Pavement Performance and Life‐Cycle Cost Analysis
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 117, Issue 1
Abstract
The current practice of life‐cycle cost evaluation for pavements does not take into account the differences in overall pavement serviceability performance among the alternatives considered. The solution derived from the evaluation may not be the most desirable to road users and the highway agency concerned. The need to consider pavement performance in assessing the merits of different design, maintenance, and rehabilitation strategies, together with the usual agency and user considerations, is highlighted. Two approaches for cost quantification of different pavement performance levels are suggested. One approach makes use of a quantitative performance measure, called the pavement‐performance quality index, to compare the different overall pavement performances of various strategies. The other approach relies on establishing a relationship between quantitative benefits and pavement serviceability values. For each approach, the analytical framework for incorporating pavement‐performance considerations into life‐cycle cost analysis is outlined.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures. (1986). Am. Assoc. of State Highway and Transp. Officials, Washington, D.C.
2.
Berger, L., and Greenstein, J. (1985). “A simple socioeconomic methodology for road improvement.” Proc. North Am. Pavement Mgmt. Conf., Ministry of Transportation (Canada)/Federal Highway Administration, 2, 5.102–5.113.
3.
Carey, W. N., Jr., and Irick, R. E. (1960). “The pavement serviceability‐performance concept.” Highway Research Bulletin 250, Highway Res. Board, Washington, D.C.
4.
Claffey, P. J. (1971). “Running costs of motor vehicles as affected by road design and traffic.” NCHRP Report III, Highway Res. Board, Washington, D.C.
5.
Cox, L. A. J. (1986). “Theory of regulatory benefit assessment: Economic and expressed preference approaches.” Benefit assessment: The state of the art, J. D. Bentkover, V. T. Covello, and J. Mumpower, eds. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 85–159.
6.
Cummings, R. G., Cox, L. A., Jr., and Freeman, A. M. III. (1986). “General methods for benefits assessment.” Benefits assessment: The state of the art, J. D. Bentkover, V. T. Covello, and J. Mumpower, eds., D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 161–191.
7.
Fwa, T. F., and Sinha, K. C. (1986). “Routine maintenance and pavement performance.” J. Transp. Engrg., ASCE, 112(4), 329–344.
8.
Fwa, T. F., and Sinha, K. C. (1987). “Effects of maintenance on pavement performance.” Proc. 2nd North American Conf. on Managing Pavements, Ministry of Transportation (Canada)/Federal Highway Administration, 2, 2.361–2.372.
9.
Fwa, T. F., and Sinha, K. C. (1989). “Value quantification of pavement performance—Survey data Part I.” Survey Report, Transp. and Urban Engrg., School of Civ. Engrg., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Ind.
10.
Garg, A., and Horowitz, A. (1987). Establishing relationships between pavement roughness and perceptions of ride quality and acceptability. Report prepared for Wisconsin Dept. of Transp., Madison, Wisc.
11.
Haas, R., and Hudson, W. R. (1978). Pavement management systems. McGraw‐Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y.
12.
The highway design and maintenance model: Capabilities and applications. (1987). The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
13.
Kher, R., Phang, W. A., and Haas, R. (1976). “Economic analysis elements in pavement design.” Transp. Res. Rec., 572, 1–14.
14.
Kikukawa, S., and Anzaki, Y. (1987). “Present situation and prospects of pavement maintenance management system in Japan.” Proc. 22nd North American Conf. on Managing Pavements, Ministry of Transportation (Canada)/Federal Highway Administration, 1, 1.403–1.414.
15.
Kulkarni, R. B. (1984). “Life‐cycle costing of paved Alaskan highways.” Transp. Res. Rec., 997, 20–27.
16.
Lemmerman, J. H. (1984). “Quick benefit‐cost procedure for evaluating proposed highway projects.” Transp. Res. Rec., 984, 11–22.
17.
“Life cycle cost analysis of pavements.” (1985). NCHRP Systhesis 122, Transp. Res. Board, Washington, D.C.
18.
Manual on user benefit analysis of highway and bus‐transit improvements. (1977). Am. Assoc. of State Highway and Transp. Officials, Washington, D.C.
19.
McFarland, W. F. (1972). “Benefit analysis for pavement design systems.” Research Report 123‐13, Texas Highway Dept./Texas Transp. Inst. of Texas A & M Univ./Ctr. for Highway Res. of the Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
20.
Pavement management guide. (1977). Roads and Transp. Assoc. of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
21.
“Pavement management systems.” (1987). Road Transport Research Report, Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, Paris, France.
22.
Pearman, A. D., and Button, K. J. (1984). “Economic analysis of highway investment: Recent developments in Great Britain.” Transp. Res. Rec., 984, 39–42.
23.
Winfrey, R. (1969). Economic analysis for highways. Int. Textbook Co., Scranton, Pa.
24.
Witkowski, J. M. (1983). “Methods used to evaluate highway improvements.” J. Transp. Engrg. J., ASCE, 109 (6), 769–784.
25.
Zaniewski, J. P., Elkins, G. E., and Flanagan, P. R. (1985). “An algorithm for user cost calculations.” Proc. North American Pavement Management Conf., Ministry of Transportation (Canada)/Federal Highway Administration, 1, 4.72–4.83.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 117 • Issue 1 • January 1991
Pages: 33 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jan 1, 1991
Published in print: Jan 1991
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.