Industries · Road & bridge authority
Road & bridge authority
A road authority has a pavement survey it trusts, a bridge inventory it half-trusts, and a capital programme that has been built the same way for nine years: worst-first, by inspection.
Who this is for
Three people, one budget argument
Pavement engineer
Owns the plan and answers for it. Everything on screen is built to make that week easier.
Bridge asset engineer
Holds the budget line and carries the valuation. Cares about defensibility before features.
Director, network assets
Signs, and is the one asked the awkward question in public. Needs one page, not a tour.
Asset classes
What AIPP scores in this industry
Configured for this industry out of the box: condition on the ASTM_D6433_PCI scale, the TRANSPORT weighting profile, budget shown as 10-year capital programme, and the instruments it answers to (ASTM_D6433, AASHTO_MBEI, AUSTROADS_AGAM, FHWA_NBIS) named on every score. All of it is yours to change — the weights are sliders, not our opinion.
The honest bit
6 of 36 assets will not score
That is the demo register for this industry, and the gaps are deliberate. AIPP refuses to rank an asset the evidence does not support — it will not apply a curve, a zero or a middle grade to a thing nobody has inspected. 17% of this register comes back unranked, with the reason named.
6 of 36 assets carry NO condition evidence and NO age. That is deliberate. A demo register where everything scores teaches a prospect nothing about what happens to the two-thirds of their own register that will not — and it is exactly where most tools quietly invent a zero. Open the demo on these.
How it runs
From export to defensible programme
PCI comes in on its own 0–100 scale and converts on the published D6433 bands, not a straight line. Bridges load on NBI 0–9 or MBEI condition states.
Pavement risk runs on PCI, rutting and cracking; bridges on structural health, scour and load rating.
Weighting balances network criticality against safety — the two things a road authority is actually trading.
Ten-year programme runs against the envelope, with treatment timing so a reseal is not spent on a pavement that needs reconstruction.
The pack shows the deferred bridges by name, with the detour length each failure imposes.
What you will see
The screens that matter here
Fair questions
What this industry actually asks us
We use dTIMS / HDM-4 for pavements.
Then keep it. HDM-4 is listed in our registry as NOT built — AIPP does not model pavement deterioration to that depth. Feed its outputs in as condition and treatment cost, and use AIPP for the cross-class prioritisation and the constrained programme it does not do.
Bridges are element-level for us, not asset-level.
MBEI condition states load as a pack, but AIPP converts the governing state only. If you need element quantities driving renewal cost, that is a real limitation and it is written into the pack.
Our council will not accept a black-box score.
Nor should they. Every score opens to its inputs, its coefficient and whether each input was measured or defaulted. The coefficients start as ours and are meant to be replaced with yours.
Run it on your own worst class
Bring one export — the class with the missing condition data and the costs from 2019. If AIPP tells you the truth about it in twenty minutes, that is worth a conversation. If it scores everything and looks clean, tell us so.