States Show Strong Support for Continued Funding
of SHRP Implementation and LTPP Programs
When the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (known
as TEA-21) was signed by President Clinton in June, a collective
sigh of relief could be heard from State departments of transportation
(DOTs), contractors, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
and others responsible for building, maintaining, and operating
the Nation's transportation system. TEA-21 not only provided much-needed
funds for highway construction and maintenance, but also significantly
upped the amount of funds allocated to State Planning and Research
(SP&R) programs.
Upon closer reading of the Act, however, some of that relief
turned to consternation: TEA-21 included no funding specifically
designated for the continuation of the SHRP implementation program
and less than two-thirds of the funds needed to continue the long-term
pavement performance (LTPP) studies.
The previous highway bill (1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act or ISTEA) had included $108 million for SHRP implementation
activities and the LTPP studies. Those designated funds had allowed
FHWA, in partnership with the States, to support an extensive
program of showcase workshops, continued refinements of the Superpave
system, deployment and staffing of the concrete and Superpave
trailers, activities of the Lead States teams, monitoring of the
LTPP test sites, analysis of LTPP data, technology exhibits, training
courses, and other activities aimed at putting SHRP's products
into the hands of those who would benefit most.
Speaking at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Task Force on SHRP Implementation meeting in
July, AASHTO Executive Director Francis B. Francois stressed the
importance of securing funding for SHRP and LTPP activities, stating,
"The future of SHRP implementation is on the table. If we
can't find a way to bring money to the table, we will see 10 to
15 years of work go up in smoke."
Task Force member Don Lucas, from Indiana DOT, agreed, adding,
"We can't let the money go down the drain. Our guys are starting
to use and benefit from the LTPP data, and we've got to find a
way to take the LTPP studies to their 20-year conclusion."
Concerns about the funding shortfall have led to a series of
resolutions drafted by several AASHTO committeesall with the
goal of ensuring continued funding and support for the LTPP studies
and SHRP implementation activities, including the Lead States
program.
The first of the series of resolutions was presented at the August
meeting of the Mississippi Valley Conference of State Highway
and Transportation Departments. It reads, in part, as follows:
Whereas, under TEA-21 FHWA funding for the LTPP program
has been reduced by one-third, and funding for supporting SHRP
implementation has been curtailed to the point where continuing
support for the federal-state effort is jeopardized, and
Whereas, the SHRP program is of great importance in improving
the nation's highway infrastructure
Now, therefore, be it resolved, by the Mississippi Valley Conference
State Highway and Transportation Departments Executive Committee,
that each state should dedicate a portion of its SP&R funds
into a SHRP pooled fund directed by the states in partnership
with TRB and FHWA
.
According to Joe Mickes, chief engineer for Missouri DOT, "It
was clear to us that something needed to be done. We had to step
up to the plate to ensure that we would continue to reap the benefits
of SHRP."
In short order, a number of related resolutions were drafted,
debated, and passed at subsequent AASHTO meetings. The first to
do so was the AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials, which endorsed
the Mississippi Valley resolution, but added the word voluntarily
in the phrase "should voluntarily dedicate a portion
of its SP&R funds."
A month or so later, the AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction
took up the cause, passing a resolution that called for each State
to "voluntarily dedicate a portion of its SP&R funds
into a SHRP pooled fund program directed by the States, leveraged
with additional funds from the (National Cooperative Highway Research
Program) NCHRP, FHWA, and any other available sources to be managed
by AASHTO in partnership with the FHWA and TRB."
At about the same time, the AASHTO Research Advisory Committee
(RAC) passed a resolution calling for the AASHTO Board of Directors
to call on the Task Force for SHRP Implementation, FHWA, and others
to identify "time-critical, high-priority national research
needs that are in danger of being negatively impacted" if
additional funding is not found. RAC recommended that the most
critical needs be funded for at least 1 year by "additional
TEA-21 funds that will be flowing to NCHRP" and by the establishment
of an "aggressive" national, voluntary pooled-fund study.
In September, the Southeastern Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (SASHTO) endorsed RAC's recommendations,
calling for a voluntary pooled fund approach and use of NCHRP
to fund "critical national transportation research needs."
Meanwhile, the Task Force on SHRP Implementation created
a special panel to investigate the impacts of TEA-21 on the SHRP
follow-on programs, prioritize the critical elements at risk,
and draft recommendations for further consideration. The panel
was chaired by Gary Hoffman, chief engineer of the Pennsylvania
DOT, and included Douglas Rose, chief engineer of the Maryland
State Highway Administration, and Joseph Deneault, the State highway
engineer for West Virginia. Staff from AASHTO, FHWA, and the Transportation
Research Board provided technical background and analysis to the
panel.
According to John Conrad, Task Force chairman and assistant secretary
for Washington State DOT, "A lot of hard work went into preparing
that report, but we now have the materials to build a foundation
that will preserve the critical elements of the SHRP follow-on
research and technology programs."
Shortly thereafter, and with the benefit of recommendations from
the earlier resolutions, the Task Force on SHRP Implementation
drafted its own resolution, which Conrad presented to the Standing
Committee on Research (SCOR).
SCOR used the Task Force resolution as a starting point for yet
another resolution, recommending that all fiscal year 1999 funding
for SHRP and LTPP activities come from the unallocated NCHRP funds
for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
The AASHTO Joint Task Force on Pavements also submitted
a letter to SCOR, warning that interruptions to the Superpave
support and performance models management, WesTrack, and LTPP
projects would "greatly impact the progress we have targeted
through the past several year's investments put forth" through
SHRP, the States, and FHWA.
Conrad says the Task Force "is gratified by the overwhelming
level of support for SHRP and LTPP, which reflects States' strong
support for programs that yield innovative technologies that can
help us serve our customers better."
The SCOR resolution (Administrative Resolution PAR-98AM-3A) will
be discussed at the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways meeting
this month; the committee's recommendations will then be forwarded
to the AASHTO Board of Directors for consideration this month.
FHWA officials have also voiced support for continuing the strong
partnership for SHRP that had been solidified throughout the ISTEA
years. While recognizing that Federal funding flexibility is significantly
limited under TEA-21, FHWA Executive Director Tony Kane reiterated
at the recent Mid-Atlantic States SHRP Technology Exchange Conference
that the agency has no intention of withdrawing from this partnership,
stating that "I want to assure you that research and technology
deployment remains a core mission of our organization."

|