My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.5. SR 03-24-2003
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2003
>
03/24/2003
>
5.5. SR 03-24-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:32:20 AM
Creation date
3/21/2003 5:51:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
3/24/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
C. Locally Funded City Streets - Cities over 5,000 <br />As detailed above, there are 130 MSA eligible cities (those with a population of over 5,000) in <br />Minnesota. Within these cities, 80% of the total roadway mileage, or about 10,750 miles, is classified <br />as "municipal streets" in Mn/DOT terminology. Cities do not receive any state MSA for the <br />construction and maintenance of these streets, so they are funded through locally generated funding <br />sources, mostly property tax revenues. <br /> <br />Findings <br />#C-l: Most large cities are not spending enough on roadway capital improvements to maintain a <br />50 year life cycle <br /> <br />One of the principal goals of the 2002 City Road and Bridge Funding Survey was to assess the <br />spending trends of Minnesota cities relative to the projected spending that would be required to sustain <br />a life cycle of 50 years. In this report, we borrow from the methodology applied by Greg Isakson, the <br />Goodhue County Engineer, who has established this analytical method for determining the life cycle <br />needs of Minnesota's system of county roads. <br /> <br />The survey returned data on 32 cities with a <br />population over 5,0000 on the question of each <br />city's spending level for the three principal <br />roadway construction/maintenance activities <br />discussed in this report: <br />construction/reconstruction (which implies initial <br />grading or regrading the roadway surface) which <br />occurs once in a 50 year life cycle; overlaying the <br />pre-existing surface (which we assume to occur <br />twice in a 50 year life cycle) and sealcoating the <br />surface (which we assume to occur six times over <br />the 50 year life cycle). The figure at right presents <br />a "typical" life cycle construction and maintenance <br />activity schedule that would allow a paved <br />roadway to last for 50 years. <br /> <br />Figure 31 <br />"Typical" 50 Year Life Cycle Roadway <br />Construction and Maintenance Activity Schedule <br /> Activity Interval Year <br /> Construction 1 <br /> Sealcoat 2 3 <br /> Sealcoat 7 10 <br /> Overlay 7 17 <br /> Sealcoat 2 19 <br /> Sealcoat 7 26 <br /> Overlay 7 33 <br /> Sealcoat 2 35 <br /> Sealcoat 7 42 <br /> Regrade 7 49 <br /> <br />To identify projected costs, the methodology applied in this analysis requires that a typical cost per <br />mile be estimated for the three activities that comprise the construction and maintenance schedule. In <br />this analysis, it is estimated that the per-mile cost of regrading is $200,000 per mile, the cost of an <br /> <br />overlay is $40,000 per mile, and the cost of a <br />sealcoat is $5,000 per mile. (These values are <br />consistent with the cost estimates used in the <br />county needs study and are on par with all of <br />the cities who reported activity costs.) <br /> <br />Figure 32 shows the percentage and raw <br />numbers from the surveyed cities who either <br />met, or didn't meet the 50-year life cycle <br />spending requirements for each of the three <br />primary construction and maintenance <br />activities. The data from the survey indicates <br />that few cities under 5,000 in population are <br /> <br />100% <br /> <br />90% <br />80% <br /> <br />7O% <br />6O% <br /> <br />5O% <br />4O% <br />3O% <br />2O% <br /> 10% <br /> O% <br /> <br /> Figure 32 <br />Percentage of Large Cities Meeting 50.Year Life Cycle Spending Levels: <br />Avg Spending 1997-2001 (32 Cities Surveyed) <br /> <br />[~ Cities Not Meeting 50-Year Life Cycle Spending Requirements <br />Ll~l Cities Meeting 50-Year Life Cycle Spending Requirements <br /> <br />Construction/Reconstruction <br /> <br />Oveday <br /> <br />Sealcoat <br /> <br />33 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.