Highway System SCDOT ?· evaluation of the conditionof the state’s interstate system and bridge system…

Download Highway System SCDOT ?· evaluation of the conditionof the state’s interstate system and bridge system…

Post on 15-Jun-2018

212 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>2015 </p><p>SCDOT Maintenance Division SCDOT </p><p>1/1/2015 </p><p>SCDOT Maintenance Assessment Program Annual Report </p><p>Maintenance Assessment &amp; Funding Needs for the </p><p>South Carolina State Primary and Secondary </p><p>Highway System </p></li><li><p>1 </p><p>South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx </p><p>Table of Contents </p><p>Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Background: ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Description: ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 </p><p>Level of Service .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 System Needs ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 </p><p>Growth Population and DVMT ..................................................................................................................... 14 Funding Needs ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 </p><p>MAP Projection ................................................................................................................................................ 16 Pavement Management Program Projection ..................................................................................................... 22 Resurfacing Projection ...................................................................................................................................... 27 </p><p>Backlog Cost ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service ............................................................................................................... 28 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 28 Addendum ............................................................................................................................................................. 30 </p><p>Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix B ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix C ....................................................................................................................................................... 33 </p></li><li><p>2 </p><p>South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx </p><p>Executive Summary </p><p>In order to identify the current level of service being provided and estimate the amount of work necessary to </p><p>accomplish a specific level of service, the South Carolina Department of Transportation has surveyed and </p><p>evaluated the condition of the states primary and secondary highway system. The purpose of this report is </p><p>to provide the results of this evaluation and the associated estimates. In this report, funding estimates are </p><p>calculated to obtain a specific level of service for selected activities. To provide a comparison, several </p><p>different methods are used to estimate the necessary funding needs to obtain each level of service. These </p><p>estimates do not include all activities and do not include overhead costs. </p><p>South Carolina has the fourth largest highway system in the nation, consisting of approximately 41,421 </p><p>miles of roadway. Compounding the challenges of managing such a large transportation system is the </p><p>increasing rate of deterioration. This rate of deterioration is likely due to rapid population growth in our </p><p>state. Growth and population data released by the Census Bureau in July of 2014 identified South Carolina </p><p>as one of the top 10 states for percentage of population growth. Along with that population growth comes </p><p>the likelihood of a future increase in daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT). This increase in wear and tear </p><p>along with associated construction traffic is, and will continue, taking a costly toll on our roadways. </p><p>It is apparent that the state legislature is aware of the transportation funding needs in South Carolina. Act </p><p>176, which dedicates a relatively small amount of the General Fund to the resurfacing of state non-federal </p><p>aid secondary roads, was passed several years ago. Additionally, just last year, Act 98 was passed by the </p><p>legislature to dedicate even more state funds to the transportation system. This act generated an additional </p><p>$41 million for the fiscal year 2013-2014. The combined general fund contribution from these two acts has </p><p>resulted in a total of $79.8 million additional funds this fiscal year. However, as this report illustrates, to </p><p>attain an acceptable level of service, additional funding is necessary. The primary funding source for our </p><p>state transportation system is the motor fuel user fee, or gas tax. Since 1987 this fee has remained steady at </p><p>only 16 cents per gallon. Its important to note that in 1987 gas was less than $1.00 per gallon. With no </p><p>increase in twenty five years, it is no surprise that South Carolinas gas tax is one of the lowest in the nation. </p><p>The aging transportation system coupled with a stagnant funding source does not provide a bright future for </p><p>the infrastructure of our state. </p></li><li><p>3 </p><p>South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx </p><p>Background: </p><p>The Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) was developed in response to a need for an objective method </p><p>of analyzing and measuring the performance of the South Carolina Department of Transportations </p><p>(SCDOT) maintenance division. One goal of the program was to determine the level of service that is being </p><p>provided to South Carolinas motorists. This would also allow a calculation of the amount of improvement </p><p>that would be required to obtain higher levels of service, and the associated cost of these improvements. </p><p>Another benefit of this program is that a consistent expectation of performance has been established for the </p><p>entire state. Areas that need improvement have been identified and available resources can be directed to </p><p>these areas. In some cases, improvement plans and programs have been developed in an effort to improve </p><p>the performance. </p><p>Description: </p><p>The MAP is a random statistical evaluation of the South Carolina Department of Transportations (SCDOT) </p><p>maintenance performance on the system of primary and secondary highways throughout the state. Seven </p><p>key elements of maintenance were identified for evaluation. Significant indicators were chosen for each of </p><p>the seven key evaluated elements. Sections of roadway, two-tenths of a mile in length, are randomly </p><p>selected throughout the state. A two-person inspection team physically evaluates the seven key elements on </p><p>randomly selected roadway segments. These evaluations are scheduled throughout the year to ensure that </p><p>they are performed in all seasons. This is done to alleviate any seasonal variances in the key elements </p><p>evaluation results. </p><p>The seven elements that were evaluated are: (1) Pavement, (2) Shoulders / Ditches, (3) Drainage Structures, </p><p>(4) Roadside, (5) Signs, (6) Pavement Markings, and (7) Guardrail. Each element is evaluated and the </p><p>condition is recorded in a database. The elements and their condition indicators are located in Table 1. An </p><p>evaluation of the condition of the states interstate system and bridge system were not included in the MAP </p><p>evaluations. The bridge maintenance division has a separate program for evaluating the condition and needs </p><p>of the states bridges. A MAP evaluation of the interstate system is not performed due to concerns for the </p><p>safety of the raters and motorists, and the ensuing traffic congestion. While not included in the MAP </p></li><li><p>4 </p><p>South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx </p><p>evaluation, the costs for maintaining specific levels of service can be estimated for these assets. These costs </p><p>are included in this report. </p><p> For both primary and secondary highway systems, a statistical sampling was made to determine the location </p><p>of sites to be surveyed. Statewide, 2,721 sites were randomly selected for inspection. This equates to </p><p>approximately 1.3% of the total inventory and a statistical margin of error of plus or minus 10 % (assuming </p><p>every randomly selected segment contains all items/elements evaluated). During the period between </p><p>January 2013 and December 2014, survey teams assessed the condition of these 0.2-mile sections for the </p><p>features shown in Table 1. The inventory of each element and the quantity of the deficient conditions were </p><p>recorded and summarized, and a maintenance condition rating calculated. From this assessment, the </p><p>necessary maintenance activities to achieve the various levels of service were determined along with their </p><p>estimated costs. </p><p> The data collected has been used to objectively determine the current level of service provided by the </p><p>maintenance division. This information permits a projection of the amount of work necessary to bring the </p><p>entire states maintenance service to a desirable level. A cost can be associated with this work to assist in </p><p>identifying funding needs. The program also points out the substandard areas to local SCDOT departments. </p><p>This information is used to assist with planning and the allocation of existing maintenance resources. </p><p>The specific features that were measured in each of the seven elements evaluated are identified in Table 1. </p><p>Also shown in this table are the threshold conditions that must be satisfied to qualify for measurement. </p><p>These threshold conditions are comparable with similar assessment programs used by other state </p><p>transportation departments. </p></li><li><p>5 </p><p>South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx </p><p>Table 1 </p><p>Element Pavement </p><p>Features Threshold Condition </p><p>Potholes Depression greater than 1/2 square foot in area and 1-1/2 inches deep </p><p>Patching Area greater than 1/2 square foot that needs to be patched Pavement Quality Index (PQI) List PQI rating from segment </p><p>Width Roadway Width &gt;= 24 for primary routes &amp; &gt;=20 for secondary roads. Shoulders-Ditches </p><p>Low / High Shoulder Greater than 2 inches above or below edge of pavement Blocked Ditches Blocked 25% or more and/or not functional Lateral Ditches Eroded more than 1 foot </p><p>Drainage Structures Crossline Pipe Blocked more than 25% or Damaged Driveway Pipe Blocked more than 25% or Damaged </p><p>Curb &amp; Gutter / Valley Gutter Blocked more than 2 inches in depth for a length of a minimum of 2 feet or Damaged </p><p>Drop Inlets / Catch Basins Blocked more than 25%, Damaged, or Grate problem Miscellaneous Structures Not Functioning as Designed </p><p>Roadside </p><p>Brush/Tree Control Area cleared to right-of-way line. (Minimum of 5 feet up/down steep slopes. </p><p>Mowing Measured Grass Height Limb Height Clear area of 18 above the pavement, and shoulder, Litter Debris # of pieces of fist size or larger debris </p><p>Guardrail Vegetation % of total linear feet of rail where vegetation reaches bottom of rail </p><p>Turf Condition Presence of bare ground or undesired vegetation within routine mowing limits </p><p>Sidewalk Damaged or substandard. The sidewalk area is free of any vertical misalignments of or greater. </p><p>Sidewalk Vegetation The longitudinal length of the sidewalk should be clear of any brush or vegetation. </p><p>Signs Age, Reflectivity, Faded, Damaged, or Missing </p><p>In service over 10 years, non-reflective, faded, bent, damaged, or missing </p><p>Leaning / Vegetation Leaning more than 10 deg. Or covered w/ vegetation Pavement Markings </p><p>Raised Pavement Markers Missing or Damaged. Thermoplastic Worn, damaged, missing. Paint Worn, damaged, missing. Words &amp; Symbols Worn, damaged, missing. Reflectivity Unacceptable retro reflectivity (white 125, yellow 100) </p><p>Guardrail Guardrail Damaged, or not functioning Attenuator Damaged, or not functioning Cable Barrier Damaged, or not functioning End Terminal Damaged, or not functioning </p></li><li><p>6 </p><p>South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx </p><p>Evaluation </p><p>Once the features for each of the key elements and their threshold condition indicators were identified, there </p><p>was a need to define the levels of service (LOS) for each of the element items. A variety of methods were </p><p>used to define the threshold for the LOS. These methods included research of other states programs, </p><p>maintenance experience, engineering judgment, and sampling of existing conditions. A list of the thresholds </p><p>for the LOS for each element is shown in Table 2. Each of the levels of service has been defined below. Level of Service </p><p>In order to effectively evaluate the condition of the State Highway System, it was necessary to establish </p><p>common sense definitions for different levels of service. A five-level grading system (A, B, C, D and F) </p><p>was established and is used in the MAP. Detailed definitions of each level of service are as follows. </p><p>Level of Service A (best) This is a very high level of service in which the associated features are in excellent condition. Very few deficiencies are present, all systems are operational, and the overall appearance is pleasing. Preventive maintenance is a high priority in all maintenance activities. </p><p> Level of Service B (good) This is a high level of service in which the associated features are in good condition. Very few deficiencies are present in safety and investment protection, but moderate deficiencies may exist in other areas. All systems are operational. Preventive maintenance is a high priority for safety-related activities, but is deferred for other areas, resulting in additional corrective maintenance activities. </p><p>Level of Service C (fair) This is a fair maintenance service level in which the associated features are in fair condition. Very few deficiencies are present in safety related activities, but moderate deficiencies...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >