City of Justin Street Improvement...

City of Justin Street Improvement Plan

TX REG. ENGINEERING FIRM F-14439 TX REG. SURVEYING FIRM LS-101938-24

6100 Western Place, Suite 1001 Fort Worth, Texas 76107-4654

PREPARED BY: PK No. 3340-13.294

January 2019

City of Justin Street Improvement Plan Page 1

I. Project Description and Summary

The City of Justin requested that Pacheco Koch help with the development of the City of

Justin Street Improvement Plan, SIP. The SIP was based on the City of Justin’s Street

Evaluation Report completed in September 2018 by Jacob & Martin, LLC. The Street

Evaluation Report purpose was to evaluate the conditions of the existing streets and

make recommendations to repair and maintain the street system. The Street Evaluation

Report used a visual inspection along with a ‘semi‐automated pavement distress

survey’ completed by Dynatest North America, Inc. Using these factors, a Pavement

Condition Index (PCI) was established which helped determine the street condition

(excellent to failure). This report was extensively relied upon to determine the order in

which streets should be improved. Other factors were also used which were external to

this report. These additional factors are the areas affected by the FM 156 reconstruction,

areas affected by the SWIFT Water Improvement construction, and any areas that might

be improved by incoming new developments. The aforementioned Street Evaluation

Report is attached in the Appendix.


II. Funding for the Street Improvement Plan

Based on the aforementioned information, areas that needed improvement were

established. The next step to developing a full street improvement plan is the

allowance of funding, which is discussed in the next part of this report, and

programming which year/order the streets should be improved. For this report, fiscal

years are used which goes from October to September of the next year. For example,

fiscal year one of this report is from October 2018 to September 2019 (FY2019). As the

date of this report is past October 2018, it is assumed that this plan will begin April

2019. Thus, year 1 will only be a half year (April 2019 – September 2019). The limit of

this SIP is April 2019 – April 2023 (4 years). The projects beyond that timeframe are

listed in the referenced report in no particular order.

The funding for the street improvement projects is assumed to come from the half cent

of sales tax passed by the City of Justin residents via referendum in November 2018.

This funding has provided the sales tax for the next four years upon which would be

determined via referendum again. Thus, this report does not extend beyond four years

as previously mentioned. The funding for each year is assumed to be approximately

$275,000. So for the Year 1 (FY 2019), funding is assumed to be $135,000 due to FY2019

being a half‐year.

The anticipated types of projects include maintenance projects like seal coats and

overlays and reconstruction which is complete failure and require complete

reconstruction of the roadway. Maintenance projects tend to be cheaper; however, they

are reoccurring projects so a majority of the operating (annual) budget is dedicated to

these. The reconstruction projects require more capital but are not a reoccurring project

rather they are completed on a more one‐time basis. Thus, it is anticipated that these

projects will be funded via the sale of bonds. This helps plan and provide an

annualized cost for these reconstruction projects removing some of the ‘lumpiness’ in

cost. For this plan, it is expected that the City of Justin will issue approximately

$1,000,000 in bonds to be paid back at a rate of $75,000 per year. From this information,

it can determined that for each year approximately $75,000 will be used for debt service

for the bonds for the reconstruction projects, and $200,000 will be dedicated to

maintenance projects. The maintenance projects will be constructed by City staff (filling

in potholes/spot repairs) and contracted labor i.e. contractors. The maintenance


funding would include $35,000 for City staff projects and $165,000 for projects bid out to

be completed by contractors. The figure below shows the aforementioned funding and

its allocation.

Funding Allocation Exhibit 1

Funding Allocation Exhibit 2

$35,000

$165,000

$75,000

Funding Allocation Based on $275,000 Annual

Budget

City Staff Projects

Contractor Projects

Debt Service Payment for Reconstruction Projects


III. Street Evaluation

The referenced Street Evaluation Report in the Appendix, can best be summarized by

the figure below.

Figure: Map of Justin showing PCI Categories from Street Evaluation Report


This map represents and illustrates the problem areas around the City which would be

yellow through black (yellow, brown, red and black). These are the areas of focus. The

majority of the marginal to failed roadways are in Old Town and the Adams Addition.

This is highlighted in the figure. One item to note is that the SWIFT water

improvements are also in this area. So these areas should be programmed in a manner

that they are not improved and then a new water main tears up the road again.

In conclusion, it shows that Ridgeview, Reatta, Meadowlands and the Hardeman

Subdivisions have streets in good to excellent condition. Out of those, Meadowlands

has more fair and marginal pavement but is in good condition when compared to the

Adams Addition and Old Town. Thus, these areas will predominantly have the most

funding allocated towards them.


IV. Street Improvement Plan

Given the budget and evaluation, an improvement plan can be formed to program

projects for funding years. The projects should be completed in the funding year;

however, sometimes inclement weather or other circumstances can prevent that from

happening. Thus, a project that does not get completed in the funding year would be a

top priority the next year (goes to the top of the list). Additionally, like any plan, this

Street Improvement Plan should be evaluated on a reoccurring basis. The best plans are

ones that are ‘living’ documents as the City’s priorities can change along with usage of

roads. Development can also dictate different traffic patterns along with commercial

uses, thus it is recommended that priorities are reevaluated to make sure they are still

priorities.

As previously mentioned Year 1 will be a half year and go from April 2019 – September

2019. The budget will be $135,000 with $35,000 used towards City Staff maintenance.

The remaining $100,000 will be used on the following streets shown in the table below,

these streets were selected based on traffic, usage and condition. Note that

reconstruction is not included in year 1 as it is assumed bonds would be sold and the

debt payment would begin year 2 (Oct. 2019 and beyond). The costs came from the

previously referenced Street Assessment and can be found in the Appendix of this

report.

Table: Year 1 – Street Improvement Plan

On the costs that exceed the budget, it is anticipated that there may be some pricing

synergies when bidding these projects out together or as previously mentioned these

streets would be moved to the next year as priority if they could not be completed

within this year.


Year 2 is when the debt service for the reconstruction projects would begin. The year 2

projects would include the beginning of the reconstruction projects (shown in the table

below) and the on‐going maintenance projects. The year 2 table shows the maintenance

projects along with the debt service payment and city staff maintenance budget.

Table: Reconstruction Projects

Table: Year 2 Street Improvement Plan

From the tables above it can be seen that there is approximately $1,000,000 in

reconstruction improvements and approximately $170,000 year 2 projects maintenance

projects. These maintenance projects are the projects that are recommended to be

improved via seal coat or overlay.


Years 3 through 4 projects are shown on the table below. The total budget for these

projects would be $330,000 or $165,000 per year. The scheduled work exceeds the

budget but it does allow for prices to come in under the costs that are provided in the

Street Assessment Report. It would also be a good starting point for the following years

if the desire of the citizens would be to continue the street improvement program.

Table: Years 3‐4 Street Improvement Plan

The map included in the appendix shows all of the proposed improvement projects for

the City. This helps visually see the projects color coded by improvement year or

reconstruction project which could go across years. It also highlights Boss Range Road,

which is anticipated to be improved with Denton County participation. They have a

program where the City provides the supplies and the County utilizes its own crews to

repair roads. Boss Range Road seemed the most suitable for this type of project;

however, areas in Old Town would be great as well, it is not jointly maintained like

Boss Range (along the whole road itself).

In conclusion, it is good to update the Street Improvement Plan on an annual basis as a

planning effort to make sure it takes into account the latest information. Also,

continued maintenance helps to keep streets in good condition and slows down the

again process. If no maintenance is done, then the road can go from good or fair to poor

or failed rather quickly and reconstruction would have to be done instead of the more

cost effective maintenance remedies.


Appendix

STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN

LEGEND

STREET EVALUATION REPORT

For

CITY OF JUSTIN, TEXAS

SEPTEMBER 2018

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

Mayor – David Wilson

Mayor Pro Tem – Alan Woodall

Brad Rieger

Lynn Crites

Charlotte Moore

John Mounce

City Manager – Cori Reaume

City Secretary – Brittany Andrews

Public Works Director – Steve Martin

Prepared By:

Firm No. 2448 Abilene - Weatherford, Texas

STREET EVALUATION REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND STREET SYSTEM INVENTORY 1

II. DYNATEST STREET SYSTEM ANALYSIS 2

III. 5-YEAR AND 10-YEAR STREET PLAN 3

IV. STREET IMPROVEMENT FUNDING OPTIONS 4

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: STREET SEGMENT ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX B: DYNATEST – PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX (PCI) SURVEY

1

I. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND STREET SYSTEM INVENTORY

The City of Justin contracted Jacob & Martin, LLC to perform an evaluation of the

existing local street system throughout the City. The purpose of the evaluation is to

determine the conditions of the streets and make recommendations to repair and

maintain the street system. Data has been collected from site visits, City records and

meetings with City staff. The following report contains the results of the evaluation.

The City of Justin is located approximately 25 miles north of Downtown Fort Worth in

Denton County. There are two Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) roadways

that run through the City which include Farm-To-Market (FM) Road 156 and FM 407. FM

156 is a major north and south roadway that runs through the main section of the City

with multiple local roads on the west side. FM 407 is a major east and west roadway

that also runs through the main section of the City with multiple local roads on the

north and south sides. There is a BNSF rail line the runs north and south along the east

side of FM 156, thus limiting access to the east side of FM 156.

The City has a total of approximately 25 miles of local streets within the city limits.

Approximately 43% of the streets consist of an asphalt paved surface over a base

material and 55% consist of a concrete paved surface over a stabilized base material.

The remaining 2% of the streets are unpaved or gravel roadways. Based on visual

inspections, a majority of the asphalt pavements within the City appeared to be in poor,

very poor and failed conditions. The asphalt pavements have varying amount of stress

throughout with longitudinal and horizontal cracking and show signs of significant

amounts of pattern/alligator cracking throughout the system. There are multiple areas

of roadway base failures as seen through the stress failures, rutting, potholes, and

roadway heave in various locations. Asphalt shoving at intersections is occurring due to

the stopping and turn movements of vehicles. Based on visual inspections, a majority of

the concrete pavements within the City are in good condition with some spalled joints,

punchouts, corner cracks in slabs, and micro-cracking at various locations. There are a

few locations that indicate complete pavement failure where rebar is exposed. The

unpaved or gravel roadways have various locations of potholes throughout.

Using visual inspection and depending on the type of repairs needed, each street

segment throughout the City has been classified as reconstruction, seal coat, or overlay.

Appendix A shows an itemized list of each street segment which includes the surface

type, classification, notes, and costs associated for repairs. Below is a description of the

different classifications used for the street segments.

Classification Description

Reconstruction Streets where a high level of failure has occurred. A

program needs to be developed to upgrade the streets. This

includes reconstruction of existing asphalt streets to improve their

condition, and safety, and thus also improving the longevity. This

2

would occur on the city streets with very high level of

deterioration, extreme failures due to major longitudinal,

transverse, pattern/alligator cracking, potholes, and base failures

which will require full reconstruction. This also includes places

where there are heaves in the curb and gutters.

Overlay Streets with a medium level of deterioration, failures due to

longitudinal, transverse, pattern/alligator cracking, potholes, and

base failures that will require some reconstruction of the failed

areas with an asphalt overlay. The overlay will include the repair

of the roadways with deterioration of edge ravel.

Seal Coat Asphalt streets with a lower level of deterioration due to

longitudinal, transverse, pattern/alligator cracking and potholes,

that will require some minor reconstruction of the failed areas

with a seal coat of the roadway. This will help to improve the

roadway driving surface for safety and longevity. Repairs needed

on concrete pavement at spalled joints, punchouts, failed spots;

then place a seal coat over the pavement to increase the longevity

of the pavement. This will also improve the safety of the roadway.

Also, for concrete pavement with light or micro-cracking, repair

spall joints or punch outs in the pavement and then place a seal

coat over the roadway.

II. PAVEMENT CONDITIONS INDEX (PCI) SURVEY

Jacob & Martin contracted with Dynatest North America, Inc. (Dynatest) to perform a

semi-automated pavement distress survey on the roadway system for the City of

Justin. A copy of the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Survey completed by Dynatest is

enclosed within this Report as Appendix B. As mentioned in the survey, the primary

objective for the survey was to determine the state of the street’s pavement condition

in the form of a PCI, so the City may more objectively assess to the condition of its

roadway pavement, better optimize and prioritize the expenditure of existing

Maintenance and Rehabilitation (M&R) funding, and more effectively identify and

justify its future roadway pavement M&R funding needs.

The PCI condition assessment criteria used to analyze the pavement network

completed by Dynatest were rated as excellent, good, fair, marginal, poor, very poor,

and failed. PCI values range from 0 to 100 with 0-30 being failed conditions, 30-45

being very poor conditions, 45-60 being poor conditions, 60-70 being marginal, 70-80

being fair conditions, 80-90 being good conditions, and 90-100 being excellent

conditions. The overall pavement condition distributions were rated as 31% excellent,

17% good, 8% fair, 8% marginal, 9% poor, 11% very poor, and 16% failed. Existing

pavement conditions and field observations indicated that the overall City’s pavements

were found to be in “marginal” condition with an overall average PCI value of 66.4.

3

Separating the type of surface, the concrete pavement conditions were rated as 54%

excellent, 29% good, 13% fair, and 4% marginal. The concrete pavements have an

average PCI value of 88.9 which can be considered good condition. The asphalt

pavement conditions were rated as 1% good, 2% fair, 15% marginal, 21% poor, 26%

very poor, and 37% failed. The asphalt pavements have an overall PCI value of 36.4

which can be considered very poor condition. There is a street map exhibit included at

the end of the PCI Survey which shows each street segment highlighted in a color based

on its PCI Category rating. The Survey also includes some photos of the existing

pavement conditions.

Per the Survey, the observed pavement distresses were load related which consisted of

approximately 60% of the overall distresses. The load related distresses on the asphalt

pavement included rutting and alligator cracking. The loaded related distresses on the

concrete pavement included corner breaks and divided slabs. Climate/durability

related to approximately 36% of the observed distresses. The climate/durability related

distresses on the asphalt pavement included longitudinal, transverse and block

cracking. The climate/durability related distresses on the concrete pavement included

joint and corner spalling. Other distress of approximately 4% was the cause of concrete

pavement joint faulting, scaling and patching. Most the City’s concrete pavements,

which account for 55% of the total City’s pavement inventory, exhibited minimal

distress and appear to be performing well. The City’s asphalt pavements, which

account for less than 43% of the total City’s pavement inventory, exhibited more

significant distress and several are in need of major M&R, such as resurfacing or

reconstruction.

III. 5-YEAR AND 10-YEAR STREET PLAN

The classifications listed above in Section I are described to repair and maintain an

adequate street system. Overlays and seal coats are normally considered annual routine

maintenance items for some Cities. When a City falls behind in this area, it may take a

maximum effort to improve the street system so that it can provide assistance in seal

coating and overlaying City streets. The City should also continue to request that TxDOT

have a high level of maintenance to the highway system through town.

The priorities assigned to the improvement of the street systems should ultimately be

decided by the citizens of Justin in their willingness to pay the cost through increased

taxes. City personnel should evaluate traffic demand to prepare a list of priorities for

needed repairs. The coordination of utility line improvements should also be made to

avoid destruction of new pavement.

In order to have a safe and drivable street system that can accommodate the City’s

vehicular demands, the City should consider following the objectives listed below:

• Inspect road surfaces regularly and repair when necessary

4

• Begin to develop yearly resurfacing and reconstruction programs to maintain

existing streets

• Uphold City ordinances concerning new developments to meet city street

standard requirements

At the bottom of the table in Appendix A, a total estimated cost has been provided for

each street repair classification including reconstruction, overlay, and seal coat which

total approximately $4,700,000, $980,000, and $2,260,000, respectively. These amounts

cover all the street segments throughout the City. The total reconstruction cost can be

used as a base line to implement a capital improvement program for the City’s street

system. Also, the City may consider performing half of the reconstructions within a 5-

year plan and the other half within a 10-year plan. An inflation rate of 2%-3% per year

should also be considered. In order to maintain the street system, it is highly

recommended for the City to begin a yearly overlay and seal coat maintenance program

on a 5-year rotational cycle or 10-year rotational cycle. Based on the total costs for

overlay and seal coat shown in Appendix A, the City would need to budget

approximately $650,000 per year on a 5-year rotational program or $325,000 per year

on a 10-year rotational cycle. An inflation rate of 2%-3% per year should also be

considered. Grass and weed invasion of the pavement surfaces or encroachment at the

edge of the pavement will cause poor surface drainage and pavement cracking.

Vegetation should be controlled and removed as part of annual routine maintenance. If

left uncontrolled, this vegetation can degenerate the effectiveness of pavement and

cause severe failure.

IV. STREET IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING OPTIONS

The City of Justin currently has local city taxes and system revenues in place that may

help support the cost to maintain the current street system. With the additional cost of

reconstruction of roads within the City and the replacing of aging infrastructure,

additional capital improvement fees should be periodically evaluated as a means for

potential funds in improvements to these projects. There are other means as well, that

the City can pursue to help finance the roadway and utility replacement projects. The

City should pursue state and federal funding to help supplement local bonds for street

reconstruction and utility replacement.

Rural Development, a division of USDA, may fund a street reconstruction project if it is

directly related to a utility replacement project. Rural Development funding for utilities

may be in the form of loan or grant, or a combination; however, street improvements

are only funded through loans.

The Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) will fund streets on occasion if the entity can

make a strong case for the need for the funding. TDA funding is in the form of

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), and these funds have recently been

5

increased to approximately $500,000 per project. These funds become available on a

two-year cycle.

Street reconstruction projects are generally funded through tax supported bonds. It is

recommended that the City begin planning for the issuance of locally supported bonds

as well as investigating state, county and local funding to supplement them. As

mentioned, county and state in-kind participation may offset some cost as well.

APPENDIX A

STREET SEGMENT ASSESSMENT

City of Justin, Texas Street Segments Assessment September 2018

Surface

Type Width (LF) Length (LF)

12th St. Ridgetop Dr. Creek Hill Way Local Conc 27 1584 Repair spawled spot

Approx. .2 miles from Creek Hill Dr on s. side lanes, 3'X2' spawled spot in center

lane. 585$ -$ 53,122$

12th St. Creek Hill Way FM 156 Local Conc 27 2112

Repair spawled joint and

others

Corner spawled joint s. side aprox. 415' from Creek Hill Dr. - spawled joint s. side

corner 69'. 780$ -$ 70,829$

13th St. Canyon Dr. End Local Conc 27 264 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,870$

Allen Dr. Windmill Dr. S. College St. Local ACP 34 414 Repair Joint and Overlay

3'x17' at joint w/conc. Pavement & 5'x17' severe pattern 3/4 throughout down

center. 150' conc and 264' ACP. 3,211$ 52,492$ -$

Allen Dr. S. College St. S. Jackson Ave. Local ACP 34 200 Sealcoat Severe pattern cracking at valley gutter at S. College St. 944$ -$ 8,462$

Allen Dr. S. Jackson Ave. S. Snyder Ave. Local ACP 34 528 Sealcoat Seepage about halfway between streets. 944$ -$ 22,340$

Atchison Ave. E. 5th St. E. 4th St. Local ACP 16 368 Reconstruction Road is in failure and needs to be reconstructed. 42,524$ -$ -$

Barrett Dr. S. Jackson Ave. S. Snyder Ave. Local ACP 32 300

Reconstruct failures and

Sealcoat Down center there are signs of failures of approx. 200' x 6' 17,333$ -$ 11,947$

Barrett Dr. S. Snyder Ave. S. Sealy Ave. Local ACP 32 300 Reconstruction

Approximately 50% of sanitary sewer line is failing - depression, also some service

connection lines. 69,333$ -$ -$

Barrett Dr. S. Sealy Ave. FM 156 Local ACP 32 380 Repair failure & Sealcoat Failure spot at corner on north side of Barrett at S. Sealy Ave. 4,622$ -$ 15,132$

Bishop Dr. Mae Dr. S. Jackson Ave. Local ACP 32 300 Reconstruct/Overlay Rutting starting approximately 100'. Repair rutting and then overlay 23,111$ 24,889$ -$

Bluebonnet Cir. S. Bluebonnet Cir. N. Bluebonnet Cir. Local Conc 26 528

Repair spalling and cracks

in pavement

20' off S. Bluebonnet Cir. Corner cracks & spalling both lanes in center, spalling in

front of resident 101. 563$ -$ 17,084$

Blue Jay Ln Daisey Ln. Hummingbird Dr. Local Conc 26 528 Seal Coat -$ -$ 17,084$

Boot Alley W. 2nd St. W. 3rd St. Local ACP/G33 290 Reconstruction

Predominately base with several large pot holes, what asphalt there is is failing,

needs total reconstruction. 69,117$ -$ -$

Boot Alley W. 3rd St. W. 4th St. Local ACP/G33 290 Reconstruction



Boot Alley W. 4th St. W. 5th St. Local ACP/G33 290 Reconstruction



Boss Range Road W. 1st St. Pine Crest St. Local ACP 24 528 Reconstruction Several locations with rutting, pattern and base failure 91,520$ -$ -$

Boss Range Road Pine Crest St. Ovaletta Dr. Local ACP 24 1056 Reconstruction Rutting and base failure with ACP missing 183,040$ -$ -$

Boss Range Road Ovaletta Dr. N. of Bridge Local ACP24 528 Reconstruct and Overlay

S. bound lane patterning 5-6' wide and 528' in length. 45,760$ 24,640$ -$

Boss Range Road Bridge John Wiley Road Local ACP24 2112 Reconstruct and Overlay

John Willey Rd. to several hunderd feet past Range Rd. rutting along outside lane. 52,000$ 0$ -$

Canyon Dr. Valley Dr. 13th St. Local Conc 27 132 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 4,435$

Canyon Dr. 13th St. Hillside Dr. Local Conc 27 1056 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 35,482$

Cedar Crest Dr. Ovaletta Dr. Hardeman Blvd. Local Conc 28 1056 Seal Coat Microsurface craking -$ -$ 36,796$

Cedar Crest Dr. Hardeman Blvd. Hardeman Blvd. Local Conc 28 1056 Repair failure

Punchout failure at 346 Cedar Crest Dr., At drainage channel crossing low pt in

pavement potentially ponds water. 404$ -$ 36,796$

Chinos Trail Goodnight Trail Ridge Dr. Local Conc 28 792 Repair spawled joint Light Microcracking spalling at joint at end of radius return off Goodnight Trail 311$ -$ 27,597$

Chisholm Trail Loving Trail Lakeway Lane Local Conc 28 1056 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 36,796$

Colorado Ave. E. 5th St. E. 6th St. Local Conc 23 320 Seal Coat -$ -$ 9,159$

Colorado Ave. E. 6th St. E. 7th St. Local Conc 23 320 Seal Coat -$ -$ 9,159$

Colorado Ave. E. 7th St. End Local Conc 23 320 Seal Coat -$ -$ 9,159$

Creek Hill Way 12th St. N. Hardeman Cir Local ACP 21 528 Repair joint failure Stress and failure at joint with concrete pavement 758$ -$ 13,798$

Creek Hill Way N.Hardeman Circle S. Hardeman Circle Local ACP 21 132 Overlay -$ 10,780$ -$

Creek Hill Way S. Hardeman Circle W. 8th St. Local ACP 21 75 Seal Coat -$ -$ 1,960$

Creek Hill Way W 8th St. W 7th St. Local ACP 21 264 Overlay -$ 21,560$ -$

Daisey Ln. Sage Dr. Blue Jay Ln Local Conc 26 1056Repair spawled areas.

At 122 Lt ln corner break in slab, In front of 123 rt ln spalling, and joint in knuckle

with Sage rt ln spalling 94$ -$ 34,167$

Daisey Ln. Blue Jay Ln. Meadowview Dr. Local Conc 26 528


punchout.

spalling just off Bluejay Ln at joint across the road, 3 spots 1'x1' and 1'x2'. At

Meadowview corner punchout in center of rdwy. In front of resident 109 core hole

not filled. 94$ -$ 17,084$

Dorothy S. Denton Ave. S. College St. Local ACP 32 270 Sealcoat Seepage about halfway pt between streets around sanitary sewer manhole rim. -$ -$ 10,752$

Downe Rd. Gulf Ave. End Local ACP 20 300 Overlay -$ 23,333$ -$

Downe Rd. Gulf Ave. Trail Creek Local ACP 22 528 Overlay -$ 45,173$ -$

Street From ToPavement

Thoroughfare

CategoryRoad-Classification Notes

Reconstruct

Cost

($)

Overlay

Cost

($)

Seal Coat

Cost

($)

Surface Type: Conc=concrete, ACP=asphalt, SC=seal coat, G=gravel, D=dirt, U=unimproved Roadway maintained by others are not included


Surface



Thoroughfare


Reconstruct

Cost

($)

Overlay

Cost

($)

Seal Coat

Cost

($)

E. 4th St. Atchison Ave. Gulf Ave. Local ACP 26 320 Reconstruction Road is in complete failure and needs to be reconstructed. 60,089$ -$ -$

E. 4th St. Gulf Ave. Topeka Ave. Local Conc 23 320 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 9,159$

E. 4th St. Topeka Ave. RR Crossing Local Conc 23 320 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 9,159$

E. 6th St. Colorado Ave. Topeka Ave. Local Conc 23 320 Seal Coat -$ -$ 9,159$

E. 6th St. Topeka Ave. Gulf Ave. Local Conc 23 300 Seal Coat -$ -$ 8,587$

E. 7th St. Colorado Ave. Topeka Ave. Local Conc 23 320 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 9,159$

E. 7th St. Topeka Ave. Gulf Ave. Local Conc 23 320 Seal Coat -$ -$ 9,159$

Flower Ct. S. Bluebonnet Cir. End Local Conc 26 132

Repair spawled joints,

punchouts and slab

failures.spalling on joints, punchout failure rt ln at entry of Ct., corner cracks and failures in

various slabs. 1,127$ -$ 4,271$

Goodnight Trail Loving Trail Laredo Local Conc 28 560 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 19,513$

Goodnight Trail Laredo Lakeway Lane Local Conc 28 560 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 19,513$

Goodnight Trail Lakeway Lane Sierra Trail Local Conc 28 243 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,467$

Goodnight Trail Sierra Trail Chinos Trail Local Conc 28 255 Seal Coat -$ -$ 8,885$

Goodnight Trail Chinos Trail Santa Fe Trail Local Conc 28 242 Repair punchpout Punch out at Santa Fe approx. about 1' x 1' 404$ -$ 8,432$

Goodnight Trail Santa Fe Trail Reatta Dr. Local Conc 28 252 Repair spawled area Joint at end of radius off Reatta spawled 404$ -$ 8,781$

Gulf Ave. E. 4th St. Downe Rd. Local G 23 1015 Reconstruction Base road This is typicallly a haul road for soil/mulch material company 168,603$ -$ -$

Gulf Ave. End E. 7th St. Local G 23 320 Reconstruction Base road with several pot holes. 53,156$ -$ -$

Gulf Ave. E. 7th St. E. 6th St. Local G 23 320 Reconstruction Base road with several pot holes. 53,156$ -$ -$

Gulf Ave. E. 6th St. E. 5th St. Local G 23 320 Reconstruction Base road with several pot holes. 53,156$ -$ -$

Gulf Ave. E. 5th St. E. 4th St. Local Conc 23 32 Seal Coat -$ -$ 916$

Hardeman Blvd. End Cedar Crest Dr. Local Conc 28 250 Seal Coat Light Microsurface cracking -$ -$ 8,711$

Hardeman Blvd. Cedar Crest Dr. Hilltop Dr. Local Conc 38 300 Seal Coat Light Microsurface cracking -$ -$ 14,187$

Hardeman Blvd. Hilltop Dr. Windmill Dr. Local Conc 38 300 Seal Coat Light Microsurface cracking -$ -$ 14,187$

Hardeman Blvd. Windmill Dr. Cedar Crest Dr. Local Conc 38 400 Seal Coat Light Microsurface cracking -$ -$ 18,916$

Hardeman Blvd. Cedar Crest Dr. Orchid Dr. Local Conc 38 528 Repair spawl Approx. 200' west of FM 156 spawl spot 1/2' X 4". Repair spawl spot 274$ -$ 24,969$

Hardeman Blvd. Orchid Dr. FM 156 Local Conc 38 528 Seal Coat Light Microsurface cracking -$ -$ 24,969$

Hillside Cir. Hillside Dr. End Local Conc 27 264 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,870$

Hillside Dr. End Hillside Cir. Local Conc 27 264 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,870$

Hillside Dr. Hilside Cir. Canyon Dr. Local Conc 27 264 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,870$

Hillside Dr. Canyon Dr. Ridgetop Dr. Local Conc 27 264 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,870$

Hillside Dr. Ridgetop Dr. Scenic Dr. Local Conc 27 264 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,870$

Hillside Dr. Scenic Dr. Summit Dr. Local Conc 27 264 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,870$

Hillside Dr. Summit Dr. Emd Local Conc 27 132 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 4,435$

Hilltop Dr. Ovaletta Dr. Pine Crest Dr. Local Conc 28 528 Repair failure Spawled joint with Ovaletta Dr. 404$ -$ 18,398$

Hilltop Dr. Pine Crest Dr. Hardeman Blvd. Local Conc 28 528 Light Microsurface cracking -$ -$ 18,398$

Honeysuckle Dr. Meadowview Dr. Hummingbird Ln. Local Conc 26 792

Repair spalling In

pavement spalling at joint in front of driveway at resident 121. 376$ -$ 25,626$

Honeysuckle Dr. Hummingbird Ln. Sage Dr. Local Conc 26 1056

Repair ACP patch and

other failures

Patches of ACP in center of road, in front of resident 135 failure spot, corner crack

and failures in front of resident 136. 1,127$ -$ 34,167$

Hummingbird Ln. Honeysuckle Dr. Blue Jay Ln. Local Conc 26 264 Seal Coat -$ -$ 8,542$

Hummingbird Ln. Blue Jay Ln. Sage Dr. Local Conc 26 792 Repair spalling Spalling in rt. Lane off Sage Dr. 563$ -$ 25,626$

Indian Paint Dr. Sage Dr. Meadowview Dr. Local Conc 25 1584

Repair several spallings in

pavement

Spalling in front of resident 112, Off Meadview Dr. at end of radii spalling at joint in

rt. ln. Approx. 0.1 mi. off Sage Dr. dip in roadway. 1,083$ -$ 49,280$

John Wiley Rd. City Limits Laredo Local Conc 35 725 Repair spawled area

Light Microcracking Spawl point at joint about 500' from Boss Range Rd. (Repair

spawled joint) 1,011$ -$ 31,578$

John Wiley Rd. Laredo Sierra Trail Local Conc 35 815 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 35,498$

John Wiley Rd. Sierra Trail Reatta Dr. Local Conc 35 765 Repair spawled area

Light Microcracking Cracked and Spawled joint, punch out/deep spawl about .2 mile

from FM 156. Repair crack, spawled joint and punchout. 758$ -$ 33,320$

John Wiley Rd. Reatta Dr. FM 156 Local Conc 28 1848 Repair spawled area

Micocracking Approximately .5 miles from FM 156 spawled hole in Rt. Lane 1'x1'.

Repair spawled hole. 404$ -$ 64,288$

Lakeway Ln. Goodnight Trail Chisholm Trail Local Conc 27 262 Seal Coat -$ -$ 8,803$

Lakeway Ln. Chisholm Trail Ridge Dr. Local Conc 27 507 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 17,035$

Lakeway Ln. Ridge Dr. Silver Mine Dr. Local Conc 27 282 Seal Coat -$ -$ 9,475$

Lakeway Ln. Silver Mine Dr. Lone Star Dr. Local Conc 27 255 Seal Coat -$ -$ 8,568$



Surface



Thoroughfare


Reconstruct

Cost

($)

Overlay

Cost

($)

Seal Coat

Cost

($)

Lakeway Ln. Lone Star Dr. End Local Conc 27 124 Seal Coat -$ -$ 4,166$

Laredo Trail John Wiley Rd Goodnight Trail Local Conc 35 264 Seal Coat -$ -$ 11,499$

Leuty Ave. W. 7th St. W. 5th St. Local ACP 25 256 Reconstruction Rutting on east side street appox. 200' 35,556$ -$ -$

Leuty Ave. W. 5th St. W. 1st St. Local ACP 25 1056 Reconstruction Severe pattern cracking especially down center of road. 146,667$ -$ -$

Leuty Ave. W. 5th St. W. 1st St. Local Conc 38 385

Reconstruct failed

pavement joint and other

pavement failures

Significant failure at conc. Pavement joint, 1st manhole cover off grade, at backside

of Homeland Bakery failure in corner of slab on west side, center of street across

from car wash failure of approx. 3' x 3' with rebar showing. 6,333$ -$ -$

Lone Star Dr. Lakeway Lane Reatta Dr. Local Conc 28 792 Seal Coat -$ -$ 27,597$

Loving Trail End Chisholm Trail Local Conc 28 125 -$ -$ 4,356$

Loving Trail Chisholm Trail Goodnight Trail Local Conc 28 250 Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,711$

Mae St. S. Denton Ave. Bishop Dr. Local ACP 32 350 Reconstruction Approximately 350' & 200 ' of failure along water line on both sides of roadway. 62,222$ -$ -$

Mae St. Bishop Dr. S. College St. Local ACP 32 264 Reconstruction

Approximately 250' of failure where waterline is located. Beginning of failure from

Bishop Dr. to manhole 245' +/- . 46,933$ -$ -$

Meadowview Dr. FM 407 Indian Paint Dr. Local Conc 21 264 Seal center joint Wider center joint between in bound lanes has vegetation growth in joint. -$ -$ 261$

Meadowview Dr. Indian Paint Dr. N. Bluebonnet Cir. Local Conc 21 170 4,443$

Meadowview Dr. N. Bluebonnet Cir. Honeysuckle Dr. Local Conc 36 110

Repair punchout and

spawled area

Punchout Lt. lane approx. 20' off N. Bluebonnet Cir., ACP patch needs to be

replaced, spalling at joint with N. Bluebonnet Cir. Depression in front of resident

102 in rt. Lane appears to be base failure. 2,600$ -$ 4,928$

Meadowview Dr. Honeysuckle Dr. Daisey Ln. Local Conc 35 264

Repair spawled areas.

Rt. Lane at Honeysuckle Dr. to 20' into intersection spalling with vegetation, spalling

along joints of slabs throughout, slab settlement between rt slab and middle near

Honeysuckle Dr. 2,528$ -$ 11,499$

Meadowview Dr. Daisey Ln. End Local Conc 21 264 -$ -$ 6,899$

N. Bluebonnet Cir. Bluebonnet Cir. Meadowview Dr. Local Conc 26 264

Repair failures in

pavement

Corner slab breaks and failures in front of residents 105 and 102, slab failure approx.

120' off Meadowview Dr. rt. Ln. 751$ -$ 8,542$

N. College Ave. W. 7th St. W. 5th St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Base failure along road 33,280$ -$ -$

N. College Ave. W. 5th St. W. 4th St. Local ACP 24 256 Reconstruction Base failure along road and at W 5th St. water valve not to grade 34,133$ -$ -$

N. College Ave. W. 4th St. W 3rd St. Local ACP 18 528 Reconstruction Base failure along road 68,640$ -$ -$

N. College Ave. W. 3rd St. W. 2nd St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Base failure along road 33,280$ -$ -$

N. College Ave. W. 2nd St. W. 1st St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Base failure along road 33,280$ -$ -$

N. Denton Ave. W. 7th St. W. 6th St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Start of rutting at W. 6th St. section of paving cut out and hole in base 25,600$ -$ -$

N. Denton Ave. W. 6th St. W. 5th St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Rutting and base failure 33,280$ -$ -$

N. Denton Ave. W. 5th St. W. 4th St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Rutting with possible failure along utilities 33,280$ -$ -$

N. Denton Ave. W. 4th St. W. 3rd St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Rutting along east side of street 33,280$ -$ -$

N. Denton Ave. W. 3rd St. W. 2nd St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Rutting along west side of street 33,280$ -$ -$

N. Denton Ave. W. 2nd St. W. 1st St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Several locations with depressions in n. bound lane along sewer line align 33,280$ -$ -$

N. Hardeman Circle Creek Hill Way S. Hardeman Circle Local ACP 21 1584Reconstrution & Overlay

Approx. .2 miles of severe longitudinal cracking with potential failure east side,

approx. 200' X 10' 123,200$ 43,120$ -$

N. Harmonson Ave. W. 7th St. W. 5th St. Local ACP 22 256 Reconstruct/Overlay Reconstruct 10' west edge where patterned, then overlay 3,178$ 21,902$ -$

N. Harmonson Ave. W. 5th St. W. 4th St. Local ACP 22 256 Reconstruction Start of roadway depression 40,676$ -$ -$

N. Harmonson Ave. W. 4th St. W. 3rd St. Local ACP 22 256 Reconstruction Depressions throughout street 40,676$ -$ -$

N. Harmonson Ave. W. 3rd St. W. 2nd St. Local ACP 22 256 Reconstruction Depressions at sewer line crossings 40,676$ -$ -$

N. Harmonson Ave. W. 2nd St. W. 1st St. Local ACP 22 256 Seal Coat Light patterning stress -$ -$ 7,009$

N. Jackson Ave. W. 8th St. W. 7th St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Rutting aling sewer line utility 33,280$ -$ -$

N. Jackson Ave. W. 7th St. W. 6th St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Rutting at various locations along street 33,280$ -$ -$

N. Jackson Ave. W. 6th St. W. 5th St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Couple of failure locations and start of rutting off W. 5th St. 33,280$ -$ -$

N. Jackson Ave. W. 5th St. W. 4th St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Rutting at various locations along street 33,280$ -$ -$

N. Jackson Ave. W. 4th St. W. 3rd St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Rutting both sides of street 33,280$ -$ -$

N. Jackson Ave. W. 3rd St. W. 2nd St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Base failure 33,280$ -$ -$

N. Jackson Ave. W. 2nd St. W. 1st St. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Failure at intersection with W. 1st St. 33,280$ -$ -$

N. Sealy Ave. W. 1st St. W. 2nd St. Local ACP 34 264 Reconstruction

Failure at W 1st St. 5'x2' & 10'x4' west side, Pot hole approx. halfway up street 5'x4'

east side. 49,867$ -$ -$

N. Sealy Ave. W. 2nd St. W. 3rd St. Local ACP 34 264 Reconstruction Edge ravel down to base in some areas. 49,867$ -$ -$

N. Sealy Ave. W. 3rd St. W. 4th St. Local ACP 34 264 Reconstruction Severe patterning at W. 3rd St. 64,827$ -$ -$

N. Sealy Ave. W. 4th St. W. 5th St. Local ACP 34 264 Reconstruction Base failure due to severe patterning 64,827$ -$ -$




Surface



Thoroughfare


Reconstruct

Cost

($)

Overlay

Cost

($)

Seal Coat

Cost

($)


N. Sealy Ave. W. 7th .St. W. 8th St. Local ACP 18 264 Reconstruction Base failure due to severe patterning 26,400$ -$ -$

N. Snyder Ave. W. 8th St. W. 7th St. Local ACP 20 330 Overlay Some edge ravel along roadway -$ 25,667$ -$

N. Snyder Ave. W. 7th .St. W. 6th St. Local ACP 20 300 Overlay Some edge ravel along roadway -$ 25,667$ -$

N. Snyder Ave. W. 6th St. W. 5th St. Local ACP 20 300 Repair Failure and Overlay Failure 2'x3' approx. about 100' south of W. 6th St. 433$ 23,100$ -$

N. Snyder Ave. W. 5th St. W. 4th St. Local ACP 20 300 Repair Failure and Overlay

Patterning & failure on west edge at sanitary sewer manhole. Failure at intersection

of W. 4th St., push & shove of ACP on trench repair. 2,889$ 21,778$ -$

N. Snyder Ave. W. 4th St. W. 3rd St. Local ACP 20 300 Reconstruction Severe repair & patches depressed & failing along this stretch. 43,333$ -$ -$

N. Snyder Ave. W. 3rd St. W. 2nd St. Local ACP 20 300

Repair depressed area at

water valve and Seal Coat Depression at water valve. 556$ -$ 7,467$

N. Snyder Ave. W. 2nd St. W. 1st St. Local ACP 20 300 Sealcoat -$ -$ 7,467$

Northwest St. Pine Crest Dr. Ovaletta Dr. Local Conc 28 300 Seal Coat -$ -$ 10,453$

Orchid Dr. Hardeman Blvd. End Local Conc 28 250 Seal Coat -$ -$ 8,711$

Ovaletta Dr. End Northwest St. Local Conc 28 528 Seal Coat -$ -$ 18,398$

Ovaletta Dr. Northwest St. Windmill Dr. Local Conc 28 1056 Seal Coat -$ -$ 36,796$

Ovaletta Dr. Windmill Dr. Pine Crest Dr. Local Conc 36 135 Repair spawled Jt.

At intersection with Windmill Dr. spawled joint with 3 - 1' to 2' x 6' failures. Repair

joint 780$ -$ 6,048$

Ovaletta Dr. Pine Crest Dr. Hilltop Dr. Local Conc 28 264 Repair failed Jt.

Micro cracking. Failure at joint on centerline at Hilltop Dr. appears to possibly be

subgrade. Repair failure spot. 404$ -$ 9,199$

Ovaletta Dr. Hilltop Dr. Credar Crest Dr. Local Conc 28 264 Seal Coat Surface cracking -$ -$ 9,199$

Ovaletta Dr. Cedar Crest Dr. Boss Range Rd. Local Conc 28 1056 Repair spawled Jt.

All transverse cracks but one are sealed. Intersection at Cedar Crest Dr. spawled

joint w/punchout at off roadway south panel - 2'x4'. Repair punchout 404$ -$ 36,796$

Pafford Ave. W. 7th St. W. 5th St. Local ACP 25 256 Seal Coat -$ -$ 7,964$

Pafford Ave. W. 5th St. W. 3rd St. Local ACP 22 528Reconstruction

Depression around water valve at W 3rd St., serveral locations of depressions in n.

bound lane along sewer line alignment. 83,893$ -$ -$

Pafford Ave. W. 3rd St. W. 2nd St. Local ACP 22 256 Reconstruction Start of depression at sewer line 40,676$ -$ -$

Pafford Ave. W. 2nd St. W. 1st St. Local ACP 22 256 Reconstruction Road depressed at points for service of water or sewer. 40,676$ -$ -$

Pine Crest Dr. City Limits Forest Ln. Local Conc 39 140 Seal Coat Light Microsurface cracking -$ -$ 6,795$

Pine Crest Dr. Forest Ln. Northwest St. Local Conc 28 528 Seal Coat -$ -$ 18,398$

Pine Crest Dr. Northwest St. Ovaletta Dr. Local Conc 28 788 Seal Coat -$ -$ 27,457$

Pine Crest Dr. Ovaletta Dr. Hilltop Dr. Local Conc 28 528 Seal Coat Micro cracking -$ -$ 18,398$

Reatta Dr. John Wiley Rd Goodnight Trail Local Conc 35 170 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 7,404$

Reatta Dr. Goodnight Trail Ridge Dr. Local Conc 35 783 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 34,104$

Reatta Dr. Ridge Dr. Silver Mine Dr. Local Conc 35 262 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 11,412$

Reatta Dr. Silver Mine Dr. Lone Star Dr. Local Conc 35 273 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 11,891$

Reatta Dr. Lone Star Dr. End Local Conc 35 104 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 4,530$

Ridge Dr. Lakeway Lane Sierra Trail Local Conc 35 244 Seal Coat -$ -$ 10,628$

Ridge Dr. Sierra Trail Chinos Trail Local Conc 35 250 Repair Spawled joint West of Chinos Trail spawled joint. East of Chinos Trail spawled joint. 389$ -$ 10,889$

Ridge Dr. Chinos Trail Santa Fe Trail Local Conc 35 154 Seal Coat -$ -$ 6,708$

Ridge Dr. Santa Fe Trail Reatta Dr. Local Conc 35 528 Seal Coat -$ -$ 22,997$

Ridgetop Dr. Hillside Dr. Valley Dr. Local Conc 26 1056 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 34,167$

Ridgetop Dr. Valley Dr. 12th St. Local Conc 26 264


punchout

End of curb approx. 120' sb lane joint has severe spalling. At turn in to subdivision,

failure at joint. Punchout on each side of curve. 578$ -$ 8,542$

Sage Dr. FM 407 Indian Paint Dr. Local Conc 24 250

Repair patchand spawls,

etc. Patch at Indian Paint 2'x23' long cracks, spawled and settled 347$ -$ 7,467$

Sage Dr. Indian Paint Dr. Honeysuckle Dr. Local Conc 24 250 Seal Coat -$ -$ 7,467$

Sage Dr. Honeysuckle Dr. Hummingbird Ln. Local Conc 26 528

Repair failed areas. Approx. 130' from Indian Paint 5'x3' failure right lane in center, 22' off Honeysuckle

left lane crack corner on 2 panels and spawl around patch. At 101 4'x1' spawl spot. 188$ -$ 17,084$

Sage Dr. Hummingbird Ln. Daisey Ln. Local Conc 26 264 Repair corner break Corner break at intersection of left lane with Daisey on outside 939$ -$ 8,542$

S. Bluebonnet Cir. Meadowview Dr. Flower Ct. Local Conc 26 264


front of inlet

spalling at joint with Flower Ct., Inlet face broken & steel showing both sides, rt ln

near Flower Ct. 4'x4' spawl, 60' from Flower Ct. corner crack in slab & vegetative

growth. 94$ -$ 8,542$



Surface



Thoroughfare


Reconstruct

Cost

($)

Overlay

Cost

($)

Seal Coat

Cost

($)

S. Bluebonnet Cir. Flower Ct. Bluebonnet Cir. Local Conc 26 528

Repair several failure

spots.

Multiple spawls around repair in left lane, failure at joint with S. Bluebonnt Cir. And

change in direction, steel showing in several cracks, spawls in conc in knuckle at

Bluebonnet and a punchout. spalling at center joint & corner with failures in both

lanes. 751$ -$ 17,084$

S. College St. Allen Dr. Mae Dr. Local ACP 32 265

Repair failure at Valley

gutter & Sealcoat Pattern at valley gutter at Allen in several spots. 23,111$ -$ 10,553$

S. College St. Mae Dr. S. Denton Ave. Local ACP 32 270

Repair depressed areas

and Overlay Depressions at a couple of sanitary sewer line service connections. 4,444$ 30,489$ -$

S. College St. S. Denton Ave. Dorothy Local ACP 32 792

Repair depressed areas

and Overlay Approximately 30' of depressed area on N. side, patterned and holding water. 5,333$ 94,827$ -$

S. College St. Dorothy W. 1st St. Local ACP 32 300 Reconstruction Failure around sanitary sewer rim at intersection with Dorothy. 53,333$ -$ -$

S. Denton Ave. W. 1st St. Dorothy Local ACP 32 450 Sealcoat Sanitary sewer approximately 200' off W. 1st St. - failure in conc. apron. -$ -$ 17,920$

S. Denton Ave. Dorothy S. College St. Local ACP 32 790 Sealcoat -$ -$ 31,460$

S. Hardeman Circle N. Hardeman Circle Creek Hill Way Local ACP 21 2112

Reconstrution & Overlay

Approx. .2 mi from Creek Hill Dr. n. side of street approx. failure size 225'X15', 2'

edge failure from driveway at resident 510 to 520, and 2' to 13' failure from

driveway resident 510 to 610, about 40' pass address 610. 41,708$ 150,022$ -$

S. Jackson Ave. Allen Dr. Barrett Dr. Local ACP 32 528 Reconstruction Rutting along sanitary sewer line 122,027$ -$ -$

S. Jackson Ave. Barrett Dr. Bishop Dr. Local ACP 32 270 Reconstruction Rutting along sanitary sewer line 62,400$ -$ -$

S. Jackson Ave. Bishop Dr. W. 1st St. Local ACP 32 400 Reconstruction Rutting along sanitary sewer line 92,444$ -$ -$

S. Sealy Ave. FM 156 Barrett Dr. Local ACP 32 528 Sealcoat -$ -$ 21,026$

S. Sealy Ave. Barrett Dr. W. 1st St. Local ACP 32 528 Reconstruction & Overlay Repair base failure and overlay 27,733$ 50,773$ -$

S. Snyder Ave. FM 156 Allen Dr. Local ACP 32 528 Sealcoat Just off FM 156 broken curb & gutter. -$ -$ 21,026$

S. Snyder Ave. Allen Dr. W. Barrett Dr. Local ACP 32 660 Reconstruction Rutting along sanitary sewer line 152,533$ -$ -$

S. Snyder Ave. W. Barrett Dr. W. 1st St. Local ACP 32 745 Reconstruction Failure appears to be where waterline was placed. 172,178$ -$ -$

Santa Fe Trail Goodnight Trail Ridge Dr. Local Conc 28 792 Repair spawled area Light Microcracking Spawls at end of radius return off Goodnight Trail 404$ -$ 27,597$

Scenic Dr. Valley Dr. Hillside Dr. Local Conc 26 1056 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 34,167$

Sierra Trail John Wiley Rd Goodnight Trail Local Conc 28 106 Seal Coat -$ -$ 3,694$

Sierra Trail Goodnight Trail Ridge Dr. Local Conc 28 792 Repair joint failure Joint failure along gutter valley to inlet at intersection with Ridge Drive 404$ -$ 27,597$

Silver Mine Dr. Lakeway Lane Reatta Dr. Local Conc 28 792 Seal Coat -$ -$ 27,597$

Summit Dr. Hillside Dr. Valley Dr. Local Conc 26 528 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 17,084$

Summit Dr. Valley Dr. Valley Dr. Local Conc 26 264 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,542$

Topeka Ave. E. 4th St. E. 5th St. Local Conc 23 320 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 9,159$

Topeka Ave. E. 5th St. E. 6th St. Local Conc 23 320 Seal Coat -$ -$ 9,159$

Topeka Ave. E. 6th St. E. 7th St. Local Conc 23 320 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 9,159$

Topeka Ave. E. 7th St. End Local Conc 23 320 Seal Coat -$ -$ 9,159$

Trail Creek Ln. Downe Rd. End Local

G/ACP

Rubble 19 1320Reconstruction

Not real sure if this is a city street 181,133$ -$ -$

Valley Circle Canyon Dr. End Local Conc 27 264 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,870$

Valley Dr. Summit Dr. Summit Dr. Local Conc 27 264 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,870$

Valley Dr. Summit Dr. Scenic Dr. Local Conc 27 264 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,870$

Valley Dr. Scenic Dr. Ridgetop Dr. Local Conc 27 264 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 8,870$

Valley Dr. Ridgetop Dr. Canyon Dr. Local Conc 28 264 Seal Coat Light Microcracking -$ -$ 9,199$

W. 2nd St. Pafford Ave. N. College Ave. Local ACP 19 256 Reconstruction 27,022$ -$ -$

W. 2nd St. N. College Ave. N. Harmonson Ave. Local ACP 19 256 Reconstruction 200' rutting, reconstruct 27,022$ -$ -$

W. 2nd St. N. Harmonson Ave. N. Denton Ave. Local ACP 19 256Overlay

-$ 18,916$ -$

W. 2nd St. N. Denton Ave. N. Jackson Ave. Local ACP 19 256 Reconstruction Reconstruct due to heavy patterned fractures 35,129$ -$ -$

W. 2nd St. N. Jackson Ave. N. Snyder Ave. Local ACP 19 256 Reconstruction Repair start of rutting 35,129$ -$ -$

W. 2nd St. N. Snyder Ave N. Sealy Ave. Local ACP 19 256 Reconstruction Rutting along the street 35,129$ -$ -$

W. 2nd St. N. Sealy Ave. FM 156 Local ACP 32 256 Seal Coat -$ -$ 10,194$

W. 3rd St. Pafford Ave. N. College Ave. Local ACP 18 256

Reconstruct rutt and

Overlay Start of rutting 5' x 200' repair and replace, then overlay 5,200$ 17,920$ -$

W. 3rd St. N. College Ave. N. Harmonson Ave.. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction 33,280$ -$ -$

W. 3rd St. N. Harmonson Ave. N. Denton Ave. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Rutting on both sides of street 33,280$ -$ -$

W. 3rd St. N. Denton Ave. N. Jackson Ave. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Rutting throughout the road 33,280$ -$ -$



Surface



Thoroughfare


Reconstruct

Cost

($)

Overlay

Cost

($)

Seal Coat

Cost

($)

W. 3rd St. N. Jackson Ave. N. Snyder Ave. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Rutting repair 33,280$ -$ -$

W. 3rd St. N. Snyder Ave N. Sealy Ave. Local ACP 18 256 Reconstruction Rutting repair 33,280$ -$ -$

W. 3rd St. N. Sealy Ave. FM 156 Local ACP 32 256

Reconstruct rutt and

Overlay Start of rutting in SB lane, repair and overlay 13,867$ 31,858$ -$

W. 4th St. N. College Ave. N. Harmonson Ave. Local ACP 24 256Reconstruct and Overlay

Remove and repair rutted areas and overlay 13,867$ 23,893$ -$

W. 4th St. N. Harmonson Ave. N. Denton Ave. Local ACP 24 256 Reconstruction Start of rutting along street 44,373$ -$ -$

W. 4th St. N. Denton Ave. N. Jackson Ave. Local ACP 24 256 Reconstruction Road failure down centerline 34,133$ -$ -$

W. 4th St. N. Jackson Ave. N. Snyder Ave. Local ACP 24 256 Seal Coat -$ -$ 7,646$

W. 4th St. N. Snyder Ave N. Sealy Ave. Local ACP 24 256 Reconstruction Significant rutting along ebound lane 44,373$ -$ -$

W. 4th St. N. Sealy Ave. FM 156 Local ACP 32 256 Reconstruction Severe failure spots that need to be reconstructed 59,164$ -$ -$

W. 5th St. End Leuty Ave. Local Gravel 13 550 This appears to be a private road. -$ 27,806$

W. 5th St. Leuty Ave. Pafford Ave. Local ACP 19 264 Reconstruction Rutting starting along street 27,867$ -$ -$

W. 5th St. Pafford Ave. N. College Ave. Local ACP 19 264Reconstruct and Overlay

Rutting starting along n. side of street, repair and overlay 80' - 100' 6,861$ 19,507$ -$

W. 5th St. N. College Ave. N. Harmonson Ave. Local ACP 19 264 Seal Coat -$ -$ 6,242$

W. 5th St. N. Harmonson Ave. N. Denton Ave. Local ACP 19 264 Reconstruction High pattern cracking due to base failure - reconstruct roadway. 27,867$ -$ -$

W. 5th St. N. Denton Ave. N. Jackson Ave. Local ACP 19 256 Reconstruction Rutting down both sides of street 27,022$ -$ -$

W. 5th St. N. Jackson Ave. N. Snyder Ave. Local ACP 19 256 Reconstruction Rutting along the street 35,129$ -$ -$

W. 5th St. N. Snyder Ave N. Sealy Ave. Local ACP 19 256 Reconstruction Rutting throughout the road 35,129$ -$ -$

W. 5th St. N. Sealy Ave. FM 156 Local ACP 27 256 Reconstruction Rutting along the street 49,920$ -$ -$

W. 6th St. N. Denton Ave. N. Jackson Ave. Local ACP 20 264 Seal Coat -$ -$ 6,571$

W. 6th St. N. Jackson Ave. N. Snyder Ave. Local ACP 20 264 Reconstruction Appears tp be rutting on EB lanes about halfway between streets. 29,333$ -$ -$

W. 6th St. N. Snyder Ave N. Sealy Ave. Local ACP 20 264Reconstruct and Overlay

Reconstruct edge failure area and 4' x 200' and overlay 12,711$ 20,533$ -$

W. 6th St. N. Sealy Ave. FM 156 Local ACP 20 264 Seal Coat -$ -$ 6,571$

W. 7th St. City Limits Eddleman Loop Local ACP 16 63 Seal Coat -$ -$ 1,254$

W. 7th St. Eddleman Loop Leuty Ave. Local ACP 21 1584 Seal Coat -$ -$ 41,395$

W. 7th St. Leuty Ave. Pafford Ave. Local ACP 21 264 Reconstruction 40,040$ -$ -$

W. 7th St. Pafford Ave. N. College Ave. Local ACP 21 264 Seal Coat -$ -$ 6,899$

W. 7th St. N. College Ave. N. Harmonson Ave. Local ACP 21 264 Overlay -$ 21,560$ -$

W. 7th St. N. Harmonson Ave. N. Denton Ave. Local ACP 21 264 Reconstruction 40,040$ -$ -$

W. 7th St. N. Denton Ave. Creek Hill Way Local ACP 21 264 Overlay -$ 21,560$ -$

W. 7th St. Creek Hill Way N. Jackson Ave. Local ACP 21 264 Seal Coat -$ -$ 6,899$

W. 7th St. N. Jackson Ave. N. Snyder Ave. Local ACP 21 264 Overlay Base failure at Jackson Ave. Repair failure and overlay. -$ 21,560$ -$

W. 7th St. N. Syder Ave. N. Sealy Ave. Local ACP 21 264 Seal Coat -$ -$ 6,899$

W. 7th St. N. Sealy Ave. FM 156 Local ACP 21 264 Overlay Severe edge ravel at Baro Well Service with light pattern. -$ 21,560$ -$

W. 8th St. Creek Hill Way N Jackson Ave. Local ACP 21 264 Seal Coat -$ -$ 6,899$

W. 8th St. N. Jackson Ave. N. Snyder Ave. Local ACP 21 264 Overlay Reconstruct failure area and overlay -$ 21,560$ -$

W. 8th St. N. Snyder Ave. N. Sealy Ave. Local ACP 21 264 Overlay Reconstruct failure area and overlay -$ 21,560$ -$

W. 8th St. N. Sealy Ave. FM 156 Local ACP 21 264 Seal Coat -$ -$ 6,899$

Windmill Dr. Ovaletta Dr. Allen Dr. Local Conc 36 528 Seal Coat Microsurface craking -$ -$ 23,654$

Windmill Dr. Allen Dr. Hardeman Blvd. Local Conc 36 792 Seal Coat Light Microsurface cracking -$ -$ 35,482$

Totals 4,678,433$ 980,004$ 2,255,360$


APPENDIX B

DYNATEST – PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX (PCI) SURVEY

Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Survey

State of the Streets Report

Prepared for:

City of Justin, Texas

June 2018

DYNATEST NORTH AMERICA INC. 2217 West Braker Lane

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

www.dynatest.com

http://www.dynatest.com/

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Pavement Management Overview ........................................................................................ 1

1.3 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Project Approach................................................................................................................... 2

2 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW ............................................................... 3

2.1 Objective ............................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 PAVER Pavement Management System Overview ............................................................. 3

2.2.1 Inventory and M&R History Modules ........................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Inspection Module ......................................................................................................... 3 2.2.3 Prediction Modeling Module ........................................................................................ 3 2.2.4 Condition Analysis Module ........................................................................................... 4 2.2.5 M&R Planning Module ................................................................................................. 4 2.2.6 Reporting Module ......................................................................................................... 4

2.3 PAVER Database Development ........................................................................................... 4

2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 5

3 PAVEMENT CONDITION INSPECTION .................................................................................... 5

3.1 Objective ............................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Procedure ......................................................................... 5

3.3 Semi-Automated Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Survey ................................................. 7

3.4 Semi-Automated Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Survey Data Interpretation .................. 9

3.5 Existing Pavement Conditions and Field Observations ...................................................... 10

3.6 Example Pavement Conditions ........................................................................................... 13

4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 16

4.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 16

4.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 16

4.2.1 Perform Regular Pavement Condition Inspections ..................................................... 16 4.2.2 Implement Preventive Maintenance Programs for All Pavements ............................. 16

5 GENERAL REMARKS................................................................................................................. 17

6 DISCLAIMER ............................................................................................................................... 17

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Dynatest North America, Inc. (Dynatest), at the request of Jacob Martin, performed a semi-automated

pavement distress survey on the roadway network of City of Justin (City). The City is located north west

of Dallas, in Denton County, Texas and is home to approximately 3,200 residents. Currently, the City’s

roadway network is comprised of approximately 25 centerline miles of roadway pavements. Approximately

55% of the City’s pavement inventory is Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavements, and the asphalt

concrete (AC) pavements account for approximately 43% of the pavement inventory. The remaining 2%

of the network are either unpaved or gravel roadways.

1.2 Pavement Management Overview

Pavement management is a systematic approach to forecasting pavement M&R requirements and then

optimizing and prioritizing available M&R funding. As shown in Figure 1, the primary objective of

pavement management is to preserve pavements in good condition rather than wait for them to fail and then

reconstruct them.

Figure 1: Pavement preservation.

When the appropriate preventive M&R treatments (e.g., crack sealing, seal coats, etc.) are applied at the

correct times during a pavement’s service life, these relatively inexpensive preventive M&R treatments can

significantly extend the service life of the pavement, as shown in Figure 2.

Pav

emen

t C

on

dit

ion

(P

CI)

Pavement Age (Years)

25

50

75

100

Pavement Preservation

Preventive Maintenance

Rehabilitation

Reconstruction

2

Figure 2: Increasing price and decreasing relative benefit of M&R as a

function of pavement condition. (Note: Illustrative prices only.)

As pavement management concepts have gained traction, computer-based pavement management systems

have been developed to assist agencies in more optimally managing their pavements. Pavement

management systems currently rely on a comprehensive pavement inventory, regular pavement condition

assessments, pavement performance modeling, and sophisticated analysis tools that forecast future

pavement condition and estimate future M&R needs.

1.3 Project Objectives

The primary objective of this project is to determine the state of streets pavement condition in the form of

Pavement Condition Index (PCI) so that the City may more objectively assess the condition of its roadway

pavements, better optimize and prioritize the expenditure of its existing M&R funding, and more effectively

identify and justify its future roadway pavement M&R funding needs.

1.4 Project Approach

In order to successfully accomplish the objectives of this project, Dynatest performed the following tasks:

1. Pavement Condition Index (PCI) inspection – Performed a network-level PCI inspection of the

City’s roadway pavements

2. Pavement management system database creation – Generate the PAVER pavement management

system database for the City’s roadway pavement network

3. Generate and update the City’s Geographical Information System (GIS) shapefile – A color coded

map showing each evaluated street’s PCI value for all the City.

These tasks and their outcomes are described in the following sections.

Pav

emen

t C

on

dit

ion

(P

CI)

Pavement Age (Years)

25

50

75

100

Remaining Service Life = 0

Seal Coat

$1

Thin Overlay

$2

Structural Overlay

$7

Reconstruction

$15

3

2 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW

2.1 Objective

The objective of this task was to create a state-of-the art pavement management

system database for the City. The intent is for the City to use the system to better

manage its roadway pavement network. Dynatest selected the computer software

named PAVER on its most current version 7.0. Dynatest developed the City’s

PAVER database based on a comprehensive inventory of the City’s roadway

pavement network.

2.2 PAVER Pavement Management System Overview

The PAVER pavement management system helps agencies determine when, where, and what level of

pavement M&R is required and approximately how much it will cost. The system provides a suite of

pavement management software tools that assist agencies in: (1) developing and organizing their pavement

inventory; (2) assessing the current condition of their pavements; (3) developing models to predict future

pavement conditions; (4) reporting on past and future pavement performance; (5) developing scenarios for

M&R based on either budget or condition requirements; and (6) planning M&R projects. The primary

PAVER modules include:

Inventory

M&R History

Inspection

Prediction Modeling

Condition Analysis

M&R Planning

Project Planning

Reporting

A brief description of these modules is presented in the following sections.

2.2.1 Inventory and M&R History Modules

The PAVER Inventory and Work History modules are based on a hierarchical structure composed of

networks, branches, and sections, with the section being the smallest “managed” pavement area (e.g., street

block). This structure allows users to easily organize their inventory and historical M&R data while

providing numerous fields for storing pavement data.

2.2.2 Inspection Module

PAVER uses the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) per ASTM D 6433 as its primary measure of pavement

condition. The Inspection module enables agencies to store raw pavement condition survey data and then

calculate PCI values.

2.2.3 Prediction Modeling Module

The Prediction Modeling module in PAVER helps identify and group pavements of similar construction

that are subjected to similar traffic, weather, and any other factors affecting pavement performance.

Historical pavement condition data are used to build models that can be used to predict future pavement

performance. If historical pavement data are not available, PAVER provides default pavement prediction

curves and allows the user to develop custom prediction curves.

4

2.2.4 Condition Analysis Module

The condition analysis module allows agencies to view the condition of the entire pavement network or any

specified subset of the network over time. The module reports past conditions based on interpolated values

between historical condition data, and it reports projected conditions based on prediction models.

2.2.5 M&R Planning Module

The PAVER M&R Planning module is a sophisticated, flexible tool for multi-year, network-level and

project-level M&R planning, scheduling, and budgeting. The M&R Planning module is able to determine

the consequence of a predetermined budget on pavement condition and the resulting backlog of major work

and is also able to determine budget requirements to meet specific management objectives. These

capabilities enable agencies to: (1) develop optimal M&R programs given available resources, and (2)

justify optimal M&R budget needs.

2.2.6 Reporting Module

Each module of PAVER is capable of generating reports that assist the user in analyzing and interpreting

data. PAVER also comes equipped with several “canned” reports, which include:

Summary Charts – Simple graphs and data tables of inventory and inspection data

Inspection Reports – Summary of collected pavement condition data

Work History – Summary of historical maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation data

Branch Listing – Summary of overall pavement inventory data

Branch Condition – Summary of overall pavement condition data

Section Condition – Summary of individual section data

GIS reports – Internal/external reporting of inventory and condition data

PAVER is capable of generating “user-defined” reports, which can be tailored to meet the agency’s specific

reporting needs. PAVER user-defined reports enable the user to extract any data stored in the system and

export it to either a spreadsheet or a text file.

2.3 PAVER Database Development

The first step in the PAVER database creation was to divide the City’s roadway pavements into pavement

sections. Each pavement section typically represents a single “block” of pavement (i.e., intersection to

intersection). Pavement sections may be thought of as “homogenous” areas of pavement to which Major

M&R (e.g., resurfacing and reconstruction) would be applied. Dynatest created the City’s roadway network

utilizing a GIS shapefile as the foundation for the PAVER section definitions, and Dynatest defined

approximately 243 pavement sections throughout the City.

Dynatest worked with the City to identify data attributes that were to be included for each pavement section

in the PAVER database, such as surface type, address from/to locations (when available) for each section,

construction dates, etc. As shown in Figure 3, approximately 55% of the City’s pavements are considered

rigid pavements (PCC surfaced). The City’s asphalt pavements account for 43% of the pavement network.

The City has a small percentage of gravel (GR) and unsurfaced streets as well.

5

Figure 3: Pavement Area by Surface Type

2.4 Summary

A PAVER database was developed that contains all of the relevant data pertaining to the City’s roadway

pavement network. The suite of tools provided by PAVER will enable the City to more effectively manage

its roadway pavement network.

3 PAVEMENT CONDITION INSPECTION

3.1 Objective

The objective of the pavement condition inspection was to assess the existing condition of the roadway

pavements managed by the City. This was accomplished by performing a semi-automated network-level

pavement condition inspection based on the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) method. Both the pavement

condition inspection procedure and general findings of the inspection are discussed in this chapter.

3.2 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Procedure

The pavement condition survey was performed following the PCI procedure described in ASTM D 6433.

The PCI procedure is a more objective and repeatable method for determining existing pavement condition.

A PCI value provides an indication of the structural integrity and operational condition for a pavement

section. The PCI procedure consists of a routine visual inspection, during which pavement distress types,

severity levels, and quantities are identified and recorded. These data are then input into the PCI algorithm

to calculate a PCI value. PCI values range from 0 to 100, as shown in Figure 4.

43

2

55

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Are

a %

AC GR PCC

6

Figure 4: PCI Inputs and the City’s Condition Assessment Scale

If properly designed and constructed, a new pavement begins its service life with a PCI of 100. Due to the

effects of loading and aging, a pavement deteriorates over time. For each combination of distress type,

severity level, and quantity observed, points are deducted from 100, and its PCI decreases. When multiple

distresses are present, the deduct values are modified such that the impact of multiple distresses is somewhat

lessened. Due to the complexity of the PCI algorithm, PCI values are typically computed using a pavement

management software package, such as PAVER.

During a PCI inspection, nineteen (19) distress types are identified and evaluated for asphalt pavements

and nineteen (19) distress types for concrete pavements, as shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The City’s

existing roadway network consists of asphalt and concrete pavements as well as a few gravel roadways.

Table 1: Asphalt Pavement Distress Types Code Distress Cause

01 Alligator Cracking Load

02 Bleeding Other

03 Block Cracking Climate/Durability

04 Bumps and Sags Other

05 Corrugation Other

06 Depression Other

07 Edge Cracking Load

08 Joint Reflection Cracking Climate/Durability

09 Lane/Shoulder Drop-Off Other

10 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking Climate/Durability

11 Patching and Utility Cut Patching Other

13 Pothole Load

14 Railroad Crossing Other

15 Rutting Load

16 Shoving Other

17 Slippage Cracking Other

18 Swell Other

19 Weathering and Raveling Climate/Durability

7

Table 2: Concrete Pavement Distress Types Code Distress Cause

21 Blowup/Buckling Climate/Durability

22 Corner Break Load

23 Divided Slab Load

24 Durability ("D") Cracking Climate/Durability

25 Faulting Other

26 Joint Seal Damage Climate/Durability

27 Lane/Shoulder Drop-Off Other

28 Linear Cracking Load

29 Patching, Large and Utility Cuts Other

30 Patching, Small Other

31 Polished Aggregate Other

32 Popouts Other

33 Pumping Other

34 Punchout Load

35 Railroad Crossing Other

36 Scaling, Map Cracking, and Crazing Other

37 Shrinkage Cracks Climate/Durability

38 Spalling, Corner Climate/Durability

39 Spalling, Joint Climate/Durability

3.3 Semi-Automated Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Survey

Semi-automated pavement condition surveys were performed in June, 2018. Dynatest deployed its State of

the Art Pavement Multi-Function Vehicle (MFV) to collect high-quality pavement imagery, Right of Way

(ROW) images, pavement profile measurements, and sub-meter accuracy GPS data. The Dynatest MFV is

equipped with the latest sensors and hardware required for accurate, high-quality pavement data collection,

including:

3D Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS): The LCMS provides high-resolution pavement

images. The system is configured to capture 4 meters (m) (approximately 13 ft.) pavement width

with 1mm resolution and can operate at speeds up to 60 mph.

Dynatest Model RSP-5051 Mark III High-Speed Laser Profiler: The Dynatest Road Surface

Profiler (RSP) is equipped with 7 lasers and 2 accelerometers, and is a Class I (highest standard)

profiler. In addition to pavement profile measurements, the RSP is capable of calculating

International Roughness Index (IRI) and rutting in real time.

High-definition Right of Way (ROW) cameras: The system includes two cameras capable of

capturing color images in 1920x1080 format or higher. For this project, ROW images were

acquired and stored every 20 ft. and all images were georeferenced.

Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) and GPS: The Applanix POS LV V5 inertial navigation

system is for recording sub-meter accuracy GPS coordinates. In addition, our system also

captures pavement geometry including cross slope, radius of curvature and longitudinal grade.

A picture of the Dynatest MFV equipped with the LCMS system is shown in Figure 5. Sample pavement

and ROW images are shown in Figure 6 and 7 respectively.

8

Figure 5 Dynatest MFV Equipped with LCMS

Figure 6 Sample Downward Pavement Image

9

Figure 7 Sample of ROW Image

3.4 Semi-Automated Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Survey Data Interpretation

For this project, Dynatest used the ASTM D6433-based modified PCI inspection method developed by the

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) for performing image-based PCI inspections. This method

incorporates systematic random sampling and requires that distresses be recorded by trained inspectors

using software that enables the inspectors to identify and record pavement distress types, severities, and

quantities visible on collected downward images. Please note: The modified PCI inspection method is

described in the textbook, “Pavement Management for Airports, Roads, and Parking Lots,” 2nd Ed. by M.

Y. Shahin, Ph.D., P.E.

In an effort to achieve a comprehensive baseline PCI inspection, the City requested that 100% of the

collected pavement imagery be inspected and that no sampling strategy be applied. Therefore, the PCI

inspection was conducted on 100% of all collected imagery. In combination with the “one-lane” data

collection procedure, this 100% inspection approach resulted in a 50% “overall” inspection of the City’s

paved street surfaces.

The image-based pavement condition survey was executed using Dynatest’s Distress Rating Module

(DRM) software, which was developed specifically for performing PCI surveys on image data. As shown

in Figure 8, DRM provides users with a graphical representation of and the ability to edit all the data sets

collected using the MFV. These data sets, which are accessed and organized by DRM, include downward

pavement images, right-of-way (ROW) images, profile datasets, DMI, and GPS readings.

10

Figure 8: Dynatest’s Distress Rating Module (DRM) Software

Dynatest utilized trained and experienced pavement inspectors under the supervision of Project Engineers

for post processing collected pavement image data for the City. Each inspector was equipped with a

workstation with two high-resolution LCD monitors that enabled him to identify, classify and report the

pavement surface distresses using DRM. Visually recorded distress data were then supplemented in DRM

by profile data to include any rutting data that was not visible on the collected images.

3.5 Existing Pavement Conditions and Field Observations

The City’s improved roadway network consists of approximately 25 centerline miles. The collected

pavement inspection data were used to calculate a PCI value for each pavement section. Table 3 shows the

PCI condition assessment criteria used to analyze the pavement network.

Table 3: City’s Pavement Condition Assessment Criteria

Condition Assessment PCI Value

Excellent 90 – 100

Good 80 – 90

Fair 70 – 80

Marginal 60 – 70

Poor 45 – 60

Very Poor 30 – 45

Failed 0 – 30

At the time of Dynatest’s June 2018 inspection, the City’s pavements were found to be in overall “Marginal”

condition, with an average PCI of 66.4. The condition distribution of the City’s pavements at the time of

inspection is shown in Figure 9, and Table 4 illustrates pavement condition by pavement surface type.

11

Figure 9: Overall Pavement Condition Distribution

Table 4: Pavement Condition Distribution by Surface Type

Surface Sections % Pavement Area

SFT Area % Num Sections Wt Avg Condition

AC 51 1,415,075.15 43 123 36.41

PCC 48 1,815,984.84 55 116 88.89

GR 2 55,582.34 2 4 100

As shown in Figure 10, the overwhelming majority of the City’s concrete pavements were observed to be

in a good condition, with an overall average PCI value of 88.89. As shown in Figure 11, the majority of the

City’s asphalt pavements were observed to be in failed- very poor, and poor conditions, with an overall

average PCI of 36.41. Concrete and asphalt pavements account for approximately 55% and 43%,

respectively, of the City’s pavement network.

Figure 10: Concrete Pavement Condition Distribution at Inspection

31

17

8 89

11

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35A

rea

%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Marginal

Poor

Very Poor

Failed

4

13

29

54

Marginal Fair Good Excellent

12

Figure 11: Asphalt Pavement Condition Distribution at Inspection

The causes of pavement deterioration may be divided into the following three general categories: (1) Load

Related, (2) Climate/Durability Related, and (3) Other. Table 5 shows the primary causes of pavement

deterioration observed throughout the City’s pavement network.

Table 5: Categorization of Observed Pavement Distresses

Distress Category Example Distresses

Percentage of

Observed Distresses

Load Related

Asphalt pavement distresses such as rutting and

alligator cracking. Concrete pavement distresses such

as corner breaks and divided slabs.

60%

Climate/

Durability Related

Asphalt pavement distresses such as longitudinal and

transverse cracking, and block cracking. Concrete

pavement distresses such as joint and corner spalling

and joint seal damage.

36%

Other Concrete pavement joint Faulting, Scaling, and

patching 4%

The deterioration observed on the City’s pavements was caused primarily by a mixture of climate- and

load-related distresses. Climate-related distresses – in particular, joint seal damage – were found across the

City’s concrete pavement inventory. However, load-related distresses were most pronounced on the City’s

asphalt roadways, which tended to be older and nearer the end of their service lives than the City’s concrete

pavements.

37

26

21

15

2

1

Failed Very Poor Poor Marginal Fair Good

13

3.6 Example Pavement Conditions

Figure 12 illustrates a variety of pavement conditions observed throughout the City during the survey.

Location PCI

Sealy Ave

(Asphalt)

5

N Denton Ave

(Asphalt) 15

S College St

(Asphalt) 38

14

Barrett DR

(Asphalt) 55

Boss Range RD

(Asphalt) 42

Ovaletta DR

(Concrete) 81

15

N Bluebonnet

CR

(Concrete)

70

Valley DR

(Concrete) 88

Goodnight TRL

(Concrete) 95

Figure 12: Pavement Conditions Observed during PCI Inspection

16

4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Summary

This was the first comprehensive PCI inspection performed on the City’s pavements. Overall, the City’s

pavements were found to be in marginal condition. The majority of the City’s concrete pavements, which

account for 55% of the City’s pavement inventory, exhibited minimal distress and appear to be performing

well. The City’s asphalt pavements, which account for less than 43% of the City’s pavement inventory,

exhibited more significant distress and several are in need of Major M&R, such as resurfacing or

reconstruction.

4.2 Recommendations

4.2.1 Perform Regular Pavement Condition Inspections

In an effort to capitalize on this PCI inspection effort and better track the condition of its pavements, it is

recommended that the City continue to perform PCI surveys on a two to three year cycle. Doing so will

enable the City to:

1. Better track the deterioration of its pavements,

2. Develop pavement deterioration trends to better predict future pavement conditions, and

3. Assess the effectiveness of its pavement preservation and Major M&R activities.

While the City’s concrete pavements are currently in satisfactory condition, the majority of the pavements

were constructed within the past fifteen years and are relatively newer. This suggests that future M&R

needs will increase as the City’s pavements deteriorate over time. It is necessary that this deterioration be

proactively and systematically monitored. In the case of asphalt pavement the current condition shows a

need of major rehabilitation or reconstruction that need to be properly design to ensure that the most cost-

effective solution is selected.

4.2.2 Implement Preventive Maintenance Programs for All Pavements

Based on in-the-field observations, it is evident that the City would benefit from a preventive maintenance

program. The City’s existing Major M&R backlog – due primarily to the condition of the City’s asphalt

pavements – is the driving force behind the City’s existing pavement management program. While Major

M&R for the City’s asphalt pavements is necessary, the City should consider preserving its vast inventory

of relatively newer concrete pavements through the application of preventive maintenance activities, such

as joint sealing and localized patching. Doing so will extend the life of its pavement inventory and will

reduce the rate of deterioration of its pavement network.

Due to the nature of concrete pavements, deterioration along a roadway is often isolated to a few slabs.

Regular inspections are required to identify maintenance needs as they develop. It is therefore

recommended that the City develop a proactive, ongoing routine maintenance inspection and repair cycle

for its concrete pavements. For example, the City’s concrete pavements may be divided into four zones,

and City maintenance staff could inspect each zone annually to identify routine maintenance needs.

Following the inspection, maintenance activities may then be scheduled and executed in a timely fashion.

It is recommended that a project level structural evaluation of the selected streets for major rehabilitation

and/or reconstruction is conducted. The project level structural evaluation will involve using a Falling

17

Weight Deflectometer (FWD) coupled with pavement layer thicknesses and types, traffic information and

a design period to determine the most cost-effective alternative.

5 GENERAL REMARKS

The above analyses were based on semi-automated pavement distress survey and were controlled by the

MFV laser based downward images. The pavement condition analyses and associated results provided in

this report should be used in conjunction with construction history and current City’s maintenance and

rehabilitation practices to allocate funding and prioritize roadway intervention.

6 DISCLAIMER

Dynatest has made every attempt to base their procedures on sound methodology. However, circumstances

beyond the control of Dynatest could result in alterations to the above results, which may be completely

justifiable.

Report prepared by: Omar Elbagalati, PhD, PE

Project Engineer

Report reviewed by: Alvaro Ulloa, PhD, PE

Senior Engineer

W 7th St

12th St

Boss

Rang

e Rd

W 5th St

W 3rd St

John Wiley Rd

W 4th St

W 2nd StLeuty

Ave E 4th St

W 6th St

W 8th St

N Se

aly Av

e

Daisey Ln

Reatt

a Dr

Ovaletta

DrPa

fford

Ave

Sage Dr

Goodnight Trl

S College St

N Co

llege

St

Mae D

r

Allen Dr

Hardeman Blvd

Hilltop Dr

Ridg

etop D

r

N De

nton A

ve

Scen

ic Dr

Hillside Dr

Windmill Dr

Cedar Crest Dr

Cany

on D

r

S Sny

der A

ve

Summ

it Dr

Indian Paint Dr

Harm

onson

Ave

Gulf A

ve

Lake

way L

n

Tope

ka Av

e

Creek

Hill

Way R

d

Barrett Dr

Honeysuckle Dr

S Jack

son Av

e

Downe Rd

Ridge Dr

S Sealy Ave

Valley Dr

S Den

ton Av

e

Chisholm Trl

Meadowview Dr

Creek Hill Way

S Hard

eman

Cir

Color

ado A

ve

Santa

Fe Tr

l

13th St

Bluebonnet Cir

Sage Dr SB

Orchid Dr

Atch

ison A

ve

Lared

o

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P,NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri(Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, andthe GIS User Community

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80.1Miles

±

City of Justin PCI Category

ExcellentGoodFairMarginalPoorVery PoorFailedGravel

Dynatest North America, Inc. - TBPE Firm Registration No. F-17608Prepared by Omar S. Elbagalati PhD., P.E. 130040

City of Justin Street Improvement...

Documents

Transcript of City of Justin Street Improvement...