City of Barrie Hall/Asset-Management... · 2018-02-01 · and security risks Road Pavement...

City of Barrie Transportation Asset Management Plan

Revision 4

December 2015

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | i

Executive Summary Introduction

The Vision for the City of Barrie is to be progressive, diverse and prosperous with opportunities for all citizens to build a healthy and vibrant community. To support this Vision, City’s Council and General Committee established a Strategic Plan for a 20 year period (Vision 2003 to 2023) and for every term of council, establish priorities for a four year period. For 2014 to 2018, Council has identified ‘well planned transportation’ as one of the key priorities.

This Asset Management (AM) Plan will help the City ‘improve the road network’ by setting a plan for managing the condition of pavement more efficiently, as well as setting levels of service performance indicators with targets to ‘improve road safety’. The City also plans to expand the transportation network to include more active transportation assets to ‘improve options to get around’.

This AM Plan is a long range planning document that can be used to provide a rational framework for managing the City of Barrie’s transportation assets. It provides a guide to understanding key items such the City’s organizational strategic goals; asset portfolio; levels of service; lifecycle activities used to operate, maintain, renew, develop and dispose of assets; cash flow forecasting; and AM practice improvement actions.

The AM Plan is a living document that will require ongoing refinement to reflect the changes in the City’s objectives, changes in the asset portfolio, changes in expected levels of services, and evolution of asset management maturity within the City of Barrie over time.

State of Local Infrastructure

The City operates and manages a network of arterial, collector and local roadways, a network of active transportation assets including sidewalks and trails, a transit system, a short line railway, and a regional airport. Modes of transportation included in this AM Plan are roads (motorized vehicles), active transportation, and rail (structure assets only at this time). It is recommended that the City cover other assets such as Transit and air transportation under separate AM Plans.

The City’s Transportation asset portfolio has an estimated replacement value of $950.6 million, shown graphically in the following figure:

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | ii

Figure E-1 Transportation Assets Costs, 2015 $950.6M

Physical condition is a measure which establishes the current state of the asset portfolio. Condition is a measured assessment of an asset’s current position or place on the asset “decay” or deterioration curve. For assets where preventive maintenance and rehabilitation activities are technically feasible, understanding the asset’s current condition and place on the asset decay curve enables determination of optimal treatment type and timing. This understanding allows application of lowest lifecycle cost renewal decision-making. It is recommended that the City invest in additional condition assessments to gain the critical knowledge needed to determine the lowest lifecycle strategies.

To enable comparison of conditions and condition trends over time between different asset types, a generic condition grading scale is often used to translate detailed engineering data about assets into information that the public, council and senior management can understand. In this AM Plan, an industry standard general condition grading system is used, summarized in the table below. The table is based on the 2011 International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM).

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | iii

Table E-1 General Condition Grading `System Grade Description Condition Criteria

VG Very Good Asset is physically sound and is performing its function as originally intended. Required maintenance costs are well within standards & norms. Typically, asset is new or recently rehabilitated.

G Good Asset is physically sound and is performing its function as originally intended. Required maintenance costs are within acceptable standards and norms but are increasing. Typically, asset has been used for some time but is within mid-stage of its expected life.

F Fair Asset is showing signs of deterioration and is performing at a lower level than originally intended. Some components of the asset are becoming physically deficient. Required maintenance costs exceed acceptable standards and norms and are increasing. Typically, asset has been used for a long time and is within the later stage of its expected life.

P Poor Asset is showing significant signs of deterioration and is performing to a much lower level than originally intended. A major portion of the asset is physically deficient. Required maintenance costs significantly exceed acceptable standards and norms. Typically, asset is approaching the end of its expected life.

VP Very Poor Asset is physically unsound and/or not performing as originally intended. Asset has higher probability of failure or failure is imminent. Maintenance costs are unacceptable and rehabilitation is not cost effective. Replacement / major refurbishment is required.

The condition ratings for the City’s transportation assets are based on condition assessments, inspections, and/or age, as indicated in the following table which summarizes the asset inventory, condition rating distribution, and condition rating method.

Table E-2 State of Infrastructure

Sub-service

Major Asset Group

Asset Quantity Unit

Replacement Value

(millions)

Condition Rating Distribution (based on replacement value)

Condition Rating Method

Roads $ 859.2

Pavements

5,730,357 m2

852,603 m –Edge Treatment (Curbs)

$ 647.1

Pavement Condition Index based on various distresses using automated & visual survey per ASTM D6433-12

Edge Treatment: Visual rating 1=Good, 2=Fair, 3=Poor

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | iv

Sub-service

Major Asset Group

Asset Quantity Unit

Replacement Value

(millions)



Structures

14 Bridges-8,934 m2

31 Culverts-7,834

m2

$83.6

Visual inspection of structure elements per OSIM

Traffic Control

236 Signals

17,301 Signs $25.0

Condition estimated based on age

Illumination 10,715 Lights

$80.5

Lights without

poles not included

Condition estimated based on age

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | v

Sub-service

Major Asset Group

Asset Quantity Unit

Replacement Value

(millions)



Parking

83 Pay & Display Machines

580 Parking Meters

26 Paved Lots

(53,791 m2)

1 Parkade

$20.6

Condition estimated based on age (Condition rating distribution shown does not include parking meters due to missing installation year data)

Paved Lots only (same as Pavement)

Roadside – Retaining Walls

4,871 m2 3300 m $3.5

2611m of the current estimated inventory of 3300m retaining walls were provided a score out of 6 in 2007 ($3.0m of total inventory). However, the interpretation of condition values out of 6 is not clearly defined, and therefore, the assets have been grouped by score rather than associating the score to a qualitative (good/fair/poor) rating.

Active $ 78.4

Linear 601.6 km $76.5

Based on inspections (Road Patrol Program deficiencies) and age

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | vi

Sub-service

Major Asset Group

Asset Quantity Unit

Replacement Value

(millions)



Structures

21 Footbridges (495 m2)

2 Culverts

(77 m2)

$1.9

Visual inspection of structure elements per OSIM

Rail (BCRY) $ 12.0

Structures 2 Bridges (272 m2) $12.0

Visual inspection of structure elements per OSIM and Bridge Safety Management Plan (BSMP)

Levels of Service

Levels of Service (LOS) refer to a series of statements that encapsulate the agreed standards and customer needs that the City’s transportation services and assets will meet. It provides the performance, condition and operative targets to be achieved through asset maintenance, renewals and new works. To help focus the City’s management of assets, the LOS framework should contain key performance measures or indicators (KPIs) for specific programs or assets. These KPIs can be used to compare current performance to targets and provide accountability to meeting outcomes and objectives stated in the key planning documents.

The LOS described in this section are categorized as strategic, tactical, and operational. Strategic performance measures are more general and used to provide broad indicators of performance to the public, typically at the network level. Tactical measures provide more detailed information that is used as input into asset lifecycle planning. Operational measures typically relate to responsiveness, and are defined by the Minimum Maintenance Standards (Ontario Regulation 239/02). These standards outline various aspects of road maintenance, including patrolling, salting and clearing snow, which vary depending on the speed limit and traffic volume on a particular roadway.

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | vii

For LOS, this AM Plan focuses on the higher cost infrastructure - pavements and structures. Future asset management plans should be expanded to more asset types.

The following table summarizes strategic performance indicators, which assess performance at a network level for the transportation assets. Generally, the City exceeds the target LOS for structures, but falls slightly short of targets for pavement assets. Note that targets are still to be reviewed and endorsed by Council.

Table E-3 Strategic Level of Service – Target and Actual

Customer Expectation Asset Group Measure Target* 2014 Actual Comments

Available Services of sufficient capacity are convenient and accessible to the entire community

Roads Volume-to-Capacity ratio (V/C) 0.85 Not available

Safe Services are delivered such that they minimize health, safety and security risks

Road Pavement

Percentage of pavement assets in very good/good/fair condition, based on replacement value

90% 84.5% = $546.7 M / $647.1 M

Structures Percentage of bridge assets in very good/good/fair condition, based on replacement value

95% 97.0% =$94.55M / $97.46M

No. Road Bridges with Load Restrictions 0 0

Reliable Services are predictable and continuous

Road Pavement

Percentage of total annual road pavement reinvestment compared to asset replacement value

2% 1.19% = $7.73M / $647.1M

Structures Percentage of total annual bridge and major culvert reinvestment compared to asset replacement value

3% 3.34%

= $3.26M** / $97.46M

Cost Effective

Services are provided at the lowest possible cost for both current and future customers, for a required level of service, and are affordable

Road Pavement

Percentage of road pavement reinvestment backlog

<5% 8.07% = $52.23M / $647.1M

Structures Percentage of bridges and major culvert reinvestment backlog

<5% 0.064% = $0.062 / $97.46M

The following table summarizes performance indicators at the tactical level, which focus on asset condition. Tactical performance targets are also still to be reviewed and endorsed by Council.

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | viii

Table E-4 Tactical Level of Service – Targets

Sub-Service

Major Asset Group

Performance Objectives Measures of Asset Performance

Level of Service Targets

Roads Pavements • Preservation of road pavement

• Pavement Condition Index (PCI)

• Arterial/Parkway • Major Collector • Minor Collector • Local

• PCI > 60 (VG,G&F) • PCI > 55 (VG,G&F) • PCI > 50 (VG,G&F) • PCI > 40 (VG,G&F) • For 90% of assets (by

replacement value)

• Safety of road users • Rutting Depth (mm) • Arterial/Parkway • Major Collector • Minor Collector • Local

• Rut Depth ≤ 9 mm (VG,G&F) • Rut Depth ≤ 10.5 mm (VG,G&F) • Rut Depth ≤ 12 mm (VG,G&F) • Rut Depth ≤ 15 mm (VG,G&F)

• Comfort of road users and low vehicle operating costs

• International Roughness Index (IRI) (m/km)


• IRI ≤ 5 mm (VG,G&F) • IRI ≤ 6 mm (VG,G&F) • IRI ≤ 7 mm (VG,G&F) • IRI ≤ 9 mm (VG,G&F)

Structures • Safety of road (and other) users due to structural integrity

• Preservation of bridges and major culverts

• Bridge Condition Index (BCI)

• Structural integrity of load carrying elements

• All • BCI > 60 (VG,G&F) • For 95% of assets (by

replacement value)

For pavement, analysis shows that a significant percentage of Arterial and Parkway roads have PCI and IRI ratings that do not meet targets. Strategies should be developed to address the road segments within the Fair, Poor and Very Poor performance bands. For structures, the current BCI generally meets the target for all bridge types except for Road Culverts, for which BCI is based primarily on age.

Asset Management Strategy

Asset lifecycle decision-making includes making trade-offs between investments in various lifecycle activities to achieve desired levels of service, at acceptable levels of risk, at the lowest lifecycle cost. For example, decisions made at creation / acquisition may impact the type, timing and cost of activities for operations, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement. Similarly, decisions made regarding the other lifecycle activities (i.e., operations, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement) impact the overall lifecycle cost. Understanding the impacts of various lifecycle activity types, timings and costs upon other lifecycle activities and levels of service and risk are central to effective lowest lifecycle asset management decision-making. To enable this understanding, the City has begun to track costs, by lifecycle activity, at the asset level.

Asset Management Strategy - Risk Asset management involves understanding and balancing levels of service, cost and risk. Risk management is an integral part of managing the lifecycle of assets that considers both the consequences of asset failures (i.e., failing to meet the stated levels of service) and the likelihood of asset failures (i.e., how likely is it that the asset will fail?). Risk can be quantified through the following simple formula:

Business Risk Exposure (BRE) = Probability of Asset Failure X Consequence of Asset Failure

= PoF x CoF

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | ix

Risk enables identification and prioritization of high risk assets that require closer inspection and possible renewal or replacement. Higher risk assets may be inspected more frequently, may be held to a higher standard, may be treated before lower risk assets, or may be treated with different maintenance and/or renewal strategies.

The City has developed a risk management framework consistent with the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) 4-point scale for the Province of Ontario and ISO: 31000 Risk Management to ensure that risks throughout the business are managed and that risk management is performed on a consistent basis.

Risk maps show the value of assets, in 2015 dollars, at extreme (red), high (yellow), moderate (green), and low (blue) risks. Assets falling in the extreme and high categories will generally be those assets that are most consumed (high probability of failure), and those that have a high consequence of failure. Risk maps are shown for the pavement and road structures in the following figures. 3.5% (by replacement value) of pavement assets are in extreme risk. No road structures are currently classified as an extreme risk.

Figure E-2 Risk Map – Roads – Pavement, $647.1M, 5,728,312 sq.m, Curbs 852,603 m

Figure E-3 Risk Map – Roads – Structures, $83.6M (14 Bridges, 31 Culverts)

Asset Management Strategy – Lifecycle Analysis The recommended maintenance and rehabilitation schedules for transportation assets are summarized in the table below. The pavement and structures plans use a combination of preventative maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement to ensure a cost effective strategy. In the table, LCA represents Lifecycle Activity. Timing is in years, and costs are in 2015$ per unit. Blank cells indicate that no treatment is performed.

By Replacement Value By Percentage of Replacement Value

P4 $8,660,956 $3,300,293 $3,833,450 $1,653,385 P4 1.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.3%

P3 $24,290,674 $13,676,954 $11,590,324 $16,644,194 P3 3.8% 2.1% 1.8% 2.6%

P2 $40,826,895 $25,582,515 $58,965,582 $42,353,833 P2 6.3% 4.0% 9.1% 6.5%

P1 $280,654,721 $52,256,554 $44,824,976 $18,010,358 P1 43.4% 8.1% 6.9% 2.8%

C1 C2 C3 C 4 C1 C2 C3 C 4

PoF

PoF

CoF


P4 $0 $798,336 $0 $0 P4 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P3 $0 $5,201,416 $9,464,950 $0 P3 0.0% 6.2% 11.3% 0.0%

P2 $0 $14,185,985 $18,838,160 $11,651,530 P2 0.0% 17.0% 22.5% 13.9%

P1 $0 $2,526,480 $20,529,410 $414,348 P1 0.0% 3.0% 24.6% 0.5%

C1 C2 C3 C 4 C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

PoF

PoF

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | x

Table E-5 Time-Based Asset Maintenance & Renewal

Sub- Major Process MPL Unit LCA1 LCA2 LCA3

Service Asset (Sub-Asset Group) (yrs) Name Time Unit Cost Name Time Unit

Cost Name Time Unit Cost

Roads Pavements Arterial & Parkway 45 m2 Mtce 15 $25 Rehab 15 $40 Replace 45 $120 Major Collector 60 m2 Mtce 20 $25 Rehab 20 $35 Replace 60 $110 Minor Collector 60 m2 Mtce 20 $25 Rehab 20 $30 Replace 60 $100 Local 70 m2 Mtce 23 $15 Rehab 35 $25 Replace 70 $85 Edge Treatment (Curb) Curb 45/60

/70 Replace 45/60/

70

Structures Bridges Spanning > 3m Installed After 2000 120 m2 Repairs 30 $500 Rehab 60 $2000 Replace 120 $5500 Installed Before 2000 100 m2 Repairs 25 $500 Rehab 50 $1500 Replace 100 $5500 Culverts Spanning > 3m Concrete 75 m2 Repairs 25 $400 Rehab Replace 75 $4400 CSP or Other Plate Steel 50 m2 Repairs 25 $300 Rehab Replace 50 $4400

Traffic Control Traffic Signals Flashing 40 30 Per Unit Replace 30 By asset IPS 30 Per Unit Replace 30 By asset Full Way Signal 30 Per Unit Replace 30 By asset Temporary Signal 5 Per Unit By asset Temporary Signal (Speed

Board Advisory, Overhead Signal)

15 Per Unit Replace 15 By asset

Signs 15 - Replace 15 $250 Illumination Luminaires 25 - Replace 25 $470 Poles, foundation, electrical 50 - Replace 50 $7045 Parking Lots Paved Lots 15 m2 Replace 15 $86 Parkade 75 - Replace 75 By asset Payment Systems Pay and Display Machines 10 Per Unit Replace 10 $10,000 Active Linear Sidewalks 50 m Mtce 25 $13 Replace 50 $85 Walkways 50 m Replace 50 $85 Boulevard Pathways 20 m Replace 20 $40

Structures Footbridges 20 m2 Repairs 10 $300 Replace 20 $3300 Culverts 25 m2 Repairs 12 $300 Replace 25 $3300

Rail Structures Mapleview Drive East Asset ID: 120085994 100 m2 Repairs 25 $4000 Rehab 50 $16000 Replace 100 $44000 (BCRY) Lockhart Road Asset ID: 120054528 100 m2 Repairs 25 $4000 Rehab 50 $12000 Replace 100 $44000

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | xi

Analysis Outputs – Existing Asset Portfolio

The following graph shows the future renewal requirements and average annual amounts for the EXISTING asset portfolio, based on the time-based preservation plans provided in Table E-5. The analysis shows an average annual investment need of $24.8 million.

Figure E-4 Future Investment Profile: Transportation (Total)

Analysis Outputs – Existing Asset Portfolio plus Forecast Growth

The City of Barrie was one of the fastest growing census metropolitan areas in Canada between 2001 and 2006. Employment has also been on the increase. This trend is projected to continue and the City’s population is expected to reach approximately 210,000 residents by 2031.

Forecasts for future demand for road pavement and linear sidewalks are based on the Transportation Master Plan and secondary plans, and are summarized in the following table. No growth was assumed for culverts, active transportation/rail structures, and parking lot assets. Some parking lots are planned to be sold in the forecast period, and this reduction of assets has been incorporated into the analysis. For roadway structures, eight Highway 400 bridge widenings and two new Highway 400 bridges are expected to be constructed through to 2031.

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | xii

Table E-6 Assumed Growth Rates

Sub- Major Process Annual Growth Rate (%) Service Asset (Sub-Asset Group) 2016 2017 to

2021 2021 to

2026 2027 to

2031 After 2031

Roads Pavements All pavement types 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Traffic Control Traffic Signals 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Signs 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Illumination Luminaires 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Poles, foundation, electrical 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Active Linear Sidewalks 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 0.0%

Walkways 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.0%

Boulevard Pathways 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0%

The following graph shows future renewal requirements and average annual amounts for BOTH the existing asset portfolio and for forecast growth in the asset portfolio. The analysis shows an average annual investment need of $36.3 million.

Figure E-5 Future Investment Profile (including Growth): Transportation (Total)

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | xiii

Financial Strategy

The following table shows yearly capital renewal expenditure forecasts broken down by the asset hierarchy, for the year 2015 (which includes any backlog of work) and over the following 100 years. As indicated in the previous graphs, the AM Plan estimates total transportation renewal needs at $24.8 million per year (no growth) and $36.3 million per year (with growth).

Table E-7 Forecast Maintenance and Renewal Expenditures

Existing Assets With Growth

Sub-Service Major Asset Group

Process (Sub-Asset Group) 2015 (Backlog)

Average Annual Amount 2015-2114*

(2015$)


(2015$)

Roads Pavements (incl. curbs) Time Based $58,729,344 $16,897,769

(2015 – 2074) $20,958,285

(2015 – 2074) Time Based $58,729,344 $18,645,777 $24,338,298 Structures $62,198 $1,102,898 $5,725,625 Traffic Control Traffic Signals $1,095,567 $662,911 $864,794 Signs $640,436 $291,082 $380,362 Illumination $6,193,001** $1,711,002 $2,038,895 Roadside Retaining Walls $421,252 $59,388 $59,388 Parking Paved Lots $210,794 $190,813 $190,813 Parkade $140,000 $140,000

Payment Systems – Pay & Display $520,000 $83,000 $83,000

Active Linear Sidewalks $1,770,176 $1,727,586 $2,196,692 Walkways $0 $17,980 $18,368 Boulevard Pathways $164,019 $31,402 $50,869 Structures $0 $97,842 $97,842 Rail (BCRY) Structures $0 $84,268 $84,268 Totals $69,806,787 $24,845,949 $36,269,214

*100 year forecast unless otherwise noted **LED light conversion scheduled for 2015

As Road Pavement represents the significant portion of the transportation asset portfolio, further lifecycle planning was conducted for existing pavement assets to refine the time-based analysis ($16.9 million annual investment estimate based on 60-year period). A Lifecycle Planning Toolkit, developed under the Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme (HMEP) in the United Kingdom, was used to determine the budget required to support a target asset performance.

Based on the user inputs (treatments, the intervention points (and condition band trigger), impact each treatment will have on condition (i.e., does the treatment make the asset “Very Good” again or only “Good” or “Fair”?), and the unit costs for each treatment activity), the Asset Lifecycle Toolkit conducts the lifecycle cost-benefit analysis to determine the ideal time for each lifecycle treatment type, taking into account condition and treatment cost. A 60-year analysis period was used (the maximum period permitted by the tool). The optimal pavement preservation plan that meets the desired levels of service (less than or equal to 10% of pavement in Poor or Very Poor condition) is summarized in the following graph: average annual expenditure of approximately $13 million per year (first 10 years), $8 million per year (next 10 years; 2025 to 2034), and, once the overall pavement condition is improved, approximately

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | xiv

$6 million per year (2035 to 2074). This analysis is a significant optimization compared to the $16.9 million per year analysis that was determined for pavement assets on the strictly time-based approach.

Note that the analysis is at the network level and that costs are to preserve the EXISTING pavement structure and do not include growth assets and assets such as edge treatment (i.e., curb and gutter) or stormwater management assets (i.e., storm sewer system).

Figure E-6 Future Investment Profile: Road Pavements

The City's Financial Policy is that Municipal taxes levied not to exceed 4% of average household income, Principal and interest not to exceed 20% of City’s own source revenues; and Principal and interest for tax-supported debt not to exceed 10% of the City’s net levy requirement. These fiscal constraints are to be considered as part of the development of the City’s Long Term Fiscal Impact Assessment of Growth Report (FIA) and determination of funding shortfalls against the future investment needs determined in this AM Plan.

Recommendations for Future Improvements

To assist in the improvement of the AM Plan’s confidence level rating and improve future versions of this AM Plan, it is recommended that the City of Barrie focus on the following recommendations:

Quality Element Recommendations for Next AM Plan 1 Existing

Standards of Service

The next AM Plan should establish benchmarks for existing standards of service. It is recommended that the City start using its modelling software to establish the current performance of the road network more frequently (from every 5 years to annually) and invest more efforts in determining volume/usage data. With the Railway also in the transportation sector, the City needs to develop existing standards of service for railway assets, as it is currently an expensive service that is not well defined. Pavement performance criteria should align with the inputs to the pavement design methodology currently being established as part of the City’s Transportation Standards and Design Manual.

2 Knowledge of Existing Assets / Portfolio

Continue to expand the asset hierarchy for those service areas where it does not exist at the level at which the assets are maintained (e.g., railway crossing mechanisms, noise walls, trails, and rail assets in addition to rail bridges). It is imperative that the City develop data standards for all assets, particularly for condition, performance, and utilization rates. It is recommended that the next AM Plan not utilize any PSAB data. The City should invest more into populating GIS with valuable and accurate data. The City should also ensure inventories are accurate and be clear on which assets are and are NOT owned by the City.

3 Current Demands The City requires more data on current demands for both capacity/availability, asset levels of

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | xv

Quality Element Recommendations for Next AM Plan service (quality), reliability of service, and other associated levels of service (safety, efficiency, etc).

4 Future Demands / Changes in LOS

Periodically project future demand and levels of service against the assets to enable understanding of the availability of transportation assets.

5 Prediction of Failure Mode

Include the capacity failure mode and other failure modes, as available, in the next AM Plan. The City needs to be able to distinguish between end of physical life, capable life, efficient life, and service level life. Prediction of the most imminent failure mode is a task for the asset manager in the Capital Planning stage. Each failure mode will eventually occur; however, predicting which failure mode will occur first is critical in determining appropriate asset renewal and expansion plans.

6 Timing of Failure For high consequence of failure assets where condition is a predictor of remaining life, continue to update or determine condition and include this data in development of the probability of failure timing (i.e., the date of failure). Compare assumptions of decay rates and expected life to samples of actual assets in all stages of life. This will help to calibrate assumptions against real lifecycle activities.

7 Consequence of Failure (CoF)

Continue to refine the assessment of consequences of failure and, for higher consequence assets, should consider the dollar consequence of failure (rather than using the HIRA (Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment) 4-point methodology). Continue to develop situations where CoF is different for various situations. In the 2011 AM Plan, traffic signals included an analysis of CoF based on intersection type. This data was not available with the updated traffic signal inventory in 2015, and should be incorporated in the next AM Plan.

8 Quality of Proposed Maintenance Program

As the City incorporates maintenance management processes and implements the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) into its business practice, the AM Plan can include activity based costs, and compare different levels of service based on different blends of planned and unplanned maintenance.

9 Appropriateness of Recurrent Budgets / Costs

As the City incorporates maintenance management processes and implements the CMMS into its business practice, the AM Plan can include more accurate forecasts for recurrent costs, based on actual labour, materials and services recorded against assets, and on the prediction of maintenance costs with usage and age of the asset. It is recommended that the City develop a cost estimation protocol.

10 Appropriateness of Renewal Solutions

Continue to explore alternative treatments for renewal of assets for the next AM Plans. The programs should be piloted to assess the effectiveness and cost of these alternative treatments prior to implementing network wide application.

11 Appropriateness of New Asset Solutions

Track progress on implementation of the 2013 Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan and update the timing of the proposed new assets.

12 Appropriateness of Economic Evaluation Processes

Expand the use of analysis of capital investments using more sophisticated modelling processes including lifecycle cost analysis to more asset types based on level of risk (e.g., structures). The next AM Plan should be linked to other financial documents within the City and Long Range Financial Plans.

13 Plan and Customer Expectations

As the City incorporates demand and levels of service processes and performance indicators into its business practice, the AM Plan can identify specific failure modes that prevent meeting customer and other stakeholder levels of service.

14 Ability to Modify Plan

As the City incorporates verification of projects and use of business cases, the City will develop the ability to identify the implications of not spending money originally requested and passing that information back through the stakeholder framework. The preliminary analysis for pavement assets can be expanded to other assets.

15 Links to Business Goals

As the City incorporates demand and levels of service processes and performance indicators into its business practice, the AM Plan can more clearly link to current business goals and objectives of the city as a whole, including cost to deliver various levels of service.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1

1.1 Goals of the Municipality 1 1.2 Objectives of Asset Ownership 3 1.3 Purpose of the AM Plan 4 1.4 AM Plan Development Processes 4

2. State of Local Infrastructure 8

2.1 Overview 8 2.2 Asset Hierarchy and Inventory 8 2.3 Asset Age Distribution 21 2.4 Asset Condition 28 2.5 Asset Information Assumptions and Updates 42

3. Levels of Service 44

3.1 Overview of Performance Management 44 3.2 Performance Indicators and Targets 47 3.3 Current Performance 56 3.4 Future Performance 64

4. Asset Management Strategy 65

4.1 Overview of AM Strategy Development 65 4.2 Asset Risk Assessment 68 4.3 Asset Lifecycle Analysis 76

5. Financing Strategy 100

5.1 Overview 100 5.2 Actual Expenditures by Lifecycle Activity 100 5.3 Expenditure Forecasts by Lifecycle Activity 102 5.4 Revenue Sources & Funding Shortfalls 106

6. AM Plan Improvement & Monitoring 107

6.1 Overview 107 6.2 Status of AM Practices & Recommended Improvement Plan 107 6.3 Monitoring & Review Procedures 112 6.4 Performance Measures 112

Appendices Appendix A – List of Acronyms & Abbreviations

Appendix B – Risk Management Framework

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Goals of the Municipality Vision - The City of Barrie will be progressive, diverse and prosperous with opportunities for all citizens to build a healthy and vibrant community.

To support this Vision, City’s Council and General Committee establish a Strategic Plan for a 20 year period (Vision 2003 to 2023) and for every term of council, establish priorities for a four year period (Strategic Plan 2014 to 2018).

Strategic Plan – Vision 2003 to 2023

The Vision 2003-2023 document is intended to assist the City Corporation and Council with a framework for identifying new community initiatives and key projects, and in development of corporate business plans. Key elements from this Plan focus on:

Economic Development to ensure a prosperous future, including a strong downtown with links to the waterfront, and support for existing businesses and new ventures;

Maintaining Waterfront Excellence, by supporting public ownership, community access, recreation, tourism, and downtown revitalization;

A Clean and Healthy Environment that maintains ecological and environmental sensitivity;

Maintaining Transportation links within and beyond city borders;

Maintaining and Enhancing Barrie's Premier Lifestyle through innovation and collaboration, and encouraging diversity;

Maintaining Governance and Service Excellence through a consultative approach to governance and direct access to local council;

Planning for our Future by managing growth to maintain a strong community and healthy environment; and,

Ensuring Community Safety and Security including efficient and cost-effective emergency and health-related protection.

The report's emphasis on maintaining the city's lifestyle and the quality of the city's waterfront are major considerations for the economic development strategy as they represent key elements in the development of marketing and competitive positioning of the community, and the need to address further investment in the downtown. The City of Barrie (the City) is responsible for a broad portfolio of assets that support the City’s goals for service delivery. To achieve these goals, the City has determined key elements that form the foundation of service delivery through the Strategic Plan consultation process. These elements are as follows.

Council Strategic Priorities – 2014 to 2018

City Council identified the following four priorities for the 2014 to 2018 term of office, as documented in “Our Plan for a Better Barrie”. In particular, this Council has prioritized transportation assets.


Vibrant Business Environment Build a global startup community

Eliminate obstacles to business growth and investment

Attract and retain a talented workforce

Promote Barrie’s strengths

Responsible Spending Embrace innovation to improve how we do business

Demonstrate value for money

Improve understanding of how tax dollars are spent

Build a community that respects both current and future taxpayers

Inclusive Community Promote and facilitate community connections

Provide great public spaces

Encourage affordable housing

Support diverse and safe neighbourhoods

Well Planned Transportation Improve our road network

Improve options to get around

Improve road safety.

This AMP will help the City ‘improve the road network’ by setting a plan for managing the condition of pavement more efficiently, as well as setting levels of service performance indicators with targets to ‘improve road safety’. The City also plans to expand the transportation network to include more active transportation assets to ‘improve options to get around’.

Official Plan

The City’s Official Plan provides guidance for consideration of land use changes, the provision of public works, actions of local boards, municipal initiatives, and the actions of private enterprise to further support the City’s Vision. It gives direction for implementing by-laws, guidelines for more detailed planning and the means for controlling growth so that the City's capacity to provide a healthy community environment is not exceeded.

Specific Transportation goals from the Official Plan are:

To provide a sustainable transportation system for the safe, efficient, and convenient, movement of people and goods including linkages to the overall Provincial and County transportation system.

To provide a transportation system that supports the maximum economic development of the City with minimum social, health and environmental impacts.


To promote healthy communities, active living and energy efficiency; public transit, car pooling, all forms of active transportation, safe integration and connectivity between these various modes of transportation will be encouraged.

To develop the Intensification Areas identified on Schedule I – Intensification Areas of this Plan at densities that are transit supportive and provide linkages to major transportation hubs and routes such as the major transit stations.

Multi-modal Active Transportation Master Plan

On January 1, 2010, the City annexed 2,293 hectares of land from the Town of Innisfil, expanding the City to the south and east. The Barrie Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan (the Transportation Master Plan or MMATMP) was prepared over a two year period from 2012 to 2014 as part of a broader initiative to develop secondary and master plans for intensification and expansion, with significant stakeholder consultation as required by the five phase Ontario Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process. The Transportation Master Plan will serve as the City’s roadmap in developing a well-balanced transportation network to serve its future needs and development.

The Transportation Master Plan strives to provide a transportation system which:

is safe, efficient and accessible with choices in mobility

fosters the use and development of a sustainable transportation network

provides a public transit system that can offer a real alternative to private automobile use

provides a network of on-road and off-road pedestrian and cycling facilities that allow the use of active transportation modes as an alternative to the automobile.

The Transportation Master Plan takes into account other planned transportation projects that will have an impact on the City of Barrie’s transportation network, including:

improvements to the Highway 400 corridor

improvements to the GO Train and Bus services to Barrie

improvements of the Simcoe County road network.

The MMATMP assists with addressing growth in a sustainable manner, both for roadways and non-auto modes of travel. It provides information on how the City will manage growth and its effect on service delivery (refer to Section 3.4), and the expected growth rate in road assets (refer to Section 4.3).

1.2 Objectives of Asset Ownership The City of Barrie is responsible for a broad portfolio of assets that support goals of transportation service delivery. From the Official Plan (March 2014), these goals include:

To provide a sustainable transportation system for the safe, efficient, and convenient, movement of people and goods including linkages to the overall Provincial and County transportation system.

To provide a transportation system that supports the maximum economic development of the City with minimum social, health and environmental impacts.


To promote healthy communities, active living and energy efficiency; public transit, car pooling, all forms of active transportation, safe integration and connectivity between these various modes of transportation will be encouraged.

To develop the Intensification Areas identified on Schedule I – Intensification Areas of this Plan at densities that are transit supportive and provide linkages to major transportation hubs and routes such as the major transit stations.

1.3 Purpose of the AM Plan This AM Plan is a long range planning document that can be used to provide a rational framework for managing the City of Barrie’s transportation assets. It outlines the asset activities for each service within the City and provides a guide to understanding key items such as:

The City’s organizational strategic goals;

The City wide asset portfolio;

Levels of service and performance standards;

Demand forecasting;

Management techniques to assist in making long term funding decisions and prolonging asset life;

Lifecycle activities used to operate, maintain, renew, develop and dispose of assets;

Cash flow forecasting; and

Key asset management practice improvement actions.

This AM Plan has consolidated information that is currently available for the City’s transportation areas to provide both a short term (10 years) and a long term (100 years) focus. The short term focus sits within the long term period which is required to capture the full lifecycle of the assets. This AM Plan is a written representation of proposed risk reduction programs and strategies for the City of Barrie’s assets based on understanding of customer requirements, regulatory compliance and the ability of the assets to meet required performance levels (levels of service).

The Plan is intended to improve the City of Barrie’s ability to achieve its corporate goals and objectives in a way that best services its customers. It provides a rational framework that enables systematic and repeatable processes to manage costs, risks and levels of service for the City’s asset portfolio. The AM Plan identifies expected future costs and assists in predicting future barriers to efficient and effective service delivery. With this understanding, the City’s asset managers and operators will be better equipped to remove physical, financial and political barriers before they negatively impact customer levels of service.

This AM Plan is a living document that will require ongoing refinement to reflect the changes in the City’s objectives, changes in the asset portfolio, changes in expected levels of services, and evolution of asset management maturity within the City of Barrie over time.

1.4 AM Plan Development Processes Figure 1-1 below provides an overview of the steps undertaken to develop this detailed AM Plan.


Figure 1-1 Steps to Develop an MOI Detailed AM Plan

The improvements in processes in this AM Plan (2015) over the last AM Plan (2011) are summarized as follows:

State of Local Infrastructure Knowledge of Existing Assets / Portfolio: Asset attribute data is stored on most transportation

assets in the PSAB database and GIS, with pavement disaggregated at a block to block level. Significant data cleansing was undertaken to improve the quality of the data, including pavement installation dates and segment lengths and widths. Data on condition exists for pavement on a segment-by-segment basis. Utilization data (demand versus capacity data) is primarily in the form of traffic counts, which are taken for portions of the network annually and used to calibrate the City’s Syncro Model. Data standards for assets were defined and implemented during database design but over time have not been consistently maintained. The Corporation’s GIS and Asset Data Management Plan (in draft) will include a full review of GIS datasets, will formalize the process for attribute maintenance, and will clearly define standards for each asset dataset in GIS moving forward.

Levels of Service Existing Standards of Service: Required service standards for asset growth and enhancement are

documented in the 2013 Transportation Master Plan and summarized in the AM Plan. Standards for asset reliability are documented in the AM Plan and included in the AM Plan renewal analysis for pavement and bridges.


Future Demands / Changes in LOS: Future demands were primarily based on the Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan but also on the Fiscal Impact Analysis by Watson and Associates, and considered the effect of the two approved secondary plans, Hewitts and Salem. Data was converted to surface area by calculating the length and width of total traffic lanes, parking, left turning lanes, and bike lanes. For sidewalks, growth is projected based on quantity of sidewalk anticipated from the three phases of the two secondary plans, with the assumption of sidewalks on one side for local roads. Parking assets are expected to decline in the future, as the City plans to sell approximately one-quarter of its lots for a variety of uses, including condominium development.

Plan and Customer Expectations: The AM Plan is based largely on the physical mortality failure mode but also includes customer and other stakeholder requirements such as demand, levels of service, and cost of service (i.e., financial efficiency).

Links to Business Goals: Current business goals are linked to LOS and included in the AM Plan.

AM Strategy Prediction of Failure Mode: The AM Plan analyzes the physical deterioration failure mode and

considers the growth / enhancement failure mode on a network level. GIS should be used to determine the imminent failure mode at the asset / road segment level, including the impact of other assets within the road right-of-way.

Timing of Failure: The AM Plan assesses the timing of physical asset failure (reliability failure mode) at the network level (using Probability Transition Matrices for road pavement). GIS should be used to examine the timing of growth/enhancement and reliability failure modes at the asset / road segment level (to ensure that the City does not apply renewal strategies to an asset that will soon be widened or otherwise enhanced). All other assets are assumed to fail at the end of the asset’s maximum potential life (time-based replacement).

Consequence of Failure: The City has developed a risk management framework consistent with the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) for the Province of Ontario and ISO: 31000 Risk Management to ensure that risks throughout the business are managed and that risk management is performed on a consistent basis. This AM Plan uses the previous HIRA 4-point scale, rather than the updated 6-point scale, for consistency purposes with the risk framework used across City of Barrie departments.

Quality of Proposed Maintenance Program: The maintenance program included in the AM Plan is based on current maintenance budgets, inflated to reflect the growth of the asset portfolio. The maintenance program for pavement includes optimization based on lifecycle cost – benefit analysis.

Appropriateness of Renewal Solutions: The AM Plan analysis for pavement (the highest valued asset class) considers major maintenance and rehabilitation options and is optimized. The analysis for bridges considers major maintenance and rehabilitation options but is time-based. Analysis for all other assets is based on time-based replacement.

Appropriateness of New Asset Solutions: New asset solutions are based on the Transportation Master Plan that considered multiple options and evaluated lifecycle costs.


Financing Strategy Appropriateness of Recurrent Budgets / Costs: The City does not track labour against assets in

most cases. The future forecast recurrent costs included in the AM Plan are based on current budgets, inflated to reflect the growth of the asset portfolio.

Appropriateness of Economic Evaluation Processes: Capital investments are analyzed with consideration of time-based lifecycle activities and costs, and optimized for pavement.

Ability to Modify Plan: Section 4.3 discusses the impacts of insufficient funding of road pavements, as well as a preliminary investigation on the change in costs with a change in level of service for road pavement assets. This analysis is not performed for the other transportation assets in this AMP.


2. State of Local Infrastructure

2.1 Overview The City manages transportation assets to deliver the levels of service defined in Section 3, Levels of Service, in a sustainable manner. The City develops the transportation network (excluding provincial highways and county roads) in a way that is consistently “fit for purpose” across the City and is sustainable over time. The City operates and manages a network of arterial, collector and local roadways, a network of active transportation assets including footpaths and cycle-ways, a transit system, a short line railway, and a regional airport. Modes of transportation included in this AM Plan are road (motorized vehicles), active transportation, and rail (structure assets only at this time). It is recommended that the City cover other assets such as Transit and air transportation under separate AM Plans.

This section of the AM Plan includes the following sub-sections following this overview:

Section 2.2 Asset Hierarchy and Inventory: A description of the transportation asset portfolio in terms of quantity and replacement cost value, organized into a hierarchy to enable aggregation and analysis of asset data.

Section 2.3 Asset Age Distribution: A description of the age distribution of the transportation asset portfolio as a proportion of expected useful life.

Section 2.4 Asset Condition: A description of the physical condition of the transportation asset portfolio.

Section 2.5 Asset Information Assumptions & Updates: Records of all assumptions.

This section of the AM Plan is supported by an inventory database which includes basic static asset information (e.g. asset type / class, physical description, location, expected useful life, etc.) and information that will require regular updates (e.g. replacement cost, condition, performance, etc.).

2.2 Asset Hierarchy and Inventory To focus needs for investments, it is helpful to understand the number of assets and replacement value of assets against a hierarchy of asset types or groups. The City has developed an asset hierarchy framework as outlined in the following table.


Table 2.2-1 Barrie Asset Hierarchy Framework

Level Grouping Level No. Level Name Working Definition Financial Management & Performance Management

1 Organization The over-arching corporate entity encompassing all personnel, activities, and assets for which it is responsible; the City of Barrie

2 Service An administrative group or area devoted to a particular activity or specialty 3 Sub-Service A broad category of assets and/or activities that groups together similar

operational functions, and that collectively allow for the provision of a Level 2 service

Asset Management & PSAB Reporting

4 Major Asset An item, structure, or category of structures comprising the primary means by which a sub-service is delivered or a function is carried out

5 Process Items, assets, or a category thereof that function together within the major asset, or of which the major asset is composed

6 Sub-Process Smaller or less significant items, assets, or structures that enable the performance or provision of a higher-level process

Automation & Control 7 Location/Assembly The current Asset Hierarchy draft does not contain items at this level; a decision regarding the usefulness of this level is pending, based on discussion outcomes

Work Management (CMMS)

8 Asset/Component The current Asset Hierarchy draft does not contain items at this level; a decision regarding the usefulness of this level is pending, based on discussion outcomes

The following table and figures provide an overview of the City’s transportation asset portfolio, with the quantity of assets as of the end of 2014 and asset replacement value in 2015$.

Table 2.2-2 Asset Hierarchy, Count (2014) and Replacement Value (2015$), $950.6M Total


Process (Sub-Asset Group)

Asset Quantity (2014)

Unit Replacement Value (2015$)

Comments

Roads Pavements* Arterial 1,530,340 m2 $183,640,838 Parkway 34,369 m2 $4,124,241 Major Collector 505,240 m2 $55,576,406 Minor Collector 510,336 m2 $50,669,416 Including Future Collectors Local 3,150,072 m2 $267,756,107 Edge Treatment 852,603 m $85,358,655 Install year assumed to be

same as road base Bicycle Boulevard 0 m $0 No assets at this time Structures Bridges Spanning >= 3m 8934 m2 $49,141,455 Culverts Spanning >= 3m 7834 m2 $34,469,160 Traffic Control Traffic Signals 236 No. $20,649,919** Signs 17,301 No. $4,325,250 Install Year prior to 2007

estimated (2007 to 2014 based on PSAB)

Railway Crossing Mechanisms

- No. - Not included

Pavement Markings 567.1 3374

Km No.

- Not included

Illumination*** Luminaires 10,715 No. $5,035,513

Install Year prior to 1985 estimated (1985 to 2014 based on PSAB)

Pole, Foundation, Electrical 10,715 No. $75,479,123

Install Year prior to 1985 estimated (1985 to 2014 based on PSAB)

Roadside Retaining Walls 4871 m2 $3,458,058 Limited install year information



Process (Sub-Asset Group)

Asset Quantity (2014)

Unit Replacement Value (2015$)

Comments

Noise Walls - m - Not included Guide Rail Systems 2640 m Not determined No install year information Security Systems - No. - Not included Landscape - No. - Not included Parking Paved Lots 53,791 m2

$4,626,051 Other parking facilities are included in Facilities and Parks AMPs.

Unpaved Lots 3,327 m2 Not determined Parkade 1 No. $14,000,000 Street Parking **** m2 **** Payment Systems 83 Pay & Display

580 Meters No. $830,000

$1,160,000

No install year information on meters

Active Linear Sidewalks 587.9 km $74,951,036 Walkways 7.1 km $899,095 Boulevard Pathways 6.7 km $628,066 Trails 144.7 km Not determined No install year information Structures Footbridges 495 m2 $1,635,018 Culverts 77 m2 $253,572 Rail (BCRY) Railbed - km - Not included Trackage - km - Not included Structures Bridges Spanning >=3m 272 m2 $11,964,480 Security Barrier Wall - m - Not included Facilities Shed - No. - Not included Equipment Locomotives - No. - Not included Transit Bus Pads - No. - Not included (shelters are

privately owned) Facilities - No. - Included in Facilities AMP Fleet - No. - Included in Fleet AMP Air - - Not included

*Pavement includes surface pavement and road base assets **Replacement value is based on PSAB information ***Street lights without poles account for approximately 10% of illumination assets. Some of these assets seem to be included in PSAB but are not included in this AMP. ****The area and value of street parking is included in the value for pavement assets (10,310 m2, value of $886,671)

It should be noted that the value of the Roads Pavements asset group ($638.6M) is considerably less than the value of pavement indicated in the 2011 AMP ($1,083.5M). The main reason for this difference is that the lengths of the pavement segments have been corrected through an improvement in data collection and accuracy in 2015. Bridges and culverts valuation increased significantly compared to the last AMP ($41.4M in 2011 and $83.6M in 2015 for Bridges and Culverts >=3m under the Roads hierarchy). $13M is attributed to new bridges, and the remaining increase is due to the use of unit costing rather than the inflated PSAB historical costs that were used in 2011. Refer to the following table for additional details on 2011 versus 2015 replacement values.


Table 2.2-3 Asset Hierarchy, 2011 AMP versus 2015 AMP Replacement Values

Sub-Service

Major Asset Group

Process Replacement Value (2011$, millions)

Replacement Value (2015$, millions)

Comment (Sub-Asset Group)

Roads Pavements $1,083.5 $647.1 Improvement in data collection and accuracy for road segment length

Structures $41.4 $83.6** $13 million value of new bridges; current unit costing rather than PSAB costs used in 2011

Traffic Control Traffic Signals $16.9 $20.6

Signs $2.8 $4.3

* Costing basis was PSAB in 2011; updated based on unit costs and GIS inventory count. PSAB database does not include signs older than the service life of seven years, even though they have not truly been replaced. SDE database includes 17,000+ signboards and 11,000+ sign supports)

Illumination $28.3 $80.5

* Costing basis was PSAB in 2011; updated based on unit costs and GIS inventory count. PSAB database does not include assets older than the service life of 30 years, even though they have not truly been replaced. SDE database includes 10,715 lights with poles.

Roadside Retaining Walls $3.7 $3.5

Parking Paved Lots $4.0 $4.6

Payment Systems - Parking Meters $0.2 $1.2 Current unit costing ($2000 per meter) rather

than PSAB costs used in 2011

Payment Systems - Pay & Display Machines

$1.2 $0.8 Current unit costing ($10,000 per machine) rather than PSAB costs used in 2011

Active Linear Sidewalks $51.4 $75.0 Updated unit costing rather than PSAB costs used in 2011

* To improve transparency, future AM Plans should use SDE inventory quantity data with unit costs, rather than inflated PSAB historical costs. **The value for bridge assets does not include Highway 400 crossings


Figure 2.2-1 Transportation Assets Costs, 2015 $950.6M

As the Roads Pavement makes up the majority of the Transportation asset portfolio, the remaining assets are graphed below separately, with an adjusted vertical axis, for clarity.

Figure 2.2-2 Transportation Assets Costs, 2015$ (excluding pavement)


Additional details on the inventory of the various asset groups are provided in the following sections.

2.2.1 Road Pavement Inventory

Road segments are from intersection to intersection (i.e., block-to-block) and include on-road bike lanes, where applicable. Road classifications are defined as follows:

Arterial Roads: Mainly provide for thoroughfare traffic along with a high level of connectivity on a relatively regional scale. The City’s arterial roads typically receive large traffic volumes. Examples of Arterial Roads are Huronia Road, Essa Road, Mapleview Drive West and East, Big Bay Point Road, Dunlop Street West and East, Ferndale Drive North and South, Cundles Road West and East, Bayfield Street, and Duckworth Street.

Parkways: Mainly provide for thoroughfare traffic and can carry significant volumes of traffic, but they have restricted access and special design considerations. Lakeshore Drive is currently the only City roadway designated as a Parkway.

Collector Roads: Mainly serve to facilitate and distribute traffic between arterial and local roads, and provide a mixture of thoroughfare traffic and property accessibility. The City’s collector roads typically receive medium-level traffic volumes and are designated as Major or Minor Collector Roads. Examples of Major Collector Roads are Mapleton Avenue, Bayview Drive, Leacock Drive, and Sunnidale Road.

Local Roads: Mainly function to provide non-thoroughfare traffic and property accessibility. The City’s local roads typically receive a relatively low level of traffic and include Commercial / Industrial Local Roads and Residential Local Roads.

The two major components of the road pavements are the top asphalt surfaces (surface) and the granular base layers (base). The function of pavement base is similar to a building or bridge foundation: it receives the load and distributes it to the underlying formation. The function of the pavement surface is to provide a smooth riding surface and to act as a waterproofing layer that prevents water from intruding into the base pavement base and the underlying formation. The unit costs and overall pavement replacement value by road classification is summarized in the table below.

Table 2.2-4 Pavement Network Quantity & Replacement Value (2015$)

Major OP Road Length Area Unit Cost (2015$) Total Unit Cost (2015$)

Total Cost (2015$)

Asset Classification (m) (m2) Surface Base

Pavements Arterial 123,253.2 1,530,340 $55 $65 $120 $183,640,838

Parkway 2,917.4 34,369 $55 $65 $120 $4,124,241

Major Collector 48,506.8 505,240 $55 $55 $110 $55,576,406

Minor Collector 52,413.2 510,336 $55 $45 $100 $50,669,416

Local 365,750.5 3,150,072 $45 $40 $85 $267,756,107

TOTALS 592,841 5,730,357 $561,767,009

Note: These costs are substantially less than in the 2011 AM Plan because the lengths of the pavement segments have been corrected through an improvement in data collection and accuracy, and the edge treatment (i.e., curb and gutter) assets are reported separately in this AM Plan. Segments designated as


“future collectors” in the City’s Official Plan, 2014, were considered Minor Collectors for the purposes of this AM Plan.

A “Bicycle Boulevard” is defined as a Road asset which is a road, almost always local streets, where bicycle traffic is prioritized through such measures as traffic calming, turn restrictions, and diverters for vehicles. Intersections with crossing roadways are often managed in such a way as to give priority for cyclists on the bicycle boulevard. It should be noted that a bicycle boulevard differs from a street’s boulevard, which is the space between the sidewalk and the roadway and should not be confused with a “Boulevard Pathway” or multi-use trails located within park lands (see Active Transportation Inventory below). The City currently does not own any Bicycle Boulevards.

The inventory of edge treatment assets is detailed in the following table. Edge Treatments designated as “gravel shoulder” and “no curb” in the dataset were not included in the inventory. Install year data for curbs were based on the associated road segment installation year of the base pavement.

Table 2.2-5 Pavement – Edge Treatment Network Quantity & Replacement Value (2015$)

Major Length Unit Cost Cost

Asset Edge Treatment (m) $/m (2015$)

Pavements Curb 839,932 $90 $82,353,330

Median Barrier Curb 12,671 $225 $3,005,325

TOTALS 852,603 $85,358,655

2.2.2 Structures Inventory (All Transportation Modes)

The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) defines:

A Bridge as “a structure which provides a roadway or walkway for the passage of vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists across an obstruction, gap or facility and is greater than or equal to 3.0 m in span”. To further clarify:

− Footbridge: means a structure providing access to pedestrians over water and land but not over a road. Many of the City’s bridges within parks are footbridges. Note that some footbridges are less than 3.0 m and therefore do not follow the strict MTO definition.

− Pedestrian Overpass: means a structure carrying pedestrians over a road, highway or other facility (the City currently does not currently own any Pedestrian Overpasses)

− Railway Underpass: means a structure carrying a railway or a railway and other facility over a highway or roadway (the City owns two Railway Underpasses, which are included as part of the Rail (BCRY) transportation mode)

− Railway Overhead: means a structure carrying a highway over a railway or railway and other facility.

A Culvert (Structural) as “a structure that forms an opening through soil and

− has a span of 3 meters or more, or

− has the sum of the individual spans of 3 meters or more, for adjacent multiple cell culverts, or

− has the sum of the individual spans of 3 meters or more, for multiple cell culverts (each with spans at least 2m) separated by soil (a width not more than the span of smallest individual cell), or

− has been designated by the Owner (i.e., the City) as qualifying as a culvert”.


A Tunnel as “any bridge that is constructed through existing ground, and is used to convey highway or railway traffic through it” (the City does not currently own any Tunnels).

The City has defined Culverts with a span of less than 3.0 m as Stormwater Culverts which form part of the Stormwater Management asset portfolio and are included in a separate Stormwater Management AM Plan. Bridges located within parks are considered as part of the active transportation network and included in this AM Plan. Railway underpasses are considered as part of the rail network and included in this AM Plan.

Table 2.2-6 Structures Construction Value (2015$)

Sub Service Major Asset

Process Sub-Process Quantity (m2 2014)

Unit Value (2015$/m2)

Cost (2015$) (Sub-Asset Group) (Structure Type)

Roads Structures Bridges Spanning >= 3m Installed After 2000 7942 $5,500 $43,682,870

Installed Before 2000 992 $5,500 $5,458,585

Culverts Spanning >= 3m Concrete 4978 $4,400 $21,903,684

CSP or Other Plate Steel Culverts 2856 $4,400 $12,565,476

Active Structures Footbridges 495 $3,300 $1,635,018

Culverts 77 $3,300 $253,572 Rail (BCRY) Structures Railway Underpasses 272 $44,000 $11,964,480

Total $97,463,685

2.2.3 Other Road Assets

2.2.3.1 Traffic Control Traffic Control assets includes signals, signs, and pavement markings. The inventory for signals was based on PSAB data, with costs inflated to 2015 year dollars (refer to the following table). Betterments listed in PSAB data were assigned to the value of the relevant Level 4 asset. Temporary signals also includes 9 speed board advisories and 3 overhead signals.

Table 2.2-7 Traffic Signals Inventory and Value (2015$)

Major Asset Process (Sub-Asset Group)

Level 6 Quantity Replacement Value (2015$)

Traffic Control Traffic Signal Flashing 40 6 $352,026

Full Signal 173 $18,221,335

IPS 40 $1,413,535

Temporary Signals 17 $663,022

TOTALS 236 $20,649,919

Railway crossings, including GO Train signals, are Rail assets and are not included in the above inventory.

The inventory for traffic signs is summarized in the following table:


Table 2.2-8 Traffic Signs Value (2015$)

Major Asset Process

Install Year Replacement Value (2015$) (Sub-Asset

Group) Traffic Control Signs 1999 $320,219

2000 $320,219

2001 $320,219

2002 $320,219

2003 $320,219

2004 $320,219

2005 $320,219

2006 $320,219

2007 $267,409

2008 $127,535

2009 $200,164

2010 $214,201

2011 $332,653

2012 $427,487

2014 $194,049

TOTALS $4,325,250

According to the GIS database, the City has an inventory of 17,301 signs. It is assumed that each sign costs $250, for a total inventory value of $4.3M. Installation year data for the signs is based on PSAB data. PSAB does not have an inventory of signs prior to 2007 because it is assumed that assets have been replaced at the end of the service life of 7 years. To account for the signs installed prior to 2007, it was assumed that the same amount of signs was installed in each year from 1999 to 2006. The total value of signs was determined by subtracting the value of assets in PSAB (inflated to 2015$) from the total value of $4.3M. 1999 was used as the first year, representing an assumed MPL of 15 years.

2.2.3.2 Illumination Illumination (Street Lights) inventory was based on the GIS database, which included 10,715 streetlights with poles. Similar to traffic signs, streetlights are not accounted for in PSAB past the expected life (30 years). It was estimated that 7428 lights are accounted for in PSAB data from 1985 to 2014. Prior to 1985, is it assumed that the remaining 3287 assets were installed evenly in each year starting in 1965. The replacement value of illumination assets is $80.5M, based on unit costs of $7045 for poles (including electrical, foundation) and $470 for the new LED light. PSAB data included some values for streetlights without poles, but as the GIS database only included data on streetlights with poles, the assets without poles were not included in this AMP.


Table 2.2-9 Illumination Assets Value (2015$)

Major Asset Install Year Replacement Value (2015$)

Illumination 1965 to 1984 each yr $1,234,715

1985 $25,394,624

1995 $15,003,888

2005 $9,797,842

2008 $377,602

2009 $133,257

2010 $1,592,611

2011 $1,746,358

2012 $981,069

2013 $793,095

TOTALS $80,514,636

2.2.3.3 Roadside A partial inventory of Roadside assets included in this AM Plan consists of retaining walls and guide rails. There is limited data and information available on these assets. As defined by the Ministry of Transportation, Ontario, a retaining wall is any structure that holds back fill and is not connected to a bridge. The City also owns a portfolio of noise walls for which only limited data is available.

There are concerns regarding ownership of retaining walls and noise walls, and there is a need to clearly define these walls when associated to other assets, such as bridges. For example, in some instances the retaining wall spans significantly longer than the associated bridge. The City will also need to consider retaining walls for which ownership is unclear between private stakeholders and the City. This process may lead to an increase in retaining wall inventory in the future.

The inventory of retaining walls available is included in the table below. The data was missing height and installation year information for 688m of the total 3300m of retaining walls. For these retaining walls, the height was assumed to be 1m, and this inventory accounts for a value of $489,594 of the total $3,458,058 and is included in the table below. These assets, however, do not have installation year data and are not included in the forward looking analysis (Chapters 4 and 5).

Table 2.2-10 Retaining Walls Inventory and Value (2015$)

Level 2 Level 3 Quantity (sq. m.)

Unit Cost (2015$)

Replacement Value (2015$)

Roadside Retaining Wall 4,871 $710 $3,458,058

The City has 18 guide rails totaling a length of 2640m. A list of guide rails is provided in the following table:


Table 2.2-11 Guide Rails Inventory

Inventory List of Guide Rails 1 Cundles Road at Kidds Creek (Bwtn Coulter and Lillian Street) 2 Big Bay Point Road at Hewitts Creek (250m to 560m East of Pine Drive) 3 Bayview Drive at Whiskey Creek (200m to 340m South of Little Ave) 4 Yonge Street at Lovers Creek 5 Hurst Drive at Lovers Creek 6 Tollendale Mill Road at Lovers Creek 7 Lockhart Road at Lovers Creek (100m to 200m West of Finsbury Street) 8 Big Bay Point Road at Lovers Creek (just West of Dean) 9 Cox Mill Road at Lovers Creek (near railway crossing) 10 Hurst Drive at Whiskey Creek (Btwn Minets and Wallwins) 11 Little Ave at Whiskey Creek (110 to 160m West of Firman Drive) 12 Townline near Bear Creek (90m to 130m South of Ardagh Road) 13 Sproule Drive at Dyments Creek (near Dead End) 14 Consort Drive at Hewitts Creek 15 George Street at Dyments Creek 16 McConkey Place at Whiskey Creek 17 Ferndale Drive North – From Landfill Entrance to 300m North of Edgehill 18 Fairview Road crossing Whiskey Creek

Due to the limited data available on retaining walls, noise walls, and guide rails, further analysis of these assets is not provided in this AM Plan. Some condition information on retaining walls from 2007 is provided in Section 2.4, and forward looking analysis is provided for the retaining walls with complete installation year and height data. It is recommended that the City continue to perform condition assessments every two years as indicated by the Ministry of Transportation in the OSIM.

2.2.3.4 Parking Parking assets includes Paved Lots, Gravel Lots, Parkade, Street Parking, and Payment Systems. This asset inventory consists only of paid parking assets; all free parking at parks, facilities, and on-street are not quantified here. The inventory of parking assets is summarized in the following table. Unit costs for local roads have been applied to paved lots and street parking. Gravel lots have not been provided a replacement value. Due to lack of install year information in the dataset for gravel lots, street parking, and meters, these assets are not included for further analysis in this AM Plan.


Table 2.2-12 Parking Assets Inventory and Value (2015$)

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Quantity (#) Quantity (sq. m.) Unit Cost (2015$)


Parking Paved Lots 26 53,791 $86 $4,626,051 Gravel Lots 2 3,327 - - Parkade 1 - - $14,000,000 Street Parking 20 10,310 $86 * Payment Pay & Display Machines 83 - $10,000 $830,000 Parking Meters 580 - $2,000 $1,160,000 TOTALS $20,616,051

*Street parking (paid) value is estimated at $886,671, and is included in the value of pavement assets.

2.2.4 Active Transportation Inventory

Active Transportation is any form of human-powered transportation and currently includes 588.0 km of Sidewalk, 7.1 km of Walkway, 144.7 km of Trail, and 6.7 km of Boulevard Pathway.

There are many park and greenway pathways and trails in Barrie with a variety of surfaces and widths. The linear active transportation network assets are defined as follows:

A “Sidewalk” is defined as an Active Transportation asset within a municipal Right of Way, usually parallel to the roadway and includes perpendicular segments when connecting to the roadway (i.e. ramps, offsets, and waiting areas). This does not include concrete bus pads, trails, or walkways as defined below.

A “Walkway” is defined as an Active Transportation asset between two municipal Right of Ways or from a municipal Right of Way to non-park lands. This does not include trails or sidewalks. A defining characteristic of a walkway is usually a well-defined parcel of land, perpendicular to the municipal Right of Way with fencing or other barrier.

A “Boulevard Pathway” is defined as an Active Transportation asset within a municipal Right of Way, usually parallel to the roadway and typical width is 3.0m. Boulevard pathways are usually asphalt surfaced. The defining characteristic of a “Boulevard Pathway” is that the use is for all active transportation modes, often utilitarian in nature. This does not include multi-use trails located within park lands.

A “Trail” is defined as an Active Transportation asset that specifically or incidentally services a park land. A trail may have the appearance of a sidewalk, pathway, walkway, or stone dust path, however the defining characteristic is that it specifically or incidentally services park land. A “Trail” is for all active transportation modes, often recreational in nature. Trails are further classified as Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Trails.

− Primary Trails are predominant parkland pathways, usually asphalt surface and are regularly maintained by the City of Barrie. This includes multi-use trails within the City owned park land.

− Secondary trails are the auxiliary parkland pathways, usually stone dust surfaced or dirt. These trails are maintained by the City of Barrie, however, to less degree than the primary trail network.

− Tertiary trails are the pathways or routes that are not recognized by the City of Barrie as an official trail route. These include desire lines, foot paths, etc. These trails are not maintained by the City of Barrie


The most significant pathway in Barrie is the Trans-Canada Trail: a recreational trail that is incrementally being developed to span all of Canada. The most heavily used section of the Trans-Canada Trail in Barrie is the section through the Centennial Park waterfront. This section is a 3.0 m asphalt pathway, marked with a yellow stripe in the center dividing the trail into cycling and walking areas. Most of the parkland trails in Barrie are narrow, dirt hiking trails where cycling or walking for active transportation is not suitable. There is limited data available on stairs and therefore these assets have not been included in the AM Plan. Stairs represent a higher probability of claim resulting from slips, trips, and falls. It is recommended that the City establish an inventory of stair assets to establish a baseline for estimating AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) compliance performance.

The following table summarizes the inventory linear active transportation assets, excluding trails.

Table 2.2-13 Active Transportation - Linear Network Quantity & Replacement Value (2015$)

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Length (m) Width (m) Area (m2) Unit Cost* ($ / sq.m.)


Active Transportation Linear Boulevard

Pathway 6,739 2.33 15,702 $40 $628,066

Sidewalk 587,851 1.5 881,777 $85 $74,951,036

Walkway 7,052 1.5 10,578 $85 $899,095

TOTALS 601,642 908,056 $76,478,197

*Unit costs are based on averaging historical City contract values indexed to $2015. Asphalt Boulevard pathways unit cost of $40 is based on rounded value from City’s 2014 Contract Unit Price Summary and Estimate Data table.

The inventory of trails is provided in the following table. Install year and condition information were not available, and therefore, trails are not further analyzed in this AM Plan.

Table 2.2-14 Active Transportation - Linear Network Quantity of Trails (2015$)

Sub-Service Major Asset Process (Sub-Asset Group) Level 4 Quantity

(km)

Active Linear Trails Primary 67.8 Secondary 19.4 Tertiary 57.5 TOTALS 144.7

2.2.5 Railway Inventory

The City owns the Barrie-Collingwood Railway (BCRY), a short line railway between the towns of Innisfil and Utopia that is currently operated by Cando Contracting Limited. The asset inventory is currently being compiled and includes bridges (included in this AM Plan), railbed, trackage, barrier walls, a shed, a construction depot, fencing, and a locomotive. The City has developed a Bridge Safety Management Program (BSMP) to manage the BCRY structures, including compilation of the asset inventory.

2.2.6 Fleet and Facilities Inventory

Fleet and facilities inventory associated with delivery of transportation services are reported in separate Fleet and Facility AM Plans. The costs associated with managing and operating these assets should be included in future versions of this AM Plan.


2.2.7 Non-City Owned Assets

As described above, by default, some assets that were constructed by the private sector are transferred to the public sector, e.g., retaining walls and noise walls. The inventories for these assets are under review.

Most local roads and some other transportation assets within the right-of-way are constructed to City standards by the private sector under subdivision agreements and transferred to the City at the time of assumption. These assets are included in the AM Plan as City-owned assets.

In this AM Plan, analysis includes portions of roadway that may be owned by another municipality (e.g. County roads), where the City partly owns the roadway.

Other non-City owned assets included in this AM Plan are the crossings for the Highway 400 Corridor, including bridges and ramps. There are currently 10 crossings, with two more anticipated to be constructed by 2022. Although these assets are not owned by the City of Barrie, they are often 100% funded by the City of Barrie for all lifecycle activities including create, enhance, operate, maintain, refurbish, and replace for overpasses. A portion of the cost for these activities is typically funded by the City for interchanges and underpasses. For the purpose of this AM Plan, it is assumed that the upcoming improvements and new crossings will be 100% funded by the City (refer to Section 4.3.1). The City ultimately ends up paying for a significant portion of lifecycle activities, though the MTO does not currently have a policy that requires municipalities to fund future rehabilitation costs of provincial infrastructure for which the municipality is contributing capital cost share. Future AM Plans should clearly articulate the boundaries between City-owned and non-City owned assets.

2.3 Asset Age Distribution To assist the City with future funding needs analysis, it is helpful to understand the installation profile of the asset profile portfolio. The following graphs show the construction value of the assets by year of installation, in 2015$.

These figures reflect the moderate growth of the City during the mid 1980’s, throughout the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, and the recent addition of transportation assets due to annexation. With the upcoming development in the annexed lands, there is an anticipated period of renewed infrastructure growth over the next 30 years.

Note that the figures show an “Average Annual Investment” line which represents the average annual investment amount over the 100 year period. For asset classes in which installation of assets is within a more recent period, the Average Annual Investment line is overstated.


Figure 2.3-1 Asset Installation Profile: Transportation (Total)

Figure 2.3-2 Asset Installation Profile: Roads – Pavements


Figure 2.3-3 Asset Installation Profile: Roads – Structures

Figure 2.3-4 Asset Installation Profile: Roads – Traffic Control


Figure 2.3-5 Asset Installation Profile: Roads – Illumination

The following two figures show the installation profiles of parking assets without the parkade, as the high value of the parkade relative to other parking assets reduces the granularity of the graphs. The parkade construction cost was $14 million in 2009.

Figure 2.3-6 Asset Installation Profile: Roads – Parking – Paved Lots*

*Paved Lots without installation years in the dataset are not included ($1.9 million of $4.63 million in paved lot)


Figure 2.3-7 Asset Installation Profile: Roads – Parking – Payment*

*Pay & Display Machines only

Figure 2.3-8 Asset Installation Profile: Roads – Roadside*

*Retaining Walls only


Figure 2.3-9 Asset Installation Profile: Active Transportation – Linear

Figure 2.3-10 Asset Installation Profile: Active Transportation – Structures


Figure 2.3-11 Asset Installation Profile: Rail (BCRY) – Structures


2.4 Asset Condition

2.4.1 Overview

In this AM Plan, the term “condition” is used in its asset management context and refers to the degree of physical deterioration of an asset or asset element. Note that “performance” is a more general term that typically describes an asset’s ability to achieve levels of service, and can refer to: (i) the state of physical condition, (ii) the capacity relative to demand, and/or (iii) the ability to perform intended functions. In this AM Plan, asset condition is described in this Section 2, State of Asset Infrastructure, while more general asset performance is described in Section 3, Levels of Service.

All assets physically deteriorate at different rates to eventual failure. Asset condition is a measured assessment of an asset’s current position or place on the asset “decay” or deterioration curve. For example, pavement typically deteriorates slowly at first to a fair condition and, after that, there is more rapid degradation. The typical pavement lifecycle is illustrated in the figure below which shows the relationship between the condition and effective life (i.e., age). A key observation is that it is far more cost effective to maintain and rehabilitate pavements before they reach a condition where the only option is costly reconstruction. For assets where preventive maintenance and rehabilitation activities are technically feasible, understanding the asset’s current condition and place on the asset decay curve enables forecasts of future condition and determination of optimal treatment type and timing – key aspects of lowest lifecycle cost renewal decision-making. It is recommended that the City invest in additional condition assessments to gain the critical knowledge needed to determine the lowest lifecycle strategies.

Figure 2.4-1 Typical Asset Decay Curve

An ongoing condition assessment program evaluates current condition, determines rate of deterioration over time, enables forecasts of future condition, and informs the most beneficial type and timing of treatment. Condition assessment methods and rating systems have become relatively standard for many


transportation assets but vary depending on the type of asset. The City conducts inspections more frequently on more critical assets such as bridges and major culverts, while routine condition assessments are undertaken for less critical assets at an appropriate frequency for the asset group.

Depending on the purpose, the asset life can be defined in three distinctive ways:

Effective Physical Life (EPL): EPL is the time from installation to replacement with no refurbishment activity to restore the condition of the asset to prolong the asset life. Basically, it would be the expected life if the asset were allowed to operate without any major refurbishment.

Effective Economic Life (EEL): EEL is the time from installation to the first refurbishment or replacement.

Maximum Potential Life (MPL): MPL is the time from installation to replacement, with maintenance and refurbishment activities taking place during the asset lifecycle to restore the condition and prolong the life of the asset.

The differences between EPL, EEL and MPL are illustrated in the figure below. Note that, in the cases where assets are run-to-failure, EPL = MPL.

Figure 2.4-2 Various Asset Life Definitions

The maximum potential life (MPL), condition rating methods, and condition rating frequencies for the City’s transportation assets are listed in the table below. For more information of criticality of assets, see the Risk Assessment in Section 4.2.


Table 2.4-1 Expected Life and Condition Rating Method and Frequency

Sub-Service

Major Asset

Process (Sub-Asset Group) Sub-Process MPL Condition Rating

Method Rating

Frequency Roads Pavements Arterial 15/45* Various distresses

using automated & visual survey per ASTM D6433-12

Every 4 years Parkway 15/45* Major Collector 20/60* Minor Collector 20/60* Local 35/70* Edge Treatment (Curb) Curb 45/60/70** Visual rating

(1=G, 2=F, 3=P)***

Structures Bridges Spanning > 3m Installed After 2000 120 Visual inspection of structure elements per

OSIM

Every 2 years Installed Before 2000 100 Culverts Spanning > 3m Concrete 75 CSP or Other Plate Steel 50 Traffic Control Traffic Signals 30 Based on age Signs 15 Based on age Illumination Luminaries 25 Based on age Poles, foundation, electrical 50 Based on age Roadside Retaining Walls 50 Visual inspection of

structure elements per OSIM

Under review

Parking Lots Paved Lots 15 See Road Pavement Every 4 years Payment Systems – Pay &

Display 10 Based on age

Active Linear Sidewalks**** Asphalt 20 Based on inspections (Road Patrol Program deficiencies) and age

Concrete

50

Walkways***** Asphalt 20 Based on inspections (Road Patrol Program deficiencies) and age

Concrete 50

Boulevard Pathways Asphalt 20 Based on age Structures Footbridges 20 See Road Structures Culverts CSP 25

Rail (BCRY) Structures Railway Underpasses 100 See Bridge and BSMP requirements

*surface/base MPL **curb MPL based on road type – arterial/collector/local ***G = Good; F = Fair; P = Poor; this three-point scale was converted to a five-point scale (Section 2.4.5) ****Sidewalks and walkways are assumed to all be concrete in this AMP

To enable comparison of conditions and condition trends over time between different asset types, a generic condition grading scale is often used to translate detailed engineering data about assets into information that the public, council and senior management can understand. For this purpose, the City uses an industry standard general condition grading system, summarized in the table below, based on the 2011 International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM).


Table 2.4-2 General Condition Grading System

Grade Description Condition Criteria

VG Very Good Asset is physically sound and is performing its function as originally intended. Required maintenance costs are well within standards & norms. Typically, asset is new or recently rehabilitated.

G Good Asset is physically sound and is performing its function as originally intended. Required maintenance costs are within acceptable standards and norms but are increasing. Typically, asset has been used for some time but is within mid-stage of its expected life.

F Fair Asset is showing signs of deterioration and is performing at a lower level than originally intended. Some components of the asset are becoming physically deficient. Required maintenance costs exceed acceptable standards and norms and are increasing. Typically, asset has been used for a long time and is within the later stage of its expected life.

P Poor Asset is showing significant signs of deterioration and is performing to a much lower level than originally intended. A major portion of the asset is physically deficient. Required maintenance costs significantly exceed acceptable standards and norms. Typically, asset is approaching the end of its expected life.

VP Very Poor Asset is physically unsound and/or not performing as originally intended. Asset has higher probability of failure or failure is imminent. Maintenance costs are unacceptable and rehabilitation is not cost effective. Replacement / major refurbishment is required.

Some assets undergo “inspections” rather than “condition assessments”. "Inspections" are activities designed to locate and repair existing and potential unsafe conditions and determine if asset conditions are compliant with a specific standard. "Condition Assessments" tend to focus on performance rather than compliance and are intended to help locate where on the decay curve the asset is, from 100% to 0%. Condition Assessments do not ignore unsafe conditions; however, their goal is to evaluate the asset performance throughout all stages of its lifecycle.

Pavement, structures, curbs, and parking lots undergo condition assessments and are assigned condition ratings by the City. Other assets, such as sidewalks, traffic control, and illumination assets are ‘inspected’ to identify compliance with set standards. For these other assets, condition rating is subjectively estimated based on age.

The following table and figures depict the distribution of current condition of the various groups of assets within the transportation asset portfolio using the above grading scale, weighted by replacement value (2015$). To adequately meet service levels and manage risk while minimizing whole-of-life costs, most assets should generally be preserved in Very Good or Good condition. See the sub-sections that follow the pie charts for details on the asset specific condition grading systems for pavement and bridges.


Table 2.4-3 Transportation Asset Condition Distribution, 2015 (By Replacement Value)

Sub-Service

Major Asset

Process Condition Reference

Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor

(Sub-Asset Group)

Roads Pavements Arterial PCI 1.41% 29.60% 39.24% 16.83% 12.93%

Parkway PCI 0.00% 8.66% 0.00% 44.29% 47.04%

Major Collector PCI 11.14% 45.41% 16.41% 8.25% 18.80%

Minor Collector PCI 51.90% 30.14% 7.51% 6.80% 3.65%

Local PCI 77.22% 8.70% 6.14% 4.71% 3.23%

Edge Treatment 1 to 5 rating 90.67% 8.62% 0.49% 0.21% 0.01%

Structures Bridges Spanning >= 3m BCI 23.39% 60.87% 15.74% 0.00% 0.00%

Culverts Spanning >= 3m BCI 34.75% 42.83% 20.11% 2.32% 0.00%

Traffic Control Traffic Signals Age 27.14% 21.45% 25.99% 10.82% 14.61%

Signs Age 14.37% 17.27% 16.53% 22.21% 29.61%

Illumination Age 18.36% 18.26% 29.57% 15.54% 18.27%

Roadside Retaining Walls**

Parking Paved Lots PCI 9.58% 29.55% 44.04% 11.19% 5.64%

Parkade Age 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Payment Systems Age 0.00% 2.41% 0.00% 31.33% 66.27%

Active Linear Sidewalks Inspections and Age 70.62% 22.66% 3.74% 2.59% 0.38%

Walkways Age 14.93% 76.42% 8.66% 0.00% 0.00%

Boulevard Pathways Age 0.00% 8.51% 48.74% 24.83% 17.91%

Structures Footbridges BCI 7.33% 71.38% 20.08% 1.21% 0.00%

Culverts BCI 6.30% 93.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Rail (BCRY) Structures BCI 82.52% 0.00% 0.00% 17.48% 0.00%

*Based on age if BCI is unavailable. Rail Underpasses were inspected and assigned an OSIM BCI which will be superseded by Load Capacity and other metrics as outlined in the Bridge Safety Management Plan (BSMP). **Retaining wall condition is based on an undefined rating system from a 2007 City Report. Refer to Figure 2.4-11.


Figure 2.4-3 Roads: Pavements Condition, $647.1M, Pavement 5,730,357 sq.m, Curbs 852,603 m

Figure 2.4-4 Roads: Structures Condition, $83.6M, 14 Bridges, 31 Culverts

Figure 2.4-5 Roads: Traffic Control Condition, $25.0M ($20.65M Signals; $4.33M Signs)

Very Good49.3%

Good19.4%

Fair15.7%

Poor8.3%

Very Poor7.2%

Very Good28.1%

Good53.4%

Fair17.5%

Poor1.0%

Very Good24.9%

Good20.7%

Fair24.4%

Poor12.8%

Very Poor17.2%


Figure 2.4-6 Roads: Illumination Condition, $80.5M* – 10,715 Lights

Figure 2.4-7 Roads: Parking Condition, $19.5M* - 83 Pay & Display Machines, 26 Paved Lots, 1 Parkade

Figure 2.4-8 Active Transportation: Linear Condition, $76.5M, 601.6km

Very Good18.4%

Good18.3%

Fair29.6%

Poor15.5%

Very Poor18.3%

Very Good74.2%

Good7.1%

Fair10.5%

Poor4.0%

Very Poor4.2%

Very Good69.4%

Good23.2%

Fair4.2%

Poor2.7%

Very Poor0.5%

*Street Parking, Gravel Lots not included. Parking meters have inventory value but no install year or condition rating, and are also not included (Parking assets valued at $20.5M including meters).

*Lights without poles not included


Figure 2.4-9 Active Transportation: Structures Condition, $1.9M, 21 Footbridges, 2 Culverts

Figure 2.4-10 Rail (BCRY): Structures Condition, $12.0M, 2 Bridges

The following condition information for retaining walls was based on a condition assessment performed in 2007, and pertains to 2611m of the current estimated inventory of 3300m of retaining walls. Each retaining wall was provided a score out of 6. However, the interpretation of condition values out of 6 is not clearly defined, and therefore, the assets have been grouped by score rather than associating the score to a qualitative (good/fair/poor) rating.

Very Good7.2%

Good74.4%

Fair17.4%

Poor1.0%

Very Good82.5%

Poor17.5%


Figure 2.4-11 Roads: Roadside – Retaining Walls, $3.0M (of $3.5M inventory)

More detailed condition information is provided for each of these asset groups in the following sub-sections.

2.4.2 Road Pavements Condition

The City performs routine patrolling of highways as per the Minimum Maintenance Standards, with frequency defined by the class of highway:

Class 1: 3 times every 7 days

Class 2: 2 times every 7 days

Class 3: once every 7 days



The City conducts a network-wide pavement condition assessment on a four-year cycle, with the most recent assessment completed in 2014, and previously in 2010. In 2014, the City of Barrie performed surface distress assessment for all flexible, composite, and rigid pavements in accordance to the latest version of ASTM 6433, Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys. This assessment included the collection of roughness, rutting, and surface distress data.

The roughness assessment was based on the measured longitudinal profile expressed in terms of International Roughness Index (IRI) for both wheel paths. This statistic was used to estimate the amount of roughness of a road. Longitudinal profile roughness measurements were collected continuously using a laser based Class I inertial profiler as defined by ASTM E950, Test Method for Measuring the Longitudinal Profile of Vehicular Traveled Surfaces with an Accelerometer Established Inertial Profiling Reference. Each IRI was computed from a single longitudinal profile using the quarter-car simulation as per ASTM E1926, Standard Practice for Computing International Roughness Index of Roads from Longitudinal Profile Measurements.

The rut depth survey was performed as per AASHTO R 48, Standard Practice for Determining Rut Depth in Pavements. The transverse profile measurements were collected at a minimum of 1.0 meter intervals and the data collection equipment (rut bar) contained more than five sensors.

>5.95 to 6.010.8%

>5.90 to 5.951.4%

>5.85 to 5.9025.4%

>5.75 to 5.8550.5%

<=5.7512.0%


The methodology in 2010 followed the Province of Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s SP-022 Manual for Flexible Pavement Condition Rating. The 2010 and 2014 pavement condition surveys used equipment called a “Laser Road Surface Tester” or Laser-RST. The main components of the Laser-RST include:

Laser-Camera Array (LCA) system with integrated lasers, cameras, rate gyroscopes, inclinometers and accelerometers to automatically and continuously measure pavement cracking, texture, roughness, rutting, and geometrics.

Digital Condition Rating System (DCRS) that may be customized to collect user defined severity/extent based pavement distresses and a variety of roadway attributes.

The Laser-RST obtains continuous surface condition data, including bleeding, bumps and sags, corrugation, cracking (longitudinal, transverse, edge, alligator, block), depressions, lane / shoulder drop-off, patching, polished aggregate, potholes, raveling, rutting, shoving, swelling, and weathering. The severity and extent of each distress is recorded by the Laser-RST. The severity reports how bad the defect is (e.g., the width and depth of the cracking), while the extent is a record of how much of the area is affected by the distress. A pavement surface starts with a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) value of 100, meaning it is perfect. Each distress that is reported for the pavement then deducts a certain amount from the PCI, based on the severity and extent of the distress. For each distress type, the ASTM D6433 protocol provides a series of Deduct Value Curves (for high (H), medium (M) and low (L) severity levels) that plot the Deduct Value (from 0 to 100) against extent or density of distress (from 0% to 100%). A sample plot for alligator cracking is shown below. An extent or Distress Density of 1 percent with a severity of Medium (H) would yield a Deduct Value for alligator cracking of approximately 30.

Figure 2.4-12 Sample Asphalt Deduct Value Curve: Alligator Cracking*

*Source: ASTM D6433-07

For the same levels of severity and extent of distress, some distress types (e.g., alligator cracking, bumps and sags, corrugation, patching, potholes, rutting, shoving, and swells) have very heavy weighting and can reduce the PCI considerably. Other distresses, like edge cracking and lane / shoulder drop-off, carry a very low weighting and have little overall influence on the PCI.

The simple formula used to compute the PCI distress index is shown in the following equation, provided in ASTM D6433:


PCI = 100 – Corrected Σ(Deducts), where Deduct = deduct value assigned to each distress type based on severity and extent, the sum of which are Corrected when the number of deducts is greater than six.

The conversion scale used to determine the Very Good to Very Poor condition ratings based on PCI is provided in Figure 3.2-2.

In addition to the PCI, the City tracks other pavement performance metrics, which are discussed in Section 3, Levels of Service.

2.4.3 Structures Condition – Roads and Active Transportation

Bridges and major culverts are currently condition surveyed every two years following the guidelines in Ontario’s Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) for a detailed visual inspection. The OSIM sets standards for the visual inspection and condition rating of bridges and their elements. It covers the complete inspection process, pre and post inspection operations, inspector’s qualifications, inspection frequency, inspection descriptions, and technical information to clearly identify structural elements, material defects and performance deficiencies.

The City stores a database of bridge and major culvert inventory and historical information for each bridge, such as the length, number of spans, the area of each of approximately 50 bridge elements, and the results from each inspection. The inspector assesses each bridge element and records the amount (area, length or other unit of measure, as appropriate) of the element in each of four condition states: Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor. At any given time, areas within a bridge element may be in different condition states, or the whole element may be in the same condition state. The inspector also records performance deficiencies and recommends maintenance and renewal activities, with costs.

Generally, the following philosophy is used for most condition state tables included in the OSIM:

Excellent: refers to an element (or part of an element) that is in “new” (as constructed) condition. No visible deterioration-type defects are present, and remedial action is not required. Minor construction defects do not count as visible deterioration-type defects.

Good: refers to an element (or part of an element) where the first sign of “light” (minor) defects are visible. This usually occurs after the structure has been in service for a number of years. These types of defects would not normally trigger any remedial action because the overall performance of the element is not affected.

Fair: refers to an element (or part of an element) where medium defects are visible. These types of defects may trigger a “preventative-maintenance” type of remedial action (e.g., sealing, coating, etc.) where it is economical to do so.

Poor: refers to an element (or part of an element) where severe and very severe defects are visible. In concrete, any type of spalling or delamination would be considered “poor” because these defects usually indicate more serious underlying problems in the material (e.g., corroding the reinforcing steel). These types of defects would normally trigger rehabilitation or replacement if the extent and location affect the overall performance of that element.

Bridge condition is typically reported in terms of a single value called the Bridge Condition Index (BCI). The BCI is calculated as a weighted average of the condition states for each of the elements making up the structure. Since elements are not of equal importance to the structure, the index is weighted according to the relative value or importance of each element in the total.


BCI = Current Element Value / Total Replacement Value × 100

BCI ranges from 100 (new) to 0 (all elements poor condition). The BCI is an indication that significant maintenance work is required on a bridge in the near term to keep the bridge in service. The BCI rating doesn’t necessarily indicate a bridge’s ability to carry traffic loads. It helps determine which bridges may need repair or replacement, not potential for collapse.

According to the Ministry of Transportation, Ontario (MTO), bridges with a BCI of 70 or above are generally considered to be in good or very good condition, and below 60 to be in poor or very poor condition. This rating scale is translated to the City’s 5-point scale as follows – retaining the 60 to 70 “Fair” band for consistency with the MTO BCI rating scale.

Figure 2.4-13 Asset Condition Scales: Bridges

The MTO long-term target for the number of bridges in good or very good condition is 85%. On average, bridges in Ontario require major rehabilitation every 30 to 35 years and replacement after 60-70 years. This represents an average annual deterioration rate of 3%. Based on a five-year planning cycle, it is desirable to have only 15% of bridges in need of rehabilitation at any time. This 85% threshold implies that the bridge network is in a steady state. Using this measure, a bridge with a BCI greater than 70 is considered to be in good condition.

2.4.4 Structures Condition – Rail

Under the Railway Safety Management Systems (SMS) Regulations, a railway company is required to implement and maintain systems to manage safety of all aspects of railway operations. The Bridge Safety Management Plan (BSMP) shall form part of, and be referenced in a railway company’s SMS.

Load Capacity: Each railway authority should determine the load capacity of each of its bridges. The load capacity is intended to be the safe load capacity not the ultimate or maximum load capacity. The railway bridge load capacity may be expressed in terms of numerical values related to a standard system of railway bridge loads, but should in any case be stated in terms of weight and length of individual or combined cars and locomotives, for the use of transportation personnel.

Bridge Inspection: Each railway authority’s BSMP should provide for an effective bridge inspection program. The railway authority should clearly define and document the different types of inspections to be undertaken for their bridges, including the frequencies of these inspections in their BSMP. Types of inspections include but are not limited to cursory, visual, detailed, mechanical, electrical, underwater,


special, etc. The railway authority should conduct regular comprehensive visual inspections of each bridge, at least once every year with not more than 540 days between any successive inspections, and maintain records of those inspections that include the date on which the inspection was performed, the precise identification of the bridge inspected, the items inspected, and accurate description of the condition of those items, and a narrative of any inspection item that is found by the inspector to be a potential problem.

2.4.5 Other Roads Assets Condition

2.4.5.1 Curbs Curb data was obtained from the 2014 Road assessment project, which included an inventory of Edge Treatment (includes curb, curb and gutter, gravel shoulders) and a rating from 1 to 3 based on the visual condition only. Translation from the City’s 3-point condition rating scale (Good=3, Fair=2, Poor=1) to a 5-point scale was carried out as follows:

Very Good: Rated as Good = 3 and Asset Consumption >= 50% MPL

Good: Rated as Good = 3 and Asset Consumption < 50% MPL

Fair: Rated as Fair = 2 and Asset Consumption >= 50% MPL

Poor: Rated as Fair = 2 and Asset Consumption < 50% MPL

Very Poor: Rated as Poor = 1

2.4.5.2 Traffic Control In this AMP, condition of signs was estimated subjectively based on age. It is recommended that the City investigate the use of other assessment methods to determine the condition of signs. One option is to use sign colour and reflectivity, which is currently being evaluated as per ASTM D 4956-95 or CGSB 62-GP-11M as stated in the Ontario Traffic Manual. Minimum Maintenance Standards regulation, Ont. Reg. 239/02 that came into effect February 18, 2010 requires municipalities to inspect their regulatory and warning traffic signs annually for retro-reflectivity (see: Sections 11. (0.1) and 12. (1)). Sign retro-reflectivity inspection options include the use of a reflectometer or visual inspection by trained personnel. Sign retro-reflectivity inspections using the visual inspection method, as outlined in the Ontario Traffic Manual, must be undertaken at night.

In this AMP, traffic signal condition was also estimated subjectively based on age. It is recommended that the City record condition ratings during inspections. According to Minimum Maintenance Standards, for traffic control signal sub-systems, the minimum standard is to inspect, test and maintain the following traffic control signal system sub-systems once per calendar year, with each inspection taking place not more than 16 months from the previous inspection:

1. The display sub-system, consisting of traffic signal and pedestrian crossing heads, physical support structures and support cables.

2. The traffic control sub-system, including the traffic control signal cabinet and internal devices such as timer, detection devices and associated hardware, but excluding conflict monitors.

3. The external detection sub-system, consisting of detection sensors for all vehicles, including emergency and railway vehicles and pedestrian push- buttons. O. Reg. 239/02, s. 14 (1); O. Reg. 47/13, s. 13 (1).


2.4.5.3 Illumination Illumination assets are assessed on a routine basis by the City’s Road Patrol group. Additionally, the public is encouraged to report burned out streetlights via the City’s website, email, or through social media such as Twitter. According to the Minimum Maintenance Standards, all luminaires are to be inspected to check to see that they are functioning at least once per calendar year, with each inspection taking place not more than 16 months from the previous inspection (O. Reg. 23/10, s. 6; O. Reg. 47/13, s. 10 (1)). In this AM Plan, linear deterioration based on age is used to determine the condition rating for luminaires and associated poles and electrical assets. The City of Barrie recently adopted an LED luminaire standard, and plans to install all new LED luminaries by October 2015. This network wide replacement program is reflected in Figure 4.3-5.

2.4.5.4 Roadside Retaining walls were condition surveyed in 2007 following the guidelines in Ontario’s Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM). The inspection includes assessment of material defects and performance defects which are combined into an overall component condition rating. It is recommended that the City perform these assessments every 2 years as per the OSIM. Noise walls and guide rails are not specified in the Minimum Maintenance Standards but should also to be inspected for failures, following inspection frequencies for similar assets (e.g. two years for retaining walls).

2.4.5.5 Parking As part of the road pavement condition assessment (on a four-year cycle), the City determines the severity and extent of distresses for asphalt parking lots. Using the ASTM D6433 protocol, Pavement Condition Index (PCI) values are calculated for each lot. IRI and Rutting were not assessed for parking lots as the operating speeds are very low compared to roads. Condition assessment for surface discontinuities may prove useful in preventing claims for slips, trips and falls, as the City has experienced a few cases in recent history.

For the parkade, age was used to determine the condition. This $14M asset is in very good condition because it was recently constructed in 2009. Street parking and gravel lots were not included in the condition graph because install year and condition information was not available in the dataset.

2.4.6 Active Transportation – Sidewalks, Walkways, Boulevard Pathways

MMS states that "the minimum standard for the frequency of inspecting sidewalks to check for surface discontinuity is once per calendar year, with each inspection taking place not more than 16 months from the previous inspection. O. Reg. 23/10, s. 10; O. Reg. 47/13, s. 16 (1)."

The City determined condition of linear active transportation assets by visual inspections that capture types of defects, including:

Trip Ledge

Settling

Cracking

Heaving

Other-Sidewalk

These inspections only capture conditions that exceed the thresholds considered acceptable for each defect. The inspection is not a condition assessment in that inspections do not objectively evaluate the


assets condition throughout the entire condition range. Inspections only capture conditions that exceed the thresholds considered acceptable. The inspection results from 2015 were summarized to show the number of defects noted for each segment and converted it to a number of defects per 200 meters to represent a City Block length. The number of defects per City Block ranged from as low as 0.1 to 4.0 with a few outliers in the 50 and 100 range due to short segments having 1 or 2 defects.

The sidewalk segments were assigned a rating based on the following table, based on age and number of defects:

Table 2.4-4 Sidewalk Inspection Rating Based on Defects

# of Defects per 200m Remaining

Age 0 Less than 1 1 to Less than 2

2 to Less than 3 3 or more

>=80% 1 1 2 2 3

40 to 79% 1 2 2 3 4

20 to 39% 2 2 3 4 4

>0 to 19% 2 3 4 4 5

0 3 4 4 5 5

Boulevard pathways and walkways were assigned a rating based only on age due to limited inspection data.

2.5 Asset Information Assumptions and Updates The improvements in input data in this AM Plan (2015) over the last AM Plan (2011) are summarized as follows:

Asset Hierarchy Structure: The City has developed a corporate asset hierarchy structure that provides consistency throughout the City.

Asset Identification and Inventory Data: These data elements include static data such as asset identification numbers (asset ID), asset name and description, location, date of acquisition, original acquisition cost, service life, and unit of measure, and non-static data such as quantity and unit construction value (in 2015$) and unit replacement cost. Unique asset IDs exist for each asset and inventory data is complete for most asset types. Typical missing data includes installation year. Refer to Table 2.2-2 for additional details in the Comments section.

Asset Condition Data: These data elements include asset ID, inspection date and type, inspector name, ratings, and comments. Asset condition exists for many assets, as indicated in Table 2.4-1. For those assets without a condition rating, subjective ratings were developed based on age.

Failure Mode and Risk Data: These data elements include asset ID, assessment data, and risk assessment scores (probability of failure, consequence of failure, lack of redundancy). Probability and Consequence of failure scores were assigned according to a 4 point rating based on the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment for the Province of Ontario.

Asset Deterioration Modelling Data: These data elements describe the rate of deterioration in asset condition over time. Deterioration was assumed linear over time for most asset types. Non-linear


deterioration, based on transition probability matrices, was only used for road pavement assets in the optimized modeling described in Section 4.3.2.4.

Renewal Planning and Optimized Decision-Making Data: These data elements include potential lifecycle treatment activities and associated timing and costs. Renewal planning for roads is condition-based with deterioration models applied. Renewal planning for bridges is condition-based on OSIM and recommendations from OSIM reports. Traffic control renewal planning is driven mainly from inspection through the Road Patrol Program. Illumination asset renewal planning is typically also driven by the Road Patrol Program; however, it is currently based on improving the financial efficiency level of service through the conversion of streetlights to LED, scheduled for October 2015.


3. Levels of Service

3.1 Overview of Performance Management Levels of Service (LOS) refer to a series of statements that encapsulate the agreed standards that the City’s transportation services and assets will meet. LOS is an asset management tool that maintains organizational and operational focus on managing the transportation infrastructure network in a manner that meets customer and other stakeholder needs. A LOS framework links operational activities with tactical and strategic outcomes in a robust and logical manner.

LOS plays a key role in determining investment levels across the transportation network. It provides the performance, condition and operative targets to be achieved through expenditure on service delivery including asset maintenance, renewals and new works.

Customer expectations are typically articulated in the following service attributes:

Safe: Services are delivered such that they minimize health, safety and security risks.

Reliable: Services are predictable and continuous.

Suitable: Services are suitable for the intended function (fit for purpose).

Sustainable: Services preserve and protect the natural and heritage environment.

Available: Services of sufficient capacity are convenient and accessible to the entire community.

Cost Effective: Services are provided at the lowest possible cost for both current and future customers, for a required level of service, and are affordable.

Responsive: Opportunities for community involvement in decision making are provided; and customers are treated fairly and consistently, within acceptable timeframes, demonstrating respect, empathy and integrity.

These customer expectations are mapped against the City of Barrie Community Strategic Plan (Vision 2003–2023), the Council Strategic Plan (2014–2018), and the Multi-modal Active Transportation Plan (2014) to demonstrate the link between customer transportation infrastructure service attributes and City planning documents.

Manage Growth & Protect the Environment

− Safe: Services are delivered such that they minimize health, safety and security risks

− Reliable: Services are predictable and continuous

− Suitable: Services are suitable for the intended function (fit for purpose)

− Sustainable: Services preserve and protect the natural and heritage environment

− Available: Services of sufficient capacity are convenient and accessible to the entire community

Strengthen Barrie’s Financial Condition

− Cost Effective: Services are provided at the lowest possible cost for both current and future customers, for a required level of service, and are affordable

Improve & Expand Community Involvement & City Interactions


− Responsive: Opportunities for community involvement in decision making are provided; and customers are treated fairly and consistently, within acceptable timeframes, demonstrating respect, empathy and integrity

The City of Barrie’s Strategic Asset Management LOS Framework is depicted in Figure 3.1-1.


Figure 3.1-1 Barrie Strategic Asset Management LOS Framework


3.2 Performance Indicators and Targets To help focus the City’s management of assets, the LOS framework should contain key performance measures or indicators (KPIs) for specific programs or assets. These KPIs can be used to compare current performance to standards or targets and demonstrate that progress is being made towards the results, impacts, outcomes and vision stated in the key planning documents.

The LOS framework presented in this AM plan focuses on preserving transportation assets in a physical condition state that enables the required function at lowest lifecycle cost and at acceptable level of risk. Therefore, the focus is on the following customer transportation infrastructure service attributes: Safety, Reliability and Cost Effectiveness. This AM Plan also focuses on higher cost infrastructure such as pavements and structures. Future asset management plans should be expanded to also include more performance indicators for Suitability, Sustainability, Availability and Responsiveness, and more asset types.

A key role of asset management is to identify costs directly associated with various LOS. More work will be required to understand this relationship fully, including recording and analyzing historical costs at the asset level. The use of a lifecycle planning tool (described in Section 3.2.2 Impact of Insufficient Funds) enabled exploration of the Cost of Service (COS) – Levels of Service (LOS) relationship for road pavement.

The LOS described in this section identifies current and target performance measures for three levels of performance: strategic, tactical, and operational. Strategic performance measures are more general and used to provide broad indicators of performance to the public. Tactical measures provide more detailed information that is used as input into asset lifecycle planning, as outlined in Section 4, Asset Management Strategy. Operational measures generally relate to responsiveness of service.

3.2.1 Strategic Performance

The City completed the Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan in 2014, which described level of service in terms of the volume-to-capacity ration (V/C) as an indicator of the operating conditions of a roadway based on factors such as speed, travel time, maneuverability, delay and safety. Target capacity threshold of V/C of 0.85 for links (roads) during the peak weekday hour (AM or PM). This ratio compares offered capacity with vehicular demand. This represents a use of approximately 85 percent of capacity during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The capacity is determined based on the number of lanes and roadway classification, while the demand is based on projected traffic volumes. This V/C ratio corresponds to a level of service (LOS) of “D” where there is some congestion on some movements at intersections, but intersections are generally functional.

Table 3.2-1 Network Performance Indicators & Targets – Available Service

Customer Expectation Sub-Service Measure Target Performance


Roads Volume-to-Capacity ratio (V/C) 0.85


The following strategic performance indicators focus on preserving transportation assets in a physical condition state that enables the required function, at lowest lifecycle cost, and at acceptable level of risk. The focus of these performance indicators is on higher cost infrastructure, such as road pavements and structures.

Table 3.2-2 Network Performance Indicators & Targets – Safe, Reliable & Cost Effective Service

Customer Expectation Major Asset Group Measure Target* Performance


Road Pavements Percentage of pavement assets in very good/good/fair condition, based on replacement value

90%


95%

No. Road Bridges with Load Restrictions 0


Road Pavement Percentage of total annual road pavement reinvestment compared to asset replacement value

2%**


3%

Cost Effective


Road Pavement Percentage of road pavement backlog compared to the asset replacement value

5%

Structures Percentage of bridges and major culvert backlog compared to the asset replacement value

5%

* Note: Target performance still to be reviewed and endorsed by Council. **For a 2% target: 2% reinvested annually equates to network wide replacement on a 50 year cycle. Including mid-lifecycle activities, this cycle is increased (>50 year cycle).

The performance indicators include:

Safety: The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and Bridge Condition Index (BCI) are described under Section 2 State of Local Infrastructure, above, and provide an overall indication of the ability of the road pavement and bridges and major culverts to function as designed.

Reliability: The percentage of total annual investment in road pavement and bridges and major culverts compared to the asset replacement value provides an indication whether these significant assets are being renewed on a timely basis to enable continuous service delivery.

Cost Effectiveness: The percentage of backlog for road pavement and bridges and major culverts compared to the asset replacement value provides an indication whether these significant assets have been renewed on a timely basis to enable continuous service delivery.

3.2.2 Tactical Performance

Tactical performance measures provide more detailed information than strategic measures and are used as input into asset lifecycle planning, as outlined in Section 4 Asset Management Strategy.


Table 3.2-3 Asset Performance Indicators & Targets – Available Service

Customer Expectation Major Asset Group Location / Road Class Measure AM Target

Performance PM Target

Performance


Roads – Paved Highway 400 Ramps Volume-to-Capacity ratio (V/C) 0.85 0.85

Arterial Volume-to-Capacity ratio (V/C) 0.85 0.85

Major Collector Volume-to-Capacity ratio (V/C) 0.85 0.85

Minor Collector Volume-to-Capacity ratio (V/C) 0.85 0.85

Local Road Volume-to-Capacity ratio (V/C) 0.85 0.85

Tactical performance is outlined in the following table, using the following structure:

Sub-Service

Major Asset Group

Performance Objectives: A statement that describes the outputs or objectives to be delivered

Measures of Asset Performance: A description of how performance is quantified

Physical Performance Failure Modes: A description of how the asset is expected to fail

Predictability of Failure and End of Service Life: A description of how the asset decay and end of life will be predicted

Consequence of Failure: A description of the consequence of a failure

Level of Service and Targets: Level of Service name and intended standard or performance to be achieved. Target performance in this document is indicative only as they are still to be consulted widely, discussed and agreed. Final endorsement will be required by Council.

Tactical performance focuses on asset condition, based on the General Condition Grading System summarized in Table 2.4-2. More detail on Road Pavement performance measures are provided in following the table.

Target performance is still to be reviewed and endorsed by Council, and will need to be consistent with the performance criteria established as inputs to the City’s pavement design methodology. This design methodology is currently being established as part of the development of the City of Barrie Transportation Standards and Design Manual. Future revisions of the AM Plan should reflect updates to pavement design criteria and performance targets.


Table 3.2-4 Asset Performance Objectives and Service Levels

Sub-Service

Major Asset Group

Performance Objectives

Measures of Asset Performance

Physical Performance Failure Modes

Predictability of Failure & End of Service Life

Consequence of Failure Level of Service Targets*

Roads Pavements • Preservation of road pavement

• Pavement Condition Index (PCI)

• Physical deterioration due to vehicular loading in excess of pavement load capacity & environmental weathering which result in distresses such as alligator cracking, bumps and sags, corrugation, patching, potholes, rutting, shoving, and swells which result from vehicular loading

• Predictions based on family of decay curves that predict end of life based on PCI (see Section 4.3.2.4 Pavement Preservation (Renewal) Analysis)

• Delays in application of preventive maintenance and renewal substantially increase the cost of asset ownership and therefore service delivery

• Severity determined by Road Classification and whether on an emergency route or provides access over Hwy 400 (long detour required)


• PCI > 60 (VG,G&F) • PCI > 55 (VG,G&F) • PCI > 50 (VG,G&F) • PCI > 40 (VG,G&F) • For 90% of assets (by replacement

value)

• Safety of road users

• Rutting Depth (mm)

• Physical deterioration due to vehicular loading in excess of pavement load capacity and environmental weathering

• In future predictions could be based on family of decay curves that predict end of life based on Rutting Depth

• Deep ruts can hold water and cause loss of vehicle control (i.e., hydroplaning), especially if there is insufficient cross slope, exposing road users to possible injuries and fatalities

• Severity related to Road Classification (vehicle speed and traffic volumes)


• Rut Depth ≤ 9 mm (VG,G&F) • Rut Depth ≤ 10.5 mm (VG,G&F) • Rut Depth ≤ 12 mm (VG,G&F) • Rut Depth ≤ 15 mm (VG,G&F)

• Comfort of road users and low vehicle operating costs

• International Roughness Index (IRI) (m/km)

• Physical deterioration due to vehicular loading in excess of pavement load capacity and environmental weathering

• In future predictions could be based on family of decay curves that predict end of life based on IRI

• Rough road surfaces are uncomfortable and increase vehicle operating costs

• Severity related to Road Classification (vehicle speed and traffic volumes)


• IRI ≤ 5 mm (VG,G&F) • IRI ≤ 6 mm (VG,G&F) • IRI ≤ 7 mm (VG,G&F) • IRI ≤ 9 mm (VG,G&F)

Curb • Protect the street edge

• Direct runoff

• Condition Grade (VG,G,F,P,VP)

• Physical deterioration • Functional obsolescence

due to road reconfiguration

• In future predictions could be based on family of decay curves that predict end of life based on Condition Grade

• Exposure of pedestrians to traffic (possible injury or fatality) and landscape to runoff (possible property and/or environmental damage)

• Severity determined by Road Classification (vehicle speed and number of vehicles)

• All • CG = VG,G&F


Sub-Service

Major Asset Group






Structures • Safety of road (and other) users due to structural integrity

• Preservation of bridges and major culverts

• Bridge Condition Index (BCI)

• Structural integrity of load carrying elements

• Physical deterioration to vehicular loading in excess of bridge load capacity and environmental weathering

• In future predictions could be based on family of decay curves that predict end of life based on BCI

• Exposure of road users and others to possible injuries or fatalities

• Exposure of City to possible property damage, critical service disruption, and environmental damage

• Severity determined by whether on an emergency route or provides access over Hwy 400 (long detour required)

• All • BCI > 60 (VG,G&F) • For 95% of assets (by replacement

value)

Traffic Control: Signs

• To inform, guide and regulate traffic

• To support road safety, legal compliance

• Condition Grade based on age (VG,G,F,P,VP)

• Damage from vehicle crash or vandalism

• Signboard physical deterioration including legibility and reflectivity (night-time) due to environmental weathering

• Non-compliance (regulatory & warning)

• If any sign listed in the MMS is illegible, improperly oriented, obscured or missing, the minimum standard is to deploy resources as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the fact to repair or replace the sign


• Exposure of road users to unsafe road due unregulated traffic

• All • To be determined

Roadside: Retaining Walls

• Efficient traffic flow with grade separation

• Safety of road users due to structural integrity

• Condition Grade (VG,G,F,P,VP)

• Deterioration of structural supports and foundations

• Deterioration of surface integrity (e.g., cracking)

• Deterioration of quality of appearance of surface finish

•


• Exposure of road users to unsafe road due poor condition of retaining wall


Paved Lots • Preservation of parking lot

• Pavement Condition

• Physical deterioration due to vehicular loading in

• In future predictions could be based on

• Delays in application of preventive maintenance and

• All • PCI > 40 (VG,G&F)


Sub-Service

Major Asset Group






pavement Index (PCI) excess of pavement load capacity & environmental weathering which result in distresses such as alligator cracking, bumps and sags, corrugation, patching, potholes, rutting, shoving, and swells which result from vehicular loading

family of decay curves that predict end of life based on PCI

renewal substantially increase the cost of asset ownership and therefore service delivery

Active Linear • Road safety • Pedestrian

comfort and convenience

• Condition Grade based on age (VG,G,F,P,VP)

• Deterioration of surface evenness

• Differential settlement • Root damage • Intrusion of abutting

vegetation into alignment


• Severity determined by location of sidewalk near high traffic area ( e.g., city centre, transit, school, major commercial)


* Note: Target performance still to be reviewed and endorsed by Council.


The following sections provide more detail on the tactical Road Pavement performance indicators (i.e., Pavement Condition Index, Rutting Depth, and International Roughness Index). Note that the indices’ scores are independent of road classification (e.g., an Arterial road with a PCI of 64 and a Local road with a PCI of 64 would be deemed to have similar pavement surface conditions). However, due to the higher consequence of failure of pavement integrity on more heavily used, higher speed and costly roads, the acceptable index limits typically vary depending on road classification (e.g., a PCI of 64 on an Arterial road is considered “Fair” while a PCI of 64 on a Local road is considered “Good”). The categorization of the performance indices into condition bands “Very Good”, “Good”, “Fair”, “Poor” and “Very Poor”, by road classification, facilitates road pavement maintenance and renewal decision-making. An example of using ranges of PCI’s for decision-making is shown in the figure below, developed by the Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) in 2009.

Figure 3.2-1 PCI Grading Scale

The following categorization of performance indicators considered the above OGRA decision matrix and other sources. Note that care must be taken not to “double count” the consequence of failure in subsequent risk analysis in Section 4.2 (i.e., to use the index, not the condition band categorization of Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor).

3.2.2.1 Road Pavement – Pavement Condition Index (PCI) The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is derived from the pavement distresses recorded during the pavement condition survey. The PCI is a value, based on a deduct score, to indicate a pavement structures relative performance. The PCI provides a base on which each section within the network can be compared to the others, and aids in determining how and when to rehabilitate the section. As shown in the figure below, acceptable PCI limits typically vary depending on road classification due to the higher consequence of failure of pavement integrity on more heavily used and costly roads. For example, the threshold between “Fair” and “Good” performance for Arterial and Major Collector road pavement segments is a PCI of 75 and 70, respectively. An Arterial road with PCI of 75.0 is fair, but an Arterial road with PCI of 75.1 is good.


Figure 3.2-2 PCI Grading Scale

PCI 100 >90 >85 >80 >75 >70 >65 >60 >55 >50 >45 >40 >35 >30 >25 >20 >15 >10 <=10

Arterial/Parkway →

Major Collector →

Minor Collector →

Local →

Grade Scale

As outlined above, care must be taken not to “double count” the consequence of failure in the risk analysis – the PCI values do not include the consequence of failure, while the condition bands (Very Good, Good, etc.) include it.

3.2.2.2 Road Pavement – Rutting Depth Rutting is the measure of the cross-profile of the road pavement surface; more precisely, the average of the wheel path rut depths in mm, by severity and length. Rutting is a load-associated distress in the pavement, usually due to high traffic volumes and/or frequent heavy truck loading. Excessive rutting is a concern for two reasons: it indicates inadequate structural strength to carry applied loads and, if there is insufficient cross slope, ruts can hold water and cause loss of vehicle control (i.e., hydroplaning).

Ruts form in vehicles’ wheel paths and increase with time as the ongoing passage of heavy loads worsen the road structure. They are a symptom of pavement deterioration and result in decreased network safety and integrity. As shown in the figure below, acceptable rutting depth limits vary depending on road classification / operating speed. Note that the impact of rutting is compounded by insufficient cross-fall, and the grading scale shown below is based on 2% cross-fall.

Figure 3.2-3 Rutting Grading Scale

Rut Depth, mm 0 <3 3 <6 6 <9 9 <12 12 <15 15 <18 18 <21 21+


Major Collector →

Minor Collector →

Local →

Grade Scale

3.2.2.3 Road Pavement – International Roughness Index (IRI) The International Roughness Index (IRI) is a measure of the driver’s comfort when traveling down the road. The IRI is an open-ended score that measures the longitudinal profile or the number of bumps per km and reports the average of the left and right wheel path displacement over a metre of travel in mm/m or m/km. Higher values indicate a rougher road. As a profile-based statistic, the IRI has the advantage of

Very Poor Very Good Good Fair Poor



being repeatable, reproducible, and stable with time. As shown in the figure below, acceptable roughness limits vary depending on road classification / operating speed.

Figure 3.2-4 IRI Grading Scale

IRI (mm/m) 0 <2 2 <4 4 <6 6 <8 8 <10 10 <12 12 <14 14+


Major Collector →

Minor Collector →

Local →

Grade Scale

3.2.3 Operational Performance

The City has established policies and guidelines in accordance to the Ontario Government’s Minimum Maintenance Standards as set out under the Municipal Act, 2001, in Ontario Regulation 239/02, as amended by Ontario Regulation 47/13. The Minimum Maintenance Standards comprise a series of standards for various aspects of road maintenance, including patrolling, salting and clearing snow, which vary depending on the speed limit and traffic volume on a particular roadway.



3.3 Current Performance

3.3.1 Overview

This section outlines how the City is performing at achieving the measures described in the previous section. The performance is described in both strategic and tactical terms.

3.3.2 Strategic Performance

The following table provides the City’s past performance in meeting the targeted volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) of 0.85.

Table 3.3-1 Network Performance Indicators & Targets – Available Service

Customer Expectation Sub-Service Measure Target 2014 Actual


Roads Volume-to-Capacity ratio (V/C) 0.85 Not available

The following table provides the City’s current performance in meeting the performance indicators for provision of safe, reliable and cost effective transportation service. Generally, the City exceeds the target LOS for structures, but falls slightly short of targets for pavement assets.

Table 3.3-2 Network Performance – Safe, Reliable & Cost Effective Service

Customer Expectation Asset Group Measure Target* 2014 Actual Comments


Road Pavement

Percentage of pavement assets in very good/good/fair condition, based on replacement value

90% 84.5% = $546.7 M / $647.1 M


95% 97.0% =$94.55M / $97.46M

No. Road Bridges with Load Restrictions 0 0


Road Pavement

Percentage of total annual road pavement reinvestment compared to asset replacement value

2% 1.19% = $7.73M / $647.1M


3% 3.34%

= $3.26M** / $97.46M

Cost Effective


Road Pavement

Percentage of road pavement reinvestment backlog

5% 8.07% = $52.23M / $647.1M

Structures Percentage of bridges and major culvert reinvestment backlog

5% 0.064% = $0.062 / $97.46M

* Note: Target performance still to be reviewed and endorsed by Council.

In future versions of the Transportation AM Plan, as historical performance data becomes available, these indicators will be plotted over time to show the trends.


3.3.3 Tactical Performance

3.3.3.1 Safe, Reliable & Cost Effective Service The following graphs depict the current performance distribution for each of the performance measures listed in the table above. In future versions of the Transportation AM Plan, as historical performance data becomes available, these indicators will be plotted over time to show the trends.

Figure 3.3-1 Performance: Road Pavements: Arterials – Reliability (PCI)

Figure 3.3-2 Performance: Road Pavement: Parkway – Reliability (PCI)

A significant percentage of Arterial and Parkway roads have current PCI’s that do not meet the targets (>=P & VP). Strategies should be developed to address the road segments within the Fair, Poor and Very Poor performance bands.


Figure 3.3-3 Performance: Road Pavement: Major Collectors – Reliability (PCI)

Figure 3.3-4 Performance: Road Pavement: Minor Collectors – Reliability (PCI)

Figure 3.3-5 Performance: Road Pavement: Locals – Reliability (PCI)


Figure 3.3-6 Performance: Road Pavement: Arterials – Safety (Rutting Depth in mm)

Figure 3.3-7 Performance: Road Pavement: Parkway – Safety (Rutting Depth in mm)

Figure 3.3-8 Performance: Road Pavement: Major Collectors – Safety (Rutting Depth in mm)

In general, the current Rutting Depths (in mm) meet the targets for all road classes. Strategies should be developed to address the road segments within the Fair, Poor and Very Poor performance bands.


Figure 3.3-9 Performance: Road Pavement: Minor Collectors – Safety (Rutting Depth in mm)

Figure 3.3-10 Performance: Road Pavement: Locals – Safety (Rutting Depth in mm)

Figure 3.3-11 Performance: Road Pavement: Arterials – Comfort (IRI in mm/m)

A significant percentage of Arterial and Parkway roads have current IRI’s that do not meet the targets. Strategies should be developed to address the road segments within the Fair, Poor and Very Poor performance bands.


Figure 3.3-12 Performance: Road Pavement: Parkway – Comfort (IRI in mm/m)

Figure 3.3-13 Performance: Road Pavement: Major Collectors – Comfort (IRI in mm/m)

Figure 3.3-14 Performance: Road Pavement: Minor Collectors – Comfort (IRI in mm/m)


Figure 3.3-15 Performance: Road Pavement: Locals – Comfort (IRI in mm/m)

For bridges without BCI, the “estimated” BCI was determined from % Consumed based on Age as follows:

For % Consumed based on Age > 100%, BCI = 40

For % Consumed based on Age <= 100%, BCI = 100 – 60 x % Consumed based on Age

Figure 3.3-16 Performance: Road Structures – Bridges Spanning >= 3m (BCI)

In general, the current BCI meets the target for all bridge types except for Road Culverts where BCI is based primarily on age. Strategies should be developed to address the bridges with elements within the Fair, Poor and Very Poor performance


Figure 3.3-17 Performance: Road Structures – Culverts Spanning >= 3m (BCI)

Figure 3.3-18 Performance: Active Transportation Structures – Footbridges (BCI)

Figure 3.3-19 Performance: Active Transportation Structures – Culverts (BCI)


Figure 3.3-20 Performance: Rail (BCRY) Structures – Railway Underpasses (BCI*)

* Note that the OSIM BCI metric will be superseded by other metrics, once the Bridge Safety Management Plan (BSMP) is in place.

3.4 Future Performance Factors that influence the delivery of transportation services include:

Vehicular Transportation Growth: Based on projected growth, the existing road network will not be able to accommodate future traffic flows and will be enhanced and expanded over time to meet demand. The preferred road network for the 2031 time horizon is provided in the Transportation Master Plan and will be implemented in a coordinated fashion, as needed to support actual growth.

Active Transportation Growth: The growth in the use of alternative transportation options such as cycling and walking has seen an increase in the pressure on the City to provide safe environments for these new road users. The City will respond by improving the cycling and pedestrian facilities across the network, as required. The inventory of sidewalks will also continue to increase, as new standards for wider (2m and 3m) sidewalks for arterial and collector roads are adopted, and sidewalks on both sides of a road near school areas are put in place.

Aging Infrastructure: The City’s road infrastructure will continue to deteriorate and will require ongoing investment to ensure that the City can provide the travelling public with a safe and reliable transportation system. The City will continue to proactively manage the road infrastructure and explore the use of various road rehabilitation techniques to reduce the cost of meeting increasing rehabilitation needs.


4. Asset Management Strategy

This section of the AM Plan includes the following sub-sections:

Overview of AM Strategy Development: Overview of available lifecycle activity options (e.g., maintenance, renewal, expansion and non-asset solutions), risk assessment methods, and options analysis methods used to sustainably manage risk, at lowest lifecycle cost

Asset Risk Assessment: Identification of risks that may affect the ongoing delivery of services from infrastructure, by asset type.

Asset Lifecycle Analysis: Assessment of direct and indirect asset lifecycle benefits and costs, by asset type

Asset Lifecycle Strategies: Summary of the set of planned actions, including maintenance, renewal, expansion and non-asset solutions, by asset type

4.1 Overview of AM Strategy Development

4.1.1 Lifecycle Activities

For all areas of the transportation network (i.e., pavements, structures, traffic control, illumination, and active transportation services), asset lifecycle activities for can be categorized into the following main areas:

Create or Acquire: Activities that provide new or donated / gifted assets that increase service potential, performance capability or capacity.

Enhance: Activities that augment or upgrade existing assets to increase service potential, performance capability or capacity.

Operate: The active process of using an asset which may consume resources such as manpower, energy, chemicals, and materials.

Maintain: Activities necessary to retain an asset as near as practicable in its original condition, but excluding refurbishment / rehabilitation or replacement.

Refurbish or Rehabilitate: Activities to sustain the original service potential or substantially extend the life of existing assets by replacing component systems or assemblies without increasing service potential, performance capability or capacity.

Replace: Activities that replace existing assets with assets of equivalent service potential, performance capability or capacity.

Dispose: Activities that permanently removes assets from service.

The conceptual lifecycle model is illustrated in the figure below. This conceptual model plots the cash flow associated with creating and sustaining the asset over time.


Figure 4.1-1 Conceptual Lifecycle Cost Model

Lifecycle activities are often confused with funding sources (i.e., capital and operating budgets) and accounting capitalization policies (i.e., thresholds for a group of assets that represents the minimum cost an individual asset must have before is it recorded as a capital asset in the financial accounting system). The relationship between these terms is shown in the table below.

Table 4.1-1 Asset Lifecycle & Asset Accounting Terms Defined

Lifecycle Activity Lifecycle Activity Definition Funding Source Capitalized?

Create or Acquire Activities that provide new or donated / gifted assets that increase service potential, performance capability or capacity. Ex. Road Construction and asset assumption (development)

Capital Yes, if above threshold limit

Enhance Activities that augment or upgrade existing assets to increase service potential, performance capability or capacity. Ex. Microsurfacing for the sole purpose of providing additional skid resistance, or upgrading traffic controllers to sync with others on route.


Operate The active process of using an asset which may consume resources such as manpower, energy, chemicals, and materials. Ex. Winter control or electricity for streetlights

Operating No

Maintain Activities necessary to retain an asset as near as practicable in its original condition, but excluding refurbishment / rehabilitation or replacement. Ex. Crack sealing, pothole repair, sidewalk grouting, bridge deck sealing, streetlight washing, etc.

Operating No

Refurbish or Rehabilitate

Activities to sustain the original service potential or substantially extend the life of existing assets by replacing component systems or assemblies without increasing service potential, performance capability or capacity. Ex. Partial depth inlay resurfacing and full depth inlay resurfacing, overlays, concrete overlays on bridge decks, cathodic protection system for metallic bridge components, etc.


Replace Activities that replace existing assets with assets of equivalent service potential, performance capability or capacity. Ex. Reconstruction


Dispose Activities that permanently removes assets from service. Ex. Removing a mid block pedestrian crossing traffic device as a result of a new nearby intersection crossing.



The funding source and capitalization threshold should not impact the management decisions of the asset lifecycle. Asset lifecycle decision-making includes making trade-offs between investments in various lifecycle activities to achieve desired levels of service, at acceptable levels of risk, at the lowest lifecycle cost. For example, decisions made at creation / acquisition may impact the type, timing and cost of activities for operations, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement, no matter what the funding source or capitalization policy. Similarly, decisions made regarding the other lifecycle activities (i.e., operations, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement) impact the overall lifecycle cost. Understanding the impacts of various lifecycle activity types, timings and costs upon other lifecycle activities and levels of service and risk are central to effective lowest lifecycle asset management decision-making. To enable this understanding, the City has begun to track costs, by lifecycle activity, at the asset level. These asset level lifecycle activities can then be rolled up to provide information for budgeting and financial accounting.

The reason for defining asset managerial terms is to bring a consistent understanding and application among the broad range of users of the terms. The relevant terms and their relationships are defined in Table below.

Table 4.1-2 : Asset Managerial Definition of Terms

Funding Source Capitalized? Lifecycle Activity Lifecycle Activity Definition

Capital Budget

Yes

New (Augment/ Upgrade) Work that provide assets that increase service potential, performance capability or capacity (can be new assets, or augmentation or upgrade to existing assets)

Refurbish / Rehabilitate Work to substantially extend the life of existing assets by replacing substantial components without increasing service potential, performance capability or capacity Ex. Partial Depth Mill/Inlay or Full Depth Mill/Inlay

New (Replace) Work that replace existing assets with assets of equivalent service potential, performance capability or capacity

Operating Budget

No

For child assets (subcomponent of main asset): New (Augment/ / Replace) Refurbish Dispose

Definitions as above

Operate Active process of using an asset that will consume resources such as manpower, energy, chemical and materials Ex. Snow Plowing

Maintain Activities necessary for retaining an asset as near as practicable to its original condition, but excluding renewal (refurbish or replace) Ex. Pothole patching

The Transportation Master Plan focusses on the creation and enhancement of transportation assets. This AM Plan focusses on managing the assets once in place, but also considers the plans for increasing and enhancing the transportation asset portfolio, as documented in the Transportation Master Plan.

The City preserves transportation assets through maintenance and renewal (i.e., rehabilitation and replacement) activities and investments. Maintenance and renewal activities are timed to reduce the risk of service failure from deterioration in asset condition, and to minimize the total cost of ownership. Sufficient investment at the right time is crucial. Not all activities and associated costs are relevant for all asset types.


4.1.2 Overview of Risk Assessment

Asset management involves understanding and balancing levels of service, cost and risk. Risk management is an integral part of managing the lifecycle of assets that considers both the consequences of asset failures (i.e., what will happen if the City fails to meet the stated levels of service?) and the likelihood of asset failures (i.e., how likely is it that the asset will fail?). Risk can be quantified through the following simple formula:

Business Risk Exposure (BRE) = Probability of Asset Failure X Consequence of Asset Failure

= PoF x CoF

BRE is used to make decisions throughout the asset lifecycle (e.g., higher BRE assets may be inspected more frequently, may be held to a higher standard, may be treated before lower BRE assets, or may be treated with different maintenance and/or renewal strategies). As with most asset management practices, risk analysis can be applied at a simple or more sophisticated level, as needed to support decision-making and as enabled by available data, information systems and business processes.

4.1.3 Overview of Asset Lifecycle Analysis

Maintenance and renewal activities are optimized and/or prioritized to ensure services are delivered for the best balance of risk and maintenance / renewal expenditure for each category of road required to meet service targets. The steps used to balance the conflicting requirements of meeting target levels of service, working within fiscal pressures of the municipal sector and within the City's financial policies, and managing the risk to customers follows established leading practice for pavement assets.

For other assets, maintenance and renewal activities, with associated timing and costs, as appropriate to the asset type, were applied to all assets based on City practice, as validated by industry standard practice. These maintenance and renewal activities were applied to the City’s transportation asset portfolio based on the current condition of the asset or current age of the asset.

4.1.4 Overview of Asset Procurement Processes

To ensure the most efficient allocation of resources and funds and to realize cost-benefits of economy of scale, the City bundles similar work activities into projects when issuing tenders.

City Purchasing By-Law, Schedule E: Statement of Ethics for Procurement, Part D states the following:

Cooperation with Other Public Agencies in order to obtain the best possible value for every tax dollar. This Corporation is a member of a cooperative purchasing group. Made up of several public agencies, this group pools its expertise and resources in order to practice good value analysis and to purchase Goods, Services and/or Construction in volume and save tax dollars.”

Note, however, that that purchasing in combination with other municipalities and groups is not typically used for transportation renewal, maintenance, or operations.

4.2 Asset Risk Assessment

4.2.1 Overview

The City has developed a risk management framework consistent with the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) for the Province of Ontario and ISO: 31000 Risk Management to ensure that risks throughout the business are managed and that risk management is performed on a consistent basis.


In 2012, HIRA was updated to a 6-point scale by the Province of Ontario. This AM Plan uses the previous HIRA 4-point scale for consistency purposes with the risk framework used across City of Barrie departments. The 6-point scale also places a lower emphasis on injuries and fatalities, which lowers the risk of the transportation assets in the context of asset management (Refer to Appendix B for information on the 6-point HIRA scale).

Risk analysis is the process used to determine the nature and level of risk, and if the risk requires treatment. Risk analysis includes:

The consequences if all mitigations and controls fail and the risk develops

The likelihood (probability) that the risk will occur with current controls in place and considering any completed mitigation actions.

For railway assets, the Railway Safety Act defines a Safety Management System (SMS) to be: "a formal framework for integrating safety into day-to-day railway operations and includes safety goals and performance targets, risk assessments, responsibilities and authorities, rules and procedures, and monitoring and evaluation processes." As part of a Safety Management System, a railway company is required to implement and maintain processes for the identification of safety issues and concerns, evaluating and classifying risks by means of a risk assessment, and developing and implementing necessary control strategies. The Safety Management System should include a formal risk management process that includes the following steps:

Step 1 – Identification of Safety Issues and Concerns: identifying safety issues and concerns, including those associated with human factors, third parties and significant changes to railway operations

Step 2 – Risk Estimation: Assessment of the probability and severity of the safety issue/concern either qualitatively or quantitatively

Step 3 – Risk Evaluation: Evaluate and determine whether the associated risk is tolerable, tolerable with mitigation or unacceptable using a predetermined company risk classification methodology

Step 4 – Risk Control Strategies: Risk control strategies are required for risks that have been classified as unacceptable or tolerable with mitigation. In generic terms, these strategies can focus on (i) eliminating the situation, substance, condition or activity that generates the risk; (ii) reducing the probability of occurrence; and/or (iii) mitigating (reducing) the consequences.

For consistency with other assets in this AM Plan, the two rail bridges have been assessed using the generic risk framework described, rather than the four-step process listed above.

4.2.2 Consequence of Failure

The consequence of failure rating for each asset is based on the following 4-point scale:


Table 4.2-1 Consequence of Failure (HIRA definitions)

Level Title Economic Social Environmental Service Delivery

C1 Insignificant Loss of replaceable asset <<$1M

No injuries No media interest

Non-lasting damage No or few disruptions (<10%)

C2 Minor Damages, losses or fines < $1M

Minor injuries Local media coverage

Short-term, repairable damage

Minor (isolated) disruption in non-critical

service C3 Moderate Damages, losses or

fines $1M to $10M Serious injuries, multiple

minor injuries Some prov/national

media coverage

Long-term damage, with repairable

consequences

Major disruption in non-critical service

Minor (isolated) disruption in critical

service C4 Major Damages, losses or

fines > $10M Loss of life, serious

injuries Extensive prov/national

media coverage

Long-term damage, with lasting consequences

Some critical services unavailable

Using the risk methodology described above, the consequence of failure ratings in the table below were assigned to the transportation assets. For structures, the length of detour was used a one criterion. The definition of "Long Detour" is a detour length greater than 5.0km in the event of bridge failure. The definition of "Medium Detour" is a detour length greater than 2.5km but less than 5.0km in the event of bridge failure. The definition of "Short Detour" is a detour length less than 2.5km in the event of bridge failure.

Note: Detour length for Dyments Creek - Edgehill Drive will be shortened to 2000m when Sproul Drive connects to Ferndale. Detour lengths are unlimited for the following structures:

Whiskey Creek - McConkey Place: failure of this structure would result in the restricted access to 70 or so homes on McConky Place and Bristow Court.

Dyments Drainage - Landfill Entrance: failure of this structure would result in the restricted access to the landfill.

Detour length for the two railway crossings


Table 4.2-2 Consequence of Failure Scores

Sub-Service Major Asset Sub-Asset Criteria CoF

Roads Pavement Arterial / Parkway Emergency Route or provides access over Hwy 400* 4 None 3 Major Collector Emergency Route or provides access over Hwy 400* 3 None 2 Minor Collector Emergency Route or provides access over Hwy 400* 3 None 2 Local Emergency Route or provides access over Hwy 400* 2 None 1 Edge Treatment 1

Structures Arterial Long Detour / Emergency Route 4 Arterial Other 3 Collector Long Detour / Emergency Route 4 Collector Other 2 Local Long Detour / Emergency Route 2 Local Other 2

Traffic Control Traffic Signals** Full Signal 3 Flashing 40 1

Temporary Signals Temporary and Overhead Signals 2

Speed Board Advisories 1 IPS 1

Signs 1

Illumination 1

Roadside Retaining Walls <1 m height 1 1m <= height < 3m 2 >=3m height 3

Parking Parkade 2 Paved Lots Waterfront 2 Other 1 Payment Systems 1

Active Transportation Linear Sidewalks Downtown / City Centre area 2

Other 1 Walkways 1

Boulevard Pathways 1

Structures Footbridges 1 Culverts 1

Rail Structures Railway Underpasses 4 * As no information was available on which road segments were on emergency routes or provide access over Highway 400, all road segments for the following roads were assumed to meet these criteria: Essa, Dunlop, Bayfield, Duckworth, Cundles, Mapleview, Bayview, Big Bay Point, and Georgian. **Traffic signal intersection data was used as a criterion in 2011 AMP, but a full dataset of this information was not available for 2015


Waterfront paved lots are as identified in the City’s official Waterfront Parking Lot designation, summarized in the following table:

Table 4.2-3 Waterfront Lots

Waterfront Lots

Johnson’s Beach Lot Marina Lot*

Minet’s Point Lot

North Centennial Lot

South Centennial Lot

Southshore Centre Lot

Tiffin Boat Launch

Tyndale Park Lot*

Lakeshore Drive between Simcoe St. & Minet’s Point Rd *Tyndale Park Lot and Marina Lot could not be accurately identified in the existing paved lot database

Priority sidewalks were identified as those in the downtown area. In this AMP, these sidewalks were defined as those identified in By-Law 2008-212, in which the City requires sidewalks in the Central Business District (Dunlop, Collier, Mulcaster, High, & intervening streets) to be cleared by the adjoining property owners. In addition to the sidewalks identified in this By-Law, the following sidewalks were also identified as higher priority (CoF = 2):

Poyntz Street (from Dunlop St to Worsley St)

Worsley St (from Bayfield St. to Poyntz St)

Mulcaster St (from Collier St to Worsley St)

Collier St (from Mulcaster St to Poyntz St)

4.2.3 Probability of Failure

Likelihood or probability of failure was determined based on the condition ratings developed in Section 2. The general approach is based on the principle that assets in poorer condition are more likely to fail. The 5-point condition rating scale was converted to a 4-point scale by classifying the Poor and Very Poor assets into the probability of failure rating of 4.

Table 4.2-4 Likelihood / Probability Ratings Table (All Assets Except for Pavement)

Level Title Probability Description Asset Condition

P1 Rare < 0.25 Event could occur very infrequently or only in exceptional circumstances, but is not expected Very Good

P2 Unlikely > 0.25 & < 0.5 Event should occur at some time Good

P3 Probable > 0.5 & < 0.75 Event will probably occur regularly or in most circumstances Fair

P4 Almost Certain < 0.75 Event is expected to occur very frequently or in most circumstances

Poor, Very Poor


The table above identifies establishing probability of failure using asset condition, when the failure mode is physical condition. Other failure modes, such as capacity, can be used to determine risk. For example, if the statistical probability of a roadway exceeding acceptable traffic volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) of 0.85 (see Section 3.2 Performance Indicators and Targets) is 20%, the POF of the capacity failure mode is P1 (Rare). For maintenance and renewal decision making, the focus is typically on physical condition, rather than other failure modes, to determine asset risk - the risk of allowing assets to deteriorate by not performing adequate rehabilitation treatments.

For pavement assets, pavement type is inherently incorporated into the very good, good, etc. condition groups that were provided in Section 2.4.2. Therefore to avoid double counting, the original PCI score is converted directly to the 1 to 4 scale (see Table 4.2-5) to determine the probability of failure.

Table 4.2-5 Likelihood / Probability Ratings Table for Pavement Assets

Level Title Probability Description PCI (Pavement)

P1 Rare < 0.25 Event could occur very infrequently or only in exceptional circumstances, but is not expected 75 to 100

P2 Unlikely > 0.25 & < 0.5 Event should occur at some time 50 to 74

P3 Probable > 0.5 & < 0.75 Event will probably occur regularly or in most circumstances 25 to 49

P4 Almost Certain < 0.75 Event is expected to occur very frequently or in most circumstances 0 to 24

4.2.4 Risk Maps

Using the risk methodology described above, risk maps have been produced for asset areas which show the value of assets, in 2015 dollars, at extreme (red), high (yellow), moderate (green), and low (blue) risks of failure. Assets falling in the extreme and high categories will generally be those assets that are most consumed (high probability of failure), and those that have a high consequence of failure.

The risk maps enable the identification and prioritization of high risk assets that require closer inspection (to verify if they truly are high risk), and possible renewal or replacement.


Figure 4.2-1 Risk Map – Roads – Pavement, $647.1M, 5,728,312 sq.m, Curbs 852,603 m

Figure 4.2-2 Risk Map – Roads – Structures, $83.6M (14 Bridges, 31 Culverts)

Figure 4.2-3 Risk Map – Roads – Parking, $19.5M (Parkade, 83 Pay & Display Machines, 26 Paved Lots)

Figure 4.2-4 Risk Map – Roads – Traffic Control, $25.0M ($20.65 Signals; $4.43M Signs)


P4 $8,660,956 $3,300,293 $3,833,450 $1,653,385 P4 1.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.3%

P3 $24,290,674 $13,676,954 $11,590,324 $16,644,194 P3 3.8% 2.1% 1.8% 2.6%

P2 $40,826,895 $25,582,515 $58,965,582 $42,353,833 P2 6.3% 4.0% 9.1% 6.5%

P1 $280,654,721 $52,256,554 $44,824,976 $18,010,358 P1 43.4% 8.1% 6.9% 2.8%

C1 C2 C3 C 4 C1 C2 C3 C 4

PoF

PoF

CoF


P4 $0 $798,336 $0 $0 P4 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P3 $0 $5,201,416 $9,464,950 $0 P3 0.0% 6.2% 11.3% 0.0%

P2 $0 $14,185,985 $18,838,160 $11,651,530 P2 0.0% 17.0% 22.5% 13.9%

P1 $0 $2,526,480 $20,529,410 $414,348 P1 0.0% 3.0% 24.6% 0.5%

C1 C2 C3 C 4 C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

PoF

PoF


P4 $1,588,600 $0 $0 $0 P4 8.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P3 $2,037,214 $0 $0 $0 P3 10.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P2 $1,386,944 $0 $0 $0 P2 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P1 $443,292 $14,000,000 $0 $0 P1 2.3% 72.0% 0.0% 0.0%

C1 C2 C3 C 4 C1 C2 C3 C 4

PoF

PoF

CoF CoF


P4 $2,361,621 $337,024 $4,856,351 $0 P4 9.5% 1.3% 19.4% 0.0%

P3 $1,404,738 $0 $4,677,311 $0 P3 5.6% 0.0% 18.7% 0.0%

P2 $1,222,466 $188,757 $3,764,951 $0 P2 4.9% 0.8% 15.1% 0.0%

P1 $1,161,095 $78,132 $4,922,723 $0 P1 4.6% 0.3% 19.7% 0.0%

C1 C2 C3 C 4 C1 C2 C3 C 4

PoF

PoF

CoF


Figure 4.2-5 Risk Map – Roads – Illumination, $80.5M

Figure 4.2-6 Risk Map – Roads – Roadside, $3.0M (89 Retaining Walls)

Figure 4.2-7 Risk Map – Active Transportation – Linear, $76.5M, 601.6km

Figure 4.2-8 Risk Map – Active Transportation – Structures, $1.9M (21 footbridges, 2 culverts)


P4 $27,220,877 $0 $0 $0 P4 33.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P3 $23,806,404 $0 $0 $0 P3 29.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P2 $14,701,909 $0 $0 $0 P2 18.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P1 $14,785,445 $0 $0 $0 P1 18.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

C1 C2 C3 C 4 C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF CoF

PoF

PoF


P4 $158,336 $1,512,627 $183,062 $0 P4 5.3% 50.9% 6.2% 0.0%

P3 $55,647 $697,395 $0 $0 P3 1.9% 23.5% 0.0% 0.0%

P2 $16,568 $26,310 $0 $0 P2 0.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

P1 $41,020 $278,498 $0 $0 P1 1.4% 9.4% 0.0% 0.0%

C1 C2 C3 C 4 C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

PoF

PoF

CoF


P4 $3,184,287 $0 $0 $0 P4 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P3 $5,015,026 $0 $0 $0 P3 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P2 $48,785,790 $766,409 $0 $0 P2 63.8% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P1 $18,509,216 $217,470 $0 $0 P1 24.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

C1 C2 C3 C 4 C1 C2 C3 C 4

PoF

PoF

CoF


P4 $19,800 $0 $0 $0 P4 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P3 $328,350 $0 $0 $0 P3 17.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P2 $1,404,645 $0 $0 $0 P2 74.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P1 $135,795 $0 $0 $0 P1 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

C1 C2 C3 C 4 C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

PoF

PoF


Figure 4.2-9 Risk Map – Rail (BCRY) – Structures, $12.0M (2 Bridges)

4.3 Asset Lifecycle Analysis

4.3.1 Future Demand and Forecast Asset Growth

The City of Barrie was one of the fastest growing census metropolitan areas in Canada between 2001 and 2006. Employment has also been on the increase. This trend is projected to continue and the City’s population is expected to reach approximately 210,000 residents by 2031, as shown in the table below.

Table 4.3-1 Transportation Master Plan – Population Projections

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2051

Population 140,000 147,000 170,000 191,000 210,000 262,000

In many locations, the existing road network will not be able to accommodate predicted future traffic flows. Considering the projected growth in Barrie, numerous road network improvements are required. The City’s Transportation Master Plan outlines the impact of planned growth on the City’s transportation system and provides a plan to address the growth in a sustainable manner. The Transportation Master Plan includes recommendations on infrastructure development for motorized vehicular, active, public transit, and railways freight transportation. The preferred road network for the 2031 time horizon is a coherent set of improvements and is consistent with planning in adjacent municipalities and the Ministry of Transportation (MTO).

Forecasts for future demand in this AM Plan are based on the Transportation Master Plan and secondary plans. Data was converted to surface area by calculating the length and width of total traffic lanes, parking, left turning lanes, and bike lanes, resulting in the following estimates for area in five year ranges:

Table 4.3-2 Growth Projections (Roads – Pavement)

Sub- Service Major Asset Estimated Area (sq.m.) every 5 Years 2011 2016 2021 2016 2031

Roads Pavements 5,313,795 5,841,152 6,804,043 7,219,391 7,663,335

These projected numbers in growth were converted to an annual compound growth rate summarized in the following table, and these rates were applied to pavement, traffic control and illumination assets.


P4 $0 $2,090,880 $0 $0 P4 0.0% 17.5% 0.0% 0.0%

P3 $0 $0 $0 $0 P3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P2 $0 $0 $0 $0 P2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P1 $0 $0 $9,873,600 $0 P1 0.0% 0.0% 82.5% 0.0%

C1 C2 C3 C 4 C1 C2 C3 C 4

PoF

PoF

CoF


Table 4.3-3 Annual Growth Rate (Roads – Pavement)

Year Growth Rate

2015 1.9%

2016 1.9%

2017 3.1%

2018 3.1%

2019 3.1%

2020 3.1%

2021 3.1%

2022 1.2%

2023 1.2%

2024 1.2%

2025 1.2%

2026 1.2%

2027 1.2%

2028 1.2%

2029 1.2%

2030 1.2%

2031 1.2%

For sidewalks, growth is projected based on quantity of sidewalk anticipated from the three phases of the two secondary plans, with the assumption of sidewalks on one side for local roads. The analysis results in an estimated increase in linear metres of sidewalk at an annual compound growth rate of 2.9% from 2011 to 2031. Growth was not included for walkways or boulevards. Parking assets are expected to decline in the future, as the City plans to sell approximately one-quarter of its lots for a variety of uses, including condominium development. The lots identified to be sold are:

55-67 McDonald St./61 Owen

60 Worsley Street (library lot)

50 Worsley Street

10-14 Collier/32 Clapperton

23 Collier Street

15 Bayfield Street (gravel lot, which is not included in this AMP)

9 Simcoe Street

2-4 Simcoe Street

76-78 Maple Avenue

58 Maple Avenue

52 Maple Avenue

24 Maple Avenue


26 Mary Street

19 Bradford Street

A summary of the annual growth rate used for each asset class is summarized in the following table. For roads-pavement, traffic control, illumination, and sidewalk growth assets, the rehabilitation lifecycle activities and replacement for these future assets are included in the figures in Section 4.3.2.3. The initial capital investment, however, is assumed to be funded by development charges or other sources and is not included in the growth figures. For structures (refer to Table 4.3-5), the initial investment plus all lifecycle activities are assumed to require City funding and are included in the growth analysis.

A summary of the annual growth rate used for each asset class is summarized in the following table:

Table 4.3-4 Annual Growth Rate (All Assets)

Sub- Major Process Annual Growth Rate (%) Service Asset (Sub-Asset Group) 2016 2017 to

2021 2021 to

2026 2027 to

2031 After 2031

Roads Pavements Arterial & Parkway 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Major Collector 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Minor Collector 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Local 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Edge Treatment Curb 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Structures Bridges Spanning > 3m Installed After 2000 * * * * *

Installed Before 2000 * * * * *

Culverts Spanning > 3m Concrete 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

CSP or Other Plate Steel 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Traffic Control Traffic Signals 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Signs 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Illumination Luminaires 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Poles, foundation, electrical 1.9% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%

Parking Lots Paved Lots 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Parkade 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Payment Systems Pay and Display Machines 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Active Linear Sidewalks 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 0.0%

Walkways 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.0%

Boulevard Pathways 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0%

Structures Footbridges 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Culverts 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Rail (BCRY) Structures 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

* Refer to Table 4.3-5 (new Hwy 400 bridges and widenings)


There are currently ten Highway 400 corridor crossings, with two more anticipated to be constructed by 2022. For the purpose of this AMP, it is assumed that the upcoming improvements and new crossings will be 100% funded by the City (refer to Section 2.2.7 and the following table for details).

Table 4.3-5 Growth Projections (Highway 400 Bridges)

City ID No.

Structure Crossing Structure

Age

Existing No. of

Through Lanes

Proposed No. of Through Lanes and AT** (based

on 2051 scenario)

City Proposed Improvement Description

Planned Construction

Year Value

1 Duckworth Street Underpass/ Interchange* 63 2 6 Underpass widening, interchange

improvements 2016 $40,000,000

2 St. Vincent Street Overpass 47 2 4 Overpass widening 2031 $20,000,000 3 Bayfield Street Overpass/ Interchange* 63 4 6 Overpass widening 2025 $40,000,000 5 Anne Street North Overpass 63 4 6 Overpass widening 2031 $30,000,000 6 Dunlop Street Overpass/ Interchange* 63 2 6 Overpass widening 2026 $40,000,000 7 Tiffin Street Underpass 50 2 4 Underpass widening 2026 $10,000,000

8b Essa Road Underpass* 66 4 6 Underpass widening 2026 $30,000,000

9a Harvie/Big Bay Point Rd Highway Crossing – Phase 1 NA NA 6 New Highway Crossing 2021 $25,000,000

9b Harvie/Big Bay Point Road Highway Interchange – Phase 2 NA NA Interchange Works

Only New Highway Interchange 2031 $15,000,000

11 Salem/ Lockhart Road Overpass NA NA 4 New Overpass 2024 $20,000,000 12 McKay Road Overpass/ Interchange 67 2 6 Overpass widening and Interchange 2022 $40,000,000

4.3.2 Asset Preservation (Renewal) Analysis

4.3.2.1 Analysis Inputs The recommended maintenance and rehabilitation schedules for transportation assets are summarized in the table below and further outlined for pavements and bridges in the paragraphs that follow the table. The pavement and structures preservation plans use a combination of preventative maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement to ensure a cost effective plan. LCA represents Lifecycle Activity. Timing is in years, Costs are 2015$ per unit. Blank cells indicate that no treatment is performed.


Table 4.3-6 Time-Based Asset Maintenance & Renewal

Sub- Major Process MPL Unit LCA1 LCA2 LCA3

Service Asset (Sub-Asset Group) (yrs) Name Time Unit Cost Name Time Unit

Cost Name Time Unit Cost

Roads Pavements Arterial & Parkway 45 m2 Mtce 15 $25 Rehab 15 $40 Replace 45 $120 Major Collector 60 m2 Mtce 20 $25 Rehab 20 $35 Replace 60 $110 Minor Collector 60 m2 Mtce 20 $25 Rehab 20 $30 Replace 60 $100 Local 70 m2 Mtce 23 $15 Rehab 35 $25 Replace 70 $85 Edge Treatment (Curb) Curb 45/60

/70 Replace 45/60/

70

Structures Bridges Spanning > 3m Installed After 2000 120 m2 Repairs 30 $500 Rehab 60 $2000 Replace 120 $5500 Installed Before 2000 100 m2 Repairs 25 $500 Rehab 50 $1500 Replace 100 $5500 Culverts Spanning > 3m Concrete 75 m2 Repairs 25 $400 Rehab Replace 75 $4400 CSP or Other Plate Steel 50 m2 Repairs 25 $300 Rehab Replace 50 $4400

Traffic Control Traffic Signals Flashing 40 30 Per Unit Replace 30 By asset IPS 30 Per Unit Replace 30 By asset Full Way Signal 30 Per Unit Replace 30 By asset Temporary Signal 5 Per Unit By asset Temporary Signal (Speed

Board Advisory, Overhead Signal)

15 Per Unit Replace 15 By asset

Signs 15 - Replace 15 $250 Illumination Luminaires 25 - Replace 25 $470 Poles, foundation, electrical 50 - Replace 50 $7045 Parking Lots Paved Lots 15 m2 Replace 15 $86 Parkade 75 - Replace 75 By asset Payment Systems Pay and Display Machines 10 Per Unit Replace 10 $10,000 Active Linear Sidewalks 50 m Mtce 25 $13 Replace 50 $85 Walkways 50 m Replace 50 $85 Boulevard Pathways 20 m Replace 20 $40

Structures Footbridges 20 m2 Repairs 10 $300 Replace 20 $3300 Culverts 25 m2 Repairs 12 $300 Replace 25 $3300

Rail Structures Mapleview Drive East Asset ID: 120085994 100 m2 Repairs 25 $4000 Rehab 50 $16000 Replace 100 $44000 (BCRY) Lockhart Road Asset ID: 120054528 100 m2 Repairs 25 $4000 Rehab 50 $12000 Replace 100 $44000


4.3.2.1.1 Pavements The lifecycle plan for Road Pavements currently consists of the following activities:

Maintenance consists of crack sealing of 100% of the length of the segment estimated at $5 / m, and 10% by area asphalt spot repairs estimated at $160 / % area (m2).

Rehabilitation consists of mill and inlay of asphalt surface course estimated at $0.40 /mm depth / m2 area, and including 5% by area asphalt binder course repair estimated at $160 / % area (m2).

Replacement consists of removal and replacement of existing asphalt, granular base and subbase, including an allowance for earth excavation. Assumed costs are as follows:

Remove Asphalt: $4.954 / m2 area

Asphalt Surface Course: $0.331 /mm depth / m2 area

Asphalt Binder Course: $0.331 /mm depth / m2 area

Granular Base: $0.054 /mm depth / m2 area

Granular Subbase: $0.049 /mm depth / m2 area

Earth Excavation: $0.031 /mm depth / m2 area.

The City is continually reviewing and piloting alternative pavement lifecycle treatments to improve the effectiveness of the lifecycle plan. Treatments being piloted or under consideration to protect the pavement surface include:

Micro-surfacing Micro-surfacing is a mixture of polymer-modified asphalt emulsion, high-quality frictional aggregate, mineral filler, water, and other additives, mixed and uniformly spread over the pavement surface using a self-propelled continuous feed mixing machine.

Micro-surfacing is used to correct superficial distresses such as cracking, raveling and segregation, flushing, and loss of friction. Because micro-surfacing contains high-quality crushed aggregate, it is also used to fill in ruts and surface deformation to the depth of up to 1.5 inches. As a preventive maintenance treatment, it can be used to seal the surface from water infiltration when minor cracking or moderate raveling appears. Micro-surfacing has excellent frictional properties and is used on high-speed roads.

The surface on which micro-surfacing is applied should have uniform characteristics and provide a good bond. Areas that exhibit considerably more severe defects (raveling, cracking, or rutting) than the remainder of the section should be treated with an additional course of microsurfacing or repaired by other means. When the surface of the pavement has minor distortions or has ruts exceeding about 0.25 inches, two courses of micro-surfacing are recommended. The first (scratch) course is designed to improve the profile of the pavement, and the second course provides the wearing surface.

Many agencies rout and seal working cracks (e.g., transverse cracks) shortly before micro-surfacing is applied. However, micro-surfacing may not bond to the new crack sealant resulting in the loss of material. Some agencies require that routing and sealing of cracks is done a year before micro-surfacing. Other agencies carry out routing and sealing several months after micro-surfacing. This sequence is recommended because it eliminates the possibility of debonding and ensures that only cracks that are not sealed by micro-surfacing are routed and sealed.


Slurry Seal Slurry seal is a mixture of asphalt emulsion, graded fine aggregate, mineral filler, water, and other additives, mixed and uniformly spread over the pavement surface as a slurry. Slurry seal is similar to micro-surfacing, but lacks the interlocking aggregate skeleton formed by crushed aggregate particles. Also, slurry seal emulsion may not be polymer-modified. Like micro-surfacing, the construction of slurry seal uses a self-propelled truck-mounted mixing machine.

Asphalt emulsion used for slurry seal work is typically cationic and contains about 60 to 65 percent of residual asphalt cement. The finished product contains 9 to 10 percent of asphalt cement. Aggregate used for slurry seals should be crushed high quality dense graded aggregate. Its gradation generally follows one of the three gradation types recommended by the International Slurry Surfacing Association. The Type I is used for local roads; Type III for primary roads and expressways. The thickness of a single application of Type I slurry seal is typically less than 0.25 inches. Mineral filler (Portland cement or hydrated lime) is used to control curing time of the mix (break time of the emulsion). The amount of mineral filler is typically less than 1 percent of the total dry mix weight.

Slurry seals are used to correct superficial distresses such as raveling and coarse aggregate loss, seal small cracks, and improve pavement friction. They are also used as a preventive maintenance treatment to seal pavement surfaces from intrusion of water and slow surface oxidation and raveling. Slurry seals are effective where the primary problem is hardening of asphalt binder resulting in minor cracking and raveling. Slurry seals will not perform well if the pavement has moderate or severe cracks, or progressive rutting. The surface on which a slurry seal is applied should have uniform characteristics and provide a good bond. If defects such as moderate or severe raveling, cracking, or rutting occur intermittently or frequently, the section is probably not a good candidate for slurry sealing. Working cracks, such as transverse cracks, should be sealed, preferably after slurry sealing.

Rejuvenators Rejuvenators consist of a sprayed application of a bituminous material or specialty product to the surface of existing asphalt cement pavements that have oxidized and hardened for the purpose of replenishing the lighter oils and softening a weathered surface. Although rejuvenators will seal minor cracks, they are not generally suited for sealing cracks or for use on rutted pavement. These seals can also slow the progression of raveling and aggregate loss; however, the pavement should be in good condition and should be broomed before the emulsion is applied.

Asphalt consists of two main fractions:

Asphaltenes which are the hard brittle component, insoluble and not affected by oxidation

Maltenes which are oily and resinous in appearance and are highly reactive.

The relationship of the asphaltene and maltene percentages becomes out of balance in the aging process. This aging process can start as early as initial hot plant production and continues through the pavement lifecycle due to environmental effects such as weather and sun exposure. An asphalt rejuvenator has the ability to penetrate into the pavement and restore the reactive components that have been lost due to oxidation.

Reclamite is a widely recognized rejuvenator with over 25 years of experience. It has been evaluated by many agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Studies have documented the ability of Reclamite to lower the viscosity of the asphalt binder, to reduce the incidence of small cracks, and to


reduce fines loss over a period of at least three years. The recommended procedure for using Reclamite is to:

Sweep street

Apply rejuvenator with asphalt distributor

Hand spray corners and hard to reach areas

Cover with sand or screenings after penetration has occurred (after about 1 hour)

Sweep up sand after 24 hours

Dark color fades in about 45 days.

4.3.2.1.2 Structures The lifecycle plan for Road Bridges currently consists of the following activities:

Repairs consist of replacing the wearing surface, expansion joints and bearings, and miscellaneous minor repairs, as applicable to the various bridge and culvert structure types.

Rehabilitation consists of repair and overlay of the deck, replacing the wearing surface, expansion joints and bearings, and other miscellaneous repairs, as applicable to the various bridge and culvert structure types.

Replacement consists of demolition of the existing structure (assumed at 10% of construction cost) and replacement with a structure of similar type and size.

Costs include ~25% engineering and contingency.

4.3.2.1.3 Illumination The City of Barrie recently adopted an LED luminaire standard, and plans to replace existing sodium street lights with new LED luminaries by October 2015 at a cost of $5 million. The typical lifecycle of LED technology is stated as 400 times that of traditional roadway lighting technology. The City anticipates an $11,300,000 cost avoidance benefit over the next ten years in energy and maintenance savings with the new LED technology.


4.3.2.2 Analysis Outputs – Existing Asset Portfolio The following graphs, for each asset type, show future renewal requirements and average annual amounts for the EXISTING asset portfolio, based on the time-based preservation plans provided in the preceding table. The roads pavement assets are further analyzed using an optimized condition-based non-linear deterioration model in Section 4.3.2.4.

Figure 4.3-1 Future Investment Profile: Transportation (Total)


Figure 4.3-2 Future Investment Profile: Roads – Pavements

Figure 4.3-3 Future Investment Profile: Roads – Structures


Figure 4.3-4 Future Investment Profile: Roads – Traffic Control

Figure 4.3-5 Future Investment Profile: Roads – Illumination*

*Approximately $5M of the investment need in 2015 represents conversion of all luminaires to LED; peaks are due to lumped data in PSAB


The following two figures show the installation profiles of parking assets without the parkade, as the high value of the parkade relative to other parking assets reduces the granularity of the graphs. The parkade is scheduled to be replaced in 2074, based on a 75 year life.

Figure 4.3-6 Future Investment Profile: Roads – Parking – Paved Lots

Figure 4.3-7 Future Investment Profile: Roads – Parking – Payment (Pay & Display Machines Only)


Figure 4.3-8 Future Investment Profile: Roads – Roadside (Retaining Walls only)

Figure 4.3-9 Future Investment Profile: Active Transportation – Linear


Figure 4.3-10 Future Investment Profile: Active Transportation – Structures

Figure 4.3-11 Future Investment Profile: Rail (BCRY) – Structures


4.3.2.3 Analysis Outputs – Existing Asset Portfolio plus Forecast Growth The following graphs, for each asset type, show future renewal requirements and average annual amounts for BOTH the existing asset portfolio and for forecast growth in the asset portfolio. Asset types for which growth is assumed to be 0% are not shown in the following figures.

Figure 4.3-12 Future Investment Profile (including Growth): Transportation (Total)


Figure 4.3-13 Future Investment Profile (including Growth): Roads – Pavements

Figure 4.3-14 Future Investment Profile (including Growth): Roads – Structures

*Blue bars up to year 2031 represents initial capital investment for new Highway 400 bridges


Figure 4.3-15 Future Investment Profile (including Growth): Roads – Traffic Control

Figure 4.3-16 Future Investment Profile (including Growth): Roads – Illumination*

*Approximately $5M of the investment need in 2015 represents conversion of all luminaires to LED; peaks are due to lumped data in PSAB


Figure 4.3-17 Future Investment Profile (including Growth): Active Transportation – Linear


4.3.2.4 Pavement Preservation (Renewal) Analysis As Road Pavement is the asset group of the total highest replacement value, further lifecycle planning was conducted. A Lifecycle Planning Toolkit, developed under the Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme (HMEP) in the United Kingdom, was used to automate the pavement lifecycle analysis. The Toolkit produces long-term estimates of expenditure and associated asset performance. These estimates can be used to determine the likely performance of the asset under budget constraints or, alternatively, to determine the budget required to support a target asset performance. The iterative modelling process embedded in the Toolkit calculates the annual progression of condition distributions followed by a simulation of the effects of maintenance and renewals applied in each year.

Figure 4.3-18 HMEP Lifecycle Planning Toolkit Modelling Process

Step 1: Current (Base) Year Condition Distributions The base (current) year condition distributions are derived from current condition data. The current condition of the network can be described by the proportion of the network lying within each band of condition (e.g., 20% within the band Very Good, 45% within Good, 20% in Fair, 10% within Poor, and 5% within Very Poor). The current condition distribution for Transportation assets is provided in Table 2.4-3 Transportation Asset Condition Distribution, 2015. Where inspection intervals are not annual (e.g., pavement inspections), the condition distributions were projected forward to the base year using the deterioration model (see next section) to derive the base year condition distributions.

Step 2: Deterioration Modelling A history of consistent and repeatable condition assessments establishes the rates of deterioration over time. Although all road assets deteriorate at differing rates, assets of similar type, material, size, structure, loading, and/or geographic location tend to exhibit a similar performance. Consequently, it is helpful to categorize the road network into groups of assets with homogeneous performance characteristics.


Probabilistic Markov chain models are used in a number of pavement management systems (PMS) to predict future network pavement deterioration (e.g., MicroPAVER, GENEPAV-HDM-4, dTIMS). Homogeneous asset groups are assumed to deteriorate following the transition probabilities established in a transition probability matrix (TPM). The TPM contains the information necessary to model the movement of the deterioration process among the condition states. The transition probabilities indicate the probability of the portion of the asset group in any condition state (e.g., Very Good or VG) moving to the next lower condition state (e.g., Good or G) in one year due to the damaging effects of traffic, environment and/or other factors, as applicable. An example of the TPM for arterial roads pavement is shown in the table below. TPMs for typical “families” of pavements are available based on historic performance data and have been adapted for use by the City. In the example below, of all arterial segments that currently fall within the Very Good condition band, 92% of the segments will remain in the Very Good condition band, 8% will move to the Good condition band, and of the segments that currently fall within the Good condition band, 82% will remain in the Good condition band and 18% will move to the Fair condition band.

Table 4.3-7 Transition Probability Matrix (TPM) for Pavement – Arterials (PCI)

Current Condition Band in the following Year Total

Condition Band → VG → G → F → P → VP

Very Good (VG) 0.92 0.08 0 0 0 1.00 Good (G) 0.82 0.18 0.00 0.00 1.00 Fair (F) 0.62 0.38 0.00 1.00 Poor (P) 0.52 0.48 1.00 Very Poor (VP) 1.00 1.00

Asset decay curves plot condition trends over time and can be developed to “visualize” the deterioration of an asset group based on the TPM. The following figure illustrates the prediction models used to determine how various pavement sections within the City deteriorate through their service lives. The Arterial Pavement Decay Curve reflects the TPM for Arterial Roads shown in the table above. These models have been compiled from a review of deterioration of roads in several cities within southern Ontario. The rehabilitation trigger identifies when a pavement should be considered for a rehabilitation or resurfacing treatment whereas a reconstruction trigger indicates when a pavement may qualify for major rehabilitation or full reconstruction.

Figure 4.3-19 Pavement Decay Curves


Step 3: Renewal Needs Technically feasible and available asset lifecycle activities, typically referred to as “treatments”, are applied to each asset group based on the level of deterioration predicted at the end of each year (based on the TPM for that asset group). To determine which treatments are required and when, the list of technically feasible treatments and the intervention point (i.e., condition) to trigger planned works must be derived. The cost of applying each treatment is required to enable costing of the renewal activities, and the benefit to the asset group as a result of the treatment is required to reset the condition for the beginning of the next year.

This step answers the question: “What budget is required to support a target network performance?”

For each asset group, the following table documents the lifecycle treatments, the intervention points (and condition band trigger), effect or impact each treatment will have on condition (i.e., does it make it “Very Good” again or only “Good” or “Fair”?), and the unit costs for each treatment activity (e.g., $ per square meter). More detail and higher thresholds for intervention are provided for assets with higher consequence of failure (i.e., pavement Arterials and Collectors).


Table 4.3-8 Asset Lifecycle Treatments, Intervention Criteria, Effects & Costs

Asset Group Sub-Asset Group

Lifecycle Category Treatment Name Measure Interven-

tion Point Condition

Band Trigger

Effects* Unit

Cost per Unit ($2015)

VG G F P VP VG G F P VP

Roads - Pavement Arterial & Parkway Maintenance Crack Sealing PCI 90 G VG G m2 0 0 1 0 0 Spot Repairs PCI 90 G VG G F P m2 0 2 3 8 16 Rehabilitation Mill & Inlay: Surface PCI 90 G VG G m2 0 18 22 0 0 Mill & Inlay: Surf & Binder PCI 75 F VG G m2 0 0 57 67 0 Reconstruction Reconstruction (AC) PCI 60 VP VG VG m2 0 0 0 117 117 Major Collector Maintenance Crack Sealing PCI 85 G VG G m2 0 0 1 0 0 Spot Repairs PCI 85 G VG G F P m2 0 2 3 8 16 Rehabilitation Mill & Inlay: Surface PCI 85 G VG G m2 0 18 22 0 0 Mill & Inlay: Surf & Binder PCI 70 F VG G m2 0 0 57 67 0 Reconstruction Reconstruction (AC) PCI 55 VP VG VG m2 0 0 0 117 117 Minor Collector Maintenance Crack Sealing PCI 80 G VG G m2 0 0 0 0 0 Spot Repairs PCI 80 G VG G F P m2 0 2 3 8 16 Rehabilitation Mill & Inlay: Surface PCI 80 G VG G m2 0 18 22 0 0 Mill & Inlay: Surf & Binder PCI 65 F VG G m2 0 0 57 67 0 Reconstruction Reconstruction (AC) PCI 50 VP VG VG m2 0 0 0 109 109 Local Maintenance Crack Sealing PCI 70 G VG G m2 0 0 1 0 0 Spot Repairs PCI 70 G VG G F P m2 0 2 3 8 16 Rehabilitation Mill & Inlay: Surface PCI 70 G VG G m2 0 18 22 0 0 Mill & Inlay: Surf & Binder PCI 55 F VG G m2 0 0 57 67 0 Reconstruction Reconstruction (AC) PCI 40 VP VG VG m2 0 0 0 101 101

* blank cells are “None”. Also note that the Intervention Point is the upper limit at which the treatment could be applied and that the Condition Band Trigger is applicable only if fully funded.


Based on the inputs documented above, the Asset Lifecycle Toolkit was used to conduct the lifecycle cost-benefit analysis to determine the ideal time for each lifecycle treatment type, by condition rating, and the cost of the optimal asset preservation strategy. A 60 year analysis period was used (the maximum permitted by the tool). The optimal pavement preservation plan that meets the desired levels of service (less than or equal to 10% of pavement in Poor or Very Poor condition) was found to be as depicted in the following graph and as outlined in the table that follows. Note that the analysis is at the network level and that costs represent the costs to preserve the EXISTING pavement structure and do not include assets such as edge treatment (i.e., curb and gutter) or stormwater management assets (i.e., storm sewer system), nor do the costs include forecast future growth.

The average annual expenditure for the first 10 years is approximately $13 million per year, for the following 10 years is approximately $8 million per year, and, once the overall pavement condition is improved, the average annual expenditure to sustain the current pavement portfolio is approximately $6 million per year.

Figure 4.3-20 Future Investment Profile: Road Pavements

The above graph demonstrates that investment priorities (proportionally) over the next four years should be in the less costly maintenance and rehabilitation lifecycle activities (i.e., crack sealing, spot repairs and mill and inlays), rather than for reconstruction. The approximate annual quantities and expenditures for the next 10 years, by lifecycle activity type, are provided in the following tables.

Table 4.3-9 Future Investment Profile for 2015 to 2024: Road Pavements (Area)

Lifecycle Activity Arterial & Parkway

Major & Minor Collectors Local TOTALS

Average Annual Quantities (m2)

Crack Sealing 26,900 22,000 34,800 83,700

Spot Repairs 26,900 22,000 34,800 83,700

Mill & Inlay: Surface 13,500 11,000 17,400 41,900

Mill & Inlay: Surface & Binder 12,500 5,000 6,200 23,700

Reconstruction (AC) 60,400 20,100 20,600 101,100


Table 4.3-10 Future Investment Profile for 2015 to 2024: Road Pavements (Costs)

Lifecycle Activity Arterial & Parkway

Major & Minor Collectors Local TOTALS

Average Annual Amount (2015$) $8,065,400 $2,657,400 $2,429,400 $13,152,200

Crack Sealing $7,000 $5,100 $5,200 $17,300

Spot Repairs $42,300 $34,600 $54,600 $131,500

Mill & Inlay: Surface $239,000 $195,400 $308,400 $742,800

Mill & Inlay: Surface & Binder $716,100 $285,600 $288,600 $1,290,300

Reconstruction (AC) $7,061,000 $2,136,700 $1,772,600 $10,970,300

4.3.2.5 COS – LOS Relationship The above future investment profile outlines the estimated expenditure that is required to achieve the desired LOS for pavement (i.e., no more than 10% of the pavement within condition bands “Poor” and “Very Poor”). The lifecycle planning tool was used to explore the relationship between the expected cost of service (COS) and various levels of service (LOS). The COS was determined for LOS that varies from 5% and 50% of the pavement within condition bands “Poor” and “Very Poor” and is depicted in the graph below. Note that these lifecycle cost estimates are for over the 60 year analysis period and are based on estimated future costs for lifecycle activities and should be confirmed based on actual lifecycle costs tracked over time.

Figure 4.3-21 Expected COS – LOS Relationship

This analysis indicates that the lifecycle cost to achieve a target performance of up to 20% of the pavement within condition bands “Poor” and “Very Poor” is essentially the same, but thereafter, the cost declines.

The Pavement Preservation (Renewal) Analysis is continued in subsection 5.3.1.


5. Financing Strategy

5.1 Overview Historical expenditures and the future investment needs are summarized and compared in this section. The future investment needs outlined in Section 5.3 do not include growth assets.

5.2 Actual Expenditures by Lifecycle Activity The following table provides actual capital renewal expenditures for comparison purposes with the infrastructure investment needs associated with the lifecycle activities identified above, broken down by the asset hierarchy. Refer to Table 4.1-2 for definition of capital and operating expenditures (for blank cells, data was not available).

Table 5.2-1 Actual Capital Renewal Expenditures ($,000’s)

Sub-Service

Major Asset Group

Process (Sub-Asset Group) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Roads Pavements $14,358 $7,265 $7,738 $6,976 $5,144 $2,496 $4,940 Structures $160 $1 $331 $309 $125 $322 $3,257 Traffic Control Traffic Signals $96 $0 $238 $476 $188 $61 $132 Signs Illumination $54 $19 $23 $144 Roadside Retaining Walls Parking Paved Lots $293 $517 $15 $0 $31 $716 $4 Parkade Payment Systems* $21 $22 $0 Active Linear Sidewalks $271 $60 $324 $537 $93 $81 $136 Walkways

Boulevard Pathways

Trails $39 $414 $675 $418 Structures $17 $0 $71 $54 Rail (BCRY) $165 $265

*assumed to include both Pay & Display Machines and Parking Meters **For all railway (not only structures)


Table 5.2-2 Actual Operating Expenditures

Sub-Service

Major Asset Group

Process Operations Operations Accounts Maintenance Maintenance

Accounts Total Operating Costs

(Operations + Maintenance)

(Sub-Asset Group) 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014

Roads Pavements $4,442,262 $4,416,906 Roads - Winter Control Winter Operations

$3,396,756 $2,785,500

Asphalt Patching Operations Surface Maintenance Road Base Repairs Curb Maintenance Operations Road Resurfacing (Level 2) Operations Crack sealing

$7,839,018 $7,202,406

Structures

Traffic Control Traffic Signals $1,470,686 $1,621,009 Traffic Systems Maintenance $1,470,686 $1,621,009

Signs $93,680 $93,765 Sign Making Materials* $93,680 $93,765

Illumination $1,898,320 $2,098,470 Street Lighting** $1,898,320 $2,098,470

Roadside Retaining Walls

Parking $158,978 $417,745 Parking Lot Maintenance** $158,978 $417,745

Active Linear Sidewalks $1,446,132 $1,457,807 Sidewalks – Winter Control $323,522 $258,417

Sidewalk Maintenance** Sidewalks Contract - Operations**

$1,769,654 $1,716,224

Walkways

Boulevard Pathways

Trails

Structures Rail (BCRY) $0 $360,867 Rail Operations*** $0 $360,867

*Sign making materials is an Operating Budget Account, but is truly a renewal expenditure **Account is assumed to be for maintenance work, but may include operations costs ***Rail Operations is assumed to include operations and maintenance costs for all rail assets (only Rail Bridge assets are applicable to this AMP)


5.3 Expenditure Forecasts by Lifecycle Activity The following table shows yearly capital renewal expenditure forecasts broken down by the asset hierarchy, for the year 2015 (which includes any backlog of work), and over the following 100 years.

Table 5.3-1 Forecast Maintenance and Renewal Expenditures

Existing Assets With Growth


Process (Sub-Asset Group) 2015 (Backlog)


(2015$)


(2015$)

Roads Pavements (excl. curbs) Optimized using TPM $13,000,000

(2015 – 2024) -

$8,000,000 (2025 – 2034) -

$6,000,000 (2035 – 2074) -

Pavements (incl. curbs) Time Based $58,729,344 $16,897,769

(2015 – 2074) $20,958,285

(2015 – 2074) Time Based $58,729,344 $18,645,777 $24,338,298 Structures $62,198 $1,102,898 $5,725,625 Traffic Control Traffic Signals $1,095,567 $662,911 $864,794 Signs $640,436 $291,082 $380,362 Illumination $6,193,001** $1,711,002 $2,038,895 Roadside Retaining Walls $421,252 $59,388 $59,388 Parking Paved Lots $210,794 $190,813 $190,813 Parkade $140,000 $140,000

Payment Systems – Pay & Display $520,000 $83,000 $83,000

Active Linear Sidewalks $1,770,176 $1,727,586 $2,196,692 Walkways $0 $17,980 $18,368 Boulevard Pathways $164,019 $31,402 $50,869 Structures $0 $97,842 $97,842 Rail (BCRY) Structures $0 $84,268 $84,268 Totals $69,806,787 $24,845,949 $36,269,214

*100 year forecast unless otherwise noted **LED light conversion scheduled for 2015

The following table shows yearly operating expenditure forecasts for 2015 (refer to Table 5.2-2 for relevant operations and maintenance accounts). Data was not available for some asset groups.


Table 5.3-2 Forecast Operating Expenditures


Process (Sub-Asset Group) 2015$

Roads Pavement $5,430,871* Structures Traffic Control Traffic Signals $1,349,725 Signs $90,000 Illumination $1,938,477 Roadside Retaining Walls Parking Paved Lots $224,782 Parkade

Payment Systems – Pay & Display

Active Linear Sidewalks $1,445,000 Walkways Boulevard Pathways Structures Rail (BCRY) Structures $400,937**

*Resurfacing and crack sealing not included **Rail Operations is assumed to include operations and maintenance costs for all rail assets (only Rail Bridge assets are applicable to this AMP)

5.3.1 Impact of Insufficient Funds

Continuing the Pavement Preservation (Renewal) Analysis from subsection 4.3.2.4 above:

Step 4: Budget Allocations So far, the analysis has assumed that sufficient funds are available to renew all assets on the network. However, in practice this is rarely the case. Renewal budget limits can be specified within the model to enable the “what-if” impact of different levels of funding on network performance to be modelled. Initially, the annual budgets are set, followed by the onwards allocation of the annual budgets to asset groups. Renewals are then applied until the relevant budget is exhausted, assuming the required expenditure exceeds the available budget. This results in a shortfall and parts of the network remaining untreated. The percentage of each asset group that will actually be renewed is calculated based on the specified budget constraints.

The following graph shows expenditures of approximately $8 million per year for the first 10 years, $5 million per year for the second 10 years, and $3.5 million per year for the remainder of the analysis period. Note that these annual budgets are the combined overall budgets for all road classifications.


Figure 5.3-1 Future Expenditure Profile: Road Pavements – All Road Classifications

The condition of the road pavement, which does not meet the required LOS, is depicted in the following graphs for the expenditure profile shown in the preceding graph. In the figures below, the percent distribution of pavement in condition bands Poor (P), shown in orange, and Very Poor (VP), shown in red, increases to more than 40% (100% minus 60%) over the first 10 years for most road classifications, which does not achieve the desired LOS of P & VP <= 10%. Note that the optimization tool has systematically applied treatments so that the pavement is in either Very Good or Very Poor condition. This demonstrates the principles that it is most efficient to retain Very Good pavement in Very Good condition and not to apply treatments to the Worst First. Also note that the area (quantity) of Parkway roads is very small.

Figure 5.3-2 Future LOS Profile: Road Pavements – Arterial

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035 2039 2043 2047 2051 2055 2059 2063 2067 2071

Expe

nditu

re (£

) by

Trea

tmen

t Typ

e fo

r sel

ecte

d As

set

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035 2039 2043 2047 2051 2055 2059 2063 2067 2071

% D

istr

ibut

ion

of A

sset

in C

ondi

tion

Band

s

VP

P

F

G

VG


Figure 5.3-3 Future LOS Profile: Road Pavements – Parkway

Figure 5.3-4 Future LOS Profile: Road Pavements – Major Collector

Figure 5.3-5 Future LOS Profile: Road Pavements – Minor Collector

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035 2039 2043 2047 2051 2055 2059 2063 2067 2071

% D

istr

ibut

ion

of A

sset

in C

ondi

tion

Band

s

VP

P

F

G

VG

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035 2039 2043 2047 2051 2055 2059 2063 2067 2071

% D

istr

ibut

ion

of A

sset

in C

ondi

tion

Band

s

VP

P

F

G

VG

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035 2039 2043 2047 2051 2055 2059 2063 2067 2071

% D

istr

ibut

ion

of A

sset

in C

ondi

tion

Band

s

VP

P

F

G

VG


Figure 5.3-6 Future LOS Profile: Road Pavements – Local

5.4 Revenue Sources & Funding Shortfalls The City's Financial Policy is that Municipal taxes levied not to exceed 4% of average household income, Principal and interest not to exceed 20% of City’s own source revenues; and Principal and interest for tax-supported debt not to exceed 10% of the City’s net levy requirement. These fiscal constraints are to be considered as part of the development of the City’s Long Term Fiscal Impact Assessment of Growth Report (FIA) and determination of funding shortfalls.

The transportation renewal needs identified in the 2011 AM Plan was estimated at $35 million per year (all asset types, no growth). This 2015 AM Plan estimates total transportation renewal needs at $24.8 million per year (all asset types, no growth) and $36.3 million per year (all asset types, with growth). The 2015 AM Plan estimates a lower value because the pavements asset group ($638.6M) is considerably less than the value of pavement indicated in the 2011 AMP ($1,083.5M). As indicated in Section 2, the main reason for this difference is that the lengths of the pavement segments have been corrected through an improvement in data collection and accuracy in 2015.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035 2039 2043 2047 2051 2055 2059 2063 2067 2071

% D

istr

ibut

ion

of A

sset

in C

ondi

tion

Band

s

VP

P

F

G

VG


6. AM Plan Improvement & Monitoring

6.1 Overview This section provides a summary of the assessment of current and future AM practices and provides details on planning for monitoring the performance of the AM plan and any improvement to the systems that will improve the level of confidence in the AM plan.

Status of AM Practices & Recommended Improvement Plan

− Current and desired state of AM processes, data and systems

− Details of actions proposed and timetables for improving accuracy and confidence in the AM plan, indicating responsibility for each actions

− Details of resources required to implement the improvement program

Monitoring & Review Procedures

− Procedures and timetable for performance reporting (3-year review of AM plan)

− Timetable for external audit and review (of process, data integrity, level of service)

Performance Measures

− Outline of performance measures for the AM system

− Describe how the effectiveness of the AM plan will be measured

6.2 Status of AM Practices & Recommended Improvement Plan

6.2.1 Overview

The underpinning premise of asset management is that an organization will seldom have perfect processes and perfect data with which to manage the asset portfolio. Asset management is a process of continuous improvement – start with what is known today and improve over time. The City expects that this AM Plan will be developed and improved to match City business planning. City business planning is annual with a 5 year forecast and 10 year outlook. These improvements will be taken on a step-by-step basis in line with the resources the organization has available to complete this work. The Confidence Level Rating approach will be used to identify the greatest benefit / cost areas for improvement to enable the City to identify the most appropriate improvements to employ.

6.2.2 Confidence Level Rating

In simple terms, the Confidence Level Rating is based on the following principles:

That the AM Plan is produced following a best practice guideline and process

That the production of the AM Plan involves 15 elements

That the practice undertaken is reviewed and assessed in terms of the quality applied to that process element

That the data used in the process is assessed for accuracy and quality perspective

That the product of process effectiveness and data quality develops a confidence level rating;

That depending on the asset condition, performance and the business environment / viability, a business value chain (weighting) is applied to each quality element based its value to the businesses, or service delivery


This then equates to the Confidence Level Rating for that particular quality element

The sum of these elements then equates to the Confidence Level Rating for the Asset Management Plan as a whole.

Figure 6-1 Confidence Level Rating Methodology (CLR)

The confidence level of an AM Plan varies over the planning horizon. As the planning period extends up to 100 years, the accuracy of the predictions is less in terms of clearly identifying the timing of the works and more around the appropriate renewal or replace decisions. As time progresses and this AM Plan is improved, the expectation is the CLR will improve to be commensurate with the City’s maturity and commitment to asset management best practices.

6.2.3 Confidence Level Rating Assessment

Based on the quality elements and weighting allocated in Table 9-1 below, the City’s overall confidence level rating, for the Transportation service area, is 53.3% (up significantly from 41% in 2009 and 42.2% in 2011). Although this is still a low score, it is appropriate considering this is the third asset management plan completed by the City. The score is reflective of the quality and type of data available (or lack thereof), current processes and management strategies. The following table summarizes the scores for asset type.

Table 6.2-1 Confidence Level Rating Assessment Summary

# Quality Element 2009 Transport 2011 Transport 2015 Transport 1 Existing Standards of Service 1.6 1.6 2.7 2 Knowledge of Existing Assets / Portfolio 6.6 7.1 7.4 3 Current Demands 1.5 1.6 2.4 4 Future Demands / Changes in LOS 2.5 2.5 4.2 5 Prediction of Failure Mode 2.9 2.9 3.7 6 Timing of Failure 2.9 3.2 3.5 7 Consequence of Failure 6.3 6.3 7.9 8 Quality of Proposed Maintenance Program 5.2 5.2 7.5 9 Appropriateness of Recurrent Budgets / Costs 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 Appropriateness of Renewal Solutions 2.4 2.5 2.7 11 Appropriateness of New Asset Solutions 1.6 1.6 2.4 12 Appropriateness of Economic Evaluation Processes 1.4 1.5 2.2 13 Plan and Customer Expectations 1.6 1.6 1.8 14 Ability to Modify Plan 0.8 0.8 0.8 15 Links to Business Goals 0.8 0.8 1.0 TOTAL 41.0 42.2 53.3

6.2.4 Proposed Improvement Program

The confidence level rating assessment process allows us to identify the most critical elements and target these for a future improvement program. The following figure illustrates the gap in confidence based on


the quality elements for 2009, 2011 and 2015. The greater the percentage gap, the greater the improvement required.

Figure 6.2-2 Confidence Level Gap for each Quality Element

6.2.5 Recommendations for Future Improvements

To assist in the improvement of this asset management plan’s confidence level rating, it is recommended that the City of Barrie focus on the key findings from the above gap analysis. Key recommendations are summarized in the table below.

Table 6.2-2 Recommendations for Future Improvement

Quality Element Comments Recommendations for Next AM Plan 1 Existing Standards

of Service Required service standards for asset growth and enhancement are documented in 2013 Transportation Master Plan and summarized in the AM Plan. Standards for asset reliability are documented in the AM Plan and included in the AM Plan renewal analysis for pavement and bridges).

As the City incorporates performance management processes and indicators into its business practice, the next AMP should establish benchmarks for existing standards of service. These should be backed by at least 2 years of data including tracking the cost of assets at the lowest level, reproducing the pavement condition assessment using the EXACT same methodologies listed in the 2014 assessment project, and expanding on the use of customer feedback systems. Tracking complaints can be used to calibrate LOS targets and actual performance. It is recommended that the City start using its modelling software to establish the current performance of the road network more frequently (from every 5 years to annually) and invest more efforts in determining volume/usage data. With the Railway also in the transportation sector, the City needs to develop existing standards of service for railway assets, as it is currently an expensive service that is not well defined. Obtaining data on railway usage was an unsuccessful effort for this AMP. Pavement performance criteria should align with the


Quality Element Comments Recommendations for Next AM Plan inputs to the pavement design methodology currently being established as part of the City’s Transportation Standards and Design Manual.

2 Knowledge of Existing Assets / Portfolio

Asset attribute data is stored on most transportation assets in the PSAB database and GIS, with pavement disaggregated to the block to block level. Significant data cleansing was undertaken to improve the quality of the data, including pavement install dates and widths. Data on condition exists for pavement on a segment-by-segment basis (however, due to the use of different data collection protocols, the 2010 and 2014 pavement condition data are not comparable for trend analysis). Utilization data (demand versus capacity data) is primarily in the form of traffic counts, which are taken for portions of the network annually and used to calibrate the City’s Syncro Model. Data standards for assets were defined and implemented during database design but over time have not been consistently maintained. The Corporation’s GIS and Asset Data Management Plan (in draft) will include a full review of GIS datasets, will formalize the process for attribute maintenance, and will clearly define standards for each asset dataset in GIS moving forward.

The City should continue to expand the asset hierarchy for those service areas where it does not exist at the level at which the assets are maintained (e.g., railway crossing mechanisms, noise walls, trails, and rail assets in addition to rail bridges). It is imperative that the City develop data standards for all assets, particularly for condition, performance, and utilization rates. The use of Linear Referencing is also critical as the City for performing network analysis. Linear features should only be split at intersections where they connect with two or more line features or where key attribute values change, such as a change in the road name. Otherwise, attributes should be used to differentiate all other data regarding an asset including material, width, speed, class, condition, lanes, slope, crossfall, zone, ward, emergency detour, etc. The City should also develop formal (documented) condition assessment protocols. It is recommended that the next AMP not use any PSAB data. The City should invest more into populating GIS with valuable and accurate data. For the 2015 AMP, PSAB data was used for traffic signal, illumination and sign assets (refer to Section 2 for details). The City should also ensure inventories are accurate and be clear on which assets are and are NOT owned by the City.

3 Current Demands Current demands are captured by the City through traffic volume surveys, transportation modelling, pedestrian counts, existing railway activity loads, etc. The Transit service provides statistics obtained from Electronic Fair Collection Systems and usage monitoring devices.

The City requires more data on current demands for both capacity/availability, asset levels of service (quality), reliability of service, and other associated levels of service (safety, efficiency, etc).

4 Future Demands / Changes in LOS

Future demands were primarily based on the Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan but also on the Fiscal Impact Analysis by Watson and Associates, and considered the effect of the two approved secondary plans, Hewitts and Salem. This forecasted growth stems from the Population, Housing and Employment Forecast 2006-2031 which was produced as part of Phase 1 of the Growth Management Strategy.

The City should periodically project future demand and levels of service against the assets to enable understanding of the availability of transportation assets.

5 Prediction of Failure Mode

The AM Plan analyzes the physical deterioration failure mode and considers the growth / enhancement failure mode on a network level. GIS should be used to determine the imminent failure mode at the asset / road segment level.

The City should include the capacity failure mode and other failure modes, as available, in the next AM Plan. The City needs to be able to distinguish between end of physical life, capable life, efficient life, and service level life. Prediction of the most imminent failure mode is a task for the asset manager in the Capital Planning stage. Each failure mode will eventually occur; however, predicting which failure mode will occur first is critical in determining appropriate asset renewal and expansion plans. It is important to continually analyze all defined failure modes for all assets at a network level to ensure only the highest criticality needs are provided investment such that the risk of failure is effectively controlled.

6 Timing of Failure The AM Plan assesses the timing of physical asset failure (reliability failure mode) at the network level (using Probability Transition Matrices for road pavement). GIS should be used to examine the timing of growth/enhancement and reliability failure modes at the asset / road segment level (to ensure that the City does not apply renewal strategies to

For high consequence of failure assets where condition is a predictor of remaining life, the City should continue to update or determine condition and include this data in development of the probability of failure timing (i.e., the date of failure). For the next AMP, assumptions of decay rates and MPL's should be compared with samples of actual


Quality Element Comments Recommendations for Next AM Plan an asset that will soon be widened or otherwise enhanced). All assets physically deteriorate at different rates to eventual failure. Asset condition is a measured assessment of an asset’s current position or place on the asset “decay” or deterioration curve. In this AMP, straight line decay to MPL is assumed; for pavement assets, exponential equations for assets that decay faster later in life is modeled in Section 4.3.2.4.

assets in all stages of life. This will help to calibrate assumptions against real lifecycle activities.

7 Consequence of Failure

Consequence of failure was included in AM Plan analysis using a 4x4 risk matrix consistent with the corporate process and based on input by City staff.

For future AM Plans, the City should continue to refine the assessment of consequences of failure and, for higher consequence assets, should consider the dollar consequence of failure (rather than using the HIRA 4-point methodology) and the cost of delivering to specified Levels of Service. For the next AMP, the City should continue to develop situations where CoF is different for various situations. For example, structures servicing a drainage area could vary in consequence depending on the size of the drainage area. Active transportation assets could have a higher CoF if within a certain distance of a transit stop or busy commercial centre. In the 2011 AMP, traffic signals included an analysis of CoF based on intersection type. This data was not available with the updated traffic signal inventory in 2015, and should be incorporated in the next AMP.

8 Quality of Proposed Maintenance Program

The maintenance program included in the AM Plan is based on assumed unit costs. The maintenance program for pavement includes optimization based on lifecycle costing.

As the City incorporates maintenance management processes and implements the CMMS into its business practice, the AM Plan can include activity based costs, and compare different levels of service based on different blends of planned and unplanned maintenance.

9 Appropriateness of Recurrent Budgets / Costs

The City does not track labour against assets in most cases. The future forecast recurrent costs included in the AM Plan are based on assumed current unit costs.

As the City incorporates maintenance management processes and implements the CMMS into its business practice, the AM Plan can include more accurate forecasts for recurrent costs, based on actual labour, materials and services recorded against assets, and on the prediction of maintenance costs with usage and age of the asset. It is recommended that the City develop a cost estimation protocol whereby a system is designed to estimate the cost of assets at the unit rate level and ensure consistent application of historical bid values including application of Engineering / Admin percentages and the disposal cost of the asset.

10 Appropriateness of Renewal Solutions

The AM Plan analysis for pavement (the highest valued asset class) considers major maintenance and rehabilitation options and is optimized. The analysis for bridges considers major maintenance and rehabilitation options but is time-based. Analysis for all other assets is based on time-based replacement.

The City should continue to explore alternative treatments for renewal of assets for the next AM Plans, including “do nothing”, asset (replace, rehabilitate, maintain/operate differently) and non-asset (failure management plan, rebate for failure, different level of service). The programs should be piloted to assess the effectiveness and cost of these alternative treatments prior to implementing network wide application.

11 Appropriateness of New Asset Solutions

New asset solutions are based on the MMATMP that considered multiple options and evaluated lifecycle costs.

The City should track progress on implementation of the 2013 MMATMP and update the proposed new asset solutions, in particular the timing of those solutions

12 Appropriateness of Economic Evaluation Processes

Capital investments are analyzed with consideration of time-based lifecycle activities and costs, and optimized for pavement.

The City should expand the use of analysis of capital investments using more sophisticated modelling processes including lifecycle cost analysis to more asset types based on level of risk (e.g., structures). The next AMP should be linked to other financial documents within the City and Long Range Financial


Quality Element Comments Recommendations for Next AM Plan Plans. If the AMP indicates an investment of $25M per year reinvestment for renewal and maintenance of the existing asset base, this value should be compared to the Long Range Financial Plan, which may indicate that only $50M annually total is available for all asset classes, including growth.

13 Plan and Customer Expectations

The AM Plan is based largely on the physical mortality failure mode rather than on customer and other stakeholder requirements such as demand, levels of service, and cost of service (i.e., financial efficiency).

As the City incorporates demand and levels of service processes and performance indicators into its business practice, the AM Plan can identify specific failure modes that prevent meeting customer and other stakeholder levels of service.

14 Ability to Modify Plan

Section 4.3 discusses the impacts of insufficient funding of road pavements, as well as a preliminary investigation on the change in costs with a change in level of service for road pavement assets. This analysis is not performed for the other transportation assets in this AMP

As the City incorporates verification of projects and use of business cases, the City will develop the ability to identify the implications of not spending money originally requested and passing that information back through the stakeholder framework. The preliminary analysis for pavement assets can be expanded to other assets.

15 Links to Business Goals

Current business goals are linked to LOS and included in the AM Plan

As the City incorporates demand and levels of service processes and performance indicators into its business practice, the AM Plan can more clearly link to current business goals and objectives of the city as a whole, including cost to deliver various levels of service.

6.3 Monitoring & Review Procedures The recommendations for improvements to processes and data for the next Transportation AM Plan should be prioritized and scheduled for implementation. Monitoring of progress on implementation of the AM Improvement Program should be carried out using project management best practices, including review by senior management.

6.4 Performance Measures The Confidence Level Rating (CLR) should be used to measure the effectiveness of the above listed improvements to the City’s asset management practice. Reassessing the CLR can be done annually or could be performed as part of the next update to the Transportation AM Plan.

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | i

Appendices

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | ii

Appendix A – List of Acronyms & Abbreviations AM Asset Management

AMP Asset Management Plan

BCI Bridge Condition Index

BCRY Barrie-Collingwood Railway

BRE Business Risk Exposure

BSMP Bridge Safety Management Program

CLR Confidence Level Rating

CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System

DCRS Digital Condition Rating System

EEL Effective Economic Life

EPL Effective Physical Life

HIRA Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

HMEP Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme

IIMM International Infrastructure Management Manual

IRI International Roughness Index

KPI Key Performance Indicator

LCA Laser-Camera Array

LOS Level of Service

MMATMP Multi-Modal Active Transportation Master Plan

MPL Maximum Potential Life

MTO Ministry of Transportation

OGRA Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA)

OSIM Ontario’s Structure Inspection Manual

PCI Pavement Condition Index

TPM Transition probability matrix

SMS Safety Management Systems

V/C Volume-to-capacity ratio

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | iii

Appendix B – Risk Management Framework B.1 Overview

This section covers the risk management process being implemented by the City of Barrie and how this applies to current and future transportation activities. The objectives of risk management in the City are to provide:

Protection and continuity of the core business activities

Fulfillment of legal obligations

Safeguarding of passenger, public, employee and contractor health

Operation and protection of assets at the lowest cost

Environmental protection

Contingency planning for foreseeable emergency situations

Secure funding and protection of the balance sheet.

B.2 Risk Management Approach

The City’s risk management function fulfills an essential governance role, overseeing the organization’s management of risk. It provides guidance to ensure that appropriate processes exist to identify and manage business risks.

The management of risk is fundamental to achieving both organizational and related individual objectives. Risk management activities take various forms and although many people do not use the term “risk” when they undertake these activities, the concept of risk is central to what they are doing.

The City has developed a risk management framework consistent with the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) and ISO: 31000 Risk Management to ensure that risks throughout the business are managed and that risk management is performed on a consistent basis.

In 2012, HIRA was updated to a 6-point scale by the Province of Ontario. This AM Plan uses the previous HIRA 4-point scale for consistency purposes with the risk framework used across City of Barrie departments. The 6-point scale also places a lower emphasis on injuries and fatalities, which lowers the risk of the transportation assets in the context of asset management. This Appendix outlines the steps of the 6-point HIRA scale, and a comparison for pavement assets between the 6-point and 4-point approach is detailed in Section B.4.

B.3 Risk Management Process

The major steps of the risk management process are outlined below.

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | iv

Figure B-1 Risk Management Process

Step 1: Establish Context Establishing the context defines the basic parameters within which risks must be managed and sets the scope for the rest of the risk management process. All risks are reviewed in the context of the internal / external environment in which the City seeks to achieve its business objectives.

The context includes linking and identifying risks relative to:

Strategy and objectives (key for identifying risks) – also called value drivers

Risk types or categories for aggregated reporting (to senior management and Council)

Risk ownership assigned to senior management (to ensure responsibility and accounting for managing risks)

Where the risk occurs (location – business units, geographically and projects to generate risk registers per reporting entities)

Risk assessment criteria matrix to guide the consistent analysis and evaluation of the likelihood and consequences of risks, which provides the overall risk rating.

Step 2: Identify Risk Risk identification is a systematic and continuing process to maintain an up-to-date view of risks to achieving the City’s business objectives. The tools and techniques used to identify new risks are appropriate to the City’s business and include checklists, workshops, reports from subject matter experts, assessments based on review of data and records by experienced staff, and process and systems’ analysis.

The City operates a number of continuing programs which assist the risk identification process including:

Asset condition assessments

Assessments of asset performance.

The responsibility for management of each risk is assigned to the most appropriate person within the City.

The City maintains a number of information systems that are used to support documentation of identified risks in risk registers and to inform the risk management process.

Step 3: Analyze Risk Risk analysis is the process used to determine the nature and level of risk, and if the risk requires treatment. Risk analysis includes:

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | v

Consideration of risk causes / sources

The likelihood (probability) that the risk will occur with current controls in place and considering any completed mitigation actions

The consequences if all mitigations and controls fail and the risk develops

Reviewing possible positive (opportunities) and negative consequences of risks to the achievement of business objectives.

The assessment of the risk can be qualitative or quantitative.

The estimated level (or magnitude) of risk is expressed as a combination of its consequences and their likelihood. After the likelihood and consequence factors have been determined, the level of risk is calculated by multiplying the likelihood of occurrence and the consequence rating.

Risk Rating = the likelihood of an event occurring x the consequence of such an event

The final outcome is a risk rating. The risk rating enables definition between those risks that are significant and those that are of a lesser nature. Having established the comparative risk level applicable to individual risks, it is possible to rank those risks.

The likelihood of occurrence and the severity of consequences should be based on as much real data as possible, e.g. local knowledge or recorded events such as maintenance records and weather events. Some analysis may be required for verification.

During the evaluation process, current controls (measures that reduce the risk) and completed mitigation actions are considered. Any future planned actions should not be considered until complete. Risk should be considered in the context of the current position of the business and the risk to achieving its objectives.

Note that this risk mapping and the assessment of probability and consequence is based on the City of Barrie’s “Hazard Identification Risk Assessment” (HIRA) process.

Likelihood of Failure The likelihood both in percentage and as timeframes for the risk developing is shown in the table below.

Table B-1 Likelihood / Probability Ratings Table (HIRA)

Level Likelihood Probability Description P1 Rare < 0.01 Hazards with return periods > 100 years

P2 Very Unlikely > 0.01 & < 0.02 Occurs every 50 to 100 years and includes hazards that have not occurred but are reported to be more likely to occur in the near future

P3 Unlikely > 0.02 & < 0.10 Occurs every 20 to 50 years P4 Probable > 0.10 & < 0.50 Occurs every 5 to 20 years P5 Likely > 0.50 & < 1.00 Occurs >5 years P6 Almost Certain 1.00 Hazard occurs annually

Consequence of Failure The Risk Consequence Ratings Table below shows how the consequences are assessed in terms of the outcome of an event affecting objectives. The range of outcomes is classified into six categories, as follows.

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | vi

Social Impacts: The direct negative consequences of the occurrence of a hazard on the physical health of people. This category is further broken down into three groups: Fatalities, Injuries and Evacuations.

Property Damage: The direct negative consequences of the occurrence of a hazard on buildings, structures and other forms of property, such as crops.

Critical Infrastructure / Service Disruptions: The negative consequences of the occurrence of a hazard on the interdependent, interactive, interconnected networks of institutions, services, systems and processes that meet vital human needs, sustain the economy, protect public safety and security, and maintain continuity of and confidence in government.

Environmental Damage: The negative consequences of the occurrence of a hazard on the environment, including the soil, water, air and/or plants and animals.

Business / Financial Impact: The negative economic consequences of the occurrence of a hazard.

Psychosocial Impacts: The negative response of community or a subset of the community to a hazard caused by their perception of risk. This includes human responses such as self-evacuation, mass hysteria, hoarding and other potential undesirable responses.

Note: The social impacts category is further divided into the fatality rate, injury rate and evacuation rate. Since human impacts are often the most “jarring” result of an emergency and have an unquantifiable impact on the community, social impact was intentionally weighted higher than the other categories.

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | vii

Table B-2 Risk Consequence Ratings Table (HIRA)

Level Consequence Business / Financial

Social: Fatalities

Social: Injuries

Social: Evacuation

Property Damage

Critical Service Disruptions Environmental Psychosocial

0 None Not likely to disrupt business / financial activities

Not likely to result in fatalities

Not likely to result in injuries

Not likely to result in an evacuation shelter-in-place orders, or people stranded

Not likely to result in property damage

Not likely to disrupt critical infrastructure services

Not likely to result in environmental damage

Not likely to result in significant psychosocial impacts

1 Minor Could result in losses for a few businesses

Could result in fewer than five fatalities

Could injure fewer than 25 people

Could result in fewer than 100 people being evacuated, sheltered in-place or stranded

Could cause minor and mostly cosmetic damage

Could disrupt 1 critical infrastructure service

Could cause localized and reversible damage. Quick clean up possible.

2 Moderate Could result in losses for an industry

Could result in 5 to 10 fatalities

Could injure 25 to 100 people

Could result in 100 to 500 people being evacuated, sheltered-in-place or stranded.

Could cause localized severe damage (a few buildings destroyed)

Could disrupt 2 to 3 critical infrastructure services

Could cause major but reversible damage. Full clean up difficult.

Could cause significant impacts, e.g. limited panic, hoarding, self evacuation, long-term psychosocial impacts

3 Severe Could result in 10 to 50 fatalities

Could injure +100 people

Could result in more than 500 people being evacuated, sheltered in-place or stranded

Could cause widespread severe damage (many buildings destroyed)

Could disrupt more than 3 critical infrastructure services

Could cause severe and irreversible environmental damage. Full clean up not possible.

Could cause widespread impacts, e.g. mass panic, widespread hoarding, self evacuation, long-term psychological impacts

4 Catastrophic Could result in +50 fatalities

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | viii

The total consequence value can be obtained by adding the values obtained from each of the consequence categories, as shown in the table below.

Table B-3 Total Risk Consequence Table (HIRA)

Level Risk Significance

Categories Total

C1 Minor 1 to 4 C2 Slight 5 to 6 C3 Moderate 7 to 8 C4 Severe 9 to 10 C5 Very Severe 11 to 12 C6 Catastrophic 13+

Changing Risk The HIRA document includes a “Changing Risk” variable that may be added as a multiplier to the Risk Rate formula above to make projections of the risk in the near future rather than relying solely on the likelihood and consequences of past events (i.e., Risk Rating = Likelihood x Consequence x Changing Risk). This additional variable was not included in the AM Plan.

Once the impact has been ranked according to the relative risk level it poses, it is then possible to target treating the risk exposure, by beginning with the highest risks and identifying the potential mitigation measures.

The outcome of this step provides an initial view of the significance of the identified risks. Particularly with simple scoring schemes, risks can be assigned a too high or too low significance on the first pass. The next step is designed to review this assignment and adjust it, where necessary.

Step 4: Evaluate Risk Risk evaluation is the process of comparing the results of the risk analysis to determine whether a risk of a particular magnitude is tolerable or acceptable.

To assess the magnitude of the risk, the risk class is assessed. This is achieved by scoring the risk likelihood and consequence on the risk scoring tables shown below. Likelihood is plotted on the X-axis and consequence on the Y-axis.

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | ix

Table B-4 Risk Scoring Table

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | x

The higher the risk class (representing the level of risk), the greater the priority afforded to treating the risk. Treatments in Extreme group of risks should be immediate. Extreme and High risks should be continuously monitored for changes in risk rating. The Legend to the Risk Scoring Table above outlines the typical actions for each class of risk.

Step 5: Treat Risk Risk treatment involves selecting one or more options for treating risks and implementing those options. The selection process should include a cost / benefit analysis to ensure that the solution is cost effective.

The risk owner (with authority and accountability to manage the risk) will be responsible for development of appropriate risk treatment plans.

In some cases, responsibility for development will be transferred between City teams (e.g. major project requirements are transferred from Operations to Infrastructure). Where this occurs, the transfer of responsibility should be clearly documented and associated reporting responsibilities should also be transferred. The risk treatment options are shown below:

Tolerate: Accept the risk without treatment. This would normally only be the case where treatment is not cost effective, in which case robust contingency plans should be developed and implemented. This option may be taken in the case of “run to failure” assets. Where the risk will not be treated, then the decision to tolerate the risk should be clearly documented. The position should be monitored and significant changes reported.

Terminate: Cease the activity. This is rarely an option for a transportation service provider.

Transfer: The risk is transferred to other parties, e.g. as part of a contract. As with the termination option, this is rarely an option for a transportation service provider.

Treat: Develop one or more options for modifying the risk. Frequently, a number of stages are required over time to provide the maximum mitigation for the risk, e.g.:

− Short term: Temporary operational treatments to stabilize the position, e.g. maintenance programs to hold the current state

− Medium term: May include studies into options for a permanent solution, refurbishments and some smaller scale replacement projects

− Long term: Major replacement project.

The objective is for the treatment to become more robust and sustainable over time.

Expectations regarding how a treatment will reduce likelihood and consequence need to be carefully reviewed. A wide range of treatment / mitigation actions are continually implemented across the City, and the result of these actions should be considered when deciding on new or additional treatments.

On completion of the risk reduction treatments, the risk class should be reassessed and the risk register be updated accordingly. In addition, appropriate contingency and incident response plans must be maintained for risks where the consequence remains high, regardless of treatment.

Step 6: Monitor, Review and Report Regular monitoring, review and reporting of risks is an important component of the City risk management framework as it ensures new risks and changes to existing risks are identified and managed, and that risk treatment plans are developed and implemented.

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | xi

The risk registers are the records of all risk-related information. Risks will be added to risk registers, appropriate risk owners assigned, and all risk treatments will be referenced.

Risks that have been treated will be reviewed and the likelihood and consequence reassessed. Where the risk has been completely mitigated, it will be closed and archived (removed from the risk register, but clear records of the risk and its treatment will be maintained).

All risks held in the risk registers will be assigned a risk owner who has authority and responsibility for managing and reporting progress towards completion of the risk treatments for the specific risks.

Monitoring and reporting of risks is should be completed in accordance with the table below.

Table B-5 Reporting, Monitoring and Review Regime

Level Risk Significance Responsibility for Review Report to Monitoring &

Reporting Frequency C1 Minor Manager Departmental Director Annually C2 Slight Manager Departmental Director Annually C3 Moderate Departmental Director Divisional General Manager Monthly C4 Severe Departmental Director Divisional General Manager Monthly C5 Very Severe Divisional General Manager Chief Administrative Officer Quarterly C6 Catastrophic Chief Administrative Officer Executive Management Team Annually

The two-monthly management reporting process should note any significant changes to the classification of a component of an existing aggregated risk, i.e. any changes in profile compared to its group.

Chief officers and business unit managers will then complete reviews focusing on changes in the risk profile.

New risks will be classified and any with Extreme risk classifications will be presented to the Executive Leadership Team for consideration before being added to the risk register.

The risk owner at lower management level, who is responsible for the individual (not aggregated) risk, will be assigned responsibility for reviews at appropriate intervals utilizing the detail provided by supporting management information systems, and will advise the appropriate business unit manager of any resultant changes to risk profiles.

B.4 Risk Analysis for Pavement Assets (6-point HIRA)

Major Asset Process Criteria 1 Total

CoF Total of

CoF Categories

Social: Fatalities

Social: Injuries

Property Damage

Critical Service

Disruptions

Pavement Arterial / Parkway

Emergency Route or provides access over Hwy 400* C4 10 2 2 3 3

None C4 9 2 2 2 3

Major Collector Emergency Route or provides access over Hwy 400* C4 9 2 2 2 3

None C3 8 1 2 2 3

Minor Collector Emergency Route or provides access over Hwy 400* C3 7 1 1 2 3

None C2 6 1 1 2 2

Local Emergency Route or provides access over Hwy 400* C2 6 1 1 1 3

None C1 4 1 1 1 1

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | xii

Table B-6 Likelihood / Probability Ratings Table

Level Likelihood Probability Condition P1 Rare < 0.01 Very Good P2 Very Unlikely > 0.01 & < 0.02 Good P3 Unlikely > 0.02 & < 0.10 Fair P4 Probable > 0.10 & < 0.50 Poor P5 Likely > 0.50 & < 1.00 Very Poor > 5 years life remaining P6 Almost Certain 1.00 Very Poor < 5 years life remaining

The following shows the risk maps for the pavement assets using the 6-point and 4-point HIRA scale.

Risk Map: HIRA 6-Point System for Pavement Assets (without Edge Treatment), $561.8M

Risk Map: HIRA 4-Point System for Pavement Assets (without Edge Treatment), $561.8M

As previously indicated, the 6-point scale places a lower emphasis on injuries and fatalities, which lowers the risk of the transportation service assets in the context of asset management.


P6 $206.3 $26.8 $6.2 $2.6 $0 $0 P6 36.7% 4.8% 1.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

P5 $23.2 $14.9 $19.2 $61.2 $0 $0 P5 4.1% 2.7% 3.4% 10.9% 0.0% 0.0%

P4 $16.3 $3.9 $8.8 $72.5 $0 $0 P4 2.9% 0.7% 1.6% 12.9% 0.0% 0.0%

P3 $12.6 $3.3 $4.7 $32.7 $0 $0 P3 2.2% 0.6% 0.8% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0%

P2 $8.7 $1.3 $9.1 $25.0 $0 $0 P2 1.5% 0.2% 1.6% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0%

P1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.5 $0 $0 P1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

C1 C2 C3 C 4 C5 C6 C1 C2 C3 C 4 C5 C6

PoF

CoF CoF

PoF


P4 $21.3 $17.8 $30.8 $30.1 P4 3.8% 3.2% 5.5% 5.4%

P3 $16.3 $12.5 $42.1 $30.5 P3 2.9% 2.2% 7.5% 5.4%

P2 $23.9 $32.9 $44.8 $17.0 P2 4.3% 5.9% 8.0% 3.0%

P1 $207.6 $31.6 $1.5 $1.1 P1 37.0% 5.6% 0.3% 0.2%

C1 C2 C3 C 4 C1 C2 C3 C 4

PoF

PoF

CoF CoF

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan 2015 – Transportation | xiii

GHD Inc.

11 Allstate Parkway, Suite 310 Markham Ontario L3R 9T8 T: 905-752-4300 F: 905-752-4301 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2015

This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Document Status

Rev No.

Author Reviewer Approved for Issue Name Signature Name Signature Date

Rev 3 Thomas Uda/ Donna Querengesser

Aman Singh

Aman Singh

Sept 2, 2015

Rev 4 Thomas Uda/ Donna Querengesser

Aman Singh

Aman Singh

January 8, 2016

City of Barrie Hall/Asset-Management... · 2018-02-01 · and security risks Road Pavement...

Documents

Transcript of City of Barrie Hall/Asset-Management... · 2018-02-01 · and security risks Road Pavement...