Maintenance and Surface Preparation Activities Prior to Pavement Preservation Treatments (2021)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

27   Introduction While the questionnaire and the discussion in the previous chapter offered some insight into the state of the practice, in-depth interviews and case example development can explain in greater detail how agencies plan, implement, and track pavement maintenance and surface preparation. Many agencies provided similar answers to the questionnaire; in follow-up conver- sations, however, some supplied additional detail about their practices in terms of one or more of the following: • Innovative preservation practices, specifications, or policy. • Process for making decisions to implement the work. • Documented approaches to establishing a need for pavement maintenance and surface preparation. • Innovative means for delivering the projects. • Tracking of maintenance and surface preparation actions and also the performance of the treatments applied. The study team identified six state highway agencies for further study, and those agencies agreed to serve as case examples: Georgia, Washington State, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Montana. Table 6 highlights some of the characteristics of their maintenance practices, which then were explored through each case study. The remaining sections in this chapter describe some of the key programs, practices, and operational characteristics for each of the selected agencies. Georgia Department of Transportation Background The Georgia DOT indicated that a full array of both asphalt and concrete maintenance actions are used in advance of its preservation projects. In Georgia, the state maintenance office holds sole responsibility for identifying the need for Interstate maintenance and preservation work. However, on a National Highway System (NHS) route or a lower-level state route, the districts largely identify and act on that need. Recently, the districts have been relying on a mainte- nance liaison person from the central office to help assess the needs and make those treatment decisions. Georgia is in the second year of a process driving changes in how the state evaluates its routes. In the past, such evaluations were based solely on a boots-on-the-ground visual inspection. The area office (local) made initial project selections; the district office performed quality control on that decision, and then the central office conducted quality assurance checks on a small C H A P T E R   4 Agency Case Examples

28 Maintenance and Surface Preparation Activities Prior to Pavement Preservation Treatments percentage of the decisions. The agency is now increasingly relying on data that are collected as part of its statewide pavement management activities for its maintenance and preservation decisions. The Georgia DOT has contracted for an automated data collection vehicle to scan the routes, and the collected data are entered into the pavement management system, which generates a pavement score. A consultant is configuring the scoring process to support deci- sion making. The districts typically choose the treatments, which are acted on locally, but they often rely on their central office maintenance liaisons for advice. The maintenance liaisons validate the scores from pavement management based on the raw distress numbers (such as the percentage of cracking or raveling or the number of shattered slabs) and also carry out a visual assessment to confirm conditions. This process is helping the Georgia DOT gain confidence in the automated data collection system. The pavement management system recommends an appropriate category of needed repair, such as a light treatment, minor preservation, or major rehabilitation. Field operations managers then verify that these actions are right for the roadway section. Program Characteristic Georgia Washington State Indiana Kentucky New Jersey Montana Policy-driven Pavement management decision trees Maintenance one-touch policy Maintenance owner’s manual Rules made by working group, Preventive Maintenance Alliance (PMA) Limited Scope Project Delivery Guidelines Guidelines for Nomination and Development of Pavement Projects (2017) Decision making Local determination; review by central office Collaborative decisions Local determination Collaboration and consensus- driven decisions Collaborative decisions Local determination Action Scoped with each project Scoped with each project Scoped with each project Scoped with each project Scoped with each project Scoped with each project Execution (in-house or contracted) Both in-house and contract executions In-house preference but considering more contracts Execution dependent on treatment Contracted work mainly but option for in- house or master agreements for preliminary work (resource drivers) Contracted treatments, but option for preliminary work by in- house or contract personnel Work by both in-house and contract resource drivers Tracking PMS for contract treatments and other system used for in-house Highway Activity Tracking System (HATS) and PMS MMS for internal work and project management system for contract materials PMS and MMS tracking MMS and PMS, but not for all actions MMS and PMS Program maturity Emerging program strengthened by collaborative relationship between district and central offices Mature program responding to financial constraints Mature district-driven program with most work completed in- house Maturing program with flexibility to use various approaches to identify needs and complete work In-process development of a manual to cover required maintenance actions Structured program with several formal elements related to timing and work completion Table 6. State agencies included as case examples.

Agency Case Examples 29   The Georgia districts use the recommendations from the PMS (e.g., light treatment) and determine what specific action is needed to address the site conditions. Specific treatments within those categories are selected locally based on the roadway terrain and traffic volumes. Crack sealing is an example of a light treatment that most districts use. In addition, some dis- tricts are asking for more specific treatments to be available in the generic category toolbox that meet specialized local needs. The maintenance activities are reactive and are not linked particularly to a specific preserva- tion treatment. Georgia DOT officials hope to reach the point where preservation is an auto- matic function, but the practice has not been adopted agencywide. Different districts are further along than others, perhaps because some districts are more aggressive in adopting preservation techniques than others, which take a wait-and-see approach to assess whether the treatments work. Eventually, the expectation is that the maintenance actions that precede preservation will be recognized as a part of the preservation treatment. The districts possess the flexibility to accomplish work in different ways. Each district has different internal capabilities (personnel, equipment, experience), along with geographical differences that lead to varied approaches to who performs the pavement repairs. Rural districts reportedly conduct more pavement maintenance than other districts. The work itself would then be performed either under contract or by in-house forces, depending on the capability, resources, and equipment in the districts. The complexity of the effort may also determine who performs the work. For example, at one time, the Georgia DOT was equipped to place micro- surfacing and other treatments, but it no longer owns that type of placement equipment. The need for significant traffic control or work in high-risk areas may also make the contracted work option more advantageous to the Georgia DOT. The timing of maintenance and surface preparation can be impacted by the type of work crew. Districts try to plan a year ahead, for example, for the placement of crack sealing before a chip seal or microsurfacing. The Georgia DOT also reserves the right to include such advance crack sealing in the contract before treatments such as microsurfacing or thin asphalt overlays. However, the department recognizes that some of the processes perform more effectively with a longer cure time, so a time lag between the two actions is preferable. Tracking If the work is conducted internally, the maintenance managers enter all work activities in their MMS, using the tool referred to as the Georgia Asset Management System (GAMS). For locally contracted work, a consultant developed a maintenance tracker system (METRICS), which features a conflict detection module that identifies scheduled activities (such as pavement striping) so that the activities are not performed prior to a preservation treatment. METRICS also tracks projects during construction to prevent location and work conflicts. Information is displayed on a dashboard page for upper-level management and is used to evaluate manager effectiveness and district performance. The system also includes a maintenance rating program component. METRICS is not yet incorporated into the Georgia DOT pavement management system, but that is the state’s long-term goal. Senior management directed the maintenance office to streamline its systems, but some standalone systems are still in operation. The challenge with integration seems to be diagnosing and resolving the IT issues. The consultant has been most successful at rolling out useful standalone tools to the districts.

30 Maintenance and Surface Preparation Activities Prior to Pavement Preservation Treatments Moving Forward Ideally, the Georgia DOT would benefit from more continuity among the districts, mainte- nance office, and maintenance liaisons. Some districts have pursued their own courses of action without necessarily consulting on their practices or specifications. The next program goals focus on more interagency collaboration and the adoption of more innovative treatment processes (e.g., hot-in-place recycling). Interaction with industry is limited, and innovations have not been identified or implemented. In addition, state specifications need an update, and the industry is a storehouse of information and expertise to assist. The maintenance actions may not always be implemented as identified and planned. Factors that impact the completion of maintenance before preservation include a lack of knowledge or experience among the district maintenance engineers about the data needed to make deci- sions, inconsistency in inspector understanding of the need for corrective action, and a failure to appreciate the positive effect of maintenance on preservation. Washington State Department of Transportation Background The Washington State DOT (WSDOT) takes a unique integrated approach to pavement pres- ervation and the associated practices. This approach—which requires WSDOT to perform at least one type of pavement maintenance treatment prior to spending any capital preservation dollars—was born from a fiscally constrained capital pavement budget that could no longer adequately address budgetary needs. The integrated approach originated in 2014 as part of what was referred to as the one-touch policy, implemented to apply “the deliberate use of proven pavement maintenance methods that will extend the life cycle of the entire paving inventory for at least 2 years, and in so doing, extend the effectiveness and efficiency of every dollar spent within the program” (Washington State DOT 2017). A number of maintenance treatments are applied to asphalt-surface pavements in the pave- ment preservation program, such as crack filling, crack sealing, rut filling (either with HMA or a chip seal, as seen in Figure 17), partial or full-depth patching with HMA (also referred to as dig outs), milling, and skin patches. For concrete-surfaced pavements, the maintenance treatments Source: Jeff Uhlmeyer, WSDOT (retired), with permissions granted. Figure 17. Wheelpath chip sealing.

Agency Case Examples 31   include partial-depth (spall) repairs and some joint resealing. WSDOT may undertake a single panel replacement, but the amount of this type of work is limited because costs can be quite high. Grade slope correction (for example, with blade patches) and underdrain repairs are performed on both types of pavements; however, these activities are not classified as strategic maintenance. The WSDOT maintenance treatments for asphalt-surfaced pavements are well suited to the primarily top-down cracking distress experienced in the state. Top-down cracking generally requires localized repairs, and maintenance treatments are cost-effective based on the specific project. WSDOT has found that early sealing of cracks can delay the need for additional repairs by at least 2 years—and often by upward of 5 or 6 years. Preservation treatments on the next cycle of treatments might require only crack sealing or a chip seal (or even an isolated dig-out repair), as shown in Figure 18. Another successful preservation strategy uses wheelpath chip seal applications. Wheelpath chip sealing relies on crack sealing followed by placement of a chip seal in the roadway wheel- path only, with perhaps more crack sealing later to delay the need for rehabilitation. Admittedly, this strategy is driven by funding, but the net effect is postponing pavement rehabilitation for 4 years or more. In some instances, wheelpath chip seals are also applied to fill ruts in HMA roadways. Maintenance and Surface Preparation Responsibility Maintenance work is primarily completed by WSDOT crews. In particular, the state forces perform crack sealing, chip sealing, and dig outs. However, several exceptions to this practice are notable. If a region-wide crack sealing effort is needed and if that region does not have sufficient maintenance resources to accomplish the work, the region can prepare a contract and hire a contractor. Also, if WSDOT maintenance crews cannot complete maintenance activities that are supported by preservation funding, WSDOT can prepare a maintenance contract for the work. For preservation work performed by maintenance forces, the prevailing emphasis is that “if maintenance is unable to perform it, then someone needs to do it.” The state identifies needed maintenance in several ways. At the local level, maintenance crews do road patrols while carrying out other maintenance activities. When they observe a need for Source: Jeff Uhlmeyer, WSDOT (retired), with permissions granted. Figure 18. Localized patching nearly 4 years after installation.

32 Maintenance and Surface Preparation Activities Prior to Pavement Preservation Treatments pavement maintenance, they log that in their Highway Activity Tracking System (HATS). In scoping other projects, pavement management, regional, and capital preservation staff members also identify required repairs and report those needs to regional crews that carry out the repairs. The Washington State Pavement Management System (WSPMS) also provides information that is useful in analyzing maintenance needs based on standard reporting on pavement perfor- mance and lane-mile costs. While WSPMS pavement scores may occasionally trigger maintenance and preservation, that is not the typical process. Usually, the pavement management office works collaboratively with the respective region materials engineer, who in turn coordinates with the regional maintenance superintendent. The identified work generally is a result of analyzing PMS data, but such data generally lag by a year, so actual pavement performance is verified visually. Because many pave- ments have lower pavement ratings, they tend to deteriorate at a quicker rate, and thus local “eyes on the road” are necessary to determine the actual level of needs before the PMS data become available. Tracking The tracking of both maintenance costs and sites where maintenance is performed repre- sents an essential part of assessing the contribution of maintenance to preservation treatment performance. Maintenance locations and work conducted by WSDOT personnel are tracked in HATS; however, contract maintenance is not, nor is it monitored in WSPMS. Regions track both in-house maintenance and contract maintenance for preservation funding purposes to establish which roadway sections have (and have not) received a maintenance treatment. In-house main- tenance work that is tracked in HATS is also populated in WSPMS. Moving Forward As long as fiscally constrained capital pavement budgets are the rule in Washington State, the need for preservation treatments will continue. WSDOT’s one-touch preservation policy has proven that by sealing cracks early, the state can delay additional repairs by at least 2 years and often as long as 5 or 6 years. Other pavement preservation practices, such as pavement repair and wheelpath chip seals, produce similar results. WSDOT continues to improve the interfaces between various pavement and maintenance systems to improve both cost-effectiveness and pavement performance. Indiana Department of Transportation Background The Indiana preservation program has evolved over the past 10 years, and today the program is considered to be mature and consistently implemented statewide. Taking an asset manage- ment approach, the Indiana DOT (INDOT) developed a strategy for maintenance owners for roadway categories A, B, and C (Table 7), representing roadway characteristics for both urban and rural settings. A presentation to introduce the strategies includes guidance on how each category of road will be maintained, from new construction until reconstruction, under ideal circumstances. INDOT reports that these strategies will serve as the basis for an owner’s manual for pavements, which is currently in development. About 45% of INDOT’s 11,027 centerline miles of roadways fall into the C-2 category, low-volume rural routes. According to the owner strategies, INDOT expects that these routes will be chip sealed twice before being resurfaced. It should be noted that these are not rules: districts are allowed to make modifications, especially for corridor continuity. A pavement engineer is on staff at each of Indiana’s six districts, and

Agency Case Examples 33   that person identifies projects, including preservation actions, 1.5 years in advance for in-house maintenance work (crack and chip sealing) and 5 years in advance for contracts. Currently, the vast majority of INDOT’s preservation work on asphalt surfaces focuses on crack sealing and chip sealing, and this work is done in-house. One district chip seals and then crack seals the following year, but otherwise, the standard practice in Indiana is to crack seal first and then follow with the chip seal. Other preventive maintenance treatments include overlays constructed either as a single lift or as a mill-and-replace job. Indiana indicated that mainte- nance is performed in advance of asphalt and concrete preservation work. Those maintenance actions are scoped as part of each project design, and the expectation is that they are performed prior to the preservation projects. For instance, INDOT guidance for chip seals says that “[p]rior to chip sealing, the pavement should show no major deficiencies and isolated deficien- cies should be repaired” (Indiana DOT 2020b). However, the typical practice is to conduct crack sealing every 3 years on state-maintained roadways. Indiana also employs a general time- line that schedules crack seals ahead of chip seals, but the state applies less stringent require- ments for other treatment types. Contracting Concrete pavement restoration (CPR) is all performed under contract. For flexible pave- ment preservation, if crack sealing is needed on routes where the preservation treatment will be contracted out, the crack sealing is included in the contract and undertaken by the contractor. Very simply, if INDOT is placing the preservation treatment, it also is responsible for the prepa- ration work. If the preservation work is conducted externally, the contractor also executes the preparation work. In Indiana, however, very few chip seals or other surface treatments are done by contract. Timing For chip sealing, patching ideally would be completed a year in advance. In-house crack sealing is also conducted 6 months to 1 year ahead of the chip seals. A lot of chip seal training has been held in the past, covering preparation steps such as crack sealing and patching. Roadway Category Subcategory Description Centerline Miles A Interstates 1 Urban Interstates and High-Volume Interstates Interstate with average daily traffic >40,000 vehicles 461 2 Rural Interstates Interstate with average daily traffic <40,000 vehicles 664 B Freeways and Principal Arterials 1 Urban High-Volume NHS Roads Freeway or principal arterial with average daily traffic >5,000 vehicles per lane 1,743 2 Rural High-Volume Roads Freeway or principal arterial with average daily traffic <5,000 vehicles per lane 1,819 C Remaining Roads 1 Urban Low-Volume Roads Any other INDOT-owned road with average daily traffic >5,000 vehicles overall 1,319 2 Rural Low-Volume Roads Any other INDOT-owned road with average daily traffic <5,000 vehicles overall 5,021 Source: Indiana DOT (2020a). Table 7. INDOT designated roadway categories for owner strategies.

34 Maintenance and Surface Preparation Activities Prior to Pavement Preservation Treatments Tracking Preparation work executed by maintenance forces is tracked in their maintenance manage- ment application. Roads that are listed to be crack sealed or chip sealed are included in an annual plan, which is entered in the pavement management system. Contract work is tracked in a contract management system and is also added to the pavement management system. However, patching and similar actions are probably not tracked as well as crack sealing. The INDOT enterprise road inventory system, Roads and Highways, incorporates all history on every section of road in Indiana. Tracking of maintenance could be better so that localized actions could be identified. Typi- cally, work is reported by the maintenance section rather than by a specific location. For example, a patching activity may be reported over 5 miles of roadway, but only 10 tons of asphalt are used. In this case, a precise route-mile location for the repair is not provided by the knowledge that likely only one medium patch was made over the 5 miles. Modeling In INDOT models, the base assumption is that the preparation work is completed, so the effect of that work is built into the model performance curves. The Indiana PMS no longer trig- gers chip seals. Because the maintenance owner’s strategies are being implemented, the PMS does not recommend specific preservation treatments, but rather treatment categories such as preservation, minor structural, and major structural. District pavement engineers are developing 20-year plans using pavement management data. Moving Forward Even though the system is mature within the agency, INDOT intends to improve consistency for the in-house work planning and tracking. A big step in this direction is integrating the main- tenance system with the Roads and Highways inventory system and aligning the maintenance sections with the PMS pavement sections. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Background Kentucky practices regarding maintenance and pavement preservation have developed over a comparatively short time. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) initially expressed interest in pavement preservation by trying different treatments that colleagues in other states had described. These early efforts were limited, consisting of one or two preservation projects a year, which did not offer a significant opportunity to evaluate a range of treatments and practices. However, after constructing a few preservation treatments in Kentucky, documenting the results on an internal shared research site, and reviewing comparative results from other states, KYTC realized that it might experience substantial savings by implementing pavement preservation— an insight that came at a time when funding for pavements was decreasing slightly. The program received another boost in 2013 when KYTC constructed a multi-treatment pave- ment preservation test section adjacent to a 2012 HMA resurfacing project, enabling almost direct comparisons. On the basis of this test section, KYTC learned that its preservation treatments could be installed at about half the cost per lane mile, on average, of the HMA overlay—and exhibited about 75% of the life of the HMA overlays. The observed pavement cost-effectiveness

Agency Case Examples 35   generated a lot of initial support from upper management, who viewed preservation as a money- saving tool. Through that test section, KYTC also learned how various treatments performed and how they addressed existing conditions. As KYTC gained this ability to demonstrate perfor- mance to other stakeholders in the state, its budget grew to the point that today it is starting to quantify the budget in a very tangible way. Obtaining buy-in from senior management, a group that experiences a lot of turnover, often can be challenging and take time; as a testament to the extent of acceptance of preservation in Kentucky, with a newly appointed administration, KYTC secured buy-in immediately because the findings and data support are convincing. Originally, KYTC made very conservative treatment decisions because it could not afford to fail. Now, the agency can learn by trying different practices and can even identify shortcomings without as much risk to the stability of its program. In a short time, pavement preservation in Kentucky transformed from “this seems like a good idea” to becoming institutionalized. As part of this process, KYTC has increasingly based its pavement treatment decisions on data. Project Selection As depicted in Figure 19, in Kentucky, a formal process of project selection initially looks at distress quantities and pavement age. The availability of consistently collected pavement condi- tion data dates to the 1990s, with preservation data since 2008. This evolving process now relies heavily on the use of data generated by the statewide pavement condition assessment. Since 2013, the KYTC data collection vehicles have run a laser crack measurement system (LCMS) over these routes each year. Every state-owned pavement is evaluated on a 3-year cycle, and preservation candidate sections are assessed every other year for a full array of available treatments for both asphalt and concrete pavements. KYTC developed a decision tree that provides initial guidance on what treatment should be considered for different distresses. Project selection is part central office policy and part local decision. A final preservation treatment is chosen once the districts and the central office reach a consensus. Today, the district personnel help to make the rules about treatment selection, so it is no longer a top-down process from the central office; this process also has buy-in from all of the state’s districts. Decisions are made by the Preventive Maintenance Alliance (PMA) group, which was founded in 2014 and includes representatives from every district. This process is embraced by 23 of 24 branches (two branches per district). Participation is incentivized by using funding specifically designated for preventive maintenance treatments. KYTC has also developed experience in what works and what does not work. KYTC has real- istic expectations and understands the treatments that are effective for different initial roadway conditions (i.e., distresses present). Each year, a portion of the preventive maintenance funding is set aside for experimentally using innovative or new products related to the treatments and for gathering data from those projects. KYTC provides in-house training so that staff members in the districts learn about available treatments and know how to select treatments based on this knowledge and experience. That learning is reinforced by each district detailing results from the previous preventive maintenance cycle, generating lessons learned each year. Product vendors and treatment applicators participate in the training workshops by making presentations and conducting demonstrations. Maintenance Before Preservation When a district knows that a job will receive a preservation treatment, the district will do everything that it can to prepare the roadway prior to the preservation work. Crack sealing is foundational to good preservation performance, and KYTC recognizes that it should crack seal

36 Maintenance and Surface Preparation Activities Prior to Pavement Preservation Treatments Source: Personal correspondence, Greg Garner, KYTC (2020). Figure 19. KYTC preventive maintenance project selection process.

Agency Case Examples 37   all road surfaces that need it. Ideally, the districts would only choose sections for preservation if they were crack sealed previously. However, in the past, the crack seal budget could not always meet all needs. The agency’s solution in 2020 was inserting a crack sealing line item in the pres- ervation projects so that KYTC could catch up on projects that just require crack sealing. Every year, the state has more miles needing crack sealing than the contractor can tackle. Most maintenance and surface preparation work are performed by the district. The district branches are aware of the upcoming preservation projects. In addition to monitoring crack sealing, the branch manager will make sure that other preliminary work is concluded before preservation projects, including patching, pipe failure repairs, and ditch cleaning. The branch manager tries to complete all the required road work before the preventive maintenance is undertaken. A primary consideration, however, is whether the district has enough time for its crews to get to and finish the work. The district also considers the cost of the work; the workload may be too much for them to accomplish. The district preference is always to assign the work in-house, but for expediency, master agreements with vendors enable them to implement some activities. Maintenance and Preservation Tracking All maintenance actions are tracked through the KYTC operation management system (OMS). Crack sealing activities are entered in the PMS, which records location, materials used, and condition over time. When work is completed, it is entered in the PMS. OMS data are not entered in the PMS; the data in OMS are linked to location-specific segments differently than in the PMS. The central office is using this information on maintenance as a data feed for life-cycle cost analyses. For now, pre-preservation maintenance actions are not considered in modeling treat- ment performance. However, for the most part, pavement sections that received preservation were also properly prepared. Having realized the importance of pre-treatment, KYTC is now tracking the data and trying to achieve greater accuracy in the data obtained. Moving Forward One unique action in Kentucky is the formation of its PMA, composed of a central office, district, and materials staff. This group collaborates on project selection and other preservation decisions, helping secure widespread buy-in. With central office funding to support good prac- tices, successful projects are expected as the norm. KYTC expects to continue improving its program as staff members collect more data on performance and deliver more training across the state. New Jersey Department of Transportation Background The New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) has made significant efforts to strengthen the links between maintenance actions and preservation treatments. A key part of these efforts was accomplished by issuing and applying the Limited Scope Project Delivery Guidelines, which defines treatments and maintenance actions that can be conducted on projects generated by the NJDOT manage- ment systems (such as pavement, drainage, bridge, or safety projects). Crack sealing and partial- and full-depth repairs may be added to the actions identified in the NJDOT policy shown in Figure 20. Another part of this effort is conducting training on the repairs and then following up during the construction process to confirm that the work is completed properly.

38 Maintenance and Surface Preparation Activities Prior to Pavement Preservation Treatments In general, the central office plans the maintenance work for preservation treatments. That work is assigned to both the operations (maintenance) staff and the capital staff, who decide collab- oratively whether to perform the work internally or to issue a contract. The operations group conducts both reactive and planned work whereas the central office only executes planned work. To determine the need for preservation, the central office first analyzes pavement manage- ment data, including transverse and longitudinal profile data used to measure rutting and calcu- late the International Roughness Index, and pavement video imagery (collected every year from the right lane only) used to identify surface distresses. The central office reviews the video and the pavement management data to create lists of rehabilitation and resurfacing projects and pres- ervation projects and to determine the scope of needed repairs. This work is then designed as a project by either the operations group or the capital group. Once a roadway is selected as a project, the central office makes a visit and assesses the scope and types of maintenance needed. During the design phase, consultants collect samples and conduct tests, perform deflection testing with a falling weight deflectometer (FWD), and complete ground-penetrating radar (GPR) testing to confirm that the pavement section is in the right treatment category. To help ensure that the maintenance work is completed as intended, quantities and planned locations are detailed in the project plans. Maintenance and Preservation Maintenance actions are typically linked to the observed pavement conditions. However, when so many repairs are required that the project is no longer a good candidate for preserva- tion, the NJDOT will consider other actions. The NJDOT limit for repairs prior to preserva- tion is 10% of the surface area, including maintenance activities such as partial-depth repair, full-depth repair, milling and paving, and localized reconstruction (but not crack sealing or micromilling). This limit was established in conjunction with the FHWA Division Office to approximate optimal use of preservation funding. If more than 10% of the area needs mainte- nance, a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is conducted to determine whether significant repairs Figure 20. NJDOT guidance for preliminary work that may accompany pavement preservation projects. Source: New Jersey DOT (2019). Features of pavement resurfacing projects that have been approved for Limited Scope projects may include: • Cross-slope Improvement • Shoulder Reconstruction (not to exceed 10% of the total pavement area for concrete and HMA) ** • Full Depth Pavement Repair (not to exceed 10% of the total pavement area for concrete and HMA) ** • Full Depth Reclamation (not to exceed 10% of the total pavement area for concrete and HMA) ** • Cold and Hot In-Place Recycling • Additional features as necessary upon approval by FHWA ** If projects have Full Depth Pavement Repair or Full Depth Reclamation that exceeds 10% of the total pavement area, a pavement life cycle cost analysis shall be conducted and approved by FHWA for the project to be considered Limited Scope. If the pavement life cycle cost analysis is approved by FHWA, CSDE evaluation and design exception approval is not required. If the pavement life cycle cost analysis is not approved by FHWA, the project shall proceed as a reconstruction project and utilize the standard CPD process.

Agency Case Examples 39   and a preservation treatment still represent the most economical strategy. If the analysis dem- onstrates that preservation is not appropriate, the project would transition to the next category, rehabilitation. A standard LCCA is performed that considers initial construction costs as well as subsequent treatment costs over 50 years. Costs are obtained from recent bid tabs. In effect, NJDOT com- pares the life-cycle costs of the preservation treatment option to those of the rehabilitation options. In the LCCA, the assumption is that every treatment has a life of at least 10 years. If the treatments actually do not last that long, NJDOT revises the assumption in that application for that traffic level. For instance, slurry seals and microsurfaces have been shown not to last 10 years when placed on some low-volume composite pavements and high-volume interstates, respectively; other treatments have been adopted for those roadway types and classifications. The maintenance work is carried out by a combination of operations staff and capital proj- ects personnel. If the work is urgent, the operations staff completes the work and notifies the central office so that the work is not counted again in a project to be completed. If the work can be planned and deferred until the scheduled project construction, the repairs are included in the planned preservation project. Usually, the work is not urgent because the agency is picking good roads for preservation. Composite pavements pose more of a challenge because the joint conditions can deteriorate quickly. Contract Versus In-House Almost all of the maintenance work is completed under contract, including work performed by the operations staff. One difference is that maintenance activities executed by operations personnel tend to be more urgent while the capital work is more stable. The central office checks to confirm that the operations work was done properly before starting a preservation project. Sometimes the maintenance work may be considered temporary, and the capital project must still include permanent maintenance repairs (e.g., throw-and-go cold patch versus an asphalt cutout). Tracking The NJDOT uses both its pavement management system and various database systems to track work items. Maintenance operates its own MMS to track information pertinent to its actions, but the PMS does not include all of the data collected. The information added to the PMS is useful for understanding what was done and how the pavement section is performing. All repairs, except in-house crack sealing, are incorporated into NJDOT databases. The central office collects information on operations-performed maintenance during quarterly meetings with operations personnel. NJDOT central office staff members contend that the effort to bridge this communication gap is worthwhile. It is not an operations staff priority to track treatment performance—only to record what was done and when. The hope is that in-house crack sealing can be tracked in the PMS in the future. Moving Forward One NJDOT effort currently under way is development of a manual that details the preliminary steps required prior to the construction of treatments such as chip seals, high-performance thin overlays, and so on. This manual will also discuss the repairs that are covered during the design process. Internal communication and knowledge sharing have presented challenges in the past. However, the Pavement & Drainage Management and Technology Unit staff members have

40 Maintenance and Surface Preparation Activities Prior to Pavement Preservation Treatments made great strides to improve their internal communication, and the manual now in process will serve as a uniform foundation throughout the department as it moves forward. The NJDOT views automated data collection as a positive action that will improve the pavement manage- ment system; however, in the process, the department’s knowledge base is slipping away from the staff members who manually rated the pavements. Meanwhile, department personnel are learning a lot about the capabilities and limitations of the automated systems and are continuing to make minor adjustments to their performance models and scoring protocols. Montana Department of Transportation Background Montana uses a full array of treatments on asphalt pavements and also on its minimal concrete pavement mileage. Preservation projects are based on the Guidelines for Nomination and Development of Pavement Projects, a joint agreement between the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and FHWA. The MDT Pavement Preservation Program and the Pave- ment Management System (PvMS) Annual Report recommend projects within 2 years. The pavement management section rates Montana roads and recommends treatments based on both roadway condition and history. These recommendations are reviewed and discussed with each district, including the maintenance chief in the division where the pavement is located, the preconstruction engineer, and the district’s administrator. The report’s recommendations may also be reviewed with the maintenance administrator for maintenance contracts in need of additional funding. The Montana pavement management system produces reports for FHWA performance monitoring on 0.1-mile intervals and applies a rating of good, fair, or poor based on measures of ride, rutting, and cracking. MDT uses a system with nine alternative treatment recommenda- tions (the system is being reevaluated to add subgrade strength information). The possible treat- ments include crack seal, crack seal with chip seal, thin overlay, structural overlay, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. The treatment recommendation is derived from an index calculation based on the multiple distresses observed in the section. The MDT staff verifies the treatment selec- tion in the field by observing actual conditions and matching them with the required treatment, including pavement repairs and surface preparation. The staff can adjust the treatment one level above (or one level below) the system recommendation without further justification. Maintenance and Surface Preparation Before Pavement Preservation In Montana, handling of the determination of required maintenance before preservation depends on who will complete the needed maintenance action. Sometimes the required level of effort impacts the decision. If the maintenance staff is constructing the preservation treat- ment, it will perform the patching before the chip seal. If the chip seal is being contracted out, the maintenance staff may complete the patching before the contracted chip seal work starts, or the patching may be added to the contract. For example, Montana maintenance personnel look ahead 2 years at programmed engineering projects to make scheduling decisions on the chip seals and thereby calculate when patching and crack sealing should be executed. If too much work is estimated in relation to district crew availability, some work is done under contract. As a rule, Montana trains crew members to recognize the need for patching, crack sealing, and other repairs at the crew or even individual level. Such training for an individual, for example, might cover how to rate cracks. The MDT maintenance staff also provides manuals for crack sealing and chip sealing, and now a mastics manual is under development. MDT also has an operation manual for all roadway maintenance activities in Montana.

Agency Case Examples 41   The MDT program does not allocate federal funds to projects implemented through division maintenance activities. Federally funded preservation projects are managed through the engi- neering division and are added to the tentative construction plan (TCP). Federal funds are more likely to be used on the Interstates, NHS, and primary routes in Montana. Projects administered by the engineering division will undergo a more involved preliminary engineering process and will incur additional costs for design and inspection. Maintenance projects do not require as much design or preparation; maintenance projects are much more operationally nimble. In Montana, the maintenance project-level review includes the maintenance chief and super- intendent interacting with the section supervisors. They assess both the presence of cracking, for example, and the type of cracking; review maintenance records and possible treatment recom- mendations; run cost estimates for the various possible treatments; and compare the traffic index and needs throughout the division. Using that information, they decide which projects will be nominated for treatment during each funding cycle. MDT also uses a cost comparison tool to analyze how the work is best done. The tool takes the average cost from the Montana MMS and determines the anticipated costs to use agency forces and then compares those costs to a 3-year average for contracted work to evaluate which option is most cost-effective. Sometimes when maintenance work is cheaper, the department still may contract it out because agency resources are not available, but the work needs to be completed. The maintenance organization conducts a contract administration course every 2 years for the maintenance staff throughout Montana. This training offers an opportunity to periodically emphasize project nomination and cost comparison guidelines. Tracking Each MDT division retains information in an electronic project file. Projects completed by maintenance personnel are reported to the pavement management section. Labor, equipment, material, and contracted costs are all entered in the MMS, which helps track costs and main- tenance actions. The maintenance activity is associated with the related preservation project. Fleet, maintenance, and pavement management systems are all software modules supplied by the same vendor, but the Montana maintenance and pavement systems do not currently “talk” to each other. MDT is investigating the actions required to enable these software components to interface. Currently, work categorized as planned maintenance is more likely to be reported to the pavement management system, but that does not always happen, so an interface is needed. Moving Forward MDT has built and improved Montana practices over many years. For instance, the depart- ment’s comparison sheet was implemented based on an audit recommendation. Some program components were added over time in response to similar recommendations, improved data capture, and observations of treatment performance. In the experience of MDT, having a process has been very valuable because it gives the users guidance and direction, and the maintenance organization can share it with other departments in Montana. MDT has created a website where anyone can view the planned work. This tool is particularly useful to internal staff members, who can see whether their work intersects with the work of other organizations. Using a consistent process opens lines of communication between the maintenance and engineering groups, encouraging collaboration on project selection and avoiding previously unknown conflicts.