DUPAGE COUNTY MAYORS & MANAGERS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MAY 24, 2012 LOMBARD, IL KEVIN BURKE III, P.E. IL DOT – BUREAU OF LOCAL ROADS & STREETS LOCAL POLICY & TECHNOLOGY ENGINEER email@example.com PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PAVEMENT PRESERVATION • • • • Definition Benefits Policy Next Steps DEFINITION • • • Not LAPP FHWA - “a program employing a network level, long-term strategy that enhances pavement performance by using an integrated, costeffective set of practices that extend pavement life, improve safety and meet motorist expectations.” BLRS Manual Chapter 45 BENEFITS • • • • Flexibility of Funds Treatment Selection Performance Measure Cost Saving POLICY • • • Eligible for Federal, State, and MFT Funding Right Treatment, Right Road, Right Time Initial Approval − − − • Pavement Management System Condition Rating System Department Approval (District and Central Office) Project Approval − − Annual Program Submittal to District Individual Project Approved for Letting DISTRESS IDENTIFICATION CONDITION RATING Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Failed PASER Condition Ranges 10 – 9 8 7–6 5–4 3 2 1 CRS Condition Ranges 10 – 5: Feasible for pavement preservation 4 – 1: Not feasible for pavement preservation Excellent Very Good Excellent 9.0 – 7.6 Satisfactory 7.5 – 6.1 Fair 6.0 – 4.6 Poor 4.5 – 1.0 PCI Condition Ranges 100-86 85-71 Good 70-56 Fair Poor Very Poor Failed 55-41 40-26 25-11 10-0 100 – 65: Feasible for pavement preservation 64 - 0: Not feasible for pavement preservation 9.0 – 6.1: Feasible for pavement preservation 6.0 – 1.0: Not feasible for pavement preservation TREATMENT SELECTION UltraThin Friction Cours e Se ve rity Le ve ls Alligator/ Fatigue Crack ing 1 Light F F NR NR NR NR F F F F F F F F F NR R Moderate Severe NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR F NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR F NR NR NR NR NR NR NR F Light R R F R R NR R R R R R R R F R F NR Moderate Severe R F R F NR NR NR NR F NR NR NR F NR NR NR F NR F R R F NR NR NR NR NR F F NR NR NR NR NR Light NR NR NR F F NR F R R R R R R* R R R NR Moderate Severe NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR R NR F NR F R R F F F F NR NR F F NR NR NR F NR Light R R F R R NR R R R R R R R** F R F NR Moderate R R NR NR NR NR F F F F F F R** NR F NR NR Ble e ding Longitudinal and Trans ve rs e Crack ing 2 Cold UTW Mill Drainage Pre s rvtn Pave m e nt Conditions Block Crack ing Crack Crack Fog Sand Scrub Slurry MicroChip Filling Se aling Se al Se al Se al Re juvntr Se al s urfacing Se al Thin Cape HMA Se al CIR HIR Ove rlay Severe F F NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Light NR NR NR NR NR NR F R F F R R R* F R* F R Moderate Severe NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR R F NR NR NR R R R NR F F NR R R NR NR R* R* F F Light NR NR R R R R R R R R R R R R R NR NR Moderate Severe NR NR NR NR F NR F NR F NR F NR R F R F R F R R R F NR NR R R R R* F F NR NR F NR Ride Poor NR F NR F F NR NR F NR F R R R F R R F Friction Poor NR NR NR R R NR R R R R R R R R R R NR < 2,500 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R ADT 2,500 – 10,000 > 10,000 R R R R F NR F NR F NR F NR F NR R R R F R R R R R R R R R NR R R R R R R ($ to $$$$) $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$$ $$$ $$$$ $ Varies "Stable " Rutting 3 We athe ring/ Rave ling Re lative Cos t $$$ $$$ R - Recommended treatment f or the specif ied pavement condition. Engineer should ensure that all critical distress types are addressed by the selected treatment. F - Feasible treatment, but depends upon other project constraints including other distresses. NR - Treatment is not recommended to correct the specif ied pavement condition. R* - Recommended treatment w hen used w ith milling prior to treatment. R** - Used in combination w ith crack sealing. 1- Preservation treatments do not correct alligator cracking. Of the included treatments, chip seals are most ef f ective at covering the alligator cracking. 2 - If longitudinal and transverse cracking are present w ithout other distresses, crack f illing or sealing is recommended. 3 - If stable rutting is present w ithout other distresses, microsurf acing or mill and overlay are the recommended treatment. NEXT STEPS • • • Change LAPP Terminology to Function Overlay Will CMAP Fund Pavement Preservation Projects? Local Public Agency Questions: − − − What Pavement Management System? What Condition Rating? Should Regional Agencies Collaborate? FUNCTIONAL OVERLAY (LAFO) • • • • BLRS Manual Section 46-3 Formerly LAPP No major changes More flexibility − − − • Multiple overlays (if geometrics comply) Increased overlay thickness to 3.75” Allows urban drainage improvements Not recommended as Safety Improvement LED TRAFFIC SIGNALS LED TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROS • • • • • • • Dim Out vs. Burn Out Very energy efficient Much longer bulb life Brighter illumination improved safety Better contrast even in direct sunlight Reduced maintenance costs Can handle conditions such as sun phantom, light uniformity and color washout LED TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONS • Snow & Ice Build Up During “The Perfect Storm”… PERFECT STORM • • Not Every Storm Results in Build Up Research Has Been Started to Evaluate Solutions − − − − Identify Factors Leading to Perfect Storm Equipment Solutions Maintenance Solutions Industry Regulatory Solutions Status Motorist Safety R&D Potential Liability PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES AND TRANSITION PLANS WHY NEEDED • • • • ADAAG Currently Applies to ROW Illinois Accessibility Code Applies to ROW PROWAG Adapts ADAAG to the ROW Lawsuits/Complaints PROWAG DEVELOPMENT • • • • • • • • US Access Board began PROWAG (1992) Sidewalk video and design manual (1997) Advisory committee (1999) PROWAAC report (2001) Draft PROWAG (June 2002) Revised Draft PROWAG (November 2005) Proposed Final PROWAG (July 2011) Expect Final Guidelines in 2012 GOOD, BAD, AND UGLY • • • • Running Slope Path of Travel References to Standards Recognize ROW Limitations • • • • • Conflicts with IAC No Non-Accessible Route Surface Variations Accessible Pedestrian Signals Court Rulings on Alterations TRANSITION PLAN • • Required for Public Agencies with More than 50 Employees Minimum Requirements − − − − − − − Identify an ADA Coordinator Identify Complaint Process Develop/Adopt Design Standards Identify Public Involvement Opportunities Identify Barriers to Access Identify Plan (time and budget) to Remove Barriers Reevaluation Schedule TRANSITION PLAN BENEFITS • • Agency Determines Scope, Schedule, Budget Proactive Approach QUESTIONS?