Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 57-72

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 57...
... 57   On the basis of the results of the agency questionnaire, agencies that indicated a willingness to participate in the case examples were given follow-up questions requesting more specific details related to challenges and changes with implementing APCS, meeting the PM2 reporting requirements, and reporting APCS results to other agency offices. Follow-up requests included the following: • Further describe required changes to meet PM2 requirements.
From page 58...
... 58 Automated Data Collection and Quality Management for Pavement Condition Reporting The DOT has implemented a DQMP to address data quality; however, it is in the process of implementing best practices on how to handle APCS results and quality control requirements. The DOT has collected and analyzed 3 years of laser crack measurement system data on the Interstate highway system, and the results have agreed well from year to year.
From page 59...
... Case Examples 59   The DOT is currently working on revising the pavement condition rating process to account for the difference in the extent and severity of previous semiautomated distress surveys and the current APCS. The DOT noted wide variations in summaries of network pavement condition from year to year and is working to understand and resolve the root of the differences.
From page 60...
... 60 Automated Data Collection and Quality Management for Pavement Condition Reporting The DOT noted validation and verification of IRI data is relatively straightforward. However, validation and verification of transverse profiles for rut depth and 3D images for cracking is very intensive and time-consuming and requires a higher caliber of technician than was required for previous survey methods.
From page 61...
... Case Examples 61   discussions with the data collection vendor about distress classification to ensure consistency, particularly with cracking data. The DOT coordinated APCS activities through trial and error, trying to align outputs and expectations.
From page 62...
... 62 Automated Data Collection and Quality Management for Pavement Condition Reporting conducted a statewide review of the non-Interstate NHS and worked with the local agencies and FHWA on needed modifications to meet the PM2 requirements. At this time, the DOT also ensured all local agency-owned non-Interstate NHS routes would be included in the DOT's APCS.
From page 63...
... Case Examples 63   these issues takes time and the DOT questions whether or not this level of detail is necessary for reporting at the national level. In addition, prior to PM2 legislation, the DOT conducted the APCS on the Interstate system every 2 years.
From page 64...
... 64 Automated Data Collection and Quality Management for Pavement Condition Reporting To address this, the DOT built probabilistic relationships between the PM2 performance measures and the DOT measures. The results of this analysis indicated that IRI generally increased as the standard deviation of the rut depth increased.
From page 65...
... Case Examples 65   Virginia DOT To meet PM2 requirements, the Virginia DOT added the summary data needed for dening good and poor pavement sections. Because the DOT had conducted an APCS for more than a decade, the required data were available and only required calculations in support of the metric.
From page 66...
... 66 Automated Data Collection and Quality Management for Pavement Condition Reporting Idaho Transportation Department The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) provides access to assessments of pavement condition via a performance measure dashboard and in the ITD's TAMP.
From page 67...
... Case Examples 67   Maine DOT The Maine DOT provides public access to an asset management interactive map to showcase information related to the Interstate highway system, non-Interstate NHS, collectors, and local roads and streets. The interactive map allows the public to view information related to safety, bridge and pavement condition, and service (i.e., load restrictions, congestion)
From page 68...
... 68 Automated Data Collection and Quality Management for Pavement Condition Reporting Source: Figure courtesy of the Utah DOT. Figure 39.
From page 69...
... Case Examples 69   Agency Use of Results of Pavement Condition Survey Illinois To allocate district budgets for the next programming cycle. New Jersey (nonHPMS)
From page 70...
... Agency Use of Results of Pavement Condition Survey Connecticut To generate preliminary pavement resurfacing lists, perform field reviews, and recommend projects for the Maintenance Resurfacing Program using maintenance history data. To compare recommendations from the pavement management system with the Maintenance Resurfacing Program.
From page 71...
... Case Examples 71   Agency Use of Results of Pavement Condition Survey Connecticut To track how the DOT is doing relative to pavement performance and determine needed funding levels; to respond to questions from politicians, the press, and citizens about the condition of the pavement network. Florida For distribution of targeted lane miles to district management for review and of pavement selections for arterial replacement.
From page 72...
... 72 Automated Data Collection and Quality Management for Pavement Condition Reporting Summary of Chapter 4 In response to follow-up questions, the agencies noted a number of challenges, modifications, and benefits of transitioning to an APCS. Challenges included the need to revise distress definitions (13 agencies)

Key Terms



This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.