Receive and File the 2013 Pavement Management Program Update Report 12-03-13

8/13/2019 Receive and File the 2013 Pavement Management Program Update Report 12-03-13

1/105

To:

From:

Submitted by:

Subject:

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Council Report

December 3, 2013

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator

Sharon Friedrichsen, Public Services Director

Receive and file the 2013 Pavement Management Program UpdateReport

Recommendation s): Receive and file the 2013 Pavement Management Program Update

Report.

Executive Summary: The City has retained Nichols Consulting Engineers to complete an update

of the City's pavement management system, which was last assessed in

2007. The purpose of the updated report is to provide objectiveinformation regarding the condition of the City's maintained road s;

determining the impact of different funding scenarios on the condition of

the City's roads over the next fifteen ye ars and identifying option s to

implement a multi-year road rehabilitation and preventative

maintenance program . It is intended that the recommendations included

w ithin the report will be utilized by City staff when developing road

project s to be included within the City' s capital improvement program

and annual operating budget.

Analysis/Discussion: The City's pavement network include s nearly 27 miles of st ree t s,

including about 17 miles of re sidential streets . The industry standard is

to measure the pavement grade or condition using the Pavement

Cond it ion Index ( PCI ), which ranges from 0 to 100 . A newly

con structed road would have a PCI of 100 while a failed road would have

a PCI of 25 or les s The average Pavement Condition Index ( PCI ) for th e


2/105

iscal Impact:

Budgeted {yes/no

replacement value for the City's network is estimated to be nearly $38

million.

In fiscal year 2013-14, $826,200 was allocated to streets and roadprojects, including sidewalk and concrete curb repairs whereas the

capital improvement plan calls for $634,000 annually going forward.Ongoing maintenance is much less expensive than deferring

maintenance. As noted in the report, several budget scenarios were

developed to determine the amount of funding needed to either

maintain or improve the City's pavement network,as

summarized below:1 Current City Funding level: Maintain funding at $634,000 each

year from 2014 until 2022 when Measure D funds are authorizedthen decrease funding to $200,000 per year from 2022-2028. The

anticipated outcome results in the PCI being maintained in the

low 60s until 2024, then declining PCI to 52 in 2028. Some 41% of

the network would be in very poor condition by 2028.Unfunded backlog of $22.7 mill ion by 2028 .

2. Maintain the Current PCI: Tota l funding of $12.2 million requiredby 2028, with recommended funding levels in the $800,000 range

in 2015 and 2016. The anticipated outcome results in ma intainingthe PCI at 63 and the network remaining in a fair condition each

year . Unfunded backlog of $16.5 million by 2028.

3. Unconstrained Funding: Total funding of $18.4 million required by

2028, with an annual budget of approximately $1.2 million each

year . The anticipated outcome results in improving the PCI each

year , with a PCI of 85 by 2025. Almost the entire network is in agood condition and there is no unfunded backlog.

Funding Source {general fund, g rant, stateYes cost of study ($11,000) General Fund- Outside labor (76050)

Previous Council


3/105

eviewed by

City d m i n i s t r t o r City Attorney Admin istrative Services DAsst City Admin D Dir o CP D Dir o Public Svcs DPublic Safety Dir D Library Dir D Other D

City Engineer D


4/105

ity ofCarmel by the Sea

Pavement anagementProgram Update

in a Report


5/105

ity ofCarmel by the Sea

Pavement ManagementProgram Updatein a I Report

Submitted to

City of Carmel-by-the-SeaP O Box CC

Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921


6/105

City o f Carmel by the Sea2013 Pavement Manag ement Pr ogram

Update

Table o Contents

Background .......................... ....................................... ....... ............. ......... ........ ........... ...... ...... .... 1

Study Objectives ..... ... .. ............. .... .. ......... ............ ........... .... .. .......................... ........ .... ..... . 2

Project Approach .................... . .................. ........ ........ . ....... ....... .... ....... ........ ....... ....... ..... ........ 3

Pavement Network and Current Condition ............ ................................................ ...... .... .............. 3Current Budget and Main tenance Practices ...... ......... .... ............ . . .................... ........... ...... .... . 8

Pay Now or Pay MORE Later .... ...... ....... ........... ................................................................. ..... 8

Budget Needs ..................................................... ... .................... ...... .... ......................... .......... .... 10

Budget Scenarios .................... .... ......... ... ....... . ........... . ....... .. ....... ...... ... ..... ....... . ........ ......... 12

Scenario 1: Current City Funding Leve l ...... ................ . ..... .. ........ ........ ............. ..... .......... 13

Scenario 2: Maintain the Current PCI ...... ................ .... ........................... ...... ......................... 15

Sce nario 3: Unconstrained ........ ...... ........................ .................... ...................... .......... ... ....... . 17

Summary ..... . ....... ...................... ...... ...... ... .................. .... ....................................... .... .......... 19

Conclusions ...... .................... ........... ...... ......................... . ..... . .................................................... 22

App e ndix ASection Description Inventory

Section PCI Listin g Sorted by Street NameSection PCI Listing - Sorte d by De sce nding PCI

Appen d ix 8:Prev en tive Maintenance and Rehabilitation (M&R) De cis ion Tree

Appendix CBudget Need s- Projected PCI/Cost Summary ReportBudget Needs - Preventive M a intenance Treatment/Cost Summary ReportBudget Need s Rehabilitation Treatment/Cost Summary R e portScenar io s 1-3:

Cost Summary Report


7/105


8/105

ackground

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea2013 Pavement Management Program

Update

Nichol s Consulting Engineers, Chtd. NCE) was se lected by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea(Carmel) in 2013 to perform an update of its pav eme nt management system PMS), which waslast updated in 2007. The data on the street network is therefore approxima tely five years old,but the City has indicated that cond it ions have not changed significantly, and that a fieldassessment is not necessary for the purposes of this report. The goa l of th is project was toupgrade to the latest StreetSaver software, update the databas e with new unit costs, andupdat e the p ave me nt management re port .

Thi s report constitutes a summary of the update for Carmel.

Broadly , a ... p vement management [program] sys tem is de sig ned to provide objective

information nd usef ul data for analysis so th t managers can make more consistent, cost-effective, and defensible decisions related to the preservation of a pavement network.

In other words , a PMS is de signe d to assist cities answer typical question s such as:

What does the City's roa d network consist of? How many miles of roads are eligib le forfederal, sta t e or other funds? How many are sub jected to t raffic from buses or heavytrucks?

What is the existing condition of the City's maintained road s? Is this an acceptable levelfor the City? If not, what is an acceptable level? How much additional funding is neededto achieve an acceptabl e level?

Are th e re roads in specif ic areas that are much worse than others, and if so, how muchwo r se?

ow will the condition of the City's maintained roads respond over time under exist ingfunding level s?

What maintenance a nd rehabilitation strategies exist to improve current roadconditions? What maintenance activities or treatments have occurred in the past on an ygiven road?

What impact would either additional funding or a decre ase in funding, have on thecondition o the overall pavement network?

What is the b ack log of maintenance and rehabilitative work that shou ld be done? Wh at


9/105


Update

In order to answer the questions above, the City util izes the StreetSaver pavem entmanagement system . StreetSaver is a program dev e loped by the Metropolitan TransportationCommission (MTC) and is the most widely used PMS in California.

There are some unique characteristics within Carmel that need to be considered whenassessing the pavement network condition. Like many coastal cities, the p aveme nt network

here is subj ect to high traffic volumes from visitors .

tudy Object es

The main goals of this study were:

1 Updating historical maintenance data

2 Upd ating the maintenance and rehabilita t ion (M R) decision tree and associated un itcosts.

3 Performing budg etary analysis and determining the fund ing needs .

The purpose of this report is to assist decis ion makers in utilizing the results of the StreetSaverPMS Specifically, this report links the recommen d ed repair p rogram costs to Carmel ' s currentand projected budget alternatives to improv e overall maintenance and rehabi litation str ategies.This report assesses the adequacy of existing revenues to meet the maintenance needs

recommended, a nd maximize s the return from expenditures by :

Impl eme nting a multi-year road rehabilitation a nd maintenance program. Developing a preventative maintenance program. Selecting st reet s for the most cost effective repairs.

It determines th e overall condition of the City's maintained roads a nd highli ghts options for

impro ving them. These options are developed by conducting what -if analyses using theStreetSaver p rogram. By varying the budget amounts available for pavement maintenance andrepair, one can s how how diff erent fun din g s tra teg ies can impact the City's ro ads over the nextfifteen years.


10/105

Project Approach


Update

The scope of work included updating all maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) historical andplanned treatments in the database since the last update in 2007. This included any overlays,recon structions and any surface sea ls that m ay have occurred. While updating the M&R h istory,some street sections had to be split, or subdivided, because the M&R projects did not alwaysalign properly with existing stree t sec tions in the database.

The next step would normally be to discuss appropriate M&R strategies for future proje cts andcreate a corresponding M&R Decision Tree. This includes the recommendation and selection ofappropriate treatments such as sl urry seals or overlays, and the determination of treatmentunit costs. However, as the City has not changed any maintenance policies, the existing M&Rdecision tree was used for the ana lysis . The only changes to the decision tree were t o update

the associated unit costs for each alternative based on recent bid tabs. With these updated unitcosts, a more acc urate budgeta ry analysis can be performed. The unit costs include:

All related construction costs such as mobil iza tion, traff ic control , base repairs, paving,st riping, rai sing monuments etc.

Engineering and design costs which include design, construction, inspections andmaterial testing etc .

NCE next performed a budget needs analy sis using an analysis period of 15 years with aninflation rate of 5 . This identified M&R requirement s for eac h street sect ion and determinedthe total maintenance and rehabilitation req uirement s over the analysis period und er differentfund ing leve ls.

Pavement etwork and Current Condition

The City is responsible for the repair and maintenance of approximately 26.8 centerline miles ofstreets o f which 4.47 miles are arterials, 3.68 mile s are collectors, 16.71 miles areres idential/local stree ts, an d 1.95 miles are listed as other. As can be seen, the majority of thestreet network is comprised of residential/local roads. Streets or pavements are one of theCity's most valuable assets, and the replacement value for the entire network is estimated tobe approximately 37.6 million . Note th at this doe s not include any improvements (e.g.


11/105

1 . Alligator {fatigue cracking2 Block cracking3 Distortions4. Longitudinal and tran sverse cracking5 Patching and utility cut patching6 . Rutting and depre ssi ons

7 . Weathering and raveling


Update

A more d eta iled description of each distress ty p e is a va ilable in the MTC distre ss manual 2

Figure 1 illustrates the d efinitions of the pavement condition categories . The fair categoryinclude s road s with both non-load related {weath e ring and raveling and load related {e g.alligator cracking distresse s Since these distr e sses are markedly different, the treatment sassigned are also correspondingly different, and the costs associated with them . Gen e rally ,road s w ith load -r elated will requi re h igher costs for repairs . The two categories are identifiedby II {non -load related and Ill {load related . The StreetS ave r program will assign theappropriat e treatments and co sts to roads id e ntified with each category . Best mana ge mentpractice s for the maintenance of a pavement network typically includ e ma intaining th e overallPCI in the high 70 s to mid 80 s. How ever these va lue s can vary by jurisdiction due to prevailingloca l conditions a nd the availability of sufficient long -te r m f undin g.

Condition Category

11 111

IV

I

Pavement Condition

Poor

PCI Category100

70

5

25


12/105


Update

The photos in Figure 2 illustrate roads with a range of PCis.

Figure 2. Examples of Roads with Different PCis

The City's average PCI is 63 and this is considered to be a network that is in Fair condition . Inthe 2007 PMP Update the PCI was 74, meaning the average PCI has lowered about 2 points peryear, which is expected if no significant funding was available in the intervening six years .

However, the a verage PCI does not completely describe the road network ; Table 1 is a summaryof the PCI by functional class . The most important roadways, arterials and collectors, both havea PCI of 67. If adequate funding is provided to these roadways, their PCI s may rise over 70 tothe Good category, reducing the need for costly rehabilitat ion later on.

Table 1. Pavement Network and Condition Summary (2013)I

Functional Centerline LaneNo. of of the

Class Miles MilesManagement Network Average PCI

Sections (by area)

Arterial 4 .47 10.20 31 23 .6 67

Collector 3 .68 7.35 29 13.7 67


13/105

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea2013 Pavement anagement Program

Update

Table 2 shows the distribution of pavements by functional cl ss and cond it ion category . Almostn inety percent (88.4%) are in fair to good condition , with the remainder in poor to very poorcondition. Since the largest percentage of pavement sections {61.9%) are in the Fair category,the network h s the ability to drastically improve if adequate funding brings up the se sectionsto the Good category.

70 100 1 .0 3 .2 9 .4 3 .8 26.5

50 -69 11.1 1 .0 37.8 3.0 61 .9

25 49 2.4 0.5 3.5 0 . 7 7 .1


14/105


Update

Figure 3 presents the same information as Table 2 but in a graphical format . This betterillustrates the fact that residentials comprise the majority of the road system .

Appendix A contains the PCI listing for all streets in the City, listed by Street Name and bycurrent PCI descending} .

60

so -- -

;; 40II

Very Poor V)ctc

II

EII

30c.

Poor IV)

Fair 11/111)

20 Good I)

1

0.7

0rter ia ls Collector s Resi den ti a ls O t her

Functional Classification


15/105

Maintenance Practices

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea2013 Pavement anagement Program

Update

Historically, the City has not utilized a preventive maintenance program such as crack seals orslurry seals when the pavements are in good condition . However, when the pavementcondition deteriorates to poor conditions, overlays and reconstruction have been performed .These are considered rehabilitation or reconstruction. In addition, base repairs are commonly

used as preparatory work prior to overlays .

In this report, the analysis assumes that the City will be implement ing a preventivemaintenance program . The decision tree in the StreetSaver program provides for the mosteffective and realistic maintenance treatments for each group of roads by functional class andcondition category and is shown in Appendix B

Pay Now or Pay MORE Later

Figure 4 illustrates that pavem ent maintenance follows the old colloquial saying of pay now orpay more late r. History has shown that it costs much less to m aintain roads in good conditionthan to repair roads that have failed. By allowing pavements to deteriorate, roads that oncecost $3.50/square yard to slu r ry seal may soon cost as much as $67 .00/square yard toreconstruct. In other words, delays in repairs can result in costs increa sing as much as 19-fold .The costs shown in the chart below are actual da ta from recent bid tabs from the City as well as

those from surrounding cities .

The pavement deterioration curve shown by the red line describes how pavements deteriorateover time. In general, arterials will be expected to have a service life o f 20 years, while those forresidential roads may exceed 30 years . This will be longer for the few PCC pavement sections inCarmel.


16/105

Pavement Condition

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

City of Carmel by the Sea2013 Pavement Management Program

Update

of Pavement Life

Figure 4. Costs of Maintaining Pavements over Time


17/105

Budget Needs


Update

Once the pavement condition has been determined, and the appropriate maintenancetreatments assigned in the decision tree, then it is possible to determine the funding needs forthe City's maintained roads . Simplistically, the StreetSaver program seeks to answer thequestions :

If funding is not a constraint, how much money is needed to bring the pavement conditionto a state of good repair? And maintain it at that level over the next 15 years?

Therefore , based on the principle that it costs less to mainta in roads in good condition thanthose in bad condition, StreetSaver will develop a maintenance strategy that will improve theoverall condition of the ro ads and then maintain it at that level. The condition of each roaddetermines the appropriate maintenance and rehabilitation treatment and cost from thedecision tree . For example, if Ocean Ave has a PCI of 45, and the appropriate treatment is anoverlay, then the area of the pavement section is multiplied by the unit cost and the totaltreatment cost determined. Additional maintenance treatments over the next 15 years will alsobe applied (e .g. slurry or rubberized crack seal) to preserve it .

Using this process , the entire road network for the City was evaluated in this fashion and

summed. This results in maintenance needs of approximately 16.9 million over the next fifteenyear s . An annual 5 inflation factor was as sumed . If the City of Carmel-by -the-Sea follows thefunding strategy recommended by the program , the average PCI will increase to the high 80 sby the end of 15 years . The results of the budget needs analysis are summarized in Table 3 .

In essence , the funding level or maintenance needs determin ed illustrates the level ofexpenditures required to raise the pavement condition to a network PCI in the high 80's andalso eliminates the maintenance backlog . Of the 16.9 million in maintenance needs,

approximately 5.2 mill ion (about 31%) is programmed for preventive maintenance, while therest is a llocated for more costly rehabilitation and reconstruction treatments . Again, preventivemaintenance inclu de s treatments such as slurry seals while reh abilitation includes overlays andreconstruct ion .

N h i hi l i h l f di d d i f l d d i i l i


18/105

8 3

Table 3. Resu lts of Funding NeedsBudget ( -Thousands) 3 718 9 16 771 592

Rehabi litation ( -Thousands) 3 563 859 720 523

Preventive Maintenan ce

( -Thou sands)155 I 57 I 51 I 69 I

Treated PCI 74 74 75 75

Un treated PCI 6 59 56 52

Rehabil ita t ion ( -Thou san ds) 669 1 789 1 270 120

Preventive Mai nt enance

( -Tho usan d s782 347 252 I 503 I

Treated PC I

I80

I85

I88

I87

Intreat ed PC I 36 33 30 28

Nichols onsulting Engineers , Chtd

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea2013 Pavement Management Program Update

1 217 I 562 I 653 I 456

650 I 384 I 486 I 294

567 I 178 I 67 I 162

77 77 77 77

49 46 43 39

40 315 0 I 682

796 I 539 I 610 I 5 23 5

8 7

I87

I87

25 21 18

11


19/105

Budget Scenarios


Having determined the 15-year maintenance needs of the City's street network, the next stepin developing a cost-effective maintenance and rehab ilitation strategy is to conduct several

what-if analyses . Using the StreetSaver budget scenario module, the impacts of various

budget scenari os can be evaluated. Simplistically, this module seeks to answer the followingquestions :

If we have funding constraints, what is the most cost-effective way to spend the fundsavailable? What are the consequences on the PCI and unfunded backlog? What streets will

be prioritized for repairs? When will they be repaired?

The program determines the effects of the different funding scenarios on pavement conditionindex {PCI and deferred maintenance {unfunded backlog). By examining the effects on theseperformance measures, the advantages and disadvantages of different funding levels andmaintenance strategies become clear. The following scenarios were performed :

Scenario 1: Current City Funding Level This scenario shows the consequences to the streetnetwork at the current funding level {$634,000 per year and $200,000 per year after 2022). The

City's current budget of $634,000 is sufficient to maintain the PCI in the low 60's for the next 9years. However, after 2022 when the budget decreases to $200,000, the PCI begins a rapid dropevery year until reaching a low of 52 by the year 2028. The unfunded backlog will grow to $22.7million, or six time s what it is now.

Scenario : Maintain the Current PC A t a funding level of $12.2 mi llion over 15 years, thisscenario shows the funding required to maintain the average network PCI condition (currently63} so that the pavement network does not deteriorate any further as a whole. In addition, thedeferred maintenance or unfunded backlog will increase from $3.7 million today to $16.5million by 2028, a more moderate 4.5 -f old increase .

Scenario 3: Unconstrained Funding The City will require approximately $17.1 million over 15years to improve the pavement network to its optimal PCI of 85, and eliminate any deferred


20/105

8 5

Scenario : Current City Funding Level

City of Carmel by the Sea2013 Pavement anagement Program Update

The current City budget is $634,000 per year until the year 2022, and $200,000 thereafter for a total budget of $6.9 million. The loss ofMeasure D funding after 2022 results in the pavement network's dramatic decline in PCI from the low 60 s to 52 by 2028. Of the totalbudget available, approximately $5.5 million is required for rehabil it ation. By 2028, 41.3% of the network will be in the Very Poor condition category (currently 4.4%), requiring expensive reconstruction to re habilitate . Additionally, the unfunded backlog will increaseover six-fold from $3.7 million to $22.7 m illion by 2028 , shown below in Table 4 & Figure 5.

Budget ($-Tho usands) 634 634 634 634 634 634 634 634

Rehabilitation ($-Thousands) 511 539 576 560 502 498 485 49 9

Preventive Maintenance($-Thou sands)

123 95 58 74 132 136 149 135

Deferred Maintenance

( -Thou sa nds)2 862 3 173 3 248 3 3 69 I 4 479 I 4 567 I 4 671 I 4 722

Overall PCI 65 64 64 63 I 64 I 64 I 64 I 64

Budget ($-Thousand s) 634 200 200 200 200 200 200 6 906

Rehab ilit ti on ($-Thousands) 502 145 152 148 159 108 151 5 535

Preventive Maintenance

($-Th ou sands)132 55 48 52 41 92 49 1 371


($-Thou sands)5 904 8 5 35 9 992 10 106 I 9 368 I 5 872 I 22 723

Overall PCI 64 62 6 59 I 57 I 54 I 52

Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd 13


21/105

8 6

- Deferred Maintenance

25,000

'C:; 20, 0 00 I'

h : o:> 6 ~ 6 ~ h : 6 ~ 6 ~ 6 ~ 6 ~I

0s:

I - -- ~....c~ 15,000I

CIJuccCIJ

'E 10,000

;; I::2:"C

CIJ

I - - - - 4,479 4,557 4,1:>/l '1,.....

5,000IJ-IJ0 - - - - - - - -0 I - I - I - I - I - I I - I - I - > '< " 1.1) \ .0 I 00 en 0 . - i. - i . - i . - i . - i . - i . - i N N0 ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+-- 0

3:N N N N N N N N

Year

6 ~

-I - INN

0N

Cit y of Carmel-by t he-Sea2013 Pavement Management Program Update

P CI

9022,723

-

80

~ 7 0

. M ~ ~ ' \ . . . . . . _ J. J,O/ L - 609.992 10 ,106 ......... .. .... I I t 0 ~40

- - - - - - 30

- - - - - - 20- - - - - - 10I I I I I I 0

M '< " 1.1) \ .0 I 00N N N N N N0 0 0 0 0 0N N N N N N

Figure 5. P I vs . Deferred Maintenance for Scenario 1 Current City Funding Level}

Nichol s Consulting Engineers Chtd 14


22/105

8 7

aScenario : Maintain the Current PCI

City of Carmel by the Sea2 13 Pavement Management Program Update

The City's pavement network is currently in the Fair condition category as a whole with an average PCI of 63. f the City wishes tomaintain the network at the current condition, then $12.2 million over the next 15 years is required. However, the unfunded backlog willcontinue to increase from $3.7 million to $16.5 million. Tables 5 and Figure 6 show the details below .

Table 5. Summary of Results for Scenario 2

I 689 I 582 I 577 I 6 8 I 627

Rehabilitation ($-Thousa nds) 19 78 2 736 598 417 416 416 419


($-Thousands)145 34 66 91 165 161 192 208


($-Thousands) I 3 332 I 3 409 I 3 465 I 3 519 I 4 647 I 4 75 9 I 4 898 I 5 000

Overall PCI I 63 I 63 I 63 I 63 I 63

Budget ($-Thou sa nd s) 637 835 819 749 1 051 1 71 4 1 505 I 12 175

Reha bilitation ($-Thousands) 430 666 458 427 861 1 570 1 115 I 9 330

Preventive Maintenance($-Thousand s)

2 7 169 361 322 190 144 390 I 2 845


( -Tho usands) I 6 218 I 8 385 I 9 672 I 9 784 I 8 784 I 11 027 I 16 498

Overall PCI I 63 I 63 I 63 I 63 I 63 I 63 I 63

Nichol s Consu lti ng Engineers, Chtd 15


23/105

8 8

~18,000

v; 16 ,000 Ic::

0

14,000 I 63 63 63 63E.S 12 000 - . - - Qj

10.000 I8,000

c::

(ij6,000 I::E

C~

4,000

I . , . S ~ L : : l , + U ~ .:> t i ' U JQj

-j 2,000 t - Il l I0 I I~ ~ .r 1./ l \ .00 .... 0 0 0

- 03N N N

- Deferred Maintenance

63 63 63 63 63 63,___

-- - - - -

I 7 '' ; c o 4 R R 5.000 r- 1

. .J ,J .J . . . ; ,J

- -I

1 l/111


PCI

~ 63 63 63 6 3 63 {63 H 70

60

~

~ nn soI I , 40I .J.--.4. d

--1:31 I 30

- - - - - I

20

111111 I II II I II I I I II Ir . 00 en 0 N (Y ) .r 1./ l \ .0 r . 00

.... N N N N N N N N N0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N N N N N N N N N N N N

Year

Figure 6. PCI vs. Deferred Maintenance for Scenario 2 (Maintain Current PCI)

Nichols Consu lting Engineers, Chtd 16


24/105

8 9

uScenario 3: Unconstrained Funding


If the City had an unconstrained budget and wished to improve the network PCI to its optimal condition of approximately 85, $17.1 millionwill be required. This scenario is different from the Needs Budget on page 1 because the Needs Budget front loads all the work to thebeginning of the analysi s period to save on long term costs ($0.2 mill ion less). Simi la r to the Needs Budget it will eliminate the unfundedbacklog or pavement maintenance that is needed, but cannot be performed due to lack of funding. Additionally, a lmost all (96 .7 ) of thepavement sections woul d be in the Good category and nothing below the Fa ir category. Tables 6 and Figure 7 show the details below .

Table 6. Summarv of Results for Scenario 3

Budget ($-Thousands) 1 180 1 1 95 1 197 1 198 1 200 1 197 1 186 I 899

Rehab ilitation ($-Thousands) 1 068 1 148 1 123 1 122 1 008 983 757 I 690


($-Thousands)112

I47

I74

I76

I19 2

I2 14

I4 29

I209

Deferred Ma intenance

($-Thou sa nds) I 2 316 I 2 03 4 I 1 864 I 1 471 I 1 28 8 I 804 I 377 I 0

Ove r all PCI I 78 I 77

Bud get {$-Thousa nd s) 1 018 1 191 1 190 1 29 8 1 221 733 1 196 I 17 099

Rehabilitation ($-Thousa nd s) 669 1 001 1 002 1 02 0 482 706 I 12 861Preventive Maintenance

I I I I I{$-Thousands) 349 190 188 196 1 221 251 490 4 238

Defe rre d M aintena nc e

{$-Thousands) I 0 I 1 181 I 1 809 I 1 282 I 0 I 0 I 0

I Overall PCI I 7 9 I 81 I 83 I 85 I 86 I 85 I 85

Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd 17


25/105

9 0

u

41000 1 :> 7 n n- Deferred Mainte nance

77i i i 3 500 I - t / 40 I

cRl - ~~ 300 0 I - - I. J :1 . . .

.5 2 500


26/105

ummary


Figure 8 (below) illust rates the change in PCI over time for the three different budget scenarios.Scenario 1, the Current City Funding Level ($634,000, then $200,000 after 2022) has negativeconsequences for the road network after 2022 since the amount of funding is insufficient to

maintain the current PCIIevels . Prior to 2022, Scenario 1 provides suff icient fund ing to keep thePCI fairly steady around the low 60's , but after the loss of MeasureD funds the PCI will continueto decline without adequate funding . This decline w ill drop the pavement to a PCI of 52 by theend of 2028, near the threshold of the Poor category where pavements require more costlyrehabilitation measures to fix . In Scenario 2, the current PCI of 63 ( Fair ) is ma intained at acost of $12 .2 million over 15 years. In Scenario 3, it will take $17.1 million to raise the pavementnetwork to its optimal condition of 85 ( Good ) by 2028 .

. ._ Scenario 1 (Current City Fund ing Level ) . . . scenario 2 (Mainta in Current PCI of 63)

. ._ Scenario 3 (Unconst ra ined)90

4

~ - ' "< "l l

1.0r-..

00 0 1. t

N M "< "l l

1.0r ..

00. t . t . t . t . t . t N N N N N N N N N_


27/105

Scenario 1 (Current City Funding Level)

Scena rio 3 (Uncon st ra ined)

City o Carmel by the Sea2013 Pavement Management Program Update

Scenario 2 (Mainta in Cu rrent PCI of 63)

Figure 9 . Deferred Maintenance by Scenario by Year

Figure 9 illustrates the change in unfunded backlog or deferred maintenance for the threedifferent budget scenarios. The deferred maintenance in Scenario 1 (Current City Funding Level)will increase to $22 .7 million by 2028 (a 6-fold increase), which is the largest unfunded backlogof the three scenarios. Scenario 2 (Maintain the Current PCI of 63) will result in a deferredmaintenance of $16 .5 million by 2028 (over 4-fold increase), more moderate than Scenario 1. Inthe case of Scenario 3 (Unconstrained Funding), the deferred maintenance disappearscompletely as the pavement network has been opt imally maintained.

Figure 10 below illustrates the changes in the pavement condition under the three scenarios.Currently , 26 .5 of the network is in the Good condition category and the majority is in theFair category. Only 11.5% is in the Very Poor or Poor condition categories. Under Scenario

1 (Current City Funding Level), it is projected th t the amount of the network in the Good


28/105

Poor7 . 1

Fa ir

2.9

Very Current Condition(2013)Poor

2028 Condition Scenario 2Maintain Current PCI of 63)


Fai r

2028 Condition Scenario 1 Current CityFunding Level)

0.4

2028 Conditio n Scenario 3(Unconstrained Funding)

3 3 -::;;


29/105

Conclusions


The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has a substantial investment in its road network, which isestimated to have a replacement cost of approximately $37.6 million. Overall, the roads are inFair condition with an average PCI of 63 . Most o f the cities roads (88.4%) are in the Good to

Fair condition categories. However, at the City's existing budget, the average PCI of thenetwork is expected to begin decreasing after 2022 when Measure D funding stops and thebudget falls to $200,000/year . After this point, the PCI begins declining and will reach 52 by2028, right on the threshold of the Poor category .

f sufficient funding is unavailable for road maintenance and repair, the average PCI is expectedto decrease and the deferred maintenance or unfunded backlog will increase . The higherbacklog will result in increased future costs as more capital intensive treatments (such asreconstruction) will increase, since repairs are deferred until less expensive treatments (such assurface seals or overlays) are no longer feasible or effective.

The analyses indicate that the City needs to spend $16.9 million (mostly at the beginning of theanalysis period) in pavement maintenance and rehabilitation over the next fifteen years, inorder to essentially eliminate the unfunded backlog. By doing so roads can be maintained inGood condition with on-going preventive maintenance.

a. Pavement Funding

The City's current funding level for pavements is estimated to be approximately $634,000/yearfor 9 years then drop to one-third or $200,000/year after 2022. At this budget level, thenetwork PCI will decrease to 52 by 2028. In addition, the percentage of roads in the Very Poorcondition will increase to 41.3% (from 4.4% in 2013). The unfunded backlog will also increasedrastically, from $3.7 million to $22.7 mill ion. Clearly, this funding level is inadequate after the

year 2022.

t is recommended that the City, as a minimum, consider increasing pavement expenditures to$814,000 per year to at least maintain the network condition at the low-60s . This will allow theCity to preserve and improve pavements in the Good category.


30/105

8

7

6C: 5

Cllu

4

] 3Q

:t 2

1

0


altrans shphalt PriceIndex

Figure 11. Asphalt Price Index (1999-2013, Caltrans)

Finally , NCE also recommends that the City continue with a strong and well-funded preventivemaintenance program. This is necessary to maintain the roads that are in good condition(currently 26.5% in 2013) and avoid increasing the unfunded backlog even more .

In light of the substantial financial commitment that is required to maintain and/or imp roveroad conditions and the increase in construction costs, it is recommended that the City considerextending Measure D beyond 2022 as a minimum .

b. Pavement Maintenance Strategies

The City's pavement maintenance strategies include seals overlays and reconstruction. Since aquarter of pavements are in Good condition, it is important to preserve good pavements.Crack sealing, one of the least expensive treatments, can keep moisture out of pavements and

t th d l i g gg g t b f t f il Lif t di g f l


31/105

City o f Carmel-by-the-Sea2013 Pavement Management Program Update

c Re-inspection Strategies

Since the City pavement network was updated in 2007 it is highly recommended to re-in spectsoon . In order to monitor future pavement performance and on-going maintenance needs it is

re commended that arterial and collector roads in the network be re- inspected every two years

and residential roads everyfour to

five years

d . Maintenance and Rehabilitation Decision Tree

The maintenance and rehabilitation d e cision tre e and the associated unit costs should bereviewed and updated annually to reflect new construction techniques/repairs and changingcosts so the budget analysis results can be reliable and accurate .

e. ext Steps

To summarize we recommend that the City undertake the following step s:

Cont inue to fund the current preventive maintenance strategies as aggressively a spossible .

Direct staff to determine additional funding sources. Consider alternative maintenance treatments as technology changes. Update the pavement management system regularly .


32/105

PPEN X


33/105

Section escription Inventory


34/105

Section Description Inventory Report

This report lists a variety of section description information for each of the City s pavement sections. It

lists the street and section ident ifiers, limits, functional class, surface type, number of lanes, length s,

widths, areas and projected 2013 PCI.

All of the City s pavement sections are included in the report . The report is so rted alphabetically by

Street Name and Section I D. The field de scr iption s in this report are listed below:

OLUMN DES RIPTION

Street Name Street Name- The name of the street as indicated by street signs in the field .

Street IDStreet Identification - A code up to ten characters/dig it s to identify the street. Generally, the

street name is truncated to six characte rs . The Street ID sh ould be unique for each stree t .

Section IDSection Identification- A code up to ten characters/digits to ident ify the section number . The

Section ID must be unique for each section of one street .

From Beginning limit of th e sectio n.

To Ending limit of the sect ion .

of Lanes Number of travel Ianes .

Length (ft) Length of the section in feet .

Width (ft) Average width of the section in feet.

Area ( sqft) Area of the section in square feet .

FC Functional Classification (A= Arterial, C =Collec to r , R =Residentia l).

STSurface Type AC = AC Pa veme nt , 0 = AC Overlay of AC Pavement, AC/PCC = AC Overlay of PCC

Pavement, PCC = PCC Pavement, ST = Surface treatment over gr ave l ba se/subgrade) .

PCI Average PCI fo r the section . The value is projected fo r 2013 and is based on the last calculatedPCI (i.e . from inspe ction or maintenance data) .


35/105


36/105


37/105


38/105


39/105


40/105

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea 2013 PMP U pda te Draft Nicho ls Consult ing Engin eers, Chtd.Section Description Inventory (Sorted by PCI}


41/105

1 0 6

Street Name Street IDSect ion

From Toof Leng th Width A rea

FC ST PC I Date PCIID Lanes Jft ) (ft) _{qft

2NDAV 2NDAV 050 JUNIPEROAV SANTA FEST 2 461 23 10,603 R s 8 /27 /2007 553RDAV 3R DA V 050B GU A DALUPE ST CARPENTE R ST 2 246 20 4 ,920 R s 812712 7 553RDAV 3RDAV 050C SANTA FEST SANTA RITA ST 2 236 20 4,720 R s 8/27 /2007 55LINCOLN ST LIN COL 015 2NDAV MID BLK S 0 3RD AV 2 610 23 14,030 R s 8/ 21 /2007 53MONTE VERDE ST MNTVRD 020 4THAV OCEANAV 2 1,060 25 26,500 0 s 8/22 /2007 52GUADALUPE ST GUADLP 010 C ITY LIMITS 2NDAV 2 632 27 17,064 R s 8/28 /200 7 50PERRY NEWB ERR Y WY PRYNBY 010 4THAV 6THAV 2 876 23 20 ,148 R s 8/27/2007 50SANTA RITA ST SANRIT 030 5THAV OCEANAV 2 620 25 15 ,500 R s 8/28 /2007 49VALLEY WAY VALLEY 0 10 N CITY LIMITS E CITY LIMITS 2 365 24 8,760 R s 8/27 /2007 49VISTAAV VISTA 010 DOLORES ST JUNIPERO AV 2 708 20 14 ,160 R s 8/20 / 200 7 494THAV 4THA V 070 GUA DALUPE ST CITY LIMITS 2 664 21 13,944 R s 8/28 /2007 48GUADALUPE ST GUADLP 040A OCEANAV 7THAV 2 492 23 11 ,316 R s 8/28 /2007 48SANTA RITA ST SANRIT 0108 2NDAV 3RDAV 2 456 30 13 ,680 R s 8 /28 /2007 48SANTA R ITA ST SANRIT 040 OCEANAV MOUNTAIN VIE WAV 2 650 20 13 ,000 R s 8/28 /2007 47OCEA N A V OCEAN 020 SAN AN TON IO AV MONTE VERDE ST 2 1 ,000 25 25,000 A p 8/29 /2007 46

LADERA DRIVE LADERA 0 1 0 RIORD TURNAROUND 2 1 ,033 23 23 ,759 R s 8/20 / 2007 427THAV 7THAV 0508 FOREST ST CITY LIMITS 2 224 16 3 ,584 R s 8/23 /2007 30

DO LORES ST DLORES 040A OC EANAV 7THAV 2 482 30 14,460

0p 8 /2 1/2007 24

DOLORES S T DLOR ES 040 8 7T H 8THAV 2 381 30 11 .430 0 p 8 /21 /2007 24-

FC (Functiona l Class}: A-Arte ria l, C-Co llecto r, R-ResidentialNovember 2013 ST (Surface Type} : A-AC, C-AC/PCC, 0-AC/AC , P-PCC S-Surface Treatment Page 7 7


42/105


43/105


44/105


45/105


46/105


47/105

Cit y of Carmel-by-the-Sea 2013 PMP Update Dra ft Nichols Co nsu lti n g Engineers, Chtd.Se ct ion Descrip t ion Inven t ory Sorted by Street Name)

Sec tion of Length W idth A rea


48/105

1 1 3

St reet Na me Stre et IDSec tion

From Toof Length W idth A rea

FC S T PCI Date PC IID Lanes ft) ft) sq ft)

.SANTE FEST SAN TFE 04 0 5THAV 6T H AV 2 449 23 10,327 R s 8/27 /2007 69

SA NTE F E ST SANT FE 05 0 OCE AN AV 8TH AV 2 906 18 16 ,308 R 0 9/1/2012 100

SAN TE FEST SANTF E 060 8THAV SOUTH EN D 2 408 18 7,344 R s 8/23 /2007 82SCEN IC ROA D SCEN IC 010 OCEAN AV 8THAV 2 865 25 21,625 A A 9/1 /2008 90

SCEN IC ROAD SCEN IC 0 20 8 TH AV BLKA3 SIEND 2 1,420 23 32,660 A A 9/ 1/2008 8 1

SCENIC ROAD SC ENIC 030 BLKA3 S/ END SANTA LUCIA AV 2 1,035 30 31 ,050 A A 9/1/2008 93

SC ENIC ROAD SCEN IC 040 SAN TA LUCIA AV CI TY LIMIT 2 832 30 2 4, 960 c A 9/1 /2008 81

ST ERLING WAY STR LNG 010 PER RY N EW BERR Y WAY TURN AROU ND 2 145 25 3,625 R s 8/20 /2007 7

TORRES ST TORR ES 020 3RDAV 4THAV 2 428 30 12 ,840 c s 8/24 /2007 81

TORR ES ST TO RRE S 040 OC EA NAV 8THAV 2 875 23 20, 125 R A 9/ 1/2012 100

TORR ES ST TORR ES 050 8THAV 285FT N/0 11TH AV 2 1,270 20 25,400 R s 8/23/2007 82

TO RRE S ST TO RRE S 060 285F T N/0 11TH AV 11TH AV 2 285 16 4 ,560 R A 8/23/2007 87

TOR RE S ST TORR ES 01 0A CITY LIMITS 2N D AV E 2 703 18 12,654 R A 9/1/201 1 100

TORRESST TORR ES 010 8 2ND AVE 3RDAVE 2 387 18 6 ,966 R s 8/27 /2007 84

TO RRE S ST TOR RE S 030A 4TH AV 5THAV 2 449 20 8,980 R A 10/1/2013 100

TORRESST TORR ES 030B 5 TH AV OC EANAV 2 620 20 12,400 R s 8/24 /2007 77

VA LLEY WAY VALLEY 010 N CITY LIMITS E CITY LIMITS 2 365 24 8,760 R s 8127/2007 49

VIS TA AV VIS TA 010 DOLO RE S S T JUN IPEROAV 2 708 20 14, 160 R s 8/20/2007 49

VIZCAINO VIZCAN 010 MO UNTAIN VIE W AV FLANDERS WAY 2 762 18 13 ,716 R s 8/20 /2007 76

FC Fu nctio nal C lass): A-Arterial, C-Co llector, R-Reside nt ia lNovem b er 2013 ST S u rface Type): A-AC, C-AC/PCC, 0-AC/AC, P-PCC, S-Surface Treatment Page 7/7


49/105

PPENDIXB


50/105

Maintenance and Rehabilitation (M R) ecision ree


51/105

Maintenance and Rehabilitation (M R) ecision Tree

This report presents the current maintenance and rehabilitation decision tree that exists in thedatabase . The decision tree forms the basis for all of the budgetary computations that are included in

this volume. Changes to the decision tree w ll m ke the results in the budget reports invalid Allpavement treatment unit costs relevant to the street types in the database were updated.

The decision tree lists the treatments and costs selected for preventive maintenance and rehabilitation

activities. Each line represents a specific combination of functional classification and surface type .

The preventive maintenance portion of the report is identified as Condition Category I Very Good. Allpreventive maintenance treatment listings are assigned only to sections in Condition Category I where

the PCI 70. Sections with PCI values less than 70 are assigned to treatments listed in Categories II

through V.

In the preventive maintenance category PCI ;; 70), a time sequence is used to identify the appropriate

treatment and cost . Each preventive maintenance treatment description consists of three parts: 1) a

CRACKtreatment , 2) a SURFACE treatment, and 3) a RESTORATION treatment . These three parts allow

the user to specify one of three different preventive maintenance treatments depending on the prior

maintenance history of the section.

1. The CRACK treatment part can be used to specify the mo st frequent type of preventive

maintenance activity planned typically crack seals).

2 . The SURFACE treatment part can be used to specify more extensive and less frequent

preventive maintenance activ ities, such as chip seals or slurry seals. For example, a

crack seal can be specified on a 3-year cycle with a slurry seal specified after 5 years.3. The RESTORATION part can be used to specify a surface rest oration treatment such as

an overlay) to be performed after a specified number of surface treatments. For

example, after a certain number of successive slurry sea ls, an overlay can be specified

instead of another slurry seal.

Rehabilitation treatments are assigned to sections in Condition Categories II through V PCIIess than 70).

Each line is defined by a specific combination of functional classification, surface type , and condition

category .

COLUMN DESCRIPTION

Functional Class Functional Classification identifying the bran ch number .


52/105

COLUMN DESCRIPTION

TreatmentName of treatments from the T reatme nt Descript ions report.

Yrs. Between Crack Sea ls First Row- number of years between succ e ss ive treatment applications specified in the firstrow (i.e. CRACK treatment).

Yrs Between Surfa ce Seals Second Row - number of years between successive treatment applications specified in the

second row (i.e . SURFACE treatment).

Number of Sequenti al Seals Number of t imes that the treatment application in the se cond ro w (i.e. SURFACE treatment)

will be performed prior to performing the treatment application in the third row.

Note that the treatments assigned to each section sho uld not be blindly followed in preparing a street

maintenance program. Engineering judgment and project level analysis should be applied to ensure

that the treatment is appropriate and cost effective for the section .

CITY OF CARMEL

ecision Tree


53/105

1 1 8

Printed: 11/0112013

Functional Class Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Cost/Sq Yd, Yrs Between Yrs Between o f Surfacee x e p ~Seal Crack Seals SurfaceS als Seals beforeCracks n LF: e Overlay

Arterial AC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99

Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $3 .50 4Restoration Treatment THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) $17.50 2

II - Good , Non-Load Related THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) $23.50I l l - Good, Load Related THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) $25.50IV - Poor THICKAC OVERLAY(2.51NCHES) $34.00

V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCTSTRUCTURE(AC) $130.50AC/AC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99

Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $3.50 4Restoration Treatment MILL &THIN AC OVERLAY (1.5 ) $20.00 2

II - Good , Non-Load Related MILL & THINAC OVERLAY (2 ) $26.00Ill - Good , Load Related MILL & THINAC OVERLAY (2 ) $28.00IV - Poor MILL &THICK AC OVERLAY (2.5 ) $37.50

Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $130 .50

AC/PCC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $3.50 4Restoration Treatment MILL THIN AC OVERLAY 1 .5 ) $20.00 2

II - Good , Non-Load Related MILL THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) $26.00Ill - Good, Load Related MILL THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) $28.00IV - Poor MILL THICKAC OVERLAY (2.5 ) $37.50V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCTSTRUCTURE(AC) $130.50

PCC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment RUBBERIZED CRACK SEAL $1.10 4

Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99

Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00II - Good , Non-Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00I l l - Good, Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00IV - Poor PANEL REPLACEMENT $31.00

Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (PCC) $198.00

t Functional Class and Surface combination not used

Criteria : MTC StreetSaver

CITY OF CARMEL ecision Tree


54/105

1 1 9

Functional Clas s Surface

Arterial ST

Criter ia :

Cond ition Category

1- Very Good

II - Good , Non-Load Related

Ill -Good , Load Related

IV - Poor

V - Very Poor

Treatment Type

Crack Treatment

Surface Treatment

Restoration Treatment

Treatment

DO NOTHING

S LURRY SEAL

DO NOTHING

DO NOTHING

THIN AC OVERLAY (2 )


RECONS TRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)

2

Cost/Sq Yd ,except Sea l

Cracks in LF :0 .00

3 .50

0 .00

0.00

25 .50

28 .00

130 . 50

Printed : /01/2013

o f SurfaceYrs Between Yrs Between Seals beforeCrack Seals Surface Seals overlay

99

4

99

Functional Class and Surface combinat ion not used

MTC S treet S aver

CITY OF CARMEL

ecision Tree


55/105

1 2 0

Printed : 11/01/2013

Functional Class Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Cost/Sq Yd . Yrs Between Yrs Between o f Surfaceexcept Seal Crack Seals Surface Seals Seals beforeCracks rn LF: Overlay

Collector AC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0 .00 99Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $3 .50 4Restoration Treatment THIN AC OVERLAY(1.51NCHES} $17.00 3

II - Good , Non-load Related THIN AC OVERLAY (2 } $22.50Ill - Good , load Related THIN AC OVERLAY (2 } $24 .00IV - Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES} $31.50V - Very Poor

RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $92 .00AC/AC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0 .00 99

Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $3.50 4Restoration Treatment M i l l & THIN AC OVERLAY (1.5 } $19.50 3

II -Good , Non-load Related M i l l & THIN AC OVERLAY (2 } $25.00Ill - Good , load Related MILL& THIN AC OVERLAY (2 } $26 .50IV - Poor MILL& THICK AC OVERLAY (2.5 } $35.00V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC} $92 .00

AC/PCC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $3.50 4Restoration Treatment M i l l & THIN AC OVERLAY (1.5 } $19 .50 3

II - Good , Non-load Related M i l l & THIN AC OVERLAY (2 } $25 .00Ill - Good , load Related MILL& THIN AC OVERLAY (2') $26 .50IV - Poor M il l & THICK AC OVERLAY (2 .5 } $35.00V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC} $92.00

PCC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment RUBBERIZED CRACK SEAL ~ _ 1 .00Surface Treatment DO NOTHING C $0.00

RECONSTRUCT PCC $80 .00 ..estoration Treatment r1 (] 3I . . . .__._. . ----II - Good, Non-load Related DO NOTHING

,.$0 .00~ J

I l l - Good, load Related DO NOTHING~ ~ ~ ~

$0 ,00

DO NOTHINGIV - Poor ~ $0.00V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT PCC (

~$80 ,00

Functional Class and Surface combination not usedCriteria: 3 MTC StreetSaver

CITY OF CARMELecision Tree

P i d / /2013


56/105

1 2 1

Functional Class Surface

Collector ST

Criteria :

Condition Category

1- Ve ry Good

II - Good, Non-Load Related

Ill- Good , Load Related

IV - Poor

V - Very Poor

Treatment Type

Crack Treatment

Surface Treatment


Treatment

DO NOTHING

SURF ACE SEAL

O NOTHING

O NOTHING



RECONSTRUCT STR UCTURE (AC)

4

Cosi/Sq Yd ,except Seal

Cracks in LF :.00

3.50

.00

0 .00

24 .00

26.00

92 .00

Printed : / /2013

o f S ur fa ceYrs Between Yrs Between Seals befo reCrack Seals Surfac e Seals overlay

9

4

99

Functional Class and Surface combination not used

MTC StreetSaver


Printed : 11/01/2013


57/105

1 2 2

Printed : 11/01/2013

Functional Class Surface Condition Category Treatment Type TreatmentCost /Sq Yd , Yrs Between Yrs Between o f Surfacee x c e p ~Seal Crack Seals Surface Seals Seals before

Cracks 1n LF : OverlayResidential/Local AC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0 .00 99

Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $3 .50 4

Restoration Treatment THIN AC OVERLAY(1 .5 INCHES) $15 .50 3II - Good , Non-Load Related THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) $20.50

I l l - Good , Load Related THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) $22.00

IV - Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2 .5 INCHES) $29 .00

V -Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $67 .00

AC /AC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0 .00 99

Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $3 .50 4

Restoration Treatment MILL& THIN AC OVERLAY (1.5 ) $18 .00 3

II - Good , Non-Load Related MILL & THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) $23 .00

I l l - Good , Load Related MILL&THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) $24 .50

IV - Poor MILL& THICK AC OVERLAY (2 .5') $32 .00

V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $67 .00

AC/PCC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHIN G $0 .00

_~ . . . . ; , . r ~ . . _ _ = =

Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL - - . ~ ~ _ . . lC $0 .75Restoration Treatment MILLAND THIN OVERLAY - - ~ J C $5 .04 L.....:::....::xr .r - 3

I - Good , Non -Load Related CHIP SEAL WITH CRO _J 1 .50Ill - Good, Load Related CHIP S EAL WITH CRO ' ] c _ : 1 .50IV - Poor MILL ANDTHIN OVERLAY ~ ' l L $5.04V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (A C) = r $27 .00

PCC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment RUBBERIZED CRAC K SEAL ___ J 1 .00Surface Treatment DO NOTHING l l ~ $0 .00Restoration Treatment RECONSTRUCT PCC

5 ~$80 .00 If : 3

II - Good , Non -Load Related RE CON STRUCT STRUCTURE ( AC ) $40 .00

Ill - Good , Load Related DO NOTHING _j[___ $0 .00

IV - Poor DO NOTHING - l . $0 .00V - Very Poor REC ONSTRUCT PCC : ; r ~ ~ $80 .00

,.- Functional Class and Surface combination not used

Criter ia : 5 MTC StreetSaver


Printed: 11/01/2013


58/105

1 2 3

Fun ction al Class Su rface Condition Ca tegory

Residential/local ST

Criteria :

1- Very Good

II - Good, Non-load Related

I l l - Good , load Related

IV Poor

V - Very Poor

Treatment Type

Crack Treatment

Surface Treatment


Treatment

DO NOTHING

SURFACE SEAL

DO NOTHING

DO NOTHING

THIN AC OVERlAY (2 )

THIN AC OVERlAY (2 )

REC ONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)

6

Printed: 11/01/2013

o f Su rfa ceCost/Sq Yd , Yrs Between Yrs Between Seals beforeexcept Seal Crack Seals Surface Seals overlayc racks in LF:

$0.00 9

~

~ . 0 0 99

0 .00

0 0

2 ~ 0 0

6 ~ 0 0

Functional Class and Surface combination not used

MTC StreetSaver

CITY OF CARMEL

ecision Tree

Printed: 11/01/2013


59/105

1 2 4

Printed: 11/01/2013

Functional Class Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Cost/Sq Yd, Yrs Betwee n Yrs Betweenof

Surfacee x e p ~Seal Crack Seals Surface Seals Seals beforeCracks m LF: Overlay

Other AC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $3 .50 4Restoration Treatment THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) $15.50 3

II - Good , Non-Load Related THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) $20.50I l l - Good, Load Related THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) $22.00IV - Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2 .5 INCHES) $29 .00V- Very Poor

RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $67 .00AC/AC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99

Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $3.50 4Restoration Treatment MILL& THIN AC OVERLAY (1.5 ) $18 .00 3

II - Good , Non-Load Related MILL& THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) $23 .00I l l - Good , Load Related MILL& THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) $24.50IV - Poor MILL& THICK AC OVERLAY (2 .5 ) $32.00V- Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $67.00

AC/PCC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING _ ~ $0 .00~ . . . - - - - : : : : ; :Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL - ..:J _ r $0.75Restoration Treatment MILL AND THICK OVERLAY ~ 5 .85

II - Good , Non-Load Related SLURRY SEAL [ $0 .75Ill -Good, Load Related MILL AND THICK OVERLAY L $5.85IV - Poor MILL AND THICK OVERLAY '1TTI $5,85

:J ~

V- Very Poor RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) _{L $27 .00PCC 1- Very Good Crack Treatment RUBBERIZED CRACK SEAL 1 .10 5

Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0 .00 99Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99

II - Good, Non-Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00I l l - Good, Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00IV - Poor PANEL REPLACEMENT $27.50

Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (PCC) $175.00

Functional Class and Surface combination not usedCriteria : 7 MTC StreetSaver

CITY OF CARMELecision Tree

Printed: 11 /01/20 13


60/105

1 2 5

Functional Class Surface

Other ST

Criteria :

Condition Category

1- Very Good

II - Good, Non-Load Related

I l l - Good , load Related

IV - Poor

V - Very Poor

Treatment Type

Crack Treatment

Surface Treatment


Treatment

DO NOTHING

SURFACE SEAL

DO NOTHING

DO NOTHING

THIN AC OV ERLAY (2 )


RECONSTRUCT STR UCTURE (AC)

8

Cost/Sq Yd .except Seal

Cracks in LF:0 .00

3 .50

$0.00

0 .00

$22 .00

$24 .00

$67.00

o f SurfaceYrs Between Yrs Between Seals beforeCrack Seals Surface Seals over la y

9

100

Functional Class and Surface combi nation not used

MTC Stree tSaver


61/105

PPENDIXC


62/105

udget Needs Reports

udget eeds Reports


63/105

udget eeds Reports

The purposeof

this module is to answer the question: f the City hod allthe

money in the worldwh t

sections should be fixed nd how much will it cost? Based on the Maintenance & Rehabilitation (M&R)decision tree and the PCis of the sections, the program will then select a maintenance or rehabilitation

action and compute the total costs over a period of five years . The Budget Needs represents the idealworld funding levels, while the Budget Scenarios reports in the next section represent the most cost

effective prior itization possible for the actual funding level s.

A budget needs analysis has been performed. The summary results from the analysis are shown below .

An interest rat e of 5 and an inflation f ctor of 5 were used to project the costs for the next fifteenyears . This report shows the tot l fifteen-year budget th t would be required to meet the City's

standards as exemplified in the M&R decision tree .

Budget Needs reports included in this volume are l isted below:

.> Projected PCI Cost SummaryPreventative Maintenance Treatment Cost Summary

Rehab ilit ation Treatment Co st Summary


64/105

Budget Needs Projected PCI/Cost Summary

Needs Projected PCI/Cost Summary


65/105

Needs Projected PCI/Cost Summary

This report summarizes and projects the City's network P I values over a five-year period, both with andwithout treatment s applied. These costs are based on those in the M R decision tree . t also projects

the costs over a five-year period.

OLUMN DESCRIPTION

Year Year in the ana lysis period.

P I Treated Projected network average P I with all needed treatments applied.

P I Untreated Projected network average P I without any treatments applied .

PM Cost Total preventive maintenance treatment cost .

Rehab Cost Total rehabilitation treatment cost.

Cost The budget required for each year in the analys is period to meet the City's standard as

shown on the M R decision tree .

Total Cost Total budget required over a fifteen -yea r period.

CITY OF CARMEL eeds Projected PCI Cost Summary

Inflation Rate= 5.00 Printed: 11 /01/20 13


66/105

Year PCI Treated PCI Untreated PM Cost Rehab Cost Cost __

..

____-

2014 74 61 155,027 3,562,925 3 ,717,952

2015 74 59 57,019 859,029 916,048

2016 75 56 51,127 720 ,136 771 ,263

2017 75 52 68,638 522,620 591,258

2018 77 49 566,673 650,093 1,216 ,766

2019 77 46 178,178 384,418 562,596

2020 77 43 166,779 486,494 653,273

2021 77 39 161,958 294,057 456,015

2022 80 36 781,671 668,745 1,450,416

2023 85 33 347,027 1,788,703 2,135,730

2024 88 30 251,669 1,270,344 1 ,522,013

2025 87 28 503,141 119,724 622,865

2026 87 25 796,140 40,201 836,341

2027 87 21 539,239 314,854 854,093

2028 87 18 610,296 0 610,296

PMPM

TotalCost Rehab Total Cost Total

Cost

30.94% 5,234,582 11,682,343 16,916,925


67/105

Budget Needs Preventive Maintenance Treatmen t/Cost Summary

Needs Preventive Maintenance Treatment Cost Summary


68/105

This report summarizes each preventive maintenance treatment type, quantity o f pavement affected,and total costs over the five-year period. t also summarizes the total quantities and costs over the ne xt

five years .

COLUMN DESCRIPTION

Treatment Type of preventive maintenance treatment s needed .

Year Year in the analysis period i.e. 2013, 2014, 2015, etc) .

Area Treated Quant it ie s in linear feet Rubberized Crack Seal) or square yard Slurry Seal Th in AC Overlay).

Cost Maintenance treatment cost.

CITY OF CARMEL Needs Preventive MaintenanceTreatment/Cost Summary

Inflation Rate 5.00 % Prin ted : 11/01/2013


69/105

Treatment Year Area Treated Cost

RUBBERIZED CRACK SEAL2014 89.57 sq. yd. 992018 78 .79 sq. yd. 1062020 9.17 sq. yd. 142022 67 .51 sq.yd. 1102026 56.62 sq.yd. 1122028 46.14 sq. yd . 101

Tota l 347 .8 542

SLURRY SEAL2014 44,262 .67 sq.yd . 154,9282015 15,514 .22 sq.yd . 57 ,0192016 13,248 .67 sq .yd. 51 t 1272017 16,939 sq. yd . 68,6382018 133 ,166 .56 sq. yd. 566,5672019 39,885.44 sq .yd . 178,1782020 35 ,553.22 sq .yd . 166,7652021 32,884 .67 sq.yd . 161 ,9582022 139 ,118.33 sq.yd. 719,4362023 46,661.22 sq.yd. 253 ,3652024 44,141.78 sq.yd . 251,669

2025 41 ,333.44 sq. yd. 247,4402026 104 ,759.33 sq.yd . 658,4972027 81,702.11 sq.yd . 539,2392028 59,180.89 sq.yd . 4 10,125

To tal 848 ,351 .56 4,484 ,951

THIN AC OVERLAY 1 .5 INCHES)2022 2,402. 78 sq .yd . 62 ,1252023 3,450 sq.yd . 93,6622025 8,543 sq.yd . 255,7012026 4 ,376.11 sq.yd . 137,53 1

2028 5 ,774.22 sq .yd . 200,070Total 24,546 . 11 749,089

Total Quantity 873,245.46 5,234,582


70/105

Budget Needs Rehabilitation Treatment/Cost Summary


71/105

CITY OF CARMEL eeds RehabilitationTreatment Cost Summary

Inflation Rate = 5.00 % Printed : 11 /01/2013


72/105

Treatment Year Area Treated Cost

MILL &THICK AC OVERLAY (2.5 ) 2017 5,093 .33 sq.yd. $221 ,107

Total 5,093.33 sq .yd . $221 ,107

MILL & THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) 2014 10,189.56 sq.yd. $277,184

Total 10 ,189 .56 sq .yd . $277,184

RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (PCC) 2014 2,876 .67 sq .yd. $503,417

Total 2,876 .67 sq.yd . $503,417

THIN AC OVERLAY (2 ) 2014 58,376 .22 sq .yd . $1,377,3032015 18,940.11 sq .yd. $476,9502016 17 ,852.89 sq .yd . $509,40720 17 10,852.33 sq.yd. $301 ,5132018 21 ,938 .67 sq .yd . 650 ,0932019 12,550 sq .y d. $384,4182020 13,522 .56 sq.yd. $453,0052021 8,448.78 sq .yd . $294 ,0572022 18 ,266 .56 sq .yd . $653 ,3062023 47 ,148.89 sq.yd. $1,788,703

2024 32 ,432 .11 sq .yd . 1 ,270 ,3442025 2 ,916.67 sq .yd . $119 ,724202 7 2 ,513.89 sq.yd . $113 ,768

Total 265 ,759 .67 sq .y d . 8 ,392,591

RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2014 15 ,844 .22 sq.yd . 1 ,061 ,5662015 5,431 .11 sq.yd . $382,0792016 1 ,573 .33 sq .yd. $116 ,219

Total 22,848.67 sq.yd , 1 ,559 ,864

THICKAC OVERLAY(2.51NCHES) 2014 7 ,568 .89 sq .yd . $257 ,3 432016 2 ,878 .33 sq .y d. $94,5102020 735 sq .yd. $33,4892022 360 .33 .yd . $15,439

Tota l 11 ,542 .56 sq .yd . $400 ,781

PANEL REPLACEMENT 2014 2,777 .78 sq.yd . $86 ,1122026 814 sq.yd . $40 ,2012027 3 ,440 sq .yd . $201,086

Tota l 7 ,031 .78 sq .yd. $32 7,399

Total Cost $11,682,343


73/105

Scenarios 1 3


74/105

Scenario : urrent City Funding Level

Cost Summary Report

Network Condition Summary Report

CITY OF CARMEL Scenarios ost Summary

Interest : 5.00 % Inflati o n : 5.00 % Printed: 11 /04 /2013

Scenario: 1. Existing Budget (2013)


75/105

PreventativeYear P M A m t Budget Rehab I tatio n Maintenance Surp lus PM Defer red Stop Gap

2014 19% 634 ,000 II 94 ,701 Non- 122,671 0 2 ,862,423 Funded 0Ill 5,390 Project Unmet 22 ,394

IV 410,498 Project 0

v 0Total 510 ,589

Project 0

2015 14% 634 ,000 II 108 ,817 Non - 90,993 0 3 ,172,783 Funded 0Ill 388,300 Project Unmet 7,081

IV 41,396 Pro ject 0

v 0Total 538,513

Project 0

2016 8% 634 ,000 II 68,796 Non- 51 ,127 0 3,247,594 Funded 0Ill 83 ,275 Project Unmet 2 ,793

IV 424 ,355 Project 0

v 0~ . . . : : . . _ . : : : _ _

Total 576,426

Project 0

2017 10% 634 ,000 II 38.492 Non - 68 ,638 0 3,368 ,770 Funded 0Ill 0 Proje c t Unmet 876


v 0~ = Total 559,761

Project 0

2018 20% 634 ,000 II 0 Non- 130,702 0 4,478,658 Funded 0Ill 11 ,731 Pro ject Unmet 1,328


v 0~ a . : = = . ; .

Total 502,475

Project 0

2019 20% 634 ,000 II 43,781 Non- 136 ,007 0 4,566 ,803 Funded 0Ill 0 Project Unmet 29,749


Year PM mt Budget Rehabilitation

2 2 20% 634,000 II 94 ,553Ill 0

IV 390 ,717

v 0

PreventativeMaintenance

Non - 148,320Project

Project 0

Surplus PM

0

Deferred Stop Gap

4,671,326 Funded 0

Unmet 17 ,089


76/105

Total 485 ,270

Project 0

2 21 20% 634,000 II 0Ill 0

IV 461,277

v 37,543~ ~

Total 1 ,148 ,093

Pro ject 0

2016 4% 1 ,200 ,000 II 115 ,609 Non 74 ,417 0 1, 863 ,696 Fu nded 1 ,35 3Ill 44,646 Project Unmet 0

IV 526,128 P roject 0v 437 ,028

~ ~ = : ; ; ; : ; ; ; ; ; ; : :

Total 1 ,123 ,411

Pro ject 0

2017 5% 1 ,200 ,000 II 0 Non- 76 ,180 0 1,471 ,298 Funded 0Ill 0 Project Unmet 0

IV 52 2, 620 Project 0

v 598 ,954Total 1 '121 ,574

Project 0

2018 15% 1 ,200 ,000 II 0 Non- 191 ,888 0 1 ,287,524 Funded 0Ill 0 Project Unmet 0


v 357 ,427...

Total 1 ,00 7,520

Proje ct 0

2019 15% 1 ,200 ,000 II 0 Non - 213 ,826 0 804,279 Funded 3 ,037Ill 0 Project Unmet 0


Ye a r PM Amt Budget Rehab ilita t ion

2020 15 % 1 ,200 ,000 II 0Ill 0

IV 486,494

270 ,956- ~ : :

Total 757,450

P j t 0

PreventativeMa intenance

Non - 428 ,701Pro ject

Project 0

Surplus PM

0

Deferred Stop Gap

376,790 Funded 0

Unmet 0


88/105

Project 0

2021 14% 1 ,200 ,000 II 0

Ill 0

IV 294 ,057

395 ,630= . ; : = ; : : . ~

Total 689,687

Project 0

2022 15% 1 ,200 ,000 II 0Ill 0

IV 668 ,745

0_ ~ .Total 668,745

Project 0

2023 15% 1 ,200,000 II 0Ill 0V 1 ,001 ,131

v 0Total 1 ,001 ,131

Project 0

2024 15% 1,200,000 II 0Ill 0

IV 1 ,002,350

v 0Tota l 1 ,002,350

Project 0

2025 15% 1,300 ,000 II 0Ill 0V 1 ,102 ,449

v 0Total 1 ,102,449

Project 0

2026 15% 1 ,300,000 II 0Ill 0

0

Non 209 ,160Project

Project 0

Non- 348 ,819Projec t

Project 0

Non - 190 ,040Project

Project 0

Non 187 ,679Project

Project 0

Non- 195 ,895Project

Project 0

Non- 1 ,221,399Project

Pr o ject 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 Funded 0

Unmet 0

0 Funded 0

Unmet 0

1 ,181,178 Funded 7 ,857

Unmet 0

1,809,429 Funded 9,753

Unmet 0

1 ,281 ,788 Funded 998

Unmet 0

0 Funded 0

Unmet 0

PreventativeYear PM Amt Budget Rehabilitation Maintenance Surplus PM Deferred Stop Gap

2027 15% 1 ,300,000 II 0 Non- 250 ,513 0 0 Funded 0Ill 0 Project Unmet 0


v 368,488~ ~ = =

Total 482,256

Project 0


89/105

Project 0

2028 15% 1,300 ,000 II 0 Non- 489,991 0 0 Funded 0Ill 0 Project Unmet 0

IV 0 Project0

v 706 0 83: = = ~ ~

Total 706,083

Project 0

ummary Funded UnmetFunctional Class Rehabilitation Prev . Main Stop Gap Stop Gap

Arterial 1 ,711,809 1 ,308 ,842 0 0

Collector 1,445,387 738 ,092 1 ,473 0

Other 1 ,083 ,287 355,945 5 ,733 0

Resident ial/Local 8,620 ,364 1 ,834 ,597 40 ,060 0~

-rand Total : 12 ,860 ,847 4 ,237,4 76 47,267 0- - - - - - - -

CITY OF CARMEL Scenarios Network ondition Summary

Interest: 5% Inflation: 5% Printed: 11 /01 /2013

Scenario: 3 . Unconstrained

Year Budget PM Amt Year Budget PMAmt Year Budget PM Amt1 200 000 11% 4%


90/105

2014 1,200 ,000 11% 2015 1 ,200,000 4% 2016 1,200 ,000 4%2017 1,200,000 5% 2018 1 ,200 ,000 15% 2019 1 ,200 ,000 15%

2020 1 ,200,000 15% 2021 1 ,200,000 14% 2022 1,200,000 15%

2023 1 ,200 ,000 15% 2024 1 ,200 ,000 15% 2025 1 ,300 ,000 15%

2026 1,300,000 15% 2027 1,300 ,000 15 % 2028 1,300,000 15%

Projected Network Average PCI by year

Year Ne ver Treated W1th Selected Treatment2014 61 672015 59 692016 56 702017 52 722018 49 742019 46 762020 43 782021 39 77

2022 36 792023 33 812024 30 832025 28 852026 25 862027 21 852028 18 85

Percent Network Area by Functional Class and Condition Category

Condition in base year 2014 prior to applying treatments.

Cond1t1on Artenal Collector Res /Loc Other Total10 .0% 3.2% 9.4% 3 .8% 26 .5%

II Ill 11 .1% 10 .0% 37.8% 3.0% 61 .9%IV 2.4% 0 .5% 3 .5% 0.7% 7.1%v 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 0 .7% 4.4%Total 23 .6% 13 .7% 54 .5% 8.2% 100 .0%

Condition in year 2014 after schedulable treatments applied .

Cond1t1on Artenal Collector Res /La c Other Total18.6% 4.4% 9.5% 4.3% 36 .9%

5 .0% 9 .3% 37.8% 2.8% 54.9%

CITY OF CARMEL

Condition Arterial Co l lector

20 7 13 7

Scenarios Network ondition Summary

Res / Loc

54 0

Other

8 2

Printed : / / 2013

Scenario: 3 . Unconstrained

Total

96 7


91/105

20 .7 13 .7

11 111 2.9 0 .0

Total 236 13.7

54 .0

0.4

54 .5

8.2

0 .0

8 .2

96.7

3.3

100 .0


92/105

ppendixD


93/105

Scenario 1: urrent City Funding Level Sections Selected For Treatment

ections elected for reatment

This report summar izes a list of prospective streets eligible for maintenance o r rehabilitation as selected

by th StreetSaver program. his list is for budgeting and planning purposes only it does not represent a


94/105

final list of streets needed to be worked on. Final decision for section selection will be based on fieldreview by City Staff .

CITY OF CARMEL Scenar ios Sections Selected fo r Tr eatme nt

Interest: 5 .00% Inflation : 5 .00 % Printed : 11/04 /20 13

Scena rio: 1. Existing Budget (2013 )

Year Budget PMAmt Year Budget P M Amt Year Budget PM Amt2014 $634 ,000 19% 2015 $634 ,000 14% 2016 $634 ,000 8%

20 17 $634.000 10% 2018 $634 ,000 20% 20 19 $634 .000 20%


95/105

1 6 0

, 19

2020 $634 ,000 20% 2021 $634 ,000 20% 2022 $634 ,000 20%

2023 $200 ,000 20% 2024 $200 ,000 20% 2025 $200 ,000 20 %

2026 $200,000 20% 2027 $200 ,000 20% 2028 $200 ,000 20 %

Street Name Begin Location End Location S t reet ID Section ID F C Su r face PCI Cost Rating Treatment

Y ear 2014

OCEAN AV JUNIPEROAV CARPENTER ST OCEAN 040 A PCC 88 $99 5,710 ,108 RUBBERIZED CRACK SE AL

Trea tm e nt Tota l 99 n AV DOLORESST SAN CARLOS ST 7THAV 030 0 PCC 100 $0 0 PANELREPLACEMENT

.. DOLORES ST 7TH 8THAV DLORES 0408 0 PCC 100 $0 0 PANE L REPLACEMENT

OC EAN AV SAN ANTON IO AV MO NTE VERDE ST OCEAN 020 A PCC 100 $86 ,112 18 ,828 PANE L REPLACEMENT

**SAN CARLOS ST OCEAN AV 8THAV SAN CAR 050 A PCC 100 0 0 PANELREPLACEMENT

Treatment Tota l 86,112

JUNIPEROA V 3RDAV 4THAV JUNPRO 040 A AC/AC 100 $75 ,736 16 ,959 MILL THIN AC OVER LAY(2 )

Treatment Tota l $7 5 ,736

3RDAV TORRES ST SANTA FEST 3RDAV 040 A AC 100 $18 ,965 20 ,146 THIN AC OVERLAY (2 )

ESCOLLEWAY PERRY NEWBERRY TURN AROU ND ESCO LL 010 R S T 100 5 ,390 11 ,704 THIN AC OVERLAY (2 )WAY

GUADALUPE ST 6TH AV OCEA N AV GUADLP 030B R ST 100 $9.334 14 ,095 THIN AC OVERLAY (2 )

SAN ANTON IO AV OCEANA V 8THAV SANAN 015 c ST 100 57,70 9 16 ,341 THIN AC OVERLAY (2 )

T reatment Total $91 ,39811THAV JUNIP EROAV EAST END 11THAV 040 R AC 86 $4.6 06 22 ,837 SLURRY SEAL

13 TH AV 48 FTW/0 SAN JU NIPERO AV 13THAV 030 A AC/AC 87 $5,390 42,275 SLUR RY SEALCARLOS ST

2NDAV N. CASANOVA STREET MONTE VERDE STREET 2NDAV 03 0 R AC 85 $2 .674 26 ,902 SLURR Y S EAL

5THAV DOLORES ST SA N CARLOS ST 5THAV 0 12 c AC 90 $2.773 28 ,096 SLURR Y SEAL

** - Treatment from Project Selection 1 MTC St reetSa ver

Scen a rios Cri teria : SS1026

Stre et Nam e

6THAV

6THAV

7T H AV

8T H AV

CAM INO D EL MO NTECAMINO DEL MONT E

Beg in Location

MI SS ION S T

JU NIPE R OAV

SA N CARL OS S T

SA N CA RLOS ST

CITY LIMI

T3R D AV

End Loc at ion

J UNIP ERO AV

TOR R ES ST

JU NI PERO AV

JU NI PERO AV

2ND STREE TJUN IP ERO AV

Street 10

6TH AV

6THAV

7THAV

8THAV

CMDM NTCMDMNT

Sec tion 10

025

030

040

035

010020

FC Surface PCI

0 AC 87

C AC 88

0 AC 87

A AC 85

A AC/AC 87A AC 85

Cost

$2 ,772

$2 ,798

$5 ,4 55

$6 ,789

1 ,789$10 675

Ratin g Treatment

22,4 56 SL URRY SE A L

36 ,637 S LURRY SEAL

22 ,455 SLU R RY SEAL

36,339 S LURRY SEA L

41 ,611 SLURRY SEAL36 070 S LURRY SEAL


96/105

1 6 1

CAMINO DEL MONT E

FO R ESTRD

J UNI PEROAV

OCEA N AV

RIORD

SA N C ARLOS ST

SA NTA LU C IA AV

SANTA LUC IA AVSCE NIC R OAD

SCEN IC ROAD

TORRES ST

RIO RD

Year 2 15

SAN CARLOS ST

JUN IPEROAV

SA N ANT O NIO AV

SA N CARLOS STSCEN IC ROAD

4THAV

6T HAV

3R D AV

MOU NTA IN VIEW

CAM INO DEL MO NTE

CARP EN T ER ST

J UNIPE RO AV

8THAV

SCE NIC R D

CAM INO REALOCEA N AV

BLKA 3 S/END

285FT N/0 11TH AV

SANTALUC IAAV

3RDAV

4THAV

4TH AV

11TH AV8T H AV

SANTA FEST

MONTE VERDE ST

** - Treatment from Project S ele ction

Scen ar ios Criter ia :

JUN IP ERO AV

7TH AVE

2N D AVE

C ITY LIMITS

SA NTA LUC IA AV

11T H AV

CAM INO R EA L

DOLORES ST8 TH AV

SANTA LU C IA AV

11T H AV

SOUT H CITY LIMIT

5THAV

OCEA N AV

OCEA N AV

13TH AVBLK A3 S\E ND

SA NTA RITA ST

LINCO LN S T

CMDMNT

FOR E ST

JUN PR O

OC EA N

R IORD

SA NCAR

SA NLUC

SA NLUCSCE NIC

SCEN IC

TOR RES

RIORD

SA NCAR

JU NPRO

SA NAN

SA NCARSCE NIC

4THAV

6THA V

020

010

20

050

010

060

0 10

02001 0

030

060

020

030

050

010

070020

0608

0 10

2SS 102 6

A AC 85

R AC 87

C AC 89

A AC 86

A AC 82

A AC 83

C AC 87

C AC 89A AC 86

A AC 88

R AC 85

$10,675

$4 ,795

$2 ,101

$4 ,642

$3 ,559

$23,112

$7 ,465

$8 ,918$8 ,41 0

$12 ,075

$ 1,774

Tre at ment Tota l 122,572A AC 100 $257 ,343

Treat ment T ota l

Ye ar 201 4 Total

A AC /AC 100

Trea tment To talA AC 100

A S T 100

A AC 100A AC 100

Treatment To talR AC 92

0 AC 87

57 ,34 3

633,260

$105 ,6 44

105 ,644$185 ,492

$4 1 ,396

$108 ,817$9 7 ,164

432,869$2 ,170

$2 ,898

36 ,070 S LURRY SEAL

22 .148 SLURRY SEA L

28,4 73 SLURRY S EAL

36 ,03 2 S LUR RY S EAL

52,488 SLURRY SEAL

37,227 SLURRY SEAL

28 ,698 SLURRY SEAL

28 ,455 S LURRY SEA L36.0 18 SLURRY SEA L

34,209 SL URRY SEA L

23 ,577 SLURRY SEAL

17 ,297 TH ICK AC OVERLAY (2 .5INCHES)

16 ,212 MILL & T HIN AC OVER LA Y(2 )

17,198 THIN A C OV E RLAY (2 )

18,289 THIN AC OVERLAY (2 )

17, 478 THIN AC OV E R LAY (2 )16,552 THIN AC OVERLAY (2 )

14 ,570 SL URRY SEAL

21 ,390 SLURRY SEAL

MTC StreetSaver

St r e e t Name

DOLORES ST

DOLORESST

DOLORES ST

GUADALUPE ST

JUNIPEROAVLAUSE N DRIVE

Begin Location

VISTAAV

4THAV

FRANCISCA N WY

5THAV

OCEANAVRIOR D

E nd Loca t ion Street ID

2ND AV DLORES

5TH AV DLORES

Cll LIMIT DLORES

6TH AV GUADLP

8TH AV JUNPROS HARP RD BEND/C il LAUSE N

Sect ion ID

010

031

090

030A

060010

F C Surface PCI

R AC 92

0 AC 91

R AC 87

R AC 92

A AC 91C AC 94

Cost

$9,484

$5 ,807

$2 ,012

$3 ,594

$21 .221$6 ,59 1

Rating Treatment

14 ,570 SLURRY SEAL

16 ,761 SLURRY SEAL

21.433 S LURRY SEAL

14,570 SLURRY SEAL

27, 481 SLURRY SEAL21,375 SLURRY SEAL


97/105

1 6 2

LINCOLN ST

LOBOS ST

MISSION ST

MISSION ST

TOR RES ST

Year : 20 16CARPE NTER ST

3RDAV

5TH AV

5THAV

OCEAN AV

SAN CARLOS S T

SCEN IC ROAD

1 THAV

1STAV

2NDAV3RDAV

DEL MARAV

GUADALUPE ST

OCEAN AV

5TH AVE

2NDAV

3RDAV

OCEAN AV

Cll LIMITS

C ll

Documents

Receive and File the 2013 Pavement Management Program Update Report 12-03-13