Action Plan and Summary for Roads to Gravel

Transcription

1 Impact of Energy Sector and Heavy Commercial Development Action Plan and Summary for Roads to Gravel Research Report RR Prepared for Texas Department of Transportation Maintenance Division Prepared by L. G. Passmore August 2013

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES... II LIST OF TABLES... II HEAVY COMMERCIAL IMPACTS... 1 I: ACCESS INCREASE TRAFFIC VOLUMES... 1 II: MONITOR / MAINTAIN / PAVED... 1 III: LOAD POST... 2 IV: CONVERT TO GRAVEL... 2 V: MONITOR / MAINTAIN / GRAVEL... 2 FACTS... 3 FOUR YEAR PLAN... 3 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION... 4 I: SELECTION CRITERIA (FOR CONVERSION TO GRAVEL SURFACE):... 4 II: CURRENT ROADWAYS SELECTED FOR POTENTIAL CONVERSION TO GRAVEL:... 4 APPENDIX A - PMIS CONDITION SCORES, PMIS COMPARISON, IMAGES, MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES, FIGURES, CURRENT IMAGES... A-1 FM A-2 FM A-6 FM A-10 FM A-14 FM A-18 FM A-20 FM A-23 FM A-27 FM A-30 FM A-33 FM A-37 I 37 E FR... A-41 I 37 W FR... A-45 APPENDIX B - UNPAVED ROADWAY SIGNING GUIDANCE... B-1 MEMORANDUM... B-2 RR i

4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year... 1 Page LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Current Roadways Selected for Potential Conversion Page RR ii

5 HEAVY COMMERCIAL IMPACTS Access - Increase Traffic Load Post Monitor / Maintain / Paved Convert Monitor / Maintain / Gravel I: ACCESS INCREASE TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROBLEM: The roadways are seeing a drastic increase in traffic volumes and percent trucks. SOLUTION: Evaluate the cause of the problem and determine if the root cause, increased truck volumes, can be mitigated to reduce the impacts. ACTION: New procedures on granting commercial driveway access have been implemented. II: MONITOR / MAINTAIN / PAVED PROBLEM: Data from candidate roadway segments indicates an increase in maintenance cost at a rate of $8,500 / mile / year, over the last two years, to maintain a paved road segment. These roadways were designed/built 15+ years ago and are experiencing truck volumes they were not designed for. Figure 1. Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year RR

6 SOLUTION: Evaluate the roadway. Perform a pavement distress evaluation to obtain a current condition score and obtain accurate traffic data. ACTION: Based on a risk analysis in the field, conduct maintenance on the roadway segment to address safety concerns. III: LOAD POST PROBLEM: The pavement distress evaluation and traffic data indicates a very low condition score and % trucks > 20%. SOLUTION: Determine if any further evaluation is needed and examine the limits of the roadway segments seeing the impacts. ACTION: Place load posting restrictions. IV: CONVERT TO GRAVEL PROBLEM: The roadway segment has deteriorated to a level that safety has become a major concern. SOLUTION: Evaluation is made to determine scope and limits of converting a roadway segment from paved to gravel. Field inspections of potential roadway conversions indicate that approximately 3 of raw material will need to be added to obtain desired travel way width. ACTION: Begin conversion to widen gravel road segments with internal forces, reduce posted speed, and increase safety. V: MONITOR / MAINTAIN / GRAVEL PROBLEM: The roadway segment does not meet the traditional drivers expectations for an on-system facility. SOLUTION: Conduct maintenance on the gravel segment at a cost to the agency of $10,000/mile/year based on estimating one day per month of blading operations. ACTION: Leave this gravel roadway in operation and track operational aspects. RR

7 FACTS Cost to maintain a debilitating paved road (per actual MMIS data) Cost to maintain a gravel road (Est: blading, TMA, light duty truck, water truck) Cost to convert a paved road to gravel (Est: 3 material on 28 rdwy, road grader work) Cost to build a paved energy sector road (28 rdwy, 2-CST) $33,500/mile/year $10,000/mile/year $40,000/mile $400,000/mile FOUR YEAR PLAN Year 1: Convert to gravel ($40,000/mile) + Maintain ($10,000/mile) Year 2: Maintain ($10,000/mile) Year 3: Maintain ($10,000/mile) Year 4: Maintain ($10,000/mile) + additional base ($20,000/mile) RR

8 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION I: SELECTION CRITERIA (FOR CONVERSION TO GRAVEL SURFACE): Level of safety is unacceptable. Roadway condition is beyond a level that traditional maintenance operations can keep in acceptable condition. Roadway is experiencing significant increase in truck volumes. Functional class 6 ineligible for construction funds. Roadway has little to no connectivity. Residential density is low. II: CURRENT ROADWAYS SELECTED FOR POTENTIAL CONVERSION TO GRAVEL: Table 1. Current Roadways Selected for Potential Conversion. Safety Action Plan District County Roadway Limits MI CRP Live Oak IH 37 frontage From FM 99 South 3 miles to end of roads maintenance LRD Dimmit FM 1916 From FM 190 to End of Roadway Immediate La Salle LRD (spot repairs 1 mile) FM 469 From IH 35 West to FM Soon LRD Dimmit FM 3252 From FM 186 to End of Roadway LRD Dimmit FM 2688 From US 83 to End of Roadway LRD Dimmit FM 1019 From FM 468 to End of Roadway LRD Dimmit FM 1558 From FM 1019 to End of Roadway LRD Dimmit FM 1867 SH 85 South to End Of Roadway LRD Dimmit FM 186 From FM 3252 to End of Roadway LRD La Salle FM 3408 From IH 35 to End of Roadway LRD Zavala FM1668 From FM 393 to End of Roadway ODA Reeves & Culberson FM 2119 RM The total lane miles proposed to convert immediately is 4.0 miles in the Laredo District (3 miles for FM 1916 and 1 mile for FM 469). The total lane miles proposed to convert immediately is 6.0 miles in the Corpus Christi District (6 miles of frontage road on IH 37). The remaining roadway segments are in a condition to allow conversion as safety concerns increase. Other roadways, not identified on this list, could easily meet the defined selection criteria in the near future. As commercial activity shifts to different regions, different roadways will experience the stress of increased truck loading and damage will occur. The impacts to roadways from these increased commercial activities have been rapidly expanding. RR

9 TxDOT is prepared to adjust to these conditions, re-examine roadway conditions, and reprioritize accordingly. Safety is of utmost importance and will continue to guide our decision making process. RR

10 APPENDIX A - PMIS CONDITION SCORES, PMIS COMPARISON, IMAGES, MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES, FIGURES, CURRENT IMAGES RR Page A-1

11 FM 186 District: Laredo County: Dimmit Roadway: FM 186 Physical Limits: FM 3252 to End of Roadway Reference Markers: to Length: Data Year: Maintenance Expenditures per Mile ($Thousands): Average PMIS Condition Score: PMIS Condition Decrease: Average PMIS Decrease/Year: -6.0 RR Page A-2

12 RR Page A-3

13 Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year Maintenance Expenditures ($Thousands/Mile/Year) Cost/Mile/Year (Weighted Average for Selected Roads) Cost/Mile/Year (FM 186) Year RR Page A-4

14 FM 186 Images -Current RR Page A-5

15 FM 469 District: Laredo County: LaSalle Roadway: FM 469 Physical Limits: IH 35 W to FM 468 Reference Markers: to Length: PMIS Year: Maintenance Expenditures per Mile Average PMIS Condition Score: PMIS Condition Decrease: Average PMIS Decrease/Year: 12.7 RR Page A-6

16 RR Page A-7

17 Maintenance Expenditures ($Thousands/Mile/Year) Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year Year Cost/Mile/Year (Weighted Average for Selected Roads) Cost/Mile/Year (FM 469) RR Page A-8

18 FM 469 Images- Current FM 469 LA SALLE COUNTY RR Page A-9

19 FM 1019 District: Laredo County: Dimmit Roadway: FM 1019 Physical Limits: FM 468 to End of Roadway Reference Markers: to Length: PMIS Scores Year: Maintenance Expenditures per Mile ($Thousands): Average PMIS Condition Score: PMIS Condition Decrease: Average PMIS Decrease/Year: 9.7 RR Page A-10

20 RR Page A-11

21 Maintenance Expenditures ($Thousands/Mile/Year) Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year Year Cost/Mile/Year (Weighted Average for Selected Roads) Cost/Mile/Year (FM 1019) RR Page A-12

22 FM 1019 Images Current RR Page A-13

23 FM 1558 District: Laredo County: Dimmit Roadway: FM 1558 Physical Limits: FM 1019 to End of Roadway Reference Markers: to Length: Data Year: Maintenance Expenditures per Mile Average PMIS Condition Score: PMIS Condition Decrease: Average PMIS Decrease/Year: 21.4 RR Page A-14

24 RR Page A-15

25 Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year Maintenance Expenditures ($Thousands/Mile/Year) Year Cost/Mile/Year (Weighted Average for Selected Roads) Cost/Mile/Year (FM 1558) RR Page A-16

26 FM 1558 Images Current Note: FM 1558 only has edge problems, as seen in this image, at certain driveways. Edge problems on FM 1558 were very minimal away from driveways. RR Page A-17

27 FM 1668 District: Laredo County: Zavala Roadway: FM 1668 Physical Limits: FM 393 to End of Roadway Reference Markers: to Length: PMIS Year: Maintenance Expenditures per Mile Average PMIS Condition Score: PMIS Condition Decrease: Average PMIS Decrease/Year: -3.9 No images available on proview to date. System might still be having issues. Maintenance Expenditures ($Thousands/Mile/Year) Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year Year Cost/Mile/Year (Weighted Average for Selected Roads) Cost/Mile/Year (FM 1668) RR Page A-18

28 FM 1668 Images- Current RR Page A-19

29 FM 1867 District: Laredo County: Dimmit Roadway: FM 1867 Physical Limits: SH 85 to South to End of Roadway Reference Markers: to Length: 2.9 PMIS Year: Maintenance Expenditures per Mile Average PMIS Condition Score: PMIS Condition Decrease: Average PMIS Decrease/Year: 6.0 Only 1 year of observations was available RR Page A-20

30 Maintenance Expenditures ($Thousands/Mile/Year) Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year Year Cost/Mile/Year (Weighted Average for Selected Roads) Cost/Mile/Year (FM 1867) RR Page A-21

31 FM 1867 Images- Current RR Page A-22

32 FM 1916 District: Laredo County: Dimmit Roadway: FM 1916 Physical Limits: FM 190 to End of Roadway Reference Markers: to Length: PMIS Year: Maintenance Expenditures per Mile Average PMIS Condition Score: PMIS Condition Decrease: Average PMIS Decrease/Year: 13.1 RR Page A-23

33 RR Page A-24

34 Maintenance Expenditures ($Thousands/Mile/Year) Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year Year Cost/Mile/Year (Weighted Average for Selected Roads) Cost/Mile/Year (FM 1916) RR Page A-25

35 FM 1916 Images- Current RR Page A-26

36 FM 2119 District: Odessa County: Reeves and Roadway: FM 2119 Physical Limits: to Reference Markers: to Length: PMIS Year: Maintenance Expenditures per Mile Average PMIS Condition Score: PMIS Condition Decrease: Average PMIS Decrease/Year: -3.3 RR Page A-27

37 RR Page A-28

38 Maintenance Expenditures ($Thousands/Mile/Year) Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year Year Cost/Mile/Year (Weighted Average for Selected Roads) Cost/Mile/Year (FM 2119) No Current Images for this Roadway RR Page A-29

39 FM 2688 District: Laredo County: Dimmit Roadway: FM 2688 Physical Limits: US 83 to End of Roadway Reference Markers: PMIS 0 Scores to Length: Year: Maintenance Expenditures per Mile ($Thousands): Average PMIS Condition Score: PMIS Condition Decrease: Average PMIS Decrease/Year: RR Page A-30

40 RR Page A-31

41 Maintenance Expenditures ($Thousands/Mile/Year) Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year Cost/Mile/Year (Weighted Average for Selected Roads) Cost/Mile/Year (FM 2268) Year No Current Pictures Available for FM 2688 RR Page A-32

42 FM 3252 District: Laredo County: Dimmit Roadway: FM 3252 Physical Limits: FM 186 to End of Roadway Reference Markers: to Length: PMIS Year: Maintenance Expenditures per Mile Average PMIS Condition Score: PMIS Condition Decrease: Average PMIS Decrease/Year: 9.9 RR Page A-33

43 RR Page A-34

44 Maintenance Expenditures ($Thousands/Mile/Year) Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year Year Cost/Mile/Year (Weighted Average for Selected Roads) Cost/Mile/Year (FM 3252) RR Page A-35

45 FM 3252 Images- Current RR Page A-36

46 FM 3408 District: Laredo County: La Salle Roadway: FM 3408 Physical Limits: IH 35 to End of Roadway Reference Markers: to Length: PMIS Year: Maintenance Expenditures per Mile Average PMIS Condition Score: PMIS Condition Decrease: Average PMIS Decrease/Year: 12.7 RR Page A-37

47 RR Page A-38

48 Maintenance Expenditures ($Thousands/Mile/Year) Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year Year Cost/Mile/Year (Weighted Average for Selected Roads) Cost/Mile/Year (FM 3408) RR Page A-39

49 FM 3408 Images- Current RR Page A-40

50 I 37 E FR District: Corpus County: Live Oak Roadway: I 37 E. FR. Physical Limits: FM 99 to South to End of Reference Markers: to Length: PMIS Scores Year: Maintenance Expenditures per Mile ($Thousands): Average PMIS Condition Score: PMIS Condition Decrease: Average PMIS Decrease/Year: 25.7 RR Page A-41

51 RR Page A-42

52 Maintenance Expenditures ($Thousands/Mile/Year) Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year Year Cost/Mile/Year (Weighted Average for Selected Roads) Cost/Mile/Year (I 37 Frontage Roads) RR Page A-43

53 IH-37 FR. E.Images -Current RR Page A-44

54 I 37 W FR District: Corpus County: Live Oak Roadway: I 37 W. FR. Physical Limits: FM 99 to South to End of Reference Markers: to Length: PMIS Scores Year: Maintenance Expenditures per Mile ($Thousands): Average PMIS Condition Score: PMIS Condition Decrease: Average PMIS Decrease/Year: 12.6 RR Page A-45

55 RR Page A-46

56 Maintenance Expenditures ($Thousands/Mile/Year) Maintenance Expenditures/Mile/Year Year Cost/Mile/Year (Weighted Average for Selected Roads) Cost/Mile/Year (I 37 Frontage Roads) RR Page A-47

57 I-37 FR. W. Images Current RR Page A-48

58

59 APPENDIX B - UNPAVED ROADWAY SIGNING GUIDANCE RR Page B-1

60 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: District Engineers Toribio Garza, Jr., P.E. Carol T. Rawson, P.E. Signage of Low Volume FM/RM Highways with Pavement Deterioration Caused by Energy Development Energy development in Texas has had significant impact on the state's highway network. While roadways of higher functional classes are typically designed to accommodate heavy traffic, the traffic associated with energy development has been severely impacting rural low volume roadways such as FM and RM highways, causing major damage to the pavement, shoulders, curbs, and traffic signs. Many districts are struggling to maintain the severely damaged roadways. In some cases, low volume FM and RM highways are deteriorating to an unpaved condition and major maintenance is being delayed until energy-related activities subside. Questions are being raised as to how to sign these roadways and how speed limits are affected. The Texas Transportation Code, , does not provide for different prima facie speed limits for gravel/unpaved state highways or state highways with gravel/unpaved sections. However, if the maximum reasonable and safe speed of the roadway is now lower than the statutory speed limit because of its deteriorated condition, we recommend the installation of "Rough Road" signs (W8-8) with an advisory speed plaque (W13-1P). If the centerline is no longer visible on the roadway and cannot be retraced because of the roadway condition, "No Center Stripe" signs (W8-12) with the "Next XX Miles" plaque (W7-3aP) should also be installed. If you have questions, please contact Toribio at (512) or Carol at (512) cc: John A. Barton, P.E., Deputy Executive Director District Maintenance Engineers District Traffic Engineers RR Page B-2