Puerto Rico Transportation Asset Management Plan

Similar documents
Where Are We and Where Do We Need to Go? A Summary of the Interstate Condition Project

HPMS Rule on Collecting Pavement Condition Data. Roger Smith Sui Tan

User perceptions of highway roughness. Kevan Shafizadeh and Fred Mannering

Existing road transport network of the National Capital Region was examined for the existing connectivity, mobility and accessibility in the study.

MINNESOTA SIDE Draft TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

2002 Design Guide Preparing for Implementation

Multiway Analysis of Bridge Structural Types in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) A Tensor Decomposition Approach

APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF EXISTING SIMPLIFIED METHODS

The State of Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council 2006 PASER Survey Of Shiawassee County

LTPP InfoPave TM Extracting Information out of LTPP Data

INTRODUCTION TO PAVEMENT STRUCTURES

Pavements. CP2 Center CA PP Conference

2. Evaluation of Pavement Condition Index (PCI)

Implementing (Bleeding) Standards for Pavement Data Collection. RICK MILLER, Pavement Management Engineer, Kansas Dept.

MnDOT Research Update BCOA Performance and UBOL Design

Impact of Existing Pavement on Jointed Plain Concrete Overlay Design and Performance

2002 Pavement Design

LRRB INV 828 Local Road Material Properties and Calibration for MnPAVE

Quality Pavement Markings

Pavement Preservation Strategy Selection

GEOSYNTHETICS ENGINEERING: IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

New Jersey Department of Transportation Extreme Weather Asset Management Pilot Study

Multiple random slope and fixed intercept linear regression models for pavement condition forecasting

Load Capacity Evaluation of Pennsylvania s Single Span T-Beam Bridges

Outline. Introduction. Introduction Accident Damage. Introduction Act of God Damage NATIONAL HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE FOLLOW UP SURVEY RESULTS BY:

Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A User s Perspective. Brian D. Prowell, Ph.D., P.E.

Updating the Urban Boundary and Functional Classification of New Jersey Roadways using 2010 Census data

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Bridge Risk Modeling

TECHNICAL PAPER INVESTIGATION INTO THE VALIDATION OF THE SHELL FATIGUE TRANSFER FUNCTION

Mark B. Snyder, Ph.D., P.E., Engineering Consultant Bridgeville, Pennsylvania

City of Phoenix Pavement Management System. Ryan Stevens Civil Engineer III Street Transportation Department November 15, 2017

Extreme Weather Events and Transportation Asset Management

Road Infrastructure Asset Management Course

Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design

Measuring and GIS Referencing of Network Level Pavement Deterioration in Post-Katrina Louisiana March 19, 2008

Comparison of Ontario Pavement Designs Using the AASHTO 1993 Empirical Method and the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide Method

Transforming Geospatial Data for Visualization with D3

APPENDIX B DISTRESSES

Structural Design of Pavements

Sensitivity Analysis Of Aashto's 2002 Flexible And Rigid Pavement Design Methods

2008 SEAUPG CONFERENCE-BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

WELCOME APWA How Best to Protect Asphalt Overlays with Interlayers - Delay Deterioration and Extend Pavement Life

2014 UTP Public Meeting July 18, 2013

Monitoring Scour Critical Bridges During Floods For Local Bridge Owners. Presented by

ROAD INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT OF ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Enterprise Linear Referencing at the NYS Department of Transportation

Appendix J. Example of Proposed Changes

2015 North Dakota Asphalt Conference

Flexural Life of Unbound Granular Pavements with Chip Seal Surfacings

Adaptability of AASHTO Provisional Standards for Condition Surveys for Roughness and Faulting in Kansas

Analysis of Rutting and Roughness Distresses in PCC Pavements Overlaid with Asphalt Concrete

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SPONSORSHIP

Risk Assessment of Highway Bridges: A Reliability-based Approach

Nevels, et al 1 KAY COUNTY SHALE SUBGRADE STABILIZATION REVISITED

Retrofit Dowel Bars In Jointed Concrete Pavement - Long Term Performance and Best Practices

Implementation of M-E PDG in Kansas

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Colorado Department of Transportation Structure Inspection and Inventory Report (English Units)

Title Model For Pavement Asset Manageme.

Design of Overlay for Flexible Pavement

ESTIMATION OF REMAINING SERVICE LIFE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS FROM SURFACE DEFLECTIONS DABA SHABARA GEDAFA

How Can DOT Operations and Maintenance Prepare for Extreme Weather Events?

Evaluation of Laboratory Performance Tests for Cracking of Asphalt Pavements

Pavement Quality Indicators Study. Five Year Report

Introduction to The Design Example and EN Basis of Design

GAMPO 2018 FALL MEETING. National Performance Research Data Set GAMPO 2018 FALL MEETING (NPMRDS) CASE STUDY GAMPO FALL MEETING SEPTEMBER 2018

Implementation of GISystems in the Land Acquisition Process and Road Maintenance. Immaculate Katutsi Uganda National Roads Authority

HAZUS-MH: Earthquake Event Report

Roadway Grade = m, amsl HWM = Roadway grade dictates elevation of superstructure and not minimum free board requirement.

Cipra D. Revised Submittal 1

Deploying the Winter Maintenance Support System (MDSS) in Iowa

ACET 406 Mid-Term Exam B

GIS Data and Technology to Support Transportation & MPO Decision-Making & Planning. using an Eco-Logical* Approach within the Kansas City Region

The World Bank Indonesia National Slum Upgrading Project (P154782)

What is on the Horizon in HMA. John D AngeloD Federal Highway Administration

Modulus of Rubblized Concrete from Surface Wave Testing

Introduction to Ohio Landslide Hazard Rating System and Landslide Risk Management. By Prof. Robert Liang

Analysis of Non-Linear Dynamic Behaviours in Asphalt Concrete Pavements Under Temperature Variations

Prediction of average annual surface temperature for both flexible and rigid pavements

ROAD DUST SUPPRESSSANTS RESEARCH RESULTS

Transforming the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) GIS-based Transportation Asset Inventory System June 30, 2016

Geotechnical Risks and Slope Management Systems: An FHWA Perspective

Innovated Technological Trends in Highways. Flood Modelling & Evaluation of Impacts on Infrastructure

PAPER EVALUATION OF TRUNCATED ARROW-PER-LANE GUIDE SIGNS. WORD COUNT (5840): Abstract (248) + Text (4092) + Tables (5) + Figures (1) Authors:

30 Years - 20 State DOTs Trends in Pavement Management observed through real world Implementation at the State DOT Level.

MPOs SB 375 LAFCOs SCAG Practices/Experiences And Future Collaborations with LAFCOs

ME PDG Rigid Pavement Design Reliability Update. Further Calibration of the Distress Prediction Models & Reliability Effects

Non-Destructive Pavement Evaluation to Assess Flood Damage in The City of Calgary

NOTTINGHAM DESIGN METHOD

DATA UNCERTAINTY IN BRIDGE MANAGEMENT

CERTIFICATION OF THE ROUGHNESS MEASURING INSTRUMENT

Field Performance Monitoring and Modeling of Instrumented Pavement on I-35 in McClain County ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY 2010 ODOT SPR ITEM NUMBER 2200

Assessing the Vulnerability of Tennessee Transportation Assets to Extreme Weather

I-95/I-85 INTERCHANGE ROADWAY SAFETY ASSESSMENT

Municipal Act, 2001 Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités

Department of Transportation and Public Works Customer Satisfaction Survey Provincial Highway System. Highlights Report

MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION OF LOW COST SURFACE DRESSING FOR LOW VOLUME ROADS EXPERIMENTAL ROAD SITES

The World Bank Transport Connectivity and Asset Management Project (P132833)

Dr. Hatem ElBehairy. Cairo University BMS - Dr. Hatem ElBehairy 1

Transcription:

Puerto Rico Transportation Asset Management Plan PR-TAMP April 12, 2018

April 12, 2018 The Project Team Gordon Proctor Shobna Varma Jose Carro, P.E. Zaida Rico, P.E., Ph.D. gordon@proctorassociates.com svarma@starisis.com www. cmapr.com 2

Plan Requirements Due April 30, 2018 Plan must include how PRTHA Will meet Federal pavement and bridge targets Show the adoption of good asset management practices and show Sustain highway conditions in the future 3

PRHTA s Unique Challenges Maria Insolvency Backlog of investment needs Few documented asset management processes 4

Requirements, Consequence Must complete a certifiable TAMP Must set targets Must eventually achieve targets of: <10% poor NHS bridge < 5% poor Interstate pavements Set and achieve a National Highway System pavement target If no TAMP, Federal participation falls to 65% If targets not eventually met: PRHTA loses some flexibility and must increase spending for pavements and/or bridges 5

Puerto Rico Network Summary Road Type Length (Mi) PRHTA Managed Concession Managed Total Lane Miles % of Total Lane Mi Length (Mi) Lane Miles % of Total Lane Mi Length (Mi) Lane Miles % of Total Lane Mi Interstate 231.8 1,039.5 9.14% 47.2 233.9 2.06% 279.0 1,273.4 11.20% NHS 523.3 1,827.8 16.07% 2.4 9.6 0.08% 525.7 1,837.4 16.16% Non-NHS 4,039.5 8,261.1 72.65% 0.0 0.0 0.00% 4,039.5 8,261.1 72.65% Total 4,794.6 11,128.4 97.86% 49.6 243.5 2.14% 4,844.17 11,371.9 100.00% 6

Pavement Surface Type Pavement Surface Type 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 7.9% 13.6% 37.3% 92.0% 99.5% 86.4% 62.7% INT NHS OTHER TOTAL OTHER CONCRETE ASPHALT 7

Pavement Measures and Criteria 8

Pavement Condition Summary Lane Miles per Condition Percentage of System System Good Fair Poor Not Measured Total Good Fair Poor Not Measured Total INT 133.5 933.5 206.3 0.0 1,273.3 10.5% 73.3% 16.2% 0.0% 100.0% NHS 25.1 1,342.8 102.1 367.4 1,837.4 1.4% 73.1% 5.6% 20.0% 100.0% OTHER 2.5 1,650.9 37.4 6,570.3 8,261.1 0.03% 20.0% 0.5% 79.5% 100.0% Total 161.2 3,927.2 345.8 6,886.5 11,371.9 1.4% 34.5% 3.0% 60.6% 100.0% 9

Key Challenges Investment strategies for Interstate, NHS pavements Pavements in poor condition Seriously underfunded before Maria Require substantial investment to meet Federal target Interstate Pavement % Poor 5.0% 16.2% TARGET 2016 CONDITION 10

Pavement Evaluation INT Asphalt Rutt Rutt Concrete Fault Fault <.2 <.3 <=.4 >.4 <.2 <.3 <=.4 >.4 <.1 <=.15 >.15 <.05 <=.15 >.15 IRI G F1 F2 P IRI G F1 F2 P IRI G F1 P IRI G F1 P <95 G 76.19 24.07 3.90 0.60 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G 6.80 0.00 0.00 G 2.80 0.60 0.00 <110 F1 47.70 22.59 3.40 0.00 F1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F1 5.60 0.00 0.00 F1 2.72 1.60 0.00 <130 F2 43.41 31.21 6.40 0.40 F2 0.80 0.40 0.00 0.00 F2 2.40 0.80 0.00 F2 4.20 6.20 0.00 <=170 F3 39.93 42.06 15.70 0.80 F3 1.60 2.98 0.00 0.00 F3 2.60 2.00 0.00 F3 11.40 25.99 2.80 >170 P 22.92 42.14 21.50 7.21 P 1.00 4.60 5.20 0.00 P 19.80 11.01 1.00 P 22.60 114.88 33.60 Crack G G G G Crack P P P P Crack G G G Crack P P P <5 <5 <5 <5 >20 >20 >20 >20 <5 <5 <5 >15 >15 >15 NHS Asphalt Rutt Rutt Concrete Fault Fault <.2 <.3 <=.4 >.4 <.2 <.3 <=.4 >.4 <.1 <=.15 >.15 IRI G F1 F2 P IRI G F1 F2 P IRI G F1 P IRI G F1 P <95 G 36.28 27.04 15.87 3.07 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G 5.10 0.50 0.00 G 0.00 0.00 0.60 <110 F1 17.81 9.09 1.60 0.00 F1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F1 0.40 0.00 0.00 F1 0.00 0.40 0.00 <130 F2 35.10 25.20 7.20 1.20 F2 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 F2 0.00 0.00 0.00 F2 0.50 0.00 0.00 <=170 F3 96.51 66.09 18.50 4.70 F3 3.60 2.40 0.80 0.00 F3 2.80 2.30 0.00 F3 0.40 0.00 0.00 >170 P 165.76 194.77 79.15 12.66 P 7.19 19.50 11.60 0.30 P 30.09 3.50 0.60 P 2.20 30.15 9.80 Crack G G G G Crack P P P P Crack G G G Crack P P P <5 <5 <5 <5 >20 >20 >20 >20 <5 <5 <5 >15 >15 >15 11

Recommendations for Measured Segments Strategy Interstate NHS Non-NHS Total Lane Miles % Lane Miles % Lane Miles % Lane Miles Preservation 58.1 2.4% 855.1 34.8% 904.5 36.8% 1,817.8 74.0% Rehabilitation 24.8 1.0% 143.5 5.8% 0.0 0.0% 168.4 6.9% Replacement 252.7 10.3% 218.6 8.9% 0.0 0.0% 471.2 19.2% Total 335.7 13.7% 1,217.2 49.5% 904.5 36.8% 2,457.4 100.0% % 12

Recommendations for the Interstate System Evaluate quality of concrete pavements for future projects, as most poor lane miles are in concrete pavements. Monitor asphalt pavements, so they don t degrade to poor. Evaluate projects to improve its pavement, especially to correct roughness and cracking. Evaluate projects to improve roughness at all roads, especially at PR-2, PR-52, and PR-53, which had the more amount of poor IRI lane miles among Interstates. Evaluate projects to improve rutting or faulting at all roads, especially at PR-3, PR-53, and PR-26, which are the interstate highways in fair condition with more amount of lane miles with this type of defect. 13

Bridges System NHS Non-NHS Total Manager Amount % Amount % Amount % PRHTA 817 33.5% 1,499 61.4% 2,316 94.9% Metropistas 123 5.0% 0 0.0% 123 5.0% Autopistas de Puerto Rico 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.04% Total 941 38.6% 1,499 61.4% 2,440 100.0% 14

PRHTA Managed Bridges PRHTA managed bridges have a total of area of 2.16 million square meters. A 35% of the bridges are part of the NHS. These bridges carry 70% if total bridge deck area. PRHTA Managed Bridges Amount Area (square meters) NHS 817 1,516,782.54 Others 1,499 645,640.94 Total 2,316 2,162,423.48 %NHS 35% 70% % Others 65% 30% % Total 100% 100% 15

Bridges Measures and Criteria The National Bridge Inventory system rates bridges in 9 categories, where 0 is Failed and 9 is Excellent. Three primary components comprise the rating of most bridges, such as the stringers, tee beams, box beams, slabs and others that are common in Puerto Rico. These three are the deck, superstructure, and the substructure, which are all rated on the 0-9 scale. 16

Bridge Measures and Criteria Rate Good Fair Poor Score Condition Definition Criteria N Not applicable Not applicable 9 Excellent Excellent condition 8 Very good No problems noted. 7 Good Some minor problems noted. 6 Satisfactory Structural elements show some minor deterioration. 5 Fair 4 Poor 3 Serious 2 Critical 1 Imminent Failure All primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spelling or scour. Advanced section loss noted. Deterioration. Spelling or scour. Loss of section, deterioration, spelling or scour has seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present. Advanced deterioration or primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge Is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in light service. 0 Failed Out of service - beyond corrective action 17

Bridges Condition PRHTA Managed Bridge Condition 2016 1.7% 4.3% 2.5% 16.6% 19.7% 27.0% 72.3% 59.6% 68.5% 9.4% 9.2% 9.3% %NHS % OTHERS % TOTAL Poor Fair Good N/A 18

Key Challenge: Bridge Progress 19

Bridge Evaluation NHS NHS NHS Area Area Area Super\Deck 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Super\Deck 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Super\Deck 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 25,792 32,757 112,771 53,386 213 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 15,729 0 124 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2,059 0 61,331 3,959 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 205 855 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,816 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 44 2,828 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 167 131 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 871 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,427 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Substructure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Substructure 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Substructure 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Count Count Count Super\Deck 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Super\Deck 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Super\Deck 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 7 14 66 50 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Substructure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Substructure 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Substructure 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 20

Recommendations for PRHTA Managed Bridges Recommended Strategy NHS Non-NHS Total Substructure Superstructure Deck Num Structure Sq Area of Deck Num Structure Sq Area of Deck Num Structure Sq Area of Deck Replace Replace Replace 10 17,912 56 15327.69 66 33,239 Rehabilitation Replace Replace 14 17905.37 56 19371.99 70 37,277 Preservation Replace Replace 1 1,953 4 2391.24 5 4,344 Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Replace 11 21,541 22 10826 33 32,367 Preservation Rehabilitation Replace 1 1,816 0 0 1 1,816 Rehabilitation Preservation Replace 14 34,551 4 2990.04 18 37,541 Preservation Preservation Replace 12 32,662.92 2 5557.24 14 38,220 Rehabilitation Preservation Preservation 15 37,677 2 320.02 17 37,997 Preservation Preservation Preservation 124 251,860 203 174319.71 327 426,180 Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Rehabilitation 169 257,199 578 144738.99 747 401,938 Rehabilitation Preservation Rehabilitation 142 227,431 103 76433.83 245 303,864 Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Preservation 0 0 11 10003.81 11 10,004 Preservation Rehabilitation Rehabilitation 43 102,637 32 17803.14 75 120,440 Preservation Preservation Rehabilitation 178 481,709 126 116848.44 304 598,557 Preservation Rehabilitation Preservation 4 4920.84 3 380.8 7 5,302 Total 738 1,491,775 1,202 597,313 1,940 2,089,088 21

MPO Requirements (4) An MPO shall integrate in the metropolitan transportation planning process, the goals, objectives, performance measures, and targets described in other State transportation plans including: (i) The State asset management plan for the NHS Code of Federal Regulation 23 450.306 (d) (2) (4) 22

What Does This Mean? Pavement, bridge conditions receive higher funding priority for programming Many communities will benefit from bridge, pavement projects PRHTA must adopt a long-term bridge and pavement preservation program FHWA will review actions annually for consistency 23

Annual Consistency Review Annually after July 2019: FHWA must make annual consistency review Is the plan implemented? Are investments consistent with the plan? Investments Processes Targets 24

Undergoing Activities Draft plan: Set bridge, pavement targets Estimate cost to achieve targets Describe investment strategies to sustain bridge, pavement conditions Submit draft plan by April 30, 2018 25