title: Transport Asset Management Plan council: moorabool state: vic category: infrastructure classification: MINOR status: unknown last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- asset-management-plan_transport.pdf
Transport Asset Management Plan
Moorabool’s Transport Asset Management Plan is the long-term operating and funding model for the local road, bridge, footpath, kerb, car park and traffic-device network controlled by Council, not a transport strategy for the whole movement system (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.8). Its planning importance is that growth areas add large new road assets to Council’s books: the plan estimates $137.8 million in gifted transport assets from Ballan, Merrimu and Hopetoun Park North, creating a maintenance and renewal obligation after subdivision delivery (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.5, 13, 22, 24).
Background
The plan covers the 2022-2032 period and is intended to inform Council’s asset-management decision-making for transport assets over a 10-year horizon (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.1). It is linked to Council’s broader asset-management-strategy, and it defines the state of Council’s transport assets as at the 2022 financial year, the funding required to maintain adopted performance targets, and planned asset-management activities over the planning period (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.1).
The statutory setting matters because the plan sits between local infrastructure management and land-use planning. The Local Government Act 2020 requires councils to develop, adopt and keep in force an Asset Plan covering at least the next 10 financial years, including maintenance, renewal, acquisition, expansion, upgrade, disposal and decommissioning for each infrastructure asset class under Council control (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.17). The Road Management Act 2004 assigns Council responsibility for public local roads, boundary roads and parts of declared roads within the municipality, while the Moorabool Planning Scheme provides the framework for land-use and development decisions that generate new transport demand (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.17-18).
Analysis
Asset Base and Responsibility Boundary
Council’s transport asset portfolio had a replacement cost of 473.434 million as at 30 June 2021, with accumulated depreciation of 87.468 million, fair value of 385.967 million and annual depreciation of 6.976 million (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.1, 10). Roads dominate the portfolio: roads account for 382.836 million of replacement cost, equal to about 80.9% of the transport asset value shown in the plan, while bridges account for 39.476 million, pathways for 25.685 million, kerbs for 19.355 million, car parks for 3.135 million and traffic management devices for 2.947 million (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.10-11).
The asset count shows the breadth of the operating task. The plan records 1,977 sealed road assets over 909.3 km, 653 unsealed road assets over 562.3 km, 1,401 footpath assets over 200.8 km, 2,597 kerb assets over 286.9 km, 100 car parks over 51,069 square metres, 288 bridges and major culverts, and 172 traffic management devices (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.8). In plain terms, the plan is managing a long rural-urban network rather than a compact town network; this makes maintenance exposure sensitive to settlement growth, rural access expectations and bridge/culvert condition (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.8, 22-25).
The boundary of responsibility is as important as the asset list. The plan excludes roads, kerb and channel and other transport assets on designated declared main roads because those are owned and maintained by VicRoads, excludes vehicular crossings because they are the property owner’s responsibility, and excludes private roads, laneways, rights of way and private car parks (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.8). It also identifies road sections intersecting railway tracks, including 2.135 metres from the outer tracks, as the responsibility of Transport for Victoria (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.8). This means planning decisions affecting arterial roads, railway crossings or private access may create transport outcomes that are only partly within Council’s asset plan (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.8).
Condition, Service State and Renewal Logic
The plan’s core mechanism is condition-based lifecycle modelling. Council assigns a service-state score to transport assets, with condition 0 representing a new asset and condition 6 representing an asset that has failed or exceeded design life (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.4, 12). The reported network average condition is 2.2 out of 6, with 54% of assets in good condition or better, about 40% in fair condition, 4.76% in poor condition, 0.26% in very poor condition and no recorded end-of-life share in the overall quantity distribution (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.10-12).
The condition categories translate directly into spending pressure. Condition 3 means a fair asset with some deterioration and serviceability issues; condition 4 means substantial maintenance is required and renewal, upgrade or disposal is needed in the near future; condition 5 means the asset no longer provides an adequate level of service or requires immediate remedial action within one to two years (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.12). The practical effect is that deterioration is not just a descriptive rating: it is the rule base that decides when an asset becomes a renewal candidate in the long-term capital works program (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.12-13).
Council’s asset information is stored in Assetic Cloud, and the plan states that the asset register was estimated to be 95% up to date when the plan was prepared (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.10). Network-wide condition assessments are typically undertaken every three to four years, coinciding with financial revaluations, and the latest sealed road, footpath and kerb condition audit was completed in 2021 (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.12). This creates a timing issue for planning intelligence: if major subdivision assets are gifted between condition-audit cycles, the plan’s funding model can lag behind actual asset acquisition unless handover data is captured promptly (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.12, 35).
Funding Requirement and Backlog
The plan models two renewal funding scenarios: Option 1 uses Council’s current proposed capital works allocation over the following 10 years, while Option 2 identifies the funding level needed each year to maintain current levels of service at the end of 10 years (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.29). Option 2 is the plan’s preferred service-preservation scenario, requiring 104.156 million in capital renewal and 12.85 million in maintenance over 10 years, or $1.28 million in average annual maintenance (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.4, 30, 32).
The difference between the two modelled renewal scenarios is narrow in capital dollars but material in backlog. Option 1 has a 10-year treatment cost of 103.794 million and final average condition of 2.4, while Option 2 has a treatment cost of 104.156 million and final average condition of 2.2 (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.7, 30). The executive summary comparison reports that maintaining condition reduces the year-10 backlog by 8.918 million compared with the current Long Term Financial Plan scenario, from 31.712 million to 22.794 million (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.7). The later financial comparison table reports much larger backlog values of 138.263 million for Option 1 and $131.473 million for Option 2, which appears internally inconsistent with the executive summary backlog table and should be treated as a source limitation until the underlying modelling outputs are checked (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.7, 30).
The desired 10-year funding plan shows total capital expenditure ranging from 10.799 million in 2031/32 to 16.991 million in 2025/26, with sealed road renewal held close to 5.0 million per year for most years (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.32). Unsealed road renewal is more variable, ranging from 612,600 in 2031/32 to 6.1 million in 2029/30, which indicates the unsealed network is being managed through lumpy intervention timing rather than a flat annual program (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.32). Maintenance is planned to rise from 885,000 in 2022/23 to $2.0 million in 2031/32, but the plan’s financial ratio table still records a maintenance sustainability ratio below 0.5% against a 2-5% target (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.32-33).
Growth Areas and the Asset Handover Mechanism
The plan’s most important planning implication is the transfer of future subdivision infrastructure into Council ownership. It estimates that growth in Ballan, Merrimu and Hopetoun Park North will gift 807,000 square metres of road surfaces and pavements, 234 km of kerb and channel, and 350,000 square metres of footpath assets, with a total value of 137.8 million (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.5). Elsewhere the plan describes the same growth effect as 117 km of roads, 234 km of kerb and channel and 234 km of footpath assets, also valued at 137.8 million, so the road and footpath units need reconciliation before using the figures for detailed infrastructure-cost modelling (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.22, 24).
The named growth areas are substantial. Ballan is listed at approximately 3,000 lots with construction anticipated to commence in 2023/24, Hopetoun Park North at approximately 850 lots with construction anticipated to commence in 2023/24, Merrimu at approximately 7,200 lots with construction anticipated to commence in 2023/24, and Parwan Employment and Parwan Station at approximately 4,000 lots and more than 5,000 job opportunities with construction anticipated to commence in 2024/25 (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.24). The plan also records population growth from 36,344 in 2021 to 63,831 in 2041, a 75.6% increase, based on .id forecasts prepared in November 2020 (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.22).
The mechanism is simple but financially significant: developers construct subdivision roads, kerbs and footpaths to Council and industry standards, then hand those assets to Council for ownership and maintenance after completion and a defect-liability period (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.24). This shifts the short-term capital construction task away from Council, but it increases the long-term operating, maintenance and renewal base controlled by Council (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.24). The plan estimates growth will increase transport replacement value from 474.4 million to 611.2 million by 2032, annual depreciation from 6.97 million to 9.3 million, and maintenance from 885,200 to 9.12 million (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.24). The stated maintenance change is a 935% increase, which is the clearest quantitative warning in the plan: asset handover may be funded at construction, but not automatically funded through its lifecycle (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.24).
Levels of Service and Community Pressure
The plan uses both customer and technical levels of service. Customer service measures include 95% compliance for asset availability, nil unplanned closures, customer satisfaction above 60, fewer than 400 sealed-road maintenance requests per year, fewer than 500 unsealed-road maintenance requests per year, fewer than 100 renewal or upgrade requests per year, no more than two reportable incidents from transport defects per year, and more than 70% of requests responded to within target (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.20). In 2021, the plan records 306 sealed-road maintenance requests, 466 unsealed-road maintenance requests, 70 renewal or upgrade requests and one reportable incident, while response-time data was still to be collected (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.20).
Community satisfaction is the weak point. The 2021 community survey produced scores of 48 for local streets and footpaths and 45 for sealed local roads against the plan’s target of greater than 60 (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.14-15, 20). One in four residents nominated sealed road maintenance as an area needing improvement, making road condition a direct driver of community perception rather than a back-office asset issue (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.14). The plan also notes that residents moving from other urban local government areas typically expect residential and local roads to be sealed, which places pressure on Council’s unsealed roads policy and on expectations for rural-road standards (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.25).
Technical service levels are currently more favourable than customer sentiment. The plan sets a technical target that average transport asset condition remains below condition 3, and the 2021 performance was 2.2 (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.21). It also sets a target that less than 5% of total portfolio replacement value is in condition 5 or worse, and the 2021 performance was below 5% (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.21). This difference between technical condition and perceived service suggests that the public concern may be concentrated in specific roads, settlement interfaces or travel routes rather than evenly distributed across the asset base (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.14-15, 21).
Demand Management and Planning Dependencies
The plan relies on PSPs, studies and development-control mechanisms to translate growth into infrastructure needs. New and upgrade transport needs are identified through Council’s integrated planning framework, precinct master plans, PSPs and studies (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.8). The demand-management plan calls for network analysis and modelling of high-traffic areas, analysis of proposed developments, incorporation of results into the five-year forward capital works program, promotion of public and alternative transport options, and use of development control plans to collect contributions for upgrades to existing assets affected by new developments (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.25).
This creates a dependency chain for growth-areas. Land-use planning identifies the scale and location of growth; PSPs and subdivision engineering identify the required road, kerb, pathway and intersection works; developers deliver and hand over new local assets; Council then carries the maintenance and renewal obligation; future TAMP revisions need to absorb the new quantities, conditions and lifecycle costs (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.8, 24-25, 35). If the asset handover process fails, the plan’s improvement action seeks 100% annual capture of gifted or externally constructed transport assets in the asset register, which shows Council recognises the data-risk point in this chain (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.35).
Risk, Governance and Improvement Program
Risk is managed through asset hierarchy and Council’s risk framework. Trunk Collector roads provide strategic links between arterial roads, suburbs, commercial areas, major housing areas, tourist facilities, industrial centres and regional links; Collector roads provide primary connections into residential urban areas and rural connections to arterial roads; Bridge 1 assets are bridges or major culverts on Trunk Collector or Collector roads; and high-use pathways serve retail and commercial town centres and other medium-density pedestrian attractors (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.26). This hierarchy matters because higher-function assets carry larger service and safety consequences when they fail (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.26).
The plan says critical service-delivery risks have been identified, but the detailed asset risk and treatment plan will be documented in Council’s Transport Management Plan (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.27). That is a material analytical gap because the TAMP tells the reader the portfolio value, condition and funding pathway, but not the ranked list of the highest-risk roads, bridges, culverts or pathway links (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.27). The improvement program partly addresses this by requiring bridge level 2 inspections, finalisation of the Transport Business Process Manual, annual review of strategic prediction models, review of maintenance expenditure alignment with capital funding, and lifecycle costing in capital investment decisions (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.35-36).
Current Status
The plan covers 2022-2032 and states that it will be reviewed and updated in the year following Council general elections, as required by section 92.4 of the Local Government Act 2020 (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.36). The desired 10-year funding strategy is to be reviewed with the next TAMP update in 2026, with new information on growth demand and asset lifecycle to be reflected in the revised funding strategy (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.32).
The source document does not state whether the plan has been formally adopted by Council, so the implementation status cannot be confirmed from this source alone (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf). The plan includes improvement tasks with target dates from 2022 to 2024, including adoption of the Transport Business Process Manual by December 2022, bridge level 2 inspections by June 2023, review of the Bike Hike Strategy by December 2023, and incorporation of PSP and study asset needs into the TAMP and Long Term Financial Plan by June 2024 (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.35-36).
Dependencies
- Blocks: The plan does not itself block land-use approvals, but it constrains the affordability and timing of local road, bridge, kerb, pathway and traffic-device renewal programs by setting the asset funding logic used in the Long Term Financial Plan and capital works program (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.29-32).
- Blocked by: Accurate future transport costing is blocked by unresolved or evolving PSP, master plan and development-area information, because the plan states new growth needs will be incorporated into future TAMP revisions as additional information becomes available (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.24, 34-35).
- Informed by: The plan is informed by Council’s asset register, 2021 condition audits, Assetic Predictor modelling, the Road Management Plan 2021-25, the Bridge Maintenance Management Plan 2021, the Asset Management Policy 2021, the Risk Management Policy 2019 and Council’s Asset Management Strategy (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.8, 10, 12, 19, 29).
- Implements: The plan implements asset planning obligations under the Local Government Act 2020 and road-management responsibilities under the Road Management Act 2004, while aligning transport assets to Council goals for governance, environmental impact, social outcomes, accessibility, safety and active transport (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.15, 17).
- Conflicts with: The plan identifies tension between community expectations for sealed and well-maintained roads, especially from residents moving from more urban municipalities, and the cost limits embedded in unsealed-road policy, maintenance funding and lifecycle renewal budgets (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.14, 25, 33).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The plan separates Council-controlled local transport assets from assets controlled by VicRoads and Transport for Victoria, so road-reserve outcomes near declared main roads and railway crossings depend on state transport responsibilities as well as Council’s own asset program (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.8). It identifies public transport operators, the freight industry, utility service providers, and state and federal government departments as external stakeholders in transport asset management, which indicates that network performance depends on agencies and users beyond Council’s direct asset ownership (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, p.16).
The plan’s growth references to Ballan, Merrimu, Hopetoun Park North, Parwan Employment and Parwan Station should be cross-read with the relevant growth-areas and any future PSP, DCP or subdivision infrastructure documents because this plan records high-level asset quantities and lifecycle impacts rather than project-specific road reservations, intersection upgrades or contribution rates (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.22, 24-25).
Gaps in This Analysis
This page is based on one source document, so it cannot verify formal adoption status, Council resolution history, post-2022 implementation progress, or whether the 2022-2024 improvement tasks have been completed (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.35-36). The plan references several supporting documents that were not supplied in the compile manifest, including the Asset Management Strategy, Road Management Plan 2021-25, Bridge Maintenance Management Plan 2021, draft Transport Business Process Manual, Transport Management Plan, Capital Works Evaluation Guidelines, Community Infrastructure Plan and Bike Hike Strategy review (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.8, 12-13, 19, 27, 35).
The largest analytical gap is project-level growth infrastructure detail. The plan names Ballan, Merrimu, Hopetoun Park North, Parwan Employment and Parwan Station and gives aggregate lot, job and gifted-asset figures, but it does not provide the road hierarchy plans, intersection triggers, bus-route provisions, active-transport alignments, DCP levy rates or staged delivery obligations needed to assess each growth area’s transport burden (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.22, 24-25). The source also contains inconsistent growth-asset quantities and inconsistent backlog figures, so the underlying asset modelling tables should be checked before using the numbers for detailed capital programming or infrastructure contribution analysis (Source: asset-management-plan_transport.pdf, pp.5, 7, 22, 24, 30).