RIMS Forum - 20 March 2013 Mike Tapper - Beca

1. Measuring and Monitoring Confidence
in your RAMM Database
Viren Sharma 20 March 2013
Mike Tapper
2013 Road Asset and Information Forum, Wellington

2. AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 3

3. AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 7
Objective
Purpose 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

4. AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 10
Index Framework
RAMM INDEX
RAMM INDEX
Pavement and Non-
Active Assets
Footpath Collected Data
Collected Data Carriageway
Assets Assets
•• Visual Rating
Visual Rating
•• Surfacings
Surfacings •• High Speed
Automated •• Bridges
Bridges
•• Data
Data
Pavements
Pavements •• Drainage
Drainage
•• Footpath
Footpath
•• Footpaths
Footpaths •• SWC
SWC
Rating
Rating
•• Treatment
Treatment •• Signs
Signs
•• Maintenance
Maintenance
Length
Length Costs
Costs •• Streetlights
Streetlights
•• Traffic
Traffic

5. AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 11
Confidence Grading
Grade Description
1 Accurate / measured data
2 Minor inaccuracies
3 50% estimated
4 Significant data estimated
5 All data estimated
Grading Regime
This format is used for both the ranking and
the target setting.

6. AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 12
Dashboard Results – Pavement and Footpaths
Category Measures Result Measure Target Category Target Group Target
Pavement and Footpath Inventory
% of Network surfaced in RAMM over previous 4 – 15 months 7.6% Grade 2 Grade 1
Surfacing % Surfaces 50% older than expected age 0.0% Grade 1 Grade 2 92 82
Illogical records (SAC with chipseal, unsealed with surface dates, duplicates, low &
0.2% Grade 1 Grade 1
high widths, traffic volumes v hierarchy/pavement use, overlaps, no surfacings etc)
% of Network in RAMM 4 – 27 months previous 3.4% Grade 2 Grade 2
Footpaths Benchmark length v typical urban length/km 93.3% Grade 1 Grade 2 84 82
Illogical records incl. % with no material or surface date, overlaps, duplicates etc 1.7% Grade 1 Grade 1 79 78
Proportion with layer information on roads with ADT > 500 vpd 99.7% Grade 1 Grade 3
Pavement
50 65
Layer st
New Layer length v 1 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
Treatment
Proportion of TLs with < 80% coverage of major surfacing 3.1% Grade 1 Grade 1 91 83
Length
% updated in last 5 years on roads with ADT >500vpd 100.0% Grade 1 Grade 2

7. AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 13
Dashboard Results – Collected Data
Category Measures Result Measure Target Category Target Group Target
Collected Data
Percentage compliant with AT policy (i.e. Percentage > 500 vpd not rated in last
100.0% Grade 1 Grade 1
Carriageway 1.5 years plus percentage < 500 vpd not rated in last 2.5 years)
100 90
Rating % compliant with AT policy (i.e inspection length < 95% or rating section length >
99.5% Grade 1 Grade 1
300m unless rural local roads, service lanes etc where inspection length < 20%)
% network meeting AT policy for roughness (Main roads surveyed in last 1.5
98.8% Grade 1 Grade 1
years and local roads in last 2.5 years)
High Speed % network meeting AT policy for rutting (Main roads surveyed in last 1.5 years and
96.4% Grade 1 Grade 1 97 90
Data local roads in last 2.5 years)
% network meeting AT policy for texture (Main roads surveyed in last 1.5 years
96.4% Grade 1 Grade 1
and local roads in last 2.5 years)
Items per km for PA and SU fault codes in previous 4 – 15 months 16.4% Grade 5 Grade 2
Maintenance
58 80 76 87
Costs
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
Traffic Count 30 85
% estimates < 3 years old 4.2% Grade 5 Grade 1
% loading estimate + count (i.e. not default) 18.0% Grade 5 Grade 2
Footpath
Percentage compliant with AT policy (i.e. Percentage rated in last 3.5 years) 95.3% Grade 1 Grade 1 95 90
Rating

8. AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 14
Category Measures Result Measure Target Category Target Group Target
Non-Carriageway Asset Inventory
Difference in No. of bridges in database v Valuation quantity 10.0% Grade 1 Grade 1
Dashboard Results – Non-Carriageway Assets
Bridges Bridges with as-built drawings attached 40.9% Grade 3 Grade 2 76 83
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
Drainage 93 80
Catchpits per km v benchmark (Urban) 86.2% Grade 2 Grade 2
Surface SWC per urban km v benchmark 92.3% Grade 1 Grade 2
Water 67 76 65 80
Channels 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
Signs 27 78
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
Streetlights Maintenance Activity (“replaced” date in previous 4 – 15 months) 1.2% Grade 4 Grade 2 61 82
Duplicates or near duplicates plus poles with no light or bracket 0.1% Grade 1 Grade 1

9. AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page 15
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

10. AT | Measuring and Monitoring Confidence in your RAMM Data base Page
Questions/Discussion