Bay Area Pavement Quality Only Fair

Little Movement in Three-Year Average

OAKLAND, Calif., Dec. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Pavement conditions on the Bay
Area's local streets and roads earn only a "fair" grade, according to a new
report released today by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),
with the typical stretch of asphalt being seriously worn and likely to require
rehabilitation soon. Pavement conditions on the region's more than 40,000 lane
miles of local streets and roads have been largely stable for the past several
years, with the average pavement condition index (PCI) score over the
2004-2006 period rising a single point to a score of 64 out of a maximum
possible 100 points from a three-year moving average of 63 points in
2003-2005.
"It's encouraging to see we're at least holding the line against the wear
and tear caused by traffic, weather and time," said Napa County Supervisor and
MTC Chair Bill Dodd. "But there's a lot of work still to be done. For quite a
while now, the average PCI score has been hovering close to 60, which is the
point when pavement begins going downhill fast. We have to invest in
preventive maintenance to make sure our good roads stay that way, and in
rehabilitation to bring the rest of our pavement up to snuff."
Dodd noted that the three-year moving average represents a departure for
MTC, which previously reported year-to-year changes in pavement quality
statistics. "The three-year average gives us a clearer picture, since not all
jurisdictions submit their data at the same time, and a single project can
cause a huge jump in the annual PCI score for a small city with just a few
miles of streets."
MTC also has revised several of the categories it uses to describe
pavement conditions. PCI scores of 90 or higher continue to be deemed
"excellent." These are newly built or resurfaced streets that show little or
no distress. Pavement that shows only slight or moderate distress, and
requires mostly preventive maintenance, is now characterized as "very good" if
it has a PCI score in the 80 to 89 range or "good" if the PCI ranges from
70 to 79. The "very good" category previously included cities and counties
with PCI scores of 75 to 89, while the "good" classification ranged from
60 to 74.
Streets with PCI scores in the "fair" (60-69) range are becoming worn to
the point where rehabilitation may be needed to prevent rapid deterioration.
Because major repairs cost five to 10 times more than routine maintenance,
these streets are at an especially critical stage. Roadways with PCI scores of
50 to 59 are now considered "at-risk," while those with PCI scores of 25 to 49
are deemed "poor." These roads require major rehabilitation or reconstruction.
Pavement with a PCI score below 25 is considered "failed." These roads are
difficult to drive on and need reconstruction.
MTC previously categorized as "fair" those streets and roads with PCI
scores of 45 to 59. Pavement with PCI scores of 25 to 44 was considered
"poor" and those below 25 were described as "very poor."
"Not surprisingly," commented Dodd, "the highest PCI scores tend to be
found in suburban communities with lots of new streets. But outside the new
suburbs, there are thousands of miles of streets and roads with PCI scores
that have fallen below 60, especially in older communities and rural areas."
No Bay Area city or county scored in the excellent range for 2004-2006.
The top-ranked jurisdiction is the Contra Costa County city of Brentwood,
where the three-year average PCI on local streets averaged 85, up two points
from 2003-2005. The lowest-ranked pavement was found in unincorporated Sonoma
County, which recorded a three-year average PCI score of 44. The San Mateo
County city of Colma logged the biggest improvement in 2006, with its
three-year average PCI score jumping nine points to 67. The largest decline
came in the Contra Costa County city of Orinda, where the three year-average
PCI score fell to 46 last year from 56 points in 2003-2005.
"This shows just how urgent the need for additional funding really is,"
explained Orinda City Councilmember and MTC Commissioner Amy Worth. "The state
gasoline tax traditionally has been the biggest source of funds for local
street and road maintenance. But that tax has been the same 18 cents per
gallon since 1994, and its purchasing power erodes each year. I don't have to
go very far to see how devastating this decline in funding has been to local
governments all around the state."
"Local agencies have had to do more with less," remarked Sui Tan of MTC's
Regional Streets and Roads Program, noting that regionwide PCI scores have
stabilized despite shrinking revenues. "Cities and counties are choosing to
invest in preventive maintenance and other pavement preservation programs. But
local governments can't stretch the same dollar forever. So PCI scores are
likely to begin dropping if there's no change in the funding picture."
MTC's Regional Streets and Roads Program last month presented its Most
Improved Award to the San Mateo County town of Hillsborough, which recorded
the biggest year-to-year jump in PCI scores from 2005 to 2006 and boosted its
three-year average PCI score to 64 from 57 in the 2003-2005 period. MTC's Best
All-Around Pavement Management Program Award went to the City of Santa Clara,
which consistently registers PCI scores in the mid-80s range.
MTC is the transportation planning, funding and coordinating agency for
the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.

Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for Bay Area Jurisdictions

3-Year Moving Average
Total
Lane
Jurisdiction County Miles 2003 2004 2005 2006

Very Good (PCI = 80 - 89)

Brentwood Contra Costa 372 82 85 83 85
Los Altos Santa Clara 220 83 84 84 85*
Contra Costa County Contra Costa 1,299 86 86 85 83
Oakley Contra Costa 205 87 86 86 83
City of Santa Clara Santa Clara 605 86 85 84 83
Foster City San Mateo 120 79 79 80 82
Gilroy Santa Clara 243 73 78 79 82*
Dixon Solano 129 70 77 79 81
Belvedere Marin 24 82 83 81 81*
Sunnyvale Santa Clara 515 84 84 83 80
Dublin Alameda 228 81 80 79 80
City of Sonoma Sonoma 67 74 77 77 80*

Good (PCI = 70 - 79)

Livermore Alameda 607 75 77 78 79*
Concord Contra Costa 705 78 79 78 78
Vacaville Solano 527 73 74 76 78
Campbell Santa Clara 218 78 79 79 78
Fairfield Solano 655 80 79 78 77*
American Canyon Napa 92 77 77 76 76*
Emeryville Alameda 47 69 69 73 76
Union City Alameda 323 NA NA 76 76
Clayton Contra Costa 89 70 69 72 75*
Hercules Contra Costa 122 66 71 72 75
Newark Alameda 247 76 77 77 75
Santa Clara County Santa Clara 1,545 73 71 74 75*
Danville Contra Costa 317 75 76 75 74
Mountain View Santa Clara 329 75 76 75 74
Pleasanton Alameda 491 65 69 71 74
Redwood City San Mateo 353 74 74 74 74
Los Altos Hills Santa Clara 108 71 73 73 74*
San Ramon Contra Costa 366 74 74 74 74
Windsor Sonoma 157 76 74 75 74*
Corte Madera Marin 63 65 70 71 73*
Cloverdale Sonoma 53 67 67 68** 72**
Los Gatos Santa Clara 218 69 68 70 72*
Walnut Creek Contra Costa 460 NA NA NA 72(1,2)
Pinole Contra Costa 118 75 74 73 71*
Morgan Hill Santa Clara 248 72 69 71 71*
Antioch Contra Costa 590 72 71 71 70
Benicia Solano 183 70 71 70** 70**
Daly City San Mateo 255 70 70 70 70*
Fremont Alameda 1,044 72 72 71 70
Saratoga Santa Clara 281 65 67 67 70
Milpitas Santa Clara 265 69 70 69 70

3-Year Moving Average
Total
Lane
Jurisdiction County Miles 2003 2004 2005 2006

Fair (PCI = 60 - 69)

Cupertino Santa Clara 303 70 69 69 69*
Fairfax Marin 53 58 62 65 69
Sausalito Marin 52 61 65 67** 69**
Alameda County Alameda 1,000 75 69 70 69
Burlingame San Mateo 163 65 66 66 68
Rohnert Park Sonoma 200 69 70 70 68*
Atherton San Mateo 107 68 70 68 68*
Hayward Alameda 616 65 66 66 68
San Carlos San Mateo 174 71 68 67 68*
Piedmont Alameda 78 67 67 67 67
South San Francisco San Mateo 299 70 67 68 67*
San Pablo Contra Costa 104 64 65 65 67*
Sebastopol Sonoma 61 58 63 63 67
Colma San Mateo 20 50 49 58 67
Yountville Napa 16 66 68 67 67*
Brisbane San Mateo 59 69 69 68 66
Cotati Sonoma 45 68 69 68** 66**
Healdsburg Sonoma 89 66 66 66** 66**
Pittsburg Contra Costa 312 58 63 63 65
Monte Sereno Santa Clara 31 52 53 59 65
Novato Marin 293 66 65 64 65
San Mateo County San Mateo 627 63 63 64 65
Lafayette Contra Costa 203 57 56 60 64
Pacifica San Mateo 187 72 71 68 64
San Francisco San Francisco 2,060 651 651 651 641
Hillsborough San Mateo 164 50 57 57 64
Mill Valley Marin 115 62 64 64 64
Santa Rosa Sonoma 1,082 65 65 64 64
Portola Valley San Mateo 71 68 67 66** 64**
Ross Marin 22 62 62 61 64
Tiburon Marin 67 61 60 61 64*
City of Alameda Alameda 313 68 67 66 63
San Jose Santa Clara 4,058 67 66 65 63
San Rafael Marin 332 63 64 63 63*
Albany Alameda 59 59 60 60** 62**
Berkeley Alameda 453 63 65 63 62*
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 242 61 60 62 62
San Bruno San Mateo 178 64 61 62 62*
San Leandro Alameda 388 63 64 63 62
Woodside San Mateo 97 64 64 63 62
Menlo Park San Mateo 199 58 59 61 62
Belmont San Mateo 135 62 62 61 61
Moraga Contra Costa 112 61 63 62 61
City of San Mateo San Mateo 406 55 55 58 61*
East Palo Alto San Mateo 80 62 63 63 60
Petaluma Sonoma 376 64 64 63 60
Millbrae San Mateo 125 63 62 62** 60**

3-Year Moving Average
Total
Lane
Jurisdiction County Miles 2003 2004 2005 2006

At-Risk (PCI = 50 - 59)

San Anselmo Marin 80 61 61 60 59
St. Helena Napa 51 57 60 60 58
Solano County Solano 942 60 59 59 58
Martinez Contra Costa 236 61 60 58 57
Calistoga Napa 28 63 59 58 57
Oakland Alameda 1,974 571 571 551 561
Half Moon Bay San Mateo 56 55 55 56** 55**
Napa County Napa 876 59 59 57** 54**
Vallejo Solano 642 54 54 54 54*
El Cerrito Contra Costa 138 58 60 57 53
Suisun City Solano 145 61 58 56 53
City of Napa Napa 451 55 54 53 52
Larkspur Marin 62 55 55 53 51
Rio Vista Solano 45 60 57 55 51

Poor (PCI = 25 - 49)

Marin County Marin 846 53 52 50 48
Richmond Contra Costa 547 53 50 49 46
Orinda Contra Costa 192 74 60 56 46*
Sonoma County Sonoma 2,718 47 46 45 44

No Data

Palo Alto Santa Clara No Data

Regional 41,345 63 63 63 64

Notes:
Where "No Data" or "NA" is indicated, the jurisdiction does not use MTC's
StreetSaver(R) program, or has not submitted a database in over four years.
* Three-year moving average score is an estimate based on inspections
done in 2005.
** Three-year moving average score is an estimate based on inspections
done in 2004.
1 PCI has been correlated from an alternative condition scale to the PCI
scale.
2 This is the first year of reporting by Walnut Creek. No average was
computed.

SOURCE Metropolitan Transportation Commission

John Goodwin, +1-510-817-5862, or Randy Rentschler, +1-510-817-5780, both of
Metropolitan Transportation Commission