Transverse Cracking Study of Asphalt Pavement, HR-1020, 1981

At a pavement management study meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, September 12 and 13, 1979, the states of Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska agreed on the need for an in-depth engineering study of thermal cracking of bituminous pavement. In addition, the states of Oklahoma and North Dakota agreed to participate in the study. The scope of the study was to analyze all functions relating to the thermal cracking problem to determine how different uses of preventative materials, mix design measures, maintenance repairs, and design of bituminous pavements and overlays might be contributing to the problem and to determine what improvements might be made in these procedures to reduce the problem of thermal cracking. This publication describes the study and its conclusions. One of the conclusions is that the study did not address what the authors believe to be the major contributor to transverse cracking - the subgrade and subbase.

Transverse Cracking of Asphalt Pavements, HR-1040, Summary Report, 1982

This report summarizes the analysis of transverse cracking in asphalt pavement by a five state study team from Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. The study was initiated under the sponsorship of the Federal Highway Administration and four evaluation conferences were held during the course of the study. Each state conducted a crack inventory on their asphalt pavement. An effort was made to correlate this inventory with numerous factors that were considered to be pertinent to the cracking problem. One state did indicate that there was a correlation between transverse cracking severity and the subsurface geology. The other states were unable to identify any significant factors as being the primary contributors. The analysis of the problem was divided into, (1) mix design, (2) maintenance, and (3) 3R rehabilitation. Many potential factors to be considered were identified under each of these three study divisions. There were many conclusions as to good and bad practices. One major conclusions was that a more effective crack maintenance program with early sealing was essential. Some new practices were suggested as potentially more cost effective in design, construction and maintenance. The interchange of methods and procedures by individual states yielded benefits in that other states selected practices that would be an improvement to their program.

Synthesis Study: Effectiveness of Safety Corridor Programs, Report on Tasks 1-3, 2008

This report synthesizes the safety corridor programs of 13 states that currently have some type of program: Alaska, California, Florida, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. This synthesis can help Midwestern states implement their own safety corridor programs and select pilot corridors or enhance existing corridors. Survey and interview information about the states’ programs was gathered from members of each state department of transportation (DOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) division office. Topics discussed included definitions of a safety corridor; length and number of corridors in the program; criteria for selection of a corridor; measures of effectiveness of an implemented safety corridor; organizational structure of the program; funding and legislation issues; and engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical service strategies. Safety corridor programs with successful results were then examined in more detail, and field visits were made to Kansas, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington for first-hand observations. With the survey and field visit information, several characteristics of successful safety corridor programs were identified, including multidisciplinary (3E and 4E) efforts; selection, evaluation, and decommissioning strategies; organization structure, champions, and funding; task forces and Corridor Safety Action Plans; road safety audits; and legislation and other safety issues. Based on the synthesis, the report makes recommendations for establishing and maintaining a successful safety corridor program.