Complete Workshop Proceedings

Pavement Preservation Technology Implementation

1.0 Pavement Preservation Lead States Team. The Pavement Preservation Team as established in 1996, includes representatives from five AASHTO member departments, Federal Highway Administration and industry. The participating member departments are Georgia, Minnesota, Michigan, Texas and Wisconsin. A complete listing of participants appears in Appendix 3.

2.0 Team’s Mission and Strategies. The Team’s mission as documented in 1996 and 1997 proceedings continues to be:

"Promote pavement preservation philosophies, programs and technologies and support their implementation."

To accomplish its mission, the Team conceived three strategies. They are:

3.0 Team’s Accomplishments. The Team’s accomplishment report is covered in the subsequent sections.

3.1 Protecting our Pavements Video. Over 1500 copies of the preventive maintenance video featuring the CEOs from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Kansas were sent out under cover memo from the Executive Director of AASHTO and FHWA dated April 3rd to FHWA field offices, State DOTs, LTAP centers, and various industry groups. The video also featured the former Director of the FHWA’s Office of Engineering. Interest in this video continues very strong. For copies call Larry Galehouse, MiDOT, at 517-322-3315 or Jim Sorenson, HNG-21, at 202-366-1333.

3.2 Forum for the Future. The representatives from FHWA, State DOTs, and Industry met on May 7-8 in Kansas City to develop and establish consensus with the format, agenda, purpose and intended audience for a national workshop, Forum for the Future. The purpose of this important workshop is to identify roadblocks, barriers, and obstacles for future improvements in pavement preservation and to document ideas, research needs, and implementation priorities in a consensus road map. A 2-day technical seminar will also be held following the Forum.

It was agreed that the Foundation for Pavement Research and Maintenance Rehabilitation (FPRMR) will be contracted to provide coordination and support for this meeting. The Forum is scheduled for October 26-28 in Kansas City, MO. As of September 22, 49 persons have registered for the Forum and 78 for the subsequent Midwestern Pavement Preservation Seminar. It appears our goal of 100 to 120 (maximum) will be met. Questions should be directed to Jose Garcia at 202-366-2226 or Mike Voth at 785-267-7286.

3.3 NHI Preventive Maintenance Short Course. The technical panel made up of representatives from State DOT, Industry, and FHWA convened on May 19, 1998 to evaluate the proposals for the joint FHWA/Industry short course. A consultant was selected to develop the training course and present one pilot. The Preventive Maintenance Expert Task Group (PM ETG) meeting on the joint FHWA/Industry NHI short course was held on July 22nd after the AASHTO SCOM meeting. The ETG attendance consisted of a good blend of government and industry. David Peshkin and Don Geoffroy of Applied Pavement Technology, Inc. briefed the ETG on the proposed course outline and tasks. The meeting adjourned with the attendees reaching consensus on the contents of the outline and basic course structure. According to the targeted schedule, the pilot should be available late this year or in January-February 99 time frame, but we are working with the contractor to accelerate completion. The regular delivery of the course will be covered by a separate Task Order. This training course will make the case for preventive maintenance and pavement preservation programming for mid-level managers. In addition, it will provide an overview on effective preventive maintenance techniques and their cost effectiveness. For more information, questions should be directed to Bob McQuistion, HEO-OH, at 614-280-6848.

3.4 Preventive Maintenance Techniques Short Course. The follow on preservation short course will illustrate in detail the selection, materials, consideration, and construction operations necessary for quality preventive maintenance treatments. It will be intended for field practitioners for both the owner and industry. An RFP is under development for this course at this time. It will be reviewed and evaluated by ETG. It is expected that the RFP will be out for contract late this fall. Questions should be directed to Jim Sorenson at 202-366-1333.

3.5 FHWA Continues Support of Foundation. The FHWA added $10K to the work order with the FPRMR to continue support of the Preventive Maintenance ETG and their activities. These funds will allow the FPRMR to support PM ETG activities well into 1999. For more information on the FPRMR contact John Fiegel, Executive Director, at 202-857-1160 or Bill Ballou, KOCH Materials at 913-823-7645.

3.6 Workshops, Seminars, and Presentations. Well over 30 workshops, seminars, and presentations have been supported by FHWA, Industry, and members of the Lead State Team. Feedback has been very positive with several States and local agencies now considering the establishment of pavement preservation programs supported with dedicated budgeting. FHWA will continue to support the Lead State efforts in this area with commitments from both industry and the PM ETG. Questions should be directed to Jim Sorenson, Highway Operations Division, at 202-366-1333.

3.7 Summary - Status of Action Items.

4.0 Lessons Learned. What worked and what did not work.

4.1 What Worked. The Lead States Program has made a valuable and positive contribution towards the SHRP Technology Implementation. Some noteworthy effects have been:

• It refocused thinking - critical review.
• It gave credibility to products.
• It made team members better champions.
• It brought about the TOP STAFF commitment.
• It moved concepts quickly.
• It brought states together.
• It helped implement products.
• Accountability of efforts as a requirement was positive.
• Sunset date on implementation effort resulted in fast tracking of technologytransfer.
• It gave broad national perspective.
• It provided funding.
• It provided new ways to communicate.
• It provided an opportunity for industry to participate.
• It provided facilitators for efficient and focused discussions.
• Annual meetings helped.
• Participation of team leaders in TF meetings helped.
• Several teams working through similar process gave opportunity to compare notes and learn from each other.
• Process worked well for good products.

4.2 What Did Not Work. As noted in section 4.1, a number of positive results were produced by the Lead States Program. At the same time, there were factors that produced difficulties in the rapid implementation of products. These were:

• Not a clear idea of "product".
• Insufficient resources to "package products".
• Doesn’t work for product not ready for promotion.
• Lack of industry participation.
• Over zealous criticism of team’s efforts by the Task Force.
• Difficulty in getting participation from additional states.
• Not a wide spread knowledge of effort within agencies of SHRP and the Lead State effort.

5.0 Learning from Experience - What Would the Team do Differently?

• Provide up-front planning and background information to participants.
• Work to get better geographical representation of participants.
• Provide marketing/PR professionals for each team - package products.
• Make program a short term effort.
• More discipline in selection of team members; should have been better informed as to roles and responsibilities.
• More clearly defined expectations of Lead State.
• Someone else should handle funding/resources.
• Assign staff support to teams.

6.0 Measuring Impact of Team’s Work. The Team proposes to take steps to measure its effectiveness. They are:

• Conduct a new survey to all states (develop an update from the original survey; decide who is the appropriate person to mail to within the states).
• The Team needs to develop and distribute appropriate questionnaire by next year’s meeting.
• Do an industry survey - include ACPA.
• Review and publish cost/benefit date of states when available.

7.0 Recognition of New Issues. The Team recognizes that new issues that have engaged since it’s (Team’s) formation must be considered. These are:

• Identify/review new techniques/products.
• Encourage states to use/evaluate new techniques/products.
• Implement new research protocols.
• Recommend SPS-3 sites be evaluated to determine which should be monitored in future.
• Recommend dropping SPS-4 sites.
• Publish disclaimer on SPS3 and 4 report findings.
• Provide information to be posted to web site and promote the site.
• Coordinate with LTAP Centers, T2, etc.

8.0 Estimated Budget FYS 1999-2000. The Team submitted the following budget:

9.0 Team’s Phase-out Plans. The phase-out plan for the Team can be summarized as follows:

• Find a home for Pavement Preservation in an appropriate AASHTO committee.
• AASHTO and FHWA should continue partnership with FPRMR and ACPA in promoting pavement preservation.
• Needs to become a part of AASHTO Asset Management Task Force.
• Establish Application Protocols for Pavement Preservation.
• Prepare an Executive Close Out Report to include:
  • Lessons Learned
  • Implementation Statement
  • Examples of Pavement Preservation Program
• AASHTO SHRP Task Force should incorporate/mainstream all lead state initiatives into existing AASHTO Committees.
• Phase-out presentation to SCOH.