south dakota 2008 local roads needs study interim report · presentation content observations,...

South Dakota 2008 Local Roads Needs Study Interim ReportDavid Huft, SDDOT Research Program Manager

2008 Interim Study on Highway Needs & FinancingSeptember 25, 2008 1

South Dakota Local Roads Needs Study SD2008-11(Preliminary Results 9/25/08)

1Connecting South Dakota and the NationConnecting South Dakota and the Nation

South Dakota2008 Local Roads Needs Study

Interim Report

David HuftResearch Program Manager

SD Department of Transportation



2008 Interim Studyon Highway Needs and Financing

Scope:projected long term state and local highway needsallocation and distribution of responsibility for all highway segments within the statefuture state and local highway cost projections compared to projected revenuestrategies for creating greater efficiency in financing state and local roadsstrategies to promote the development of innovative ideas aimed at reducing highway funding needs





Presentation Content

Observations, Remaining Work, Q&A

Bridge & Road Needs

Early (incomplete) results

Study Objectives

Topic

28 – 32Conclusion

22 – 27Needs Assessment

5 – 21Local Agency Survey

1 – 4Introduction

SlidesSection



Project Objectives

Assess current condition of local roads and bridgesIdentify major cost elements affecting changing needsIdentify objective and appropriate standards for the design, construction, and maintenance of local roads and bridges for use in estimating life-cycle costsEstimate current and future funding needs for local roads and bridgesIdentify opportunities and strategies for reducing funding needs and achieving greater efficiency

Work is partially complete





Local Agency Survey Responses (9/23/08)HARDING

BUTTE

PERKINS CORSON

DEWEY

ZEIBACH

STANLEY

HAAKON JONES

JACKSON

LYMAN

MELLETTE

TRIPP

TODD

CUSTER

FALL RIVER

SHANNON

SULLY HYDE HAND

POTTER FAULK

WALWORTH

McPHERSON

LAWRENCE

BUFFALO

BRULE AURORA

SANBORN

GREGORY

CHARLESMIX

BROWN MARSHALL ROBERTS

DAY

SPINKCLARK CODINGTON

GRANT

BEADLE

HAMLIN

DEUEL

KINGSBURY BROOKINGS

MINER LAKE MOODY

HANSON

McCOOK MINNEHAHA

HUTCHINSON TURNER

LINCOLN

CLAYYANKTONBON

HOMME

DOUGLAS

UNION

HUGHES

MEADE

PENNINGTON

JERAULD

BENNETT

CAMPBELL

DAVISON

EDMUNDS

Complete Partial Missing



Survey Responses (9/23/08)

70Townships

20Class 3

17Class 2

6Class 1

Cities

58 (28 complete)Counties

ResponsesAgencies





Reported Distribution of Expenditures

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

City

Township

Secondary

County

System Upgrade Road Surface Snow & Ice ROW Maintenance Signs & Markings Major Structures Minor Structures Staff Development Administration Other



Cities:Perceived Adequacy of Revenues

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

System Upgrade

Road Surface

Snow & Ice

ROW Maintenance

Signs & Markings

Major Structures

Minor Structures

Staff Development

Administration

Seriously Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Very Adequate Don't Know





Counties:Perceived Adequacy of Revenues

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Overall

System Upgrade

Road Surface

Snow & Ice

ROW Maintenance

Signs & Markings

Major Structures

Minor Structures

Staff Development

Administration




Townships:Perceived Adequacy of Revenues

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Overall

System Upgrade

Road Surface

Snow & Ice

ROW Maintenance

Signs & Markings

Major Structures

Minor Structures

Staff Development

Administration






Most Critical Items to Agencies

4

3

2

1

Rank

AdministrationSystemUpgradeSnow & Ice

SystemUpgradeSnow & IceSystem

Upgrade

ROWMaintenance

ROWMaintenance

ROWMaintenance

Road SurfaceMaintenance



CountiesTownshipsCities



Perceived Opportunities for Funding

Opt out of property tax freeze– Non-highway needs compete for limited funds

Increase existing mechanisms– Vehicle registration– Wheel tax– Property tax





Cities:Opportunities for Efficiency

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Relaxed StandardsInnovative Materials

Construction MethodsContracting ProceduresPurchasing Procedures

Joint OperationsShared Facilities

Agency ConsolidationStaff Development

Equipment ManagementAsset Management

Road/Weather Information

Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Don't Know



Counties:Opportunities for Efficiency

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%












Townships:Opportunities for Efficiency

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%










Best Opportunities for Efficiency

Joint operationsShared facilitiesInnovative materials– Reclaimed materials– Warm asphalt

Procurement and contracting methods

Relaxed standards are not seen as an effective means toward efficiency





Anticipated Upgrades for Development (preliminary, incomplete data)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

City Township Secondary County

Ave

rage

Mile

s pe

r Age

ncy

0-2 years 2-5 years 5-10 years



Advance Knowledge ofNeeded System Upgrade/Expansion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

City

Township

County

<1 year 1-2 years 2-4 years > 4 years





Rural Development Pressure(Blom Township Example)

A large dairy was constructed west of Brandt, SD. The primary access is a gravel road from the dairy to SD Hwy 15. The road had performed quite well for ~50 years with routine blade maintenance and occasionally adding gravel.

Condition of the road after opening of dairy – the road deteriorated further and had to be closed.



Rural Development Pressure(Blom Township Example)

Approximately $40,000 of local funds have been spent for road improvement thus far.

While the primary access road was closed for repair, this alternate route began to fail.





Funding Effect on Liability Risk

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cities

Townships

Counties

Not at All Somewhat Increasing Effect



Bridge Need Assessment

Numbers reflect only structural needsOther bridges have functional deficiencies– Width– Number of lanes– Inadequate clearance

1098 county bridges are posted for weight139 are recommended to be posted8 county bridges are recommended for closing





County Bridge Age Distribution

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0-10 10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

90-100

100-110

Age of Bridge

Nu

mb

er

of

Bri

dg

es



County Bridge Conditions

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

1998

2008

# of bridges

Do Nothing Deck Overlay Deck Replace Structure Replace





City Bridge Conditions

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

1998

2008

# of bridges

Do Nothing Deck Overlay Deck Replace Structure Replace



Bridge Rehabilitation Costs

$255$82$332008$113$20$71998County

(all costs per square foot)

City

System

20081998

Year

$202$55$18$93$20$7

StructureReplace

DeckReplace

DeckOverlay





Example Road Surface Costs

$26.98$16.16Reconstruct 6” base & blotter

$1.87$1.65Patch alligator-cracked areas (minor), rout and seal cracks, chip seal

$12.05$6.68Mill asphalt surface, patch, 2.5” overlay

$23.23$13.60Reconstruct gravel road, 6” gravel

$48.05$23.50Reconstruct 8” base, 3” asphalt mat(all costs per square yard)

Regrade gravel surface, add 4” gravel

Treatment

$5.80$1.67

20081998



Observations (Not Conclusions)

Responses to local agency survey indicate serious financial challengesAgricultural, residential, and industrial development places significant demands on local transportationSurvey responses are not yet adequate to reliably predict road surface funding needsBridge and road surface treatment costs have risen dramatically since 1998 assessmentFinancial needs are expected to increase significantly from 1998





Remaining Work

Work with local agencies and associations to improve survey response for need assessmentPerform road surface need assessmentCompare road and bridge needs with current funding levelsContact local agencies for additional detail on potential funding and efficiency opportunitiesPresent findings to Interim Committee and others



Project Technical PanelRichard BendaSD Dept. of Tourism & Economic DevelopmentRobin BobzienAmerican Public Works Assn.Gail BrockSD Assn. of Towns & TownshipsToby CrowAssociated General ContractorsLarry EngbrechtAmerican Concrete Paving Assn.Brenda FormanAg UnityJohn FosterSDDOT ResearchBruce LindholmSDDOT Local ProgramsBen OrsbonSDDOT Office of the Secretary

Raymond RoggowSD Highway SuperintendentsHal RumpcaSDDOT ResearchKen SkorsethLocal Transportation Assistance ProgramKen SwedeenDakota Asphalt Paving Assn.Yvonne TaylorSD Municipal LeagueTodd ThompsonSDDOT Bridge DesignJeff Des LauriersCity of Sioux Falls Bob WilcoxSD County Commissioners Assn. Dale TechSD Street Superintendents Assn.





Acknowledgements

SD Association of Towns & TownshipsSD Association of CountiesSD Municipal LeagueSD Local Transportation Assistance ProgramSD Department of Tourism & State DevelopmentSDDOT Offices of Bridge Design, Project Development, Research, Local ProgramsApplied Pavement Technology



Questions?

David L. HuftResearch Program ManagerSouth Dakota Department of

Transportation700 East Broadway AvenuePierre, SD [email protected]





County Road Conditions(preliminary, incomplete data)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2008

1998

Percent of Mileage

Poor Fair Good Very Good

south dakota 2008 local roads needs study interim report · presentation content observations,...

Documents