HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/2009, B6 - 2009 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW counat1
j
10-6-09 acjenoA Report um�m e�
CITY OF SAN LUI S O B I S P O
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Workq
Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, City Engineer
SUBJECT: 2009 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Receive a report from Margot Yapp of Nichols Consulting Engineers on its peer review of
the City's Pavement Management Plan.
2. Adjust the priorities and goals established in the original Pavement Management Plan to
reflect higher priorities for arterial streets and increase the amount of visual confirmation of
arterial street condition, where concerns are the greatest.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
After 10 years of implementing strategies from the adopted 1998 Pavement Management Plan,
the City Council requested that a peer review be performed by a pavement management
professional to provide feedback on the program and make recommendations for improvements.
The findings from the City's consultant, Margot Yapp of Nichols Consulting Engineers, indicate
that the basic program is still sound regarding standards in the industry for pavement
management, however, a couple of adjustments are recommended. Specifically, the Consultant
recommends increasing the priority for arterial street repairs and switching to a more
understandable measurement to show progress.
DISCUSSION
Background
In 1998 the City Council took action to approve a Pavement Management Plan (PMP.) The City
had used pavement management strategies in the past; however, this more formal document,
along with associated software, modernized the City's strategies for managing pavement
maintenance. As part of the program, the Council set a long-term goal of a Pavement Condition
Index (PCI) of 80. The Pavement Condition Index is a rating scale of 1-100 used to reflect the
condition of the pavement with 100 being the best rating.
When the program was started in 1998, the City's streets were rated to have an average PCI of
around 70. As of the most recent evaluation, the PCI remains at about the same level, having
peaked two years ago at 75. When considering only arterials and collector streets, the PCI at the
start of the program in 1998 was 61. The most recent evaluation indicates a PCI of 72 for these
streets, with a peak two years ago of about 77. It should be noted that during the 2005-07 budget
6 � _ l
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 2
cycle, neighborhood paving was suspended and work focused only on arterials, which could
have led to the slight decline. Citywide, the percentage of streets with a PCI less than 40 has
decreased overall by 5% since 1998, equating to a 4% decrease for local streets and an I1%
decrease for arterials and collectors. This indicates that the projects implemented during the last
10 years have reduced the number of poor streets.
Pavement Management
The fundamental principle of modern pavement management is that it is less costly in the long
run to maintain streets than it is to reconstruct them. Once a section of pavement has deteriorated
to the point where it has to be rebuilt to function properly, the only real option is reconstruction.
If a street is still in good or fair condition, maintenance treatments can be applied to extend the
life of the pavement that are less costly than reconstruction. The other benefit to extending
pavement life is that these maintenance treatments are generally less disruptive to the community
than reconstruction.
Common.pavement management strategies typically prioritize maintenance of the good and fair
streets ahead of repairing poor streets. While this approach has proven to save money in the long
run, the downside is that it is counter-intuitive to the public. They see that the worst streets are
not being repaired, yet sealing or overlays are being placed on "good" streets. The City has been
fortunate in that for most of the years the program has been in place, sufficient funds have been
made available to complete a substantial amount of work, including some on the poor streets,
minimizing inquiries from citizens.
As part of the original PMP, the City was divided into areas to facilitate planning. The City
currently has nine pavement areas: eight neighborhoods and the downtown. The eight
neighborhoods are rotated through on an annual basis, and the downtown is worked on as needed
and as funding is available. See Attachment 1 for the City's pavement area map. Pavement
maintenance is performed this way so that other work (especially underground utility and curb
and gutter projects) can be done prior to the sealing or overlay. This predictable planning and
construction method reduces the likelihood that new pavement will be cut to complete another
City project a short time later.
Status of the Current Program
The City has now been operating under these basic principles since 1998. In the summer of 2008,
CIP projects for sealing and paving were completed in Area 1 to start off the second rotation
since plan adoption. Area 2 sealing and overlay work planned for this year has just been
completed. As the second rotation begins, staff is seeing fewer streets that need reconstruction
and the increased ability to use a relatively inexpensive microsurfacing seal on more streets.
The rotation program has also brought a much higher level of coordination with City
underground utility projects. Prior to the adoption of the PMP, it was unknown where paving
was to occur until the streets were field reviewed, so it was not possible to plan work very far in
advance. The pavement area rotation approach allows advanced planning to program and
complete underground work prior to paving or sealing a street. Trench cuts are a leading
contributor to reductions in pavement life.
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 3
The City's Street Maintenance program (performed by City crews) also benefits from the
rotation approach because it gives it a clear timeline and defined area to complete work. Staff
can complete high quality spot repairs and crack sealing in advance of work in a particular area.
The maintenance staff also knows which streets in the area might be skipped due to their
advanced deterioration so that more substantial repairs can be performed to extend street life and
reduce complaints. The Street Supervisor reports that in recent years, pothole reports have gone
from about 15 per day to about 2 per week. This is a direct result of the City's investment in
equipment that allows staff to make better repairs at recurring sites, rather than just filling the
hole with patch material. This level of maintenance work, done in concert with an aggressive
contract maintenance program, allows the City to keep its maintenance staffing levels low while
maintaining a high level of service.
A recent article in the Tribune surveying cities throughout the county indicated the City of San
Luis Obispo has the largest percentage of streets in good condition. The PMP has worked as
intended to reduce the backlog of streets needing reconstruction and, when funded to adequate
levels, to raise the PCI. Pavement deterioration is continual (with or without maintenance) and
while the City has not made significant gains in the PCI, it has maintained the road conditions
and made some strong improvements on arterial and collector streets.
The Consultant has confirmed that a structured program, like the City uses, is still the
recommended approach for long term stewardship of city streets. The question now is, should
some refinements be made to better serve the community.
Peer Review by the Consultant
Review Approach
Over the last year, two members of the City Council have asked questions about paving priorities
and strategies for maintenance. During the 2009-11 Financial Plan process staff suggested that a
peer review be completed of the City's Pavement Management plan and methodology for annual
street selections. The Council agreed with this approach that will help either confirm or alter the
pavement maintenance program to assure the City is spending its funds in the most cost effective
way.
Staff hired a consultant who specializes in pavement management to complete a peer review.
The Consultant brings a depth of experience in paving and can share experiences of other
communities with the Council. (Attachment 2 Consultant's resume) The scope of work was not a
highly detailed review of all the processes and data the staff uses, but rather was intended to
confirm that the City is on the right track, or if not, to recommend adjustments. The resulting
report did not define a set of detailed recommendations, but rather provided guidance toward
improvements. (Attachment 3 Consultant's report) Staff has used this guidance to build detailed
recommendations for Council's consideration.
Council Interviews
It was important for staff to be certain of what the Council concerns were regarding pavement
management. To that end, staff and the Consultant met individually with two members who had
expressed concerns at meetings to discuss the issue in more detail. The consultant also reviewed
the existing Plan and interviewed the PMP Manager in the Engineering Division.
'86 -3
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 4
The interviews with the Council members were very enlightening and some common themes
emerged. In broad terms, the concerns centered around a need to place a high priority on arterial
and collector streets which carry higher numbers of vehicles, and possibly have a higher standard
of maintenance compared to residential (local) streets. Complimentary to that, is a leaning
toward a lesser standard for local streets, and possibly a longer rotation cycle. The basic question
is, of course, is the City spending its money wisely and with regard to overall priorities.
The other ancillary concerns expressed by Council members during the interviews were:
1. The term "Poor" as used by the pavement management program is not really poor and we
are over doing the maintenance treatment.
2. Well maintained streets contribute to higher speeds.
3. Reducing road maintenance funds would free up funding for other things the City wants
to do, including alternative transportation, flood protection, roadway improvements such
as realignments, signalization, widening, or pedestrian improvements, and open space
acquisition.
4. The area rotation program does not prioritize streets citywide so streets in the current area
get treatment before streets with greater need in other areas of the City.
5. Microsurfacing may be the appropriate treatment for maintaining a street, but it does not
remove the bumps and provide a smooth ride.
6. Rough areas and trenches do not get a quick enough response.
7. Utility lines in pavement areas should get priority so that streets are not left without a
new surface for extended periods after their neighbors have been surfaced just because a
utility project is planned in the near future.
Some of these concerns are tied to the basic policy concern of priority, while others are staff
operational issues. On a very positive note, during these discussions, neither Council member
remembered receiving complaints about street conditions in recent years.
Staff Interview
The Consultant also interviewed the staff person who completes regular analysis of the pavement
conditions and makes the initial recommendations for work. In general, field information of
roadway conditions is collected every year. In the past this was done with student interns in the
field and is considered the "manual' method. More recently, staff has hired a team capable of a
mobile review where photographs are taken and analyzed and pavement deflection is measured.
The mobile process can also evaluate the entire City, instead of a limited sample. The
information from the field review is entered into a computer program. Pavement maintenance
schemes are developed using primarily two pieces of information, 1) what is the available
budget, and 2) what are the street pavement conditions.
The program evaluates the street condition for the current area as well as arterial and collectors
citywide. The arterials and collectors comprise approximately 30% of the street system. Using
initial recommendations in the PMP adopted by the Council 11 years ago, staff allocates 25% of
the funding for arterial and collector streets and the remaining funding for repair and sealing of
all other streets. The only exception to this was the two years where all funding went to arterials
and collectors. After taking the available budget into consideration, the program recommends a
maintenance treatment, be it microsurfacing, overlays or complete reconstruction, for each street.
The program uses the basic philosophy that whole system pavement preservation is the goal.
u —q
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 5
This list receives a further field review by the Street Supervisor to confirm the analysis. Minor
adjustments are made at this point to correct any anomalies from the field review and to identify
work that is better suited to the City's maintenance staff rather than contract construction.
Analysis
After completing the review of the PMP and conducting the interviews, the Consultant prepared
a general review of the program, summarized the comments heard and suggested some
refinements to the program.
L Arterial Streets
The Consultant recommended that the arterial streets receive attention first after a review of the
network condition. This would change the current approach from that of a fixed percentage of
funding to a fluctuating funding amount, depending upon the condition level set for the arterial
streets. Funds available after addressing arterial streets would be used in the neighborhood
rotation areas. This is in line with the comments of both Council members. The consultant also
indicates that funding levels have not kept up with the rising costs of asphalt. The City needs to
make regular adjustments to the funding levels, and make sure it is maximizing the use of
available grants. Based on the consultant's research, the City appears to fall in the middle range
of typical spending by cities of similar sizes.
Z Measurement of Street Quality
A broader policy concern raised by the Consultant is the issue of how staff measures the quality
of the streets and shows progress. Staff has been using the PCI since the original PMP to gauge
the street condition, but the Consultant suggests looking at something that has more meaning to
the Council and the public, such as a reduction in the number of failed streets.
3. Data Calibration
Lastly, the Consultant suggests a new process to calibrate data received each year so that
comparisons of the PCI from year to year have greater consistency. This will require additional
staff hours.
Summary
The biggest issue for the program appears to be one of prioritizing where the money goes. The
increase over the last 10 years of nearly 10 points in the PCI for arterials and collectors when
compared to an overall network PCI holding steady, would indicate the 25% funding approach
was adequate to keep the arterials reasonably well maintained. However, at least two of the
Council members do not perceive that the City has a quality arterial network, and the Consultant
indicates the prioritization of these streets is lower compared with how other agencies set
priorities.
A secondary issue is that of providing a more meaningful tern than "PCI" to demonstrate goals
and progress to the community. In this year's Tribune's article on county street condition, the
article used the terms "good" and "bad" to refer to street conditions. It reported 74% of the City's
streets in good condition and 2% in bad condition. These classifications are likely based on PCI,
but are presented in lay terms for the public. The use of the PCI can assist staff and the software
in prioritizing, but staff supports the idea of moving to a lay person translation of that
information for purposes of reporting and goal setting.
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 6
Recommendation - Tiered System and Data Collection & Evaluation
Taking the Consultant's comments, and looking at these two key items together, staff
recommends that the condition goal for arterials be set higher than for local streets and that staff
have greater leeway than the original 25% split, to assign funds to arterial roadways. Staff is
recommending collectors be handled in the context of the pavement areas, but receive a higher
priority for area funding than local streets. This would be combined with a more understandable
rating system. The following is an example of a tiered system the Council could endorse, using
simpler language and modified priorities. It should be noted that some of the downtown streets
are arterials and so would fall under the higher priority.
Priority Street Type Goal Annual or Area Rotation
I" Priority Arterials Good > 90% Bad = 0% Citywide Annual Review
2nd Priority Downtown Good> 80% Bad= 0% Citywide Annual Review
P Priority Collectors Good> 80% Bad < 5% Paving Area Review
4`b Priority Local Good > 70% Bad < 7% Paving Area Review
This set of priorities would then be the basis of funding requests during the Financial Plan
process. As always, the level of funding is at Council's discretion. The funding request from staff
will include what the expected progress or lack of progress will be based on the various funding
levels.
The last element of the consultant's recommendation was in regards to better control of the data
collection. Staff is still evaluating the best approach to collecting field data. Each method
introduces human element to the evaluation. While the automated system appears to bump the
PCI about 3 points over manual evaluation, the manual evaluation covers only a portion of the
network and is carried out by interns. Intern staff are not necessarily the same people from year
to year, so consistency is not guaranteed through this process either. To balance the Consultant's
suggestion for improving consistency with other workload, the recommended approach is an
increase in visual confirmation of arterial street condition, where concerns of condition are the
greatest, and rely on the automated system for the remainder of the network. In this way, staff
will balance the need to verify field information with the need to deliver other construction
projects with the available staff.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adjustments in the Pavement Management Plan do not in and of themselves have a fiscal impact.
The Council controls, through the Financial Plan process, the amount of funding that will be
allocated to paving each year. However, it should be noted that decisions made regarding
pavement maintenance can have long term affects. If for example, the City should decide to only
repair the worst streets, there would be consequences to the condition of the network in the long
term that could be costly to rectify. This has happened to other agencies. The approach needs to
be balanced and thoughtful to ensure to the largest degree possible that the City is spending its
available paving dollars in a way that will be responsible in the long term. It is for this reason
that staff is not recommending significant changes, but rather modest changes to address weak
areas in the current approach. //
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 7
Consistent Capital Improvement Program funding for street maintenance has allowed the City to
keep maintenance staffing levels fairly constant in the face of growing street miles. The City
primarily uses general fund money for street maintenance, but augments this funding with State
grants as they become available.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Shift away from the area approach for local streets to a Citywide approach. City staff
strongly supports the area rotation concept. It has presented some challenges to the Utility
Department regarding priorities, but has reduced street cuts on newly paved streets. Engineering
staff remain in close communication with Utility staff to coordinate work. In the event there is an
urgent need for pipeline work, engineering makes every effort to shift priorities to accommodate
the need.
Sealing work needs to be performed on a regular basis to keep streets performing as intended.
The area rotation assists staff by regularly sending them back to the same area to keep it up. To
select seals locations on a citywide basis will create additional work and it will be much more
difficult to prioritize needs because of the number of streets that will have to be looked at.
2. Extend the rotation cycle. The apparent effect of extending the rotation cycle would be to
reduce the funding level needed. In reality, the network needs a certain level of funding each
year to keep it maintained regardless of whether it is reviewed as a whole or in 8 or 12 areas.
Letting it fall into disrepair by prematurely reducing funding will lead to more costly
maintenance in the future, or a continual degradation in the quality of the City's streets.
Rotation cycles are largely tied to the lifespan of the sealing product. The goal is to reapply a
seal as the old one ceases to function. Staff has been using a newer product in the last couple of
years that appears to last longer. Staff is not opposed to the extension of the cycle length, but
believes more information and time is needed on the newer product before making this change.
Staff will continue to monitor the performance of the material.
3. Make no changes to the current program. The program as originally envisioned and
implemented has kept streets well maintained, reduced the number of poor streets in the City and
improved the condition of the arterial and collector portion of the system. Staff could continue
under this direction. Doing so would not address concerns that have been raised.
4. Complete an in-depth review and update of the PMP. If the Council does not feel that
minor adjustments are adequate to address the concerns about the pavement management
program, a more detailed review and update could be completed. This could be done by staff at
some time in the future, or a specialist could be hired to complete the work. Staff expects that
such an effort (if completed by a consultant) would cost about $25,000. If staff is asked to
complete the revision, then other CIP projects would likely have to be deferred.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Pavement Area Map
2009 Pavement Management Plan Review Page 8
2. Margot Yapp Nichols Consulting Engineers—Consultant Resume
3. Peer Review Report by Nichols Consulting Engineers
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
1998 Pavement Management Plan
ticoundl agenda reportStDublic works car1200 Week-signalsprnp reAew110{-09 pmp review rpt.doc
/ � .
warm �4?vp,..._ .
■ ovIL '
♦i vti � ���; � ay `
i
ATTACHMENT 2
IqNICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Chtd.
Margot T. Yapp, P.E.
Principal/Project Manager
Education Masters in Public Policy; University of California, Berkeley, 2005
M.S. in Civil Engineering, Oregon State University, 1987
B.S. in Civil & Forest Engineering, Oregon State University, 1985
Professional Registrations California, Oregon
Professional Affiliations American Society of Civil Engineers
American Public Works Association
Transportation Research Board Committees A1T50 (Asset Management)
TRB Subcommittee A21301 (1) Local Agency Pavement Management
Co-Chair, Pavement Preservation Technical Group on Pavement Management
Strategic Highway Research Program II -Technical Coordinating Committee for Reliability
Summary Experience
Ms.Yapp has over 20 years of experience in the area of transportation engineering specializing in
pavement design, asset/pavement management and research for roads, highways and airfields.
She has also implemented many Pavement Management Systems for cities,counties and airports
in California, Oregon, Nevada, Hawaii and Texas. She has taught workshops on pavement
management systems for the National Highway Institute/Federal Highway Administration. She is
also involved in the evaluation and design of airfield pavements for civilian and military airports.
Ms. Yapp is currently the Project Manager for the California Statewide Needs Assessments
project where she is responsible for collecting all pavement and non-pavement data from
every county and city(536 agencies)in the entire state of California. She is also responsible
for developing a methodology to analyze the data,data analysis and determining the funding
shortfall required to maintain all of the city and county streets throughout California. These
results will be used by the Legislature and the Governor in assessing future transportation
needs.
Ms. Yapp is also nationally recognized as an expert in assessing damage caused by utility
trenching in the public right-of-way. She has performed these studies for a number of agencies
throughout the United States including Seattle, Philadelphia,Salem,Santa Clara County and Chico.
Representative Projects
Asset/Pavement Management Systems
NCE's proposed Project Manager, Ms. Yapp, has worked with pavement management software
since 1987.She has worked with over 100 agencies in California,Oregon,Washington,Hawaii and
Nevada to implement PMS, from condition surveys to setting up budget parameters to preparing
final reports to making presentations to City Councils for cities(Mission Viejo, Tustin,Fullerton,
Seal Beach, Torrance, Chula Vista, Vista, Corona,Highland,San Dimas,San Francisco,San
Jose, Oakland, Fremont), counties (Orange, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Marin, Stanislaus,
"Bringing the State-of-the-Art to the Standard of Practice"
ATTACHMENT
Margot Yapp
Page 2 of 4
Mendocino, Lake, Mariposa and Monterey) and federal (US Forest Service, Presidio of San
Francisco, Barbers Point NAS) agencies. She has been involved in all aspects of PMS
implementation, from collecting field data, performing condition surveys, performing analyses,
preparing reports, presenting results to decision makers,and managing projects.The types of PMS
software include MTC's StreetSaver,MicroPAVER,dTIMS, Cartegraph and the Hansen Enterprise
system.
Currently she works with both regional and local agencies to use their PMS data for developing
work plans and also to project long-term needs for sales tax or bond measures.She has used PMS
data to develop performance prediction models,to monitor performance of projects constructed with
new pavement materials such as crumb rubber, and to develop new specifications. She recently
completed a long-term regional pavement needs for all 34 cities in Orange County for the Orange
County Transportation Authority.
Airfield Pavement Management
Ms. Yapp was Project Manager for the implementation of a PMS at San Francisco International
Airport. The project involved all data collection activities, analyses and the preparation of budget
reports and maintenance and rehabilitation recommendations.Both airside and landside pavements
were included. Additionally, the project included the development of specific program
enhancements for the airport, including the use of CADD maps and a project-level pavement
analysis program that used mechanistic methods for overlay design as well as determination of
allowable loads using falling weight deflectorrieter testing.
Other airports include Reno-Tahoe International Airport,John Wayne International Airport, Barbers
Point NAS,and 192 general aviation airfields in the State of California. Directed data collection and
data entry efforts,and assisted in the development of maintenance and rehabilitation strategies and
generated reports for individual airfields.
She provided week-long training sessions on the PMS to San Francisco International Airport,
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Houston Intercontinental Airport staff.
Training
Ms.Yapp was the Principal Instructor for the Federal Highway Administration for a three-day course
on Pavement Management Systems.This course was taught to over 20 state highway agencies in
the United States;she has also taught two-day workshops on pavement management systems for
local agencies and T2 Centers. These courses include the basic principles of a PMS as well as
more advanced components. Elements of the course include inventory, condition assessments,
budget needs, implementation, and presenting results to decision makers. She has also trained
numerous local and federal agencies in the use and operations of PMS atboth the technical and
non-technical levels.She recently completed development of a 1-day course for the FHWA entitled
"Pavement Management—Characteristics of an Effective Program" (NHI Course 131116).
She has taught"Pavement Distress Identification"for the National Highway Institute.She was also
a part-time lecturer at San Jose State University where she teaches a graduate course in pavement
evaluation and design and pavement management systems. She currently presents courses on
pavement performance and utility cuts as part of the University of Wisconsin's Department of
Engineering Professional Education.
Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice
ATTACHMENT 2
Margot Yapp
Page 3 of 4
Pavement Design
Ms.Yapp has been involved in the pavement designs for runways,taxiways and aprons for airfields
as well as roads and highways. Pavement designs typically include the use ofnondestructive
testing devices such as the Dynaflect and Falling Weight Deflectometer(FWD). Roadway designs
have been performed for local, state and federal. agencies in New Mexico, California, Oregon,
Washington and Alaska.Airfield experiences include the pavement designs at Barber's Point NAS,
McCarran International Airport at Las Vegas, San Jose International Airport in California, Fresno
ANG, and Castle AFB.
She is familiar with Caltrans,AASHTO and mechanistic design procedures,as well as those of the
Asphalt Institute,the Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S.Corps of Engineers. Mechanistic
designs have typically been employed in cases where non-standard vehicles, such as missile
carriers, have loads that are unusually high or where unconventional subgrade base or surface
course materials are needed.
Sample projects include cities such as Los Gatos, Livermore, Hayward, Oakland and Campbell.
Selected Publications & Reports
"Non-Pavement Needs Assessment", with Rita Leahy and Adriana Vargas, for the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, September 2007.
"Countywide Assessment of Existing & Future Pavement Needs", with LiQun Ke, for the Orange
County Transportation Authority, 2006.
"Development of Performance Measures for Allocation of Transportation Funds", for the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, February 2006.
"Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement Performance of Seattle Streets", presented at the Road
Builder's Clinic, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, March 2000.
"Development of Performance Prediction Models for Dry-No Freeze and Dry-Freeze Zones Using
LTPP Data",with Kevin Senn, D. Frith and L. Scofield, Proceedings, 8th International Conference
on Asphalt Pavements, Seattle, WA, 1977.
"Institutional Issues: What They Are, How to Work Around Them and Keep Going," submitted for
publication to the Third International Conference on Managing Pavements, San Antonio, Texas,
1994, sponsored by the Transportation Research Board.
Review of Relationships between Modified Asphalt Properties and Pavement Performance, with
J.C. Coplantz and F.N. Finn, Strategic Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, 1991.
HP-GPC and Asphalt Characterization:Literature Review,with A.Z.Durrani and F.N.Finn,Strategic
Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, 1990.
Review of State and Industry Reports on Asphalt Properties and Relationship to Pavement
Bringing the State of the Ari to the Standard of Practice BL_.I
ATTACHMENT 2
Margot ofYapp
4
Page 4 of 4
Performance,with A.Z. Durrani and F.N. Finn,Strategic Highway Research Program,Washington,
DC, 1990.
Asphalt Properties&Relationship to Pavement Performance, with Fred N. Finn, J. Coplantz&A.
Durrani, Strategic Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, 1990.
The Effects of Emulsion Variability on Seal Coats -Final Report, with J.F. Shook & W.L. Shook,
FHWA-PA-89-30 and 89-12, Washington, DC, June 1990.
"Existing Methods for the Structural Design of Aggregate Road Surfaces on Forest Roads",with J.
Steward and W.G.Whitcomb, Fifth International Conference on Low-Volume Roads, Transportation
Research Record 1291 Vol. 2, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1991.
Aggregate Surfacing Design Guide, with W.G. Whitcomb, M. Myers, USFS Region 6, Portland,
Oregon, February 1990.
"Development of an Improved Overlay Design Procedure for Alaska," with R.G. Hicks and B.
Connor, Transportation Research Record 1207,Transportation Research Board,Washington, DC,
1988.
Compendium of Demonstration Projects for USDA Forest Service Project on Alternate Surfacings-
Wood and Bark Chips in the Siuslaw National Forest, with R.G. Hicks, Transportation Research
Record 85-2, Transportation Research Institute, Oregon State University, July 1985.
Potential Problems With the Use of Open-Graded Emulsified Asphalt Mixes, with R.S. Frey and
R.G. Hicks, Transportation Research Record 83-22, Transportation Research Institute, Oregon
State University, July 1983.
Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice Bk, I
ATTACHMENT 3
NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Chtd.
Engineering and Environmental Services
501 Canal Blvd.,Suite I• Point Richmond, CA 94804.510.215.3620• FAX 510.215.2898
September 14, 2009
Filer 156.03.20
Ms. Barbara Lynch
Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Department of Public Works
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Peer Review of Pavement Management Plan & Summary of Interviews
with City Council
Dear Barbara:
As discussed, this letter report constitutes Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. (NCE)'s peer
review of the City's Pavement Management Plan (PMP) as well as the results of our
interviews with Council Member Andrew Carter, Mayor Dave Romero and the City's PMP
Manager, Daniel Van Beveren.
Review of Pavement Management Plan
NCE first reviewed the City's "Pavement Management Plan" that was adopted by the
Council in April 1998. Generally, the PMP is well thought out, and incorporates the elements
that are expected of many pavement management plans. The City uses the MicroPAVER
program, which is well-known and widely used by many cities and counties in the United
States. It is also endorsed by the American Public Works Association as well as other federal
agencies. Within California, some 80 cities or counties use the program.
More specifically, the PMP included:
• Thorough and detailed summary of pavements, their value, how they
perform/deteriorate over time as well as the public's perceptions.
• A description of the MicroPAVER program, and the results of the analyses presented
i.e. inventory data,pavement conditions, and future projections.
• Impacts of different treatment methods e.g. seals vs. overlays
• Impacts of different funding levels
• A summary of policy recommendations e.g. condition goals, design criteria,
implementation and funding levels.
There was one specific observation that should be noted; the PMP identified arterials to have
the lowest average PCI in 1998 (59 for arterials, compared to 63 for collectors and 77 for
local streets). This is unusual since most cities actually have arterials and collectors in better
Bringing the State of the An to the Standard of Practice Q
ATTACHMENT 3
September 2009
File#156.03.3.20
Ms. Barbara Lynch
Page 2
condition than their local streets. The PMP also indicates that some streets in the City will
need to be maintained for reasons other than pavement condition i.e. identity, sense of
community etc. However, from the funding recommendations in the report, only about 22%
($500,000) of the annual funding is directed towards arterials specifically.
Most pavement preservation policies will aim to preserve good roads first as this is the most
cost-effective strategy in the long run. However, this is usually tempered by the fact that
arterials usually have a higher priority than local streets and are selected for treatment first.
Finally, change is a constant, and the PMP indicates that the results and recommendations are
based on assumptions that may change, and if so, those changes should be considered in the
future.
Interviews
Three interviews were conducted in the morning of August 25`s, 2009. The interviewees were
Mayor Dave Romero, Council Member Andrew Carter and the City's PMP Manager, Daniel
Van Beveren.
In general, the concerns from Council Member Carter are summarized as follows:.
• Too much money is spent on local streets and not enough on arterials.
• The PCI is not the best performance measure of improvement. The perception is that
"we're spending a lot of money for not much improvement in the PCP'
• There are other higher priorities e.g. safety (signals, cross walks), traffic congestion,
capacity improvements(primarily intersections)
• A modal shift in projects e.g. more pedestrian or bicycle projects
Mayor Romero's concerns are summarized as follows:
• Current emphasis in only on neighborhoods, and not on arterials. This should be
corrected so that arterials have a higher priority. A secondary emphasis should be on
collectors and bus/truck routes. The neighborhood program should be reduced in size.
• Smoothness is a priority, so overlays may be more appropriate than seals in areas
where there are roughness problems.
• More flexibility in the 8 year program to include other treatments as appropriate.
• Trench repairs are inadequate—better restoration practices should be considered.
Both are willing to"extend"the eight year cycle to longer cycles, if funding constraints exist.
PMP Manager Van Beveren's comments are summarized as follows:
• The 8 year program works — it's effective in coordinating with utilities and saves
money in construction
• Generally follow plan with 2/3 of budget going to local streets.
Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice I
8r
ATTACHMENT 3
September 2,2009
File
#156.03.20 Ms. BarbararbaraLynch
Page 3
• Data collection — The City recently changed data collection methods (automated
instead of walking surveys) and there appears to be significant jump in the PCI.
Currently, staff is working to calibrate the two methods before reporting the updated
PCI to Council.
• In the 2005-07 period, the CIP committee suspended the 8 year plan so lost ground.
• Have considered new treatments and materials over the past 10 years, some of which
have performed better than others.
• Construction costs are adjusted annually, but the funding is only adjusted by CPI
which has not kept up with construction.
• Future concerns include:
o More money is needed
o Future cross slope issues will result in more money required for
reconstruction, and seals alone are insufficient.
0 8 year rotation is idealistic because there is not enough funding
o Sees PCI goal of 80 as a simplistic measure but not sure of other more
effective measures
o More time — when he began, his position devoted 60% of his time to
pavement management; today, his responsibilities have changed and he does
not have the time necessary to fulfill all the requirements, such as calibration.
Conclusions
First and foremost, a policy change to put a higher priority on arterials is justified and
needed. This is the standard of practice for most cities. Currently, the PMP recommends a
funding level of$500,000 annually for arterials; however, since the total funding is not the
same every year, staff has typically ensured that the percentage of funding for arterials is the
same.
NCE recommends that the City consider the entire network as a whole, and perform the
budgetary analyses to determine the priorities. Due to changes in the past 10 years, it is
entirely possible that the priorities in 2009 may no longer be the same. For example, arterials
may require $1 million in 2010, but only $750,000 in 2011. This analysis should be
performed on the entire network, without regard to the eight neighborhoods, to determine the
most optimal solution. Once the required funding for the arterials are determined, further
analyses may be performed on the local streets in the eight neighborhoods.
While the PMP as laid out in 1998 was a good document, things have changed. One of the
more drastic changes is the cost of construction. As an example, Caltrans Asphalt Price Index
shows more than a five-fold fold increase between 1997 and 2007, yet the City's funding
levels have not changed significantly. While price increases in the City may not be as drastic
as the statewide averages, nonetheless, the use of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) may not
the best use for projecting future funding needs. These adjustments have not been made to
the PMP over the last ten years. A detailed overview is needed, with the ability to make
changes annually or biennially, rather than once every 10 years.
Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice
ATTACHMENT 3
September 2,2009
File#156.03.20
Ms. Barbara Lynch
Page 4
The goal of a PCI of 80 for the City should be revisited to see if it still fits the Council's or
public's priorities. It is also not unusual to have different goals for different classes of roads
i.e. most arterials are held to a higher standard than local streets. If City policy is to aim for
higher standards, then consequently higher funding levels are also required.
Other performance measures are needed to determine if progress is being made on the city
streets. The PCI is an insensitive measure at the network level; other agencies have used
measures that resonate more with the public, such as reducing the percentage of failed streets..
As a general rule of thumb, most cities should not have more than 5% of their total network
area in the failed category. Again, different thresholds may be used for different functional
classes e.g. 0% for arterials, 5% for residentials etc.
Inclusion of a funding analysis should be included in future updates of the PMP. This should
consider different funding sources, and whether the City is maximizing its efforts in state and
federal grants. In terns of funding levels, we examined a range of cities that are the
approximately the size of San Luis Obispo i.e. with pavement networks ranging from 100 to
135 centerline miles. This included cities such as Santa Cruz, Lompoc, South Lake Tahoe,
Lawndale, Cerritos, Los Banos, Tustin, San Dimas, Eureka, Manhattan Beach, Desert Hot
Springs and Lathrop. The funding levels for each of these cities came from a statewide
survey performed by NCE in summer 2008. The funding levels ranged from $500,000/year
to $4.5 million/year. While funding levels depend on the condition of the network (i.e. good
streets cost less), nonetheless, this gives us a general range. San Luis Obispo, with funding
levels of approximately$2.3 n llion/year, is the middle of this range.
Last but not least, a more formal QA program is needed to assure that the data collected is
accurate. The informal QA program in place consists of an intern doing spot checks. Some
elements that should be in included in a revised QA program include a calibration procedure
between the walking surveys and the new automated procedure, requiring the vendor to
document their QC, ensuring adequate training for new city staff, spot checks that cover a
range of functional classes and pavement conditions.
Finally, it was a pleasure to be of assistance on this review. Please give me a call to discuss
when you get a chance. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CHTD.
Margot Yapp, P.E.
Vice President/Principal
Bringing the State of the Art to the Standard of Practice