1. 2010 PAVEMENT MARKING ACTIVITIES AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
TH 60, District 7, between Worthington and Windom
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

2. Pavement Markings Policy, Measures, Targets
Provide appropriate pavement markings to provide presence and retroreflectivity on all highways 365 days a year
Measures:
Percentage of system compliant with Tech Memo
Minimum Retroreflectivity (80 or 100 mcd/m2/lux )
Cost and productivity
Customer Satisfaction
Targets:
100% compliance with TM by December 2011
100% of line-miles meeting minimum retroreflectivity, or scheduled for replacement
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

3. 98.5% of 36,900 Line-Miles Statewide
Compliant Roadways
98.5% of 36,900 Line-Miles Statewide
% Compliant with Tech Memo for Material choice
Note: Sections of roadway that do not have the pavement marking material called out by the Tech Memo, but were granted exceptions by OTST, are considered as being compliant with the Tech Memo.
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

4. Pavement Marking Customer Satisfaction
Market Research
Pavement Marking Customer Satisfaction
Rating Scale 1-10
POSITIVE
7.3 for both Metro and Greater Minnesota in 2010
7.1 Overall; 7.2 Metro, 7.1 in Greater Minnesota in 2009
NEUTRAL
Source: Mn/DOT Omnibus Surveys
*Omnibus Survey was not completed in 2007
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

5. Maintenance Striping Business*
* Does not include Pavement Messages
2010 Maintenance striping: 4004 miles epoxy, miles latex: total = miles
In 2010 from 2009: Total mileage = 10.8% less. Latex = 7.9% less, epoxy = 18.7% less
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

6. Maintenance Striping Expenditures*
* Does not include Pavement Messages
2010 Total internal striping = $5,486,350. Latex = $2,699,020, Epoxy = $2,787,330.
In 2010 from 2009: Total maintenance striping expenditures 18% less. Latex = 10.5% down, Epoxy = 24.1% down
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

7. Maintenance Striping Expenditures*
* Does not include Pavement Messages
2010 costs: $0.042/ft latex; $0.132/ft epoxy
Change from 2009 to 2010: -0.2 cents/foot latex; -0.9 cents/foot epoxy
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

8. Construction Striping Mileage*
* Does not include Pavement Messages
2010 Total Construction mileage= Latex = , Epoxy = , Poly =
Change from 2009: Total = +30.4%. Latex = +82.5%, Epoxy = -1.1%, Poly = 165.0%
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

9. Construction Striping Expenditures*
* Does not include Pavement Messages
2010 Total Construction expenditures = $10,095,857. Latex = $2,266,261, Epoxy = $3,881,857, Poly = $3,947,739.
Change from 2009: Total = +84.8%. Latex = %, Epoxy = 17.7%, Poly = 190.1%
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

10. Construction Striping Unit Costs*
* Does not include Pavement Messages
2010: Latex $0.191/ft; epoxy $0.315/ft : Latex $0.123/ft; epoxy $0.264/ft.
Change from 2009 to 2010: Latex +54.6%; epoxy +19.0%.
Grooving is factored in to the unit cost. There was about 10x more grooved in latex in 2010 than 2009.
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

11. Construction Striping Unit Costs*
* Does not include Pavement Messages
2010: Latex $0.191/ft; epoxy $0.315/ft; Poly $3.73/ft.
2009: Latex $0.123/ft; epoxy $0.264/ft; Poly $3.41/ft.
2008: Latex $0.240/ft; epoxy $0.210/ft; Poly $4.28/ft.
Change from 2009 to 2010: Latex +54.6%; epoxy +19.0%; Poly +9.5%.
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

12. (Construction + Maintenance)
Total Striping Mileage*
(Construction + Maintenance)
*Does not include Pavement Messages
2010 Total mileage (Maint + const) = Latex = , Epoxy = , Poly =
Change from 2009 to 2010: Total mileage -3.8%. Latex = -0.1%, Epoxy = -13.0%, Tape %.
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

13. Total Striping Expenditures* (Construction + Maintenance)
*Does not include Pavement Messages
2010 Total expenditures (Maint + Const) = $15,582,207.
Latex = $4,965,281; Epoxy = $6,669,187; Poly = $3,947,739
Change from 2009 to 2010: Total expenditures +28.2%. Latex +30.0%; epoxy -4.3%; poly %.
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

14. Relative cost of pavement markings
Total Construction Budget for 2010 = $649,895,273
Total Pavement Marking Construction Expenditures (including Temporary/Interim Markings, and Messages) ≈ $10,837,000
Percentage of total Construction Budget ≈ 1.90%
(1.97% in 2009)
Source: 2010 Average Bid Price Report
2009 Construction Budget = $359,724,702
2009 Total Pavement Marking Construction Expenditures = $7,077,000
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

15. 2010 Retroreflectivity Readings
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

16. Retroreflectivity Readings by Year
Read an estimated 30% of the markings in the state in No breakdowns this year. Good weather, and the return of an experienced student worker.
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

17. Summary Pavement Marking shortage
98.5% Compliance with Tech Memo statewide
Tech Memo exception process needs to be followed on all projects, but overall there has been improvement
Poor pavement conditions impacting material choices
Preventative Maintenance still hampering marking performance
Pavement Marking shortage
We didn’t blink! CO Construction provided strong leadership
Best way to deal with it is simply to enforce the contract
No bids on some pavement marking projects in 2010
It means contracts are being enforced by MnDOT
A few Governor’s Initiative projects will be rebid this year
CO Striping Business was instrumental in ensuring every marking that needed it was refreshed, despite the shortage
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

18. Summary (continued) 2011 MnDOT Construction Spec Book rewrite
Use of grooved-in and wet-reflective markings continuing to expand
Boiler Plate Special Provisions for grooved-in markings were updated and strengthened
Specified equipment to level the playing field for bidders and to reduce work for our inspectors
Emphasized certified installer language for tape
NTPEP Test Deck
Ted Ulven and others worked with the Materials Lab in setting up and evaluating product performance
Concrete on TH 610, Bituminous on US 10
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

19. OTST Emphasis Areas Pavement Marking Tool Implementation continues
Rumble Tech Memo development
Evaluating comments from the Left Box Review
Working with Materials to assuage concerns
about centerline joint
Other ongoing Research
Pavement Markings under Challenging
Conditions
Rumble Stripes: Evaluation of
Retroreflectivity and Installation Practices
Adoption of 2009 Federal MUTCD
Chapter 3
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

20. Emerging issues/activities
Replacing Laserlux Van
Hiring new Pavement Marking Data Analyst
Contracting out more retroreflectivity readings
More analysis of wet-reflective marking effectiveness in D4
Contracting out readings in D6 and Metro
Pilot project requiring all contractor markings have retro readings taken by pay item
Will help populate the Pavement Marking Management Tool
Requiring all contractor striping trucks to have a Data Logging System
Pavement Marking Shortage – might happen again in 2011
Enforce the contract! Don’t blink!
May 20, 2011
Operations Division

21. Questions or comments?
2010 Pavement Marking Activities and Performance Report
Office of Traffic, Safety, and Technology (OTST)
May 20, 2011
Operations Division