No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-25 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Resolution: 98-25 File Number: 2025-385 ASPHALT OVERLAY AND SIDEWALK PROJECTS (RESOLUTION): A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 2025 ASPHALT OVERLAY AND SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION WORK PLANS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves the Transportation Division 2025 Asphalt Overlay and Sidewalk Construction work plans. A copy of the 2025 and 2026 Paving and Sidewalk Plan is attached to this Resolution and made a part hereof. PASSED and APPROVED on April 15, 2025 Approved: N(gb �0� Molly Rawn, Mayor Attest: Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer Page 1 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF APRIL 15, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEMO TO: Mayor Rawn and City Council THRU: Chris Brown, Public Works Director FROM: Terry Gulley, Asst Public Works Director - Ops SUBJECT: ASPHALT OVERLAY AND SIDEWALK PROJECTS (RESOLUTION): RECOMMENDATION: 2025-385 A resolution to approve the Transportation Division 2025 Pavement Management and Asphalt Overlay and Sidewalk Construction work plans. BACKGROUND: The In -House Pavement Improvements and Sidewalk Improvements capital projects are included in the five- year Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The CIP document functions as a financial planning tool that places projects in the annual budget and funds are appropriated by the City Council. DISCUSSION: Street and sidewalk work plans are reviewed and updated annually to reflect any shifting needs and changes in available funding. The plans are presented to the City Council Transportation Committee and recommended to the City Council for approval. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: Labor, equipment, materials, services and other project costs are included in Street Fund, Sales Tax Capital Improvements Fund, and Transportation Bonds. ATTACHMENTS: SRF (#3) , 2025 & 2026 Paving & Sidewalk Plan (#4), Pavement Management Report (#5) Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 == City of Fayetteville, Arkansas y 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 - Legislation Text File #: 2025-385 ASPHALT OVERLAY AND SIDEWALK PROJECTS (RESOLUTION): A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 2025 ASPHALT OVERLAY AND SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION WORK PLANS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves the Transportation Division 2025 Asphalt Overlay and Sidewalk Construction work plans. A copy of the 2025 and 2026 Paving and Sidewalk Plan is attached to this Resolution and made a part hereof. Page 1 Terry Gulley Submitted By City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2025-385 Item ID 4/15/2025 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 3/21/2025 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES (410) Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 2025 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT AND ASPHALT OVERLAY AND SIDEWALKS CONSTRUCTION WORK PLANS. Account Number Project Number Budgeted Item? Yes Does item have a direct cost? Yes Is a Budget Adjustment attached? No Budget Impact: Fund Project Title Total Amended Budget $ - Expenses (Actual+Encum) $ - Available Budget Item Cost $ - Budget Adjustment $ - Remaining Budget V20221130 Purchase Order Number: Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Change Order Number: Approval Date: Original Contract Number: Comments: Labor, equipment, materials, services and other project costs are included in various programs and capital projects budgets CITYWIDE - 2025 & 2026 PAVING PLAN Superseg Desc & On Street From Street To Street Rehab Text Length Area Unit Cost Total Cost Ward 1830 - E 7TH ST S College Ave S Wood Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 1327.3 3302.87 $14.75 $48,717.33 1 1690 - E 13TH ST W 13th St S College Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 553.8 2261.36 $10.75 $24,309.62 1 18010 - W 13TH ST E 13th St West End EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 528.9 1633.09 $10.75 $17,555.72 1 18080-W22NDST East End SSchool Ave EM/FWM+Mod Overlay2.0-3.0+SP 966.0 1352.40 $14.75 $19,947.90 1 6630 - N ANNA PL South End E Rockwood Trl EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 339.9 812.88 1 $10.75 $8,738.46 1 15060 - S BARTON AVE S Walker Rd E Huntsville Rd EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 522.7 858.61 $14.75 $12,664.50 1 18630 - W BEST WAY ST DS@131W S Laguna Loop S Futrall Dr EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 488.7 1710.44 $14.75 $25,228.99 1 15270-SBUTTERFIELDTRL North End South End EM/FWM+Mod Overlay2.0-3.0 1083.8 2063.93 $10.75 $22,187.25 1 23860-WWhillockSt. End School Ave EM/FWM+Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 1327.7 2943.07 $14.75 $43,410.28 1 8020-NCOUNTY AVE SCounty Ave EMeadow St EM/FWM+Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 215.3 531.68 $14.75 1 $7,842.28 1 15580 - S COUNTY AVE NCounty Ave EMountain St EM/FWM+Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 250.5 496.83 $14.75 $7,328.24 1 17820-SWashington 7thSt. 15thSt. EM/FWM+Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 2623.8 6589.30 $14.75 $97,192.18 1 3580 - E HEATH DR West End E Rodgers Dr EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0+SP 290.5 1203.16 $14.75 $17,746.61 1 4020 - E LAFAYETTE ST N Fletcher Ave N Tanglewood Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0+SP 745.6 1612.66 $14.75 $23,786.74 1 4420 - E MCCLINTON ST S Wood Ave S Morningside Dr EM/FWM + Mod Overlay2.0-3.0 1327.3 2830.68 $10.75 $30,429.81 1 16820 - S OAK RD W Rutledge Ln W Martin Luther King Jr Blvd EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0+SP 501.1 1 1286.16 $14.75 1 $18,970.86 1 19511- W DICKSON ST N West Ave DS@216W N West Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 215.7 931.01 $10.75 $10,008.36 2 21530 - W MOUNT COMFORT RD W North St N Garland Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 955.9 3362.07 $14.75 $49,590.53 2 1600 -ALLEY 850 W Douglas St W Caraway St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 409.7 764.78 $14.75 $11,280.51 2 18360-WASH ST NWoosleyAve NGregg Ave EM/FWM+Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 576.5 1821.89 $14.75 $26,872.88 2 18830 - W CARAWAY ST Alley 850 N Storer Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 172.5 462.87 1 $10.75 $4,975.85 2 19001 - W CENTER ST NDuncan Ave SHarmon Ave EM/FWM+Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 348.5 1301.06 $14.75 $19,190.64 2 2650 - E COLT DR N Green Acres Rd East End EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 314.0 1355.44 $10.75 $14,570.98 2 9270 - N GREGG AVE W Dickson St W Lafayette St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 722.5 1854.10 $10.75 $19,931.58 2 16080 - S GRAHAM AVE W Center St W Nettleship St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 663.8 1703.75 $14.75 $25,130.31 2 20440-WILA ST NPark Ave N Vandeventer Ave EM/FWM+Mod Overlay2.0-3.0 1045.2 3152.74 $10.75 1 $33,891.96 2 25290 - W ILA ST N Vandeventer Ave N Wilson Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 476.7 1445.99 $10.75 $15,544.39 2 20710 - W LAWSON ST N WoosleyAve N Gregg Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 1318.7 2225.07 $10.75 $23,919.50 2 10410 - N LINDELL AVE W Cleveland St W Eagle St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay2.0-3.0 350.9 941.58 $10.75 $10,121.99 2 20850 - W LOUISE ST East End NPark Ave EM/FWM+Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 404.8 944.53 $14.75 $13,931.82 2 10580 - N LYNNS PL South End WDeane St EM/FWM+Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP N 291.0 1127.53 $14.75 $16,631.07 2 4690 - E NORTH ST N Washington Ave N HillcrestAve EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 +SP 672.4 2025.31 $14.75 $29,873.32 2 4700 - E NORTH ST N HillcrestAve E Lakefront Dr EM/FWM + Mod Overlay2.0-3.0 + SP 750.1 2242.21 $14.75 $33,072.60 2 4710 - E NORTH ST E Lakefront Dr E Lakeridge Dr EM/FWM + Mod Overlay2.0-3.0 + SP 511.5 1596.28 $14.75 $23,545.13 2 4720 - E NORTH ST E Lakeridge Dr N Mission Blvd EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 +SP 263.0 1073.91 $14.75 $15,840.17 2 11120 - N OAK AVE WWedingtonDr WCedarSt EM/FWM+Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 489.9 1428.87 $14.75 $21,075.83 2 11180 - N OAKLAND AVE W Mount Comfort Rd W Lawson St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 +SP 1492.1 3638.04 $14.75 1 $53,661.09 2 11190 - N OAKLAND AVE W Lawson St W Sycamore St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 1069.8 2591.01 $14.75 $38,217.40 2 14810 - PUBLIC 2401 N Gregg Ave W Township St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 1405.0 4308.72 $14.75 $63,553.62 2 22470 - W REAGAN ST N Gregg Ave Alley 624 EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 202.6 661.82 $14.75 $9,761.85 2 22480 - W REAGAN ST Alley 624 N Arkansas Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 286.9 937.21 $14.75 $13,823.85 2 12760 - N SHADY AVE W Ila St W Louise St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 643.7 1 1952.55 $10.75 $20,989.91 2 5530 - E SPRING ST NEast Ave NCollege Ave EM/FWM+Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 513.8 1427.37 1 $14.75 1 $21,053.71 2 23000 - W SPRING ST N School Ave N West Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 +SP 365.6 1343.73 1 $14.75 1 $19,820.02 2 13850 - N VANDEVENTER AVE W Ila St W Louise St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 328.0 880.14 $10.75 $9,461.51 2 14040 - N VISTA PL W Wedington Dr W Holly St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 +SP 677.6 2292.55 $14.75 $33,815.11 2 21270-WMEADOWST NWest Ave SGregg Aly EM/FWM+Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 363.2 867.47 $14.75 $12,795.18 2 6651- N APPLEBURY DR N Tanglebriar Ln N Tanglebriar Ln EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 1066.8 2862.43 $10.75 $30,771.12 3 1970 - E APPLEBURY DR E Hope St West End EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 +SP 294.1 936.63 $14.75 $13,815.29 3 2590 - E CINNAMON WAY West End N Old Missouri Rd EM/FWM + Mod Overlay2.0-3.0 1030.8 3395.37 1 $14.75 $50,081.71 3 2670 - E COLUMBUS BLVD N Kings Dr N Eastwood Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 +SP 677.9 1846.94 $14.75 $27,242.37 3 2690 - E COLUMBUS PL E Columbus Blvd South End EM/FWM + Mod Overlay2.0-3.0 420.1 1215.53 $14.75 $17,929.07 3 8511- N EASTWOOD DR E Hope St E Mission Blvd EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 +SP 691.2 2096.65 $14.75 $30,925.59 3 3050 - E ELM ST N Austin Dr N Juneway Ter EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 447.7 1358.02 $14.75 $20,030.80 3 3650 - E HOPE ST N Kings Dr N Lunsford Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 +SP 2118.3 6569.59 $14.75 1 $96,901.45 3 10000 - N KENSINGTON CT N Warwick Dr North End EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0+SP 218.8 765.80 $14.75 $11,295.55 3 13490 - N SUSAN CAROL LN E Bishop Dr E Cydnee St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 512.2 1732.95 $14.75 $25,561.01 3 13540 - N TARTAN WAY N Katherine Ave North End EM/FWM + Mod Overlay2.0-3.0 + SP 403.5 1365.18 $14.75 $20,136.41 3 23620 - W VAN ASCHE DR W Van Asche Loop N Steele Blvd EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 708.3 2036.06 $10.75 $21,887.65 3 23630 - W VAN ASCHE DR N Steele Blvd N Gregg Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 1958.1 8293.90 $10.75 $89,159.43 3 23640 - W VAN ASCHE DR N Gregg Ave DS@523E N Gregg Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 535.3 1686.20 1 $10.75 $18,126.65 3 24620 - E WILKINS PL West End N Old Missouri Rd PCC Localized Rehab +SP 492.5 2258.14 $19.75 $44,598.27 3 6260 - E WOODLAWN DR N Mission Blvd E Woodlawn Dr EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 470.9 1977.79 $10.75 $21,261.24 3 14650 - N WOODLAWN DR E Rockwood Trl N Woodlawn Dr EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 461.4 1399.58 $10.75 $15,045.49 3 6450 - N 51STAVE W Wedington Dr N Sunshine Rd WC 877 EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 657.7 1918.29 $10.75 1 $20,621.62 4 18840 - W CARDWELL LN N Razorback Rd N Gray Ave EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 780.8 1380.92 $10.75 $14,844.89 4 8320 - N DOUBLE SPRINGS RD W Wedington Dr DS@664N W Wedington Dr EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0+SP 664.4 1937.84 $14.75 $28,583.14 4 9040 - N GARVIN DR W Center St W Hotz St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 + SP 641.0 1944.37 $14.75 $28,679.46 4 21750 - W NEW BRIDGE RD East End N Sunshine Rd WC 877 EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 4606.6 14418.20 $10.75 $154,995.65 4 12330 - N RUPPLE RD W Wedington Dr I W Starry Night Vw EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0 +SP 1 3674.3 17244.531 14.75 $254,356.82 4 12360 - N RUPPLE RD W Albatross Loop N Best Friend Ln EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0+SP 548.6 1216.06 $14.75 1 $17,936.89 4 12370 - N RUPPLE RD N Golf Club Dr W Congressional St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay 2.0-3.0+SP 1619.2 3588.97 $14.75 $52,937.31 4 12540 - N SALEM RD W Wedington Dr DS@105N W Fairfax St EM/FWM + Mod Overlay2.0-3.0 3525.3 12514.09 $10.75 $134,526.47 4 WARD 1 WARD WARD 3 WARD 4 TOTAL 11.48 MILES TOTAL $2,404,260.70 Length(mi) %Length %Area Total Cost %Cost 2.48 21.60% 17.29% $426,056.76 17.72% 3.47 30.19% 28.92% $715,952.64 29.78% 2.37 20.63% 22.95% $554,769.07 23.07% 3.17 27.58% 30.84% $707,482.23 29.43% 11.48 100% 100% $2,404,260.70 100% CITY OF _ FAYETTEVILLE .� ARKANSAS pr Citv Crew Proiects From 1-10-201 To 2025-2026 Proposed Sidewalk Construction Projects 1/22/2025 Length Width Matrix Score Placement Type Feet Feet (28 Max) Ward Notes Center St. Gregg Ave. School Ave. Both Sides Rep 920 8 26.3 2 Cleveland St. Leverett Ave. Whitham Ave. North Side New 300 6 25.3 2 Lewis Ave. Deane St. Wedington Dr. West Side New 1,370 6 23.8 2 Mt. Comfort Intersection S. Garland Ave. Boone St. Cato Springs Rd. West Side New 955 6 25.5 1 Shiloh Dr. Northwood Ave. Gregg Ave. North Side New 876 8 26.3 3 ARDOT Permit 15th St. College Ave. Driveway South Side New 530 6 26.3 1 ARDOT Permit Mt. Comfort Rd. Hidden Creek Dr. Rupple Rd. North Side New 925 8 22.8 4 Totals 5,876 Length Width Matrix Score Contracted Proiects From To Placement Tvoe Feet Feet (28 Max) Ward Notes TAP Funded MILK Jr. Blvd. (Walkability) Church Ave. Wood Ave. West Side New 1,370 6 23.8 1 ($500k) Stearns St. Connect Old Missouri Rd. Vantage Ave. Both Sides New 300 6 25.3 3 Funded ($480k) North of Cinnamon Way Funding Old Missouri Rd. South of Sterns St. West Side Rep 1,860 10 26.5 3 Connect to Zion Dependent Huntsville Rd. Blair Ave. Morningside Dr. South Side New 480 10 25.3 1 Funding Dependent Totals 2,340 Prioritv Crosswalk Enhancement Proiects Crosswalk Tvoe Tvoe Ward Notes 1 MILK Jr. Blvd at Willow Ave. RRFB New 1 Designed 2 Mall Ave. at Old Navy RRFB New 3 Ready 3 Appleby at Bob Younkin RRFB New 3 Ready 4 Rupple Rd. at Bronco RRFB New 1 FPS Install 5 Salem at Bentgrass RRFB New 4 Ready 6 North Street at Gregg Ave. Signalized New 2 Ramp 7 Township Street at Azalea Terr. RRFB New 3 Sidewalk 8 S. College Ave. South St. RRFB New 1 Designed 9 Old Wire Rd. Strawberry / Azalea RRFB New 3 Designed Maintenance Proiects from Service Requests Represents 50% of work time or 98 work days in 2025 Priority 1 Address Problem Priority 3 Address Problem Priority 3 (Continued) Address Problem 377 N. Rupple Rd. Damaged 2679 N. Whistle Post Dr Trip Hazard 2155 E. Victoria Ln. Damaged 1833 W. Osage Bend Damaged by Trees 2780 N. Surrey Xing Trip Hazard 415 E. Spring St. Damaged Priority 2 Address Problem 2402 N. College Ave. Trip Hazard 2663 E. Meandering Way Trip Hazard N Sang Ave. Maintenance 2515 E. Lancer St. Trip Hazard 404 E. Center St. Trip Hazard 2313 W. Holly St. Damaged 1018 N. Canterbury Rd. Damaged 649 E. Fairlane St. Damaged 2962 N. Williamsburg Ln. Damaged 2408 N. Robin Rd. Damaged 1275 N. Gregg Ave. Trip Hazard 461 E. Spring St. Trip Hazard 2413 N. Robin Rd. Damaged 207 E. Adobe St. Trip Hazard E. Cicero Ln Damaged 2417 E. Lensfield PI Damaged 818 N. Sang Ave. Damaged 1653 River Meadows Dr. Damaged 426 N. Limestone Dr. Damaged 3733 E. Natchez Trace Trip Hazard 2848 E. Picasso PI. Trip Hazard 2962 Williamsburg Ln. Damaged 4017 N. Steele Blvd. Trip Hazard 275 S. Duncan Ave. Damaged 100 W. Louise St. Maintenance 258 W. Miller St. Trip Hazard E. Leawood Way Damaged 3503 W. Providence Dr. Damaged 3047 E. Fossil Dr. Trip Hazard 211 S. Block Ave. Damaged 25 W. Davidson St. Damaged 2313 W. Holly St. Damaged 413 W. Center St. Damaged 2452 E. Meandering Way Damaged E. Ash St. Trip Hazard 311 W. Ila St. Damaged 1971 E. Harold St. Damaged 659 N. Cliffside Dr. Damaged 506 N. Vandeventer Ave. Damaged 2531 N. Norwich Ln. Trip Hazard 1039 E. Bonnie Ln. Damaged 1215 N. Kings Dr. Trip Hazard 4518 W. Divide Dr. Damaged E. Mountain St. Trip Hazard 1903 N. Colony Way Damaged 2853 E. Brandon Cir Damaged 1852 S. Harding PI Trip Hazard 3115 E. Cherokee Dr. Damaged N. Frontage Rd. Trip Hazard 7 Ash St. Maintenance 3687 E. Township St. Damaged 8548 W. Mesa St. Trip Hazard 205 South St. Damaged 337 N. College Ave. Trip Hazard 3722 E. Leawood Way Damaged 205 W. Rock St. Damaged 1433 N. Crestwood Dr. Trip Hazard 1351 N. Carriage Way Maintenance 2231 E. Tall Oaks Dr. Damaged 1506 N. Cannondale Dr Damaged 1143 N. Vista PI. Maintenance 2029 W. Lawson St. Trip Hazard 233 W. Louise St. Trip Hazard S. Springlake Dr. Damaged 1985 N. College Ave. Damaged 2549 N. Fennchurch Way Damaged 2400 N. Hampton CT Damaged 2853 E. Brandon Cir Damaged 520 N. Washington Ave. Damaged 1343 E. Fairlane Damaged TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - JANUARY 28, 2025 U a M 2 202C 113 1 2023 156 1 225 1 136 1 99 1 2019 86 1 105 1 2019 202C 122 1 180 1 306 1 161 1 215 1 283 1 98 1 119 1 128 1 2019 171 1 2023 202C 234 1 214 1 2019 Primary New Sidewalk Projects (By rating) i O v N 0 �+ 0 U 0 U a� U � Q � d Source Street From To Ward Location Type w 0 m Notes Walk Lindell Ave. Hughes St. Cleveland St. 2 West New 26.8 2 $ 159,327 134 Walk Shiloh Dr. Gregg Ave. Northwood Ave. 3 North New 26.3 1 $ 147,483 263 Arpot right of way. Request 15th St. Razorback Greenway Washington Ave. South New 26.3 1 $ 56,783 263 Gap Stearns St. Joyce Blvd. Remington Dr. 3 North New 25.8 1 $ 7,705 258 Build Joyce Blvd. first. Walk Garland Ave. Boone St. Cato Springs Rd. 1 West New 25.5 2 $ 165,233 128 Enclose ditch, add curb and storm drainage. Request MLK Jr. Blvd College Ave. Wood Ave. 1 South New 25.4 1 $ 67,587 254 Will need additional right of way. Walk Cleveland St. Leverett Ave. Whitham Ave. 2 South New 25.3 1 $ 91,552 253 Some sidewalk currently on north side. Request Starr Dr. Cherokee St. Existing sidewalk 3 East New 24.8 1 $ 17,050 248 Remove trees, fill low area Walk Valley Dr. West End Ave. Porter Rd. 2 North New 24.3 1 $ 95,406 243 Walk Gregg Ave. Center St. Prairie St. 2 West New 24.3 5 $ 300,833 49 Art corridor? Check right of way. Walkablie Street Request Douglas St. Oakland Ave. Storer Ave. 2 South New 24.01 1 1 $ 41,850 240 Retaining wall required. Gap Lewis Ave. Deane St. Wedington Dr. 2 West New 23.8 2 $ 165,777 119 G/W Mt. Comfort Rd. Garland Ave. Oakland Ave. 2 North New 23.8 1 $ 36,744 238 Narrow street? G/W Joyce Blvd. College Ave. Vantage Dr. 3 North New 23.6 1 $ 37,679 236 Future trail. Request Mission Blvd Ramsey Ave Wellsley PI 3 North New 23.3 1 $ 132,428 233 Request Huntsville Rd. Blair Ave. Morningside Dr. 1 South New 23.0 1 $ 136,157 230 CDGB area. Coordinate design with area businesses R / W Rebecca St. College Ave. Mission Blvd. 2 North New 22.8 3 $ 244,079 76 Retaining wall, remove trees. Connect College to Mission. Walka Walk Brooks Ave. Fifteenth St. Boone St. 1 West New 22.8 3 $ 231,623 76 Enclose ditch, add curb and storm drainage. G/R Mt. Comfort Rd. Hidden Creek Dr. Rupple Rd. 41 North New 22.8 1 $ 100,051 228 Complete connection. (Cemetery) Walk West End Ave. Valley Dr. Wedington Dr. 2 West New 22.8 1 $ 75,710 228 G/W Villa Blvd. Madrid St. Sunbridge Dr. 3 East New 22.4 1 $ 9,528 224 Request Morningside GAPS New Street Postal Ctr. 1 East New 22.2 5 $ 501,504 44 Extreme grades, will require retaining walls Request Oakland Ave. Cleveland St. Existing sidewalk 2 West New 22.0 1 $ 54,880 220 Request Nettleship St. Eastern Ave. Graham Ave. 1 North New 21.7 1 $ 68,882 217 Enclose ditch, add curb and storm drainage G/W Harold St. College Ave. Sheryl Ave. 3 South New 21.7 1 $ 62,683 217 Phone lines!!! Request School Ave. 19th 24th St. East New 21.6 5 $ 446,924 43 Request McClinton St. Wood Ave. Morningside Dr. 1 North New 21.5 2 $ 158,976 108 Request Happy Hollow Rd. Acacia Crossing Fourth St. 1 West New 20.9 1 $ 124,661 209 Walk liuneway Terrace I Elm St. JAsh St. I 2 West New 20.6 2 $ 171,452 11031 Request IDeane Solomon Rd. I Moore Ln. IShiloh Dr 1 41 East New 20.6 1 $ 99,187 1206 JAdd curb and storm drainage, will need r/w for green space Page 1 of 4 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - JANUARY 28, 2025 U a M 2 166 1 130 1 101 1 145 1 150 1 307 1 305 1 221 1 116 1 216 1 168 1 164 1 223 1 131 1 155 1 213 1 231 1 183 1 228 1 226 1 115 1 192 1 121 1 275 1 236 1 255 1 2019 2019 2019 2023 2023 Primary New Sidewalk Projects (By rating) i O v N 0 �+ 0 U 0 U a� U � Q � d Source Street From To Ward Location Type � w 0 m Notes Request Deane Solomon Rd. Existing sidewalk Moore Ln. 4 East New 20.6 1 $ 31,624 206 Require tree removal, pipe and curb Request Storer Ave. Cleveland St. Douglas St. 2 West New 20.0 1 $ 52,149 200 Gap Vandeventer Ave. North St. Adams St. 2 West New 20.0 1 $ 7,630 200 Check on curb alignment. Request University Ave. Center St. Gregg Ave. 2 West New 19.9 3 $ 216,153 66 G/W Masonic Dr. College Ave. Nottingham PI. 3 North New 19.8 1 $ 26,395 198 Complete sidewalk on north side. G/W Harold St. Stubblefield Rd. Stubblefield Rd. 3 North New 19.7 1 1 $ 76,021 197 Request Ash St. Pittman Dr. New sidewalk 2 South New 19.7 1 $ 22,368 197 Request Township St Terry Dr Winwood Dr 3 South New 19.5 1 $ 95,550 195 Remove trees, retaining wall. Request Ashwood Ave. 18th St. Razorback Rd. 1 West New 19.4 1 $ 137,276 194 Retaining wall along south end. Walk Adams St. Gregg Ave. Woolsey Ave. 2 North New 19.3 1 $ 81,193 193 Established yards / landscaping in R/W G/R Hackberry Dr. Amber Dr. Overcrest St. 3 Both New 19.3 1 $ 21,502 193 Complete sidewalk connection. Walk Taylor St. Leverett Ave. Gregg Ave 2 South New 19.2 1 1 $ 87,074 192 lone lane, one way street, buildings in right of way. Request Gunter St. Olive Ave. Mission Blvd. 2 North New 19.1 1 $ 30,338 191 R/W conflict with building @ Mission Blvd. Walk Prospect St. College Ave. Willow Ave. 21 North New 18.9 1 $ 101,538 189 Retaining wall @ College Ave. G/W Walnut Ave. Prospect St. Rebecca St. 2 West New 18.9 1 $ 31,015 189 Gap Green Acres Rd. Township St. Colt Square 2 East New 18.7 1 $ 12,923 187 Trees Walk Assembly Dr. Fallin Ave. Vinson Ave. 1 East New 18.6 2 $ 154,811 93 Pipe large ditch on east side. Request Assembly Dr. Mission Blvd. Skyline Dr. 1 East New 18.6 5 $ 364,503 37 Enclose ditch, add curb and storm drainage. Walk Prospect St. Park Ave. College Ave. 2 North New 18.5 1 $ 107,240 185 Request Creekwood Ave. Township St. Cul-de-sac 3 North New 18.3 1 $ 69,423 183 Connect cul-de-sac to Township St. Walk Stanton Ave. Oakcliff St. Hilldale Dr. 3 East New 18.3 1 $ 75,968 183 Mailboxes on east side. Gap Hope St. Eastwood Dr. Existing sidewalk 3 North New 18.0 1 $ 19,173 180 lConcrete diverter wall on corner, trees. Walk Rock St. School Ave. Locust St. 2 South New 17.6 1 $ 22,732 176 Behind low curb. Gap Kantz Ln. Kantz Ln. Ball Ave. 31 North New 17.6 1 $ 7,514 176 Request Finger Rd. MILK Jr. Blvd. Walmart 1 West New 17.6 1 $ 18,773 176 Transits stop improvements Walk Washington Ave. Mountain St. Rock St. 1 East New 17.2 1 $ 22,473 172 West of Yvonne Richardson Center. Walk Viewpoint Dr. Mission Blvd. Hammond St. 3 West New 16.8 2 $ 187,474 84 Drainage, right of way ? G/W Skillern Rd. Old Wire Rd. Brookbury Crossing 3 South New 16.4 1 $ 26,045 164 Request Old Wire Rd. Colette Ave. Boxwood Dr. 3 South New 16.3 3 $ 223,063 54 Request Hughes St. Oakland Ave. Storer St. North New 16.2 1 $ 40,308 162 Request Olive Ave. Prospect St. Gunter St. East New 15.9 2 $ 173,984 80 Page 2 of 4 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - JANUARY 28, 2025 U a M 2 281 1 282 1 208 1 197 1 285 1 153 1 137 1 122 147 1 2023 2019 227 1 271 1 291 1 284 1 2023 238 1 242 1 249 1 246 1 287 1 2019 241 1 261 1 203 1 244 1 2023 195 1 243 1 2023 300 1 Primary New Sidewalk Projects (By rating) L O 0 L w! O I.f. �+ o U a� U � Q � Source Street From To Ward Location Type I- w 0 m Notes Walk Baxter Ln. College Ave. Willow Ave. 2 North New 15.9 1 $ 89,758 159 Walk Cleburn St. College Ave. Fritz Dr. 2 North New 15.9 1 $ 142,525 159 Request Walnut Ave. Rebecca St. Johnson St. 2 West New 15.8 1 $ 54,517 158 Walk Bertha St. Lee St. Stubblefield Rd. 31 North New 15.8 1 $ 48,933 158 Trees Walk Elizabeth Ave. Rolling Hills Dr. Oaks Manor Dr 3 East New 15.5 1 $ 41,840 155 More right of way on west side. Request Rush Dr. Prospect St. Mission Blvd. 2 West New 15.4 1 $ 144,997 154 Walk Hendrix St. Addington Ave. Garland Ave. 2 North New 15.3 1 $ 115,975 153 Request Holly St. Garland Ave. Oakland Ave. 2 North New 15.3 1 $ 28,110 153 Walk Gregg Ave. Taylor St. Douglas St. 2 West New 15.3 1 $ 37,478 153 One lane, one way street, buildings in right of way. Request Eastern Ave. Nettleship St. Mitchel St. West New 14.6 3 $ 231,213 49 Request Raven Ln. Quail Dr. Mt. Comfort Rd. 4 West New 14.3 1 $ 32,505 143 Gap Columbus Blvd. Eastwood Dr. Applebury Dr. 3 North New 14.3 1 $ 32,641 143 Concrete diverter wall on corner, trees. Walk Oakcliff St. Elizabeth Ave. Stanton Ave. 3 South New 14.1 1 $ 96,919 141 Retaining wall or narrow street. G.R Skillern Rd. Brookbury Crossing Charleston Crossing 3 South New 14.1 1 $ 54,010 141 Walk Columbus Blvd. Kings Dr. Eastwood Dr. 3 South New 13.4 1 $ 24,850 134 Request Nettleship St. Eastern Ave. Graham Ave. South New 13.2 1 $ 39,675 132 Request Woolsey Ave. North St. Prospect St. 2 West Both 13.0 1 $ 145,566 130 Landscaping Walk Shady Ln. Holly St. North St. 2 East New 12.7 1 $ 47,353 127 Narrow street, check right of way. Walk Willow Ave. Baxter Ln. Prospect St. 2 East New 12.7 1 $ 101,870 127 Large trees, narrow street, poles, landscaping. Walk Park Ave. North St. Prospect St. 2 East New 12.3 1 $ 114,529 123 Narrow street ? Walk Calvin St. Knox Dr. Birwin Dr. 2 South New 12.2 1 $ 73,980 122 Request Woodlark Ln. Quail Dr. Mt. Comfort Rd. 41 East New 11.8 1 $ 38,129 118 Walk Juneway Terrace Overcrest St. Elm St. 2 East New 11.7 1 $ 40,245 117 Walk I Pollard Ave. ICleburn St. I Prospect St. 2 East I New 11.6 1 $ 56,207 116 Right of way on east side of street. Walk JCleburn St. lWoolsey Ave. I Park St. 2 North I New 11.5 1 $ 50,501 115 Walk Patricia Ln. Gregq Ave. Vandeventer Ave. 2 North New 11.4 1 $ 68,919 114 Request Ashwood Ave. 18th St. Arrowhead St. West New 11.2 1 $ 128,314 112 Walk Washington Ave. Prospect St. Rebecca St. 2 East New 10.4 1 $ 40,034 104 Walk Vandeventer Ave. Holly St. North St. 2 East New 10.2 1 $ 52,977 102 Curbs on both sides, poles at back of curb. Request Township St. Yorkwood Dr. Crosswalk New 10.0 1 $ 15,380 100 Walk Applebury Dr. Columbus Blvd. Rockwood Tr. 3 East New 9.9 1 $ 125,387 99 Trees Page 3 of 4 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - JANUARY 28, 2025 292 1 2019 2019 Primary New Sidewalk Projects (By rating) 12/21 /2023 L O 0 L w! O I.f. �+ co 0) o U a� U � Q � C Source Street From To Ward Location Type ca I- w 0 m Notes Walk Oakwood St. College Ave. Lakeridge Dr. 2 South New 8.3 2 $ 156,226 41 Request Canterbury Rd. Boston Mtn. View Lovers Ln. 1 North New 5.8 3 $ 211,166 19 Extreme grades, will require retaining walls Request Lovers Lane Crossover Rd. Canterbury Rd. 1 North New 5.5 5 $ 501,504 11 Extreme grades, will require retaining walls Page 4 of 4 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - JANUARY 28, 2025 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS C� A -D POWERED BY ICC 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT AND METHODS OVERVIEW.............................................................................................1 1.2 RESULTS OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................2 2.0 PRINCIPLES OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT......................................................5 2.1 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES.........................................................................................5 3.0 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS....................................................................7 3.1 FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................7 3.2 DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE..........................................................................................................8 3.3 PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY...................................................................................................9 3.4 ESA PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.....................................................................................18 3.5 ICC INFORM PAVEMENT NETWORK CONDITION VIEWER............................................................21 3.6 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................21 4.0 PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY RESULTS......................................................22 4.1 CITY STREET INVENTORYAND CONDITION SUMMARY.................................................................22 4.2 CITY NETWORK CONDITION IMAGERY.........................................................................................23 4.3 CITY NETWORK CONDITION DISTRIBUTION................................................................................30 4.4 CONDITION BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION............................................................................31 4.5 CONDITION BY PAVEMENT TYPE.................................................................................................33 4.6 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................33 5.0 REHABILITATION PLAN & BUDGET DEVELOPMENT......................................34 5.1 KEYANALYSIS SET POINTS AND ASSUMPTIONS ..........................................................................34 5.2 NETWORK BUDGETANALYSIS MODELS......................................................................................36 5.3 POST REHABILITATION CONDITION............................................................................................40 5.4 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................40 6.0 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS...............................................41 6.1 PROJECT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................41 6.2 CLOSING.....................................................................................................................................41 APPENDED REPORTS Following Page 42 Appendix A Street Inventory and Condition Summary by Segment Appendix B 5-Year Rehab Plan Appendix C Full-size Maps APPENDED MAPS Functional Classification Current Pavement condition index (PCI) 5 Year Rehabilitation Plan: $1.7M Annual Budget 5 Year Post Rehabilitation PCI: $1.7M Annual Budget IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page i i.i Project and Methods Overview In January of 2024, IMS Infrastructure Management Services, LP (IMS) utilized a cutting -edge Integrated Road Information System (IRISpro Pave) (Figure 1) to capture continuous, high -resolution pavement images that were used to assess pavement cracking, rutting, and roughness on 420 centerline miles of predominantly asphalt roadways in Fayetteville, AR (City). In this project, IMS also deployed its Fast -Falling Weight Deflectometer (FastFWD) to assess the structural integrity of the City's Arterials and Collectors. IMS followed the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6433 standard to analyze the images and distress data collected by the IRISpro to determine the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for each segment of the road. PCI values were recorded to provide an indication of the surface conditions and structural integrity of a pavement. Using the Easy Street Analysis (ESA) pavement management system, IMS developed multi -year pavement maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) recommendations for the roadways surveyed. The recommendations consider the severity, quantity, and type of pavement distresses, surface type, pavement strength, functional class, and the level of traffic. By utilizing these recommendations, the City can make informed decisions on how best to allocate their resources to ensure the longevity and safety of their roadways. Figure 1 - IMS Integrated Road Information System platform (IRISPro Pave) The PCI method was used in accordance with the ASTM D6433 standards to assess the condition of the City's pavements. This method is considered an objective and repeatable approach to assess pavement condition, which is preferrable to alternative methods that rely upon potentially biased human ratings. Based on the PCI results, ESA prioritizes funding using a cost -of -deferral approach, recommending M&R activities that optimize funding by selecting rehabilitation candidates only when they approach the critical point where a heavier maintenance activity will soon be needed to restore the roadway to full service. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 1 The analysis and data presented in this report are based on the inspections performed by IMS in January 2024 on the City's pavement network, using available work history and other assumptions that are elaborated on later in this report. Roadways that were rehabilitated or reconstructed after the field inspection was performed were assigned a PCI value of 94. All other segments were deteriorated using the defined pavement deterioration models to reflect the conditions of the roadways at the time of analysis, January 2025. 1.2 Results Overview and Recommendations PCI values provide an indication of the surface conditions and structural integrity of a pavement. The 0-100 PCI range is commonly divided into categories using descriptive terms: Very Poor, Poor, Marginal, Fair, Good, Very Good, and Excellent. Divisions between the terms are not fixed but are meant to reflect common perceptions of pavement conditions. These divisions are discussed in more detail in Section 3.0. The City's roadways were generally found to be in Very Good condition with an average PCI of 77. Figure 2 provides a visual breakdown of the distribution of pavement area across different PCI categories at the time of analysis. Approximately 75% of the City's roadways were found to be in Excellent or Very Good condition. If structurally sound, these pavements are often suitable candidates for cost-effective preventive maintenance treatments. On the other hand, pavements with a PCI below 40 (i.e., pavements in Poor or Very Poor condition) comprise the City's "backlog" of M&R. The City's backlog was found to be 3%. These pavements typically require full or partial reconstruction. Pavements falling within the middle categories, such as Fair or Marginal condition, often benefit from mill and overlay projects. It's important to note that these are general recommendations, and the specific M&R strategy may vary based on factors such as distress types, soil conditions, structural adequacy, and other project -specific details. Poor 25 to 40) 3% Marginal (40 to 50) 3% ■ V Poor (0 to 25) ■ Poor (25 to 40) ❑ Marginal (40 to 50) ❑ Fair (50 to 60) ❑ Good (60 to 70) ■ V Good (70 to 85) ■ Excellent (85 to 100) Figure 2 - Distribution of the City's Pavement System on a Condition Scale IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 2 Metrics of Health The following three metrics are frequently used as indicators of overall pavement network health. The pavement analysis uses these metrics as benchmarks when determining budget goals, such as the backlog control, PCI control, and recommended funding levels. Pavement Condition Index (PCI) - The PCI score is a ranking assessment on the overall health of a pavement segment on a scale of 0 to 100. The network average PCI is a good global indicator of a network's overall health. Percent of Excellent Roads - Roads with a condition category of Excellent are those that score between a PCI of 85 to 100. Backlog -Backlog is the Very Poor and Poor roads (between a PCI of 0 and 40) that represent a portion of the network in need of extensive rehabilitation such as full and partial reconstruction. Using sound pavement management and finance principles, a very healthy network will have a backlog of 10% or less. The City met three out of three of the metrics for evaluating the quality of its roadway network. ✓ The network average pavement condition score exceeds the national average currently seen by IMS of 60 to 65, with the City's average scoring a 77. ✓ The number of streets rated Excellent is above the minimum recommended target of 15% at 31% ✓ The backlog amount is below the average value of 12% at 3%. The analysis conducted by IMS using the ESA pavement management system has provided the City with valuable insights into the condition of its roadways. To assess the effect of annual budget on PCI over a five-year period, Figure 3 has been generated to depict the anticipated PCI in five years relative to different annual budget allocations. The blue line allows the user to assess the effect of a given annual budget on the PCI in five years, serving as a valuable tool for understanding the potential effects of budget decisions on future pavement conditions. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 3 80 0 c 75 0 U G1 bo M L i Q i 70 0 3 a z M L v. 0 a 65 .e 2025 to 2029 Rehab Analysis Results Fayetteville Budget: Final PCI = 73, Backlog = 2%, Annual Budget = $1.7M/Yr Steady State PCI: Final PCI = 77, Backlog = 2%, Annual Budget = $4M/Yr ----- Maintain Current Backlog: Final PCI = 72, Backlog = 3%, Annual Budget = $1.26M/Yr PCI Control Budget: Final PCI = 70, Backlog = 7%, Annual Budget = $0.13M/Yr ----- Backlog Control Budget: Final PCI = 70, Backlog = 6%, Annual Budget = $0.34M/Yr 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Annual Budget Each Year for Five Years ($1M/Yr) Figure 3 - PCI Based on Five -Year Annual Budget Funding Models It is important to note that the information presented in the Executive Summary is condensed from various sections of this report. Reviewers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the detailed information provided in subsequent sections of the report prior to making any specific decisions based on these results. This will ensure that decisions regarding M&R activities are based on a comprehensive understanding of the conditions of the roadways and the recommendations provided in the report. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 14 This section provides an overview of pavement management, including its objectives and the best practices for M&R planning throughout the lifecycle of a pavement. It also highlights the integration of these concepts in the ESA pavement management system, which was used in this report to develop recommendations and analyze the City's pavement network. This context is important for understanding the content and findings of the report. 2.1 Pavement Management Principles Pavement management is the process of assessing, prioritizing, and preserving or rehabilitating pavements through a logical system that attempts to use available funds in the most cost-effective manner possible. The process is iterative, and as more data becomes available, prediction models are refined to improve accuracy. Figure 4 illustrates that pavements typically start deteriorating rapidly once they hit a specific threshold. Therefore, it is more cost-effective to invest in cheaper surface treatments during the first 40% of a pavement's lifespan than to defer maintenance until heavier overlays or reconstruction is required just a few years later. Streets that are repaired while in good condition will have an extended lifespan and will cost less to maintain over their lifetime than those left to deteriorate to a poor condition. Without an adequate routine pavement maintenance program, streets will require more frequent reconstruction, thereby requiring significantly greater funding. c 0 16 c 0 U y, C N E N a Time Figure 4 - Pavement Deterioration and Life Cycle Costs The types of rehabilitation activities that the City chooses to deploy can have a significant effect on the longevity of a pavement. Depending on the PCI zone in which a pavement falls, a detailed rehabilitation strategy needs to be formed. Common rehabilitation types include localized preventive or stop gap activities (e.g. crack sealing, joint sealing, and patching), global preventive maintenance (e.g. fog seals, rejuvenators, slurry seals, microsurfacing, chip seals, cape seals, and thin overlays), major Rehabilitation (e.g. thin or thick mill and overlays), and major Reconstruction IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 5 (e.g. surface reconstruction or full reconstruction). Popular examples of cost-effective preventative activities include: • Crack and Joint Sealing • Microsurfacing • Fog Seal and Rejuvenators • Patching • Slurry and Chip Seals • Thin Overlays A proactive pavement management program focuses on the preventative maintenance category and advocates proper incorporation and application of cost-effective preventative activities. These activities help maintain and repair the surface integrity which can slow deterioration and, depending on the treatment, also extend the life of a pavement. The outcome of this exercise is to increase long-term cost savings and network -level pavement quality over time. When completed within the target zone for preventative maintenance, a pavement's lifespan can be conveniently extended. The dashed curves in Figure 5 show the typical lifespan of a pavement that does not undergo any preventive maintenance. Major reconstruction becomes necessary after approximately 20 years. The blue curves show the benefits of preventive maintenance during the first 40% of a pavement's lifespan. Eventually, all pavements will need to undergo reconstruction; however, proactive maintenance and rehabilitation can delay this process for up to an additional 40 years. Pavement Life Cycle Target Zone for Pavement Preservation Increased Pavement Life •' Target Zone for Pavement Rehabilitation '• Not rehabilitate Target Zone for Pavement Reconstruction pavement perormance' ' f Vo Time Figure 5 - Pavement Life Cycle Curve The most effective approach to ensure optimal usage of available funds or to determine the necessary funding to achieve a predetermined level of service is by using a pavement management system. An effective pavement management system can assist agencies in developing an organized catalog of pavement assets, storing periodic condition assessments, and tracking spending and costs. This enables the City to compare trends in data to assess the effectiveness of maintenance activities and new technologies. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 6 3A Field Survey Methodology IMS deployed one of its IrisPro Pave Integrated Road Information Systems for data collection. IrisPro Pave integrates industry -leading subsystems, including 3D pavement imaging systems, lasers, accelerometers, right-of-way cameras, GPS antenna, distance measurement instruments, computers and more (Figure 6). All collected data is captured with DriveTm data collection software, which is designed to simplify the collection of quality road data with built-in calibration schedules, real-time quality control, GIS maps, section tracking, audible alerts and voice memos, fly -by events, and exception reporting. The custom -designed hardware and software on IrisPro Pave provides sub - millisecond synchronization between all subsystems. Teledyne FUR Ladybug 5+ Captures 360' Imagery at Defined Intervals ASTM Class 1 IrisPRO Pavement Profiler Continuous Right and Left Wheel Path Roughness Measurements Pavement Distress Imaging LCMS-2 Continuous 3D Imaging, 1 mm Resolution Drive TM Automated Data Collection Paired with Field Observations GPS Positioning GPS with Integrated IMU, Sub Meter Positional Accuracy Samsara Monitoring Real -Time Tracking and Reporting Texture Continuous Surface Texture Measurements Linear Distance Positioning DMI for Precise Linear Distance Measurements Safety Lighting Front and Back Facing Flashing Lights Ensure High Visibility lriosPRO Pave Figure 6 - LCMS-2 data collection vehicle IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 7 3D Pavement Imaging The Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS-2) captures continuous 2D and 3D images at 1 mm resolution in the lane of travel up to 4 m (13 ft) wide at highway speeds, allowing for the visualization and characterization of all features on the road surface. The system allows for collection rates up to 28,000 profiles per second, five times faster than the first edition of LCMS. This allows smaller cracks, especially transverse cracks, to be detected more consistently than in the past. The vertical accuracy has also improved from 0.50 mm to 0.25 mm. High -Definition 360-Degree Imaging The Ladybug 5+ captures high quality 30MP spherical images using six cameras for a 360-degree view of the roadway and surroundings. The images can be viewed in panoramic mode, 360 mode, or individual directional images can be extracted at any desired camera angle. Both the Pavement imaging and right of way cameras are triggered on a fixed -distance basis, image capture is precisely synchronized to GPSTime and DMI, and cameras are calibrated for asset inventory and geo- referenced image measurements. 3.2 Data Quality Assurance The collected data is processed in the office using the ConnectTM software. Connect provides a perfectly synchronized multi window platform to view and alter all collected data including profile, distress, slope, International Roughness Index (IRI), events, images, and GPS map. Figure 7 shows some examples of how data can be viewed in Connect. Using Connect, the LCMS-2 3D pavement images are analyzed to identify and classify distresses, and the longitudinal profile of the road is analyzed to determine the IRI and ride quality under the wheel paths according to industry standards. All processed data is matched to the segment ID of the roadway. To ensure the accurate determination of PCI scores, the field data undergoes a rigorous series of processing phases and quality checks. These checks encompass synchronized assessment of both processed and raw data streams. The automatic distress identification and classification process involves various steps: First, different rules and processing parameters are applied on different pavement types; next, the auto detected lane markings are manually adjusted to exclude non - pavement areas and limit the assessment area for cracking and rutting to between the lane markings and invalidation rules are applied to exclude additional anomalies (e.g. near railroad crossing or bridge decks) from the assessment area. Finally, a team of pavement raters who are well -versed in both the distress standards and the data in its digital format review images and make the necessary corrections on areas with gross under/over detection. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 8 u a - u ✓. a.,.. - . + inl_ A :i . x ,, a _ t i� A l rs y - .. - i ,aaruamw 1- M IM mllr.w mo, m if • { ., o an: - • L om sna avr • t , , v ■ C asv on: aue • � 3,a aus ■ t , v , • !, anu s. a, e ■ � on. oar • d osr on, ].ut [n 4a.eu.IM >M.nwaro mcm. F.me •(cyupa�•1•• -� I --.. Figure 7 - QC Image from Connect"' Software To further confirm the accuracy of our condition data, spot checks are conducted on a network -wide basis by both the QC team and engineering staff. These spot checks are carried out on a random selection of road sections across the entire network to verify that the condition data is consistent and accurate. They also help to identify any potential issues that may have been missed during the initial data collection and review process. Once the QC team and engineering staff have established the integrity of the data, an initial condition spreadsheet with detailed data and summary tables and charts is prepared and submitted for review by the Client. This review process involves a careful examination of the condition data and includes a comprehensive analysis of the data's completeness, accuracy, and consistency before preparing data for import to City's pavement management system. 3.3 Pavement Condition Survey The goal of the pavement condition survey is to determine an accurate rating for each pavement section. The process of collecting and assessing data involves both automated and manual observations that originate from the data collected with the IrisPro Pave equipped with LCMS-2 downward imaging lasers, an array of 4k cameras, and trained rating personnel. Within the "Network Analysis" tab in ESA, IMS has populated values for Surface Distresses, Roughness score, and Strength Rating. These three indices form the foundation on which ESA operates. They allow weighing factors to be uniquely specified for PCI calculation. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 9 Surface Distress Index (SDI) ASTM D6433 provides a method of categorizing surface distress observations for both asphalt and concrete pavements, based on the extent and severity of distresses along the roadway. The Surface Distress Index (SDI) is used to represent the observed pavement defects on a scale from 0 to 100. However, not all surface distresses are given equal weight. Load -associated distresses (LAD), such as rutting or alligator cracking on asphalt streets, and divided slabs on concrete streets, have a greater impact on the SDI than non -load associated distresses (NLAD), such as raveling or longitudinal and transverse cracking. Even when present in low extents and moderate severity, LAD can significantly decrease the SDI. The SDI inputs are shown in Figure 8. Distress Type Distress Quantity Distress Severity Surface Distress Index (SDI) Figure 8 - SDI Inputs and Detailed Scale IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 10 ASTM D6433 covers nearly forty unique distress types that may or may not be present in an agency's road network. For that reason, IMS uses a modified approach that collects the most common and relevant distresses. The descriptions in Table 1 outline some of the distresses collected for the City: Table 1 - Distress Descriptions Distress Type Pavement Description Example Type Alligator Asphalt • Quantified by severity Cracking and square footage • Caused by the repeated bending from vehicle loads • Propagate from the bottom, meaning that structural failure has occurred • An LAD with significant impact on the condition score, even at low extents Rutting Asphalt • Caused by the permanent deformation of the pavement and/or subgrade layers • Low densities can have a large impact on the final condition score due,, to their implication of possible structural failure Longitudinal & Asphalt • Quantified by their Transverse length and width Cracking • Results from pavement shrinkage due to natural daily and seasonal temperature cycles, construction issues, or other factors IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 11 Block Cracking Asphalt • Quantified by their width and square footage • Form interconnected longitudinal and :Y transverse cracks • Divides the pavement into rectangular pieces • Results from aging and environmental factors Patching Asphalt • Quantified by the - - square footage and T severity • Always considered a surface defect • Affects ride quality and w condition of a pavement Raveling Asphalt • Measured by severity , and square footage affected t ---� • Loss of coarser aggregate on pavement surface ' Bleeding Asphalt • Measured by severity and square footage • Presence of free asphalt binder on the °`'' roadway surface • Results in a pavement surface with reduced skid resistance .J • Caused by either an excess of asphalt in the pavement or insufficient voids in the matrix IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 12 Edge Cracking Asphalt • Measured in linear feet • Caused by traffic loading and weakened base conditions resulting from poor drainage • Run parallel to the r road, usually within 1 to 2 feet of the outer edge _ of the pavement Distortion Asphalt • Bumps and sags, depressions, swell, corrugation, and shoving • Caused by several �. factors, such as construction issues, {r' subgrade mixture;f6 failure, environmental influence, etc. Weathering Asphalt • Wearing away of ti asphalt binder and finey= ` aggregate matrix ��.. • Quantified by severity and square footage y Divided Slab I Concrete Corner Breaks I Concrete • Slab divided by cracks into four or more pieces • Caused by overloading, inadequate support, or both • Categorized as a severe corner break if all pieces or cracks are contained within a corner break • Crack that intersects with a joint at less than 1/2 the slab length • Caused by repeated load on a surface with a failing base IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 13 Joint Spalling Concrete • A breakdown of the edges of a slab within 2ft of a joint • The depth of the cracking and area affected determine the severity Faulting Concrete • Identified by ___ difference in elevation - - across a joint _ - - - • Severe faults have a = - >3/4 inch elevation _ — - difference between two adjacent concrete slabs Durability Concrete • Caused by the freeze - Cracking thaw expansion of the large aggregate • Breaks down concrete over -time • Typically runs parallel to a joint or linear crack • A high severity "D" crack covers more than 15% of the overall slab Scaling Concrete • A result of the surface layer of concrete being worn away overtime by weathering - • Measured by severity and total area affected Punchouts Concrete • Caused by heavy and repeat loads, inadequate slab thickness, and a deterioration of the base foundation • Measured by severity and number of individual cracks within the distress IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 14 Roughness Index (RI) The Roughness Index (RI) provides a quantifiable measure of ride quality, which is determined using the industry -standard ASTM E1926 for calculating the IRI. This value is derived from the longitudinal profile captured by the LCMS as it records the change in elevation over a distance. Once calculated, it is expressed as a slope and reported in millimeters per meter (mm/m). Typical IRI levels for new, older, and damaged pavements are displayed in Figure 9. The IRI is lower on average for roads or pavements that are normally used for higher speed travel. Figure 9 - IRI Scale Definitions To enable the use of a blended condition score that incorporates both PCI and IRI scores, the IRI value is converted to an equivalent scale for analysis purposes. This is achieved by converting the IRI value into a score on a scale from 0 to 100 and reporting it as the RI using the following formula: RI = (11 - 3.5 x In(lRl)) x 10 In(IRI) is the natural logarithm of IRI. To provide some context, a newly constructed street would typically have an RI value of above 85, whereas a street that requires an overlay would fall within the range of 40 to 70. Roadways in poor condition generally have RI values below 40, although they may achieve higher blended scores if the distresses responsible for the low RI score are not due to structural failure or other severe causes. For instance, rapid construction can lead to a pavement surface with less -than -optimal smoothness, resulting in a low RI value. However, since the distress or imperfection is not caused by severe failures within the pavement structure, the blended PCI value may not be significantly affected. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 15 Structural Index (SI) At the request of the City, conventional structural deflection testing was conducted on the arterial and collector network of streets using a Fast -Falling Weight Deflectometer (FFWD) (Figure 10). To enable the formation of a blended condition score, the deflection data obtained from FFWD testing was analyzed, and then the resulting structural numbers were converted to a score from 0 to 100 and reported as the Structural Index (SI) for each segment. The SI was calculated using a sigmoid function in the form of the following formula: 100 SI = 1+ea(SNioss—b) In the formula for SI, a and b are parameters generated and populated by an Al tool developed by IMS and specialized for each individual project. Their values for the purpose of the City's network analysis were a = 0.05 and b = 40. SNloss represents the loss in structural capacity as a percentage. The formula that was used to generate this value is: SNloss = 100 X SNre,, —SNeff SNreq The required structural number (SNTeq) used to calculate SNloss was determined using AASHTO 1993 pavement design guidelines based on traffic information and the subgrade resilient modulus. The effective structural number (SNeff) was determined using an Al tool developed at IMS. For local streets, however, it was necessary to quantify the structural performance and capacity of the roadways in order to conduct pavement analysis. Therefore, the relationship between the PCI and the amount of load -associated structural distress was analyzed, and each pavement section was assigned a Weak, Moderate, or Strong strength rating. It should be noted that these SI values were not used in determining the overall pavement condition score, as they were not calculated from true structural testing. Instead, these SI values were only used to classify pavement strength and assist in selecting appropriate rehabilitation strategies. Figure 10 - Fast Falling Weight Deflectometer Pavement condition index (PCI) - Following the field surveys, the condition data was imported to ESA for calculating the overall PCI. The PCI for each segment was calculated using the following percentages of weighing factors: Local PCI = 67% SDI + 33% RI Collector / Arterial PCI = 50% SDI +25% RI + 25% SI IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 16 Table 2 presents each PCI category along with a brief description of the typical distresses and recommended treatments for each. Table 2 - Pavement Condition Categories Like new condition - little to no maintenance required. 185<PCI<-100 Monitor condition or preventive maintenance. Minor cracking, raveling, and other NLAD 70<130:585 Very Good Routine or preventive maintenance. E.g., Crack sealing, surface treatment Minor to moderate cracking and low severity LAD such as 60<130:570 alligator cracking and rutting. Good Surface treatments with localized repairs and overlays E.g., Surface treatments, localized surface patching, thin overlay More extensive and severe longitudinal and transverse 50<13CI<_60 cracking, as well as moderate severity LAD Fair Localized repairs or major rehabilitation. E.g., Localized surface and/or full -depth patching, moderate overlays Localized high -severity alligator cracking, and rutting I 40<PCI<_50 Marginal Major rehabilitation. E.g., Localized full -depth patching, mill and overlay, traditional overlay A greater extent of severe alligator cracking, rutting I 25<130<_40 Major rehabilitation. E.g., More extensive full -depth patching, mill and overlay, traditional overlay Extensive and severe alligator cracking, more extensive and 0<130<_25 deeper rutting, and potholes. Major rehabilitation. E.g., Full -depth reclamation, reconstruction IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 17 3.4 ESA Pavement Management System The ESA software provides all the functionalities of a standalone software package while being user-friendly. It provides the City with a tool that can effectively catalog, classify, assess, track, and analyze condition data to aid in the processes of budget planning and pavement rehabilitation. More specifically the program helps the City streamline its pavement management by giving structure to the basic information required for a management system: • Pavement Section Inventory • Pavement Deterioration Modeling • Prioritization • Funding Analysis Pavement Section Inventory • Inspection Data • Rehabilitation Selections & History • Work Planning • Reporting An accurate inventory of all City -owned streets is necessary to make any determinations, assumptions, or projections within a management system. Individual attributes such as length, width, location, traffic use, surface type, condition, and other factors may be tracked and tied back to a single management segment within ESA. Thereafter, they are given a unique ID within the program. These attributes are critical in determining appropriate rehabilitation activities, prioritizing the management segments within the system, and facilitating placement and sorting during reporting. Inspection Data ESA provides the City with the flexibility to use a blended condition index that can be tailored to meet specific goals and requirements. The inputs for this index rely on inspection data from the field survey. This custom reporting value is built based on various aspects considered while ranking the condition of a pavement. The inputs for this index are derived from inspection data collected during the field survey, including PCI and IRI data. Details on the individual components of the inspection are available earlier in Section 3.0. Pavement Deterioration Modeling Inspection data by itself is only capable of representing conditions at the time of collection. Nevertheless, within ESA there are customizable curves that can predict the rate of pavement deterioration based on a streets functional class, pavement type, and strength rating. These deterioration curves are critical in predicting future pavement conditions and determining appropriate rehabilitation strategies. The model assumes that pavements with similar attributes and usage will deteriorate at similar rates. For instance, high volume asphalt arterials that are already in poor condition are expected to deteriorate faster and are represented in Figure 11 by a purple line. In contrast, low volume concrete local streets are expected to deteriorate slowly and are represented by a blue dashed line. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 18 100 90 80 x 70 w r 60 0 e 0 50 t� 40 a 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time (Years) Figure 11 - Asphalt Concrete Pavement (ACP) and Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Deterioration Curves Rehabilitation Work Selections & History ESA uses a set of protocols that allow for activities to be assigned to PCI ranges based on filter criteria that give the City the ability to create detailed rehabilitation strategy sets for each functional class and pavement type according to the best practices determined for that pavement. As planned rehabilitation work is completed, a record of the work should be added to the pavement management system. This ensures that conditions are up to date for future selections and creates a repository of information to aid in planning. Prioritization Within ESA, the option is available to prioritize pavement projects for rehabilitation based on six main criteria: PCI, Cost of Deferral, Pavement Strength, Pavement Type, Functional Class, and the Area of a segment. Depending on the goals set forth at the beginning of the project, these criteria can be weighted differently based on their definition to create an overall priority factor for a project. Additional details on these factors are available in Section 5. Project planning The ability to plan work as needed allows the management program to better reflect the realities of a paving program. Certain constraints may be applied to funds that require their use within a certain year and activities relating to other assets may dictate the time and type of work to be performed. ESA allows for predefined projects to be entered into the management plan to account for work that is known. This ensures that the outcome is consistent with overall City planning and accurately reflects current funding allocations. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 19 In terms of pavement management efficiency, a program based on worst -first, that is starting at the lowest -rated street and working up towards the highest, does not achieve an optimal expenditure of funds. Generally, under this scenario, agencies cannot sufficiently fund pavement rehabilitation and lose ground despite injecting large amounts of capital into the network. The preferred basis of rehabilitation candidate selection is to examine the cost of deferral of a street against increased life expectancy. Funding analysis The actual process of determining where and when to spend funds is a function of the inputs mentioned in this section. Information from the street section inventory, condition survey, deterioration modeling, rehabilitation activity protocols, prioritization, and project planner are all assessed to predict the potential outcomes of funding scenarios. These can either be goal -based or budget -based. A more detailed description is available in Section 5.0. Reporting ESA has the ability to generate basic reports for common data requests through a set of predefined layouts. This allows for quick access to section condition summaries, inspection data, budget scenario summaries, and data charts. The GIS data used to generate this report is also linked to the section summary information to allow for quick and easy visualizations of the data if imported into a GIS utility. An example of data, as presented in ESA, can be seen in Figure 12. NY 31g M,Y .M •.. c .. cwr ..• .n•. t7tf )7]/ �l)t� ]00 Yow�Y •r s� ArL ..v n Nft i1011� NtN N uN.,•n V�•': •!n •� N1N .Y trN•n -•M V.�f1 -7N u..e. l• NY MIS S rl/ M -�" YY NN : Yn N �w L wrM�. �w ild� �N.•w �.• ..w I� MN NtY 7N tw.•w �w �Y�f Ifn 77Tf •w': 4•wnrM MOM A*— IYp. �w ww n •....rw t-.w.. rrN u•M, o•r.r........ /0 V Sneeth•me 4� • IN 6-1 A— • GiSID 34136 DCI 14A • 4,• . • • ; „r 4 Ut g V Good a'•min ., .. • I ..`.. ,., `..... .....w rw-.r.. cwu� taw o....r•.. w... ._...-..-. .,,... Figure 12 - Example of ESA City Data IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 20 3.5 ICC Inform Pavement Network Condition Viewer Included with every IMS pavement management project is an out -of -the -box, user friendly, browser - based image and condition viewer toll called ICC Inform. Inform provides a convenient medium through which the City may view the imagery collected during the pavement survey. This includes a forward view of the pavement, the downward LCMS view, and a panoramic 360-degree view allowing the City to view each pavement observation from several perspectives. Lastly, a complete map of the City will track the location of every pavement image, providing additional context to the individual pavement segments. An example of Inform can be seen in Figure 13 below. YNFORM .. . ► » ,�.0, _ 0, .�,�m��, �M� �e� ��,� �, ..�e�� m o — o o ' E xrRNu E u�o Nxux,s 11 1.1.: Iu 13tL0 ]L x 1 E 5 NSuMESiq u xE tin U' Dt9 -P N1KE&W NSUxIF5L0. xE �\ 1-1 .1S .1 EIIMKF BEv[ ,U055 NSUNBESi EI EM. 639 Figure 13 - ICC Inform Image Viewer The "play" button in the top left of the Inform application provides the user a means to follow the RST as it drives the City streets. The drop -down menus in the top -center portion of the screen allow the user to quickly search for a particular street segment by GISID, and to even compare images from multiple years of surveys _if data is available from previous survey years). The entirety of this proprietary image -viewing application can be accessed through a web browser by following a link that has been provided to the City staff. 3.6 Summary This section outlined the fundamental concepts of pavement management and described the implementation process for the City's pavement management system. The operating parameters of ESA were reviewed, and the inputs provided by the LCMS-2 technology were explained to provide context for calculating PCI, Roughness Index, and Pavement Strength. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 21 This section will review the results of the pavement condition survey performed in January 2024. The segments were deteriorated using the defined pavement deterioration models to reflect the conditions of the roadways at the time of analysis (January 2025). This section includes a summary of conditions in the functional classes used in the City's analysis, followed by a review of network photos taken from the survey vehicle. A series of charts will then summarize the findings of the condition survey and provide an overview of the PCI distribution across the City's pavement network. 4.1 City Street Inventory and Condition Summary The City of Fayetteville is currently responsible for approximately 420 centerline miles of pavement with an overall PCI of 77 and a backlog of 3%. The following Table 3 presents the City's inventory and pavement condition breakdown across different functional classes. Detailed information for each management section is available in Appendix A. Table 3 - Network Inventory Summary by Functional Class and Pavement Type Segment (Block) Count All Streets 5325 1 89 1 326 1 987 1 20 1 3903 Asphalt 5066 85 314 914 20 3733 Concrete 259 4 12 73 0 170 Network Length (ft): All Streets 2218858 41810 138971 423504 8338 1606235 Asphalt 2136797 40935 133928 406512 8338 1547084 Concrete 82061 875 5043 16992 0 59151 Network Length (mi): All Streets 420 8 26 80 2 304 Asphalt 405 8 25 77 2 293 Concrete 16 0 1 3 0 11 Average Width (ft): All Streets 28 55 36 29 22 27 Asphalt 28 55 35 28 22 26 Concrete 31 52 49 32 0 28 Network Area (yd2): All Streets 6911466 257372 551363 1345759 20728 4736244 Asphalt 6632041 252358 523796 1284568 20728 4550591 Concrete 279425 5014 27567 61191 0 185653 Current Pavement Condition Index (CPCI) 1/1/2025 Current Backlog (%) All Streets 77 81 82 78 81 75 Asphalt 77 81 82 78 81 75 Concrete 78 74 79 84 0 75 All Streets 1 3 1 Percentage of Network with a PCI < 40 IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 22 4.2 City Network Condition Imagery The images presented in this section provide a sampling of the City's streets that fall into various condition categories. A discussion of potential rehabilitation strategies is included for each category. Very Poor (PCI = 0 to 25) - Complete Reconstruction West Rock Street from Church Avenue to South Locust Avenue (GISID - 12, PCI = 12) - Rated as Very Poor, this street displays a large quantity of linear cracking and shattered slabs severe enough to suggest that the pavement structure is inadequate for current traffic loads. The rehabilitation of roads in this condition through a mill and overlay is generally ineffective, as the failures usually extend to the bottom of the pavement layer. Streets in this condition require rehabilitation that involves removal and replacement of the damaged concrete slabs, base stabilization, or complete reconstruction based on design requirements. Deferral of reconstruction of streets rated as Very Poor will not cause a substantial decrease in overall pavement quality. The streets have passed the opportunity for overlay -based strategies, meaning that reconstruction, which can be expensive, is the most suitable solution. Thus, Very Poor streets are often deferred in favor of rehabilitating more streets at lower costs, resulting in a greater net benefit to the City. This strategy, however, must be sensitive to citizen complaints that may demand the prioritization of these street repairs. In addition, this type of street can pose a safety hazard for motorists since severe potholes and distortions may develop. It is important to consistently monitor these streets and check for potholes or other structural deficiencies until the street is eventually rebuilt. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 23 Poor (PCI = 25 to 40) - Last Opportunity for Surface and Base Rehabilitation North Oakland Avenue from Lawson Street to Hickory Street (GISID 3027, PCI = 33) - Rated as Poor, this segment still has some remaining life before it becomes a critical reconstruction need. As evident in the imagery, potholes are present and surrounded by previously patched areas. This indicates that patching is not sufficient to address localized base failures. There are also deep longitudinal and transverse cracks, particularly along the center of the pavement. If left untreated, a partial to full reconstruction would be required within a short period of time. On heavily trafficked roadways, Poor streets often require partial to full reconstruction. On local roadways, they generally require removal of the pavement surface through grinding or excavation, base repairs, restoration of the curb line and drainage, and then placement of a new surface. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 24 Marginal (PCI = 40 to 50) - Thick Overlay North Henbest Drive from North Porter Road to North Shiloh Drive (GISID 7024, PCI = 49) - This street displays transverse and longitudinal cracking across the middle and edges of the pavement. There are sections of alligator cracking dispersed along the segment as well. Marginal streets that display high amounts of load associated distresses (LAD) are selected as a high priority for rehabilitation as they generally provide the best cost/benefit ratio to the City. If left untreated, Marginal streets with high amounts of LAD will deteriorate to become partial reconstruction candidates. Marginal streets that are failing due to materials issues or non -load associated failures may become suitable candidates for thick overlays if deferred, without a significant cost increase. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 25 Fair (PCI = 50 to 60) - Moderate Overlay + Structural Patching George Anderson Road from Breakstone Drive to East Breakstone Drive (GISID 11709, PCI = 57) - Fair streets have similar characteristics to Marginal streets in that the distresses present tend to be localized and moderate in severity. This street alligator cracking in several isolated spots along the pavement segment. In the image above the most severe cracking exists near a previously patched area, indicating the patch is not sufficient to address the base failings in the area. There are moderate amounts of longitudinal and transverse cracking, with some cracks being deep but localized. Like Marginal streets, Fair streets can provide a good cost/benefit ratio to an agency if addressed with an adequate rehabilitation technique. Stretching the application for surface treatments into this range can pose a cheap alternative to overlays but does not provide the appropriate renewal to the structural capacity of the pavement and may allow load related deterioration to continue unabated. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 26 Good (PCI = 60 to 70) - Surface Treatments West North Street from North Willis Avenue to North Leverett Avenue (GISID 3364, PCI = 67) - Rated as Good, the primary cause of deterioration for this street is the longitudinal and transverse cracking. The pavement surface could be restored with spot patching to remedy the more heavily distressed areas. Preventive measures on streets considered Good can have a positive impact on the City's funding needs. While the expected life of a slurry seal is not as long as that of an overlay, its ability to slow deterioration and relatively low cost can free up funding for streets in worse condition. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 27 Very Good (PCI = 70 to 85) - Surface Treatments and Localized Rehabilitation East Joyce Boulevard from Old Missouri Road to North Sunbest Place (GISID 1639, PCI = 82) - Rated as Very Good, this street displays minor amounts of transverse cracking. It is an example of a candidate for preventive maintenance to extend the life of the roadway. This particular segment could also be widened to reduce some of the traffic congestion and increase safety for local residents attempting to merge on to the street from their driveway. Also, routine maintenance prevents water intrusion by sealing and slowing crack growth. By keeping water out of the base layers, the pavement life is extended without the need for heavier rehabilitations. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 28 Excellent (PCI = 85 to 100) East Drake Street from North Peg Lane to North Sierra Avenue (GISID 2068, PCI = 98) - Rated as Excellent, this pavement displays little to no surface distresses. The ride is smooth, and the surface and the base are intact. Excellent roads should be periodically assessed for crack development that would trigger routine maintenance activities. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 29 4.3 City Network Condition Distribution Figure 14 shows the distribution of pavement condition for the roadway network in Fayetteville. • Approximately thirty-one percent (30.9%) of the network can be considered in Excellent condition and should be closely monitored to ensure timely application of early localized preventive measures. • Approximately forty-four percent (44.4%) of the network falls into the PCI range considered Very Good. These are roads that benefit most from preventive maintenance techniques, such as spot patching and slurry seals. • Twelve percent (12.1 %) of the streets are rated as Good and may still be candidates for slurry seals or thin overlays. • Nine percent (9%) of the network can be considered in Fair to Marginal condition and represents candidates for progressively thicker overlay -based rehabilitation. If left untreated, they will decline rapidly into reconstruction candidates. • Three percent (3.4%) of the network is rated as Poor or Very Poor, meaning these roadways have deteriorated to the point where surface rehabilitation can no longer restore the pavement to a point of structural adequacy. Rehabilitation of the entire pavement structure is required for these segments. 50 45 40 35 a a 30 m 0 25 3 v Z 20 4- 0 v c°po 15 c v U v 10 a 5 0 44.4 Current Network Average Condition = 77, Backlog = 3.4% 30.9 12.1 Backlog 5.5 3.5 0.7 V Poor Poor Marginal Fair Good V Good (0 to 25) (25 to 40) (40 to 50) (50 to 60) (60 to 70) (70 to 85) Current Pavement Condition Using Descriptive Terms Figure 14 - Roadway Network Present Status Using Descriptive Terms Excellent (85 to 100) IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 30 4.4 Condition By Functional Classification Analyzing subsets of data in addition to the overall pavement condition can provide a better understanding of where an agency should focus its resources. Figure 15 displays the distribution of pavement conditions for each functional class. 70 .E 50 c� a L Q m 40 Y L 0 3 a Z 30 4- 0 a ou M 41 20 u L a 10 ■ Principal Arterial, PCI = 81 ■ Minor Arterial, PCI = 82 ■ Major Collector, PCI = 78 ■ Minor Collector, PCI = 81 Local, PCI = 75 V Poor Poor Marginal Fair Good V Good Excellent (0 to 25) (25 to 40) (40 to 50) (50 to 60) (60 to 70) (70 to 85) (85 to 100) Pavement Condition Using Descriptive Terms Figure 15 - Condition Rating by Functional Classification When evaluating the condition of pavement based on the percentage of network it covers, the proportion of each class in the overall network must also be considered. This distribution is illustrated in Figure 16. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 31 krterial Minor Arterial 8% ector Figure 16 - Functional Classification Distribution By Area IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 32 4.5 Condition By Pavement Type The maintenance and improvement of asphalt and concrete pavements may require different rehabilitation activities that come at different costs. Figure 17 displays the distribution of pavement conditions for each pavement type. 50 40 ca Y L 0 3 v Z20 0 a10 V Poor Poor Marginal Fair Good V Good Excellent (0 to 25) (25 to 40) (40 to 50) (50 to 60) (60 to 70) (70 to 85) (85 to 100) Pavement Condition Using Descriptive Terms Figure 17 - Current Pavement Condition By Pavement Type The graph shows that the City's concrete and asphalt pavement networks present similar condition scores. Since concrete represents only 4% of the overall pavement network, the City can expect most repairs to occur on asphalt. However, it is important to acknowledge that the concrete pavements, though fewer in number, will also be more costly to rehabilitate. 4.6 Summary Section 4.0 of the report provided a detailed analysis of the results obtained from the pavement condition survey conducted in the City of Fayetteville. The section covered the functional classifications in the City and their respective PCI values, which were further illustrated with pavement photographs taken during the survey. Additionally, the section provided a breakdown of the pavement condition distribution for each functional class and pavement type. Overall, the network average PCI for Fayetteville was found to be 77 with a backlog of 3.4%. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 33 This section discusses the results of the pavement management analysis that was performed using the ESA pavement management system, starting with an overview of the assumptions that were used when implementing the system, such as the unit rates and the selection methodology for rehabilitation candidates. The subsequent section, 5.2, details the results of each of the various budget runs, along with their predicted conditions. This is highlighted further through a series of charts that are used to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of various funding models. 5.1 Key Analysis Set Points and Assumptions Pavement management analysis requires user input to complete its condition forecasting and prioritization. A series of operating parameters were developed to create an efficient program that is tailored to the City's needs. Selecting Segments for Rehabilitation The selection of rehabilitation candidates through a worst -first approach or subjective committee input is neither efficient nor cost effective. It is important to establish a set of criteria and determine their importance in the selection process. ESA has defined commonly used criteria within the program that allows different weighting factors to be applied depending on the City's goals. This approach can lead to more objective and effective selection of rehabilitation candidates. • PCI — As mentioned earlier in this section, the results of the pavement condition survey are used to generate a PCI that ranges from 0-100 where 0 is considered the worst and 100 the best. This factor can be given a higher weight to give greater priority to poor condition streets. • Cost of Deferral — As time passes a pavement will deteriorate and require more costly repairs as it ages. ESA can be configured to prioritize streets nearing the point where this cost increase occurs. • Pavement Strength — Through the use of deflection testing or the prevalence of LAD, the relative strength of a pavement can be determined. A prioritization factor can be applied that gives preference to streets that may deteriorate faster in order to apply more cost-effective rehabilitation early in the life cycle. • Pavement Type — Depending on costs, design life, and the City's goals, a weighting factor can be applied based on the materials used to construct the pavement. • Functional Class — Generally higher volume streets are given the greatest priority within a program since they serve the most vehicles. • Planned or Committed Projects — When developing the rehabilitation plan, projects that are already scheduled to be completed are taken into consideration. This is done by adjusting the PCI scores to reflect the expected improvement resulting from these projects. For the City, the weighting factors for these categories were established with the aim of maximizing the cost savings associated with the concept of deferred maintenance and addressing Weak pavements with lower PCI scores. The goal is to minimize the growth of the backlog. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 34 Rehabilitation Strategies and Unit Rates The funding requirements for the City are mainly determined by the rehabilitation strategies and unit rates used in the budget analysis. Table 4 presents a breakdown of the costs associated with different pavement rehabilitation activities and their application. The table also suggests a recommended rehabilitation funding sequence based on the cost of deferral. A lower number in this column indicates a higher priority for rehabilitation based on the cost of deferral. The parameters to consider when forming rehabilitation strategies include: • Rehab Activity - This includes the assigned identifier and name of each rehabilitation strategy. Various degrees of slurry sealing are outlined to highlight the increasing cost associated with additional patching requirements for lower PCI streets. • Min, Max, and Critical PCI - The PCI range for the application of a specific rehabilitation activity is determined by the Min and Max values that set the upper and lower limits, while the Critical PCI indicates the threshold at which rehabilitation becomes a higher priority to leverage the cost of deferral factor. There can be overlap in the PCI range to allow for further differentiation based on pavement strength. Unit Rates - The cost of rehabilitation is presented per square yard for each combination of pavement type, functional class, and rehabilitation activity. A base unit rate is set for the lowest assumed cost of a work type, and it is adjusted for each functional class to account for additional work such as traffic control, intersection improvements, landscaping, utility adjustments, and right-of-way (ROW) infrastructure. IMS worked closely with the City to determine rates that accurately represent the cost of work. Table 4 - Rehabilitation Rates Critical PCI Pavement Min (Need Max Type Rehab Activity PCI Year) PCI FunCL Rate Premium Base Principal Minor Major Minor Local Unit Arterial Arterial Collector Collector Unit Rate Unit Rate Unit Rate Unit Rate Unit Rate Rate ($Iyd2) ($/yd2) ($/yd2) ($Iyd2) ($/yd2) ($Iyd2) 110 110 108 108 103 All Routine Maintenance 85 100 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt MicroSurface / Chip Seal 70 73 80 3.90 5.10 5.10 5.00 5.00 4.80 Asphalt Super Thin %" Overlay 60 63 70 3.50 3.90 3.90 3.80 3.80 3.60 Asphalt HWFWM + Moderate Overlay 2.0 - 3.0) + SP (PCI 50-60) 50 54 60 12.75 14.75 14.75 14.25 14.25 13.25 Asphalt FWM+Thick Overlay (> 2.0 - 3.0) 40 44 50 19.75 24.00 24.00 22.75 22.75 20.75 Asphalt Surf Recon + Base Rehab / FWM + Strctrl Ptch + Clay 25 30 40 39.50 48.00 48.00 45.50 45.50 41.50 Asphalt ACP Full Depth Reconstruction 01 15 25 58.50 64.50 64.50 63.00 1 63.00 60.00 Concrete PCC Jnt Rehab & Crk Seal 80 82 100 5.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 1 5.25 Concrete PCC Localized Rehab 70 73 80 11.00 12.75 12.75 12.25 12.25 11.50 Concrete PCC Slight PH Rplcrmt (<10%) 60 63 70 22.50 27.25 27.25 26.00 26.00 23.75 Concrete PCC Moderate Pnl Rplcnnt (< 20%) 50 54 60 34.50 44.00 44.00 41.50 41.50 36.50 Concrete PCC Extensive PH Rplcrmt (<33%) 40 44 50 47.50 63.00 63.00 59.00 59.00 51.00 Concrete PCC Partial Reconstruction 25 30 40 65.501 83.00 83.00 78.50 78.50 69.50 Concrete PCC Full Depth Reconstruction 0 15 25 99.50 132.50 132.50 123.50 123.50 107.00 IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 35 5.2 Network Budget Analysis Models The pavement management analysis using the ESA system involved combining the condition assessment, deterioration model, prioritization factors, and rehabilitation assignments to conduct a budget analysis. With this information, the program can predict the outcomes of different funding levels or suggest the funds necessary to achieve specific goals. To model network trends and estimate the funding levels needed to reach certain condition and distribution targets, IMS conducted an analysis using a series of budgets. The results of this analysis are detailed in this section. Budget Targets The following scenarios were generated to forecast the outcomes of the current estimated City budget compared to City's target PCI goals over the next five years. The models determine what level of funding may be appropriate going forward. The values for backlog and PCI have been rounded to the nearest whole number to improve legibility. Varying budget figures will have slightly different outcomes that are visible in the charts but may not be completely represented in the legend text. Five-year Models: • Fayetteville Budget (Green Line) - This represents the City's current average annual budget of $1.7M/Yr. dedicated to pavement preservation and rehabilitation. This level of funding will result in a network average PCI score of 73 and a backlog of around 2% after five years. • Maintain Current Backlog (Red Dashed Line)- The Maintain Current Backlog budget was developed in order to maintain the current backlog of a little under 3%. This results in a budget value of $1.26M/Yr. and a PCI increase to 72 after five years. • Steady State PCI (Red Line) - This is simply the funds required to maintain the current network average PCI at around 77. The annual budget required to do so is approximately $4M/Yr. Backlog will increase to 2% of the network after five years. • PCI Control (Purple Line) - The PCI Control model determines the funding required to maintain the PCI at a minimum level of 70. This budget is $0.13M/Yr. and will result in a backlog of 7% after five years. • Backlog Control (Purple Dashed Line) - The Backlog Control budget was developed in order to restrict the backlog at 6%. The funding required to achieve this backlog goal is $0.34M/Yr. and will also decrease the PCI to 70 after five years. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 36 The results of the analysis are summarized in Figure 18. The x-axis highlights the annual budget, while the y-axis plots the five-year Post Rehab Network Average PCI values. The diagonal blue line is the network trend model developed to show estimated PCI along with a funding range up to $5M/Yr. 80 c 0 c 75 0 bb v M L W a - 70 65 0 a 2025 to 2029 Rehab Analysis Results Fayetteville Budget: Final PCI = 73, Backlog = 2%, Annual Budget = $1.7M/Yr Steady State PCI: Final PCI = 77, Backlog = 2%, Annual Budget = $4M/Yr ----- Maintain Current Backlog: Final PCI = 72, Backlog = 3%, Annual Budget = $1.26M/Yr PCI Control Budget: Final PCI = 70, Backlog = 7%, Annual Budget = $0.13M/Yr ----- Backlog Control Budget: Final PCI = 70, Backlog = 6%, Annual Budget = $0.34M/Yr 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Annual Budget Each Year for Five Years ($1M/Yr) Figure 18 - Five-year Post Rehab Network PCI Analysis Results IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 37 Figure 19 presents the resultant network backlog against the annual budget. It is similar to Figure 18, but instead of plotting the average PCI score, it displays the total backlog after five years with a blue diagonal line. The City currently maintains a backlog of 3%. As the backlog grows, the funding required to return to the current level will increase. v 8 v v 7 0 on Y0 6 U f0 m b 5 M c v 4 L a Y 3 0 3 a z 2 m s aj 1 0 a 0 2025 to 2029 Backlog Analysis Results Fayetteville Budget: Final PCI = 73, Backlog = 2%, Annual Budget = $1.7M/Yr Steady State PCI: Final PCI = 77, Backlog = 2%, Annual Budget = $4M/Yr ----- Maintain Current Backlog: Final PCI = 72, Backlog = 3%, Annual Budget = $1.26M/Yr ----- Backlog Control Budget: Final PCI = 70, Backlog = 6%, Annual Budget = $0.34M/Yr PCI Control Budget: Final PCI = 70, Backlog = 7%, Annual Budget = $0.13M/Yr 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Annual Budget Each Year for Five Years ($1M/Yr) Figure 19 - Five-year Post Rehab Network Backlog Results IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 38 Figure 20 presents the analysis results on an annual basis. This shows that if the budget falls below $4M/Yr. (Steady State PCI Budget), over time the overall condition of the roads is expected to deteriorate as the backlog grows. .o x d c c g 85 =a c 0 v a 80 E a �a a d m 75 L i Q Y L 3 70 a z I::V Fix All Budget = $55.2M Over 5 Years — — — Maintain Current Backlog: Final PCI = 72, Backlog = 3%, Annual Budget = $1.26M/Yr Fayetteville Budget: Final PCI = 73, Backlog = 2%, Annual Budget = $1.7M/Yr Steady State PCI: Final PCI = 77, Backlog = 2%, Annual Budget = $4M/Yr — — — Backlog Control Budget: Final PCI = 70, Backlog = 6%, Annual Budget = $0.34M/Yr PCI Control Budget: Final PCI = 70, Backlog = 7%, Annual Budget = $0.13M/Yr Do Nothing 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Year Figure 20 - Five-year Annual PCI IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 1 39 5.3 Post Rehabilitation Condition Figure 21 compares the percentage of the City's network area separated into each pavement condition category for two scenarios: the current network average condition (shown in red) and the projected condition in five years with the City's budget (shown in blue). The analysis shows that if the City's current budget is maintained, the average PCI is expected to decrease to 73 by the end of the five-year analysis period, and the backlog is projected to decrease to approximately 2.4%. 50 40 a Q 30 m Y L 0 3 a Z 20 4- 0 a ou M 41 c a u L a 10 0 Analysis Period 2025 to 2029 ■ Current Network Average Condition = 77, Backlog = 3.4% ■ Post Rehab Network Average Condition = 73, Backlog = 2.4% Annual Budget = $1700 k/Year V Poor Poor Marginal Fair Good V Good Excellent (0 to 25) (25 to 40) (40 to 50) (50 to 60) (60 to 70) (70 to 85) (85 to 100) Pavement Condition Using Descriptive Terms Figure 21 - Comparison of Pavement Condition (Current to 5-year Projection) 5.4 Summary The pavement analysis models conducted using the ESA program showed that the current annual budget of $1.7M for pavement management would result in a decrease in pavement condition over a period of five years, resulting in a five-year post rehab PCI of 73 and a backlog of 2.4%. Maintaining the current PCI level at 77 would require an annual budget of approximately $4M. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 140 6.1 Project Summary and Recommendations A pavement condition survey was performed in January 2024 on the full City pavement network. The results of the condition survey were aggregated into the ESA pavement management system. This system facilitated the creation of a georeferenced pavement inventory, enabled the development of a precise model of the network's current condition and anticipated future deterioration, and provided recommendations for funding to meet various level -of -service goals. The following broad recommendations are presented to the City as an output from the pavement analysis and must be read in conjunction with the previous sections. The City should make efforts to keep the ESA spreadsheet up to date. By maintaining and updating the rehabilitation unit rates, work history of the segments, and accuracy of the inventory, the City will be able to reliably forecast funding needs for future years. This allows the City to be proactive in maintaining the condition of the pavement network at an acceptable level. • The City should periodically resurvey the pavement network. Pavement performance over time involves many variables, such as traffic volumes, environmental factors, maintenance timing, and design standards. As these variables change, the rate at which a pavement deteriorates will change with them. The periodic resurvey of pavement conditions allows the City to track these changes and update models accordingly, ensuring that appropriate rehabilitation measures are being planned. The City should investigate new and additional rehabilitation activities. Advancements in pavement rehabilitation technology are constantly being made, and it is recommended that the City periodically update its planned rehabilitation activities in the ESA program to take advantage of these advances. The City should strive to maintain or better its current condition if possible. Maintaining a pavement network in good condition is more cost-effective than restoring conditions after deterioration. The City's current pavement network has an overall PCI of 77 with a backlog value of 3.4%. If the current annual budget of $1.7M is maintained, the models show the PCI will decrease to 73 and the backlog will hover around 2.4% after five years. 6.2 Closing The IMS Team greatly appreciates the opportunity to work with the City on this pavement management update. Over the course of this project, the team has observed the City staff's dedication to offering the best possible service to their community. IMS stands ready to assist the City with training and technical support as necessary and welcomes the opportunity to work with the City on future pavement management projects. IMS Pavement Management Report Fayetteville, AR 2024 Page 141