(PowerPoint presentation)

Asset Management of Streets & Local Roads

In Search of Better Network Investment Decisions and Strategies

byLon Hawbaker, P.E.

American Concrete Pavement AssociationSkokie, IL

2000 INT’L APWA Congress & Exposition

Asset ManagementThe Ultimate Question

How do I make limited budget dollars stretch and provide a street system that offers a

high level of service?

Asset Management

• What is it?– A systematic process of maintaining, upgrading, and

operating physical assets, such as roadways and bridges, in a cost-effective way.

• Combines– Engineering, business management, economics, and

the latest computer-aided technology.

Asset Management• Goal

– 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.

• Items needed– Inventory

– Condition assessment,

– Asset evaluation

– Performance prediction measures and trend indicators

– Cost estimates of options and resulting impacts

– Engineering/economic optimization tools.

Historic Approach

• Asset-by-Asset Basis– Preservation strategies were reactive

– Maintenance approach were reactive • i.e. Fix the worst pavements

• Limited Investment on good / fair structures• Limited review on investment history

New Approach

• Develop Long-Term Network Goals• Emphasize Preservation• Proactively Manage Deterioration • Develop Comprehensive Maintenance Plan• Commitment to Allocate Necessary Resources

Why is it needed with Roads?

• Roads mileage has increased by 3%

• Average Daily Traffic has increased by 86%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Pe

rce

nt

Inc

rea

se

sin

ce

19

73

Lane Miles Built Average Daily Traffic

Why is it needed with Roads?

• Roads mileage has increased by 3%

• Average Daily Traffic has increased by 86%

• Average Daily Load has increased by 550%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Pe

rce

nt

Inc

rea

se

sin

ce

19

73

Lane MilesBuilt

Average DailyTraffic

Average DailyLoad

Another Reason

• Show taxpayer and motoring public you are doing your job and wisely investing their tax dollars

• Good public agency business practice• Good for local business community

Another Reason

• GASB Statement No. 34 issued June 10, 1999

• GASB - “Government Accounting Standards Board”

• If you have not heard about it…you will

GASB Statement No. 34

“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.

GASB Statement No. 34Impact to Your Agency

• Report information about public infrastructure assets

• Report on the overall state of the agency’s financial health, not just individual “funds”

• Provide comprehensive information reflecting the cost of delivering services to citizens

• Provide alternative methods for reporting the condition of infrastructure assets

GASB Rationale for Infrastructure Reporting

• Determine whether current-year revenues were sufficient to cover the cost of current-year services

• Assess the service efforts and costs of programs• Determine whether the government’s financial position

improved or deteriorated as a result of the year’s operations

• Assess the government’s financial position and condition• Assess the service potential of physical resources

having useful lives that extend beyond the current period

Key Asset Management System Components to Support GASB

No. 34

• Asset inventory database• Asset valuation processes• Performance measures and standards• Condition assessment processes

Key Asset Management System Components to Support GASB

No. 34

• Asset management planning/programming systems- Pavement management systems- Maintenance management system

Key Asset Management System Components to Support GASB

No. 34• Asset renewal/replacement analysis

methods- Life-cycle costing- Cost-effectiveness analysis- Equivalent annual cost- Longevity cost index

• Asset disposal policies and procedures

Goals of Street & Road Infrastructure Asset Management

• Look for network solutions not just individual project solutions

• Allows longer term planning to serve both local taxpayer and requirements of GASB No. 34

• Longer term network solutions require not only more durable pavement but a “Mix of Fixes”

How to Start - An Example

• Need for Network Level Modeling Tool• Modeling Information

– Deterioration Rates

– Historic Costs Data

– Network Impacts of Work Activities

• Assess Current Business Practices

Pavement Condition Forecasting System

Strategy DevelopmentAn Example

• Consider Impacts of Historic Approach• Recognize Benefits of Capital Scheduled

Maintenance and Capital Preventative Maintenance

• Acknowledge 53% of Network is “Fair”• Good-Fair-Poor Distribution Drives Mix of Fixes• Iterative Process for Varied Mix of Fixes &

Funding Levels

Pavement Network Goal

• Preserve the pavement network to insure safety and serviceability, while optimizing all available resources.

– Pavements of Critical Concern: address 100%

– Freeway: 95% Good or Fair by 2008

– Non-Freeway: 85% Good or Fair by 2008

THE OBJECTIVE?

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

How Do We Do That?• 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.

• Key issues:

– Average years of service remaining

– Preservation procedures (Mix of Fixes)• Activities used to extend pavement life.

– Network impacts

– LCCA and total pavement costs

Years of Remaining ServiceTime frame before each segment of roadway needs repair.

<2 3-7 8-12 13-17 18-22 23-27 28-3205

101520253035404550

Pe

rce

nt

of

Net

wo

rk

Ne

ed

ing

Rep

air

Remaining Years

Current Condition

Network Analysis

• The longer the life of the system, the greater the average years of service for the whole network.

Network Analysis

• 300 mile roadway network with mostly short-live pavements

– One-third has an average remaining life of 5 years until work is necessary

– One-third has an average remaining life of 10 years until work is necessary

– One-third has an average remaining life of 15 years until work is necessary

• 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?

Network Analysis: Hypothetical System

Doubles totalservice life of system

System with only short-life pavements:

Miles in Segmentof Highway System

Years toNext Fix

Years of Servicein Segments

100100100

51050

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-mi1000 yr-mi5000 yr-mi

(100 x 5)

Network Analysis:

Miles in Segmentof Highway System

Years toNext Fix

Years of Servicein Segments

100100100

51015

500 yr-mi1000 yr-mi1500 yr-mi

Total = 3000 yr-mi

Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 3000/300 = 10 yr.

(100 x 5)

Nearly doubles totalservice life of system

System with only short-life pavements:

Miles in Segmentof Highway System

Years toNext Fix

Years of Servicein Segments

100100100

51040

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-mi1000 yr-mi4000 yr-mi

(100 x 5)

Network Analysis:

Miles in Segmentof Highway System

Years toNext Fix

Years of Servicein Segments

100100100

51015

500 yr-mi1000 yr-mi1500 yr-mi

Total = 3000 yr-mi

Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 3000/300 = 10 yr.

(100 x 5)

Increases totalservice life of system

by 33%

System with only short-life pavements:

Miles in Segmentof Highway System

Years toNext Fix

Years of Servicein Segments

100100100

51015

500 yr-mi1000 yr-mi1500 yr-mi

Total = 3000 yr-mi

Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 3000/300 = 10 yr.

(100 x 5)

Miles in Segmentof Highway System

Years toNext Fix

Years of Servicein Segments

100100100

51025

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-mi1000 yr-mi2500 yr-mi

(100 x 5)

Network Analysis:

Network Analysis

• The longer the life of the system, the amount that needs repaired at any given time is reduced.

– Lowers the cost by spreading them over longer time periods

Preservation Categories“Mix of fixes”

• Maintenance• Restoration (CPR)• Resurfacing (overlays)• Reconstruction

– Last 3 are known as CPR3

– Which is used depends on existing condition.

Maintenance activities maintain serviceability

0

50

100

150

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Poor Fair Good

Maintenance

• High Benefit, Low User Impact

• Manages Deterioration Rates on “All” Structures

• Delays Category Drop on “All” Pavements

Restoration restores pavement integrity

0

50

100

150

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Poor Fair Good

Restoration

• Manages Deterioration Rates on “Fair” Pavement

• Delays “Fair” From Becoming “Poor”

• Cost Effective Fixes - Touches More Pavements

Rehabilitation improves pavement condition

Rehabilitation

• Improves Condition Ratings

– “Poor” to “Good”

– “Poor” to “Fair”

– “Fair” to “Good”

• Prioritizes Critical Concern Structures

0

50

100

150

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Poor Fair Good

Replaces pavements

Reconstruction

• Address Other Pavement Needs

• Improves Condition Rating– “Poor” to “Good”

• Prioritizes Critical Concern Pavements

0

50

100

150

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Poor Fair Good

Concrete “Mix of Fixes” for Streets & Local Roads

• Concrete overlays• Ultra-thin whitetopping (2-4”)• Whitetopping (4-12+”)• Full and partial depth repairs• CPR including diamond grinding• Full depth paving & reconstruction• Reconstruction with Fast Track paving

Network ImpactLook for the “Structural Holes” and fill them

<2 3-7 8-12 13-17 18-22 23-27 28-3205

101520253035404550

Pe

rce

nt

of

Net

wo

rk

Ne

ed

ing

Rep

air

Remaining Years

Network Impact

• By filling structural holes, the average that needs repaired at any given time is reduced.– Lowers the cost by spreading them over longer

time periods

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

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.

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

–Applied at the project level.

–The performance parameters of alternatives are determined by the network needs

•For this reason, must analyze the needs of the network

• Present Worth Analysis (PW)• Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost

Analysis (EUAC)

How it is done:

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Present Worth Analysis: Discounts all future costs (benefits) to the present

Co

sts

Initial Cost

Rehabilitation CostMaintenance

Cost

Salvage Value

Years

Co

sts

Present Worth

Years

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost:Combines all present and future costs (benefits) into equal annual payments

Co

sts

Initial Cost

Rehabilitation CostMaintenance

Cost

Salvage Value

Years

Co

sts Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost

Years

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

• Economic Factors– Discount rate

– Analysis Period

• Engineering Factors– Comparable sections

– Rehabilitation selection

– Agency Costs

– User costs

Basic Factors:

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

• Normally equal for each alternative– Highway: 30-40 years

– Street: 20-30 years

– Airport: 30 years

• Include at least one rehabilitation– Needed to capture the true economic benefit of each alternate

Analysis Period:

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

• Initial cost of pavement• Maintenance and operation cost• Anticipated future rehabilitation costs

– Engineering

– Construction

– Traffic Control

• Salvage (recycling value)

Agency Costs:

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

LCCA Process

• Design equivalent pavement sections• Establish strategies for analysis period

– Estimate agency costs

– Establish activity timing

– Develop expenditure streams

• Estimate user costs• Compute NPV• Analyze results• Reevaluate strategies

Network and Comparitive Analysis

of Pavement Choices

Real Life Examples“ A Look Back ”

Iowa County Road Study Impact of Pavement Type on County Road Systems

• Conducted by: – James K. Cable Ph.D., P.E., Iowa State University

• A study of three representative counties to evaluate their individual pavement systems in order to determine the effect of: – a concrete policy vs. an asphalt policy

Specifics of Study• System performance over 40 year period 1954-1994• Reviewed both construction and maintenance costs• Looked at system wide costs for comparison• All counties were of:

– equal size

– similar paved mileage

– similar traffic

– rural agricultural area

County Comparisons

• Presentation will key on two counties – County A - System primarily concrete with “whitetopping”

overlays• 6-8 inch PCC on compacted clay with 6’ earth shoulders,

• whitetopping overlays 5-7” range

– County B - System primarily asphalt with asphalt overlays• asphalt surface 1” or seal coat

• asphalt base 1-3”

• 4-6” rolled stone or natural gravel over compacted natural subgrade

• overlaid in 5-15 year intervals

• current thickness 8-10” asphalt

Traffic Carried over Pavement LifeThrough 1993 - Systemwide

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Lo

adin

gs

(Mil

lio

ns

of

ES

AL

s)

County A County B

AC Loadings

PCC Loadings

Total Loadings

Road System Development

• County A’s system (concrete) – Developed slower over a longer period of time

– Has had a little need for rehabilitation

• County B’s system (asphalt) – Substantially developed in first 20 years at a

faster rate

– Last 20 years has been period of significant overlays, rehabilitation and maintenance

Paved Miles vs. Time

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180Total

Concrete

Asphalt

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180Total

Concrete

Asphalt

County A County B

Road System Development

• County A’s system (concrete) – Developed slower over

a longer period of time

– Has had a little need for rehabilitation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180Total

Concrete

Asphalt

Road System Development

• County B’s system (asphalt) – Substantially developed

in first 20 years at a faster rate

– Last 20 years has been period of significant overlays, rehabilitation and maintenance

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180Total

Concrete

Asphalt

Performance Analysis

• Visual distress surveys conducted using MICRO-PAVER– PCI values developed for

each mile of paved surface

• County A (concrete)– 97 = Excellent Category

• County B (asphalt)– 84 = Very Good with range

Fair, Good, Very Good to Excellent Category

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

County A County B

PCI Values

Total Pavement Costs

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Co

st

(mill

ion

s $

)

County A County B

AC CostsPCC CostsTotal Costs

Construction (including overlays) Maintenance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Co

st

(mill

ion

s $

)

County A County B

AC CostsPCC CostsTotal Costs

Average Pavement Costs

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Av

g. C

os

t ($

/mile

)

County A County B

Total Costs

Construction (including overlays)(1952-93)

Maintenance(1952-92)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Av

g. C

os

t ($

/mile

)

County A County B

<6 IN. AC>6 IN. ACPCC CostsTotal Costs

Results of Study

• On system wide basis, the use of concrete for new construction & whitetopping resulted in:– improved performance

• Higher PCI rating: 97 for County A vs. 84 for County B

• Much less variable

– decreased unit construction costs• 3.3 times more for asphalt system than concrete system

– decreased unit maintenance costs• 2.1 times more for asphalt system than concrete system

In Conclusion

Benefits of New Strategy

• Network– Systematic Approach to Network

– Proactively Manages Deterioration Rates

– Commitment to Do Right Work at Right Time on Entire System

– Ability to Meet Established Network Goals

Benefits of New Strategy

• Organization– Increased Program Stability (Credibility)

– Coordination with Other Programs

– Organizational Commitment

Benefits of New Strategy

• Customer– Reduced Impact to Motoring Public

– Increased Program Stability (Confidence in agency)

– Efficient Investment of Tax Dollars

Pavement’s Role• 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.

• Key issues:

– Average years of service remaining

– Mix of Fixes • Dollars & the time frame till the next rehabilitation.

– Network impacts

– LCCA and total pavement costs

Approach Includes

• Annual Improvement• Progress Toward Goal• Regional Progress• Status of Critical

Concern Structures

• Projects -vs- Strategy• Program Stability• Timely Delivery• Periodic Inspections

Network Analysis Program Analysis

Midwest Driver Survey

“Drivers believe agencies can and should build longer-lasting pavements with fewer

delays”

Concrete Pavement Solutions forPositive Asset Management - SLR

• Intersections• Arterials• Collectors• Local streets• New developments (commercial, industrial,

residential)• Parking lots

Positive Asset Management Impacts of Portland Cement Concrete Pavements

• Longer term fix• Low maintenance• Options for 10-60 year fix (overlays-full depth)• Good for budgets with reduced maintenance

costs• Less traffic congestion & disruption - fewer delays• Handle heavy truck traffic - movement of goods

and services

Positive Environmental Impacts of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement

• Surface temperature - reduced 8-20+ deg. F• Lighting - reduced 30%• or Light level - increased 30% for added safety• Recyclable• Fuel consumption reduction• Clean air -positive

A Thought to Take Home Night Visibility

• Safer for:Motoring PublicPedestrians

Asphalt

Concrete

Thank You!

Any Questions?

“www.pavement.com”