ROAD CONDITION REPORT KALAMAZOO COUNTY MAY 214 Prepared by the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study (269) 343-766 info@katsmpo.org www.katsmpo.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents What is Asset Management? 2 PASER Rating Scale 4 Summary of 212 and 213 Ratings 8 Historical Data Collection 12 Pavement Conditions 26 Contact Information 31 Tables Table 1- PASER Rating Scale 5 Table 2-Treatment Options 6 PASER Maps Kalamazoo County 28 City of Kalamazoo 29 City of Portage 3
Executive Summary The Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study ( K A T S ) assists in the data collection of road inventory for federal-aid roads in Kalamazoo County. The data collection efforts take place on Federal-Aid roads in the county. Since 211 the Transportation Asset Management Council PASER data collection has changed what it constitutes as a federal-aid road. This change excludes some Rural Minor Collectors that were rated during previous years. According to 23 USC 11, Federal-aid eligible roads are highways on the Federal-aid highway systems and all other public roads not classified as local roads or rural minor collectors. This Road Condition Report contains both road agency/local government road surface condition rating summaries and specific breakdowns from 28-213 for all federal-aid roads in the County. Page 1
What is Asset Management? An ongoing process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost effectively, based on a continuous physical inventory and condition assessment. - Act 499 of the Public Acts of 22. The State of Michigan defines asset management as an ongoing process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost effectively, based on a continuous physical inventory and condition assessment. Asset management consists of a set of business principles and practices used to meet the goals of good ownership and effective, responsible management. The process allows transportation agencies to monitor the current condition of all federal aid eligible pavements, while also taking an inventory of potential preventative measures, to ensure the quality of the roads in the future. Implementation of asset management principles requires a shift from Worst First system management to one that considers the long range view of how the system functions. Principles of Asset Management Asset management follows five core principles. They are: Performance-Based-Allows policy objectives to be broken down into daily operations decisions and strategic maintenance decisions. Decisions Based on Quality Information-Accurate information regarding the inventory, condition, and available funding of any of the assets involved. Policy-Driven-Resource allocation decisions that are based on well-defined performance goals and objectives. Alternatives are examined, and often level of service, system conditions, and community goals are reflected. Analysis of Mix of Fixes, Options and Tradeoffs-A system-wide assessment is made to determine the most valuable alternatives to invest in current and future system performance. Monitoring to Provide Clear Accountability and Feedback-The system needs to be consistently monitored to ensure that the chosen investments are meeting the predetermined goals and policy objectives. All agencies currently apply some form of these principles, and for that reason, existing principles can be easily built upon in order to implement a successful asset management plan. Know Your Assets Make & Know the Rules Page 2
Benefits of Asset Management Asset management provides public agencies with a better understanding of the relationship between cost and performance. This understanding allows for better management, which is often directly reflected in the improvement of performance. In addition to the overall improvement of an agency s performance, there are many benefits of implementing asset management principles and practices. These benefits include: Improved service to customers; Improved cost-effectiveness and use of available resources; Improved communication with elected officials and the public about level of service vs. cost of service; and Improved credibility and accountability for decision-making process and results. In order to gain these benefits, an agency must evaluate its current business practices, establish where significant improvements can be made, and develop a plan to institute changes. Page 3
PASER Rating Scale PASER (Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating) is a simple windshield survey of road surface quality, which was developed by the University of Wisconsin-Madison to be used as the state s standard road rating system. The system uses manuals that provide visual aids for identifying different types, and the extent of, various defects that may be visually present in any given section of road. These defects are compared to a ten point PASER scale to determine their quality. On the PASER rating scale, one represents a failed road, and ten, a new road. The time that it takes a road to cycle from excellent to poor on the PASER scale is largely dependent on traffic volume and construction quality. Using the PASER rating scale on paved surfaces within a county aids in predicting deterioration rates of surfaces. This information is important in order to create a plan of maintenance and replacement that is both efficient and cost effective. PASER Categories When surveying a paved surface for defects, there are four main categories to keep in mind. These categories are: Surface Defects- These include raveling (minimal aggregate on pavement surface), flushing (excess aggregate on pavement surface), or polishing (worn down aggregate on pavement surface) Surface Deformation- Includes rutting of wheel paths and pavement distortion Cracks- Can be transverse, longitudinal, Reflection, slippage, alligator, and block cracks Patches and Potholes- Patches are when previous damage has been filled by new asphalt patch material, and potholes are surface damage caused by traffic, fatigue, and poor drainage. How Data is Collected Data is collected by three person teams that consist of one MDOT employee, one member of the local road agency, and one member from the regional planning agency. Together, this team is responsible for evaluating pavement and recording information about each road, using a laptop and a GPS receiver. This information includes the type of road (surface type), the number of lanes, and the road condition (PASER Rating). Treatments Applying a rating system like PASER to a paved network of roads allows for an efficient way to inventory and evaluate transportation assets. These evaluations can then be used to create a prioritized arrangement of projects, and select from any of the treatment alternatives. Effective management of pavement keeps the condition of the road ahead of rapid deterioration with treatments that are lower cost. There are a number of treatment options that directly correlate to the PASER score of a paved surface. The better the road is rated, the less treatment it requires. For example, roads with a PASER rating 8-1 only require routine maintenance through scheduled activities like sweeping, drainage clearing, shoulder clearing/grading, and crack seal/slurry coat to prevent water infiltration. 5-7 rated roads require capital preventative maintenance. If a road is rated 1-4 on the PASER scale, then it requires some form of structural improvement. If the roadway deteriorates past a 4 on the PASER scale, capital preventative maintenance methods of treatment are not viable. Page 4
The following table illustrates PASER ratings for asphalt pavements, which constitute the majority of roads in Kalamazoo County. Table 1 Rating Visible Distress General Treatment & Conditions 1 Good None New Construction 9 Good None Recent Overlay 8 Good No longitudinal cracks except reflection of paving joints. Occasional transverse cracks, widely spaced (4 or greater). All cracks sealed or tight (open less than 1 4 ). Recent sealcoat or new cold mix. Little or no maintenance required. 7 Fair Very slight or no raveling, surface shows some traffic wear. Longitudinal cracks (open 1 4 ) due to reflection or paving joints. Transverse cracks (open 1 4 ) spaced 1 or more apart, little or slight crack raveling. No patching or very few patches in excellent condition. First signs of aging. Maintain with routine crack filling. 5 Fair 4 Poor 3 Poor 2 Poor Slight raveling (loss of fines) and traffic wear. Longitudinal cracks (open 1 4 1 2 ), some spaced less than 1. First sign of block cracking. Sight to moderate flushing or polishing. Occasional patching in good condition. Moderate to severe raveling (loss of fine and coarse aggregate). Longitudinal and transverse cracks (open 1 2 ) show first signs of slight raveling and secondary cracks. First signs of longitudinal cracks near pavement edge. Block cracking up to 5% of surface. Extensive to severe flushing or polishing. Some patching or edge wedging in good condition. Severe surface raveling. Multiple longitudinal and transverse cracking with slight raveling. Longitudinal cracking in wheel path. Block cracking (over 5% of surface). Patching in fair condition. Slight rutting or distortions (1 2 deep or less) Closely spaced longitudinal and transverse cracks often showing raveling and crack erosion. Severe block cracking. Some alligator cracking (less than 25% of surface). Patches in fair to poor condition. Moderate rutting or distortion (1 or 2 deep). Occasional potholes. Alligator cracking (over 25% of surface). Severe distortions (over 2 deep) Extensive patching in poor condition. Potholes. Shows signs of aging. Sound structural condition. Could extend life with sealcoat. Surface aging. Sound structural condition. Needs sealcoat or thin non-structural overlay (less than 2 ) Significant aging and first signs of need for strengthening. Would benefit from a structural overlay (2 or more). Needs patching and repair prior to major overlay. Milling and removal of deterioration extends the life of overlay. Severe deterioration. Needs reconstruction with extensive base repair. Pulverization of old pavement is effective 1 Poor Severe distress with extensive loss of surface integrity Failed. Needs total reconstruction. Page 5
Table 2 Treatment Life Extension (Average Years) PASER Rating Estimated Cost per Mile Average Cost per Additional Year Hot Mix Asphalt Crack Treatment 2 6 to 8 $1, $5, Fog Seal Coat 4 5 to 7 $5, $1,25 One Course Non- Structural HMA Overlay Milling and One Course Non- Structural HMA Overlay Single Course Chip Seal 7 5 to 6 $6, $8,571 8 4 to 5 $75, $9,375 6 5 to 7 $15, $2,5 Double Course Chip Seal 7.5 5 to 7 $25, $3,333 Single Course MicroSurface 5 4 to 6 $65, $13, Ultra-Thin HMA Overlay 8.5 4 to 6 $3, $3,529 Full-Depth Reconstruction 3 1 to 2 $1,5, $5, Capital Preventative Maintenance and Reconstructive Treatments Table 2 details the estimated cost, lifespan, and rating of each treatment type when applied to roads that need maintenance. These treatments range from minimal (overband crack filling) to major construction. The following list provides a brief overview of when each treatment is used in Kalamazoo County. These treatments are suggested by TAMC, and may not be appropriate fixes to every situation. Hot Mix Asphalt ( HMA)Crack Treatments are the standard fix for working cracks on an asphalt surface. These cracks are blown out and sealed flush with a rubberized sealant. Fog Seals provide a thin asphalt coating over existing pavement. This treatment seals aggregate in place while preventing rutting, and water permeation. Non-Structural H M A Overlays do not contribute to a pavement s structural capacity. These treatments require thin layers of asphalt (1/2-1 ½ inches) to be smoothed on top of existing pavement. Applying this treatment to roads improves surface quality and drainage. Chip Seals require a thin application of asphalt emulsion to be applied to the road surface, which is then topped with a coarse aggregate. Microsurfacing is a fast setting application of polymer-modified cold-mix material. A very thin layer of the material is applied to the paved surface, and traffic is able to resume within hour of the microsurfacing. Page 6
An Ultra-Thin HMA Overlay is applied using conventional HMA methods, this type of overlay is thinner than traditional overlays, but generally more expensive and require more time. Full-Depth Reconstruction is the replacement of the entire paved surface including the base and subbase. The old materials are discarded and all new materials are used in the reconstruction. This process is not done unless there is no good road left to salvage. Page 7
Summary of 212 and 213 Ratings 212-213 PASER Ratings Kalamazoo County Federal-Aid Miles by Jurisdiction (733.9 Miles) Alamo Twp Village of Augusta Brady Twp Charleston Twp Village of Climax Climax Twp Comstock Twp Cooper Twp City of Galesburg City of Kalamazoo Kalamazoo Twp Oshtemo Twp City of Parchment Pavilion Twp City of Portage Prairie Ronde Twp Village of Richland Richland Twp Ross Twp Village of Schoolcraft Schoolcraft Twp Texas Twp Village of Vicksburg Wakeshma Twp 2 4 6 8 1 12 Poor Fair Good Page 8
212/213 PASER Scores Kalamazoo County Non-Trunkline Federal-Aid Miles (554.3 Miles) Alamo Twp Village of Augusta Brady Twp Charleston Twp Village of Climax Climax Twp Comstock Twp Cooper Twp City of Galesburg City of Kalamazoo Kalamazoo Twp Oshtemo Twp City of Parchment Pavilion Twp City of Portage Prairie Ronde Twp Village of Richland Richland Twp Ross Twp Village of Schoolcraft Schoolcraft Twp Texas Twp Village of Vicksburg Wakeshma Twp 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Poor Fair Good Page 9
212-213 PASER Scores Kalamazoo County Trunkline Miles of Federal-Aid Road (188.9 Miles) Alamo Twp Charleston Twp Comstock Twp City of Galesburg Kalamazoo Twp City of Kalamazoo Oshtemo Twp City of Portage Richland Twp Ross Twp Schoolcraft Twp Texas Twp 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 45 5 Poor Fair Good Page 1
35 Kalamazoo Countywide PASER Ratings 212-213 (733.9 Miles) 3 25 Miles 2 15 1 5 Poor Fair Good Rating Page 11
Historical Data Collection 7 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Kalamazoo County Federal-Aid Roads Miles of Federal-Aid Road 6 5 4 3 2 1 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 142.97 143.26 182.247 Fair 475.324 44.624 326.56 Good 115.955 147.135 225.643 The chart above reflects the progression of Kalamazoo County s federal-aid roads over a six year period. From 28 to 213, there has been an increase in roads that are rated as being in Poor condition, and the number of Good road miles have also increased substantially overall. Road miles rated with a PASER score of 8-1 (Good) showed an increase of approximately 31 miles between 28/29-21/211, with that number continuing to increase significantly by almost 8 miles in 212/213, resulting in about a 11 mile increase over the course of six years. When looking at township breakdowns from 212/213 on the previous three pages of this document, it is apparent that in most jurisdictions, the majority of roads are Fair and Poor, with Good roads rated 8-1 constituting a smaller percentage of the total miles. This is the case for all roads, including federal-aid trunkline and non-trunkline in Kalamazoo County. Page 12
18 16 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Alamo Township (35.86 Miles) Miles of Federal-Aid Road Miles of Federal-Aid Road 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 7.351 2.944 5.477 Fair 14.949 16.377 16.541 Good 15.13 15.619 13.68 1.4 1.2 1.8.6.4.2 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Village of Augusta (1.284 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor.834 1.16.576 Fair.45.124 Good.78 Page 13
3 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Brady Township (27.85 Miles) Miles of Federal-Aid Road Miles of Federal-Aid Road 25 2 15 1 5 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 2.272 3.274 4.82 Fair 27.292 21.855 15.71 Good 2.48 1.956 6.555 25 2 15 1 5 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Charleston Township (37.74 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 6.72 9.14 1.481 Fair 22.154 9.886 9.583 Good 6.153 18.687 17.676 Page 14
1.6 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Village of Climax (1.539 Miles) 1.4 Miles of Federal-Aid Road Miles of Federal-Aid Road 1.2 1.8.6.4.2 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor.191 Fair.498.816 1.348 Good 1.41.723 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Climax Township (16.267 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 1.491 2.692 2.692 Fair 13.18 6.58 4.781 Good 1.596 6.995 8.794 Page 15
Miles of Federal-Aid Road Miles of Federal-Aid Road 5 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Comstock Township (65.511 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 15.628 14.12 11.732 Fair 44.725 4.36 31.83 Good 4.798 11.236 21.949 25 2 15 1 5 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Cooper Township (3.944 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 6.674 4.232 4.789 Fair 2.758 19.94 2.129 Good 3.15 6.256 6.26 Page 16
3 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings City of Galesburg (2.753 Miles) Miles of Federal-Aid Road Miles of Federal-Aid Road 2.5 2 1.5 1.5 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor.991 1.567 2.753 Fair 1.749 1.173 Good.8 5 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings City of Kalamazoo (95.849 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 33.17 35.285 32.714 Fair 43.199 42.711 42.278 Good 13.54 17.853 2.857 Page 17
35 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Kalamazoo Township (37.287 Miles) Miles of Federal-Aid Road Miles of Federal-Aid Road 3 25 2 15 1 5 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 4.61 5.212 11.196 Fair 22.97 29.56 17.799 Good 6.773 2.445 8.292 6 5 4 3 2 1 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Oshtemo Township (63.635 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 2.65 3.946 2.98 Fair 44.786 54.455 3.312 Good 12.947 5.353 3.343 Page 18
1.2 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings City of Parchment (1.611 Miles) Miles of Federal-Aid Road Miles of Federal-Aid Road 1.8.6.4.2 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 1.44.449.869 Fair.567 1.123.742 Good.39 25 2 15 1 5 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Pavilion Township (31.461 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 3.719 3.394 1.494 Fair 23.691 2.443 12.586 Good 4.35 7.621 17.381 Page 19
45 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings City of Portage (12.449 Miles) 4 Miles of Federal-Aid Road Miles of Federal-Aid Road 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 27.229 37.698 41.292 Fair 38.147 4.585 4.832 Good 23.67 22.25 2.325 2 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Prairie Ronde Township (15.128 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor.967.996.59 Fair 17.57 13.165 9.128 Good 3.23.967 5.491 Page 2
Miles of Federal-Aid Road Miles of Federal-Aid Road 1.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Richland Village (.944 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor.444.944.944 Fair.5 Good 3 25 2 15 1 5 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Richland Township (32.552 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 4.9 5.387 13.142 Fair 24.921 24.56 8.955 Good 3.83 3.97 1.455 Page 21
25 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Ross Township (27.57 Miles) Miles of Federal-Aid Road Miles of Federal-Aid Road 2 15 1 5 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 4.614 3.374 5.788 Fair 22.948 14.893 9.75 Good 3.626 9.44 12.14 1.4 1.2 1.8.6.4.2 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Village of Schoolcraft (1.745 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor.486.252 1.147 Fair 1.259.56.598 Good.987 Page 22
35 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Schoolcraft Township (36.1 Miles) Miles of Federal-Aid Road Miles of Federal-Aid Road 3 25 2 15 1 5 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 6.382 1.984 8.348 Fair 27.764 3.22 2.173 Good 2.324 3.797 7.48 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Texas Township (5.477 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 6.78 1.145 12.369 Fair 4.95 37.11 23.158 Good 3.49 12.284 14.95 Page 23
28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Village of Vicksburg (3.115 Miles) 3 Miles of Federal-Aid Road Miles of Federal-Aid Road 2.5 2 1.5 1.5 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor 2.213 2.16 2.726 Fair.751.858.151 Good.151.151.238 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 28-213 PASER Road Condition Ratings Wakeshma Township (14.983 Miles) 28/29 21/211 212/213 Poor.141 1.725 3.1 Fair 14.885 13.258 8.941 Good 2.96 3.41 Page 24
Pavement Conditions Of the 734 miles of federal-aid roads that were most recently rated (212-213), approximately 182 miles are rated as being in Poor condition, 326 miles rated Fair, and 226 miles Good. This distribution means that currently, nearly half of all federal-aid roads in Kalamazoo County are in Fair condition (have a PASER score of 5-7). The chart below illustrates the percentage distribution of road ratings. When looking at this chart, it is evident that the amount of Fair and Good road miles must be maintained as best as possible. Through asset management strategies, the amount of Poor road miles and the maintenance costs associated with structural improvements can be diminished. Road Ratings Distribution 212-213 31% 225.643 mi 25% 182.247 mi 44% 326.56 mi Poor Fair Good Page 25
Co n di t ion Trends o f Federal -Ai d Roa ds Kalamazoo County 28-213 5 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 Miles 28/29 21/211 212/213 28/29 21/211 212/213 28/29 21/211 212/213 1 5 Good Fair Poor 28/29 115.955 475.324 142.97 21/211 147.135 44.624 143.26 212/213 225.643 326.56 182.247 The bar graph shown above illustrates the quality of roads in Kalamazoo County over the course of six years. Good and Fair roads require minimal maintenance which is less costly, and therefore these roads should be maintained whenever possible. The graph also shows that Kalamazoo County has maintained trends that occurred between 28 and 211. This is evident across all three ratings categories. Between 28 and 211, the number of Fair road miles decreased, while the amount of Poor roads increased. These trends continued into 212 and 213. Good road miles have increased significantly in 212 and 213 by over 78 miles, after exhibiting an increase in the previous four years. Focus should continue to be placed on maintaining roads in Fair and Good condition in order to decrease the amount of Poor roads countywide. It is important to administer capital preventative maintenance treatments that are less expensive before higher cost structural improvements become necessary. Asset management is useful in helping to focus attention on Good and Fair pavements before they transition to Poor roads that require structural improvements. Putting focus on fixing roads using asset management techniques will improve road networks overall, rather than using worst first strategies to maintain only a small percentage, while others get worse. Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Contact Information For more information regarding the Kalamazoo County Road Condition report, contact: Kalamazoo County Road Commission 381 E Kilgore Rd Kalamazoo, Michigan 491 (269) 381-3171 info@kcrc-roads.com Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study 522 Lovers Ln Suite 11 Portage, Michigan 492 (269)343-766 info@katsmpo.org City of Kalamazoo 415 E Stockbridge Ave Kalamazoo, Michigan 491 (269) 337-861 jungd@kalamazoocity.org City of Portage 79 S Westnedge Ave Portage, Michigan 4924 (269) 329-4422 barnesc@portagemi.gov Villages, Townships, and Cities not listed above Contact Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study for the contact information.