[TCUG] Re: BV165 Re-visited
- From: "Wheatley,Graham (Environmental Services)" <Graham.Wheatley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:52:48 -0000
Dave
Using the old criteria our indicator would have been 97.2%. (signals).
With the new criteria (dropped kerbs 0 to 6mm, poles less than 500mm
from textured pavement and audibles/tactile cones) it is likely to drop
to 84.2% with the information collected so far.
As more sites are inspected it is likely to drop further.
We have however not received any complaints from disabled groups.
I am also disappointed that the new criteria is being applied to equipment
installed before 98 when, LRN 1/98 was issued.
Graham Wheatley
Senior Projects Engineer.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Hulson [SMTP:Dave.Hulson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 16 January 2003 08:50
> To: TCUG
> Subject: [TCUG] BV165 Re-visited
>
> As the end of the financial year approaches and deadlines for Best Value
> indicators draw near, it has fallen to me to calculate our BV165 figures
> using the new 'formula'. To help us over the transition period from one
> method of calculating the figures to the new method, I was asked to
> produce start and end of year figures using both methods. Both sets of
> figures showed an 'improvement' over the year but with the new figures
> noticably lower than the figures calculated using the old method (about
> seventy percent compared with about eighty percent).
>
> Despite the fact that we are now counting something quite different to
> before, our Best Value Team seem rather shocked by the difference in the
> results and to calm them I have agreed to ask whether others have seen a
> similar change in absolute value for BV165. If so, have others found
> that the new value is generally higher or lower that the corresponding
> figures calculated using the old method?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave Hulson
> Nottingham City Council
>
>
>
> **************************************************************************
> *
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
> views which are not the views of Nottingham City Council unless
> specifically
> stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your
> system,
> do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
> reliance
> on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that Nottingham City
> Council monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will
> signify your consent to this.
> **************************************************************************
> *
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
> the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Other related posts:
