LGAM - new forum posts
LGAM Knowledge Base - new forum posts
LGAM - new forum posts
|
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 03:39 PM PDT Given that Councils are being strongly encouraged by the higher levels of government to consider the ongoing maintenance & operating costs of new assets before building them, I am surprised and disappointed that the state or federal government hasn't published tables of typical asset types (escpecially buildings) and the average ongoing maintenance and operating costs associated with them. The information would be extremely useful to Councils at budget time. It might also help Councils justify the extra initial expense (?) of building energy efficient buildings. If the information isn't immediately available perhaps some of the $25 million Local Government Reform Fund could be used to compile and publish the information. If I am wrong, and someone out there has already compiled robust data about the lifecycle cost of local government assets, please let me and everyone else out there who is in dire need of the information know about it. Forum category: Hidden / Per page discussions Forum thread: Lifecycle Cost Analysis |
| You are subscribed to email updates from LGAM Knowledge Base - new forum posts
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. |
Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
LGAM Knowledge Base - new forum posts
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2012 05:01 PM PDT It seems to me that drainage assets exist to remove or reduce the risk of; council, community and private assets being damaged by localised flooding caused by rainwater runoff, and that this role should therefore be paramount when considering the drainage hierarchy, and the service levels associated with it. Perhaps then a drainage hierarchy should be based on the number and type of assets that would be damaged if a particular drainage asset was to fail. |
Forum thread: Drainage Hierarchy
|
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2012 04:30 PM PDT Has anyone adopted a bridge hierarchy that they believe works pretty well? I am currently giving the issue some thought, and am leaning towards, separate hierarchies for road bridges and non-road bridges, with the road bridges inheriting their classification from the road hierarchy, and a simple two option classification (major / minor) for non-road bridges. |
Forum thread: Bridge Hierarchy
|