Receive and Discuss Updated Street Pavement Condition Index Report

City of Sonoma

Agenda Item Summary Meeting: City Council - Feb 19 2020

Department Staff Contact Public Works Colleen Ferguson, Public Works Director/City Engineer

Agenda Item Title

Receive and Discuss Updated Street Pavement Condition Index Report

Summary

In January 2020, City staff received a Budget Options Report (attached) prepared by a consultant, Fugro. The report provided updated pavement condition information for the City’s streets, documented a degradation in the condition of the City’s streets, and made funding recommendations for maintaining the existing street pavement condition.

Fugro was contracted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) of the San Francisco Bay Area for their Pavement Management Technical Assistant Program (P-TAP), Round 20 to provide an update to the City of Sonoma’s Pavement Management Program. The Budget Options Report provides information with regards to network level pavement repair options, budget analysis with annual and multi-year programming, impact of varying levels of budgets, and cost-effective pavement repair recommendations to assist jurisdictions to develop maintenance and rehabilitation programs.

of consisting system management StreetSaver pavement has Sonoma of City The a approximately 33.79 centerline miles of paved roadways. In July 2019, Fugro conducted distress surveys for the network. The distress data was entered into StreetSaver to calculate the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for each section as well as the overall network. The PCI is an index ranging from 0 (very poor pavement) to 100 (new pavement). The overall network PCI from the last P•TAP inspection was 74 (as of October 14, 2017). The overall network PCI after Fugro's recent inspection was 72 (as of July 25, 2019).

MTC’s Pavement Condition of Bay Area Jurisdictions 2018 (attached) includes a section titled “Sonoma County: A Convergence of Challenges”. The report shows 3-Year Moving Average PCI for the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 for all Bay Area cities and counties. The 2017 3- year Moving Average PCI for cities in Sonoma County and for the County are shown below.

2017 3-Year Moving Average PCI*

Jurisdiction PCI* Pavement Condition Windsor 78 Good (PCI = 70-79) Sonoma 74 Rohnert Park 71 Healdsburg 62 Fair (PCI = 60-69) Santa Rosa 60 Cloverdale 59 At Risk (PCI + Sebastopol 56 Cotati 53 Sonoma County 49 Poor (PCI = 25-49) Petaluma 46 After discussions with the City, Fugro developed several “what-if” analyses using StreetSaver’s budget scenario module. This allowed the consultant to evaluate the impacts of various budget scenarios on PCI, deferred maintenance (unfunded backlog), and average remaining service life of the network.

For the City’s current level of investment, the City has indicated that the expected budget will be $500,000 for each year (25% is preventive maintenance) for a total of $2.5 million over five years. The results showed that by 2024 the deferred maintenance would increase from $7.1 million to $10.2 million and the overall PCI would decrease to 69.

Fugro recommended the City invest in maintaining its current PCI of 72. The budgets would be the following:

• Year 1 - $500,000 • Year 2 - $725,000 • Year 3 - $725,000 • Year 4 - $900,000 • Year 5 - $1,000,000 Total for five years - $3,850,000

This scenario aimed to ensure that the overall pavement network PCI did not drop below the current PCI of 72 and slowed the growth of the deferred maintenance over the next five years. A total of $3.85 million would be required; of which 75% would be allocated to rehabilitation treatments. The deferred maintenance would increase from $7.1 million to $9.2 million in 2024.

Fugro also recommended that the City fully fund its preventive maintenance program. The City’s pavement maintenance strategies include slurry seals and overlays. Since a large percentage of pavements are in “Good” to “Very Good” condition, it is important to preserve these pavements. For preventive maintenance, the City should continue to utilize cost effective treatments where appropriate such as slurry seals and crack seals. Crack sealing is relatively inexpensive and can keep moisture out of pavements and prevent the underlying aggregate base from premature failures. Life-extending surface seals such as slurry seals are also cost- effective for pavements currently in “Good” to “Very Good” condition. As MTC has stated preventive maintenance is where the City will get the most from its money.

Recommended Council Action

It is recommended the City Council receive the MTC P-TAP Round 20 Budget Options Report for City of Sonoma, California, dated January 13, 2020 and, if desired, discuss the report.

Alternative Actions

City Council discretion.

Financial Impact

New taxes or funding resources would be needed to follow Fugro’s recommendations for additional investment in Years 2-5 to maintain the City’s current PCI of 72.

Environmental Review Status Environmental Impact Report Approved/Certified Negative Declaration No Action Required Exempt Action Requested Not Applicable

Attachments

MTC P-TAP Round 20 Budget Options Report for City of Sonoma, California MTC's Pavement Condition of Bay Area Jurisdictions 2018

Alignment with Council Goals:

INFRASTRUCTURE: To provide reliable, safe and effective infrastructure (streets and roads, sidewalks, parking and pedestrian safety) throughout the City; maintain the high level of service and reliability of City facilities; monitor, mitigate and reduce community impacts related to development, infrastructure repair, community events or other outside agencies.

Compliance with Climate Action 2020 Target Goals:

Not directly related.

CC:

N/A

MTC P-TAP Round 20 Budget Options Report (BOR) for City of Sonoma, California

Submitted to: City of Sonoma No. 1 The Plaza Sonoma, California 95476-6618

Submitted by: Fugro 17752 Skypark Circle, Suite 240 Irvine, California 92614

Date: January 13, 2020 Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... i Introduction ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Pavement Management Program (PMP) ...... 1 Network Level Analysis ...... 2 Terminology ...... 3 Pavement Condition ...... 4 Network Replacement Value ...... 4 Historical Network PCI ...... 4 Current Overall Network PCI...... 5 Budget Needs ...... 6 Maintenance Strategies ...... 6 Budget Needs Analysis (Unconstrained) ...... 7 Budget Scenarios & Results ...... 7 Scenario 1: No Funds (Do Nothing) ...... 7 Scenario 2: Expected Annual Budget ...... 7 Scenario 3: Maintain Current PCI ...... 8 Scenario 4: Improve PCI by 5 ...... 8 Scenario 5: Budget Needs Average ...... 8 Pavement Condition Changes Based on Budget Scenarios ...... 8 PCI Maps ...... 8 Recommendations ...... 11 Budget ...... 11 Pavement Maintenance Strategies ...... 11 Re-inspection ...... 11 StreetSaver Updates ...... 12 Appendix A – Section Inventory Report (not included) Appendix B – Decision Tree (not included) Appendix C – Budget Needs Analysis (not included) Appendix D – Budget Analysis Scenario 1 – No Funds (not included) Appendix E – Budget Analysis Scenario 2 – Expected Annual Budget (not included) Appendix F – Budget Analysis Scenario 3 – Maintain PCI (not included) Appendix G – Budget Analysis Scenario 4 – Increase PCI by 5 Points (not included) Appendix H – Budget Analysis Scenario 5 – Budget Needs Average (not included) Appendix I – PCI Maps ...... I-1

www.fugro.com i Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

Executive Summary Fugro was contracted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) of the San Francisco Bay Area for their Pavement Management Technical Assistant Program (P-TAP), Round 20 to provide an update to the City of Sonoma’s Pavement Management Program (PMP). This report is the Budget Options Report (BOR) that provides information with regards to network level pavement repair options, budget analysis with annual and multi-year programming, impact of varying levels of budgets, and cost-effective pavement repair recommendations to assist jurisdictions to develop Maintenance & Rehabilitation (M&R) programs.

The City of Sonoma (City) has a StreetSaver pavement management system (PMS) consisting of approximately 33.79 centerline miles of paved roadways. In July 2019, Fugro conducted distress surveys for the network using the modified ASTM D6433 (MTC StreetSaver distresses) standard. The distress data was entered into StreetSaver to calculate the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for each section as well as the overall network. The PCI is an index ranging from 0 (very poor pavement) to 100 (new pavement). The overall network PCI from the last P•TAP inspection was 74 (as of October 14, 2017). The overall network PCI after Fugro's recent inspection was 72 (as of July 25, 2019).

After discussions with the City, Fugro developed several “what-if” analyses using StreetSaver’s budget scenario module. This allowed us to evaluate the impacts of various budget scenarios on PCI, deferred maintenance (unfunded backlog), and average remaining service life of the network. The following scenarios were evaluated and presented:

• Scenario 1: No Funds (Do Nothing) • Scenario 2: Expected Annual Budget • Scenario 3: Maintain Current PCI • Scenario 4: Improve PCI by 5 • Scenario 5: Budget Needs Average

For the City’s current level of investment (i.e., Scenario 2), the City has indicated that the expected budget will be $500,000 for each year (25% is preventive maintenance) for a total of $2.5 million over five years. The results showed that by 2024 the deferred maintenance would increase from $7.1 million to $10.2 million and the overall PCI would decrease to 69.

Fugro recommended the City invest in maintaining its current PCI (i.e., Scenario 3) of 72. The budgets would be the following:

• Year 1 - $500,000 • Year 2 - $725,000 • Year 3 - $725,000 • Year 4 - $900,000 • Year 5 - $1,000,000 • Total for five years - $3,850,000

www.fugro.com i Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

Fugro also recommended that the City fully fund its preventive maintenance program. The City’s pavement maintenance strategies include slurry seals and overlays. Since a large percentage of pavements are in “Good” to “Very Good” condition, it is important to preserve these pavements. For preventive maintenance, the City should continue to utilize cost effective treatments where appropriate such as slurry seals and crack seals. Crack sealing is relatively inexpensive and can keep moisture out of pavements and prevent the underlying aggregate base from premature failures. Life-extending surface seals such as slurry seals are also cost-effective for pavements currently in “Good” to “Very Good” condition. As MTC has stated preventive maintenance is where the City will get the most from its money.

www.fugro.com ii Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

Introduction Fugro is pleased to provide this Budget Options Report (BOR) to the City of Sonoma (City) as part of its activities under a contract with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) of the San Francisco Bay Area for their Pavement Management Technical Assistant Program (P-TAP), Round 20. This BOR provides information with regards to network level pavement repair options, budget analysis with annual and multi-year programming, impact of varying levels of budgets, and cost-effective pavement repair recommendations to assist jurisdictions to develop Maintenance & Rehabilitation (M&R) programs.

Background In July 2019, Fugro performed pavement condition distress surveys for the City’s entire network based on MTC’s distress definitions and descriptions published in “Pavement Condition Index Distress Identification Manual for Flexible Pavements,” 4th Edition, March 2016, and the “Pavement Condition Index Distress Identification Manual for Rigid Pavements,” 3rd Edition, March 2016. The City maintains approximately 33.85 centerline miles of paved roadways. Table 1 shows the breakdown of the entire network by functional class.

Table 1. Network Summary Statistics. Total Area % of the Entire (square feet) Network Functional Class Sections Center Miles Lane Miles (by Pavement Area) Arterial 34 5.13 10.81 1,060,472 17.5% Collector 48 6.51 13.02 1,180,217 19.5% Residential/Local 218 22.21 44.48 3,807,281 63.0% Total 300 33.85 68.31 6,047,970 100.0%

The City uses a software called StreetSaver (www.streetsaver.com) developed by MTC to inventory streets, assess and forecast pavement condition, record M&R activities, evaluate budget needs, evaluate impacts of funding on network wide pavement condition overtime. This software is used to update the City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP) periodically.

Pavement Management Program (PMP) Pavement structures represent one of the largest capital investments for any jurisdiction. Maintaining and operating pavements on a citywide system involves complex decisions about how and when to resurface or apply treatments to keep the pavement performance and operating costs at reasonable levels.

A properly designed pavement management program provides managers of a pavement network the tools necessary for making consistent, cost-effective, and defensible decisions to preserve their pavement network. The timing of pavement maintenance is critical, as the maintenance cost increases exponentially with time. A pavement management program can be utilized to conduct “responsive” preventive maintenance to maintain a reasonable level of service (i.e., road quality) at all times. There has been

www.fugro.com 1 Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

extensive research in the area of pavement management since the 1970’s. Some of the research findings are:

• Pavement Deterioration – Pavements tend to deteriorate very slowly during the first few years after placement and very rapidly when they are aged. Even though pavement designs and materials varied widely, the deterioration of pavements follow a standard curve as shown in Figure 1. Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is an index that is “100” for a brand new pavement with no distress and reduces to “0” for a pavement that has failed. • Costly Maintenance Practices – Typically, state and local governments invest more funds for maintaining pavements than for any other public purpose. While much of this is due to the high cost of repairs and heavy usage of the public pavements, there is strong evidence that some of the high operating costs originate from inappropriate or poorly timed maintenance decisions. • Preserve vs. Reconstruct – Successive years of collecting pavement condition data shows that it is far more economical to preserve roads than to delay repairs and reconstruct roads. In addition, as traffic levels increases the costs of delaying repair work increases greatly. Typically, the cost of maintenance is 10-15% of the expected cost to repair the ultimate failure that will occur without the application of maintenance activities. For example, national data indicate that every $1 spent on maintaining the pavement surface saves $5 on major rehabilitation that will be required if the maintenance activities are not conducted.

Network Level Analysis This BOR examines the overall PCI condition of the entire network and provides recommendations to improving the current network level PCI. These recommendations are developed by conducting various budget and/or target driven scenarios. By varying the budget amounts available for pavement M&R, the impact of the different funding strategies can be shown on the City’s network overtime (i.e., 5 years). Although this report will provide a 5 year street and road repair program, the PMP should be reassessed on an annual basis due to unforeseen funding events.

In addition, recommendations provided in this report are for network level budgeting and planning purposes. The treatments that are assigned to sections of the City network are based on a decision tree. When a project has been selected by the City, engineering judgment and project level analysis should be applied to ensure that the treatment is appropriate and cost effective for the section. This can include revisiting and reevaluating the visual distress ratings, coring and deflectometer tests to establish underlying structural problems, etc.

www.fugro.com 2 Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

Pavement Life Cycle

Excellent 100

90 40% drop Very Good 80 in quality 70 75% of life Good 60 $1 of M&R here 50 40% drop 40 in quality Poor 30 12% of life

Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Index Condition Pavement 20 Will cost $5 here Very Poor 10

Failed 0 0 5 10 15 20 Years

Figure 1. Effect of Treatment Timing on Costs.

Terminology Pavement Condition Index or PCI is a measurement of the pavement network condition and ranges from 0 – 100. A newly constructed street would have a PCI of 100, while a failed street would have a PCI of 25 or less. The PCI is calculated based on pavement distresses identified in the field from a visual survey as per MTC’s most current distress manuals.

Unit costs in StreetSaver are the treatment cost per linear foot or square yard. As a minimum the unit cost should be based on local and regional bids. In addition, the unit cost should take into account items such as material costs, labor costs to do repair, rental equipment cost related to the project, pavement striping costs, repair of curbs and gutters, staff costs, project design costs, construction engineering costs, mobilization costs, etc.

Decision tree in StreetSaver lists all the treatments and corresponding unit costs that are utilized by the jurisdiction. It also assigns an appropriate M&R strategy to a section based on its functional classification, surface type, and condition category. It is important to utilize the City’s or regional information to match the City’s repair strategies.

Deferred maintenance or unfunded backlog consists of pavement maintenance that is needed, but it cannot be performed due to lack of funding. Shrinking budgets have forced many agencies to defer much needed street maintenance.

www.fugro.com 3 Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

Preventive maintenance program is a schedule of cost-effective planned maintenance actions aimed at the prevention of failure of the City’s network. The purpose of preventive maintenance is to extend the service life of a street by detecting, precluding and mitigating any degradation of a street section. If preventive maintenance work is done correctly and in a timely manner, the service life of a street can be greatly extended. In StreetSaver, preventive maintenance primarily includes surface treatments such as slurry seals, chip seals or crack seals that are applied to pavements in “Good” condition or above. This strategy focuses on cost effective treatments on good roads to maintain their condition and serviceability throughout their lifespan.

Pavement Condition

Network Replacement Value It is important to consider the overall investment the City has in its pavements. The cost to reconstruct all streets (full replacement of the pavement, base, and structure of the streets) is over $72.2 million.

Historical Network PCI Figure 2 shows the overall network PCI between 2010 and 2019. The PCI values are a combination of field inspected values from surveys and values from the StreetSaver modeling. Figure 2 shows that the average network PCI for the City has fluctuated between 68 and 75 from 2010 to 2019. In addition, the Sonoma County average PCI is also shown.

Figure 2. Historical Network PCI from 2010 to 2019.

www.fugro.com 4 Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

Current Overall Network PCI The overall network PCI is 72 as of July 25, 2019. Appendix A provides the section inventory as well as the PCI for each section. Please note that these values are projected and area-weighted calculations from StreetSaver. Figure 3 shows the five pavement condition categories and PCI breakpoints, which are critical decision points at which different treatments would be applied to the pavement sections by functional class and surface types.

100 90 (PCI Cap)* Very Good [I]

70 Good [II] Good [III] (non-load) (load-related) 50

Poor [IV] 25

Very Poor [V] 0 Pavement Condition PCI [Condition Category] *Above PCI of 90, no M&R is recommended.

Figure 3. Pavement Condition Categories by PCI.

Table 2 shows the City’s PCI per functional class. The overall network PCI is in the MTC designated “Very Good” pavement condition. The arterial and collector functional classes are in the MTC designated “Good” pavement condition as well. The residential functional class is in the MTC designated “Good” pavement condition.

Table 2. PCI per Functional Class.

Centerline Lane Pavement Functional Class Sections PCI[1] Miles Miles Condition Arterial 34 5.13 10.81 74 Very Good Collector 48 6.51 13.02 76 Very Good Residential 218 22.21 44.48 70 Very Good Total 300 33.85 68.31 72 Very Good [1] As of 7/25/2019.

Figure 4 shows the centerline miles by pavement condition. Around 65% of the centerline miles are “Excellent” or “Very Good” pavement condition categories (between PCI 100-70), 23% of the centerline miles are in the “Good” pavement condition category (between PCI 69-50), and 12% of the centerline miles are in the “Poor” or “Very Poor/Failed” pavement condition categories (between PCI 49-0).

www.fugro.com 5 Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

Figure 4. Centerline Miles of Streets by Pavement Condition.

Budget Needs

Maintenance Strategies Table 3 shows the City’s maintenance strategy for arterials as shown in its decision tree. Surface treatments, such as crack and slurry seals, have usually been utilized as a preventive maintenance technique when the pavements are in “Very Good” condition or above. As the pavement condition deteriorates, asphalt concrete (AC) overlays are applied. For pavements in very poor condition, reconstruction is considered. The City’s decision trees for each functional class are provided in Appendix B.

Table 3. Maintenance Strategy for Arterial Functional Class. Pavement PCI Range Typical Maintenance Treatment Condition Excellent 100-90 Do Nothing Very Good 89-70 Seal Cracks, Slurry Seal Good 69-50 Crack Seal and Slurry Seal, Edge Grind & 2 Inch Overlay with Fabric Poor 49-25 3 Inch Overlay with Fabric and 33% Digout Very Poor 0-24 Reconstruct Structure (AC)

www.fugro.com 6 Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

Budget Needs Analysis (Unconstrained) Based on the City’s M&R decision tree and the PCIs of the sections, StreetSaver selected a maintenance or rehabilitation action and computed the total costs over a period of five years. The budget needs analysis represents the "ideal world" or unconstrained funding levels. An interest rate of 3% and an inflation factor of 3% were used to project the costs for the next five years. The summary results from the analysis are shown in Table 4 and the details are presented in Appendix C.

Table 4. Budget Needs Project PCI and Cost Summary. Year Total Cost 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 PCI Treated 84 84 85 84 84 PCI Untreated 71 69 67 65 63 Preventive Cost $542,933 $130,488 $241,324 $76,104 $161,172 $1,152,021 Rehab Cost $7,058,541 $1,823,183 $1,995,568 $507,551 $1,063,104 $12,447,947 Total Cost $7,601,474 $1,953,671 $2,236,892 $583,655 $1,224,276 $13,599,968

If the City followed the maintenance and rehabilitation strategies recommended by the program and had unconstrained funding, the average network PCI will increase to 84 by the end of year 2024. If, however, no maintenance or rehabilitation occurred in the next five years, the average network PCI would deteriorate to 63 by the end of year 2024.

With respect to the unconstrained funding, $13.6 million in maintenance and rehabilitation was needed. Approximately $1.2 million (9%) was allocated to preventive maintenance treatments while the majority of the funding, $12.4 million, was allocated to the more costly rehabilitation or reconstruction treatments.

Budget Scenarios & Results Based on the unconstrained analysis and input from the City, Fugro developed several “what-if” analyses using StreetSaver’s budget scenario module. This allows us to evaluate the impacts of various budget "scenarios" on PCI, deferred maintenance (unfunded backlog), and average remaining service life of the network. Please note that for the scenarios 1) excess rehabilitation funds are added to preventive maintenance funds and 2) stop gap funds are not taken from preventive maintenance funds, and 3) surplus preventive maintenance funds are limited. The following scenarios were evaluated.

Scenario 1: No Funds (Do Nothing) This scenario shows the overall network PCI over five years if no funds are available and no work is performed. The result shows that by 2024 the deferred maintenance increases from $7.6 million to $12.7 million and the overall PCI will decrease to 63 as shown in Figure 5. All detailed reports are provided in Appendix D.

Scenario 2: Expected Annual Budget The City has indicated that the expected budget will be $500k for each year (25% is preventive maintenance) for a total of $2.5 million over five years. The result shows that by 2024 the deferred www.fugro.com 7 Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

maintenance increase from $7.1 million to $10.2 million and the overall PCI will decrease to 69 as shown in Figure 5. All detailed reports are provided in Appendix E.

Scenario 3: Maintain Current PCI This scenario aims to ensure that the overall pavement network PCI does not drop below the current PCI of 72 over the next five years. A total of $3.85 million will be required; of which 75% will be allocated to rehabilitation treatments. The deferred maintenance will increase from $7.1 million to $9.2 million in 2024 as shown in Figure 5. All detailed reports are provided in Appendix F.

Scenario 4: Improve PCI by 5 This scenario aims to ensure that the overall pavement network PCI will improve 5 points to 77 over five years. A total of $8 million is required and the deferred maintenance will decrease from $6.6 million to $5.9 million in 2024 as shown in Figure 5. All detailed reports are provided in Appendix G.

Scenario 5: Budget Needs Average This scenario is the Budget Needs total budget of $11,760,588 equally distributed over five years, i.e., $2,352,118 per year. The deferred maintenance will decrease from $4.9 million to $0.58 million by 2024 and the PCI will increase to 84 as shown in Figure 5. All detailed reports are provided in Appendix H.

Pavement Condition Changes Based on Budget Scenarios Figure 6 shows what the pavement condition of the City will be in 2024 based on the different budget scenarios. The greatest expenses that the City would foresee are in the “Poor” and “Very Poor” pavement condition categories because these would likely require reconstruction. For the purposes of this discussion, Fugro is highlighting the differences seen in the “Poor” and “Very Poor” pavement condition categories for each scenario.

In Figure 6, if no treatments were performed (i.e., Scenario 1 – No Funds), the “Poor” pavement condition would increase approximately 5% from 5% to 10% when compared to the current condition. The “Very Poor” pavement condition would remain the same at approximately 3% of the network. For Scenario 2 – Expected Annual Budget, the “Poor” and “Very Poor” pavement condition would increase approximately 3%. For Scenario 3 – Maintain Current PCI, the “Poor” and “Very Poor” pavement conditions would increase by approximately 2% and 3%, respectively. For Scenario 4 – Increase PCI by 5, the “Poor” and “Very Poor” pavement conditions would decrease by approximately 3% and increase 2%, respectively. For Scenario 5 – Budget Needs Average, the “Poor” and “Very Poor” pavement conditions would decrease by approximately 4% and decrease approximately 5%, respectively.

PCI Maps Appendix I presents PCI maps for the following conditions: Current, Scenario 1: No Funds, Scenario 2: Estimated Funding Level ($100K Per Year), Scenario 3: Estimated Funding Level ($150K Per Year), Scenario 4: Estimated Funding Level ($200K Per Year), Scenario 5: Maintain Current Network Condition, Scenario 6: Increase Network Condition Five Points, and Scenario 7: Average of PMP Determined Needs. www.fugro.com 8 Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

$20 90

84 Scenario 1 Deferred $18 82 80 76 77 80 75 78 73 76 75 Scenario 2 Deferred $16 72 7172 7172 72 72 70 69 70 71 69 Scenario 3 Deferred $14 67 65 63 60

$12 Scenario 4 Deferred

$12.71 50

$10 Scenario 5 Deferred $10.91

$10.61 40

$10.24 Backlog Backlog $M) (in

$8 $9.39

$9.16 $9.11

$9.10 Scenario 1 No Funds

$9.05 $8.68

$8.04 30

$7.82

Pavement Condition Index (PCI) $7.60

$6 $7.43 $7.10

$7.10 Scenario 2 Expected Annual Budget Level

$6.61

$6.60 $6.01 $5.89 20 $4

$4.88 Scenario 3 Maintain Current PCI $3.92

$2 $3.55 10

Scenario 4 Improve PCI by 5

$0.58 $1.52 $0 0 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Scenario 5 Budget Needs Average Year

Figure 5. Scenario Breakdown of PCI and Deferred Maintenance for 2020 to 2024.

www.fugro.com 9 Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

Figure 6. Pavement Condition for Each Scenario in 2024.

www.fugro.com 10 Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

Recommendations The City has a substantial investment of $72.2 million in their pavement network of 33.85 centerline miles. The City’s overall network PCI is 72 (as of 7/25/2019), which is “Very Good” in the MTC pavement condition categories. Approximately 88% of the network is “Excellent”, “Very Good” or “Good” and 12% is “Poor” and “Very Poor.” The budget needs analysis indicated that the City would have to spend approximately $13.6 million in M&R over the next five years to basically repair all streets. This is the ideal situation where all streets are in “Very Good” or “Good” condition and just need regular preventive maintenance. For this report, Fugro has evaluated and presented several scenarios for the City to consider.

Budget Based on the PCI (i.e., 72 and “Very Good” condition) and slowing the growth of the deferred maintenance (unfunded backlog), Fugro recommends Scenario 3 – Maintain Current PCI. This scenario has a total budget of $3.85 million over five years. The breakdown is $500k for year 1, $725k for years 2 and 3, $900k for year 4, and $1 million for year 5. There is also 25% preventive maintenance each year. The PCI will remain at 72 and the deferred maintenance will increase from $7.1 million to $9.2 million.

Pavement Maintenance Strategies The City’s pavement maintenance strategies include slurry seals and overlays. Since a large percentage of pavements are in “Good” to “Very Good” condition, it is important to preserve these pavements. For preventive maintenance, the City should continue to utilize cost effective treatments where appropriate such as slurry seals and crack seals. Crack sealing is relatively inexpensive and can keep moisture out of pavements and prevent the underlying aggregate base from premature failures. Life-extending surface seals such as slurry seals are also cost-effective for pavements currently in “Good” to “Very Good” condition. Fugro recommends that the City fully fund its preventive maintenance program. This is necessary to at least maintain the portion of the road network that is in “Very Good” condition and avoid increasing the deferred maintenance. As MTC has stated preventive maintenance is where the City will get the most from its money. If there is a funding shortfall, Fugro recommends that priority be given to arterials before collectors and collectors before residential roads. Fugro also recommends evaluating emerging cost effective techniques like rubberized chip seals, thin- bonded wearing courses and rubberized overlays.

Re-inspection Fugro recommends that the City continue to maintain its pavement management program to be eligible for grants and state gas tax funding. Per MTC requirements, pavement sections for arterial and collector streets should be re-inspected every two years and residential streets should be re-inspected every five years. The costs for the re-inspection should be included in the annual pavement management budget.

www.fugro.com 11 Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

StreetSaver Updates Fugro has the following recommendations regarding StreetSaver:

• Review and update decision tree M&R strategies annually. • Review and update decision tree unit costs annually to reflect new construction bid costs and ensure the budget analysis is more accurate. For example, asphalt prices have been volatile in the past. If asphalt prices change drastically, it could affect the number of projects the City can build. • Update the pavement network when streets are annexed or newly constructed including GIS shape files. • Enter in M&R activities annually, which will help the City track performance of past treatment strategies to determine their effectiveness.

www.fugro.com 12 Budget Options Report (BOR) MTC P-TAP Round 20

Appendix I – PCI Maps

www.fugro.com I-1 Condition 12/19/2019 PCI Printed: Current Plaza 95475 The CA Miles 1 Sonoma 0.5 938-3332 of (Load) (Non-Load) Poor Good City Number Sonoma, (707) Poor Good Very Good - Very - - - - I II III IV V Legend Category Category Category Category Category Feature

0 Test 12/19/2019 Printed: - $0 Rehab: Total - Condition Period PCI Project 2024 - Funds No 1 Scenario Scenario - PTAP-20 Plaza 95475 The CA 1 Sonoma Miles 938-3332 of 0.5 (Load) (Non-Load) Poor Good City Number Sonoma, (707) Poor Good Very Good - Very - - - - I II III IV V Legend Category Category Category Category Category Feature

0 Test 12/19/2019 Printed: - $365,767 Rehab: Total - Condition Period Project PCI 2024 - Budget Annual Scenario Expected 2 Scenario - PTAP-20 Plaza 95475 The CA 1 Sonoma Miles 938-3332 of 0.5 (Load) (Non-Load) Poor Good City Number Sonoma, (707) Poor Good Very Good - Very - - - - I II III IV V Legend Category Category Category Category Category Feature

0 Test 12/19/2019 Printed: - $740,239 Rehab: Total - Condition Period PCI Project 2024 - PCI Maintain Scenario 3 Scenario - PTAP-20 Plaza 95475 The CA 1 Sonoma Miles 938-3332 of 0.5 (Load) (Non-Load) Poor Good City Number Sonoma, (707) Poor Good Very Good - Very - - - - I II III IV V Legend Category Category Category Category Category Feature

0 Test 12/19/2019 Printed: - $1,801,951 Rehab: Total - Condition Period PCI Project 2024 - 5 by PCI Scenario Improve 4 Scenario - PTAP-20 Plaza 95475 The CA 1 Sonoma 938-3332 Miles of 0.5 (Load) Poor Good City Number Sonoma, (707) Poor Good Very - Very - - - I III IV V Legend Category Category Category Category Feature

0 Test 12/19/2019 Printed: - $2,488,313 Rehab: Total - Period Condition Project PCI 2024 - Rev Average Needs Scenario Budget - 5 Scenario - PTAP-20 Plaza 95475 The CA 1 Sonoma Miles 938-3332 of 0.5 (Load) Poor Good City Number Sonoma, (707) Poor Good Very - Very - - - I III IV V Legend Category Category Category Category Feature

0 Test The Pothole Report: Bay Area Roads At Risk

September 2018 MTC Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Nick Josefowitz Sonoma County and Cities San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee

Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Jane Kim Alameda County City and County of San Francisco

Alicia C. Aguirre Sam Liccardo Cities of San Mateo County San Jose Mayor’s Appointee

Tom Azumbrado Alfredo Pedroza U.S. Department of Housing Napa County and Cities and Urban Development Julie Pierce Jeannie Bruins Association of Bay Area Governments Cities of Santa Clara County Libby Schaaf Damon Connolly Oakland Mayor’s Appointee Marin County and Cities Warren Slocum Dave Cortese San Mateo County Santa Clara County James P. Spering Carol Dutra-Vernaci Solano County and Cities Cities of Alameda County Tony Tavares Dorene M. Giacopini California State Transportation Agency U.S. Department of Transportation (CalSTA)

Federal D. Glover Amy R. Worth Contra Costa County Cities of Contra Costa County

Anne W. Halsted San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

MTC Executive Staff

Steve Heminger Andrew B. Fremier Executive Director Deputy Executive Director, Operations

Alix Bockelman Bradford Paul Deputy Executive Director, Policy Deputy Executive Director, Local Government Services

ii | Metropolitan Transportation Commission

The Pothole Report: Bay Area Roads At Risk

September 2018

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Bay Area Metro Center 375 Beale Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105-2066

415.778.6700 main tel 415.536.9800 fax 415.778.6769 TDD/TTY 415.778.6757 public information tel

[email protected] email www.mtc.ca.gov web

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 2

Pavement Preservation and Pavement Management 4

Regional Pavement Condition Summary 8

SB 1: A Historic Commitment to Roadway Renewal 10

Sonoma County: A Convergence of Challenges 12

Looking Forward: The Funding Picture 14

Pavement Condition Index for Bay Area Jurisdictions: 2014-2017 15 Executive Summary Bill 1 (SB 1). The measure also would subject any future taxes on motor vehicle fuels (and the vehicles themselves) California voters’ consideration this November of Proposi- to voter approval. tion 6, which would shrink Bay Area cities’ and counties’ pavement management budgets by an average of 42 per- By far the largest recipient of SB 1 dollars is a newly-estab- cent, provides a timely opportunity to re-examine the state lished Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program esti- of the region’s streets and roads. mated to receive $3.7 billion annually, and through which half the funds are dedicated to city streets and county Building on the foundation established by MTC’s origi- roads, with the other half going to state highway mainte- nal 2000 Pothole Report and then by a 2011 update, this nance. In the nine-county Bay Area, SB 1 is expected to report includes both a primer on the cost and life cycle of generate more than $200 million for city streets and county pavement and a comprehensive look at the current state roads each year. The prospect that this revenue stream may of the Bay Area’s local streets and roads network, featur- soon run dry calls for an updated analysis of the Bay Area’s ing a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction ranking of average pave- local street and road network. ment condition index (PCI) scores among the region’s nine counties and 101 cities. This analysis spotlights the myriad Marginal Improvement pavement-management challenges facing Sonoma County The condition of the Bay Area’s local streets and roads and the vast network of roadways in unincorporated por- has improved since the turn of the 21st century, primarily tions of the county. It also illuminates the impact voter ap- as a result of targeted local investment and continually- proval of Proposition 6 would have on cities’ and counties’ improving pavement maintenance practices. Yet the typical pavement maintenance programs. stretch of asphalt still shows serious wear and is likely to require rehabilitation soon. At 67 out of a possible 100 If approved by a majority of voters, Proposition 6 would re- points, the region’s average pavement condition index peal the $5.4 billion-a-year transportation funding package (PCI) score has climbed four points over the past 15 years, approved by the state Legislature in 2017 through Senate

Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (Bay Area Local Streets and Roads)

A wide array of projects are Local Road Gas Tax Funding by Year Projected Pavement Condition Over Time eligible, including: Local Road Gas Tax Funding By Year (in millions, estimate)(In Millions, Estimate) • Safe driving conditions - road 80 $600 maintenance and rehabilitation $495 • Complete streets safety $500 70 projects, such as sidewalks and $400 66 bike lanes $300 $250 67 60 • Traffic control safety devices Millions $200 With SB 1 57 such as traffic lights and $100 Without SB 1 crossings Index Condition Pavement 50 $0 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 • Storm water and clean water FY 16-17 FY 18-19 Pre-SB 1 With SB 1 Year

2 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission though it remains much closer to the 60-point threshold keep a section of roadway in good condition would have at which deterioration accelerates rapidly and the need for to spend $5 to restore the same road if the pavement is major rehabilitation becomes more likely than it does to allowed to deteriorate to the point where major rehabili- the 85-point mark used by MTC to indicate a state of good tation is necessary. All 109 Bay Area jurisdictions — and repair. While years of work by MTC and the region’s local hundreds of other public agencies nationwide — now use governments have forestalled a steep decline, overall con- MTC’s StreetSaver® pavement management software to ditions on our 43,374 lane-miles of city streets and county inventory their street networks, determine maintenance roads remain no better than “fair.” needs and devise maintenance programs based on avail- Fixing the Fiscal Pothole able revenues. Questions about funding are at the heart of the streets and MTC estimates that achieving a regional state of good roads issue. Money for roadway maintenance typically repair for pavement would require an investment of more comes from a range of sources, including not just the state than $700 million each year, or a total of some $17 bil- gasoline tax but also county sales taxes, and local sources lion through 2040. This level of investment is 20 percent such as city or county general funds, bonds and traffic- higher than the current $602 million spent annually by all impact fees. But as the need for maintenance has grown sources on roadway maintenance. as the Bay Area roadway network ages, available funding Even if California voters vote down Proposition 6 and in most cities and counties effectively had been shrinking secure the future of SB 1, fixing this fiscal pothole will be — and maintenance backlogs swelling — until last year’s an ongoing challenge for MTC and local governments alike enactment of SB 1. as we move toward development and adoption of Plan Bay To help cities and counties get the biggest bang for their Area 2050, the comprehensive regional plan to guide Bay buck, MTC has long advocated pavement preservation. Area transportation investment through 2050. A municipality that spends $1 on timely maintenance to

Purchasing Power of California’s Excise Gasoline Tax (¢ per gallon)

$0.60 46% drop in val ue of gas $0.50 tax since 1963 , even $0.40 with SB 1

$0.30

$0.20

$0.10

$0.0 Year 1923 1927 1947 1953 1963 1984 1991 1995 2017 Base Excise Tax Value of the Base Excise Tax in FY 2017-18 $

The Pothole Report: Bay Area Roads At Risk | 3 Pavement Preservation and Pavement Management Streets and roads take a beating under the weight of traffic. The first sign of distress on surface pavement is usually cracking. While cracks may not immediately alter ride quality, they expose the sub-base of the roadway to water leaking through the surface layer. In time, water erodes pavement strength and cracks begin to lengthen and multiply, forming interconnected networks of cracks re- ferred to as “alligator cracking.” At this point, the pavement is no longer able to sustain the weight of traffic. It then disintegrates, forming depressions more fa- miliarly known as potholes. Since potholes result from damage to the roadway’s sub-base, once they appear — regardless of whether or not they are patched — the roadway will continue to deteriorate until it reaches a failed state. Heavy vehicles such as trucks and buses put far more stress on pavement than does a car. A bus exerts more than 7,000 times the stress on pavement than does a typical sport utility vehicle. And a garbage truck exerts more than 9,000 times as much stress as an SUV. Not surprisingly, cracks appear more quickly on streets with large traffic volumes and/or heavy use by trucks and buses. About 36 percent of the Bay Area’s local road mileage consists of arterial and collector roadways, which are heavily used by both trucks and buses. The pounding that pavement receives from trucks and buses can be especially prob- lematic in more rural parts of the Bay Area, where many roadways have not been designed to accommodate heavy vehicles but which are nonetheless used by growing numbers of trucks carrying goods between farms and cities.

The most cost-effective way to maintain a roadway is to address cracks in the pavement as soon as they surface. Just as regular oil changes are far less expensive than a complete engine rebuild, it is five to 10 times cheaper to properly maintain streets

Relative Impact of Vehicle Types on Pavement Conditions Pavement Stress per Trip (1 vehicle unit = 1 SUV) 10,000 9,343 8,000 7,774 6,000

4,000 4,526

2,000 442 0 1 Number of Vehicle Units Vehicle Number of Sport Utility Delivery Truck Semi/Big Rig Bus Garbage Truck/ Vehicle Green Waste

Source: Pavement Engineering, Inc. 4 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission Pavement Life Cycle 67 Bay Area Best and Worst Bay Area Roads Average PCI 100 Very Good- Many factors affect a city’s or county’s pave- Excellent 90 40% drop ment condition index, or PCI score. These 80 in quality Good include pavement age, climate and precipita- 70 Fair 75% of pavement life tion, traffi c loads and available maintenance 60 At Risk $1 for renovation here funding. A municipality with new housing 50 40% drop 40 developments and new streets may have a Poor in quality 30 12% high overall PCI, while an older, urbanized of life PAVEMENT CONDITION PAVEMENT 20 jurisdiction may have a much lower PCI, Will cost at least $5 here Failed 10 even though both are practicing pavement 0 preservation. Cities and counties that practice 0 5 10 15 20 YEARS preventive maintenance will have lower long- Time varies depending on trafﬁc, climate, pavement design, etc. term pavement costs and will safeguard their than to allow them to fail and then pay for the necessary rehabilitation (see chart investment in local streets and roads. For a above). Deteriorating pavement carries private costs as well. A 2018 report by TRIP, full listing of Bay Area jurisdictions’ pavement a nonprofit organization that researches, evaluates and distributes technical data on conditions, please go to page 15. highway transportation issues, estimated that drivers in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area Jurisdictions With Best and Worst area pay an extra $2,992 in annual operating costs for each vehicle as a result of Pavement Conditions in 2017, Based on 3-Year roadway conditions1. Average PCI Scores The Importance of Early Intervention Best PCI Ratings Worst PCI Ratings The Bay Area has long emphasized the importance of early intervention through the Dublin – 85 Larkspur – 42 adoption of proactive maintenance strategies, better education in pavement pres- Clayton – 84 Petaluma – 46 ervation concepts, and regional policies that give cities and counties incentives to El Cerrito – 84 Sonoma County – 49* practice pavement preservation on their street and road networks. MTC’s Plan Bay Palo Alto – 83 Napa County – 51* Area 2040 reaffirms this overall approach by conditioning regional funds for local street and road maintenance not only on need and level of system usage but also Brentwood – 83 Martinez – 51 on preventive-maintenance performance. By contrast, cities and counties that spend *Unincorporated area almost all of their paving budgets to fix only a handful of failed roadways, instead of proactively maintaining a much larger percentage of their network that is still in good condition, are practicing what is known as a “Worst First” strategy. With this approach, the good roads for which maintenance is deferred soon fall into disrepair and require more extensive and costly treatments. Bay Area governments’ support for the preventive-maintenance philosophy — and their shift away from the ineffective “Worst First” strategy — has helped cities and counties squeeze the most out of existing resources. Indeed, the quality of Bay Area pavement (on average) actually increased slightly from 2011 to 2017, despite the fact that growth in maintenance revenues failed to keep pace with increases in the cost of paving materials.

The Pothole Report: Bay Area Roads At Risk | 5 El Cerrito: A Pavement Success Story In 2006, the city of El Cerrito’s local street network was in poor condition (single-year PCI score of 48) and the city had a backlog of more than $21 million in maintenance work. In less than five years, the city had boosted its single-year PCI score to 85 and had trimmed its maintenance backlog by more than 95 percent. By 2017, El Cerrito’s PCI had stabilized in the mid-80s and its maintenance backlog had remained similarly manageable. How did El Cer- rito improve pavement conditions so much and so quickly?

• MTC pavement management After launching a public outreach campaign that included citizens, city council members software designed specifically for and public works staff, El Cerrito won passage of a half-cent sales tax measure in 2008 cities and counties. for a Street Improvement Program. With $2.1 million in sales tax revenues, augmented by $10.5 million in bond proceeds and $1.8 million in grant funds, the city improved pavement • Over 450 clients including Houston, conditions and created a direct, local source of revenue for future maintenance. The biggest Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, impact of the Street Improvement Program was El Cerrito’s ability to reduce its maintenance San Jose, Stanford University, backlog. The city also resurfaced 68 percent of its streets, built over 400 new curb ramps US Forest Service and replaced 50 storm drain crossings. • Available online anytime, and El Cerrito’s Pavement Program and Conditions, 2006 vs. 2017 anywhere with Internet access at 2006 2017 www.streetsaver.com Single-year PCI score 48 (Poor) 83 (Very Good) PCI: 3-year moving average 53 (At Risk) 84 (Very Good) Maintenance backlog $21.2 million $2.1 million Annual budget needed to maintain PCI $1.3 million $1 million Annual average funding level $250,000 $1 million

Inspired in part by the success of the El Cerrito Street Improvement Program, two other Contra Costa County cities placed similar sales tax measures on the ballot in 2012, with 69 percent of voters in Orinda endorsing Measure L, a quarter-cent sales tax to finance the repair, rehabilitation and maintenance of local streets; and 70 percent of voters in neighboring Moraga approving Measure K, which provides a full cent on each dollar of taxable sales for pavement repair and rehabilitation, and for storm drain repair.

Measure K’s impact was felt almost immediately, as Moraga used the new sales-tax revenue stream to support a successful bond issue that generated nearly $8 million for the town’s Jerry Bradshaw El Cerrito streets have had a major pavement management program. The three-year moving average PCI score on Moraga’s 110 makeover, funded in part by revenues lane-miles of local streets climbed 10 points from 58 in the 2012-14 period to 68 for 2015-17. from a voter-approved sales tax. Over the same period, Orinda’s three-year PCI score has soared from 49 to 60. Pavement Management Boosts Preservation Returns Building on pavement preservation principles established by the Federal Highway Admin- istration2, MTC developed a software package called StreetSaver® to assist local agencies in

6 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission maintaining their roadways. StreetSaver® integrates the three main pavement preservation Benefi ts of a Pavement components: preventive maintenance, minor rehabilitation (non-structural) and routine main- Management System tenance activities, as well as pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction. • Provide a systematic way of gauging pavement conditions, and present Today, all 109 Bay Area jurisdictions — and more than 350 additional public and private a series of steps for using this agencies nationwide and internationally — use StreetSaver®. The software allows cities and information to identify and schedule counties to inventory their street networks, determine their maintenance needs and devise the most appropriate treatments. maintenance programs based on available revenues. The software develops a list of recommended treatments and prioritizes treatments based on a weighted effectiveness ratio. Within • Help cities and counties make more the constraints of each jurisdiction’s budget, the software selects the most cost-effective treat- effi cient use of public funds by ments for implementation and defers the remainder. allowing them to immediately put any available new moneys to their As with any other software package, StreetSaver®’s effectiveness depends on the input of most cost-effective use. reliable data. So for StreetSaver® to work, public works staff must promptly enter updated information about maintenance treatments once the treatments have been applied. • Allow local governments to predict what conditions would be Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions at different levels of funding, and In addition to long-term cost savings, pavement preservation and pavement management strate- to quantify the consequences of gies pay dividends by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Smooth pavement reduces underfunded road maintenance. GHG emissions by improving vehicles’ fuel economy. More-frequent, low-cost treatments also produce fewer emissions than do major rehabilitation projects made necessary by deferred • Allow local governments to maintenance (see graph below). This is due to the need to produce less asphalt or other paving establish performance-based materials, and the need for fewer truck trips to transport materials to and from the worksite. funding allocation policies. Pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction requires large amounts of energy to acquire and pro- • Reduce governments’ overall cess raw materials, transport materials to the construction site, apply the materials, and remove, maintenance spending once the haul away and discard old materials. Over a 20-year period, these processes combined produce management system reaches an estimated 212,000 pounds of GHG emissions per lane mile of roadway. Preservation treat- its goal of getting all pavement ments, by contrast, would emit about 30,100 pounds of GHGs over this time, even when done segments to the condition where more frequently. This 20-year savings of more than 180,000 pounds of GHG emissions is equiva- preservation is the primary strategy lent to taking 15 cars off the road for a year for each lane mile properly maintained. being applied. • Build support for increased GHG Emissions With Pavement Preservation vs. Deferred Maintenance3 funding by systematically tracking Pavement Condition Index 250 100 pavement inventories, conditions 200 80 and maintenance activities across 150 60 multiple jurisdictions

100 40 Equivalent 2

CO 50 20 Thousands of Pounds 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 Years GHG Emissions With Pavement Preservation GHG Emissions With Deferred Maintenance PCI With Pavement Preservation PCI With Deferred Maintenance The Pothole Report: Bay Area Roads At Risk | 7 BayBay Area Area PavementPavement Condition Index Regional Pavement Condition Summary Index (PCI)(PCI) Scores,Scores, 2003–2017*2003–2010 The Bay Area’s local street and road network comprises 43,374 lane miles of roadway, 100 and includes not only paved surfaces but also the curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, traffic signs, signals and lights that are necessary for functioning roadways. To 80 replace this network would cost at least $50 billion. The roadway network provides access to jobs, homes, schools, shopping and recreation, and is vital to the region’s 60 livability and economic health. As with any asset, regular maintenance is required in order to ensure serviceability. 40 Every year, local jurisdictions analyze pavement conditions to help gauge their success in maintaining their local street and road networks. MTC, in turn, collects this informa- 20 tion to determine regional state of repair. MTC and local jurisdictions use a pavement condition index (PCI) score that rates segments of paved roadways on a scale from 0 to 0 100. MTC looks at the percentage of the region’s roadways that fall into various condi- 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 tion categories, ranging from a low of “failed” to a high of “excellent.” The classifica- *PCI scores are 3-year moving averages. tions used in the regional pavement condition analysis are shown in the table below.

Very Good-Excellent Pavements are newly constructed or resurfaced and (PCI = 80-100) have few if any signs of distress. Good Pavements require mostly preventive maintenance (PCI = 70-79) and have only low levels of distress, such as minor cracks or spalling, which occurs when the top layer of asphalt begins to peel or flake off as a result of water permeation. Fair Pavements at the low end of this range have signifi- (PCI = 60-69) cant levels of distress and may require a combination of rehabilitation and preventive maintenance to keep them from deteriorating rapidly. At Risk Pavements are deteriorated and require immediate (PCI = 50-59) attention including rehabilitative work. Ride quality is significantly inferior to better pavement categories. Poor Pavements have extensive amounts of distress and (PCI = 25-49) require major rehabilitation or reconstruction. Pave- ments in this category affect the speed and flow of traffic significantly. Failed Pavements need reconstruction and are extremely (PCI = 0-24) rough and difficult to drive.

8 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission The 2017 pavement condition analysis shows that Bay Area streets and roads have Bay Area Local Roadway a three-year moving average PCI score of 67, which is unchanged from the same Characteristics calculation for 2016. This score falls in the “fair” range, indicating that the typical Functional Classification of Local Street and city street or county road is becoming worn to the point where rehabilitation may Road Network, by Percentage of Mileage be needed to prevent rapid deterioration. The stability of the Bay Area’s average PCI Collector score is mirrored in the percentage of lane miles included in the various pavement 19% quality classifications in recent years. As the bar graph below shows, roadways in the “excellent” or “very good” ranges account for about one-third of the paved lane miles in the nine-county region. Another one-third falls in the “good” or “fair” ranges, Arterial while the final third is classified as “at-risk,” “poor” or “failed.” 17% Functional Classifications Just as there are different ranges of pavement quality, so too are there various classifications for local streets and roads. A roadway’s “functional classification” Residential is determined primarily by the number of vehicles that use it. About 65 percent of 64% roadways are residential (see chart at right). These are the streets and roads that run through neighborhoods and carry few buses or trucks, other than waste man- Ownership of Maintained Roads in Bay Area, agement vehicles. Collector roadways serve to “collect” traffic from the residential by Percentage of Mileage streets and deposit them onto arterials, which carry the most car, truck and bus traffic, and which typically provide an outlet onto state highways or freeways. Arterials County 22% also function as alternatives to highways and freeways to relieve traffic congestion. City Federal funding can be used only on roadways that have a functional classification 70% of collector or arterial, or roughly 35 percent of the Bay Area street system. State 6% Local streets and roads, which are owned and maintained by cities or counties, Federal 1% account for 92 percent of the Bay Area’s total lane mileage. State highways (includ- Other ing interstate highways) are maintained by Caltrans and comprise about 6 percent 1% of total mileage. Roadways that fall under the responsibility of the federal government primarily include those in national parks, reserves, tribal lands and military installations. About 1 percent of roadways are either privately owned, or are owned and maintained by special districts such as the California Department of Parks and Recreation or the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District.

Pavement Conditions Conditions on Bay for Area Local Local Roadways, 2014–2017 2014–2017 (% of lane (lane miles) miles) 2014 31% 35% 11% 23%

2015 34% 34% 10% 22%

2016 34% 34% 9% 23%

2017 37% 32% 9% 22% Excellent or Very Good Good or Fair At Risk Poor or Failed The Pothole Report: Bay Area Roads At Risk | 9 Dispelling Political Myths Just as the passage of SB 1 sparked an almost-immediate surge of pavement maintenance work around California, so too did it fuel the spread of various myths about transportation funding in the Golden State. Though easily disproven, these myths have gained currency in some quarters as voters prepare to decide on Proposition 6.

MYTH: SB 1 money goes to the state SB 1: A Historic Commitment to Roadway Renewal General Fund instead of roadways. The California Legislature’s passage last year of state Senate Bill 1, formally known FACT: Not a penny of SB 1 money goes to as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, authorized the first increase the General Fund. Further, voters in June in the base state excise tax on gasoline since 1994. This tax traditionally has been 2018 overwhelmingly approved Proposition the largest single revenue source for most California cities’ and counties’ street and 69, which enshrines protection of transpor- road systems. But 23 years of inaction in Sacramento eroded the purchasing power tation funds in the state Constitution. of the gas tax by 40 percent. Adjusted for inflation, the 18 cents per gallon drivers paid in 1994 was equal to 30 cents per gallon in 2017 — precisely the level to which MYTH: Politicians have diverted gas tax SB 1 raised the excise tax. money to fund state budget shortfalls and In the decade ahead, the 12-cents-per-gallon gas tax hike and other SB 1 funding pay lavish salaries and pensions. mechanisms are projected to generate more than $52 billion for transportation im- FACT: All money from the state gas tax provements statewide, with the funds split 50/50 between a “Fix Local Streets and goes to streets and roads, highways and Transportation Infrastructure” element and a “Fix State Highways and Transporta- other transportation investments. The ori- tion Infrastructure” component. Together, Bay Area cities and counties anticipate gins of this myth go back to 1971 when Gov. over $200 million in SB 1 funding for their streets and roads during the current Ronald Reagan signed the Transportation 2018-19 fiscal year — a 73 percent jump in state gas tax revenue income from the Development Act, which instituted a sales pre-SB 1 baseline and a figure that accounts for more than 40 percent of all local tax on gasoline to support the General roadway investment regionwide. Fund. In 1990, a year in which California enjoyed a large budget surplus, the Legisla- Though SB 1 funds alone are not enough to restore all Bay Area streets and roads to ture actually began transferring General good condition, it’s hard to overstate the impact of this long-needed infusion. MTC Fund revenues to transportation, rather projects that 10 years of SB 1 funding will allow the region to maintain an average than the other way around. These transfers overall PCI score of 66 through 2027. Without SB 1 dollars, the regional average continued until the early 2000s, when the PCI score would sink to 57 — squarely in the “at risk” category. Cities’ and coun- end of the dot-com boom created deep ties’ roadway maintenance backlogs, meanwhile, would more than double without shortfalls in the General Fund. SB 1 to a combined $13.9 billion from the current total of $6.2 billion. This 10-year (continued next page) scenario is broken down by county in the charts opposite.

10 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission Local Street and Road Condition and Maintenance Backlog Dispelling 10-Year Scenarios: With SB 1 Revenue and Without Political Myths (continued) Pavement Condition Index (PCI) 2027 PCI 2027 PCI MYTH: California can tap other funds to County 2017 PCI With SB 1 Without SB 1 finance street, road and highway repairs. Alameda County 68 68 58 FACT: There is no Plan B. Voter approval Contra Costa County 71 70 61 of Proposition 6 would eliminate more Marin County 66 66 55 than $5 billion in SB 1 revenues each year. Napa County 56 59 51 Because the combined statewide maintenance backlog for streets, roads and San Francisco 74 80 71 highways totals more than $130 billion over San Mateo County 72 71 63 the next 10 years, transferring this money Santa Clara County 70 70 60 from the state General Fund would mean taking $130 billion away from education, Solano County 68 61 53 healthcare, public safety and other state Sonoma County 53 48 41 programs. Bay Area 67 66 57 MYTH: The state gas tax produces more revenue each year because Californians Maintenance Backlog are driving more. 2027 2027 FACT: Because vehicles get far better Maintenance Maintenance Backlog Backlog mileage than they did in 1994, the typical County 2017 Backlog With SB 1 Without SB 1 driver now pays less in fuel taxes each Alameda County $1,025,233,000 $1,336,594,243 $2,030,816,935 year than she did a generation ago— even if she racks up more road miles. Due Contra Costa County $858,559,000 $1,133,180,981 $1,695,696,201 to increased fuel efficiency, the per-mile Marin County $261,476,000 $488,182,105 $689,874,129 revenues generated by the state gas tax Napa County $264,216,000 $416,501,410 $537,062,902 have been falling for decades. San Francisco $250,684,000 $242,542,445 $650,749,959 San Mateo County $362,166,000 $681,428,521 $997,168,674 Santa Clara County $1,204,079,000 $2,013,334,487 $2,984,851,072 Solano County $574,506,000 $1,152,204,824 $1,462,117,714 Sonoma County $1,433,128,000 $2,357,020,549 $2,810,537,142 Bay Area $6,234,047,000 $9,820,989,565 $13,858,874,728 Increase 58% 122%

The Pothole Report: Bay Area Roads At Risk | 11 Sonoma County: A Convergence of Challenges Many factors affect a city’s or county’s pavement condition index (PCI) score. These include the size of the street or road network, the age of the pavement, climate and precipitation, traffic loads and available maintenance funding. One place where older pavement, higher rainfall, heavier traffic loads, and a chronic short- age of money all come together is in Sonoma County, where PCI scores on a vast network of roads in the unincorporated portions of the county consistently have ranked among the very lowest of any Bay Area jurisdiction. Sonoma County’s road network, which includes more than 1,300 centerline miles and over 2,700 lane miles, is the second largest of all Bay Area municipalities, trail- ing only the city of San Jose’s. On top of the usual pavement preservation challenges cities and counties constantly confront, Sonoma County also shoulders much of the cost of recovery from October 2017 wildfires that burned over 100,000 acres and destroyed more than 5,000 homes in the county. “The last two years we’ve been hit really hard with disasters — first slides and then fires,” commented Sonoma County Public Works Director Johannes Hoevertsz. “Resiliency and recovery from the fires is a priority that requires a lot of vegetation maintenance. So that’s made it even more difficult to budget for road repairs.” “The number one complaint in Sonoma County is the condition of our roads,” acknowledged Janice Thompson, who manages the county’s engineering division. It’s a complaint Sonoma County leaders take seriously. The Board of Supervisors directed $12 million to $14 million from the county’s General Fund to the Transpor- tation and Public Works Department in each of the last four years and, despite the extraordinary expenses created by fire-recovery efforts, boosted this contribution to just over $20 million for the 2018-19 fiscal year. Sonoma County’s commitment has paid off in steadily-improving PCI scores, with the three-year moving average rising from just 45 in 2014 to 49 by 2017, and the one-year score climbing to 48 in 2017 from 46 in 2014. Yet despite the positive movement, Sonoma County’s roadway maintenance backlog totals over $900 million and more than half the network remains in “poor” or “failed” condition, with just 19 percent of county-owned pavement rated “excellent” or “very good.” Less-traveled Sonoma County roads carrying a residential classification registered a one-year PCI score of just 33 for 2017. The steep climb needed to restore Sonoma County roadways to a state of good repair is magnified by uncertainty about the future of SB 1 funding. The county budget projects $9.8 million in roadway maintenance money from SB 1 for the 2018-19 fiscal year, with half the funds going to pavement preservation and the 12 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission other half set for rehabilitation projects. When added to nearly $4 million in other state gas tax funds and the $20 million infusion from the county General Fund, the public works team is now implementing a $34 million roadway work plan that calls for maintaining or rehabilitating 380 miles of county roads and 328 county-owned bridges. Without the continued flow of SB 1 dollars, however, Sonoma County almost certainly will face an even steeper climb in its efforts to boost the quality of its roadway network. MTC projections forecast that, absent SB 1 revenue, the county’s pavement maintenance backlog will soar by almost two-thirds, from about $924 million to more than $1.5 billion, and its average PCI score will plummet from the current 48 to 35 by 2027. “We have one of the most aggressive years ever planned in terms of maintenance and road construction,” said Hoevertsz. “Prop. 6 would reduce both maintenance and pavement preservation. Overlaying and slurry seals all would be reduced. And we would have to put on hold a lot of drainage improvements and culvert repairs as well as pothole patching.” Noting that streets and roads in Sonoma County and elsewhere will continue to need preservation, maintenance and repair regardless of the outcome of the Propo- sition 6 vote, Hoevertsz observed, “At some point we’re going to have to come to terms with having to spend more on our roads.” (Army National Guard photo by Capt. Will Martin/Released) Costs associated with recovery from the 2017 wildfires have added to the pressure on Sonoma County’s pavement maintenance budget.

The Pothole Report: Bay Area Roads At Risk | 13 What Will It Take? Looking Forward: The Funding Picture Even with the additional revenues generated With a regionwide average PCI score of 67, the Bay Area’s city streets and county by SB 1, the Bay Area’s streets and roads lack roads are not far from the tipping point on the pavement life-cycle curve, after suffi cient funding to reach a “state of good which pavement may decline rapidly and repair costs increase (see illustration on repair” (regional average PCI of 85). New page 5). revenues roughly equal to a 4-cent increase in the gas tax would be needed to reach this Predictable, long-term funding is imperative if cities and counties are to travel goal. The fi gure below illustrates the level to toward a pothole-free future. The Bay Area currently invests about $602 million which per-gallon gas taxes would need to annually in maintaining local streets and roads — a figure that includes $354 mil- rise in order to generate the funds necessary lion from SB 1. If investment continues at this level, local streets and roads will, to bring the region’s current “fair” pave- on average, maintain a 66-point PCI score through 2027, though the region’s total ment conditions up to a “good” level. To also maintenance backlog will climb 58 percent to more than $9.8 billion from the cur- improve the region’s non-pavement assets to a rent $6.2 billion level. If investment does not continue at this level, local streets and “good” condition, an extra 18 cents per gallon roads will, on average, deteriorate to at-risk condition (PCI of 57) by 2027. In order or more would likely be required. to bring the region’s pavement conditions up to very good condition (PCI of 85), the region would need to almost double current maintenance expenditures to nearly $1 Improve conditions to billion annually. The chart below details the average pavement conditions that are $0.70 “Good” $0.66 4 cents projected at each investment level. 66 cents Existing State and Projected Pavement Conditions in 2027 Federal Based on Annual Expenditure Level Scenarios fuel taxes* Maintain $0.46 to maintain Current 46 cents pavement Existing Pavement Desirable conditions Funding With Prop 6 Condition Funding Average Regional PCI* in 2027 67 57 66 85

Maintenance Backlog $6.23 billion $13.86 billion $9.82 billion $0 Per-Gallon Gas Tax Per-Gallon Gas Pavement Condition Fair At Risk Fair Very Good

Level to which Average Annual Expenditure Level** $602 million $226 million $602 million $967 million this would fall if $0.00 Prop 6 passes Annual Expenditure/Lane Mile $13,900 $5,200 $13,900 $22,300

* Revenues from the existing state and federal fuel taxes Change from Existing Funding (%) 0% –58% 0% 61% are dedicated to many purposes — streets and roads are only one of these. *PCI is the Pavement Condition Index (Scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being the highest PCI). **Average Annual Expenditure Level assumes a 2.2 percent inflation rate.

Currently, revenue sources typically used to pay for roadway maintenance include state gas taxes, federal highway funds, county sales taxes, city and county general funds, bonds and traffic fees. As the various levels of government look to renew and/or reauthorize funding measures and long-range plans, attention to the cost of maintaining streets and roads at a good state of repair should remain a high priority.

14 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2014–2017 3-Year Moving Average Total Jurisdiction County Lane Miles 2014 2015 2016 2017 Very Good (PCI= 80–89) Dublin Alameda 277 86 85 85 85 Clayton Contra Costa 94 80 81 83 84 El Cerrito Contra Costa 145 84 84 84 84 Palo Alto Santa Clara 415 78 79 81 83 Brentwood Contra Costa 421 86 85 84 83 Colma San Mateo 24 78 83 84 83 Foster City San Mateo 120 81 82 82 82 Daly City San Mateo 255 77 77 79 81 Union City Alameda 329 81 81 82 81 Solano County Solano 924 77 79 80 81 San Ramon Contra Costa 498 78 80 80 80

Good (PCI=70–79) Los Altos Hills Santa Clara 123 75 77 78 79 Portola Valley San Mateo 70 80 79 79 79 Lafayette Contra Costa 199 76 77 79 79 Pleasanton Alameda 513 78 79 78 79 Windsor Sonoma 171 70 73 75 78 Livermore Alameda 719 76 77 76 78 Brisbane San Mateo 67 77 76 77 77 Danville Contra Costa 323 73 74 75 77 Oakley Contra Costa 289 75 75 76 77 Emeryville Alameda 47 76 78 79 77 Atherton San Mateo 106 79 78 77 77 Sunnyvale Santa Clara 639 77 77 76 76 Cupertino Santa Clara 298 65 67 72 76 Redwood City San Mateo 354 77 78 78 76 San Mateo San Mateo 424 73 75 76 76 Burlingame San Mateo 162 75 77 76 76 Tiburon Marin 68 74 74 75 76 Hillsborough San Mateo 166 72 71 73 76

The Pothole Report: Bay Area Roads At Risk | 15 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2014–2017 (continued) 3-Year Moving Average Total Jurisdiction County Lane Miles 2014 2015 2016 2017

Belvedere Marin 23 80 79 77 76 Newark Alameda 256 76 76 76 76 San Pablo Contra Costa 104 77 77 76 75 South San Francisco San Mateo 295 71 73 73 75 Woodside San Mateo 96 71 72 73 74 Santa Clara Santa Clara 593 74 73 73 74 Yountville Napa 17 69 71 74 74 Sonoma Sonoma 68 70 72 73 74 Ross Marin 23 72 72 72 74 Milpitas Santa Clara 299 72 72 73 74 Menlo Park San Mateo 196 77 76 74 73 San Mateo County San Mateo 623 70 70 72 73 Walnut Creek Contra Costa 435 71 71 72 73 Mountain View Santa Clara 332 71 70 71 72 Fremont Alameda 1,073 66 69 71 72 Alameda Alameda 277 67 69 71 72 Contra Costa County Contra Costa 1,330 70 71 72 72 Alameda County Alameda 994 71 71 71 71 Los Altos Santa Clara 227 78 76 73 71 Fairfield Solano 743 71 71 72 71 Rohnert Park Sonoma 212 68 69 71 71 San Francisco San Francisco 2,142 66 67 68 70 Novato Marin 319 71 70 70 70 Hayward Alameda 655 67 67 68 70

Fair (PCI= 60–69) Morgan Hill Santa Clara 290 71 68 69 69 Hercules Contra Costa 122 72 71 71 69 Saratoga Santa Clara 283 70 67 68 69 Napa Napa 471 64 66 67 69 Vacaville Solano 616 69 69 69 69 Corte Madera Marin 72 69 68 69 68 Moraga Contra Costa 111 58 64 67 68

16 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2014–2017 (continued) 3-Year Moving Average Total Jurisdiction County Lane Miles 2014 2015 2016 2017

Antioch Contra Costa 683 67 66 67 68 Santa Clara County Santa Clara 1,427 72 70 69 68 Pinole Contra Costa 118 67 67 68 68 Dixon Solano 139 75 72 69 68 Gilroy Santa Clara 270 72 69 68 67 Campbell Santa Clara 230 73 72 70 67 American Canyon Napa 114 67 69 69 67 San Rafael Marin 331 69 68 67 67 Pittsburg Contra Costa 343 65 67 69 67 East Palo Alto San Mateo 83 58 58 63 66 Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 224 65 65 66 66 Los Gatos Santa Clara 230 70 68 67 66 Half Moon Bay San Mateo 55 63 67 66 65 Mill Valley Marin 116 58 60 61 64 Sausalito Marin 58 65 66 65 64 San Jose Santa Clara 4,320 62 62 62 64 San Bruno San Mateo 181 62 65 64 64 Marin County Marin 851 59 60 62 63 San Anselmo Marin 81 59 60 62 63 Fairfax Marin 55 65 65 64 63 San Carlos San Mateo 175 60 59 61 62 Richmond Contra Costa 577 64 63 61 62 Healdsburg Sonoma 93 60 61 61 62 Monte Sereno Santa Clara 27 66 63 62 62 Piedmont Alameda 78 67 65 62 61 Suisun City Solano 153 59 55 58 60 Orinda Contra Costa 193 49 49 54 60 Santa Rosa Sonoma 1,122 62 61 60 60 Rio Vista Solano 46 57 57 56 60 Concord Contra Costa 717 62 61 60 60

The Pothole Report: Bay Area Roads At Risk | 17 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2014–2017 (continued) 3-Year Moving Average Total Jurisdiction County Lane Miles 2014 2015 2016 2017 At-Risk (PCI=50–59) Cloverdale Sonoma 65 63 62 61 59 Albany Alameda 58 57 57 59 59 Berkeley Alameda 454 58 58 58 57 San Leandro Alameda 393 56 56 56 57 Sebastopol Sonoma 48 62 60 58 56 St. Helena Napa 52 45 50 55 55 Belmont San Mateo 139 55 55 54 55 Oakland Alameda 2,022 59 57 56 55 Benicia Solano 198 59 57 56 55 Cotati Sonoma 48 55 53 52 53 Vallejo Solano 715 47 49 51 53 Pacifica San Mateo 186 56 55 54 53 Millbrae San Mateo 123 56 54 52 52 Calistoga Napa 31 55 54 52 52 Martinez Contra Costa 233 57 52 48 51 Napa County Napa 838 56 53 52 51

Poor (PCI=25–49) Sonoma County Sonoma 2,686 45 47 49 49 Petaluma Sonoma 397 45 46 46 46 Larkspur Marin 66 40 39 41 42

Regional 43,374 66 66 67 67

18 | Metropolitan Transportation Commission Footnotes/Citations 1 (Page 5) Press release reference: Project Staff www.tripnet.org/docs/CA_Statewide_Transportation_by_the_Numbers_TRIP_ The Pothole Report: Release_08-15-2018.php Bay Area Roads At Risk was produced by MTC’s Programming 2 (Page 6) Pavement Preservation includes work that is planned and performed and Allocations Section. to improve or sustain the condition of the transportation facility in a state of Anne Richman good repair. Preservation activities generally do not add capacity or structural Director, Programming and Allocations value, but do restore the transportation facility’s overall condition. Theresa Romell (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/preservation/pubs/16cai012.pdf) Pavement Program Manager

3 Theresa Romell, Sui Tan (Page 7) Jim Chehovits and Larry Galehouse, “Energy Usage and Greenhouse Data Analysis Gas Emissions of Pavement Preservation Processes for Asphalt Concrete Pave- John Goodwin ments,” Proceedings of the International Conference for Pavement Preserva- Editor tion, 2010 Karin Betts, Olivia Ramacier Assistant Editors Peter Beeler Design and Production Karl Nielsen Photography (except where otherwise indicated) Dakota Press, San Leandro, CA Printing To order additional copies of this publication, contact the MTC Library: [email protected] email 415.536.9800 fax 415.778.5236 phone

Printed on recycled paper The Pothole Report: Bay Area Roads At Risk | 19 Bay Area Metro Center 375 Beale Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105-2066

415.778.6700 tel 415.536.9800 fax 415.778.6769 TDD/TTY 415.778.6757 public information tel [email protected] email www.mtc.ca.gov web