SHRP2 Solutions: Funding Implementation

Report
Funding Implementation
Research Advisory Committee
July 24, 2012
SHRP2 Implementation
• $81 million has been programmed; another $11 million
available
– Obtained through a wording change in one of the
SAFETEA-LU extensions
– $400 million originally recommended for full
implementation (TRB Special Report 296)
– Scaled-back implementation program underway
• About 1/3 of the products
– Priorities established by the State DOTs through the
AASHTO Implementation Task Force
– Products that have not made the “priority list” will be
rolled out, but with a lesser budget and level of effort
2
Reauthorization Proposals
• Additional funding needed for successful implementation
• AASHTO recommended a take-down from the core
highway programs
– $75 million/year
– NHPP, STP, HSIP, and CMAQ
• Various funding proposals were put forth in draft
congressional bills over the past few years
– None
– Eligible for FHWA technology deployment funding
– 6% of SP&R
3
SHRP2 Funding and MAP-21
• MAP-21 requires funding for SHRP2 implementation to
come from SP&R funds… but:
• The States determine the percentage of SP&R funds used
– Three-fourths of the states (38 states) must agree on
the percentage
– AASHTO Board of Directors will make the final decision
• SP&R program can be supplemented with funding from
the core highway programs
– STP funds: Activities eligible under 23 USC 133(b)
– Other core programs: Flexibility to shift funds (Section
1509 of MAP-21 modifies 126 USC to allow 50%
transferability across core programs)
4
Draft Proposal
• Ad-hoc group of leaders discussed options last Friday
– SCOR/RAC
– Standing Committee on Planning
– Standing Committee on Highways
– AASHTO Implementation Task Force
• Draft proposal:
– Sustain SAFETEA-LU funding for 2 years of MAP-21:
• 5% from SP&R (approx. $36.5 million/year)
• Remainder from FHWA (approx. $9.5 million/year)
5
How Will Funding be Used?
• About 2/3 of implementation funding will pay for demos:
– Delta costs, incentives, direct technical assistance to
the transportation agencies
• About 1/3 of implementation funding will be used for:
– Educational outreach, communications and
marketing, IT support, support to states (such as
tracking the demos), administration of the program
• States will compete for demonstration projects through a
proposal and selection process
– Will include State DOT experts on advisory
committees to select winning proposals
6
Why Send Your $ Back to
Washington?
• Significant investment ($200 million) has been made in
the research
• SHRP2 was established by the states and run with
significant state input
• State DOTs are the focus of the SHRP2 implementation
effort
– States will have the opportunity to try products that
best fit their needs, including funding and technical
assistance
• Significant benefits will be realized by assisting States in
implementing SHRP2 products
7
Examples of Benefits
• R04 – Bridge Designs for Rapid Renewal
– Keg Creek Bridge in Iowa: 13-mile detour
necessitated an accelerated construction method.
Replacement completed in 2 weeks rather than
6 months
• R06 – Web Tool for Non-destructive Testing
– NDT of tunnel linings allowed complete inspection of
the Chesapeake Bay Tunnel in 2 hours, compared to
3 months to conduct hammer testing
• C06B – Integrating Ecosystem & Highway Planning
– On a sample $100 million project, a one-year delay
costs roughly $5 million in inflation costs alone
8

similar documents