CCMPO - Local Transportation Funding Options
-
Upload
mpipe -
Category
Government & Nonprofit
-
view
19 -
download
1
Transcript of 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
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?