Rural System Maintenance

A critical challenge for the SACOG region is providing adequate road maintenance and rehabilitation, especially in the rural portions of the region. Key issues to address include how to handle chronic road maintenance funding shortfalls, the consequences of continuing to defer maintenance, and tradeoffs between road maintenance and road expansion and improvements.

Background

In most rural areas of the SACOG region, there is a well-established network of local roads, arterials, and county or state highways. These, along with interstate highways, provide for the movement of people and goods. Nationwide, rural roads account for 80% of national road miles and 40% of vehicle miles traveled. About 50% of rural roads are paved and 90% are two lanes or less. City and county governments are responsible for funding and maintaining 95% of rural unpaved roads and 55% of rural paved roads¹.

In many cases, rural transportation alternatives have declined in recent decades, placing more and more demands on rural roads as the predominant system. In many rural parts of the SACOG region, infrastructure has become increasingly inadequate to accommodate these demands, and the condition of rural roads and bridges is suffering. Approximately 40% of county roads nationwide are inadequate for current travel, and nearly half the rural bridges longer than 20 feet are currently structurally deficient².

Road Maintenance Funding

Road maintenance is a statewide crisis. Since the 1980s, California has gained a reputation of poor quality roads – a startling reversal from the 1960s when California’s road system was envied throughout the nation. California’s six metropolitan areas with greater than 1 million population ranked first, second, third, fourth, sixth, and tenth worst on a national list of 52 such metropolitan areas (Sacramento was sixth). A statewide survey revealed that just 43% of all roads were in good-or-very-good condition and 15% were in mediocre-or-poor condition in 2002. Due to the poor condition of roads, Sacramento motorists average $609 in extra costs per household annually, sixth highest among 52 urban areas greater than 1 million population nationwide and 54% higher than the average for these 52 urban areas.

Without action, this situation will likely continue to deteriorate with greater use of local routes for goods movement, increases in truck weight limits, and more commuter traffic. Rural roads that are used by farm equipment and heavily-loaded trucks are particularly vulnerable to deterioration.

Cities, counties, and Caltrans are responsible for keeping the street, road, and highway system in a state of good repair through regular maintenance activities. There are thousands of miles of local roads and streets in the SACOG region that are the responsibility of the 22 member cities and six counties to maintain. However, adequate road maintenance and rehabilitation is costly.

• Routine preventative maintenance includes sealing cracks, repairing pavement, patching potholes, cleaning and repairing drains, fixing signals, and sweeping streets. To do this right, it costs around $20,000 per mile per year.
• Regular heavy maintenance, meaning a slurry or chip seal coat, adds costs in the range of $50,000-$80,000 per mile for residential streets, on about a seven-year cycle.
• For well-maintained roads, the pavement rehabilitation cycle, meaning an asphalt overlay, comes due in 15 years for arterials and 30 years for local streets, costing $300,000-$400,000 per mile; rubberized asphalt can last longer and cuts road noise but costs about 25% more up front.
• Major repair, rehabilitation, and reconstruction are less frequent, but much more costly repairs. These activities include recycling worn-out pavement, repaving, reconstructing subgrade and drainage, replacing bridges, and reconfiguring intersections.

The six counties and 22 cities in the region spend about $250 million per year to maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and reconstruct the region’s 10,700 miles of local roads, streets, bridges, and sidewalks. Of this total, about $150 million (60%) of these expenditures go for routine preventive maintenance, done primarily by public works forces, costing an average $15,000 per mile of road per year. An additional $100 million (40%) go for major repair, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, usually done as discrete projects using contractors. This investment may seem large, but the reality is it is far less than current needs. Cities and counties are deferring about $100 million, or 30%, of critical road maintenance and rehabilitation each year.

Rural areas have a small percentage of the SACOG region’s population but must maintain a disproportionate number of the region’s road miles. Rural areas in the SACOG region account for only 10% of the population, but they contain 48% of the region’s road miles (8,258 total road miles). Urban areas, on the other hand, account for 75% of the population and contain only 41% of the road miles (7,054 total miles). See Figure 1 below.

In contrast to local governments, funding for road maintenance by Caltrans has increased significantly since 2002, and while this is a cost-effective strategy for the state highway system, it has reduced funding that used to be available for capital investments all around the state. Caltrans is spending $1.2 billion statewide for state highway maintenance and $2.4 billion for rehabilitation this year, three times what it spent ten years ago, and is working off deferred maintenance left over from the mid-1990s. Approximately $150-175 million of that total is used in the Sacramento region, an amount 80% higher than was envisioned in SACOG’s MTP for 2025 just six years ago. The result is an increasing gap in the condition of state highways versus rural local roads.

Issues for Road Maintenance Funding

Funding Sources: Local agencies have limited and insufficient sources of dedicated road maintenance funding. Local road maintenance is the responsibility of local governments, and the only available funds to pay for it are the local share of the gas tax, sales taxes, and general funds. In rural counties, Transportation Development Act funds can be used for road purposes once transit needs are met. Today, the state gas tax covers only 25% of actual local road maintenance and rehabilitation needs. In 2003, the local share of the gas tax covered actual road maintenance costs for Yolo and Yuba Counties, but not for the 14 other agencies sampled. When rehabilitation is included, the gas tax covered no more than 50% of maintenance and rehabilitation costs for any city or county. The typical local road maintenance and rehabilitation budget in the Sacramento region comes about 25% from gas taxes, 45% from sales tax revenues, 10% from other local sources including general funds, and 20% from state and federal funds for road rehabilitation, but it varies among jurisdictions. For rural counties, none of which have enacted transportation sales tax measures, TDA funds cover 10-30% of road maintenance costs. The other primary sources of revenue for public works agencies include developer fees, assessments and bonds, which cannot by law be used for regular road maintenance.

Cost Increases: Increases of more than 50% in the cost of fuel and asphalt and nearly 100% in the cost of concrete and steel since 2004 are further squeezing beleaguered budgets for road maintenance and bridge repairs. Turning to higher levels of government to cover the local road maintenance funding gap is not an option, however, as state and federal transportation funds are reserved for capital improvements or major rehabilitation and are not intended to cover general road maintenance. The result is that 20% of state and federal capital funds in the SACOG region are going to rehabilitate failing roads but not to keep good roads in good shape.

Deferred Maintenance: Deferred maintenance leads to costlier future repairs. Preventive maintenance and rehabilitation for deteriorated roads are crucial for our transportation system. Given funding shortfalls, local agencies do a creditable job of keeping roads functional, but deferred maintenance continues to be the Achilles’ heel of the whole system, forcing costlier future repairs. The Conditions & Performance Report to Congress in 2002 indicated an average 15% deferred maintenance rate nationwide; the SR8 Study to the Legislature in 1999 estimated a 30% rate for California. The MTP2025 estimated deferred maintenance at $780 million regionwide, but a better estimate today would probably show closer to $1.2 billion, growing by about $100 million per year. The graphs in Figures 2 and 3 show a 30-year cost comparison for preventive versus deferred maintenance in the region. Deferred maintenance problems vary widely across the region and funding formulas place some jurisdictions at a disadvantage. Rural counties often end up as losers in [[Image:|1px|Your browser may not support display of this image.]]funding formulas for deferred maintenance because financial resources are inadequate to deal with the maintenance costs associated with resource-based economies such as agriculture, logging, or mining that pound old narrow roads with heavy trucks.

The real cost of deferred maintenance is elusive, as local agencies report it in different ways and the damage occurs out of sight beneath the surface pavement. It affects jurisdictions unevenly, depending on such factors as age and design of roads and truck traffic. Rural roads and those in older built-out cities, such as Isleton and Marysville, with roads built to past standards and years of deferred road maintenance face continuing major rehabilitation costs. Newer developing small urban cities such as Galt and Winters benefit from modern developer-built road mileage that boosts funding formulas without adding immediate major rehabilitation liabilities, but such cities should attend to an increasing load of preventive maintenance to keep ahead of the curve. Cities often must deal with extra costs due to utilities in the roadbed, pavement damage from past utility work, and landscaping in the right of way; counties must consider adding paved shoulders to rural roads, and Caltrans faces added costs for complex traffic handling and night work.

Diverting regional funding to road rehabilitation efforts has resulted in lower levels of funding for important road capital investments. The impact is apparent at each level of government:

• Local Governments: Maintenance and rehabilitation consumes about 80% of the typical local road budget today (from public sector sources), leaving only 20%, about $50 million regionwide, for local improvements and new construction.
• Regional (SACOG): Deferred maintenance, leading to road deterioration and need for rehabilitation, has led SACOG to divert 15% of state and federal funds to rehabilitation instead of improvements from 1988 to 2009, when a higher level of state funds comes on line.
• State (Caltrans): For the first time, in 2005, the state consumed its entire 12 cent share of the gas tax plus all of its federal funds for maintenance, rehabilitation, and operations of state highways and administration of Caltrans, with none left over for state highway improvements or expansion.

Bridges: The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) devolved Federal highway planning to the states and increased the quality of rural roads and bridges. The share of rural interstates (by miles) rated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in poor or mediocre condition decreased from 35% in 1993 to 12.3% in 2002. However, in 2001, 40% of county roads were inadequate for travel volumes. As for rural bridges, in 1993, 32.8% of the 456,000 rural roadway bridges in the U.S. were rated by DOT as deficient, compared with just 26% in 2004. California, though, still had at least one-third of its nonmetro highway bridges classified as deficient in 2001. Caltrans maintains a list of 218 local bridges in the SACOG region in need of retrofit. The roughly $130 million cost of this work (based on an assumption of $2,000 per square meter) can be only partially covered by the federal highway bridge replacement program, and match funding is a challenge for many local agencies. Regional funds are used only on very high priority local bridges.

Truck traffic: Truck traffic has a disproportionately negative impact on road quality than does passenger vehicle traffic. The growing size and weight of heavy duty trucks (as well as the growing size of all vehicles) results in heavier pavement loads and shorter pavement life. For example, the doubling of a vehicle’s weight can cause 16x more damage to pavement. One 80,000 lb truck causes as much damage as 10,000 autos. Even small, country roads are experiencing heavier freight traffic. The heaviest use of rural roads for goods movement is usually during the harvest season stretching from mid-summer through fall. Agricultural products move in bulk, with truckloads approaching the 80,000 lb. gross vehicle weight limit. The heaviest products tend to be liquids (fluid milk, fruit juices, wine) and field crops (rice, corn). Inbound chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and animal feed are also very heavy. Rural roads were not built to handle heavier and more frequent truck traffic, but in 1997 the maximum truck weight limit was increased by 10% without a corresponding increase in funding.

Railroad Crossings: Similar to road maintenance, many rural and small-urban jurisdictions in the region have unprotected at-grade railroad crossings that need to be updated but do not have funding for these projects. Caltrans maintains a list of such unprotected crossings, but since very little federal and state money is allocated toward these types of projects, funding responsibility falls to the regions. Federal reauthorization legislation does fund a new safety program starting in 2007, with rail grade crossings as an eligible category of project. Safety issues like unprotected at-grade railroad crossings are a serious concern for rural areas, especially as freight rail traffic, truck traffic, and auto traffic all increase. More rural safety issues are discussed in the Transportation Safety and Security in Rural Areas paper.

Innovations and Best Practices

Best Management Practices (BMP) for Idaho Rural Road Maintenance Handbook

Idaho is setting an example for the rest of the country with its BMP Handbook that gives detailed information about a variety of road maintenance issues. The 2005 report has three chapters devoted to road maintenance activities, drainage and stream crossings, and erosion control methods. Topics range from everyday maintenance issues like grading and dust control to more complex issues like bridge repair and road stabilization. A PDF version of the handbook is available to download at http://www.webs1.uidaho.edu/idahot2/BMP/BMP_Handbook.pdf.

Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC)³

RAC consists of regular asphalt paving mixed with “crumb rubber” –ground, used tires that would otherwise be discarded or take up space in landfills. Used tires are processed by separating the casings, fabric and steel. The extracted rubber is then pulverized to the consistency of ground coffee. Rubberized asphalt has the benefit of being smoother and quieter. Noise readings have shown rubberized asphalt generally reduces tire noise by an average of 4 decibels.

Benefits of RAC

RAC is durable and can be used for any traffic volumes. RAC resists cracking and can tolerate higher deflections than concrete. Several studies have shown that RAC is more durable than conventional materials, even those of greater thickness. In some cases, RAC roads last up to 50% longer, making it a cost-effective alternative to the status quo. An overlay of RAC can prevent cracks in underlying pavements from reflecting through to the surface of the new paving. RAC retains its original color better than conventional asphalt and markings remain more visible. Additionally, RAC provides better traction and visibility in wet weather, which may reduce highway accidents. RAC is quieter than conventional road surfaces. Research has shown that noise can be reduced as much as 85 percent in some instances. RAC is environmentally friendly. A two-inch-thick resurfacing project uses over 2,000 scrap tires per lane mile, saving many tires from entering landfills and can save as much as $50,000 per lane mile when compared to a four-inch-thick conventional asphalt overlay.

Issues and Concerns

RAC cannot be applied during cold weather or very hot weather. The concrete pavement surface needs to be between 85 and 145 degrees Fahrenheit for the material to adhere properly. Some construction workers have made illness complaints related to RAC projects. Upon investigation, air samples revealed that employee exposure during paving is below CalOSHA allowable limits, and exposure would not pose a long-term, chronic health risk. However, short-term health can be jeopardized depending on personal sensitivities to pavement smoke.

Regional Applications

• Caltrans has used RAC for numerous projects throughout the state
• Yolo County has used RAC on many road projects including the 2007 Roadway Rehabilitation Project (6 centerline miles throughout Yolo County), the CR 22 Rehabilitation Project, the CR 27 (Between CR 93 and CR 94) Reconstruction Project, the CR 27 (Between CR 95 and CR 97) Rehabilitation Project, the CR 85 (Between 750 ft. north of CR 16A to 1.0 Mi. south) Rehabilitation Project, and the CR 101A (Between CR 29 and Davis City Boundary) Rehabilitation Project.

Cold Foam In-Place Recycling (CFIPR)⁴

Cold Foam In-Place Recycling (CFIPR) is an on-grade method of pavement rehabilitation that consists of pulverizing the existing asphalt concrete pavement and a portion of the underlying granular base, mixing it with foamed paving asphalt, grading and compacting the recycled mixture, and overlaying the recycled surface with a new layer of hot mix asphalt.

Applicable Uses and Benefits

CFIPR is best suited for moderate to low volume roadways. Because the upper portion of the pavement structure is completely reworked, CFIPR can treat most pavement distresses that are not caused by subgrade or drainage problems. CFIRP treats raveling, weathering, bleeding, corrugations, shoving, slippage, delamination, poor ride quality, rutting, potholes, patches, and cracking. CFIPR should not be used to treat pavements with high traffic volumes, extensive fatigue cracking, geosynthetic pavement interlayer, treated bases or Portland cement concrete, base or subgrade deterioration due to fatigue or moisture intrusion, and moisture related problems like poor drainage. CFIPR creates a hard, durable surface by reusing all components of the existing road bed. Pilot projects have shown that CFIPR requires no major repair work during the first five years depending on traffic volumes. CFIPR on low-volume roads will lead to longer pavement life. CFIPR offers many benefits. For instance, roads can be trafficked immediately (within a half hour) after paving, thus limiting the time needed for lane closures. Utilizing all of the existing road bed materials, the process eliminates the need for certain materials to be trucked in and waste materials to be trucked out. Reduced truck traffic to and from the job site reduces fuel consumption, emission levels, heavy-vehicle associated damage to the roadway, and traffic delay to the public.

Concerns

Researchers and practitioners lack in-depth understanding of material behaviors and face difficulties in reconciling laboratory results with practical results in terms of mix components. Understanding the effects of recycled asphalt pavement is of special importance since engineers have limited flexibility to control the recycled material.

Regional Applications

• State Route 20 in Colusa County carries a significant numbers of vehicles with a high proportion of trucks under extremely demanding conditions. Previous spot repairs had left the road “wrinkled,” causing a rough and inconsistent ride. In July 2001, Caltrans used CFIPR to repave a section of Highway 20 from post mile 10.2 to post mile 28.2. Highway 20 is a two-lane facility that includes urbanized sections (in the City of Colusa), flat sections, and hilly sections. The entire twenty-lane mile project was recycled and paved in fifteen working days. Post construction testing showed no visible distress for the years 2001-2005.
• Roseville is using CRIPR on Pleasant Grove Boulevard as part of a larger road maintenance project.
• Yolo County uses CRIPR to repair many of its rural and county roads.