txp-multi-pms1_GUMO_C6_Final_Report.pdf

GUMO

Cycle 6

Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Road Inventory Program (RIP)

Prepared By:

Road Inventory and Condition Assessment of Paved Routes Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Report Date: July 2017

Final Report in Texas

Moab

Tulsa

Colby

Guymon

Lawton

Joplin

Monroe

Salina

Cortez

Dallas

Lubbock

Abilene

Midland

Del Rio

Roswell

Wichita

El Paso

Houston

Amarillo

Carlsbad

Columbia

Lafayette

Vicksburg

Jonesboro

Texarkana

St. Louis

Fort Worth

Las Cruces

Alexandria

Shreveport

Dodge City

Fort Smith

Pine Bluff

Brownsville

Albuquerque

Springfield

Hot Springs

San Antonio

Kansas City

Fayetteville

Wichita Falls

Corpus Christi

Grand Junction Colorado Springs

Austin

Denver

Topeka

Santa Fe

Baton Rouge

Little Rock

Oklahoma City

Jefferson City

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, 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 Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors ±

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Table of Contents

4 - 1 4 - 2 4 - 4 4 - 5

SECTION PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 1 - 1

2. PARK ROUTE INVENTORY

2 - 1

3.

3 - 1

4.

APPENDIX

8 - 1

Route ID Report, Subcomponent Report, and Changes Report (As Applicable)

PAVED PARKING AREA CONDITION RATING SHEETS

Paved Parking Area Pages

PARK SUMMARY INFORMATION

Parkwide Paved Route Condition Summary

PARK ROUTE LOCATION MAPS

Route Location Key Map Route Location Area Map(s) Route Condition Key Map – PCR Mile by Mile Route Condition Area Map(s) – PCR Mile by Mile

PAVED ROAD CONDITION RATING SHEETS

Paved Road Pages 5 - 1

6 - 1

5.

6.

7. ROAD MILEPOST INFORMATION

Road Milepost Information and Logs 7 - 1

8.

Appendix A: Methodology for Determining Condition Ratings with the Data Collection Vehicle (DCV)

8 - 5

Appendix B: Methodology for Determining Condition Ratings Using Manual Rating Procedures Appendix C: Description of Cycle 6 Deliverables 8 - 29

8 - 20

Appendix D: Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 8 - 33

Improvements to the RIP Index Equations and Determination of PCR 8 - 1 Description of the Rating System 8 - 2 Explanation of the Condition Descriptions 8 - 3 Description of Pavement Treatment Types 8 - 4

Explanation of Condition Descriptions Route-Level Condition Summary Reports for Data Collection Vehicle, Manually Rated, and Parking Area Routes (As Applicable)

3 - 2 3 - 3

Section 1 Introduction

Introduction

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA), Road Inventory Program (RIP) inventories all roads and parking areas in the National Park System, and performs condition inspections on all paved roads and parking areas for the National Park Service (NPS). This report contains the results of the Cycle 6 condition assessment of paved roads and parking lots for this park unit. This assessment was done using an automated, state-of-the-art pavement inspection vehicle as well as manual ratings. This information represents the condition of the paved assets at the time of the inspection. The pavement management system utilized by FHWA and the NPS uses these assessments to estimate future conditions and help prioritize pavement maintenance and rehabilitation projects. Further information about RIP data and its role in managing paved roads and bridges can be obtained by contacting the NPS Regional Transportation Program Manager.

A History of the Road Inventory Program:

The FHWA, in the mid-1970s, was charged with the task of identifying surface condition deficiencies and corrective priorities on 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 a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which established the RIP. This MOA was revised in 1980 to update RIP data collection standards and develop a long-range program to improve and maintain NPS roads to designated condition standards and establish a pavement management program.

The FHWA completed the initial phase of inventory in the early 1980s. As a result of this effort, each NPS unit included in the collection received a RIP Report known as the “Brown Book” which contained information that was inventoried during this first RIP phase. In the 1990s, a cyclical program was developed, and since then five cycles of collection have been completed. Cycle 6 is currently in progress.

A summary of the RIP collection cycles is shown in the table below.

Cycle Years Parks Collected

Cycle 1 1994 - 1997 44 Large Parks

Cycle 2 1997 - 2001 79 Large Parks 5 Small Parks

Cycle 3 2001 - 2004 All Large Parks All Small Parks

Cycle 4 2006 - 2010 86 Large Parks Several Small Parks

Cycle 5 2010 - 2014 All Large Parks (Only functional class 1, 2, 7, and new/modified routes collected) All Small Parks (all roads and parking areas collected)

Cycle 6 2014 – 2020 (±) All roads and parking areas collected at all Parks Additional partial collections of functional class 1, 2, and 7 roads at Large Parks Cycle 6 is expected to last 6 years

Note: Large Parks have ≥ 10 Paved Miles; Small Parks have < 10 Paved Miles

1-1

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 Federal Lands Highway (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.

In 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) amended Title 23 U.S.C., and under Section 203(c)(1-2) stated that the National Park Service in cooperation with the DOT/FHWA, shall maintain a comprehensive national inventory of their transportation facilities, with the goal of quantifying transportation infrastructure needs within the National Park System.

A History of the Pavement Management System:

In 2005, the FHWA began implementing the use of a pavement management system to assist the NPS in prioritizing Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation activities. The system used by FHWA is the Highway Pavement Management Application (HPMA), which 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. Regional prioritized lists and optimizations have been produced for most regions, and the Service’s overall roadway Deferred Maintenance is calculated via the HPMA.

Overview of Cycle 6:

Cycle 6 launched in the spring of 2014 and will again comprise all NPS park units that are served by paved roads and/or parking areas. For Cycle 6, all paved roads (approximately 5,700 miles) and parking areas will be collected in all parks at least once, while the primary routes (functional class 1, 2, and 7 roads) at Large Parks will have additional collections. These multiple collections will provide updated condition data on a majority of the NPS’s primary road network and help build a better pavement management system, allowing for more accurate pavement performance prediction models.

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/Central Federal Lands 12300 West Dakota Ave Lakewood, CO 80228

FHWA/Eastern Federal Lands 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166 ( ) 4 4- (720) 963-3556

1-2

Section 2 Park Route Inventory

Section 3 Park Summary Information

3-1

3-2

3-3

3-4

Section 4 Park Route Location Maps

ROUTE LOCATION MAP

Key Map

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

±0 10 20

Miles

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

NPS Collected Routes

Non-NPS Collected Routes

Rte. 5000

4-1

Area Map 1

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

±0 0.5 1

Miles

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

Note: Unique colors are used to differentiate roads

Rte. 0905

Rte. 0904

Rte. 0917ZZ

Rte. 0914B

Rte. 0903

Rte. 0914A

Rte. 0916

Rte. 0906

Rte. 5000 Rte. 0200

Rte. 0915

Non-NPS Collected Routes

Rte. 0405 Rte. 0913

Rte. 0404

Rte. 0403

Rte. 0100

Rte.0101

4-2

Area Map 2

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

±0 1 2

Miles

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

Note: Unique colors are used to differentiate roads

Rte. 0900

Non-NPS Collected Routes

Rte. 0400

Rte. 0010

Rte. 5000

4-3

ROUTE CONDITION MAP

PCR - MILE BY MILE

Key Map

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

±0 10 20

Miles

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

See Appendix for definitions and formulas Only Data Collection Vehicle and Manually Rated Roads are displayed

Fair (61- 84) Good (85 - 94)Poor (0 - 60) Excellent (95 - 100) Not Rated

4-4

Area Map 1

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

±0 0.5 1

Miles

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

See Appendix for definitions and formulas Only Data Collection Vehicle and Manually Rated Roads are displayed

Fair (61- 84) Good (85 - 94)Poor (0 - 60) Excellent (95 - 100) Not Rated

Rte. 0101

Rte. 0200

Rte. 0403

Rte. 0100

Rte. 0405 Rte. 0404

4-5

Area Map 2

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

±0 1 2

Miles

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

See Appendix for definitions and formulas Only Data Collection Vehicle and Manually Rated Roads are displayed

Fair (61- 84) Good (85 - 94)Poor (0 - 60) Excellent (95 - 100) Not Rated

Rte. 0010

Rte. 0400

4-6

Section 5 Paved Road Condition Rating Sheets

Surface Type:

Inspection Date:

Paved Length (Miles):

Number of Lanes Lane & Width Information

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Roadway Condition Information

Longitudinal Crack Index

Distress Index Values

Route Summary Section Length (MI) Beginning Section MP

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)

Alligator Crack Index Structural Crack Index

Rte. 0010

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, 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

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

ROUTE 0010: MCKITTRICK CANYON ROAD

2 2

1 2 3 4 1 1 1 0.22

3/21/2017 4.22

ASPHALT

22.9

22.5

10.1

22.8

23.4

23.1 9.8

100100100100100100 100100100100100100

Data Collection Vehicle (DCV) Rating

5-1

Paved Length (Miles):

Number of Lanes Lane & Width Information

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Roadway Condition Information

Longitudinal Crack Index

Distress Index Values

Route Summary Section Length (MI) Beginning Section MP

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)

Alligator Crack Index Structural Crack Index

Rte. 0100

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, 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

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

ROUTE 0100: FRIJOLE RANCH ROAD

2 2

0.04

3/21/2017 0.04

ASPHALT

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100100

5-2

Paved Length (Miles):

Number of Lanes Lane & Width Information

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Roadway Condition Information

Longitudinal Crack Index

Distress Index Values

Route Summary Section Length (MI) Beginning Section MP

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)

Alligator Crack Index Structural Crack Index

Rte. 0101

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, 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

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

ROUTE 0101: PINE CANYON DRIVE

2 2

0.6

3/21/2017 0.6

ASPHALT

23.4 9.8

23.4 9.8

100100 100100

5-3

Paved Length (Miles):

Number of Lanes Lane & Width Information

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Roadway Condition Information

Longitudinal Crack Index

Distress Index Values

Route Summary Section Length (MI) Beginning Section MP

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)

Alligator Crack Index Structural Crack Index

Rte. 0200

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, 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

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

ROUTE 0200: PINE SPRINGS CAR CAMPGROUND

2 2

0.05

3/21/2017 0.05

ASPHALT

22.7

22.7

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100100 100100

5-4

Paved Length (Miles):

Number of Lanes Lane & Width Information

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Roadway Condition Information

Longitudinal Crack Index

Distress Index Values

Route Summary Section Length (MI) Beginning Section MP

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)

Alligator Crack Index Structural Crack Index

Rte. 0400

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, 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

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

ROUTE 0400: PRATT DRIVE

2 2

0.34

3/21/2017 1.34

ASPHALT

16.4 8.2

16.4 8.2

16.5 8.3

100100100 1009999

5-5

Paved Length (Miles):

Number of Lanes Lane & Width Information

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Roadway Condition Information

Longitudinal Crack Index

Distress Index Values

Route Summary Section Length (MI) Beginning Section MP

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)

Alligator Crack Index Structural Crack Index

Rte. 0403

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, 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

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

ROUTE 0403: PARK VIEW DRIVE

2 2

0.68

3/21/2017 0.68

ASPHALT

20.5 10.3

20.5 10.3

100100

5-6

Paved Length (Miles):

Number of Lanes Lane & Width Information

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Roadway Condition Information

Longitudinal Crack Index

Distress Index Values

Route Summary Section Length (MI) Beginning Section MP

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)

Alligator Crack Index Structural Crack Index

Rte. 0404 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, 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

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

ROUTE 0404: BEAR CANYON VISTA

2 2

0.12

3/21/2017 0.12

ASPHALT

21.3 10.7

21.3 10.7

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100100 100100

5-7

Paved Length (Miles):

Number of Lanes Lane & Width Information

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Roadway Condition Information

Longitudinal Crack Index

Distress Index Values

Route Summary Section Length (MI) Beginning Section MP

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)

Alligator Crack Index Structural Crack Index

R

te. 0405

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, 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

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

ROUTE 0405: CAPITAN VISTA

2 2

0.06

3/21/2017 0.06

ASPHALT

9.2

9.2

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100100

Data Collection Vehicle (DCV) Rating

5-8

Section 6 Paved Parking Area Condition Rating Sheets

User AccessInspection Date FMSS Number Surface Type

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

Curb & Gutter TypeCurb Type

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

NOT APPLICABLE

FROM END OF ROUTE 0010 (MCKITTRICK CANYON ROAD)

TO PARKING

2/26/2017

53,364

NO CURB

LIGHT 3R TREATMENTS FAIR / 73

CONCRETE

0.919

72305 PUBLIC ASPHALT

DO NOTHING

6-1

ROUTE 0900: MCKITTRICK CANYON VISITOR CENTER PARKING

Manual Rating

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Rte. 0010

Rte. 0900

± 0 140 280

Feet

Curb & Gutter TypeCurb Type

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

NOT APPLICABLE

FROM ROUTE 5000 (STATE HIGHWAY 62/180)

TO ROUTE 0101 (PINE CANYON DRIVE) AND ROUTE 0904 (EMPLOYEE PARKING)

2/26/2017

68,513

NO CURB

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE GOOD / 90

CONCRETE

1.18

72164 PUBLIC ASPHALT

DO NOTHING

6-2

ROUTE 0903: VISITOR CENTER PARKING

Manual Rating

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Rte. 5000

Rte. 0101

Rte. 0904

± 0 300 600

Rte. 090

Curb & Gutter TypeCurb Type

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

NOT APPLICABLE

FROM ROUTE 0903 (VISITOR CENTER PARKING)

TO PARKING

2/26/2017

13,963

NO CURB

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE GOOD / 90

CONCRETE

0.24

72161 NONPUBLIC ASPHALT

DO NOTHING

6-3

ROUTE 0904: EMPLOYEE PARKING

Manual Rating

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Rte. 0903

± 0 210 420

Rte. 0904

Curb & Gutter TypeCurb Type

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

NOT APPLICABLE

FROM END OF ROUTE 0101 (PINE CANYON DRIVE)

TO PARKING

2/26/2017

45,904

NO CURB

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE GOOD / 90

CONCRETE

0.79

71022 PUBLIC ASPHALT

DO NOTHING

6-4

ROUTE 0905: RV CAMPGROUND

Manual Rating

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Rte. 0200

Rte. 0101

Rte. 0905

± 0 130 260

Curb & Gutter TypeCurb Type

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

NOT APPLICABLE

ADJACENT TO ROUTE 0101 (PINE CANYON DRIVE) AT MP 0.51 ON LEFT

2/26/2017

NO CURB

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE GOOD / 90

NO CURB AND GUTTER

0.015

71017 PUBLIC ASPHALT

NOT APPLICABLE

6-5

ROUTE 0906: AMPHITHEATER PARKING

Manual Rating

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Rte. 0101

Rte. 0906

± 0 20 40

Curb & Gutter TypeCurb Type

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

NOT APPLICABLE

ADJACENT TO ROUTE 0403 (PARK VIEW DRIVE) AT MP 0.37 ON RIGHT

2/26/2017

1,363

NO CURB

LIGHT 3R TREATMENTS FAIR / 73

NO CURB AND GUTTER

0.023

68330 NONPUBLIC ASPHALT

NOT APPLICABLE

6-6

ROUTE 0913: CHOLLA CHATEAU PARKING LOT

Manual Rating

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Rte. 0403

Rte. 0913

Rte. 0915

± 0 30 60

Curb & Gutter TypeCurb Type

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

FROM ROUTE 0405 (CAPITAN VISTA) AT MP 0.04 ON LEFT

TO ROUTE 0914B (MAINTENANCE YARD)

2/26/2017

10,859

CONCRETE

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE GOOD / 90

NO CURB AND GUTTER

0.187

81921 NONPUBLIC ASPHALT

DO NOTHING

6-7

ROUTE 0914A: MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEE PARKING

Manual Rating

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

R te

.0

Rte. 0914A

Rte. 0914B

± 0 80 160

Curb & Gutter TypeCurb Type

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

NOT APPLICABLE

FROM ROUTE 0405 (CAPITAN VISTA) AT MP 0.02 ON LEFT

TO PARKING

Note: Parking area consists of multiple surface types: 1 part asphalt at 29,309 square feet;

2 parts concrete at 5,064 square feet.

2/26/2017

34,373

NO CURB

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE GOOD / 90

NO CURB AND GUTTER

0.592

68418 NONPUBLIC ASPHALT

NOT APPLICABLE

6-8

ROUTE 0914B: MAINTENANCE YARD

Manual Rating

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Rte. 0403

R te

.0

Rte. 0914B

Rte. 0914A

± 0 125 250

Curb & Gutter TypeCurb Type

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

NOT APPLICABLE

FROM ROUTE 0403 (PARK VIEW DRIVE) AT MP 0.36 ON LEFT

TO PARKING

2/26/2017

6,706

NO CURB

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE GOOD / 90

NO CURB AND GUTTER

0.115

68302 NONPUBLIC ASPHALT

NOT APPLICABLE

6-9

ROUTE 0915: SEASONAL HOUSING WEST PARKING LOT

Manual Rating

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Rte. 0403

Rte. 0916

Rte. 0915

Rte. 0913

± 0 90 180

Curb & Gutter TypeCurb Type

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

NOT APPLICABLE

FROM ROUTE 0403 (PARK VIEW DRIVE) AT MP 0.40 ON LEFT

TO PARKING

2/26/2017

7,624

NO CURB

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE GOOD / 90

NO CURB AND GUTTER

0.131

68301 NONPUBLIC ASPHALT

NOT APPLICABLE

6-10

ROUTE 0916: SEASONAL HOUSING EAST PARKING LOT

Manual Rating

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Rte. 0403

Rte. 0916

± 0 75 150

Area (Sq. Ft.) Lane Miles (11' Widths) Condition Rating / PCR

PUBLIC CONCRETE

0.022 SUMMARY / 821,242

2/26/2017 110166

The condition shown on this page reflects the overall route condition and may not reflect individual subcomponent ratings.

6-11

ROUTE 0917ZZ: NEW FRIJOLE HANDICAP PARKING AREAS

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

1,242

Summary Route Manual Rating

ADJACENT TO ROUTE 0100 (FRIJOLE RANCH ROAD) UNPAVED SECTION AND ADJACENT TO ROUTE

0902ZZ (FRIJOLE RANCH PUBLIC PARKING AREAS) ON LEFT AND RIGHT

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Rte. 5000

0 940 1,880

Feet±

Curb & Gutter TypeCurb Type

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

NOT APPLICABLE

ADJACENT TO ROUTE 0100 (FRIJOLE RANCH ROAD) UNPAVED SECTION ON RIGHT

2/26/2017

NO CURB

LIGHT 3R TREATMENTS FAIR / 73

NO CURB AND GUTTER

0.01

110166 PUBLIC CONCRETE

NOT APPLICABLE

6-12

ROUTE 0917AZ: NEW FRIJOLE HANDICAP PARKING

Subcomponent of Route GUMO-0917ZZ Manual Rating

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Rte. 0917AZ

± 0 10 20

Curb & Gutter TypeCurb Type

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

NOT APPLICABLE

ADJACENT TO ROUTE 0902BZ (FRIJOLE RANCH PUBLIC PARKING) ON RIGHT

2/26/2017

NO CURB

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE GOOD / 90

CONCRETE

0.006

110166 PUBLIC CONCRETE

DO NOTHING

6-13

ROUTE 0917BZ: FRIJOLE RANCH HANDICAP PARKING A

Subcomponent of Route GUMO-0917ZZ Manual Rating

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Rte. 0917BZ

± 0 10 20

Curb & Gutter TypeCurb Type

Condition Rating / PCRPavement Recommendation

NOT APPLICABLE

ADJACENT TO ROUTE 0902BZ (FRIJOLE RANCH PUBLIC PARKING) ON LEFT

2/26/2017

NO CURB

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE GOOD / 90

CONCRETE

0.006

110166 PUBLIC CONCRETE

DO NOTHING

6-14

ROUTE 0917CZ: FRIJOLE RANCH HANDICAP PARKING B

Subcomponent of Route GUMO-0917ZZ Manual Rating

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

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

Rte. 0917CZ

± 0 8.5 17

Section 7 Road Milepost Information

Road Milepost Information

This report section contains road milepost information for all paved roads in the park that were collected with the Data Collection Vehicle (DCV). The milepost data is obtained from the DCV by using a distance measuring instrument (DMI) that is calibrated to record mileage to the nearest thousandth of a mile. Park roads that were manually rated did not have milepost data collected, and thus are not included in this report section.

For Cycle 6, the information presented in this section differs from previous RIP cycles in that it does not contain the roadside features inventories for the paved park roads. Some examples of the features previously collected are signs, culverts/drop inlets, guardrails, curbing, pullouts, etc. If the park was collected in a previous RIP cycle, then the latest features data can be obtained by referencing the following:

Where to find the latest Features Inventories for NPS Parks:

For Small Parks (parks with less than 10 miles of paved roads):

o Refer to Cycle 5 data (collected 2010 - 2014) Features were reported in Section 9 of the Cycle 5 RIP report Video of features can be viewed using the PathViewVO program and Cycle 5 data

For Large Parks (parks with more than 10 miles of paved roads):

o Refer to Cycle 4 data (collected 2006 - 2009)

Features were reported in Section 9 of the Cycle 4 RIP report Video of features can be viewed using the VisiData program and Cycle 4 data o Note: Features inventories were updated in Large Parks in Cycle 5 only on a route by route basis if the route was new or modified in Cycle 5. If this is the case for a particular route, then features for the route can be obtained using the PathViewVO program and Cycle 5 data (same as above for Small parks).

Milepost Events Verified in Cycle 6 In Cycle 6, the following events were collected and reported in Section 7 of this report:

Intersections with roads and parking areas All bridges and culverts with BIP Numbers (bridge inspection program numbers) Mile Marker Signs One-Way travel directions Overpasses Tunnels Low Water Crossings (LWCR) Surface type changes Construction areas where no pavement condition data was obtained

7-1

GPS Mileage Matching

A consistent survey milepost and constant route length as recorded by the Data Collection Vehicle (DCV) is a challenge to maintain from one collection cycle to the next. The challenge is due to many factors such as driver characteristics, DMI calibration, tire pressure etc. After Cycle 4 (~2010), a decision was made to hold constant the length of roads so long as there was no physical change from reconstruction projects or realignments that would result in a change to the length of a road. Consequently, the “GPS Mileage Match” was implemented to specify which cycle the route length is being matched. Route mileages and GPS are matched to a previous collection whenever there is no physical change to a route alignment. The route mileage and GPS is not matched to previous cycles whenever it is determined that a road length and GPS needs to be updated. When this happens the GPS and length is updated to the cycle that displays the change, and that collection cycle is used as the matching cycle in subsequent collections of the road. Thus, the Cycle 6 GIS could be either the survey length collected in Cycle 4, Cycle 5, or Cycle 6 and therefore, may not match the survey milepost displayed in the latest Cycle 6 DCV video which is viewable in PathView VO.

The features inventories and road logs collected on NPS routes contain mileposts that are determined from the corresponding cycle that the GPS is matched to. Therefore, the mileposts contained in the Cycle 4 or 5 features inventories or the Cycle 6 road logs may not exactly match the survey milepost collected in the latest Cycle 6 video of the road.

Locating Mile Marker Signs

For routes that have mile marker signs along them, the milepost reported by RIP will most likely not line up exactly with the sign located in the field. This could be happening for many reasons, most likely due to either the error falling within the acceptable calibration range of the vehicle, or the level of accuracy that the mile marker signs were placed in the field.

Because mile marker signs are important features in many project plans and location descriptions, RIP is reporting locations of mile marker signs in three ways in Cycle 6:

1. Mileposts from Cycle 6 GIS: the official RIP milepost taken from the features inventories and the matching GPS/mileage cycle as described above. This is the milepost that should be used on project plans and when finding locations in the field

2. Mileposts from Cycle 6 Video: milepost shown to help locate the mile marker sign in the latest PathView VO video.

3. Latitude / Longitude: a constant way of locating a mile marker sign so long as the park has not moved the sign

The mileposts from Cycle 6 Video and GIS should be nearly the same, but on longer roads it has been observed that the Video milepost deviates more from the official GIS milepost that comes from the matching cycle.

7-2

7-3

7-4

7-5

7-6

7-7

7-8

7-9

7-10

Section 8 Appendix

Improvements to the RIP Index Equations and Determination of PCR

In 2005, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) began implementing the use of a Pavement Management System (PMS) to assist the National Park Service (NPS) in prioritizing Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation activities. The PMS used by FHWA is the Highway Pavement Management Application (HPMA) which has the ability to store inventory and condition data from the Road Inventory Program (RIP) and forecast future performance using prediction models. Outputs include performance and condition reports at the National, Region, 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 as well.

In an effort to improve the accuracy of treatment recommendations and pavement condition descriptions the distresses and indexes that comprise the Pavement Condition Rating (PCR), an extensive study was completed throughout 2010 that has resulted in changes to the RIP condition reporting method and specifically, the calculation of PCR. It was determined that a better representation of PCR could be achieved by modifying the relative impact certain distresses would have on the overall rating.

Through the use of HPMA data, it was noted that false failure indicators existed with the existing PCR model, and that it would be necessary to reduce their impact. The distresses affected in this way were Rutting and Roughness. Conversely, experience showed that roadways with extensive cracking present were often shown to have a high PCR. Therefore, the crack index models were adjusted to be more sensitive to changes in crack severity or quantity. It was also determined that these issues were not due to a problem with data acquisition (i.e. the RIP “van”), but with the way the collected data was processed.

The final change was to provide guidance on when to use the Roughness Condition Index (RCI) in the PCR calculation. Roughness data is of little value to determining overall condition on routes that, due to their length or geometrics, have lower vehicle operating speeds. Therefore, in Cycle 5, only routes that have lengths of one half mile or greater and posted speed limits of 25 mph or greater will have RCI reported and included in the PCR calculations.

Additionally, methodologies were updated in 2013 for Manually Rated Routes (paved routes that the collection vehicle is unable to drive) as well as Parking Areas to provide more accurate condition data to the HPMA. These updated methodologies allow for the efficient assessment of pavement conditions using a visual inspection method to denote specific distresses. These distresses are indicative of current conditions, the causes for current and future deterioration, and identify the level of targeted repair and rehabilitation practices required.

The changes that were implemented were endorsed by management at both the FHWA and NPS. In order to show the effectiveness of these changes, several sites were ground truth tested in early 2014 to ensure that an improvement was achieved between the relationship of PCR and the actual Maintenance and Rehabilitation needs that were represented. The 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.

8-1

Description of the Rating System

The Federal Highway Administration, National Park Service Road Inventory Program (NPS-RIP), collects roadway condition data on paved surfaces (asphalt, concrete, brick, and cobblestone) on roads, parkways, and parking areas in national parks nationwide. The road surface condition data is collected using an automated Data Collection Vehicle (DCV) and manually using Manually Rated Route (MRR) procedures. Roads having brick or cobblestone surfacing are not normally surveyed with the DCV, but are manually rated for condition rating.

The FHWA RIP is implemented based on the premise that an accurate pavement surface condition assessment can be accomplished using automated crack detection technology as applied to digital images.

Various methods of pavement condition assessment have been developed over the years with varying degrees of accuracy and acceptance. The use of digital photography to record pavement images and subsequent crack detection and classification has undergone continuous improvements over the past decade. Digital cameras with increasingly superior resolution and high definition have become more affordable, and the proprietary programming code and algorithms have been improved in crack detection software.

With the use of quality digital photography and automated crack detection software, FHWA RIP is tasked with executing a pavement condition assessment on a network of roughly 5,700 miles of National Park Service roads and parkways. Because a subset of roads will be collected multiple times this cycle, the total collection length will be around 13,000 miles. Foremost in setting up the basis of pavement distress identification is employing the distress identification protocols used by FHWA. There is no single distress identification system that is universal among entities conducting a program of distress identification. For the purpose of the NPS RIP, FHWA employs distress identification protocols that are specific to this program.

FHWA has referenced the “Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program”, Publication No. FHWA-RD 03-031, June 2003, as the point-of- reference for distress types on NPS pavement. In truth, the FHWA RIP distress types are similar to those described in the LTPP manual with some modifications. This document, “Distress Identification Manual for the NPS Road Inventory Program, Cycle 6, 2014-2020” was developed using the “Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program” as a guideline. Definitions of severity levels based on crack width contained in this document adhere to the LTPP Distress ID Manual. Modifications have been made to the definition of Alligator and Longitudinal Cracking and determination of Alligator Cracking severity. This manual also addresses Rutting and Roughness and its application to RIP.

Cycle 6 has launched in the spring of 2014 and will again comprise all parks, large and small, that are served by paved roads and/or parking areas. For Cycle 6, roughly 333 large and small parks will have all paved routes and parking areas collected at least once in the cycle, some will have multiple collections depending on the size of the park and the functional class of the route.

This “Distress Identification Manual for the NPS Road Inventory Program, Cycle 6, 2014- 2020” will be used as a reference resource in crack detection and classification, determination of distress severity and extent, and in the calculation of distress index values for the FHWA RIP Cycle 6.

8-2

Explanation of the Condition Descriptions

In addition to the RIP Index changes that were implemented in Cycle 5, we will also aim to provide greater assistance in translating 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 60 or below. Pavements in this range will likely be candidates of Heavy Rehabilitation or Reconstruction (H3R or 4R). Examples include Pulverization, Multiple Lift Overlays, and Reconstruction.

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 PMS data from our (HPMA) please contact the Eastern Federal Lands pavement team.

Pa ve m en t C on di tio n R at in 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

8-3

Description of Pavement Treatment Types

1. Preventive Maintenance is a planned strategy of cost-effective treatments to an existing roadway system and its appurtenances that preserves the system, retards future deterioration, and maintains or improves the functional condition of the system (without significantly increasing the structural capacity). Preventive maintenance is typically applied to pavements in good condition having significant remaining service life. As a major component of pavement preservation, preventive maintenance is a strategy of extending the service life by applying cost-effective treatments to the surface or near-surface of structurally sound pavements. Examples of preventive treatments include asphalt crack sealing, chip sealing, slurry or micro-surfacing, thin and ultra-thin hot-mix asphalt overlay, concrete joint sealing, diamond grinding, dowel-bar retrofit, and isolated, partial and/or full-depth concrete repairs to restore functionality of individual slabs.

2. Pavement Rehabilitation consists of structural enhancements that extend the service life of an existing pavement and/or improve its load carrying capacity. Rehabilitation techniques include restoration treatments and structural overlays. Rehabilitation projects extend the life of existing pavement structures either by restoring existing structural capacity through the elimination of age-related, environmental cracking of embrittled pavement surface or by increasing pavement thickness to strengthen existing pavement sections to accommodate existing or projected traffic loading conditions. Two sub-categories result from these distinctions, which are directly related to the restoration or increase of structural capacity.

Light Rehabilitation (L3R) - Examples include single-lift overlays up to 2.5 inches in total thickness and milling and overlays for flexible pavements

Heavy Rehabilitation (H3R) – Requires rehabilitation with grade improvement. H3R stands for resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation projects. H3R projects typically involve multi-depth (overlays greater than 2.5 inches) pavement improvement work (short of full-depth replacement) and targeted safety improvements. H3R projects generally involve retention of the existing three-dimensional alignment.

3. Reconstruction (4R) is defined as the replacement of the entire existing pavement structure by the placement of the equivalent or increased pavement structure. Reconstruction usually requires the complete removal and replacement of the existing pavement structure. Reconstruction may utilize either new or recycled materials incorporated into the materials used for the reconstruction of the complete pavement section. Reconstruction is required when a pavement has either failed or has become functionally obsolete.

8-4

Appendix A

Methodology for Determining Condition Ratings with the Data Collection Vehicle (DCV)

8-5

Surface Distresses Identified by the Data Collection Vehicle

Surface Condition Rating – SCR

Surface distresses are measured in the primary lane only. In the classification and measurement of all paved surface condition data, results will be reported in the database in record intervals of 0.02 miles (105.6 feet) (smallest granularity) along the route.

Surface distresses and rutting are determined from digital images that provide both the longitudinal and transverse profile. The images also provide an elevation profile of the road, creating a 3-dimensional image of the paved surface.

Transverse Cracks Longitudinal Cracks Alligator Cracks Patching/Potholes Rutting

Each of the five surface distresses is assigned a computed surface distress index Transverse Crack Index Longitudinal Crack Index Alligator Crack Index Patching/Pothole Index Rutting Index

Surface distress data are classified as listed above, measured for severity, and quantified for extent.

Classification, severity, and extent of these five surface distresses comprise the three main elements for calculation of Surface Condition Rating (SCR).

In addition to the five surface distresses, a Structural Crack Index is computed, which is a combination of the Longitudinal Crack Index and the Alligator Crack Index. The Structural Crack Index is then used in lieu of the LC and AC indices to compute SCR.

Roughness Condition Index - RCI

Additional condition data measured by DCV (lasers and accelerometers) Roughness (IRI)

Roughness is measured by FHWA’s DCV and reported as International Roughness Index (IRI) in inches/mile. Using IRI, the Roughness Condition Index (RCI) is computed.

Pavement Condition Rating - PCR

Using the SCR (computed from the five surface distresses) and the RCI, an overall Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) is computed. The formula for PCR is:

Asphalt PCR = (0.60 * SCR) + (0.40 * RCI) Concrete PCR = RCI

A detailed description of each distress index formula, roughness index formula, SCR and PCR is provided in this document.

8-6

Each classified surface distress will fall into one or more severity - LOW, MEDIUM, or HIGH based on criteria listed. For each severity, an extent is established based on the measured quantity of the distress within that severity. Within each severity individual distresses are assigned a Maximum Allowable Extent (MAE). For example, LOW severity transverse cracking may be allowed up to 21.1 cracks within a 0.02 mile interval before it reaches MAE and fails.

The index formulas are based on a scale of 0 to 100. A PCR index value of 100 would indicate a “new” road with no measurable distresses or rough ride. A PCR value of 60 is determined to be terminable serviceability and the road is considered failed. The range of index values with condition descriptors is:

POOR = (less than or equal to 60), FAIR= (61 – 84), GOOD= (85 - 94), EXCELLENT= (95 - 100)

Index values are generally computed based on cumulative deducts of the measured severities. As shown in the index formulas below, as any single severity reaches or exceeds MAE, the index computes to a value of 60 or less, and the road fails for that 0.02 interval.

Note: As a result of a unique combination of measured surface distresses and IRI, index values occasionally compute to less than 0 or greater than 100. In this instance, an index value less than 0 defaults to 0. Index values greater than 100 defaults to 100. For all indices, a higher value indicates a better road condition, and a lower value indicates a poorer road condition.

On the following page, Table 1 summarizes the different types of distresses measured.

8-7

ASPHALT-SURFACED PAVEMENT DISTRESS TYPES WITH RUTTING AND ROUGHNESS

Distress Type Units Of Measure Converted To

Defined Severity Levels?

Measured By

Alligator Cracking Square Feet Percent of Lane Per

0.02 Mile Yes

3 Dimensional pavement imaging system

Transverse Cracking Linear feet Number of Cracks Per 0.02 Mile Yes

3 Dimensional pavement imaging system

Longitudinal Cracking Linear feet

Percent of Lane Length Per 0.02 Mile

Yes 3 Dimensional pavement imaging system

Patching / Potholes Square Feet Percent of Lane Per

0.02 Mile No

3 Dimensional pavement imaging system

Rutting Inches Rut Depth Per 0.02 Mile Yes

3 Dimensional pavement imaging system

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

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

For concrete, PCR = RCI

Table 1. Distress summary

8-8

Alligator Cracking

Description:

Alligator cracking is considered a combination of fatigue and block cracking. It is a series of interconnected cracks in various stages of development. Alligator cracking develops into a many-sided pattern that resembles chicken wire or alligator skin. It can occur anywhere in the road lane. Alligator cracking must have a quantifiable area.

Severity Levels:

LOW

An area with little to no interconnecting cracks with no visible spalling. Cracks are less than or equal to a mean width of 0.25 in. (6mm). Cracks in the pattern are no further apart than 1 foot (0.328 m). May be sealed cracks with sealant in good condition and a crack width that cannot be determined.

MEDIUM

An area of interconnected cracks that form a complete pattern. Cracks may be slightly spalled. Cracks are greater than 0.25 in. (6 mm) but less than or equal to 0.75 in. (19 mm) or any crack with a mean width less than or equal to 0.75 in. (19 mm) and adjacent low severity cracking. Cracks in the pattern are no further apart than 6 in. (150 mm).

HIGH

An area of interconnected cracks forming a complete pattern. Cracks are moderately or severely spalled. Cracks are greater than 0.75 in. (19mm) or any crack with a mean width less than or equal to 0.75 in. (19mm) and adjacent medium to high severity random cracking.

A combination of observed crack width and crack pattern is used to determine overall severity of alligator cracking.