Table 1-5: Minnesota Road Condition by Functional System -- Urban,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000 Interstate (total reported),233,232,232,232,230,231 Very good ,3,13,29,21,66,42 Good,6,114,125,113,105,125 Fair,56,51,50,51,41,45 Mediocre ,101,48,27,41,16,19 Poor,67,6,1,6,2,0 Not reported,0,0,0,0,1,0 ,,,,,, Other freeways and expressways (total reported),128,142,142,144,145,142 Very good ,0,10,12,11,26,21 Good,8,52,54,54,58,63 Fair,71,75,69,72,59,58 Mediocre ,20,5,6,6,2,0 Poor,29,0,1,1,0,0 Not reported,0,0,0,0,0,8 ,,,,,, Other principal arterial (total reported),546,558,551,534,556,521 Very good ,0,17,60,55,89,65 Good,17,122,144,134,182,222 Fair,188,327,264,251,230,215 Mediocre ,178,55,51,53,32,13 Poor,163,37,32,41,23,6 Not reported,0,0,0,0,1,35 ,,,,,, Urban minor arterial (total reported),N,N,N,N,N,"2,084" Very good ,N,N,N,N,N,102 Good,N,N,N,N,N,659 Fair,N,N,N,N,N,971 Mediocre ,N,N,N,N,N,230 Poor,N,N,N,N,N,122 Not reported,N,N,N,N,N,N ,,,,,, Urban collector (total reported),N,N,N,N,N,"1,504" Very good ,N,N,N,N,N,13 Good,N,N,N,N,N,223 Fair,N,N,N,N,N,634 Mediocre ,N,N,N,N,N,215 Poor,N,N,N,N,N,419 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. 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.",,,,,,