2015 Rigid Pavement Condition Survey Facts and Figures

Florida Department of
TRANSPORTATION
2015 Rigid Pavement
Condition Survey
Facts and Figures
FDOT Office
State Materials Office
Report Number
FL/DOT/SMO 15-574
Authors
Jamie Greene
Stacy Scott
Date of Publication
September 2015
PAGE
LEFT BLANK
This report is a result of the dedicated effort and contribution by the following individuals:
Gregory Beckner
William Bryant
Earl Hall
Hank Lambert
Jason Noel
Frank Ostanik
Glenn Salvo
Clay Whitaker
Alexander Mraz
This team's hard work in collecting and processing the data, and organizing this report is greatly appreciated.
To access the electronic copy of this and other reports, please follow the steps below:
1) Logon to the State Materials Office's website, located at the following URL:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statematerialsoffice/
2) Choose Documents/Publications, then select Research Reports
** Title 23 U.S.C. Section 409, provides that this information provided to you is not subject to discovery
nor is it admissible into evidence.
i
PAGE
LEFT BLANK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Section I.
1
Introduction
2
Observations
3
General Notes
3
Production History and Summary
4
Section II.
Defect Rating by System and District
6
Section III.
Ride Rating by System and District
17
Section IV.
Historical Distress Ratings by District (1998 - 2015)
28
Section V.
Historical Distress Ratings by System (1998 - 2015)
37
Section VI.
Distress Ratings Comparison (2014 vs 2015)
43
Section VII.
Customer Service Survey
46
ii
PAGE
LEFT BLANK
Executive Summary
The Pavement Condition Unit is one of three functional units of the Pavement Materials System Section, which
represents one of four areas of expertise within the State Materials Office (SMO).
Since 1985, this unit has been collecting, processing, and analyzing the information on the condition and
performance of the State Roadway System on an annual basis. The information provided by the Pavement
Condition Survey (PCS) Program has been critical to the Department’s effort to support informed highway
planning, policy, and decision making at the State and local levels. This includes the apportionment and
allocation of funding needs to the Districts, as well as the determination of appropriate cost-effective strategies
to rehabilitate and preserve existing highway transportation infrastructure.
The PCS traditionally evaluates the pavement lane that is in the worst condition in each roadway direction.
The beginning and ending of pavement sections to be rated are determined by construction limits and/or
uniformity of conditions. All sections are rated based on the varying levels and extent of specific distresses,
namely, 1) ride quality, 2) surface deterioration, 3) spalling, 4) patching, 5) transverse cracking, 6) longitudinal
cracking, 7) corner cracking, 8) shattered slabs, 9) faulting, 10) pumping, and 11) joint condition. The ratings
for distresses 2 through 11 are combined to generate an overall Defect Rating.
The Central Office's Pavement Management Office is responsible for the data processing and analysis, and for
making the data available for use by the Department, consultants, and others. The Central Program
Development Office is responsible for reporting the condition of the State Highway System for Pavement
Management purposes.
The present report provides essential information on the current condition of the rigid pavement sections of the
Florida State Highway System as part of the PCS program. It also includes a summary of the historical
condition rating data.
To obtain an electronic copy of this and other reports, and to learn more about our program, please visit the
Pavement Materials Division at SMO’s website:
Intranet
http://materials.dot.state.fl.us/
Internet
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statematerialsoffice/
1
PAGE
LEFT BLANK
Section I
Introduction
The Pavement Condition Unit is responsible for the Department’s Annual Pavement Condition Survey. The
survey is conducted on the entire State-maintained Highway System, on an annual basis.
The survey is conducted by a highly-trained and experienced staff, and requires five area staff specialists about
25 weeks of travel each year to complete.
The annual PCS is used to accomplish the following main objectives:
• Determine the present condition of the State Roadway System
• Compare the present to past conditions
• Predict deterioration rates
• Predict rehabilitation funding needs
• Provide justification for project rehabilitation
• Provide justification for annual rehabilitation budget
• Provide justification for distribution of the funds to Districts
The PCS rating of rigid pavements is based on two main criteria, namely, 1) Defect Rating, and (2) Ride Rating.
A pavement section is rated on a scale of 0 to 10, where a rating of 10 indicates a section in excellent condition.
Currently, any section with a rating of 6 or less is eligible for rehabilitation.
The Defect Rating is obtained by evaluating ten different individual distress types, namely, 1) surface
deterioration, 2) spalling, 3) patching, 4) transverse cracking, 5) longitudinal cracking, 6) corner cracking, 7)
shattered slab, 8) faulting, 9) pumping, and 10) joint condition.
Ride quality is measured using an automated vehicle-mounted instrument called a Profiler that measures the
longitudinal profile of the roadway. The ride quality is quantified in terms of Ride Number (RN). RN is a
mathematical processing of longitudinal profile measurements to produce an estimate of ride quality or user
perception in accordance with ASTM Standard E1489.
In order to ensure maximum accuracy and repeatability of the data collected, the testing equipment is well
maintained and routinely calibrated. In addition, over 150 edit checks are used to test both the data accuracy
and compliance with other known parameters. Comparisons of annual PCS data with earlier years are also
performed to review trends and identify potential errors. When necessary, survey equipment and software is
upgraded to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of data collection and processing. These types of
improvements now allow in-depth analysis of any segment of the highway system and on-time completion of
the PCS while maintaining a high level of accuracy.
For more detailed information about the Pavement Condition Surveys, please refer to the latest edition of the
Rigid and Flexible Pavement Condition Survey Handbooks, which can be accessed online at:
http://materials.dot.state.fl.us/smo/pavement/performance/pcs/pavementconditionsurvey.htm
The facts and figures contained in this report are for rigid pavements only, which represent approximately
2.4% of the entire State Highway System.
2
PAGE
LEFT BLANK
Observations
The review and analysis of PCS historical Distress Ratings for rigid pavements have resulted in the following
statewide observations:
1. Since 1996 the number of miles of Rigid Pavements on the state-maintained highway system has
declined from 1694 lane miles to only 1050 lane miles in 2015. Because of this, the conclusions
drawn below may be largely due to the drop in number of miles.
2. The average Defect Ratings have steadily improved from 7.4 in 1998 to 7.8 in 2015.
3. The average Ride Ratings remained constant for the 6 years prior to the 2004 PCS with a
mean rating of 7.4 in 2003 and an overall average of 7.3. In 2004 the Ride Rating declined to a
statewide average of 6.8. This decline was mainly due to a change in sampling interval used
when collecting the data. Prior to 2004, all surveys were conducted using a 12 inch sampling
interval. Beginning with the 2004 survey, a 6 inch sampling interval was used. Since 2004, the
Ride Rating has steadily improved from 6.8 to 7.2 in 2015.
4. 97% of the pavement sections rated in 2015 for Defect were within one deduct point compared
to the 2014 ratings. (1)
5. 100% of the pavement sections rated in 2015 for Ride were within one deduct point compared to
the 2014 ratings. (1)
* Note (1): Sections that had undergone notable changes such as new construction or total
rehabilitation were excluded from the analysis.
General Notes
1. For multi-lane roadways: The worst lane in each direction is rated (normally the outermost traffic
lane).
2. For two-lane roadways: The worst lane is rated (normally the same lane tested the previous year).
3. Rated sections are determined by construction limits and/or significant changes in visual condition
of the pavement.
4. Defect Rating is based on manual and visual distress measurements collected by the rater from the
shoulder of the roadway.
5. Rigid Pavement Condition Survey Production History (p.4) and the PCS Production Summary (p.5)
is based on total lane miles, including pavement types of No ride, Under construction, and
Structures. All other graphs and tables are based on lane miles where given rating index (defect or
ride) was measured.
6. Historical Distress Ratings by District (Section IV) and by System (Section V) are based on Lane
Miles for Defect Rating.
3
300
302
2001
Year
4
271
274
2013
2014
280
271
2012
2015
269
262
2009
2011
265
2008
271
270
2007
2010
271
2006
261
269
2004
2005
267
2003
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1,050
1,046
1,039
1,041
1,040
1,020
963
963
988
993
976
976
978
1,331
1,476
1,566
1999
1,694
1,592
750
1998
1,000
1,604
1,035
1,250
1997
1996
1,500
2002
307
322
2000
1999
330
1998
200
329
250
1997
275
350
337
Lane Miles
1,750
1996
Rated Sections
Rigid Pavement Condition Survey
Production History
Lane Miles / Rated Sections
2,250
2,000
Year
450
400
Rigid Pavement Condition Survey
2015 PCS Production Summary
Statewide
Total Lane Miles: 43516 (Flexible and Rigid Combined)
Flexible: 97.6% (42466 Mi.)
Rigid: 2.4% (1050 Mi.)
Total Rated Sections: 8651 (Flexible and Rigid Combined)
Flexible: 96.8% (8371 rated sections.)
5
Rigid: 3.2% (280 rated sections.)
PAGE
LEFT BLANK
Section II
Defect Rating
By
System and District
6
Section II
Defect Rating by System and District
Defect Rating Criteria
1.
Ten different distresses are counted and/or estimated then classified by severity levels.
2.
Each distress has a numeric deduct value based on the severity level assigned by the rater.
3.
The Defect Rating is obtained by subtracting the individual deduct values associated with each
various form of distress from 100, and then dividing by 10. A Defect Rating of 10 indicates a
pavement without observable distress.
For more information on how Defect Rating is calculated see the latest Rigid PCS Handbook.
7
2015 Defect Rating by System and District
10.00
9.00
7.00
6.00
No Rigid Pavement
Average Defect Rating
8.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
District‐1
District‐2
Primary
District‐3
District‐4
Interstate
District‐5
Turnpike
Toll
District‐6
District‐7
All Districts
All Systems
Lane Miles
System
Primary
Interstate
Turnpike
Toll
Total
District-1
36
21
0
0
57
District-2
82
187
0
0
269
District-3
15
0
0
0
15
District-4
0
0
0
0
0
District-5
126
103
0
0
229
District-6
5
127
0
3
135
District-7
49
227
0
1
276
Statewide
313
665
0
4
982
District-5
6.9
8.6
District-6
6.2
6.1
District-7
6.7
8.3
Statewide
7.2
8.1
7.7
8.8
6.2
9.4
8.0
8.9
7.8
Defect Rating
System
Primary
Interstate
Turnpike
Toll
Average
District-1
6.3
9.1
District-2
8.3
9.0
District-3
7.1
7.4
8.8
7.1
District-4
8
2015 Defect Distribution by System - Statewide
59.3%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0%
7
8
9 10
313 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.2
81.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
18.5%
60%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
80%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
100%
0.0%
80%
Percent of Lane Miles
Toll
100%
0.0%
0%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
Defect Rating
Defect Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
4 Lane Miles, Mean = 8.9
Statewide
100%
2.8%
1.2%
5.2%
7.4%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
19.8%
0.1%
20%
1.4%
40%
12.8%
60%
0.0%
49.3%
80%
0.2%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
9 10
665 Lane Miles, Mean = 8.1
Turnpike
60%
8
Defect Rating
Defect Rating
20%
0.0%
9.1%
0
17.0%
6.4%
6
4.1%
5
20%
0.0%
4
40%
3.8%
9.7%
3
60%
0.0%
7.8%
2
0%
80%
0.2%
3.8%
1
0.0%
0.5%
0
26.3%
0.3%
20%
3.9%
40%
21.2%
60%
25.9%
80%
100%
0.0%
100%
Percent of Lane Miles
Interstate
0.5%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0%
7
Defect Rating
982 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.8
9
8
9 10
8
9 10
2015 Defect Distribution by System - District 1
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0%
6
7
Defect Rating
36 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.3
21 Lane Miles, Mean = 9.0
Toll
0.0%
6
7
8
9 10
0.0%
0.0%
5
0.0%
0.0%
4
0.0%
0.0%
3
0.0%
0.0%
2
0.0%
0.0%
1
20%
0.0%
0.0%
0
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
No Toll System
60%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
80%
0.0%
80%
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
100%
0.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
0%
Defect Rating
Defect Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
All Systems
100%
2
3
4
0.0%
0.0%
1
35.4%
2.4%
0.0%
0
9.7%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
11.2%
60%
41.4%
80%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
Turnpike
60%
9 10
0.0%
5
Defect Rating
20%
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
9 10
40%
0.0%
8
60%
0.0%
4
80%
0.0%
3
0%
100%
0.0%
2
0.0%
0.0%
1
6.1%
0.0%
0
15.6%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
17.9%
60%
3.8%
56.6%
80%
Percent of Lane Miles
Interstate
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0%
5
6
7
Defect Rating
57 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.3
10
8
9 10
2015 Defect Distribution by System - District 2
91.6%
3.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0%
7
8
9 10
82 Lane Miles, Mean = 8.3
187 Lane Miles, Mean = 9.0
Toll
7
8
9 10
0
1
2
3
0.0%
0.0%
6
0.0%
0.0%
5
0.0%
0.0%
4
0.0%
0.0%
3
0.0%
0.0%
2
0.0%
0.0%
1
20%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0%
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
No Toll System
60%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
80%
0.0%
80%
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
100%
0.0%
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
Defect Rating
Defect Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
All Systems
82.1%
100%
80%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
9.2%
0.6%
0
5.8%
0.0%
20%
0.9%
40%
7
8
0.0%
60%
0.4%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
Turnpike
60%
9 10
Defect Rating
Defect Rating
20%
0.0%
3.7%
6
0.0%
5
0.0%
4
20%
0.0%
0.0%
3
40%
0.8%
3.1%
2
60%
0.0%
0.0%
1
0%
80%
0.8%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
20%
1.2%
40%
10.7%
60%
23.9%
80%
100%
0.0%
59.9%
100%
Percent of Lane Miles
Interstate
1.2%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0%
Defect Rating
269 Lane Miles, Mean = 8.8
11
9 10
2015 Defect Distribution by System - District 3
0.0%
0.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
7
8
9 10
Defect Rating
Defect Rating
15 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.1
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
7
8
9 10
0.0%
0.0%
6
0.0%
0.0%
5
0.0%
0.0%
4
0.0%
0.0%
3
0.0%
0.0%
2
0%
0.0%
0.0%
1
20%
0.0%
0.0%
0
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
No Toll System
60%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
60%
80%
0.0%
80%
100%
0.0%
100%
Percent of Lane Miles
Toll
0.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
Defect Rating
Defect Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
All Systems
51.9%
80%
60%
41.1%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
4.3%
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
2.7%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
Turnpike
20%
0.0%
0.0%
6
0.0%
5
0.0%
4
20%
0.0%
4.3%
3
40%
0.0%
0.0%
2
0%
No Interstate System
60%
0.0%
0.0%
1
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
80%
0.0%
60%
100%
0.0%
80%
41.1%
51.9%
100%
Percent of Lane Miles
Interstate
2.7%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0%
7
Defect Rating
15 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.1
12
8
9 10
2015 Defect Distribution by System - District 4
7
8
9 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
Defect Rating
Defect Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
Toll
7
8
9 10
0.0%
0.0%
6
0.0%
0.0%
5
0.0%
0.0%
4
0.0%
0.0%
3
0.0%
0.0%
2
0%
0.0%
0.0%
1
20%
0.0%
0.0%
0
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
No Toll System
60%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
60%
80%
0.0%
80%
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
100%
0.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
Defect Rating
Defect Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
All Systems
100%
80%
No Rigid Pavement
60%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
Turnpike
20%
0.0%
6
0.0%
0.0%
5
0.0%
0.0%
4
0.0%
0.0%
3
0.0%
0.0%
2
0.0%
0.0%
1
20%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0%
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
No Interstate System
60%
0.0%
No Primary System
60%
80%
0.0%
80%
100%
0.0%
100%
Percent of Lane Miles
Interstate
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
Defect Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
13
2015 Defect Distribution by System - District 5
0.0%
0.7%
1
2
3
4
5
6
5
6
7
8
9 10
103 Lane Miles, Mean = 8.6
Toll
7
8
9 10
0.0%
0.0%
6
0.0%
0.0%
5
0.0%
0.0%
4
0.0%
0.0%
3
0.0%
0.0%
2
0.0%
0.0%
1
20%
0.0%
0.0%
0
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
No Toll System
60%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
80%
0.0%
80%
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
100%
0.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
0%
Defect Rating
Defect Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
All Systems
100%
3.8%
6.8%
1
2
3
4
5
31.1%
0.0%
0.7%
0
1.8%
0.4%
20%
2.4%
40%
16.8%
60%
36.2%
80%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
Turnpike
60%
7
Defect Rating
126 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.9
20%
9 10
0%
4
Defect Rating
.
8
0.0%
0.0%
0
47.7%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
8.3%
60%
43.4%
80%
0.0%
30.4%
0%
100%
0.0%
3
0.0%
2
17.6%
1
2.7%
1.3%
0
6.9%
0.7%
20%
4.4%
40%
12.3%
60%
23.7%
80%
Percent of Lane Miles
Interstate
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0%
6
7
Defect Rating
229 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.7
14
8
9 10
2015 Defect Distribution by System - District 6
2
3
7
8
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.0%
24.2%
60%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
80%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
80%
75.8%
Toll
100%
0.0%
9 10
127 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.1
Turnpike
60%
4
Defect Rating
5 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.2
0%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
Defect Rating
Defect Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
3 Lane Miles, Mean = 8.8
All Systems
100%
8
0.0%
7
17.9%
12.6%
2
8.7%
1
18.4%
0
0.2%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
17.0%
60%
25.0%
80%
0.2%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
6
0%
6
Defect Rating
20%
5
0.0%
1
17.5%
0
12.3%
9 10
8.5%
8
22.2%
7
20.5%
5
20%
0.0%
4
40%
19.0%
3
0%
60%
0.0%
0.0%
2
0.0%
2.7%
1
8.7%
0.0%
0
12.7%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
12.7%
60%
80%
0.0%
80%
100%
0.0%
60.5%
100%
Percent of Lane Miles
Interstate
2.7%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0%
3
4
5
6
Defect Rating
135 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.2
15
9 10
8
9 10
2015 Defect Distribution by System - District 7
57.6%
80%
2
3
4
5
0%
1
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
49 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.7
100.0%
80%
60%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
100%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
Percent of Lane Miles
80%
0.0%
9 10
Toll
100%
0.0%
8
227 Lane Miles, Mean = 8.3
Turnpike
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
Defect Rating
Defect Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
1 Lane Miles, Mean = 9.4
All Systems
100%
51.5%
80%
1.0%
0.3%
1
2
3
4
5
22.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0
6.2%
0.0%
20%
1.8%
40%
17.0%
60%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
7
Defect Rating
Defect Rating
60%
6
0.0%
0
20%
0.0%
0.4%
1
20.8%
0.0%
0
6.2%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
15.0%
60%
0.0%
0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
17.6%
27.8%
6.3%
3
0.0%
2
6.3%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
11.5%
60%
30.6%
80%
Percent of Lane Miles
Interstate
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0%
6
7
Defect Rating
276 Lane Miles, Mean = 8.0
16
8
9 10
9 10
PAGE
LEFT BLANK
Section III
Ride Rating
By
System and District
17
Section III
Ride Rating by System and District
Ride Rating Criteria
1.
A Ride Rating represents the ride quality of a pavement section. It is an indication of the degree of
smoothness or roughness of the wearing surface.
2.
A Ride Rating is calculated from Ride Number (RN). Ride Rating = RN * 2
RN is a mathematical processing of longitudinal profile measurements to produce an estimate of a
driver’s subjective perception of the ride quality of a roadway. The RN is based on an algorithm
published in National Cooperative Highway Research Project (NCHRP) 1-23. RN is defined in
ASTM Standard E-1489.
3.
The ride quality of a roadway is greatly affected by, but not limited to, factors that include the
following:
- Original pavement profile
- Profiles of intersecting roads
- Utility patches and manhole covers
- Surface and structural deterioration and deformation
4.
Ride Rating is based on a 0 to 10 scale, where 10 represents a pavement with no roughness while
ratings of 6 or less represent a pavement with an undesirable ride quality.
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
18
2015 Ride Rating by System and District
10.00
9.00
7.00
No Rigid Pavement
Average Ride Rating
8.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
District‐1
District‐2
Primary
District‐3
District‐4
Interstate
District‐5
Turnpike
Toll
District‐6
District‐7
All Districts
All Systems
Lane Miles
System
Primary
Interstate
Turnpike
Toll
Total
District-1
34
21
0
0
55
District-2
81
187
0
0
268
District-3
15
0
0
0
15
District-4
0
0
0
0
0
District-5
126
103
0
0
229
District-6
5
127
0
3
134
District-7
49
227
0
1
276
Statewide
309
665
0
4
978
District-5
6.7
7.4
District-6
5.9
6.5
District-7
6.9
7.7
Statewide
6.8
7.4
7.0
6.7
6.5
8.8
7.6
7.2
7.2
Ride Rating
System
Primary
Interstate
Turnpike
Toll
Average
District-1
6.9
7.1
District-2
7.0
7.7
District-3
5.7
6.9
7.5
5.7
District-4
19
2015 Ride Distribution by System - Statewide
2
3
4
5
0%
6
7
8
9 10
0.0%
0.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
23.4%
60%
33.4%
37.0%
80%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
100%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
Percent of Lane Miles
80%
0.0%
9 10
Toll
100%
0.0%
8
665 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.4
Turnpike
0%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
7
4 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.2
Statewide
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
4.1%
1
2
3
4
5
41.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
6.2%
0.0%
40%
16.5%
60%
32.2%
80%
20%
6
Ride Rating
Ride Rating
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
7
Ride Rating
309 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.8
60%
6
6.2%
5
Ride Rating
20%
0.0%
1
8.8%
2.9%
0
46.5%
32.3%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
9.4%
60%
0.0%
4
80%
0.0%
3
0%
100%
0.0%
2
0.0%
0.2%
1
0.0%
0.0%
0
6.7%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
28.8%
60%
32.3%
32.0%
80%
Percent of Lane Miles
Interstate
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0%
6
7
Ride Rating
978 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.2
20
8
9 10
8
9 10
2015 Ride Distribution by System - District 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
9 10
21 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.1
Turnpike
Toll
0.0%
8
9 10
0.0%
0.0%
7
0.0%
0.0%
6
0.0%
0.0%
5
0.0%
0.0%
4
0.0%
0.0%
3
0%
0.0%
0.0%
2
20%
0.0%
0.0%
1
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
40%
No Toll System
60%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
80%
0.0%
80%
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
100%
60%
7
Ride Rating
34 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
Ride Rating
Ride Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
All Systems
63.0%
100%
80%
0.0%
2
3
4
5
0.0%
0.0%
1
0.0%
0.0%
0
17.4%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
19.5%
60%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
8
0%
6
Ride Rating
20%
0.0%
1
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
5
20%
0.0%
4
40%
0.0%
3
60%
0.0%
0.0%
2
0%
80%
0.0%
0.0%
1
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
27.9%
31.3%
60%
40.8%
80%
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
100%
100.0%
Interstate
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0%
6
7
Ride Rating
55 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.9
21
8
9 10
2015 Ride Distribution by System - District 2
2
3
4
5
6
0%
6
7
8
9 10
81 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.0
9 10
Toll
7
8
9 10
0
1
2
3
0.0%
0.0%
6
0.0%
0.0%
5
0.0%
0.0%
4
0.0%
0.0%
3
0.0%
0.0%
2
0.0%
0.0%
1
20%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0%
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
No Toll System
60%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
80%
0.0%
80%
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
100%
0.0%
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
Ride Rating
Ride Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
All Systems
72.0%
100%
80%
1.5%
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.0%
0.2%
1
1.1%
0.0%
0
13.8%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
11.3%
60%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
8
187 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.7
Turnpike
60%
7
Ride Rating
Ride Rating
20%
0.0%
1
1.6%
3.7%
0
15.2%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
5
40%
0.0%
4
60%
0.0%
3
80%
0.0%
5.1%
2
0%
100%
0.0%
0.7%
1
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
54.4%
29.4%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
10.4%
80%
60%
Percent of Lane Miles
100%
79.5%
Interstate
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0%
Ride Rating
268 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.5
22
8
9 10
2015 Ride Distribution by System - District 3
Interstate
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
5
6
7
Ride Rating
Ride Rating
15 Lane Miles, Mean = 5.7
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
Toll
8
9 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0.0%
0.0%
7
0.0%
0.0%
6
0.0%
0.0%
5
0.0%
0.0%
4
0.0%
0.0%
3
0%
0.0%
0.0%
2
20%
0.0%
0.0%
1
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
40%
No Toll System
60%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
60%
80%
0.0%
80%
100%
0.00%
Percent of Lane Miles
100%
0.00%
0%
Ride Rating
Ride Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
All Systems
100%
2
3
4
0.0%
0.0%
1
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
38.7%
60%
23.2%
38.1%
80%
0.00%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
Turnpike
20%
0.0%
0.0%
9 10
20%
0.0%
8
40%
0.0%
4
No Interstate System
60%
0.0%
3
0%
80%
0.0%
2
0.0%
0.0%
1
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
38.7%
60%
23.2%
38.1%
80%
100%
0.00%
Percent of Lane Miles
100%
0.00%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
8
9 10
0%
5
6
7
Ride Rating
15 Lane Miles, Mean = 5.7
23
2015 Ride Distribution by System - District 4
Interstate
7
8
9 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
Ride Rating
Ride Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
Toll
7
8
9 10
0.0%
0.0%
6
0.0%
0.0%
5
0.0%
0.0%
4
0.0%
0.0%
3
0.0%
0.0%
2
0%
0.0%
0.0%
1
20%
0.0%
0.0%
0
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
No Toll System
60%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
60%
80%
0.0%
80%
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
100%
0.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
Ride Rating
Ride Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
All Systems
100%
80%
No Rigid Pavement
60%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
Turnpike
20%
0.0%
6
0.0%
0.0%
5
0.0%
0.0%
4
0.0%
0.0%
3
0.0%
0.0%
2
0.0%
0.0%
1
20%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0%
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
No Interstate System
60%
0.0%
No Primary System
60%
80%
0.0%
80%
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
Ride Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
24
2015 Ride Distribution by System - District 5
Interstate
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
80%
No Toll System
60%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
100%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
0.0%
9 10
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
80%
0.0%
8
Toll
100%
0.0%
7
103 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.4
Turnpike
60%
6
Ride Rating
126 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
Ride Rating
Ride Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
All Systems
100%
4.2%
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0.0%
0.0%
1
16.9%
0.0%
0
13.6%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
32.0%
60%
33.4%
80%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
37.6%
0%
5
Ride Rating
20%
0.0%
1
10.1%
0
23.3%
29.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
0.0%
4
60%
0.0%
3
0%
80%
0.0%
2
0.0%
0.0%
1
0.0%
0.0%
0
7.6%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
16.5%
60%
39.0%
36.9%
80%
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0%
Ride Rating
229 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.0
25
2015 Ride Distribution by System - District 6
Interstate
4
0%
6
7
43.6%
48.4%
60%
1
2
3
4
5
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
80%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
0.0%
9 10
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
80%
0.0%
8
Toll
100%
0.0%
7
127 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.5
Turnpike
0%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
7
3 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.7
All Systems
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1
2
3
4
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
23.3%
40%
16.1%
60%
15.8%
80%
44.8%
100%
20%
6
Ride Rating
Ride Rating
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
6
Ride Rating
5 Lane Miles, Mean = 5.9
60%
5
8.0%
5
Ride Rating
20%
0.0%
3
16.7%
2
0.0%
47.4%
1
20.5%
0
15.5%
20%
0.0%
9 10
40%
0.0%
8
60%
0.0%
4
80%
0.0%
3
0%
100%
0.0%
2
Percent of Lane Miles
0.0%
1
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
0.0%
26.8%
60%
25.6%
80%
47.6%
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0%
5
6
7
Ride Rating
134 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.5
26
8
9 10
8
9 10
2015 Ride Distribution by System - District 7
Interstate
2
3
4
5
6
0%
6
7
8
9 10
49 Lane Miles, Mean = 6.9
100.0%
60%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40%
80%
0.0%
No Turnpike System
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
80%
0.0%
9 10
Toll
100%
0.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
Ride Rating
Ride Rating
0 Lane Miles, Mean = N/A
1 Lane Miles, Mean = 8.8
All Systems
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0%
60%
6.6%
36.9%
80%
52.5%
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Percent of Lane Miles
8
227 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.7
Turnpike
60%
7
Ride Rating
Ride Rating
20%
0.0%
1
7.5%
0.0%
0
56.8%
35.7%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
5
40%
0.0%
4
60%
0.0%
3
80%
0.0%
0.0%
2
0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
1
Percent of Lane Miles
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
40%
0.0%
25.1%
60%
30.7%
80%
44.3%
100%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
Primary
0%
7
Ride Rating
276 Lane Miles, Mean = 7.6
27
8
9 10
PAGE
LEFT BLANK
Section IV
Historical Distress Ratings
By District
1998 - 2015
28
Historical Distress Ratings - Statewide
All Systems - All Districts
9.5
2,000
9.0
1,800
8.5
1,600
1,000
7.0
800
6.5
600
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
0
2003
5.0
2002
200
2001
5.5
2000
400
1999
6.0
1998
Average Rating
1,200
7.5
Lane Miles
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
1998
7.4
7.4
1442
1999
7.3
7.1
1416
2000
7.4
7.0
1373
2001
7.6
7.2
1205
2002
7.9
7.4
896
2003
7.8
7.4
903
2004
7.9
6.8
863
2005
8.0
6.7
867
2006
8.0
6.8
859
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
2007
7.9
6.9
874
2008
7.9
6.9
908
2009
7.9
6.9
928
2010
7.9
6.9
989
2011
7.9
6.9
1003
2012
7.8
7.1
926
2013
7.7
7.1
944
2014
7.9
7.2
910
2015
7.8
7.2
982
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
29
Lane Miles
1,400
8.0
Historical Distress Ratings - District 1
All Systems
9.5
2,000
9.0
1,800
8.5
1,600
1,000
7.0
800
6.5
600
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
0
2003
5.0
2002
200
2001
5.5
2000
400
1999
6.0
1998
Average Rating
1,200
7.5
Lane Miles
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
1998
6.5
7.3
70
1999
6.0
7.0
59
2000
6.8
7.3
76
2001
7.2
7.5
76
2002
7.7
7.5
76
2003
7.3
7.4
76
2004
7.2
7.0
53
2005
7.1
7.0
51
2006
6.3
6.8
50
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
2007
6.5
7.1
54
2008
7.3
7.2
54
2009
7.3
7.0
54
2010
6.9
6.9
54
2011
7.0
6.9
55
2012
7.9
7.2
55
2013
7.6
7.0
55
2014
7.5
6.9
55
2015
7.3
6.9
57
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
30
Lane Miles
1,400
8.0
Historical Distress Ratings - District 2
Defect
Defect
Rating
Rating
RideRide
Rating
Rating
2015
2014
2013
2012
Lane
Lane
Miles
Miles
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
1998
8.1
8.1
147
1999
7.8
7.7
208
2000
8.0
7.6
228
2001
8.0
7.7
216
2002
7.9
7.8
237
2003
8.0
7.8
234
2004
8.0
7.0
235
2005
8.0
7.3
233
2006
8.0
6.9
231
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
2007
7.8
7.0
256
2008
8.0
6.8
234
2009
8.1
6.9
262
2010
8.1
6.9
265
2011
7.9
7.0
258
2012
7.6
7.0
231
2013
8.0
6.9
260
2014
8.7
7.5
188
2015
8.8
7.5
269
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
31
Rated
Lane Miles
2,000
0
2011
6.50
5.0
2010
400
2,500
200
2009
6.0
7.00
5.5
2008
800
3,000
600
2007
6.5
7.50
2006
3,500
1,000
2005
7.5
8.00
7.0
2004
1,400
4,000
1,200
2003
8.0
8.50
2002
1,800
4,500
1,600
2001
9.0
9.00
8.5
2000
5,000
2,000
1999
9.5
9.50
1998
Average Rating
All Systems
Historical Distress Ratings - District 3
Defect
Defect
Rating
Rating
RideRide
Rating
Rating
2015
2014
2013
2012
Lane
Lane
Miles
Miles
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
1998
6.9
7.7
570
1999
6.7
7.0
516
2000
6.6
6.9
443
2001
7.0
6.6
335
2002
8.2
7.3
38
2003
8.3
7.1
29
2004
8.7
6.3
31
2005
8.9
6.0
15
2006
8.9
5.9
17
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
2007
8.9
5.9
17
2008
8.7
5.8
17
2009
8.2
5.7
17
2010
8.1
5.7
15
2011
7.5
5.5
15
2012
6.9
5.5
15
2013
7.0
5.6
15
2014
7.0
5.8
15
2015
7.1
5.7
15
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
32
Rated
Lane Miles
2,000
0
2011
6.50
5.0
2010
400
2,500
200
2009
6.0
7.00
5.5
2008
800
3,000
600
2007
6.5
7.50
2006
3,500
1,000
2005
7.5
8.00
7.0
2004
1,400
4,000
1,200
2003
8.0
8.50
2002
1,800
4,500
1,600
2001
9.0
9.00
8.5
2000
5,000
2,000
1999
9.5
9.50
1998
Average Rating
All Systems
Historical Distress Ratings - District 4
9.5
9.50
5,000
2,000
9.0
9.00
8.5
1,800
4,500
1,600
Defect
Defect
Rating
Rating
RideRide
Rating
Rating
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2,000
0
2005
6.50
5.0
2004
400
2,500
200
2003
6.0
7.00
5.5
2002
800
3,000
600
2001
6.5
7.50
2000
3,500
1,000
1999
7.5
8.00
7.0
1998
Average Rating
1,400
4,000
1,200
No Rigid Pavement
8.0
8.50
Lane
Lane
Miles
Miles
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
33
Rated
Lane Miles
All Systems
Historical Distress Ratings - District 5
Defect
Defect
Rating
Rating
RideRide
Rating
Rating
2015
2014
2013
2012
Lane
Lane
Miles
Miles
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
1998
8.1
7.5
195
1999
8.1
7.1
197
2000
8.2
6.9
202
2001
7.9
7.1
202
2002
8.1
7.1
194
2003
7.7
6.9
196
2004
7.8
6.2
179
2005
7.9
6.2
205
2006
7.9
6.2
193
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
2007
7.5
6.1
191
2008
7.0
6.1
182
2009
6.8
5.9
181
2010
7.5
6.2
230
2011
7.7
6.3
229
2012
7.8
6.5
181
2013
7.8
6.8
204
2014
7.8
7.0
229
2015
7.7
7.0
229
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
34
Rated
Lane Miles
2,000
0
2011
6.50
5.0
2010
400
2,500
200
2009
6.0
7.00
5.5
2008
800
3,000
600
2007
6.5
7.50
2006
3,500
1,000
2005
7.5
8.00
7.0
2004
1,400
4,000
1,200
2003
8.0
8.50
2002
1,800
4,500
1,600
2001
9.0
9.00
8.5
2000
5,000
2,000
1999
9.5
9.50
1998
Average Rating
All Systems
Historical Distress Ratings - District 6
Defect
Defect
Rating
Rating
RideRide
Rating
Rating
2015
2014
2013
2012
Lane
Lane
Miles
Miles
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
1998
8.0
7.0
135
1999
7.8
6.8
155
2000
8.1
7.0
146
2001
8.5
8.1
131
2002
8.4
8.0
129
2003
8.4
7.7
127
2004
8.7
7.4
116
2005
8.7
7.3
116
2006
8.3
7.2
118
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
2007
8.1
6.8
117
2008
8.0
7.0
121
2009
8.0
7.2
121
2010
7.7
7.0
127
2011
7.4
6.6
143
2012
7.0
6.8
139
2013
6.4
6.7
127
2014
6.2
6.6
140
2015
6.2
6.5
135
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
35
Rated
Lane Miles
2,000
0
2011
6.50
5.0
2010
400
2,500
200
2009
6.0
7.00
5.5
2008
800
3,000
600
2007
6.5
7.50
2006
3,500
1,000
2005
7.5
8.00
7.0
2004
1,400
4,000
1,200
2003
8.0
8.50
2002
1,800
4,500
1,600
2001
9.0
9.00
8.5
2000
5,000
2,000
1999
9.5
9.50
1998
Average Rating
All Systems
Historical Distress Ratings - District 7
Defect
Defect
Rating
Rating
RideRide
Rating
Rating
2015
2014
2013
2012
Lane
Lane
Miles
Miles
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
1998
7.3
6.9
326
1999
7.5
7.0
281
2000
7.6
6.8
280
2001
7.3
7.0
246
2002
7.3
7.0
223
2003
7.4
7.1
242
2004
7.8
6.8
248
2005
8.0
6.7
247
2006
8.4
6.9
251
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
2007
8.3
7.2
238
2008
8.4
7.4
300
2009
8.5
7.5
294
2010
8.4
7.5
298
2011
8.4
7.5
304
2012
8.4
7.6
305
2013
8.1
7.6
283
2014
8.3
7.5
283
2015
8.0
7.6
276
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
36
Rated
Lane Miles
2,000
0
2011
6.50
5.0
2010
400
2,500
200
2009
6.0
7.00
5.5
2008
800
3,000
600
2007
6.5
7.50
2006
3,500
1,000
2005
7.5
8.00
7.0
2004
1,400
4,000
1,200
2003
8.0
8.50
2002
1,800
4,500
1,600
2001
9.0
9.00
8.5
2000
5,000
2,000
1999
9.5
9.50
1998
Average Rating
All Systems
PAGE
LEFT BLANK
Section V
Historical Distress Ratings
By System
1998 - 2015
37
Historical Distress Ratings - Statewide
All Systems - All Districts
9.5
2,000
9.0
1,800
8.5
1,600
1,000
7.0
800
6.5
600
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
0
2003
5.0
2002
200
2001
5.5
2000
400
1999
6.0
1998
Average Rating
1,200
7.5
Lane Miles
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
1998
7.4
7.4
1442
1999
7.3
7.1
1416
2000
7.4
7.0
1373
2001
7.6
7.2
1205
2002
7.9
7.4
896
2003
7.8
7.4
903
2004
7.9
6.8
863
2005
8.0
6.7
867
2006
8.0
6.8
859
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
2007
7.9
6.9
874
2008
7.9
6.9
908
2009
7.9
6.9
928
2010
7.9
6.9
989
2011
7.9
6.9
1003
2012
7.8
7.1
926
2013
7.7
7.1
944
2014
7.9
7.2
910
2015
7.8
7.2
982
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
38
Lane Miles
1,400
8.0
Historical Distress Ratings - Primary System
All Districts
9.5
2,000
9.0
1,800
8.5
1,600
1,000
7.0
800
6.5
600
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
0
2003
5.0
2002
200
2001
5.5
2000
400
1999
6.0
1998
Average Rating
1,200
7.5
Lane Miles
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
1998
6.8
6.4
346
1999
6.8
6.5
350
2000
7.1
6.3
344
2001
6.9
6.7
344
2002
7.4
6.9
352
2003
7.0
6.8
350
2004
7.3
6.2
344
2005
7.5
6.2
339
2006
7.5
6.2
348
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
2007
7.3
6.3
353
2008
7.0
6.3
337
2009
7.0
6.2
333
2010
6.9
6.3
340
2011
6.7
6.0
303
2012
7.0
6.3
242
2013
6.9
6.5
265
2014
7.4
6.7
306
2015
7.2
6.8
313
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
39
Lane Miles
1,400
8.0
Historical Distress Ratings - Interstate System
All Districts
9.5
2,000
9.0
1,800
8.5
1,600
1,000
7.0
800
6.5
600
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
0
2003
5.0
2002
200
2001
5.5
2000
400
1999
6.0
1998
Average Rating
1,200
7.5
Lane Miles
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
1998
7.6
7.8
1065
1999
7.5
7.3
1035
2000
7.5
7.2
998
2001
7.8
7.4
830
2002
8.2
7.8
519
2003
8.2
7.8
529
2004
8.3
7.0
492
2005
8.3
7.1
501
2006
8.4
7.2
497
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
2007
8.2
7.2
505
2008
8.4
7.3
567
2009
8.4
7.3
591
2010
8.4
7.3
644
2011
8.4
7.3
696
2012
8.1
7.4
680
2013
8.0
7.3
678
2014
8.1
7.4
600
2015
8.1
7.4
665
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
40
Lane Miles
1,400
8.0
Historical Distress Ratings - Turnpike System
All Districts
9.5
2,000
9.0
1,800
8.5
1,600
1,200
1,000
7.0
800
6.5
600
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
0
2003
5.0
2002
200
2001
5.5
2000
400
1999
6.0
1998
Average Rating
No Rigid Pavement
7.5
Lane Miles
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
41
Lane Miles
1,400
8.0
Historical Distress Ratings - Toll System
All Districts
9.5
2,000
9.0
1,800
8.5
1,600
1,000
7.0
800
6.5
600
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
0
2003
5.0
2002
200
2001
5.5
2000
400
1999
6.0
1998
Average Rating
1,200
7.5
Lane Miles
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
1998
8.4
8.0
31
1999
8.4
7.3
31
2000
8.4
7.5
31
2001
9.0
7.4
31
2002
8.7
7.5
25
2003
8.7
7.1
25
2004
8.7
6.6
27
2005
8.8
6.5
27
2006
8.5
6.3
14
Year
Defect Rating
Ride Rating
Lane Miles
2007
8.4
6.7
15
2008
7.7
6.6
4
2009
8.6
6.4
4
2010
8.6
6.4
4
2011
8.7
6.0
4
2012
8.6
6.1
4
2013
9.4
8.7
1
2014
9.1
6.9
4
2015
8.9
7.2
4
Note that with the start of the 2004 PCS, the profile data was collected using a sampling rate of 6 in.
compared to a 12 in. sample interval used in previous years.
42
Lane Miles
1,400
8.0
Section VI
Distress Ratings
Comparison
2014 vs. 2015
43
Section VI
Defect and Ride Ratings Comparison
Rating Comparison Criteria
Only Type 4 Rigid Pavements are included in the comparison. The following pavement types have been
omitted from this comparison since they exhibit notable changes to the pavement surface as indicated below:
Type 0 - Pavement sections not State-maintained, duplicated under another county section
number, or added under the Rigid PCS.
Type 1 - Flexible Pavement
Type 2 - Surface Treatment or pavement improvement without new construction, such as
intersection improvements, wheel path leveling, bridge approach or area resurfacing.
Type 3 - Skin Patch
Type 5 - New Construction
Type 6 - No Ride taken for this section (normally because of length constraint)
Type 7 - Rehabilitated Pavement
Type 8 - Under Construction
Type 9 - Structures or exceptions that are State-maintained
44
Defect and Ride Rating Changes
-1
0
0.0%
-2
0.0%
-3
0.0%
2.9%
-4
0.0%
0.0%
-5
0.2%
0.0%
20.6%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
97% of the 2015 lane miles
were within +/-1 point
compared to 2014 survey
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
76.3%
2014 compared to 2015
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
0.0%
-1
0.0%
-2
0.0%
0.0%
-3
0.0%
0.0%
-4
8.7%
0.0%
-5
12.7%
0.0%
Percent of Lane Miles
100% of the 2015 lane
miles were within +/-1
point compared to 2014
survey
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
78.6%
Defect Rating Change
2
3
4
5
Ride Rating Change
Negative values are indicative of the deterioration in the pavement
and/or the variability in the data collection process. Positive values are
indicative of the variability in the data collection process.
45
PAGE
LEFT BLANK
Section VII
Customer Service Survey
46
PAGE
LEFT BLANK
2015 Rigid Pavement Condition Survey
Facts and Figures
Customer Service Form
In an effort to continuously improve customer service, the Pavement Materials Section asks for your
input by filling out and returning this survey form.
(Optional)
Name:
Title:
Company/Office:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
E-mail:
Please rate each of the following on the scale provided by circling the appropriate number. One
corresponds to Very Poor, and Five corresponds to Excellent .
Usefulness of Content ………..…………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
Organization of Information…..…………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
Clarity of Graphical Illustrations…………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
Format of Tables …...………..……………………………….……... 1 2 3 4 5
Overall Value of this Report ....………………………………….….. 1 2 3 4 5
Please provide an answer to the following questions. Attach an additional sheet(s) if needed.
What was the most useful/informative part of this report?
_________________________________________________________________________________
What was the least useful/informative part of this report?
_________________________________________________________________________________
What changes do you recommend to improve this report?
_________________________________________________________________________________
Detach and mail to:
State Materials Office, Attention: Stacy Scott, 5007 NE 39th Ave., Gainesville, FL 32609 or send via
email to: [email protected]
47