2019 Westfield Payment Management Analysis Report PDF

Westfield, NJ
Pavement Management Analysis Report

December 2019
Town of Westfield, NJ
Attn.: Kris McAloon, Town Engineer
959 North Avenue
Westfield, NJ 07090
IMS Infrastructure Management Services

8380 S. Kyrene Rd, STE 101, Tempe, AZ 85284
Phone: (480) 839-4347, Fax: (480) 839-4348
www.imsanalysis.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS 1
2.0 PRINCIPLES OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 3

2.1 Pavement Preservation 3
2.2 Economic Impacts of Maintenance & Rehabilitation 5
3.0 THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS 6

3.1 Functional Class Review 6
3.2 Field Survey Methodology 10
4.0 WESTFIELD SURVEY PAVEMENT CONDITION 12

4.1 Understanding The Pavement Condition Index 12
4.2 Westfield Network Condition Imagery 13
4.3 Evaluating the Pavement Quality and Backlog 20
4.4 Westfield Network Condition Distribution 21
4.5 Condition By Functional Classification 24
4.6 Structural and Load Associated Distress Analysis 25
5.0 REHABILITATION PLAN AND BUDGET DEVELOPMENT 27

5.1 Key Analysis Set Points and Pavement Performance Curves 27
5.2 Fix All and Annual Estimates 31
5.3 Network Budget Analysis Models 33
5.4 Post Rehabilitation Condition 36
5.5 Network Recommendations and Comments 37
Appendix A Full-Sized Maps
IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Page i

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS
Project Summary
In 2019 IMS Infrastructure Management Services, LLC (IMS) was contracted by the Town of Westfield to
conduct a pavement condition assessment and analysis update on approximately 100 centerline miles of
Town maintained asphalt roadways.
IMS mobilized their Laser Road Surface Tester (RST) to conduct an objective assessment using industry
standard pavement distress protocols such as those found in ASTM D6433-11. Following the Utility
improvements, the Town’s network average Pavement Condition Index was found to be a 66 and the
Town’s backlog (roads below a PCI of 40) was at 7%. See section 4 for more information
Network Valuation (Asset, $M, %)
Sidewalks & Ramps, 16.3,

15%
C&G & Drainage, 15.8,
15%
Signs & Striping, 0.7, 1%
Landscaping, 1.1, 1%
Miscellaneous, 9.5, 9%
Pavements, 29.2, 28%
Subgrade & Base, 32.2,

31%
Total Mileage = 100.1 Miles
Total Network Valuation = $104.8M
Cost Per Mile = $1047/Mile
Figure 1- Replacement Value of Roadway Network
As seen in Figure 1, Westfield has just over 100 centerline miles of roadway, encompassing nearly 2M
square yards of pavement surfacing. At an average replacement cost for a typical roadway just over $1M
per mile, not including the value of the land, the Town has over $104.8M invested in its paved roadway
network.
IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Page 1

Summary Metrics of Health
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) – The PCI score is a ranking assessment on the overall health of a
pavement segment on a scale of 0 to 100. The network average PCI is a good global indicator of a
network’s overall health. (Explained in section 4)
Percent of Excellent Roads – Roads with a condition category of Excellent are those that score
between a PCI of 85 to 100.
Backlog – Backlog is the Very Poor and Poor roads (between a PCI of 0 and 40) that represent a portion
of the network in need of extensive rehabilitation such as full and partial reconstruction. Using sound
pavement management and finance principles, a very healthy network will have a backlog of 10% or less.
Westfield met three out of three of the metrics for evaluating the quality of its roadway network.
 Westfield’s network average pavement condition score is slightly above the national average
currently seen by IMS of 60 to 65, with the Town’s average scoring a 66.
 The number of streets rated Excellent is above the minimum recommended target of 15% at
20.8%
 The backlog amount is below the average value of 12% at 6.9%.
Budget Scenarios
See section 5 for more information
The current annual budget for Westfield is $1.8M per year dedicated to pavement preservation and
rehabilitation. This will increase the backlog to 12% while elevating the average PCI to a 70 over 5 years.
Please note this number is an annual budget average across all 5 years of the analysis horizon.
The Recommended Budget is $3.52M per year and will elevate the network average PCI to a 74 while
increasing the backlog to 10%.
Executive Summary Conclusion
The Westfield network has an average PCI of 66 and a backlog of 6.9%, with most of the network landing
in the Very Good to Excellent PCI range. With the Town’s existing budget, the network conditions will
continue to improve into the 70s PCI range and backlog will increase to 12%. It is worth noting that the
Town does have a fair amount of streets approaching the end of their lifespan where overlays can be
effective, representing a percentage of the network at the steepest part of their deterioration curves.

2.0 PRINCIPLES OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
2.1 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION
Preservation of existing roads and street systems has become a major activity for all levels of
government. Because municipalities must consistently optimize the spending of their budgets, funds that
have been designated for pavement must be used as effectively as possible. The best method to obtain
the maximum value of available funds is through the use of a pavement management system.
Pavement management is the process of planning, budgeting, designing, evaluating, and rehabilitating a
pavement network to provide maximum benefit with available funds.
A pavement management system is a set of tools or methods that assist decision makers in finding
optimal strategies for providing and maintaining pavements in a serviceable condition over a given time
period. The intent is to identify the optimum level of long-term funding to sustain the network at a
predetermined level of service while incorporating local conditions and constraints.
Figure 2 – Pavement Deterioration and Life Cycle Costs
As shown as Figure 2, the streets that are repaired while in good condition will cost less over their lifetime
than those left to deteriorate to a poor condition. Without an adequate routine pavement maintenance
program, streets require more frequent reconstruction, thereby costing millions of extra dollars.
The key to a successful pavement management program is to develop a reasonably accurate

performance model of the roadway, and then identify the optimal timing and rehabilitation strategy. The
resultant benefit of this exercise is realized by the long term cost savings and increase in pavement
quality over time. As illustrated in Figure 2, pavements typically deteriorate rapidly once they hit a specific
threshold. A $1 investment after 40% lifespan is much more effective than deferring maintenance until
heavier overlays or possibly reconstruction are required just a few years later.

Once implemented, an effective pavement information management system can assist agencies in
developing long-term rehabilitation programs and budgets. The key is to develop policies and practices
that delay the inevitable total reconstruction for as long as practical yet still remain within the target zone
for cost effective rehabilitation. That is, as each roadway approaches the steepest part of its deterioration
curve, apply a remedy that extends the pavement life, at a minimum cost, thereby avoiding costly heavy
overlays and reconstruction. Figure 3 illustrates the concept of extending pavement life through the
application of timely rehabilitations.
Figure 3 – Pavement Life Cycle Curve
Ideally, the lower limit of the target zone shown in Figure 3 would have a minimum PCI value in the 60 to
70 range to keep as many streets as possible requiring a thin overlay or less. The upper limit would tend
to fall close to the higher end of the Very Good category – that is a pavement condition score
approaching 85. Other functions of a pavement management system include assessing the effectiveness
of maintenance activities, new technologies, and storing historical data and images.
For Westfield, a prioritization methodology based on pavement condition, pavement materials, functional
class, and strength rating was used to analyze the network condition and develop the proposed 5 year
rehabilitation plan.
The analysis methodologies and data collection technologies were based on ASTM D6433 Standard
Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys (hereinafter ASTM D6433) for
assessment of pavement surface condition and the International Roughness Index (IRI) for quantification
of pavement roughness on all Town streets. These measurements of pavement quality are combined to
form an overall 0 to 100 Pavement Condition Index (PCI), with 100 being the best.

2.2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION
The role of the street network as a factor in the Town’s well-being cannot be overstated. In the simplest
of terms, roadways form the economic backbone of a community. They provide the means for goods to
be exchanged, commerce to flourish, and commercial enterprises to generate revenue. As such, they are
an investment to be maintained.
The overall condition of an agency’s infrastructure and transportation network is a key indicator of
economic prosperity. Roadway networks, in general, are one of the most important and dynamic sectors
in the global economy. They have a strong influence on not only the economic well-being of a community,
but a strong impact on quality of life. Well-maintained road networks experience multiple socioeconomic
benefits through greater labor market opportunities and decreasing income gap.
As a crucial link between producers and their markets, quality road networks ensure straightforward
access to goods and drive global and local economies. Likewise, higher network quality has a strong
correlation to improvements in household consumption and income. Roads also act as a key element to
social cohesion by acting as a median for integration of bordering regions. This social integration
promotes a decreased gap in income along with diversity and a greater sense of community that can play
a large role in decreasing rates of poverty.
Conversely, deterioration of roads can have adverse effects on a community and may bring about
important and unanticipated welfare effects that the governments should be aware of when cutting
transportation budgets. Poor road conditions increase fuel and tire consumption while shortening intervals
between vehicle repair and maintenance. In turn, these roads result in delayed or more expensive
deliveries for businesses and consumers. Economic effects of poor road networks, such as time
consuming and costly rehabilitation, can be reduced if a proactive maintenance approach is successfully
implemented. To accomplish this, a pavement assessment and analysis should be completed every few
years in an effort update the budget models and rehabilitation plans. As shown below, the IMS Laser
Road Surface Tester (featured in Figure 4) was mobilized to Westfield to conduct an objective survey.
Figure 4 – Laser Road Surface Tester (RST)

3.0 THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS
3.1 FUNCTIONAL CLASS REVIEW
As part of the scope of this assignment, the functional classification designations currently used in the
Westfield pavement management program were adopted for their use in the pavement analysis.
Although there is no uniform standard for classifying pavement into functional classes, The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), American Public Works Association (APWA) and Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) offer some broad guidelines on how to assign classifications that were
followed in this study.
The Town’s functional classification definitions used in the assessment are as follows:
1. Town Arterial (ART) – all cross Town corridors consisting of 2 to 4 or more lanes, generally
spaced at 1 mile intervals with daily traffic counts generally exceeding 10,000 vehicles per day.
Major cross Town corridors with a landscaped median were also assigned to Principal Arterials.
2. Town Collector (COL) – Continuous and discontinuous cross Town and inter-district corridors
that are 2 to 4 lanes across and generally have a centerline stripe or a designated bus route. The
ADT generally falls in the 1,000 to 10,000 vehicle per day range. They are typically spaced on the
½ or ¼ mile section line and on occasion, may have a short non-landscaped median. Major
collectors are also assigned to streets segments leading to, or adjacent to, a major traffic
generator site such as a regional shopping complex. Collectors form the entrance to communities
and may have a decorative landscaped median of short duration.
3. Minor Street – These are the majority of the street segments consisting of all local residential
roads not defined above or as industrial/commercial.
Alleys and bicycle paths were not included in this study even though they are part of the overall
transportation network. The implication of this is that the final pavement management program and
budget developed under this program will not cover upkeep of alleys and bicycle paths. Also, non-Town
owned streets were not surveyed as they are not maintained by the Town.
The paved roadway network consists of 3 functional classes, covering approximately 100 miles of
pavement. The average pavement condition index (PCI) of the roadway network is a 66 and the network’s
primary pavement type is asphalt. The following table and Figure 5 summarize the functional
classification splits within the system.

Network Summary by Functional Class
Town Collector
Town Arterial
Minor Street
Pavetype
Network
Segment (Block) Count All Streets 1123 30 200 893
Asphalt 1122 30 200 892
Concrete 1 0 0 1
Network Length (ft): All Streets 528,288 11,186 88,769 428,333

Asphalt 527,776 11,186 88,769 427,821
Concrete 512 0 0 512
Network Length (mi): All Streets 100.1 2.1 16.8 81.1

Asphalt 100.0 2.1 16.8 81.0
Concrete 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Average Width (ft): All Streets 33.3 35.1 34.4 33.1

Asphalt 33.3 35.1 34.4 33.1
Concrete 27.3 0.0 0.0 27.3
Network Area (yd2): All Streets 1,956,300 43,687 339,248 1,573,365

Asphalt 1,954,747 43,687 339,248 1,571,812
Concrete 1,553 0 0 1,553
Current Pavement Condition All Streets 66 80 64 66

Index (CPCI) Asphalt 66 80 64 66
6/3/19 Concrete 93 0 0 93
Pavement Condition Index All Streets 57 54 59 57

(Surveyed PCI) Asphalt 57 54 59 57
Concrete 93 0 0 93
Current Backlog (%) All Streets 7
Current Network Index All Streets 61
Surface Distress Index (SDI) All Streets 63 79 60 63

6/3/19 Asphalt 63 79 60 63
Concrete 91 0 0 91
Roughness Index (RI) All Streets 73 82 72 73

6/3/19 Asphalt 73 82 72 73
Concrete 96 0 0 96

Functional Classification Distribution By Area (FunCL, 000's Sq Yds, %)
Town Arterial, 43.7, 2.2%
Town Collector, 339.2,

17.3%
Minor Street, 1,573.4,

80.4%
Total Mileage = 100.1 Miles

Total Area = 1956k Sq Yards
Figure 5 – Functional Class Distribution by Mileage
As discussed later in this report, the functional classifications also play a critical role in the rehabilitation
candidate selection process as Arterials and Collectors are generally given preference over other rehab
candidates due to their higher traffic counts and steeper deterioration curves.

The following figure (Figure 6) highlights the functional classifications used for the Westfield roadway
network. An electronic version of this map is appended to this report.
Figure 6 – Westfield Functional Classification Designation

3.2 FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Following a set of predefined assessment protocols matching the pavement management software
(ASTM D6433), a specialized piece of survey equipment – referred to as a Laser Road Surface Tester
(Laser RST, pictured on page 5) – is used to collect observations on the condition of the pavement
surface, as well as collect high definition digital imagery and spatial coordinate information. The Laser
RST surveys each local street from end to end in a single pass, while all other roadway classifications are
completed in two passes.
Key pavement condition data elements collected by the Laser RST include:
Surface Distress Index – The Laser RST collects surface distress observations based on the extent and
severity of distresses encountered along the length of the roadway following ASTM D6433 protocols for
asphalt and concrete pavements. The surface distress condition (cracking, potholes, raveling, and the
like) is considered by the traveling public to be the most important aspect in assessing the overall
pavement condition.
Presented on a 0 to 100 scale, the Surface Distress Index (SDI) is an aggregation of the observed
pavement defects. Within the SDI, not all distresses are weighted equally. Certain load associated
distresses (caused by traffic loading), such as rutting or alligator cracking on asphalt streets, or divided
slab on concrete streets, have a much higher impact on the surface distress index than non-load
associated distresses such as raveling or patching. Even at low extents and moderate severity – less
than 10% of the total area – load associated distresses can drop the SDI considerably. ASTM D6433 also
has algorithms within it to correct for multiple or overlapping distresses within a segment.
For this project, extent and severity observations were collected, processed, and loaded into the
pavement management software. Within the software, the following distresses, listed in order from
greatest to lowest impact, are presented as a 0 to 10 rating for review and reporting:
 Alligator Cracking – Alligator cracking is quantified by the severity of the failure and number of
square feet. Even at low extents, this can have a large impact on the condition score as this
distress represents a failure of the underlying base materials.
 Wheel Path Rutting – Starting at a minimum depth of ¼ inch, wheel path ruts are quantified by
their depth and the number of square feet encountered. Like alligator cracking, low densities of
rutting can have a large impact on the final condition score.
 Longitudinal, Transverse, Block (Map), and Edge Cracks – These are quantified by their length
and width. Longitudinal cracks that intertwine are the start of alligator cracking.
 Patching – Patching is quantified by the extent and quality of patches. When the majority of a
roadway surface is covered by a patch, such as a large utility replacement, the rating of the patch
is minimized. All potholes are rated as patches.
 Distortions – All uneven pavement surfaces, such as depressions, bumps, sags, swells, heaves,
and corrugations, are included as distortions and are quantified by the severity and extent of the
affected area.
 Raveling – Raveling is the loss of fine aggregate materials on the pavement surface and is
measured by the severity and number of square feet affected.

 Bleeding – Bleeding is the presence of free asphalt on the roadway surface caused by too much
asphalt in the pavement or insufficient voids in the matrix. The result is a pavement surface with
low skid resistance and is measured by the amount and severity of the area.
 Similar distresses were collected for concrete streets including divided slab, corner breaks, joint
spalling, faulting, polished aggregate, and scaling.
Roughness Index – Roughness is recorded following the industry standard “International Roughness
Index” (IRI), a measure of the change in elevation over a distance expressed as a slope and reported in
millimeters/meter. The IRI value is converted to a 0 to 100 score and reported as the Roughness Index
(RI) as follows:
RI = (11 – 3.5 x ln(IRI)) x 10
ln(IRI) is the natural logarithm of IRI.
Structural Index – The network of streets was not tested for structural adequacy, instead, the
relationship between the final pavement condition score and amount of load associated distresses was
analyzed and each pavement section assigned a Weak, Moderate or Strong strength rating. The
assigned structural index (30, 60 or 80 for weak, moderate and strong respectively) was not used in
determining the overall pavement condition score, but simply to classify the pavement strength and aid in
selecting appropriate rehabilitation strategies.
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) – Following our field surveys, the condition data is assembled to create
a single score representing the overall condition of the pavement. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is
calculated as follows:
PCI = 33% Roughness Index + 67% Surface Distress Index
Development of the pavement management plan and budgets were completed using Westfield - specific
rehabilitation strategies, unit rates, priorities, and pavement performance curves. The process was
iterative in its attempt to obtain the greatest efficiency and cost benefit.

4.0 WESTFIELD SURVEY PAVEMENT CONDITION
4.1 UNDERSTANDING THE PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX
The following figure compares the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) to commonly used descriptive terms.
Divisions between the terms are not fixed, but are meant to reflect common perceptions of condition.
100
Town of Westfield, NJ Excellent - Routine and preventative maintenance, some
90 Pavement Condition Definitions Using Common Terms crack and joint sealing, localized repairs
80 Very Good - Surface treatments (slurry, micro surface, chip

seals), PCC localized remove and replace, crack seal and
joint sealing
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
70
Good - Surface treatments with localized repair to thin
overlays, PCC slight panel replacement
60
Fair - Thin to moderate overlays with some remove and
replace, PCC moderate panel replacement
50
Marginal - Progressively thicker overlays with remove and
replace, PCC extensive panel replacement
40
Poor - Thick overlays to partial reconstruction (surface removal,
compaction, overlay), PCC extensive panel replacement and
30 grinding
20
Very Poor - Full reconstruction and base stabilization
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (Years)
Figure 7 – Understanding the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Score
The following table details a general description for each of these condition levels with respect to
remaining life and typical rehabilitation actions:
Relative Remaining
PCI Range Description Life Definition
85 – 100 Excellent 15 to 25 Years Like new condition – little to no maintenance required when
new; routine maintenance such as crack and joint sealing.
70 – 85 Very Good 12 to 20 Years Routine maintenance such as patching and crack sealing with
surface treatments such as seal coats or slurries.
60 – 70 Good 10 to 15 Years Heavier surface treatments, chip seals and thin overlays.
Localized panel replacements for concrete.
40 – 60 Marginal to Fair 7 to 12 Years Heavy surface-based inlays or overlays with localized repairs.
Moderate to extensive panel replacements.
25 – 40 Poor 5 to 10 Years Sections will require very thick overlays, surface replacement,
base reconstruction, and possible subgrade stabilization.
0 – 25 Very Poor 0 to 5 Years High percentage of full reconstruction.

4.2 WESTFIELD NETWORK CONDITION IMAGERY
The images presented below provide a sampling of the Westfield streets that fall into the various
condition categories with a discussion of potential rehabilitation strategies.
Very Poor (PCI = 0 to 25) – Complete Reconstruction
Carol Drive from Golf Edge to Lynn Lane (GISID 2675, PCI = 23) – Rated as Very Poor, this street
displays spreading base failure as evidenced by the severe alligator cracking, patching and potholes. A
mill and overlay on this street would not be suitable as the base has failed and would not meet an
extended service life of at least 15 years. This street requires a full reconstruction and should be carefully
monitored.
Deferral of reconstruction of streets rated as Very Poor will not cause a substantial decrease in pavement
quality as the streets have passed the opportunity for overlay-based strategies. Due to the high cost of
reconstruction, Very Poor streets are often deferred until full funding is available in favor of completing
more streets that can be rehabilitated at lower costs, resulting in a greater net benefit to the Town. This
strategy however must be sensitive to citizen complaints forcing the street to be selected earlier. It is
important to consistently monitor these streets and check for potholes or other structural deficiencies until
the street is eventually rebuilt.

Poor (PCI = 25 to 40) – Last Opportunity for Surface Base Rehabilitation
Birch Avenue from Standish Avenue to Mountain Avenue (GISID 2433, PCI = 34) – Rated as Poor,
this segment still has some remaining life before it becomes a critical reconstruction need. As evident in
the imagery, the existence of multiple potholes on this segment severely impacts the PCI score of the
entire segment. On this street, the base is showing signs of failure in areas exhibiting severe raveling.
The severely cracked areas are isolated and do not persist throughout the entire segment length and
cross section. These areas should be dug out and structurally patched to attain the maximum life from
any potential rehabilitation efforts. If left untreated, within a short period of time, a full reconstruction
would be required.
On arterial roadways, Poor streets often require partial to full reconstruction – that is removal of the
pavement surface and base down to the subgrade and rebuilding from there. On local roadways, they
require removal of the pavement surface through grinding or excavation, base repairs, restoration of the
curb line and drainage, and then placement of a new surface.
In general, the service life of Poor streets is such that if deferred for too long, it would require a more
costly reconstruction. Streets rated as Poor are typically selected first for rehabilitation as they provide the
greatest cost/benefit to the Town – that is the greatest increase in life per rehabilitation dollar spent.

Marginal (PCI = 40 to 50) – Progressively Thicker Overlays
Ayliffe Avenue from Summit Avenue to Boulevard (GISID 1159, PCI = 43) – Rated as marginal with a
PCI score at the lower range between Marginal and Poor streets. Marginal streets have distresses that
tend to be localized and moderate in nature – that is they do not extend the full length of the segment and
can be readily dug out and repaired. This street segment highlights this characteristic as the failed area
does not quite extend the full length or width of the roadway and is still serviceable. However, it also
highlights the relationship between base and pavement quality. Placing an overlay on this street without
repairing the base would not achieve a full 15 year life as the failure would continue to occur over time.
Structural patching of the failed areas along localized rehabs would permit a full width grind and inlay on
this street segment and return it to full service. The curb lines are straight and drainage is functioning
well.
Marginal streets that display high amounts of load associated distresses are selected as a priority for
rehabilitation as they provide the greatest cost/benefit to the Town. If left untreated, Marginal streets with
high amounts of load associated distresses would deteriorate to become partial reconstruction
candidates. Marginal streets that are failing due to materials issues or non-load associated failures may
become suitable candidates for thick overlays if deferred, without a significant cost increase.

Fair (PCI = 50 to 60) – Thin to Moderate Overlays
North Chestnut Street from Saunders Avenue to East Broad Street (GISID 2232, PCI = 52) – Rated
in the Fair category, these streets require thin to moderate overlays for asphalt when they enter their
need year (generally within 2-3 points of the lower PCI in the defined range). Several distresses are
present, but tend to be more localized and moderate in severity, and non-load related (primarily
longitudinal and transverse cracking and raveling).
Arterial and Collector streets maintain a higher priority in the Fair category for Westfield. Local asphalt
streets rated as Fair tend to receive a lower priority when developing a rehabilitation program. The
reason for this is the cost to complete an overlay now would be on the order of $14.00 to $17.00/yd2. If
deferred, the rehabilitation cost would only increase by about $3 to $5/yd2, again depending on the
functional classification, in about 5 to 10 years. This delay represents a 20% difference over the time
stated. Thus, the cost of deferral is low when compared to deferring a thick overlay to a reconstruction
with a two to threefold increase in cost.

Good (PCI = 60 to 70) – Surface Treatments to Thin Overlays
Colonial Avenue from Standish Avenue to Mountain Avenue (GISID 2328, PCI = 61) – Rated as
Good with the primary cause of deterioration longitudinal cracking. It also displays small amounts of load
associated distresses that can easily be removed to restore the visual appearance of the roadway. The
existing cracks should be sealed and the pavement surface restored, with a heavier surface treatment
such as microsurfacing or double slurry to fully waterproof the pavement and cover the crack sealant.
The occasional dig out and replacement may be required to correct localized deficiencies. Alternatively,
depending on the extent of the distressed areas, base strength and drainage, a thin overlay may be
applied.
Asphalt streets rated as Good are ideal candidates for thinner surface-based rehabilitations and local
repairs. Depending on the amount of localized failures, a thin edge mill and overlay, or possibly a surface
treatment, would be a suitable rehabilitation strategy for streets rated as Good. Streets that fall in the high
60 - low 70 PCI range provide the greatest opportunity for extending
pavement life at the lowest possible cost, thus applying the principles
of the perpetual life cycle approach to pavement maintenance. The
adjacent photo is a great example of a street segment (not a
Westfield Road) that displayed low load associated distresses and
thus, high structural characteristics, and once the distressed areas
were replaced, a slurry seal was applied. The patching accounted for
less than 5 to 10% of the total area and resulted in a good looking,
watertight final surface at a much lower cost than an overlay with
less disruption to the neighborhood and curb line. The patches were
paver laid and roller compacted.

Very Good (PCI = 70 to 85) – Surface Treatments and Localized Rehabilitation
Fourth Avenue from Salter Place to Benson Place (GISID 2024, PCI = 70) – Rated as Very Good, this
road displays minor amounts of transverse cracking and patching. The surface is non-weathered, and the
base is still strong. This street is an example of a candidate for preventative maintenance and light weight
surface treatments to extend the life of a roadway.
Asphalt streets rated as Very Good generally need lightweight surface-based treatments such as surface
seals, slurries, chip seals or microsurfacing. Routine maintenance such as crack sealing and localized
repairs often precede surface treatments. The concept is to keep the cracks as waterproof as possible
through crack sealing and the application of a surface treatment. By keeping water out of the base layers,
the pavement life is extended without the need for thicker rehabilitations such as overlays or
reconstruction. Surface treatments also tend to increase surface friction and visual appearance of the
pavement surface but do not add structure or increase smoothness.
Surface treatments may include:
 Double or single application of slurry seals (slurries are a sand and asphalt cement mix).
 Microsurfacing – asphalt cement and up to 3/8 sand aggregate.
 Chip seals and cape seals (Chip seal followed by a slurry).
Additional cost benefits of early intervention include:
 Less use of non-renewable resources through thinner rehabilitation strategies.

 Less intrusive rehabilitation and easier to maintain access during construction.
 Easier to maintain existing drainage patterns.

Excellent (PCI = 85 to 100)
Roger Avenue from Grandview Avenue to City Limit (GISID 1482, PCI = 85) – Rated as Excellent,
displaying little to no surface distresses. The ride is smooth and the surface is non-weathered and the
base is strong. In a couple of years, this street segment would be an ideal candidate for routine
maintenance activities such as crack sealant rehabilitation.
In terms of pavement management efficiency, a program based on worst-first, that is starting at the lowest
rated street and working up towards the highest, does not achieve optimal expenditure of money.
Generally, under this scenario, agencies can not sufficiently fund pavement rehabilitation and lose ground
despite injecting large amounts of capital into the network.
The preferred basis of rehabilitation candidate selection is to examine the cost of deferral of a street,
against increased life expectancy.
c

4.3 EVALUATING THE PAVEMENT QUALITY AND BACKLOG
The concept of the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score, backlog percentage and number of streets
rated as Excellent must be fully understood in order to understand and develop an effective pavement
management program. These three metrics should fall into certain ranges in order to measure the quality
and long term viability of a network.
The PCI score indicates the overall pavement condition and represents the amount of equity in the
system; it is the value most commonly considered when gauging the overall quality of a roadway network.
It may also be used to define a desired level of service: that is, an agency may wish to develop a
pavement management program such that in five years the overall network score meets a set minimum
value. Obviously, the higher the PCI score the better off the overall network condition is. Agencies with
an average PCI score above 80 (when considering surface distress, roughness and possibly strength) are
rare and found only in a few select communities. Less than 1 in 20 communities surveyed by IMS have
that high of a condition average. Averages between 65 and 80 are indicative of either newer networks, or
ones that have an ongoing pavement rehabilitation program and tend to be fully funded. Scores between
60 and 65 are common and represent a reasonable average providing a satisfactory balance between
levels of service and funding, and when taken with the other two metrics may represent a well-managed
and funded network. A minimum score of 60 means that overall the network falls at the lower end of the
range where light weight surface treatments and thin overlays are the standard rehabilitation practice.
Below a 60 means an agency has to rely on more costly rehabilitations and reconstructions to address
condition issues.
At the upper end of the condition scale, a minimum of 15% of the network should be rated as Excellent.
Generally, at or above 15%, means that a noticeable percentage of the roadway network is in like new
condition, requiring only routine maintenance. While higher percentages of streets rated as Excellent are
certainly desirable, the annual cost to maintain rates at higher multiples is often cost prohibitive. Below
15% means the agency is struggling to effectively rehabilitate their network on an annual basis. The 15%
marker represents a cost effective balance between annual investment and satisfactory level of service.
Backlog roadways are those that have dropped sufficiently in quality to the point where surface based
rehabilitation efforts would no longer prove to be cost effective. These roadways are rated Poor or Very
Poor and will require either partial or total reconstruction. Backlog is expressed as the percentage of
roads requiring reconstruction as compared to the network totals.
It is the backlog, however, that defines the amount of legacy work an agency is facing and is willing to
accept in the future. It is the combination of the three metrics that presents the true picture of the
condition of a roadway network, and conversely defines improvement goals.
Generally, a backlog of 10% to 15% of the overall network is considered manageable from a funding point
of view with 12% being a realistic target. Fifteen percent (15%) is used as a control limit to indicate the
maximum amount of backlog that can be readily managed. Backlog rates below 10%, again are certainly
desirable, but financially unachievable for a large percentage of agencies. Backlogs approaching 20% or
more tend to become unmanageable, unless aggressively checked through larger rehabilitation
programs, and will grow at an alarming rate. At 20% a tipping point has been met and the backlog tends
to increase faster than an agency’s ability to reconstruct their streets.

4.4 WESTFIELD NETWORK CONDITION DISTRIBUTION
Figure 8 presented below shows the distribution of pavement condition for the roadway network in
Westfield. The average PCI for the network is 66. While direct comparisons to other agencies are difficult
due to variances in ratings systems, Westfield is slightly above average when compared to other
agencies recently surveyed by IMS, which typically fall in the 60 to 65 range.
30
Current Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Distribution by Area
25
Current Network Average Condition = 66, Backlog = 6.9%
Percentage of Network by Area
20
15
10
0
0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 90 to 100
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Current PCI Date = 6/3/2019
Figure 8 – Roadway Network Present Status
 This is reflective of a moderately aged network that has had some recent roadway renewal effort.
 Simultaneously, the Town has a fair sample of streets that are approaching the end of their life
where surface based rehabilitations, such as overlays, can be effective.
 Traditionally we expect to see a bell curve that is skewed to the right and centered between a PCI
of 60 and 70. The Westfield network curve illustrated above does not follow this norm and shows
the positive impact of recent roadway renewal effort over the last several years.

The following graph (Figure 9) plots the same pavement condition information, but instead of using the
actual Pavement Condition Index (PCI) value, descriptive terms are used to classify the roadways.
 Twenty-one percent (21%) of the network can be considered in Excellent condition and require
only routine maintenance.
 Twenty-one percent (21%) of the network falls into the Very Good classification. These are roads
that benefit most from preventative maintenance techniques such as microsurfacing, slurry seals
and localized panel repairs.
 Fourteen percent (14%) of the streets are rated as Good and are candidates for lighter surface-
based rehabilitations such as thin overlays or slight panel replacements.
 Thirty-eight percent (38%) of network can be considered Fair to Marginal condition representing
candidates for progressively thicker overlay-based rehabilitation or panel replacements. If left
untreated, they will decline rapidly into reconstruction candidates.
 The remaining seven percent (7%) of the network is rated as Poor or Very Poor, meaning these
roadways have failed or are past their optimal due point for overlay or surface-based
rehabilitation and may require progressively heavier or thicker forms of rehabilitation (such as
extensive panel replacement, surface reconstruction or deep patch and paving) or total
reconstruction.
30
Current Pavement Condition Rating Using Descriptive Terms
25
20
Percentage of Network By Area
15
10
0
V Poor (0 to 25) Poor (25 to 40) Marginal (40 to 50) Fair (50 to 60) Good (60 to 70) V Good (70 to 85) Excellent (85 to 100)
Current Pavement Condition Using Descriptive Terms Current PCI Date = 6/3/19
Figure 9 – Roadway Network Present Status Using Descriptive Terms

Figure 10 presents the surveyed condition of the streets using PCI (Pavement Condition Index). An
electronic version of this map is appended to this report.
Figure 10 – Westfield by Segment Using Pavement Condition Index (PCI)

4.5 CONDITION BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Figure 11 highlights the pavement condition distribution for the arterial, collector, and local streets. Keep
in mind that arterial roadways, the streets that have the majority of traffic use and link various parts of the
Town together, may be considered the thoroughfares of the Town and during the budget development
process, should receive the highest priority when selecting rehabilitation candidates.
 The Town arterial network has an average PCI of 80
 The Town collector network has an average PCI of 64
 The Minor Street network has an average PCI of 66.

60
Current Pavement Condition Rating Using Descriptive Terms By Functional Class
50
Town Arterial, PCI = 80

40
Town Collector, PCI = 64
Minor Street, PCI = 66

30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pavement Condition Using Descriptive Terms Current PCI Date = 6/3/19
Figure 11 – Condition Rating by Functional Classification

4.6 STRUCTURAL AND LOAD ASSOCIATED DISTRESS ANALYSIS
Structural testing and analysis was not performed for the Town of Westfield. Instead, analysis of the
cause of pavement failure for these street segments was completed by examining the types of distresses
that have caused the PCI score to drop.
Surface distresses may be categorized into two classifications – load associated distresses (LADD) and
non-load associated distresses (NLAD). Load associated distresses are those that are directly related to
traffic loading and structural capacity. Non-load associated distresses are those that result from materials
or environmental issues including shrinkage (transverse) cracking, bleeding and raveling. Generally, load
associated distresses affect the overall condition score more than non-load associated distresses – as is
the case in Westfield. For asphalt streets, roadways were classified as Weak, Moderate, or Strong.
The purpose of the structural analysis is twofold:
 The structural analysis provides input into which performance curve each segment is to use –
performance curves are used to predict pavement deterioration over time.
 Structural analysis assists in rehabilitation selection by constraining inadequate pavement

sections from receiving too light of a rehabilitation and conversely, identifying segments suitable
for lighter weight treatment.
Figure 12 plots the relationship of the load associated distresses (shown in red) against pavement
condition. As can be seen from the plot, at higher PCI scores, most pavements fall into the moderate
strength classification as the distresses have not yet begun to manifest themselves into severe failures.
As the PCI score drops, the load associated distresses typically affect the PCI score to a higher degree
with more segments being classified as weak. Conversely, segments that have a declining PCI score
and low LADD, are classified as strong as they display few load associated failures. High PCI score
(above 60) rehab selections should focus on pavement preservation activities such as surface treatments
or thin overlays, possibly with some localized pavement repairs and crack sealing.
The sum of the Load-Associated Distress deducts (LADD) is also used to qualify the appropriate
rehabilitation strategy selection in addition to the overall pavement condition score. For example, a street
that has a good PCI score (that is between 60 and 70) and is displaying relatively low load associated
distress deducts would be a suitable candidate for a surface treatment in place of a thin overlay in that the
PCI score is more influenced by materials issues such as transverse cracking or raveling.
Overall, the low amounts of streets exhibiting weak performance can generally be attributed to poor
subgrade conditions, insufficient pavement thickness and increased traffic loading – in particular heavy,
side-loading garbage and recycling trucks (an unintended consequence of green initiatives) along with
school buses and delivery vehicles. The average weight of these vehicles coupled with tire pressure and
configuration today compared to those from a few decades ago has increased drastically.

 The upper black diagonal line identifies segments that have a high ratio of load associated
distresses compared to their PCI score. These segments are classified as weak.
 The lower black diagonal line identifies segments that have a low ratio of load associated
distresses compared to their PCI score and are classified as strong.
 Segments that fall between the two lines are assigned a moderate pavement strength.
The sum of the Load-Associated Distress deducts (LADD) is also used to qualify the appropriate
rehabilitation strategy selection in addition to the overall pavement condition score.
100
V Poor Poor Marginal Fair Good V Good Excellent
90 Town of Westfield, NJ
Pavement Condition Index Versus Sum of Load Load Associated Distress Deducts
80
70 Moderate Pavements Weak Pavements

Sum of Distress Deducts (LADD)
60
Load Associated Distress Deducts (LADD)
50
40
30
20
Strong Pavements
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 12 – Pavement Condition Index versus Sum of Distress Deducts

5.0 REHABILITATION PLAN AND BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
5.1 KEY ANALYSIS SET POINTS AND PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE CURVES
Pavement management analysis requires user inputs in order to complete its condition forecasting and
prioritization. A series of operating parameters were developed in order to create an efficient program
that is tailored to the Town’s needs.
Some of the highlights include:
 The pavement performance curves that are used to predict future pavement condition. Asphalt
streets are classified as weak, moderate, or strong, and then assigned the appropriate pavement
performance curve based on their functional classification to use in the analysis. The concept of
load associated distresses does not apply to concrete streets.
 The shape of performance curves reflect the concept of deferred maintenance and salvage life.
Instead of dropping to an absolute PCI value of 0 after 40 years of service, the curves are
designed to become asymptotic to the age axis and have a whole life of approximately 50 to 60
years depending on pavement type. This indicates the notion that once a street deteriorates past
a specific threshold – about a PCI of 20, age becomes less important in rehab selection.
 Priority ranking analysis uses prioritization for rehabilitation candidate selection. It is designed to
capture as many segments in their need year based on the incremental cost of deferral. The
higher the functional classification of a street, the higher priority a segment is given.
Rehabilitation Strategies and Unit Rates
The rehab strategies and unit rates used in the pavement analysis can be found on the following page.
Some important parameters include:
 Rehab Code and Activity – The assigned identifier and name to each rehabilitation strategy.
The term “RR” refers to “Remove and Replace”, otherwise known as Structural Patching. When
this term is present, additional funds have been assigned to the strategy to allow for an increased
amount of preparation work and patching. The relative terms of thin, moderate and thick are
used to describe the overlay thickness. This is to facilitate consistency in the naming convention,
but does not imply the same material thickness has to be used for each functional classification.
The recommended rehab activities for any given PCI range may vary due to pavement strength
and functional classification. For example, an arterial between a PCI of 50 to 60 may receive a
thin to moderate overlay, while a local access road may only receive a chip seal or thin overlay.
 Unit Rates – The rehab costs are presented on a per square yard basis for each pavement type,
functional class, and rehabilitation activity combination. The rates were developed using typical
national averages for similar activities and adjusted for Westfield’s location and unique conditions.
An additional burden to all costs was also added to cover Town overheads, design and
engineering and inspection. Costs for peripheral concrete rehab (valley gutters, inlets,
approaches, etc.) have not been included in the analysis.

The unit rates are reflected in the network value, final budgets, and average cost/mile for doing
work in Westfield.
Rehabilitation Strategies and Unit Rates Rehab Group 1
Town Collector Unit Rate ($/yd2)

County Arterial Unit Rate ($/yd2)
Construction Activities Burden
Agency Overheads Included in

Town Arterial Unit Rate ($/yd2)
CBA Rehab Priority (Info Only)

State Arterial Unit Rate ($/yd2)
Minor Street Unit Rate ($/yd2)
Steady State Life Cycle (Yrs)

Included in Unit Rates (%)
Critical PCI (Need Year)
Base Unit Rate ($/yd2)
Unit Rates (%)

Rehab Code
Reset PCI
Pavetype
Max PCI
Min PCI
Rehab Activity
All 5 Routine Maintenance 85 100 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 1
Asphalt 10 Slurry Seal / Seal Coat 80 82 85 3.50 3.90 3.80 3.70 3.70 3.50 25 15 85 3 15
Asphalt 20 MicroSurface 70 73 80 4.90 5.40 5.30 5.20 5.10 4.90 25 15 88 14 7
Asphalt 23 MicroSurface + Strctrl Ptch 70 73 80 6.20 6.10 6.00 5.90 5.70 25 15 88 14 8
Asphalt 26 MicroSurface + Strctrl Ptch 70 73 80 7.00 6.90 6.80 6.70 6.40 25 15 88 14 6
Asphalt 30 Edge Mill + Thin Overlay (1.5 - 2.0) 60 63 70 18.63 20.50 20.25 20.00 19.50 18.75 25 15 92 24 10
Asphalt 33 Edge Mill + Thin Overlay (1.5 - 2.0) + Strctrl Ptch 60 63 70 22.50 22.00 21.75 21.50 20.50 25 15 92 24 14
Asphalt 36 Edge Mill + Thin Overlay (1.5 - 2.0) + Strctrl Ptch 50 54 60 24.25 24.00 23.75 23.25 22.25 25 15 92 24 5
Asphalt 40 EM/FWM + Moderate Overlay (2.0 - 3.0) 50 54 60 23.63 27.25 26.75 26.25 25.50 23.75 25 15 94 30 12
Asphalt 43 EM/FWM + Moderate Overlay (2.0 - 3.0) + Strctrl Ptch 50 54 60 29.25 28.75 28.00 27.25 25.50 25 15 94 30 4
Asphalt 46 EM/FWM + Moderate Overlay (2.0 - 3.0) + Strctrl Ptch 40 44 50 31.25 30.75 30.00 29.25 27.25 25 15 94 30 9
Asphalt 50 FWM + Thick Overlay (> 2.0 - 3.0) 40 44 50 28.63 34.50 33.50 33.00 31.50 28.50 25 15 96 37 11
Asphalt 53 FWM + Thick Overlay (> 2.0 - 3.0) + Strctrl Ptch 40 44 50 37.00 36.00 35.00 34.00 30.50 25 15 96 37 13
Asphalt 56 FWM + Thick Overlay (> 2.0 - 3.0) + Strctrl Ptch 25 30 40 39.50 38.50 37.50 36.00 32.50 25 15 96 37 1
Asphalt 60 Surf Recon + Base Rehab / FWM + Strctrl Ptch + Olay 25 30 40 46.50 56.50 54.50 53.00 51.50 46.50 25 15 98 45 2
Asphalt 70 ACP Full Depth Reconstruction 0 15 25 66.50 73.00 72.00 71.00 70.00 66.50 25 15 100 56 3
Concrete 510 PCC Jnt Rehab & Crk Seal 80 82 100 6.50 7.25 7.00 7.00 6.75 6.50 25 15 83 2 11
Concrete 520 PCC Localized Rehab 70 73 80 14.25 16.50 16.00 15.75 15.25 14.25 25 15 85 16 10
Concrete 523 PCC Localized Rehab + Grind 70 73 80 16.50 16.00 15.75 15.25 14.25 25 15 85 16 9
Concrete 530 PCC Slight Pnl Rplcmnt (<10%) 60 63 70 29.00 35.00 34.00 33.00 32.00 29.00 25 15 88 31 7
Concrete 533 PCC Slight Pnl Rplcmnt (<10%) + Grind 60 63 70 35.00 34.00 33.00 32.00 29.00 25 15 88 31 7
Concrete 540 PCC Moderate Pnl Rplcmnt (< 20%) 50 54 60 44.50 56.50 54.50 52.50 50.50 44.50 25 15 90 41 5
Concrete 543 PCC Moderate Pnl Rplcmnt (< 20%) + Grind 50 54 60 56.50 54.50 52.50 50.50 44.50 25 15 90 41 5
Concrete 550 PCC Extensive Pnl Rplcmnt (<33%) 40 44 50 60.50 80.50 77.50 74.00 70.00 60.50 25 15 94 54 3
Concrete 553 PCC Extensive Pnl Rplcmnt (<33%) + Grind 40 44 50 80.50 77.50 74.00 70.00 60.50 25 15 94 54 3
Concrete 560 PCC Partial Reconstruction 25 30 40 82.50 104.50 101.00 97.50 93.00 82.50 25 15 96 66 1
Concrete 570 PCC Full Depth Reconstruction 0 15 25 121.00 161.00 155.00 148.00 140.00 121.00 25 15 100 84 2
Figure 13 – Rehab Unit Rates
*Unit rates vary slightly between functional classes
Min PCI, Critical PCI, and Max PCI – These define the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) range
applicable to the rehab selection. The Critical PCI defines when a segment is in its need year and is
deemed to be critical, otherwise if deferred, the street declines in PCI past the point which the
rehabilitation is no longer appropriate. Generally the Critical PCI falls 2 to 4 points higher than the
minimum PCI applicable for each rehab activity.
Figure 14 graphically presents the application of pavement rehabilitations for asphalt streets by PCI. The
Rehab numbers are simply placeholders that separate each rehabilitation project identified on the chart
above. For example, Rehab 43 is an Moderate Overlay + Structural Patch.
Unit rates increase slightly between functional classes to reflect increase costs in pavement thickness,
traffic control, and striping.

100
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8
Rehab (46)
Rehab (56) Rehab (36)
90 Thick Overlay
Moderate
Thin Overlay
Overlay + Thin Overlay MicroSurface
+ Strctrl Ptch + Strctrl Ptch
Strctrl Ptch
Strong Pavements
80
Structural Index (SI) or Strength Rating
70 Rehab (56) Rehab (40) Rehab (23)

Thick Overlay Thick Overlay Moderate MicroSurface
Thin Overlay
+ Strctrl Ptch Overlay + Strctrl Ptch
60 Moderate Pavements
Rehab (5)
Rehab (70) Rehab (10) Routine
Full ACP Slurry / Seal Maintenance
50 Recon
40 Rehab (60) Rehab (53) Rehab (43)

Surf ACP Thick Overlay Moderate
Thin Overlay MicroSurface
Recon + Strctrl Ptch Overlay +
+ Strctrl Ptch + Strctrl Ptch
Strctrl Ptch
30
Weak Pavements
20
10 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Versus Strength
With Applied Rehabilitation Strategies for Asphalt Pavements
Rehab Group 1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 14 – Asphalt (ACP) Rehabilitation Strategies
Selection and Prioritization of Rehab Candidates
The Town’s pavement management program incorporates a series of user defined values to prioritize and
select the street segments for rehabilitation. The rehab selection order is not worst first, but rather
designed to capture as many segments in their need year based on the incremental cost of rehab
deferral. A Street is considered to be in its need year when it has reached its maximum service life and
any further deferral would require a heavier and more costly rehabilitation. The rehab program has been
designed to maximize the increased service life for each rehabilitation dollar spent on a segment.
Other factors included in the prioritization process focus on:
 Need Year – streets are only selected when they have expended their service life and are optimal
for rehab selection.
 Functional Classification – generally priority is given to higher functional classifications as they

provide greater benefits to a larger group of users
 Pavement Strength – weaker streets are prioritized higher than stronger ones as they
deteriorate faster.
 Area – a very slight increase in priority is given to larger projects over smaller ones.

The net result is a program that favors thick overlays, followed by partial reconstruction projects then full
reconstruction projects (more for safety reasons than cost-benefit). These are then followed by surface
treatments and lastly by moderate to thin overlays.
The programmed deterioration curves illustrated in Figure 15 are designed to integrate the pavement
condition distribution performance curves for the network, with the applied rehabilitation strategies and
their expected life cycle. Different color performance curves are meant to represent the full suite of curves
assigned to segments based upon their functional class, pavement type, and strength.
It is important to recognize that even though all streets fall into specific rating categories and their
respective rehabilitation strategies, it is not until a street falls to within a few points of the lower end of the
range that it will become a critical need selected for rehabilitation.
100
Town of Westfield, NJ Routine
Maintenance
90 ACP and PCC Performance Curves
Moderate - 45 Year Curves Preventative Maintenance
80
Surface Trtmnts /
70 Localized & Jnt
Pavement Condition Index
Rehab
60
Progressively
50 Thicker Overlays /
Panel Rplcmnt
40
ACP Curve - 1
ACP Curve - 2
30
ACP Curve - 3
ACP Curve - 4
Partial to Full
20 ACP Curve - 5
Reconstruction
ACP Curve - 6
PCC Curve - 9
10 PCC Curve - 10
PCC Curve - 11
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (Years)
Figure 15 – Performance Curves

5.2 FIX ALL AND ANNUAL ESTIMATES
Three different approaches may be taken to identify and confirm the amount of funds the Town needs to
set aside each year to maintain the roadway network at its current condition. All three are completed
externally to the pavement management system and are simply used to validate the final results.
Option 1 – Estimated Life Cycle Cost Based on Network Value
An approximate value for the annual street maintenance budget may be quickly determined by taking the
total value of Westfield’s roadway network, estimated at $105M, and dividing that by the ultimate life of a
roadway – approximated to be 50 years for asphalt and 75 years for concrete. By this method, the annual
budget is estimated at $2,095,000.
Please note, the 50 to 75 year lifespan of the roadway is the theoretical life of the roadway surface from
construction, until the point at which there not usable surface remaining, it is not simply the lifespan of the
pavement surface until the next overlay.
Rehabilitation Estimate Based on Network Valuation

Netw ork Ultim ate Life Life Cycle Cost
Pavem ent Type Valuation ($) Span (yrs) ($/Yr)
Asphalt Netw ork 104,655,000 50 2,093,000

Concrete Netw ork 147,000 75 2,000
Tow n of Westfield, NJ Netw ork Totals: 104,802,000 2,095,000
Option 2 – Estimated Life Cycle Cost Based on Current Condition
A second method to validate the annual budget is to identify the average network PCI and associated
rehabilitation requirements, and then estimate the number of miles required to be rehabilitated each year
based on a typical life cycle for that rehabilitation activity. For Westfield, the average PCI for asphalt
roads is 66, which places the Westfield asphalt network in the Edge Mill + Thin Overlay range, at an
2
average cost of $18.91/yd . Based on this estimate the Town needs to spend approximately
$1,540,180/year to maintain the current condition average.
Rehabilitation Estimate Based on Network Average Condition
Pavem ent Average Blended Average

Condition Rehab Rehab Life Miles to do Unit Rate Cost per Life Cycle
Pavem ent Type Index (PCI) Code Rehab Activity Cycle (Yrs) Each Year ($/yd2) Mile ($/) Cost ($/Yr)
Asphalt Netw ork 66 30 Edge Mill + Thin Overlay (1.5 - 2.0) 24 4.2 18.91 369,800 1,540,180
Concrete Netw ork 93 5 Routine Maintenance 1 0.1 0.00 0 0
Tow n of Westfield, NJ Netw ork Totals: 1,540,180

Option 3 – Estimated Life Cycle Cost Based on Network Deficiency
The third methodology to confirm the required amount of annual funding is to identify the current network
deficiency, that is the amount required to rehabilitate all streets in the network assuming unlimited
funding, and then divide by the typical life cycle of each rehabilitation activity. This is referred to as the
Fix All Estimate and Life Cycle Cost. The rehab strategies listed in the table are generic in nature and not
necessarily the final set that was applied to Westfield. For Westfield, the Fix All Estimate for the network
deficiency is approximately $34M and the Life Cycle Cost is $1.3M/year, broken down as follows:
Rehabilitation Estimate Based on Current Network Deficiency and Life Cycle Cost
Life
Rehab
Code
Netw ork % of Tow n Tow n Minor Cycle Life Cycle

Rehab Activity Total ($) Total Arterial Collector Street (Yrs) Cost ($/Yr)
10 Slurry Seal / Seal Coat 36,000 0.1 0 0 36,040 5 7,200

20 MicroSurface 0 0.0 0 0 0 8 0
23 MicroSurface + Strctrl Ptch 1,709,100 5.0 0 327,540 1,381,550 8 213,600
26 MicroSurface + Strctrl Ptch 0 0.0 0 0 0 8 0
30 Edge Mill + Thin Overlay (1.5 - 2.0) 4,910,100 14.4 159,390 1,393,290 3,357,430 24 204,600
33 Edge Mill + Thin Overlay (1.5 - 2.0) + Strctrl Ptch 522,300 1.5 323,930 198,350 0 24 21,800
36 Edge Mill + Thin Overlay (1.5 - 2.0) + Strctrl Ptch 63,100 0.2 0 0 63,120 24 2,600
40 EM/FWM + Moderate Overlay (2.0 - 3.0) 17,192,800 50.6 0 3,458,540 13,734,270 30 573,100
43 EM/FWM + Moderate Overlay (2.0 - 3.0) + Strctrl Ptch 1,622,600 4.8 0 426,120 1,196,430 30 54,100
46 EM/FWM + Moderate Overlay (2.0 - 3.0) + Strctrl Ptch 52,200 0.2 0 0 52,220 30 1,700
50 FWM + Thick Overlay (> 2.0 - 3.0) 6,066,700 17.8 0 997,970 5,068,770 37 164,000
53 FWM + Thick Overlay (> 2.0 - 3.0) + Strctrl Ptch 0 0.0 0 0 0 37 0
56 FWM + Thick Overlay (> 2.0 - 3.0) + Strctrl Ptch 1,823,900 5.4 0 0 1,823,930 37 49,300
Tow n of Westfield, NJ Netw ork Totals: 33,998,800 483,320 6,801,810 26,713,760 1,292,000

5.3 NETWORK BUDGET ANALYSIS MODELS
An analysis containing a total of 10 profile budget runs plus a Do Nothing options was prepared for
Westfield.
The analysis results are summarized below:
 Do Nothing (illustrated in Figure 18) – This option identifies the effect of spending no capital for
5 years. After 5 years, this scenario results in a network average PCI drop from a 66 to a 57 and
a dramatic increase in backlog to 23%.
 Westfield Budget (Green Line) – this represents the Town’s current annual budget of $1.8M
annually dedicated to pavement preservation and rehabilitation. This level of funding will result in
a network average PCI score of 70 and a backlog reduction of 12%.
 Steady State PCI – this is simply the funds required to maintain the current network average PCI
at a 66. The annual budget required to do so is on the order of $1.87M annually, however backlog
(Very Poor & Poor roadways) continues to climb to 15%.
 Backlog Control Budget – A budget designed to maintain the Town’s current backlog at 10%.
The results of the analysis are summarized in Figure 16 below. The X-axis highlights the annual budget,
while the Y-axis plots the 5 Year Post Rehab Network Average PCI value. The diagonal blue line is the
results of the pavement analysis (the Westfield model profile).
100
95
Five Year Post Rehab PCI Versus Annual Budget
Analysis Start Date = 1/1/2020 Analysis Period 2020 to 2024
90 2020 to 2024 Rehab Analysis Results

Maintain Current Backlog: Final PCI = 78, Backlog = 7%, Annual Budget = $4590k/Yr
Recommended Budget: Final PCI = 74, Backlog = 10%, Annual Budget = $3520k/Yr
Post Rehab Network Average Condition
85 Backlog Control Budget: PCI = 74, Backlog = 10%, Annual Budget = $3520k/Yr
Steady State PCI: Final PCI = 66, Backlog = 15%, Annual Budget = $1870k/Yr
PCI Control Budget: PCI = 62, Backlog = 18%, Annual Budget = $1010k/Yr
80 Westfield Budget: PCI = 70, Backlog = 12%, Annual Budget = $1800k/Yr
75
70
Current PCI = 66 (2019)

65
Control PCI = 62
Westfield has a Backlog controlled network

60
55
50
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Annual Budget Each Year for Five Years ($1,000/Yr)
Figure 16 – 5 Year Post Rehab Network PCI Analysis Results

Figure 17 presents the resultant network backlog against annual budget. Similar to Figure 16, but
instead of plotting the average PCI score, the blue diagonal line represents the total backlog after 5 years.
The lower the backlog the better, with a maximum of 12% recommended
30
Five Year Post Rehab Backlog (%) Versus Annual Budget
Analysis Date = 6/3/2019 Analysis Period 2020 to 2024
25
Post Rehab Network Percentage Backlog % (PCI < 40)
2020 to 2024 Backlog Analysis Results
Westfield Budget: PCI = 70, Backlog = 12%, Annual Budget = $1800k/Yr
20
Backlog Control Budget: PCI = 74, Backlog = 10%, Annual Budget = $3520k/Yr
Recommended Budget: Final PCI = 74, Backlog = 10%, Annual Budget = $3520k/Yr
15
Control Backlog = 10%

10
Current Backlog = 7% (2019)
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Annual Budget Each Year for Five Years ($1,000/Yr)
Figure 17 – 5 Year Post Rehab Network Backlog Results

Figure 18 presents the analysis results on an annual basis. This shows that if the budget falls below
$1.8M/year (Steady State Budget), over time the overall condition of the roads will deteriorate as backlog
continues to grow.
100
95 Annual Condition for Various Budget Levels
Analysis Date = 6/3/2019
90
Network Average Pavement Condition Index
Fix All Budget = $34.8M Over 5 Years

85 Recommended Budget: Final PCI = 74, Backlog = 10%, Annual Budget = $3520k/Yr
Backlog Control Budget: PCI = 74, Backlog = 10%, Annual Budget = $3520k/Yr
80
Westfield Budget: PCI = 70, Backlog = 12%, Annual Budget = $1800k/Yr
Do Nothing
75
70
65
60

55
Start
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Year
Figure 18 – 5 Year Annual PCI

5.4 POST REHABILITATION CONDITION
The following figure (Figure 19) compares the current network condition distribution (red) against what
the 5-year post rehabilitation distribution would be at with a budget of $1.8M/year (blue). As can be seen
in the plot, the Westfield budget will increase the overall network’s PCI average and increase the amount
of roads rated as excellent.
50
45 Post Rehab Pavement Condition Comparison
Current Condition Versus Selected Budget
Analysis Period 2020 to 2024
40

35 Post Rehab Network Average Condition = 70, Backlog = 12.4%
Annual Budget = $1800 k/Year
30
25
20
15
10
0
V Poor (0 to 25) Poor (25 to 40) Marginal (40 to 50) Fair (50 to 60) Good (60 to 70) V Good (70 to 85) Excellent (85 to 100)
Pavement Condition Using Descritive Terms Analysis Date = 1/1/2020
Figure 19 – Five-Year Post Rehabilitation Condition Distribution
Three metrics are used to evaluate the quality of a roadway network, they are:
Average Condition – should be between 60 and 65 at a minimum

Percentage of Backlog – target 12%, should be less than 15%, must be less than 20%
Percentage of Streets Rated as Excellent – should be greater than 15%

5.5 NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
The following recommendations are presented to Westfield as an output from the pavement analysis.
1. Westfield should adopt a policy to maintain PCI at or above a 70 while keeping backlog below 15%.
An annual budget of $1.8M (dedicated to pavement rehabilitation) will achieve a network average
PCI of 70 and backlog of 12%.
2. The full suite of proposed rehabilitation strategies and unit rates should be reviewed annually as
these can have considerable effects on the final program.
3. No allowance has been made for network growth. As the Town expands or increases the amount
of paved roads, increased budgets will be required.
4. No allowance has been made for routine maintenance activities such as asphalt crack sealing,
pothole filling, sweeping, striping or patching within the budget runs and analysis. These costs are
assumed to be outside the pavement management costs.
5. The Town should resurvey their streets every few years to update the condition data and
rehabilitation program.

Appendix A
Full-Sized Maps
IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Appendix A

town of
§
¦
¨ 78
Lake
Suprise
N E W J E R S E Y
Pavement Survey
Functional Classification
by Segment
k
oo
Br
e u
Bl
B rook
ape
Len
CA RDIN
! A L DR.
Nomahegan Brook
Watchung
Reservation
Pond
Lenape
Park Pond
!
22
¢
¡ !
!
!
MA
NI
T OU
. N
!
CI
DR I CA
R.
N
Echo
MO
R.
MA
TE
! !
R
Lake
GE
LIN
I
AM
ED
CT
!
.
UN
LF
.
LN
GO
! !
NN
LY
!
E.
T AV
DA
SE
!
VIS
R.
!
N
!
CT
LD
SU
.
R.
! !
.
!
RD
R.
!
RO
CI
EL D
WE
K
!
CA
ND
ST
O
!
CT
!
RO
MO
.
A
MI CH
!
DB
!
UM
!
OO
! !
DR
W
!
WY
! ! !
! CH !
.
ME
LN
W
!
DR
AN
!
.
DM
E
DG
RO
SA
E
CHERRY ND
RA
LF
! !
LN. CIR
R.
GO
!
.
CI
!
THOMAS CT.
LL
E.
!
OR
BA
!
EN
!
KIM
! D A
BR CI
RD OOK
R.
WOODLAND AVE.
!
! !
.
!
S ID
! GA
E RF
! !
! !
W OOD
I HA
!
EL
! !
TU C K LN. D MP
TO
!
QU AN AV N
E.
!
E
!
. CT
AV
S E ND RD.
.
! !
! ! !
T
AN
! PL.
!
!T
BENNET
! ! !
Nomahegan
!
GR
E.
!
KA
! ! ! !
AV
RE
!
MO NT
D LS
Park Lake
VIE UNT
.
ER
ER
RD
RD
EN RAI
W AIN MO .
AV A LL
LB
!
CI V IE UNT
!
.
!
E
T
! !
.
E. E
R.
!
R
! !
AL
RI GI
K
W A IN
D
B
SI R
NO
TE
K IM
!
AR
A
NG
! !
H
!
R.
!
PR D
A
AT
W
!
KI
!
AV
RO
AY IS M
W
!
CI IN
E. TU B AL
!
NK L PU
IA
LL
B URR
FRA .
!
H
!
CE A T RN
! !
AV NA
!
LN
DA AVE
.
! !
DR
. TE SH E. M
! ! !
L
R
!
RR
I NGTO
TE ER
N
!
R. PL AC
OR
Y W W
!
STER WA OO
!
. E YC
WINC HE
!
! .
TH
E
!
KENT R AV D HW
!
.
E CEDA ! PK
W
N GOR
Fairview
PL.
HILL I NG
!
AV OO
HA
W
RD.
!
D
!
Y.
E.
E
! ! !
SE ID RD
P
STAN
AV
! ! !
Y. T
!
TO P
Cemetery
DG .
.
RD
W EN
GE
RE
!
S
EW
BAR
!
LL
PK SC
E
ER
DAS
IC S
! !
ED
PA S
HI
RY
!
E
K
Pond
DD
!
NA W ORTH
!
MINIS
CR
AV
CH
!
LV
LN BU
! !
E.
! !
H AV
U
BE
ER
EST
SC
OV
! ! !
.
!
.
ER
DR
NT
! !
IN
!
E.
! !
HI
ER
E.
K WA
CA
E.
!
LL
!
LL
AV
!
WI
!
O
ST
!
WA
W NY
KN
!
. YA
!
AH
! !
GA
OA
N.
! !
Y
SS E E
. N
Y
AV L
ZE
!
PL DO ! LO
CH
!
GAL
PA TR
KIRKSTONE
E
!
W
EE
TT .
.
NE CA
SS EE
!
E.
AE
E
ES L
HILL OWS
K
AV
BR
!
BA N
AV
TR
PA WN
OA
TE
!
TN
!
IS PR A
H
!
RB
ON
IL
!
BR ! RD.
A
RC
!
O
!
UR
UT
SH
SP
!
IA L AV!E .
!
CIR.
IS
BI
Y
EC COLON
! ! !
D
JE RD
ST
! !
MA
T BR FF .
ST
.
!
ER
!
.
!
AD
!
SO
!
F
!
LN ERS
OR
!
E.
Brightwood
AV
AV
D !
AV E.
TL
!
N
.
! !
E. LIN
O
S ET
BA
! !
ILT
Park Pond
D
E.
KE EN
! !
CO
AV
M
! !
R
!
AV
HA
RY AV
H
!
E. E.
! !
YA
PARKVIE
PL
!
BA .
IN
E .
! !
IL
W
!
AV
!
EY HI
! ! !
! !
GH
!
N
!
CT
AY
DE
!
LA
! ! !
.
W AVE.
W
FORK G
LA
AL
ND
! !!
E.
.
N
ST
E
SE
!
E.
WATCHU
AV
AV
E
DG W
D
AV
NS
!
RA
E.
RS
ON
RE
!
E
!
KSTO
!
MU
CT W I ES
!
OL DR. NE
MA
DE
YM
N
!
CK
! R !
.
P
UN
CE
RA
AC
! !
OW
F
DU
!
SA
IR
! !
AV DL
! !
FA
.
!
DR
!
AY
EY
E.
! !
R.
K
CT
! ! !
OO
!
.
!
BR W
AD EL
!
.
BR
D
ST
LENA S
.
!
ON ! LS
ST
ILL
ER
PE
LE
TRAIL ! CT ST
! !
IRH
G
.
!
.
AP
ST
SH
!
.
IN
.
ST
!
D.
.
M
RD
FA
DR
E
.
LR
! !
G
PL
W
!
AY
HA
E.
ID
US
O
!
IL
IR
OD
M
AV
OL
!
LL
RH
! !
LA
CO
! !
D
CE
!
NC
.
I
OR
PL
FA
!
AR
M
SI
ER
F
IA
!
M
AN
HA
! !
AN
E
! !
SU
RR
CR
. A
! !
DR
! !
LV
N SH
DR EM
! !
NY
IS
!
.
SY
! ER
! !
TL
!
E.
W
O
!
OO M
N
AV
!
S
AN
! ! !
AV
CA
!
D
.
ST
LL
!
DR ST
E.
!
! .
BA
.
N
.
!
PL
IO
E.
!
M
E.
!
M
UN
.
E.
KI
PL
AV
HA
N.
AV
!
E.
N
! !
NG
EU
!
TO
S
D
AV
! !
!
EN
! !
FA
FI
!
OO
CL
!
E.
EF
EV
N
!
NE
EY
W
AV
.
T.
ID
!
OO
ST
DR
W
!
NS BR
N
D
DL
J OH ! CLE AV
!
HT
RK
!
TO
AV
.
OW
PL
S.
! !
E.
E.
VE
PA
G
DU
N EL
IG
CH
N
E
LA AV M BEN
!
OR
LI
!
SO
!
ND E. ST
BR
AR
ES NP
! !
.
M
!
L.
! !
EV AV
!
AN
ER E. TN SA
! !
L
ST
TS ! TE
S
! TA UT
!
R
!
AV NL PL
E. ST
!
EY .
!
.
!
AR
!
EM AV
!
CT REE
!
C
!
BR HI E.
!
CL
!
EE AR BO
!
B
.
!
.
EM
LD
ST
K
!
CR LIN
PR
! !
ST PL
!
ES
!
C
T
.
!
OL
OS
NU
C .
E.
! !
EN N
! ! !
AV
!
E.
AL
T RD
PE
E.
AV
!
W
!
KS
.
!
CT
AV
X
!
AR
NO
.
PL
S
! ! !
M
! ! !
! T.
!
TH
LE
ER
T
ST
!
IN
! !
ST
UR
RD
SA
E.
!
EB
BR
AV
HA
.
CT AND
PL
FO
W
!
E.
! !
NT
C
!!
AV
CA
OR
! ! !
O
S.
!
NT
NE
!
T
CO
IR
! EU
O
SE
FA
!
EM
RN
EL
.
PL
! ! !
SA CL DR WA
TR
HA
M
!
TE
!
!
IN
.
. L
NF
ST ID
RD
!
L
!
T
AI
OR
!
.
!
PA
AV
!
W
T
D
!
OF
UL
H
PL
! E
V
U
RT
28
ST
.
R
! !
E.
EC
PE
!
.
AV
!
GL
EL
!
ST
CO
CO
EA
!
!
RE
FO LE NE
M
!
.
R M LS
ER
RD
!
ES AN
LL
O
!
T N
CA
PL
ST
HI
CLA
!
E
AV . PL
AV
!
E
NE
RK
.
.
!
! .
!
.
W
!
W
SE
S
!
E. X
T.
!
O
ST BY
E.
!
LL
AV NO
!
FE
! !
AV
! ! !
IM
N
!
G
!
LE
LO
.
! ! !
PL
.
QU
EY
!
W
LO
DL
Brook
GL
!
!
D
E
od
PL
! N
Garwo
Y.
LU
DU
! ! ! !
AV
!
W
IS
E.
RR
PK
E. T
! !
AV AN
!! !
FE
LE
Y
E.
!
BR
.
ST
TT
!
NEW
AV
!
TU
ES
!
ST.
G
! !
S.
IN
! ! !
EL
AR
.
N
!
ME
!
AV
AN
!
CH
!
E.
R
ST
CH
AV
o ad
! ! !
! !
R ailr
OO
.
!
PO
!
R
ail
IE
Conr
W
E
PL TS
.
! !
.
TT
PL
GE
!
ST
!
! !
.
!
HI
!
H
ED
ON
.
ST
RC
!
W
! !
.
ST
PL
RI
EX
BI
!
LS CT.
!
SHORT HIL PL
!
G
A
!
SS
! !
. EY
IN
L
E.
PL !
IO
SU
!
LIV
PL
AV
! !! ! !
CC
ST
SS .
!
!
IR
R
!
CA
O
SO
R LI
! ! ! !
NG
! !
D
! !
!!
PL
IN
!
.
W
!
.
PL
!
LE
! ! !
MP
! ! ! !
.
TE
ST
! ! !
E.
! ! !
ON
AV
CROSSW
!
SU
RS
!
E
.E
PLACE
!
TL
TE
!
MM
YR
!
ST
!
AT
!
CO
!
M
!
W
OS LU
AY
VE
IT
!
BO M
!
. BU
! !
ST
!
AV
R
O
WEST
S
!
N FA
CRO S
AV
GR
AV
!
IR
RK
!
E.
E.
!
E. F
!
CI I E BO
!
PA
!
R. GR
! !
Y E.
ST.
!
! TO A
SWAY
! N
AV !
!
N D
LD
AV H VI
.
!
ST
EW
E. ET
E. K
!
CA
TR
.
AV A R
!
ST
AB
PL
AV
!
! !
RL
.
D
.
PL.
ST
!
ST
ET
IN
AN
IZ E.
W
!
PA
NE
E
ON
EL !
RT
! !
LT
NE
AK
TY
RL
LS RD
!
IR
PI
.
E
.
HO
!
ST
TE VI
DR
BE
!
EV
PL
D NG
R
M
AV
!
OS
AV
!
NE
!
CU
!
E.
! !
RI E.
RO
!
W
!
PL
N.
DO
!
! EY
!
E.
! S
! !
AV
! !
CO LY
AV
E.
! !
NW
!
!
TC
!
OO
.
ST
!
E
!
!
D
H
R
BO
ON
!
PL
.
.W
P
MO
! !
.
! !
S
! L UL
.
.
PL
RD
!
ER
AI
PL EL
.
ST
ST
! !
EV
!
CA
L.
!
N
PI
NS
AR
UR
EE
T
DP
AR
.
VE
RS
!! !
.
G
ST
LA
!
GR
SY
AV
ED
D
!
FI
OO
!
N
E
TO
AI
W
GR
! .
! !
TR
NG
ID
! ! ! ! ! !
!
M
HI
EA
.
RD
AS
!
AL
!
W
!
G
!
AZ
IN
!
DD
!
W
! ! !
CO
! !
ES
!!
.W E
!
ST OV
TF
!
PL
R.
DO !
GR
BE
TE
I
RI
ON
!
EL
R. D
! ! !
AN VE HA
TE OR
!
SU
!
KS
EV
S
RL RR
!
M
D
PL
!
ER
E
F
Y
! !
MI
OA
!
OW ! RG
!
OX
. CT
!
AV
TA
!
.
EV
PL
RE
STONELE IGH
. RD
IN
VE
! !
DO EN
E.
. .
TW
!
AY
! !
OO
HA RI CT
PARK
!
M
!
W
AR ZE AN .
!
R. E
! !
W
N.
!
TE VAL
CH
!
O L CT
H
AV
!
FL N
!
EC
!
.
EL
O AV E.
D
!
RE NO
BE
!
MI
E.
W
RD
!
NC TT
! !
.
IN
! !
E
N
RD
TU
!
AV GH
O
! !
K
D
AV
!
E. AM
.
ST OC
OR
ST
SC
! !
AN
!
PL
.
OV
NC
!
PL
! O
.
AR
.
!
AL
! !
FL
T
!
RI
HA
ON
! !
K
CH
PE
OR
E.
!
O
!
DO
ET
O
!
AV
E.
EN
! !
R
!
PL
!
AV
C TB D.
HY
E
IC
! A ES R
ER
AV
SL
! ! ! !
IN
W
E.
!! !
G
W
IP
.
!
ST
RD
FL
S
!
RO
AV
A
.
!
.
AV
DR
R LI TE!
ST
ST
IN
HA
E.
RA
! !
ST
!
.
!
C T.
E.
ST
ST
R
ON
.
!
DR
L
.
AU
DA
ST
CT
! !
DU
.
N
AX
!
RD
N
CE
SA
RE
!
N
.
E
NH
!
.
W
ST
C
IN
TO
GE
AM
AR
.
EN
LA
ST
T DO
!
AC
!
S
G AV
W
ID
W
AR
! !
E.
PK RI
TT
T
AY
EO
IF
!
E.
! !
BR
SH
O
W S
AV
! !
CL
SE
RG
W
AD
IC
CL
!
Y.
!
M
NE
ES
LE
HU
CA
SH
!
EC
!
.
!
CT
!
W
VA
HI PL
AC
!
NN
O
G .
!
D
!
H
!
SD
SS
ST
! !
E.
MI
RO
CO
AV GA
! !
MA
!
BO
AV
!
ND
MA
E. TE
E
! !
NC
BY
.
TI YN
DR
AR
!
RD
FR
LA
CE HE
!
TO
!
E.
! !
W
A
Y
ST
FO
PL
!
TE NCE N
AV
R
AM
LA
. ER AV
!
RA P EES
! !
.
JO SA
ND
ST
!
DE
R. S
E
CH E.
! !
! L.
.
HN IN DR
PL
E
PO
HW
AY
!
SA
D
. A
ER
!
S T
! !
.
! !
DR AN
N
AX
O
!
PL
LA
AY
!
KE
R.
NT
!
CO
M
.
!
.
RY
E
ST
TE
.
AV
ST
KN
FO
!
CT
! !
IS
! !
MA
! !
O .
T
AR
. N
OT
E.
! !
LL
RN
ON
!
CT TO
!!
ER
W
LM
!
TU
RM
!
PL SCO OO
!
YN
AY
LA
! !
BE
!
D
!
OV
W AI
W
VE
RD
BO
NS NS TCH TE
.
DR
!
GA
!
R.
!
O
!
ID
!
.
CL
AV
ST
XF
E
CO
YU
! !
E.
!
PL
!
R.
IA
TU
!
CA
.
.
IS
DR
TE
IN
ST
AY K
! !
OT
!
W AW
RG
ON
Y
NO
RO
.
ST
D
!
OH
VI
!
PI
!
RM
AN
CT ZEE
!
RN
O
!
ER
NE
! !
M
AN
LB
RM
GR
VE
! !
OV
! !
A
.
!
PL
AR
OV
FR
NO
!
.
!
CL
!
.
M
M
PL
E
!
OH
.
AV
ST
RA
OR
AR
AW
! !
DL E
!
EY .
!
MO
!
NG
!
.
K NE
LM
!
CT
R PE TR FR
!
D.
!
VA
!
.
O
RT
MI
BE
DR
NN
EY
AI NT
! ! ! !
D
!
E.
AG
YO
L A
!
DA
!
SY
AV
DL
ST
!
K
E
ST OTA
RD
! !
AU
LV
W
.
RA
.
FE
AN
NT
K
.
LIF
!
DA
I A
!
MO
!
AV ON
! !
AY
! ! !
.
!!
L
!
PL
E. IE
AI
! ! !
SE DA
!
FL
TR
ON
DR OR
.
W
!
PL
PI
!
EE
AR
RN
NE NO . ID
!
RU
E
D
!
A
ES
RG
VE
AG
CT TG AV ST
! !
AT
N
. E. .
!
TT
!
ER
!
GE
E
! ! !
CO
S
!
CT
!
.
PL
N.
.
!
PL V
E
CI ILLA
Stream
AG
YM
Tamdques
! !
AY
R. G
!
.
!
O
!
TT
DR
!
W
!
E
!
UT
CO
Y
!
H
!
D
E.
Reservation
!
NC
OO
RD
!
AV
R. W
.
NA
.
!
DR
!
RW
!
CI VIE
S S
DI
D.
Pond
!
ER
NO
RK
MO
CK
!
.
CT
!
!
N
SO
KI
! !
.
LL
DR
.
! !
LK
AR
RD
N
!
HI
!
D
U
M
R.
BR
FA
!
KO
ND
!
E
! !
IC
!
OV
! !
SA
EE
W
! !
GR
T
CT
N.
GR
! AL
! !
CO
IT
!
AY
T
.
W
DR
T
M
!
W
!
AR
!
RD TA
SU
!
BU
LO
S
T
N
!
M
!
.
PL HUR
TE
AQ RG
TO
DR
! !
.
GR W
DR
!
BA
U
IL
OV ILL ES .
NG
ES
M
!
E OW S
LL
W
KO
W CT
NS
N
BE
PK
.
AY
DR
EE
! !
IC
W
KE
!
W
!
Y.
GR
GH
.
DR
.
S.
!
I
E
LE
!
AG
GH
! !
CT T
LL
EI
EN ES
!
SL
VI
GL OR
D
!
AR
RO
!
BI SURREY LN.
N
!
HO
! ! !
! !
.
OD
!
DR
W
ND
! ! AY
LA
!
G
!
EN
!
W
NE
!
.
CT
RT
!
RK
PA
E
MB
ES .
Q U RD
LA
MA S
!
TA CES
!
!
AC
!
.
LN
!
RY
ER
YB
!
BA
Legend
Functional Class o
ad
lr
ai
R
LV
Town Arterial
Town Collector
N
Minor Street
Town Boundary
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Rah
wa y
Riv
er Pumpk in
Patch Brook
IMS Infrastructure Management Services 2019 Westfield, NJ | Pavement Survey 2019
town of
§
¦
¨ 78
Lake
Suprise
N E W J E R S E Y
Pavement Survey
Current PCI by Segment
k
oo
Br
e u
Bl
B rook
ape
Len
CA RDIN
! A L DR.
274
2
Nomahegan Brook
Watchung
Reservation
Pond
Lenape
Park Pond
!
2 MA
!
27
4
23 NI
TO
27 U
CI
27
R.
!
18
22
¢
¡ ! !
16
!
DR N
13
11
!
A
.
27
27
06 IC
27
27 ON
Echo
12
R.
08
MA
27
TE
27
R
!
LIN
!
Lake
GE
I
26 CT
AM
ED
97 . 2
!
69
UN
LF
6
.
LN
GO
3
269
! !
NN
LY
!
76
26
!
67
79
26
!
26
2680
2655
E.
AV
26
T
75 DA
SE
VIS
!
2662
2674
R.
!
CT 2672
N
!
26 .
LD
SU
66
R.
! !
.
!
RD
R.
!
RO
CI
265
EL D
K
!
CA
W
ND
26
O
26 78 ES
! !
TC
RO
MO
! 60
A
T. 26
MI CH
!
48
DB
53
UM
26
!
26
OO
47
!
26
!
DR
2652 45
W
!
WY
! ! !
2640
41
46
CH 2643
26
!
26
!
.
ME
LN
W
!
26 DR
AN
2633
31
!
. 2
DM
63
5
E
DG
RO
2637 SA
E
CHERRY ND
RA
LF
! !
LN. CIR
R.
GO
!
.
CI
!
263
LL
OR
E.
THOMAS CT.
!
8
BA
! EN
!
2578
2617
D
KIM
A 2616
2608
CI 2618
!
BR R. 2615 260
3
26 2545 7
RD OOK WOODLAND AVE.
1
!
G
26
02
262
!
! AR
!
.
2593
!
S
82
ID FI 25
8
25
E
! !
EL 85
! !
HA
W OOD
!
!
D MP
84
!
25
C K LN. AV 4 TO
U ANTU 57
!
94
25
E. N
2579 Q
E.
!
CT
!
.
AV
2
S E ND RD.
! !
!
30
! !
T
25
AN
25 ! PL.
!
80 !T
BENNET
! !
63
!
2533
Nomahegan
!
GR
61
2558
57
E.
25
KA
! ! ! ! !
25
AV
25
2528
RE
46
49
48
!
04
MO
55 N
1
25
D LS
25
G
25
V UNT TE
Park Lake
26
. 25
255
.
ER
RD
44 ! IE MO R.
RD
47
EN RAI
252 W AIN
AV A LL
V IE UNT
25
AY
25 25
LB
4 CI R 42
!
41
!
E
T
W AI N
! !
W
E. E
! ! !
. 2
AL
RI 10 GI
K
.
25
25
R
B
SI TE
ER
! 20 R
NO
55
D
32 25
W
K IM
!
NG R. AR
24
! !
2
A
!
20
ST
PR 25 251 D
A
H
31
52
2491
W
!
! 25 KI
!
25 3 AV
AT
RO
25 IS
E
AY
25
25
M
!
CI IN 18
CH
! 07 E. TU B AL
96
NK L
2517
PU
06
LL
B URR
IA
CE FRA .
24
!
AR
A TN RN
!
24
H
! !
DA LN 24
81 AVE AV A M
.
! !
2486 B
DR
. 97
25
R
! ! !
L
2498
!
T 24 TE SH E.
I NGTO
34
! ER
N
ER
84
!
79 RR 2495
OR
.
2448
Y 37 W
STER WA
24
!
PL AC
80
OO
!
WINC HE
24
TH
248
! .
W
64
E
!
KENT R AV
24
E
!
24 . . D YC
24 CEDA !
24
W
N GOR
Fairview
PL. PK
7
!
34 82 24 AV 24 HW
HI LL NG
HA
.
W 66
VE
!
36
67
RD.
2432
OO
2
!
2461
E
!
Y.
!
E.
SE
44
!
ID
I
24
D
DA
T OP P
! !
AV
DG
!
Y. T
. 2
Cemetery
RD
W EN
2435 M
GE
!
EW
8
RE
OR
S
.
245
RD
245
!
LL
STAN
PK SC
IC
56
! !
HI
K
RY
F
!
S
ED
R
Pond
NA W O RTH PA S
1
24
AV
!
AD
!
CR
DE
!
LN BU
24
24
!
E
LV
24
INISIN
! ! !
242
! .
DAS
29
BR
UD
44
OV
23
27
02
ER
46
BE
2433 2440
! !
24
E
.
.
24
SC
10
!
DR
2
241
RH
24
NT
!
2419
!
67
H AV
!
242
! !
28
I
E.
30
LL 18 !
K WA
LL
CA
E.
23
!
5
!
AV
24
23 24
24
24
!
WI
!
ST
O
12
2414
1
68 74 NY
240
W
17
06
KN
E.
. 24
N.
K
!
YA 23 24
!
AH
! !
GA
OA
23 240
63
11
! !
Y
N 23 9
240
PA EE
ZE
. 88
CH AV L 0
!
8
23
24
P!L 23 DO 90 ! LO
!
GAL
SS
KIRKSTONE
E
!
EE
TR
W
97
76 TT . 24
99
2381
E
.
CA 72
!
77
E.
NE E 23 02 AE
L
ST STN
BR
23
HILL OWS
23
AV
EE
N
89 K
AV
238
4
23
TR 69
BA TE
23 OA
!
232
5
94
237
!
A
SS N
H
23
!
IS RB
ON
IL
2380
.
!
UT RD.
91
PA AW
RC
!
23
E. 2382
!
BR
93
235
P UR
4
!
! RO LONIAL AV
!
23
CIR.
9
IS
236
!
BI
Y
SH
CO
! ! !
23
D
SP 23 23 JE RD
!
8
MA
EC 63 54 48 FF . 2
!
61
7
23 40
71
!
234
T 23 ER
!
41
23
!
45 5
49
!
23 23
52
ST !
60 SO 28
23
44
.
23
!
23
LN ERS
!
E.
23 23 N
2334
Brightwood
23
23 AV
AV
17 23 39 23
!
37 E.
TL
!
12 ! 08
N
.
E.
! !
LIN 23
O
25
S ET
2335 BA
AV
23
03
30
!
ILT
32
Park Pond
D
23
50 KE EN
!
23
1 CO
H
23
!
23 233
M
23
! !
R
YA
23
21
!
AV
HA
15 !
RY 20 AV 26
23
PARKVIE
23
23
E.
IN
PL E.
!
2285
!
18
02
2322 22
W
!
BA 2313 22 .2 9
98 227
23
30
23
92
93
99
22
!
09
73
IL
!
AY !
AV
1
!
22
83
22
EY
23
22
23
66
! !
W 22
! !
N
44
22
!
CT 22 04
22
E 87
DE
!
W AVE.
89
81
!
41
22
! !
.
FORK NG
23
2290
LA
AL
22
!!
22
!
E
E.
00
WATCHU
SE 22 69
NS
!
75
E.
AV
227
W 22
65
DG 80
AV
!
22
MU
22
RA
74
RE
22
!
RS
E 52
!
57
KSTO
!
22 22
2
CT W I ES
!
22 OL DR. NE
MA
!
30 64
DE
22
22
22
N
!
CK 62
! R
2267
!
.
91
71
CE
AC
P
D ST.!
UN
50
!
HI 22
22
F
N 22 21
O
GH DU RAYMO 55
!
83
IR
6
!
SA
33
21
!
21
AV DL
WA
LA
!
3
FA
2248
!
220 22
!
EY
.2
22 ND 61 22 22
27
22
97
9
E.
!
Y
9
31
43
20
56
DR
R. 38
34
AV CT
!
42
22
223
! ! !
22
. 2
. 2 BR
!
22
E.
K
21 AD
2
!
D
ST
OO
S
21
LENA 8 ON
.
!
ST
2
ILL
22
!
29
2
21
. 2
19
PE
LE
CT
BR
228
TRAIL ! 22 15
!
89
22
22
! !
IRH
G
22
2214
!
AP
ST
22
!
17 08
ER
IN
.
20
ST
!
D.
06
.
63
M
RD
FA
DR
1
E
W
SH
.
13
LR
! !
G
21
PL
5 O
E.
21
!
220
AY
HA
ID
21
22
US
O 21 22
AV
91
!
IL
86
IR
98
M
OL
!
96 32 21
LL
99
RH
! !
LA
!
21
22 21
D
52
07
80
CO
! !
W
CE
21
OR
DM
31
!
00
21
219 85
NC
.
I
22
21
EL
PL
FA
!
84
21
79
AR
ER
F
L
SI
21 ! S 21
71
AN
21
IA
!
77
M
E
HA
65 217 ST
E.
!
74
3
!
AN
SU
21
59
N
CR
!
2
DR
.
38
RR
. A
! ! !
N 21 21 21
21
AV
SH
!
LV
21
DR EM
48
NY
21
21
.
! !
78 54 68 2 58
IS
E
!
SY
! !
162
21
W ! RM
TL
!
O
!
OO
D
2
!
AN
21 ! 153
S
!
21 21
43
! !
OO
D
AV
CA
21
!
E.
49
34
28 ST
21
DR 21
!
26 51 21
AV
.
E.
50
ST
.
21
. 21 44 ! 10
.
39
!
2160
W
PL
15
LL
06
17
N
!
21
TA
46
213
E.
IO
!
HT
BA
21
M
E.
PL
NL 5
S
21
212
HA
UN
N.
AV
21
M
21 1
!
EY
E.
07
0 21
N
IG
24
! !
KI
209
NG
12
!
EU
!
TO
S
19
21
AV
AV
! !
!
EN
21
!
BR
20
!
FI
!
21
98
21
W
14 E
20
FA
CL
9
3 21
!
85
EF
EV
211 ! 207
!
25 04
09
NE
75
20
NW
E.
EY
11
21
40
21
T.
ID
!
8
. 2
ST
AV
20
91
06
09
OO
21
NS BR 20
DL
J O H ! CL
DR
20
AV
21
21
N
!
D 209
!
88
92
.
81
OW
TO
A 00 7
PL
1
!
0 VE 20
20
!
21 EV
E.
RK
20
DU
N EL BEN
G
. 82
E
! 205 EL AV M
N
SO
!
PA
OR
20
!
AN NP
!
LI
9 E. ST 80 L. 20
!
20 20
AR
84
D .
M
!
20
! !
EV 87
!
9 70 50
83
AV
AN
20
207 61
20
ER 2074
! !
E. 20 S
20
67
71
43
! ALT
ST
TS 44
58
20 2068
20
20
20
!
2096
20
!
AV 77 4 ! ER 2069
20
206
62
E. 89
!
66
PL
20
20 20
!
AR
20
PR . 2
!
20 55 42
CT E
8 ! EM
25
C
!
4
!
02
E
0
.
2 22 HI
!
BR
OS 20 3
38 BR
32
BO
11
15
20
!
0 EE 37
!
20
204 !
!
46
20
20 EM
PE LD
24
10
.
ST
!
CR LIN
!
20
PL
! C
20
!
ES
!
C 20
T
!
OL
T 20 13 .
NU
C 17
E.
ST
!
EN CL N 10 20
! !
AV
!
E.
AL
T AR RD 20
09
.
AV
91
06
19 19
!
W
!
KS
K .
!
20
94 96
19
20
ST
X
2008
!
S.
85
97
.
AR
20
PL
NO
. 1 19
!
04
19
12
19
CH
!
98
M
19
!
99
! ! !
LE
ER
20
7 19
.
90
20
T
ST
ES
!
IN
92
!
81
ST
!
02
00
RD
SA
TN
E.
19
EB
20
95
!
19
S. BR
AV
HA
1 97 0
75
19 19
CT AND
19
84
W
19
UT
.
!
E.
! !
64
EU
PL
80 83
19
NT
C
!!
AV
OR
19 27
! !
19
ST
!
O
CA
CL
!
66 5
!
57 19
NT
1
M
!
19
.
T
73
62
.
61
NE
86
CO
IR
PL
! ID
O
47
19
19
FA
!
19
EM
RN
EL
82
48
SE
TE
AV
! ! !
E.
19 DR WA
19
19
SA
TR
19 19 19
M
AI
51
!
55
76
54
E.
!
43
!
45 IN . L
AV
.
ST
78
19
RD
!
L
!
19
14
HA T
!
H
19
.
!
PA
!
30
10
RT
NF
T
TH
!
UL
OF
19
OR
PE
19 ST
V
U 28
!
D
R
!
UR
E.
W
33
18
PL
!
37
EC
19 19 .
!
AV
CO
. 1 19
19
14
!
10
19
GL
FO
92 18 29
EL
!
ST
CO 7 19 32 99
EA
1
!
191
! 908 19 19
!
28
RE
M
11
.
LE
RD
!
NE
24
03
ER
19
M
7
16
AN LS
45
19
LL
CA
13
19
!
O
18
PL 18 18
ST
HI
10
!
190 N
01
NE
88
CLA
09
E.
. 0 93
!
18 PL 18
96
.
85
19
18
AV
!
19
!
.
SE
RK
98 . 91
W
18
84
!
18
!
W
AV OX
!
FO
S
!
ST BY
O
E.
!
9
R
T. 1 18 1886
88
LL
E.
ES
! ! !
69
AV
!
N
!
FE
!
.1
IM
T
!
18 AV 1
86
!
LE
.
!
89
PL
NG
2 ! !
67
Y.
10 1
E. 18
QU
EY
2
68
1879
W
64
LO
18
!
W
18
PK
63
1872
75
2
LO
18
DL
Brook
GL
!
18
! 61
!
18
LE
E
od
PL
LU
! N 78
Garwo
DU
!
TT
60
! !
AV
!
18
IS
E. 18
18
AV NT
TU
52
RR
1848
! !
46
E.
!!
18 18 18
!
43 YA
FE
33 ! 42 51
53
4
18 BR
E.
!
.
83
ST
18
39
AV
!
. 1
18
ES
18
!
1806
G
03 1 S.
E
! !
IN
ST W
L
! ! !
EL
AV
AR
NE
N
!
ME
!
AN
18
82
!
.
CH
!
D
18
E.
R
4
OO
93
18
17 ST
CH
AV
o ad
! ! !
76
!
56
!
15
R ailr
17
.
!
11
EW
PO
!
. 1
R
18
66
18
ail
IE
Conr
ET
18
18
ST
.
DG
! !
TT
PL
PL S
!
1
!
.
ST
78
! ! !
17
HI
!
ON
9E
.
1787
. 1
179
59
RC
!
EX
W
! !
181
ST
74
PL
RI 17
SS
BI
35
!
LS CT.
0
50
17
!
SHORT HIL PL 72
!
17
A
IN
!
17
!
SU
!
17
. EY
68
62
PL ! 21
LIV
IO
1808
!
17
PL
E.
17
66
! !! ! !
CC
ST
SS . 17
AV
!
17
17
!
IR 28
!
CA
O LI
R
R
41
56
!
17
! ! !
NG
1738
!
SO
27
!
17
25
34
1716
! !
17
!!
PL
17
D
17
17
!
17
.
22
.
!
IN
30
PL ! 20
.
17
W
15
ST
LE
!
17
95
! !
MP
16
ON
16
26
TE
! ! ! !
08
!
9
! !
96
74
SU
RS
E.
17
!
17
!
16
!
97
AV
00
CROSSW
0
TE
!
03
17
16 16
MM
16
04
!
AT
91
CA
17
PLACE
!
.E
TL
98
88
17
!
87
16
RL
YR
!
16
IT
ST
!
93
16
!
99
92
ET
CO
!
M
!
78
16
16
16
OS LU
AV
66 !
AY
ON
VE
16 16
!
BO 16 M
65
. 70 BU
85
16
!
16
!
R
ST
RD
E.
WEST
16
S
!
75 N FA 73
16
CRO S
AV AV
!
IR
GR
77
RK
71
!
47
E.
60
!
E. F 1669
!
16
CI I E
!
16
16
16
!
51
16
16 GR
P!A
70
R.
!
53
49
!
57
16
ST.
16
SWAY
!
61 A
15
84
. 1
! N
16
16 16 42
11
!
D
LD
58
90
16
!
44
16
54 VI
3
5
ST
16
52
! !
EW
16
64
64
50
BO
16 K
PA
TR
16
16 YT 1
.
38
55
!
D
28
.1
PL
AV
E. R
!
! !
PL.
16
.
LS
!
ST
AN
35 16
59
AV W A
IN
16 E.
16
ON 16
!
ST
T H
15
E
34
! ED 18 IR
25
. 1
T 26
RL
32
! !
16
LT
AK
TY
AV VI
NE
!
16 E
16
NE
33
16
16
AV 16 AB . NG
E
31
.
BE
ST
E.
!
ST
DR
30
!
EV
PL
E. 27 15 IZ VE
PI
RI
16
16 ! 16 AV
M
95
R
EL A
RT
PL
!
16
OS
20
.
E.
!
CU
16
NE
21
!
22 EY 16
!
08
16
HO
!
10 13 16
RO
!
W
AV 06
97
!
16 16 15
BO 07
16
14
DO
!
03
93 E.
15
!
16
15 05
UL
16
86
11
96
! !
15
!
8
N 98 16
!
55
LY
10
85 92
15
15
EV
!
PL . S
!
94
48
NW
. 1
!
15 15
!
1560
1
15
A
!
AI CO
15 87
27
!
OO
ST
15
!
! R
!
67
!
82
D 91 D
.
NS T
584
.W
ON
!
15 PL
E.
15 ! 27
C
! ! !
80 . 15 47
00
VE H
S
! A 83
.
AV
PL
PL L
RD
ST
!
59
ER
68
15
16
1579
.
ST
!
15
! !
78 UR
15
15
L.
!
PI
AR
EE
69
.
55
E
VE
T
56
DP
15
15 LA
RS
15
!! !
.
G
15
ST
R
GR
.
53
15
ED
15
!
O
FI
RD
OO
MO
!
1572
N
75
49
15
66
15
GR
TO
44
AI
! 50
W
15
AN
15
57
!
15
TR
NG
15
52
19
CA
ID
! ! ! !
R!I
! !
15 54
32
45
15
M
15
!
HI
EA
.
15
15
15
RD
48
47
15
AS
SY
DO
!
46
AL
!
43
15
15
!
G
42
AZ
62
IN
40
15
15
35
!
DD
!
14
15
27
37
.
! !38
R
!
15
!
78
!
W
15
97
15
D
15
CO
15 15 15
4
! !
1523
.W VE
36
R.
!
51
N
31
14
33
ES
28 24
1530
15
TE
07
. 1
15
AX
25
15
ST RO
.
!
21
10
TF
PL
DO 15
KS
13
KM
BE
15
!
RI 2!2 15
ON
06
VE
!
OA
!
I
!
AC
!
R. RD
HA
EL
AN 1516 12
!
R
15
EV
SH
SU LY RR
!
IN
TE XFO
PL
!
ER
15
D
!
E
!
CT
04
M
!
OW
TW
! RG
!
00 14 .
88
MI
! !
.
.
EV
14
PARK 1508
15
PL
AV
TA
PL S 91
O
RE
14
RD
01
STONELEIGH
61
!
99
!
VE EN
D
. 1
15
A CO
69
!
92
M
E.
14
DO
AY
!
5
14 14
!
OO
HA .
14
AR 46
! IN
148
!
CT
14
14
89
45 94
!
RI
W
ZE 5
S TC
!
R. ALE
O .
! !
W
N. 82
1487
AN 14
!
8
N
CH
!
L 14
46
H
FL 90
AV
AV H AV
93
!
CT 14
EC
!
TE IDV
14
79
O
EL
. 1
E. E. ! 48
14
RE .
!
81
E.
77
BE
14
!
74
14
W
M
RD
NC NO
14
14
!
14
73
!
14
E 14 TT 67
70
!
14
!
71
25
TU
!
AV 14 52 58 14
62
IN
O
!
14
57
!
14 CK
D 66
14
56
AV
E. GH
!
14
OR
ST
14
! !
50
14
!
63
49
14
44
O
AM 09
!
.
34
54 OV
ST ANC
14
14
14
!
PL
14
14
AR
PL 51
53
!
46
14
AL 14
! !
E.
FL
!
47
26
ON
.
! !
K 43
14
14
H
PE
OR
AV
.
14
!
O
39
14
14
! !
28
ET
O
!
EN
33
36
!
29
14
40
!
14
K
14 R
2
!
14
14
!
IC
12 144
C TB D.
14
15
23
32
14
E 19
24
E
30
ES R
20
14
14
AV
AV
! !
ER
14
! !
RD
14
22
14
E. 13
!! !
W
.
13
!
ST
92 14 67 G
FL
! !
HA
RO! 14
.
14
08
14
!
ST
TA
17
.
!
O
.
ST
IN
R LI T 14
DR
RA
10
!
S
13
!
ST
05
.
!
14
ST
!
.
N
!
N
C T.
07
14
RD
02
.
AU
DA
ST
14 13
W
E.
13
CT
03
13
!
13
!
N
DU
TO
14
!
5
13
06
LA
88 46
AV
CE
94
RE
!
SA
35
14
GE
.
74
NH
!
.
ST
C

2019 Westfield Payment Management Analysis Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 Westfield Payment Management Analysis Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Westfield, NJ

Pavement Management Analysis Report

IMS Infrastructure Management Services

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS 1

2.0 PRINCIPLES OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 3

2.2 Economic Impacts of Maintenance & Rehabilitation 5

3.0 THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS 6

3.2 Field Survey Methodology 10

4.0 WESTFIELD SURVEY PAVEMENT CONDITION 12

4.2 Westfield Network Condition Imagery 13

4.3 Evaluating the Pavement Quality and Backlog 20

4.4 Westfield Network Condition Distribution 21

4.5 Condition By Functional Classification 24

4.6 Structural and Load Associated Distress Analysis 25

5.0 REHABILITATION PLAN AND BUDGET DEVELOPMENT 27

5.2 Fix All and Annual Estimates 31

5.3 Network Budget Analysis Models 33

5.4 Post Rehabilitation Condition 36

5.5 Network Recommendations and Comments 37

Appendix A Full-Sized Maps

IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Page i

Sidewalks & Ramps, 16.3,

Subgrade & Base, 32.2,

Figure 1- Replacement Value of Roadway Network

IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Page 1

 The backlog amount is below the average value of 12% at 6.9%.

See section 5 for more information

Executive Summary Conclusion

IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Page 2

2.1 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION

Figure 2 – Pavement Deterioration and Life Cycle Costs

The key to a successful pavement management program is to develop a reasonably accurate

IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Page 3

Figure 3 – Pavement Life Cycle Curve

IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Page 4

Figure 4 – Laser Road Surface Tester (RST)

IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Page 5

3.1 FUNCTIONAL CLASS REVIEW

IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Page 6

Network Length (ft): All Streets 528,288 11,186 88,769 428,333

Network Length (mi): All Streets 100.1 2.1 16.8 81.1

Average Width (ft): All Streets 33.3 35.1 34.4 33.1

Network Area (yd2): All Streets 1,956,300 43,687 339,248 1,573,365

Current Pavement Condition All Streets 66 80 64 66

Pavement Condition Index All Streets 57 54 59 57

Current Backlog (%) All Streets 7

Current Network Index All Streets 61

Surface Distress Index (SDI) All Streets 63 79 60 63

Roughness Index (RI) All Streets 73 82 72 73

IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Page 7

Town Arterial, 43.7, 2.2%

Town Collector, 339.2,

Minor Street, 1,573.4,

Total Mileage = 100.1 Miles

Figure 5 – Functional Class Distribution by Mileage

IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Page 8

Figure 6 – Westfield Functional Classification Designation

IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Page 10

RI = (11 – 3.5 x ln(IRI)) x 10

ln(IRI) is the natural logarithm of IRI.

PCI = 33% Roughness Index + 67% Surface Distress Index

IMS Infrastructure Management Services Westfield_Report Page 11

4.1 UNDERSTANDING THE PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX