10 Year Infrastructure Replacement Plan - … Year Infrastructure Replacement Plan November 30, 2009 City of West Branch Ogemaw County, Michigan Table of Contents 090011 i November

10 Year Infrastructure Replacement Plan

November 30, 2009

City of West Branch Ogemaw County, Michigan

Table of Contents

090011 i November 2009

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ iii Chapter 1 Street & Utility System Analysis

Street Inventory Considerations .................................................................................................. 1-1 Stormwater Treatment Considerations ........................................................................................ 1-3

Sidewalk Replacement ................................................................................................................ 1-4 Public Utilities ............................................................................................................................. 1-4 Life Expectancy of Streets........................................................................................................... 1-5 Needs Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 1-7

Chapter 2 Summary and Conclusions Needs Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 Ten year Project Priorities ........................................................................................................... 2-9 Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 2-9 Funding Sources .......................................................................................................................... 2-11 Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 2-12

Appendices

A Asphalt-PASER Manual; Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating, June 1994. Transportation Information Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

B Street Inventory Summary Table C Typical Sections C1 Typical 34’ Residential Street with Bike Lanes and Ditching C2 Typical 31’ Residential Street (Second Street) with Curb and Gutter C3 Typical 34’ Residential Street with Curb and Gutter C4 Typical 45’ Commercial Street with Curb and Gutter D Proposed Cost Opinions D1 34’ Residential Street with Bike Lanes and Ditching D2 31’ Residential Street (Second Street) with Curb and Gutter D3 34’ Residential Street with Curb and Gutter D4 45’ Commercial Street with Curb and Gutter D5 Water Main Cost Per Foot

090011 ii November 2009

List of Tables

1.1 ary

1.2 mmary

2.1 Inventory Summary Table -

2

2.2

2-10

PASER Rating Summ1-2 1-

Water Main Rating Su 4 2

Needs Assessment Summary

List of Figures

1.1 Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk Map 2.1 Pavement Surface Rating Map 2.2 Water Main Rating Map 2.3 Infrastructure Priority Map

Introduction

090011 iii November 2009

The City of West Branch and C2AE have teamed to complete a study that provides an existing

condition rating of all City streets and infrastructure, identifies those street segments requiring

rehabilitation or reconstruction within the next five to ten years, and provide cost opinions for their

upgrade. This report is a culmination of an effort by City staff and C2AE.

This study includes an evaluation and inventory of all City streets for pavement management

purposes and an infrastructure needs assessment. The City’s street system is comprised of approximately

16 miles of streets based upon MDOT Act 51 mileage reports through June 30, 2006. This study focuses

on the pavement conditions of all City Streets and an infrastructure needs assessment to identify

necessary street and infrastructure improvements and their associated costs.

This study provides the City with a planning tool to develop a process to budget for street and

infrastructure improvements on an annual basis. Pavement evaluations, for the most part were performed

by City of West Branch personnel using the PASER (pavement surface evaluation and rating) system.

The sanitary sewer portion of this study is based on the results of the extensive study performed by C2AE

and the City and the resulting proposed relining and rehabilitation of the sanitary system scheduled to

begin this fall. With assistance from the City of West Branch Public Works Department, the existing

condition of the City water main system was rated based upon the approximate age and past maintenance

issues. Surface drainage and storm sewer was considered to be adequate on streets with existing curb and

gutter, with the exception of a few areas identified by the City where existing storm sewer had collapsed

(S. Valley Street) or had root problems (Lindsey Street). Storm sewer construction costs are included in

all estimates for streets with existing or proposed curb & gutter. The City identified streets where they

felt there was a need or desire for future concrete curb & gutter and new or replacement concrete

sidewalk.

CHAPTER 1

STREET AND UTILITY SYSTEM ANALYSIS

Street and Utility System Analysis

090011 1-1 November 2009

Street Inventory Considerations

The City of West Branch has nearly 16 miles of developed public streets. In addition, there are

City alleys, undeveloped public street right-of-ways, privately-developed public streets and private

streets. Houghton Avenue (M-55) was not included in this study because this street falls under Michigan

Department of Transportation (MDOT) jurisdiction. The City has received notice that MDOT plans to

resurface M-55 through the City limits in 2013. It is recommended that that the City evaluate their water

and sewer utilities to determine the need for replacement prior to or in cooperation with the 2013

resurfacing project. The developed public City streets were evaluated by City personnel in the spring of

2009 based on criteria established by the Asphalt-PASER Manual, Pavement Surface Evaluation and

Rating guide (contained in Appendix A) developed by the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Each street

or street segment was evaluated on a 1 to 10 scale (refer to Table 1.1 - PASER Rating Summary) ranging

from a failed pavement requiring total reconstruction (1) to an excellent, newly constructed street (10).

Pavement raveling, rutting, cracking and patching are just a few of the prevalent pavement characteristics

that are evaluated in the process of rating a pavement condition.

090011 1-2 November 2009

Table 1.1 – PASER Rating Summary

* Not all Street or Street Segments will exhibit all of these potential types of distress for any particular rating

No. Rating Visible Distress* General Condition & Treatment Measure

10 Excellent • None New Construction

9 Excellent • None Recent overlay, like new.

8 Very Good

• No Longitudinal cracks except reflection of paving joints. • Occasional transverse cracks, widely spaced (40' or greater). • All cracks sealed or tight (open 1/4" or less).

Recent sealcoat or new road mix. Little or no maintenance required.

7 Good

• Very slight or no raveling, surface shows some traffic wear. • Longitudinal cracks (open 1/4") due to reflection or paving joints. • Transverse cracks (1/4") spaced 10 ft or more apart, little or slight

raveling. • No patching or very few patches in excellent condition.

First signs of aging. Maintain with routine crack filling.

6 Good

• Slight raveling (loss of fines) and traffic wear. • Longitudinal cracks (open 1/4" to ½") some spaced less than 10 feet. • First sign of block cracking. • Slight to moderate flushing or polishing. • Occasional patching in good condition.

Shows signs of aging, but sound structural condition. Could extend life with sealcoat.

5 Fair

• Moderate to severe raveling (loss of fine and coarse aggregate). • Longitudinal and transverse cracks (open ½") show first signs of

slight raveling and secondary cracks. First signs of longitudinal cracks near pavement edge.

• Block cracking up to 50% of surface. • Extensive to severe flushing or polishing. • Some patching or edge wedging in good condition.

Surface aging, sound structural condition. Needs sealcoat or nonstructural overlay.

4 Fair

• Severe surface raveling. • Multiple longitudinal and transverse cracking, with slight raveling. • Longitudinal cracking in wheel path. • Block cracking (over 50% of surface). • Patching in fair condition. • Slight rutting or distortions (½" deep or less).

Significant aging and first signs of need for strengthening. Would benefit from recycling or overlay.

3 Poor

• Closely spaced longitudinal and transverse cracks often showing raveling and crack erosion.

• Severe block cracking. • Some alligator cracking (less than 25% of surface). • Patches in fair to poor condition. • Moderate rutting or distortion (1" or 2" deep). • Occasional potholes.

Needs patching and major overlay or complete recycling.

2 Very Poor

• Alligator cracking (over 25% of surface). • Severe distortions (over 2" deep). • Extensive patching in poor condition. • Potholes

Severe deterioration. Needs reconstruction with extensive base repair.

1 Failed • Severe distress with extensive loss of surface integrity. Failed. Needs total reconstruction.

090011 1-3 November 2009

While soil types and road subgrade materials were not evaluated as part of this study, general

information on soil types can be found in the Ogemaw County Soils Maps, for preliminary use in

evaluating the potential need for reconstruction or resurfacing of a street or street segment. These maps

indicate general locations of wetlands, soils suitable for septic fields, erosive soils, water table depths,

watershed areas, prime farmland and land use. Poor soils and poorly drained soils will impact the

longevity of the underground utilities and pavement structure if they are not properly addressed. Poor

soils may be either continuous along a project, or only in isolated areas. Soil borings and boring logs

should be completed on every project, regardless of the information contained in County soil maps. Soils

with high water tables will also impact the proposed options of reconstruction or rehabilitation.

Stormwater Treatment Considerations

Another consideration during the evaluation of construction options includes a review of the

regional stormwater system and outlets. The Rifle River Watershed Storm Water Management Study,

completed separate from this project in 2005 for the Ogemaw Storm Water Committee and Huron Pines

Resource Conservation & Development Area Council, analyzed the existing and future storm drainage

zones or districts and discharge locations for the City of West Branch and immediate surrounding area.

When considering reconstruction or rehabilitation options, this Storm Water Management Study should

also be reviewed.

Stormwater detention areas, where feasible, should be constructed to help reduce the peak

stormwater flow in the system and also improve treatment by allowing time for settlement of particles and

debris. All areas should be designed for existing and future stormwater flows. Ideally, these stormwater

detention areas would be constructed in upstream areas of the drainage districts, with each drainage area

having multiple detention areas. However, it will be difficult to construct detention areas in developed

areas of the City for most of the land is currently occupied. As future development occurs, the City should

require detention areas be integrated into design. In general, stormwater detention areas will be ponds

such that regular maintenance (debris and sediment removal) can be performed with ease. These areas

will periodically be filled with water so fencing should be installed and other safety issues be considered.

If the stormwater detention areas are constructed of subsurface systems, regular maintenance will be more

difficult which may limit the lifetime and usefulness of the detention area.

090011 1-4 November 2009

The Rifle River and its tributaries are very important resources to the area and every effort should

be taken to protect them from contamination via the stormwater system. In conjunction with the

stormwater detention areas discussed above, Stormwater Treatment Units (STU’s) can be installed prior

to the discharges to either the lake or river as a way to remove oils and particulates. The Federal Storm

Water Phase II Regulations require 80% removal of the Total Suspended Solids in stormwater runoff.

Currently, the City of West Branch is not required to adhere to these regulations, and is not likely to be

required to do so in the near future. However, in the interest of the Rifle River and its tributaries, the City

may wish to be proactive in this regard.

Sidewalk Replacement

The planning process of replacing infrastructure should also include sidewalk replacement or new

sidewalk construction for both commercial and residential streets. This study does not include evaluation

of all of the City’s sidewalks. However, the City did identify several locations where existing sidewalk is

in need of replacement or where sidewalk is desired in the future. For these streets, which are identified

on the Curb & Gutter and Sidewalk Map (Figure 1.1), replacement or future construction costs have been

included in the opinions of probable construction costs.

Public Utilities

The City of West Branch currently provides sanitary sewer and water service to the majority of

properties with the City limits. The range of the existing condition of these public utilities varies with the

age, depth and material type in each segment. It is recommended that the City follow a general practice of

replacing older segments of sanitary sewer and water main during reconstruction projects, if the life

expectancy of the utility is shorter than the life expectancy of the street.

The City DPW Superintendent provided an evaluation of the existing water main system based on

the following criteria: 1) age of hydrants (from Hydrant Data Sheets), and 2) known problematic sections.

Additionally, undersized water main (4 inch diameter or less), was identified in the study, based on

information on the City’s water main base map. From these criteria, each segment of the water main

system was rated for existing condition on a 1 through 10 scale, following similar rating levels to the

surface ratings. For areas throughout the City where the City Base Map indicated that water main existed,

but no age, material or condition information was available, the segment was given a rating of “5” for the

water main. For street segments that do not have existing water main, the segment was given a rating of

“0” and water main is not figured into the average segment rating. The ratings for the water main were

then compiled in the individual street summary reports and included in the overall needs assessment of

090011 1-5 November 2009

the study.

An extensive sanitary sewer system rehabilitation program for the City of West Branch has been

developed by C2AE, separate from this project. The City is currently undertaking a rehabilitation project

that will improve all known problem areas within the sanitary sewer system via sanitary sewer lining and

manhole rehabilitation. Because of the rehabilitation program, the sanitary sewer conditions were not

individually rated. All sewers should be rated at least a “5” or fair when the program is completed.

However, whenever a section of roadway is considered for reconstruction the video tape of the existing

sewer should be reviewed and a determination made whether to replace that section of sewer (and service)

during roadway reconstruction.

Table 1.2 – Water Main Rating Summary

No. Rating Rating Criteria Utilized

10 Excellent • Hydrant date(s): present to year 2006

9 Very Good • Hydrant date(s): year 2005 to year 1996

8 Good • Hydrant date(s): year 1995 to year 1986

7 Good • Hydrant date(s): year 1985 to year 1971

6 Fair • Hydrant date(s): year 1970 to year 1951

5 Fair • Hydrant date(s): year 1950 and older or no existing information

available

4 Fair • Undersized water main (4-inch diameter or less)

3 Poor • Multiple and/or recent water main breaks

2 Very Poor

• No existing water main where water is needed

*Street segments with no existing water main (based on the City base map) were rated “0”.

Life Expectancy of Streets

The life expectancy of streets and utilities is an important consideration in developing a needs

assessment for future infrastructure replacement. With proper material selection, design, construction

techniques and inspection, the underground utilities could potentially have double the life expectancy of

the street surface. Reconstructed streets with concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer and sand backfill can

further extend the life expectancy of the underground utilities by providing better pavement edge support

and surface and subsurface drainage control. The life expectancy of streets and utilities vary between 5

and 50 years depending on existing soils, drainage and type of reconstruction method. A pavement

090011 1-6 November 2009

overlay typically has a life expectancy of 5 to 10 years. Removing and resurfacing just the pavement

surface typically has a life expectancy of 10 to 15 years, but is highly dependent upon the underlying

soils. For roadways without curb and gutter and storm sewer, the life expectancy of the pavement section

can vary greatly due to the adequacy of surface and subsurface drainage, but typically will be about 15

years. Edge cracking of the pavement is the typical first sign of failure of uncurbed streets. The pavement

section of a street with concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer typically has a life expectancy of 20 to

25 years. Concrete curb and gutter typically has a life expectancy of 25 to 40 years. New storm sewer,

sanitary sewer and water main typically have a life expectancy of 50 or more years. Evaluating the life

expectancy of all components of the infrastructure helps to identify the areas that are critical to replace

during new projects.

The use of concrete curb and gutter for construction will typically extend the longevity of a

pavement structure by improving drainage and protecting the edge of the roadway from deterioration.

Concrete curb and gutter will provide a safer roadway by creating a protective barrier from adjacent

sidewalks and public areas. The existence of concrete curb and gutter generally requires a storm sewer

system, which in most cases will eliminate the need for roadway ditching, and therefore provide a safer

roadway section. Concrete curb and gutter controls drainage patterns and reduces the potential of erosion

and deterioration of the pavement section. Maintenance of concrete curb and gutter is generally minimal

with an occasional replacement of small sections due to frost heave or the effects of plowing over an

extended duration. Maintenance of non-curbed roadways requires upkeep of aggregate shoulders, fixing

erosion problems and ditch cleanout. Spatially, roadways with concrete curb and gutter take up a much

smaller area within the right-of-way than non-curbed streets with ditching. A standard 2.5 foot deep ditch

with standard slopes and a 2 foot wide bottom normally takes up 17 feet, in addition to the width of an

aggregate shoulder. In order to construct and maintain a ditch within the 17 feet on either side of the

roadway, there are several impacts on the public right-of-way and adjacent property owners: trees need to

be either removed, trimmed or thinned; useable lawn area is reduced and public and private utilities may

need to be relocated due to elevation and/or location with respect to the ditching.

The life expectancy of a roadway is impacted by the type of reconstruction or rehabilitation, the

condition of the subgrade, the water table, the effectiveness of stormwater and erosion control, the use of

curb and gutter and the level of maintenance efforts. Selecting the type of construction is often impacted

by budgets. However, regardless of the type of construction, proper maintenance can extend pavement

structure life expectancy.

090011 1-7 November 2009

Needs Assessment

Based upon the existing conditions of the street and utility systems and upon the engineering

considerations listed above, a needs assessment was developed for the entire City. The ratings for the

surface (pavement) condition and water main were combined and developed into the following overall

ratings for the infrastructure replacement needs assessment:

• High Priority Primary need, with a combined overall rating range of 1 through 4.5; • Medium Priority Secondary need, with a combined overall rating range of 5 through 6.5; • Low Priority Lowest need, with a combined overall rating range of 7 through 10.

The complete database (see Appendix B - Street Inventory Summary Table) lists the following for

each street or street segment:

1. Inventory No. 2. Street or Segment Length 3. Street Name 4. Street or Segment Point of Beginning 5. Street or Segment Point of Ending 6. Typical A (Proposed typical cross section when improved) 7. Water Main Replacement Costs 8. Sidewalk Replacement Costs 9. Total Replacement Costs 10. Surface Rating 11. Sanitary Sewer Rating (all 10, based on rehabilitation program to be completed in 2009/2010) 12. Water Main Rating 13. Average Rating (Surface & Water Main) 14. Overall Needs assessment (High, Medium or Low)

Table 2.1 in the next chapter, provides an abbreviated summary of Appendix B, which includes

the segment number, street length, street name, segment limits, individual ratings for pavement, sanitary

sewer and water main, ratings average and overall priority.

Four proposed typical street cross sections were developed with the City for each type of

construction for both residential and commercial streets (see Appendix C - Typical Sections C1-C4). For

each proposed typical cross section, an associated cost opinion was developed (see Appendix D Cost

Opinions D1-D4). In Appendix B - Street Inventory Summary Table, the cost per foot for each typical

cross section was applied to the length of each street or street segment to develop an overall cost of

construction appropriate for that street or street segment. The total cost for each overall level of needs

assessment (High, Medium and Low) is shown later in the Summary section of this report. There are

many variables to consider in the ultimate needs assessment for the City, including but not limited to:

• Available annual budget • Current Private or Public Development Projects • Future or Potential Private or Public Development Projects

090011 1-8 November 2009

• Population Levels and Location • Traffic Volumes • External Funding Sources and Level of Funding • State Requirements: MDEQ Sewer and Water Mandates, MDOT Critical Bridge and Act 51

requirements • Zoning Classifications: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Downtown DDA • Public Influence & Politics • Seasonal Versus All-Year Use • Location • Demand • Maintenance • Existing soils

Ultimately, the City will utilize the database, consider these variables and develop a system for long-term and continuous maintenance of the City’s street and utility infrastructure.

CHAPTER 2

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary and Conclusions

090011 2-1 November 2009

Needs Assessment

The needs assessment for this study was primarily developed with engineering considerations

including pavement surface ratings and water main ratings. There are many other considerations, as

previously listed in Chapter 1 that may influence the City’s decision on how to proceed with an annual

project selection. Based strictly upon a straight average rating system, the needs were identified as High,

Medium or Low priority. Table 2.1 is a summary of the rated street segments, their lengths, limits,

ratings, overall priority and estimated construction costs. Several color-coded maps of the City streets

and utility networks have been developed for ratings current through September 2009 (see Figures 1.1 and

2.1 - 2.3 for City maps of streets, surface ratings, water main ratings, existing and proposed curb & gutter

and overall infrastructure needs assessment). The database is a tool for the City to further identify the

critical infrastructure replacement needs and make adjustments over time, as necessary.

090011 2-2 November 2009

Table 2-1

Street Inventory Summary Table Inv. # Length Street Name From To PV SN WA AV Priority Est. Cost 100 1004' South Valley Street Hall Street Shrigley Street 3 5 3 3.0 High $333,328 101 143' South Valley Street Page Street Hall Street 3 5 3 3.0 High $47,476 102 360' South Valley Street W Houghton Page St. 3 5 3 3.0 High $125,640 36 317' South 7th Street dead end Victory Street 2 5 5 3.5 High $105,244 44 486' South 8th Street West Wright St West Houghton Ave 2 5 5 3.5 High $169,614 34 195' Victory Street South 6th Street end 4 5 0 4.0 High $28,860 45 676' North Eight Street West Houghton Ave Industrial 3 5 5 4.0 High $150,072 48 269' North 7th Street Lake State RR Industrial 3 5 5 4.0 High $59,718

49 412' North 7th Street West Houghton

Street Lake State RR 3 5 5 4.0 High $91,464

50 480' South 7th Street West Wright Street West Houghton

Street 3 5 5 4.0 High $167,520 51 465' South 7th Street West Ripley Street West Wright Street 5 5 3 4.0 High $154,380 58 803' North 5th Street Lake State Railway River 5 5 3 4.0 High $266,596 116 80' South 3rd Street West Ripley Ave RR 4 5 4 4.0 High $17,760 119 935' North 3rd Street West Houghton Ave Sidney Street 5 5 3 4.0 High $371,195 122 845' North 3rd Street Spruce Street West Willow Street 5 5 3 4.0 High $280,540

159 702' North Fairview Street East Houghton

Street Fremont Street 5 5 3 4.0 High $155,844 160 1580' North Fairview Street Fremont Street East State Street 5 5 3 4.0 High $350,760 161 582' North Fairview Street East State Street City/Twp line 5 5 3 4.0 High $129,204

7 338' Lindsay Street North 6th Street North 5th Street 5 5 4 4.5 High $120,328 8 729' Lindsay Street North 7th Street North 6th Street 5 5 4 4.5 High $259,524

12 370' Lindsay Street North 5th Street North 4th Street 5 5 4 4.5 High $131,720 20 475' South 4th Street Morrison Street West Ripley Street 6 5 3 4.5 High $157,700 42 465' South 8th Street West Ripley Street West Wright Street 4 5 5 4.5 High $154,380 46 338' Industrial North 8th Street North 7th Street 4 5 5 4.5 High $75,036 52 360' South 7th Street Victory Street West Ripley Street 6 5 3 4.5 High $136,800 61 460' South 5th Street West Ripley Street West Wright Street 3 5 6 4.5 High $102,120

090011 2-3 November 2009

Table 2-1 Street Inventory Summary Table - Continued

Inv. # Length Street Name From To PV SN WA AV Priority Est. Cost 124 470' North 2nd Street Lindsay Street Spruce Street 4 5 5 4.5 High $104,340

126 940' North 2nd Street West Houghton

Street Sidney Street 6 5 3 4.5 High $350,620 154 290' Burr Street Fremont Street end 6 5 3 4.5 High $64,380 155 666' Fremont Street Burr Street Alto Court 6 5 3 4.5 High $237,096 156 344' Fremont Street Alto Court North Fairview Street 6 5 3 4.5 High $122,464

Highest Priority Total Estimated Cost $5,021,723 9 211' Lindsay Street Keith Court North 7th Street 5 5 5 5.0 Medium $75,116

10 359' Lindsay Street South Dow Road Keith Court 5 5 5 5.0 Medium $119,188 19 470' South 4th Street West Ripley Street West Wright Street 5 5 5 5.0 Medium $167,320 43 312' West Wright Street Court Street South 8th Street 5 5 5 5.0 Medium $103,584 47 929' North 7th Street Industrial Lindsay 5 5 5 5.0 Medium $206,238 57 433' North 5th Street attribute change Lindsay Street 5 5 0 5.0 Medium $111,714

59 111' North 5th Street West Houghton

Street Lake State Railway 5 5 5 5.0 Medium $38,739


Street 5 5 5 5.0 Medium $107,892 70 333' West Wright Street South 8th Street S 7th Street 5 5 5 5.0 Medium $110,556 71 348' West Wright Street South 7th Street South 6th Street 5 5 0 5.0 Medium $89,784 72 338' West Wright Street South 6th Street South 5th Street 5 5 0 5.0 Medium $87,204 95 1706' Parkway Drive Refinery Road Griffin Road 3 5 7 5.0 Medium $440,148 97 285' Griffin Road Attribute Change Cook Road 3 5 7 5.0 Medium $73,530 98 348' Griffin Road Parkway Drive Attribute Change 3 5 7 5.0 Medium $89,784 99 655' Griffin Road South Valley Street Parkway Drive 3 5 7 5.0 Medium $168,990 107 211' Cemetery Street East Houghton St Attribute change 5 5 0 5.0 Medium $31,228 108 365' Hall Street MacGregor Court South Valley Street 6 5 4 5.0 Medium $121,180

109 270' Hall Street South Burgess

Street MacGregor Court 6 5 4 5.0 Medium $89,640

090011 2-4 November 2009


Inv. # Length Street Name From To PV SN WA AV Priority Est. Cost 111 507' South Burgress Street East Houghton Ave Hall Street 6 5 4 5.0 Medium $176,943 113 428' North 6th Street Lindsey dead end 5 5 0 5.0 Medium $66,452 120 460' North 3rd Street Sidney Street Lindsay Street 5 5 5 5.0 Medium $163,760 123 840' North 2nd Street Spruce Street West Willow Street 4 5 6 5.0 Medium $186,480 142 660' Carpenter Street North 1st Street North Burgess Street 6 5 4 5.0 Medium $234,960 153 285' Fremont Street North Valley Street Burr Street 6 5 4 5.0 Medium $101,460 157 396' Alto Court Fremont Street Attribute Change 6 5 4 5.0 Medium $131,472 158 36' Alto Court Attribute Change end 6 5 4 5.0 Medium $11,952

22 1061' Griffin Road South 4th Street West Flowage Lake

Rd 4 5 7 5.5 Medium $157,028 37 327' Victory Street South 8th Street South 7th Street 8 5 3 5.5 Medium $72,594 38 322' South 8th Street Victory Street end 5 5 6 5.5 Medium $106,904 73 370' West Wright Street South 5th Street South 4th Street 5 5 6 5.5 Medium $122,840

81 422' East Ripley Street South 1st Street South Livingston

Street 7 5 4 5.5 Medium $140,104 85 555' South Livingston Street Shrigley Street East Ripley Street 7 5 4 5.5 Medium $123,210 91 1008' South Valley Street Shrigley Griffin Road 3 5 8 5.5 Medium $249,228 103 687' Page Street South Valley Street Meid Street 7 5 4 5.5 Medium $152,514 104 750' Mead Street Page Street end 7 5 4 5.5 Medium $166,500 121 460' North 3rd Street Lindsay Street Spruce Street 5 5 6 5.5 Medium $152,720 129 486' North 1st Street East State Street Lindsay Street 6 5 5 5.5 Medium $173,016 13 692' North 4th Street Annie Street West Willow Street 5 5 7 6.0 Medium $102,416 14 639' North 4th Street Lindsay Street Annie Street 5 5 7 6.0 Medium $109,908 15 433' North 4th Street Sidney Street Lindsay Street 7 5 5 6.0 Medium $154,148 16 940' North 4th Street West Houghton Ave Sidney Street 7 5 5 6.0 Medium $328,060 27 523' Hansen Road Progress Drive City/Township Line 7 5 5 6.0 Medium $116,106 28 982' Hansen Road Court Street Progress Street 7 5 5 6.0 Medium $218,004 29 1484' Progress Drive Hansen Road Columbus Drive 5 5 7 6.0 Medium $382,872

090011 2-5 November 2009


Inv. # Length Street Name From To PV SN WA AV Priority Est. Cost 30 475' Progress Drive Columbus Drive dead end 5 5 7 6.0 Medium $122,550 31 982' Columbus Drive Court Street Progress Drive 6 5 0 6.0 Medium $253,356 32 686' Morrison Street South 6th Street South 4th Street 6 5 6 6.0 Medium $227,752 40 364' South 8th Street West Ripley Street Victory Street 6 5 6 6.0 Medium $120,848 53 343' South 6th Street Victory Street West Ripley Street 7 5 5 6.0 Medium $113,876 54 465' South 6th Street West Ripley Street West Wright Street 7 5 5 6.0 Medium $154,380


Street 5 5 7 6.0 Medium $135,025 56 122' South 6th Street Morrison Street end 7 5 5 6.0 Medium $27,084 62 100' South 3rd Street Dead End Attribute Change 8 5 4 6.0 Medium $33,200 65 343' West Ripley Street South 4th Street South 3rd Street 8 5 4 6.0 Medium $113,876 79 470' South 1st Street East Ripley Street West Wright Street 8 5 4 6.0 Medium $156,040

82 343' Shrigley Street South Burgess

Street South Livingston

Street 5 5 7 6.0 Medium $50,764 83 449' South Livingston Street E. Houghton Ave river 8 5 4 6.0 Medium $110,454 87 549' South Burgess Street Shrigley Street East Ripley Street 7 5 5 6.0 Medium $135,054

89 650' Shrigley Street South Valley Street South Brugess

Street 5 5 7 6.0 Medium $167,700 96 2334' Cook Road Refinery Road Griffin Road 6 5 0 6.0 Medium $345,432 110 132' South Burgess Street Hall Street river 6 5 0 6.0 Medium $34,056 138 354' North 1st Street Prospect East State Street 9 5 3 6.0 Medium $117,528 140 254' North 1st Street Carpenter Street Prospect 9 5 3 6.0 Medium $84,328 143 322' North Burgess Street East Houghton Ave Carpenter Street 7 5 5 6.0 Medium $112,378 144 924' North Burgess Street East State Street Carpenter Street 7 5 5 6.0 Medium $328,944 162 333' Willow St 4th Street 3rd Street 7 5 5 6.0 Medium $73,926 163 338' Willow St 2nd Street 3rd Street 7 5 5 6.0 Medium $75,036 164 370' Willow St. 1st Street 2nd Street 7 5 5 6.0 Medium $82,140

6 306' North 6th Street Lindsay Street Keith Court 9 5 4 6.5 Medium $101,592

090011 2-6 November 2009


Inv. # Length Street Name From To PV SN WA AV Priority Est. Cost 66 359' West Ripley Street South 5th Street South 4th Street 8 5 5 6.5 Medium $115,868

112 507' MacGregor Court Hall Street East Houghton

Street 8 5 5 6.5 Medium $112,554 114 586' South 2nd Street end West Wright 8 5 5 6.5 Medium $191,036 145 730' East State Street North 1st Street North Burgess Street 8 5 5 6.5 Medium $242,360 146 243' East State Street North Burgess Street Thomas Street 8 5 5 6.5 Medium $80,676 147 486' East State Street Thomas Street North Valley Street 8 5 5 6.5 Medium $161,352 149 830' Thomas Street Attribute Change end 9 5 4 6.5 Medium $184,260 150 497' Thomas Street East State Street Attribute Change 9 5 4 6.5 Medium $165,004

Medium Priority Total Estimated Cost $10,863,915 4 338' North 6th Street Keith Court Annie Street 9 5 5 7.0 Low $112,216 5 840' Keith Court Lindsay Street North 6th Street 9 5 5 7.0 Low $186,480

11 655' North 5th Street Lindsay Street Annie Street 8 5 6 7.0 Low $217,460 17 317' South 4th Street Lake State Railway West Houghton Ave 9 5 5 7.0 Low $110,633 18 158' South 4th Street West Wright Street Lake State Railway 9 5 5 7.0 Low $55,142 21 1183' South 4th Street Griffin Road Morrison Street 7 5 7 7.0 Low $175,084

24 1114' West Flowage Lake

Road Hansen Road Griffin Road 7 5 0 7.0 Low $164,872

25 216' West Flowage Lake

Road City/Township Line Hansen Road 7 5 0 7.0 Low $31,968 26 1061' Hansen Road City/Township Line W Flowage Lake Rd. 7 5 0 7.0 Low $157,028 33 164' South 6th Street Morrison Street Victory Street 7 5 7 7.0 Low $42,312 68 322' West Ripley Street South 7th Street South 6th Street 8 5 6 7.0 Low $106,904 77 322' West Wright Street South 2nd Street South 1st Street 9 5 5 7.0 Low $106,904 78 90' West Wright Street South 1st Street end 7 5 0 7.0 Low $13,320

105 391' Mead Street East Houghton

Street Page Street 7 5 0 7.0 Low $57,868 106 607' Cemetery Street Attribute Change end 7 5 0 7.0 Low $89,836

090011 2-7 November 2009


Inv. # Length Street Name From To PV SN WA AV Priority Est. Cost

115 491' South 2nd Street West Wright Street West Houghton

Street 9 5 5 7.0 Low $171,359 125 465' North 2nd Street Sidney Street Lindsay Street 7 5 0 7.0 Low $68,820 127 834' North 1st Street Spruce Street West Willow Street 9 5 5 7.0 Low $185,148 128 475' North 1st Street Lindsay Street Spruce Street 9 5 5 7.0 Low $105,450 151 898' North Valley Street Fremont Street East State Street 9 5 5 7.0 Low $298,136 152 697' North Valley Street East Houghton Ave Fremont Street 9 5 5 7.0 Low $243,253

1 993' Annie St Lindsay Street North 6th Street 9 5 6 7.5 Low $220,446 3 370' Annie Street North 5th Street North 4th Street 9 5 6 7.5 Low $82,140

23 776' South First Street Griffin Street end 8 5 7 7.5 Low $114,848 76 333' West Wright Street South 3rd Street South 2nd Street 9 5 6 7.5 Low $110,556 80 512' South 1st Street Shrigley Street East Ripley Street 8 5 7 7.5 Low $132,096

86 396' Shrigley Street South Livingston

Street South 1st Street 8 5 7 7.5 Low $102,168 118 491' South 3rd Street West Wright Street West Houghton Ave 9 5 6 7.5 Low $171,359 132 354' Lindsay Street North 4th Street North 3rd Street 9 5 6 7.5 Low $87,084 148 1463' East State Street North Valley Street Fairview Road 8 5 7 7.5 Low $377,454 35 333' Victory Street South 7th Street South 6th Street 8 5 0 8.0 Low $49,284 39 327' Victory Street Court Street South 8th Street 8 5 0 8.0 Low $48,396 41 338' West Ripley Street Court Street South 8th Street 8 5 0 8.0 Low $87,204 63 502' South 3rd Street West Ripley Street Attribute Change 8 5 0 8.0 Low $141,564 64 70' West Ripley Street South 3rd Street RR 8 5 0 8.0 Low $12,040 69 322' West Ripley Street South 8th Street South 7th Street 8 5 0 8.0 Low $83,076 84 275' South Livingston Street East Ripley Street river 8 5 0 8.0 Low $40,700

88 296' East Ripley Street South Livingston

Street South Burgess

Street 7 5 9 8.0 Low $83,472 92 623' South Valley Street Griffin Road Refinery Road 8 5 0 8.0 Low $160,734 93 1172' Refinery Road Parkway Drive South Valley Street 8 5 0 8.0 Low $173,456

90011 2-8 November 2009

0


Inv. # Length Street Name From To PV SN WA AV Priority Est. Cost 94 977' Refinery Road Cook Road Parkway Drive 8 5 0 8.0 Low $144,596 130 380' Spruce Street North 2nd Street North 1st Street 8 5 0 8.0 Low $56,240 131 343' Spruce Street North 3rd Street North 2nd Street 8 5 0 8.0 Low $50,764

2 343' Annie S North 6th Street North 5th Street 7 5 10 8.5 Low $50,764 137 401' Sidney Street North 2nd Street North 1st Street 10 5 7 8.5 Low $103,458 67 349' West Ripley Street South 6th Street South 5th Street 8 5 10 9.0 Low $90,042 74 132' West Wright Street South 4th Street Lake State Railway 9 5 0 9.0 Low $34,056 75 211' West Wright Street Lake State Railway South 3rd Street 9 5 0 9.0 Low $54,438 117 100' South 3rd Street RR West Wright Street 9 5 0 9.0 Low $14,800 133 333' Lindsay Street North 3rd Street North 2nd Street 9 5 0 9.0 Low $57,276 134 380' Lindsay Street North 2nd Street North 1st Street 9 5 0 9.0 Low $65,360 135 349' Sidney Street North 4th Street North 3rd Street 9 5 9 9.0 Low $90,042 136 328' Sidney Street North 3rd Street North 2nd Street 9 5 9 9.0 Low $84,624

141 328' North 1st Street East Houghton

Street Carpenter Street 9 5 0 9.0 Low $90,200 Low Priority Total Estimated Cost $5,964,930

090011 2-9 November 2009

10-Year Project Priorities

This study has identified approximately $5 million dollars worth of projects recommended to be

undertaken in the next 5 to 10 years. High priority streets that are eligible for Federal Aid include South

Valley and Fairview Street. Through MDOT Category D funding or other programs, these street

segments may receive up to 80% funding for reconstruction. South Valley Street reconstruction, which

has been identified as a high priority, is already programmed for reconstruction in 2011 through the

MDOT Federal Category D program. With the removal of the approximately $500,000 estimated for the

S. Valley Street high priority segments, the City is left with about $4.5 million (2009 construction costs)

worth of improvements recommended to pursue within the next 5 to 10 years. Divided out over 5 years,

the City would need to budget for at least $900,000 per year for street reconstruction; over ten years, the

costs per year would be closer to $450,000 to $500,000. Costs for sanitary sewer replacement are not

included.

Costs

Costs were generated within the Street Inventory Summary Table (Appendix B) for all of the

individual street segments. Cost opinions per foot of construction were developed for each of the

proposed typical cross sections. These cost opinions are generated using current unit prices for work items

and assuming a typical 1000 foot long project (approximately 2 blocks). The cost opinions assume that all

of the elements of the street will be constructed at the same time, and not in a phased approach.

Constructing a portion of the street or utility work in a phased approach would increase the overall project

cost. The individual street summary reports list the length of each street or street segment, which then has

a cost opinion applied for the chosen typical cross section. Costs are generated for a typical cross section,

as selected by the City. In addition, costs are generated for water main and sidewalk replacement (1 or 2

sides) based on a needs assessment for each street or street segment.

Each additional item is totaled separately in order to facilitate the budget planning for each City

Department. Cost for sanitary sewer replacement are not included.

090011 2-10 November 2009

Table 2.2

Needs Assessment Summary

Length of Road (Miles) Percent (%) Road typical** High (1-4.5) 3.1 20 $5,022,000

Medium (5-.65) 7.7 49 $10,864,000 Low (7-10) 5 31 $5,965,000

Total 15.8 100 $21,851,000 ** Costs are given in 2009 dollars. All costs must be projected at an annual rate of increase in order to determine future replacement costs. ** Costs do not include subgrade undercutting and backfill or sanitary sewer replacement.

As shown in Table 2.2, approximately 20% of the City’s streets and utilities fall into the High

Needs designation. Reconstruction of the High Needs streets and utilities is valued at over $5 million in

2009 dollars. High Needs streets and utilities will require replacement within the next ten years.

Approximately 49% of the City’s infrastructure falls into the Medium Needs designation and the

remaining 31% falls into the Low Needs designation. It should be noted that there are street segments on

Parkway Dr., Griffin Rd. and S. Valley Street that fall within the Medium Needs designation, but have

Pavement Ratings of “3” or Poor. Additionally, there are segments on Victory St. and N. First St. that fall

within the Medium Needs designation, but have Water Main Ratings of “3” or “Poor – Multiple and/or

recent water main breaks”. These areas are outlined in Figure 2.3 – Infrastructure Priority Map.

The costs for Medium and Low Needs streets are shown in 2009 dollars for reference purposes only.

Infrastructure with these designations will typically require replacement within a 10-20 year time period,

and therefore the costs would be substantially higher than replacement costs in 2009 dollars. Additionally,

preventive maintenance work can be performed on the medium priority streets to keep them from falling

into the high priority needs category, and ultimately delaying and reducing the future replacement costs.

Defining an approach to providing the necessary funding and planning for the maintenance of the

City streets is critical to the longevity of the street and utility infrastructure. The streets and utilities

designated as High Needs are either immediate concerns for failed streets or utilities, or are needs that

will need to be addressed within the next 5 to 10 years. While these needs are addressed within that time

period, the streets and utilities designated as Medium Needs will be deteriorating and continuously

moving toward lower ratings. A proactive approach would include preventive maintenance work being

performed on the streets and utilities designated as Medium Needs (average ratings of 5 through 6.5) with

the lower ratings of 5 in the shorter time frame. The City currently has approximately 49% rated within

090011 2-11 November 2009

the Medium Needs (overall needs assessment, streets and utilities). When that high percentage group

deteriorates and falls into the High Needs designation, there will be a significantly higher financial

implication to make the required street and utility improvements at that time. Addressing the streets and

utilities within the Medium Needs designation via preventive maintenance will help to mitigate that future

financial responsibility.

Ultimately, the amount of annual appropriation for the street and utilities improvements depends

on the available funding, whether it is generated through local income tax, by grants or by a local voted

millage. For the purposes of this study, all streets or street segments included in the High Needs category

require total reconstruction of the street. If the City chooses to address streets or street segments within

the Medium Needs category, other street rehabilitation options which have lower associated costs could

be considered. The costs included in this study reflect the associated costs for total reconstruction of the

street and underground utilities (if necessary), based on 2009 construction costs.

Funding Sources

There are many potential outside funding sources available besides local funding by the City of West

Branch. Streets within the City that are classified as Federal Aid Eligible on the National Functional

Classification Map for Ogemaw County are depicted on Figure 2.3. Some of the potential funding

sources that may be available for use throughout the City are:

1. MDOT TEDF Category A , D and F • Category A: Funds for infrastructure improvements related to specific economic development

and redevelopment activities. • Category D: Funds for infrastructure improvements to create an all-season road network in

rural counties • Category F: Funds for Cities in Rural Counties with low population to improve the all-season

road system and safety. 2. MDOT Heritage Route

• For roadways designated as Heritage Routes 3. MDOT TEA Enhancement Grant

• Beautification projects in one of four categories: Non-motorized Facilities, Transportation Aesthetics, Water Quality and Wildlife Mortality and Historic Preservation.

4. MDOT Local Safety Program • Specific safety improvements: new or eliminate guardrail, traffic signs and signals,

intersection improvements, drainage improvements and removing roadside obstacles. 5. MEDC Community Development Block Grant

• Numerous versions centered on local job creation (Downtown Projects) 6. Federal Aid Small Urban

• Small urban communities with road jurisdiction. All-season road projects.

090011 2-12 November 2009

7. Federal Aid Rural • Rural roadway construction projects.

8. Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot (TCSP) • Funding for planning and implementing strategies that improve the efficiency of the

transportation system, reduce environmental impacts and the need for future infrastructure projects.

9. Rural Task Force 10. Highway Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement Program

• For replacement or rehabilitation of bridges on public roads. 11. Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ)

• Funds to improve air quality through signal improvements, intersection improvements and non-motorized projects that provide alternatives to automobile travel.

12. Comprehensive Transportation Fund (CTF) • State funds for transit-related projects generated through fuel tax revenues.

13. Scenic Byways Program • State funds to designate and improve scenic byways, typically back roads to showcase beauty

and rich history. 14. Downtown Development Authority (DDA)

• Funds raised by the local district to finance local improvements within the district. 15. State and Local Bonds

• Funding supported by the sale of bonds by State and Local governments. 16. Local Millage

• Funds rose through an assessment on real property after a millage is approved by voters. A renewable resource for annual project implementation.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The priorities for street and utility infrastructure rehabilitation have been identified by categorizing

the street segments as High, Medium or Low Needs. These priorities are shown on an overall City map,

Figure 2.3. It is recommended that a program be developed to reconstruct the City streets in the High

Needs category in the next 10-year period if possible. The estimated costs (in 2009 dollars) to

reconstruct the High Needs projects is $5 million, not including cost for any necessary subgrade

undercutting or sanitary sewer replacement.

Approximately 49% of the streets and utility infrastructure are currently categorized as Medium

Needs. Without preventive maintenance, these streets will likely progress into the High Needs category

within the next 10 to 20-years. It is therefore important that the City also need to be proactive in

performing preventive maintenance on the Medium Needs projects. The financial implications of

allowing the failure of 49% of its infrastructure within a 10-year period will be extreme (approximately

$12 million in 2009 dollars).

090011 2-13 November 2009

Beyond the initial 10-year program, the City should consider budgeting to rehabilitate 5% of the

City streets on an annual basis. This would result in a 20-year cycle, which is generally considered to be

the service life of most pavement rehabilitation options.

The database that is associated with this report has been developed to allow relatively easy

updating by the City on a regular basis. An electronic copy of the report, database and exhibits have been

provided to the City for their use.

APPENDIX A

ASPHALT PASER MANUAL

PAVEMENT SURFACE EVALUATION AND RATING

PASERAsphalt Roads

Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating

PASERManualAsphalt Roads

RATING10

RATING4

RATING7

RATING1

This manual is intended to assist local officials in understanding andrating the surface condition of asphalt pavement. It describes types of defects and provides a simple system to visually rate pavementcondition. The rating procedure can be used as condition data for theWisconsin DOT local road inventory and as part of a computerizedpavement management system like PASERWARE.

The PASER system described here and in other T.I.C. publications isbased in part on a roadway management system originally developedby Phil Scherer, transportation planner, Northwest Wisconsin RegionalPlanning Commission.

Produced by the T.I.C. with support from the Federal HighwayAdministration, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and theUniversity of Wisconsin-Extension. The T.I.C., part of the nationwideLocal Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), is a Center of the College of Engineering, Department of Engineering Professional Development,University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) Manuals

Asphalt PASER Manual, 2002, 28 pp.

Brick and Block PASER Manual, 2001, 8 pp.

Concrete PASER Manual, 2002, 28 pp.

Gravel PASER Manual, 2002, 20 pp.

Sealcoat PASER Manual, 2000, 16 pp.

Unimproved Roads PASER Manual, 2001, 12 pp.

Drainage ManualLocal Road Assessment and Improvement, 2000, 16 pp.

SAFER ManualSafety Evaluation for Roadways, 1996, 40 pp.

Flagger’s Handbook (pocket-sized guide), 1998, 22 pp.

Work Zone Safety, Guidelines for Construction, Maintenance, and Utility Operations, (pocket-sized guide), 1999, 55 pp.

Wisconsin Transportation Bulletins

#1 Understanding and Using Asphalt#2 How Vehicle Loads Affect Pavement Performance#3 LCC—Life Cycle Cost Analysis#4 Road Drainage#5 Gravel Roads#6 Using Salt and Sand for Winter Road Maintenance#7 Signing for Local Roads#8 Using Weight Limits to Protect Local Roads#9 Pavement Markings

#10 Seal Coating and Other Asphalt Surface Treatments#11 Compaction Improves Pavement Performance#12 Roadway Safety and Guardrail#13 Dust Control on Unpaved Roads#14 Mailbox Safety#15 Culverts-Proper Use and Installation#16 Geotextiles in Road Construction/Maintenance and Erosion Control#17 Managing Utility Cuts#18 Roadway Management and Tort Liability in Wisconsin#19 The Basics of a Good Road#20 Using Recovered Materials in Highway Construction#21 Setting Speed Limits on Local Roads

Copyright © 1987, 1989, 2002Wisconsin Transportation Information Center

432 North Lake StreetMadison, WI 53706

phone 800/442-4615fax 608/263-3160e-mail [email protected] http://tic.engr.wisc.edu

Printed on recycled paper.



Contents

Introduction 2

Asphalt pavement distress 3

Evaluation 4

Surface defects 4

Surface deformation 5

Cracking 7

Patches and potholes 12

Rating pavement surface condition 14

Rating system 15

Rating 10 & 9 – Excellent 16

Rating 8 – Very Good 17

Rating 7 – Good 18


Rating 5 – Fair 20


Rating 3 – Poor 22

Rating 2 – Very Poor 23

Rating 1 – Failed 25

Practical advice on rating roads 26

TransportationInformation

CenterPublications

Donald Walker, T.I.C. Director, author

Lynn Entine, Entine & Associates, editor

Susan Kummer, Artifax, designer

PASERManual


Asphalt Roads

A local highway agency’s major goal is to use public funds to provide acomfortable, safe and economical road surface—no simple task. It requiresbalancing priorities and making difficult decisions in order to managepavements. Local rural and small city pavements are often managed informally,based on the staff’s judgment and experience. While this process is bothimportant and functional, using a slightly more formalized technique can makeit easier to manage pavements effectively.

Experience has shown that there are three especially useful steps inmanaging local roads:

1. Inventory all local roads and streets.

2. Periodically evaluate the condition of all pavements.

3. Use the condition evaluations to set priorities for projects and select alternative treatments.

A comprehensive pavement management system involves collecting data andassessing several road characteristics: roughness (ride), surface distress(condition), surface skid characteristics, and structure (pavement strength anddeflection). Planners can combine this condition data with economic analysis todevelop short-range and long-range plans for a variety of budget levels.However, many local agencies lack the resources for such a full-scale system.

Since surface condition is the most vital element in any pavementmanagement system, local agencies can use the simplified rating systempresented in this Asphalt PASER Manual to evaluate their roads. The PASERratings combined with other inventory data (width, length, shoulder, pavementtype, etc.) from the WisDOT local roads inventory (WISLR) can be very helpful inplanning future budgets and priorities.

WISLR inventory information and PASER ratings can be used in acomputerized pavement management system, PASERWARE, developed by theT.I.C and WisDOT. Local officials can use PASERWARE to evaluate whether theirannual road budgets are adequate to maintain or improve current roadconditions and to select the most cost-effective strategies and priorities forannual projects.

PASER Manuals for gravel, concrete, and other road surfaces, withcompatible rating systems are also available (page 29). Together they make acomprehensive condition rating method for all road types. PASER ratings areaccepted for WISLR condition data.


Asphalt PASER Manual

PASER Evaluation 3

Asphalt pavement distress

PASER uses visual inspection to evaluate pavement surface conditions. The keyto a useful evaluation is identifying different types of pavement distress andlinking them to a cause. Understanding the cause for current conditions isextremely important in selecting an appropriate maintenance or rehabilitationtechnique.

There are four major categories of common asphalt pavement surfacedistress:

Surface defectsRaveling, flushing, polishing.

Surface deformationRutting, distortion—rippling and shoving, settling, frost heave.

Cracks Transverse, reflection, slippage, longitudinal, block, and alligator cracks.

Patches and potholes

Deterioration has two general causes: environmental due to weathering andaging, and structural caused by repeated traffic loadings.

Obviously, most pavement deterioration results from both environmental andstructural causes. However, it is important to try to distinguish between thetwo in order to select the most effective rehabilitation techniques.

The rate at which pavement deteriorates depends on its environment, trafficloading conditions, original construction quality, and interim maintenanceprocedures. Poor quality materials or poor construction procedures cansignificantly reduce the life of a pavement. As a result, two pavementsconstructed at the same time may have significantly different lives, or certainportions of a pavement may deteriorate more rapidly than others. On the otherhand, timely and effective maintenance can extend a pavement’s life. Cracksealing and seal coating can reduce the effect of moisture in aging of asphaltpavement.

With all of these variables, it is easy to see why pavements deteriorate atvarious rates and why we find them in various stages of disrepair. Recognizingdefects and understanding their causes helps us rate pavement condition andselect cost-effective repairs. The pavement defects shown on the followingpages provide a background for this process.

Periodic inspection is necessary to provide current and useful evaluation data.It is recommended that PASER ratings be updated every two years, and anannual update is even better.

EVALUATION — Surface Defects4

SURFACE DEFECTS

RavelingRaveling is progressive loss of pavementmaterial from the surface downward,caused by: stripping of the bituminousfilm from the aggregate, asphalt hard-ening due to aging, poor compactionespecially in cold weather construction,or insufficient asphalt content. Slight tomoderate raveling has loss of fines.Severe raveling has loss of coarseaggregate. Raveling in the wheelpathscan be accelerated by traffic. Protectpavement surfaces from the environ-ment with a sealcoat or a thin overlay if additional strength is required.

FlushingFlushing is excess asphalt on thesurface caused by a poor initial asphaltmix design or by paving or sealcoatingover a flushed surface. Repair by blot-ting with sand or by overlaying withproperly designed asphalt mix.

PolishingPolishing is a smooth slippery surfacecaused by traffic wearing off sharpedges of aggregates. Repair withsealcoat or thin bituminous overlayusing skid-resistant aggregate.

Slight raveling.Small aggregateparticles haveworn awayexposing topsof largeaggregate.

Moderate tosevere raveling.Erosion furtherexposes largeaggregate.

Severe ravelingand loss ofsurfacematerial.

Flushing. Darkpatches showwhere asphalt

has worked to surface.

Polished, wornaggregateneeds repair. ▼

▼

▼▼

▼

EVALUATION — Surface Deformation 5

SURFACE DEFORMATION

Rutting

Rutting is displacement of material,creating channels in wheelpaths. It is caused by traffic compaction ordisplacement of unstable material.Severe rutting (over 2”) may be caused by base or subgrade consolidation. Repair minor rutting with overlays. Severe rutting requiresmilling the old surface or reconstructingthe roadbed before resurfacing.

Even slight rut-ting is evidentafter a rain.

Severe ruttingover 2” causedby poor mixdesign.

Severe ruttingcaused by poorbase orsubgrade.

▼

▼▼

EVALUATION — Surface Deformation6

Distortion

Shoving or rippling is surfacingmaterial displaced crossways to thedirection of traffic. It can develop into washboarding when the asphaltmixture is unstable because of poorquality aggregate or improper mixdesign. Repair by milling smooth andoverlaying with stable asphalt mix.

Other pavement distortions may becaused by settling, frost heave, etc.Patching may provide temporary repair. Permanent correction usuallyinvolves removal of unsuitablesubgrade material and reconstruction.

Heavy traffic has shoved pavementinto washboard ripples and bumps.

Severe settlingfrom utility

trench.

Frost heavedamage from

spring break-up.

▼▼

▼

EVALUATION — Cracks 7

CRACKS

Transverse cracks

A crack at approximately right angles to the center line is a transverse crack.They are often regularly spaced. Thecause is movement due to tempera-ture changes and hardening of theasphalt with aging.

Transverse cracks will initially bewidely spaced (over 50’). Additionalcracking will occur with aging untilthey are closely spaced (within severalfeet). These usually begin as hairline orvery narrow cracks; with aging theywiden. If not properly sealed andmaintained, secondary or multiplecracks develop parallel to the initialcrack. The crack edges can furtherdeteriorate by raveling and erodingthe adjacent pavement.

Prevent water intrusion and damageby sealing cracks which are more than 1⁄4” wide.

Sealed cracks,a few feetapart.

Widely spaced, well-sealed cracks.

Water enters unsealedcracks softeningpavement and causingsecondary cracks.

Open crack – 1⁄2” or more in width.

Pavement ravels and erodesalong open cracks causingdeterioration.

Tight cracks lessthan 1⁄4” in width.

▼

▼

▼ ▼ ▼ ▼

EVALUATION — Cracks8

Reflection cracksCracks in overlays reflect the crackpattern in the pavement underneath.They are difficult to prevent andcorrect. Thick overlays or reconstructionis usually required.

Slippage cracksCrescent or rounded cracks in thedirection of traffic, caused by slippagebetween an overlay and an underlyingpavement. Slippage is most likely tooccur at intersections where traffic isstopping and starting. Repair byremoving the top surface andresurfacing using a tack coat.

Concrete jointsreflected through

bituminousoverlay.

Crescent-shaped crackscharacteristic

of slippage.

Loss of bond between

pavement layersallows traffic

to break loosepieces of surface.

▼▼

▼


Longitudinal cracks

Cracks running in the direction of traffic are longitudinal cracks. Center line orlane cracks are caused by inadequatebonding during construction or reflectcracks in underlying pavement. Longi-tudinal cracks in the wheel path indicatefatigue failure from heavy vehicle loads.Cracks within one foot of the edge arecaused by insufficient shoulder support,poor drainage, or frost action. Cracksusually start as hairline or vary narrowand widen and erode with age. Without crack filling, they can ravel,develop multiple cracks, and becomewide enough to require patching.

Filling and sealing cracks will reducemoisture penetration and preventfurther subgrade weakening. Multiplelongitudinal cracks in the wheel path or pavement edge indicate a need for strengthening with an overlay orreconstruction.

Centerline crack(still tight).

Edge crackingfrom weakened

subbase andtraffic loads. ▼

Multiple opencracks at centerline, wheelpathsand lane center.

Load-related cracksin wheel path plus

centerline cracking.

First stage of wheelpath

cracking caused byheavy traffic loads.

▼ ▼

▼▼

EVALUATION — Cracks10

Block cracks

Block cracking is interconnected cracksforming large blocks. Cracks usually inter-sect at nearly right angles. Blocks mayrange from one foot to approximately 10’ or more across. The closer spacingindicates more advanced aging caused byshrinking and hardening of the asphaltover time. Repair with sealcoating duringearly stages to reduce weathering of theasphalt. Overlay or reconstruction required in the advanced stages.

Large blocks,approximately

10’ across.

Intermediate-sizeblock cracking,

1’-5’ across withopen cracks.

Extensive blockcracking in an

irregular pattern.

Severe blockcracking – 1‘ orsmaller blocks.

Tight cracks with no raveling.

▼

▼▼

▼


Alligator cracks

Interconnected cracks forming smallpieces ranging in size from about 1” to6”. This is caused by failure of thesurfacing due to traffic loading (fatigue)and very often also due to inadequatebase or subgrade support. Repair byexcavating localized areas and replacingbase and surface. Large areas requirereconstruction. Improvements indrainage may often be required.

Alligator crackpattern. Tight cracksand one patch.

Characteristic“chicken wire”crack patternshows smallerpavement piecesand patching.

Open raveledalligator crackingwith settlementalong lane edgemost likely due tovery soft subgrade.

▼▼

▼

EVALUATION — Patches and Potholes12

PATCHES AND POTHOLES

PatchesOriginal surface repaired with newasphalt patch material. This indicates apavement defect or utility excavationwhich has been repaired. Patches withcracking, settlement or distortionsindicate underlying causes still remain.Recycling or reconstruction are requiredwhen extensive patching shows distress.

Typical repair ofutility excavation.

Patch in fair togood condition.

Edge wedging.Pavement edges

strengthenedwith wedges ofasphalt. Patch is

in very goodcondition.

Extensivepatching in

very poorcondition.

▼▼

▼

EVALUATION — Patches and Potholes 13

Potholes

Holes and loss of pavement materialcaused by traffic loading, fatigue andinadequate strength. Often combinedwith poor drainage. Repair byexcavating or rebuilding localizedpotholes. Reconstruction required forextensive defects.

Large, isolatedpothole, extendsthrough base.Note adjacentalligator crackswhich commonlydeteriorate intopotholes.

Multiple potholesshow pavementfailure, probablydue to poorsubgrade soils,frost heave, and bad drainage.

Small potholewhere top coursehas broken away.

▼▼

▼

14

Rating pavement surface condition

With an understanding of surfacedistress, you can evaluate and rateasphalt pavement surfaces. The ratingscale ranges from 10–excellentcondition to 1–failed. Most pave-ments will deteriorate through thephases listed in the rating scale. Thetime it takes to go from excellentcondition (10) to complete failure (1)depends largely on the quality of theoriginal construction and the amountof heavy traffic loading.

Once significant deterioration begins,it is common to see pavement declinerapidly. This is usually due to a combi-nation of loading and the effects ofadditional moisture. As a pavementages and additional cracking develops,more moisture can enter the pave-ment and accelerate the rate ofdeterioration.

Look at the photographs in thissection to become familiar with thedescriptions of the individual ratingcategories. To evaluate an individualpavement segment, first determine itsgeneral condition. Is it relatively new,

toward the top end of the scale? In very poor condition and at thebottom of the scale? Or somewhere in between? Next, think generallyabout the appropriate maintenancemethod. Use the rating categoriesoutlined below.

Finally, review the individualpavement distress and select theappropriate surface rating. Individualpavements will not have all of thetypes of distress listed for anyparticular rating. They may have only one or two types.

RATINGS ARE RELATED TO NEEDED MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR

Rating 9 & 10 No maintenance required

Rating 8 Little or no maintenance

Rating 7 Routine maintenance, cracksealing and minor patching

Rating 5 & 6 Preservative treatments (sealcoating)

Rating 3 & 4 Structural improvement and leveling (overlay or recycling)

Rating 1 & 2 Reconstruction

PAVEMENT AGE

PAV

EM

EN

T C

ON

DIT

ION RATING 10

Excellent

RATING 6Good

RATING 4Fair

RATING 2Poor

In addition to indicating thesurface condition of a road, a given rating also includes arecommendation for neededmaintenance or repair. Thisfeature of the rating systemfacilitates its use and enhancesits value as a tool in ongoingroad maintenance.


Rating system

Surface rating Visible distress* General condition/treatment measures

None. New construction.10Excellent

None. Recent overlay. Like new.9Excellent

No longitudinal cracks except reflection of paving joints.Occasional transverse cracks, widely spaced (40’ or greater).All cracks sealed or tight (open less than 1⁄4”).

Recent sealcoat or new cold mix.Little or no maintenancerequired.

8Very Good

Very slight or no raveling, surface shows some traffic wear.Longitudinal cracks (open 1⁄4”) due to reflection or paving joints.Transverse cracks (open 1⁄4”) spaced 10’ or more apart, little or slightcrack raveling. No patching or very few patches in excellent condition.

First signs of aging. Maintainwith routine crack filling.7

Good

Slight raveling (loss of fines) and traffic wear.Longitudinal cracks (open 1⁄4”– 1⁄2”), some spaced less than 10’.First sign of block cracking. Sight to moderate flushing or polishing.Occasional patching in good condition.

Moderate to severe raveling (loss of fine and coarse aggregate).Longitudinal and transverse cracks (open 1⁄ 2”) show first signs of slight raveling and secondary cracks. First signs of longitudinal cracksnear pavement edge. Block cracking up to 50% of surface. Extensiveto severe flushing or polishing. Some patching or edge wedging ingood condition.

Severe surface raveling. Multiple longitudinal and transverse crackingwith slight raveling. Longitudinal cracking in wheel path. Blockcracking (over 50% of surface). Patching in fair condition.Slight rutting or distortions (1⁄2” deep or less).

Closely spaced longitudinal and transverse cracks often showingraveling and crack erosion. Severe block cracking. Some alligatorcracking (less than 25% of surface). Patches in fair to poor condition.Moderate rutting or distortion (1” or 2” deep). Occasional potholes.

Alligator cracking (over 25% of surface).Severe distortions (over 2” deep)Extensive patching in poor condition.Potholes.

Severe distress with extensive loss of surface integrity.

Shows signs of aging. Soundstructural condition. Couldextend life with sealcoat.

Surface aging. Sound structuralcondition. Needs sealcoat or thin non-structural overlay (lessthan 2”)

Significant aging and first signsof need for strengthening. Wouldbenefit from a structural overlay(2” or more).

Needs patching and repair priorto major overlay. Milling andremoval of deterioration extendsthe life of overlay.

Severe deterioration. Needsreconstruction with extensivebase repair. Pulverization of oldpavement is effective.

Failed. Needs totalreconstruction.

6Good

5Fair

4Fair

3Poor

2Very Poor

1Failed

* Individual pavements will not have all of the types of distress listed for any particular rating. They may have only one or two types.

Rating pavement surface condition16

RATING 10 & 9

EXCELLENT — No maintenance required

Newly constructed or recentlyoverlaid roads are in excellentcondition and require nomaintenance.

RATING 10New construction.

RATING 9Recent

overlay,rural.

RATING 9Recent

overlay, urban.

▼▼

▼


RATING 8

VERY GOOD — Little or no maintenance required

This category includes roads which have been recently sealcoated oroverlaid with new cold mix. It alsoincludes recently constructed or overlaid roads which may showlongitudinal or transverse cracks. All cracks are tight or sealed.

Recentchip seal.

Recentslurry seal.

Widely spaced,sealed cracks.

New cold mix surface.

▼

▼

▼▼


RATING 7

GOOD — Routine sealing recommended

Roads show first signs of aging, and they may have very slight raveling. Any longitudinal cracks are along paving joint. Transverse cracks may beapproximately 10‘ or more apart. Allcracks are 1⁄4” or less, with little or nocrack erosion. Few if any patches, all in very good condition. Maintain a cracksealing program.

Tight and sealedtransverse and

longitudinal cracks.

Transverse cracksabout 10’ or more

apart. Maintain crack sealing program.

Tight and sealedtransverse and

longitudinal cracks.Maintain crack

sealing program.

▼▼

▼


RATING 6

GOOD —Consider preservative treatment

Roads are in sound structural conditionbut show definite signs of aging. Seal-coating could extend their useful life.There may be slight surface raveling.Transverse cracks can be frequent, less than 10‘ apart. Cracks may be1⁄ 4–1⁄ 2”and sealed or open. Pavement isgenerally sound adjacent to cracks. Firstsigns of block cracking may be evident.May have slight or moderate bleeding orpolishing. Patches are in good condition.

Slight surface ravelingwith tight cracks, lessthan 10’ apart.

Large blocks, early signs ofraveling and block cracking.

Open crack, 1⁄ 2“wide; adjoiningpavement sound. Moderate flushing.

Transverse crackingless than 10’ apart;cracks well-sealed.

▼ ▼ ▼

▼▼


RATING 5

FAIR — Preservative maintenance treatment required

Roads are still in good structuralcondition but clearly need sealcoatingor overlay. They may have moderateto severe surface raveling with signifi-cant loss of aggregate. First signs oflongitudinal cracks near the edge.First signs of raveling along cracks.Block cracking up to 50% of surface.Extensive to severe flushing orpolishing. Any patches or edgewedges are in good condition.

Moderate to severe raveling in

wheel paths.

Severe flushing.

▼ Block cracking with open cracks.

Wedges and patches extensivebut in good condition.

▼

▼

▼


RATING 4

FAIR — Structural improvement required

Roads show first signs of needingstrengthening by overlay. They havevery severe surface raveling whichshould no longer be sealed. Firstlongitudinal cracking in wheel path.Many transverse cracks and some may be raveling slightly. Over 50% ofthe surface may have block cracking.Patches are in fair condition. They may have rutting less than 1⁄ 2” deepor slight distortion.

Extensive block cracking.Blocks tight and sound.

Slight rutting in wheel path.

▼

▼

Severe raveling with extreme loss of aggregate.

Longitudinal cracking;early load-relateddistress in wheel path.Strengthening needed.

▼

▼ Slight rutting; patch in good condition.

▼

Load cracking and slightrutting in wheel path.▼


RATING 3

POOR—Structural improvement required

Roads must be strengthened with astructural overlay (2“ or more). Will benefitfrom milling and very likely will requirepavement patching and repair beforehand.Cracking will likely be extensive. Ravelingand erosion in cracks may be common.Surface may have severe block crackingand show first signs of alligator cracking.Patches are in fair to poor condition. There is moderate distortion or rutting (1-2”) and occasional potholes.

Many wide andraveled cracks

indicate need formilling and overlay.

2” ruts need mill

and overlay.

Open and raveled

block cracks.

▼

▼▼


RATING 3

POOR — (continued)Structural improvement required

Alligator cracking. Edge needs repair and drainage needsimprovement prior to rehabilitation.

▼

▼ Distortion with patchesin poor condition. Repairand overlay.

RATING 2

VERY POOR—Reconstruction required

Roads are severely deteriorated and needreconstruction. Surface pulverization andadditional base may be cost-effective.These roads have more than 25%alligator cracking, severe distortion orrutting, as well as potholes or extensivepatches in poor condition.


Extensive alligatorcracking. Pulverize

and rebuild.

Patches in poorcondition, wheelpath

rutting. Pulverize,strengthen and

reconstruct.

Severe frost damage.

Reconstruct.

▼

Severe rutting. Strengthen base and reconstruct.

▼

▼

▼


RATING 1

FAILED — Reconstruction required

Roads have failed, showing severedistress and extensive loss of surfaceintegrity.

Potholes from frostdamage. Reconstruct.

Potholes and severealligator cracking.Failed pavement.Reconstruct.

Extensive lossof surface.Rebuild.

▼▼

▼

Practical advice on rating roads26

Inventory and field inspection

Most agencies routinely observe road-way conditions as a part of theirnormal work and travel. However, anactual inspection means looking at theentire roadway system as a whole andpreparing a written summary ofconditions. This inspection has manybenefits over casual observations. It canbe helpful to compare segments, andratings decisions are likely to be moreconsistent because the roadway systemis considered as a whole within arelatively short time.

An inspection also encourages areview of specific conditions importantin roadway maintenance, such as drain-age, adequate strength, and safety.

A simple written inventory is usefulin making decisions where other peopleare involved. You do not have to trustyour memory, and you can usuallyanswer questions in more detail.Having a written record and objectiveinformation also improves your credi-bility with the public.

Finally, a written inventory is veryuseful in documenting changingroadway conditions. Without recordsover several years it is impossible toknow if road conditions are improving,holding their own, or declining.

Annual budgets and long rangeplanning are best done when based onactual needs as documented with awritten inventory.

The Wisconsin DOT local roadinventory (WISLR) is a valuable resourcefor managing your local roads. AddingPASER surface condition ratings is animportant improvement.

Averaging and comparing sections

For evaluation, divide the local roadsystem into individual segments whichare similar in construction and condi-tion. Rural segments may vary from

1⁄2 mile to a mile long, while sections in urban areas will likely be 1-4 blockslong or more. If you are starting withthe WISLR Inventory, the segmentshave already been established. You maywant to review them for consistentroad conditions.

Obviously, no roadway segment isentirely consistent. Also, surfaces in onesection will not have all of the types ofdistress listed for any particular rating.They may have only one or two types.Therefore, some averaging is necessary.

The objective is to rate the conditionthat represents the majority of theroadway. Small or isolated conditionsshould not influence the rating. It isuseful to note these special conditionson the inventory form so this informa-tion can be used in planning specificimprovement projects. For example,some spot repairs may be required.

Occasionally surface conditions varysignificantly within a segment. Forexample, short sections of goodcondition may be followed by sectionsof poor surface conditions. In thesecases, it is best to rate the segmentaccording to the worst conditions andnote the variation on the form.

The overall purpose of conditionrating is to be able to compare each

segment relative to all the othersegments in your roadway system. Oncompletion you should be able to lookat any two pavement segments andfind that the better surface has ahigher rating.

Within a given rating, say 6, not allpavements will be exactly the same.However, they should all be consideredto be in better condition than thosewith lower ratings, say 5. Sometimes itis helpful in rating a difficult segmentto compare it to other previously ratedsegments. For example, if it is betterthan one you rated 5 and worse than atypical 7, then a rating of 6 isappropriate. Having all pavementsegments rated in the proper relativeorder is most important and useful.

Assessing drainage conditions

Moisture and poor pavement drainageare significant factors in pavementdeterioration. Some assessment ofdrainage conditions during pavementrating is highly recommended. Whileyou should review drainage in detail atthe project level, at this stage simplyinclude an overview drainage evalua-tion at the same time as you evaluatesurface condition.

Practical advice on rating roads

Urbandrainage.

RATING:Excellent


Consider both pavement surfacedrainage and lateral drainage (ditches orstorm sewers). Pavement should be ableto quickly shed water off the surfaceinto the lateral ditches. Ditches shouldbe large and deep enough to drain thepavement and remove the surface waterefficiently into adjacent waterways.

Look at the roadway crown andcheck for low surface areas that permitponding. Paved surfaces should haveapproximately a 2% cross slope orcrown across the roadway. This willprovide approximately 3“ of fall on a12‘ traffic lane. Shoulders should have a greater slope to improve surfacedrainage.

A pavement’s ability to carry heavytraffic loads depends on both thepavement materials (asphalt surfacingand granular base) and the strength of the underlying soils. Most soils losestrength when they are very wet.Therefore, it is important to providedrainage to the top layer of thesubgrade supporting the pavementstructure.

In rural areas, drainage is providedmost economically by open ditches thatallow soil moisture to drain laterally. Asa rule of thumb, the bottom of theditch ought to be at least one footbelow the base course of the pavementin order to drain the soils. This meansthat minimum ditch depth should beabout 2‘ below the center of thepavement. Deeper ditches, of course,are required to accommodate roadwayculverts and maintain the flow line toadjacent drainage channels or streams.

You should also check culverts andstorm drain systems. Storm drainagesystems that are silted in, have a largeaccumulation of debris, or are in poorstructural condition will also degradepavement performance.

The T.I.C. publication, DrainageManual: Local Road Assessment andImprovement, describes the elementsof drainage systems, depicts them indetailed photographs, and explains howto rate their condition. Copies areavailable from the TransportationInformation Center.

Good rural ditchand driveway

culvert. Culvertend needs

cleaning.

RATING: Good

High shoulderand no ditch lead

to pavementdamage. Needs

major ditchimprovement

for a shortdistance.

RATING: Fair

No drainage leads to failed

pavement.

RATING: Poor

Practical advice on rating roads28

Planning annual maintenanceand repair budgets

We have found that relating a normalmaintenance or rehabilitation proce-dure to the surface rating schemehelps local officials use the ratingsystem. However, an individual surfacerating should not automatically dictatethe final maintenance or rehabilitationtechnique.

You should consider future trafficprojections, original construction, and

pavement strength since these maydictate a more comprehensive rehabi-litation than the rating suggests. Onthe other hand, it may be appropriateunder special conditions to do nothingand let the pavement fully deteriorate,then rebuild when funds are available.

Summary

Using local road funds most efficientlyrequires good planning and accurateidentification of appropriate rehabili-

tation projects. Assessing roadwayconditions is an essential first step inthis process. This asphalt pavementsurface condition rating procedure has proved effective in improvingdecision making and using highwayfunds more efficiently. It can be useddirectly by local officials and staff. Itmay be combined with additionaltesting and data collection in a morecomprehensive pavement manage-ment system.

This manual is intended to assist local officials in understanding andrating the surface condition of asphalt pavement. It describes types of defects and provides a simple system to visually rate pavementcondition. The rating procedure can be used as condition data for theWisconsin DOT local road inventory and as part of a computerizedpavement management system like PASERWARE.

The PASER system described here and in other T.I.C. publications isbased in part on a roadway management system originally developedby Phil Scherer, transportation planner, Northwest Wisconsin RegionalPlanning Commission.

Produced by the T.I.C. with support from the Federal HighwayAdministration, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and theUniversity of Wisconsin-Extension. The T.I.C., part of the nationwideLocal Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), is a Center of the College of Engineering, Department of Engineering Professional Development,University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) Manuals

Asphalt PASER Manual, 2002, 28 pp.

Brick and Block PASER Manual, 2001, 8 pp.

Concrete PASER Manual, 2002, 28 pp.

Gravel PASER Manual, 2002, 20 pp.

Sealcoat PASER Manual, 2000, 16 pp.

Unimproved Roads PASER Manual, 2001, 12 pp.

Drainage ManualLocal Road Assessment and Improvement, 2000, 16 pp.

SAFER ManualSafety Evaluation for Roadways, 1996, 40 pp.

Flagger’s Handbook (pocket-sized guide), 1998, 22 pp.

Work Zone Safety, Guidelines for Construction, Maintenance, and Utility Operations, (pocket-sized guide), 1999, 55 pp.

Wisconsin Transportation Bulletins

#1 Understanding and Using Asphalt#2 How Vehicle Loads Affect Pavement Performance#3 LCC—Life Cycle Cost Analysis#4 Road Drainage#5 Gravel Roads#6 Using Salt and Sand for Winter Road Maintenance#7 Signing for Local Roads#8 Using Weight Limits to Protect Local Roads#9 Pavement Markings

#10 Seal Coating and Other Asphalt Surface Treatments#11 Compaction Improves Pavement Performance#12 Roadway Safety and Guardrail#13 Dust Control on Unpaved Roads#14 Mailbox Safety#15 Culverts-Proper Use and Installation#16 Geotextiles in Road Construction/Maintenance and Erosion Control#17 Managing Utility Cuts#18 Roadway Management and Tort Liability in Wisconsin#19 The Basics of a Good Road#20 Using Recovered Materials in Highway Construction#21 Setting Speed Limits on Local Roads

Copyright © 1987, 1989, 2002Wisconsin Transportation Information Center



Printed on recycled paper.



Contents

Introduction 2

Asphalt pavement distress 3

Evaluation 4

Surface defects 4

Surface deformation 5

Cracking 7

Patches and potholes 12


Rating system 15

Rating 10 & 9 – Excellent 16

Rating 8 – Very Good 17





Rating 3 – Poor 22

Rating 2 – Very Poor 23

Rating 1 – Failed 25


TransportationInformation

CenterPublications

PASERAsphalt Roads


PASERManualAsphalt Roads

RATING10

RATING4

RATING7

RATING1

APPENDIX B

STREET INVENTORY SUMMARY TABLE

APPENDIX BStreet Inventory Summary Table

City of West BranchNovember 2009

INP0,1,2

Inv. # Length Street Name From To TYP(A) San. Wat. SW Road "A" $ Wat. $ Sidewalk $ Total A $ PV SN WA AV Priority1 993' Annie St Lindsay Street North 6th Street 1 N Y $146,964 $73,482 $0 $220,446 9 5 6 7.5 Low2 343' Annie S North 6th Street North 5th Street 1 N N $50,764 $0 $0 $50,764 7 5 10 8.5 Low3 370' Annie Street North 5th Street North 4th Street 1 N Y $54,760 $27,380 $0 $82,140 9 5 6 7.5 Low4 338' North 6th Street Keith Court Annie Street 3 N Y $87,204 $25,012 $0 $112,216 9 5 5 7.0 Low5 840' Keith Court Lindsay Street North 6th Street 1 N Y $124,320 $62,160 $0 $186,480 9 5 5 7.0 Low6 306' North 6th Street Lindsay Street Keith Court 3 N Y $78,948 $22,644 $0 $101,592 9 5 4 6.5 Medium7 338' Lindsay Street North 6th Street North 5th Street 3 N Y 1 $87,204 $25,012 $8,112 $120,328 5 5 4 4.5 High8 729' Lindsay Street North 7th Street North 6th Street 3 N Y 1 $188,082 $53,946 $17,496 $259,524 5 5 4 4.5 High9 211' Lindsay Street Keith Court North 7th Street 3 N Y 1 $54,438 $15,614 $5,064 $75,116 5 5 5 5.0 Medium

10 359' Lindsay Street South Dow Road Keith Court 3 N Y $92,622 $26,566 $0 $119,188 5 5 5 5.0 Medium11 655' North 5th Street Lindsay Street Annie Street 3 N Y $168,990 $48,470 $0 $217,460 8 5 6 7.0 Low12 370' Lindsay Street North 5th Street North 4th Street 3 N Y 1 $95,460 $27,380 $8,880 $131,720 5 5 4 4.5 High13 692' North 4th Street Annie Street West Willow Street 1 N N $102,416 $0 $0 $102,416 5 5 7 6.0 Medium14 639' North 4th Street Lindsay Street Annie Street 1 N N 1 $94,572 $0 $15,336 $109,908 5 5 7 6.0 Medium15 433' North 4th Street Sidney Street Lindsay Street 3 N Y 1 $111,714 $32,042 $10,392 $154,148 7 5 5 6.0 Medium16 940' North 4th Street West Houghton Av Sidney Street 4 N Y $258,500 $69,560 $0 $328,060 7 5 5 6.0 Medium17 317' South 4th Street Lake State RailwayWest Houghton Av 4 N Y $87,175 $23,458 $0 $110,633 9 5 5 7.0 Low18 158' South 4th Street West Wright Street Lake State Railway 4 N Y $43,450 $11,692 $0 $55,142 9 5 5 7.0 Low19 470' South 4th Street West Ripley Street West Wright Street 3 N Y 1 $121,260 $34,780 $11,280 $167,320 5 5 5 5.0 Medium20 475' South 4th Street Morrison Street West Ripley Street 3 N Y $122,550 $35,150 $0 $157,700 6 5 3 4.5 High21 1183' South 4th Street Griffin Road Morrison Street 1 N N $175,084 $0 $0 $175,084 7 5 7 7.0 Low22 1061' Griffin Road South 4th Street West Flowage Lake 1 N N $157,028 $0 $0 $157,028 4 5 7 5.5 Medium23 776' South First Street Griffin Street end 1 N N $114,848 $0 $0 $114,848 8 5 7 7.5 Low24 1114' West Flowage LakeHansen Road Griffin Road 1 N Y $164,872 $0 $0 $164,872 7 5 0 7.0 Low25 216' West Flowage LakeCity/Township Line Hansen Road 1 N Y $31,968 $0 $0 $31,968 7 5 0 7.0 Low26 1061' Hansen Road City/Township Line W Flowage Lake R 1 N Y $157,028 $0 $0 $157,028 7 5 0 7.0 Low27 523' Hansen Road Progress Drive City/Township Line 1 N Y $77,404 $38,702 $0 $116,106 7 5 5 6.0 Medium28 982' Hansen Road Court Street Progress Street 1 N Y $145,336 $72,668 $0 $218,004 7 5 5 6.0 Medium29 1484' Progress Drive Hansen Road Columbus Drive 3 N N $382,872 $0 $0 $382,872 5 5 7 6.0 Medium30 475' Progress Drive Columbus Drive dead end 3 N N $122,550 $0 $0 $122,550 5 5 7 6.0 Medium31 982' Columbus Drive Court Street Progress Drive 3 N Y $253,356 $0 $0 $253,356 6 5 0 6.0 Medium32 686' Morrison Street South 6th Street South 4th Street 3 N Y $176,988 $50,764 $0 $227,752 6 5 6 6.0 Medium33 164' South 6th Street Morrison Street Victory Street 3 N N $42,312 $0 $0 $42,312 7 5 7 7.0 Low34 195' Victory Street South 6th Street end 1 N Y $28,860 $0 $0 $28,860 4 5 0 4.0 High35 333' Victory Street South 7th Street South 6th Street 1 N Y $49,284 $0 $0 $49,284 8 5 0 8.0 Low36 317' South 7th Street dead end Victory Street 3 N Y $81,786 $23,458 $0 $105,244 2 5 5 3.5 High37 327' Victory Street South 8th Street South 7th Street 1 N Y $48,396 $24,198 $0 $72,594 8 5 3 5.5 Medium38 322' South 8th Street Victory Street end 3 N Y $83,076 $23,828 $0 $106,904 5 5 6 5.5 Medium39 327' Victory Street Court Street South 8th Street 1 N Y $48,396 $0 $0 $48,396 8 5 0 8.0 Low40 364' South 8th Street West Ripley Street Victory Street 3 N Y $93,912 $26,936 $0 $120,848 6 5 6 6.0 Medium41 338' West Ripley Street Court Street South 8th Street 3 N Y $87,204 $0 $0 $87,204 8 5 0 8.0 Low42 465' South 8th Street West Ripley Street West Wright Street 3 N Y $119,970 $34,410 $0 $154,380 4 5 5 4.5 High

INPUT From RatingsStreet Information 1,2,3…..10 RatingsCalculated Costs

C2AE# 090011West Branch Street Inventory 090011.C.090714.Inventory.xls

November 2009Page 1



INP0,1,2

Inv. # Length Street Name From To TYP(A) San. Wat. SW Road "A" $ Wat. $ Sidewalk $ Total A $ PV SN WA AV Priority


43 312' West Wright Street Court Street South 8th Street 3 N Y $80,496 $23,088 $0 $103,584 5 5 5 5.0 Medium44 486' South 8th Street West Wright St West Houghton Av 4 N Y $133,650 $35,964 $0 $169,614 2 5 5 3.5 High45 676' North Eight Street West Houghton Av Industrial 1 N Y $100,048 $50,024 $0 $150,072 3 5 5 4.0 High46 338' Industrial North 8th Street North 7th Street 1 N Y $50,024 $25,012 $0 $75,036 4 5 5 4.5 High47 929' North 7th Street Industrial Lindsay 1 N Y $137,492 $68,746 $0 $206,238 5 5 5 5.0 Medium48 269' North 7th Street Lake State RR Industrial 1 N Y $39,812 $19,906 $0 $59,718 3 5 5 4.0 High49 412' North 7th Street West Houghton Str Lake State RR 1 N Y $60,976 $30,488 $0 $91,464 3 5 5 4.0 High50 480' South 7th Street West Wright Street West Houghton Str 4 N Y $132,000 $35,520 $0 $167,520 3 5 5 4.0 High51 465' South 7th Street West Ripley Street West Wright Street 3 N Y $119,970 $34,410 $0 $154,380 5 5 3 4.0 High52 360' South 7th Street Victory Street West Ripley Street 3 N Y 2 $92,880 $26,640 $17,280 $136,800 6 5 3 4.5 High53 343' South 6th Street Victory Street West Ripley Street 3 N Y $88,494 $25,382 $0 $113,876 7 5 5 6.0 Medium54 465' South 6th Street West Ripley Street West Wright Street 3 N Y $119,970 $34,410 $0 $154,380 7 5 5 6.0 Medium55 491' South 6th Street West Wright Street West Houghton Str 4 N N $135,025 $0 $0 $135,025 5 5 7 6.0 Medium56 122' South 6th Street Morrison Street end 1 N Y $18,056 $9,028 $0 $27,084 7 5 5 6.0 Medium57 433' North 5th Street attribute change Lindsay Street 3 N Y $111,714 $0 $0 $111,714 5 5 0 5.0 Medium58 803' North 5th Street Lake State RailwayRiver 3 N Y $207,174 $59,422 $0 $266,596 5 5 3 4.0 High59 111' North 5th Street West Houghton Str Lake State Railway 4 N Y $30,525 $8,214 $0 $38,739 5 5 5 5.0 Medium60 486' South 5th Street West Wright Street West Houghton Str 1 N Y $71,928 $35,964 $0 $107,892 5 5 5 5.0 Medium61 460' South 5th Street West Ripley Street West Wright Street 1 N Y $68,080 $34,040 $0 $102,120 3 5 6 4.5 High62 100' South 3rd Street Dead End Attribute Change 3 N Y $25,800 $7,400 $0 $33,200 8 5 4 6.0 Medium63 502' South 3rd Steet West Ripley Street Attribute Change 3 N Y 1 $129,516 $0 $12,048 $141,564 8 5 0 8.0 Low64 70' West Ripley Street South 3rd Street RR 1 N Y 1 $10,360 $0 $1,680 $12,040 8 5 0 8.0 Low65 343' West Ripley Street South 4th Street South 3rd Street 3 N Y $88,494 $25,382 $0 $113,876 8 5 4 6.0 Medium66 359' West Ripley Street South 5th Street South 4th Street 3 N Y $90,042 $25,826 $0 $115,868 8 5 5 6.5 Medium67 349' West Ripley Street South 6th Street South 5th Street 3 N N $90,042 $0 $0 $90,042 8 5 10 9.0 Low68 322' West Ripley Street South 7th Street South 6th Street 3 N Y $83,076 $23,828 $0 $106,904 8 5 6 7.0 Low69 322' West Ripley Street South 8th Street South 7th Street 3 N Y $83,076 $0 $0 $83,076 8 5 0 8.0 Low70 333' West Wright Street South 8th Street S 7th Street 3 N Y $85,914 $24,642 $0 $110,556 5 5 5 5.0 Medium71 348' West Wright Street South 7th Street South 6th Street 3 N Y $89,784 $0 $0 $89,784 5 5 0 5.0 Medium72 338' West Wright Street South 6th Street South 5th Street 3 N Y $87,204 $0 $0 $87,204 5 5 0 5.0 Medium73 370' West Wright Street South 5th Street South 4th Street 3 N Y $95,460 $27,380 $0 $122,840 5 5 6 5.5 Medium74 132' West Wright Street South 4th Street Lake State Railway 3 N Y $34,056 $0 $0 $34,056 9 5 0 9.0 Low75 211' West Wright Street Lake State RailwaySouth 3rd Street 3 N Y $54,438 $0 $0 $54,438 9 5 0 9.0 Low76 333' West Wright Street South 3rd Street South 2nd Street 3 N Y $85,914 $24,642 $0 $110,556 9 5 6 7.5 Low77 322' West Wright Street South 2nd Street South 1st Street 3 N Y $83,076 $23,828 $0 $106,904 9 5 5 7.0 Low78 90' West Wright Street South 1st Street end 1 N Y $13,320 $0 $0 $13,320 7 5 0 7.0 Low79 470' South 1st Street East Ripley Street West Wright Street 3 N Y $121,260 $34,780 $0 $156,040 8 5 4 6.0 Medium80 512' South 1st Street Shrigley Street East Ripley Street 3 N N $132,096 $0 $0 $132,096 8 5 7 7.5 Low81 422' East Ripley Street South 1st Street South Livingston St 3 N Y $108,876 $31,228 $0 $140,104 7 5 4 5.5 Medium82 343' Shrigley Street South Burgess StreSouth Livingston St 1 N N $50,764 $0 $0 $50,764 5 5 7 6.0 Medium83 449' South Livingston StE.Houghton Ave river 1 N Y 1 $66,452 $33,226 $10,776 $110,454 8 5 4 6.0 Medium84 275' South Livingston StEast Ripley Street river 1 N Y $40,700 $0 $0 $40,700 8 5 0 8.0 Low


November 2009Page 2



INP0,1,2



85 555' South Livingston StShrigley Street East Ripley Street 1 N Y $82,140 $41,070 $0 $123,210 7 5 4 5.5 Medium86 396' Shrigley Street South Livingston StSouth 1st Street 3 N N $102,168 $0 $0 $102,168 8 5 7 7.5 Low87 549' South Burgess StreShrigley Street East Ripley Street 1 N Y 1 $81,252 $40,626 $13,176 $135,054 7 5 5 6.0 Medium88 296' East Ripley Street South Livingston StSouth Burgess Stre 3 N N 1 $76,368 $0 $7,104 $83,472 7 5 9 8.0 Low89 650' Shrigley Street South Valley StreetSouth Brugess Stre 3 N N $167,700 $0 $0 $167,700 5 5 7 6.0 Medium90 481' Irons Park Drive South Valley Streetend Y Y $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0.0 High91 1008' South Valley StreetShrigley Griffin Road 3 N N $249,228 $0 $0 $249,228 3 5 8 5.5 Medium92 623' South Valley StreetGriffen Road Refinery Road 3 N Y $160,734 $0 $0 $160,734 8 5 0 8.0 Low93 1172' Refinery Road Parkway Drive South Valley Street 1 N Y $173,456 $0 $0 $173,456 8 5 0 8.0 Low94 977' Refinery Road Cook Road Parkway Drive 1 N Y $144,596 $0 $0 $144,596 8 5 0 8.0 Low95 1706' Parkway Drive Refinery Road Griffin Road 3 N N $440,148 $0 $0 $440,148 3 5 7 5.0 Medium96 2334' Cook Road Refinery Road Griffin Road 1 N Y $345,432 $0 $0 $345,432 6 5 0 6.0 Medium97 285' Griffin Road Attribute Change Cook Road 3 N N $73,530 $0 $0 $73,530 3 5 7 5.0 Medium98 348' Griffin Road Parkway Drive Attribute Change 3 N N $89,784 $0 $0 $89,784 3 5 7 5.0 Medium99 655' Griffin Road South Valley StreetParkway Drive 3 N N $168,990 $0 $0 $168,990 3 5 7 5.0 Medium100 1004' South Valley StreetHall Street Shrigley Street 3 N Y $259,032 $74,296 $0 $333,328 3 5 3 3.0 High101 143' South Valley StreetPage Street Hall Street 3 N Y $36,894 $10,582 $0 $47,476 3 5 3 3.0 High102 360' South Valley StreetW Houghton Page St. 4 N Y $99,000 $26,640 $0 $125,640 3 5 3 3.0 High103 687' Page Street South Valley StreetMead Street 1 N Y $101,676 $50,838 $0 $152,514 7 5 4 5.5 Medium104 750' Mead Street Page Street end 1 N Y $111,000 $55,500 $0 $166,500 7 5 4 5.5 Medium105 391' Mead Street East Houghton StrePage Street 1 N Y $57,868 $0 $0 $57,868 7 5 0 7.0 Low106 607' Cemetery Street Attribute Change end 1 N Y $89,836 $0 $0 $89,836 7 5 0 7.0 Low107 211' Cemetery Street East Houghton St Attribute change 1 N Y $31,228 $0 $0 $31,228 5 5 0 5.0 Medium108 365' Hall Street MacGregor Court South Valley Street 3 N Y $94,170 $27,010 $0 $121,180 6 5 4 5.0 Medium109 270' Hall Street South Burgess StreMacGregor Court 3 N Y $69,660 $19,980 $0 $89,640 6 5 4 5.0 Medium110 132' South Burgess StreHall Street river 3 N Y $34,056 $0 $0 $34,056 6 5 0 6.0 Medium111 507' South Burgress Str East Houghton AveHall Street 4 N Y $139,425 $37,518 $0 $176,943 6 5 4 5.0 Medium112 507' MacGregor Court Hall Street East Houghton Stre 1 N Y $75,036 $37,518 $0 $112,554 8 5 5 6.5 Medium113 428' North 6th Street Lindsey dead end 1 N Y $66,452 $0 $0 $66,452 5 5 0 5.0 Medium114 586' South 2nd Street end West Wright 2 N Y $147,672 $43,364 $0 $191,036 8 5 5 6.5 Medium115 491' South 2nd Street West Wright Street West Houghton Str 4 N Y $135,025 $36,334 $0 $171,359 9 5 5 7.0 Low116 80' South 3rd Street West Ripley Ave RR 1 N Y $11,840 $5,920 $0 $17,760 4 5 4 4.0 High117 100' South 3rd Street RR West Wright Street 1 N Y $14,800 $0 $0 $14,800 9 5 0 9.0 Low118 491' South 3rd Street West Wright Street West Houghton Av 4 N Y $135,025 $36,334 $0 $171,359 9 5 6 7.5 Low119 935' North 3rd Street West Houghton Av Sidney Street 4 N Y 2 $257,125 $69,190 $44,880 $371,195 5 5 3 4.0 High120 460' North 3rd Street Sidney Street Lindsay Street 3 N Y 1 $118,680 $34,040 $11,040 $163,760 5 5 5 5.0 Medium121 460' North 3rd Street Lindsay Street Spruce Street 3 N Y $118,680 $34,040 $0 $152,720 5 5 6 5.5 Medium122 845' North 3rd Street Spruce Street West Willow Street 3 N Y $218,010 $62,530 $0 $280,540 5 5 3 4.0 High123 840' North 2nd Street Spruce Street West Willow Street 1 N Y $124,320 $62,160 $0 $186,480 4 5 6 5.0 Medium124 470' North 2nd Street Lindsay Street Spruce Street 1 N Y $69,560 $34,780 $0 $104,340 4 5 5 4.5 High


November 2009Page 3



INP0,1,2



125 465' North 2nd Street Sidney Street Lindsay Street 1 N Y $68,820 $0 $0 $68,820 7 5 0 7.0 Low126 940' North 2nd Street West Houghton Str Sidney Street 4 N Y 1 $258,500 $69,560 $22,560 $350,620 6 5 3 4.5 High127 834' North 1st Street Spruce Street West Willow Street 1 N Y $123,432 $61,716 $0 $185,148 9 5 5 7.0 Low128 475' North 1st Street Lindsay Street Spruce Street 1 N Y $70,300 $35,150 $0 $105,450 9 5 5 7.0 Low129 486' North 1st Street East State Street Lindsay Street 3 N Y 1 $125,388 $35,964 $11,664 $173,016 6 5 5 5.5 Medium130 380' Spruce Street North 2nd Street North 1st Street 1 N Y $56,240 $0 $0 $56,240 8 5 0 8.0 Low131 343' Spruce Street North 3rd Street North 2nd Street 1 N Y $50,764 $0 $0 $50,764 8 5 0 8.0 Low132 354' Lindsay Street North 4th Street North 3rd Street 1 N Y 1 $52,392 $26,196 $8,496 $87,084 9 5 6 7.5 Low133 333' Lindsay Street North 3rd Street North 2nd Street 1 N Y 1 $49,284 $0 $7,992 $57,276 9 5 0 9.0 Low134 380' Lindsay Street North 2nd Street North 1st Street 1 N Y 1 $56,240 $0 $9,120 $65,360 9 5 0 9.0 Low135 349' Sidney Street North 4th Street North 3rd Street 3 N N $90,042 $0 $0 $90,042 9 5 9 9.0 Low136 328' Sidney Street North 3rd Street North 2nd Street 3 N N $84,624 $0 $0 $84,624 9 5 9 9.0 Low137 401' Sidney Street North 2nd Street North 1st Street 3 N N $103,458 $0 $0 $103,458 10 5 7 8.5 Low138 354' North 1st Street Prospect East State Street 3 N Y $91,332 $26,196 $0 $117,528 9 5 3 6.0 Medium139 180' Prospect North 1st Street end N Y $0 $0 $0 $0 0 5 0 0.0 High140 254' North 1st Street Carpenter Street Prospect 3 N Y $65,532 $18,796 $0 $84,328 9 5 3 6.0 Medium141 328' North 1st Street East Houghton StreCarpenter Street 4 N Y $90,200 $0 $0 $90,200 9 5 0 9.0 Low142 660' Carpenter Street North 1st Street North Burgess Stre 3 N Y 1 $170,280 $48,840 $15,840 $234,960 6 5 4 5.0 Medium143 322' North Burgess StreEast Houghton AveCarpenter Street 4 N Y $88,550 $23,828 $0 $112,378 7 5 5 6.0 Medium144 924' North Burgess StreEast State Street Carpenter Street 3 N Y 1 $238,392 $68,376 $22,176 $328,944 7 5 5 6.0 Medium145 730' East State Street North 1st Street North Burgess Stre 3 N Y $188,340 $54,020 $0 $242,360 8 5 5 6.5 Medium146 243' East State Street North Burgess StreThomas Street 3 N Y $62,694 $17,982 $0 $80,676 8 5 5 6.5 Medium147 486' East State Street Thomas Street North Valley Street 3 N Y $125,388 $35,964 $0 $161,352 8 5 5 6.5 Medium148 1463' East State Street North Valley Street Fairview Road 3 N N $377,454 $0 $0 $377,454 8 5 7 7.5 Low149 830' Thomas Street Attribute Change end 1 N Y $122,840 $61,420 $0 $184,260 9 5 4 6.5 Medium150 497' Thomas Street East State Street Attribute Change 3 N Y $128,226 $36,778 $0 $165,004 9 5 4 6.5 Medium151 898' North Valley Street Fremont Street East State Street 3 N Y $231,684 $66,452 $0 $298,136 9 5 5 7.0 Low152 697' North Valley Street East Houghton AveFremont Street 4 N Y $191,675 $51,578 $0 $243,253 9 5 5 7.0 Low153 285' Fremont Street North Valley Street Burr Street 3 N Y 1 $73,530 $21,090 $6,840 $101,460 6 5 4 5.0 Medium154 290' Burr Street Fremont Street end 1 N Y $42,920 $21,460 $0 $64,380 6 5 3 4.5 High155 666' Fremont Street Burr Street Alto Court 3 N Y 1 $171,828 $49,284 $15,984 $237,096 6 5 3 4.5 High156 344' Fremont Street Alto Court North Fairview Stre 3 N Y 1 $88,752 $25,456 $8,256 $122,464 6 5 3 4.5 High157 396' Alto Court Fremont Street Attribute Change 3 N Y $102,168 $29,304 $0 $131,472 6 5 4 5.0 Medium158 36' Alto Court Attribute Change end 3 N Y $9,288 $2,664 $0 $11,952 6 5 4 5.0 Medium159 702' North Fairview StreEast Houghton StreFremont Street 1 N Y $103,896 $51,948 $0 $155,844 5 5 3 4.0 High160 1580' North Fairview StreFremont Street East State Street 1 N Y $233,840 $116,920 $0 $350,760 5 5 3 4.0 High161 582' North Fairview StreEast State Street City/Twp line 1 N Y $86,136 $43,068 $0 $129,204 5 5 3 4.0 High162 333' Willow St 4th Street 3rd Street 1 N Y $49,284 $24,642 $0 $73,926 7 5 5 6.0 Medium163 338' Willow St 2nd Street 3rd Street 1 N Y $50,024 $25,012 $0 $75,036 7 5 5 6.0 Medium164 370' Willow St. 1st Street 2nd Street 1 N Y $54,760 $27,380 $0 $82,140 7 5 5 6.0 Medium

Inv. # Length Street Name From To TYP(A) San. Wat. SW $17,762,050 $3,765,046 $323,472 $21,850,568 PV SN WA AV Priority


November 2009Page 4

APPENDIX C

TYPICAL SECTIONS

SCALE:

PROJ. #.:

DATE:

AS SHOWN

090011

NOV 2009

C1

FIN

AL

OGEMAW COUNTY, MICHIGAN

----

CITY OF WEST BRANCH 10 YEARINFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT PLAN

TYPICAL 34' RESIDENTALSECTION (DITCHING)

APPROVED BY:

DWG'S MOD BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY:

-

-

-

-

PLOTTED BY: POYNTER, AMANDA 11/30/2009 2:52 PMR:\GA\2009\090011.GA.WB.10YRINFRASREPLACE\_DRAWINGS\SHEETS\C1 TYPICAL.DWG - C1 TYPICALC2AE.STANDARD.STB WE RECYCLE

WWW.C2AE.COM

TM

SHEET

COPYRIGHT © 2008 THIS DOCUMENT AND DESIGN ARE THE PROPERTY OF C2AE. NO MODIFICATIONS AND/OR TRANSFERS OF WORK ARE PERMITTED UNLESS GRANTED BY C2AE.

SCALE:

PROJ. #.:

DATE:

AS SHOWN

090011

NOV 2009

C2

FIN

AL


----


TYPICAL 31' SECOND ST.SECTION (CURB & GUTTER)

APPROVED BY:

DWG'S MOD BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY:

-

-

-

-


WWW.C2AE.COM

TM

SHEET


SCALE:

PROJ. #.:

DATE:

AS SHOWN

090011

NOV 2009

C3

FIN

AL


----


TYPICAL 34' RESIDENTIALSECTION (CURB & GUTTER)

APPROVED BY:

DWG'S MOD BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY:

-

-

-

-


WWW.C2AE.COM

TM

SHEET


SCALE:

PROJ. #.:

DATE:

AS SHOWN

090011

NOV 2009

C4

FIN

AL


----


TYPICAL 45' COMMERCIALSECTION (CURB & GUTTER)

APPROVED BY:

DWG'S MOD BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY:

-

-

-

-


WWW.C2AE.COM

TM

SHEET


APPENDIX D

PROPOSED COST OPINIONS

Item # ITEM DESCRIPTIONEstimated Quantity

Item Unit Unit Price Total Price

A1 Adjust Valve Box or WSO 4 EACH $150.00 $600.00

A2 Adjust Drainage Structure or Manhole 4 EACH $250.00 $1,000.00

A3 Remove Drainage Structure or Manhole 2 EACH $350.00 $700.00

A4 Remove Tree 5 EACH $400.00 $2,000.00

A5 Remove Drainage Culvert 10 EACH $100.00 $1,000.00

A6 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 48 SYD $4.00 $192.00

A7 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 200 LFT $4.00 $800.00

A8 Install 18" CMP Drainage Culvert 200 LFT $30.00 $6,000.00

A9 Machine Grading Modified 10 STA $1,400.00 $14,000.00

A10 6" 23A Surface Course (Driveways & Shoulder) 556 SYD $5.00 $2,780.00

A11 6" 22A Aggregate Base 4067 SYD $5.00 $20,335.00

A12 HMA Pavement, MDOT Mixture 13A-L (2") 392 TON $55.00 $21,560.00

A13 HMA Pavement, MDOT Mixture 13A-T (1-1/2") 294 TON $55.00 $16,170.00

A14 HMA Approach 78 TON $80.00 $6,240.00

A15 4" Concrete Sidewalk & Ramps (Replace Ex. Ramps only) 600 SFT $4.00 $2,400.00

A16 Concrete Curb & Gutter, MDOT Detail F-4 200 LFT $15.00 $3,000.00

A17 Minor Traffic Devices & Construction Signing 1 LSUM $7,500.00 $7,500.00

A18 Pavement Markings 1 LSUM $1,000.00 $1,000.00

A19 Restoration 3" Topsoil & Class A Seed 3556 SYD $3.00 $10,668.00

$117,945.00

$118.00$11.80$17.70

$148.00

$59.00$5.90$8.85

$74.00

$222.00

SUBTOTAL

ENGINEERING COST/FT

APPENDIX D1: RESIDENTAIL STREET 34' WIDE HMA WITH B IKE LANES AND DITCHING

10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES COST/FT

TOTAL COST/FT

TOTAL COST/FT

STREET & WATER MAIN TOTAL COST/FT

ENGINEERING COST/FT

WATER MAIN COST/FT10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES COST/FT

STREET REPLACEMENT COST/FT

OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS

C2AE# 090011Street Inventory 090011.C.OPCC.Typicals.xls

11/30/2009Page 1







A5 Remove Drainage Culvert 2 EACH $100.00 $200.00

A6 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 556 SYD $4.00 $2,224.00

A7 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 2000 LFT $4.00 $8,000.00

A8 4' Dia. Storm Manhole including Casting 4 EACH $2,000.00 $8,000.00

A9 4' Dia. Catch Basin including Casting 8 EACH $2,000.00 $16,000.00

A10 2' Dia. Catch Basing including Casting 4 EACH $1,500.00 $6,000.00

A11 12" Dia. Storm Sewer 1302 LFT $20.00 $26,040.00

A12 15" Dia. Storm Sewer 0 LFT $22.00 $0.00



A15 Tap Existing Drainage Structure or Manhole 2 EACH $750.00 $1,500.00

A16 Connect to Existing Drainage Structure or Manhole 2 EACH $750.00 $1,500.00


A18 6" 23A Surface Course (Driveways) 112 SYD $5.00 $560.00





A23 4" Concrete Sidewalk & Ramps 600 SFT $4.00 $2,400.00



A26 Pavement Markings 1 LSUM $500.00 $500.00


$200,139.00

$201.00$20.10$30.15

$252.00

$59.00$5.90$8.85

$74.00

$326.00

TOTAL COST/FT


WATER MAIN COST/FT

SUBTOTAL


APPENDIX D2: SECOND STREET 31' WIDE HMA WITH CONCRE TE CURB AND GUTTER

ENGINEERING COST/FT

ENGINEERING COST/FT


TOTAL COST/FT



C2AE# 04645.3-20Street Inventory 090011.C.OPCC.Typicals.xls

11/30/2009Page 2






























$205,494.00

$206.00$20.60$30.90

$258.00

$59.00$5.90$8.85

$74.00

$332.00

SUBTOTAL


APPENDIX D3: RESIDENTIAL 34' WIDE HMA WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER

ENGINEERING COST/FT

ENGINEERING COST/FT


TOTAL COST/FT


TOTAL COST/FT


WATER MAIN COST/FT



11/30/2009Page 3






























$219,586.00

$220.00$22.00$33.00

$275.00

$59.00$5.90$8.85

$74.00

$349.00

SUBTOTAL


APPENDIX D4: COMMERCIAL STREET 45' WIDE HMA WITH CO NCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND PARKING

WATER MAIN COST/FT

ENGINEERING COST/FT

10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES COST/FTENGINEERING COST/FT

TOTAL COST/FT


TOTAL COST/FT




11/30/2009Page 4



B1 Adjust Valve Box or WSO 1 EACH $150.00 $150.00

B2 1" Dia. Tapping Saddle & Corporation Stop 19 EACH $150.00 $2,850.00

B3 1" Dia. Type K Copper Service Lead 770 LFT $15.00 $11,550.00

B4 1" Dia. Curb Stop & Box 19 EACH $150.00 $2,850.00

B5 2" Dia. Tapping Saddle & Corporation Stop 1 EACH $300.00 $300.00

B6 2" Dia. Type K Copper Service Lead 60 LFT $20.00 $1,200.00

B7 2" Dia. Curb Stop & Box 1 EACH $300.00 $300.00

B8 8" Dia. C-900 PVC Water Main 1000 LFT $20.00 $20,000.00

B9 8" Dia. Gate Valve & Box 5 EACH $750.00 $3,750.00

B10 8" Dia. 90 Degree Bend 1 EACH $250.00 $250.00

B11 8" Dia. 45 Degree Bend 4 EACH $250.00 $1,000.00

B12 8" Dia. 22.5 Degree Bend 2 EACH $250.00 $500.00


B14 8"x8"x8" Tee 1 EACH $325.00 $325.00

B15 8"x6" Reducer 1 EACH $75.00 $75.00

B16 6" Dia. C-900 PVC Water Main 20 LFT $30.00 $600.00

B17 6" Dia. Gate Valve & Box 1 EACH $550.00 $550.00





B22 6"x6"x6" Tee 1 EACH $200.00 $200.00

B23 6"x4" Reducer 1 EACH $70.00 $70.00

B24 4" Dia. C-900 PVC Water Main 20 LFT $30.00 $600.00

B25 Connect to Existing Water Main 4 EACH $750.00 $3,000.00

B26 Fire Hydrant Assembly 3 EACH $2,500.00 $7,500.00

$58,645.00

$59.00$5.90$8.85

$74.00

APPENDIX D5: WATER MAIN COST PER FOOT

WATER MAIN COST/FT

WATER MAIN SUBTOTAL=

10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES COST/FTENGINEERING COST/FT

TOTAL COST/FT



11/30/2009Page 5

COPYRIGHT © 2007THIS DOCUMENT AND DESIGN ARE THE

PROPERTY OF C2AE. NO MODIFICATIONSAND/OR TRANSFERS OF WORK ARE

PERMITTED UNLESS GRANTED BY C2AE.

WE

RE

CY

CLE

SHEET

REVISIONS

616.4

54.94

14Gr

and

Rapid

s, M

ichiga

n 49

503

648 M

onro

e Ave

nue N

W, S

uite 2

10

517.3

71.12

00La

nsing

, Mich

igan

4890

672

5 Prud

den S

treet

989.7

32.81

31Ga

ylord

, Mich

igan

4973

412

3 Wes

t Main

Stre

et, S

uite 2

00

WW

W.C

2AE.

COM

TM

AP

PR

OV

ED

BY

:

DW

G'S

MO

D B

Y:

DE

SIG

NE

D B

Y:

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y:

AS SHOWN

090011

FIN

AL

OG

EM

AW

CO

UN

TY, M

ICH

IGA

N

---- CIT

Y O

F W

ES

T B

RA

NC

H 1

0 Y

EA

RIN

FRA

STR

UC

TUR

E R

EP

LAC

EM

EN

T P

LAN

- -

- -

PLO

TTE

D B

Y:PO

YN

TER

, AM

AN

DA

11/3

0/20

09 2

:50

PM

R:\G

A\2

009\

0900

11.G

A.W

B.1

0yrIn

frasR

epla

ce\_

Dra

win

gs\S

heet

s\1

Stre

et In

vent

ory.

dwg

- 2

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER

C2A

E.S

TAN

DA

RD

.STB

NOV 2009

1.1

--------------------

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER

AN

DS

IDE

WA

LK M

AP

FIN

AL

SCALE:

PROJ. #:

DATE:




WE

RE

CY

CLE

SHEET

REVISIONS

616.4

54.94

14Gr

and

Rapid

s, M

ichiga

n 49

503

648 M

onro

e Ave

nue N

W, S

uite 2

10

517.3

71.12

00La

nsing

, Mich

igan

4890

672

5 Prud

den S

treet

989.7

32.81

31Ga

ylord

, Mich

igan

4973

412

3 Wes

t Main

Stre

et, S

uite 2

00

WW

W.C

2AE.

COM

TM

AP

PR

OV

ED

BY

:

DW

G'S

MO

D B

Y:

DE

SIG

NE

D B

Y:

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y:

AS SHOWN

090011

FIN

AL

OG

EM

AW

CO

UN

TY, M

ICH

IGA

N

---- CIT

Y O

F W

ES

T B

RA

NC

H 1

0 Y

EA

RIN

FRA

STR

UC

TUR

E R

EP

LAC

EM

EN

T P

LAN

- -

- -

PLO

TTE

D B

Y:PO

YN

TER

, AM

AN

DA

11/3

0/20

09 2

:50

PM

R:\G

A\2

009\

0900

11.G

A.W

B.1

0yrIn

frasR

epla

ce\_

Dra

win

gs\S

heet

s\1

Stre

et In

vent

ory.

dwg

- 1

STR

EE

T IN

VE

NTO

RY

C2A

E.S

TAN

DA

RD

.STB

NOV 2009

2.1

--------------------

PA

VE

ME

NT

SU

RFA

CE

RA

TIN

G M

AP

FIN

AL

SCALE:

PROJ. #:

DATE:




WE

RE

CY

CLE

SHEET

REVISIONS

616.4

54.94

14Gr

and

Rapid

s, M

ichiga

n 49

503

648 M

onro

e Ave

nue N

W, S

uite 2

10

517.3

71.12

00La

nsing

, Mich

igan

4890

672

5 Prud

den S

treet

989.7

32.81

31Ga

ylord

, Mich

igan

4973

412

3 Wes

t Main

Stre

et, S

uite 2

00

WW

W.C

2AE.

COM

TM

AP

PR

OV

ED

BY

:

DW

G'S

MO

D B

Y:

DE

SIG

NE

D B

Y:

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y:

AS SHOWN

090011

FIN

AL

OG

EM

AW

CO

UN

TY, M

ICH

IGA

N

---- CIT

Y O

F W

ES

T B

RA

NC

H 1

0 Y

EA

RIN

FRA

STR

UC

TUR

E R

EP

LAC

EM

EN

T P

LAN

- -

- -

PLO

TTE

D B

Y:PO

YN

TER

, AM

AN

DA

11/3

0/20

09 2

:50

PM

R:\G

A\2

009\

0900

11.G

A.W

B.1

0yrIn

frasR

epla

ce\_

Dra

win

gs\S

heet

s\1

Stre

et In

vent

ory.

dwg

- 3

WA

TER

MA

INC

2AE

.STA

ND

AR

D.S

TB

NOV 2009

2.2

--------------------

WA

TER

MA

IN S

YS

TEM

RA

TIN

G M

AP

FIN

AL

SCALE:

PROJ. #:

DATE:




WE

RE

CY

CLE

SHEET

REVISIONS

616.4

54.94

14Gr

and

Rapid

s, M

ichiga

n 49

503

648 M

onro

e Ave

nue N

W, S

uite 2

10

517.3

71.12

00La

nsing

, Mich

igan

4890

672

5 Prud

den S

treet

989.7

32.81

31Ga

ylord

, Mich

igan

4973

412

3 Wes

t Main

Stre

et, S

uite 2

00

WW

W.C

2AE.

COM

TM

AP

PR

OV

ED

BY

:

DW

G'S

MO

D B

Y:

DE

SIG

NE

D B

Y:

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y:

AS SHOWN

090011

FIN

AL

OG

EM

AW

CO

UN

TY, M

ICH

IGA

N

---- CIT

Y O

F W

ES

T B

RA

NC

H 1

0 Y

EA

RIN

FRA

STR

UC

TUR

E R

EP

LAC

EM

EN

T P

LAN

- -

- -

PLO

TTE

D B

Y:PO

YN

TER

, AM

AN

DA

11/3

0/20

09 2

:50

PM

R:\G

A\2

009\

0900

11.G

A.W

B.1

0yrIn

frasR

epla

ce\_

Dra

win

gs\S

heet

s\1

Stre

et In

vent

ory.

dwg

- 4

PR

IOR

ITIE

SC

2AE

.STA

ND

AR

D.S

TB

NOV 2009

2.3

--------------------

INFR

AS

TRU

CTU

RE

PR

IOR

ITY

MA

P

FIN

AL

SCALE:

PROJ. #:

DATE:

Documents

10 Year Infrastructure Replacement Plan - … Year Infrastructure Replacement Plan November 30, 2009 City of West Branch Ogemaw County, Michigan Table of Contents 090011 i November