City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2023-00649 6/13/2023 Consent Item 13.
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Fund: Fiscal Year 2023/24 Programming
File ID: 2023-00649
Location: District 2, Represented by Councilmember Loloee, District 3, Represented by Councilmember Talamantes; District 4, Represented by Councilmember Valenzuela; District 4, Represented by Mayor Steinberg; District 5, Represented by Councilmember Maple; District 6, Represented by Vice Mayor Guerra; and District 8, Represented by Mayor Pro Tem Vang Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution identifying projects to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) funds (Fund 2036) in Fiscal Year 2023/24.
Contact: Lucinda Willcox, Assistant Director, (916) 808-5052, [email protected]; Greg Smith, Senior Engineer, (916) 808-8364, [email protected]; Jose Sanchez, Streets Manager, (916) 808-2254, [email protected]; Department of Public Works Presenter: None
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Resolution Approving RMRA Projects
3-Exhibit A (RMRA List of Projects for FY2023/24)
4-Pavement Conditions Report
Additional Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: Pursuant to Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, prior to receiving an apportionment of formula-based Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Act (RMRA) funds from the State Controller, the City must annually submit to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) a list of projects proposed to be funded in part or whole with these funds prior to July 1st. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24, the City is estimated to receive $12.5 million in RMRA funds, which is budgeted annually in the Transportation Corridor Program as part of the Capital Improvement Program.
File ID: 2023-00649 6/13/2023 Consent Item 13.
Since available funding covers less than 20 percent of what is needed annually, resurfacing activities have been prioritized based on criteria adopted by the City Council. The list focuses on projects that achieve multiple objectives, including those that support improvements to address safety, support bicycle and pedestrian mobility, serve under-resourced areas, leverage or support outside funding, and improve streets with higher traffic volumes and bus routes. This analysis is included in more detail in the Background description.
The roadways listed below and described more fully in Exhibit A are proposed to be funded in whole or in part using the balance of past years’ RMRA funding and anticipated FY2023/24 revenue. The plan may be amended by the City if necessary at any time without state action. § Downtown Mobility Project (T15195000)
§ Silver Eagle Road Rehabilitation
§ Lampasas Avenue and Rio Linda Boulevard Safety Project support (T15205500) § Florin Road Vision Zero Safety Project (T15215800)
§ Broadway Vision Zero Safety Project (R15210000)
§ West El Camino Avenue Roadway Rehabilitation Project (R15210000) § Bell Avenue Complete Streets Rehabilitation Project (T15145600) § T Street Improvements (R15210000)
§ Franklin Boulevard Rehabilitation Project (R15200000) § Folsom Boulevard Safety Improvement Project (T15235500) § 21st Avenue Beautification Project (T15235300)
§ Northwood School Access Improvements Project (T15186100) § Broadway Complete Streets Project (T15175300)
The following projects will use this funding for preliminary design only; this effort is intended to position these larger projects for future grant applications:
§ Marysville Boulevard Vision Zero Safety Project (T15216300) § El Camino Avenue Vision Zero Safety Project (T15216400) § Florin-Perkins Roadway Rehabilitation
§ Downtown Mobility Project Phase 2
§ Elvas Avenue Cycle Track and Roadway Rehabilitation Project The following projects reflect roadways with shared City-County boundaries, with funding to be shared between agencies based on proportional share of the roadway. These will all be delivered by Sacramento County in consultation with the City of Sacramento:
§ Franklin Boulevard Overlay Project, Turnbridge to A Parkway § Fruitridge Boulevard Overlay Project, SR99 to Stockton Boulevard
File ID: 2023-00649 6/13/2023 Consent Item 13.
§ Howe Avenue Overlay Project, Marconi Avenue to Auburn Boulevard § 14th Avenue Overlay Project, Lissetta Avenue to Stockton Boulevard § Fair Oaks Boulevard, Howe Avenue to east of University Avenue § 26th Avenue, Soledad Avenue, Osage Avenue, and Alder Avenue It often requires more than one fiscal year to complete a project and can take multiple years from initial planning to deliver more complex projects that incorporate safety improvements, road diets, or that leverage grant funds. Several projects were included in last year’s programming are being carried forward for FY2023/24, including projects that will be under construction or completing construction later this Summer.
Policy Considerations: The recommendations meet the eligibility and outcomes specified in the State legislation governing the use of these funds. Recommended projects are consistent with the General Plan, Community and Specific Plans, Bikeway Master Plan, Vision Zero Action Plan, and other transportation planning documents, as well as those included the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Given the scarcity of funding, nearly all projects are used to leverage and support state and federal grants. Potential new projects are evaluated based on the criteria in the Transportation Priorities Plan (TPP).
Economic Impacts: These will be analyzed when construction contracts are awarded.
Environmental Considerations:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Programming funding is an administrative activity and is not considered a project under CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 Cal. Code Reg. §15000 et seq.) § 15378 (b)(4). All projects using this funding will undergo appropriate environmental review prior to construction.
Sustainability: The City uses pavement mixes incorporating a mix of recycled materials when possible. In connection with pavement rehabilitation, the City will incorporate improved accessibility and active transportation improvements where feasible. Restoring roads before they fail reduces construction time which results in less air pollution from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run-off. These projects also incorporate active transportation and complete streets components whenever feasible.
Commission/Committee Action: Not applicable.
Rationale for Recommendation: The California Transportation Commission requires a Resolution identifying annual plans for anticipated RMRA funds in order for the City to receive its apportionment of funds. With the condition of the city’s roadway network, the annual funding apportionment is about
File ID: 2023-00649 6/13/2023 Consent Item 13.
one-fifth the funding that is needed to maintain the average citywide pavement quality at its current level (fair), and about 15% of what is needed to bring the City’s pavement into a state of good repair.
Given the scarcity of funding relative to the need, these recommendations focus on major arterials and collectors that carry higher volumes of traffic and projects that also advance other City priorities, including improvements to corridors on the high injury network identified in the Vision Zero Action Plan, other safety efforts, traffic calming, or active transportation improvements. Most of these projects use this funding to leverage state and federal grants. Given the complexity of these projects, most take more than one year to complete. Projects that were included in previous years’ plans but are not yet completed are carried over to the proposed FY23/24 plan.
Financial Considerations: Based on available projections, $12.5 million in RMRA funds (Fund 2036) are budgeted as part of the proposed FY2023/24 Capital Improvement Program in the Transportation Corridor Program (R15200000).
Total costs for the projects listed in Exhibit A are estimated at approximately $120 million; approximately $34 million in RMRA funds will be needed for these projects, including past expenditures and anticipated needs in future years. The majority of other funding will come from state and federal grants. No contracts will be awarded unless funding is available to cover contract and staff costs.
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
Background:
State Requirements: Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, was signed into law on April 28, 2017. Beginning on November 1, 2017, the State Controller deposited revenues from the increased fuel taxes into the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). A percentage of this new RMRA funding is apportioned by formula to eligible cities and counties pursuant to Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2032(h) for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system.
RMRA funds must be used for expenditure on basic road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, and on critical safety projects. Eligible uses include the following:
§ Road maintenance and rehabilitation
§ Safety projects
§ Railroad grade separations
§ Complete streets components (including active transportation purposes, pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and stormwater capture projects in conjunction with any other allowable project)
File ID: 2023-00649 6/13/2023 Consent Item 13.
§ Traffic control devices
§ Funds may also be used to satisfy a match requirement in order to obtain state or federal funds for projects.
SB 1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s transportation programs.
Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the Controller in a fiscal year, a city or county must submit to the CTC before the stated deadline, a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds. The list of projects must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement [SHC 2034(a)(1)].
The project list does not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities so long as the projects are consistent with RMRA priorities as outlined in SHC 2030(b) [SHC 2034(a)(1)].
The CTC will report to the Controller the cities and counties that have submitted a list of projects as described in SHC 2034(a)(1) and that are therefore eligible to receive an apportionment of RMRA funds for the applicable fiscal year [SHC 2034(a)(2)]. The deadline for submission to the CTC for fiscal year FY23/24 is June 30, 2023. The Controller, upon receipt of the report from the Commission, shall apportion RMRA funds to eligible cities and counties pursuant to SHC 2032(h) [SHC 2034(a) (2)].
For each fiscal year in which RMRA funds are received and expended, cities and counties must submit documentation to the Commission that includes a description and location of each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project, the completion date, and the estimated useful life of the improvement [SHC 2034(b)].
Roadway Conditions
The City prepares a report every two years that assesses its overall pavement conditions and estimates funding implications. The most recent report from August 2022 is attached for reference.
The City’s current Pavement Condition Index (PCI), which measures pavement conditions on a scale of 1 to 100 reports a citywide average PCI of 59, which is considered “fair.” The citywide deferred maintenance backlog is estimated at approximately $298 million in needed repairs, an increase of 30% since 2020. With only 15% to 20% of the annual funding stream available that is needed to adequately address roadway rehabilitation, at current investment levels, the unfunded backlog is expected to continue to increase exponentially. It is estimated to reach about $1 billion in ten years with a projected average citywide PCI of 42.
File ID: 2023-00649 6/13/2023 Consent Item 13.
The primary mechanism to address street maintenance has been the state gas tax. In 2017, the State increased the statewide gas tax for the first time in nearly 25 years in response to a statewide crisis in poor pavement conditions on state highways and local streets throughout the state. With the gas tax formerly set at a flat rate that was not indexed to inflation, by 2017 the amount of gas tax generated statewide had about half the spending power it had in decades earlier, which was manifested in gradual disinvestment in pavement maintenance. Many counties and jurisdictions implemented local funding measures to support pavement maintenance to help offset some of the loss in spending power. Sacramento County voters approved a countywide transportation sales tax measure (Measure A), which provided additional funding for street maintenance among other transportation expenditures.
The City of Sacramento has some of the oldest roads in the state, with a roadway network developed over the last 150-plus years. Decades of inadequate investment in pavement maintenance has resulted in thousands of miles of needed roadway rehabilitation and overall pavement conditions that are in a steep decline.
The additional funding from the 2017 gas tax increase may have been in time for those communities with newer streets or those that were able to devote sufficient local or federal funding for pavement rehabilitation to offset the loss in gas tax availability. For those communities, the new revenue was in time to alter the trajectory of deteriorating PCI and allow for gradual improvement. Unfortunately, for many of those communities with older infrastructure that that did not have sufficient street maintenance funding in the decades before 2017, pavement conditions have declined to a level that requires more annual funding than is currently available from the increased gas tax revenues or is foreseeable from other local, state, and federal sources in order to alleviate the ongoing decline in pavement conditions.
The amount needed annually by the City to arrest the steep decline is five times the amount it currently receives. It would require over $58 million annually over the next ten years to remain at its current average PCI of 59, and over $97 million annually to bring the network into a state of good repair (average PCI of 75).
Roadway Selection
With limited funding compared to the need, it is necessary to prioritize where the funding will be spent. Other than those recently constructed, nearly every roadway in the City would benefit from some kind of pavement treatment. In order to identify which roadways should be selected for treatment, City staff generally apply funds for existing and future grant applications based on the criteria in the Transportation Priorities Plan (TPP). Wherever possible, funding is used to leverage or support grant funds or other efforts and to complete preliminary design efforts to make projects more attractive for future grant funding efforts.
File ID: 2023-00649 6/13/2023 Consent Item 13.
In order to apply funding to reach the highest number of users, roadways were selected that carry the highest traffic volumes, particularly where safety improvements and/or active transportation improvements are key elements. As a result, arterials and collectors were prioritized over residential streets. Roadways with the highest costs in frequent emergency repairs may be selected as rehabilitation can reduce local costs associated with having to frequently fill potholes or make other repairs.
In order to maximize the benefit to those roadways with higher volumes and those that support grant efforts, no new residential neighborhoods are included in this fiscal year’s plan. Based on adopted criteria, it is expected that this trend will continue.
Residential streets comprise over 63 percent of the city’s total lane miles, and almost all of the residential streets in the City warrant some kind of pavement treatment, from preventative maintenance in newer areas to many older neighborhoods with very aged pavement, as well as many neighborhoods with impacts from a variety of underground utility work (i.e., gas, electric, water, sewer, and telecommunication agencies and companies installing or repairing underground infrastructure). While there is clearly community demand and an identified need for repairs on residential roadways, there is just not adequate funding to address residential road repair. The estimated need to bring the city’s residential streets alone into a state of good repair is $52 million annually for the next ten years. Even if the city were to alter its funding criteria and no longer address pavement rehabilitation on more heavily travelled corridors, it could still only address one to three residential neighborhoods per year with available funding.
RESOLUTION NO.
Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
Approving a List of Projects for Fiscal Year 2023/24
Funded by SB 1: the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Funds (RMRA)
BACKGROUND:
A. Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide.
B. SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents and businesses of the City of Sacramento are aware of the projects proposed for funding in the community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year.
C. The City must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement.
D. The City will receive an estimated $12.5 million in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 from SB1. The FY2022/23 Capital Improvement Program allocates $12.5 million in budget for RMRA funds (Fund 2036) in the Transportation Corridor Program (R15200000).
E. SB1 funding will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1.
F. The City has relied on public input for various planning efforts and processes to ensure public input into the community’s transportation priorities that informed the project list.
G. The City used a Pavement Management System to inform the SB1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the community’s priorities for transportation investment.
H. The funding from SB1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate its over 3,000 lane miles of streets/roads and 209 bridges, add safety improvements and active transportation infrastructure throughout the City, and support similar projects into the future.
I. The 2022 Pavement Condition Report found that the City’s streets and roads are in “fair” condition with an average Pavement Condition Index of 59 on a scale of 1 to 100, with a $298 million backlog in deferred maintenance. SB1 revenues will help slow the deterioration in the overall quality of the City’s road system.
J. The SB1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.
BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The projects in the Transportation Corridor Program (R15200000) which are proposed to be funded in part or in full with RMRA funds (Fund 2036) in FY2023/24 are listed in Exhibit A. Exhibit A includes projects carried over from the previous fiscal year. With the relisting of these projects, the City is reaffirming to the public and the State the intent to fund these projects in part or whole with RMRA funds.
Section 2. Exhibit A is incorporated as part of this Resolution.
Table of Contents
Exhibit A - RMRA List of Projects for FY2023/24
EXHIBIT A
RMRA LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FY2023/24
Project Title Project Description Project Location Council District Useful Life Estimated Schedule Status
Downtown Mobility Project
(T15195000)
Application of a microsurfacing or overlay treatment to existing asphalt roadway on some corridors and an overlay over the existing pavement structure on other corridors in connection with the state funded project in the Central City: Class IV Bikeways on P Street (15th to 21st), Q Street (14th to 21st), 10th Street (Q to Broadway), 9th Street (L to Q Street); 19th Street (H to Broadway), 21st Street (H to Broadway); lane reduction and Class IV bikeways on I Street (12th to 21st Streets); two-way conversions of 5th Street (from H Street to Broadway)
Central City - P Street (15th to 21st),
Q Street (14th to 21st), 10th Street
(Q to Broadway), 9th Street (L to Q
Street), 5th Street (H Street to
Broadway), I Street (12th to 21st);
19th Street (H to Broadway), 21st
Street (H to Broadway)
4 15 to 30 years
February 2023 to
Winter 2024
(references RMRA
funding which is
used for
construction only)
Part of Downtown Mobility Project funded
through State Local Partnership Program
(LPP): Under construction
West El Camino Avenue Roadway
Rehabilitation Project (R15210000)
Pavement rehabilitation for the corridor to bring the pavement conditions to a state of good repair, including intersection improvements, upgrade of bike facilities with buffers, and pedestrian crossing enhancements at trail crossing.
West El Camino Avenue from Truxel
Boulevard to Northgate Blvd 3 15 years Summer 2021 to
Spring 2024 Under construction.
Bell Avenue Complete Streets
Rehabilitation Project (T15145600)
Pavement rehabilitation in connection with a federally-funded complete streets project to add missing elements on Bell Avenue, including new sidewalks and other pedestrian improvements, particularly at key insections, installation of bike lanes, and adding streetlighting.
Bell Avenue from the the cul-de-sac
at Bollenbacher Avenue to Astoria
Street
2 15 to 30 years Summer 2022 to
2024
Match funds for a federally-funded project.
Under construction.
Northwood School Access
Improvements Project (T15186100)
Pavement rehabilitation in connection with a federally-funded project to improve walking and accss to the Northwood Elementary School, Swanston LIght Rail Station, and other comunity destinations. , including new sidewalks, planters and other pedestrian improvements, streetlighting, and signal modifications.
El Camino Avenue from Evergreen
Street to Clay Street, Lexington
Street south of El Camino Avenue,
Clay Street from Dixieanne Avenue
to Frienza Avenue, Frienza Avenue
from Clay Street to Taft Street, and
Taft Street in front of Northwood
Elementary School
2 15 to 30 years Summer 2023 to
2024.
Match funds for a federally-funded project.
Under construction effective June 20, 2023.
Broadway Complete Streets Project
(T15175300)
Pavement rehabilitation in connection with state and federally funded complete streets project, to include a lane reduction, buffered bike lanes, improved pedestrian crossings, and signal timing improvements.
Broadway from 3rd Street to 24th
Street 4 15 to 30 years
Summer 2023 to
Winter 2024
(references RMRA
funding which is
used for
construction only)
Match funds for a federally-funded project.
Will start construction Summer 2023.
Silver Eagle Road Rehabilitation
Roadway rehabilitation on Silver Eagle Road to follow installation of underground regional sewer main in roadway. Project will also add buffered bike lanes.
Silver Eagle Road at Norwood
Avenue to San Juan Road at
Northgate Boulevard. 2 15 years Spring 2022 to
Summer 2024
Complete design work in 2022. Complete
pavement rehabilitation after installation of
regional sewer main in 2024.
Lampasas Avenue and Rio Linda
Boulevard Safety Project (T15205500)
Roadway rehabilitation on Rio Linda Boulevard adjacent to Lampasas Avenue and Rio Linda Boulevard intersection to support planned safety improvements at that intersection
Rio Linda Blvd (Lampasas to Eleanor
Ave). 2 15 years Fall 2021 to Spring
2024
Complete design and initiate construction
in FY23/24. Supports federally funded
safety project.
EXHIBIT A
RMRA LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FY2023/24
Project Title Project Description Project Location Council District Useful Life Estimated Schedule Status
Florin Road Vision Zero Safety Project
(T15215800)
Roadway rehabilitation on Florin Road to bring the pavement conditions to a state of good repair and support grant-funded project. The project will also include continuous bike lane coverage, sidewalk improvements, additional visible marked crossings, upgrading existing unsignalized crossings to controlled crossings, modifying signals to provide protected left turns, and installing advanced dilemma zone detection at intersections. The intent of these improvements is to address the collision history of the corridor by slowing down automobile traffic, modernizing signal equipment, and improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Florin Road from 24th Street to
Franklin Boulevard 5, 8 30 years Spring 2021 to
Spring 2025
Complete design work and analysis in
FY22/23. Complete construction in two
segments: FY23/24, supporting State Local
Partnership Program (LPP) and FY24/25,
supporting SACOG grant.
Broadway Vision Zero Safety Project
(R15210000)
Pavement rehabilitation and safety improvements, to include closing bike lane gaps, sidewalk improvements, additional visible marked crossings, upgrading existing unsignalized crossings to controlled crossings, modifying signals to provide protected left turns, and installing advanced dilemma zone detection at intersections. The intent of these improvements is to address the collision history of the corridor by slowing down automobile traffic, modernizing signal equipment, and improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Broadway from Martin Luther King
Jr Boulevard to Stockton Boulevard 5 15 to 30 years Summer 2022 to Winter 2024
Complete design work and analysis in
FY22/23. Construction to begin in FY23/24
Folsom Boulevard Safety Improvement
(T15235500)
Pavement rehabilitation and lane reduction on Folsom Blvd between 59th Street and 65th Street; includes installation of Class II bike lanes. Intent is to slow traffic and provide safety improvements.
Folsom Blvd between 59th Street
and 65th Street 4* 15 years Spring 2023 to
Winter 2026
Complete planning and design and right of
way through FY24/25. Construction in
FY25/26. Supporting $5 million in state
funding.
Elvas Avenue Cycle Track and Roadway
Rehabilitation Preliminary Design
(R15200033)
Pavement rehabilitation and mobility improvements to Sac State and to St.
Francis; assumes 2-way cycle track and unknown improvements on J Street.
Elvas Avenue between 57th Street
and 65th Street 4* 15 years Design - 2023 and
2024
Conduct prelimnary design and analysis to
support future grant applications for
Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities program
Franklin Boulevard Rehabilitation
Project (R15200031)
Pavement rehabilitation and safety/mobility benefits by adding buffers to the bike lanes to close gap between County and other City projects.
Franklin Boulevard between Mack
Road and A Parkway 5 15 years
Complete design in
FY23/24 for
construction if
FY24/25
Complete design and construction to
support Local Partnership Program funds
Florin Perkins Roadway Rehabilitation
Design (R15200025)
Corridor rehabilitation of Florin Perkins Road between Belvedere Avenue and city limits to improve pavement condition, incorporate or expand active transportation elements, address safety concerns, and implement upgraded technology solutions as needed
Florin Perkins Road between
Belvedere Avenue and city limits 6 15 years Complete design in FY23/24
Complete design in heavily used roadway
and analyze potential for construction
funding and/or ability to prevent ongoing
emergency repairs
T Street Improvements Pavement rehabilitation on section of T Street with installation of safety improvements and addition of bike lane at Stockton Boulevard intersection. 34th Street to Stockton Boulevard 5 15 years Summer 2021 to Spring 2024
Complete preliminary engineering and
design in FY22/23 in preparation of
construction in FY23/24.
Downtown Mobility Phase 2 Project,
Preliminary Engineering
Pavement rehabilitation, evaluation of lane reduction with separated bikeways.
15th Street (L Street to Broadway);
16th Street (G Street to Broadway);
L Street (5th Street to 16th Street);
N Street (5th Street to 16th Street)
4 15 years Fall 2023 to
Summer 2025
Project initiation for preliminary design and
environmental.
EXHIBIT A
RMRA LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FY2023/24
Project Title Project Description Project Location Council District Useful Life Estimated Schedule Status
Marysville Boulevard Vision Zero
Safety Project (T15216300):
Preliminary Engineering
Preliminary design for project on the High Injury Network that includes a lane reduction, pavement rehabilitation, separated bike lanes, sidewalk improvements, additional visible marked crossings, upgrading existing unsignalized crossings to controlled crossings, modifying signals to provide protected left turns, and installing advanced dilemma zone detection at intersections. The intent of these improvements is to address the collision history of the corridor by slowing down automobile traffic, modernizing signal equipment, and improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Marysville Blvd from North Ave to
Del Paso Boulevard. 2 15 to 30 years Summer 2021 to
Spring 2024
Complete design work, analysis, and public
outreach in FY22/23 and FY23/24. Seeking
grant funding for construction.
El Camino Avenue Vision Zero Safety
Project (T15216400): Preliminary
Engineering
Preliminary design for project on the High Injury Network that includes pavement rehabilitation, closing bike lane gaps, sidewalk improvements, additional visible marked crossings, upgrading existing unsignalized crossings to controlled crossings, modifying signals to provide protected left turns, and installing advanced dilemma zone detection at intersections. The intent of these improvements is to address the collision history of the corridor by slowing down automobile traffic, modernizing signal equipment, and improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
El Camino Avenue from Del Paso
Boulevard to Steelhead Creek 2 15 to 30 years Summer 2021 to Spring 2024
Design work to support federal grant
funding for design
21st Avenue Beautification
(T15235300)
Pedestrian improvements, curb ramp upgrades, installation of curb, gutter.
Project will include pavement rehabilitation and widening on 32nd Street, between 22nd Avenue and 21st Avenue.
21st Avenue (Ethel Phillips
Elementary School to 32nd Street);
3nd Street (21st Avenue to 22nd
Avenue)
5 15 to 30 years Summer 2023 to
Summer 2024
Construction in 23/24. To support Clean
California Grant.
Franklin Boulevard Overlay Project
(R15200029)
Overlay pavement, add buffered bike lanes where feasible. Project partially located within unincorporated county. Sacramento County will deliver and City RMRA funds will cover costs for the portion in incorporated city.
Franklin Boulevard (Turnbridge to A
Parkway), shared roadway with
unincorporated county
5 30 years Summer 2022 to
Summer 2024
Project to be designed and constructed by
Sacramento County with City of
Sacramento review. City will reimburse
County.
Fruitridge Boulevard Overlay Project
(R15200029)
Overlay pavement. Project partially located within unincorporated county.
Sacramento County will deliver and City RMRA funds will cover costs for the portion in incorporated city.
SR99 to Stockton Boulevard 6 30 years Summer 2022 to
Summer 2024
Project to be designed and constructed by
Sacramento County with City of
Sacramento review. City will reimburse
County.
Howe Avenue Overlay Project
(R15200029)
Overlay pavement. Project partially located within unincorporated county.
Sacramento County will deliver and City RMRA funds will cover costs for the portion in incorporated city.
Marconi Avenue to Auburn
Boulevard 6 30 years Summer 2022 to
Summer 2024
Project to be designed and constructed by
Sacramento County with City of
Sacramento review. City will reimburse
County.
Fair Oaks Boulevard Overlay Project
Overlay pavement. Project partially located within unincorporated county.
Sacramento County will deliver and City RMRA funds will cover costs for the portion in incorporated city.
Fair Oaks Boulevard from Howe
Avenue to approximately 225 feet
east of University Avenue
6 30 years Summer 2023 to
Summer 2025
Project to be designed and constructed by
Sacramento County with City of
Sacramento review. City will reimburse
County.
14th Avenue Overlay Project
Overlay pavement. Project partially located within unincorporated county.
Sacramento County will deliver and City RMRA funds will cover costs for the portion in incorporated city.
14th Avenue from Lissetta Avenue
to Stockton Blvd 6 30 years Summer 2023 to
Summer 2026
Project to be designed and constructed by
Sacramento County with City of
Sacramento review. City will reimburse
County.
26th Avenue, Soledad Avenue, Osage
Avenue, and Alder Avenue Overlay
Overlay pavement. Project partially located within unincorporated county.
Sacramento County will deliver and City RMRA funds will cover costs for the portion in incorporated city.
26th Avenue from 45th Street to
Ethel Way, Soledad Avenue from
45th Street to Ethel Way, Osage
Avenue fronting 8981 Osage Avenue
and Alder Avenue fronting 8960
Alder Avenue
6 30 years Summer 2023 to
Summer 2027
Project to be designed and constructed by
Sacramento County with City of
Sacramento review. City will reimburse
County.
*Deferred area, Represented by Mayor Steinberg
Pavement
Condition
Report
August 2022
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
2 City Pavement Condition Team
Ryan Moore, Director of Public Works
Jose Sanchez, Streets Manager
Lucinda Willcox, Program Manager
Gregory Smith, Senior Engineer
In consultation with
Margot Yapp, NCE
Mei-Hui Lee, NCE
Sharlan Montgomery Dunn, NCE
Mahdi Saghafi, NCE
Jose Medina, NCE
Ken Huisman, Märker Geospatial
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
Table of Contents
1. Sacramento Today....................................................................................... 1
2. Pavement Condition ................................................................................... 2
2.1 Pavement Condition by Council District ....................................................3
2.2 Pavement Condition by Disadvantaged Areas .......................................... 5
3. Maintenance Strategies .............................................................................. 6
4. Historical Pavement Maintenance ...............................................................7
5. Americans with Disabilities Act Requirements ............................................ 8
6. Funding and Expenditures ...........................................................................9
6.1 Funding Sources ........................................................................................9
6.1.1 Federal Funding ..............................................................................9
6.1.2 Highway Users Tax Account ..........................................................10
6.1.3 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account ...........................10
6.1.4 Measure A (Countywide Transportation Sales Tax) ......................11
6.2 Operating and Capital Expenditures ....................................................... 11
6.3 Comparison with Similar Agencies ..........................................................11
6.4 Funding Summary ...................................................................................12
7. Sacramento Tomorrow ..............................................................................13
7.1 Scenario 1: Current Funding Levels .........................................................13
7.2 Scenario 2: Maintain Current Conditions (PCI = 59) ................................14
7.3 Scenario 3: Improve Conditions to a State of Good Repair (PCI = 75) .....14
7.4 Projected Pavement Conditions ..............................................................15
8. Conclusions............................................................................................... 16
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
List of Figures
Figure 1. Streets with Varying PCIs ........................................................................1 Figure 2. PCI Comparison with Other Large Agencies in California .......................2 Figure 3. PCI Comparison with Other SACOG Agencies .........................................3 Figure 4. Network Condition Breakdown by Functional Class ...............................3 Figure 5. PCI by Council District .............................................................................4 Figure 6. Pavement Condition Breakdown by Council District .............................. 4 Figure 7. Disadvantaged Areas in the City of Sacramento (CalEnvironScrren 4.0) 5 Figure 8. Network Condition Breakdown by Disadvantaged Area .........................5 Figure 9. Pavement Life Cycle and Repair Costs .................................................... 6 Figure 10. Historical PQI/PCI and Total Treated Lane-Miles .................................. 7 Figure 11. Example Curb Ramps ............................................................................8 Figure 12. Historical Funding for Pavement Repairs ..............................................9 Figure 13. Comparison of Paving Funding with Other Large Cities...................... 12 Figure 14. Projected PCI and Unfunded Backlog for Scenario 1 ..........................13 Figure 15. Projected PCI and Unfunded Backlog for Scenario 2 ..........................14 Figure 16. Projected PCI and Unfunded Backlog for Scenario 3 ..........................14 Figure 17. Comparison of Network Condition by Scenario ................................. 15 List of Appendices
Appendix A ......................................................................................................1 PCI Maps for Council Districts ..........................................................................2
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
1 1. Sacramento Today
With over 3,000 lane-miles of streets, the City of
Sacramento (City) owns and maintains the fifth
largest city street network in California. Only the
cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and Fresno
have larger street systems in the state.
Within the region, Sacramento has the highest
population density and serves as the regional hub,
so its streets carry a correspondingly higher traffic
volume than most other cities in the region.
This large street network is a significant public asset, valued at over $2.6 billion, and is used by hundreds
of thousands of automobiles, buses, trucks, bikes,
and pedestrians daily.
The City’s Public Works Department (Department) is
responsible for maintenance, operations, and repair
of the City’s streets. The Department has utilized a
pavement management program (PMP) for many
years. A PMP is a decision-support tool that answers
questions such as:
What does the City’s street network consist of?
What is the existing condition of the City’s streets? What maintenance and rehabilitation strategies
are deployed to improve street conditions?
How much funding is needed?
What is the most cost-effective way to implement
a multi-year resurfacing program based on
different levels of funding?
This report summarizes some of the key information
on the City’s street network and discusses the
funding needed to bring the street network to a state
of good repair, as well as the implications of different funding levels. This report only examines pavement
conditions; it does not discuss the condition or needs
related to other elements of the transportation
network (bike lanes, sidewalks, striping, signage,
traffic control equipment, medians, landscaping, or
street trees), day-to-day operations, or emergency
repairs.
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
2 2. Pavement Condition
In order to quantify the health, or condition of the City’s streets, a standard called the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is used. The PCI is a scale from 0 to 100, with 100 being a newly surfaced street and zero a failed street. A PCI score of 70 to 100 is considered “Excellent/ Good,” 50 to 69 is “Fair,” 25 to 49 is “Poor,” and 0 to 24 is “Very Poor.” The PCI may be considered similar to a “grade” for each street section.
Generally, it is desirable to achieve at least a citywide average PCI of 75 because pavements in this condition can be maintained more cost- effectively. Figure 1 illustrates a range of streets in different condition.
A portion of the street network is surveyed every year using the ASTM D6433-20 pavement distress protocols, which are nationally accepted and used by many cities and counties in the United States, as well as internationally. The arterials are inspected biennially and approximately one-fourth of the residentials are inspected every year. This provides a regular up-to-date snapshot for planning purposes.
In 2022, Sacramento’s streets had a citywide average PCI of 59, which is considered to be in “Fair” condition. For comparison, Figure 2 indicates that the condition of the City’s network is in the lower range compared to other large agencies in California. Also, as shown in Figure 3, the City is in the bottom third compared to the other agencies in the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). For reference, the 2020 statewide average PCI was 661 .
NOTE: City PCIs denoted by an * are from 2020-2021 PMP updates. All others are from the 2020 Statewide Local Roads and Streets Needs Assessment.
Figure 2. PCI Comparison with Other Large Agencies in California Figure 1. Streets with Varying PCIs
1 ”California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 2020 Update,” Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd., CA, 2021.
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
3 The street network is composed of different classifications, such as arterials, collectors, and residential streets. Arterials are characterized by higher speeds, more truck, bus, and automobile traffic and typically have at least 4 lanes.
Residential streets typically have 2 lanes and have much lower speeds and traffic. Collectors are in-between – their function is to “collect” traffic from residential streets and funnel them to arterials. Like most cities, Sacramento has significantly more residential streets (63.5 percent) than any other classification. As shown in Figure 4, on average, arterials in Sacramento have a slightly higher PCI (63) than collectors (62) and residential streets (57). This indicates that most of the recent pavement work was performed on
arterials rather than collectors or residential streets.
NOTE: City PCIs denoted by an * are from 2020-2021 PMP updates. All others are from the 2020 Statewide Local Roads and Streets Needs Assessment.
Figure 3. PCI Comparison with other SACOG Agencies
2.1 Pavement Condition by
Council District
The street network is almost evenly divided
among 8 council districts, but the roads are
not necessarily in the same condition across
districts. Figure 5 indicates that District 1 has
the highest PCI (67), and District 2 has the
lowest PCI (52), with the remaining districts in
the high 50s to low 60s. The streets in District
1 are newer than those in most other districts,
so the overall PCI is higher. In addition,
deferred maintenance on older streets results
in faster deterioration and hence, a lower PCI.
There are no council districts with an average
PCI that is good condition, and conditions are
expected to continue to decline.
Pavement age is just one factor in today’s
pavement condition; traffic levels, the
underlying subgrade soils, drainage flows,
and past maintenance practices are also
contributing factors. Consequently, it is not
always possible to implement a “one size fits
all” approach to maintenance. Therefore,
it should not be surprising that the PCIs for
each district are not identical. Figure 6 shows
the percentage of streets in each condition
category for each council district.
Figure 4. Network Condition Breakdown by
Functional Class
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
4 Appendix A, included at the end of this report, contains maps of each council district and the condition of the individual streets in those districts, as well as the unfunded backlog.
Figure 5. PCI by Council District
Figure 6. Pavement Condition Breakdown by Council District
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
5 2.2 Pavement Condition by
Disadvantaged Areas
The City has recently adopted policies and
criteria to address equity and potential historic
disinvestments and harm to vulnerable communities
and communities of color. In an effort to better
consider issues of equity when making decisions
about transportation infrastructure and resources,
the City has used CalEnviroScreen 4.0 to identify
disadvantaged areas (see Figure 7) based on
environmental, public health, and socioeconomic
conditions. CalEnviroScreen is a tool developed by
the California Environmental Protection Agency
which analyzes public data to identify cumulative
pollution burdens, socioeconomic factors, and
vulnerabilities faced by individual census tracts. It is generally used by state agencies in making funding
decisions to address equity considerations.
As shown in Figure 8, the streets within these
disadvantaged areas represent approximately one-
third of the City’s network and have an average
PCI of 56. The remaining two-thirds of the network
has an average PCI of 60. This PCI difference can be
attributed to communities that have recently been
developed in the non-disadvantaged areas (e.g.,
Natomas, McKinley Village), with higher PCIs due to
newer streets. While there may be some inequities
at the individual neighborhood level, overall
the disadvantaged communities do no exhibit a
significantly different average PCI than the non-
disadvantaged communities. It should be noted,
however, that levels of investment throughout the
city are inadequate and that pavement will continue
to deteriorate at a higher rate in areas with lower
PCIs.
Figure 8. Network Condition Breakdown by
Disadvantaged Area
Figure 7. Disadvantaged Areas in the City of Sacramento (CalEnviroScreen 4.0)
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
6 3. Maintenance Strategies
The street condition is affected by the type and
timing of maintenance strategies. Historically,
the Department has implemented a variety of
maintenance treatments to repair streets. These
techniques include a combination of relatively
inexpensive pavement preservation treatments
such as slurry seals on streets in good condition
to significantly more expensive overlays and
reconstruction for streets in fair and poor condition.
Some of the treatments that have been applied
include rubberized asphalt overlays and seals,
recycled asphalt pavements, and bonded wearing
courses.
Pavements do not deteriorate linearly over time.
Deterioration is slow at first, but then accelerates
when the PCI drops below 70. As the pavement
deteriorates, the cost of repair increases rapidly. If
there is inadequate funding to conduct preventative
maintenance, the cost to repair streets increases
rapidly.
Figure 9 summarizes the general costs of repair for
streets in different conditions. For example, streets
that are in good condition require seals at a cost of
$4.50 to $10.00 per square yard (sy). In contrast,
streets that are in very poor condition will require
reconstruction at costs from $88.00 to $117.00/sy,
which can be as much as 26 times more expensive.
Or to put it another way, the cost of reconstructing
1 failed street is equivalent to the cost of preserving 26 good streets.
Figure 9. Pavement Life Cycle and Repair Costs
Reconstructing one failed street
is equivalent to preserving 26
good streets!
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
7 4. Historical Pavement
Maintenance
When sufficient funding is available, it is possible for any city to maintain streets at an acceptable level.
However, Figure 10 illustrates two trends that have
occurred in Sacramento since 2008:
1. Less Streets Are Being Repaired: Between 2008
and 2010, almost 180 lane-miles of streets were
maintained or repaired each year. Much of this was
the result of a one-time infusion of funds through
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA). Since 2011, as federal funding allocated by
the region for pavement rehabilitation declined,
the treated mileage has dropped to an average of
50 lane-miles per year – less than one-third of the
previous level-of-effort.
2. Pavement Condition is Declining: The result is
a downward trend in pavement condition as
illustrated by the Pavement Quality Index (PQI)
and later the Pavement Condition Index (PCI).
Note that there was no resurfacing program in
2017 (due to lack of funding) or in 2019 (contracts
were rejected due to high bids). In 2020, a total of
110 lane-miles were maintained or rehabilitated,
but in 2021, only 4.25 lanes-miles were treated.
Most of the projects planned for 2021 were
delayed due to staff shortages, UPRR design
challenges and federal 10A audits.
There are several reasons for the decreasing number
of streets treated:
The City’s funding levels reached a high of $14.3
million in 2009 (primarily ARRA) and then dropped
sharply to $5.3 million in 2010. Funding did not
improve significantly until 2019, when Senate Bill
1 (SB1) was passed (see Section 6).
The cost of complying with regulatory
requirements has increased e.g., Americans with
Disabilities Act [ADA] compliance.
Construction costs have increased since 2012.
Operational costs have also increased. The City
relies on transportation funding to address
emergency repairs (e.g., fill potholes). As the
pavement deteriorates, the need for emergency
repairs increases. On average, the City fills 15,000
potholes per year.
Figure 10. Historical PQI/PCI and Total Treated Lane Miles * PQI was used as a condition measure from 2008 to 2016. In 2017, the City switched to the more widely used PCI.
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
8 5. American with Disabilities
Act Requirements
Maintaining the City’s pavement assets also requires
a “complete streets” approach to enable safe access
for users of different ages and abilities, regardless of the mode of transportation. This approach affects all
aspects of street maintenance, such as restriping for
bike lanes, traffic signals, or modifications to reduce speeds. A key component of this is the ADA, which
requires public entities to ensure that persons with
disabilities have access to pedestrian routes within
the public right-of-way.
In July 2013, a joint technical guidance was published
by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S.
Department of Transportation to clarify which road
maintenance activities would trigger the need to
upgrade affected curb ramps to current standards.
Essentially, any street maintenance defined as an
“alteration” triggers the requirement to upgrade
ADA curb ramps.
Almost all of the pavement treatments utilized by the
Department are considered “alterations;” this affects
an estimated 25,400 curb ramps and accelerated
the schedule to upgrade non-compliant ramps. The
upgrading/replacement of curb ramps represents
a significant opportunity for the City to improve
ADA access during the completion of pavement
rehabilitation and maintenance activities, but the
costs for these ramp upgrades need to be planned
and accounted for in the City’s paving costs. As an
older city, most of Sacramento’s streets were built
prior to current ADA standards. It is estimated that
upgrading curb ramps adds as much as 37 percent
to street paving costs. The City has committed at
least 20 percent of its annual transportation funds
for ADA compliance.
Figure 11 shows examples of non-existent (top),
non-compliant (middle) and compliant (bottom)
curb ramps.
Figure 11. Example Curb Ramps
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
9 6. Funding and Expenditures
Funding for pavement maintenance typically comes
from dedicated sources, including the state gas
taxes and voter-approved, dedicated countywide
transportation sales tax. These funds are used for all
transportation-related expenses, not just pavement
maintenance. These expenses are used to meet
operational needs; perform emergency repairs; meet
regulatory requirements; and maintain, replace, and
modernize aging infrastructure and equipment.
6.1 Funding Sources
As shown in Figure 12, the City’s funding for
pavement repairs has come from a combination
of federal, state, and local sources. Each source is
briefly described in the following subsections.
6.1.1 Federal Funding
Federal funding for road rehabilitation was
historically available through the Regional Surface
Transportation Program (RSTP), the largest and most
flexible source of federal transportation funding.
Regional shares of RSTP funding are allocated to
SACOG agencies using a population-based formula.
Prior to 2002, Sacramento received a proportionate
share of RSTP funding to use on priority pavement
rehabilitation projects. In 2002, SACOG revised
its program to require members to compete for
regional funding. Since then, funding for roadway
rehabilitation has declined substantially, and
additional sources of state funding were generally
one-time funds.
Figure 12. Historical Funding for Pavement Repairs
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
10 With the Great Recession, the federal government
provided one-time federal stimulus funding to
the region, known as the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA), leading to a spike in
funding in 2009.
Since that time, federal funding for pavement
rehabilitation from RSTP (allocated by SACOG)
has been limited and unpredictable. In addition,
SACOG’s total funding for pavement rehabilitation
declined, particularly for its larger member agencies.
This corresponded with declines in gas tax, resulting
in an overall lack of available funds for pavement
maintenance at a critical time.
In general, the City of Sacramento receives a lower
amount of federal funding per capita than other
agencies in the region. Note that Federal funding
in 2022 was for a project that was programmed in
previous years.
In November 2021, the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA) was signed. The passage of this
act resulted in roughly $1.2 trillion in transportation and infrastructure funding nationwide. Of this,
approximately $110 billion is expected to go towards
roads and bridges. While some of this funding
is already available, new programs for funding
distribution are still in development. It is expected
that the majority of funding opportunities will be
available in late 2022/early 2023. SACOG estimates
a 10 to 20% increase in available funding.
6.1.2 Highway Users Tax Account
The Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) is a per-
gallon state excise tax on gasoline and diesel. These
funds are distributed to cities and counties using a
formula based on population and mileage. The gas
tax is restricted to specific transportation uses for
public roads and associated facilities.
The gas tax was historically the City’s single largest
source of transportation funding. The base excise
tax of 18 cents per gallon was not raised until 2017,
so its purchasing power had eroded by half in the
previous decades.
Forecasts of future gas tax revenues are challenging,
as they are highly dependent on oil prices and
demand. Overall, the long-term expectation is that
this will be a declining revenue source as more fuel-
efficient and alternative-fuel vehicles comprise a
larger portion of the vehicle fleet. In the short-term, gas-tax revenues should increase slightly as the
result of population growth and adjustments that
are indexed to inflation.
6.1.3 Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Account
In April 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill 1 (SB1), also known as the Road Repair and Accountability
Act, a state transportation funding package that
increases the gas tax, diesel tax, and vehicle
registration fees. The new measure is indexed to
inflation so that its purchasing power will not be
eroded as occurred with HUTA.
Half of the funding is allocated to cities and counties through the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Account (RMRA); the City began receiving revenues
in 2018 and is expected to receive as much as $11.7
million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23. This program
also encourages inclusion of other improvements
such as safety improvements, technology upgrades,
and improvements to support efforts for cleaner
transportation options. These are all important
priorities, but their inclusion reduces the amount of
funding remaining for pavement rehabilitation.
RMRA is expected to provide
$11.7 million per year to the City
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
11 6.1.4 Measure A (Countywide
Transportation Sales Tax)
Sacramento County has a voter-approved half-cent
sales tax to fund transportation improvements
such as transit and street maintenance. Sales tax
revenues are dependent on the strength of the
economy, as evidenced by the dramatic decline
during the recession in 2009 to 2012. Since then,
sales taxes have shown steady but modest increases.
Measure A revenues are expected to grow by about
4.5 percent annually through 2025, although any
recession would reduce these projections.
6.2 Operating and Capital
Expenditures
The City’s operating expenses include ongoing
operations to maintain a transportation system used
by hundreds of thousands of automobiles, trucks,
cyclists, buses, and pedestrians daily. It includes
labor, supplies, materials, equipment, and vehicles.
The Department is tasked with planning, building,
and maintaining transportation infrastructure
(including roads, bridges, sidewalks, bikeways,
streetlights, traffic signals, traffic-control devices, street signs, and markings) and providing for safety
and accessibility, with over 250 employees assigned
to these tasks. The costs of providing these services
are fully offset with transportation funds and
reimbursements from other sources.
Historically, about 70 percent of transportation
funding has been needed to maintain ongoing
operations, emergency repairs, and day-to-day
upgrades.
Investments in infrastructure or facilities that
exceed $20,000 are included in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP consists
of individual projects, each with its own budget
established by funding type. Typically, the largest
capital expenses are major transportation projects,
most of which have federal funding.
6.3 Comparison with Similar
Agencies
When compared to its peers, the City is at the bottom
of the list in terms of pavement funding. Figure
13 examines the funding available as well as the
sources of funding for other large cities in California.
Much of this information was compiled from the
California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs
Assessment 2020 Update as well as individual
city websites. Although many of these cities have
unique characteristics that dictate different levels
of funding (e.g., composite pavements, which are
more expensive to construct), one trend is clear.
The top 3 cities (San Francisco, San Jose, and
Oakland) rely heavily on local funding; more than
40 percent of their budgets come primarily from
sales and parcel taxes. For example, Oakland passed
a parcel tax (Measure KK) in 2018, which resulted
in a bond measure totaling $350 million for street
maintenance. San Francisco also receives money
from the General Fund.
Note that the data include funding for pavement
repairs only (i.e. seals, overlays, and reconstruction).
Operational expenses are not included.
Sacramento is at the bottom of
the list for pavement funding
compared to its peers
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
12 6.4 Funding Summary
The City’s primary funding source to address street
maintenance has been the state gas tax (HUTA), which
was not indexed to inflation. By 2017, the amount
of gas tax generated statewide had about half the
spending power as it had in decades earlier, resulting
in gradual reduction in pavement maintenance.
Many counties and jurisdictions implemented local
funding measures to help offset some of this loss
in spending power. In 2017, the state increased
the statewide gas tax for the first time in 25 years
in response to the decreasing pavement conditions
on state highways and local streets throughout the
state.
With a roadway network developed over the last
150 years, the City of Sacramento has some of the
oldest roads in the state. Decades of inadequate
investment in pavement maintenance have
resulted in thousands of miles of needed roadway
rehabilitation, and pavement conditions that are
on a steep decline. The additional funding from
Figure 13. Comparison of Paving Funding with Other Large Cities the gas tax increase will help alter the trajectory of
the deteriorating PCI in communities with newer
streets. Unfortunately, for older and less wealthy
communities such as Sacramento, conditions have
declined to a level that requires more annual funding
than currently available from the increased gas tax
revenues or other local, state, and federal sources.
For example, the City’s current unfunded backlog is
approximately $298 million, about 32% higher than
it was just 2 years earlier.
The City needs 5 times the amount of funding that
it currently receives to arrest the steep decline
in pavement condition. This would require an
unprecedented, significant and/or new local or
regional funding approach.
Sacramento needs 5 times the
amount of funding it currently
receives to arrest the steep
decline in pavement condition
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
13 7. Sacramento Tomorrow
The City faces significant challenges in the future for providing adequate roadway conditions, even with RMRA funding. The pavement is in “Fair” condition, and without sufficient resources, it anticipated to continue to decline. Three alternate funding scenarios were performed to determine potential outcomes.
7.1 Scenario 1: Current Funding Levels
Assuming $11.7 million annually in RMRA funding, the City will receive a total of $117.0 million over the next 10 years. Given this funding level, Figure 14 indicates that the following is predicted to occur by 2031:
1. The PCI will deteriorate to 42.
2. The current unfunded backlog ($298 million) will more than triple to $1 billion.
3. Approximately 65 percent of the street network will be in “Poor” or “Very Poor” condition.
Figure 14. Projected PCI and Unfunded Backlog for Scenario 1
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
14 7.2 Scenario 2: Maintain
Current Conditions
(PCI = 59)
In order to maintain current conditions
(i.e., PCI at 59), at least $581 million will
be required over the next 10 years, with
$254 million for residential streets and
$326 million for arterials and collectors.
This equates to $58.1 million per year,
which is $46.4 million more than the
amount currently available. Even with
this level of investment, the unfunded
backlog would increase to over $628
million by 2031 (Figure 15). This situation
exists because the road conditions (low
average PCI) are expensive to restore to
a state of good repair.
7.3 Scenario 3: Improve
Condition to a State of
Good Repair (PCI = 75)
To improve the network condition to
a state of good repair within 10 years
would require $971 million over the next
10 years: $520 million for residential
streets and $451 million for arterials and
collectors. The unfunded backlog would
decrease from $298 million to $184
million by 2031 (Figure 16).
Figure 15. Projected PCI and Unfunded Backlog for Scenario 2 Figure 16. Projected PCI and Unfunded Backlog for Scenario 3
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
15 7.4 Projected Pavement Condition
Finally, Figure 17 shows the impacts of each scenario on the street network by condition. Currently, 73 percent of the network is in “Excellent/Good” or “Fair” condition, with the remaining 27 percent in “Poor” to “Very Poor” condition. Under the current funding levels (Scenario 1), it is predicted that streets in “Poor” to “Very Poor” condition will more than double to 65 percent by 2031.
The other two funding scenarios illustrate marked improvements; Scenario 2 results in 57 percent of the pavement network in “Excellent/Good” condition, while Scenario 3 results in 81 percent in “Excellent/ Good” condition by 2031.
Figure 17. Comparison of Network Condition by Scenario
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
16 8. Conclusions
To summarize, the City has a substantial asset of over
$2.6 billion in the pavement network (this does not
include sidewalks, signals, landscapes, storm drains,
etc.) Overall, the street network is in “Fair” condition with a network PCI of 59. Approximately 73 percent
of the streets currently fall into the “Excellent/Good” and “Fair” condition categories.
In the last major Pavement Condition Report (August
2020), a network PCI of 60 was reported. Since then,
the network PCI has deteriorated slightly to 59.
However, keeping the PCI at 59 will require $581
million over the next 10 years. New revenue sources
will be needed to prevent significant deterioration
and reduce the unfunded backlog.
The analyses indicate that the City needs
approximately $97.1 million annually for pavement
maintenance in order to improve the PCI of all
streets to an average of 75. If that could be achieved, many streets could then be maintained in “Good”
condition with ongoing preventive maintenance.
The City’s projected funding level (average of $11.7
million/year) will result in a decrease of the network
PCI to 42 over the next 10 years and the unfunded
backlog will triple to $1 billion by 2031. At this time, there are no identified funding strategies that will
significantly arrest this decline.
Sacramento needs at least $97.1
million per year to improve the
network PCI to 75
PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT
2022 UPDATE
17 Appendix A
PCI Maps for Council Districts
City of Sacramento
® 0 10.5
Miles
M
AYB
RO
OK
DR
MYOTIS DR
OTTU
MWA
DR
CLUB CENTER DR
NORTH BEND DR
BRIDGECROSS DR
D
UCK
HORN
DR
ARE
NA
BLVD
NORTH PARK DR
GA
TE
W
AY P
ARK B
LVD
EL CENT
RO
RD
NATOMAS BLVD
SAN JUAN RD
EAS
T
COM
MER
CE
W
AY
TRU
XEL
RD
LAMPASAS AVE
NO
RWO
OD BYP
GROVE AVE
ELEANOR AVE
SOUTH AVE
NORWOOD AVE
RIO LINDA BLVD
ROY
ALOAKS
DR
EL CAMINO AVE
TRUXEL RD
ARCADE BLVD
DEL
PAS
O
BLVD
EVERGREEN ST
AZ
EVE
DO
DR
DRY CREEK RD
SAN JUAN RD
NORTHGATE BLVD
HARVARD S
T
GARDEN HWY
MARYSVILLE BLVD
ARDEN WAY
RIVERPLAZA DRWESTRIVER DR
ORCHARD LN
FORD RD
GATEW
AY
OAKS DR
SILVER
EAGLE RD
ARDEN-GARDEN
W EL CAMINO AVE
DEL PASO RD
ELKHORN BLVD
NEW MA
RKET DR
NO
RTH
GAT
E B
LVD
NO
RT
HO
ROUGH DR
ROSE ARBOR DR
Sacramento
Yolo
April 2022
Main Ave
Norwood Ave
Lane Miles
Average PCI
Arterial
Collector
Residential
Good/Very Good PCI ≥ 70
Fair 50 ≤ PCI < 70
Poor 25 ≤ PCI < 50
Very Poor/Failed PCI < 25
$16.8M
68 Pavement Unfunded Backlog
District 1
331
67 63
76 50%
37%
11%
2%
® Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Council District 1
City of Sacramento
® Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Council District 2
0 0.950.47
Miles
April 2022
EVER
GREEN
STGROVE AVE
SOUTH AVE
RIO LINDA BLVD
EL CAMINO AVE
NORTH AVE
ETHAN WAY
ELEANOR AVE
DEL
PASO
BLVD
WINTERS STDRY CREEK RD
NORWOOD AVE
HOWE AVE
RO
YALOAKS
DR
MARYSVILLE BLVD
ROSEVILLE RD
ARCADE BLVD
BELL AVE
GRAND AVE
HARVARD
ST
A STO
RIA
ST
ARDEN WAY
FORD RD
AUBURN BLVD
MAIN AVE
RALEY BLVD
SILVER
EAGLE RD
ARDEN-GARDEN
EXPOSITION BLVD
Lane Miles
Average PCI
Arterial
Collector
Residential
Good/Very Good PCI ≥ 70
Fair 50 ≤ PCI < 70
Poor 25 ≤ PCI < 50
Very Poor/Failed PCI < 25
$51.8MPavement Unfunded Backlog
District 2
430
52 59
56 48
15%
41%
38%
6%
FOLSOM BLVD
N 16TH ST
J ST
34TH ST
AZEVED
O
DR
RICHARDS BLVD
ALHAMBRA BLVD
N B ST
39TH ST
W EL CAMINO AVE
MC KINLEY BLVD
SAN JUAN RD
C ST
GARDEN HWY
NATO
MASPARKDR
TRUXEL RD
DO
S
RIOS
ST
DEL
PASO
BLVD
ARDEN-GARDEN
NORTHGATE BLVD
FRONT ST
EDMONTON DR
34 TH
ST
ELEANOR AVE
NORWOOD AVE
T ST
21ST ST
EL CAMINO AVE
X ST
10TH ST
15TH ST
3RD ST
DUCKH
ORN
DR
ARDEN WAY
24TH ST
W ST
J ST
E ST
G ST
I ST
N ST
P ST CAPITOL AVE
K ST
C ST
F ST
5TH ST
9TH ST
19TH ST
WEST RIVER
DR ORCHARD LN
FORD RD
GATEWAY PARK
BLVD
EL
CENTRO
RD
SAN JUAN RD
TRU
XEL
RD
7TH ST
City of Sacramento
® Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Council District 3
0 10.5
Miles
Sacramento
Yolo
April 2022
Lane Miles
Average PCI
Arterial
Collector
Residential
Good/Very Good PCI ≥ 70
Fair 50 ≤ PCI < 70
Poor 25 ≤ PCI < 50
Very Poor/Failed PCI < 25
$29.9MPavement Unfunded Backlog
District 3
288
56 62
60 53
25%
41%
29%
5%
EDMONTON DR
LAND
PARK
DR
RIVERSIDE BLVD
S L AND
PARK
DR
T ST
SUTTE
RVILLE RD
BROADWAY
VAL
LEJO
WAY
FRUITRIDGE RD
10TH ST
7TH ST
12TH ST
3RD ST
2ND AVE
FRONT ST
GARDEN HWY
W ST
J ST
L ST
E ST
I ST
N ST
Q ST
X ST
CAPITOL AVE
K ST
C ST
F ST
5TH ST
9TH ST
24TH ST
16TH ST
TRANSITIONRAMP
ALTAARDENEXPY
JED
SM
ITH
DRSTOCKTON
BLVD
N 16TH ST
FRANKLIN BLVD
FOLSOM BLVD
SUTTERVILLE RD
T ST
BROADWAY
J ST
65TH ST
51 ST
ST
ETHAN WAY
MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD
X ST
ALHAMBRA BLVD
2ND AVE
H ST
N B ST
LAWRENCE
DRIRVIN WAY
C ST
MC KINLEY BLVD
59TH ST
35TH AVE
LEMON HILL AVE
FAIR OAKS
BLVD
EXPOSITION
BLVD
65TH
EXPY
ARDEN WAY
City of Sacramento
® Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Council District 4
0 0.80.4
Miles
Sacramento
Yolo
April 2022
39TH ST
Lane Miles
Average PCI
Arterial
Collector
Residential
Good/Very Good PCI ≥ 70
Fair 50 ≤ PCI < 70
Poor 25 ≤ PCI < 50
Very Poor/Failed PCI < 25
$43.5MPavement Unfunded Backlog
District 4
441
60 64
67 56
28%
49%
22%
1%
FR
ANK
LIN
BLVD STOCK
TON
BLVD
BROADWAY
S
LAND
PARK
DR
12TH AVE
FRUITRIDGE RD
24TH ST
47TH AVE
34TH
ST
21S
T
ST
MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD
X ST
2ND AVE
IRVIN WAY
35TH AVE
LAW
REN
CE
DR
GLO
RIA
D
R
SEAMAS AVE
43RD AVE
21ST AVE
BLAIR
AVE
FREEP
ORT
BLVD
FR
ANK
LIN
BLVD STOCK
TON
BLVD
BROADWAY
S
LAND
PARK
DR
12TH AVE
FRUITRIDGE RD
24TH ST
47TH AVE
34TH
ST
21S
T
ST
MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD
X ST
2ND AVE
IRVIN WAY
35TH AVE
LAW
REN
CE
DR
GLO
RIA
D
R
SEAMAS AVE
43RD AVE
21ST AVE
BLAIR
AVE
FREEP
ORT
BLVD
City of Sacramento
® Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Council District 5
0 10.5
Miles
Sacramento
Yolo
April 2022
BRROKFIELD DRMEADOWVIEW
RD
MACK RD
VALLEY HI DR
CENTER PKY
LA MANCHA WAY
FRANKLIN BLVD
FLORIN RD
Lane Miles
Average PCI
Arterial
Collector
Residential
Good/Very Good PCI ≥ 70
Fair 50 ≤ PCI < 70
Poor 25 ≤ PCI < 50
Very Poor/Failed PCI < 25
$40.1MPavement Unfunded Backlog
District 5
408
58 61
58 57
16%
57%
26%
<1%
MUNROE
ST
LAKE
FOREST DR
POWER INN RD
BROADWAY
65TH ST
14TH AVE
LEMON HILL AVE
STOCKTON BLVD
T ST
FRUITRIDGE RD
OCCIDENTAL
DRLA RIVIERA DR
ELDER CREEK RD
59TH ST
FLORIN PERKINS RD
21ST AVE
FOLSOM BLVD
S
W
ATT
AVE
W
ATT
AVE
BELVEDERE AVE
HO
W
E
AVE
JACKSON RD
65TH
EXP
Y
UNIVERSITY
AVE
2ND
BYP
50TH ST
FRANKL
IN
BLVD
FOLSOM BLVD
FRUITRIDGE RD
47TH AVE
34T
H
ST
J ST
MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD
VALLEY HI DR
12TH AVE
CARLSO
NDR
58TH ST
H ST
ARMADALE
WAY
39TH ST
ELVAS AVE
BAMFORDDR
MC KINLEY BLVD
29TH
ST
24TH ST
21ST AVE
MEADOWVIEW RD
CAPITOL AVE
K ST
19TH ST
30TH ST
65 TH
ST
BR
UCEVILL
E
RD
56TH ST
MACK RD
City of Sacramento
® Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Council District 6
0 10.5
Miles
April 2022
Lane Miles
Average PCI
Arterial
Collector
Residential
Good/Very Good PCI ≥ 70
Fair 50 ≤ PCI < 70
Poor 25 ≤ PCI < 50
Very Poor/Failed PCI < 25
$51.7MPavement Unfunded Backlog
District 6
451
57 61
59 55
18%
51%
31%
<1%
GRE
ENH
AVEN
DR
RIVERGATE
WAY
WINDB
RIDGE DR
VALLEY HIDR
RUSH RIVER DR
HAVENSIDE
DRGLORIA DR
ARMADALE
WAY
EHRHARDT AVE
RIVERSIDE
BLVD
S LAND PARK DR
PARKRIVIER
A
WAY
MACK RD
FLORIN RD
COSUMNES
RIVER
BLVD
STOCKTON
BLVD
RIVERSIDE BLVD
S
LAND
PARK
DR
FOLSOM BLVD
47TH AVE
34T
H
ST
BROADWAY
51ST
ST
12TH AVE
21ST STX ST
SUT
TERVI LLE RD
FREEPORT BLVD
VALLEJO WAY
2ND AVE
BROOKFIELD DR
39TH ST
JOHN STILL DR
AM
HERST
ST
GLO
RI
A
D
R
IRVIN WAY
29TH
ST
24TH ST
BLAIR
AVE
W ST
MEADOWVIEW RD
26TH ST
35TH AVE
® Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Council District 7
0 0.80.4
Miles
City of Sacramento
Sacramento
Yolo
April 2022
Lane Miles
Average PCI
Arterial
Collector
Residential
Good/Very Good PCI ≥ 70
Fair 50 ≤ PCI < 70
Poor 25 ≤ PCI < 50
Very Poor/Failed PCI < 25
$41.5MPavement Unfunded Backlog
District 7
472
60 65
62 58
21%
55%
24%
<1%
21ST
ST
29TH ST
AM
HER
ST ST
24TH ST
W STOCK
TON
BLVD
BROOKFIELDDR
ALPINE
FROST
DR
JOHN STILL DR
TAN
GERINE
AVE
CARLIN AVE
CENT
ER
PKY
JACINTO RD
DAMASCAS DR
FRANKLIN
BLVD
MEADOWVIEW RD
BRUCEVIL
LE
RD
MACK RD
SHELDON RD
COSUMNES RIVER
BLVD
JACI NTO
AVE
VALLEY HI DR
ARMADALE WAY
CALVINE
RD
EHRHARDT AVE
CARLIN AVE
FLORIN RD
COSUMNES
RIVER BLVD
City of Sacramento
® Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Council District 8
0 0.950.47
Miles
Sacramento
Yolo
April 2022
DELTA SHORES CIR
Lane Miles
Average PCI
Arterial
Collector
Residential
Good/Very Good PCI ≥ 70
Fair 50 ≤ PCI < 70
Poor 25 ≤ PCI < 50
Very Poor/Failed PCI < 25
$22.9MPavement Unfunded Backlog
District 8
327
63 70
61 62
29%
58%
13%
<1%
CITY OF
SACRAMENTO
August 2022