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

TRANSCRIPT

  • 2015

    SCDOT Maintenance Division SCDOT

    1/1/2015

    SCDOT Maintenance Assessment Program Annual Report

    Maintenance Assessment & Funding Needs for the

    South Carolina State Primary and Secondary

    Highway System

  • 1

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Table of Contents

    Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Background: ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Description: ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................... 6

    Level of Service .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 System Needs ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

    Growth Population and DVMT ..................................................................................................................... 14 Funding Needs ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

    MAP Projection ................................................................................................................................................ 16 Pavement Management Program Projection ..................................................................................................... 22 Resurfacing Projection ...................................................................................................................................... 27

    Backlog Cost ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service ............................................................................................................... 28 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 28 Addendum ............................................................................................................................................................. 30

    Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix B ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix C ....................................................................................................................................................... 33

  • 2

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Executive Summary

    In order to identify the current level of service being provided and estimate the amount of work necessary to

    accomplish a specific level of service, the South Carolina Department of Transportation has surveyed and

    evaluated the condition of the states primary and secondary highway system. The purpose of this report is

    to provide the results of this evaluation and the associated estimates. In this report, funding estimates are

    calculated to obtain a specific level of service for selected activities. To provide a comparison, several

    different methods are used to estimate the necessary funding needs to obtain each level of service. These

    estimates do not include all activities and do not include overhead costs.

    South Carolina has the fourth largest highway system in the nation, consisting of approximately 41,421

    miles of roadway. Compounding the challenges of managing such a large transportation system is the

    increasing rate of deterioration. This rate of deterioration is likely due to rapid population growth in our

    state. Growth and population data released by the Census Bureau in July of 2014 identified South Carolina

    as one of the top 10 states for percentage of population growth. Along with that population growth comes

    the likelihood of a future increase in daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT). This increase in wear and tear

    along with associated construction traffic is, and will continue, taking a costly toll on our roadways.

    It is apparent that the state legislature is aware of the transportation funding needs in South Carolina. Act

    176, which dedicates a relatively small amount of the General Fund to the resurfacing of state non-federal

    aid secondary roads, was passed several years ago. Additionally, just last year, Act 98 was passed by the

    legislature to dedicate even more state funds to the transportation system. This act generated an additional

    $41 million for the fiscal year 2013-2014. The combined general fund contribution from these two acts has

    resulted in a total of $79.8 million additional funds this fiscal year. However, as this report illustrates, to

    attain an acceptable level of service, additional funding is necessary. The primary funding source for our

    state transportation system is the motor fuel user fee, or gas tax. Since 1987 this fee has remained steady at

    only 16 cents per gallon. Its important to note that in 1987 gas was less than $1.00 per gallon. With no

    increase in twenty five years, it is no surprise that South Carolinas gas tax is one of the lowest in the nation.

    The aging transportation system coupled with a stagnant funding source does not provide a bright future for

    the infrastructure of our state.

  • 3

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Background:

    The Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) was developed in response to a need for an objective method

    of analyzing and measuring the performance of the South Carolina Department of Transportations

    (SCDOT) maintenance division. One goal of the program was to determine the level of service that is being

    provided to South Carolinas motorists. This would also allow a calculation of the amount of improvement

    that would be required to obtain higher levels of service, and the associated cost of these improvements.

    Another benefit of this program is that a consistent expectation of performance has been established for the

    entire state. Areas that need improvement have been identified and available resources can be directed to

    these areas. In some cases, improvement plans and programs have been developed in an effort to improve

    the performance.

    Description:

    The MAP is a random statistical evaluation of the South Carolina Department of Transportations (SCDOT)

    maintenance performance on the system of primary and secondary highways throughout the state. Seven

    key elements of maintenance were identified for evaluation. Significant indicators were chosen for each of

    the seven key evaluated elements. Sections of roadway, two-tenths of a mile in length, are randomly

    selected throughout the state. A two-person inspection team physically evaluates the seven key elements on

    randomly selected roadway segments. These evaluations are scheduled throughout the year to ensure that

    they are performed in all seasons. This is done to alleviate any seasonal variances in the key elements

    evaluation results.

    The seven elements that were evaluated are: (1) Pavement, (2) Shoulders / Ditches, (3) Drainage Structures,

    (4) Roadside, (5) Signs, (6) Pavement Markings, and (7) Guardrail. Each element is evaluated and the

    condition is recorded in a database. The elements and their condition indicators are located in Table 1. An

    evaluation of the condition of the states interstate system and bridge system were not included in the MAP

    evaluations. The bridge maintenance division has a separate program for evaluating the condition and needs

    of the states bridges. A MAP evaluation of the interstate system is not performed due to concerns for the

    safety of the raters and motorists, and the ensuing traffic congestion. While not included in the MAP

  • 4

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    evaluation, the costs for maintaining specific levels of service can be estimated for these assets. These costs

    are included in this report.

    For both primary and secondary highway systems, a statistical sampling was made to determine the location

    of sites to be surveyed. Statewide, 2,721 sites were randomly selected for inspection. This equates to

    approximately 1.3% of the total inventory and a statistical margin of error of plus or minus 10 % (assuming

    every randomly selected segment contains all items/elements evaluated). During the period between

    January 2013 and December 2014, survey teams assessed the condition of these 0.2-mile sections for the

    features shown in Table 1. The inventory of each element and the quantity of the deficient conditions were

    recorded and summarized, and a maintenance condition rating calculated. From this assessment, the

    necessary maintenance activities to achieve the various levels of service were determined along with their

    estimated costs.

    The data collected has been used to objectively determine the current level of service provided by the

    maintenance division. This information permits a projection of the amount of work necessary to bring the

    entire states maintenance service to a desirable level. A cost can be associated with this work to assist in

    identifying funding needs. The program also points out the substandard areas to local SCDOT departments.

    This information is used to assist with planning and the allocation of existing maintenance resources.

    The specific features that were measured in each of the seven elements evaluated are identified in Table 1.

    Also shown in this table are the threshold conditions that must be satisfied to qualify for measurement.

    These threshold conditions are comparable with similar assessment programs used by other state

    transportation departments.

  • 5

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Table 1

    Element Pavement

    Features Threshold Condition

    Potholes Depression greater than 1/2 square foot in area and 1-1/2 inches deep

    Patching Area greater than 1/2 square foot that needs to be patched Pavement Quality Index (PQI) List PQI rating from segment

    Width Roadway Width >= 24 for primary routes & >=20 for secondary roads. Shoulders-Ditches

    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

    Drainage Structures Crossline Pipe Blocked more than 25% or Damaged Driveway Pipe Blocked more than 25% or Damaged

    Curb & Gutter / Valley Gutter Blocked more than 2 inches in depth for a length of a minimum of 2 feet or Damaged

    Drop Inlets / Catch Basins Blocked more than 25%, Damaged, or Grate problem Miscellaneous Structures Not Functioning as Designed

    Roadside

    Brush/Tree Control Area cleared to right-of-way line. (Minimum of 5 feet up/down steep slopes.

    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

    Guardrail Vegetation % of total linear feet of rail where vegetation reaches bottom of rail

    Turf Condition Presence of bare ground or undesired vegetation within routine mowing limits

    Sidewalk Damaged or substandard. The sidewalk area is free of any vertical misalignments of or greater.

    Sidewalk Vegetation The longitudinal length of the sidewalk should be clear of any brush or vegetation.

    Signs Age, Reflectivity, Faded, Damaged, or Missing

    In service over 10 years, non-reflective, faded, bent, damaged, or missing

    Leaning / Vegetation Leaning more than 10 deg. Or covered w/ vegetation Pavement Markings

    Raised Pavement Markers Missing or Damaged. Thermoplastic Worn, damaged, missing. Paint Worn, damaged, missing. Words & Symbols Worn, damaged, missing. Reflectivity Unacceptable retro reflectivity (white 125, yellow 100)

    Guardrail Guardrail Damaged, or not functioning Attenuator Damaged, or not functioning Cable Barrier Damaged, or not functioning End Terminal Damaged, or not functioning

  • 6

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Evaluation

    Once the features for each of the key elements and their threshold condition indicators were identified, there

    was a need to define the levels of service (LOS) for each of the element items. A variety of methods were

    used to define the threshold for the LOS. These methods included research of other states programs,

    maintenance experience, engineering judgment, and sampling of existing conditions. A list of the thresholds

    for the LOS for each element is shown in Table 2. Each of the levels of service has been defined below. Level of Service

    In order to effectively evaluate the condition of the State Highway System, it was necessary to establish

    common sense definitions for different levels of service. A five-level grading system (A, B, C, D and F)

    was established and is used in the MAP. Detailed definitions of each level of service are as follows.

    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.

    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.

    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 exist for investment protection and significant aesthetic related deficiencies. Preventive maintenance is deferred for many activities except safety-related work. Corrective maintenance is routinely practiced for all activities. A backlog of deficiencies begins to build up that will have to be dealt with eventually, at a higher cost. Some roadway structural problems begin to appear due to long-term deterioration of the system.

    Level of Service D (poor) This is a low maintenance service level in which the associated features are in generally poor condition. Moderate deficiencies are present in safety-related activities and significant deficiencies for all other activities. Very little preventive maintenance is accomplished; maintenance becomes very reactionary and places emphasis on correcting problems as they occur. A backlog of deficiencies exists. Safety problems begin to appear that increase risk and liability, and significant structural deficiencies exist that accelerate the long-term deterioration of the system. The overall appearance of the system is poor.

    Level of Service F (worst) This is lowest service level in which the associated features are in poor and failing condition. Significant deficiencies are present in all maintenance activities. The overall appearance is not aesthetically pleasing. Preventive maintenance is not practiced for any maintenance activities. Maintenance is totally reactive and places emphasis on correcting problems as they occur. Significant backlogs of maintenance deficiencies exist. Excessive safety problems occur.

  • 7

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Results

    The results of the MAP were compiled by totaling the inventory and deficiencies found and the lane miles

    inspected. Using these findings as a representative sample, this rate of deficiencies per lane mile was then

    extrapolated to represent the entire state primary and secondary highway system. The findings are displayed

    in Table 2A and Table 2B respectively. The rates were compared to the threshold limits previously defined

    to determine the LOS for that particular item.

    The LOS calculated was lower than desired in most areas. One item that was recently reevaluated is

    Brush/Tree Control. The methodology for Brush/Tree Control was modified, beginning in 2012, to reflect

    the percent of roadway with deficient Brush/Tree Control. Now, the entire road is inventoried and

    Brush/Tree Control is presented as a percentage of total road length that is deficient, not the percent of

    Brush/Tree Control that is deficient.

    There were also several items that were not very conducive to calculating cost for the final report. In these

    instances, alternative information was used to identify the LOS and the associated cost for each. An

    example of this is grass height. The actual height of the grass is measured and recorded during a MAP

    inspection. However, due to the fact that this is a seasonal item and that it is difficult to accurately associate

    a cost to the actual height of the grass, an alternative method was used for this report. In this example,

    levels of service were associated with the number of cuts per year. Existing information was used to

    identify the average number of cuts currently obtained and the associated cost per cut.

    In an effort to be consistent on the results table, many of the features performance scores are presented as a

    percentage of a feature that is not deficient. This allows some consistency in reporting by the higher

    percentage score representing a higher level of service. For instance, if 5% of the ditches inspected were

    deficient the score would be presented as 95% of the ditches have no deficiency.

    The MAP programs Health Scores also provide a record of the condition of the primary and secondary

    systems over time. The Health Scores are a weighted average of the MAP inspection results with weighting

    favoring safety sensitive items. Therefore, while the Health Score may improve there will not necessarily be

    a corresponding drop in the cost to achieve or maintain the LOS. These scores, when analyzed for

  • 8

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    performance trends, can identify roadway features that need attention. The Health Score for the overall

    system, and a graph for selected elements are included in Appendix B.

    Since the last MAP report, the system wide condition assessments of most inspection features declined but

    were within the margin of error for this sample size. It is important to remember that the 2015 MAP report

    is a compilation of the inspection results for both 2013 and 2014. Changes to inspection methods and

    criteria alter the scores and take several years to balance out.

    On primary routes, improvements were seen in eleven inspection features. These features are: patching,

    width, shoulders, blocked ditches, lateral ditches, miscellaneous drainage structures, limb height, guardrail

    vegetation, paint, and guardrail. All improvements are within the margin of error.

    Four primary route features remained relatively unchanged. There features are: mowing, attenuator and

    cable barrier.

    Fifteen primary route features that had negative trends for this report are within the margin of error for this

    sample size. These features are: pot holes, cross line pipes, driveway pipes, curb and gutter, drop inlets,

    brush and tree, litter, turf condition, sidewalk, sidewalk vegetation, sign condition, leaning signs, raised

    pavement markers, words and symbols and end terminals. Raised pavement markers exhibited decline

    outside the margin of error. We believe that winter weather of the last few years resulted in many raised

    pavement markers being removed by snow plows.

    On secondary roads, improvements were seen in seven inspection features. These features are: width,

    high/low shoulders, blocked ditches, curb and gutter, turf condition, paint, and guardrail. All of these items

    showed improvements within the margin of error.

    Eight features remained unchanged. These features are: drop inlets, brush and tree, mowing, limb height,

    guardrail vegetation, sidewalk vegetation, attenuator and cable barrier.

    Fourteen items had negative trends for this report all but two are within the margin of error for this sample

    size. These features are: pot holes, patching, PQI, lateral ditches, crossline pipe, driveway pipe, litter,

  • 9

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    sidewalk, sign condition, leaning signs, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic, words and symbols and

    guardrail. Two of these items exhibited declines greater than the margin of error. There items are: cross

    line pipes and driveway pipes. The decline in these inspection items may be attributed to lack of funding to

    purchase needed pipe cleaning equipment and reduction in number of employees performing this type of

    work.

    While these results are not encouraging, they are to be expected. Increased use of our system, coupled with

    low funding levels and a reduction in the number of employees that perform the maintenance on our

    roadways, has resulted in our maintenance forces shifting their financial and human resources to areas of

    immediate need. This shifting of resources comes at the expense of other areas and eventually lowers the

    overall system LOS. Additionally, the impact of reduced funding will lag behind the MAP inspection

    findings. We anticipate this reduction will not have a positive impact on the condition of our system as we

    move forward.

  • 10

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Table 2A Primary Routes

    Element Service Level

    Actual Performance

    Activities Condition Indicators Performance

    Measures Threshold Threshold Threshold Threshold Threshold Pavement A B C D F

    Potholes Greater than 1/2 square foot in area and 1-1/2 inches deep

    EA per Lane Mile 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.33 >0.33 0.23

    Patching Area > 1/2 SF that needs patching % of Area 99.8% 99.5% 99.0% 98.5%

  • 11

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Table 2A Primary Routes (Continued)

    Roadside A B C D F

    Brush/Tree Control

    Area cleared to tree line or right-of-way line. (Minimum of 5 feet up/down steep slopes) % 98% 95% 93% 90%

  • 12

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Table 2B Secondary Roads

    Element Service Level

    Actual Performance

    Items Condition Indicators Performance

    Measures Threshold Threshold Threshold Threshold Threshold Pavement A B C D F

    Potholes Greater than 1/2 square foot in area and 1-1/2 inches deep

    EA per Lane Mile 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.33 >0.33 0.66

    Patching Area > 1/2 SF that needs patching % of Area 99.8% 99.5% 99.0% 98.5%

  • 13

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Table 2B Secondary Roads (Continued)

    Roadside A B C D F

    Brush/Tree Control

    Area cleared to tree line or right-of-way line. (Minimum of 5 feet up/down steep slopes) % 98% 95% 93% 90%

  • 14

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    System Needs Growth Population and DVMT

    South Carolina has been identified as one of the fastest growing states in the nation. Census data from July

    of 2014 shows, only 10 states had a higher increase in percentage of population growth than South Carolina.

    Along with that population growth comes an increase in daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT). The

    reduction in DVMT since 2008 (see Figure 1) is attributed to increasing fuel costs during this period

    coupled with the economic downturn. However, it is important to note that the DVMT has increased slightly

    for each of the last few years and historically the DVMT has grown at a faster rate than the population

    because people are driving more than they have in the past. With the recent drastic decrease in fuel prices

    we anticipate a corresponding increase in DVMT for next year. This increase in wear and tear along with

    associated construction traffic is taking a toll on our roadways. This increased deterioration along with a

    shrinking highway maintenance budget is a recipe for disaster. Below are charts that illustrate population,

    DVMT, and SCDOT maintenance budget trends.

    Figure 1

    4,000,000

    4,100,000

    4,200,000

    4,300,000

    4,400,000

    4,500,000

    4,600,000

    4,700,000

    4,800,000

    4,900,000

    5,000,000

    116,000,000

    118,000,000

    120,000,000

    122,000,000

    124,000,000

    126,000,000

    128,000,000

    130,000,000

    132,000,000

    134,000,000

    136,000,000

    Cen

    sus

    Dat

    a

    DVM

    T

    DVMT & Census Data for South Carolina

    DVMT Census

  • 15

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Figure 2

    120,000,000

    122,000,000

    124,000,000

    126,000,000

    128,000,000

    130,000,000

    132,000,000

    134,000,000

    136,000,000

    138,000,000

    140,000,000

    10,000,000

    60,000,000

    110,000,000

    160,000,000

    210,000,000

    260,000,000

    310,000,000

    360,000,000

    410,000,000

    DVM

    T (D

    aily

    veh

    icle

    mile

    s tr

    avel

    ed)

    Bud

    get

    Maintenance Budget & DVMT for South Carolina

    Budget DVMT

  • 16

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Figure 3

    Funding Needs

    South Carolina has the fourth largest state maintained road system in the nation with approximately 41,421

    centerline miles. The primary funding source for SCDOT is a motor fuel user fee, or the gas tax. The state

    gas tax has not been increased since 1987. That is over twenty years without an increase. During this

    period of time, the system has grown and the rate of deterioration has increased, but the funding mechanism

    has been stagnant. South Carolina disburses approximately $34,299 per mile of state maintained road. That

    is the lowest in the nation. In comparison, the national average is approximately $145,127 per mile of road

    maintained. For maintenance of roads, South Carolina disburses $8,164 per lane mile for state maintained

    roads. This is the third lowest in the nation. The national average is just under $23,000 per lane mile. South

    Carolina receives fewer dollars per mile of responsibility than any other state in the nation. If South

    Carolina funded the maintenance of roads at the national average the budget would be over $900 million.

    MAP Projection

    150,000,000

    200,000,000

    250,000,000

    300,000,000

    350,000,000

    400,000,000

    450,000,000

    500,000,000

    3,500,0003,600,0003,700,0003,800,0003,900,0004,000,0004,100,0004,200,0004,300,0004,400,0004,500,0004,600,0004,700,0004,800,0004,900,0005,000,000

    Bud

    get

    Cen

    sus

    Maintenance Budget & Census for South Carolina

    Census Budget

  • 17

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    This MAP report identifies the needs associated with the state maintained primary and secondary road

    systems in South Carolina. Table 3A and Table 3B illustrate the cost associated with the work required to

    achieve each LOS. This cost is in addition to our current state funded budget of $281 million plus an

    additional $127.5 million in federal funding. These costs were calculated by multiplying the amount of

    work necessary to achieve a particular LOS by the unit cost of that work. Unit costs were obtained from

    historical data from both maintenance contracts and our internal Highway Maintenance Management

    System (HMMS). The unit cost used was determined by the primary method in which the work is

    performed. For example, the unit cost in HMMS for pothole patching was used because SCDOT

    maintenance forces primarily perform this function. Similarly, the unit cost for shoulder paving was taken

    from the Departments Bid Estimator program because this work is typically contracted. A table of the

    costs used to calculate these projections is displayed in Appendix A.

    A summary of the costs for each LOS for the seven key elements for primary routes is illustrated in Table

    3A. The same summary costs for the secondary roads are illustrated in Table 3B. These cost estimates

    exclude the interstate system and all bridge maintenance costs. In addition, LOS F has been excluded

    from the tables because it represents the worst LOS and can be achieved with no cost. Due to the high cost

    of shoulder widening and paving, this years small percentage of improvement in roadway with for primary

    routes resulted in a significant reduction in the pavement elements cost to achieve.

    The MAP projection is slightly different than the other projections included in this report. The lack of

    sufficient funding for an extended period of time has created a backlog of needed improvements that is

    outstanding. The MAP projection is not an annual need, but projects the amount necessary to clear the

    existing backlog and reach the desired level of service. Note that the cost projection for the pavement

    portion of the MAP also includes costs associated with the widening of roads that are currently a

    substandard width. Because of this one-time cost, the pavement projection for the MAP may be higher than

    the other pavement projections included in this report. The pavement projection does not include a specific

    amount dedicated for resurfacing, but does include the projected cost to address all of the areas that are in

    need of patching. The unit cost to patch these areas is much more expensive than resurfacing. This also

    contributes to the high pavement cost in the MAP projection.

  • 18

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Table 3A

    Maintenance Assessment Program Summary Costs for Primary Roads Projected Cost to Achieve (LOS)

    Element A B C D

    Pavement $293,079,073 $222,327,209 $139,287,322 $32,998,680

    Shoulders-Ditches $665,123 ($2,307,264) ($4,605,498) ($7,577,886)

    Drainage Structures $25,689,425 $14,523,774 $5,434,253 ($5,851,965)

    Roadside $13,099,467 $4,883,823 $1,538,907 ($4,004,506)

    Signs $394,662 $42,762 ($380,521) ($803,804)

    Pavement Markings $9,022,302 $7,584,754 $5,935,488 $4,287,551

    Guardrail $4,042,713 $3,702,261 $3,532,035 $3,332,204

    Total $345,992,766 $250,757,319 $150,741,987 $22,380,275 A possible flaw in this logic is the assumption that all of the additional work would be performed by SCDOT maintenance forces and contract forces in the same manner that it is occurring now. In reality, additional full-time employees (FTE) and equipment would be required for SCDOT forces to perform this additional work. If the decision was made to maintain the existing level of full-time employees and satisfy the increased demand with contract forces, the cost projections shown in Table 3A and Table 3B would significantly increase.

  • 19

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Table 3B

    Maintenance Assessment Program Summary Costs for Secondary Roads

    Projected Cost to Achieve

    Element A B C D

    Pavement $505,096,659 $416,778,417 $263,605,520 $110,410,551

    Shoulders-Ditches $4,166,622 ($6,921,722) ($14,690,009) ($25,214,266)

    Drainage Structures $89,382,728 $74,212,384 $61,127,111 $45,898,571

    Roadside $68,175,833 $44,499,103 $26,513,689 $2,839,513

    Signs $695,115 ($150,081) ($995,276) ($125,435)

    Pavement Markings $16,121,071 $14,900,729 $13,169,010 $10,992,849

    Guardrail $4,318,672 $2,181,615 ($199,309) ($2,379,455)

    Total $687,956,700 $545,500,445 $348,530,736 $142,422,328 Although a statistically significant number of road segments were used to develop this report, there were relatively few segments that included guardrail. This occurred because of the random nature in which the road segments were selected. Although MAP evaluations target segments of roadway with specific features to ensure that a statistically significant number of samples of each feature are evaluated, it is unlikely that the results for guardrail will be able to be statistically significant. The MAP projected costs for guardrail were obviously inaccurate and thus were replaced by a cost projected to repair hits and replace guardrail on a set cycle.

    Once the backlog of outstanding work is performed and the desired level of service is achieved, there would

    be a reduced cost to maintain that level of service. The projected cost of maintaining our current system for

    each specific LOS is shown in Tables 4A through 4E. The MAP is very effective at assessing the current

    condition of our system and identifying the LOS currently being provided. However, it is not conducive to

    projecting a cost to maintain a system. Therefore, this cost was derived by assigning set cycles for each

    LOS to the core functions of maintenance, such as resurfacing, mowing, shoulder and ditch maintenance,

    pavement marking, traffic signal upgrade, etc. Reasonable assumptions based on historical information

    were made for other, more reactive types of maintenance such as pothole patching, damaged guardrail

    repair, damaged sign repair, etc. to project a cost.

    Note that these cost projections in Tables 3A and 3B separated into the costs associated with the primary and secondary systems. The cost projections in tables 4A through 4E include primary, secondary, interstate and bridges. It is necessary to add the cost projections for each systems desired LOS to determine the total annual need. It is conceivable that funding constraints could encourage a decision to adopt a different LOS for the

  • 20

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    primary system than for the secondary system. By separating the projected costs, it is relatively easy to perform a simple calculation to evaluate the different scenarios that could be considered.

    Table 4A Summary Cost Projection for Primary Routes

    Projected Cost to Maintain (LOS)

    Element A B C D

    Pavement $276,950,462 $238,764,349 $211,556,015 $190,058,628

    Shoulders-Ditches $6,097,111 $5,226,095 $4,572,834 $3,658,267

    Drainage Structures $3,496,221 $2,622,166 $2,185,138 $1,748,110

    Roadside $21,217,000 $16,699,689 $11,742,963 $7,497,335

    Signs $3,455,568 $3,192,203 $3,004,084 $2,862,995

    Pavement Markings $9,594,531 $5,525,573 $3,975,039 $3,683,716

    Guardrail $2,978,460 $2,815,383 $2,733,845 $2,638,126

    Total $323,789,352 $274,845,457 $239,769,917 $212,147,177

    Table 4B Summary Cost Projection for Secondary Routes

    Projected Cost to Maintain (LOS)

    Element A B C D

    Pavement $537,063,104 $453,596,108 $394,506,975 $337,929,848

    Shoulders-Ditches $21,241,722 $18,207,190 $15,931,291 $12,745,033

    Drainage Structures $11,503,788 $8,627,841 $7,189,867 $5,751,894

    Roadside $42,986,539 $27,219,869 $18,139,886 $13,470,916

    Signs $2,827,283 $2,611,802 $2,457,887 $2,342,451

    Pavement Markings $26,098,612 $17,399,075 $13,049,306 $8,699,537

    Guardrail $1,800,558 $1,667,132 $1,571,827 $1,480,335

    Total $643,521,606 $529,329,017 $452,847,039 $382,420,014

  • 21

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Table 4C Summary Cost Projection for Interstate Routes

    Projected Cost to Maintain (LOS)

    Element A B C D

    Pavement $61,613,784 $51,448,274 $44,207,443 $38,811,903

    Shoulders-Ditches $778,562 $667,339 $583,922 $467,137

    Drainage Structures $253,904 $190,428 $158,828 $126,952

    Roadside $27,262,305 $21,772,478 $16,259,991 $11,015,880

    Signs $2,552,663 $1,701,775 $1,458,664 $1,276,331

    Pavement Markings $8,264,359 $6,795,140 $6,304,420 $6,060,530

    Guardrail $4,712,253 $4,426,877 $4,284,190 $4,116,687

    Total $105,437,830 $87,002,311 $73,257,458 $61,875,420

    Table 4D Summary Cost Projection for Bridges

    Projected Cost to Maintain (LOS) Bridges A B C D

    Total $100,000,000 $75,000,000 $60,000,000 $45,000,000

    Table 4E Summary Cost Projection for All Routes and Bridges

    Projected Cost to Maintain (LOS) Element A B C D

    Pavement $875,627,350 $743,808,731 $650,270,433 $566,800,379 Shoulders-Ditches $28,117,395 $24,100,625 $21,088,047 $16,870,437 Drainage Structures $15,253,913 $11,440,435 $9,533,833 $7,626,956 Roadside $91,465,844 $65,692,036 $46,142,841 $31,984,132 Signs $8,835,514 $7,505,780 $6,920,636 $6,481,778 Pavement Markings $43,957,502 $29,719,788 $23,328,765 $18,443,783 Guardrail $9,491,270 $8,909,392 $8,589,861 $8,235,147 Bridges $100,000,000 $75,000,000 $60,000,000 $45,000,000 Total $1,172,748,789 $966,176,785 $825,874,415 $701,442,612

  • 22

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Pavement Management Program Projection A second evaluation included in this report utilizes our Pavement Management Program to project funding

    needs for the pavement maintenance of our primary and secondary systems. Although the MAP uses the

    pavement quality index (PQI) to assist in defining the LOS, this information was not used in the MAP cost

    projection. Our pavement management division used the current PQI data along with a target PQI range to

    project maintenance cost over the next fifteen years. This calculation would be an alternative projection for

    only the pavement element of the MAP. All non-pavement related maintenance costs (drainage, mowing,

    litter, etc.) would be in addition to the projections in this section. The projection for the secondary system

    used a five county sample and includes an extrapolated projection for the entire state. The Pavement

    Quality Index is the basic measure of road condition used by Pavement Management. This index

    incorporates the roughness and distresses (including rutting) that occur on the surface of a road. The PQI

    scale ranges for 0.0 to 5.0, with 5.0 being the best.

    This Pavement Management Program projection is presented in this report in terms of Remaining Service

    Life (RSL) and Level of Service (LOS). RSL is an indication of how many years can be expected out of a

    pavement before it reaches the minimum acceptable operating condition. In essence, RSL can be used to

    illustrate the condition of the highway system. Each year, the entire system would deteriorate by one

    service life year per lane mile of the system. As improvements are made to the system, service life years are

    added. To maintain a transportation system at its current service level, the same number of service life years

    need to be added as is lost. For example, in South Carolina, the secondary road system is comprised of

    approximately 62,900 lane miles. Each year 62,900 lane mile years of service life are lost. Therefore,

    62,900 lane mile years of service life must be added back each year to prevent further deterioration of the

    system. The cost projections below are estimates by our Pavement Management System for the cost of the

    reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preservation treatments that would be necessary to accomplish the desired

    goal. The RSL of the system is determined from the direct correlation of the calculated PQI. The LOS is a

    range of RSL values. The approximate correlation of LOS, PQI and RSL are displayed in the table below.

    Graphs of PQI trends for various route types can be found in Appendix C.

  • 23

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Table 5

    PQI to RSL Correlation

    The current condition of the primary and secondary systems in terms of RSL is illustrated by the

    following charts.

    32.8

    %

    4.6%

    4.4%

    4.5%

    5.2%

    4.6%

    5.8%

    4.8%

    7.8%

    5.9%

    6.6%

    3.6%

    2.0%

    1.9%

    1.5%

    0.8%

    3.3%

    0

    0.05

    0.1

    0.15

    0.2

    0.25

    0.3

    0.35

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16+

    Primary System RSL Distribution [USSC System RSL Avg.=5.0 in 12/2014]

    [Report is Aged HPMA Modeling - 2014 USSC Data Currently

    RSL in Years

    Perc

    ent o

    f Mile

    s in

    Syst

    em

    Primary System (US SC) Condition PQI RSL

    LOS F 0 2.4 0

    LOS D 2.5 2.7 1 4

    LOS C 2.8 3.2 5 9

    LOS B 3.3 4.0 10 14

    LOS A 4.1 5.0 15 - 20

    Secondary System Condition PQI RSL

    LOS F 0 2.2 0

    LOS D 2.3 2.6 1 4

    LOS C 2.7 3.1 5 9

    LOS B 3.2 3.7 10 14

    LOS A 3.8 5.0 15 - 20

  • 24

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    The Pavement Management System program was used to project costs associated with achieving a more

    desirable level of service than is currently being provided. This system requires a user defined logical

    decision tree that places limits on the output options. For example, in the charts on pages 23 and 24, the

    user defined the desirable average RSL, but also limited the percent of lane miles with a RSL equal to 0

    to 30 %. This allows the user to ensure a realistic output.

    The costs to achieve a desirable LOS were projected and are displayed in the figures below. Because of

    the magnitude of data, and resulting computations, the secondary system was projected using data from

    a five county sample. The sample counties were representative of the entire states secondary system.

    26.5

    %

    3.2%

    4.0%

    5.1%

    6.1%

    7.2%

    8.1%

    8.2%

    7.8%

    6.7%

    5.8%

    4.2%

    2.8%

    1.9%

    1.2%

    0.6%

    0.7%

    0

    0.05

    0.1

    0.15

    0.2

    0.25

    0.3

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16+

    Secondary System RSL Distribution [Sec System RSL Avg.=5.2 in 12/2014]

    Perc

    ent o

    f Mile

    s in

    Syst

    em

    RSL in Years

  • 25

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Figure 3

    The cost projection for this LOS for the primary system is an average of $325.1 million per year.

    Figure 4

    The cost projection for this LOS for the primary system is an average of $293.6 million per year.

    $0.0

    $325.2 $325.2 $325.2 $325.2 $325.1 $325.2 $325.1 $325.1 $325.0

    $0.0

    $200.0

    $400.0

    $600.0

    $800.0

    $1,000.0

    2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

    $ in

    Mill

    ions

    USSC System Cost to Reach LOS "B" w/ Smoothed Budget System Reaches LOS "B" in 2024

    $0.0

    $293.6 $293.6 $293.6 $293.6 $293.6 $293.6 $293.6 $293.6 $293.6

    $0.0

    $200.0

    $400.0

    $600.0

    $800.0

    $1,000.0

    2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

    $ in

    Mill

    ions

    USSC System Cost to Reach LOS "C" w/ Smoothed Budget System Reaches LOS "C" in 2019

  • 26

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Figure 5

    The cost projection for this LOS for the secondary system is an average of $563.0 million per year.

    Figure 6

    The cost projection for this LOS for the secondary system is an average of $373.2 million per year.

    $0.0

    $563.0 $563.0 $563.0 $563.0 $563.0 $563.0 $563.0 $563.0 $563.0

    $0.0

    $200.0

    $400.0

    $600.0

    $800.0

    $1,000.0

    2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

    $ in

    Mill

    ions

    Secondary System Cost to Reach LOS "B" w/ Smoothed Budget Extrapolated from 5 County Sample System Reaches LOS "B" in 2024

    $0.0

    $373.2 $373.2 $373.2 $373.2 $373.2 $373.2 $373.2 $373.2 $373.2

    $0.0

    $200.0

    $400.0

    $600.0

    $800.0

    $1,000.0

    2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

    $ in

    Mill

    ions

    Secondary System Cost to Reach LOS "C" w/ Smoothed Budget Extrapolated from 5 County Sample

    System Reaches LOS "C" in 2020

  • 27

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Resurfacing Projection

    In addition to the MAP projection and the PQI projection, a resurfacing projection has also been

    included in this report. In theory, this projection could replace the pavement element in the MAP and

    the pavement management projection over a twelve year period. The MAP projection only calculated

    the pavement maintenance cost under current conditions (i.e. our current level of resurfacing funding).

    If funding were available to resurface all of our roads as they needed it, most of the MAP pavement cost

    would be alleviated. (The amount included in the MAP projection for widening would not be alleviated

    by this resurfacing projection) Ideally, roads would receive the appropriate type of resurfacing

    treatment (preservation, rehabilitation, or reconstruction) as recommended by the pavement management

    system. The type and frequency of treatment for each road would certainly vary depending on

    conditions and rate of deterioration. In no way does this report advocate a set frequency for a

    resurfacing treatment. However, for simplification and presentation of this resurfacing cost projection,

    an average of a 12 year cycle for primary routes and 15 year cycle for secondary roads has been used for

    a general resurfacing treatment.

    Projected funding needs for resurfacing was derived from recent contract information. Recent contract

    costs were converted to a cost per road mile basis for the federal aid and non-federal aid system. The

    approximate average unit cost is $140,000 per lane mile for primary routes and $125,000 per lane mile

    for secondary routes. These average unit costs account for appropriate rates of surfacing, leveling, full-

    depth patching, pavement markings, etc. that would normally be included in a resurfacing contract. The

    accepted ideal industry cycle time of 12 years for primary routes and 15 years for secondary roads was

    used as the frequency and that minor rehabilitation would need to be performed. This funding needs

    projection assumes that 100 percent of the roads in both the primary and secondary system would need

    periodic resurfacing. The appropriate calculated costs per mile were multiplied by the primary and

    secondary mileages for the state.

    Resurfacing - Placement of hot mix asphalt to strengthen, level, full-depth patch, and improve the road.

    Frequency: Every 12 years for primary routes and 15 years for secondary roads Unit Cost Information: Primary Route Cost per Lane Mile: $140,000

    Secondary Road Cost per Lane Mile: $125,000 Annual Need: Primary - $271 million Secondary - $527 million

  • 28

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Backlog Cost

    In every situation, there is a backlog of work that would be necessary to bring the entire state system up to

    the desired level of service. This backlog is the result of years of insufficient funding and consistent growth

    in miles and traffic impacts. Each of the cost projections either has an initial spike that would be necessary

    to bring the entire state system up to that standard, or a lengthy period to mitigate the backlog of work.

    After this backlog is cleared, the maintenance cost would reduce and stabilize. It is also more realistic to

    clear the backlog of work over an extended period of time. Even if the funding were available, it is unlikely

    that there would be enough resources available to accomplish this daunting task in a short period of time.

    Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service

    Based on the definition of these five levels, it would be desirable for the entire highway system to be

    maintained at Level of Service A. However, due to fiscal constraints and funding limitations, it would be

    impractical, if not impossible, to achieve this level of service for all highways. On the other hand, there are

    valid reasons for some of the features to be maintained at a high level of service; especially those features

    associated with safety. Cost estimates have been included in this report that project costs associated with

    achieving each LOS. However, it is strongly recommended that a LOS of C should be considered the

    minimum acceptable level of service. At a minimum, funding levels should be pursued that would provide

    the resources necessary to achieve this level of service.

    Summary and Conclusions

    South Carolina continues to be one of the fastest growing states in the nation. Along with this growth has

    come an increased wear on our states transportation system. The aging and deterioration of the primary

    and secondary road system, compounded by the population growth, is creating a maintenance demand that

    is growing exponentially. The primary funding mechanism for SCDOT is the motor fuel user fee. This fee

    has not been increased since 1987 when a gallon of gas cost just under a dollar. This stagnant funding has

    simply not kept up with the increased cost of materials and the needs of our transportation system. As the

    results of the MAP report indicate, this level of investment in our states transportation system has resulted

    in a poor level of service with a constantly growing backlog of work that is long overdue. Compounding the

  • 29

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    challenges of the funding shortfall is a reduced work force. Hundreds of full time positions have been

    eliminated in the last few years. The majority of the vacancies are in the Trades Specialists positions.

    Trades Specialists are the employees who perform the actual labor required to maintain and repair the

    roadways.

    Because of these challenges our maintenance forces have not been able to improve the LOS in most areas.

    A few areas show did show improvement. On primary routes, the level of service for potholes and sign

    condition improved from a LOS D to a LOS B. On secondary roads, sign condition, guardrail

    vegetation and end terminal damage improved but remained within the LOS from the previous year. These

    gains have been realized by focusing resources on specific areas of need. While these improvements are

    encouraging, and our maintenance forces should be commended for their efforts, the overall system LOS is

    well below the desired level and continues to decline. Without additional funding the erosion of the overall

    service level will likely continue.

    Several methods of funding need projections have been included in this report. All of which indicate a

    substantial additional investment is necessary to bring our system up to an acceptable level of service.

    The MAP program projects a need of just over $499 million to bring just our primary and secondary

    systems up to a LOS of C. This is in addition to the current level of funding. Once this LOS is

    achieved, it is projected that an annual need of $693 million would allow the maintenance of the primary

    and secondary system at this LOS. An additional $133 million would also be required for maintenance of

    the interstate system and bridges.

    One of the pavement management projections would bring the states primary and secondary pavement

    conditions to the median standard for a LOS of C. The projected need for the primary roads is $293.6

    million annually to fund the backlog and maintain that LOS. The projected need for all secondary roads is

    $373.2 million annually to fund the backlog and maintain that LOS. This projection would fund most of the

    pavement portion of the MAP only. All non-pavement needs would be in addition to this projection.

    The resurfacing projection would bring the states primary and secondary pavement to a much higher LOS

    than its current condition. This projection would require consistent funding and would place all roads on a

    regular resurfacing schedule. This would allow for the resurfacing of all primary roads every 12 years and

  • 30

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    all secondary roads every 15 years. This method projects an annual need of $271 million for primary roads

    and $527 million for secondary roads. As with the PQI projection, this would fund only a significant

    percentage of the pavement portion of the MAP. All non-pavement needs would be in addition to this

    projection.

    This MAP report clearly identifies a very real need to identify substantial additional funds to invest in the

    maintenance of our current transportation system. With approximately 41,421 centerline miles of state

    maintained roads, we have a significant investment in our transportation infrastructure. This infrastructure

    needs an increased and recurring level of funding for repair and development of a consistent preventive

    maintenance program. This investment is crucial to properly maintain the highway system to meet the

    transportation needs of the growing population in South Carolina.

    Addendum

    As shown in the MAP report, the only way to make substantial improvements in the state system is to

    increase the amount of investment. However, it is the desire of the Director of Maintenance to address the

    items that currently have a poor LOS that are related to safety or are considered priority items.

    The approach currently used by the Director of Maintenance is to ensure appropriate resources are dedicated

    to the identified areas of need through the budget process. Each year the districts are required to submit a

    need based budget request and associated work plan to the Director of Maintenance for review and

    approval. Additionally, any reallocation of funds away from the identified areas of need requires approval

    from the Director of Maintenance. By mandating the districts address the areas of need identified by the

    MAP inspection, it is anticipated that system wide improvements should be realized in these areas over

    time.

    There is an adverse effect to this approach. In many cases, resources are simply being shifted from one area to another. This shifting of resources, will likely result in the decrease of LOS in the areas from which resources are redirected. However, there are some areas where a lower LOS could be tolerated. The goal is to ensure that resources are expended on the safety sensitive maintenance activities and not on activities that are less important or easy to perform.

  • 31

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Appendix A

    HMMS Cost 2013-2014 Activity Code Work Description UOM Cost/Unit

    102 Pothole Patching/Minor Leveling Tons $355.53 102 Pothole patching with Machine Tons $355.53 110 Full Depth Asphalt SY $33.28 110 Full Depth - Concrete SY $148.55 203 Regrade Roadside Ditch LF $0.71 203 Regrade Shoulder LF $0.31 203 Regrade Shoulder and Ditch LF $0.34 203 Repair High Shoulder* LF $0.34 203 Repair Low/High Shoulder* LF $0.34 203 Widen Shoulder LF $3.63 305 Clean Drainage Structure Each $54.60 305 Repair Drainage Structure Each $558.20 306 Clean Drainage Pipe LF $4.89 306 Install Drainage Pipe LF $63.64 401 Mowing - Clean-up Acres $112.51 401 Mowing - Hand Trim Acres $385.06 401 Mowing - Routine Acres $27.54 402 Brush Control - 200 Acres $114.56 403 Grassing Acres $112.99 405 R/W Management - Clearing by Hand Sh Miles $400.18 405 R/W Management - Clearing by Machine Sh Miles $400.18 405 Tree Limbing Sh Miles $400.18 407 Litter LBS $0.68 408 Tree Removal Each $96.34 410 Clean Sidewalk Miles $281.17 504 Curb & Gutter - Repair !! LF $12.82 504 Sidewalk Repair LF $9.05 603 Sign Install Each $76.39 603 Sign Straighten Each $35.51 606 Paint - pavement markings - Install LF $0.04 607 Arrows/Symbols install *** Each $54.84 607 Raised Marker - Install Each $7.72 610 Guardrail LF $40.00 613 Impact Attenuator - Repair*** Each $2,480.94 613 Terminal End Treatment - Repair*** Each $675.00

    Contract Cost

    610 Cable Rail - Repair LF $55.00 401 Mowing Lane Mile $53.00 405 R/W Clearing Sh Mile $6,657.25 204 Shoulder Widening + Shoulder Paving Lane Mile $50,182.00 6051100 Perm Yel Pav Mark Bi-Dir 4"x4" Each $13.26 6041074 4" Yel S:D Lines, Thermo 90 Mil LF $0.32

  • 32

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Appendix B 2013 Health Scores

    Health Score Grade 63.0%

    Attenuator and cable barrier are not normally found on primary and secondary routes and were not rated on this health score chart.

  • 33

    South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report (2).docx

    Appendix C

    Table of ContentsExecutive SummaryBackground:Description:EvaluationLevel of Service

    ResultsSystem NeedsGrowth Population and DVMTFigure 2Figure 3

    Funding NeedsMAP ProjectionPavement Management Program ProjectionResurfacing Projection

    Backlog CostMinimum Acceptable Levels of ServiceSummary and ConclusionsAddendumAppendix AAppendix BAppendix C

Recommended

View more >