Decision Making: Putting Data to Work National Pavement Preservation Conference Nashville, Tennesee Scott Gibson P.E.

Transcription

1 Decision Making: Putting Data to Work 2016 National Pavement Preservation Conference Nashville, Tennesee Scott Gibson P.E.

2 About the RTC (Regional Transportation Commission) RTC of Washoe County, NV MPO (long range mobility) Transit (mode split and trip reduction) Engineering and Construction (Provides Opportunity) Member Agencies: Reno Sparks Washoe County

3 Funding: Indexed Fuel Tax Passed Twice by Voter Initiative CPI then PPI (Construction Inflation) Indexes County Fuel Tax to Inflation Also: Indexes State Fuel Tax and Keeps that Increment, Index Federal Gas Tax and Keeps that, Indexes Federal Diesel Fuel Tax and Keeps that!

4 Local Regional Roads and RTP Roads 1,500 Lane Miles (30%) Regional and RTP Roads 3,500 Lane Miles (70%) Local Regional Roads: Residential, Minor Collectors RTP Roads: Arterials, Major Collectors, Industrial 42% Vehicle 8% Residential Arterials Interstate 50%

5 Pavement Preservation Program Integrated Elements Condition Survey Calibration PCI from Agency Pavement Management Systems (Can t be more than 3 years old!) Uniform Regional Road Categories Arterial, Collector, Industrial Regional Treatments Slurry seal, micro-surfacing, thin overlay, patching

6 Pavement Preservation Program Program Elements Rehabilitation / Reconstruction PCI 0-50 Rank by Traffic PCI Rehabilitaion PCI 0-40 Reconstruction Preventive Maintenance PCI Structural Distress less than 5% Corrective Maintenance Everything Else ( PCI 45-65) Variety of Tools Cost Effectiveness Agency Driven

7 What Decisions do We Make? Long Range Transportation Plan Future Transportation Needs Future Budget for achieving network condition goals Current Program of Projects Project Priorities for construction and maintenance Continuous Improvement Doing it better, faster, and more cost effectively.

8 What Data Sources do We Use? Old Engineers Pavement Management Systems PCI Research UNR Western Region SuperPave Center Center for Advanced Transportation Education and Research (Cater) National Studies Public Outreach/Community Involvement Project Media Corridor Studies

9 Type 3 Microsurface

10 When should preventive maintenance be applied? Good Pavement Condition (Functional or Structural) Poor Preventive Maintenance Time (Years)

11 Network Performance Life after Preventive Maintenance 10 Years

12 StreetSaver Dashboard

13 National Research

14 PCI Phase I: Slurry Seal Performance Life & Extension in Pavement Service Life Performance Life 2 yrs Performance Life 3 yrs Age in Years New Construction Slurry Seal at year 3 Slurry Seal at year 7 Extension in Pavement Service Life 2 yrs 14 University of Nevada Reno,

15 Phase I: SS Performance Life & Extension in Pavement Service Life In general, performance life ranged between 2 & 4 years. Except when slurry seal was applied at year 0 and 1, performance life ranged from 0 to 1 year. Except few cases, the pavement service life was not extended by application of the single slurry seal. 15 University of Nevada Reno,

16 PCI Phase I: Slurry Seal Effectiveness B 0 Overlay (Do Nothing) Slurry Seal Age (years) B Relative Benefit = 100 B / B 0 16 Benefit Cost Ratio = B / C University of Nevada Reno,

17 Benefit-Cost Ratio (x1000) Benefit (PCI.yrs) Relative Benefit Phase I: Effectiveness Analysis New Construction % Year of Slurry Seal Application NC-Arterial (A) NC-Collector (B) 0% Year of Slurry Seal Application NC-Arterial (A) NC-Collector (B) Year of Slurry Seal Application NC-Arterial (A) NC-Collector (B) 17 University of Nevada Reno,

18 Benefit-Cost Ratio (x1000) Benefit (PCI.yrs) Relative Benefit Phase I: Effectiveness Analysis Overlay % % 40% 20% Year of Slurry Seal Application OL-Arterial (A) OL-Collector (B) 0% Year of Slurry Seal Application OL-Arterial (A) OL-Collector (B) Year of Slurry Seal Application OL-Arterial (A) OL-Collector (B) 18 University of Nevada Reno,

19 Phase I: Conclusion Application of SS immediately or one year after construction of asphalt layer is not effective in terms of: the benefit to the users and the benefit-cost ratio for the agency. Optimum time for application of a Single Slurry Seal: Newly constructed pavements: 3 years after construction. Pavements subjected to overlays: 3-5 years after construction. 19 University of Nevada Reno,

20 Present Condition Index (PCI) Phase II: Newly Constructed Pavements: 1 st SS at year 3, 2 nd SS at year st slurry seal 4.0 yrs 3 yrs 2 nd slurry seal Predicted Do-Nothing performance curve (Using performance models developed in Phase I) Predicted SS at year 3 performance curve (Using performance models developed in Phase I 3.5 yrs Age in Years 20 University of Nevada Reno,

21 Years OL-0-7 OL-0-9 OL-1-7 OL-1-9 OL-3-7 OL-3-9 OL-5-9 NC-0-7 NC-0-9 NC-1-7 NC-1-9 NC-3-7 NC-3-9 NC Performance life of 1st SS Performance life of 2nd SS Extension in pavement service life University of Nevada Reno,

22 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Phase II: Slurry Seal Effectiveness B 0 B NC-C Age in Years Relative Benefit = 100 B / B 0 22 Benefit-Cost Ratio = B / C University of Nevada Reno,

23 Phase II: Effectiveness 23 University of Nevada Reno,

24 UNR-RTC Pavement Technology Research ;

25 Current Projects: Overall Progress Effectiveness of Cape Seal Pavement Preservation DST-MS DST-SS Collected pavement information and performance data. Working on data processing and analysis. ;

26 PCI Date of Constructio n - 6/11/2009 Chism St. -15%RAP+WMA (6 PG64-22) Date Microsurfacing PCI Rating Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Failed ;

27 Percent Passing No No No No No No No No No Overview Sieve Size (mm) Max Density Line Type 2 Type 2C Type 2-Revised Sieve Size (inch) ;

28 Network Performance Life after Preventive Maintenance 10 Years

29 Complete Street Concept My favorite subject: watching asphalt congeal.

30 Complete Streets /Road Diets Before: incomplete urban street 4-lane undivided No center turn lane No bike facilities Numerous driveways Pedestrian unfriendly Wide lanes No designated parking

31 Complete Streets /Road Diets After: More complete urban street 3-lane divided Center turn lane Bike facilities Pedestrian Friendlier Narrow lanes More Parking Free! Neighborhood Building

32 Safer Streets Recent Road Conversions Reduce Annualized Crash Rates Location Before After % Reduction Wells Ave -31% California/Ma yberry % Arlington % Mill Street % Sources: UNR Center for Advanced Transportation Education and Research and Nevada Department of Transportation

33 Complete Street/Road Conversions Significant safety benefits: Lower speeds, Reduced conflict points and crashes, Better sight distance, Refuge for pedestrians, Space for bicycles (and others) 6 conflict points Vs. 2 conflict points

34 Making Adjustments/Costs Striping design Lane reconfiguration Signal Head placement Signal timing Loop detection Continued evaluation Added maintenance costs Honey Dos

35 Other Opportunities TCSP Grant Sutro Complete Street

36 Other Opportunities TCSP Grant Sutro Complete Street

37 Good Roads are Cheaper! 88.4% 72% Bay Area 33% 26% 20% 21% 21% 5% 10.1% 2% 1.2% 0.3% Very Poor Poor Fair Good All Regional Roads RTP

38 System Equity Provides for Major Opportunity

39 Chip Seals And Roll.

40 UC Davis Surface Effects Study

41 UC Davis Surface Effects Study Correlated to Laser Surface texture Measurements Bike Mounted Accelerometer s and GPS

42 UC Davis Surface Effects Study And to sand patch Measurements Also Correlated to Inertial Profiler

43 Urban Surface Study

44 Parting Thoughts on Good Data and Good Decisions There are many data sources available. Not only can good data help you make good decisions about your program but it can help decision makers make good decisions about supporting your program. Data can help make your pavement program part of a bigger conversation: safety, Complete Streets, and stronger communities and neighborhoods.

45 Thank You! Questions? Scott Gibson P.E. (775)