transportation asset management plan: pavements management plan 2017.pdf · upgrading, and...

Asset Management Plan for Pavements

PREPARED BY: MECOSTA COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION

Transportation Asset Management Plan: Pavements

2

Table of Contents 1 Current Assets ................................................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Asset Inventory ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Componentized Asset Inventory ........................................................................................... 7 1.3 Current Data and Software Tools .......................................................................................... 8

2 Finances ........................................................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Current Asset Investment .................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Income ................................................................................................................................. 10

3 Managing Lifecycles ..................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Current Conditions .............................................................................................................. 12 3.2 Level of Service .................................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Assess Treatment Alternatives ............................................................................................ 15

4 Make and Know the Rules ............................................................................................................ 16 4.1 Strategic Goals ..................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Legislation, Policy, and Standards ....................................................................................... 18

5 Decision Making ........................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 Evaluate Decision Process ................................................................................................... 19 5.2 Basic Process Improvement Plan ......................................................................................... 20

6 Establishing Sustainability ............................................................................................................ 21 6.1 Sustainability Assessment ................................................................................................... 21 6.2 Program Coordination ......................................................................................................... 24


3

Overview of Asset Management

The State of Michigan has been actively pursuing Asset Management since 1998 when the Michigan Legislature established the ACT 51 Transportation Funding Committee. Continued support of Asset Management has occurred as the Legislature established the Transportation Asset Management Council in Act 499 of 2002, encouraged the use of Asset Management in decision processes through Act 338 of 2006, and continued to refine Asset Management in Michigan through act 199 of 2007. Asset Management, according to Public Act 199 of 2007, means an “ongoing process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost-effectively, based on a continuous physical inventory and condition assessment.” The implementation of asset management decisions processes allows an agency to make the best decisions for their transportation network with the best information they can collect. The process enables good stewardship, transparent decision processes, and measurable performance. The fol-lowing figure provides an overview of the asset management process.

Know Your

Assets

Make &

Know the

Rules

Asset Management Process & Plan


4

1 Current Assets

The Mecosta County Road Commission (MCRC) is the jurisdictional authority over all public roads lying outside the incorporated cities and villages within Mecosta County, exclusive of any state trunk line highways. At the end of 2017, the MCRC certified approximately 272 center-line miles of county pri-mary roads and 860 center-line miles of county local roads. Approximately 612 certified center-line miles are unsealed, i.e. gravel, seasonal roads. This section provides documentation of the assets contained on the paved roads. 1.1 Asset Inventory

MDOT annually certifies all public roads within the State of Michigan. Certification maps are main-tained by the MCRC and are the basis for determining the amount of money received from the Mich-igan Transportation Fund. Generally, the MCRC receives a higher level of reimbursement for primary roads than local roads. Further information on public road miles can be found in the following public road mileage charts and graphs. Additional information can be found on the MCRC maps.

Grand Total County Wide 1131.26

Grand Total Urban 59.73

Totals

Townships Primary Local Primary Local Total Miles Certified

Aetna 15.47 55.08 70.55

Austin 15.35 56.04 71.39

Big Rapids 14.29 58.26 8.19 29.86 72.55

Chippewa 25.01 47.23 72.24

Colfax 17.56 51.66 3.08 4.21 69.22

Deerfield 24.00 56.58 80.58

Fork 12.50 61.12 73.62

Grant 18.01 44.27 62.28

Green 18.06 65.86 2.56 4.74 83.92

Hinton 22.05 58.13 80.18

Martiny 23.27 48.70 71.97

Mecosta 15.53 53.28 7.09 68.81

Millbrook 16.90 51.56 68.46

Morton 14.31 41.45 55.76

Sheridan 13.41 55.79 69.20

Wheatland 6.00 54.53 60.53

Totals 271.72 859.54 13.83 45.90 1131.26

Certification Mileage Chart

UrbanCounty Wide


5


6


7

1.2 Componentized Asset Inventory

Knowledge of the number of miles under the jurisdiction of the MCRC is an important basis for under-standing the current public investment. In order to gain in depth knowledge about the public invest-ment more information must be known about the assets. In particular, it is important to understand the types of road surfaces currently maintained. The following table lists the number of miles in each surface classification, as downloaded from RoadSoft. In the future, the MCRC will be able to gain a better understanding of the value of pavement assets by improving the quality of the road surface asset information they have. The basic road surface inventory must be completed. Once this information is known, it can be expanded to document indi-vidual pavement layers.

Total 1109.237

Asphalt 508.386

Brick 0.000

Concrete 0.044

Earth 33.686

Gravel 494.199

Seal Coat 2.848

Undefined 70.074

Surface Type (miles) per RoadSoft


8

1.3 Current Data and Software Tools

Data about the pavement and road surface assets under MCRC’s jurisdictions are maintained by the Administrative Staff at the MCRC. The areas that the Administrative Staff are accountable for are as follows: Administration The Administration area, which oversee the business functions of policy-making, budget, accounts receivable / payables, employment, bargaining units, workers compensation and safety, employee benefits, community relations, and technology, are comprised of; Board of County Road Commission-ers, Finance and Human Resources, Public Information/Community Relations and Operations Man-agement. Engineering The Engineering Area, which is responsible for providing engineering and technical services for road operations, preventative maintenance and improvement projects on the county road system and Fed-eral/State Grant funded project coordination, is comprised of; Project Development, Construction Oversight, Governmental Compliance, Permits/Development, and Traffic & Safety. Operations The Operations Area oversees the maintenance and upkeep of all county roads, as well as Michigan Department of Transportation's state trunk lines. In addition, Operations is responsible for three maintenance garages, seven gravel pits, six brine wells, and approximately 105 pieces of road equip-ment. Operations consist of three District Crews, Big Rapids, Morley and Remus.

http://www.wcroads.org/services/administration.htm

http://www.wcroads.org/services/engineering.htm

http://www.wcroads.org/services/operations.htm


9

The MCRC currently uses various types of software to manage current asset data and cost infor-mation. The following table lists specific software packages utilized by the MCRC and descriptions of the functions these software packages perform.

Name Function/Purpose/Data Location

RoadSoft Roadway Asset Management System Server

Asset Inventory

Asset Condition Data

Asset Deterioration Modeling

Strategy Evaluation

MS Excel Annual Work Program Server

Pavement Deterioration predictive models

Valuation data

Cogitate Accounting software Server

Income and Expenditure

Expenses in Labor

Hardcopy Maintenance history work sheets Vault


10

2 Finances

The MCRC is an independent financial entity although its funds are deposited through the Mecosta County Treasurer. The Board of County Road Commissioners adopts an Annual Budget, and approves all expenditures in accordance with accepted accounting principles for government agencies. An in-dependent audit is performed annually on the Road Commission accounts, and the results are pro-vided to the Michigan Department of Treasury.

The following sections document the financial status of the MCRC. The following data was compiled for fiscal year end 2017, and is provided here for the purposes of asset management considerations. The most recent financial information available can be obtained through the MCRC. 2.1 Current Asset Investment

The MCRC currently invests in 1,131.26 miles of infrastructure assets. The investments include two main surface types: Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA), and unsealed roads. Unsealed roads fall into two main subcategories: natural aggregate, and dirt. As of 12/31/2017 the MCRC Infrastructure Assets are:

a) Current Investment $ 42,547,057.73

b) Depreciated Value $ 17,352,024.60

c) Net Value $ 25,195,033.13

2.2 Income

The MCRC’s principal source of funding is the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF). This fund is sup-ported by vehicle registration fees and the Michigan state gas tax. The Road Commission's allocation is based on a formula, which includes factors such as population, miles of certified roads and vehicle registration fees within the county. In addition to Michigan Transportation Fund, the Road Commission is contracted by the Michigan Department of Transportation to maintain the State Trunk lines within Mecosta County, and with each of the County’s 16 townships for specific improvement projects. MCRC also receives federal and state grants for individual projects, and may receive contributions from private developers and other gov-ernmental entities for specific improvements. The Road Commission also receives revenues from per-mits and interest from invested funds. The following table lists the anticipated revenues for the 2018 Fiscal Year.


11

Revenue Source Budget ($)

Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) 5,713,500

Federal/State Funds 2,018,239

State Trunkline Maintenance 1,025,000

Township Contributions 985,000

Other Contributions 222,000

Miscellaneous Income 88,500

Total $10,052,239


12

3 Managing Lifecycles

3.1 Current Conditions

The MCRC is committed to continually reevaluating the current conditions of the transportation sys-tem. Part of this effort goes into evaluating the current road surface conditions with the Pavement Surface Evaluation Rating (PASER) system. The PASER system is the preferred method for Michigan agencies to rate their road pavements. PASER ratings for HMA surfaces are defined in the following tables.

Asphalt PASER Ratings PASER Rating

Condition

Treatment

9 & 10 Excellent No maintenance required

8 Very Good Little or no maintenance

7 Good Crack sealing and minor patching

5 & 6 Fair – Good Preservative treatments (non-structural)

3 & 4 Poor – Fair Structural renewal (overlay)

1 &2 Failed Reconstruction


13

The following table provides the PASER ratings for all federal aid roadways under MCRC jurisdiction. Federal aid roads, 219.709 miles, make up 19.4% of the system under MCRC’s jurisdiction.

Township 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Total

Aetna 0.000 0.550 0.000 1.728 0.000 2.921 5.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.199

Austin 0.000 3.565 0.912 6.310 0.394 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.834 0.000 14.015

Big Rapids 0.000 1.718 6.171 1.053 0.078 0.000 2.506 3.054 2.735 0.000 17.315

Chippewa 0.000 0.000 3.063 6.741 0.169 0.000 2.461 0.000 10.091 0.000 22.525

Colfax 0.000 1.011 1.933 1.577 0.897 0.000 5.361 0.549 3.347 0.000 14.675

Deerfield 0.000 3.480 0.864 0.000 0.000 0.761 6.016 2.966 3.039 0.530 17.656

Fork 0.000 0.000 0.107 1.411 3.376 0.995 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.889

Grant 0.000 2.522 0.000 0.773 1.012 1.338 0.000 2.554 9.210 0.000 17.409

Green 0.000 1.422 5.540 2.510 2.018 0.745 0.988 0.000 1.983 0.000 15.206

Hinton 0.000 5.886 1.249 2.476 1.972 1.493 1.746 0.247 1.001 0.000 16.070

Martiny 0.000 3.088 1.970 2.217 1.706 0.000 0.731 5.220 3.520 0.000 18.452

Mecosta 0.000 2.885 0.025 3.666 0.646 0.000 0.558 0.999 4.130 0.000 12.909

Millbrook 0.000 0.000 1.273 1.500 0.000 1.517 3.197 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.487

Morton 0.107 1.260 4.630 4.359 0.000 0.000 1.264 0.985 1.015 0.000 13.620

Sheridan 0.000 2.403 1.509 2.001 0.000 0.973 4.935 0.486 0.995 0.000 13.302

Wheatland 0.000 0.000 2.980 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.980

2017 0.107 29.790 32.226 38.322 12.268 10.743 34.763 17.060 43.900 0.530 219.709

Percentage 0.05% 13.56% 14.67% 17.44% 5.58% 4.89% 15.82% 7.76% 19.98% 0.24% 100.00%

APR* 5.467

*APR = Average Paser Rating calculated by weighting the mileage with the paser value

PASER Ratings on Federal Aid Eligible Road in Miles and %

2017 Ratings


14

The current known ratings provide important information regarding the estimated remaining life for the pavements owned by the MCRC. The estimation of remaining life of service was based on the standard degradation models included in the PASER rating system. The following chart provides a breakdown of the expected remaining service life, with a PASER rating of 10 or 9 having more than 10 years of remaining service life, a rating of 8 or 7 having an RSL of 5 to 10 years, and a rating of 6 or below equating to less than 5 years RSL. The PASER rating is a reflection of the surface quality of the roadway, not an absolute indicator of quality. A roadway with a low or PASER rating, or one past its Remaining Service Life is still a usable road.

Good Condition (8-10) 62.12 28.28%

Fair Condition (5-7) 61.33 27.92%

Poor Condition (1-4) 96.25 43.81%

Total Miles 219.71 100.00%

Federal Aid Road Pavement Condition

Summary (Paved)


15

3.2 Level of Service

The MCRC is responsible for maintaining a road system that is reasonably safe and convenient to the traveling public. This charge for good stewardship requires the MCRC to establish level of service goals for the operations and maintenance of the roads. The MCRC has currently published goals for winter weather operations and new development, or driveway permits. Winter Operations MCRC policy has established five priority rankings for plowing and winter operations activities. These priority rankings are: Priority 1 – State trunk line routes Priority 2 – High volume paved roads Priority 3 – Medium volume paved roads Priority 4 – Subdivision roads Priority 5 – Unpaved roads Driveway Permits The Specifications and Administrative Rules Regulating Driveways, Road Approaches, Banners and Pa-rades on and over Highways Policy (2006) established the MCRC’s level of service requirements for all new developments requesting access to the county road system. The policy addresses the need for traffic impact studies, drainage and road/driveway surface requirements. Road Surfaces The MCRC has been exploring the possibility of setting service goals for the maintenance of pave-ments under their jurisdiction. The service goals have not been formally adopted at this time. How-ever, the MCRC Engineering Department has selected the goal of 80% of all paved surfaces in good or fair condition, according to PASER ratings, as something they would like to achieve. 3.3 Assess Treatment Alternatives

MCRC currently uses the treatment alternatives prescribed in the Asset Management Guidelines for Local Agencies. MCRC has found these alternatives to be limiting on the basis of funding restrictions and MDOT’s distinctions between 2R and 3R projects. MCRC is currently working to establish a broader toolkit. The new toolkit will allow the MCRC to have more flexibility in choosing treatment options and will provide better solutions. The hope is to de-velop a tool kit that will include better fixes and optimize service life.


16

4 Make and Know the Rules

4.1 Strategic Goals

Vision Statement The Mecosta County Road Commission’s vision is to be a leader in providing a high quality system of roads and bridges through efficient maintenance, fiscal responsibility, and innovative planning and improvement strategies. Our goal is to provide the highest quality service through an open and fair decision-making process to meet the needs of the traveling public in Mecosta County. We strive to enhance the quality of life in local communities by drawing on the expertise, creativity and commit-ment of our staff and partners. We recognize that our success is dependent upon the collective talents of our staff and community resources to meet the challenges. We are committed to attracting the best and brightest workforce, strengthening their skills, while nurturing diversity and encouraging in-novation.

Guiding Principles

Promote openness and transparency in decision-making

Road Commission decisions must comply with legal requirements and professional standards. We will ensure that the community understands these obligations in the decision process, and to the extent we can, we will exercise flexibility in the application of professional standards to address strongly felt needs of the community. As a public body we also have an obligation to comply with statutory re-quirements such as the Open Meetings Act and Freedom of Information requirements. We are com-mitted to going beyond those requirements to ensure openness in our decision-making, make appro-priate information available in a timely fashion consistent with legal requirements, reach out to the larger community through the media and other ways to ensure that the community is aware of the decisions we make and the basis for those decisions.

Provide ample opportunities for participation by the public and local government

We are committed to providing ample opportunities for public participation and input into decision-making processes. In addition to mandated public hearings we will make an affirmative effort to no-tify and engage residents in areas particularly impacted by proposed projects, and we will work to identify community concerns and needs and address those concerns, consistent with statutory obli-gations and professional standards.

Be conscientious stewards of the public’s money

As a public agency, we use public resources from the Michigan Transportation fund, federal and state grants, as well as township and developer contributions to support our work. We are committed to being effective stewards of these resources, ensuring the long-term fiscal stability of the Road Com-mission, employing cost-effective solutions to projects, continuing to explore ways to reduce the costs of operations, continually striving to improve service delivery and productivity, and ensuring a high level of customer service in all that we do.


17

Value diversity

We serve a diverse community, in terms of gender, geography, race and other characteristics. We are committed to serving the entire community, and reflecting the diversity of our county in our choice of employees, projects, vendors, and in our partnerships.

Be sensitive to the environment

Consistent with legal obligations and professional standards, we will be sensitive to the impact we have on the natural and built environment, seek to minimize that impact and, to the extent possible within financial and other constraints, seek to enhance and improve the environment. Where possi-ble, consistent with the values of Mecosta County residents, we will make decisions and execute ac-tivities in a way that is a model of environmental stewardship for other Road Commissions. We will respect historical values reflected in the built environment to the extent we can and be sensitive to concerns regarding local and county objectives to minimize sprawl and protect open spaces.

Value all employees

We recognize that the success of our agency is largely dependent on the talents and skills of employ-ees. We believe that every employee has a role to play in making a positive difference for the success of our agency. We are committed to hire and retain the best possible employees, evaluate them reg-ularly, provide opportunities for professional development and advancement, pay them competi-tively, reward success and innovation, and treat them with dignity, fairness and respect.

Provide leadership in transportation planning and road system improvement

While we are responsible to the people of Mecosta County through the elected County Commission, we also recognize an obligation to share our insights, experience and expertise in transportation and in providing transportation services with others. We will support county, regional and state transpor-tation initiatives through active engagement in the County Comprehensive Plan implementation, and the County Road Association of Michigan. We will continue to strive to be recognized as a source of innovation and cutting edge performance in everything we do.


18

4.2 Legislation, Policy, and Standards

The MCRC hereby adopts by reference and incorporates in its procedures and regulations as if fully stated herein the most current editions of the following list of publications:

• AASHTO A Guide For Accommodating Utilities Within Highway Right-Of-Way

• AASHTO A Policy On Geometric Design of Highways and Streets

• AASHTO Roadside Design Guide

• APWA Position Statement, Public Rights-Of-Way Management, September 22, 1999

• ATSSA Quality Standards For Work Zone Traffic Control Devices

• FHWA Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067

• ITE Trip Generation Handbook

• ITE Trip Generation Manual

• McKenna Associates and the WDBC Group, Evaluating Traffic Impact Studies, prepared for Tri-County Regional Planning, SEMCOG and MDOT, 1994

• MDOT Design Survey Manual

• MDOT Drainage Manual

• MDOT Geometric Design Guide

• MDOT Maintaining Traffic Typicals, Traffic and Safety Division

• MDOT Road and Bridge Standard Plans

• MDOT Standard Specifications For Construction

• MDOT, Reducing Traffic Congestion and Improving Traffic Safety in Michigan Commu-nities: The Access Management Guidebook, October 2001

• Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

• TRB, Highway Capacity Manual The MCRC also complies with Michigan Public Act 199 of 2007, which requires:

“The department, each county road commission, and each city and village of this state shall an-nually submit a report to the Council. This report shall include a multi-year program developed through the asset management process described in this section. Projects contained in the de-partment’s annual multi-year program shall be consistent with department’s asset management process and shall be reported consistent with categories established by the Council. Projects con-tained in the annual multi-year program of each local agency shall be consistent with the asset management process of each local road agency and shall be reported consistent with categories established by the Council.”


19

5 Decision Making

5.1 Evaluate Decision Process

The MCRC takes a multi-disciplinary approach to determining the renewal, replacement, and improve-ment projects to implement in any given year. This process takes into consideration the condition of a pavement, stakeholder needs, and the changing needs of the area around a road. The decision process is focused around the following key areas:

➢ The general condition of the road, e.g. the pavement, shoulders, culverts, etc. ➢ The volume of traffic, or number of trips, found on the road. ➢ The ability to provide, or the need for, safety improvement projects. ➢ The ability to provide corridor continuity. ➢ The potential for improved economic development in an area. ➢ The ability to coordinate with other projects that may be disturbing the roadway, such as

utility work, or improving the public right-of-way, such as county parks projects. ➢ The ability to partner with other jurisdictions and agencies, such as the cities and villages in

Mecosta County or neighboring road commissions, to share the cost burden of a project. Once the MCRC establishes the initial potential project list for a fiscal year the actual field conditions of the project location are verified. The MCRC reevaluates the project list after completing the field inspections to reprioritize as necessary.


20

5.2 Basic Process Improvement Plan

The MCRC has found several areas where improvements to the decision making process can be made. This section of the asset management plan documents these areas for improvement and provides insight into how the MCRC chooses to approach these changes to the decision-making process. The ability to fund certain types of treatments limits the MCRC’s ability to choose treatment types. For instance, an overlay of >2 inches of HMA will result in an increase in the project scope and the funding implications of the additional work on the shoulders and roadside has the potential to make a project unfeasible for the MCRC. The MCRC is working towards overcoming these limitations. The MCRC also finds the coordination of non-surface concerns to be limiting. The need to upgrade non-motorized facilities, address roadside concerns, and asses the needs of drainage and structures are all areas where project coordination is key. The MCRC needs to further work in this area.


21

6 Establishing Sustainability

6.1 Sustainability Assessment

The MCRC continually monitors the needs of the roadway system and the status of income sources to determine the sustainability of near-term and long-term plans and goals. Currently the MCRC finds that the projected income will not meet the needs of the pavements under their jurisdiction. The MCRC will not be able to continue to perform renewal and replacement work at the current levels that work is being performed. Additionally, the MCRC will not be able to meet its goals for pavement conditions. Pavements under the jurisdiction of the MCRC are expected to continue to decline. The following chart provides the historical revenue received from the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF).

$1,000,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$3,000,000.00

$4,000,000.00

$5,000,000.00

$6,000,000.00

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

$3

,98

9,1

15

.02

$4

,55

1,2

81

.58

$4

,69

8,1

29

.79

$4

,79

7,3

51

.94

$5

,83

5,8

96

.44M

TF F

un

ds

MTF Funding Year

2013-2017 MTF Revenue


22

The MCRC has developed a goal of having 80% of all Federal Aid paved roads rated as good or fair. However, the projected revenues will fall short of the estimated maintenance funding required. The following charts provide the estimated funding required for the funding scenarios that would maintain the current good/fair/poor distributions raise the proportion of roads in the good/fair categories.


23


24

6.2 Program Coordination

The MCRC currently works to coordinate renewal, replacement, and improvement activities with other agencies. The MCRC plans to continue this coordination in the future. Key stakeholders the MCRC coordinates with for design input and funding partnerships are:

❖ Townships ❖ Cities ❖ Counties ❖ Utilities ❖ The private sector ❖ Citizen groups

The MCRC also seeks funding partnerships for federal grant programs, such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program and High Risk Rural Road funding programs, private sector funding opportuni-ties, such as new developments and impact mitigation. One example of how the MCRC has accomplished program coordination in the past are:

Buchanan Corridor (2012) The MCRC reconstructed about 5 Miles of road at this location. The project cost $1.1 million and was paid for through Federal, Township, and Road Commission funds.

Funding Amount Federal HRRR $370,000.00 Austin Township $300,000.00 Morton Township $178,000.00 Road Commission $252,000.00 TOTAL $1,100,000.00

transportation asset management plan: pavements management plan 2017.pdf · upgrading, and...

Documents