HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.c. Pavement Management Program Update , RQSEI��IOLINT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
tITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session: September 9, 2014
AGENDA ITEM: Pavement Management Program Update AGENDA SECTION:
PREPARED BY: Phil Olson, PE, Assistant City Engi , r AGENDA NO. Z �
.��;' � '
ATTACHMENTS: Maintenance Activities Summary, Overall APPROVED BY:
Condition Index (OCI) Map
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion
BACKGROUND
In 2003, the ciry uiitiated the de�-elopment of a pavement management program with the purpose to
manage and extend the pavement life of cit�� streets, thereby enhancing performance on a system-wide
basis in a cost-effecti��e and efficient manner. The goal of the pavement management program is to
provide the city�vith an effective tool to monitor and maintain cit�� streets at a pre-determined level. As a
tool, the pavement management program helps to predict the necessary� funding levels and timing for the
investment of resources to mazunize the pa�ement lifecycle.
Prior to the development of pavement management programs, many community approaches to the
maintenance of the street system was limited to crack sealing, seal coating, and localized patching as
determined necessary. With these practices, communities may experience a pavement life of 20 to 30
years.
The current pavement management model estimates a roadway design life of 50 to 60 years. The model is
based on properly timed preventative maintenance activities and preservation projects.
In 2010, the City began focusing on roadways that were at the right condirion and age for a mill and
overlay pYOject. Since 2010, the City has completed a mill and overlay pxoject each year.
CURRENT ROADWAY NETWORK
"l�hc table below sho�vs a snapshot of the OCI �-alue over the last several��ears compared to the Council
goals.
Roadway Goal 2009 2010 2013 2014
Collector 75 74.31 76.79 71.52 67.98
Local 60 80.49 82.50 76.24 75.87
Network 65* 78.36* 80.54* 74.62* 73.88*
* Weighted AveYage of Collector and Local Roadways
The OCI value for collector road�vays is belo�v the goal of 75. One main reason is that 140`'' Street and
Pine Bend Trail are both in very poor condition and they are lo�vering the OCI average. The OCI value
for local road�vays is above the goal of 60. This value has remained higher than the goal due to the
amount of new development over the last 5 to 15 years.
Below is a table showing the age of the roadways.
I
; Segment Ages
; 25 _
I N
a 20 .z
�
�c 15 -
�
0
� lp _
Z
a 5
°� o �__� _ ___ _ __ ___ _ _ _�_ __�e___ _
� o � o � o � oo
o .-� .-i �v iv m m v v
' tD .1 �D .1 t9 r+ �p �
e-1 e-� N N M M j
�
Age Range
Several spikes appear when comparing the above table with the estimated timing for improvements.
These spikes can lead to cash flow issues compared to the long term budgeting. Belo�v is a listing of
potential problems.
• 19% of the city's road�vays are bet�veen 11 and15 y�ears old. These roadways �vill all be at the
appropriate condition for a mill and oeerlay project�vithin the next 10 years.
• 22% of the city's roadways are bet�veen 16 and 25 years old. These roadways have either been part
of a mill and overlay project or will be pYOposed foY a mill and oveYlay project within the next 5
years.
• 8% of the cit�-'s road�vays are over 40 years old. These require more maintenance than ne�ver
roadways and many are in need of reconstruction.
r1 Pavement Condition Map is attached detailing the current condition of each city street. r�reas to note
are listed below:
• Several rural residential road�vays are in poor condition
o Danbun�WaS�—south of CSr1H 38
o Danbury Way�—north of CSI�H 38
o Deepwoods Court
o Chinchilla 1�venue/127`h Court
o Biscayne r�venue/126`" Strcet
o Bengal�venue�128`� Street/130`�Way
• Road�vays in the south�vest corner of the city�vill likely be programmed for an overlay�vithin the
neYt 5 years. These road�vays are shown in the OCI range of 40 to 70.
• 1'wo rural collector roadways are in very poor condition
0 140`t' Street: Blain rlvenue to CSr�H 42
o Pine Bend Trail: East of Hwy 52
• Se�Teral collector roadways are nearing or are at the conditions for a mill and overlay or
rehabilitation projects
o Shannon Park�vav: CS11H 46 to CSI�H 42
o Biscayne ilvenue: CS�1H 42 to Belmont Court (South of Connemara Trail)
o Chippendale�venue: CSi�H 46 to CS11H 42
g:\pavement management�20140908 cc pavement management.docx 2
CURRENT PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT BUDGET
"I'he current annual pavement management budget is �740,000. Budget modeling has been completed to
project the network condition o�-er a 20 year period. This model pro�ides a long term forecast of the
road�vay condition relative to the budget to ensure that the budget is sustainable for the current network.
The table below sho�vs that with the current budget the average net�vork OCI value is trending do�vn but
the OCI value is steady for appYOxirnately 5 years. Council should consideY incYeasing the annual
pavement management budget prior to beginning the decline in 5 years.
r Effect of Budget on OCI Level
84
79
74
69
I
0 64
I
i 59
i
54 (
�
� 49
I
I 44 � —
( 0 5 10 15 20
' Plan Year
I
Budget Required to Maintain Current Network
OCI
( $3,500,000
i $3,000,000
, $2,500,000
y $2,000,000
on
a
� m' $1,500,000 j
i
i $1,000,000 �
� �
�
� $500,000 ;
� $0
i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Plan Year
�
� __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __
g:\pavement management�20140908 cc pavement management.docx 3
5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)
The 5-year CIP identifies Yoadways that are either at the correct timing foY a mill and overlay project or
could be scheduled for a reconstruction project. In past years, mill and oaerlay projects have been
prioritized ahead of reconstruction projects to ensure that the city is able to extend the roadway life to its
fullest. The City has also planned to complete a reconstruction of Danbury Way in 2015/2016.
Belou�is the proposed 5-year CIP:
• 2015/2016: Danbury Way: South of Mc�ndrews Road
• 2017: Shannon Park�vay: CSAH 46 to CS�H 42
• 2018: Biscaj�ne�venue: CSAH 42 to Belmont Court (South of Connemara Trail)
• 2019: Carrollton and Wenemann Neighborhoods
Future projects:
• Pine Bend Trail: East of Hwy 55
• 145`" Street: Downtown to CSAH 42
• Chippendale Avenue: CS�H 46 to CSAH 42
• Local residenrial mill and overlay pYOjects
BUDGET OPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
The current funding level leads to a gradual decline in the overall net�vork street ratings. Howe�-er, even
after 20 years, the weighted net�vork rating�vould not be below the current adopted standard of 65. In
addition to the net�vork OCI value, there are se�-era1 items to consider.
• The cuYrent funding is not adequate to cash flow the large number of overlay projects that are
planned between 2020 and 2031. These projects all grouped together because of rapid growth
between 1995 and 2007.
• Mill and overlay projects are prioritized higheY than xeconstrucrion projects to ensure that the
pavement condition does not degrade past the point�vhere an overlay can be completed.
• Due to the large number of ovexlay projects in the near future, reconstruction projects in the rural
residential neighborhoods �vill be delayed.
• I�unding between collector and local roads is cuYrently based on timing for when a mill and
overlay is needed. Roadways are typically 18 to 22 years old foY the first overlay.
Belo�v are options to address the large number of overlay projects and rural residential reconstrucuon
projects that are anticipated over the ncxt 20 years.
• Provide funding for additional mill and o`rerlay projects
0 2.5% annual budget increase
or
o �Iaintain current budget and annually utilize �190,000 of State r�id funds on collector roads
• Provide funding for additional mill and overlay projects t1ND provide funding for rural residential
roadways over the ne�t 20 years
0 5% annual budget incxease
or
o Maintain cuYrent budget and annually utilize �380,000 of State Aid funds on collector roads
g:\pavement management\20140908 cc pavement management.docx 4
STATE AID FUNDING
State rlid funding is alread}� currendy used as a partial funding source for unprovement projects on
collector roadways. The next scheduled collector improvement is in 2021 on 140`h Street East The table
belo�v sho�vs the City's anticipated State rlid budget plan.
Year Project EYpenditure Balance
2015 �250,641)
201 G � 619,358)
2017 CSr'�H 42 Brid e at TH 52 $3,125,000 �2,505,G41)
2018 �1,635,641)
2019 �7G5,641)
2020 $104,358
2021 140`" StYeet East $2,516,598 �1,542,239)
It is not recommended that all State rlid funds be dedicated for existing roadways. Historicall��, State Aid
funds have been used for the eYpansion of the city's collector road�vay net�vork. Listed belo�v are future
eYpansion projects that are candidates for State�id funding and currendy unfunded. The City may
advance these projects, up to $4,000,000, from the State Aid account�vithout interest,if state funds are
available.
• rlkron Avenue (1/2 mile, 50% funded): ��750,000
• Biscayne Avenue (3/4 mile, 50% funded): ��1,125,000
• Boulder Avenue ( 1/2 mile, 100% funded): �51,500,000
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Below is some additional information regarding options for road�vay repairs and possible causes for
accelerated pavement deterioration.
• Standard Pa�rement Management Activities
o See handout detailing different types of maintenance acti�-ities
• Pavement Stripping:
o Very shallow pothole that typically staYts in the �vheel path
o Difficult to patch since the pothole is shallow. Spray patching has�voiked however more
stripping occurs adjacent to the patch.
• Pothole Patching:
o Patching in the spring should occur once the pavement has dried
o Surface patching has been completed on areas �vith pa�-ement striping. Patches are rough
and do not provide a smooth dri�-ing surface
• Salt Application:
o Gro�ving concerns about the amount of salt on the road�va�� during the�vinter due to
increased number of freeze tha�v cycles
o Causing accelerated deterioration of pavement, manholes, and road�va��infrastructure
o Salt ma�� be a contributing cause of pa�-ement stripping
• Reflective Cracking
o Cracking on a ne�v mill and o�-erlay project. Cracks in the base course pavement
o Typically occurs �vithin the first year of a mill and overlay project.
CONCLUSION
g:\pavement management\20140908 cc pavement management.docx 5
Mike Rief and r,ndrea Azary with WSB &Associates, Inc. will provide an overview of the pavement
management program. l�like,r�ndrea, and staff�vill be available for questions following the presentation.
Should Council support the continued annual budget of�740,000,it is proposed that an update of the
previous high level feasibility report for the reconstruction of Danbury Way be authorized including
neighborhood meetings.
g:\pavement management\20140908 cc pavement management.docx 6
Maintenance Activities Pros and Cons
Preventative Maintenance
Preventative maintenance can be defined as a treatment to an existing road that will help preserve and
protect the road, while also slowing down future deterioration. This type of maintenance improves the
condition of the system without increasing structural capacity. Preventive maintenance is best
performed on newer pavements prior to the appearance of significant and/or severe distresses.Types
of preventative maintenance include crack sealing, fog sealing and chip sealing. The following highlight
the unit costs as well as pros and cons to various maintenance activities.
Crack Sealing: Cracks are filled with material to prevent the intrusion of water and incompressible
materials into cracks
• Pros:
o Prevents structural deterioration that is caused when water enters the roadway section
• Cons:
o Does not improve the structural capacity of the pavement
Pothole Patching: Filling of a hole or a depression in a road surface by an appropriate asphalt mixture
• Pros:
o Filling potholes creates a passable surface for vehicles
• Cons:
o Labor intensive
o Is not a long term solution.Typical patches last one month to several years
Chip Seals: Asphalt emulsion and rock chips are applied to the roadway to protect the roadway surface
from environmental aging, moisture damage and oxidation
• Pros:
o Protects the pavement from the deteriorating effects of sun and water
o Increases the surface friction on a roadway
o Traffic can be placed on the road once the chips are placed so there is no delay in
waiting for a chemical break or a cure time
o Provides a skid resistant surface and seals the surface
• Cons:
o There are concerns related to chip seal stripping
o Should not be used on roads with a large numbers of potholes or rutting
o Rough road surface is not always ideal in recreational areas for rollerbladerers
o Residents can track the rocks into their homes and make a mess
• Cost:$1.30 to$1.45 per square yard
Double Chip Seal: Placing two layers of a chip seal on top of each other
• Pros:
o More durable than a chip seal
o It takes longer for cracks to reflect through
• Cons:
o Same cons as chip seal
• Cost:$2.60 per square yard
Fog Seal: Asphalt emulsion is applied to the roadway to protect the roadway surface from
environmental aging, moisture damage and oxidation
• Pros:
o Public perception of a newly paved road rather than a chip seal
� Cons:
o Loss of friction associated with a fog seal due to the oil sitting on the surface of a
roadway
o Long cure time before traffic can drive on the fog seal
o The color of a fog seal may fade after a relatively short time however the fog seal is still
effective
• Cost: $0.65-$0.80 per square yard
Chip Seal with a Fog Seal on Top: Fog sealing on top of a chip seal bonds chip seal rocks from the
bottom up and the top down
• Pros:
o Holds rocks better than a chip seal so there is less rock loss
o Less friction loss compared to a fog seal since the underlying trap rock adds the friction
to the surface.
• Cons:
o Fog seal needs time to cure before traffic can drive on the roadway
• Cost: $1.95 per square yard
Microsurfacing/Slurry Seal: A mix of crushed aggregate, mineral filler, and latex-modified, emulsified
asphalt that is effective at sealing low-severity cracks, including fatigue
cracks, longitudinal cracking, and transverse cracking.
• Pros:
o Seals aged and raveled pavement
o Corrects wheel rutting (up to 1.5")
o Corrects minor cracks
o Maintains ride quality
• Cons:
o Expensive
• Cost: $3.50 per square yard
Mill and Overlay: Pavement surface is removed and replaced to create a new pavement surface
• Pros:
o Temporarily improves the aesthetics of a roadway
o Extends roadway life
• Cons:
o Cracks from lower pavement surface will reflect through within the first year or two
• Cost:$14.00 per square yard
Reclamation: A technique in which the pavement section and a predetermined portion of the subgrade
is uniformly pulverized and blended together to produce a new stabilized base
• Pros:
o More permanent solution for pavement repair
o Uses existing roadway materials
o Green approach
o Lower cost than a full reconstruction
• Cons:
o Not cost effective for all types of projects
• Cost:$25.00—35.00 per square yard
Full Depth Replacement: Removal of the pavement and unsuitable soils near the surface. A gravel base
material is placed prior to repaving.
• Pros:
o Eliminates any cracking in the bituminous layers
o Delays the reflective cracking propagating from the subgrade
• Cons:
o May still have reflective cracking from the subgrade
o May not always eliminate rutting if the rutting is occurring at the subgrade
• Cost:$30.00—36.00 per square yard
Full Reconstruction: Removal of the pavement along with a reassessment of the subgrade and base
• Pros:
o New roadway
• Cons:
o Expensive
• Cost: $45.00 per square yard
. _
DIAMOND PATH/CR 3.3) 1 DIAMOND PATH tICSAM 33
m
, .• • '', 66
71 , A I-a VA. ..........'."'.'
- ita neo 1T11.
• c '' - il =',••,.. , . 4, 70
''.•• D
AM n .,'• . %,,,,-., .a. IVA, ,
.7—...1. - ,„, ,• ,, . ,---.. ,0„,„ .., !,,,.,,,,,,,,, ,...„.F.....„::,
,,,,-- ..,- : :,)1
I
,.,*.
eall 4\7111:1j
' '. ' 4: . . -. - ,7 .9, 93..3.9_,,.• ..•:„..„,,,,,,,.
, ...,,, ,,, f •," ''
rk,
4 -
411111111101 ,,
' -: g • , a f .
. . I.
a •-••\'''""—')it .- ,>',14
Tat .-17iiiipill. .., > ito t lc,119, 1--* 53 O.
COBB/ES l'Okt
c,f)
, .
,.,,,,,,,,,_ ,.,• . , :
rri , , ,.,,,,, . ,,,,,,-„, , 113$4, ,
,,,,,,, ,
. . .
., .
. ,
_,
. ' ' *
' PIt EMI
0 $01ik41 - .,
io.,(t HIS)l'''''1/4 ''13'3-
S ROBERT eRL(ST"379
0,$e,a
, o,.
r
•
F/ .
;-t . ' 'I -I' 1.4 li
laI
0 ,
t . .;
. .41-C.'!'YNE AVE/WE t 79 ' . . '' ' 4.RISCAYNE4AVE ' k• _ ,*,,..',„,,,,L1- ..,,,.......' •-
ci
•,-- stra•a■v–i-W--
,.
. ..,
MN
I Z .
Z t
ll
al
BACARDI 0,‘
vi ,
0 . AVE$0 .: ""..‘'"
".11 l''''cr I;I:I. 'IrII'- I I-2:';Iiitt*::::t.II:P.:;• I.='' 4 ..- -:
i .. ,c,s,.1
,
' .41t,•A‘,.
,do'
1, ° ........._
..cas-;:.. .. =,..' 2
- ,
.. .
0
1---- ''''61P-' '";' ',::''''• - -4'- "',' . –--
,-------4-- ------------------..-- 4-'
Y4-.40.0. * Ze.....S,NL•C mh,
'1 t
• Cl) co 0) c.,.) o \
.4 6 4 ;
.. •-1.. —. —. c" 63 1 v if
. _
.,0 1,..) D—s. (6,.) 92 (II
`-'
1 m ,
\'' `''' '.
73 ; AKRON AVE■CR 731 -
AKRON AVE E 7}2 73} 3'1 .,---
3—
c••• ."4.• 0 (1) < 0 AKRON AVE-
' 44, 0 a.) 0 0
CD z o 0
w 0
0 a) ...<
A ,
M0 F1,71,1}1.1
Z =
m
PYI.,
t 1
O i ■ i : }^3 i
o 1 31
, 14
1 I ! ,
'I •••• i
(
Q. NJ N...) N.)
I nt
1 AUDREY AVE
Q 0
t rl'il 7
ta, t
CD ,TI •
–, –1, i„, ,
0
' - !
' • -I=.• CO (V ii
BABCOCK AVE
I
BARBARA AVE I
Z i
1 .
A .
i
Z , 1
,...
CD ro _...; i ri8
k cii o t i 6 IV i 1 1
iv ii,-,
4
. i
I s
r% 3-
13 r---- -
V -. — -- BLA(NB AVE , 41,4 1 BLAINE AVE(CSAH 71)
.T1 ...., I
I
,4 ..,
m 1,x
: 1 im
: rh- 3
I : PRIVATE ROAD
,o,__
-1
I i
i :1
1 ,
0,
. ,
....;`,..... .
±
CLAYTON AVE(US 52■ -13,}3,3.3-3„7.;
C T '
)
,-
1 . , CC''')
I 4 -"II;
1. Ot.;-
...,
-,4
. . . . . . .
10 I i ,f.. inf://
EIP/ •
.
,rn
1 _,
-
4.',-
,"ii
,:i in
•
;g
„ ',
'- i; -;1 1
,...4 .
, I '
0.3 re,
6
1.,.. ,.
: v }
-tf'//6,-/4'
1 I ii
- /
, g
/I t
tD. I
• 4Vg
ii
/ PAHEVAVE 1/
( I i I'
Z Ilitt° 1
1
'V I
1 /'
'•
li
! 17`
• I ;'
----- ----------------
I ' 7 ,
, i I
/ -
Rd 91 gg,,,,,,,,g pones aecIpAu de.xegul II0III0.0 luaw.edluI.IIS,Rial.taned,BuIJAaur..scley,le1.91>1 eda,de..4.0.10,.1.IAA,I.I.A.17