1

Pavement Management System

City of Coquitlam

Pavement Management

Road Condition Analysis

Parameters

•% Cracking

•Structural (Deflection)

•Rideability (Roughness)

•Rutting

•Traffic Volumes

•% Trucks

Pavement Management

Different Policy Models

• Min Cost - based on a minimum performance criteria; This method ignores user costs

• Minimize Total Transportation Cost (TTC) –(Road User Cost Savings) – (Project Life Cycle Cost); this maximizes the return on investment to the traveling public

• Worst First - it assumes sufficient funds are available to reactively rehabilitate roads once they have become in obviously poor condition.

Pavement Management

– A Pavement Inventory– Measuring Pavement Condition– Location Referencing, Analysis tools– Predicting the Future– A framework to identify needs– Set priorities for Pavement Treatment

Pavement Management Technology

Profile/GPS/Videolog Vehicle

Profile/Rutting/Cracking - Condition data SUBSURFACE PROFILING - Road Radar

2

DYNAMIC STRENGTHDynatest Model 8000E Falling

Weight Deflectometers

Pavement Condition Data

Community Corridor RoadsCommunity Corridor Roads(included in this assessment)(included in this assessment)

Network Pavement Condition1992 vs. 1998

PCN 92 (ave. = 85)

79-7014%

84-8013%

100-8563%

69-606%

39-100%

59-404%

39-10 59-40 69-60 79-70 84-80 100-85

PCN 98 (ave. = 82)

39-101%

59-405%

69-607%

79-7019%

84-8018%

100-8550%

39-10 59-40 69-60 79-70 84-80 100-85

To Predict PCN - $Existing ProgramPCN in 2003 = 78

V. Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent

Condition Distribution

PCN 92 (ave.= 85)

59 - 04%

69 - 606%

79 - 7014%

85 - 8013%

100 - 8563%

PCN 92 (ave.= 85)

59 - 069 - 60

79 - 70 85 - 80

100 - 85

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

59 - 0 69 - 60 79 - 70 85 - 80 100 - 85

PCN 00 (ave.= 81)

59 - 03%

69 - 607%

79 - 7022%

85 - 8023%

100 - 8545%

PCN 00 (ave.= 81)

59 - 069 - 60

79 - 70 85 - 80

100 - 85

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

59 - 0 69 - 60 79 - 70 85 - 80 100 - 85

3

2002 Network Condition = 79 ‘fair’

PCN 02 (ave.= 79)

59 - 08%

69 - 609%79 - 70

26%

85 - 8026%

100 - 8531%

PCN 02 (ave.= 79)

59 - 0 69 - 60

79 - 70 85 - 80

100 - 85

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

59 - 0 69 - 60 79 - 70 85 - 80 100 - 85

V. PoorPoorFairGoodExcellent

V. PoorPoorFairGoodExcellent

2002 Network Condition = 79

PCN 02 (ave.= 79)

59 - 08%

69 - 609%79 - 70

26%

85 - 8026%

100 - 8531%

PCN 02 (ave.= 79)

59 - 0 69 - 60

79 - 70 85 - 80

100 - 85

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

59 - 0 69 - 60 79 - 70 85 - 80 100 - 85

2002PCI = 79Cracking = 12%$25/m2

2007PCI = 72Cracking = 30%$45/m2

Mill, Deep Patch and Inlay

Replace surface

Blue Mountain StreetIn 1992PCI = 85Cracking = 1%$2/m2

In 1998PCI = 82Cracking = 5%$12/m2

Loss of Strength begins – Mill and Inlay

Preventative Maintenance – Crack Seal

Crack %0.0 - 2.0

2.0 - 8.0

8.0 - 15.0

15.0 - 25.0

25.0 - 100.0

AUSTIN AV L

LOUG

HEED

2 LM

ARINE

R W

AY L

AUSTIN AV R

PARKWAY B

LVD

BRUNETTE AV

BLU

E M

OU

NTA

I N S

CO

AST

MER

IDIA

N

DEWDNEY TRUNK

CHI

LKO

DR

GUILDFORD WAY L

FOSTER AVENUE

BARNET HWY L

CLARKE R

D L

GLEN DR

MU

NDY

ST

J OH

NSO

N S

T 1 L

LANSDOWNE DR

SMITH AV

LINTON STALDERSON AV

VICTORIA DR

INLET ST

PO

IRIE

R S

T

FALCON DRV

PANORAMA DR

ROBSON DR

CHAPMAN AV

LOUGHEED 1 L

WINSLOW AV

SEGUIN DR

PIPELINE RD 2

RO

BIN

SON

ST

UNITED BLVD 1 R

COMO LAKE AV L

OZ

ADA AV

SHAU

GH

NES

SY S

T

MA R

MO

NT

ST

VICTORIA-N.HALF

DELAHAYE DR

SPU

RAW

AY A

V

COMO LAKE AV R

UNITED BLVD 3 R

DAVID AV

2

THERMAL DR

HIC

KEY

DR

NE

LSON

STDUNKIRK AV

PO

RT

ER S

TR

EDGAR AV

DURANT DR

HIL

L CR

ES T

ST

DAVID AV 1

WE

STW

OO

D S

T R

AUSTIN AV R

GLEN DR

VICTORIA-N.HALF

INLE

T S

T

AADT432 - 40004001 - 80008001 - 1400014001 - 20000

20001 - 31000

Traffic Volumes

4

2002 Network ConditionNeighborhood Road Program

(not included in this assessment)

Arterial & Collector Road Restoration

Collector Roads – 132 lane km

Arterial Roads – 211 lane km

In 1998 Coquitlam used the dTIMS life-cycle cost and

budget planning tools

Specialized database toolsprovide location referencing

5

Pavement Preservation Treatments Encompass all types of

maintenance & rehab. treatments

Preventive Maintenance Treatment(Routing & Sealing

Thin O/L)

Corrective Maintenance TreatmentFor safety

( filling potholes, etc)

Emergency Maintenance TreatmentEmergency situation

(shoulder washout, repair a severe pothole)

Holding Maintenance TreatmentTemporary

(delay of more permanent or substantial rehab due to lack of funds)

Rehab. Treatmentrestore initial pavement serviceability

(overlay, recycle)

Reconstruction

Bridges Pavements Other Assets

Pavement Management System

Performance Prediction

Identification of Candidate Treatments

Pavement Condition & Inventory

Modified to accommodate a timely identificationof preventive maintenance treatments (if required)

Preventive Maintenance

Other Maintenance

Rehabilitation/Reconstruction

Priorization of Treatments

Monitoring and Assessment

Asset Management of Municipal Infrastructure

Without Preventive Maintenance

With Preventive Maintenance

Assume:1Km long section, Costs are :

sealing $1,100

resealing $1,500

Rehabilitation (resurfacing) $60,000