Implementation of Illinois Local Agency Pavement Preservation

Report
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 protected]
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?

similar documents