Asset Management of Streets & Local Roads

1. Asset Management of Streets & Local Roads In Search of Better Network Investment Decisions and Strategies by Lon Hawbaker, P.E. American Concrete Pavement Association Skokie, IL 2000 INT’L APWA Congress & Exposition

2. Asset ManagementThe Ultimate Question How do I make limited budget dollars stretch and provide a street system that offers a high level of service?

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

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

7. Why is it needed with Roads? • Roads mileage has increased by 3% • Average Daily Traffic has increased by 86%

8. 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%

9. 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

10. Another Reason • GASB Statement No. 34 issued June 10, 1999 • GASB - “Government Accounting Standards Board” • If you have not heard about it…you will

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. Key Asset Management System Components to Support GASB No. 34 • Asset inventory database • Asset valuation processes • Performance measures and standards • Condition assessment processes

15. Key Asset Management System Components to Support GASB No. 34 • Asset management planning/programming systems - Pavement management systems - Maintenance management system

16. 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

17. 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”

18. How to Start - An Example Pavement Condition Forecasting System • Need for Network Level Modeling Tool • Modeling Information • Deterioration Rates • Historic Costs Data • Network Impacts of Work Activities • Assess Current Business Practices

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Years of Remaining Service Time frame before each segment of roadway needs repair. 50 Current Condition 45 40 35 30 Percent of Network Needing Repair 25 20 15 10 5 0 <2 3-7 8-12 13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 Remaining Years

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

25. Network Analysis Network Analysis: Hypothetical System • 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?

26. Miles in Segmentof Highway System Years toNext Fix Years of Servicein Segments 100 100 100 5 10 15 (100 x 5) 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 1500 yr-mi Total = 3000 yr-mi Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 3000/300 = 10 yr. If 1/3 of System has long-life pavements: Miles in Segmentof Highway System Years toNext Fix Years of Servicein Segments Doubles totalservice life of system 100 100 100 5 10 50 (100 x 5) 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 5000 yr-mi Total = 6500 yr-mi Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 6500/300 = 21.67 yr. Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements:

27. Miles in Segmentof Highway System Years toNext Fix Years of Servicein Segments 100 100 100 5 10 15 (100 x 5) 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 1500 yr-mi Total = 3000 yr-mi Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 3000/300 = 10 yr. Nearly doubles totalservice life of system Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: If 1/3 of System has long-life pavements: Miles in Segmentof Highway System Years toNext Fix Years of Servicein Segments 100 100 100 5 10 40 (100 x 5) 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 4000 yr-mi Total = 5500 yr-mi Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 5500/300 = 18.33 yr.

28. Miles in Segmentof Highway System Years toNext Fix Years of Servicein Segments 100 100 100 5 10 15 (100 x 5) 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 1500 yr-mi Total = 3000 yr-mi Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 3000/300 = 10 yr. Increases totalservice life of system by 33% Network Analysis: System with only short-life pavements: If 1/3 of System has long-life pavements: Miles in Segmentof Highway System Years toNext Fix Years of Servicein Segments 100 100 100 5 10 25 (100 x 5) 500 yr-mi 1000 yr-mi 2500 yr-mi Total = 4000 yr-mi Ave. Years of Service for each mile = 4000/300 = 13.33 yr.

29. 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

30. Preservation Categories“Mix of fixes” • Maintenance • Restoration (CPR) • Resurfacing (overlays) • Reconstruction • Last 3 are known as CPR3 • Which is used depends on existing condition.

31. Poor Fair Good Maintenance Maintenance activities maintain serviceability • High Benefit, Low User Impact • Manages Deterioration Rates on “All” Structures • Delays Category Drop on “All” Pavements

32. Poor Fair Good Restoration Restoration restores pavement integrity • Manages Deterioration Rates on “Fair” Pavement • Delays “Fair” From Becoming “Poor” • Cost Effective Fixes - Touches More Pavements

33. Poor Fair Good Rehabilitation Rehabilitation improves pavement condition • Improves Condition Ratings • “Poor” to “Good” • “Poor” to “Fair” • “Fair” to “Good” • Prioritizes Critical Concern Structures

34. Poor Fair Good Reconstruction Replaces pavements • Address Other Pavement Needs • Improves Condition Rating • “Poor” to “Good” • Prioritizes Critical Concern Pavements

35. 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

36. Network Impact Look for the “Structural Holes” and fill them 50 45 40 35 30 Percent of Network Needing Repair 25 20 15 10 5 0 13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 <2 3-7 8-12 Remaining Years

37. 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

38. 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

39. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis How it is done: • Present Worth Analysis (PW) • Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost Analysis (EUAC)

40. Initial Cost Rehabilitation Cost Maintenance Cost Salvage Value Present Worth Costs Years Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Present Worth Analysis:Discounts all future costs (benefits) to the present Costs Years

41. Initial Cost Rehabilitation Cost Maintenance Cost Costs Salvage Value Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost Costs Years Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost: Combines all present and future costs (benefits) into equal annual payments Years

42. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Basic Factors: • Economic Factors • Discount rate • Analysis Period • Engineering Factors • Comparable sections • Rehabilitation selection • Agency Costs • User costs

43. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Analysis Period: • 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

44. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Agency Costs: • Initial cost of pavement • Maintenance and operation cost • Anticipated future rehabilitation costs • Engineering • Construction • Traffic Control • Salvage (recycling value)

45. 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

46. Network and Comparitive Analysisof Pavement Choices Real Life Examples “ A Look Back ”

47. Iowa County Road StudyImpact 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. Traffic Carried over Pavement LifeThrough 1993 - Systemwide