23
Appendix D Pavement Information Appendix DA – Pavement Condition Appendix DB – Pavement Management Cost
Appendix DPavement Information
Appendix DA –Pavement ConditionAppendix DB –Pavement Management Cost
APPENDIX DA PAVEMENT CONDITION
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-1
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................DA-2 2.0 NEW YORK STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM ......................................................................................DA-2
2.1 National Highway System ........................................................................................................DA-2 2.2 New York State and Local Highway System ...........................................................................DA-3
3.0 STATEWIDE EXISTINGHIGHWAY PAVEMENT.SURFACE CONDITION, PHYSICAL STRUCTURE,
AND RIDEABILITY .........................................................................................................................DA-3 3.1 Statewide Pavement Surface Condition…………………………………..……………………… DA-4 3.2 Statewide Pavement Physical Structure ..................................................................................DA-5 3.3 Statewide Pavement Rideability...............................................................................................DA-8 3.4 Overall Existing Statewide Pavement Condition ......................................................................DA-9
4.0 FINGER LAKES PAVEMENT LIFE CYCLE EVALUATION..........................................................DA-11
4.1 Methodology Calibration ........................................................................................................DA-11 4.2 Existing Pavement Condition .................................................................................................DA-11
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Appendix DA studies pavement condition and ride quality for the existing overall state highway system and establishes parameters that affect the remaining service life of pavement systems. Findings of this appendix are applied within Appendix DB to analyze the estimated pavement management cost impacts of the draft regulation.
2.0 NEW YORK STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM
The New York State and local highway system encompasses over 110,000 miles (177,000 km) of highway that are separated into twelve functional classifications. As described by the FHWA, functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. Basic to this process is the recognition that individual roads and streets do not serve travel independently in any major way. Rather, most travel involves movement through a network of roads. It becomes necessary then to determine how this travel can be channelized within the network in a logical and efficient manner. Functional classification defines the nature of this channelization process by defining the part that any particular road or street should play in serving the flow of trips through a highway network. Using this concept, NYSDOT, highway authority organizations, and local governmental agencies construct and maintain the overall highway system to support the anticipated traffic loadings using pavement systems economically optimized for the spectrum of use across these facilities.
2.1 National Highway System
Specific portions of the highway system comprise the nation's interstate economic, defense, and mobility network. These highways are almost exclusively classified as Interstate/Expressways or Principal Arterials. Overall, the National Highway System (NHS) includes the following subsystems of roadways. A specific highway route may be on more than one subsystem. See Exhibit D 2.1 for location of the NHS within New York State.
Interstate: The Eisenhower Interstate System of highways retains a separate identity within the NHS. This system was primarily constructed after the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 and prior to the passage if ISTEA in 1991, making the system the most modern type of highway system in the state. This highway system was constructed for the purpose of interstate commerce and thus connects the largest long distance freight destinations. This system primarily was constructed with geometric attributes, pavement thickness, and of material properties common with construction techniques today.
Other Principal Arterials: These are highways in rural and urban areas which provide access between an arterial and a major port, airport, public transportation facility, or other intermodal transportation facility. This type of facility typically is constructed on alignments from the original 18th & 19th century roadway alignments, but have been reconditioned and in many locations reconstructed into near modern highway pavement sections.
Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET): This is a network of highways which are important to the United States' strategic defense policy and which provide defense access, continuity and emergency capabilities for defense purposes and have construction history similar to Principal Arterials.
Major Strategic Highway Network Connectors: These are highways which provide access between major military installations and highways which are part of the Strategic Highway Network.
Intermodal Connectors: These highways provide access between major intermodal facilities and the other four subsystems making up the National Highway System. Intermodal connectors may be on the NYSDOT or local system, but are typically constructed similar to the above categories.
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-3
Exhibit DA.2.1 – Map of National Highway System in New York State (FHWA website)
2.2 New York State and Local Highway System
Remaining portions of the highway system off the National Highway system comprise New York State’s intra-state economic and mobility network. These highways are contained within the following subsystems identified by owner.
New York State Route: Other than the routes that serve as the NHS, these routes connect to the NHS, or provide access between communities. Outside of the NHS, these facilities typically are constructed on alignments from the original 18th & 19th century roadway alignments. Many roadways within this network have received significant pavement improvements over time within heavily trafficked areas of their overall corridor, but retain numerous segments of roadway with original roadway bedding materials that are insufficient to carry heavy traffic loadings.
County Route: County routes typically connect the New York State highway system to the local transportation network. These roadways frequently retain original 18th & 19th century alignments and original roadway bedding materials. Large portions of these highways also contain pavement sections that are not designed to support numerous heavy loadings.
Local Route: The final link of the highway system, the local transportation network, is typically comprised of rural and city low volume highways that receive the least thru traveling long duration truck use. In rural areas, these roadways often contain pavement sections that are entirely comprised of gravel or vary from macadam surface to gravel. Few local highways contain pavement sections that are designed carry numerous heavy loadings to subgrade.
3.0 STATEWIDE EXISTING HIGHWAY PAVEMENT SURFACE CONDITION, PHYSICAL STRUCTURE, AND RIDEABILITY
The NYSDOT maintains records for highway condition and roadway surface roughness (IRI) of NYSDOT touring routes and the NYS Thruway. This report uses the 2007 version of Highway Sufficiency Data File, which contains compiled data of traffic and physical highway information. Data from this file is averaged statewide and at study sections to define the overall condition and character of the system by functional classification. Where available within the file, county and local data sources are very limited; they have been combined to provide an inference on condition of the overall localized system of high use areas of the local system. This analysis approach does analyze the local system at a higher level than it actually operates at. However, the approach is considered to provide the best analysis of local routes that are most likely to be affected by the proposed regulation.
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-4
3.1 Statewide Pavement Surface Condition
Pavement surface score is a metric of highway pavement condition that rates pavement by distress. Surface scores are an effective indicator of the need for a highway pavement to receive, at minimum, a new surface. Scores for pavement are given by condition as provided in Exhibit DA.3.1.a.
Exhibit DA.3.1.a NYS Pavement Condition Surface Scoring
Surface Score Condition Rating Description of Typical Distress
1 thru 5 Poor Distress is frequent and may be severe. These sections are flagged by the Department for further investigation and possible action.
6 Fair Distress is clearly visible. 7 thru 8 Good Distress symptoms are beginning to show. 9 thru 10 Excellent No pavement distress.
Pavement scores within the 2007 Highway Sufficiency Data File where analyzed to determine an overall system average surface condition by functional class. Graphed data of this analysis are provided in Exhibit DA.3.1.b, with tabular results provided in Exhibit 3.4.2. Overall, this data indicates a direct corollary trend of preferable surface scores to functional class of highway with routes designated as Interstates/Expressways retaining the highest overall average surface score within the “Good” range. Ratings then decrease on the State system to collector highways which received the least preferable overall average score of “Fair”.
Exhibit DA.3.1.b
Pavement condition
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7
7.1
7.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Functional Class
Ave
rage
Pav
emen
t Sco
re
RuralUrban
Functional classification codes:Rural:Principal Arterial Interstate………….01Principal Arterial Other…...……...…..02Minor Arterial…………………...……..06Major Collector……………………….07Minor Collector……………………….08Local…………………………………..09Urban:Principal Arterial Interstate……….....11Principal Arterial Expressway...…….12Principal Arterial Other…...……...…..14Minor Arterial…………………...….….16Collector................................................17Local…………………………………..19
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-5
3.2 Statewide Pavement Physical Structure
Physical structure data of the highway system by functional classification of highway is provided within Exhibit DA.3.2a to Exhibit DA 3.2.d. Overall, analysis of this data indicates a similar corollary trend to functional class as other metrics. The graphs illustrate an increased uniformity of material and increased thickness of highways to support vehicular loadings as functional class hierarchy is increased.
Analysis of pavement physical structure scores within the Highway Sufficiency Data File provides an indication of the general composition of underlying pavement, subbase, and subgrade materials. Rather than direct observation, the scoring system within the manual uses record plans and best known data of the physical structure from recent work activities on individual highway segments. Evaluation of roadway the foundation materials depth and type of material data allows for an assessment of the overall pavement system to carry vehicular loadings.
A limitation of given base pavement type data is that aged composite highway sections, highways constructed of multiple pavement types, indicate existing of pavement material properties that the pavements do not actually have. For example, older composite sections typically found in the arterial and collector system often contain concrete or brick pavement base courses that would indicate capability to support loadings by their material thickness. However, these pavement base layers cannot be considered as effective for load support since the underlying pavement layers often have travel lane widths less than the current highway geometrics (i.e. 10 foot existing concrete lane overlaid with asphalt to 12 foot lane).
As indicated previously, many state and local routes contain updated pavement sections in areas of significant use, but retain original sections elsewhere. Since pavement reconstruction rarely occurs over an entire route, roadways often contain segments of pavement systems that are not uniform. Thus, unless a roadway is constructed uniformly, capability of highways to transmit truck loadings often changes within multiple segments of roadway for long haul truck.
Exhibit DA.3.2.a
Pavement Base TypesRural Principal Arterial Interstate
Functional Class 01
Type 4 - 7%
Type 3 - 3%
Type 2 - 1%
Type 0 - 4%
Type 5 - 25%
Type 6 - 4%
Type 7 - 56%
Type 0 → Base and sub-base one and the same
Type 2 → Gravel, Stone, Slag, etc.
Type 3 → Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (Stabilized by other bituminous)
Type 4 → Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder 6" or less)
Type 5 → Gravel Stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder over 6")
Type 6 → Portland cement concrete (8" or less)
Type 7 → Portland cement concrete (over 8")
Pavement Base TypeUrban Principal Arterial Interstate
Functional Class 11
Type 5 - 9%
Type 4 - 1%Type 3 - 1%
Type 0 - 1%
Type 6 - 7%
Type 7 - 81%
Type 0 → Base and sub-base one and the same
Type 3 → Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (Stabilized by other bituminous)
Type 4 → Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder 6" or less)
Type 5 → Gravel Stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder over 6")
Type 6 → Portland cement concrete (8" or less)
Type 7 → Portland cement concrete (over 8")
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-6
Pavement Base TypesRural Minor ArterialFunctional Class 06
Type 7 - 23%Type 4 - 21%
Type 5 - 15%
Type 6 - 35%
Type 2 - 1%Type 0 - 1%
Type 8 - 2%Type 3 - 2%
Type 0 → Base and sub-base one and the sameType 2 → Gravel, Stone, Slag, etc.Type 3 → Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (Stabilized by other bituminous)Type 4 → Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder 6" or less)Type 5 → Gravel Stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder over 6")Type 6 → Portland cement concrete (8" or less)Type 7 → Portland cement concrete (over 8")Type 8 → Brick of block
Pavement Base TypePrincipal Arterial Other
Functional Class 14
Type 2 - 0%
Type 8 - 8%
Type 3 - 1%Type 0 - 1%
Type 4 - 7%
Type 6 - 26%
Type 7 - 43%
Type 5 - 14%
Type 0 → Base and sub-base one and the sameType 2 → Gravel, Stone, Slag, etc.Type 3 → Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (Stabilized by other bituminous)Type 4 → Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder 6" or less)Type 5 → Gravel Stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder over 6")Type 6 → Portland cement concrete (8" or less)Type 7 → Portland cement concrete (over 8")Type 8 → Brick of block
Pavement Base TypesRural Minor CollectorFunctional Class 08
Type 2 - 1%
Type 3 - 7%
Type 4 - 22%
Type 5 - 16%Type 6 - 17%
Type 0 - 2%
Type 7 - 35%
Type 8 - 0%
Type 0 → Base and sub-base one and the same
Type 2 → Gravel, Stone, Slag, etc.
Type 3 → Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (Stabilized by other bituminous)
Type 4 → Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder 6" or less)
Type 5 → Gravel Stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder over 6")
Type 6 → Portland cement concrete (8" or less)
Type 7 → Portland cement concrete (over 8")
Type 8 → Brick of block
Pavement Base TypeUrban Collector
Functional Class 17
Type 7 - 31%
Type 0 - 1%Type 2 - 5%
Type 3 - 2%
Type 4 - 19%
Type 5 - 12%
Type 6 - 26%
Type 8 - 4%
Type 0 → Base and sub-base one and the same
Type 2 → Gravel, Stone, Slag, etc.
Type 3 → Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (Stabilized by other bituminous)
Type 4 → Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder 6" or less)
Type 5 → Gravel Stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder over 6")
Type 6 → Portland cement concrete (8" or less)
Type 7 → Portland cement concrete (over 8")
Type 8 → Brick of block
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-7
Exhibit DA.3.2.b
Pavement Sub-Base TypesRural Principal Arterial Interstate
Functional Class 01
Type 5 - 77%
Type 6 - 12%
Type 7- 5% Type 2 - 6%
Type 2 → Natural soil, graded and drained with imporved alignment
Type 5 → Gravel, Stone, etc. (12" or less)
Type 6 → Gravel, stone, etc. (over 12")
Type 7 → Other (bridges, culverts, etc.)
Pavement Sub-Base TypeUrban Principal Arterial Interstate
Functional Class 11
Type 2 - 1%Type 3- 0%
Type 7 - 12%
Type 6 - 6%
Type 5 - 81%
Type 2 → Natural soil, graded and drained with imporved alignment
Type 3 → Selected Soils (not gravel or rock) 12" or less
Type 5 → Gravel, Stone, etc. (12" or less)
Type 6 → Gravel, stone, etc. (over 12")
Type 7 → Other (bridges, culverts, etc.)
Pavement Sub-Base TypeRural Minor ArterialFunctional Class 06
Type 5 - 52%
Type 2- 42%
Type 6 - 2%
Type 7 - 3%
Type 3 - 1%
Type 4 - 0%
Type 1 - 0%
Type 1 → Natural soil, unimporvedType 2 → Natural soil, graded and drained with imporved alignment
Type 3 → Selected Soils (not gravel or rock) 12" or lessType 4 → Selected soils (not gravel or stone) over 12"Type 5 → Gravel, Stone, etc. (12" or less)Type 6 → Gravel, stone, etc. (over 12")
Type 7 → Other (bridges, culverts, etc.)
Pavement Sub-Base TypePrincipal Arterial Other
Functional Class 14
Type 3 - 1%
Type 4- 1%
Type 2 - 34%
Type 6 - 2%
Type 5 - 53%
Type 7 - 9% Type 1 - 0%
Type 1 → Natural soil, unimporved
Type 2 → Natural soil, graded and drained with imporved alignment
Type 3 → Selected Soils (not gravel or rock) 12" or less
Type 4 → Selected soils (not gravel or stone) over 12"
Type 5 → Gravel, Stone, etc. (12" or less)
Type 6 → Gravel, stone, etc. (over 12")
Type 7 → Other (bridges, culverts, etc.)
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-8
Pavement Sub-Base TypeRural Minor CollectorFunctional Class 08
Type 7 - 3%
Type 2 - 26%
Type 3 - 0%
Type 5 - 65%
Type 6 - 6%
Type 2 → Natural soil, graded and drained with imporved alignment
Type 3 → Selected Soils (not gravel or rock) 12" or less
Type 5 → Gravel, Stone, etc. (12" or less)
Type 6 → Gravel, stone, etc. (over 12")
Type 7 → Other (bridges, culverts, etc.)
Pavement Sub-Base TypeUrban Collector
Functional Class 17
Type 6 - 1%
Type 7 - 8%
Type 2 - 32%
Type 4 - 0%
Type 5 - 59%
Type 2 → Natural soil, graded and drained with imporved alignment
Type 4 → Selected soils (not gravel or stone) over 12"
Type 5 → Gravel, Stone, etc. (12" or less)
Type 6 → Gravel, stone, etc. (over 12")
Type 7 → Other (bridges, culverts, etc.)
3.3 Statewide Pavement Rideability
Corridor ride quality is best observed through measurement of pavement smoothness using the International Roughness Index (IRI). The IRI quantifies the elevational change of a pavement system using a measure over a one mile distance. This measurement provides ranges of measurement that relate the feel of the roadway by users. It is the metric considered to be most representative of user satisfaction with highway condition. Beyond public ride quality, pavement roughness also provides an indication of the extent of additional live load impact damage that will be placed upon the vehicles and pavement system. Documentation of the average statewide system for ride quality by functional classification of highway is provided in Exhibit DA.3.3.
Overall, analysis of smoothness data indicates a similar corollary trend of score to other condition metrics. The rural interstate system contains the best overall rating of any functional class. Overall, average scores ranged from “Smooth” for the interstate system, to “Fair” for the collector system.
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-9
Exhibit DA.3.3
Average Pavement Roughness(By functional Class)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 5 10 15 20HIGHWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS (URBAN & RURAL)
PA
VE
ME
NT
RO
UG
HN
ES
S(IN
/MIL
E)
RuralUrban
Functional classification codes:Rural:Principal Arterial Interstate………….01Principal Arterial Other…...……...…..02Minor Arterial…………………...……..06Major Collector……………………….07Minor Collector……………………….08Local…………………………………..09Urban:Principal Arterial Interstate……….....11Principal Arterial Expressway...…….12Principal Arterial Other…...……...…..14Minor Arterial…………………...….….16Collector................................................17Local…………………………………..19
IRI Scale (in/mi) Description
≤60 Very Smooth
61-120 Smooth
121-170 Fair
171-220 Rough
≥220 Very Rough
3.4 Overall Existing Statewide Pavement Condition
Combining statewide average pavement surface score and ride quality datum by functional class provides an assessment of the overall existing highway pavement condition. A graph of this statewide data is provided in Exhibit D 3.4.a The given data, and factors as follow, indicate that the New York State highway system is in the best condition at the urban and rural interstate/expressway functional class and then directly increase in rate of deterioration as functional class changes towards the local system.
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-10
Exhibit DA.3.4.a
Pavement Combined Condition & Rideability
Urban Local
Rural Local
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7
7.1
7.2
50 70 90 110 130 150 170
Pavement Roughness - IRI (inches/mile)
Pave
men
t Ave
rage
Sur
face
Sco
reRuralUrbanRural LocalUrban Local
Improving Ride Quality
FC1
FC2
FC6
FC7
FC8
FC11
FC12
FC14
FC16
FC17
Impr
ovin
g C
ondi
tion
Exhibit DA.3.4.b NYS Pavement Condition & Pavement Physical Characteristics
By Highway Functional Class
Functional Classification Average
Surface Score (2007)
Average Heavy Vehicle %
Type F4-F13
Average Pavement Roughness (IRI in/mi)
Principal Arterial Interstate 7.14 25 97 Principal Arterial Other 6.92 12 111 Minor Arterial 6.77 9.2 114 Major Collector 6.64 8.8 122 Minor Collector 6.52 6.3 127
Rural
Local 6.66 5.6 157 Principal Arterial Interstate 7.14 14.2 118 Principal Arterial Expressway 6.98 6 132 Principal Arterial Other 6.89 6.5 157 Minor Arterial 6.79 5.9 149 Collector 6.69 5.1 143
Urban
Local 7.06 4.6 126
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-11
4.0 FINGER LAKES PAVEMENT LIFE CYCLE EVALUATION
For evaluation and illustrative purposes, methodology provided in this appendix for pavement condition, life cycle cost analysis, and truck user cost has been applied to the I-81/I-90 Finger Lakes corridor (See Exhibit DA.4.0 for Location Map).
Exhibit DA.4.0
•
4.1 Methodology Calibration
The analysis of the Finger Lakes corridor reduces data sources from a statewide approach to the specific routes involved in the corridor study. Using this approach, a more detailed data set of pavement existing condition, service life, and user costs is obtained. Specifically, the evaluation of this corridor adds an analysis of the amount of pavement distress location and types.
4.2 Existing Finger Lakes Area Pavement Condition
(1) Pavement Surface Score - The average pavement surface scores over the entire study route, based upon the 2007 Highway Sufficiency File for each study route is tabulated in Exhibit DA.4.2a. Averages indicate that national network routes are rated at the top of “Good” range. These scores are higher than the pavement surface condition of the shortcut routes at the low range of “Good” to “Fair”.
(2) Pavement Roughness (IRI) – Pavement roughness surface for each study route is tabulated and provided in conjunction with pavement surface scores (Exhibit DA.4.2a). The roughness score is averaged over the entire roadway travel segment and is based upon the most current data year from 2004 to present. Averages indicate that all routes are rated “Smooth”. National network routes however rate nearly “Very Smooth” and therefore have a higher in ride quality than the alternative shortcut routes.
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-12
Exhibit DA.4.2.a
Finger Lakes Pavement Combined Condition & Rideability
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Pavement Roughness - IRI (inches/mile)
Pave
men
t Ave
rage
Sur
face
Sco
re
Route Number
I-90I-81
NYS RT 41 & NYS RT 20
NYS RT 41A
Impr
ovin
g C
ondi
tion
Improving Ride Quality Rideability
(3) Pavement Base Composition – Exhibit DA4.2.b provides graphs illustrating the different type of pavement composition and approximate thickness of the study highway pavement base sections. Data is representative of the entire roadway travel segment and is based upon the 2007 Highway Sufficiency File. Graphed data indicate that national network routes contain a more uniform and superior composition of pavement base course materials over state and local routes. Additionally, this data indicates that national network routes offer thicker pavements sections which are more capable of supporting truck loadings over time. Study shortcut routes in this area are typically not uniform in composition over the entire roadway segment and contain pavement base materials that predate current material preferences
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-13
Exhibit DA.4.2.b
Pavement Base TypeNY Rt 41
Type 6 - 36%
Type 7 - 5%Type 8 - 2%
Type 2 - 19%
Type 5 - 31%
Type 4 - 7%
Type 2 - Gravel, stone, slag, etc.
Type 4 - Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder 6" or less)
Type 5 - (Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder over 6" )Type 6 - Port land cement concrete (8" or less)
Type 7 - Port land cement concrete (over 8" )
Type 8 - Brick of block
Pavement Base TypeNY Rt 41A
Type 3 - 16%Type 7 - 2%
Type 6 - 82%
Type 3 - Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (stabilized by other than bituminous)
Type 6 - Port land cement concrete (8" or less)
Type 7 - Port land cement concrete (over 8" )
Pavement Base TypeUS Rt 20
Type 7 - 60%
Type 6 - 36%
Type 8 - 4%
Type 6 - Port land cement concrete (8" or less)
Type 7 - Port land cement concrete (over 8" )
Type 8 - Brick of block
Pavement Base TypeNY Rt 414
Type 7 - 94%
Type 4 - 6%
Type 4 - Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder 6" or less)
Type 7 - Port land cement concrete (over 8" )
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-14
Pavement Base TypeNY Rt 34
Type 6 - 72%
Type 7 - 10%
Type 5 - 4%
Type 4 - 13%
Type 2 - 1%Type 8 - 0%
Type 2 - Gravel, stone, slag, etc.Type 4 - Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder 6" or less)Type 5 - (Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder over 6" )Type 6 - Port land cement concrete (8" or less)Type 7 - Port land cement concrete (over 8" )Type 8 - Brick of block
Pavement Base TypeNY Rt 90
Type 6 - 25%
Type 7 - 10%
Type 4 - 65%
Type 4 - Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder 6" or less)
Type 6 - Port land cement concrete (8" or less)
Type 7 - Port land cement concrete (over 8" )
Pavement Base TypeInterstate Rt 81
Type 7 - 94%
Type 5 - 6%
Type 5 - (Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder over 6" )
Type 7 - Port land cement concrete (over 8" )
Pavement Base TypeInterstate Rt 90
Type 7 - 66%
Type 4 - 19%
Type 5 - 15%
Type 4 - Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder 6" or less)
Type 5 - (Gravel, stone, slag, etc. (with bituminous binder over 6" )
Type 7 - Port land cement concrete (over 8" )
(4) Pavement Subbase – Pavement subbase types and thicknesses, based upon the 2007 Highway Sufficiency File, for each study route are tabulated and provided in Exhibit DA.4.2.c. Graphed data indicate that national network routes contain uniform superior pavement subbase course materials thicker overall thickness sections. Study shortcut routes are typically not uniform in subbase composition over and contain subbase materials that, in some cases, consist only of improved existing soils. As a result, the shortcut routes do not have the material properties and geotechnical design to transfer traffic loadings to subgrade as capably as national network routes.
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-15
Exhibit DA.4.2.c
Pavement Sub-Base TypeNY Rt 41
Type 5 - 92%
Type 2 - 6%Type 7 - 2%
Type 2 - Natural soil, graded and drained with improved alignment
Type 5 - Gravel, stone, etc (12" or less)
Type 7 - Other (bridge, culverts, etc.)
Pavement Sub-Base TypeNY Rt 41A
Type 5 - 34% Type 2 - 66%
Type 2 - Natural soil, graded and drained with improved alignment
Type 5 - Gravel, stone, etc. (12" or less)
Pavement Sub-Base TypeUS Rt 20
Type 7 - 4%Type 6 - 1%
Type 5 - 47%
Type 2 - 48%
Type 2 - Natural soil, graded and drained with improved alignment
Type 5 - Gravel, stone, etc (12" or less)
Type 6 - Gravel, stone, etc. (over 12" )
Type 7 - Other (bridge, culverts, etc.)
Pavement Sub-Base TypeNY Rt 414
Type 5 - 100%
Type 5 - Gravel, stone, etc (12" or less)
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-16
Pavement Sub-Base TypeNY Rt 34
Type 7 - 4%Type 6 - 8%
Type 5 - 36%
Type 2 - 52%
Type 2 - Natural soil, graded and drained with improved alignment
Type 5 - Gravel, stone, etc (12" or less)
Type 6 - Gravel, stone, etc. (over 12" )
Type 7 - Other (bridge, culverts, etc.)
Pavement Sub-Base TypeNY Rt 90
Type 5 - 56%
Type 2 - 25%Type 6 - 19%
Type 2 - Natural soil, graded and drained with improved alignment
Type 5 - Gravel, stone, etc (12" or less)
Type 6 - Gravel, stone, etc. (over 12" )
Pavement Sub-Base TypeInterstate Rt 81
Type 7 - 5%
Type 5 - 95%
Type 5 - Gravel, stone, etc (12" or less)
Type 7 - Other (bridge, culverts, etc.)
Pavement Sub-Base TypeInterstate Rt 90
Type 5 - 97%
Type 7 - 3%
Type 5 - Gravel, stone, etc (12" or less)
Type 7 - Other (bridge, culverts, etc.)
(5) Pavement Subgrade – Pavement subgrade conditions for much of the study routes are unknown, but can be compared based upon standard construction practices of the roadway year of construction. The most recently constructed routes, the NHS system, typically are designed and constructed to account for the carrying capacity of the subgrade soils than the shortcut routes. As a result, the shortcut routes are assumed to have lesser geotechnical capability to support truck loadings transferred from the pavement system.
(6) Pavement Distress – All the above conditions contribute towards the observed pavement distress found within these corridors. For this study section, the actual observations of pavement distress contained within the 2007 Highway Sufficiency file have been cumulated.
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-17
Graphs representing the amount and different type of pavement distress of the study highway pavement base sections are provided in Exhibit DA.4.2.d. Graphed data indicates that national network routes contain less overall pavement distress and less significant localized distress than the shortcut routes. This data supports a conclusion that the existing shortcut system, without alteration to traffic characteristics, has a lesser remaining service life than the national network system.
DA.4.2.d
Pavement Dominant DistressNY Rt 41
Ag - 66%
No Distress
12%Ai - 22%
Ai - Isolated alligator cracking
Ag - General alligator cracking
No Distress
Pavement Dominant DistressNY Rt 41A
No Dist ress39%
Ai - 10%
Ag - 51%
Ai - Isolated alligator cracking
Ag - General alligator cracking
No Distress
Pavement Dominant DistressUS Rt 20
Ag - 33%
Ai - 37%
No Distress
30%
Ai - Isolated alligator cracking
Ag - General alligator cracking
No Distress
Pavement Dominant DistressNY Rt 414
No Distress
62%
Ai - 20%
Ag - 18%
Ai - Isolated alligator cracking
Ag - General alligator cracking
No Distress
Final Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix DA – Pavement Condition
October 2008
DA-18
Pavement Dominant DistressNY Rt 34
Ag - 29%
Ai - 41%
No Distress
30%
Ai - Isolated alligator cracking
Ag - General alligator cracking
No Distress
Pavement Dominant DistressNY Rt 90
No Distress
26%
Ag - 58%
Ai - 16%
Ai - Isolated alligator crackingAg - General alligator crackingNo Distress
Pavement Dominant DistressInterstate Rt 81
No Distress
95%
Ag - 3%
Si - 0%Ai - 2%
Si - Isolated Spalling
Ai - Isolated alligator cracking
Ag - General alligator cracking
No Distress
Pavement Dominant DistressInterstate Rt 90
No Distress
64%
Ai - 21%
Ag - 15%
Ai - Isolated alligator cracking
Ag - General alligator cracking
No Distress
