REPORT TO THE REG
GOVERNANCE GROUP
DATE
5 December 2013
PREPARED BY
One Network Road Classification Project Team and Asset Management Planning Best Practice
Group
SUBJECT
Final Functional Classification, Provisional Customer Levels of Service, Handover to AMP Group for
Performance Measures Development and Implementation Plan
Purpose
1.
To present, for endorsement, the final Functional Classification designed to differentiate the New Zealand road network
into six categories (and two sub-categories) based on the function and role that each road performs within an integrated
national network.
2.
To present, for endorsement, provisional Customer Levels of Service (CLOS) for each category of the Classification, that
describe the fit for purpose customer experience that each category of road should deliver to users, over time. (The
CLOS will remain provisional at this stage, as they are refined through the development of performance measures by the
Asset Management Planning Group (AMP Group) of REG and tested to ensure they drive value for money investment
decisions, having regard to the national and local funding available).
3.
To describe the handover of the Functional Classification and provisional CLOS to the AMP Group for development of
performance measures and targets.
1
4.
To outline the plan for implementing the Functional Classification, CLOS and associated performance measures so that
they influence development of the NLTP 2015-18, the Speed Management Project, Network Operating Planning initiatives
and over time, district plans.
Recommendations
5.
That the REG Governance Group:

endorses the final Functional Classification and provisional Customer Levels of Service as fit for purpose.

notes the handover process from the ONRC Project Team to the AMP Group, as part of the ongoing development
and implementation of the One Network Road Classification (from functional classification through to performance
measures and targets).

provides feedback on the implementation approach outlined, including ongoing resources to champion uptake of
the ONRC, and guidance on how best to address the key issues and risks identified.
Background
6.
The priority driver for developing a single national road classification is the nation-wide need to ensure future or ongoing affordability of road maintenance and operations and the findings of the Ministerial Road Maintenance Taskforce
Report. The Taskforce found that a national road classification could help to improve investment prioritisation. But
there are also other sector projects that have critical linkages with an integrated road classification including – the Speed
Management Project, Network Operating Planning initiatives and the Ministry for the Environment’s work on district plan
templates.
7.
Internationally a number of countries plan, develop and manage their national road networks within the context of a
national classification system that characterises routes as nationally, regionally or locally significant. A range of
consequences tend to flow from this categorisation including:
 differentiated levels of service for each category to ensure each road is fit for purpose (for both its movement and
place functions), and
2

8.
better targeted management, operational and infrastructure interventions on those parts of the roading network
with higher economic and social value.
An integrated national road classification for New Zealand will assist local government and the Transport Agency to give
effect to the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding, with its focus on economic growth and
productivity, road safety outcomes and delivering value for money from transport spending. The classification will also
help road controlling authorities operate, maintain and deliver good-quality local infrastructure that is efficient, effective
and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances (as required by the Local Government Act).
Road classification
9.
The development of the One Network Road Classification (ONRC) involves, in the first instance, categorising roads based
on their function and role within a network hierarchy. Determining the user experience that each category of road
should offer (i.e. the customer level of service), and the operational standards (and design) required to deliver and
maintain that customer level of service, are subsequent considerations, that flow from the classification categories.
10.
Scope of One Network Road Classification
workstream - 2013
AMP Group
workstream – 2013/14
Diagram 1: Three elements of the One Network Road Classification
3
11. Fit for purpose customer levels of service are determined by considering the network performance expectations of all
groups of road users and the envelope of funding available for investment in the network. Road operation (and form)
relates to the network environment (urban or rural areas and geographical characteristics), the existing level of service
currently offered across the network, and what will be required to deliver and maintain the fit for purpose customer
levels of service.
Project Deliverables – ONRC Project Team
12. In April 2013 the ONRC Project Team was tasked with developing an integrated classification for the New Zealand road
network (state highways and local roads) that:



reinforces a “one network” approach and assists national, regional and local planning, investment, maintenance and
operations decision making, utilising existing frameworks where appropriate
supports collaboration & cooperation between RCAs and between RCAs and the Transport Agency
supports a customer focused approach to the seamless movement of goods and people
13. The team has completed a final Functional Classification and associated provisional Customer Levels of Service for the
Governance Group’s endorsement as fit for purpose, for use in the development of the next NLTP 2015-18, and other
key sector projects.
The specific deliverables the Project Team was tasked to deliver and their status are noted below:





Project Plan - completed
Engagement & Communications Plan and regional engagement resources - completed
Draft classification – criteria, thresholds, categories, customer levels of service, principles for applying customer
levels of service – completed with two rounds of RCA engagement
Summaries of feedback received from the two rounds of engagement process – summaries of feedback completed
and circulated, with full set of Project Team responses posted on REG website
Documented and supported One Network Road Classification, including customer levels of service that guide
understanding by all users of the function of each road and informs road network planning, investment,
maintenance and operations – presented in this report for Governance Group endorsement
4

Implementation Plan – presented in this report for Governance Group feedback
Project Deliverables – AMP Group
14. In September 2013 the AMP Group was tasked by the REG Governance Group, with developing performance measures
that link to the provisional Customer Levels of Service developed by the ONRC Project Team. An AMP sub-group was
formed to focus on the delivery of this task with an external project management resource utilised.
15. The specific deliverables the AMP sub-group were tasked to deliver and their status are noted below:



Develop the ‘1st level’ of the provisional Customer Levels of Service to performance measures for submission to the
REG Governance Group by Dec 5th. Develop a handful of CLoS measures drilled down to a detailed level on some
outcomes in order to test the validity of the ‘1st level’ developed - presented in this report for Governance Group
endorsement
A draft report of the process linking the provisional CLOS to performance measures to ensure RCA’s can see clear
alignment and the way ahead. - presented in this report for Governance Group endorsement.
A project plan detailing the implementation of the CLoS to performance measures including the key work streams,
deliverables, timeframes, risks and necessary resources. Draft approved by Governance Group Nov 22nd.
‘Fit for purpose’ methodology for classification
16. Drawing on lessons learned from international experience, development work in the RCA sector across New Zealand, the
development of the State Highway Classification and the draft National Road Classification, we have developed a
methodology that:
 balances the use of quantitative criteria (using nationally available data sets), with qualitative criteria (recognising
local/regional expert knowledge)
 is simple and transparent
 can be periodically reviewed so that it can evolve and incorporate economic value data.
The key elements of the methodology are illustrated in the following diagram:
5
Diagram 2: Methodology for developing the Functional Classification
Functional Classification - criteria and thresholds
17. Criteria and thresholds have been identified that are proxies for the function(s) and relative importance of roads in the
context of the national network. Ten functional criteria have been used, paying regard to existing data sets held by all
RCAs wherever possible. They are a mix of proxies for measuring roads’ economic growth & productivity contribution,
their social contribution and their link and place functions. The variables selected following sector engagement are:
 Typical daily traffic (average annual daily traffic)
 Heavy commercial vehicles (daily vehicle flows)
 Buses (buses per hour and/or bus passengers per hour – urban peak)
 Active modes (significant numbers of pedestrians and cyclists (urban peak) or part of identified cycling or walking
network)
 Linking places (centres of population)
 Critical connectivity (remote regions/sole connectivity in urban areas or access to significant critical infrastructure)
 Freight tonnes and values at ports and inland ports (per annum)
 Airport passenger numbers (annual)
 Significant tourism destinations and significant scenic routes
6

Access to tertiary or regional hospitals
18. Quantitative thresholds have then been established for each category of road by looking at the data sets and
determining natural breakpoints in the data series, e.g. typical daily traffic or HCV flows. The quantitative thresholds are
intended to be approximate allowing for some adjustment based on local knowledge where needed. Thresholds for
qualitative criteria will require the pragmatic judgment of local/regional experts with knowledge of their communities,
e.g. tourism destinations, critical connectivity and matters of network and route continuity.
19. It is important to note that traffic congestion and road safety have not been used as criteria for developing the
Functional Classification. This is because congestion and safety are not functions of the national road network, but
rather consequences of the customer levels of service adopted for a category, and the design and operational standards
for specific roads.
20. Addressing congestion and safety issues forms part of the customer level of service/performance measures dimensions
of the ONRC, where the operation (and form) of each category of road is described. It is at this stage that the alleviation
of congestion (if appropriate) and the fit for purpose levels of safety for each category are addressed.
21. A simple weighting mechanism has been incorporated in the Functional Classification that requires roads to meet more
criteria to be allocated into the higher categories – this helps to ensure differentiation across the network.
22. The criteria and thresholds have been developed through analysis, sensitivity testing of the data and regional
engagement with stakeholders. By applying the criteria and thresholds, six categories (and two sub-categories) have
been identified for the final classification. The categories and their weightings are:
 National – Roads meeting at least three of the criteria above the national thresholds. (A high volume sub- category
has also been identified. In addition to meeting the national criteria, these roads also have volumes of HCVs and/or
typical daily traffic above the high volume thresholds.)
 Regional – Roads with at least two of the criteria above the Regional thresholds
 Arterial – Roads with at least two of the criteria above the Arterial thresholds
 Primary Collector and Secondary Collector – Roads in these categories must meet one criteria
 Access – All remaining roads (including a low-volume sub-category of Access roads).
7
23. We have also tested the Functional Classification by using a web-based geospatial mapping tool, Webmap, in validation
workshops during October and November. This testing has shown that application of the Functional Classification to
categorise roads in rural and provincial urban areas is relatively straight forward, and only requires that additional local
knowledge and expert qualitative judgments be applied to less than 5% of roads in these areas.
24. As expected application of the Functional Classification criteria to categorise roads in the five largest metropolitan
environments, with more complex networks and sometimes dealing with conflicting priorities for freight, general traffic,
passenger transport and active modes, inevitably requires more qualitative input from local experts. As a result about
10-15% of roads require additional local knowledge, including future planning initiatives, to confirm that they are
appropriately classified using the criteria in the framework.
25. Data quality, particularly the inconsistency of RAMM data across the country, has been repeatedly highlighted as an
issue by RCAs. Our view is that expert local knowledge can correct for this without compromising the consistency of the
classification, but ideally more robust and consistent RAMM data will be available over time.
26. Preparing clear guidance for the implementation of the classification will be critical to ensure that RCAs use the
classification criteria as intended. We have drafted detailed guidance, and a set of decision tree tools to assist RCAs with
applying the Functional Classification.
27. Overall, the Functional Classification was supported by the RCAs participating in the validation workshops, with RCAs
particularly indicating appreciation of the usefulness of the Webmap tool.
28. More details on the rationale for selection of the Classification Framework criteria, the data sources used, thresholds
adopted, the application of the weightings and detailed guidance on how to use the Framework are outlined in the
following attachments:
 Attachment 1 – The One Network Road Classification – Guidelines and Decision Trees for Applying the Functional
Classification
 Attachment 2 – The One Network Road Classification – Functional Classification
8
One Network Road Classification – Functional Classification
29. A fully annotated A3 version of The One Network Road Classification – Functional Classification is included in
Attachment 2.
9
Provisional Customer Levels of Service
30. A provisional set of customer levels of service (CLOS) has been developed for each category of the Functional
Classification, with a set of principles to inform their context specific application.
31. In developing the provisional CLOS we have drawn on the draft levels of service developed for the draft National Road
Classification, the provisional levels of service and principles of the State highway classification, Network Operating
Planning thinking and recent work by Austroads on levels of service. We have refined them:
 through two rounds of regional engagement with stakeholders,
 by testing them with key safety experts, the Speed Management project team, Transport Agency staff working on
resilience planning and investment, and a range of transport planning and resource management planning staff
within the Transport Agency, and
 using cross-team feedback from the AMP Group of REG to ensure they are fit for purpose for their use in developing
performance measures.
32. The CLOS describe the ‘fit for purpose’ customer experience each category of road should provide to road users, over
time, if the road is to fulfil its function within the national network. The six variables selected are:
Mobility:  Travel time reliability: the consistency of travel times that road users can expect
 Resilience: the availability and restoration of each road when there is a weather or emergency event, whether there
is an alternative route available and the road user information provided
 Optimal speeds (safety and efficiency): indicates the optimal speed for each road. The optimal speed is the speed
that is appropriate for road function (classification), design (including safety) and use. Optimal speeds support both
safety and economic productivity
Safety:
 Safety: how road users experience the safety of the road
10
Amenity:
 Travel quality and aesthetics: the level of travel comfort experienced by the road user and aspects of the road
environment (e.g. cleanliness, comfort/convenience and security) that impact on the travel experience of road users
in the road corridor
Accessibility:
 Accessibility: the ease with which people are able to reach key destinations and the transport networks available to
them - includes land use access and network connectivity
33. The CLOS are to be applied subject to sets of both overarching and foundational principles to ensure that they are
appropriately interpreted and provide sufficient flexibility for their context specific application. This is illustrated in
Diagram 3 below.
Overarching Principles
Classification
Outcomes
Customer Levels
of Service
Foundation Principles
Diagram 3: Overarching and Foundation Principles and the CLOS
11
34. The overarching principles are:
 Over time all roads in a particular category should offer an increasingly consistent, fit for purpose customer level of
service for road users.
 Value for money and whole of life cost will be optimised in the delivery of affordable customer levels of service.
 The customer levels of service will be delivered in the context of an integrated national network, integrating land
use and transport, including all modes and both rural and urban areas.
 The customer levels of service will be delivered in the context of a safe system approach, which aims to create a
forgiving road system, where human error and vulnerability do not result in death or serious injury.
35. The foundation principles are:
 Customer levels of service are delivered in line with Approved Organisations’ empathy, assurance, response and
tangibles principles in the context of their customer service standards.
 Capacity limits on the network may require actions that shape demand to provide for the cost effective and efficient
travel choice needs for customers.
 The delivery of customer levels of service for all modes will be optimised by time of day consistent with the
principles of network operating planning and asset management planning
 Local factors (e.g. topograhy, geology, climate, adjacent land use and 'place' function, population density) may
influence delivery of the customer levels of service.
 The Functional Classification and its customer levels of service will be reviewed regularly.
 The CLOS delivered for any route in the network will consider whether it functions as a critical lifeline for nationally
significant infrastructure, and its resilience will be delivered by considering a multi-modal, whole-of-network
approach.
 Access to the transport network by network utility operators and community events will be managed to limit the
impact on transport network users.
36. The CLOS are provisional because they will continue to be refined through an iterative testing process, as the
performance measures are developed by the AMP Group. They will also be subject to value for money testing as the
NLTP 2015-18 is developed during 2014, and they will be amended, if required, to ensure they drive appropriate value
for money investment decisions by RCAs.
12
37. As already noted, the CLOS have been subject to a first round of testing by the AMP Group. Their feedback has been
incorporated into the draft descriptors and they have endorsed them as fit for purpose to drive the development of a
more detailed performance measures package. We expect that as the work of the AMP Group advances and they
undertake stakeholder engagement there may be further amendments to the CLOS.
38. The full set of CLOS descriptors are detailed in Attachment 3 – Provisional ‘Fit for Purpose’ Customer Levels of Service
Outcomes.
External engagement completed
39. Two rounds of regional engagement have been completed. In round one 10 regional workshops were held during July
and August to:
 discuss the drivers and benefits of the ONRC and how it will be used by the Transport Agency and RCAs
 test the draft Functional Classification - criteria, thresholds, categories and weightings
 test the draft CLOS – variables selected, draft descriptors and associated principles
40. 234 stakeholders attended these workshops - primarily roading and planning staff from local government & the
Transport Agency but also consultants, AA and RTA members, mayors, councillors and local government CEs. Briefings
were also provided to the AA and RTF national policy teams and presentations were made to the September RCA Forum
and TRAFINZ Conference in October. 29 written responses were received from local government, consultants, AA and
NZTA staff.
41. During the second round of engagement in October and November, validation testing of the Classification Framework
was undertaken with 20 RCAs who had volunteered during the first round of engagement. RCAs were provided with
access to the Webmap tool to categorise and map their networks using the Classification Framework. This was followed
up with five regional workshops where 21 RCAs provided detailed feedback on categorizing and mapping their
networks, the utility of the Webmap tool and clarity of guidelines provided. We also sought additional feedback on the
CLOS and principles. Six additional written responses have been received from RCAs following the validation workshops.
42. A full summary of feedback received and our responses to the feedback will be finalised before Christmas, distributed to
all regional engagement participants and posted on the REG website. A summary of the key themes from each round of
engagement and how these have been addressed by the Project Team is included in Attachment 4, and some of these
13
issues are also picked up in the Key Issues and Risks section of this report and have shaped our thinking about
implementation.
Critical Linkages
43. Given the range of critical linkages between the ONRC and other sector initiatives, a key task of the Project Team has
been to ensure that the Functional Classification and provisional CLOS are fit for purpose to feed into, shape and
support other work. These critical linkages include:

Performance measure development - The development of performance measures by the AMP Group to ensure that
they influence planning decisions, are reflected into maintenance and operations contracts and deliver efficiencies
and encourage greater collaboration and clustering. Development of the performance measures is the third stage in
the completion of the ONRC (as illustrated in Diagram 1). The ONRC Project Team and AMP Group have been
working together to ensure the handover of expectations is clear, agreed and that the CLOS framework provided is
suitable for completing the performance measures. Diagram 4 (below) illustrates the details of this work.
14
Diagram 4: Customer Levels of Service to Performance Measures
15

Investment decision making – embedding the ONRC into the investment signals for the development of the NLTP
2015-18, and ensuring that through an iterative process of testing, they drive an appropriate type and quantum of
value for money investment, particularly maintenance and operations investment. Reference to the ONRC and
performance measures has been incorporated into the early investment signals to be issued to AOs before
Christmas. The linkages between the ONRC and the investment process are illustrated in Diagram 5.
Government Policy Statement
on Land Transport
MoT
Investment and Revenue
Strategy
NZTA
Scope of ONRC Project in 2013
Function
Defining the
policy goals for
each part of
the road
network
User
Experience
Setting the
customer levels
of service
Operational
performance
Operating and
maintaining
each road to
meet its function
Iterative conversations between NZTA, as investor,
and AOs around the gaps between the desired
levels of service and the most efficient and effective
ways of addressing this, within funding constraints.
National Land Transport
Programme
2015 - 2018
Regional Land
Transport Plans
State Highway
Plan
Council
LTPs
Diagram 5: The One Network Road Classification and the NLTP
16

Planning – incorporating the ONRC into local government statutory and non-statutory documents will occur over
time. Most immediately the categorisation of roads, CLOS and performances measures will be incorporated into
Activity/Asset Management Plans, Council Long Term Plans and strategic planning documents. We have mapped the
linkages between the ONRC and various planning documents in Diagram 6.
Diagram 6: Linkages between the One Network Road Classification and Planning
17
44. We expect that over time, as local authorities review their District Plan transport provisions the categories of the ONRC
will inform their reviews, although we would not expect CLOS to appear in District Plans. This process may be
accelerated by the Ministry for the Environment’s project to develop a National Planning Template as part of the RMA II
reforms.
45. We have also tested the linkages to the Speed Management Project, seeking that project team’s feedback on the speed
and safety CLOS and incorporating their feedback into our CLOS descriptors and ensuring the ONRC provides a fit for
purpose input to the development of Network Operating Plans, as part of the optimisation of urban networks.
ONRC CLOS to Performance Measures
46. The AMP Sub-group has developed their first ‘iterative pass’ of customer promises from the CLOS framework. The
customer promises form the basis of ‘how’ the CLOS will be delivered in terms of tangible activities (inputs and outputs).
47. The process used by the AMP sub-group has leveraged off the work undertaken by the Transport Agency’s HNO Group in
their development of performance measures for the Network Outcomes Contracts. It was agreed at commencement that
the HNO framework followed a robust process and was sufficiently progressed to capture the lessons learnt. Diagram 7
below shows the process used, with the one to many relationship between CLOS and measures represented as a
pyramid. A validation step of ‘Why’ enables us to gauge when we have reached an appropriate output measure i.e. when
output measures achieve outcomes.
18
Key
Investment
WHY?
Performance
Measures
HOW?
ONRC and CLoS and Customer
Promises
Signals to
Industry
Target Values
Diagram 7: Process for developing customer promises
48. The AMP sub-group has developed the ‘Customer Promises’ illustrated in the following pages. These are drilled down to
further indicate the activities and measures necessary to deliver the Customer Promises.
49. The AMP sub-group has met with key members of the ONRC Project Team to discuss areas of the framework requiring
clarification with changes agreed to some of the CLOS variables and descriptors. This process of refinement is expected
to be ongoing as the AMP sub-group further develops the performance measures. In anticipation of this, the two groups
have agreed the set of overarching and foundation principles (discussed earlier). This allows the AMP sub-group to
recommend modifications to the CLOS based around these principles.
50. A priority of development was established in light of the timing and potential complexity anticipated in measuring some
of the CLOS. It was agreed that the AMP sub-group and AMP Project Team will focus on the ‘quick wins’ initially. This
will allow the necessary momentum of development to build and encourage uptake with industry.
19
51. A draft Project Plan for this work has already been presented to the REG Governance Group outlining the project phases
and work streams. These are summarised in the Implementation section of this report.
52. The Customer Promises (1st pass) developed are shown below:
Travel Time
Reliability
We will manage the
impact of activities on
the Network
We will manage
demand on the
network
We will Maintain the
network to an
appropriate level.
Informed Prior to
Travel
Informed on
Route
We will operate the network
to maximise its effective
capacity.
Ramp Metering
Congestion
Charging
Stock
Restricted Access
to areas
Media (Social, TV,
Radio etc.)
Customer Services
Monitor and
adjust
Items on road
Roadworks
Ramp Metering
Websites
Variable Message
Signs
Add / Remove
Crashes
Utility Access
Network
Condition
We will provide information on travel time to
customers so they can choose when and where
to travel. (Provide choice)
Traffic signals,
lanes barriers,
Incident
Management
Customer Services
Community
Events
20
Speed (in the context of
ensuring efficiency)
We will Inform customers of
the appropriate uniform
speed (crossing over into
safety)
We will provide an alignment
that allows a speed to support
the function and topograhpy.
Create and maintain
opportunities for customers
to travel at optimal speeds
irrespective of other users.
The road environment will
guide users to the
appropriate speed.
Passing
Opportunities
Delineation and
thresholds
Lanes and Width
Traffic Calming
Pullover areas
Vegetation
21
Resilience
We will ensure we are
Prepared for Emergencies
and Incidents that could
disrupt travel.
Contingency
Plan
Emergency
Procedures
Plan
Resilience Plan (Identify
vulnerable parts of the
network)
We will provide Alternative
Routes where feasible and
appropriate.
Routes
What route reliability is
appropriate (i.e. can access a
property 60% of the time.)
Modes
Provide
information
on
alternative
modes
Liaise
closely
with other
agencies /
providers
We will inform you of
Route Availability and
Travel Choice
Informed
Prior to
Travel
Informed on
Route
Media
(Social, TV,
Radio etc.)
Customer
Services
Websites
Variable
Message
Signs
Customer
Services
We will Restore
connectivity as soon
as circumstances
allow.
We will carry out
Mitigation to avoid
route closure where
appropriate.
Time to
Mobilise
CMA on Roads
Snow
Clearing
Seismic Retrofit
Sufficient
resources
to restore
the route
(towtruck
on Harbour
Bridge)
Rockfall and
Overslip
Management
Land
Stabilisation
Drainage and
Flooding
22
Safety
We will warn you
about Hazards on
your trip
Permanent
Warning
Signs
Temporary
Traffic
Management
Hazard
Markers
Delineation
Lighting
Safe
speeds
For strategic roads, we will change
the Form to adopt the appropriate
level of Risk (performance target
being KiwiRAP risk assessment)
We will maintain the
current form and
Infrastructure in safe
condition.
We will provide you
Guidance on safe
use.
Vege
Control
Detritus
Infrastructure
in safe
condition
Clear Zoning and
Roadside protection
New Guardrail
Curve
Warning
Signs
Seal Ends
Roadwork
Sites
Temporary
Events
Road slips
RRPM
Ice / Grit
Edgemarker
Posts
Audio Tactile
Markings
Road Markings
Road
Condition
Reporting
Envelope
Clearance
(Visibility)
Gravel on
Intersections
Guardrails
Median Barriers
Signs
Road User
Education
and
Information
Removal
of
Hazardous
Trees
Road Width and
Alignment
Small Slips
Streetliights
Mud / muck on
carriageway
Intersection Form
Service Utility
Locations (e.g.
powerpole
locations)
Snow / Ice
Management
Traffic calming
measures
Road Space Reallocation
(modes)
Streetlighting
23
Amenity (Travel
Quality)
Amenity (Aesthetics,
comfort/convenience,
security)
We will maintain the road
environment and facilities
that support an appopriate
level of comfortable ride.
Providing facilities and a road
environment that supports their
function in the social and
environmental context
Out of Context
Roughness
Asphalt
We will maintain a road corridor
compatible with the urban /rural
context. (Acknowledging the need for
different surfaces between rural and
urban environment)
Surface /
Pavement
Maintenance
Streetlights
Resurfacing
Signage
Cycle
Lanes
Footpaths
Provided
by TLA.
Pavement
Rehab
Drainage
Maintenance
Clear Detritis
/ Grit
Unsealed
Roads
Vegetation
Mowing /
Spraying
Tree
Maintenance
Garden
Maintenance
We will Inform
customers of facilities
available on their
journey.
Bus
Stations,
Signs,
Bridges,
Structures
Litter /
Graffiti
Layby
and Rest
Areas
Utilities
On Route
Signage
Websites
GPS /
Mapping
Info
Variable
Message
Signs
Prior to
Journey
Websites
Social Media
Visitor
Information
Centres
Customer
Services
24
Accessibility
We will provide
Guidance so you can
navigate your way
around the network.
Way finding
Signage
Destination
Signs
Drive time /
Distance
GIS / Mapping
Info
We will provide access to adjoining land to
support the role in the transport network.
where it does not effect others and the
function of the road.
Intersections /
Side Roads
District Plans
and Land Use
Planning (Spatial
Plans)
Property
Access
District Plans and
Land Use Planning
(Spatial Plans)
We will provide infrastructure that
meets an appropriate level of
accessibility to users to perform their
role.
Volume
Capacity
(Congestion)
Maintain
Change
Weight / Size
Capacity (of
allowable
vehicles)
We will manage the network to ensure
it is accessible for different uses
where appropriate. *
Modal
Capacity
Cyclists
Pedestrians
Subdivision
Standards
Subdivision
Standards
Bridge
Classes
Buses
Extent of
Network
Policies
Oversize /
Overweight
Routes
Vehicle
Access
Standards
Road Width
We will provide
priority access
for key classes
of tranport
We will enable
services access
to the road
corridor.
We will enable
communities
access to the
network.
Utilities
Horses
Public
Stock
Private
Events
Filming
Pavement
Strength
HPMV
* - This Customer Promise may shift to another outcome.
25
Key Issues and Risks
53. The ONRC Project Team and AMP Group have identified a number of key risks/issues that require further consideration
to ensure effective implementation of the ONRC. Some relate to the Functional Classification – how to apply its criteria
and thresholds with an appropriate level of national consistency and the tools that might assist with that. Others relate
to the provisional CLOS, and how they will be finalised through the development of performance measures and as part
of the development of the NLTP 2015-18. The following table outlines the risks/issues and their relevance for the two
parts of the project.
Project Context
Risk or Issue
Description
Priority
Action
Key issues and risks identified by the ONRC Project Team
26
Ongoing championing,
ownership
It is not clear who will own and champion
the ONRC on an ongoing basis – REG, the
Transport Agency?
ONRC Team has been in place since April and
with delivery of this report has substantially
completed its project deliverables. Team
members now looking for project close out,
to exit and return to substantive roles.
A concentrated implementation period
during the early part of 2014 is needed.
High
A dedicated resource to ensure the ongoing
championing of the ONRC, and to support its
implementation is needed, beyond the key
role that the AMP Group will play in
embedding it through the development of
the performance measures.
Ownership and
Review
Periodic review of the
ONRC
Sector has sought assurance ONRC will be
reviewed periodically to incorporate new
thinking (economic value) and recognise
changes in operating environment
Low
REG form a refreshed sub-group to own
and champion implementation of the
Functional Classification and CLOS,
including ongoing engagement with
AMP Sub-group. Membership:
 Transport Agency & LG
 Key capability:
o Communications
support
o stakeholder
engagement
o technical
support/advice on use
of ONRC
Governance Group decisions:
 Long-term owners are LGNZ
and NZTA
 Short-term technical ownership
with REG GG and long-term
technical ownership with LGNZ
Centre of Excellence
 Concentrated implementation
programme to be resourced
Recommend commitment to review
ONRC in lead up to each NLTP
Governance Group decisions:
 Review in lead up to each NLTP
27
Availability of a Web map
tool is critical for
successful
implementation
Feedback from the engagement suggests
that a web-based geospatial tool is highly
valued as an aid when applying Functional
Classification.
High
Data collection &
management
Implementation
Data, availability &
quality – particularly:
inconsistency in quality of
RAMM data; peak
walking and cycling flow
data in urban areas; value
of movement of people
and goods data
Current Web map was designed to facilitate
testing and validation of the Classification - it
is essentially a Beta version of the kind of
tool required. Development of more
permanent tool is a more complex
consideration and issues such as where
responsibility for collection and
management of data sit require careful
consideration.
Initial feedback from the sector is that they
would be looking to the Transport Agency to
maintain the tool centrally, while each RCA
would be responsible for the data used to
classify their networks.
Short –term it is our view that expert local
knowledge can correct for data quality
limitations without compromising
consistency of classification. In the longer
term more robust and consistent data
collection, particularly for HCV flows should
occur.
Recommend NZTA develop and support
geospatial tool for uptake of ONRC,
including an updated Web map as a
transitional measure for the immediate
use of the classification
Governance Group decisions:
 Preference for a single national
web tool as way to both apply
and document ONRC.NZTA P&I
to investigated options.
As above and REG data work stream
consider issue of data, quality,
collection & management to support
the implementation of ONRC
Medium
Recommend RCAs continue to be
responsible for the accuracy of their
own data.
(The data manager / analyst resource
proposed by the AMP Project Team
could assist to quantify this data quality
gap and what is required to close it.)
Governance Group decisions:
 NZTA P&I to take lead on geospatial tool for sector use, early
2014
Medium
28
Moderation to ensure
consistent application
Guidance and support for
implementation
Engagement
Project continuity
regarding stakeholder
engagement and the
involvement of RCAs
Number of RCAs sought assurance about
how categorisation of roads would be
moderated to ensure consistent
classification, given that the criteria include
qualitative assessment by local experts. Our
experience from validation workshops was
that a key way for moderation to occur is
through peer review by regional RCA peers.
ONRC is not a paint by numbers tool.
Requires expert local/regional judgment and
requires RCAs to view networks in a new
way, comparing them against a national
framework. Some RCAs are concerned about
a downgrading of importance of their
network (in a national context). With this
comes the risk of inconsistent application of
the ONRC, and the need for clear guidance
and support and incentives.
RCAs have an expectation that a next round
of regional engagement will occur in Q3,
focusing on the link between CLOS and
performance measures.
Medium
High
High
REG consider tasking RAG groups to
regionally peer review ONRC
implementation followed by national
moderation by NZTA/LGNZ
Governance Group decisions:
 Regional peer review process
supported
Support REG’s focus on developing an
incentivisation package in association
with IPWEA, LGNZ, SOLGM, P&I (via
proposed ‘Centre of Excellence’)
Governance Group decisions:
 Further work to be done on
how LGNZ Centre of Excellence
can assist with ONRC
implementation
Position the next round of engagement
on performance measures as a
continuation of the regional
engagement already undertaken.
Key issues and risks identified by the AMP Group
Council District Plan
Reviews
Classifications conflict with District Plan
Low
Council AMPs and LTPs
Push back where resources are already
committed to existing process.
High
NZS4404 and Codes of
Compliance
Defining the corridor form may contradict
with existing standards.
Low
Timing
Adoption by
Industry
Likely to be adopted by LG in time, not
project critical.
Clear signals of project importance and
the expectations on the level of
planning and investment.
Likely to be adopted in time, not project
critical.
29
Conflicting LoS
Frameworks across RCAs
and existing delivery
contracts.
State Highway Network Outcomes Contract
LoS framework varies from ONRC. Council
maintenance contracts in place also.
High
Adoption likely through variation for
those underway. Signals from P&I
should influence future contracts.
Inadequate Consultation
Sentiment that ONRC consultation was
inadequate
High
Enhance communications to industry.
Include at political level.
FAR review linkage to
Performance Measures
and Targets
RCAs view project as how future subsidy will
be determined. May distort feedback and
pilots.
High
Utility Operators
Road corridor is also used as a utility corridor
Low
Analysis Underestimating the
amount needed.
The availability and
adequacy of data
AMP Sub-Group
Commitments
Resourcing
RCAs unable to resource
pilots
Need to understand where we are now in
order to define performance targets. This
will involve significant analysis or outcome
vs output vs inputs of network.
Network analysis only as good as the data
available. Need to understand how well we
can measure with the data available.
Input needed at least 2-3 weekly to enable
effective development of measures and
targets.
A good level of commitment to pilots is
critical for their success and industry
adoption.
High
High
Med
Med
Number of pilots too high
Too many pilots could be difficult to
manage, consume resource. Too much
feedback can protract decision making.
Med
Number of pilots too low
Pilots do not generate adequate feedback to
support decision making. Leads to poor
industry uptake.
Med
Enhance communications to industry.
Include at political level.
Appoint analyst on the AMP project
team.
Appoint dedicated data manager on the
project team. Identify data gaps and
what is required to close it.
REG sub-group to act as steering group
to Project Manager. REG AM to provide
governance.
Establish cross-over with ONRC team
and pilots undertaken.
Target 5 - 8 pilots with a good cross
section of classifications and network
purposes.
30
Implementation
54. Successful implementation of the ONRC has two dimensions:
 Ensuring direct users, key influencers and key stakeholders understand the ONRC, and know how to apply it to their
networks, or use it in their national projects, in a relatively consistent manner, and
 Encouraging and incentivising its uptake as a tool for RCAs to prioritise planning, maintenance and operations
investment.
55. Additional
 ONRC



resourcing that has been identified as needed across the two aspects of the ONRC is:
Implementation sub-group through to June 2014:
Communications support (across both aspects)
Stakeholder engagement (Transport Agency & local government champions) to proactively engage with early
adopters, key influencers, key stakeholders
 Technical support/advice on use of ONRC to proactively assist early adopters in their use of the ONRC
AMP Sub-group:
 Performance Measures Analyst – To quantify the LoS gap. What are the inputs /outputs of the network in the
context of ONRC categories and their link to outcomes?
 Data Analyst – Follows from the work of performance measures analyst. To manage the risk of poor data
limiting the ability to measure performance.
56. The key audiences are outlined in the following table:
Key influencers
 REG
 LGNZ
 LG politicians
 RCA Forum
 NZTA P&I Planning and Investment
Managers and Regional Managers –
early investment signals to RCAs for
NLTP 2015-18
 NZTA – Network operating planning
Direct users
 REG Asset Management Team – in
developing the performance
measures
 RCA Roading Managers – preparing
Asset Management Plans
 RCA Planning Managers – reviews
of transport provisions of District
Plans
 NZTA HNO – preparing the SHAMP
Key Stakeholders
 AA
 RTF
 IPWEA
 SOLGM
31
Key influencers
initiatives with metros
 Ministry for the Environment (for
their District Plan templates project)
 Ministry of Transport (potential GPS
linkages)
 Audit NZ
 Department of Internal Affairs (LG
Measures)
Direct users
 Speed Management Project –
developing the optimal speeds
framework
Key Stakeholders
57. Implementing the ONRC will involve a mixture of engagement and communications with direct users and working with
the key influencers to ensure they are well positioned to encourage and incentivise uptake. The primary tasks we
consider are key for implementation are set out in the table below.
Tasks
Timeframe
(by)
Responsibility
Report on final Functional Classification
and provisional CLOS to
REG GG for
endorsement
5 December
ONRC Project Team & AMP Group
CLOS to Performance Measures Project
Plan Approved by AMP Group
13 December
AMP Group
32
Tasks
Timeframe
(by)
Responsibility
Final
Functional
Classification
and
provisional
CLOS,
with
supporting
documentation published on REG website:
20 December
ONRC Project Team
AMP Project Phase 1 Commencement –
Finalise framework linking Customer
Promises to performance measures.
Identify pilot
RCAs. Prioritised on
significant items / ‘quick wins’. Includes
commencing piloting with RCAs.
20 December
AMP Project Team and AM Sub-Group
Regular REG newsletter out to all
stakeholders - December issue will
communicate REG GG decision and
provide link to website, information about
next sector engagement opportunity as
detailed in AMP Project Plan.
Next issue by
20 December
ONRC Project Team and AMP Project Team
Handover
of
lead
role
for
communications/sector engagement on
ONRC to AMP Sub-Group.
January 2014
ONRC Project Team and AMP Project Team




Final ONRC Framework
Provisional CLOS
Guidelines and decision trees
Summary of submissions
responses
and
33
Tasks
Timeframe
(by)
Responsibility
AMP Project Phase 2 Commencement–
Technical Performance Measures and
Targets. Gap analysis and fit for purpose
targets. Includes piloting with RCAs.
February 2014
AMP Project Team
Briefings on ONRC to key influencers and
projects:
February/April
2014
ONRC refreshed sub-group






NZTA P&I PIMs/RMs, HNO
RCA Forum
Speed Management Project
Network Operating Planning
Ministry of Transport
Key stakeholders
Determine the geospatial offer to the
sector (if decided that a geospatial tool is
to be used. This will become clearer in
Phase 2 of AMP Project)
February/March REG GG?
2014
AMP Project Consultation Round 1Workshops on CLOS framework and
Technical Performances Measures.
March 2014
Commencement
–
Final
Draft
of
Performance Measures for Implementation
March / April AMP Project Team
2014
ONRC Champion and AMP Project Team
34
Tasks
Timeframe
(by)
Regional roll-out workshops with RCAs
that
communicate ONRC Functional
Classification,
CLOS,
performance
measures and targets
May
2014
Responsibility
/June ONRC refreshed sub-group and AMP Project
Team
35