Where Did We Get This Data?

One of the goals of this project has been to identify averages or standards that can demonstrate key concepts, while acknowledging regional differences. Varying soil conditions, availability of materials, climate, type and amount of traffic, labor costs, mobilization needs, and many other factors greatly impact the cost, life expectancy, construction time, and eco-advantage of various treatments.

The information presented in this site represents averages across North America and may not represent regional or local conditions. Users are encouraged to contact local ARRA, AEMA and ISSA members or local agencies for regional information. AEMA, ISSA, and ARRA can accept no responsibility for the inappropriate use of the information contained in this site. Engineering judgment and experience must be used to properly utilize the principles and guidelines contained in this site, taking into account available equipment, local materials and conditions. All reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of the materials presented in this site; however, AEMA, ISSA, and ARRA can accept no responsibility for the consequence of any inaccuracies which it may contain.

Please read below to understand how we arrived at the cost, life extension, green, and technical data represented throughout this site.

  • Cost Data

    • Displayed costs are the result of a North American cost survey conducted by an impartial third party, which was sent to a representative from every AEMA, ARRA, & ISSA member. Every best effort was made to provide a set of assumptions to standardize data submission from contractors, though no formal scope was created to ensure equivalent assumptions were used in submitting estimated costs. The following parameters were applied to the auto-populated data within the PPRA site:

      • Members were asked to submit 2016 cost data
      • Members were asked to submit information for minimum quantities including (100,000 square yards or more for preservation and 50,000 square yards or more for recycling or rehab treatments)
      • Members were asked to submit the cost of materials and placement only, omitting costs required outside of treatment (i.e. striping, traffic control, etc.)

      Localized costs vary greatly based on materials, labor, location and other factors. Because of the differences in costs between regions, averaged data may not be relevant for many users and agencies. PPRA has provided a resource to input data relevant to your location and availability/cost of materials and labor. Replace pre-populated data with your local costs to make these tools more relevant and contact a contractor/supplier for a quote or more locally relevant information.

      Create a profile

      Create a profile to enter and maintain your information on cost, unit of measure and life extension. Once entered, this data will automatically populate within the calculator features of the site.

      Note: Your data will not be reviewed or used by PPRA or any of its members and affiliates, nor will it be shared with external organizations.

  • Technical Information and Review

    • For each of PPRA’s treatment-specific information resources, a leader or leadership team was appointed to gather and input information. These leadership teams were comprised of contractors who are recognized as leaders in that area of treatment and in many cases, manufacturers, educators, engineers, and relevant technical directors. These leadership teams pulled liberally from nationally-recognized standards and authoritative sources. For example: FHWA, AASHTO standards, ISSA’s Inspector’s Manual and spec guidelines, ARRA’s Basic Asphalt Recycling Manual, and AEMA and AI’s Basic Asphalt Emulsions Manual.

      Following the assembly of initial information, each treatment resource was reviewed by a technical committee from the most relevant parent organization of ARRA, AEMA, or ISSA. Additionally, Preservation, Recycling, and Reclamation treatments that make use of asphalt emulsions underwent yet another review by AEMA’s technical review team.

      All tools and features on the site were created, reviewed, and approved by leadership committees of ARRA, AEMA, and ISSA.

  • Pavement Condition / Rating

    • Throughout the PPRA site, resources and tools demonstrate an association between asphalt treatments and their optimal application on the deterioration curve. Although many treatments can be applied outside of these recommendations, industry experts agree that each treatment has an optimal use, based on road condition, primary distress invasiveness, and cost. The treatments across our site have been reviewed by technical committees to illustrate ideal applications across varying road conditions using the pavement rating scale below:

      Pavement Rating PCI
      A - Excellent 85-100
      B - Good 70-84
      C - Fair 55-69
      D - Poor 40-54
      F - Very Poor 0 - 39

      Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is one of the many scales used to indicate the general condition of a pavement. PCI is evaluated based on inspection and observation and must account for both the severity and extent of pavement distress.

  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Data

    • Many preservation and asphalt recycling treatments have a significantly reduced negative impact on the environment. We recognize that many factors influence the degrees of eco-advantage, such as hauling, availability of RAP, climate, application procedure, etc. We have made every effort to identify relevant sources which provide general, founded assumptions regarding the eco-advantage of these treatments.

      Some sources we have referenced include: Microsurfacing Eco-Efficiency Analysis Final Report by BASF (July 2010), Energy Usage and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Pavement Preservation Processes for Asphalt Concrete Pavements. National Center for Pavement Preservation, Okemos, Michigan, United States by Chehovits, J. & Galehouse, L. (2010), The Environmental Road of the Future: Life Cycle Analysis, Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Colas Group by Chappat, M. & Bilal, J (2003).

      Where we have made conversions to suggest the equivalency of greenhouse gas reduction to passenger vehicles removed from the road from a year, we have pulled this information from conversion tools made available by the Environmental Protection Agency