To the members of the:
CITY COUNCIL
Date5/21D/22 CA~ CC~
CM / ACM ✓ DCM (3}~
May 26, 2022
Council Memorandum
To:
From:
Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council
Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Public Works
Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager ~ Via:
Re: Pavement Management Program Update (Districts - All) {city of
Carlsbad
Memo ID #2022065
This memorandum provides information on the city's Pavement Management Program (PMP) and roadway network conditions.
Background
City staff started systematically collecting pavement condition data as part of the city's PMP around 1998. In the years since, many of the pavement software programs and methodologies have changed in the industry. However, staff continue to record and maintain its pavement data.
As a result, staff have been able to identify and map the city's pavement overlay and slurry seal projects dating back to fiscal year 1998-99.
One of the Transportation Department's goals is to assess the condition of the city's streets once every five years. Staff accomplish this by using specialized pavement engineering consultants to perform detailed surveys of the city's roadway network.
First, pavement management software identifies a list of streets that will be the most efficient and cost effective to resurface based on certain modeling criteria. Second, this list of streets to be resurfaced is finalized by staff's engineering expertise and field assessment of each identified street's pavement condition. Finally, staff also inspect the condition of the city's streets throughout the year in response to residents' requests and in conjunction with known utility and development projects.
Discussion
Obtaining, continually evaluating and updating pavement condition data are critical components of the city's PMP. There are different approaches to evaluate pavement condition. A common data standard used to determine the condition of a pavement section is the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), which is a numerical value that varies from Oto 100 (e.g., 0 is poor or the worst condition representing end of pavement life; 100 is excellent or the best condition representing brand-new pavement).
Public Works Branch
Transportation Department
1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 442-339-2746 t Council Memo - Pavement Management Program Update (Districts - All) May 26, 2022
The PCI method, which is widely used in the industry, is an objective approach for assessing pavement condition. The PCI score provides an overall assessment of the pavement condition and combines three factors into consideration:
1. Surface Distress Index (SDI), which is based on the surface destresses (such as alligator cracking, rutting, potholing, raveling, etc.)
2. Roughness Index (RI), which is based on the ride quality and smoothness of the road
3. Structural Index (SI), which is a function of the structural integrity of pavement in response to traffic loading and environmental factors
There are also various methodologies to determine PCI, and each agency may use a different method to determine PCI for its roadway network. Generally, it is categorized as follows:
PCI Rating
70-100 Good to Excellent
50-69 At Risk
25-49 Poor
0-24 Failed
Some cities throughout California use another pavement condition factor called the Overall Condition Index (OCI), which also ranges from Oto 100. However, OCI cannot be directly compared to PCI as the two methods are qualitatively different. Some cities define OCI as a measure of the overall serviceability provided by a pavement to the vehicle driver. The City of Carlsbad has been using the PCI method to assess the condition of its roadway network.
In 2021, the city hired the consultant IMS Infrastructure Management Services (IMS) to conduct a comprehensive pavement condition assessment and pavement management analysis for approximately 387 miles (determined by using the centerline of the road) of the city's roadway network. IMS mobilized their Laser Road Surface Tester (RST) to conduct an objective pavement condition survey following accepted industry standards. The data was then loaded into the city's enterprise asset management software for analysis and maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) planning.
Based on the PCI results, the pavement management software was customized with Carlsbad specific M&R treatments, unit costs and pavement deterioration models. IMS then created an optimized 5-year M&R plan based on the cost-of-deferral of M&R activities.
In accordance with the 2021 assessment, the city roadway network has an average PCI of 79 with most of the network landing in the 70-85 PCI range (very good condition) (Figure 1). It should be noted that the 2021 Slurry Seal and Fog Seal Project and 2020 Pavement Overlay Project are currently in the construction phase. Both projects are expected to be completed by the end of 2022. With completion of these two resurfacing projects, the average PCI for the city's roadway Council Memo - Pavement Management Program Update (Districts - All) May 26, 2022
network is expected to be above 80. In comparison, the 2020 statewide PCI is 66, which is a 1- point increase from the 2018 assessment, as shown in Attachment A.
Figure 1: 2021 City of Carlsbad Overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Poor (25 to 40)
0.4%
Marginal (40 to SO)
1.5%
Fair (SO to 60)
7.6%
Overall Network PCI = 79
The data presented in Table 1 below show that the city's roadway system is in better overall condition than the roadway systems of most cities throughout San Diego County, using the 2018 assessment data.
90 81 80
80 70
60 50
u
II.
40 30
20 10
0 //' (Ji q
Table 1: PCI Comparison of California Cities (Assessment Year: 2018) PCI Comparison Chart
Statewide Average PCI: 65
f,7 66 65 65 65
. "".. . •1-rn .. ,_
I
•- - I
57 54
City PCI
Carlsbad 81
Poway 80
Vista 75
Encinitas: 74
Ol'fMu 73
EJ CaJon 73
San Marcos 73
Chula Vbta n
UMesa 69
Sofan;a Buch 67
Santee 66
Coronado 65
Imperial Beach 65
Oceamldc 65
lemonGro'le 60
San Diego Coo111y 60
Sao Diego 59
Ni lhinalOty 57
Ucondldo 54
Statewide Ave. Pa 65
Council Memo - Pavement Management Program Update (Districts - All) May 26, 2022
* Source: California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Final Report (NCE 2018) A similar PCI comparison for southern California counties is presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2: PCI Comparison of California Counties
Californ-ia County Average Weighted Condition (PCI)*
(Cities lncl_uded) 2016 2018 2020
San Diego 65 69 70
Orange 79 79 79
Riverside 71 68 68
Los Angeles 67 67 68
* Source: California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Final Report (NCE 2021) Next Steps
Staff will continue to systematically collect pavement condition data for the city every few years and execute projects to maintain the overall good to excellent pavement condition of roadway systems.
Attachment: A. California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report (NCE 2021) (Due to the size of Attachment A, a hard copy is on file in the Office of the City Council, as reference)
cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
Laura Rocha, Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Robby Contreras, Assistant City Attorney
Tom Frank, Transportation Director/City Engineer
Zach Korach, Finance Director
Jeff Murphy, Community Development Director
Kristina Ray, Community & Engagement Director
Hossein Ajideh, Engineering Manager
John Kim, City Traffic Engineer
Nathan Schmidt, Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager Babaq Taj, Engineering Manager
Scott Lyle, Senior Engineer
Sponsored by
Rural Counties Task Force
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
Sponsored by
Rural Counties Task Force
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
California Statewide Local Streets
and Roads Needs Assessment
Final Report
August 2021
501 Canal Boulevard, Suite I
Point Richmond, CA 94804
Phone: 510.215.3620
Prepared by
Rural Counties Task Force
Sponsored by
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
501 Canal Boulevard, Suite I
Point Richmond, CA 94804
Phone: 510.215.3620
Prepared by
California Statewide Local Streets
and Roads Needs Assessment
Final Report
August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
In Collabration with:
Attachment A
ilNCE
Sponsored by
Rural Counties Task Force
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
Sponsored by
Rural Counties Task Force
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
California Statewide Local Streets
and Roads Needs Assessment
Final Report
August 2021
501 Canal Boulevard, Suite I
Point Richmond, CA 94804
Phone: 510.215.3620
Prepared by
Rural Counties Task Force
Sponsored by
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
501 Canal Boulevard, Suite I
Point Richmond, CA 94804
Phone: 510.215.3620
Prepared by
California Statewide Local Streets
and Roads Needs Assessment
Final Report
August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
In Collabration with:
i!NCE r.1 QUINCY 0.
iiilllllll ENGINEERING '--0 spy pond partners, I le
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment i August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 6
1.1 Study Objectives ................................ ................................ .............................. 7
1.2 Study Assumptions ................................ ................................ ........................... 8
1.3 Study Sponsors ................................ ................................ ................................ . 9 2 Pavement Needs Assessment ................................ ................................ .................... 11
2.1 Methodology and Assumptions ................................ ................................ ....... 11
2.1.1 Filling in the Gaps ................................ ................................ ............ 11
2.1.2 Pavement Needs Assessment Goal ................................ ................... 12
2.1.3 Maintenance and Rehabilitation Treatment Types and Costs ............ 12
2.1.4 Escalation Factors ................................ ................................ ............ 17
2.2 Average Network Condition ................................ ................................ ............ 17
2.3 Sustainable Pavement Practices ................................ ................................ ..... 21
2.4 Complete Streets ................................ ................................ ........................... 23
2.5 Additional Regulatory Requirements ................................ .............................. 27
2.6 Unpaved Roads ................................ ................................ .............................. 27
2.7 Pavement Needs ................................ ................................ ............................ 28 3 Essential Components Needs Assessment ................................ ................................ .. 31
3.1 Data Collection ................................ ................................ .............................. 32
3.2 Needs Methodology ................................ ................................ ....................... 34
3.3 Determination of Essential Components’ Needs ................................ .............. 36 4 Funding Analyses ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 38
4.1 Pavement R evenue Sources ................................ ................................ ............ 38
4.2 Pavement Expenditures ................................ ................................ .................. 43
4.3 Essential Components Revenue Sources ................................ ......................... 45
4.4 Essential Components Expenditures ................................ ............................... 45
4.5 Funding Shortfalls ................................ ................................ .......................... 48
4.6 Pavement Funding Scenarios ................................ ................................ .......... 48
4.7 Other Performance Measures ................................ ................................ ......... 51
4.8 How Did We Get Here? ................................ ................................ ................... 52
4.9 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 53 5 Bridge Needs & Funding Analysis ................................ ................................ .............. 54 6 Summary and Conclusions ................................ ................................ ......................... 59 •
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment ii August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Appendices
A List of Fiscal Sponsors
B Data Collection
C Pavement Condition & Needs by County
D Essential Component Needs by County
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment iii August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Breakdown of Maintained Road Centerline Miles by Agency 2 ................................ ............... 6 Figure 2 .1 PCI Thresholds & Treatments Assigned for Asphalt Pavements ................................ ........... 13 Figure 2.2 Unit Price Trends for Preventive Maintenance Treatments ................................ ................. 15 Figure 2.3 Unit Price Trends for Thin HMA Overlays ................................ ................................ ........... 15 Figure 2.4 Unit Price Trends for Thick HMA Overlays ................................ ................................ .......... 16 Figure 2.5 Unit Pr ice Trends for Reconstruction ................................ ................................ ................. 16 Figure 2.6 Generalized Pavement Life Cycle Curve ................................ ................................ ............. 19 Figure 2.7 Example of Local Street with PCI of 66 ................................ ................................ ............... 20 Figure 2.8 Average PCI by County for 2008 and 2020 ................................ ................................ .......... 21 Figure 2.9 Elements of a Complete Street (Napa, Napa County) ................................ .......................... 24 Figure 2.10 Number of Agencies with Complete Streets Projects ................................ ........................ 25 Figure 2.11 Examples of Complete Street Projects ................................ ................................ .............. 26 Figure 2.12 Examples of Unpaved Roads ................................ ................................ ............................ 28 Figure 2.13 Pavement Needs (10 Years) by County ................................ ................................ ............. 30 Figure 3.1 Water Main Break on Sunset Blvd, Los Angeles – 2014 (Courtesy LA Times) ........................ 32 Figure 3.2 Essential Components’ Needs by County ................................ ................................ ............ 37 Figure 4.1 Pavement Funding by Source ................................ ................................ ............................. 40 Figure 4.2 Trends in Pavement Expenditures ................................ ................................ ...................... 43 Figure 4.3 Differences Between Predicted and Actual Expenditures ................................ .................... 45 Figure 4.4 Results of Scenario 1: Existing Budget ................................ ................................ ................ 50 Figure 4.5 Results of Scenario 2: Maintain PCI at 66 ................................ ................................ ........... 50 Figure 4.6 Results of Scenario 3: BMP in 10 years = $7.89 billion/year ................................ ................ 51 Figure 4.7 Examples of Poor Streets ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 52 Figure 5.1 Number of Local Bridges by County (includes Cities within County) ................................ .... 56 Figure 5.2 Local Bridge Age Distribution ................................ ................................ ............................ 56 Figure 5.3 Local Bridge Needs Summary (2020) ................................ ................................ .................. 56 Figure 5.4 Percent Poor By Annual Budget ................................ ................................ ......................... 56
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment iv August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Breakdowns of Functional Classification and Unpaved Roads ................................ ................ 7 Table 1.2 Summary of Assumptions Used in 2020 Statewide Study and SHOPP ................................ ..... 9 Table 2.1 Assumptions for Populating Missing Inventory Data ................................ ............................ 11 Table 2.2 Unit Costs Used for Different Treatments and Road Classifications ................................ ...... 14 Table 2.3 Average 2020 PCI by Type of Road ................................ ................................ ...................... 17 Table 2.4 Summary of PCI Data by County (includes Cities) for 2008 -2020 ................................ .......... 18 Table 2.5 Summary of Responses on Sustainable Pa vement Strategies ................................ ............... 22 Table 2.6 Elements of Complete Streets Policy ................................ ................................ ................... 24 Table 2.7 Additional Regulatory Requirements (10 -Year Needs and Funding) ................................ ...... 27 Table 2.8 Cumulative Pavement Needs ................................ ................................ .............................. 29 Table 3.1 Percentage of Agencies Responding with Data on Essential Components ............................. 33 Table 3.2 Percentage of Agencies with Survey Responses ................................ ................................ ... 35 Table 4.1 Funding Sources for Pavements ................................ ................................ .......................... 40 Table 4.2 Gas Tax Trends for Pavements ................................ ................................ ............................ 42 Table 4.3 General Funds for Pavement Funding ................................ ................................ .................. 42 Table 4.4 Local Sales Tax Trends ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 42 Table 4.5 Breakdown of Pavement Expenditures ($M) ................................ ................................ ........ 43 Table 4.6 Projected Pavement Expenditures Per Lane -Mile ................................ ................................ 44 Table 4.7 Funding Sources for Essential Components ($M) ................................ ................................ . 46 Table 4.8 Local Revenue Sources for Essential Components ($M) ................................ ....................... 46 Table 4.9 Breakdown of Expenditures for Essential Components ................................ ........................ 47 Table 4.10 Breakdown of Expenditures by Agency ................................ ................................ .............. 48 Table 4.11 Summary of 10 -Year Needs & Shortfall (2020 $ Billion) ................................ ..................... 48 Table 4.12 Breakdown of Pavements by Condition Category for Each Scenario (2030) ........................ 51 Table 6.1 Summary of 10 -Year Needs and Shortfall Calculations (2020$ Billion) ................................ .. 60 Table 6.2 Summary of Funding Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................. 60
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 1 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The importance of the local transportation
system cannot be over -emphasized. Nearly every
trip begins on a city street or county road.
Whether traveling by bicycle, bus, rail, truck or
family automobile, Californians need a reliable
and well -maintained loc al street and road
system.
Every component of California’s transportation
system is critical to providing a seamless,
interconnected system that supports the
traveling public and economic vitality
throughout the state. There is a significant focus
on buil ding sustainable communities, which
cannot function without a well -maintained local street and road system that provides access for transit and active modes of transportation like bicycling and walking .
The first comprehensive statewide study of California’s local street and road system in 2008 provided critical analysis and information on the local transporta tion network’s condition and funding needs. Each subsequent report has monitored the changes biennially.
This study sought answers to important questions: What are the current pavement conditions of local streets and roads? What will it cost to repair all streets and roads? What are the safety needs for a functioning system? What is the impact of the additional funding available from the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 ( SB 1 ) on the condition of local streets and roads, bridges, and essential components ?
Responsible for over 8 5 percent of California’s roads, cities and counties find this study to be of critical importance for several reasons. The goal is to
use the results to continue to educate
policymakers at all levels of government and
the public about the infrastructure
investments needed to provide California
with a seamless, multi -modal transpo rtation
system. The findings provide a credible and
defensible analysis to support a dedicated,
stable funding source for maintaining the
local system. It also provides the rationale for
the most effective and efficient investment
of public funds, potentia lly saving taxpayers
from paying significantly more to fix local
streets and roads into the future. Road Centerline Miles by Agency Cities
47.7%
Counties
38.2%
State highways
9.0%
Federal
4.6% Other
0.5%
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 2 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Executive Summary
Previous editions of this report cautioned that without an influx of new revenue s, the local street and road system would continue to deteriorate and cost t axpayers increasingly more to repair this vital local infrastructure.
After years of careful consideration and study, the Legislature passed and Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 1 in 2017. The bill provides over $5 billion annually for transportation. Of thi s, approximately $1.5 billion is allocated to the local street and road system owned and maintained by 539 cities and counties.
The passage of SB 1 was a significant success for municipal governments statewide and injected a long - awaited substantial infusion of funding to maintain the local street and road system.
Despite the passage of SB 1 in 2017, there continue s to be significant uncertainty surr ounding local transportation funding in California. While an effort to repeal SB 1 via a ballot measure in November 2018 was unsuccessful, the COVID -19 pandemic arrived soon after in early 2020. The pandemic resulted in significant revenue reductions and c reated uncertainty for the 2020 construction season. While this report aims to analyze the impacts of the first two years of SB 1 funding on local transportation infrastructure, the timing of the survey in spring 2020 combined with the uncertainty related to the prior SB 1 repeal effort undoubtedly had impacts on local government transportation project delivery during th is period.
As with previous studies, t his update surveyed all of California’s 539 cities and counties. Almost 80 percent of the agencies re sponded – a level of participation that makes clear the local interest in addressing the growing problems of crumbling streets and road s despite the pandemic.
Pavements
The condition of California’s local streets and roads has improved 1 point since 2018. On a scale of zero (failed) to 100 (excellent), the statewide average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is now 66 (still in the “At Risk” category). However, 55 of 58 counties are either at risk or have poor pavements (the maps on the next page illustrate th e changes in condition since 2008).
To use taxpayer money wisely, it makes more sense to preserve and maintain roads in good condition than to wait and repair or replace them when they deteriorate or fail. The costs developed in this study are based on ach ieving a roadway pavement condition called best management practice s (BMP s). At this condition level, preventive maintenance treatments (i.e., slurry seals, chip seals, thin overlays) are most cost -effective. In addition to costing less, p reventive maintenance interferes less with commerce and the public’s mobility and is more e nvironmentally friendly than rehabilitation or reconstruction.
The importance of this approach is significant. As roadway pavement conditions deteriorate, the cost to repair them increases exponentially. For example, it costs as much as 14 times more to re construct a pavement than to preserve it when it is in good condition. Even modest resurfacing is four times more expensive than maintaining pavement in the BMP condition. To put it another way, 14 miles of roadway can be maintained in a BMP condition for the same cost as reconstructing one mile of failed pavement.
By bringing the local roadway system to BMP conditions, cities and counties will be able to maintain streets and roads at the most cost -effective level. This goal is not only optimal, it is neces sary .
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 3 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Executive Summary
Technological Cost Savings
This r eport also includes the impact of using sustainable technologies (e.g. , cold -in-place recycling) that result in significant cost savings. Since 2012, the number of agencies that employ some form of recycling has m ore than doubled. This trend is expected to continue, and t he cost savings are therefore included in the funding scenarios. The s avings range, on average, from 28 to 42 percent over conventional treatments and result in a reduction of the 10 -year paving needs . This is one example of how cities and counties have continued to stretch the proverbial dollar.
Funding Scenarios (in constant 2020 dollars)
Three funding scenarios were analyzed :
1) Existing funding lev els ($2.43 billion/year ) – This is the current funding level and includes SB 1 together with cost savings from paving t echnologies. For the first time in 10 years, cities and counties will see an initial 1-point increase. However, due to higher construction costs, the PCI will drop to 59 by 2030 and the percent of good pavements will decrease to 48.7 percent (see table).
2) Maintain PCI at 66 ($3.84 billion/year) – To maintain the existing PCI at 66, additional fun ding ($3.84 billion/year) is needed. The percen t of good pavements would increase to three -quarters of the network.
3) Funding required to reach BMP ($7.89 billion/year) – The optimal scenario is to bring all pavements into a state of good repair so that BMP s can prevail. To reach BMP levels (PCI in high 2008
Pavement Condition Index
D 86 - 100 (Excellent)
- 71 - 85 (Good)
- 50 - 70 (At Risk)
- O - 49 (Poor )
\. 2020
Pavement Condition Index
CJ 86 - 100 (Excellent)
- 71 - 85 (Good)
- 50 - 70 (At Risk)
- 0 - 49 (Poor)
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 4 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Executive Summary
80s ), $ 78.9 billion would be needed over the next 10 years. After that, it would only require $ 3 billion a year to maintain the pavements at that level.
The table below summarizes the results of each scenario.
Scenarios
Annual
Budget
($B)
PCI in
2030
Condition
Category
% Pavements
in Poor/Failed
Condition
% Pavements
in Good
Condition
Current Condition (2020) - 66 At Risk 23.2 55.0
1. Existing Funding $2.43 59 At Risk 31.1 48.7
2. Maintain PCI at 66 $3.84 66 At Risk 20.7 74.7
3. Best Management Practice $7.89 87 Excellent 0.0 100.0 Essential Components
The transportation network also includes essential safety and traffic components such as curb ramps, sidewalks , storm drains, streetlights, and signals. These components will require $ 35.5 billion to maintain over the next 10 years, and there is an estimated funding shortfall of $ 22.1 billion.
Bridges
Local bridges are also an integral part of the local street and road infrastructure. There are 12, 339 local bridges (approximately 48 percent of the total number of
bridges ) in California. The average age is over 50 years, 10 years more than the national average. In addition,
more than half (52.1 percent by deck area) are in fair or poor condition.
It will require $7.2 billion to make safety, strengthening and widening improvements to keep pace with
California’s modern mobility needs. Just to maintain the current condition will require $800 million annually, but only $290 million is available. T here is an estimated
shortfall of $ 4.3 billion to maintain the safety and
integrity of the bridge infrastructure.
Total Funding Shortfall
The table on the next page shows the total funding shortfall of $ 64 billion ( 2020 dollars) over the next 10 years. For comparison, the needs from the previous updates are also included. Note that the pavement and bridge needs in 2020 have markedly increased due to higher construction costs .
1,035 Bridges
11.5%
4,483 Bridges
40.6%
6,821 Bridges
47.9%
•
■ Good
■ Fair
■ Poor
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 5 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Executive Summary
Transportation Asset Needs ($B) 2020 ($B)
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Needs Funding Shortfall
Pavement $67.6 $70.5 $72.4 $72.7 $70.0 $61.7 $76.0 $38.4 $(37.6) Essential
Components $32.1 $29.0 $30.5 $31.0 $32.1 $34.1 $35.5 $13.4 $(22.1) Bridges $3.3 $4.3 $4.3 $4.6 $5.5 $7.2 $2.9 $(4.3)
Totals $99.7 $102.8 $107.2 $108.0 $106.7 $101.3 $118.7 $54.7 $(64.0) Conclusions
SB 1 is a critical funding source that has resulted in cities and counties improving the pavement condition from 65 to 66 in the first 2 years. However, it is still premature to conclude that it will succeed in its goal of stabilizing the deterioration observed in the previous 10 years. The first 2 years included an effort to rescind the new revenues from SB 1 , which resulted in a hesitant industry response to expanding construction capacity . This was coupled with agencies’ concerns about over -committing on future project delivery . The lack of construction capacity had an unintended consequence ; bid prices for street and bridge maintenance a nd repairs were as much as 23 percent higher than 2018. In addition, the needs of other infrastructure components continue to grow, which reduces the funding available for pavements. We expect that the next 2 years should see a “dust -settling” effect allow ing local agencies to measure the longer -term impacts of SB 1.
__ ----------
I
•
_ ------
• I I
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 6 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
California’s 58 counties and 482 cities 1 own and maintain over 1 44,000 centerline miles of local streets and roads 2. This is an impressive 8 5.9 percent of the state’s total publicly maintained centerline miles (see Figure 1.1 below). Conservatively, this network is valued at over $ 220 billion .
Figure 1.1 Breakdown of Maintained Road Centerline Miles by Agency 2 Because lane -miles are more commonly used in pavement management analyses (the costs derived are based on areas, and lane -miles are a more accurate indicator of pavement areas), Table 1.1 shows the breakdown of lane -miles for local streets and roads by functional classification, as well as for unpaved roads. Major streets or roads are those that are classified as arterials or collectors, and local streets or roads are those that are classified as res identials and alleys. Unpaved roads are defined as those that have either dirt or gravel surfaces.
In addition, streets and roads are separated into urban and rural classifications. The distinction between urban and rural roads is defined by the U.S. Censu s Bureau: rural areas have population centers less than 5,000 or have a population density below 1,000 persons per square mile. Urban areas have population centers with more than 5,000 people. However, an urbanized or rural area may or may not contain an i ncorporated city and the urban boundary does not necessarily follow city corporation lines.
Ultimately, however, the decision to determine the miles in either category was left to the individual city or county.
1 Four new cities (Wildomar, Menifee, Eastvale , and Jurupa Valley) were incorporated after the original 2008 study. Note that San Francisco is traditionally counted as both a city and a county, but for purposes of this analysis, their data have b een included as a city only. Therefore, a total of 539 cities and counties were used in this study. 2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Transportation System Information . 201 9 California Public Road Data – Statistical Information Derived from the Highway Performance Monitor ing System (HPMS) . December 2020 . The total miles come from a combination of this reference and survey results. Note that the HPMS reports that there are a total of 151,818 miles belonging to cities and counties ; this is a significant difference from that reported on the online survey.
For this study, the online survey results were used.
State
highways
9.0%
Counties
38.2%
Federal
4.6%
I
Other
0.5%
Cities
47.7%
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 7 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
1 Introduction
Table 1. 1 Breakdowns of Functional Classification and Unpaved Roads
Lane Miles by Functional Class
Unpaved Total Urban Rural
Major Local Major Local
Cities 78,715 107,437 1,868 3,647 1,240 192,908
Counties 13,732 23,212 32,790 42,409 15,832 127,975
Totals 92,447 130,649 34,659 46,056 17,072 320,882
More than 73 percent of the total paved lane -mile s are in urban areas (Table 1.1) . It should also come as no surprise that more than 93 percent of rural roads belong to the counties , and 83 percent of urban roads belong to the cities. Finally, unpaved roads comprise approximately 5. 3 percent of the total network, and counti es own almost 93 percent of t hese unpaved roads .
1.1 Study Objectives
In 2008, the first study was conducted to assess the statewide needs for the local streets and roads network 3. The intent of the 2008 study was to determine the funding required to maintain the local streets and roads system for the subsequent 10 years, so that the information could be reported to the Governor, the State Legislature, the California Transportation Commission, and Caltrans, as well as other stakeholders.
The specific objectives of the 2008 study were
summarized as a series of questions:
• What are the conditions of local streets and roads ?
• What will it cost to bring them up to an acceptable
conditio n?
• How much will it cost to maintain them in an
acceptable condition for the next 10 years?
• Similarly, what are the needs for other essential
components, such as safety, traffic, and regulatory
items?
• Is there a funding shortfall? If so, how much is it?
• What are the impacts of different funding scenarios?
Since then, updates have been performed every 2 years,
and the objectives have been essentially the same.
Bridges were added to the scope in 2014 , and in 2020, a companion report on bridges is also availab le. Previous reports may be downloaded from the archives at
3 Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd . California Statewide Local Streets & Roads Needs Assessment . October 2009 . •
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 8 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
1 Introduction
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org . The data used for this study were collected using an online survey sent to all California cities and counties .
In April 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (also known as SB 1) which provide d approximately $1.5 billion to the local street and road system . The successful passage of SB 1 was significant for munic ipal governments statewide due to the substantial infusion of funding for maintaining and improving the local transportation system.
This report examines the impacts of SB 1 over the first two full fiscal years of new funding for both policymakers and the public.
1.2 Study Assumptions
As in the previous studies , some important assumptions were made during the analyses of the data received from cities and counties. Most are consistent with those used in the Caltrans 20 20 State Highway Operation and Protecti on Program (SHOPP) 4. The assumptions include (see Table 1.2):
• The analysis period used in this study is 10 years .
• All costs reported in this study are in constant 2020 dollars . • The goal is to reach a pavement condition where best management practices (BMP s) can occur.
This translates to a Pavement Condition Index ( PCI ) in the 80s (on a scale of 0 to 100, where zero is failed and 100 is excellent) and with no failed pavements. Caltrans SHOPP defines performance goals quite differently ; e.g. , achieve a pavement pothole and cracking Level of Service of 90 percent or greater by 2027, or not less than 98.5 percent of bridge area to be in good or fair condition by 2027.
• It is assumed that no new streets or roads are added within the analysis period. In addition, capital improvement or expansion projects are not included ; e.g. , realignments, widenings, grade separations.
• The inclusion of essential components (safe ty, traffic and regulatory ) of the roadway system, such as sidewalks, curb ramps, and storm drains, is consistent with the SHOPP. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are also included.
• The bridge needs assessment was updated , including the needs and the resu lts of various funding scenarios. A companion report is available for 2020.
4 Caltrans . 2020 SHOPP – State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP Plan) . May 2020 . •
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 9 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
1 Introduction
Table 1. 2 Summary of Assumptions Used in 20 20 Statewide Study and SHOPP Assumptions 2020 Statewide Study Caltrans SHOPP
Analysis Period 10 years 10 years
Cost Basis 2020 dollars 2020 dollars
Goals Best management practice (PCI at
mid-80s & no failed pavements)
Achieve a pavement pothole and
cracking Level of Service of 90
percent or higher by 2027
Total Scenarios Evaluated 3 1
Capital Improvement Projects No Only related to operational improvement
Essential Components Yes Yes
Bridges Yes Yes
1.3 Study Sponsors
This study was sponsored by the cities and counties of California and has been managed by a coalition of cities, counties , and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs). The Oversight Committee is composed of representatives from the following:
• League of California Cities ( Cal Cities )
• California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
• County Engineers Association of California (CEAC)
• Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA)
• Rural Counties Task Force (RCTF)
The Oversight Committee members include:
• Dav id Leamon, Stanislaus County (Project Manager)
• Keith Cooke, City of San Leandro
• Brad Eggleston, City of Palo Alto
• Charles Herbertson, City of Culver City
• Gabriel Gutierrez, Tulare County Association of Governments • Panos Kokkas, Yolo County
• Damon Letz, City of Santa Clarita
• Dave MacGregor, Los Angeles County
• Matt Randall, Placer County (representing Highway Bridge Program) • William Ridder, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority • Theresa Romell, Metro politan Transportation Commission • Jennifer Soliz, Fresno Council of Governments (alternate) •
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 10 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
1 Introduction
• Ron Vicari, Sacramento County
• Mike Woodman, Nevada County Transportation Commission (representing the Rural Counties Task Force)
Staff members include:
• Meghan McKel vey, Cal Cities
• Caroline Cirrincione, Cal Cities
• Chris Lee, CSAC
• Marina Espinoza, CSAC
• Merrin Gerety, CEAC
Appendix A includes a list of all the agencies that made a financial contribution to this study.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 11 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
This chapter discusses the methodology and assumptions used for the pavement needs assessment and presents the results of the analys is. The data collection efforts are described in more detail in Appendix B, but , briefly , an online survey was made available on the www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org website between mid -February to April 2020. All cities and counties were contacted and asked to participate in the survey. A total of 4 26 agencies responded to the survey and either updated or confirmed the data that w ere provided in previous surveys. This response rate (almost 80 percent ) was a decrease from 2018 but was respectable considering that shelter -in-place directives were announced in mid -March 2020 . These directives resulted in most agency staff shifting to a home -based working situation in the middle of the survey.
2.1 Meth odolog y and Assumptions
Because not all 539 cities and counties responded to the survey, a methodology was developed to estimate the pavement nee ds of the missing agencies. The following paragraphs describe this methodology , which is consistent with previous updates.
2.1.1 Filling in the Gaps
Inventory Data
To estimate an agency’s pavement needs, it was crucial to determine the total miles (both centerline and lane -miles) and pavement areas in the jurisdiction. Missing inventory data were populated based on the following rules:
• If no updated inventory data were provided, then previous survey data were used. • If the inventory data provided wer e incomplete, Table 2.1 was used to populate the missing information. The average number of lanes and average lane width were calculated from agencies who submitted complete inventory data in the previous surveys.
Table 2.1 Ass umptions for Populating Missing Inventory Data Functional Class Average Number Average Lane
of Lanes Width (feet)
Urban Major Roads 2.93 15.2
Urban Residential/Local Roads 2.11 15.5
Rural Major Roads 2.00 14.4
Rural Residential/Local Roads 1.95 11.4
Unpaved Roads 1.78 14.2
Pavement Condition Data
To assist those agencies that had no pavement condition data, the online survey provided a table with the average PCI s collected in the 2020 study. The agencies were encouraged to look at the data from neighboring cities or counties to make their best estimate of the pavement condition in their •
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 12 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
jurisdiction . For those agencies that ha d never provided any condition data, the average condition of the associated county wa s used.
The surveys also asked for condition data for different functional classifications, and additional rules were developed to populate the missing data:
• If the PCI was provided for one but not the other functional classes, the same PCI was used for all functional classes.
• If no pavement condition data were provided in 2020 , the last PCI provided was used, but the number was extrapolated based on the statewide PCI trend ; i.e. , if the statewide average deteriorated 1 point, then the jurisdiction’s PCI us ed was also assumed to have deteriorated 1 point.
• The only exception was for San Francisco Bay area agencies, where the data were provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
2.1.2 Pavement Needs Assessment Goal
The same needs assessment goal from previous studies was used in the 2020 update. To reiterate, the goal is for pavements to reach a condition where BMP s can occur, so that only the most cost - effective pavement preservation treatments are needed. Other ben efits , such as fewer travel delays and reduced environment al impacts (e.g., dust, noise, energy usage) also result when roads are in good condition .
In short, the BMP goal is to reach a PCI in the 80s and to eliminate the unfunded backlog. The deferred maintenance or “unfunded backlog” is defined as work that is needed but is not funded. To perform these analyses, MTC’s StreetSaver ® pavement management system program was used. This program was selected because the analytical modules were able to perform the required analyses, and the default pavement performance curves were based on data from California cities and counties. This is described in detail i n Appendix B of the 2008 report, which may be downloaded at www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org .
2.1.3 Maintenance and Rehabilitation Treatment Types and Costs Assigning the appropriate maintenance and rehabi litation (M&R) treatment is a critical component of the needs assessment. It is important to know both the type of treatment, as well as when to apply it.
This is typically outlined in a decision tree. Pavement preservation concepts and their efficacy have been widely researched by the Federal Highway Administration 5 and the National Highway Institute has several training courses available. In addition, the National Center for Pavement Preservation 6 at Michigan State University maintains a technical libra ry available to the public.
5 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pres.cfm
6 https://www.pavementpreservation.org/
Our goal is to bring
streets and roads to a
condition where best
management practices
(BMP s) can occur.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 13 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
Asphalt Pavements
Figure 2.1 summarizes the types of asphalt treatments assigned in this study. Briefly, good -to-excellent asphalt pavements (PCI>70) are best -suited for pavement preservation techniques, (e.g., preventive mainte nance treatments such as chip seals or slurry seals). These are usually applied at intervals of 5- to-7 years depending on the type of road and the traffic volumes. Note that if a pavement section has a PCI between 90 and 100, no treatment is applied.
Figure 2. 1 PCI Thresholds & Treatments Assigned for Asphalt Pavements As pavements deteriorate, treatments that address structural adequacy are required. Hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlays are usually applied at va rying thicknesses to pavements with PCIs between 25 and 69 .
This may be combined with milling or recycling techniques.
Finally, when the pavement has failed (PCI<25), reconstruction is typically required. The descriptions used for each category are typical of most agencies, although there are many variations on this theme.
For example, it is not unusual for local streets to have slightly lower thresholds , indicating that they are held to lower standards. The PCI thresholds shown in Figure 2.1 are generally accepted industry standards.
Concrete Pavements
Similarly, numerous strategies are available to manage concrete pavements. Good -to-excellent concrete pavements (PCI>70) are also best -suited for preventive maintenance, such as diamond grinding to remove a t hin surface layer of concrete . This approach improves friction, smooths the pavement, and reduces noise. Partial - and full -depth slab repairs are also used as preventive maintenance to restore isolated panels that have cracked or failed.
Concrete overlays have two different options that cover a wide range of pavement repair conditions.
Bonded concrete overlays of asphalt are applied on roadways in good condition (PCI>70) to add structure 100
70 so
Poor
25 Failed
0 Preventive Maintenance
Thin HMA overlays
Cold in Place Recycling/Thick
HMA Overlays
Full-depth reclamation/
Reconstruction
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 14 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
or provide a more permanent maintenance solution to the road. Unbonded concrete overlays of asphalt are typically applied on roadways in fair to significantly deteriorated condition (PCI of 2 5 to 70) and will restore structural capacity while treating the existing roadway as a structural base layer.
When the pavement has fai led (PCI<25), reconstruction with concrete pavement is an alternative. This may be accompanied by recycling techniques. Concrete pavements typically last 20 to 25 years prior to needing their first preventive maintenance treatment.
Cost Comparison
Unit cos t data for asphalt treatments from over 173 agencies were summarized and averaged for the analysis (see Table 2.2). There was a large range in costs, but for purposes of th is analysis, the average was used. The costs for each treatment were separated by functional class ; i.e., major roads had a higher cost than local roads. There were increases in the unit costs (square yards [sy] for all categories from 2018 ; seals increased by 21 to 23 percent, overlays by 15 to 17 percent and reconstruction by 21 to 24 percent .
Table 2. 2 Unit Costs Used for Different Treatments and Road Classifications Classification
Unit Costs ($/sy)
Preventive
Maintenance
Thin HMA
Overlays
Thick HMA
Overlays Reconstruction
Major Roads $6.60 $26.06 $41.07 $92.96
Local Roads $6.06 $24.92 $38.42 $78.22
It should be noted that the costs for preventive maintenance treatments (e.g., seals) have increased significantly since 2016 . Increases for overlays and reconstructions since 2016 were also noted, and for the first time, reconstruction costs are now highe r than 2008 levels, despite the greater use of recycling technologies such as full -depth reclamation. Figures 2.2 to 2.5 illustrate the trends in the unit costs for different maintenance strategies, respectively.
Finally, it should be noted that only aspha lt concrete roads were considered in this analysis. The percentage of Portland cement concrete pavements was so small (approximately 1.4 percent of the total network) that it was deemed not significant for the funding analysis .
Technological Cost Savings
This report also inclu des the impact of sustainable paving technologies such as cold -in-place recycling that have cost savings of 28 percent compared to conventional treatments (see Section 2.3) and as much as 42 percent for full -depth reclamation . Since 2012, the number of agencies that employ some form of recycling has more than doubled. This trend is expected to continue, and the cost savings were therefore included in the pavement needs analy sis and funding scenarios. This is one example of how cities and counties have stretched the proverbial dollar.
•
I
~- .I
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 15 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
as
Figure 2. 2 Unit Price Trends for Preventive Maintenance Treatments
Figure 2. 3 Unit Price Trends for Thin HMA Overlays
$10
$8
> $6
~
~ ...
1/1
0 u
-~ C:
~ $4
$2
$0
2006
$60
>
~
~
... "' 8 ... ·c:
:::,
$40
$20
$0
2006
2008
2008
Unit Cost Compar ison (Preve nt ive Ma intenance )
t
• I l
20 14 Average
$4.75
2020 Average
$6.33
2016 Average
$4.57 - ---- - -----
2010 2 012 2014 2 016 20 18 2 tl.!O
Year of Surve y
Unit Cost Comparison (Thin Overlay)
.
t
2010 20 12 2014 2016 2011! 2020
Year of Survey
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 16 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
Figure 2. 4 Unit Price Trends for Thick HMA Overlays
Figure 2. 5 Unit Price Trends for Reconstruction
-;:
~
~
ti
0 u
-~ C
::>
$,80
$,60
$,40
$20
$0
2006
$250
$200
> $150
-!:!.
~ ... "' 0
u ... ·c
::::) $1.00
$,50
$0
2006
2008
2008
•
Unit Cost Comparison (Thick Overlay)
~
•
X
"
• ..
&
l!
X
X
~
! I
*
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Year of Survey
Unit Cost Comparison (Reconstruction)
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Year of Survey
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 17 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
2.1.4 Escalation Factors
As with the previous studies, no escalation factors were used in this analysis. All numbers are in constant 2020 dollars, and this is consistent with the SHOPP as well as many Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs).
2.2 Average Network Condition
Based on the results of the surveys, the 2020 pavement condition statewide is 66, a 1-point increase from 2018 (64.7 to 65.58) . This is the first time an increase, albeit small , has been reported. Since 2008, when the statewide PCI was estimated to be 68, there was a slow decrease to 65 in 2018.
The 2020 average PCI was 68.2 for cities and 61.3 for counties . Table 2.3 indicates that major streets or roads continue d to be in better condition than local roads. In fact, rural local roads had the lowest PCI of any category.
Table 2. 3 Average 2020 PCI by Type of Road
Type Average 2020 PCI
Major Local
Urban Streets 69 67
Rural Roads 62 55
Table 2.4 includes the 2020 PCI for each county (includ ing cities within the county) based on a scale of 0 (failed) to 100 (excellent). This is weighted by the pavement area ; i.e., long roads have more weight than short roads when calculating the average PCI.
It needs to be emphasized that the PCI reported is only the weighted average for each county and includes the cities within the county. For example, this means that Amad or County and the cities within the county may well have pavement sections that have a PCI of 100, although the average is 51.
The average PCI trend between 2008 to 2018 was slightly downward ; some counties reported improvements attributed to better data collection (more agencies are updating their pavement data), better use of pavement preservation treatments, or the increased availability of additional funds such as local sales taxes or bonds.
From Table 2.4, we can see that the statewide weighted
average PCI for all local streets and roads is 66 based on the 2020 data . Orange County m aintains its position with the best pavements, at an average PCI of 79. Unfortunately, Tuolumne and Mendocino Counties are now the lowest -ranked counties, with an average PCI of 28 and 36, respectively. Appendix C includes maps that illustrate the average PCI for each city and county.
The average pavement
condition index for streets and
roads statewide is 6 6. This is a
1-point increase from 2018 and
is still considered to be in the
“at risk” category.
•
;r --- -::1
1._ __i
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 18 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
Table 2. 4 Summary of PCI Data by County (includes Cities) for 2008 -2020 County
(Cities Included)
Centerline
Miles
Lane-
miles
Area
(sy)
Average Weighted PCI*
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Alameda 3,592 8,140 78,210,590 66 67 68 66 68 68 68
Alpine 151 302 2,139,517 40 45 45 44 44 41 58
Amador 477 945 3,598,703 31 34 33 33 56 51 51
Butte 1,831 3,673 29,865,832 70 67 65 66 65 60 60
Calaveras 831 1,340 8,201,768 55 53 51 51 51 50 52
Colusa 761 1,247 13,240,593 61 60 60 62 63 60 61
Contra Costa 3,412 7,134 66,747,390 72 70 71 68 69 71 70 Del Norte 323 646 4,415,355 70 68 64 63 63 60 60
El Dorado 1,399 2,684 21,458,907 62 58 63 63 62 63 63
Fresno 6,214 12,595 108,361,263 74 70 69 69 64 61 60
Glenn 910 1,822 13,917,626 68 68 68 68 68 68 62
Humboldt 1,464 2,921 24,247,391 61 56 64 64 63 56 57
Imperial 3,024 6,103 76,823,230 74 72 57 57 58 55 58
Inyo 1,133 1,832 13,681,682 75 57 60 62 62 61 62
Kern 5,725 12,615 117,170,333 66 63 64 64 63 63 65
Kings 1,324 2,710 21,044,749 63 62 62 62 59 60 61
Lake 640 1,271 8,822,689 33 31 40 40 40 38 37
Lassen 431 879 6,282,324 55 69 66 66 63 60 61
Los Angeles 21,130 57,167 457,415,797 68 67 66 66 67 67 68 Madera 1,754 3,507 24,879,499 48 48 47 47 46 44 44
Marin 1,028 2,065 17,202,637 61 61 61 63 64 67 65
Mariposa 362 719 5,334,893 53 44 44 53 65 65 66
Mendocino 1,125 2,256 16,135,923 51 49 37 35 35 32 36
Merced 2,349 4,975 39,594,831 57 58 58 58 56 56 57
Modoc 1,507 3,014 16,895,856 42 40 56 46 59 59 63
Mono 737 1,473 9,613,552 71 68 66 67 64 65 66
Monterey 2,011 3,940 31,471,030 63 45 50 50 50 49 52
Napa 740 1,513 13,048,684 53 60 59 59 59 59 56
Nevada 806 1,625 10,348,493 72 71 72 71 70 68 67
Orange 6,603 16,326 153,443,823 78 76 77 77 79 79 79
Placer 2,063 4,322 37,360,569 79 77 71 69 68 64 67
Plumas** 706 1,412 9,070,195 71 66 66 64 72 73 71
Riverside 7,899 17,774 161,794,983 71 72 70 70 71 68 68 Sacramento 5,028 10,961 95,785,803 68 66 64 62 62 60 58 San Benito 492 761 5,156,435 68 66 66 48 46 37 37
San Bernardino 8,905 22,601 181,506,462 72 70 70 71 71 70 74 San Diego 7,759 18,760 174,285,803 74 69 67 66 65 69 70 San Francisco 943 2,142 21,249,793 62 63 65 66 68 74 74 San Joaquin 3,237 6,779 60,307,486 70 70 67 73 70 70 67 San Luis Obispo 1,980 3,569 37,159,695 64 64 63 64 63 65 59 San Mateo 1,884 3,942 34,071,528 69 70 71 70 71 72 68
Santa Barbara 1,607 3,352 29,854,633 72 70 67 66 63 61 61 Santa Clara 4,510 10,039 97,993,485 70 69 73 68 67 70 69
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 19 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
Table 2.4 Summary of PCI Data by County (includes Cities) for 2008 -2020 County
(Cities Included)
Centerline
Miles
Lane-
miles
Area
(sy)
Average Weighted PCI*
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Santa Cruz 873 1,757 14,104,814 52 48 48 57 50 55 55
Shasta 1,579 3,100 24,430,506 64 67 57 60 57 58 49
Sierra 399 800 5,566,517 73 71 71 45 44 44 45
Siskiyou 1,488 2,985 20,233,539 57 57 57 57 58 56 62
Solano 1,745 3,766 33,387,951 66 66 67 65 68 67 65
Sonoma 2,390 4,991 40,203,089 53 50 50 52 55 54 58
Stanislaus 2,908 5,981 52,101,939 60 51 52 55 55 63 61 Sutter 1,032 2,079 16,016,764 73 56 56 65 70 69 59
Tehama 1,202 2,408 17,509,230 69 65 65 62 53 54 50
Trinity 592 1,112 7,477,638 52 50 50 60 62 59 54
Tulare 3,570 7,192 58,952,533 66 68 68 68 60 62 62
Tuolumne 547 1,083 7,109,056 62 62 62 47 41 41 28
Ventura 2,535 5,577 56,220,129 64 66 69 70 71 69 68
Yolo 1,344 2,696 23,500,992 69 67 63 60 55 58 57
Yuba 1,066 1,504 19,557,588 74 56 56 60 60 66 67
TOTALS 144,077 320,882 2,755,584,114 68 66 66 66 65 65 66 * PCI is weighted by area.
** Plumas County average PCI is 70.8.
An average pavement condition of 66, while an improvement and an indicator of the impacts of new funding (see Chapter 4), is nonetheless still cause for caution. Although it is j ust a few points shy of the “good/excellent” category, it has significant implications for the future. Figure 2.6 illustrates the rapid pavement deterioration at this point in the pavement life cycle; if repairs are delayed by just a few years, the costs of the proper treatment may i ncrease significantly, as much as ten times.
Figure 2. 6 Generalized Pavement Life Cycle Curve
70 50
25 0
100
Time (years)
PCI
66 $4-6/sy
$20-25/sy
$30-40/sy
$65-100/sy
•
- - -
~--- ~;~ ·:1~ _L_ t~ ~.,· _;:-~:
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 20 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
The financial advantages of maintaining pavements in good condition are many, including saving the taxpayers’ doll ars with less disruption to the traveling public, as well as environmental benefits.
Many factors contribute to rapid deterioration in pavement condition s, includ ing :
• More traffic and heavier vehicles;
• More transit and more frequent bus trips, including he avier buses; • Heavier and more garbage collection trucks (recycling and green waste trucks are new weekly additions to the traditional weekly garbage truck);
• More street sweeping for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements; and
• More freight and delivery trucks when the economy is thriving.
Therefore, a PCI of 66 should be viewed with caution – it indicates that the condition of our local streets and roads is still , as it were, poised on the edge of a cliff. Figu re 2.7 is an example of a local street with an average condition of 66.
Figure 2. 7 Example of Local Street with PCI of 66
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 21 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
Figure 2.8 shows the distribution of pavement conditions by county for both 2008 and 20 20. Most of the counties in the state have pavement conditions that are either “At Risk” (blue) or in “Po or” (red) condition. There has been an increase in the “blue” and “red” counties since 2008. Of the 58 counties, all but three (Orange, San Bernardino, and San Francisco) are in either “At Risk” or in “Poor” condition.
Figure 2. 8 Average PCI by County for 2008 and 20 20
2.3 Sustainable Pavement Practices
Sustainability continues to be a growing consider ation for many local agencies, particularly if it saves costs. Cities and counties w ere asked for information on any sustainable pavement practices employed and the estimated cost savings, if any. The types of sustainable practices that were mentioned included:
• Cold central plant recycling
• Cold -in-place recycling (CIR)
• Full depth reclamation (FDR)
• Hot -in-place recycling (HIR)
• Pavement preservation strategies
• Permeable/pervious pavements
Only 55 % of California’s
local streets and roads
are in good condition.
Some sustainable
pavement strategies may
save up to 4 0 percent .
2008
Pavement Condit ion Index
D 86 -10 0 (Excellent)
- 71 - 85 (Good)
- 50 - 70 (At RiSk}
- o - 49 (Poor)
\.. 2020
Pavement Condition lndeK
LJ 86 - 100 (Excellent)
- 71 - 85 (Go od)
- 50 - 70 (!~t Risk)
- 0-401Poor)
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 22 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
• Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP)
• Rubberized hot mix asphalt (RHMA)
• Warm mix asphalt (WMA)
In general, the trends continue to be in the positive direction : 412 agencies responded with some information on the types of sustainable practices used. Table 2.5 summarizes th e pavement strategy, the number of agencies that listed that stra tegy, the number of agencies that reported either a savings or additional cost for a specific strategy, and the average percent savings or cost over conventional pavement practices.
Table 2. 5 Summary of Response s on Sustainable Pavement Strategies Sustainable Pavement Strategies
No. of Agencies
Average
%
Savings
Average %
Additional
Costs
No. of
Responses Savings Add'l
Costs
Reclaimed AC Pavement 177 52 6 12 19
Cold-in-place Recycling 100 43 7 28 62
Hot-in-place Recycling 13 2 - 50 -
Cold Central Plant Recycling 25 9 2 32 35
Warm Mix AC 66 6 10 10 32
Permeable/Pervious 34 1 7 14 95
Full-depth Reclamation 177 41 21 42 53
Subgrade Stabilization 77 8 10 34 10
Rubberized AC 199 12 87 24 22
Pavement Preservation 343 92 33 41 38
Recycling and pavement preservation strategies were reported to have the highest cost savings when compared with conventional treatments . O ther sustainable treatments incurred additional costs, particularly rubber hot mix asphalt (RHMA), which had 22 percent higher costs. The responses for warm mix asphalt and porous/pervious pavements were insufficient to draw any conclusions. As a side note , the additional cost of porous/pervious pavements may be offset by savings in stormwater costs.
The most common reasons cited for using sustainable practices were:
• Cost savings or cost -effectiveness;
• Environmental benefits (e.g. , produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions, reduce s energy consumption, uses fewer natural resources, reduces waste sent to landfills, reuses existing pavement materials, recycles tires, etc .)7,8;
• Reduc ed excavation depth ;
7 Sustainable Development: The Environmental Road of the Future ; Bilal, Julian; Chappat, Michael; COLAS Group; 2003 . 8 www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05004.htm
Every lane -mile that
is recycled in -place
is equivalent to
taking 11 cars off
the road for a year.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 23 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
• Extend ed pavement life;
• City Council policies that support or require sustainable pavements; • Bigger projects and lower unit prices from p artnering with other agencie s; and • Lower traffic impact (less construction traffic).
The most common reasons cited for not using sustainable practices were:
• Higher construction costs (mostly related to RHMA) or higher up -front costs; • Not enough technical information available – desig n, specifications, etc.; • Lack of performance data;
• Poor performance from previous projects;
• Lack of experienced contractors to bid on projects; and • Not all streets are good candidates for these treatments ; e.g. , limited right of way .
The fact th at 76 perce nt of the cities and counties in California reported using some form of sustainable pavement practices was very encouraging, particularly when one considers the potential cost savings involved. This is clearly evidence of local agencies using newer technologies to “stretch th e dollar. ” The overwhelming majority also indicated that they would continue to use some form of sustainable strategy in the future.
2.4 Complete Streets
A complete streets policy ensures that transportation planners and engineers consistently design and operate the entire roadway with all users in mind – including bicyclists, public transportation vehicles and riders, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. California state law (adopted in 2008 and effective 2011) 9 requires that cities and counties “… plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seni ors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.” For purposes of this study, the focus was on bicycle and pedestrian facilities . Figure 2.9 show s an example of a complete street that considers alternative modes of transportation (i.e. , pedestrians, bicyclists, buses, and drivers, as well as curb ramps that comply with the American s with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The 2020 survey garnered 405 responses , significantly more than in previous surveys. Of these, 228 indicated that they had a complete streets policy, triple the number reported in 2012. Of the 177 who did not have a policy, 50 indicated that they had elements of a complete streets policy in place. Table
2.6 shows the different elements utilized by agencies.
9 ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07 -08/bill/asm/ab_1351 -1400/ab_1358_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf •
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 24 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
Figure 2. 9 Elements of a Complete Street ( Napa , Napa County )
Table 2. 6 Elements of Complete Streets Policy
Element No. of Agencies
Bicycle Facilities 276
Pedestrian Facilities 276
Curb Ramps 262
Signs 246
Green Infrastructure 94
Traffic Calming (e.g., reduced lane
widths) 233
Medians 212
Lighting 209
Transit Elements 167
Roundabouts 145
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 25 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
Figure 2.10 illustrates the number of agencies ( 195 ) w ho have recently completed a complete street s project; they have been constructed across all agency sizes (i.e. , small, medium, and large agencies ).
Figure 2. 10 Number of Agencies with Complete Street s Projects On average, the respondents also indicated that 32 percent of their street network s were eligible for including some of the above elements, and that the average additional costs were $ 117 per square yard (sy) . Ho wever, there was a large range in the cost data provided, from less than $1/ sy to over $ 5,000/ sy.
This is largely due to the wide range of elements that can be considered part of a complete street s policy . For example , restriping a road to add bicycle lanes is relatively inexpensive, but purchasing right - of-way for widening projects to include pedestrians/bicyclists/transit is much more expensive.
The examples shown in Figure 2.11 illustrate the range and type of complete streets projects possible, and their incremental costs, which range d from $ 18/sy to $ 726 /sy. It continues to be difficult to assume one average unit cost for a complete street s project.
There are challenges to implementing a complete street s policy, and the most common ones cited were (in order of frequency of responses):
1) Insufficient funding ,
2) Insufficient right -of-way ,
3) Existing structures , and
4) Trees or environme ntal features .
•
140
120
Yes
100
■ No
VI
Qj
·u 80 C
Qj
tlD
<(
-0 60
ci z
40 20
I I I 0 ■
0-100 100-200 200-300 300 -400 >400
Centerline Miles
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 26 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
Figure 2. 11 Examples of Complete Street s Projects
lhec;ftyof
SantciAna
•
-" ,r City of Emeryville
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 27 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
Finally, complete streets may have very different applications on a rural road as compared to an urban street. Many rural roads are long, located in remote areas, and may have as few as 50 vehicles a day with little or no pedestrians or bicyclists. Obvious ly, these will not be candidates for the type of complete streets approach that is applicable to more dense urban areas . Typical examples tend to be focused on urban roads, where the population supports multiple modes of transportation.
2.5 Additional Regu latory Requirements
All jurisdictions must comply with a variety of pavement and safety policies . In addition , cities and counties must comply with m any additional regulatory requirements, including:
1) American s with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) ,
2) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) , 3) Traffic sign retroreflectivity requirements ,
4) Complete streets , and
5) Others (e.g. , Endangered Species Act, air emissions, sanitary/wastewater management plans ).
As in previous surveys, participants listed the first three categories most often , with 87 responses on ADA, 60 on NPDES and 59 on traffic sign retroreflectivity. This reflects an overall drop in responses for the 2020 survey. However, when combined with data from previous years, the survey data were more robust; there were a total of 302 responses for ADA, 242 for NPDES and 231 for retroreflectivity.
Finally, the respondents identified $ 9.7 billion in needs to comply with these requirements, and only $6.7 billion in funding , res ulting in a shortfall of almost $3 billion (see Table 2.7).
Table 2. 7 Additional Regulatory Requirements ( 10-Year Needs and Funding) Regulatory
Requirements
Needs
($M)
Funding
($M)
Shortfall
($M)
ADA $2,444 $1,120 $(1,324)
NPDES $6,340 $5,369 $(971)
Traffic Signs $286 $152 $(134)
Complete Streets $501 $16 $(485)
Other $87 $34 $(53)
Total $9,658 $6,691 $(2,967)
2.6 Unpaved Roads
Unpaved roads (gravel or dirt surface) are not a large component of the local transportation network statewide, and only comprise 5.1 percent of the total area. Nonetheless, they are important in many rural counties . For example, in Mono County, unpaved ro ads comprise more than 60 percent of the road system .
The needs assessment for unpaved roads is not complicated – 103 agencies reported a total unpaved road network of 9,592 centerline Unpaved roads
need $1.6 3 billion
over the next 10
years.
•
- --- - - •1
. .I
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 28 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
miles. The maintenance cost is approximately $17,000 per centerline mile per year , almost double the original costs from 2008 . Since pavement management software like StreetSaver ® only analyzes paved roads, this average cost was applied to only the unpaved roads . This results in a total 10 -year need of $1.63 billion .
Figure 2. 12 Examples of Unpaved Roads
2.7 Pavement Needs
The methodology to determin e the pavement needs and unfunded backlog was described in detail in Appendix B of the 2008 report and is therefore not duplicated here . T o briefly summarize, the analysis requires four main ele ments :
• Existing condition (i.e., PCI ),
• Appropriate treatment(s) to be applied from decision tree and unit costs ,
• Performance models , and
• Funding available during analysis period.
The calculation of the pavement needs is conceptually quite simple. Once the PCI of a pavement section is known, a treatment and unit cost can be applied. This is performed for all sections within the 10 -year analysis period. A section may receive multiple treatments within this time frame ; e.g., Walnut Avenue may be overlaid in Yea r 1, and then sealed in Year 5 and again in Year 10.
As before, the deferred maintenance or “unfunded backlog” is defined as work that is needed but is not funded. It is theoretically possible to fully fund all the needs in the first year, thereby reducing the backlog to zero , but unachievable on a practical basis given resource limitations . Therefore , the funding constraint for the scenario is to achieve the BMP goal within 10 years. Assuming a constant annual funding level, the backlog will gradually decr ease to zero by the end of the analysis period.
Pavement needs
are estimated to be
$76 billion over the
next 10 years.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 29 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
The results are summarized in Table 2. 8 and indicate that $ 76 billion is required to achieve the BMP goal in 10 years. Again, this is in constant 2020 dollar s and includes the impact of sustainable technologies.
The savings range, on average, from 28 to 42 percent over conventional treatments and result in a reducti on of the 10 -year paving needs when compared to 201 8 (pavement needs were $70 billion in 201 8). Detailed results by county are included in Appendix C.
Table 2. 8 Cumulative Pavement Needs
Cumulative Needs 2020 dollars)
Year No. Year Reach BMP Goal in 10
Years ($ Billion)
1 2021 $7.6
2 2022 $15.2
3 2023 $22.8
4 2024 $30.4
5 2025 $38.0
6 2026 $45.6
7 2027 $53.2
8 2028 $60.8
9 2029 $68.4
10 2030 $76.0
In 201 8, the total 10 -year need was $7 0 billion, so this is an increase of $ 6 billion. This is due to the significant increases in paving costs described in Section 2.1.3.
Finally, Figure 2.13 illustrates a map of California with the 10-year pavement needs by county. From this, we can see that the preponderance of need s is in Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area , and portions of the Central Valley.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 30 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2 Pavement Needs Assessment
Figure 2. 13 Pavement Needs (10 Years) by County
2020
Pavement Needs (10-Years)
D Upto$500M
D $500M -$1.0B
$1.0B - $1.5B ---
- $1.5B -$2.0B
Greater than $2.0B
\.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 31 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
3 Essential Components Needs Assessment
3 Essential Components Needs Assessment
The transportation system includes other essential components (i.e., safety, traffic , and regulatory elements) in addition to pavements and bridges. The safety of the traveling public is the highest priority for local agencies, so components suc h as traffic signals, street lights , and signs, while not the most expensive, are critical. Since the transportation system is intended to serve all modes of travel (pedestrians, bicyclists, buses, people with disabilities , etc.) and not just vehicles, loca l streets and roads must consider their needs as well.
Storm drains, which are mostly invisible since they tend to be underground, are also needed to remove excess water from the surface to facilitate both pavement structural integrity and safety. In removing water, trash and other pollutants inevitably drain into creeks, rivers, lakes, bays , and the ocean, bringing environmental considerations into play. Cities and counties have the responsibility of removing these pollutants as part of the maintenance costs of the transportation system.
Underground pipes, sin ce they are often invisible, are often overlooked when establishing priorities, yet their failure can have disastrous consequences. Other components of the infrastructure, although not part of the local streets and roads system (such as water mains) can ha ve adverse impacts if not properly maintained. This was made evident by the failure of a 90 -year -old water main near the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) in July 2014 , which caused considerable damage to the roadway system and nearby facilities on the UCLA campus (see Figure 3.1).
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 32 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
3 Essential Components Needs Assessment
Figure 3. 1 Water Main Break on Sunset Blvd, Los Angeles – 2014 (Courtesy L A Times )
3.1 Data Collection
As with past surveys, agencies were asked to provide specific infor mation on the inventory and replacement costs for the following 12 asset categories:
Asset
Category Essential Components
1 Storm drains – pipelines
2 Curb and gutter
3 Sidewalk (public)
4 Curb ramps
5 Traffic signals
6 Streetlights
7 Sound walls/retaining walls
8 Traffic signs
9 Other storm drain elements (e.g., manholes, inlets, culverts, pump stations) 10 NPDES
11 Other ADA compliance needs
12 Other physical assets or expenditures
Unfortunately, only 121 survey responses were received in 2020, compared to 239 in 201 8. But d ata from the previous surveys were also included in the analysis, which resulted in data points from 404 agencies. Table 3.1 illustrates the reliability of the data collected from the 2 020 survey as determined by the city or county. For example, i n the case of streetlights , the survey responses indicate d that:
• 23.6 percent of agencies had accurate replacement costs. • 45.1 percent of agencies estimated the replacement costs. • 31. 3 percent did not respond.
Overall, a little over 36 percent of the agencies indicate d that they either had accurate data or were able to provide estimates of the replacement costs for these asset categories. In Table 3.1, three major •
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 33 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
3 Essential Components Needs Assessment
essential components (storm drains, curb and gutters, and sidewalks) have reasonably “good” data (i.e. , approximately 70 percent of the agencies have some data on their replacement costs ), which is a key factor in estimating the needs.
Table 3. 1 Percentage of Agencies Responding with Data on Essential Components
Accurate &
Informed
Estimate
Guess No Response
Storm Drains - pipelines 23.7% 44.9% 31.4%
Other storm drain elements e.g. manholes,
inlets, culverts, pump stations, etc. 19.5% 43.2% 37.3% Curb and gutter 20.2% 49.2% 30.6%
Pedestrian facilities: Sidewalk (public) 20.0% 49.4% 30.6% Other pedestrian facilities, e.g. over-
crossings 13.0% 10.9% 76.1%
Bicycle facilities: Class I bicycle path 13.7% 25.0% 61.2% Bicycle facilities: Class II bicycle lane 4.6% 9.3% 86.1% Bicycle facilities: Class III bicycle
routes/sharrow 3.9% 7.2% 88.9%
Bicycle facilities: Class IV protected bike
lanes 1.9% 2.8% 95.4%
Other bicycle facilities, e.g. bike
shelters/lockers, etc. 11.9% 8.5% 79.6%
Curb ramps 21.5% 40.3% 38.2%
Traffic signals 30.8% 40.8% 28.4%
Street Lights 23.6% 45.1% 31.4%
Sound Walls/Retaining walls 21.3% 19.3% 59.4%
Traffic signs 21.5% 43.0% 35.4%
Multi-use paths 3.0% 3.5% 93.5%
Pedestrian paths 1.7% 2.8% 95.5%
Crossing Improvements e.g. high visibility
crossings, rapid flashing beacons,
roundabouts, scrambles, bulbouts,
pedestrian refuge islands, etc. 3.9% 6.1% 90.0%
Transit amenities e.g. benches, shelters,
real-time arrival signage, wayfinding
signage 1.3% 5.0% 93.7%
Other physical assets or expenditures that
constitute >5% of total non-pavement asset
costs e.g. heavy equipment, corporation
yards etc. Note: Do NOT include bridges
(handled separately) 16.9% 18.9% 64.2%
Category
Percentage of Agencies
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 34 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
3 Essential Components Needs Assessment
The 2020 survey also include d new survey questions (highlighted in green); these were requested for inclusion by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. However, a s can be seen in Table 3.1 , very few agencies responded to these questions.
Data on essential components are especially challenging to obtain, mostly because very few agencies have the resources to implement and maintain an asset inventory or management s ystem. For example, unincorporated Orange County, with a road network of 320 miles, has over 18,000 signs, over 6,200 drainage inlets and 2,500 miles of storm drains, over 2,400 traffic signals, almost 10,000 miles of curbs , and more than 10,000 miles of p aint striping. The cost of inventorying these components can be very high and is not financially possible for many agencies.
3.2 Needs Methodology
In 2016, a new analysis approach was adopted for the essential using a new model based on geography (Geograph ically Weighted Regression or GWR) . Appendix E of the 201 6 report provides a detailed discussion of this method; key points are provided in this section. While previous models were reasonably accurate in the aggregate, large variations exist for individual agencies.
There are many factors that affect the replacement costs of these elements, most of which are caused by geography. For instance, most would agree that it is much more expensive to install a curb ramp in San Francisco than it is in Ceres, and the number of signs that exist in an urban city environment is significantly higher than in a rural county. The reasons that measured relationships vary spatially can also be attributed to sampling variation, relationships intrinsically different across space (for instance, different administrative policies produce different responses), traffic patterns, road network attributes, or sociodemographic characteristics.
The 201 6 model accounts for this variability and is reproduced here:
Ln Cost = Ctm3 ×tm 1⁄3 +C tm×tm+C isrural ×isrural+C iscounty ×iscounty+Intercept Where:
Cost = total replacement cost, dollars;
Total miles (tm) = total centerline miles of roads or streets; isrural = indicator variable and is equal to 1 if agency is rural, 0 otherwise; and iscounty = i ndicator variable and is equal to 1 if agency is county, 0 otherwise Typically, the model was used only for those agencies that did not provide any replacement costs.
However, some agencies reported extremely low costs that were considered anomalies; in th ese cases, the model was used instead.
Table 3.2 indicates the percentage of needs predicted by the model for each county. For example, in El Dorado County, 67 percent of the agencies provided data ; therefore, the model only estimated the costs for the rem aining 33 percent of agencies . Overall, the model was used to estimate the replacement costs of approximately 2 5 percent of the agencies.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 35 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
3 Essential Components Needs Assessment
Table 3. 2 Percentage of Agencies with Survey Responses
County
% Agencies
With Survey
Responses
County
% Agencies
With Survey
Responses
Alameda 93% Orange 77%
Alpine 100% Placer 86%
Amador 67% Plumas 50%
Butte 67% Riverside 86%
Calaveras 50% Sacramento 75%
Colusa 0% San Benito 67%
Contra Costa 100% San Bernardino 76%
Del Norte 50% San Diego 84%
El Dorado 67% San Francisco 100%
Fresno 69% San Joaquin 75%
Glenn 67% San Luis Obispo 50%
Humboldt 50% San Mateo 95%
Imperial 25% Santa Barbara 78%
Inyo 100% Santa Clara 94%
Kern 67% Santa Cruz 60%
Kings 60% Shasta 75%
Lake 33% Sierra 0%
Lassen 50% Siskiyou 50%
Los Angeles 74% Solano 100%
Madera 67% Sonoma 80%
Marin 92% Stanislaus 50%
Mariposa 100% Sutter 100%
Mendocino 60% Tehama 100%
Merced 71% Trinity 100%
Modoc 100% Tulare 67%
Mono 50% Tuolumne 50%
Monterey 46% Ventura 82%
Napa 100% Yolo 100%
Nevada 50% Yuba 67%
Total 75%
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 36 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
3 Essential Components Needs Assessment
3.3 Determination of Essential Components’ Needs
Like previous models, the 201 6 regression model estimates the total replacement cost for only the first eight asset categories listed in Section 3.1 . To estimate the needs , this cost needs to be converted to an annual amount based on the estimated service life of the different assets. The costs of the remaining four c ategories (other storm drain elements, NPDES, ADA and other physical assets) are then added.
This procedure was described in detail in Appendix E of the 2008 repor t and has not been duplicated here.
The 10 -year needs figure was estimated to be $ 35.5 billion, which is a 4 percent increase from the $ 34.1 billion reported in 201 8.
Figure 3.2 is a map illustrating the distribution of needs by county.
It should not be any surprise that the bulk of the needs are in the urban regions of the state. Appendix D summarizes the essential components’ needs for each county. A map to show the percent of needs met with existing funding is also included.
The funding needs for
essential components is
$35.5 billion.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 37 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
3 Essential Components Needs Assessment
Figure 3. 2 Essential Components’ Needs by County
[~71
2020
Essential Components Needs
(10-Years)
LJ upto$500M
D $500M -$1.0B
$1 .08 - $1.5B ---
- $1 .5B-$2.0B
Greater than $2.0B
\.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 38 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
4 Funding Analyses
4.1 Pavement Revenue Sources
The online survey asked agencies to provide both their revenue sources and pavement expenditures for 201 8/19, 201 9/20, as well as estimating an annual average for future years. A total of 338 agencies responded with financial data.
As before, cities and counties identified a myriad of sources of funds for their pavement expenditures, broadly categorized into federal, state, or local. For local funds alone, more than a hundred different sources were identified. They included the follo wing examples (this is by no means an exhaustive list and some funding sources have changed with the advent of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST ) Act 10.
Federal Funding Sources
• Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP)
• Surface Transpor tation Program (STP)
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
• Forest Reserve
• Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA)
State Funding Sources
• Gas taxes (Highway User Tax Account or HUTA)
• Transportation Development Act (TDA)
• State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
• Active Transportation Program (ATP) which now includes the Bicycle Transpor tation Account (BTA) and Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S)
• Vehicle License Fees (VLF)
• Transportation Improvement Fee
• Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
• Safe Routes to School
• Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRP)
• CalRecycle grants
10 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 39 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
Local Funding Sources
• Local sales taxes
• Development impact fees
• General funds
• Various assessment districts – lighting,
maintenance, flood control, special
assessments, community facility districts
• Traffic impact fees
• Traffic safety/circulation fees
• Utilities ; e.g., stormwater, water,
wastewater enterprise funds
• Transportation mitigation fees
• Parking and various permit fees
• Flood Control Districts
• Enterprise Funds (solid waste and water)
• Investment earnings
• Parcel/property taxes
• Indian reservation roads
• Indian gaming funds
• Vehicl e registration fees
• Vehicle code fines
• Underground impact fees
• Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT)
• Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Reserves/Capital Funds
The funding data were first reviewed to ensure that the description matched the funding source (i.e. , federal, state , or local). In cases where the source did not match the description, the source was re- categorized as appropriate. Funds were also further categorized as gas tax, sales tax, general fund or other, based on the description. Funds and expenditu res were then summed by agency and year.
Agencies that reported funding or expenditures for some years, but not others , were further reviewed ; data for reported years was then used to estimate the data for unreported years.
Funds and expenditures for each agency were then divided by the number of lane -miles of roadway in that agency. The funding and expenditures data per lane -mile results were then reviewed for outliers.
With the outliers removed, funding and expenditure data per lane -mile were then average d for urban counties, rural counties, urban cities, and rural cities. These averages were used to determine the estimated total funds and expenditures for all cities and counties. Then the total expenditures and funds for these categories were summed to de termine the statewide total values.
Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 summarize the total pavement funding available as well as the percentage of the funding that comes from various sources. Overall, funding stabilized at $2 billion a year between 2014/15 to 2016/17. SB 1 had an immediate impact in 2017/18 and i s expected to contribute 22 percent of total f unding from 2020 /21 forward – this is approximately $536 million a year.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 40 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
Table 4. 1 Funding Sources for Pavements
Figure 4. 1 Pavement Funding by Source
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Future Pavement Funding ($M) $1,453 $1,571 $1,557 $1,530 $1,691 $1,836 $1,938 $1,967 $1,999 $2,378 $2,156 $2,420 $2,435 Federal 10% 23% 18% 17% 10% 12% 9% 9% 8% 11% 7% 10% 6%
State 62% 50% 53% 53% 52% 50% 44% 41% 43% 37% 35% 35% 36% Local 28% 27% 29% 30% 38% 38% 47% 50% 49% 43% 40% 38% 36% SB1 10% 18% 17% 22%
$1,453
$1,571 $1,557 $1,530
$1,691
$1,836 $1,938 $1,967 $1,999
$2,378
$2,156
$2,420 $2,435
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Pavement Funding ($M)
SB1/RMRA
State
Local
Federal
■
■
■
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 41 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
Prior to SB 1 , the trend indicat ed that local agencies were relying more on local sources and less on state funding ; with the advent of SB 1 , the percentage of state funding sources is back to 2008/09 levels.
Note that federal funding was a significant component in 2009/10 and 2010/11, refl ecting the influx of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , which occurred during the recession. Since then, the percentage of federal funds has fluctuated around 10 percent and is projected to decrease to 7 percent.
This is an important item to note sinc e it indicates that cities and counties, in general, do not rely heavily on federal funds.
The Highway User Tax Account (HUTA), more commonly known as the state gas tax, is still the single largest funding source for cities and counties. Table 4.2 shows that this revenue source had been declining . The reason for the decline was partly due to dec lining gas consumption, and partly due to the additional responsibilities for cities and counties tied to that funding source ( e.g. , compliance with ADA, which reduces the amount of funding available for pavements ).
However, this revenue decline changed wi th the passage of SB 1 . Table 4.2 shows the amount of funding provided to cities and counties from the gas tax, as well as the percent of State -provided pavement funding and total pavement funding that came from gas tax proceeds. The table indicates that g as tax funds are projected to increase to $2 billion a year.
Traditionally, cities and some counties have been able to rely on the General Fund for pavement funding.
However, as Table 4.3 illustrates, the number of agencies that receive General Funds has decreased in the last 2 years and that trend is expected to continue in the future.
Of final interest is the trend in local sales tax measures (Table 4.4) . Prior to SB 1 , the trends indicated an increasing reliance from this revenue source. However, with SB 1 , local sales tax es are expected to provide just 12 to 15 percent of the total pavement funding.
The gas tax is the single
largest funding source for
cities and counties .
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 42 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
Table 4. 2 Gas Tax Trends for Pavements
Table 4. 3 General Funds for Pavement Funding
Table 4. 4 Local Sales Tax Trends
Table 4. 5 Breakdown of Pavement Expenditures ($M)
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Future Gas Tax ($M) 1,115 $ 911$ 861$ 907$ $1,096 $1,137 $891 $904 $843 $1,200 $1,652 $1,742 $2,037 % of State funding 66% 69% 75% 78% 93% 91% 86% 88% 91% 92% 93% 89% 93% % of total funding 41% 34% 40% 41% 48% 46% 38% 36% 39% 43% 49% 47% 54% 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Future General Fund ($M) 201$ 120$ 175$ 168$ $166 $232 $322 $406 $316 $303 $281 $283 $274 # of agencies 132 62 77 72 88 94 104 104 128 132 70 72 64 % of local funding 27% 16% 28% 25% 19% 24% 29% 33% 30% 25% 21% 20% 20% % of total funding 7% 4% 8% 8% 7% 9% 14% 16% 15% 11% 8% 8% 7% 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Future Sales Tax ($M) 285$ 258$ 256$ 279$ $374 $455 $364 $475 $500 $663 $420 $550 $511 % of local funding 38% 35% 41% 42% 43% 48% 32% 39% 47% 55% 31% 38% 38% % of total funding 10% 10% 12% 13% 17% 18% 16% 19% 23% 24% 12% 15% 13% 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Future Preventive Maint. 394$ 375$ 273$ 273$ 333$ 367$ 373$ 378$ 479$ 551$ 514$ 561$ 631$ Rehabilitation & Reconst. 1,224 $ 1,400 $ 817$ 794$ 1,132 $ 1,208 $ 1,178 $ 1,194 $ 1,154 $ 1,429 $ 1,238 $ 1,456 $ 1,509 $ Other 200$ 172$ 84$ 82$ 104$ 109$ 194$ 167$ 293$ 332$ 315$ 339$ 276$ Operations & Maint. 573$ 543$ 383$ 381$ 578$ 615$ 619$ 631$ 527$ 563$ 566$ 574$ 529$ Totals 2,391 $ 2,489 $ 1,557 $ 1,530 $ 2,147 $ 2,298 $ 2,365 $ 2,370 $ 2,454 $ 2,874 $ 2,632 $ 2,929 $ 2,945 $ •
I I I
I I I I
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 43 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
4.2 Pavement Expenditures
The survey also asked for a breakdown of pavement expenditures in four categories:
• Preventive maintenance, such as slurry seals;
• Rehabilitation and reconstruction, such as overlays;
• Other pavement -related activities such as curbs and gutters; and • Operations and maintenance , such as filling potholes, sealing cracks and street sweeping.
Table 4.5 (on previous page) shows the breakdown in extrapolated pavement expenditures for cities, counties and cities/counties combined. There was a drop in expenditures reported in 2010/2011, reflecting the recession. However, since 2012/13, expenditures have gradually increased and now exceed 2008 levels.
Figure 4.2 illustrates the trends for all pavement expenditures graphically. Preventive maintenance continues to be a robust category and has grown to 20 percent. This indicates that many agencies continue to be cognizant of the need to preserve pavements. Rehabilitation and reconstruction are relatively stable at 50 percent. Operations and maintenance h ave dropped to a little under 20 percent.
Figure 4. 2 Trends in Pavement Expenditures
Finally, projected pavement expenditures for the next 10 years are shown in Table 4.6. As expected, rural counties indicate lower projected expenditures than cities and urban counties; similarly, rural agencies project lower expenditures when compared to urban agencies. However, all categories show decreases in pavement expenditures compared to 2 018.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percent of Total Pavement Expenditures
Rehab &
Recon
Opns & Maint
Prev Maint
Other
•
--
/ __ ,_ ____ ....,~------
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 44 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
Table 4. 6 Projected Pavement Expenditures Per Lane -Mile
Pavement Expenditures
($/lane-mile)
Rural Urban
County $4,657 $12,582
City $8,491 $10,666
The resulting total pavement expenditures for all 5 39 cities and counties were therefore estimated to be $ 2.43 billion annually . To put this funding level in perspective, $ 2.43 billion/year is approximately
1.1 percen t of the total investment in the pavement network, the value of which is estimated at $ 220 billion.
However, our observations on the predicted versus actual expenditures revealed an interesting trend, as illustrated in Figure 4.3. Generally, local agencies were spending 10 to 2 0 percent more (blue line) than estimated (orange line) prior to SB 1 . From discussions with some respondents, it appear ed that the estimated expenditures were conservative and reflect ed a reluctance to rely on federal and state grants/sources in the future as well as the inability to predict how the economy w ill perform (sales tax is a key funding source as noted previously.)
However, in 2018 the trend changed. In 2018 and 2019, actual expenditures were LESS than estimated.
For 2018, this may be attributable to the uncertainly over the potential repeal of SB 1 which may have led to more conservative expenditures. Moreover, it took several months for SB 1 funding to fully phase - in, with the first allocation made hal fway through the 2017 -18 fiscal year on January 31, 2018. In 2019, actual pavement expenditures were $2.42 billion, still less than expected.
We did note that expenditures on essential components
increased from $1. 1 billion to $1.8 billion/year from 201 6 to 2020. Combined, the increase in funding for both
pavements and essential components is $1.1 6 billion
MORE than pre -SB 1 levels. So , although agencies are receiving significantly more funding from SB 1 , not all of it is spent on pavements; some is spent o n other essential components.
The survey results indicated that future expenditures were estimated to be $2.43 billion from 2020 onwards and we have used this funding level in Section 4.6 . This is despite the pandemic in 2019/20, which did initially result in a drop of approximately 10 percent in gas -tax -related revenues. Since late 2020, the projections for gas taxes and SB 1 indicate that they have “bounced” back.
Cities and counties are
estimated to spend $ 2.43
billion annually on
pavements.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 45 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
Figure 4. 3 Differences Betw een Predicted and Actual Expenditures
4.3 Essential Components Revenue Sources
The revenue sources for essential components are shown in Table 4.7. Again, federal funds currently make only a small contribution to the cities and counties, in the order of 11 to 14 percent. However, unlike pavements, local sources are expected to ac count for almost half of total funding, with state sources accounting for 29 percent. In addition, there is no one single funding source like the gas tax.
Since local revenues form much of the funding, Table 4.8 explores the five main funding sources: general funds, local sales taxes, lighting district funds, development impact fees, and other. The last category includes stormwater, sanitary sewer, and NPDES -related sou rces. Future funding projections indicate a decrease in funding compared to the peak in 2016/17 and 2017/18 and closer to 2013/14 levels.
4.4 Essential Components Expenditures
Table 4.9 details the expenditures by category. Storm drains and traffic signals continue to be the largest components.
On average, anticipated expenditures for essential components over the next 10 years are shown in Table 4.10. As before, rural counties and cities are expected to have lower expenditures than their urban counterpart s. The resulting total expenditures for all 539 cities and counties were estimated to be over $1.3 billion annually.
~
~
QJ
... :, ...
~
C:
QJ
C.
)(
w
"'iii
0 I-
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$2,808
I
I ' ' ' $2,378 ,' S2A 20 '
t, ,• ,, ' ,
$1,999 1 1 ..... $2,156
$1,938$1 ,967 •','
$1,83~ ♦ - + - I
$1,691 ........
$1,571 $1,557 $1,530.,. ♦ ,,,, - - - .- Sl,846
,,,, .+- - ♦ - ., ,, " $1,657 ,,
$1,453 $1,41~ ... - - - ,,
$1,331
$2,435
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 - ■ - Estimated Expenditu res - ~ Actual Expenditu res
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 46 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
Table 4. 7 Funding Sources for Essential Components ($M)
Table 4. 8 Local Revenue Sources for Essential Components ($M)
Funding type 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Future Funding Available ($M) $885 $903 $1,204 $1,332 $1,111 $1,184 $1,459 $1,603 $1,597 $1,888 $1,811 Federal 16% 16% 12% 13% 11% 17% 9% 12% 11% 15% 14%
State 31% 31% 28% 23% 18% 17% 17% 18% 26% 27% 29%
Local 53% 53% 60% 65% 70% 66% 74% 70% 55% 51% 48%
SB1/RMRA 0% 0% 8% 7% 9%
Funding type 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Future General Fund $104 $124 $83 $93 $398 $420 $789 $821 $431 $560 $475 Sales Tax $112 $114 $129 $148 $98 $132 $115 $114 $337 $286 $275 Lighting District Funds - - - - $39 $40 $34 $35 $6 $5 $5 Development Impact Fees $34 $37 $24 $32 $27 $23 $31 $46 $38 $52 $42 Other $249 $255 $460 $556 $219 $163 $115 $114 $69 $67 $67 Totals 498$ 530$ 696$ 830$ 781$ 779$ 1,083 $ 1,129 $ 881$ 970$ 864$ •
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 47 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
Table 4. 9 Breakdown of Expenditures for Essential Components Essential Components Annual Expenditures ($M) % of
total 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Future Storm Drains $147 $131 $215 $233 $160 $162 $183 14%
*Manholes, Inlets, Culverts,
Pump Stations $37 $46 $43 $50 $59 $62 $61 5%
Curb and Gutter $55 $67 $38 $50 $60 $64 $62 5%
Sidewalk (public) $110 $129 $101 $158 $106 $187 $157 12% Other Pedestrian Facilities $5 $22 $18 $27 $27 $27 $20 2% Class 1 Bicycle Path $24 $40 $29 $56 $30 $32 $22 2%
Other Bicycle Facilities $4 $6 $17 $29 $7 $56 $18 1%
Curb Ramps $47 $54 $50 $67 $56 $60 $70 5%
Traffic Signals $210 $258 $223 $247 $218 $283 $248 18%
Street Lights $122 $121 $188 $224 $72 $107 $102 8%
Sound/Retaining Walls $4 $7 $10 $8 $11 $17 $22 2%
Traffic Signs $61 $68 $54 $55 $53 $52 $54 4%
Tunnels $0 $0 $4 $4 $8 $0 $0 0%
Other physical assets or
expenditures $122 $102 $88 $90 $179 $237 $230 17%
*Bicycle facilities: Class II bicycle
lane $21 $20 $24 2%
*Bicycle facilities: Class III
bicycle routes/sharrow $4 $7 $7 1%
*Bicycle facilities: Class IV
protected bike lanes $3 $6 $10 1%
*Pedestrian paths $3 $3 $3 0%
*Multi-use paths $8 $20 $17 1%
*Crossing Improvements $20 $23 $27 2%
*Transit amenities $4 $13 $3 0%
Totals $949 $1,052 $1,078 $1,300 $1,108 $1,437 $1,339 100% *New items in 2020 survey
•
. -- -
- -
.... - • I
• I
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 48 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
Table 4. 10 Breakdown of Expenditures by Agency
Expenditures on Essential
Components
Rural Urban
County $2,188 $10,977
City $5,241 $5,513
4.5 Funding Shortfalls
One of the primary objectives of this study was to determine whether a funding shortfall exists for the next 10 years, and if so, the amount of that shortfall. Chapters 2 and 3 described the analysis to determine the funding needs for both the pavement and essential components, respectively. The preceding sections analyzed the revenues and expenditures as well.
Table 4.11 summarizes the results of all the preceding analyses and determines the funding shortfall to be $59.7 billion for pavements and essential components . An additional shortfall of $3 billion was estimated for additional regulatory requirements (e.g., NPDES, ADA and sign retroreflectivity; see Table
2.7). However, those numbers were not included in Table 4.11 because only half of the agencies had data, an d only half of those indicated that they were “informed estimates” or “guesses” at best.
Table 4. 11 Summary of 10 -Year Needs & Shortfall ( 2020 $ Billion) Transportation Asset Needs ($B) 2020
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Needs Funding Shortfall
Pavement $67.6 $70.5 $72.4 $72.7 $70.0 $61.7 $76.0 $38.4 $(37.6) Essential Components $32.1 $29.0 $30.5 $31.0 $32.1 $34.1 $35.5 $13.4 $(22.1) Totals $99.7 $99.5 $102.9 $103.7 $102.1 $95.8 $111.5 $51.8 $(59.7) In the 201 8 study, the funding shortfall identified was $ 52 billion, so this is a n in crease of $ 7.7 billion .
The increase in needs is due to the increases in paving costs as described in Section 2.1.3; the higher costs may be partly due to an unanticipated consequence of SB 1 . In essence, SB 1 added $5 billion to construction funding; however, this was not neces sarily matched w ith increases in contractor capacity .
The potential repeal in 2018 also did not encourage contractors to add more capacity. However, as the market adjusts, we anticipate a more stable cost structure in the future.
4.6 Pavement Funding Scen arios
California, together with the rest of the nation, faced severe economic challenges during the recession that began in 2008, with reductions in revenues, multi -billion -dollar deficits and a high unemployment rate. While economic growth and tax increases have helped stabilize state and local revenues for many programs, transportation funding levels lagged for many years .
However, after 10 years of working with policymakers, and providing the results of the statewide needs studies , the Governor signed SB 1 into law in 2017 . More than $5 billion a year was made available for transportation. Of that, cities an d counties receive approximately $1.5 The shortfall for
local streets and
roads is $59.7 billion .
•
i- ----- -----.•,
I I
I
I
f - ••
I I ,, - 'I
~ J
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 49 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
billion annually for streets and roads . This was a much needed infusion, and the funding scenarios illustrate the beneficial consequences of this additional funding.
In addition, cities and counties have continued to stretch every existing dollar. One new factor in the 2018 analysis was the inclusion of sustainable technologies such as cold -in-place recycling and full -depth reclamation. These had cost savings of over 2 5 percent when compared to conventional treatments and have been included in all the scenario s for 2020 .
The funding scenarios analyzed were:
1) Existing funding with SB 1 , estimated at $ 2.43
billion/year;
2) Existing funding to maintain current pavement condit ion at PCI=66 ; and
3) Funding to achieve best management practices (BMP) in 10 years.
Note that approximately $ 536 million of SB 1 is estimated to be spent on paving, with the remain der allocated to essential components as well as operations and maintenance.
As noted in Chapter 1, an analysis period of 10 years was selected, not just for consistency with the SHOPP, but also because this was a reasonable time frame to accomplish the BMP goal. Even if local agencies received $37.6 billion to erase the 10 -year pavement shortfall today, it would not be possible to build or construct this large number of projects in one year, or two or even five. Few, if any, agencies have the resources to design, manage , or inspect this quantity of work in s uch a short time frame, and the contracting community is also unlikely to have the resources to construct them. In discussions with the Oversight Committee, a 10 -year timeframe was deemed to be reasonable and practical.
Scenario 1: Existing Funding with SB 1 ($2.43 billion/year) In this scenario, the most cost -effective treatments would be funded first; these are typically preventive maintenance or preservation strategies, such as seals. This approach generally treats a larger percentage of the pavement net work, thus optimizing the use of limited funds. At the existing funding level of $ 2.43 billion/year, this w ould result in a slow decrease in the pavement condition to 59 and an increase in the unfunded backlog to $55 billion . Figure 4.4 graphically illustr ates these two trends.
Scenario 3: Reach Best Management Practices ($7.89 billion/year) One of the objectives of this study was to determine what funding level would be required to reach a pavement condition where BMPs can be applied. This goal would be me t when the PCI reaches an optimal level in the mid -80s, and the unfunded backlog is eliminated by the end of the 10 -year period .
For this scenario, $7.89 billion/year would be required (see Figure 4.6). The PCI w ould reach 87 and the unfunded backlog would be eliminated by 2030. Once eliminated, the cost of ongoing maintenance would become significantly lower, requiring $3 billion a year.
Once the backlog has
been eliminated, $3
billion /year is required
to maintain the network
at BMP levels.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 50 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
Figure 4. 4 Results of Scenario 1: Existing Budget
Figure 4. 5 Results of Scenario 2 : Maintain PCI at 66
$41.5
$44.2
$48.0 $48.4 $49.6 $50.0 $49.6 $50.9 $52.0 $55.0
67 66 65 63 63 62 61 61 60 59
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Backlog ($ Billions)
Backlog PCI
Scenario 1: Existing Budget ($2.43 B/Year)
$41.4
$44.1 $46.2 $44.5 $44.0 $42.7 $40.5 $39.9 $39.1 $40.8
67 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Backlog ($ Billions)
Year
Scenario 2: Maintain PCI at 66 ($3.84 B/Year)
•
- .......
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 51 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
Figure 4. 6 Results of Scenario 3 : BMP in 10 years = $ 7.89 billion/year
4.7 Other Performance Measures
Although both PCI and the unfunded backlog are common performance measure s for cities and counties, there are others that may be used. One such measure is the percentage of pavement area in different condition categories. Table 4.12 illustrates the breakdown in pav ement area for each funding scenario.
The biggest factor that jumps out is that , with the existing budget, the percentage of pavements in good condition will drop slightly to 48.7 percent, and pavements in “poor” condition will increase to 3 1.1 percent. Figure 4.7 show s examples of “ poor ” local streets.
Table 4. 12 Breakdown of Pavements by Condition Category for Each Scenario (20 30) Condition Category
Current
Breakdown
(2020)
Scenario 1
Existing
Budget
($2.43 B/yr)
Scenario 2
Maintain
PCI
($3.84
B/yr)
Scenario 3
BMP in 10
Years
($7.89
B/yr)
PCI 70-100 (Good to Excellent) 55.0% 48.7% 74.7% 100.0% PCI 50-69 (Fair/At Risk) 21.8% 20.2% 4.6% 0.0%
PCI 0-49 (Poor) 23.2% 31.1% 20.7% 0.0%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
$40.0 $38.0
$33.9
$27.7
$23.0
$17.6
$10.7
$6.0
$2.4 $-
68 69
72 74 76 78
81 84 85 87
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Backlog ($ Billions)
Year
Scenario 3: Best Management Practices in 10 Years ($7.89 B/Year) •
■ ■
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 52 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
Figure 4. 7 Examples of Poor Streets
4.8 How Did We Get Here?
For those who do not work with transportation issues every day, it can be difficult to understand how California’s cities and counties have reached this situation. Yet the factors that have led us here can be quickly summarized:
• The population of California was approximately 30 million in 1990; it is now a lmost 40 million, an increase of 3 3 percent. Attendant with that increase in population are increases in traffic, housing, and new roads.
• There are many new regulations that have increased the responsibilities of cities and counties, such as ADA, NPDES , and new traffic sign retroreflectivity standards. • California has statewide goals to reduce reliance on driving and increase opportunities for active transportation. Communities value complete streets and active transportation policies, but these improvements can significantly increase construc tion cost s. • Cities and counties need to consider, build , and maintain a transportation system that has multiple transportation modes ; e.g. , bicycles, pedestrians, trucks , and buses. • The cost of road repairs and construction has steadily increased, at rates that are significantly higher than that of inflation. In the last 15 years, paving costs have increased much more than revenues. These increases can be attributed to rising costs of petroleum products (directly correlated to asphalt cos ts), labor and equipment.
• The State gasoline excise tax did not increase for more than 20 years , yet it is the single most important funding source for transportation. Cities and counties have relied on a diminishing revenue source for a transportation sy stem that is aging and deteriorating rapidly – SB 1 provides the first significant infusion of new funding in many years . • The increased fuel economy of vehicles as well as the popularity of hybrid and electric vehicles leads to decreasing gas consumption, and, in turn, to a reduction in gas taxes. Hence the need for a long -term sustainable revenue source.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 53 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4 Funding Analyses
4.9 Summary
From the results of the surveys as well as the funding scenarios, it is apparent that:
• Total funding for pavements is projected at $ 2.43 billion annually over the next 10 years. Of this, 57 percent are expected to come from state funds (almost all gas tax and SB 1 ), 7 percent from federal sources, and the remainder from local sources (mostly sales taxes). • Total expenditures for essential c omponents are projected to grow to $1. 3 billion annually. Most of the funding is expected to come from local sources ( 48 percent ) with the state contributing approximately 29 percent .
• With SB 1 , the total funding shortfall for pavements and essential compo nents is expected to be $59.7 billion over the next 10 years .
• Under the existing funding for pavements ($ 2.43 billion/year) , the PCI will decrease from 66 to 59 and the unfunded backlog will increase to $55 billion. In addition, approximately one -third of the pavement network will be in “ failed” condition by 20 30. • To maintain the existing pavement condition (Scenario 2), a funding level of $3.84 billion/year would be required . This would dramatically improve the percent of paveme nts in the “good to excellent” category from 55 percent to 75 percent .
• The BMP scenario woul d require approximately $ 7.89 billion annually to eliminate the backlog of work and raise the statewide average PCI to the mid -80s . Once the BMP goal has been reac hed, it would require only $3 billion/year to maintain the condition of the pavement network.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 54 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
5 Bridge Needs & Funding Analysis
5 Bridge Needs & Funding Analysis
Bridges are an integral part of the transportation system, and therefore this study would be incomplete without a discussion of their needs. The catastrophic nature of a bridge failure is exemplified by the collapse of the I -35W bridge in Minneapolis durin g rush hour in August 2007. Thirteen people were killed and 145 injured. Failures in local bridges can also have significant consequences. Many rural bridges provide the only access to homes and communities, and , if a bridge collapses, access to help is li mited or not available. In other cases, detours of more than 4 hours may be necessary.
Addressing bridge investment needs is both a local and
national challenge. In its report Bridging the Gap , the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) describes age and deterioration as the first of five top problems facing the nation’s bridge
population 11. Other problems include congestion, increased construction costs, maintaining bridge safety, and
addressing new bridge needs. The Fe deral Highway
Administration (FHWA) estimate d that the national backlog of need ed bridge investment was $121 billion in 201 2, with a national investment level of $1 1.9 billion needed to keep the backlog from rising . This figure does not include addressing congestion or other new bridge needs 12.
California’s bridge population is one of the largest in the country, and California bridge conditions have a significant bearing on any national -level analyses.
Although a compelling case can be made for making neede d investments in California’s local bridges, the simple truth is that local budgets are tightly constrained, there is significant uncertainty about future funding, and there are many different competing needs for available funds. Thus, bridge owners, taxpa yers, and legislators need the most accurate information available to make the best decisions about how to allocate scarce resources.
For the 20 20 update, a companion report was prepared by Quincy Engineering and Spy Pond Partners to analyz e both the bridge needs and funding scenarios. This chapter summarizes their findings .
As with previous studies, t wo bridge inventory data sets were used for this study. First is the 2019 National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database; Caltrans collects data on behalf of local agencies on a biennial basis and provides this California data to the FHW A to be included in the NBI database. Second , local agency bridge inventory data are gathered from the Statewide survey on short (less than 20 feet in length) and non -vehicular bridges , which are excluded from the NBI database.
11 AASHTO. Bridging the Gap: Restoring and Rebuilding the Nation’s Bridges. 2008 . 12 FHWA 201 3 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance . Report to the United States Congress. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2013cpr/pdfs.cfm . •
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 55 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
5 Bridge Needs & Funding Analysis
A total of 12, 339 bridges are owned, maintained, and operated by cities, counties, and other municipalities; they comprise approximately 48 percent of the total of 25, 499 vehicular bridges in California. Bridges owned by o ther s (e.g., State, Bay Area Rapid Transit, private, railroa d, and federal bridges ) are not considered as local agency bridges and were not included in this study.
Figure 5.1 represents a breakdown of local bridge count by county.
Most counties (including city bridges within the county) have a few hundred bridges, averaging about 200 bridges per county. In general, the counties with larger populations have a significantly higher number of bridges than those with lower populations . Los Angeles County has the most locally owned bridges, with over 1,400.
Figure 5.2 ill ustrates the age distribution of all the statewide local bridges. Even with routine investment, every bridge eventually reaches the end of its useful structural lifespan. Modern bridges are designed with a 75 -year service life in mind. A life expectancy of 75 to 100 years is reasonable for a typical , local -agency bridge.
California’s local bridges have an average age of 53.4 years , while the national average is only 44 years of in -service use. More important is the distribution of age within the local bridge population. There are 2,332 local bridges that are at least 80 years old. This represents almost one -fifth (18.8 percent ) of California’s local bridge population. Nearly half of the state’s local bridges (46 percent ) were constructed during a 30 -year period from the mid -1950s to the mid -1970s and are currently between 40 to 70 years old. During this building boom perio d, an average of 230 local bridges were being constructed every year. Through the past decade, the number of major local bridge projects completed in any given year has been less than 50.
To keep the local bridge inventory from further advancing in age wo uld require a replacement rate greater than 6 times the current rate, or approximately 250 bridges per year. At the current replacement rate, California’s local bridges will need to be in service more than 200 years, or nearly 3 times the current intended lifespan, to replace the wave of aging local bridges constructed during the Interstate Highway construction era.
The largest age group represents bridges between 40 to 69 years or older. As bridges age, the need for rehabilitation or replacement becomes greater. As with streets and roads, it is more cost - effective to maintain bridges in good condition than it is to allow those bridges to deteriorate at a faster rate and require replacement sooner. Figure 5.2 also shows that there are more than 2,000 bridg es that are over 80 years old.
There are 12,339 local
bridges in California,
which represents 48
percent of the total.
At current funding levels,
local bridges will need to
be in service for more
than 200 years, or 3 times
their intended lifespan.
The average age is
more than 53 years
old, and more than
half are in fair to poor
condition.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 56 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
5 Bridge Needs & Funding Analysis
Figure 5.1 Number of Local Bridges by County (includes Cities within County)
Figure 5.2 Local Bridge Age Distribution
The total needs for work activities such as bridge replacement, major rehabilitation, scour mitigation, seismic retrofit, and structure widening were estimated for the entire local bridge inventory of 12,339 structures. This estimate established the current needs within the system based on inspected bridge conditions, calculated load ratings, traffic volumes and width capacities, scour vulnerabilities, and seismic retrofit status. The value of the 2020 bridge need s is estimated to represent $7.2 billion of improvement activities (Figure 5.3) , not inc luding the cost of future maintenance and replacement of structures that are currently in sufficient condition. Completing this magnitude of work at the current Number of Bridges
~ ~ N N u, 0 lJ1 0 u,
0 8 8 8 8 0 0
0 r-t-
0 t...D
~
~ 0
t...D r-t-
0 N
N 0 r-t...D r-t-
0 0
(.,U n
w 0 QJ
t...D r-1'
0 0::,
t5
"""'C
.C,.
.
C. t...D r-t- 0Q 0
)> lJ1
(1)
O'Q (JI 0 _l> (l) iD r-t- CJQ 0 Cl)
m m 0 C, t...D r-t-
0 ~
.....
rt-
0 "'-J --c
"'-J 0 C"' t...D ~
co .....
00 0 -· I..D r-t- Q
0 ::,
t...D
I.D 0
iD r-t-
0 ~
0 :?
Nunber of local Bridges
Alnl'd.J
Alpine I
Arn.l'.Jor •
ULA.tc
C~avcr..ts -
Colusa -
Contra Coe.ta
W None ■
IIOor;Jd0
~,esno -----Glenn
Humbolcll -
lrnpcroal
Inyo •
Kern
Kmgs
lake,
l:J~cn
8 losllngc-les -----------------
M.:,dcTa
Marln-
Maropos..,
M,::,ndocmo
MNCCd
Modoc
Mono •
Monter~
N...c:,a
Nc-sada
Orange -----
l'lacer
1>1un,a!a
R,vcrs,t1c, -----•
S iif iillC-nl o
S,JI Bcnllo •
5.JnU<'fnardono -----
Sa, o,~o
San •, ancosco ■
S"1Jo;;iqum ----
S;:r, Lu,s Obo<po -
~JnM..li,O -
'Sd1tJBabit1rJ -
sa11aClara -----•
5"11a(ru, -
Shalla -
s,erra •
S1sluyou -
Sol;J10
Sonom., ----
StJ\l~lJU~ ---
Suttc,r
Tehama ----
lnnity -
Tulare ----•
luolumne •
Venlllra -
Volo
Yuba -
z
C
3 C"
~
0 -a:, .... c.:
OQ
(1)
(/\
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 57 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
5 Bridge Needs & Funding Analysis
investment levels would take over 25 years, with no other additional projects considered during that timeline.
Figure 5.3 Local Bridge Needs Summary (2020)
Federal funding , administered by Caltrans through the Highway Bridge Program , has traditionally provided the primary funding source for local bridges . This federal funding has been stagnant at approximately $290 million annually over the past 10 years. At this investment level, the percentage of poor bridges will increase to more than 50 percent within the next 20 years. An annual funding amount between $700 to $800 million is expect ed to be required over the next 10 years to simply prevent an increase in the percentage of poor bridges from current levels ( see Figure 5.4).
In summary, the needs of California’s local bridge population are currently significant and increasing with time as the inventory ages. The cost of performing bridge projects has increased over time, beyond typical inflation escalation, due to an increase in project complexity based on design features, traffic widths,
modern traffic loads, environmental regulations and
permitting, and other projec t requirements. The result is that bridge construction projects cost considerably more today than they did at the time of original construction and the rate of bridge replacement and major
rehabilitation projects is not keeping up with bridges that are rea ching the end of their expected service lives. At the same time, maintenance needs within the aging
population are also increasing. At a minimum, it is
Local bridge needs are $7.2
billion but funding is only
$2.9 billion.
An annual funding level of
$800 million is needed just to
maintain current conditions.
Seismic Retrofit
$309 Million
Strengthening \
$120 Million ------
Scour
$508 Million
I
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 58 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
5 Bridge Needs & Funding Analysis
estimated that the current level of investment in local bridges, traditionally from federal funding sour ces, needs to double simply to maintain the condition of California’s local bridge inventory.
Significantly more investment is required to improve the general condition of the population and address a wave of aging bridges originally constructed during the highway building boom period.
Figure 5.4 Percent of Bridges in Poor Condition by Annual Budget Percent Poor by Annual Budget
0 0
Cl.
a,
100.00
75.00 ~ 50.00
~
u
Q)
Cl
ae
25.00 2025 2030
Year
•
- $OM
- $100M
- $200M
- $300M
- $400M
- $500M
- $600M
- $700M
- $BOOM
2035 2040
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 59 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
6 Summary and Conclusions
6 Summary and Conclusions
SB 1 funding made a difference a nd was able to achieve its intended goal of not just stabiliz ing but improving the l ocal street and road network by 1 point since 2018. However, it is premature to conclude that the deterioration of the last 12 years has been arrested permanently.
As this report shows, while pavement conditions did improve slightly, other factors have co me into play.
The k ey ones are:
1. The 2018 study assumed that $ 3.083 billion /year would be spent on pavements. However, data from 2018/19 and 2019/20 indicated that this was not the case ; instead, average annual expenditures were $2.2 billion. For 2018/19, t he potential repeal of SB 1 could have played a role in many agencies hesitating to commit all their SB 1 funding to paving when it was potentially at risk. For 2019/20, the expenditure levels significantly increased but not to the expected levels.
Overal l, total expenditures for pavements averaged $5 02 million less than predicted within those 2 years. However, the funding for essential components increase d substantially by an average of $390 million in the same 2 years.
We can conclude that more SB 1 fun ding was spent on essential components than originally estimated. The 2018 survey indicated that SB 1 funding would only account for 1 percent of total funding, it was actually 7 to 8 percent. This resulted in less funding available for pavements.
2. The projected expenditures for the next 10 years for pavements were lower than expected. The survey responses projected an annual funding of $ 2.43 billion when the 2018 estimate w as $3.018 billion. It is unknown if the pandemic resulted in more conservative es timates of funding (the survey was extended through April 2020, when there were estimated reductions in the gas tax/ SB 1 of 10 to 20 percent, and reductions of as much as 30 percent in sales tax revenues ).
However, the funding for essential components was estimated to increase substantially by $ 391 million annually . While the data are not complete, it can be surmised that a larger percentage of SB 1 funds were spent on essential components.
3. Finally, c onstruction costs for paving were significantly higher than just 2 years ago, ranging from 16 to 23 percent increases . This was partly because the contracting industry did not have the capacity to handle a large infusion to the streets and highways constru ction market almost overnight, thus leading to higher bid prices. The potential repeal in of SB 1 in 2018 did not encourage contractors to expand capacity until after the November 2018 elections, thus delaying any market corrections for almost 2 years.
Table 6.1 summarizes the results for pavements, essential components , and bridges . The total funding needs over the next 10 years is $1 18.7 billion, and the resulting shortfall is $ 37.6 billion for pavements, $22.1 billion for essential components , and $ 4.3 billion for bridges. The total shortfall is $ 64 billion over the next 10 years.
•
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 60 August 2021
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
6 Summary and Conclusions
Table 6.1 Summary of 10 -Year Needs and Shortfall Calculations (20 20$ Billion)
For the pavements, the annual funding of $ 2.43 billion a year, c oupled with cost savings from sustainable strategies, will result in a n initial increase of the PCI to 67 but will eventually deteriorate to 59 and a backlog of $ 55 billion by 2030 . In addition, almost half of the network will be in g ood condition, and streets in poor/failed condition will increase slightly to 31.1 percent (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2 Summary of Funding Analysis
To bring the transportation network to a level where BMPs can occur would require more than twice the existing level of funding. For pavements, that would require $7.89 billion a year . However, once this has been achieved, it would only require $ 3 billion annually to maintain the pavement network.
Finally, to reiterate, essential components will require an additional $2 2.1 billion to address the 10-year needs, and for bridges, it will require an additional $ 4.3 billion for a total of $ 64 billion.
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Needs Funding
Shortfal
l
Pavement 67.6 $ 70.5 $ 72.4 $ 72.7 $ 70.0 $ 61.7 $ 76.0 $ 38.4 $ (37.6) $ Essential Components 32.1 $ 29.0 $ 30.5 $ 31.0 $ 32.1 $ 34.1 $ 35.5 $ 13.4 $ (22.1) $ Bridges 3.3 $ 4.3 $ 4.3 $ 4.6 $ 5.5 $ 7.2 $ 2.9 $ (4.3) $ Totals 99.7 $ 102.8$ 107.2 $ 108.0 $ 106.7 $ 101.3 $ 118.7 $ 54.7 $ (64.0) $ Transportation Asset
2020 ($B)Needs ($B)
Scenarios
Annual
Budget
($B)
PCI in
2030
Condition
Category
%
Pavements
in
Poor/Failed
Condition
%
Pavements
in Good
Condition
Current Condition (2020) - 66 At Risk 23.2% 55.0%
1. Existing Funding $2.43 59 At Risk 31.1% 48.7%
2. Maintain PCI at 66 $3.84 66 At Risk 20.7% 74.7%
3. Best Management Practice $7.89 87 Excellent 0.0% 100.0% *2020 Update
•
I ...___ - ..
I - - - ..
l _________________ • ---- - -------- --- ~ ' ----------- - • t California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Appendix A
List of Fiscal Sponsors
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment A-1 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
FISCAL SPONSORS
COUNTIES
Alameda Placer
Alpine Plumas
Amador Riverside
Butte Sacramento
Calaveras San Benito
Colusa San Bernardino
Contra Costa San Diego
Del Norte San Francisco
El Dorado San Joaquin
Fresno San Luis Obispo
Glenn San Mateo
Humboldt Santa Barbara
Imperial Santa Clara
Inyo Santa Cruz
Kern Shasta
Kings Sierra
Lake Siskiyou
Los Angeles Solano
Madera Sonoma
Marin Stanislaus
Mariposa Sutter
Mendocino Tehama
Merced Trinity
Modoc Tulare
Mono Tuolumne
Monterey Ventura
Napa Yolo
Nevada Yuba
Orange
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment A-2 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
FISCAL SPONSORS
CITIES
Agoura Hills Calabasas Davis
Alameda Calexico Del Mar
Albany Calipatria Del Rey Oaks
Alhambra Calistoga Delano
Aliso Viejo Canyon Lake Dinuba
Anderson Capitola Dorris
Antioch Carlsbad Downey
Arcadia Carmel-by-the-Sea Dublin
Arroyo Grande Carson Dunsmuir
Atascadero Chico El Centro
Atwater Chino El Cerrito
Auburn Chino Hills El Segundo
Avenal Chowchilla Elk Grove
Azusa Citrus Heights Escalon
Bakersfield Clearlake Eureka
Baldwin Park Clovis Fairfax
Banning Coachella Fairfield
Beaumont Coalinga Farmersville
Bell Colfax Fillmore
Bell Gardens Colma Folsom
Bellflower Colton Fontana
Belmont Colusa Fort Bragg
Belvedere Commerce Fountain Valley
Benicia Compton Fremont
Berkeley Concord Fresno
Beverly Hills Corcoran Galt
Big Bear Lake Corning Garden Grove
Bishop Corona Gardena
Blue Lake Coronado Gilroy
Blythe Corte Madera Glendale
Brea Costa Mesa Glendora
Brentwood Cotati Goleta
Brisbane Covina Gonzales
Buena Park Culver City Greenfield
Burbank Dana Point Gustine
Burlingame Danville Hanford
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment A-3 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
FISCAL SPONSORS
CITIES
Hayward Larkspur Morgan Hill
Healdsburg Lathrop Morro Bay
Hercules Lemon Grove Mountain View
Hermosa Beach Lincoln Mt. Shasta
Hesperia Lindsay Napa
Hidden Hills Live Oak National City
Highland Livingston Needles
Hillsborough Lodi Newark
Hollister Lompoc Newport Beach
Huntington Beach Long Beach Norwalk
Huntington Park Loomis Oakdale
Huron Los Altos Oakley
Imperial Los Altos Hills Ojai
Indian Wells Los Banos Ontario
Indio Los Gatos Orange Cove
Industry Madera Orinda
Inglewood Manhattan Beach Orland
Ione Manteca Oxnard
Irvine Maricopa Pacific Grove
Jackson Marina Pacifica
Kerman Martinez Palm Desert
King City Maywood Palm Springs
La Canada Flintridge McFarland Palmdale
La Mirada Mendota Palo Alto
La Palma Menifee Palos Verdes Estates
La Puente Menlo Park Patterson
La Quinta Mill Valley Perris
La Verne Mission Viejo Petaluma
Lafayette Modesto Piedmont
Laguna Beach Montclair Pinole
Laguna Hills Monte Sereno Pismo Beach
Lake Elsinore Montebello Pittsburg
Lake Forest Monterey Placerville
Lakeport Moorpark Pleasant Hill
Lakewood Moraga Plymouth
Lancaster Moreno Valley Pomona
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment A-4 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
FISCAL SPONSORS
CITIES
Port Hueneme Sanger Trinidad
Portola Santa Ana Truckee
Portola Valley Santa Barbara Tulare
Rancho Cordova Santa Clarita Tustin
Rancho Cucamonga Santa Cruz Twentynine Palms
Rancho Mirage Santa Monica Ukiah
Redding Santa Rosa Upland
Redondo Beach Saratoga Vacaville
Redwood City Sausalito Ventura
Richmond Seal Beach Victorville
Rio Dell Seaside Villa Park
Rio Vista Selma Visalia
Ripon Shafter Walnut
Riverside Signal Hill Walnut Creek
Rocklin Simi Valley Wasco
Rohnert Park Solana Beach Waterford
Rosemead Soledad Watsonville
Ross Solvang Weed
Sacramento Sonoma West Covina
Salinas South Lake Tahoe West Hollywood
San Anselmo South Pasadena West Sacramento
San Bruno South San Francisco Westlake Village
San Carlos St. Helena Westminster
San Dimas Stockton Wheatland
San Gabriel Suisun City Whittier
San Jacinto Sunnyvale Wildomar
San Juan Bautista Susanville Williams
San Juan Capistrano Taft Willows
San Leandro Tehachapi Winters
San Marcos Temecula Woodland
San Mateo Temple City Yountville
San Pablo Thousand Oaks Yuba City
San Rafael Tiburon Yucaipa
San Ramon Torrance Yucca Valley
Sand City Tracy
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment A-5 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
FISCAL SPONSORS
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCIES (RTPA)
Calaveras Council of Governments Nevada Co. Transportation Commission Council of San Benito Co. Governments Placer Co. Transportation Planning Agency Del Norte Local Transportation Commission Plumas Co. Transportation Commission El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission Riverside Co. Transportation Commission Fresno Council of Governments Sacramento Area Council of Governments Glenn Co. Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Humboldt Co. Association of Governments San Diego Association of Governments Imperial Co. Transportation Commission San Joaquin Council of Governments Inyo Co. Local Transportation Commission Santa Barbara Co. Association of Governments Kern Council of Governments Santa Cruz Co. Regional Transportation Commission Kings Co. Association of Governments Shasta Regional Transportation Agency Lake Co./City Area Planning Council Sierra Co. Transportation Commission Los Angeles Co. Metropolitan Transportation
Authority Stanislaus Council of Governments
Madera Co. Transportation Commission Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Mendocino Council of Governments Transportation Agency for Monterey Co.
Merced Co. Association of Governments Trinity Co. Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission Tulare Co. Association of Governments Modoc Co. Transportation Commission Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council Ventura Co. Transportation Commission
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Appendix B
Data Collection
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-1 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
This appendix describes the data collection efforts for this update. The goal was to ensure participation by all 58 Counties and 481 Cities.
B.1 Outreach Efforts
As with the previous studies, significant efforts were made to reach all 539 agencies in February – April 2020. This included letters sent out by NCE on behalf of the League and CEAC/CSAC. The contact database had over 2,500 contacts for all the cities and counties. This was compiled from a variety of sources including contacts from the previous surveys in 201 8, the memberships of both CSAC and the League, the email listserv for the Regional Transportation Agencies (RTPA) and NCE’s client contacts.
The con tacts included Public Works staff (Directors of Public Works, City Engineers or engineers responsible for pavement/asset management), Directors of Finance, City Managers, County Administrative Officers, RTPAs (Regional Transportation Planning Agencies), an d MPOs (Metropolitan Planning Agencies).
Over 2,500 contact letters were mailed out in mid -February 2020 (see Exhibit B -1) with instructions on how to access the online survey and a fact sheet explaining the project. The deadline for responding to the sur vey was April 17 th, 2021 , but this was extended to early May as there were numerous requests from agencies for more time to respond , mostly due to COVID -19.
B.2 Project Website
The website at www.SaveCalifor niaStreets.org (see Figure B.1) was originally designed and developed for the 2008 study. This was subsequently modified to accommodate the 20 20 survey. The intent of this website was to act as both an information resource and as a repository of related reports that might be of interest to cities and counties. More importantly, it was a portal to the online survey described in Sectio n B.3. CSAC currently hosts the website.
B.3 Online Survey Questionnaire
A survey questionnaire was prepared and finalized in early February 2020, and a blank example is included in Exhibit B -1. Briefly, it included a request for the following information:
1) Contact name and information for both pavements and financial data 2) Streets and pavements data (including sustainable pavements and complete streets) 3) Bridge date
4) Essential components (safety, traffic, and regulatory) data 5) Regulatory requirements
6) Funding and expenditure data
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-2 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Figure B.1 Home Page of www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org Website
SAVE
STREETS
The 2018 Report is Now Available!
Read the Report
ProJact Status
The 2018 report is now availablel ... read more
Cities and Counties at Work
Cities and counties are making the most of
scarce resources for local street and road
through careful planning. innovative des,gn
and the use of cost errect1ve paving
technologies. Ta Ke a tool< at some of the
state·s most outstanding local street and
road proJects
Award Program
Your Help is Needed Again!
We need you to update the data you
provided in 201 B. or provide new data In
particular. y,e need ,nformatlon on the
• Contact person(s) for your agency
• Pavement condition data
Bridge data
• Safety traffic & regulatory data (e g
storm drains. ramps etc.)
• Funaing1expendIture pro1ectIons
Cilek He~ to Particip.lte
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-3 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Like the previous studies, no ha rdcopy surveys were available to the cities and counties, thus requiring all data entry to be made online.
The online survey made data aggregation much simpler and faster.
The custom datab ase was updated for 20 20.
B.4 Results of Data Collection
A total of 426 agencies ( 79 percent) responded to the survey, which was a decr ease from 484 agencies in 201 8. This is still a respectable response considering that shelter - in-place directives were announced in mid -March 2020; which resulted in a majority of agency staff working from home right in the middle of the survey. However, despite the lower response rate, w hen these were added to the agencies who responded in previous surveys , they represented 99. 9 percent of the total centerline miles of local str eets and roads in the state (see Figure B.2).
Figure B.2 Responses to Survey (% centerline miles)
Only five 1 agencies have not responded to this or any previous survey; all have less than 100 centerline miles, and all have populations less than 50,000 .
1 Cities of Orange Cove, Calipatria, Escalon and Sonora. The City of Rolling Hills is not included since they do have any publicly owned streets.
Data from 99 .9% of
the state’s local
streets and roads are
included in this study.
Data rec'd
previously
(2008-2018)
8%
No data
<0.5%
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-4 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Table B.1 illustrates the survey responses by type of data. The pavement data continues to have the most responses (426), and overall , there is a decrease in response from 2018. Note that the cells with blanks indicated that those data elements were not r equested during the applicable survey years.
Table B.1 Number of Agencies Responding by Data Type
Data Type 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Pavement data 314 344 273 371 454 484 426
Unit costs 50 260 211 177 187 225 173
Sustainable practices - - 280 269 428 472 412
Complete streets - - 269 250 421 469 405
Safety, Traffic & Regulatory 188 296 159 152 197 239 121 Bridges - - 177 - 400 - 352
Additional Regulatory Requirements - - 220 199 382 427 355 Financial 137 300 238 276 340 415 338
B.4.1 Are Data Representative?
Throughout the data collection phase, it was important to ensure that the data received were representative in nature. This was critical for the analyses – as with the previous studies, the criterion used was network size.
The distribution of responses with respect to network size is shown in Figure B.3. Small agencies are those that have less than 100 centerline miles; medium between 101 to 300 miles, and large agencies have more than 300 miles. Figure B.3 sho ws all the agencies who responded in 20 20 (green), those who responded in previous surveys (blue) and the ones who have never responded in red. Clearly, the bulk of the agencies who did not respond had less than 100 miles of pavement network (small cities) , but we still had 2 56 responses in this category, so our confidence in the responses were validated.
An important point to note is that small agencies account for a very small percentage of the state’s pavement network. There are 26 0 cities with less than 100 centerline miles of streets, and 1 62 cities with less than 50 centerline miles of streets. However, they comprise only 8. 1 percent and 3.0 percent of the total miles in the state, respectively. Their impact on the statewide needs is consequently minim al.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-5 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Figure B.3 Distribution of Agency Responses by Network Size (centerline miles) B.4.2 PMS Software
The survey responses also indicated that 8 8 percent of the responding agencies had a pavement management system (PMS) in place (see Figure B.4). The StreetSaver ® (57 percent) and PAVER (17 percent) software were the two main ones in the state.
StreetSaver ® was developed and supported by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and PAVER is su pported by the American Public Works Association (APWA).
Due to the widespread
use of a PMS, the
quality of the
pavement data
received contributed
immensely to the
validity of this study’s
results.
<I)
w
u z w
~
LL
0 0 z
■ 2020 ■ Previous Years ■ No Response
300 --------------------------------------,
5 250
200
150
100
50 0
::;;100 101-200 20 1-300
CENTERLINE MILES
301-400 >400
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-6 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Figure B.4 PMS Software Used By Cities And Counties
What is more important is that approximately 9 8 percent of the total miles owned by cities and counties are included in a pavement management system, which lead to a high confidence in the data submitted.
B.5 Summary
Overall, the number and quality of the survey responses received again exceeded expec tations and more than met the needs of this study. To obtain data on more than 9 8 percent of the state’s local streets and roads network was a remarkable achievement. That agencies with a pavement management system in place removed many obstacles in the te chnical analyses. In particular, the consistency in the pavement conditions reported contributed enormously to the validity of the study.
■ StreetSaver/MTC
■ Paver
■ Cartegraph
□ Other
■ NO PMS
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-7 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Exhibit B -1
Contact Letter, Instructions for Online Survey, Fact Sheet & Survey Questionnaire
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-8 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Oversight Committee
David Leamon
Stanislaus County
Project Manager
Keith Cooke
City of San Leandro
Brad Eggleston
City of Palo Alto
Charles Herbertson
City of Culver City
Greg Kelley
IDs Angeles County
Panos Kokkas
Yolo County
Damon Letz
City of Santa Clarita
David MacGregor
IDs Angel es County
Matt Randal/
Placer County
William Ridder
IA Metro
Theresa Rome//
Metrop olitan Transportation
Commission
Jennifer Soliz
Fresno Council of
Governments
Dawn Vettese
Son Diego Association of
Governments
Ron Vicari
Sacramento County
M ike Woodman
Nevada County Trans. Comm.
Staff
Brandon Black
Caroline Cirrincione
Rony Berdugo
league of Califo rnia Cities
Merrin Gerety
CEAC
Mar ina Espinoza
Chris Lee
CSAC
[[Ill
LEAGUE®
OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES
February 17, 2020
TO CALIFORNIA CITIES & COUNTIES
SUBJECT: 2020 CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS NEEDS ASSESSMENT Dear Madam/Sir:
Your help in responding to our survey in 2018 made a difference! In large part due to your efforts to provide timely and accurate data on the condition of California Local Streets and Roads, we were able to better educate the public about the impacts of eliminating much needed local transportation funding.
Since 2008, the California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report has been invaluable to the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the League of California Cities (League) on numerous transportation efforts at both the state and federal level. We have used the findings to educate elected officials, policy- and decision-makers, and the public about the condition of the local transportation netwo rk and the funding needed to bring the system into a state of good repair.
The findings have helped prevent transporta tion funding cuts while also helping advance new funding for local streets and roads. The 2018 report is available at www.SaveCaliforniaStreets .org.
In 2020, there are two main objectives; the first is to educate the public about the short and long term impacts of S81 and how cities and counties are using that the money cost-effectively for maintenance of our local streets and roads . The second is to begin to focus attention on local bridges, a critical component of the transportation system. This update will look more closely at the bridge needs and identify reasons for the shortfall indicated in previous reports. This analysis will be helpful in educating policymakers on the need for additional dedicated local bridge funding.
As in the past, this project is being funded through cont ribution s from stakeholders. Cities and count ies will share equally in funding two-thirds of the cost for the streets and roads analysis, with the remain ing one-third provided by Regional Transportation Planning Agencies. Additional funding for an enhanced bridge analysis will be provided via the Highway Bridge Program. It is essential that each agency contribute toward this study in order to demonstrate how critical this issue is to sustaining our state's transportation infrastructure.
An ongoing effort is needed to update the local streets and roads needs on a regular, consistent basis, much like the State does in prepar ing the State Highway Operat ion and Protection Program (SHOPP).
NCE will assist us in performing the 2020 update of the Statewide Needs Assessment.
YOU CAN CONTINUE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
We need your immediate assistance on the following items:
1. To ensure a widespread dissemination of this request, this letter has been sent to the City Manager/County Admin istrat ive Officer, Public Works Director, City/County Engineer, and Finance Director. We recognize that the data may come from multiple sources, so we ask your agency to coordinate among your selves to ensure that the most recent and accurate information is entered . Please provide NCE with your agency's contact information if you are California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-9 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
February 17, 2020
not the appropriate contact. This person(s) should be able to provide all the information requested in the survey. We need info rmation on two main areas:
a. Technical - pavement, bridge, safety, regulatory and traffic needs. b. Financial - projected funding revenues/expenditures .
2. Fill out the online survey at www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org . Instructions for filling out the survey are enclosed . Your agency's login and password are on the label below.
It is essential that we have this data no later than April 17th. 2020 in order to complete the 2020 Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment on time. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact :
Ms. Margot Yapp, P.E.
President/Project Manager
NCE
501 Canal Blvd, Suite I
Pt. Richmond, CA 94804
(510) 215-3620
[email protected]
Your agency's login and password is shown below:
(NCE will insert unique login & password for each
agency)
We appreciate your help in providing this information .
Sincerely,
- -Rick Tippett, President ~
League of California Cit.· ... ..::._s ____
Director of Public Works
City of Stockton
Enclosures: Fact Sheet
Instructions for Online Survey
County Engineers Association of California
Department of Transportation, Director
County ofTrinity
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-10 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Step 1.
Step 2.
C Collaboration. Commitment. Confidence~
Instructions for Online Survey
Go to http://www.savecaliforn iastreets.org . Click on the button that says "Click here to participate".
P,.oJ-ect statue
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
Tn~ 2018 repon Is now 211\fallaoae:,~
F-Mfid· ··
CLICK HERE
On the login page, select the name of your agency from the dropdown list. If you responded to the 2018 or earlier surveys, the information you previously entered will be shown so that you can update it . You will need your agency's login and password, which was mailed to you. If you do not have this information, please contact Lydia Alderete at (510) 215-3620 or at lalderete@ncenet .com .
w.1come 1o 111e Save California Streets Website!
W,w,ome to ~SlamwldeNeeda A.4...,•rr.....,..,..nt!iun,ey n--.kyuu for~patfrlaln lt'IIB!lhdJllbur~-~.-a::h.•ppr-=WKl. -_,.,._,,,,_,~_....,.__,.,.,,,,.,_,.,.,,,._,...,,, ... ,.,,,.._,.,_~ T~~At,mcJ(ft.fflltJa,pa,.,,_,.,..._.,~.i,,mpu,antotttballW'l .. ba~~lml otlllidllll!'wllll'tM",...._.dW~MIOdl'Sfttrkdpn/Tp~;out"~~ ,.,..,.., ______ ...... _ .... ___ .. ___ _ --...,..,.q: _jc ....... __ .. _""l~----~vl
,,_, l~-------~I
lf'fDUl'.-qFlnotontlmltst«ifJD1oi1M«l•J>M~,_...mntacti,cr.Aldanw•---.. ..
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-11 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Step 3.
Step 4.
Step 5.
Step 6.
C Collaboration. Commitment. Confidence.SM
Enter your name, then click "Next" to the main survey page.
Welmmeto~Sbdl!w:lcleN-1• 4ves-ment~
v.., have 1-,l In ■s Test.
H111i! isnofehli! il~enc,~williffll:rdm l'Df~ptelfii!'~ Ind naJtowr .
IEI
There are seven (7) parts in this survey (see image below). Click on each button to enter the relevant information. If you do not have all the information requested, skip to the next section.
-•com•"' the Save California Streets Website!
\\lelcon1e to th~ Stute\o\ide Needs Alisessment Sun·ey
Thh•1J.,,,..,l1 cnmpou,dnf1p,am . tlynu<lt>11<>tb.-o1lltn .. intnrm•1W>nr•q,~•tHl,,rtlptntlvr,•rlU'rtlnn . f,;,,ll\lrpo'loe'iati;;,ur,141;oloffl!1,,,r.irti;olcli:l;i,k!H!~tt,;on11Qd,-t;i,! Once data entry is complete, you can view and print your entry by clicking on the "Print a copy for your records" button. If there are no more changes, select "Yes" on the "Are you ready to submit the survey as final?" question.
Click "Logout" button when done.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PARTICIPATION!
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-12 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
ornia Statewide Local Streets & Roads Needs Assessment2020 Why are we updating the 2018 study?
We need to demonstrate the immediate and long-term impacts of S81 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) on local streets, roads, and bridges in California. The 2018 statewide needs study indicated that 5B1 would have a positive impact and stabilize the conditions of local streets and roads (the final report is available at www.
SaveCaliforniaStreets.org ). This report helped provide the qualitative and quantitative data to analyze various funding scenarios over a 10-year forecast, including the potential impact the repeal of SBl would have had on the local transportation network.
For 2020, this study will revise the 10-year funding forecast from the 2018 study, look at the early impacts of S81 on the local transportation network, and help inform the public and decision makers. In addition, the update will be taking a closer look at the funding shortfall for local bridges.
Why is this update important?
This update highlights the importance of maintaining sufficient transportation funding for local bridges, streets, and roads. Additionally, it documents the detrimental consequences for deferring or reducing local street and road funds. This is the only comprehensive and systematic statewide report that quantifies the funding needs for California's local bridges, streets, and roads.
What has this study achieved?
Since 2008, the findings from these assessments have been used to:
■ Educate decision makers on the condition of the local streets and roads system and the need for additional investment , culminating in $1.5 billion of new funding for local streets and roads via SBl. ■ Provide reliable and credible local road-condition analysis for the media and other reports. ■ Inform the public about the impacts of potential funding cuts. ■ Identify funding needs to enhance active transportation opportunities, promote sustainable pavement practices, and comply with new regulatory mandates on the local street and road system.
How can Cities and Counties help?
Your help in 2018 made a difference and we need your input again! Please go to www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org and login to our online survey to provide updates in the following categories:
■ Contact person from your Agency ■ Safety, traffic, and regulatory data ■ Pavement condition data ■ Funding/expenditure projections ■ Bridge data
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-13 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
allfornla Statewide Local Streets & Roads Needs Assessment 2020 We are anxious to begin the study, so please provide us with the contact person who is responsible for both the technical and funding information in your agency (see our contact information below). The deadline for responding to this survey is April 17. 2020.
Who is sponsoring this project?
Many cities and counties contributed funding to this study. The agencies listed below have accepted the leadership responsibility for completing this study on behalf of the cities and counties in California. ■ California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
■ League of California Cities
■ County Engineers Association of California
■ County of Stanislaus
■ California Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
■ California Rural Counties Task Force
The Oversight Committee is comprised of representatives from each organization, with the County of Stanislaus (representing CSAC) acting as the Project Manager. NCE is the consulting firm who will perform the update. Oversight Committee members include:
David Leamon, Stanislaus County (Project Manager)
Keith Cooke, City of San Leandro
Brad Eggleston, City of Palo Alto
Charles Herbertson, City of Culver City
Greg Kelley, Los Angeles County
Panos Kokkas, Yolo County
Damon Letz, City of Santa Clarita
David MacGregor, Los Angeles County
Matt Randall, Placer County
William Ridder, LA Metro
Theresa Romell, Metropolitan Trans. Commission
Jennifer Soliz, Fresno Council of Governments
Dawn Vettese, San Diego Association of
Governments
Ron Vicari, Sacramento County
Mike Woodman, Nevada County Trans. Commission
Who should I contact for more information?
Margot Yapp, President
NCE
501 Canal Blvd., Suite I
Pt. Richmond, CA 94804
Tel: (510) 215-3620
Staff
Rony Berdugo, League of California Cities
Brandon Black, League of California Cities
Caroline Cirrincione, League of California Cities
Merrin Gerety, County Engineers Association of
California
Chris Lee, California State Association of Counties
Marina Espinoza, California State Association of
Counties
David Leamon, Project Manager
Director of Public Works
County of Stanislaus
1716 Morgan Rd.
Modesto, CA 95358-5805
Tel: (209) 525-4151
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-14 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Statewide Needs Assessment Online Survey Report (2020)
Agency Name: Test
1. CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Type Salutation Name Title Department Address Line Address Line City Zip Email Phone 1 2 Code -
I Main Contact
Person
I Alternative
Contact Person
Contact Person
for Financial
Data
Alternative
Contact Person
for Financial
I Data
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-15 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2. STREETS AND PAVEMENTS
2.1 Pavement Management System and Pavement Distress Survey Procedures
1. Does your agency use Pavement Management System (PMS) software? vl (Go to Question la if "Yes"; Go to Question lb if "No".) la. Select your agency's PMS software:
,_ ______ vj
Enter your agency's PMS software name (if "Other" is selected above):
1-
lb. Select the reason your agency does not use a PMS:
'----- V
Enter the reason your agency does not use a PMS (if "Other" is selected above):
I
2. What pavement distresses do you collect for Asphalt Concrete (AC)? If you collect distresses that are not listed below, please enter in the "Other AC Distresses" box. 1) Alligator Cracking No
2) Block Cracking No
3) Distortions No
4) Long. & Trans. Cracking No
5) Patch & Util. Cut Patch No
6) Rutting/Depression No
7) Weathering & Raveling No
Other AC distresses your agency collects, if any:
3. Does your agency have Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavements? If yes, what pavement distresses do you collect for PCC? If you collect distresses that are not listed below, please enter in the "Other PCC Distresses" box.
1) Corner Break No
2) Divided Slab No
3) Faulting No
4) Linear Cracking No
5) Patching & Utility Cuts No
6) Scaling/Map Cracking/Crazing No
7) Spalling No
Other PCC distresses your agency collects , if any:
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-16 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4. What other condition data do you collect?
Deflection N/A
Ride Quality e.g. International
Roughness Index (IRI)
Friction
Drainage
Structure/Core
Complaints
Pavement Age
Other condition data your agency collects, if any:
5. What is the scale of the pavement condition index/rating used (e.g. 0-100, A-F)? Lowest possible rating(e.g. 0)
Highest possible rating(e.g. 100)
6. How much will you require annually to maintain existing conditions (e.g. if your current PCI is 70, indicate the annual funding required to maintain the pavement network at 70.) $ .__ ________________ __.
7. Any notes you would like to add regarding your pavement distress survey procedures (e.g. collected by consultant , in-house, frequency of collection, etc.), or any comments/notes you have regarding any portion of this survey/your data:
8. Are larger/heavier vehicles (e.g. buses, refuse/recycling trucks, snow removal vehicles, etc) impacting pavement performance or your maintenance practices? If so, please explain the type of vehicles and how they impact performance:
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-17 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2.2 Sustafnable Pavement Practices
1. What sustainable pavement practices does your agency utilize? -
Does Percentage of Sustainable Pavement your Unit Cost Addition~! Costs or Additional Costs or Practice agency ($/sy) Savings Savings utilize? - - - - -
~
Use of Reclaimed Asphalt
Pavement (RAP) in %
pavements
-
Cold In-place Recycling % (CIR)
Hot In-place Recycling % (HIPR)
Cold Central Plant % Recycling
Warm Mix Asphalt %
Permeable/Porous % Pavements
Full Depth Reclamation % (FDR)
Su bgrade Stabilization %
.
Rubberized Asphalt % Concrete (RAC)
Pavement Preservation
Strategies e.g. chip seals, % fog seals, microsurfacing, cape seals
Other (please explain % below)
if "Other" is used in the above table , please describe below:
2. Will you continue applying sustainable pavement practices?
3. If you do not employ sustainable practices, please indicate the reason(s) why (check all that apply):
1) High construction cost No
2) Lack of knowledge No
3) No local contractors No
4) No street/road candidates No
5) Other (please explain below) No
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-18 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4. Other comments regarding sustainable pavement practices:
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-19 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2.3 Inventory and condition Information
Pavement
Functional Vear oflast Condition Center Line Lane PCC (as % of the Class/Road Type Inspection Rating Miles Miles Area(sq. yd.) area) (Weighted Average)
-
Urban Major Roads
[Urban
Residential/ Local
Roads
Rural Major Roads
Rural
Residential/Local
Roads
Unpaved Roads
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-20 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2.4 Pavement Treatment Policy and Unit Costs
Urban Major Roads:
I Pavement Treatment IPCI Range lunit Cost ($/sq. yd.)
-
Do Nothing 90 -100 I
Preventive Maintenance (e.g. slurry , chip seal, cape seal) 70 - 89 Thin overlay (e.g. less than or equal to 2 inches) 50 - 69 Thick overlay (e.g. more than 2 inches) 25 -49
Reconstruction (e.g. remove & replace) 0- 24
Urban Residential/Local Roads:
I Pavement Treatment IPCI Ra~IUnit Cost ($/sq. yd.)
Do Nothing 90 -100
Preventive Maintenance (e.g. slurry , chip seal, cape seal) 70 - 89 Thin overlay (e.g. less than or equal to 2 inches) 50 - 69 Thick overlay (e.g. more than 2 inches) 25 -49
Reconstruction (e.g. remove & replace) 0- 24
Rural Major Roads:
I Pavement Treatment IPCI Range lunit Cost ($/sq. yd.)
-
Do Nothing 90 -100
Preventive Maintenance (e.g. slurry , chip seal, cape seal) 70 - 89 Thin overlay (e.g. less than or equal to 2 inches) 50 - 69 Thick overlay (e.g. more than 2 inches) 25 -49
Reconstruction (e.g. remove & replace) 0- 24
Rural Residential/Local Roads:
I Pavement Treatment IPCI Range Unit Cost ($/sq. yd.)
-Do Nothing 90 -100
Preventive Maintenance (e.g. slurry, chip seal, cape seal) 70 - 89 Thin overlay (e.g. less than or equal to 2 inches) 50 - 69 Thick overlay (e.g. more than 2 inches) 25 -49
-
Reconstruction (e.g. remove & replace) 0- 24
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-21 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2.5 Complete Streets Policy
1. Has your agency adopted a "Complete Streets Policy"? 1 vi
Ill your answer is "No" or "Don't know", skip this section. Please explain below why not if known.
2. What complete streets elements are included or assumed in the policy? Check all that apply.
Bicycle facilities
Pedestrian facilities
Green infrastructure e.g. bioswales, planters , pervious strip Medians
Lighting
Roundabouts
Traffic Calming e.g. reducing lane widths
Signs
Curb Ramps
Transit elements
!Comments/ Additional items:
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
3. Do you have other plans that incorporate these elements even if you do not have a Complete Streets policy? C3
4. What percentage of roads will have Complete Streets elements? (e.g. enter 10 for 10%) ....__ ..... ~
5. What is the estimated average incremental costs to provide Complete Street enhancements ($/sq. yd) i.e. in addition to conventional costs?
$ .__I _ __.Vsq. yd
6. Do you have a representative project that included Complete Streeets elements that was recently constructed? If yes, please provide a brief description.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-22 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
7. Do you anticipate more of these projects in the future? If so, approximately how many?
8. What are the major challenges you face in implementing a Complete Streets Policy? Check all that apply.
Insufficient right-of-way
Trees/environmental features
Existing structures
Insufficient funding
Other (please explain)
llf "Other" is checked, please describe below:
□
□
□
□
□
9. Other comments or notes you would like to add regarding Complete Streets:
1. How is your agency spending SB1 funds?
Road preventive maintenance e.g. seals
Road rehabilitation e.g. overlays
Safety projects
Railroad grade separations
Complete street components
Traffic control devices
2.6 SB'l (RMRA)
Match for state/federal funds for eligible projects
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-23 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Other
2. Is SB1 funding sufficient to maintain or improve pavement conditions? □ %
[3
If Not, please indicate annual funding shortfall SI I/Year
3. Has SB1 changed your approach to preventive maintenance? [3 Please explain ! ________ _
4. Do you prioritize preventive maintenace needs over rehabilitation? [3 Please explain l,-aaa==---------.
5. What factors are you using to prioritize paving projects? D Proximity to schools
D Bicycle/ pedestrian needs
□ commercial districts
□ safety (collisions, high injury locations)
□ Transit routes
□ Socio-economic factors
D Other .... ! ______ ___.
3. ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS (as related to the road network) Inventory Total
Category Unit Replacement (Quantity) Cost
--
05 - Storm Drains - pipelines mile
--
19 - Other elements e.g. manholes, inlets, culverts, pump ea stations etc 01 - Curb and gutter ft
03 -Pedestrian facilities: Sidewalk (public) sq.
ft.
16 - Other pedestrian facilities, e.g. over-crossings ea 09 - Bicycle facilities: Class I bicycle path mile
13 - Other bicycle facilities , e.g. bike shelters/lockers, etc. ea 02 - Curb ramps ea -
07 - Traffic signals ea -
06 - Street Lights ea -
04 - Sound Walls/Retaining walls sq.
ft.
08 - Traffic signs ea
r 21 - Tunnels ft
20 - Other physical assets or expenditures that constitute >5% of total non-pavement asset costs e.g. heavy equipment, ea corporation yards etc. Note: Do NOT include bridges (handled separately)
10 - Bicycle facilities: Class II bicycle lane mile
11- Bicycle facilities: Class Ill bicycle routes/sharrow mile I I
Accuracy
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-24 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
12 - Bicycle facilities: Cla
15 - Pedestrian paths
14 - Multi-use paths
ss IV protected bike lanes
17 - Crossing lmprovem
flashing beacons, round
refuge islands, etc.
ents e.g. high visibility crossings, rapid
abouts, scrambles, bulbouts, pedestrian
g. benches , shelters, real-time arrival
1 18 - Transit amenities e.
signage, wayfinding sign age
4. BRIDGE DATA
4.1 Profile Information Section
mile
I
mile
mile
ea
I
ea
Click here for more information on definition of bridges.
1. Does your agency have in-house capacity to routinely review the work recommendations and Structure Inventory and Appraisal report (Sl&A) contained within Caltrans Bridge Inspection Reports to determine your agency's bridge needs (repairs , maintenance , rehabilitation, replacement, and other work recommended in bridge inspection reports), including prioritization of bridge projects? 1 "'1
2. Does your agency have field capabilities to perform routine maintenance and repair activities on your bridge inventory without external contracting? Check all that apply.
I "'I
4.1 Profile Information Section
Click here for more information on definition of bridges.
1. Does your agency have in-house capacity to routinely review the work recommendations and Structure Inventory and Appraisal report (Sl&A) contained within Caltrans Bridge Inspection Reports to determine your agency's bridge needs (repairs , maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement , and other work recommended in bridge inspection reports), including prioritization of bridge projects? 1 "'1
2. Does your agency have field capabilities to perform routine maintenance and repair activities on your bridge inventory without external contracting? Check all that apply.
I "'I
3. During the past 3 years which funding sources has your agency used for bridge projects? D Federal funding through "Highway Bridge Program"
□ other Federal sources
0 SB1/RMRA
□ Traffic Mitigation Fees
□ Gas Tax (HUTA)
D RSTP Exchange Funds
□ STIP
D Other Please describe
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-25 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4.1 Profile Information Section
Click here for more information on definition of bridges.
1. Does your agency have in-house capacity to routinely review the work recommendations and Structure Inventory and Appraisal report (Sl&A) contained within Caltrans Bridge Inspection Reports to determine your agency's bridge needs (repairs, maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement, and other work recommended in bridge inspection reports), including prioritization of bridge projects? I vi
2. Does your agency have field capabilities to perform routine maintenance and repair activities on your bridge inventory without external contracting? Check all that apply.
I vi
3. During the past 3 years which funding sources has your agency used for bridge projects? D Federal funding through "Highway Bridge Program"
D other Federal sources
0 SB1/RMRA
□ Traffic Mitigation Fees
□ Gas Tax (HUTA)
D RSTP Exchange Funds
□ STIP
D Other Please describe
4. On average, using the past 3 years, what is the typical annual local funding your agency has expended on all bridge projects (total expenditures to replace, rehabilitate or repair, including associated project costs for engineering, environmental compliance, permitting, right-of-way, etc)? 1 vi
5. What percentage of your bridge project funding comes from the federal funds administered through Caltrans under the "Highway Bridge Program"?
I vi
6. What percentage of your bridge project funding is spent on construction activities compared to non construction project "soft costs" (such as engineering, permitting, utility coordination)?
7. For Bridge Replacement Projects, what is the average percentage of bridge width increase when replacing an old bridge?
V
8. After reviewing the information about the Bridge Investment Credit (BIC) program in the Local Assistance Procedures Guidelines (see the link below), does your agency plan to use the BIC program within the next 3 years?
Detailed information about the BIC program can be found on page 32 of Caltrans' Local Assistance Procedures Guidelines
9. What are the top 3 challenges faced by your agency in completing bridge work projects (major rehabilitations and replacements)?
V
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-26 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Greatest Challenge
'v'
Second Greatest Chai lenge
Third Greatest Challenge
4.2 Local Agency National Bridge Inventory
Click here for more information on definition of bridges.
1. Does your agency feel that the Work Recommendations, Structures Inventory and Appraisal Report, and Bridge Inspection Reports provided by Caltrans accurately reflect the needs and conditions of your local agency's N Bl bridge inventory?
.__ ______________ '-" ..... Comments .... I ________ ...,
2. On average, over the past 3 years, how much local funding has your agency expended on maintenance and repair activities for your NBI bridge inventory (total maintenance expenditures divided by the number of your agency's N Bl bridges)?
I "'I
4.3 Short Span Vehicular Bridges (SSBs)
Click here for more information on definition of bridges.
1. How many short span bridges is your agency responsible for maintaining? I I D Don't know or unsure
2. On average, over the past 3 years, what is your agency's total annual expenditure for work completed on your short span bridges (total expenditure divided by the number of short span bridges reported in question 1)?
1..---------- "" ...... I
4.4. Non-Vehicular Bridges (NVBs)
Click here for more information on definition of bridges.
1. How many non-vehicular (pedestrian & bicycle) bridges is your agency responsible for maintaining? I I D Don't Know
2. What is the total square footage of non-vehicular (pedestrian & bicycle) bridges your agency is responsible for maintaining?
l,.__ ______ __.I D Don't Know
3. On average, over the past 3 years, what is your agency's annual expenditure for work completed on your non-vehicular (bicycle & pedestrian) bridges?
I "'I
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-27 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
4.5 Future Agency Needs Projections - Vehicle Bridges
Click here for more information on definition of bridges
1. Based on public safety considerations, my bridge inventory would benefit from the completion of the following types of projects over the next 10 years for Vehicle Bridges: (Click all that apply) D Replacement of Low Water Crossings
D Load Strengthening/Retrofit of structures in otherwise good condition □ Widening existing bridge structures
□ Additional/ Uncompleted Seismic Retrofits
□ Typical Replacement, Rehabilitation, and Maintenance Projects □ Other --------~ D Don't know or unsure
2. The current value of completing the public safety projects identified in Question #1, including all project phases (engineering, construction, permitting, ROW, construction management, etc.), is best estimated at:
V
3. Over the next 10 years, the largest challenge facing my bridge inventory (including NBI bridges, Short Span bridges, and Bicycle/Pedestrian bridges) is:
V
Other
4. Based on local needs and planning considerations (Master Plans, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans, implementation of Complete Street concepts, Local Standards, etc.) over the next 10 years, my local agency expects the width of new and replacement bridge structures to:
V
5. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTSiv class="TitleC">
5. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Does your agency have additional regulatory requirements such as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements or Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity? V
If you answered "Yes" above, please fill out the table at the bottom of this page. Otherwise, skip this section.
May we contact you if we have follow-up questions? C3
Additional comments regarding "Additional Regulatory Requirements":
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-28 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
6. FUNDING AND EXPENDITURE DATA
6.1 Actual/Estimated Revenues for Pavement-Related Activities (No data has been entered)
6.2 Actual/Estimated Revenues for Safety, Traffic& . Regulatory Components (No data has been entered)
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-29 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
6.3 Expenditures on Pavements
Name
Preventi M · t ve a1n enance e.g. crac k seas, s urry sea s e c litation & reconstruction e.g. overlays Rehabi
Other(
Other 0
e.g. veg
etc.)
pavement related)
perations & Maintenance (non-pavement related
etation, cleaning ditches , sweeping , markings, signs, Amount
(FY18/19)
Amount
(FY19/20)
Annual Average
(FY20/21 to 29/30)
Of the totals reported above, what percentages are due to "Sustainable Pavement Practices", "Complete streets Policy" and "Additional Regulatory Requirements"? Enter in table below .
Name %of Amount %of Amount % of Annual Average (FY20/21 (FY18/19) Total (FY19/20) Total, to 29/30) Total
- --- --
Sustainable Pavement
Practices
Complete Streets
~ ponents
Additional Regulatory
Requirements
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-30 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
6.4 Expenditures on Safety, Traffic & Regulatory Components Amout Amount Annual Average
Name (FYS/19) (FY19/20) (FY20/21 to
29/30)
01 - Curb and gutter
02 - Curb ramps
03 -Pedestrian facilities: Sidewalk (public)
04 - Sound Walls/Retaining walls
05 - Storm Drains - pipelines
06 - Street Lights
07 - Traffic signals
08 - Traffic signs
09 - Bicycle facilities: Class I bicycle path
10 - Bicycle facilities: Class II bicycle lane
11- Bicycle facilities: Class Ill bicycle routes/sharrow 12 - Bicycle facilities: Class IV protected bike lanes
13 - Other bicycle facilities, e.g. bike shelters/lockers, etc. 14 - Multi-use paths
15 - Pedestrian paths
16 - Other pedestrian facilities , e.g. over-crossings
17 - Crossing Improvements e.g. high visibility crossings, rapid flashing beacons, roundabouts, scrambles, bulbouts, pedestrian refuge islands, etc.
18 - Transit amenities e.g. benches, shelters, real-time arrival signage, wayfinding signage
19 - Other elements e.g. manholes, inlets, culverts, pump stations etc I
20 - Other physical assets or expenditures that constitute >5% of I total non-pavement asset costs e.g. heavy equipment, corporation yards etc. Note: Do NOT include bridges (handled separately) I 21- Tunnels
Of the above total expenditures, what percentages are due to a "Complete Streets Policy"? Name
Complete Streets
Components
%of Amount
(FY18/19) Total
% of Amount
(FY19/20) Total
I
% of Annual Average (FY20/21 to
29/30) Total
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-31 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
6.5 Financial Questions
1. What innovative methods is your agency doing to "stretch" the dollar? e.g. new technologies, use of recycling techniques, partnering with other agencies for lower bids, preventive maintenance, etc.
2. Are there new revenues sources that your agency is considering?
3. Is there a city/county wide sales tax solely for transportation?
4. Is there a city/county wide sales tax that is partially used for transportation?
5. If you answered "Yes" above, please describe how it is used. (e.g. local match for highways, local streets & roads only, transit , etc).
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment B-32 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
7. NON-HIGHWAY NHS ROADS
1. For the roads/streets that are included in the National Highway System (NHS), do you collect the following information as per the proposed rule from FHWA? (click here for more information on NHS & new FHWA rules.)
1) International Roughness Index ( I RI)
2) Percent cracking (as measured by the HPMS)
3) Rutting
4) Faulting
□
□
□
□
2. If you currently do not collect the above information, how will you plan on collecting it? e.g. in-house staff, consultant, Caltrans, etc.
3. If known, please estimate the cost for data collection for roads/streets in the NHS. $ .,__ _______________ ____,
4. Do you allocate any money for NHS roads? D If so, how much money per year do you allocate? I 1($/year)
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Pavement Condition* & Needs by County
*Pavement condition data for the MTC region provided by MTC in 20 20 .
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-1 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Table C.1 Pavement Needs by County* (20 20 $)
County
(Cities Included)
Center
Line
Miles
Lane
Miles
Area
(sq. yd.)
2020
PCI
10 Year
Needs
(2020 $M)
Alameda
3,592
8,140 78,210,590 68 $ 2,054
Alpine
151
302 2,139,517 58 $ 48
Amador
477
945 3,598,703 51 $ 144
Butte
1,831
3,673 29,865,832 60 $ 914
Calaveras
831
1,340 8,201,768 52 $ 357
Colusa
761
1,247 13,240,593 61 $ 380
Contra Costa
3,412
7,134 66,747,390 70 $ 1,616
Del Norte
323
646 4,415,355 60 $ 117
El Dorado
1,399
2,684 21,458,907 63 $ 627
Fresno
6,214
12,595 108,361,263 60 $ 3,486
Glenn
910
1,822 13,917,626 62 $ 427
Humboldt
1,464
2,921 24,247,391 57 $ 847
Imperial
3,024
6,103 76,823,230 58 $ 1,219
Inyo
1,133
1,832 13,681,682 62 $ 353
Kern
5,725
12,615 117,170,333 65 $ 3,266
Kings
1,324
2,710 21,044,749 61 $ 678
Lake
640
1,271 8,822,689 37 $ 472
Lassen
431
879 6,282,324 61 $ 212
Los Angeles
21,130
57,167 457,415,797 68 $ 12,049
Madera
1,754
3,507 24,879,499 44 $ 1,244
Marin
1,028
2,065 17,202,637 65 $ 485
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-2 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
County
(Cities Included)
Center
Line
Miles
Lane
Miles
Area
(sq. yd.)
2020
PCI
10 Year
Needs
(2020 $M)
Mariposa
362
719 5,334,893 66 $ 152
Mendocino
1,125
2,256 16,135,923 36 $ 698
Merced
2,349
4,975 39,594,831 57 $ 1,385
Modoc
1,507
3,014 16,895,856 63 $ 430
Mono
737
1,473 9,613,552 66 $ 189
Monterey
2,011
3,940 31,471,030 52 $ 1,275
Napa
740
1,513 13,048,684 56 $ 487
Nevada
806
1,625 10,348,493 67 $ 264
Orange
6,603
16,326 153,443,823 79 $ 2,605
Placer
2,063
4,322 37,360,569 67 $ 967
Plumas
706
1,412 9,070,195 71 $ 193
Riverside
7,899
17,774 161,794,983 68 $ 4,116
Sacramento
5,028
10,961 95,785,803 58 $ 3,348
San Benito
492
761 5,156,435 37 $ 337
San Bernardino
8,905
22,601 181,506,462 74 $ 3,895
San Diego
7,759
18,760 174,285,803 70 $ 4,425
San Francisco
943
2,142 21,249,793 74 $ 427
San Joaquin
3,237
6,779 60,307,486 67 $ 1,591
San Luis Obispo
1,980
3,569 37,159,695 59 $ 1,287
San Mateo
1,884
3,942 34,071,528 68 $ 868
Santa Barbara
1,607
3,352 29,854,633 61 $ 953
,,
I
-J
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-3 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
County
(Cities Included)
Center
Line
Miles
Lane
Miles
Area
(sq. yd.)
2020
PCI
10 Year
Needs
(2020 $M)
Santa Clara
4,510
10,039 97,993,485 69 $ 2,415
Santa Cruz
873
1,757 14,104,814 55 $ 547
Shasta
1,579
3,100 24,430,506 49 $ 976
Sierra
399
800 5,566,517 45 $ 192
Siskiyou
1,488
2,985 20,233,539 62 $ 564
Solano
1,745
3,766 33,387,951 65 $ 943
Sonoma
2,390
4,991 40,203,089 58 $ 1,425
Stanislaus
2,908
5,981 52,101,939 61 $ 1,644
Sutter
1,032
2,079 16,016,764 59 $ 486
Tehama
1,202
2,408 17,509,230 50 $ 664
Trinity
592
1,112 7,477,638 54 $ 258
Tulare
3,570
7,192 58,952,533 62 $ 1,837
Tuolumne
547
1,083 7,109,056 28 $ 439
Ventura
2,535
5,577 56,220,129 68 $ 1,432
Yolo
1,344
2,696 23,500,992 57 $ 817
Yuba
1,066
1,504 19,557,588 67 $ 503
California 144,077 320,882 2,755,584,114 66 $76,029
* Includes Cities
within County
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-4 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2020
Pavement Condition Index
LJ 86 - 100 (Excellent)
71 - 85 (Good)
- 50 - 70 (At Risk)
- o -49 (Poor)
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-5 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
2020
Pavement Needs (10-Years)
D Upto$500M
D $500M -$1 .0B
$1.0B - $1.5B ---
- $1.5B -$2.0B
Greater than $2.0B
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-6 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
...
2020
Percent of Pavement Needs Met
(10-Years)
Greater than 80%
- 60%-80%
□ 40%-60%
20%-40% .__ _ _,
- Less than 20%
\.
@film ~!Iii©
fliilili'@ilttl
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-7 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Alameda County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100 )
At Lower Risk (61-70) At Lower Risk (61 -70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60 )
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified fi"om US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https ://ww,i _census .gov/geographies/mapping-fileslt ime-series/geol cartographic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in sllape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-8 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Alpine County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Repo rted
- Good (71-100)
Estimated
~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) ~ At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
[C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-ser ies/geol cartograph ic--boundary.html), accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represent incorpo rated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in sllape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-9 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
SAVE
Butte County C IFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Reported Estimated
- Good (71-100 ) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) IS i At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE . GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapef iles (httpsc/twww.census .gov/geographieslmapping-files/time-series/geol cartog raphic-boundary .html), accesse<l September 2020 . Boundaries represent incofporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-10 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Amador County
SAVE
( ~ CALIFORNIA
~STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reporte d
- Good (71-100 )
At Lower Risk (61 -70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49)
Estimated
fBj Good (71-100 )
At Lower Risk (61 -70)
At Higher Risk (50-60)
~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartographic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorpo rated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-11 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Calaveras c.ounty
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
- Good (71-100 ) ~ Good (71- 100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) 1a 1 At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) - Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE . GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapef iles (https :/twww.census .gov/geographieslmapping -filesltime-series/geol cartog raphic-boundary .html), accesse<l September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-12 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Colusa County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Repo rted Estimated
- Good (71-100 ) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) ~ At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) ~ At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) September 2020 NCE GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https ://www.census .gov/geographieslmapping-files/time-serieslgeo / cartog raphic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-13 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Contra Costa County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) ~ At Lower Risk (61 -70)
-
At Highe r Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60 )
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) Septembe r 2020 NCE GIS mapping data modified from US Cens us Bureau TIG ER Cartographic Boundary Shapef iles (https://www.census .gov/geographieslmapping -filesltime-seriesJgeol cartog raphic-boundary .html), accesse<I September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-14 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Del Norte County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
- Good (7 1-100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) ~ At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
[C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartog raphic Boundary Shapefiles (htlps:/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping -filesltime-series/geol cartographic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represen t incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-15 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
El Dorado County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
- Good (71-100 )
Estimated
~ Good (71-100 )
At Lower Risk (61-70) ~ At Lower Risk (61 -70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) ~ At Higher Risk (50-60 )
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
[C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified fi"om US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https:/lwww .census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartographic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in sllape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-16 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
SAVE
Fresno County C LIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
- Good (71-100) fa Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) I ~ j At Lower Risk (61 -70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) ~ At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Cens us Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapef iles (httpsc/lwww.census .gov/geographieslmapping -filesltime-series/geol cartog raphic-boundary .html), accesse<l September 2020 . Boundaries represent incofporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-17 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Glenn County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (7 1-100 )
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) At Lower Risk (61 -70 )
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60 )
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
,:;.
Orland
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
[C) Septembe r 2020 NCE. G IS mapping data modified fi"om US Census Bureau TIG ER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (https ://ww,i _census .gov/geographies/mapping -filesltime-ser ies/geol cartog raphic-boundary.html), accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Censu s data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-18 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Humboldt County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) I- At Lower Risk (6 1-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) Septembe r 2020 NCE . GIS mapping data modified from US Cens us Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapef iles (https://www.census .gov/geographieslmapping-filesltime-serie,Jgeol cartog raphic-boundary.html), accesse<l September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-19 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Imperial County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
- Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) la] At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) ~ At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) Septembe r 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapef iles (https:/iwww.census .gov/geographieslmapping-filesltime-ser ie,Jgeol cartog raphic-boundary .html), accesse<I September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-20 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Inyo County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
- Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Highe r Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
Estimated
~ Good (71-100 )
~- At Lower Risk (61 -70)
At Higher Risk (50-60 )
~ Poor (0-49)
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) September 2020 NCE GIS mapping data modified from US Cens us Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https://www.census .gov/geographieslmapping-files/time-serieslgeo / cartog raphic-boundary.h tml), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-21 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Kern County
N
A
Pavement Cond ition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100 ) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) ~ . At Lower Risk (61-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
( ~ CALIFORNIA
~STREETS
~~
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https://ww,; _census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartographic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorpo rated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in sllape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-22 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Kings County
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100 )
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) , At Lower Risk (61 -70 )
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60 )
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https:/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartographic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-23 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Lake County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100 )
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) At Lower Risk (61 -70 )
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (htlps://ww,; _census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartographic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-24 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Lassen County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71 -100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) ~ ~ At Lower Risk (61 -70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-6 0) At Higher Risk (50-60 )
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) Septembe r 2020 NCE . GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapef iles (https://www.census .gov/geographieslmapping-filesltime-serieslgeol cartog raphic-boundary .html), accesse<I Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-25 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Note: Island is not in its true
geographical location
f !NCE
Los Angeles County
Verdes
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
- Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49)
Estimated
fa Good (71-100)
181 At Lower Risk (61-70)
~ At Higher Risk (50-60)
~ Poor (0-49)
(C) Septembe r 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIG ER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/!www.census .gov/geographieslmapping -filesltime-ser ieslgeo l cartog raphic-boundary.html), accesse<l September 2020. Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-26 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Madera County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
- Good (71- 100)
At Lower Risk (61-70 )
- At Higher Risk (50-60 )
- Poor (0-49)
Estimated
~ Good (71-100)
i-At Lower Risk (61 -70)
At Higher Risk (50-60)
~ Poor (0-49)
[C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/iwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesllime-series/geol cartograph ic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represen t incorpo rated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-27 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Marin County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reporte d Estimated
-
Good (71- 100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) At Lower Risk (61-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIG ER Cartog raphic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geol cartog raphic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in sllape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-28 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Mariposa County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
- Good (71- 100)
Estimated
~ Good (71-100 )
At Lower Risk (61-70) IRJ At Lower Risk (61 -70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) ~ At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Bounda ry Shapef iles (https ://www.census .gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo / cartog raphic-boundary .html), accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-29 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Mendocino County
SAVE
C IFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
Good (71- 100)
Estimated
fa Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) ~~I At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher R isk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIG ER Cartographic Boundary Shapef iles (httpsc//Www.census .gov/geographieslmapping-filesl1ime-series/geol cartog raphic-bound ary.html), accesse<l September 2020 . Boundaries represent incofporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-30 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Merced County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
Good (71 -100)
Estimated
fa Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) ~~I At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher R isk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) Septembe r 2020 NCE . GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https:/twww.census .gov/geographieslmapping-filesltime-series/geol cartog raphic-boundary .html), accesse<I September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-31 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Modoc County
Alturas
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (7 1-100 )
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) At Lower Risk (61 -70 )
-
At Higher Risk (50- 60) At Higher Risk (50-60 )
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
[C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified li"om US Census Bureau TIG ER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesllime-series/geol cartograph ic--bcundary.html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in sllape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-32 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Mono County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
- Good (71-100)
Estimated
~ Good (71-100 )
At Lower Risk (61-70) At Lower Risk (61 -70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60 )
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) September 2020 NCE GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Bounda ry Shapefiles (https://www.census .gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo / cartog raphic-boundary .html), accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-33 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Monterey County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71- 100) Im Good (71-1 00)
At Lower Risk (61-70) At Lower Risk (61-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (htlps ://ww,; _census .gov/geographies/mapping-files/lime-series/geol cartograph ic--boundary_html), accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represent incorpo rated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-34 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Napa County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (7 1-100)
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) ~ At Lower Risk (6 1-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60 ) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) a Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) Septembe r 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping -filesltime-ser ies/geol cartogra phic-boundary.html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represen t incorpo rated city limits from U.S. Censu s data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-35 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Nevada County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49)
Estimated
~ Good (71-100)
~ At Lower Risk (61-70)
At Higher Risk (50-60)
~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartog raphic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartogra phic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represen t incorpo rated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-36 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Orange County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71- 100)
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) At Lower Risk (61-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) a Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIG ER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https://ww,;_census.gov/geographies/mapping-fileslt ime-series/geol cartogra phic--bcundary.html), accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represent incorpo rated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in slla pe and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-37 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Placer County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49)
Estimated
~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70)
At Higher Risk (50-60)
~ Poor (0-49)
[C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified fi"om US Census Bureau TIG ER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartogra phic-boundary .html), accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in sllape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-38 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Plumas County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
Good (71-100)
Estimated
~ Good (71-100 )
At Lower Risk (61-70 ) ~ At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) ~ At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https:/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesllime-series/geol cartographic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represen t incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-39 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Riverside County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
Good (71 -100) ra Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) At Lower Risk (6 1-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
[C) Septembe r 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartog raphic Boundary Shapefiles (https ://ww,; _census .gov/geographie5/mapping-fileslt ime-ser ies/geol cartogra phic--bcundary.html), accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represen t incorpo rated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in slla pe and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-40 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Sacramento County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
Good (71-100 ) fa Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70 ) IW J At Lower Risk (6 1-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60 ) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE . GIS mapping data modified from US Cens us Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https:/!www.census .gov/geographieslmapping-filesltime-series/geol cartog raphic-boundary .html) , accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-41 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
San Benito County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) ~ At Lower Risk (61 -70 )
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60 )
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
C IFORNIA
STREETS
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapef iles (httpsc//www.census .gov/geographieslmapping-files/1ime-series/geol cartog raphic-boundary .html), accesse<l September 2020 . Boundaries represent incofporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-42 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
San Bernardino County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
Good (71- 100) fa Good (71- 100)
At Lower Risk (61-70 ) At Lower Risk (6 1-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60 ) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (htlps ://ww,; _census .gov/geographies/mapping -filesltime-ser ies/geol cartograph ic--boundary.html), accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-43 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
San Diego County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100 ) ~ Good (71-100 )
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) At Lower Risk (61 -70 )
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60 )
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) Septembe r 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (htlps:/lwww .census .gov/geographies/mapping -filesltime-series/geol cartogra phic-bo undary.html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Censu s data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-44 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
San Francisco County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
- Good (71-100)
Estimated
~ Good (71-100 )
At Lower Risk (61-70) At Lower Risk (61 -70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-6 0)
- Poor (0-49 ) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
[C) Septembe r 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified fi"om US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping -filesltime-ser ies/geol cartogra phic-boundary.html), accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in slla pe and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-45 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
San Joaquin County
8 SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reporte d
Good (71- 100)
At Lower Risk (61-70 )
Estimated
RJ Good (71-100 )
- At Higher Risk (50-60 ) At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIG ER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https://www.census .gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geol cartog raphic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represen t incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-46 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
San Luis Obispo County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (7 1-100 )
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) At Lower Risk (61 -70 )
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) a Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartograph ic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in sllape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-47 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
San Mateo County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) ~ At Lower Risk (61- 70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
[C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified li"om US Census Bureau TIGER Cartog raphic Boundary Shapefiles (htlps ://ww,; _census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartograph ic--bcundary.html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represen t incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in sllape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-48 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Santa Barbara County
Santa Cruz Island
N
A
San Miguel Island
Santa Rosa Island
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100 )
At Lower Risk (61-70) At Lower Risk (61-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
[C) Septembe r 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https://ww,; _census .gov/geographies/mapping -filesltime-series/geol cartographic--boundary.html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Censu s data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-49 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Santa C lara County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) At Lower Risk (61-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f lNCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (https ://www.census .gov/geographies/mapping-files /time-ser ies/geol cartograph ic-boundary .html). accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-50 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Santa Cruz County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) Im Good (71- 100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) At Lower Risk (61 -70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
[C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/1www.census .gov/geographie5/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartograph ic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in sllape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-51 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Shasta County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61 -70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60 )
- Poor (0-49)
Estimated
~ Good (71-100)
b~ :j At Lower Risk (61 -70)
At Higher Risk (50-60)
~ Poor (0-49)
(C) Septembe r 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIG ER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (htlps :/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping-files/lime-series/geol cartograph ic-boundary .html), accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represent incorpo rated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approx imate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-52 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Sierra County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70 ) ~ At Lower Risk (61 -70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartograph ic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-53 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Siskiyou County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
- Good (71- 100)
Estimated
~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61 -70) raJ At Lower Risk (61 -70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60 ) At Higher Risk (50-60 )
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https ://www.census .gov/geographies/mapping-files/lime-series/geo / cartog raphic-boundary .html), accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represen t incorpo rated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approx imate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-54 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Solano County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
Good (71- 100)
At Lower Risk (61-70 )
- At Higher Risk (50-60 )
- Poor (0-49)
Estimated
~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70)
At Higher Risk (50-60)
~ Poor (0-49)
[C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (htlps://ww,i_census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartographic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in sllape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-55 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Sonoma County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) At Lower Risk (61-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified fi"om US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/lwww.census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartograph ic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorpo rated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in sllape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-56 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Stanislaus County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
Good (71- 100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70 ) 18] At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60 ) ~ At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE . GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https :/!www.census .gov/geographieslmapping-filesltime-serieslgeol cartog raphic-boundary .html), accesse<l September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-57 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Sutter County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (6 1-70) At Lower Risk (6 1-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
[C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https:/lwww .census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartogra phic-bo undary.html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-58 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Tehama County
SAVE
C IFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71 -100)
At Lower Risk (61-70 ) I ~ At Lower Risk (61-70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (httpsc/lwww.census .gov/geographieslmapping-files/1ime-series/geol cartog raphic--boundary.html), accesse<l September 2020 . Boundaries represent incO(porated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-59 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Trinity County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49)
Estimated
~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70)
At Higher Risk (50-60)
~ Poor (0-49)
[C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (htlps :/lwww.census.gov/geographies/mapping -filesllime-series/geol cartographic-boundary.html), accessed September 2020. Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in sllape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-60 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Tulare County
SAVE
( ~ · CALIFORNIA
~STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported
- Good (71- 100)
At Lower Risk (61 -70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60 )
- Poor (0-49)
Estimated
~ Good (71-100)
fMj At Lower Risk (61-70)
At Highe r Risk (50-60)
~ Poor (0-49)
(C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartog raphic Boundary Shapefiles (https ://www.census .gov/geographies/mapping-files/t ime-series/geo/ cartograph ic-boundary .html), accessed Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represen t incorpo rated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-61 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f !NCE
Tuolumne County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reporte d
Good (71-100 )
At Lower Risk (61-70 )
- At Higher Risk (50-60 )
Estimated
~ Good (71-100 )
~ At Lower Risk (61 -70)
- Poor (0-49) ~
At Higher Risk (50-60 )
Poor (0-49)
[C) September 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartograph ic Boundary Shapefiles (https ://Ww,;_census .gov/geographies/mapping-filesltime-series/geol cartograph ic-boundary .html), accessed September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area, California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-62 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Anacapa Island
~
San Nicolas Island
ote: Island is not in its true geographica l location
f !NCE
Ventura County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
- Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) U ] At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) ~ At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) Septembe r 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIG ER Cartographic Boundary Shapef iles (https :/!www.census .gov/geographieslmapping -filesltime-serieslgeol cartog raphic-boundary .html), accesse<l September 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-63 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Yolo County
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
-
Good (71-100) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) R J At Lower Risk (61 -70)
-
At Higher Risk (50-60) At Higher Risk (50-60)
-
Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
f !NCE
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
(C) Septembe r 2020 NCE. GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIG ER Cartographic Boundary Shapef iles (https://www.census .gov/geographieslmapping -filesltime-serieslgeol cartog raphic-bo undary.html), accesse<l Septemb<lr 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment C-64 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
~~
f !NCE
Yuba County
SAVE
CALIFORNIA
STREETS
N
A
Pavement Condition Index
Reported Estimated
- Good (71-100 ) ~ Good (71-100)
At Lower Risk (61-70) la] At Lower Risk (61-70)
- At Higher Risk (50-60) ~ At Higher Risk (50-60)
- Poor (0-49) ~ Poor (0-49)
(C) Septembe r 2020 NCE . GIS mapping data modified from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Bounda ry Shapefiles (https :/!www.census .gov/geographieslmapping-filesltime-ser ieslgeo l cartog raphic-boundary .html), accesse<l Septembe r 2020 . Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape and area.
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Appendix D
Essential Component Needs by County
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment D-1 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
Table D.1 Summary of Essential Components Needs by County* County 10 year Needs
($M)
County 10 year Needs
($M)
Alameda $2,570 Orange $1,905
Alpine $0.03 Placer $358
Amador $8 Plumas $26
Butte $177 Riverside $1,687
Calaveras $8 Sacramento $2,361
Colusa $21 San Benito $9
Contra Costa $1,582 San Bernardino $994
Del Norte $27 San Diego $2,423
El Dorado $48 San Francisco $2,847
Fresno $274 San Joaquin $922
Glenn $24 San Luis Obispo $310
Humboldt $166 San Mateo $823
Imperial $128 Santa Barbara $332
Inyo $8 Santa Clara $3,156
Kern $570 Santa Cruz $283
Kings $92 Shasta $169
Lake $21 Sierra $6
Lassen $7 Siskiyou $22
Los Angeles $6,433 Solano $497
Madera $100 Sonoma $843
Marin $333 Stanislaus $704
Mariposa $5 Sutter $112
Mendocino $119 Tehama $8
Merced $123 Trinity $7
Modoc $4 Tulare $326
Mono $6 Tuolumne $31
Monterey $249 Ventura $851
Napa $173 Yolo $179
Nevada $14 Yuba $27
Totals $35,508
* Includes Cities within County
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment D-2 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
f~7l
"°o ~-
2020
Essential Components Needs
(10-Years)
D Upto$500M
D $500M - $1.0B
$1.0B - $1.5B ---
- $1.5B -$2.0B
Greater than $2.0B
~ ~!Iii©
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment D-3 March 2020
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org
....
2020
Percent of Pavement Needs Met
(10-Years)
Greater than 80%
- 60%-80%
0 40%-60%
20% - 40%
L...;..;;;..a;;~
- Less than 20%
\.
~ ~fiii@
[lii'ii\ils)i'Ell
Rural Counties Task Force
Sponsored by
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
501 Canal Boulevard, Suite I
Point Richmond, CA 94804
Phone: 510.215.3620
Prepared by
i!NCE