Living Lab A90 Rome

The AM4INFRA project is building a common framework for a European life-cycle based asset management approach for transport infrastructure. To embed and verify elements of the framework approach into real life scenarios and practices and to learn from this reality over time, the Living Labs concept has been chosen.

Living Lab A90 Rome
AM4INFRA – Common principles and tools in European asset management practice

Description of activities

On 31st January 2018 ANAS organised the Rome Living Lab A90 at the ANAS headquarters, according to the scheduled activities of AM4INFRA. The proposed goals of the Rome Living Lab, as per the project description of activities and the Grant Agreement were the following:
• To identify a specific road stretch of a TEN-T itinerary in order to perform an on field application for the designed asset management information system model,
• To perform on the selected itinerary a case study regarding the application of asset information management system,
• To collect results and lesson learnt from case study outcomes,
• To identify possible additional user and functional requirements to update the asset information management system BBP,
• To collect any possible input from the stakeholders on the living lab.

The meeting was held in Italian.
The English webinar about this event took place on Thursday 8th February 2018. Please find the video from this webinar here:


Description of the real life context

Context: The ring road of Rome is the real life context for the Living Lab Rome. This ring road is 68 km long and serves over 100.000 vehicles a day. The figure below shows the map of the ring road. This road plays a key role for the accessibility of the inner city with over 30 junctions providing access to it. Particularly at play in this living lab is the variety of road agencies involved.

Map of the ring road of Rome

Current Issues:
Extensively used road, vital for Rome and wider urban area
Highly interlinked with a variety of networks operated by a variety of agencies
Potential for improvement through systematic refinement and balancing of performance of assets.

Key Stakeholders: The following list involves the toll authorities, the road agencies, the public broadcasting company as well as the public sector involved in the Rome Living Lab and provides their interactions.
• AISCAT – Association of the Toll Concession Companies of Italy
• Autostrada dei Parchi – Private concessionaire company responsible for the operation and management of 281 km of toll motorway, including the Eastern road section getting to Rome downtown
• ASTRAL – Public operator of the non-tolled roads and motorways belonging to the Lazio Region
• Municipality of Rome – Municipality of Rome, Department of Roads
• ANAS – Headquarters Public concessionaire company responsible for designing, building and operating the road and highway “network of national interest” (24.000 km throughout Italy) and the Regional office of the Lazio Region Department of ANAS responsible for operating the Rome Ring Road (A90-GRA), the Rome-Fiumicino airport motorway and some other 500 km of ordinary roads, including two penetration stretches to Rome downtown
RAI – National public broadcasting company


The results of the Rome living lab have been defined by the participants and a summary of the Rome Living lab delivered the following results:

Conclusions for WP3 approach and methodology:
a. A comprehensive debate on the ontology map, which has been approved by the IT people who have been able to discuss it;
b. Some 2-3 specific suggestions related to the ontology map that is going to be included in the final report:
Ontology Map: “Risk” concept to be connected also to maintenance works and levels of service (LoS), introducing a double view for risk (asset oriented and road user oriented);
Asset Data Dictionary: new datasets to be introduced in the asset inventory data group, considering elements related to telecommunication and ITS systems installed on the network.

The road itinerary based on a common AM-LCC approach:
c. The agreement on the corridor and the criteria of the case study;
d. A first identification of constraints/threats with respect to the common approach.