Loading...
28. Pavement ManagmementC U P E RT I N O PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM DLy AGENDA DATE May 18, 2010 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Report on Pavement Management Program, Street Conditions and Preventative Maintenance. BACKGROUND The City contracts with the engineering firm of Harns and Associates to update the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP), which is done every two years. Last completed on March 28, 2008, the update will be undertaken again this summer. The PMP provides an objective and scientific management tool to inventory street pavement, assess pavement conditions, record historical maintenance activity, forecast budget needs, and to view the impacts of the funding on the City -wide pavement condition over time. The PMP model for cities is based on standardized software and methodology developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and is used by most cities throughout the bay area. It is also the model approved by the Santa Clara Talley Transportation Authority (VTA) when allocating funds to projects sponsored by its member agencies. All city streets are constructed with asphalt pavement that deteriorates over time by both traffic loading and weathering. Preventative maintenance on city streets is very important, because it can sustain a street's condition over time with relatively low cost as compared to having to reconstruct the entire street. Street reconstruction is at least 30 times more costly than slurry seal and up to 5 times more expensive that an asphalt overlay. The condition of city streets is based on a visual distress rating system resulting in an overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI). This methodology was adopted by cities many years ago to ensure that preventative maintenance is applied through a uniform, objective and engineering based process. Prior to the adoption of the PMP and PCI methodology many cities were faced with what been characterized as a ' first come, first served" process and/or based on who complains loudest and longest. T7us approach, while perhaps satisfying some residents in the short term, is neither objective nor fair to the entire city. It also does not effectively and efficiently apply scarce resources to preventative street maintenance. 28 -1 DISCUSSION Condition of Cupertino's Suet Asphalt Pavement (PCI) The City's average pavement condition is an overall PCI of 69 on a 100 -point scale with 100 being a completely new street. The PCI number is misleading as it is often incorrectly read as a "grade" like 69% out of 100 %, which in academic terms would usually be called a substandard of even failing grade. PCI does not mean that at all. What it means instead is that the overall condition of Cupertinno's street system is in the high range of MTC's designation of Good condition. In fact, the specific condition ranking of Cupertinno's 142 miles of streets shows that 92% of the street miles are in Good or Very Good condition requiring little more than periodic slurry sealing or at most a thin asphalt overlay. The balance of 8% is considered to be in poor condition requiring a thicker asphalt overlay. Fortunately, although the PMT estimates that there may be only two tenths of a mile of Cupertino streets that are in very poor condition that would require complete reconstruction; the report does not specify any segments of streets to which that might apply. The implication of the overall street conditions in Cupertino in terms of cost is that streets in good, very good or new condition require maintenance that is mostly slurry seal ($2.50 / sq yd), a cape seal ($5.50 / sq yd) or a thin asphalt overlay ($16.00 / sq yd). Very few streets would require a thick asphalt overly ($25.00 / sq yd). As noted above no street segments are identified as requiring complete structural reconstruction ($77.00 - $80.00 sq / yd) and therefore no street reconstruction is proposed by staf. Description of Street Maintenance Methods As noted above, there are three specific types of work that are employed to maintain the life and condition of a street segment. These are Slurry Seal, Cape Seal and Pavement Overlays. A brief description of each in ascending order of magnitude follows: • Pavement Restoration — This is a small project that is designed to repair particular sections of pavement where it is not required for the entire street to be overlaid or sealed. This work consists of digging out and replacing discrete areas of the pavement that have failed, or are about to fail, structurally. • Slurry Seal — This work consists of applying a mixture of hot asphalt oil, a graded aggregate rock, water, and additives to the pavement surface. Slurry seals are used for sealing aged and worn pavements, filling minor cracks, restoring skid resistance and restoring aesthetic appeal. This application serves to protect and preserve the pavement surface and extend its useful life. • Cape Seal — This work is the combination of two sealing and rehabilitation methods, chip seal and slurry seal. First a chip seal is applied, which is a hot asphalt spray binder with a single size aggregate rock mixed into it It is then followed within a few days by a slurry seal. While more expensive, this combination method provides an additional measure of pavement surface durability and has more restorative impact on the pavement than a straight slurry . The only downside is that in the period between the chip seal and the slurry seal, sometimes the small aggregate comes loose as vehicles travel over it creating a nuisance for drivers. 28 -2 • Pavement Overlay — An overlay consists of placing an additional asphalt pavement layer (generally 2" to 3'� on top of the existing street surface. This method is typically used in combination with surface milling, i.e., the grinding of several inches of the existing pavement and either re-using the grindings with hot oil additives or replacing it with a new layer of asphalt pavement. This is the most comprehensive resurfacing method used to restore structural integrity. Staff continues to explore the cost- effectiveness of other potential pavement maintenance methods in order to try to make the best use of the available funds. BUDGET NEEDS ANALYSIS Following the treatment strategy noted above, the PMP generates a budget needs analysis which projects, based on current unit cost estimates, the annual budget need to maintain the City's streets in a condition that only requires minor preventative maintenance. The intent is to maintain the streets with an overall pavement condition index (PCI) of 70 or more. The latest Pavement Management Program update recommends that the City's goal should be to budget a minim of $1.5 Million annually is expected to increase the PCI and maintain the overall PCI at 70 over a four year period through 2012. In calendar year 2009, the pavement management program completed approximately $2 Million of pavement maintenance work. That year, approximately $500,000 of Proposition 42 funds was available. The 2010 Pavement Management Program will have the following available to carry out pavement management activities, as also shown in Exhibit A. Proposition 1B Funding $ 800,000 Jobs for Main Street Act (ARRA In 700,000 PM Funds Recommended (10-11 CIP) 750,000 Total PM Funding 2010 -11 $ 2,250,000 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROJECT SCHEDULE Exhibit A outlines the prospective pavement management projects that are nearing design completion and will be competitively bid beginning in May and June 2010. Each work type category shows a primary list of street segments and an add alternate list The primary lists show the work that is likely to be completed based on current cost estimates, while the add alternate lists show additional work that can be added if sufficiently favorable bids are received. To the extent possible, work that takes place adjacent to or near a school is to be completed by the time schools reopen in the fall. In cases where work must proceed beyond the start of school, hours of work will be constrained to limit the impact on school commutes. This report is for the Council's information and no action is required. Submitted by: *--� a ,� Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works EXHIBITA— Pavement Projects 2010 EXHIBIT B — Previous Project Locations EXHIBIT C — Pavement Project Locations 2010 Approved f , submi iop: "ad W. k n pp City Manager 28 -3 Exhibit A Pavement Management Projects 2010 5/11/2010 Prot ID 1projecl Type of \Vork Locadon/Z.one Approxinute Cost Fund Source Advertise Date Bid Date 4 Pacenxnt Restoration nigout d reconstruct discrete areas of failing pavement Various City -Wide _ 1 00.000 GF Carrvnver A1ay -10 June -10 B a Streets Pavrnxnt Loc Local (.hind and overlay. slurry seal. cape seal of existinv accmems Citywide S 1.550.000 G & Prop 1 B June- 10 Jul\-10 C ARRA [l Project Grind and overlay. slum seal. cape seal of existing a. emrnts Blaney Ave. between Forces Ave and Homestead F S 700.0 00 Federal ARRA Il Julc -10 Aueusl -10 Local Streets Pavement Mgml Streets Segment Treatment Overlay Cape Seal Slurry Overlay Ap lelree Vista to Plumircc Atherwood Miller to Alderbrook Blackwood Candlewood to Cottonwood Candlewood Alherwood to Id yrllewood Cherrytree A pletree to Peachtree Cottonwood Atherwood to Blackwood Greenleaf Castine to Stelhno Hvdc Shadygraove 13 Bollinger Meteor Mary to Castine Myrtlewood Blazingwood to Candlewood Pasadena Olive to Granada PeachtreE Cher rree to Plumtree PrunelreE ADpletree to Peachtree Overlay Add Alternate Estates Vista lEast Estates to Bollingef ItAerritt 10 Forest Cape Seal Amulet Castine to Nr0 Nathanson Beardon Alves to End Castine Runford to Gardena McClellan Orange to Bubb Plumtree Apgletree to Peachtree Rainbow Bubb to Stellin Terrace Bubb to Santa Teresa Cape Add Alternate East Estates ISCB to Estates Estates lEast Estates to Bollinger Slurry Belknap Elmsford to Yorkshire Belknap Ct Belknap to End Brent Clifford to John Camarda Randy to End Carnaoe Cir Steliing to End Cranberry Cir Cranberry to End Deep Cliff Riverside to St Anorms Drea Riverside to Anza Cir Faroo Glencoe to B=_ardon Gardena Castine to DO Gardena Glen Coe Elenda to Hanford Kingsbury PI Candlelight to Scotland Kinvin De Anza to W r0 Lonna La Mar Blaney to W/O E Estates Las Ondas Farallone to Somerset Lindenbrook E Estates to Sr0 Blaney Lonna Kinvrn to McClellan Meadow PI Voss to End Mello PI Price to End Merriman Aicalde to Santa Lucia Merritt W Blaney to W End Mira Vista Palm to McClellan Mira Vista Janice to Palm Nancy Ct Paradise to End November Dr Bulb (pvmt chg) to October Orange Sr0 Lomita to Sr0 Hermosa Pebble PI Amulet to End Phil Ct Phil to End Portal SCB to End Riedel PI Wheaton to End Rivercrest Ct Creston to End Riverside Stevens Cyn to Drea San Fernando Byrne to Orange Santa Lucia Stevens Cyn to Cordova Stafford Yorkshire to Elmsford Stokes Dempster to End Torre SCB to N/0 Rodrigues Tulita CI Flora Vista to End Villa De Anza Lucille to Blaney Walnut Cir Walnut to Walnut Will Ct Lazaneo to End Willowbrook Wav Lmgenbrook to End 28-4 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A Exhibit A Pavement Management Projects 2010 s/11/2010 28 -5 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A Annette Rollingdell to Stanford Blossom Felton to End Bollinger Colony Hills Heathenvood to Tiptoe De La Farge Westlynn to Jollyman DeFoe Dumas to Westlynn DeFoe Westlynn to Bollinger Dumas E/O Jollyman to WO DeFoe Dumas E/O Jollyman to Westlynn Eldenvood Ct Tuscany to End Enn Stalling to Kim Fallenteat Colony Hills to WIO Westlynn Fallenleaf Westlynn to E10 Westlynn Felton Kinvin to McClellan Slurry Add Alternate Heatherwood Westlynn to Tuscany John E Estates to E/O Farallone Jollyman De La Faroe to Dumas JDllyman Stellmg to End Kentwood W/O s De Anza to Tiptoe Kim Bollinger to McClellan Kirvnn Lonna to Erin Lonna Kinvin to McClellan McClellan PI McClellan to End Orline Jollyman to End Rollingdell W/O s De Anza to Annette Rollingdell Cl Rollingdell to End Stanford PI Kentwood to Annette Steeplechase Rollingdell to Kentwood Tiptoe Kentwood to Westlynn Tuscany PI S End to N End Vemie Cl Bollinger to End 28 -5 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A g. tIUN _; zi XXX 'tl j ¢ z �( F J FORGE 3 ' ! w u� J IC �E m�! ! z K - `1 z -- w OD gi gs JUNIPERO SERRA f y 14 Y GARDENA LUCILLE x ( 'ay D x w ! MELODY tCARLYSL �QLIVEWOOD LL '� , i LE _ : J ( i j T� \ :SHASTA ? i 1 XXX VALLEY GREEN >! > o l 'z ORA}1GEWIDOD PARKVI6YV O ACADIA IT_E LOOP 2 ¢ > BE!'R�iIFJ \ \\ PRUNERIDGE J 2=;' O� —. a i _ - -. C EDAR TRE u � ¢ DRAKE -_j J, GREENLEAF I )�, ' ACADIA MILFORD 0 �- DUNBAR M ARIAN' ��- MERRITT ! p S' � � UBURN i �\ CD U1 00 z EE Oz.� m TUJ_ITA w APPLE TREE 31 O Z _,l R v� DEXTER n: C9 FARGO m w m�� I i a O J O 20 F — < z HAZELBROOK z RUMFORD w W. >� � 2 z �. ¢ F U c CODY � < < HANFORD _yl w ¢ PEAR TREE m U a o i O 2 — J . DE SOTO Q CP PARKW LAURETTA w; z z ~ O ' 3 3' = O .� OOD O!. m a E v o; �, F X w '. '� ANCOCK _ R`, /U1 O: GAR DE Z GATE I ! r HRIST S - w LAZANEO FORESTS ` AM HEiRST f XX7( O £LENDA ILIGHT �<. ^� a K <^ < 9m I CEEK a a z a VALLCO Z z 2 CAR HT Z < >. WHEWHEA NN << < m O U STE X8 0 - < < 'CAL' —'� BRENDA { ,� v A '�' ' •tjo — m SCOFIELD �P ANN w ? z _ BIXBY G " SUNRISE .���,, r t PRICE O s COZET E pip O VET PEPPER TREE w z �O ti e z pi LOREE v > K 3 RODRIC�UES - '._ �? W SA C w w RALY SHELLY LA w ALL' pN j S ONDq ;^ Q'. < z G °-- VI GREENW MURI < RUNG m --t� C LCAZAR aN � SOLA v — CMIC PARiL J7 SOMERSET r -" MA R BURG < z PRI a )NAN m: j z ai ~ Z I'- +_, m� Z,�' :��`..`�_ - CALLE CE NA PNI rte- z z �'� °— m CHERYL < PACIFICA a' `�\, ��,0 TILSON o w mP CCL ELLAN > C PACIFICA Q\ �F � I PHIL PAR_ K VI1­1 N ^^ '� — z SILVERADO z w SUISUN G( v' _,QP� pR c x < Z O Nli ppS'� NO`f'I._ BAR HART PARK VIL N O _ p �� F AY / - -- < �'� z I­ - NDERGAST 3: ERIN O CLAY C z w THERWOOD = PRESIDIO F w Z'� H 7 O/ C ADYGROV GO u7 C w to �" z TUGGLE C ELM J KIRWIN CLIfDE m mi P`� Q� C I w w 4i F ¢ ! O - 0 0 4 i _ O _ c Q > O � C TH LILAC A w N O; G� /(( /C O O; .`°_ ✓O P" O 0 1 w U HYANNISPORT m ? �DEFO z \�: �, '— Z_� ��NN O z J w C7 C7 NTfP m m \ z , _ a 4NDE 'VBR OO .i'� w M IG N` ��a \G �Dp/,INS __ _ � ✓" '' < W z O m LL SU TON PA c; RK -�� y / LENTREE P IN AS TA A CARRIAGE DUMAS C G J e ( 0 Q O Q P _._'NVN Z , ••...� E LAFARGE < fR ¢ m y BOLLIN� -- __` G C NEWSOM e C ROSA - �� z z � m - q e. O LLINGER 7 < � "-' RIO w _ 2, D �t,Q\ HEATHERWOOD z VENTANA O Z .., R"�- -J �' ': KIMBE e O i" ^- �. EDWARD ODLAR � j..— �''JCAOq !•-' \�Y F j �---- < C7 FRS /D BEL E ._.� i _ 2 OR ! RLY -- x U I'D x "' � LARE ? J 2 M� '` U e `�- C ` FPS TIPTOE 3 I ¢ a `��ON -•� '� c e e x. CASTLETON �J. \N tn' w 2 AMAPOLA 4wi .. GREENOAK `.� \� _ ST o y... M��j F_DS .. TOM� O 2 y BIGO O ANFORD m ORION Z ,-,�"_-�- z z \\, Q EC : ~~ K w N KRZICH _ w z O 3 p; UIREWOOD ��F � VI -- '� - Oy a m w p a,. j H OLLANDERR� - >9'L l 'i ➢m . - BLUE HILL , HYLLIS U) P12YLLIS GNUS - I ROBINDEL __ — T KINJ SBL,RY ... - PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT BARK KE T-BELKNAP SQUIREHII L Z. .�- �NONROVIA � z 'm-- a - CLEO CORONADO� PROJECTS �MARI ' RAINBOW z HADOWHILL - DENSID �� GALL' ? 200 VI( 1 - 2009 RAINBOW O RAINBOW XXX e . r „'—_ � ..__ 1 "- ORANGE 6LOSSOM WESTMOOR _ �- - _ _ w Cape Seal d p SEEB R PEACH BLOSSOM ¢ C P Ir O w Rp ____'�_�., NORMANDY ILDFLOWER h92T _ y NEWCASTLE PL B OS SOM 0� CALABAZASm Overlay O'F m WATERFORD z SHARON J O Ft < LEEDS N a DUCKETT O z DEVON Slurry Sea I Q. 4000 .^i N,Q O w _ P-p 0 _ o- ! �I 1 XXX a zV � '! JUNIPERO SERRA > GARDENA I METEOR m 4� - a > MI� Y FORD LL; off. D K TULIITA Z EXTE ¢'� 1 a z HAZELBROOK \\ RUMFORD Z I a LAURETTA HRISTE S I nZl. I 0E 0 J 1 f a� 0 z x x x VALLEY GREEN y o 4UONITE LOOP g 5 CEDAR GREEN L ' �EAF ' ! XI___ ' MARIAN! � L HANFORD _N , W Q OU GARDE ATE t N w LAZANEO FOF O LENDA v U F r ALA a a AL > O CAR TWR ` I G HT z Q < U N D I I ' �_ i - ATEVENS CREEK >. SCOFIELD > w - w! SUNRISES d' g z Qi .. w _ FORGE I I MELODY ! CAE SHASTA ?` PRUNE 01DGE L. -� O D1E RANDOLPH COD 2 ~� 0 3 w a ¢ QI Y' O OE IT O 11 u I ANCOCK J 2. _.., S. J nnry RAKE a i <1 w? UBURN n• w > z = E TREE m 0., �? 0 z f U W 7 ❑ z • AI�1HE ST j ILIGH7 � 7 0 Y z a � L II �I I MEATDN gl I ! B,Q C 1 w 3; R6DR16UES I -L -HALL A 1 SHELLY LAS ONDAS G JI h � SOLA U r- CIVIC PAF3K, �' S CT j z. W. ❑ ❑ _ zl N o �• o z z -.� Z w CHERYL g : w 00 ; PACIFICA a PACIFICA MCCLELLAN _ ' LL O. T i Z -_' SILVE_ RADO SUISUN 2K VILLA Y Z 2K VILL N m ERIN Z O o CLAY 3 o Z' w r ° w r ��- _ w. ,Z;_; I F� � CORY RWI CLIPDEN g m m E LM _ .. - amP C LILAC w N G ILLIC O O JOh Z K -- z_ _ w_ - _' � ' t�,DE FOE ' z (hVO CARRIAGE UMAS J e� LL,NOER _._ L u '� � _- E LA FARGE ao \ z z �. Y F A 0 ° R O HEATHERWOOD z VfNTANA RD 'N OODLAR K w ! v E } z t ti �DF OROGRAN13E O E��� �- CLARENDON O > Mqs r TIPTOE of CATAL�A JO's N ., a ❑ 0 M BC� "- VAI �-� ' _ S ANFORD Z ❑ '�. !N - -.. . ORION Z 0 z �� KRZICH O - -� OLLINGDELL_ VIAVICO a 3 ZO SOUIREWOOD ��6,`�T ✓T� 'X ! N - ->- s 0 �9 O _ 0 9 i �'y N m BLUE HILL / o j HOLLANDERR z _ 3, PHA -- ROBINDELL —O KIU ^Y'\ BARK BELKNAP SOUIREHILL O r --OLEO CORONADO , of - �- ' SHADOWHILL _ GALLI ? z — DEN�SIDE'� r RAINBOW I RAINBOW � XXX U RAINBOW , MEADOW MURAN\ —� WESTMOOR - 1 ORANGE BLOSSOM m z a - p SEEBER PEACH BLOSSOM 0 w —� - �R q NORMANDY WILDFLOWER \9tija �rq�pgq�7� Y � NEWCASTLE PLUM BLOSSOM SHARON 2 B0 BIXBY 00 �� COZET E z{ LOREE r 2; � p w� � / RALYA w,' U / W SAIZbR4i f _ w U. GREENWOOD l I k�k i a' RUNG W RI : C B _ MU L I f � w"I 3 G PRIN gl MAR CAL DE BARCEL a ° TILSON PHIL � I Lu ° pPEa NO W pRO ❑ I BARNHART / PENDERGAST 3 � THERWppp z _ SHADYGROVE IC� 7UGGLE `- ", F ❑ j > ! X14,/ �- ---- CYNTHIA Q ty 0 = _ `-�, O O 40 - -- 0 O = 0 w _ MEIMMMM i ��� z O m SUT PA RK �� j POGO/ GLENTREE HANNA ' O ¢ U : p m .._2 NEWSOM BOLLINGER _ _ e B OLLINGER m Q v j K1M L \ 2 O 1 BELVEDE • E l Wr 2 CASTANO a �. G` E NOA K ' z S A MAPOLA .�' 2 W a Or U l� i TOMPKINS �. O j Y B' Z r rr AD ❑ Q¢ = o m PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECTS 2010 Cape Seal Overlay N