maintenance assessment & funding needs for the · maintenance assessment & funding needs...

2016

SCDOT Maintenance Division SCDOT

1/1/2016

SCDOT Maintenance Assessment Program Annual Report

Maintenance Assessment & Funding Needs for the

South Carolina State Primary and Secondary

Highway System

2

South Carolina Department Of Transportation Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) Report2016

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 3

Background: ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

Description: ............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................... 7

Level of Service .................................................................................................................................................. 7

Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8

System Needs ........................................................................................................................................................ 15

Growth – Population and DVMT ..................................................................................................................... 15

Funding Needs ...................................................................................................................................................... 17

MAP Projection ................................................................................................................................................ 17

Pavement Management Program Projection ..................................................................................................... 22

Resurfacing Projection ...................................................................................................................................... 27

Backlog Cost ......................................................................................................................................................... 28

Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service ............................................................................................................... 28

Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 28

Addendum ............................................................................................................................................................. 30

Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix B ....................................................................................................................................................... 32

3


Executive Summary

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

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

evaluated the condition of the state’s primary and secondary highway system. The purpose of this report is

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

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

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

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

South Carolina has the fourth largest highway system in the nation, consisting of approximately 41,390

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

increasing rate of deterioration. This rate of deterioration is likely due to the aging infrastructure combined

with the rapid population growth in our state. Growth and population data released by the Census identifies

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

growth comes the likelihood of a future increase in daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT). This increase in

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

roadways.

This report illustrates that in order to attain an acceptable level of service, additional funding for

maintenance is necessary. The primary funding source for our state transportation system has been the

motor fuel user fee, or gas tax. Since 1987 this fee has remained steady at only 16 cents per gallon. It’s

important to note that in 1987 gas was less than $1.00 per gallon. With no increase in twenty nine years, it

is no surprise that South Carolina’s gas tax is one of the lowest in the nation. The aging transportation

system coupled with a stagnant funding source does not provide a bright future for the infrastructure of our

state.

Background:

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

of analyzing and measuring the performance of the South Carolina Department of Transportation’s

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

4


provided to South Carolina’s motorists. This would also allow a calculation of the amount of improvement

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

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

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

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

the performance.

Description:

The MAP is a random statistical evaluation of the SCDOT’s maintenance performance on the system of

primary and secondary highways throughout the state. Seven key elements of maintenance were identified

for evaluation. Significant indicators were chosen for each of the seven key evaluated elements. Sections

of roadway, two-tenths of a mile in length, are randomly selected throughout the state. A two-person

inspection team physically evaluates the seven key elements on randomly selected roadway segments.

These evaluations are scheduled throughout the year to ensure that they are performed in all seasons. This

is done to alleviate any seasonal variances in the key elements evaluation results.

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

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

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

evaluation of the condition of the state’s interstate system and bridge system were not included in the MAP

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

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

safety of the raters and motorists, and the potential for causing traffic congestion. While not included in the

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

costs are included in this report.

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

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

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

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

January 2014 and December 2015, survey teams assessed the condition of these 0.2-mile sections for the

5


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

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

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

estimated costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

transportation departments.

6


Table 1

Element Pavement

Features Threshold Condition

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

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

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

Low / High Shoulder Greater than 2 inches above or below edge of pavement Blocked Ditches Blocked 25% or more and/or not functional Lateral Ditches Eroded more than 1 foot

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

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

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

Roadside

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

Mowing Measured Grass Height Limb Height Clear area of 18’ above the pavement, and shoulder, Litter Debris # of pieces of fist size or larger debris

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

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

Sidewalk Damaged or substandard. The sidewalk area is free of any vertical misalignments of ½” or greater.

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

Signs Age, Reflectivity, Faded, Damaged, or Missing

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

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

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

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

7


Evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

Level of Service

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

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

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

Level of Service A (best) This is a very high level of service in which the associated features are in excellent condition. Very few deficiencies are present, all systems are operational, and the overall appearance is pleasing. Preventive maintenance is a high priority in all maintenance activities.

Level of Service B (good) This is a high level of service in which the associated features are in good condition. Very few deficiencies are present in safety and investment protection, but moderate deficiencies may exist in other areas. All systems are operational. Preventive maintenance is a high priority for safety-related activities, but is deferred for other areas, resulting in additional corrective maintenance activities.

Level of Service C (fair) This is a fair maintenance service level in which the associated features are in fair condition. Very few deficiencies are present in safety related activities, but moderate deficiencies exist for investment protection and significant aesthetic related deficiencies. Preventive maintenance is deferred for many activities except safety-related work. Corrective maintenance is routinely practiced for all activities. A backlog of deficiencies begins to build up that will have to be dealt with eventually, at a higher cost. Some roadway structural problems begin to appear due to long-term deterioration of the system.

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

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

8


Results

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

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

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

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

to determine the LOS for that particular item.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The MAP program’s “Health Scores” also provide a record of the condition of the primary and secondary

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

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

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

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

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

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

were within the margin of error for this sample size. It is important to remember that the 2016 MAP report

is a compilation of the inspection results for both 2014 and 2015. Changes to inspection methods and

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

9


On primary routes, improvements were seen in fourteen inspection features. These features are: potholes,

patching, PQI, width, low/high shoulders, blocked ditches, lateral ditches, crossline pipes, driveway pipes,

miscellaneous drainage structures, brush & tree control, sign condition, paint, and words & symbols. All

improvements are within the margin of error, with the exception of crossline pipes, driveway pipes,

miscellaneous drainage structures.

Five primary route features remained relatively unchanged. These features are: mowing, thermoplastic,

guardrail, attenuator, and cable barrier.

Ten primary route features had negative trends for this report, but are within the margin of error for this

sample size. These features are: curb and gutter, drop inlets, limb height, litter, guardrail vegetation, turf

condition, sidewalk, sidewalk vegetation, leaning signs, raised pavement markers, and end terminals.

Raised pavement markers exhibited decline outside the margin of error. We believe that winter weather of

the last few years resulted in many raised pavement markers being removed by snow plows.

On secondary roads, improvements were seen in ten inspection features. These features are: roadway

width, driveway pipe, curb & gutter, miscellaneous structures, catch basins, limb height, guardrail

vegetation, thermo plastic, paint, guardrail and end terminals. All improvements are within the margin of

error, with the exception of driveway pipes, and drop inlets.

Six secondary road features remained relatively unchanged. These features are: lateral ditches, brush &

tree, mowing, turf condition, attenuator, and cable barrier.

Fourteen secondary road items had negative trends for this report but are within the margin of error for this

sample size. These features are: potholes, patching, PQI, low/high shoulders, blocked ditches, crossline

pipe, drop inlet/catch basins, litter, sidewalk, sidewalk vegetation, sign condition, leaning signs, raised

pavement markers, and words & symbols.

10


While these results are not encouraging, they are to be expected. Increased use of the transportation system,

coupled with relatively low funding levels, and the continued deterioration, have resulted in our

maintenance forces shifting their financial and human resources to areas of immediate need. This shifting

of resources comes at the expense of planned activities and eventually lowers the overall system LOS.

Additionally, the impact of insufficient funding will lag behind the MAP inspection findings. We anticipate

this will not have a positive impact on the condition of our system as we move forward.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS F

# of

feat

ures

LOS by Features Summary

Primary Secondary

11


Table 2A – Primary Routes

Element Service Level

Actual Performance

Activities Condition Indicators Performance

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

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

EA per Lane Mile 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.33 >0.33 0.21

Patching Area > 1/2 SF that needs patching % of Area 99.8% 99.5% 99.0% 98.5% <98.5% 95.80%

PQI PQI rating from segment PQI Rating 4.1 3.4 2.7 2 <2.0 2.48

Width Roadway Width >= 24 feet % 97% 91% 84% 75% <75% 74%

Shoulders-Ditches A B C D F

Low / High Shoulder Low/High > 2 inches % 99% 98% 96% 94.0% <94% 96.21%

Blocked Ditches Blocked > 50% and/or not functional % 97% 94% 92% 89% <89% 96.35%

Lateral Ditches Eroded > 1 ft % 97% 94% 92% 89% <89% 99.90%

Drainage Structures A B C D F

Crossline Pipe Blocked > 25% or damaged % 94% 87% 80% 73% <73% 40%

Driveway Pipe Blocked > 25% or damaged % 92% 85% 78% 71% <71% 20%

Curb & Gutter / Valley Gutter

>2' section blocked more than 2 inches in depth or damaged % 95% 91% 88% 84% <84% 92%

Drop Inlets / Catch Basins

Blocked > 25%, damaged or grate problem % 95% 89% 87% 77% <77% 80%

Miscellaneous Structures Not functioning as designed % 97% 92% 85% 80% <80% 68%

12


Table 2A – Primary Routes (Continued)

Roadside A B C D F

Brush/Tree Control

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

Mowing # of Cuts # of Cuts/Year 10 8 6 4 <4 4.00

Limb Height

Minimum clear area 18' above pavement, 14' above shoulder, 10' above sidewalk and back of ditch % 98% 95% 93% 90% <90% 91%

Litter Debris # of pieces of fist size or larger debris EA per Lane

Mile 75 325 575 825 > 825 1284

Guardrail Vegetation

% of total LF of rail where vegetation is below bottom of rail % 94% 85% 79% 73% <73% 78%

Turf Condition Presence of bare ground or undesired vegetation within routine mowing limits % 95% 90% 80% 75% <75% 91%

Sidewalk Damaged or substandard. The sidewalk area is free of any vertical misalignments of ½” or greater. % 95% 91% 88% 84% <84% 95%

Sidewalk Vegetation

The longitudinal length of the sidewalk should be clear of any brush or vegetation. % 95% 91% 88% 84% <84% 95%

Signs A B C D F

Condition In service over 10 years, non-reflection, faded, damaged, or missing % 96% 92% 87% 82% <82% 94%

Leaning / Vegetation

Leaning more than 10 degrees or covered w/ vegetation % 97% 95% 93% 91% <91% 92%

Pavement Markings A B C D F

Raised Pavement Markers Missing or damaged. % 98.0% 95% 90% 85% <85% 67%

Thermoplastic Worn, damaged, missing. % 97.0% 95.0% 93.0% 91.0% <91% 85%

Paint Worn, damaged, missing. % 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% <80% 73%

Words & Symbols Worn, damaged, missing. % 97.0% 94.0% 90.0% 87.0% <87% 82%

Guardrail A B C D F

Guardrail Damaged or not functioning % 99% 96% 92% 88% <88% 94%

Attenuator Damaged or not functioning % 99% 95% 92% 90% <90% 100%

Cable Barrier Damaged or not functioning % 99% 98% 95% 92% <92% 100%

End Terminal Damaged or not functioning % 99% 95% 92% 90% <90% 90%

13


Table 2B – Secondary Roads

Element Service Level

Actual Performance

Items Condition Indicators Performance

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

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

EA per Lane Mile 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.33 >0.33 0.69

Patching Area > 1/2 SF that needs patching % of Area 99.8% 99.5% 99.0% 98.5% <98.5% 94.54%

PQI PQI rating from segment PQI Rating 4.1 3.4 2.7 2 <2.0 2.58

Width Roadway Width >= 20 feet % 97% 93% 86% 79% <79% 84% Shoulders-Ditches A B C D F

Low / High Shoulder Low/High > 2 inches % 99% 98% 97% 96.5% <96.5% 95.97%

Blocked Ditches Blocked > 50% and/or not functional % 97% 94% 92% 89% <89% 96.21%

Lateral Ditches Eroded > 1 ft % 97% 94% 92% 89% <89% 99.53%

Drainage Structures A B C D F

Crossline Pipe Blocked > 25% or damaged % 94% 87% 80% 73% <73% 23%

Driveway Pipe Blocked > 25% or damaged % 92% 85% 78% 71% <71% 17%

Curb & Gutter / Valley Gutter

>2' section blocked more than 2 inches in depth or damaged % 95% 91% 88% 84% <84% 90%

Drop Inlets / Catch Basins

Blocked > 25%, damaged or grate problem % 95% 89% 87% 77% <77% 61%

Miscellaneous Structures Not functioning as designed % 97% 92% 85% 80% <80% 65%

14


Table 2B – Secondary Roads (Continued)

Roadside A B C D F

Brush/Tree Control

Area cleared to tree line or right-of-way line. (Minimum of 5 feet up/down steep slopes) % 98% 95% 93% 90% <90% 89%

Mowing # of Cuts # of Cuts/Year 10 8 6 4 <4 4.00

Limb Height

Miminum clear area 18' above pavement, 14' above shoulder, 10' above sidewalk and back of ditch % 98% 95% 93% 90% <90% 90%

Litter Debris # of pieces of fist size or larger debris EA per Lane

Mile 75 325 575 825 > 825 1190

Guardrail Vegetation

% of total LF of rail where vegetation is below bottom of rail % 94% 85% 79% 73% <73% 86%

Turf Condition Presence of bare ground or undesired vegetation within routine mowing limits % 95% 90% 80% 75% <75% 87%

Sidewalk Damaged or substandard. The sidewalk area is free of any vertical misalignments of ½” or greater. % 95% 91% 88% 84% <84% 92%

Sidewalk Vegetation

The longitudinal length of the sidewalk should be clear of any brush or vegetation. % 95% 91% 88% 84% <84% 94%

Signs A B C D F

Condition In service over 10 years, non-reflection, faded, damaged, or missing % 95% 90% 85% 80% <80% 92%

Leaning / Vegetation

Leaning more than 10 degrees or covered w/ vegetation % 97% 95% 93% 91% <91% 88%

Pavement Markings A B C D F

Raised Pavement Markers Missing or damaged. % 98.0% 95% 90% 85% <85% 67%

Thermoplastic Worn, damaged, missing. % 99.0% 98.0% 96.5% 94.0% <94% 82%

Paint Worn, damaged, missing. % 98.0% 94.0% 90.0% 85.0% <85% 51%

Words & Symbols Worn, damaged, missing. % 95.0% 92.0% 88.0% 85.0% <85% 86%

Guardrail A B C D F

Guardrail Damaged or not functioning % 99% 96% 92% 88% <88% 93%

Attenuator Damaged or not functioning % 99% 95% 92% 90% <90% 100%

Cable Barrier Damaged or not functioning % 99% 98% 95% 92% <92% 100%

End Terminal Damaged or not functioning % 99% 95% 92% 90% <90% 93%

15


System Needs Growth – Population and DVMT

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

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

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

reduction in DVMT since 2007 (see Figure 1) is attributed to increasing fuel costs during this period

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

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

With the recent drastic decrease in fuel prices we anticipate a corresponding increase in DVMT for next

year. This increase in wear and tear along with associated construction traffic is taking a toll on our

roadways. This increased deterioration along with a relatively stagnant highway maintenance budget is a

recipe for disaster. Below are charts that illustrate population, DVMT, and SCDOT maintenance budget

trends. Due to timing and data releases these charts are based on data for the 2014 fiscal year.

Figure 1

4,000,000

4,100,000

4,200,000

4,300,000

4,400,000

4,500,000

4,600,000

4,700,000

4,800,000

4,900,000

5,000,000

126,000,000

127,000,000

128,000,000

129,000,000

130,000,000

131,000,000

132,000,000

133,000,000

134,000,000

135,000,000

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

1013-14

Cen

sus

Dat

a

DVM

T

DVMT & Census Data for South Carolina

DVMT Census

16


Figure 2

Figure 3

120,000,000122,000,000124,000,000126,000,000128,000,000130,000,000132,000,000134,000,000136,000,000138,000,000140,000,000

10,000,000

60,000,000

110,000,000

160,000,000

210,000,000

260,000,000

310,000,000

360,000,000

410,000,000

DVM

T (D

aily

veh

icle

mile

s tr

avel

ed)

Bud

get

Maintenance Budget & DVMT for South Carolina

Budget DVMT

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

350,000,000

400,000,000

450,000,000

500,000,000

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

Bud

get

Cen

sus

Maintenance Budget & Census for South Carolina

Census Budget

17


Funding Needs

South Carolina has the fourth largest state maintained road system in the nation with approximately 41,390

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

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

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

has been relatively stagnant. South Carolina disburses approximately $39,403 per mile of state maintained

road1. That is the lowest in the nation. In comparison, the national average is approximately $162,202 per

mile of road maintained1. For maintenance of roads, South Carolina disburses $7,320 per lane mile for state

maintained roads1. This is the third lowest in the nation1. The national average is $26,079 per lane mile1.

South Carolina receives fewer dollars per mile of responsibility than any other state in the nation1. If South

Carolina funded the maintenance of roads at the national average the budget would be over $900 million. 1 David G. Hartgen,Ph.D., P.E., M. Gregory Fields, and Baruch Feigenbaum, 21st Annual Report on the Performance of State Highway Systems (1984-2012) Policy

Study 436, September 2014, https://reason.org/files/21st_annual_highway_report.pdf.

MAP Projection

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

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

achieve each LOS. This cost is in addition to the 2015 fiscal year’s state funded budget of $294.1 million

plus an additional $180.4 million in federal funding. These costs were calculated by multiplying the amount

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

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

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

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

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

from the Department’s Bid Estimator program because this work is typically contracted. A possible flaw in

this logic is the assumption that all of the additional work would be performed by SCDOT maintenance

forces and contract forces in the same manner that it is occurring now. In reality, additional full-time

employees (FTE) and equipment would be required for SCDOT forces to perform this additional work. If

the decision was made to maintain the existing level of full-time employees and satisfy the increased

demand with contract forces, the cost projections shown in Table 3A and Table 3B would significantly

increase. A table of the costs used to calculate these projections is displayed in Appendix A.

https://reason.org/files/21st_annual_highway_report.pdf

18


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

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

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

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

of shoulder widening and paving, this year’s small percentage of improvement in roadway width for

primary routes resulted in a significant reduction in the pavement element’s cost to achieve.

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

sufficient funding for an extended period of time has created a backlog of needed improvements. The MAP

projection is not an annual need, but projects the amount necessary to clear the existing backlog and reach

the desired level of service. Note that the cost projection for the pavement portion of the MAP also includes

costs associated with the widening of roads that are currently a substandard width. Because of this one-time

cost, the pavement projection for the MAP may be higher than the other pavement projections included in

this report. The pavement projection does not include a specific amount dedicated for resurfacing, but does

include the projected cost to address all of the areas that are in need of patching. The unit cost to patch

these areas is much more expensive than resurfacing. This also contributes to the high pavement cost in the

MAP projection.

Table 3A

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

Element A B C D Pavement $283,269,531 $212,488,482 $129,402,321 $23,066,796 Shoulders-Ditches $676,466 ($3,111,839) ($6,148,967) ($9,937,272) Drainage Structures $34,508,271 $17,769,555 $4,447,153 ($12,419,056) Roadside $15,481,031 $4,384,420 ($495,263) ($8,652,787) Signs $274,386 ($81,882) ($514,004) ($946,126) Pavement Markings $10,115,032 $8,627,366 $6,941,069 $5,255,673 Guardrail2 $4,042,713 $3,702,261 $3,532,035 $3,332,204 Total $348,367,431 $243,778,363 $137,164,344 ($300,568)

19


Table 3B Maintenance Assessment Program Summary Costs for Secondary Roads

Projected Cost to Achieve (LOS)

Element A B C D Pavement $531,223,234 $441,271,649 $285,360,071 $129,430,649 Shoulders-Ditches $5,534,516 ($7,681,242) ($17,061,208) ($29,422,777) Drainage Structures $114,873,732 $97,122,152 $81,456,534 $63,631,162 Roadside $75,906,340 $40,229,352 $12,822,132 ($22,850,747) Signs $658,651 ($294,487) ($1,247,625) ($150,035) Pavement Markings $17,219,688 $15,909,466 $14,087,758 $11,799,330 Guardrail2 $15,741,355 $9,312,324 $1,036,024 ($7,113,530) Total $761,157,517 $595,869,213 $376,453,686 $145,324,053

2Although a statistically significant number of road segments were used to develop this report, there were relatively few segments that included guardrail. This occurred because of the random nature in which the road segments were selected. Although MAP evaluations target segments of roadway with specific features to ensure that a statistically significant number of samples of each feature are evaluated, it is unlikely that the results for guardrail will be able to be statistically significant. The MAP projected costs for guardrail were obviously inaccurate and thus were replaced by a cost projected to repair hits and replace guardrail on a set cycle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that these cost projections in Tables 3A and 3B separated into the costs associated with the primary and secondary systems. The cost projections in tables 4A through 4E include primary, secondary, interstate and bridges. It is necessary to add the cost projections for each systems desired LOS to determine the total annual need. It is conceivable that funding constraints could encourage a decision to adopt a different LOS for the primary system than for the secondary system. By separating the projected costs, it is relatively easy to perform a simple calculation to evaluate the different scenarios that could be considered.

20


Table 4A

Summary Cost Projection for Primary Routes Projected Cost to Maintain (LOS)

Element A B C D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4B Summary Cost Projection for Secondary Routes

Projected Cost to Maintain (LOS)

Element A B C D

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

21


Table 4C

Summary Cost Projection for Interstate Routes Projected Cost to Maintain (LOS)

Element A B C D

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Table 4D Summary Cost Projection for Bridges

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

Total $103,222,000 $77,420,000 $61,936,000 $46,452,000 6

Table 4E Summary Cost Projection for All Routes and Bridges

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

Pavement $875,627,350 $743,808,731 $650,270,433 $566,800,379 Shoulders-Ditches $28,117,395 $24,100,624 $21,088,047 $16,870,437 Drainage Structures $15,253,913 $11,440,435 $9,533,833 $7,626,956 Roadside $91,465,844 $65,692,036 $46,142,840 $31,984,131 Signs $8,835,514 $7,505,780 $6,920,635 $6,481,867 Pavement Markings $43,957,502 $29,719,788 $23,328,765 $18,443,783 Guardrail $9,491,271 $8,909,392 $8,589,862 $8,235,148 Bridges $103,222,000 $77,420,000 $61,936,000 $46,452,000 Total $1,175,970,789 $968,596,786 $827,810,415 $702,894,701

22


Pavement Management Program Projection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23


Table 5

PQI to RSL Correlation

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

following charts.

44.8

%

4.0%

4.3%

4.7%

4.7%

4.0%

4.7%

3.6%

4.3%

3.5%

5.0%

2.7%

2.8%

1.7%

2.2%

1.3%

1.8%

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%

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

Primary System RSL Distribution [USSC System RSL Avg.=4.1 in 12/2015]

RSL in Years

Perc

ent o

f Mile

s in

Syst

em

Primary System (US SC) Condition PQI RSL

LOS “F” 0 – 2.4 0

LOS “D” 2.5 – 2.7 1 – 4

LOS “C” 2.8 – 3.2 5 – 9

LOS “B” 3.3 – 4.0 10 – 14

LOS “A” 4.1 – 5.0 15 - 20

Secondary System Condition PQI RSL

LOS “F” 0 – 2.2 0

LOS “D” 2.3 – 2.6 1 – 4

LOS “C” 2.7 – 3.1 5 – 9

LOS “B” 3.2 – 3.7 10 – 14

LOS “A” 3.8 – 5.0 15 - 20

24


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a five county sample. The sample counties were representative of the entire state’s secondary system.

28.7

%

3.8%

4.2%

5.6%

6.3%

7.2%

7.3%

7.7%

7.3%

6.2%

5.2%

4.0%

2.5%

1.7%

1.0%

0.3%

1.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

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

Secondary System RSL Distribution [Sec System RSL Avg.=4.9 in 12/2015]

Perc

ent o

f Mile

s in

Syst

em

RSL in Years

25


Figure 3

The cost projection for this LOS for the primary system is an average of $331.9 million per year.

Figure 4

The cost projection for this LOS for the primary system is an average of $297.7 million per year.

$331.9 $331.9 $331.9 $331.9 $331.9 $331.9 $331.9 $331.9 $331.9 $331.9

$0.0

$200.0

$400.0

$600.0

$800.0

$1,000.0

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

$ in

Mill

ions

USSC System Cost to Reach LOS "B" w/ Smoothed Budget System Reaches LOS "B" in 2025

$297.7 $297.7 $297.7 $297.7 $297.7 $297.7 $297.7 $297.7 $297.7 $297.7

$0.0

$200.0

$400.0

$600.0

$800.0

$1,000.0

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

$ in

Mill

ions

USSC System Cost to Reach LOS "C" w/ Smoothed Budget System Reaches LOS "C" in 2021

26


Figure 5

The cost projection for this LOS for the secondary system is an average of $638.3 million per year.

Figure 6

The cost projection for this LOS for the secondary system is an average of $560.0 million per year.

$638.3 $638.3 $638.3 $638.3 $638.3 $638.3 $638.3 $638.3 $638.3 $638.3

$0.0

$200.0

$400.0

$600.0

$800.0

$1,000.0

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

$ in

Mill

ions

Secondary System Cost to Reach LOS "B" w/ Smoothed Budget from System Level Analysis

System Reaches LOS "B" in 2025

$560.0 $560.0 $560.0 $560.0 $560.0 $560.0 $560.0 $560.0 $560.0 $560.0

$0.0

$200.0

$400.0

$600.0

$800.0

$1,000.0

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

$ in

Mill

ions

Secondary System Cost to Reach LOS "C" w/ Smoothed Budget from System Level Analysis

System Reaches LOS "C" in 2025

$ in

Mill

ions

27


Resurfacing Projection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a general resurfacing treatment.

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

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

approximate average unit cost for this work is $152,000 per lane mile for primary routes and $126,000

per lane mile for secondary routes. These average unit costs account for appropriate rates of surfacing,

leveling, full-depth patching, pavement markings, etc. that would normally be included in a resurfacing

contract. The accepted ideal industry cycle time of 12 years for primary routes and 15 years for

secondary roads was used as the frequency and that minor rehabilitation would need to be performed.

This funding needs projection assumes that 100 percent of the roads in both the primary and secondary

system would need periodic resurfacing. The appropriate calculated costs per mile were multiplied by

the primary and secondary mileages for the state.

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

Frequency: Every 12 years for primary routes and 15 years for secondary roads Unit Cost Information: Primary Route Cost per Lane Mile: $152,000

Secondary Road Cost per Lane Mile: $126,000

Annual Need: Primary - $298 million Secondary - $527 million

28


Backlog Cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service

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

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

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

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

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

achieving each LOS. It is strongly recommended that a LOS of “C” should be considered the minimum

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

resources necessary to achieve this level of service.

Summary and Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

service level will likely continue.

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

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

The MAP program projects a need of just over $513.6 million to bring just our primary and

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

LOS is achieved, it is projected that an annual need of $692.6 million would allow the maintenance of the

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

maintenance of the interstate system and bridges.

One of the pavement management projections would bring the state’s primary and secondary pavement

conditions to the median standard for a LOS of “C”. The projected need for the primary roads is $297.7

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

$560 million annually to fund the backlog and maintain that LOS. This projection would fund most of the

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

The resurfacing projection would bring the state’s primary and secondary pavement to a much higher LOS

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

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

all secondary roads every 15 years. This method projects an annual need of $298 million for primary roads

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

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

projection.

30


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

maintenance of our current transportation system. With approximately 41,390 centerline miles of state

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

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

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

transportation needs of the growing population in South Carolina.

Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

time. There is a likely adverse effect to this approach. In many cases, resources are simply being shifted

from one area to another. This shifting of resources, will likely result in the decrease of LOS in the areas

from which resources are redirected. However, there are some areas where a lower LOS could be tolerated.

The goal is to ensure that resources are expended on the safety sensitive maintenance activities and not on

activities that are less important or easy to perform.

31


Appendix A

HMMS Cost – 2014-2015 Activity Code Work Description UOM Cost/Unit

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

Contract Cost

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

32


Appendix B 2015 Health Scores

Health Score Grade 66.2%

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

maintenance assessment & funding needs for the · maintenance assessment & funding needs...

Documents