Wednesday, August 30, 2017

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea 2017 Pavement Management System Update Final Report, August 2017

ABSTRACT: 2017 Pavement Management System Update Final Report, NCE Project No. 82.05.55, August 2017, was accomplished by Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. (NCE) for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Public Works Department; the 2017 Pavement Management System Update Final Report, including Appendices A-E, document copy is embedded. The Background, Purpose, Discussion and Recommendations sections are reproduced. 
2017 Pavement Management System Update Final Report
NCE Project No. 82.05.55
August 2017
Appendix A:
Section Description Inventory Report – Sorted by Street Name
Section Description Inventory Report – Sorted by PCI (Descending)
Appendix B:
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Decision Tree
Appendix C:
Budget Needs – Projected PCI/Cost Summary Report
Budget Needs – Preventive Maintenance Treatment/Cost Summary Report
Budget Needs – Rehabilitation Treatment/Cost Summary Report
Scenarios 1 – 2:
Cost Summary Report
Network Condition Summary Report
Appendix D:
Scenarios 1-2:
Sections Selected for Treatment
Appendix E:
Pavement Treatment Strategies


2017 Pavement Management System Update Final Report
NCE Project No. 82.05.55
August 2017

Background
Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. (NCE) assisted the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (City) in updating their StreetSaver Pavement Management System (PMS). Maintenance and rehabilitation records since 2013 were updated in the StreetSaver database. Note that the analysis was based on pavement distress data collected in 2007. In addition, the maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) strategies and unit costs (in the M&R Decision Tree) were last updated in 2013 and not modified for this report.

Based on the above assumptions, the StreetSaver program was used to determine the pavement needs, and two budgetary scenarios were performed.

Purpose
The purpose of this report is to assist decision makers at the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in utilizing the results of the StreetSaver PMS. Specifically, this report assesses the adequacy of projected revenues to meet the recommended maintenance needs. It also maximizes the return from expenditures by:

1) Implementing a multi-year street rehabilitation and maintenance program,
2) Developing a preventive maintenance program, and
3) Selecting streets with the most cost effective repairs.

This report assists the City with identifying maintenance priorities specifics to its needs. The study examines the overall condition of the street network and highlights options for improving the current network level pavement condition index (PCI). These options are developed by conducting "what if" analyses. By varying the budget amounts available for pavement maintenance and repair, one can show how different funding strategies affect the City's streets over the next five years.

Discussion
To summarize, the City Carmel-by-the-Sea has a substantial investment of $37.3 million in the street network. Overall, the City’s network is in “Fair” condition with a network PCI of 62. Of the 26.81 centerline miles of City-maintained streets, approximately one-third is currently in “Good/Very Good” condition and approximately one-seventh in “Poor” or “Very Poor/Failed” condition.

The analyses indicate that the City needs to spend approximately $7 million over the next five years to essentially repair all streets. By doing so, streets can then be maintained in good condition with on-going preventive maintenance. This will save money by avoiding major rehabilitation (such as reconstruction) at a later time.

Recommendations

A. Pavement Budget
The recommended scenario for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is Scenario 1 ($900,000 per year); this will improve the PCI to 71 and increase the percentage of streets in good condition as well as slightly reduce the deferred maintenance.

One factor for the City to consider is to group seal projects vs. overlay projects into alternate years e.g. deliver slurry or microsurfacing projects in even years, and overlay/reconstruction projects in odd years, or vice versa. This allows the City to maximize the size of the construction contract and thereby receive more competitive bids. This strategy has been successfully employed by many small cities similar to Carmel, such as Moraga and Los Altos.

B. Pavement Maintenance Strategies
The City’s pavement maintenance strategies are primarily slurry seals seals and overlays. Since more than a third are in “Good/Very Good” condition, it is important to preserve good pavements. Crack sealing is relatively inexpensive and can keep moisture out of pavements and prevent the underlying aggregate base from premature failures. Life-extending surface seals, such as microsurfacing and cape seals, are also cost-effective for pavements currently in “Fair” to “Good/Very Good” condition. Recycling technologies, such as cold-in-place (CIR) or full depth reclamation (FDR), are also cost-effective alternatives to traditional mill and fill or reconstruction. More details of these pavement treatments are included in Appendix E.

The maintenance and rehabilitation treatment strategies and associated unit costs should be reviewed and updated annually to reflect new construction techniques/costs so that the budget analysis results can continue to be reliable and accurate.

In addition, a significant unknown is the future cost of rehabilitation; with the possible volatility in oil prices, we recommend that City carefully monitor future construction costs and be ready to adapt to large increases if necessary.

NCE also recommends that the City adopt a well-funded preventive maintenance program. This is necessary to at least maintain the portion of the street network that is in “Good/ Very Good” condition and avoid increasing the deferred maintenance even more. In addition, the City should consider strategies such as recycling to achieve more cost savings for the overlay program.

C. Network Monitoring
As noted previously, the current street network has not been inspected in over 10 years, and the results and recommendations presented herein are therefore based on data that is 10 years old.

In order to make appropriate and reliable decisions, it is recommended that the City re-inspect the entire street network as soon as possible. Thereafter, arterial and collector streets should be inspected every two years and residential streets every four to five years.

D. Next Steps
To summarize, we recommend that the City undertake the following steps:

• Maintain an aggressive preventive maintenance strategy.
• Ensure pavement funding of at least $900,000/year.
• Re-inspect the street network as soon as possible.

No comments: