| State |
1. What is the current state of knowledge on the new M-E Design Guide? |
2. What design procedure is your State currently using? |
3. Does your State currently have an implementation plan in place for the new M-E Design Guide? |
4. Does your State currently have a local calibration plan in place for the new M-E Design Guide? |
5. Is your State currently performing data collection to support local calibration of the new M-E Design Guide? |
6. How would you rate your States receptiveness to adopting the new M-E Design Guide? |
7. Would your State like to participate or host any of the following workshops about the new M-E Design Guide? |
| Alabama |
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO
Continue to work with JTFP till problems are worked out. Will not implement until it is ready. |
NO
Response is same as question 3. |
NO |
NO, not at all for it
in its current status. Great concepts; however, the current product is unusable and not in a state that it can be adopted. |
Will wait on workshops until new guide is ready to be implemented. Basically, ALDOT is all for the new design guide; however, they were very disappointed (with) the product. It is not user friendly, it takes hours to run, and the results are questionable and not repeatable. Changes to inputs do not result in logical changes to outputs. |
| Alaska |
Attended workshop/ presentation to introduce |
Individual State design procedure |
YES |
NO |
NO |
YES, interested but need convincing |
a. MAYBE
b. NO
c. MAYBE
d. NO
e. I DON'T KNOW |
| Arizona |
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel |
AASHTO 1993 &
Individual State design procedure for Overlay Design |
We have been following the Guide development very closely. A major research project and steering committee was formed about four years ago to develop information for the eventual implementation of the Guide in ADOT. Arizona State University (ASU), Dr. Matt Witczak has been heading this research effort and characterizing several HMA mixes, aggregate materials and subgrade materials using the new Guide tests. In addition we have been working with ASU and the concrete industry to develop coefficient of thermal expansion for various concrete mixes. Also, we are conducting special research with Dr. Kamil Kaloush to characterize asphalt rubber hot mixes commonly used in Arizona. |
YES - calibration plan is part of the bigger research project with ASU |
YES - Data collection is also part of the bigger ASU research effort |
YES, all for it
Yes we are very supportive as the M-E Guide is needed to design the pavement structures to meet the ever expanding traffic loading demands and materials constraints placed upon the state's highway network. |
a. YES
b. YES
c. YES
d. YES
e. YES
I believe our state is a leader in this area and would be interested in any or all of the aforementioned areas. |
| Arkansas |
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO
However, Dr. Kevin Hall at the Univ. of AR is currently conducting research for AHTD to develop an implementation plan that includes analysis of input sensitivity. |
NO
See comment in question 3. |
NO |
YES, interested but need convincing
AHTD comments that the present software product needs some refinements. The software run times are not practical. |
a. YES
b. YES
c. YES
d. Maybe
e. NO |
| California |
No Information |
YES |
No Response |
No Information |
No Information |
No Information |
No Information |
| Colorado |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce
AND
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel
CDOT hosted NHI course in Nov. 2002 |
AASHTO 1993 |
YES, sort of
CDOT developed an implementation plan last year but they do not have any funding to support it. |
YES, sort of
Response is same as question 3. |
NO
Not to my knowledge. |
YES, ALL FOR IT
But need money to be able to adopt and implement it. |
a. YES
b. Maybe
c. Maybe
d. Maybe
e. Maybe
While not sure about the State's specific response in these categories, I'm sure CDOT's response would be generally very positive. However, as is the case in many States currently, getting approval for out of state travel is very, very difficult. I would hope that the implementation team would keep this in mind while developing the workshops. |
| Connecticut |
Heard the term, but know little |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO |
NO |
NO |
YES, interested but need convincing |
a. YES
b. I don't know
c. YES
d. I don't know
e. I don't know |
| Delaware |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO |
NO |
YESU/D is performing some modulus testing |
YES, interested but need convincing |
a. YES
b. Maybe
c. Maybe
d. Maybe
e. NO |
| District of Columbia |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
Combination of AASHTO & State procedure |
YES
We just developed a Design Catalog which incorporates drainage, reliability, and resilient modulus that results in an indirect approach towards mechanistic design. The plan is to proceed and collect necessary data and ultimately implement the M-E design |
NO |
NO |
YES, all for it |
a. YES |
| Florida |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1993 |
YES
Three year contract with TTI has been executed to develop a framework for implementing the Guide. Short term (3 yr) and long term (4-10 yr) plans will be outlined. On going research will be reviewed and pilot applications will be evaluated. Preliminary Florida specific design manuals will be developed and training conducted. |
YES
As part of the TTI contract, 12 case study pavement sections will be evaluated, as well as existing Florida research projects and LTPP sites. Guide input data for these sections will be collected and predicted performance will be compared with measured performance from pavement management system records. Sensitivity of input variables will be analyzed and the need to calibrate to Florida conditions will be evaluated. Comparisons to existing design methods will be made. |
YES
Laboratory soil and base resilient modulus testing has been on-going for many years with FSU and a historical database has been set up and is being expanded. UF has just completing a project to obtain laboratory dynamic asphalt modulus values for a number of Florida mixes and FSU has acquired equipment and is beginning work to expand the number of asphalt mixes for which E* has been obtained. A Florida planning representative is on an NCHRP panel for a project involving collection and forecasting of traffic load spectra and the planning office plans to provide the needed load spectra data in Guide compatible format. |
YES, interested but need convincing |
a. YES
b. Maybe
c. YES
d. Maybe
e. NO |
| Georgia |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce
GDOT hosted NHI course in Aug. 2003 |
COMBINATION of AASHTO & STATE PROCEDURES
Georgia is currently using the AASHTO 1992 design guide, but does use the updated PCC procedures on a case by case basis. GDOT currently has an initiative to update our pavement design manual, but will not adopt ME design principles until the 200? Guide is adopted by AASHTO. |
NO
Although GDOT is very interested in implementing the 200? Guide there will be no movement until the guide is adopted/released by AASHTO. |
NO
As stated above (question 3) GDOT does not have any version of the software or manual and is therefore unable to start with any implementation strategy. |
NO |
YES, interested but need convincing |
a. YES
b. YES
c. YES
d. YES
e. YES |
| Hawaii |
Heard the term, but know little |
INDIVIDUAL STATE DESIGN PROCEDURE |
NO |
NO |
NO |
NEUTRAL |
a. Maybe
b. Maybe
c. Maybe
d. Maybe
e. NO |
| Idaho |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
Combination of AASHTO & State procedure |
NO |
NO |
NO |
No, not until it comes out as a proven product (Advised us they will look at it and use whatever they can. ITD recently paid the University of Idaho to develop new pavement procedures and want to give them a try). |
a. Yes
b. I don't know
c. I don't know
d. I don't know
e. I don't know |
| Illinois |
The Illinois Department of Transportation is well aware of the new design guide, the concepts behind the guide and the data requirements. The IDOT is awaiting final publication, adoption by AASHTO, and the opportunity to review to make a complete assessment of the Guide. |
(INDIVIDUAL STATE DESIGN PROCEDURE)
The Illinois Department of Transportation in conjunction with research at the University of Illinois developed a mechanistic procedure for pavement design over 10 years ago. At that time, it conducted extensive research to calibrate the models. Since that time, it has confirmed the models based on the performance of monitored sections and through currently ongoing full scale research. |
(NO)
The Illinois Department of Transportation plans to continue using its current mechanistic design procedure. It is their understanding that mechanistic design will be incorporated into the new AASHTO Design Guide. |
(NO)
The mechanistic design procedure was calibrated extensively in its development, and research efforts are currently underway at the Advance Transportation Research Lab to further evaluate the performance of the design procedures. |
(NO)
See response to question 4. |
(NO, NOT UNTIL IT COMES OUT AS A PROVEN PRODUCT)
See response to questions 1 & 2. |
a. (YES)
b. (I don't know)
c. (I don't know)
d. (I don't know)
e. (I don't know)
A core group of pavement designers and researchers would be interested in #1 Participating in the Introduction/Implementation Planning Workshop. Travel restrictions will complicate this effort if training is held outside of Illinois. |
| Indiana |
(Attended workshop / presentation to introduce)
The Indiana DOT has attended national workshops, training (NHI) and has tried to start identifying the data required for the new Design Guide requirements all based on limited distribution of the preliminary information. |
AASHTO 1993 |
YES
Yes, sorta. The DOT has evaluated their current program and had identified what may be needed in the various areas in regards to the proposed Design Guide. |
NO
Yes and no. The DOT has identified, particularly in the PCC portion, what calibration efforts are needed. The soil and HMA portions are still in the working; however preliminary equipment purchases as appropriate for the testing has been completed. |
NO
The traffic data will begin very soon for the review process, others will follow in April 2004. |
NEUTRAL
The Indiana DOT is neutral at this time. The biggest question on their receptiveness is the validation and calibration of the models included in the program. Understanding / acceptance of the "black box" will be the biggest obstacle. |
a. YES
b. Maybe
c. YES
d. Maybe
e. NO
The Indiana DOT is interested and would like to participate in the process as much as possible. Due to funding issues within the Department, direct support for our participation needs to be considered. The DOT is willing to host any of the above except the "Lead State". |
| Iowa |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1993for HMA, PCA for PCC |
YES
Iowa has a draft plan in place pending release of the Guide. Our plan is to finalize the plan in the summer of 2005. A copy of the plan will be sent separately. |
NO
We are looking at the problem but development of the calibration plan is a task in the implementation plan. |
YES
We are looking at the issues of data collection and have started the process and looking at equipment that will be necessary. |
YES, interested but need convincing |
a. YES
b. YES
c. YES
d. YES
e. Maybe |
| Kansas |
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel |
AASHTO 1993 |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES, ALL FOR IT |
a. Maybe
b. NO
c. Maybe
d. NO
e. NO |
| Kentucky |
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel |
COMBINATION OF AASHTO & STATE PROCEDURE |
YES |
NOWe are working toward a development plan. |
YES |
YES, ALL FOR IT |
a. YES
b. Maybe
c. Maybe
d. Maybe
e. YES |
| Louisiana |
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO |
NO |
(YES)
Traffic section collects traffic classifications and weights using WIM equipment. However, improvements are needed in calibration and data collection to collect dependable data.
There is some research projects by the Louisiana Transportation Research Center (LTRC) in progress developing correlations with different field equipment in obtaining subgrade resilient modulus results for the new mechanistic design.
There is one construction project underway in which procedures have been developed to test for modulus |
YES, ALL FOR IT |
a. YES
b. NO
c. YES
d. NO
e. NO |
| Maine |
Heard the term, but know little |
COMBINATION OF AASHTO & STATE PROCEDURE |
YES |
NO |
YES |
YES, interested but need convincing
their main question is basically what value/improvements does it have over the existing methodologies |
a. YES
b. Maybe
c. YES
d. Maybe
e. Maybe |
| Maryland |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1993AND
COMBINATION OF AASHTO & STATE PROCEDURE |
NO |
NO |
NO |
YES, ALL FOR IT |
a. YES
b. Maybe
c. YES
d. Maybe
e. I don't know |
| Massachusetts |
Heard the term, but know little |
COMBINATION OF AASHTO & STATE PROCEDURE |
NO |
NO |
NO |
YES, interested but need convincing |
a. YES
b. NO
c. I don't know
d. NO
e. NO |
| Michigan |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO |
NO |
NO |
NEUTRAL |
a. NO
b. NO
c. NO
d. NO
e. NO |
| Mississippi |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1972 |
YES
Yes, Mississippi DOT has an implementation plan. MDOT's State Planning & Research Study (Study No. 163) with ERES Consultants Division of Applied Research Associates, Inc. for development of an implementation plan was completed in September 2003. MDOT is implementing the 2002 Design Guide in two phases - phase one was for the development of the plan for implementation and phase two is for the actual implementation.
Phase 1 included: familiarization of MDOT staff with the 2002 Design Guide with introductory training; discussions and meetings to establish the scope of pavement types and rehabilitations; development of a factorial experiment design; recommendation of test sections for calibration and validation of the performance models; preparation of a detailed plan for Phase 2 implementation; and estimation of a budget for implementation.
Phase 2 (currently scheduled to be completed in four years) includes: conducting a detailed review of all design inputs; conducting an initial sensitivity analysis and comparison with current MDOT procedures; providing guidance to carry out the required field and laboratory testing; outlining work related to obtaining all design inputs including detailed traffic inputs, selection of performance criteria, and material testing; establishing default inputs where applicable; calibrating and validating distress prediction models with Mississippi pavement performance; conducting additional sensitivity analysis and comparison of the 2002 Design Guide procedure with the current MDOT design procedure results; preparing detailed design and training manuals for training and for future reference, customizing the Design Guide software to include Mississippi-calibrated performance models and default inputs; and provide training to MDOT staff.
More details on the implementation plan can be found the following web site gomdot.com/ research/PDF/ SS163.pdf (.PDF, 5 mb) |
YES
See above comments. |
YES
See above comments. Also - Subgrade Characterization, HMA Characterization, and Traffic Load Spectra Development Studies are underway with University of Mississippi and with Mississippi State University. |
YES, ALL FOR IT |
a. YES
b. NO
c. YES
d. NO
e. NO |
| Minnesota |
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel |
INDIVIDUAL STATE DESIGN PROCEDURE |
YES
Plan in progress, includes calibration studies by U of MN, resilient modulus and complex modulus test implementation |
YES
Plan will be similar to the one developed for MnPAVE, it is being incorporated into the U of MN study. |
YES
MN/ROAD data, PMS data, materials testing (Mr) data, etc. |
YES, interested but need convincing |
a. YES
b. YES
c. YES
d. Maybe
e. Maybe |
| Missouri |
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel |
AASHTO 1986 |
YES
MoDOT intends to fully implement M-E Design Guide after calibration is performed |
YES
MoDOT is contracting with ERES to direct our calibration effort. This effort will begin in mid-March and last one year |
NO, but will begin soon |
YES, all for it |
a. YES
b. Maybe
c. YES
d. YES
e. YES |
| Montana |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1972 & 1993 |
YES
Montana doesn't have a specific implementation plan although we have put into motion some activities in anticipation of the new design guide (see answer to question 4 |
YES
Montana is in the third year of a five-year Performance Predication Model research project designed specifically to model Montana specific materials in preparation of the 200x design guide. The timing of the release of the design guide is critical to Montana and our ability to make good use of our research |
YES
Yes, as part of the project described in question 4 |
YES, all for it |
a. YES
b. NO
c. YES
d. NO
e. YES |
| North Carolina |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1972 |
NO
It is difficult to develop a plan for implementing a Guide that we have not seen. |
YES
We currently have a research project on "Typical Dynamic Moduli for North Carolina Asphalt Mixes". |
YES
Our Traffic Survey Unit is developing strategies to provide the required axle load data. |
YES, interested but need convincing
We would like to know the impact of the new Design Guides on the State before we commit to implementing it. |
a. YES
b. Maybe
c. YES
d. Maybe
e. I don't know
We need to see the Guide before we commit to being a"Lead State". |
| North Dakota |
Heard the term, but know little
It is our understanding that the only people that have knowledge of the new M-E Design Guide are those who have been working directly with the project. The only news that we have heard is about the delays since the first anticipated release date. |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO
Because the guide is being developed in secrecy and the release date is unknown, it is impossible to have an implementation plan in place. |
NO
Same answer as for question 3. |
NO
The North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) does not know what data they should be collecting if they decide to implement the M-E Design Guide. Where can the NDDOT obtain a list of what data is needed? |
YES, interested but need convincing |
a. YES<
b. NO
c. YES
d. NO
e. I don't know |
| Nebraska |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO |
NO |
YES
Coordination will be performed with Materials, Traffic, and Planning personnel. |
YES, interested but need convincing |
a. YES
b. Maybe
c. YES
d. Maybe
e. NO |
| New Hampshire |
Heard the term, but know little |
Combination of AASHTO & State procedure - I believe they use a State Design procedure, which was developed from the AASHTO Design Guide (not really sure which version) but includes regional factors. |
NO |
NO |
NO |
NEUTRAL |
a. Maybe
b. Maybe
c. Maybe
d. Maybe
e. Maybe |
| New Jersey |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1993 |
YES |
NO |
YES |
YES, ALL FOR IT |
a. YES
b. YES
c. YES
d. YES
e. YES |
| New Mexico |
(Attended workshop / presentation to introduce)
AND
(Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel) |
COMBINATION OF AASHTO (1972) & STATE PROCEDURE for flexible pavements
AASHTO 1993 for rigid pavements |
NO |
NO |
NO |
NEUTRAL
They are interested in it, but feel it needs further work. |
a. YES
b. Maybe
c. NO
d. NO
e. NO |
| Nevada |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO |
NO |
NO |
YES, ALL FOR IT |
a. YES
b. YES
c. NO
d. NO
e. NO |
| New York |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce
AND
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO |
NO |
YES
Working on TMG WIM sites for improved traffic data (Axle Load Spectra format), Resilient Modulus Research project, Pavement Management Distress Degradation curves. |
NO, NOT UNTIL IT COMES OUT AS A PROVEN PRODUCT |
a. Maybe
b. Maybe
c. Maybe
d. Maybe
e. Maybe |
| Ohio |
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel |
COMBINATION OF AASHTO & STATE PROCEDURE |
NO |
NO |
YES |
YES, interested but need convincing |
a. NO
b. NO
c. NO
d. NO
e. NO |
| Oklahoma |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO |
NO |
YES
Currently, resilient modulus of soil continues and a sizable database has been compiled. It has been proposed that modulus testing of some of common asphalt mixes is being performed. I'm pretty sure that will be happening soon. There is no formal plan to gather the information specifically for the new design guide |
YES, interested but need convincing
Need to be shown the specifics, but all the information I have sent them so far has received positive comments and they are interested in using the new guide. Of course, cost is one of their biggest concerns |
a. YES
b. I don't know
c. YES
d. I don't know
e. MAYBE |
| Oregon |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
COMBINATION OF AASHTO & STATE PROCEDURE |
NO |
YES |
NO |
NEUTRAL |
a. YES
b. YES
c. Maybe
d. Maybe
e. I don't know |
| Pennsylvania |
Participated in JTFP & NCHRP panel |
AASHTO 1993 |
Yes - PennDOT has an informal plan at the present time |
Yes - PennDOT has an HMA research project (called SISSI) and also is working on instrumenting a PCC pavement project. PennDOT believes these two research projects will help toward local calibration |
Yes - PennDOT has started collecting data from the SISSI Project |
YES, ALL FOR IT |
a. YES
b. YES
c. Maybe
d. Maybe
e. YES |
| Puerto Rico |
No Information |
No Information |
No Response |
No Information |
No Information |
No Information |
No Information |
| Rhode Island |
No Information |
No Information |
No Response |
No Information |
No Information |
No Information |
No Information |
| South Carolina |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce
AND
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel |
AASHTO 1972 for new asphalt pavements
AASHTO 1986 for asphalt overlays
AASHTO 1993 for concrete pavements |
NO |
NO |
NO |
NO, NOT UNTIL IT COMES OUT AS A PROVEN PRODUCT
The SCDOT definitely plans on implementing the new Design Guide. However, they are hesitant to rush into the implementation phase prior to a reasonable "shake-down" period. This period will consist of other states and FHWA identifying/correcting bugs in the procedure, plus SCDOT developing confidence through side-by-side designs. |
a. YES
b. NO
c. Maybe
d. NO
e. NO |
| South Dakota |
Heard the term, but know little |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO |
NO |
NO |
YES, interested but need convincing
Except that current values used for material properties will probably be used |
a. NO
b. NO
c. Maybe
d. NO
e. NO |
| Tennessee |
Heard the term, but know little
i.e. fundamentally not interested |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO |
NO |
NO |
NO, NOT UNTIL IT COMES OUT AS A PROVEN PRODUCT
Satisfied with current results, and are not keen on being the fall guy. |
a. Maybe
b. Maybe
c. Maybe
d. NO
e. NO |
| Texas |
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel |
COMBINATION OF AASHTO & STATE PROCEDURE
State procedure for HMA
AASHTO 1993 for PCC |
NO
(see response to question 5) |
YES
State funded research projects are underway to gather information that will be needed for local calibration. No formal overall plan exists, just a collection of individual efforts underway to collect and analyze needed data. |
YES
No formal plan, just in-house and research efforts underway to collect and analyze data. |
YES, interested but need convincing
TxDOT was looking at immediate implementation of the new design procedure, when it became available, but has recently decided to slow down somewhat. Rumors have circulated that there may be significant changes to the procedure and or models as the procedure goes through the AASHTO process. Texas would like to implement a M-E design procedure, and will begin looking at a timeline for implementation once they get a better feel for which direction the 2002 procedure is headed nationally (and what changes may occur). |
a. Maybe
b. Maybe
c. Maybe
d. Maybe
e. Maybe
Texas has done a significant amount of preliminary work getting prepared to implement a M-E design procedure. There may be interest in participation or hosting workshops (depending on timing and cost to state). |
| Utah |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1993 |
YES
Testing equipment on order. Training on concepts underway. Waiting for product |
YES
Research project for material properties. Waiting for software to perform design correlations. |
YES
Research project for material properties. Traffic data is in spectrums, distress data for (in)puts |
YES, ALL FOR IT |
a. NO
b. NO
c. YES
d. YES
e. YES |
| Vermont |
No Information |
No Information |
No Response |
No Information |
No Information |
No Information |
No Information |
| Virginia |
(Attended workshop / presentation to introduce)
AND
(Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel) |
(COMBINATION OF AASHTO & STATE PROCEDURE) |
YES |
YES
see our attachment |
YES |
YES, ALL FOR IT |
a. YES
b. YES
c. YES
d. YES
e. YES |
| Washington |
Participated in JTFP or NCHRP panel |
No Response |
(YES) |
YES
WSDOT has a plan for local calibration. The University of Washington has a contract with WSDOT to work on this calibration. It will include materials calibrations and traffic calibrations. Much of what WSDOT currently uses for Everpave can be reevaluated. WSDOT is unsure at this time, how much actual testing of materials will have to be done for the calibration to be reliable. |
YES
WSDOT is currently performing data collection to support local calibration. Being prepared by University of Washington. |
NO, NOT UNTIL IT COMES OUT AS A PROVEN PRODUCT
At this time, knowing the work that has yet to be completed and/or finalized for this project, (We) would say, that it needs to come out as a proven product. WSDOT DOES believe this will happen in the future. |
a. (YES)
b. (YES)
c. (YES)
d. (YES)
e. (YES)
(We are) willing to be a lead state in adopting the guide. (We) would like to participate in these workshops and would be willing to host them, as long as other states were invited. I thought that was the idea-to have Regional meetings whereby Idaho, Oregon and Alaska, etc could come here and have training. Also, it is very important that FHWA fund these activities. |
| Wisconsin |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1972 |
YES
see our attachment |
NO |
NO |
YES, ALL FOR IT |
a. no response
b. YES
c. no response
d. YES
e. YES |
| West Virginia |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO |
NO |
NO |
NEUTRAL |
a. Maybe
b. NO
c. Maybe
d. NO
e. NO |
| Wyoming |
Attended workshop / presentation to introduce |
AASHTO 1993 |
NO |
NO |
NO |
YES, interested but need convincing |
a. YES
b. NO
c. Maybe
d. NO
e. NO |
