[Ord. No. 02-01 Part K §1, 4-1-2004; Ord. No. 05-17 §1, 11-3-2005; Ord. No. 06-02 Part K §1, 1-26-2006; Ord. No. 06-08 Part K §1, 3-23-2006; Ord. No. 06-11 Part K §1, 5-4-2006; Ord. No. 06-14 Part K §1, 7-13-2006; Ord. No. 07-01 Part K §1, 2-1-2007; Ord. No. 07-02 Part K §1, 3-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-03 Part K §1, 7-1-2008; Ord. No. 08-05 Part K §1, 10-2-2008]
A. A priority
rating system has been developed to provide a weighted numerical system
for prioritizing improvements and maintenance efforts for roadways
and rights-of-way currently maintained by the Road/Bridge Department.
A similar system will be used for roadways not maintained by the Road/Bridge
Department for the purposes of upgrading the County standards and
tax billing for improvements, etc. Priorities for roadways maintained
by the County will not be intermingled with priorities for roads not
maintained by the County.
B. Road
maintenance and improvements will be evaluated using the following
factors and formula:
|
PI — Priority Index =
|
|
|
TF — Traffic Factor
|
|
|
FC — Functional Classification of Roadway
|
|
|
TR — School Bus Route
|
|
|
MF — Maintenance Factor
|
|
|
AF — Alignment Factor
|
|
|
MI — Miscellaneous/other considerations
|
|
|
PI=TF+FC+TR+MF+AF+[+MI]
|
C. Traffic Factor (TF). The traffic factor will be a measure
of current average daily traffic as determined by the Road/Bridge
Department by means of mechanical counts, visual count, or their best
estimate based on number of residences, farm or other operations,
and department staff experience with similar type roads that have
had actual counts performed. The traffic factor will be weighted as
follows:
|
ADT
|
TF
|
---|
|
<1,000
|
9
|
|
350 — 999
|
7
|
|
200 — 349
|
5
|
|
100 — 199
|
3
|
|
>100
|
1
|
D. Functional Classification (FC). The functional classification
indicates the character of use and purpose of the roadway and is an
indicator of the relative importance of a roadway to the overall transportation
network. The functional classification will be weighted as follows:
|
Function
|
Classification
|
FC
|
---|
|
Type I
|
Arterial
|
10
|
|
Type II
|
Collector
|
8
|
|
Type III
|
Local 6
|
6
|
|
Type IV
|
Local (within subdivisions)
|
4
|
|
Type V
|
Min. Maint. Rds.
|
2
|
|
Type VI
|
Private
|
0
|
E. School Bus Route (TR). School bus routes are an obvious
concern for prioritizing maintenance and improvements for safety reasons.
The school bus route factor will be weighted as follows:
|
School Bus Route
|
TR
|
---|
|
YES
|
2
|
|
NO
|
0
|
F. Maintenance Factor (MF). Roads having high deferred maintenance
costs must have a higher priority for repairs and improvements, while
roads with low deferred maintenance costs may have a lower priority
for repairs and improvements. An example would be a concrete street
that needs some preventative maintenance that would be relatively
inexpensive at this time compared to a very high replacement cost
if the preventative maintenance is not performed. The maintenance
factor will be weighted as follows:
|
Deferred Maintenance Cost
|
MF
|
---|
|
High
|
5
|
|
Moderately High
|
4
|
|
Average
|
3
|
|
Moderately Low
|
2
|
|
Low
|
1
|
|
No Deferred Cost
|
0
|
G. Alignment Factor (AL). The alignment factor takes into account
the geometric problems of the roadway; vertical and horizontal geometric
(sight distance), road width, road grades, etc. The alignment factor
will be weighted as follows:
|
Sight Distance
|
AF
|
---|
|
250'
|
0
|
|
200'
|
1
|
|
150'
|
2
|
|
100'
|
3
|
|
50'
|
4
|
|
0'
|
5
|
H. Miscellaneous — Other Considerations (MI). The danger
of using a mathematical calculation for establishing priorities is
that they will be taken too literally. Therefore, other considerations
may be taken into account in establishing priorities.
I. Many
times situations arise that do not fit the parameters as outlined
above. Significant cost savings may occur when an adjacent lower priority
project is combined with a high priority project. Accident histories
as provided by the Missouri Highway Patrol and Cass County Sheriff's
office may dictate some adjustments to the priorities. It is also
desirable to balance the distribution of improvements geographically
within the County. Budgetary restraints may not allow for the highest
priority projects to be completed but may allow for two (2) or three
(3) lower priority projects. For this reason the Road/Bridge Department
and/or County Commission may be required to adjust the priorities
by this miscellaneous factor.
NOTE: Roads that end on both ends of a State route or County
paved road, add a number of three (3) to the formula. Roads that are
within one (1) mile of a City limit, add a number of two (2) to the
formula. Roads that are a dead-end to have a number of minus two (-2)
to the formula.
[Ord. No. 02-01 Part K §2, 4-1-2004; Ord. No. 06-02 Part K §2, 1-26-2006; Ord. No. 06-08 Part K §2, 3-23-2006; Ord. No. 06-11 Part K §2, 5-4-2006; Ord. No. 06-14 Park K §2, 7-13-2006; Ord. No. 07-01 Part K §2, 2-1-2007; Ord. No. 07-02 Part K §2, 3-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-03 Part K §2, 7-1-2008; Ord. No. 08-05 Part K §2, 10-2-2008]
Dust control measures will be taken on gravel surfaced roadways
to promote safe vehicular traffic flow and to improve site distances.
Prioritization will be based on the average daily traffic counts taken
by the Road/Bridge Department. The department recognizes that different
types of traffic (i.e., truck traffic vs. passenger vehicles) generate
different levels of dust. Until more exact methods of counting these
different types of traffic are available to the County, any preferences
shown would be very subjective. No dust control products other than
those approved by the Road and Bridge Department may be placed on
the roadways without the express written consent of the department.
NOTE: Dust oil is not permitted for dust control. This is due
to future maintenance problems associated with dust-oiled roadway
surfaces.
[Ord. No. 02-01 Part K §3, 4-1-2004; Ord. No. 06-02 Part K §3, 1-26-2006; Ord. No. 06-08 Part K §3, 3-23-2006; Ord. No. 06-11 Part K §3, 5-4-2006; Ord. No. 06-14 Park K §3, 7-13-2006; Ord. No. 07-01 Part K §3, 2-1-2007; Ord. No. 07-02 Part K §3, 3-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-03 Part K §3, 7-1-2008; Ord. No. 08-05 Part K §3, 10-2-2008]
A. The
County cannot justify placing dust control on all County roadways
for traffic safety but recognizes that many residents, given the topography
or location of their home in relation to the road, may desire some
relief from road-generated dust. Roadways that have been treated for
dust control have different maintenance requirements and it will be
necessary therefore for the Road/Bridge Department to coordinate any
dust control applications for private citizens.
B. Approximate
cost of dust control chemical application can be obtained from the
Road/Bridge Department office (380-8360) in April of each year. A
preliminary cost estimate for a once per year application varies from
year to year, with an application width of twenty-four (24) inches.
The recommended minimum length of roadway to be treated at citizens'
expense is three hundred (300) feet. Citizens wishing to pay for the
application of dust control chemicals on their roadways must contract
with a County approved private applicator.
[Ord. No. 02-01 Part K §4, 4-1-2004; Ord. No. 06-02 Part K §4, 1-26-2006; Ord. No. 06-08 Part K §4, 3-23-2006; Ord. No. 06-11 Part K §4, 5-4-2006; Ord. No. 06-14 Park K §4, 7-13-2006; Ord. No. 07-01 Part K §4, 2-1-2007; Ord. No. 07-02 Part K §4, 3-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-03 Part K §4, 7-1-2008; Ord. No. 08-05 Part K §4, 10-2-2008]
A. A priority
rating system has likewise been developed to provide a weighted numerical
system for prioritizing brush cutting and vegetation control efforts
for road right-of-way currently maintained by the Road/Bridge Department.
B. Brush
control and vegetation maintenance will be evaluated using factors
similar to those used for other roadway maintenance and improvements.
|
BI — Brush Index
|
|
TF — Traffic Factor
|
|
TR — School Bus Route
|
|
AF — Alignment Factor
|
|
BI=TF+TR+AF
|
[Ord. No. 02-01 Part K §5, 4-1-2004; Ord. No. 06-02 Part K §5, 1-26-2006; Ord. No. 06-08 Part K §5, 3-23-2006; Ord. No. 06-11 Part K §5, 5-4-2006; Ord. No. 06-14 Park K §5, 7-13-2006; Ord. No. 07-01 Part K §5, 2-1-2007; Ord. No. 07-02 Part K §5, 3-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-03 Part K §5, 7-1-2008; Ord. No. 08-05 Part K §5, 10-2-2008]
The alignment factor is revised slightly for brush/vegetation
control to compensate for required road width and height clearance
and sight distance. "Sight distance" is defined as
the distance from which a person sitting in the driver's seat of a
passenger vehicle can see stop signs and other road signs properly
placed on the right side of the roadway.
|
Sight Distance
|
AF
|
---|
|
250'
|
0
|
|
200'
|
1
|
|
150'
|
2
|
|
100'
|
3
|
|
50'
|
4
|
|
0'
|
5
|