Road Network Asset Inventory

The road network inventory was established using data from the 2013 Road Needs Study (RNS) completed by RJ Burnside, the 2010 Bridge Inspection Study prepared by RJ Burnside and GIS inventories of the Town’s streetlight and traffic signal assets. From the 2013 RNS road sections were included as follows:

Roads identified as being transferred to Innisfil from the County in the future (i.e. 20 Side Road) were included as part of this inventory.

Earth road ways and other unopened roadways were excluded.

The bridge and culvert inventory was established using information from the 2010 Bride Needs Study completed by RJ Burnside. Key information was compiled from hard copy OSIM forms and digital cost summary tables included with the report.

The traffic signal inventory was established using the Innisfil traffic signal GIS layer. The layer includes all signals located with the geographic boundary of Innisfil regardless of the ownership of the roadways they are situated on. Signals at the intersections of County or MTO roads were filtered out of the inventory. Signals located along County Roads at side roads owned by Innisfil were assumed to be 50% owned by Innisfil. Only four sets of signals were documented in the WorkTech database with construction dates. Where necessary construction dates were estimated using the local knowledge of the AECOM team. Traffic signals along 20 Side Road were assumed to 100% owned by Innisfil based on the impending transfer of the roadway.

The figure and table below summarize the various roadway and roadway related assets owned by the Town of Innisfil.

Table 2-43 Road Services Asset Inventory

Road Services Assets Quantity Unit

Roadway (by centre line km) 365.63 centre line km

Roadway (by lane km) 744.02 lane km

Bridges 14 Each

Culverts (3.0m + Span) 15 Each

Streetlights 1 3054 Each

Traffic Signals 2 15 Each

Notes:

1. Includes street lights on poles owned by others.

2. Includes warning lights and pedestrian crosswalks.

Roadway Function

The table and graph below summarizes the various roadway systems by the function of each roadway. The details presented further in section typically divided the roadway system into these key functional categories.

Table 2-44 Roadway System by Function

Road Assets Length (centre line km) Lane (centre line km)

Arterial 18.65 44.58 Industrial 5.82 11.63 Minor Collector 68.31 137.22 Major Collector 42.87 86.51 Local 229.98 464.07 Total 365.63 744.02

The figure below provides an illustration of the values detailed above by lane kilometers. Letter travelled local roads account for the majority of the Town’s road network.

Figure 2-22 Breakdown of Road System by Function (Lane Kilometres)

Road Surface Types

The long-term performance and expected lifespan of roadway assets (in particular the surface

component) is a function of the type of surface applied to the roadway. Most urban roadways and higher volume roadways are surfaced with hot mix asphalt paving, while lower volume rural road ways are typically surfaced with surface treatment (gravel bound together with an emulsion to form a “hard top”). In certain circumstances some roads may be surfaced with recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) or simply have a gravel surface. The graph below illustrates the composition of the Town’s road network relative to the various surface types.

Figure 2-23 Breakdown of Road System by Surface Type (Lane Kilometres)

Bridges and Culverts

The roadway network includes a variety of bridges and culverts (structures) that carry roadways over watercourses and other obstructions. Smaller bridges are typically of rigid frame construction, while larger bridges often involve a deck on girders. Depending on the site configuration and hydraulic considerations culverts are typically either concrete box structures or corrugated steel pipes (CSP) of round, elliptical or arched shape.

Table 2-45 Bridges & Culverts by Structure Type

Bridge Structure Type Quantity

Bridge – Rigid Frame 10

Bridge – Girder 4

Culvert – CSP 9

Culvert – Concrete 6

It is noted that this report does not address two (2) bridge structures and two (2) large (3.0m + span) culverts that were not included in the Town’s 2010 Bridge Needs Study. These assets will be included in the OSIM Inspection and Bridge Needs Study project planned for 2014 and should subsequently be

considered in an update of this report that is reflective of all findings from the forthcoming study. The structures not addressed herein are:

Bridge on Jans Boulevard near Sobeys (Constructed 2004)

Bridge on Webster Boulevard between 7th Line and Forest Street (Constructed 1998) Large Culvert on Jans Boulevard in the Cross Road Subdivision

Large Culvert on Webster Boulevard north of Forest Street near the SWM Facility

Traffic Signals

The roadway network includes a variety of traffic signals for purposes of controlling and directing traffic at high volume intersections and other key locations such as school crossings.

Table 2-46 Traffic Signals by Type

Signal Type Quantity

Full Intersection 9

Midblock Crosswalk 6

Total 15

2.4.2 Financial Accounting Valuation and Replacement Cost Valuation

Table 2-47 Road Services Financial Accounting Valuation

Road Services Assets Historical Cost Net Book Value - 2013 2013 Replacement Cost Estimate

Roadway Surface $155,193,581 $89,117,234 $435,897,852

Bridges $3,999,084 $2,998,427 $14,992,011

Culverts (3.0m + Span) $6,509,731 $5,374,753 $8,677,325

Streetlights 1 Data Unknown Data Unknown $4,891,805

Traffic Signals 2 $1,838,302 $1,667,234 $1,977,000

Notes:

1. Includes all roadway street lights and poles owned by Innisfil.

Total Asset Values

The tables and graphs below present the total replacement value of roadway related assets in 2013 dollars.

Table 2-48 Road Services Asset Total Replacement Values

Road Services Assets % of Inventory Replacement Value (2013)

Roadway 93.45% $435,897,852

Bridges 3.21% $14,992,011

Culverts 1.86% $8,677,325

Streetlights 1.05% $4,891,805

Figure 2-24 Breakdown of Road Services Replacement Values by Asset Type

Total Asset Values

The following provides a brief outline of the unit prices and cost estimation methodologies used to establish the replacement values noted above. The unit prices below are derived from the benchmark prices for reconstruction type improvements included in the 2013 Road Needs Study data files provided. They are understood to include construction costs as well as soft cost allowances for contingencies, engineering, contract administration, etc. For rural and semi urban costs for road surfaces have been separated from base costs by referencing the value of overlay type treatments provided in the road needs study.

Table 2-49 Road Unit Cost Replacement Values

Description Unit Price Base Unit Price Surface Units

Rural, 2-Lane, Asphalt (50mm) $654 $66 m

Rural, 2-Lane, Surface Treatment (DST) $924 $36 m

Rural, 2-Lane, Gravel $693 - m

Rural, 3-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $1,332 $198 m

Description Unit Price Base Unit Price Surface Units

Semi Urban, 2-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $964 $194 m

Semi Urban, 3-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $1,477 $260 m

Semi Urban, 4-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $1,990 $326 m

Semi Urban, 5-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $2,503 $392 m

Urban, 2-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $1,531 $173 m

Urban, 3-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $2,296 $260 m

Urban, 4-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $3,062 $347 m

Urban, 5-Lane, Asphalt (100mm) $3,828 $434 m

The following unit prices are used to establish the replacement costs for bridge and culvert assets. They are designed to reflect the economies of scale associated with replacing more substantial structures and assume that for replacement purposes deck areas will be enlarged by 25% to accommodate a wider roadway cross-section and longer span to minimize environmental impact.

Table 2-50 Bridge and Culvert Unit Cost Replacement Values

Description Unit Price Units

Bridge Deck, Deck Area Over 100m2 $4,000 m2 of deck area

Bridge Deck, Deck Area under 100m2 $4,500 m2 of deck area

Concrete Culvert, Plan Area Over 100m2 $2,000 m2 of plan area Concrete Culvert, Plan Area Under 100m2 $2,500 m2 of plan area

CSP Culvert, Plan Area Over 100m2 $1,400 m2 of plan area

CSP Culvert, Plan Area Under 100m2 $1,750 m2 of plan area

Approach Works $100,000 LS

Utilities Relocation $50,00 LS

Soft Costs: Detours, Dewatering, etc. 10% of Const. %

Contingency 10% of Const. %

Engineering 10% of Const. %

Contract Administration 10% of Const. %

Traffic signals were assigned to three categories and a benchmark replacement cost was calculated for each category based on a detailed itemized estimate using typical unit prices for the components required including poles, pole bases, arms, control, signal heads, handwells, ductwork, wiring, detection loops, minor road works and engineering.

Table 2-51 Traffic Signal Unit Cost Replacement Values

Signal Type Unit Price Units

Full Intersection $161,000 Ea

Midblock Crosswalk $88,000 Ea

Warning Light $25,000 Ea

Street lights were assumed to be replaced with LED fixtures. Poles were assumed to be replaced in kind with the exception of wood poles owned by the Town which were assumed to be replaced with concrete poles.

Table 2-52 Street Light Cost Replacement Values

Item Unit Price Units

LED with 100,000hr Life $750 Ea

Concrete Pole $1,800 Ea

Decorative Concrete Pole $2,700 Ea

Steel Pole on Concrete Base $2,500 Ea

Decorative Steel Pole on Concrete Base $3,150 Ea

Arms1 $125 - $250 Ea

Notes:

1. Varied based on length.

2.4.3 Asset Age Distribution and Asset Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life Table 2-53 Road Services Asset Expected Service Lives

Asset Expected Service Lives (years)

Roadway Base: All Roads 50

Roadway Surface: HCB (Hot Mix) 20

Roadway Surface: ICB (RAP) 10

Roadway Surface: LCB (Surface Treatment) 10

Bridges – Constructed Prior to 20003 50

Bridges – Constructed Post 20003 75

Culverts – Constructed Prior to 20003 50

Culverts – Constructed Post 20003 75

Streetlights1 25

Traffic Signals2 22

Notes:

1. Based on typical life of 100,000 hr fixture

2. Based on replacement value weighted average of all components.

Figure 2-29 Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life for Road Surface

Figure 2-31 Age as a Proportion of Expected Useful Life for Traffic Signals

2.4.4 Asset Condition

Each road section is scored using a simplified composite rating system developed by the Town of Innisfil to provide a snap-shot of each road section’s current physical condition. Each road is rated on a scale of 1—10 as detailed below. The rating system is somewhat similar to the structural old MTO RIMS structural adequacy rating.

Table 2-54 Road Services Asset Condition Scoring System

Road Condition Score Description

1 – 4 Requires improvement in the form of reconstruction due to deteriorated physical condition. Rehabilitation type

strategies to extend the service life of the road without full replacement are not viable or cost effective.

5 – 7 Requires improvement in the form of rehabilitation (i.e. resurfacing) extend service life and improve the physical condition of the road.

8 – 10 Roads are in adequate condition and require maintenance type treatments (i.e. slurry sealing or crack sealing) to help preserve pavement condition.

Table 2-55 Road Services Asset Condition

Road Condition Score Length (centre line km) Length (lane km) Replacement Value

1-4 (Reconstruct) 65.56 129.81 $73,224,977

5-7 (Rehabilitate) 191.85 388.74 $225,427,546

8-10 (Adequate) 108.21 225.47 $137,245,329

The existing bridge needs study does not establish Bridge Condition Index (BCI), thus the asset condition has been summarized by reviewing and categorizing the type and scope of work recommended for each structure as described in the table below.

Table 2-56 Bridge and Culvert Asset Condition

Requiring No. of Structures

No Works: Structures in good condition with no identified works within a 10 year horizon.

6 – 20.7% of Inventory Long Term Replacement: Replacement in a 6 to

10 year Time Horizon to address long-term functional needs (i.e. upgrades to accommodate additional traffic).

1 – 3.4% of Inventory

* This Structure Also Requires Short Term Major Rehab

Minor Rehabilitation: Repair of Components in a 2 to 5 Year Time Horizon – Generally works to

minimize deterioration of aging components (i.e. deck patch waterproof, pave) or upgrade to current standards (i.e. add approach guiderail).

15 – 51.7% of Inventory

Major Rehabilitation: Replacement of Components in a 2 to 5 Year Time Horizon – Generally works to replace selected components that are at or beyond their service life (i.e. decks, wingwalls) and repair other components.

4 – 13.7% of Inventory

Short Term Replacement: Replacement of

structures that cannot be economically repaired, but do not represent immediate structural adequacy or issues or safety issues.

1 – 3.4% of Inventory

Immediate Replacement: Replacement to address deteriorated structural condition and safety related issues

Figure 2-33 Bridge and Culvert Asset Condition

In the absence of physical condition assessment data we have assumed that percentage ESL expired is a proxy for condition. The condition ratings have been assigned according to the table below.

Table 2-57 Condition According to %ESL Expired for Traffic Signals

%ESL Expired Condition

0 – 20% 1

20% – 40% 2

40% – 60% 3

60% - 80% 4

In document Asset Management Plan (Page 63-81)