Road Asset Management Funding Analysis

Road Asset Management Funding Analysis

• 1.
  City of Novi Road Asset Management & Funding Analysis March 12, 2012 Page 1 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 2.
  Pavement Asset Management, RoadSoft-GIS, and the PASER System In 2002, Public Act 499 was signed into law defining asset management as “an ongoing process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost-effectively, based on a continuous physical inventory and condition assessment” RoadSoft software was introduced in 1993, and since that time, yearly funding from MDOT has enabled LTAP at Michigan Tech to continue to refine development and provide technical support. The Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) methodology is used to collect road surface condition data. PASER is a visual assessment system that rates the road surface on a scale of 1-10. Where 10 is new construction and 1 is totally failed. Page 2 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 3.
  Maintaining An Asset The PASER rating, and subsequent classification to ‘Good’, ‘Fair’, & ‘Poor’, corresponds to an associated Remaining Service Life (RSL). It is much more cost effective to perform preventative maintenance while the condition is still good. Pavement Deterioration Curve 10 9 8 PASER Rating 7 6 5 Critical Distress 4 Point - PASER 4 3 Remaining 2 Service Life 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Years Since Construction Page 3 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 4.
  Pavement Life Cycle– Mix of Fixes $2.70/syd/year over life of pavement – 36 years Average condition rating = 7 Life Cycle Curve - Mix of Fixes 10 9 8 PASER Rating 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Year Page 4 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 5.
  Pavement Life Cycle– No Maintenance $3.30/syd/year over life of pavement – 36 years Average condition rating = 6 Life Cycle Curve - No Maintenance 10 9 8 PASER Rating 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Year Page 5 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 6.
  Road Network ConditionEvaluation Process Steps Field Survey – Collect Data Database Creation / Data Quality Assurance Maintenance Alternative Selection and Cost Assignment Preliminary Network Analysis Identify Funding Level Refined Network Analysis – Selecting Segments/Neighborhoods Track Maintenance and Reconstruction Projects Update Database / Adjust Analysis Page 6 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 7.
  City Road NetworkStatus Approximately 172 miles of City-owned roads 100 Miles Asphalt 70 Miles Concrete 2 Miles Gravel Condition 19 Miles Poor (PASER 1-3) Reconstruction Candidates 98 Miles Fair-Good (PASER 4-5) Major Rehabilitation Candidates 55 Miles Good-Very Good (Paser 6-10) Light Preventative Maintenance Candidates Page 7 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 8.
  Strategy Evaluation andOptimization Roadsoft uses the following parameters to select the appropriate maintenance and capital procedures Specific Preventative Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction alternatives Costs for these alternatives Expected deterioration curves (rates) Budget Duration (5-year plan, 10-year plan, etc) Roadsoft does not Pick specific segments Consider other capital projects (utility, etc) Page 8 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 9.
  Roadsoft Map Interface Page9 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 10.
  Roadsoft Optimization Engine Page10 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 11.
  Results Analysis was performed at several funding levels Funding levels were evaluated for programs with consistent budgets, as well as ‘front loaded’ The following graphs summarize the findings Page 11 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 12.
  Side-by-side Projected Condition Comparison Projected Condition Distribution 2022 100% 90% 32% 26% 80% 70% 56% % of Network 69% 60% 23% 79% Good 50% Fair 40% 57% Poor 16% 30% 50% 12% 20% 28% 12% 10% 19% 11% 9% 0% Current Condition $5M - Recon- $3.2M - Current $4M $5M struction Only Funding Level Funding Level / Year Page 12 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 13.
  Side-by-side Projected PASERComparison 8.5 8 $5M/Yr - Mix of Fixes 7.5 $4M/Yr - Mix of Fixes 7 PASER 6.5 $3.2M/Yr - (Current Funding) 6 $5M/Yr - RC Only 5.5 5 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 Years Figure 1: Projected Paser Rating At Various Funding Levels Page 13 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 14.
  Side-by-side Projected RSLComparison 8 7 $5M/Yr - Mix of Fixes Years Until PASER = 4 6 5 $4M/Yr - Mix of Fixes 4 3 $3.2M/Yr - (Current Funding) 2 $5M/Yr - RC Only 1 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 Years Figure 2: Projected Average years until PASER = 4 Page 14 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 15.
  Centerline Miles ReceivingTreatment Total Miles Reconstructed (RC), 20, 5% Total Miles Rehabilitated (RH), 50, 13% Total Miles Preventative Maintenance (PM), 330, 82% Figure 3: $5 Million / Year - 10 Year Program: Centerline Miles Receiving Treatment Page 15 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 16.
  Funding Allocation Preventative Maintenance (PM), $5,000,000, 10% Reconstruction (RC), $20,000,000, 40% Rehabilitation (RH), $25,000,000, 50% Figure 4: $5 Million / Year - 10 Year Program: Total $ Spent Over 10 Year Program Page 16 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 17.
  Conclusions Current Funding Level - $3,200,000 is not sufficient to maintain the average PASER condition over ten years. Funding the road program at $4,000,000 per year improves the average condition of the system, however more streets would be in poor condition An investment of $5,000,000 per year Provides ample funding to maintain roads currently in good/fair condition (protect previous investments) Provides ample funding for road program to incorporate a reconstruction component Roads in ‘Poor’ category are slightly reduced over 10 year period Provides improved overall average PASER rating of system (From 6.5 to 7.5) after 10 years Page 17 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 18.
  Road Network ConditionEvaluation Process Steps Field Survey – Collect Data Database Creation / Data Quality Assurance Maintenance Alternative Selection and Cost Assignment Preliminary Network Analysis Identify Funding Level Refined Network Analysis – Selecting Segments/Neighborhoods Track Maintenance and Reconstruction Projects Update Database / Adjust Analysis Page 18 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012
• 19.
  City of Novi Road Asset Management & Funding Analysis Questions / Discussion Page 19 of 19 Road Asset Management and Funding Analysis Presentation March 2012