ccmpo - local transportation funding options

County Funding Option for Transportation Projects

Chairman Michael PipeCentre County Board of Commissioners

Centre County MPO – Coordinating CmteTuesday, February 28, 2017

act89funding@centrecountypa.gov

Where are we now…County Liquid Fuels Program 2008-2017

• Annual application cycle• Typical requests include:

– Repaving– Bridges/Culverts/Pipes– Stormwater (Inlets/Ditches)– Signage & Guide Rails– Equipment

• Typical Available Funding:– $185,000 to $205,000

• Average Annual Amount Requested:– $937,993

County Liquid Fuels Program

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

UnfundedFunded

County Liquid Fuels Program

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

Requested Funded

AVERAGE FUNDING GAP = $735,006

Mountaintop Region Requested: $1,004,343

Awarded: $257,57525.6%

Liquid Fuel Requests & Awards By Region: 2008-2017Lower Bald Eagle

Valley Region Requested: $2,112,590

Awarded: $408,38319.3%

Moshannon Valley Region

Requested: $567,589Awarded: $103,088

18.2%

Upper Bald Eagle Valley Region

Requested: $2,171,565Awarded: $362,551

16.7%

Centre Region Requested: $2,798,370

Awarded: $332,12511.9%

Liquid Fuel Requests & Awards By Region: 2008-2017

Nittany Valley Region Requested: $441,672Awarded: $199,697

45.2%

Penns Valley Region Requested: $1,194,633

Awarded: $396,45333.2%

7

Transportation Bill (Act 89 of 2013)

• Signed by Governor Corbett in 2013

• By 2020, $2.3-$2.4 billion in new revenue for transportation funding1

• Gives Counties option to increase registration fees by $5 starting in 2015 1 - ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/TRANSPLAN/FINAL_Trans_Funding_Plan_Summary.pdf

How Would Centre County Benefit?

• As of December 4, 2016, 120,537 non-exempt vehicles registered in Centre County• Potential funding to be used for

transportation projects:–$5 Fee annual yield at 100% - $602,685–$5 Fee annual yield at 80% - $482,148

9

Important Points

• 100% spent in Centre County• 0% for administration at PennDOT &

County (per the law)• Can only be used for transportation

projects (per the law)• Can be used to leverage State and

Federal Transportation Funds

$5 Fee Survey ResponseAs of 2/28

• 17 of 35 municipalities have responded:– 10 are in favor of enacting fee– 6 are not in favor of enacting fee– 1 will support county decision, either way

Responses To Date

In FavorNot In FavorSupport County Decision

$5 Fee Survey ResponseAs of 2/28

• US Census ACS 2011-2015 Population Estimates for Centre County: 157,823• 17 - Responding Municipalities: 109,233

(69.21%)–10 - In Favor: 73,978 (67.72%)–6 - Not In Favor: 18,700 (17.12%) –1 - Will Support County Decision: 18,238

(16.70%)

MPO Local Bridge Funding• 1 local bridge (over 20’) programmed on Transportation

Improvement Program (TIP)– T-348 Ardery Hollow Run Road (Worth Twp) bridge replacement– Programmed Amount: $1,218,380 – Local Share: $60,912 ($50,000 County Act 13)

• New local bridge start proposed 2017-20 TIP– $356,000 for preliminary engineering

• Local Bridge Retroactive Reimbursement Line Item– $161,117

County Funding Available• County Liquid Fuels Program– Covers a number of project types– $185,000 to $205,000 estimated annually

• Act 13 “At Risk Local Bridge Funding” – Can only be used on locally owned SD bridges– Repairs must remove SD designation– $992,036 available– $155,000 allocated

Local Bridges: Age• 58 municipally

owned bridges with 20’ or greater spans– 24 (41.4%) are 50+

years old– 9 (15.5 %) are 40-49

years old– 18 (31%) are 25-39

years old– 7 (12.1%) are 0-24

years old 50 or older 40-49 25-39 0-24

0

5

10

15

20

25

Bridge Age

Local Bridges: Condition Rating• Assigns a single-digit number that describes the physical condition

of the structures major components compared to its original as-built condition

• Number is assigned by state-certified bridge inspectors during each inspection of the bridge, which occurs at least every two years

• Number range is 9 (best) to 0 (worst)

• A rating of 4 or below indicates poor conditions that result in a structural deficient classification

Rating Condition

N Not applicable

9 Excellent

8 Very Good

7 Good, some minor problems noted

6 Satisfactory, structural elements showing minor deterioration

5 Fair, primary structural elements are sound but showing minor cracks and signs of deterioration

4 Poor, deterioration of primary structural elements has advanced

3 Serious, deterioration has seriously affected the primary structural components

2 Critical, deterioration of primary structural components has advanced and bridge will be closely monitored, or closed, until corrective action can be taken.

1 Imminent failure, major deterioration in critical structural components. Bridge is closed but corrective action may put the bridge back into light service.

0 Failed, bridge is out of service and beyond corrective action.

Local Bridges: Condition Rating

Local Bridges: Structurally Deficient• Indication of bridge’s overall status in terms of structural soundness

and ability to service traveling public

• An “SD” designation indicates that the bridge has deterioration to one or more of its major components

T-419 Lower Georges Valley Road BridgeGregg Twp

If you’ve passed a sign like this…

Then you’ve likely crossed an SD bridge.

T-419 Lower Georges Valley Road BridgeGregg Twp• 23’ span

Abutment and wall • Severe scour• Mortar cracking/loss• Abutments need removed

from stream

Superstructure• Heavy corrosion & pitting

Superstructure• Deck pans in poor

condition • Crumbling asphalt

T-942 Lower Coleville Road BridgeSpring Twp• 52’ span Cracks with

displacement on Beams 1 & 12

Rust stains under Beam 2…precursor to cracking

T-489 Front Street BridgeCurtin Twp• 90’ span

Cracking under joints on Beam 1

Mill Street BridgeHoward Borough• 28’ span

Deterioration of several substructure components

T-519 Fiedler Road BridgeHaines Twp• 26’ span

Section Loss & Severe Corrosion on Exposed Beam

T-305 East Hannah Road BridgeTaylor Twp• 33’ span

Section loss & exposed rebar

Hole exposing beam

Missing stone in abutment

Cracking and rust staining

T-312 Shady Dell Road BridgeWorth Twp• 25’ span

T-467 Hoy Road BridgeWalker Twp• 25’ span

Hole & depression in deck

Crack with displacement Cracked wing wall

Local Bridges: “Borderline”

• “Borderline” is an Centre County MPO staff term for bridges that have a 5 rating in one or more structural areas

• While these bridges are still in “fair” condition, they are nearing SD designation

T-525 Wolves Gap Road Bridge

Miles Twp

Local Bridges: Functionally Obsolete

• An “FO” designation indicates that the bridge has older features (for example, road widths and weight limits) compared to more recently built bridges.

T-524 Brown Road BridgeMiles Twp

If you’ve crossed a one lane bridge

Then you’ve crossed an FO bridge.

Local Bridges: Condition Analysis• 58 municipally owned bridges– 13 (22.4%) are Structurally Deficient– 18 (31%) are “Borderline” or nearing SD designation

(5 rating) in 1 or more areas– 10 (17.2%) are Functionally Obsolete

Bridge Conditions

No DesignationStructurally DeficientFunctionally Obsolete"Borderline"

22.4%17.2%

31% 29.4%

58 Municipally Owned Bridges20’ or greater length

13 Structurally Deficient

18 “Borderline” Bridges

10 Functionally Obsolete

41 of 58Municipally Owned Bridgesfall into those 3 categories

Small Local Structure Inventory• Locally owned structures under 20’ are not

inspected under PennDOT contract• Centre County MPO inventoried locations

several years ago• Focused on 8’-20’ spans (bridges, pipes)

Around 100Locations with bridges orpipes that are 8’ to 20’ in length

Sizeable holes & severe rust on at least 5 beams

Jersey barrier (no railing)

Concrete deterioration

Vertical crack across entire structure

Structure in fair condition…but maintenance needed

Hole in roadway above concrete slab…

…because the slab and abutment had collapsed

A typical cross pipe

second pipe to accommodate heavier storm events

Success StoryT-710 Kato Road Bridge• Snow Shoe Twp• 103’ span

Bridge was closed due to condition

Funding source was difficult to find

Success Story• Township & PennDOT 2-0 Municipal Services

developed a repair solution

• Locally bid project

Rebuilt abutments

Repaired pier

Success Story

Total Project Cost: $300,000• Local Share: $270,000• County Act 13: $30,000

New beams & deck

44

Thank you!Questions?