Summary of County Roads2012 Pavement Quality Survey

George GerstleTransportation Department

Pavement Quality SurveyStudy Session

• 2012 Pavement Quality Survey Results• Rehabilitation Costs• Recent Public Input/Activity• Comparison of County R&B Expenditures to

Other Counties• Current Challenges• Options/Direction

County Road System • State Highways

County Road System • State Highways• Municipal System

County Road System • State Highways• Municipal System• County Connections

County Road System

Types of Roads (Classifications)• Arterial Network

County Road System

Types of Roads (Classifications)• Arterial Network• Collector Roads

(gravel & paved)

County Road System

Types of Roads (Classifications)• Arterial Network• Collector Roads

(gravel & paved)

• Local Roads(and sub-divisions)

Centerline Miles of County Maintained Roads(Source: 2008 HUTF Report)

Paved Gravel Total

Centerline Miles

% of Paved

Centerline Miles

% of Gravel

Centerline Miles

% of Total

Primary 240 62% 202 80% 442 69%

Subdivision 150 38% 51 20% 201 31%

Total 390 100% 253 100% 643 100%

% Of All Maintained Roads

Total 61% 39% 100%

Centerline Miles of County Maintained Roads

Paved Gravel Total

Centerline Miles

% of Paved

Centerline Miles

% of Gravel

Centerline Miles

% of Total

Primary 240 62% 202 80% 442 69%

Subdivision 150 38% 51 20% 201 31%

Total 390 100% 253 100% 643 100%

% Of All Maintained Roads

Total 61% 39% 100%

How is the Condition of a Paved Road Measured?

• A special van drives every paved road in the county and measures pavement distress (ie cracking/potholes, etc) with laser measuring device.

• Based on the number and depths of cracks, each section of road is rated is given a Pavement Quality Index number, or PQI, from 1 (Bad) to 10 (perfectly paved).

• Surveys are conducted every three years

• The most recent survey cost $45,000

4 high-speed lasers measure cracking

across the width of the lane.

How lasers see a crack

PQI 8.3

PQI 5.5

PQI 3.8

PQI 2.1

Summary of Primary Road Pavement Condition 2009 - 2012

Year 2009 2012 Change 2009-12Pavement Quality Miles % Miles % Miles % ChangePoor (<4.9 PQI) 78 32 58 11 -20 -21Fair (5 – 7 PQI) 147 36 98 20 -49 -16Good (>7 PQI) 276 32 344 69 +69 +37

Average PQI 2009-12Year 2009 2012 Change 2009-12

6.7 PQI 7.2 PQI + .5 PQI+ 7.5%

2009 Primary County Roads

2012 Primary County Roads

Summary of Subdivision Pavement Condition 2009-12

Year 2009 2012 Change 2009-12Pavement Quality

Miles % Miles % Miles % Change

Poor (<4.9 PQI) 96 32 128 42 32 +10%Fair (5 – 7 PQI) 107 36 130 43 23 +7%Good (>7 PQI) 95 32 44 15 -51 -17%

1.3% difference in mileage between 2009 and 2012 due to survey variability

Average PQI 2009-12Year 2009 2012 Change 2009-12

5.9 PQI 5.4 PQI - .5 PQI -8%

2009 Subdivision Roads

2012 Subdivision Roads

Current Challenges• Time = $

– Inflation – Continued Deterioration– Increased Maintenance Costs

• Optimal Improvement Strategy– Worst first – Long term cost effectiveness– Broad distribution of improvements

• Challenge with current policy– Inefficiency/Admin. Complexity– Bonding Costs– Divisive– Support only when roads are bad and expensive

Average Cost of Hot Mix Asphalt 2001 -2012

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00HMA Unit Cost Trend

HMA Unit Cost Trend

Average annual increase in HMA = 4.7% between 2001 and 2012.HMA is 50% -60% of average project costs

Summary of Subdivision Pavement 5 Year Rehab. Program

Cost Comparison 2009 - 2012Average PQI 2009-12

Year 2009 2012 Change 2009-125.9 PQI 5.4 PQI - .5 PQI -8%

5 Year Rehab. Program Cost Comparison 2009-12$22.3 $26.9 +$4.7 +21%

COST COMPARISON IS PRESENTED ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE THE MAGNITUDE OF COST CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH 4 YEAR DELAY IN REHABILITATION AND SHOULD NOT TO BE USED AS AN ESTIMATE OF ACTUAL COSTS OF ANY PROPOSED STRATEGY SINCE ANY STRATEGY FOR REHAB. WOULD NOT LIKELY OCCUR WITHIN 5 YEAR TIME FRAME, INCORPORATE THE SAME STRATEGIES OR GOALS, NOR REFLECT ADDITIONAL DETERIORATION OR INFLATION THAT OCCURS WITH A LONGER REHABILITATION PROGRAM.

Optimal Improvement Strategy

Challenge With Current Policy

– Inefficiency/Admin. Complexity• > 100 subdivisions with paved roads• Many with no functioning HOA

– Divisive• Difficult for neighbors to advocate on divisive issue

– Bonding Costs• Costs of bonding/interest large % of total cost• Relatively more expensive for small subdivisions

– Support only when roads are bad and expensive• Local support when roads are very bad• Most expensive to fix

Status of Recent Subdivision Resident Input

• Subdivision Paving Working Group– Multiple Meetings and Outreach

– Website/Petition

• 287 Signatures supporting creation of countywide subdivision LID for rehabilitation of sub. roads

• 6 HOA Representatives signed petitions

Status of Recent Subdivision Resident Input

• Niwot Public Improvement District– Survey of support for placing question on ballot– 2,549 survey postcards sent– 894 returned (35% response) – 65% of eligible voters did not respond– Of those who responded:

• 607 (68%) support/287 (32%) opposed• 24% of eligible voters support placing on ballot• 11% of eligible voters oppose placing on ballot

Cost to average home in Niwot– $422/yr. for years 1- 6– $223/yr. from year 7 out

Status of Recent Subdivision Discussions

• Pinebrook Hills – Unsuccessful LID• Crestview Estates – Unsuccessful LID• Reserve - Potential Rehab. With HOA fees• Gunbarrel Estates – Petition Process Initiated• Gunbarrel Green - Discussion• Homestead - Discussion• South Meadow - Discussion• Shannon Estates - Discussion• Lake Valley – Discussion

Recent Subdivision Resident Input• Already pay sufficient/too much taxes.

• Roads should be rehabilitated from existing sources.

• It is County responsibility to maintain public roads/County should live up to responsibility.

• County violated commitment to maintain roads when they were accepted for maintenance.

• County should re-arrange budget priorities/divert funds from other uses.

• Many who support creation of LID, share sentiments, but believe situation is critical, and need to create LID ASAP.

8 County Comparison of 2011 R&B Budgets

Options/Direction

• Maintain Current Policy– Individual Subdivision Initiatives/Improvement Districts– County Contribution

• Create Countywide Subdivision Public Improvement District w/ Vote

• Create Countywide Subdivision Local Improvement District w/current authority

Issues For Consideration :

– Include Niwot PID /Reserve in LID?

– Balance between revenue constrained and need?

– Time period for an improvement program?

– Appropriate inflation factor?

– Appropriate contingency factor?

– County contribution?

QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION?