23 Mile Slough RSA Users:
The Borough recently informed us via snail-mail that weight restrictions are no longer in effect. Feel free to haul your gravel, equipment, and septic waste at your convenience.
Our contractor will begin road work in the near future and is expected to make repairs to the road (EFR) at 2.5 to 3.0 mile. The plan is to complete this work with last year's budget money and needs to be completed prior to June 30.
Other planned work this year beginning with next year's budget cycle after July 1 is EFR rap repair at 4.7 mile to 5.2 mile.
We have been informed by both the contractor and acting rural services manager, Ann Worlatch, that rerapping EFR at 7.2 mile to 7.9 mile is not recommended and will result in the same surface we have now. They suggest grading, adding top cover (d-1) and letting it sit for a year until further engineering can be done. Both indicated that we have a sub base issue there that may require more than just a surface fix. Ms. Worlatch said that she would put this in writing to the RSA when we met with her on 05/18/2010. If this is acceptable to those folks living in this area, I think we should try to do this this year to close the longitudinal cracks and to prevent further sloughing of the road shoulders. I would like to coordinate this work with one of the rap repairs when the contractor has his equipment on the road.
Other planned work includes pothole filling and brush clearing. I would like to coordinate the mowing so that we can kill as many weeds as possible before they go to seed. That is very iffy since many plants will be flowering in the next few weeks prior to July 1.
Your thoughts and suggestions are always welcome.
Stu Davies, Ed Arobio, Irene Coben
12 comments:
on 6/11/10
Stu, Ed, and Irene:
It should be known that when we did the original rap resurfacing of EFR, we brought in about 14 or more dump truck loads of rock and put that down on the section of road between 7.2 mile and 7.9 mile. We brought many other loads into other sections of the road as well. We only stopped when the borough project engineer said that we did not need any more rock and that what was down there was sufficient and met all engineering standards for our road. Subsequently, when the rap was actually laid and oiled in the 7.2-7.9 mile section, both Warren Smith and I attempted to contact the borough engineer immediately after the work was completed, that Friday, but to no avail. We tried office phones and cell phones and left messages where we could. The project engineer had turned his cell phone off. We were concerned that there was insufficient rap laid down and that the oil that was added was insufficient. It was immediately evident that the work had been done too quickly in anticipation of a long holiday weekend. The borough failed to do any quality control check on this portion of the road and did not respond to our requests for evaluation, nor did they respond to our numerous phone calls. They remain in denial that anything less than a quality job occurred to this point even though the most cursory inspection reveals otherwise.
I would like to Borough to provide us with the quantifiable evidence that there is a subsurface issue on this part of the road. There may be; however, they have yet to do any core sampling of the roadbed in this area. The only thing they have is an opinion and a desire to protect their own interests in this issue. Regrading this section of the road and returning it to gravel is an unacceptable interim or long term solution. At least at this point, the road is much more driveable than the gravel section just past it is. You can ride bikes on it, as my granddaughters do, from their house to ours. You can not ride a bike on the gravel section as some friends tried to do a week ago. If it were to be returned to gravel how often would it be graded? The section from the beginning of our service area up to this section has not been graded recently and went at least a year without being graded. It is badly in need of grading now as I just drove it tonight.
On a separate issue, why have the septage trucks from two different septic pumping companies been driving the road routinely up to Riddle's property all during the time of the road restrictions. I, personally, observed this happening on numerous occasions.
on 6/16
Stu: I would have to say that I do not like the idea of going back to gravel or D1 for the road down here by my place. Yes the rap is in poor condition, but it is MUCH better than the gravel ever was, even after grading, and D1 does not hold up well in my experience. I see D1 as a move backwards rather than forwards. I also seem to remember at a road service meeting being told that the subsurface issues would be addressed as part of the rap process and that there were many truck loads of rock brought in. I know that we can't do anything about the known poor work on the rap at this end, but since they never oiled it or rolled, did not control traffic, and put very little rap at this end I suspect that is more the issue than the base is. I do not have any ideas that would "fix" it besides breaking up the rap like has been done today farther up the road and then adding more rap and then oiling and rolling it down.
on 6/16
I would agree that going back to gravel or D1 would be a poor choice for the last section of the "paved" road. Even as it is it is mUCH better than D1 or gravel ever could be and requires much less maintenance.
on 6/16/10
Hi Stu, Irene and Ed,
As others have already mentioned, we are also for keeping the road as it currently is on the last part of the "paved" section. Although it may not be a great road, it certainly is in the best state it has been. Gravel or D1 are not better than what we currently have.
The contractor has done several patches on this particular section of the road, and patched the worst washboards and potholes. It is much better now than it was in early Spring.
Thanks for your consideration, and asking for our input regarding this decision.
on 6/18/10
Thank you for allowing our input. After attending several meetings and listening to the EFR commissioners. It is apparent that repairs will be made whether input is provided or not. Everyone knows why the road at 2,5 to 3.0 needed to be repaired. Damage to this section was NOT from cars and pickups traveling this road. 7.2 to the end of pavement is in bad shape. It sounds like it will remain this way. Therefore, You can remove our names from contact list as you will have no further input from us.
on 6/18/10
What do you mean? What do you want to see happen? I think this is a great forum to exchange information, sorry you want to be removed. I don't think any decisions on the end of the road have been made yet. Are you thinking the first two sections should have been done after the end of the road? I really am confused by your email.
on 6/19/10
Hello Everyone
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner but the commissioners have been waiting for a written(e-mail) repsonse from rural services regarding the RAP repairs necessary at EFR 7.2. I have asked Ms. Worhatch more than once for an engineer's opinion. As of this date, still waiting. We have had 5 responses from road users regarding this section. Of those who commented, four say that a temporary gravel fix is unacceptable and would prefer to leave the road as it is for now. I asked Mitch about the possibility of using RAP instead of D-1. He will research the pricing and get back to me. If we put more RAP down and not oil it this year would that be an acceptable alternative? It would be graded and compacted with water. It is possible this could be done in conjunction with our next RAP repair at 4.7 mile EFR. We could also reduce the size of this work and only focus on the worst section(s). Personally, I would like to try some un-oiled RAP in a section or two to see how it holds up. This would be gradable to smooth out the rough spots and may cost less to maintain.
I say possible since the RSA has yet to receive our approved budget for FY 2011. We do know that we will not be able to use our project funds ($33,000) that we budgeted in our winter meeting this year because using these funds require "engineering" through public works and assembly action that can not happen this summer. Very frustrating.
As you know, Rolling Stone, Inc. completed the repairs to EFR 2.5 mile this past week. Mitch is a little "nervous" about some of the dry spots and the fact this was his first try at RAP repair. I think it looks and feels good. Time will tell if it will hold up. This is the second repair of this section in as many years. Please follow the speed limit! We prioitized this repair as this section receives most of EFR traffic. This repair cost nearly $20,000. Future repairs of this nature will cost more as the road specifications changed this Spring enabling contractors to pay prevailing wages on construction projects. This begs the question, Are we constructing or maintaining? Please ask rural services for a clear explanation of the differences. In any event, our road maintenance costs will continue to rise.
There will be no further road work this month as 2010 budgeted funds are expended. We will try to get some work done in July to include the RAP repair at 4.7 mile. We prioritized this section during our last meeting as it has had no repair and is next in line for work as we complete RAP repair along EFR. If we need to work at 7.2 mile we may need to cut back on pot hole repair and mowing so that we have enough funds for snowplowing this Winter. Rolling Stone's next quote will shed more light on the availability of funds for this year.
We also fielded a question about the septic trucks and weight restrictions going into Riddle's property. I contacted Commercial Vehicle Enforcement this Spring when load restrictions went into effect. Apparently septic trucks, fuel trucks, busses, and LPG trucks are not bound by weight restrictions thanks to special regulations by DOT. I also contacted both Big Foot and Fairbanks Pumping and Thawing to inform them of weight restrictions. Fairbanks Pumping stated that they follow the law and Big Foot said they were aware of the weight restrictions but based on the free pass from DOT I am sure they hauled full loads all Spring. If you have ideas how to limit this heavy truck traffic on our fragile road surface during weight restrictions, we would love to hear them.
We plan to get some signage replaced and re-installed in the near future. If you know of a sign that needs fixed let me know. I hope we answered most of your questions. Again feel free to respond and inspire at your convenience.
Stu Davies, Ed Arobio, Irene Coben
on 6/19/10
I think the answer to repairing the EFR 7.2 section is best addressed by leaving it alone at this time unless there is enough money available to do the same repairs as were accomplished in the EFR 2.5 mile section, ie, tearing it up, adding rap as needed, rolling it and oiling it and then spreading it back out and compacting it. Traffic coming down the road from the State maintained section does not drive at 35mph. Rather, most traffic coming from that way is around 40 to 45 around the curve and 45-50 on the straight-away. Most EFR residents drive the road closer to the 35 mph speed limit. What that means is that loose gravel such as D-1 or unoiled rap will just be blown away by the torque of the tires on the road. Loose gravel and unoiled rap will not stand up to the traffic and the speeds they are traveling. The residents on this section of the road would be better served and have a better road if this section is left alone until it can be taken apart, reoiled, rap with the correct percentage of oil in it added, and then relaid and compacted.
Re signage, I think there may still be a few speed limit signs that are yellow as opposed to white. These need to be replaced if they have not all been.
Re your question about construction vs maintenance, I think you answered your own question. Repairs are maintenance. If we were to put in a road at Lynx Paw on the existing plat, that would be construction. There certainly are other variables between these two scenarios; however, repairs to the existing roadways in the service area, are repairs, not construction. Public Works gets part of its funding by billing the hours they work on engineering these projects for RSA's. I'd be very cautious about involving them. They did all of the engineering for the rap project and we paid a fee for this service out of the grant.
Ron
on 6/20/10
Would it be advantageous for us to express our concerns with lack of communication on the part of public works to those that appoint them? Doesn't seem to be too efficient of a system if a volunteer group has to sit on their hands while waiting for a response from the full time professional.
on 6/20/10
who does the appointing,the mayor?
on 6/20/10
I am just supposing, but I believe she works for the director of public works which works under chief-of-staff then mayor. I would hope someone in that line cares.
on 6/21/10
Hi All -
Ms. Worhatch is the acting manager/engineer for the Rural Services Division. She replaced Bill Gryder who replaced Randy Johnson who was 2nd in command at public works. Bill is officially appointed. So far, she continues to work in an acting capacity. Recruitment for Bill's old position ended in May. I am not surprised that an appointment has yet to be made. I would have to say that Scott Johnson would be the hiring authority with input from Bill. Not sure if assembly, mayoral action needed. Based upon my limited interaction with her, I would have trouble supporting her as the manager of rural services. But what do I know? And yes, I did ask Gryder's office to respond to our questions. Shortly after, she did respond about the use of project funds($33,000). Fix at 7.2 mile, no. Signage, no.
Post a Comment