Funding Implementation Research Advisory Committee July 24, 2012

1. Funding Implementation Research Advisory Committee July 24, 2012

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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