Post on 21-Dec-2014
description
Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Database
Viren Sharma 20 March 2013Mike Tapper
2013 Road Asset and Information Forum, Wellington
AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 3
ObjectivePurpose is to identify a repeatable mechanism for reporting the health of the data in the RAMM Database.
The index will be used to establish current condition and a benchmark for monitoring improvement
AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 7
RAMM INDEX
Active Assets Collected DataNon-
Carriageway Assets
• Surfacings• Pavements• Footpaths• Treatment
Length
• Visual Rating• High Speed
Data• Footpath
Rating • Maintenance
Costs • Traffic
• Bridges• Drainage• SWC• Signs• Streetlights
Index FrameworkRAMM INDEX
Pavement and Footpath Assets
Collected Data
• Surfacings• Pavements• Footpaths• Treatment
Length
• Visual Rating• Automated
Data• Footpath
Rating • Maintenance
Costs • Traffic
• Bridges• Drainage• SWC• Signs• Streetlights
AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 10
Confidence GradingGrade Description
1 Accurate / measured data
2 Minor inaccuracies
3 50% estimated
4 Significant data estimated
5 All data estimated
Grading RegimeThis format is used for both the ranking and the target setting.
AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 11
Dashboard Results – Pavement and FootpathsCategory Measures Result Measure Target Category Target Group Target
% of Network surfaced in RAMM over previous 4 – 15 months 7.6% Grade 2 Grade 1
% Surfaces 50% older than expected age 0.0% Grade 1 Grade 2
Illogical records (SAC with chipseal, unsealed with surface dates, duplicates, low & high widths, traffic volumes v hierarchy/pavement use, overlaps, no surfacings etc)
0.2% Grade 1 Grade 1
% of Network in RAMM 4 – 27 months previous 3.4% Grade 2 Grade 2
Benchmark length v typical urban length/km 93.3% Grade 1 Grade 2
Illogical records incl. % with no material or surface date, overlaps, duplicates etc 1.7% Grade 1 Grade 1
Proportion with layer information on roads with ADT > 500 vpd 99.7% Grade 1 Grade 3
New Layer length v 1st coat length in 4 – 15 months 0.0% Grade 4 Grade 2
Proportion of very short (< 20m) or very long (> 500m urban and 1km rural) TLs 10.8% Grade 2 Grade 1
Proportion of TLs with < 80% coverage of major surfacing 3.1% Grade 1 Grade 1
% updated in last 5 years on roads with ADT >500vpd 100.0% Grade 1 Grade 2
79 78
Pavement and Footpath Inventory
Pavement Layer
Treatment Length
Surfacing
Footpaths
8391
6550
8284
8292
AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 12
Dashboard Results – Collected DataCategory Measures Result Measure Target Category Target Group Target
Percentage compliant with AT policy (i.e. Percentage > 500 vpd not rated in last 1.5 years plus percentage < 500 vpd not rated in last 2.5 years)
100.0% Grade 1 Grade 1
% compliant with AT policy (i.e inspection length < 95% or rating section length > 300m unless rural local roads, service lanes etc where inspection length < 20%)
99.5% Grade 1 Grade 1
% network meeting AT policy for roughness (Main roads surveyed in last 1.5 years and local roads in last 2.5 years)
98.8% Grade 1 Grade 1
% network meeting AT policy for rutting (Main roads surveyed in last 1.5 years and local roads in last 2.5 years)
96.4% Grade 1 Grade 1
% network meeting AT policy for texture (Main roads surveyed in last 1.5 years and local roads in last 2.5 years)
96.4% Grade 1 Grade 1
Items per km for PA and SU fault codes in previous 4 – 15 months 16.4% Grade 5 Grade 2
Spread of location in previous 4 - 15 months 0.0% Grade 1 Grade 2
Counts in last 4 - 15 months (vs AT programme) 0% Grade 5 Grade 1
% having ADT Estimates 96.5% Grade 1 Grade 1
% estimates < 3 years old 4.2% Grade 5 Grade 1
% loading estimate + count (i.e. not default) 18.0% Grade 5 Grade 2
Footpath Rating
Percentage compliant with AT policy (i.e. Percentage rated in last 3.5 years) 95.3% Grade 1 Grade 1 95 90
8058
9097
90100
8776
Collected Data
Maintenance Costs
Traffic Count
Carriageway Rating
High Speed Data
8530
AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 13
Dashboard Results – Non-Carriageway Assets
Category Measures Result Measure Target Category Target Group Target
Difference in No. of bridges in database v Valuation quantity 10.0% Grade 1 Grade 1
Bridges with as-built drawings attached 40.9% Grade 3 Grade 2
Bridges with Inspection reports within the last 2.5 yerars 97.7% Grade 1 Grade 1
Culverts per km v benchmark (Rural) 102.6% Grade 1 Grade 2
Catchpits per km v benchmark (Urban) 86.2% Grade 2 Grade 2
SWC per urban km v benchmark 92.3% Grade 1 Grade 2
Renewal Activity (Construction Date in previous 4 – 27 months) 2.3% Grade 3 Grade 2
Signs per km v benchmark (Urban) 51.1% Grade 3 Grade 2
Renewal Activity (“replaced” date in previous 4 – 15 months) 0.2% Grade 4 Grade 2
Streetlights per km v benchmark (Urban) 64.8% Grade 3 Grade 2
Maintenance Activity (“replaced” date in previous 4 – 15 months) 1.2% Grade 4 Grade 2
Duplicates or near duplicates plus poles with no light or bracket 0.1% Grade 1 Grade 1
8093
8376
8261
7827
7667 8065
Bridges
Streetlights
Drainage
Surface Water Channels
Signs
Non-Carriageway Asset Inventory
AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 14
Implementation The index is run annually with a full report Index run quarterly with dashboard only Modular results give focus on key areas Allows a targeted improvement plan Tracks effectiveness on funding spent
AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 15
AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page
Questions/Discussion