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