,520 553,200 113 Routine drainage maintenance 335,277 305,908 201,491 238,850 230,995 242,975 268,124 113.5 Street cleaning (30%) 33,483 36,347 32,019 32,793 35,367 36,044 35,383 114 Structures maintenance 26,980 29,223 88,851 230,157 150,486 82,978 156,010 121 Environmental maintenance 278,400 454,187 614,576 367,367 558,697 593,983 494,428 123 Traffic services maintenance 110,914 114,768 186,216 201,722 219,372 231,201 239,762 131 Level crossing warning devices 31,793 7,342 23,242 2,506 8,218 19,924 22,210 151 Network and asset management 297,224 313,425 368,188 363,734 412,459 281,798 412,080 RENEWALS COSTS (SUBSIDISED) ($) 211 Unsealed road metalling 469,059 385,022 235,909 541,146 681,594 949,723 621,720 212 Sealed road resurfacing 937,675 911,470 859,356 37,904 1,266,416 479,874 789,478 213 Drainage renewals 441,197 379,146 293,196 115,352 468,400 263,194 279,044 214 Pavement rehabilitation 1,806,591 1,202,203 1,052,971 694,475 1,010,761 785,917 531,272 215 Structures component replacements 50,172 115,219 313,882 389,977 157,001 81,729 268,464 222 Traffic services renewals 188,359 291,180 244,540 297,037 312,955 249,695 313,829 231 Associated improvements 165,793 280,273 222,965 196,757 237,008 126,329 175,077 PROVISIONAL COSTS ONLY ($)

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 92 of 126

141 Emergency reinstatement 167,735 218,251 96,561 513,516 182,220 415,967 875,993 IMPROVEMENTS TO ROADS (SUBS.) ($) 322 Bridge renewals * 697 65,000 0 7,282 67,821 21,567 29,189 341 Minor improvements 409,521 433,432 185,607 462,174 564,987 373,506 342,252 DEMAND MGMT & COMM PROGRAMMES ($) 431 Community co ordination 81,339 89,200 0 0 0 0 0 432 Community programmes 34,074 44,367 142,775 146,848 120,000 147,000 142,000 433 Community advertising 28,957 32,500 0 0 12,000 0 0 TRANSPORT PLANNING ($) CRS * 4,429 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cycling/ Pedestrian strategy * 0 8,000 0 0 0 0 0 NON SUBSIDISED RURAL ($) 148,853 122,905 133,475 106,514 129,110 150,473 154,704 NON SUBSIDISED URBAN ($) Footpaths 258,547 314,162 283,082 117,266 255,086 548,759 259,995 Sweeping and cleaning 205,921 221,867 244,838 253,920 258,904 267,834 264,249 Vegetation control 369,755 408,044 416,292 414,899 425,757 477,663 464,825 Street furniture 4,751 10,471 7,622 7,090 6,203 8,340 28,955 Miscellaneous 76,061 78,718 119,543 97,601 126,913 107,218 127,892 CBD Upgrade Interest 64,403 49,444 23,921 24,262 21,697 24,676 29,155 Parking areas 133,303 101,555 139,715 112,500 107,010 135,657 133,183 * indicates items not indexed for inflation

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 93 of 126

Table 7.5 Funding Impact Statement – Roading 2015-25

FUNDING IMPACT STATEMENT As required by the Local Government (Financial Reporting) Regulations 2014 2014/15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 ROADING Ann Plan 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) Sources of Operating Funding General rates, uniform charges, rates penalties* ------Targeted rates (excl water by meter)* 5,656 5,481 5,699 5,830 5,863 6,240 6,261 6,933 7,294 7,359 7,707 Subsidies and grants (for operating) 2,205 2,163 2,132 2,162 2,210 2,263 2,320 2,382 2,449 2,522 2,597 Fees & charges (incl metered water) 78 190 91 92 110 97 99 102 105 126 111 Internal charges & overheads recovered ------Interest & dividends ------Other receipts (incl petrol tax & fines) 163 170 172 174 178 183 187 192 198 204 210 Total operating funding (A) 8,101 8,003 8,094 8,259 8,362 8,783 8,867 9,610 10,046 10,211 10,626 * Disclosure of the General and Targeted Rates from the 2014/15 Annual Plan is restated to align with definitions within the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. Applications of Operating Funding Payments to staff and suppliers 4,697 4,574 4,565 4,631 4,736 4,850 4,973 5,110 5,255 5,415 5,581 Finance costs 21 25 37 47 57 250 244 237 231 224 215 Internal charges and overheads applied 1,078 938 954 993 1,002 1,028 1,070 1,081 1,109 1,155 1,169 Other operating funding applications Total applications of operating funding (B) 5,796 5,537 5,556 5,672 5,795 6,128 6,287 6,428 6,595 6,793 6,964

Surplus/(Deficit) of operating funding (A-B) 2,305 2,466 2,538 2,587 2,567 2,654 2,581 3,182 3,451 3,418 3,661 Sources of Capital Funding Subsidies & grants for capital expenditure 2,459 1,990 2,233 2,111 2,189 2,201 2,389 2,369 2,439 2,515 2,546 Development & financial contributions 121 99 76 77 160 81 83 85 87 96 99 Increase /(decrease) in debt 102 164 151 150 3,207 (109) (120) (131) (142) (154) (157) Gross proceeds from sale of assets ------Lump sum contributions ------Other dedicated capital funding ------Total sources of capital funding (C) 2,683 2,253 2,460 2,339 5,556 2,172 2,352 2,323 2,384 2,458 2,489 Application of Capital Funding Capital expenditure: - to meet additional demand - - 606 - - - 760 - - - - - to improve level of service 1,012 996 1,046 1,631 3,883 653 670 689 709 731 755 - to replace existing assets 4,140 3,380 3,459 3,474 3,645 3,660 3,740 3,946 4,050 4,199 4,216 Increase/(decrease) in reserves (751) 343 (113) (180) 594 514 (237) 870 1,075 945 1,179 Increase/(decrease) in investments 587 Total application of capital funding (D) 4,988 4,719 4,998 4,926 8,123 4,827 4,933 5,505 5,835 5,875 6,150 Surplus / (deficit) of capital funding (C-D) (2,305) (2,466) (2,538) (2,587) (2,567) (2,655) (2,581) (3,182) (3,451) (3,418) (3,661)

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 94 of 126

7.1.1 30 Year Strategy See Appendix 12 Capital Expenditure 7.2 Funding Strategy The Council has adopted a Revenue & Financing Policy which defines how each activity of the Council will be funded. For funding purposes the Roading activity is split into three categories, the subsidised programme, the urban non-subsidised programme and the rural non-subsidised programme. The sources of funding for each are described below. 7.2.1 NZTA Funding The subsidised programme in 2015/16 will receive an NZTA subsidy at the rate of 57%. No NZTA funding is available for expenditure on non-subsidised programme work. 7.2.2 Council Funding Policy The preferred funding mechanism for the costs of the roading infrastructure is outlined in the Revenue and Financing policy as:  External Income - NZTA assistance- Maximising the opportunities for obtaining financial assistance from NZTA in maintenance, development and safety improvements.  User Contributions – Obtaining contributions from particular users where roading network costs are incurred and arise from specific needs of individuals, for example, projects to accommodate unusual heavy traffic volumes.  Petroleum taxes  Loan Finance – Loan finance for identified capital improvements.  Depreciation reserves  Roading Rates – a Targeted Uniform Charge set differentially in rural and urban wards, charged on each property.  Roading Rate – a targeted Land Value Rate set differentially in the rural and urban wards.  Allocation of the Subsidised Roading costs between urban and rural wards is based on a 29/71 split, which is based on the split between the wards where the programme expenditure is to be applied over the following three years. 7.2.3 Cash flow Smoothing The Council manages its cashflows internally using working capital funds. Subsidy claims are made on a regular basis in order to ensure (as much as possible) cash being paid to contractors is matched by subsidy funding coming back from NZTA. Rates funding inward flows are largely quarterly and do not always match expenditure flows. 7.2.4 Financial Summary (including rates requirement) See Appendix 17 Summary of Forecast 2015-25 & Appendix 18 – Capital Expenditure Summary 2015-25. 7.3 Asset Valuation The values listed in the Council’s 2013/14 Annual Report were revalued as at 30 June 2014, verified by Opus International Consultants. No insurance cover is carried on roading assets, including bridges. The Council receives 57% funding assistance for all work categories. In the case of flood damage, an additional 20% of funding will be available for emergency repairs that exceed 10% of the approved maintenance and operations allocation. The balance will be effectively self-insured by the Council drawing on its flood damage, roading asset depreciation and general capital reserve funds. Table 7.4 2014 Roading Infrastructure Asset Values Location Description 2014 Value 2014 Value (ORC) (ODRC) Roading Bridges 53,189,242 23,368,233 Roading Culverts 11,475,537 5,078,236 Roading Culverts 18,487,233 4,851,252 Roading Kerb & channel 19,786,746 11,932,892 Roading Land 84,951,358 84,951,358 Roading Formation 254,159,100 254,159,100 Roading Pavement 90,655,283 76,544,483 Roading Seal 26,558,467 15,801,695 Roading Retaining walls & Guard rails 2,192,254 1,590,311

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 95 of 126

Roading Reflective markers 11,656 5,828 Roading Paint markings 156,882 78,441 Roading Traffic islands 779,198 614,180 Roading Shoulders 6,958,516 5,297,392 Roading Signage 947,617 487,135 Roading Street lights 4,424,812 1,830,337 Urban Street trees 330,391 330,391 Urban Berms 6,042,513 6,042,513 Urban Car parks 2,017,149 1,227,087 Urban Carpark signage 16,394 8,197 Urban Footpaths 13,225,476 10,241,204 CBD Furniture 930,862 509,214 CBD Paving 1,629,030 973,199 Airport Sealed runway 3,617,285 3,178,217 7.3.1 Valuation Methodology The 2014 revaluation of roading assets was carried out by Opus International Consultants. They have used asset inventory information supplied by the Council, largely from the RAMM asset management system. Assets are valued at component level, unit rates to replace assets are applied to the units of each component to build up a value of the network asset. The depreciated value is arrived at by using the age of the components and modifying that based on how far through the useful life the component may be. 7.3.2 Forecasts of depreciation Depreciation is calculated based on each components’ depreciated value divided by the remaining useful life. Overall, the depreciation expense should approximately match the amount being spent on renewing the assets, particularly for those assets with shorter lives. This will vary year to year, but the renewal programme assumptions about asset lives are the same as the asset lives used in the valuation and depreciation calculations. Those components with long lives, eg bridges, will not always have replacement expenditure scheduled in the asset management plan, but depreciation continues to be recognised. 7.4 Key Financial Forecast Assumptions 7.4.1 Assumptions It is the Council's view that the roading programme is keeping the service potential of the roading asset at a constant level. A decline in service potential for roading has been recognised as being the value of reseals and rehabilitation work to be undertaken each year. This work has been treated as renewals expenditure and capitalised. NZTA subsidies on the renewals work have been assumed. Bridges and culverts do not have a regular work programme to maintain their service potential. Accordingly a financial provision for the decline in service potential of bridges and culverts is included in the cost of the roading service. A table summarising forecasting a ‘Forward Programme’ for 2015 – 2025 is attached as appendix 16. Table 7.5 Assumptions and Uncertainties about Financial Provision No Significant Assumptions and Uncertainties The degree of the Likely Impact if assumptions assumptions and not realised (The information provided has been developed Uncertainties from) 1 A sound base Low Funding requirement may vary The RAMM database Low Renewal projections based on age, existing physical Medium condition or performance and growth factors. Operation and maintenance cost have been developed from: 2 Historic costs, existing and proposed operating Medium Contract rates vary by +/- 15% procedures Open tendering of Roading Maintenance Contract Medium Contract rates may vary by up to + and other Roading contracts 15% 3 Based on the current condition of the roading Medium If condition deteriorates seriously, infrastructure, existing maintenance levels will be the Council will be required to sufficient to ensure the Council's standards for the spend additional money to service. maintain the service level. 4 Maintenance cost included make allowance for inflation according to BERL indexes (Table 7.10) for Medium Insufficient funding

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 96 of 126

No Significant Assumptions and Uncertainties The degree of the Likely Impact if assumptions assumptions and not realised (The information provided has been developed Uncertainties from) 2015/16 – 2024/25. 5 NZTA requirements and specifications for the NZTA financial assistance may performance of subsidised work do not alter within Medium change. Additional funding may the ten years to 30 June 2019. be required by the Council to meet the local share. 6 NZTA current subsidy rate Medium NZTA financial assistance will be reduced. Additional funding will be required by the Council to meet operational costs. 7 Population predictions for all communities based in High If increases higher, then general on static or minor increases anticipated upgrades may be required earlier. Development may be hindered by delays in carrying out upgrades. 8 Resourcing of supervisory staff for increase in Low Inability to comply with agreed maintenance requirements, renewals programme levels of service. and capital works programme. 9 An average of 10% linear increase for depreciation Low If depreciation increases, more with respect to the base year 2005-06, has been funding will be required for the considered for projecting future costs. maintenance budget. 10 New Major Capital works will be undertaken subject Low If not carried out properly: to the recommendations of a study, strategy or - Negative impact on environment. model. - Financial loss. - Public dissatisfaction. 11 Future renewals and new capital works are based Low If customers’ expectations on customers’ current expectations to maintain the increase significantly, additional service levels and contribute to achieve following funding will be required to meet community outcomes: the demand.

An Easy Place to Move Around A Strong Sustainable Economy An Active, Involved & Caring Community 7.4.2 Accuracy of Financial Forecast

The confidence level for various issues related to financial forecast is graphically shown below: Where, A = Highly Reliable B = Reliable C = Uncertain D = Very uncertain Table 7.6 Data Confidence Level

Attribute D C B A

Historical Expenditures

Future Growth & Demand

Cost Fluctuation Rate

Depreciation Fluctuation

Operational Revenue

Future Public Debt

Loan Interests

NZTA's subsidy rate

Level of Service

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 97 of 126

8. AMP IMPROVEMENT AND MONITORING

This section summarises the recommendations made in the asset management plan. It is presented in the table format to allow the Council to consider the relative priorities of the various items. At this stage, draft priorities have been assigned and very rough estimated costs considered. 8.1 Monitoring and Review The ‘Improvement Plans’ should be monitored and reviewed once in every six months by the Council. Appropriate actions then can be taken for further improvement. This Asset Management Plan will be reviewed in a continuum over every three years. Improvement Plan AMP Current status Enhancing analysis for planning process and Initial stage of dTIMS deterioration modelling completed improving operational efficiency Customer consultation for reviewing Level of Latest consultation for LOS was done in 2014 Service Monitor options for the provision of an electronic Nothing achieved. asset management system potentially superseding May be possible in the future with developing AMS RAMM and providing linkages to GIS systems in particular the Assetic MyData currently being implemented for other Council Utilities. Undertake investigative work to verify the level of Field validation continues for data from condition rating, confidence held for data on the condition of a made available by contractors maintenance and through sample of the asset targeted asset rating (i.e. Footpaths condition rating) Revaluing all roading assets It is being done on a rolling 3 year basis Develop risk management assessment in Risk management assessment was developed and is in conjunction with the activities of the Wairarapa the current asset management plan Earthquake Lifelines Association. All components of the asset reviewed to reduce This is a part of normal process operational costs. Capital works projects will be initiated when it is proven that there are cost savings in present value terms Review estimates for depreciation and decline in Depreciation is calculated in conjunction with asset service potentials based on enhanced knowledge of valuation the asset As part of the review of assets and their Inherent with programme reviews performance capability identify and quantify the impact of deferred maintenance Investigate extent of work and develop an Street lighting investigations continue with the options to implementation strategy for a comprehensive street renew with LED being worked through. lighting upgrade on urban areas. 8.1.1 AMP revision Next full revision of the plan is set to start mid 2017 for adoption in 2018.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 98 of 126

9. REFERENCE AND GLOSSARY

9.1 References a. Asset Management Plan & Code of Service, Roading, Masterton District Council, June 1998. b. New Zealand Infrastructure Asset Management Manual; National Asset Management Steering Group, November 1996. c. Toward 2020 – Strategic Plan; Masterton District Council, May 1996. d. Draft Statement on Levels of Service for Asset Management Planning; Masterton District Council, March 1998. e. Masterton District Council Infrastructure Asset Valuations, June 2003. f. Masterton District Council Long Term Council Community Plan, 2003. g. National Roading Programme 2003-04: Transfund New Zealand, July 2003. h. Local Authority RAMM Database Operation Manual; Transfund New Zealand, June 1997. i. Bituminous Sealing manual; Transit New Zealand, July 1993. j. Routine Maintenance Contract – Roading, 1999-2002, Masterton District Council, April 1999. k. State Highway Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual; July 1989. l. Pavement Design; Austroads, 1992. m. Guide to Geometric Standards for Rural Roads; National Roads Board, 1985. n. NZS 6701: 1983 Code of Practice for Road Lighting; Standards Association of New Zealand, September 1983. o. AS/NZS 1158:1997 Road Lighting; Standard Australia/Standards New Zealand, April 1997. p. Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Manual; Transit New Zealand, May 2004 q. Report Number 046/98 – Forestry Impacts Study; Masterton District Council, 1998. r. Advanced Roading Asset Management Plan, Southland District Council, May 2002 (Internet Version). s. Manual for Traffic Signs and Markings Part 1, Traffic Signs Edition 3; Transit NZ/Land Transport Safety Authority, January 1998. t. Manual of Traffic Signs and Markings Part 2, Road Markings Edition 3; Transit/ Land Transport Safety Authority, October 1992. u. RTS 2 Guidelines for Street Name Signs; Land Transport Safety Authority, November 1990. v. RTS 5 Guidelines for Rural Road Marking and Delineation; Land Transport Safety Authority, October 1992. w. Guideline for the Preparation of a Roading Activity Management Plan, MWH New Zealand Limited, Version 5, November 2003. x. Wairarapa Combined District Plan (May 2011). y. NZS4404:2004 land development and subdivision engineering. z. MDC plan 805 A, B or C. This is shown in Appendix 6. aa. Masterton Central Area – Parking Study & Parking Assessment Report July 2010 bb. Masterton District Council Roading Procurement Strategy (March 2013)

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 99 of 126

9.2 Glossary (Common to all documents) a. Annual Plan A plan required by the Local Government Act 2002 to be produced by Council in the two intervening years between each three-yearly Long Term Plan (LTP). The main purpose of the Annual Plan is to identify any amendments and variations to the specific year of the base Long Term Plan. b. Annual Report Annual Reports are published following the end of each financial year which ends on 30 June. It is an audited account of whether Council completed its planned work programme. Any work not completed as planned is explained. The Annual Report is a key method for Council to be accountable to the community for its performance. c. Activity Management Plans Activity Management Plans (which are the ‘new generation’ of Asset Management Plans) describe the infrastructural assets and the activities undertaken by Council and outline the financial, management and technical practices to ensure the assets are maintained and developed to meet the requirements of the community over the long term. Activity Management Plans focus on the service that is delivered as well as the planned maintenance and replacement of physical assets. d. Assumptions Assumptions are the underlying premises made by Council that affect its financial planning for a specific activity, or for all Council activities. These are made clear so everyone can understand the basis for Council’s financial planning, and form an opinion about how reasonable those assumptions are. e. Capital Expenditure This expenditure relates to the purchase or creation of assets that are necessary to assist in the provision of services. They have useful lives in excess of one year and are therefore included in the Statement of Financial Position. Capital expenditure includes the creation of assets that did not previously exist or the improvement or enlargement of assets beyond their original size and capacity. f. Capital Value Capital value is the value of the property including both the value of the land and any improvements (e.g. buildings) on the land. g. Community Community means everyone in Masterton District: individuals, businesses, local and central government, groups and organisations, iwi, Māori, disabled, young, old, families, recent migrants and refugees, rural and urban residents. h. Communitrak™ Survey The Communitrak™ Survey is the survey of residents’ opinions that the Council has undertaken annually by an independent research agency. i. Community Outcomes Community outcomes are the priorities and aspirations identified by the Council that it aims to achieve in meeting the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions. j. Consultation Consultation is the dialogue that comes before decision-making. Consultation is an exchange of information, points of view and options for decisions between affected and interested people and the decision makers. k. Cost of Services The cost of services relate to the activity, not the organisational departments. The Local Government Act 2002 requires the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan to be expressed by the activity. The cost of the activity includes the direct and the indirect costs that have been allocated to the activity. Indirect costs include interest on public debt, cost of support services and depreciation allowances. l. Depreciation

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 100 of 126

Depreciation is the wearing out, consumption or loss of value of an asset over time. m. Financial Year Council’s financial year runs from 1 July to 30 June the following year. n. General rate A general rate is a district wide rate through which all ratepayers contribute to a range of council activities and is based on the capital value of ratepayer’s properties. o. Income This includes fees and licences charged for Council’s services and contributions towards services by outside parties. p. Infrastructure Networks that are essential to running a district, including the roading network, water supply and wastewater and stormwater networks. q. Infrastructure Assets These are assets required to provide essential services like water, stormwater, wastewater and roading. They also include associated assets such as pump stations, treatment plants, street lighting and bridges. r. Levels of Services The standard to which services are provided, such as speed of response times to information requests or the standard of the stormwater drainage system that prevent incidents of surface water flooding. It is what the Council will provide. s. Long Term Plan The Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to adopt a Long Term Plan (LTP). The Long Term Plan outlines Council’s intentions over a 10 year period. The Long Term Plan requires extensive community consultation, the identification of community outcomes and priorities, and the establishment of monitoring and review mechanisms. The LTP was previously called the Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP). t. Network Infrastructure See Infrastructure Assets. u. ONRC One Network Roading Classification. v. Operating Costs These expenses, which are included in the Prospective Income Statement, are the regular costs of providing ongoing services and include salaries, maintaining assets, depreciation and interest. The benefit of the cost is received entirely in the year of expenditure. w. Performance Targets These are the measures that will be used to assess whether the performance has been achieved. x. Separately Used or Inhabited Parts of a Rating Unit Where targeted rates are calculated on each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit the following definition will apply: Any portion of a rating unit used or inhabited by any person, other than the ratepayer or member of the ratepayer’s household, having a right to use or inhabit that portion by virtue of a tenancy, lease, licence or other agreement. y. Solid Waste Waste products of non-liquid or gaseous nature (for example, building materials, used packaging, household rubbish). z. Stormwater Water that is discharged during rain and run-off from hard surfaces such as roads. aa. Sustainable Development

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 101 of 126

“Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (from the Sustainable Development for New Zealand Programme of Action, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, January 2003). bb. Targeted Rate A targeted rate is designed to fund a specific function or activity. It can be levied on specific categories of property (e.g. determined by a particular use or location) and it can be calculated in a variety of ways. It may also cover a distinct area of beneficiaries. cc. Targeted Uniform Charge – Roading (TUC) The Roading TUC is a portion of the roading rate collected as a fixed charge per rateable property. It is deemed that all properties (in a particular ward) receive equal benefit for the service charged regardless of the rateable value of the properties.. dd. Wastewater Wastewater is the liquid waste from homes (including toilet, bathroom and kitchen wastewater products) and businesses.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 102 of 126

10. APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Urban Streets

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 103 of 126

Appendix 2 – Rural Roads

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 104 of 126

Appendix 3 – Footpaths by Age

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 105 of 126

Appendix 4 – Forestry & Roading Diagram

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 106 of 126

Appendix 5 – Pasture & Roading Diagram

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 107 of 126

Appendix 6 – Vehicle Crossing Standards 805 a, b, & c

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 108 of 126

Appendix 7 – Old Vehicle (Bridge) Crossing Areas

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 109 of 126

Appendix 8 – Valuation Comparison 2014 - 2011 - 2008 ORC ($000) ODRC ($000) AD ($000) Valuation Component 2014 2011 2008 2014 2011 2008 2014 2011 2008 Land 84,951 84,956 81,786 84,951 84,956 81,786 0 0 0 Formation 254,159 248,209 215,094 254,159 248,209 215,094 0 0 0 Pavement 90,655 87,108 75,211 76,544 65,791 51,703 1,531 1,534 1,395 Seal 26,558 40,794 35,426 15,801 20,392 17,440 1,110 1,785 1,761 Shoulders 7,115 6,959 5,896 5,215 5,297 4,461 95 93 72 Surface Water Channels 19,786 18,924 16,190 11,932 11,732 9,886 196 188 162 Footpaths 13,225 13,263 11,132 10,241 10,295 8,063 300 316 265 Central Area Paving 1.629 1,343 1,137 973 895 834 35 30 27 Street Furniture 930 818 714 509 481 483 28 25 21 Car parks 2,017 1,638 1,601 1,227 1,147 1,155 41 33 23 Car park Signs 16 13 14 8 3 7 1 1 1 Street Lighting 4,424 3,690 1,927 1,830 1,750 1,046 153 132 57 Road Signs 947 873 609 487 531 433 76 72 51 Reflective Markers 11 11 10 6 6 5 3 3 2 Paint Markings 156 149 100 78 74 50 156 149 100 Traffic Islands 779 574 521 614 453 374 15 11 10 Structures, Retaining Walls 2,192 1,994 1,338 1,590 1,529 1,026 43 37 27 Bridges 53,189 44,845 44,378 23,368 20,569 21,273 476 401 399 Box Culverts 11,475 9,844 9,844 5,078 4,614 4,871 100 85 85 Culverts 18,487 15,119 14,833 4,854 4,518 4,462 204 166 164 Trees 330 235 210 330 210 0 0 0 Berms 6,042 5,172 5,110 6,042 5,172 5,110 0 0 0

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 110 of 126

Appendix 9 – Urban Street lights

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 111 of 126

Appendix 10 – Culvert Replacement Decision Tree

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 112 of 126

Appendix 11 – Proposed ONRC Categories

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 113 of 126

Appendix 12 – Proposed 30 year capital projects

Capital Expenditure Summary 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2026-30 2031-35 2036-40 2041-45

Subsidised Roading

Roading Renewals - rural 2,320,300 2,329,868 2,395,232 2,453,032 2,515,456 2,582,504 2,654,176 2,732,784 2,818,328 2,910,808 16,029,096 18,789,624 22,026,424 25,825,040

Roading renewals - urban 633,700 746,710 762,910 781,320 801,203 822,559 845,387 870,425 897,672 927,128 5,105,461 5,984,723 7,015,683 8,225,588

Bridge renewals 71,900 72,907 - 76,286 - - 82,541 84,986 87,646 - 480,888 - - 302,680

Solway Cres upgrading - 606,372 - - - 759,560 ------

Rural/Urban Minor Improvement 308,000 515,112 473,452 456,230 467,840 480,310 493,640 508,260 524,170 541,370 3,466,500 4,063,500 4,763,500 5,585,000 projects Columbo Road - new footpath western 174,000 ------side Cycleways 70,000 70,980 72,520 74,270 76,160 78,190 80,360 82,740 85,330 88,130 - - - -

Castlepoint - Rural foothpath 60,000 ------

Mataikona Hill Upgrade - 10,400,000 - - -

Total Subsidised Roading 3,637,900 4,341,948 3,704,114 3,841,138 3,860,659 4,723,123 4,156,104 4,279,195 4,413,146 4,467,436 25,081,946 28,837,847 33,805,607 39,938,308

Non-subsidised Roading

Carpark reseal 54,000 5,070 5,180 15,915 16,864 - 19,516 7,683 29,256 - 68,201 118,423 97,938 167,550

Footpath upgrading [incl reseals] 300,000 304,200 310,800 318,300 326,400 335,100 344,400 354,600 365,700 377,700 2,079,900 2,438,100 2,858,100 3,351,000

CBD upgrade - - 614,348 3,246,660 ------

Upgrade to LED streetlighting - 358,400 367,500 ------

Castlepoint - safety improvmts ------

Streetscape & neighbourhood design - 101,400 103,600 106,100 108,800 111,700 114,800 118,200 121,900 125,900 - - - - (provision) Lansdowne village project (roading, 183,600 ------paving & seating) Lansdowne village project (underground 200,000 ------power) Railway Station area upgrade ------

Horsehose carpark landscaping ------

Upgrade to LED streetlighting

Total Non-subsidised Roading 737,600 769,070 1,401,428 3,686,975 452,064 446,800 478,716 480,483 516,856 503,600 2,148,101 2,556,523 2,956,038 3518550

Total 4,375,500 5,111,018 5,105,542 7,528,113 4,312,723 5,169,923 4,634,820 4,759,678 4,930,002 4,971,036 27,230,047 31,394,369 36,761,645 43,456,858

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 114 of 126

Appendix 13 – MDC ONRC Transition Plan Local Government & the Transport Agency Agreed ONRC and Business Case Approach Transition Plan

This transition plan incorporates the Masterton District Councils current state of implementing the One Network Road Classification and Business Case Approach. The plan forms part of the 2015 AMP for inclusion in the 2015/18 NLTP. Improvement actions and plans provide an overview of how we will transition to full implementation for the 2018/21 NLTP. This plan has been collaboratively developed and agreed between Masterton District Council and the Transport Agency. 1. Executive Summary The intent of this transition plan is to provide a high level overview of the current state of ONRC implementation, how Masterton District Council will move toward full implementation of this, and the application of a business case approach by 2018. The transition plan will also be useful for any moderation requirements, discussions with the Transport Agency and will ensure that MDC is focused on completing the right information at the right level within the proposed time frames. This transition plan outlines what is required from MDC in meeting the initial implementation for 2015. Final regional land transport plans (RLTPs) will be provided to the Transport Agency by 30 April 2015. Prior to this, MDC needs to ensure it has identified the extent to which they have implemented the ONRC and its business case approach. MDC has have identified gaps in implementation and developed improvement plans into their activity management plans and RLTPs to show how MDC intends to achieve full implementation of the ONRC by 2018. ONRC Implementation 1. Functional Classification a. Identify where we are at with the transition. (MDC roads have all been classified using the RAMM ONRC classification module.) Roading Asset Management Plan (Section 3) shows a list the class of road and length. b. Identify any issues or concerns around the classification of roads based on cycling, pedestrians, and public transportation. 2. Customer Levels of Service a. Assess our current Levels of Service against the ONRC CLoS. b. Bring the REG work streams together to achieve the ultimate aim of consistent and effective asset management. 3. Performance Measures and Targets a. Trial the CLoS performance measures. b. Identify the current performance of the network against performance measures and provisional targets. c. Establish what the customers are receiving. d. Identified whether we under or over delivering. Business Case Approach Implementation 1. Strategic context a. Define our strategic and network context, problems, benefits, and support information is available.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 115 of 126

Identify the current status and implementation plan to apply the Business Case Approach in the AMP. Identify the current performance of the network against performance measures and provisional targets. Establish what the customers are receiving. Other Work Identified 1 Identify further work as this process evolves. Opportunities and Risks Identified 1 Collaborative opportunities with the two southern Councils. Stakeholder & Public Engagement 1 Develop a communications plan for internal and external stakeholders. 2 Develop an engagement plan with Senior Management and Elected Members. 3 Develop an engagement plan with stakeholders and ratepayers 4 Identify timelines for the processes involved. 5 Address gaps through negotiations between MDC and the Transport Agency. Summary of Improvement Actions Improvement Action Description Steps to achieve Timeframe (due Financial action date) Implications (if any) Finalizing the classification of roads Use the RAMM ONRC Completed (2014) assessment tool process. Determining Customer Levels of Service July 2016 (CLoS) Planning investment (and dis- July 2016 investment) programs Addressing gaps through negotiations July 2016 between MDC and the Transport Agency Identify implications of the ONRC on July 2016 the District Plan Identifying the current status and December 2017 implementation plan to apply the Business Case Approach Identifying any requirements and plan July 2018 for public consultation on changes to CLoS and investment on the network

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 116 of 126

Appendix 14 – Bridges (Age & expected life)

ROAD NAME BRIDGE NAME DATE TYPE Replace Age Base % Base Economic Economic % Econ Condition Conditio Conditio Remainin Replace (deck/beam/sub structure) cost @ Life Life Life Factor Life Life Score n Factor n Life g Life as Year? 2014 at 2014 ADAMS PEAK culvert Bushgrove 1962 concrete box culvert 95.8 52 100 52% 1.02 102 51% 1 1.20 122 70 2084 ALFREDTON-TINUI Wingate 1940 RSJ/RC 375.8 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 ANNEDALE ROAD Manawa No7 1962 R.C. Slab 104.4 52 100 52% 1.02 102 51% 1 1.20 122 70 2084 ANNEDALE ROAD culvert 1957 concrete box culvert 78.1 57 100 57% 1.05 105 54% 1 1.22 128 71 2085 ANNEDALE ROAD Annedale No2 (No1) 1957 conc/steel/concrete 674.3 57 100 57% 1.05 105 54% 1 1.22 128 71 2085 ANNEDALE ROAD Annedale No3 (No2) 1965 conc/steel/concrete 391.5 49 100 49% 1.00 100 49% 1 1.20 120 71 2085 ANNEDALE ROAD Annedale No4 (No3) 1965 conc/steel/concrete 304.5 49 100 49% 1.00 100 49% 1 1.20 120 71 2085 BLACK CREEK Black Creek 1996 csp culvert 46.4 18 100 18% 1.00 100 18% 1 1.07 107 89 2103 BLAIRLOGIE LANGDALE Onitai culvert 1940 concrete box culvert 65.1 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 BLAIRLOGIE LANGDALE Mangapokia Stream 1930 Reinforced Concrete 392.1 84 100 84% 1.26 126 67% 1 1.27 159 75 2089 BLAIRLOGIE LANGDALE Blairlogie Station 1940 concrete beams 1287.6 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 BLUFF RANGITUMAU Rangitumau No1(Kopuaranga Str) 1930 concrete beams 529.3 84 100 84% 1.26 126 67% 1 1.27 159 75 2089 BLUFF RANGITUMAU Rangitumau No2 1930 concrete arch 78.3 84 100 84% 1.26 126 67% 1 1.27 159 75 2089 BLUFF RANGITUMAU culvert 1960 concrete box culvert 69.3 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 BOWEN ROAD Bowen 1961 concrete beams 364.8 53 100 53% 1.02 102 52% 1 1.21 123 70 2084 BOWEN ROAD culvert 1961 concrete box 100.6 53 100 53% 1.02 102 52% 1 1.21 123 70 2084 BURNETTS culvert 1960 concrete box 43.8 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 BUTE ROAD Whakaporo No1 1956 concrete beams 579.4 58 100 58% 1.06 106 55% 1 1.22 129 71 2085 BUTE ROAD Whakaporo No2 1958 concrete beams 359.9 56 100 56% 1.05 105 54% 1 1.21 127 71 2085 BUTE ROAD Balfours No3 1961 steel/concrete 181.0 53 100 53% 1.02 102 52% 1 1.21 123 70 2084 CAMERON ROAD Jennings 1955 steelcastell/timber 485.5 59 100 59% 1.07 107 55% 2 1.07 114 55 2069 CAMERON ROAD Jennings 2003 Timber deck 100.4 11 40 28% 1.00 40 28% 3 0.78 31 20 2034 CAVES Caves culvert 1960 concrete box 71.2 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 CLELAND ROAD Clelands 1968 concrete beams 292.3 46 100 46% 1.00 100 46% 1 1.18 118 72 2086 CLELAND ROAD culvert 1968 concrete box 177.7 46 100 46% 1.00 100 46% 1 1.18 118 72 2086 COOPERS BIDEFORD No1 1956 Steel/concrete 573.0 58 100 58% 1.06 106 55% 1 1.22 129 71 2085 COOPERS BIDEFORD No1 1956 Timber deck 573.0 58 40 145% 1.71 69 85% 3 0.95 65 7 2021 COOPERS BIDEFORD No 2 1963 steel/concrete 181.0 51 100 51% 1.01 101 51% 1 1.20 121 70 2084 COOPERS BIDEFORD No 2 1963 Timber deck 37.4 51 40 128% 1.58 63 81% 4 0.74 47 -4 2010 COOTES Cootes 1963 concrete beams 359.9 51 100 51% 1.01 101 51% 1 1.20 121 70 2084 COOTES Cootes culvert 1963 concrete box 74.5 51 100 51% 1.01 101 51% 1 1.20 121 70 2084 DAGGS MAURICEVILLE Daggs Mangarei North(Wairiri) 1953 concrete beams 292.3 61 100 61% 1.08 108 56% 1 1.23 133 72 2086 DONOVANS Brophys 1981 PC beams 665.3 33 100 33% 1.00 100 33% 1 1.13 113 80 2094 DONOVANS culvert 1966 concrete box 96.3 48 100 48% 1.00 100 48% 1 1.19 119 71 2085 DORSETS Dorsets 1960 concrete beams 482.9 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 DREYERS ROCK ROAD Tikitapu 1952 concrete beams 274.3 62 100 62% 1.09 109 57% 1 1.23 134 72 2086 FALLOON SETTLEMENT Falloon Settlement 1935 concrete beams 236.1 79 100 79% 1.22 122 65% 1 1.26 153 74 2088 FALLOON SETTLEMENT culvert 1962 concrete box 71.2 52 100 52% 1.02 102 51% 1 1.20 122 70 2084 FERNGLEN Fernglen culvert 1963 concrete box 61.6 51 100 51% 1.01 101 51% 1 1.20 121 70 2084 GLENDONALD Glendonald No1(Taueru R) 1960 Reinforced Concrete 1921.0 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 GLENDONALD Glendonald No2 1932 Steel/concrete 76.6 82 100 82% 1.24 124 66% 1 1.26 157 75 2089 GLENDONALD Glendonald No2 1990 Timber deck 15.8 24 40 60% 1.08 43 56% 2 1.07 46 22 2036 GLENDONALD Glendonald No3 1935 Reinforced Concrete 319.0 79 100 79% 1.22 122 65% 1 1.26 153 74 2088 GRAHAMS Grahams 1929 timber/timber(1 spanRSJ) 435.0 85 50 170% 1.90 95 89% 2 1.17 111 26 2040 GRAHAMS Grahams 1929 Timber deck 90.0 85 40 213% 2.22 89 96% 3 0.99 88 3 2017 HAKAKINO Hakakino 1946 concrete beams 236.1 68 100 68% 1.14 114 60% 1 1.24 141 73 2087 HALL Hall Road culvert 1968 concrete box 77.7 46 100 46% 1.00 100 46% 1 1.18 118 72 2086 HOMEWOOD culvert(Putinka Stream) 1960 concrete box 116.6 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 HOMEWOOD Benmore(old No1)Waihora Stream 1942 Reinforced Concrete 729.6 72 100 72% 1.17 117 62% 1 1.25 145 73 2087 HOMEWOOD Hargreaves 1960 Box Culvert 115.5 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 HOMEWOOD culvert(Kohiwai Stream) 1960 concrete box 91.1 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 HOMEWOOD Jennings (old No2 Motuwaireka Stm) 1943 Reinforced Concrete Slab 944.2 71 100 71% 1.16 116 61% 1 1.25 144 73 2087 HOMEWOOD culvert 1960 concrete box 115.5 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 HOMEWOOD culvert(Harapaki) 1960 concrete box 97.0 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 HOMEWOOD Eparaima (old No3) 1955 concrete slab 987.2 59 100 59% 1.07 107 55% 1 1.22 130 71 2085 HOMEWOOD Waikaraka Culvert 1970 2xconcrete pipe 75.6 44 100 44% 1.00 100 44% 1 1.18 118 74 2088 HOMEWOOD Kaikohe 1960 concrete beams 255.2 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 117 of 126

ROAD NAME BRIDGE NAME DATE TYPE Replace Age Base % Base Economic Economic % Econ Condition Conditio Conditio Remainin Replace (deck/beam/sub structure) cost @ Life Life Life Factor Life Life Score n Factor n Life g Life as Year? 2014 at 2014 HOMEWOOD Matariki (old No5) 1947 concrete beams 1151.0 67 100 67% 1.13 113 59% 1 1.24 140 73 2087 HOMEWOOD Homewood (old No6)Kamokopuna 1937 concrete slab 247.7 77 100 77% 1.20 120 64% 1 1.26 151 74 2088 HOMEWOOD Homewood (old No7) 1940 Steel/concrete 181.0 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 2 1.09 128 54 2068 HOMEWOOD Homewood (old No7) 1940 Timber deck 37.4 74 40 185% 2.01 81 92% 3 0.98 79 5 2019 JACKSONS LINE Jacksons Line No1 1950 concrete slab 318.4 64 100 64% 1.11 111 58% 1 1.23 136 72 2086 JACKSONS LINE Jacksons Line No2 1952 concrete beams 343.4 62 100 62% 1.09 109 57% 1 1.23 134 72 2086 JACKSONS LINE culvert 1950 concrete box 77.8 64 100 64% 1.11 111 58% 1 1.23 136 72 2086 KAIWHATA Kaiwhata No1 1946 concrete beams 511.6 68 100 68% 1.14 114 60% 1 1.24 141 73 2087 KAIWHATA Kaiwhata No2 1954 concrete beams 1037.3 60 100 60% 1.08 108 56% 1 1.22 132 72 2086 KIRIWHAKAPAPA Kiriwhakapapa No1 1940 concrete beams 529.3 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 KIRIWHAKAPAPA Kiriwhakapapa No2 1944 concrete beams 529.3 70 100 70% 1.15 115 61% 1 1.24 143 73 2087 KIRIWHAKAPAPA Kiriwhakapapa No3 1985 Steel/concrete 177.5 29 100 29% 1.00 100 29% 1 1.12 112 83 2097 KIRIWHAKAPAPA Kiriwhakapapa No3 1985 Timber deck 36.7 29 100 29% 1.00 100 29% 3 0.79 79 50 2064 KNIGHTS Knights 1950 steel/concrete 300.2 64 100 64% 1.11 111 58% 1 1.23 136 72 2086 KNIGHTS Knights 1950 Timber deck 62.1 64 40 160% 1.83 73 88% 3 0.96 70 6 2020 KNIGHTS culvert 1950 concrete box 62.7 64 100 64% 1.11 111 58% 1 1.23 136 72 2086 LANGDALE culvert 1960 concrete box 122.4 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 LANGDALE culvert 1961 concrete box 138.9 53 100 53% 1.02 102 52% 1 1.21 123 70 2084 LANGDALE Tamana 1937 concrete beam 998.8 77 100 77% 1.20 120 64% 1 1.26 151 74 2088 LETTS Letts No1 1943 concrete beams 501.1 71 100 71% 1.16 116 61% 1 1.25 144 73 2087 LETTS Letts No 2 1941 concrete beams 279.0 73 100 73% 1.17 117 62% 1 1.25 146 73 2087 LONGRIDGE Longridge culvert 1940 concrete box 72.5 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 MANAWA Flag Creek culvert 1970 steel(armco) 501.1 44 100 44% 1.00 100 44% 1 1.18 118 74 2088 MANAWA culvert 1965 concrete box 89.0 49 100 49% 1.00 100 49% 1 1.20 120 71 2085 MANAWA Black Swamp 1954 RSJ 686.7 60 100 60% 1.08 108 56% 1 1.22 132 72 2086 MANAWA Ruru(Grassendale) 1936 concrete beams 893.2 78 100 78% 1.21 121 64% 1 1.26 152 74 2088 MANAWA culvert(Bogwollah Creek) 1963 concrete box 70.9 51 100 51% 1.01 101 51% 1 1.20 121 70 2084 MANAWA Manawa No6 1962 concrete slab 110.2 52 100 52% 1.02 102 51% 1 1.20 122 70 2084 MANGAMAHOE CENTRAL Mangamahoe Te Punga 1952 concrete beams 355.3 62 100 62% 1.09 109 57% 1 1.23 134 72 2086 MANGAORANGA Mangaoranga 1965 concrete beams 232.9 49 100 49% 1.00 100 49% 1 1.20 120 71 2085 MANGAPURUPURU Mangapurupuru 1966 Steel/concrete 232.9 48 100 48% 1.00 100 48% 1 1.19 119 71 2085 MANGAPURUPURU Mangapurupuru 1966 Timber deck 48.2 48 40 120% 1.53 61 79% 3 0.94 57 9 2023 MANGAPURUPURU culvert 1964 concrete box 75.5 50 100 50% 1.00 100 50% 1 1.20 120 70 2084 MANGAREI Mangarei No1(Taueru R) 1971 concrete beams 944.2 43 100 43% 1.00 100 43% 1 1.17 117 74 2088 MANGAREI Mangarei No2 1950 Steel/concrete 204.2 64 100 64% 1.11 111 58% 1 1.23 136 72 2086 MANGAREI Mangarei No2 2003 Timber deck 42.2 11 40 28% 1.00 40 28% 1 1.11 44 33 2047 MANGAREI Mangarei No3 1969 concrete beams 592.8 45 100 45% 1.00 100 45% 1 1.18 118 73 2087 MANGAREI NORTH culvert(Matheson's) 1974 concrete box 65.6 40 100 40% 1.00 100 40% 1 1.16 116 76 2090 MARINGI Glendonald No4 1940 Reinforced Concrete 217.5 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 MARINGI Wainuiomapu No1 1956 RSJ 361.9 58 100 58% 1.06 106 55% 1 1.22 129 71 2085 MARINGI Maringi 1935 timber/timber 278.4 79 50 158% 1.81 91 87% 3 0.96 87 8 2022 MARINGI Maringi 1935 Timber deck 57.6 79 40 198% 2.11 84 94% 3 0.98 83 4 2018 MAST/CASTLEPOINT culvert 1935 concrete twin box 220.2 79 100 79% 1.22 122 65% 1 1.26 153 74 2088 MAST/CASTLEPOINT culvert 1935 concrete box 94.5 79 100 79% 1.22 122 65% 1 1.26 153 74 2088 MAST/CASTLEPOINT culvert 1955 concrete box 94.5 59 100 59% 1.07 107 55% 1 1.22 130 71 2085 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Goodlands No3(Whangaehu R) 1933 Reinforced Concrete 842.2 81 100 81% 1.23 123 66% 1 1.26 156 75 2089 MAST/CASTLEPOINT culvert 1933 concrete box 95.8 81 100 81% 1.23 123 66% 1 1.26 156 75 2089 MAST/CASTLEPOINT culvert 1955 concrete box 225.4 59 100 59% 1.07 107 55% 1 1.22 130 71 2085 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Taueru 1922 Reinforced Concrete 2180.3 92 100 92% 1.32 132 70% 1 1.28 168 76 2090 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Kahumingi 1922 Reinforced Concrete 1191.0 92 100 92% 1.32 132 70% 1 1.28 168 76 2090 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Tinakori 1995 Reinforced Concrete+DHC Units 472.1 19 100 19% 1.00 100 19% 1 1.08 108 89 2103 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Rorokoko 1920 Earth Filled Arch 272.0 94 100 94% 1.33 133 71% 1 1.28 171 77 2091 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Hangmans 1961 Reinforced Concrete 1802.6 53 100 53% 1.02 102 52% 1 1.21 123 70 2084 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Maranga culvert 1942 concrete box 119.7 72 100 72% 1.17 117 62% 1 1.25 145 73 2087 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Willowbank (Mangapakeha R) 1927 Reinforced Concrete 922.2 87 100 87% 1.28 128 68% 1 1.27 163 76 2090 MAST/CASTLEPOINT OHara's 1964 Reinforced Concrete 1321.5 50 100 50% 1.00 100 50% 1 1.20 120 70 2084 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Tinui culvert 1942 concrete box 138.6 72 100 72% 1.17 117 62% 1 1.25 145 73 2087 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Tinui 1923 Reinforced Concrete 1051.5 91 100 91% 1.31 131 70% 1 1.28 167 76 2090 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Ekenui 1955 Reinforced Concrete 2618.1 59 100 59% 1.07 107 55% 1 1.22 130 71 2085 MAST/CASTLEPOINT culvert 1942 concrete box 117.6 72 100 72% 1.17 117 62% 1 1.25 145 73 2087

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 118 of 126

ROAD NAME BRIDGE NAME DATE TYPE Replace Age Base % Base Economic Economic % Econ Condition Conditio Conditio Remainin Replace (deck/beam/sub structure) cost @ Life Life Life Factor Life Life Score n Factor n Life g Life as Year? 2014 at 2014 MAST/CASTLEPOINT culvert 1942 concrete box 128.1 72 100 72% 1.17 117 62% 1 1.25 145 73 2087 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Bull Gully culvert 1935 concrete box 255.5 79 100 79% 1.22 122 65% 1 1.26 153 74 2088 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Whakataki No1 1940 Reinforced Concrete 2216.8 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Whakataki No2 1963 Reinforced Concrete 1258.6 51 100 51% 1.01 101 51% 1 1.20 121 70 2084 MAST/CASTLEPOINT Castlepoint culvert 1964 concrete triple box 319.2 50 100 50% 1.00 100 50% 1 1.20 120 70 2084 MAST/STRONVAR No1 1934 Reinforced Concrete 285.4 80 100 80% 1.23 123 65% 1 1.26 155 75 2089 MAST/STRONVAR No2(Whangaehu R) 1939 Reinforced Concrete Slab 1073.0 75 100 75% 1.19 119 63% 1 1.25 149 74 2088 MAST/STRONVAR No3 1940 concrete slab 251.7 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 MAST/STRONVAR Parawhaiti Stream No4 1935 concrete arch(earth-filled) 1070.1 79 100 79% 1.22 122 65% 1 1.26 153 74 2088 MAST/STRONVAR Taueru River No5 1941 Reinforced Concrete 3217.8 73 100 73% 1.17 117 62% 1 1.25 146 73 2087 MAST/STRONVAR No6 Karearea 1931 Reinforced Concrete 283.0 83 100 83% 1.25 125 67% 1 1.27 158 75 2089 MAST/STRONVAR No7 Longridge 1940 Reinforced Concrete slab 298.4 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 MAST/STRONVAR culvert 1930 concrete box 70.6 84 100 84% 1.26 126 67% 1 1.27 159 75 2089 MAST/STRONVAR Brancepeth 1924 concrete beams 823.4 90 100 90% 1.30 130 69% 1 1.28 166 76 2090 MAST/STRONVAR Whakatahine Stream 1931 Reinforced Concrete 1276.0 83 100 83% 1.25 125 67% 1 1.27 158 75 2089 MAST/STRONVAR Waipapa Stream, Puketiritiri culvert 1945 concrete box 401.5 69 100 69% 1.14 114 60% 1 1.24 142 73 2087 MAST/STRONVAR Wilson's 1943 concrete box 90.3 71 100 71% 1.16 116 61% 1 1.25 144 73 2087 MAST/STRONVAR Awatiritiri Stream 1935 concrete box 142.1 79 100 79% 1.22 122 65% 1 1.26 153 74 2088 MATAHIWI culvert 1961 concrete twin box 115.0 53 100 53% 1.02 102 52% 1 1.21 123 70 2084 MATAHIWI culvert 1961 concrete box 94.5 53 100 53% 1.02 102 52% 1 1.21 123 70 2084 MATAHIWI Matahiwi 1934 concrete beams 232.9 80 100 80% 1.23 123 65% 1 1.26 155 75 2089 MATAIKONA Mataikona No1 Okau 1959 concrete beams 343.4 55 100 55% 1.04 104 53% 1 1.21 126 71 2085 MAUNGARU culvert 1965 concrete box 65.6 49 100 49% 1.00 100 49% 1 1.20 120 71 2085 MCGRUDDY MAURICEVILLE McGruddys 1954 timber/steel(1 span only)/timber 278.4 60 50 120% 1.53 76 79% 3 0.94 71 11 2025 MCGRUDDY MAURICEVILLE McGruddys 1954 Timber deck 57.6 60 40 150% 1.75 70 86% 2 1.16 81 21 2035 MCKENZIE KOPURANGA Mckenzie Hills 1957 steelcastell/concrete 276.0 57 100 57% 1.05 105 54% 1 1.22 128 71 2085 MIKIMIKI Mikmiki 1962 concrete beams 973.8 52 100 52% 1.02 102 51% 1 1.20 122 70 2084 MORRIS Morris 2014 concretesteel/concrete 148.2 0 100 0% 1.00 100 0% 1 1.00 100 100 2114 MT MUNRO culvert 1967 concrete box 66.1 47 100 47% 1.00 100 47% 1 1.19 119 72 2086 MT MUNRO culvert 1967 concrete box 66.1 47 100 47% 1.00 100 47% 1 1.19 119 72 2086 MT MUNRO NORTH Mt Munro 1935 concrete arch(earth-filled) 83.3 79 100 79% 1.22 122 65% 1 1.26 153 74 2088 NGAHAPE Karori(Kaiwhata River) 1939 concrete beams 529.3 75 100 75% 1.19 119 63% 1 1.25 149 74 2088 NGAHAPE Ngahape 1937 concrete box 85.5 77 100 77% 1.20 120 64% 1 1.26 151 74 2088 NGATAHUNA Ngatahuna 1968 concrete beams 254.7 46 100 46% 1.00 100 46% 1 1.18 118 72 2086 NGAUMU Deep Gorge(Upoko-nga-ruru Stream) 1984 steel 1496.4 30 100 30% 1.00 100 30% 1 1.12 112 82 2096 NORTH North Road culvert 1966 concrete box 84.6 48 100 48% 1.00 100 48% 1 1.19 119 71 2085 NORTHCROFT Northcroft 1987 Steel/concrete 150.8 27 100 27% 1.00 100 27% 1 1.11 111 84 2098 NORTHCROFT Northcroft 1987 Timber deck 31.2 27 40 68% 1.13 45 60% 3 0.88 40 13 2027 NURSERY Nursery Rd (Makoura Stream) 1968 concrete twin box 267.3 46 100 46% 1.00 100 46% 1 1.18 118 72 2086 OPAKI/KAIPARORO Double Bridges 1937 concrete beams 2618.1 77 100 77% 1.20 120 64% 1 1.26 151 74 2088 OPAKI/KAIPARORO No2 (9.4 miles) 1940 RC Slab 810.0 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 OPAKI/KAIPARORO No3(9.7 miles) Waingawa Camp 1935 Reinforced Concrete 389.2 79 100 79% 1.22 122 65% 1 1.26 153 74 2088 OPAKI/KAIPARORO Old Boundary (No4)Kopuaranga R 1954 RC Arched Slab 1456.4 60 100 60% 1.08 108 56% 1 1.22 132 72 2086 OPAKI/KAIPARORO culvert(opp Dorsets Rd Br) 1935 Box Culvert 406.0 79 100 79% 1.22 122 65% 1 1.26 153 74 2088 OPAKI/KAIPARORO culvert 1935 Box Culvert 418.6 79 100 79% 1.22 122 65% 1 1.26 153 74 2088 OPAKI/KAIPARORO Brooke's(Clarke's Domain) 1942 Reinforced Concrete 1416.4 72 100 72% 1.17 117 62% 1 1.25 145 73 2087 OPAKI/KAIPARORO Mauriceville Overbridge 1977 DHC Units 324.8 37 100 37% 1.00 100 37% 1 1.15 115 78 2092 OPAKI/KAIPARORO Mauriceville 1941 Reinforced Concrete 1185.5 73 100 73% 1.17 117 62% 1 1.25 146 73 2087 OPAKI/KAIPARORO old No8(1.5 miles) 1950 Reinforced Concrete 515.0 64 100 64% 1.11 111 58% 1 1.23 136 72 2086 OPAKI/KAIPARORO old No9(McKenzies) 1939 Reinforced Concrete 596.8 75 100 75% 1.19 119 63% 1 1.25 149 74 2088 OPAKI/KAIPARORO Hastwell Cemetery old No10 1945 Reinforced Concrete 772.6 69 100 69% 1.14 114 60% 1 1.24 142 73 2087 OPAKI/KAIPARORO culvert 1935 concrete box 110.1 79 100 79% 1.22 122 65% 1 1.26 153 74 2088 OPAKI/KAIPARORO Lochores(5 miles) 1930 concrete arch(earth-filled?) 149.4 84 100 84% 1.26 126 67% 1 1.27 159 75 2089 OTAHOME Otahome 1945 Steel/concrete 229.7 69 100 69% 1.14 114 60% 1 1.24 142 73 2087 OTAHOME Otahome 1945 Timber deck 47.5 69 40 173% 1.92 77 90% 1 1.36 104 35 2049 PACK SPUR Mataikona No2 (MCG) 1961 Steel/concrete 241.3 53 100 53% 1.02 102 52% 1 1.21 123 70 2084 PACK SPUR Mataikona No2 (MCG) 1961 Timber deck 241.3 53 40 133% 1.62 65 82% 3 0.95 61 8 2022 PACK SPUR Mataikona No3 1961 Steel/concrete 226.2 53 100 53% 1.02 102 52% 1 1.21 123 70 2084

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 119 of 126

ROAD NAME BRIDGE NAME DATE TYPE Replace Age Base % Base Economic Economic % Econ Condition Conditio Conditio Remainin Replace (deck/beam/sub structure) cost @ Life Life Life Factor Life Life Score n Factor n Life g Life as Year? 2014 at 2014 PACK SPUR Mataikona No3 1961 Timber deck 46.8 53 40 133% 1.62 65 82% 3 0.95 61 8 2022 PACK SPUR culvert 1960 concrete box 71.2 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 PAIERAU Waipoua(Kummer's) 1932 Reinforced Concrete 1278.9 82 100 82% 1.24 124 66% 1 1.26 157 75 2089 PALMERS Palmers 1969 concrete slab 444.6 45 100 45% 1.00 100 45% 1 1.18 118 73 2087 PEAKS Peaks 1966 concrete beams 1037.3 48 100 48% 1.00 100 48% 1 1.19 119 71 2085 PENROSE Sheltons 1968 concrete beams 729.6 46 100 46% 1.00 100 46% 1 1.18 118 72 2086 PUKETIRITIRI Puketiritiri 1962 concrete beams 355.0 52 100 52% 1.02 102 51% 1 1.20 122 70 2084 RIVERSDALE Riversdale culvert 1962 concrete box 71.8 52 100 52% 1.02 102 51% 1 1.20 122 70 2084 SMITHS LINE Smiths Line(Kopauranga Str) 1969 concrete beams 343.4 45 100 45% 1.00 100 45% 1 1.18 118 73 2087 SOUTH No1 1950 concrete slab 493.6 64 100 64% 1.11 111 58% 1 1.23 136 72 2086 SOUTH No2 1950 concrete beams 526.4 64 100 64% 1.11 111 58% 1 1.23 136 72 2086 SPRINGHILL culvert No1 1966 concrete box 63.2 48 100 48% 1.00 100 48% 1 1.19 119 71 2085 SPRINGHILL culvert No2(Langdons) 1961 concrete box 65.2 53 100 53% 1.02 102 52% 1 1.21 123 70 2084 SPRINGHILL Springhill No3(Makirikiri Str) 1960 Steel/concrete 226.2 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 SPRINGHILL Springhill No3(Makirikiri Str) 1960 Timber deck 46.8 54 40 135% 1.64 66 82% 3 0.95 62 8 2022 SPRINGHILL Springhill No4(Makirikiri Str) 1977 concrete beams 203.0 37 100 37% 1.00 100 37% 1 1.15 115 78 2092 STATION Station Road 1936 concrete beams 287.1 78 100 78% 1.21 121 64% 1 1.26 152 74 2088 STODDARTS Stoddarts 1957 steelcastell/concrete 693.7 57 100 57% 1.05 105 54% 1 1.22 128 71 2085 STODDARTS Stoddarts 2000 Timber deck 143.5 14 40 35% 1.00 40 35% 2 1.01 40 26 2040 TANGLEWOOD Tanglewood No1 1930 Steel/concrete 146.2 84 100 84% 1.26 126 67% 1 1.27 159 75 2089 TANGLEWOOD Tanglewood No1 1930 Timber deck 30.2 84 40 210% 2.20 88 95% 4 0.79 69 -15 1999 TANGLEWOOD culvert 1959 concrete box 154.0 55 100 55% 1.04 104 53% 1 1.21 126 71 2085 TANGLEWOOD Tanglewood No2 1946 concrete slab 127.0 68 100 68% 1.14 114 60% 1 1.24 141 73 2087 TANIWHA culvert 1940 concrete box 88.2 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 TANIWHA Orere (Taniwha No1) 1980 DHC Units 565.5 34 100 34% 1.00 100 34% 1 1.14 114 80 2094 TANIWHA Ngataki No1 (Taniwha No2) 1981 DHC Units 922.8 33 100 33% 1.00 100 33% 1 1.13 113 80 2094 TANIWHA Ngataki No2 (Taniwha No3) 1982 concrete 858.4 32 100 32% 1.00 100 32% 1 1.13 113 81 2095 TE HAU culvert 1960 concrete box 60.4 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 TE KANUKA Te Kanuka 1935 Steel/timber 471.0 79 100 79% 1.22 122 65% 1 1.26 153 74 2088 TE KANUKA Te Kanuka 2011 Timber deck 471.0 3 40 8% 1.00 40 8% 2 0.92 37 34 2048 TE MAI TeMai iti 1954 Timber/RSJ 259.8 60 100 60% 1.08 108 56% 1 1.22 132 72 2086 TE MAI TeMai iti 1954 Timber deck 53.8 60 40 150% 1.75 70 86% 2 1.16 81 21 2035 TE MARA Forest Home 1936 steel(1 span only)/timber/concrete 271.4 78 50 156% 1.80 90 87% 4 0.76 68 -10 2004 TE MARA Forest Home 1936 Timber deck 56.2 78 40 195% 2.09 84 93% 3 0.98 82 4 2018 TE ORE ORE Ruamahanga Te OreOre 1973 concrete beams 5289.6 41 100 41% 1.00 100 41% 1 1.16 116 75 2089 TE ORE ORE BIDEFORD STOCK U/PASS S CAMERON NO2 2014 box culvert 199.5 77 100 77% 1.20 120 64% 1 1.26 151 74 2088 TE ORE ORE BIDEFORD Wellbrocks Culvert 1940 box culvert 168.0 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 TE ORE ORE BIDEFORD Mckays #1 1937 concrete 884.5 77 100 77% 1.20 120 64% 1 1.26 151 74 2088 TE ORE ORE BIDEFORD McKays #2 1936 concrete slab 254.0 78 100 78% 1.21 121 64% 1 1.26 152 74 2088 TE ORE ORE BIDEFORD Sulphur Wells No1 1940 concrete beams 329.4 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 TE ORE ORE BIDEFORD Sulphur Wells No2 1940 Reinforced Concrete 381.1 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 TE ORE ORE BIDEFORD Sulphur Wells No3 1939 concrete slab 159.5 75 100 75% 1.19 119 63% 1 1.25 149 74 2088 TE ORE ORE BIDEFORD Bridge Creek 1940 Reinforced Concrete 558.0 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 TE ORE ORE BIDEFORD Rosebank 1936 concrete beams 1819.2 78 100 78% 1.21 121 64% 2 1.09 132 54 2068 TE ORE ORE BIDEFORD Cathedral 1940 Conc Arch cvt 120.5 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 TE ORE ORE SETTLEMENT STOCK U/PASS S CAMERON NO1 2005 box culvert 160.1 9 100 9% 1.00 100 9% 1 1.04 104 95 2109 TE ORE ORE SETTLEMENT Te Ore Ore Settlement 1989 PC beams 343.4 25 100 25% 1.00 100 25% 1 1.10 110 85 2099 TE PARAE Te Parae No1 1929 Timber/RSJ 182.7 85 100 85% 1.26 126 67% 1 1.27 160 75 2089 TE PARAE Te Parae No1 1970 Timber deck 37.8 44 40 110% 1.45 58 76% 1 1.30 76 32 2046 TE PARAE Te Parae No2 1943 Reinforced Concrete 922.8 71 100 71% 1.16 116 61% 1 1.25 144 73 2087 TE WHITI Makoura Stream 1936 Reinforced Concrete Slab 343.4 78 100 78% 1.21 121 64% 1 1.26 152 74 2088 TE WHITI Wardells 1946 concrete beams 4318.7 68 100 68% 1.14 114 60% 1 1.24 141 73 2087 TE WHITI SETTLEMENT ROAD Te Whiti stock u/pass 2013 concrete box 105.0 1 100 1% 1.00 100 1% 1 1.00 100 99 2113 TILDESLEY Tildesleys 1954 steel/timber 219.2 60 100 60% 1.08 108 56% 1 1.22 132 72 2086 TILDESLEY Tildesleys 1954 Timber deck 45.4 60 40 150% 1.75 70 86% 1 1.34 94 34 2048 TINUI VALLEY culvert(Woodhurst) 1961 concrete box 94.0 53 100 53% 1.02 102 52% 1 1.21 123 70 2084 TINUI VALLEY Bartholomews 1960 Reinforced Concrete 901.3 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 120 of 126

ROAD NAME BRIDGE NAME DATE TYPE Replace Age Base % Base Economic Economic % Econ Condition Conditio Conditio Remainin Replace (deck/beam/sub structure) cost @ Life Life Life Factor Life Life Score n Factor n Life g Life as Year? 2014 at 2014 UPPER WAINGAWA Upper Waingawa(Black Creek) 1948 Steel/concrete 193.1 66 100 66% 1.12 112 59% 1 1.24 138 72 2086 UPPER WAINGAWA Upper Waingawa(Black Creek) 1970 Timber deck 40.0 44 40 110% 1.45 58 76% 1 1.30 76 32 2046 UPPER WAINGAWA culvert 1965 concrete box 36.6 49 100 49% 1.00 100 49% 1 1.20 120 71 2085 UPPER WAINGAWA STOCK U/PASS 1995 concrete box 94.5 19 100 19% 1.00 100 19% 1 1.08 108 89 2103 WAIMIMI Waimimi No1 1956 concrete beams 1373.4 58 100 58% 1.06 106 55% 1 1.22 129 71 2085 WAIMIMI Waimimi No2 1960 concrete beams 364.8 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 WAIMIMI Waimimi No3 1959 concrete beams 343.4 55 100 55% 1.04 104 53% 1 1.21 126 71 2085 WAINUIOMAPU Wainuiomapu No2 1956 steel/concrete 226.2 58 100 58% 1.06 106 55% 1 1.22 129 71 2085 WAINUIOMAPU Wainuiomapu No2 1956 Timber deck 46.8 58 40 145% 1.71 69 85% 1 1.34 92 34 2048 WAIRONGO Uruti culvert 1983 conc box, s/bag walls 104.4 31 100 31% 1.00 100 31% 1 1.12 112 81 2095 WATERFALLS Waterfalls 1962 steel/concrete 181.0 52 100 52% 1.02 102 51% 1 1.20 122 70 2084 WATERFALLS Waterfalls 1962 Timber deck 37.4 52 40 130% 1.60 64 81% 1 1.33 85 33 2047 WATSONS culvert 1960 concrete box 51.0 54 100 54% 1.03 103 52% 1 1.21 125 71 2085 WATSONS STOCK U/PASS J PERCY 2014 concrete box 105.0 0 100 0% 1.00 100 0% 1 1.00 100 100 2114 WEST South No3 1938 concrete slab 211.7 76 100 76% 1.20 120 64% 1 1.25 150 74 2088 WESTMERE Westmere No1 1933 concrete beams 414.7 81 100 81% 1.23 123 66% 1 1.26 156 75 2089 WESTMERE Westmere No2 1931 concrete beams 292.3 83 100 83% 1.25 125 67% 1 1.27 158 75 2089 WESTMERE culvert No3 1933 concrete box 35.8 81 100 81% 1.23 123 66% 1 1.26 156 75 2089 WESTMERE culvert No4 1933 concrete box 169.4 81 100 81% 1.23 123 66% 1 1.26 156 75 2089 WESTMERE culvert No5 1933 concrete box 73.9 81 100 81% 1.23 123 66% 1 1.26 156 75 2089 WESTMERE Westmere No 6 1933 concrete beams 287.1 81 100 81% 1.23 123 66% 1 1.26 156 75 2089 WHANGAEHU VALLEY Waiohine 1934 concrete beams 283.0 80 100 80% 1.23 123 65% 1 1.26 155 75 2089 WHANGAEHU VALLEY Kaipo 1942 concrete beams 1244.7 72 100 72% 1.17 117 62% 1 1.25 145 73 2087 WHANGAEHU VALLEY No3 1944 concrete beams 1227.9 70 100 70% 1.15 115 61% 1 1.24 143 73 2087 WHANGAEHU VALLEY Waimanu 1934 concrete beams 313.2 80 100 80% 1.23 123 65% 1 1.26 155 75 2089 WHANGAEHU VALLEY Banavie Culvert 1967 concrete box 25.0 47 100 47% 1.00 100 47% 1 1.19 119 72 2086 WHANGAEHU VALLEY Ditton 1928 concrete beams 797.5 86 100 86% 1.27 127 68% 1 1.27 161 75 2089 WHANGAEHU VALLEY Pohau Culvert 1962 concrete box 61.3 52 100 52% 1.02 102 51% 1 1.20 122 70 2084 WHANGAEHU VALLEY Callister's culvert 1962 concrete box 64.8 52 100 52% 1.02 102 51% 1 1.20 122 70 2084 WHANGAEHU VALLEY Brown's Culvert 1963 concrete box 108.2 51 100 51% 1.01 101 51% 1 1.20 121 70 2084 WHANGAEHU VALLEY Wai iti 1934 concrete 283.0 80 100 80% 1.23 123 65% 1 1.26 155 75 2089 WHANGAEHU VALLEY No 11 1955 concrete beams 739.5 59 100 59% 1.07 107 55% 1 1.22 130 71 2085 BUNNY Makoura Stream 1920 concrete box 105.0 94 100 94% 1.33 133 71% 1 1.28 171 77 2091 COLE Makoura Stream 1940 concrete arch 210.0 74 100 74% 1.18 118 63% 1 1.25 148 74 2088 COLOMBO Waipoua River (old) 1920 concrete 2328.7 94 100 94% 1.33 133 71% 1 1.28 171 77 2091 COLOMBO Waipoua River (new) 1973 concrete 2328.7 41 100 41% 1.00 100 41% 1 1.16 116 75 2089 COLOMBO Makoura Stream(between 143 & 145) 1934 concrete twin box 210.0 80 100 80% 1.23 123 65% 1 1.26 155 75 2089 COLOMBO cnr Kuripuni St 1930 concrete 140.0 84 100 84% 1.26 126 67% 1 1.27 159 75 2089 DIXON Makoura Stream 1920 concrete box 140.0 94 100 94% 1.33 133 71% 1 1.28 171 77 2091 ESSEX ST Essex St 1930 Arch Culvert 280.0 84 100 84% 1.26 126 67% 1 1.27 159 75 2089 ESSEX ST Essex St 1930 Arch Culvert 280.0 84 100 84% 1.26 126 67% 1 1.27 159 75 2089 HOGG CR Makoura Stream 1920 concrete box 63.0 94 100 94% 1.33 133 71% 1 1.28 171 77 2091 KAKA ST WALKWAY Kaka St 1950 Timber 69.6 64 100 64% 1.11 111 58% 1 1.23 136 72 2086 MAKOURA RD Makoura Stream 1955 concrete twin box 280.0 59 100 59% 1.07 107 55% 1 1.22 130 71 2085 QUEEN Horseshoe culvert 1959 concrete 220.5 55 100 55% 1.04 104 53% 1 1.21 126 71 2085 QUEEN Makoura Stream (Power Board) 1930 concrete box 220.5 84 100 84% 1.26 126 67% 1 1.27 159 75 2089 RENALL Makoura Stream 1955 concrete box 210.0 59 100 59% 1.07 107 55% 1 1.22 130 71 2085 RENALL Makoura Stream 1955 concrete box 210.0 59 100 59% 1.07 107 55% 1 1.22 130 71 2085 SPORTSBOWL Swingbridge 2012 concrete & wire 1319.5 2 100 2% 1.00 100 2% 1 1.01 101 99 2113 TE ORE ORE Hospital Gate 1980 concrete box 154.0 34 100 34% 1.00 100 34% 1 1.14 114 80 2094 THIRD Lansdowne Creek 1930 concrete box 231.0 84 100 84% 1.26 126 67% 1 1.27 159 75 2089 TOTARA Lansdowne Creek 1930 concrete box 210.0 84 100 84% 1.26 126 67% 1 1.27 159 75 2089

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 121 of 126

Appendix 15 – STE table Smooth Travel Exposure (Hosted - Masterton District Council) where owner type is Local Authority

Urban Rural All Roads VPD<500 VPD<1000 Urban Total VKT VKT(NAASRA<=180) Percentage Total VKT VKT(NAASRA<=150) Percentage Total VKT VKT on Smooth Roads Percentage 3526563 3363679 95% 35328077 35003121 99% 56792807 47533922 84%

VPD 500-3999 VPD>=1000 Rural Total VKT VKT(NAASRA<=150) Percentage Total VKT VKT(NAASRA<=130) Percentage Total VKT VKT on Smooth Roads Percentage 28167828 26770282 95% 17531795 17298019 99% 52859872 52301140 99%

VPD 4000-9999 All Both Total VKT VKT(NAASRA<=120) Percentage Total VKT VKT on Smooth Roads Percentage Total VKT VKT on Smooth Roads Percentage 25098416 17399961 69% 52859872 52301140 99% 109652679 99835062 91%

VPD>=10000 Total VKT VKT(NAASRA<=110) Percentage 0 0 0%

All Total VKT VKT on Smooth Roads Percentage 56792807 47533922 84%

Appendix 16 – Summary of Forecast 2015 – 2025

FORWARD PROGRAMME 2015-2025 (and Admin at 2.25% allowed throughout) 2014 - 2015 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 - 2020 - 2021 - 2022 - 2023 - 2024 - Maintenance 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total

111 Sealed pavement maintenance 607 106 713 607 106 713 607 106 713 607 106 713 768 787 807 829 854 880 909

112 Unsealed pavement maintenance 420 420 440 440 440 440 440 440 474 485 498 512 527 543 561

113 Routine drainage maintenance 179 38 217 189 38 227 189 38 227 189 38 227 244 250 257 264 272 280 289

Street cleaning (30% subsidisable) 40 40 45 45 45 45 45 45 48 50 51 52 54 56 57

114 Structures maintenance 87 25 112 97 25 122 97 25 122 97 25 122 131 135 138 142 146 151 156

121 Environmental maintenance 590 17 607 560 17 577 560 17 577 560 17 577 621 637 653 671 691 712 736

123 Traffic services maintenance 60 156 216 60 156 216 60 156 216 60 156 216 233 238 244 251 259 267 275

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 122 of 126

FORWARD PROGRAMME 2015-2025 (and Admin at 2.25% allowed throughout) 2014 - 2015 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 - 2020 - 2021 - 2022 - 2023 - 2024 - Maintenance 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

124 Cycle path maintenance 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3

131 Level crossing warning devices 72 72 22 22 22 22 22 22 24 24 25 26 26 27 28

140 Minor events 0 160 160 160 160 160 160 172 177 181 186 192 197 204

151 Network and asset management 292 159 451 292 175 467 292 175 467 292 175 467 503 515 529 543 559 576 595

Subtotal Maintenance 2850 2991 2991 2991 3220 3300 3386 3477 3581 3691 3814

Renewals

211 Unsealed road metalling 620 620 681 681 761 761 761 761 819 840 861 885 911 939 970

212 Sealed road resurfacing 588 346 934 588 346 934 588 346 934 588 346 934 1006 1030 1057 1086 1118 1153 1191

213 Drainage renewals 143 142 285 143 142 285 143 142 285 143 142 285 307 314 323 331 341 352 363

214 Pavement rehabilitation 499 243 742 673 673 571 100 671 585 100 685 738 756 775 796 820 845 873

215 Structures component replacements 295 3 298 65 3 68 65 3 68 65 3 68 73 75 77 79 81 84 87

222 Traffic services renewals 110 126 236 110 126 236 110 126 236 110 126 236 254 260 267 274 283 291 301

231 Associated improvements 80 10 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal Renewals 3205 2877 2955 2969 3197 3276 3361 3452 3555 3664 3786

215 (continued) Bridge Upgrades 70 70 70 70 75 77 79 81 84 86 89 Total of Renewals & Maintenance 6055 5868 5946 5960 6492 6576 6746 7010 7220 7442 7599

141 Emergency reinstatement 500 340 New & Improved Infrastructure

HPMV route investigation (100%)

322 Bridge renewals

341 Minor improvements 513 565 515 554 568 583 599 617 636 657 Road Safety Promotion

431 Community coordination/ progs High Priority 165.5 165.5 165.5 174 179 183 188 194 200 206

Medium Priority 40 40 40 42 43 44 45 47 48 50

Transport Planning

411 Forestry network Roading Study

AMP Updates and improvements

412 Cycle Strategy

412 Crash reduction study

Rail crossing Half arm barriers @100%FAR 100

Asset management plans 15 15 15 15 16 17 17 17 18 19 19

321 LED streetlight conversion 350 350 350 350

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 123 of 126

Appendix 17 – Cost of Service Statement for Roading Activity (from 2015/25 LTP)

ROADING Annual Plan 2014/15 Cost of Service Statement 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 $ Operating Costs $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

3,627,482 Road maintenance - subsidised 3,851,879 3,801,185 3,874,710 3,952,874 4,049,919 4,164,931 4,265,868 4,386,276 4,528,863 4,651,740 1,248,700 Road maintenance - non-subsidised 1,172,152 1,235,357 1,270,286 1,303,849 1,526,945 1,556,918 1,581,331 1,611,673 1,649,461 1,678,911 920,000 Flood damage provision 513,200 519,358 526,543 538,347 551,177 565,033 580,429 596,852 614,814 633,802 4,792,510 Depreciation 4,742,992 4,636,293 5,351,136 4,858,530 4,950,761 5,349,990 5,400,407 5,361,679 5,839,139 5,876,896 10,588,691 10,280,223 10,192,193 11,022,675 $ 10,653,600 $ 11,078,802 $ 11,636,871 $ 11,828,034 $ 11,956,480 $ 12,632,277 $ 12,841,348

Operating Income NZ Transport Agency subsidy (on 2,204,837 maintenance)* 2,162,552 2,131,613 2,162,306 2,210,374 2,262,974 2,320,045 2,382,164 2,448,906 2,522,229 2,597,495 163,000 Local authority petrol tax 170,000 172,040 174,420 178,330 182,580 187,170 192,270 197,710 203,660 209,950 198,637 Other recoveries 289,020 167,000 169,311 269,855 177,231 181,687 186,638 191,918 221,654 209,975 2,566,474 2,621,572 2,470,653 2,506,036 $ 2,658,560 $ 2,622,785 $ 2,688,902 $ 2,761,072 $ 2,838,534 $ 2,947,543 $ 3,017,420 Appropriations (310,000) Transfers from reserves (125,000) (125,000) (125,000) (125,000) (125,000) (125,000) (125,000) (125,000) (125,000) (125,000) Tsfs to reserves - roading contributions & 326,000 flood damage 274,000 75,900 76,950 159,689 80,550 82,575 384,825 587,225 395,840 598,800 109,810 Provision for loan repayments 119,506 28,030 33,353 39,882 108,913 119,707 130,563 142,105 153,809 156,547 (4,205,955) Reverse depreciation** (4,034,735) (3,786,993) (4,368,535) (3,964,539) (4,049,057) (4,678,184) (4,425,988) (4,386,211) (4,769,673) (4,793,871)

$ 3,942,072 Rates Requirement $ 3,892,422 $ 3,913,476 $ 4,133,407 $ 4,105,072 $ 4,471,422 $ 4,347,067 $ 5,031,362 $ 5,336,065 $ 5,339,709 $ 5,660,404

* Further subsidy income is shown in the Capital Expenditure Summary ** Depreciation is reversed to arrive at the rates requirement. Renewals expenditure (shown in the Capital Expenditure Summary) is funded by rates income and NZTA subsidies, hence depreciation on most roading assets is reversed to set funding.

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 124 of 126

Appendix 18 – Capital Expenditure Statement (from 2015/25 LTP)

ROADING

Annual Plan Capital Expenditure Summary Renewal/New 2014/15 / Growth Source of Funds 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 $ Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Subsidised Roading 2,167,000 Roading Renewals - rural - - 2,320,300 2,329,868 2,395,232 2,453,032 2,515,456 2,582,504 2,654,176 2,732,784 2,818,328 2,910,808 847,000 Roding renewals - urban Renewal Rates & Subsidy 633,700 746,710 762,910 781,320 801,203 822,559 845,387 870,425 897,672 927,128 751,000 Bridge renewals Renewal - 71,900 72,907 - 76,286 - - 82,541 84,986 87,646 - Solway Cres upgrading Growth Subdiv Contrib - 606,372 - - - 759,560 - - - - 500,000 Rural/Urban Minor Improvement projects LOS Rates & Subsidy 308,000 515,112 473,452 456,230 467,840 480,310 493,640 508,260 524,170 541,370 Columbo Road - new footpath western side LOS Rates & Subsidy 174,000 ------Cycleways LOS Rates & Subsidy 70,000 70,980 72,520 74,270 76,160 78,190 80,360 82,740 85,330 88,130 Castlepoint - Rural foothpath LOS General capital 60,000 ------4,265,000 Total Subsidised Roading 3,637,900 4,341,948 3,704,114 3,841,138 3,860,659 4,723,123 4,156,104 4,279,195 4,413,146 4,467,436 Non-subsidised Roading 24,000 Carpark reseal Renewal Depn Reserve 54,000 5,070 5,180 15,915 16,864 - 19,516 7,683 29,256 - 290,000 Footpath upgrading [incl reseals] Renewal Depn Reserve 300,000 304,200 310,800 318,300 326,400 335,100 344,400 354,600 365,700 377,700 270,000 CBD upgrade LOS Devel Contrib & loan - - 614,348 3,246,660 ------Upgrade to LED streetlighting LOS Loan/Depn Reserve - 358,400 367,500 ------182,000 Castlepoint - safety improvmts ------61,000 Streetscape & neighbourhood design (provision) LOS Rates - 101,400 103,600 106,100 108,800 111,700 114,800 118,200 121,900 125,900 Lansdowne village project (roading, paving & seating)LOS Loan, 183,600 ------Loan/General Lansdowne village project (underground power) LOS Capital fund 200,000 ------10,000 Railway Station area upgrade ------50,000 Horsehose carpark landscaping ------887,000 Total Non-subsidised Roading 737,600 769,070 1,401,428 3,686,975 452,064 446,800 478,716 480,483 516,856 503,600

5,152,000 Total 4,375,500 5,111,018 5,105,542 7,528,113 4,312,723 5,169,923 4,634,820 4,759,678 4,930,002 4,971,036 Capital Funding (2,459,377) NZ Transport Agency subsidy (roading) (1,989,813) (2,232,968) (2,111,345) (2,189,449) (2,200,576) (2,389,116) (2,368,980) (2,439,141) (2,515,493) (2,546,438) (767,000) Transfers from reserves (514,000) (912,930) (1,114,078) (334,215) (343,264) (866,792) (363,916) (362,283) (394,956) (377,700) (212,000) Loan funds (283,600) (179,200) (183,750) (3,246,660) ------($3,438,377) Total other funding (2,787,413) (3,325,098) (3,409,173) (5,770,324) (2,543,840) (3,255,908) (2,732,896) (2,801,424) (2,910,449) (2,924,138) $1,713,623 Rates Requirement (Capital) $1,588,087 $1,785,920 $1,696,369 $1,757,789 $1,768,883 $1,914,015 $1,901,925 $1,958,254 $2,019,553 $2,046,897

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 125 of 126

Appendix 19 – 10 year Infrastructure Expenditure Forecast

Expenditure Forecasts $ millions Roading 10 years 8.0 Operating expenditure 7.0 (excl depreciation) 6.0 5.0 Depreciation 4.0 3.0 2.0 Capital & renewals 1.0 expenditure - 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25

Roading Asset Management Plan – 2015 Final Page 126 of 126