S a l i n a s S t r e e t S e l e c t i o n P o l i c y P a g e | 1
Pavement Management and
Street Selection Policy
A Pavement Management and Street Selection Policy is a proactive approach to managing a street pavement network. A Street Selection Policy lays the foundation for the methods and processes used to select streets for maintenance and rehabilitation projects. A Prioritization Plan can be developed following the Street Selection Policy, which specifies a prioritized list of street segments with an estimated treatment category and cost.
Pavement Management Principles
A Street Selection Policy should be based on correct pavement management principles consisting of applying the appropriate treatment to the roadway at the right time (Federal Highway Administration).
Applying the appropriate treatment at the right time results in lower pavement costs and improved overall pavement conditions.
The three most common approaches for managing pavements are Best First, Worst First, or Critical Point Pavement Management.
Best First Pavement Management strategy focuses maintenance and rehabilitation on the best streets in the system. Funds in this strategy are used on ensuring that streets in the “Very Good” and “Good” categories receive the required preventative maintenance to allow them to maintain that condition.
Worst First Pavement Management strategy focuses maintenance and rehabilitation on the worst streets in the system. Funds in this strategy are spent to reconstruct the “Failed” streets in an effort to bring all streets in the system above “Failed” .
Critical Point Pavement Management focuses maintenance and rehabilitation on streets above rather than below a critical pavement condition index (PCI). This approach is the most economical in the long run. This strategy requires addressing the streets that are on the verge of shifting from one condition category to another, as shown on Figure 2.
CONDITION
CATEGORY: VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR FAILED
PCI RANGE: 100 – 91 90 - 71 70 - 51 50 - 31 30 - 0
Figure 1. Pavement Condition Index Rating Scale
S a l i n a s S t r e e t S e l e c t i o n P o l i c y P a g e | 2 Figure 2. Critical Point Pavement Management Strategy
Street Selection Goals
The current average PCI for the City is 531. With unpredictable funding available for pavement projects, the task of setting a feasible PCI goal was unrealistic. The approach will then be to set street selection goals that focus funding on Major Streets, equity and inclusion in the distribution of funds on Residential Streets and focused maintenance to proactively address pavement maintenance.
Street selection goals are:
• Preserve investment in and continue to improve Major Streets (60% of annual funding) • Focus on improving Residential Streets (30% of annual funding) while including Social Factors that address equity and inclusion.
o Phase 1: Equalize Pavement Condition across City Council Districts o Phase 2: Equal distribution of funding across City Council Districts based on Pavement Area • Allocate Stopgap/Maintenance Funding (10% of Annual Funding) for immediate street maintenance/ repairs to be performed by City’s Streets Maintenance Crew Street Selection Approach
Care was taken to develop a policy that spreads funding for pavement improvements throughout the City while focusing on grouping streets that are near to each other into projects to maximize funding by saving on mobilization costs.
The plan utili zes the City’s StreetSaver pavement management program to identify street segments that are at a critical point and are strong candidates for pavement maintenance and rehabilitation.
1 City of Salinas 2023 Pavement Management Program Update, Draft Report, September 2023 Light Maintenance Treatment
Heavy Maintenance or,
Light Rehab Treatment
Heavy Rehab Treatment
Reconstruction
Treatment
S a l i n a s S t r e e t S e l e c t i o n P o l i c y P a g e | 3 Figure 3. Street Selection Flowchart
Prioritization Strategy
The annual budget amount woul d be divided into three different categories of pavement funding. 60% of the annual budget would be dedicated to the City’s “Major Streets” (arterials and collectors), 30% to “Residential Streets” (local), and 10% would be reserved for “Stopgap/Maintenance”. The overall strategy is illustrated in Figure 2.
Major Streets – The Major Streets are comprised of all the city’s arterial and collector street segments.
These are the streets that are most heavily traveled throughout the city, and used by every portion of the city’s residents, businesses, and visitors alike.
The Major Street selection strategy develops project street lists from a three-step process.
Step one uses the City’s StreetSaver® program to generate a Weighted Effectiveness Ratio (WER)2 and a PCI for each Major Street segment . StreetSaver® performs a life -cycle cost analysis and assigns a Weighted Effectiveness Ratio (WER) to each street segment based on the next treatment cost and
2 Weighted Effectiveness Ratio (WER): A ratio provided by Street Saver that ranks the treatment cost and anticipated service life for a particular road segment. The higher the number the more cost effective the treatment will be.
S a l i n a s S t r e e t S e l e c t i o n P o l i c y P a g e | 4 anticipated service life. Using average daily traffic (ADT)3 data collected by the City, each segment is assigned a PCI Score, an ADT Score, and a WER Score.
Step two involves grouping the Major Street segments into project sized groups (approximately ¼ mile to ½ mile sections) based on pavement condition and estimated treatment. Once the groups are defined, weighted averages for the PCI Scores, ADT Scores, and WER Scores for each group need to be calculated.
Step three would then calculate the total Priority Score for each group, which is the sum of the PCI Score, ADT Score, and WER Score, and then sorting the groups by their priority score from highest to lowest.
Table 1. Major Street Score Charts defines how the PCI Score, ADT Score, and WER Score would be used to determine the Major Streets prioritization list.
Table 1. Major Streets Score Charts
For the PCI score the highest score goes to the segments in the 61-70 PCI range, then goes down the lower the PCI. The lowest scores are assigned to the highest PCI range. This method of scoring gives the highest score to the street segments that are most “at-risk” of deteriorating to a point where the right treatment is no longer a maintenance treatment, but instead is a rehabilitation treatment, w hich costs significantly more.
For the ADT Score and the WER Score, the higher the street segment’s ADT or WER, the higher the score meaning that t he higher the traffic volumes (ADT) the higher score and likewise, the more effective the treatment, the higher the score.
3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT): The total traffic volume during a given time period, ranging from 2 to 364 consecutive days, divided by the number of days in that time period, and expressed in vehicles per day (vpd) from to from to from to
0 10 4 0 3,000 1 0 8,600 1
11 20 5 3,001 6,000 2 8,601 17,200 2
21 30 6 6,001 9,000 3 17,201 25,800 3
31 40 7 9,001 12,000 4 25,801 34,400 4
41 50 8 12,001 15,000 5 34,401 43,000 5
51 60 9 15,001 18,000 6 43,001 51,600 6
61 70 10 18,001 21,000 7 51,601 60,200 7
71 80 3 21,001 24,000 8 60,201 68,800 8
81 90 2 24,001 27,000 9 68,801 77,400 9
91 100 1 27,001 30,000 10 77,401 86,000 10
PCI Score ADT Score WER Score
Pavement Condition Index Average Daily Traffic Weighted Effectiveness Ratio PCI
SCORE
ADT
SCORE
WER
SCORE
S a l i n a s S t r e e t S e l e c t i o n P o l i c y P a g e | 5 Residential Streets – The street selection strategy for the Residential streets is a two phase approach that incorporates social factors to address inequalities and hazards that may be amplified in residential streets.
Social Factors – The 2022 City Council Strategic Plan identified Equity and Inclusion as a shared value for the City and provided a Strategic Goal of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability. Equity and Inclusion are essential considerations in various aspects of society, including infrastructure improvements.
These factors incorporate social factors to increase quality of life in a targeted manner to address equity and inclusion.
a. Accessibility - ADA compliance is a federal requirement for certain improvements. Roadways serve everyone, including people with disabilities. Including accessibility as a social factor addresses inequities for less abled residents by giving a higher social factor score to neighborhoods with limited curb access.
b. Tree Canopy Cover – Trees, and more specifically tree canopy, have been proven to improve quality of life by reducing the urban heat island effect and removing pollutants from the air that could contribute to health problems for residents. The City’s Urban Forest Management Plan (pending Council approval) identifies tree canopy inequities and provides a strategic plan for increasing the urban forest. This criterion would give neighborhoods with limited tree canopy a higher social factor score. c. Disadvantaged Communities - As required by SB 535, CalEPA developed a map identifying Disadvantaged Communities based on "geographic, socioeconomic, public health and environmental hazard criteria" . SB 535 requires that state climate investments be targeted toward these communities.
This criterion would assign neighborhoods identified as Disadvantaged Communities a social factor score.
d. Poverty - Income can affect health when people cannot afford healthy living and working conditions, nutritious food, and necessary medical care . In 2021 the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment released a new version of the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen 4.0). CalEnviroScreen 4.0 identifies the percent of the population in California with incomes less than two times the federal poverty level . This criterion assigns a higher social factor score to neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty.
Table 2. Residential Social Factors Score Charts
Accessibility Tree Canopy Cover
Disadvantaged
Community Poverty
Curb
Accessibility Score
Tree Canopy
Cover Score
Disadvantaged
Community Score
Poverty
percentile Score
from to from to Yes 5 from to
51% 60% 5 0% 5% 5 No 0 0% 20% 1
61% 70% 4 6% 10% 4 21% 40% 2
71% 80% 3 11% 15% 3 41% 60% 3
81% 90% 2 16% 20% 2 61% 80% 4
91% 100% 1 21% 25% 1 81% 100% 5
Social factors would be applied on a districtwide basis to residential streets in both phases of prioritization to adjust the overall District Score. Data for social factors will be analyzed every five years . Data for Disadvantaged Communities and Poverty shall be based on state published data. Accessibility and Tree Canopy Cover will be based on City GIS data.
S a l i n a s S t r e e t S e l e c t i o n P o l i c y P a g e | 6
Phase 1 of the Residential Street Selection Plan was developed with the intention of equalizing, or leveling, the PCIs of each district. The Residential Phase 1 Street Selection Strategy develops priority street lists based on the weighted average PCI for each district and the district ’s Residential Social Factors Score (District Score).
The weighted average PCI for each District as of April 2024 is as follows:
District 1: 67.3
District 2: 41.7
District 3: 42.2
• District 4: 44.7
• District 5: 39.9
• District 6: 58.5
The district with the lowest overall District Score (weighted average PCI minus Social Factors score) would be given priority for street selection until the weighted average PCI for each district is approximately equal.
The maximum score possible from social factors is 20. The streets within the selected district would then be prioritized based on their PCI and WER scores.
Table 3. Phase 1 Residential Streets Score Charts
Phase 1 of the Residential Street selection strategy would develop a priority street list from the prioritized district with the lowest overall District Score using a three-step process.
Step one uses the City’s StreetSaver® program to generate a PCI) and a Weighted Effectiveness Ratio (WER for each of the residential street segments within the selected district.
Step two assigns a PCI Score and WER Score (using the Table 3. Phase 1 Residential Streets Score Chart) for each street segment in the selected district .
Step three then calculates the Priority Score (the sum of the PCI Score and WER Score) for each street segment within the selected district, then sorts the streets by their Priority Score, from highest to lowest.
In this scenario, the street segments with the lowest PCI receive a higher PCI score . This would address street segments that have been neglected in prior strategies. from to from to
0 10 10 0 4,200 1
11 20 9 4,201 8,400 2
21 30 8 8,401 12,600 3
31 40 7 12,601 16,800 4
41 50 6 16,801 21,000 5
51 60 5 21,001 25,200 6
61 70 4 25,201 29,400 7
71 80 3 29,401 33,600 8
81 90 2 33,601 37,800 9
91 100 1 37,801 42,000 10
Alternative PCI Score WER Score
Weighted Effectiveness Ratio
Alternative PCI
SCORE
WER
SCORE
Pavement Condition Index
S a l i n a s S t r e e t S e l e c t i o n P o l i c y P a g e | 7 Phase 2 of the Residential Street Selection Plan involves dividing the available budget between the six council districts, based on the percentage of pavement area within each district and applying the Social Factors.
The percentage of pavement area as of April 2024 is as follows:
• District 1: 11%
• District 2: 12%
• District 3: 28%
• District 4: 14%
• District 5: 13%
• District 6: 22%
Distribution of funds would be based on a weighted average score of pavement area and social factors score. The pavement area contributes 80% of the weighted average and social factors contribute 20% of the weighted average.
After distribution of funds, Phase 2 of the Residential Street selection strategy develops priority street lists from a three-step process.
Step one uses the City’s StreetSaver® program to generate a Weighted Effectiveness Ratio (WER) and a PCI for each of the residential street segments within each district.
Step two assigns a PCI Score and WER Score, from the Residential Score Charts below, which is then used to calculate a Priority Score (the sum of the PCI Score and WER Score) for each street segment.
Step three then sorts the streets in each district by their Priority Score, from highest to lowest. This produces a separate priority list for each district.
Table 4. Phase 2 Residential Pavement Score Charts
Stopgap/Maintenance
The budget allocation for Stopgap/Maintenance is intended to be used for streets that need immediate street maintenance/ repairs outside the Priority List , that can be performed by the City’s Street Maintenance Crew.
from to from to
0 10 4 0 4,200 1
11 20 5 4,201 8,400 2
21 30 6 8,401 12,600 3
31 40 7 12,601 16,800 4
41 50 8 16,801 21,000 5
51 60 9 21,001 25,200 6
61 70 10 25,201 29,400 7
71 80 3 29,401 33,600 8
81 90 2 33,601 37,800 9
91 100 1 37,801 42,000 10
PCI Score WER Score
Weighted Effectiveness Ratio
PCI
SCORE
WER
SCORE
Pavement Condition Index
S a l i n a s S t r e e t S e l e c t i o n P o l i c y P a g e | 8 Identified in the Pavement Restoration: Pothole Repair Plan4 current pavement restoration strategies have not been effective. The proposed stopgap/maintenance funding (10%) would be set aside for targeted implementation. This funding would be specifically used for crack sealing and pothole repair.
Implementation and use of stopgap/maintenance funding would be dedicated to four to six weeks of dedicated maintenance work beginning in the fall (September), prior to the start of the rainy season and cooler weather, to crack sealing of streets. Crack sealing would begin along Major Streets not scheduled for repair and move to Residential Streets . In the spring (April), following the rainy season, maintenance crews will dedicate four to six weeks to pothole repair. Pothole repair will following City Standard Plan 16 Trench Backfill and Surface Restoration.
Implementation
This policy has identified a strategy to improve roadway conditions without setting a specific PCI goal .
Overall success will be achieved based on funding dedicated to street maintenance and improvements and adherence to the strategies outlined. A five-year street list will be develop ed for Major Streets and Residential Streets based on the prioritization strategies defined in this plan assuming a minimum street pavement budget of $6 million per year. Streets selected for paving will be moved ahead or behind in the street list based on actual funds budgeted.
Street pavement condition will be assessed every three to four years through visual inspections. PCI will be updated annually using StreetSaver. Social factors will be analyzed every five years to guide the five - year street list consistent with the policy.
Summary
Implementing a proactive approach to project planning and scheduling of pavement maintenance and rehabilitation contributes significantly to efficiency and cost effectiveness. The Strategies used to develop this Pavement Management and St reet Selection Policy create an eff icient, defined, and repeatable process for prioritizing streets for selection in a pavement maintenance and/or rehabilitation project while incorporating the goals of inclusion and equity into Residential Streets . This policy will assist the City use a critical point management approach more effectively to manage pavement Citywide.
4 City of Salinas Memorandum, Pavement Restoration: Pothole Repair Plan, July 31, 2023.