HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-11 Info Packet
City Council I nformation Packet
March 11, 2021
IP1.Council Tentative Meeting S chedule
March 16 Work Session
IP2.Work Session Agenda
IP3.I owa City Pavement Management Program F Y 2020-2024
IP4.Memo from City Manager: Utility P rotocol Update
IP5.Pending City Council Work S ession Topics
Draft Minutes
IP6.Airport Commission: February 11
IP7.L ibrary B oard of Trustees: February 25
March 11, 2021 City of Iowa City Page 1
Item Number: 1.
March 11, 2021
Council Ten tative Meeting Sched u l e
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Council Tentative Meeting S chedule
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Subject to change
March 16, 2021
Date Time Meeting Location
Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Zoom Meeting Platform
Work Session
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, March 23, 2021 4:00 PM Special Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, April 20, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, May 4, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, May 18, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, June 1, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, July 6, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM Formal Meeting
Item Number: 2.
March 11, 2021
Work Session Agen d a
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Work Session Agenda
Item Number: 3.
March 11, 2021
Iowa City Pavement Man agement Program F Y 2020-2024
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
I owa City Pavement Management Program F Y 2020-2024
CITY OF IOWA CITYPavement Management Program FY 2020-2024
Page 1 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Acknowledgements
Mayor
Bruce Teague, Mayor
City Council
Pauline Taylor, District A
Susan Mims, District B
John Thomas, District C
Laura Bergus, At Large
Mazahir Salih, At Large
Janice Weiner, At Large
Advisory Group
Jason Havel, PE; City Engineer
Jason Reichart, PE; Civil Engineer
Killian Laughead, Engineering Technician
HR Green
Aaron Granquist, PE; Project Manager
Jeremy Kaemmer, PE & AICP; Engineer, Planner, & Author
Steve Prideaux, AICP; Planner and Author
Iowa Pavement Management Program
Inya Nlenanya, PhD; Technical Support and Data Delivery
Page 2 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Executive Summary
The City of Iowa City is a unique municipality in Iowa. It is one of the
remaining few jurisdictions, in all of Iowa, without dedicated funding for
transportation infrastructure improvements, to supplement roadway use
tax funds distributed by the state. It is consistently one of the fastest
growing cities in the state, is the 5th most populous city, and has the 4th
highest population density1, which puts strain on the limited funding.
Despite this, the City must maintain 237 miles of streets, and has done
so exceptionally well.
Of all major metropolitan areas in the state, the City of Iowa City has the
3rd-highest average condition score, based on the Iowa Pavement
Management Program’s (IPMP) condition assessment. Appropriate
rehabilitation techniques and pavement management methodologies
have allowed the City to maintain a road network of high average quality.
It is that same appreciation for pavement management planning that led
Iowa City to contract with HR Green, Inc. to improve their pavement
management program.
Pavement management is a program that carries out an important City
policy. The policy objective is to improve overall street conditions in an
efficient manner that maximizes public benefits. This proactive approach
is important for a municipality tasked with maintaining the eighth largest
roadway network in the state.
The goals of this pavement management program include:
➢ Review the City’s standards for street construction and maintenance
practices
➢ Develop an inventory of the City’s street system
➢ Evaluate the system’s current roadway conditions using data
provided by the Iowa Pavement Management Program (IPMP)
➢ Determine major rehabilitation and reconstruction alternatives and
trigger thresholds for use in the data analysis and projections.
➢ Create a comprehensive pavement management model using the
IPMP data and the Pavement Management Software dTIMS BA™
➢ Develop maintenance/replacement schedules with annualized costs
for various funding levels and scenarios.
1 U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table DP05; generated by Jeremy Kaemmer; <https://data.census.gov/cedsci/>; (September 2019).
The City’s pavement rehabilitation treatment alternatives and project
determination process were reviewed, and a set of preferred treatment
alternatives and appropriate selection criteria were developed from this
review, with City feedback.
Pavement Condition Data has been collected statewide for all public
roads in Iowa, at least every 2 years, since 2013. This is done through
the Iowa Pavement Management Program, which is funded by the Iowa
Department of Transportation and is run out of the Institute for
Transportation at Iowa State University. The data collection consultant
for the IPMP uses a specialized van outfitted with an array of sensors and
drives every road in the state to collect information about the pavement
distresses visible on the surface.
The most recent data collection for Iowa City was in 2019. It was very
useful for assessing conditions in Iowa City and developing a
comprehensive inventory using Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Each roadway segment collected had the distress data distilled into the
City Pavement Condition Index (CityPCI) used throughout the state.
Based on the CityPCI results, Iowa City has an average score of 66/100,
which is considered “Good Condition” as well as the 3rd-highest average
score of all major metropolitan areas in Iowa. The street conditions
throughout the City were found to be fairly homogenous. Different surface
types were all well distributed and did not have significant condition
differences between them. Local/Residential class roads were found to
have slightly lower scores on average, however. This is somewhat
expected because they make up the majority of streets and are less cost
effective to fix due to their dispersed nature. The Local streets are still
considered to be in “Good Condition,” on average, and since they are
travelled at lower speeds and have smaller volumes of traffic, it should
not be a major concern.
Using the IPMP data, existing City resources, and input from City staff, a
complex pavement management model was created using the dTIMS
Business Analytics™ software. This model was then used to analyze
various funding and performance-based scenarios for the Iowa City
streets program.
The findings of the investigation determined that the current construction
budget of approximately $2.5 Million is likely not sufficient, based on long-
term sustainability. This holds true even when the base funding is
73.8
70.4
56.8
65.9
58.0
56.7
53.5
63.9
57.4
57.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
WEST DES MOINES
WATERLOO
SIOUX CITY
IOWA CITY
DUBUQUE
DES MOINES
DAVENPORT
COUNCIL BLUFFS
CEDAR RAPIDS
AMES
Network Average PCI Score
Page 3 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
supplemented with funds used for CIP projects, which in the past 5-
years, has ranged from $1.6 Million to $7.7 Million.
The model determined that it would take an increase of at least $11
Million, for each year’s budget, to keep the current condition steady over
the next 15 years. Without this funding increase, the overall average
condition is expected to decline. However, the funding scenarios found
that even the worst case kept the City’s overall average condition in at
least the “Fair” category. Since Iowa City is still above the “Good”
threshold by a fair amount, a slight decline in condition may not be
considered necessarily a bad thing and instead the City should look at
adopting a performance goal where they set target minimum condition for
various classes of roads. One possible goal could be keeping Arterial
Roads at 70/100, Collector Roads at 66/100, and Local Roads at 60/100.
Using the same pavement management model and the findings from the
initial budget-based investigations, a funding investigation was
performed. Research from Iowa State University’s annual retail –sales
analysis provided insight into how Iowa City could help alleviate the
increasing burden of pavement management costs. A Local-Option
Sales Tax (LOST) was determined to be a viable option and could be
used to generate between $8 Million and $12 Million, per year, in new
revenue, although half must be dedicated to property tax abatement.
Other Cities that have effectively used this funding source include Cedar
Rapids and Waterloo. Waterloo leveraged their LOST, established in
1991, to reach the number 1 spot, in overall roadway quality for all of
Iowa, while Cedar Rapids currently generates well over $18 Million per
year with their LOST.
The funding investigation showed that:
➢ Iowa City needs more funding
➢ The City has viable and effective tools at its disposal and the only
major metro area in the State not already using a LOST
➢ A LOST could possibly generate over $8-$12 Million in annual
revenue
➢ Implementing a LOST may be politically and logistically difficult
➢ LOST’s grow organically to more sustainably meet future needs
➢ LOST’s export tax burden to users, not property owners
➢ A One-Cent LOST combined with the currently available budget is the
most sustainable funding alternative for Iowa City
The most compelling finding was a LOST-based funding scenario where
the current budget was added to new funding source allowed network-
level conditions to stabilize after a small drop. This means LOST could
act as a sustainable long-term funding option.
Finally, the results of the scenario modelling exploration were then
incorporated into the pavement management model which was used to
generate an objective and computer optimized 5-Year Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP is a list of recommended projects for
Iowa City to complete over the next 5 years. This list of projects was
produced using the results of the dTIMS BA model, as well as several
other factors. The project list is optimized for the most effective use of
available funds, based on the pavement condition data and planning-
level information provided by the City. The complete list of recommended
projects and maps identifying the location for the proposed treatments
can be found in Appendix A: Capital Improvement Plan starting on
page 54
These lists and maps will serve as a tool to assist City staff during the
project planning process, but they do not replace engineering judgement.
Project types may change from what is in the CIP and projects will likely
move between phases for various reasons. Some projects may even
leave the plan entirely as new ones are added. Some reasons the
program may change include field conditions not captured by the IPMP
data, required utility improvements, or environmental hazards causing
changes to local conditions. Consisting of 43 Projects, the
recommended projects contained within the CIP will address nearly 17
Miles of roads.
This document is not the end of the Pavement Management Program,
however. Not only do the projects need to be constructed, still, but this
should be considered a “Living Document” because it needs to shift
and change with the conditions of the streets as well as the needs of its
citizens. The City receives new IPMP data every 2 years, so this gives a
good impetus for renewing the pavement management model and
adjusting the plan based on new information. Expect to hear more things
about this program, in the future, including updated city-wide condition
performance metrics and revised CIP’s!
Page 4 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 2
Table of Contents 4
List of Figures 4
List of Tables 4
List of Maps 5
Background 6
Introduction 6
2.1. What is Pavement Management? 6
2.2. Program Goals 7
Methodology 8
3.1. Data Collection 8
3.2. Condition Thresholds 10
3.3. dTIMS Business Analytics (PMS) 12
3.4. Performance Curves 12
3.5. Treatment Alternatives 13
Existing Condition Analysis 19
4.1. Functional Class and Pavement Type 19
4.2. Pavement Condition 20
4.3. Pavement Condition Trends 21
4.4. Cross Comparisons 21
4.5. Success in Iowa City & Cautions 21
4.6. Historical Funding & Expenditures 43
4.7. Existing Operations 44
4.8. Treatment Type Selection 44
Scenarios/Recommendations 45
5.1. Modelling 45
5.2. Determining Need 45
5.3. Scenarios 45
5.4. Results 46
5.5. Funding 49
5.6. Performance Metrics and Goal Setting 52
Capital Improvement Plan 53
Keep in Touch! 53
Appendix A: Capital Improvement Plan 54
Appendix B: Changing to CityPCI 60
List of Figures
Figure 1:Performance Curve 7
Figure 2: Overview of the Iowa City Street Network 8
Figure 3: A “Pathrunner” Automated Data Collection Vehicle (Pathways) 8
Figure 4: Automated Crack Analysis Software 8
Figure 5: Example of Alligator Cracking (ASTM) 9
Figure 6: Example of Block Cracking (ASTM) 9
Figure 7: Example of Distortion (ASTM) 9
Figure 8: Example of Transverse Crack (ASTM) 9
Figure 9: Example of Patching (ASTM) 9
Figure 10: Example of Rutting (ASTM) 9
Figure 11: Condition Thresholds 10
Figure 12: Example of “Very Good” Condition (HMA) – Benton Street 10
Figure 13: Example of “Very Good” Condition (PCC) – Ball Street 10
Figure 14: Example of “Good” Condition (HMA) – Sycamore Street 10
Figure 15: Example of “Good” Condition (PCC) – Friendship Street 10
Figure 16: Example of “Fair” Condition (HMA) – Muscatine Avenue 11
Figure 17: Example of “Fair” Condition (PCC) – Hollywood Blvd 11
Figure 18: Example of “Poor” Condition (HMA) – Rundell Street 11
Figure 19: Example of “Poor” Condition (PCC) – Wayne Street 11
Figure 20: Example of “Very Poor” Condition (HMA) – E Davenport Street 11
Figure 21: Roadway Imagery of a “Very Poor” HMA Pavement 11
Figure 22: Example of “Very Poor” Condition (PCC) – Kimball Road 11
Figure 23: Roadway Imagery of a “Very Poor” PCC Pavement 11
Figure 24: dTIMS BA Interface 12
Figure 25: Pavement Performance Curves 12
Figure 26: Reconstruction of I-94 (NDDOT) 13
Figure 27: Reconstruction of Michelmore Street (Bidgee) 13
Figure 28: HMA Overlay Placed on Milled Pavement (Famartin) 13
Figure 29: Cold Milling Machine (Anthony Neff) 14
Figure 30: Slurry Seal Being Placed by Hand (Miraflores) 14
Figure 31: Microsurfacing Crew at Work. (Eric Pulley). 14
Figure 32: Close-up View of Chip Seal Surface 14
Figure 33: PCC Restoration (City of Cedar Rapids). 15
Figure 34: Pavement After Diamond Grinding (John Roberts). 15
Figure 35: Cape Seal (Michael Quinn-NPS) 15
Figure 36: Crack Sealing Performed W/ Routing (USAF/Kenna Jackson) 15
Figure 37: HMA Patching with Localized Pavement Removal (KOMU) 16
Figure 38: Functional Class Distribution (By Centerline Miles) 19
Figure 39: Pavement Type Distribution 19
Figure 40: Condition Distribution by Pavement Type 20
Figure 41: Condition Distribution by Functional Class 20
Figure 42: Iowa Urban Agency Comparisons 20
Figure 43: Network-Level Pavement Condition Trend 21
Figure 44: Condition Trend by Pavement Type 21
Figure 45: Unaccounted for Failure 22
Figure 46: Some Historic Streets in Iowa City 22
Figure 47: Historical and Projected Roadway-Eligible Revenues by Source 43
Figure 48: Historical and Projected Roadway-Expenditures by Type 43
Figure 49: Projected “Need” 45
Figure 50: What The Benefits Calculation Looks Like 45
Figure 51: Example of a Treatment Strategy Executed by dTIMS. 46
Figure 52: Projected Condition distribution (Base Budget- $2M) 46
Figure 53: PCI and Backlog Projections by Budget 47
Figure 54: Distribution Projections for $4 M, $6 M & $8 M Budgets 48
Figure 55: Example of Arterial Target Condition (70/100) 48
Figure 56: Example of Collector Target Condition (65/100) 48
Figure 57: Example of Local Target Condition (60/100) 48
Figure 58: dTIMS BA Recommended Budget Proportions 49
Figure 59: Taxable Retail sales History and Projection 49
Figure 62: Projections for LOST Funding Scenarios 50
Figure 63: Street Funding Source Estimates 51
Figure 64: Treatment Distribution by Functional Class Over Time 53
Figure 65: Treatment Type Proportion for CIP (No Major CIP Projects) 53
Figure 66: Treatment Type Proportion for CIP (Full CIP w/ Dodge Street) 53
List of Tables
Table 1: Primary Capabilities & Functions Of HMA Pavement Treatments 16
Table 2: General Expected Performance of Maintenance Treatments 16
Table 3: Treatment Alternative Details 17
Table 4: Reconstruction Cost Calculation 18
Table 5: Crack and Seat Cost Calculation 18
Table 6: Mill and overlay Cost Calculation 18
Table 7: Thick Overlay Cost Calculation 18
Table 8: Thin Overlay Cost Calculation 18
Table 9: PCCR Cost Calculation 18
Table 10: Microsurfacing Cost Calculation 18
Table 11: Diamond Grinding Cost Calculation 18
Table 12: Crack Sealing/Filling Cost Calculation 18
Table 13: Patching Cost Calculation 18
Table 14: Cross Comparison of PCI by Pavement Types and Classes 21
Table 15: List of Common Capital Improvement Funding Sources 43
Table 16: Alternative Street Funding Sources and Estimated Revenues 51
Table 17: Changes to PCI Deduction Weighting 62
Table 18: Distress Threshold Comparison 62
Page 5 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
List of Maps
Map 1: Functional Class Overview 23
Map 2: Pavement Type - Overview 24
Map 3: Pavement Type – District A 25
Map 4: Pavement Type – District B 26
Map 5: Pavement Type – District C 27
Map 6: Arterial Pavement Condition - Overview 28
Map 7: Arterial Pavement Condition – District A 29
Map 8: Arterial Pavement Condition– District B 30
Map 9: Arterial Pavement Condition – District C 31
Map 10: Local/Residential Pavement Condition – Overview 32
Map 11: Local/Residential Pavement Condition – District A 33
Map 12: Local/Residential Pavement Condition – District B 34
Map 13: Local/Residential Pavement Condition – District C 35
Map 14: Rate of Deterioration - Overview 36
Map 15: Rate of Deterioration – District A 37
Map 16: Rate of Deterioration – District B 38
Map 17: Rate of Deterioration – District C 39
Map 18: Pavement Distresses – District A 40
Map 19: Pavement Distresses – District B 41
Map 20: Pavement Distresses – District C 42
Map 21: Recommended Projects – (Overview) 56
Map 22: Recommended Projects – District A 57
Map 23: Recommended Projects –District B 58
Map 24: Recommended Projects –District C 59
Page 6 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Background
The City of Iowa City, located in Johnson County, Iowa, maintains a large
roadway network consisting of over 227 centerline miles of streets and is
the 8th largest municipal road network in the state.
A limited streets program budget, primarily funded through roadway use
tax funds and property tax revenue, requires city staff and elected officials
to make difficult decisions when determining annual maintenance and
reconstruction expenditures. The overall annual budget for roadway
improvements in Iowa City has averaged between $2.0 Million and $2.5
Million for the last 5 years, which restricts the ability to address roadway
needs in the City. Other funds, in the form of grants or property tax
revenues, are also used for large construction projects, on an as needed
basis. These additional funds have ranged from $1.6 Million to $7.7
Million in annual contributions, over the past 5 years.
Each year, approximately 2 miles of roads are improved via overlays,
partial reconstructions, and various maintenance activities. At this pace,
it would take the City over 100 years to address every street within its
network. Considering the average service life of streets in Iowa is 50-70
years, that is altogether too slow, especially since major corridors will
need more regular treatments.
Until now, the City’s framework for determining which streets to repair
has been informed by condition data from the Iowa Pavement
Management Program but was ultimately governed by the professional
judgement of City staff. Staff knowledge is critical to identifying projects
and determining the appropriate treatments, but at a systematic planning
level, there are better techniques and powerful software tools to help
optimize the process.
Introduction
The City contracted with HR Green, Inc. (HRG) to complete a Pavement
Management Plan in July 2019. This project will help the City develop an
objective, data driven, and sustainable approach to managing its
roadway assets as well as to budget for future needs. HRG’s effort
included the following:
➢ Reviewing the City’s standards for street construction and
maintenance practices
➢ Developing an inventory of the City’s street system
➢ Evaluating the system’s current roadway conditions using data
provided by the Iowa Pavement Management Program (IPMP)
➢ Determining major rehabilitation and reconstruction alternatives and
trigger thresholds for use in the data analysis and projections.
➢ Create a comprehensive pavement management model using the
IPMP data and the Pavement Management Software dTIMS BA™
➢ Developing sustainable maintenance/replacement schedules with
annualized costs for various funding levels and scenarios.
Data evaluation was restricted to the previous five years based on the
typical duration of the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as well
as data availability from IPMP which began providing statewide coverage
in 2013.
2.1. What is Pavement Management?
Pavement Management is a program that carries out an important City
policy. The policy objective is to improve overall street conditions in an
efficient manner that maximizes public benefits. This proactive approach
is important for a municipality tasked with maintaining roadway
infrastructure spanning over 25 square miles of land and containing over
237 miles of streets.
Using Pavement Management methodology, HR Green developed
recommendations using the right pavement treatment, at the right time,
on the right road. Large amounts of pavement condition data were
collected and analyzed with complex computer models (further described
in Section 3 Methodology) to determine the best use of the available
revenues to improve the overall condition of the City’s road network.
This report is the culmination of those efforts and includes a 5-year plan
of recommended projects that capitalizes on $2+ million in annual
revenue set aside solely for the maintenance, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction of public streets.
Page 7 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
2.1.1. Pavement Life Cycles
Pavement management techniques are important as pavements do not
decay at a constant rate over time. Time is a crucial factor in how much
investment it takes to repair a road back to a serviceable condition. New
pavement will not change drastically over the early years of its life;
however, sharp declines can occur quickly with older pavements. The
pavement may even reach “failed” status without intervention.
Small investments at appropriate intervals can drastically improve and
extend pavement life. Rehabilitating a pavement in “Fair” condition, for
example, will usually cost less than 25% of reconstructing a failing
pavement while extending pavement life significantly. It is important to
invest wisely and early, as a consequence. This plan sets the City of Iowa
City on a course towards this practice.
Before an ideally-maintained roadway network can be reached, however,
many of the worst roadways will require reconstruction or rehabilitation.
Pavements within the “Poor” condition category will, in most cases, be
deferred or given light maintenance with the intent of reconstructing
before reaching “Very Poor” condition. This effectively saves money and
squeezes the most life out of the network while still giving the opportunity
to practice ideal Pavement Management elsewhere in the community.
Figure 1:Performance Curve
Renovating a pavement in “Fair” condition will usually cost less than 25% of reconstructing a failing
pavement. (FHWA)
2.2. Program Goals
The purpose of this Pavement Management Plan is to create a
sustainable program for maintaining and improving street conditions
within Iowa City. This document provides a framework to assist the City
in maximizing the impact of its expenditures in the wisest and most cost-
effective manner.
The City manages its street network primarily using road use tax (RUT)
revenues, which causes the scope of pavement management in the City
to be quite limited. Road use tax funds are not growing at a pace that can
sustainably address the need for roadway improvements in the
community. Major projects with high costs, such as the Dubuque Street
Reconstruction, also often require large amounts of money beyond those
available from RUT. As such, the City already uses significant property
tax revenues and outside funding sources, such as grants, to pay for
improvements, especially reconstruction, since historically the RUT
revenues have been used exclusively for rehabilitations. The City will
likely need to lean more heavily property taxes in the future, if feasible
alternative funding streams are unable to be identified.
With these funding limitations, it is imperative that the $2 Million in
regularly available funds are used wisely and that other funding
approaches sufficiently explored.
Pavement Management Goals:
➢ Perform a full condition assessment of the existing street network
➢ Review City standards and maintenance practices for potential
process improvements
➢ Select appropriate treatment alternatives and trigger conditions for
the pavement management model
➢ Create a comprehensive inventory and pavement management
model in dTIMS BA
➢ Identify any future funding deficiencies
➢ Evaluate impact of potential funding sources such as Local-Option
Sales-Tax (LOST) and General Obligation Bonds (GO Bonds).
➢ Assess potential target condition goals for different functional
classifications and their feasibility given budget constraints.
➢ Develop an objective and data-driven 5-year Pavement Management
Plan
Page 8 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Methodology
3.1. Data Collection
3.1.1. Base Inventory
The first step in any Pavement Management Program is to develop an
accurate inventory of streets. City staff provided HR Green with available
GIS information and historical reference material outlining its current
network. This was then cross-referenced against county records and
updated to include the many roads recently constructed due to the rapid
development occurring within Iowa City.
Some spatial manipulation and data filtering were required to make better
use of the Iowa City base files for modelling purposes. This included
eliminating or combining short segments, ensuring accurate intersection
contiguity, and developing a linear reference system.
Figure 2: Overview of the Iowa City Street Network
This graphic shows an overview of The City’s inventory of paved streets that they are responsible
for maintaining.
3.1.2. Pavement Distress Data
After the inventory was established, the condition was then determined
for each asset. This assists with prioritizing roadways by their current
level of serviceability as well as helping estimate their respective
remaining life spans.
Roadway pavement condition data were collected by an automated data
collection vehicle, like the “Pathrunner” used by Pathways Services Inc.,
the Iowa DOT ‘s data vendor. This is a van outfitted with an array of
sensors and cameras that automatically collect data on and around the
road. These data include, but are not limited to cracking, potholes,
faulting, spalling, rutting, etc. Examples of specific pavement distresses
can be found in Section 3.1.3 .
Due to a change in vendor from Fugro Roadware Inc. to Pathways, in
2015, there are small discrepancies in how distresses are
classified/measured between data collected under the different contracts.
This is because the vendors use similar but different equipment and
softwares, even though they collect the same data. Concrete joint related
distresses and patching are the most affected, but Iowa DOT has certified
the new data set as being sufficiently compatible and research into
systematically accounting for the remaining minor differences is ongoing.
Figure 3: A “Pathrunner” Automated Data Collection Vehicle (Pathways)
This is one of the van’s that the current data collection vendor used to collect pavement condition in
Iowa City in 2019.
The pavement condition data for each year was processed and
aggregated using the newly updated Iowa City inventory and
segmentation, for use in ESRI ArcGIS™ (a mapping and data analytics
software) by the Iowa Pavement Management Program (IPMP). IPMP’s
services are provided through Iowa State University’s Institute for
Transportation, which is the agency currently supporting Iowa DOT’s
pavement management data collection.
The collected pavement distress data were then distilled into a Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) for each street. A PCI is used to help communicate
a road’s pavement condition by rating it on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0
representing a failed pavement that has essentially turned completely to
rubble and 100 representing an excellent pavement from a freshly paved
street. This plan uses the CityPCI method for calculating condition indices
for urban areas in Iowa, as developed by the IPMP technical
subcommittee.
Using this index as a guide, each of the roads was then placed into a
condition category ranging from “Very Poor” to “Very Good.” All the data
was then appended with additional information regarding traffic,
functional class, number of lanes, and the like, then stored within both
GIS and dTIMS BA databases so that it could be analyzed in the
pavement management models.
Figure 4: Automated Crack Analysis Software
This picture is a screenshot of an automated crack detection software that uses elevation information
and photogrammetry to identify distresses and categorize their severity
Page 9 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
3.1.3. Example Pavement Distresses
Figure 5: Example of Alligator Cracking (ASTM)
This image is from the ASTM D6433 “Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement
Condition Index Surveys.” Alligator Cracks are when pavement breaks into a “scaly” pattern typically
caused by fatigue, either from repeated heavy loads, lack of sufficient subgrade support, or
weakened material due to drainage issues.
Figure 6: Example of Block Cracking (ASTM)
This image is from the ASTM D6433 “Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement
Condition Index Surveys.” Block cracks are when pavement breaks into “chunks” or “blocks” that are
roughly rectangular, caused by internal stress from temperature or lack of lateral support.
Figure 7: Example of Distortion (ASTM)
This image is from the ASTM D6433 “Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement
Condition Index Surveys.” Distortions are when the pavement warps its shape without much
cracking. Typically caused by shifting or displaced underlying material.
Figure 8: Example of Transverse Crack (ASTM)
This image is from the ASTM D6433 “Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement
Condition Index Surveys.” A common distress caused by a wide variety of issues.
Figure 9: Example of Patching (ASTM)
This image is from the ASTM D6433 “Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement
Condition Index Surveys.” Patching is the result of corrective actions already taken and are indicative
of underlying issues as well as a common point of failure.
Figure 10: Example of Rutting (ASTM)
This image is from the ASTM D6433 “Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement
Condition Index Surveys.” Rutting is a depression along the wheel-path caused by traffic loads.
Page 10 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
3.2. Condition Thresholds
The Pavement Condition Index (CityPCI) used in this plan helps
differentiate and prioritize between individual streets, but due to the
sampling methodology used by the data collection vendor it should not
be interpreted as a 100% accurate, infallible rating. The difference
between a 52/100 rating and a 55/100 could be only a few cracks. Since
the data collection vehicle typically only drives one side of the street it
may occasionally miss a few distresses near the middle, or the other side
could be in slightly better/worse condition. A difference of a few points
one way or the other should not be interpreted as a definitive ruling on
one street being better than the other. Changes in PCI less than 10
points are, in most cases, imperceptible to the naked eye.
Instead of using PCI literally, condition categories were assigned to each
street based on where the value fell on the 0 to 100 scale. For example,
pavements with PCI ratings below 20 are considered to be “Very Poor”
while those above 80 would be “Very Good.” This was done to help with
understanding and assessment of the ratings, as well as to allow them to
be used in a practical sense
Figure 11: Condition Thresholds
This chart shows the proposed relationship between CityPCI and the condition categories used in
this plan.
Figure 12: Example of “Very Good” Condition (HMA) – Benton Street
This picture was taken from the 2017 data collection records. Benton Street west of Miller Ave. It has
a nearly perfect PCI of 99/100 because it was recently overlaid.
Figure 13: Example of “Very Good” Condition (PCC) – Ball Street
This image shows the recently constructed Ball Street in the Peninsula neighborhood, from the 2017
data collection, in which it was rated as 97/100. It would be considered “Very Good” for a PCC
pavement.
A score of 80/100 or greater is considered “Very Good.” Roads with
pavement in “Very Good” condition exhibit very few surface distresses, if
any, and those that are apparent will be very low in severity. Most often,
these pavements will be relatively new. The average age of “Very Good”
pavements in Iowa City is likely less than 15 years, meaning they were
either recently constructed or rehabilitated with an overlay in the past few
years. As such, it may not be feasible to expect every street in a city to
be “Very Good” because it would be prohibitively expensive to resurface
every street in only 15 years’ time.
Pavements with CityPCI scores between 61 and 80 are considered to be
in “Good” condition. The distresses on these streets are more noticeable
but do not cause much concern because they are minor and infrequent.
Most drivers will not even notice the few cracks and distortions. Regular
maintenance activities like crack sealing can help prevent the spread of
these deficiencies and preserve these pavements for quite some time for
low costs. The majority of Iowa City’s streets would be considered in this
category.
Figure 14: Example of “Good” Condition (HMA) – Sycamore Street
This picture of Sycamore Street, north of Highway 6. It was rated as 70/100, which would be
considered good for an HMA pavement. Low severity cracks and small distortions can be found, but
nothing that impacts drivers.
Figure 15: Example of “Good” Condition (PCC) – Friendship Street
This image shows an example of a PCC pavement in “Good” condition. Friendship Street between
5th and 4th s rated as 76/100, because of a few cracked panels and small patches in decent repair.
“Fair” streets (CityPCI 41-60), have quite noticeable distresses. Either
many low severity distresses, or a few high severity distresses. These
will still not impact drivers very much, however.
At this point in a pavement’s life, it is about 75% of the way through its
expected serviceability. It will begin deteriorating much more quickly and
fall into “Poor” (21-40) or “Very Poor” (1-20) in a few years, if neglected.
However, because the distresses on “Fair” streets are still minor, this is
often the ideal time to Rehabilitate them affordably. On the other hand,
pavements that deteriorate further, into the “Poor” and “Very Poor”
categories, will likely require Reconstruction, which is far costlier.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Local Arterial
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Page 11 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Figure 16: Example of “Fair” Condition (HMA) – Muscatine Avenue
This image of Muscatine Ave between Bradley and 5th is an example of HMA pavement in “Fair”
condition, with a PCI of 50/100. There are very noticeable distresses but they only impact drivers
slightly because they are sealed.
Figure 17: Example of “Fair” Condition (PCC) – Hollywood Blvd
This picture of Hollywood Blvd between Boyrum and Keokuk is an example of a PCC pavement that
was rated as 47/100 which would be considered “Fair.”
Figure 18: Example of “Poor” Condition (HMA) – Rundell Street
This image shows an HMA street whose pavement is rated as 33/100 and considered to be in “Poor”
condition. Rundell Street, south of Sheridan exhibits point failures and areas of major alligator
cracking caused by drainage issues.
Figure 19: Example of “Poor” Condition (PCC) – Wayne Street
This image is an example of a PCC pavement in “Poor” condition. Wayne Street east of 2nd was
rated as 31/100 due to cracked panels and crack/joints that are failing. These conditions would
certainly impact driver experience.
Figure 20: Example of “Very Poor” Condition (HMA) – E Davenport Street
This picture of East Davenport Street, between Johnson and Lucas, is the worst HMA surfaced street
and is considered to be in “Very Poor” condition. Rated as 1/100, this road’s pavement exhibits
distresses across the entirety of the street likely because of an aged brick base beneath the asphalt.
Figure 21: Roadway Imagery of a “Very Poor” HMA Pavement
This imagery is from the section of Davenport shown in Figure 20. These were captured by the data
collection vehicle’s downward facing camera (left) and LIDAR array (right). These are one of the key
resources used in evaluating pavement condition.
Figure 22: Example of “Very Poor” Condition (PCC) – Kimball Road
This portion of Kimball Road is one of the worst PCC streets in Iowa City and is considered “Very
Poor”. Rated as an 17/100 in 2017, it exhibits multiple points of severe distress that could not be
addressed through any means other than rebuilding the road from the base up.
Figure 23: Roadway Imagery of a “Very Poor” PCC Pavement
This image is from the section of Kimball shown in Figure 22. These were captured by the data
collection vehicle’s downward facing camera (left) and LIDAR array (right). These are one of the key
resources used in evaluating pavement condition.
Page 12 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
3.3. dTIMS Business Analytics (PMS)
A Pavement Management Software (PMS) is a decision-making tool that
assists a City in making cost-effective decisions related to the
maintenance and rehabilitation of roadway pavements. It provides a
process or system for rating pavement condition, establishing a
consistent maintenance and repair schedule, and evaluating the
effectiveness of maintenance treatment strategies.
The PMS used by the City of Iowa City is called “Deighton Total
Infrastructure Management System: Business Analytics” or dTIMS BA.
This software was developed by Deighton Limited as an asset
management software capable of storing all sorts of physical
infrastructure assets and specializes in how it uses heuristic algorithms
to optimize spending patterns.
Each road is separated into pavement management sections, typically
broken up by city block or by other physical features like bridges and
railroad crossings. Segments are associated to the road, as a whole,
using a “Linear Reference System” where each segment would appear
in sequence based on its distance from the start of the road. The
pavement distress data, including the PCI ratings, are then imported into
the web-based software and used to develop a customized pavement
management model for the City of Iowa City
The dTIMS BA model is a collection of the raw distress data, equations,
variables, and rules for treatment applications, as well as their effects.
One of the most important equations used are the performance curves
which describe the behavior of pavements over time.
3.4. Performance Curves
Different types of pavement behave differently, and different classes of
road have different stressors. To accommodate these factors, a
pavement life cycle curve was developed for asphalt and concrete
pavement types, separated further by the type of road, either
Arterial/Collector or Local/Residential.
These curves were calibrated to follow the general assumption that a
pavement reaches “Fair” condition at 75% of its design life and “Very
Poor” condition at the end of its design life. These curves do not
necessarily represent the traditional design life-cycle curve; instead they
address the performance of the pavement and how much longer we can
realistically expect it to last without having to determine the structural
characteristics and history for every street in the City.
Each pavement management section has an effective “performance age”
that determines its behavior. This performance age is determined based
on trends determined from previous data collections. Using that data, a
rate of deterioration can be calculated for each street individually and
then fit to the appropriate family curve. The PCI rating is then projected
along the curve and tested to see if various treatments would be
appropriate at each point along the individual performance curve.
Other curves were similarly created for specific distresses, such as
Alligator Cracking, Spalling/D-Cracking, and Rutting. These distresses
progress in predictable ways and occasionally preclude certain types of
treatments from being applied. For example, a street with severe r utting
(> 0.5”) would not be a good candidate for a slurry seal or thin overlay.
Conversely, if these distresses progress past a certain allowable
threshold, more expensive treatments, like reconstruction, will be
selected as the only reasonable option even if the PCI would not
necessarily indicate that on its own.
Figure 24: dTIMS BA Interface
The dTIMS BA software is accessed through normal computer browsers and operates over cloud-
based technology. Calculations are performed on remote servers, meaning any computer can use
it, regardless of hardware capabilities!
Figure 25: Pavement Performance Curves
These 4 curves are the pavement performance curves utilized in the Iowa City dTIMS BA model.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80PCI
Performance Age
PCC-Local
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80PCI
Performance Age
PCC-Arterial
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80PCI
Performance Age
HMA-Local
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80PCI
Performance Age
HMA-Arterial
Page 13 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
3.5. Treatment Alternatives
“The success of a pavement-preservation program is
based on selecting the right treatment for the right
pavement at the right time” (FHWA).
A single pavement treatment, when properly applied, can extend the life
of a roadway by as much 15 years. Before a decision on when and where
a treatment can be applied, an agency must know what treatments it will
consider. Dozens of potential products and techniques are available;
however, not all treatment options are feasible, affordable, or effective.
Climate, cost, and capability considerations must be made ahead of time.
The group of treatments available for a given municipality can be thought
of as a “toolbox” filled with options appropriate for the tasks they would
expect to encounter. The toolbox recommended for the City of Iowa
City consists of three primary types of treatments often referred to as the
3 R’s of Pavement Management: Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, and
Restoration.
Every pavement will eventually deteriorate to a point that it cannot
effectively be repaired in an economical fashion leaving reconstruction
as the only viable option. Reconstructing a road from the base up is
always a potential option and effective treatment but it is also typically the
most expensive solution. As such, rehabilitation fills an important role in
a pavement’s life-cycle.
Rehabilitation treatments usually cost significantly less than full
reconstruction and can extend a pavement’s life substantially.
Rehabilitation treatments in this section are split into major and minor
variations. The former provides structural improvements to help a
deteriorated pavement recover whereas the latter provide relatively
smaller improvements and are typically more preventative in nature.
Restoration treatments, sometimes referred to as “preservation” or
“maintenance”, are those applied regularly to prevent issues from
developing or to prevent existing problems from spreading.
Construction standards and specifications for the following treatment
alternatives should follow the Iowa Statewide Urban Design and
Specification (SUDAS) manual, where applicable. These research-
backed approaches to construction and pavement management
techniques will extend pavement life beyond traditional methods. Often
costing more, the increased performance life still makes it the cost-
efficient and sustainable approach, long-term.
3.5.1. Reconstruction
▪ Reconstruction
Reconstruction of pavements is often the only way to save a
deteriorated roadway. Unfortunately, these needs usually outstrip
available funding. This treatment type should be reserved for pavements
that cannot be salvaged through rehabilitation or on high-profile corridors
where safety and capacity needs are paramount.
When Reconstructing a pavement, the City can use any material they
wish. Most commonly for Iowa City, Full-depth PCC is used. However,
full-depth HMA, or a composite pavement of PCC with an HMA overlay,
may be considered when design constraints warrant. To provide for this
option the City should consider using “bid-alternates” where contractors
can choose which type of structure to use and bid based on the
equivalent design of their choice.
Figure 26: Reconstruction of I-94 (NDDOT)
This photo shows the Construction of a brand new asphalt cement concrete pavement
Figure 27: Reconstruction of Michelmore Street (Bidgee)
This photo shows a road torn out and being prepared for reconstruction
3.5.2. Major Rehabilitation
▪ Thick Overlay
▪ Mill and Overlay
▪ Crack and Seat
There are few substitutes for adding new concrete on top of old to help
keep it functioning and healthy. HMA is the most commonly-applied
material (black-topping) but PCC (white-topping) is gaining acceptance
in Iowa and is being applied in many locations, as appropriate. HR Green
recommends the use of HMA, by default, but also encourage the
exploration of white-topping as a secondary option where conditions
allow, and costs are comparable.
Major rehabilitations suggested herein are all variants of “overlays” where
moderately-thick layers of HMA are placed upon existing pavements,
sometimes with special preparations. A minimum of 3 inches of HMA is
preferable for each treatment, as any less will not provide significant
structural benefit. Overlays exceeding that amount are commonly
referred to as a “Thick Overlay.” Note, however, that amounts greater
than 3 inches can become costly and sometimes may cause logistical
difficulties. Overly-thick HMA overlays can affect side street elevations,
drainage patterns, driveways, and fill up curbs leaving little depth
remaining to control storm water and delineate the edge of the roadway.
A thick overlay is the most common rehab used in most agencies and,
for the purposes of this report, is recommended to be placed at the end
of a pavement’s normal service life.
Figure 28: HMA Overlay Placed on Milled Pavement (Famartin)
This is a picture of an asphalt overlay placed on I-80 through Elko, Nevada after part of the original
pavement was milled off.
Page 14 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
When dealing with a full-depth HMA pavement, or one overlaid
previously, milling off 2-3 inches of the top can provide significant
benefits. It can help smooth the underlying pavement for the final surface,
remove harmful defects, help create a more stable bond between
pavements, and prevent the overlay from causing the referenced
logistical difficulties with side streets, drainage, driveways, and curbs.
“Mill and Overlay” treatments are important in keeping a pavement
going strong. Once the first thick overlay is placed, it should be milled off
approximately every 15 years and replaced to keep the surface from
deteriorating too far.
One other major rehab treatment to consider on fairly stable and older
PCC roads is called a “Crack and Seat Overlay.” This prepares an
existing roadway as a suitable base for what is effectively a new HMA
pavement on top of it. The PCC is cracked using a drop-hammer
apparatus, or other devices, to create a flexible base of broken concrete
slabs before placing 3 or more inches of HMA on top of it. This process
may require the reconstruction of curbs if the depth of asphalt to be
placed would be problematic; however, a milled edge notch may be
utilized in some cases to eliminate the need for curb replacement. The
new crack and seat pavement is typically a long-lived rehabilitation
treatment as it is effectively a new road altogether.
Other major rehabilitations, such as hot-in-place recycling and cold-in-
place recycling, were considered but are not recommended for use in
Iowa City due to their limited applications in urban environments and the
City’s limited asphalt roadways. The equipment required to perform these
do not leave much flexibility in staging or timing. Even if it were feasible,
it would likely be excessively disruptive to local traffic patterns.
Figure 29: Cold Milling Machine (Anthony Neff)
Cold Milling Machines like the Caterpillar PM 622 above are used to strip off the top layer of
pavement. Those millings could then be used for in-place recycling, or the pavement could receive
a new 3” overlay.
3.5.3. Minor Rehabilitation
▪ Slurry Seal
▪ Thin Overlay
▪ Microsurfacing
▪ Bituminous Seal Coat (Chip Seal)
▪ Cape Seal
▪ PCC Restoration
▪ Diamond Grinding
Minor Rehabilitations fill a different role than the aforementioned Major
Rehabilitations. They usually are placed to prevent moisture and
seasonal weather effects like rain and heat from causing too much
damage. They will seal the pavement from water and provide a new
“wearing surface” for cars to drive on instead of damaging the underlying
pavement.
Slurry seals are one of the most common surface treatments used in the
United States, though still somewhat rare in more northern climates. It is
effective at sealing low-severity cracks, waterproofing the pavement, and
restoring friction to surface for increased driver safety. Slurry seals also
address raveling, oxidation, and hardening of asphalt. This treatment
consists of a mixture of crushed, well-graded aggregate, mineral filler,
and asphalt emulsion that is spread across the full width of the pavement
or used as a strip treatment for targeted treatment of low distress areas
and cracks. The thickness of the seal coat is generally less than 1/2 inch,
but it can still extend a pavement’s life up to 7 years, when applied at the
right time. However, the low amount of aggregate means it will not be
effective at addressing anything beyond superficial distresses.
Thin Overlays are essentially the same treatment as a Thick Overlay;
except they are approximately 1 ½ inches of HMA, instead of 3+ inches
used for Thick Overlays. 1 ½ inches is the recommended thickness for
Thin Overlay because, if it was thinner, it may be susceptible to cracking
or rutting very quickly due to vehicle loads. Thin Overlays are also not
appropriate on roadways with significant deformities like severe rutting
and structural distresses, such as severe alligator cracking or warping,
but they do have more broad uses than slurry seals. It is also common to
see the use of recycled asphalt and rubber materials in Thin Overlays
which can reduce costs and possibly increase durability.
Microsurfacing, on the other hand, consists of a thin application like a
slurry seal but uses a polymerized binder with finer aggregate. It can
smooth over minor deformities while still adding a small amount of
structural durability. It also creates that same seal against water and wear
consistent with Minor Rehabilitations. It is a versatile and relatively cheap
treatment that can address a wide variety of distresses, even load-based
ones. A relatively new technique, it is not yet common in the state of Iowa.
However, the City of Des Moines has recently invested into this treatment
method and begun incorporating it into their regular pavement
management practices.
Figure 30: Slurry Seal Being Placed by Hand (Miraflores)
This slurry seal is being placed to refresh the surface of the Villeno Rey Bridge in Miraflores, Peru.
Figure 31: Microsurfacing Crew at Work. (Eric Pulley).
This is picture shows a crew using a Microsurfacing machine to lay a new surface on this street.
Figure 32: Close-up View of Chip Seal Surface
This close-up picture of a road that has been chip seal shows how coarse the application is and how
aggregates tend to be looser on top of the new surface compared to other treatments that evenly
mix the aggregate into the binder.
Page 15 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Bituminous Seal Coats, also known as Chip Seals, are effective
treatments for HMA surfaces that improve friction, inhibit raveling, correct
minor roughness and bleeding, and seals the pavement surface from
moisture. Bituminous Seal Coats are also used to address longitudinal,
transverse, block cracking, and medium severity fatigue cracks. Chip
Seals can even be applied in multiple layers to address more serious
problems. The application of a Chip Seal consists of an asphalt emulsion
that is applied directly to the pavement surface and is followed by the
laying of aggregate “chips” on top of the emulsion. Those chips are then
immediately rolled into the emulsion in order to embed them. It is a cost-
effective and versatile treatment but, unfortunately, often is not
recommended for urban applications due to a number of issues with
public perceptions. The large amounts of loose aggregate chips that fail
to bond are often kicked up or tracked elsewhere by vehicles, and since
the binder tends to bleed in the few days after application, vehicles often
leave tracks on neighboring streets. As such, many agencies consider
this too “messy” or disruptive for urban environments.
Cape Seals somewhat solve the issue of Chip Seals by using the same
basic technique, but then finishing it with a Slurry Seal or a layer of
Microsurfacing over the top. This additional seal coat locks in the loose
aggregate chips and inhibits the binder bleeding. This approach has
many of the same benefits as a Thin Overlay and may even come at a
somewhat comparable cost.
PCC Restoration is a holistic repair to a street constructed using jointed
PCC, including any or all of the following actions: panel replacement,
profiling, repairing utility cuts, full depth patching, and joint repairs. PCC
Restoration is more than simply pavement patching, it is strategic repair
to existing deficiencies and can help save an otherwise stable road from
further deterioration. A typical application removes and replaces 10%-
20% of the existing pavement, to address localized distresses. This type
of repair can be performed by either internal city forces or as part of larger
contracts for outside contractors.
Diamond Grinding is not a commonly applicable treatment, but due to
its low cost should be considered when conditions warrant. Diamond
Grinding is best used when a weathered pavement is beginning to show
signs of aggregate polishing to add texture back to it for vehicle traction,
or when settling early in a pavement’s life caused minor joint faulting.
Diamond Grinding can smooth those faults and leave an otherwise stable
pavement intact with its ride significantly improved. It would not, however,
be appropriate for pavements with substantial cracking or signs of
structural deficiencies such as severe panel cracking, spalling, or d-
cracking.
Figure 33: PCC Restoration (City of Cedar Rapids).
This is a picture of a city maintenance crew in Cedar Rapids performing a panel replacement as part
of a larger concrete restoration project.
Figure 34: Pavement After Diamond Grinding (John Roberts).
This picture shows the texture of PCC pavement after diamond grinding was used on it. The image
was taken on a project near Chicago Illinois.
Figure 35: Cape Seal (Michael Quinn-NPS)
This picture taken by the National Parks Service near the entrance to Grand Canyon National Park
shows a loose chip seal (right) that is having a slurry seal applied (left) to effectively turn it into a
cape seal.
3.5.4. Restoration/Preservation
▪ Crack Sealing
▪ Pavement Patching
Restoration treatments use simple techniques to seal defects from
moisture infiltration and prevent them from spreading. Crack Sealing, for
example, is a standard maintenance practice, recommended to be
performed by city forces every 3-5 years on a road. Larger contracts for
outside construction firms may be considered for crack sealing, if the
timing and amount of work warrant. Cracks that have slightly deteriorated
edges may also need to have the loose pavement cleaned out and rough
edges of the crack corrected using a concrete saw or router to improve
the sealant bond. However, this is not necessarily recommended as
standard practice due to increased costs and inconsistent performance.
Crack Sealing in a timely manner, and on a regular basis,
is the most important tool in any pavement management
program because it will keep a pavement in “good” or “fair ”
conditi on much longer than it would without a ttention.
Figure 36: Crack Sealing Performed W/ Routing (USAF/Kenna Jackson)
This is an example of crack sealing being performed with special preparation in the form of using a
router to clean up the crack profile, as being performed by 35th Civil Engineer Squadron.
Page 16 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Pavement Patching is different from Crack Sealing in that it is typically done by city forces
after a pavement distress has already deteriorated to the point of becoming a more
substantial issue. Patching is typically done with HMA, sometimes with partial removal of
the area around the defect or distress. Patching is not intended to serve as a long-term
fix, but serves mostly as a way to maintain service, and act as a stop-gap until a more
appropriate rehabilitation treatment can be applied.
When a surface issue is due to a structural defect, full-depth removal and replacement of
the pavement, as well as the base material, may be appropriate. This is referred to as full-
depth patching or FDP. This can be costly, but often is the only solution for addressing
faulting/spalling of concrete joints or edge/corner breaks, when combined with dowel-bar
replacements.
It is recommended, by default, that surface patching be performed using localized
removals by cutting the pavement in a rectangular or square shape (following joints where
possible) and replacing it with new HMA pavement after ensuring the base-material is
suitable. When patching a PCC pavement, use of similar material is recommended as well
as full removal of panels where appropriate. In cases where failures are located around
joints, removals along both adjacent panels and full depth patching should be performed.
Figure 37: HMA Patching with Localized Pavement Removal (KOMU)
This is an example of an asphalt patch applied with appropriate localized removals and some base repair.
3.5.5. Preferred Treatment Alternatives
Table 1: Primary Capabilities And Functions Of HMA Pavement Preservation Treatments
Source: Adapted from Johnson, Best Practices Handbook on Asphalt Pavement Maintenance, 2000.
All of the treatments in this section may be considered for projects in Iowa City, some are more preferred than others. The CIP will
not normally differentiate between types of projects within the same treatment category, as the actual treatment selection should
be performed on a project-by-project basis and reviewed by a Professional Engineer. Table 1 provides some simple guidance on
which types of treatments are appropriate based on the distresses that a pavement presents and Table 2 helps compare the
effectiveness of each treatment over time.
Table 2: General Expected Performance of Maintenance Treatments
Source: Adapted from Iowa Statewide Urban Design and Specification guide.
Treatment Friction Raveling Rutting Potholes
Low Med High
Crack Treatments
Crack Repair with Sealing
Clean and Seal X X
Saw and Seal
Rout and Seal X X
Crack Filling X X
Full Depth Crack Repair X
Surface Treatments
Fog Seal X
Seal Coat X X
Double Chip Seal X X
Slurry Seal X X
Microsurfacing X X X
Thin Overlay X X
Pothole and Patching Repair
Cold Mix Asphalt X
Spray Injection Patching X
Hot Mix Asphalt X X
Patching with Slurring or
Microsurfacing Material X X
Cracking
Reasons for Use
Expected Performance
(Treatment Life), Years
PCC
Crack Sealing 4 to 8
Joint Resealing 4 to 8
Partial Depth Patches 5 to 15
Full Depth Patches 10 to 15
Diamond Grinding 5 to 15
Pavement Undersealing/Stabilization 5 to 10
HMA
Crack Filling 2 to 4
Crack Sealing 2 to 8
Pothole Patching 1 to 3
Full/Partial Depth Patches 3 to 15
Fog Seals 1 to 3
Slurry Seals 3 to 6
Microsurfacing 4 to 7
Bituminous Seal Coats 4 to 6
Double Chip Seal 7 to 10
Thin Overlays 7 to 10
Treatment
Page 17 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
For planning purposes, treatments are assigned to road segments via a “Decision Tree”
in the dTIMS BA pavement management software. This decision tree is then used in
determining the total budgetary needs for the network and in assessing each of the
Scenarios.
The treatments used in the dTIMS BA model represent those expected to be the most
commonly selected given certain conditions. These “preferred treatments” will likely
comprise the majority of pavement preservation work performed in Iowa City. This list,
however, is merely a tool to aid in budgeting and planning and not a prescriptive result. It
is not designed to be interpreted as “you must do X”; rather the results from dTIMS are
general recommendations based on severity and types of surface distresses. These
recommendations will then need to be individually assessed for appropriateness against
similar treatment alternatives by a licensed engineer before it is designed and constructed.
3.5.6. Estimated Treatment Costs
One of the critical components, in any financial planning endeavor, is accurately predicting
costs that will be incurred. In this case, the primary costs of concern are the design,
construction, and ancillary costs associated with executing a roadway improvement
project. Iowa City has historical information about its expenditures on roadway projects
throughout the years showing significant increases in project costs. It was estimated
overlay type projects had increased nearly 3% on average each year for the past 5 years.
This unusually high cost is likely attributable to the recent expansion of gas-tax
expenditures throughout the state causing demand for construction services to go up,
allowing contractors and consultants to charge premium prices. This growth was
accounted for via a 3% inflation factor applied to all project costs in dTIMS BA.
Treatment types were assigned planning-level costs by analyzing local cost information
and tabulations of contractor bids for past projects, which were supplied by the City.
Assumptions were made regarding mobilization rates, design fees, traffic control, and
other ancillary costs based on percentages of the overall costs.
Since the costs used in this report are planning-level, it is recommended that each project
be reviewed during the annual capital improvement budgeting process, in order to assess
each proposed action for ripeness and reasonableness, e.g. is this the right time? Is this
the right treatment? The City Engineer may elect to move projects around, into different
years, or change the treatment type.
For most practical purposes, treatments within the same category are interchangeable
because they will likely be appropriate for a project of a certain condition category,
regardless, and the actual treatment applied should be based on comprehensive review
and engineering judgement. When determining ripeness and reasonableness it may be
useful to perform Life-Cycle Cost Analysis to evaluate various treatment alternatives within
the same category against each other, or even when considering leaving it to be
reconstructed at a later time.
3.5.7. Treatment Selection Criteria
With the treatment alternatives selected for the toolbox, the criteria for selecting one treatment over another needed to be
determined. Cost and funding availability is regularly the deciding factor for local agencies, getting the most benefit for the least
amount of investment possible. Therefore, cost estimates for each treatment were developed using bid tabulations and project
histories from various cities’ pavement management programs.
The other main factors in treatment selection are condition and distresses. The overall condition of a pavement should determine
when it needs work and what type of work. The types of distresses should then be considered when evaluating equivalent
treatments based on appropriateness. Table 3 includes a full overview of the treatment toolbox with descriptions, cost estimates,
triggers, and the expected effects of each individual treatment alternative. This information is what will be used in the dTIMS BA
scenario modelling process, to be performed as part of the Iowa City Pavement Management Program.
Table 3: Treatment Alternative Details
Category Treatment Description Cost Trigger
Reconstruction Reconstruction
The complete reconstruction of a roadway and all associated improvements.
This assumes new HMA pavement, but full-depth PCC or COM may be
considered based on relevant design criteria.
$140/sy PCI =Poor OR Very Poor
Major
Rehabilitation
Crack and Seat
Overlay
Asphalt Overlay, of at least 3 inches thick, with preparation including
breaking up existing pavement and setting it up as a good structural base for
the new asphalt surface. Effectively creates a new pavement.
$65/sy PCI =Poor, Surface = PCC, Low D
Crack
Mill and Overlay 1.5 to 3 inches of asphalt pavement is milled off and then replaced with 3
inches of asphalt. Repairs surface issues and improves structural character. $60/sy PCI =Poor, Surface = HMA, IRI >
250, Moderate Alligator Cracking
Thick Overlay
Sometimes called a “Structural Overlay.” 3 inches of Asphalt that adds
enough thickness to increase the durability of the roadway and provides a
new wearing surface. Can be done with asphalt or PCC (black-topping/white
topping) May require replacing curb and gutter.
$45/sy
PCI =Poor, Low D Crack, Low
Spalling, Moderate Alligator
Cracking, Moderate Patching
Minor
Rehabilitation
Thin Overlay
A “non-structural overlay.” Laid on top of existing pavement; typically, 1-2
inches of asphalt. Improves smoothness and extends the life of roads in
good to fair condition.
$30/sy
PCI =Poor or Fair, Low D Crack,
Low Spalling, Low Alligator
Cracking, Low Patching, Low
Rutting
Seal Coat
(Various)
Slurry Seals, Chip Seals, Cape Seals, etc. Applications of finer aggregate
and binder to affordably extend life of existing pavements. Type is condition
and location specific.
$5/sy
PCI = Fair or Good, Surface=HMA,
Low Alligator Cracking, Low
Patching, Low Rutting, Local Only
Microsurfacing
Thin asphalt polymer that seals the pavement from weather effects and
corrects for minor irregularities. Typically used as a preventative measure,
rather than a corrective one.
$6/sy
PCI = Fair or Good, Low D Crack,
Low Alligator Cracking, Low
Patching, Moderate Rutting
PCC Restoration
Portions of the street in bad repair are torn out and replaced. This may
include patching, full panel replacement, and full depth repairs at joints.
Slightly improves overall condition and helps extend life by addressing
problem areas before they spread
$21/sy PCI = Fair or Good, Surface=PCC
Diamond
Grinding
Top ¼ inch to a ½ inch of PCC pavement is ground off and textured. This is
only done on rough pavements with good structure to improve ride
smoothness and increase vehicle traction for safety purposes.
$5/sy
PCI=Good, IRI>250, Low D Crack,
Low Spalling, Low Alligator
Cracking, Low Patching, Low
Rutting
Restoration/
Preservation
Crack Sealing
Sealant on cracks and joints is used to prevent spreading and moisture from
getting into the pavement structure. Deteriorated cracks may be routed or
sawed out to provide better seal and bond.
$10,500/
Mile/Lane
Applied every time Last Work Done
counter reaches a multiple of 4
years
Pavement
Patching
Asphalt placed at spot locations. Used only on good pavements with minor
failures, or as a stop-gap on poor pavements until a better, more permanent,
solution is applied.
$3/sy No trigger assigned
Page 18 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
The treatment costs listed in Table 3 are considered “all-in” numbers.
These costs represent not only the materials, equipment, and labor to
perform the construction of the project but also the ancillary costs
associated with the given treatment type. For example, the
Reconstruction treatment includes costs related to storm sewer as
that will be needed as part of the new pavement system. Table 4
through Table 13 provide example calculations for each of the
treatment types. Note that these are planning-level costs. While
based on engineering judgement and historical bid tabulations, they
are not a replacement for an engineering opinion of probable cost.
Table 4: Reconstruction Cost Calculation
Reconstruction ($/SY)
Excavation $ 5.00
Subgrade $ 2.00
Subbase $ 6.00
Subdrain $ 6.00
Storm Sewer* $ 25.00
Pavement Removal $ 10.00
Pavement (PCC) $ 60.00
Driveways/Sidewalks $ 10.00
Seeding/Paint Markings, etc. $ 5.00
Mobilization, Traffic Control, Survey (15%) $ 20.00
Contingency (10%) $ 15.00
Total (Rounded Up) $ 165.00
Table 5: Crack and Seat Cost Calculation
Crack and Seat w/ Overlay ($/SY)
Crack and Seat $ 6.00
Milling $ 2.00
3" HMA Overlay @ $100/Ton $ 18.00
Tack and Patch @ $200/Ton $ 4.00
Curb and Gutter/Patching $ 10.00
Driveways/Sidewalks $ 10.00
Mobilization, Traffic Control, Survey (15%) $ 8.00
Contingency (10%) $ 7.00
Total (Rounded Up) $ 65.00
Table 6: Mill and overlay Cost Calculation
Mill and Overlay ($/SY)
3" HMA Overlay @ $100/Ton $ 18.00
Tack and Patch @ $200/Ton $ 3.00
Milling $ 5.00
Curb and Gutter/Patching $ 8.00
Driveways/Sidewalks $ 9.00
Mobilization, Traffic control, survey (15%) $ 7.00
Contingency (10%) $ 5.00
Total (Rounded Up) $ 55.00
Table 7: Thick Overlay Cost Calculation
Thick (3 In.) Overlay ($/SY)
3" HMA Overlay @ $100/Ton $ 18.00
Tack and Patch @ $200/Ton $ 3.00
Curb and Gutter/PCC Patching $ 8.00
Driveways/Sidewalks $ 10.00
Mobilization, Traffic control, survey (15%) $ 6.00
Contingency (10%) $ 5.00
Total (Rounded Up) $ 50.00
Table 8: Thin Overlay Cost Calculation
Thin (1.5 In.) Overlay ($/SY)
1.5" HMA Overlay @ $100/Ton $ 9.00
Tack and Patch @ 200/Ton $ 3.00
Curb and Gutter/PCC Patching $ 8.00
Driveways/Sidewalks $ 6.00
Mobilization, Traffic control, survey (25%) $ 5.00
Contingency (10%) $ 4.00
Total (Rounded Up) $ 35.00
Table 9: PCCR Cost Calculation
PCC Restoration ($/SY)
10% Remove and Replace $ 10.00
Crack Fill/Seal $ 2.00
Profiling $ 4.00
Mobilization, Traffic control, survey (15%) $ 2.00
Contingency (10%) $ 2.00
Total (Rounded Up) $ 21.00
Table 10: Microsurfacing Cost Calculation
Microsurfacing ($/SY)
Polymerized Surface Treatment $ 1.50
Tack and Patch @ 200/Ton $ 3.00
Mobilization, Traffic control, survey (25%) $ 1.00
Contingency (10%) $ 0.50
Total (Rounded Up) $ 6.00
Table 11: Diamond Grinding Cost Calculation
Diamond Grinding ($/SY)
Grinding and Mobilization $ 5.00
Mobilization, Traffic control, survey (25%)
Total (Rounded Up) $ 5.00
Table 12: Crack Sealing/Filling Cost Calculation
Crack Sealing/Filling ($/Lane-Mile)
Crack Sealing (per Mile per Lane) $10,500
Total (Rounded Up) $10,500
Table 13: Patching Cost Calculation
Patching ($/SY)
Patch @ 200/Ton $ 3.00
Mobilization, Traffic control, survey (25%)
Total (Rounded Up) $ 3.00
Page 19 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Existing Condition Analysis
The City of Iowa City maintains approximately 237 Miles of roads and
the transportation infrastructure network, not including bridges, is
valued at over $610 Million. This is the 8th largest municipal road
network in the state, by length.
Network Value = $610 Million
Pavement condition information from the 2019 automated data
collection vehicle run by IPMP’s sub-consultant Pathways was joined
to the processed baseline information from the City of Iowa City using
ESRI ArcGIS ™ software. That data was analyzed to create overview
statistics and investigate various trends, both over time and spatially.
Detailed maps were created to illustrate the pavement characteristics
and the collected condition data, which can be found starting on Page
23.
4.1. Functional Class and Pavement Type
4.1.1. Functional Classification
Roads in Iowa City are separated into three broad categories to help
differentiate their use: Local Streets, Collector Streets, and Arterial
Streets.
Local Streets, also called “residential” are those that serve low levels
of traffic at the beginning or ending of their trips. These streets typically
have many points of direct access from driveways, often have lower
speed limits, and generally provide on-street parking. Local Streets
make up the majority of any municipal transportation network.
Collector Streets are those that connect locals and concentrate traffic
to help move efficiently between adjoining neighborhoods or provide
access to the primary street network, namely Arterial Streets. These
Collector Streets are generally wider and have slightly higher speed
limits than Locals.
Arterial Streets are those that carry the most traffic. Vehicles on these
trunk roads travel at higher speeds, and these Arterials efficiently
move traffic from one end of town to the other. They are often the
gateway routes into and out of the City.
The reason for this distinction is that Arterial and Collectors are
designed for higher volumes of traffic and heavy vehicles like trucks
with semi-trailers. As such, they are designed and perform differently,
costing more per square yard of pavement than Local streets. The
higher traffic causes Arterials/Collectors to wear out faster on average
than Locals, and motorists are more sensitive to surface distresses
due to the higher speeds. Since Arterials and Collectors carry the vast
majority of vehicle miles travelled in Cities, they are more valuable to
maintain in good condition. As such, for the purposes of modelling and
planning using dTIMS BA, Arterial and Collector streets are
considered separately from Local Streets.
Iowa City is also unique in the amount of non-Jurisdictional roads
within city-limits. Iowa DOT owns many of the highest volume streets
in town, including large portions of Burlington, Riverside, Dodge, and
Governor. Similarly, roads like Newton are owned by the University of
Iowa. This reduces Iowa City’s liabilities and allows them to focus on
maintaining more local streets than if those major corridors were their
direct responsibility.
Figure 38: Functional Class Distribution (By Centerline Miles)
This figure shows the breakdown of the various street classifications in Iowa City, based on the
official Federal Functional Classification used by Iowa DOT.
4.1.2. Pavement Type
Roads can also be separated by their surfacing type. Different
pavement surfaces perform differently, have different types of
treatment alternatives, and have different initial construction costs.
Each type of road was considered separately in the dTIMS BA model
for the City of Iowa City.
The three main categories considered by this plan are Portland
Cement Concrete (PCC), Asphalt Cement Concrete (ACC), and
Composite Pavements with HMA over the top of PCC (COM). Some
agencies also refer to ACC as Hot-Mix Asphalt or HMA.
Other surface types, such as Seal-Coat or Brick were ignored by the
dTIMS BA model. This is because the long-term behavior of these
types of surfaces, and the budgeting processes used to schedule
repairs, differ significantly. Roads identified as having these surface
types will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Figure 39: Pavement Type Distribution
This figure shows the distribution of pavement types in Iowa City. High PCC percentages are
normal for most cities in Iowa.
Arterial,
42.4, 17.9%
Collector,
21.4, 9.0%
Local, 173.4, 73.1%
ACC
2%
COM
21%
PCC
75%
SEAL
2%
Page 20 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
4.2. Pavement Condition
Iowa City’s roads are performing quite well compared to the largest
urban agencies in Iowa. In the state, Iowa City’s pavements, with an
average CityPCI score of 66/100, are performing better than all but
one of the major urban areas. This may be attributable to Iowa City’s
natural advantages related to several major corridors being
maintained by other agencies and possessing a relatively small street
network compared to the population and tax characteristics.
PCI = 66
(Good)
While the network is performing well overall, when separating out the
information based on pavement type it can be noted that composite
pavements in Iowa City are performing less well. The largest
proportions of composite pavements are in “Fair” or worse condition,
unlike ACC and PCC which are primarily considered “Good” or “Very
Good.” This is not unusual, however, due to the relatively short service
life of overlays, which consistently result in visible surface distresses.
Figure 40: Condition Distribution by Pavement Type
This figure shows the distribution of pavement conditions for each of the three pavement types.
When looking at functional classification, however, there is very little
in the way of variation between types. Collector streets do show a
slightly wider spread, than the others. They have the lowest proportion
of “Good” and “Very Good” streets, but do not present substantially
more “Poor” and “Very Poor” streets. Collectors in Iowa City comprise
only 9% of streets in the City, though, which makes them more
susceptible to outliers from a statistical sense. This is not likely a result
from any sort of systemic issue, but quite possibly a small oddity
considering the distributions are still nearly identical in shape.
Figure 41: Condition Distribution by Functional Class
This figure shows the distribution of pavement conditions for each functional classification, as
well as the network overall. Classifications show very little variance.
4.2.1. Comparing Across the State
Iowa City’s overall pavement condition is exceptional in the State of
Iowa. Of all the large cities in the state, Iowa City boasts the 3rd highest
network-wide PCI at 65.9/100.
Iowa City’s success may be related to the small size of the network
and good maintenance practices, but it is still far behind cities like
Waterloo and West Des Moines. Waterloo was rated as 70.4/100, in
2018, and West Des Moines, was rated as 73.8/100, in 2017. The
main differentiator between Waterloo and Iowa City is likely the long-
standing Local-Option Sales-Tax in Waterloo and their consistent
application of asphalt overlays. Whereas, West Des Moines’ main
differences are that they benefit from a relatively newer roadway
network and possess the highest ratio of taxable property per capita,
in the state.
Figure 42: Iowa Urban Agency Comparisons
This figure lists the nine largest urban areas in Iowa by miles of road they maintain and compares
their network level PCI scores
0.08 mi 2.75 mi 4.25 mi0.3 mi
10.0 mi
14.5 mi
0.7 mi
23.6 mi
26.7 mi
1.9 mi
5.6 mi
60.8 mi
0.7 mi 8.3 mi
62.1 mi
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ACC COM PCC
Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good
31.7%
31.2%
23.0%
11.0%3.1%
Network Wide
38.8%
32.2%
22.5%
6.0%0.5%
Arterial
33.6%
21.5%
29.8%
11.6%3.6%
Collector
29.6%
32.2%
22.2%
12.2%3.8%
Local
73.8
70.4
56.8
65.9
58.0
56.7
53.5
63.9
57.4
57.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
WEST DES MOINES
WATERLOO
SIOUX CITY
IOWA CITY
DUBUQUE
DES MOINES
DAVENPORT
COUNCIL BLUFFS
CEDAR RAPIDS
AMES
Network Average PCI Score
Page 21 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
4.3. Pavement Condition Trends
One of the biggest values of the IPMP Program and the data it
provides is the fact that there are multiple years of data to evaluate.
This allows for better trend predictions, and it increases the statistical
relevance of the data. This volume helps refine the precision of the
modelling processes and identify specific conditions that may warrant
further investigation.
Every other year IPMP receives over 22,000 raw data points from the
automated collection vendor, just for the City of Iowa City.
Approximately 70,000 data points go into this analysis section.
Note, however, that the trend figures only use sections that have at
least 3 data points, so may differ slightly from the network level
statistics provided. Approximately 165 road segments have less than
the full 3 data cycles, but every street has at least 1 year of data to
work with.
Looking at the network, over time, reveals a slight decline in quality
since 2014, it went up from 67 in 2014 to 72 in 2015 and then down to
65 in 2017. This drop is statistically significant given the data quantity
processed and action may need to be taken to prevent further decline.
One potential explanation is that Iowa City spending, despite
increasing slowly, has still been consistently too low for the past 5
years. Other factors are higher construction costs due to increased
demand resulting from the 2013 gas-tax increase or the change
between data vendors for the IPMP, starting in 2017, might have
slightly different instruments and methods for data collection.
Figure 43: Network-Level Pavement Condition Trend
This figure demonstrates the slight decline the overall network has experienced since 2014. The
data differs slightly from other figures because it only includes streets collected all 3 data cycles.
When looking at trends based on pavement types, each surface type
shows similar drops in quality, since 2014. Comparatively, they are all
dropping around the same rate. One trend worth pointing out,
however, is Composite (COM) streets with 3 years of data have been
consistently underperforming compared to the other pavement types.
Figure 44: Condition Trend by Pavement Type
This figure demonstrates the slight decline across Iowa City by Pavement Type
4.4. Cross Comparisons
Cross comparisons for the current performance of pavement types
and classes, identified that local streets with composite pavements
are performing less well, on average, in Iowa City. This issue may be
alleviated through thicker overlays or interlayer material. Composite
Arterial and Collector Pavements are also experiencing high wear,
likely due to higher truck loads and traffic volumes in general.
Modifying binder strengths or lift thicknesses might improve this trend.
More attention to local streets may be warranted, however. While
common for networks this size, it may not be desirable to have such
a drop off.
Table 14: Cross Comparison of PCI by Pavement Types and Classes
Pave Type Arterial Collector Local All Classes
ACC 67.5 N/A! 52.9 65.6
COM 63.5 60.9 48.5 53.3
PCC 74.3 66.4 68.8 69.6
All Surfaces 71.0 73.9 63.6 67.3
4.5. Success in Iowa City & Cautions
Iowa City has many reasons to be proud:
➢ 3rd Highest network PCI of large cities in Iowa
➢ Minimal pavement in “Poor” and “Very Poor” condition
➢ Evenly distributed conditions throughout the City
This does not mean, however, that there is no work to be done. In fact,
there are some specific weaknesses in the IPMP data that may
superficially hide the true conditions of the streets in Iowa City. Some
of those data gaps are caused by the way the data is collected, the
types of data collected, and completeness of information.
The sampling methodology used by the IPMP data vendor
consultant only addresses one direction of travel for a road and has
certain restrictions. That means the data set, while extensive and
significantly better than subjective manual rating, it is not fully
comprehensive. In 2018, undivided roads with fewer than 5 lanes
were only driven in one direction, meaning that up 75% of pavement
area may not be covered on wide streets. Similarly, on-street parking
can limit the vehicle’s ability to read a continuous section of road
accurately due to weaving maneuvers resulting in readings based on
skewed angles and in areas outside the normal driving lane.
Roughness data can only be collected when travelling at 20 mph or
more and requires a steady speed for at least 200 feet. Short street
segments, dead-end roads, on-street parking, pedestrian crossings,
and stop sign–controlled intersections can be very disruptive to the
roughness measuring equipment, meaning that an urban area with
many local streets will likely have low coverage for roughness data.
Over 16 miles of streets in Iowa City did not collect any roughness
data in 2017, and the other roughness data that was collected may
not be reliable. For those 10 miles, roughness had to be assumed
based on other distress data. Luckily, the effect of roughness on PCI
scores is minor.
Other distresses, even though they were collected, may not factor at
all into the PCI rating. One prime example is failures. Failures are
potholes, both filled and unfilled, identified as irregularly shaped
asphalt patches. Failures are a critical distress both in pavement
performance as well as driver perception of road quality.
Unfortunately, these distresses are treated the same as other
patches, if included at all. The CityPCI rating system for full-depth
asphalt does not formally include failure as a distress and is
67 72 65 66
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2014 2015 2017 2019CityPCI 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2014 2015 2017 2019CityPCI
ACC COM PCC
Page 22 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
inconsistent in whether it should be considered at all, because the
failure is not always indicative of the rest of the roadway conditions.
Arthur Street had a very high failure rate the last time it was collected,
but still was rated as a PCI of 59/100.
The final caveat to this data collection system is that it can only ever
address SURFACE distresses. Underlying problems such as voiding,
eroding subgrade/subbase, and structural deficiencies cannot be
directly identified, only the symptoms. High priority is paid to alligator
cracking, spalling, and patching because of their associations with
these problems, but evidence of these major deficiencies are not
possible to collect directly without ground penetrating radar or
pavement cores (both of which are comparatively expensive).
Underlying pavement ages are similarly important from a deterioration
standpoint. Older, more distressed, bases mean new surfaces will
deteriorate faster, due to a lack of stable support. Construction history
is not as readily available, so base age was assumed, in many cases.
Figure 45: Unaccounted for Failure
These images are of a failure and some punch-outs that are not included in the pavement ratings
for this section of Arthur Street.
Figure 46: Some Historic Streets in Iowa City
These images are of some recognizable streets near Iowa City’s downtown area.
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-LeftLegend2.mxd 12THAVEHOLIDAYRD
MUSCATINE AVE AMERI CAN LEGIONRDSES MADISON STMELROSE AVE
420TH STS GILBERT ST5TH S
T
W IOWA AVE
W PARK RDCAMPCARDINALBLVD
MORMONTREKBLVDS 7TH AVEKEOKUKSTS 1ST AVEGRANDAVE1STAVE E COURT ST
ROCHESTER AVE
SYCAMORE STSUNSETSTE WASHINGTON ST
HI GH L AND AVE SSUMMITSTW BENTON ST
N
SCOTTBLVDHEARTLANDDRRIVER ST
KIRKWOOD AVE
HERBERT HOOVER HWY SE
E JEFFERSON STNRIVERSIDEDR
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
SYCAMORE ST SE
OAKCRESTHILLRDSEN
D
U
B
U
Q
U
EST
10TH ST
E PARK RD
WOOLF AVEPRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNEE MARKET ST
R O H R E T R D
LOWER WEST BRANCH RD SE
NEWTONRD
OLDHIGHWAY218SCORAL RIDGE AVESHERIDAN AVE
2ND
S
T
ROHRETRDSWBOWERY ST
E BURLINGTON ST
FRIENDSHIPS T
E IOWA AVE
CHURCH ST
HAWKINSDR
S CLINTON STS LINN STSANDRDSEP
R
AI
RI
E
DUCHIENRD22ND AVEDUBUQUESTNES SCOTT BLVDK IM B A LLRDN 7TH AVEN 1ST AVEMCCOLLISTERBLVD
SOUTHGATE AVE
420TH S T S E
F50SEROCKYSHOREDRIWV RD SW
SRI
VERSI
DEDRSHARONCENTERRDSWMAIERAVESWLegend
Functional Class*
Arterial
Collector
Local/Residential
District
District A
District B
District C
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,750 3,500
Feet
1 inch = 3,500 feet
Map 1 Functional ClassificationOverview
* Does not include roads not maintained by
City of Iowa City, such as State and
Federal highways
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-RightLegend.mxd12THAVEHOLIDAYRD WOOLFAVEMUSCATINE AVE AMERICANLEGIONRDSE1STAVEFRIENDSHIPST
E BURLINGTON ST
HIGHWAY1WSRI
VERSI
DEDRMELROSE AVE
420TH STSG
I
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
5TH ST
2ND S
T
S 1ST AVECORAL RIDGE AVEW IOWA AVE
W PARK RD HIGHWAY 1 NENGOVERNORSTCAMPCARDINALBLVDMORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEKEOKUKSTSYCAMORE STW BENTON ST
SHARONCENTERRDSWP
R
AI
RI
E
D
U
CHIENRDGRAND AVE
H I GH W AY 1 S W
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
E COURT ST
R O C H ES TER A V E
R O H R E T R D SUNSET STH I GH L AN D AVE
KIRKWOOD AVE SSUMMITSTN
SCOTTBLVDHEARTLANDDRRIVER ST
HERBERT HOOVER HWY SE
E JEFFERSON ST
SHERIDAN AVENRIVERSIDEDR
SYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILLRDSEN
D
U
B
U
Q
U
E
S
T
10TH ST
E PARK RD
HIG
H
W
A
Y
6
EPRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNEE MARKET ST
S SCOTT BLVDDUBUQUESTN
E
LOWER WEST BRANCH RD SE
HIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8
OLDHIGHWAY218SMAIERAVESWROHRETRDSWBOWERY ST NDODGESTE IOWA AVE
HAWKINSDR
CHURCH ST
S LINN STHIGHWAY 6 W
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
6
S
E22ND AVE420TH ST SEN1STAVEKIMBALLRDMCCOLLISTERBLVD
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDRHIGHWAY 6
E
F50SEIWV RD SW
Legend
Surface Type*
ACC
COM
PCC
SEAL
Districts
District A
District B
District C
Municipal Boundary
Map 2Pavement TypesOverview
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,750 3,500
Feet
1 inch = 3,500 feet
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-LeftLegend2.mxdROHRETRDSW R O C H E S T E R A V E
SRI
VERSIDEDRMELROSE AVE
2ND
S
T
S1STAVEW IOWA AVE
MORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEP
R
AIRIE
D
U
CHIENRDGRAND AVE
H I GH W AY 1 S W
MELROSE AVE
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
RO HRE T R D SUNSETSTE COURT ST
HIGHLAND AVES GILBERT STE BENTON STKIRKWOOD AVE
KEOKUK STRIVERST
W PARK RD
NRIVERSIDEDRSYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILLRDSEE PARK RD1STAV
EMU
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
A
V
E
10TH ST
SYCAMORE STOLDHIGHWAY218SN DODGE STN S C OTT BLVD
HAWKINSDR
HIGHWAY 6 W
N
GOVERNORSTM
O
R
M
O
NTREKBLVD N 1ST AVEKIMBALLRDMCCOLLISTERB L V D
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDR HI GHWAY 6E
HIGHW
A
Y
6
E
HIGHW AY1SWF50SEHIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8
IWV RD SW
SHARONCENTERRDSW5TH S
T
W BENTON ST SDODGESTHIGHWAY 1 WS
GIL
B
E
R
T
S
T
CAMPCARDINALB
LV
D 12TH AVENDUBUQUESTW ELLI N G T O N DRSLUCAS STFRIENDLY AVE
VILLAGERDS JOHNSON STWESTSIDED R
GINTER AVE
DEE
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D FOSTERR D
HOLLYWOODBLVD
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STNDUBUQUERD25THAVEN LUCAS STDUBLINDRSVANBURENSTGALW AYDRG L E N D A L E R D
DANE RD SEINDUSTRIALPARKRDTAYLORDRBROADWAYSTDUCKCREEKDR
BOYRUMST10TH AVEJAMESST
L AN GEN B ER G AVEGREENWOODDRN CLINTON STE 9TH ST
SUNDOWN RDGNAPL
ESAVE4TH AVEHICKORY TRL
S DUBUQUE STWALDENRD
PRINCETONRD
LAKESIDE DR
DEFOREST AVE
E BLOOMI NGTON S T
3RD AVETEG
D
R6TH AVESGOVERNORSTS AND U S K Y DRCLARK STLAKEBEND
RDK O S E R AVE
DEE
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
S
E
N E W T O N RDMACKINAW DRN U R S E R Y L N S ERENO STL
A
U
R
A
D
R
FERSON AVEWOODRI
DGEAVEGEORGE STW H I S PERI NG
MEADOWDR23RD AVEC AL I F O R N I A AVE
BROWN ST
RUSSELL DR7THST
PHOENIXDR
E D AVEN POR T S T
OAKLAND AVEFAIRCHILD ST
CHARTRESWILDCATLNWAYNE AVE
9 T H S T
WILDPRAIRIED R
E WASHINGTON STCAMPCARDINALRD OBERLINSTLAKESHORE
D
R
DICKENSON LN19TH AVENSUMMITSTM A N O R DRPADDOCK BLVDWESTGATE ST13TH ST
FREUNDRD S E
FRIENDSHIP STDOVER STW I N TER EAGLE R D S EN VAN BUREN STWHITING AVE
OAKESDR
DANE RD SWBROOKS I DE DRWATERFRONTDRH I G H L A N D DR
BROOKWOOD DRDEARBORN STTIPPERARYR D
PEPPERDR
HEINZ RDSHANNON
DRD
E
N
B
I
G
H DRFOXANADR RUNDELL STBURNS AVE
BRI STOL DR
TAFT SPEEDWAY
8TH ST
B
U
R
E
S
HAVEBRADFORD DR
WYLDEGREENRDLANDON AVE SWARBORD RGRANT STPLUMST
TRACY LN 2ND AVEAMHURSTST
HAFORDR
RAVEN S T
WEEBERSTH ST
ASH STFRANKLIN STROCHESTER C T
2
0
T
H
AVEDAVIS ST8TH AVEPLAENVIEW
DRNORMANDYDR9TH AVEPOST RDS CAPITOL STMORNINGSIDE
DR14TH AVEE COLLEGE ST
I ST
WALNUT ST
D ST
G STCENTER STN LINN STN
GI
LBERTSTLEH
A
R
V
EGOLDENRODDRSLOTHOWER RDNEVADA AVEGILBERT CT13TH AVEACTDRB
O
R
D
E
A
U
X
SPRING RIDGE DR
S A N T A FE
DRBAY RIDGE DRBASSWOOD LN11TH AVERIDGERD
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVEOAKCRES T STNAPLES AVE SW18TH AVEC A MI N O D E L RIOSEKITTY LEE RD SWMAIER AVE SWOSAGE ST SWRYANCT
T H O R N DRMALL DREMERALD STRIVERBENDRDSELACINADR SW
A C T RD
HURT RD SWHARVEST RD SEE IOWA AVE
KENNEDY PKWY
H A W K E Y E PARK RD WOOLF AVES CLINTON STN7THAVE22ND AVELegend
Surface Type*
ACC
COM
PCC
SEAL
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
1 inch = 3,000 feet
Map 3Pavement TypesDistrict A
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-RightLegend.mxd
ROHRET RD WOOLFAVEMUSCATINE AVE AMERICANLEGIONRDSE1STAVESRIVERSIDEDR
420TH ST
HERBERT HOOVER HW Y S E
S 1ST AVEW IOWA AVE
MORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEW BENTON ST
P
R
AIRIE
DUCHIENRDMELROSE AVE
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
5TH ST
SUNSETSTE COURT ST
HI GH L AN D AV E
H O L I D AY RD
E
B
ENTON S T KIRKWOOD AVE
N
SCOTTBLVDKEOKUKSTRIVERST
R O C H E S T E R A V E
W PARK RD
NRIVERSIDEDRSYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILL RDSEE PARK RD PRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNE420TH ST SES SCOTT BLVDDUBUQUESTNEHI
G
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8 OLDHIGHWAY218SN DODGE STHERBERT HOOVER HWY NE
HAWKINSDR
HIGHWAY 6 W
HIGHWAY 6 SE
N
G
O
V
E
R
N
O
R
STN1STAVEK IM B A LLRDMCCOLLISTERBLVD
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDR HIGHWAY6E
HIGHW AY1SWF50SEUTAH AVE SEWAPSI AVE SE400TH ST SEHIGHWAY 1 NESYCAMORE STLOWER WEST BRANCH RD SE
2ND ST
HIGHWAY 1 WS
G
I
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
420TH ST SE
AMERICA
N
L
E
G
I
O
N
R
D
S
ENDUBUQUESTARLINGTONDRSLUCASSTFRIENDLY AVE
M O S S RIDGERD
VILLAGERDBROWNDEERRDS JOHNSON STW ES T
SI
DEDRGINTER AVE
FOSTER RD
NORTHGATED R
HOLLYWOODBLVD
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STNDUBUQUERDN LUCAS STSVANBURENSTGLENDALE R D
DANE RD SETAYLORDRBOYRUMST10TH AVELI
NDEMANNDRL AN G E N B ER G AV EGREENWOODDRSDODGESTNAPLESAVE 4TH AVES CLINTON STHICKORY TRL
N7THAVES DUBUQUE STPRINCETONR D
EROBI LNLAKESIDE DR
DEFOREST AVE
E BL OOMI NGTON S T
MODERN WAY3RD AVETEGDR6TH AVES GOVERNOR STS A N D U S K Y DRCLARK STLAKEBEND
RDK OS E R AVEN E WT O N RD
340TH ST NE
7TH ST
FERSON AVEWHISPERING
MEADOWDRC AL I F OR N I AAVE
BROWN ST
RUSSELL DRE DAVENPORT S T
W E L L I N G TO N DR
FAIRCHILD ST
CHARTRES AARONDRSEWAYNE AVE
DICKENSON LN HUNTINGTONDRMANORDRPADDOCK B LV D
NAPLES AVE SWWESTGATE STE WASHINGTON ST
FREUNDRD S E
F RI E N DS HI P S T
DOVER STDANE RD SWW I NTER EAGL E R D S E
WHITING AVE
OAKESDR
H I G H L A N D D R KENNETH DRDEARBORN STHEINZ RDDENBI
GHDR
L I N D E R R D N E
RUNDELL STBURNS AVE
T A F T S P E E D W AY
B
U
R
ES
H
AVECHARLESDR
BRADFORD DR
WYLDEGREENRDPLUMS T 2ND AVEAMHURSTST
RIDGEWAY DR
ARBORD REVERSULLLNSCOTTP A R K DRWEEBERSTH ST
TAFT AVE SE8TH AVEPLAEN VIE
W
DRNORMANDYD R
9TH AVEPOST RDS CAPITOL STE COLLEGE ST
WALNUT ST G ST
RONALDS ST
N LINN STN GILBERT STLEHARVEGILBERT CTACTDRSPRING RIDGE DR FAIRWAYLNSE
KYLEDR NERIDGERD
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVEO AK C R ES T ST
SIOUX AVE SEFAIRVIEWCEMETERYRDNEKITTYLEERDSWWAPSI AVE NEOS AGE
S
T SW
OSAGE ST SE
MALL DREMERALD STRIVERBENDRDSENAPOLEON ST SE COMPASS DRUTAH AVE NELA CINA DR SW
ACT RD
HARVEST RD SEE I OWA AVE
Legend
Surface Type*
ACC
COM
PCC
SEAL
Wards
District A
District B
District C
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,750 3,500
Feet
1 inch = 3,500 feet
Map 4Pavement TypesDistrict B
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-LeftLegend2.mxd MORMON TREK BLVDWOOLF AVE1STAVESYCAMORE STSRI
VERSI
DEDRS1STAVEW I O W A AVE
HOLIDAY RD
S 7TH AVE2ND ST
W BENTON ST
P
R
AIRIE
D
UCHIENRDSGRANDAVEM ELR O S E AV E
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
E COURT ST
SUNSETSTHIGHLAND AVES GILBERT STE BENTON ST
KIRKWOOD AVE
HIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8 S SUMMIT STDUBUQUESTNEKEOKUK STCLAPP STNRIVERSIDEDRE PARK RD
HIGHWAY 6
E PRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNEROCHESTERA VEMU
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
A
V
E12THAVE
ROHRET RD S 1ST AVE1STAVEE BURLINGTON ST N DODGE STN
SCOTTBLVDHAWKINSDR E JEFFERSON ST
N DODGE STHIGHWAY6W NGOVERNORSTN1STAVEKIMBALLRDROCKYSHOREDRHIGHWAY 6 EELLIOTTDRND
U
B
U
Q
U
E
ST
NMORMONTREKBLVD12TH AVE5TH S
T
FRIENDSHIPS T
HIGHWAY1W
W PARK RD
10TH ST
N EW TO N R D1STAVE
MELROSE AVE NDUBUQUESTWESTWINDSDRS LUCAS STFRIENDLY AVES JOHNSON STE 7TH ST
WALKERCIR
GINTER AVE
1ST S
T FOSTERRD
ORCHARDSTMILLER AVEHUDSON AVERUSSELL S L A D E B L V D
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STN DUBUQUE RD
N LUCAS STDUBLI
NDRSVANBURENSTGALWAYDRKENNEDYPKWYGLENDALERD
CHURCH ST
BOYRUM STRIDGE STDUCKCREEKDR 10TH AVEGREENWOODDRN CLINTON STWILSONST
E 9TH S T
SDODGESTBELDON AVEH A W K E Y E CT4TH AVES CLINTON STN7THAVES DUBUQUE STPRINCETONRD
DEFOREST AVE
MYRTLE AVE
E BLOOMINGTON ST
GRAND AVE
9THST
QUARRY RD3RD AVETEGDR6TH AVES GOVERNOR STGO
L
F
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
CLARK STKOSER AVELA U R E N C E CT
NEHUGHES STCRESCENT STMACKINAW DRGROVE ST
FINKBINECOMMUTERDRS MADISON STRENO STS OUTH RIDGEDRL
A
U
R
A
D
R
ABBEY L N FERSON AVEWOODRIDGEAVEGEORGE STL IB E R T Y L N
BROWN ST
OZARK RDG
7TH ST
E D AVEN POR T S T
OAKLAND AVEFAIRCHILD ST
RUSHMOREDR CONKLIN LNN OR TH RIDGED R6TH AVEBRADFORD DR19TH AVEYEWELL STN SUMMIT STS LINN STMANORD R
WESTGATE STWILLIAM STMAIDEN LNWADE STWAYNE AVE5TH AVEWINDSORDRRIVER
ST
O
A
K
L
A
WN
AVEMACBRIDEDR
WHITING AVE
O AK C R E S T AVEBROWNDEERRD OAKESD R
H I GHL AN D D R
BROOKW OOD DRQUINCENTST HICKORY TRL
E HARRISON ST
DEARBORNSTTIPPERARYRD
BST
DEVONDRNE
S
H
A
N
N
O
N
DRDENBIGH DRFOXANADR
LINDER RD NE
RUNDELLSTDERW ENDR
EAL I N G DR WEBSTER STB RI S TOL DR
T A F T S P E E D W AYHIGHCOUNTRYRD8TH ST BURESHAVEMAYFIELD RD
KESWICK DRS
P
E
N
C
E
R
DRWYLDEGREENRDMARCY STGRANT STWINSTONDRBANBURYSTNE
MELROSE CTPAGE ST
PLUM ST UPLAND AVE6TH ST
DEERFIELD
D
R VALLEYVI
EWD
R
2ND AVER I DGEWAY DROAKLAKEPARKRD
HAFORDR
CAE
DRESTRON STWEEBERSTJENSEN STKEOKUKC T
H ST
ASH STFRANKLIN STROCHES TER CT
2 0 T H
AVEPINE ST8TH AVECENTER AVENORMANDYDR9TH AVEPOST RDDONEGAL CTS CAPITOL STE2NDAVESTEVENS DR14TH AVEE COLLEGE ST
E WASHINGTON ST
I ST
WALNUT ST
MARIETTA AVE D ST
A ST
F ST
G STN VAN BUREN STRONALDS ST
RIDER ST CENTER STN CAPITOL STBROADWAY STWOOLRIDGED R
13TH ST
LEE STABER AV E5THAVE CEDAR ST
GILBERT CT13TH AVEACTDR
DEWEYSTIRVINGAV E
KYLE D R N E
REDTAIL DR11TH AVERI
D
G
E
R
D
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVELIMEKILNLNNEOAKCREST STREDOAKDR18TH AVEEVASHEVSKIDR
HOTZ AVESUSSEXLN NEWESTVIEWDRPENKRIDGEDR4TH AVEEASTVIEWDREASTMOORDRP E N F R O D R
T H O R N D R
MOS S RIDGERDMALL DR ACT RDHAWK R ID G E D
REMERALD STDOLEN
PL
E IOWA AVE
HAWKEYE PARK RD N LINN STN GILBERT STMACBRIDERDLegend
Surface Type*
ACC
COM
PCC
SEAL
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Map 5Pavement TypesDistrict C
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-RightLegend.mxd12THAVEHOLIDAYRD WOOLFAVEMUSCATINE AVE AMERICANLEGIONRDSE1STAVEFRIENDSHIPST
E BURLINGTON ST
HIGHWAY1WSRI
VERSI
DEDRMELROSE AVE
420TH STSG
I
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
5TH ST
2ND S
T
S 1ST AVECORAL RIDGE AVEW IOWA AVE
W PARK RD HIGHWAY 1 NENGOVERNORSTCAMPCARDINALBLVDMORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEKEOKUKSTSYCAMORE STW BENTON ST
SHARONCENTERRDSWP
R
AI
RI
E
D
U
CHIENRDGRAND AVE
H I GH W AY 1 S W
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
E COURT ST
R O C H ES TER A V E
R O H R E T R D SUNSET STH I GH L AN D AVE
KIRKWOOD AVE SSUMMITSTN
SCOTTBLVDHEARTLANDDRRIVER ST
HERBERT HOOVER HWY SE
E JEFFERSON ST
SHERIDAN AVENRIVERSIDEDR
SYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILLRDSEN
D
U
B
U
Q
U
E
S
T
10TH ST
E PARK RD
HIG
H
W
A
Y
6
EPRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNEE MARKET ST
S SCOTT BLVDDUBUQUESTN
E
LOWER WEST BRANCH RD SE
HIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8
OLDHIGHWAY218SMAIERAVESWROHRETRDSWBOWERY ST NDODGESTE IOWA AVE
HAWKINSDR
CHURCH ST
S LINN STHIGHWAY 6 W
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
6
S
E22ND AVE420TH ST SEN1STAVEKIMBALLRDMCCOLLISTERBLVD
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDRHIGHWAY 6
E
F50SEIWV RD SW
Legend
Pavement Condition
Very Good (CityPCI>80)
Good (CityPCI>60)
Fair (CityPCI>40
Poor (CityPCI>20)
Very Poor (CityPCI<20)
Districts
District A
District B
District C
Municipal Boundary
Map 62019 Arterial/CollectorPavement ConditionOverview
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,750 3,500
Feet
1 inch = 3,500 feet
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-LeftLegend2.mxdROHRETRDSW R O C H E S T E R A V E
SRI
VERSIDEDRMELROSE AVE
2ND
S
T
S1STAVEW IOWA AVE
MORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEP
R
AIRIE
D
U
CHIENRDGRAND AVE
H I GH W AY 1 S W
MELROSE AVE
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
RO HRE T R D SUNSETSTE COURT ST
HIGHLAND AVES GILBERT STE BENTON STKIRKWOOD AVE
KEOKUK STRIVERST
W PARK RD
NRIVERSIDEDRSYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILLRDSEE PARK RD1STAV
EMU
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
A
V
E
10TH ST
SYCAMORE STOLDHIGHWAY218SN DODGE STN S C OTT BLVD
HAWKINSDR
HIGHWAY 6 W
N
GOVERNORSTM
O
R
M
O
NTREKBLVD N 1ST AVEKIMBALLRDMCCOLLISTERB L V D
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDR HI GHWAY 6E
HIGHW
A
Y
6
E
HIGHW AY1SWF50SEHIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8
IWV RD SW
SHARONCENTERRDSW5TH S
T
W BENTON ST SDODGESTHIGHWAY 1 WS
GIL
B
E
R
T
S
T
CAMPCARDINALB
LV
D 12TH AVENDUBUQUESTW ELLI N G T O N DRSLUCAS STFRIENDLY AVE
VILLAGERDS JOHNSON STWESTSIDED R
GINTER AVE
DEE
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D FOSTERR D
HOLLYWOODBLVD
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STNDUBUQUERD25THAVEN LUCAS STDUBLINDRSVANBURENSTGALW AYDRG L E N D A L E R D
DANE RD SEINDUSTRIALPARKRDTAYLORDRBROADWAYSTDUCKCREEKDR
BOYRUMST10TH AVEJAMESST
L AN GEN B ER G AVEGREENWOODDRN CLINTON STE 9TH ST
SUNDOWN RDGNAPL
ESAVE4TH AVEHICKORY TRL
S DUBUQUE STWALDENRD
PRINCETONRD
LAKESIDE DR
DEFOREST AVE
E BLOOMI NGTON S T
3RD AVETEG
D
R6TH AVESGOVERNORSTS AND U S K Y DRCLARK STLAKEBEND
RDK O S E R AVE
DEE
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
S
E
N E W T O N RDMACKINAW DRN U R S E R Y L N S ERENO STL
A
U
R
A
D
R
FERSON AVEWOODRI
DGEAVEGEORGE STW H I S PERI NG
MEADOWDR23RD AVEC AL I F O R N I A AVE
BROWN ST
RUSSELL DR7THST
PHOENIXDR
E D AVEN POR T S T
OAKLAND AVEFAIRCHILD ST
CHARTRESWILDCATLNWAYNE AVE
9 T H S T
WILDPRAIRIED R
E WASHINGTON STCAMPCARDINALRD OBERLINSTLAKESHORE
D
R
DICKENSON LN19TH AVENSUMMITSTM A N O R DRPADDOCK BLVDWESTGATE ST13TH ST
FREUNDRD S E
FRIENDSHIP STDOVER STW I N TER EAGLE R D S EN VAN BUREN STWHITING AVE
OAKESDR
DANE RD SWBROOKS I DE DRWATERFRONTDRH I G H L A N D DR
BROOKWOOD DRDEARBORN STTIPPERARYR D
PEPPERDR
HEINZ RDSHANNON
DRD
E
N
B
I
G
H DRFOXANADR RUNDELL STBURNS AVE
BRI STOL DR
TAFT SPEEDWAY
8TH ST
B
U
R
E
S
HAVEBRADFORD DR
WYLDEGREENRDLANDON AVE SWARBORD RGRANT STPLUMST
TRACY LN 2ND AVEAMHURSTST
HAFORDR
RAVEN S T
WEEBERSTH ST
ASH STFRANKLIN STROCHESTER C T
2
0
T
H
AVEDAVIS ST8TH AVEPLAENVIEW
DRNORMANDYDR9TH AVEPOST RDS CAPITOL STMORNINGSIDE
DR14TH AVEE COLLEGE ST
I ST
WALNUT ST
D ST
G STCENTER STN LINN STN
GI
LBERTSTLEH
A
R
V
EGOLDENRODDRSLOTHOWER RDNEVADA AVEGILBERT CT13TH AVEACTDRB
O
R
D
E
A
U
X
SPRING RIDGE DR
S A N T A FE
DRBAY RIDGE DRBASSWOOD LN11TH AVERIDGERD
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVEOAKCRES T STNAPLES AVE SW18TH AVEC A MI N O D E L RIOSEKITTY LEE RD SWMAIER AVE SWOSAGE ST SWRYANCT
T H O R N DRMALL DREMERALD STRIVERBENDRDSELACINADR SW
A C T RD
HURT RD SWHARVEST RD SEE IOWA AVE
KENNEDY PKWY
H A W K E Y E PARK RD WOOLF AVES CLINTON STN7THAVE22ND AVELegend
Pavement Condition
Very Good (CityPCI>80)
Good (CityPCI>60)
Fair (CityPCI>40
Poor (CityPCI>20)
Very Poor (CityPCI<20)
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
1 inch = 3,000 feet
Map 72019 Arterial/Collector Pavement ConditionDistrict A
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-RightLegend.mxd
ROHRET RD WOOLFAVEMUSCATINE AVE AMERICANLEGIONRDSE1STAVESRIVERSIDEDR
420TH ST
HERBERT HOOVER HW Y S E
S 1ST AVEW IOWA AVE
MORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEW BENTON ST
P
R
AIRIE
DUCHIENRDMELROSE AVE
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
5TH ST
SUNSETSTE COURT ST
HI GH L AN D AV E
H O L I D AY RD
E
B
ENTON S T KIRKWOOD AVE
N
SCOTTBLVDKEOKUKSTRIVERST
R O C H E S T E R A V E
W PARK RD
NRIVERSIDEDRSYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILL RDSEE PARK RD PRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNE420TH ST SES SCOTT BLVDDUBUQUESTNEHI
G
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8 OLDHIGHWAY218SN DODGE STHERBERT HOOVER HWY NE
HAWKINSDR
HIGHWAY 6 W
HIGHWAY 6 SE
N
G
O
V
E
R
N
O
R
STN1STAVEK IM B A LLRDMCCOLLISTERBLVD
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDR HIGHWAY6E
HIGHW AY1SWF50SEUTAH AVE SEWAPSI AVE SE400TH ST SEHIGHWAY 1 NESYCAMORE STLOWER WEST BRANCH RD SE
2ND ST
HIGHWAY 1 WS
G
I
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
420TH ST SE
AMERICA
N
L
E
G
I
O
N
R
D
S
ENDUBUQUESTARLINGTONDRSLUCASSTFRIENDLY AVE
M O S S RIDGERD
VILLAGERDBROWNDEERRDS JOHNSON STW ES T
SI
DEDRGINTER AVE
FOSTER RD
NORTHGATED R
HOLLYWOODBLVD
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STNDUBUQUERDN LUCAS STSVANBURENSTGLENDALE R D
DANE RD SETAYLORDRBOYRUMST10TH AVELI
NDEMANNDRL AN G E N B ER G AV EGREENWOODDRSDODGESTNAPLESAVE 4TH AVES CLINTON STHICKORY TRL
N7THAVES DUBUQUE STPRINCETONR D
EROBI LNLAKESIDE DR
DEFOREST AVE
E BL OOMI NGTON S T
MODERN WAY3RD AVETEGDR6TH AVES GOVERNOR STS A N D U S K Y DRCLARK STLAKEBEND
RDK OS E R AVEN E WT O N RD
340TH ST NE
7TH ST
FERSON AVEWHISPERING
MEADOWDRC AL I F OR N I AAVE
BROWN ST
RUSSELL DRE DAVENPORT S T
W E L L I N G TO N DR
FAIRCHILD ST
CHARTRES AARONDRSEWAYNE AVE
DICKENSON LN HUNTINGTONDRMANORDRPADDOCK B LV D
NAPLES AVE SWWESTGATE STE WASHINGTON ST
FREUNDRD S E
F RI E N DS HI P S T
DOVER STDANE RD SWW I NTER EAGL E R D S E
WHITING AVE
OAKESDR
H I G H L A N D D R KENNETH DRDEARBORN STHEINZ RDDENBI
GHDR
L I N D E R R D N E
RUNDELL STBURNS AVE
T A F T S P E E D W AY
B
U
R
ES
H
AVECHARLESDR
BRADFORD DR
WYLDEGREENRDPLUMS T 2ND AVEAMHURSTST
RIDGEWAY DR
ARBORD REVERSULLLNSCOTTP A R K DRWEEBERSTH ST
TAFT AVE SE8TH AVEPLAEN VIE
W
DRNORMANDYD R
9TH AVEPOST RDS CAPITOL STE COLLEGE ST
WALNUT ST G ST
RONALDS ST
N LINN STN GILBERT STLEHARVEGILBERT CTACTDRSPRING RIDGE DR FAIRWAYLNSE
KYLEDR NERIDGERD
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVEO AK C R ES T ST
SIOUX AVE SEFAIRVIEWCEMETERYRDNEKITTYLEERDSWWAPSI AVE NEOS AGE
S
T SW
OSAGE ST SE
MALL DREMERALD STRIVERBENDRDSENAPOLEON ST SE COMPASS DRUTAH AVE NELA CINA DR SW
ACT RD
HARVEST RD SEE I OWA AVE
Legend
Pavement Condition
Very Good (CityPCI>80)
Good (CityPCI>60)
Fair (CityPCI>40
Poor (CityPCI>20)
Very Poor (CityPCI<20)
Wards
District A
District B
District C
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,750 3,500
Feet
1 inch = 3,500 feet
Map 82019 Arterial/Collector Pavement ConditionDistrict B
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-LeftLegend2.mxd MORMON TREK BLVDWOOLF AVE1STAVESYCAMORE STSRI
VERSI
DEDRS1STAVEW I O W A AVE
HOLIDAY RD
S 7TH AVE2ND ST
W BENTON ST
P
R
AIRIE
D
UCHIENRDSGRANDAVEM ELR O S E AV E
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
E COURT ST
SUNSETSTHIGHLAND AVES GILBERT STE BENTON ST
KIRKWOOD AVE
HIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8 S SUMMIT STDUBUQUESTNEKEOKUK STCLAPP STNRIVERSIDEDRE PARK RD
HIGHWAY 6
E PRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNEROCHESTERA VEMU
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
A
V
E12THAVE
ROHRET RD S 1ST AVE1STAVEE BURLINGTON ST N DODGE STN
SCOTTBLVDHAWKINSDR E JEFFERSON ST
N DODGE STHIGHWAY6W NGOVERNORSTN1STAVEKIMBALLRDROCKYSHOREDRHIGHWAY 6 EELLIOTTDRND
U
B
U
Q
U
E
ST
NMORMONTREKBLVD12TH AVE5TH S
T
FRIENDSHIPS T
HIGHWAY1W
W PARK RD
10TH ST
N EW TO N R D1STAVE
MELROSE AVE NDUBUQUESTWESTWINDSDRS LUCAS STFRIENDLY AVES JOHNSON STE 7TH ST
WALKERCIR
GINTER AVE
1ST S
T FOSTERRD
ORCHARDSTMILLER AVEHUDSON AVERUSSELL S L A D E B L V D
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STN DUBUQUE RD
N LUCAS STDUBLI
NDRSVANBURENSTGALWAYDRKENNEDYPKWYGLENDALERD
CHURCH ST
BOYRUM STRIDGE STDUCKCREEKDR 10TH AVEGREENWOODDRN CLINTON STWILSONST
E 9TH S T
SDODGESTBELDON AVEH A W K E Y E CT4TH AVES CLINTON STN7THAVES DUBUQUE STPRINCETONRD
DEFOREST AVE
MYRTLE AVE
E BLOOMINGTON ST
GRAND AVE
9THST
QUARRY RD3RD AVETEGDR6TH AVES GOVERNOR STGO
L
F
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
CLARK STKOSER AVELA U R E N C E CT
NEHUGHES STCRESCENT STMACKINAW DRGROVE ST
FINKBINECOMMUTERDRS MADISON STRENO STS OUTH RIDGEDRL
A
U
R
A
D
R
ABBEY L N FERSON AVEWOODRIDGEAVEGEORGE STL IB E R T Y L N
BROWN ST
OZARK RDG
7TH ST
E D AVEN POR T S T
OAKLAND AVEFAIRCHILD ST
RUSHMOREDR CONKLIN LNN OR TH RIDGED R6TH AVEBRADFORD DR19TH AVEYEWELL STN SUMMIT STS LINN STMANORD R
WESTGATE STWILLIAM STMAIDEN LNWADE STWAYNE AVE5TH AVEWINDSORDRRIVER
ST
O
A
K
L
A
WN
AVEMACBRIDEDR
WHITING AVE
O AK C R E S T AVEBROWNDEERRD OAKESD R
H I GHL AN D D R
BROOKW OOD DRQUINCENTST HICKORY TRL
E HARRISON ST
DEARBORNSTTIPPERARYRD
BST
DEVONDRNE
S
H
A
N
N
O
N
DRDENBIGH DRFOXANADR
LINDER RD NE
RUNDELLSTDERW ENDR
EAL I N G DR WEBSTER STB RI S TOL DR
T A F T S P E E D W AYHIGHCOUNTRYRD8TH ST BURESHAVEMAYFIELD RD
KESWICK DRS
P
E
N
C
E
R
DRWYLDEGREENRDMARCY STGRANT STWINSTONDRBANBURYSTNE
MELROSE CTPAGE ST
PLUM ST UPLAND AVE6TH ST
DEERFIELD
D
R VALLEYVI
EWD
R
2ND AVER I DGEWAY DROAKLAKEPARKRD
HAFORDR
CAE
DRESTRON STWEEBERSTJENSEN STKEOKUKC T
H ST
ASH STFRANKLIN STROCHES TER CT
2 0 T H
AVEPINE ST8TH AVECENTER AVENORMANDYDR9TH AVEPOST RDDONEGAL CTS CAPITOL STE2NDAVESTEVENS DR14TH AVEE COLLEGE ST
E WASHINGTON ST
I ST
WALNUT ST
MARIETTA AVE D ST
A ST
F ST
G STN VAN BUREN STRONALDS ST
RIDER ST CENTER STN CAPITOL STBROADWAY STWOOLRIDGED R
13TH ST
LEE STABER AV E5THAVE CEDAR ST
GILBERT CT13TH AVEACTDR
DEWEYSTIRVINGAV E
KYLE D R N E
REDTAIL DR11TH AVERI
D
G
E
R
D
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVELIMEKILNLNNEOAKCREST STREDOAKDR18TH AVEEVASHEVSKIDR
HOTZ AVESUSSEXLN NEWESTVIEWDRPENKRIDGEDR4TH AVEEASTVIEWDREASTMOORDRP E N F R O D R
T H O R N D R
MOS S RIDGERDMALL DR ACT RDHAWK R ID G E D
REMERALD STDOLEN
PL
E IOWA AVE
HAWKEYE PARK RD N LINN STN GILBERT STMACBRIDERDLegend
Pavement Condition
Very Good (CityPCI>80)
Good (CityPCI>60)
Fair (CityPCI>40
Poor (CityPCI>20)
Very Poor (CityPCI<20)
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Map 92019 Arterial/Collector Pavement ConditionDistrict C
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-RightLegend.mxd12THAVEHOLIDAYRD WOOLFAVEMUSCATINE AVE AMERICANLEGIONRDSE1STAVEFRIENDSHIPST
E BURLINGTON ST
HIGHWAY1WSRI
VERSI
DEDRMELROSE AVE
420TH STSG
I
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
5TH ST
2ND S
T
S 1ST AVECORAL RIDGE AVEW IOWA AVE
W PARK RD HIGHWAY 1 NENGOVERNORSTCAMPCARDINALBLVDMORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEKEOKUKSTSYCAMORE STW BENTON ST
SHARONCENTERRDSWP
R
AI
RI
E
D
U
CHIENRDGRAND AVE
H I GH W AY 1 S W
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
E COURT ST
R O C H ES TER A V E
R O H R E T R D SUNSET STH I GH L AN D AVE
KIRKWOOD AVE SSUMMITSTN
SCOTTBLVDHEARTLANDDRRIVER ST
HERBERT HOOVER HWY SE
E JEFFERSON ST
SHERIDAN AVENRIVERSIDEDR
SYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILLRDSEN
D
U
B
U
Q
U
E
S
T
10TH ST
E PARK RD
HIG
H
W
A
Y
6
EPRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNEE MARKET ST
S SCOTT BLVDDUBUQUESTN
E
LOWER WEST BRANCH RD SE
HIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8
OLDHIGHWAY218SMAIERAVESWROHRETRDSWBOWERY ST NDODGESTE IOWA AVE
HAWKINSDR
CHURCH ST
S LINN STHIGHWAY 6 W
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
6
S
E22ND AVE420TH ST SEN1STAVEKIMBALLRDMCCOLLISTERBLVD
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDRHIGHWAY 6
E
F50SEIWV RD SW
Legend
Pavement Condition
Very Good (CityPCI>80)
Good (CityPCI>60)
Fair (CityPCI>40
Poor (CityPCI>20)
Very Poor (CityPCI<20)
Districts
District A
District B
District C
Municipal Boundary
Map 102019 Local/ResidentialPavement ConditionOverview
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,750 3,500
Feet
1 inch = 3,500 feet
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-LeftLegend2.mxdROHRETRDSW R O C H E S T E R A V E
SRI
VERSIDEDRMELROSE AVE
2ND
S
T
S1STAVEW IOWA AVE
MORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEP
R
AIRIE
D
U
CHIENRDGRAND AVE
H I GH W AY 1 S W
MELROSE AVE
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
RO HRE T R D SUNSETSTE COURT ST
HIGHLAND AVES GILBERT STE BENTON STKIRKWOOD AVE
KEOKUK STRIVERST
W PARK RD
NRIVERSIDEDRSYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILLRDSEE PARK RD1STAV
EMU
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
A
V
E
10TH ST
SYCAMORE STOLDHIGHWAY218SN DODGE STN S C OTT BLVD
HAWKINSDR
HIGHWAY 6 W
N
GOVERNORSTM
O
R
M
O
NTREKBLVD N 1ST AVEKIMBALLRDMCCOLLISTERB L V D
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDR HI GHWAY 6E
HIGHW
A
Y
6
E
HIGHW AY1SWF50SEHIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8
IWV RD SW
SHARONCENTERRDSW5TH S
T
W BENTON ST SDODGESTHIGHWAY 1 WS
GIL
B
E
R
T
S
T
CAMPCARDINALB
LV
D 12TH AVENDUBUQUESTW ELLI N G T O N DRSLUCAS STFRIENDLY AVE
VILLAGERDS JOHNSON STWESTSIDED R
GINTER AVE
DEE
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D FOSTERR D
HOLLYWOODBLVD
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STNDUBUQUERD25THAVEN LUCAS STDUBLINDRSVANBURENSTGALW AYDRG L E N D A L E R D
DANE RD SEINDUSTRIALPARKRDTAYLORDRBROADWAYSTDUCKCREEKDR
BOYRUMST10TH AVEJAMESST
L AN GEN B ER G AVEGREENWOODDRN CLINTON STE 9TH ST
SUNDOWN RDGNAPL
ESAVE4TH AVEHICKORY TRL
S DUBUQUE STWALDENRD
PRINCETONRD
LAKESIDE DR
DEFOREST AVE
E BLOOMI NGTON S T
3RD AVETEG
D
R6TH AVESGOVERNORSTS AND U S K Y DRCLARK STLAKEBEND
RDK O S E R AVE
DEE
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
S
E
N E W T O N RDMACKINAW DRN U R S E R Y L N S ERENO STL
A
U
R
A
D
R
FERSON AVEWOODRI
DGEAVEGEORGE STW H I S PERI NG
MEADOWDR23RD AVEC AL I F O R N I A AVE
BROWN ST
RUSSELL DR7THST
PHOENIXDR
E D AVEN POR T S T
OAKLAND AVEFAIRCHILD ST
CHARTRESWILDCATLNWAYNE AVE
9 T H S T
WILDPRAIRIED R
E WASHINGTON STCAMPCARDINALRD OBERLINSTLAKESHORE
D
R
DICKENSON LN19TH AVENSUMMITSTM A N O R DRPADDOCK BLVDWESTGATE ST13TH ST
FREUNDRD S E
FRIENDSHIP STDOVER STW I N TER EAGLE R D S EN VAN BUREN STWHITING AVE
OAKESDR
DANE RD SWBROOKS I DE DRWATERFRONTDRH I G H L A N D DR
BROOKWOOD DRDEARBORN STTIPPERARYR D
PEPPERDR
HEINZ RDSHANNON
DRD
E
N
B
I
G
H DRFOXANADR RUNDELL STBURNS AVE
BRI STOL DR
TAFT SPEEDWAY
8TH ST
B
U
R
E
S
HAVEBRADFORD DR
WYLDEGREENRDLANDON AVE SWARBORD RGRANT STPLUMST
TRACY LN 2ND AVEAMHURSTST
HAFORDR
RAVEN S T
WEEBERSTH ST
ASH STFRANKLIN STROCHESTER C T
2
0
T
H
AVEDAVIS ST8TH AVEPLAENVIEW
DRNORMANDYDR9TH AVEPOST RDS CAPITOL STMORNINGSIDE
DR14TH AVEE COLLEGE ST
I ST
WALNUT ST
D ST
G STCENTER STN LINN STN
GI
LBERTSTLEH
A
R
V
EGOLDENRODDRSLOTHOWER RDNEVADA AVEGILBERT CT13TH AVEACTDRB
O
R
D
E
A
U
X
SPRING RIDGE DR
S A N T A FE
DRBAY RIDGE DRBASSWOOD LN11TH AVERIDGERD
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVEOAKCRES T STNAPLES AVE SW18TH AVEC A MI N O D E L RIOSEKITTY LEE RD SWMAIER AVE SWOSAGE ST SWRYANCT
T H O R N DRMALL DREMERALD STRIVERBENDRDSELACINADR SW
A C T RD
HURT RD SWHARVEST RD SEE IOWA AVE
KENNEDY PKWY
H A W K E Y E PARK RD WOOLF AVES CLINTON STN7THAVE22ND AVELegend
Pavement Condition
Very Good (CityPCI>80)
Good (CityPCI>60)
Fair (CityPCI>40
Poor (CityPCI>20)
Very Poor (CityPCI<20)
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
1 inch = 3,000 feet
Map 112019 Local/ResidentialPavement ConditionDistrict A
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-RightLegend.mxd
ROHRET RD WOOLFAVEMUSCATINE AVE AMERICANLEGIONRDSE1STAVESRIVERSIDEDR
420TH ST
HERBERT HOOVER HW Y S E
S 1ST AVEW IOWA AVE
MORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEW BENTON ST
P
R
AIRIE
DUCHIENRDMELROSE AVE
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
5TH ST
SUNSETSTE COURT ST
HI GH L AN D AV E
H O L I D AY RD
E
B
ENTON S T KIRKWOOD AVE
N
SCOTTBLVDKEOKUKSTRIVERST
R O C H E S T E R A V E
W PARK RD
NRIVERSIDEDRSYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILL RDSEE PARK RD PRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNE420TH ST SES SCOTT BLVDDUBUQUESTNEHI
G
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8 OLDHIGHWAY218SN DODGE STHERBERT HOOVER HWY NE
HAWKINSDR
HIGHWAY 6 W
HIGHWAY 6 SE
N
G
O
V
E
R
N
O
R
STN1STAVEK IM B A LLRDMCCOLLISTERBLVD
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDR HIGHWAY6E
HIGHW AY1SWF50SEUTAH AVE SEWAPSI AVE SE400TH ST SEHIGHWAY 1 NESYCAMORE STLOWER WEST BRANCH RD SE
2ND ST
HIGHWAY 1 WS
G
I
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
420TH ST SE
AMERICA
N
L
E
G
I
O
N
R
D
S
ENDUBUQUESTARLINGTONDRSLUCASSTFRIENDLY AVE
M O S S RIDGERD
VILLAGERDBROWNDEERRDS JOHNSON STW ES T
SI
DEDRGINTER AVE
FOSTER RD
NORTHGATED R
HOLLYWOODBLVD
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STNDUBUQUERDN LUCAS STSVANBURENSTGLENDALE R D
DANE RD SETAYLORDRBOYRUMST10TH AVELI
NDEMANNDRL AN G E N B ER G AV EGREENWOODDRSDODGESTNAPLESAVE 4TH AVES CLINTON STHICKORY TRL
N7THAVES DUBUQUE STPRINCETONR D
EROBI LNLAKESIDE DR
DEFOREST AVE
E BL OOMI NGTON S T
MODERN WAY3RD AVETEGDR6TH AVES GOVERNOR STS A N D U S K Y DRCLARK STLAKEBEND
RDK OS E R AVEN E WT O N RD
340TH ST NE
7TH ST
FERSON AVEWHISPERING
MEADOWDRC AL I F OR N I AAVE
BROWN ST
RUSSELL DRE DAVENPORT S T
W E L L I N G TO N DR
FAIRCHILD ST
CHARTRES AARONDRSEWAYNE AVE
DICKENSON LN HUNTINGTONDRMANORDRPADDOCK B LV D
NAPLES AVE SWWESTGATE STE WASHINGTON ST
FREUNDRD S E
F RI E N DS HI P S T
DOVER STDANE RD SWW I NTER EAGL E R D S E
WHITING AVE
OAKESDR
H I G H L A N D D R KENNETH DRDEARBORN STHEINZ RDDENBI
GHDR
L I N D E R R D N E
RUNDELL STBURNS AVE
T A F T S P E E D W AY
B
U
R
ES
H
AVECHARLESDR
BRADFORD DR
WYLDEGREENRDPLUMS T 2ND AVEAMHURSTST
RIDGEWAY DR
ARBORD REVERSULLLNSCOTTP A R K DRWEEBERSTH ST
TAFT AVE SE8TH AVEPLAEN VIE
W
DRNORMANDYD R
9TH AVEPOST RDS CAPITOL STE COLLEGE ST
WALNUT ST G ST
RONALDS ST
N LINN STN GILBERT STLEHARVEGILBERT CTACTDRSPRING RIDGE DR FAIRWAYLNSE
KYLEDR NERIDGERD
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVEO AK C R ES T ST
SIOUX AVE SEFAIRVIEWCEMETERYRDNEKITTYLEERDSWWAPSI AVE NEOS AGE
S
T SW
OSAGE ST SE
MALL DREMERALD STRIVERBENDRDSENAPOLEON ST SE COMPASS DRUTAH AVE NELA CINA DR SW
ACT RD
HARVEST RD SEE I OWA AVE
Pavement Condition
Very Good (CityPCI>80)
Good (CityPCI>60)
Fair (CityPCI>40
Poor (CityPCI>20)
Very Poor (CityPCI<20)
Wards
District A
District B
District C
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,750 3,500
Feet
1 inch = 3,500 feet
Map 122019 Local/ResidentialPavement ConditionDistrict B
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-LeftLegend2.mxd MORMON TREK BLVDWOOLF AVE1STAVESYCAMORE STSRI
VERSI
DEDRS1STAVEW I O W A AVE
HOLIDAY RD
S 7TH AVE2ND ST
W BENTON ST
P
R
AIRIE
D
UCHIENRDSGRANDAVEM ELR O S E AV E
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
E COURT ST
SUNSETSTHIGHLAND AVES GILBERT STE BENTON ST
KIRKWOOD AVE
HIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8 S SUMMIT STDUBUQUESTNEKEOKUK STCLAPP STNRIVERSIDEDRE PARK RD
HIGHWAY 6
E PRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNEROCHESTERA VEMU
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
A
V
E12THAVE
ROHRET RD S 1ST AVE1STAVEE BURLINGTON ST N DODGE STN
SCOTTBLVDHAWKINSDR E JEFFERSON ST
N DODGE STHIGHWAY6W NGOVERNORSTN1STAVEKIMBALLRDROCKYSHOREDRHIGHWAY 6 EELLIOTTDRND
U
B
U
Q
U
E
ST
NMORMONTREKBLVD12TH AVE5TH S
T
FRIENDSHIPS T
HIGHWAY1W
W PARK RD
10TH ST
N EW TO N R D1STAVE
MELROSE AVE NDUBUQUESTWESTWINDSDRS LUCAS STFRIENDLY AVES JOHNSON STE 7TH ST
WALKERCIR
GINTER AVE
1ST S
T FOSTERRD
ORCHARDSTMILLER AVEHUDSON AVERUSSELL S L A D E B L V D
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STN DUBUQUE RD
N LUCAS STDUBLI
NDRSVANBURENSTGALWAYDRKENNEDYPKWYGLENDALERD
CHURCH ST
BOYRUM STRIDGE STDUCKCREEKDR 10TH AVEGREENWOODDRN CLINTON STWILSONST
E 9TH S T
SDODGESTBELDON AVEH A W K E Y E CT4TH AVES CLINTON STN7THAVES DUBUQUE STPRINCETONRD
DEFOREST AVE
MYRTLE AVE
E BLOOMINGTON ST
GRAND AVE
9THST
QUARRY RD3RD AVETEGDR6TH AVES GOVERNOR STGO
L
F
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
CLARK STKOSER AVELA U R E N C E CT
NEHUGHES STCRESCENT STMACKINAW DRGROVE ST
FINKBINECOMMUTERDRS MADISON STRENO STS OUTH RIDGEDRL
A
U
R
A
D
R
ABBEY L N FERSON AVEWOODRIDGEAVEGEORGE STL IB E R T Y L N
BROWN ST
OZARK RDG
7TH ST
E D AVEN POR T S T
OAKLAND AVEFAIRCHILD ST
RUSHMOREDR CONKLIN LNN OR TH RIDGED R6TH AVEBRADFORD DR19TH AVEYEWELL STN SUMMIT STS LINN STMANORD R
WESTGATE STWILLIAM STMAIDEN LNWADE STWAYNE AVE5TH AVEWINDSORDRRIVER
ST
O
A
K
L
A
WN
AVEMACBRIDEDR
WHITING AVE
O AK C R E S T AVEBROWNDEERRD OAKESD R
H I GHL AN D D R
BROOKW OOD DRQUINCENTST HICKORY TRL
E HARRISON ST
DEARBORNSTTIPPERARYRD
BST
DEVONDRNE
S
H
A
N
N
O
N
DRDENBIGH DRFOXANADR
LINDER RD NE
RUNDELLSTDERW ENDR
EAL I N G DR WEBSTER STB RI S TOL DR
T A F T S P E E D W AYHIGHCOUNTRYRD8TH ST BURESHAVEMAYFIELD RD
KESWICK DRS
P
E
N
C
E
R
DRWYLDEGREENRDMARCY STGRANT STWINSTONDRBANBURYSTNE
MELROSE CTPAGE ST
PLUM ST UPLAND AVE6TH ST
DEERFIELD
D
R VALLEYVI
EWD
R
2ND AVER I DGEWAY DROAKLAKEPARKRD
HAFORDR
CAE
DRESTRON STWEEBERSTJENSEN STKEOKUKC T
H ST
ASH STFRANKLIN STROCHES TER CT
2 0 T H
AVEPINE ST8TH AVECENTER AVENORMANDYDR9TH AVEPOST RDDONEGAL CTS CAPITOL STE2NDAVESTEVENS DR14TH AVEE COLLEGE ST
E WASHINGTON ST
I ST
WALNUT ST
MARIETTA AVE D ST
A ST
F ST
G STN VAN BUREN STRONALDS ST
RIDER ST CENTER STN CAPITOL STBROADWAY STWOOLRIDGED R
13TH ST
LEE STABER AV E5THAVE CEDAR ST
GILBERT CT13TH AVEACTDR
DEWEYSTIRVINGAV E
KYLE D R N E
REDTAIL DR11TH AVERI
D
G
E
R
D
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVELIMEKILNLNNEOAKCREST STREDOAKDR18TH AVEEVASHEVSKIDR
HOTZ AVESUSSEXLN NEWESTVIEWDRPENKRIDGEDR4TH AVEEASTVIEWDREASTMOORDRP E N F R O D R
T H O R N D R
MOS S RIDGERDMALL DR ACT RDHAWK R ID G E D
REMERALD STDOLEN
PL
E IOWA AVE
HAWKEYE PARK RD N LINN STN GILBERT STMACBRIDERDLegend
Pavement Condition
Very Good (CityPCI>80)
Good (CityPCI>60)
Fair (CityPCI>40
Poor (CityPCI>20)
Very Poor (CityPCI<20)
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Map 132019 Local/ResidentialPavement ConditionDistrict C
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-RightLegend.mxd12THAVEHOLIDAYRD WOOLFAVEMUSCATINE AVE AMERICANLEGIONRDSE1STAVEFRIENDSHIPST
E BURLINGTON ST
HIGHWAY1WSRI
VERSI
DEDRMELROSE AVE
420TH STSG
I
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
5TH ST
2ND S
T
S 1ST AVECORAL RIDGE AVEW IOWA AVE
W PARK RD HIGHWAY 1 NENGOVERNORSTCAMPCARDINALBLVDMORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEKEOKUKSTSYCAMORE STW BENTON ST
SHARONCENTERRDSWP
R
AI
RI
E
D
U
CHIENRDGRAND AVE
H I GH W AY 1 S W
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
E COURT ST
R O C H ES TER A V E
R O H R E T R D SUNSET STH I GH L AN D AVE
KIRKWOOD AVE SSUMMITSTN
SCOTTBLVDHEARTLANDDRRIVER ST
HERBERT HOOVER HWY SE
E JEFFERSON ST
SHERIDAN AVENRIVERSIDEDR
SYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILLRDSEN
D
U
B
U
Q
U
E
S
T
10TH ST
E PARK RD
HIG
H
W
A
Y
6
EPRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNEE MARKET ST
S SCOTT BLVDDUBUQUESTN
E
LOWER WEST BRANCH RD SE
HIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8
OLDHIGHWAY218SMAIERAVESWROHRETRDSWBOWERY ST NDODGESTE IOWA AVE
HAWKINSDR
CHURCH ST
S LINN STHIGHWAY 6 W
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
6
S
E22ND AVE420TH ST SEN1STAVEKIMBALLRDMCCOLLISTERBLVD
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDRHIGHWAY 6
E
F50SEIWV RD SW
Legend
Deterioration Rate (PCI Drop)
Stable (0-2)
Slow (2-5)
Normal (5-10)
Fast (10-15)
Extreme (>15)
Districts
District A
District B
District C
Municipal Boundary
Map 14Rate of PavementDeterioration (2015-2019)Overview
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,750 3,500
Feet
1 inch = 3,500 feet
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-LeftLegend2.mxdROHRETRDSW R O C H E S T E R A V E
SRI
VERSIDEDRMELROSE AVE
2ND
S
T
S1STAVEW IOWA AVE
MORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEP
R
AIRIE
D
U
CHIENRDGRAND AVE
H I GH W AY 1 S W
MELROSE AVE
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
RO HRE T R D SUNSETSTE COURT ST
HIGHLAND AVES GILBERT STE BENTON STKIRKWOOD AVE
KEOKUK STRIVERST
W PARK RD
NRIVERSIDEDRSYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILLRDSEE PARK RD1STAV
EMU
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
A
V
E
10TH ST
SYCAMORE STOLDHIGHWAY218SN DODGE STN S C OTT BLVD
HAWKINSDR
HIGHWAY 6 W
N
GOVERNORSTM
O
R
M
O
NTREKBLVD N 1ST AVEKIMBALLRDMCCOLLISTERB L V D
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDR HI GHWAY 6E
HIGHW
A
Y
6
E
HIGHW AY1SWF50SEHIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8
IWV RD SW
SHARONCENTERRDSW5TH S
T
W BENTON ST SDODGESTHIGHWAY 1 WS
GIL
B
E
R
T
S
T
CAMPCARDINALB
LV
D 12TH AVENDUBUQUESTW ELLI N G T O N DRSLUCAS STFRIENDLY AVE
VILLAGERDS JOHNSON STWESTSIDED R
GINTER AVE
DEE
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D FOSTERR D
HOLLYWOODBLVD
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STNDUBUQUERD25THAVEN LUCAS STDUBLINDRSVANBURENSTGALW AYDRG L E N D A L E R D
DANE RD SEINDUSTRIALPARKRDTAYLORDRBROADWAYSTDUCKCREEKDR
BOYRUMST10TH AVEJAMESST
L AN GEN B ER G AVEGREENWOODDRN CLINTON STE 9TH ST
SUNDOWN RDGNAPL
ESAVE4TH AVEHICKORY TRL
S DUBUQUE STWALDENRD
PRINCETONRD
LAKESIDE DR
DEFOREST AVE
E BLOOMI NGTON S T
3RD AVETEG
D
R6TH AVESGOVERNORSTS AND U S K Y DRCLARK STLAKEBEND
RDK O S E R AVE
DEE
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
S
E
N E W T O N RDMACKINAW DRN U R S E R Y L N S ERENO STL
A
U
R
A
D
R
FERSON AVEWOODRI
DGEAVEGEORGE STW H I S PERI NG
MEADOWDR23RD AVEC AL I F O R N I A AVE
BROWN ST
RUSSELL DR7THST
PHOENIXDR
E D AVEN POR T S T
OAKLAND AVEFAIRCHILD ST
CHARTRESWILDCATLNWAYNE AVE
9 T H S T
WILDPRAIRIED R
E WASHINGTON STCAMPCARDINALRD OBERLINSTLAKESHORE
D
R
DICKENSON LN19TH AVENSUMMITSTM A N O R DRPADDOCK BLVDWESTGATE ST13TH ST
FREUNDRD S E
FRIENDSHIP STDOVER STW I N TER EAGLE R D S EN VAN BUREN STWHITING AVE
OAKESDR
DANE RD SWBROOKS I DE DRWATERFRONTDRH I G H L A N D DR
BROOKWOOD DRDEARBORN STTIPPERARYR D
PEPPERDR
HEINZ RDSHANNON
DRD
E
N
B
I
G
H DRFOXANADR RUNDELL STBURNS AVE
BRI STOL DR
TAFT SPEEDWAY
8TH ST
B
U
R
E
S
HAVEBRADFORD DR
WYLDEGREENRDLANDON AVE SWARBORD RGRANT STPLUMST
TRACY LN 2ND AVEAMHURSTST
HAFORDR
RAVEN S T
WEEBERSTH ST
ASH STFRANKLIN STROCHESTER C T
2
0
T
H
AVEDAVIS ST8TH AVEPLAENVIEW
DRNORMANDYDR9TH AVEPOST RDS CAPITOL STMORNINGSIDE
DR14TH AVEE COLLEGE ST
I ST
WALNUT ST
D ST
G STCENTER STN LINN STN
GI
LBERTSTLEH
A
R
V
EGOLDENRODDRSLOTHOWER RDNEVADA AVEGILBERT CT13TH AVEACTDRB
O
R
D
E
A
U
X
SPRING RIDGE DR
S A N T A FE
DRBAY RIDGE DRBASSWOOD LN11TH AVERIDGERD
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVEOAKCRES T STNAPLES AVE SW18TH AVEC A MI N O D E L RIOSEKITTY LEE RD SWMAIER AVE SWOSAGE ST SWRYANCT
T H O R N DRMALL DREMERALD STRIVERBENDRDSELACINADR SW
A C T RD
HURT RD SWHARVEST RD SEE IOWA AVE
KENNEDY PKWY
H A W K E Y E PARK RD WOOLF AVES CLINTON STN7THAVE22ND AVELegend
Deterioration Rate (PCI Drop)
Stable (0-2)
Slow (2-5)
Normal (5-10)
Fast (10-15)
Extreme (>15)
Municipal Boundary
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
1 inch = 3,000 feet
Map 15Rate of PavementDeterioration (2015-2019)District A
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-RightLegend.mxd
ROHRET RD WOOLFAVEMUSCATINE AVE AMERICANLEGIONRDSE1STAVESRIVERSIDEDR
420TH ST
HERBERT HOOVER HW Y S E
S 1ST AVEW IOWA AVE
MORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEW BENTON ST
P
R
AIRIE
DUCHIENRDMELROSE AVE
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
5TH ST
SUNSETSTE COURT ST
HI GH L AN D AV E
H O L I D AY RD
E
B
ENTON S T KIRKWOOD AVE
N
SCOTTBLVDKEOKUKSTRIVERST
R O C H E S T E R A V E
W PARK RD
NRIVERSIDEDRSYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILL RDSEE PARK RD PRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNE420TH ST SES SCOTT BLVDDUBUQUESTNEHI
G
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8 OLDHIGHWAY218SN DODGE STHERBERT HOOVER HWY NE
HAWKINSDR
HIGHWAY 6 W
HIGHWAY 6 SE
N
G
O
V
E
R
N
O
R
STN1STAVEK IM B A LLRDMCCOLLISTERBLVD
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDR HIGHWAY6E
HIGHW AY1SWF50SEUTAH AVE SEWAPSI AVE SE400TH ST SEHIGHWAY 1 NESYCAMORE STLOWER WEST BRANCH RD SE
2ND ST
HIGHWAY 1 WS
G
I
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
420TH ST SE
AMERICA
N
L
E
G
I
O
N
R
D
S
ENDUBUQUESTARLINGTONDRSLUCASSTFRIENDLY AVE
M O S S RIDGERD
VILLAGERDBROWNDEERRDS JOHNSON STW ES T
SI
DEDRGINTER AVE
FOSTER RD
NORTHGATED R
HOLLYWOODBLVD
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STNDUBUQUERDN LUCAS STSVANBURENSTGLENDALE R D
DANE RD SETAYLORDRBOYRUMST10TH AVELI
NDEMANNDRL AN G E N B ER G AV EGREENWOODDRSDODGESTNAPLESAVE 4TH AVES CLINTON STHICKORY TRL
N7THAVES DUBUQUE STPRINCETONR D
EROBI LNLAKESIDE DR
DEFOREST AVE
E BL OOMI NGTON S T
MODERN WAY3RD AVETEGDR6TH AVES GOVERNOR STS A N D U S K Y DRCLARK STLAKEBEND
RDK OS E R AVEN E WT O N RD
340TH ST NE
7TH ST
FERSON AVEWHISPERING
MEADOWDRC AL I F OR N I AAVE
BROWN ST
RUSSELL DRE DAVENPORT S T
W E L L I N G TO N DR
FAIRCHILD ST
CHARTRES AARONDRSEWAYNE AVE
DICKENSON LN HUNTINGTONDRMANORDRPADDOCK B LV D
NAPLES AVE SWWESTGATE STE WASHINGTON ST
FREUNDRD S E
F RI E N DS HI P S T
DOVER STDANE RD SWW I NTER EAGL E R D S E
WHITING AVE
OAKESDR
H I G H L A N D D R KENNETH DRDEARBORN STHEINZ RDDENBI
GHDR
L I N D E R R D N E
RUNDELL STBURNS AVE
T A F T S P E E D W AY
B
U
R
ES
H
AVECHARLESDR
BRADFORD DR
WYLDEGREENRDPLUMS T 2ND AVEAMHURSTST
RIDGEWAY DR
ARBORD REVERSULLLNSCOTTP A R K DRWEEBERSTH ST
TAFT AVE SE8TH AVEPLAEN VIE
W
DRNORMANDYD R
9TH AVEPOST RDS CAPITOL STE COLLEGE ST
WALNUT ST G ST
RONALDS ST
N LINN STN GILBERT STLEHARVEGILBERT CTACTDRSPRING RIDGE DR FAIRWAYLNSE
KYLEDR NERIDGERD
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVEO AK C R ES T ST
SIOUX AVE SEFAIRVIEWCEMETERYRDNEKITTYLEERDSWWAPSI AVE NEOS AGE
S
T SW
OSAGE ST SE
MALL DREMERALD STRIVERBENDRDSENAPOLEON ST SE COMPASS DRUTAH AVE NELA CINA DR SW
ACT RD
HARVEST RD SEE I OWA AVE
Legend
Deterioration Rate (PCI Drop)
Stable (0-2)
Slow (2-5)
Normal (5-10)
Fast (10-15)
Extreme (>15)
Wards
District A
District B
District C
Municipal Boundary
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,750 3,500
Feet
1 inch = 3,500 feet
Map 16Rate of PavementDeterioration (2015-2019)District B
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-LeftLegend2.mxd MORMON TREK BLVDWOOLF AVE1STAVESYCAMORE STSRI
VERSI
DEDRS1STAVEW I O W A AVE
HOLIDAY RD
S 7TH AVE2ND ST
W BENTON ST
P
R
AIRIE
D
UCHIENRDSGRANDAVEM ELR O S E AV E
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
E COURT ST
SUNSETSTHIGHLAND AVES GILBERT STE BENTON ST
KIRKWOOD AVE
HIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8 S SUMMIT STDUBUQUESTNEKEOKUK STCLAPP STNRIVERSIDEDRE PARK RD
HIGHWAY 6
E PRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNEROCHESTERA VEMU
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
A
V
E12THAVE
ROHRET RD S 1ST AVE1STAVEE BURLINGTON ST N DODGE STN
SCOTTBLVDHAWKINSDR E JEFFERSON ST
N DODGE STHIGHWAY6W NGOVERNORSTN1STAVEKIMBALLRDROCKYSHOREDRHIGHWAY 6 EELLIOTTDRND
U
B
U
Q
U
E
ST
NMORMONTREKBLVD12TH AVE5TH S
T
FRIENDSHIPS T
HIGHWAY1W
W PARK RD
10TH ST
N EW TO N R D1STAVE
MELROSE AVE NDUBUQUESTWESTWINDSDRS LUCAS STFRIENDLY AVES JOHNSON STE 7TH ST
WALKERCIR
GINTER AVE
1ST S
T FOSTERRD
ORCHARDSTMILLER AVEHUDSON AVERUSSELL S L A D E B L V D
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STN DUBUQUE RD
N LUCAS STDUBLI
NDRSVANBURENSTGALWAYDRKENNEDYPKWYGLENDALERD
CHURCH ST
BOYRUM STRIDGE STDUCKCREEKDR 10TH AVEGREENWOODDRN CLINTON STWILSONST
E 9TH S T
SDODGESTBELDON AVEH A W K E Y E CT4TH AVES CLINTON STN7THAVES DUBUQUE STPRINCETONRD
DEFOREST AVE
MYRTLE AVE
E BLOOMINGTON ST
GRAND AVE
9THST
QUARRY RD3RD AVETEGDR6TH AVES GOVERNOR STGO
L
F
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
CLARK STKOSER AVELA U R E N C E CT
NEHUGHES STCRESCENT STMACKINAW DRGROVE ST
FINKBINECOMMUTERDRS MADISON STRENO STS OUTH RIDGEDRL
A
U
R
A
D
R
ABBEY L N FERSON AVEWOODRIDGEAVEGEORGE STL IB E R T Y L N
BROWN ST
OZARK RDG
7TH ST
E D AVEN POR T S T
OAKLAND AVEFAIRCHILD ST
RUSHMOREDR CONKLIN LNN OR TH RIDGED R6TH AVEBRADFORD DR19TH AVEYEWELL STN SUMMIT STS LINN STMANORD R
WESTGATE STWILLIAM STMAIDEN LNWADE STWAYNE AVE5TH AVEWINDSORDRRIVER
ST
O
A
K
L
A
WN
AVEMACBRIDEDR
WHITING AVE
O AK C R E S T AVEBROWNDEERRD OAKESD R
H I GHL AN D D R
BROOKW OOD DRQUINCENTST HICKORY TRL
E HARRISON ST
DEARBORNSTTIPPERARYRD
BST
DEVONDRNE
S
H
A
N
N
O
N
DRDENBIGH DRFOXANADR
LINDER RD NE
RUNDELLSTDERW ENDR
EAL I N G DR WEBSTER STB RI S TOL DR
T A F T S P E E D W AYHIGHCOUNTRYRD8TH ST BURESHAVEMAYFIELD RD
KESWICK DRS
P
E
N
C
E
R
DRWYLDEGREENRDMARCY STGRANT STWINSTONDRBANBURYSTNE
MELROSE CTPAGE ST
PLUM ST UPLAND AVE6TH ST
DEERFIELD
D
R VALLEYVI
EWD
R
2ND AVER I DGEWAY DROAKLAKEPARKRD
HAFORDR
CAE
DRESTRON STWEEBERSTJENSEN STKEOKUKC T
H ST
ASH STFRANKLIN STROCHES TER CT
2 0 T H
AVEPINE ST8TH AVECENTER AVENORMANDYDR9TH AVEPOST RDDONEGAL CTS CAPITOL STE2NDAVESTEVENS DR14TH AVEE COLLEGE ST
E WASHINGTON ST
I ST
WALNUT ST
MARIETTA AVE D ST
A ST
F ST
G STN VAN BUREN STRONALDS ST
RIDER ST CENTER STN CAPITOL STBROADWAY STWOOLRIDGED R
13TH ST
LEE STABER AV E5THAVE CEDAR ST
GILBERT CT13TH AVEACTDR
DEWEYSTIRVINGAV E
KYLE D R N E
REDTAIL DR11TH AVERI
D
G
E
R
D
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVELIMEKILNLNNEOAKCREST STREDOAKDR18TH AVEEVASHEVSKIDR
HOTZ AVESUSSEXLN NEWESTVIEWDRPENKRIDGEDR4TH AVEEASTVIEWDREASTMOORDRP E N F R O D R
T H O R N D R
MOS S RIDGERDMALL DR ACT RDHAWK R ID G E D
REMERALD STDOLEN
PL
E IOWA AVE
HAWKEYE PARK RD N LINN STN GILBERT STMACBRIDERDLegend
Deterioration Rate (PCI Drop)
Stable (0-2)
Slow (2-5)
Normal (5-10)
Fast (10-15)
Extreme (>15)
Municipal Boundary
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Map 17Rate of PavementDeterioration (2015-2019)District C
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-RightLegend.mxdROHRETRDSW ROCHESTER
A
V
E
SRI
VERSIDEDRMELROSE AVE
2ND
S
T
S 1ST AVEH I GH W AY 1 S W
ROHRET RD NRIVERSIDEDRSYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILLRDSEE PARK RD1STAVE
SG
IL
B
E
R
T
S
T
10TH ST
N DODGE STN S C OTT BLVD
HAWKINSDR
M
O
R
M
O
NTREKBLVD
MCCOLLISTER
B
L
V
DHIGHWAY1SW
F50SEHI
G
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8
IWV RD SW
SHARONCENTERRDSW5TH S
T
NDUBUQUESTHIGHWAY 1 W12TH AVEDEE
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D25THAVE
DANE RD SE10TH AVEJAMESST E 9TH ST
SUNDOWN RDGNAPL
ESAVEHICKORY TRL
T
E
G
DR6TH AVELAKEBEND
RDK O S E R AVE
DEE
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
S
E
N U R S E R Y L N S E23RD AVE7THST
CHARTRES
9 T H S T
CAMPCARDINALRDLAKESHORE
D
R 19TH AVEPADDOCK BLVD
13TH ST
FREUNDRD S E
FRIENDSHIP STW I N TER EAGLE R D S E
WHITING AVE
DANE RD SWH I G H L A N D DR
HEINZRDB RI S TOL DR
TAFTS P E E D W A Y
8TH ST
LANDON AVE SW2
0
T
H
AVE8TH AVE9TH AVE14TH AVEI ST
LEH
A
R
V
ESLOTHOWER RD13TH AVEACTDRB
O
R
D
E
A
U
X
SPRING RIDGE DR
BAY RIDGE DRBASSWOOD LN11TH AVE7TH AVENAPLES AVE SW18TH AVEC A MI N O D E L RIOSEKITTY LEE RD SWMAIER AVE SWOSAGE ST SWRYANCT
T H O R N DRMALL DR
RIVERBENDRDSELACINADR SW
A C T RD
HURT RD SWHARVEST RD SEKENNEDY PKWY
H A W K E Y E PARK RD22ND AVELegend
Alligator Cracking
Alligator Cracking
High Alligator
Severe Alligator
Pavement Failure (sf)
10
100
"Bad" Patching (sf)
10
1,000
Joint Deterioration
Joint Deterioration
Pavement Roughness (in/mi)
Moderately Rough
Rough
Severely Rough
Wards
District A
District B
District C
Municipal Boundary
Municipal Boundary
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
1 inch = 3,000 feet
Map 182017 Pavement DistressesDistrict A
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-LeftLegend2.mxd
ROHRET RD
AMERICANLEGIONRDSE1STAVESRIVERSIDEDR
420TH ST
HERBER T HOOVER HW Y S E
M
O
R
M
O
N
TR
E
K
BLVD
5TH ST
H O L I D AY RD
NSCOTTBLVDSYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILL RDSEE PARK RD PRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNESSCOTTBLVDDUBUQUESTNESGIL
B
E
R
T
S
T HIGHW
A
Y
6
E
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8 N DODGE STHERBERT HOOVER HWY NE
HIGHWAY 6 SE
MCCOLLISTER BL
V
DHIGHWAY1SW
F50SEUTAH AVE SEWAPSI AVE SE400TH ST SEHIGHWAY 1 NELOWER WEST BRANCH RD SE
2ND ST
HIGHWAY 1 W420TH ST SE
AMERICA
N
L
E
G
I
O
N
R
D
S
E
M O S S RIDGERDBROWNDEERRD
NORTHGATEDR
RUPPERT RD
DANE RD SEBOYRUMST10TH AVENAPLESAVE
HICKORY TR L
EROBI LNMODERN WAY6TH AVECLARK STLAKEBEND
RDK OS E R AVE340TH ST NE
7TH ST
CHARTRES AARONDRSEPADDOCK B LV D
NAPLES AVE SWFREUNDRD S E
DANE RD SWW I NTER EAGL E R D S E
WHITING AVE
H I G H L A N D D R
HEINZRDL I N D E R R D N E
TAFTSP E E DW A Y
BRADFORD DR
TAFT AVE SE8TH AVE9TH AVELEHARVEACTDRSPRING RIDGE DR FAIRWAYLNSE
KYLEDR NE7TH AVESIOUX AVE SEFAIRVIEWCEMETERYRDNEKITTYLEERDSWWAPSI AVE NEOS AGE
S
T SW
OSAGE ST SE
RIVERBENDRDSENAPOLEON ST SE COMPASS DRUTAH AVE NELA CINA DR SW
ACT RD
HARVEST RD SELegend
Alligator Cracking
Alligator Cracking
High Alligator
Severe Alligator
Pavement Failure (sf)
10
100
"Bad" Patching (sf)
10
1,000
Joint Deterioration
Joint Deterioration
Pavement Roughness (in/mi)
Moderately Rough
Rough
Severely Rough
Wards
District
District B
District C
Municipal Boundary
Municipal Boundary
0 1,750 3,500
Feet
1 inch = 3,500 feet
Map 192017 Pavement DistressesDistrict B
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-RightLegend.mxd1STAVE SRI
VERSI
DEDRS 1ST AVEW I O W A AVE
HOLIDAY RD
2ND ST
W BENTON ST
M ELR O S E AV E
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
DSUNSET STHIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8 DUBUQUESTNENRIVERSIDEDRE PARK RD
HIGHWAY 6
E PRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNE12THAVEROHRET RD 1STAVEN DODGE STHAWKINSDR
HIGHWAY 6 W
K IM B A L L RDROCKYSHOREDRND
U
B
U
Q
U
E
ST
NMORM ONTREKBLVD12TH AVE5TH S
T
HIGHWAY1W
10TH ST
S LINN STNGOVERNORST1STAVENDUBUQUESTWESTWINDSDRS LUCAS STE 7TH ST
1ST S
T
FOSTER RD
MILLER AVEHUDSON AVERUSSELL S L A D E B L V D
RUPPERT RD
N DUBUQUERD
DUBLI
NDRDUCKCREEKDR 10TH AVEGREENWOODDRE 9TH S T
H A W K E Y E CTS CLINTON STN7THAVEMYRTLE AVE
GRAND AVE
9THST
QUARRY RDTEGDR6TH AVES GOVERNOR STGO
L
F
V
I
E
W
A
V
E LA U R E N C E CT
NENEWT ONR DHUGHES STRENO STS OUTH RIDGEDRFERSON AVEL IB E R T Y L N
BROWN ST
OZARK RDG
7TH ST
CONKLIN LNN OR TH RIDGED R19TH AVEWADE STRIVERST
O
A
K
L
A
W
N
AVEMACBRIDEDR
WHITING AVE
OA KCRE ST AVEBROWNDEERRDHI GHL AND D R
B ST
DEVONDRNE
S
H
A
N
N
O
N
DRFOXANAD R
LINDER RD NE
EAL I N G DR TAFTS P E E D W AYHIGHCOUNTRYRD8TH ST
KESWICKDRBANBURYSTN E
PAGE ST
PLUMST
6TH STVALLEYVIEWD
R
2ND AVEOAKLAKEPARKRDCAE
DRJENSEN ST2 0 T H
AVE8TH AVE9TH AVEPOST RDE2NDAVE14TH AVEI ST
MARIETTA AVE
A ST
F ST
G ST
RIDER STWOOLRIDGEDR
13TH ST
ABER AVE5THAVE CEDAR ST13TH AVEACTDR
KYLE D R N E
REDTAIL DR11TH AVERI
D
G
E
R
D
7TH AVELIMEKILNLNNEREDOAKDR18TH AVEHOTZ AVESUSSEXLNN EWESTVIEWDR4TH AVEEASTVIEWDRT H O R N D R
MOS S RIDGERDMALL DR ACT RDHAWK R ID G E D
R
HAWKEYE PARK RD
Legend
Alligator Cracking
Alligator Cracking
High Alligator
Severe Alligator
Pavement Failure (sf)
10
100
"Bad" Patching (sf)
10
1,000
Joint Deterioration
Joint Deterioration
Pavement Roughness (in/mi)
Moderately Rough
Rough
Severely Rough
Wards
District A
District B
District C
Municipal Boundary
Municipal Boundary
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Map 202017 Pavement DistressesDistrict C
Page 43 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
4.6. Historical Funding & Expenditures
Iowa City receives a stable amount of Road-Use Tax (RUT) funds from the state every year. These RUT
represent the most consistent expenditures on roadway improvements, particularly rehabilitation projects,
because these funds are restricted in their uses. Annual RUT revenues range from $2 to $2.5 Million. RUT,
however, are not the only funds available to be used for roadway improvements in Iowa City.
Over the past 5 years a variety of funding sources have been used to fund capital improvement projects such
as roadway improvements and maintaining other public infrastructure. Not all of these revenues can go
towards roadway improvements, however.
Table 15: List of Common Capital Improvement Funding Sources
Roadway Eligible Funding Sources Other CIP Funding Sources
Federal Grants Utility Franchise Tax
General Fund Wastewater Fund
General Obligation Bonds (GOB) Water Fund
Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) Contributions & Donations
Other Local Governments Landfill Fund
Other State Grants Park Dedication Fees
Road Use Tax Fund (RUT) Storm Water Fund
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
The City uses a fair amount of General Obligation Bonds to finance CIP projects, and make up the largest
share of available revenue. While functional, this money is still a form of debt financing requiring the City to
pay back the bonds, over time. Since the money is not “free,” other sources would be preferable, but few can
provide stable receipts of the magnitude the City requires for its CIP programs. As such, this form of finance
is not unusual for an agency like Iowa City.
Information from the City finance Department indicate that revenues may be growing, but it is also highly
variable. This often happens when a City needs to save up for particularly large projects or because they
needed to debt-finance unanticipated ones. Most agencies would prefer a steady, sole-source, revenue
stream but that is not feasible in many cities.
Readers may notice a large spike of revenue in 2017 when looking at Figure 47 and a corresponding spike
of expenditures in Figure 48. This is a result of the Dubuque Street Reconstruction Project. It was an unusual
and unique circumstance, so 2017 was ignored when analyzing the City’s financial needs. Disregarding the
spike, the City’s average revenues include an average of $11.3 Million Dollars in addition to RUT funds
and is projected to increase by an average of $980,000 per year. Unfortunately, that increase is based
primarily on expectations of grant funding, which is dependent on outside agencies and comes with additional
costs and regulations attached to it. It is also driven by the fact the Dubuque Street Project absorbed a large
amount of funding from 2015-2018 that would otherwise have been available for roadway improvements. If
that project were considered, the analysis would actually show the funding trends going down.
One of the difficulties in assessing city finances is that funding sources like these are fungible. Many property-
tax based sources, like GO Bonds and General Funds, can be spent on all sorts of things. The tradeoff is
limited funding forces different infrastructure types and public services to compete. Dedicated revenue
streams like Utility Franchise taxes can therefore free up money for roads in an indirect manner; by reducing
demand for the flexible funds. This creates complicated interdependencies within the City’s finances. If one
revenue type goes up, it might reduce the need for other types, increasing the available funding in different
department, or it could reduce the future need for debt-financing.
One revenue source absent from the city’s finances is a Local Option Sales Tax or LOST. Currently, Iowa
City does not levy any sales tax in addition to the state sales taxes. Other cities, like Des Moines, Waterloo,
and Cedar Rapids, rely heavily on sales tax revenues instead of using GO Bonds or uses LOST in addition
to bonds, where LOST revenue is insufficient. It can provide a long-term stable funding base that organically
grows with the community’s needs. The impact of various funding solutions and alternatives, such as
implementing a LOST can be found in Section 5.5 Funding starting on page 49.
Figure 47: Historical and Projected Roadway-Eligible Revenues by Source
This figure taken from the City Finance Department’s projections shows the distribution and variability of various funding sources for the 2015-2024
period.
Figure 48: Historical and Projected Roadway-Expenditures by Type
This figure taken from the City Finance Department’s projections shows the distribution and variability of various transportation project expenditures
for the 2015-2024 period.
$-
$5,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$25,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$35,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
ROAD USE TAX FUND GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FEDERAL GRANTS OTHER STATE GRANTS
GENERAL FUND OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX
$-
$5,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$25,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$35,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$45,000,000.00
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Other Major Roadway Improvements (Gateway Project, Extensions, Grade Separations)
Misc. Transportation Improvements (Sidewalks, Bridges, Signals, Lane Conversions, Bike Facilities…etc)
Rehabilitation & Reconstruction Total
Page 44 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
4.7. Existing Operations
Historical pavement condition data show that Iowa City pavements are performing well, compared to their
peers. The City has been doing well to take action on deteriorated streets using some pavement
management techniques. However, a review of the processes used to determine which projects are selected
when and the types of work performed do have room for minor improvements.
4.7.1. Project Selection
Prior to 2019, pavement condition data and GIS were already being used by City staff to review the roadway
rehabilitation needs within Iowa City. They also used a basic model built in the outdated dTIMS v8.1 software.
City staff then manually reviewed the results of the dTIMS model, and the results were compared with field-
knowledge and other outside decision-making criteria.
The methods by which the results of the dTIMS model were reviewed and developed into the official
programmed list of projects was not well documented, nor were the criteria used in developing the model
itself. It is recommended that the City implement a more regimented, repeatable, and well documented
approach be used in the future. The proposed improvements are already outlined in Section 3:
Methodology starting on page 8. The largest change being the move to dTIMS Business Analytics and
changes to the treatment alternatives criteria.
Enacting regimented and well-documented process will ensure that human error and subjectivity is minimized
so that the public can be assured their tax dollars are being spent in an optimal fashion, and it is not driven
by personal preference or political intent. It will also allow the city to continue using the dTIMS BA model
effectively to generate a CIP program in the future, even if staff or leadership changes occur, in the future.
Other pavement preservation projects are also occurring in Iowa City, separate to the Capital Improvement
Program. These activities, primarily crack sealing, patching, and concrete panel replacement performed by
the City Maintenance Department are not driven by the computer model or documented within GIS for easy
spatial record-keeping. This is somewhat expected, as roadway conditions are highly variable and even the
most complicated pavement deterioration models have difficulty predicting preservation needs. The key then
is providing City Maintenance staff with a list of roads where condition data indicates that they might be good
preservation candidates. Maintenance staff will then review the IPMP data and use field-visits to assess
which roads actually need to be addressed in a timely fashion. They would then coordinate with other
departments to determine if other work is needed in the area so they can be done at the same time. Lastly,
once the work is complete it should be recorded and preferably entered into GIS for easy referencing and
record-keeping.
Thus far, the budget for these preventative treatments has been doing well at addressing issues proactively,
but previous HRG studies have shown the ideal preventative maintenance to be around 5%-10% of the total
budget or based on a 3-5 year cycle of addressing every street, if possible. For Iowa City that means investing
between $650,000-$1,000,000 per year on sealing, patching, and panel replacement in addition to the
regular CIP projects.
4.8. Treatment Type Selection
The types of treatments Iowa City uses to rehabilitate pavements already cover a wide cross-section of
needs. They use full-depth replacement and SUDAS standards when reconstructing roadways and use HMA
overlays that are later milled off and re-overlaid for rehabilitation purposes. Some PCC Restoration also
happens alongside other maintenance activities. These types of treatments should make up the core of any
city’s pavement management program. In that regard, Iowa City is doing very well.
Although the aforementioned treatment types are sufficient for most purposes, that does not mean that they
would not benefit from additional options to me more flexible and to address certain types of distresses more
cost-efficiently. Some Minor Rehabilitation options, such as Microsurfacing, have been shown to be very
cost-effective and allow cities to improve or preserve pavements at risk of falling out of “Good” condition. A
list of recommended treatments, their uses, and considerations are found in Section 3.5 Treatment
Alternatives starting on page 13.
Another improvement would be to use a systematic approach to narrow the treatment alternatives considered
for each project. dTIMS BA as a modelling software is limited to the information collected by IPMP and the
intelligence of its programming. It will not be able to determine the perfect treatment with 100% accuracy.
What it is good at, however, is assessing the severity of need and assigning estimated costs. In that way it
can help identify critical projects and budget accordingly. In doing so, it also categorizes the type of treatment
and budget, with those parameters it can be much easier to assess a project. If dTIMS says that a project is
ripe for Major Rehabilitation and it has HMA surfacing already on it, that narrows the options significantly for
the City to consider when planning for the project.
Page 45 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Scenarios/Recommendations
In order to create recommendations on spending strategies and
setting performance goals, a number of budget-based scenarios were
created. These scenarios were designed to address “what-if?” type
questions. Each scenario used a set budget and projected the effects
on the overall condition of the network. The projections were
performed using Deighton Limited’s dTIMS BA, for a 15-year period,
from 2020 to 2035.
Once all of the data was processed, it was put into a dTIMS model to
develop long term performance projections and to run a number of
scenarios to determine optimal budgeting and assess the impact of
using the recommended standards herein.
5.1. Modelling
dTIMS BA (Deighton’s Total Infrastructure Asset Management
Software – Business Analytics) is a computer program developed by
Deighton Associates Limited for use in storing infrastructure asset
data, developing projections of infrastructure asset performance,
estimating remaining life in various infrastructure assets, determining
when they need to be replaced or repaired, and estimating how much
the treatment will cost. It allows for any and all asset data to be
entered, there is no limit to what information can be stored within the
program and considered during the modelling process. However, the
user must manually program how all of the data relates to each other,
assign costs, develop the treatment triggers and effects, create
funding pools that each treatment will pull from, and develop their own
life-cycle curves for the infrastructure assets. Once this is
accomplished, dTIMS’ primary feature goes to work; it runs a heuristic
algorithm (a series of tests using general rules and guessing
approaches for determining optimal solutions) to identify an optimal
“Strategy” for maintenance and replacement of the infrastructure
assets in question, given the budget, treatments, and life-cycle
constraints supplied by the user.
Some manipulation through GIS was required to combine the IPMP
data with outside data sources from the City and State before it could
be imported into dTIMS. After the data were compiled in GIS, it was
imported to dTIMS and the models were run.
5.2. Determining Need
5.2.1. Defining Need
The first step in running various scenarios in dTIMS BA is to determine
the “Need.” Need is defined as all outstanding work and forthcoming
work in the analysis period. Some agencies may consider this a
“Backlog” projection.
Essentially, dTIMS BA analyzes the current conditions and creates
condition projections for every management section in the database,
after which it chooses the default treatment alternative for each
segment, in every year, regardless of budget. This acts as a baseline
scenario which could be considered as a Pavement Management
Program operating at 100% efficiency with complete funding.
5.2.2. Needs in Iowa City
Using the pavement condition data collected by Pathways and
distributed by IPMP, dTIMS BA analyzed the existing conditions of the
roadway network in Iowa City, and an overall Need was determined.
The current Need for pavement repairs, the total cost to
address every single roadway distress in the City ,
bring ing the network to “Very Good” condition , is
approximate ly $189 Million. That Need is projected to
grow to $472 Million by 20 3 5 .
Current Need (2019) = $189 Million
Projected Need by 2035 = $472 Million
Figure 49: Projected “Need”
This figure displays the existing funding required to bring every pavement up to “Very Good”
condition, i.e. “Need” as well as its projected Growth over the next 15 Years.
5.3. Scenarios
In order to address the existing backlog (Need), the City will need to
commit a substantial amount of funding to improve, and possibly just
to maintain its roadways. A number of budget options were tested, as
to determine a theoretical budget for the City of Iowa City
Fiscally Constrained, or Budget-based Scenarios take a fixed annual
budget and attempt to optimize pavement management spending, on
major treatments (see Table 3 on page 16).
The funding comparisons keep all of the proposed work within the
assigned budget, while maximizing the “Benefit” provided to the
public. Benefit was determined as the difference between the
conditions of the road network if nothing was done and the selected
treatment effect (measured by difference in CityPCI scores). This
method is standard practice when determining optimal treatments.
The model used in this plan also factored in the amount of traffic
(based on annual average daily traffic or AADT) on the affected roads.
The final result represents both the number of people who will receive
the benefit of driving on a newly reconstructed road and the
magnitude/duration of the improvement. With these constraints of
maximizing benefits while adhering to a strict budget the program
determined how the overall condition of Iowa City would perform over
a 15-year period.
Figure 50: What The Benefits Calculation Looks Like
The red line is the “base-line” scenario, the green area is the “Benefit” the public experiences,
calculated as the difference between the base-line and the new improved condition, factored by
the number of people who drive on that road (Annual average daily traffic, AADT)
$0M
$50M
$100M
$150M
$200M
$250M
$300M
$350M
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030PCIBenefits Example
Do Nothing
Treatment
Change
in PCI over
time X AADT CityPCI
Page 46 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
dTIMS BA checks each individual roadway segment to see if it triggers
a specific treatment type, then calculates the “Benefit” of performing
that treatment. Afterwards dTIMS BA will then compare each
treatment option and determine the one that gives the best ratio of
benefit to cost. It then goes out further and sees if any treatments
would trigger in future years that would give better benefit-cost returns
(such as waiting to reconstruct a pavement rather than overlaying it).
After comparing all of the initial treatment selections across all of the
years, the program also considers subsequent treatments and their
effects. Complex dTIMS models might look at dozens of treatments in
sequence before picking the best choices, these are called “treatment
strategies”.
Figure 51: Example of a Treatment Strategy Executed by dTIMS.
The blue line is the effect, pink is what would happen if nothing was done. The jaggedness is
from regular maintenance activities, the first peak is a PCC restoration, the seco nd is a crack
and seat overlay, the jump in 2072 is a reconstruction, and the final peak is another PCC
restoration.
Of course, the best choice of treatment may not always be the one
that can be afforded within the City’s budget. The program then ranks
each treatment strategy based on their benefit-cost ratio and picks
those that it can afford, deferring those it can’t, and occasionally
picking less optimal treatments because it would allow the program to
use more of its budget in a timely manner.
The funding scenarios were designed to deliver results that enable
changes to the existing pavement management program in Iowa City.
Hypothetical questions were asked at a high level and the dTIMS BA
model was adjusted to address those “what-if” scenarios. The results
were then interpreted to clarify what the model outputs truly means.
The funding scenarios performed looked at following questions:
➢ How does the system perform if funding stays the same?
➢ What happens if the City does nothing?
➢ What happens if we increase funding?
➢ What happens if the City enacts a half-cent LOST?
➢ What happens if the City enacts a one-cent LOST?
➢ How much money to maintain a network average PCI of 70?
➢ What is the proper distribution of funds across
Reconstruction/ Rehabilitation/ Restoration?
5.4. Results
5.4.1. Budget Projections
The City of Iowa City is currently in “Good” condition and it is easier to
maintain a network than it is to improve a network. As such, the City
is well positioned to keep operations going on a limited budget while
still providing high quality infrastructure.
Since 2015, the City has spent approximately $2 Million to $2.5 Million
per year on Reconstruction and Rehabilitation (overlays) treatments,
primarily funded through Road-Use Tax funds (RUT). In addition to
RUT, between $1.6 Million and $7.7 Million was spent each year on
large CIP projects. The base budget scenario for this analysis was set
as $2.5 Million and any additional monies were analyzed as part of the
various alternatives. The effects of this can be seen in Figure 53 on
page 47 as well as Figure 54 on page 48. The base budget is
identified by the black line.
The projections show that conditions are projected to decline steadily,
continuing the current trend of approximately 1 PCI point per year.
This is most likely due to the large volume of “Fair” pavement surfaces
in the 10 to 30-years old range that will need addressing in a short
period of time, as well as the general effects of inflation. As such, a
reduced budget will likely not be feasible. Model results showed that
dropping below $2 Million per year of funding for capital improvements
would cause the overall condition in the City to begin an even steeper
decline.
The “Do Nothing” scenario option illustrates the value of pavement
maintenance. Without consistent work, network condition would
nearly drop out of “Good” in around 15 years. It also shows the general
deterioration trends the City can expect. The graphs show that
pavement deterioration, in Iowa City is fairly constant, and not
accelerating. This means that an increase to the overall budget would
likely be effective at addressing the Needs and no further funding
changes or large bonding measures are needed to “catch up.”
As for increasing the budget, options were explored ranging from $2-
Million/year all the way up to $13-Million annual funding, with half-
million dollar intervals. Figure 53 on page 47 shows only the
scenarios based on $2-Million increments.
The results show that substantial improvements are possible in just
the first 3 years of increased budget. It takes an additional $2 Million
per year just to slow a network PCI drop by 1 point by 2025, each
additional $2-Million slows the decline nearly an equivalent amount.
Looking slightly further out reveals that the steadily growing need and
increasing construction costs, based on inflation, still make it difficult
to stop the network-level condition from declining overall. Only the $13
Million/year scenario was able to hold steady with the current PCI and
Backlog; every budget below that point ended up dropping below
60/100 by 2033 and budgets less than $4 Million/year dropped below
50/100 in the same time-frame.
Figure 52: Projected Condition distribution (Base Budget- $2M)
Each column of this chart represents the proportional distribution of conditions throughout Iowa
City for each year of the analysis.8.79.610.211.112.112.813.514.415.316.117.118.719.620.89.910.210.010.110.611.212.012.914.815.916.417.619.119.520.420.721.319.920.720.821.521.822.021.920.920.520.820.719.919.219.619.830.029.428.127.827.026.224.824.423.422.221.920.018.518.616.316.136.133.132.531.730.829.629.228.027.327.025.525.525.424.024.222.60%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good
Page 47 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Figure 53: PCI and Backlog Projections by Budget
The results of the dTIMS BA modelling. These graphs represent the effects of adopting various budget and what happens over the next 15 years. Changes to the network level Pavement Condition Index is on top and the bottom represents the miles of road that will need to be deferred for future treatment
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035Network AverageCityPCI ScoreNetwork Condition Projection by Budget
$0M (Do Nothing)$2M $4M $6M $8M $10M $12M $13M
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035Backlog (Miles of Road Needing Work)Backlog Projection by Budget
$0M (Do Nothing)$2M $4M $6M $8M $10M $12M $13M
Page 48 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Figure 54: Distribution Projections for $4 M, $6 M & $8 M Budgets
Top to bottom, these show the condition distributions for $4M, $6M, & $8M Budgets respectively
Of course, an immediate funding increase of $8-11 million per year is
normally quite unreasonable but improving network conditions is not
necessarily the goal. Based on the current “Good” condition of Iowa
City’s streets, maintenance should be the goal. As such, increases to
funding are not critically needed until around 3-5 years out, giving the
city time to identify and implement a funding strategy.
If Iowa City wishes to maintain their current level of pavement quality
a large increase in funding within the next 3-5 years will be needed.
Looking at a 15-year time horizon, inflation alone makes most budget
levels unsustainable. That far out, only an increase of $11 Million or
more will keep the network near its relatively high 66/100 PCI level.
The City may want to consider allowing that PCI goal to slip down to
60/100.
One alternative goal for maintaining roads in urban agencies is to set
different PCI targets for different functional classifications. This allows
a city to maintain an overall high quality of transportation infrastructure
where it matters most. The lower speeds and lesser volumes of
residential streets makes it very reasonable to maintain these at
marginally lower standards. The fact that they make up a substantial
portion of the network, then results in significant cost savings. A
suggested “hybrid target” goal would be to raise the average Arterial
PCI score to 70/100, keep collectors at 65/100, and allow local streets
to fall to 60/100. All three functional classes would still be considered
“Good,” but this offers more flexibility by not forcing the city to deal
with the low-volume streets before the main thoroughfares.
5.4.2. Unaccounted for Variable
There is one major variable unaccounted for in these analyses: future
development driven by population growth.
Iowa City continues to be one of the top 20 fastest growing
communities in the state. New residential and commercial
development, particularly in the north and east portions of the City,
keep requiring new roadways and public services be extended to
them. These new roads should not need work immediately, but regular
crack sealing is recommended for new roadways and the first minor
rehabilitations typically are recommended to take place 10-15 years
after initial construction.
This means that overall Need and required budget may actually grow
more than these projections indicate and emphasizes the fact Iowa
City needs a more sustainable funding source.
Figure 55: Example of Arterial Target Condition (70/100)
This image from the 2017 data collection was taken on Melrose Ave between Emerald and
Westgate. Ideally, all other arterial class roads would be at this condition level or higher.
Figure 56: Example of Collector Target Condition (65/100)
This image from the 2017 data collection was taken on Sunset Street south of Benton. Ideally,
all other collector class streets would be at this condition level or higher.
Figure 57: Example of Local Target Condition (60/100)
This image from the 2017 data collection was taken on Jefferson St between Clapp and Parsons.
Ideally, all other local class streets would be at this condition level or higher.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good
Page 49 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
5.4.3. Ideal Budget Proportions
When looking at the types of treatments applied, there is an optimal
balance, unique to each city. Too much Reconstruction can eat up a
city’s budget quickly and not leave anything to maintain older
pavements, resulting in early failures. Too much Rehabilitation allows
a city to maintain some roads really well but end up ignoring the “lost-
causes” for extended periods, only occasionally carving out funds for
Reconstruction. Both cases can result in a lopsided distribution of
pavement conditions that is heavy on the two extremes of “Very Good”
and “Very Poor” when it would be more preferable to have a uniform
distribution with the majority share being “Fair” conditioned roads.
Historically, the City has maintained a high proportion of Rehabilitation
funding, where some years the mill and overlay program takes up the
entire budget. While that has worked well for Iowa City, up until now,
research performed by HR Green has indicated cities in Iowa tend to
perform best with 60/40 split between Reconstruction and
Rehabilitation, respectively. That or 55/35 with the remaining 10%
focused on restoration treatments like crack sealing and patching.
The dTIMS BA model provided insight for splitting the funding,
indicating an ideal funding distribution of 70/25/5 between
Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, and Restoration. While higher than
normally recommended, it does equate to approximately a 3 to 1 ratio
of dollars spent between Reconstruction and Rehabilitation,
respectively. Since Reconstruction costs approximately 3 times more
per square yard of pavement improved, compared to Rehabilitation, it
results in an equal distribution of work between the two types of
treatments. This equal split makes sense with the current distribution
of pavement conditions in Iowa City. A 70/30 funding split would allow
the City to address their worst pavements each year, while still
rehabilitating a good amount of those currently in “Fair” condition and
preserving those in “Good” condition.
Figure 58: dTIMS BA Recommended Budget Proportions
This figure shows the recommended funding breakdown for Iowa City, based on the dTIMS BA
projections.
5.5. Funding
The funding gap identified by the dTIMS BA scenarios is substantial,
considering that in order to keep the network-level PCI score in the
“Good” category requires a 5-fold increase. Quintupling the annual
budget seems improbable, but fortunately, Iowa City has already
established a pattern of financing roadway improvements well beyond
what is available from RUT funds via other sources. Iowa City also
has an excellent untapped funding tool available to them in the Local-
Option Sales-Tax (LOST).
5.5.1. What is a Local Option Sales Tax?
Of the 1371 jurisdictions tracked by the Iowa Department of Revenue,
including 1204 cities (some unincorporated), 1311 of those
jurisdictions levy a LOST. Iowa City is one of very few Cities in the
state that does not utilize this funding method and they are potentially
missing out on millions of dollars.
The State of Iowa allows cities to levy up to a 1-cent tax on every dollar
of eligible sales within their jurisdiction, and every City in Iowa that
uses a LOST levies the full 1% tax, though they may distribute them
to different uses. Two prime examples of cities in Iowa that have
leveraged a LOST to good effect are Cedar Rapids and Waterloo.
Cedar rapids enacted their LOST in 2013 and it generates over $18
Million of revenue each year and every dollar is spent on roadway
improvements. Waterloo has had a LOST dating back to 1991 and is
likely the primary reason that they have the highest pavement quality
of all major urban areas in the state.
Iowa Code Chapter 423B enables Local Option Sales Taxes. To enact
them, however, requires a public ballot measure that passes by simple
majority. Duration of an approved LOST does not necessarily require
a limit and is assumed to be continuous until repealed, unless
otherwise stated within the ballot referendum.
5.5.2. How Much Could Iowa City Generate with LOST?
Iowa State University’s Department of Economics provides a Retail
Trade Analysis Report for each Fiscal Year for each county and major
urban area in the State of Iowa. The FY 2018 report for Johnson
County, including the Iowa City area, can be found online at this
location:
https://www.icip.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/retail/retail_19103.pdf .
Within the report is a breakdown of all taxable sales for Johnson
County since 1976. As of 2018, taxable sales in Johnson County
reached nearly $1.9 Billion. While Iowa City does not make up the
entirety of that total, it does represent the largest portion of it. Over
45% of taxable retail sales in Johnson County come from Iowa City,
which in 2018 translated to a total of $854.5 Million.
$854.5 Million in taxable sales in Iowa City could translate to a very
large sum for a LOST. If Iowa City were to implement a LOST of 1%
it could generate over $8 Million per year in funding available for street
repair. This would go a long way towards creating a sustainable
pavement management program by nearly eliminating the funding gap
with a revenue source that organically grows over time.
Figure 59: Taxable Retail sales History and Projection
This figure shows the historical Taxable Retail Sales for Johnson County from 1976 to 2018 and
a projection using an exponential smoothing method.
The City Estimates that it could generate
between $8 and $12 MILLION, annually, in tax
revenue with a Local -Option Sales -Tax
Note: The data used to establish thee projections and the
assumptions used to develop the discussion regarding LOST do not
account for the unprecedented economic impacts of the COVID-19
response in Johnson County. LOST and RUT funds are normally quite
immune to the impacts of market changes but the extreme nature of
the situation may require the City to adjust their plans for Fiscal Years
2020 and 2021, and in future budgeting disregard 2019/2020 when
generating revenue projections.
Recon
70%
Major
Rehab
20%
Minor
Rehab
5%
Restoration
5%
$-
$500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$2,500,000,000
$3,000,000,000
197619791982198519881991199419972000200320062009201220152018202020232026202920322035Sales Forecast Taxable Sales (Inf. Adjusted)
Page 50 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
5.5.3. Why Consider a LOST?
The primary reason Iowa City should consider a Local-Option Sales-
Tax is that it needs to find a way to cover the City’s current funding
shortfalls, as projected by the dTIMS BA model. Given that the
sustainable budget is estimated to be approximately $13 Million, a
LOST may not cover the entirety of the City’s needs, but it would
close the $11 Million gap significantly.
The second reason is that LOST’s grow organically with population
and inflation. As construction costs go up over time based on inflation,
so too do the retail costs paid by local consumers. As such, it avoids
the weaknesses of bond-based budgeting or Road-Use Tax
allocations related to their limited growth ability. Gas-tax revenue
growth is particularly limited; increasing gas prices and greater
adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles are causing stagnation. For
example, in June and July of 2019 the Iowa Department of Revenue
actually reported decreased gas-tax collections compared to the same
time-frame in 2018, and those same months in 2018 had grown only
0.2% from 2017. Retail sales taxes are not a silver bullet; however,
the projected growth of taxable retail sales is only 1.3% for the next 5
years. This would not cover the 3.5% inflation rate prescribed for
financial planning exercises (per OMB A-94); however, it is still far
more sustainable than the funding methods currently implemented
by the City.
The last reason to use LOST is the fact it “exports” some of the tax
burden to those who travel into and through Iowa City, for work,
school, shopping, and events. When the City bonds for money or uses
the general fund to pay for roadway improvements, that money is
being financed directly by the property owners in Iowa City but the
local citizens are not the only people impacted by the quality of the
infrastructure in the City. Many people from outside Iowa City
(including university students) travel into and through it every day. This
is particularly due to Iowa City’s unique characteristics as a job-based
destination with major employers like the University of Iowa and the
Hospital. As of now, those individuals from outside the City do not pay
their “fair-share”. By taxing sales in the City, it spreads the burden to
people who do not own property in Iowa City and better captures
revenue “fairly” from those who use the transportation network.
Effects of Implementing a LOST
Figure 60: Projections for LOST Funding Scenarios
These graphs were generated by dTIMS BA assuming the adoption of a LOST and explores
various allocations.
Five LOST scenarios were run to help illustrate the benefits of Iowa
City implementing one. The five Scenarios analyzed a budget based
on Half-Cent LOST generating $4.25 Million per year, the Half-Cent
LOST added to the current budget for a total of $6.25 Million per year,
a One-Cent LOST generating $8.5 Million per year, a growth scenario
where a One-Cent LOST is implemented and grows consistently by
the projected 1.3%, and lastly a scenario were the current budget of
$2 Million is added to the growth scenario generating a combined
budget of $10.5 Million per year that increases over time.
The results show very promising trends, particularly compared against
the Base scenario. A Half-Cent LOST may not be effective on its own
but when added to the existing budget, it creates noticeable
improvements. If a One-Cent LOST dedicated to roadway
improvements was implemented, however, the City would have
noticeably improved performance in only 3 Years. By 2023, the One-
Cent scenarios outperform the Base budget by 3 PCI points, by 2035
it outperforms by over 10 PCI points!
The optimal budget option between the LOST scenarios is clearly the
One-Cent LOST added to the current budget. It may not maintain the
currently high quality, but it is the only scenario where Iowa City can
stay firmly in the “Good” Category. Logistically, a full $10.5+ Million
annual budget may be difficult to implement in its entirety, especially
with the costs of administering the additional revenue, but the City
should consider this as the best possible outcome.
With a One -Cent Local -Option Sales -Tax, Iowa
City could be one of the few cities in the state
with a long -term sustainable funding source for
its pavement management needs.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Network AverageCityPCI ScoreCityPCI Projection (LOST)
$2.5 Million (Base)$4.25 Million (0.5% LOST)
$6.25 Million (0.5% LOST+Base)$8.5 Million (1% LOST)
1% LOST w/ Growth Max Budget (Base + 1%LOST)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Backlog (Miles of Roads that Need Work)$2.5 Million (Base)$4.25 Million (0.5% LOST)
$6.25 Million (0.5% LOST+Base)$8.5 Million (1% LOST)
1% LOST w/ Growth Max Budget (Base + 1%LOST)
Page 51 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
5.5.4. Other Potential Funding Solutions
The Iowa City finance department have identified at least 3 other potential funding sources, besides LO ST,
that could help increase the budget for roadway improvements or at least free up funds from other
departments to be used for roadway improvements instead. Those sources are a Utility Franchise Tax, an
Emergency Property Tax Levy, and a Capital Improvement Tax Levy. Each of these sources already has the
framework authorized but some may still require referendum like the LOST.
The City has already analyzed each of these sources and estimated the potential revenues for the past 5
years and have forecast the potential revenue for 2020 and 2021.
The Utility Franchise Tax (UFT) could charge up to a 4% tax on bills from public utilities. The City estimates
it could generate around $4 Million annually and could use it to offset the use of other funding sources.
The Emergency Property Tax (EPT) could levy up to 27 cents to the property tax rates and its funds may go
towards mitigating the impacts of a global or communal emergency. One potential use could be using the
funds to improve storm-water infrastructure to handle the expected effects of climate change. The city already
uses 24 cents of the approved 27 cent levy. This funding source, if the full amount was assessed, is estimated
to generate $1.1 Million, annually, and is expected to continue to grow over time. However, if the money
were to be used for roadway infrastructure, another source would be required to address the community’s
climate action needs.
The Capital Improvement Property Tax (CIP Tax) is an additional tax levy on properties within Iowa City. It
would increase the current rate by 67.5 cents and generate approximately $2.8 Million annually. It would be
earmarked specifically for infrastructure improvements and is projected to continue growing over time.
Lastly, the Local-Option Sales-Tax (LOST) would be a 1-cent tax on retail sales within Iowa City and is
estimated to generate $8.5 Million, annually.
Table 16: Alternative Street Funding Sources and Estimated Revenues
Funding
Source
Actual
2014
Actual
2015
Actual
2016
Actual
2017
Actual
2018
Actual
2019
Budget
2020
Budget
2021
Utility Franchise Tax
($0.04) $4,127,268 $3,606,759 $3,496,938 $3,757,547 $3,904,238 $3,858,758 $3,904,200 $3,858,760
Emergency Property
Tax
($0.27)1
$811,197 $839,984 $849,433 $903,811 $935,548 $986,668 $1,027,720 $1,001,442
Capital Improvement
Property Tax
($0.675)1
$2,027,991 $2,099,960 $2,123,582 $2,259,528 $2,338,870 $2,466,670 $2,569,300 $2,816,556
Local Option Sales
Tax
($0.01)2
$8,110,392 $8,388,537 $8,532,583 $8,749,290 $8,545,384 $8,663,891 $8,545,384 $8,663,891
Total $15,078,861 $14,937,255 $15,004,553 $15,672,192 $15,726,058 $15,978,007 $16,048,624 $16,340,649
(1) Includes utility excise tax but not state backfill (2) Estimated based on 1% of total retail sales in Iowa City
The goal of implementing these tax policies would be to generate an additional $8-11 Million per year in
addition to the existing Road-Use Tax revenue and replace the need for GO Bonds. If the City could manage
to achieve that level of funding, projections indicate that the average roadway conditions in Iowa City would
likely stabilize, and possibly even increase.
Iowa City is very fortunate to have the economic and political opportunities available to them to reach such
a lofty goal.
The estimates provided by the City Finance Department indicate that a budgetary increase is very possible
given the tax base and funding vehicles available to the city. A mix of funding sources could easily eliminate
the entire funding gap identified in the dTIMS BA analysis, putting long term funding sustainability within the
City’s reach. At the very least, implementing some of these funding sources could reduce the City’s need for
GO Bonds and make it more self-sufficient rather than constantly relying on State or Federal Grant program
to afford major roadway projects.
Figure 61: Street Funding Source Estimates
This graph was provided by the Iowa City Finance Department and shows the relative funding amounts of the 4 potential revenue sources.
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget
Utility Franchise Tax ($0.04)Emergency Property Tax ($0.27)
Capital Imprmt Property Tax ($0.675)Local Option Sales Tax ($0.01)
Page 52 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
5.6. Performance Metrics and Goal Setting
Pavement Management Programs are ongoing processes. Adopting
a plan and analyzing potential budgets are not enough. They need to
be actionable and have clear, measurable performance goals.
The first steps in moving forward are to approve the findings of this
pavement management plan, identify a funding strategy, and then
develop an objective, data-driven Capital Improvement Plan. The
Capital Improvement Plan will assist decision makers in determining
the most cost-effective actions are to use the funding they have
available to improve or maintain conditions in Iowa City.
With the Scenario results in mind, Iowa City needs to set some
measurable performance goals for the near future, that will be
addressed by said Capital Improvement Program. This allows a City
to track its performance, ensuring that it remains on track and is
actually effective in addressing its infrastructure needs.
5.6.1. Recommended Performance Metrics
➢ Maintain an ideal Reconstruction split of around 70%
➢ Invest 5% minimum of the total budget towards preventative
maintenance
➢ Rehabilitate at least 2 Miles of roads each year.
➢ Investigate the implementation of a LOST
➢ Determine an increased funding strategy to be put in place by
2023
➢ Maintain Overall Network PCI at or around 65/100 using a hybrid
strategy that keeps Arterials, Collectors, and Locals at 70/100,
60/100, and 60/100, respectively.
5.6.2. “Living Documents”
Another important part of this performance tracking and goal-setting
is to renew this plan as physical, fiscal, and political conditions
change. HRG recommends that Pavement Management Plans act as
“Living Documents” that grow with cities and adapt to their needs by
regular updates and changes. By default, for most agencies this will
mean renewing the plan every 2-4 years, complete with new
pavement condition data.
The IPMP data, up until 2020, had been provided biannually, free of
charge to all cities within the state of Iowa. Starting this year, however,
it will no longer be provided, freely, every 2 years but will be moved to
a 4-year rotation, with option for agencies to “buy” the off years. The
cost to Iowa City for extra data is approximately $22,000 every 4 years
and will likely be covered by the Metropolitan Planning Organization
of Johnson County (MPOJC). The only remaining costs to maintaining
this document are those paid to consultants to analyze the data.
5.6.3. Recommended Goals/Timeline
1) Adopt Pavement Management Plan (2021)
2) Approve Capital. Improvement Plan for 2020-2025 (2021)
3) Begin Construction of the first phase of projects (2021)
4) Work with MPOJC to create an agreement with IPMP to
continue receiving data on a bi-annual basis. (2021)
5) Investigate Implementation of alternative funding strategy
(2021)
6) Determine mechanism for better coordination with public and
private utilities (2021)
7) Council approves new funding strategy (2022)
8) Update plan including new condition data (2022).
9) Complete Phase 2 of Pavement Management Plan
recommended CIP projects (2023)
10) Update plan including new condition data and increased
revenue (2023).
Page 53 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a list of recommended projects
for Iowa City to complete over the next 5 years. This list of projects
was generated using the results of the dTIMS BA model, as well as
several other factors. The project list is optimized for the most effective
use of available funds, based on the pavement condition data and
planning-level information provided by the City.
The complete list of recommended projects and maps identifying the
location for the proposed treatments can be found in Appendix A:
Capital Improvement Plan starting on page 54. Projects are sorted
into three phases, the Start-Up Phase (2020), Phase 1 (2021-2022),
and Phase 2 (2023-2024).
These lists and maps will serve as a tool to assist City staff during the
project planning process, but they do not replace engineering
judgement. Project types may change from what is in the CIP and
projects will likely move between phases for various reasons. Some
projects may even leave the plan entirely as new ones are added.
Some reasons the program may change include field conditions not
captured by the IPMP data, required utility improvements, or
environmental hazards causing changes to local conditions.
Consisting of 43 Projects, the recommended projects contained
within the CIP will address nearly 17 Miles of roads. The majority of
which will actually be on local streets; primarily because the
Arterial/Collector streets are generally in good condition while Local
streets make up the majority of the network.
Figure 62: Treatment Distribution by Functional Class Over Time
This area graph shows the treatment distribution for each year of the CIP.
The number of miles addressed each year by the CIP, on average, is
expected to decline somewhat over time, however. This is several
large projects in the near future, one of which will be a joint endeavor
with Iowa DOT. The reconstruction of N Dodge St, (Highway 1) under
DOT jurisdiction, will be a large project expected to cost the City nearly
$14 Million. Some costs will be shared with the DOT, but the City is
wisely withholding a significant amount of funds starting in 2024.
The City’s base budget is allocated relatively evenly between
Reconstruction and Rehabilitation. That is before counting the use of
the funds for the Dodge St Reconstruction and other CIP projects,
which accounts for 50% of the overall budget. Once those are factored
in, things become closer to the preferred distribution
Figure 63: Treatment Type Proportion for CIP (No Major CIP Projects)
This pie chart shows the relative proportion of reconstruction to rehabilitation activities
recommended in the CIP, not counting the Dodge Street Project .
Figure 64: Treatment Type Proportion for CIP (Full CIP w/ Dodge Street)
This pie chart shows the relative proportion of reconstruction to rehabilitation activities
recommended in the CIP, including the expected Dodge Street project.
Keep in Touch!
The City of Iowa City wants to remain engaged with its citizens as part
of the pavement management program over the next 5 years!
If you have comments on this publication, wish to provide input for
future plan-updates, or want to inquire about upcoming construction
projects, there are a number of means by which people may contact
the City.
You can find out more on the City’s website, or can engage them on
social media:
How to engage with The City of Iowa City:
Visit City Website: https://www.icgov.org/
Read City News Page: https://www.icgov.org/news
Contact via Public Works Site: https://www.icgov.org/city-
government/departments-and-divisions/public-works
Subscribe to Email/Text Updates: https://www.icgov.org/e-
subscriptions
Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CityOfIowaCity
(@CityOfIowaCity)
Chat on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CityofIowaCity/
Tag on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cityofiowacity/
(@CityOfIowaCity)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Miles of RoadLocal
Collector
Arterial
48%
6%
46%Major Rehabilitation
Minor Rehabilitation
Reconstruction
2%8%
90%
Page 54 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Appendix A: Capital Improvement Plan
Page 55 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
A.1. Capital Improvement Plan
Phase Branch Project Type AADT Class Est. Cost Miles CityPCI Pave Type Start End From Address To Address
Phase1 American Legion Rd SE Reconstruction 3716 Arterial $ 2,360,000 1.07 66 COM S Scott Blvd Taft Ave 1106 4799
Phase1 Camp Cardinal Rd Minor Rehabilitation 1169 Local $ 10,000 0.10 79 SEAL 80' N of Gathering Place Ln Camp Cardinal Blvd 749 853
Phase1 Deforest Ave Reconstruction 1640 Local $ 520,000 0.22 35 PCC Franklin St Sycamore St 1400 1729
Phase1 Hollywood Blvd Major Rehabilitation 517 Local $ 290,000 0.33 44 COM Taylor Dr Sycamore St 1200 1651
Phase1 Lower Muscatine Rd Major Rehabilitation 7649 Collector $ 280,000 0.28 58 PCC E Court St 2nd Ave 1901 2301
Phase1 Melrose Ave Reconstruction 9202 Arterial $ 2,430,000 1.10 66 PCC Slowther Rd Highway 218 NB Ramp 4899
Phase1 Muscatine Ave Major Rehabilitation 9083 Arterial $ 830,000 0.78 46 COM E Court St 2nd Ave 1400 2141
Phase1 N Gilbert St Major Rehabilitation 10489 Arterial $ 620,000 0.16 52 PCC E Burlington St E Market St 131
Phase1 Old Highway 218 S Major Rehabilitation 29365 Arterial $ 1,190,000 0.80 58 ACC Lake Ridge Ave Riverside Dr 1900 2580
Phase1 Olive St Reconstruction 239 Local $ 470,000 0.09 31 PCC Myrtle Ave S Dead End 500 537
Phase1 Rochester Ave Reconstruction 7051 Arterial $ 2,280,000 0.72 49 COM Memler Ct N 1st Ave 1500 2235
Phase1 S Gilbert St Major Rehabilitation 21862 Arterial $ 1,020,000 0.24 72 PCC E College St E Washington St 299
Phase1 S Scott Blvd Major Rehabilitation 7290 Arterial $ 420,000 0.37 76 PCC Freedom Ct Highway 6 2500 2799
Phase1 Sycamore St Minor Rehabilitation 6391 Collector $ 20,000 0.19 77 COM Deforest Ave Highway 6 1500 1699
Phase1 W Benton St Major Rehabilitation 13583 Collector $ 3,610,000 1.23 47 PCC Mormon Trek Blvd Carriage Hill 900 2399
Phase1 W Iowa Ave Major Rehabilitation 9322 Arterial $ 120,000 0.16 40 COM N Riverside Dr Madison St 101 299
Phase 1 -Subtotal $ 16,390,000 7.85
Phase2 1 Ave Major Rehabilitation 16492 Arterial $ 210,000 0.15 69 PCC 1st St Highway 6 93 104
Phase2 Broadway St Major Rehabilitation 478 Local $ 240,000 0.24 54 PCC Euclid Ave Cottonwood Ave 1400 1635
Phase2 E Court St Reconstruction 8281 Collector $ 1,950,000 0.67 45 COM Muscatine Ave 1st Ave 1301 2298
Phase2 E Court St Minor Rehabilitation 5839 Local $ 10,000 0.03 81 COM Grant St Muscatine Ave 1222 1299
Phase2 Melrose Ave Reconstruction 17687 Arterial $ 1,220,000 0.48 45 PCC Hawkeye Park Rd Mormon Trek Blvd 2400 2900
Phase2 N Dubuque St Major Rehabilitation 27129 Arterial $ 340,000 0.45 71 PCC Bjaysville Ln Interstate 80 1451 1850
Phase2 N Scott Blvd Major Rehabilitation 11353 Arterial $ 550,000 0.47 51 COM 810' N of Washington St Lower West Branch Rd 3428
Phase2 Oakcrest St Minor Rehabilitation 686 Local $ 10,000 0.13 73 PCC Sunset St George St 1200 1329
Phase2 Old Highway 218 S Major Rehabilitation 11151 Arterial $ 600,000 0.70 51 ACC Old Highway 218 Oak Crest Hill Rd 2820 4299
Phase2 Orchard St Reconstruction 717 Local $ 510,000 0.21 37 PCC 1010 Orchard St Douglass St 800 1099
Phase2 Park Road Reconstruction 6000 Arterial $ 6,000,000 0.61 38 PCC Rockyshore Dr Riverside Dr
Phase2 S Dubuque St Reconstruction 4118 Collector $ 400,000 0.08 22 PCC E Iowa Ave E Washington St 29
Phase2 S Riverside Dr Major Rehabilitation 13744 Arterial $ 350,000 0.45 64 PCC Highway 1 Ruppert Rd 1100 1219
Phase2 S Riverside Dr Major Rehabilitation 29365 Arterial $ 670,000 0.44 70 COM Old Highway 218 Ruppert Rd 1220 1899
Phase2 Kirkwood Ave New Construction N/A $ 3,000,000 N/A PCC Clinton Capitol St
Phase 2 Subtotal -Subtotal $ 16,060,000 4.50
Phase3 E Jefferson St Reconstruction 3179 Local $ 560,000 0.18 47 COM Clapp St Parsons Ave 1100 1199
Phase3 E Market St Minor Rehabilitation 9083 Arterial $ 30,000 0.23 77 COM Capitol St N Linn St 229
Phase3 Grand Ave Minor Rehabilitation 24061 Arterial $ 50,000 0.19 63 PCC Roundabout S Riverside Dr 321 4786
Phase3 Melrose Ave Minor Rehabilitation 17593 Arterial $ 20,000 0.05 41 PCC Finkbine Commuter Dr University Heights 1380 1381
Phase3 Mormon Trek Blvd Major Rehabilitation 16851 Arterial $ 1,460,000 1.14 62 PCC Melrose Ave Highway 6 W 93 1000
Phase3 N 1 Ave Minor Rehabilitation 9680 Arterial $ 1,070,000 0.62 54 PCC Tudor Dr Stuart Ct 100 799
Phase3 Rohret Rd Minor Rehabilitation 5928 Collector $ 100,000 0.22 64 PCC Coll Dr Cae Dr 1328 1502
Phase3 S 1 Ave Major Rehabilitation 17113 Arterial $ 330,000 0.28 52 COM Friendship St A St 400 629
Phase3 S 1 Ave Minor Rehabilitation 9680 Arterial $ 280,000 0.25 67 PCC E Court St E Washington St 100 399
Phase3 S Governor St Reconstruction 717 Local $ 350,000 0.15 39 PCC Bowery St S Dead End 595 678
Phase3 Sycamore St Major Rehabilitation 3224 Collector $ 520,000 0.56 61 SEAL Sand Rd SE Lehman Ave 4241 4285
Phase3 Teeters Ct Reconstruction 359 Local $ 260,000 0.11 34 COM N Dead End Rider St 201 339
Phase3 W Court St Major Rehabilitation 7366 Local $ 180,000 0.08 81 PCC S Madison St 1st Ave Phase3 Wade St Minor Rehabilitation 17297 Local $ 20,000 0.15 76 COM Wayne Ave Muscatine Ave 1000 1139
Phase3 N Dodge St Reconstruction Highway $ 14,000,000 3.30 N/A Varies Burlington I-80
Phase 3 Subtotal -Subtotal $ 19,230,000 4.22
Page 56 of 65
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
A.1. Capital Improvement Plan
Phase Branch Project Type AADT Class Est. Cost Miles CityPCI Pave Type Start End From Address To Address
Phase1 American Legion Rd SE Reconstruction 3716 Arterial $ 2,360,000 1.07 66 COM S Scott Blvd Taft Ave 1106 4799
Phase1 Camp Cardinal Rd Minor Rehabilitation 1169 Local $ 10,000 0.10 79 SEAL 80' N of Gathering Place Ln Camp Cardinal Blvd 749 853
Phase1 Deforest Ave Reconstruction 1640 Local $ 520,000 0.22 35 PCC Franklin St Sycamore St 1400 1729
Phase1 Hollywood Blvd Major Rehabilitation 517 Local $ 290,000 0.33 44 COM Taylor Dr Sycamore St 1200 1651
Phase1 Lower Muscatine Rd Major Rehabilitation 7649 Collector $ 280,000 0.28 58 PCC E Court St 2nd Ave 1901 2301
Phase1 Melrose Ave Reconstruction 9202 Arterial $ 2,430,000 1.10 66 PCC Slowther Rd Highway 218 NB Ramp 4899
Phase1 Muscatine Ave Major Rehabilitation 9083 Arterial $ 830,000 0.78 46 COM E Court St 2nd Ave 1400 2141
Phase1 N Gilbert St Major Rehabilitation 10489 Arterial $ 620,000 0.16 52 PCC E Burlington St E Market St 131
Phase1 Old Highway 218 S Major Rehabilitation 29365 Arterial $ 1,190,000 0.80 58 ACC Lake Ridge Ave Riverside Dr 1900 2580
Phase1 Olive St Reconstruction 239 Local $ 470,000 0.09 31 PCC Myrtle Ave S Dead End 500 537
Phase1 Rochester Ave Reconstruction 7051 Arterial $ 2,280,000 0.72 49 COM Memler Ct N 1st Ave 1500 2235
Phase1 S Gilbert St Major Rehabilitation 21862 Arterial $ 1,020,000 0.24 72 PCC E College St E Washington St 299
Phase1 S Scott Blvd Major Rehabilitation 7290 Arterial $ 420,000 0.37 76 PCC Freedom Ct Highway 6 2500 2799
Phase1 Sycamore St Minor Rehabilitation 6391 Collector $ 20,000 0.19 77 COM Deforest Ave Highway 6 1500 1699
Phase1 W Benton St Major Rehabilitation 13583 Collector $ 3,610,000 1.23 47 PCC Mormon Trek Blvd Carriage Hill 900 2399
Phase1 W Iowa Ave Major Rehabilitation 9322 Arterial $ 120,000 0.16 40 COM N Riverside Dr Madison St 101 299
Phase 1 -Subtotal $ 16,390,000 7.85
Phase2 1 Ave Major Rehabilitation 16492 Arterial $ 210,000 0.15 69 PCC 1st St Highway 6 93 104
Phase2 Broadway St Major Rehabilitation 478 Local $ 240,000 0.24 54 PCC Euclid Ave Cottonwood Ave 1400 1635
Phase2 E Court St Reconstruction 8281 Collector $ 1,950,000 0.67 45 COM Muscatine Ave 1st Ave 1301 2298
Phase2 E Court St Minor Rehabilitation 5839 Local $ 10,000 0.03 81 COM Grant St Muscatine Ave 1222 1299
Phase2 Melrose Ave Reconstruction 17687 Arterial $ 1,220,000 0.48 45 PCC Hawkeye Park Rd Mormon Trek Blvd 2400 2900
Phase2 N Dubuque St Major Rehabilitation 27129 Arterial $ 340,000 0.45 71 PCC Bjaysville Ln Interstate 80 1451 1850
Phase2 N Scott Blvd Major Rehabilitation 11353 Arterial $ 550,000 0.47 51 COM 810' N of Washington St Lower West Branch Rd 3428
Phase2 Oakcrest St Minor Rehabilitation 686 Local $ 10,000 0.13 73 PCC Sunset St George St 1200 1329
Phase2 Old Highway 218 S Major Rehabilitation 11151 Arterial $ 600,000 0.70 51 ACC Old Highway 218 Oak Crest Hill Rd 2820 4299
Phase2 Orchard St Reconstruction 717 Local $ 510,000 0.21 37 PCC 1010 Orchard St Douglass St 800 1099
Phase2 Park Road Reconstruction 6000 Arterial $ 6,000,000 0.61 38 PCC Rockyshore Dr Riverside Dr
Phase2 S Dubuque St Reconstruction 4118 Collector $ 400,000 0.08 22 PCC E Iowa Ave E Washington St 29
Phase2 S Riverside Dr Major Rehabilitation 13744 Arterial $ 350,000 0.45 64 PCC Highway 1 Ruppert Rd 1100 1219
Phase2 S Riverside Dr Major Rehabilitation 29365 Arterial $ 670,000 0.44 70 COM Old Highway 218 Ruppert Rd 1220 1899
Phase2 Kirkwood Ave New Construction N/A $ 3,000,000 N/A PCC Clinton Capitol St
Phase 2 Subtotal -Subtotal $ 16,060,000 4.50
Phase3 E Jefferson St Reconstruction 3179 Local $ 560,000 0.18 47 COM Clapp St Parsons Ave 1100 1199
Phase3 E Market St Minor Rehabilitation 9083 Arterial $ 30,000 0.23 77 COM Capitol St N Linn St 229
Phase3 Grand Ave Minor Rehabilitation 24061 Arterial $ 50,000 0.19 63 PCC Roundabout S Riverside Dr 321 4786
Phase3 Melrose Ave Minor Rehabilitation 17593 Arterial $ 20,000 0.05 41 PCC Finkbine Commuter Dr University Heights 1380 1381
Phase3 Mormon Trek Blvd Major Rehabilitation 16851 Arterial $ 1,460,000 1.14 62 PCC Melrose Ave Highway 6 W 93 1000
Phase3 N 1 Ave Minor Rehabilitation 9680 Arterial $ 1,070,000 0.62 54 PCC Tudor Dr Stuart Ct 100 799
Phase3 Rohret Rd Minor Rehabilitation 5928 Collector $ 100,000 0.22 64 PCC Coll Dr Cae Dr 1328 1502
Phase3 S 1 Ave Major Rehabilitation 17113 Arterial $ 330,000 0.28 52 COM Friendship St A St 400 629
Phase3 S 1 Ave Minor Rehabilitation 9680 Arterial $ 280,000 0.25 67 PCC E Court St E Washington St 100 399
Phase3 S Governor St Reconstruction 717 Local $ 350,000 0.15 39 PCC Bowery St S Dead End 595 678
Phase3 Sycamore St Major Rehabilitation 3224 Collector $ 520,000 0.56 61 SEAL Sand Rd SE Lehman Ave 4241 4285
Phase3 Teeters Ct Reconstruction 359 Local $ 260,000 0.11 34 COM N Dead End Rider St 201 339
Phase3 W Court St Major Rehabilitation 7366 Local $ 180,000 0.08 81 PCC S Madison St 1st Ave Phase3 Wade St Minor Rehabilitation 17297 Local $ 20,000 0.15 76 COM Wayne Ave Muscatine Ave 1000 1139
Phase3 N Dodge St Reconstruction Highway $ 14,000,000 3.30 N/A Varies Burlington I-80
Phase 3 Subtotal -Subtotal $ 19,230,000 4.22
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-LeftLegend2.mxd 12THCORAL RIDGEHOLIDAY
WOOLFMUSCATINE1STMADISONFRIENDSHIP
MELROSE
AMERICA
N
L
E
G
I
O
N
420TH
GI
L
B
E
R
T
5TH
1STIOWA
PARK
CAMPCARDI
NALM
O
R
M
O
N
TR
EK 7THKEOKUKSYCAMOREBENTON PRAI
RI
EDUC
HIE
N
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
COURT
ROCHESTER
ROHRETSUNSETWASHINGTON
HIGHLAND
LOWER WEST BRANCH
OAKCRESTHI
LLKIRKWOODSUMMITCLINTON SCOTTRIVER
HERBERT HOOVER
JEFFERSON
SHERIDANRIVERSIDEDUBUQUE10TH
MARKETNEWTON
OLDHIGHWAY2182ND
BOWERY
BURLINGTONHAWKINS
CHURCH
LINN22NDKIMBALLHEARTLANDMCCOLLISTE
R
SOUTHGATEROCKYSHORE
F50SANDIWV
RIVERS
IDE
SHARONCENTERMAIERGRAND
Legend
Phase
Start Up
Phase 1
Phase 2
Treatment Type
Minor Rehabilitation
Major Rehabilitation
Reconstruction
District
District A
District B
District C
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,750 3,500
Feet
1 inch = 3,500 feet
Map 21 Proposed Project LocationsOverview
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-RightLegend.mxdROHRETRDSW R O C H E S T E R A V E
SRI
VERSIDEDRMELROSE AVE
2ND
S
T
S1STAVEW IOWA AVE
MORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEP
R
AIRIE
D
U
CHIENRDGRAND AVE
H I GH W AY 1 S W
MELROSE AVE
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
RO HRE T R D SUNSETSTE COURT ST
HIGHLAND AVES GILBERT STE B ENTON STKIRKWOOD AVE
KEOKUK STRIVERST
W PARK RD
NRIVERSIDEDRSYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILLRDSEE PARK RD1STAV
EMU
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
A
V
E
10TH ST
SYCAMORE STOLDHIGHWAY218SN DODGE STN S C OTT BLVD
HAWKINSDR
HIGHWAY 6 W
N
GOVERNORSTM
O
R
M
O
NTREKBLVD N 1ST AVEKIMBALLRDMCCOLLISTERB L V D
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDR HI GHWAY 6E
HIGHW
A
Y
6
E
HIGHW AY1SWF50SEHIG
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8
IWV RD SW
SHARONCENTERRDSW5TH S
T
W BENTON ST SDODGESTHIGHWAY 1 WS
GIL
B
E
R
T
S
T
CAMPCARDINALB
LV
D 12TH AVENDUBUQUESTW ELLI N G T O N DRSLUCAS STFRIENDLY AVE
VILLAGERDS JOHNSON STWESTSIDED R
GINTER AVE
DEE
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D FOSTERR D
HOLLYWOODBLVD
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STNDUBUQUERD25THAVEN LUCAS STDUBLINDRSVANBURENSTGALW AYDRG L E N D A L E R D
DANE RD SEINDUSTRIALPARKRDTAYLORDRBROADWAYSTDUCKCREEKDR
BOYRUMST10TH AVEJAMESST
L AN GEN B ER G AVEGREENWOODDRN CLINTON STE 9TH ST
SUNDOWN RDGNAPL
ESAVE4TH AVEHICKORY TRL
S DUBUQUE STWALDENRD
PRINCETONRD
LAKESIDE DR
DEFOREST AVE
E BLOOMI NGTON S T
3RD AVETEG
D
R6TH AVESGOVERNORSTS AN D US K Y DRCLARK STLAKEBEND
RDK O S E R AVE
DEE
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
S
E
N E W T O N RDMACKINAW DRN U R S E R Y L N S ERENO STL
A
U
R
A
D
R
FERSON AVEWOODRI
DGEAVEGEORGE STW H I S PERI NG
MEADOWDR23RD AVEC AL I F O R N I A AVE
BROWN ST
RUSSELL DR7THST
PHOENIXDR
E DAVEN POR T S T
OAKLAND AVEFAIRCHILD ST
CHARTRESWILDCATLNWAYNE AVE
9 T H S T
WILDPRAIRIED R
E WASHINGTON STCAMPCARDINALRD OBERLINSTLAKESHORE
D
R
DICKENSON LN19TH AVENSUMMITSTM A N O R DRPADDOCK BLVDWESTGATE ST13TH ST
FREUNDRD S E
FRIENDSHIP STDOVER STW I N TER EAGLE R D S EN VAN BUREN STWHITING AVE
OAKESDR
DANE RD SWBROOKS I DE DRWATERFRONTDRH I G H L A N D DR
BROOKWOOD DRDEARBORN STTIPPERARYR D
PEPPERDR
HEINZ RDSHANNON
DRD
E
N
B
I
G
H DRFOXANADR RUNDELL STBURNS AVE
BRI STOL DR
TAFT SPEEDWAY
8TH ST
B
U
R
E
S
HAVEBRADFORD DR
WYLDEGREENRDLANDON AVE SWARBORD RGRANT STPLUMST
TRACY LN 2ND AVEAMHURSTST
HAFORDR
RAVEN S T
WEEBERSTH ST
ASH STFRANKLIN STROCHESTER C T
2
0
T
H
AVEDAVIS ST8TH AVEPLAENVIEW
DRNORMANDYDR9TH AVEPOST RDS CAPITOL STMORNINGSIDE
DR14TH AVEE COLLEGE ST
I ST
WALNUT ST
D ST
G STCENTER STN LINN STN
GI
LBERTSTLEH
A
R
V
EGOLDENRODDRSLOTHOWER RDNEVADA AVEGILBERT CT13TH AVEACTDRB
O
R
D
E
A
U
X
SPRING RIDGE DR
S A N T A FE
DRBAY RIDGE DRBASSWOOD LN11TH AVERIDGERD
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVEOAKCRES T STNAPLES AVE SW18TH AVEC A MI N O D E L RIOSEKITTY LEE RD SWMAIER AVE SWOSAGE ST SWRYANCT
T H O R N DRMALL DREMERALD STRIVERBENDRDSELACINADR SW
A C T RD
HURT RD SWHARVEST RD SEE IOWA AVE
KENNEDY PKWY
H A W K E Y E PARK RD WOOLF AVES CLINTON STN7THAVE22ND AVELegend
Phase
Start Up
Phase 1
Phase 2
Treatment Type
Minor Rehabilitation
Major Rehabilitation
Reconstruction
District
District A
District B
District C
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
1 inch = 3,000 feet
Map 22Proposed Project LocationsDistrict A
\\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2018\181474\GIS\MXD\MapBooks\Mapbook_2019PMP_Report-LeftLegend2.mxd
ROHRET RD WOOLFAVEMUSCATINE AVE AMERICANLEGIONRDSE1STAVESRIVERSIDEDR
420TH ST
HERBER T HOOVER HW Y S E
S 1ST AVEW IOWA AVE
MORMON TREK BLVDS 7TH AVEW BENTON ST
P
R
AIRIE
DUCHIENRDMELROSE AVE
LO
W
E
R
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
R
D
5TH ST
SUNSETSTE COURT ST
HI GH L AND AV E
H O L I D AY RD
E
B
ENTON S T KIRKWOOD AVE
N
SCOTTBLVDKEOKUKSTRIVERST
R O C H E S T E R A V E
W PARK RD
NRIVERSIDEDRSYCAMORE ST SE
SANDRDSEOAKCRESTHILL RDSEE PARK RD PRAIRIEDUCHIENRDNE420TH ST SES SCOTT BLVDDUBUQUESTNEHI
G
H
W
A
Y
2
1
8 OLDHIGHWAY218SN DODGE STHERBERT HOOVER HWY NE
HAWKINSDR
HIGHWAY 6 W
HIGHWAY 6 SE
N
G
O
V
E
R
N
O
R
STN1STAVEK IM B A LLRDMCCOLLISTERBLVD
SOUTHGATE AVEROCKYSHOREDR HIGHWAY6E
HIGHW AY1SWF50SEUTAH AVE SEWAPSI AVE SE400TH ST SEHIGHWAY 1 NESYCAMORE STLOWER WEST BRANCH RD SE
2ND ST
HIGHWAY 1 WS
G
I
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
420TH ST SE
AMERICA
N
L
E
G
I
O
N
R
D
S
ENDUBUQUESTARLINGTONDRSLUCASSTFRIENDLY AVE
M O S S RIDGERD
VILLAGERDBROWNDEERRDS JOHNSON STW ES T
SI
DEDRGINTER AVE
FOSTER RD
NORTHGATED R
HOLLYWOODBLVD
RUPPERT RD N JOHNSON STNDUBUQUERDN LUCAS STSVANBURENSTGLENDALE R D
DANE RD SETAYLORDRBOYRUMST10TH AVELI
NDEMANNDRL AN G E N B ER G AV EGREENWOODDRSDODGESTNAPLESAVE 4TH AVES CLINTON STHICKORY TRL
N7THAVES DUBUQUE STPRINCETONR D
EROBI LNLAKESIDE DR
DEFOREST AVE
E BL OOMI NGTON S T
MODERN WAY3RD AVETEGDR6TH AVES GOVERNOR STS A N D U S K Y DRCLARK STLAKEBEND
RDK OS E R AVEN E WT O N RD
340TH ST NE
7TH ST
FERSON AVEWHISPERING
MEADOWDRC AL I F OR N I AAVE
BROWN ST
RUSSELL DRE DAVENPORT S T
W E L L I N G TO N DR
FAIRCHILD ST
CHARTRES AARONDRSEWAYNE AVE
DICKENSON LN HUNTINGTONDRMANORDRPADDOCK B LV D
NAPLES AVE SWWESTGATE STE WASHINGTON ST
FREUNDRD S E
F RI E N DS HI P S T
DOVER STDANE RD SWW I NTER EAGL E R D S E
WHITING AVE
OAKESDR
H I G H L A N D D R KENNETH DRDEARBORN STHEINZ RDDENBI
GHDR
L I N D E R R D N E
RUNDELL STBURNS AVE
T A F T S P E E D W AY
B
U
R
ES
H
AVECHARLESDR
BRADFORD DR
WYLDEGREENRDPLUMS T 2ND AVEAMHURSTST
RIDGEWAY DR
ARBORD REVERSULLLNSCOTTP A R K DRWEEBERSTH ST
TAFT AVE SE8TH AVEPLAEN VIE
W
DRNORMANDYD R
9TH AVEPOST RDS CAPITOL STE COLLEGE ST
WALNUT ST G ST
RONALDS ST
N LINN STN GILBERT STLEHARVEGILBERT CTACTDRSPRING RIDGE DR FAIRWAYLNSE
KYLEDR NERIDGERD
7TH AVEMAGOWAN AVELEXINGTON AVEO AK C R ES T ST
SIOUX AVE SEFAIRVIEWCEMETERYRDNEKITTYLEERDSWWAPSI AVE NEOS AGE
S
T SW
OSAGE ST SE
MALL DREMERALD STRIVERBENDRDSENAPOLEON ST SE COMPASS DRUTAH AVE NELA CINA DR SW
ACT RD
HARVEST RD SEE I OWA AVE
Legend
Phase
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Treatment Type
Minor Rehabilitation
Major Rehabilitation
Reconstruction
Municipal Boundary
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
0 1,750 3,500
Feet
1 inch = 3,500 feet
Map 23Proposed Project LocationsDistrict B
Page 60 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Appendix B: Changing to CityPCI
Page 61 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
B.1. Changing to CityPCI
B.1.1. Introduction
The City of Iowa City commissioned HR Green Inc. to perform develop a Pavement Management Program.
Much of the technical findings regarding funding scenarios and projections in this study rely on an index
calculation provided by the Iowa Pavement Management Program, referred to as “CityPCI” or simply “PCI”
in the context of the report.
In 2017, IPMP issued a new index score calculation known as CityPCI for use in urban areas and has been
adopted by the Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and other large agencies such as Cedar
Rapids and Waterloo. Prior to this, however, agencies around the state had been using a different method
for quantifying pavement conditions. City officials may already be familiar with the concept of PCI but were
likely using something this section will refer to as the “Original PCI calculation method.” This section
reviews the result of those changes and the ramifications of them on the 2019 Pavement Management
Program results and the Capital Improvement Plan.
B.1.2. What is CityPCI?
The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) used by the Iowa Pavement Management Program (IPMP) is an index
value useful for summarizing the overall condition of a pavement. A survey of surface distresses along a
road is collected, and then each type of relevant distress is assessed based on quantity and severity. The
road is rated based on those distress assessments and given a score on a scale of 0-100, with 0 being the
worst and 100 being the best.
The original Pavement Condition Index calculation method was developed based on feedback from the initial
technical committee in 1994, but it was mostly based around the idea of how an ideal pavement might perform
and was more targeted towards rural high speed primary facilities like highways.
Since the creation of the “old method” many of the urban communities in Iowa; like Des Moines, Davenport,
and Cedar Rapids; determined that the Original PCI calculation method was simply not appropriate for their
needs. They required additional interpretation to use the IPMP data in a way that was relevant to their needs
as municipal agencies. This even resulted in some agencies, Des Moines and Cedar Rapids in particular,
creating their own unique PCI calculation methods or adjusting the scale to fit their own subjective
judgements; oftentimes, a combination of the two.
The main driving force for these changes was that these agencies believed there were a number of noticeable
flaws that prevented the “old method” from being applicable to their needs.
Summary of reasons that the Original PCI calculation method was insufficient:
➢ Distress thresholds used in the calculation process seem arbitrary.
➢ Inappropriate weighting of how distresses contribute to overall score
➢ Missing certain distresses from the calculation
➢ The way “Pro-rating” distresses for shorter segments works, generates strange results sometimes
➢ Does not make allowance for differences between urban environments vs. rural highways
In 2016, a subcommittee of IPMP members was formed, representing some of the larger cities in the state,
with the intent to revise the PCI calculation method to more closely meet the needs of urban areas in Iowa.
The subcommittee reviewed the distresses used, the contribution weights of the distresses, and the
thresholds for when a pavement receives a full point deduction for a given distress. This review was
performed for 3 different pavement types, Portland Cement Concrete (PCC), Asphalt Concrete (AC or HMA),
and Composite Pavements (COM), which have a combined pavement structure of AC on top of PCC.
The committee determined a number of changes were necessary and worked with the IPMP to develop a
new PCI calculation method, referred to as CityPCI, that should be used in urban areas moving forward.
Their final report was delivered in early 2017 and presented to the IPMP user group and at an APWA
conference. In the future, the IPMP will provide to all urban agencies the CityPCI, along with the Original
PCI, with every future round of data collection.
The main change to the calculation method was a reduction in the effect of ride smoothness (measured by
the international roughness index, or IRI), which previously contributed 35% of the overall score. This caused
the Original PCI calculation method to be too sensitive to non-distress related issues, such as manholes in
the pavement and PCC joints. In addition, local streets with low speed limits and narrow and dead-end streets
may be difficult to accurately measure roughness, which may cause inaccurate PCIs. Also, generally, urban
streets are lower speed, so roughness is not as much of a concern as for higher speed rural roads. The
CityPCI method reduces this effect by lowering the IRI weight to 5% of the total PCI and prorates the
distresses better by using more applicable thresholds.
Another major issue identified was the effects of patching, which previously did not differentiate between
recent pavement repairs that are performing well, such as full depth joint repairs, and what was essentially
a poorly filled pothole. New data collection techniques classify pothole fillings as a separate distress called
failure and “Good Patches” are not considered in Composite or Asphalt pavements.
Page 62 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
B.1.2.1. Changes in PCI Calculation
Of the three pavement types considered, two of them received significant overhauls in their methodology.
AC pavement, however, remained the same as it was mostly based on a modified version of the ASTM
D6433 which is used throughout the U.S., and few communities in Iowa build full-depth asphalt pavements.
The IPMP subcommittee recommended changes to both the allowable threshold for each distress and the
weighting factors used in compiling the overall PCI score.
Table 17: Changes to PCI Deduction Weighting
Composite Old Weights New Weights
IRI 35 5
Transverse Cracking 20 10
Longitudinal Cracking 30 40
Alligator Cracking 7.5 20
Patching 7.5 25 (bad only)
Concrete Old Weights New Weights
IRI 35 15
Transverse Cracking 25 20
Longitudinal Cracking None 10
D-Cracking and Spalling 25/15* 30
Patching None 25
The thresholds were changed based on a review of statewide condition data for urban areas. Using the data,
thresholds were set to the 90th percentile for each distress and pavement type. This means that out of all
asphalt roads in Iowa 90% of them have fewer than 8200 ft/mile of longitudinal cracking. The 10% of roads
with more than that would lose full points (40), but every road with longitudinal cracking would receive a
deduction proportional to its actual value compared to the threshold. So, a road with 4100 ft/mile of
longitudinal cracking would lose 20 PCI points.
Table 18: Distress Threshold Comparison
PCC Orig inal COM Original PCC New COM New
IRI 380 in / mile 380 in / mile 450 in / mile 450 in / mile
Transverse Cracking 14 cracks / seg. 24 cracks / seg. 425’ / Mile
(35 cracks / seg.)
800’ / Mile
(67 cracks / seg.)
Longitudinal Cracking None 316’ / seg. 5280’ / Mile 8200’ / Mile
D-Cracking and Spalling 8(9) Joints / seg.* N/A 150 Joints / Mile N/A
Patching None 520 sq. ft / seg. 7500 sf / Mile 6800 sf / Mile
Alligator N/A 1040 sq. ft / seg. N/A 3500 sf / Mile
7.1.1. Example Pictures from the Most Recent Data Collection (2017)
The most recent automated data collection run was performed last year, and IPMP is now providing CityPCI
along with the old PCI values to compare against. Also, for the first time, the right-of-way video logs and
pavement imagery from the data collection are available to agencies to review. This section will show the
new CityPCI calculations with imagery from the exact time the data was collected for reference.
Berkshire Parkway: CityPCI = 97 (Very Good), Old PCI = 88 (Very Good)
University Blvd (Swanson Blvd): CityPCI = 95 (Very Good), Old PCI = 83 (Very Good)
Page 63 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
NW 100th Street: CityPCI = 75 (Good), Old PCI = 49 (Fair)
NW 148th Street: CityPCI = 70 (Good), Old PCI = 40 (Fair)
Indian Hills Drive: CityPCI = 55 (Fair), Old PCI = 43 (Fair)
Country Club Boulevard: CityPCI = 53 (Fair), Old PCI = 34 (Poor)
Clark Street: CityPCI = 27 (Poor), Old PCI 27 (Poor)
Sunset Terrace: CityPCI = 33 (Poor), Old PCI = 35 (Fair)
Page 64 of 64
City of Iowa City | Pavement Management Program | FY 2020-2024 Prepared by
Colby Avenue: CityPCI = 20 (Very Poor), Old PCI = 20 (Poor)
NW 99th Court: CityPCI = 17 (Very Poor), Old PCI = 12 (Very Poor)
B.1.3. Revised Statistics
One of the main elements conveyed in this Pavement Management Study is a detailed overview of pavement
conditions within the City of Iowa City, which were based on IPMP data collected in 2017 and before. When
this data was made available, in early 2018, the distress data from the IPMP had a few major differences in
how it was provided from the previous collection cycles, however. The first main difference is that the data
collection vendor is different, so there may be small discrepancies in how various distresses were collected
and classified, leading to some changes in overall PCI. The second change is that the IPMP data came with
the new CityPCI values included for the first time.
Based on the new CityPCI values, the overall average pavement condition in Iowa City is currently at
65.9/100 (Good). However, when measured using the Original PCI calculation method, the same condition
information would yield an overall average of 45.2/100 (Fair). It appears that the changes in both the
collection method and the PCI method have affected the results.
O verall Average = 65.9 (45.2 )
While the CityPCI numbers are certainly more favorable, there is still an objective need for increased funding
and enhanced Pavement Management in the City. A PCI of 65.9 is in the low range of the “Good” category,
based on the new calculation method, while previously the City was considered at the very top of the “Fair”
category. From a descriptive standpoint, it is not actually a huge departure from the previous results.
Item Number: 4.
March 11, 2021
Memo from City Man ager: Util ity Protocol Update
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Memo from City Manager: Utility P rotocol Update
Item Number: 5.
March 11, 2021
Pen d ing City Cou n cil Work Session Topics
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Pending City Council Work S ession Topics
Item Number: 6.
March 11, 2021
Airport Commission : F ebruary 11
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Airport Commission: February 11
Item Number: 7.
March 11, 2021
Library Board of Tru stees: F eb ru ary 25
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
L ibrary B oard of Trustees: February 25