image
image


St. Clair County Road Commission Asset Management

Foreward

In order to continue our mission in providing a safe and effective transportation system for the residents and motorists of St. Clair County, the Road Commission has been proactive in seeking budgetary savings and additional funding.  

The recent successful passage of a county-wide road millage demonstrates that the residents of St. Clair County recognize the importance of the county’s infrastructure in their daily lives. With the continued support of our residents, local businesses, township boards, and County Board of Commissioners, I assure you we will remain committed to providing a safe and effective transportation system throughout the county, and to use every dollar allocated to its most effective benefit

Kirk D. Weston Managing Director

Overview of Asset Management

The State of Michigan has been actively pursuing Asset Management since 1998 when the Michigan Legislature established the ACT 51 Transportation Funding Committee.  Continued support of Asset Management has occurred as the Legislature established the Transportation Asset Management Council in Act 499 of 2002, encouraged the use of Asset Management in decision processes through Act 338 of 2006, and continued to refine Asset Management in Michigan through act 199 of 2007.  Asset Management, according to Public Act 199 of 2007, means an “ongoing process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost-effectively, based on a continuous physical inventory and condition assessment.”  

The implementation of asset management decision processes allow an agency to make the most prudent decisions for their transportation network with the best information they can collect. The process enables good stewardship, transparent decision processes, and measurable performance.

Jump to topic:
Asset Inventory Service Levels Sustainability
Certification Mileage  Strategic Goals Program Coordination
Current Data and Software Legislation, Policy, and Standards
Finances Decision Process
Managing Lifecycles (PASER Ratings) Process Improvement Plan

Asset Inventory

The St. Clair County Road Commission (SCCRC) is the jurisdictional authority over all public roads and bridges lying outside the incorporated cities and villages within St. Clair County, exclusive of any state trunkline highways.  

At the end of 2012, the SCCRC was responsible for 226 bridges, the second highest number in the state of Michigan for bridges on a county system, yet receives no additional funding to perform bridge maintenance, inspection or replacement. Due to structural deficiency or functional obsolescence, St. Clair County currently has 24 local bridges and 13 primary bridges posted with weight limits. These 37 bridges represent 16.4% of the bridges on the county system. Postings effectively limit or close these routes to industrial, commercial, and agricultural traffic, having a major impact on the local and state economies, and these numbers are expected to continue to increase.

To repair or replace a bridge is an expensive undertaking. Between 2008 and 2012, the St. Clair County Road Commission expended $21.2 million in bridge repairs and replacement. To replace or repair all 37 currently posted bridges within St. Clair County would cost $31 million. (The average cost for a bridge on the local system is $704,125; on the primary system, $1,089,077.)

 
The SCCRC is also responsible for approximately 495 center-line miles of county primary roads and 1,056 center-line miles of county local roads.  The SCCRC also maintains 507 lanes miles under a contract with MDOT (Michigan Department of Transportation). Approximately 915 certified center-lines miles are gravel, roads.  MDOT annually certifies all public roads within the State of Michigan.
Certification maps are maintained by the SCCRC and are the basis for determining the amount of money received from the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF). Generally, the SCCRC receives a higher level of reimbursement for primary roads than local roads.

Certification Mileage Chart by Township

 

County Wide

Urban

Rural

Township

Primary

Local

Total

Primary

Local

Total

Primary

Local

Total

Berlin

21.98

54.13

76.11

1.61

11.84

13.45

20.37

42.29

62.66

Brockway

17.31

46.32

63.63

0

0

0

17.31

46.32

63.63

Burtchville

10.15

30.37

40.52

0

0

0

10.15

30.37

40.52

Casco

30.09

47.33

77.42

4.69

0.27

4.96

25.40

47.06

72.46

China

22.19

53.62

75.81

0.55

0

0.55

21.64

53.62

75.26

Clay

21.85

41.39

63.24

4.03

25.47

29.5

17.825

15.92

33.74

Clyde

27.97

42.73

70.7

4.09

9.44

13.53

23.88

33.29

57.17

Columbus

29.48

51.65

81.13

0.5

0

0.5

28.98

51.65

80.63

Cottrellville

17.68

33.53

51.21

2.59

1.68

4.27

15.09

31.85

46.94

East China

4.06

17.03

21.09

1.86

11.95

13.81

2.20

5.08

7.28

Emmett

25.45

44.47

69.92

0

0

0

25.45

44.47

69.92

Fort Gratiot

10.65

40.43

51.08

10.65

37.92

48.57

0

2.51

2.51

Grant

19.14

43.62

62.76

0

0

0

19.14

43.62

62.76

Greenwood

25.19

47.32

72.51

0

0

0

25.19

47.32

72.51

Ira

6.64

27.8

34.44

1.15

12.32

13.47

5.49

15.48

20.97

Kenockee

20.44

49.76

70.2

0

0

0

20.44

498.76

70.20

Kimball

31.12

66.76

97.88

10.63

21.89

32.52

20.49

44.87

65.36

Lynn

26.14

47.07

73.21

0

0

0

26.14

47.07

73.21

Mussey

24.51

48.01

72.52

0

0

0

24.51

48.01

72.52

Port Huron

17.74

48.8

66.54

17.74

48.8

66.54

0

0

0

Riley

20.95

57.63

78.58

0

0

0

20.95

57.63

78.58

St Clair

34.47

58.79

93.26

5.25

8.72

13.97

29.22

50.07

79.29

Wales

29.93

57.64

87.57

0

0

0

29.93

57.64

87.57

Totals

495.13

1056.2

1551.33

65.34

190.3

255.64

429.79

865.90

1295.69

 

 

 

 

Totals:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Primary County Wide

495.13

 

Primary Urban

 

65.34

  Primary Rural

429.79

 

Local County Wide

1056.20

Local Urban

190.30

Local Rural

 865.90

 

Grand Total County Wide

1551.33

 

Grand Total Urban

255.64

Grand Total Rural

1295.69

 

 

Primary and Local County-Wide Mileage by Township

Knowledge of the number of miles under the jurisdiction of the SCCRC is an important basis for understanding the current public investment.  In order to gain in-depth knowledge about the public investment, more information must be known about the assets.  In particular, it is important to understand the types of road surfaces the SCCRC currently maintains.

Current Data and Software Tools

Data about the pavement and road surface assets under the SCCRC’s jurisdiction are maintained by the Engineering Department at the SCCRC. The SCCRC Engineering Department is responsible for providing engineering and technical services for road operations, preventative maintenance (renewal) projects, and improvement projects on the county road system.  

The SCCRC Operations Department oversees the maintenance and upkeep of all county roads, as well as MDOT’s state trunk lines. In addition, The SCCRC Operations Department consists of four maintenance garages, with approximately 150 pieces of road equipment.  

The SCCRC currently uses various types of software to manage current asset data and cost information.  The following table lists specific software packages utilized by the SCCRC and descriptions of the functions these software packages perform.

Software Name Function/Purpose/Data Location
RoadSoft Roadway Asset Management System
  • Asset Inventory
  • Asset Condition Data
  • Asset Deterioration Modeling
  • Strategy Evaluation
Server
St. Clair County GIS Asset Inventory Server
MS Excel Annual Work Program Server
Precision Accounting software
  • Income and Expenditure
  • Payroll
  • Accounts Payable
  • Purchasing/Inventory
Server
Hardcopies/Microfiche Maintenance history work sheets Vault

Finances

The SCCRC is an independent financial entity although its funds are deposited through the St. Clair County Treasurer. The Board of County Road Commissioners adopts an Annual Budget, and approves all expenditures in accordance with accepted accounting principles for government agencies. An independent audit is performed annually on the Road Commission accounts, and the results are provided to the Michigan Department of Treasury.  

The following sections document the financial status of the SCCRC.  The following data was compiled from fiscal year 2014 data, and is provided here for the purposes of asset management considerations.  The most recent financial information available can be obtained through the SCCRC.

Current Asset Investment

The SCCRC currently invests in 1,527 miles of road surface assets.  The investments include three main surface types:  Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA), concrete, and unsealed roads.  Unsealed roads fall into three main subcategories:  Limestone, natural aggregate, and dirt.

The SCCRC currently estimates the road surface asset investment to be:

  1. Current Investment                 $114,854,000
  2. Depreciation                             $  52,315,000
  3. Net Value                                  $  62,539,000

Income

The SCCRC’s principal source of funding is the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF). This fund is supported by vehicle registration fees and the Michigan state gas tax. The Road Commission's allocation is based on a formula, which includes factors such as population, miles of certified roads and vehicle registration fees within the county.  

In addition to MTF, the Road Commission is contracted by the Michigan Department of Transportation to maintain the State trunk-lines within St. Clair County, and also contracts with each of the County’s twenty-three townships for specific improvement projects.  

The SCCRC also receives a county appropriation that provides financial assistance to our twenty-three townships; federal and state grants for individual projects; contributions from private developers and other governmental entities for specific improvements; and the recent passage in 2012 of a county-wide three year road millage generates sorely needed funds used to match federally funded projects. Miscellaneous revenues sources include revenue from permits and other fees, and interest from invested excess funds.  

The following table lists the revenue sources for 2014 fiscal year and the anticipated revenues for the 2015 Fiscal Year.

Revenue Source

2015 Actual

2016 Budget

Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF)

$   11,187,000 $  10,935,000

Federal/State Funds

13,493,000 6,886,000

State Trunkline Maintenance

3,425,000 3,250,000

Township Contributions

2,757,000 2,317,000

Other Contributions

1,213,000 500,000

Road Millage

1,041,000 1,000,000

County Appropriation

900,000 900,000

Miscellaneous Income

497,000 305,000

Total

$  34,513,000 $  26,093,000

 


Managing Lifecycles

Current  Conditions

In an effort to increase cost efficiencies, one of the strategies the SCCRC has adopted, is the implementation of a new method of road asset management. PASER (Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating System) is a system developed by the Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council (TAMC) and consists of performing a visual inspection and rating the road condition. This rating system is recognized by the Federal and State governmental agencies as a proper format to use in determining effective and efficient road system enhancements  

PASER ratings of a paved road are from a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being a pavement in a failed condition and 10 being a pavement in excellent condition) using guidelines developed by the TAMC. Through the use of PASER the SCCRC has evaluated every paved road under its jurisdiction, and assigned it a numerical rating.

Asphalt Streets

PASER Rating Condition Treatment
9 & 10 Excellent No maintenance required
8 Very Good Little or no maintenance
7 Good Crack sealing and minor patching
5 & 6 Fair - Good Preservative treatments (non-structural)
3 & 4 Poor - Fair Structural improvement (overlay)
1 & 2 Failed Reconstruction

Concrete Streets

PASER Rating Condition Treatment
9 & 10 Excellent No maintenance required
7 & 8 Very Good Routine maintenance
5 & 6 Fair - Good Surface Repairs, sealing, partial-depth patching
3 & 4 Poor - Fair Extensive slab or joint rehabilitation
1 & 2 Failed Reconstruction
A PASER rating system enables the SCCRC to determine the best and most cost-effective road preservation method for each of the paved roads inspected. The rate at which pavement deteriorates from an excellent (10) to a very poor condition (1) depends largely on its environment, traffic loading conditions, original construction quality, and interim maintenance procedures.  

The following chart describes the paved road PASER rating system in detail and provides a description of all the rating levels from 1 to 10 and what can be expected for each rating level. 

Surface Rating

Visible Distress

General Condition/ Treatment Measures

10

Excellent

None

New construction

9

Excellent

None

Recent overlay, like new.

8

Very Good

Longitudinal cracks except reflection of paving joints. Occasional transverse cracks, widely spaced (40' or greater).  All cracks sealed or tight (open less than “)

Recent sealcoat or new road mix.  Little or no maintenance required.

7

Good

Very slight or no raveling, surface shows some traffic wear. Longitudinal cracks (open 1/4") spaced due to reflection or paving joints. Transverse cracks (open 1/4") spaced 10 feet or more apart, little or slight crack raveling. No patching or very few patches in excellent condition.

First signs of aging.  Maintain with routine crack filling.

6

Good

Slight raveling (loss of lines) and traffic wear. Longitudinal cracks (open 1/4" - 1/2") due to reflection and paving joints. Transverse cracking (open 1/4" - 1/2") some spaced less than 10 feet. Slight to moderate flushing or polishing. Occasional patching in good condition.

Show signs of aging, sound structural condition.  Could extend life with sealcoat.

5

Fair

Moderate to severe raveling (loss of lines and coarse aggregate). Longitudinal cracks (open 1/2") show some slight raveling and secondary cracks.  First signs of longitudinal cracks near wheel path or edge. Transverse cracking and first signs of block cracking.  Slight crack raveling (open 1/2"). Extensive to severe flushing or polishing. Some patching or edge wedging in good condition.

Surface aging, sound structural condition.  Needs sealcoat or non-structural overlay (less than 2”).

4

Fair

Severe surface raveling. Multiple longitudinal and transverse cracking with slight raveling. Block cracking (over 25 - 50% of surface). Patching in fair condition. Slight rutting or distortions (1" deep or less).

Significant aging and first signs of need for strengthening.  Would benefit from a structural overlay (2” or more).

3

Poor

Closely spaced longitudinal and transverse cracks often showing raveling and crack erosion. Block cracking over 50% of surface. Some alligator cracking (less than 25% of surface). Patches in fair to poor condition. Moderate rutting or distortion (1" or 2" deep). Occasional potholes.

Needs patching and repair prior to major overlay. Milling and removal of deterioration extends the life of overlay.

2

Very Poor

Alligator cracking (over 25% of surface). Severe distortions (over 2" deep). Extensive patching in poor condition. Potholes.

Severe deterioration.  Needs reconstruction with extensive base repair. Pulverization of old pavement is effective.

1

Failed

Severe distress with extensive loss of surface integrity.

Failed.  Needs total reconstruction.

 

The table below illustrates the costs associated with street maintenance and construction. Using an asset management approach to street maintenance will provide a mix of treatments to keep the good roads in good condition through maintenance while spending some funds on reconstruction of roads that are failing.

Recommended Asphalt Treatments and Associated Costs

PASER Rating Condition Treatment Est. Cost/ mile
9 & 10 Excellent No maintenance required $0
8 Very Good Little or no maintenance $5,000
7 Good Crack Sealing and Minor Patching $40,000
5 & 6 Fair - Good Preservative treatments (non-structural) $150,000
3 & 4 Poor - Fair Structural Improvement (overlay) $750,000
1 & 2 Failed Reconstruction $1,000,000

Recommended Concrete Treatments and Associated Costs

PASER Rating Condition Treatment Est. Cost/ mile
9 & 10 Excellent No maintenance required $0
7 & 8 Very Good Routine maintenance $1,000
5 & 6 Fair - Good Surface repairs, sealing, partial depth patching $225,000
3 & 4 Poor - Fair Extensive slab or joint rehabilitation $400,000
1 & 2 Failed Reconstruction $1,000,000

Gravel Road PASER Ratings

Evaluating and rating gravel roads requires a different perspective than similar evaluations of asphalt or gravel pavements. This is due to the nature of gravel roads and their variability. Surface conditions on gravel roads can change literally overnight. Heavy rains and local heavy traffic can dramatically change the surface characteristics of gravel roads from one day to the next. In addition, routine maintenance activities, such as one pass of a motor grader, could improve the surface condition of a gravel road significantly.  

The most important factors in evaluating a gravel road are the road cross section, drainage, and adequacy of the gravel layer. A simplified rating system has been developed to help manage gravel roads. It uses a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is excellent condition and 1 is failed. Routine grading and minor patching may be sufficient to restore the road to excellent condition. Gravel road surface ratings are related to needed maintenance or repair:

Rating 5 Excellent Newly constructed roads.  Excellent crown and drainage.  No maintenance required.
Rating 4 Good Good crown and drainage.  Routine maintenance required.
Rating 3 Fair Roadway shows traffic effects.  Re-grading (re-working) necessary to maintain.  Needs some ditch improvement and culvert maintenance.  Some areas may need additional gravel.
Rating 2 Poor Road needs additional aggregate layer, major drainage improvements.
Rating 1 Failed Travel is difficult.  Complete rebuilding required.

The implementation of asset management tools like PASER, allows an agency to make the best decisions for their transportation network with the best information available.  This process enables good stewardship, transparent decision processes, and measurable performance.   

The current known ratings provide important information regarding the estimated remaining life for the pavements owned by the SCCRC.  The estimation of remaining life of service was based on the standard degradation models included in the PASER rating system.  

The following detail provides a breakdown of the PASER ratings by road type, by township, and the resultant expected remaining service life. A road with a PASER rating of 10 or 9 would have more than 10 years of remaining service life, a rating of 8 or 7 having a remaining service life of 5 to 10 years, and a rating of 6 or below equating to less than 5 years of remaining service life.   

The PASER rating is a reflection of the surface quality of the roadway, not an absolute indicator of quality.  A roadway with a low PASER rating, or one past its remaining service life is still a usable road.

PASER Ratings (in miles) of all Federal Aid Eligible Roads Under SCCRC Jurisdiction

(288.6 miles of federal aid roads make up 18.6% of the SCCRC system)

 

 2012

(By Township)

PASER Rating – Federal Aid Eligible Roads

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Total

Berlin

 

 

 

 

 

.53

 

 

 

 

.53

Brockway

 

 

 

 

 

1.43

 

 

 

 

1.43

Burtchville

 

 

1.09

1.61

3.80

 

4.13

2.42

1.20

 

14.25

Casco

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.06

.74

 

1.80

China

 

2.06

3.95

6.95

2.03

1.14

3.49

 

2.09

.25

21.97

Clay

 

2.81

3.53

4.71

.46

 

11.19

1.52

 

 

24.23

Clyde

 

 

1.08

5.07

1.85

5.79

5.16

11.50

 

 

30.43

Columbus

 

 

 

 

 

 

.82

2.34

1.03

 

4.18

Cottrellville

 

1.06

6.84

4.54

 

 

3.06

 

1.52

1.53

18.55

East China

 

 

.5

4.89

1.68

1.15

1.52

 

 

.01

9.75

Emmett

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Fort Gratiot

 

 

1.42

1.76

6.42

3.09

4.57

3.42

3.26

 

23.95

Grant Twp

 

 

 

3.32

 

1.95

6.02

2.42

 

 

13.71

Greenwood

 

 

 

 

 

4.97

2.00

3.01

 

 

9.98

Ira

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.15

 

 

 

2.15

Kenockee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.00

2.80

 

4.79

Kimball

 

1.80

8.32

15.17

5.37

1.57

.57

.48

.65

 

33.93

Lynn

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.41

 

 

 

3.41

Mussey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Port Huron

.88

2.26

2.06

4.43

2.32

7.60

1.51

2.17

.38

1.56

25.17

Riley

 

 

 

 

 

1.37

 

2.98

 

 

4.35

St. Clair

 

2.61

9.32

9.93

3.89

2.42

2.91

1.39

2.82

 

35.32

Wales

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.73

 

 

 

4.73

2012 Totals

.88

12.60

38.12

62.37

27.82

33.00

57.24

36.70

16.49

3.37

288.60

Percentage

.3%

4.4%

13.2%

21.6%

9.6%

11.4%

19.8%

12.7%

5.7%

1.2%

100.0%

Federal Aid Eligible Road Pavement Condition Summary

Good Condition (6 thru 10) 50.9% or 146.8 miles
Fair Condition (4 thru 5) 31.2% or 90.2 miles
Poor Condition 1 thru 3) 17.9% or 51.6 miles

Federal Aid Eligible Road - Remaining Service Life

Less than 5 years 61% or 174.8 miles
5 to 10 years 33% or 93.9 miles
More than 10 years  7% or 19.9 miles

PASER Ratings (in miles) of all Local Paved Roadways under SCCRC Jurisdiction

 

 2012

(By Township)

PASER Rating – Local Paved Roads

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Total

Berlin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.463

 

.463

Brockway

 

 

 

 

 

 

.069

.115

 

 

.184

Burtchville

 

 

 

2.102

4.445

3.377

4.429

.182

 

 

14.535

Casco

 

 

 

4.903

1.821

.160

.439

 

.025

 

7.348

China

.080

 

 

1.465

6.506

1.482

.254

.469

 

 

10.256

Clay

 

 

.641

.064

3.190

3.744

6.926

10.271

2.577

 

27.413

Clyde

 

 

2.120

.662

1.535

2.739

2.721

 

2.568

 

12.345

Columbus

 

 

 

 

 

2.138

.632

 

 

 

2.770

Cottrellville

 

 

 

2.523

1.027

1.969

.262

.345

 

 

6.126

East China

.239

 

.553

1.180

2.842

1.779

4.900

2.168

 

 

13.661

Emmett

 

.226

.263

1.841

 

 

 

 

.022

 

2.352

Fort Gratiot

 

.935

1.790

3.644

7.243

6.231

6.392

2.417

 

 

28.652

Grant Twp

 

 

 

 

.504

 

 

 

 

 

.504

Greenwood

 

 

 

 

 

1.550

 

 

 

 

1.550

Ira

 

.182

.561

.048

.195

2.116

4.722

.212

 

 

8.036

Kenockee

 

.350

 

 

 

 

.066

.018

 

 

.434

Kimball

.118

1.612

4.724

2.492

3.935

2.189

3.254

3.706

1.564

1.308

24.902

Lynn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Mussey

 

 

 

 

 

.452

 

.253

 

.022

.727

Port Huron

.051

1.450

1.452

5.296

6.308

9.633

7.828

4.487

2.931

 

39.436

Riley

 

 

.580

.721

 

 

 

 

.092

 

1.393

St. Clair

 

 

 

1.426

1.415

2.775

4.218

3.005

 

 

12.839

Wales

 

2.413

1.005

.843

 

.500

.028

 

 

 

4.789

2012 Totals

.488

7.168

13.689

29.210

40.966

42.834

47.140

27.648

10.242

1.330

220.715

Percentage

.2%

3.3%

6.2%

13.2%

18.6%

19.4%

21.4%

12.5%

4.6%

.6%

100.0%

Local Paved Road Condition Summary

Good Condition (6 thru 10) 58.5% or 129.2 miles
Fair Condition (4 thru 5) 31.8/% or 70.2 miles
Poor Condition 1 thru 3) 9.7% or 21.3 miles

Local Paved Road - Remaining Service Life

Less than 5 years 60.9% or 134.3 miles
5 to 10 years 33.9% or 74.8 miles
More than 10 years 5.2% or 11.6 miles

PASER Ratings (in miles) for all Primary Paved Roadways under SCCRC Jurisdiction

 

 2012

(By Township)

PASER Rating – Primary Paved Roads

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Total

Berlin

 

 

 

2.505

5.077

5.603

1.226

 

3.837

.500

18.748

Brockway

 

 

1.908

4.604

.501

 

 

 

 

 

7.013

Burtchville

 

 

1.091

3.103

1.006

2.197

.037

.605

 

 

8.039

Casco

 

5.510

4.114

.939

2.127

2.796

6.031

.588

.022

 

22.127

China

 

3.076

3.046

5.973

2.932

3.211

2.462

.933

.337

 

21.970

Clay

 

 

1.538

.921

6.570

1.223

8.247

.210

2.136

 

20.845

Clyde

 

.501

.075

.320

.863

6.970

10.484

.335

 

 

19.548

Columbus

 

7.951

3.272

1.555

 

6.320

5.046

.215

3.427

 

27.786

Cottrellville

 

 

5.105

4.734

1.505

2.095

2.046

 

 

 

15.485

East China

 

 

 

1.726

.827

.958

.478

.111

 

 

4.100

Emmett

 

.421

2.018

.250

 

 

 

 

.041

 

2.730

Fort Gratiot

 

.216

1.245

.390

2.497

3.026

2.488

.758

 

 

10.620

Grant Twp

 

 

2.195

3.305

1.163

2.013

1.157

3.910

 

 

13.743

Greenwood

 

 

4.755

4.336

4.394

.503

 

 

 

 

13.988

Ira

 

 

1.015

.998

2.057

1.490

1.025

 

 

 

6.585

Kenockee

 

 

 

 

3.837

2.302

2.518

 

 

 

8.657

Kimball

 

.870

1.667

4.656

8.304

9.992

4.574

1.475

.108

 

31.646

Lynn

 

2.015

4.278

6.590

2.233

1.167

1.287

 

.242

 

17.812

Mussey

 

.347

4.287

 

1.917

 

.373

 

 

.023

6.947

Port Huron

 

 

2.209

3.937

1.522

1.175

4.922

1.333

.841

 

15.939

Riley

 

1.997

8.709

3.206

 

 

 

 

.029

 

13.941

St. Clair

.216

.540

8.704

3.949

6.844

2.850

5.249

2.032

1.679

.288

32.351

Wales

 

5.577

.646

1.496

3.747

5.024

1.155

.069

 

 

17.714

2012 Totals

.216

29.021

61.877

59.493

59.923

60.915

60.805

12.574

12.699

.811

358.334

Percentage

.1%

8.1%

17.3%

16.6%

16.7%

17.0%

17.0%

3.5%

3.5%

.2%

100.0%

Primary Paved Road Condition Summary

Good Condition (6 thru 10) 41.2% or 147.8 miles
Fair Condition (4 thru 5) 33.3% or 119.4 miles
Poor Condition 1 thru 3) 25.5% or 91.1 miles

Primary Paved Road - Remaining Service Life

Less than 5 years 75.8% or 271.4 miles
5 to 10 years 20.5% or 734 miles
More than 10 years 3.7% or 13.5 miles

Level of Service

The SCCRC is responsible for maintaining a road and bridge system that provides a safe and effective transportation system for the residents and motorist of St. Clair County.  This charge of good stewardship requires the SCCRC to establish level of service goals for the operations and maintenance of the roads.

Winter Operations

SCCRC policy has established three priority rankings for plowing and winter operations activities.  These priority rankings are:  

Priority 1 – State trunkline routes

Priority 2 – County Primary roads

Priority 3 – County Local roads  

The purpose of our winter operations is to expedite peak traffic demands. A satisfactory level of service must be reached on state trunklines and major county primary roadways prior to in-depth maintenance efforts on local roadways. The SCCRC’s Winter Policy states that the goal of our winter maintenance efforts is to complete major through-route clearing within 48 hours of storm onset.  

The ten year average cost for Primary and Local road winter maintenance activity was approximately $1,037,000 and $586,000 respectively. Rising fuel and salt costs have had a significant impact on our winter maintenance budget. In an effort to control costs yet still maintain efficient service levels, the SCCRC has added wing plows to some of our trucks and road graders, and has expanded its practice of purchasing quality pre-owned road equipment at reduced prices.

Road Surfaces

The SCCRC has been exploring the possibility of setting service goals for the maintenance of pavements under their jurisdiction.  The service goals have not been formally adopted at this time.  However, the SCCRC Engineering Department has selected the goal of 80% of all paved surfaces in good or fair condition, according to PASER ratings, as something they would like to achieve.


Strategic Goals

The SCCRC's mission statement forms the basis for the development of annual goals and strategies that help guide and prioritize our efforts.

Mission Statement

"The St. Clair County Road Commission is dedicated to providing effective, efficient and responsive services within available financial resources."

As a public agency, we use public tax dollars received through the Michigan Transportation fund, federal and state grants, a voter approved local road millage,  a County appropriation, and contributions from our twenty-three townships   to help achieve the principles of our mission statement. We are committed to being effective stewards of these resources, ensuring the long-term fiscal stability of the Road Commission, employing cost-effective solutions to projects, continuing to explore ways to reduce the costs of operations, continually striving to improve service delivery and productivity, and ensuring a high level of customer service in all that we do.  

We serve a diverse community, in terms of gender, geography, race and other characteristics. We are committed to serving the entire community, and reflecting the diversity of our county in our choice of employees, projects, vendors, and in our partnerships.

We recognize that the success of our agency is largely dependent on the talents and skills of employees. We believe that every employee has a role to play in making a positive difference for the success of our agency. We are committed to hire and retain the best possible employees, provide opportunities for professional development and advancement, pay them competitively, reward success and innovation, and treat them with dignity, fairness and respect.  

We recognize an obligation to share our insights, experience and expertise in transportation and in providing transportation services with others. We will support county, regional and state transportation initiatives through active engagement in the St. Clair County Transportation Study (SCCOTS), the County Road Association of Michigan and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. We will continue to strive to be recognized as a source of innovation and cutting edge performance in everything we do.


Legislation, Policy, and Standards

The SCCRC adopts by reference and incorporates in the procedures and regulations of the most current editions of the following list of publications:

         AASHTO A Guide For Accommodating Utilities Within Highway Right-Of-Way

         AASHTO A Policy On Geometric Design of Highways and Streets

         AASHTO Roadside Design Guide

         FHWA Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067

         ITE Trip Generation Handbook

         ITE Trip Generation Manual

         MDOT Design Survey Manual

         MDOT Drainage Manual

         MDOT Geometric Design Guide

         MDOT Maintaining Traffic Typicals, Traffic and Safety Division

         MDOT Road and Bridge Standard Plans

         MDOT Standard Specifications For Construction

         Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

         TRB, Highway Capacity Manual  

The SCCRC also complies with Michigan Public Act 199 of 2007, which requires: “The department, each county road commission, and each city and village of this state shall annually submit a report to the Council. This report shall include a multi-year program developed through the asset management process described in this section. Projects contained in the department’s annual multi-year program shall be consistent with department’s asset management process and shall be reported consistent with categories established by the Council. Projects contained in the annual multi-year program of each local agency shall be consistent with the asset management process of each local road agency and shall be reported consistent with categories established by the Council.”


Decision Process

The SCCRC takes a multi-disciplinary approach in determining the renewal, replacement, and improvement projects to implement in any given year.  This process takes into consideration the condition of the paved road, stakeholder requirements, and the changing traffic patterns and needs of the surrounding area of the road.  The decision process is focused around the following key areas:  

         The general condition of the road, e.g. the pavement, shoulders, culverts, etc.

         The volume of traffic found on the road.

         The type of traffic using the road.

         The ability to provide, or the need for, safety improvement projects.

         The ability to provide corridor continuity.

         The ability to coordinate with other projects that may be disturbing the roadway, such as utility work, or improving the public right-of-way.

         The ability to partner with other jurisdictions and agencies to share the cost of a project.

 

Basic Process Improvement Plan

There are certain areas where improvements to the decision making process can be made.  Current staffing levels restrict the ability of the SCCRC to collect road condition data in one calendar year. Not being able to collect up-to-date road condition data every year hampers optimal decision making. The amount of time that occurs between rating a road and the actual construction of the treatment option can be considerable.  The result of the delay between the road survey and construction is that the treatment alternative originally determined may be misaligned to the actual conditions of the pavement when construction actually begins.  The SCCRC is looking into possible options to improve the current data collection process.  

Increasing construction labor and material costs result in the SCCRC having to seek financial assistance from external sources such as federal, state and local governmental agencies. This process of submitting proposed construction projects, with the respective financial assistance requested can occur over a period of up to three to five years.  Regulatory changes and unfunded mandates have placed additional financial and time constraints on completing road improvements in a timely and efficient manner.


Sustainability Assessment

The SCCRC continually monitors the needs of the roadway system and the status of income sources to determine the sustainability of near-term and long-term plans and goals.  Currently the SCCRC finds that projected income will not meet the needs of the paved roads under its jurisdiction. Based on the above scenario, the SCCRC will not be able to continue to achieve the same current levels of paved road renewal and replacement work required to maintain sustainability. Additionally, the SCCRC will not be able to meet its goals for pavement conditions, therefore paved roads under the jurisdiction of the SCCRC are expected to continue to decline.

 

The following chart provides the historical revenue received from the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF).  This chart shows the recent decline in revenue from this source.

MTF Revenue Summary

Projecting future MTF funding levels is hard to determine due to rising fuel costs, decreasing fuel usage (due to more fuel efficient and hybrid vehicles on the roadways), and the uncertainty in funding options currently being debated in the state capital.  

The SCCRC has developed a goal of having 80% of all Federal Aid paved roads rated as good or fair.  However, projected revenues will fall far short of the estimated maintenance funding required.  The following provides the estimated funding levels required to achieve an “excellent” (PASER rating of 9 thru 10) rating for all SCCRC paved roads.

        Current PASER Rating – Recommended Repair

Recommended Investment

 

 

    1.93 paved road miles at Grade 1 – complete reconstruction

  24.50 paved road miles at Grade 2 – complete reconstruction

  93.64 paved road miles at Grade 3 – complete reconstruction

126.37 paved road miles at Grade 4 – mill and resurface

  52.69 paved road miles at Grade 5 – mill and resurface

  95.99 paved road miles at Grade 6 – crack seal and chipseal

106.94 paved road miles at Grade 7 – crack seal  and chipseal

  61.10 paved road miles at Grade 8 – crack seal

 

                     $1,933,000

                   $18,373,000

                   $70,234,000

                   $18,955,000

                    $7,904,000

                     $3,840,000

                     $4,278,000

                      $306,000

Total         $125,823,000

Using the above recommended investment costs to achieve a PASER rating of 9 or higher within five years, would require an annual expenditure in excess of $25,000,000 per year.  Actual expenditures and the respective shortfall of the funds necessary to achieve PASER ratings of 9 or  higher for the period of 2011 thru 2015 are as follows:

                                                                                                                                                                                             

Program Year                                                    Expenditure                                   Investment Shortfall

2011 Actual Expenditures                                  $2,856,000                                          ($22,144,000)

2012 Actual Expenditures                                  $2,510,000                                          ($22,490,000)

2013 Actual Expenditures                                  $4,231,000                                          ($20,769,000)

2014 Actual Expenditures                                  $7,045,000                                          ($17,955,000)

2015 Actual Expenditures                                  $10,207,000                                        ($14,793,000)

                                                                                                                                                                                               


Program Coordination

The SCCRC currently works to coordinate renewal, replacement, and improvement activities with other agencies.  Key stakeholders the SCCRC coordinates with for design input and funding partnerships are:

  • Federal

  • State

  • County

  • Townships

  • Utilities

  • Private sector

  • Citizen Groups

SCCRC has been successful in aggressively seeking funding from federal and state sources to help provide funding on high cost/high return projects. With 80% federal funds being matched by 20% locally on federal-aid eligible road projects, and 95% federal to 5% local match on federal-aid eligible bridge projects, for the 10 year period ended 2014, the SCCRC has been able to capture approximately $4 in federal and state funds for every $1 invested by the SCCRC. For the five year period ended 2014, the SCCRC has been able to capture approximately $7.20 in federal and state funds for every $1 invested by the SCCRC. However, in achieving this high level of return on investment, the SCCRC had to deplete funding to other programs such as our primary road surface preservation and local road funding assistance programs.  

The SCCRC was also very committed in obtaining a county wide road millage. Through the public education efforts of our Board and Managing Director, residents rewarded that effort and placed their faith in the SCCRC by passing a three year road millage. This millage is used for federal and state matching required projects, which allows some of the funds previously used for this purpose to be used to restore funding to our road preservation programs.  

Recent examples of how the SCCRC has accomplished multi-agency program funding coordination are:

Wadhams Road Bridge over Black River:  

This major project consisted of the removal of a 500 foot, 13 span existing steel bridge and replacing it with a 500 foot twin span steel bridge on CIP concrete abutments with steel H-piling and CIP concrete pier with steel box piles and post-tensioned tie-backs along with 5-lane road approach widening work including new storm sewer, aggregate base widening, concrete curb & gutter, hot mix asphalt paving, guardrail placement and site restoration.  

Funding for this project consisted of the following revenue sources:  

                        Federal Funds                          $10,743,615 
                       
State Funds                              $ 1,744,878 
                       
SCCRC                                     $ 1,026,309                                                

Davis Road Project for the new Chrysler Plant  

This project was done to complete a development deal made to get Chrysler to build a new plant in the City of Marysville and involved 1.45 miles of pavement removal, cold milling HMA surface, aggregate base and aggregate base widening, crack repair, storm sewer, concrete curb and gutter, HMA surfacing, aggregate shoulders, pavement markings, and site restoration.  

Funding for this project consisted of the following revenue sources:  

State Funds (Category A)        $2,161,746  
St. Clair County                       $   321,251
SCCRC                                     $          -0-

Roehn Road Reconstruction for the Keihin Auto Parts Plant  

This project was done to complete a development deal made to get the Keihin Manufacturing to build a new plant in the Village of Capac and involved 0.32 miles of storm sewer installation, sanitary sewer relocation, water main relocation, earthwork for road widening, aggregate base, pavement edge drain, concrete curb and gutter, HMA surfacing, aggregate shoulders, pavement markings, and site restoration.  

Funding for this project consisted of the following revenue sources:  

State Funds (Category A)  $ 520,313
St. Clair County                             $ 100,000  
Village of Capac                            $ 170,785  
SCCRC                                           $ 138,320  

Additional examples of how the SCCRC has accomplished multi-agency program funding coordination can be found in our current on-going projects to be completed in 2013:  

Smiths Creek Road Reconstruct  

This major project consists of 2.61 mi of road reconstruction and new bridge superstructure including removal of existing 90 foot concrete bridge deck and replace with new concrete I-beams and CIP concrete deck, sanitary sewer force main installation, earthwork for road widening, new drainage structures, aggregate base widening, HMA cold milling, hot mix asphalt resurfacing, aggregate shoulders, and site restoration.  

Funding for this project is budgeted to come from the following revenue sources:  

Federal TIGER Funds                $3,650,000  
St. Clair County                        $   200,000  
Kimball Township                      $   264,900  
SCCRC                                      $   215,617  

CN Corridor  

This project consisted of 0.79 miles of road reconstruction with the addition of a new overpass, including a new 105 foot single span concrete bridge on CIP concrete abutments with steel H-piling, storm sewer, sanitary sewer relocation, water main relocation, earthwork with wick drains, concrete curb and gutter, hot mix asphalt, detention pond construction and site restoration.  

Funding for this project is budgeted to come from the following revenue sources:  

Federal Funds                          $11,025,777 
State Funds                             $  2,371,075
CN Railroad                              $     386,174 
SCCRC                                      $             -0-      



Contact us | View site map


image


image
image