Upload
jacknickelson
View
951
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
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”