Developed in Germany in the 1960s, microsurfacing, a road maintenance tool that involves laying a mixture of dense-graded aggregate, asphalt emulsion, water, polymer additive and mineral fillers to correct or prevent certain deficiencies in pavement conditions, is not only a cost saver, but also gets very high marks for sustainability. One of the most versatile tools in the road maintenance arsenal, microsurfacing is a polymer-modified, cold mix paving system that can remedy a broad range of problems on Kyle’s streets.
"Government agencies are saving millions each year and preserving hundreds of extra lane miles by choosing pavement preservation over traditional pavement reactive maintenance and repair methods, " according to Carter Dabney, a director of the International Slurry Sealing Association in Annapolis, Md. "Using the right pavement preservation application, on the right road, at the right time can mean a savings of up to $400,000 to $500,000 per mile of two-lane road over a 50-year period. Considering today’s shrinking budgets and the number of miles in road networks, it is clear that municipalities cannot afford to ignore the value of microsurfacing for pavement preservation."
Dabney added that while some traditional pavement maintenance methods alone will accomplish the same goal as pavement preservation in extending the pavement’s life, his association’s analysis found that the life-cycle cost over a 40-year period is 25 percent higher using preservation methods. "By consistently devoting money to pavement preservation each year, a town is able to preserve four to five times the amount of lane miles than if it only repaired its worst roads first."
The major benefits of microsurfacing are:
- Seals small cracks and surface imperfections, waterproofs the surface, and protects the pavement structure of both asphalt and concrete.
- Improves skid resistance.
- Provides attractive, smooth black surfaces that aid in lane delineation.
- Its thin surface is ideal where curbs and overhead clearances (i.e., under bridges) need to be preserved.
- The quick-setting microsurfacing emulsion reduces user delay by allowing traffic in about an hour after re-surfacing and makes it suitable for night application on heavy-traffic streets.
- Fills depressions, small cracks and ruts, and provides some surface leveling.
Still, it doesn’t come cheap. On the average, microsurfacing costs $2.75 a square yard — and that doesn’t include the application costs or a guarantee that you’ll always be purchasing exactly the right mix of ingredients. When all the costs are combined, Kyle pays $3.35 a square yard to have its streets microsurfaced.
Which is why, City Manager Scott Sellers has led me to believe, that the City of Kyle wants to enter into an agreement with the City of Grand Prairie that will allow the cities "to partner … for better pricing for purchasing equipment, supplies and services." Thus, item 7 on Tuesday’s City Council agenda asks the council to "approve a resolution of the City of Kyle, Texas, authorizing the city manager to execute a master interlocal agreement with the City of Grand Prairie, Texas."
In an e-mail Friday, Sellers said this agreement "is a piggybacking agreement where we (Kyle and Grand Prairie) can both share in each other's competitive bidding if and when it makes sense. In this instance they have a great per unit price on microsurfacing material that we were not able to obtain locally. I believe San Marcos may also be joining this arrangement as well."
The agenda’s backup material was even more specific on the savings this agreement could mean for Kyle taxpayers.
"Last year, Kyle contracted with Viking Construction for all the microsurfacing projects at a rate of $3.35 per square yard," according to this material. "However, Grand Prairie has a microsurfacing contract with Viking Construction at a rate of $2.89 per square yard. Having this agreement will allow Kyle to use Grand Prairie’s rate of $2.89. Without this agreement, a microsurfacing project consisting of 69,198 square yards based on Kyle’s last year’s rate with Viking would cost $231,813.30; whereas having this agreement, Kyle would get Grand Prairie’s rate making the cost $199,982.22, a savings of $31,831.08 for this one microsurfacing project."
Microsurfacing, of course, is not the be-all and end-all of road repairs. It is seen as more of a way of preserving a road’s integrity, by preventing water seepage that, in fact, can cause more structural damage to road pavements than traffic, and making a few minor repairs. It does not replace road reconstruction, such as those being undertaken as a part of the city’s road bond projects. Think of it more like a road’s version of a flu shot.
But that’s why this item should sail through the council Tuesday without much, if any, dissent.
Which might not be the case with the two items that immediately follow this one. The first of these is the second reading of the already much discussed and debated Sledge Street residential zoning change request which was narrowly approved 4-2 at the March 6 council meeting while almost being killed in a pair of tie votes at the Feb. 20 council meeting. The second is the request for the council to approve a development agreement "related to the design and construction of a single family housing project on approximately 83 acres located near the southwest intersection of Windy Hill Road and FM 2001."
It will be interesting to see if the same band of no-growthers who have been trying to kill the Sledge Street project since its inception will show up again Tuesday to beat this dead horse one more time. It will also be interesting to see if anyone protests the following item, which appears, at least to me, to be far more egregious than the Sledge Street issue.
The subject to be addressed on both items is density, particularly where it is appropriate and where it isn’t. Personally, I am a firm adherent of what is called the "Smart Growth" approach to city planning. Here is a quote from The Smart Growth Manual: "The transect us a concept drawn from ecology, It is a progression through a sequence of habitats, such as from wetland to upland to foothill. Ecologists use the transect to describe how each habitat supports symbiotic sets of mineral conditions, microclimate, flora, and fauna. The rural-to-urban transect extends this classification system to include a sequence of human habitats of increasing density and complexity, from the rural hinterland to the urban core. Design at every scale should correspond to the logic of transition from the natural edge to the man-made center."
Item 8 on Tuesday’s agenda, the Sledge Street zoning, is in Kyle’s "man-made center," thus making the proposed R-1-3 the logical zoning designation for the proposed subdivision to be located at 1001 S. Sledge Street, even though that density is the subject of the opposition. However, the southwest intersection of Windy Hill Road and FM 2001 is very much as Kyle’s "natural edge." Although there’s no mention of zoning in this item, a proposed master plan that accompanies it calls for, by my count, 273 single-family residential lots jammed together. What’s more, this development could be just another in a series of high-density single-family residential subdivisions being crammed into this northeast corner and no one seems to be protesting that loudly about it. Off course, the reason for this is that no one "who matters" lives in this northeast section.
But, still, I find it baffling and somewhat distressing.
(Begin updated information) However, I have learned it could have been somewhat worse. Mayor Travis Mitchell informed me today this development agreement originally came before council Feb. 6 as a waiver request. "At the time, I was not comfortable with the request because development in Kyle's ETJ is not easily regulated by the city (Editor's note: A situation that's remedied somewhat by Item 4 on this week's agenda). The waiver would allow them to build with little city oversight and without complying with Kyle's Residential Style Guide. After relaying my concerns to the developers, they agreed to have their request postponed."
That postponement led to the item on this week's agenda -- the council's consideration of the aforementioned development agreement "requiring several binding concessions, chief of which is the project must commit to build according to their proposed master plan," the mayor said, adding "The developers agreed to increase the lot sizes and add a considerable amount of alley-loaded homes."
The mayor called the agreement "a win for the city," but, to me, it is still too dense a development for our "natural edge." This is the development folks should be speaking out against, the one that should cause additional debate among city council members, not the one on Sledge Street. (End updated information)
You can read the entire council agenda here.
No comments:
Post a Comment