Automated Pavement Condition Surveys (2019)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

B-1 A P P E N D I X B Agency Survey Responses Participating agencies (57 total responding agencies): Canadian Agencies • Alberta Transportation • British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure • Manitoba Infrastructure • New Brunswick Transportation and Infrastructure • Newfoundland and Labrador DOT and Works • Northwest Territories Department of Infrastructure • Nova Scotia Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal • Ontario Ministry of Transportation • Quebec Minister of Transport • Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure • Yukon Highways and Public Works U.S. Agencies • Alabama DOT • Alaska DOT and Public Facilities • Arizona DOT • Arkansas DOT • California DOT • Colorado DOT • Connecticut DOT • Delaware DOT • Florida DOT • Georgia DOT • Hawaii DOT • Idaho Transportation Department • Illinois DOT • Iowa DOT • Kansas Department of Transportation • Kentucky Transportation Cabinet • Maine DOT • Maryland DOT • Massachusetts DOT • Michigan DOT • Minnesota DOT • Montana DOT • Nevada DOT • New Hampshire DOT • New Jersey DOT • New Mexico DOT • New York State DOT • North Carolina DOT • North Dakota DOT • Ohio DOT • Oklahoma DOT • Oregon DOT • Pennsylvania DOT • Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority • Rhode Island DOT • South Carolina DOT • South Dakota DOT • Tennessee DOT • Texas DOT • Utah DOT • Vermont Agency of Transportation • Virginia DOT • Washington State DOT • West Virginia Division of Highways • Wisconsin DOT • Wyoming DOT

B-2 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys 2. Data collection by functional class: Functional Class Automated (Full or Semi) Manual Interstate only 7 3 NHS only 7 3 Principal arterial 6 2 Minor arterial 5 2 Major collector 3 3 Minor collector 3 3 Other 3 3 None of the above 2 0 3. Reasons for not transitioning to semi- or fully automated methods: Cost of Automated Equipment or Vendor Services Hesitancy to Transition from Manual to Automated Surveys Issues with Changing Technology Accuracy Concerns with Automated Data Collection Impact on Results/Outcomes Have Not Been Fully Assessed 5 3 3 2 5 Additional responses include • Currently migrating pavement management data from one database to another. • Will start fully automated condition surveys by 2019. • Need to develop decision-tree and degradation models corresponding to a new and different pavement condition score determined with automated equipment. The manual survey provides more distress detail than automated systems can provide and is not a simple switch within the pavement management system. A current research project is working on the details for our agency; however, the results won’t be complete or available to others for a couple of years. • Since the lower classifications receive limited funding, a high data cost condition assessment is not warranted. 4. Agency or vendor equipment and personnel: Agency Conducts Data Collection Agency Conducts Data Analysis Vendor Conducts Data Collection Vendor Conducts Data Analysis 5 3 3 2 5. Length of time agency has been using semi- or fully automated pavement condition data collection: 1–4 Years 5–10 Years > 10 Years 9 17 47 1. Pavement condition data collection method (excludes IRI, faulting, and rutting): Automated (Full and Semi) Both Manual and Automated Manual 45 6 6

Agency Survey Responses B-3 6. Asphalt pavement condition types collected by survey method: Condition/Distress Types Fully Automated Semi- Automated Manual Total No. Responses IRI 55 0 0 55 Rutting 53 0 4 57 Longitudinal cracking 33 9 9 51 Transverse cracking 32 13 10 55 Cross slope 30 0 1 31 Alligator cracking 29 15 10 54 Edge cracking 19 10 4 33 Texture 19 1 2 22 Block cracking 16 11 7 34 Reflection cracking 16 7 4 27 Potholes 14 13 9 36 Raveling 14 11 10 35 Bleeding 10 9 9 28 Patching 10 15 11 36 Lane/shoulder drop off 9 3 5 17 Bumps and sags 8 1 2 11 Depression 8 2 3 13 Shoving 5 2 6 13 Faulting 4 0 0 4 Corrugation 3 2 6 11 Delamination 2 0 0 2 Polished aggregate 1 3 4 8 Weathering 0 3 7 10 Additional responses include the following: Condition/Distress Types Fully Automated Semi- Automated Manual Area cracking alligator 1 0 0 Broken panels 1 0 0 Crack map images 1 0 0 Cracked panels 1 0 0 Friction 1 0 0 Functional crack density 1 0 0 Heaving/Dipping at transverse cracks 1 0 0 Longitudinal slope 1 0 0 Meandering cracking 1 0 0 Non-wheel path cracking 1 0 0 Pick outs 1 0 0 Radius of curvature 1 0 0 Sealed cracks 1 0 0 Shoulder cracking 1 0 0 Structural crack density 1 0 0 Transverse joint spalling 1 0 0 Unclassified cracking 1 0 0 Water entrapment 1 0 0 Wheel path cracking 1 1 0 Corner breaks 0 1 0 Durability cracking 0 1 0

B-4 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Condition/Distress Types Fully Automated Semi- Automated Manual Left edge joint deterioration 0 1 0 Longitudinal crack – center of lane 0 1 0 Longitudinal crack – left wheel path 0 1 0 Longitudinal crack – right wheel path 0 1 0 Punchout 0 0 1 Ride comfort 0 0 1 Slippage cracking 0 0 1 Surface disintegration or debonding 0 0 1 Transverse tear 0 1 0 7. Plain jointed concrete pavement condition types collected by survey method: Condition/Distress Types Fully Automated Semi- Automated Manual Total No. Responses IRI 42 0 1 43 Transverse cracking 42 0 1 43 Faulting 36 3 3 42 Cross slope 20 1 1 22 Longitudinal cracking 20 13 7 40 Texture 16 17 6 39 Spalling 12 1 2 15 Patching 8 14 7 29 Corner cracking 7 16 7 30 Scaling 7 15 8 30 Joint seal damage 6 7 7 20 Lane/shoulder drop off 6 4 5 15 Durability (“D”) cracking 4 9 6 19 Map cracking 4 7 2 13 Blowups 2 6 3 11 Pumping 2 3 6 11 Polished aggregate 1 3 3 7 Punchout 1 3 7 11 Broken slabs/percent cracked slabs 1 3 0 4 Shattered area/slabs 1 2 0 3 Additional responses include the following: Condition/Distress Types Fully Automated Semi- Automated Manual Joint count 1 0 0 Longitudinal slope 1 0 0 Radius of curvature 1 0 0 Wear 1 0 0 Diagonal cracking 0 0 1 Distressed transverse joint 0 1 0 Divided slab 0 0 1 Linear cracking 0 0 1 Longitudinal crack – center of lane 0 1 0 Longitudinal crack – left wheel path 0 1 0 Longitudinal crack – right wheel path 0 1 0 Popouts 0 0 1

Agency Survey Responses B-5 Condition/Distress Types Fully Automated Semi- Automated Manual Pressure damage 0 0 1 Railroad crossing 0 0 1 Shrinkage cracks 0 0 2 8. Continuously reinforced concrete pavement condition types collected by survey method: Condition/Distress Types Fully Automated Semi- Automated Manual Total No. Responses IRI 18 0 1 19 Transverse cracking 18 0 1 19 Cross slope 9 0 0 9 Lane/shoulder drop off 8 7 2 17 Spalling 6 0 1 7 Texture 6 6 1 13 Joint seal damage 5 1 2 8 Polished aggregate 5 8 1 14 Durability (“D”) cracking 3 3 2 8 Map cracking 3 7 2 12 Scaling 3 4 1 8 Longitudinal cracking 1 3 0 4 Punchout 1 1 1 3 Blowups 0 4 2 6 Patching 0 2 1 3 Additional responses include the following: Condition/Distress Types Fully Automated Semi- Automated Manual Average crack spacing 1 0 0 Longitudinal slope 1 0 0 Pumping 1 0 0 Radius of curvature 1 0 0 Surface wear 1 0 0 Y cracks 1 0 0 Lane/shoulder joint condition 0 1 0 9. Agency’s frequency of pavement condition data collection? Roadway Classification No. of Agencies Interstate annually 44 NHS annually 40 Non-NHS annually 23 Non-NHS every 2 years 22 Off Highway System NHS annually 13 Off Highway System NHS every 2 years 10 NHS every 2 years 9 Canadian primary and secondary provincial highways annually 7 Canadian primary and secondary provincial highways every 2 years 5 Interstate every 2 years 1 Non-NHS every 4 years 1 Non-NHS every 5 years 1 Off Highway System NHS every 3 or more years 1

B-6 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Additional responses include the following: • HPMS sample sections every year (2 responses). • Switching to every 2 years for secondary highways. • All local paved roads every two years. • Non-NHS priority 1 and 2 annually, and priority 3 every 2 years. • Ramps and state-maintained non-NHS routes every 3 years. HPMS samples every 2 years. State- maintained routes ≥ 1 mi (1.6 km) every year. • County state-aid highways every 2 years. • Primary every year, and secondary every 2 years. • 20 percent secondary each year. 10. Rather than ask for detailed information in this survey, each responding agency is asked to provide documentation that reflects your agencies automated pavement condition data collection procedures. This may include vendor Request for Proposal (or Qualifications), data quality management plan, agency procedural manual, etc. Please provide as much information as possible so that the synthesis can accurately reflect agency practice (revise as necessary after survey has been set up). Documents were received from the following agencies: • Alberta • Maine • Saskatchewan • Arizona • New Mexico • Texas • California • New York • Utah • Connecticut • North Carolina • Vermont • Delaware • North Dakota • Virginia • Hawaii • Oregon • West Virginia • Illinois • Pennsylvania • Wyoming • Iowa • Quebec 11. The synthesis will also include case examples illustrating agency practices using automated pavement condition data collection. The development of the case study may require an additional follow-up interview. Agencies will be provided the opportunity to review the case example write-up for accuracy. Would your agency be interested in participating in a case study? Yes No No Response or Manual Survey 33 15 9

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

A utom ated Pavem ent Condition Surveys N CH RP Synthesis 531 TRB TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88 ISBN 978-0-309-48048-2 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 8 0 4 8 2 9 0 0 0 0