2010 PAVEMENT MARKING ACTIVITIES AND PERFORMANCE REPORT TH 60, District 7, between Worthington and Windom May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Pavement Markings Policy, Measures, Targets Provide appropriate pavement markings to provide presence and retroreflectivity on all highways 365 days a year Measures: Percentage of system compliant with Tech Memo Minimum Retroreflectivity (80 or 100 mcd/m2/lux ) Cost and productivity Customer Satisfaction Targets: 100% compliance with TM by December 2011 100% of line-miles meeting minimum retroreflectivity, or scheduled for replacement May 20, 2011 Operations Division

98.5% of 36,900 Line-Miles Statewide Compliant Roadways 98.5% of 36,900 Line-Miles Statewide % Compliant with Tech Memo for Material choice Note: Sections of roadway that do not have the pavement marking material called out by the Tech Memo, but were granted exceptions by OTST, are considered as being compliant with the Tech Memo. May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Pavement Marking Customer Satisfaction Market Research Pavement Marking Customer Satisfaction Rating Scale 1-10 POSITIVE 7.3 for both Metro and Greater Minnesota in 2010 7.1 Overall; 7.2 Metro, 7.1 in Greater Minnesota in 2009 NEUTRAL Source: Mn/DOT Omnibus Surveys 2001-10 *Omnibus Survey was not completed in 2007 May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Maintenance Striping Business* * Does not include Pavement Messages 2010 Maintenance striping: 4004 miles epoxy, 12087 miles latex: total = 16091 miles In 2010 from 2009: Total mileage = 10.8% less. Latex = 7.9% less, epoxy = 18.7% less May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Maintenance Striping Expenditures* * Does not include Pavement Messages 2010 Total internal striping = $5,486,350. Latex = $2,699,020, Epoxy = $2,787,330. In 2010 from 2009: Total maintenance striping expenditures 18% less. Latex = 10.5% down, Epoxy = 24.1% down May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Maintenance Striping Expenditures* * Does not include Pavement Messages 2010 costs: $0.042/ft latex; $0.132/ft epoxy Change from 2009 to 2010: -0.2 cents/foot latex; -0.9 cents/foot epoxy May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Construction Striping Mileage* * Does not include Pavement Messages 2010 Total Construction mileage= 4787.53. Latex = 2249.74, Epoxy = 2337.53, Poly = 200.25 Change from 2009: Total = +30.4%. Latex = +82.5%, Epoxy = -1.1%, Poly = 165.0% May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Construction Striping Expenditures* * Does not include Pavement Messages 2010 Total Construction expenditures = $10,095,857. Latex = $2,266,261, Epoxy = $3,881,857, Poly = $3,947,739. Change from 2009: Total = +84.8%. Latex = +182.3%, Epoxy = 17.7%, Poly = 190.1% May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Construction Striping Unit Costs* * Does not include Pavement Messages 2010: Latex $0.191/ft; epoxy $0.315/ft. 2009: Latex $0.123/ft; epoxy $0.264/ft. Change from 2009 to 2010: Latex +54.6%; epoxy +19.0%. Grooving is factored in to the unit cost. There was about 10x more grooved in latex in 2010 than 2009. May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Construction Striping Unit Costs* * Does not include Pavement Messages 2010: Latex $0.191/ft; epoxy $0.315/ft; Poly $3.73/ft. 2009: Latex $0.123/ft; epoxy $0.264/ft; Poly $3.41/ft. 2008: Latex $0.240/ft; epoxy $0.210/ft; Poly $4.28/ft. Change from 2009 to 2010: Latex +54.6%; epoxy +19.0%; Poly +9.5%. May 20, 2011 Operations Division

(Construction + Maintenance) Total Striping Mileage* (Construction + Maintenance) *Does not include Pavement Messages 2010 Total mileage (Maint + const) = 20878.63. Latex = 14336.71, Epoxy = 6341.67, Poly = 200.25. Change from 2009 to 2010: Total mileage -3.8%. Latex = -0.1%, Epoxy = -13.0%, Tape +165.0%. May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Total Striping Expenditures* (Construction + Maintenance) *Does not include Pavement Messages 2010 Total expenditures (Maint + Const) = $15,582,207. Latex = $4,965,281; Epoxy = $6,669,187; Poly = $3,947,739 Change from 2009 to 2010: Total expenditures +28.2%. Latex +30.0%; epoxy -4.3%; poly +190.1%. May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Relative cost of pavement markings Total Construction Budget for 2010 = $649,895,273 Total Pavement Marking Construction Expenditures (including Temporary/Interim Markings, and Messages) ≈ $10,837,000 Percentage of total Construction Budget ≈ 1.90% (1.97% in 2009) Source: 2010 Average Bid Price Report http://tchw2ks009/estimating/reports/AVGPR052010.PDF 2009 Construction Budget = $359,724,702 2009 Total Pavement Marking Construction Expenditures = $7,077,000 May 20, 2011 Operations Division

2010 Retroreflectivity Readings May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Retroreflectivity Readings by Year Read an estimated 30% of the markings in the state in 2010. No breakdowns this year. Good weather, and the return of an experienced student worker. May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Summary Pavement Marking shortage 98.5% Compliance with Tech Memo statewide Tech Memo exception process needs to be followed on all projects, but overall there has been improvement Poor pavement conditions impacting material choices Preventative Maintenance still hampering marking performance Pavement Marking shortage We didn’t blink! CO Construction provided strong leadership Best way to deal with it is simply to enforce the contract No bids on some pavement marking projects in 2010 It means contracts are being enforced by MnDOT A few Governor’s Initiative projects will be rebid this year CO Striping Business was instrumental in ensuring every marking that needed it was refreshed, despite the shortage May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Summary (continued) 2011 MnDOT Construction Spec Book rewrite Use of grooved-in and wet-reflective markings continuing to expand Boiler Plate Special Provisions for grooved-in markings were updated and strengthened Specified equipment to level the playing field for bidders and to reduce work for our inspectors Emphasized certified installer language for tape NTPEP Test Deck Ted Ulven and others worked with the Materials Lab in setting up and evaluating product performance Concrete on TH 610, Bituminous on US 10 May 20, 2011 Operations Division

OTST Emphasis Areas Pavement Marking Tool Implementation continues Rumble Tech Memo development Evaluating comments from the Left Box Review Working with Materials to assuage concerns about centerline joint Other ongoing Research Pavement Markings under Challenging Conditions Rumble Stripes: Evaluation of Retroreflectivity and Installation Practices Adoption of 2009 Federal MUTCD Chapter 3 May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Emerging issues/activities Replacing Laserlux Van Hiring new Pavement Marking Data Analyst Contracting out more retroreflectivity readings More analysis of wet-reflective marking effectiveness in D4 Contracting out readings in D6 and Metro Pilot project requiring all contractor markings have retro readings taken by pay item Will help populate the Pavement Marking Management Tool Requiring all contractor striping trucks to have a Data Logging System Pavement Marking Shortage – might happen again in 2011 Enforce the contract! Don’t blink! May 20, 2011 Operations Division

Questions or comments? 2010 Pavement Marking Activities and Performance Report Office of Traffic, Safety, and Technology (OTST) May 20, 2011 Operations Division