Asset Management  of Streets & Local Roads <ul><li>In Search of Better Network Investment Decisions and Strategies </li></...
Asset Management The Ultimate Question <ul><li>How do I make limited budget dollars stretch and provide a street system th...
Asset Management <ul><li>What is it? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A systematic process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating p...
Asset Management <ul><li>Goal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use in both the short- and long-term decision-making in the planning, ...
Historic Approach <ul><li>Asset-by-Asset Basis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Preservation strategies were reactive  </li></ul></ul...
New Approach <ul><li>Develop Long-Term Network Goals </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasize Preservation </li></ul><ul><li>Proactivel...
Why is it needed with Roads? <ul><li>Roads mileage has increased by 3% </li></ul><ul><li>Average Daily Traffic has increas...
Why is it needed with Roads? <ul><li>Roads mileage has increased by 3% </li></ul><ul><li>Average Daily Traffic has increas...
Another Reason <ul><li>Show taxpayer and motoring public you are doing your job and wisely investing their tax dollars </l...
Another Reason <ul><li>GASB Statement No. 34 issued June 10, 1999 </li></ul><ul><li>GASB - “Government Accounting Standard...
GASB Statement No. 34 <ul><li>“ The most significant change in the history of governmental accounting.  It represents a dr...
GASB Statement No. 34 Impact to Your Agency <ul><li>Report information about public infrastructure assets </li></ul><ul><l...
GASB Rationale for  Infrastructure Reporting <ul><li>Determine whether current-year revenues were sufficient to cover the ...
Key Asset Management System Components to Support GASB No. 34 <ul><li>Asset inventory database </li></ul><ul><li>Asset val...
Key Asset Management System Components to Support GASB No. 34 <ul><li>Asset management planning/programming systems </li><...
Key Asset Management System Components to Support GASB No. 34 <ul><li>Asset renewal/replacement analysis methods </li></ul...
Goals of Street & Road Infrastructure Asset Management <ul><li>Look for network solutions not just individual project solu...
How to Start - An Example <ul><li>Need for Network Level Modeling Tool </li></ul><ul><li>Modeling Information  </li></ul><...
Strategy Development An Example <ul><li>Consider Impacts of Historic Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Recognize Benefits of Capi...
Pavement Network Goal <ul><li>Preserve the pavement network to insure safety and serviceability, while optimizing all avai...
THE OBJECTIVE? <ul><li>Invest wisely to maximize the return (raise the level of service of the roadway system) through a p...
How Do We Do That? <ul><li>Choose pavement types and rehabilitation activities so that the flow of dollars into the paveme...
Years of Remaining Service <ul><li>Time frame before each segment of roadway needs repair. </li></ul><2 3-7 8-12 13-17 18-...
Network Analysis <ul><li>The longer the life of the  system , the greater the average years of service for the whole netwo...
Network Analysis <ul><li>300 mile roadway network with mostly short-live pavements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One-third has an ...
Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: Doubles total service life of system Miles in Segment of Highway ...
Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: Doubles total service life of system Miles in Segment of Highway ...
Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Ser...
Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Ser...
Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Ser...
Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Ser...
Network Analysis <ul><li>The longer the life of the system, the amount that needs repaired at any given time is reduced. <...
Preservation Categories “Mix of fixes” <ul><li>Maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Restoration (CPR) </li></ul><ul><li>Resurfaci...
Maintenance <ul><li>High Benefit, Low User Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Manages Deterioration Rates on “All” Structures </li><...
Restoration <ul><li>Manages Deterioration Rates on “Fair” Pavement </li></ul><ul><li>Delays “Fair” From Becoming “Poor” </...
Rehabilitation <ul><li>Improves Condition Ratings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Poor” to “Good” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Poo...
Reconstruction <ul><li>Address Other Pavement Needs </li></ul><ul><li>Improves Condition Rating </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Po...
Concrete “Mix of Fixes” for  Streets & Local Roads <ul><li>Concrete overlays </li></ul><ul><li>Ultra-thin whitetopping (2-...
Network Impact <ul><li>Look for the “Structural Holes” and fill them </li></ul><2 3-7 8-12 13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 0 5 10 ...
Network Impact <ul><li>By filling structural holes, the average that needs repaired at any given time is reduced. </li></u...
Life Cycle Cost Analysis <ul><ul><li>A procedure to do  economic  comparison of all competing alternatives considering all...
<ul><li>Present Worth Analysis (PW) </li></ul><ul><li>Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost Analysis (EUAC) </li></ul>Life-Cycle ...
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Present Worth Analysis:   Discounts all future costs (benefits) to the present Costs Years Initia...
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost: Combines all  present and future costs (benefits)  into equal ann...
<ul><li>Economic Factors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Discount rate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis Period </li></ul></ul><ul...
<ul><li>Normally equal for each alternative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Highway: 30-40 years </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Street: ...
<ul><li>Initial cost of pavement </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance and operation cost </li></ul><ul><li>Anticipated future reh...
LCCA Process <ul><li>Design equivalent pavement sections </li></ul><ul><li>Establish strategies for analysis period  </li>...
Network and Comparitive Analysis of Pavement Choices <ul><li>Real Life Examples </li></ul><ul><li>“ A Look Back ” </li></ul>
Iowa County Road Study   Impact of Pavement Type on County Road Systems <ul><li>Conducted by:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>James...
Specifics of Study <ul><li>System performance over 40 year period 1954-1994 </li></ul><ul><li>Reviewed both construction a...
County Comparisons <ul><li>Presentation will key on two counties  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>County A - System primarily concre...
Traffic Carried over Pavement Life Through 1993 - Systemwide
Road System Development <ul><li>County A’s system (concrete)  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developed slower over a longer period ...
Paved Miles vs. Time County A County B
Road System Development <ul><li>County A’s system (concrete)  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developed slower over a longer period ...
Road System Development <ul><li>County B’s system (asphalt)  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Substantially developed in first 20 yea...
Performance Analysis <ul><li>Visual distress surveys conducted using MICRO-PAVER </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PCI values develope...
Total Pavement Costs Construction  (including overlays) Maintenance
Average Pavement Costs Construction  (including overlays) (1952-93) Maintenance (1952-92)
Results of Study <ul><li>On system wide basis, the use of concrete for new construction & whitetopping resulted in: </li><...
In Conclusion
Benefits of New Strategy <ul><li>Network </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Systematic Approach to Network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P...
Benefits of New Strategy <ul><li>Organization </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased Program Stability (Credibility) </li></ul></...
Benefits of New Strategy <ul><li>Customer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduced Impact to Motoring Public </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><...
Pavement’s Role <ul><li>Pavement types and and rehabilitation activities must be chosen so that the flow of dollars into t...
Approach Includes <ul><li>Annual Improvement </li></ul><ul><li>Progress Toward Goal </li></ul><ul><li>Regional Progress </...
Midwest Driver Survey <ul><li>“ Drivers believe agencies can and should build longer-lasting pavements with fewer delays” ...
Concrete Pavement Solutions for Positive Asset Management - SLR <ul><li>Intersections </li></ul><ul><li>Arterials </li></u...
Positive Asset Management Impacts of Portland Cement Concrete Pavements <ul><li>Longer term fix </li></ul><ul><li>Low main...
Positive Environmental Impacts of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement <ul><li>Surface temperature - reduced 8-20+ deg. F </l...
A Thought to Take Home  Night Visibility <ul><li>Safer for: </li></ul><ul><li>Motoring Public </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian...
Thank You! Any Questions? “www.pavement.com”
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

(PowerPoint presentation)

989

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
989
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
30
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 2
  • 7 MARK Direction for program development used short-term targets. Most Maintenance currently reactive (putting out fires). Preservation strategies also reactive (worst first approach). Management of deterioration rates not a priority (protect the investment). Historic levels of funding were based on different bridge management philosophies (worst first). Investment history of increasing from $30 million in 1995 up to $160 million in 1998 demonstrates a philosophy shift to a higher. emphasis of investment in the bridge network
  • MARK Preserve existing network address g-f-p with systematic approach Modernization do the right thing at the right time (cost effective) Comprehensive scheduled maintenance plan - manage deterioration rates. Maintenance needs to be more than just reactive. Resources - sufficient $$s and manpower necessary to implement and deliver the plan
  • 19 GLENN &amp; MARK Acknowledge costs include PE/CE. Rehab touches 4s and 5s. Replacement addresses poor needs. CPM addresses fair needs. Reference to works like RQFS.
  • 18 In developing our strategy we recognized: 1) the impacts of historical approach....large investments on few structures “poor” structures....not addressing the needs of large “fair” smokestacks. 2) 50% of our network is “fair” 3) benefits of CSM and CPM in managing or addressing the deterioration rates on “good” and “fair” structures 4) “mix of fixes” would be driven by G-F-P distribution Strategy development was an iterative process....involving varied mixes of fixes and funding levels. Acknowledge poor isn’t failure allows us to establish the network goals of 5/15.
  • 9 GLENN First goal - we will not tolerate, nor will we allow “unsafe” structures on our network. In accepting these goals we acknowledge that “poor” doesn’t mean failure, and that the “poor” structures we will have will be a managed subset of the network Consistent with the direction of the Build Michigan II in that these goals emphasize preservation of the existing network and the higher level freeway network.
  • Key to our success in reaching our goals is preservation. A total change in our historical/traditional investment strategy is necessary. Our new strategy will integrate CSM, CPM, Rehab, and Replacement in a “proper mix” relative to the existing network condition distribution of G-F-P and managed under the umbrella of the capital bridge preservation program. Our new strategy will involve Rehabilitation and Replacement (our traditional bridge preservation/rehabilitation activities) which will focus on the needs of the”poor” and “low end fair” structures. Capital Schedule Maintenance is a new part of the preservation program which will involve capital expenditures for scheduled/routine type maintenance applied to the entire network to sustain a structure in it’s current condition state longer. Maintenance activities that have “low user impact -- with high structure longevity impact” . Capital Preventive Maintenance, work activities that will focus on the needs the structures in “fair”.....53% of network in “fair”.
  • 8
  • 2
  • MARK Measurements are for the CPM/R&amp;R Program. Allow us to monitor and make mid course corrections. Consistent with the concepts implemented in DTP.
  • (PowerPoint presentation)

    1. 1. Asset Management of Streets & Local Roads <ul><li>In Search of Better Network Investment Decisions and Strategies </li></ul><ul><li>by </li></ul><ul><li>Lon Hawbaker, P.E. </li></ul><ul><li>American Concrete Pavement Association </li></ul><ul><li>Skokie, IL </li></ul><ul><li>2000 INT’L APWA Congress & Exposition </li></ul>
    2. 2. Asset Management The Ultimate Question <ul><li>How do I make limited budget dollars stretch and provide a street system that offers a high level of service? </li></ul>
    3. 3. Asset Management <ul><li>What is it? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A systematic process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical assets, such as roadways and bridges, in a cost-effective way. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Combines </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Engineering, business management, economics, and the latest computer-aided technology. </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Asset Management <ul><li>Goal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use in both the short- and long-term decision-making in the planning, budgeting, and operating functions so the assets stays at the highest condition level. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Items needed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inventory </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Condition assessment, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asset evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance prediction measures and trend indicators </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost estimates of options and resulting impacts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engineering/economic optimization tools. </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Historic Approach <ul><li>Asset-by-Asset Basis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Preservation strategies were reactive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintenance approach were reactive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>i.e. Fix the worst pavements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Limited Investment on good / fair structures </li></ul><ul><li>Limited review on investment history </li></ul>
    6. 6. New Approach <ul><li>Develop Long-Term Network Goals </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasize Preservation </li></ul><ul><li>Proactively Manage Deterioration </li></ul><ul><li>Develop Comprehensive Maintenance Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Commitment to Allocate Necessary Resources </li></ul>
    7. 7. Why is it needed with Roads? <ul><li>Roads mileage has increased by 3% </li></ul><ul><li>Average Daily Traffic has increased by 86% </li></ul>
    8. 8. Why is it needed with Roads? <ul><li>Roads mileage has increased by 3% </li></ul><ul><li>Average Daily Traffic has increased by 86% </li></ul><ul><li>Average Daily Load has increased by 550% </li></ul>
    9. 9. Another Reason <ul><li>Show taxpayer and motoring public you are doing your job and wisely investing their tax dollars </li></ul><ul><li>Good public agency business practice </li></ul><ul><li>Good for local business community </li></ul>
    10. 10. Another Reason <ul><li>GASB Statement No. 34 issued June 10, 1999 </li></ul><ul><li>GASB - “Government Accounting Standards Board” </li></ul><ul><li>If you have not heard about it…you will </li></ul>
    11. 11. GASB Statement No. 34 <ul><li>“ The most significant change in the history of governmental accounting. It represents a dramatic shift in the way state and local governments present financial information to the public”… GASB Chairman, Tom L. Allen on Statement No. 34. </li></ul>
    12. 12. GASB Statement No. 34 Impact to Your Agency <ul><li>Report information about public infrastructure assets </li></ul><ul><li>Report on the overall state of the agency’s financial health, not just individual “funds” </li></ul><ul><li>Provide comprehensive information reflecting the cost of delivering services to citizens </li></ul><ul><li>Provide alternative methods for reporting the condition of infrastructure assets </li></ul>
    13. 13. GASB Rationale for Infrastructure Reporting <ul><li>Determine whether current-year revenues were sufficient to cover the cost of current-year services </li></ul><ul><li>Assess the service efforts and costs of programs </li></ul><ul><li>Determine whether the government’s financial position improved or deteriorated as a result of the year’s operations </li></ul><ul><li>Assess the government’s financial position and condition </li></ul><ul><li>Assess the service potential of physical resources having useful lives that extend beyond the current period </li></ul>
    14. 14. Key Asset Management System Components to Support GASB No. 34 <ul><li>Asset inventory database </li></ul><ul><li>Asset valuation processes </li></ul><ul><li>Performance measures and standards </li></ul><ul><li>Condition assessment processes </li></ul>
    15. 15. Key Asset Management System Components to Support GASB No. 34 <ul><li>Asset management planning/programming systems </li></ul><ul><li>- Pavement management systems </li></ul><ul><li>- Maintenance management system </li></ul>
    16. 16. Key Asset Management System Components to Support GASB No. 34 <ul><li>Asset renewal/replacement analysis methods </li></ul><ul><li>- Life-cycle costing </li></ul><ul><li>- Cost-effectiveness analysis </li></ul><ul><li>- Equivalent annual cost </li></ul><ul><li>- Longevity cost index </li></ul><ul><li>Asset disposal policies and procedures </li></ul>
    17. 17. Goals of Street & Road Infrastructure Asset Management <ul><li>Look for network solutions not just individual project solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Allows longer term planning to serve both local taxpayer and requirements of GASB No. 34 </li></ul><ul><li>Longer term network solutions require not only more durable pavement but a “Mix of Fixes” </li></ul>
    18. 18. How to Start - An Example <ul><li>Need for Network Level Modeling Tool </li></ul><ul><li>Modeling Information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Deterioration Rates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Historic Costs Data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Network Impacts of Work Activities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Assess Current Business Practices </li></ul>Pavement Condition Forecasting System
    19. 19. Strategy Development An Example <ul><li>Consider Impacts of Historic Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Recognize Benefits of Capital Scheduled Maintenance and Capital Preventative Maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Acknowledge 53% of Network is “Fair” </li></ul><ul><li>Good-Fair-Poor Distribution Drives Mix of Fixes </li></ul><ul><li>Iterative Process for Varied Mix of Fixes & Funding Levels </li></ul>
    20. 20. Pavement Network Goal <ul><li>Preserve the pavement network to insure safety and serviceability, while optimizing all available resources. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pavements of Critical Concern: address 100% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Freeway: 95% Good or Fair by 2008 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-Freeway: 85% Good or Fair by 2008 </li></ul></ul>
    21. 21. THE OBJECTIVE? <ul><li>Invest wisely to maximize the return (raise the level of service of the roadway system) through a program that balances long-term and short-term pavement strategies </li></ul>
    22. 22. How Do We Do That? <ul><li>Choose pavement types and rehabilitation activities so that the flow of dollars into the pavement system are maintained at the lowest, constant level possible, yet maintain the pavement in the an acceptable condition. </li></ul><ul><li>Key issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Average years of service remaining </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preservation procedures (Mix of Fixes) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Activities used to extend pavement life. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Network impacts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LCCA and total pavement costs </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Years of Remaining Service <ul><li>Time frame before each segment of roadway needs repair. </li></ul><2 3-7 8-12 13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Percent of Network Needing Repair Remaining Years Current Condition
    24. 24. Network Analysis <ul><li>The longer the life of the system , the greater the average years of service for the whole network. </li></ul>
    25. 25. Network Analysis <ul><li>300 mile roadway network with mostly short-live pavements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One-third has an average remaining life of 5 years until work is necessary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One-third has an average remaining life of 10 years until work is necessary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One-third has an average remaining life of 15 years until work is necessary </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What would happen if 1/3 of system upgraded to long-life (40-50 year) pavement that does not need major work for many years? </li></ul>Network Analysis: Hypothetical System
    26. 26. Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: Doubles total service life of system Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Service in Segments 100 100 100 5 10 50 If 1/3 of System has long-life pavements: Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 6500/300 = 21.67 yr. Total = 6500 yr-mi 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 5000 yr-mi (100 x 5) Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Service in Segments 100 100 100 5 10 15 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 1500 yr-mi Total = 3000 yr-mi Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 3000/300 = 10 yr. (100 x 5)
    27. 27. Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: Doubles total service life of system Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Service in Segments 100 100 100 5 10 50 If 1/3 of System has long-life pavements: Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 6500/300 = 21.67 yr. Total = 6500 yr-mi 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 5000 yr-mi (100 x 5) Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Service in Segments 100 100 100 5 10 15 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 1500 yr-mi Total = 3000 yr-mi Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 3000/300 = 10 yr. (100 x 5)
    28. 28. Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Service in Segments 100 100 100 5 10 40 If 1/3 of System has long-life pavements: Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 5500/300 = 18.33 yr. Total = 5500 yr-mi 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 4000 yr-mi (100 x 5) Nearly doubles total service life of system Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Service in Segments 100 100 100 5 10 15 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 1500 yr-mi Total = 3000 yr-mi Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 3000/300 = 10 yr. (100 x 5)
    29. 29. Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Service in Segments 100 100 100 5 10 40 If 1/3 of System has long-life pavements: Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 5500/300 = 18.33 yr. Total = 5500 yr-mi 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 4000 yr-mi (100 x 5) Nearly doubles total service life of system Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Service in Segments 100 100 100 5 10 15 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 1500 yr-mi Total = 3000 yr-mi Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 3000/300 = 10 yr. (100 x 5)
    30. 30. Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Service in Segments 100 100 100 5 10 25 If 1/3 of System has long-life pavements: Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 4000/300 = 13.33 yr. Total = 4000 yr-mi 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 2500 yr-mi (100 x 5) Increases total service life of system by 33% Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Service in Segments 100 100 100 5 10 15 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 1500 yr-mi Total = 3000 yr-mi Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 3000/300 = 10 yr. (100 x 5)
    31. 31. Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Service in Segments 100 100 100 5 10 25 If 1/3 of System has long-life pavements: Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 4000/300 = 13.33 yr. Total = 4000 yr-mi 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 2500 yr-mi (100 x 5) Increases total service life of system by 33% Miles in Segment of Highway System Years to Next Fix Years of Service in Segments 100 100 100 5 10 15 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 1500 yr-mi Total = 3000 yr-mi Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 3000/300 = 10 yr. (100 x 5)
    32. 32. Network Analysis <ul><li>The longer the life of the system, the amount that needs repaired at any given time is reduced. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lowers the cost by spreading them over longer time periods </li></ul></ul>
    33. 33. Preservation Categories “Mix of fixes” <ul><li>Maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Restoration (CPR) </li></ul><ul><li>Resurfacing (overlays) </li></ul><ul><li>Reconstruction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Last 3 are known as CPR 3 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Which is used depends on existing condition. </li></ul></ul>
    34. 34. Maintenance <ul><li>High Benefit, Low User Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Manages Deterioration Rates on “All” Structures </li></ul><ul><li>Delays Category Drop on “All” Pavements </li></ul>Maintenance activities maintain serviceability Poor Fair Good
    35. 35. Restoration <ul><li>Manages Deterioration Rates on “Fair” Pavement </li></ul><ul><li>Delays “Fair” From Becoming “Poor” </li></ul><ul><li>Cost Effective Fixes - Touches More Pavements </li></ul>Restoration restores pavement integrity Poor Fair Good
    36. 36. Rehabilitation <ul><li>Improves Condition Ratings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Poor” to “Good” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Poor” to “Fair” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Fair” to “Good” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Prioritizes Critical Concern Structures </li></ul>Rehabilitation improves pavement condition Poor Fair Good
    37. 37. Reconstruction <ul><li>Address Other Pavement Needs </li></ul><ul><li>Improves Condition Rating </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Poor” to “Good” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Prioritizes Critical Concern Pavements </li></ul>Replaces pavements Poor Fair Good
    38. 38. Concrete “Mix of Fixes” for Streets & Local Roads <ul><li>Concrete overlays </li></ul><ul><li>Ultra-thin whitetopping (2-4”) </li></ul><ul><li>Whitetopping (4-12+”) </li></ul><ul><li>Full and partial depth repairs </li></ul><ul><li>CPR including diamond grinding </li></ul><ul><li>Full depth paving & reconstruction </li></ul><ul><li>Reconstruction with Fast Track paving </li></ul>
    39. 39. Network Impact <ul><li>Look for the “Structural Holes” and fill them </li></ul><2 3-7 8-12 13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Percent of Network Needing Repair Remaining Years
    40. 40. Network Impact <ul><li>By filling structural holes, the average that needs repaired at any given time is reduced. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lowers the cost by spreading them over longer time periods </li></ul></ul>
    41. 41. Life Cycle Cost Analysis <ul><ul><li>A procedure to do economic comparison of all competing alternatives considering all significant costs over the economic life of each alternative, expressed in equivalent dollars. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Life Cycle Cost Analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Applied at the project level. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The performance parameters of alternatives are determined by the network needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>For this reason, must analyze the needs of the network </li></ul></ul></ul>
    42. 42. <ul><li>Present Worth Analysis (PW) </li></ul><ul><li>Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost Analysis (EUAC) </li></ul>Life-Cycle Cost Analysis How it is done:
    43. 43. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Present Worth Analysis: Discounts all future costs (benefits) to the present Costs Years Initial Cost Rehabilitation Cost Maintenance Cost Salvage Value Costs Present Worth Years
    44. 44. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost: Combines all present and future costs (benefits) into equal annual payments Years Costs Initial Cost Rehabilitation Cost Maintenance Cost Salvage Value Costs Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost Years
    45. 45. <ul><li>Economic Factors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Discount rate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis Period </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Engineering Factors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparable sections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rehabilitation selection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Agency Costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User costs </li></ul></ul>Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Basic Factors:
    46. 46. <ul><li>Normally equal for each alternative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Highway: 30-40 years </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Street: 20-30 years </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Airport: 30 years </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Include at least one rehabilitation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Needed to capture the true economic benefit of each alternate </li></ul></ul>Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Analysis Period:
    47. 47. <ul><li>Initial cost of pavement </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance and operation cost </li></ul><ul><li>Anticipated future rehabilitation costs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Engineering </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Construction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Traffic Control </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Salvage (recycling value) </li></ul>Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Agency Costs:
    48. 48. LCCA Process <ul><li>Design equivalent pavement sections </li></ul><ul><li>Establish strategies for analysis period </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimate agency costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Establish activity timing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop expenditure streams </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Estimate user costs </li></ul><ul><li>Compute NPV </li></ul><ul><li>Analyze results </li></ul><ul><li>Reevaluate strategies </li></ul>
    49. 49. Network and Comparitive Analysis of Pavement Choices <ul><li>Real Life Examples </li></ul><ul><li>“ A Look Back ” </li></ul>
    50. 50. Iowa County Road Study Impact of Pavement Type on County Road Systems <ul><li>Conducted by: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>James K. Cable Ph.D., P.E., Iowa State University </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A study of three representative counties to evaluate their individual pavement systems in order to determine the effect of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>a concrete policy vs. an asphalt policy </li></ul></ul>
    51. 51. Specifics of Study <ul><li>System performance over 40 year period 1954-1994 </li></ul><ul><li>Reviewed both construction and maintenance costs </li></ul><ul><li>Looked at system wide costs for comparison </li></ul><ul><li>All counties were of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>equal size </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>similar paved mileage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>similar traffic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>rural agricultural area </li></ul></ul>
    52. 52. County Comparisons <ul><li>Presentation will key on two counties </li></ul><ul><ul><li>County A - System primarily concrete with “whitetopping” overlays </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>6-8 inch PCC on compacted clay with 6’ earth shoulders, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>whitetopping overlays 5-7” range </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>County B - System primarily asphalt with asphalt overlays </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>asphalt surface 1” or seal coat </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>asphalt base 1-3” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>4-6” rolled stone or natural gravel over compacted natural subgrade </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>overlaid in 5-15 year intervals </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>current thickness 8-10” asphalt </li></ul></ul></ul>
    53. 53. Traffic Carried over Pavement Life Through 1993 - Systemwide
    54. 54. Road System Development <ul><li>County A’s system (concrete) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developed slower over a longer period of time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Has had a little need for rehabilitation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>County B’s system (asphalt) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Substantially developed in first 20 years at a faster rate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Last 20 years has been period of significant overlays, rehabilitation and maintenance </li></ul></ul>
    55. 55. Paved Miles vs. Time County A County B
    56. 56. Road System Development <ul><li>County A’s system (concrete) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developed slower over a longer period of time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Has had a little need for rehabilitation </li></ul></ul>
    57. 57. Road System Development <ul><li>County B’s system (asphalt) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Substantially developed in first 20 years at a faster rate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Last 20 years has been period of significant overlays, rehabilitation and maintenance </li></ul></ul>
    58. 58. Performance Analysis <ul><li>Visual distress surveys conducted using MICRO-PAVER </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PCI values developed for each mile of paved surface </li></ul></ul><ul><li>County A (concrete) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>97 = Excellent Category </li></ul></ul><ul><li>County B (asphalt) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>84 = Very Good with range Fair, Good, Very Good to Excellent Category </li></ul></ul>
    59. 59. Total Pavement Costs Construction (including overlays) Maintenance
    60. 60. Average Pavement Costs Construction (including overlays) (1952-93) Maintenance (1952-92)
    61. 61. Results of Study <ul><li>On system wide basis, the use of concrete for new construction & whitetopping resulted in: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>improved performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Higher PCI rating: 97 for County A vs. 84 for County B </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Much less variable </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>decreased unit construction costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3.3 times more for asphalt system than concrete system </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>decreased unit maintenance costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2.1 times more for asphalt system than concrete system </li></ul></ul></ul>
    62. 62. In Conclusion
    63. 63. Benefits of New Strategy <ul><li>Network </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Systematic Approach to Network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proactively Manages Deterioration Rates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Commitment to Do Right Work at Right Time on Entire System </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ability to Meet Established Network Goals </li></ul></ul>
    64. 64. Benefits of New Strategy <ul><li>Organization </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased Program Stability (Credibility) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordination with Other Programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizational Commitment </li></ul></ul>
    65. 65. Benefits of New Strategy <ul><li>Customer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduced Impact to Motoring Public </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased Program Stability (Confidence in agency) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Efficient Investment of Tax Dollars </li></ul></ul>
    66. 66. Pavement’s Role <ul><li>Pavement types and and rehabilitation activities must be chosen so that the flow of dollars into the pavement system are maintained at the lowest, constant level possible, yet maintain the pavement in the an acceptable condition. </li></ul><ul><li>Key issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Average years of service remaining </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mix of Fixes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Dollars & the time frame till the next rehabilitation. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Network impacts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LCCA and total pavement costs </li></ul></ul>
    67. 67. Approach Includes <ul><li>Annual Improvement </li></ul><ul><li>Progress Toward Goal </li></ul><ul><li>Regional Progress </li></ul><ul><li>Status of Critical Concern Structures </li></ul><ul><li>Projects -vs- Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Program Stability </li></ul><ul><li>Timely Delivery </li></ul><ul><li>Periodic Inspections </li></ul>Network Analysis Program Analysis
    68. 68. Midwest Driver Survey <ul><li>“ Drivers believe agencies can and should build longer-lasting pavements with fewer delays” </li></ul>
    69. 69. Concrete Pavement Solutions for Positive Asset Management - SLR <ul><li>Intersections </li></ul><ul><li>Arterials </li></ul><ul><li>Collectors </li></ul><ul><li>Local streets </li></ul><ul><li>New developments (commercial, industrial, residential) </li></ul><ul><li>Parking lots </li></ul>
    70. 70. Positive Asset Management Impacts of Portland Cement Concrete Pavements <ul><li>Longer term fix </li></ul><ul><li>Low maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Options for 10-60 year fix (overlays-full depth) </li></ul><ul><li>Good for budgets with reduced maintenance costs </li></ul><ul><li>Less traffic congestion & disruption - fewer delays </li></ul><ul><li>Handle heavy truck traffic - movement of goods and services </li></ul>
    71. 71. Positive Environmental Impacts of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement <ul><li>Surface temperature - reduced 8-20+ deg. F </li></ul><ul><li>Lighting - reduced 30% </li></ul><ul><li>or Light level - increased 30% for added safety </li></ul><ul><li>Recyclable </li></ul><ul><li>Fuel consumption reduction </li></ul><ul><li>Clean air -positive </li></ul>
    72. 72. A Thought to Take Home Night Visibility <ul><li>Safer for: </li></ul><ul><li>Motoring Public </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrians </li></ul>Asphalt Concrete
    73. 73. Thank You! Any Questions? “www.pavement.com”
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×