128.2 Preventive Maintenance Projects (1R and 2R)

Preventive maintenance projects usually consist of asphalt overlays with little to no additional work and generally fall into one of two categories:

• Resurfacing (1R): Contract Leveling Course (CLC). The contract leveling course program is intended to provide a smooth riding surface for lower volume roadways with existing low-type asphalt surfaces.
• Resurfacing and restoration (2R): Thin Hot Mix Asphalt Overlay. The highest type alternative available in the pavement preventive maintenance program for flexible pavements. Thin overlays protect the pavement structure, reduce the rate of pavement deterioration, correct surface discontinuities, reduce permeability and improve the ride quality of the pavement. A minor amount of structural enhancement can also be provided with this treatment.

Although 1R and 2R projects are eligible for federal funding, no conceptual study report is required. However, since there may be no additional activity in the project area for a number of years, the preventive maintenance project core team should audit the corridor to identify any safety concerns involving alignment, intersection sight distance, roadside obstacles, and other concerns outlined in SAFER. The findings of the project core team should be documented but need not be in a formal report.

If a safety concern is identified during the corridor audit, then the safety concern should be addressed if the project budget and scope can reasonably accommodate it. During the scoping of 1R and 2R projects, in evaluating whether a physical condition constitutes a safety concern, the designer should consider guidance provided in the Roadside Design Guide (RDG), if any, and the site specific characteristics of the roadway at issue, including the location of the object or area in relation to the roadway, traffic volume, traffic speed, geometry, and the crash history (including severity) involving the roadside object or area.

Similarly, if a safety enhancement opportunity is identified, then it may also be considered by the core team when scoping a 1R and 2R project. If the enhancement, as stated before, can be reasonably accommodated in the project then it should be done; however, if the safety enhancement cannot reasonably be accommodated in the scope of the project then it can be deferred and completed with other department resources or included in a programmed future project.

While it is not necessary to provide design exceptions for non-standard items throughout the scoping process, each safety concern should be documented.

Horizontal and Vertical Alignment

In general, the existing alignment is acceptable unless there is evidence of a site-specific safety concern related to horizontal curvature. The evidence may consist of:

• Pattern of curve-related crashes
• Skid marks
• Scarred trees
• Substantial edge-rutting
• Complaints from residents or local police
• Prevailing speeds 20 mph higher than posted speed

Intersection Sight Distance

In general, the existing intersection sight distance is acceptable unless there is evidence of a site-specific safety concern related to intersection sight distance. Where feasible, intersection sight triangles should be cleared of obstructions as much as the scope of the project or routine maintenance will allow.

Roadside Design

While it is desirable that roadsides immediately adjacent to the traveled way be free of fixed objects and non-traversable terrain features (see EPG 231.2 Clear Zones), many existing roads were not designed or constructed with Roadside Design Guide considerations in mind. The clear zone concept in the Roadside Design Guide was later developed in the 1960s. As indicated above, roadside safety enhancement is only rarely within the scope of resurfacing (1R) or resurfacing and restoration (2R) projects, as these projects are focused on maintaining the surface condition of the roadway.