International Journal of Highway Engineering (한국도로학회논문집)

Korean Society of Road Engineers (한국도로학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Tight Budgets and Roadway Maintenance: The Need for Further Study of the Conversion/Reconversion Scenario for Low-Volume Roadways

예산 및 도로 유지관리 : 저교통량 도로의 포장 변경을 위한 추가연구의 필요성

  • Received : 2014.10.14
  • Accepted : 2015.05.20
  • Published : 2015.06.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSES : This paper presents a description of the current issues facing road managers regarding the surface-type conversion of low-volume roads for cost savings. METHODS: The paper reviews previous works conducted toward this end, acknowledges gaps in the current research, and lays out what information is needed for further studies. RESULTS : If the cost to maintain an unsurfaced road is less than the cost of maintaining a surfaced road, then there is potential for cost savings for the management agency. However, the problem is bigger than simply maintaining the roads that already exist. If unsurfaced roads prove to be more economical than surfaced roads, then the cost to convert from a surfaced to an unsurfaced roadway, and vice versa, when necessary, must also be examined. CONCLUSIONS : No other studies have addressed the un-surfacing of a road for cost savings, and it is therefore unknown whether substantial savings can be realistically obtained by converting from a surfaced to an unsurfaced road. To determine whether a conversion policy would be a viable option, additional data and research are needed.

Keywords

References

  1. Abaynayaka, S.W. (1977). Prediction of road construction and vehicle operating costs in developingcountries. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol 62 (Part 1), UK.
  2. Anderson, J., & Session, J. (1991). Managing low-volume road systems for intermittent use. Transportation Research Record, 1291, 224-230.
  3. Behrens, I.L.C. (1999). Overview of Low-Volume Roads. Transportation Research Record 1652, Transportation Research Board, pp. 1-4.
  4. Bhusal, S., Li, X., & Wen, H. (2011). Evaluation of effects of recycled concrete aggregate on volumetrics of hot-mix asphalt. Transportation Research Record, 2205, 36-39.
  5. Burger, A.F., Henderson, M.G., & Van Rooyen, G.C. (2007). Development of scheduling algorithms for routine maintenance of unsealed roads in the western cape province, South Africa. Proc., 9thInternationalConferenceonLow-VolumeRoads, Austin, Tx., 2007.
  6. Chamorro, A., & Tighe, S. (2011). Condition performance models for network-level management of unpaved roads. Transportation Research Record, 2204, 21-28.
  7. Clemmons, G., & Saager, V. (2011). Financing low-volume road improvements. Transportation Research Record, 2203, 143-150.
  8. CRRI. (1982). Road user cost study in India: Final report. Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi, India.
  9. Douglas, R. (2011). Appropriate pavement maintenance and rehabilitation management system for local governments. Transportation Research Record, 2205, 206-212.
  10. Etter, L. (2010). Roads to ruin: Towns rip up pavement. Wall Street Journal Online. Retrieved from
  11. Farkas, K. (2010). Some Ohio roads, and those in other states, reverting to gravel because repairs are too costly. Retrieved from
  12. FHWA. (1992). Local low-volume roads and streets. Publication FHWA-SA-93-006. U.S. Department of Transportation.
  13. FHWA. (2008). Highway Statistics 2007. Office of Highway Policy Information, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation.
  14. Full Depth Reclamation Technical Subcommittee of the Committee on Recycling Education. (2011). Full Depth Reclamation: A Century of Advancement for a New Millennium. In Asphalt Recycling & Reclaiming Association Brochure, Asphalt Recycling & Reclaiming Association, Annapolis, Md., p. 1.
  15. GEIPOT. (1982). Research on the interrelationships between costs of highway construction, maintenance and utilisation (PICR) - Final Report. 12 Volumes, Brasilia, Brazil.
  16. Gesford, A., & Anderson, J. (2006) Environmentally sensitive maintenance for dirt and grave roads. Report No. PA-2006-001-CP-83043501-0. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
  17. Giumarra, G. (ed.). (1989). Unsealed roads manual: guidelines to good practice, 3rded. ARRB Group, Ltd.,Vermont South, Victoria, Australia, 2009.
  18. Gravel-PASER manual: pavement surface evaluation and rating. Transportation Information Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, pp-2-25.
  19. Gupta, A., Kumar, P., & Rastogi, R. (2011). Pavement deterioration and maintenance model for low volume roads. Internatonal Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 4(4), p. 195-202.
  20. Haas, R., Hudson, W. R., & Zaniewski, J. (1994). Modern pavement management. Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.
  21. Humphries, C., Humphries, E., Lee, S.-J., Jeong, K. D. (2014). A method for assessing costs associated with conversion/reconversion of low-volume roadways. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 7(3), 203-210.
  22. Huntington, G., & Ksaibati, K. (2011). Implementation guide for the management of unsealed gravel roads. Transportation Research Record, 2205, 189-197.
  23. Jahren, C., Smith, D., Thorius, J., Rukashaza-Mukome, M., & White, D. Research Services Section, (2005). Economics of upgrading an aggregate road. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Transportation.
  24. Johnson, A. M. (2000). Best practices handbook on asphalt pavement maintenance. Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota. Report No. 2000-04.
  25. Johnson, A. M. (2008). Current issues facing low-volume roads managers. Notes from Ninth International Conference on Low-Volume Roads.
  26. Kivilands, J., & Strezs, A. (2011). Operational service management system of forest roads. Transportation Research Record, 2205, 213-220.
  27. Luhr, D.R. & McCullough, B.F. (1983). Economic evaluation of pavement design alternatives for low-volume roads. Transportation Research Record, 898, 24-29.
  28. Maher, M., Marshall, C., Harrison, F., & Baumgaertner, K. (2005). Context sensitive roadway surfacing selection guide. FHWA Report No. FHWA-CFL/TD/05-004.
  29. Memmot, J. L., & Hanks, J. W. (1992). Evaluation of upgrade to standards requirements for FM highways in Texas. TxDOT Report No. 1229-1F.
  30. Mladenovic, G., Cirilovic, J., & Queiroz, C. (2011). Network-level pavement management: case of Serbian low-volume roads. Transportation Research Record, 2205, 221-228.
  31. Morosiuk, G. & Abaynayaka, S.W. (1982). Vehicle operating costs in the Caribbean: an experimental study of vehicle performance. TRRL Laboratory Report 1056, Transportation Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.
  32. Mubaraki, M. (2012). Maintenance strategies at project level for low volume urban roads. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 5(4), 225-233.
  33. Mulholland, R.W. (1972). Evaluation of selected dust palliatives on secondary highways. Technical Report 18, Regina, Canada: Saskatchewan Department of Highways, 32 p.
  34. Oh, J. H., Chen, D.H., Walubita, L. F., &Wimsatt, A. J. (2011). Mitigating seal coat damage due to superheavy load moves in Texas low volume roads. Construction and Building Materials, 25, 3236-3244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.010
  35. Pidwerbesky, B., Steven, B., & Arnold, G. (1997). Subgrade strain criterion for limiting rutting in asphalt pavements. In Proc., Eigth International Conference on Asphalt Pavements (pp. 1529-1544).
  36. Rajala, L. (2010). Tight times put gravel on the road. USA Today. Retrieved from
  37. Reckard, M.K. (1983). Economic aspects of high speed gravel roads. Report No. FHWA-AK-RD-83-20.
  38. Reckard, M.K. (1988). Cost effectiveness of selected roadway dust control methods for the Mendenhall Valley, Juneau, Alaska, prepared for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation by Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/research/assets/pdf/ak_rd_88_08.pdf, accessed on January 4, 2012.
  39. Reddy, K., & Veeraragavan, A. (2011). Application of highway development and management tool in rural road asset management. Transportation Research Record, 2204, 29-34.
  40. Rukashaza-Mukome, M. C., Thorius, J. M., Jahren, C. T., Johnson, G. D., &White, D. J. (2003). Cost comparison of treatments used to maintain or upgrade aggregate roads. Proceedings of the 2003 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium. Ames, Iowa.
  41. Shearer, D. R., & Scheetz, B. E. (2011). Improvements to Linn Run Road: Case study on turn-back of asphalt-paved road surface to maintainable gravel road surface. Transportation Research Record, 2204, 215-220.
  42. Shuler, S. (n/a). Recommended Criteria in the Decision Process for Paving Unsurfaced Roadways. Paper Prepared for Rocky Mountain Asphalt Paving Conference and Equipment Show. Accessed online at < http://www.coasphalt.com/documents/CSU%20Research%20 Report-PavingGravelRoads12-2007.pdf>
  43. Skorseth, K. Bulletin 29: Dealing with washboarding. In The Connection, South Dakota Local Technical Assistance Program at South Dakota State University, Brookings, 1998.
  44. Skorseth, K., & Selim, A. (2000). Gravel roads maintenance and design manual. South Dakota Local Technical Assistance Program, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation.
  45. Smadi, A., Hough, J., Schulz, L., & Birst, S. (1999). North Dakota gravel road management: Alternative strategies. Transportation Research Record, 1652, 16-23.
  46. Timm, D., Newcomb, D., & Selvaraj, I. (2006, May). A practical guide to low-volume road perpetual pavement design, Ohio Research Institute for Transportation and the Environment.
  47. TxDOT. (2008). Maintenance management manual.
  48. TxDOT. (2010). Seal coat and surface treatment manual.
  49. TxDOT. (2011). Condition of Texas pavements: PMIS annual report FY 2008-2011.
  50. Veeraragavan, A., & Krishna, M. (2011). Decision support models for asset management of low-volume roads. Transportation Research Record, 2205, 181-188. https://doi.org/10.3141/2205-23
  51. Zimmerman, K., & Wolters, A. (2002). Local road surfacing criteria. Champaign, IL: Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.