Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work (2017)

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 Appendix B Survey Results nCHRp pRojeCt 20-05/SyntHeSiS topiC 47-08 pAvement mAnAgement SyStemS: putting dAtA to WoRk Dear Pavement Management Practitioner, The Transportation Research Board (TRB) is preparing a synthesis that will summarize current prac- tices related to the topic Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work. This is being done for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), under the sponsorship of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The purpose of this questionnaire is to document current uses of pavement management data and analysis to support decision making and program development. The survey includes questions on the use of pavement management analysis results for resource allocation, determining cost-effectiveness, pro- gram development, and communication with stakeholders. The results of the survey will be incorporated into a synthesis that will highlight agencies’ practices and lessons learned, with the intent of advancing the state of practice. This survey is being sent to Pavement Management Engineers in each of the 52 state transportation agencies and 10 Canadian provinces. If you are not the appropriate person at your agency to complete this questionnaire, please forward it to the correct person. Please compete and submit this survey by February 26, 2016. We estimate that it should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. It is designed so you can exit and return to the survey if you need to allocate your time over several days. If you have any questions or problems related to this questionnaire, please contact the Principal Investigator, Ms. Katie Zimmerman, at (217) 398-3977 or kzimmerman@appliedpavement.com. Questionnaire tips 1. To print a blank copy of the questionnaire, click here and print using “control p.” 2. To save your partial answers and complete the questionnaire later or pass a partially completed questionnaire to a colleague, advance to the next page of your survey to save your responses and then exit. Utilizing the original, unique link emailed to you, you (or your colleague) may reenter your survey at any time. 3. To save your partial answers and complete the questionnaire later or pass a partially completed questionnaire to a colleague, advance to the next page of your survey to save your responses and then exit. Utilizing the original, unique link emailed to you, you (or your colleague) may reenter your survey at any time. Thank you very much for your time and expertise.

B-2 SeCtion 1: geneRAl pAvement mAnAgement infoRmAtion 1. participating Agencies •  U.S. States – Alabama DOT – Alaska DOT – Arizona DOT – Arkansas SHTD – Colorado DOT – Connecticut DOT – Florida DOT – Illinois DOT – Iowa DOT – Kansas DOT – Kentucky Transportation Cabinet – Louisiana DOTD – Maine DOT – Maryland DOT – Massachusetts DOT – Minnesota DOT – Mississippi DOT – Missouri Department of Transportation – Montana DOT – Nebraska Department of Roads – Nevada DOT – New Hampshire DOT – New Jersey DOT – New Mexico DOT – New York State DOT Network Component Do You Have Inventory Information? (Such as section length, pavement type) Do You Have Condition Information? (Such as roughness or pavement condition) Interstate Routes 41 41 Non-Interstate State-Maintained NHS Routes 41 41 Non-NHS State-Maintained Routes 38 37 Non-Interstate Non-State Maintained NHS Routes 29 28 Shoulders 20 3 Entrance/Exit Ramps 18 5 Frontage Roads 16 11 Local Roads (e.g., non-NHS routes that are NOT state maintained) 11 6 High-Occupancy Lanes or Bus Lanes 7 2 – North Carolina DOT – North Dakota DOT – Ohio DOT – Oklahoma DOT – Oregon DOT – Puerto Rico DOT – Rhode Island DOT – South Dakota DOT – Tennessee DOT – Texas DOT – Utah DOT – Vermont Agency of Transportation – Virginia DOT – Washington State DOT – West Virginia DOT – Wyoming DOT •  Canadian – Alberta Transportation – Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation – New Brunswick DOT and Infrastructure – Newfoundland/Labrador Transportation and Works – Northwest Territories DOT – Ontario Ministry of Transportation – Quebec Ministry of transportation – Saskatchewan Highways and Infrastructure 2. for each part of the transportation network listed below, use the checkbox if your pavement management database contains inventory and/or condition information for that system. Select all that apply. U.S. STATES (41 responses) Comments: •  Interstate Routes: – Annual Collection. – Collected every year.

B-3 – Including the Maine Turnpike. – Pavement structure information is available on only part of the network. •  Non-interstate—State Maintained NHS Routes: – Annual Collection on Non-Interstate NHS began in 2015. – Collected every year. – Pavement structure information is available on only part of the network. •  Non-Interstate—Non-State Maintained NHS Routes: – Annual Collection on Non-Interstate NHS began in 2015. – Collected every year. – Oklahoma DOT collects HPMS mandated information for non-state maintained NHS routes. – Pavement structure information is available on only part of the network. – There are a few we do not have but will collect this season. – We collect in MPO areas or responsibility as well. – We have IRI data for NHS. – Not in the PMS, other state HPMS database has basic inventory (length, pvmt type). We collect IRI/rutting. We currently don’t have cracking. – We collect and report IRI on these for HPMS . . . not integrated into the PMS since mainte- nance does not control the system. – Inventory does not include historic construction activities or pavement layer data for non-state maintained NHS Routes. Pavement type is derived from surface imagery collected. As such, we note the surface material categories, but do not have thickness information, so composite pavements might be mis-categorized as flexible, etc. •  Non-NHS State-Maintained Routes: – Around of 30% roads. – Collected every other year. – Pavement structure information is available on only part of the network. – Only have windshield condition rating and some IRI, but not full treatment history or condition data set for all these routes. •  Local Roads (e.g., non-NHS routes that are NOT state maintained): – Annual Collection began in 2015–2016. – Condition limited to minor arterials and above, as well as HPMS sections. – Not in the PMS, however we do collect IRI data where HPMS sample segments require it. – Only routes that have HPMS sections. – Pavement distress data are available only on local roads that are Federal aid eligible. – Special Petitions only. •  Frontage Roads: – Annual Collection began in 2015. – Only roads that have HPMS sections. – Partial inventory. – These roads are not in the PMS, however other state database has basic inventory (name, length) of these roads. – Historic construction data are only available for State Maintained frontage (service) roads which are at least 1 mile long. •  Entrance/Exit Ramps: – One time collection in 2009. – Partial inventory. – These roads are not in the PMS; however, other state database has basic inventory (name, length) of these roads. – We collect condition data on state-maintained routes <1 mile long and ramps on a 3-year cycle. Construction data does not exist for the majority of ramps, but we have begun tracking con- struction data on ramps and back-populating historic construction data. •  High-Occupancy Lanes or Bus Lanes: – Inventory for bus lanes only. – Only length and lane-configuration and construction history on state-maintained lanes. – We have none. – These roads are not in the PMS; however, other state database has basic inventory (name, length) of these roads. •  Shoulders: – Annual Collection. – Included in width. – We keep shoulder width, and whether gravel or paved. – Geometric inventory exists. Construction data exists on state-maintained routes which are at least 1 mile long, and a fraction of the remaining state-maintained routes. – Shoulder info is not in the PMS, however other state database has basic inventory (width) of shoulders.

B-4 CANADIAN PROVINCES (8 responses) Network Component Do You Have Inventory Information? (Such as section length, pavement type) Do You Have Condition Information? (Such as roughness or pavement condition) Trans-Canada Highway 6 6 Provincial Highways 7 7 Frontage Roads 4 2 Entrance/Exit Ramps 3 1 High-Occupancy Lanes or Bus Lanes 3 3 Shoulders 4 2 •  Trans-Canada Highway – On sections other than those owned by Public Private Partnerships. – Roughness only. – Since 1999. •  Provincial Highways – Roughness and condition. – Roughness only. – Since 1999. •  Frontage Roads – Only on some not all frontage roads. – Since 2010. – Partial inventory only. •  Entrance/Exit Ramps – Since 2010. – Partial inventory only. •  High-Occupancy Lanes or Bus Lanes – Do not have these lanes. – Only on MTQ roads (not on under municipal authority). – These lanes, if any, are part of the provincial highway inventory. •  Shoulders – Conditions are limited to surface distress only, no IRI or deflection. 3. Which of the following best describes your pavement management system? (41 U.S. responses; 8 Canadian) Description U.S. Canada Customized proprietary vendor software 20 3 Other 7 2 Vendor supplied software, with in house modifications 7 1 Software was developed in house 6 2 Public-domain software 1 0 Comments: •  Currently Access—waiting to develop permanent solution. •  Inventory system only no PMS in place. •  Vendor supplied software; customizations are done in house and by the vendor. •  Vendor supplied software with vendor customized and in house modifications. •   We use Microsoft Access databases and Excel tools to work with the data and do PMS activities. •   We use dTIMS to optimize and other in-house tools to view and analyze.

B-5 •   No system currently in place. •   1) We use vendor supplied condition data post-processing software. 2) We use in-house software  to collect construction data and warehouse all pavement data. 3) We use proprietary software provided by a vendor that was customized for our needs for optimization and forecasting. •   PMS  Components  contained  in  multiple  systems—Illinois  Roadway  Information  System,  Windows Program Planning System, Roadware rating software, and Access databases. 4. When you collect distress information on divided highways, your agency collects: Select all that apply. (41 U.S. responses; 8 Canadian) Data Collected U.S. Canada Only one lane in each direction 34 4 Other 5 1 More than one lane in each direction 3 3 Only one lane in one direction 3 0 Representative samples of network conditions 0 1 Comments: •   Collect Interstates one lane in both directions, State Routes in one lane one direction. •   Collect on all lanes if on the NHS, otherwise collect in right most lane in each direction. •   Interstates—one lane in each direction. •   Rutting collected only. •   In addition to automated collection, we perform a windshield survey that collects distresses in  all lanes for one direction (primary direction—west to east, south to north). •   In-house staff also manually measures distress on samples of the downward imagery. We have  established a calibration process to update the results from the fully automated distress detection to improve its quality. 5. When you collect distress information on non-divided highways, your agency collects: Select all that apply. (41 U.S. responses; 8 Canadian) Representative samples of network conditions 0 0 U.S. Canada Only one lane in one direction 24 5 Only one lane in each direction 10 1 Other 5 2 More than one lane in each direction 4 1 Comments: •   One lane in one direction on 2-lane, one lane in each direction on 4-lane (undivided). •   In-house staff also manually measures distress on samples of the downward imagery. We have  established a calibration process to update the results from the fully automated distress detection to improve its quality. •   We collect automated distress data (IRI, rutting, faulting, and cracking) in one lane for one direction. •   Collect on all lanes if on the NHS, otherwise collect is right most lane in each direction. •   If non-divided highways has four or more lanes, Collect data for only one lane in each direc- tion. If the non-divided highways is less than four lanes, Collects data for only one lane in one direction. •   2-lane is rated in one direction. •   Rutting collected only.

B-6 6. Which of the following are included in your pavement management database? Select all that apply. (41 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) Data Indices U.S. Canada Individual distress values 38 6 Traffic data 37 6 Composite indices 35 6 Individual indices 34 6 Treatment costs 33 4 Treatment history 31 6 Routine maintenance activities 17 3 Remaining service life (RSL) 14 1 Materials or construction information 10 1 Detailed performance data (national/state) 3 3 Drainage information 1 0 How does your agency define a Remaining Service Life (RSL)? (14 U.S. responses; 1 Canadian) Timeframe U.S. Canada Until a condition index threshold limit is reached 5 1 From the present to when a pavement reaches an unacceptable condition 3 0 Until the next rehabilitation or reconstruction event 3 0 Between applications of corrective pavement construction treatments 1 0 Until a remaining service interval 1 0 Other 1 0 Comment: •   0-Years RSL = Unacceptable Condition per Functional Classification. 50 Years RSL = Best Con- dition we could expect per Functional Class. The interpolation loosely relates to generalized performance curve, but the 0 to 50 RSL scale is really a serviceability rating by Functional Class for each performance measure (IRI, Rutting, Friction, Functional Cracking, Structural Cracking). The lowest (controlling) RSL measure within a section defines the overall RSL. That said, the time from the pre-treatment until a pavement returns to pre-treatment conditions is predicted for each project engineered, and robust performance models are applied to potential projects during optimization and planning. The units of performance extension are Lane-Mile-Years until a pave- ment returns to pre-treatment overall RSL conditions. Treatments are compared using cost per lane-mile-year during treatment decision making. We do not wait until the 0-Year RSL threshold is met before recommending construction activities. We currently maintain a business plan goal of an average overall RSL value of at least 20, weighted by lane miles, for all state-owned roads.

B-7 SeCtion 2: dAtA AnAlySiS And peRfoRmAnCe modeling 7. Which of the following approaches are used to predict pavement performance? Select all that apply. (41 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) Approach to Predict Pavement Performance U.S. Canada We use customized models developed specifically for our agency using agency data 27 6 We develop models for pavement families with similar characteristics 24 3 We develop models based on performance indices 19 4 We develop models based on individual distresses 16 2 We develop individual models for each pavement section 7 0 We develop probabilistic models 4 3 Our system does not predict pavement performance 4 1 We use default models generated by the software 3 0 What factors are used to develop your customized performance models? Select all that apply. (26 U.S. responses; 6 Canadian) U.S. Canada Pavement type 25 5 Highway system 19 4 Pavement functional condition 18 6 Treatment history 16 6 Traffic data 16 4 Pavement structural condition 8 2 Maintenance history 6 4 Climate 4 2 Pavement support 3 2 Other 2 0 Safety data 0 0 Environmental sustainability measures 0 0 Comments: •   District. •   Pavement Age-Age of last resurfacing. How frequently do you update your models? (26 U.S. responses; 6 Canadian) Frequency U.S. Canada Every 3 or more years 14 4 Annually 7 2 Every 1 to 2 years 3 0 Never 2 0

B-8 8. Which of the following best describes the type of treatment recommendations generated in your pavement management system? (41 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) Treatment categories are recommended 14 2 Specific treatments are recommended 11 3 Both types of treatment recommendations are generated 11 1 No treatment recommendations are generated 5 1 Type of Treatment Recommendations U.S. Canada 9. Which of the following factors are considered in your pavement management sys- tem for selecting a feasible pavement treatment? Select all that apply. (39 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) Factor U.S. Canada Pavement condition 37 7 Pavement type 34 6 Traffic volumes and/or loads 30 6 Pavement age 28 4 Highway system 26 3 Last treatment 24 3 Pavement layer characteristics 5 1 Other 5 1 Climatic condition 4 0 Comments: •   No PMS in place at this time. •   No treatment selected in PMS. •   Uncheck items are performed during field review. •   Whether curbed roadway—does treatment raise roadway profile, where pavement is in the treat- ment window. •   Studded tire wear. •   Decision taken on pavement condition rating. 10. do your treatment rules recommend pavement preservation treatments as options? examples of pavement preservation treatments include chip seals and micro- surfacing on asphalt-surfaced pavements and diamond grinding or dowel-bar retrofit on concrete pavements. (39 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) U.S. Canada Yes 32 6 No 7 1

B-9 11. from the list below, identify each type of analysis that can be done with your pave- ment management software (whether you are using it for that purpose or not). Select all that apply. (39 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) Comments: •   No PMS in use. •   Data stored in the PMS is used outside of the software to perform additional analysis. •   Just to clarify, we don’t do all of the above with just one software. We do the above with multiple  Access and Excel tools that analyze the PMS data set. your responses indicate that your pavement management system can conduct each of these types of analyses. from the list below, select those that have actually been conducted using your pavement management software. Select all that apply. (35 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) Develop contractor performance specifications and measures to monitor for warranty projects 4 0 Other 3 0 Analysis That CAN BE Done by PM Software U.S. Canada Forecast expected conditions under different funding scenarios 34 5 Estimate funding required to achieve performance targets 32 5 Prioritize project recommendations under constrained funding 32 5 Set program budget allocations 30 3 Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatments 29 5 Contribute to the development of a transportation asset mgmt. plan 28 6 Set performance targets for portions of the network 27 5 Allocate funding to regions based on needs 27 5 Analyze gaps between current and desired performance 24 4 Prepare Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) submittals 21 1 Verify performance models using field data 16 5 Analysis That HAS BEEN Done by PM Software U.S. Canada Forecast expected conditions under different funding scenarios 30 5 Estimate funding required to achieve performance targets 26 5 Prioritize project recommendations under constrained funding 23 4 Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatments 19 4 Set program budget allocations 18 2 Analyze gaps between current and desired performance 17 4 Contribute to the development of a transportation asset mgmt. plan 17 5 Set performance targets for portions of the network 16 4 Allocate funding to regions based on needs 15 4 Prepare Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) submittals 13 1 Verify performance models using field data 8 4 Develop contractor performance specifications and measures to monitor for warranty projects 2 0 Other 2 0 Comments: •   No PMS in use. •   Data stored in the PMS is used outside of the software to perform additional analysis. •   Just to clarify, we don’t do all of the above with just one software. We do the above with multiple  Access and Excel tools that analyze the PMS data set.

B-10 12. do cost estimates in the pavement management system include the cost of non- pavement related activities such as striping or guardrail repairs? (39 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) U.S. Canada Yes 22 1 No 17 6 SeCtion 3: putting dAtA to WoRk 13. in your opinion, how closely do the project and treatment recommendations from your pavement management system match the projects that are actually funded? We are looking for an estimate rather than an exact number. (40 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) Project/Treatment Recommendations Match Funding U.S. Canada At least 70% of the time 15 3 Between 40 to 70% of the time 15 3 I don’t know 7 0 Less than 40% of the time 3 1 What are the reasons for the lack of a match between pavement management recommendations and funded projects? Select all that apply. (3 U.S. responses; 1 Canadian) Reason for Lack of Match U.S. Canada Political influence 2 0 Other 2 0 Lack of sufficient funds 1 1 Local conditions drive the recommendations 1 1 District independence 1 0 Lack of confidence in the pavement management analysis results 0 0 Lack of confidence in the pavement management data 0 0 Network level analysis only rather than project level analysis capabilities 0 0 Comment: •   Resource constraints in developing plans for small, but cost-effective projects. •   There is one treatment (SAMI) where there is a lack of confidence in PMS results. The trigger  for this needs more work.

B-11 Which factor has the gReAteSt influence on the lack of match between pavement management recommendations and funded projects? (3 U.S. responses; 0 Canadian) Greatest Influencing Factor U.S. Canada Lack of sufficient funds 1 0 District independence 1 0 Other (Resource constraints in developing project plans) 1 0 Lack of confidence in the PM analysis results 0 0 Lack of confidence in the PM data 0 0 Local conditions drive the recommendations 0 0 Political influence 0 0 Network level analysis capability only 0 0 Comments: •   The pavement management system data quality has been improving in recent years. Treatment- specific project recommendations have been provided in the past 4 years. District offices are now growing in reliance on these results to use them for project planning. Timing of pave- ment management results were previously too early for practical use when project development needed to begin. We have recently adjusted this, and will provide suggested projects for Fall 2018/Spring 2019 construction using 2015 data with optimized suggested projects and pav- ing benefit targets and budget distributions provided to Districts the summer of 2016. This is intended provide enough time for planning, project level engineering, contract development, bidding and construction by 2019. This is one year more time than we provided when such sug- gested projects began to be provided to Districts in 2012. •   Over the next few years, funding emphasis will be on bridge repair. 14. Which of the following processes are in place? Select all that apply. (41 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) Processes In Place U.S. Canada A process to update historical work activities 33 6 A process to verify the quality of data collected 32 6 A process to update pavement surface type based on work activities 28 7 A process to update the database with actual project costs 16 4 None of the above 4 0

B-12 Comments: •   No PMS. •   We exchange data with other systems using excel spreadsheets or access databases. •   Project Status Dashboard (PSAMS). •   Although not “integrated,” we do pull inventory “snapshots” from other state databases and do  push pavement condition data sets for loading onto GIS to produce maps. •   Image Viewing Software. •   Connected with TIMS (Transp. Information Management System). 16. Which of the following types of documentation are in place? Select all that apply. (40 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) 15. your pavement management software is integrated with what other computer sys- tems? Select all that apply. (41 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) Integrated System U.S. Canada Geographic information systems 19 2 Centralized roadway database 13 0 None, it operates independently 12 2 Comprehensive asset management system 7 1 Maintenance management system 7 2 Bridge management system 6 1 Financial management 5 1 Other 5 1 Another asset management software system 1 0 Documentation In Place U.S. Canada Condition survey procedures 32 6 Treatment rules 24 5 Performance model equations 22 5 Pavement management roles and responsibilities 14 3 Quality assurance procedures 13 4 Other 3 1 None of the above 1 0 Comments: •   Working on formal QM document. •   Currently developing a manual of operations. •   Our processes are fairly well established, but not formally documented. •   VIR survey procedure manual.

B-13 17. use the checkbox to identify information the pavement management group shares with each of the four stakeholder groups listed. Select all that apply. (41 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) Future funding needs (also known as a backlog) 1 3 3 6 4 5 10 0 Expected future funding levels 6 2 3 5 5 4 5 0 Type of Information Elected and Appointed Officials Agency Decision Makers Oher Internal Stakeholders Other External Stakeholders U.S. Canada U.S. Canada U.S. Canada U.S. Canada Current pavement conditions 8 2 0 7 6 6 24 1 Forecasted conditions 2 3 7 7 1 6 12 0 Candidate projects 2 1 6 4 5 5 0 Funded projects 8 2 7 4 4 4 14 3 Comments: •   We don’t really record a “backlog” as we are given a pot of money and do our best with it.  Maybe the answer here is that we have met our target and continue to achieve it, so we don’t have a backlog? Expected future funding means several things to us. We estimate future fund- ing needs to meet system targets and we share that with anyone who will listen. Reality future funding is what we are told we can use. These amounts are provided to us (and again, we will share with anyone who will listen). •   Funded and Candidate Projects are shared created and shared by other sections. •   We share anything and everything with whomever needs  it either directly  from the PMS  or through various products we deliver in the form of reports and the Department’s capital work plan. •   The PM group might not be the ones that actually share the information. It might be contained  in a report or website presented by others in the department. •   Regarding cost estimates and non-pavement items, striping is included in all. Fencing and guard  rail in all reconstruction estimates. Rule of thumb for those and other items in lower level treat- ments if it is 10% or over in the cost value. Pavement management data for elected officials and external stakeholders is shared through the planning division. •   Selection of funded projects is not a PMS decision. Similarly, PMS is used to determine future  funding needs, but cannot determine expected funding levels. All PMS information is available as public record. •   Pavement Management Group communicates “internally” only. Other groups carry the message  to politicians and external stakeholders. •   Software was installed on February 2016, still pending more interaction with it. •   PM section provides information internally to DOT decision makers and resurfacing personnel.  Agency decision makers share with outside agencies. PM section has shared info with MPOs on request. •   The  pavement management  group  does  not make  funding  decisions,  so  some  of  the  items  checked above are shared through other channels. •   While data are collected as noted we are yet to acquire a PMS.

B-14 18. identify the completed pavement management enhancements or current practices in column A and the enhancements you plan to make in the next 2 years in column B. (41 U.S. responses; 6 Canadian) approach for pavement condition surveys to continuous surveys Increase the frequency of pavement condition surveys 12 2 7 1 15 4 Type of Enhancement A. Completed Enhancements or Current Practices B. Enhancements to be Made in the Next Two Years N/A U.S. Canada U.S. Canada U.S. Canada Collect network level pavement structural condition using non- destructive testing procedures 8 2 9 4 Collect network level surface property/friction data 20 3 7 3 Develop or improve quality management procedures for the data 20 3 26 3 Analyze investment needs across asset types 10 3 21 2 Incorporate environmental sustainability metrics in treatment rules 2 0 3 1 Add preservation treatments into treatment rules 27 5 11 1 Incorporate risk into investment decisions 5 0 15 1 Use pavement management to optimize resource allocations 22 4 15 1 Update pavement management software 20 1 25 3 Change from manual to automated pavement condition surveys 24 4 12 3 5 1 Migrate to a 3D automated data collection system 18 2 17 2 7 1 Change from a sampling 29 5 6 2 5 1 19. using the text box below, identify any additional data you wish you collected, but do not currently collect. you may skip the question if it is not applicable. (13 U.S. responses; 3 Canadian) •   Network FWD tests. •   Pavement layer data and pavement mix design properties and materials. •   Potholes. •   We are not completely happy with our automated cracking data as yet. Specifically, depressed  transverse cracks need more attention. Also, consistency and better understanding of the outputs are needed. •   Pavement Color. Network Level Deflection Data. Network Level GPR. Network Level cross  slope across all lanes (using Lidar?). •   Network level FWD data to use in MEPDG. Automated survey equipment/software to perform  continuous network level data collection for IRI and cracking. •   Traffic speed deflectometer results. •   Statewide Friction Data. •   We are currently looking into the feasibility of using a rolling wheel deflectometer to collect  structural information on our roadways. •   We would like to improve the link to pavement material data (such as binder source/grade, RAP,  warm mix additive, etc.). We would also like to pull all of our project by project core and FWD data into a comprehensive database. •   I wish a more complete data set for pavement structure was available. •   Raveling and structural condition.

B-15 •   Skid data; ground penetrating radar data collection. •   Surface texture, rumble strip inventory. •   We wish to collect cracking/distresses by automated means to obtain continuous, rather than a  sampling. This would be similar to our IRI/Rut data collection. •   Lidar and GPR continuous data. 20. if you have used your pavement management data in an “innovative” or “unusual” way, please use the text box below to describe the application. you may skip the question if it is not applicable. (6 U.S. responses; 0 Canadian) •   We are trying really hard to follow the AASHTO Standards for pavement surface data collection  in hopes of getting the standards to a state that many States can use them effectively. •   We have provided curvature data to assist with speed limit analysis. •   For NMDOT, our PMS database is in infancy stages. However, for decision making process, we  have divided like distresses into 3 separate categories: Structural, Environmental, Safety. Pave- ment treatment options are based on the lowest category index. •   I would not call us innovative, but we work hard at the fundamentals to make sure we are getting  our money’s worth out of our pavement program dollars. •   Used pavement management data to develop performance standards for concession projects. •   Washington DOT has been particularly involved in implementing pavement performance evalu- ation related to cost-effectiveness. This was summarized in a paper at the 9th International Con- ference on Managing Pavement Assets titled “Economic Evaluation of Pavement Management Decisions” (see uploaded paper attached to this survey). 21. the synthesis will include up to five case studies to further describe innovative uses of pavement management information. Would your agency be interested in being considered as a case study? (36 U.S. responses; 7 Canadian) U.S. Canada Yes 14 3 No 22 4

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

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 5 0 0 F ifth S tre e t, N W W a s h in g to n , D C 2 0 0 0 1 A D D R ESS SER VICE R EQ UESTED NO N-PRO FIT O RG . U.S. PO STAG E PA ID CO LUM BIA, M D PER M IT NO . 88 ISBN 978-0-309-38983-9 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 3 8 9 8 3 9 9 0 0 0 0 Pavem ent M anagem ent System s: Putting Data to W ork NCHRP Synthesis 501 TRB