IMPACTS OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS ON LOW     VOLUME ROADSPaul W. Wilke, P.E.Principal Engineer
Presentation Outline   Background - Wind & Gas Development   Policy Considerations for Road Owners   Global Impact vs S...
Introduction Energy development boom across USA and  Canada NY has wind & PA has gas…   NY- many wind farms developed; ...
Effect on Transportation Large loads                                   Weak roads                       ARA Proprietary ...
How Large Are The Loads? Wind Farms:   Large volume of “legal loads” (<80,000 lbs)   Smaller number of “super loads” G...
Trucks Associated With Wind Farms          (Turbine Components) Huge Blades  • 3 blades/turbine  • Typical length: 115-16...
Turbine Components (cont’d) Nacelle  • 1 or 2 pieces  • weight ~65-125 tons Base Concrete  • 430 CY per turbine    (43 t...
Turbine Cranes Main Cranes   • Initial construction requires 35 trucks   • Reconstruction requires 10 trucks   • Reconstr...
Other Sources of Loads Hauling Materials for Access Road  Construction  • Typical section : 16ft wide, 12-in thickness  •...
Wind Farm Trucking Large number of “legal loads” & some “superloads” Sxxxesals                                ARA Propri...
Trucks Associated with Gas Wells Hydraulic Fracturing Process Requires Trucks For:   • Water   • Sand & other chemicals  ...
Pennsylvania “Gas Rush” Drill Baby Drill…. 1000’s of wells developed last 4 years Anticipate 20 years development 4,50...
Posted Roads in One PA County                    ARA Proprietary                 13         © 2011 Applied Research Associ...
Potential Marcellus Development in NY                        ARA Proprietary                 14             © 2011 Applied...
Weak Roads Many energy sites accessed by low volume roads  (County & Town owned) Pavements not designed for heavy truck ...
How Should Road Owners Respond        To This New Road Usage? Anticipate development & improve roads in advance   Encour...
Seeking Reimbursement From Developers    (Two Fundamental Approaches)                      Global impact recouped         ...
Global Impact Fee Approach• Up-front effort to develop fair assessment• Could include other impacts (bridges,  environment...
User Fee Approach• More direct (project specific) allocation of costs• Ongoing effort required to administer• Some (or all...
Methods Developed for PennDOT PennDOT using a hybrid approach User fee charged on “posted roads”   Roads where signific...
General Concepts Impact is based on “pavement life” consumed Global impact & user fee methods similar Global impact  • ...
Estimate of Global ImpactBig-picture, long-term assessmentuseful    Budgeting & capital planning    Basis for development ...
Global Impact Determination Cost impact = (% pavement life consumed) X  (pavement replacement cost)                      ...
Projected Truck Trips 1st- project the extent of development 2nd- estimate truck loading related to development PennDOT...
Project Truck-Miles Associated                with Expected Wells                  Truck Miles Projection (10 Years)County...
Need to Account For Variation in Loads AASHTO developed a method to convert various  truck axle configurations & weights ...
Individual Loads Converted to Standard                    ESAL Any load can be converted to 18,000 lb ESALs Use Load Equ...
ESAL Examples     For Specific Axle Types & Weights Single axle (18,000 lbs)= 1.0 ESALs Single axle (12,000 lbs)=     0....
ESALs Determined for Specific Trucks Most trucks contain a combination of axle types &  loads ESALs for entire truck = s...
Examples of ESALs For Common Trucks Water Truck (Triaxle)  • 2.5 ESALs  • 4.5 ESALs if 3rd Lift Axle is Up Water Truck (...
Total ESALs Projected Convert all truck types in fleet to ESALs Determine total ESAL- miles for all projected  truck tri...
ESAL Life of Representative Pavement AASHTO design determines SN required to  support projected ESALs Reverse process- E...
AASHTO Design Nomograph                ARA Proprietary                 33     © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
DARwin Design Software               ARA Proprietary                 34    © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
Assess SN of Existing Roads                In Network    SN = a1 D1 + a2 D2 + a3 D3 m3            AC                    AC...
Structural Layer Coefficient (ai) Indication of a materials structural contribution to  pavement performance Example:2 i...
Typical Layer CoefficientsAsphaltic concrete wearing course                            0.44Asphaltic concrete binder cours...
Example SN Calculation for Existing Pavement          HMA                   HMA                           Subbase         ...
Example Sections          SECTION                            SECTION                                SECTION          A (TH...
Global Impact Determination Cost impact = (% pavement life consumed) X  (pavement replacement cost)                    pr...
Example Calculation 100,000,000 ESAL-miles projected over road network Typical County pavement life = 200,000 ESALS% pav...
Two Alternative User Fee Approaches Charge developer based on pavement life consumed    similar to global impact    use...
User Fee Based on Pavement Life Consumed          (Alternative Methods) Mechanistic-Empirical Method  • Rigorous engineer...
Pre- & Post- Development Pavement Life               Determination Mechanistic- Empirical Approach:  • FWD testing & pave...
Pre- & Post- Development Pavement Life               Determination Empirical Approach:  • Pavement cores & surface condit...
Visual Condition Survey           To Estimate SN effective Alligator and L&T cracking % estimated Reduced structural coe...
AASHTO Layer Coefficients                  ARA Proprietary                 47       © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
Pavement Damage Assessment   (Based on Pavement Life Consumed) SN effective used to quantify damage Cost may be expresse...
User Fee Method Based on Visible Damage Only               ( “Patch & Go” Approach)   Some agencies only require repair o...
Consider Flexible Pavement Behavior          & Fatigue Damage                                                    Axle     ...
Propagation of Fatigue Cracking                    ARA Proprietary                 51         © 2011 Applied Research Asso...
Early Stage of Fatigue Cracking                    ARA Proprietary                 52         © 2011 Applied Research Asso...
Intermediate Stage of Fatigue Cracking                        ARA Proprietary                 53             © 2011 Applie...
Advanced Stage- Fatigue Cracking                     ARA Proprietary                 54          © 2011 Applied Research A...
Special Considerations:       Multiple Users of Permitted Roads Allocate repair costs based on ESALs Potential refinemen...
Seasonal Adjustment Factor Could derive factor for spring & winter Spring thaw damage factor (SDF) =      Damage predict...
Seasonal Adjustment Factor Spring Damage Factor (SDF) depends on:   • Asphalt layer stiffness & thickness   • Granular su...
Other Issues To Consider Assessment & allocation of road damage is   multi-faceted challenge    Analogous to “layers of ...
Effect of Pavement Condition at Start of Permit  Is it fair to charge developer for rapid deterioration   near end of pav...
Administrative Considerations Post load restrictions & require Road Use Agreement  (RUA) RUA provides mechanism for user...
Components of Road Use Agreement Define methodology to assess road damage cost  allocation   Define procedure for pre & ...
Components of Road Use Agreement (cont’d) Developer responsible for repairs for 3 yrs Provide exemption for small hauler...
Summary Two fundamental approaches to road damage  assessment   Global impact recouped through development impact fee  ...
Summary (cont’d) Pavement life consumed may be determined by:   Empirical method (cores & visual assessment correlated t...
Summary (cont’d) Issues to address in Road Use Agreement:  • Damage assessment methodology to be used  • Procedure to all...
Summary (cont’d) Assessment of road damage is a multi-faceted challenge Many agencies in process of developing policies...
Learning Assessment1. What are 2 “fundamental” ways counties can recoup   cost to compensate for road damage from heavy   ...
Learning Assessment (cont’d)2. The relative effect of different truck types on    pavement damage may be assessed by:  a. ...
Learning Assessment (cont’d)3. The concept of “pavement life consumed” used in  damage assessment is based on:a. the porti...
Learning Assessment (cont’d)4. What is a common technique used by highway   agencies to “draw-in” developers to execute a ...
Learning Assessment (cont’d)5. The relationship between a truck’s axle weight &   damage inflicted on the pavement is:a. E...
Learning Assessment (cont’d)6. What affect(s) will raising the “lift axle” on a triaxle   truck have:a.   Reduce tire wear...
Learning Assessment (cont’d)7. The structural layer coefficient used in AASHTO   pavement design:a. Increases with pavemen...
Learning Assessment (cont’d)8. The pavement life consumed may be estimated by    considering:  a. Visual distress correlat...
Learning Assessment (cont’d)9. Assessing road damage based on visible distress alone:   a. Is an unacceptable procedure   ...
Learning Assessment (cont’d)10. The extent of road damage per truck load is  influenced by:   a. The weight of the truck  ...
Questions???           ARA Proprietary                 77© 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Impacts of energy development on low volume roads paul wilke, pe

1,528 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,528
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
35
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Impacts of energy development on low volume roads paul wilke, pe

  1. 1. IMPACTS OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS ON LOW VOLUME ROADSPaul W. Wilke, P.E.Principal Engineer
  2. 2. Presentation Outline Background - Wind & Gas Development Policy Considerations for Road Owners Global Impact vs Site Specific User Fee Approaches Technical Procedure for Each Approach Comparison of Approaches Special Considerations:  Technical  Administrative ARA Proprietary 2 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  3. 3. Introduction Energy development boom across USA and Canada NY has wind & PA has gas…  NY- many wind farms developed; gas coming soon?  PA- natural gas development boom since 2008 ARA Proprietary 3 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  4. 4. Effect on Transportation Large loads  Weak roads ARA Proprietary 4 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  5. 5. How Large Are The Loads? Wind Farms:  Large volume of “legal loads” (<80,000 lbs)  Smaller number of “super loads” Gas Wells:  Large volume of “legal loads” ARA Proprietary 5 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  6. 6. Trucks Associated With Wind Farms (Turbine Components) Huge Blades • 3 blades/turbine • Typical length: 115-165 ft • Typical weight: 5-10 tons Huge Tower • 3 or 4 pieces • Typical height: 210-280 ft; can be as high as 330 ft • Each segment weighs 50-75 tons ARA Proprietary 6 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  7. 7. Turbine Components (cont’d) Nacelle • 1 or 2 pieces • weight ~65-125 tons Base Concrete • 430 CY per turbine (43 truck loads) ARA Proprietary 7 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  8. 8. Turbine Cranes Main Cranes • Initial construction requires 35 trucks • Reconstruction requires 10 trucks • Reconstructed 5 times per 50 turbines (may vary with turbine layout) Support Cranes • 5 support cranes required for construction of each main crane • Each support crane requires 5 trucks ARA Proprietary 8 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  9. 9. Other Sources of Loads Hauling Materials for Access Road Construction • Typical section : 16ft wide, 12-in thickness • Requires 313 10-CY trucks/mile of access road • 1 truckload of H2O per 105 CY aggregate on access roads • Access roads sprayed 1-3 times/day for dust control ARA Proprietary 9 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  10. 10. Wind Farm Trucking Large number of “legal loads” & some “superloads” Sxxxesals ARA Proprietary 10 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  11. 11. Trucks Associated with Gas Wells Hydraulic Fracturing Process Requires Trucks For: • Water • Sand & other chemicals • Other construction materials Typically 1300 trucks/well site ARA Proprietary 11 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  12. 12. Pennsylvania “Gas Rush” Drill Baby Drill…. 1000’s of wells developed last 4 years Anticipate 20 years development 4,500 miles of roads affected PennDOT has jurisdiction over most roads (including “county roads”) Opportunity for NY to learn from PA ARA Proprietary 12 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  13. 13. Posted Roads in One PA County ARA Proprietary 13 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  14. 14. Potential Marcellus Development in NY ARA Proprietary 14 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  15. 15. Weak Roads Many energy sites accessed by low volume roads (County & Town owned) Pavements not designed for heavy truck traffic Substantial failures have occurred Many roads warranted structural upgrade before hauling ARA Proprietary 15 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  16. 16. How Should Road Owners Respond To This New Road Usage? Anticipate development & improve roads in advance  Encourages development (should taxpayers pay?) Seek reimbursement from industry for road damage Policies should be developed- address these & many related issues ARA Proprietary 16 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  17. 17. Seeking Reimbursement From Developers (Two Fundamental Approaches) Global impact recouped through development impact fee Road & company specific user fee ARA Proprietary 17 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  18. 18. Global Impact Fee Approach• Up-front effort to develop fair assessment• Could include other impacts (bridges, environment)• Less administrative effort once in place• Some inequalities  E.g. -County A collects impact fee - County A & B roads used ARA Proprietary 18 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  19. 19. User Fee Approach• More direct (project specific) allocation of costs• Ongoing effort required to administer• Some (or all) of administration cost could be borne by developer ARA Proprietary 19 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  20. 20. Methods Developed for PennDOT PennDOT using a hybrid approach User fee charged on “posted roads”  Roads where significant traffic expected-posted for 10 Tons  Hauler posts bond & enters an “excess maintenance” agreement Impact fee to compensate for “non-posted” roads  ARA study to estimate global impact to non-posted roads  State levied an impact fee to compensate for road & other impacts ARA Proprietary 20 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  21. 21. General Concepts Impact is based on “pavement life” consumed Global impact & user fee methods similar Global impact • network level assessment of “projected” damage • assumed average pavement structure User fee • project level assessment • based on “actual” trucks, pavements & damage ARA Proprietary 21 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  22. 22. Estimate of Global ImpactBig-picture, long-term assessmentuseful Budgeting & capital planning Basis for development impact fee Bradford County Gas Well Impact Fee Tomkins County Basis of Fee 10 Year Capital Plan ARA Proprietary 22 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  23. 23. Global Impact Determination Cost impact = (% pavement life consumed) X (pavement replacement cost) projected trucks (ESALs)% pavement life = consumed pavement life (ESALs) ARA Proprietary 23 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  24. 24. Projected Truck Trips 1st- project the extent of development 2nd- estimate truck loading related to development PennDOT example: • Number of wells projected from industry estimates (1,300 trucks/well) • Average trip = 10 miles ARA Proprietary 24 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  25. 25. Project Truck-Miles Associated with Expected Wells Truck Miles Projection (10 Years)County # of Wells # of Trucks Avg Trip Truck-Miles Projected per Well Length (mi) ProjectedCounty A 1,210 1,300 10 15,730,000County B 855 1,300 10 11,115,000County C 2,100 1,300 10 27,300,000County D 970 1,300 10 12,610,000Totals 66,755,000 ARA Proprietary 25 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  26. 26. Need to Account For Variation in Loads AASHTO developed a method to convert various truck axle configurations & weights to one standard Standard = Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL ) One ESAL is equivalent to an 18,000 lb. weight on a single axle with dual tires. ARA Proprietary 26 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  27. 27. Individual Loads Converted to Standard ESAL Any load can be converted to 18,000 lb ESALs Use Load Equivalency Factor 4  AxleWeight  LEF     18,000lbs  Relationship between axle weight & inflicted pavement damage is not linear but exponential ARA Proprietary 27 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  28. 28. ESAL Examples For Specific Axle Types & Weights Single axle (18,000 lbs)= 1.0 ESALs Single axle (12,000 lbs)= 0.19 ESALs Tandem axle (24,000 lbs)= 0.26 ESALs Tandem axle (34,000 lbs)= 1.09 ESALs ARA Proprietary 28 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  29. 29. ESALs Determined for Specific Trucks Most trucks contain a combination of axle types & loads ESALs for entire truck = sum of ESALs for each axle ARA Proprietary 29 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  30. 30. Examples of ESALs For Common Trucks Water Truck (Triaxle) • 2.5 ESALs • 4.5 ESALs if 3rd Lift Axle is Up Water Truck (Tractor Trailer) • 1.00 ESALs ARA Proprietary 30 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  31. 31. Total ESALs Projected Convert all truck types in fleet to ESALs Determine total ESAL- miles for all projected truck trips Total ESAL- Miles ARA Proprietary 31 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  32. 32. ESAL Life of Representative Pavement AASHTO design determines SN required to support projected ESALs Reverse process- ESAL life determined for known SN ARA Proprietary 32 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  33. 33. AASHTO Design Nomograph ARA Proprietary 33 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  34. 34. DARwin Design Software ARA Proprietary 34 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  35. 35. Assess SN of Existing Roads In Network SN = a1 D1 + a2 D2 + a3 D3 m3 AC AC Subbase Surface Baseai = Layer coefficient of layer iD i = Thickness of layer imi = Drainage coefficient of layer i ARA Proprietary 35 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  36. 36. Structural Layer Coefficient (ai) Indication of a materials structural contribution to pavement performance Example:2 inches of material with ai = 0.20 provides the same contribution as 1 inch of material with ai = 0.40 ARA Proprietary 36 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  37. 37. Typical Layer CoefficientsAsphaltic concrete wearing course 0.44Asphaltic concrete binder course 0.44Asphaltic concrete base course 0.40Granular subbase 0.11 ARA Proprietary 37 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  38. 38. Example SN Calculation for Existing Pavement HMA HMA Subbase Surface Binder SN = 1.5”x 0.44 + 2.5”x 0.44 + 6” x 0.11 SN = 0.66 + 1.1 + 0.66 SN = 2.42 ARA Proprietary 38 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  39. 39. Example Sections SECTION SECTION SECTION A (THIN) B (Medium) 4” C (THICK) 2” 6” 6” 6” 6” SN= 1.54 (14,000 ESALs) SN= 2.42 (215,000 ESALs) SN= 3.30AC (1,600,000 ESALs) SUBGRADESUBBASE (FINE GRAINED) ARA Proprietary 39 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  40. 40. Global Impact Determination Cost impact = (% pavement life consumed) X (pavement replacement cost) projected traffic (ESAL-miles)% pavement life = consumed pavement life (ESALs) ARA Proprietary 40 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  41. 41. Example Calculation 100,000,000 ESAL-miles projected over road network Typical County pavement life = 200,000 ESALS% pavement life = 100,000,000 ESAL-mi consumed 200,000ESALs (life) 50 miles of pavement life fully consumed 50 mi X $2M/mi = $100 M ARA Proprietary 41 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  42. 42. Two Alternative User Fee Approaches Charge developer based on pavement life consumed  similar to global impact  uses project specific data Charge developer for cost of repairing visible damage ARA Proprietary 42 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  43. 43. User Fee Based on Pavement Life Consumed (Alternative Methods) Mechanistic-Empirical Method • Rigorous engineering procedure • Costs more to perform Empirical Method • Simpler approach • Less accurate • Less cost to perform Both Methods Based on SN-effective at start & end of development ARA Proprietary 43 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  44. 44. Pre- & Post- Development Pavement Life Determination Mechanistic- Empirical Approach: • FWD testing & pavement cores • Back-calculation of elastic modulus • Determine effective SN & remaining life ARA Proprietary 44 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  45. 45. Pre- & Post- Development Pavement Life Determination Empirical Approach: • Pavement cores & surface condition survey • Empirical correlations relate surface condition to equivalent structural layer coefficients (a i*) • SN effective = (a1*) + (a2*) + (a3*) • Remaining life determined from SN effective (AASHTO design equation) ARA Proprietary 45 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  46. 46. Visual Condition Survey To Estimate SN effective Alligator and L&T cracking % estimated Reduced structural coefficient related to % cracking AASHTO Table 5.2 provides coefficient ranges ytilibissoP fo mlaeR eht gnidnapxE ARA Proprietary 46 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  47. 47. AASHTO Layer Coefficients ARA Proprietary 47 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  48. 48. Pavement Damage Assessment (Based on Pavement Life Consumed) SN effective used to quantify damage Cost may be expresses as:  (% Pavement life lost) X ($ to rebuild pavement);  (% SN lost) X ($ to rebuild pavement)  $ for structural overlay to restore original SN Same result, just different ways to express ARA Proprietary 48 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  49. 49. User Fee Method Based on Visible Damage Only ( “Patch & Go” Approach) Some agencies only require repair of visible surface defects Only condition survey required for assessment Underestimates full extent of damage Early fatigue cracking not considered ARA Proprietary 49 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  50. 50. Consider Flexible Pavement Behavior & Fatigue Damage Axle LoadSurface  SUR d SURBase/Subbase  SUBSubgrade Soil ARA Proprietary 50 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  51. 51. Propagation of Fatigue Cracking ARA Proprietary 51 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  52. 52. Early Stage of Fatigue Cracking ARA Proprietary 52 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  53. 53. Intermediate Stage of Fatigue Cracking ARA Proprietary 53 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  54. 54. Advanced Stage- Fatigue Cracking ARA Proprietary 54 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  55. 55. Special Considerations: Multiple Users of Permitted Roads Allocate repair costs based on ESALs Potential refinement for relative seasonal damage Equivalent ESALs = ESAL X Seasonal adjustment factor ARA Proprietary 55 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  56. 56. Seasonal Adjustment Factor Could derive factor for spring & winter Spring thaw damage factor (SDF) = Damage predicted during spring thaw Damage predicted remainder of year ARA Proprietary 56 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  57. 57. Seasonal Adjustment Factor Spring Damage Factor (SDF) depends on: • Asphalt layer stiffness & thickness • Granular subbase stiffness & thickness • Subgrade soil strength Use mechanistic analysis (WINJULEA software) & Asphalt Institute failure equation SDF typically 2 to 4+ (higher for thin pavements) ARA Proprietary 57 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  58. 58. Other Issues To Consider Assessment & allocation of road damage is multi-faceted challenge  Analogous to “layers of an onion”:…. Consider the following:  Effect of pavement condition at start of permit period  Providing exemption for small haulers  Requirement to keep road safe for motoring public  Proactive maintenance/upgrade before winter ARA Proprietary 58 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  59. 59. Effect of Pavement Condition at Start of Permit  Is it fair to charge developer for rapid deterioration near end of pavement life?  Is it fair for County to pay to rebuild a road not in CIP (to accomodate permittee)? Good $1 to rehab Pavement Condition $4-10 to rehab Poor Time (Years) ARA Proprietary 59 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  60. 60. Administrative Considerations Post load restrictions & require Road Use Agreement (RUA) RUA provides mechanism for user fee Performance bond to help enforce RUA ARA Proprietary 60 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  61. 61. Components of Road Use Agreement Define methodology to assess road damage cost allocation  Define procedure for pre & post- permit road inspections  Most RUA’s require developer to pay for inspections Requirement for developer to maintain safe and passable road  unsafe conditions corrected within 8 hrs  Winter maintenance plan submitted each fall (avoid un-repairable condition) ARA Proprietary 61 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  62. 62. Components of Road Use Agreement (cont’d) Developer responsible for repairs for 3 yrs Provide exemption for small haulers  Establish threshold that triggers RUA ARA Proprietary 62 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  63. 63. Summary Two fundamental approaches to road damage assessment  Global impact recouped through development impact fee  Road & company specific user fee Global impact may be estimated based on network level assessment of pavement life consumed by projected truck traffic User fee methods:  Repair of visible damage that occurs during permit period  Pavement life consumed (similar to global approach using site specific data) ARA Proprietary 63 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  64. 64. Summary (cont’d) Pavement life consumed may be determined by:  Empirical method (cores & visual assessment correlated to effective SN)  Mechanistic-empirical method (FWD testing & mechanistic analysis to calculate effective SN) ARA Proprietary 64 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  65. 65. Summary (cont’d) Issues to address in Road Use Agreement: • Damage assessment methodology to be used • Procedure to allocate damage costs when multiple users share same road • Could account for seasonal effects on damage per truckload • Requirement to maintain road in safe & passable condition • Exemption of small haulers ARA Proprietary 65 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  66. 66. Summary (cont’d) Assessment of road damage is a multi-faceted challenge Many agencies in process of developing policies Need to balance: • Fairness/technical accuracy with ease/cost of administration • Encourage development while protecting taxpayer’s infrastructure investment No one solution that “fits all” Policies best developed by: • Technical experts that understand issues • Administrators that can implement efficient policies • Elected officials with appreciation of political ramifications ARA Proprietary 66 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  67. 67. Learning Assessment1. What are 2 “fundamental” ways counties can recoup cost to compensate for road damage from heavy haulers? ARA Proprietary 67 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  68. 68. Learning Assessment (cont’d)2. The relative effect of different truck types on pavement damage may be assessed by: a. Gross weight of the truck b. Number of axles on the truck c. Number of equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) for the truck d. All of the above ARA Proprietary 68 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  69. 69. Learning Assessment (cont’d)3. The concept of “pavement life consumed” used in damage assessment is based on:a. the portion of paved surface worn offb. the extent of ruttingc. the portion of ESALs applied compared to ESAL’s pavement is designed to accommodated. none of the above ARA Proprietary 69 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  70. 70. Learning Assessment (cont’d)4. What is a common technique used by highway agencies to “draw-in” developers to execute a Road Use Agreement ? ARA Proprietary 70 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  71. 71. Learning Assessment (cont’d)5. The relationship between a truck’s axle weight & damage inflicted on the pavement is:a. Exponentialb. Linear ARA Proprietary 71 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  72. 72. Learning Assessment (cont’d)6. What affect(s) will raising the “lift axle” on a triaxle truck have:a. Reduce tire wear, thereby saving the truck owner moneyb. Increase pavement damagec. Increase the ESALs for the total truck regardless of cargo weightd. All of the abovee. None of the above ARA Proprietary 72 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  73. 73. Learning Assessment (cont’d)7. The structural layer coefficient used in AASHTO pavement design:a. Increases with pavement age and loadingb. Decreases with pavement age and loadingc. Is usually unaffected by pavement age and loading ARA Proprietary 73 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  74. 74. Learning Assessment (cont’d)8. The pavement life consumed may be estimated by considering: a. Visual distress correlated to pavement strength (Structural Number) b. Falling weight deflectometer testing c. Design life of the pavement (expressed in ESALs) d. All of the above ARA Proprietary 74 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  75. 75. Learning Assessment (cont’d)9. Assessing road damage based on visible distress alone: a. Is an unacceptable procedure b. Is easier to administer than other more rigorous procedures c. Is a good way to account for early stages of fatigue cracking d. Is rarely used by road owners ARA Proprietary 75 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  76. 76. Learning Assessment (cont’d)10. The extent of road damage per truck load is influenced by: a. The weight of the truck b. The number of axles supporting the truck c. The point in the service life of the pavement at the time of load application d. All of the above ARA Proprietary 76 © 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.
  77. 77. Questions??? ARA Proprietary 77© 2011 Applied Research Associates, Inc.

×