Status of Pavement Management Systems (PMS) in Southeast Michigan. May 2003

(1)

Status of Pavement

Management Systems (PMS)

in Southeast Michigan

(2)

Status of Pavement Management Systems

(PMS) in Southeast Michigan

May 2003

Abstract

This document outlines the status of Pavement Management Systems (PMS) in Southeast Michigan. It defines what pavement condition data transportation agencies are collecting, and how they are gathering, storing, and analyzing data. This document also outlines the next steps in further developing PMSs.

Preparation of this document was financed, in part, through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal Highway Administration through the Michigan Department of Transportation and local membership dues.

Permission is granted to cite portions of this publication, with proper attribution. The first source attribution must be “SEMCOG, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments;” subsequently, “SEMCOG” is sufficient. Reprinting in any form must include the publication’s full title page.

SEMCOG

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Information Services

535 Griswold Street, Suite 300 Detroit, MI 48226-3602

313-961-4266 • fax 313-961-4869

(3)

(4)

List of Data Displays

Tables

Table 1 Road Miles by Legal Classification, 2002 ... 11

Table 2 County PMS Activities... 13

Table 3 City PMS Activities... 14

Table 4 Remaining Service Life Categories... 16

Table 5 Condition of State Trunklines by County, 2000... 18

Table 6 MDOT Remaining Service Life Categories ... 29

Table 7 MDOT Road Condition by County, 2000 ... 30

Table 8 Livingston County Miles of Road Rated by Year... 31

Table 9 Road Rating within Livingston County, 2002... 32

Table 10 Livingston County Road Condition by Surface Type, 2002 ... 32

Table 11 Road Rating within St. Clair County, 2002... 33

Table 12 St. Clair County Road Condition by Surface Type, 2002 ... 34

Table 13 Washtenaw County Miles of Road Rated by Year... 35

Table 14 Road Rating within Washtenaw County, 2000 ... 36

Table 15 Washtenaw County Road Condition by Surface Type, 2000... 36

Table 16 Road Rating within Wayne County, 2001... 37

Table 17 Wayne County Road Condition by Surface Type, 2001 ... 38

Figures Figure 1 Pavement Deterioration Curve ... 8

(7)

(8)

Executive Summary

There are approximately 27,000 miles of roads within Southeast Michigan. There is concern from citizens and elected officials that limited funding is available to repair and rehabilitate the region’s aging roads. Pavement management systems (PMS) provide a method for road agencies to inventory roads, monitor the condition of roads, and provide techniques for developing budgets. The Status of Pavement Management Systems in

Southeast Michigan outlines the features of a PMS, PMS activities within the region, and future steps for

utilizing a system for road planning within the region.

A PMS is a tool or process that helps a road agency maintain its roads in a safe and serviceable condition in a cost-effective manner. Management systems range from simple systems to sophisticated ones. A PMS is useful for estimating the lifespan of pavements from inputs such as condition data, analyzing future road conditions, developing maintenance schedules, and predicting budgetary needs.

For this report, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), the seven counties, and cities with populations over 50,000 were contacted to determine PMS activities within the region. MDOT, seven counties, and 21 cities reported maintaining at least basic systems (or had systems under development) for managing pavements under their jurisdiction. The systems cover approximately 12,450 miles of road, or 46 percent of all roads within the region.

MDOT maintains a PMS for all state trunklines in the state. They monitor approximately 9,600 miles of road in the state, of which 2,433 are within the SEMCOG region. MDOT gathers new condition data for all roads within their jurisdiction on a two-year cycle. MDOT’s PMS uses the condition data to forecast road quality and develop budgets for road maintenance and repair. According to year 2000 MDOT data, about 24 percent of roads in the region are rated poor.

This report outlines next steps for using PMS information to aid planning efforts within the region. There are multiple issues that need to be addressed to optimize the information available. Limited road budgets, data inconsistency, and maintenance issues are all hurdles that must be overcome to develop effective planning tools.

The PMS report has several recommendations for instituting a regional PMS plan, including: • convening a regional PMS coordinating committee,

• establishing consistent data collection procedures and a standardized pavement rating system, • developing a regional pavement prioritization and project selection process,

• documenting the tangible benefits of the regional PMS, • identifying alternate sources of funding, and

(9)

(10)

Introduction

As the metropolitan planning organization, SEMCOG is responsible for regional transportation planning in Southeast Michigan. Regional transportation planning goals include enhancing accessibility and mobility for people and freight, strategically improving the transportation infrastructure, and promoting safety.

The regional road system represents an enormous infrastructure investment, and pavement conditions clearly impact achievement of these goals. There is a growing concern, however, that the region’s 27,000 miles of road are deteriorating at a rate faster than the funds available for upkeep are increasing. Because funds are limited, all needed infrastructure improvements are not likely to be met in the short run. A method for optimizing long-term road maintenance spending is, therefore, needed.

The Michigan Department of Transportation, seven counties, and 21 local communities in the region responded to a survey and stated that they currently maintain or are developing individualized pavement management systems (PMS). These systems cover 12,450 miles of road, or 46 percent of all roads within the region. While these systems are beneficial to the individual road agencies, they are not currently standardized, limiting their usefulness for identifying and addressing regional pavement needs. That is why it is important for SEMCOG to take the lead to identify PMS activities in the region. The goals of the regional report include identifying standards for collecting pavement data, developing a systematic approach to using pavement rating systems, encouraging interaction among road agencies, accurately forecasting future pavement needs, and effectively addressing those needs with limited resources.

The following chapters define various PMS features, summarize the different systems currently in use in the region, justify the need for a regional PMS plan, and outline outstanding issues and recommendations.

(11)

(12)

Features of a Pavement Management System

A pavement management system (PMS) is any tool or process that helps a road agency manage pavement — in other words, any tool or process that helps an agency maintain a network of safe and serviceable pavements in a cost-effective manner. When most agencies refer to the term “pavement management system,” they usually mean a computerized system where pavement condition information is stored, analyzed, and displayed.

PMS Inputs

At the heart of the pavement management system is the database, which is the storehouse for all pavement-related information collected. This database possesses several features, including: a large capacity, user friendly access, flexibility for future expansion, security features, and compatibility with other databases that store related information (such as bridge, congestion, and traffic crash data). Every piece of information in the database is referenced to the particular section of pavement (i.e., the particular intersection or segment of road) which it describes.

The information collected and stored in the database can be divided into five categories: • inventory data,

• construction data, • traffic data,

• condition data (physical distress, roughness, structural capacity, friction), and

• treatment data.

Inventory data

Inventory data is a collection of the physical characteristics of the pavement, and usually do not change between maintenance activities. The most basic information about the road is included to reference the pavement, such as the road name or route number, location (or referencing system), number of lanes, and pavement type. Other inventory data may include:

• type of pavement (asphalt, concrete, composite), • width of road,

• number of lanes,

• thickness of pavement layers, and • drainage conditions.

Inventory data provide a guideline for locating and understanding the history of the pavement.

Construction data

Related to inventory data, construction data contain information about the history of the pavement. This information is important because roads can only be rehabilitated a limited number of times before a full-scale reconstruction of the road is necessary. The type of construction data collected includes:

• year built,

• design service life,

• date and type of rehabilitation and maintenance projects, • materials used in construction activities, and

(13)

Traffic data

The lifespan of a road is dependent on the amount of traffic that uses it. Traffic count data are useful for calculating the remaining service life of a pavement. Estimating traffic type is also important. Heavy loads, such as those generated by trucks, break down pavement quicker than passenger cars. Knowing traffic volumes and type will be useful for planning future pavement rehabilitation.

Condition data

Condition data refers to information about the past and present surface condition of a section of pavement. Accurate historical pavement condition information is absolutely essential for operation of the pavement management system, because all system recommendations are ultimately based on past and present condition data. Because of its vital importance and because pavements can deteriorate quickly from year to year, condition data should be collected frequently. However, objective pavement condition data can be expensive to obtain. Consequently, an agency must balance the importance of frequent data collection with budget considerations.

More sophisticated PMS databases contain four different types of condition data: physical distress data, roughness data, structural capacity data, and friction data.

Physical distress data

Physical distress is a measure of road surface deterioration caused by traffic, environment, and aging. Distress can be measured by type, severity, and extent of breakdown of pavement. The type of distress can be broken into three categories: fracture (cracking), distortion (rutting), or surface wear (raveling). This information is the most important information in the entire database.

Physical distress can be determined subjectively (“windshield” inspection) or by using prescribed procedures and/or special equipment to numerically quantify distress. The latter approach produces more reliable and consistent data from year to year.

Different types of distress are measured for asphalt, concrete, and composite pavements. Each type of pavement breaks down in different ways over time. Each type of pavement responds to distress in different, yet predictable, manners. It is important to recognize the signs of distress early on in the life cycle of the pavement. Caught early, problems with pavements are easier and more cost effective to fix.

Roughness data

Roughness is a measure of ride quality on a particular pavement section. Studies have consistently shown roughness can be directly related to both user satisfaction and user costs. Therefore, road roughness measurements are important pieces of information in a PMS. Roughness can be determined subjectively (by one or more riders who qualitatively determine how bumpy or smooth a road is) or objectively through the use of special equipment.

There are two types of roughness-measuring devices: 1) “response-type” devices, which measure the amount of vertical movement between the axle and frame of a vehicle or trailer, and 2) “profile-measuring” devices, which measure the longitudinal profile of the road.

Structural capacity data

Structural capacity is the ability of a pavement to support traffic with little or no structural damage. The structural capacity of a pavement is most commonly estimated through the use of non-destructive testing equipment. This equipment measures the deflection, curvature, and/or joint efficiency of the pavement under a specified loading. Structural capacity data is normally used to evaluate past pavement designs or to select a maintenance, rehabilitation, or reconstruction treatment for a specific project, not to evaluate the performance of the entire highway network.

(14)

Friction data

Friction data is collected using equipment that measures the skid resistance of the pavement. State highway agencies are legally required to collect friction data at regular intervals to validate their pavement design process with the Federal Highway Administration. Beyond this, though, friction data are usually examined to determine if lack of friction is a probable cause of traffic crashes at high-crash locations, or to identify potentially unsafe locations that have yet to experience a large number of traffic crashes. In this respect, these data may belong more to the area of safety management than pavement management (although the two systems are certainly related).

Treatment data

Treatment data refers to information about the cost and performance of different maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction treatments. Accurate treatment information is essential for operating a sophisticated PMS, because the system’s network strategy and individual project recommendations depend significantly on the treatment data. Therefore, this information should be updated every year.

A PMS database stores the following treatment data:

• a list of each maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction treatment the agency uses, • the expected unit cost (in units such as dollars per square foot) for each treatment, • the range of pavement conditions for which each treatment may be applied, and

• for each treatment, the expected pavement condition which will result once the treatment is applied. Data collection

Collecting data is very important for maintaining an effective PMS. A program is only as good as the data stored in it. A PMS must have usable, accurate, and timely data to produce credible outputs. The effectiveness of data analysis will increase if the data entered is accurate. The first step to starting a PMS is defining the network, such as deciding which roads will be included, agreeing on a rating system, and identifying pavement distress consistently.

There are two general ways to collect data for the system. The first is the use of automated pavement rating vehicles. There are companies that use specialized vans to take precise readings of pavement distresses and objectively rate pavement. The second way to collect data is to train people to rate the roads. Training must strive to achieve consistent ratings.

Analytical Tools and Outputs

While the database is the “heart” of a pavement management system, data are not useful unless they are presented in a meaningful way. It is the role of analysis procedures to transform the raw collected data into products — such as charts, graphs, and reports — that are helpful to decision-makers. A pavement management system can transform a spreadsheet containing pavement condition data into a map. A map can be quickly and easily used to examine the health of pavement in ways that are not readily apparent from columns of numbers. Analytic procedures are grouped into four categories:

• simple queries,

• pavement condition score calculations, • remaining service life calculations, and • strategy selection procedures.

Simple queries

A PMS stores information about road surface conditions within a database. This information can be investigated to determine the health of the road network. Queries can be performed to determine such basic

(15)

information as the total miles of road within the system, the percentage of the road network in each pavement rating category, and the age of road segments. Simple queries do not rely on advanced processes (such as remaining service life calculations) to perform analyses.

Pavement condition score calculations

A PMS offers procedures that take the physical distress and roughness data for a section of pavement and combine them into an overall pavement condition score, by assessing penalty points to the pavement section (i.e., the worse the roughness and distress, the more penalty points assigned). The agency must choose what values to give the penalty points; more penalty points are assigned to the types of distress that concern the agency the most.

A simple pavement condition score can be expressed on a scale from zero to 100. In this scale, 100 represents a new pavement that is smooth, with no surface distresses, and zero represents a pavement that has completely failed. Under this system, penalty points for a particular section of pavement are deducted from 100 to calculate that section’s score.

Sophisticated systems not only calculate an overall score, but also calculate separate indices for roughness and distress. Some systems even calculate separate indices for different types of distresses (such as rutting, alligator cracking, etc.). These indices are also typically expressed on a zero to 100 scale.

When an agency decides what penalty points to assign to different distresses and different amounts of roughness, it should choose the points in such a way that the overall pavement condition score has some engineering significance. For example, an agency could select penalty points that indicate a score of 50 or below requires reconstruction. Similarly, the agency could select points indicating that any pavement section receiving a score of higher than 80 only requires preventive maintenance.

Having an overall pavement condition score with engineering significance is important. Using the examples above, say you are a pavement manager and you discover that two-thirds of your network has a rating of 50 points or below. If your rating system has no engineering significance, all you can report is that two-thirds of the network is in “poor” condition. Someone might tell you to change your definition of “poor” to only those pavements with ratings of 40 points or below. On the other hand, if your rating system has engineering significance, you can report that two-thirds of the network requires reconstruction as soon as possible. This is a much more meaningful statement.

Below are examples of the types of output that can be generated once pavement condition scores have been calculated:

• The average pavement condition score for the whole network or for any portion of the network. This is useful to communicate the overall “health” of the road network and to determine if the health is improving or deteriorating over time.

• Charts showing the percentage of road network miles rated in “good,” “fair,” and “poor” condition. Separate charts can be created for different locations, road functional classes, pavement types, etc. As mentioned above, such charts are more meaningful if the boundaries differentiating between categories have engineering significance.

• Graphs showing the pavement condition for a single route. This type of graph shows how the pavement condition score changes along the length of a particular road.

(16)

An average pavement condition score is useful to communicate the health of the pavement network. However, this score alone does not tell the complete story. To understand why, consider a brand-new pavement (Pavement #1), which is properly designed and constructed to last for 20 to 30 years. Consider also a highly deteriorated road with hundreds of wide cracks, potholes, and other distresses, which, instead of being reconstructed, is treated with a thin overlay of asphalt (Pavement #2); this pavement, with some luck, may last for one or two years. Clearly, Pavement #1 is much “healthier” than Pavement #2. However, if the pavement condition scores were calculated for these pavements immediately after they were constructed, both pavements would receive the same perfect score. This is because the pavement condition score only represents the current condition of the pavement surface; it does not take into account the rate of deterioration.

Therefore, pavement management systems not only calculate a pavement section’s overall condition score, they also calculate a section’s remaining service life. The “remaining service life” of a pavement section is defined as the (estimated) number of years the section has left (if nothing is done) until it falls into an “unacceptable” condition. Because the remaining service life is based on the predicted future condition of the pavement, not just the current condition, it is a more useful measurement of the health of the pavement.

Calculations of remaining service life can only be made after the agency decides what the threshold is between “acceptable” pavement and “unacceptable” pavement. Typically, the threshold is defined as the condition score at or below which a pavement must be reconstructed. Of course, this definition can only be used if the pavement condition score has engineering significance.

A PMS typically calculates the remaining service life of a particular pavement section in one of two ways. If several years of condition data are available for the section, the program “plots” the data, fits a “best-fit” curve through the data points, projects the curve into the future, and then reports how many years it takes for the curve to drop below the threshold condition value. If, on the other hand, only a year or two of condition data are available for the section (which would be an insufficient amount to generate an accurate deterioration curve), the program determines the section’s remaining service life by grouping together all of the pavements in the network which have similar characteristics to that section and plotting an average deterioration curve for all of these pavements. This way, the performance of a “family” of similar pavements can be used to estimate the performance of a specific, relatively new pavement. A typical pavement deterioration curve is shown in Figure 1.

(17)

Figure 1

Pavement Deterioration Curve

40% drop in quality

12% of life

Source: Center for Urban Transportation Research

Condition Will cost $4 - $5 here $1 for renovation here Time Failed VeryPoor Poor Fair Good Excellent 75% of life

From this curve, it can be seen that roads typically deteriorate slowly through the first part of their life cycle. Repairs made while pavements are in good shape are relatively inexpensive. They are cost effective and improve the lifespan of the pavement. However, if repairs are deferred past a critical value, the pavement starts to deteriorate rapidly and the cost of repairs increases considerably.

Once a PMS estimates the remaining service life for each pavement section in the network, it groups the sections into different categories. For example, “Category 1" could contain all pavements with a remaining service life of 0-3 years, “Category 2" could contain all pavements with a remaining service life of 4-7 years, “Category 3" could contain all pavements with a remaining service life of 8-11 years, and so on.

Below are examples of the types of output that can be generated once the remaining service life has been calculated for each pavement section in the network:

• The average remaining service life for the whole network or for any portion of the network. As described above, this is a more useful way of communicating the overall “health” of the network than simply reporting the average pavement condition score.

• Charts showing the percentage of network miles in each remaining service life category. Separate charts can be created for different locations, functional classes, pavement types, etc.

• Graphs showing the deterioration curve for a single section of pavement, or for a whole family of similar pavements. Family deterioration curves are useful for evaluating the effectiveness of past pavement designs.

(18)

Strategy selection procedures

There is always more than one alternative when deciding which roads to repair or reconstruct. Choosing an appropriate strategy for deciding which pavements to treat involves several considerations. It is generally not economical to allow a pavement to fail prior to repair or replacement, but it is also not economical to rehabilitate the pavement before action is really needed. A PMS uses stored treatment data, remaining service life estimations, and future budgets to estimate the optimal strategy for road maintenance.

The strategy selected by the PMS uses inputs from the various data modules. The strategies are based on the goals of the agency, such as repairing the worst roads first, or employing some preventive maintenance to increase the lifespan of a road.

The strategy an agency selects will be based on certain criteria, such as optimizing the budget. Budget optimization takes into account the condition of the roads, the types of treatments the agency is able to employ, and the time frame for the repairs to take place. Multiple strategies can be compared before an agency decides which one best meets their criteria.

Typically, a PMS will show the percentage of roads that require only preventive maintenance, the percentage of roads that require reconstruction, and the budget necessary each year to optimize the life of the pavements.

A complete, or high-end pavement management system contains analysis procedures from each of the four mentioned categories. However, a road organization may not need all the features available in a sophisticated pavement management system. Depending on the wants and needs of the agency, the best pavement management system may only need a few simple procedures while others may include more complicated procedures than those outlined in this report. Of course, a more sophisticated pavement management system requires a larger amount of data input for analysis and will have a higher set-up cost as well as higher maintenance costs, such as the expense of collecting detailed data on a regular basis.

(19)

(20)

PMS Activities Within the Region

Throughout Michigan, roads are built and maintained by several overlapping jurisdictions. Southeast Michigan is no different. The state, counties, and cities all have jurisdiction over roads within the region. The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) maintains all freeways and state trunklines, regardless of the physical location or political jurisdiction. County road commissions are responsible for the majority of roads within the SEMCOG region. The roads range in type from paved primary roads to gravel roads. Roads within townships are also under control of the counties. Finally, cities are generally responsible for roads within their boundaries. Any road within the physical boundary of a city that is not under county or state control will be maintained by the city’s road agency. Table 1 shows the breakdown of road mileage by legal classification within Southeast Michigan.

Table 1

Road Miles by Legal Classification, 2002 Legal Classification Miles

Trunkline 2,440 County Primary 3,919 County Local 7,575 City Major 2,599 City Minor 7,412 Other 2,851 Total 26,796

Source: Michigan Geographic Framework

Prior surveys of PMS activities within the region gathered important information — cities and counties that maintained pavement management systems, attitudes concerning PMS use, and barriers to implementing a PMS. Those surveys included all the counties and cities with a population over 5,000. This time, all counties and cities that implemented a PMS in 1996, and cities with populations over 50,000 were contacted to determine continuing pavement management activities.

The threshold population for contacting cities that had no prior PMS activity was increased because the prior survey indicated one barrier to PMS implementation was the lack of staff dedicated to maintaining such a system. Cities with a population over 50,000 are more likely to have staff dedicated to using a PMS. The PMS activities of counties are summarized in Table 2. Cities are compared in Table 3. Approximately 12,450 miles of road (or 46 percent of the road network) are covered by pavement management systems within the region. MDOT was also contacted to obtain information about their pavement management system.

In the 1996 survey, all seven counties and 11 cities indicated that they maintained a pavement management system. When interviewed for this report, six counties and 21 cities reported either using a PMS or having a system under development. Additionally, some agencies that had systems in the prior survey reported they were updating or replacing their old systems with new software or data collection procedures. When asked about the increased use of pavement management systems, most felt the use of a system would help them

(21)

prioritize limited funding. Another reason for using pavement management systems is the adoption of new asset management requirements that agencies must follow when reporting the value of infrastructure under their jurisdiction.

Many systems in use within the region are fairly new. The agencies are still gathering data or learning how to use their systems most effectively. Many are still trying to determine the best schedule for updating road condition information. Others are in the process of migrating data to their geographic information system (GIS) so data can be analyzed spatially.

Funding is the biggest issue for implementing a PMS and the subsequent data collection. Installing and training staff to use a system is expensive. Some agencies who reported not having a PMS stated that finding the funding to make the best use of a system was beyond the resources of their departments. They also reported feeling outside pressure prevented them from setting up a system. Elected officials and citizens feel it is more important to fix existing roads before diverting money to a PMS.

Summaries of pavement condition ratings within the region that have been coded into SEMCOG’s GIS are available in the appendices of this report. At this time, data from MDOT, Livingston, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties are coded into SEMCOG’s GIS.

(22)

Table 2

County PMS Activities

County PMS Most Current Data Updated Coverage

Livingston RoadSoft 2002 Every two years County primary, local roads,

630 miles

Macomb In development

Monroe Access database 2000 Annually County primary, local roads, _{767 miles}

Oakland Stantec PMS 1998 (majority) 1/3 of the system per year, or

when project is completed

County primary, local paved roads, 790 miles

St. Clair RoadSoft 2002 To be determined 1,292 miles overall

Washtenaw RoadSoft 2000 Every two to three years Primary paved = 520 miles;

overall = 1,500 miles

Wayne Access database 2001 Annually Primary=725.93 miles;

local = 808.19 miles Source: SEMCOG interviews

(23)

Table 3

City PMS Activities

City PMS Most Current Data Updated Coverage

Ann Arbor MicroPAVER 2001 Every two years, or as projects are

completed

Major roads = 94 miles; local roads = 191 miles

Birmingham Database 2001 Every three years 84 miles

Dearborn MicroPAVER 2000 Every three years Major roads = 65 miles;

local roads = 260 miles; also parking lots, paved alleys

Dearborn Heights Wade-Trim 2001 Every five years 158 miles

Detroit PMS 1991 Not updated since 2,789.28 miles, all roads

(1999)

Farmington Hills Stantec PMS 2001 Every three years All roads, major and local =

310 miles

Ferndale In development All city streets

Livonia ERES PMS 1998 2002, then to be determined All roads = 447 miles

Monroe Access database 2001 As projects are completed City roads = 80 miles

Novi GEI PMS 2001 Annually All roads = 200 miles

Pontiac In development 2001

Rochester Database 2001 Yearly Major roads = 8.59 miles;

local roads = 30.28 miles

Rochester Hills Database 1997 Infrequently Approximately 126 miles

Royal Oak PavementView 2001 Two to four years 220 miles

Saline Database 1998 Every two years City roads = 37 miles

Southfield Stantec PMS 2001 Three years major roads; five years local

roads

Major roads = 64.71 miles; local roads = 180.21 miles

Sterling Heights In development Major roads = 59 miles;

local roads = 282 miles

Taylor Wade-Trim 2002 Every two years Major roads = 32.54 miles;

local roads = 178.36 miles

Troy Hansen PMS 2002 Major roads: every three years; local

roads: five to seven years

Major roads = 100 miles; local roads = 250 miles

Warren MicroPAVER 2002 Every five years 465 miles

Westland OHM 2001 Every three years 210 miles

(24)

There are multiple pavement management systems in use within the region. They range from sophisticated computerized systems updated regularly to informal files updated when maintenance is performed on a road segment or by informal “windshield surveys.” For the purposes of this report, the individual systems are grouped into three broad categories:

• systems developed within the public sector,

• systems developed by the private sector, and

• informal systems.

The features of each type of system are described below.

Public Sector Systems

Public sector systems are pavement management systems either developed in the public sector, or supported by a state agency. Three pavement management systems fall under this category — MDOT’s PMS, RoadSoft, and MicroPAVER. MDOT’s PMS is a custom system developed by the state to perform detailed analysis on state trunklines. RoadSoft, which is supported by the Local Technical Assistance Program at Michigan Technological University, is available to all local agencies within the state. MicroPAVER is a pavement management system developed for the United States Army Corps of Engineers and available through the Technical Assistance Center at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

MDOT’s PMS

MDOT oversees approximately 9,600 miles of road in the state. MDOT manages the entire state trunkline system as well as the National Highway System. The two systems include all Interstate (I), United States (US), and Michigan (M) routes. MDOT monitors the condition of these roads on a two-year cycle. Information from the biennial road surveys is analyzed, processed, and stored in MDOT’s PMS.

MDOT uses PMS data to evaluate and prioritize which roads need to be fixed, how to fix them, and when to schedule repairs. Information about surface conditions, subsurface, and structural components are used in the analysis process. MDOT’s PMS can also be used to manage pavement conditions on both a network and project level. Pavement conditions for MDOT roads are summarized in Appendix A.

Pavement condition ratings

Two different, but complementary evaluation systems within the MDOT PMS are used to identify the condition of pavements: sufficiency rating and PMS rating.

The sufficiency rating is determined by an annual subjective “windshield survey” of the entire state system. Pavement distress condition and ride are measured using a one-to-five scale, with one being the best. Ratings are based on observed road conditions, including cracking, potholes, sinking, drainage, and rutting. Sufficiency ratings are useful because they give a sense of the ride quality that road users experience.

PMS rating data is collected over a two-year period. PMS ratings include distress and ride quality ratings, and measurements of rutting and surface friction. A Distress Index (DI) score is calculated from the detailed distress data and used to further calculate the Remaining Service Life (RSL) of the pavement.

Distress is classified according to pavement type, extent, and severity of damage. Pavement damage is further broken into principal distress and associated distress. Distress point values are then assigned to specific principal/associated distress combinations based on three factors: repair cost, reactive maintenance cost, and user cost. Distress Index point values are then assigned to road segments. The higher the distress index value, the worse the condition of the pavement. When a road segment has a DI of 50, the RSL is determined to be zero. At this point, the most cost-effective repair is likely to be major rehabilitation or reconstruction. For the purposes of analysis, pavements are grouped based on RSL by category. Pavements in category I are considered to be in “poor” condition. In category II and above, they are considered to be in “good” condition (Table 4).

(25)

Table 4

Remaining Service Life Categories

Category I II III IV V VI

RSL (years) 0 - 2 3 - 7 8 - 12 13 - 17 18 - 22 23 - 25 Condition

Rating Poor Good

Required

Fixes Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Source: Michigan Department of Transportation

Figure 2 illustrates the RSL of regional roads under MDOT jurisdiction, based on 2000 data downloaded from MDOT’s Transportation Management System. As seen in Table 5, 433.5 miles (23.8 percent) of roads in Southeast Michigan are rated poor based on a RSL of zero to two years. Macomb County has the lowest percentage of pavement in poor condition (11.8 percent), while Monroe County has the highest (31.1 percent).

Road Quality Forecasting System

The Road Quality Forecasting System (RQFS) is an analysis tool used by MDOT to predict the results of pavement rehabilitation policies. Working from data collected for MDOT’s PMS, the tool analyzes current road conditions, age, and pavement type. These data are factored with aging of pavement and fix strategies to estimate the future condition of the road network.

MDOT uses the RQFS to recommend network pavement fix strategies. A network pavement strategy is a group of fixes that will extend the life of roads, and result in a specific distribution of road condition sometime in the future. MDOT is able to compare various network strategies and the associated costs of each. According to the statewide 2002-2005 5-Year Road & Bridge Program, MDOT has set a goal of having 95 percent of the freeways and 85 percent of non-freeway pavement in “good” (category II and above) condition by 2007. They would also like to have no more than 25 percent of pavement in RSL category II in that same time period.

Pavement repair strategies

MDOT uses three basic types of fixes for pavement repair: • rehabilitation and reconstruction (R&R),

• capital preventive maintenance (CPM), and • reactive maintenance (RM).

Each type of fix is most appropriate and cost effective when applied to pavements meeting certain conditions. Because pavement conditions vary across the state and the budget for repairs is limited, MDOT has determined the most effective network strategies for maintaining pavements are those that employ a “mix of fixes.”

Rehabilitation and reconstruction. R&R fixes are used on pavements in RSL category I. MDOT employs R&R fixes when major rehabilitation is needed to replace the structural integrity of a road. R&R fixes are long-term and increase the lifespan of a pavement from 10 to 25 years. R&R strategies are expressed as a percentage of lane miles that will move from RSL category I to categories III, IV, V, and VI. Because of the extensive repairs roads need in this category, R&R fixes are more costly per mile than all other maintenance strategies.

(26)

(27)

Table 5

Condition of State Trunklines by County, 2000

County Poor (miles) Good (miles) Total (miles) Percent Poor

Livingston 32.4 111.8 144.2 22.4 Macomb 19.9 148.8 168.7 11.8 Monroe 59.0 130.6 189.6 31.1 Oakland 66.2 271.9 338.0 19.6 St. Clair 68.4 157.3 225.8 30.3 Washtenaw 38.3 182.3 220.6 17.4 Wayne 149.2 381.7 531.0 28.1 Total 433.5 1,384.4 1,817.9 23.8

Source: Michigan Department of Transportation, Transportation Management System

Capital preventive maintenance. CPM projects are shorter-term, cost-effective fixes used to delay the deterioration of pavements into RSL category I. Small fixes are used to prevent small problems escalating into larger problems impacting the structural integrity of a road. The CPM program was established to address problems before pavements reached poor condition.

CPM uses such treatments as crack sealing, thin asphalt overlays, seal coating, and concrete patching to improve the quality of ride on pavements. These fixes mitigate or delay deterioration while the pavement subgrade is in good condition. CPM is intended to address pavement problems before the structural integrity of the pavement has been impacted.

CPM strategies are also expressed as a percentage of lane miles that will move from categories II, III, IV, and V to one or two categories higher. These fixes can be applied to a stretch of road a limited number of times. Over time, the subgrade of a road deteriorates so surface treatments are no longer cost effective and R&R fixes are needed. When appropriately applied to pavements, CPM strategies are preferable to R&R fixes. CPM fixes generally cost less than other fixes, so MDOT is able to address more miles of pavement with early maintenance.

Reactive maintenance. RM fixes are used on pavements that develop unforseen or unsafe problems until a permanent solution, such as rehabilitation or reconstruction, can be applied. A typical RM activity includes pothole patching. Because these fixes are temporary, they are only good for one to two years.

RoadSoft

RoadSoft, available from the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) at Michigan Technological University, is a GIS-based roadway management system. The software package was developed for local road agencies within Michigan and engineers and managers to analyze roadway information within their jurisdictions. The software uses the Michigan Accident Location Index (MALI) as a physical reference base.

RoadSoft has a road surface inventory module for rating pavement condition using the PASER (Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating) system. PASER is a simple method of rating asphalt, concrete, and gravel roads developed by the University of Wisconsin’s Transportation Information Center. Manuals filled with pictures detail a one-to-10 evaluation system in which "10" means excellent while "one" indicates a failed

(28)

road. This system is used to obtain consistent ratings based on the types of wear evident on the roadway surface, such as cracks and deformations. Based on the types of defects, general characteristics of the roadway, and age of the pavement, PASER makes recommendations for the types of fixes that would be appropriate for the road. There are rating manuals available for concrete, asphalt, and gravel roads.

RoadSoft contains many features useful for managing pavements. Users can import and edit road data and generate custom reports to analyze road surfaces. The reports can be integrated with other information, such as crash data, traffic counts, and sign and culvert inventories. Data can be exported to databases or spreadsheets for analysis.

RoadSoft is available free of charge to all state and local agencies. A RoadSoft users group continues to propose other items for inclusion in future versions, such as guardrail and striping inventories.

MicroPAVER

MicroPAVER is a pavement management system developed by the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory and distributed by the Technical Assistance Center at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The software contains a full-featured PMS, including manuals for evaluating pavement conditions. MicroPAVER is a decision-support tool, allowing agencies to systematically determine maintenance and repair needs and priorities. The system also enables users to compare budget scenarios and their effect on pavement networks, and data can be linked to a Geographic Information System (GIS).

Inspection data from the road network is input into the system’s database. By taking samples of a section of the entire network, MicroPAVER can calculate the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Information from the PCI is used to accurately predict the overall health of the pavement network. Using pavement life cycle models in the software, this system can quickly determine which pavements need attention the most, and also calculate the critical condition pavements. (Critical condition pavements are those that are close to the point where they deteriorate rapidly.)

Standard reports, based on Microsoft Access queries, can be used to list inventory data, summaries of work history, pavement condition index reports, and summaries of inspection data. MicroPAVER contains modules that generate reports of future pavement condition, the effects of maintenance policies, and budget constraints. Each of these modules is fully customizable by users to meet their specific needs.

Private Sector Systems

Private pavement management systems include fully customized systems developed by an outside consultant (i.e., Wade-Trim, GEI, or ERES) or off-the-shelf pavement software packages implemented by an outside vendor for an agency. Some systems are created as a package. The consultant will both install the software and collect the pavement condition data. Other times, a consultant will help install a software system, and the agency is responsible for data collection.

The main advantage of using a consultant for introducing a pavement management system within an agency is experience. The firm installing a system is likely to understand the needs of an agency, and tailor products to meet their specific needs. However, there are disadvantages. The price of implementing a system may be higher than some packages available from the public sector. These costs are on top of the expense of collecting data necessary for any pavement management system. Some vendors provide data collection services for clients. Others may have a preferred vendor. Other systems are more flexible, so the clients are able to collect data however they see fit.

(29)

The following sections describe three common private-sector systems — Stantec, Hansen, and PavementView.

Stantec PMS

Stantec developed a Pavement Management Application (PMA) within their Infrastructure Management System (IMA) software. The Infrastructure Management Application is a tool for the management and graphical display of asset information, structural condition, and other available data for municipal utilities and right-of-way assets, either individually or as a group. IMA is a network planning tool for municipal assets.

Physical characteristics, structural condition assessment, and rehabilitation program development for each asset can be objectively compared with the entire network for planning and rehabilitation and maintenance programs. Information can be analyzed graphically, or through the use of a GIS.

Based on a suite of applications, the system contains several modules related to the various aspects of pavement maintenance. A central database contains information about roadway geometrics and attributes. A rehabilitation module analyzes road condition to prioritize rehabilitation activities and budget programming. The system can also recommend maintenance activities, such as crack sealing and pothole patching.

The PMA database is the central warehouse for all roadway geometric, performance, and attribute information and acts as a core for available analytical modules. A rehabilitation module prioritizes street rehabilitation and budget programming using adjustable constraints. An image module stores images or CAD drawings of street sections. A maintenance module develops activity-driven maintenance programs, such as crack sealing or pothole patching, using a cost-effectiveness approach. A map module interfaces with any GIS the agency might have. Finally, a super section module combines individual block-to-block sections into projects for scheduling, analysis, and reporting.

The Pavement Management Application is able to integrate historical road conditions and maintenance scheduling with modeled roadway lifespan. Road information also can be displayed graphically, through a GIS, or in tabular form to determine maintenance and rehabilitation budgets. Information can be linked to other infrastructure databases, such as modules tracking utilities (e.g., water and sewer). Stantec also performs data collection services.

Hansen PMS

Hansen develops asset management software for both the public and private sector. Hansen developed a pavement management system to complement the infrastructure management software developed to assist agencies maintain assets under their control.

The pavement management system is completely customizable by the user. Working with consultants from the company, the management system is tailored to meet the needs of the user. Hansen works with the agency to determine which inputs are needed to perform analysis, fits the deterioration curves to inputs, and calculates outputs.

Pavement management is a single module of a larger infrastructure management system developed by Hansen. Inputs from other modules can be integrated into calculations used for determining the lifespan of pavements. Information regarding utility cuts into roads and sewer conditions, among other features, can be used to update the condition of roads.

(30)

CarteGraph PavementView

PavementView pavement management software, developed by CarteGraph Systems, is part of their more general infrastructure management products. Based on concepts introduced by the Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, this system integrates data collection, inspection records, asset history, along with performance modeling to accurately assess current and future pavement condition.

This system allows users to build a comprehensive inventory of all information associated with road segments within an agency’s jurisdiction. The system is able to store attributes of road segments such as location, pavement type, geometry, structure, and maintenance history. The system is able to incorporate historical road condition information for road segments to calculate an Overall Condition Index. PavementView utilizes inspection data to generate performance models, establish segment priorities, and select maintenance alternatives.

PavementView is able to graphically display pavement performance using maps, graphs, or charts. This system allows users to develop queries and reports using all database fields. Users can generate standard or custom reports to assess inventory condition and help manage scheduled and completed maintenance.

Informal PMS

Some municipalities have developed simple pavement management systems. They range from Microsoft Access databases to paper-based filing systems. These systems generally consist of road attribute data for sections of road, including the name of the road, road type, and historical maintenance records. The road sections may be linked to AutoCAD drawings of the road, or a filing system for blueprints. These systems are unable to perform many functions of a more sophisticated system, such as links to a GIS or development of budgets for maintenance activities.

(31)

(32)

Recommended Next Steps

Clearly, a Pavement Management System (PMS) can help road agencies (at the state, county, and local levels) identify and address their respective pavement needs in the most cost-effective manner. But there is a loftier goal to be achieved — developing a systematic process for prioritizing regional pavement needs and selecting pavement projects for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Because funding is limited, it is crucial that the most important regional needs be addressed first in order to provide the greatest benefit to the region. With that in mind, SEMCOG is seeking to develop and maintain a regional PMS plan.

Issues

There are several important issues to consider when establishing a regional PMS plan, including data standardization, systematic maintenance, and long-term funding, as described in the following sections.

Data standardization

Ideally, all road agencies would use the same PMS, but this not feasible. As indicated in the previous section, there are multiple systems being employed in the region, ranging from simple paper files to complex computer programs. This is not a problem directly — agencies are using their respective systems effectively. The problem is indirect, for it is difficult to compare the results from various systems and establish regional priorities; therefore, a means for standardizing data collection and rating systems must be established.

Systematic maintenance

A systematic approach to developing appropriate fixes within existing funding constraints is also required. An effective PMS can help lower road maintenance costs at all levels (state, county, local, and regional). The worst-first approach to maintenance is most typical — targeting poor pavements that require extensive (and expensive) rebuilding. With a PMS in place, a more appropriate “mix of fixes” (targeting preventive maintenance as well as reconstruction) can be developed. By targeting roads before they require expensive repairs, road budgets can be stretched while good pavement conditions are maintained. A PMS can also develop budgets that are leveled out, thereby avoiding huge swings from year to year.

Long-term funding

The biggest hurdle to implementing a PMS is funding. Because resources are limited, agencies may be reluctant to invest in a system that takes money away from road maintenance and repair in the short run.

The first expense associated with a PMS — software acquisition — is relatively low. The majority of expenses result from the initial inventory of road conditions and subsequent inspections. Regular updates of road conditions are a crucial component of an effective PMS. Long-term funding must, therefore, be dedicated to developing and maintaining PMSs. Without a commitment to an appropriate system and data collection program, the goals of the PMS are not achievable.

Asset management

Asset management is an ongoing process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost effectively, based on a continuous physical inventory and condition assessment. Asset management programs may include bridges, culverts, signs, and, of course, pavement.

Public Act 499 of 2002 created a council to oversee asset management activities within the state. According to the act, the mission of the Transportation Asset Management Council (TAMC) is to “provide a coordinated,

(33)

unified effort by the various roadway agencies within the state, the transportation asset management council is hereby created within the state transportation commission and is charged with advising the commission on a statewide asset management strategy and the process and necessary tools needed to implement such a strategy beginning with the federal-aid eligible highway system, and once completed, continuing on with the county road and municipal systems, in a cost-effective and efficient manner.”

The TAMC is charged with developing a process for collecting data, storing data, and reporting on the condition of assets on an annual basis. This information will then be used to determine the best strategy for maintaining public assets within the state. As a member of the TAMC, SEMCOG supports the development of a statewide asset management process.

(34)

Recommendations

SEMCOG will work with federal, state, county, and local planning partners to enhance pavement activities within the region. In the short term, the PMS development process resulted in a list of pavement deficiency recommendations in March 2003. This corresponds to the 2030 RTP development process. Working with state and county officials, SEMCOG has collected pavement condition information, where available, for use in the development of a list of deficient pavements in the region. The PMS recommendations will be presented to the implementing agencies, along with other deficiency analysis results (e.g., bridge, congestion, and safety needs) and will be used as the basis for developing project submittals. PMS recommendations will be used by SEMCOG to evaluate project submittals, and to develop and evaluate regional benefits.

In the long term, the following recommendations are designed to address the identified issues and establish a regional PMS plan:

• Convene a regional PMS Coordinating Committee, including PMS experts and representatives from SEMCOG, MDOT, the counties, and local communities (both those with an operational PMS and those without).

• Work with the Transportation Asset Management Council to develop statewide and regional PMS priorities.

• Whenever possible, establish consistent data collection procedures and a standardized pavement rating system.

• Develop a regional prioritization process, which will then be used to select projects for inclusion in the RTP and TIP.

• Document the tangible benefits of a regional PMS, including cost savings. • Identify alternate sources of funding for developing and maintaining PMSs.

• Institute a PMS users group linking experienced users with those developing and maintaining new systems.

(35)

(36)

Glossary

Act 51 — Public Act 51 of 1951 is the state law that covers many transportation funding issues in the state. Act 51 dictates that the majority of revenue from the Michigan Transportation Fund be distributed using complex formulas largely as follows: 39 percent to MDOT for state highways; and 61 percent to counties, cities, and villages for local roads.

Alligator cracking — Interconnected cracks in asphalt pavement forming small pieces ranging in size from one inch to approximately six inches.

Asphalt pavement — Pavement consisting of fine and course aggregates held together by bituminous cement; also referred to as a flexible pavement.

Capital preventive maintenance — Shorter-term, cost-effective fixes used to delay the deterioration of pavements. Small fixes are used to prevent small problems escalating into larger problems impacting the structural integrity of a road.

Composite pavement — Pavement consisting of asphalt overlaying a concrete base.

Concrete pavement — Pavement consisting of Portland cement, fine and coarse aggregates, and perhaps steel-reinforcing rods; also referred to as rigid pavement.

Crack sealing — Process where cracks in a pavement are filled in with material to prevent the infiltration of water.

Deflection — A load induced, downward movement of a pavement section.

Design service life — Expected lifespan of a road based on pavement type, drainage, thickness, and traffic. Deterioration — The breaking up of pavement due to traffic or weathering.

Distortion — Movement of a pavement away from its initial position.

Fracture — Fatigue cracking and thermal cracking distresses suffered by pavements. Friction — The ability of a pavement surface to resist skidding.

Joint efficiency — The ability of a concrete pavement to transfer loads from one slab to the next.

Legal classification — Act 51 designation for a road. Defines the importance of the road and the unit of government that has jurisdiction over the road.

Maintenance — The process of preserving pavement as near as possible to its original condition as constructed.

Network — A system of roads made up of segments and intersections.

(37)

PASER (Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating) — Simple, visual system used to rate pavement condition; developed by the University of Wisconsin’s Transportation Information Center.

Pavement management system (PMS) — A set of tools or methods that can assist decision makers in funding cost-effective strategies for providing, evaluating, and maintaining pavements in a serviceable condition.

Preventive maintenance — Any scheduled maintenance activities that are designed to extend the life of a pavement.

Reactive maintenance — Fixes used on pavements that develop unforeseen or unsafe problems until a permanent solution, such as rehabilitation or reconstruction, can be applied. A typical reactive maintenance activity is pothole patching. Because these fixes are temporary, they are only good for one-to-two years.

Raveling — Progressive loss of pavement material from the surface downward, such as the stripping of the bituminous film from the aggregate.

Reconstruction — Construction of the equivalent of a new pavement structure, which usually involves the complete removal and replacement of the existing pavement structure.

Rehabilitation — Resurfacing or restorative work undertaken to restore serviceability and extend the service life of an existing road.

Remaining service life — Calculated time (in years) before a pavement will fail.

Roughness — Irregularities in the pavement surface that adversely affect ride quality, safety, and vehicle maintenance costs.

Road Quality Forecasting System (RQFS) — Statistical method used by the Michigan Department of Transportation to calculate the remaining lifespan of a pavement.

Rutting — Displacement of material, creating channels in pavements.

Seal coating — The application of a protective liquid coating to asphalt pavements to stop weather damage by preventing water seepage into porous structures.

Structural capacity — The ability of a pavement to support traffic with little or no structural damage. Treatment — A mitigating measure used to repair a pavement.

(38)

Appendix A

Summary Analysis of Michigan Department of Transportation

Road Conditions in Southeast Michigan, 2000

Background

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) collects condition data for all state trunklines within Southeast Michigan. Detailed information about road conditions is collected in a two-year cycle. This information, in conjunction with historical data, is stored in a pavement management system (PMS) developed to predict the lifespan of the road network. This information is then used to develop strategies for preventive maintenance, as well as road rehabilitation and reconstruction. MDOT has jurisdiction of approximately 2,433 miles of road in Southeast Michigan, of which 1,818 miles (75 percent) have condition ratings.

Data collection

MDOT has two separate rating schemes for monitoring the condition of roads. Each road segment is given a sufficiency rating (i.e., qualitative “windshield survey”) on an annual basis. A more in-depth PMS rating is collected in a two-year cycle. Any particular segment of road will have detailed condition information collected every other year.

The PMS rating incorporates distress ratings, ride quality, rutting, and surface friction. Distress ratings are based on pavement type, extent, and severity of damage to the road. The Distress Index is then converted into a remaining service life (RSL) category for the purpose of analyzing the effectiveness of repair strategies. Remaining service life is the amount of time (in years) before a road requires complete reconstruction. Pavements with an RSL of two or lower are considered to be in poor condition. All other pavements are considered to be in good condition. A breakdown in RSL categories is shown in Table 6.

Table 6

MDOT Remaining Service Life Categories

Category I II III IV V VI

RSL (years) 0 - 2 3 - 7 8 - 12 13 - 17 18 - 22 23 - 25

Condition Rating Poor Good

(39)

Road condition breakdown

There is a variation in the number of miles of road under MDOT jurisdiction within the counties in the SEMCOG region. Wayne County has 531 miles of road under MDOT jurisdiction, of which 28 percent is in poor condition. Livingston County has 144 miles of road, of which 22 percent is in poor condition. A breakdown of RSL conditions by county within Southeast Michigan is shown in Table 7.

Table 7

MDOT Road Condition by County, 2000

County Poor (miles) Good (miles) Total (miles) Percent Poor

Livingston 32.4 111.8 144.2 22.4 Macomb 19.9 148.8 168.7 11.8 Monroe 59.0 130.6 189.6 31.1 Oakland 66.2 271.9 338.0 19.6 St. Clair 68.4 157.3 225.8 30.3 Washtenaw 38.3 182.3 220.6 17.4 Wayne 149.2 381.7 531.0 28.1 Total 433.5 1,384.4 1,817.9 23.8

(40)

Appendix B

Summary Analysis of Livingston County Road Conditions, 2002

Background

The Livingston County Road Commission maintains information about pavement condition ratings. The county uses RoadSoft to store and analyze pavement rating information. PASER is the rating system used to determine the condition of road segments. Road condition data are broken down into several categories — excellent, very good, good, fair, poor, very poor, and failed. Approximately 529 miles of road are rated, which is 29 percent of all roads within the county.

Data collection

The Livingston County Road Commission collects data on a two-year cycle. Of the roads that are rated, the majority (72 percent) were rated in 2002. A breakdown of the rating years is summarized in Table 8.

Table 8

Livingston County Miles of Road Rated by Year Year Segments Miles Percent

1994 643 93.0 15.7 1995 1 0.0 0.0 1996 396 72.9 12.3 1998 1 0.5 0.1 1999 1 0.0 0.0 2000 8 1.3 0.2 2001 6 0.6 0.1 2002 1,670 423.6 71.6

Source: Livingston County Road Commission

Livingston County uses the PASER system to rate roads within their jurisdiction. PASER ratings are based on numerical scores assigned to the types of distresses that are present in a segment of road. Table 9 shows the amount of roads in each rating classification. Approximately 69 percent of roads within Livingston County received a rating of good or better.

Road conditions can be further broken down by surface type. The majority of roads that are rated are asphalt or asphalt overlays. The breakdown of road rating by surface type is shown in Table 10.

(41)

Table 9

Road Rating within Livingston County, 2002 Condition Miles Percent

Excellent 9.3 1.6 Very Good 74.9 12.7 Good 321.6 54.6 Fair 154.6 26.2 Poor 18.4 3.1 Very Poor 8.9 1.5 Failed 1.1 0.2

Source: Livingston County Road Commission

Table 10

Livingston County Road Condition by Surface Type, 2002

Asphalt

Asphalt on brick or

concrete Concrete Gravel

Condition miles percent miles percent miles percent miles percent

Excellent 7.1 1.4 0.1 0.1 0 0 2.2 7.0 Very Good 67.0 13.0 3.3 7.0 0 0 4.6 14.9 Good 281.4 54.7 29.9 63.8 0.0 14.0 10.3 33.5 Fair 134.9 26.2 13.6 29.1 0.1 40.5 5.9 19.1 Poor 14.8 2.9 0 0 0 0 3.7 11.9 Very Poor 7.8 1.5 0 0 0 0 1.2 3.7 Failed 1.1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unrated 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.1 45.5 3.0 9.9 Total 514.1 99.9 46.8 100 0.3 100 30.8 100

(42)

Appendix C

Summary Analysis of St. Clair County Road Conditions, 2002

Background

The St. Clair County Road Commission maintains information about pavement condition ratings. The county uses RoadSoft to store and analyze pavement rating information. The county uses the PASER rating system to determine road condition ratings. Road condition data are broken into several categories — excellent, very good, good, fair, poor, very poor, and failed. Approximately 1,292 miles of road are rated, which is 59 percent of all roads in the county.

Data collection

The St. Clair County Road Commission collected data for most roads in 2002. In future years, the county will collect road condition information after road projects are completed. Overall condition ratings will be collected as staff time permits.

St. Clair County uses the PASER system to rate roads within their jurisdiction. PASER ratings are based on numerical scores assigned to the types of distresses that are present in a segment of road. Table 11 shows the miles of road in each rating classification. Approximately 93 percent of roads rated good or better.

Table 11

Road Rating within St. Clair County, 2002 Condition Miles Percent

Excellent 18.8 1.5 Very Good 489.4 37.9 Good 692.3 53.6 Fair 89.8 7.0 Poor 0.9 0.1 Very Poor 0.8 0.1 Total 1,292.0 100.2

Status of Pavement Management Systems (PMS) in Southeast Michigan. May 2003

Status of Pavement

Management Systems (PMS)

in Southeast Michigan

Status of Pavement Management Systems

(PMS) in Southeast Michigan

Abstract

Table of Contents

List of Data Displays

Executive Summary

Introduction

Features of a Pavement Management System

PMS Inputs

Analytical Tools and Outputs

PMS Activities Within the Region

Public Sector Systems

Private Sector Systems

Informal PMS

Recommended Next Steps

Issues

Recommendations

Glossary

Appendix A

Summary Analysis of Michigan Department of Transportation

Road Conditions in Southeast Michigan, 2000

Appendix B

Summary Analysis of Livingston County Road Conditions, 2002

Appendix C

Summary Analysis of St. Clair County Road Conditions, 2002