Table 1-6: Vermont Road Condition by Functional System -- Urban
Table 1-6: Vermont Road Condition by Functional System -- Urban
(Miles)
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interstate (total reported) | 40 | 40 | 39 | 40 | 40 | 40 |
| Very good | 1 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 6 |
| Good | 25 | 23 | 28 | 29 | 27 | 20 |
| Fair | 13 | 11 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Mediocre | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 8 |
| Poor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Not reported | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other freeways and expressways (total reported) | 19 | 19 | 20 | 18 | 18 | 20 |
| Very good | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Good | 11 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Fair | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 8 |
| Mediocre | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Poor | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Not reported | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other principal arterial (total reported) | 97 | 97 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 98 |
| Very good | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Good | 7 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 18 |
| Fair | 21 | 17 | 17 | 19 | 21 | 17 |
| Mediocre | 28 | 36 | 36 | 35 | 37 | 36 |
| Poor | 34 | 33 | 31 | 31 | 30 | 27 |
| Not reported | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Urban minor arterial (total reported) | N | N | N | N | N | 145 |
| Very good | N | N | N | N | N | 0 |
| Good | N | N | N | N | N | 36 |
| Fair | N | N | N | N | N | 77 |
| Mediocre | N | N | N | N | N | 11 |
| Poor | N | N | N | N | N | 21 |
| Not reported | N | N | N | N | N | 0 |
| Urban collector (total reported) | N | N | N | N | N | 200 |
| Very good | N | N | N | N | N | 2 |
| Good | N | N | N | N | N | 10 |
| Fair | N | N | N | N | N | 47 |
| Mediocre | N | N | N | N | N | 42 |
| Poor | N | N | N | N | N | 99 |
| Not reported | N | N | N | N | N | 0 |
KEY: N = data do not exist
NOTE: In 2000, the Federal Highway Administration began reporting road condition for urban minor arterials and urban collectors using the International Roughness Index if available. In prior years, data were only available using the Present Serviceability Rating.
NOTE FOR DATA ON THIS PAGE: Road condition is based on measured pavement roughness using the International Roughness Index (IRI). IRI is a measure of surface condition. A comprehensive measure of pavement condition would require data on other pavement distresses such as rutting, cracking, and faulting.
SOURCE FOR DATA ON THIS PAGE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, Washington, DC: annual editions, tables HM-63 and HM-64, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ as of Feb. 1, 2002.