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