HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council-Agenda Packets-Worksession-01/13/2015City of Colleyville Page 1
City of Colleyville
City Council Worksession
Agenda
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
817.503.1000
www.colleyville.com
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
6:00 p.m.
Executive Conference Room
Third Floor, City Hall
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
2a Discussion and update on Street Infrastructure
3. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify this agenda was posted on City Hall bulletin boards Friday, January 9,
2015 by 5:00 p.m.
Amy Shelley, TRMC
City Secretary
Any matter on this agenda may, at the discretion of the governing body, be opened for
public comment and discussion.
If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special
accommodations, please advise the City Secretary at least 48 hours in advance at
817.503.1133, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you.
City of Colleyville
City Council Worksession
Agenda Briefing
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
www.colleyville.com
Agenda Number 2a Agenda Date 01/13/2015 Number
Type Presentation and Discussion
Department Public Works
Title
Discussion and update on Street Infrastructure
Explanation
Staff will present an update on street infrastructure, and will facilitate a continuance of
the discussion from the May 13, 2014, Pre Council Meeting. Staff will also be seeking
guidance on the long term approach for the city's street infrastructure; this guidance
will be used in the development and the recommendation of projects for the future
Capital Improvement Plan. Staff will also be seeking concurrence with the proposed
maintenance projects for the 2015 fiscal year.
At a City Council worksession held on December 8, 2011, Public Works staff made a
presentation on the need to develop a long range infrastructure management plan for
the City's streets, water and sewer lines, drainage system, parks, and public buildings.
Since that time, a water and wastewater master plan was commissioned and
completed; a drainage master plan is a priority as funds become available; and the
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan has been updated and is in the process
of being implemented. An ongoing major focus is the city's street infrastructure. In
February 2012, a street condition evaluation was conducted by Applied Research
Associates (ARA), a national engineering firm that specializes in pavement
management. After the data was collected by driving all of Colleyville's public streets
and using video and radar technology, a pavement condition assessment was prepared
by City staff and presented to City Council at the May 3, 2012 Pre Council Meeting. The
2012 Pavement Analysis is attached to this agenda briefing.
In December 2013, a second street condition evaluation was conducted by ARA. Using
the data that was collected during the 2013 evaluation, a second pavement condition
assessment was prepared by City staff, and presented to City Council at the May 13,
2014 Pre Council Meeting. The 2014 Pavement Analysis is attached to this agenda
briefing.
During the presentation of the 2014 Pavement Analysis, the City Council requested
City staff conduct a worksession to continue the discussion. The purpose of this
worksession is twofold:
• To seek City Council guidance on the long-term maintenance and reconstruction
methods that may be used to address the street network; and
• To seek City Council concurrence on staff’s recommendations for the use of the
2015 street maintenance funds.
City of Colleyville Page 1
City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2a
This presentation will provide information in the following areas:
• Terms and Definitions
• Colleyville Street Network
• Reconstruction and Maintenance
• Past Ten Years of Projects
• Master Thoroughfare Plan
• Long-Term Maintenance and Reconstruction (M&R) Options for the Street
Network
• FY 2015 Street Maintenance Budget
• Current Maintenance Needs
• Staff Recommendations
Attachments
1. Street Infrastructure Presentation
2. 2012 Pavement Analysis
3. 2014 Pavement Analysis
City of Colleyville Page 2
City of Colleyville
Street Infrastructure
City Council Worksession
January 13, 2015
Purpose
•Seek City Council guidance on long-term maintenance
and reconstruction methods that may be used to address
the street network
•Seek City Council concurrence on staff recommendations
for the use of 2015 street maintenance funds
Overview
•Terms and Definitions
•Colleyville Street Network
•Reconstruction and Maintenance
•Past Ten Years of Projects
•Master Thoroughfare Plan
•Long-Term Maintenance and Reconstruction (M&R) Options for
the Street Network
•Budget & Expenditures
•Current Maintenance Needs
•Staff Recommendations
Terms and Definitions
Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) -Defines further expansion of the City’s roadway network, with descriptions
of each road’s functional classification and resulting design elements
Non-local Streets -Collector and arterial streets as identified on the MTP
Local Streets –Residential streets that are not identified as a collector or arterial street on the MTP
Improved Street -A street that has been built or rebuilt to current standards (with or without curbs and gutters)
Unimproved Street -Existing street section that was not originally built or subsequently rebuilt to meet current
standards
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)–A numerical value between 0 and 100 that is used to indicate the general
condition of a pavement surface
Public Street –Any street that is maintained by the City of Colleyville
Private Street –Any street that is not maintained by the City of Colleyville and where access can be restricted
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) –The total traffic volume during a 24 hour period of time on any particular street
Historical Perspective
•Most of our non-local streets were built by the county prior to incorporation
•Originally gravel roads with bar ditches for drainage
•2” asphalt surface was subsequently added
•Traditional maintenance practice was to remove and replace the asphalt surface every 5-7
years; this treated only the surface defects, without regard to the subgrade
•Most of our local streets were built in conjunction with a development
•Designed and built to meet the applicable standards that were in place at the time of the
development
•Drainage systems constructed to accommodate a 100-year storm
•Require less maintenance than county-style roads
Colleyville Street Network
Improved and Unimproved
Streets
Improved Streets
(67.7%) =
Unimproved Streets
(32.3%)=
Private Streets
(about 33 lane miles)=
Colleyville Street Network
February 2012 -ARA (an engineering consulting firm) completed a pavement condition
assessment of all public streets
March 6, 2012 -City Council adopted the FY12 maintenance plan per staff’s recommendations
May 31, 2012 -City Council was presented a report performed by staff that identified an annual
need of $2.7 million to maintain the current level of service of the roadway assets
November 5, 2012 –Pre Council presentation on infrastructure management and rehabilitation
policies and practices
June 24, 2013 -ARA completed a second pavement condition assessment of all public streets
May 13, 2014 –Pre Council presentation of a report performed by staff that identified an annual
need of $3 million to maintain the current level of service of the roadway assets and an additional
$3.7 million a year needed if the City Council wishes to pursue the goal of reconstructing all
unimproved streets in a 25-year time span
Colleyville Street Network
Colleyville Street Network
2014 PCI Values
(as of May 2014)
Colleyville Street Network
Colleyville Street Network
Tarrant County
Projects
2014 PCI Values
(as of November 2014)
•Lavaca Trail
•Jackson Road
•Pleasant Run
Road
Colleyville Street Network
PCI < 50 (10.3% of network)
•Street sections generating the most
complaints by citizens
•Requires constant maintenance by City
street crews
•Often characterized by poor subgrade
conditions
•Surface conditions are often uneven
leading to poor riding conditions
•It is no longer cost-effective to maintain
these street sections and they should be
considered for a reconstruction project or
a major maintenance project.
Colleyville Street Network
Westcoat Drive
•2005 2” Mill and Overlay
•2009 2” Mill and Overlay
•City crews have made several large
pothole repairs in the past few
months
•Applied crack sealant and addressed
pavement markings
•Condition of the road is still poor and
additional work will be needed soon
Reconstruction &Maintenance
What are Maintenance Projects?
•Routine and recurring work
•Extends the road’s useful life
•Can be either “preventive” or
“breakdown”
Examples:
•Tarrant County joint projects:
-Lavaca Trail
-Jackson Road
-Heritage Avenue
•Mill and overlay street projects
•Pothole repair
What are Reconstruction Projects?
•A new construction project that rebuilds
the infrastructure per established
standards and specifications
•Addresses all forms of infrastructure
within the scope of the project
•Allows for the construction of additional
elements
Examples:
•Church Street Realignment
•Bogart Drive
•Kingston Estates
•Pleasant Run Road (Bogart to Mission
Lane)
Reconstruction
Glade Road and Heritage Avenue
After
BeforeBefore
After
Bogart Drive and Hall-Johnson Road
Maintenance
2014 Tarrant County Project
Lavaca Trail –Full Depth Reclamation
Before
2012 Street Maintenance Project
Long Shadow Court –Micro-Seal
Before
After After
Who does what?
City Crews
•Crack Sealing
•Pothole Repairs
Tarrant County Crews
•Mill and Overlay (various thicknesses)
•Full-Depth Reclamation
Private Contractors
•Concrete Repairs
•Microseal (surface treatments)
•Major Asphalt Repairs
•Full Reconstruction
Reconstruction & Maintenance
Reconstruction & Maintenance
Reconstruction
(31' wide)
Full Depth Reclamation
(24' wide)
4" Mill and Overlay
(24' wide)
2" Mill and Overlay
(24' wide)
New pavement surface
Stabilized base/subgrade --
Engineered road geometry
(vertical and horizontal curves)---
Intersection Improvements where needed ---
Turns lanes added where needed ---
Lane width per standards ---
Engineered drainage
(curbs, gutters, and underground storm pipes)---
Pedestrian elements
Estimated useful life
(if properly maintained, in years)50 Years 20 -30 Years 12 -15 Years +/-5 Years
Estimated initial construction cost per mile
(today's dollars)$3,637,000 $704,000 $422,000 $239,000
Total cost over 50-year life
(includes maintenance and a 5% annual inflation rate)$4,736,000 $3,691,000 $6,482,000 $9,510,000
All cost estimates as of July 2014
2004
Current Year
Maintenance Project
Current Year
Reconstruction Project
Past Maintenance
Project
Past Reconstruction
Project
2005
Current Year
Maintenance Project
Current Year
Reconstruction Project
Past Maintenance
Project
Past Reconstruction
Project
2006
Current Year
Maintenance Project
Current Year
Reconstruction Project
Past Maintenance
Project
Past Reconstruction
Project
2007
Current Year
Maintenance Project
Current Year
Reconstruction Project
Past Maintenance
Project
Past Reconstruction
Project
2008
Current Year
Maintenance Project
Current Year
Reconstruction Project
Past Maintenance
Project
Past Reconstruction
Project
2009
Current Year
Maintenance Project
Current Year
Reconstruction Project
Past Maintenance
Project
Past Reconstruction
Project
2010
Current Year
Maintenance Project
Current Year
Reconstruction Project
Past Maintenance
Project
Past Reconstruction
Project
2011
Current Year
Maintenance Project
Current Year
Reconstruction Project
Past Maintenance
Project
Past Reconstruction
Project
2012
Current Year
Maintenance Project
Current Year
Reconstruction Project
Past Maintenance
Project
Past Reconstruction
Project
2013
Current Year
Maintenance Project
Current Year
Reconstruction Project
Past Maintenance
Project
Past Reconstruction
Project
2014
Current Year
Maintenance Project
Current Year
Reconstruction Project
Past Maintenance
Project
Past Reconstruction
Project
Master Thoroughfare Plan
Master
Thoroughfare Plan
•Clearly defines the further
expansion of the City’s street
network
•Provides a description for each
street’s functional classification
•Provides the specified design
elements for each function
classification
Long-term M&R Options for Streets
•Reconstruct all unimproved streets in 25 to 50 years
•Maintain all streets in their current configuration
•Maintain all streets in their current configuration and
reconstruct only street sections as determined by the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) based on a
recommended technical methodology that considers PCI,
traffic volumes and etc.
Reconstruct all unimproved streets in 25 to 50 years
•Approximately 91.4 lane miles (52.5 lane miles are non-local streets) of
unimproved streets within the network
•Estimated cost $1.8 million per lane mile (today’s dollars)
•Estimated cost of $3.3 to $6.7 million (today’s dollars) needed annually to fund
reconstruction of unimproved streets. This is in addition to the funding
needed to only maintain the existing street network.
•Includes provisions for drainage systems, pedestrian amenities, turn lanes and
other capacity improvements
Long-term M&R Options for Streets
Maintain all streets in their current configuration and continue
the practice of renewing the surface on a periodic basis
•Approximately 91.4 lane miles of unimproved streets and
approximately 191.6 lane miles of improved streets
•Estimated cost of $3 million (today’s dollars) needed annually to fund
the maintenance of the system in its current status
•Does not include any provisions for drainage systems, pedestrian
amenities, turn lanes, and other capacity improvements
Long-term M&R Options for Streets
Maintain all streets in their current configuration and only
reconstruct street sections as determined by the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP)
•Estimated cost of $3 million (today’s dollars) needed annually to
fund maintenance of the system in its current status
•Additional funding would be necessary for any street improvement
project that results in the reconstruction of the roadway
(warranted by capacity, safety, drainage, pedestrian and/or
intersection improvements)
Long-term M&R Options for Streets
Seek City Council guidance on the different long-term
maintenance and reconstruction methods that may be used to
address the street network
•Reconstruct all unimproved streets in 25 to 50 years
•Maintain all streets in their current configuration
•Maintain all streets in their current configuration and reconstruct
only street sections as determined by the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) based on a recommended technical methodology
that considers PCI, traffic volumes and etc.
Long-term M&R Options for Streets
FY 2015 Street Maintenance Budget
Miscellaneous concrete repairs $461,000
Materials for Tarrant County Project $265,097
Two Colleyville-owned signal upgrades $ 66,120
Annual renewal of pavement markings $100,000
White Chapel Road bridge repairs $150,000
Bedford Road retaining wall replacement $350,163
Preventive maintenance (Microseal -Highland Meadows Subdivision)$100,000
Total $1,492,380
Balance available for unprogrammed street projects $1,507,620
Approved fiscal year 2015 budget includes $3 million for programmed
street maintenance
What does $1.5 million buy?
Approximately 0.41 miles (two lanes, 31’ in total width) of reconstruction
•Enhanced pedestrian mobility (sidewalks and trails)
•Curbs, gutters, and drainage
OR
Approximately 2.13 miles (two lanes, 24’ in total width) of full-depth (6” pavement)
reclamation
•25 year pavement with stabilized subgrade
•No pedestrian mobility improvements or drainage improvements
OR
Approximately 3.55 miles (two lanes, 24’ in total width) of 4” mill and overlay
•12-15 year pavement
•No pedestrian mobility improvements or drainage improvements
OR
Approximately 6.27 miles (two lanes, 24’ in total width) of 2” mill and overlay
•5 year pavement
•No pedestrian mobility improvements or drainage improvement
Current Maintenance Needs
Street Sections
(These streets represent a sampling of the identified needs throughout the
network)
•Cheek-Sparger Road (various locations)
•Pleasant Run Road (various locations)
•John McCain Road (various locations)
•Bandit Trail (John McCain to Overland Trail)
•Glade Road (various locations)
•Bedford Road (various locations)
•Westcoat Drive
•Montclair Drive
•Tinker Road (various locations)
•L.D. Lockett Road
•Roberts Road
•Bransford Road
•Bluebonnet Drive
Staff Recommendations
Street Section Recommended Technique Estimated
Cost
Last Technique
Applied
Pleasant Run Road Mill and Overlay
$285,000 2004
2” Mill and Overlay(L.D. Lockett to John McCain Road)(Short-term solution, planned to be
reconstructed in 2019 and high traffic
volumes)(Lowest PCI = 31,Weighted Avg = 45)
(ADT=6,988)
Cheek-Sparger Road*Full-Depth Reclamation
$95,000 Newly incorporated to
City (O-12-1828)(East city Limit to approx. 700’ west) (Long-term solution and high traffic volumes)
(Lowest PCI = NA,Weighted Avg = NA)
(ADT=12,265)
Cheek-Sparger Road Full-Depth Reclamation
$437,500 Partially done in 2008
2” Mill and Overlay(Brown Trail to Bedford Road)(Long-term solution and high traffic volumes)
(Lowest PCI =32,Weighted Avg = 49)
(ADT=12,265)
Cheek-Sparger Road Full-Depth Reclamation
$215,000 2004 and 2005
2” Mill and Overlay(Jackson Road to Spring Hollow)(Long-term solution and high traffic volumes)
(Lowest PCI = 43, Weighted Avg = 70)
(ADT=12,265)
John McCain Road Full-Depth Reclamation
$275,000 2005
2” Mill and Overlay(Pleasant Run Road to Shalimar Court) (Long-term solution and high traffic volumes)
(Lowest PCI = 26,Weighted Avg = 46)
(ADT=6,743)
* This section of pavement was not included in the data collection for the Pavement Analysis which determines the PCI value
Pleasant Run Road
(L.D. Lockett to John McCain Road)
Cheek-Sparger Road
(East city limit to approximately 700’ to
the west)
Cheek-Sparger Road
(Brown Trail to Bedford Road)
Cheek-Sparger Road
(Jackson Road to Spring Hollow)
John McCain Road
(Pleasant Run Road to Shalimar Court)
2015
Staff Recommendations
•Seek City Council guidance on long-term maintenance
and reconstruction methods that may be used to address
the street network
•Seek City Council concurrence on staff recommendations
for the use of 2015 street maintenance funds
Summary
Questions and Discussion
20
012
Cit
2 Pa
y of
vem
May
Colle
men
31, 20
eyvill
nt A
012
le
Analysiss
Page 2 of 26
Table of Contents
Project Description ........................................................................................ 4
City of Colleyville - Pavement Management Program .......................................... 7
Difference Between the PCI and the OCI .......................................................... 8
Roadway Network Condition and Findings ........................................................ 9
Summary of the Roadway Network Condition .................................................. 19
Maintenance Techniques .............................................................................. 21
Reconstruction ....................................................................................... 21
Rehabilitation ........................................................................................ 21
Mill and Overlay ..................................................................................... 21
Micro-Resurfacing .................................................................................. 21
Crack Sealing ........................................................................................ 21
Maintenance Techniques and the Relation to the PCI/OCI ................................. 23
Rehabilitation Plan and Budget Development .................................................. 24
Fix All Life Cycle Analysis ......................................................................... 24
Simple Asphalt Street Life Costs ............................................................... 25
Summary and Recommendations .................................................................. 26
Page 3 of 26
Index of Illustrations
Figure 1 - Deterioration Curve ........................................................................ 5
Figure 2 - Pavement Life Cycle ....................................................................... 6
Figure 3 - Roadway Classification Distribution ................................................... 9
Figure 4 - Roadway Material Distribution .......................................................... 9
Figure 5 - All Streets PCI/OCI Distribution ...................................................... 10
Figure 6 - Local Streets PCI/OCI Distribution .................................................. 11
Figure 7 - Non-Local Streets PCI/OCI Distribution ............................................ 12
Figure 8 - Concrete Streets PCI/OCI Distribution ............................................. 13
Figure 9 - Concrete Local Streets PCI/OCI Distribution ..................................... 14
Figure 10 - Concrete Non-Local Streets PCI/OCI Distribution ............................. 15
Figure 11 - Asphalt Streets PCI/OCI Distribution ............................................. 16
Figure 12 - Asphalt Local Streets PCI/OCI Distribution ..................................... 17
Figure 13 - Asphalt Non-Local Streets PCI/OCI Distribution ............................... 18
Figure 14 - Summary of Conditions ............................................................... 20
Figure 15 - Maintenance Techniques .............................................................. 22
Figure 16 - PCI/OCI as it Relates to Maintenance ............................................ 23
Figure 17 - Fix All Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................. 25
Figure 18 - Simplified Asphalt Street Life Cost Analysis .................................... 25
Page 4 of 26
Project Description
Streets are one of the largest assets owned and maintained by municipal, state,
and federal governments. The City of Colleyville is responsible for the maintenance
and upkeep of over 282 lane miles of publicly-owned streets. This does not include
the streets in private subdivisions that are maintained by Home Owners
Associations, nor does it include Colleyville Boulevard, which is maintained by the
Texas Department of Transportation. At a replacement cost in excess of $500,000
dollars per lane mile, not including the value of the land, the City of Colleyville has
over $150 million invested in its network.
Preservation of the existing street system has become a major priority for the City
of Colleyville. However, there is limited funding available to maintain the current
street system and the current maintenance needs largely outweigh the available
funding. This is due, in part, to the fact that many of Colleyville’s streets were built
by the county prior to the City becoming incorporated, and they were not built to
accommodate modern day urban traffic. In order to optimize the funds that are
available, the Department of Public Works is in the process of implementing a
pavement management program as part of an overall infrastructure management
plan. A pavement management program, when used properly, has been proven to
assist decision-makers in optimizing the use of available maintenance and
reconstruction funds. The City of Colleyville Pavement Management Program
(CPMP) is in the first stages of development and will be an ongoing process that will
continue to evolve and be refined as needed to provide the best possible results.
Pavement management is the process of planning, budgeting, designing, funding,
constructing, maintaining, rehabilitating, monitoring, and evaluating the street
network to provide the maximum benefits with the available funding. The CPMP is
a set of guidelines and methodologies that will assist decision makers in
determining optimum strategies for extending the useful life of existing pavement
as long as possible. The key to this is to ensure streets are constructed to existing
standards when they are first built, and then applying the proper maintenance or
rehabilitation techniques during their useful life. As shown in Figure 1, streets that
receive preventive maintenance when they are in good condition will cost less over
their lifetime than streets that are allowed to deteriorate to a poor condition. In the
absence of an adequate routine pavement maintenance program, streets require
more frequent reconstruction, thereby costing millions of extra dollars.
As can
conditio
hence t
are the
success
perform
rehabilit
long ter
in Figur
thresho
then de
required
The CPM
program
the inev
target z
steep p
extends
reconstr
then all
service.
through
activitie
be seen in
on become
he rate of
e strength
ful pavem
mance mod
tation strat
rm cost sav
re 1, pav
ld. A $1 in
eferring m
d just a few
MP will ass
ms and bud
vitable tota
zone for co
art of its d
s the pave
ruction. T
locate the
Figure 2
h the app
es.
Fi
n Figure 1,
s unaccep
f deteriorat
of the ro
ent manag
del of the
tegies. Th
vings and
vements ty
nvestment
aintenance
w years lat
sist staff in
dgets. The
al reconstr
ost effective
deterioratio
ment life,
The goal of
funds to
2 illustrate
plication o
igure 1 - D
pavement
table. Fo
tion, is dep
oadway str
gement pr
pavement
he resultan
a slower r
ypically de
after 40%
e until mo
er.
n developi
e key is to
ruction as
e rehabilita
on curve,
at a mini
f the CPMP
keep the
es the con
f timely
Deterioratio
t quality d
or each str
pendent on
ructure an
rogram is
t, and the
t benefits
rate of dete
eteriorate
% of pavem
ore costly
ng long-te
develop p
long as pr
ation. Tha
application
mum cost
P is to iden
roadway
ncept of ex
preventive
on Curve
drops over
reet, the s
n many fa
nd traffic
to develop
n identify
of this exe
erioration o
rapidly o
ent lifespa
rehabilitat
erm mainte
policies and
ractical, ye
at is, as ea
n of a mai
, puts off
tify the op
network a
xtending t
e mainten
time until
shape of t
actors, fore
loading.
p a reaso
the optim
ercise are
over time.
nce they
an is much
tion or rec
enance and
d practices
et still rem
ch street a
intenance
costly reh
ptimal rene
at a satisfa
the useful
nance and
Page 5
the pavem
the curve,
emost of w
The key
nably accu
mal timing
realized by
As illustr
hit a spe
more effe
constructio
d rehabilita
that will d
main within
approaches
technique
habilitation
ewal strate
actory leve
pavement
rehabilita
of 26
ment
and
which
to a
urate
and
y the
rated
ecific
ctive
on is
ation
delay
n the
s the
that
and
gies,
el of
t life
ation
Fi
igure 2 - Paavement LLife Cycle
Page 6 of 26
Page 7 of 26
City of Colleyville - Pavement Management Program
The CPMP is a new system that is currently being developed by city staff to ensure
that the available funding for street maintenance is used to its fullest extent. The
CPMP includes several steps that include:
Assessment of existing street conditions
Analysis of the data collected in the condition assessment
Development of an Overall Condition Index (OCI)
Establishment of Acceptable Level of Services
Development of budgets
Execution of plans
The City of Colleyville used the services of Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA),
a national engineering firm, to perform the initial step of the CPMP. ARA was hired
by the City last December to perform a pavement condition assessment and
provide the City with a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for every public street in
the City. The street system was broken into approximately 1,400 individual street
segments. ARA took measurements of every public street and assigned a rating of
0 to 100 for each street surveyed. The PCI is a rating of the surface condition of
the street only. It does not take into account any other factors, such as pavement
thickness, or street width, which contributes to the overall condition of the street.
In order to accurately predict the performance of Colleyville’s streets over time, and
develop realistic performance curves, this process will need to be repeated every
three years.
The next step of the CPMP is to analyze the data provide by ARA and establish an
OCI that takes into account more than just the pavement surface condition. City
staff has developed an OCI that takes into account the PCI, the width of pavement,
the pavement thickness, structural stability, safety, and drainage. The average
daily traffic was not considered in the development of the OCI, as the average daily
traffic will be accounted for in the establishment of the acceptable level of services.
The OCI is a numerical value of 0 to 100 that takes the above mentioned factors
into consideration to better represent the status of a particular street segment.
This rating is a tool that will be used to assist in the development of maintenance
programs. The OCI and PCI should be used together in the decision-making
process, as both of these ratings provide useful data.
Page 8 of 26
Difference Between the PCI and the OCI
The OCI was developed in order to look beyond just the surface condition of a
street and provide a rating that more accurately reflects the overall status of a
street segment. The factors and their weighting that contribute to the OCI are:
Pavement Condition Index (40%)
Pavement Section Thickness (20%)
Pavement Width (10%)
Presence of Curb and Gutters (10%)
Stabilized Subgrade (10%)
Existing Roadside Ditch Safety (10%)
By establishing the OCI, a rating system is developed that looks at several factors,
not just the surface conditions. However, it should be used in conjunction with the
PCI as both the OCI and PCI only tell a portion of the story when they are viewed
independently. When the PCI and OCI are viewed together a more complete
picture is given as to the condition of the street segment. A street segment may
have a high PCI and a low OCI and vice versa. By looking at both of the values in
conjunction with each other a much more detailed understanding of the conditions
can be determined.
As an example, a portion of Lavaca Trail has a PCI of 13 and an OCI of 25. The
basis for this is that the street segment has shallow ditch lines that act as a
shoulder (10 points) the pavement width is approximately 20 feet, sufficient for two
full lanes of traffic (5 points), the pavement thickness is 2” (5 points) and the PCI is
13 (5 points). Here the OCI equates to 25. By looking at both the PCI and OCI it
can be determined that the existing pavement is in bad condition and needs to be
replaced (PCI is too low to justify any maintenance technique other than complete
reconstruction) but the street cross section may be safer than some street sections
with a higher PCI.
Another example is L.D. Lockett Road, which has a section of street that was
rehabilitated as part of the 2011 Street Rehabilitation Project. It has a PCI of 100
and an OCI of 70. The basis for this difference in the two values is the street
segment has deep ditch lines and no shoulders (0 points), this segment does not
have curbs and gutters (0 points), the pavement width is approximately 24 feet (10
points), the pavement thickness is 4.0” (10 points), the base was stabilized during
the rehabilitation (10 points), and the PCI is 100 (40 points). Therefore, the OCI
equates to 70. By looking at both the PCI and the OCI it can be seen that the
existing pavement is new and in good condition, the street does not meet current
standards, and there are needs along this street section that go beyond the
pavement condition (width of pavement, drainage system).
Roadw
The Cit
collecto
and coll
Colleyvi
Figure 4
materia
way Net
ty of Colle
rs, and loc
ectors will
lle’s street
4, presente
l, either as
twork C
eyville has
cal (reside
be combin
t system is
ed below,
sphalt or co
Figure
Figure 3 -
Conditio
s over 282
ntial) stree
ned and lab
shown in F
shows the
oncrete.
4 - Roadw
Concrete
51%
Non‐Local
27%
Roadway
n and F
2 lane mi
ets. For th
beled as no
Figure 3.
e distributi
way Materia
Classificat
indings
les of stre
he purpose
on-local str
ion of pav
al Distribut
Asph
49%
Local
73%
tion Distrib
s
eets, inclu
e of this re
reets. The
vement bas
tion
halt
%
bution
Page 9
uding arter
eport, arte
e distributio
sed on typ
of 26
rials,
erials
on of
pe of
Figure 5
complet
OCI for
respecti
be made
T
re
A
M
th
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0
5, presente
te street n
r the entir
ively. From
e:
This PCI an
easonably
A large port
More than 1
he streets
0 to 10 10 to
ed below, s
etwork in
rety of the
m the PCI a
d OCI valu
good cond
tion of the
12% of the
in that ran
Figure 5
o 20 20 to 30
(
shows the
the City o
e City of
and OCI di
ues show t
ition
network h
e system h
ge have fa
5 - All Stre
0 30 to 40 4
Al
(100% o
distribution
f Colleyvill
Colleyville
istribution,
that the ov
as a PCI/O
has a PCI/
ailed and ne
ets PCI/OC
40 to 50 50 to
ll Streets
f the Ne
PCI OCI
n of the PC
le. The av
street sy
, several b
verall cond
OCI rating o
/OCI rating
eed to be r
CI Distribu
o 60 60 to 70
s
etwork)
CI’s and th
verage wei
ystem is 7
road gener
ition of the
of 70 or be
g below 50
reconstruct
ution
0 70 to 80 8
Page 10
e OCI’s for
ighted PCI
76.4 and 7
ralizations
e network
etter (71.5%
0, which m
ted
80 to 90 90 to
of 26
r the
and
74.2,
may
is in
%)
eans
o 100
Figure 6
local str
OCI for
From th
L
T
(7
M
in
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0
6, presente
reets within
r the local
he PCI/OCI
ocal street
The majorit
76%)
More than 9
n that rang
0 to 10 10 to
ed below, s
n the stree
street seg
distributio
ts are, for t
ty of the l
9% of the
ge have fail
Figure 6
o 20 20 to 30
(
shows the
et network
gments of
on, several
the most p
local stree
system ha
led and ne
- Local Str
0 30 to 40 4
Loc
73.0% o
distribution
in Colleyvi
the syste
broad gen
art, in goo
t network
s a rating
ed to be re
reets PCI/O
40 to 50 50 to
cal Stree
of the Ne
PCI OCI
n of the PC
ille. The a
em is 77.3
neralization
od condition
has a PCI
below 50,
econstructe
OCI Distrib
o 60 60 to 70
ets
etwork)
CI’s and th
verage we
3 and 77.0
ns may be
n overall
I/OCI ratin
which mea
ed
bution
0 70 to 80 8
Page 11
e OCI’s for
eighted PCI
0, respectiv
made:
ng above a
ans the str
80 to 90 90 to
of 26
r the
I and
vely.
a 70
reets
o 100
Figure 7
non-loca
and OCI
is 74.1
generali
T
T
T
st
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0
7, presente
al streets w
I for the no
1 and 68
izations ma
The non-loc
The percent
The PCI/OC
tandard
F
0 to 10 10 to
ed below, s
within the s
on-local st
8.9, respe
ay be mad
cal streets
tage of non
CI values
Figure 7 - N
o 20 20 to 30
(2
shows the
street netw
reet segme
ectively.
e:
have an ov
n-local stre
indicate th
Non-Local S
0 30 to 40 40
Non‐L
27.0% of
distribution
work in Col
ents of the
From th
verall good
eets with a
hat many
Streets PCI
0 to 50 50 to
Local Stre
f the Ne
PCI OCI
n of the PC
lleyville. T
e City of Co
he PCI/OC
d rating (59
PCI/OCI o
non-local
I/OCI Dist
o 60 60 to 70
eets
etwork)
CI’s and th
The average
olleyville ro
CI distrib
9.8% abov
of 50 or les
streets ar
tribution
70 to 80 80
Page 12
e OCI’s for
e weighted
oadway sys
ution, sev
e 70)
ss is 18.46%
re not bui
0 to 90 90 to
of 26
r the
d PCI
stem
veral
%
lt to
100
Figure 8
concrete
concrete
distribut
T
B
V
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0
8, presente
e streets w
e street s
tion, some
The concret
Because the
Very few co
F
0 to 10 10 to
ed below, s
within the
segments
generaliza
te streets i
e concrete
oncrete stre
Figure 8 - C
o 20 20 to 30
(5
shows the
network.
is 81.1 a
ations may
n the netw
streets are
eet segmen
Concrete S
0 30 to 40 4
Concr
50.7% o
distribution
The avera
nd 84.3,
y be made:
work are in
e newer, th
nts are in n
Streets PCI
0 to 50 50 to
rete Stre
f the Ne
PCI OCI
n of the PC
age weigh
respective
very good
hey bring t
need of ma
I/OCI Distr
o 60 60 to 70
eets
etwork)
CI’s and th
ted PCI an
ely. From
condition
the network
ajor repairs
ribution
0 70 to 80 8
Page 13
e OCI’s for
nd OCI for
m the PCI/
k average
s
80 to 90 90 to
of 26
r the
r the
/OCI
up
100
Figure 9
concrete
concrete
84.0, re
may be
T
T
F
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
9, present
e local stre
e local stre
espectively
made:
The local co
The local co
ew street s
Figu
0 to 10 10 to
ed below,
eets within
eet segmen
y. From t
oncrete stre
oncrete stre
segments a
ure 9 - Con
o 20 20 to 30
(
shows the
Colleyville
nts of the C
he PCI/OC
eets in the
eets are ne
are in need
ncrete Loca
0 30 to 40 4
Concret
(43.8% o
e distributi
e. The ave
City of Coll
CI distribut
network a
ewer and h
d of major
al Streets P
40 to 50 50 to
te Local S
of the Ne
PCI OCI
ion of the
erage weig
eyville roa
tion, sever
are in very
help bring t
repairs
PCI/OCI D
o 60 60 to 70
Streets
etwork)
PCI’s and
hted PCI a
dway syste
ral broad
good cond
the networ
Distribution
0 70 to 80
Page 14
d OCI’s for
and OCI for
em is 81.1
generalizat
dition
rk average
n
80 to 90 90 t
of 26
r the
r the
1 and
tions
up
o 100
Figure 1
concrete
streets
OCI for
system
generali
T
T
F
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
10, presen
e non-loca
comprise o
the concr
is 80.7 an
izations ma
The concret
The concret
ew street s
Figure
0 to 10 10 to
ted below,
l streets i
only 6.9%
rete non-lo
d 86.3, res
ay be mad
te streets i
te streets a
segments a
10 - Concr
o 20 20 to 30
Co
, shows th
n the City
of the tot
ocal street
spectively.
e:
n the netw
are newer a
are in need
rete Non-L
0 30 to 40 4
oncrete
(6.9% o
he distribut
. It should
tal networ
segments
From the
work are in
and help b
d of major
Local Stree
40 to 50 50 t
Non‐Loc
of the Ne
PCI OCI
tion of the
d be noted
k. The av
of the Cit
e PCI/OCI d
very good
ring the ne
repairs
ets PCI/OC
o 60 60 to 7
cal Stree
etwork)
e PCI’s and
d that non
verage wei
ty of Colle
distribution
condition
etwork ave
CI Distribut
07 0 to 80
ets
)
Page 15
d OCI’s for
-local conc
ighted PCI
eyville road
n, the follo
erage up
tion
80 to 90 90 t
of 26
r the
crete
and
dway
wing
to 100
Figure 1
asphalt
asphalt
respecti
made:
T
A
N
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
11, presen
streets w
street seg
ively. From
The asphalt
A good port
Nearly 50%
F
0 to 10 10 t
ted below,
ithin the n
ments of t
m the PCI/
t street por
tion of the
% of the non
Figure 11 -
to 20 20 to 30
, shows th
network.
the City of
/OCI distri
rtion of the
asphalt ne
n-local net
- Asphalt S
0 30 to 40 4
Asp
(49.3% o
he distribut
The avera
Colleyville
ibution, the
e network b
etwork is ra
work is rat
Streets PCI
40 to 50 50 t
halt Stre
of the N
PCI OCI
tion of the
age weight
e roadway
e following
brings the
ated below
ted below 7
I/OCI Distr
to 60 60 to 7
eets
etwork)
e PCI’s and
ted PCI an
system is
g generaliz
network av
50 (23.0%
70 (48.6%
ribution
707 0 to 80
)
Page 16
d OCI’s for
nd OCI for
71.7 and 6
zations ma
verage dow
%)
)
80 to 90 90
of 26
r the
r the
63.8,
y be
wn
to 100
Figure 1
asphalt
segmen
distribut
T
A
N
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0
12, presen
local stree
ts in the n
tion indicat
The asphalt
A good port
Nearly 55%
Figu
0 to 10 10 to
ted below,
ets. The
etwork is 7
tes that:
t street por
tion of the
% (54.6%) o
ure 12 - As
o 20 20 to 30
A
(2
, shows th
average w
71.9 and 6
rtion of the
asphalt ne
of the loca
sphalt Loca
0 30 to 40
Asphalt
29.2% of
he distribut
weighted P
66.7, respe
e network b
etwork is ra
l asphalt st
al Streets P
40 to 50 50
Local St
f the Net
PCI OC
tion of the
PCI and OC
ectively. A
brings the
ated below
treets have
PCI/OCI D
to 60 60 to
treets
twork)
I
e PCI’s and
CI for the
n analysis
network av
50 (21.1%
e a rating a
Distribution
70 70 to 80
Page 17
d OCI’s for
asphalt st
of the PCI/
verage dow
%)
above 70
n
80 to 90 9
of 26
r the
treet
/OCI
wn
90 to 100
Figure 1
asphalt
average
respecti
T
a
A
N
T
c
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
13, presen
non-local
e weighted
ively. The
The asphal
verage dow
A good port
Nearly 50%
There is a la
urrent stan
Figure
0 to 10 10 to
ted below,
streets wit
PCI and O
PCI/OCI d
t non-loca
wn
tion of the
% (49.7%) o
arge portio
ndards (the
e 13 - Asph
o 20 20 to 30
, shows th
thin the roa
OCI for th
istribution
al street p
non-local a
of the non-
on of the n
e OCI is mu
halt Non-Lo
0 30 to 40 4
Asphalt
(20.0%
he distribut
adway netw
e asphalt
reveals th
portion of
asphalt net
-local asph
on-local as
uch lower t
ocal Street
40 to 50 50 t
t Non‐Lo
% of the
PCI OCI
tion of the
work in th
street seg
e following
the netw
twork is ra
halt networ
sphalt stre
than the PC
ts PCI/OCI
to 60 60 to 7
ocal Stre
Networ
e PCI’s and
e City of C
ments is 7
g:
work brings
ted below
rk is rated
ets that we
CI)
I Distributi
707 0 to 80
eets
rk)
Page 18
d OCI’s for
Colleyville.
71.8 and 6
s the netw
50 (22.9%
above 70
ere not bu
ion
80 to 90 90
of 26
r the
The
62.9,
work
%)
ilt to
to 100
Page 19 of 26
Summary of the Roadway Network Condition
Looking at the PCI and OCI for the entire network gives a quick look at the overall
condition of the network and shows a street network that is in reasonably good
overall condition. However, when looking closer at the data, it shows that the
network is overloaded with street segments on the high end of the rating system
(local concrete streets) and that brings up the entire network average. This makes
sense when examining history of how the City of Colleyville developed.
Most concrete streets are relatively new and were constructed to the
standard required by the Land Development Code
A good portion of the asphalt street network was inherited by the City and
has never been built to standard (low ratings and OCIs lower than PCIs)
Colleyville grew rapidly in the 1990s and 2000s, resulting in a lot of new
streets being constructed
Colleyville has several asphalt street sections that have insufficient pavement
thickness that results in a street section that deteriorates rapidly
Even though on average the network is rated in the mid-seventies, it should be
noted that a significant number of the streets are rated below 50. These streets
are already beyond their useful life and maintenance funds should be limited on
those streets until such time that they can be completely reconstructed. Once a
street deteriorates to that level, the integrity of the street is compromised and the
remaining useful life is greatly diminished. A summary of the street conditions can
be seen in Figure 14 which shows the percentage of street sections that are rated
Good (71-100), Fair (51-70), and Poor (0 to 50). The City of Colleyville should
focus on the maintenance of higher rated streets and the reconstruction of lower
rated streets.
Page 20 of 26
Local (73%) Non-Local (27%)
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
(
5
1
%
)
44% of System
7% of System
As
p
h
a
l
t
(
4
9
%
)
29% of System
20% of System
0 to 50 51 to 70 71 to 100
Figure 14 - Summary of Conditions
OCI
PCI
OCI
PCI
OCI
PCI
OCI
PCI
Page 21 of 26
Maintenance Techniques
The City of Colleyville uses several types of maintenance techniques on its streets.
Each technique differs in cost, effectiveness, application, and functionality. It is
essential that the right technique be utilized at the right time in order to receive the
most effective use of the maintenance funds. The maintenance techniques are
summarized in Figure 15.
Reconstruction
Reconstruction is the maintenance technique that results in the roadway being
completely rebuilt to current Land Development Code standards including utilities,
drainage, and curb and gutter. All existing pavement will be removed or can be
recycled for use as a new sub-base. The street will be widened to meet the
development code standards as established in the Master Thoroughfare Plan. This
technique is the most expensive, but provides a new street section that meets all
standards and with proper maintenance can last at least 50 years.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is the maintenance technique that results in the current street
segment being rebuilt in its current configuration. This involves the stabilization of
the existing base material and placement of a new pavement section. This
rehabilitated street segment may or may not meet current standards. This
technique is a cost effective way to revive a current street section; however, it does
not address anything other than pavement, and should only be used where
applicable.
Mill and Overlay
Mill and overlay is the maintenance technique that results in the current street
segment being given a new surface in its current configuration. This involves the
removal of the top surface of pavement (normally two inches) and the placement a
new top layer of pavement. This should only be used in areas where the existing
pavement thickness is sufficient and the subgrade is in good condition.
Micro-Resurfacing
Micro-resurfacing is a cost effective way to address surface issues with asphalt
pavement. This involves the placement of a very thin asphalt sand and oil emulsion
that seals the existing pavement and slows its rate of deterioration. This should
only be used on street segments that are in good overall condition and only have
minor surface issues.
Crack Sealing
Crack sealing is used as a first defense against pavement deterioration because it
offers several important benefits. Effective crack sealing keeps water from entering
and weakening the base or sub-base. It helps preserve the pavement adjacent to
the cracks; prevents sand, stone, and dirt from making its way into open cracks
causing compressive stresses; and extends pavement life by minimizing crack
growth.
Page 22 of 26
Proper attention to cracks will prevent problems from spreading and extend the life
of the pavement. Pavement repair in the early stages of deterioration will pay big
dividends later by delaying costly resurfacing. This is the only maintenance
technique that is performed by city staff. All other techniques are more cost
effectively performed by contractors hired by the City.
Maintenance
Technique
Cost/SY
Application Benefits Constraints PCI/OCI
Change
Reconstruction
$55
This technique is the complete
removal of the existing street
and building a new street system
to the current standards,
including drainage systems,
curbs and gutters, and anything
else required to bring it up to the
current Land Development Code
standard
Brings the street segment
to current standards, and
if properly maintained can
be expected to last at
least 50 years.
Most expensive
technique requires
the most traffic
interruption and
will often require
additional rights-of-
ways.
Resets
PCI and
OCI to
100
Rehabilitation
$28
This technique is used to rebuild
the street segment using the
existing roadway by reworking
the subgrade and constructing a
new pavement section.
Brings the street surface
to the highest rating and
has reduced traffic
interruptions. This
method addresses
Subgrade issues. Possible
15-18 year life extension.
Does not address
the street width or
the drainage
system needs.
Often will result in
a street that does
not meet the
minimum
standards.
Brings
PCI to
100 and
raises OCI
somewhat
Mill and
Overlay
$12
This technique can be used if the
existing pavement and subgrade
is in good condition There must
be adequate pavement
thickness, and the street is just
in need of a new surface. A mill
and overlay is used to remove
the top portion of pavement,
usually 2", and replace it.
Brings the street surface
to the highest rating and
has minimal traffic
interruptions. Possible 10
year life extension.
Does not address
the street width or
the drainage
system needs. This
technique can only
be used where
there is adequate
pavement thickness
and the subgrade is
in good condition.
Brings
PCI to
100 and
raises OCI
slightly
Micro-
Resurfacing/
Slurry Seal
$3.30
This technique involves the
placement of a very thin asphalt
sand and oil emulsion that seals
the existing pavement and slows
its rate of deterioration.
Gives the street segment
a "Like New" appearance,
and removes surface
flaws. Slows the rate of
deterioration of the
pavement.
Only addresses
surfaces flaws and
does not address
any structural
issues that are
present in the
pavement.
Raises
PCI and
OCI
slightly
Crack Sealing
$0.06
This is currently being performed
by the Department of Public
Works staff and is a preventive
maintenance technique.
This seals the existing
pavement and extends the
service life. This is part of
the current maintenance
program.
Only addresses
surface cracks and
does not improve
the street segment.
Only slows the
deterioration.
No
Change
Figure 15 - Maintenance Techniques
Page 23 of 26
Maintenance Techniques and the Relation to the PCI/OCI
The proper application of the correct maintenance technique is essential to get the
most benefit from the available funds. The PCI/OCI values help in determining the
best maintenance technique for a particular section of street. The figure below
shows the common maintenance techniques within a range of PCI/OCI, as well as
the approximate remaining life of the pavement. It should be noted that the
relative remaining life presented in the table is not the same as pavement age.
Remaining pavement life is the timeframe, expressed in years, in which a street
section will provide a useful street (if properly maintained) before rehabilitation or
reconstruction needs to be done. The relative remaining life can be exceeded with
no rehabilitation or maintenance, and the pavement will continue to deteriorate
until it eventually returns to gravel or is unserviceable.
PCI/OCI
Condition
Description Recommended Activities
Potential
Remaining Life
100
Excellent Routine Maintenance Activities 25 to 50 Years 95
90
85
Good Micro-Resurfacing 15 to 30 Years 80
75
70
65
Fair Mill and Overlay, Rehabilitation,
Reconstruction 7 to 20 Years
60
55
50
45
40
Poor
Full Reconstruction is preferred,
Rehabilitation may be an option,
depending on the OCI
0 to 10 Years
35
30
25
20
15
Very Poor 10
5
0
Figure 16 - PCI/OCI as it Relates to Maintenance
Page 24 of 26
Rehabilitation Plan and Budget Development
Several methodologies exist for determining the annual cost to maintain the
network PCI/OCI at the current level of 76.4 and 74.2, respectively. A pavement
management software program was not available at the time of the analysis.
Therefore, a simplified method was used to determine a rough estimate until such
time as a computer aided calculation can be performed. The method that will be
used to perform this calculation is referred to as Fix All Life Cycle Analysis. In order
to validate the results of the Fix All Life Cycle Analysis a separate calculation will be
performed that is referred to as the Asphalt Street Life Costs.
Fix All Life Cycle Analysis
The Fix All Life Cycle Analysis involves a calculation that takes into account each
street segment and the appropriate maintenance technique required, as well as, the
life cycle of that technique. The cost of each maintenance technique is determined
for the entire network and is divided by the expected life cycle for the chosen
maintenance technique and the entire network summed up. For example, the Fix
All Life Cycle Analysis for Micro-Resurfacing is estimated at $3.4 million and has an
anticipated life cycle of 10 years. Thus the total contribution to the steady state
budget would be $3.4 million divided by 10 years which is equal to $340,000
annually. The cost to maintain the network PCI/OCI at the current level of 76.4 and
74.2, respectively is estimated at $2,720,000 annually. The following table shows
the breakdown of this calculation.
Asphalt Streets
Maintenance
Technique
Percentage
of Asphalt
Network
Area (SY) Cost
($/SY)
Fix All
Estimate ($)
Life
Cycle
(Years)
Fix All Life
Cycle
Contribution
($/yr)
Full Reconstruction 21.35% 229,308 $55.00 $12,611,950 25 $504,478
Rehabilitation 25.63% 275,277 $28.00 $7,707,762 16 $481,735
Mill and Overlay 11.11% 119,326 $13.00 $1,551,240 8 $193,905
Micro-Resurfacing 41.91% 450,131 $3.30 $1,485,434 7 $212,205
General
Maintenance and
Crack Sealing NA NA NA $50,000 1 $50,000
Total = $1,440,000
Concrete Streets
Maintenance
Technique
Area % of
Concrete
Network
Area (SY) Cost
($/SY)
Fix All
Estimate ($)
Life
Cycle
(Years)
Fix All Life
Cycle
Contribution
($/yr)
Full Reconstruction 100.00% 1,074,043 $55.00 $59,072,365 50 $1,181,447
General
Maintenance and
Crack Sealing NA NA NA $100,000 1 $100,000
Total = $1,280,000
Asphalt Annual Cost $1,440,000
Concrete Annual Cost $1,280,000
Total Annual Cost $2,720,000
Page 25 of 26
Figure 17 - Fix All Life Cycle Analysis
Simple Asphalt Street Life Cost
A second method of calculation was used to validate the results of the Fix All Life
Cycle Analysis. This method is a simple approach to determine the cost of an
asphalt road over a 99 year period. During this time frame several maintenance
techniques will be applied the street section and are shown in the figure below.
Asphalt Road Life Cycle Cost
Maintenance
Technique $/SY Years Applied Number of Applications Total
Cost
Micro-Resurfacing $3.30
6, 12, 18, 30, 36, 42,
54, 60, 66, 78, 84, 90,
96
13 $42.90
Mill and Overlay $12.00 24, 48, 96 3 $36.00
Reconstruction $55.00 72 1 $55.00
Total Cost for 99 years of maintenance of a single square yard of asphalt paving = $133.90
Total Asphalt Cost per year = $1,452,600
Total Concrete Cost per year = $1,280,000
Total Annual Cost = $2,732,600
Figure 18 - Simplified Asphalt Street Life Cost Analysis
Two separate approaches were made to estimate the annual cost to maintain the
current PCI/OCI. The two approaches calculated a similar value and validated the
approach by yielding similar results. The cost to maintain the PCI/OCI is estimated
to be $2.7 million annually. This amount includes both maintenance projects and
total reconstruction projects. It should be noted that the $2.7 million annual
funding amount only maintains the current level of service and if the desire is to
raise the level of service, additional funds will be required.
In order to adjust the PCI/OCI up just one point, a $5.5 million investment would
need to be made. The $5.5 million amount is above and beyond the previously
stated $2.7 million that is required to maintain the status quo. This value was
determined by looking at the amount of reconstructed streets that would need to be
added to the network in order for the overall PCI/OCI to be adjusted upward by a
single point.
Page 26 of 26
Summary and Recommendations
The Colleyville Pavement Management Program is a new system that is being
developed to address the street network and insure that any available funding is
used to its fullest extent. The process of developing this system requires several
steps including:
Assessment of existing street conditions
Analysis of the data collected in the condition assessment
Development of an Overall Condition Index (OCI)
Establishment of Acceptable Level of Services
Development of budgets
Execution of plans
This document initiates the second and third step listed above. The analysis was
performed without the aid of a pavement management software package and once
a software program is in place, a more detailed analysis will be performed to
validate the results. It should also be noted that the software package will allow for
multiple budget scenarios that will allow staff to evaluate the outcome of different
funding amounts. It is also likely that the PCIs and OCIs used in this report will
change slightly due to the different algorithms used in the software program. An
updated report will be presented once the pavement management software is
available. The findings of this analysis conclude:
The street network of the City of Colleyville is in good condition overall
The amount of funding needed on an annual basis to maintain the current
system at the current PCI/OCI is estimated at $2.7 million
In order to raise the PCI/OCI a single point, an investment of $5.5 million
above and beyond the annual $2.7 million is required
The system will continue to deteriorate as it ages
Each PCI/OCI point lost is the equivalent of a $5.5 million dollar decrease in
value
The overall street network is in good condition. However, there are many street
sections that fall far below an acceptable level of service. It is noted that the
current funding levels for street maintenance are below the estimated required
amount of $2.7 million that is necessary to maintain the street system at its current
level. Without adequate maintenance and reconstruction, where appropriate, the
system will continue to deteriorate and each point that the overall rating decreases
is the equivalent to a $5.5 million dollar reduction in asset value. The CPMP, once
fully implemented, will ensure that the City Council has the information required to
make good quality resource allocation decisions.
20
014
Cit
4 Pa
y of
vem
Ma
Colle
men
y 2014
eyvill
nt A
4
le
Analysiss
Page 2 of 34
Table of Contents
Index of Illustrations ........................................................................... 3
Program Description ............................................................................ 4
Original Pavement Management Program ............................................... 7
Updated Pavement Management Program ............................................... 9
Overall Roadway Network Condition and Findings .................................. 10
Summary of the Roadway Network Condition ........................................ 14
Maintenance Techniques .................................................................... 22
Reconstruction .................................................................................. 22
Rehabilitation ................................................................................... 22
Mill and Overlay ................................................................................ 22
Micro-Resurfacing ............................................................................. 22
Crack Sealing ................................................................................... 22
Improvements to the Street Network Since the April 2012 Report ............ 26
Rehabilitation Plan and Budget Development ......................................... 30
Scenario Analysis .............................................................................. 32
Summary and Recommendations ........................................................ 34
Page 3 of 34
Index of Illustrations
Figure 1 – Deterioration Curve ........................................................................................... 5
Figure 2 – Pavement Life Cycle .......................................................................................... 6
Figure 3 – Lane Miles by Functional Class .................................................................... 10
Figure 4 – Total Area by Surface Type .......................................................................... 11
Figure 5 – Weighted Average PCI by Surface Type .................................................. 12
Figure 6 – Current PCI Map................................................................................................ 13
Figure 7 – PCI Segment Distribution .............................................................................. 14
Figure 8 – Miles by PCI Group .......................................................................................... 15
Figure 9 – Weighted Average PCI for the Street Network ..................................... 16
Figure 10 – Weighted Average PCI for the Street Network .................................. 17
Figure 11 – Streets with larger than expected PCI reductions ............................ 18
Figure 12 – Street with Green/Good PCI (70 to 100) ............................................. 19
Figure 13 – Street with Yellow/Fair PCI (50 to 70) .................................................. 19
Figure 14 – Street with Red/Poor PCI (0 to 50) ........................................................ 20
Figure 15 – Concrete Street PCI Distribution .............................................................. 20
Figure 16 – Asphalt Street PCI Distribution................................................................. 21
Figure 17 – Maintenance Techniques ............................................................................. 24
Figure 18 – PCI and recommended Maintenance Technique ................................ 25
Figure 19 – Weighted Average PCI for Asphalt Subdivisions ............................... 27
Figure 20 – Weighted Average PCI for Concrete Subdivisions ............................ 27
Figure 21 – Weighted Average PCI for Concrete and Asphalt Subdivisions ... 28
Figure 22 – Reinvestment Projects since Original CPMP Report ......................... 29
Figure 23 – Budget Needs (Inflation Rate of 5%, Interest Rate of 2%) .......... 31
Figure 24 – Maintenance Funding Levels and Projected PCI ................................ 32
Page 4 of 34
Program Description
Streets are one of the largest assets owned and maintained by municipal,
state, and federal governments. The City of Colleyville is responsible for the
maintenance and upkeep of over 283 lane miles of publicly-owned streets.
This does not include the streets in private subdivisions that are maintained
by homeowners associations, nor does it include Colleyville Boulevard, which
is maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation. At a replacement
cost in excess of $500,000 dollars per lane mile, not including the value of
the land, the City of Colleyville has over $150 million invested in its network.
Preservation of the existing street system has become a major priority for
the City of Colleyville. However, there is limited funding available to
maintain the current street system, and the current maintenance needs
outweigh the available funding. This is due, in part, to the fact that many of
Colleyville’s streets were built by the county prior to the City becoming
incorporated, and they were not built to accommodate modern day urban
traffic. In order to optimize the funds that are available, the Department of
Public Works has implemented a pavement management program as part of
an overall infrastructure management strategy. A pavement management
program, when used properly, has been proven to assist decision-makers in
optimizing the use of available maintenance and reconstruction funds. The
City of Colleyville Pavement Management Program (CPMP) was placed into
action with the initial Pavement Analysis that was performed in May of 2012.
This will be an ongoing process that will continue to evolve and be refined as
needed to provide the best possible results.
Pavement management is the process of planning, budgeting, designing,
funding, constructing, maintaining, rehabilitating, monitoring, and evaluating
the street network to provide the maximum benefits with the available
funding. The CPMP is a set of guidelines and methodologies that will assist
decision makers in determining optimum strategies for extending the useful
life of existing pavement as long as possible. The key to this is to ensure
streets are constructed to appropriate standards when they are first built,
and then applying the proper maintenance or rehabilitation techniques
during their useful life. As shown in Figure 1, streets that receive preventive
maintenance when they are in good condition will cost less over their lifetime
than streets that are allowed to deteriorate to a poor condition. In the
absence of an adequate routine pavement maintenance program, streets
require more frequent reconstruction, thereby costing millions of extra
dollars.
As can
paveme
curve,
factors,
traffic l
develop
then id
benefit
slower
typicall
investm
deferrin
require
The C
rehabili
practice
practica
rehabili
deterio
paveme
reconst
strateg
satisfac
be seen
ent condit
which re
, foremos
oading. T
p a reaso
dentify the
s of this
rate of de
y deterio
ment after
ng mainte
d just a fe
PMP will
itation pr
es that w
al, yet s
itation. T
ration cur
ent life,
truction. T
ies, then
ctory leve
Fi
in Figur
tion becom
presents
st of whic
he key to
onably acc
e optimal
exercise
eterioratio
orate rap
r 40% of
enance un
ew years l
assist s
rograms a
will delay
still rema
That is, a
rve, applic
at a mi
The goal
allocate
l of servic
igure 1 – D
re 1, pav
mes unacc
the rate
ch are the
a success
curate pe
timing an
are realiz
on over tim
idly once
f pavemen
ntil more
later.
staff in d
and budge
y the ine
ain withi
s each s
cation of a
nimum c
of the C
the fund
e.
Deterioratio
vement qu
ceptable. F
of deterio
e strength
sful pavem
erformance
nd rehabil
ed by the
me. As illu
e they h
nt lifespa
costly re
developing
ets. The
vitable to
n the ta
street app
a mainten
cost, puts
CPMP is t
ds to kee
on Curve
uality dro
For each s
oration, i
h of the r
ment man
e model
litation st
e long ter
ustrated in
it a spe
n is muc
ehabilitatio
g long-te
key is to
otal recon
arget zon
proaches
ance tech
s off cos
to identify
ep the ro
ps over t
street, the
s depend
roadway s
agement
of the pa
rategies.
rm cost s
n Figure 1
ecific thre
ch more e
on or reco
erm main
o develop
nstruction
ne for c
the stee
hnique tha
stly rehab
y the opt
oadway n
Page 5
time until
e shape of
ent on m
structure
program
avement,
The resul
savings an
1, pavem
eshold. A
effective t
onstructio
ntenance
p policies
n as long
cost effec
p part of
at extends
bilitation
timal rene
network a
of 34
the
f the
many
and
is to
and
ltant
nd a
ents
$1
then
on is
and
and
g as
ctive
f its
s the
and
ewal
at a
Figure
through
activitie
e 2 illustr
h the app
es.
rates the
lication of
Fi
concept
f timely p
igure 2 – P
of exten
preventive
Pavement L
nding the
e maintena
Life Cycle
useful p
ance and
Page 6
pavement
rehabilita
of 34
life
ation
Page 7 of 34
Original Pavement Management Program
The CPMP is a system for Colleyville that was initially placed in service in
April of 2012. The CPMP included several steps in its originally configuration
that included:
Assessment of existing street conditions
Analysis of the data collected in the condition assessment
Development of an Overall Condition Index (OCI)
Establishment of acceptable level of services
Development of budgets
Execution of plans
The City of Colleyville used the services of Applied Research Associates, Inc.
(ARA), a national engineering firm, to perform the initial step of the CPMP.
ARA was hired by the City in December of 2011 to perform the initial
pavement condition assessment and provide the City with a Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) for every public street in the City. This provided the
initial baseline, or data point, for every publicly maintained street segment.
The street system was broken into approximately 1,400 individual street
segments. The segments were developed based on natural break points
along individual streets, most likely intersections. ARA took measurements
of every public street and assigned a rating of 0 to 100 for each street
surveyed. The PCI is a rating of the surface condition of the street only. It
does not take into account any other factors, such as pavement thickness, or
street width, which contributes to the overall condition of the street. In order
to accurately predict the performance of Colleyville’s streets over time, and
develop realistic performance curves, this process will need to be repeated
on a regular basis, every two to three years, to provide additional data
points. ARA performed a second pavement condition assessment in October
of 2013. With this assessment, ARA again took measurements of every
public street and assigned a rating of 0 to 100 for each street surveyed.
The next step of the initial assessment was to analyze the data provided by
ARA and establish an OCI that takes into account more than just the
pavement surface condition. City staff developed an Overall Condition Index
(OCI) that takes into account the PCI, the width of pavement, the pavement
thickness, structural stability, safety, and drainage. The average daily traffic
was not considered in the development of the OCI, as the average daily
traffic was accounted for in the establishment of the acceptable level of
services. The OCI is a numerical value of 0 to 100 that takes the above
mentioned factors into consideration to represent the status of a particular
street segment. The OCI was developed in order to look beyond just the
surface condition of a street and provide a rating that more accurately
reflects the overall status of a street segment.
Page 8 of 34
The factors and their weighting that contribute to the OCI are:
Pavement Condition Index (40%)
Pavement Section Thickness (20%)
Pavement Width (10%)
Presence of Curb and Gutters (10%)
Stabilized Subgrade (10%)
Existing Roadside Ditch Safety (10%)
By establishing the OCI, a rating system was developed that looks at several
factors, not just the surface conditions. A street segment may have a high
PCI and a low OCI and vice versa. By looking at both of the values in
conjunction with each other, a more detailed understanding of the conditions
can be determined.
An acceptable level of service was determined for both residential and
collector road classifications. The level of service was established at a higher
level for collector roads versus local streets, i.e., an acceptable PCI for a
collector is 75 while 65 is acceptable for a local street. This information and
the CPMP were used in the development of the comprehensive Five Year
Capital Improvement Plan that was adopted by City Council on September
17, 2013 by R-13-3666. This Capital Improvement Plan allowed for budgets
to be established and projects to be planned and coordinated several years
in advance. The CPMP has allowed staff to take a more proactive approach in
the management of the City’s street infrastructure.
Page 9 of 34
Updated Pavement Management Program
The CPMP was initially placed in service in April of 2012. Since that time,
changes have been made to improve the program.
The most significant change to the program is the use of a pavement
management software (PMS) package, StreetSaver. This allows for several
calculations and budget scenarios to be evaluated in a short period of time.
This software package allows for the data to be evaluated in several different
forms in order to get a better understanding of the street system. This also
aids in the tracking and monitoring of pavement conditions as their
conditions fluctuate.
Another change to the program is that the calculation of the Overall
Condition Index has been removed from the standard evaluation and
assessment of the street segments. This is due to the amount of time that is
required to perform this calculation for each street segment. When the CPMP
was originally used, a pavement management software package was not
available and all of the calculations and indexes for each street segment
were performed by hand and required a significant amount of staff time.
With the addition of the PMS software, similar results can be achieved
without the calculation of the OCI. The OCI will still be used on a case by
case basis when needed, but will no longer be a part of the report and will
not be calculated for each street segment automatically.
As a result of the program updates and changes, some of the charts and
graphs that were included in the initial report will not be duplicated in this or
any future reports. The information will be presented in a new and different
format and this new format should remain relatively consistent with the use
of the StreetSaver software package.
Overa
The Cit
arterial
report,
streets
La
n
e
Mi
l
e
s
all Road
ty of Coll
s, collecto
arterials
. The distr
0
50
100
150
200
250
ae
es
way Ne
eyville ha
ors, and
and colle
ribution of
Figure
Collect
7
Lan
27
o
Ne
Lane
etwork C
as more t
local (res
ectors wil
f Colleyvil
3 – Lane M
tor
77.69
ne Miles
7.36 %
of the
etwork
Funct
Miles b
Conditio
than 283
idential) s
ll be com
le’s street
Miles by Fu
R
tional Class
by Functi
on and F
lane mile
streets. F
mbined an
t system i
unctional Cl
Residential/Lo
206.2
Lane M
72.64
of th
Netwo
ional Cla
Findings
es of stre
For the pu
nd labeled
s shown i
Class
cal
22
Miles
%
e
ork
ass
Page 10
s
ets, inclu
urpose of
d as Colle
n Figure
of 34
ding
this
ector
3.
Figure
type of
factor o
differen
Ar
e
a
in
SY
( x 1,
0
0
0
)
e 4, presen
f material,
of surface
nt lane wid
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
nted below
either as
area in lie
dths.
Figur
Apha
3
4
o
N
To t
w, shows t
phalt or c
eu of lane
re 4 – Total
alt
3,076K
SY
7.13 %
of the
etwork
Sur
tal Area
the distrib
concrete. T
e miles to
l Area by S
rface Type
by Surfa
bution of p
This graph
account fo
Surface Typ
Concrete
3,451
SY
52.87
of th
Netwo
ace Typ e
pavement
h is presen
or roadwa
pe
1K
7 %
he
ork
e
Page 11
based on
nted as a
ays with
of 34
n
The PC
PCI bas
Figure
that co
portion
good p
built to
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
PC
I
CI of the n
sed on pa
e 5. This i
ncrete str
of the as
ortion of
the curre
F
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
PC
I
W
network a
vement ty
s a not a
reets havi
sphalt stre
the aspha
ent standa
Figure 5 – W
Apha
PC
Weighted
as a whole
ype, it is
a factor of
ng been b
eets not b
alt streets
ard.
Weighted A
lt
CI = 70
Sur
d Avera g
e is 77, b
evident th
f the pave
built to a
being built
s were inh
Average PC
rface Type
ge PCI by
but when
here is a d
ement typ
defined s
t to an es
herited by
CI by Surfa
Concrete
PCI = 8
y Surfac
looking at
difference
pe, but du
standard v
stablished
the City
ace Type
84
e Type
Page 12
t the aver
e, as show
ue to the
versus a la
d standard
and were
of 34
rage
wn in
fact
arge
d. A
e not
The cu
Green
PCI > 7
a signi
Colleyv
rrent PCI
represent
70) and re
ficant por
ville that h
of each s
ts good co
ed is poor
rtion of t
handle the
street seg
ondition (
condition
the poor
majority
Figure 6 –
gment is s
PCI > 70
n (PCI < 5
condition
of the tra
Current P
shown co
0) yellow
50). As re
streets a
affic.
PCI Map
lor coded
is fair con
epresented
are the m
Page 13
in Figure
ndition (5
d on the m
main road
of 34
e 6.
50 >
map,
ds in
Summ
The PC
reasona
it show
end of
networ
City of
M
s
A
a
C
n
C
p
ra
Even th
77, it s
below 5
funds
reconst
street i
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
La
n
e
Mi
l
e
s
mary of
CI for th
ably good
ws that th
the ratin
k average
Colleyville
Most concr
tandard re
A good por
nd was no
Colleyville
new street
Colleyville
pavement
apidly
hough on
should be
50. These
should b
tructed. O
s comprom
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1 5 9
the Roa
he entire
overall co
e network
ng system
e. This ma
e develope
rete stree
equired by
rtion of th
ot built to
grew rap
s being co
has seve
thickness
average
e noted th
streets ar
e limited
Once a str
mised and
Figur
13 17 21 25
PC
adway N
network
ondition. H
k is overl
m (local co
akes sense
ed.
ets are rel
y the Land
he asphalt
the curre
idly in the
onstructed
eral aspha
s that res
the netwo
hat a sign
re already
until su
reet deter
d the rema
re 7 – PCI
25 29 33 37
CI Segme
Network
indicates
However,
oaded wit
oncrete s
e when ex
latively ne
d Develop
t street ne
ent standa
e 1990’s a
d
alt street
ults in a
ork is rate
nificant n
y beyond t
uch time
riorates to
aining use
Segment D
41 45 49 53
PCI Value
ent Distr
k Condit
s a stree
when loo
th street
treets), w
xamining
ew and w
pment Cod
etwork wa
ard
and 2000
sections
street se
ed as an
umber of
their usefu
that the
o that lev
eful life is
Distributio
57 61 65 69
e
ribution
tion
et networ
king close
segments
which rais
the histo
were const
de
as inherite
0’s, resulti
that hav
ection that
overall ne
f the stre
ul life and
ey can b
vel, the in
greatly di
on
69 73 77 81 85
Page 14
rk that is
er at the d
s on the
ses the en
ry of how
tructed to
ed by the
ng in a lo
ve insuffic
t deterior
etwork PC
ets are ra
d maintena
be comple
tegrity of
iminished.
85 89 93 97
of 34
s in
data,
high
ntire
w the
the
City
ot of
cient
rates
CI of
ated
ance
etely
f the
.
As sho
segmen
networ
there is
PCI of 5
La
n
e
Mi
l
e
s
wn on bo
nts based
k that is r
s also a si
50).
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
0‐10
0
F
oth Figur
d on the
rated Goo
gnificant p
0 11‐20 2
0 1.82
Lane
Figure 8 – M
re 7 and
PCI show
d, 72.1%
portion ra
1‐30 31‐40
3.00
10.50
Miles b
Miles by PC
Figure 8
ws that t
(204 lane
ted Poor,
41‐50 51‐
13.50
20
PCI Group
by PCI Gr
CI Group
8, the dis
here is a
e miles) (
10.3% (2
‐60 61‐70
0.08
29.02
p
roup (10
stribution
a good po
above a P
29 Lane M
71‐80 81‐90
55.24
78.2
0's)
Page 15
of the st
ortion on
PCI of 70)
Miles) (belo
0 91‐100
20
67.96
of 34
treet
the
) but
ow a
Page 16 of 34
As seen below, Figure 9, shows the overall network PCI for the past three
(3) years (it should be noted that with the addition of the StreetSaver PMS,
some of the data that was originally reported in the 2012 report has been
adjusted based on the software package). When the overall PCI is evaluated
for the entire network, it can be seen that the network is deteriorating more
than what is being offset by maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction.
This indicates that the current funding levels are insufficient to maintain the
current level of service that is being provided and the pavement condition of
the overall network will continue to deteriorate until it reaches that balancing
point between deterioration and reinvestment.
Figure 9 – Weighted Average PCI for the Street Network
79.45
78.17
76.63
75
75.5
76
76.5
77
77.5
78
78.5
79
79.5
80
2011 2012 2013
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
PC
I
PCI for Overall Street Network
PCI for Overall Street Network
Page 17 of 34
In an effort to get a better understanding of the condition of the overall
network, the weighted average PCI was broken down by road classification.
This is shown in Figure 10 below.
Figure 10 – Weighted Average PCI for the Street Network
Evaluating Figure 10 provides a great deal of insight into the street
network. As shown in the chart, the overall network PCI is declining at a
constant rate, the local streets are at a lesser rate, and the collector streets
are at a faster rate. This is consistent with the earlier findings that the large
amount of newer concrete subdivision streets serves to bring up the overall
network score.
When looking closely at the data for each individual street segment, it was
noted that there are several non-local street segments that experienced
more deterioration than expected. The StreetSaver PMS takes into
consideration the inspection dates and the time that has elapsed to calculate
an estimated, or projected, PCI. The PCI will be reduced based on time
alone, but some segments are having a PCI value that is being reduced
faster than predicted.
79.45
78.17
76.63
78
76
73
80
79
78
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
2011 2012 2013
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
PC
I
PCI vs Time
PCI for Overall Street Network PCI for Non‐local Streets PCI for Local Streets
Page 18 of 34
The chart shown in Figure 11 shows the street segments that experienced
the greatest variations in PCI values from what was predicted.
Street Name Previous
Inspection
Date
Previous
Inspection
PCI
Last
Inspection
Date
Last
Inspection
PCI
Projected
PCI
Difference
L.D. Lockett Road 12/9/2011 82 11/1/2013 36 78 -42
Glade Road 12/6/2011 94 10/23/2013 52 90 -38
Bedford Road 12/7/2011 97 10/24/2013 62 93 -31
John McCain
Road 12/9/2011 76 10/31/2013 40 71 -31
Westcoat Drive 12/10/2011 97 11/1/2013 63 93 -30
Bransford Road 12/7/2011 100 10/24/2013 64 93 -29
Cheek-Sparger
Road 12/6/2011 75 10/23/2013 47 70 -23
White Drive 12/7/2011 86 10/24/2013 65 82 -17
Pleasant Run
Road 12/9/2011 73 10/31/2013 52 68 -16
Thompson Terrace 12/8/2011 44 10/25/2013 21 36 -15
Jackson Road 12/7/2011 79 10/24/2013 62 75 -13
Roberts Drive 12/8/2011 83 10/25/2013 69 82 -13
Tinker Road 12/9/2011 76 10/31/2013 58 71 -13
Oak Knoll Road 12/7/2011 56 10/24/2013 41 52 -11
Martin Parkway 12/6/2011 84 10/24/2013 70 80 -10
Hall Johnson Road 12/9/2011 96 10/31/2013 88 95 -7
McDonwell School
Road West
12/10/2011 93 11/1/2013 83 89 -6
Montclair Drive 12/8/2011 46 10/25/2013 32 38 -6
Figure 11 – Streets with larger than expected PCI reductions
The str
from w
were d
defined
experie
handle
what is
a faster
For the
yellow,
good (P
red rep
values
have be
Figure
represe
reets segm
hat was p
iscovered
d standard
ence large
the traff
s depicted
r rate than
e purposes
and red
PCI Value
presents p
with the a
een provid
e 13 rep
ents a red
Fig
Fi
ments tha
predicted w
. None of
d. All of
e traffic v
fic volume
in Figure
n the loca
s of this re
and each
of 70-100
poor (PCI
actual vis
ded. Figu
resents a
(poor) co
gure 12 – S
igure 13 –
t experien
where eva
f this stre
f the stre
volumes.
es that th
e 10 that
l streets.
eport, the
h color re
0), yellow
range 0 to
ual condit
ure 12 re
a yellow
ondition st
Street with
Street wit
nced the g
aluated an
eets includ
eet segme
They ha
hey curren
the non-
PCI value
epresents
represent
o 50). In
tion of the
epresents
(fair) co
treet.
h Green/Go
th Yellow/F
greatest v
nd some c
ded in Fig
ents are
ave neve
ntly expe
local stree
es have b
a PCI ra
ts fair (PC
n order to
e street, t
a green (
ndition s
ood PCI (7
Fair PCI (5
variations
common c
gure 11 w
non-local
r been co
erience. T
ets are de
een color-
nge. Gree
CI range o
help asso
three sam
(good) con
treet and
70 to 100)
50 to 70)
Page 19
in PCI va
characteris
were built
l streets
onstructed
This supp
eterioratin
-coded gr
en repres
of 50-70),
ociate the
mple segm
ndition str
d Figure
of 34
alues
stics
to a
that
d to
ports
ng at
een,
ents
and
PCI
ents
reet,
14
A summ
Figure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
mary of th
e 16 which
Concrete Only
Netw
Figure 14
he curren
h show con
Figure 15
y (52.87% of the
work)
Good
91.5%
Fair
8%
Poor 0.5%
– Street w
t street c
ndition rat
5 – Concre
Local (45.1
Ne
Concret
with Red/Po
onditions
tings base
ete Street P
10% of the entire
etwork)
Good
90.3%
Fair
9.2%
Poor 0.5%
te PCI Dis
oor PCI (0
can be s
ed on surf
PCI Distrib
e Collector
stribution
0 to 50)
een in Fig
face type.
bution
(7.87% of the en
Network)
Good
98.4%
Fair 1.1%
Poor 0.5
n
Page 20
gure 15
ntire
%
of 34
and
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Asphalt Only
Netw
Figure 1
(47.13% of the
work)
Good
52.2%
Fair
26.0%
Poor
21.8%
16 – Aspha
Local (30.2
Ne
Asphalt
alt Street P
3 % of the entire
etwork)
Good
54.3%
Fair
25.4%
Poor
20.3%
PCI Distr
PCI Distribu
e Collector (
ribution
ution
16.90% of the e
Network)
Good
48.3%
Fair
27.1%
Poor
24.6%
Page 21
entire
of 34
Page 22 of 34
Maintenance Techniques
The City of Colleyville uses several types of maintenance techniques on its
streets. Each technique differs in cost, effectiveness, application, and
functionality. It is essential that the right technique be utilized at the right
time in order to maximize maintenance funds. The maintenance techniques
are summarized in Figure 17.
Reconstruction
Reconstruction is the maintenance technique that results in the roadway
being completely rebuilt to current Land Development Code standards,
including utilities, drainage, and curb and gutter. All existing pavement will
be removed or can be recycled for use as a new sub-base. The street will be
widened to meet the development code standards as established in the
Master Thoroughfare Plan. This technique is the most expensive, but
provides a new street section that meets all standards and with proper
maintenance can last at least 50 years.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is the maintenance technique that results in the current street
segment being rebuilt in its current configuration. This involves the
stabilization of the existing base material and placement of a new pavement
section. This rehabilitated street segment may or may not meet current
standards. This technique is a cost effective way to revive a current street
section; however, it does not address anything other than pavement, and
should only be used where applicable.
Mill and Overlay
Mill and overlay is the maintenance technique that results in the current
street segment being given a new surface in its current configuration. This
involves the removal of the top surface of pavement (normally two inches)
and the placement a new top layer of pavement. This should only be used in
areas where the existing pavement thickness is sufficient and the subgrade
is in good condition.
Micro-Resurfacing
Micro-resurfacing is a cost effective way to address surface issues with
asphalt pavement. This involves the placement of a very thin asphalt sand
and oil emulsion that seals the existing pavement and slows its rate of
deterioration. This should only be used on street segments that are in good
overall condition and only have minor surface issues.
Crack Sealing
Crack sealing is used as a first defense against pavement deterioration
because it offers several important benefits. Effective crack sealing keeps
Page 23 of 34
water from entering and weakening the base or sub-base. It helps preserve
the pavement adjacent to the cracks, prevents sand, stone, and dirt from
making its way into open cracks causing compressive stresses, and extends
pavement life by minimizing crack growth.
Proper attention to cracks will prevent problems from spreading and extend
the life of the pavement. Pavement repair in the early stages of deterioration
will pay big dividends later by delaying costly resurfacing. This is the only
maintenance technique that is performed by city staff. All other techniques
are more cost effectively performed by contractors hired by the City.
Page 24 of 34
Maintenance
Technique
Cost/SY
Application Benefits Constraints PCI
Change
Reconstruction
$65
This technique is the complete
removal of the existing street
and building a new street system
to the current standards,
including drainage systems,
curbs and gutters, and anything
else required to bring it up to the
current Land Development Code
standard.
Brings the street segment
to current standards, and
if properly maintained can
be expected to last at
least 50 years.
Most expensive
technique requires
the most traffic
interruption and
will often require
additional right-of-
ways.
Resets
PCI to
100
Rehabilitation
$40
This technique is used to rebuild
the street segment using the
existing roadway by reworking
the subgrade and constructing a
new pavement section.
Brings the street surface
to the highest rating and
has reduced traffic
interruptions. This
method addresses
Subgrade issues. Possible
15-18 year life extension.
Does not address
the street width or
the drainage
system needs.
Often will result in
a street that does
not meet the
minimum
standards.
Brings
PCI to
100
Mill and
Overlay
$13
This technique can be used if the
existing pavement and subgrade
is in good condition There must
be adequate pavement
thickness, and the street is just
in need of a new surface. A mill
and overlay is used to remove
the top portion of pavement,
usually 2", and replace it.
Brings the street surface
to the highest rating and
has minimal traffic
interruptions. Possible 10
year life extension.
Does not address
the street width or
the drainage
system needs. This
technique can only
be used where
there is adequate
pavement thickness
and the subgrade is
in good condition.
Brings
PCI to
100
Micro-
Resurfacing/
Slurry Seal
$3.30
This technique involves the
placement of a very thin asphalt
sand and oil emulsion that seals
the existing pavement and slows
its rate of deterioration.
Gives the street segment
a "Like New" appearance,
and removes surface
flaws. Slows the rate of
deterioration of the
pavement.
Only addresses
surface flaws and
does not address
any structural
issues that are
present in the
pavement.
Raises
PCI
Crack Sealing
$0.06
This is currently being performed
by the Department of Public
Works staff and is a preventive
maintenance technique.
This seals the existing
pavement and extends the
service life. This is part of
the current maintenance
program.
Only addresses
surface cracks and
does not improve
the street segment.
Only slows the
deterioration.
Minimal
Change
Figure 17 – Maintenance Techniques
Page 25 of 34
The proper application of the correct maintenance technique is essential to
get the most benefit from the available funds. The PCI values help in
determining the best maintenance technique for a particular section of
street. Figure 18 below shows the common maintenance techniques within
a range of PCI, as well as the approximate remaining life of the pavement.
It should be noted that the relative remaining life presented in the table is
not the same as pavement age. Remaining pavement life is the timeframe,
expressed in years, in which a street section will provide a useful street (if
properly maintained) before rehabilitation or reconstruction needs to be
done. The relative remaining life can be exceeded with no rehabilitation or
maintenance, and the pavement will continue to deteriorate until it
eventually returns to gravel or is unserviceable.
PCI Condition
Description
Recommended
Activities Potential Remaining Life
100
Good
Routine Maintenance
Activities 25 to 50 Years 95
90
85
Micro-Resurfacing 15 to 30 Years 80
75
70
65
Fair
Mill and Overlay,
Rehabilitation,
Reconstruction
7 to 20 Years 60
55
50
45
Poor
Full Reconstruction is
preferred,
Rehabilitation may be
an option
0 to 10 Years
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 18 – PCI and recommended Maintenance Technique
Page 26 of 34
Improvements to the Street Network Since the April 2012
Report
The focus of the street maintenance program is to maintain the street
network of the City of Colleyville as efficient as possible with the funding that
is available. A focal point over the past few years has been to address the
maintenance needs of subdivisions. It is more cost effective to keep a good
road maintained than to let a road deteriorate to point were reconstruction is
the only viable option. The average weighted PCI for each subdivision is
shown in Figure 19, 20, and 21.
Since the original assessment, several streets have had maintenance work
performed that has resulted in an increase in their respective PCI. Those
projects were either a part of the Comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan
or the various annual maintenance projects. The projects that have been
performed include:
Bandit Trail (2012 Tarrant County Project)
Jackson Road (2012 Tarrant County Project)
Pembrooke Parkway (2012 Annual Project)
Crossing at Colleyville (2012 Annual Project)
Woodbriar West (2012 Annual Project)
Central Drive (2013 Annual Project)
Kenshire Drive (2013 Annual Project)
Windview Estates (2013 Annual Project)
Murphy Road (2013 Somerset CDA)
The streets that received significant maintenance treatments are shown in
Figure 22. The chart includes:
The original inspection(PCI) that occurred in 2011
The maintenance technique that was applied
The date of maintenance
The second inspection(PCI) that occurred in 2013
The difference between the original and the current PCI
1
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
PC
I
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
PC
I
Figure
Figure
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
We
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wei g
e 19 – Weig
20 – Weig
eighted A
ghted Av
ghted Aver
ghted Avera
Average
verage P
rage PCI fo
rage PCI fo
PCI for
PCI for C
or Asphalt
or Concrete
Aphalt S
Concrete
Subdivisio
e Subdivisio
Subdivis
e Subdiv
Page 27
ons
ons
sions
isions
of 34
Fig
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
PC
I
gure 21 – W
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
We i
Weighted A
ighted A
Average PC
Average P
Su
CI for Conc
PCI for C
ubdivisio
crete and A
Concrete
ons
Asphalt Sub
e and As
Page 28
bdivisions
sphalt
of 34
Page 29 of 34
Street Name Previous
Inspection Date
Previous
Inspection
PCI
Maintenance
Date
Maintenance
Treatment
Last Inspection
Date
Last
Inspection
PCI
Difference
Ambleside Court 12/10/2011 84 7/15/2013 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 100 16
Ambleside Drive 12/10/2011 35 7/15/2013 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 95 60
Ashton Court 12/10/2011 73 7/15/2013 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 92 19
Bandit Trail 12/9/2011 26 7/15/2012 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/31/2013 96 70
Brookridge Drive 12/6/2011 37 8/7/2012 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 100 63
Central Drive 12/6/2011 46 6/102013 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 95 49
Chapelwood
Court
12/6/2011 40 8/15/2012 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 88 48
Chapelwood
Drive
12/6/2011 18 8/15/2012 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 94 76
Cliffwood Drive 12/6/2011 64 8/15/2012 Micro Surface
Treatment
10/24/2013 91 27
Cottage Oak Lane
12/7/2011 85 3/15/2013 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 100 15
Dundee Court 12/10/2011 56 7/15/2013 Mill and Overlay 2"10/24/2013 81 25
Indian Trail Court 12/7/2011 89 8/15/2012 Micro Surface
Treatment
10/24/2013 98 9
Jackson Road 12/7/2011 52 8/30/2012 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 96 44
Kenshire Drive 12/7/2011 51 6/10/2013 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 95 44
Long Shadow
Court
12/7/2011 81 8/15/2012 Micro Surface
Treatment
10/24/2013 90 9
Maplewood Trail 12/7/2011 66 3/15/2013 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 100 34
Murphy Road 12/7/2011 66 10/10/2013 Concrete
Reconstruction
10/24/2013 100 36
Pembrooke
Parkway West
12/6/2011 17 3/30/2013 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 100 83
Ramsgate Court
12/6/2011 76 7/15/2013 Mill and Overlay 2"10/24/2013 100 24
Scarborough Lane
East
12/6/2011 68 8/30/2012 Micro Surface
Treatment
10/24/2013 76 8
Shadowood Road 12/7/2011 73 3/15/2012 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 99 26
Shadowood Trail 12/7/2011 81 3/15/2012 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 86 5
Stonehaven Drive 12/10/2011 71 7/15/2013 Mill and Overlay 2"10/24/2013 97 26
Tamblewood
Drive
12/6/2011 76 7/15/2013 Mill and Overlay 2"10/24/2013 100 24
WIindermere
Court
12/10/2011 79 7/15/2013 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 98 19
Windermere
Dirve
12/10/2011 66 7/15/2013 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 100 34
Windview Drive 12/10/2011 73 7/15/2013 Mill and Overlay 2"10/24/2013 100 27
Woodbine Drive 12/6/2011 76 8/15/2012 Micro Surface
Treatment
10/24/2013 91 15
Woodcrest Court 12/6/2011 78 8/15/2012 Micro Surface
Treatment
10/24/2013 91 13
Woodcrest Drive 12/6/2011 73 8/15/2012 Micro Surface
Treatment
10/24/2013 86 13
Woodstock Drive 12/10/2011 70 7/15/2013 Asphalt
Rehabilitation
10/24/2013 100 30
Figure 22 – Reinvestment Projects since Original CPMP Report
Page 30 of 34
Rehabilitation Plan and Budget Development
The current CPMP has incorporated a pavement management software
program to help identify a rehabilitation plan and budget. The initial CPMP
report that was prepared in April of 2012 did not utilize pavement
management software for the budget forecasting and budget needs
assessment; instead, the original program used a simplified method to
determine annual budget needs in order to maintain the current level of
service.
The amount determined in the original CPMP was $2.7 million annually in
order to maintain the street system at its current level. This indicated that
the funding levels at that time for street maintenance were below the
estimated required amount. The initial CPMP report also identified and
estimated value for each PCI point. The estimated value was established at
$5.5 million, meaning that in order to recoup a lost PCI point, an investment
of $5.5 million would have to be made in to the street system. It should be
noted that the cost of a PCI point in a network with a high overall rating is
more costly than a single point network with a poor rating. The higher the
overall rating, the more value each PCI point is worth.
With the use of the StreetSaver PMS, a Budget Needs calculation can be
performed to determine the amount of funding needed to maintain the
system. Determining budget needs is a major reason for conducting
network-level pavement management. An estimated budget need is
developed by the StreetSaver PMS based on the unit costs associated with
each maintenance or rehabilitation treatment determined to be needed. This
unit cost is multiplied by the area of the street segments selected. Since it is
less expensive to have good roads and streets than to have poor roads and
streets, the Budget Needs Calculation sub module tries to place all
management sections in condition category I (good condition with a PCI at
or above 70). If the agency has a significant quantity of poor roads and
streets, the budget needs tends to “front-load” the needs.
The Budget Needs Calculations sub module takes into account inflation rates,
interest rates, a starting year, and can be varied on the number of years to
calculate. The Budget Needs Calculation that is shown in Figure 23 is based
on an inflation rate of 5%, an interest rate of 2%, starts in 2015, and is
calculated for a duration of 10 years. This shows an average expense of
$3.4 million is necessary to maintain the network.
Page 31 of 34
Year PCI
Treated
PCI
Untreated
Cost
2015 79 75 $3,661,025
2016 78 74 $2,465,897
2017 78 72 $2,777,609
2018 77 71 $2,833,724
2019 77 69 $3,472,035
2020 78 68 $2,470,038
2021 77 66 $3,522,848
2022 78 65 $4,977,803
2023 77 63 $2,912,338
2024 77 62 $5,247,675
Total Cost
$34,340,992
Figure 23 – Budget Needs (Inflation Rate of 5%, Interest Rate of 2%)
For the purpose of this report, inflation was estimated at a rate of five
percent. This is an estimate and these numbers fluctuate based on several
factors that are not easily predicted. In 1998, the City paid $4.20 for a
square yard of 2” Type D HMAC (this is the top 2” layer of asphalt on an
asphalt street), and the current rate for the same item is $10.46 per square
yard. The price has escalated 250% since 1998. This is approximately a
5% annual increase in cost for HMAC pavement.
Page 32 of 34
Scenario Analysis
The PMS allows for the creation of Budget Scenarios, which allows the user
to set up different hypothetical cases using various budgets and/or projects
to calculate future street conditions and budget requirements. Budget
Scenarios is an efficient tool in letting the user know how to get the best
result from their budget. For illustration purposes, three (3) separate
scenarios have been evaluated. The scenarios include;
No Funding for maintenance
$1 Million Annual Funding for maintenance
$3 Million Annual Funding for maintenance
Figure 24 – Maintenance Funding Levels and Projected PCI
As shown in Figure 24, if no investment is made into the street system, the
system will continue to deteriorate and, after 10 years, the system will have
a projected overall network PCI of 62. An investment of one million dollars
in the street system is shown in Figure 21. The investment slows the
deterioration and, after ten years, the projected PCI value is reduced to 68.
Although this is better than the no investment scenario, it remains
77
75
74
72
71
69
68
66
65
63
62
77
76
75 75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
77
79
78
79 79 79
80
79
80
79 79
60
65
70
75
80
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Funding Levels and Projected PCI
No Funding 1 Million 3 Million
Page 33 of 34
inadequate to offset the deterioration of the system. The investment of three
million annually closely resembles what was determined to be the average
budgetary need for the street system. As shown in Figure 24, this
investment provides a consistent network PCI for future years. Something
that must be considered is that this projection makes the assumption that
the streets are constructed in a manner that allows for a set deterioration
rate; what has been shown is that there are several street segments that do
not comply with that assumption. As additional data is availiabe by
performing the street assessments in years to come, this assumption will be
refined and the results will be refined as well.
Page 34 of 34
Summary and Recommendations
The Colleyville Pavement Management Program was initiated in 2012 and has since
incorporated a pavement management system to help in understanding of the
condition of the street system and budget forecasting.
The findings of this analysis conclude:
The street network of the City of Colleyville is in good condition overall
The overall street network weighted PCI has decreased 2.82 PCI Points in 24
months
The amount of funding needed on an annual basis to maintain the current
system at the current PCI is estimated at $34.3 million over the next ten
years (based on a 5% inflation rate)
The system will continue to deteriorate as it ages
The current funding levels are slowing the deterioration, but are not sufficient
to offset the current rate of deterioration
The non-local streets have the greatest percentage of poor street segments
and experience the highest traffic volumes
The non-local streets are deteriorating at a rate 2.5 times the rate of the
local streets
The overall street network is in good condition. However, there are many street
sections that fall far below an acceptable level of service. It is noted that the
current funding levels for street maintenance are below the estimated required
amount that is necessary to maintain the street system at its current level.
Without adequate maintenance and reconstruction, where appropriate, the system
will continue to deteriorate. The CPMP will continue to be a tool used by city staff
to aid in the management of the city’s street system.