Development and Application of Expanded Version of Florida Maintenance Rating Program

1
Development and Application of Expanded Version
of Florida Maintenance Rating Program
Adventures in Quality

• Kelly L. Smith, ARA-ERES
• Curt A. Beckemeyer, ARA-ERES
• Dave Myzie, VMS
• Robert H. Bourdon, VMS

2
Miami-Dade Expressway Asset Management Contract

• 5-year contract
• awarded October 2001
• July 2002 through June 2007
• Routine maintenance of 32 centerline miles of
  metro-Miami expressway and associated toll plaza
  facilities

3
MDX Expressways
Carol City
SR 924
SR 924 (Gratigny) ? 5.4 mi SR 112 (Airport)
? 4.1 mi SR 836 (Dolphin) ? 13.0 mi SR 874
(Snapper Crk) ? 7.2 mi SR 878 (Don Shula)
? 2.7 mi
Hialeah
I-95
FL Turnpike
Palmetto Exp
SR 112
Le Jeune Rod
SR 836
MIAMI
Sweetwater
SR 874
U.S. 1
SR 878
Kendall
4
Contract Requirements for Highway Maintenance

• Evaluate quality of maintenance in the field
  using a 1-to-5 scale version of Florida DOTs
  Maintenance Rating Program (MRP)
• Develop management-level maintenance quality
  ratings (0-to-100 scale) for
• individual features/characteristics (maintainable
  items)
• elements (groups of similar features)
• overall (all elements combined)
• MDX maintenance quality requirements
• individual features MRPfeat ? 70
• elements MRPelem ? 75
• overall MRPoverall ? 80

5
Overview of Florida MRP

• Developed and implemented in 1985
• Minor modifications over the years
• End-result form of maintenance quality evaluation
• Three rounds of field surveys per year
• 8 districts (including turnpike)
• 4 facility types (rural and urban arterial
  highways, rural and urban limited access
  highways)
• 36 maintenance features
• 5 maintenance elements

6
Overview of Florida MRP (contd.)

• Field surveys
• 30 randomly selected 0.1-mi roadway segments (per
  maintenance unit per facility type)
• pass-fail rating approach used to rate quality of
  individual maintenance features at each sample
  segment
• Development of management-level MRP ratings
• pass-fail ratings from surveyed segments used to
  generate MRPfeat ratings
• weighting factors used to roll-up MRPfeat
  ratings into MRPelem ratings and MRPoverall
  ratings
• MRP ratings reported to maintenance managers

7
Customizing Florida MRP for Use in MDX Contract

• Use same 36 maintenance features and 5
  maintenance elements
• Expansion of pass-fail rating criteria to 1-to-5
  scale rating criteria for each feature
• Identify appropriate weighting factors to
  generate MRP ratings
• Develop roadway sampling procedure

8
Maintenance Features and Elements

• Roadway
• potholes, edge raveling, shoving,
  depressions/bumps, joints/cracks, paved
  shoulders/turnouts
• Roadside
• unpaved shoulders, front slopes, sloped pavement,
  sidewalk, fencing
• Traffic services
• pavement markers, striping, symbols, guardrail,
  attenuators, signs, object markers/delineators,
  lighting

9
Maintenance Features and Elements (cont.)

• Drainage
• side/cross drains, roadside/median ditches,
  outfall ditches, inlets, miscellaneous drainage
  structures, roadway sweeping
• Vegetation/aesthetics
• roadside mowing, slope mowing, landscaping, tree
  trimming, curb/sidewalk edge, litter removal,
  turf condition

10
Expansion of Field Rating Criteria

• Establish three additional break points in
  condition, instead of one
• Where possible, match 3/4 (Fair/Good) break
  point with Pass/Fail break point

1-To-5 Scale Approach
Pass-Fail Approach
Best Possible Condition
5 Very Good
Pass
4 Good
3 Fair
Fail
2 Poor
1 Very Poor
Worst Possible Condition
11
Example Roadside Mowing(urban limited access
facility)

• Florida MRP condition standard Not more than 1
  of vegetation (excluding allowable seed stalks
  and decorative flowers allowed to remain for
  aesthetics) exceeds 12-in height

1-To-5 Scale Approach
Pass-Fail Approach
Best Possible Condition
5
0 in excess of 12 in
? 1 vegetation area exceeds 12 in
Pass
0 and ? 1 in excess
4
3
1 and ? 2 in excess
Fail
1 exceeds 12 in
2 and ? 5 in excess
2
1
5 in excess
Worst Possible Condition
12
Example Potholes in Flexible and Rigid Pavement

• Florida MRP condition standard No defect is
  greater than 0.5 ft2 in area and 1.5 in deep
  (pervious base must not be exposed in any hole)

1-To-5 Scale Approach
Pass-Fail Approach
Best Possible Condition
5
0 potholes
0 potholes of specified dimensions
Pass
1 pothole
4
3
2 potholes
? 1 potholes of specified dimensions
Fail
3 potholes
2
1
? 4 potholes
Worst Possible Condition
13
Roadway Sampling Procedure

• Establish MRP rating zones, based on geography
  and ratable centerline mileage (i.e., no bridges)
• SR 836 ? 10.4 mi
• SR 874 ? 6.7 mi
• SR 878 ? 2.3 mi
• SR 112 ? 2.9 mi
• SR 924 ? 5.0 mi
• Create 0.1-mi-long roadway segments for each
  route
• begin at 0.0 and increment by 0.1 to end
• eliminate segments located on bridges

Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
14
Roadway Sampling Procedure (contd.)

• MRP zone 1
• SR 836 ? 80 segments
• MRP zone 2
• SR 874 ? 58 segments
• SR 878 ? 18 segments
• MRP zone 3
• SR 112 ? 22 segments
• SR 924 ? 42 segments
• Microsoft Excel used to develop a sampling
  routine
• For each round of surveys,
• randomly select 35 roadway segments per zone
• survey 25 (extras selected in case theyre needed)

15
Roadway Features and Corresponding Weighting
Factors

• Flexible pavement
• potholes ? 9
• edge raveling ? 5
• shoving ? 5
• depressions/bumps ? 6
• shoulders/turnouts ? 5
• Rigid pavement
• potholes/spalls ? 9
• depressions/bumps ? 6
• joints/cracks ? 8
• shoulders/turnouts ? 5

Weighting factors based on scale of 0 to 10, with
0 being very unimportant and 10 being very
important. Representative of urban, limited
access facility.
16
Roadside Features and Corresponding Weighting
Factors

• Unpaved shoulders ? 9
• Front slope ? 6
• Slope pavement ? 6
• Sidewalk ? 0
• Fencing ? 6

17
Traffic Service Features and Corresponding
Weighting Factors

• Raised pavement markers ? 9
• Pavement striping ? 8
• Pavement symbols ? 7
• Guardrail ? 9
• Attenuator ? 9
• Signs ? 30 ft2 ? 9
• Signs 30 ft2 ? 8
• Object markers/delineators ? 7
• Lighting ? 8

18
Drainage Features and Corresponding Weighting
Factors

• Side/cross drains ? 7
• Roadside/median ditches ? 4
• Outfall ditches ? 6
• Inlets ? 8
• Miscellaneous drainage structures ? 5
• Roadway sweeping ? 7

19
Veg./Aesth. Features and Corresponding Weighting
Factors

• Roadside mowing ? 7
• Slope mowing ? 6
• Landscaping ? 5
• Tree trimming ? 7
• Curb/sidewalk edges ? 6
• Litter removal ? 4
• Turf condition ? 7

20
Maintenance Elements and Corresponding Weighting
Factors

• Roadway ? 25
• Roadside ? 13
• Traffic services ? 30
• Drainage ? 15
• Vegetation/aesthetics ? 17

Weighting factors based on scale of 0 to 100.
Representative of urban, limited access facility.
21
Use of Maintenance Feature Weighting Factors
For a given maintenance element (e.g., Roadside)
and MRP rating zone (e.g., 2)
22
Use of Maintenance Element Weighting Factors
For a given MRP rating zone (e.g., 2)
23
Use of Mileage Weighting Factors
For a network consisting of three MRP rating
zones
24
Application of Expanded MRP

• Pilot survey (February 2002)
• test functionality and efficiency of 1-to-5
  approach
• 30 total segments across all 5 MDX routes
• suggested revisions/improvements to rating
  procedures and/or criteria (more detail or
  clarity)
• need for greater sampling rate to achieve desired
  precision levels (use 3 zones, 25 samples/zone)
• Formal surveys (June Oct 2002, March 2003)
• June survey ? benchmark maintenance conditions at
  start of contract
• Oct March surveys ? reflect VMS maintenance
  efforts
• future surveys ? 3 per year

25
1to-5 Scale MRP Rating Form(Roadway Element)
26
Formal Survey Results---Roadway MRPfeat Ratings
for Network
MDX Requirement 70
27
Formal Survey Results---Roadside MRPfeat Ratings
for Network
MDX Requirement 70
28
Formal Survey Results---Traffic MRPfeat Ratings
for Network
MDX Requirement 70
29
Formal Survey Results---Drainage MRPfeat Ratings
for Network
MDX Requirement 70
30
Formal Survey Results---Veg./Aesth. MRPfeat
Ratings for Network
MDX Requirement 70
31
Formal Survey Results---MRPelem Ratings for Zone
1 (SR 836)
MDX Requirement 75
32
Formal Survey Results---MRPelem Ratings for Zone
2 (SR 874 878)
MDX Requirement 75
33
Formal Survey Results---MRPelem Ratings for Zone
3 (SR 112 924)
MDX Requirement 75
34
Formal Survey Results---MRPelem Ratings for
Network
MDX Requirement 75
35
Formal Survey Results---MRPoverall Ratings for
Network
MDX Requirement
36
Pros/Cons of Adopting 1-to-5Scale Approach

• Advantages
• only slightly more time required to perform
  typical field survey of 0.1-mi-long roadway
  segment
• more detailed ratings data result in greater
  precision in ratings for given sampling rate, and
  greater discriminatory power.
• greater precision and discriminatory power helps
  managers to better prioritize and schedule
  repairs/treatments
• Disadvantages
• considerable time initially for rating personnel
  to adjust from pass-fail rating approach to
  1-to-5 scale approach

37
In Closing

• Very important to institute a quality assurance
  process, regardless of whether maintenance is
  performed by agency or contract forces
• Highway agencies should give serious
  consideration to 1-to-5 rating approach

38
Questions/Comments

• Contacts
• Mr. Kelly Smith or Mr. Curt Beckemeyer, ARA-ERES
• [phone]
• klsmith_at_ara.com cbeckemeyer_at_ara.com
• Mr. Dave Myzie, VMS
• [phone]
• dmyzie_at_vmsom.com
• Mr. Bob Bourdon, VMS
• [phone]
• bbourdon_at_vmsom.com