2009RIC11

2009RIC11
Implementation of Pavement Management

in Minnesota
ve Solutions!
vati
ch . ... Inno
r .. Knowledge
sea
Take the steps... Re
Transportation Research
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No.
MN/RC - 2009RIC11
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Implementation of Pavement Management in Minnesota June 2009
6.
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Michael M. Marti, P.E.

Renae Kuehl, P.E., P.T.O.E.
Jessa Dauer, P.E.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447
RIC Task 11
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Minnesota Department of Transportation Final Report
Research Services Section
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 330
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
15. Supplementary Notes
http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/2009RIC11.pdf
http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/2009RIC11PP.ppt
http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/2009RIC11Brochure.pdf
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
Pavement Management Systems (PMSs) are cost effective tools for helping local agency engineers manage the
significant investment that has been made in their pavements. PMSs can also estimate future pavement
conditions. This capability supports local engineers in making critical funding decisions about valuable
pavement assets. Like any computerized system, PMSs are only as good as the data that is put into them and
the analysis algorithms that drive them. Data collection, validation, and updating can be expensive. Accurate
life cycle analysis is critical for making a PMS effective. However, automation and other new tools offer
opportunities for reducing costs and improving the results coming out of PMSs. This report was developed as a
resource for Minnesota local agencies, focusing on the capabilities, applications, and benefits of current
pavement management systems used on local road systems in Minnesota. This resource will provide
information to help local agencies without a PMS to evaluate, select, and justify the purchase and operational
costs of a PMS; additionally, it will help local agencies who have a PMS to better use and enhance their
capabilities. This report has a related PowerPoint and Brochure.
17. Document Analysis/Descriptors 18.Availability Statement
Pavement management systems Asset Management Software No restrictions. Document available
Pavement management methods Pavement management from: National Technical Information
Evaluating pavement Software Services, Springfield, Virginia 22161
Maintaining pavement PMS
Pavement inventory Software
19. Security Class (this report) 20. Security Class (this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 62
Implementation of Pavement Management in Minnesota
DRAFT REPORT
Prepared by:
Michael M. Marti, P.E.

Renae Kuehl, P.E., P.T.O.E.
Jessa Dauer, P.E.
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447
June 2009
Published by:
Minnesota Local Road Research Board

Office of Research Services
395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mail Stop 330
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Disclaimer:
This report represents the results of research conducted by the authors and does not necessarily represent the views or policies of
the Minnesota Department of Transportation or the Minnesota Local Road Research Board. This report does not contain a
standard or specified technique.
The authors and the Minnesota Department of Transportation and/or Local Road Research Board do not endorse products or
manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to this report.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank the Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) and its Research
Implementation Committee (RIC) for the financial support to make this important resource a
reality. The Technical Advisory Panel that steered this project was extremely helpful in
identifying key issues and concerns related to pavement management and the resources needed at
the local level. They also were very generous with their time in reviewing and providing
oversight for this final document.
The authors would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their
contributions to this document
Technical Advisory Panel

Rich Sanders, Polk County (Chair)
Jeff Adolphson, Wadena County
Ross Beckwith, Dakota County
Steve Bot, City of St. Michael
Jim Foldesi, St. Louis County
Alan Goodman, Lake County
Jess Greenwood, Rock County
Tim Gross, Three Rivers Park District
Guy Kohlnhofer, Dodge County
Steve Lillehaug, City of Brooklyn Center
Erland Lukanen, Minnesota Department of Transportation
Clark Moe, Minnesota Department of Transportation
Nathan Richman, Waseca County
Lyndon Robjent, Crow Wing County
Paul Stine, Minnesota Department of Transportation
Tom Struve, City of Eagan
Brad Wentz, Becker County
Andrew Witter, Anoka County
Additionally, we would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the various vendors of Pavement
Management Systems software in use with Minnesota. The vendors, listed later in the report,
were very responsive and cooperative in compiling the data.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
Task Background and Purpose.........................................................................................................1
Software Program Data Collection Process .....................................................................................1
Initial Survey – City and County Engineer’s .......................................................................2
Data Collection of Selected Software Programs ..................................................................4
Date Collection Results........................................................................................................4
In-House Pavement Management Systems ........................................................................10
Summary of Case Studies ..............................................................................................................10
Pavement Management Systems Workshop ..................................................................................11
Pavement Management Systems Brochure ....................................................................................11
Appendix A: City and County Survey Results Table

Appendix B: Commercial and In-House Pavement Management System Case Studies
Appendix C: Pavement Management System Workshop PowerPoint Slides
Appendix D: Workshop Resources
Appendix E: Pavement Management System Brochure
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Initial Survey Results – Identifying Minnesota Pavement Management Systems .......... 2
Table 2: Pavement Management Systems - Software Program Data Collection Results .............. 5
INTRODUCTION
Pavement Management Systems software is designed to make the job of pavement management
easier and more efficient, providing applications to track pavement data and to aid in planning
and identifying project needs. As more and more public works departments face the realities of
increasing workloads and shrinking resources, finding technology applications that allow
productivity gains becomes ever more important. The use of Pavement Management System
software as a tool for pavement management has grown and continues to grow at a rapid pace.
This report reviews the various Pavement Management System software programs available,
provides a matrix indicating features of each program and highlights the findings from case
studies within the state of Minnesota. This report will provide information to help local agencies
without a Pavement Management System to evaluate, select, and justify the purchase and
operational costs of a Pavement Management System software program and help local agencies
who have a Pavement Management System software program to better use and enhance their
capabilities.
TASK BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The Local Road Research Board (LRRB) undertook this research implementation study to
develop an understanding of how Pavement Management System software programs were (or
were not) currently being used by county and city engineers in Minnesota and to provide a tool
summarizing systems currently used in Minnesota.
The resulting documentation should be understood as a review of Pavement Management System

software programs; not a recommendation for any one product. The decision to purchase and
use one product over another must be made based on the individual users’ or agencies’
requirements.
SOFTWARE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS
In order to determine current usage and desired functionality of Pavement Management System
software programs in Minnesota, a survey was developed and administered to city and county
engineers. Results from this survey were used to determine what Pavement Management
Systems software is currently in use by Minnesota local governments. A list of evaluation
criteria was developed by the TAP and a secondary survey was conducted to determine from a
“users” perspective, the capabilities, applications, and benefits of the various pavement
management systems. Results of the survey were then compiled in a matrix format, for ease of
comparison. After the “user” information was compiled for each commercial system, a third
survey was sent to the actual pavement management system software vendors. This data was
compared with the user results, and through a series of emails and phone calls, discrepancies
were resolved. A final copy of the matrix was sent to each of the vendors to review the results.
Pavement Management Systems Page 1

June 2009
INITIAL SURVEY – CITY AND COUNTY ENGINEERS
The first step was to survey Minnesota city and county engineers, querying them regarding their
use of Pavement Management System software programs, how long they have used the software
and any case studies they have that demonstrate the use of their Pavement Management System
software.
The survey was administered via e-mail in the summer of 2008, with a total of 64 responses
received (27 cities and 37 counties). Results of the survey are listed below each question.
Significant findings are summarized below, with the full survey summary included in Appendix
A of this report.
Table 1: Initial Survey Results – Identifying Minnesota Pavement Management Systems
1. Does your agency currently use a Pavement Management System software program? If so,
which one?
Results: Of the 64 respondents, 40 agencies (63 percent) currently use a commercial
Pavement Management System software program and 13 agencies (20 percent) use an in-
house developed Pavement Management System.
Pavement Management System Number of Responses

GoodPointe Technology (Icon) 30
Cartegraph (Roadpro) 3
Hansen 0
Micropaver (Corps of Engineers) 3
Infrastructure Management Services (IMS) 2
Roadware Group Inc. 0
Stantec 0
Deighton Associates 0
Applied Research Associates 0
PASERWARE (WisDOT) 1
In-House Pavement Management System 13
Other - iWorqs 1
None 11
TOTAL 64
2. How many years have you used your current system?

Results: Experience ranges from 1-20 years (see Appendix A for detailed responses)

June 2009
3. Have you ever used a different Pavement Management System? If so, why did you change?
Results: Of the 64 respondents, 18 agencies (28 percent) had used a different Pavement
Management System in the past. The following is a summary of reasons why they switched:
Need more detailed system (previously used a spreadsheet): 3
Wanted GIS integration: 1
Wanted same system as neighboring cities: 1
Old program became obsolete: 1
Wanted a program that did sign management as well: 1
Too expensive: 2
Too difficult to use: 5
Wanted better reports: 2
Wanted standard PCI rating system: 1
System crash – lost data: 1
4. Do you have any case studies that demonstrate the use of your Pavement Management
System? (e.g. actual experiences where the use of a Pavement Management System increased
efficiency, roadway quality, reduced city/county board meetings, etc. due to the results)
Results: Of the 64 respondents, 15 agencies (23 percent) had case studies that demonstrated
the use of their Pavement Management System. Of the case studies, ten focused on
commercial Pavement Management System software programs and five on in-house systems.
Phone interviews were conducted with these agencies and a one page case study summary
was developed for each. These summaries are included in Appendix B of this report.
5. Do you have any case studies that demonstrate the use of your Pavement Management
System? (e.g. actual experiences where the use of a Pavement Management System increased
efficiency, roadway quality, reduced city/county board meetings, etc. due to the results)
Results: Of the 64 respondents, 15 agencies (23 percent) had case studies that demonstrated
the use of their Pavement Management System. Of the case studies, ten focused on
commercial Pavement Management System software programs and five on in-house systems.
Phone interviews were conducted with these agencies and a one page case study summary
was developed for each. These summaries are included in Appendix B of this report.

June 2009
DATA COLLECTION OF SELECTED SOFTWARE PROGRAMS
In order to provide a comprehensive review of the Pavement Management System software
programs identified as used in Minnesota, the Technical Advisory Panel developed an extensive
list of attributes to review each of the Pavement Management System software program on.
Eight major categories were developed, with multiple subcategories within each (see Table 2:
Pavement Management System - Software Program Data Collection Results). The major
categories included in the review criteria are:
1. Cost
2. Date Inputs
3. Budget Analysis Provided
4. GIS Capabilities (Mapping Tool)
5. Access to Data
6. Support
7. Ease of Data Input/Output
8. Software Operates on a “typical” Office Computer
Once the review criteria was finalized by the TAP, an online survey was developed and sent to
each software program vendor to fill out for their Pavement Management System. Responses
from the surveys were reviewed and synthesized into a tabular format. The final table for each
Pavement Management System software program was then sent to each vendor for review and
final approval was received from each. The tables were then combined to form a matrix to be
used by local agencies for ease of comparing the various software programs and their attributes
(see Table 1: Pavement Management System - Software Program Data Collection Results).
DATA COLLECTION RESULTS

An important caveat for the reader to make note of when viewing the results of the survey is
this; each software program is designed to meet a certain niche and simply because an
application may not, for example, have a data input field for ESALs, does not mean that the
software does not have other useful capabilities. In this regard, the information that follows is
not meant to be viewed as a recommendation for any one program over another, but simply to
provide information regarding capabilities of each.
Responses are summarized and indicated in the following format:

● Standard – Included in Standard Software Cost
◐ Optional – Available for an Additional Cost
○ Not Available

June 2009
Table 2: Pavement Management Systems – Software Program Data Collection Results
Software (Provider)
Micropaver PAVEMENTview Plus ICON PavePRO RoadMatrix PASERWARE
(APWA / Corps of Engineers) (Cartêgraph) (Goodpointe Technology) Manager (IMS) (Stantec) (WI TIC LTAP)
1.0 COST
Free for WI
$995 for APWA members
$5,000- agencies $100
1.1 Initial Cost of Software $1095 for non-APWA $1,000 - $5,000 $1,000 - $10,000+ $10,000+
$8,000 for non-WI
members
agencies
● for one authorized user
● First year ◐ $250 for each additional
user
1.2 Annual Technical Support ◐ Renewable annually for ◐ $2,500-
Costs $500 for APWA members ● ◐ Value-added ● ○
$5,000
$650 for non-APWA infrastructure management
members consulting services, cost
varies with number of hours
($1,000 - $4,000)
1.3 Vendor Data Collection Costs
$50 -
1.3.1. Automated ○ ○ $25 - $215/mile $300+/mile1 ○
$200/mile
Included in
$100 -
1.3.2. Manual ○ ○ $25 - $250/mile cost for ○
$200/mile
Automated
Included in
1.3.3. Hand-held/PDA/Tablet
○ $20 - $50/mile $100 - $250/mile cost for ○ ○
PC
Automated
2.0 DATA INPUTS
2.1 Segment, Begin and End ● ● ● ● ● ●
Points
2.2 Spatial location (GPS Location) ● ● ● ● ● ○
2.3 Segment Width and/or Area ● ● ● ● ● ●
2.4 Pavement (Layer) Data ● ● ● ● ● ●
2.5 Age ● ● ● ● ● ●
2.6 AADT ○ ● ● ● ● ●
2.7 ESAL’s ○ ● ● ● ● ○
○ Not Available
1
Data collection includes surface data, deflection testing, digital images, and GIS linkage.
Pavement Management Software Page 5
June 2009
Software (Provider)
2.8 Surface Condition (Pavement ●
Distress) ● ● ● ● ●
2.9 Strength Inventory ○ ● ● ● ● ○
2.10 Ride Quality ● ● ● ● ● ○
2.11 Geotechnical Evaluation ○ ● ● ● ● ○
2.12 Pavement Performance Curve ● ● ● ● ● ●
2.13 Drainage Features ○ ● ● ● ● ●
2.14 Right of way asset capabilities
Integrated into pavement
software (Integrated)
Stand-alone (Stand Alone)
2.14.1. Curb & Gutter ● ● ● ● ●
○
Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated
2.14.2. Shoulders ● ● ● ● ●
○
Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated
2.14.3. Slopes ● ● ● ●
○ ○
Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated
2.14.4. Signs ● ● ●
○ ○2 ○
Integrated Integrated Integrated
2.14.5. Striping ● ● ●
○ ○2 ○
Integrated Integrated Integrated
2.15 Agency’s Maintenance
Strategies ● ● ● ◐ ● ●

○ Not Available
2
Data is collected as part of vendor data collection costs and can be input into third-party software applications.

June 2009
Software (Provider)
3.0 BUDGET ANALYSIS PROVIDED
3.1 Based on performance
measures and performance ● ● ● ● ● ●
forecasts
3.1.1. Adjust based on
maintenance strategies ● ● ● ● ● ●
3.2 Output - Does it provide:
3.2.1. Estimates for
infrastructure ● ● ● ● ● ●
investments?
3.2.2. Cost for “do nothing”
approach? ● ● ● ● ● ●
3.3 Does it use lifecycle cost? ● ● ● ● ● ○
4.0 GIS CAPABILITIES (MAPPING TOOL)
4.1 GIS Compatibility (Seamless
Linkability) ● ● ● ● ● ○
5.0 ACCESS TO DATA
5.1 What database platform is
used?
5.1.1. Access ● ● ● ○ ○ ●
5.1.2. Oracle ○ ● ● ○ ● ○
5.1.3. SQL Server ○ ● ● ○ ● ○
5.1.4. FoxPro ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ○
○ Not Available

June 2009
Software (Provider)
5.2 Can data be written to other
programs?
5.2.1. Access ● ● ● ● ● ●
5.2.2. Excel ● ● ● ● ● ●
5.2.3. Arcview ● ● ● ● ○ ○
5.2.4. Crystal Reports ○ ● ● ○ ● ○
5.2.5. SQL ○ ● ● ○ ● ○
5.2.6. Oracle ○ ● ● ○ ● ○
5.2.7. Shape Files ● ● ● ● ● ○
5.2.8. Geo Database ○ ● ● ○ ● ○
5.3 Data Accessibility
5.3.1. Can multiple users
access data ○ ◐3 ● ● ● ●
simultaneously?
5.3.2. Can data be accessed
wirelessly? ● ● ● ○ ○ ○
5.3.3. Is data web-
based/browser-based? ○ ○5 ●4 ○ ○ ○

○ Not Available
3
With SQL server integration
4
Option: hosted on user’s site or provider’s site
5
Web-solution to be deployed in Version 8.3 (anticipated release summer of 2009)

June 2009
Software (Provider)
6.0 SUPPORT
● for one authorized user

● for first
◐ additional users
● for first year year
6.1 Is technical support available? ● ● ○
◐ Value-added
◐ thereafter ◐
infrastructure management
thereafter
consulting services
6.2 Does vendor offer continuing ●7

education/training? ◐ ●6 ◐ ◐ ○
◐8
Large
Large Majority Large Majority
6.3 Quality of Support Large Majority Satisfied Large Majority Satisfied Majority ○
Satisfied Satisfied
Satisfied
7.0 EASE OF DATA INPUT/OUTPUT

7.1 Is there a map input interface? ● ● ● ● ● ○
7.2 Can reporting be customized? ● ● ● ● ● ●

8.0 Software Operates on “Typical” Office
Computer √ √ √ √ √ √

○ Not Available
6
Web based
7
New features are part of regular User Group Meetings which are usually held in the Twin Cities Metro Area.
8
Hands-on training opportunities are provided at their headquarters. Customized, hands-on onsite training programs are provided as-needed.

June 2009
IN-HOUSE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Not all local agencies choose to purchase commercially available Pavement Management System
software programs. Of the 64 local agencies that responded to the survey, 13 agencies
(20 percent) have developed an in-house Pavement Management System, which in most cases
was created using Microsoft Excel. The detail and use of these systems vary greatly between
agencies. For further information about the development and use of in-house systems, contact
one of the following agencies:
Becker County ● Pipestone County
City of Blaine Ramsey County *
City of Brooklyn Park Stearns County
Clearwater County * St. Louis County *
Faribault County * Three Rivers Park District *
Kandiyohi County Todd County
Lake of the Woods County City of Willmar
* Case studies were created for five of the agencies that responded, highlighting the background,
tips for implementing pavement management and realized benefits. A one-page summary for
each is provided in Appendix B of this report.
SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES
Some Minnesota local agencies have been using pavement management systems since the
early 80’s, while others do not have a system at all. In effort to share past experience, case study
summaries were developed for those that have demonstrated the use of their Pavement
Management System. Information obtained from the city and county survey indicated that
15 agencies had case studies, ten focused on commercial Pavement Management System
software programs and five on in-house systems. Phone interviews were conducted with these
agencies and a one page case study summary was developed for each, highlighting the
background, tips for implementing pavement management and realized benefits. These
summaries are included in Appendix B of this report.
The following is a summary of common tips and benefits indicated amongst the 15 case studies,
with the number of agencies noted in parenthesis:
TIPS FOR IMPLEMENTING PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT:
Periodically rate your network (6)

Keep data up to date to increase usefulness of the tool:
o Use to identify project needs (8)
o Use to identify appropriate maintenance treatment (2)
o Include information such as treatment used, cost, construction history (2)

May 2009
Use Pavement Management System to gain council support on project needs and funding (5)
Develop a system-wide map and list of priorities (4)
Use to inform public of projects early in the process, to avoid project delay (1)
Contact other agencies that use Pavement Management Systems to learn about
experiences, lessons learned, etc. (1)
REALIZED BENEFITS:
Used data to determine project needs (8)

Used data to strengthen presentation to council/public and obtain funding (7)
Able to track system performance over time (5)
Able to maintain or increase PCI rating (4)
Able to show project needs in graphical form, to present to council/public (2)
Used to predict future pavement status (1)
Easier to efficiently schedule maintenance and reconstruction projects (1)
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SELECTION WORKSHOP
In addition to this report, curriculum and material for a four-hour pavement management systems
selection workshop was developed for staff of agencies considering the acquisition of a
Pavement Management System. Three training workshops will be conducted around the state
in 2009. This workshop highlights the benefits of Pavement Management System, elements of
Pavement Management System, case studies and resources. A copy of the PowerPoint slide
handouts from this workshop are available in Appendix D of this report.
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BROCHURE
For those that are not familiar with Pavement Management Systems and want to learn more
about them, a brochure was developed to describe the concept, use, and benefits of Pavement
Management Systems. This brochure is ideal for educating county commissioners, city council
members, and the public on the use and benefits of Pavement Management Systems. This
brochure is available for your use in Appendix E of this report.

June 2009
Appendix A
City and County Engineer Survey Results Table

#6008/020B 6/18/2009
LRRB Pavement Management Systems
Responses from Survey emailed to City/County Engineers 6/6/2008
Does your agency currently use a PMS? If so, which Have you ever used a different PMS? If so,
one? why did you change?
• GoodPointe Technology (Icon) [30] Need more detailed system (used
Responses Received: • Cartegraph (Roadpro) [3] spreadsheet): 3
Cities: 27 • Hansen [0] Wanted GIS intergration: 1 Do you have any case studies that
Counties: 36 • Micropaver (Corps of Engineers) [3] Wanted same system as neighboring cities: 1 demonstrate the use of your PMS? (e.g. Who can we contact at your agency to get
Other: 1 • Infrastructure Management Services (IMS) [2] How many years have you used your Old program became obsolete: 1 actual experiences where the use of a more information on your experience with
Total: 64 • Roadware Group Inc. [0] current system? Wanted a program that did sign management PMS increased efficiency, roadway quality, your PMS? (brief phone interview to gather
• Stantec [0] as well: 1 reduced city/county board meetings, etc. more specific data)
PINK BOX: Possible Case • Deighton Associates [0] Too expensive: 2 due to the results)
Studies to followup on • Applied Research Associates [0] Too diffucult to use: 5
• PASERWARE (WisDOT) [1] Wanted better reports: 2
• In-House PMS [13] Wanted standard PCI rating system: 1
• Other [None 11] [iWorqs 1] System crash - lost data: 1
We use the output data (OCI's) to set our
schedule in our Capital Improvement Plan
to schedule mill and overlay work. Also
Jason Law
use as a database tool for lengths, areas,
1 Andover Assistant City Engineer JLaw@ci.andover.mn.us Cartegraph 5 years No Myself
curb type, widths, etc. Also use as a
763-767-5130
historical record of years improvements
and maintenance was completed on a
given roadway segment.
Daniel Schluender
Changed when old system crashed and data
2 City of Blaine Sr. Civil Engineer DSchluender@ci.blaine.mn.us In-House PMS 0 years No Myself
was lost.
763-785-6158
We used our system to demonstrate the
need for reconstruction and overlays. 17
years & 45 million dollars later we have
Gary Brown
3 Gary.Brown@brooklynpark.org In-House PMS 17 years No now completely reconstructed all streets Steve Nauer 763-493-8009
City of Brooklyn Park
(repaired utilitiesand installed storm
sewer) and reduced the percentage of
poor condition streets to less than 8%
Jeffrey Radick
Yes, past program no longer supported by
4 City of Burnsville jeffrey.radick@ci.burnsville.mn.us ICON 14 years Nothing easily documented Myself
software company.
952-895-4418
Todd M. Blank
5 Cambridge City Engineer tblank@sehinc.com Micropaver 8 years No No Myself
651-490-2017
Sue Knight
6 City of Champlin Engineer sknight@ci.champlin.mn.us ICON 15 years No No Myself
763-923-7130
Tom Colbert
7 TColbert@cityofeagan.com ICON 19 years No Yes! Tom Struve 651-675-5300
City of Eagan Public Works Director
Nothing as specific as the examples given;
Mary Krause
MKrause@edenprairie.org however, we have been able to maintain
8 City of Eden Prairie Project Engineer ICON 13 years No Myself
our pavement system at the PCI rating
952-949-8315
goal we had originally set.
Wayne Houle
Yes, Stantec. Became too (ooooo) expensive
9 Edina City Engineer WHoule@ci.edina.mn.us ICON 2-3 years No, to soon. Jeff Frahm or Rebecca Foster
for updates.
952-826-0443
Nick Egger We are still in the process of completing John Caven
10 Hastings City Engineer NickEgger@ci.hastings.mn.us ICON 2 years No data acquisition (i.e. road ratings) to fully Assistant City Engineer
651-480-2370 implement the PMS software. 651-480-2369
THE CITY USED A PAVEMENT RATING

SYSTEM FROM “PAVEPRO IMS.” THE
CITY CHOSE TO GO WITH THE LOCAL
John Caven
AGENCY, GOODPOINTE, IN 2007 TO RATE
11 Hastings Assistant City Engineer JCaven@ci.hastings.mn.us ICON 1 year N/A Myself
THE STREETS AND BE PROVIDED WITH
651-480-2369
THE SOFTWARE. IT APPEARED THAT
MANY NEIGHBORING CITIES FAVORABLY
USED THIS PROGRAM.
WE USE OUR PMS TO ESTABLISH
Kent Exner
OUR PAVEMENT 5-YR CIP ANNUALLY
12 Hutchinson City Engineer kexner@ci.hutchinson.mn.us ICON 10 years No Myelf
AND TO JUSTIFY PROJECT
320-234-4212
TIMING/METHOD
Scott Thureen Steve Dodge
13 Inver Grove Heights City Engineer sthureen@ci.inver-grove-heights.mn.us ICON 10 years No No Assistant City Engineer
651-450-2541
We really only use our PMS to manage

history of applications/maintenance as well
Had been using iworqs (iworq.com) for about 2-
as keeping consistent measurements for
Marcus Culver 3 years previously. We changed due to
pavement area calculations (radius, width,
14 Maple Grove Traffic Engineer mculver@ci.maple-grove.mn.us ICON Just transitioning to it now. wanting better integration with our GIS system. Myself
extra area for cul-de-sac, etc.). We will be
763-494-6364 Also liked the local support and regular user
looking at using the PMS ratings and
group meetings for ICON.
projected life cycles for our major
collector/minor arterial roadways.
Glenn J. Olson
15 Marshall City Engineer Glenn.Olson@marshallmn.com None N/A N/A N/A N/A
507-537-6773
H:\Trans\6008 RIC 2007-08\T11 Pavement Management\Survey\Survey Responses PMS 8x11

#6008/020B 6/18/2009
Sue McDermott
Use it to develop 5-year CIP and
16 Mendota Heights City Engineer SueM@Mendota-Heights.com iWorqs 3 years No Sam Kuchinka 651-452-1850
maintenance schedule
651-255-1123
Mike Kennedy
17 City of Minneapolis Public Works Director Mike.Kennedy@ci.minneapolis.mn.us Micropaver 20 years No Depends upon what you are looking for. Myself
612-673-3759
Steve Lillehaug
18 Minnetonka Assistant City Engineer slillehaug@eminnetonka.com IMS 15 years No No Myself
952-939-8234
We have not been using the system long
enough to demonstrate its effectiveness.
We have used IMS for 2 years now. IMS
The City began with a different PMS in the late Given the 3-year cycle needed to evaluate
surveys the City streets on a 3-year cycle, Jody Bertrand (218-299-5388) is the best
Thomas E. Trowbridge 1990's. It was labor intensive, and the City did all of the City's streets, we would expect
completing 1/3 of the City's streets every contact for information on the City's PMS.
19 Moorhead Assistant City Engineer tom.trowbridge@ci.moorhead.mn.us IMS not have enough staff to keep the evaluations that it will take at least 3 more years before
year. Therefore, 2/3 of the City's streets You may also contact Tom Trowbridge (218-
218-299-5395 current. The contract with IMS was deemed a we can start evaluating whether the City's
have been rated. Later this year, IMS will do 299-5395) if he is unavailable.
more efficient use of City resources. current pavement management plan is
the last 1/3.
maintaining the City's streets to the desired
level.
Dave Kotilinek
20 North St. Paul City Engineer dave.kotilinek@ci.north-saint-paul.mn.us ICON 13 years No No Myself
651-747-2437
Yes, we watched one area over the years
Derick Anderson Yes, Carter. We switched to move to a more
21 DAnderson@cityofrichfield.org ICON 12 years to see how maintenance affects the PCI Myself
City of Richfield standard PCI rating system
rating
Kristin Asher
22 Richfield Assistant City Engineer KAsher@cityofrichfield.org N/A N/A N/A N/A Derick Anderson 612-861-9798
612-861-9795
In Robbinsdale, there was a very basic
Richard McCoy We use data from our PMS in conjunction
spreadsheet system, which was more of an
23 Robbinsdale City Engineer rmccoy@CI.ROBBINSDALE.MN.US ICON We first introduced ICON in 2002. with our other asset data to help drive our Myself
inspection record than any formalized system.
763-531-1260 Capital Works Program.
The need for change was pretty obvious.
James Landini
24 jlandini@ci.shorewood.mn.us Paser on Paper N/A No No Myself
Shorewood City Engineer
Yes, at a former employer we used Micropaver
Matt Saam
for a while. We went away from Micropaver (to
25 West St. Paul City Engineer matt.saam@ci.west-saint-paul.mn.us ICON 2 years No Not available due to work load.
Goodpointe) because it was so difficult/archaic
507-537-6803
to use.
Mel Odens
26 Willmar Director of Public Works modens@ci.willmar.mn.us In-House PMS 10 years No No Myself
320-214-5169
NO, BUT IT IS A GOOD TOOL FOR
Aaron Nelson PRINTING MAPS OR VARIOUS PCI'S
27 City of Woodbury Engineer II anelson@ci.woodbury.mn.us ICON 8-10 years No THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND Myself
651-714-3593 PICKING WHICH NEIGHBORHOODS
WE'RE GOING TO WORK IN.
Andrew J. Witter Cartegraph, high cost, not user-friendly, paying
We currently use it to assist in selection of
28 Anoka County Assistant Engineer Andrew.Witter@co.anoka.mn.us ICON 3 years for more modules and technology than were Myself
overlay projects.
763-862-4249 actually using.
we do not have much experience with it.
William Malin
29 WGmalin@co.chisago.mn.us ICON We are in the process of training one of our No No Myself
Chisago County
techs but he is out on inspection until fall.
David Overbo
30 David.Overbo@co.clay.mn.us ICON Starting in 2008 No N/A Nathan Gannon 218-299-5099
Clay County Engineer
It has shown the road quality actually
Dan Sauve
No, However, we do use an Excel spreadsheet. Poor improved in the last 10 years. It has
31 County Engineer Clearwater County dan.sauve@co.clearwater.mn.us 10 years No Myself
mans PMS. helped to identify and track where the
218-694-6132
work is needed on a road.
Shae Kosmalski
None, but poised to do so in the very near future.
32 Cook County Highway Engineer shae.kosmalski@co.cook.mn.us N/A N/A N/A N/A
When is the estimated completion date of this LRRB?
218-387-3695
Ron Gregg
33 County Engineer Cottonwood County ron.gregg@co.cottonwood.mn.us None N/A N/A N/A Myself
507-831-1389
Lyndon Robjent
Yes, spreadsheet. Wanted to use something
34 Crow Wing County lyndon.robjent@co.crow-wing.mn.us ICON 1 year No Myself
that had budget forecasting.
218-824-1110

#6008/020B 6/18/2009
Ross Beckwith
35 Dakota County Construction Engineer Ross.Beckwith@CO.DAKOTA.MN.US ICON 8 years No No Lenny Weiss 952-891-7100
952-891-7926
Guy Kohlnhofer
We had Paver but didn't like the lack of usable
36 Dodge County Engineer guy.kohlnhofer@co.dodge.mn.us ICON 3 years No We'll talk at meetings
reports.
507-374-6694
Faribault County does not have a pavement
John McDonald The recent road rating that was done also
management program. I developed a map showing
37 Faribault County Director/Engineer John.McDonald@co.faribault.mn.us N/A N/A helped in convincing the Board which Myself
the construction history that I rely on in coming up
507-526-3291 projects to do.
with projects.
Greg Isakson We bought it two years ago, recently
38 Goodhue County Public Works Director greg.isakson@co.goodhue.mn.us ICON populated it with information from MnDoTs No No N/A
651-385-3025 VAN and are just starting to use it.
Retrieving network data (ride ratings,

condition surveys, or quantity estimates) is
James Grube more efficient than manual spreadsheets.
39 James.Grube@co.hennepin.mn.us ICON 10 years No Steve Peterson 612-596-0334
Hennepin County Director of Transportation Reports help management prioritize
selection of roads to overlay, reconstruct
and crackseal.
Marcus Evans
40 Houston County Engineer Marcus.Evans@co.houston.mn.us None N/A N/A N/A N/A
507-725-3925
In-House PMS: We have an informal process of
condition ratings, age (year of last surfacing), rut
Gary Danielson depth, traffic, risk of delays, road function and then
41 Kandiyohi County Public Works Director gary_d@co.kandiyohi.mn.us our staff gets in a van together doing visual inspection N/A N/A N/A N/A
320-235-3266 for final selection. In case of a tie, the roads I drive on
get extra points. Great system as long as one's
memory is still good.
Bruce Hasbargen
42 Lake of the Woods County Public Works Director bruce_h@co.lake-of-the-woods.mn.us No, only a spreadsheet. 15 years No No Myself
218-634-1767
Lee Amuson
None. Hope to use data from MnDOT Road
43 Lincoln County left voicemail N/A No No Lee Amuson
Photolog data collection
507-694-1464
Lon Aune
44 lon.aune@co.marshall.mn.us None N/A N/A N/A N/A
Marshall County Engineer
John T. Brunkhorst 3-4 years but have not used it much at all We did have Micropaver but switched because
45 john.brunkhorst@co.mcleod.mn.us ICON No Myself
McLeod County Engineer unfortunately. I wanted flexibility for sign mgmt as well.
Nicollet County is not subscribing to any organized
Mike Wagner pavement management system at this time. We
46 mwagner@co.nicollet.mn.us N/A N/A N/A N/A
Nicollet County Engineer resurface or reconstruct the pavements as soon as it
becomes necessary.
Jay Munson
Alan Hancock 320-983-8347
47 Mille Lacs County Assistant Engineer jay.munson@co.mille-lacs.mn.us None. Formarlly used ICON No longer use the system No No
Warren Delles 320-983-8395
320-983-8327
Stephen Schnieder
None, I do in field inspections and reviews of the
48 Nobles County Public Works Director sschnieder@co.nobles.mn.us N/A N/A N/A Myself
pavement conditions a minimum of annually
507-295-5334
David Halbersma
49 Pipestone County Highway Engineer David.Halbersma@co.pipestone.mn.us In-House PMS 10 years No N/A Myself
Richard C. Sanders
50 Polk County Engineer sanders.rich@co.polk.mn.us ICON 1 year Cartegraph, to complicated No Myself
218-470-8253
This is the only system we have used but are
Ken Haider Kathy Jaschke 651-266-7192
51 Ken.Haider@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US We use an in-house PMS I believe we have over 20 years of records. looking forward to the data this year from the Contact Kathy about this one.
Ramsey County Engineer Nick Fischer 651-266-7191
State Aid van evaluation.
Not yet. We have not been able to
Stefan Gantert Dennis Luebbe sgantert@co.rice.mn.us
52 ICON Less than 2 years No dedicate enough time to generating any Myself
Rice County Assistant Engineer dluebbe@co.rice.mn.us
type of report yet.
Jess Greenwood
53 Rock County jess.greenwood@co.rock.mn.us Micropaver 2.5 Years No No Jess Greenwood

#6008/020B 6/18/2009
Dan Knapek Yes, Paserware. Wanted software to have the

54 Sherburne County Assistant Engineer Dan.Knapek@co.sherburne.mn.us Cartegraph 1 year ability to monitor more defined pavement No Myself
763-241-7031 deficiencies and better reporting.
Darin Mielke
55 Sibley County Public Works Director DarinM@co.sibley.mn.us Cartegraph Just Starting No No Myself
507-237-4093
Yes, we used RoadPro. It was too data and
Jim Foldesi
time intensive and they were bought out by
56 St. Louis County Assistant Engineer foldesij@co.st-louis.mn.us In-House PMS 8 years N/A Myself, I am on the PMS committee
Cartegraph, who them raised the price of
507-537-6792
upgrades and maintenance.
We were able to generate rather quickly
(once the ratings were input into our
Jeff Miller Stearns County Highway is currently using an In- spreadsheet) a map that showed our road
57 Stearns County Assistant Highway Engineer jeffrey.miller@co.stearns.mn.us House system utilizing Excel spreadsheet/GIS(ESRI)/ 2 years No system’s PQI ratings graphically and were Myself
320-255-6180 and the MnDOT rating information. able to justify the roads in our Five Year
Program (ie. the roads in the program had
lower PQI ratings).
Brian Giese
58 briangiese@co.stevens.mn.us None N/A N/A N/A N/A
Stevens County Engineer
Loren Fellbaum
59 Todd County Engineer loren.fellbaum@co.todd.mn.us In-House PMS 3 years No No Myself
320-732-2721
No case studies outside of drawing
Yes, an In-House Pencil & Paper system (in attention to the need for pavement
Jeff Adolphson
60 jeff.adolphson@co.wadena.mn.us ICON < 1 year another county). Limited ability to evaluate the preservation and resurfacing based on Joel Ulring or myself
Wadena County
road system effectively. ADT, Age and Cross Section of pavement
surface.
Yes - During budget time with county
Wayne Sandberg Cory Slagle 651-430-4337
61 Wayne.Sandberg@co.washington.mn.us ICON 10+ years No board. Information for County
Washington County Deputy Director Jacob Gave - 651-430-4316
Commissioners.
David Kramer
62 DKramer@Co.Winona.MN.US ICON, Not currently using 4-5 years No N/A N/A
Winona County Engineer
Virgil G.Hawkins
63 Wright County Assistant Engineer Virgil.Hawkins@co.wright.mn.us ICON 15 years No No Kevin Johnson 763-682-7707
763-682-7387
Tim Gross
Micropaver - too expensive and ratings were Brent Christensen, Graduate Engineer 612-
64 Three Rivers Park District tgross@threeriversparkdistrict.org In-House PMS 2 years Yes
too subjective depending on person rating 490-5275
763-694-2060

Appendix B:
Case Studies – Commercial

Case Studies – In-House
Case Studies
Commercial Pavement Management Systems
City of Bloomington
Pavement Management Case Study
Agency Information:
Population 85,000 people

Number of Roadway Centerline Miles 350 miles
Current Pavement Management System Used ICON (Goodpointe)
Year of Pavement Management System Implementation Used since 1989
Adopted by the City Council in 1992
Pavement Management Background
The City of Bloomington began using pavement management in 1989. Using the data gathered between
1989 and 1992, City staff was able to show the Council different scenarios, including what the system
would look like in the future, if current strategies continued. Staff also discussed how investing money in
the roadway system, while it was still in good condition, would save money over the long term and extend
pavement life. The data and ideas presented convinced the City Council to formally adopt pavement
management in 1992.
Since pavement management was adopted in 1992, Bloomington’s average PCI has remained
around 78. The City has maintained this roadway condition by focusing on performing the right action at
the right time and using the proper techniques. The pavement management preservation techniques used
are:
Seal coats
Overlays
Reconstruction
Tips for Implementing Pavement Management
Focus non-assessment funding on roadways that are in good condition.

Use appropriate techniques rather than “quick fixes” that require repeated attention.
Use the principles behind pavement management along with data to gain council/board support
for pavement management.

Realized Benefits
Increased funding for sealcoats and overlays

Established assessment policy for street reconstruction
Relatively steady “average” PCI
Extended pavement life at a lower cost
Higher financial ratings for the City due to the comprehensive plan (the City is seen as forward
thinking and responsible with regard to planning for infrastructure needs)
Clay County
Pavement Management Systems Case Study
Agency Information:

Year of Current Pavement Management System Implementation Used since 2008
Prior to purchasing a Pavement Management System in 2008, Clay County staff researched several
options. They also spoke with multiple Minnesota agencies already using a Pavement Management
System for insights into the different options available. Using the gathered information, staff was able to
determine which system would work best for the County.
Soon after purchase, staff prepared the system for use. They input all roadway network data received
from Mn/DOT’s Pavement Management Unit. (The data was collected under an agreement between
Mn/DOT’s Office of Materials and Division of State Aid.) They determined which decision tree to use after
gathering information on what other similar agencies use. They, along with vendor staff, also worked to
get the system’s GIS base map ready. The goal of the base map work was to display network information
at the same quality level as the County’s own GIS system, while maintaining the necessary roadway
labels for location identification.
Now that the system is up and running, staff will begin using it in the spring of 2009. They will mainly use
the reports and maps generated by the system to aid in justification of project selections for the County’s
State Aid allotments.
Contact other agencies that to learn about their experiences, lessons learned, etc.
Maintain the integrity of the system’s GIS base map by keeping pertinent information and labels.
Realized Benefits
Gain insight into what may or may not work for your agency through the successes and failures of
other agencies.
Easily identify roadway locations, project locations, etc. for presentation to decision-makers and
the public
Dodge County
Agency Information:

Initial Year of Pavement Management System Implementation 2000
Dodge County began using their initial Pavement Management System in 2000, but found that the system
did not have the capabilities they were looking for. So in 2003, County staff switched pavement
management systems. Using their current system, staff track:
Roadway structure information
Project information
Pavement condition information
Sign information
Use Pavement Management System to track network information.
Realized Benefits
Easily obtain pertinent network information

City of Eagan
Agency Information:

Year of Pavement Management System Implementation 1989
The City of Eagan has been using pavement management since 1989, just after the majority of Eagan’s
pavements were constructed. At that time, the City Council set a goal of maintaining a system PCI at or
above 75. The City has been able to meet this goal consistently (the 2007 average PCI is 78).
To adequately track the roadway system, Eagan rates one-third of the roadway system per year. In
addition, every roadway segment within the City’s CIP is rated every year to determine appropriate
maintenance and construction activities.
Eagan is also very active in communicating with residents who will be affected by upcoming maintenance
and construction activities. The process begins two years prior to maintenance or construction when
residents are notified with a letter. Then neighborhood meetings are held the year before any work. These
meetings typically include 10 to 14 residents and allow them to discuss their concerns. City staff also
present data and statistics on the segments of roadways that will be worked on, including maintenance
history. Finally, there is a notice for the public hearing. Typically, most resident issues and concerns have
been addressed and residents do not attend the public hearing.
Have roadway system periodically rated.

Utilize numerous proactive communication initiatives (information letters, announcements,
neighborhood meetings) to provide education about the process.
Realized Benefits
Track the system and individual pavements to ensure the appropriate maintenance and
construction activities are implemented
Identify and address residents’ concerns and create project “buy-in” or ownership, preempting the
possibility of project denial resulting from negative feedback at the time of public hearings
City of Eden Prairie
Agency Information:

Year of Pavement Management System Implementation Used since 1995
The City of Eden Prairie began using pavement management in 1995, when the system’s average PCI
was 88. By 2008, the system’s average PCI had dropped slightly to 81. City staff met with the Council to
discuss future funding for the system. The current condition of the system was presented along with the
system’s predicted condition using the following scenarios:
No additional funding moving forward

Current funding levels maintained moving forward
Increased funding levels moving forward
The Council was receptive to the information provided and set an agency goal to maintain the system’s
average PCI at or above 80.
Use pavement management systems data to gain council/board support for pavement
management.
Use multiple budgeting scenarios and predicted system conditions to gain council/board approval
of future pavement management funding.
Realized Benefits
Obtain funding approvals to maintain system PCI goal

City of Mankato
Agency Information:

Current Pavement Management System Used Simplified COE Paver
The City of Mankato began using pavement management in 1979, with the goal of rating arterial
pavements once every two years and local streets once every three years. The City has generally used
the pavement ratings to identify seal coat, overlay and reconstruction project needs. Although identified
projects may not be completed when scheduled due to budget constraints, redevelopment pressures or
politically identified issues, all projects that have been identified remain on a priority list until completed.
Budget restrictions between 2002 and 2004 resulted in a loss of manpower to perform pavement ratings,
which generally required 120 to 160 hours per year for updating. The lack of manpower prevented staff
from accomplishing the updates necessary to utilize the pavement condition ratings. Then in 2007, the
City worked to streamline the pavement rating process by minimizing the number of samples taken. At the
same time, they were able to add ranking for curb and gutter and drainage condition, also factoring those
conditions into the pavement ratings.
In the early 1980’s, the average condition of pavements in place longer than five years was 55. Currently,
the average condition rating of pavements in place longer than five years is 75. Mankato’s use of
pavement management over the years has provided significant improvement to the network system
through identification and annual reconstruction efforts for streets falling into disrepair.
Periodically rate roadway network.

Keep deferred projects on priority list until work is completed.
Streamline pavement rating system if faced with budget cuts.
Realized Benefits
Identify and complete project needs

Keep pavement management data up to date for project identification
Olmsted County
Agency Information:

Number of Roadway Centerline Miles 522 miles, 374 are Hard Surface
Olmsted County began using their current pavement management system in 2001. Each spring,
engineering and construction staff rate all hard surfaced roadways within the network and create a tabular
report with the following information for each road segment:
Length
Width
Pavement rating
Comments/recommendations
A color coded map displaying segment pavement ratings is also created from the rating data collected
each year. The map is used to identify future road projects that include:
Seal coating
Reclaiming/overlaying
Reconstruction
Using the reports and mapping created each year, Olmsted County staff has been able to identify needs
and request funding from the County Board for bituminous overlay projects with successful results.
Periodically rate roadway network.

Create reports and maps with newly gathered network ratings.
Realized Benefits
Identify needs and determine recommended actions

Routinely update council/board on the network and request funding when needed
City of Roseville
Agency Information:

The City of Roseville has been using pavement management since 1985.
The majority of Roseville’s pavements were constructed in the 50’s and 60’s as temporary pavement
without curb and gutter. In 1985 over 50% of pavements were failing and in the problem category.
Bonds were used to fund reconstruction of 4-6 miles per year to reduce the problem streets inventory. A
Levy for future major maintenance began in 1985 and was continued for 15 years until an adequate
sustainable fund balance was accrued.
To adequately fund the maintenance activities required to maintain the desired system pavement ratings,
the City has dedicated funds that are not from bond interest rather interest earnings from a dedicated
infrastructure fund. This has allowed the City to use dedicated funding without the need to regain
approval from the City Council each year.
By starting the program early on in the life of the roadway system the City has been able to maintain a
steady PCI rating throughout the years (the 2008 average PCI is between 83 and 85).
Typical yearly pavement management treatments include:

Patching pavement that will be seal coated the next year
Crack Seal and Seal Coating annually between 13 to 15 miles
Major Maintenance and Reconstruct of three miles per year as necessary
Begin using pavement management preservation techniques as early as possible in the life of the
roadway system and newly constructed or reconstructed pavements.
Use dedicated funds (such as infrastructure fund interest) to maintain consistent funding.
Keep data up to date, including treatment and construction costs.
Participate in user group meetings to learn what other agencies are doing.
Realized Benefits
Maintain a relatively high “average” PCI

Predict what will happen with the system given different scenarios that are based on real world
costs, leads to better decisions
Washington County
Agency Information:

Washington County has been using pavement management since 1994. In order to gain program buy-in
and financial approval, County staff presented several pieces of information to the Board including:
The system’s current pavement condition
The system’s projected pavement condition under different budget scenarios
Photos of pavements with varying PCI’s
After reviewing this information, the Board decided to set a goal to maintain the system PCI at or
above 72.
Since setting the PCI goal, the County has found that it has been the “one performance goal that elected
officials and staff have bought into and rallied around.” Staff has seen that by using Pavement
Management System, roadway costs have been less expensive in the long run. Pavement Management
System has also been a long-term way to keep track of the roadway system.
Use the ideas behind pavement management along with data to gain council/board and staff
support for pavement management.
Set a tangible, metric agency goal.
Realized Benefits
Obtain funding approvals to maintain system PCI goal

Track long-term costs and performance
City of Woodbury
Agency Information:

Year of Pavement Management System Implementation Unknown
The City of Woodbury uses pavement condition ratings from their pavement management system, as one
of many tools to aid in defining which projects move forward. Other factors considered when determining
project needs include:
Input from the Street Department
Age of the roadways being considered
Complaints from residents
Curb and utility condition along the roadways being considered
The City also uses their pavement management system as one of the tools to gain staff, Council and
resident buy-in. For instance, a City-wide pavement condition map is updated yearly and indicates current
areas that need to be focused on.
Use pavement condition as one of many tools for identifying future projects.
Create maps with newly gathered pavement condition ratings.
Realized Benefits
Present additional information to support project recommendations and funding requests

Show pavement condition ratings and area of need to staff, council/board and residents in a
pictorial format to gain buy-in
Case Studies
In-House Pavement Management Systems
Clearwater County
Agency Information:

Current Database(s) Used Microsoft Excel
In 1996, Clearwater County had their pavement system rated. The system was rated again in 2007 by the
Mn/DOT Pavement Management Unit under an agreement between Mn/DOT’s Office of Materials and
Division of State Aid.
Rating data from both 1996 & 2007, along with construction and maintenance history, are contained
within a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is used to help determine and schedule overlay and
reconstruction needs. Clearwater County staff also maintains a PDF map of the County with each
roadway’s age and structural information as well as links to past construction plans for each segment.
Staff spends approximately eight to sixteen hours per year updating system information.
Realized Benefits
Gather important information while making a low-cost investment

Track system performance over time
Identify roadway segments that require minimal repairs before condition deteriorates and requires
more costly repairs
Schedule maintenance and reconstruction activities more effectively
Faribault County
Agency Information:

Number of Roadway Centerline Miles 450 miles (347 miles of CSAH, 103 miles of CR)
Year of Pavement Management System 2007
Implementation
Mn/DOT’s Pavement Management Unit rated the Faribault County roadway system in 2007, under an
agreement between Mn/DOT’s Office of Materials and Division of State Aid.
With the information provided by Mn/DOT, County staff created a list of potential project needs by sorting
the roadway segments based on each segment’s Pavement Quality Index (PQI). The list of potential
projects is used to make objective recommendations for overlay and reconstruction projects to the County
Board.
Use system data received from Mn/DOT’s Pavement Management Unit.
Realized Benefits
Make objective recommendations to decision makers for required funding at a low cost
Ramsey County
Agency Information:

Total Number of Miles in Roadway System 295 miles
In 1984, Ramsey County began using a spreadsheet-based pavement management system. The system
looks at a variety of factors including smoothness, structural capacity, structural condition, wear,
weathering, skid resistance, uniformity, alligatoring, patching, and cracking. Data is collected via visual
inspection once every two years.
Once data has been collected, numerical ratings are assigned for each factor and the system calculates
an overall pavement condition score for each segment of roadway. The system also recommends
maintenance treatments and prioritizes major maintenance projects based on the pavement condition and
traffic volumes.

Maintain system maintenance and construction history.
Realized Benefits
Improve average pavement condition rating (risen from 69 in 1984 to 89 in 2008)

Develop projections for funding needs
Determine appropriate maintenance treatments
Track progress of the system and individual components
o Identify issues with specific construction materials and obtain funding for corrective actions
o Analyze various pavement treatments, such as cold-in-place recycling and seal coating, to
determine benefit over time
St. Louis County
Agency Information:

Total Number of Miles in Roadway System 3000 miles
Current Database Used Microsoft Excel
Year of Pavement Management System Implementation Work-in-progress
St. Louis County has developed a system that uses PQI, AADT, and the accident rate to produce a
prioritized list of segments. The PQI, AADT, and the accident rates are weighted based on factors
determined by the County.
Once the prioritized list of segments has been created, it is used as added input during the project
selection process.
Develop a system of prioritizing roadway segments.
Realized Benefits
Include additional objective information to the project selection process

Three Rivers Park District
Agency Information:
Number of Annual Visits 4 million visits

Total Amount of Pavement in System 28 lane-miles of very low volume roadway
123 miles of paved trails
56 acres of parking lots
Current Database Used Microsoft Excel
Year of Pavement Management System Used since 2001
Implementation
Three Rivers Park District’s network consists of roadways, parking lots and trails. In 2001, staff developed
a series of pavement management spreadsheets to house network information, filter data, develop
formulas for life cycling and cost forecasting, and to create charts and reports as needed.
Park District staff has been able to demonstrate the ability to understand what they have and how best to
maintain it through the use of customized reports and charts to:
Justify future rehabilitation and reconstruction work
Justify proposed expenses
Secure capital funding through the Board’s budget approval process
The success of Pavement Management System at the Board level has resulted in aggressive pavement
projects, allowing the Park District to maintain or improve existing pavements.
Develop a system of spreadsheets built from simple, easy to understand concepts.

Create customized charts and graphs to visually aid in justifying projects and securing funding.
Realized Benefits
Network data is accessible and easily understood: viewing, maintaining, editing and analyzing
network data can be performed by anyone with a working knowledge of common desktop office
software.
Appendix C:
Pavement Management Systems Selection Workshop
Powerpoint Slides Handout

Pavement Management Systems Presentation Outline
1. Overview
2. Benefits
3. Elements
4. Case Studies
Sponsored by: Local Road Research Board 5. Resources
Minnesota LTAP Center
LRRB Pavement Management Systems LRRB Pavement Management Systems
Presentation Outline Presentation Outline
1. Overview 1. Overview
2. Benefits 2. Benefits
3. Elements 3. Elements
4. Case Studies 4. Case Studies
5. Resources 5. Resources
Presentation Outline Presentation Outline
1. Overview 1. Overview
2. Benefits 2. Benefits
3. Elements 3. Elements
4. Case Studies 4. Case Studies
5. Resources 5. Resources
1
Presentation Outline Pavement Management
Old School Methods
• Last Year’s Budget
1. Overview – The budget is based on last year’s funding,
possibly with an arbitrary increase or decrease
2. Benefits (usually to fix the worst streets)
• Standard Program
3. Elements – A program based on a periodic maintenance
schedule, such as a seal coat every seven years
4. Case Studies and an overlay every 15 years, whether or not the
street really needs it.
5. Resources • “Fighting Fires” Approach
– Fix the ones citizens constantly complain about.
LRRB Pavement Management Systems LRRB Pavement Management Systems Overview
Pavement Management A Pavement Management System Is…

Old School Methods
• Worst-First • …a set of tools or methods that
– The streets in the worst shape are fixed first. This
assist decision-makers in finding
approach has a certain logical appeal that satisfies
the public and some council members. optimum strategies for providing,
• Political Pressure evaluating, and maintaining pavements
– Use political considerations to establish priorities in a serviceable condition over a period
and budgets. of time.
• Gut Feel
AASHTO Guide for Design of
– Rely on the experience, knowledge and “gut feel”
Pavement Structures (1993)
of managers and experienced employees.
LRRB Pavement Management Systems Overview LRRB Pavement Management Systems Overview
There are Many Methods for

Measuring Pavement Serviceability Managing Pavement Deterioration
Pavement Management Primer
• PCI = Pavement Condition Index

– Rating of 0 to 100
Cost-effective time for
– Developed by US Army Corps of Engineers preventive maintenance
Cost-effective time for
• PQI = Pavement Quality Index PCI Critical Condition minor rehabilitation
– Rating of 0.0 to 4.5
Costly
– Developed by Mn/DOT treatments
– Combines condition and ride needed
• Others AGE
LRRB Pavement Management Systems LRRB Pavement Management Systems Overview
2
Pay Now or Pay More Later Three Levels of Management
NHI Course No. 131116 NHI Course No. 131116
Excellent
Strategic
Good Preventive Maintenance $1.50/sy
Network
Condition
Fair Minor Rehabilitation $19/sy
Poor Major Rehabilitation $32/sy

Project
Very Poor Reconstruction $95/sy
Time
Three Levels of Management Three Levels of Management
• Strategic Level • Network Level

– Collect condition information on the network
– Make policy decision
– Analyze condition information
– Set funding allocations – Provide information to upper
– Establish preservation strategies management to assist in making
Strategic Strategic
– The “Philosophy” strategic decision
Network Network
– Provide information to other users
Project to support project selection, design Project
and other types of analyses
– Identify corridor project
– The “Data”
Three Levels of Management Uses of Pavement Management
• Project Level • Identify and prioritize maintenance

– Determine final project recommendations and rehabilitation needs
– Design rehabilitation strategies • Determine cost-effective treatment
– Conduct special studies strategies
Strategic
– The “Plan” • Provide information to the public
Network
and agency council/board
Project
• Influence agency bond rating
• Comply with GASB 34
3
Pavement Management Systems Pavement Management Systems
• A Pavement Management System is NOT • A Pavement Management System should:

simply a computer program – Provide a systematic, consistent approach
• A Pavement Management System IS a to evaluate the present condition of each
formalized process providing necessary pavement surface
information to decision makers – Provide guidance for the proper type of
• A Pavement Management System helps lead maintenance to keep the pavement at an
to good investments acceptable level of service
– Prioritize necessary repairs
Pavement Management System ≠ – Generate useful reports
Presentation Outline Benefits of Pavement Management
• More efficient use of available resources

1. Overview
• Ability to justify funding needs
2. Benefits • More accurate and accessible information on
the pavement network
3. Elements • Ability to track pavement performance
• Ability to show impacts on condition
4. Case Studies
• Improved communication
5. Resources
AASHTO Pavement Management Guide (2001)
LRRB Pavement Management Systems LRRB Pavement Management Systems Benefits
More Efficient Use of Available Resources Ability To Justify Funding Needs

Example From Orange County, CA Example of Meeting Agency Goals
Orange Whip, NHI Course No. 131116 NHI Course No. 131116
Realized Cost Savings

Maintenance Cost per Mile
$3,500,000
with Investment in
Cumulative Cost ($)
$3,000,000
Pavement Management $2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
1 2 3 4 5
1982-1992 1992-2002 Year
AVE PCI 50 AVE PCI 72 70% in Good Expected $ 75% in Good
TIME
LRRB Pavement Management Systems Benefits LRRB Pavement Management Systems Benefits
4
More Accurate & Accessible Information Ability to Track Pavement Performance
on the Pavement Network Example from the City of Eagan
Example from the City of Eagan
140 18 100
Average PCI
120 95
Average PCI
Average Age
16
M iles/PCI
100 Age in Yrs 90

80 0-10 14 Recall if PCI is higher,
85
60 11-20
maintenance strategy
40 12 cost is lower. 80
20+ 75
20
PCI 10
0 70
8 65
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
04
06
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
04
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
Year
PCI stayed the same as pavement age increased. Avg. Age Avg. PCI Year
Ability to Show Impacts on Condition Improved Communication

Example from the City of Eagan Stakeholder Involvement in the City of Eagan
• Insert graph/figure
Presentation Outline Elements of Pavement Management
1. Overview • Pavement/Asset Inventory

• Database/Software
2. Benefits • Analysis
3. Elements • Reports and Mapping
• Implementation Strategies
4. Case Studies
5. Resources
LRRB Pavement Management Systems LRRB Pavement Management Systems Elements
5
Elements of Pavement Management Pavement/Asset Inventory
• Pavement/Asset Inventory • Criteria for Data Collection:

• Database/Software – Data must be relevant, accurate
& reliable
• Analysis
– Data must be collected on a
• Reports and Mapping regular basis to keep it relevant,
• Implementation Strategies as your budget allows
• i.e., collect data on 25% of your
network each year
LRRB Pavement Management Systems Elements LRRB Pavement Management Systems Elements
Pavement/Asset Inventory Pavement/Asset Inventory
• Types of Data: • Types of Data:

– Section Identification – Section Identification
– Construction, Maintenance and – Construction, Maintenance and
Rehabilitation History Rehabilitation History
– Pavement Characteristics – Pavement Characteristics
– Pavement Condition Data – Pavement Condition Data
– Others – Others

Types of Data
• Section Identification: • Types of Data:

– Must be consistent throughout the network – Section Identification
• User determined – Construction, Maintenance and
• Examples of segmentation include by roadway, by Rehabilitation History
roadway cross-section, intersection to intersection,
breaks at municipal lines
– Pavement Characteristics
– Information can include: – Pavement Condition Data
• Segment begin/end points – Others
• Spatial location (GPS location)
• Segment width and/or area
6
Types of Data
• Construction, Maintenance • Types of Data:

and Rehabilitation History – Section Identification
– Information can include: – Construction, Maintenance and
• Construction dates Rehabilitation History
• Maintenance, rehabilitation & – Pavement Characteristics
reconstruction activities
– Pavement Condition Data
– Dates
– Types of treatment
– Others
• Any other pertinent information
– Important for analytical process

Types of Data
• Pavement Characteristics: • Types of Data:

– Information can include: – Section Identification
• Pavement structure (layer) data – Construction, Maintenance and
• Age Rehabilitation History
• Traffic – Pavement Characteristics
– AADT
– ESAL’s – Pavement Condition Data
• Geometric features – Others
• Any other pertinent information

Types of Data Types of Data
• Pavement Condition Data: • Pavement Condition Data:

– Surface Condition – Surface Condition
– Ride Quality or Smoothness – Ride Quality or Smoothness
– Structural Capacity – Structural Capacity
7
Pavement Condition Data Pavement Condition Data
Surface Condition Surface Condition
• Pavement Distress • LTPP Distress

– Type – what kind? Identification Manual
– Severity – how bad? – Pavement distress
– Quantity – how much? definitions should be
applied consistently
– Photos and drawings
– Can be downloaded at
http://www.tfhrc.gov/paveme
nt/ltpp/reports/03031/03031.
pdf
Pavement Condition Data Pavement/Asset Inventory

Surface Condition Types of Data
• Approaches to Collecting Data: • Pavement Condition Data:

– Manual – Surface Condition
– Semi-automated – Ride Quality or Smoothness
– Automated – Structural Capacity
Pavement Condition Data Pavement/Asset Inventory

Ride Quality or Smoothness Types of Data
• Ride quality or smoothness data • Pavement Condition Data:

can be collected using – Surface Condition
automated or manual – Ride Quality or Smoothness
equipment. – Structural Capacity
– Represents functional condition
– Direct measure of public’s
perceived riding comfort
– Profile data often converted to IRI
8
Structural Capacity Structural Capacity
• Pavement layer data can be collected with

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
– Provides a “picture” of pavement structure
– Used for FWD Analysis
LRRB Pavement Management Systems Elements LRRB Pavement Management Systems

Structural Capacity Structural Capacity
• FWD Testing • Used for identifying pavement structural strength

– Data used to calculate pavement strength, and establishing tonnage “postings”
capacity, remaining life, and help • Typically collected for project level analysis
determine rehabilitation strategies
Elements of Pavement Management Database/Software
• Pavement/Asset Inventory Complexity of Pavement Management

Systems Can Vary Greatly
Spreadsheet Software
• Analysis
• Reports and Mapping
9
Database/Software Database/Software
Internal Courtesy of Anoka County
• Internal / “Home-grown”
• Can be as simple as a manual method
using paper and pencil
• Can be a spreadsheet application
created by the agency and can be fairly
sophisticated
• Built to user’s needs
Database/Software Database/Software
External
• External / Commercially Developed:

– Optimization-type Pavement Management
System that will be able to determine the
best investment strategy (as defined by the
agency) every year for an extended
number of years
– “What-if” scenarios
– Requires large amounts of data
Capabilities of the Database Software Options
• Condition Ratings • A survey was competed in 2008 to determine

– By functional classification which Pavement Management Systems were
– By surface type being used by MN agencies
– Overall condition
• The following six systems were used in MN
– Rate of deterioration
• Analysis
– Integrates data with visual
mapping (GIS)
– Provides prediction modeling
with worst first or weighted
rankings
10
Software Options Software Options
• A secondary survey was conducted in 2008 to: • The results of the survey have been compiled
into a matrix format.
– Determine the capabilities of each Pavement
– Located in the LRRB report titled “Implementation of
Management System Pavement Management in Minnesota”
– Determine additional services provided by each – Can be used as a resource to review Pavement
Pavement Management System company Management Systems’ capabilities
– Does not recommend a specific Pavement
Management System software
Software Matrix Elements of Pavement Management

Page 1 of 5
• Pavement/Asset Inventory
– Data Collection
• Analysis
Analysis There are Many Analysis Methods

Prediction Modeling
• Typical uses of a pavement management • Pavement condition

system database:
– Develop multi-year programs
• Treatment rules
– Compare different options – When should a treatment be considered
– Predict future conditions feasible?
– What happens after the treatment is
applied?
• This can be done with a pavement
management system that includes analysis • Performance modeling
models and multi-year programming • Needs assessment
capabilities or with “home-grown” applications
• Optimization
11
Use of Analysis Results Elements of Pavement Management
• Identify and prioritize maintenance and • Pavement/Asset Inventory

rehabilitation needs – Data Collection
• Evaluate the impact of various scenarios
through a comparison of conditions,
backlog or remaining service life • Analysis
• Establish pavement condition targets • Reports and Mapping
• Set budget needs • Implementation Strategies
• Support asset management activities
Reports and Mapping Reports and Mapping:

Courtesy of the City of Eagan
Presenting Results to Stakeholders
Know the Audience’s Needs:
• Network Level
– Legislature/Highway Commission
– Senior agency management
– Public
• Project Level
– Design engineers
– Mid-level management
Reports and Mapping: Reports and Mapping:

Presenting Results to Stakeholders Presenting Results to Stakeholders
• Using graphical data and maps helps
illustrate “the plan” to elected officials
and the public
12
Reports and Mapping: Elements of Pavement Management
Presenting Results to Stakeholders
• Pavement/Asset Inventory
– Data Collection
• Analysis
Implementation Strategies: GASB 34: Modified Approach

Effective Uses of Pavement Management
• Pavement Management Systems supports

• Support pavement preservation programs the Modified Approach of GASB 34 by:
• Establish investment levels and goals – Maintaining an inventory of the system
– Providing the system’s condition, reproducible
• Strengthen links to maintenance
– Aiding in setting minimum condition targets
• Support engineering and economic analysis – Providing the estimated system condition given
• Support other uses alternate investment levels
– Determining the level of funding associated with a
– GASB 34
particular network or subsystem
– Bond Ratings
Presentation Outline Case Studies from

Minnesota Agencies
1. Overview • Using Commercially Available Software

– City of Roseville
2. Benefits – Washington County
3. Elements
4. Case Studies
5. Resources
LRRB Pavement Management Systems LRRB Pavement Management Systems Case Studies
13
City of Roseville City of Roseville
Commercially Developed Software Commercially Developed Software
Agency Information • Pavement Management Background

– Majority of pavements built in the 1950’s
Population 35,000 people and 1960’s
Number of Roadway Centerline Miles 126 miles – 50% of pavements were failing (in the
problem category) by 1985
– The City began a levy for future major
Year of Pavement Management System Implementation Used since 1980’s maintenance
LRRB Pavement Management Systems Case Studies LRRB Pavement Management Systems Case Studies
City of Roseville City of Roseville

• Pavement Management Background (Cont.) • Tips for Implementation
– Typical annual activities funded by the levy – Begin using pavement management
include: preservation techniques as early as
• Patching pavement for seal coating (prior year) possible
• Crack sealing and seal coating of 13-15 miles/year – Use dedicated funds, such as
• Major maintenance and reconstruction of ≈ 3 miles/year infrastructure fund interest
– Since implementation, the network’s PCI has – Keep treatment costs up to date
remained steady (≈ 85 in 2008) – Participate in user group meetings
City of Roseville Washington County

• Realized Benefits Agency Information
– Roadway network that is in “good”
condition Population 235,000 people
– Able to more accurately predict what will Number of Roadway Centerline Miles 285 miles
happen with the network given different
scenarios
– Learn about what other agencies are doing Year of Pavement Management System Implementation 1994
14
Washington County Washington County
• Pavement Management Background • Tips for Implementation
– Gained Board buy-in and financial approval – Use the principles behind pavement
by: management strategies along with data to
• Showing current network pavement condition gain council/board and staff support for
• Showing network pavement condition under pavement management
different budget scenarios
• Showing photos of pavement with varying PCI’s
– Board set goal of system PCI ≥ 72


• Realized Benefits
– Able to obtain
funding approvals
to maintain
system PCI goal
15
Case Studies from Clearwater County
Minnesota Agencies Internally Developed Software
• Using Internally Developed Software Agency Information
– Clearwater County
Population ~ 8,500 people
Current Pavement Management System Used Microsoft Excel
Clearwater County Clearwater County

Internally Developed Software Internally Developed Software
• Pavement Management Background
– Spreadsheet keeps track of:
• Pavement condition ratings
• Construction and maintenance history • Tips for Implementation
– PDF map:
• Shows each roadway’s age and structural – Maintain network
information information in easy to
• Links to past construction plans for each understand format
segment
– System used to help determine and
schedule overlay and reconstruction needs
Clearwater County Additional Case Studies Available

Internally Developed Software
• Realized Benefits
– Able to identify roadway segments that Additional case studies for both
require minimal repairs before condition commercially available software and
deteriorates and requires more costly internally developed software are
repairs located in the LRRB report titled
“Implementation of Pavement
Management in Minnesota”
16
Presentation Outline Workshop Resources
AASHTO Pavement Management Guide:

1. Overview https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=352
NHI Course No. 131116:

2. Benefits http://nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/training/train.aspx
3. Elements International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets:

http://www.icmpa2008.com/ & http://www.icmpa2011.cl/
4. Case Studies MnROAD:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnroad/
5. Resources FHWA Pavement Management Website:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/mana.cfm
LRRB Pavement Management Systems LRRB Pavement Management Systems Resources
Other Helpful Resources

Local Road Research Board (LRRB):
www.lrrb.org
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Pavement Management:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/pvmtmgmt.html
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Asset Management:

www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt
National Center for Pavement Preservation (NCPP):

http://www.pavementpreservation.org
Minnesota Local Technical Assistance Program (MN LTAP):

www.mnltap.umn.edu
Pavement Interactive Website:

www.pavementinteractive.org
LRRB Pavement Management Systems Resources
17
Appendix D:
Workshop Resources
Pavement Management Systems
Workshop Resources
WORKSHOP RESOURCE MANUALS/INFORMATION

AASHTO Pavement Management Guide:
https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=352
NHI Course No. 131116:

http://nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/training/train.aspx
WORKSHOP RESOURCE WEBSITES

International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (ICMPA):
Calgary, Canada 2008: http://www.icmpa2008.com/
Santiago, Chile 2011: http://www.icmpa2011.cl/
MnROAD:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnroad/
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Pavement Management:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/mana.cfm
ADDITIONAL WEBSITES
Local Road Research Board (LRRB):
www.lrrb.org
MN Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Pavement Management:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Asset Management:

www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt
National Center for Pavement Preservation (NCPP):

http://www.pavementpreservation.org
MN Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP):

www.mnltap.umn.edu
Pavement Interactive Website:

www.pavementinteractive.org
Pavement Management Systems Page D-1

May2009
Appendix E:
Pavement Management System Brochure

Case Studies Resources
Are you curious to know how other agencies have This brochure is a supplement to LRRB report #2009RIC11
benefited from the use of Pavement management entitled “Implementation of Pavement Management in
systems? Results from of a survey of 64 cities and Minnesota” which is available at:
counties were used to develop case studies for 15 http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/2009RIC11.pdf
agencies, demonstrating the use of their pavement
management system and highlighting the history
of their use, tips for implementing pavement
management and realized benefits. The following are AASHTO Pavement Management Guide:
some quotes from these case studies: https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=352
“We used the principles behind pavement
management along with the data collected
to gain council/board support for pavement National Highway Institute Course No. 131116:
management.” - Washington County http://nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/training/train.aspx
“The use of a pavement management system

allowed us to rate our agency’s pavement International Conference on Managing Pavement
condition, which we use as one of many tools Assets (ICMPA):
to identify future projects needs.” - City of Calgary, Canada 2008: http://www.icmpa2008.com/
Woodbury
“We use our pavement management system MnROAD:

to analyze various pavement treatments, such http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnroad/
as cold-in-place recycling and seal coating,
to determine the benefits and cost savings
over time.” - Ramsey County
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Pavement Management:
“Before selecting a pavement management http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/mana.cfm
system for our agency, we were able to gain
insight into what may or may not work for our
agency, through investigating the successes
MN Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
and failures of other agencies” - Clay County
Pavement Management:
“We use our pavement management system
to routinely update our board on the status
of our pavement network, which helps with
requesting and obtaining funding when
needed.” - Olmsted County
May 2009
What is a Pavement Summary of Research Implementation Project
Management System?
Workshop
A pavement management system is a set of tools
Curriculum and material was developed for a 2-4 hour workshop for staff of agencies
used to assist with maintaining a network of
considering the acquisition of a pavement management system. Several training
roadways. Pavement management systems are a
workshops will be conducted around the state in 2009.
critical component of managing and maintaining
transportation infrastructure. Agencies must address Matrix
transportation needs with limited resources, while
A matrix was developed to provide an objective review of the pavement
legislative bodies are requiring more efficiency in
management system software programs currently used by agencies in
highway agencies and more accountability for the
Minnesota. This matrix does not favor or recommend one pavement
expenditure of taxpayers’ money. As a result, the
management system product over another, but rather serves as a neutral
importance of a management system to help with
source of information and comparison of software programs.
the allocation of these resources, to manage the
infrastructure, becomes more critical than ever. Report
http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/2009RIC11.pdf
Why use a Pavement A resource guide was developed that describes, in detail, the various
Management System? pavement management system software programs available and innovative
and high-impact examples of the use of pavement management systems
• In a time of decreasing budgets and increasing
in Minnesota. This guide is targeted towards engineering staff of agencies
demands, a pavement management system
currently using pavement management systems.
can be a strategic tool to make cost effective
decisions on your pavement.
• Pavement management systems can help identify
and prioritize maintenance and rehabilitation
needs.
• Pavement management systems can be used
to analyze different pavement treatments to
determine their cost savings over time.
• Agencies can use pavement management
systems to provide information to the public
and agency council/board to gain support and
secure project funding.

2009RIC11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2009RIC11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2009RIC11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2009RIC11

Implementation of Pavement Management

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Michael M. Marti, P.E.

Michael M. Marti, P.E.

SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

Minnesota Local Road Research Board

Technical Advisory Panel

Appendix A: City and County Survey Results Table

TASK BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The resulting documentation should be understood as a review of Pavement Management System

SOFTWARE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS

Pavement Management Systems Page 1

Table 1: Initial Survey Results – Identifying Minnesota Pavement Management Systems

Pavement Management System Number of Responses

2. How many years have you used your current system?

Pavement Management Systems Page 2

Pavement Management Systems Page 3

DATA COLLECTION RESULTS

Responses are summarized and indicated in the following format:

Pavement Management Systems Page 4

● Standard – Included in Standard Software Cost

Pavement Management Software Page 6

Pavement Management Software Page 7

● Standard – Included in Standard Software Cost

Pavement Management Software Page 8

● for one authorized user

6.2 Does vendor offer continuing ●7

7.0 EASE OF DATA INPUT/OUTPUT

7.2 Can reporting be customized? ● ● ● ● ● ●

● Standard – Included in Standard Software Cost

Pavement Management Software Page 9

SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES

Periodically rate your network (6)

Pavement Management Systems Page 10

Used data to determine project needs (8)

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SELECTION WORKSHOP

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BROCHURE

Pavement Management Systems Page 11

City and County Engineer Survey Results Table

THE CITY USED A PAVEMENT RATING

We really only use our PMS to manage

H:\Trans\6008 RIC 2007-08\T11 Pavement Management\Survey\Survey Responses PMS 8x11

H:\Trans\6008 RIC 2007-08\T11 Pavement Management\Survey\Survey Responses PMS 8x11

Retrieving network data (ride ratings,

H:\Trans\6008 RIC 2007-08\T11 Pavement Management\Survey\Survey Responses PMS 8x11

Dan Knapek Yes, Paserware. Wanted software to have the

H:\Trans\6008 RIC 2007-08\T11 Pavement Management\Survey\Survey Responses PMS 8x11

Case Studies – Commercial

Population 85,000 people

Pavement Management Background

Tips for Implementing Pavement Management

Focus non-assessment funding on roadways that are in good condition.

Tips for Implementing Pavement Management

Increased funding for sealcoats and overlays

Population 56,000 people

Pavement Management Background

Tips for Implementing Pavement Management

Population 19,000 people

Pavement Management Background