This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.

org/24682

Pavement Management Systems: Putting

Data to Work (2017)

DETAILS
85 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-38983-9 | DOI 10.17226/24682

CONTRIBUTORS
Kathryn A. Zimmerman; National Cooperative Highway Research Program; National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis Program; Synthesis Program;
BUY THIS BOOK Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine

FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Pavement
Management Systems: Putting Data to Work. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24682.

Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)

This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 501

Pavement Management Systems:
Putting Data to Work

A Synthesis of Highway Practice

Consultant
Kathryn A. Zimmerman
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Urbana, Illinois

S ubscriber C ategories
Data and Information Technology • Highways • Maintenance and Preservation • Pavements

Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

2017

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP SYNTHESIS 501

Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to Project 20-05, Topic 47-08
solve many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. ISSN 0547-5570
Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be stud- ISBN 978-0-309-38983-9
ied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with Library of Congress Control No. 2016957900
their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth © 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems
of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best
studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Associa-
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and
tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the
1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce
Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes.
basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will
receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
Administration, United States Department of Transportation. or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Acad- expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
emies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment
AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the
recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research material, request permission from CRP.
practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many rea-
sons: TRB maintains an extensive committee structure from which
authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; NOTICE
TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publica-
federal, state, and local governmental agencies, universities, and tion according to procedures established and overseen by the Transporta-
industry; TRB’s relationship to the Academies is an insurance of tion Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences,
objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of specialists in Engineering, and Medicine.
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are
highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessari-
directly to those in a position to use them. ly those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identi- Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors.
fied by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and trans- The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences,
portation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative
the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Standing Committee Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers.
Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are con-
on Research (SCOR), and each year SCOR’s recommendations are
sidered essential to the object of the report.
proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors and the Academies.
Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP,
and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted propos-
als. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the
responsibilities of the Academies and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation prob-
lems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program,
however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or
duplicate, other highway research programs.

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from

Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

http://www.national-academies.org
and then searching for TRB

Printed in the United States of America

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public
understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.

The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is
objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of
whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies
including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested
in the development of transportation.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

TOPIC PANEL 47-08

ANITA K. BUSH, Nevada Department of Transportation, Carson City
JUDITH CORLEY-LAY, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh
LEO L. FONTAINE, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Newington
AMIR N. HANNA, Transportation Research Board
THOMAS J. KAZMIEROWSKI, Golder Associates Ltd., Mississauga, ON, Canada
ZHENG “JENNY” LI, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin
ROGER C. OLSON, Minnesota Department of Transportation (Retired), Bloomington
YICHANG “JAMES” TSAi, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
NADARAJAH “SIVA” SIVANESWARAN, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison)
THOMAS VAN, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison)

SYNTHESIS STUDIES STAFF

STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs
JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies
MARIELA GARCIA-COLBERG, Senior Program Officer
JO ALLEN GAUSE, Senior Program Officer
GAIL R. STABA, Senior Program Officer
TANYA M. ZWAHLEN, Consultant
DON TIPPMAN, Senior Editor
CHERYL KEITH, Senior Program Assistant
DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant
DEBBIE IRVIN, Program Associate

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF

CHRISTOPHER J. HEDGES, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
LORI L. SUNDSTROM, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications

NCHRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 20-05

CHAIR
BRIAN A. BLANCHARD, Florida Department of Transportation

MEMBERS
STUART D. ANDERSON, Texas A&M University
SOCORRO “COCO” BRISENO, California Department of Transportation
DAVID M. JARED, Georgia Department of Transportation
CYNTHIA L. JONES, Ohio Department of Transportation
MALCOLM T. KERLEY, NXL, Richmond, VA
JOHN M. MASON, JR., Auburn University
ROGER C. OLSON, Minnesota Department of Transportation (Retired)
BENJAMIN T. ORSBON, South Dakota Department of Transportation
RANDALL R. “RANDY” PARK, Utah Department of Transportation
ROBERT L. SACK, New York State Department of Transportation
FRANCINE SHAW WHITSON, Federal Highway Administration
JOYCE N. TAYLOR, Maine Department of Transportation

FHWA LIAISON
JACK JERNIGAN

TRB LIAISON
STEPHEN F. MAHER

Cover figure: Overview of highway pavements. Credit: Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The synthesis herein was performed under NCHRP Project 20-05 The author is indebted to the state departments of transportation and
by Ms. Kathryn A. Zimmerman of Applied Pavement Technology, provincial ministries of transportation listed in Appendix B that par-
Inc. (APTech). Mr. Prashant Ram and Mr. Kartik Manda (APTech) ticipated in the survey. Their thoughtful responses to the survey are
contributed to the development of the survey and the background appreciated and their contributions to making this information available
research. Ms. RoseMary Evans assisted with the formatting of the are noted. In addition, the time and efforts of the representatives from
survey and summarizing the results. The project was conducted the Kansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington State
under the leadership and guidance of Ms. Jo Allen Gause, Senior DOTs, who participated in the interviews, are recognized with gratitude.
Program Officer at the Transportation Research Board. Through- Finally, the author recognizes with sincere gratitude and apprecia-
out this project, Ms. Gause has provided tremendous support and tion the contributions of the Topic Panel. Their careful review and
encouragement. insights greatly enhanced the final product.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

FOREWORD Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor-
mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac-
tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence,
full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its
solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked,
and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviat-
ing the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and
engineers. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with
problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and
evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire highway commu-
nity, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials—through
the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program—authorized the
Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, NCHRP Proj-
ect 20-5, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems,” searches out and syn-
thesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented
reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series,
Synthesis of Highway Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format,
without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report
in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures
found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems.

PREFACE Pavement management systems are recognized as important tools to help transportation
By Jo Allen Gause agencies optimize the use of available funding, better communicate funding needs, and more
Senior Program Officer objectively manage their pavement network. This synthesis documents current pavement
Transportation management practices in state and provincial transportation agencies. The report focuses
Research Board on the use of pavement management analysis results for resource allocation, determining
treatment cost-effectiveness, program development, and communication with stakeholders.
Information used in this study was gathered through a literature review and a survey
of state departments of transportation and Canadian provincial transportation agencies.
Follow-up interviews with selected agencies provided additional information.
Kathryn A. Zimmerman, Applied Pavement Technology, Inc., Urbana, Illinois, collected
and synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are
acknowledged on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document
that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge
available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new
knowledge will be added to that now at hand.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY

7 CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION
Background, 7
Synthesis Objectives, 8
Synthesis Scope and Approach, 8
Report Organization, 8

10 CHAPTER TWO   LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview, 10
Pavement Management Decision Support, 10
Pavement Management Components, 10
Evolution of Pavement Management, 11
Current Legislation Supporting Pavement Management, 13
Benefits to the Use of Pavement Management, 14
Approaches to Pavement Management, 14
Methods Used to Ensure Data Quality, 15
Methods Used to Develop Pavement Management Prediction
Models and Decision Trees, 18
Trends in Prediction Modeling, 19
Decision Tree Trends, 20
Methods of Assessing Pavement Performance Trends and Treatment
Cost-Effectiveness, 22
Trends in the Use of Pavement Management Data, 23
Putting Pavement Management Recommendations into Practice, 24
Strategies for Presenting Pavement Management Data
and Analysis Results, 25

28 CHAPTER THREE   STATE OF THE PRACTICE

Overview, 28
Survey Content, 28
General Pavement Management Information, 30
Data Analysis and Performance Modeling, 33
Performance Modeling, 34
Treatment Selection, 35
Analysis Capabilities, 37
Putting the Data to Work, 38
Pavement Management Processes, Integration, and Documentation, 40
Pavement Management Information Provided to Various Stakeholders, 41
Enhancements, 43
Cross Analysis of the Data, 44

46 CHAPTER FOUR   CASE EXAMPLES

Approach, 46
Case Example 1: Using Pavement Management Data to Improve
Data Quality, 46

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

Case Example 2: Using Pavement Management Data to Evaluate

Treatment Effectiveness, 47
Case Example 3: Using Pavement Management Data to Conduct
a Safety Analysis, 49
Case Example 4: Using Pavement Management Data to Improve
Agency Performance Measures, 50
Case Example 5: Using Pavement Management Data to Establish
Performance Measures for Highway Concession Agreements, 51

53 CHAPTER FIVE  CONCLUSIONS
Overall Findings, 53
General Pavement Management Information, 53
Data Analysis and Performance Modeling, 54
Putting the Data to Work, 55
Suggestions for Further Research, 57

59 ACRONYMS

60 REFERENCES

A-1 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (web-only)

B-1 APPENDIX B Survey Results

Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to
grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org)
retains the color versions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

Pavement Management Systems:

Putting Data to Work

Summary Pavement management systems are recognized as important tools to help transportation agencies opti-
mize the use of available funding, better communicate funding needs, and more objectively manage
their pavement network. Pavement management systems are now required for managing the National
Highway System under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (or MAP-21) and the
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (or FAST) acts.

There are many examples of state departments of transportation (DOTs), local agencies, toll
authorities, and other public agencies that have been using pavement management tools for decades.
The maturity of these systems varies, as does the extent to which the data are integrated into the
agency’s decision processes.

The objective of this synthesis study is to document current pavement management practices in
state and provincial transportation agencies to determine the extent that pavement management data
are being used to support agency decisions. The synthesis focuses on the use of pavement management
analysis results for resource allocation, determining treatment cost-effectiveness, program develop-
ment, and communication with stakeholders.

The information contained in this synthesis was obtained using three sources. First, a litera-
ture review was conducted to provide background information about the state of the practice
and recent developments that have taken place in the use of pavement management data. Sec-
ond, a web-based survey was distributed to pavement management engineers in each of the
52 state transportation agencies (including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) and the
10 Canadian provincial ministries of transportation (MOTs) asking for information on their current
practices in pavement management. Forty state DOTs (80%) and eight provincial MOTs (80%)
responded to the survey. The state totals presented in the synthesis also include a responses from
Puerto Rico. Finally, representatives from five agencies were interviewed by telephone to obtain
more specific information about innovative uses of pavement management data. The agencies that
were selected to participate in these interviews were identified based on their responses to a survey
question asking about innovative uses of their data. These case examples illustrate how pavement
management data has been used to improve data quality, evaluate treatment effectiveness, expand
the use of pavement management data within a DOT, improve agency performance measures, and
establish performance measures for highway concession agreements.

The literature search results indicate that there has been a significant progression in pavement
management since its inception in the 1960s. Initially, pavement management data were used pri-
marily to document pavement conditions and estimate funding needs. Today, there is evidence that
pavement management data are also used to assess performance trends, calibrate design models,
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies, and recommend candidate projects for
a preservation program. Because of the increased importance of pavement management to support
current performance-based legislation at the federal level, state transportation agencies are required
to have pavement management processes in place to determine budget needs and to evaluate the
cost-effectiveness of alternate investment strategies. State transportation agencies are also required
to have a Data Quality Management Program to ensure the reliability of the data used to report pave-
ment condition metrics to FHWA.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

2

Pavement management continues to evolve as researchers and practitioners explore the appli-
cability of using pavement data to address safety and environmental impacts, identify and assess
risks, set performance targets, and monitor contractor performance under highway concession and
long-term performance-based contracts. At a recent international pavement management conference,
practitioners demonstrated sophisticated uses of pavement management data for multi-objective
analysis, asset valuation, and integration with sustainability-rating tools. Conference participants
also discussed the use of pavement management data in response to natural disasters; demonstrating
the consideration of risk in agency investments and the importance of integrating pavement manage-
ment with other agency data sources.

Further insights into current pavement management practices were provided from the survey
distributed to pavement management practitioners in state DOTs and Canadian MOTs. The results
indicated that of the 49 agencies that responded to the survey, 49% of the state DOTs and 38% of
the MOTs have customized, proprietary pavement management software in place. An equal number
of agencies (16%) are using software that was developed in house or software that was provided by
a vendor and modified in house. Five agencies (10%) reported that they have no formal pavement
management software in place and four (8%) are using a vendor-supplied program that has been
modified or is used in conjunction with other software programs.

Inventory and condition information on the high-volume highway networks is available in all but
one of the responding agencies (98%). There are fewer U.S. agencies that have inventory (93%) and
condition information (90%) for the non-National Highway System state-maintained systems and a
significant drop in the number of U.S. and Canadian agencies that have this information for front-
age roads, shoulders, entrance and exit ramps, and high-occupancy vehicle lanes or bus lanes. For
example, only 42% of the responding agencies indicated that they have a frontage road inventory and
27% that they have condition data for their frontage roads.

According to the survey, pavement distress data are collected in both directions on divided
highways by 90% of the responding agencies. Distress data are collected in both directions less
often on nondivided highways; only 33% of the responding agencies noted that they collect data
in this manner. Fifty-nine percent of the responding agencies collect distress data on nondivided
highways in one lane and in one direction. In addition to pavement condition information, the
most common data available in a pavement management database include (percentages based on
48 responses):

• Individual distress values (92%).

• Traffic data (90%).
• Composite indices (85%).
• Individual indices (83%).
• Treatment history (77%).
• Treatment costs (77%).

Fewer agencies reported that their databases contain information on routine maintenance activi-
ties (42%), remaining service life (31%), materials or construction data (23%), detailed performance
data (13%), or drainage information (2%).

The survey investigated the methods used to develop pavement deterioration models and treatment
rules and explored the types of analyses that are conducted with the available data. The results indicated
that of the 48 agencies that responded to this question, most (69%) develop customized models using
agency data. Family models, which reflect pavement deterioration rates for pavements with similar
characteristics, are used in 56% of the agencies. The responses indicated that 48% of the agencies model
performance indices rather than individual distresses (38%). Five agencies (10%) reported that their
system does not predict pavement performance and three (6%) that they use default models. The agen-
cies that have developed customized models use variables such as pavement type (94%), pavement
functional condition (75%), highway system (72%), treatment history (69%), and traffic data (63%).
These models are updated by most agencies at least every 3 years (94%).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 3

Questions explored various features of the pavement selection capabilities of pavement man-
agement systems. Of the 48 responding agencies, there was not a lot of variation in the types of
treatments recommended by the software. For instance, 33% agencies indicated that their pavement
management system generates treatment categories, 29% provide specific treatment recommenda-
tions, and 25% offer both. In the 46 agencies that responded to a question about pavement preser-
vation treatments, nearly all (83%) indicated that their pavement management systems consider
pavement preservation treatments in their analysis. Feasible treatment options are identified using
variables such as pavement condition (96%), pavement type (87%), traffic volumes or loads (78%),
pavement age (70%), highway system (63%), and last treatment (59%).

According to the 46 agencies that responded to the question, the most common analysis capabili-
ties provided by pavement management systems are:

• Forecast expected conditions under different funding scenarios (85%).

• Prioritize project recommendations under constrained funding (80%).
• Estimate funding required to achieve performance targets (80%).
• Contribute to the development of a transportation asset management plan (74%).
• Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatments (74%).
• Set program budget allocations (72%).
• Allocate funding to regions based on needs (70%).
• Set performance targets for portions of the network (70%).
• Analyze gaps between current and desired performance (61%).
• Prepare Highway Performance Monitoring System submittals for FHWA (48%).

However, there are only three types of analyses that have been performed by more than half of
the 49 agencies that responded to the survey. These include the following traditional applications
(percentages based on 42 total responses):

• Forecast expected conditions under different funding scenarios (83%).

• Estimate funding required to achieve performance targets (74%).
• Prioritize project recommendations under constrained funding (64%).

Most agencies (77% of 47 total responses) reported that their pavement management recommen-
dations match the projects in their improvement programs at least 40% of the time. Only four agen-
cies (9%) noted that the match exists less than 40% of the time, indicating that political influences,
local conditions, insufficient funds, and district independence impact the final project selection.

Several questions were presented to learn more about the processes in place to keep the pave-
ment management current, the documentation of these processes, and the degree to which pavement
management is integrated with other programs. Forty-eight agencies responded to the question about
existing processes. The results indicated that agencies have processes to update historical work activ-
ities (81%), verify the quality of data collected (79%), update pavement surface type based on work
activities (73%), and update the database with actual project costs (42%). Pavement management
systems are most commonly integrated with an agency’s geographic information system (44% of
48 responding agencies) and the centralized roadway database (27%). Twenty-nine percent of these
agencies reported that their pavement management system operates independently.

Pavement management models are documented in most agencies, with pavement condition survey
procedures (81% based on 47 total responses), treatment rules (62%), and performance model equa-
tions (57%) being most common. Thirty-six percent of agencies report having documented their quality
assurance procedures and an equal percent have documented pavement roles and responsibilities.

A number of different types of pavement management information are shared with stakeholder
groups. Based on the 41 responses by U.S. agencies, the most common information shared with
elected and appointed officials is information about current (68%) and forecasted (54%) pavement
conditions, as well as future funding needs (51%). Agency decision makers in the United States

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

4

are provided with the same information, but also receive information on candidate projects (76%),
funded projects (66%), and expected future funding levels (56%).

There have been a number of different enhancements that have been made or will be made to
pavement management systems in the next 2 years. Among the responses from 41 U.S. agencies, the
two most common changes expected in the next 2 years relate to improving procedures for data qual-
ity management (63%) and updating pavement management software (61%). Changes to pavement
condition surveys have also been completed in recent years, with many agencies reporting that they
have moved to continuous surveys rather than use a sampling approach (71%) and are now using
automated data collection equipment (59%). Over the next 2 years, many agencies plan on analyzing
investment needs across asset types (51%) and incorporating risk into investment decisions (37%).
Several agencies indicated that they would like to collect pavement structural condition (six), pave-
ment friction data (three), pavement material data (six), and improved cracking data using automated
equipment (three) to improve their practices.

Interviews were conducted with five agencies to explore innovations in the use of pavement man-
agement information. At least two important findings can be extracted from the examples. First, the
availability of reliable construction history records, a consistent location referencing system across
databases, and dependable performance data were recognized as important contributors to the use
of pavement management data to evaluate treatment effectiveness, prioritize investments based on
cost-effectiveness, and monitor contractor performance under a public–private partnership agree-
ment. Second, collaboration across agency silos can be beneficial, as demonstrated by the Maryland
DOT’s use of pavement management data to identify high-risk curve locations in a statewide effort
to reduce the number of crashes in and around curves.

The following research suggestions are provided as a means to improve the way pavement man-
agement systems are used.

• The development of guidelines for analyzing risk, optimizing the use of available funding,
setting performance targets, allocating budgets, and evaluating network-level structural
condition to support the broader consideration of these factors in pavement management.
Improved information on pavement structure and materials data to support their pavement
management analyses would be helpful to pavement management practitioners. The survey
responses indicated that data are largely available on the Interstate and National Highway Sys-
tem, but less so on the remainder of the system. Network-level structural condition surveys and
stronger links to construction and materials databases were identified by several respondents
as desired data.
In addition, the survey results noted that pavement management is largely being used to dem-
onstrate the impacts on network conditions associated with different funding levels, esti-
mate funding needed to achieve performance targets, and prioritize recommendations under
constrained funding. However, fewer than 20 of the 41 state DOTs and only four of the
seven Canadian MOTs that responded to the survey are using their pavement management
systems for other types of analyses, including setting performance targets and evaluating the
cost-effectiveness of investment spending, even though their software provides these capabili-
ties. In terms of enhancements, 21 agencies expressed an interest in enhancing their ability to
analyze investments across asset types over the next 2 years and 15 agencies expressed interest
in incorporating risk into their investment decisions during that timeframe.
• The development of a framework for using pavement management data to support the
whole-life costing analysis and other capabilities required for the development of a Trans-
portation Asset Management Plan (TAMP). There are still several states that do not have
pavement management software that will satisfy the minimum requirements outlined in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for developing a TAMP. The development of a framework
for using pavement management data to support the development of a TAMP, including the
conduct of a whole-life cost analysis, would allow agencies to use their pavement management
data to better evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of different investment strategies and
more fully support their agency’s asset management efforts.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 5

• The development of electronic templates that practitioners could use to document pave-
ment management treatment rules, performance models, roles, and responsibilities. A
number of agencies document their pavement condition survey procedures, their treatment
rules, and their performance models; however, there is less evidence that documentation exists
for data quality procedures or pavement management roles and responsibilities. The absence of
this type of documentation leaves an agency at risk if pavement management personnel retire
or change positions. The development of electronic templates would simplify and standardize
the documentation process for practitioners.
• The conduct of technology transfer and outreach activities that showcase best practices
in pavement management and highlight the use of pavement management data for non-
traditional uses. As noted earlier, pavement management systems are not being fully utilized
at the present time. In addition, the results indicated that pavement management systems are
not largely integrated with other management systems and databases, which could limit the
feasibility of using pavement management data for nontraditional purposes. The conduct of
technology transfer and outreach activities (such as training courses, web conferences, and peer
exchanges) provides an opportunity for practitioners to learn about strategies for improving
practices from their peers.
• The establishment of guidelines for mining pavement management data so it can be used in
developing performance measures for warranty contracts and other types of public–private
partnerships. The results of the survey indicated that only two agencies are using pavement
management data to develop performance measures for warranty contracts and other public–
private partnerships. As this contracting method becomes more common in the United States,
transportation agencies will benefit from the availability of guidance on using pavement man-
agement data to establish effective performance measures to monitor contractor performance.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 7

chapter one

Introduction

Background

In its 2nd edition of The Pavement Management Guide, AASHTO defines a pavement management
system as “a set of tools or methods that assist decision-makers in finding optimum strategies for
providing, evaluating, and maintaining pavements in a serviceable condition over a period of time”
(AASHTO 2012). Agencies that have incorporated pavement management principles into their oper-
ational practices have found that they can optimize the use of available funding, better communicate
funding needs, and more objectively manage their pavement network. Pavement management tools
are now required for managing the National Highway System (NHS) under recent legislation, com-
monly known as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (or MAP-21) act and the Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation (or FAST) act.

There are many examples of state departments of transportation (DOTs), local agencies, toll
authorities, and other public agencies that have been using pavement management tools for decades.
However, the maturity of their pavement management systems varies based on the degree of sophis-
tication of the tool and the extent to which the data are integrated into the agency’s decision pro-
cesses. Traditionally, the more mature pavement management systems allow agencies to routinely
carry out a number of complex analyses, including the following:

• Assess both current and future pavement conditions.

• Justify funding needs to achieve targeted condition levels.
• Identify pavement preservation and rehabilitation recommendations that optimize the use of
available funding.
• Estimate the consequences of different investment levels and treatment strategies on both short-
and long-term pavement conditions.
• Determine the cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies.
• Develop performance specifications and measures for alternate delivery contracts.

Prior syntheses on pavement management conducted by the NCHRP have focused primarily on auto-
mated data collection (NCHRP Synthesis 334: Automated Pavement Distress Collection Techniques)
(McGhee 2004) and data quality procedures (NCHRP Synthesis 401: Quality Management of Pavement
Condition Data Collection) (Flintsch and McGhee 2009). Another synthesis, Pavement Management
Applications Using Geographic Information Systems (NCHRP Synthesis 335) (Flintsch et al. 2004)
explores the presentation and use of pavement management data through maps and other forms of visual
displays.

Since the publication of these pavement management syntheses, the use of pavement management
to support agency decisions has been undergoing significant changes. For example, state DOTs are
using their pavement management information as the basis for developing 10-year investment strate-
gies that will be incorporated into the Transportation Asset Management Plans required under federal
legislation. In addition, to optimize the use of available funding, several agencies are using pavement
management recommendations to determine funding allocations to districts and regions. Other agen-
cies are establishing guidelines that help ensure that projects incorporated into State Transportation
Improvement Programs are relatively consistent with pavement management recommendations. In
Canada, and in some states in the United States, pavement management data are also being used to
establish performance specifications for monitoring privatized maintenance contracts and performance

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

8

measures for long-term warranty contracts. This synthesis explores these recent developments to deter-
mine how extensively pavement management data are being used for these and other purposes.

Synthesis Objectives

The objective of this synthesis study is to document current pavement management practices in state
and provincial transportation agencies to determine the extent that pavement management data are
being used to support agency decisions. The synthesis focuses on the use of pavement management
analysis results for resource allocation, determining treatment cost-effectiveness, program develop-
ment, and communication with stakeholders. It further explores lessons learned and suggestions for
further research.

The information from the synthesis will benefit agencies interested in improving their pavement
management practices.

Synthesis Scope and Approach

This synthesis documents the use of pavement management data for supporting agency decision-
making processes and program development. Because earlier documentation has focused on data
collection activities, this synthesis did not explore this topic extensively. Although some information
on current data collection practices is included, the synthesis focuses primarily on:

• Characteristics of an agency’s pavement management system, including its capabilities.

• Features of the data collection process that influence how the data are being used.
• Sophistication of the pavement management system, including its prediction models and
treatment rules.
• The role of pavement management data in decision-making and resource allocation activities.
• Use of pavement management data to evaluate the performance and cost-effectiveness of
treatment options.
• Use of pavement management system recommendations in work program development.
• Methods of communicating pavement management data and decisions to internal and external
stakeholders.
• Mining pavement management data to develop performance specifications and contract per-
formance measures.
• New initiatives and technologies agencies are considering in order to improve their pavement
management programs.

At the beginning of the project, a literature review was conducted to provide background informa-
tion about the state of the practice and recent developments that have taken place in the implemen-
tation and use of pavement management systems. The results from the literature search were used
to develop a survey of agency practice that was distributed to the pavement management engineers
in each of the 50 state DOTs, 10 Canadian provincial ministries of transportation (MOTs), and the
Puerto Rico and District of Columbia DOTs. In addition, representatives from five agencies were
interviewed by telephone to obtain more specific information about innovative uses of pavement
management data. The agencies that were selected to participate in these interviews were identified
based on their responses to a survey question asking about innovative uses of their data.

The information obtained from the literature review, the survey of practice, and the telephone
interviews provide the basis for the information contained in this synthesis.

Report Organization

This synthesis of practice is organized into the following five chapters:

• Chapter one—Introduction. This chapter introduces the synthesis, providing background infor-
mation and summarizing the scope and organization of the document.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 9

• Chapter two—Literature Review. The findings from the literature review are summarized and
presented in this chapter. Relevant topics covered in the literature review introduce different
approaches to pavement management with a focus on:
–– Methods used to ensure data quality.
–– Methods used to development pavement management prediction models and decision trees.
–– Methods of assessing pavement performance trends and treatment cost-effectiveness.
–– Trends in the use of pavement management data.
–– Putting pavement management recommendations into practice.
–– Strategies for presenting pavement management data and analysis results.
• Chapter three—State of the Practice. The results of the survey of state of the practice are presented
in this chapter by the following topic areas:
–– General Pavement Management Information
–– Data Analysis and Performance Modeling
–– Putting the Data to Work
• Chapter four—Case Examples. This chapter summarizes the information provided by the five
state DOTs that were interviewed to explore innovative uses of their pavement management data.
These case examples illustrate how pavement management data have been used to improve data
quality, evaluate treatment effectiveness, expand the use of pavement management data within a
DOT, improve agency performance measures, and establish performance measures for highway
concession agreements.
• Chapter five—Conclusions. The synthesis concludes with a summary of key observations and
suggested areas for further research and outreach that will lead to improved use of pavement
management systems to support agency investment decisions.
• Appendices—Two appendices are included with the synthesis. Appendix A, which is only included
in the electronic version of the report, provides a copy of the questionnaire that was distributed
electronically to the state and provincial respondents. Appendix B, which is available in both the
print and electronic versions, presents the responses by agency for each of the questions posed to
the survey respondents.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

10

chapter two

Literature Review

Overview

In the recently published Pavement Asset Management, the authors documented the progression of
pavement management from “early rudimentary efforts in the 1960s to a comprehensive technology,
economic, and business-based process” today (Haas et al. 2015). Their work references the initial
studies of pavement performance that took place at an AASHTO-sponsored Road Test in Ottawa,
Illinois, and the researchers’ efforts to turn those measurements into an index representative of field
conditions. The early developers of pavement management recognized the importance of managing
and designing pavements from a systems perspective, which led to the eventual development of the
field of pavement management. The rapid advancements in computer technology since the late 1980s
have had a tremendous impact on the availability of computerized pavement management systems for
agencies of all sizes and the methodologies being used to collect and analyze data. The organizational,
political, and societal changes that have taken place since that period have also significantly shaped
the use of pavement management in transportation agencies.

Pavement Management Decision Support

Pavement management is used to support agency decisions at three different levels (AASHTO 2012).
At the highest level, referred to as the strategic level, decisions traditionally focus on investment
levels and strategies that enable an agency to achieve its goals and objectives. The ability to forecast
future conditions and illustrate the consequences of deferred investment are key to being able to sup-
port decisions at this level. Second, at the network level, summary information related to the entire
highway network is used to identify the most effective mix of projects and treatments for a multi-
year improvement program. At this level, it is important to be able to evaluate the costs and benefits
of different combinations of projects and treatments on current and future conditions. At the third
project level, decisions are focused on a particular segment of the pavement network. The informa-
tion needed from the pavement management system to support project-level analyses is typically
more detailed than the data used at the strategic or network levels, and it focuses more on in-place
conditions. Investigations into the causes of a particular pavement section that is not performing as
expected is an example of a project-level analysis.

Pavement Management Components

A pavement management system supports these different types of analyses through the data, analysis,
and reporting components depicted in Figure 1. These components include various inputs that are
stored in a database for use in the analysis and reporting modules. Databases to support pavement
management may range from a spreadsheet at the most basic level to a relational database or an
agency-wide data warehouse. The sophistication of pavement management analysis parameters varies
based on the type of pavement management software used, influencing the extent to which pavement
performance prediction models can be customized, establishing rules to define the applicability of
different types of treatments under different conditions, and tailoring treatment costs and impacts
to agency conditions. These parameters are used in the analysis module to determine the funding
level needed to achieve a targeted performance level, identify the most effective combination of
treatments under a constrained funding scenario, or predict future conditions under different invest-
ment strategies. These and other types of outputs are generated in the reporting module in a variety

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 11

FIGURE 1 Pavement management components (AASHTO 2012).

of different formats. The final component of a pavement management system, the feedback loop,
is intended to ensure that the projects and performance trends from the field are input back into the
pavement management system to keep the database current and to update the analysis parameters.

Evolution of Pavement Management

Although the components of a pavement management system have not changed dramatically over
time, the sophistication of those systems and the extent to which pavement management information
is used to support decisions has evolved. Initially, pavement management systems were used primar-
ily to document pavement conditions and estimate current funding needs. In a 1987 synthesis on
pavement management, Pavement Management Practices, the authors documented that the primary
outputs from a pavement management system were pavement condition, prioritized listings, deficien-
cies, and treatment needs and costs (Peterson 1987). Weaknesses in the systems at that time included
the inability to estimate life-cycle costs, predict conditions, and integrate pavement management data
with other data systems in the agency (Peterson 1987).

A subsequent synthesis, Current Practices in Determining Pavement Condition, focused on pave-

ment data (Gramling 1994). At that time, approximately 85% of the agencies responding to a survey
were using mainframe computers to store their pavement management data and all agencies either had,
or were in the process of developing, a pavement management system (Gramling 1994). Gramling notes
a trend toward the use of the International Roughness Index (IRI) in response to Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS) reporting requirements that were issued by FHWA. The synthesis reported
that in 1989 eight states used the South Dakota Road Profiler to collect roughness data, but 5 years later
24 states were using the device (Gramling 1994). In 1995, another NCHRP synthesis, Pavement Man-
agement Methodologies to Select Projects and Recommend Preservation Treatments, documented the
use of three different methodologies in pavement management: a pavement condition analysis, priority

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

12

assessment models, and network optimization models (Zimmerman and ERES 1995). At that time,
29 of 56 responding agencies indicated that projects were prioritized based on a condition-ranking
method, and only 12 agencies used a benefit–cost analysis to prioritize projects. The ability to forecast
future conditions was again noted as a shortcoming of pavement management systems at that time.

Two other syntheses of practice focused on data collection practices and methods to manage data
quality (McGhee 2004; Flintsch and McGhee 2009). These documents reflect the transition that was
occurring at that time as transportation agencies shifted from manual surveys conducted using
in-house staff to more automated pavement condition surveys often conducted by a contractor.
NCHRP Synthesis 334: Automated Pavement Distress Collection Techniques documents the incon-
sistencies that existed in the automated data collection processes at that time and the attempted to
develop standards to address these issues. With the exception of roughness, the synthesis reports that
few agencies were using the provisional standards developed by AASHTO (McGhee 2004). The study
concluded with a recommendation to address data quality management, which became the focus of
the 2009 synthesis Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data Collection. This synthesis pre-
sented an example of a quality management plan that could be used to improve quality, even though
only one-third of the state and provincial highway agencies that responded to the report survey had
that type of plan in place (Flintsch and McGhee 2009).

Methods of sharing pavement management data using geographic information systems (GIS) were
the focus of NCHRP Synthesis 335: Pavement Management Applications Using Geographic Informa-
tion Systems (Flintsch et al. 2004). The practices documented in the synthesis reflect the enhanced spatial
referencing technologies that were becoming available to improve data collection and data integration
practices. However, most agencies that indicated they were using GIS to support pavement management
were only using their GIS to prepare maps and graphic displays (Flintsch et al. 2004). At that time, the
use of GIS to integrate data or to serve as an enterprise-wide database was still in its infancy.

As transportation agencies have faced growing competition for funding and observed significant
growth in the use of their pavement networks, it has become increasingly important to use available
funding as cost-effectively as possible. In addition, recent federal legislation has placed a greater empha-
sis on performance-based investment decisions that improve agency accountability and transparency.
Together, these factors have led to a growing need for sophisticated and reliable pavement management
systems. In 2008, recognizing that not all state DOTs have pavement management systems capable of
addressing these demands, FHWA began sponsoring a series of regional peer exchanges that provided
an opportunity for pavement management practitioners to share experiences and develop the skills nec-
essary to enhance their pavement management capabilities. The pavement management peer exchange
program continues to this day and has proven to be a popular method of transferring technology.

In 2010, FHWA sponsored the development of a Pavement Management Roadmap designed to

identify the existing gaps in pavement management practices at the state DOT level and identify
research and development initiatives and priorities. The resulting Roadmap set the following vision
for pavement management and identified more than $14.5 million in short- and long-term initiatives
needed to advance pavement management practices (Zimmerman et al. 2010).

The 2020 Vision for Pavement Management

Pavement management will make use of a new generation of technology so agencies are less dependent
on manual labor for data collection. Pavement management tools will allow agencies to communicate
effectively with stakeholders, using clear statements that are tied to agency goals and pavement worth.
Within an asset management framework, pavement management will be used for investigating deci-
sions and program options in both private and public sectors. A pavement management analysis will
consider new materials and construction/design practices, as well as other factors that influence project
and treatment selection, including safety, congestion, and sustainability. As a result of these changes,
pavement management will be robust, comprehensive, and credible, and will address agency needs at
the project, network, and strategic levels.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 13

The short- and long-term needs included in the Pavement Management Roadmap were organized
into the following four themes:

• Theme 1—Use of Existing Technology and Tools: The problem statements in this area
include recommendations for technology and tools to support traditional applications of
pavement management.
• Theme 2—Institutional and Organizational Issues: The recommendations in this theme
address issues related to workforce development, communication, contracting, and organiza-
tional structure.
• Theme 3—The Broad Role of Pavement Management: The problem statements in this area
focus on the expanded application of pavement management for purposes related to pavement
design, asset management, and load impact studies.
• Theme 4—New Tools, Methodologies, and Technologies: The recommendations in this
theme are intended to lead to the development of new tools, methods, and technology to
support the evolving role of pavement management.

Since the development of the Roadmap, pavement management conferences and publications
have continued to document advances that have taken place in the types of data being collected, the
method of collection, and how pavement management information is being used to support agency
decisions. The program for the most recent International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets,
held in Alexandria, Virginia, from May 18 to 21, 2015, reflects these changes. Conference sessions
included innovative topics such as multi-objective analysis approaches, accelerated testing and instru-
mentation, asset valuation, integration of sustainability-rating tools in pavement management, improved
performance modeling techniques, use of pavement management data to calibrate pavement design
programs, the availability of web-based software tools, and the development of performance mea-
sures and compliance specifications for use in highway concessions and long-term performance-
based contracts. Plenary sessions focused on using pavement management data in response to natural
disasters and the design and construction of more sustainable and durable pavements. Based on the
information presented at the conference, the field of pavement management has advanced consider-
ably over the past decade.

Current Legislation Supporting Pavement Management

Today, legislation is in place that requires state DOTs to use a pavement management system to sup-
port the development of their Transportation Asset Management Plan. According to the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register (Vol. 80, No. 34, Feb. 20, 2015), a
pavement management system should include, at a minimum, formal procedures for:

• Collecting, processing, storing, and updating pavement inventory and condition data.
• Predicting changes in pavement condition over time.
• Evaluating the costs and benefits of alternative investment strategies.
• Estimating short- and long-term budget needs.
• Determining optimal improvement programs.
• Recommending strategies to manage pavements under constrained conditions.

In addition, the NPRM for Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance
Program (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 2, Jan. 5, 2015) requires each state DOT to develop and use
an FHWA-approved Data Quality Management Program to assess the quality of all data collected
to report pavement condition metrics. The Data Quality Management Program, at a minimum, is to
include methods and processes for:

• Data collection equipment calibration and certification.

• Certification processes for persons performing manual data collection.
• Data quality control measures to be conducted before data collection begins and periodically
during the data collection program.
• Data sampling, review, and checking processes.
• Error resolution procedures and data acceptance criteria.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

14

At the time this synthesis was written, the final rules had not been issued for either of the NPRMs.
Therefore, some of the minimum requirements listed previously may change; however, the overall
intent of the rules is not expected to change significantly.

Benefits to the Use of Pavement Management

Agencies that have utilized pavement management systems have recognized a variety of different
types of benefits, including those listed here (AASHTO 2012):

• The effective use of available resources to improve pavement performance.

• The ability to justify funding needs.
• An understanding of current and projected pavement conditions and needs.
• Improved access to pavement information throughout the agency.
• Increased accountability and transparency in the decision process.
• Objective decision making based on data.

The actual benefits that are realized are influenced by factors such as the comprehensiveness and
quality of the data, the degree to which agency decisions are affected by the pavement management
recommendations, and the capabilities of the software tools. At least two studies have attempted to
quantify the benefits to using pavement management strategies. In one study, Hudson et al. (2000)
reported that the Arizona DOT realized a savings of at least $30 in agency costs for every $1 spent on
the development, implementation, and operation of their pavement management software by using
an optimized set of treatments. The authors reported that if user costs had been considered, the sav-
ings would have approached $250 for each dollar spent. The second study, conducted by the Ministry
of Transportation in Alberta, found that over a 5-year period the return from pavement management
was 100 to 1 as a result of changes from fixing the worst roads first to a strategy that included a mix
of more cost-effective treatments (Cowe Falls et al. 1994).

Approaches to Pavement Management

Each agency must decide for itself the most effective approach to use for pavement management
based on its organizational needs, the size of the organization, the available resources to support data
collection and analysis, the minimum requirements established by FHWA, and the level of support
available from executive leadership. Once these types of factors have been evaluated, a transporta-
tion agency can develop a plan for collecting pavement inventory and condition information, select-
ing pavement management software, and gathering the information needed to develop treatment
rules and costs.

In addition to pavement management systems that are developed in house for an agency’s own
use, there are at least two different categories of pavement management systems that are publicly
available. These two categories of software vary significantly in terms of cost, complexity, and
flexibility. The simplest software programs have been developed using public funds so that the soft-
ware is available at little to no cost. These programs are classified as public domain software. The
programs typically provide relatively simple, but effective, database and analysis tools that are used
primarily at the local level. Examples of public domain software programs include Wolters et al.
(2011) and AASHTO (2012):

• PAVER—developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and distributed by the American
Public Works Administration.
• StreetSaver—developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco
Bay area.
• RoadSoft—developed by the Center for Technology and Training at Michigan Technological
University.

The second category of pavement management software is referred to as proprietary software

because the programs are developed, maintained, and licensed by private corporations. These programs

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 15

typically provide more flexibility in terms of configuring the database, the analysis parameters, and
the reporting features. The additional flexibility is often accompanied by more sophisticated modeling
approaches; however, these additional features come at a higher cost than the public domain software
programs. The proprietary software programs are more likely to be found in larger DOTs. In a Pave-
ment Management Catalog published by FHWA in 2008, there were 12 different proprietary software
programs listed and four public domain systems (FHWA 2008a).

The type of pavement management software used and the methods selected for determining pave-
ment conditions has a significant impact on the extent to which pavement management is used to
support agency decisions. The remainder of this chapter highlights some of the different approaches
being used in pavement management, focusing primarily on:

• Methods used to ensure data quality.

• Methods used to develop pavement management prediction models and decision trees.
• Methods of assessing pavement performance trends and treatment cost-effectiveness.
• Uses of pavement management data for estimating funding needs, predicting network perfor-
mance, setting performance targets, developing work plans, and allocating funding.
• Processes for developing work programs, including comparisons between planned and actual
work activities.
• Strategies for presenting pavement management data and analysis results.

Methods Used to Ensure Data Quality

The quality of the pavement condition data contained in the pavement management system is criti-
cal for producing informed decisions because it serves as the basis for all recommendations that are
generated (Flintsch and McGhee 2009). Recent efforts have defined quality as “the degree to which
data conforms with a given requirement” (AASHTO 2011) and focused on improving pavement
condition data quality through the development of a Quality Management Plan that documents an
agency’s process for managing data quality (Pierce et al. 2013).

There are a number of factors that influence the quality of pavement condition data, including
both the survey methodology being used and the manner in which the data are collected. The manner
in which the survey results are used influences the level of quality that must be attained and current
trends at outsourcing data collection activities have introduced new issues related to the consistency
in data when vendors or equipment change. Errors in data can have a significant impact on the rec-
ommended treatments and budgetary requirements generated by the pavement management system.
At the network level, systematic errors are considered to be especially critical to address because of
the large volume of data collected and the potential for these errors to be compounded (Shekharan
et al. 2007). One study quantified the impact of systematic errors in pavement condition on system
outputs, reporting that a 10% error in the distress score can over- or underestimate the annual budget
needs by as much as 85% (Saliminejad and Gharaibeh 2013). The study further confirmed that sys-
tematic errors have a higher impact on pavement management outputs because the entire network is
impacted (Saliminejad and Gharaibeh 2013).

The typical types of pavement condition data collected by state and provincial transportation
agencies in 2009 are shown in Figure 2 (Flintsch and McGhee 2009). This information is based on
the responses from 46 state DOTs and nine Canadian provinces. At that time, most agencies were
collecting surface distress and smoothness data at the network level. Fewer agencies were collecting
structural capacity and surface friction properties at the network level.

Correspondingly, at that time more than 50% of the agencies that responded to the survey were
collecting the majority of their pavement condition data using in-house staff; however, agencies were
increasingly using contractors to provide sensor-measured data for smoothness, rut depth, and joint
faulting (Flintsch and McGhee 2009). Today, the use of contractors for collecting pavement condi-
tion data is much more widespread. As evidenced from information provided during workshops con-
ducted by FHWA to promote the Practical Guide for Quality Management of Pavement Condition
Data Collection, 37 of the 50 states that attended the workshops between 2014 and 2015 indicated

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

16

FIGURE 2 Types of pavement condition data collected (Flintsch and McGhee 2009).

that they are currently using automated and semi-automated processes for collecting and reporting
pavement condition information (excluding friction), as shown in Figure 3 (http://www.fhwa.dot.
gov/pavement/mana.cfm). As shown in Figure 4, the data continues to be collected primarily using
in-house personnel, but a large number of states use contractors to collect the data. Figure 5 shows
the frequency of network-level pavement condition surveys. Most states reported that they collect
data on a portion of the network annually, but the rest of the system is surveyed every 2 or 3 years.
Twenty states reported that they annually collect pavement condition information on their entire sys-
tem. The practices used by state agencies are largely influenced by the size of the state-maintained
network as well as the availability of in-house personnel to collect the data. In recent years, some
states have extended their data collection activities to include roads maintained by local agencies
to promote statewide consistency in the way pavement conditions are reported. In the absence of

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Automated Automated Sensor Data & Manual Manual
Distress
Number of States

FIGURE 3 Data collection methods used (out of 50 states) (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/mana.cfm).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 17

25

20

15

10

0
Inhouse Contractor Combination
Number of States

FIGURE 4 Responsibility for data collection (out of 50 states) (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

pavement/mana.cfm).

state-provided data, local agencies may elect to collect pavement condition data for their own road
network independently.

Transportation agencies have taken a variety of approaches to address data quality efforts. The
primary techniques used by state and provincial transportation agencies include calibration of equip-
ment and/or analysis criteria before data collection starts, testing of control sections before and dur-
ing data collection, and software routines for checking the reasonableness and completeness of the
data (Flintsch and McGhee 2009). Training is also used extensively, especially for pavement distress
surveys. Some agencies require a formal certification of raters and/or equipment operators as a
way of verifying that field crews have the skills and knowledge required to help ensure data quality
(Flintsch and McGhee 2009).

Virginia DOT hired a third-party, independent contractor to manually check 10% of the data
collected and analyze using automated methods. The process identified systematic errors that included
misclassifications of a particular distress type. Once these errors were addressed, the number of pave-
ments requiring rehabilitation decreased by 83% and an additional 22% of the pavements were found
to require no maintenance, resulting in an $18 million reduction in treatment needs for the Interstate

25

20

15

10

0
Annually Some Annually and Some Every 2 Years
Every 2 to 3 Years
Number of States

FIGURE 5 Data collection frequency (out of 50 states) (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/

mana.cfm).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

18

system (Shekharan et al. 2007). The same study estimated that without a quality plan agencies may be
over- or underestimating maintenance and rehabilitation needs by 25% or more (Shekharan et al. 2007).

NCHRP Synthesis 401 found that approximately one-third of the state and provincial transporta-
tion agencies had formal Quality Management Plans in place to document how the agency evaluates
and manages data quality (Flintsch and McGhee 2009). The study found that a comprehensive Qual-
ity Management Plan addresses all three phases of the data collection process: prior to the start of
data collection, during the production stage, and as data are submitted. The activities to be completed
during each of these phases are shown in Figure 6 (Flintsch and McGhee 2009).

Methods Used to Develop Pavement Management Prediction Models and Decision Trees

The project and treatment recommendations generated from a pavement management system are
based on analysis parameters defined in the software. At the most basic level, this involves develop-
ing deterioration models that predict pavement conditions over time and treatment rules or decision
trees that identify the conditions under which each treatment is considered a suitable alternative.

FIGURE 6 Quality management activities suggested during each stage of data

collection (Flintsch and McGhee 2009).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 19

Trends in Prediction Modeling

The AASHTO Pavement Management Guide describes several characteristics associated with
pavement performance modeling that reflect general trends in the industry. These trends indicate
that the following practices are used commonly in pavement management (AASHTO 2012):

• Pavement performance models may be developed for individual distress types and/or pavement
condition indices (such as a cracking index or roughness index).
• At least four different approaches have been used to develop models, including:
–– subjective models based on agency expertise,
–– deterministic models that predict a single dependent variable from one or more independent
variables,
–– probabilistic models that estimate the likelihood that a pavement will change from one
condition state to another, and
–– Bayesian models that combine both objective and subjective data in terms of a probability
distribution.
• Individual models can be developed for each pavement section in the database or models can be
developed for groups of pavements with similar characteristics, often referred to as a “family.”
Modeling the performance of a family simplifies the modeling approach by reducing the number
of independent variables used in the equation.

As some states update their pavement management processes, new pavement performance models
are being developed. For instance, the Maryland State Highway Administration is updating its pave-
ment management system and used the opportunity to move away from the hundreds of performance
models that were in their previous system. The update process included a statistical analysis on IRI
values to define groups with similar characteristics (such as region and traffic levels) by pavement
and treatment types (Arambula et al. 2011). A histogram-based approach was used to develop the
performance models to circumvent the use of pavement age as an independent variable. The vali-
dation process confirmed that the resulting models provided satisfactory network-level predictions
(Arambula et al. 2011).

The California DOT (Caltrans) also recently developed new performance models using a
mechanistic-empirical design system and an incremental recursive approach to modeling (Lea et al.
2014). During the development of their models, Caltrans found that “pavement response is highly
sensitive to the thickness and material properties of each layer, especially the type of asphalt material
and the source of the asphalt binder” (Lea et al. 2014). They also found that certain variables that
were not contained in their pavement management database, such as subgrade type, asphalt source,
pavement condition before treatment, and layer thickness, were statistically significant in influencing
pavement performance (Lea et al. 2014).

The literature indicates that several agencies are exploring the use of pavement condition survey
data for calibrating Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) models. For instance,
in a study for the Texas DOT, researchers used pavement data from the Texas Specific Pavement Study
(SPS)-1 and SPS-3 experiments conducted under the FHWA’s Long-Term Pavement Performance
study to calibrate the asphalt concrete pavement deformation performance model (Banerjee et al.
2009). Washington State DOT (WSDOT) documented its work in calibrating the MEPDG models,
which was greatly facilitated because their historical pavement condition database included more than
30 years of longitudinal cracking, transverse cracking, alligator cracking, rutting, and roughness
data for their asphalt roads (Li et al. 2009). The Washington State pavement management system also
provided detailed structural information such as layer thickness, material, and asphalt binder type
that was instrumental in the calibration process.

FHWA illustrated the feasibility of using pavement management data to support the local calibra-
tion of the MEPDG models using actual data provided by the North Carolina DOT (FHWA 2010).
Although the study was successful at using pavement management data to perform the calibration,
there were several identified challenges, including the time required to match the design and con-
struction records to the pavement management sections (FHWA 2010). One more challenge resulted

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

20

from the differences in the state’s pavement condition survey procedures and the distress definitions
that served as the basis for the MEPDG models.

Another trend in pavement performance modeling involves the incorporation of uncertainty into
pavement management performance modeling. In one study on this topic, the authors address the dis-
advantages to characterizing pavement sections using average condition ratings, including the loss of
valuable information and the increased likelihood of developing inaccurate or misleading answers
(Kadar et al. 2015). Their research indicates that by using the full data set, and treating each data set as a
distribution, the probability of the outcome can be estimated with the predicted value (Kadar et al. 2015).

The literature also addresses the use of Bayesian approaches to update expert-based Markov tran-
sition probability matrices as historical data becomes available in a pavement management system
(Tabatabaee and Ziyadi 2013). The approach developed by the researchers incorporates the uncer-
tainty in both the initial transition probability matrices and the pavement condition survey method.
The approach was tested using data from the Minnesota DOT’s MnROAD test facility and verified
the importance of taking the variability of both factors into account.

Decision Tree Trends

To develop recommendations for the optimal use of available funding, a pavement management
system includes decision trees or treatment rules that identify when each treatment is considered to
be a feasible option. These treatment rules recognize that different types of strategies are appropriate
at different times in a pavement life cycle, as depicted in Figure 7 (AASHTO 2012). In this exam-
ple, preventive maintenance and minor rehabilitation, which are both considered to be preservation
activities, are feasible strategies when a pavement is in relatively good condition, whereas major
rehabilitation and reconstruction are more appropriate when a pavement is in fair or poor condi-
tion. Other considerations, such as pavement type, distress type, road functional classification, and
previous treatment history are also used to identify appropriate treatments, as shown in the decision
tree example used by the Minnesota DOT for its asphalt and asphalt over concrete roads (Figure 8).

Over the last decade, there have been an increasing number of publications addressing the integra-
tion of preventive maintenance treatments into a pavement management system. One study identified
typical gaps in a pavement management system that limit the ability to successfully model preventive
maintenance treatments. The paper suggested that current pavement condition surveys make it dif-
ficult to trigger treatments designed to address bleeding or raveling because those distresses are not
commonly found in a network-level survey (Zimmerman and Peshkin 2004). It also recognized that
the lack of integration between pavement management and maintenance databases makes it difficult
to develop performance models and treatment impact rules for preventive maintenance treatments.

FIGURE 7 Relationship between pavement condition and

treatment strategies (AASHTO 2012).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

 Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

FIGURE 8 Decision tree used by the Minnesota DOT for asphalt and asphalt over concrete pavements (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/pvmtmgmtdocs/Bituminous_
Decision_Tree_07-01-12.pdf).
Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

22

FIGURE 9 Decision tree used by the Utah DOT for seal coats (FHWA 2008b).

Utah DOT is an example of an agency that has developed decision trees in its pavement manage-
ment system to guide the selection of preventive maintenance treatments. Figure 9 illustrates the factors
that differentiate the type of seal coat recommended on asphalt roads maintained by Utah DOT (FHWA
2008b). In this example, treatment selection is differentiated by the type of facility (rural versus urban),
functional classification, and traffic volumes. Ohio DOT also has developed treatment rules to guide
the selection of preservation treatments, as shown in Figure 10 (Peshkin et al. 2011). In addition to the
condition data shown in the figure, Ohio DOT also uses information about the types of distress present
and traffic volumes to make final decisions about which treatment is most appropriate.

There is also an increasing emphasis on developing decision trees and treatment rules for using pres-
ervation treatments, including preventive maintenance, on high-volume roads (Peshkin et al. 2011). A
research study for the SHRP 2 program developed guidelines for using preservation treatments on these
types of facilities that emphasized the importance of design and quality construction, condition of the
existing pavement, level of traffic under which the treatment must function, and climatic conditions
to which the treatment is exposed as being key factors to treatment performance (Peshkin et al. 2011).

Methods of Assessing Pavement Performance Trends and Treatment Cost-Effectiveness

Pavement performance data in a pavement management system can be used to evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of various treatments. In recent years, the literature has revealed that agencies are very
interested in determining the cost-effectiveness of pavement preservation activities. One such study
evaluated several common methods of evaluating pavement preservation interventions including
effectiveness (benefit) only, cost only, cost-effectiveness, and economic efficiency (Khurshid et al.
2009). The study found that short-term effectiveness for a treatment does not necessarily translate
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 23

FIGURE 10 Preservation treatment rules used by the Ohio

DOT (Peshkin et al. 2011).

into long-term effectiveness. It also found that evaluations focused only on cost or effectiveness
yield biased results, so that methods that consider both factors (such as cost-effectiveness and
economic efficiency) are preferred (Khurshid et al. 2009).

WSDOT conducted an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of its pavement management decisions

using economic evaluation techniques such as Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Replacement Analysis,
and Break-Even Analysis (Luhr and Rydholm 2015). The study found that even a one-year extension
in pavement life from the use of cost-effective preservation treatments can have significant benefits
to an agency (Luhr and Rydholm 2015).

Another study evaluated the impact that data errors can have on the analysis results, using data from
the Quebec Ministry of Transport and Virginia DOT (Saliminejad 2016). The researcher’s risk assess-
ment approach demonstrates how an agency can estimate the magnitude of different types of data errors
to better focus their data quality management activities on those risks that have the highest impact.

Pavement management condition data has also been used to evaluate the effectiveness of the
pavement warranty program initiated by Mississippi DOT in 2000 (Qi et al. 2013). The study evalu-
ated the program’s effectiveness using information on roughness, rutting, cracking, and other surface
distress information stored in the agency’s pavement management system. By comparing the distress
data for warranted and nonwarranted projects using statistical analysis, the study found that the pave-
ments covered under a warranty were deteriorating at a slower rate than the rest of the pavement
sections and the overall performance of the warranty sections was better than the rest of the sections
over the same length of service (Qi et al. 2013).

Trends in the Use of Pavement Management Data

Traditional uses for a pavement management system include activities associated with identifying treat-
ment recommendations for developing a multi-year work plan and displaying the impacts of different
investment strategies on system conditions with time. The literature indicates that as agencies increas-
ingly move toward making performance-based investment decisions, pavement management will have
an important role in providing analysis results that convey the consequences of different options.

The use of performance-based investment decisions is common internationally, where many coun-
tries are using asset management principles. In 2012, an international scan was conducted to explore how
certain transportation agencies were managing and monitoring their pavements. The scan participants
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

24

found that, internationally, agency cultures supported a long-term view for managing pavements in
which agency priorities were known and agency personnel were held accountable for their actions
(Zimmerman et al. 2013). Most of the agencies visited during the scan were moving toward a service-
based approach for managing their road networks rather than a condition-based approach. Under this
new approach, customer-driven priorities such as safety, reliability of travel, comfort, and livability
are becoming the primary drivers for triggering road maintenance and renewal actions (Zimmerman
et al. 2013). This has led to changes in the types of data that are collected and the performance targets
that are driving the maintenance and renewal programs.

In the United States, there is evidence that transportation agencies are also exploring the applica-
bility of pavement management systems to address customer-driven priorities, through the consid-
eration of safety and environmental impacts. For instance, one study recommends the use of friction
data, combined with crash data, to conduct a network-level analysis intended to better predict loca-
tions of vehicular crashes (de León Izeppi et al. 2016). The authors suggest that improved pavement
management systems that can predict crash locations, together with proactive maintenance treat-
ments to address areas with inadequate friction numbers, could significantly reduce the number of
crashes that occur (de León Izeppi et al. 2016). Texas DOT recently completed a study to establish
threshold values for skid resistance that could be used in network-level planning and programming
decisions (Wu et al. 2014). The framework developed under the study (1) established a quantitative
relationship between pavement skid resistance and crash rates and (2) set threshold values for trig-
gering maintenance decisions based on skid resistance (Wu et al. 2014).

The use of pavement management data to support the identification and assessment of risks is
another recent trend. To a certain degree, the consideration of risks using pavement management
data has been influenced by the federal legislation, requiring state DOTs to develop risk-based asset
management plans. Managing risks or uncertainty typically includes the following fundamental ele-
ments (Cambridge Systematics Inc. et al. 2009):

• Establishing risk tolerances,

• Identifying threats or hazards,
• Assessing impacts or consequences,
• Identifying potential mitigation strategies,
• Developing a mitigation or management plan, and
• Implementing the plan.

A pavement management system can support several of these elements; for example, providing
pavement performance data to assess risk impacts and suggest potential mitigation strategies. The
pavement management system can also be used to prioritize risk mitigation investments in areas
considered critical to the system. Risk can also be incorporated into pavement management models
to better understand the uncertainty associated with recommended investment programs.

Another recent trend is the consideration of environmental impacts from maintenance and rehabili-
tation treatments recommended in a pavement management system in the project-selection process.
Researchers have found that the consideration of these factors reduced energy use and greenhouse
gas emissions by 19% to 24%, with just a small sacrifice in pavement performance (i.e., 98.5% of the
optimal solution) (Faghih-Imani and Amador-Jimenez 2013). Muench and Van Dam (2015) conducted
a study that summarizes how climate change impacts pavement systems and used the results to identify
several pavement adaptation strategies that can be incorporated into pavement management systems.
These strategies include the use of higher-temperature asphalt binders, increased use of rut-resistant
designs, greater consideration of the concrete coefficient of thermal expansion, and shorter joint spac-
ing in concrete pavements (Muench and Van Dam 2015). Methods of incorporating environmental
impacts into pavement management systems were also addressed by Pellecuer et al. (2016).

Putting Pavement Management Recommendations into Practice

The recommendations from a pavement management system serve as a foundation for develop-
ing a network improvement program; however, there are many factors that can influence the final

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 25

selection of funded projects. In some instances, especially where an agency’s districts or regions
are fairly autonomous, there may be significant differences between the pavement management
recommendations and the agency’s improvement program.

In an effort to reduce the differences between the pavement management system recommen-
dations and the final work plans, Colorado DOT established a goal to have 70% of a region’s
construction plan match the treatment recommendations generated by its pavement management
software (CDOT 2005). The match is based on a common location, the level of treatment, and the
treatment timing (±4 years) (CDOT 2002).

To help improve consistency in the work plans developed by Ohio DOT district personnel, and to
ensure that the DOT meets its performance targets, Ohio DOT recently implemented new business
processes to support its asset management activities. As part of these changes, district work plans
now combine maintenance and capital improvements into a single plan and a percentage of the work
activities must match the treatment strategies recommended by the pavement management system
(ODOT 2016). In the first year of the new business processes, districts are expected to match at least
25% of the pavement management recommendations; however, in later years the match will increase
to at least 75% (ODOT 2016).

Strategies for Presenting Pavement Management Data and Analysis Results

Pavement management information is presented in a number of different formats, including printed

documents, GIS maps, and online dashboards. A few examples of typical report outputs from a pave-
ment management system are provided, illustrating historical pavement conditions in Figure 11 and
expected conditions under three different funding levels in Figure 12.

In 2004, an NCHRP synthesis reported that GIS systems have been particularly helpful to pave-
ment management practitioners for integrating, managing, analyzing, and presenting data from mul-
tiple data sets (Flintsch et al. 2004). An example of the type of pavement management information
commonly displayed on maps is provided in Figure 13.

In an effort to improve agency accountability, report cards and dashboards showing targeted
and actual conditions are becoming increasingly common. These items typically include a range
of performance measures such as safety, mobility, and pavement condition measures. An example
of a portion of a Performance Measure Report Card published by North Dakota DOT is presented
in Figure 14.

FIGURE 11 Historical pavement condition trends (Haas, Hudson, and Cowe Falls 2015).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

FIGURE 12 Estimated backlog and pavement condition index under three

different funding scenarios (Romell and Tan 2010).

FIGURE 13 Percent change in “Good” or better condition by county for FY 2011–2014 (TxDOT 2014).
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 27

FIGURE 14 A portion of the Performance Measurement Report

Card developed by the North Dakota DOT (http://www.dot.nd.gov/
divisions/exec/docs/pm-rpt-cd.pdf).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

28

chapter three

State of the Practice

Overview

A web-based survey of practice was distributed to pavement management engineers in each of the
52 state transportation agencies (including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) and the 10 Canadian
provincial MOTs to learn more about current practices in pavement management. A preliminary version
of the questionnaire was tested by the Topic Panel prior to distribution. Forty state DOTs responded to
the survey for a 80% success rate and Puerto Rico also responded to the survey, as shown in Figure 15.
In addition, eight MOTs (80%) in the following Canadian provinces responded to the survey:

• Alberta
• Manitoba
• New Brunswick
• Newfoundland and Labrador
• Northwest Territories
• Ontario
• Quebec
• Saskatchewan.

This chapter summarizes the findings from the survey of practices. A copy of the survey
questions is provided as Appendix A (online only) and the responses received are presented in
Appendix B.

Survey Content

The survey questions were organized into the following three sections:

• General Pavement Management Information—this section includes questions about respon-

dents’ pavement management systems, the status of their highway inventory, the manner in
which distress data are collected, and the types of information in their pavement management
database.
• Data Analysis and Performance Modeling—this section explores how performance mod-
els are developed, the types of treatments included in the system, the analysis capabilities
available in pavement management software, and the types of analyses that have been
conducted.
• Putting the Data to Work—the last group of questions addresses the degree to which funded
improvements match the pavement management system recommendations and the factors
influencing any significant differences. In addition, respondents were asked several questions
about processes in place to update their data, the degree to which pavement management is
integrated with other programs, the types of documentation in place, and the types of informa-
tion shared with various stakeholder groups.

The results of the survey are presented in the remainder of this chapter. In addition to the survey
results, interviews were conducted with representatives from five state DOTs to explore nontradi-
tional uses for their pavement management data. The results from the interviews are presented in
chapter four.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work
FIGURE 15 U.S. transportation agencies that responded to the survey.
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

30

FIGURE 16 Number of state transportation agencies with inventory and condition information in their pavement
management systems.

General Pavement Management Information

To learn more about the extent to which highway network attributes are incorporated into a pave-
ment management database, respondents were asked to identify whether inventory and condition
information exists for various components of the network. Separate questions were posed to U.S. and
Canadian agencies to better reflect the terminology used in each country. For example, U.S. agencies
were asked about the coverage on the NHS, a term not used in Canada. Responses to questions about
coverage in the United States are presented in Figure 16 and the Canadian responses in Figure 17. As
shown in Figure 16, all state DOTs that responded to the survey have inventory and condition infor-
mation on their Interstate and non-Interstate NHS routes, which is consistent with federal reporting
requirements for states providing data on these routes to the HPMS. Fewer than half of the state

FIGURE 17 Number of provincial MOTs with inventory and condition information in their pavement
management systems (only seven provinces answered this question).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 31

DOTs have inventory information for their frontage roads, entrance and exit ramps, and shoulders.
Even fewer have condition information on that portion of their pavement network.

The responses from the MOTs are similar to those reported by U.S. agencies because most of the
agencies responding indicated that they have inventory and condition information on their provincial
highways and the Trans-Canada Highway. Some agencies have inventory information on shoulders,
frontage roads, entrance and exit ramps, and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or bus lanes, but
fewer than half of the agencies have condition information for that portion of their system. It is also
possible that some agencies do not have HOV or bus lanes in their system.

Agencies were then asked to select a statement from a list of options that best describes their pave-
ment management software. Options included developing their system in house, using vendor-supplied
software that has been modified by the agency, using proprietary software provided by a vendor, or
using software in the public domain. Respondents were also given the option of selecting “other” and
entering a singular response. The answers are shown in Figure 18. The use of vendor-supplied propri-
etary software customized to meet the needs of the agency is by far the most common approach used in
the United States. In Canada, three of eight agencies use customized proprietary software.

Several agencies from the United States and Canada responded to the question by choosing
“other” and providing the following information:

• We use an Access database and Excel tools to work with the data and do pavement management
activities.
• We use vendor-supplied software that was customized for our use and then modified by
in-house personnel (answer provided by two agencies).
• Inventory only; no pavement management system in place.
• No system currently in place.
• Currently access—waiting to develop a permanent solution.
• Pavement management components in multiple systems.
• We use a vendor-provided program to optimize and other tools to view and analyze.
• We use vendor-supplied condition data post-processing software, in-house software to collect
construction data and warehouse all pavement data, and proprietary software for optimization
and forecasting that was customized by the vendor.

Agencies were also asked to provide information on the manner in which pavement distress data
are collected on divided and nondivided highways. Agencies were allowed to choose more than one
response if necessary. As shown in Figures 19 (divided) and 20 (nondivided), agencies are more
likely to collect data in each direction on divided highways (44 of 49 responding agencies or 90%)
than on nondivided highways (16 of 49 responding agencies or 33%).

FIGURE 18 Type of pavement management software used.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

32

FIGURE 19 Procedures used to collect distress data on divided highways.

Some of the responses to the “other” option included

• On Interstates, data are collected in one lane in each direction.

• In-house staff manually measure distress on samples of the downward imagery.
• In addition to automated data, we perform a windshield survey that collects distress in all lanes
in one direction (the primary direction).
• Collect on all lanes on the NHS; otherwise in the right-most lane in each direction.
• Collect on Interstates in both directions, state routes in one lane in one direction.
• Rutting collected only.
• If the nondivided highway has four or more lanes, collect data for only one lane in each direction.
If the nondivided highway is less than four lanes, collect data in only one lane in one direction.
• Two-lane routes are collected in only one direction.

The last question in this section asked the respondent to select from a list each type of information
that is included in their pavement management database. The results are provided in Figure 21 and

FIGURE 20 Procedures used to collect distress data on nondivided highways.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 33

FIGURE 21 Information contained in pavement management databases.

show that distress values are stored by most agencies along with composite and individual indices
such as a rut index or a cracking index. Traffic data and treatment history and cost data are also com-
mon in both the United States and Canada.

The results also indicated that few pavement management databases contain information about
routine maintenance activities, remaining service life (RSL), materials or construction information,
or drainage. In addition, only three U.S. and three Canadian transportation agencies mentioned that
detailed performance data from national or state pavement test sections are stored in their pavement
management system.

The 15 agencies that indicated that they store RSL in their pavement management database were
asked how they define the term. The following six options were provided:

• The time from the present (i.e., today) to when a pavement reaches an unacceptable condition.
• The time until the next rehabilitation or reconstruction event.
• The time until a condition index threshold limit is reached.
• The time between applications of corrective pavement construction treatments.
• The time until a remaining service interval is met.
• Other.

The responses received are presented in Figure 22. The most common definition is the time until a
condition index threshold is reached; however, several states define it as the time until the next reha-
bilitation or reconstruction event or an unacceptable condition is reached. The agency that selected
“Other” noted that they define the RSL as an unacceptable condition level that has been established
for each functional classification.

Data Analysis and Performance Modeling

The second set of questions explored the methods used for developing pavement deterioration mod-
els and treatment rules, as well as the types of analyses that are conducted.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

34

FIGURE 22 Method of defining Remaining Service Life.

Performance Modeling

The first series of questions addressed pavement performance modeling. From a list of options,
respondents were asked to select any of the approaches that they have used to predict pavement per-
formance. The responses are provided in Figure 23, which shows that most agencies have developed
agency-specific models and that many have developed models for pavement families with similar
characteristics. Sixteen U.S. and two Canadian agencies reported that they predict the performance
of individual distress and seven U.S. agencies develop individual models for each pavement section
in their database. Only four U.S. and three Canadian agencies are using probabilistic models. In
addition, four U.S. and one Canadian agency reported that their system does not predict pavement
performance.

FIGURE 23 Number of agencies using each approach to predict pavement performance.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 35

FIGURE 24 Factors used to develop customized performance models.

Each of the 27 U.S. and six Canadian agencies that reported using customized models were
asked a follow-up question intended to identify the factors that are used in developing the models.
Respondents were allowed to choose as many responses as applicable. In addition, respondents
were asked how frequently they update their performance models. The responses are provided in
Figures 24 and 25.

Treatment Selection

The next set of questions in this section of the survey focused on the type of treatment recom-
mendations being used in the pavement management system. First, the survey asked respondents
to identify whether their pavement management system recommends a treatment category (such as
preservation or rehabilitation), a specific treatment type (such as chip seal or overlay), or both. A
fourth option could be selected if treatment recommendations are not generated by the pavement
management system. The responses to this question, which are presented in Figure 26, indicated
that treatment categories are the most common; however, many pavement management systems

FIGURE 25 Performance model update frequency.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

36

FIGURE 26 Types of treatment selection recommendations generated in a pavement

management system.

recommend specific treatments or both types of treatments. Five U.S. agencies and one Canadian
transportation agency indicated that no treatment recommendations are generated in their pavement
management system.

The survey also asked respondents to identify the factors that are used in the pavement manage-
ment system to identify a feasible pavement treatment. The responses, summarized in Figure 27,
revealed that pavement condition, pavement type, traffic, pavement age, highway system, and the
last treatment are the most commonly used to determine the appropriate treatment. Pavement layer
and climate information are not used by many agencies. One reason why climate may not be used by
some states is that the highways fall within a single climate region.

Other responses indicated that several agencies either do not have a pavement management sys-
tem in place or the system they use does not recommend treatments. One agency noted that on roads
with curbs in place, treatment selection considers whether the road profile would be raised. Another
indicated that studded tire wear is a factor in treatment selection. Finally, one agency indicated that
considerations that are not included in the pavement management software are often noted during
the field review of candidate projects.

FIGURE 27 Factors used in selecting a feasible pavement treatment.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 37

FIGURE 28 Number of agencies that include pavement

preservation treatments in their pavement management system.

As noted in the literature review, over the last decade there has been an increased focus on incor-
porating pavement preservation treatments into a pavement management system. The survey asked
respondents to indicate whether their pavement management system includes preservation treat-
ments such as chip seals and microsurfacing on asphalt-surfaced pavements and diamond grinding or
dowel-bar retrofit on concrete pavements. As shown in Figure 28, the responses indicated that most
agencies consider these types of treatments in their pavement management analysis.

Analysis Capabilities

The final series of questions in this section explored the types of analyses that can be done with their
pavement management software, whether or not it is actually used for that purpose. For each type
of analysis selected, a follow-up question was asked to determine whether the agency has actually
used the analysis. The difference in responses can be viewed by comparing Figures 29 and 30. The
graphs show that whereas some pavement management features are being used extensively (such
as forecasting conditions under different funding scenarios and estimating funding needed to
achieve performance targets), there are many features that are not commonly being used. The
least common applications include allocating funding to regions, preparing HPMS submittals,

FIGURE 29 Number of pavement management systems with these capabilities.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

38

FIGURE 30 Number of agencies using each type of analysis.

verifying performance models using field data, and developing contractor performance specifica-
tions and/or measures to monitor warranty projects. Agencies that selected the “Other” option
noted that some of these analyses are performed outside of a pavement management system using
other tools.

Another question asked whether the cost estimates in the pavement management system include
the cost of nonpavement-related activities, such as striping or guardrail repairs. As shown in Figure 31,
most agencies in the United States include these costs in their treatment costs, but this is much less
common in Canada.

Putting the Data to Work

The last set of questions pertains to how the pavement management data are being used. The first
question focused on the extent to which projects that are included in a transportation improvement
plan match the recommendations generated by the pavement management system. Agencies were
asked to estimate the extent to which projects matched at least 70% of the time, between 40% and
70% of the time, or less than 40% of the time. An “I don’t know” option was also provided. The

FIGURE 31 Number of agencies that include the cost of

nonpavement-related activities in their treatment costs.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 39

FIGURE 32 Estimated match between pavement management recommendations and funded projects.

responses are shown in Figure 32. Only three U.S. and one Canadian agency reported that their
improvement projects are substantially different than what is recommended in their pavement man-
agement system; however, the survey responses do not indicate how a match is defined. Ideally, a
match to the pavement management system would reflect the same level of repair, treatment timing,
and project limits suggested in the analysis. In reality, agencies may allow for some flexibility in
defining a match if, for example, a project will be constructed within 1 to 2 years of the recommenda-
tion provided by the pavement management system and the pavement conditions have not changed
substantially.

The four agencies that reported a match less than 40% of the time were then given a follow-up
question asking them to identify the factors that influenced the lack of a match. The results are pre-
sented in Figure 33. The responses indicated that political influence, local conditions, the lack of
sufficient funds, and district independence are all factors that influenced the final selection of proj-
ects. Other responses included resource constraints in developing plans for small, but economical,
projects and the agency’s lack of confidence in one of the treatment triggers.

The same four agencies were asked to identify the factor that has the greatest influence on the lack
of a match if they selected two or more of the options from the previous list. There were only three
agencies that fit these criteria and the responses are shown in Figure 34.

FIGURE 33 Number of agencies indicating each factor influenced the lack of a strong match between their
improvement program and their pavement management recommendations.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

40

FIGURE 34 Fact or having the greatest influence on the lack of match between pavement management and the
construction program.

Pavement Management Processes, Integration, and Documentation

Three survey questions were included to learn more about processes to keep the pavement manage-
ment system current, the amount of integration with other programs, and the types of documentation
that exist. The first of these three questions asked respondents to select each of the processes in place
to update the agency’s pavement management system. The responses are provided in Figure 35,
which shows that most agencies have processes in place to update work history information, verify
the quality of data, and update pavement surface type based on work activities. Less common is a
process to update the database with actual project costs. The integration question asked respondents
to identify from a list each of the computer systems that is integrated with the pavement manage-
ment software. As shown in Figure 36, the two most commonly integrated systems are the agency’s
GIS and its centralized roadway database. Fourteen agencies (12 in the United States and two in
Canada) reported that their pavement management system is not integrated with any other system.
Several agencies indicated that their pavement management system is integrated with their agency’s
maintenance management system, asset management system, and/or bridge management system.

Respondents were also asked to identify the type of documentation that was in place to institu-
tionalize parts of the pavement management process, responses are presented in Figure 37. Condition
survey procedures are most commonly documented, but a significant number of agencies have also
documented their treatment rules and performance model equations. Agencies that selected “Other”
noted that they are in the process of developing a manual (two agencies), that their processes are well
established but not documented, or that they have a manual only for their visual rating procedures.

FIGURE 35 The number of agencies with each process in place to support pavement management.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 41

FIGURE 36 The number of agencies with a pavement management system that is integrated with other agency systems.

Pavement Management Information Provided to Various Stakeholders

As discussed in the literature review, pavement management information is presented in a number

of different ways. To learn more about the types of pavement management information that are
provided to various stakeholder groups, a list of the different types of information was presented
and respondents were asked to identify each stakeholder group that receives that type of informa-
tion. The responses are presented separately for the U.S. and Canadian agencies (Figures 38 and 39,
respectively).

The reporting of present pavement conditions is most common in both the United States and
Canada; however, Canadian provinces are reporting forecasted conditions more than the state DOTs.
The most common information provided to elected officials is current and forecasted conditions and

FIGURE 37 Number of agencies with documentation in place.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

42

FIGURE 38 Number of U.S. agencies providing information to various stakeholder groups.

FIGURE 39 Number of Canadian agencies providing information to various stakeholder groups.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 43

pavement needs. Agency decision makers receive that information, but also are provided information
about candidate projects and how the funding will be used.

Enhancements

The final series of questions focus on desired enhancements to the pavement management system.
First, a list of different types of enhancements was developed that included capabilities such as col-
lecting network-level surface property and friction data, changing from a sampling approach for
condition surveys, and updating pavement management software. For each item in the list, respond-
ers were asked to identify whether that enhancement had already been done or whether it would be
done within the next 2 years. The responses for the U.S. agencies are shown in Figure 40 and for
Canadian agencies in Figure 41. In the United States, transportation agencies reported that they have
developed, or will be developing, improvements in their quality management processes and in the
updating of their pavement management software. It appears that many states have changed from
manual to automated surveys and have moved to continuous surveys rather than the use of sampling.
There appears to be a good deal of interest in using pavement management to optimize resource
allocations and analyze investment needs across asset types.

In Canada, the same types of changes are being made to pavement condition surveys; however,
there are also a significant number of agencies that noted that they intend to increase the frequency
of their surveys. The largest number of responses for a future enhancement relates to collecting pave-
ment structural information at the network level.

The final two survey questions required text responses. One asked responders to list any data they
would like to, but do not currently, collect. The responses indicated that agencies would prefer to
have the following information:

• Structural data, such as deflection testing (six agencies). One respondent stated that the data
would be used in the MEPDG software. Two agencies expressed interest in collecting these
data at traffic speeds.

FIGURE 40 Number of U.S. agencies that have made, or plan to make, certain enhancements.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

44

FIGURE 41 Number of Canadian agencies that have made, or plan to make, certain enhancements.

• Pavement layer data, mix design properties, and/or material information (six agencies). Three
of the agencies specifically indicated they would like network-level ground penetrating radar
(GPR) data. One agency noted that it would like to improve the link between its pavement
material data with the pavement management system.
• Automated network-level surveys for roughness and cracking (three agencies).
• Surface texture and skid data (three agencies).
• Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) surveys (two agencies). One agency indicated the infor-
mation would be used to evaluate the cross slope across all lanes for the network.
• Specific distress information (two agencies). One agency expressed interest in collecting pot-
hole information and the other listed raveling.
• One agency expressed interest in building a rumble strip inventory.

The responses indicate that pavement structural information is important as is the ability to
improve the link between pavement management data and other types of pavement construction and
material data.

The last question asked whether the pavement management system had been used in an innova-
tive manner. The agencies that responded affirmatively were interviewed and their innovations are
included in chapter four.

Cross Analysis of the Data

To further investigate trends in the survey results, an analysis was conducted to determine whether
relationships could be established between the availability of certain types of data, the processes
used to develop models, and the use of the pavement management software to conduct certain types
of analyses. Only a limited number of these correlations were investigated; however, the findings
present some interesting relationships.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 45

Table 1
Trends in Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Different Treatments
Number of Agencies Whose Number of Agencies That Have
Software Has the Ability to Evaluate Used Their Software to Evaluate
Other Properties Identified Treatment Cost-Effectiveness Treatment Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis That Also Perform the Analysis That Also Perform the
Properties Listed (Max 34) Properties Listed (Max 23)
Include RSL in Their
Pavement Management 11 (32%) 10 (43%)
System
Verify Their Pavement
20 (59%) 5 (22%)
Performance Models
Update Their Pavement
Performance Models
23 (68%) 8 (35%)
Regularly (at least every
3 years)

In response to the question regarding the processes that are in place to support pavement manage-
ment (see Figure 35), 38 agencies reported that they have a process in place to verify the quality of
their data. Within the agencies that have these processes in place:

• Twenty-six (68%) update their performance models on at least a 3-year cycle. Overall, 30 agen-
cies indicated that they update their performance models on a 3-year or less cycle.
• Eleven (29%) reported that performance models are verified using field data.

These findings tend to support the theory that agencies that have confidence in their pavement
performance data update their performance models regularly. Approximately 30% of these agencies
verify the updated models using field data.

Figures 29 and 30 presented the results from questions exploring the availability of certain capa-
bilities in the pavement management software and the use of these capabilities by agency personnel.
Thirty-four agencies indicated that their pavement management software was capable of evaluating
the cost-effectiveness of different treatments. Only 23 (68%) noted that they had used their pave-
ment management system to conduct this type of analysis. Exploring other responses provided by the
agencies, the strongest correlations in other data observations are presented in Table 1.

The findings indicated that the agencies that have conducted a cost-effective analysis using their
pavement management system are not necessarily the same agencies that are performing these other
functions regularly. It also appears that these agencies tend to use RSL more than other agencies,
since overall only 16 of the 49 that answered the question (33%) noted that they include RSL in
their system.

The final comparison investigated the responses of the nine agencies that listed some form of
structural condition assessment (e.g., Falling Weight Deflectometer or GPR) as additional data they
wished they collected. The analysis revealed that four of these agencies (44%) develop performance
models based on structural condition, indicating that improved structural information would support
these efforts.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

46

chapter four

Case Examples

Approach

Based on the analysis of the survey responses, several intriguing uses of pavement management data
were identified and believed to warrant further examination. Each of these uses is featured as a case
example to provide the opportunity to explore the reasons for their application and how they were
implemented. Telephone interviews were performed with highway agency representatives to cap-
ture the information associated with each application. However, the case examples are not intended
to provide a comprehensive summary of the practices in any of the DOTs that participated in the
interviews, but rather serve to highlight the analysis objectives, findings, and overall lessons learned.

The five case examples described in this chapter highlight the use of pavement management data to:

• Improve data quality (Kansas DOT).

• Evaluate treatment effectiveness (North Carolina DOT).
• Conduct a safety analysis (Maryland DOT).
• Improve agency performance measures (Washington State DOT).
• Establish performance measures for highway concession agreements (Texas DOT).

Case Example 1: Using Pavement Management Data to Improve Data Quality

Having spent many years contributing to the development of standards for pavement condition data
collection through AASHTO and FHWA, the pavement management engineer from Kansas DOT
decided to adopt the existing standards in his agency to learn more about the challenges that agen-
cies face as they implement these processes and bring those experiences to the FHWA Pooled Fund
working on refining the standards.

Potential advantages to using the AASHTO standards on a national basis are listed here:

• Automated data collection activities could be more consistent and less expensive if vendors did
not have to modify procedures for each agency.
• Pavement performance models could be transferable among agencies within a particular region.
• The data could be more transferable to support other asset management activities.
• From a national perspective, the information that is being reported would have more meaning
because it is more consistent.

To evaluate the issues associated with the implementation of the AASHTO standards, Kansas
DOT negotiated a 3-year contract with a vendor who was to follow the standards closely. Throughout
the contract period, the intent was to use the findings to guide the committee working on finalizing
the standards, including recommendations for changes based on the state implementation experience.
However, a number of issues emerged that are providing lessons much earlier than expected. From
those experiences and discussions with other entities trying to use the standards it became evident
that implementers make assumptions during the processing of the data that are not well documented
and are not made public. Although outputs are provided in the format specified in the standards, each
vendor could be making different assumptions to compile the data and produce results. For instance,
typical distress data collection equipment records relative elevations and reflective intensities with a
resolution between 1 and 3 mm. During processing, these individual measurement locations must be

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 47

combined to form a continuous surface profile. From this surface profile, implementers must deter-
mine if each point is part of a crack and how each point might be connected to other cracked points
in determining cracking distress. The assumptions made in determining cracked points and turning
those into cracking distress outputs are not well known and are typically considered to be proprietary
by the vendors. Many agencies may consider that they are following the standards because their
outputs are reported in a format that complies with the standards. However, these agencies may not
be aware that assumptions are being made during the processing of the data that do not necessarily
comply with the AASHTO standards.

The lessons learned from this experience included the following:

• To facilitate the use of data collection standards, it would help if they are written in a way that
they will be followed by DOTs and meet both FHWA’s and state DOT’s needs.
• It would be beneficial to have data collection vendors provide a flowchart showing how outputs
are developed, including how cracks are identified and evaluated, as well as the development
of a crack map that defines choices and hierarchies used to link cracks, so assumptions can be
better understood.
• The team developing the national standards would benefit from participation by users of the
data as well as individuals who understand the capabilities of the technology.
• A national research study to develop models that take the raw data collected by the vendors and
process it in a consistent manner on a national basis would benefit the pavement management
community. The results of such a study would allow comparisons of state data and improve the
accuracy of the HPMS data.

Kansas DOT will continue to address these lessons learned to help them meet their internal needs
for quality pavement condition information and to help FHWA meet its requirements for reporting
to Congress without conflicting with the data that states use for pavement management decisions.

Case Example 2: Using Pavement Management Data

to Evaluate Treatment Effectiveness

Following an extended process of updating the North Carolina DOT’s life-cycle cost (LCC) proce-
dure, its pavement management engineer decided to use pavement management data to ascertain if
the assumptions used in the LCC models could be supported. Concurrently, the North Carolina DOT
pavement management engineer was being asked questions about how long friction courses were
lasting in the state; therefore, the combination of these two events prompted an analysis of the per-
formance of two different types of friction courses used in the state: an open-graded friction course
(OGFC) and a surface with an FC-2 gradation.

The pavement management database provided several types of information that were key to the
analysis including inventory data, type of friction course, date of construction, and pavement con-
dition data. The performance data were plotted against the survey year for each pavement section
that had one of the two friction courses applied. The data were also combined and in some cases, as
shown in Figure 42, there was a significant amount of scatter in the combined data.

The data were then modeled to show the average Pavement Condition Rating for all sections that
were constructed in any given year, as shown in Figure 43. A similar analysis was conducted for the
pavement sections with an FC-2 gradation. In both cases, the results provided good guidance regard-
ing the performance period that can be expected for these types of treatments. For instance, OGFC
performance historically drops off at year 10 and FC-2 performance in year 8. The study also found
that all FC-2 sections had received another treatment by year 11. The information has been used to
support decisions being made by field divisions as they program rehabilitation activities and has led
to greater confidence in the pavement management system. The results can also be used in a tradi-
tional LCC analysis to support the assumptions that are made for treatment frequencies.

One of the challenges encountered during the analysis concerned the variability of some of the
pavement performance data. Evaluating the effectiveness of a treatment requires condition data over

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

48

FIGURE 42 Sample plot showing OGFC performance for all sections (provided by the NCDOT).

a full performance cycle to learn about the life of a treatment. Over the 15 years that OGFC have been
applied and the 13 years that FC-2 treatments have been used, performance data were collected using
two different survey approaches: manual and automated. The manual data had more variability than
the automated survey, which may have influenced some of the results. However, the performance
results that were generated from the analysis replicate field observations; therefore, the influence is
not perceived to be too great.

North Carolina DOT analysis led to the following lessons learned:

• It is helpful to eliminate complications in the analysis by selecting pavement sections that have
received the treatment after any major change in design or rating procedures.

FIGURE 43 Average OGFC pavement condition since time of construction (provided by NCDOT).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 49

• The analysis results have to be updated if materials and other conditions in the field change.
• Reliable construction history records are important to the analysis. In North Carolina, the DOT
concentrated its analysis on Interstate and primary routes where construction histories are kept
current.

Case Example 3: Using Pavement Management Data to Conduct a Safety Analysis

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan developed by Maryland DOT includes a focus on improvements
to highway infrastructure that would lead to a reduced number of crashes in and around curves. In a
related but separate effort, the Maryland Office of Materials Technology, where pavement manage-
ment is located, was evaluating friction management policies. When the project manager from the
Office of Highway Development contacted the Assistant Division Chief for Pavement Management
from the Office of Materials Technology to determine whether pavement management data could be
used to assist with identifying high-risk curve locations, the two recognized an opportunity to col-
laborate to address the goals of both initiatives.

Starting with data from one county, the team began using the geometric information collected
during the pavement condition surveys to study how it could be leveraged. The study considered hori-
zontal curve, radius, cross slope, and design measures and compared the data to a separate database
containing speed limit information. The data were analyzed in an ArcGIS environment, combining
known crash locations by frequency and severity, design speed, and curve radius, along with pave-
ment age and existing surface friction (using an A to F rating) for the state route data. The curve radius,
pavement age, and surface friction ratings were all provided from the pavement management system.
Only pavements 10 years old or less were considered as candidates for high-friction surface treatment.

To analyze the data, the team produced histograms for each individual route (such as the one
shown in Figure 44) to identify high-crash locations at various speeds. The analysis was used to iden-
tify high-risk curve candidates to be considered for some type of action, including better signage, the
application of a surface friction treatment, or modifications to the cross slope.

The same type of analysis was used recently when the state legislature proposed raising the speed
limit from 65 to 70 mph on Interstate highways. The analysis identified areas where the higher speeds
were not recommended unless some type of improvement was made to reduce the possibility of crashes.

Maryland DOT recognizes the potential of this type of analysis for two primary purposes. First,
it can be used to determine where speed limits might be too high for given conditions and, second, it

FIGURE 44 Sample histogram showing crash locations along a route in Maryland (provided by
the Maryland DOT).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

50

provides the information needed to identify locations where some type of countermeasure could be
used to address a high-risk location.

There were several challenges associated with performing these types of analysis, including the
following:

• The precision and availability of crash reports can be somewhat dependent on the police officer
at the crash scene. In Maryland, reports prior to 2014 depended on a linear referencing system
(e.g., mile markers) so the crash location data may not be reliable. Since that time, crash report-
ing has been done with a global positioning system; however, there are still some officers who
do not collect this information at the time of the accident.
• The friction trucks used by Maryland DOT did not have global positioning system capabilities;
therefore, the locations were based on a route mile referencing system.
• The ArcGIS maps include shape files in one direction. However, curve data and pavement
condition data are collected in both directions. As a result, one direction may not have shape
files available.

The work involved the coordination of four different offices within the DOT: the Office of Materi-
als Technology, which provided the pavement management data; Office of Highway Development,
where the GIS analysis was conducted; Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, which
maintains the road inventory; and Office of Traffic and Safety, which provided the crash data and the
safety-related key performance indicators.

Case Example 4: Using Pavement Management Data

to Improve Agency Performance Measures

According to the State Pavement Management Engineer at WSDOT, using pavement condition per-
formance measures exclusively does not provide an adequate indication of whether available funds
have been effectively used. As a result, the DOT had difficulty conveying to the state legislature
why certain investment decisions were being made. To address this deficiency, the state pavement
engineer decided to investigate whether cost information could be used to improve the way pave-
ment investment decisions are conveyed to the legislature and state agency executives. A study was
initiated to investigate the use of several different measures (RSL, an Asset Sustainability Index, and
a Deferred Preservation Liability), but found that each of these metrics required significant explana-
tion. These measures, which are related to network-level performance, are not reported annually in
WSDOT’s Gray Notebook.

Ultimately, the analysis determined that the most effective approach for project-level evaluation
was to calculate an “actual life cycle cost” for each pavement section using construction, mainte-
nance, and preservation costs over a single performance period. The results could be combined with
observed pavement performance data to evaluate how cost-effective the treatment has been. As
shown in Figure 45, the lowest annual cost can be found where the total annual costs from mainte-
nance and preservation costs and pavement rehabilitation costs are minimized. This point represents
the ideal time to apply rehabilitation because additional maintenance and preservation treatments
are no longer proving to be cost-effective. WSDOT found that even a 1-year difference in the timing
of rehabilitation can make a substantial difference in total costs, increasing the cost of a chip seal
project by 14% to 20% and the cost of an asphalt concrete resurfacing project by 4% to 8%.

To conduct the analysis, the actual Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost was determined and expressed
in terms of the dollar spent per lane mile per year ($/lane mile/year). By incorporating traffic into the
metric (i.e., $/lane mile/per truck/per year), it can be used to prioritize capital project recommenda-
tions at the central office to help ensure that resurfacing investments are being made on the right
roads at the right time. One of the advantages to this approach is that it treats all regions equally in
the prioritization process because higher treatment costs on the western side of the state where most
of the traffic occurs are balanced out by the lower treatment costs and lower traffic volumes on the
eastern side of the state.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 51

FIGURE 45 Graphic showing annualized costs associated with different life cycle strategies (provided by Washington
State DOT).

One of the challenges that the agency faced in conducting the analysis was the difficulty in separat-
ing the pavement-related costs from other costs on projects where multiple issues were being addressed
at the same time. This is primarily because contract cost data stored in financial cost tracking systems
are typically developed for contract administration rather than post-contract evaluation. WSDOT could
not develop a way to automate the process of separating costs for different types of work; therefore,
complicated, manual processes had to be implemented and rules were established so that the same que-
ries could be used in the future. The calculated performance measures are now stored in the pavement
management system so that pavement system costs can be tracked by location and time.

There were several factors that contributed to the success of this application, reflecting sound
decisions made by the agency more than 30 years earlier. These included:

• WSDOT had reliable construction cost data in a database dating back to the early 1990s.
• For at least 30 years, the DOT has had a consistent location referencing system so that all data-
bases were based on a robust and common referencing system.
• The project evaluation process is a centralized activity, which enables the agency to implement
these types of prioritization rules.

Future activities will involve using the new performance metric to set performance targets on a
regional and statewide basis to further improve transparency and trust in the DOT.

Case Example 5: Using Pavement Management Data to Establish

Performance Measures for Highway Concession Agreements

Texas DOT (TxDOT) uses comprehensive development agreements (CDAs) for its public-private
partnership agreements. There are two types of CDAs currently being used; one for design-build con-
tracts and another for concessions. A design-build contract includes property acquisition, design, and
construction that occur under a single contract, but does not include financial participation by the pri-
vate entity, nor does it include any provisions for the on-going use of the facility. A concession agree-
ment addresses the ongoing maintenance of a facility and can include private-sector responsibilities
for development, financing, operation, and maintenance of the facility for up to 52 years. In exchange,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

52

the developer receives an on-going revenue stream, usually in the form of tolls collected from the users
of the facility. In some cases, TxDOT is paid a fee upfront, which can be used to fund other projects.

During the conduct of a concession agreement, a contractor is held responsible for providing a
level of service that is agreed upon in the contract. Therefore, a DOT entering into this type of con-
tract must establish reasonable performance measures that can be used for this purpose. The perfor-
mance measures also serve as the basis for the bid price that a contractor charges for the concession
agreement. If the performance measures are set too high, the contract price will be expensive. A
lower set of performance measures typically results in a lower contract cost, but could also lead to
customer complaints and a lack of public interest in using the facility because of its poor condition.

TxDOT turned to pavement management to help set pavement performance measures that could
be used in a Request for Proposals and in the contracting process when these new CDAs were
established. The pavement management engineer considered IRI, rutting, and cracking data as
performance measures for its asphalt pavements. An analysis of pavement management data was
conducted to determine the conditions that were met by 95% of the equivalent highway network.
The 95% level was selected because it was equivalent to two standard deviations from the mean
and was relatively easy to determine. For IRI, this meant that the asphalt-surfaced performance
measure would be set at a limit of 120 in./mi and fatigue cracking was limited to 10% of the area.

Once the contract was in place, the contractor assumed responsibility for evaluating highway
conditions each year and submitting a report to the DOT. The surveys must be conducted using a
TxDOT-certified profiler and a TxDOT-certified rater for the windshield distress survey. An inde-
pendent engineer reviews the submittals and notifies the agency if any discrepancies are found in
what was reported.

Because these types of contracts have not been in place for long, it is difficult at this time to know
whether the performance measures will be adequate over the life of the agreement. However, there
have already been some lessons learned regarding the use of the pavement management data for this
purpose. For example, pavement management condition surveys are currently collected on ½-mile
sections. At some point when the contract was being developed, the DOT set the performance measure
interval at a 0.1-mile interval instead. This was discovered when the pavement management results
did not agree with information submitted by the contractor. The differences in the reporting interval
were found to have a significant impact on the resulting values, implying that the pavement manage-
ment data could not be used in its typical format to monitor the performance of the concessioner.

The information collected by the contractor is not incorporated into the pavement management
database because it is not submitted in an electronic format. This is one change that the pavement
management engineer would prefer to make so the highways can be tracked as part of the total high-
way network.

Other lessons learned from TxDOT’s experiences include the following:

• Interfacing the pavement management system with other systems, including the maintenance man-
agement system and the project management system, helps facilitate the analysis. These interfaces
are important when evaluating data and ensuring that pavement management recommendations
are being followed. Otherwise, it is difficult to ensure that statewide goals can be achieved.
• Reliable work history information is important to improve the accuracy of the analysis. TxDOT
has been working on improving this aspect of its pavement management system by adding pave-
ment layer information (e.g., surface, base, and subgrade) to the database. Maintenance work
history is in a program that interfaces with the pavement management system so that information
is readily available.
• It is beneficial if the concessioner reports performance data using the same segmentation that is
being used in pavement management for consistency purposes.
• Performance trends change with time; therefore, it is helpful to review performance models at
least every 5 years to ensure they continue to reflect actual performance trends.
• Documenting the process used to establish the performance measures allows the same process
to be used in the future.
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 53

chapter five

Conclusions

Overall Findings

The use of pavement management systems has been evolving as transportation agency priorities
change and organizations recognize the advantages to using a systems approach to managing the
pavement network. Most state departments of transportation (DOTs) have implemented pavement
management systems; however, these systems are tested as agencies strive to incorporate new tech-
nology into their processes, respond to the legislative requirements for reporting pavement condition
data, and face increased pressure to provide transparency and accountability in agency decisions.
This synthesis on the use of pavement management data serves as a timely resource for any agency
interested in learning more about the ways in which pavement management data are being used to
support agency decisions.

The synthesis focuses on current pavement management practices in state and provincial transporta-
tion agencies in an effort to determine the extent to which pavement management data are being
used to support activities such as resource allocation decisions, treatment cost-effectiveness studies,
and program development. A compilation of practices being used by transportation agencies is
presented, primarily based on information provided from a survey that was completed by pavement
management engineers in 41 state DOTs (a 79% response rate) and eight provincial ministries of
transportation (MOTs) (an 80% response rate). Additional information was obtained from inter-
views with representatives from five state DOTs, who had indicated through the survey that they
were using their pavement management data in an innovative way. The case examples presented
in chapter four illustrate how pavement management data have been used to improve data quality,
evaluate the effectiveness of friction courses, expand the use of pavement management to improve
safety, improve agency performance measures through the use of cost data, and establish perfor-
mance measures to be used under highway concession agreements.

The overall findings from this survey of practice are summarized in the following three areas:

• General Pavement Management Information

• Data Analysis and Performance Modeling
• Putting the Data to Work.

General Pavement Management Information

According to the survey results, all 41 of the U.S. DOTs (100%) and seven of the eight MOTs that
responded to the survey (88%) have inventory and condition information for their high-volume highway
networks, including Interstate and National Highway System routes in the United States and the provin-
cial highways in Canada. Fewer agencies have inventory and condition information for the lower-volume
systems and there is a significant drop in the number of agencies that compile this information for front-
age roads, shoulders, entrance and exit ramps, and high-occupancy lanes or bus lanes. Twenty-three of
the 49 agencies (47%) are using customized proprietary pavement management software, whereas eight
of 49 (16%) are using software that was developed in house. An equal number (eight of 49 or 16%) are
using vendor-supplied software that has been modified in house. According to the responses provided
by the nine agencies that responded by choosing the “other” option (18%), five reported that they have
no formal pavement management software in place and four are using a vendor-supplied program that
has been modified or is used in conjunction with other software programs.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

54

Most agencies reported that they are more likely to collect pavement distress data in at least one lane
in each direction on a divided highway (44 of 49 or 90%) than on a nondivided highway (16 of 49 or
33%). On divided highways, the majority (29 of 49 agencies or 59%) collect data in one lane in only
one direction. In addition to pavement condition information, the most common data in a pavement
management database includes:

• Individual distress values (44 of 48 agencies, 92%).

• Traffic data (43 of 48 agencies, 90%)
• Composite indices (41 of 48 agencies, 85%)
• Individual indices (40 of 48 agencies, 83%)
• Treatment history (37 of 48 agencies, 77%)
• Treatment costs (37 of 48 agencies, 77%).

Fewer than half of the agencies reported that their pavement management databases contain
information on routine maintenance activities (20 of 48 or 42%), remaining service life (RSL)
(15 of 48 or 31%), materials or construction information (11 of 48 or 23%), detailed performance
data (six of 48 or 13%), or drainage information (one of 48 or 2%). Those agencies that use RSL
in their pavement management system most often define it as the time until a condition index
threshold is reached (six of 15 or 40%). An equal number of agencies (six) define RSL as either
the time until the next rehabilitation or reconstruction event or the time when a pavement reaches
an unacceptable condition.

Data Analysis and Performance Modeling

The survey investigated the methods used to develop pavement deterioration models and treatment
rules and explored the types of analyses that are conducted with the available data. The results
indicated that most agencies (33 of 48 or 69%) develop customized models developed specifically
for their agency using agency data. Family models are used by 27 agencies (56%) and 23 agencies
(48%) model performance indices rather than individual distresses. Only seven agencies (15%) are
using probabilistic models. Five agencies (10%) report that their system does not predict pavement
performance and three (6%) that they use default models.

The 33 agencies that have developed customized pavement performance models were asked to
identify the factors that are used in developing the models; however, only 32 agencies responded to
the question. The most common variables reported included:

• Pavement type (30 of 32 agencies, 94%)

• Pavement functional condition (24 of 32 agencies, 75%)
• Highway system (23 of 32 agencies, 72%)
• Treatment history (22 of 32 agencies, 69%)
• Traffic data (20 of 32 agencies, 63%).

Less common were variables such as maintenance history (10 of 32 or 31%), pavement structural
condition (10 of 32 or 31%), climate (six of 32 or 19%), and pavement support (five of 32 or 16%).
No agencies reported using environmental sustainability or safety data for developing their models.

Most agencies (18 of 32 or 56%) reported that they update their models on a cycle of 3 years or
more. Several agencies indicated that they update their models more frequently, with three agencies
(9%) stating that they update their models every 1 to 2 years, and nine (28%) that they update them
annually. Two agencies (6%) reported that they did not update their models.

The treatment recommendations generated by a pavement management system may include treat-
ment categories (such as preservation or rehabilitation), specific treatments (such as chip seal or
overlay), or both. Sixteen of the 48 agencies that responded to this question (33%) generate treatment
categories, 14 (29%) generate specific treatment recommendations, and 12 (25%) generate both. Six
agencies (13%) reported that no treatment recommendations are generated by the pavement manage-
ment system.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 55

The most common factors used to select a feasible pavement treatment include:

• Pavement condition (44 of 46 agencies, 87%)

• Pavement type (40 of 46 agencies, 82%)
• Traffic volumes and/or loads (36 of 46 agencies, 78%)
• Pavement age (32 of 46 agencies, 70%)
• Highway system (29 of 46 agencies, 63%)
• Last treatment (27 of 46 agencies or 59%).

Very few agencies reported using pavement layer characteristics (six agencies or 13%) or climatic
condition (four agencies or 9%) to select treatments.

Of the 46 agencies that responded to the question of whether their pavement management system
includes pavement preservation treatments, 38 agencies (83%) indicated positively and eight (17%)
responded negatively.

Forty-six agencies that responded to the survey indicated that their pavement management system
can conduct the following types of analyses:

• Forecast expected conditions under different funding scenarios (39 of 46 agencies, 85%)
• Prioritize project recommendations under constrained funding (37 of 46 agencies, 80%)
• Estimate funding required to achieve performance targets (37 of 46 agencies, 80%)
• Contribute to the development of a transportation asset management plan (34 of 46 agencies, 74%)
• Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatments (34 of 46 agencies, 74%)
• Set program budget allocations (33 of 46 agencies, 72%)
• Allocate funding to regions based on needs (32 of 46 agencies, 70%)
• Set performance targets for portions of the network (32 of 46 agencies, 70%)
• Analyze gaps between current and desired performance (28 of 46 agencies, 61%)
• Prepare Highway Performance Monitoring System submittals for FHWA (22 of 49 agencies, 48%).

Only 21 agencies (46%) reported that their pavement management system can be used to verify
performance models using field data and four (9%) noted that the system can be used to develop
contractor performance specifications and measures to monitor warranty projects.

Interestingly, when agencies were asked whether their pavement management systems have been
used to perform the same types of analyses, there were only three types of analyses that are done by
more than half of the 49 agencies that responded to the survey:

• Forecast expected conditions under different funding scenarios (35 of 42 responses, 83%).
• Estimate funding required to achieve performance targets (31 of 42 responses, 74%).
• Prioritize project recommendations under constrained funding (27 of 42 responses, 64%).

Fewer than half of the 49 agencies reported that they have conducted the remaining types of
analyses, indicating that the traditional applications of pavement management are still the most
common uses.

Forty-six agencies responded to the question of whether their pavement management system
includes the cost of nonpavement-related activities, such as striping or guardrail repairs. The
responses were equally split, with 23 agencies (50%) indicating that their system does include those
costs and 23 (50%) indicating their system does not.

Putting the Data to Work

Pavement management data can be used in a number of different ways and the last series of ques-
tions explored some of the ways it is being used. One area of interest concerned the degree to
which pavement management recommendations are being applied in the field. To help quantify this
metric, survey respondents were asked to estimate the percent match between pavement management

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

56

recommendations and projects included in the improvement programs. Eighteen of the 47 responding
agencies (38%) responding to this question estimated that their pavement management recommenda-
tion and funded projects match at least 70% of the time. An equal number of agencies (38%) indicated
that the match exists 40 to 70% of the time. Only four agencies (9%) reported that the match exists
less than 40% of the time, indicating that political influences, local conditions, insufficient funds, and
district independence impact the final selection of projects.

The majority of agencies responding to the survey reported that processes are in place to update
historical work activities (39 of the 48 agencies or 81%), verify the quality of data collected (38 agen-
cies or 79%), update pavement surface type based on work activities (35 agencies or 73%), and update
the database with actual project costs (20 agencies or 42%). Only four agencies (8%) reported that
they had none of the four processes in place.

Pavement management systems are integrated with other databases to some degree, most com-
monly with the agency’s geographic information system (21 of 48 agencies or 44%) and the cen-
tralized roadway database (13 agencies or 27%). A total of 14 agencies (29%) reported that their
pavement management system operates independently. A few agencies reported that their pavement
management systems are integrated with either a maintenance management system (nine agencies
or 19%), a comprehensive asset management system (eight agencies or 17%), a bridge management
system (seven agencies or 15%), a financial management system (six agencies or 13%), or some
other type of system (six agencies or 13%).

Documentation of pavement management processes and rules exist to some degree. Most com-
monly, pavement condition survey procedures are documented in 38 of the 47 agencies (81%) that
responded to this question. Twenty-nine agencies (62%) reported having documentation in place for
their treatment rules and 27 agencies (57%) document their performance model equations. Pavement
management roles and responsibilities are documented in 17 agencies (36%) and quality assurance
procedures (such as those required under MAP-21) are documented in 17 agencies (36%).

A variety of different types of pavement management data is shared with various stakeholder
groups. Most often shared with elected and appointed officials is information about current and fore-
casted pavement conditions as well as future funding needs. Agency decision makers are provided
the same information, but also tend to receive information on candidate and funded projects as well
as expected future funding levels. Other external stakeholders are commonly provided information
on current pavement conditions, but some agencies report providing information on forecasted con-
dition, funded projects, and future funding needs.

In the United States, the following types of pavement management enhancements have been made
or will be made in the next 2 years by DOTs:

• Data quality management procedures have been developed in 20 of the 41 agencies (49%) that
responded to the question. An additional 26 agencies (63%) will be making these enhancements
within the next 2 years.
• Twenty agencies (49%) reported that their software has been updated and 25 (61%) that the
software will be updated within the next 2 years.
• The majority of state DOTs (29 agencies or 71%) reported that they have changed their
pavement condition survey methodology to include continuous surveys rather than use a
sampling approach and six additional agencies (15%) intend to make that change within the
next 2 years.
• Twenty-four agencies (59%) reported that they have changed from manual to automated sur-
veys and 12 additional agencies (29%) intend to make the change within the next 2 years.
• As part of the automated surveys, 18 agencies (44%) stated that they have migrated to a three-
dimensional data collection system and 17 additional agencies (41%) intend to make that
shift soon.
• Twenty-seven agencies (66%) reported that they have incorporated pavement preservation
treatments into their pavement management system and 11 more agencies (27%) that they will
be adding these treatments within the next 2 years.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 57

• A significant number of agencies (22 or 54%) also reported that they are using their pavement
management system to optimize resource allocations and 15 additional agencies (37%) plan to
use their system in that way soon.
• Twenty-one agencies (51%) noted that they plan to be able to analyze investment needs
across asset types within the next 2 years and 15 (37%) that they plan to incorporate risk
into investment decisions.
• Eight agencies (20%) noted that they collect network-level pavement structural condition data
and nine additional agencies (22%) that they plan to collect the data within the next 2 years.

The same types of enhancements are planned in the Canadian MOTs; however, there are a
significant number of agencies that indicated they intend to increase the frequency of their surveys.
Seven of the eight agencies (88%) have completed this change and one agency (12%) plans to make
the change within 2 years. Two agencies (25%) reported that they collect network-level pavement
structural condition data and four more (50%) that they plan to conduct the surveys within the next
2 years.

Pavement structural condition was also mentioned by six of the 16 agencies (38%) that responded
to the question asking what additional data they would like to collect in their pavement manage-
ment system. Other respondents mentioned that they would like to have pavement surface texture or
friction data (three agencies or 19%), pavement layer and material data (six agencies or 38%), and
automated cracking data (three agencies or 19%).

Suggestions for Further Research

The following suggestions for further research are made based on the results of the literature review
and the survey conducted in the development of this synthesis:

• The development of guidelines for analyzing risk, optimizing the use of available funding,
setting performance targets, allocating budgets, and evaluating network-level structural
condition to support the broader consideration of these factors in pavement management.
Improved information on pavement structure and materials data to support their pavement man-
agement analyses would be helpful to pavement management practitioners. The survey responses
noted that data are largely available on the Interstate and National Highway System, but less so
on the remainder of the system. Network-level structural condition surveys and stronger links
to construction and materials databases were identified by several respondents as desired data.
In addition, the survey results indicated that pavement management is largely being used to
demonstrate the impacts on network conditions associated with different funding levels,
estimate funding needed to achieve performance targets, and prioritize recommendations under
constrained funding. However, fewer than 20 of the 41 state DOTs and only four of the seven
Canadian MOTs that responded to the survey are using their pavement management sys-
tems for other types of analyses, including setting performance targets and evaluating the
cost-effectiveness of investment spending, even though their software provides these capabili-
ties. In terms of enhancements, 21 agencies indicated interest in enhancing their ability to analyze
investments across asset types in the next 2 years and 15 agencies expressed interest in incorpo-
rating risk into their investment decisions during that timeframe.
• The development of a framework for using pavement management data to support the
whole-life costing analysis and other capabilities required for the development of a Trans-
portation Asset Management Plan (TAMP). There are still several states that do not have
pavement management software that will satisfy the minimum requirements outlined in the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making for developing a TAMP. The development of a framework for
using pavement management data to support the development of a TAMP, including the conduct
of a whole-life cost analysis, would allow agencies to use their pavement management data to
better evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of different investment strategies and more fully
support their agency’s asset management efforts.
• The development of electronic templates that practitioners could use to document pave-
ment management treatment rules, performance models, roles, and responsibilities. A
number of agencies document their pavement condition survey procedures, their treatment

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

58

rules, and their performance models; however, there is less evidence that documentation exists
for data quality procedures or pavement management roles and responsibilities. The absence of
this type of documentation leaves an agency at risk if pavement management personnel retire
or change positions. The development of electronic templates would simplify and standardize
the documentation process for practitioners.
• The conduct of technology transfer and outreach activities that showcase best practices
in pavement management and highlight the use of pavement management data for non-
traditional uses. As noted earlier, pavement management systems are not being fully utilized
at the present time. In addition, the results indicate that pavement management systems are
not largely integrated with other management systems and databases, which could limit the
feasibility of using pavement management data for nontraditional purposes. The conduct of
technology transfer and outreach activities (such as training courses, web conferences, and peer
exchanges) provide an opportunity for practitioners to learn strategies for improving practices
from their peers.
• The establishment of guidelines for mining pavement management data so that it can
be used in developing performance measures for warranty contracts and other types
of public–private partnerships. The results of the survey indicate that only two agencies are
using pavement management data to develop performance measures for warranty contracts and
other public–private partnerships. As this contracting method becomes more common in the
United States, transportation agencies will benefit from the availability of guidance on using
pavement management data to establish effective performance measures to monitor contractor
performance.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 59

ACRONYMS

CDA Comprehensive development agreement

DOT Department of transportation
EUAC Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost
FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act
GIS Geographic information system
GPR Ground penetrating radar
HOV High-occupancy vehicles
HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System
IRI International Roughness Index
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LCC Life-cycle cost
MEPDG Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
MOT Ministry of transportation
NHS National Highway System
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule Making
OGFC Open-graded friction course
PCR Pavement condition rating used by the North Carolina DOT
PMS Pavement management system
RSL Remaining service life
TAMP Transportation Asset Management Plan
TxDOT Texas DOT

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

60

References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Standard Practice
for Definition of Terms Related to Quality and Statistics as Used in Highway Construction,
AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2011.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Pavement Man-
agement Guide, Second Edition, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2012.
Arambula, E., R. George, W. Xiong, and G. Hall, “Development and Validation of Pavement Per-
formance Models for the State of Maryland,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 2225, Transportation Research Board of the National Acad-
emies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 25–31.
Banerjee, A., J.P. Aguiar-Moya, and J.A. Prozzi, “Calibration of Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Design Guide Permanent Deformation Models,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 2094, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 12–20.
Cambridge Systematics Inc., et al., NCHRP Report 632: An Asset–Management Framework for the
Interstate Highway System, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash-
ington, D.C., 2009, 71 pp.
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), PMP Memo 010, Dated April 23, 2002—PMP
Definition of a Matching Project I, CDOT, Denver, 2002.
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Pavement Management Manual, CDOT,
Denver, 2005.
Cowe Falls, L., S. Khalil, W.R. Hudson, and R. Haas, “Long-Term Cost-Benefit Analysis of Pave-
ment Management System Implementation,” Conference Proceedings—Volume 2, Third Inter-
national Conference on Managing Pavements, May 22–26, 1994, San Antonio, Tex., 1994.
de León Izeppi, E., S. Katicha, G.W. Flintsch, and K.K. McGhee, “Pioneering the Use of Continuous
Pavement Friction Measurements to Develop New Safety Performance Functions, Improve the
Accuracy of Crash Count Predictions, and Evaluate Possible Treatments for the Roads in Virginia,”
TRB 95th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, Jan. 10–14, 2016, Washington, D.C.
Faghih-Imani, A. and L. Amador-Jimenez, “Toward Sustainable Pavement Management: Incorporat-
ing Environmental Impacts of Pavement Treatments into a Performance-Based Optimization,”
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2366,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 13–21.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Pavement Management Catalog, FHWA, Washington, D.C.,
2008a.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Pavement Management System Peer Exchange Program
Report: Sharing the Practices of the California, Minnesota, New York, and Utah Departments
of Transportation, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2008b.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Local Calibration of the MEPDG Using Pavement
Management Systems, Report No. HI-11-026, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2010.
Flintsch, G.W., R. Dymond, and J. Collura, NCHRP Synthesis 335: Pavement Management Applica-
tions Using Geographic Information Systems, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.
Flintsch, G. and K.K. McGhee, NCHRP Synthesis 401: Quality Management of Pavement Condi-
tion Data Collection, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2009.
Gramling, W.L., NCHRP Synthesis 203: Current Practices in Determining Pavement Condition,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.
Haas, R., W.R. Hudson, and L. Cowe Falls, Pavement Asset Management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken, N.J. and Scrivener Publishing LLC, Salem, Mass., 2015.
Hudson, W.R., S.W. Hudson, G. Way, and J. Delton, “Benefits of Arizona DOT Pavement Manage-
ment System After 16 Years’ Experience,” Pre-Print CD-ROM, 79th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Jan. 9–13, 2000, Washington, D.C.
Kadar, P., T. Martin, M. Baran, and R. Sen, “Addressing Uncertainties of Performance Model-
ing With Stochastic Information Packages—Incorporating Uncertainty in Performance and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 61

Budget Forecasts,” Conference Proceedings, Ninth International Conference on Managing

Pavements, Alexandria, Va., May 18–22, 2015.
Khurshid, M.B., M. Irfan, and S. Labi, “Comparison of Methods for Evaluating Pavement Interven-
tions: Evaluation and Case Study,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transpor-
tation Research Board, No. 2108, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 25–36.
Lea, J.D., J.T. Harvey, and E. Tseng, “Aggregating and Modeling Automated Pavement Condi-
tion Survey Data for Flexible Pavements for Use in Pavement Management,” Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2455, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014, pp. 89–97.
Li, J., L.M. Pierce, and J. Uhlmeyer, “Calibration of Flexible Pavement in Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Guide for Washington State,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 2095, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009.
Luhr, D.R. and T.C. Rydholm, “Economic Evaluation of Pavement Management Decisions,” Con-
ference Proceedings, Ninth International Conference on Managing Pavements, Alexandria, Va.,
May 18–22, 2015.
McGhee, K.H., NCHRP Synthesis 334: Automated Pavement Distress Collection Techniques, Trans-
portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.
Muench, S. and T. Van Dam, Climate Change Adaptation for Pavements, Report FHWA-HIF-15-015,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2015.
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Transportation Asset Management Plan, ODOT,
Columbus, 2016.
Pellecuer, L., G. Assaf, and M. St-Jacques, “Towards the Incorporation of Environmental Impacts
into Pavement Management Systems,” Transport Reviews, Vol. 36, No. 3, Taylor and Francis,
UK, 2016, pp. 361–382.
Peshkin, D., K.L. Smith, A. Wolters, J. Krstulovich, J. Moulthrop, and C. Alvarado, Preservation
Approaches for High-Traffic-Volume Roadways, SHRP 2 Report S2-R26-RR-1, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011.
Peterson, D.E., NCHRP Synthesis 135: Pavement Management Practices, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1987, 135 pp.
Pierce, L.M., G. McGovern, and K.A. Zimmerman, Practical Guide for Quality Management of
Pavement Condition Data Collection, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2013.
Qi, Y., F. Wang, A. El Gendy, and Y. Li., “Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Mississippi’s Pavement
Warranty Program,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 2366, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
2013, pp. 98–109.
Romell, T. and S. Tan, “Regional Asset Management Efforts and a Performance-Based Approach
to Local Streets and Roads Funding Allocation,” Conference Compendium, First International
Conference on Pavement Preservation, Newport Beach, Calif., April 12–16, 2010.
Saliminejad, S., “Quantitative Risk Assessment for Performance-Based Pavement Management Sys-
tems, TRB 95th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, Jan. 10–14, 2016, Washington, D.C.
Saliminejad, S., and N.G. Gharaibeh, “Impact of Error in Pavement Condition Data on the Output of
Network-Level Pavement Management Systems,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 2366, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 110–119.
Selezneva, O., G. Mladenovic, R. Speir, J. Amenta, and J. Kennedy, “National Park Service Road
Inventory Program: Quality Assurance Sampling Considerations for Automated Collection and
Processing of Distress Data,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1889, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash-
ington, D.C., 2004, pp. 106–115.
Shekharan, R., D. Frith, T. Chowdhury, C. Larson, and D. Morian, “Effects of Comprehensive Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Plan on Pavement Management,” Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1990, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 65–71.
Tabatabaee, N. and M. Ziyadi, “Bayesian Approach to Updating Markov-Based Models for Predict-
ing Pavement Performance,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

62

Research Board, No. 2366, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash-
ington, D.C., 2013, pp. 34–42.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Condition of Texas Pavements: PMIS Annual
Report FY 2011–2014i, TxDOT, Austin, 2014 [Online]. Available: http://library.ctr.utexas.edu/
hostedpdfs/txdot/pavements/PMIS_FY2011-14.pdf.
Wolters, A., K.A. Zimmerman, K. Schattler, and A. Rietgraf, Implementing Pavement Management
Systems for Local Agencies—State-of-the-Art/State-of-the-Practice Synthesis, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., 2011.
Wu, H., Z. Zhang, K. Long, and M.R. Murphy, “Considering Safety Impacts of Skid Resistance
in Decision-Making Processes for Pavement Management,” Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2455, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014, pp. 19–27.
Zimmerman, K.A. and ERES Consultants, Inc., NCHRP Synthesis 222: Pavement Management
Methodologies to Select Projects and Recommend Preservation Treatments, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995.
Zimmerman, K.A. and D.G. Peshkin, “Issues in Integrating Pavement Management and Preventive
Maintenance,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1889, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.
Zimmerman, K.A., J. Corley-Lay, J.B. Wlaschin, and R.M. Tetreault, “Findings from the Inter-
national Scan on Managing Pavements and Monitoring Performance,” Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2366, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 43–49.
Zimmerman, K.A., L.M. Pierce, and J. Krstulovich, Pavement Management Roadmap, Report
FHWA-HIF-11-011, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2010.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 A-1

Appendix A
Survey Questionnaire (web-only)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

A-2

This appendix is only provided in the version of the document published on the NCHRP website:

NCHRP Project 20-05/Synthesis Topic 47-08

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

Questionnaire

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 complete 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 allo-
cate 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 e-mailed to you, you (or your colleague) may reenter
your survey at any time.

3. Survey navigation is conducted by selecting the “prev” (previous) or “next” button at the bottom
of each page.

Thank you for your time and expertise in completing this important questionnaire.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 A-3

Contact

1. Please provide your contact information:

Name ________________________________________________________________________
Agency _______________________________________________________________________
Street Address _________________________________________________________________
City, State, Zip Code ____________________________________________________________
E-mail Address _________________________________________________________________
Phone Number _________________________________________________________________

Section 1: General Pavement Management Information

2. For each part of the transportation network listed below, use the checkbox if your pavement manage-
ment database contains inventory and/or condition information for that system. Select all that apply.

U.S. STATES

Do You Have Do You Have Optional Comments

Inventory Condition Please enter any
Information? (Such Information? (Such as comments that will
as section length, roughness or help explain your
Network Component pavement type) pavement condition) response.
Interstate Routes
Non-Interstate National Highway
System (NHS) Routes—
State-Maintained NHS Routes
Non-Interstate National Highway
System (NHS) Routes—Non-State
Maintained NHS Routes
Non-NHS State-Maintained
Routes
Local Roads (e.g., non-NHS
routes that are NOT state
maintained)
Frontage Roads
Entrance/Exit Ramps
High-Occupancy Lanes or Bus
Lanes
Shoulders

CANADIAN PROVINCES

Do You Have Do You Have Optional Comments

Inventory Condition Please enter
Information? (Such Information? (Such as any comments that
as section length, roughness or will help explain your
Network Component pavement type) pavement condition) response.
Trans-Canada Highway
Provincial Highways
Frontage Roads
Entrance/Exit Ramps
High-Occupancy Lanes or Bus
Lanes
Shoulders

3. Which of the following best describes your pavement management system?

m Our software was developed in house.
m A vendor supplied the software, but in house staff has made modifications.
m We use proprietary software provided by a vendor that was customized for our needs.
m We use public-domain software.
m Other: ____________________________

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

A-4

4. When you collect distress information on divided highways, your agency:

q Collects data for only one lane in one direction.
q Collects data for only one lane in each direction.
q Collects data for more than one lane in each direction.
q Collects data in samples that are representative of network conditions.

5. When you collect distress information on non-divided highways, your agency:

q Collects data for only one lane in one direction.
q Collects data for only one lane in each direction.
q Collects data for more than one lane in each direction.
q Collects data in samples that are representative of network conditions.
q Other: ________________________________________

6. Which of the following are included in your pavement management database? Select all that
apply.
q Individual distress values (such as cracking extent, faulting values, and so on)
q Individual indices (such as a rut index, a roughness index, and a cracking index)
q Composite indices (such as an overall pavement condition index or a pavement serviceability
index)
q Remaining service life (RSL)
q Traffic data
q Treatment history
q Routine maintenance activities (such as crack sealing and patching)
q Treatment costs
q Materials or construction information (such as the amount of recycled material used in
construction)
q Drainage information
q Detailed performance data from national or state pavement test sections

How does your agency define a Remaining Service Life (RSL)?

– The time from the present (i.e., today) to when a pavement reaches an unacceptable
condition.
– The time until the next rehabilitation or reconstruction event.
– The time until a condition index threshold limit is reached.
– The time between applications of corrective pavement construction treatments.
– The time until a remaining service interval.
– Other (please specify): _________________________

Section 2: Data Analysis and Performance Modeling

7. Which of the following approaches are used to predict pavement performance? Select all that
apply.
q Our system does not predict pavement performance.
q We use default models generated by the software.
q We use customized models developed specifically for our agency using agency data.
q We develop models for pavement families with similar characteristics.
q We develop individual models for each pavement section.
q We develop probabilistic models.
q We develop models based on performance indices.
q We develop models based on individual distresses.

What factors are used to develop your customized performance models? Select all that
apply.
q Pavement structural condition.
q Pavement functional condition.
q Highway system (such as interstate, NHS, or non-NHS).
q Pavement type (such as surface type).
q Treatment history.
q Maintenance history.
q Pavement support (such as base or subgrade condition).
q Climate.
q Traffic data.
q Safety data.
q Environmental sustainability measures.
q Other (please specify): _________________________________

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 A-5

How frequently do you update your models?

m Never.
m Annually.
m Every 1 to 2 years.
m Every 3 or more years.

8. Which of the following best describes the type of treatment recommendations generated in your
pavement management system?
m Treatment categories are recommended (such as preservation, rehabilitation, or reconstruction).
m Specific treatments are recommended (such as chip seal or thin overlay).
m Both types of treatment recommendations are generated.
m No treatment recommendations are generated.

9. Which of the following factors are considered in your pavement management system for selecting
a feasible pavement treatment? Select all that apply.
q Pavement condition.
q Pavement age.
q Pavement type (such as flexible, rigid, or composite).
q Traffic volumes and/or loads.
q Highway system (such as interstate, NHS, or non-NHS).
q Last treatment.
q Pavement layer characteristics (such as base or subbase).
q Climatic condition (such as wet-freeze or dry-freeze).
q Other ___________________________________________

10. Do your treatment rules recommend pavement preservation treatments as options? Examples
of pavement preservation treatments include chip seals and microsurfacing on asphalt-surfaced
pavements and diamond grinding or dowel-bar retrofit on concrete pavements.
m Yes.
m No.

11. From the list below, identify each type of analysis that can be done with your pavement management
software (whether you are using it for that purpose or not). Select all that apply.
q Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatments.
q Set performance targets for portions of the network.
q Estimate funding required to achieve performance targets.
q Prioritize project recommendations under constrained funding.
q Forecast expected conditions under different funding scenarios.
q Set program budget allocations (such as funding levels for a preservation program).
q Allocate funding to regions based on needs.
q Analyze gaps between current and desired performance.
q Prepare Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) submittals.
q Verify performance models using field data.
q Contribute to the development of a transportation asset management plan.
q Develop contractor performance specifications and measures to monitor for warranty projects.
q Other _____________________________________

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.
q Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatments.
q Set performance targets for portions of the network.
q Estimate funding required to achieve performance targets.
q Prioritize project recommendations under constrained funding.
q Forecast expected conditions under different funding scenarios.
q Set program budget allocations (such as funding levels for a preservation program).
q Allocate funding to regions based on needs.
q Analyze gaps between current and desired performance.
q Prepare Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) submittals.
q Verify performance models using field data.
q Contribute to the development of a transportation asset management plan.
q Develop contractor performance specifications and measures to monitor for warranty projects.
q Other _____________________________________

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

A-6

12. Do cost estimates in the pavement management system include the cost of non-pavement related
activities such as striping or guardrail repairs?
m Yes.
m No.

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.
m I don’t know.
m At least 70 percent of the time.
m Between 40 to 70 percent of the time.
m Less than 40 percent of the time.

What are the reasons for the lack of a match between pavement management recommendations
and funded projects? Select all that apply.
q Lack of sufficient funds.
q Lack of confidence in the pavement management analysis results.
q Lack of confidence in the pavement management data.
q Local conditions drive the recommendations.
q Political influence.
q District independence.
q Network level analysis only rather than project level analysis capabilities.
q Other _____________________________________

Which factor has the GREATEST influence on the lack of match between pavement manage-
ment recommendations and funded projects (piped from previous question)?

Add any comments necessary to support your responses:

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

14. Which of the following processes are in place? Select all that apply.
q A process to verify the quality of data collected.
q A process to update historical work activities.
q A process to update pavement surface type based on work activities.
q A process to update the database with actual project costs.
q None of the above.

15. Your pavement management software is integrated with what other computer systems? Select all
that apply.
q Comprehensive asset management system.
q Bridge management system.
q Maintenance management system.
q Geographic information systems.
q Financial management.
q Centralized roadway database.
q Another asset management software system.
q Other (please specify): __________________________
q None, it operates independently.

16. Which of the following types of documentation are in place? Select all that apply.
q Condition survey procedures.
q Quality assurance procedures.
q Performance model equations.
q Treatment rules (such as those rules that describe the conditions that must be met for various
treatment options to be considered viable).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 A-7

q Pavement management roles and responsibilities.

q Other (please specify): __________________________
q None of the above.

17. From the list below, identify what information the pavement management group shares with each
of the four stakeholder groups listed.

Elected and Other Other

Appointed Agency Decision Internal External
Type of Information Officials Makers Stakeholders Stakeholders
Current pavement conditions
Forecasted conditions
Candidate projects
Funded projects
Future funding needs (also
known as a backlog)
Expected future funding levels

Add any comments necessary to support your responses:

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

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.

A. Completed B. Enhancements to
Enhancements or be Made in the Next
Type of Enhancement Current Practices Two Years N/A
Collect network level pavement
structural condition using non-
destructive testing procedures
(such as a falling-weight
deflectometer).
Collect network level surface
property/friction data.
Develop or improve quality
management procedures for the data.
Analyze investment needs across
asset types (such as pavements
and bridges).
Incorporate environmental
sustainability metrics in treatment
rules.
Add preservation treatments into
treatment rules.
Incorporate risk into investment
decisions.
Use pavement management to
optimize resource allocations.
Update pavement management
software
Change from manual to automated*
pavement condition surveys.
Migrate to a 3D automated data
collection system.
Change from a sampling
approach for pavement condition
surveys to continuous surveys.
Increase the frequency of
pavement condition surveys.
*For purposes of this question, consider automated surveys to involve data collected by imaging or by the use of
noncontact sensor equipment. Manual surveys involve people in the field observing or measuring pavement properties.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

A-8

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.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

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.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

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?
m Yes
m No

Review and Print

Thank you for taking our survey. Your response is very important to us. If you have any questions
or comments, please feel free to contact Ms. Katie Zimmerman, at (217) 398-3977 or kzimmerman@
appliedpavement.com.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 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.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

B-2

Section 1: General Pavement Management Information

1. Participating Agencies

• U.S. States – North Carolina DOT

– Alabama DOT – North Dakota DOT
– Alaska DOT – Ohio DOT
– Arizona DOT – Oklahoma DOT
– Arkansas SHTD – Oregon DOT
– Colorado DOT – Puerto Rico DOT
– Connecticut DOT – Rhode Island DOT
– Florida DOT – South Dakota DOT
– Illinois DOT – Tennessee DOT
– Iowa DOT – Texas DOT
– Kansas DOT – Utah DOT
– Kentucky Transportation Cabinet – Vermont Agency of Transportation
– Louisiana DOTD – Virginia DOT
– Maine DOT – Washington State DOT
– Maryland DOT – West Virginia DOT
– Massachusetts DOT – Wyoming DOT
– Minnesota DOT • Canadian
– Mississippi DOT – Alberta Transportation
– Missouri Department of Transportation – Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation
– Montana DOT – New Brunswick DOT and Infrastructure
– Nebraska Department of Roads – Newfoundland/Labrador Transportation and
– Nevada DOT Works
– New Hampshire DOT – Northwest Territories DOT
– New Jersey DOT – Ontario Ministry of Transportation
– New Mexico DOT – Quebec Ministry of transportation
– New York State DOT – 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)

Do You Have Inventory Do You Have Condition

Information? Information?
Network Component
(Such as section length, (Such as roughness or
pavement type) pavement condition)
Interstate Routes 41 41
Non-Interstate State-Maintained NHS
41 41
Routes
Non-NHS State-Maintained Routes 38 37
Non-Interstate Non-State Maintained NHS
29 28
Routes
Shoulders 20 3
Entrance/Exit Ramps 18 5
Frontage Roads 16 11
Local Roads (e.g., non-NHS routes that are
11 6
NOT state maintained)
High-Occupancy Lanes or Bus Lanes 7 2

Comments:

• Interstate Routes:
– Annual Collection.
– Collected every year.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 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.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

B-4

CANADIAN PROVINCES (8 responses)

Do You Have Inventory Do You Have Condition

Information? Information?
(Such as section length, (Such as roughness or
Network Component pavement type) 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.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 B-5

• N o 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.
•  ollect on all lanes if on the NHS, otherwise collect in right most lane in each direction.
C
• 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)

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

Representative samples of network conditions 0 0

Comments:

• O ne 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.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

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.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 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:

• D istrict.
• 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

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

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)

Type of Treatment Recommendations U.S. Canada

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

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.

•  o treatment selected in PMS.
N
• 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. D
 o 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

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 B-9

11. F
 rom 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)

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
Develop contractor performance specifications and measures to monitor
4 0
for warranty projects
Other 3 0

Comments:

• N o 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)

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
2 0
monitor for warranty projects
Other 2 0

Comments:

• N o 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.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

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:

• R esource 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.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to 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:

• T
 he 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

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

B-12

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

Comments:

• No PMS.
•  e exchange data with other systems using excel spreadsheets or access databases.
W
• 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)

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:

•  orking on formal QM document.

W
• Currently developing a manual of operations.
• Our processes are fairly well established, but not formally documented.
• VIR survey procedure manual.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 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)

Elected and Agency Oher

Other External
Appointed Decision Internal
Stakeholders
Type of Information Officials Makers 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
Future funding needs (also 1 3 3 6 4 5 10 0
known as a backlog)
Expected future funding 6 2 3 5 5 4 5 0
levels

Comments:

• W e 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.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

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)

B.
A. Completed
Enhancements to be
Type of Enhancement Enhancements or N/A
Made in the Next
Current Practices
Two Years
U.S. Canada U.S. Canada U.S. Canada
Collect network level pavement
structural condition using non- 8 2 9 4
destructive testing procedures
Collect network level surface
20 3 7 3
property/friction data
Develop or improve quality
management procedures for the 20 3 26 3
data
Analyze investment needs across
10 3 21 2
asset types
Incorporate environmental
sustainability metrics in 2 0 3 1
treatment rules
Add preservation treatments
27 5 11 1
into treatment rules
Incorporate risk into investment
5 0 15 1
decisions
Use pavement management to
22 4 15 1
optimize resource allocations
Update pavement management
20 1 25 3
software
Change from manual to
automated pavement condition 24 4 12 3 5 1
surveys
Migrate to a 3D automated data
18 2 17 2 7 1
collection system
Change from a sampling
approach for pavement 29 5 6 2 5 1
condition surveys to continuous
surveys
Increase the frequency of
12 2 7 1 15 4
pavement condition surveys

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.

•  avement layer data and pavement mix design properties and materials.
P
• 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.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

 B-15

• S kid 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)

• W e 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

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

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

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NON-PROFIT ORG.

ISBN 978-0-309-38983-9
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88

U.S. POSTAGE

90000
PAID

9 780309 389839

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.