BTS Logo BTS Navigation Bar Contents References Contacts
U.S. Department of Transportation
NTL Browse Reference Contributors Future Plans

Pavement Management - A Manual for Communities

 Click HERE for graphic.

Pavement Management: A Manual for Communities may be amended to
reflect the growing experience of MAPC members.  Your will receive any
amendments if you fill out the form below and return it to the
Metropolitan Area Planning Council, 110 Tremont Street, Boston, MA
02108. (Attn: Carol Blair).

Name_____________________________  Title___________________________



Telephone Number___________________________________________________

Comments on the Manual:

Please feel free to call MAPC if you would like assistance in using
the manual or if you are talk about your experience in
developing a pavement maintenance program.



The MAPC project team, having begun this effort with no expertise in
pavement management, is very grateful for the participation and
contributions of many.  Professional groups, trade organizations,
government agencies and consultants provided a wealth of literature
and helpful advice.  Several of our communities took the manual to the
field and tested the methods for us.  And the Technical Advisory
Committee provided invaluable guidance in the identification of
resources and methods and in focusing on the best response to the
programming needs of our communities.  Serving on the Technical
Advisory Committee were:

     Peter Burnham, Superintendent of Streets, Wenham Tony Celli,
     Director of Public Works, Walpole

     John Collura, Professor of Civil Engineering, U Mass at Amherst
     Lawrence DeCelle, Director of Public Works, Milton

     Lewis Edgers, Professor of Civil Engineering, Tufts University
     Ken Garrity, Edwards & Kelcey, Boston

     Joe Hegarty, Highway Maintenance Engineer, MOPW, Boston

     John Schoon, Professor of Civil Engineering, Northeastern

     Herbert Simmons, Director of Public Works, Hanover

     Matt Turo, Assistant Research Coordinator, Research & Materials
     MDPW, Wellesley

     Bob Patneaude, MAPC Liaison, MDPW

The manual was made possible by funding from the Federal Highway
Administration and the Massachusetts Department of Public Works under
contract number MDPW 23892.


MAPC Project Team:

     Edward G. Bates, Jr. Transportation Group Manager
     Carol W. Blair, Project Manager, Principal Investigator
     David Drevinsky, Research Assistant
     Anna Maria Fantasia, Typing
     Joan Lautman, Editing

MAPC Officers:

     William C. Sawyer, Esq. President
     Frank E. Baxter, Vice President
     Marjorie A. Davis, Secretary
     Franklin C. Ching, PhD., Treasurer
     Martha Gjesteby, Asst. Treasurer
     Alexander V. Zaleski, AICP Executive Director



Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Credits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii

Table of Contents

List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

I    Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II   What Can a Pavement Management Program Do For You?. . . . . . . 5

III  Pavement Management Made Simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

     Step 1    Street Network Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

     Step 2    Pavement Condition Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

     Step 3    Project Ranking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

     Step 4    Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

     Step 5    Implementation and Record-Keeping . . . . . . . . . .25

IV   Refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

V    Case Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

VI   Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77


Figure                                                            Page

III-I     Pavement management in Five Steps. . . . . . . . . . . . .10

III-2   Sample Street Inventory Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

III-3   MDPW Road Inventory File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

III-4   Sample Pavement Condition Survey Form. . . . . . . . . . . .15

III-5   Numeric Codes for Survey Information . . . . . . . . . . . .19

III-6   A Ranked List of Rehabilitation Projects . . . . . . . . . .20

III-7   Sample Unit Costs for Proposed Maintenance . . . . . . . . .22

III-8   Sample Maintenance Summary Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

IV-1    Sample Form For Comprehensive Inventory. . . . . . . . . . .30

IV-2    Distress in Asphalt Pavements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

IV-3    Sample Pavement Rating Form: Asphalt Institute . . . . . . .34

IV-4    Sample Pavement Rating Form: FHWA. . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

IV-5    Sample Pavement Rating Form: PAVER (APWA). . . . . . . . . .36

IV-6 Comparison of Pavement Condition Rating Techniques. . . . . . .38

IV-7 Maintenance Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

IV-8 Maintenance Strategies and Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

IV-9 Economic Analysis Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

IV-10     Popular Spreadsheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

IV-11     Sample of Pavement Management Spreadsheet. . . . . . . . .50

IV-12     Pavement Management Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Figure                                                            Page

V-1  Medfield:      Road Survey Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

V-2  Medfield: Program for Year 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

V-3  Holiston:      Pavement Rating Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

V-4  Holliston:     Street Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

V-5  Holliston:     Pavement Evaluation Summary. . . . . . . . . . .61

V-6  Burlington:    Roadway Inventory Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . . .64

V-7  Burlington:         Distribution of Road Conditions . . . . . .65

V-9  Burlington:         Summary of Recommended Expenditures . . . .68

V-9  Marshfield:         Survey Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

V-10 Marshfield:         Survey Results (sample) . . . . . . . . . .71

V-11 Marshfield:         Road Conditions - Summary . . . . . . . . .72

V-12 Wenham:   Inventory of Road Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

V-13 Wenham:   Field Sheet for Pavement Condition Survey . . . . . .75

V-14 Wenham:   Consultant Survey of Roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

Chapter I


Pavement management is the process of overseeing the maintenance and
repair of a network of roadways.  In effect, every highway
superintendent does pavement management. 

The goal of this manual is to develop that process to the point where
the costs of deferring maintenance expenditures are explicit.  The
result will be twofold.  First, the local finance committee (and other
decision-making bodies) will benefit from knowing the trade-offs
involved and will either appropriate adequate funds or share the
responsibility of a shortfall.  And second, the superintendent will
have objective information on road conditions at hand, without riding
over the entire roadway system, so that decisions on maintenance
priorities can be based on fact and also be cost effective.  

Getting started, however, is not easy.  Some methods require extensive
data.  Others require the use of a computer.  There are many choices
of methods, and it is difficult to know where to start.  This manual
aims to help in that choice, offering a simple set of procedures and a
summary of optional refinements.

Please read Chapter II: What Pavement Management Can Do For You.  Then
consider working through the method described in Chapter III, or
hiring a consultant, or buying one of the pavement management software
systems.  Whichever you choose, you win! Your investment in pavement
management will pay off immediately.


One more comment: MAPC intends to follow-up on this manual by
assisting communities and by following progress at the regional,
level, especially with, respect to funding infrastructure needs. 
Please contact MAPC if you need help or if you are willing to report
on your progress.

Pavement management has many applications and each deserves a
different response.  For the community with a significant backlog of
maintenance work, many roadways in poor condition, and little or no
experience in pavement management, the need is for simple methods
which will summarize maintenance needs and document priorities.  For
the community which has an effective program of pavement maintenance,
pavement management will lead to more cost-effective decisions at the
project level.  This situation requires more detailed data and more
sophisticated methods.  It is likely that, for each community, the
pavement management process will evolve from that first effort to
harness a runaway problem of escalating costs and deteriorating roads,
to a more sophisticated position of optimizing maintenance costs and
road conditions.

This manual has been developed for those communities which are just
beginning to think about systematic pavement management.  Chapter III
offers a no-frills technique for developing a pavement maintenance
program in a short time with the resources and expertise generally
available to the community.  Chapter IV offers guidance for a more
ambitious management system, increasing the precision and cost-
effectiveness of the maintenance program.  The appendices provide
listings of computer software and consultants as well as supportive
documents for alternative techniques.


Note that this is not a comprehensive maintenance reference and does
not provide instruction on pavement design, quality control,
productivity, etc.  The focus of "this manual is maximizing the cost-
effectiveness of pavement maintenance programs.


Chapter II

          What Can A Pavement Management Program Do For You?

Pavement management offers the potential for improved road conditions
and reduced pavement maintenance costs, simultaneously!  Many
communities, with a backlog of maintenance and constrained funds, will
find this idea too good to be true; but the concept is tested and
proven.  The key is in maintaining streets and roads in good condition
(at a relatively low cost) rather than allowing pavements to
deteriorate to the point where extensive rehabilitation or
reconstruction becomes necessary.

The most difficult part of pavement management is getting started. 
Once the methods are familiar and the data base is established, a
three- or five-year program is easily established or updated.  And
after the benefits of pavement management have been demonstrated, it
is possible to refine the process for more cost-effective decisions. 
The Hole Story, the booklet in the front pocket of this notebook, may
be one of the most helpful tools you will find for getting started.

The Hole Story, published by the American Public Works Association
(APWA), presents the case for timely maintenance.  This is something
you should share with your finance committee, or even town.meeting. It
is written so a layman can understand the costs of deferred
maintenance and the importance of preventive treatments.  The
information here can be included in your presentation of the
maintenance program, or you can order extra copies from the APWA (see
tear out within booklet).


The Hole story clearly demonstrates that the time and resources spent
in pavement maintenance programming will be well worthwhile.  Read The
Hole Story, and then proceed to Chapter III which offers a simple
procedure for developing a town-wide program of pavement management.


Chapter III

				Pavement Management Made Simple

The objective of this chapter is to offer a no-frills method for
developing a pavement maintenance program.  This method may be used by
superintendents who cannot devote a lot of time to planning, but who
recognize that maintenance needs must now be documented in order to
procure adequate funds.  More sophisticated methods are offered in
Chapter IV (Refinements) and the Appendix for those who are able to
address pavement management with more precision, using pavement
management to improve the cost-effectiveness of the maintenance

The five steps presented here are flexible and may be tailored to
individual needs; the superintendent should modify the techniques as
necessary or convenient.  This method may be easily computerized,
using commonly available spreadsheet software.

Figure III-1 shows the five steps suggested in this chapter.  Step 1
produces a street inventory which defines the street network by
segments.  Step 2 is a survey of pavement conditions and documents the
required maintenance for each street segment.  Step 3 ranks projects
in order to assure that the most severe and the most cost-effective
projects are considered first.  Scheduling and funding the work to be
done is Step 4: Programming.  Step 5 is the implementation of the
program and represents the feedback between maintenance needs and
fiscal resources.  This step also relates the program to the realized
outcome (work completed).  Keeping good records is an essential part
of this process.


Click HERE for graphic.



The inventory is a listing of street names with their corresponding
length and width. (A sample data form is shown in Figure III-2.) 
Surface type (i.e. paved or unpaved) should be included in the initial
survey.  In addition, a system for dividing the road network into
manageable segments must be devised.  A simple approach is to
designate sections which correspond to intersections or to changes in
pavement condition.  Sections can be identified by house number,
street name or any other device, provided the landmark is permanent. 
A more comprehensive survey form is presented in Chapter IV.

Much of this information is available from The Massachusetts
Department of Public Works.  The MDPW Road Inventory File includes all
public roads in each community; a sample is shown in Figure III-3. 
The State Transportation Library at 10 Park Plaza in Boston keeps a
copy of the MOPW Road Inventory File.  If the MDPW file is used, then
the MDPW district engineer should be notified of any changes to the
inventory; this will result in more accurate mapping of and funding
for the community.


Click HERE for graphic.


Table III-3

     ELEMENTS                                EXAMPLE
1.   Administrative System                   Town
2.   Federal Aid System Classification       Urban Systems
3.   Federal Aid Route Number                Route 6
4.   Federal Aid Rural-Urban                 Urban Population over
5.   Highway Functional Classification       Rural minor arterials and
                                             urban extensions
6.   Auto Route Numbers                      State Auto Route 165
7.   Left, Right or No Shoulder: width,      Left Shoulder 2 feet
     stability                               unstable
8.   Curbs                                   Left side only
9.   Surface Type                            Bituminous Pavement
10.  Surface Width in Feet                   20 feet
11.  Appraisal Section                       Access Control, Terrain
                                             Structural Condition,
                                             Bus Route
12.  Section Length                          3 miles
13.  Average Daily Traffic                   500
14.  Year of Average Daily Traffic           1984
15.  Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled
     on Section                              1500
Source: "Massachusetts Department of Public Works, Bureau of
     Transportation.Planning and Development, Statewide Highway
     Transportation Section, Road Inventory Program: Road Inventory
     Decoding Manual", Massachusetts Department of Public Works, 1985.



The pavement condition survey should collect the information needed to

     	    "streets which need no immediate maintenance and therefore,
          no immediate expenditures.

         streets which require minor or routine maintenance and
          immediate expenditures.

         streets which require preventive maintenance activities such
          as asphalt overlay, seal, etc.

         streets which need major rehabilitation or reconstruction. 
          These roads have deteriorated to the point that maintenance
          is no longer cost-effective and more-major work is required
          to raise the condition to an acceptable level."*

The sample condition survey form of Figure III-4 is a simple tool for
gathering the survey data.  This form assumes the numbering of
sections noted on the previous street inventory form (Figure III-2). 
The pavement condition is identified as one of six levels described on
the form, so that the inspector can refer to the definitions if, for
example, there is some doubt as to whether the pavement is in fair or
poor condition.  Drainage is rated from 1 to 3 in the same fashion,
using qualitatively defined conditions.

*Federal Highway Administration.  Road Surface Management for Local
Governments:   Course Workbook (May, 1985) p.8-1.


Figure 111-4


Street Name & Section Number:                                         
Inspector's Name:                                                     

Pavement Condition: (circle one)

     A. Excellent   Little distress.  New or nearly new pavement.

     B. Good   Significant distress. Treatable with sealing and

     C. Fair   Moderate distress. Deteriorating rapidly.

     D. Poor   Extensive distress. Thin overlay may be ineffective.

     E. Very Poor   Near failure.

     F. Failure     Dangerous. Requires constant repair.

Drainage Conditions:

1.   Good:     Ditches, culverts, inlets clean. Road shoulders slope
               down away from roadway in most places.

2.   Fair:     Ditches, culverts, inlets fairly clean. Road shoulders
               slope down away from roadway in most places.

3.   Poor:     Ditches not clean, culverts and inlets clogged. Road
               shoulders are often higher than the roadway.
Recommended Action (circle one)

Click HERE for graphic.

          Year when this work should take place:                 



The inspector should take advantage of the space provided for comments
to record any observations which might affect the work to be
recommended.  For instance, if the pavement is at condition C and
appears to have deteriorated faster than would be expected due to a
drainage problem, then this should be noted.  In this case a plan for
treating the drainage problem would be an essential part of
maintaining the roadway.

The recommended action is an essential part of the condition survey
and may be inferred from the graph shown on the survey form.  If the
inspector has considerable experience in pavement maintenance, the
recommendation may reflect relevant factors not specified in this
form, such as obvious safety hazards or a poor road base.  These other
factors should be noted as comments.

The year specified for the proposed maintenance or improvements is
important.  The inspector should estimate the best time to perform the
work and, if possible, include a comment about the alternatives.  For
instance, the recommendation might be to resurface (overlay) in year
2, with the comment that if the overlay is not in place within 3
years, reconstruction of the pavement and base will be required.



When the pavement survey is complete and maintenance needs have been
determined, the next step is to rank the recommended maintenance
actions .for specific street segments.
The philosophy of project ranking reflects both the worst-first and
best-first concepts.  Clearly the pavements in the poorest condition
have high priority; these sections cause unnecessary wear and tear to
vehicles are expensive to maintain, and may be hazardous.  Yet, the
best roads, those which are well built and in good condition,
represent an investment ,which should be protected against normal

To satisfy this need to set dual priorities, the worst-first criterion
is applied within each type of maintenance: rehabilitation and
reconstruction. (No priorities are set for routine maintenance,
presumably accomplished within adequate force accounts).  Then, the
best-first criterion is used in the programming stage (STEP 4), to
assure that routine and preventive maintenance is not short-changed in
favor of the more conspicuous reconstruction projects.  A separate
list of prioritized projects will be developed for each type of
maintenance.  The trade-offs between these two categories will be a
matter of policy, set in programming (STEP 4).  Again, routine
maintenance will not be prioritized and should be funded as a group
before any other projects.


Where Pavement condition is the criterion for ranking projects, it is
not necessary to use the scoring formula below. (Go to Step 5!) If a
weighing of projects according to traffic leads is desired, a priority
score will be estimated from survey information on pavement condition,
traffic volume, and truck traffic.  The formula for the priority
score, P, is given as:

          P = PC x (TV + TT)
where     PC = pavement condition 
          TV = traffic volume 
          TT = truck traffic

Notice that this formulation requires that descriptive information
from the survey be translated into numeric values, as shown in Figure
III-5.  An example of the priority listing is shown for rehabilitation
projects in Figure III-6.

The resulting three lists of projects - for routine maintenance,
rehabilitation, and reconstruction - form the basis for the rational
programming of funds in STEP 4.


                   Figure III-5

          Numeric Codes for Survey  Information

                       Survey                       Numeric
                      Description                   Value

Pavement Condition     A  Excellent                   1

                       B  Good                        2

                       C  Fair                        3

                       D  Poor                        4

                       E  Very Poor                   5

                       F  Failure                     6

Traffic Volume      Low                               1

                    Medium                            2

                    High                              3

Truck Traffic       Low                               1

                    Medium                            2

                    High                              3


                            Figure III-6

A Ranked List of Rehabilitation Projects

                    Pavement  Traffic   Truck     Priority
Year Street         Condition Volume    Traffic   Score (P)

1    Main           4         3         2         20

1    Maple          4         2         2         16

1    Washington     3         2         3         15

2    School         4         2         1         12

2    Cross          3         1         2          9

2    Hill           3         1         1          6

3    Woodridge      2         2         1          6

3    Holly          2         1         1          4



Having listed maintenance needs and their relative priorities within
each, type of maintenance project, the time has come to bite the
bullet to decide where to spend the limited funds available and
whether additional funds should be appropriated.

First, the cost of each project must be estimated.  In this planning
stage, approximate unit costs will be sufficient.  Figure III-7 lists
unit costs developed for a pavement management program for Burlington. 
Other examples are provided in the appendix.

Each community should make a short list of unit costs for treatments
used recently in that community.  This will avoid confusion concerning
the procedure being estimated, changing costs over time, and local
price differences.  It may be convenient to specify average unit costs
per mile for specific procedures, such as crack sealing, 1 1/2"
overlay, reconstruction to 12", etc.  These costs are then easily
applied to the road segments measured in STEP I to yield rough
estimates of the project costs.

Project costs will be summed within each maintenance category to
estimate total dollar needs.  Comparison of these dollar needs with
currently available funds will raise the necessary programming
questions such as:
     Can additional funds be allocated to the program?
     Over how many years can this program spread?


Figure III-7

Sample Unit Costs for Proposed Maintenance

                                                              COST PER
TREATMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION                                        YARD

 1. RECONSTRUCT     FULL DEPTH LOCAL STREET                     $ 9.08

 2. RECONSTRUCT     FULL DEPTH, COLLECTOR STREET                 12.49

 3. RECONSTRUCT     FULL DEPTH, ARTERIAL STREET                  16.98

 4. RECONSTRUCT     PAVEMENT RECLAMATION                          8.28


 6. REHABILITATION  1 1/2" OVERLAY                                2.57


 8. REHABILITATION  20% PATCH AND OVERLAY                         5.21

 9. REHABILITATION  COLD Plating AND OVERLAY                      5.57

10.  REHABILITATION CRACK SEAL AND OVERLAY                        2.98


12.  MAINTENANCE    CHIP SEAL WITH CRACK SEAL                     1.27

13.  MAINTENANCE    CRACK SEAL LOW                                0.41

14.  MAINTENANCE    CRACK SEAL HIGH                               1.26

15.  MAINTENANCE    5% PATCH                                      0.66

16.  MAINTENANCE    20% PATCH                                     0.64

17.  MAINTENANCE    PATCH AND SEAL                                0.54

Source:   Vanasse/Hangen Assoc., Pavement Management Plan for
Burlington, MA (May, 1985).


While the first question is never finally answered, a clear
maintenance program will provide the information needed for periodic
budget decisions.

The second question is more technical and must be answered by the
superintendent.  The finance committee will benefit from a
prospective, look at the long term, perhaps ten years.  However,
projections for maintenance after five years or so may be of value
only at the network level'.  Answering these questions will be an
iterative process.

The first round continues with the assignment of funds to each
category.  For instance, the initial policy may be to fund 100 percent
of routine maintenance, 80 percent of rehabilitation work and 40
percent of reconstruction projects in the first year.  The result is
that 20 percent of the rehabilitation work and 60 percent of
reconstruction work must be postponed to the second year.

As projects are assigned, to the work program for the first year, the
second year, and so on, the penalties for postponing work are felt. 
For each of the deferred projects, routine maintenance must be funded
for the current year.  Furthermore, the original recommendation may
require revision.  If,for instance, a street recommended for an
overlay in year I is deferred to year 4, it will most likely require
reconstruction at that point.

If the resulting program promises to maintain the street network at
the current level of service, then the program is complete.  Having
been funded, it is ready for implementation (STEP 5).


If the resulting program indicates that the condition of roads and the
level of service provided will decline on average, over the course of
the program, then the programming process has been invaluable. 
Without it, the current levels of maintenance funding and projects
would have lead to a system of failing roadways. That spells disaster
in economic terms since it may take 4 or 5 times greater expenditures
to rebuild after failure than it would have to rehabilitate only a few
years earlier.  Obviously, this program should be presented to the
mayor or the selectmen together with a second program proposing an
increase in street maintenance funds to maintain the system properly
in the coming years.



The feedback process is important in pavement management.  The first
list of maintenance needs developed by the superintendent must respond
to fiscal limitations.  Then repeated adjustments are required to
achieve the program which will buy the most in terms of long-term
pavement service with the resources the local government has

The approved program will then be implemented.  Further adjustments
may be necessary due to delays in contract work, unforeseen
maintenance problems and so forth.  In any case, the program should be
updated every year or two to reflect both work completed and further
deterioration of pavements.
An essential part of the updating process is keeping good records.  A
street-by-street file for tracking pavement condition and maintenance
actions over the years should include a record for each street segment
(see Figure III-8) Maintenance should be recorded as it is performed. 
Data on pavement conditions can be updated as staff time is available. 
Once the programming process is established, updating the data and
recommendations can be a routine function.


Click HERE for graphic.



Chapter IV


If your community is able to invest more in pavement management and
you are interested in more sophisticated techniques to generate better
answers, this chapter on refinements may be of value to you.  You may
also want to participate in an excellent workshop entitled "Road
Surface Management for Local Governments", sponsored by the Federal
Highway Administration.  This short course is made available at
different locations during the year and the $50 registration includes
a comprehensive reference book on pavement management.*

The basic method presented in Chapter III can be refined in many ways. 
Refinements offered in this chapter include: expanded inventory,
details of pavement condition, drainage problems, economic analysis,
maintenance alternatives, and computerization.

A. Expanded Inventory

In Chapter III a simple form was offered to record

         street name and segment
         end points
         length and width
         total traffic and truck traffic surface type

*For details, contact Mary Vigel at Byrd, Tallamy, McDonald, Lewis
Consultants, (703)698-9780.


Any of several other attributes of the road may be relevant in setting
maintenance priorities, including drainage, traffic capacity and
safety factors.  Figure IV-1 is a sample form to be used in a
comprehensive inventory.

Some of this added information will be used in ranking projects, as
demonstrated in Chapter III.  Each measure is translated into a score
indicating adequacy and then used as a multiplier in the priority
score.  For example, in Chapter III, the formula for priority (P) is
given as

               P = PC x (TV + TT)
     where     PC = pavement condition 
               TV = traffic volume 
               TT = truck traffic

Drainage can also be given a score of 1 to 3 and then the formula
would be

               P = PC x (TV + TT) x D
     where     D = In index of drainage

In this way, any relevant measure of adequacy can be included in the
ranking scheme.


Click HERE for graphic.


Other items on the expanded inventory may be used for other purposes. 
Records of utilities and structure, for instance, are helpful in
determining the most appropriate maintenance and cost, and the
remaining life of the pavement.

Great care should be taken to include any information which will be
important to the program, and, at the same time, to avoid the
collection of data which will not be utilized.

B. Details of Pavement Condition

In many cases it is desirable to go beyond the simple A to F
classification of pavement conditions in order to assure consistency. 
This is especially true if several individuals will be rating
pavement.  A more objective measure can be achieved by rating the
pavement quantitatively on each of several aspects of pavement
condition.  Figure IV-2 offers d sample of distress types commonly
surveyed.  Several excellent catalogues of pavement distress are also
available, as identified in the appendix.  These references provide
both descriptions and photographs of each type of pavement distress or
failure.  In some cases, causes and repair techniques are also

The literature includes three authoritative methods for condition
surveys, each of which is described briefly here.


Click HERE for graphic.


The Asphalt Institute offers the rating form shown in Figure IV-3.
Thirteen different types of distress are evaluated, rating each on a
scale of 0 to 5 or 0 to 10.  This technique is easy to use, but still
somewhat subjective.  And it assumes that each type of distress should
be weighted the safe in every situation.  For example, shoving and
pushing are always responsible for 10 percent of the overall condition

The Federal Highway Administration offers the rating form shown in
Figure IV-4. This method assesses eight different forms of distress
and overall riding quality.  Each distress is identified as slight,
moderate, or severe; the affected area is estimated as a percentage of
total area.  This approach is far more objective than others but
requires more survey time as well.  Furthermore, the scoring key to
translate this data into a distress condition rating is not
established (a sample is provided).

The Army Corps of Engineers developed the survey form shown in Figure
IV-5.  This method uses physical measurements of nineteen types of
distress at low, medium and high severity.  This method requires the
greatest amount of data collection and offers the most precision of
the three described here.  It has been adopted and computerized by the
American Public Works Association and is offered to member communities
on a time-sharing basis at cost.


Click HERE for graphic.


Click HERE for graphic.


Click HERE for graphic.


Figure IV-6 offers a comparison of the three methods just described. 
One of the attributes shown is roughness (or rideability). 
Rideability is a measure of riding comfort and is measured
subjectively on a scale from 0 to 5.  Roughness is a corresponding
mechanical measure, using a wheel suspension device.

Other mechanical devices may also be used for greater precision in
measurement, such as the Benkelman Beam and, deflection meters. (See

Automation of the road survey is also possible through the use of a
computerized van with optical or laser scanning capabilities (See

Most communities will begin with visual surveys of distress, possibly
taking advantage of the methods provided by the Asphalt Institute,
U.S. Department of Transportation, or American Public Works
Association.  Mechanical and automated methods may be more appropriate
to larger networks, where the expense of such techniques is spread
over more miles and the advantages of standardization are greatest.

Many other methods are available through the literature, engineering
consultants, and computer software vendors (see section E, below). A
review of these resources is recommended before beginning an elaborate
pavement management system.


Click HERE for graphic.


C. Maintenance Alternatives

The most appropriate maintenance and the timing of the work are both
critical in maximizing cost-effectiveness.

The highway superintendent is no doubt aware there are many pavement
treatment options available.  Figure IV-7 lists several of these
together with comments on their performance.  Although it is practical
to work with just a few of these in any one community, there should be
a continued effort to evaluate their performance and the potential of
alternative treatments.

Timing of maintenance treatments is critical, as is demonstrated by
Figure IV-8.  Notice that routine maintenance and preventive
maintenance are appropriate on the most comfortable part of the curve,
where the pavement is still in good condition.  When the pavement
begins to deteriorate more quickly, rehabilitation or even
reconstruction will be required.

In order to develop systematic assignment of treatment, cost and value
for elements of the street network, it is convenient to describe the
menu of maintenance treatments in the five categories shown in the
figure and described below. (The following is an excerpt from Road
Surface Management for Local Governments).


                         Figure IV-7
                    Maintenance Alternatives

Treatment                     Comments on Performance

Sand Seal                     Generally this is the lowest initial
                              cost type of seal coating application.
     About 3/16" thick        It seals only and does not add
     18 to 25 lb./sq. yd.     structural strength, does not level,
                              smooth or correct crown significantly
                              unless preleveling is done first. The
                              average service life is 3-6 years. The
                              main advantage is that it can be done
                              with local labor and sometimes
                              aggregate.  Castings are not generally
                              adjusted.  Application is dusty and best
                              restricted to low volume low speed
Slurry Seal Coat              Moderate to higher initial cost
                              application due to full contract 
     Single 1/8" thick =      required.  Main advantage quicker,
     12 lb/sq. yd.            neater, application.  Castings generally
                              do not need adjustment; should be  
     Double 1/4" thick =      applied in good, low humidity 
     25 lb/sq. yd.            weather.  Average life, single
     (A specialty contractor  application life, 3-5 years, double
     must apply it.)          application 5-8 years.  Provides smooth,
                              tight surface similar to hot mix.  Good
                              for low and moderate volume roads, not
                              recommended for high speed roads.

Aggregate or Chip Seals            Low to moderate initial cost
                                   depending on local
     3/8" thick                    labor and aggregate sources. 
     3/8" to 1/2" Chips =          Castings generally are not
     33 to 45 lb/sq. yd.           adjusted. A good chip seal         
     1/14" thick uses 3/16"        provides excellent skid resistance
     to 5/16" chips, 25 to         and can provide attractive color by 
     35 lb./sq. yd.                choice of stone.  The average life
                                   is 5 to 8 years. Exceptionally good
                                   ones yd. have gone must longer. 
                                   The 3/8" - 1/2" chip seal is the
                                   most common seal coat treatment
                                   used in New England.
Hot Mix                            The higher cost thin hot mix  
     High quality, thoroughly      overlays (less than 1" thick) are 
     controlled hot mixture        also considered as sealing
     of asphalt cement and         treatments primarily and not 
     well-graded, high quality     structural improvements.  They also
     aggregate, thoroughly         smooth the surface quite a bit. 
     compacted in to a uniform     Very rough surfaces need to be
     dense mass.                   pre-leveled or mix will apply
                                   poorly and mat will have to be
                                   thickened.  Thinner treatments used
                                   on lower volume roads in better
                                   shape, thicker treatments on higher
                                   volume roads and rougher surfaces. 
                                   Multiple treatments if applied
Thin hot mix overlay
  1/2" to 1" for	40

     sealing and ride improve-          in timely stages can add
     ment.  Little structural           strength. Care must be taken;
     improvement under 1",              these relatively stiff
     55 to 110 yd squared is            treatments are not put on
     general coverage for 1/2"          roads that are in need of
     to I" thickness.                   significant structural up-
                                        grading as large deflections
                                        will cause the surface to
                                        crack.  The average life is 6-
                                        12 years.

Thick Hot Mix                      The 1-1/2" - 2" overlay not only 
     1 1/2" - 2" thick =           seals but adds significant
     Structural overlay            structural capacity
     and also seals.               (depending on existing thickness). 
     Probably the most common      It seals, smooths the ride and
     rehabilitation treatment      corrects crown and drainage
     used in New England. 1-1/2"   features substantially.
     to 2" of Hot Mix 165 lbs/sq.  Extra rough roads may require pre-
     yd. to 220 lbs./sq. yd.       leveling in applying a 1-1/2" over-
                                   lay.  It is the highest form of
                                   maintenance and upgrading treatment
                                   for low volume roads and is the
                                   most expensive of treatments listed
                                   here.  Average life is 15-20 years
                                   on high volume roads, longer on
                                   lower volume roads.

Cold Mix Defined:
     Asphalt mixes that use liqui- Due to the fact Cold-mixes use     
     fied cutback and emulsified   cutbacks or emulsions, they are
     asphalts so they can be       not considered as high as a type
     mixed cold, either through a  pavement material as Hot-Mix
     plant or on the grade using   asphalt concrete.  Cold-Mix
     graders or travel mixers are  durability, in particular,
     often called maintenance mix, its ability to seal, (most cold-mix
     stockpile mix, cold-mix or a  can be used to level or strengthen)
     combination of all three.     is difficult to predict as
     Cold mix is less costly than  precisely as hot-mix.  Most Cold-
     hot mix as local labor and    mix is sealed with a seal coat
     aggregate can be used.        before or immediately
     Requires substantial material following one winter.  Exceptions 
     knowledge and handling exper- exist and local experience and
     tise to use successfully.     practice must be consulted. 

     Cold Mix Overlays and Main- 
     tenance applications.
     Usage and quantity appli- 
     cations similar to hot mix
     applications noted above,
     except it is not recommended
     to use cold mix in thin layers
     as an exposed surface course.

*Source: The Asphalt Institute (informal presentation).


Click HERE for graphic.


Routine Maintenance - For roads in reasonably good condition, routine
maintenance is generally the most cost-effective use of funds.  If at
all possible, all routine maintenance needs should be funded each
year.  Routine maintenance usually includes local patching, crack
sealing, and other relatively low-cost actions.  Distresses such as
isolated medium or high severity bumps or potholes that may have a
considerable negative impact on the performance of a section are
usually corrected first.

Preventive Maintenance - This strategy is a more expensive activity
designed to arrest deterioration before it becomes a serious problem. 
Surface seals are excellent examples of preventive maintenance.  A
common source of poor performance of seals is adequate repair of
existing distress before sealing, so extensive repair work may also be
included in preventive maintenance.  Repair and seal needs will
probably have to be programmed over several years in order of priority
because of the expense.  Routine maintenance should be performed on
those sections that are not programmed for the current budget year.

Deferred Action - The road sections which fall into this category
receive minimum funds for the current budget year.  These sections are
beyond the point where preventive maintenance will be effective but
have not yet deteriorated to the point of needing rehabilitation. 
Selecting this strategy is deferring action, so an agency must be
prepared to fund rehabilitation or reconstruction when it becomes
necessary.  This strategy is normally not appropriate for aggregate
surfaced roads.

Rehabilitation - Rehabilitation usually includes overlays or extensive
recycling.  Funding for completion of these major projects may depend
upon federal or other outside sources.  The established priorities
should be followed if possible, although managers should realize that
priorities may change for a variety of reasons.  For example,
estimates for a particular job may exceed available funds,
insurmountable administrative.restrictions on funds may exist, or very
valid political reasons to change priorities may occur.  Sections that
fall into this strategy category that are not programmed for the
current budget year should fall into the deferred action strategy.

Reconstruction - The comments on rehabilitation projects also apply to
reconstruction projects.  The main difference is in the costs that
might be expected.  Reconstruction would involve complete removal and
replacement of a failed pavement and might also involve features other
than just pavement such as widening, realignment, traffic control
devices, safety hardware, and major drainage work.  Lead times of five
to ten years might be required because of the significant - nature of
required investments and the time necessary to develop plans, acquire
right-of-way, and other funding.


It should be noted that there is considerable overlap of possible
strategies on the performance curve.  In the example shown, there are
two or three possible strategies for any point in the mid-range of
pavement conditions.  This is a very realistic approach because the
deterioration of pavements is a gradual process.  A small change will
not usually make one strategy preferable over another.

The following priority groups should constitute the program developed
from these five treatment strategies:

A.   Routine Maintenance (It is probably not worthwhile to determine
     priorities but rather just list sections in this strategy.)

B.   Preventive Maintenance Priority Group I Priority Group 2 Priority
     Group 3

C.   Deferred Action No priorities are necessary, just a list of

D.   Rehabilitation
          Priority Group 1
          Priority Group 2
          Priority Group 3

E.   Reconstruction
          Priority Group 1
          Priority Group 2
          Priority Group 3"*

* Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Road Surface Management for


D. Economic Analysis

Economic analysis is a powerful technique for the objective evaluation
of alternatives.  In pavement management it can be used to establish
the most cost-effective maintenance treatments and also to compare the
relative priority (value) of alternative projects.

Measuring a variety of factors by a common unit (the dollar), makes
possible an objective, quantitative comparison of treatments, projects
and schedule alternatives.  Table IV-9 shows some of the factors to be

Unfortunately, these comparisons require a number of assumptions about
the future value of today's dollar, the expected life of capital, the
value of time, etc.

A summary of the methods often used in economic analysis is included
in the appendix.  These techniques are especially appropriate to large
systems, where the savings from a complete analysis make the added
complexity worthwhile.


Table  IV-9
          Agency Costs                  User Costs

         Initial capital costs of          Travel time
                                            Vehicle operation and
         Future capital costs of
          construction or                   Accident costs
         Future maintenance costs 
                                            Time delay and vehicle
         Residual or salvage value at       cost during
          the end of the analysis            construction and
          maintenance                        operations
          period (which may be a        
          "negative cost").

         Engineering and administrative

         Cost of investments, or discount

          Source:   Road Surface Management for Local Communities:
                    Course Workbook (U.S. Department of Transportation
                    Federal Highway Administration, May 1985).


E. Computerization

If the superintendent has access to a personal computer, or may in the
future, it is worthwhile to think about using it for pavement
management.  The programming process involves repetitious sorting and
arithmetic.  Once the process is set up, the computer makes revisions
and updates a simple matter.

There are really two options available.  The first is to use commonly
available spreadsheet software to manipulate the data as described in
this and the previous chapter.  The second is to use software
specifically designed for pavement management.  Both are very

Table IV-10 shows a list of popular spreadsheets.  Most of these
software packages are priced between $100 and $500.  Each has a broad
range of applications and, if your community has a personal computer,
one of these spreadsheets is probably on it.

The spreadsheet is, basically, a large table with rows and columns of
cells.  The computer user may place a number, a label, or a formula in
each cell.  If the cell entry is a formula, it is defined as a
function of the current values in certain other cells.  The magic of
the spreadsheet is that it calculates new values for the function as
the input values of the table change.


Table IV-10

Popular Spreadsheets

     IBM XT or PC or PC Jr.             LOTUS 1-2-3
     AT&T                               MULTI PLAN
                                        PFF PLAN
                                        SIMPLE CALC
                                        SMART MGR
                                        FRAMEWORK 2

     APPLE 2C or 2E                     FLASH CALK

     COMPAQ                             LOTUS 1-2-3
                                        MULTI PLAN

     MACINTOSH                          JAZZ
                                        SYMPHONY (HAS BUGS)

     SOURCE:   Computer City Sears Business Systems


Figure IV-11 shows a short example of a pavement management
spreadsheet.  Each row corresponds to a street segment and each column
to data or results of the program.  A key at the bottom indicates the
meanings of the codes for surface type, traffic, etc.  Once the data
is entered, as shown here, unit costs for each type of maintenance can
be entered for the six traffic/treatment categories and assigned
automatically to street segments.  The computer can then multiply
these unit costs by street length to derive project costs.

The remainder of the programming could be very time-consuming by hand,
but is trivial on the computer.  Projects can be sorted by year of
treatment, by surface type, by treatment, or whatever.  And, if some
projects must be deferred to a later year, then the entire process can
be repeated easily after the recommended treatment and year are

The second option for computers is to use a data-base manager tailored
to the pavement management process.  Table IV-12 lists the pavement
management software encountered in,our review.  These are powerful
programs capable of handling large data bases and producing useful
statistics and graphics.


Figure IV-11             Sample of Pavement Management Spreadsheet

Pavement Management Survey
cem 07-10-85

STREET    SURFACE            RECOMMENDED                    UNIT TOTAL
Monument   1   0.41    30     3         3         2      4
Linden St. 1   0.07    28     1         2         2      1
Rubbly Rd. 1   0.28    26     1         2         1      1
Hill Top   1   0.70    25     2         1         2      1
Bruce Lane 1   0.16    30     1         4         1      7
Porter St. 1   0.43    20     2         2         1      4
Grapevine  1   0.61    24     3         4         1      3

     Surface                  Recommended Treatment    Condition
     1. Bituminous Pavement   1. Resurface             1. F Failure
     2. Aggregate             2. Reconstruct           2. E Very Poor
                                                       3. D Poor
                                                       4. C Fair      
                                                       5. B Good
                                                       6. A Excellent
     Traffic                            Unit Costs (per mile)    
     1. Low                        Resurfacing    Reconstruction      
     2. Medium           Low Traffic    $39,000   $ 98,000            
     3. High             Medium Traffic $66,000   $109,000            
                         Heavy Traffic  $86,000   $129,000


Click HERE for graphic.


			    Chapter V

			   Case Studies

This chapter reviews the work of communities like yours in pavement
Management.  These communities, varying considerably in their needs,
resources and methods, may help you to see how you should adapt the
methods of Chapters III and IV to your own situation.

The basic five steps described in this manual (street inventory,
pavement condition survey, project ranking, programming and
implementation, and record-keeping) were used by each community in
some modified way to suit their immediate needs.  Maintenance
techniques ranged from patch and seal, overlay and rehabilitation to
major reconstruction and recycling.  The programs developed ranged
from three years to fifteen years - and from street by street work
schedules to strategy recommendations.  Some were done with a simple
data base collected and analyzed in-house; and others had the benefit
of consultant services.  Every one, however, resulted in an assessment
of pavement maintenance needs which clarified the position of the Town
with respect to required expenditures.

A.   Medfield: Unpublished Work of Kenneth Feeney, Robert Kennedy, and
          Peter Kennedy (March 1986).

     The Town of Medfield has 169 roads and 70 miles of pavement.-
Superintendent of Public Works, Ken Feeney, maintains a five year
program for roadway projects, at the request of the finance committee. 
Recently, the program had been funded-at about $50,000 per year.
unfortunately, road maintenance needs are not being met at this level.


Many projects on the five year list just don't get done because more
urgent ones come up.  Mr. Feeney's goals, then were to document
pavement conditions on a town-wide basis and to refine estimates of
needed maintenance expenditures for a more solid pavement maintenance

Mr. Feeney came to this point at a time when MAPC was developing the
draft of this manual.  He indicated that the procedures they would use
should be simple, in order that the could be completed without a
computer and within the time and expertise available to his staff. 
The methods presented in Chapter III of this manual suited his
department well.

A staff group of three began with the road survey form shown as Figure
V-1.  Road length, width, and surface type were taken from the MDPW
Road Inventory File, which Medfield had obtained from the MDPW
district office.  The staff went out on the road with the survey form
to determine pavement condition and comment on the type of maintenance
that appeared to be needed.  The highway foreman, Bob Kennedy, sat
with the members of the survey team during this process to review
their findings - making sure that the assessments of the different
surveyors were consistent and that the maintenance indicated was
appropriate.  This process took about four person-weeks.

Compilation of this data and development of the maintenance program
was accomplished with another two person-weeks.  The surface area of


Click HERE for graphic.


each roadway was estimated (in square yards) from the length and
width.  Estimated unit cost for each maintenance treatment was taken,
for convenience, from the Burlington management plan (see Figure III-
4, page 15).  Then projects were assigned by year according to
pavement condition and, in some cases, proximity to other projects.

Figure V-2 shows the program for the first year.  Three of the
projects are relatively expensive and are considered capital projects. 
High Street will be funded by Chapter 90 and is expected to come in
under the $283,000 indicated.  North Meadows will use most of the
remaining Chapter 90 funds.  Rocky Lane, part of an ongoing program to
pave gravel roads, will get additional gravel and crushed bank with a
binder this year, for about $22,000 from the Town's capital budget.

For fiscal year 1986, Mr. Feeney requested $60,000 for stone-sealing
of subdivisions and was granted $20,000.  High Street and North
Meadows (both part of Route 27) will spend most of the Chapter 90
funds for the last five years or so.  At this point, the Town is
deferring and accumulating maintenance work,.

Next year, the town will have this maintenance plan, and can decide
forthrightly whether to increase road maintenance or watch the road
system decay.


                                          Cost per  Sq. Yd. Total
Street Name    Year Treatment Type        Yard      of St.  Cost       
Carol An Dr.   1    Chip Seal w/Crack Seal 11.27     2135    2,711
Emerson Rd.    1    5% Patch Seal/Chip Seal 1.93     5799   11,095
Erik Rd.       1    Chip Seal w/Crack Seal  1.27     2957    3,755
Flint Locke Rd.1    Chip Seal w/Crack Seal  1.27    11909   14,290
Jones Ave.     1    Patch and Seal           .54     1549      836
Kenney Rd.     1    Chip Seal w/Crack Seal  1.27     6078    7,719
Lantern La.    1    Chip Seal w/Crack Seal  1.2      3614    4,589
Orchard St.    1  5% Patch/Crack & Chip Seal 1.93    7509   14,492
Tomarack Rd.   1    Chip Seal w/Crack Seal  1.27     3942    5,006
West Mill St.  1    Patch and Seal           .54     8730    4,714
West           1    Patch and Seal           .54    27925   15,079
Wilson St.     1    Chip Seal w/Crack Seal  1.27     1690    2,146

Capital Projects:
High St.       1    Crack Seal & Overlay    2.89    98100   283,509
North Meadows  1    Crack Seal & Overlay    2.89    56230   162,527
Rocky La.      1    Gravel & Binder         3.74     5880    22,000


B. Garrity, K.J., Pavement Evaluation Report: Town of Holliston

Holliston (population 13,000) has 197 accepted public streets - 79
miles, all but 1.7 miles of which is paved.  In 1973, the Town
maintained about 70 miles of pavement; but between 1973 and 1983, only
18 miles of that received significant maintenance efforts in the form
of overlays or seals, 52 miles of the network received only emergency
maintenance such as spot patching during that period.  Frustrated by a
lack of funds to properly maintain the roads, then superintendent Ken
Garrity took the initiative and undertook a pavement evaluation which
has provided an example for several communities since then.

The Asphalt Institute rating form was used to rate each of 217 road
segments (see Figure V-3).  A second form, on index cards (shown in
Figure V-4) was used to record available information on the structure,
maintenance history, traffic, utilities and more.  These cards
summarize the significant qualities of each road section for use in
forming the maintenance program.  They will also be used for future
records of maintenance and road conditions,

The result of the pavement evaluation was summarized as shown in
Figure V-5.  This work demonstrated that the majority of the town's
roads had deteriorated beyond the point where normal maintenance
procedures would be effective.  Furthermore, many of the road sections
were old aggregate layered with binder and seal coats rather than high


Click HERE for graphic.


Click HERE for graphic.


Figure V-5
Holliston: Pavement Evaluation Summary

Category A and B streets, about 9 miles total, are in good condition. 
A crack repair program was begun in 1983 and a sealing program will be
established in 1984.  Continued good maintenance practice will save
these streets.

Category C streets, about 11-1/2 miles total, are in fair condition. 
Some can be left lone for awhile, many are at the point where an
overlay or combination of waterproof membrane and overlay should be
performed now, or rapid deterioration will occur, putting them into
Category D.

Category D streets, totalling 27 miles, are about to fail.  Major
pothole problems will occur soon.  Overlays or reconstruction methods
should be done now.  Reconstruction could involve removal of existing
pavement and replacement with 4" of new bituminous concrete or
recycling of existing pavement in place with 2" to 3" of new
bituminous concrete.  Specific solutions for each section will have to
be examined in more detail as a program is developed.

Category E streets, Totalling 15-1/2 miles, are still serviceable, but
are near total failure.  Reconstruction or total replacement is

Category F streets, about 8 miles, have failed extensively.  Unpaved
streets are also included.  Base failure is widespread. 
Reconstruction methods probably would involve total replacement. 
Since doing nothing will not cause continued deterioration, only
emergency repairs are recommended.  The specific rehabilitation
program will focus on the Category C, D, and E streets.  Priorities
will be established to assure that Holliston realizes the greatest
possible benefit from its expenditures.  Continued acceleration and
improvement of the annual maintenance program will also be required.


quality base and bituminous top.  Therefore the emphasis of the
proposed program was on reconstruction projects.

It was assumed that streets in Categories A and B (good condition)
would be within the annual maintenance budget.  In addition, Category
F streets, having failed completely, would be put off with preference
given to roads worth saving.  The following costs were assumed:

Category  Miles     Work          Cost/Mile                 Total Cost
C         11.5      Overlay        $100,000.00         $1,150,000.00
D         27        Reconstruct     250,000.00          6,750,000.00
E         15.5      Major Reconstruct 300,000.00        4,650,000.00
                                   Total              $12,550,000.00

The study recommended a five year program to rehabilitate 50 percent
of the town's deteriorated streets at a cost of approximately $6
million.  A concurrent increase in annual maintenance was also
recommended to properly care for the rehabilitated streets.


 C.  Vanasse/Hangen Associates, Inc. and Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy
and Stratton, Pavement Management Plan: Burlington, Massachusetts
(May, 1985).

Like many of the communities in the Commonwealth, the Town of
Burlington is experiencing roadway maintenance problems which have
been aggravated by increased traffic and a reduction in local

With a population of 23,000, over 100 road miles and a limited highway
staff of four, the Town of Burlington chose to hire a consultant to
devise a ten year program.  Vanasse/Hangen Associates, Inc. and
Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy and Stratton were the consultants.

The roadway inventory sheet, shown as Figure V-6, was used to
establish an inventory of roadways and document pavement conditions. 
This form is detailed, with sidewalks, curbing and underground
utilities included.

A numerical scale was used for pavement condition rating.  Eleven
types of pavement distress were scored from.0 to 5 or 0 to 10, and
then summed to yield an overall score of 0 to 100.  An A rating is
equivalent to a range of 85 to 100 (excellent condition), and F is
equivalent to a range of 0 to 25 (failure).  The survey documented a
median pavement condition rating of 69, as shown in Figure V-7.  Most
roads were in fair to good condition, scoring between 60 and 80.

Click HERE for graphic.

Click HERE for graphic.

Maintenance alternatives were identified in three groups: full
reconstruction, pavement rehabilitation and pavement maintenance. 
Each alternative was considered with respect to appropriate use and
cost.  The consultants' report is a valuable resource for this

An extensive data base, loaded on newly developed software, includes
condition ratings, pavement thickness, underground utilities, traffic
levels, And historical records.  This information was used in
recommending the most appropriate maintenance treatment.

Once a pavement condition rating was calculated for each street link,
the 437 links were sorted by functional classification.  Roadways
carrying similar levels and similar types of traffic were thus grouped
together.  Within each group roadways were ranked in order of
increasing pavement condition ratings so that the worst condition
pavement received first priority within each group.

The final program incorporated other factors, including ongoing
utility work, specific priorities indicated by town officials and
local residents, and anticipated growth patterns.  Funding under state
and local programs was a determining factor in the ten year program as
well.  And, finally the program was designed to provide at least one
treatment to each street, during the ten year period.


The recommended program is summarized in terms of expenditures in
Figure V-8.

D.   Desrosiers, C., Marshfield Board of Public Works: Preliminary
Review of Private Roads (December 8, 1985).

Due to the deteriorating condition of many private roads in the town,
citizens in Marshfield, in growing numbers, have asked the Board of
Public Works to provide routine maintenance and repair on these
private roads.

The Town of Marshfield includes 150 miles of roads, 50 of which are
private ways.  Marshfield has a population of 22,000 and a highway
staff of three.

State law and town bylaws indicate that emergency repairs will be made
to private roads but not construction or routine maintenance.  The DPW
therefore conducted a preliminary review of private roads to determine
the costs of upgrading these roads to acceptable condition and/or
providing routine maintenance.

A street inventory including length, width, and type of surface, was
prepared.  The survey also noted pavement condition and indicators of
traffic levels.  The factors used to score the roads are simple and
effective.  See Figure V-9 for the list and definitions.  A sample of


Click HERE for graphic.

Figure V-9,
Marshfield: Survey Factors


Each person conducting the survey was given a checklist to fill out. 
The following observations were to be recorded for each road.  In some
cases it was necessary to evaluate segments of a road due to the fact
that part of its length had a treated surface and part was dirt or

1)   Street Name
2)   From and To - Identify road (connecting streets) found at its
     start and end (if any).
3)   Length - Record odometer reading to nearest 1/10 mile.
4)   Width - Pace the width of the travelled way and record to the
     nearest "yard".  For lengthy roads, several sections should be
     paced to determine an average width.
5)   Road Surface - Identify dirt or gravel roads as "dirt" and
     treated or paved roads as "treated".  Provide items 1 to 4 above
     for each surface type on each road.
6)   Housing Factor - Use the following factors for various housing
     1)   Fifteen houses or less
     2)   More than 15 but not exceeding 30
     3)   More than 30 but not exceeding 45
     4)   More than 45
7)   Artery Factor - Identify the road using one of the following
     1)   Minor Residential - Road provides access to houses primarily
          on that street.
     2)   Residential Collector - Road feeds into "subdivision"
          providing primary access to houses on other streets.
     3)   Through Connector - Road serves as primary connector between
          two major roads.
8) Surface Factor - Identify the road surface condition using the
following factors:
     1)   Very Good - Road surface generally smooth, can travel at
          legal speed without damage or loss of control.
     2)   Good - Road surface somewhat rough, can travel at legal
          speed with moderate care.
     3)   Fair - Road surface rough in many locations, can travel at
          slightly below legal speed with moderate care.
     4)   Poor - Road surface rough in many locations, can travel only
          at speeds substantially below legal limit.
     5)   Very Poor - Road surface very rough throughout, travel on
          road must be very slow and erratic to avoid damage or loss
          of control.


the survey results is shown in Figure V-10.  The condition of the
roads is summarized in Figure V-11.

This summary was used to evaluate three options for maintenance of
private roads.  The first option was to provide only emergency
maintenance.  Cost estimates for this option reflected the frequency
of repair work to an otherwise unmaintained road.  The second option
was to repair and maintain all private roads open to the public.  Cost
estimates for this option reflected the combined cost of upgrading and
then properly maintaining the improved roads.  The third option was to
accept these roads which the town finds acceptable, and provide
maintenance thereafter.

Having made these comparisons, the study concluded that the first two
options would place an' inordinate burden on the Town, which does not
own these roads and has minimal responsibility for their maintenance. 
The recommendation, then, was that the Town stand ready to accept
private roads within the criteria of the highway department.  It was
noted that 57 streets are likely candidates without improvements.

E.   Metropolitan Area Planning Council, A Pavement Management Program
for the Town of Wenham, Draft (February 1986).

     Wenham has many wetlands (swamps), brooks and springs which make
     pavements subject to rapid deterioration, particularly with thin


                              Figure V-10
                 Marshfield:  Survey Results (sample)

                    GRAVEL         OR PAVED          ROADS

     VERY POOR      27%             5%            13%

     POOR           40%            18%            27%

     FAIR           18%            12%            14%

     GOOD           14%            23%            20%

     VERY GOOD       1%            42%            26%

     TOTAL          100%           100%           100%

    	     14.6 MILES ARE DIRT, 27.9 ARE TREATED

Click HERE for graphic.

resurfacing (less than 3/4") on many of the old pavements.  Many of
the pavements had considerable edge failures and poor shoulders.  A
butters experience driveway apron disintegration and basement

Wenham has a population of 4,000, a highway staff of six and twenty-
eight road miles.  A consultant was hired to evaluate the present
status of the roads, develop a fifteen year plan and estimate cost per
mile for rehabilitation and resurfacing.  The MAPC has documented the
results of the consultant's findings in a report entitled:  A Pavement
Management Program for the Town of Wenham.

Wenham's pavement management techniques are similar to those of this
manual.  A street inventory based on the consultant survey and the
Massachusetts Department of Public Works was established (Figure V-
12).  Field survey sheets completed for this survey were fairly
detailed. (See Figure V-13.) Suggested remedial action (rehabilitation
or resurfacing) and year of action based on Average Daily Traffic and
pavement condition were incorporated into Figure V-14 based on the
consultant's findings.  Since the Town of Wenham did not have good
maintenance records, MAPC recommended that good record-keeping should
be part of Wenham's maintenance program.  Thus far, three streets have
experienced rehabilitation and resurfacing.  Almost a year after
initial recommendations were received, Peter Burnham (Superintendent
of Streets) reports Wenham is reasonably on schedule with the fifteen
year plan.


Click HERE for graphic.

Figure V-13
Wenham:Field Sheet for Pavement Condition Survey

                                   TOWN or City:         
Streets        Ave.      Length    Traffic   Condition      Last
               Width     Miles     Class.    Rating         Maint.

Present pave:______________________   Thickness:___________________                    

Recommended speed limit:________ Safety:___________________________                              

Grades & Contours:_________________________________________________                                                    


Base & subgrade:__________________________________________________                                                       
No. of catch basins:___________ New catch basins required:_________      

Bridges & culverts:_______________________________________________                                                   

Water tables:_____________________________________________________                                                         

Rehabilitation ft:___________________Resurfacing ft:______________                 

Wetlands, ft.__________  Type of area:____________________________                                   
Guard rails, ft: Present:____________Required:____________________                          

Traffic lines:___________________________________________________                                                         


Riding quality:__________________________________________________                                                        

Source: Nathan Wiseblood, P.E., Hopkinton, MA


Click HERE for graphic.


          A.   Economic Analysis

          B.   Sample Unit Costs for Maintenance

          C.   Useful References

          D.   Bibliography





The following is an excerpt from Federal Highway Administration's 

Road Surface Management for Local Governments: Course Workbook.

     Economic Analysis

     Economic analysis is a decision-making tool having two basic
applications.  Economic analysis provides a method of evaluating
alternatives using a common unit of measurement.  Economic analysis
also allows independent projects to be compared for the purposes of
aiding in priority selection and allocation of resources.  Since
public agencies do not have profitability as a primary mission.
economic analysis should be used only as a tool.  It does not by
itself determine the final decision.  There may be any number of other
factors to consider when evaluating alternatives that cannot be
quantified in terms of dollars.
     Exhibit 10-1 is a list of the types of factors that might be
considered in an economic analysis of roadway surface maintenance and
rehabilitation strategies.
     Although economic analysis is independent of how a highway
project is to be financed by whom, and when; it should be recognized
that money has a time value.  If $1 can be invested today at a 6
percent annual rate it will be

                                 Exhibit 10-1
                          ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FACTORS

          Agency Costs                         User Costs

    Initial capital costs of            Travel time
                                         Vehicle operation and maintenance

    Future capital costs of             Accident costs
      construction or rehabilitation

   Future-capital costs of
     construction or rehabilitation      Accident               

   Future maintenance costs             Discomfort

   Residual or salvage value at         Time delay and vehicle
     the end of                            cost during
     the analysis                          construction and    
     period (which may be a                maintenance         
       "negative cost").                   operations

   Engineering and administrative
   Cost of investments, or discount


worth $1.06 a year from now.  In other words. the present worth of the
$1.06 to be received next year is $1.00. The present worth of any
amount of money due in the future is calculated by a process known as
     The discounting process is important in economic analysis because
it translates future values to present values.  If the total cost of
owning an asset is its initial cost and all subsequent costs. the
future costs must first be discounted to present value before they are
combined with initial cost to obtain the total cost.  It would be
erroneous to ignore the effect of timing on future costs and merely
add them to initial cost.  All economic analysis should be performed
in terms of compatible dollars (dollars dated at the same point In
time or period of time).

     First Cost Analysis - The most common type of economic analysis
is the least sophisticated.  This is a first-cost analysis. which
normally includes only the initial capital costs.  First-cost analyses
can be performed on a regular basis when considering routine
decisions.  When performing first-cost analysis, every effort should
be made to include all costs.  Administrative costs; design fees; in-
house equipment, labor and materials; and estimated contract costs are
all appropriate for a first-cost analysis.

     First-cost analyses should not ignore performance and life
expectancy.  Attempts should be made to insure that alternatives
selected for analysis will perform equally for the same time period. 
If equal performance is not expected. then that fact should be made
known to the decision maker as another factor to consider in addition
to the first-cost analysis.  One approach might be to list all the
foreseeable differences in life expectancy. maintenance costs, and
future rehabilitation needs, with a discussion on each item.

     A first-cost analysis does not attempt to place a dollar estimate
on the effects current decisions will have on future expenditures. 
Highway agency funding is usually inadequate to meet all maintenance
needs of the agency and it makes lower first cost especially
attractive.  For these reasons. first cost analysis can be very
misleading.  Choosing the lowest cost alternative which increases
annual maintenance costs may be a short term solution and may increase
the financial burden in future years.

     Life-Cycle Cost Analysis - Life-cycle cost analysis considers the
costs to the agency throughout the life of the projects under
consideration.  These costs include yearly maintenance costs. the data
and amount of future investments, and comparison of alternatives with
different economic lives.  Since the value of money changes with time,
discount rates must be used in life-cycle cost analysis in order to
combine future costs with initial costs.  When dealing with discount
rates it is important to remember that economic analysis is
independent of how a project is to be financed, by whom, and when. 
The discount rate is simply a device used to allow present and future
costs to be compared.


     Primary factors to be considered in a life-cycle cost analysis

         Present costs for replacement or rehabilitation

         Annual maintenance costs

         Future increases to maintenance costs due to deterioration

         Future rehabilitation costs

         Analysis period

         Discount rate

     The value of the discount rate used in the analysis can be a
major factor in the outcome. At first glance it may be disturbing to
realize that the value assumed for the discount rate can influence the
outcome of the analysis.  However, this fact really increases the
usefulness of life-cycle-costing because it forces an organization to
place values on present and future investments, and therefore, to make
more rational decisions.  If a high value is placed on the cost of
money (discount rates), investments will tend to be deferred but an
agency must then be prepared to make the necessary future investments. 
Low values on the cost of money will tend to result in more immediate
capital investments.

     There are two philosophies about selecting the discount rates to
use, with differences primarily in the handling of inflation.  Some
argue that the effect of inflation is extremely important and must be
considered.  Although future inflation rates are very difficult to
forecast, the potential must be taken into account.  This can be done
by assuming an inflation rate and applying it to future costs, then
discounting those costs with an,interest rate close to the current
market rate.  Another way to account for Inflation is to subtract the
inflation rate out of the current interest rate leaving a discount
rate s at lower than the current interest rate to use in the
computation.  Then, future costs can be estimated using current
dollars. and discounted at the adjusted interest rate, say four

     The counter philosophy is that public spending takes money out of
private hands, which values that money at the current rate. regardless
of the influence of inflation.  If public agencies cannot use the
money as productively as private interests. it should not be spent. 
Since future costs will be funded with future dollars and tax revenues
have generally kept pace with inflation, inflation can be ignored. 
Also, inflation is fueled by large public expenditures, which are
frequently the result of comparing large public present-day
expenditures with planned future expenditures at below market discount
rates.  This approach, then, would select a higher discount rate, say
2 to 4 percent below the current market rate.  High discount rates
tend to favor future expenditures.


Both arguments have valid points and should be considered by decision
makers.  For this reason an analysis should discount future
expenditures at both a high and a low rate.  If any alternative should
come out best (or worst) in both cases then it is clearly the best (or
worst) economic choice.  On the other hand, if the standing of an
alternative depends upon the discount rate then the choice is not
clearly economic.
Exhibit 10-2 illustrates the effects of various interest rates on
present worth.

Click HERE for graphic.

     Life-cycle costs can be evaluated in terms of either present
worth or annual costs.  Either method is equivalent in terms of
comparing alternatives and relative differences in alternatives.  The
decision to use present worth or annual costs should be based upon
ease of calculations and meaningful presentation of results.

     Benefit-Cost Analysis - The most complete analysis method is a
benefit-cost study which considers changes in user costs as the
return, or benefit on agency costs.  Future user costs are discounted
just as agency costs are.  A benefit-cost analysis expands the
framework of decision-making factors to include all costs to the
public, rather than just agency costs.  The philosophy behind this
technique says that the role of public agencies is to serve the
public.  The cost to the public interns of vehicle operating costs,
time, and accidents are just as real as taxation to fund public works. 
Exhibit 10-3 dramatically illustrates the point that agency
expenditures are a very small portion of the total costs of public
highways.  Public agencies should work to reduce these user cost
"taxes" by selecting those projects that yield the greatest public


Exhibit 10-3
(1980 costs in billion dollars)

     PUBLIC AGENCY COSTS           Costs               Percent
          Construction             $ 20                  3%
          Maintenance                11                  2
          Admin. Law Enforcement, and 
               other expenses        10                  1

          TOTAL AGENCY COSTS       $ 41                  6%

          Vehicle Operations       $532                 74%
          Travel Time               114                 16
     Traffic Accidents               34                  5

          TOTAL USER COSTS         $680                 95%

     OVERALL TOTAL                 $721                100%

Note:     User costs are based upon 1,521 billion vehicle miles
traveled during 1980. an average vehicle cost of $0.35 per mile, an
average speed of 40 MPH and a time cost of $3.00 per hour.  Accident
costs are as reported by the National Safety Council.

     Benefit-cost can be calculated in two ways.  One way to obtain
the benefit-cost ratio is simply to divide the sum of the life-cycle
benefits by the life-cycle costs.  If the ratio is greater than `one'
the public will realize greater benefits than the cost of the project. 
A ratio smaller than `one' indicates a project that will not 'pay for
itself' in public benefits.

     Another approach to benefit-cost analysis is to add or subtract
all user costs to the agency costs of each alternative to arrive at a
total cost.  This total cost analysis is helpful when the magnitude of
the differences in user costs and agency costs is needed.  It can also
ease the calculations because usually only the differences in
alternatives are needed.

     Summary - There are three primary methods of economic analyses
that can be helpful in selecting or prioritizing pavement projects. 
Each of these methods differs in terms of information considered.  The
life-cycle cost analysis builds upon first-cost analysis and benefit-
cost builds upon life-cycle analysis.  This concept is shown in
Exhibit 10-4.

     Economic analysis is a helpful decision-making tool, but Is only
a tool.  Its usefulness is in the consideration of a number of factors
in terms of a common unit of measurement.-dollars. There are
limitations to economic analysis because it Involves many assumptions
about the future, not to mention estimates of immediate expenditures. 
Not all factors in a decision can be reduced to dollars.  Perhaps the
greatest limitation is the lack of understanding about economic
analysis on the part of decision-makers, politicians, and the public. 
Despite these limitations, however, well-done economic analyses will
help ensure that the most cost-effective projects are chosen.

Exhibit 10-4


          Consideration                 Method

          Initial Costs                 First-Cost Analysis

          Future Costs,
          Discount Rates and            Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
          Analysis Period

          User Costs                    Benefit-Cost Analysis



A comparison of unit cost estimates provided in several studies has
indicated that there is a great deal of variation. (See Table B-1.)
The differences are due to several factors.  First, the maintenance
treatments are not identified in most cases.  Second, costs are
estimated at different points in time and may reflect inflation. 
Third, the costs may include labor or equipment in some cases and only
materials in others.  And last, there may be some difference between
the price available to the large buyer and that offered to the small
town or between the project at some distance from the plant and the
project which has a short haul.  All of these factors enter into the
picture and seem to indicate that each community should estimate
appropriate costs for their own use.

Regarding the table on the next page, please note the following:

         APWA refers to the Street and Maintenance Manual by the
          American Public Works Association (1985).
         FHWA refers to Road Surface Management for Local
          Governments: A Course Workbook by the Federal Highway
          Administration (1985).
         West Hartford refers to: "The Decision-Making Process
          Related to Pavement Rehabilitation", Feb. 24, 1984, David
          Kraus, Chief Engineer, Town of West Hartford.
         Holliston refers to Pavement Evaluation Report for the Town
          of Holliston Massachusetts by Ken Garrity, Superintendent
         Wenham refers to the Preliminary Engineering Study of
          Bituminous Pavements in Wenham, Massachusetts by Nathan
          Wiseblood, Private Consultant (1985)

Table B-1

Comparison of Unit Costs for Maintenance

Source         Procedure                Cost Estimate ($000s/mile)
APWA           Routine Maintenance                0- 12.7
               Repair & Seal                      12.7- 25.3
FHWA           Routine                            1.4
               Preventive                         7.0
West Hartford  Crack Fill                         9.4
               Slurry Seal                        11.3

APWA           Overlay & Recycle                  38.0-  76.0
FHWA           Rehabilitation                     35.2
Holliston      Overlay                            100.0
Wenham         Resurfacing                        51.5-108.7
West Hartford  Resurface                          42.2
               Grind/resurface                    84.5

APWA           Reconstruction                     126.7-316.8
FHWA           Reconstruction                     56.3
Holliston      Reconstruction                     250.0
               Major reconstruction               300.0
Wenham         Reconstruction                     97.9-129.2
               New/reconstructed street           887.0





A wealth of information is readily available to supplement this
manual.  Expertise in specific areas of pavement management such as
distress types, budgeting and pavement engineering can be readily
obtained through the following agencies:

         Army Corps of Engineers
         Asphalt Institute
         American Public Works Association
         U.S. Department of Transportation
         American Association of State Highway and Transportation
         Federal Highway Administration (mentioned earlier)

A brief list of key references follows.  Note that cost is subject to
change over time.  Prices as of January 1986 are listed.


     1)   Road Surface Management for Local Governments: Course
     Workbook, United States Department of Transportation and Federal
     Highway Administration, May, 1985.

     This manual is comprehensive in that it describes the programming
process, from street inventory to programs and budgets in great
detail, including options for alternative methods.  In addition,
extensive background for pavement engineering and construction is
provided.  This document would appear to present the state-of-the art
in pavement management, except that the methods described here are not

     This manual is part of a workshop given by Byrd, Tallamy,
MacDonald and Lewis.  Tentative plans are for a workshop in New
Hampshire and Vermont to be held in June 1986.  Requests can be made

Mr. Lewis B. Stevens          Prepared for:
Byrd, Tallamy, MacDonald      Office of Highway Planning
& Lewis                       Federal Highway Administration
2921 Telestar Court           Washington, D.C. 20590
Falls Church, Virginia 22042
     Cost: Included in workshop fee, which is approximately $50.
     1)   Pavement (Maintenance) Management for Roads and Parking
          Lots, Army Corps of Engineers, No. M-Z94, October, 1981 - A
          training manual which lists the types of pavement distress
          with definitions, descriptions of severity levels and
          Request:  Ms. Katie Cation USA-CERL
                    PO Box 4005 
                    Champaign, 11 61820
          Attn:     Publications Office
          Cost:     No charge



2)   AASHTO Maintenance Manual 1976, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials.
     Topics discussed include: management and administration, roadway
surfaces, shoulders and approach, drainage, road sides, highway
appurtenances, snow and ice control, accident prevention and safety,
and maintenance equipment.
Request:  American Association of State 
          Highway and Transportation Officials
          341 National Press Building
          Washington, DC 20045

Cost:     Also in the collection of the Massachusetts State
          Transportation Library at 973-8000. ($9.50)





1)   Winfrey, Robley.  Economic Analysis for Highways, International
     Textbook Company, 969.
     Concepts and Principles of Engineering Economy, Highways and
     Engineering Economy, Methods of Economic Analysis, the Management
     Decision, Highway Finance and Taxation and Construction
     Programming and Scheduling are among several topics covered in
     this economic textbook.

2)   "Price Trends for Federal-Aid Highway Construction", United
     States Department of Transportation and Federal Highway
     Administration, Third Quarter, 1985.
     Price trends for Federal-Aid Highway Construction are illustrated
     in a plot of price index vs. years (1960-present).

3)   Road Surface Management for Local Governments: Course Workbook,
     United States Department of Transportation and Federal Highway
     Administration, May, 1985
     Funding trade-offs, establishing priorities, economic analysis,
     life-cycle cost analysis, benefit-cost analysis, the pave-not
     pave decision and examples are topics covered in this manual.

4)   Street and Highway Maintenance Manual, American Public Works
     Association, 1985.
     Operating policies and procedures are among several topics
     covered in this manual.

5)   "Paying for Transportation at the Local level: 17 Strategies",
     American Public Works Association.
     Current taxing funding levels, street and highway funding,
     seventeen revenue raising options and strategies for raising
     local funds are discussed in this short brochure.

6)   "Pavement Recycling: Summary of Two Conferences", US Department
     of Transportation, No. Federal Highway Administration - Technical
     Service - 82-224, April, 1982.
     Comment: Good Evaluation of costs involved.


1)   Pavement and Shoulder Maintenance Performance Guides, Federal
     Highway Administration Technical Service-84-208 August 1984
     Type of defects and warrants for sealing, materials to be used,
     expected performance, procedures to be used, optimum crew size,
     productivity data, appropriate safety precautions and some cent
     figures are included in this manual.

2)   The Manager's Guide for Developing a Planning Program, United
     States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
     Administration, 1980.  Determining the Planning Scope,
     Determining Planning Activities and Organizing and Administering
     Transportation Planning are discussed in this brief manual.

3)   Manual for the Selection of Optimal Maintenance Levels of
     Service, Transportation Review Board No. 273.
     Maintenance levels of service have an influence on the magnitude
     of the maintenance effort (i.e., pavement patching, mowing, paint
     stripping) and, therefore, on work scheduling requirements, work
     priorities, and resource allocations.

4)   Maintenance Management Systems, Transportation Review Board No.
     Planning and Budgeting are among several topics mentioned.


1)   A Simplified Method for the Design of Asphalt Overlays for Light
     to Medium Traffic Pavements, The Asphalt Institute, No. 139
     (Information & Series-139), May, 1983.
     Evaluation of Existing Pavement, the Design Procedure, and
     Preparation of Existing Pavement are mentioned in this short

2)   Roadway Delineation Practices Handbook, Federal Highway
     Administration --Implementation Program - 81-5, September, 1981.
     Roadway geometry, climatic characteristics, traffic
     characteristics, and effect of adverse visibility are among
     several topics discussed in this manual.

3)   Field Manual on Design and Construction of Seal Coats, Texas
     State Department of Highways and Public-Transportation, Jury,
     1981.  Type of aggregate, type of asphalt, laboratory tests,
     equipment, construction operations and inspection and quality
     control are concepts discussed in this manual.

4)   Compaction of Asphalt Mixtures and the Use of Vibratory Rollers,
     Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation, March,
     1984.  Factors affecting the compatibility of asphalt mixtures,
     operational characteristics of vibrating rollers and selection of
     frequency, impact spacing and roller speed are among topics
     mentioned in this manual.


1)   Ching GJ, Phang, WA, Wrong GA, Manual for Condition Rating of
     Flexible Pavements: Distress Manifestations, Series Program 0004,
     Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Research and
     Development Branch, April, 1982.

2)   Field Maintenance Manual for Georgia Counties Local Roads and
     Streets, Georgia Office of Highway Safety and Georgia Department
     of Transportation, Report No. Federal Highway Administration -
     Technical Services-79-218, August, 1979.

3)   A Pavement Rating System for Low-Volume Asphalt Roads, The
     Asphalt Institute, No. 169 (information Series-169 and 178),
     November, 1977.

4)   Street and Maintenance Manual, American Public Works Association,
     1985.  Price: $50.00

5)   Road Surface Management for Local Governments: Course Workbook,
     United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
     Administration, May, 1985.  Price: $50.00

6)   Shahin MY, Pavement Maintenance for Streets and Parking Lots, US
     Army Corps., Champaign
     Comment: Exhaustive list of "distress types".

7)   Alternatives in Pavement Maintenance Rehabilitation, and
     Reconstruction, Asphalt Institute, No. 178 (Information Series-
     178), May, 1981.
     Comment: Types of Failure.

8)   Pavement Maintenance Management for Roads and Parking Lots, Army
     Corps of Engineers, Manual No. 294, October, 1991.
     Comment: Exhaustive list of "distress types".



1)   "Safety and Traffic Engineering Applications for Microcomputers
     User Support Center", Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge.
     Comment: Computer program and users guide.

2)   A Pavement Rating System for Low-Volume Asphalt Roads, The
     Asphalt Institute, No. 169 (information Series-169), November,
     Comment: Simple approach, however, subjective.

3)   Hargen, David T., The Pavement Condition of NY Highways: 1983, NY
     Department of Transportation, December 10, 1983.
     Comment: Visual scoring procedures.

4)   Pavement Evaluation and Overlay Design: A Symposium and Related
     Papers, Transportation Research Board No. 700.
     Comment: Pavement Evaluation using methods such as Dynamic

5)   Roadway Planning and Priority Programming for Nantucket, MA,
     Vanasse/Hangen Engineering, Inc., March 30, 1983.
     Comment: Roadway planning and priority effort for 88 miles in

6)   Shubon, John T. and Hartgen, David T., Windshield Surveyors of
     Highway Condition: A Viable Impact to Pavement Management, NY
     Department of Transportation, August, 1980 (Revised).
     Comment: In-motion windshield survey (visual).

7)   Hartgen, David T., Highway Condition Rating in NY State, NY
     Department of Transportation, March, 1984 (Revised).
     Comment: Condition rating system.

8)   Hartgen, David T. & Neveu, Alfred J., Perception of the
     Infrastructure: The Application of Behavioral Concepts valuation
     of Highway Condition, NY Department of Transportation, July,
     Comment: Evaluation of highway condition.

9)   Hartgen, David T. et al.  Visual Scales of Pavement Condition:
     Development Validation , ' nd Use, NY Department of
     Transportation, March, 1962.
     Comment: Visual scales for assessing the condition of highways.

10)  Hartgen, David T., Long-Term Projection of Highway System
     NY Department of Transportation, August 1982
     Comment: There is a lack of published material on predicting
     long-term deterioration.

11)  Pavement Management Plan for Burlington MA, Vanasse/Hangen &
     TAMS, May, 1985.
     Comment: Provides a "program" for Burlington.



1)   Maintenance Management Systems, Transportation Research Board No.
     Comment: Physical inventories and budget considerations.

2)   Pavement and Shoulder Maintenance Performance Guides, US
     Department of Transportation No. Federal Highway Administration -
     Technical Services -84-208, August 1984
     Comment: Performance Guide based on a one year evaluation.

3)   Pavement (Maintenance) Management Systems, American Public Works
     Comment: Good overview.

4)   Manual for the Selection of Optimal Maintenance Levels of
     Service, Transportation Research  Board No. 273.
     Comment: Twelve Step process which illustrates maintenance

5)   Pavement Management Activities, Transportation Research Board No.
     Comment: Decision models, serviceability and distress

6)   Localized Pavement Repairs and Pavement Maintenance Management,
     Transportation Research Board No. -985.
     Comment: Equipment used and routine maintenance.

7)   Productivity Management for Maintenance, US Department of
     Transportation Division, Reprinted March, 1980.
     Comment: Productivity in management.



1)   Calculating Pavement Costs, The Asphalt Institute, No.
     Information Series-114, Jan., 1980.
     Comment: Guidelines are excellent.

2)   Winfrey, Robley, Economic Analysis for Highways, International
     Textbook Co., 196 -
     Comment: Good reference.

3)   "Price Trends for Federal-Aid Highway Construction", Department
     of Transportation - First Quarter, 1985.
     Comment: Cost Index can be used for forecasting future costs.

4)   "Bid Opening Report: Federal-Aid Highway Construction Contracts",
     Department of Transportation, 1983.
     Comment: Many cost tables.

5)   Hartgen, David T., Analysis and Prediction of Highway Condition,
     NY Department of Transportation, September, l981.
     Comment: Highway condition, the need to project condition and
     cost-benefit analysis.

6)   Consequences of Deferred Maintenance, Transportation Research
     Board No. 5
     Comment: Priorities presented in economic, energy, aesthetic and
     safety impacts.

7)   Formulating and Justifying Highway Maintenance Budgets,
     Transportation Research Board No. 80.
     Comment: Massachusetts uses a line-item approach.  Future needs
     are given.

8)   Financing State and Local Transportation, Transportation Research
     Board No: 1009.
     Comment: Little information on pavement management.

9)   Inflation - Responsive Financing for Streets and Highways, US
     Department of Transportation, June, 1982
     Comment: Demonstrates the need for maintenance.


1)   AASHTO Maintenance Manual 1976, American Association of State
     Highway and Transportation officials.
     Comment: Good manual of general guidance.

2)   Maintenance, No. 16 (Manual Series 16), March
     1983, The Asphalt Institute.
     Comment: Good manual for general guidance.

3)   Highway and Street Rehabilitation, No. 17 (Manual
     Series -17, June 1983, Asphalt Institute.
     Comment: Good manual for general guidance.

4)   Asphalt Pavement Thickness Design, No. 181 (Information Series-
     November, 1981, The Asphalt Institute.
     Comment: Good design consideration given.

5)   The Design of Asphalt Overlays, No. 139 (Information Series-139),
     1983,  The Asphalt Institute
     Comment: Good design considerations.
6)   The Road Ahead, No. 179 (Information Series-179), The Asphalt
     Institute, October, 1984.
     Comment: Good "public information" guide.

7)   Asphalt Paving Manual No. 8 (Manual Series-8), The Asphalt
     Institute, April, 1978 .
     Comment: Good general reference.

8)   Aurphey, Frenek & Wilson, "Rating Pavements by Computer", Civil
     Engineering   pages 72-73.
     Comment: Future trends.  Possibly use on state or federal

9)   Molef, A.H. & Turkstra, Infrastructure: Maintenance and Repair of
     Public Works, Vol. 431,  York Academy of Sciences, 1984.

10)  Witowski, J.M., "Methods Used to Evaluate Highway Improvements",
     Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 6, November,

11)  Methods for Evaluating Highway Safety Improvements,
     Transportation Research Board No. 

12)  Turo & Magni, Mays Meter Determination of Serviceability Rating
     Massachusetts Department of Public Works, September, 1982.

13)  Surface Characteristics of Pavements: Several Variations in Skid
     Resistance, Vol. 1, Se

14)  Town of Cherry Hill: Comprehensive Road Management Report, 1984.

15)  Field Manual on Design and Construction of Seal-Coats, U.S.

16)  Compaction of Asphalt Mixtures and The Use of Vibratory Rollers,
     Department of Transportation, March 1984

Jump To Top