Transportation Research Record 1841

Paper No. 03- 4223

32

Impact of Buses on Highway Infrastructure

Case Study for New Jersey State
Maria Boil, Preethi Narayanan, and Kaan Ozbay
Buses are classified as heavy vehicles, and research has shown that
heavy vehicles are mainly responsible for pavement damage and costs
incurred to rectify the damage. Transit agencies must consider the
pavement damage caused by a bus when choosing among different
types of buses for procurement for certain corridors and deciding on
the type of transit service for a corridor. Also, bus contribution to pavement damage should be considered in determining the appropriate
amount of taxes and fees to be paid by this vehicle class. Currently, no
tool exists to support such decisions. Pertinent literature was reviewed
to determine the availability of methods for allocating roadway maintenance costs to buses. Two broad areas of highway impactrelated literature, highway cost allocation studies and methods to estimate
pavement deterioration resulting from vehiclepavement interactions,
were examined. A review of several state cost allocation studies showed
that either equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs) or ESALS weighted by
vehicle miles traveled were used to allocate pavement maintenance cost
to various vehicle classes. Those studies, however, either accounted for
buses by grouping them with other vehicles or did not account for them
at all. Currently, no buspavement interaction models are available,
although several mathematical and simulation models are available for
truckpavement interaction. Buses differ from trucks in load distribution, suspension, and travel characteristics. From results of the literature search a methodology, which uses industry standards and is
minimal in data requirements, has been developed. With the use of data
available in New Jersey, the application of this methodology showed
that the maintenance cost attributable to buses in the state is about
2.4% of the total maintenance cost.

New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit) operates on 240 routes with 1,955
buses of its own and about 191 leased buses (1). The agency plans
to replace and add about 1,900 buses to its fleet in the coming years.
The choice of buses to buy and ply currently depends only on the
purchasing, maintenance, and operating costs of these buses. But
with 82.7 million mi covered annually, it is equally important to
consider the pavement damage and consequently the pavement
maintenance cost that is or would be incurred by the state as a result
of the running of these buses on the roadways. Currently, NJ Transit does not possess a tool to determine these costs; that is the main
factor that necessitated the research, results of which are presented
in this paper.
The roadway system forms the backbone of New Jersey with
more than 36,000 linear mi of roadway. This system is heavily used
and thus requires regular maintenance, resurfacing, and sometimes
reconstruction, to provide desired service. Pavement deterioration
is influenced by the impact of natural forces such as temperature,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rutgers University, 623
Bowser Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854.

humidity, and others, and by the damage caused by vehicles using

the pavement over a period of time. Literature shows that pavement
maintenance is primarily attributable to heavy vehicles, such as
buses and trucks. The cost incurred to maintain the roadway infrastructure in serviceable condition is passed on to the road user. The
estimation of how much damage is caused by each vehicle and how
much the user should pay to cover this cost is a complex task. This
task consists of three distinct steps:
1. Classify vehicles into categories.
2. Estimate pavement deterioration caused by each vehicle
class or individual vehicles that results from vehiclepavement
interactions.
3. Estimate the maintenance cost to be allocated to various vehicle classes depending on their contribution to pavement deterioration.
The objectives of this study were
Reviewing pertinent literature and determining the availability
of methods for allocating roadway maintenance costs to buses.
Developing a methodology that uses the current industry standards and is minimal in data requirements.
Determining data availability and applying this method to New
Jersey conditions.

Literature Review
To satisfy the first objective, a thorough review of pertinent literature was conducted. The New Jersey Department of Transportation
(NJDOT) uses 13 vehicle classes in its traffic characteristics databases. This classification can be referred to on the NJDOT website
(2). Heavy vehicles are classified as class 4 through 13, with class 4
consisting of buses and classes 5 through 13 consisting of various
truck configurations. Two broad areas of highway impactrelated
literature, namely methods to estimate pavement deterioration as a
result of vehiclepavement interactions and highway cost allocation
studies (HCAS), were reviewed.
There are several types of deterioration models. For detailed
information on these models the reader is referred to the paper by
Ekdahl (3). Two types of models applied in the pertinent literature
are discussed:
Empirical deterioration models. They are based on observations of deterioration on certain pavement sections. The deterioration is explained by using the boundary conditions in combination
with the pavement structure, without using any models for explaining what happens inside the pavement materials. The equivalent
single-axle load (ESAL) concept developed by AASHTO (4) is the

Boil et al.

most commonly used model of this type. An ESAL defines the

damage to pavement per pass of the axle in question, relative to the
damage per pass of a standard axle load, usually the 18 kip (80 kN)
single-axle load.
Mechanized models. These models exclude all empirical interference on the calculated pavement deterioration. They calculate all the
effects on pavement structure purely mechanistically. Eleven models
of this type have been developed and incorporated into the nationwide
pavement cost model, which is used in the federal HCAS (5).
In this paper, we chose the empirical deterioration model based
on ESALs developed by AASHTO because this is the most commonly and easily applicable method. Also, data for vehicles are
easily available using ESALs, and New Jersey uses ESALs as a
measure of a heavy vehicles impact on infrastructure. It should be
noted, however, that ESALs have several drawbacks:
1. They have been recorded from the road tests in Illinois and
hence were not developed exclusively for New Jersey conditions.
Although the models are considered to be applicable in New Jersey,
they may not produce precise answers.
2. The ESAL method just relates cause and effect without considering the internal stress and strain mechanisms of the pavement.
3. ESALs do not consider all the impacts that climate and weather
have on pavements.
Once the pavement deterioration model has been selected, it
should be used to allocate maintenance costs to various vehicle
classes. The federal government and some state governments have
conducted HCASs for this purpose. An HCAS is an attempt to compare revenues collected from different highway users with the
expenses incurred by highway agencies in providing and maintaining facilities for these users. Pavement maintenance cost is a component of the expenditure allocated to different vehicle classes. There
are several sources that provide a list of federal and state HCAS
reviews showing that buses are often classified with other vehicles or
in some cases are categorized into one vehicle class, so that buses of
different weights and types cannot be compared (613).
HCASs (7, 14) use various different approaches to allocate costs.
All recent federal and HCASs use the cost-occasioned approach. In
that approach, the physical and operational characteristics of each
vehicle class are related to expenditures for pavement, bridge, and
other infrastructure improvements. Expenditures and revenues are
allocated to different vehicle classes in proportion to some measure
of consumption and benefits like passenger car equivalents, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or ESAL. Revenues and expenditures for
each vehicle class are then compared to determine whether each
vehicle class is paying its fair share of cost responsibility. If not,
then recommendations are made to rectify the inequity. The costoccasioned approach is used in the methodology proposed in this
paper, as the most appropriate method to allocate maintenance and
rehabilitation costs.
Further review of the literature showed that there are very few
studies that deal explicitly with the effect of buses on pavement deterioration and their share of maintenance costs. A study conducted at
the California State University (15, 16) had two primary objectives:
(1) to determine typical axle weights for different types of buses and
(2) to evaluate the impacts of these buses on local street pavement sections. The first objective was fulfilled by calculating the ESALs for the
buses considered. One-time ESALs were calculated for minimum and
maximum bus loading conditions, and 20-year ESALs were calculated

Paper No. 03- 4223

33

assuming specific bus loading and headway criteria. The estimated

values were then used to assess impacts of buses on various types of
streets using three different approaches, namely, the California design
method (17 ), a statistical method based on pavement maintenance system (PMS) data, and visual observation. The study focused on the
impacts of buses on flexible pavements. The California design method
was used to assess the cost of designing streets to accommodate buses
by determining the actual axle loading that the pavement is subjected
to by the bus traffic. Statistical analysis was applied to PMS data to
determine whether the pavement condition was significantly affected
by transit usage. Visual observations were made in areas showing
signs of obvious damage due to transit buses. The study concluded that
urban transit buses have an adverse impact on local street pavements.
It was shown that there is a statistically significant likelihood that
fewer street segments with bus service have very good condition ratings compared with segments without bus service. The impact of
buses could be observed easily, particularly at bus stop locations. The
study also concluded that to increase the structural ability of sections
to accommodate buses, the cost of arterials would be increased by less
than 5%, whereas the cost of collectors would increase by 58%.
In the county and city of Denver study (18), the objective was to
compare the impact of different types of buses used by the city of
Denver on pavement. Information on bus manufacturer, model
number, and fleet description was collected for the 22 types of buses
that were considered in the study. The buses varied in their axle
spans, tire pressure, and weights. Particular data gathered on each
bus included gross vehicle weights, empty weights, number of axles,
front, rear and tag axle weights, axle span and spacing, and tire pressure. Again, ESAL factors were determined, to compare the impact
of buses on pavement, using two different methods: the nomograph
from the Asphalt Institute and the AASHTO equivalency charts
developed from the AASHTO Road Test.
The objective of the study conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff for
VIA Transit, the transit agency for Bexar County, Texas, was to
determine the relative impact of roadway wear caused by the
agencys transit vehicles (19). This objective is similar to one of the
objectives of this paper. For simplicity, the vehicles were categorized into eight vehicle classes including a separate class for VIA
transit vehicles. This class was further subdivided into four classes
of transit vehicles used by VIA. Typical vehicles for each category
were established, and data including the front and rear axle weights
for fully loaded vehicles were collected for the typical vehicles.
ESALs were calculated for each vehicle class assuming a simple
fourth power equation for a 10-in. rigid pavement (20). This value
was multiplied with the annual VMT for each vehicle class to estimate the impact of each vehicle class on the entire roadway system.
Finally, the percentage of the total ESAL miles for each vehicle
class was calculated to allocate pavement maintenance cost to each
vehicle class. The analysis showed that the ESALs for VIA transit
buses range from 3.39 ESALs to 0.37 ESALs and VIA transit vehicles account for less than 2% of the damage caused by vehicular
traffic. Bus VMTs were only 0.02% of the total VMT.

Proposed Approach and Data Requirements

The analysis of bus impact on pavements may be conducted at two
levels, system level and individual level. At the system level, the
impact on pavement and the maintenance cost induced by all buses in
a network should be estimated. At the individual level, the impact and
cost due to individual buses can be used to compare buses or compare

34

Paper No. 03- 4223

Transportation Research Record 1841

transit alternatives for a corridor. In this section, a method for estimating bus impacts on New Jersey highways is presented. A stepby-step discussion of the proposed method, along with the data
requirements associated with each step, is presented next. Applications of the proposed method to New Jersey highways are also
presented within each step.

Number of axles for the vehicle,

Distance between axles, and
Tire pressure.
For a more accurate calculation of axle loads (15, 16) additional data
required included

Methodology
An outline of the proposed methodology is shown in the flowchart
of Figure 1. Vehicle, pavement, traffic, and cost data requirements
associated with this method are described next, followed by a
detailed description of the methodology. Data items are listed
according to the order in which they appear in the flowchart.

Data Requirements
Vehicle data used are as follows:
Individual axle weights in a typical situation or when a vehicle
is fully loaded to capacity,

Length and width of the vehicle,

Seating and standing capacity,
Seating arrangement,
Unladen weight of the vehicle,
Vehicle weight when fully loaded, and
Distance between front bumper and front axle.

For system-level analysis, either axle weights or average ESAL

value of representative vehicles for each vehicle class is required.
Pavement data consist of the following:
Terminal serviceability;
Type of pavement;
Length of corridor and area of bus stops in the corridor;
Flexible, rigid, and composite pavement as a percentage of the
total pavement length; and

Start
Vehicle data

Axle loads

Pavement
data
ESAL for typical vehicles
for each vehicle class or
individual buses

Relative comparison
of bus impact

ESAL-VMT for each

vehicle classification
(at system level only)

Pavement
deterioration
allocatable to buses
at the system level

Traffic data

ESAL of bus at bus stops

Cost data
Cumulative ESAL for bus
as a % of total ESAL for
corridor analysis

Stop
FIGURE 1

Proposed methodology.

Maintenance cost
allocatable to buses
or individual bus for
corridor analysis

Boil et al.

Paper No. 03- 4223

Design structural number (SN) for flexible pavement or depth

for rigid pavement, if available.
If the SN were not readily available, then the following additional
information would be required to calculate it:

Type of surface, base, and subbase used;

Layer coefficients of each layer;
Thickness of each layer; and
Drainage coefficients for base and subbase.

Traffic data should be obtained for the routes used by the

commercial vehicles considered in the study:
Bus schedule for peak and off peak-periods on weekdays,
Bus schedules for weekend,
Number of passes of a particular type of bus over a section of
roadway, and
Total ESAL for the current period.
Additional data requirements include the traffic growth rate if the
analysis period is greater than 1 year and the bus growth rate for the
same period.
For system-level analysis, VMT by vehicles in each vehicle class
is required.
For cost data, the cost per volume of surface layer for each
pavement type would be included. Additional data required
would be

TABLE 1

Pavement maintenance cost over a certain time period,

Pavement rehabilitation cost over a certain time period, and
The number of years in the time period considered.
The minimum data required, as given, would be referred to as
basic data, and the additional data required will be referred to as
extended data. A summary of these data requirements and their
availability in New Jersey is shown in Table 1.
For the current application, not all extended data were available.
For example, although an approximate estimate of maintenance cost
can be conducted with the basic data, extended data are required for
accurate estimation of maintenance cost attributable to buses.
NJDOT collects pavement data for its PMS and also reports additional data such as traffic and cost data for various sections, in the
Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) database. LTPP data
were accessed using the DataPave CD-ROM (21). Although data for
several sections were available, none of the sections had the complete
set of data required for the analysis.

Procedure
According to the literature findings presented so far in this report,
the vehicles were classified into 13 classes. Data for this classification are easily available from NJDOT. ESAL is often the parameter used to allocate load-related costs. Thus, estimating ESALs
for different types of vehicle classifications or individual buses is
a very important first step in determining cost responsibility for

Data Availability in New Jersey

Data Requirements
Individual axle weights in a typical situation or
when bus is fully loaded to capacity (crash load)
Number of axles for each vehicle
Distance between axles
Length and width of the vehicle
Seating and standing capacity
Seating arrangement for each bus
Unladen weight of the vehicle
Vehicle weight when fully loaded

Distance between front bumper and front axle

Terminal serviceability
Type of pavement
Structural number (SN)
Type of surface, base, and subbase
Layer coefficients of each layer
Thickness of each layer
Drainage coefficients for base and subbase
Bus schedule for peak and off-peak periods on
weekdays
Bus schedules for weekend
Total ESAL for the current period
Traffic growth rate for the analysis period
Bus or truck growth rate for the analysis period
Pavement maintenance cost over a time period
Pavement rehabilitation cost over a time period
Number of years in the period considered
Cost per volume of pavement surface type

35

Data Availability/Source
NJ Transit bus data
NJ Transit bus data
NJ Transit bus data
NJ Transit bus data
* Axle span available instead of width
NJ Transit bus data
Vehicle manufacturer
Vehicle manufacturer
NJ Transit bus data
* Not readily available in this application, but could
be computed from data obtained
Vehicle manufacturer
Assumed as 2.5 or can be obtained from LTPP
database
HPMS database
HPMS database
State DOT - N/A for the current application
State DOT - N/A for the current application
State DOT - N/A for the current application
State DOT - N/A for the current application
NJ Transit
NJ Transit
LTPP database
NJDOT website (1)
*Available online only for year 2000
NJ Transit
LTPP database
LTPP database
LTPP database
NJDOT

36

Paper No. 03- 4223

Transportation Research Record 1841

these types of vehicles. The steps of the proposed method are as

follows.

An example application of this procedure for various types of

buses operated by NJ Transit is shown in Table 2. In this example, it
was assumed that pavement terminal serviceability index is 2.5 and
SN is 5, which are typical values. Data provided by NJ Transit are
shown in the first 15 rows of the table. These data include vehicle
design characteristics and axle weight. The axle weight is given for
typical values, shown as Weights Represented in the table. For example, the typical load for the two commuter buses is the seated load,
whereas for the other types of buses, it is the standing load. ESALs
for each axle and for the whole vehicle for the typical load and for
crash load are shown in the bottom part of the table. To estimate
ESALs for crash load, an average weight per passenger of 150 lb was
assumed. An additional weight equal to the difference between the
number of passengers under typical and crash conditions, multiplied
by the average passenger weight, was then added in the vehicle
weight, and it was distributed evenly among the vehicle axles.
For system-level estimation, it would be desirable to have the axle
weight data and the number of axles for the representative vehicles

Step 1 The first step in this methodology is the calculation of

axle loads. Basic data, which are typically available from the vehicle manufacturer, are used to determine the axle loads for the different axles of the vehicle. Axle load data are usually given for
crash load conditions, which represent fully loaded buses. If
extended data are available, axle loads may be estimated for
different vehicle loadings using a computer program, like the one
used in the University of California study (15, 16 ). Alternatively,
an average passenger weight (e.g., 150 lb) may be considered and
an assumption may be made that the decrease in axle load due to
less-than-crash-load conditions is equally distributed among the
vehicle axles, or it is distributed proportionally to the crash load
sustained by each axle. Following this procedure, axle loads for
different types of buses and different loading conditions may be
estimated.

TABLE 2

New Jersey Transit Bus Data and ESAL Estimate

Bus Type
Overall Length (ft)
Number of
Doorways
Model No.
Number of Axles
Front Axle Weight
(lb.)
Rear Axle Weight
(lb.)
Tag Axle Weight
(lb.)
Front-Rear Axle
Spacing (in.)
Rear-Tag Axle
Spacing (in.)
Axle Span (in.)
Tire Pressure (psi)
Number of Front
Axle Tires
Number of Rear
Axle Tires
Number of Tax
Axle Tires
Weights Represented
Seated Load
Nominal Standing
Load
Crush Load
ESALs*
Front Axle
Rear Axle
Tag Axle
Total Bus ESAL
ESALs**
Front Axle
Rear Axle
Tag Axle
Total Bus ESAL

Commuter Commuter
40
45
1
1
MCI 102D3
3
13580

Transit Artic. Suburban Artic. Transit

60
60
40
3
2
2

MCI 102DL3 Volvo Type A

3
3
14800
14800

Transit
40
2

Volvo Type B
3
14900

Flexible Metro D

2
11265

Nova A
2
14480

19540

22040

22400

22400

22375

22360

9340

11060

15700

15900

n/a

n/a

279

318

216

216

299

299

48

48

291

291

n/a

n/a

86
110
2

86
110
2

86
110
2

86
110
2

85
110
2

86
110
2

n/a

n/a

Seated Load

Seated Load

Standing Load

Standing Load

49
72

57
79

66
99

65
98

75

83

0.32
1.38
0.06
1.76

0.45
2.20
0.13
2.78

0.46
1.77
0.11
2.35

0.64
2.73
0.21
3.58

* ESALs for typical bus loads, given as weights represented

** ESALs for fully loaded buses, given as crush load (150 lb

116
115
Typical Bus Load
0.45
0.46
2.33
2.33
0.57
0.61
3.36
3.41
Crash Load
0.85
0.87
3.48
3.48
1.04
1.09
5.38
5.44

Standing Load Standing Load

45
64

47
70

75

77

0.14
2.33
2.47

0.41
2.32
2.73

0.24
2.97
3.22

0.62
2.96
3.58

per passenger, evenly distributed over the vehicles axles)

Boil et al.

Paper No. 03- 4223

in each of the 13 classifications. These data could be used in Step 2

to accurately calculate the representative ESAL for each vehicle
classification. These data were not available for the purpose of this
study.
Information on pavement design characteristics and materials properties is used to estimate ESALs by vehicle type.
Depending on data availability, a simplified method, such as the
one described in the University of California study (15, 16 ), or a
more detailed one, such as the AASHTO procedure (4), may be
used. The sum of individual axle ESALs estimated using these
methods provides the ESAL for the whole vehicle and for one pass
of this vehicle over the pavement considered in the analysis. Bus
ESAL estimates for the NJ Transit vehicles for flexible pavements
using the AASHTO procedure are shown in the rows labeled Total
Bus ESAL in Table 2.
Step 2

Outcome 1 At this point, a comparative analysis may be performed on the relative impact of different types of buses. The
ESALs of different vehicles are used to estimate the relative damage that the vehicles cause due to a single passage over the pavement. Although this information is not adequate to estimate cost
responsibilities for different types of vehicles, it provides useful
insights on which type of bus has a more prominent negative impact
on a particular type of pavement. Results of the NJ Transit example
shown in Table 2 indicate that the Volvo type A and B buses are
expected to cause more damage on the pavement considered in the
analysis, compared with the other types of buses operated by NJ
Transit.

This step is required in a system-level analysis. The average ESAL for each vehicle classification indicates how much
damage that vehicle could cause by its one run on the pavement.
However, it does not indicate how much of the infrastructure is used
by the vehicle. VMT is a good indicator of this. Thus, the product of
ESAL and daily VMT is a good indicator of the impact of a vehicle
class on the entire roadway system.
NJDOT publishes a summary of annual VMT by each vehicle
class. Data for the year 2000 (22) were used for this analysis. Table 3
shows the analysis performed for New Jersey at the system level,
assuming that 70% of pavements are flexible pavements. NJDOT
also publishes annual average ESAL for heavy and light trucks for
individual routes in New Jersey (23). FHWA Vehicle Class 5 consists of light trucks, and Vehicle Class 4 consists of buses. Vehicle
Step 3

TABLE 3

Classes 6 to 13 consist of heavy trucks. Because data on typical

vehicles for each vehicle classification were not available, the average ESAL for all sections for heavy trucks and light trucks was calculated individually and was used as representative of each vehicle
classification for the year 2000. Then the product of ESAL and daily
VMT and the percentage of the total ESAL miles for each vehicle
class were calculated; they are shown in Table 3.
Under the assumption that heavy vehicles are primarily responsible for pavement damage in New Jersey, the foregoing system-level analysis shows that about 2.4% of the pavement
damage and thus the associated maintenance and rehabilitation costs
can be attributed to all buses in New Jersey, including NJ Transit
buses. With the use of typical vehicle data and VMT data for NJ
Transit buses, the estimation can be done in a similar fashion for NJ
Transit buses alone. In this case, the increase in ESAL due to the
decrease in speed at bus stops may also be considered.

Outcome 2

Buses have a unique travel characteristic: they frequently

stop at bus stops. Research has shown that this action causes great
damage to the pavement at bus stops (15, 16 ). The following analysis, considering a hypothetical pavement section, demonstrates
this fact.
The hypothetical highway pavement section is a three-layered
pavement section, with an asphalt layer, a nonstabilized base layer,
and a subbase layer on a subgrade. The thickness of the aggregate
layers represents some typical pavement sections in New Jersey.
A single wheel load of 9,000 lbf is assumed to be applied on the
pavement section, for this represents load on a single wheel of an
18-kip single-axle load. This pavement was analyzed using the 1993
AASHTO pavement design procedure (24), which is an empirical
design method. The procedure is based on determining an SN of the
pavement section that is based on the contributions of each of the
pavement systems layers. The main parameters of each layer used
consist of the layers thickness, the layer coefficients, and the
drainage characteristics. The typical values of these parameters in
New Jersey are 0.14 for base layer coefficient (a2), 0.11 for subbase
layer coefficient (a3), and 1.0 for base and subbase layer drainage
coefficient. These parameters are also recommended as default
parameters if information on the pavement system is unknown.
The layer coefficient (ai) is a parameter that has been statistically
derived at the AASHO road test. The base layer coefficient and the
subbase layer coefficient are as shown in Figure 2 and remain constant throughout the analysis. The asphalt layer coefficient is varied.
Step 4

System-Level Analyses of Buses

FHWA Vehicle Class Avg. ESAL

4 (buses)
0.23
5
0.23
6
1.3
7
1.3
8
1.3
9
1.3
10
1.3
11
1.3
12
1.3
13
1.3

37

Daily VMT (1000s)

1,530
5,015
1,882
591
2,065
3,778
998
488
160
151
Sum

ESAL-miles
351900
1153450
2446600
768300
2684500
4911400
1297400
634400
208000
196300
14652250

Percentage
2.40
7.87
16.70
5.24
18.32
33.52
8.85
4.33
1.42
1.34
100.00

38

Paper No. 03- 4223

Transportation Research Record 1841

Wheel Load = 9000 lbf

Tire Pressure = 110 psi

Asphalt Layer

a1 is variable

Base

a2 = 0.14

Subbase

a2 = 0.11

H is
variable
H = 8.0 in.
H = 12.0 in.

Subgrade
FIGURE 2
analysis.

Pavement section used for comparative

speed. Thus, at sections where heavy vehicles stop, the pavement

would deteriorate faster compared with other sections of the road.
Temperatures above 70F will aggregate this deterioration.
While calculating the ESAL due to buses for a corridor analysis,
the increase in ESAL at bus stops must be considered. The methodology as described could be used to calculate the ESAL at less than
4 mph for each bus plying in the corridor considered. Then the percentage of roadway used as bus stop may be calculated, and the
weighted ESAL using percentage of normal road and percentage of
bus stop may be estimated. For example, consider a roadway section 200 ft long with 1 bus stop of 50 ft. Let the ESAL at normal condition for the bus be 3 and at bus stops 4. The percentage of bus stop
is 50/200, that is, 25%. Therefore, the weighted ESAL would be
0.75 * 3 + 0.25 * 4 = 3.25. This is the weighted ESAL for the bus in
the corridor under analysis.
ESALs estimated so far are representative of a single pass
of a vehicle over the pavement. For corridor analysis, traffic data are
required to determine the cumulative ESALs over an analysis period.
In New Jersey, these data are available from weigh-in-motion stations at several locations. For buses, the number of passes at a particular location over the analysis period may be calculated from the
weekly transit schedule. On the basis of information on bus peak and
off-peak and weekday and weekend scheduling and knowledge of
the bus type operating on each route, the number of vehicle passes
over a particular roadway section for a typical week may be estimated. These values can be extrapolated to obtain annual number
of passes. The number of passes obtained for each vehicle type is
multiplied with its ESAL and the results are summed to obtain
the annual ESAL for a particular roadway segment. For an estimate
over a maintenance cycle (time period between two successive
pavement maintenances), a traffic growth factor should be considered
in the analysis.
The cost responsibility of a bus toward the pavement maintenance
cost may be calculated if extended data for traffic as well as cost can
be obtained. In a simplified approach, load-related infrastructure
expenditures may be allocated to different types of vehicles based
on their cumulative ESALs. Thus, the maintenance cost attributable
to any vehicle may be considered as proportional to its ESAL. Maintenance costs attributable to buses may be estimated based on the
bus ESALs percentage of the total ESALs.
Step 5

The layer coefficient is a parameter that is based on the resilient

modulus of the material. This parameter is a stress-dependent
parameter and for asphalt layers, also highly temperature dependent.
Work conducted by Van Til et al. (25) provided a guideline to convert the resilient modulus of asphalt, determined at 70oF, to a structural coefficient that can be used in the AASHTO design procedure.
A regression model developed is as follows:
a1 = 0.1723[ln( MR )] + 0.179

R2 = 0.998

where a1 is the asphalt layer coefficient and MR is the resilient

modulus of asphalt.
Therefore, for the asphalt layer, the resilient modulus was chosen
to be evaluated at one temperature (70F). However, it was analyzed
over different traffic loadings:
1. Stop and go (less than 4 mph), with MR of 300,000 psi;
2. Slow (approximately 15 mph), with MR of 500,000 psi; and
3. Normal conditions (approximately 60 mph), with MR of
700,000 psi.
A sensitivity analysis for the hypothetical pavement section was
conducted using the AASHTOWare DARWin computer program.
The program, based on the AASHTO design procedure, allows one
to easily vary parameter values and evaluate the pavement systems
sensitivity to these parameters. The program design criteria were set
to determine the number of design ESALs for the chosen pavement
section, for a design life of 20 years. For the analysis, only the
asphalt section properties varied, with the base, subbase, and subgrade properties remaining constant. Other variables used in the
analysis are the values specified in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for
Design of Pavement Structures (24). These parameters are default
parameters provided in the computer program, except for the effective subgrade resilient modulus, which needed to be input by the
user. Therefore, the sensitivity analysis is based on varying the
asphalt thickness and the asphalt resilient modulus, which is a function of the traffic speed for pavement temperature of 70F. Results
of the analysis are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 shows that, as
expected, as the resilient modulus of the asphalt increases (or traffic speed increases) so does the design ESAL for the same asphalt
thickness. Inspection of the graphs clearly shows that the number
of ESALs that a pavement can carry decreases with a decrease in

Outcome 3 The proposed method is flexible enough and may be

used in cases in which data availability is limited. The outcome of the

proposed method is an estimate of the contribution of various types
of vehicles to pavement damage. If estimates for pavement maintenance expenditures are available for a particular roadway section, the
proposed method allocates these costs as responsibilities to various
types of vehicles.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper is part of a comprehensive literature research effort,
investigating the availability of methods for allocating roadway
maintenance costs to different types of vehicle classes. Major findings of this part of the study indicate that performing a cost allocation study is very important in developing a clear picture of the
cost responsibility of each vehicle class and determining whether
vehicles are currently charged their fair share of cost responsibility. Whether a simplified approach or a more detailed one is to be

Boil et al.

Paper No. 03- 4223

13
EAC = 300,000 psi (Stop-and-Go Traffic)
Asphalt Layer Thickness (in.)

12
11

AC Thickness (in.) = 2.0313Ln(ESALs) - 22.306

2

R = 0.994

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

1.00E+08

1.00E+07

1.00E+08

Design ESALs
(a)
13
EAC = 500,000 psi (Slow Traffic)

Asphalt Layer Thickness (in.)

12
11

AC Thickness (in.) = 1.7267Ln(ESALs) - 19.5.5

2

R = 0.996

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06
Design ESALs

(b)
13
EAC = 700,000 psi (Normal Traffic)

Asphalt Layer Thickness (in.)

12
11

AC Thickness (in.) = 1.6025Ln(ESALs) - 18.43

2

R = 0.996

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

1.00E+08

1.00E+09

Design ESALs

(c)
FIGURE 3 Design ESAL versus asphalt thickness for (a) stop-and-go traffic, (b) slow
traffic, and (c) normal traffic.

39

40

Paper No. 03- 4223

used depends on the availability of required data, as described in

the previous section.
From the results of the literature search and discussions with state
DOT and local authorities, it has been determined that not many
studies exist that deal explicitly with the impact of buses on pavements. This paper presents a step-by-step approach for estimating
the impact of buses on highway pavements, along with an application of this approach to New Jersey highways. The proposed method
is based on estimates of ESALs. It should be noted, however, that in
the new pavement design method, which became effective in 2002,
traffic will be considered according to axle load spectra. The method
presented in this paper may still be used without major modification,
by incorporating the method that will be developed to estimate load
spectra from ESALs and vice versa.
According to the case study results, it has been shown that
1. Buses do cause significant damage on pavements, which based
on the estimated bus ESALs is often comparable to the damage
caused by trucks.
2. Bus stop-and-go conditions have a more prominent impact on
pavements.
3. Maintenance costs attributable to buses in New Jersey account
for about 2.4% of the total maintenance costs.
Buses are typically ignored or dealt with at a very aggregate level
in highway cost allocation studies, and emphasis is given only to
trucks. The reason stems from the usually small percentage of
bus compared with that of truck and other vehicle traffic. However,
explicit consideration of buses and use of a method such as the one
presented in this paper is deemed necessary for the purpose of performing a comparative evaluation of different types of buses, comparing transit alternatives in an economic analysis of a corridor study,
and allocating highway pavement maintenance costs to different users.
REFERENCES
1. National Transit Database. Table 28. Transit Operating Statistics: Service
Supplied and Consumed: Details by Transit Agency. Directly Operated
and Purchased Transportation Services, 2000. www.ntdprogram.com/
NTD/NTDData.nsf/2000+TOC/Table28/$File/t28_32.pdf. Accessed
May 5, 2002.
2. Vehicle Classification Scheme. New Jersey Department of Transportation, 2002. www.state.nj.us/transportation/count/vclass/fhwaclass.htm.
Accessed May 5, 2001.
3. Ekdahl, P. A Sensitivity Test of Two Deterioration Models for Flexible
Pavements. Department of Technology and Society, Lund Institute
of Technology, Lund University, Sweden, 1999. www.tft.lth.se/
rapporter/prellicpe.pdf. Accessed Mar. 24, 2001.
4. AASHTO Interim Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO.
Washington, D.C., 1972.
5. 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study: Final Report. FHWA,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997. www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/hcas/
final/toc.htm. Accessed Mar. 30, 2001.

Transportation Research Record 1841

6. State Highway Cost Allocation. Software Package. FHWA, U.S.

Department of Transportation. www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/12-hmpg.
htm. Accessed May 12, 2001.
7. Carey J. Implementation of the Simplified Arizona Highway Cost Allocation Study Model. Arizona Department of Transportation. Phoenix,
June 1, 1999.
8. Stower, J. R., A. Reno, P. Balducci, R. Mingo, H. Wolff, H. Cohen, and
D. Haling. Oregon Highway Cost Allocation Study. Department of
Administrative Services, Salem, Ore., June 1, 1999.
9. Sinha K. C., and T. F. Fwa. A Highway Cost Allocation Analysis at
the State Level. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 3, July 1987,
pp. 347364.
10. Fwa, T. F., K. C. Sinha, and S. K. Saha. Update Analysis of Highway
Cost Allocation. In Transportation Research Record 1262, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 111.
11. Georgia Highway Cost Allocation Study. Special Report. Research and
Development Bureau, Office of Materials and Research, Georgia
Department of Transportation, Atlanta, 1979.
12. Update of Georgia Highway Cost Allocation Study FY 1981. Research
and Development Bureau, Office of Materials and Research, Georgia
Department of Transportation, Atlanta, 1981.
13. Result of the Minnesota Highway User Cost Allocation Study. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Oct. 1990.
14. Small, A. K., C. Winston, and C. A. Evans. Road Work: A New Highway Pricing and Investment Policy. Brookings Institution, Washington,
D.C., 1989.
15. Gibby, R., R. Dawson, and P. Sebaaly. Local Urban Transit Bus Impact
on Pavement. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 3.,
May/June 1996, pp. 215217.
16. Gibby, R., R. Styer, and R. Kitamura. Impact of Single Rear Axle Buses
on Local Street Pavements. Final Report. California Public Works
Studies Program, Sacramento, 1991.
17. Flexible Pavement Structural Section Design Guide for California
Cities and Counties, 3rd ed. California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, 1979.
18. Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) Study. Regional Transportation
District (RTD) Buses. City and County of Denver, Colo., Sept. 14, 1994.
19. Parsons Transportation Group. Relative Impact of VIA Transit Vehicles
on Roadway Wear, Report Prepared for VIA, Oct. 26, 2001. www.
viainfo.net/planning/study/Axle%20Loading%20Report%20Final.pdf.
Accessed May 5, 2002.
20. Huang, Y. H. Pavement Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, N.J., 1993.
21. DataPave 2.0. (CD-ROM). FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation,
1999.
22. Travel Activity by Vehicle Type, 2000. New Jersey Department of
Transportation. www.state.nj.us/transportation/count/vclass/vmt/00_
trav.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2001.
23. Average Equivalency Factor per Vehicle for Heavy and Light Trucks.
New Jersey Department of Transportation, 2000. www.state.nj.us/
transportation/count/vclass/wim%20data/18kips2001.pdf. Accessed
May 10, 2001.
24. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO, Washington,
D.C., 1993.
25. Van Til, C. J., B. F. McCullough, B. A. Vallerga, and R. G. Hicks.
NCHRP Report 128: Evaluation of AASHO Interim Guide for Design
Pavement Structures. TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1972.

Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Bus Transit Systems.