KAHO_C5_RipReport.pdf

Road Inventory and Condition Assessment

Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park

Prepared By: Federal Highway Administration Road Inventory Program (RIP) Data Collected: 04/2014 Report Date: 09/2014

Updated Cycle 5 Report

KAHO

UPDATED CYCLE 5 RATINGS FOR THIS REPORT

The first Cycle 5 Manual Condition Assessment for Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (KAHO) occurred in January of 2012, and the report for this collection was published and delivered to the park in April of 2012.

Following the 2012 data collection effort, the Road Inventory Program’s Automated Data Collection Vehicle (DCV) visited Hawaii in April of 2014 to perform automated collection on all NPS paved roads. During this visit, the DCV collected condition data on the Visitor Center Entrance Road at KAHO, and a second manual condition assessment was performed on the Visitor Center Parking Area. Thus the previous Cycle 5 condition ratings from 2012 were updated in 2014.

The 2014 condition assessment at KAHO incorporated new manual rating methodologies designed to improve the identification of treatment recommendations and pavement condition descriptions for Manually Rated Routes. These new methodologies will be used in future Cycle 6 collections at all NPS park units and were, therefore, incorporated into this 2014 Report and Cycle 5 collection of KAHO as an update to the previous 2012 collection report.

HAWAIIHAWAII

HAWAIIHAWAII

HAWAIIHAWAII

Sources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors

Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park in

Hawaii

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park

KAUAI

OAHU

MOLOKAI

MAUILANAI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 1-1

2 PARK ROUTE INVENTORY

Route ID, Subcomponent, and Changes Reports 2-1

3 PARK SUMMARY INFORMATION

Paved Route Miles and Percentages by Functional Class and PCR 3-1

DCV Road Condition Summary 3-3

Parkwide DCV Condition Summary 3-4

4 PARK ROUTE LOCATION MAPS

Route Location Key Map 4-1

Route Location Area Map 4-2

Route Condition Key Map – PCR Mile by Mile 4-3

Route Condition Area Map – PCR Mile by Mile 4-4

5 PAVED ROUTE CONDITION RATING SHEETS

CRS Pages 5-1

6 MANUALLY RATED PAVED ROUTE CONDITION RATING SHEETS

MRR Pages 6-1

7 PARKING AREA CONDITION RATING SHEETS

Paved Parking Area Pages 7-1

8 PARKWIDE / ROUTE MAINTENANCE FEATURES SUMMARIES

Parkwide Maintenance Features Summary 8-1

Route Maintenance Features Summary 8-2

Structure List 8-3

9 ROUTE MAINTENANCE FEATURES ROAD LOGS 9-1

10 APPENDIX

Description of Rating System 10-1

Explanation of the Condition Descriptions 10-3

Description of Pavement Treatment Types 10-4

Description of Manual Rating Methods 10-5

Distress Measurement Method for Manually Rating Primary Roads 10-6

Visual Inspection Method for Manually Rating Secondary Roads 10-9

Method for Manually Rating Paved Parking areas and Non-Linear Roads 10-10

Curb Inspection and Treatments 10-11

Surface Distresses on Data Collection Vehicle Routes 10-12

Index Formulas for Data Collection Vehicle Routes 10-19

Data Collection Vehicle Subsystems 10-23

Geodatabase – Background and Metadata 10-26

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 10-27

Section 1

Introduction

1-1

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Highway Administration, (FHWA), in the mid 1970s, was charged with the task of identifying surface condition deficiencies and corrective priorities on National Park Service (NPS) roads and parkways. Additionally, FHWA was tasked with establishing an integrated maintenance features inventory, locating features such as culverts, guardrails, and signs, among others, along NPS roads and parkways. As a result, in 1976 the NPS and FHWA entered into an MOA (Memorandum Of Agreement) which established the RIP (Road Inventory Program). This MOA was terminated and revised in 1980 to establish a new MOA aiming to update RIP data and develop a long-range program to improve and maintain NPS roads to designated condition standards and establish a maintenance management program.

The FHWA completed this initial phase of the RIP in the early 1980s. As a result of this effort, each NPS site included in the study received a RIP Report known as the “Brown Book” which included the information collected during this first RIP phase.

In the 1990s, the effort was again renewed to update and maintain the RIP data. By this time the computer age was upon us and a process was employed that relied heavily on electronic data collection and computer technology. A cyclical program was developed and the RIP completed two cycles of data collection from 1994 to 2001. Cycle 1, starting in 1994, was conducted in 44 “large parks” (parks containing 10 or more paved route miles). Cycle 2 began in 1997 and comprised 79 large parks and 5 small parks totaling 4,874 paved route miles. Each of these parks received a RIP Report known as the “Blue Book”. Cycle 3, from 2001 to 2004, was conducted in all parks, large and small, that contained any paved routes, including parking areas and, again, each park received a RIP Report and associated electronic files.

Cycle 4 was initiated in the spring of 2006 covering 86 large parks and several associated small parks consisting of 5,553 paved route miles and 6,232 paved parking areas. Data collection has been completed for Cycle 4 and all data has been delivered to the NPS.

In 2005, the FHWA began implementing the use of a Pavement Management System (PMS) to assist the NPS in prioritizing Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation activities. The PMS used by FHWA is the Highway Pavement Management Application (HPMA) and this software has the ability to store inventory and condition data from RIP and forecast future performance using prediction models. Outputs include performance and condition reports at the National, Regional, Park, or Route level. A regional prioritized list and optimization have been produced for most regions and the Federal Highway Deferred Maintenance is calculated via the HPMA.

In an effort to improve the accuracy of treatment recommendations and pavement condition descriptions, an extensive study was completed throughout 2010 that has resulted in changes to the RIP condition reporting method, specifically the distresses and indexes that comprise the Pavement Condition Rating (PCR). It was determined that a better representation of PCR could

1-2 be achieved by modifying the relative impact certain distresses would have on the overall rating.

The changes that were implemented were endorsed by management at both the FHWA and NPS in October 2010. These changes will allow greater use of RIP and HPMA data for not simply condition data reporting, but also as a reliable tool for project identification and selection.

Because of these changes, the PCR Condition ratings reported in Cycle 5 do not directly relate to the condition ratings reported in previous cycle RIP Reports. For more detailed information about the changes, see Section 3 and Section 10 in this RIP Report.

Cycle 5 has launched in the summer of 2010 and will again comprise all parks, large and small, that are served by paved roads and/or parking areas. For Cycle 5, the decision was made to collect condition data in large parks on Functional Class 1, 2, and 7 paved routes only, as well as any new routes that were previously not collected. In small parks, all paved routes and parking areas will be collected. As a result, this will include 81 large parks with 4,459 paved route miles and 231 small parks with 529 paved route miles and associated paved parking areas.

Since 1984, the Road Inventory Program has been funded through the Federal Lands Highway Park Roads and Parkways (PRP) Program. Currently, coordination of the RIP with FLH is under the NPS Washington Headquarters Park Facility Management Division. The FLH Washington office coordinates policy and prepares national reports and needs assessment studies for Congress.

In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) amended Title 23 U.S.C., and inserted Section 204(a)(6) requiring the FHWA and NPS, to develop by rule, a Pavement Management System (PMS) applied to park roads and parkways serving the National Park System.

FLH is responsible for the accuracy of all data presented in this report. Any questions or comments concerning the contents of this report should be directed to the national RIP Coordinator located in Sterling, Virginia.

Respectfully, FHWA RIP Team

FHWA/Eastern Federal Lands FHWA/Central Federal Lands 21400 Ridgetop Circle 12300 West Dakota Ave Sterling, VA 20166 Lakewood, CO 80228

(703) 404-6371 (720) 963-3556

Section 2

Park Route Inventory

Route Identification Changes to Paved Routes from 2012 Cycle 5 Collection

Section 3

Park Summary Information

3-1

KAHO: PAVED ROUTE MILES AND PERCENTAGES

BY FUNCTIONAL CLASS AND PCR

Functional Class

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

Total Miles

POOR

0-60

FAIR

61-84

GOOD

85-94

EXCELLENT

95-100

Miles % Miles % Miles % Miles %

1 0.06 100% 0.06

Totals 0 0% 0% 0% 0 0% 0.06 100% 0.06

Explanation of the Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor Condition Descriptions

In addition to the RIP Index changes that have been implemented in Cycle 5, we will also aim to provide greater assistance in translating excellent/good/fair/poor categories into pavement needs categories. The PCR can be used to indicate the place in the Pavement Life Cycle and the types of treatments that should be considered now and into the future.

Excellent/New: PCR of 95-100. Pavements in this range will require only spot repairs

Good: PCR of 85-94. Pavements in this range will likely be candidates for Preventive Maintenance. Examples include Chip and Slurry Seals, Micro Surfacing and Thin Overlays.

Fair: PCR of 61-84. Pavements in this range will likely be candidates of Light Rehabilitation (L3R). Examples include single-lift overlays up to 2.5 inches in total thickness, milling and overlays.

Poor: PCR of 0-60. Pavements in this range will likely be candidates of Heavy Rehabilitation or Reconstruction (H3R or 4R). Examples include Pulverization, Multiple Lift Overlays, and Reconstruction.

3-2

At this time, specific Maintenance and Rehabilitation activities should be evaluated and recommended at the project level. Site-specific conditions that influence treatment type should be determined based on performing a subsurface investigation and/or pavement condition survey, and not be based solely on RIP data. Additionally, RIP produces a snapshot of conditions the year in which the data was collected. For further information or to obtain additional Pavement Management System’s data from our Highway Pavement Management Application (HPMA) please contact the Eastern Federal Lands pavement team.

KAHO: DCV ROAD CONDITION SUMMARY

DCV = Data Collection Vehicle

ROUTE

NUMBER ROUTE NAME FUNCTIONAL

CLASS

PAVED

LENGTH

SURFACE

TYPE

AVERAGE SURFACE

CONDITION RATING

(SCR)

AVERAGE PAVEMENT

CONDITION RATING

(PCR)

0011 VISITOR CENTER ENTRANCE

ROAD 1 0.06 ASPHALT 99 99

Date Collected 04/2014

3-3

99 99

SC

R

PC

R

Route Number

DCV ROAD CONDITION SUMMARY

SCR (Average Surface Condition Rating)

PCR (Average Pavement Condition Rating)

KAHO: PARKWIDE DCV CONDITION SUMMARY

AVERAGE

PAVEMENT

CONDITION

RATING (PCR)

AVERAGE

ROUGHNESS

CONDITION

INDEX (RCI)

AVERAGE

SURFACE

CONDITION

RATING (SCR)

AVERAGE

RUT INDEX

AVERAGE

ALLIGATOR

CRACKING

INDEX

AVERAGE

LONGITUDINAL

CRACKING

INDEX

AVERAGE

TRANSVERSE

CRACKING

INDEX

AVERAGE

PATCHING

INDEX

99 N/A 99 99 100 99 100 100

Date Collected 04/2014

Roughness data is only collected on routes with lengths greater than 0.5 miles and a posted speed limit of 25 MPH or greater.

3-4

N/A

99 99 100 99 100 100

AVERAGE PAVEMENT

CONDITION RATING

(PCR)

AVERAGE ROUGHNESS

CONDITION INDEX (RCI)

AVERAGE SURFACE

CONDITION RATING

(SCR)

AVERAGE

RUT INDEX

AVERAGE ALLIGATOR

CRACKING INDEX

AVERAGE

LONGITUDINAL

CRACKING INDEX

AVERAGE TRANSVERSE

CRACKING INDEX

AVERAGE

PATCHING

INDEX

R

AT

IN

G

CYCLE 5 PARKWIDE ROAD CONDITION SUMMARY

Section 4

Park Route Location Maps

4-1

Route Location Map Key Map

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Cycle 5 Collected Routes

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05 Miles

4-2

Route Location Map Area 1

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Unique colors used to differentiate routes

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20.025 Miles

Rte 0011

Rte 0902

4-3

Route Condition Map PCR - Mile By Mile

Key Map

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

See Appendix for definitions and formulas Only routes collected by the DCV in this Cycle are displayed

Poor Fair Good Excellent No Data(0 - 60) (61- 84) (85 - 94) (95 - 100)

4-4

Route Condition Map PCR - Mile By Mile

Area Map 1

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.10.0125 Miles

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

See Appendix for definitions and formulas Only routes collected by the DCV in this Cycle are displayed

Poor Fair Good Excellent No Data(0 - 60) (61- 84) (85 - 94) (95 - 100)

Section 5

Paved Route Condition Rating Sheets

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

See Appendix for definitions and formulas Poor Fair Good Excellent No Data(0 - 60) (61- 84) (85 - 94) (95 - 100)

5-1

0.06

4/18/2014 0.06

ASPHALT

Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park

ROUTE 0011: VISITOR CENTER ENTRANCE ROAD

Data Collection Vehicle Rating

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Rte 0011

Rte 0902

Surface Type:

Inspection Date:

Paved Length (Miles):

Number of Lanes Lane &Width Information

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Roadway Condition Information

Structural Crack Index Distress Index Values

Route Summary Section Length (MI) Section Number

Surface Condition Rating (SCR)

Transverse Cracking Index Patching Index Rutting Index International Roughness Index (IRI)

Paved Width (ft) Lane Width (ft)

Roughness Condition Index (RCI)

N/A

N/A

Section 6

Manually Rated Paved Route Condition Rating Sheets

6-1

Section 6: Manually Rated Condition Rating Sheets

No data available for this section.

Section 7

Parking Area Condition Rating Sheets

Curb Type

Surface TypeUser AccessFMSS NumberInspection Date

Curb Reveal (Inches)Area (Sq. Ft.) Lane Miles (11' Widths) Curb Recommendation

Curb & Gutter Type

Culverts Drop Inlets Gates

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

0 200 400

Feet

FROM END OF ROUTE 0011 (VISITOR CENTER ENTRANCE ROAD)

TO PARKING

4/7/2014

48,454

CONCRETE CURB

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE GOOD / 90

CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER

0.834

94778 PUBLIC ASPHALT

DO NOTHING

7-1

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

See Appendix for definitions and formulas Poor Fair Good Excellent Not Rated(0 - 60) (61- 84) (85 - 94) (95 - 100)

ROUTE 0902: VISITOR CENTER PARKING LOT

Manual Rating

Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park

0 2 0

Rte 0902

Section 8

Parkwide / Route Maintenance Features Summaries

KAHO: PARKWIDE MAINTENANCE FEATURES SUMMARY

Includes PKG Routes collected in Cycle 5

FEATURE LINEAR FEET COUNT

BRIDGE -- 0

CATTLE GUARD -- 0

CULVERT -- 0

CURB 0 --

DROP INLET -- 2

GATE -- 1

GUARD/GUIDE RAIL 216 --

CABLE 0 --

NON-CABLE 216 --

GUARD/GUIDE WALL 0 --

BOLLARD 0 --

TEMPORARY BARRIER 0 --

NON TEMP/BOLLARD 0 --

INTERSECTION -- 5

LOW WATER CROSSING -- 0

LOW WATER CROSSING 0 --

MILE MARKER -- 0

OVERPASS -- 0

PARK BOUNDARY -- 0

PAVED DITCH 0 --

PULLOUT -- 0

PULLOUT 0 --

RAILROAD CROSSING -- 0

RETAINING WALL -- 0

RETAINING WALL 0 --

SIGN -- 9

STATE BOUNDARY -- 0

TRAFFIC LIGHT -- 0

TUNNEL -- 0

TUNNEL 0 --

Date Collected: 04/2014

Note: ALL features were inventoried by RIP along paved roads. ONLY culverts, drop inlets, and gates were collected in Parking areas.

The features totals are reflected below.

8-1

KAHO: ROUTE MAINTENANCE FEATURES SUMMARY

FEATURE UNIT

BRIDGE 0 EACH

CATTLE GUARD 0 EACH

CULVERT 0 EACH

CURB 0 LINEAR FEET

DROP INLET 0 EACH

GATE 1 EACH

GUARD/GUIDE RAIL 216 LINEAR FEET

CABLE 0 LINEAR FEET

NON-CABLE 216 LINEAR FEET

GUARD/GUIDE WALL 0 LINEAR FEET

BOLLARD 0 LINEAR FEET

TEMPORARY BARRIER 0 LINEAR FEET

NON TEMP/BOLLARD 0 LINEAR FEET

INTERSECTION 5 EACH

LOW WATER CROSSING 0 EACH

LOW WATER CROSSING 0 LINEAR FEET

MILE MARKER 0 EACH

OVERPASS 0 EACH

PARK BOUNDARY 0 EACH

PAVED DITCH 0 LINEAR FEET

PULLOUT 0 EACH

PULLOUT 0 LINEAR FEET

RAILROAD CROSSING 0 EACH

RETAINING WALL 0 EACH

RETAINING WALL 0 LINEAR FEET

SIGN 9 EACH

STATE BOUNDARY 0 EACH

TRAFFIC LIGHT 0 EACH

TUNNEL 0 EACH

TUNNEL 0 LINEAR FEET

Date Collected: 04/2014

R O

U T

E

V

IS

IT

O R

C E

N T

E R

E N

T R

A N

C E

R

O A

D

8-2

KAHO: STRUCTURE LIST

No data available for this section.

Date Collected: 04/2014 8-3

Section 9

Route Maintenance Features Road Logs

KAHO: ROUTE MAINTENANCE FEATURES ROAD LOG

ROUTE 0011: VISITOR CENTER ENTRANCE ROAD

FROM TO

MILEPOST MILEPOST FEATURE SIDE COMMENT

0.000 0.000 ROUTE BEGIN N/A FROM STATE ROUTE 19

0.000 0.000 INTERSECTION LEFT PAVED ROUTE (STATE ROUTE 19 / NON NPS)

0.000 0.000 INTERSECTION RIGHT PAVED ROUTE (STATE ROUTE 19 / NON NPS)

0.005 0.005 SIGN LEFT REGULATORY, STOP

0.005 0.005 SIGN LEFT WARNING, GRAPHIC SIGN NO TEXT

0.005 0.005 SIGN LEFT WARNING, GRAPHIC SIGN NO TEXT

0.006 0.025 GUARD/GUIDE RAIL LEFT N/A

0.006 0.028 GUARD/GUIDE RAIL RIGHT N/A

0.007 0.007 SIGN LEFT REGULATORY, YIELD

0.010 0.010 SIGN LEFT WARNING, WATCH FOR BIKERS

0.026 0.026 SIGN LEFT GUIDE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

0.026 0.026 SIGN LEFT GUIDE, KALOKO- HONOKOHAU NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

0.027 0.027 SIGN RIGHT GUIDE, E KOMO MAI WELCOME GATE OPEN 8:30AM - 4:00PM

0.032 0.032 GATE N/A N/A

0.043 0.043 INTERSECTION RIGHT UNPAVED TRAIL

0.046 0.046 INTERSECTION LEFT ROUTE 0401 (PIPELINE ROAD)

0.055 0.055 SIGN N/A REGULATORY, KEEP RIGHT

0.055 0.055 INTERSECTION N/A ROUTE 0902 (VISITOR CENTER PARKING LOT)

0.055 0.055 ROUTE END N/A TO ROUTE 0902 (VISITOR CENTER PARKING LOT)

Date Collected: 04/2014 9-1

Section 10 Appendix

DESCRIPTION OF RATING SYSTEM

Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program”, Publication No. FHWA-RD 03-031, June 2003, Distress Identification Manual for the NPS Road Inventory Program, Cycle 5, 2010-2013”

Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program”

“Distress Identification Manual for the NPS Road Inventory Program, Cycle 5, 2010- 2013”

Explanation of the Condition Descriptions

Pa ve m en t C on di tio n Ra tin g

Pavement Age

Condition Categories and Treatments

Reconstruction

POOR/Heavy Rehabilitation

GOOD/Preventive Maintenance GOOD/PreventiveGOOD/P i MMMaintMainiMaiM i tenatena EXCELLENT/Localized Repairs Only

FAIR/Light Rehabilitation

Description of Pavement Treatment Types

Light Rehabilitation (L3R)

Heavy Rehabilitation (H3R)

Description of Manual Rating Methods

Distress Measurement Method for Manually Rating Primary Roads

Rating Section Lengths

Manual Distress Measurements Alligator Cracking

Longitudinal Cracking

Transverse Cracking

Patching and Potholes

Rutting

Roughness

Index Formulas for Distress Measurement Method:

Alligator Crack Index for Manual Rating:

AC_INDEX

Longitudinal Crack Index for Manual Rating:

LC_INDEX

Transverse Crack Index for Manual Rating:

TC_INDEX

Patching Index for Manual Rating:

PATCH_INDEX

%PATCHING

Rutting Index for Manual Rating:

RUT_INDEX

%RUTTING

Visual Inspection Method for Manually Rating Secondary Roads

Rating Section Lengths

Rating Criteria o o o o o

Method for Manually Rating Paved Parking Areas and Non-Linear Roads

Rating Criteria:

Asphalt Parking Distress Types o o o o o o

Concrete Parking Distress Types o o o

Curb Inspection and Treatments

Curb Reveal

Curb Recommendations o o o

Curb Inspection and Treatments

SURFACE DISTRESSES

Surface Condition Rating - SCR

Surface distresses determined from digital images

Surface distress measured by DCV (Data Collection Vehicle) LRMS (Laser Rut Measuring System)

Each of the five surface distresses is assigned a computed surface distress index

Structural Crack Index

Roughness Condition Index - RCI

Additional condition data measured by DCV (lasers and accelerometers)

SURFACE DISTRESSES ON DATA COLLECTION VEHICLE ROUTES

Pavement Condition Rating - PCR

Asphalt PCR Concrete PCR everity xtent severity Maximum Allowable Extent terminable serviceability

Note:

TABLE 1: Distress Summary

*Note: Roughness is measured on concrete roadways, but surface distresses and rutting are not measured. For concrete, PCR = RCI

ASPHALT-SURFACED PAVEMENT DISTRESS TYPES with RUTTING and ROUGHNESS

DISTRESS TYPE UNIT OF

MEASURE…

…CONVERTED TO DEFINED

SEVERITY

LEVELS?

MEASURED BY

Alligator Cracking Square Feet Percent of Lane Per 0.02 Mile Yes

Digital Image Crack Detection Software

Transverse Cracking Linear Feet Number of Cracks Per

0.02 Mile Yes

Digital Image Crack Detection Software

Longitudinal Cracking Linear feet Percent of Lane Length

Per 0.02 Mile Yes Digital Image Crack Detection Software

Patching/Potholes Square Feet Percent of Lane Per 0.02 Mile No

Digital Image Crack Detection Software

Rutting Inches Rut Depth Per 0.02 Mile Yes DCV – Laser Rut Measuring System (LRMS)

Roughness IRI *RCI Per 0.02 Mile No DCV – Lasers /Accelerometers

ALLIGATOR CRACKING

Description

Severity Levels

LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

TABLE 2: Alligator Crack Severity Levels

ALLIGATOR CRACKING SEVERITY

LEVELS

Crack Pattern

LOW MED HIGH

Cr ac k

W id th

LOW

MED

HI

LONGITUDINAL CRACKING

Severity Levels

LOW

MED

HIGH

TRANSVERSE CRACKING

Description

Severity Levels

LOW

HIGH

PATCHING AND POTHOLES

Severity Levels

RUTTING

Description

Severity Levels

LOW

HIGH

ROUGHNESS

Severity Levels

TABLE 3: IRI

IRI Descriptions

Type of Road Typical IRI ( in/mile )

INDEX FORMULAS

Alligator Crack Index

AC_INDEX

%LOW %MED %HI

Longitudinal Crack Index

LC_INDEX

%LOW %MED %HI

INDEX FORMULAS FOR DATA COLLECTION VEHICLE ROUTES

Structural Crack Index

SC_INDEX

Structural Crack Index

Transverse Crack Index

TC_INDEX

LOW MED HI

Patching Index

PATCH_INDEX

%PATCHING

Rutting Index

RUT_INDEX

Each wheelpath is analyzed independently for rut severities. %LOW %MED %HI total percentage total number of ruts within each severity in both wheelpaths 20 * 100

Roughness Condition Index (Asphalt)

RCI

AVG IRI

Roughness Condition Index (Concrete)

RCI

Surface Condition Rating Index

SCR Lowest

Note: The modified SCR equation above combines AC_INDEX and LC_INDEX, and considers that a single AC/LC index value of the Structural Crack Index (SC_INDEX).

The lowest of the four computed index values (SC_INDEX, TC_INDEX, PATCH_INDEX, or RUT_INDEX) becomes the SCR.

Data Collection Vehicle Subsystems

CAMERAS

CAMERA SPECIFICATIONS

Two Forward/ One Rear Facing

CAMERA SPECIFICATIONS

Pavement Line Scan

DATA COLLECTION VEHICLE SUBSYSTEMS

DMI (Distance Measuring Instrument)

ROUGHNESS (IRI)

RUTTING

IRI SPECIFICATIONS

RUTTING SPECIFICATIONS

GPS & INERTIAL SYSTEMS

GPS on Manually Rated Roads (MRR)

GPS SPECIFICATIONS

Geodatabase – Background and Metadata geodatabase metadata

GEODATABASE - BACKGROUND AND METADATA

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

TERM OR ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION OR DEFINITION

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS