“If a job is worth doing,  it is worth doing right!”

In dealing with many local agencies, Kercher Engineering, Inc. has received many questions and comments about preventive maintenance and pavement management.  Since many others probably have similar questions, we have decided to write a four part series about pavement management to help municipalities better understand the importance of preventive maintenance and pavement management. The four parts of this series will be:

Part 1 - Pavement Management Systems - An Overview
Part 2 - The Pavement Management Process
Part 3 - An Overview of RSMS 98 
Part 4 - How to Successfully Implement a Pavement Management System
 

For most municipalities, the street system potentially represents one of its largest funding liabilities.  In some towns, the street system has already deteriorated to the point where the funds necessary for needed repairs far exceed available funds. And for other towns, if something does not change soon, they will also find themselves in a similar situation.  To better understand the solution to this problem, it is important to understand how we got to this point. 

Common Practices

Although we are in the twenty-first century and approaching ultra-high technology, many municipalities continue to develop street maintenance budgets using old-school technology.  Typically, agencies will develop the street maintenance budget using one or more of the following techniques:

• Last Year's Budget - The budget is based on last year’s funding, possibly with an arbitrary increase or decrease.

• Standard Program - A program is based on a periodic maintenance schedule, such as micro-surfacing every five years and an overlay every fifteen years, whether or not the street really needs it.

• “Fighting Fires” Approach - Fix’ em when the citizens constantly complain.

• Worst First - The streets in the worst shape are fixed first.  This approach has a certain logical (although incorrect) appeal that satisfies the public and some council members.

• Political Pressure - Use Political considerations to establish priorities and budgets.

• Gut Feel - Rely on the experience, knowledge and “gut feel” of managers and experienced employees.

For many local agencies, these techniques worked when things were much simpler.  There were less streets, lighter traffic, streets were new and taxes seemed to stretch a little farther.  Since the system worked, it became entrenched as the standard operating procedure for many agencies.  However, today it is much more difficult to make these techniques work.  Two of the main reasons for this difficulty are:

1. They typically focus primarily on streets in bad shape. 
 

Far too often, the maintenance program consists only of rehabilitating and/or reconstructing roads in poor condition.  Since these repairs are very expensive, this type of approach will quickly deplete a maintenance budget, leaving little or no money for preventive maintenance.  As such, only a few streets are restored while many streets in good shape are allowed to deteriorate. This practice of delaying maintenance will prove costly in the long run (See the article “Best First is the Best Policy” in the KEI Public Works Institute).

2. The “Selection Process” is subjective.
 

In many cases, the process to decide which streets should be fixed is not based on hard facts such as what is the shape of the overall street system or which repair is the most cost-effective repair.  In other words, the current method of developing the town’s annual MR & R plan is probably lacking a financial strategy that strives to ensure that the taxpayers hard earned money is being properly spent.

Although these practices may have proved satisfactory in the past, they will work in the future only if a municipality is lucky enough to have roads in good shape and a vast supply of money. Unfortunately, reality for most municipalities is that they are closer to the opposite end of the spectrum.  Money is tight and the existing street system, as well as, other associated infrastructure continues to age.  Things will only get worse in the future.  The aging of the infrastructure combined with other factors such as future growth, political pressure to reduce taxes and constantly rising construction costs will severely strain public works budgets.  Therefore, local agencies cannot continue to utilize out-dated methods of managing streets and be able to survive financially.  It is obvious that a more cost-effective method of managing the resources is necessary. 
 

A Solution:

So how do we cost-effectively manage the maintenance of municipal streets?  Unfortunately, there are no magic black boxes or crystal balls to provide the answer to this difficult question.  However, a system must be developed where decisions are based on a rational, systematic method of analyzing good information which produce consistent results. This can only be accomplished using a formalized decision making process such as a pavement management system.  That is why the T2 Center strongly suggests the use of a pavement management system (PMS) to assist in developing cost-effective budgets.  A PMS, if properly implemented, will allow a community to maintain their street system as efficiently possible by providing a rational, systematic approach to road surface maintenance.

What is a PMS?

Although many people think of a PMS as simply a computer program, it is a formalized process that provides decision-makers with the information necessary to make good investments with the taxpayers money.  This program should include a systematic, consistent approach to evaluate the present condition of each pavement surface, determine the proper type of maintenance to return the pavement to an acceptable level of service, prioritize necessary repairs, and generate useful reports.

A complexity of a PMS can vary greatly.  At the ultra high-tech end of the spectrum, an optimization type PMS will be able to determine the best investment strategy (as defined by the agency) every year for an extended number of years. This type of system will be able to analyze many different what-if scenarios to determine what will happen to the overall condition of the network due to such things as a change in the level of funding or the type of MR & R strategies used.  Such a high-tech system requires tremendous amounts of data that is very expensive and time consuming to collect.  This can only be justified by a large agency such as a state DOT. 

At the other end of the spectrum, is the simple manual method using a pencil and paper. The only significant cost for this type of system will be the manpower cost required to gather some basic data.  This type of system is better than nothing at all, since it does record the condition of each road segment.  However, most municipalities need additional information such as the associated costs of each repair, the total cost of all repairs, etc.  Since this type of information can be easily be generated using a simplified PMS which utilizes an inexpensive, easy to use “low-tech” computer program to store and analyze data, a manual system should be considered only as a last resort.

It would be great if all municipalities could have a state-of-the-art PMS, but for most local agencies, it is not practical.  Luckily, a simplified PMS using a “low-tech” computer program will do just fine for the majority of local agencies.  Obviously, a simplified PMS will not optimize investment over a five or ten year period.  However, it is based on the basic principle of selecting the proper MR&R technique and applying it at the correct time.  Therefore, a basic PMS will provide the basic information necessary to assist local agency personnel to make intelligent, informed decisions.
 

The Basic Process:

The process can vary greatly depending upon the needs and wishes of the individual agency.  At least in the being, it is probably better to keep it relatively simple. Any PMS should include the following six basic steps:
 

    2.   Gather all pertinent information about each segment in the road network such the 
           length, width, surface type, etc. (referred to as the road inventory survey).

    3.   A systematic method of gathering all relevant information pertaining to the condition of 
          all road surfaces in the network (referred to as a distress survey).

    4.   Develop repair strategies - using the cost and expected life of the various MR&R 
          techniques, determine the most efficient repair based on the needs of the community.

    5.   Determine when to do the maintenance.

    6.   Budget funds that focus on preventive maintenance so as to prevent major 
          deterioration from occurring.

What Type of Information is Generated?

The main goal of a PMS is to provide the information required by the decision makers to determine how to cost-effectively maintain the road network.   With this goal in mind, a basic PMS should be able to generate a series of reports that include the following:

   1.   Road Inventory - contains a list of each road segment in the network along with the
         physical characteristics of each segment.  It would include information such as the 
         length, width, type of road surface, traffic volume, etc. for each road segment.

   2.   Condition Summary - A summary of the condition of each pavement surface (results 
         from the distress survey)

   3.   Repair Strategies - A summary of all appropriate MR&R techniques required to
         improve each road segment in the network, listed in alphabetical order.  The selection
         of the appropriate MR&R for each road segment is based on the particular type or 
         types of surface distress that is present.

   4.   Prioritized Repair Strategies - A summary similar to the Repair Strategies report, 
         except the order in which the road segments are listed is based upon a prioritization 
         scheme.  In other words, the road segment that should be repaired first is listed first 
         and the road that should be fixed last is listed last.  Prioritization is based on certain 
         weighted factors such traffic, roughness and surface distresses.  Selection of the 
         weighting factors should be based upon the specific needs of the municipality.

   5.   Budget Reports - Typical reports could include: how many streets can be repaired 
         based upon a specified budget, and how much it would cost to upgrade all streets, etc.
 

What PMS should we use?

When starting out, it is best to implement a system that is basic in nature, easy to use, but still provides the necessary information to make prudent investment decisions.  What local agencies need is a method that meets the following basic criteria:

   1.   It is easy to learn and apply because most decision-makers have little or no formal 
         technical training.

   2.   It must be systematic and provide an organized approach to assure that all contributing           factors are taken into account.

   3.   It must be practical.  Taking care of roads and streets is an ongoing real life activity. 
         Therefore, the process must be both workable and realistic.

   4.   It must be understood and accepted by the local board.  A total commitment to the 
         program is vital to make it work.

For most local agencies, it is recommended that they strongly consider using the Road Surface Management System (RSMS) developed by the New Hampshire T2 Center. For example, the many T2 Centers have adopted RSMS because it was developed to meet the four requirements stated above.  It is a time-tested system that has been used successfully by many municipalities throughout the U.S.  There are two versions of RSMS currently available.  The original version is more of a “canned program” that allows beginners to get up and running quickly.  The new version, RSMS 98, which was recently completed is more of an “open structured program” that allows uses to modify the program to the specific needs of a municipality.  Both programs are excellent programs that should meet the needs of most municipalities.
 

Quality Control

In addition to implementing a pavement management system for making cost-effective decisions relative to maintaining existing pavement surfaces, all required maintenance and rehabilitation or other activities such as utility work in the roadway must be properly constructed.  In addition, new roads must be required to meet reasonably high quality standards.  A poorly built road can deteriorate quickly and thereby become a money pit that will drain the municipality of precious funds for many years to come.  Since these additional maintenance problems must be added to the already strained maintenance budget, the results could be devastating.  Therefore, any successful PMS must include a quality control program to ensure that all roads surfaces stay in good shape for as long as is cost-effectively possible.
 

For assistance in implementing a PMS, improving the current system or simply to discuss the benefits of a PMS, please contact Kercher Engineering, Inc.