1 / 28

2009 Trunk Highway Pavement Condition

2009 Trunk Highway Pavement Condition. Report to District Engineers January 19, 2010. Overview. Impact of the ARRA projects Current & Projected Pavement Conditions Preventive Maintenance Spending Pavement Funding Needs/Gap. 2009 Pavement Condition Summary.

neylan
Download Presentation

2009 Trunk Highway Pavement Condition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2009 Trunk Highway Pavement Condition Report to District Engineers January 19, 2010

  2. Overview • Impact of the ARRA projects • Current & Projected Pavement Conditions • Preventive Maintenance Spending • Pavement Funding Needs/Gap

  3. 2009 Pavement Condition Summary • Both the Principal Arterial (PA) and Non-Principal Arterial (NPA) systems had their largest one-year increase in Poor roads. Both are now at record levels (5.5% and 8.5% respectively). • Four of the eight ATPs (1, 6, 7, M) did not meet any of the smoothness targets in 2009. Only ATP-3 met all of the pavement smoothness targets. • The ARRA projects did not have much of an impact on statewide pavement conditions for the following reasons: • Many of the projects were already in the STIP (they were simply done earlier) • Most projects were on the PA system, the system in the best condition. • Due to reduced revenue forecasts, $150M was removed from the 2011 & 2012 program • The requirement of being “shovel ready” resulted in insufficient time to prepare plans for needed major improvements, ones that would reduce the Poor category. • Based on the 2010-2013 STIP, we will have an additional 434 miles in Poor condition by 2013, a 44% increase.

  4. Good MN 72 Northbound (~RP 64) RQI = 3.2 RQI between 3.0 and 4.0 Pavements in this category give first class ride and exhibit few, if any, visible signs of surface deterioration. Targets PA: 70% or more NPA: 65% or more VERY GOOD 4.1 – 5.0 GOOD 3.1 – 4.0 FAIR 2.1 – 3.0 POOR 1.1 – 2.0 VERY POOR 0.0 – 1.0

  5. Principal Arterial Target = 70 percent or more Non-Principal Arterial Target = 65 percent or more

  6. = Better than 2008 Condition = Worse than 2008 Condition Principal Arterial Target = 70 percent or more Non-Principal Arterial Target = 65 percent or more

  7. RQI between 1.0 and 2.0 Pavements have deteriorated to such an extent that they affect the speed of free-flow traffic. VERY GOOD 4.1 – 5.0 GOOD 3.1 – 4.0 FAIR 2.1 – 3.0 POOR 1.1 – 2.0 VERY POOR 0.0 – 1.0 Poor MN 30 Eastbound (~RP 138) RQI = 1.6 Targets PA: 2% or less NPA: 3% or less

  8. Principal Arterial Target = 2 percent or less Non-Principal Arterial Target = 3 percent or less

  9. = Better than 2008 Condition = Worse than 2008 Condition Principal Arterial Target = 2 percent or less Non-Principal Arterial Target = 3 percent or less

  10. Ride Quality Index (RQI) Targets Met in 2009 Met the Target Missed the Target Missed the Target, but close (within 5% for Good, 1% for Poor)

  11. State Highways –vs- County Highways *Based on data from all 87 counties

  12. Impact of 2010-2013 STIP & ARRA Projects

  13. Impact of 2010-2013 STIP & ARRA Projects

  14. Impact of 2010-2013 STIP & ARRA Projects

  15. Impact of 2010-2013 STIP & ARRA Projects

  16. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE TARGETS Remaining Service Life Today RQI Predicted Performance RQI = 2.5 Remaining Service Life Age

  17. No official targets have been established for ARSL

  18. No official targets have been established for ARSL

  19. Pavement Preventive Maintenance 2009 Preventive Maintenance Spending, in $ Millions The districts plan to spend an average of $20M per year on PPM projects during the 2010-2013 STIP

  20. Where are we headed?(statewide) Based on actual 2009 conditions Based on 2010-2013 STIP & ARRA projects Based on planned HIP spending from 2014-2019

  21. Predicted Condition based on the 2010-2013 STIP & ARRA Projects Predicted Condition based on planned HIP Spending (2014-2019) Principal Arterial Threshold: Average PQI >= 3.0 Non-Principal Arterial Threshold: Average PQI >= 2.8 Based on current spending plans (STIP & HIP), we will reach the thresholds around 2018

  22. Pavement Preservation Summary(Annual Pavement Needs and Planned Spending from 2014-2019) *Year of construction $ (using 2009 data, 2010–2013 STIP & ARRA Projects). Assumes 25% of Bituminous Reconstruction is Reclaim .

  23. Any Questions ?

More Related