To Pave or Not to Pave? Making Informed Decisions on When to Upgrade a Gravel Road.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation Review and Discussion of Draft Scope of Work for Study of Issues Associated with Increasing Transportation.
Advertisements

State Aid Programs An Introduction to: Local Bridge Replacement Program Local Road Improvement.
Executive Summary Introduction In 1988, by virtue of State Statute , the Nebraska State Legislature first assigned the Nebraska Department.
Managing a Statewide Network An overview of the CDOT Pavement Management Program Eric Chavez Stephen Henry
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
County Transportation Systems Association of MN Counties, MN County Engineers Association, MN Inter-County Association Presentation to MN Senate Transportation.
Wyoming County Paved Roads Management and Monitoring Khaled Ksaibati, Ph.D., P.E. STIC June, 2014.
County Transportation System Governor’s Transportation Advisory Committee September 14, 2012 Abbey Bryduck, AMC Policy Analyst.
ALLEGAN COUNTY PRIMARY ROAD MILLAGE AREA 2 JANUARY 21, 2014.
December 10, 2014 Highway Maintenance and Preservation Needs WSDOT Can Provide Reliable Long-Term Pavement Estimates, but Accuracy of Bridge Estimates.
Pavement Management Program Overview February 10, 2015 Presented By: Christopher J. Ott, E.I.
Basics of County Offices Highway Department County Officials Academy.
Minnesota Department of Transportation House Transportation Policy & Finance Committee February 23, 2015.
Future of Ringgold County Sealcoat Road System Open Forum Meetings 2011 Credit for assistance in this presentation to Brad Skinner, Page County Engineer,
Meade County Experience with Alternatives to Paving Ken McGirr Meade County Highway Supt Sturgis, SD.
Your Roads The Future, Some History, and Alternatives For Wasco County April 23, 2013.
Why Pavement Maintenance and Preservation? Sponsored by: Minnesota T 2 Center Presented by: Michael Marti, P.E. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Dan Wegman,
Presented by Matthew J. LaChance Pavement Solutions for State, County, and Municipal Infrastructures.
S.R. 256 Road Reconstruction Project From City of Austin to S.R. 203 Thursday, February 6, 2014 Austin Elementary School 6:00 p.m.
Pavement Preservation in South Carolina J. C. “Clem” Watson, P.E. Chief Engineer for Operations South Carolina Department of Transportation.
MDSS Stakeholder Meeting June, COMPUTING A BETTER WAY TO PLOW IN NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA Kwasi D. Amoah, Graduate Student, MSEM University of.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. Mission Statement Plan, Design, Construct, Operate and Maintain the roadway system under the jurisdiction of Lee County.
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OVERVIEW Lecture 2. n Provide a historical perspective of the evolution of PMS over the last 20 years n Describe the basic.
HDM-4 Applications. 2 Project Appraisal Project Formulation Maintenance Policy Optimization Road Works Programming Network Strategic Analysis Standards.
Success with Alternatives to Paving Mr. Chuck Fromelt Day County Highway Superintendent Webster, South Dakota.
Optimal Highway Durability in Cold Regions Jia Yan Washington State University 18 June 2015.
WVDOT GTI SECTION Status Update for Districts. AGENDA Introduction. Introduction. Status Update. Status Update. How to Spatially Enable Database. How.
8 th Road Pavements Forum 17 Nov 2004 SABITA PROJECT: Warrants for upgrading SuperSurf J Lea and P Paige-Green.
THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AN ALDOT PERSPECTIVE December 3, 2014.
LLANO COUNTY MUD #1 ROAD PROJECT REVIEW PURPOSE DISCUSS POSSIBILITY OF COMPLETING REMAINING ROAD UPGRADE PROVIDE FACTS TO INFORM COMMUNITY TO MAKE DECISION.
Economic Analysis: Applications to Work Zones March 25, 2004.
Lecture Six Radu ANDREI, PhD, P.E., Professor of Civil Engineering
Economic Evaluation of Pavement Alternatives CEE 320 Steve Muench 9/12/ The majority roads are public facilities built with tax money to serve the.
 Do you have an Interest in Math and Science?  Do you have good problem solving skills?  Do you approach problems in an analytical manner?  Can.
MnDOT-ACEC Annual Conference March 5,  Capital planning and programming at MnDOT  Major considerations  A more transparent and collaborative.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 26 Schedule.
NETWORK LEVEL EXAMPLES OF PMS İNŞ.YÜK. MÜH. VEYSEL ARLI.
2-1 LOW COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS The Tools – Identification of High Crash Locations – Session #2.
Evaluation of Alternative Methods for Identifying High Collision Concentration Locations Raghavan Srinivasan 1 Craig Lyon 2 Bhagwant Persaud 2 Carol Martell.
Roads Economic Decision Model (RED) January 2008 Rodrigo Archondo-Callao Senior Highway Engineer, ETWTR The World Bank.
Session 2 Introduction to Pavement Preventive Maintenance Concepts.
WELCOME! July 31, 2012 ODOT District July 31, 2012 PURPOSE OF TONIGHT’S MEETING Introduce the project –Reconstruct I-75.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT Tim G. Schulte, P.E. Richland County Engineer.
Webinar Texas Department of Transportation : Costs Associated with Conversion of Surfaced to Un-Surfaced Roads August 30, 2012.
Department of Transportation Report on Condition of County Maintained Road System Agenda Item 53 Board of Supervisor’s Meeting April 26, 2005.
Data Palooza Workshop May 9, 2013 Rabinder Bains, FHWA – Office of Policy and Government Affairs.
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE 1: Part 1: Pavement Preservation Idaho Roads Scholar Program.
Materials, Pavements & Transportation Operations CONCEPTS FOR ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Stuart Anderson Gerald Ullman Making.
University of Minnesota Intersection Decision Support Research - Results of Crash Analysis University of Minnesota Intersection Decision Support Research.
Gary Hicks and Rob Marsh Gary Hicks and Rob Marsh April 19, 2005 April 19, 2005 Pavement Preservation Sub-Group on Strategy Selection & Evaluation.
BLOCK 4 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Pavement Data Collection Project evaluation Select feasible alternatives Reconstruction Restoration Recycling.
Utah Research Benefits Value of Research Taskforce July 29, 2015 Cameron Kergaye Utah Department of Transportation.
Managing Road Maintenance Efficiently and Economically (Doing it Right the First Time) 2015 SDATAT Annual Road Conference Mr. Ken Skorseth SDLTAP Special.
Mike McColeman, P.E. Assistant Maintenance Administrator Ohio Department of Transportation Defining Desired Outcomes Defining Desired Outcomes.
INCORPORATING INCOME INTO TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING Brent Spence Bridge Case Study October 13, 2015.
ROAD CONSTRUCTION COSTS Key Concepts. Types of Main Road Works Routine Maintenance Works are day-to-day running repairs, e.g. Potholes, depressions, crack.
Presentation to the Washington Transportation Commission March 16, 2010 Washington State Association of County Engineers.
The Highway Fund – Planning, Measuring, and Reporting Mike Holder, PE, Chief Engineer 2015 CAPA / DOT Workshop February 24, 2015.
Regina Bypass Project Information Session. Saskatchewan.ca Outline Background –The need for a bypass –Selecting the route –P3 delivery and procurement.
Sand Mining Road Impacts Committee of the Board February 7, 2012 This presentation is available at the Winona County website under.
Road Maintenance in Estonia
2013 Roads and Sidewalk Capital Programs Roads and Parks Maintenance Department Development & Infrastructure Division December 2, 2013.
Roads Operations, Public Works
Pierce County Pavement Preservation Program
Multi-Year Programming and Predictive Modelling
Overcoming Barriers to Implement Research Projects
Year-end Unallocated Costs
County State Aid Needs.
Participatory Road Program neighborhood meeting Donahoo 174th Street
NRRA Pavement Workshop 2019
Presentation transcript:

To Pave or Not to Pave? Making Informed Decisions on When to Upgrade a Gravel Road

How to decide when to pave or not? Two new reports offer some help: Cost Comparison of Treatments Used to Maintain and Upgrade Aggregate Roads –Completed in 2005 and funded by the MN LRRB. Examined surface construction and maintenance costs to determine possible threshold values to go from gravel to paved. Local Road Surfacing Criteria –Completed in 2004 and funded by the SD DOT. Developed a tool to compare the costs associated with different types of roads to determine the most economical surface type.

These reports offer A cost analysis based on spending history for low volume roads A method for estimating maintenance and construction costs An economic analysis procedure, including present worth evaluation

Key questions pertaining to gravel roads Two key questions when developing a maintenance plan for gravel road: –What is the best way to maintain a gravel road? –When should it be upgraded to a paved road?

Why is this an issue? Maintenance costs for both paved and unpaved roads are rising, and we need to optimize them over time. Reduced funding and resources require us to be more efficient spenders. Preparing for future maintenance and upgrades allows us to manage funds that are available

Other issues Increased traffic due to development in the urban fringe Altered expectations due to changing rural lifestyles Shifts in agribusiness needs requires a shift in our roadway maintenance and construction strategies

When to pave?

Savings in routine and ongoing maintenance costs Increased quality of life –less dust, cleaner environment Lower vehicle operating expenses for users Increased safety and skid resistance Positive economic development people want to live, work and drive on paved roads, so economic activity will follow them Political issues

When not to pave?

Lack of funding for initial construction costs Traffic doesn’t warrant it Control growth in the area Adjacent property owners don’t want it Control speed on the roadway Political issues

Risks with paving Funding eventual rehabilitation of pavement Heavy traffic may overload, if not designed strongly May require full alignment and profile upgrade for safety May increase vehicle speeds and attract more traffic Some stakeholders may prefer gravel

Early roads

Plank roads

Minnesota project overview This project offered an analysis of county maintenance costs, practices, and traffic volumes for individual roads to help determine when it may be advantageous to upgrade the road based on cumulative maintenance costs. Other agencies can use the information to develop their own costs

Minnesota project overview Data collection –Evaluated Minnesota County Road Historical Costs –Conducted Interviews and collected data from 16 county highway departments County road maintenance costs for both gravel and bituminous roads Minnesota county road costs vs. Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

Data overview Data obtained from annual reports submitted to State Aid Office from –Roads were grouped by funding source County State Aid Highways (CSAH) County Roads (funded entirely by county funds) Township and Municipal Roads –Detailed maintenance costs for each road were summarized and split into five main categories County traffic maps were used to obtain average daily traffic for each road segment

Typical maintenance activities Routine MaintenanceRepairs & Replacements Smoothing Surface* Reshaping* Minor Surface Repair* Resurfacing** Cleaning Culverts & Ditches Culverts, Bridges, Guardrails Brush & Weed ControlSpecial Work Snow & Ice Removal Dust Treatments* Traffic Services & Signs Mud Jacking & Frost Boils* Betterments New Culverts, Rails, or TilingSpecial Agreements Seeding & Sodding Bituminous Treatments*** * Costs related to routine maintenance of road surface ** Costs related to periodic maintenance of road surface *** Cost can be for routine or periodic maintenance of road surface

Data analysis Initial data analysis done for Waseca County –Provided a snap shot of the kind of information available for use in this study Assumed that maintenance cost would increase with an increase in traffic Roads chosen based on: –surface types –high and low volume traffic counts

Waseca County Cumulative Maintenance cost/mile

Typical maintenance costs/mile County`Road TypeMiles Total Cost/Mile of Activities Influenced by Surface Type A Gravel313$1,863 Bituminous189$638 B Gravel228$1,456 Bituminous442$1,320 C Gravel297$2,004 Bituminous426$2,105 D Gravel64$273 Bituminous198$210

Average cost/mile for gravel road maintenance activities for one county Dust Treatment, $7, <1% Surface Treatment, $5, <1% Frost Boils/Patching, $2, <1%

Average cost/mile for bituminous road maintenance activities for one county Dust Treatment, $3, <1% Frost Boils/Patching, $2, <1% Surface Treatment, $1, <1%

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3, up ADT RANGE MAINTENANCE COST/MILE BITUMINOUSGRAVEL Traffic’s effect on maintenance costs/mile Roads grouped by traffic volumes and surface type An increase in traffic should lead to an increase in maintenance costs, particularly for gravel roads –More gravel needed –More blading and smoothing of road surface needed

How to compare gravel vs. paved? Review the historical costs of maintaining bituminous roads Compute estimated costs of maintaining gravel roads Develop a cost estimate in the same way a contractor would Review the maintenance and construction costs, plot the costs over time, and make a decision.

Cumulative maintenance costs/mile over time for a gravel road Time (years) Cumulative Total Cost ($) Rehabilitation Alternative Initial Construction Periodic Re-Graveling Routine Maintenance (Re-Grading)

Costs Benefits $5,175/yr (TYP) $15,200 $131,600 Resurfacing $1,600/yr (TYP) $7,600/mi Seal Coat (TYP) YEAR Example: Present Worth Inputs

How does that apply to this agency?

South Dakota project overview Investigated surfacing criteria for low volume roads Create a process comparing maintenance requirements for different surface types to assist in deciding the most economical surface type under a given set of conditions Surface types include: –HMA –Blotter –Gravel –Stabilized gravel

SD report products Final product is a computerized tool that allows an agency to modify the costs and treatments to fit their own conditions

SD procedure 1. Identify the road section –Project limits –Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count 2. Determine agency costs –Dependent on surface type –Includes typical maintenance activities 3. Determine user costs –Vehicle operating costs –Crash costs –Scale the user costs

SD procedure 4. Summarize the total costs 5. Evaluate non-economic factors –Growth rates –Housing concentration and dust control needs –Mail routes –Industry and truck traffic –Political factors

How does that apply to this agency?

Conclusions Paved roads provide improvement over gravel in ways that are hard to quantify with dollars These include: –Improved winter surfaces –Improved safety from improved signage and delineation –Surface with higher skid resistance –Smoother surface that increases user satisfaction and reduces vehicle maintenance costs –Redistribution of traffic away from gravel roads –Increased tax base on adjacent property

Conclusions Costs vary considerably from one agency to another and from one season to another MN Study found that gravel road maintenance costs per mile appear to increase considerably after 200 vehicles/day SD study found that gravel roads are most cost effective at ADT levels below 150 Begin planning for surface upgrades when traffic reaches 100 vehicles per day

Recommendations Our agency should begin to record maintenance and construction costs for future decisions and use of these tools, and for comparison to historical data Both tools can be used to make informed decisions about paving or not paving a roadway section