Table 1-4: Utah Road Condition by Functional System -- Rural

Table 1-4: Utah Road Condition by Functional System -- Rural

(Miles)

Excel | CSV

  1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Interstate (total reported) 771 771 771 770 770 770
Very good 364 359 359 239 166 173
Good 289 293 285 318 368 367
Fair 87 88 96 117 127 115
Mediocre 31 31 31 80 98 104
Poor 0 0 0 16 11 11
Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other principal arterial (total reported) 1,008 1,008 1,009 1,008 1,008 1,004
Very good 254 257 257 88 27 27
Good 618 617 612 534 451 448
Fair 125 123 129 377 513 512
Mediocre 10 10 10 7 17 17
Poor 1 1 1 2 0 0
Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 3
Minor arterial (total reported) 1,542 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,522 1,535
Very good 289 264 266 77 57 65
Good 820 850 857 518 330 349
Fair 400 409 404 910 1,110 1,104
Mediocre 33 12 8 22 25 17
Poor 0 0 0 8 0 0
Not reported 0 0 0 0 13 0
Major collector (total reported) N N N N N 1,890
Very good N N N N N 51
Good N N N N N 360
Fair N N N N N 1,280
Mediocre N N N N N 167
Poor N N N N N 32
Not reported N N N N N N

KEY : N = data do not exist.

NOTE: In 2000, the Federal Highway Administration began reporting road condition for rural major 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.