In 2013, the American Society for Civil Engineers estimated that the United States needed to invest $3.6 trillion by 2020 to replace its ailing infrastructure(American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013). Neglecting potholes on roads can lead to poor quality roads that become much more costly to fix rather than maintaining roads that are in good condition (Anderson, 2011); neglecting bridge maintenance can lead to bridge collapse and death (Sander and Saulny, 2017); neglecting water treatment can lead to lead from aging service lines to leach into a water supply which subsequently can lead to a city-wide lead poisoning of a generation of children as tragically exemplified in Flint, Michigan (of Flint, 2015). Our work concerns the more than one million miles of water mains in the United States that deliver potable water to homes and businesses. The problem of main breaks is particularly prominent in older cities where large portions of the water infrastructure were laid a century or more ago and have passed their operating life. Massive main breaks can lead to property damage by flooding homes and businesses, create massive sinkholes that destroy roads and vehicles on those roads, lead to leaks into gas lines preventing homes from receiving heat, and destroy power lines preventing homes from receiving power (Jerome, 2017). In addition to massive main breaks, many cities, like Syracuse, NY, do not suffer from just these massive main breaks. Rather, they are afflicted by a large number of frequent, pestilential, small main breaks. For cities with a growing population it is much easier to launch infrastructure improvement projects or simply cope with expensive reactive maintenance due to a growing tax base. On the antipodal end of the spectrum are cities with a declining population where the costs of maintenance increase while the remaining residents must each bear a larger amount of those costs (Semuels, 2016).
1.1. Syracuse and Water Main Breaks
The city of Syracuse, NY, has approximately 200 main breaks a year, sometimes suffering multiple breaks in a single day (Figure 1). Water main problems are notoriously difficult to monitor given their subterranean location. The city’s current strategy (similar to most cities) is reactive - to fix main breaks after they have broken. This purely reactive strategy is untenable due to the increasing cost and number of main breaks and disruption to daily life. The financial resources to handle the water infrastructure has also decreased. Syracuse’s population has fallen 35% from its 1950 peak of 220,000 to 144,000 today forcing current residents to bear the costs of maintaining an aging infrastructure designed for a much larger population. It is therefore critical for cities such as Syracuse to perform preventative maintenance efficiently on their infrastructure as opposed to the reactive process they’ve been following so far.
Water main breaks typically occur without any prior warning making it difficult to decide which water mains should be pro-actively replaced before a break. A water main may break once and not break again for many years while other water mains in different parts of the city break frequently. There are many competing theories about the causes of main breaks from different members of city government. Some believe that the material of a water main is the most important predictive feature of a main break; others believe that the age of a water main is the most predictive feature. Syracuse’s industrial heritage had once resulted in the unfortunate designation of Lake Onondaga, located at the city’s northwest corner, as “the Most Polluted Lake in America” by the New York State Department of Energy and Conservation (Chanatry, 2012). Due to a massive investment and continuous efforts to clean the lake, it has since been cleaned, though the toxic soil remains a concern for water main integrity. As a result, the soil around and near the lake contains varying levels of toxicity that are thought to contribute to the degradation of water mains. Additional proposed causes of water main breaks are large amounts of vibrations on roadways above a water main or nearby construction. Competing theories and the lack of an obvious pattern makes the problem of selecting which mains need to be prioritized for replacement nontrivial. We focused on the problem of predicting which city blocks in Syracuse are most likely to have water main breaks in the next three years.
1.2. Existing Approaches
Failure analysis of water infrastructure is a problem that has been studied for the last 40 years using a variety of methods and frameworks often with conflicting results. The first known paper is (Shamir and Howard, 1979). In that work the authors predicted the number of failures per unit length using a Poisson model based on the age of the pipes. There has also been a long history of modeling water main breaks using survival-based methods such as homogeneous Poisson process, Poisson regression (Asnaashari et al., 2009; Boxall et al., 2007), exponential Weibull model and Weibull hazard model (Vanrenterghem-Raven et al., 2003; Le Gat and Eisenbeis, 2000) . Oftentimes these models separate water mains into classes based on material and diameter and calculate the failure rate as a function of time. There are also conflicting results where various predictive variables are thought to play a factor. For instance, pipe age is the main issue in (Shamir and Howard, 1979) and soil resistivity is the main risk factor in another model (Kabir et al., 2015), whereas number of breaks can be the main predictive factor in other models (Pelletier et al., 2003; Le Gat and Eisenbeis, 2000; Mailhot et al., 2000). Review articles on failure analysis can be found in (Scheidegger et al., 2013) and (Kleiner and Rajani, 2001).
1.3. Our Contribution
We framed this problem as a binary classification problem of whether a water main break will occur on a given city block within the next three years. This definition allows the city of Syracuse to easily operationalize this model and plan the infrastructure development for the next three years. We compare our results to a variety of baseline approaches including heuristics that are currently used by experts in this area. Our publicly available code at https://github.com/dssg/syracuse_public
allows other cities to replicate this analysis and compare it with existing approaches they are using. Our contribution to the problem is a model that uses out-of-sample prediction, temporal cross-validation, and tunes the model to the capacity of the city to intervene. Our results on historical data showed that we can accurately estimate the probability of a water main break and are 62% accurate in the top 1% of our predictions. Based on those results, the city of Syracuse has deployed this system and is currently conducting a field trial to validate these predictions over the next year. At the time of writing there have been 33 breaks among our top 52 predicted city blocks.
The city of Syracuse currently plans to use this system in two ways: 1) for preventative maintenance on the top 1% of the riskiest water mains 2) to use the risk scores to coordinate with the Department of Public Works (DPW) as they do road construction and maintenance. This has not only been a successful initiative for the city of Syracuse in improving their infrastructure but we also believe this approach can be successfully applied to other cities around the world. Our code has been released as open source and is available on github at https://github.com/dssg/syracuse_public for other cities to reuse and extend. The rest of the paper describes the problem in more detail, our solution, and validation results.
2. Water Main Problem in Syracuse, NY
|Street||Block||Road Rating||Risk Score|
|E Hampton Ave||900-934||8||81|
|S Hardy Dr||200-299||4||74|
The city of Syracuse experiences approximately 200 water main breaks a year with the most frequent water main breaks occurring in the winter months( Figure 2 ). Exploratory spatial clustering (Ord and Getis, 1995; Getis and Ord, 1992) (Local Getis-Ord Clustering) of main breaks reveals that clusters are made up of small localized clusters with frequent water main breaks typically on the same main particularly in the Downtown, Southside and Sedgwick neighborhoods of Syracuse (Figure 3). Issues with the water main system in the Downtown area are largely attributed to the age and material of the pipes; the Southside and Sedgwick areas are known to have issues with water pressure.
This dispels the notion that there are large regions of the city where there are predominantly more main breaks than other regions. For instance it was believed that due to Syracuse’s industrial heritage the area near Lake Onondaga has a greater frequency of main breaks than other other parts of the city due to soil toxicity.
Each main break in the city of Syracuse requires dispatching a repair crew to dig up the main and weld a piece of iron over the break, disrupting water service to residents and businesses. Moreover, the quality and lifespan of the road above the broken main is significantly degraded. While the city’s Water Department is responsible for maintenance of the system, repairs and maintenance of the water mains necessitates coordination with the Department of Public Works (DPW), which maintains the roadways above the water mains. DPW currently conducts an annual survey of its roads to identify those most in need of repair or replacement, the Water Department had little means of identifying mains at the highest risk of replacement besides relying on the expertise of field crews who deal with main failures on a daily basis.
Our analysis is facilitating planning and coordination – by providing the Water Department with an accurate risk assessment about their system such that they are able to conduct targeted proactive main replacement in areas that align with DPW priorities. For instance, if a city block is likely to have a water main break in the near future that needs a road replacement, it would be best for the city to replace the water main on the block before replacing the road. This prevents a water main break from destroying a newly replaced road stretching Syracuse’s limited resources further, table 1 is an example of the output provided to the city.
Our model is deployed and we are currently conducting a field trial. The risk scores for each city block are used in an asset management system by the water department. The risk scores and road ratings have also been used to inform the city’s five-year plan for upgrading the city’s road and water main infrastructure.
3. Data Sources and ETL
We combined and digitized several disparate data sources including 100-year-old field notebooks on the layout of pipes, excel spreadsheets of past work orders, historical property tax records, geological data, and shapefiles of the water system and roads layout of the city to create our dataset.
|Water Department Work Orders||Records of work done by the water department|
|Water Main System||GIS Shapefile of the water infrastructure|
|Tax Parcel Data||Historical property tax records|
|Field Notebooks||Hand drawn field notebooks of water main layout|
|Road Ratings||Ratings of the quality of roads in Syracuse|
|Soil Data||GIS Shapefile on soil type and rocktype provided by the city of Syracuse|
|County Shape File||GIS Shapefile of all roads and city blocks in Syracuse|
3.0.1. Water Department Work Orders
This data contains a list of services provided by the Department of Water on the water system from 2004-2015 (approximately 10,000 rows of data). This includes a job description, the date of work, and address. We used each address to map a reported break to the specific water main where the break occurred.
3.0.2. Water Main System
The city has the location of all water mains, hydrants, valves, reservoirs and pressure zones as shapefiles. These shapefiles were created by Syracuse’s Water Department by digitizing old field notebooks and recording new construction. The shapefiles also contain some information on pipe diameter, pipe material, year of installation, soil data and pressure data. There are approximately 500 miles of water mains in the city, resulting in about 36,000 rows of data.
3.0.3. Tax Parcel Data
This is a shapefile containing historical property tax records for every land parcel in the city.
3.0.4. Field Notebooks
Field notebooks have data on pipe age, material, and diameter that were recorded by the original field engineer at the time of installation. This was used to find a large number of pipe ages and materials as explained in the methodology section.
3.0.5. Road Ratings
We received road rating data from 2000-2015. All roads are rated from 1 to 10, with 10 being a perfect newly paved road and 1 being a dirt road. It is possible there could be a correlation between poor roads and water main breaks. We did not find one, nor did the road ratings help our predictions. Given street addresses we were able to geocode the road ratings.
3.0.6. Soil Data
Soil data was obtained from the USGS database in the form of a shapefile. Syracuse contains 55 distinct types of soils which may play a role in whether water main breaks occur or not.
3.0.7. Syracuse Streetline Shape File
The county shape file in Syracuse maps all the roads and individual city blocks.
3.0.8. Limitations of the Data
The data sources described above have several limitations. For instance, there are several ways that water mains break. There are “round cracks” associated with the depth of the frost line in winter or drop in water temperature, “spilt cracks” associated with the expansion of metal in the summer, and wholesale breaks where entire streets collapse. Despite wide ranging severity, these are all labeled “Main Break/Leak” in our data. Moreover, there is a great deal of lore around why pipes break. Soil toxicity, soil composition, nearby jackhammering, road construction and the (de)activation of reservoirs feeding the water system were all proposed as stressors on mains. Unfortunately, data on these events and descriptors were either unavailable or not sufficiently robust to be used in our model.
All of the code used in this paper may be found at https://github.com/dssg/syracuse_public
. This section describes our overall methodology, from extracting features to building machine learning models to model selection and evaluation.
4.1. Feature Extraction
Our unit of prediction (row of data in training/testing set) is a city block in Syracuse. The block level was chosen after discussions with different departments within the city of Syracuse: when replacing a water main, the water main along an entire city block would be replaced. The features of our model were diameter, pipe age, installation year, soil type, rock type, pressure zone, pipe material, road rating, number of previous breaks on that city block, number of previous breaks on city blocks nearby. Generally, the diameter, pipe age, installation year, soil type, rock type, pressure zone and road rating were the same across a city block. The features created in our system were based on expert knowledge and a thorough examination of the data. Historical studies pointed toward pipe material, pipe age, soil type, toxicity level of the soil, geological composition, and topography as potential factors that affect the lifespan of water mains (Morris, 1967; Shamir and Howard, 1979; Kabir et al., 2015; Pelletier et al., 2003; Le Gat and Eisenbeis, 2000; Mailhot et al., 2000; Le Gat and Eisenbeis, 2000)
. The Syracuse water main system is largely gravity driven. There are several parts of the city for which varying topography leads to different pressure zones. City officials believe that a pressure zone can play a role in main breaks. We had to impute many of these features due to a lack of coverage in our data.
The water main shape file maintained by the city only contained 2% coverage of pipe age, diameter and material. To impute pipe age, material and diameter we had to use the original handwritten field notebooks. An intern with the city of Syracuse digitized, by hand, the relevant notebooks that contained hand-sketched drawings (Figure 4) of the water main system using a sample strategy developed through conversations with the city: First, we used historical property tax data to find the year a home on a city block was assessed property tax; this year was used as a substitution for the year a pipe was installed on that block. Once we had large coverage on the installation year of the pipes, we used a set of rules to determine the pipe material. If a pipe was installed before 1920 we assumed Cast iron; if a pipe was installed after 1960 we assumed the pipe is ductile iron; for all pipes installed between 1920-1960, we looked up the pipe material and diameter in the original field notebook. In the cases where the shape files contained pipe age and material we also looked up the pipe diameter. We were able to make the simplifying assumption that we could find the pipe age, material and diameter for a single block on a street and then apply these values to all blocks on that street due to the homogeneity of water mains along a street.
4.2. Aggregation of water mains to city block level
The location of each water main was mapped to a city block using PostGIS. Due to distortions in the projections in the street line shapefile and water main shapefile we could not simply map a water main to street based on whether a water main line was aligned to a street line. Instead, we created a buffer around the street lines using the PostGIS buffer function and then calculated the maximum overlap a water main line had within a buffered street. A mapping was made between a water main and street block when the water main line fell in the area inside the buffered area of that street block. By examining the number of breaks on a given city block it became apparent that the more water main breaks on a city block the greater likelihood for a water main break to occur on that block again. We, therefore, incorporated the number of past main breaks on a city block as a feature. All categorical features were converted to dummy variables.
In our data, the water mains were recorded as GIS line segments that began or ended between fire hydrants, valves, or, sometimes, arbitrary points. However, the natural unit for proactive repair is not a GIS line segment, but a city block due to the block level being the level at which there would be an intervention, which, in this case, is the replacement of a water main on a city block. Thus, we aggregated our data to this resolution to enable preventative maintenance by the city. In the rare instances when pipe age, material and diameter were not constant along a city block, we took the earliest install year, majority material by length, and smallest diameter.
|diameter||Diameter of water main|
|pipe age||Age of the water main at the time of prediction|
|installation year||year water main installed|
|soil type||Soil type from USGIS|
|rocktype||Rock type from USGIS|
|pressure zone||The city of Syracuse’s water system is largely gravity driven. In parts of the city there are different pressure zones that are used to maintain the water system.|
|material||Material the the water main is made of|
|road rating of block||A rating from 1-10 on the quality of the road above the main.|
|number of previous breaks||The number of previous water main breaks on that city block.|
|number of breaks nearby||The number of previous water main breaks in a 100ft radius.|
5. Modeling Approach and Results
The problem was cast as a binary classification problem to predict which mains are likely to break in the next three years so they can be proactively replaced before the break. The three-year prediction window and precision at 1% were based on the resources the city has to replace water mains. There are 5263 city blocks in Syracuse; the city can reasonably replace water mains of 52 blocks every three years, making precision and recall at 1% (52 blocks) the metric to optimize. Models were evaluated using temporal validation(Hyndman and Athanasopoulos, 2014) where a model is trained on data from a particular time period and evaluated on the next time period. For example, if we are assessing the risk of a main break between the years 2013 and 2015 (break within 3 years), we train our models using features from before 2013 and test them on the three years starting form 2013. With the data ranging from 2005-2015, multiple training and test sets were created and the results aggregated for model selection. For each test set, we calculated precision at the top 1% for predicting breaks three years out in the future.
Different classification methods (Decision Trees, Logistic Regression, AdaBoost, Random Forests, Gradient Boosted Decision Trees), training data history, and feature sets where compared to each other using precision at 1%. In addition, machine learning models where compared to several baselines: a random baseline as well as a few based on heuristics that domain experts use, pipe age and number of past breaks. We wanted to compare the machine learning models we were building to each other, to a random baseline, as well as to the set of heuristics that experts within the water infrastructure community would use today to predict breaks to make sure the system is in fact an improvement and worth deploying. To assess how well the models estimate the probability of a main break, we used decile analysis to compare the predicted probability to the empirical probability.
5.1. Predictive Performance
The model that performed the best at precision at 1% used the Gradient Boosting Decision Trees (GBDT) algorithm looking back six years into the past. GBDT constructs an additive regression model which uses a linear combination of decision trees (Friedman, 2002)
. GBDT can perform feature selection inherently and the number of boosting iterations is a natural regularization parameter(Friedman, 2002)
. In the GBDT classifier, the model follows an additive expansion of the following form:
where are the base learners, is the weight of tree , denotes the parameters of the th decision tree
Where is the ground truth, is the score from the j-1 iteration and is the j-th iteration base learner.
The boosting algorithm in GBDT is the following:
Initialize the list of base learners with a simple uniform weight assigned to each base learner.
In the first iteration check which training examples were poorly predicted by the forest.
Increase the weight of the examples that the existing forest predicted poorly.
Estimate a new weak classifier based on the weighted examples.
Compute the weight of the new week classifier.
Add the new classifier to the forest.
Repeat iterations by re-weighting the training examples and adding further weak classifiers.
Using GBDT we obtained the best performance when the number of boosting iterations was set to 100, and maximum depth of each tree was set to 3 (this in turn imposes a limit on the terminal nodes). We used a subsampling rate of 50%, meaning that each base learner could use 50% of the training samples. This subsampling effectively results in Stochastic Gradient Boosting(Friedman, 2002). The precision at 1% (52 city blocks) using the best performing GBDT is 0.62 and recall at 1% is 0.07 (Figure 5). This translates into 32/52 city blocks that we correctly predicted would break within three years of the end of the training data.
5.1.1. Comparison to Baselines
We compared our machine learning models to a random baseline and the expert heuristics of pipe age and number of past breaks. A random baseline where 52 city blocks are chosen at random results in a precision at 1% of 0.08. When ranking all city blocks by pipe age, the precision at 1% is 0.10, which is close to random. This dispels the common notion that the oldest pipes are likely to fail first and indicates there are a number of other factors involved such as material, soil, pressure zone. Creating a ranked list of city blocks based on the number of past breaks leads to a much better precision at 1%, 0.48, compared to pipe age and a random baseline. This shows that the number of past breaks is a strong but not perfect indicator of water main failure. All our models with the exception of a basic decision tree model, outperform the random baseline and expert heuristics. The best model outperforms the random baseline and expert heuristics with a precision at 1% of 0.62, a 14 percentage point improvement.
|Heuristic/Model||Precision at 1%|
|Rank by Pipe Age (baseline)||0.10|
|Rank by Past Breaks (baseline)||0.48|
|Syracuse Model (GBDT)||0.62|
5.2. Feature Importances
Gini importance (Louppe et al., 2013; Louppe, 2014) was used to calculate the feature importances (Figure 6). The metric is calculated by summing the gain in purity over the number of splits in a tree that use the feature. As expected, the most important feature of our model is the past history of breaks on a city block with the number of breaks within the last 5 years being the most predictive feature. If a water main continuously breaks every year it is likely that water main is already highly defective, corroded and in need of a replacement. The typical water main repair is to weld a piece of iron over the cracked portion of the water main rather than replacing the water main due to costs and construction time; the repair does not fix underlying structural issues. Pipe diameter is also an important feature. As our experience suggests, the larger the diameter a pipe has the more resilient it will be to temperature changes and a shifting of the ground due to traffic or the bending and shifting of soil.
Despite pipe age not being a sole useful heuristic in predicting main breaks, it is quite important in our model. As pipes age they are likely to fail due to corrosion and normal wear. The interaction of pipe age with the other features in our feature set appears to be predictive water main breaks. The quality of the roads above a water main as captured by the road ratings was not predictive of a water main break. Based on expert knowledge, pipe material was largely thought to play an important role. Throughout the history of the city, installed water mains have been made of several materials. Cast Iron and Universal pipes have long been considered by the water department to be inferior to Ductile Iron and prone to water main breaks. Surprisingly, pipe material is not an important feature of our model. We also trained models with and without the installation year and interestingly found that using the installation year improved the model. Installation year distinguishes pipes further than simply using age, material and diameter. Pipes made of the same material can be of different quality due to being manufactured by different vendors that were purchased and installed by the city at different times. The model can distinguish types of pipes that are of the same material by using a combination of pipe material and the year the pipe was installed.
5.3. Probability Calibration
In order to evaluate if the risk scores can be reasonably used as probabilities to make maintenance decisions, we have to assess how accurate the model’s risk scores are to the overall probabilities of a main break. We compared the predicted probability of the model to empirical probabilities using decile analysis(Niculescu-Mizil and Caruana, 2005). A reliability curve was calculated by partitioning the predicted probabilities into ten bins. The mean empirical probability and mean predicted probability for each bin was computed. For perfectly calibrated predictions, the mean empirical and predicted probabilities would be equal. We have also plotted the reliability curve for each decile (Figure 7 Top). From the curve we can see the probabilities are mostly close to zero as would be expected due to a main break being a rare event (Figure 7 Bottom); typically, only 9% of city blocks have a water main break over a three-year period. The probabilities are well calibrated in the lower deciles as can be seen from the reliability curves. The middle deciles have predicted probabilities that are slightly greater than the empirical probabilities. The top decile has a predicted probability less than the empirical probability. This is likely due to a lack of samples since the top decile only contains six samples.
6. Implementation and Next Steps
As part of the deployment process, we took our best performing model and retrained it on all the data up to 2016. This retrained model was then used to make predictions on which water main breaks will fail from 2016-2018 - the next three years.
The city is currently monitoring these predictions as part of a field trial by monitoring the number and location of breaks that occur within this period in order to validate the model. At the time of this writing there have been 33 main breaks on our top 52 predicted city blocks. These risk scores are being used as input in a 5-year plan to upgrade the entire infrastructure of the city(I-Team, 2016) and perform proactive maintenance.
The model has been used in several different ways. First, as the City has tested water sensors that would detect leaks in real time, we used the model to dictate where sensors should be placed. Given that we suspected the mains from the model to be the most likely to break, getting regular updates on the status of those mains was important. The result was that we did identify leaks and other issues with the mains based on those leak sensors. More significantly, the model was used to help give context to blocks of road where all of the infrastructure was in need of replacement. Looking at road and sewer quality, in combination with the riskiest mains from the model, the City was able to justify several Dig Once projects where all infrastructure was replaced at one time; a dig once project being a coordinated effort between various agencies in the city to replace water mains, gas lines, telecommunication lines (full underground reconstruction) and roads such that the city only needs to ”dig once” for maintenance of the infrastructure. Additionally, when there has been development in the city and buildings were being restored or built, if the City knew a water main was at risk of breaking, we would encourage the developer to replace the water main at the same time as they were doing other work. These types of projects have saved the city more than $1.2 million dollars.
Through this project we have found data quality and communication is critical to the success of data science projects tackling urban infrastructure problems. Other cities that are interested in deploying a similar model may not have the same types of data that were used in the project, but it is likely they still have data that can be operationalized. It is also important to properly communicate the output and benefits of the model to stakeholders around the city. Simply asking front-line staff to trust a data model will not convince a department to change its ways, but showing how the model can benefit the department, help make jobs easier, and ultimately save money will lead to success. Our approach enables Syracuse and similar cities to identify city blocks that are most likely to have main breaks and replace water mains proactively, decreasing the number of main breaks in the long-term. If this approach were implemented over an extended period of time, a city can proactively use its limited resources to gradually modernize a city’s infrastructure rather than reactively repairing water main breaks that have added costs to residents and businesses and are, in general, disruptive to everyday life. We hope this model will serve as a proof-of-concept for evaluating risk in all infrastructure systems in the city.
The present work uses a machine learning approach to develop a risk model for predicting which city blocks are most likely to have a water main break within the next three years. Our model significantly outperforms a random baseline and expert heuristics. The model outputs risk scores, allowing the city to proactively maintain the city’s water infrastructure rather than resorting to purely reactive maintenance. The risk scores of the model enables the city to better allocate resources, facilitate long-term planning, and increase cooperation between different departments such as the water department and department of public works.
The model also provides insight into which factors are important in predicting whether a city block will have a water main failure. We find that largely intuitive features such as the number of past main breaks, pipe age, and pipe diameter, pipe material are important in predicting a main break. However, other common scapegoats such as road quality and road paving seem not to be predictive. It also worth noting that the number of main breaks previously on a block in not perfectly predictive of future main breaks, nor is the age of a water main.
At a higher level we would like to deploy this model to other cities. The model has been released as an open-source package for other cities to use and extend (https://github.com/dssg/syracuse_public). Our model is deployed. We are currently monitoring the number and location of main breaks to validate our three-year predictions in our field trial. The risk scores for each city block are used in an asset management system by the water department. The risk scores and road ratings have also been used to inform the city’s five-year plan for upgrading the city’s road and water main infrastructure. Ultimately, we hope our work at the intersection of data science and city planning will lead to more proactive infrastructure maintenance.
We acknowledge funding from the Schmidt Family Foundation through the Data Science for Social Good Fellowship at the University of Chicago. We also thank David Robusto for digitizing the original field notebooks, as well as the Syracuse Water Department and Department of Public Works for sharing data, expertise, time, and feedback.
- American Society of Civil Engineers (2013) American Society of Civil Engineers. 2013. 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/978-0-7844-7883-7
- Anderson (2011) Geoffrey Anderson. 2011. The Problem with Potholes: Neglected Road Repair Poses Huge Liabilities for Many States. (June 2011). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-anderson/the-problem-with-potholes_b_870196.html
- Asnaashari et al. (2009) A. Asnaashari, E. A. McBean, I. Shahrour, and B. Gharabaghi. 2009. Prediction of watermain failure frequencies using multiple and Poisson regression. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply 9, 1 (March 2009), 9. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/ws.2009.020
- Boxall et al. (2007) J. B. Boxall, A. O’Hagan, S. Pooladsaz, A. J. Saul, and D. M. Unwin. 2007. Estimation of burst rates in water distribution mains. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water Management 160, 2 (June 2007), 73–82. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/wama.2007.160.2.73
- Chanatry (2012) David Chanatry. 2012. America’s ’Most Polluted’ Lake Finally Comes Clean. (Jul 2012). http://www.npr.org/2012/07/31/157413747/americas-most-polluted-lake-finally-comes-clean
- Friedman (2002) Jerome H. Friedman. 2002. Stochastic gradient boosting. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 38, 4 (Feb. 2002), 367–378. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9473(01)00065-2
- Getis and Ord (1992) Arthur Getis and J. K. Ord. 1992. The Analysis of Spatial Association by Use of Distance Statistics. Geographical Analysis 24, 3 (1992), 189–206. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1992.tb00261.x
- Hyndman and Athanasopoulos (2014) Rob J. Hyndman and George Athanasopoulos. 2014. Forecasting: principles and practice (print edition ed.). OTexts, S.l.
- I-Team (2016) Syracuse I-Team. 2016. City of Syracuse I-Team Infrastructure Final Report. Technical Report. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Xo82GXTbPdcktQU0RVVk1qZHc/view
- Jerome (2017) Sara Jerome. 2017. Infrastructure Crisis Evident In Mega Main Breaks. Water Online (Jan. 2017). https://www.wateronline.com/doc/infrastructure-crisis-evident-mega-main-breaks-0001
- Kabir et al. (2015) Golam Kabir, Solomon Tesfamariam, and Rehan Sadiq. 2015. Predicting water main failures using Bayesian model averaging and survival modelling approach. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 142 (Oct. 2015), 498–514. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.06.011
- Kleiner and Rajani (2001) Yehuda Kleiner and Balvant Rajani. 2001. Comprehensive review of structural deterioration of water mains: statistical models. Urban Water 3, 3 (Sept. 2001), 131–150. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1462-0758(01)00033-4
- Le Gat and Eisenbeis (2000) Yves Le Gat and Patrick Eisenbeis. 2000. Using maintenance records to forecast failures in water networks. Urban Water 2, 3 (Sept. 2000), 173–181. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1462-0758(00)00057-1
- Louppe (2014) Gilles Louppe. 2014. Understanding Random Forests: From Theory to Practice. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Liege, Belgium. arXiv:1407.7502.
- Louppe et al. (2013) Gilles Louppe, Louis Wehenkel, Antonio Sutera, and Pierre Geurts. 2013. Understanding Variable Importances in Forests of Randomized Trees. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS’13). Curran Associates Inc., USA, 431–439. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2999611.2999660
- Mailhot et al. (2000) Alain Mailhot, Geneviève Pelletier, Jean-François Noël, and Jean-Pierre Villeneuve. 2000. Modeling the evolution of the structural state of water pipe networks with brief recorded pipe break histories: Methodology and application. Water Resources Research 36, 10 (Oct. 2000), 3053–3062. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900185
- Morris (1967) R. E. Morris. 1967. Principal Causes and Remedies of Water Main Breaks. Journal (American Water Works Association) 59, 7 (1967), 782–798. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41265135
and Caruana (2005)
Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil and
Rich Caruana. 2005.
Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning. InProceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning. ACM, 625–632.
- of Flint (2015) City of Flint. 2015. State of Emergency Declared for the City of Flint. (Dec. 2015). https://www.cityofflint.com/state-of-emergency/
- Ord and Getis (1995) J. K. Ord and Arthur Getis. 1995. Local Spatial Autocorrelation Statistics: Distributional Issues and an Application. Geographical Analysis 27, 4 (1995), 286–306. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00912.x
- Pelletier et al. (2003) Geneviève Pelletier, Alain Mailhot, and Jean-Pierre Villeneuve. 2003. Modeling Water Pipe Breaks—Three Case Studies. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 129, 2 (March 2003), 115–123. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:2(115)
- Sander and Saulny (2017) Libby Sander and Susan Saulny. 2017. Bridge Collapse in Minneapolis Kills at Least 7. The New York Times (Jan. 2017), A1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/us/02bridge.html
- Scheidegger et al. (2013) Andreas Scheidegger, Lisa Scholten, Max Maurer, and Peter Reichert. 2013. Extension of pipe failure models to consider the absence of data from replaced pipes. Water Research 47, 11 (July 2013), 3696–3705. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.017
- Semuels (2016) Alana Semuels. 2016. A Tale of Two Water Systems. The Atlantic (Feb. 2016). https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/a-tale-of-two-water-systems/471207/
- Shamir and Howard (1979) Uri Shamir and Charles D. D. Howard. 1979. An Analytic Approach to Scheduling Pipe Replacement. Journal (American Water Works Association) 71, 5 (1979), 248–258. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41270297
- Vanrenterghem-Raven et al. (2003) A. Vanrenterghem-Raven, P. Eisenbeis, I. Juran, and S. Christodoulou. 2003. Statistical Modeling of the Structural Degradation of an Urban Water Distribution System: Case Study of New York City. American Society of Civil Engineers, 1–10. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40685(2003)41