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 TotalCenterline
Miles% of
PavedCenterline
Miles% of
GravelCenterline
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 RoadsTotal 61% 39% 100%
Centerline Miles of County Maintained Roads
Paved Gravel TotalCenterline
Miles% of
PavedCenterline
Miles% of
GravelCenterline
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 RoadsTotal 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?