The objectives of this study were to analyze the before and after crash history and speeds on routes which have been resurfaced , inspect resurfacing projects, make recommendations to improve the resurfacing process, and determine improvements which could be made in conjunction with the resurfacing project to improve the overall safety of the roadway.

An analysis of the before and after crash data did not show a reduction in total crashes after resurfacing. There was a reduction in crashes which occurred on a wet pavement. A comparison of speeds before and after resurfacing did not find a major change in travel speeds. Considering all locations, there was an average increase in speeds after resurfacing of less than one mph.

Discussion with state inspectors and contractors found agreement of areas which could be changed to improve the resurfacing process. Most of the comments dealt with preparation of the road prior to paving, methods to place the shoulder, and the paving operation.

Recommendations were made to be taken into consideration when resurfacing roads. They were grouped into the following categories: preparation for resurfacing, shoulder-related issues, paving operation, and general issues. Examples of the recommendations are as follows: 1) consider adding ditching and shouldering as part of preparation for resurfacing especially when the resurfacing extends to the ditch fore slope, 2) place a note on the typical section that the shoulder wedge should be sloped down to the adjacent turf at no more than a 45 degree angle, 3) ensure that an adequate amount of leveling material is included in the contract, 4) encourage use of non-typical additions to the contract to minimize any potential problems after resurfacing (for example, place object markers when there is a potential hazard such as a culvert headwall adjacent to the pavement), and 5) consider development of a more comprehensive policy for resurfacing that focuses both on the paved travel lanes and the adjacent roadside (shoulder, ditch, clear zone).

Report Date


Report Number


Digital Object Identifier



The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the University of Kentucky, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, nor the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.