U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–959 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 116–7 

THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF HIGHWAY 

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND 

ACCELERATED PROJECT DELIVERY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 6, 2019 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIKE BRAUN, Indiana 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, -Ranking 

Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

MARY FRANCES REPKO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 6, 2019 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 2 

WITNESSES 

McKenna, Patrick, Vice President, American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials and Director of the Missouri Department of 

Transportation ...................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Responses to additional questions from Senator ........................................... 20 

Demetriou, Steven, Chairman and CEO of Jacobs Engineering Group, on 

Behalf of the Business Roundtable Infrastructure Committee ........................ 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Responses to additional questions from Senator ........................................... 38 

Replogle, Michael, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, New York City Department of Transportation ........................................................................................ 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Responses to additional questions from Senator 63 

(1) 

THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND ACCELERATED PROJECT DELIVERY 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2019 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. SENATE Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. John Barrasso (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Inhofe, Capito, Braun, Rounds, Sullivan, Boozman, Ernst, Carper, Cardin, Whitehouse, Booker, and 

Van Hollen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. I call this hearing to order. Today, we will 

discuss the economic benefits of highway infrastructure, and ways 

we can accelerate project delivery. 

It is no secret that our economy relies heavily on the well-being 

of our Nation’s roads and bridges. In 2015, the U.S. transportation 

system moved a daily average of about 49 million tons of freight 

that was worth more than $52 billion. Annually, that is around 18 

billion tons of freight valued at over $19 trillion and these numbers 

are only going up. 

According to the Department of Transportation, by 2045 our 

aging roads and bridges will carry an additional 4 billion tons of 

freight every year. Our Nation’s highways must keep pace. 

The authorization of Federal highway funding will expire in September of next year. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 

the Highway Trust Fund will become insolvent sometime in 2021. 

It is essential that Congress invests in our infrastructure and specifically our surface transportation. 

That is why we must pass a multi-year reauthorization of the 

highway funding bill that is on time and fiscally responsible. If 

Congress fails to act, States and local governments will not have 

the funding certainty they need to plan and deliver vital infrastructure projects for the American people. Our highways, our roads and 

our bridges would struggle to keep pace with our growing economy. 

Last November, we kicked off the process with a hearing to gather stakeholder input. In January, we held a hearing to consider the 

2 

nomination of Nicole Nason to be Administrator of the Federal 

Highway Administration. One week later, we favorably reported 

her nomination out of committee and to the floor. 

The Federal Highway Administration will need a strong Administrator to work with Congress on the development and implementation of highway infrastructure legislation. It has been now over 

a month since we reported her from this committee. As with so 

many of the President Trump’s nominees, the process is taking too 

long. We need Ms. Nason confirmed and in office. 

Last month, Ranking Member Carper and I began asking Senate 

offices for their priorities for a highway infrastructure bill. As this 

bipartisan process continues, we must find ways to increase the effectiveness of Federal investment, so communities can feel the economic benefits faster. 

Maintaining the Federal highway program’s current approach of 

distributing funds to the States by formula is key. Using the formula-based approach expedites the delivery of infrastructure 

spending. It is an approach that works and should be continued. 

Another way to make Federal highway dollars more effective is 

to speed up project delivery, which I believe can be done without 

sacrificing environmental safeguards. As States and towns wait to 

get permits and approvals from Washington, valuable time is wasted and costs for projects go up. 

It should not take years to permit projects that take only months 

to complete. In order to truly benefit the economy, highway infrastructure legislation must address the needs of rural America, as 

well as urban America. 

Rural roads are vital to bringing raw materials and products 

from the heartland to the coasts. We all buy and use goods that 

are transported on our Nation’s highways through rural States and 

communities. 

Federal highways like I–80 run coast to coast, bringing these 

goods and services across America. This includes the stretch of I– 

80 that runs through my home State of Wyoming. We must maintain and improve the highways that crisscross our rural States to 

keep vital arteries of national commerce open. 

Our transportation infrastructure provides a firm foundation for 

our economy. As we will hear today, better highways, roads and 

bridges across America strengthens that foundation. I look forward 

to working together in a bipartisan way to pass a highway infrastructure bill that will deliver real economic benefits for the American people. 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Carper for his remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chairman. 

We welcome our witnesses. 

Before I give an opening statement, you mentioned Nicole Nason, 

who has been nominated and I think is a very good nominee for 

Federal Highway Administrator. Last month, we submitted some 

questions for the record. We are waiting for her to finish those and 

soon as we have those responses, I suspect we will move forward 

3 

quickly. I will be happy to work with you and move that nomination. We need to get her into her job. 

There used to be a Governor from Ohio named Jim Rhodes. I was 

a Navy midshipman at Ohio State in the late 1960’s. He was Governor for 8 years. He sat out for 8 years and ran again. He was 

Governor for 8 years. He sat out and then he ran again and he almost did it again. 

It was pretty amazing, but when he would give his State of the 

State address, he would mention the word jobs a whole lot. The 

folks in the reporting pool actually would take dibs on how many 

times he was going to say it. He would say jobs 30 or 40 times in 

one speech. 

Not just because of that, but I have always been focused on jobs 

and how to create jobs. In our business, we do not create jobs, as 

you know. We create a nurturing environment for job creation. A 

big part of that is the ability to get people and goods where they 

need to go when they need to go. This is an important hearing with 

that in mind. 

People ask me what I like most about my job. I say, I like getting 

things done. They say, you must be really frustrated. Some days, 

I am. In this committee, we actually do get things done. We are 

looking forward to building on what we did last year, water infrastructure. We are looking forward to doing something equally substantial on surface transportation this year. 

I think as we work to achieve that goal, I believe we have to acknowledge three important facts. One of those is the No. 1 way to 

accelerate projects, quite simply, is to pay for them. Second, while 

the level of investment is critical, we also need new thinking as to 

how we invest and which innovative solutions will truly improve 

outcomes. 

Third, perhaps most important, the benefits of highway infrastructure investment will be impeded, if not downright nullified, if 

we do not address the threats of climate change and extreme 

weather events that are increasingly disrupting our Nation’s transportation system. 

Let me speak first about project delivery and funding. Today, 

over 95 percent of highway projects are categorically excluded from 

review under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. I will 

say that again, over 95 percent of highway projects are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. 

Moreover, the highway bill passed out of this committee in 2005 

had 10 environmental streamlining provisions for highway projects, 

the highway bill in 2012 had 23 environmental streamlining provisions for highway projects, and the highway bill in 2015 had 18 

streamlining provisions for highway projects, and an additional 10 

environmental streamlining provisions for large infrastructure 

projects. 

While I will consider all ideas fairly, as I always do, let me be 

absolutely clear: I will not support legislation that weakens environmental protections in the name of accelerating transportation 

project delivery. Sometimes it seems that the focus on cutting environmental protections is a way to avoid talking about the 800- 

pound gorilla in the room, which is our funding shortfall. We have 

4 

a deficit in the Highway Trust Fund that is $13 billion per year, 

and growing. 

Despite spending more than we collect, we still are not spending enough to make a dent in the $800 billion backlog of investments 

needed to merely improve our highways and bridges. We also need 

to look beyond the total level of investment, and think about the 

transportation goals we are trying to achieve. For instance, despite 

increasing spending every year, our safety outcomes continue to be 

dismal, with more than 37,000 Americans killed on our roads last 

year, a lot of them were pedestrians. 

As we begin to work on the surface transportation bill, we are 

looking for opportunities to address these challenges and support 

a new vision for a 21st century transportation system. One critical 

element of that vision is addressing the global emergency of climate change. The transportation sector is now our Nation’s largest 

contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. The bulk of it these days 

comes from cars, trucks and vans. To reduce those emissions, Federal policy can, and should, encourage the purchase of electric or 

alternative fuel vehicles through tax policy, as well as through 

funding for fueling and charging infrastructure. 

Finally, we must ensure that we are planning and designing 

transportation systems that are sustainable and resilient to increasingly severe weather and extreme weather events. Nearly 2 

years ago, the Rocky Mountain Institute published a report that 

said installing electric vehicle charging infrastructure should be, 

‘‘an urgent priority in all States and major municipalities. The time 

to act is now.’’ I agree. 

Later today, I will introduce the Clean Corridors Act of 2019. 

This legislation would provide grants for the installment of electric 

vehicle charging infrastructure and hydrogen fueling infrastructure 

along the National Highway System. Even better yet, this legislation will help us in our efforts to put the United States back in the 

driver’s seat of the world’s clean energy economy, while creating 

green manufacturing jobs here at home. 

I am confident we can pass this bill, as well as surface transportation reauthorization into law. If we are able to address climate 

change, encourage innovation and produce a sustainable source of 

funding, let me repeat that last one, produce a sustainable source 

of funding, then we will have achieved a great victory for the 

American people. 

I think we can, and I am very much hopeful that we will. 

Thank you so much. Welcome. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

We have three witnesses who are here to testify. We welcome all 

of you. We have Patrick McKenna, Vice President, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and Director 

of the Missouri Department of Transportation. 

We have Steven Demetriou, Chairman and CEO of Jacobs Engineering Group, testifying on behalf of the Business Roundtable Infrastructure Committee. 

We also have Michael Replogle, the Deputy Commissioner for 

Policy for the New York City Department of Transportation. 

I welcome all of you. I would like to remind you that your full 

written testimony will be made a part of the official hearing record. 

5 

Please keep your statements to 5 minutes so we may have time for 

questions. We look forward to hearing from you. 

Mr. McKenna, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK McKENNA, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS AND DIRECTOR OF THE MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. MCKENNA. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, 

and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

discuss the benefits to our citizens from infrastructure investments 

and speedy project delivery. 

My name is Patrick McKenna. I serve as Director of the Missouri 

Department of Transportation and Vice President of the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

Today it is my honor to testify on behalf of the great State of 

Missouri and AASHTO, which represents the transportation departments of all 50 States, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. We 

spent the past century building our Nation’s transportation infrastructure. Once a model of innovation, achievement and progress, 

our current transportation system is in dire need of attention and 

investment. 

Our focus today must be on restoring our network of interstates, 

roads and bridges to useful condition, ensuring they provide safe 

and reliable service to the American people. Looking forward, we 

must seek and implement innovation to operate the transportation 

system more safely, reliably and with less environmental and community impact. AASHTO and its member DOTs welcome discussions related to an infrastructure initiative and the reauthorization 

of the Federal surface transportation bill. 

As this committee continues its work, please consider the tangible benefits of improving our highways both in the short and long 

term; the importance of the formula-based highway apportionments 

to States; and accelerating project delivery and improving our environment through assignment of Federal authorities to States. State 

DOTs appreciate your leadership in passing the FAST Act in 2015. 

Prior to the FAST Act, there was Federal funding instability and 

Missouri was in the difficult financial position of considering abandoning maintenance on 26,000 of our 34,000 miles of roadways. 

Since passage of the FAST Act, Missouri has increased our capital budget by $3 billion over 5 years. We live in a market-based 

economy where the supply and demand for goods and services are 

typically determined through very clear price signals. You know exactly what a gallon of milk costs and what you pay for electricity. 

Unfortunately, for use of the transportation system, there are no 

similar price signals. The place to start this conversation is to recognize we need to do a better job communicating both the costs and 

benefits related to the uses of our transportation system. 

The Federal Highway Administration estimates that each dollar 

spent on road and bridge improvements results in a benefit of 

$5.20 from reduced vehicle and system operating costs and reduced 

emissions from improved traffic flow. Perhaps most importantly, 

according to a Federal Highway Administration study, $100 million 

6 

spent on highway safety improvements will save 145 lives over a 

10-year period. 

To demonstrate the purpose and urgency of transportation investment and the call to action for Congress, please consider a single bridge in central Missouri, the Rocheport Bridge. The bridge is 

60 years old and needs to be replaced. MoDOT has programmed only $14 million for rehabilitation as 

the only option due to funding constraints. Replacement is estimated to cost well over $200 million. Traffic models predict that rehabilitation would close lanes on InterState 70 for seven to 9 

months with three-to 8-hour backups. 

Commercial traffic traveling over the Rocheport Bridge touches 

every part of the continental U.S. within 72 hours. This bridge 

demonstrates the nationally impactful nature of strategic investment in seemingly local transportation assets. I would be remiss if 

I did not raise the issue of the $7.6 billion rescission of unobligated 

highway contract authority to take effect on July 1, 2020 and urge 

its elimination. 

Progress has been made toward the goal of streamlining environmental reviews for transportation projects. However, the environmental process is still too long and costly. The most persistent difficulties arise from interaction among NEPA and other Federal environmental laws. 

Several States are participating in the NEPA Assignment Program made available to all States in MAP–21. Changes that will 

make this program both more efficient and attractive to interested 

States include simplifying the assignment application and audit 

process, allowing States in this program to be solely responsible for 

the development of their policies so long as Federal laws and the 

USDOT requirements and guidance are met, and adding NEPA assignment authority to Title 49. 

Another streamlining measure is to authorize any Federal agency to apply a categorical exclusion that has been adopted by any 

other Federal agency which would make CEs interchangeable 

among all Federal agencies. No matter what we might think, we 

cannot streamline our way into providing a safe and sound transportation system. We cannot cut our way to buying steel, concrete, 

asphalt, equipment and labor. We must work together to move 

transportation funding and policy in the direction of providing safety, service and stability to all. 

Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify today. 

I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKenna follows:] 

7 


35959.001

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 

OF STATE HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

AASHID 

TESTIMONY OF 

Patrick K. McKenna 

Vice President, American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials 

Director, Missouri Department ofTransportation 

REGARDING 

The Economic Benefits of Highway 

Infrastructure Investment and Accelerated 

Project Delivery 

BEFORE THE 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the · 

United States Senate 

ON 

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 249 

Washington, D.C., 20001 

202-624-5800 

www.transportation.org 

info@aashto.org 
8 


35959.002

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Page I 2 

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to provide the perspective of the nation's state departments of transportation 

on the benefits our citizens reap from infrastructure investments and speedy project delivery. 

My name is Patrick McKenna, and I serve as Director of the Missouri Department of 

Transportation (MoDOT), and Vice President of the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Today it is my honor to testify on behalf of the great State of 

Missouri and AASHTO, which represents the transportation departments of all 50 States, 

Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. 

I was appointed to my position by the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission in 

December 2015. In this role, I'm responsible for overseeing all operations for the department. 

Prior to my current role, I served as deputy commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of 

Transportation. 

I appear before you today very near to where I spent 13 years of my career as a staffer with the 

Secretary of the United States Senate. I am grateful for those years that enhanced my interest 

in public service and instilled in me a deep respect and admiration for this institution and for 

the work you perform and the sacrifices you make carrying out your constitutional duties on 

behalf of the American people. 

My hope today is that we can continue the robust discussion on how we can best deliver 

transportation projects that both make the best use of limited taxpayer dollars and protect our 

precious natural resources. I believe these two objectives can be met if we work together 

toward these ends and approach them with a sense of purpose and urgency and a reflection on 

the past, present and future. 

We spent the past century building our nation's transportation infrastructure. Once a model of 

innovation, achievement and progress, our current transportation system is dire need of 

attention and investment. Our focus today must be on restoring our network of interstates, 

roads and bridges to useful condition, ensuring they provide safe and reliable service to the end 

users- the American people. Looking forward, our next steps must be to seek and implement 

innovation to operate the transportation system more safely, reliably and with less 

environmental and community impact. 

Let us look beyond the tangible products and technical aspects of our projects- such as steel, 

concrete and equipment- to the ultimate purpose behind our work and that is the people we 

serve. Transportation investment is about moving people and goods safely and efficiently and 

providing a high quality of life. That is why, in Missouri, we work to deliver resourceful and 

effective transportation projects under the umbrella of three guiding principles: safety, service 

and stability. 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Vice President, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Director, Missouri Department of Transportation 
9 


35959.003

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Page I 3 

Every project we tackle must have the goal of making the movement of goods and services 

safer for all involved. That means we must look to technology, such as automated and 

connected vehicles, to make travel safer. We must consider smart routes as worthy of 

investment and examine ways we can enhance incident response tools and techniques. 

Service means reliability and mobility for our nation's travelers. As such, it's imperative that we 

look at our processes, projects and products to ensure they are providing efficient and effective 

movement of goods and service. We must look beyond traditional project delivery means and 

methods to provide the transportation options to our customers. 

Stability requires a broad consideration of the impacts of delivering transportation projects, 

especially as to how our work impacts the environment around us. In Missouri, we strive to do 

all we can to minimize the footprint of our work. Like many other organizations, MoDOT uses 

recycled shingles, tires, asphalt and other materials to deliver the best pavement with cost -

and the environment- in mind. In fact, from 2007 to 2018, we saved $298 million through 

recycling. 

Stability also means economic development and jobs. In Missouri, we are fortunate to have a 

leader who has recognized the value of infrastructure on the current and future well-being of 

its citizens. From the moment he took office, Governor Mike Parson espoused two main goals: 

workforce development and infrastructure improvement. Most recently, he has proposed a 

bridge bonding package that would allow us to repair and replace 250 state bridges- bridges 

that are already programmed in the state construction program. 

If successful, the bonding effort not only would fix a significant number of bridges in our state, 

but would also free up $350 million that would allow us to perform additional critical 

infrastructure work in Missouri. This bonding package represents the key benefits to stabilityeconomic development and jobs, guiding forces for transportation investment. 

AASHTO and its member DOTs, like many in the transportation industry, welcome the current 

discussions related to an infrastructure initiative and the reauthorization of the federal surface 

transportation bill. As part of these discussions, it is timely to highlight the importance of 

federal highway infrastructure investments and the steps that can be taken to further 

accelerate the delivery of those projects. As this Committee continues to develop infrastructure 

legislation, I would like to emphasize the following issues: 

• The need to make a stronger value proposition to the public for investing in highway 

transportation infrastructure; 

• Tangible benefits of improving our highways both in the short- and long-term; 

• Importance of the formula-based highway apportionments to states benefiting all corners 

of our nation; 

• Accelerating project delivery and improving our environment through assignment of federal 

authorities to states and encouraging innovation. 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Vice President, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Director, Missouri Department of Transportation 
10 


35959.004

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMilTEE Page I 4 

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF HIGHWAY INVESTMENT 

First, let me express appreciation to you on behalf of the state DOTs for your leadership, along 

with your Senate and House colleagues on partner committees, in shepherding the Fixing 

America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in December 2015. Prior to the FAST Act, there was 

federal funding instability and Missouri was in the difficult financial position of considering 

abandoning maintenance on 26,000 of our 34,000 miles of roadways. Since the passage of the 

FAST Act, Missouri has taken on more financial risk as a state, and increased our capital budget 

by $3 billion overfive years. 

The FAST Act carries forward the federal government's Constitutional directive to invest in 

transportation as one of its core responsibilities. Yet at the same time, we see ample evidence 

for ever-growing transportation investment needs from growing population, aging 

infrastructure stock, and rapid deployment of new technology. According to the US Department 

of Transportation's (US DOT) 2015 Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, highway 

and bridge backlog reached $836 billion, breaking down into $420 billion for highways, $123 

billion for bridges, $167 billion for system expansion, and $126 billion for system enhancement. 

That being said, these are numbers that are hard to grasp due to their sheer magnitude. We live 

in a market-based economy where the supply and demand for goods and services are typically 

determined through very clear price signals. You know exactly what a gallon of milk costs, how 

much a new car will be, and how much you'll be charged for a haircut. Unfortunately, for 

provision and use of transportation infrastructure, there are no similar price signals to users of 

the system in terms of how much they are asked to pay, and what they get in return. 

In the past, AASHTO has commissioned man-en-the-street interviews asking how much the 

typical vehicle pays in terms of state and federal gas taxes per year-and the response ranged 

from around $1,000 all the way up to $7,000. The correct answer is $313 per year, or $26 per 

month per vehicle assuming 12,000 miles driven and fuel efficiency of 20 mpg. This compares 

to $160 for electricity and gas, $161 for cell phone, and $124 for cable and internet accessories 

per month. I believe the value provided by our nation's transportation network is well worth 

the contributions being asked from system users, especially compared to other monthly utility 

and service fees. 

The place to start this conversation, though, is to recognize that we in the transportation 

industry need to do a better job of making the value proposition for transportation investment, 

by more clearly communicating both the cost and benefits related to the use of our 

transportation system. And in Missouri, that is exactly where we've started our public 

conversation. 

When I came to MoDOT, I found as I traveled around the state that elected officials, 

stakeholders and the general public had pervasive misconceptions about our transportation 

system, how it was funded and how we spent the funds we received. We decided a concerted 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Vice President, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Director, Missouri Department of Transportation 
11 


35959.005

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS CDMMmEE 

educational process was needed to take a complicated subject and explain it as simply as 

possible in layman's terms. 

Page I 5 

A multi-disciplinary team spent six months on the effort, and in the fall of 2016, produced our 

first Citizen's Guide to Transportation Funding in Missouri. The guide takes the complex issues 

of the state's transportation revenue, expenditures, system condition and unfunded needs and 

explains them in clear and easy-to-understand terms with the goal of educating and informing 

Missourians on the current status and future direction of their transportation system.lt has 

proven to be a very valuable piece in telling our story. 

We've updated it each year since, and it has helped to break down the old perceptions and to 

advance the discussion of a need for additional investment in transportation infrastructure. 

Now, along with several companion pieces, the Citizen's Guide is legislatively required to be the 

core of our annual report to the Missouri General Assembly. 

Though certainly significant, benefits from investment in highway transportation infrastructure 

go well beyond short-term construction jobs created. A well-performing transportation 

network allows businesses to manage inventories and move goods more cheaply, access a 

variety of suppliers and markets for their products, and get employees reliably to work. 

American families benefit both as consumers from lower priced goods and as workers by 

gaining better access to jobs. 

The Federal Highway Administration {FHWA) estimates that each dollar spent on road, highway 

and bridge improvements results in an average benefit of $5.20 in the form of reduced vehicle 

maintenance costs, reduced delays, reduced fuel consumption, improved safety, reduced road 

and bridge maintenance costs, and reduced emissions as a result of improved traffic flow. 

Perhaps most importantly, according to an FHWA study, $100 million spent on highway safety 

improvements will save 145 lives over a 10-year period. 

In Missouri, examples of rate-of-return investments made in the state include: 

• Every dollar invested in transportation in Missouri results in $2.5 to $4 of new economic 

activity depending on the type of projects we are able to complete. When long-term 

federal funding is known and predictable, our project planning enables system 

improvements that bring higher returns. When federal funding is unpredictable, we focus 

on projects with single year completions that yield less long term economic benefits. 

• Missouri has more than 1,000 miles of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers bordering and 

bisecting our state. Some $12.5 billion in cargo travels up and down those waterways each 

year. A little investment in ports can spur a great deal of private investment. For example, in 

the past 5 years, $15.5 million in state investment in ports has led to $2.4 billion in state and 

local tax revenue. Missouri public ports support nearly 290,000 jobs annually, $15.7 billion 

in labor income and $100.6 billion in economic activity. 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Vice President, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Director, Missouri Department of Transportation 
12 


35959.006

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITIEE Page I 6 

• Missouri has 122 public-use airports that generate $11 billion in annual economic activity. 

• Missouri's cost-share program enables us to leverage contributions from local communities 

with state funds to advance projects of regional importance. Since the program's inception, 

more than $450 million in state participation has led to the delivery of more than $1 billion 

in projects. 

• Missouri has utilized innovative procurement such as design-build and delivered more than 

$1 billion in projects. 

When we as a nation make significant investments in our transportation infrastructure, it 

generates a multi-decade return on that investment to all sectors of the economy in the form of 

improved productivity and quality of life. The current fiscal environment does not require a 

rapid deployment of public dollars to resuscitate the national and global economy like what we 

saw in 2008. Rather, right now is the opportune time to secure our economic future for the 

long-term based on a thorough modernization of the public capital stock in our transportation 

system. As such, the federal investment-whether through an infrastructure plan or FAST Act 

reauthorization-must focus on programs and projects that generate the most benefits through 

the entire life cycle of the asset, rather than mandating short spending deadlines which will lead 

to less efficient use of taxpayer dollars due to project sponsors' inability to address longer-term 

needs. 

To demonstrate the purpose and urgency of transportation investment and the call to action 

for Congress, please consider a single bridge in central Missouri- the Rocheport Bridge. The 

transportation challenge and engineering need for the Rocheport Bridge is simple- the bridge 

is 60 years old, and with rehabilitation (for a fourth time), it will last only 10 more years and 

then it must be replaced. MoDOT has programmed only $14 million for the fourth rehabilitation 

in 2020 as the only option, due to funding constraints. Replacement is estimated to cost well 

over $200 million. Rehabilitation, however, is not preferred and has several negative economic 

and operational consequences. Traffic models predict that rehabilitation would close lanes for 

seven to nine months with three- to eight-hour backups (some 25 miles long) depending on the 

extent and number of incidents on any given day. Commuters, and industries that rely on justin-time suppliers and workers, will suffer irreparable financial losses and state's ability to 

attract new industry will be negatively impacted. These delays are unacceptable on a corridor 

that serves as the main artery through the nation's heartland. Also, Rocheport Bridge is located 

just 11 miles west of Columbia- home to the region's only Levell Trauma Center and the 

University of Missouri, Columbia- the State's flagship university. 

Rehabilitation also puts construction crews and drivers at risk. Traffic delays and increased risk 

during rehabilitation are estimated to cost the public more than the cost of a new bridge. 

From a national and regional point of view, the need translates into uninterrupted economic 

prosperity. The Rocheport Bridge, quite literally, links Kansas City and St. Louis to each other 

and to the rest of the United States. Any delay at Rocheport Bridge negatively impacts the 

regional and national economy. For example, Ford's Kansas City auto manufacturing plant, 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Vice President, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Director, Missouri Department of Transportation 
13 


35959.007

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITIEE Page I 7 

which produces the F-150 and Transit Van, is the largest Ford plant in the world, based on units 

produced. With this volume, the need for uninterrupted suppliers is crucial. 

Below are images created at MoDOT's request by the American Transportation Research 

Institute (ATRI), which was formerly affiliated with the American Trucking Association (ATA). 

These images use probe data from GPS, cell phone, and Bluetooth devices associated with 

commercial motor vehicles to outline travel patterns for trucks that use the Rocheport Bridge in 

both eastbound and westbound directions. This "select link" analysis depicts Rocheport at the 

center of national freight flows using the bridge on a 24-, and 72-hour basis. 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Vice President, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Director, Missouri Department ofTransportation 
14 


35959.008

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Page I 8 

These graphics demonstrate the nationally impactful nature of strategic investment in 

seemingly local transportation assets. We are more connected now than ever before by our 

infrastructure and we must rise to the challenge to renew and revitalize this national asset. 

To further build on the solid foundation of our current federal surface transportation policy, we 

believe that it is now time for all transportation stakeholders-led by Congress and the 

President-to begin work on reauthorizing the FAST Act, and to ensure a smooth transition 

upon the FAST Act's expiration on September 30, 2020, without the need for disruptive 

extensions of the program. Under the direction of AASHTO's Transportation Policy Forum that I 

chair, the state DOTs last year initiated an extensive 18-month effort to develop and adopt 

reauthorization policy recommendations by October of this year. It is a bottom-up process, 

where we are currently in the process of gathering expert input from our wide range of 

technical committees and councils comprising leaders from all state DOTs. We're also seeking 

our industry partners' input during this process prior to our formal adoption in October in order 

to maximize the inclusivity of perspectives in our policy recommendations to come. 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Vice President, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Director, Missouri Department of Transportation 
15 


35959.009

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ODMMITTEE Page I 9 

As FAST Act reauthorization gets under way, we urge the Committee to recognize that federal 

funds should continue to be provided through the existing formula-based program structure 

directly to states rather than looking at untested new approaches that will require more time 

and oversight. For over one hundred years, we as a nation have enjoyed the fruits of the federal 

government's highly successful partnership with state DOTs to build and maintain our surface 

transportation system. That partnership should be continued and strengthened in any new 

federal transportation legislation. 

The Federal-aid Road Act of 1916 established the foundation of a federally-funded, stateadministered highway program that was-and still very much is-well-suited to a growing and 

geographically diverse nation like ours. Under this model, federal investment in all modes of 

transportation have allowed states and their local partners to fund a wide range of projects that 

serve the interest of the nation as a whole. The federal formula program's inherent flexibility 

defers project selection and investment decision-making to state and local governments based 

on extensive public input from local communities and businesses to address their needs and 

ensure goods get access to a larger market than ever before. 

Putting the formula program that built the Interstate Highway System and the National 

Highway System-the backbone of our national network of roads and bridges that drive our 

national economy-to work as the linchpin of the next surface transportation legislation 

represents the optimal approach to serve all corners of our country, improving mobility and 

quality of life in urban, suburban, and rural areas. 

I would be remiss if I didn't raise the issue of the $7.6 billion rescission of unobligated highway 

contract authority to take effect on July 1, 2020, as a means to bring the spending baseline back 

to pre-FAST Act levels on paper. Unfortunately, the contract authority rescission is a budgetary 

artifice that at best impedes the flexibility of state DOTs to meet their individual infrastructure 

needs by disrupting transportation planning and timely delivery of projects; and at worst, the 

cumulative effect of rescissions-with over $22 billion enacted since 2002-can wipe out the 

entire balance of contract authority held by states which will lead to hard funding cuts to 

federal dollars authorized under the FAST Act. 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Vice President, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Director, Missouri Department of Transportation 
16 


35959.010

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITIH Page I 10 

ACCELERATING PROJECT DELIVERY TO IMPROVE MOBILITY AND PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT 

Over the past decade, significant progress has been made toward the goal of streamlining 

environmental reviews for transportation projects. This progress has been spurred by 

streamlining measures enacted in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

(MAP-21), and the FAST Act. But even with this progress, the environmental process still takes 

too long and is unduly costly and delay-prone. Some of the most persistent difficulties arise 

from the interaction among the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other federal 

environmental laws. To achieve further streamlining, focus must be paid to not only making 

continued improvement in the NEPA process itself, but also in making the NEPA process work 

more efficiently with other federal requirements, all while remaining responsible stewards of 

taxpayer resources and both human and natural environments. 

AASHTO believes that tremendous benefit can be unleashed by assigning decision-making 

authorities traditionally assumed by the federal government to those states that both desire 

them and are willing to be held responsible. Currently, Alaska, California, Florida, Ohio, Texas, 

and Utah are participating in the NEPA assignment program made available to all states in MAP21. Based on our collective experience, specific changes that will make this program both more 

efficient and attractive to interested states include: 

Simplifying the assignment application and audit processes; 

• Allowing states to assume all of the responsibilities of the USDOT with respect to 

engineering and other activities related to environmental review, consultation, permitting 

or other action required under any federal environmental law for project review or 

approval, 

• Allowing states in this program to be solely responsible for the development of their 

policies, guidance and procedures so long as federal laws and the USDOT requirements and 

guidance are met, 

• Removing the pre-condition for a state to have taken on NEPA assignment for highways 

prior to being able to take on NEPA assignment for rail and transit projects, and 

• Adding NEPA assignment authority to Title 49 to allow states to assume the federal NEPA 

responsibilities of any US DOT modal administration. 

Beyond NEPA, AASHTO has identified a number of touch points where states can make 

determinations in lieu of seeking FHWA approval, including federal funds obligation 

management, project agreements, right-of-way acquisition, preventive maintenance, 

repayment of preliminary engineering and right-of-way costs, and credits toward non-federal 

share, among many other possible areas of current federal oversight. 

For states without NEPA assignment, USDOT and its modal administrations should be 

authorized to and enter into programmatic agreements under which state DOTs could take on 

increased responsibility for carrying out routine FHWA responsibilities during the NEPA process. 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Vice President, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Director, Missouri Department of Transportation 
17 


35959.011

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBUC WORKS COMMITTEE Page I 11 

It would be far more efficient to allow the state DOT to carry out routine interagency 

coordination tasks, while maintaining regular communication with US DOT. US DOT would retain 

responsibility for all final decisions, while maximizing the opportunity for state DOTs acting 

under US DOT oversight to carry out the procedures leading up to those final decisions. This 

increased efficiency would also free up USDOT's limited staff resources to focus on issues such 

a program oversight and major project decisions. 

A recent and highly illustrative example from Missouri is the U.S. Route 54 Mississippi River 

Bridge replacement. To enable the bridge replacement, this project proposed to fill the "notch" 

in a federally authorized levee. A provision of the Section 408 permission process requires a 

written statement from the non-federal sponsor, in this case a levee district, endorsing the 

proposed alteration. To offset the hydraulic impact offilling the "notch", MoDOT along with the 

Illinois Department ofTransportation committed to provide an opening under the bridge that 

would convey a 500-year flood event without raising the flood levels. MoDOT eventually 

negotiated with the levee district to reach agreement on the design flood frequency as 

proposed. 

Without the letter of permission from the levee district, the United States Army Corp of 

Engineers will not grant the Section 408 permission (the approval process to ensure any 

alteration proposed will not be injurious to the public interest and will not affect the Corp 

project's ability to meet its authorized purpose), and subsequently won't issue the Section 404 

permit associated with the Clean Water Act. 

MoDOT met with representatives from the levee district numerous times in an attempt to 

resolve the issues, because the cost of additional conveyance would result in a longer bridge 

and would make it financially difficult to replace. While MoDOT managed to avoid project 

delays in this case, the letting was very close to being delayed, a delay which could have 

jeopardized receipt of a federal grant, which could have cancelled the project. MoDOT's 

suggested solution to address this problem would be for the Corp not to allow the letter of 

permission from the entity that has an interest in the federal levee to wholly dictate whether 

the applicant can complete the Section 408 permission process. The letter of permission should 

be a consideration in the Corp's decision making process, but it should not be the item that 

ultimately determines the permission can be issued. 

Another streamlining measure is to authorize any federal agency to apply a categorical 

exclusion (CE) that has been adopted by any other federal agency, which would make CEs 

interchangeable among all federal agencies. For example, the Corps could apply aCE from 

FHWA's CE list. Under current NEPA regulations, each federal agency adopts its own list of CEs 

applicable to actions that the agency carries out. If multiple federal agency approvals are 

needed for the same project, and only one agency has an applicable CE, then that agency can 

issue as CE, but the other federal agencies must prepare an Environmental Assessment, slowing 

down the process unnecessarily. While an existing law allows any US DOT agency to use any 

other US DOT's agency's CE, this authority has two important limitations: (1) applies only to 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Vice President, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Director, Missouri Department of Transportation 
18 


35959.012

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBliC WORKS COMMITTEE Page I 12 

multimodal projects, and (2) it does not apply to agencies outside the US DOT. Allowing CEs to 

be interchangeable between federal agencies could significantly streamline project delivery. 

In addition, although there are still improvements to be made within the NEPA process, a great 

deal of project delivery delay arises from the interaction with NEPA and other federal 

environmental laws, each with their own distinct procedures and requirements. Streamlining 

the NEPA process alone will not be successful without also streamlining compliance with the 

other federal environmental laws. To make the NEPA process work more smoothly with other 

substantive environmental requirements, US DOT and its modal administrations, along with 

state DOTs, should work with Federal environmental agencies to develop programmatic 

approaches to streamline environmental processes. Programmatic agreements greatly reduce 

the time and cost needed to meet environmental requirements, without changing the 

underlying environmental standards that projects must meet. Programmatic approaches have 

been used to help streamline many environmental requirements, but development of these 

agreements requires time and resources. To ensure success in developing programmatic 

agreements, Federal resources should be dedicated to this effort. 

Finally, to foster the development and testing of new, innovative practices and approaches 

aimed at expediting project delivery while maintaining environmental protections, we ask 

Congress to consider establishing a project delivery innovation program. Thanks to the states' 

partnership with FHWA, we're making a great case for such a program by testing out the 

concept through Special Experimental Project-or SEP-16-which seeks proposals for 

delegation of various FHWA responsibilities directly to States. 

There is a wide range of potential applications if SEP-16 criteria can be met. Some possible 

examples include: 

• States approving modifications to Stewardship and Oversight agreements without 

preapproval by FHWA, subject to FHWA's ongoing oversight of the State's compliance with 

federal requirements; 

• States taking the full responsibility for approving a new or modified access point on the 

Interstate System, and; 

• States developing a definition for "high risk" Interstate projects that allows States to assume 

the full range of responsibilities for these efforts. 

In addition, we're continuing to work with states to build on assignment of authorities related 

to environmental review, consultation, and permitting. Some additional assignment 

opportunities could exist for floodplain and noise policy determinations. 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Vice President, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Director, Missouri Department of Transportation 
19 


35959.013

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITIEE Page [ 13 

I want to emphasize that building on this type of flexibility in a full-fledged project delivery 

innovation program must include appropriate safeguards to ensure adherence to federal 

environmental policy goals. For example, all federal agencies required to consult on a project 

would need to agree to the inclusion of the project in the pilot program, consulting resource 

agencies would need to determine that equal or improved environmental outcomes would be 

achieved, and no agency would be allowed to override or modify requirements that fall within 

another agency's authority. A program of this scale would require new legislative authority for 

federal transportation and regulatory agencies to allow them to modify their own requirements 

to develop innovative practices that streamline project delivery and achieve positive 

environmental outcomes. 

CONClUSION 

State DOTs remain committed to assisting Congress in the development of strategies to ensure 

long-term economic growth and enhanced quality of life through robust multimodal 

transportation investments. Just last week, hundreds of State DOT leaders from all corners of 

our country were only a couple of blocks away attending AASHTO's 2019 Washington Briefing. 

Over four days of productive discussions, many of my colleagues were on Capitol Hill meeting 

with their respective Congressional delegations. As they did then, and as I do again now, 

AASHTO and the State DOTs will continue advocating for the reaffirmation of a strong federalstate partnership to address our surface transportation investment needs. 

I'd like to leave you with what I believe is a critical consequence to inaction when it comes to 

investing in highway infrastructure and accelerating project delivery. No matter what we might 

think, we cannot streamline our way into providing a safe and sound transportation system. We 

can't cut our way to buying steel, concrete, asphalt, equipment and labor. We must work 

together to move transportation policy in the direction of providing safety, service and stability 

for all. 

Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify today, and I am happy to answer any 

questions. 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Vice President. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Director, Missouri Department of Transportation 
20 


35959.014

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "The Economic Benefits of Highway Infrastructure Investment and 

Accelerated Project Delivery" 

March 6, 2019 

Questions for the Record for Mr. McKenna 

Senator Whitehouse: 

I. Innovative Materials: The National Academies of Sciences recently finalized a report 

titled, "Performance of Bridges That Received Funding under the Innovative Bridge 

Research and Construction Program." ' 

The report, which was included at my direction in the FAST Act, evaluated projects 

funded under the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program. This program 

provided grants between 1999 to 2005, but has since been defunded. The Academies' 

report found that using advanced materials and technologies can reduce construction 

costs, construction time, and traffic congestion. It also found that structures using 

advanced materials are more resilient to natural disasters. The report recommends that 

Congress reestablish grant programs that would fund projects using innovative materials. 

a. Do you agree that any infrastructure bill should include provisions that will 

encourage the use of innovative materials that are more durable and resistant to 

corrosion than traditional materials? 

Yes, it is important that any infrastructure bill include provisions to encourage 

the use of innovative materialsfor not only bridges, but other material as well. 

The use of new innovative materials can make a bridge last longer, signs appear 

brighterfrom a longer distance, or traffic signals operate more efficiently. 

Innovative materials can improve sqfety, reduce cost, and increase the overall life 

of the nation's sw:face transportation infrastructure. Specific to bridges, AASHTO 

agrees with conclusion of the National Academies of Science report that using 

advanced materials and technologies does reduce cost and construction time 

resulting in less impact to the traveling public. 

In Missouri, under the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program, 

we focused our efforts at improving bridge deck condition and deterioration 

resultingfrom the annual use of chlorides during winter conditions. We tested the 

use of stainless steel and carbonfiber reinforced materials andfound good 

results, but limited supply and excessive pricing. We had success in testing and 

practical implementation with the use of epoxy coated steel rebar in bridge decks. 

The use of epoxy coated rebar has become standard practice and will result in 

longer lasting bridge decks and great system performance. 

Perhaps a more expansive view beyond materials innovation should be a renewed 

call to invest in research across the spectrum of transportation. In }.1issouri, just 
21 


35959.015

this past week, the Missouri Hi~hways and Transportation Commission 

authorized the creation (){a joint research venture with the University()/' Missouri 

System in Columbia, Kansas City, Rolla and St. Louis. The newly formed 

Missouri Centerfor Transportation Innovation (MCTI) is intended to: 

• IdentifY, conduct and disseminate transportation research 

• Complete practical, timely and implementable research 

• Implement innovative technolo~ies 

• Producefoture transportation engineers 

MCTI will utilize existin~ research and laboratoryfacilities and promote an 

atmosphere that develops faculty and staff' at the University System and Missouri 

DOT. 

Part of' the success (){the MCTI andfor that matter, national efforts to increase 

innovative material, process and construction tools and techniques will rely on 

federalfitndin~ participation with new fundin~, rather than a redirection of 

existin~funds. Grant prowams thatforther restrict existin~fundin~ create 

additional problems at the state DOT's who are tryin~ to patch an a~in~ 

interstate network. Properly fimded, actionable research is a vital and pressing 

need. 

b. Do you agree that Congress should follow the Academies' recommendation and 

provide grant funding for projects that use innovative materials? 

For full disclosure, I currently sit on the Executive Committee()( the Academies' 

Transportation Research Board and favor this recommendation. However, any 

new product or material be in~ produced and marketed towards state DOTs may 

come with it a higher cost and more risk. Due to the liti~ious nature of our 

current society and in some states, little statutory limitation of' that liability, many 

state DOT's are forced into risk mitigation strategies. Programs and statutory 

assistance to reduce or mitigate a risk association with a new product or material 

is generally acceptable. Grant opportunities. like the one of{ered through the 

Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Prowam, is a way to mitigate the 

risk associated with using a new product or material. A similar approach was 

used for the second Strategic Highway Research Program (Sl!RP2) that provided 

grants to state DOTs to use innovative bridge designs and construction material. 

Generally speaking, these types of grant programs are very useful in providing 

incentives to state DOTs, and other in{rastructure owners and operators, to use 

innovative materials. To that end, AASHTO is supportive of the Academies' 

recommendation that: 

"A new federal incentive grant program for innovative bridge technology 

could continue the success of IBRC in accelerating the adoption of proven 

technologies that have not yet gained wide acceptance and also contribute to 
22 


35959.016

advancing less-developed technologies, by supporting state highway agency 

bridge projects that were coordinated as elements of research and evaluation 

studies." 

However. I will repeat my previous statement that any federal incentive grant 

program bring new funding, rather than a redirection of existing funds. Grant 

programs that further restrict existing funding create additional problems at the 

state DOT's who are trying to patch an aging interstate network. 
23 


35959.017

2. Climate Preparedness: Rhode Island's Coastal Resources Management Council is 

planning for upwards of nine feet of sea level rise by 2100. To prepare for this much 

water overtaking our shores, we need to protect evacuation routes from flooding, 

reinforce bridges that are exposed to corrosive saltwater and storms, and consider moving 

or elevating coastal roadways. These improvements are essential if my state and others 

along the coasts have any chance of surviving the changes coming our way over the next 

50 or I 00 years. 

These resiliency improvements will also go a long way in bolstering the coastal real 

estate market, which according to the First Street foundation, has already seen $15.8 

billion in lost home value due to sea level rise and flooding in the 15 East Coast states 

and Mississippi and Alabama along the Gulf. 

a. How should climate change considerations and sea level rise projections be 

incorporated in the local, state, and federal transportation planning processes? 

Rest assured, storm frequency, severity and duration along with repeat cycles of 

damage to infrastructure and challenges to communities is not solely a coastal 

issue, but a national issue. In Missouri in the past three years and currently as I 

write this response. we have seen severe weather and flooding events in each of 

the past three years that have required the closure, cleanup and repair of over 

300 roadways and other vital infrastructure such as flood control levees, water 

treatment facilities and private property. These impacts have been particularly 

damaging to the agricultural industry in the Midwest. 

In the FAST Act, new requirements were created for the statewide and 

metropolitan transportation plannini:.s:1~'processes to consider projects and 

strategies to improve the resilience and reliability of the transportation system. 

The FAST Act also created the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway 

Projects (NSFHF) program - established to support nationally and regionally 

sfgn!ficanl freight and highway projects that achieve a range of program goals 

including the enhancement of the resiliency of critical highway infrastructure. [,}~] 

Additionally, MAP-21 codified a requirement for state DOTs to develop and 

implement a risk-based Transportation Asset Management Plan. Risks were 

considered anything that affects the condition of National Highway System (NHS) 

pavements and bridges and the performance of the NHS, including risks 

associated with current and future environmental condition.v (.such as extreme 

weather events, climate change, and seismic activity). 

AASHTO members believe these provisions in current law provide the 

appropriate guidance and requirements related to state DOT planning for climate 

change, risk and resiliency challenges. 

However, we would like to recommend Congress examine the current federal 

Emergency Relief (ER) Program in order to provide states with the.flexibility to 
24 


35959.018

use ERfunds to increase the resilience of a replacement project to future hazards. 

Allowing ERfunds to be used for actions outside of the right-of-way andlorfor 

other strategies that improve the resilience of the damaged asset and/or facility 

would be a helpful step to improve the planning, mitigation and preparation for 

future climate and weather events. 

Building requirements for states to address resiliency into new construction 

projects without addressing the core funding issues of the Highway Trust Fund 

will lead to reduced overall infrastructure condition as increased costs of new 

construction and replacement projects will limit construction in areas less prone 

to flooding. 

b. Do you agree that it is irresponsible to ignore this loss in value to our coastal 

assets as we harden our infrastructure for sea-level rise? 

We understand Congress's interest in ensuring we develop as resilient a 

transportation system as possible to make sure our physical stock is able to adapt 

and respond to changing conditions -AASHTO members have the same interest 

as well. As the CEOs of state Departments of Transportation, it is our 

responsibility to effectively manage our transportation systems to meet the 

various challenges we face everyday. 

To that end, AASHTO runs the Resilient and Sustainable Transportation Systems 

Technical Assistance Program. This is a voluntary pooled-fund program that 

provides timely information, tools, and technical assistance to AASHTO members 

in meeting the difficult challenges that arise related to climate change, energy 

efficiency, energy security, infrastructure adaptation, alternative vehicles and 

fuels, and other relevant topics. This program is a critical resource for state 

DOTs to address climate change and energy issues, while also providing the 

information needed to engage in and influence policy dialogue on resiliency at the 

federal level. 
25 


35959.019

3. Electric Vehicle Corridors: According to Inside EVs, sales for electric vehicles increased 

by 81% in 2018, and sales for electric vehicles is predicted to continue to grow at a rapid 

pace. As you know, in 2015 Congress passed legislation as partofthe FAST Act to 

establish a national alternative fuels corridor program, so drivers have a better 

understanding of where to find alternative fuel charging station and refueling stations. 

The agency you would head is now in the process of implementing that legislation, and 

attempting to establish a national network of alternative fueling and charging 

infrastructure along national highway system corridors. 

a. Beyond the work that US DOT is already doing in this space, what else can the agency 

do to stimulate deployment of electric vehicle infrastructure? 

b. What can USDOT do to reduce regulatory roadblocks to increase the nation's electric 

vehicle infrastructure? 

c. What can Congress do in the next highway bill to continue to expand our nation's 

electric vehicle infrastructure? 

State departments of transportation are not only owners and operators of key 

transportation assets, but also conscientious and responsible stewards of the natural and 

built environment. Expanding the nation's alternative ji1el vehicle infrastructure could 

further encourage the use of alternative fitel vehicles, like electric vehicles, that produce 

zero emissions. Encouraging the installation of electric vehicle infrastructure could help 

to reduce vehicle emissions and improve air quality. To this end, AASHTO supports the 

Clean Corridor Act of2019, proposed by Senator Carper in March 2019, that would 

establish a grant program to strategically deploy electric vehicle charging il'!frastructure 

and hydrogen fueling infrastructure along designated alternative fuel corridors that will 

be accessible to all drivers of zero emission vehicles. These types of targeted grant 

programs ifproperlyfunded could be useful to help mitigate the risk associated with the 

deployment of new and non-traditional il'!frastructure like electrical vehicle charging 

hardware. 
26 


35959.020

4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety: I continue to be concerned by our nation's rate of bicycle 

and pedestrian deaths, which now make up more than 18% of all traffic fatalities and are 

at their highest level since 1990. While we are making progress in improving 

transportation safety overall, we are unfortunately heading in the wrong direction for 

people walking and biking. The Governors Highway Safety Association found that an 

estimated 50 percent of pedestrian deaths occur on state or US highways and 

interstates. Congress has attempted to prioritize this issue for state departments of 

transportation by requiring new safety goals for people walking and biking. 

a. How should Congress address bicycle and pedestrian safety in the next highway 

authorization? 

AASHTO members are also concerned with this trend in bicycle and pedestrian 

safety. To that end, two years ago, AASHTO undertook a comprehensive review of its 

entire committee structure to ensure that the needs of its members were being met. 

Two years ago, AASHTO created a Council on Active Transportation to take a 

comprehensive look at transportation safety issues. 

All 52 AASHTO member departments are represented on the Council- most states 

have two or three members. The diverse backgrounds and differing roles within the 

DOTs of the Council members (CEOs, planners, chief engineers, designers, bike/ped 

coordinators) show the value the state DOTs place on this topic and also enables the 

Council to have a broad multidisciplinary view of active transportation. 

One area of concern relates to a provision in the FAST Act that revised the definition 

of a Highway Safety Improvement Project. The change effectively restricts funding 

under the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) eligibility to only 28 

strategies, activities or projects listed in the legislation, eliminating the ability to use 

HSIPfundsfor public awareness and education efforts, infrastructure and 

infrastructure-related equipment to support emergency services, and enforcement of 

traffic safety laws that are identified in a state's Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP). SHSP 's are a multidisciplinary approach to reducing highway fatalities and 

serious injuries on all public roads including for users of the roadway such as 

bicyclists and pedestrians. The lack of flexibility in sqfety project selection in the 

IISIP program, particularly non-il'!frastructure related activities, stifles innovative 

safety improvements. 

AASHTO members believe state DOTs should be able to utilize HSIP funds to address 

the safety priorities established as part of a state's Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

Therefore, AASHTO recommends that Congress allow a portion of HSIP funds to be 

used for education and other behavioral programs. Addressing the behavioral 

aspects of driver, bicycle and pedestrian safety may be some of the highest returns of 

any investment. 

In Missouri, we have created a public campaign called, Buckle-Up-Phone-Down with 

the intent of addressing behavior and safe conduct during use of the transportation 
27 


35959.021

network. An affinity campaign has been created with many high school students 

taking the BUPD Challenge. A link to the campaign is below: 

http://www2.modot.org!JJuckleUpl'honeDown/ 

A great video reference is included below: 

http:llwHw2.modot.org!huck/eupphonedo>l'nl?;allervlindex.html 

Creatively engaging the public to encourage everyone to lake personal responsibility 

for safe behavior is a winning formula. Please consider enabling more creative and 

flexible use of existing HSJP funds. 

b. Which programs in the FAST Act have been the most beneficial for bicycle and 

pedestrian safety? 

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSJP) has been a very effective tool for 

state DOTs and other transportation stakeholders to address roadway safety 

priorities. However, the FAST Act restricts state DOTs from using ail manner of 

solutions to help reduce bicycle and pedestrian injuries and fatalities. The FAST Act 

precludes the use of RSIP funds for education, enforcement, safety research, or 

emergency medical service safety programs that could be beneficial and requires all 

HSIP fonds to be used for roadway safety infrastructure. AASHTO members believe 

state DOTs should be able to utilize HSIP funds to address the safety priorities 

established as part of a state's Strategic Highway Safety Plan. As mentioned above, 

AASHTO recommends that Congress allow a portion of HSIP funds to be usedfor 

public awareness and education efforts, infrastructure and infrastructure-related 

equipment to support emergency services, and enforcement of traffic safety laws. 
28 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so very much, Mr. McKenna. 

Mr. DEMETRIOU. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN DEMETRIOU, CHAIRMAN AND CEO OF 

JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, ON BEHALF OF THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 

Mr. DEMETRIOU. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking 

Member Carper and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on the economic benefits of infrastructure investment. 

At Jacobs, the 80,000-person professional services firm that I 

lead, we are working every day throughout the United States and 

around the world to solve complex infrastructure challenges, transform government and business operations, and, very importantly, 

to enhance communities. 

I am here on behalf of the Business Roundtable, an association 

of CEOs of American leading companies working to promote a 

thriving U.S. economy and expanded opportunity for all Americans. 

At the Business Roundtable, we believe that infrastructure is critical to a modern, competitive economy. Appropriate investment in 

infrastructure creates near-term and long-lasting benefits. 

At Jacobs, we have seen these benefits, in fact, firsthand right here in Washington, DC. with the $390 million 11th Street Bridges 

Project over the Anacostia River. Jacobs led the environmental and 

preliminary design work for these bridges crossing the southeast, 

southwest and Anacostia freeways. 

For decades, drivers were forced onto neighborhood streets to 

compensate for missing links between these highways. This restricted movement to local workplaces, schools and stores and discouraged economic development. Ultimately, the completion of this 

project improved traffic flows, connected communities, triggered 

billions of dollars of private investment in mixed-use development 

and resulted in new jobs, enhanced social and economic growth on 

a local and regional level. 

For decades, America set the global standard when it came to 

transformative infrastructure. Yet, while the benefits were clearly 

tangible, our national commitment to investing in infrastructure 

has more recently diminished. 

As a business leader, it concerns me that the U.S. spends a 

smaller share of GDP of infrastructure than all but two G7 countries. From 2003 to 2017, U.S. public infrastructure spending fell 

by a staggering 80 percent. 

Forty-four percent of America’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Twenty-three percent of our bridges are either 

structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Because of inadequate infrastructure, American businesses incur nearly $27 billion 

in extra transportation costs each year. 

Business Roundtable recently completed a study that quantifies 

the benefits of returning our infrastructure to a State of good repair and expanding it to meet the demands of a growing economy. 

Let me highlight a few key findings. 

First, every $1 invested in infrastructure can return roughly 

$3.70 in additional economic growth over 20 years. Think about 

that for a moment, a four to one ratio representing an extraorVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:29 Aug 05, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\35959.TXT VERNE
29 

dinary return on investment. The additional infrastructure investment will create 1.1 million new jobs over the next decade and 

boost wages. The average American household will gain $1,400 in 

disposable income every year for an increase of more than $28,000 

over 20 years. Investing in infrastructure will increase real GDP by nearly $6 

trillion over the next two decades. Every State will experience positive impacts on employment, household incomes and economic 

growth. This will also deliver benefits across economic sectors from 

farming, insurance, mining, to manufacturing. This is why it is so 

important to increase investment in Federal trust funds, especially 

the Highway Trust Fund where additional revenue is needed just 

to keep the fund solvent at current baseline spending levels, excluding critical future needs. 

In addition to infrastructure funding, we must also streamline 

the permitting process. Although the Business Roundtable study 

did not examine the effects of permitting reform, we know that red 

tape increases project costs and delays. Streamlining the regulatory 

process is essential. 

A great recent example of successfully streamlining the permitting process is the I–25 Gap Project in Colorado which connects 

Denver and Colorado Springs, the State’s two largest employment 

centers. The project used permitting reforms, including the FAST 

Act, among others, to achieve an unprecedented delivery schedule, 

completing the long-range planning process through NEPA to the 

start of construction in less than 2 years. 

This is why Business Roundtable supports the Administration’s 

One Federal Decision policy. It encourages you to codify the 2-year 

deadline to reach a single decision on all proposed infrastructure 

projects. 

Finally, we also need to modernize America’s infrastructure 

through adaptive technology and innovation. At Jacobs, we are providing the value of new technologies for transportation infrastructure every day. In fact, we are working with Los Angeles County 

to pilot connected vehicle technologies that would reduce traffic 

congestion along an interState corridor that is crucial to international trade. In another example, we are partnering with Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise and Florida Polytechnic University to 

create a test facility to demonstrate the resiliency of driverless vehicles in simulated conditions of rain, fog and smoke. 

The need for action is clear. The benefits are profound. An investment in infrastructure is an investment in the future. Business 

Roundtable is committed to working with Congress to advance policies that will modernize U.S. infrastructure to support economic 

growth and expand opportunities for all Americans. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Demetriou follows:] 

30 


35959.022

Prepared Statement of Steve Demetriou 

Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 

Member of the Business Roundtable Infrastructure Committee 

"The Economic Benefits of Highway Infrastructure Investment and Accelerated Project 

Delivery" 

Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 

Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and Members of the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works. I am Steve Demetriou, Chair and Chief Executive Officer of Jacobs. Thank 

you for inviting me to testify on behalf of Business Roundtable regarding the economic benefits of 

infrastructure investment. 

Jacobs is a public company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Our more than 80,000 employees work 

throughout the United States and around the world to solve complex engineering and infrastructure 

challenges, with a focus on transforming government and business operations and communities to make 

them more connected, accessible and sustainable. 

I am also a member of the Infrastructure Committee at Business Roundtable, an association of Chief 

Executive Officers (CEOs) of America's leading companies working to promote a thriving U.S. economy and 

expanded opportunity for all Americans through sound public policy. These CEO members lead companies 

that employ more than 15 million people, generate more than $7 trillion in annual revenues and invest 

nearly $147 billion annually in research and development. Business Roundtable CEOs represent major 

employers in every state and are responsible for creating quality jobs with good wages across the country. 

As a group, we believe that infrastructure is a critical component of a modern, competitive economy. The 

member companies of Business Roundtable rely on safe, reliable, efficient and world-class infrastructure 

for our continued success. To that end, Business Roundtable supports infrastructure policies that are 

economically sound, oriented toward the long-term and designed to deliver maximum benefit to 

stakeholders. 

My testimony outlines the case for a strong reinvestment in infrastructure. I am particularly excited to 

share the results of a new economic study from Business Roundtable, "Delivering for America: The 

macroeconomic impacts of reinvesting in America's infrastructure systems," which quantifies the benefits 

of taking action on infrastructure for American families, workers and businesses. 

Why infrastructure is important to the economy 

Modern transportation infrastructure -through the safe, reliable, efficient movement of people and goods 

by road, rail, air and water - drives regional and worldwide commerce. Appropriate investment in 

infrastructure, creates near-term and long-lasting employment opportunities, increases efficiency for our 

company's employees and customers, improves accessibility to goods and services and opens up people's 

ability to access education, employment and other services. 
31 


35959.023

At Jacobs, we've seen what kind of impact a modern transportation infrastructure can have on a 

community through our work on complex infrastructure projects around the world. 

An example of this impact took place not far from this hearing room, the $390 million 11th Street Bridges 

over the Anacostia River, were by far, the District Department of Transportation's largest construction 

project of its kind- and one that illustrates the profound impact that transformative infrastructure has on 

the lives of Americans. Jacobs led the environmental and preliminary design work for the pair of one-way 

bridges crossing the Anacostia Freeway {1-295 and DC-295) and the Southeast/Southwest Freeway (1-695). 

This critical project replaced aging infrastructure, eliminated spillover freeway traffic into already 

distressed neighborhoods, connected communities and provided a foundation for billions of dollars of 

private investment that resulted in new jobs and enhanced social and economic growth on a local and 

regional level. 

Action on Infrastructure is Long Overdue 

Taking a step back for a moment, let us consider the foundational role that infrastructure plays in the 

American economy. Thousands of roads and bridges, airports, water systems, dams and levees, ports and 

urban transit systems form the infrastructure that sustains and unites America from coast to coast, 

connecting us to opportunities that drive a modern, competitive and dynamic economy. Infrastructure is 

also a critical catalyst for American innovation that powers our social and economic progress. For American 

households, high-quality, highly functioning infrastructure enables cleaner, safer, more reliable 

transportation, while reducing prices for everyday goods and improving quality of life. Streamlined 

commutes help employees and students get to work and school on time, and more importantly, get them 

home faster to be with their families. 

For many decades, America set the global standard when it came to transformative infrastructure projects. 

However, over time, our national commitment to investing in infrastructure diminished, and the condition 

of many of our infrastructure systems eroded. From 2003 to 2017, public spending on infrastructure in the 

U.S. fell by a staggering eight percent.' As a business leader whose largest number of employees live and 

work in the U.S., it concerns me that our public investment lags behind our global competitors. The U.S. 

spends a smaller share of GOP on infrastructure than all but two G7 countries, Italy and Germany.'' Simply 

put: our country's investment in public infrastructure has failed to keep pace with the innovation and 

growth taking place around the world. 

There is a widening gap between our growing infrastructure-related needs and our level of investment. 

This gap threatens the quality, reliability and safety of our national infrastructure. I would like to share 

some facts for this committee to consider: 

44 percent of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition;;;; 

23 percent of bridges in the national highway system are either structurally deficient or 

functionally obsolete;'' and 
32 


35959.024

In 2016, there were 144,000 hours of lock shutdowns along U.S. waterways because of 

maintenance and unexpected delays! 

From congested roads to crumbling bridges, America's outdated infrastructure systems slow daily 

commutes, hamper the flow of goods and services and increase costs for businesses and households, for 

example: 

Congestion on major urban roadways costs the average American commuter $960 every year;'' 

and 

American businesses nationwide incur nearly $27 billion in additional transportation costs 

annually because of inadequate infrastructure.'" 

Action is long overdue. A problem of this scale and urgency requires bold leadership in Congress, to focus 

significant and sustained investment on restoring America's standard of infrastructure excellence. 

America needs secure, reliable funding and financing models to move projects forward. At Jacobs, we can 

tell you from experience that the projects that are fully funded are the ones that tend to get completed 

ahead of schedule. 

Shifting the Conversation from the Costs of Inaction to the Benefits of Action 

While the costs of inaction have been well-documented, with many reports demonstrating the urgent need 

for investment, few have articulated and quantified the potential benefits of right-sizing U.S. investment 

in infrastructure. To lead the way toward a modern, dynamic and prosperous U.S. economy, we need a full 

understanding of the problems we must solve and what we stand to gain by doing so. 

For instance, shoring up the Highway Trust Fund is a critical area of focus. A recent Eno Center for 

Transportation study notes that additional revenue would be needed just to keep the fund solvent for the 

next decade at current baseline spending levels-not addressing future needs. 

In partnership with the Interindustry Forecasting Project at the University of Maryland, Business 

Roundtable recently completed a macroeconomic modeling study that quantifies the long-term economic 

benefits of right-sizing infrastructure investment. This report answers a critical question: What are the 

economic dividends associated with not only returning our infrastructure to a "State of Goad Repair", but 

also improving and expanding it to meet the demands of a growing economy? 

The study estimates the economic impacts of increased investment in surface transportation, aviation, 

water and wastewater, water resources and water transportation. Increased investment in these areas 

would return America's infrastructure to a state of good repair, expand capacity to meet future demand 

and fund innovative solutions to future infrastructure challenges. The investment would come from a mix 

of federal, state, local, and private sources. 
33 


35959.025

Due both to the government's unique role in surface transportation funding and the significant need, 

surface transportation is the largest component of this investment package, comprising more than 60 

percent of the total value dedicated to our nation's highways, roads and bridges. 

Here are five key findings from the study: 

1. Every $llnvested in Infrastructure Returns $3.70 to the U.S. Economy 

The study demonstrates that investing in infrastructure would pay for itself several times over. Every 

additional $1 invested in infrastructure delivers roughly $3.70 in additional economic growth over 20 years. 

Think about that for a moment; nearly a 4-to-1 ratio, representing an extraordinary return on investment, 

especially when considering that the benefits would continue to compound far beyond a two-decade time 

horizon. 

2. An Investment in Infrastructure is an Investment in More Jobs and Higher Incomes for 

American Workers 

The study highlights that investing in infrastructure would not only create more jobs, but better jobs for 

American workers. Specifically, it would create 1.1 million additional new jobs over the next decade, with 

increasing wages over the long term. In fact, the average American household would gain an additional 

$1,400 in disposable income every year for 20 years. These benefits are tangible, meaningful and longterm. 

3. An Investment in Infrastructure Would Spur Economic Growth and Private Investment 

Investing in infrastructure would also amplify growth in the overall economy. Such an investment would 

boost real gross domestic product (GDP) by $5.9 trillion over 20 years. Importantly, extra infrastructure 

spending would also catalyze additional private investment. Building modernized and expanded 

infrastructure systems would jumpstart U.S. business productivity, spurring $1.9 trillion in additional 

investment by private businesses over 20 years derived from fewer delays, lower unnecessary costs and 

improved efficiency. 

4. An Investment in Infrastructure Would Benefit All 50 States and All Corners of the Economy 

Based on our analysis, investing in infrastructure would deliver benefits for all 50 states, from Wyoming to 

Delaware, by boosting productivity in every corner of the country. Every single state would experience 

positive impacts on employment, household incomes, and economic growth. 

This investment would also boost productivity and create broad-based benefits across virtually every sector 

of the economy, from farming and mining to manufacturing and insurance. Intuitively, significant benefits 

would occur in sectors directly associated with our nation's highways and surface transportation systems, 

but the gains in productivity would also translate into broad-based growth for American businesses. 
34 


35959.026

S. An Investment in Infrastructure is an Investment in the Future 

The key benefit of infrastructure investment is the improved productivity that comes from better roads, 

deeper ports, increasingly efficient air travel and other structural enhancements. Compounded over time, 

these benefits would drive meaningful and sustained economic growth. In effect, improved infrastructure 

tightens the gears of the U.S. economy. 

More than anything, an investment in infrastructure is an investment in the future of the U.S. While there 

are many ways to create jobs and stimulate the economy in the short run, the benefits typically fade over 

time. The enduring benefit of infrastructure investment is not only that it provides clear and tangible 

returns in community development, but that it also sets off a ripple effect attracting additional, local 

investments in commercial, residential and educational hubs connected by multimodal transportation 

networks. This isn't just about delivering benefits in the short term. This is about reinvesting in the 

foundation of our economy to be more competitive for the foreseeable future. 

Let's take another example from my own company's experience, Jacobs was part of a team that delivered 

two new bridges over the Ohio River in Louisville in a very short period of time. The East End Crossing 

closed a gap on the 265/841 beltway and the Downtown Crossing doubled the capacity of the existing 

bridges, while relieving traffic in downtown Louisville. The net effect of the $1.5 billion project on both 

Jeffersonville Indiana and Louisville Kentucky in terms of economic impact has been significant, proven by 

the expansion of the Port of Indiana and by the increased distribution speed for UPS from its Louisville 

base. Additional long-term economic growth· will continue in both Indiana and Kentucky as a result of the 

now free-flowing North/South connections for decades to come. 

Streamlining Permitting is One Key to Success 

By setting a high priority on the nation's transportation, water, and energy infrastructure needs and 

revising existing policy to better and more quickly enable project implementation, available funds can be 

leveraged to accelerate infrastructure development and, as a result, economic growth. Although the 

Business Roundtable study focused on the benefits of investment and did not examine the effects of 

regulatory reform, the CEOs of Business Roundtable know from first-hand experience that regulatory 

barriers can increase project costs and delay project delivery, ultimately holding back the economic 

benefits from investment. While regulatory reform holds promise for streamlining delivery, best practices 

such as disciplined project management, integrated delivery, proactive communications between 

stakeholders, leveraging new tools and technology, and developing creative funding packages are all 

necessary to fully realize and complement the benefits of streamlined regulatory policies and procedures. 

One example of better, faster results stemming from a streamlined process is the Elgin-O'Hare West Bypass 

project in illinois. This $3 billion project near Chicago O'Hare International Airport involves construction of 

more efficiently aligned highway segments that will accommodate transit as well as bike and pedestrian 

facilities while maintaining compatibility with the O'Hare Modernization Program. Jacobs delivered 

environmental studies and permits for the Illinois DOT and the Illinois Tollway following an innovative and 

integrated transportation, environmental, and financial planning process tailored to clearly define the 

project and position it for implementation. 
35 


35959.027

A key to success and acceleration of the environmental and permitting process was early, ongoing 

coordination with regulatory agencies and the commitment of those agencies to stay involved 

throughout the process. Continuous and collaborative agency involvement ensured a clear understanding 

of the environmental issues by all parties, facilitated timely development of appropriate solutions, 

shortened interim review times, and ultimately resulted in a Record of Decision months ahead of schedule 

- all while maintaining the integrity and rigor of the environmental process. The ultimate benefit is 

increased productivity through a more efficient local transportation system. 

One more example I would like to highlight is the Colorado Department ofTransportation's 1-25 Gap project 

to expand an 18-mile, rural section of 1-25 to connect Colorado's two largest cities and employment centers 

- Denver and Colorado Springs - and improve travel time reliability, driver safety, and incident 

management through one of Colorado's most important highway stretches. 

The $350 million project deployed innovations to accelerate delivery by using many Federal Highway 

Administration initiatives from permitting reforms included in the FAST Act, and recent implementation of 

these reforms and other programs by the previous and current administrations. The result was an 

unprecedented delivery schedule: completing the long-range planning process through NEPA to the start 

of construction in less than 2 years- and realizing the resulting safety and economic benefit of improved 

connectivity between Colorado's business centers sooner. 

Based on the benefits of these examples and many more, Business Roundtable supports policies that 

further streamline the review and permitting process for projects to keep development costs down and 

accelerate project delivery while maintaining environmental stewardship. We support the Administration's 

One Federal Decision policy and encourage you to codify the two-year deadline for the federal government 

to reach a decision on a given proposed infrastructure project. 

Charting a Path Forward 

The CEO members of Business Roundtable can attest to the urgency and necessity of robust infrastructure 

investment, as well as the importance of a bold plan that reimagines and rebuilds America's infrastructure 

for the 21" century. 

At Jacobs, we are proving the value of smart technologies, digital intelligence and data a nalytics to conceive 

and deliver more scalable, efficient infrastructure systems acros.s different modes of transportation, 

including connected vehicle systems, and solutions that draw from ~arious data platforms-from highway 

and transit systems to cell phones-to mobilize transport for people and goods within and between cities. 

In fact, Jacobs is working with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to pilot 

connected vehicle technologies that would reduce traffic and air congestion along an 18-mile stretch of 

the 1-710 South Corridor which is crucial to international trade. Jacobs is also partnering with Florida's 

Turnpike Enterprise and Florida Polytechnic University to create an approximately $160 million test facility 

for driverless vehicles on a 475-acre site where we can simulate conditions like rain, fog and smoke. 
36 


35959.028

In conclusion, the need for action on our nation's infrastructure is clear, and the potential benefits are 

profound and long-lasting. Business Roundtable is committed to seizing this window of opportunity to 

unlock the long-term benefits of infrastructure. We stand ready to work with the members of this 

committee to advance policies that will modernize U.S. infrastructure to support economic growth and 

expand opportunities for all Americans. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members ofthe Committee for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to 

your questions. 
37 


35959.029

Appendix: About the "Delivering for America" infrastructure modeling study 

The full report, including assumptions, detailed national and state-level results, and the detailed policy 

scenario can be viewed online at: brt.orq/de/iverinq-for-america. 

Business Roundtable partnered with the University of Maryland lnforum modeling group to a conduct a 

macroeconomic modeling study of the impact of increasing infrastructure investment on the U.S. economy. 

The model is a fully dynamic, general-equilibrium model of the U.S. economy that captures the impacts 

and feedback loops of increased infrastructure investment across all sectors of the economy. The policy 

scenario, which specifies spending amounts by infrastructure system and funding source, sector-specific 

productivity estimates associated with improved infrastructure served as the core inputs to the model. 

1 Congressional Budget Office, "Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, 1956-2017", October 2018, p. 3. 

ii Congressional Research Service, "Economic Impact of Infrastructure Investment," January 2018, p. 8. 

iii TRIP, "Key Facts about America1

s Surface Transportation System and Federal Funding-," May 2017, p. 2. 

iv U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2017," 2017, p. 

1-6. 

v U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2017," 2017, p, 

4-1. 

vi Texas A&M Transportation Institute, INRIX, "2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard," August 2015, p. 5. 

vii The White House, ''An Economic Analysis of Transportation Infrastructure Investment," July 2014, p. 2. 
38 


35959.030

.JACOBS. 

Steve Demetriou 

Chair& CEO 

May 29, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works on March 6, 2019, It was an honor to do so. 

I am writing in response to your letter of May 15, 2019 regarding the Senators' follow-up questions. 

have addressed each question below. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me with additional 

questions. 

Answers to Questions from Senator Whitehouse: 

Question 1. Innovative Materials: The National Academies of Sciences recently finalized a report 

titled, "Performance of Bridges That Received Funding under the Innovative Bridge Research and 

Construction Program." 

The report, which was included at my direction in the FAST Act, evaluated projects funded under the 

Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program_ This program provided grants between 1999 

to 2005 but has since been defunded. The Academies' report found that using advanced materials 

and technologies can reduce construction costs, construction time, and traffic congestion. It also 

found that structures using advanced materials are more resilient to natural disasters. The report 

recommends that Congress reestablish grant programs that would fund projects using innovative 

materials. 

a. Do you agree that any infrastructure bi!l should include provisions that wi!l encourage the use 

of innovative materials that are more durable and resistant to corrosion than traditional 

maten'als? 

b. Do you agree that Congress should fo!low the Academies' recommendation and provide grant 

funding for projects that use innovative materials? 

My response: At Jacobs we are always looking for innovative methods and materials to help 

provide cost-effective and sustainable infrastructure for our public and private-sector clients. In fact, 

Jacobs helped to lead a study for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) on use of innovative materials called the Strategic Highway Research Program 

2, or "SHRP2." 

While Jacobs would need to review specific legislative language, we would generally support a 

provision in a surface transportation reauthorization that would increase research funding at the 

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 

1999 Bryan Street, Suite 1200 

Dallas, Texas 75201-3136 USA 
39 


35959.031

federal level and encourage the use of innovative materials. We firmly believe in solutions that lead 

towards additional research and implementation, but do not restrict our engineers, planners and 

designers to any one pre-determined material. We would also generally agree with the 

recommendation that sufficient federal grant funding would be beneficial to those projects using 

innovative materials that are more durable and corrosion resistant 

Question 2. Climate Preparedness: Rhode Island's Coastal Resources Management Council is 

planning for upwards of nine feet of sea level rise by 2100. To prepare for this much water 

overtaking our shores, we need to protect evacuation routes from flooding, reinforce bridges that are 

exposed to corrosive saltwater and storms, and consider moving or elevating coastal roadways. 

These improvements are essential if my state and others along the coasts have any chance of 

surviving the changes coming our way over the next 50 or 100 years. 

These resiliency improvements will also go a long way in bolstering the coastal real estate market, 

which according to the First Street foundation, has already seen $15. 8 billion in lost home value due 

to sea level rise and flooding in the 15 East Coast states and Mississippi and Alabama along the 

Gulf. 

a. How should climate change considerations and sea level rise projections be incorporated in 

the local, state, and federal transportation planning processes? 

b. Do you agree that it is irresponsible to ignore this loss in value to our coastal assets as we 

harden our infrastructure for sea-level rise? 

My response: 

We understand that climate change continues to intensify the challenges facing critical infrastructure 

around the world and we support local, state and federal policy makers addressing these issues 

through the planning processes in a way that drives innovation and options, without restricting which 

options remain open to planners, designers and engineers. 

Further, Jacobs believes that federal policy makers should strive towards increasing the utilization of 

renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power. As a leading company in designing 

renewable energy solutions for both public and private sector clients, Jacobs understands that the 

solution can and should benefit both the environment and the American economy. The US has 

advantages that we can capitalize on to further develop a diverse portfolio of options for 

communities in every part of the country. We believe the Congress can work with the engineering 

industry and other critical sectors to mitigate climate change and drive a greener economy. At 

Jacobs, we pride ourselves on developing solutions to evolving complex problems like coastal 

resiliency. For example, our work includes managing the City of Miami Beach's Integrated Water 

Management Plan, which battles sea level rise, as well as our work as the Program Manager for the 

estimated $5 billion San Francisco Seawall Program to address the City's vulnerability to increased 

sea level rise, seismic risk and more frequent storm events. 

Question 3. Electric Vehicle Corridors: According to Inside EVs, sales for electric vehicles 

increased by 81% in 2018, and sales for electric vehicles is predicted to continue to grow at a rapid 

pace. As you know, in 2015 Congress passed legislation as part of the FAST Act to establish a 

national alternative fuels corridor program, so drivers have a better understanding of where to find 

alternative fuel charging station and refueling stations. The agency you would head is now in the 

process of implementing that legislation and attempting to establish a national network of alternative 

fueling and charging infrastructure along national highway system corridors. 

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 
40 


35959.032

a. Beyond the work that USDOT is already doing in this space, what else can the agency do to 

stimulate deployment of electric vehicle infrastructure? 

b. What can USDOT do to reduce regulatory roadblocks to increase the nation's electric vehicle 

infrastructure? 

c. What can Congress do in the next highway bill to continue to expand our nation's electric vehicle 

infrastructure? 

My response: According to the US Department of Energy, the sale of plug-in electric vehicles in the 

U.S. has quadrupled between 2012 and 2017. It clearly shows no sign of abating and our 

transportation clients, particularly state departments of transportation, must grapple with the 

changing needs of the driving public and the ensuing changes to their asset management plans. 

This changing need for electric vehicles will unquestionably drive an increase in the accompanying 

charging infrastructure. Because the question for policymakers is how to pay for this new charging 

infrastructure when traditional needs are not receding, the US DOT should look to funding and 

financing solutions. We suggest a full review of federal and state regulatory roadblocks preventing 

electric charging station public-private partnerships. There are revenue opportunities that should be 

explored; this would allow private funding to deliver many of the necessary charging stations while 

more of the federal taxpayer dollars continue to be spent on high-priority freight corridors, major 

bridge projects, urban transit, and projects of national significance. 

As you know, there is a desperate need for revenue at the federal level (the end of the FAST Act will 

produce a $176 billion Highway Trust Fund shortfall) and it is critical that electric vehicles pay their 

fair share. It is therefore important that a portion of revenues gained from charging stations are 

deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. We know this is not the path to solvency on its own, but 

instead one small piece of the puzzle that will create a balanced and just "user pays" system. 

In addition, regarding question 3c we believe that flexibility is crucial; giving local stakeholders the 

ability to make the decisions in their long-term plans is an important consideration for federal 

policymakers. 

Question 4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety: I continue to be concerned by our nation's rate of 

bicycle and pedestrian deaths, which now make up more than 18% of all traffic fatalities and are at 

their highest level since 1990. While we are making progress in improving transportation safety 

overall, we are unfortunately heading in the wrong direction for people walking and biking. The 

Governors Highway Safety Association found that an estimated 50 percent of pedestrian deaths 

occur on state or US highways and interstates. Congress has attempted to prioritize this issue for 

state departments of transportation by requiring new safety goals for people walking and biking. 

a. How should Congress address bicycle and pedestrian safety in the next highway 

authorization? 

b. Which programs in the FAST Act have been the most beneficial for bicycle and pedestrian 

safety? 

My response: Jacobs knows that safety is everyone's responsibility; we all have a role in keeping 

pedestrians and bicyclists safe on our roadways. A strong commitment to safety is a foundational 

element of Jacobs' culture. We believe the wellbeing of our people is fundamental to our success 

and we are focused on consistently delivering an injury-free environment for every employee and 

those around us. 

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 
41 


35959.033

Jacobs strongly supports federal policy makers addressing these projects and programs in the next 

surface transportation authorization in a way that provides increased funding options for state 

departments of transportation, but also while maintaining maximum flexibility. 

At Jacobs, our transportation safety engineers and designers have worked on pedestrian and bicycle 

projects around the nation. Just a few miles from the US Capitol Building is the transformative 

Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, a series of projects that modernized DC's waterfront. We proudly 

served as the Program Manager on this effort, which included 15 major project components, about 

half of which contained major bike and pedestrian safety upgrades. While safety is always the 

biggest driver, we also know that bike and pedestrian projects also help to connect local 

economies. This was the case on the 1-270 North Corridor project, for which the Missouri 

Department of Transportation hired us to create safer access for citizens on a busy urban bridge, but 

which also allowed for bifurcated communities to connect and thrive. 

Again, I appreciated the opportunity to appear before the Committee, and I look forward to working 

with you as the Committee and the Senate address America's pressing infrastructure needs. 

Sincerely, 

~~ Steve Demetnou 

Chair and Chief Executive Officer 

Jacobs 

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc 
42 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so very much for your testimony. 

Mr. REPLOGLE. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL REPLOGLE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR POLICY, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. REPLOGLE. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking 

Member Carper, and members of the committee. 

On behalf of Mayor Bill de Blasio and DOT Commissioner Polly 

Trottenberg, thank you for inviting me here to share our perspective on how Federal transportation investment could better support 

sustainable development across America drawing lessons from New 

York’s experience. 

We urge Congress to boost Federal funding for transportation infrastructure and to increase public transportation capital investment grants while ensuring competitive grant programs like 

BUILD are not largely directed away from urban areas. We urge 

support for new flexible funding for safety initiatives, for the redesign of streets to accommodate multiple travel options, and to safeguard transportation assets against extreme weather. 

New York has been a U.S. lab for many of these approaches. Our 

officials realized 40 years ago that we could not solve congestion or 

support economic growth by continuing to expand New York City 

highways. 

Since then, we have focused on improving highway operations, 

maintenance, management and safety, improving subways and 

commuter rail and investing in strategic transit expansions. This 

was not only smart economic policy. By relying on multimodal systems, we also slashed traffic fatalities, air pollution and greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

Key to New York’s success has been a focus on making it more 

attractive to walk, bike and take public transportation. We have 

begun to cut excessive traffic speeds, enhance enforcement and 

strengthen safety ethics. This has led to remarkable accomplishments other communities could learn from. 

Since 2013, U.S. pedestrian deaths are up 30 percent and overall 

traffic deaths are up 13 percent. In New York City, on the other 

hand, we have cut both of these by more than one-third to the lowest levels in a century. 

My testimony outlines multiple steps Congress should take to 

improve traffic safety, including allocating funds directly to local 

governments and metropolitan planning organizations for traffic 

safety activities. 

Turning to climate change, the transportation sector’s carbon 

footprint is substantial and growing, over 28 percent of total U.S. 

greenhouse gas emissions. New York City recognizes global climate 

change as an existential threat and is taking action by cutting 

emissions. 

The City is investing over $10 million in fast charging hubs. We 

are expanding our fleet of 1,300 electric municipal vehicles. We are 

partnering with utilities and the tech industry to develop solutions 

to take electric vehicle charging to scale. 

Congress should take a number of steps to address climate 

change. Halt the phase-out of Federal tax credits that incentivize 

43 

the purchase of electric vehicles. Support smart electric vehicle 

charging infrastructure. Ensure that Federal, State and local infrastructure investments are designed and evaluated to take account 

of the latest anticipated forecasts for sea level rise, rainfall and 

flooding. Restore and strengthen FHWA’s recently rescinded greenhouse gas rule that was designed to support State and local cooperation on climate mitigation plans to avoid wasting taxpayer 

dollars. 

Last, I want to address project delivery. While Federal support 

for our investments is essential, federally funded transportation 

projects do often take longer to complete due to requirements administered by multiple agencies under dozens of statutes. 

Expedited delivery need not and should not undermine important 

environmental safeguards and protections. A good first step would 

be to enhance local authority by increasing Federal funding directly 

available to cities. 

FHWA should adopt a direct aid model that resembles the FTA 

process by granting self certification and delegation of design authority directly to localities; streamline permitting and reviews by 

developing concurrent permit processing guidelines; require States 

and large localities to develop programmatic agreements between 

relevant State, Federal and local resource and transportation agencies to cover routine permitting for common activities with triggers 

for more in-depth review where warranted. 

While I have highlighted a number of policy ideas just now, my 

written testimony offers additional details on the initiatives mentioned here today. 

In conclusion, this Congress has an exciting opportunity to 

rethink how the Federal Government supports the massive infrastructure needs of cities and other communities across the Country. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today regarding 

New York City’s views and I am happy to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Replogle follows:] 

44 


35959.034

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL REPLOGLE 

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR POLICY, 

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ON INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT 

MARCH 6, 2019 

New York City is the nation's largest and densest city, with a growing population of 8.6 

million, within a region of25 million accounting for 8 percent of U.S GDP. The New York City 

Department of Transportation has an annual budget of $3.5 billion and nearly 5,500 employees, 

larger than most other U.S. transportation agencies. 

We are responsible for the operation and maintenance of most of the City's surface 

transportation network, including 6,000 miles ofurban roadways, Ill miles of bus lanes, 12,000 

miles of sidewalks, 13,000 signalized intersections, and 800 bridges and tunnels, many well over 

100 years old. We operate the Staten Island Ferry around the clock. We are growing our network 

of 1,200 miles of bike lanes and expanding the Western Hemisphere's largest bike-sharing 

system from 12,000 to 40,000 bikes. 

New York City has done some remarkable things in recent years. While U.S. road traffic 

deaths are up 13 percent since 2013, we've cut these by 33 percent, the lowest since 1910. Since 

2013, pedestrian deaths are up 30 percent nationwide and down 38 percent in our City. Hundreds 

of people are alive today and tens of thousands are uninjured by road crashes thanks to New 

York City's Vision Zero program, which can be adapted nearly everywhere. 

Since 1980, New York City added 1.5 million residents roughly the population of 

Phoenix- and I million jobs without highway system expansion. Instead, we grew the share of 

trips by sustainable travel modes -walking, cycling, and public transportation - from three out of 

five trips in the mid-1990s to two-thirds today. This was smart economic policy that left us with 

a robust growing economy, the envy of many. But it also has helped us to significantly reduce 

traffic fatalities, air pollution, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 
45 


35959.035

Despite our size, we share many common challenges with other major cities. We have a 

shared interest in ensuring federal infrastructure policy enhances local control and fosters 

opportunities to advance urban mobility, safety, asset management, environmental sustainability, 

and resiliency. And we join with most cities across America in imploring Congress to take urgent 

actions to address the growing crises of climate change and income inequality, which sound 

transportation policy and investments can help address. 

I want to talk today about how federal transportation and environmental policy could 

better support sustainable urban and metropolitan development across America and draw lessons 

from New York City's experience, focusing on five key areas: 

• Federal transportation investments and policies that most often yield net positive 

long-term economic, social, and environmental benefits; 

Steps to reduce the terrible death toll on America's streets and highways; 

How federal transportation policy can ensure state and local governments provide 

information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigation options; 

What steps are needed to streamline project delivery so urgent sustainability 

challenges can be addressed in the most cost-effective and expeditious mmmer. 

I hope hearing about the experience of New York City will prove useful as the Senate 

deliberates on how best to adjust federal policy and funding opportunities and incentives to better 

support sound infrastructure policy and investment decisions advancing sustainable economic 

and social development. 

1. Ensuring Infrastructure Legislation Boosts America's Metropolitan Economies 

We urge Congress to increase federal funding for transportation infrastructure. There is 

ample evidence of long-term U.S. underinvestment in many elements of the transportation 

system. But it is vitally important for Congress to also ensure that increased transportation 

spending is directed at supporting productive long-term investment and system management. 

Congress needs to ensure that adequate funding flows to the complex intermodal systems that 

make America's metropolitan areas successful economic engines for the nation. 
46 


35959.036

Specifically, we urge Congress to increase public transportation Capital Investment 

Grants, and take steps to ensure that competitive grant programs like BUILD are not largely 

directed away from urban areas. And rather than allocating more funding solely to existing 

formula programs, we urge new support and flexible funding for state and local traffic safety 

initiatives, for the redesign of our streets to accommodate multiple travel options, and for efforts 

to safeguard transportation assets against extreme weather. 

Congress should consider using eligibilities and match requirements to incentivize 

adoption of transportation plans, programs, and projects designed to reduce GHG emissions, 

lower pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities, and improve connectivity and access for low-income 

communities. Federal-aid highway and transit funding should be made more flexible when used 

as part of an adopted plan with measurable targets and benchmarks related to these performance 

elements. States that fail to meet certain benchmarks might be required to reprioritize projects. 

Congress should ensure transportation legislation promotes better consideration by state 

and local governments and regional planning bodies of the triple bottom line economic, social 

and environmental benefits and costs of transportation plans, programs, and investments. 

Funding programs, incentives, and requirements should be aligned to foster not just large 

projects, but also to expedite consideration of investment programs that improve safety of 

incomplete streets and highways that do not now include needed safe and efficient 

accommodation of buses, pedestrians, and cyclists in built-up areas. For us, infrastructure 

investment should strive to move people and goods most safely and efficiently, rather than 

focusing narrowly on moving vehicles as quickly as possible. 

It is well established that infrastructure investment, including transportation 

infrastructure, is a critical economic driver and usually reaps significant dividends. Moody's 

estimated that, as of the beginning of 2015, after a number of years of economic recovery, an 

additional dollar of infrastructure investment would increase GDP by $0.86. 1 Research by the 

International Monetary Fund in various advanced economies found an increase of 1 percentage 

1 The. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "It's Time for States to Invest in Infrastructure," 

https: I !www .cbpp. org/res earch/state-budget -and -tax/its-time-for -states-to-invest-in-infrastructure 
47 


35959.037

point ofGDP in investment spending on quality projects raises the level of output by about 0.4 

percent in the same year and by 1.5 percent four years after the increase.2 

Yet, not all transportation investments yield similar benefits. Various studies have shown 

that transportation state-of-good repair and operational modernization, along with improved 

system management often generate more positive cost-benefit outputs compared to major 

capacity expansion investments. It is important to consider whether investments will unlock 

significant strategic opportunities for more sustainable transit-oriented regional economic and 

community development and shifts towards more sustainable patterns of mobility. 

Will investments help reduce vehicle miles of travel per capita, lower GHG emissions, 

and improve safety? Will they increase equity of access to jobs, education, and other 

opportunities for residents of low-income communities? Or will they lock-in unsustainable 

mobility patterns for years to come or become stranded investments in a world where climate 

mitigation and adaptation are increasingly imperative? These are questions that should be 

considered in the transportation planning and programming process by various levels of 

government and federal policy should encourage this. 

New York City has been a U.S. laboratory for many of these approaches. City and State 

officials realized 40 years ago that we could not solve congestion or support economic growth by 

continuing to expand New York City highways. Since then, we have focused mostly on 

improving the operations, maintenance, management, and safety of highways, improving 

maintenance and operations of subways and commuter rail, and making a few important strategic 

transit system expansions, such as the recently opened Second Avenue Subway and the 7 Train 

extension to support the Hudson Yards redevelopment. This was not only smart economic 

policy. It also helped New York City to significantly reduce traffic fatalities, air pollution, and 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

New York City, with its thriving economy, continues to attract more visitors, workers, 

and residents than ever before. Last year we saw 62 million tourist visits alone, and we are also 

experiencing a citywide construction boom. We've seen many more for-hire vehicles cruising 

2 International Monetary Fund, "Is it time for an Infrastructure Push: The Macroeconomic Effects of 

Public Investment," World Economic Outlook, Oct 2014, 

https:/ /www.imf.org/en!N cws/ Articles/20 15/09/28/04/53/sores093 0 14~ 
48 


35959.038

without passengers in our most congested areas. Home delivery services are adding more freight 

to our roadways than ever before. Our subways, streets, and sidewalks are overflowing, and 

NYC DOT is challenged with trying to make all these moving components operate safely and 

harmoniously in cooperation with the MTA, which runs our subway and bus system with over 8 

million trips per day. 

New York City and other metropolitan regions across America need greater federal 

investment to support modernization of complex multimodal transportation networks, especially 

for costly projects of regional significance, such as the Gateway tunnel under the Hudson River 

and the Port Authority Bus Terminal Reconstruction, which underpin major elements of the 

northeastern United States' economy. 

2. Tackling Urban Congestion: FHVs, Subways, Buses, Bikes 

One of the challenges facing city, metropolitan, state, and federal transportation policy 

makers is the rapid transformation of surface transportation technology. As information and 

communication systems are increasingly integrated into transportation, new mobility modes, 

including bike sharing, e-scooter sharing, car-sharing, and app-based For-Hire Vehicles (FHVs, 

also sometimes known as Transportation Network Providers, or TNCs) are rapidly taking on a 

larger role in urban transport. 

Growth of FHV services has been explosive. According to an analysis by Bruce Schaller, 

a former NYC DOT and TLC official, FHVs transported 2.6 billion passengers in 2017, a 37 

percent increase from 1.90 billion in 2016. Combined U.S. FHV and taxi ridership has likely 

surpassed local bus ridership in the U.S. in the past several months. Surveys show 60 percent of 

TNC users in large, dense cities would have taken public transportation, walked, biked or not 

made the trip ifTNCs had not been available for the trip, while 40 percent would have used a 

taxi or their own vehicle. 

While app-based FHVs contribute valuable new mobility options and expand access for 

their users, unless managed, recent research shows these services may threaten sustainable urban 

transportation. They appear to be having a particularly adverse impact on bus travel speeds. NYC 

DOT and the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) are working together to develop 
49 


35959.039

more effective long-term strategies to reduce inefficiencies in the FHV sector that spur core 

congestion. 

Federal policy should consider how FHVs and other kinds of microtransit might best 

become valuable extensions of- but not replacements for - fixed route public transit. This will 

require greater real-time and near-real-time data sharing between the private and public sector 

and increased local authority to regulate FHVs, as New York City is starting to do. To help cities 

effectively address the challenges of new mobility innovations, Congress should explore ways to 

encourage expanded collaborations between cities, states, and transportation mobility providers 

for bi-directional exchange of mobility data with appropriate safeguards for personally 

identifiable information and business confidentiality. Cities, as well as many members of the 

National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), are working to develop such 

cooperation that could enable improved safety, reduced congestion, and more effective 

transportation planning and management for optimal system performance. 

A key challenge for New York City is the financing of transport system modernization and 

expansion, which will require continued partnership with the federal government. New York City's goal 

is for four out of five trips to be made by these sustainable modes by 20503 To accomplish this, we need 

tens of billions of investment for local and regional public transportation, as well as countless 

improvements to sidewalks, bike paths, and pedestrian plazas, and sound policies to manage parking, curb 

and road space, with more priority for buses. 

While new mobility modes get headline attention, subways still carry over 5.4 

million passengers on the average weekday, 60 percent more than 30 years ago; buses still carry 

about 2.2 million passengers a day in New York City. 4 In many corridors across the City, buses 

account for the majority of people moved but occupy a tiny fraction of the road space and are 

caught up in the congestion caused by single occupant vehicles that carry a minority of travelers. 

In response, we have continued to ramp up dedicated street space for bus services run by our 

partners at the MT A. 

At the beginning ofthis year, the Mayor announced a new Bus Action Plan, along with 

an ambitious goal to improve average bus speeds by 25 percent, from 7.4 miles per hour to 9.0 

3 New York City Mayor's Office, New York City's Roadmap to 80x50, 2016. 

https://www !.nyc. gov/sitelsustainability/ codesl80x5 0 .page 4 http://web.mta.infoinyct/facts!ridership/ 
50 


35959.040

miles per hour by the end of2020. To achieve this increase, we will ramp up our pace of bus lane 

installation, introduce protected bus lanes, expand Transit Signal Priority to reduce the time our 

buses spend stopped at red lights, increase enforcement, and support the bus network with street 

redesigns. The FTA has supported some of this work previously with Capital Investment Grants, 

and we appreciate Congress intervening to preserve that program in the face of proposed cuts, 

and pressuring the current administration to execute grant agreements in a timely manner. 

New Yorkers are also increasingly opting to navigate the City by bicycle. Bicycling is 

growing at faster rate than any other mode of transit, with annual growth of over eight percent in 

Midtown and nine percent on the East River Bridges. Daily cycling trips increased by 156 

percent between 2006 and 2016. Bike projects are an important and low-cost safety improvement 

for all street users. On corridors with bicycle lanes, crashes involving pedestrians are 40 percent 

less deadly than other streets. 

A significant amount of cycling occurs via the City's popular bike share program, Citi 

Bike. Since its launch in 2013, members have taken over 73 million trips. Currently, the system 

comprises 12,000 bikes at 750 stations and has over 150,000 active annual members. New York 

City plans to expand this system to 40,000 bikes by 2022. We are also pilot testing dockless 

shared bikes in several outer borough communities. 

Congress can help support this essential form of mass transportation by making bike 

share memberships eligible for the same pretax benefits currently afforded to other modes of 

public transportation. Congress might also consider making bike share programs eligible for 

TIFIA financing. 

3. Advancing Vision Zero: Ending Road Traffic Fatalities 

A key element of New York's success at expanding use of sustainable transportation has 

been efforts to make it more attractive to walk, bike, and take public transportation. Since 2013, 

New York City has experienced a 33 percent decline in traffic fatalities, led by a 38 percent 

decline in pedestrian fatalities. In the same time period, traffic fatalities have risen 13 percent 
51 


35959.041

across the United States as a whole, to over 37,000 per year. 5 U.S. pedestrian fatalities in 2018 

rose to 6,227, the highest since 19906 While total highway fatalities have fallen slightly in the 

past decade, pedestrian deaths have risen 35 percent. 7 Excess vehicle speeds, the more 

widespread use of very large SUVs, distracted driving, and an increase in pedestrian travel all 

play a role in the adverse national traffic safety trends. 

New York's traffic safety success is the product of strong mayoral leadership, interagency cooperation, data-driven policy, targeted investment, and efforts to bring about cultural 

change. This experience is one that can be adapted to other communities across the U.S. and 

world. 

New York City has unique status among large United States cities, as fewer than half of 

households here own a motor vehicle. High pedestrian volumes lead to high exposure to motor 

vehicles, and the doubling of cycling in the last decade has presented new challenges and 

opportunities for street engineering. New York City was then a natural fit for an initiative that 

emphasized the safety of vulnerable road users and confronted assumptions about the primacy of 

drivers on city streets. 

To ensure the plans for Vision Zero were comprehensive as well as equitable, Mayor de 

Blasia and Transportation Commissioner Polly Trottenberg insisted on a data-driven community 

engagement plan to create Pedestrian Safety Action Plans designating priority areas, corridors, 

and intersections based on pedestrians killed or seriously injured. Local communities were 

engaged through workshops and online portals through which residents could provide input on 

places in their neighborhoods that felt unsafe. 

The first wave of street engineering interventions under Vision Zero focused on these 

priority areas. They became the proving grounds for signal re-timings aligned with a newly-

' Traffic Safety Facts: Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities for the First Half (Jan-June) of 2018, 

US DOT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

https :/ /crashstats.nhtsa. dot. gov I Api/Public!ViewPublication/812 629 

6 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2018 Preliminary Data, Governor's Highway Safety Association, 

https:/ /www. ghsa. org/resourcesiP edestrians 19 

Governor's Highway Safety Association, Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2018 Preliminary Data, 

ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians 19 
52 


35959.042

enacted 25 mph (40 kph) city-wide speed limit, the installation ofleading pedestrian intervals 

(LPis) that give people walking across the street a head-start before turning vehicles, and the 

creation of street geometry changes like curb extensions. Thanks to these interventions, 

pedestrian deaths and serious injuries declined over 30 percent at priority locations. In addition, 

four major arterial roads in the outer boroughs were designated "Vision Zero Great Streets" and 

were intensively redesigned. One of the four, Queens Boulevard, for years was known as "the 

Boulevard of Death," with 18 pedestrians killed there in 1997 alone. After the start of 

reconstruction, three years passed without a pedestrian fatality, and this once-forbidding artery 

now hosts a well-used bicycle lane. 

Both citywide policies and targeted interventions where they are needed most have made 

Vision Zero relevant to all New Yorkers. These included, lowering the default speed limit, 

dramatically increased enforcement of traffic laws, and additional authorization from the State 

government to use automated speed enforcement cameras in 140 school zones during limited 

times tied to school opening and closing hours. Tellingly, approximately 85 percent of serious 

crashes happen at times and places where State law now prohibits cameras' use. Where cameras 

do operate, speeding summonses have fallen over 60 percent. 

New York City has committed US $1.6 billion through 2021 to Vision Zero initiatives 

including a $25 million TIGER grant. In 2018, the City DOT installed more than 20 miles of 

protected bicycle lanes, implemented left tum traffic calming interventions at 113 intersections, 

activated 873 leading pedestrian intervals (LPis), and completed 139 distinct safety improvement 

projects. 

Congress should consider a number of steps to improve traffic safety in future legislation. 

It should expand eligibility of highway funding to be flexed to traffic safety initiatives and adjust 

matching requirements, for example, if these are part of a transportation plan designed to meet 

Vision Zero benchmarks. Congress should consider allocating funds directly to local 

governments and metropolitan planning organizations for traffic safety activities. Congress 

should do more to advance road safety with funding and policy changes. For example, the 

current prohibition on the use of federal aid highway funds for speed cameras, one of the most 

effective safety tools used by New York City, should be removed. Design standards and 
53 


35959.043

practices should be revised to facilitate lowering of speed limits in built up areas, rather than 

setting speed limits based on the 85'h percentile speed of traffic on roads. 

The development of highly automated vehicles (HAYs) presents both a challenge and an 

opportunity to advance Vision Zero. National legislation should require HA Vs to be designed 

and programmed to comply with traffic laws, except where necessary for safe and effective 

operation, and could require that HAYs demonstrate capacity to reliably recognize and safely 

interact with cyclists and pedestrians. The European Union is mandating that all motor vehicles 

sold starting with model year 2022 must have new mandatory safety technologies, including 

Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA), automated braking, and pedestrian and cyclist recognition 

systems. 8 European research and pilot programs suggest that overridable ISA alone could cut 

road traffic deaths by 20 percent while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 9 

Congress should require NHTSA to develop similar rules for the U.S. motor vehicle 

marketplace. Congress should mandate that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are 

developed for HA Vs before full scale deployment on American roads and streets. Congress 

should also require FMVSS to account for the safety of persons both inside and outside of a 

vehicle, especially in light of the alarming continuing rise of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities on 

America's streets and highways. 

4. Climate Change 

The transportation sector's carbon footprint is substantial and growing. Transportation 

directly accounts for about 28 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (predominantly 

C02) and this does not include significant additional indirect emissions related to the extraction 

and refining of fuel, the manufacture of vehicles, and the maintenance of supporting 

infrastructure, which if counted together would make the total emissions related to transportation 

8 Reid Carlton, "All New Cars To Have Speed Limiters Fitted, Rules European Parliament," Forbes, 

February 27, 2019, https://www .forbes.com/siteslcarltonreid/20 19/02/27/all-new-cars-to-have-speedlimi ters-fi tied-rules-european-gar liament/# 1 ab6f3 51 d 14 5. 

9 European Transport Safety Council, In-vehicle technology vital to tackling speeding in Europe, 

February 18, 2019, https:! /etsc.eulin-vehicle-technology-vita1-to-tackling-speeding-in-curope/ 
54 


35959.044

about 40 percent. About 83 percent of direct transportation emissions are from on-road 

vehicles. 10 

Total transportation sector emissions rose 29 percent from 1990 to 2005, driven largely 

by increased vehicle miles of travel in road transport. With continued improvements in vehicle 

efficiency, sector emissions fell9.7 percent from their 2005 peak by 2015. In recent years, sector 

emissions have been increasing, due largely to increased passenger-vehicle VMT. 11 

Decarbonization of the transportation sector cannot be accomplished by technology 

changes alone. There is broad expert agreement that electrification of surface transportation must 

be part of a comprehensive strategy to address the· climate change challenge. Automation of cars, 

trucks, and buses will have uncertain impacts on greenhouse emissions, but many believe that 

such technologies are likely to boost emissions unless there is strong and effective road user 

pricing and traffic management that encourages shared mobility, walking, cycling, and transit. 

Transportation greenhouse gases from on-road sources can be reduced by improving 

vehicle efficiency (such as motor vehicle fuel economy standards and incentives for purchase 

and use of more efficient vehicles); switching to lower carbon fuels (such as electricity produced 

from low carbon sources); reducing the distance traveled by motor vehicles (through better urban 

planning, by substituting telecommunications for travel, by smarter logistics and supply chains, 

and switching travel to higher occupancy modes of travel); improving vehicle and transportation 

system operations (such as eco-driving, traffic calming, advanced traffic management); and 

improved construction and maintenance and agency operations. 

State and local governments have considerable capacity to influence each of these 

elements and to reduce transportation greenhouse gas pollution, with substantial emission 

reduction potential as detailed by several recent studies. The 2007 Urban Land Institute Study, 

Growing Cooler, 12 for which I was an adviser, estimated that adopting efficient land use 

1

° Federal Highway Administration, A Performance-Based Approach to Addressing Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions through Transportation Planning, 2013, 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/energy/ 

publications/ghg_planning/ ghg_planning.pdf (page v). 

11 Ashley Lawson and Fatima Maria Ahmad, Decarbonizing US. Transportation, Center for Climate and Energy 

Solutions, July 2018. https://www.c2es.org/document/decarbonizing-u-s-transportationl 12 Ewing, et al., Growing Cooler, Urban Land Institute, 2007. 
55 


35959.045

strategies for a portion of new development could slow Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) growth 

by 12-18 percent in metropolitan areas, or 10-14 percent across the U.S. by 2050. The study 

concluded that this level of reduction is achievable with land use changes alone, excluding 

complementary measures such as transportation pricing or major expansions of transit. The study 

calculated potential transportation C02 savings of up to 3 8 percent under a comprehensive set of 

policies. Because a large share of the housing and buildings accommodating employment in 

2050 will be constructed in the next 30 years, there are considerable opportunities to shape the 

long-term carbon footprint of development and resulting travel patterns through better 

coordination of planning, smarter incentives, and consideration of impacts prior to investment or 

development approval. Federal transportation legislation and investment could help support such 

activities. 

The 2009 study, Moving Cooler, 13 for which I was also an adviser and which was 

sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Shell Oil, the American Public Transportation Association, the Urban Land Institute, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Intelligent Transportation Society of 

America, and other groups, looked at four dozen transportation investment and management 

strategies for their potential to reduce C02 emissions between now and 2050, considering costs 

of implementation, vehicle operating cost savings, and equity impacts. The study analyzed these 

strategies in half a dozen different "bundles" assuming in each a different focus and different 

levels and paces of implementation. 

Moving Cooler concluded that various combinations of transportation investments, 

management strategies, pricing, and smart growth policies could produce significant GHG 

emission reductions in the United States. With the addition of sound transportation pricing 

policies, reductions of a third or more in annual GHG emissions could be achieved by 2050. The 

findings from this 2009 study remain valid, though the urgency of efforts to achieve these goals 

has increased, commending more concerted national action than before. In most of the scenarios 

examined, vehicle operating cost savings alone soon exceeded implementation costs, suggesting 

the potential for large positive consumer benefits. Pay-as-you-drive automobile insurance and 

road user charging or carbon taxes were found to multiply the C02 reduction potential of other 

13 Moving Cooler, supra note 3. 
56 


35959.046

effective strategies, such as improved public transport, walking, cycling, smart growth, and smart 

traffic management. Investments in highway capacity expansion and bottleneck alleviation were 

found to be the least effective elements to be included in long-term C02 reduction strategies due 

to induced traffic effects, although they could be bundled with other strategies that collectively 

reduce GHGs. 

Similar evaluations of the greenhouse gas reduction potential for various transportation 

strategies have been performed for various states, metropolitan areas, and regions. For example, 

the opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic region were well documented in a 2015 report by the Georgetown Climate Center 

commissioned by the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI), which is made up of 11 

northeast and mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia. 14 This study found that existing 

federal and state policies (including fuel economy standards that the Trump Administration is 

seeking to rollback) are likely to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 29 percent by 2030 in the 

region from 2011levels. The study considered additional strategies that are readily available to 

state and local governments and found these could lead to reductions of greenhouse gas 

emissions from transportation of 31 to 40 percent below 2011 emissions levels by 2030 while 

yielding large public health improvements. 

Adopting some of these greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies can require clearing 

administrative and political hurdles. Developing effective and tailored strategies and the 

analytical rationale for them requires an assessment of current emission levels as well as targets 

for reducing them. In that context, the FHWA's greenhouse gas analysis and reporting 

requirements, which the Trump Administration has sought to rescind, would enable informed 

decision-making by state and local officials in the northeast and mid-Atlantic and across the 

United States. 

New York City recognizes that global climate change poses an existential threat to its 

economic and social viability and is taking action. We witnessed some of the early impacts of 

climate change on the New York City region during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, suffering billions 

14 Pacyniak, Gabe, Kathryn Zyla, Vicki Arroyo, Matthew Goetz, Christopher Porter, David Jackson, Redudng 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation: Opportunities in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, November 2015, 

Georgetown Climate Center, Washington, DC. 
57 


35959.047

of dollars in damage from a combination of storm surge and rising sea level. Even prior to 

Hurricane Sandy, New York City was committed to achieving an 80 percent reduction by 2050 

and a 40 percent reduction by 2030 in C02 emissions relative to a 2005 baseline, including 

proportional reductions from the transportation sector. 

New York City, with the lowest transportation C02 per capita of any major U.S. city, has 

continued to reduce its transportation sector C02 in recent years, even while growing to a record 

8.5 million residents, 4.2 million jobs, and nearly 60 million annual tourist visits. Between 2010 

and 2015, the City added more than 370,000 new residents, 500,000 new jobs, and 10 million 

more annual tourist visits, accommodating these through added use of public transportation, 

walking, and cycling, with lower car use. 

By giving greater priority to walking, cycling, and public transportation and cutting our 

city-wide speed limit to 25 MPH, the City has helped to improve traffic safety and sharply 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution that harm public health. For example, New 

York City has heavily invested in the public transportation network. From 1982 to 2011, the 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority funded $129 billion (in 2017-adjusted dollars) for state of 

good repair, system upgrades, and expansion initiatives, with a majority of these funds coming 

from New York City and city residents 15 

The City is also encouraging low- and zero-emission vehicles through municipal fleet 

policies and development of expanded opportunities for electric vehicle charging. The Mayor 

has committed the City to expanding access to electric vehicles at a rapid clip. As part of the 

Administration's target for 20 percent of the motor vehicle registrations in New York City to be 

electric by 2025, the City is investing $10 million to develop fast charging hubs with up to 20 

chargers per site. 

In addition, the City is cleaning up its fleet of vehicles across all city agencies. The City 

has nearly 500 electric vehicle chargers serving a rapidly growing fleet of 1,300 electric 

municipal vehicles. We also have a 900,000-gallon pilot of renewable diesel launching this year. 

15 The Road Back: A Historic Review of the MTA Capital Program. The Permanent Citizens Advisory 

Committee to the MTA May 2012. http:/ /www.pcac.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/The-Road-Backpdf 

(page i; pdf page 3). 
58 


35959.048

Renewable diesel is the product of fats and vegetable oils, meaning that it is yet another way that 

we are reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. 

We are also partnering with sectors outside of government. The NYCx Climate Action 

Challenge called on the tech industry to develop solutions for scaling electric vehicle (EV) 

charging infrastructure and help accelerate adoption ofEVs citywide. It is our position that now 

is the \Vrong time to phase out critical tax credits to incentivize the purchase of electric vehicles, 

and we urge Congress to ensure they are preserved going forward. We also urge increased 

federal investment in transportation infrastructure that supports electric vehicles nationwide. 

Congress should step up with substantial new funding and economic incentives for states, 

regions, and local governments and the private sector to invest in greenhouse gas mitigation, 

including smart electric vehicle charging infrastructure for cars, trucks, and buses. This should 

include funding for interstate charging networks so that EV drivers can be confident of finding 

charging points for most journeys across America. 

Additional federal funding and incentives should be made available to support 

electrification of public sector fleet vehicles, such as school buses and transit buses. These 

investments will require changes to streets, bus depots, electric grids, and other complex 

integrated systems. Congress has a role in supporting more effective intermodal transportation 

planning to enable this important energy and mobility transition. 

And critically, with any new infrastructure funding, Congress should ensure that federal, 

state, and local infrastructure investments are designed and evaluated to take account of the latest 

anticipated forecasts for sea level rise, rainfall and flood maps, heat island impacts, and other 

empirical research that underpins effective resiliency planning. Super storms like Hurricane 

Sandy are expected to only grow in frequency, and that single event has left New York City with 

billions in required infrastructure spending. From the rehabilitation of a major subway line 

connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan to the need to completely replace train tubes connecting 

New Jersey and Manhattan, our region is a case study for the essential resiliency investment 

communities across the country will require. Within our agency, we are undertaking a massive 

capital project to improve the resiliency of the Staten Island Ferry. Federal leadership and 

funding will be critical to effective adaptation planning and investment across the U.S. 
59 


35959.049

Similarly, New York City strongly opposes the Trump Administration's efforts to roll 

back adopted more stringent fuel economy standards adopted by California and many other 

states under the Clean Air Act. We count on those standards to help us achieve our 

environmental and public health goals. 

Because the transportation sector is now the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions 

in the United States, the federal government needs to help ensure federal aid recipients are taking 

this growing threat seriously. Currently, the opposite is happening. The Federal Highway 

Administration recently moved to repeal a rule that established a carbon pollution performance 

measure for the first time. New York City recognizes the need to do more to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions from transportation, in collaboration with other jurisdictions in our metropolitan 

region. Access to reliable information on regional greenhouse gas pollution from transportation 

will help the City, region, and States consider the effectiveness of strategies to monitor and 

mitigate greenhouse gas pollution over time. The greenhouse gas measure established by the 

FHW A on January 18, 2017, would provide this vital information, which is why New Y ark City 

supported its adoption. 

Without the measure, it will be harder for New York City and other states, regions, and 

local governments to ensure consistency in the methods by which transportation sector 

greenhouse gas emissions are evaluated from area to area and across different evaluation 

frameworks. Such consistency is crucial to successful development of strategies for reducing 

emissions from transportation systems, since they cross multiple political boundaries. 

As a result, the cost and time involved in doing transportation sector greenhouse gas 

analysis will be higher due to lack of standardization of assumptions and reporting methods, and 

will inhibit consideration of these impacts in the transportation planning and decision-making 

process. 

This, in tum, will hamper timely consideration and implementation by state and local 

govermnents of a wide array of measures that are available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Instead, some state and local governments will make ill-advised decisions to invest in 

transportation projects that will increase vehicle miles traveled, yielding greater greenhouse gas 

emissions and adverse climate change impacts. 
60 


35959.050

Other current measures of performance monitoring, such as congestion management or 

air quality conformity analysis, do not provide adequate substitutes for analysis of greenhouse 

gases. As discussed above, a greenhouse gas measure would provide vital information about the 

level of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector and the effectiveness of 

strategies aimed at reducing those emissions. Further, while some strategies that cut congestion, 

such as reducing VMT, will also cut greenhouse gases and air pollution, other congestion cutting 

strategies, such as widening roads, can lead to increased driving and therefore increased 

greenhouse gases and air pollution. 

Congress should restore and strengthen the FHWA's now rescinded greenhouse gas 

measure. Congress needs to step in to ensure that all levels of government have the information 

needed to ensure at a minimum transparency about the greenhouse gas impacts of transportation 

sector investments and policies. New rules should require state and local transportation agencies 

to adopt and report on progress for greenhouse gas reduction strategies, setting measurable goals 

and benchmarks for performance. This is vital to increasing consistency and effectiveness across 

transportation systems in adopting such strategies, and helping reduce climate change and other 

air pollution. 

Federal transportation law already requires that certain objectives be accomplished, 

including minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution 16 , but these 

requirements have not been enforced by U.S. DOT rulemaking. To effectively accomplish those 

objectives requires timely availability of information about the effects of state and regional 

transportation plans and programs on greenhouse gas emissions, using comparable metrics and 

analysis methods across states and regions. The FHWA's now revoked greenhouse gas 

regulation would provide that vital information. 

There is no sound policy reason to stop collecting this data. Maybe some fear what the 

numbers are telling us. But burying our heads in the sand does not change reality, and does 

nothing to help make smarter policy and investment choices. We have little to lose and nothing 

to fear from a data-based approach to policymaking. Across the federal government, there is an 

understandable desire to learn from data and avoid wasting taxpayer dollars. 

16 23 U.S.C 134(a)(l), 23 U.S.C 134(c)(l) and 23 U.S.C. 135(a)(l). 
61 


35959.051

5. Project Delivery Reform 

We appreciate this Committee's focus on expediting project delivery. While federal 

support for our investments is essential, it is often the case that federally funded transportation 

projects take longer to complete, due to planning, design-procurement and implementation 

requirements administered by multiple agencies under dozens of statutes. Importantly, expedited 

delivery does not have to and should not mean undermining important environmental safeguards 

and protections. 

A good first step would be to enhance local authority by increasing the federal funding 

that is directly available to cities. Direct access to funds helps critical safety, accessibility, and 

state of good repair projects that are responsive to local needs to get in the ground faster, 

cheaper, and with fewer redundant reviews than funds channeled through states. Additionally, 

project reviews by multiple agencies add months, or even years to projects, often with little to no 

substantive change. Streamlining permitting and reviews by developing concurrent permit 

processing guidelines will help deliver projects more efficiently. Increased use of tiered 

environmental and plan reviews and programmatic agreements can facilitate better consideration 

of alternatives within consolidated planning processes. These changes will promote a consistent 

and predictable process that leads to better outcomes. Active transportation networks should be 

eligible to undergo a systemic streamlined environmental review process to better account for 

cumulative impacts and benefits. 

FHWA should also adopt a direct aid model that resembles the FTA process by granting 

'self-certification' and delegation of design authority directly to cities. FTA provides funding to 

its grantees and allows them to implement projects quickly based on local conditions without any 

additional FTA approvals, as long as grantees certify that they are meeting the Federal 

requirements. FTA conducts reviews of the grantees work every three years to ensure that 

requirements were met as certified. The existing FHWA process delegates some responsibilities 

to the State, but not all, creating duplicative levels of review by both State and FHW A at 

multiple stages of project delivery. This adds months or years to project timelines. 

Moreover, USDOT could require States and large cities to develop programmatic 

agreements between relevant State, Federal, and local resource and transportation agencies. 

These agreements would cover routine pennitting from the Coast Guard, Army Corps of 
62 


35959.052

Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State for common activities, such as 

bridge projects, restriping, and sea wall reconstruction, and road maintenance, development of 

new bus lanes, bicycle lanes, and signalization. This will allow these activities to bypass timeconsuming special processing as long as the project activities follow mutually agreed upon 

procedures to minimize unnecessary adverse impacts through routine mitigation and impact 

avoidance. These agreements should identify triggers for more in-depth project review where 

warranted. 

6. Conclusion 

This Congress has an exciting opportunity to rethink how the federal government 

supports the massive infrastructure needs of cities and other communities across the country. I 

appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today regarding New York City's priorities and am 

happy to answer any questions. 
63 


35959.053

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "The Economic Benefits of Highway Infrastructure Investment and 

Accelerated Project Delivery" 

March 6, 2019 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Replogle 

Senator Whitehouse: 

l. Innovative Materials: The National Academies of Sciences recently finalized a report 

titled, "Performance of Bridges That Received Funding under the Innovative Bridge 

Research and Construction Program." 

The report, which was included at my direction in the FAST Act, evaluated projects funded 

under the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program. This program provided 

grants between 1999 to 2005, but has since been defunded. The Academies' report found 

that using advanced materials and technologies can reduce construction costs, construction 

time, and traffic congestion. It also found that structures using advanced materials are 

more resilient to natural disasters. The report recommends that Congress reestablish grant 

programs that would fund projects using innovative materials. 

a. Do you agree that any infrastructure bill should include proviSions that will 

encourage the use of innovative materials that are more durable and resistant to 

corrosion than traditional materials? 

b. Do you agree that Congress should follow the Academies' recommendation and 

provide grant funding for projects that use innovative materials? 

The City of New York (the City) benefitted directly from this important grant program. In 2013, 

the City was awarded approximately $350,000 to collaborate with the City University of New 

York on corrosion resistance approaches for the Annandale Road Bridge in Staten Island. 

New York City DOT owns, operates and maintains 793 bridges and tunnels throughout the City 

and has planned capital expenditures of over $9 billion to maintain these facilities. The agency has 

attempted to use materials such as fiberglass-reinforced polymer on its projects where feasible and 

continues to explore other methods for preventing or delaying corrosion. The City strongly 

supports the inclusion of incentives for the use of innovative materials in federal infrastructure 

legislation, including appropriating grant funding. 

2. Climate Preparedness: Rhode Island's Coastal Resources Management Council is 

planning for upwards of nine feet of sea level rise by 2100. To prepare for this much water 

overtaking our shores, we need to protect evacuation routes from flooding, reinforce 

bridges that are exposed to corrosive saltwater and storms, and consider moving or 

elevating coastal roadways. These improvements are essential if my state and others along 

the coasts have any chance of surviving the changes coming our way over the next 50 or 

100 years. 
64 


35959.054

These resiliency improvements will also go a long way in bolstering the coastal real estate 

market, which according to the First Street foundation, has already seen $15.8 billion in 

lost home value due to sea level rise and flooding in the 15 East Coast states and Mississippi 

and Alabama along the Gulf. 

a. How should climate change considerations and sea level rise projections be 

incorporated in the local, state, and federal transportation planning processes? 

b. Do you agree that it is irresponsible to ignore this loss in value to our coastal assets 

as we harden our infrastructure for sea-level rise? 

Climate science is now well understood, and projections from the International Panel on Climate 

Change and the National Climate Assessment outline increasing risks to communities resulting 

from anticipated sea level rise, extreme rains, and more heat waves. We cannot continue to look 

to past weather conditions to plan for the future. Building code and engineering standards as 

written today assume that the past 30, 50, or I 00 years of weather give us insight into what the 

next century of weather will look like. Historic data alone is no longer a reliable proxy for future 

conditions. We have climate change projections of ever-increasing confidence available today, and 

those projections offer new practical applications. 

At the federal level, in 2015, Executive Order 13690 provided guidance on how the use of forwardlooking sea level rise data may be used in federal capital investments to improve the nation's 

resiliency. This EO established an important standard for using forward-looking data and provided 

an important foundation for the development of the City's resilient design policy. Unfortunately, 

EO 13690 was rescinded in 2017 and current federal guidance recommends the use of riskinformed decision making and adaptive learning. See Federal Highway Administration Order 

5520 (2014) "Transportation System Preparedness and Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme 

Weather Events." 

We believe it is important for more specific guidance such as that issued in EO 13690 be reestablished. Using forward-looking climate data increases the resilience of our built environment, 

ensuring that assets constructed today serve Americans for decades to come, do not require 

additional maintenance costs, and are able to withstand the extremes of climate change. All federal 

investments in our country's transportation infrastructure should be designed to a resilient standard 

using forward-looking climate data. 

The City recognizes the imperative of using forward-looking weather projections to supplement 

historic weather data, and that's why we've issued the Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines to 

change how the City designs and builds its infrastructure and buildings. The Guidelines identify 

the changes to existing design standards needed in the City, such as: identifying where design 

flood elevations need to be higher; assessing how much to expand storm water retention systems 

to manage extreme rain; and identifying which materials and mechanical systems need to be 

upgraded to better withstand extreme heat. Other government authorities are developing or have 

issued similar guidelines to ensure that infrastructure design is informed by the best available data 

on future climate hazards. We are pleased to hear that similar efforts are ongoing in Rhode Island. 

We agree that the value of coastal transportation assets is not limited to their replacement cost; 

their outsized impact on the national economy must be considered as well. We strongly urge 
65 


35959.055

Congress to invest in solutions that increase the resiliency of the national transportation network 

and account for future climate conditions as well as economic and demographic growth. 

3. Electric Vehicle Corridors: According to Inside EVs, sales for electric vehicles increased 

by 81% in 2018, and sales for electric vehicles is predicted to continue to grow at a rapid 

pace. As you know, in 2015 Congress passed legislation as part of the FAST Act to 

establish a national alternative fuels corridor program, so drivers have a better 

understanding of where to find alternative fuel charging station and refueling stations. The 

agency you would head is now in the process of implementing that legislation, and 

attempting to establish a national network of alternative fueling and charging infrastructure 

along national highway system corridors. 

a. Beyond the work that US DOT is already doing in this space, what else can the agency 

do to stimulate deployment of electric vehicle infrastructure? 

b. What can US DOT do to reduce regulatory roadblocks to increase the nation's electric 

vehicle infrastructure? 

c. What can Congress do in the next highway bill to continue to expand our nation's 

electric vehicle infrastructure? 

The City is committed to dramatically increasing the number of electric vehicles (EVs) on its 

streets as part of the City's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. The City 

is currently electrifying its own light-duty vehicle fleet, with the goal of creating the largest electric 

fleet of any U.S. city. In addition, the City has set a goal that 20 percent of all new vehicle 

registrations will be electric by 2025. To support that goal, the City plans to install 120 level2 EV 

chargers at curbside locations in partnership with Con Edison (the local utility) and is creating a 

network of up to 50 fast charging stations across the five boroughs. Because the City is a dense 

urban area where residential charging is difficult, the City will install both on-street Level 2 

charging with a lower power draw and multi-hour charge time, and fast-charging stations which 

offer a gas-station experience at greater cost. 

Additional federal support for charging infrastructure would accelerate adoption and increase the 

feasibility of fully-electric urban fleets. To support the increase in electricity demand, cities and 

utilities will also require help to upgrade power grids. And, at the vehicle level, aggressive fuel 

economy standards and extension of the federal tax credits for purchasing EV s would increase 

uptake and prompt utilities to deploy more charging infrastructure. 

Congress should appropriate substantial new funding and economic incentives for states, regions, 

local governments, and the private sector to invest in greenhouse gas mitigation, including smart 

EV charging infrastructure for cars, trucks, and buses. This should include funding for designated 

corridors so that EV drivers can be confident of finding charging points for most journeys across 

America. Additional federal funding and incentives should be made available to support continued 

electrification of public sector fleet vehicles, such as school buses and transit buses. These 

investments will require changes to streets, bus depots, electric grids, and other complex integrated 

systems. Congress has a key role in supporting more effective intermodal transportation planning 

to enable this important energy and mobility transition. 
66 


35959.056

4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety: I continue to be concerned by our nation's rate of bicycle 

and pedestrian deaths, which now make up more than 18% of all traffic fatalities and are 

at their highest level since 1990. While we are making progress in improving 

transportation safety overall, we are unfortunately heading in the wrong direction for 

people walking and biking. The Governors Highway Safety Association found that an 

estimated 50 percent of pedestrian deaths occur on state or US highways and 

interstates. Congress has attempted to prioritize this issue for state departments of 

transportation by requiring new safety goals for people walking and biking. 

a. How should Congress address bicycle and pedestrian safety in the next highway 

authorization? 

b. Which programs in the FAST Act have been the most beneficial for bicycle and 

pedestrian safety? 

The City's Vision Zero program has been a great success in reducing traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries as a result of crucial safety-focused Street Improvement Projects (SIP) that have been 

implemented at key intersections and corridors with the highest crash data. These projects reengineer intersections and corridors to improve safety for road users (pedestrians, cyclists and 

motorists) by implementing a range of traffic calming measures, including: increasing space for 

pedestrians and cyclists; narrowing travel lanes to reduce speeding; slowing left turns and 

removing dangerous turn conflicts; and simplifying complex intersections so they are easier to 

navigate. 

In addition, the City has installed Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) throughout the city, which 

dedicate 7 to I 0 seconds at the start of the signal phase to allow pedestrians to cross before parallel 

traffic receives a green light, thereby making pedestrians more visible and reducing conflicts with 

motorists. We have also improved our crosswalk and street markings to increase visibility and 

safety for pedestrians and motorists. 

The City's speed camera enforcement program, newly expanded by the New York State 

Legislature, has reduced dangerous speeding by over 60 percent in locations where we have 

installed the cameras, and injuries are likewise down 17 percent. As Vision Zero is a data-driven 

initiative, we have focused these interventions, as well as the installation of new signals, at 

locations where serious injury and fatality data indicate they are most needed. 

As discussed in my testimony, Congress should consider a number of steps to improve traffic 

safety in future legislation. It should expand eligibility of highway funding to be flexed to traffic 

safety initiatives and adjust matching requirements, for example, if these are part of a 

transportation plan designed to meet Vision Zero benchmarks. Congress should also consider 

advancing new ways to allocate funds directly to local governments and metropolitan planning 

organizations for traffic safety engineering projects and initiatives. 
67 


35959.057

We urge Congress to do the following: 

Authorize the use of direct aid agreements, pilot programs, and competitive performanceoriented grant programs, such as envisioned in the bi-partisan Vision Zero Act of 2017, 

H.R. 1266, which would fund both creation of Vision Zero plans and the implementation 

of those plans. 

• Further advance road safety with funding, design standards and policy changes that are 

founded in data and which give priority to proven measures that improve safety. 

Require road projects funded with federal money to meet Complete Streets criteria as first 

proposed in the Safe Streets Act of2013, H.R. 2468. 

Require states to allow local agencies' the use of their guidance of choice in road and street 

design rather than requiring adherence to the Green Book of the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).The current prohibition on the use 

of federal aid highway funds for speed cameras, one of the most effective safety tools used 

by New York City, should be removed. 

Codify into statute the speeding-related safety recommendations of the National 

Transportation Safety Board by: 

(I) Directing the U.S. Department of Transportation to complete actions called for 

in the 2014 Speed Management Plan, while publishing periodic progress updates; 

(2) Directing the Federal Highway Administration to revise the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to remove guidance that speed limits in speed 

zones should be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed, incorporate a safesystems approach to protect vulnerable road users, and establish best practices 

around automated speed enforcement; and 

(3) Directing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to identify 

speeding-related performance measures to be used by local law enforcement and 

collaborate with traffic safety stakeholders to inform additional crash data needs. 

The last transportation authorization, the FAST Act, did continue some important initiatives on 

this front, including the Transportation Alternatives Program and Safe Routes to School. More 

broadly, the public transportation investments supported by the federal government often spur 

localities to address walkability and plan more complete streets. However, overall, the FAST Act 

has been accompanied by a huge spike in pedestrian fatalities nationally, as referenced in your 

question. Clearly, the crisis demands aggressive intervention from both Congress and USDOT. 
68 

Senator BARRASSO. I am grateful for the testimony of all of you. 

We are going to go to a round of questioning. 

Senator Inhofe, I know you have a pressing matter so I would 

like to turn to you first. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to 

go out of turn. 

I wanted to do it because there are two things I want to emphasize. You have done a pretty good job of emphasizing, Mr. 

Demetriou, but it is worth repeating. 

You hear the word investments all the time. Every big spender 

around, every big spending program, you never hear the word 

spending, you never hear the word deficit. You just hear investments. A lot of time it is a phony characterization. However, in 

transportation, it is not. It is real. 

In my State of Oklahoma, because of some massive improvements we have made in our transportation system, two of our communities, one, Durant and the other, Innova, are the direct beneficiaries as a result of what happened in the highway programs. In those two communities, the companies are investing $250 mil- lion in one and $360 million in the other creating 300 new jobs in 

each location. The investment the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and the Federal Government has made improved these 

highways as a result of property tax, sales tax and all of that. 

What I would like to get from you, Mr. McKenna and Mr. 

Demetriou, is any elaboration on this, very briefly, and what you 

see as a return on investment? We will start with you, Mr. McKenna. 

Mr. MCKENNA. Thank you, Senator. That is a great question. 

In Missouri, we actually track our capital program. We put, at present, about $900 million per year into that program. We track 

and measure that with an economic study on each 5-year period. We find when we are at that $900 million to over $1 billion level, 

we see returns of 4 to 1 in economic benefits. When we have instability of Federal funding and tighten down the types of projects we 

work on, we can see that drop to $2 to $2.50 per dollar invested. 

Consider the changes between a short-term paving program or a 

long-term capital investment program, those returns are really 

stark. We have tracked that for over 20 years. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that very much. 

Mr. Demetriou, you did cover this. Is there anything you wanted 

to add to what you have already said concerning return on investment? 

Mr. MCKENNA. I think I stated that there was a tremendous return. Patrick just covered that as well. Hopefully, each of you has 

a fact sheet on your State that has been put together by the Business Roundtable. 

Specifically for Oklahoma are the additional jobs you laid out, 

but more important are the benefits to the mining industry, finance, insurance and real eState industries which are important to 

your State. Each and every one of you has a similar fact sheet. 

For me as a business leader, this is completely tied to what we 

do every day to drive investment and get a high return on that capital. It is clear that, from an infrastructure standpoint, that is what 

we are talking about. 

69 

Senator INHOFE. The second thing I would like to have you elaborate on a little bit has to do with streamlining. In the last two 

highway bills or transportation bills that we had, actually when I 

was chairing this committee, we concentrated on streamlining. It 

had not been done before. 

I remember that Barbara Boxer at that time came around in a 

lot of areas where she did not agree initially but she changed her 

position. I think that streamlining has come a long way. 

Mr. McKenna, you did not say too much about that. Tell me 

what your thoughts are on streamlining. Some people are saying 

we have already addressed that. We do not need to address it 

more. Why do we need to address it more in this bill? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Thank you, Senator. 

We do believe we are along the path. We have made significant 

progress in streamlining with a lot of coordination going on among 

and between Federal agencies. We are trying to mirror that at the 

State level between cabinet agencies in each State. The coordination efforts that are going on are substantial. We do believe that 

we still have progress to be made. 

I want to make sure everyone realizes we are not suggesting we 

delve into the environmental issues themselves. We do not wish to 

negatively impact the environment, but we do think on a process 

standpoint, even in simple projects where we have categorical exclusions, that coordination can still be improved. We have more 

work to do. If we can shave, on average, 3 months off 95 percent 

of the projects we do, that is a substantial return for the taxpayer. 

Senator INHOFE. That translates into more money for infrastructure. 

Mr. MCKENNA. Yes, it does. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you agree with that, Mr. Demetriou. 

Mr. DEMETRIOU. Yes, I do. I really do encourage you to put into 

the law the Executive Orders putting the 2-year limit on the permitting process. 

I also want to say there are great examples of projects recently 

applying the FAST Act, applying the deadlines, collaborating and 

cooperating with all the stakeholders ensuring government and environmental regulations are preserved. We are seeing opportunities 

to improve and shorten the timelines. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. 

Senator CARPER. Mike, how do you pronounce your last name? 

Mr. REPLOGLE. It is Replogle. 

Senator CARPER. Why? 

Mr. REPLOGLE. Old Alsatian dialect. It means wine carrier. 

Senator CARPER. The 800-pound gorilla in the room is always 

how to pay for this stuff. We all know we need to do it. A fellow 

named Earl Blumenauer who I think is from Oregon, talks about 

the purchasing power of the Federal gasoline and diesel. I think he 

is calling for five cent increases for 5 years and index it, going forward. 

It reminds me a little of what George Voinovich and I suggested 

almost a decade ago to the Simpson-Bowles Commission when we 

70 

called for increases of four cents a year for 4 years and then to 

index. A lot of people said that was a pretty good idea. We never 

got around to doing it. We really did not have the kind of leadership we should have had from the executive branch. People were 

really reluctant here in this body to raise fees even for something 

we know we all need to do. 

I was in a meeting with Senator Inhofe, Senator Barrasso and 

a number of our colleagues maybe 6 months ago at the White 

House, meeting with the President on infrastructure. He said, I am 

not going to give a big speech but let’s listen here to all of you. 

What do you think we ought to do? 

He turned to me first. I am sitting right across the table from 

him. I said, the 800-pound gorilla in the room is always how to pay 

for this stuff. I suggested what George Voinovich and I had suggested seven, eight or 9 years ago, four cents a year for 4 years. 

He cut me off. He said, that’s not enough. 

I looked at John Barrasso sitting right next to the President and 

I winked at him. He said, that’s not enough. It should be 25 cents 

and it should be right now. I looked around the room and I think 

there were a few surprised people there. He came back to it again 

and again in the meeting which lasted over an hour. 

That night I spoke on the phone with the Secretary of Transportation. I said was that just a warn-off or something he decided to 

throw out there as he sometimes does? She said, no, he’s been talking about this for weeks, actually longer. 

As an old Governor, I have always felt leadership is important, 

especially in doing difficult things. The President said he supports 

25 cents right now on the gas and diesel tax and provides political 

cover for the Congress. He said, I know this is a hard thing for 

elected officials in the House and Senate to do, Democrats and Republicans. I will provide you that cover for that. 

I said to the Secretary, was he serious about this? She said, he’s 

been talking about it for quite a while. 

I would suggest if we are serious about really doing something, 

I think Earl Blumenauer was on to an idea. I think George 

Voinovich and I had a pretty good idea. I think the President has 

a pretty good idea. What we need is the political courage to do it. 

Not just that but can we find more ways to streamline and save 

some money through permitting reform? My guess is we probably 

can. Everything I do, I know I can do better. 

How about the folks out there who use roads, highways and 

bridges and do not bring in anything? They are in electric vehicles, 

hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Shouldn’t they have some obligation to 

maintain the roads they are driving on? I think so. 

Let me ask you guys to react to what I have just said and laid 

out before you. Then I will ask some other questions. Mr. Replogle. 

Mr. REPLOGLE. I think we clearly need more infrastructure investment here in America. I think we need to consider a diverse 

array of ways of achieving increased revenues, both through traditional means and new innovative means if we are to accomplish 

this. We need to make sure those funds are well targeted to the 

right kinds of investments. 

Senator CARPER. We just opened a four-lane limited access highway called Route 301 which comes right out of the eastern side of 

71 

Maryland and comes through Delaware. It was always a two-lane 

road in Delaware with a lot of congestion, traffic lights and pollution. 

We just converted it into a four-lane, limited access highway. It 

is a toll road with the largest loan from the Federal Government. 

It is a toll road and we are recovering the tolls to pay off the loan 

back to USDOT. That is another option. 

Steven? 

Mr. DEMETRIOU. Senator, I agree with what Michael said. There 

is no silver bullet. There needs to be a diverse array of public, 

State, local and private funding. The overlay is it really should be 

user-based. We have that in place today with the gas tax. Unfortunately, it is 25 years since we increased it. I think we have lost 

about 40 percent of the purchasing power. 

We have vehicles out there that are more energy efficient, as you 

said, some even electric, not even paying the gas tax. We need to 

move to a mileage-based, user fee as quickly as possible. Initially, 

we should start with the increased gas tax and then move to a 

miles-based user fee. At Jacobs, we are working with many States 

and coalitions across the west coast and east coast to pilot these. 

I think we need to accelerate that to get to that ultimately. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. McKenna, please. 

Mr. MCKENNA. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. I would ask you to be brief and right to the 

point. 

Mr. MCKENNA. Great points, and I agree the two primary issues 

we are facing are lost purchasing power from inflation over the last 

20-plus years, and the rising fuel economy. We do have to address 

that. We do believe there are cost effective ways to do that through 

user fees today, adjusting those user fees to help that purchasing 

power. 

Senator CARPER. Have you done anything in Missouri along 

these lines? 

Mr. MCKENNA. We have made several attempts in that regard. 

We have constitutional prohibitions on legislative authority to increase revenues. The public has not agreed with us to date. We 

have not made as much progress as we would like. 

We do have right now one of the alternatives to the fuel tax 

going through our legislature. It is actually a conversion of our registration fee to a mileage-based fee. The idea is to capture from all 

users relatively the same amount. 

Whether you are paying gas and fuel tax or whether you have 

an all-electric vehicle or a hybrid, the idea is that we capture about 

$30 a month from each of these users. We need to do that across 

whatever form of transportation you are using. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks, Senator Carper. 

Senator BRAUN. 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you. 

I come from the State, Indiana, where back in 2017 we were 

grappling with the same issues here. Being on Roads and Transportation there in Ways and Means, and a fiscal conservative, it 

was easy for us to do it. I spoke vehemently to increase the gas tax 

and diesel, and I own a trucking company, 10 cents a gallon on gas, 

72 

20 cents on diesel. It was in the context of a balanced budget that 

we do every year and cash balances. 

I did not have the reservation of even increasing a user fee in 

the context of what I would call bad fiscal management here in 

general. I think that is the dilemma that we live here on the Federal level. 

What I want to talk about mostly, though, and I agree with Senator Carper when he mentioned how do you pay for it, I think it 

is disingenuous to rely on an institution like we have here that is 

running trillion-dollar deficits, and $22 trillion in debt. That would 

be infeasible anywhere else, if you are asking to get more revenue 

out of it, whether it is through transfer from the general budget or 

raising a user fee. I think we have to work on that in general before we really can do it with confidence that it is going to be there 

and sustainable. 

We started experimenting with some other ideas. We had counties and cities constantly wanting more roads and bridges fixed 

within their domains, and had the nerve in that same year to 

throw out a program that had a 50 percent match. They griped 

about it, did not want to do it. It is oversubscribed now in the two 

or 3 years we have done it, because they had no capacity to do it. 

They found the way to do it. Cities and counties are going to have 

capacity to do stuff within a State. States have capacities to do 

more. 

I think we cannot shy away from asking States that generally 

are in financially good shape, to do more. There is capital capacity 

there. Also, through public-private partnerships, there is even more 

probable capital capacity in that area. There are a lot of folks who 

do not like the idea of it. 

I think we have to be enterprising. We cannot expect this to be 

solved because look how long it has been and we did not have the 

fortitude to do a user fee here. It would have been a lot easier 10 

or 15 years ago when we had a balance sheet that would not argue 

against doing it. 

I know in my State, Joe McGuinness, who is our Director of 

Transportation, is really enterprising. I want to mention one other 

thing we did. I authored the bill, could not find a model for it anywhere in the U.S. This was for cities and counties, locals, to initiate 

a road project and bring the State along to get engaged with it and 

put skin in the game. Here, it seems like you never talk about skin 

in the game. When you do it, things work better. 

We teed-up that bill the same year that we did the long-term 

road funding. I can tell you in my home area, we have a road 

project we have talked about for 40 years that local industry is 

going to pay half of the EIS fee and we have shamed local governments into matching it, so we are on the board. We are getting 

something done. That is what it is going to take. 

Mr. McKenna, you would be in the same space as Joe 

McGuinness was. He likes it. We were in a State legislature that 

did something. What do you think of the idea of asking cities and 

counties to do more within States and States carrying more of the 

burden because they are better able to do it? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Senator, those are great comments and a great 

question. 

73 

In Missouri, we have a 15-year history of cost share with local 

communities. Those local communities, to the extent that they believe investment in the National Highway System that runs 

through their communities is valid and valuable, we do have them 

putting skin in the game. In fact, we have used $450 million of 

State and Federal resources and actually produced $1 billion worth 

of construction projects. 

I would say that in a State like Missouri, where we have the seventh largest transportation network and are ranked 48th in terms 

of revenue per mile, we have been looking, on an enterprising 

basis, for any potential solution we can find on a project by project 

basis. All of these types of programmatic project-based approaches 

work. However, they do not solve the entire system base. There are 

tools in the toolbox that are vitally important and everyone should 

be seeking those. I do think DOTs around the Country and communities have been working together pretty hard to do so. 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you. 

In respect of time, I will yield. If there is a second round, I have 

another question. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Braun. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the witnesses for coming. This is one of the areas 

where it is kind of fun to be on EPW. We work together and I think 

we can get a lot of things done. I wanted to flag a couple of issues 

I think are important as we go forward. 

One is I want to add to the record a statement of the American 

Property Casualty Insurance Association made to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

74 


35959.140

United States House of Representatives 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

"Examining How Federal infrastructure Policy Could Help Mitigate and Adapt to 

Climate Change." 

February 26, 2019 

Statement of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association 

Introduction 

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) respectfully submits this 

statement to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for its hearing entitled 

"Examining How Federal Infrastructure Policy Could Help Mitigate and Adapt to Climate 

Change." Our testimony includes several suggestions for building a more resilient infrastructure 

in the United States and describes how the property and casualty insurance industry can help 

bridge the insurance gap to provide consumers and communities with stronger protections. 

APCIA represents nearly 60 percent of the U.S. property casualty insurance and reinsurance 

market with the broadest cross-section of home, auto, and business insurers of any national 

trade association. APCIA members protect families, communities, and businesses in the U.S. 

and across the globe. 

The United States federal government appropriated nearly $140 billion for expenses related to 

the 2017 natural catastrophes comprising almost 18 percent of last year's fiscal deficit 1 

Globally, 2017 and 2018 were the costliest back-to-back years for weather disasters on record. 2 

In the last two years, natural disasters caused near record economic losses in the United States. 

In 2017, our nation experienced the second greatest economic losses from hurricanes in our 

history and the greatest wildfire losses in 2017 and 2018. 

Continued increases in federal spending on disaster relief is not financially sustainable. Federal 

infrastructure policy can play an essential role in mitigating natural disaster losses and helping 

consumers and communities become more resilient to changes in weather severity. 

1 The Hill, Niv Elis, October 14, 2018. (~thehill.com/policy/finan_ce/411215-disasters-become-big-chunk-of­

!!.i::deficit) 

2 AON: "Weather, Climate & Catastrophe Insight," 2018 Report, Pagel. 

( h l t p :litho u g htl e ad ersh i p. ao n ben field. com I Docu men tlli 019 012 2 -ab-if -ann u a 1-w eat her-climate-rep art-2 018. pdf) 
75 


35959.141

Building a Resilient Infrastructure 

APCIA stands ready to assist the Committee in crafting specific public policy solutions to 

improve the nation's infrastructure with the goals of protecting lives and property, reducing 

economic losses, limiting taxpayer expense, and making communities more resilient. To that 

end, we offer the following broad-based suggestions: 

Encourage states, U.S. territories, communities, and tribes to adopt prudent, hazardspecific land use measures. 

Adopt and enforce strong building codes and defensible space requirements for both 

new and existing property and construction to increase resilience to present and future 

risks. 

Incorporate climate risk models and climate resilience standards into all public 

infrastructure projects. 

Commit additional government funds for resilient infrastructure and retrofitting existing 

infrastructure in areas at risk. 

Support and utilize research and targeted incentives (such as tax credits, loans, or 

grants} to promote effective loss mitigation, in order to reduce current and future risk to 

people, property, natural features, ecosystems, and critical infrastructure. 

Share science-based information to better inform public policy and decision-making at 

all levels of government and commerce, including analyses of the benefits and costs of 

property mitigation measures. 

Resilient infrastructure and smart development play a critical role in the reduction of American 

citizen's exposure to disasters and allow them to recover more quickly. If we make these 

investments on the front end, it will pay considerable dividends once a catastrophe strikes. The 

National Institute of Building Sciences recently issued the Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 

2018 Interim Report. Generally, the report found a benefit cost ratio of" ... $6 for every $1spent 

through mitigation grants funded through select federal agencies."3 Importantly, the report also 

concluded that investment in mitigation could save hundreds lives and prevent one million nonfatal injuries.' 

3 National institute of Building Sciences, "Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2018 Interim Report," (2018) Page 1. 

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/mmc/NIBS MSvZ-2018 lnterim-Repor.pdf 

'National Institute of Building Sciences, "Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2018 Interim Report," (2018) Page 86. 

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nibs.org/resource(r·es,'Ylf.cL!nmc/NIBS MSvZ-2018 lnterirn-Repor.pdf 
76 


35959.142

Bridging the Insurance Gap 

The property and casualty insurance industry is an essential part of our national emergency 

response apparatus. In the wake of 241 weather and climate disasters that each exceeded $1 

billion in damages/costs since 1980 property casualty insurers have consistently responded to 

help Americans financially recover. The total cost of these catastrophic events exceeds $1.6 

trillion. 5 In 2017 alone, estimated insurance payments due to natural catastrophes in the U.S. 

topped $78 billion in 2017, more than triple the $23.8 billion total for 2016. 6 

These figures represent only half of the total economic losses suffered. In 2018, the U.S. 

experienced about $92 billion in total damages and costs from natural disasters, with an 

estimated $57 billion insured. 7 As large as this insurance gap is, even this data hides the large 

scale of the insurance gap due to the larger-than-normal wildfire-related costs in 2018 and the 

more commonly purchased standard fire insurance policy. While there is no doubt that 

insurance payments have helped communities and individuals recover, the United States faces 

a considerable insurance gap, especially for other catastrophe perils like windstorm (hurricane), 

flood, and earthquake. That is, a great number of people remain underinsured or uninsured. 

Property casualty insurers across the country are actively engaged in closing this insurance gap. 

Increasing take-up rates for catastrophe insurance is critically important if we really want the 

bend the curve in reducing costs and losses from natural catastrophes. 

In addition to reducing the reliance on taxpayers or government assistance, the insurance 

mechanism provides several other benefits that will improve resiliency. These include: 

Reducing exposure in a changing world through actuarially-sound risk transfer, risk 

underwriting, risk awareness and risk management. 

Sending important financial signals about risk and a creating a financial incentive to 

reduce or mitigate risk through risk-based pricing 

Articulating a common message about levels of risk and vulnerability posed by extreme 

weather to more directly match insurance coverage to relative risk. 

5 NOAA National Centers for Environm-ental Information (NCE,I) U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters 

(2019). htlps://www. ned c. noaa .gov /billions/ 

'Insurance Information Institute, "Facts+ Statistics: U.S. catastrophes." b!!P.JiJ/www.iii.org/fact-sti'JJJi_\]<;Lf_e_c;I~:. 

statistics"us cJtastrophes 

7 AON: "Weather, Climate & Catastrophe Insight," 2018 Report, Page 38. (2018). 

])ttp: / /t h o_ughtl ead ers bill. a on ben fie I d. com/ Docu men ts/2 019012 2 -a b -if -ann u a 1- weather· eli mate-report· 2018. pdf 
77 


35959.143

In addition, the property casualty insurance sector can help to improve insurance literacy, raise 

awareness of climate risks, urge disaster planning and preparedness, and encourage wider 

purchase of insurance. 

Conclusion 

Making America more resilient to natural catastrophe events will take the combined efforts of 

government -federal, state, and local, communities, the private sector and individual property 

owners. Resilient infrastructure is an important component to build a national strategy to 

address this important issue. Property casualty insurers stand ready to assist the Committee in 

building a resilient infrastructure and helping communities recover quickly after disaster strikes, 

and APCIA thanks the Committee for holding this important hearing. 
78 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. They pointed out the importance of incorporating climate risk models and climate resilient standards into 

all public infrastructure projects and that it is not just designing 

and building resilient infrastructure, it is also retrofitting existing 

infrastructure in areas at risk. I think I see every head nodding 

about this. 

It becomes particularly important for States like mine that are 

coastal where there is a lot of infrastructure along the coast, where 

we are at risk of losing transport capability to flooding. Highway 

95, in the big rain-burst flooding of several years ago, actually 

closed because it was filled with water. Amtrak has been stopped 

because of flooding in Rhode Island and its railway along the Connecticut coast is a massive, massive potential liability. I think it is 

important that we pay attention to what the insurance industry, 

what the American Property Casualty Insurance Association is saying. 

I also want to emphasize as we go forward the opportunities for 

better infrastructure, cheaper construction, more durable infrastructure and I think for a lot of our local States, economies 

through the increased use of new materials. 

I would like to ask that a report called The Performance of 

Bridges that Receive Funding Under the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program by the National Academies of 

Science, Engineering and Medicine be added as an exhibit. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

79 


35959.144

Performance of Bridges That Received 

Funding Under the Innovative Bridge 

Research and Construction Program 

Committee for the Study on Performance of Bridges 

A Consensus Study Report of 

The National Acadenzies of 

SCIENCES· ENGINEERING· MEDICINE 

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 

Washington, DC 

www.nap.edu 

ADVANCE COPY 

NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE BEFORE 

Friday, January 18, 2019 

11:00a.m. EST 

PLEASE CITE AS A REPORT OF THE 

NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, 

ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE 

PH..EPt 'BLIC.A'I 10;\l ('()f'\-l'nconcctcd Proofs 
80 


35959.145

ii 

Transportation Research Board Special Report 330 

Subscriber Categories 

bridges and other structures~ construction: design: maintenance and preservation; materials: research 

Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly 

from the TRB Business Office. through the Internet at www.TRB.org or nationalacademies.org/trb. or by 

annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Aftiliates and library 

subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information. contact the Transportation 

Research Board Business Oftlce. 500 Fifth Street. NW. Washington, DC 2000 I (telephone 202-334-

32 I 3; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail ·rRBsalesl@nas.edu). 

Copyright 2019 by ti1e National Academy of Sciences. A II rights reserved. 

Printed in the United States of America 

This publication was reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by 

a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National 

Academy of Engineering, and the National Academy of Medicine. 

This study was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. 

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X 

International Standard Book Number- I 0: 0-309-XXXXX-X 

Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/1 O.I7226/XXXXX 

Library of Congress Control Number: XXXXXXXXXX 

PREPliBLJCAT!O.'i COPY-! 'ncorrected Proors 
81 


35959.146

111 

The National Academies of 

SCIENCES· ENGINEERING· MEDICINE 

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress. signed by President 

Lincoln. as a private. nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and 

technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia 

McNutt is president. 

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy 

of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers 

for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote. Jr .. is president. 

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 umkr 

the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members 

are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr Victor .1. Dzau is 

president. 

The three Academies work together as the "'ational Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve 

complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education 

and research. recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in 

matters of science. engineering. and medicine. 

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering. and Medicine at 

www.nationalacademies.org. 

The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of 

Sciences. Engineering. and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the 

benet1ts that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and 

progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective. 

interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board's varied activities annually engage about 7.000 engineers. 

scientists. and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and 

academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state 

transportation departments. federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. 

Oepa11111ent of Transportation. and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of 

transportation< 

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www. fRB.org. 

Pll.EPl 1BLIC-\ TION COPY-l:ncorrected Proofs 
82 


35959.147

iv 

The National Academies of 

SCIENCES · ENGINEERING ·MEDICINE 

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences. Engineering. and Medicine 

document the evidence-based consensus on the study's statement of task by an authoring committee ot" 

experts. Reports typically include findings. conclusions, and recommendations based on information 

gathered by the committee and the committee's deliberations. [ach report has been subjected to a rigorous 

and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the 

statement of task. 

Proceedings published by the National Academics of Sciences. Engineering. and Medicine chronicle the 

presentations and discussions at a workshop. symposium. or other event convened by the National 

Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not 

endorsed by other participants. the planning committee. or the National Academies. 

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies. please visit 

www.nationalacadcmies.org/aboutlwhatwedo. 

f>REI'l'lli.IC..\TIO'i COI'Y-{'ncorr<etcd Proofs 
83 


35959.148

v 

COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY ON PERFORMANCE OF BRIDGES 

Mary Lou Ralls, Ralls Newman. LLC. Austin. Texas. Chair 

Ross B. Corotis, University of Colorado at Boulder 

Rebecca L. Curtis. Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing 

Catherine French. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 

Raymond Paul Giroux, Kiewit Bridge and Marine. Kiewitinti·astructure West Company. Vancouver. 

Washington 

Yidong (Eddie) He. Parsons Corporation, Chicago, Illinois 

Malcolm T. Kerley, NXL Construction Services, Inc., Richmond, Virginia 

Bijan Khaleghi. Washington State Department of Transportation, Tumwater 

Norman McDonald, Ames, Iowa 

R Shankar Nair, exp US Services Inc .. Chicago, Illinois 

Randall W. Poston. Pivot Engineers. Austin, Texas 

Abdul-Hamid Zureick, Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta 

'lhmsporlation Research Board Staff 

Joseph R. Morris, Study Director 

Thomas R. Menzies, Jr .. Director of Consensus and Advisory Studies 

Michael Covington. Senior Program Assistant 

PREPl'llLIC..\TIO:\ COPY-l'ncorrectcd Proofs 
84 


35959.149

vi 

PREFACE 

The Transportation Research Board (TRB) formed the Committee for the Study on Performance of 

Bridges to analyze the performance of bridges that received funding in the federal Innovative Bridge 

Research and Construction (IBRC) program and to recommend to Congress how life-cycle costs of 

bridges could be reduced through usc of innovative technologies. The U.S. Department of Transportation 

commissioned TRB to conduct the study, as it was directed by Congress in Section 1422 of the Fi:-;ing 

America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of20 15, Public Law 114-94. The IBRC program, created 

by Congress in 1998, provided grants to state highway agencies to cover costs associated with use of new 

materials and technologies in bridge construction and repair projects, as incentives for innovation in the 

agencies' practices. 

The TRB committee included members with expertise in each of the major categories of materials 

and technologies that were demonstrated in the IBRC projects. Members' backgrounds included state 

highway administration. engineering research, and the construction and engineering design industries. 

The committee heard presentations at its meetings from Sheila Duwadi. Federal Highway 

Administration: Thomas llarman, Federal I lighway Administration; Dave White, American Composites 

Manufacturers Association: Karl Frank, National Steel Bridge Alliance; Reid Castrodale. National 

Concrete Bridge Council; and William R, Cox, National Concrete U.ridge CounciL 

This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and 

technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments 

that will assist the National Academies in making each published report as sound as possible and to 

ensure that it meets the institutional standards l(lr quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the 

study charge. The review comments and dratt manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of 

the deliberative process. The committee thanks the following individuals for their review of this report: 

Jamie Farris, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin; Douglas D. Gransberg, Iowa State University, 

Ames: Sandra Q, Larson, Stanley Consultants, Inc .. Des Moines, lA; Gary J. Klein, Wiss, Janney. Elstncr 

Associates, Inc., Northbrook. IL: Thomas P. Macioce, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 

PREPl 'BLIC\TIO\" COPY-l.ncorn:ctNI Proofs 
85 


35959.150

VII 

Harrisburg; John J. Myers, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla; Henry G. RusselL 

Henry G. Russell, Inc., Glenview, !L: and Phillip Sauser, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. PauL MN. 

Although the reviewers provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not 

asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft bef(Jre 

its release. The review of this rep011 was overseen by Maxine Savitz (National Academy of Engineering), 

HoneywelL Inc. (retired): and ChrisT. Hendrickson (National Academy of Engineering), Carnegie 

Mellon University (emeritus). They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination 

of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all 

review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the 

authoring committee and the National Academies. 

Joseph R. Morris managed the study. edited the report, and drafted sections of the report under 

the guidance of the committee and the supervision of Thomas Menzies. Director. Consensus and 

Advisory Studies Division. Glenn A. Washer. Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental 

Engineering at the University of Missouri-Columbia, engaged by TRB as a consultant to the study, 

conducted the interviews with state highway agencies that are summarized in this report and compiled 

data on the 113RC projects. Karen Febey managed the report review process. Michael Covington assisted 

with meeting arrangements and communications with committee members. 

PREPt:BLICATION COPY-llncorrected ProofS 
86 


35959.151

CONTENTS 

Summary I 

I. Introduction 7 

Study Charge 8 

Sources of Information 9 

Organization of the Report I 3 

viii 

2. IBRC Program Administration: Technologies and Projects Funded 15 

Legislation, Funding, and Administration 15 

Technologies Applied in the IBRC Projects 18 

3. Highway Agency Experience with the 1!3RC Program 21 

Extent of Use Today of the IBRC Technologies 21 

IBRC Technologies That Have Not Been Generally Adopted 26 

Influence of IBRC Experience on Acceptance and Use 28 

Standards and Specifications 29 

Influence of Training Requirements J I 

4. Performance of the IBRC Bridges: Utility of the IBRC Technologies 33 

Quantitative Evaluations of the Benetlts of IBRC Technologies 33 

Data from the States on Performance of the IBRC Bridges 45 

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 51 

Performance of the !BRC Projects in Meeting the Goals of the Program 51 

Utility of the IBRC Technologies 61 

Opportunities to Reduce Installed and Life-Cycle Costs of Bridges Through Innovation 65 

Recommendations 73 

References 83 

Appendix A: TEA-21 Section 51 OJ (part) (June 9, 1998): Innovative Bridge Research and 

Construction Program 88 

Appendix B: Dcfmitions of IBRC Technologies 90 

Study Committee Biographical Information 105 

I'IH<I'UlLIC.YI'lON COPY-l'ncorrcctcd !'roofs 
87 


35959.152

SUMMARY 

The Innovative Bridge Research and Construction (18RC) program. created by act of Congress in 1998. 

provided grants to state transportation departments as incentives for use of innovative materials and 

technologies in the construction and repair of highway bridges. The program awarded $128.7 million to 

approximately 400 projects from 1999 to 2005. Materials used included fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) 

composites. high-performance concrete (HPC). high-performance steel (liPS). and corrosion-resistant 

reinforcing bar (rebar). Projects also demonstrated accelerated bridge construction (ABC) techniques. 

As directed by Congress. the U.S. Department of Transportation commissioned TRB to study the 

performance of the bridges that received funding in the IBRC program. TRB formed a committee charged 

with four tasks: analyze the performance of bridges that received fi.mding in meeting the program ·s goals: 

analyze the utility of the materials and technologies used in IBRC projects in meeting needs f(lr a 

sustainable and low life-cycle cost transportation system: recommend to Congress ho" life-cycle costs of 

bridges could be reduced through use of innovative technologies; and identify research needed to reduce 

bridge life-cycle costs. 

To respond to the charge. the committee examined how the experience of the IBRC projects 

affected highway agency practices. in particular. whether the technologies used in the state's IBRC 

projects were incorporated in regular practice. and examined data on the performance of the IBRC 

bridges. The principal sources of information were interviews with the staffs of I 0 state transportation 

agencies that pm1icipated in the program and records of the IBRC projects. 

The first three chapters of the report summarize the committee's conclusions on the extent to 

which the IBRC projects met the goals of the program, the utility of the technologies, and opportunities to 

reduce life-cycle costs of bridges. The final chapter presents recommendations. 

PREPliBLIC\TIO"i COPY-l'ncorrected Proofs 
88 


35959.153

PERFORMANCE OF THE IBRC PROJECTS IN MEETING THE GOALS OF THE PROGRAM 

The projects completed under the IBRC program contributed to fulfillment of at least five oft he seven 

statutory goals of the program (see Box 1.1 ). The technologies used will reduce life-cycle costs. The data 

available on the IBRC projects does not contain the information needed to compare life-cycle costs of 

alternative technologies. Information is available from other sources on etl"ects of IBRC technologies on 

life-cycle cost. but the evaluation record is incomplete. and economic comparisons are especially scarce. 

Nevertheless. based on the existing evidence. including information on the physical properties of the 

innovative materials used in IBRC projects. published cost comparisons. and acceptance of several of the 

IBRC technologies in state highway programs, the committee concludes that it is likely that the program 

contributed to the reduction of costs. 

The I BRC technologies can reduce construction time and traffic congestion by reducing either the 

duration of construction or the freq ucncy of construction and maintenance. Safety is improved 

particularly by shortening the frequency and duration of work zones. which reduced the risk of casualties 

to the public and to workers. Materials demonstrated in IBRC projects that can help bridges withstand 

natural disasters include HPC. HPS. and externally bonded FRP reinforcement. The experience that 

highway agencies gained in IBRC projects was a stimulus for the development of standards and 

specifications fOr some of the nc\V technologies. Techniques to separate vehicles and pedestrians from rai! 

traffic were not the primary objective of any IBRC project. although reducing construction cost and 

duration facilitates the elimination of grade crossings. Similarly, development of nondestructive 

evaluation techniques was not the primary focus of any project, but several projects included 

instrumentation to allow condition monitoring. 

UTILITY OF THE IBRC TECHNOLOGIES 

Certain applications in every category of IBRC technologies (HPC and other advanced concrete materials. 

FRP composites. corrosion control technologies. llPS. and ABC) showed high utility for reducing bridge 

life-cycle costs. Several have achieved general acceptance in state highway bridge programs (including 

PREPl'BI.IC.\TIO\ COPY-I <ncorrccted Proof\ 
89 


35959.154

HPC. HPS. stainless steel rebar. and externally bonded FRP reinforcement). Others (including ABC and 

monitoring technology) could produce much greater savings if used more widely in appropriate 

applications. Some of the IBRC technologies (for example. FRP deck and superstructure elements) will 

require ii.~rther development and evaluation before their correct use and full potential can be determined. 

OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE LIFE-CYCLE COSTS OF BRIDGES THROUGH INNOVATION 

The following conclusions concern the value of federal incentives for innovation. the role of highway 

agency practices in fostering cost-saving innovation. and specific technological opportunities. 

Importance ofFcderal Incentives as Stimulus for Innovation in Highway Bridges 

The funds provided by the IBRC program mitigated the risk of innovation and motivated use of new 

technologies. The greatest impact was through the incentive to apply technologies that were already 

developed and of proven benefit but not yet standard practice (advanced concrete materials. externally 

bonded FRP reinforcement. HPS. and ABC). The program was less successful at increasing application of 

technologies that were at earlier stages of development. The program lacked features that would he 

required to advance earlier-stage technologies toward implementation. in particular. planning to detlne 

and focus resources on objectives and a provision for monitoring and evaluation. 

A new federal incentive grant program for innovative bridge technology could continue the 

success of IBRC in accelerating tile adoption of proven technologies and also contribute to advancing less 

developed technologies by supporting state highway agency bridge projects that were coordinated as 

elements of research and evaluation studies. 

Importance of Management and Evaluation Practices That Support Innovation 

The methods that a highway agency uses to design, construct, and maintain bridges and manage its bridge 

network are the primary factors that determine success in controlling costs and maximizing the public 

benefits of bridge investments. Life-cycle cost analysis is necessary to evaluate technology that extends 

PH..EPl'ULICATIO\' COPY-l 'ncorrcctcd Proofs 
90 


35959.155

the life of a structure or reduces the frequency of repair. A bridge management system that identifies 

maintenance and rehabilitation needs will highlight the value of cost-saving innovations l(lr repairs or for 

avoiding the need for repairs. A new federal innovation incentive grant program could contribute to 

advancing highway management practices by providing data on the performance of alternative 

technologies and through support for higlmay agency trials of state-of-the-art management systems and 

evaluation methods. 

Specific Technology Opportunities 

The committee reviewed the status of the technologies demonstrated in the IBRC projects and innovations 

that have emerged since the program to identify opportunities to reduce life-cycle costs and improve 

bridge performance. These opportunities are listed in the tina! chapter of the report. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The recommendations of the committee concern three topics: a new federal program to provide incentives 

for innovation in bridge construction. research needs to develop and evaluate innovative approaches to 

reducing bridge costs. and other actions to encourage innovation. 

New Federal Program to Provide Incentives for Innovation in Bridge Construction 

Congress should create a new federal bridge innovation incentive program. administered by the Federal 

Highway Administration (FH W A). to advance the development and application of technologies for 

improving bridge performance and reducing life-cycle costs. The new federal program can be modeled on 

!BRC but should include the following features in order to improve on the results of the earlier program. 

Program plan: The program should be guided by a plan that defines the objectives. allocates funds in 

accord with the objectives. and specifies procedures lor selecting projects. FfiWA should develop the 

plan in consultation with the state highway agencies. 

PREPt :BLI('ATIO;\i COP\'-l'ncorrectcd Proofs 
91 


35959.156

Definition of objectives: Objectives should be defined with respect to (I) the technologies to be 

developed, (2) improvements in bridge performance to be obtained with each technology, and (3) the 

contribution of the program to advancing each technology. The objectives may include expanding use 

of proven technologies and developing or evaluating earlier stage technologies. 

Recordkeeping: FHW A should maintain comprehensive information on each grant awarded, through 

project completion and follow-up evaluation. Changes in the location, scope, or technologies involved 

in a project should be recorded. 

Dissemination: FHWA should arrange for dissemination of information on projects under way, 

assessments of completed projects, and monitoring results. 

Monitoring performance of technologies: The program should include funding and requirements for 

monitoring. Monitoring should be on two tracks: every project should be subject to a minimum 

standardized monitoring requirement; projects that have the objective of development or evaluation 

should have additional requirements, including a research design that specifies data collection. 

Emphasis areas: Emphasis areas for projects should be determined by the federal-state consultative 

planning process previously recommended. Emphasis areas recommended for consideration are listed 

in Chapter 5. 

Research Needs 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT) and the state departments of transportation should 

consider sponsoring research to develop and evaluate innovative approaches to reducing the costs of 

highway bridges, with the following objectives: 

Long-term monitoring of durability. performance. and costs of materials and technologies. Standard 

procedures for inspection of the materials could be developed in conjunction with monitoring studies. 

Optimized designs and standardization for advanced materials to maximize the cost savings attained 

I'REI'l'BLIC.\TION COI'Y-l'ncorrectcd Proofs 
92 


35959.157

Optimized design for ABC that takes full advantage of the economies attainable from prefabrication 

of bridge elements and systems. 

Development and validation of models for projecting service life and deterioration rates. 

New nondestructive bridge evaluation technologies and techniques. 

Development of new advanced materials and use of new materials in bridge construction. 

A program of research and technology transfer to determine the potential for greater use of and 

bene tit from FRP materials in bridge construction. Such a program is outlined in Chapter 5. 

Methods of maintaining and updating existing infrastructure to accommodate truck platooning 

(operation of two or more trucks in a convoy with close spacing maintained by an advanced driver 

assistance system) and other upcoming transportation technologies. 

Other Actions to Encourage Innovation 

Professional interchange: The state highway agencies should recognize the essential role of 

professional interactions for disseminating technical advances. supp011 the establishment of 

opponunities for technical exchange. and suppot1 the participation of their engineers in these 

activities. 

Existing federal highway innovation programs: Congress should continue to provide funding and 

direction for the existing innovation programs administered by the FHW A Center for Accelerating 

Innovation. These programs have accelerated the adoption of new technology. 

I'REl'l'BLIC..\T!O'O ('01'\'-l'ncorrcctcd Proofs 
93 


35959.158

I. INTRODtJCTION 

The Innovative Bridge Research and Construction (1!3RC) program was created by Congress in the !998 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21 ). TEA-21 authorized the federal highway and 

transit programs for 1998 to 2003. (Continuing resolutions of Congress later extended the provisions of 

the Act. including !BRC, to 2005.) The purpose of l!3RC was to demonstrate the application of innovative 

materials and technologies in the construction and repair of highway bridges. The program provided 

funding for part of the costs of approximately 400 projects from 1999 to 2005 (FHWA n.d.a. HDR 2013). 

Total funding made available by Congress under the program was $128.7 million (as determined by 

authorized funding and annual obligation limitations imposed on the federal-aid highway program) 

(FHWA 2008. 7). Materials used included !lber-rcinforced polymer (FRP) composites, high-performance 

steel (HPS). advanced concrete materials, and corrosion-resistant reinforcing bar (rebar). Projects also 

demonstrated accelerated bridge construction techniques. 

Historically. technical innovation in materials and construction methods has allowed savings in 

construction and maintenance costs. improved durability and reliability, and extended the service life of 

highway infrastructure. However, highway agencies face obstacles to the adoption of innovations. 

Contracting and budgeting practices may disfavor designs with higher initial cost but lower life-cycle cost 

and designs that reduce user costs (resulting from delay and crash risk during construction) at the expense 

of higher agency costs. Contracting regulations can discourage use of proprietary materials or processes. 1 

Early projects that use new technology can have higher costs because designers and contractors must 

learn how to use the new materials and methods and the lack of experience entails a risk of errors or 

disappointing results. Owners and the construction industry may resist change due to its inherent risks. 

The IBRC program provided an incentive for highway agencies to overcome these obstacles to gain the 

benefits of innovation. 

1 23 CFR 635.411. known as the proprietary and patented products rule, prohibits state highway agencies from 

requiring use of a patented or proprietary material, specification. or process except in certain special circumstances. 

PREPl'llLICATIO:\ COPY-! neorrected Proofs 
94 


35959.159

As it was directed by Congress in Section 1422 ofthe FAST Act. the 2015 federal transportation 

authorization legislation. the U.S. Department of Transportation commissioned TRI3 to conduct a study of 

the performance of bridges that received funding through the 113RC program. To perform the study. TRI3 

formed the Committee for the Study on Performance of Bridges, composed of engineers from 

universities. highway agencies. and industry with expertise in the materials and technologies that were 

employed in the bridges. 

STUDY CHARGE 

The committee's charge (see Box 1.1 ). "hich was specified by Congress in the FAST Act. asks it to 

undertake four tasks: 

1. Analysis of the performance of bridges that received 113RC funding in meeting the goals of the 

program. 

2. Analysis ofthe utility. compared to conventional materials and technologies. of the innovative 

materials and technologies used in IBRC projects in meeting needs for a sustainable and low lifecycle-cost transportation system. 

3. Recommendations to Congress on how the installed and life-cycle costs of bridges could be reduced 

through the use of innovative materials and technologies. 

4. A summary of any additional research that may be needed to further evaluate innovative approaches 

to reducing the installed and life-cycle costs of highway bridges. 

The seven goals of the JBRC program. as defined in TEA-21. were to develop: 

Cost-effective, new, innovative materials for highway bridge applications. 

Methods for reducing maintenance and life-cycle costs of bridges. 

Construction techniques to increase safety and reduce construction time and traffic congestion. 

Design criteria for innovative products and materials. 

Techniques to separate vehicle and pedestrian trafllc from railroad tranic. 

PREPt'BI,IC\TIO'\ COP\'-l:ncorrccted Proof.~ 
95 


35959.160

Structures that will withstand natural disasters. 

Nondestructive evaluation technologies and techniques. 

SOURCES OF INFORMATIO:-.J 

A complete response to the committee's lirst task-determining whether the IBRC projects were 

successful in meeting the goals oft he program-requires two kinds of evidence: 

Information about how the experience of the IBRC projects affected highway agency practices: 

whether the technologies used in the state's IBRC projects were incorporated in regular practice, 

whether experience with the IBRC projects influenced present use. and whether the IBRC experience 

stimulated development of standards and specifications for the technology. 

Data on the performance over time of the IBRC bridges, as evidence of the benefits of the IBRC 

technologies with respect to durability; construction. maintenance. and user costs: and service life. 

Evidence from the IBRC projects and also from evaluations of other experience with the technologies 

used in the projects is relevant to the second task-analysis of the utility of the IBRC technologies 

compared with conventional methods. 

The information available to the committee was incomplete. The IBRC program did not require 

highway agencies to conduct any special monitoring or evaluation of the performance of the bridges that 

received funding or to document the effect of new technology on life-cycle cost. Routine bridge 

inspections generally will not provide specific and detailed data on the performance of the features of the 

IBRC bridges that embody the new technology. Bridge construction that received IBRC funding occurred 

Jess than 20 years ago, an inadequate time span f(lr a full comparison of the durability of IBRC and 

conventional materials. However, any cases in which a material performed well below expectations 

would be observable. and a robust monitoring program (that collected performance data beyond routine 

visual inspection) might have been able to detect any early differences in performance, for example, signs 

of deterioration of reinforcing materials in concrete. 

PREI'l'llLICATION COPY-l'ocorrcctcd Proofs 
96 


35959.161

Finally, schedule and budget constraints did not allow the committee to obtain current 

information on all IBRC bridges or to obtain condition information other than that readily available in 

bridge inspection records. The folio\\ ing subsections describe the sources the committee used to respond 

to its charge. The information from these sources is presented in later chapters. 

FHW A Project Lists 

l'he Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided the committee with a list of 324 projects that 

received IBRC funding. indicating the state. the innovative material or technology that qualified the 

project for the program. the general location of the project. a truncated description of the project. and an 

identifying project number (FHW A n.d.a). National Bridge Inventory numbers and exact locations were 

not recorded. This list appears to omit projects funded in the final year of the program. 2005. A second 

list provided by FHWA shows amounts of federal funds obligated and spent on each of367 IBRC 

projects, identified by project numbers in a different format from those in the tlrst list (FHWA n.d.b). A 

list compiled by HDR. Inc. (sec the I<Jllowing section) includes 77 projects awarded funds in 2005: some 

of these may not have been carried out or may have been extensions of earlier projects. Because of the 

lack of a common system of project identitlcation, it was not possible to consistently match projects 

across lists. Consequently. the committee did not have a complete and authoritative list of IBRC projects. 

HDR Report 

In 20 I 3. an FHWA contractor compiled information for bridge projects that received funds from the 

lBRC program and from a similar program (Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment [IBRD] 

program) established in 2006 (HDR 2013). The contractor"s report is based on information received from 

the state highway agencies that conducted projects in the two programs. It includes a two-page summary 

of each project for which information was received. including a brief project description. the innovative 

technology employed. IBRC or IBRD funds awarded. and the highway agency's identitlcation of positive 

and negative results. obstacles to implemen!ing the technology. lessons learned, and reuse of or plans to 

PREPl!BLI('..\TlO' COPY-lincorrectcll Proofs 
97 


35959.162

reuse the technology in other projects. Assessments of results are qualitative in nature. No data on 

performance over time were collected. The report also includes case studies describing 30 projects in 

detail. The case studies do not contain performance information, although some results of laboratory 

testing of materials are reported. Four of the case studies include limited information on cost savings from 

the innovative technology, compared with conventional practice. Finally, HDR compiled a library of 

assessments of the projects that the states or others had carried out. Some highway agencies did not 

provide information for the HDR report. 

State Interviews 

TRB engaged a consultant to conduct interviews. under the direction of the committee, with state 

highway agency officials in I 0 states that had been active participants in the IBRC program and had 

completed IBRC projects using diverse technologies (sec Table 1.1). The interviews were to obtain 

information about the performance of the states' lBRC bridges and the iniluence of the states' experience 

participating in the IBRC on their subsequent use of the IBRC technologies. 

The interview topics included the following: 

Topics relevant to the committee's first task (to analyze the performance of the IBRC bridges in 

meeting the program's goals): 

Extent of use today of the technologies that were used in the state's IBRC projects. 

Existence of specifications or standards for use of the technologies. 

Reasons for not adopting technologies that were tried in the state's IBRC projects but are not in 

use today. 

lnilucnce of experience with the IBRC projects on present use (or nonuse) of the technologies. 

Effect of training requirements on the state's decisions about adopting IBRC technologies. 

Effect of availability of standards and specitications on use of the technologies. 

Topics relevant to the committee's second task (to analyze the utility of the IBRC technologies in 

meeting needs for a sustainable and low life-cycle-cost transportation system): 

PREPl'BLICATION ('01'\-t:ncorrecte~ Proofs 
98 


35959.163

Benefit of the IBRC technologies the state now uses. compared with previous practice. 

Results of quantitative evaluations of the benetits. 

Available data on performance and costs over time of the state's IBRC bridges. 

Topics relevant to the committee's third and fourth tasks (how life-cycle costs of bridges could be 

reduced through the use of innovative materials and technologies: research needed to fun her evaluate 

innovative technologies to reduce the installed and life-cycle costs of highway bridges): 

Obstacles to the state's usc of promising IBRC technologies and actions needed to overcome 

them. 

Methods of identifying and evaluating innovations in the state's bridge program. 

State officials' vie"s on research needs to develop methods to reduce the costs of bridges. 

State oftlcials' views on the possible value of programs similar to lflRC in the future. 

TABLE 1.1 Case Study States: IORC Technologies Used and Grant Amounts Received 

~tate 1 ·urn_!£~ . ~ects · mp oymg · ac 1 cc n~-~~go!L____J ota . i 1 rrants 

I Concrete I FRP I Corrosion HPS 

IN b fiBRC p E I E I T h I c IT I I BRC c ABC TClther' i Projects' 1 Received 

I i 1 Control l 1 ($millions) 

California I II 3 I 21 13 

Iowa 6 8 I II 2! I 16 

\1ichigan 2 l 4 I 9 

'vlissouri 5 5 3 2 I ' I 6 

~~~v Hampshire 7 2 2 I 2 I 0 

ewYork 3 14 3 2 3 21 

__ .f_~nnsylvania 7 ) 7 i II I !3 

Texas 2 5 4 5 I 2 18 

Virginia 9 8 3 19 

Washington 2 5 I 2 l! 8 - HPS: htgh-pertormance steel: FRP: l!ber-remtorced polymer; ABC: accelerated bndge constructJOn. 

SOURCES: numbers of projects by technology-committee's classification of projects based on the 

FHWA (FHWA n.d.a) and HDR project lists (II DR 2013): grants received (HDR 2013) . 

• I Includes glue-laminated hardwood deck panels (Pi\). monitoring and instrumentation (Ci\). graffitiresistant coating (TX), and a project lor \\hich complete inl(mnation was not available (TX). 

3.4 

3.4 

1.8 

2.1 

2.8 

2.9 

2.6 

4.3 I 

6.4 

3.0 

h Some projects employed technologies in more than one category: therefore rows do not necessarily sum 

to the total number of projects in a state. 

Views of Supplier Industry Representatives 

The committee invited representatives from associations of the steel bridges, concrete bridges, and 

composite materials industries to comment on the committee's charge in presentations at a public 

PREPt 'BI ,I( '.\TIO'\: COPY-l 1nc:oncc:tcd Proofs 
99 


35959.164

meeting. Specitlcally. the representatives were asked to comment from the standpoint of their respective 

industries. on the success of the IBRC program in promoting innovation. the utility of the materials and 

technologies demonstrated in the IBRC projects, current opportunities to reduce the life-cycle cost of 

bridges through new technologies, and research needed to evaluate innovative approaches. 

Published Evaluation Research 

Most of the innovative materials and technologies in the 18RC projects are by now widely used, and 

evaluations have been published of their performance and costs in projects other than IBRC projects. To 

supplement the limited information available about the performance of the IBRC projects, the committee 

consulted published evaluations of the materials and technologies in other projects as a basis for 

conclusions on its second task, to analyze the utility of the IBRC materials and technologies compared 

with conventional methods. The committee also noted gaps in the published record of performance of 

some technologies. 

AASIITO Survey 

At the request of the committee. the American Association of State Highway and Transp01tation Officials 

(AASHTO) included two questions in its 2018 AASHTO Committee on Bridges and Structures Annual 

State Bridge t.ngineers Survey. sent to all state highway agencies. For each of the IBRC technologies. 

agencies were asked two questions: "Is the technology currently in use in your state''" and "Have you 

adopted special provisions or specifications related to this technology"" Responses were received from 40 

states. although not all states answered all questions. 

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT 

In the remainder of this report. Chapter 2 describes the administration of the IBRC program and the 

projects that it funded. Chapter 3 describes state highway agencies· experiences with the program, with 

respect to the impact of the program on their adoption of innovations in bridge construction. Chapter 4 

I'REI't:llLIC.\ TION COI'\-l ncnrrectcd P•·oofs 
100 


35959.165

summarizes the available information on the performance of the IBRC bridges and the utility of the IBRC 

materials and technologies. Chapter 5 presents the committee's conclusions on the performance of the 

IBRC projects in meeting the goals of the program. the utility of the IBRC technologies. and 

opportunities to reduce life-cycle costs with new technology; and recommendations on research needs and 

on federal actions to promote innovation in highway bridge construction. 

Box Ll 

Study on Performance of Bridges 

Statement of Task 

An ad hoc committee will conduct a study on the performance of bridges that received funding under the 

innovative bridge research and construction program under section 503(b) of title 23. United States Code 

(as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of Public Law I 09-59; 119 Stat. 1144) in meeting the 

goals of that program, which included: 

( 1) the development of new. cost-effective. innovative materials for highway bridge applications: 

(2) the reduction of maintenance costs and life-cycle costs of bridges. including the costs of new 

construction, replacement. or rehabilitation of delicient bridges; 

(3) the development of construction techniques to increase safety and reduce construction time and 

traftic congestion; 

(4) the development of engineering design criteria for innovative products and materials for use in 

highway bridges and structures; 

(5) the development of cost-effective and innovative techniques to separate vehicle and pedestrian 

traffic from railroad traffic: 

(6) the development of highway bridges and structures that "'ill withstand natural disasters, including 

alternative processes f(lr the seismic retrollt of bridges: and 

(7) the development of new nondestructive bridt'-e evaluation technologies and techniques. 

The studv will include; 

(I) an ;nalysis of the performance of bridges that received funding under the program in meeting the 

goals described in items ( 1) through (7) above; 

(2) an analysis of the utility, compared to conventional materials and technologies. of each of the 

innovative materials and technologies used in projects for bridges under the program in meeting the 

needs of the United States in 2015 and in the future for a sustainable and low life-cycle cost 

transportation system; 

(3) recommendations to Congress on how the installed and lif'e-cycle costs of bridges could be reduced 

through the usc of innovative materials and technologies. including. as appropriate. any changes in 

the design and construction of bridges needed to maximize the cost reductions: and 

(4) a summary of any additional research that may be needed to further evaluate innovative approaches 

to reducing the installed and life-cycle costs of highway bridges. 

PREPl'BLIC\TIO.\' COPY-l'ncorrcctcd Proof\i 
101 


35959.166

2. IBRC PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION: TECHNOLOGIES AND PROJECTS FUNDED 

The following first section is a description of the administration of the IBRC program by FHWA. The 

second section describes the categories of innovative materials and technologies applied in the projects 

funded by the program and the composition of the program in terms of grant amounts and numbers of 

projects by technology category and by state. 

LEGISLATIO'l. FUNDING. AND ADMINISTRATION 

The relevant paragraphs ofTEA-21, Section 5103, the 1998 legislation that created the IBRC program, 

arc reproduced in Appendix A. The legislation specifies the seven goals of the program (noted in Chapter 

1). administrative procedures, and funding authorized. 

IBRC was established as a discretionary grant program. FHWA issued an annual solicitation for 

applications for funding from state highway agencies. Applications were reviewed first by the FHWA 

division oftice in each state and then by a selection panel of HIWA headquarters staff from the Office of 

Bridge Technology and the Office of Infrastructure Research and Development. Projects were selected 

and gran! amounts determined based on the criteria specified in the solicitation and in accordance with the 

law (FHWA 2005). FHW A issued the first solicitation for proposals for lBRC funding in July 1999. From 

the proposals received in response to the 1999 solicitation. it awarded grants totaling the combined 

amount Congress had authorized for 1998 and 1999. 

The FH W A submission requirements for IBRC grant applications called for the following 

information (FHWA 2005, 3-4): 

Priority ranking of the project with respect to other projects for which the state was applying for 

IBRC funding. 

Location and description of the structure. 

The innovative material to be used in the project, the specific application of the material proposed. 

and an explanation of how the application would meet one or more of the IBRC program goals. 

PREP\'BLICATION COP\-l'ncorrcctcd Proofs 
102 


35959.167

Proposed letting date for the project. 

Estimated costs: cost of the entire project: cost of the innovative portion of the project, including 

associated preliminary engineering; and cost of proposed activities to monitor and document the 

performance of the innovative material application. 

Amount of IBRC funds requested. 

Commitment of other funds to the project. 

HlWA informed the states that in selecting and evaluating the applications. priority for funding would be 

given to projects that (FHW i\ 2005): 

Met one or more of the goals of the program. 

Incorporated innovative materials that are readily available. 

Were ready for or near the construction phase. 

Had designs that are repeatable or have widespread application. 

Would leverage federal tl.mds with other public or private resources. 

States were discouraged from submitting applications for projects that duplicated the innovative material 

application of a previous lBRC project in the state. 

FHWA also informed the states that "Because the concept of equity was important in the 

development ofTEA-21. project selection will also consider national geographic distribution among all of 

the discretionary programs as well as congressional direction or guidance provided on specific projects or 

programs" (Fll\V A 2005). 

Grants usually covered I 00 percent of the cost of the innovative component of the project. as 

identified by the state in its application, up to a limit set by FHWA. which for the tina! year of the 

program was $400.000. The limit was not absolute. and a few grants were larger than $400.000 (FHWA 

~005). 

The proposal submission requirements refer to innovative materials. but not to innovative 

construction methods or to monitoring technology. However. in its guidance for FY 2005 applications, 

PREPl 'BUC\TIO~ ( 'OPY-l 'ncorrcctcd Proof-, 
103 


35959.168

FIIWA encouraged proposals for projects demonstrating use of bridge components designed for rapid 

installation and projects incorporating innovative technology for bridge performance monitoring (FH W A 

2005. 4). IBRC projects that incorporated accelerated bridge construction techniques became more 

frequent in the later years of the program. Nine projects that featured monitoring technology as a principal 

innovation were identified. 

FH W A ·s IBRC Summary Reporl states that "IBRC grant awardees were encouraged to monitor 

projects and provide documentation and performance data during and following construction" (F!IW A 

2008. 3). and states could apply for federai!BRC funding for monitoring (that is. for data collection to 

evaluate performance of innovative features over time). However. the application did not require states to 

describe monitoring plans. and FHW A did not identify monitoring as a consideration in project selection. 

Total funding authorized in federal law for the IBRC program. as restricted by obligation 

limitations imposed on the federal-aid highway program. was $122 million for construction project grants 

and $7 million for research grants in FY 1998 through 2005 (FHWA 2008. 7). FHWA awarded grants to 

states for the full amount provided (see Table 2.1 ). FHW A made the first awards in 1999. 

TABLE 2 1 IBRC Grants by FY (FHWA 2008 19) ' FY 

I 

1998- 2000 2001 2002 

I 

2003 I 2004 2005 Total 

1999 

Grants awarded I 21.3 15.9 18.3 17.2 

. 17.9 I 18.8 19.3 128.7 ($millions) i ., NO 1 E: Total amount 1!1cludes approxunately $7 mlil10n tn gtants lor research prOJects. The tema111der 

was for construction projects. 

The mRC legislation required US DOT to "take such action as is necessary to ensure that 

the information and technology tesulting tram research conducted [with IBRC grants] ... is made 

available to State and local transportation depal1!nents and other interested parties" (TEA-21. Section 

5103). FHWA interpreted this requirement to apply not only to the research grants under the program. but 

also to the construction grants that demonstrated the new technologies. FHWA created a website with 

program information. a resource library, and a database containing information on each project. including 

the innovative technologies used and bridge elements involved (FHWA 2008, 25-27). The website is no 

I'REI'l'llLIL\TION COPY-l'ncorrcctcd Proofs 
104 


35959.169

longer available. Apparently, no readily accessible repository of information about the IBRC projects 

exists. 

TECHNOLOGIES APPLIED IN THE IBRC PROJECTS 

The FHWA rules for IBRC grant applications did not specify the innovative materials and technologies 

that would qualify for funding. Applicants could propose any material or technology and were to provide 

justification that the proposal met the goals of the program. The FHWA Summan• Report contains a 

tabulation of the numbers of projects by 10 material categories. two "other innovative applications" 

categories, and an "other'' category. FHWA also classified projects by the bridge element in which the 

material was applied (FHWA 2008, 24). The HDR review of the program classified projects by II 

technology categories (including a miscellaneous category) and 61 subcategories (HDR 20 I J, 665-729). 

The use of multiple innovative technologies in some individual projects complicates the classification of 

projects. 

To organize its analysis of the success of the IBRC projects in meeting the program's goals and 

the utility of the projects' innovative materials and technologies. the committee classified those materials 

and technologies in l 7 categories. These include three types of concrete. five applications of FRP 

materials. six corrosion control technologies, high performance steel, accelerated bridge construction. and 

monitoring and instrumentation technology (Table 2.2). Appendix B contains definitions of each of the 

technologies and examples of their use in IBRC projects. 

PREPl 'BJJCATIO\' COP,·-l'ncorrectcd ProoiS 
105 


35959.170

L I c·_o_n_c-re_t_e_: -------------

r--:. Ll:__l·ligh-performance concrete (!!PC) 

12. Sel!~consolidating concrete (SCC) 

~,:-__ Ultra-high performance concrete (U-lPC) 

1 Fiber-reinforced polvmers (FRP): 

4! l 

55 'Oj ·'I 

14. Externallv bonded FRP reinforcement 41 23 j 

·' FRP deck elements 

~.6. !- RP superstructure elements (beams or girders) and H 23j 

1· appurtenances (rails, dolphins. impact guards) 

'7. FRP rebar 

!8. FRP prestressing tendons (strand or bar) 

[Corrosion control technologies: concrete reinforcement: 10 30 

I 

' 

\9. Low-chromium steel (ASTM A I 035/1 035M steel) rebar 19 

; I 0. Galvanized rebar 2 [T~iainless steel rebar-(solid or 'Z!'.;d_) _________ -- ---- I 

I Other (epoxv-coated rebar) 2i I 

ir,' C:C:o:"r'-;r-:;oc::s:.:io=;:;n::-c:.;oo:n,_,t_,_r;ocol:.:t:.:ec::c,_h,.n.::.ol::.:o=giie'-'s"-: _:c_,o=-a:.:ti.::n...__,ga:.:n:.:d:.:a:::n:.:.o:::d:::e:::'Sc:.: -----j'-----.+------'6'-J'-__ __c_I6_j, 

112. Metallizini! 3 I I 

J I 3. Cathodic protection anodes and electrochemical chloride , I 

I extraction 6 L I' 

114. Galvanic protection and other (paint systems. inert gas. • 

~--- §u!treat TPS,_I~L<J.<:ck, dec:l<__o_\lerlay) ___ j ___ __:1..c7-'---------, __I 

48: 15: 3o1 

117. Monitoring and instrumentation technology 

L!ill!'E_oiec!s_______ _ __________ !..__ 

Source: Committee estimates based on FHWA n.d.a and HDR 2013. 

NOTE: Some projects employed more than one technology. In such cases the project is included in the 

project count for each of the technologies employed: therefore. sums of pwjcct counts across categories 

are not meaningfuL Project counts and grant amounts for individual technology categories are estimates 

based on the incomplete project grant information available to the committee. In calculating the grant 

totals by technology category. grant amounts for multitechnology projects were divided equally among 

the technologies employed. 

Project grants were awarded in all 50 states. Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (see Figure 

2. I). Certain states, including several smaller states, were especially active in seeking participation in the 

program. 

PIU~Pl'BLIC.\TIO:\ COP\-l ncorrcctt•d Proof\: 
106 


35959.171

700 

600 

~ ::: ) 00 

I 1100 

~ 300 

~ '" 200 

:.oo 

coo 

FIGURE 2.1 Number of IBRC projects and amount of grants received by state. Sources: FHW A n.d.a; HDR 2013. 

1\.'0TE: Project counts and grant anwunts arc approximate. because project information available to the 

committee was incomplete. 

PREPl'HLIC\TlO'\ COPY-l 1ncorrerted PnlOfs 
107 


35959.172

3. HIGHWAY AGENCY EXPERIENCE WITH THE IBRC PROGRAM 

The first section below describes the use today of the technologies that were used in the states• IBRC 

projects. The best indicator of the impact of the program is the extent to which the technologies 

demonstrated in IBRC projects have been adopted in general practice. The subsequent sections describe 

IBRC technologies that have not been adopted. the influence of the states' IBRC experiences on 

acceptance and use of the technologies, the influence of standards and specifications on adoption of new 

technologies, and the influence of training requirements. 

EXTENT OF USE TODAY OF THE IBRC TECHNOLOGIES 

Information on the extent of use of the IBRC technologies by state highway agencies today was obtained 

from two sources, the interviews with the state agencies selected as case studies and the 20 IS survey of 

state highway agencies conducted by the AASIITO Committee on Bridges and Structures. The AASHTO 

survey requested essentially the same data as the interviews, but had a broader distribution to all 52 states 

and territories. 

Table 3.1 is a summary of the responses from the states interviewed regarding their use of the 

IBRC technologies. (One of the 10 states did not respond to this question.) The table shows, for example. 

that all nine states that responded had implementation processes in place for HPC. SCC. and HPS. 

indicating that these technologies are fully implemented and are used regularly in appropriate situations. 

while most states are not using FRP deck elements (6 out of9 states not using). FRP superstructure 

clements (7 of9 not using). and FRP prestressing tendons (7 of9 not using). 

A similar inquiry was made of state bridge engineers through the AASHTO survey. The results of 

this survey. combined with information from two states interviewed who did not respond to the AASHTO 

survey. are shown in Table 3.2. Forty states responded to the AASHTO survey. although some 

respondents did not respond to every question. The table shows, for example, that close to 90 percent of 

respondents are using externally bonded FRP reinforcement (32 out of 37 states that responded to the 

question) and ABC (33 of37). and that approximately two-thirds arc using HPC (28 of 42). SCC (29 of 

l'll.EI'lBLICATION COPY-l'ncorr<ete<l Proof:< 
108 


35959.173

42). and HPS (26 of 37). Stainless steel rebar and cathodic protection anodes are each used by 61 percent 

of respondents (22 of36). 

Table 3.3 summarizes the data describing use of !ARC technologies from the AASHTO survey 

and the state interviews. In the table. the technologies arc listed in order of the number of states indicating 

that the technology is in use. The column headed "Specifications or Standards Developed'' shows the total 

number of states reporting that they have agency- or state-developed, A AS! ITO. or other specifications 

and standards. The following technologies have been adopted into regular practice by the majority of 

respondents (that is. the majority use the technology and have developed specifications or standards for 

it): 

ABC. 

Externally bonded FRP reinforcement. 

sec. 

HPC. 

HPS. 

Stainless steel rebar. 

Cathodic protection anodes. 

Neither the state interviews nor the AASHTO survey asked the states how f1·equently they used 

each technology, compared with alternatives. Thus. for example. among the states that reported using 

stainless steel rebar. the fraction of all rebar used that is stainless steel is not known. 

I'REPl'BLIC.\TIO' COI'\'-lincorrcct<d Proofs 

35959.174

TABLE 3.1 Present Use of IBRC Technologies, Case Study State Highway Agencies 

fechnology Current Status of Technology Special Provisions or Specifications 

evcloping Implcmenta- !Not \gency- .?'>Jot in Usc !mp!ementa- ion Process in Applicable )eve! oped ASHTO t

ion Processes Place 

1'--oncrete 

HPC 0 10 I 00% (919) 10 89% (8/9) 111%(1/9) 10 

sec 10 10 l OO'Yo (9!9) l 00% (9/9) 10 10 

UHPC 10 156% (5/9) 144% (.J/9) III% (]/9) 167% (619) II% (1/9) j22

IFRP 

Externally bonded FRP reinf(lrcement 0 122% (2/9) 78% (719) 0 78% (719) 33% (319) 2

FRP deck elements 67% (6/9) 11%(]/9) 2% (219) 33% (3/9) II% (119) II% (119) II

FR P superstructure elements 78% (719) Il%1!19} II% 1119) [33% (3/9) II% W9) 0 II

FRP rebar 33% (]/9) 133% (319) [33% (319) 33% (1/9) 2% (2/9) 0 3% (3/9) 0 2

FRP prestressing tendons (strand or bar) 78% (7/9) 10 j22% (2/9) f44% (.f/9) 2% (2/9) 0 11

rorrosion Control Technologies 

Concrele reinj(Jrcemenl 

Low-chromium steel rcbar ill%!119) j22% (2/9) 67% (619) IO f44% (.f/9) 56% !519} itt

~~nizcd rebar 144% (1/9) 122% (2/9) 0 3% (3/9) III% (/19) j22% (2/9) 122% (2/9) j22

Stainless steel rebar (solid or clad) 122% (2/9) lit% (}19) 167% (619) 111% (119J 56% (5/9) 1:' 3% (3/9) j22

Coatings und Anodes 

Metallizing /22% (219) /II% (J/9) f44% !H9) f22% (719) f\4% (.f/9) IO 

'athodic protection anodes it 1% (119) 122% (219) j67% (619) IO 67% (6/9) 10 

Galvanic protection /22% (2/9) jlt%(1/9) 167% (6/9) 111% OI9J 56% (519) 11% (119) ji 1

Other IBRC Technologies 

HPS 10 10 100% (9/9) p f'\4% (.f/9) j56% (5/9) I l

ABC 10 11% (119) 89% (819) 10 I 00% (919) 122% (219) jt I

PREPnlLIC-\THf'•i COP\-l nrorrcrtcll Proofs 
110 


35959.175

TABLE 3.2 Present Use of IBRC Technologies, AASHTO Survey Respondents and Interviewed 

Highway Agencies 

Technology Name Currently Using Special Provisions or Specifications 

Technology Not Agency/State- AASHTO Other Applicable Developed 

Concrete 

HPC 67% 1]8,~2) 18% (6!33) 73% 0-1'33) 3% II 33! 6% (2133) 

sec 69% (29iD) 23% !8/35; 71% !25135) 3% (/i35; 3% !1'35) 

UHPC 45% 09in; 47% (15132) 34% (! J;32J 3% (!132! 16% 15132; 

FRP 

Externally bonded FRP 86% (32'37) 16% (5131) 7 I% (22!3!) 3% (//3 /J 13% (PJ/j reinforcement 

FRP deck elements 24% (9137; 74% (23/31) 23% (713!) 0 3% (}131) 

FRP superstructure elements 14% !5137) 83% (25130) 13% !H30) 0 3% (]130; 

FRP rebar 46% II 71J7J 52% (/7133) 33% I/ f'33) 12%(P33) 3%(]'33) 

FRP prestressing tendons 16% (6!3 7 ) 84% !2613/) 10% (3131) 3% (/!]/) J% (}!3]) (strand or bar) 

Corrosion Control Technologies 

Low-chromium steel rebar 25% (9/36; 61% (/9131) 23% (7131; 10% (313}) 6% (2,3/j 

Galvanized rebar 25% (9·36) 62% (20132; 31% (10132) 3% IJ/32) 3% 1132; 

Stainless steel rebar (solid or 61% !2F36) 36% (12133) 55% (18133) 6% (2i33) 3% (/.]3) clad) 

Metallizing 36% (13136) 47% (15132) 50% (16132) J% (1/32) 0 

Cathodic protection anodes 61% !22/36) 45% (15/33) 52%(} 7!33) 0 3% (}133) 

Galvanic protection 42% 115136; 52%(/ 7/33) 42% (/ .J.'33) 3% ({/]]} I 3% (1.33) 

Other lBRC Technologies 

HPS 70% !26ilC) I 24% !BIJ.J; I 32% Olil.J; 41% IU<J.J) 6% (2•3-J) 

1\BC 89'% f]J;37j II% (.J/35; 69% (2.JIJ5; II% !.J/35) j 11% (-1/35) 

NOTE: r abulatlons mclude mformat!on !rom the AASH ro survey and from two mtCI'VICWed state 

highway agencies that did not respond to the AASHTO survey. 

SOURCE: AASHTO Committee on Bridges and Structures 2018 Annual State Bridge Engineers Survey 

and interviews with state highway agencies conducted for the committee. 

Technologies that have been less "idely adopted include UHPC and FRP rebaL The UHPC 

technology was developed toward the later stages of the IBRC program: research to f011her develor the 

technology has continued since that time, The Iowa Department of Transportation constructed the tirst 

UHPC bridge in the United States in 2005 with support from the IBRC program, The objectives of the 

project included advancing the state-of-the-art in concrete bridge construction technology, developing 

i 

experience in using advanced materials, and develoring recommended design procedures, The bridge was 

constructed as a II O-ft simple span bridge with a three-beam cross section. According to a state rerort on 

PREPt 'BJJ(',\TIO\' ('OPY-l.ncorrcctcd Proof~ 
111 


35959.176

the project, "The design oft he beam was a challenge for the staff involved because of lack of approved 

specifications.'' The investigators rep011 that this issue was addressed with the assistance of standards 

developed in france and research completed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Bierwagen and 

Abu-Hawash 2005, 8). This project illustrates that the UHPC technology was still new in the last years of 

the IBRC program. Nonetheless, nearly halfofrespondents (19 of42) indicated current use ofthis 

technology, suggesting that implementation of the technology is progressing. The quantities and 

frequency of usc of UHPC by these states were not determined in the survey or interviews. 

The use of FRP rebar has not been as widespread as use of stainless steel rcbar. Barriers to 

implementation indicated in the state interviews include unavailability of the material and challenges with 

the t1eld application. including handling diftlculties and inability to field-bend the FRP rebar. 

Respondents also noted that conosion-resistant materials such as stainless steel and lo"-chromium steel 

rebar provide sufficient performance characteristics and have similar costs. As a result there was not a 

clear benefit to using FRP rebar instead of the other technologies to balance the increased field 

implementation challenges. However. FRP rebar is being used in a significant number of states (17 of37 

responding). 

PREPliBLJCATIOf\1 COPY-Cncorrccted Proof:< 
112 


35959.177

TABLE 3.3 Summary of!BRC Technology Use by States 

Technology Currently Using Specifications or 

Technology Standards Developed 

ABC 89% (33/37) 91% (31135) 

Externally bonded FRP 86% (32137; 87% (27131) reinforcement 

sec 69% (291-12) 77% (27135) 

HPC 67% (28!-12) 82% (27133) 

HPS 70% (26!37) 79% (2713-1) 

Stainless steel rebar (solid or 61% (22136) 64% (21133; clad) 

Cathodic protection anodes 61% (22/36; 55% (/813]; 

UHPC 45% (19142) 53% (17132) 

FRP rebar 46% (/7137) 49% (/6133) 

Galvanic protection 42% (15!36) 49% 116133) 

Metallizing 36°1<> II 3!36) 53%(/ 7!32; 

Low-chromium steel rebar 25% !9/36) 39%(123/) 

Galvanized rebar 25% (9/36} 38% 112/32) 

FRP deck elements 24% (9137) 26% (8/31; 

FRP prestressing tendons 16% (6/37) 16% (5/31; (strand or bar) 

FRP superstructure elements 14% (5/37) 17% (5/30; 

SOURCE: AASHTO Commrttee on Bndges and Structures 2018 Annual State Bndge Eng>neers Survey 

and interviews with state highway agencies conducted for the committee. 

IBRC TECHNOLOGIES THAT I !A VF NOT BEEN GENERALLY ADOPTED 

As Table 3.3 indicates, present use of galvanic protection. metallizing. low-chromium steel rebar. and 

galvanized rcbar among the states is limited. Jt should be noted that the need for corrosion control 

technologies varies by region. Southern states generally have lower rates of corrosion due to the reduced 

need to usc deicing chemicals that can cause accelerated rates of corrosion. Moreover. satisfactory 

experience with epoxy-coated rebar. together with adoption of stainless steel rebar for some applications 

in the majority of responding states. may diminish the need for other forms of corrosion-resistant rebar 

solutions. 

I'REPl'lli.IC.ITIO:>i COPY-l'ncnrrcctcd Proof• 
113 


35959.178

FRP deck elements. FRP prestressing tendons (strand or bar). and FRP superstructure elements 

are the IBRC technologies used today by the smallest number of the responding states. According to the 

interviewed states. barriers to implementing these FRP technologies include: 

High cost of the material. 

Insufficient benefits to justify additional costs. 

Poor performance in some initial projects. 

Dif11culty implementing technology in the field. 

Lack of an industrial base to provide qualified construction contractors and support for inspection 

and maintenance. 

Lack of available standards and design and materials specifications. 

The interviews indicated that the most common reason that FRP decks and superstructure 

elements were not being implemented was that the benefits of these technologies did not justify the 

additional cost. Poor performance of the materials in the field was also identified as a reason that further 

implementation of the technology was not pursued. Examples provided included difficulty with 

maintaining a suitable driving surface on FRP deck sections. poor tield performance due to detailing, and 

the lack of inspection and repair guidelines for these materials. 

An example of a project from the IBRC program that used technologies that have not been widely 

adopted is the Rollins Road Bridge in New Hampshire, one of the interviewed states (Bell and Bowman 

2007). This project included a bridge deck constructed with HPC and FRP grid reinforcing, as well as a 

structural health monitoring system installed during the time of construction. The monitoring system was 

used originally to verify the design assumptions and study the structural behavior of the deck, in 

particular the FRP grid reinforcing (Bell and Sipple 20 I 0). The monitoring system was later used in load 

testing the bridge to verify the tield performance of the new technology. The current NBl condition mting 

of the bridge deck of the Rollins Road Bridge is 7 (good). The bridge was constructed in 2000; the current 

PREI'l'BLICATION COPY-l'ncorroctcd Proofs 
114 


35959.179

condition of the bridge deck is typical for a bridge with 18 years of service, indicating that there was not a 

performance problem with the deck's FRP grid reinforcing. 

New Hampshire has not adopted into regular practice the FRP technology evaluated during the 

Rollins Road Bridge project. The barriers to implementation identified in the state interview included a 

lack of adequate standards and specifications. dif!iculty handling the material in the 11eld, and high cost. 

Implementation of structural health monitoring has been very limited in the state due to its cost and 

limited utility for most common highway bridges, according to the interview. The HPC used in the 

Rollins Road Bridge has been adopted into regular practice. Adoption of HPC is generally motivated by 

the low permeability qualities of the materiaL which are believed to extend the service life of bridges. 

It was also noted in the interviews that clad stainless steel rebar has not been adopted for use by 

selected states. Several of the interviewed states indicated that during planned IBRC projects that 

included clad stainless steel rebat". the material was unavailable and had to be replaced with an alternate 

material such as solid stainless steel rebar. It was additionally noted that the clad rebar is susceptible to 

exposure of the overclad carbon steel core caused by damage to or cutting of the bars. Such exposure 

would significantly affect the corrosion resistance of the rebar, reducing the benefit of the technology. 

INFLUENCE OF 113RC EXPERIENCE ON 1\CCEPTi\NCL: i\ND USE 

The interviewed states were asked how their experience with the 113RC projects influenced the use or 

nonuse of IBRC technologies. Generally, the interviews indicated that the IBRC program had an 

influence on the acceptance and use of the technologies included in the program. The means of influence 

included providing the motivation to try a new technology, mitigating the risk associated with new 

technologies. and assisting in the development of standards and specifications for new technologies. In 

several instances, an IBRC project was a state's first experience with a technology that the state 

eventually adopted as part of regular practice. 

Interviewed states reported that the funding provided by the IBRC program motivated the trial of 

new technologies. For example, in Texas. where project decisions arc generally made at the district level, 

PH.EPt'BLIC\TIO~ COPY-Cncorrcctcd Pt·oof,o. 
115 


35959.180

the availability of funding to support the implementation of a new technology helped convince the district 

to try a new technology. 

Some states indicated that they had prior interest in a new technology, and that availability of 

IBRC funds was effective in accelerating implementation of the technology. An example identitled by the 

Iowa Department of Transportation is the Mackey Bridge replacement project (I 20th Street over Squaw 

Creek in Boone County), an IBRC project that used ABC technology, including full-depth precast deck 

panels and precast superstructure and suhstructure components. all constructed with HPC. The bridge 

won the 2007 Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PC I) Design Award for best owner-designed bridge. 

An ar1icle in a 2009 department publication that described the project reported: "ABC reduces 

construction time. minimizes traffic disruption, improves safety, reduces environmental impacts. 

enhances constructability, and improves quality and life-cycle costs." The article stated that "Iowa DOT 

officials used this research to determine the feasibility of using precast-concrete bridge components to 

accelerate construction for future projects in the state" and reported that the use of ABC was increasing, 

with several projects each year using the technique (Abu-Hawash et al. 2009, 8). 

Interviewed states also reponed that the funding provided by the IBRC program mitigated the risk 

of trying new technologies in the tleld, encouraging trials. Successful initial projects led to further use and 

implementation. For example, the success of a Virginia IBRC project constructed with lightweight HPC 

deck and girders (Ozyildirim and Gomez 2005) led to a recommendation for use of the technology for 

construction of decks and beams. As of 2016. the usc of lightweight HPC is required for all bridge decks 

in Virginia state projects. 

STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 

It was the consensus of the interviewed states that lack of standards and specitlcations was generally a 

barrier to implementation of new technologies. It was noted that the development of standards and 

specifications requires field experience with the technology. However, there is sometimes a reluctance to 

try a new technology when standards and specifications are not yet developed. Institutional resistance to 

PREPl 'BLIC-\TIO\' COP\ -l"ncorr~ctcd Proofs 
116 


35959.181

exploring new technologies in the absence of standards and specifications was also identified as a barrier 

when existing practices are considered adequate. 

lt was noted by several states that 18RC l'unding provided the motivation and resources to 

develop the speci!lcations necessary to conduct a trial for a new technology. ln addition. lBRC trials 

served as a means of developing standards and specifications. Standards for welding procedures for HPS 

were developed by Pennsylvania. California developed FRP specifications before the initiation of the 

IBRC program. hut experience gained through the state's !BRC projects contributed to improvement of 

the specifications. Iowa noted that several states had pooled funds to support the development of LJHPC 

standards and specifications following the initial testing of the technology during the construction of a 

LJHPC bridge in an Iowa lBRC project. as previously described. 

lt was also noted by several of the selected states that there is a willingness to try new 

technologies on an experimental basis without fully developed standards and specifications. ifsuflicient 

research and background information is available. Development of the supporting standards and 

specifications is required to move the technology from experimental use to practical implementation. 

Respondents also noted that industry and vendors sometimes assist with providing initial data for 

developing a specification. 

Several states indicated that the funding from the mRC program contributed to the research and 

testing needed to develop standards and specifications for new technologies. For example. California had 

several !BRC projects focused on constructing a bridge entirely from FRP materials. Although the 

construction of the bridge was never realized. California Department ofTranspOJ1ation personnel reported 

that the fundamental testing and development that occurred during the IBRC-fuuded projects contributed 

to the implementation of FRP technology. 

A second example is the application of HI'S in the state of Pennsylvania. According to the 

interviews. the lBRC program funding motivated the development of new welding procedures tor using 

HPS (Kaufmann and Pense 2000). The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation subsequently 

constructed two bridges that used I IPS with funding from the !BRC program. Today, the use of HPS is 

PIU:rtrnuc.Yno~ COPY-t'ncorrectcd Proofo;-
117 


35959.182

commonplace. as indicated in Table 3.3, and the welding procedures developed during the research have 

been adopted nationwide. 

Several states interviewed reported that !BRC projects provided the field experience necessary to 

validate and improve standards and specifications that were in the development stage. for example, the 

Bridge Street Bridge in Southfield. Michigan (Ml-1999-02)2 was constructed in 2001 with partial funding 

from the !BRC program. The bridge girders were reinforced using pretensioned FRP tendons and 

posttensioned FRP composite cable (Grace eta!. 2002). The Bridge Street Bridge was the first concrete 

vehicular bridge constructed with FRP as its principal structural reinforcement This project was awarded 

the Harry H. Edwards Industry Advancement Award by PCL The overall project included an 

experimental eff01i aimed at developing and verifying design rules (Grace and Singh 2003: Grace eta!. 

2003). The project also included field testing to verify the in-situ performance of the technology. The 

project provided the opportunity to test standards and specifications that incorporated prestressed FRP 

reinforcement in bridge structures. which were under development. and led to fut1her use of the 

technology based on the successful experience and the project's verification of the specifications and 

standards. 

The state responses shown in Table 3.3 indicate that standards and specifications have been 

developed and adopted for those !BRC technologies that are commonly used today. For example, more 

than three-fourths of respondents indicated that there are specifications or standards developed for ABC. 

externally bonded FRP reinforcement SCC. HPC, and HPS. 

INFLUENCE OF TRAINING REQUIREMENTS 

Responses in the state interviews indicated that training requirements had not been a significant barrier to 

implementing most of the IBRC technologies. Respondents noted that entirely new materials such as FRP 

required training to implement the technology in the tield and that lack of training for these technologies 

2 Identification number assigned to the project by FHW A (FHWA n.d.a). The number indicates the state that 

received the award and the year in which funds were awarded. 

PREPt.'BLICATlO:\i COPY-l'ncorrccted Proofs 
118 


35959.183

had sometimes hindered implementation. New technologies that improved existing materials, such as 

HPC and SCC. required less training and training generally was not a barrier to implementing these 

materials. 

It was reported that industry sources were sometimes used for training on FRP materials. 

However, because the materials were often unique to the supplier of the materiaL there was little 

opportunity to develop training regimes that could be broadly utilized. Conversely. industry sources 

assisted in providing training for materials such as HPC and SCC. For example, the Portland Cement 

Association has contributed to developing specifications and training for HPC. according to the intervicVv 

respondents. 

Several states reporied that training of contractors was a challenge in implementing new 

technologies, Contractors had little experience with the new materials or processes. The consequences in 

some instances were poor construction quality or contractor resistance to including innovative 

technologies in construction bids due to the increased risk. 

It was noted that in some cases, fabricators were motivated to implement some new technologies 

because of the potential to improve the quality and ease of fabrication (for example, SCC.) 

PREPt 'BUC:\TIO~ COPY-l 'ncorrccted Pronfs 
119 


35959.184

4. PERFORMANCE OF THE IBRC BRIDGES: UTILITY OF THE IBRC TECHNOLOGIES 

The following two sections present evidence relevant to the second task in the committee·s charge: to 

analyze the utility. compared to conventional materials and technologies. of each of the innovative 

materials and technologies used in projects for bridges under the program in meeting needs for a 

sustainable and low life-cycle cost transportation system. The evidence comes ti·mn two types of sources: 

evaluations in the published engineering literature of the technologies used in IBRC projects and data 

from the I() case-study state transportation departments on the performance of their lB RC bridges. The 

committee"s conclusions on the utility of the IBRC technologies are presented in Chapter 5. 

QUANTITATIVE EVALUATIONS OF THE BENEFITS OF !BRC TECHNOLOGIES 

Most of the !BRC projects have not been systematically monitored for the purpose of evaluating the 

performance of the innovative technologies that they demonstrated. Therefore. the evidence available 

from the IRRC projects themselves on the value of the technologies is limited. However. many of the 

I RRC teclmologies are widely used. and evaluations have been published of their performance and costs 

in projects other than HlRC projects. 

Summarized in the following section are selected published evaluations of in-service performance 

and life-cycle cost comparisons for the major categories of IBRC technologies: HPC, FRP composite 

materials. corrosion control technologies, HPS. and ABC. The committee did not conduct a 

comprehensive literature review of performance evaluations of the technologies. The studies cited are 

representative of the literature and provide a pa11 of the basis for the committee"s conclusions on the 

utility of the technologies. 

The content of the studies reviewed suggests that overall. evaluation of the long-term 

performance of the IBRC technologies has been fragmentary. Life-cycle cost comparisons of innovative 

technologies arc based on projections of future performance (that is, assuming that the innovative 

technology will perform as intended) rather than on actual past experience. Systematic long-term 

PREPl"BLICATION COP\"-lncorrcctcd Proofs 
120 


35959.185

monitoring of the durability of IBRC materials and technologies in bridge projects has rarely been 

conducted. 

Advanced Concrete Materials 

The IBRC technologies in this category are HPC. SCC. and lJHPC. 

H!'C 

HPC was developed under the tirst Strategic l Iighway Research Program (SHRP) implementation in the 

early to mid- 1 990s for use in all bridge clements (Halladay 1998). Concrete mixtures. concrete properties. 

research projects, girder fabrication, bridge construction. live-load tests. and specifications from 19 HPC 

bridges in 14 states were compiled in 2006 to document SHRP implementation (Russell et al. 2006). 

High-strength HPC has been used successfully in bridge girders for many years. Although highstrength HPC has been used in some bridge decks and substructures. the preference for decks and 

substructures is typically to specify normal-strength HPC. This is because high compressive strength is 

typically not required in decks and substructures and the high cementitious content required for high 

strength can lead to an increased potential for cracking. 

A synthesis of concrete bridge deck performance was conducted in 2004. Findings included that 

all HPC is not high-strength concrete and experience has shown that the use of high-strength concrete 

does not necessarily lead to a highly durable concrete or, conversely. a highly durable concrete is nor 

necessarily a high-strength concrete. Research and practice show that designing for durability involves 

more than specifying compressive strength. The researcher identified parameters, based on current 

practice and research results, that enhance the performance of concrete decks. These include specified fly 

ash, silica fume, and ground-granulated blast furnace slag replacement as percentages of the total 

ccmentitious materials content; maximum watcr-cementitious materials ratio; maximum concrete 

permeability: and 6-ksi maximum concrete compressive strength. (Russell 2004. 13. 29). 

PREPt :nLI(',.\TI0:'\1 COP,·-t "ncorrcct(•d Proof's 
121 


35959.186

In 2006 a life-cycle cost analysis was performed on two concrete highway bridge decks built in a 

corrosive environment using HPC and conventional concrete. The analysis showed an estimated service 

life of the HPC deck from 3 to I 0 times the life oft he conventional deck. In addition. the HPC deck was 

found to be more cost-effective than the conventional deck. with agency life-cycle cost about 40 to 45 

percent lower and the user's life-cycle cost about a third the cost of the conventional deck (Daigle and 

Lounis 2006). 

sec 

Extensive research in the past 20 years indicates important benefits from the use of SCC in bridge 

construction (Bailey at a!. 2005: !-!DR 2012: Henault 2014: Ozyildirim 2008). In areas of the country 

where concrete suppliers and contractors were unfamiliar with SCC. there were some less than desirable 

outcomes. Yet experienced suppliers and contractors arc consistently delivering structures with enhanced 

service life and life-cycle costs through the use of SCC. 

G'HPC 

The enhanced durability ofUHPC compared to conventional concrete is expected to result in structures 

with a longer service life and reduced maintenance needs compared to those constructed with 

conventional concrete. and thus reduced life-cycle costs. Piotrowski and Schmidt (2012) conducted a lifecycle cost analysis of two replacement methods for the Eder Bridge in Felsberg. Germany. One used 

precast UHPC box girders filled with lightweight concrete and the other used conventional prestressed 

concrete bridge girders. The UHPC bridge with the higher initial costs was predicted to have a lower lifecycle cost over I 00 years. The 2013 FHW A UHPC state-of-the-art report found that research had not yet 

been conducted to demonstrate that cost savings from the greater durability of UI-IPC compared with 

conventional concrete will be sufficient to offset higher initial cost of the material and thus reduce lifecycle cost. The repot1 recommended research on the cost-effectiveness of UHPC in various applications. 

(Russell and Graybeal2013, 67-69). 

I'REI'l'BLICATION COPY-I 'ncorrcctcd Proofs 
122 


35959.187

FRP Composite Technology 

The technologies in this category arc externally bonded FRP reinforcement; FRP deck elements; FRP 

beams. girders. and appurtenances; FRP rebar; and FRP prestressing tendons (strand or bar). 

A National institute of Standards and Technology study used life-cycle cost comparisons of three 

FRP composite bridge deck designs and a conventional concrete deck to illustrate a proposed standard 

method for life-cycle cost evaluation of new materials and designs (Ehlen and Marshall 1996). The results 

indicated that "new technology introduction" costs, the extra time and labor required to design and 

monitor a project involving a new technology. could negate the long-term cost savings obtainable from 

FRP decks in initial projects. but once the ne\\ technology introduction costs are spread over several 

projects. they become negligible (Ehlen and Marshall 1996, 44-45). More recent investigations of FRP 

bridge deck panels (Hastak et al. 2004) and FRP bridge superstructure clements (Eamon et al. 10 12) have 

concluded that life-cycle cost savings are to be expected. compared with conventional construction, 

because savings in operating costs and Ji·om longer lifetimes out"cigh higher construction costs. 

Theoretical and limited case study investigations have concluded that construction with FRP has 

higher initial cost than construction with conventional materials (Alampalli et al. 2002, Soroushian et al. 

2001 ), pmiially because of material costs and partially because of the experimental nature of the product, 

although the use of the materials for a bridge superstructure offers an advantage of faster construction 

compared with concrete (i\lampalli et al. 2002). Reports fi·om the IBRC projects indicate that these 

theoretical studies on costs arc substantiated, although in the case of FRP externally bonded 

reinforcement. there could be an immediate cost savings ( Harichandran and 8aiyasi. 2000). 

i\ vailable field data are too limited to support estimates based on field experience of the 

comparative life-cycle costs of using FRP materials, either as rebar or decks during construction or in 

externally bonded reinforcement for repair. 

I'REPt'BLIC.\TIO\' COPY-t 'ncorrcctcd Proofs 
123 


35959.188

Corrosion Control Technologies: Concrete Reinforcement 

The technologies in this category include three types of concrete rebar: solid and clad stainless steel. lowchromium, and galvanized, 

Coating reinforcement steel with epoxy became mainstream in the 1980s to extend the service 

lives of highway structures exposed to chlorides from deicing chemicals and spray and splash tJ·om 

saltwater. Research on epoxy coating suggests it can add 5 to 15 years of service lite compared to the use 

of bare steel (Kahl 2007). Corrosion-resistant rebar materials are intended to add even more years of 

service life. The technologies in this category that were examined in the IBRC program include three 

types: low-chromium, galvanized, and solid and clad stainless steel rebar. 

Some research results in the literature suggest the service life of reinforced concrete can be 

increased by the use of corrosion-resistant reinforcing steel. The Virginia Transportation Research 

Council (VTRC), which is affiliated with the Virginia Department ofTranspmtation (VDOT), issued 

reports in 2007 and 2018 that examined the eftect that cracks in bridge decks can have on chloride 

penetration and the onset of rebar corrosion (Balakumaran et al. 20 18). VTRC conducted a literature 

review and studied 37 highway bridge decks. Ten of the decks were older (built from 1968 to 1971) and 

built with uncoated rebar. The other 27 were built with epoxy-coated rebar from 1984 to 1991. Because 

all37 decks predated VDOT's use of corrosion-resistant rebar (which began in the 2000s), the ability of 

rebar technologies to resist corrosion under different chloride exposures had to be modeled based on the 

study results. 

Service life estimates fl'om VTRC's modeling suggest that when decks have low to medium 

cracking frequencies, both low-chromium and stainless steel rebar offer good corrosion resistance. With 

medium crack frequencies, low-chromium steel rebar was estimated to resist corrosion for more than 50 

years. However, with high crack ti·equencies that allow higher chloride diffusion under heavy use of 

deicing chemicals, the time to corrosion onset in low-chromium steel '>'as estimated to be as soon as 30 

years. In the case of stainless steel, both the frequency of cracking and degree of chloride diffusion 

through the cracks had little effect on corrosion rates, as service life was estimated to exceed !50 years 

I'REI'll!LIL\T!Oi': COP\-l'ncorrerted !'roofS 
124 


35959.189

under all circumstances. The report concluded that because repairing cracks can be expensive. corrosionresistant technologies such as low-chromium and stainless steel rebar can be cost-effective on a life-cycle 

basis under conditions of high chloride exposure. 

VTRC prepared a 1 00-year life-cycle cost comparison of epoxy-coated rebar and the two types of 

corrosion-resistant rebar. as sho"n in Table 4.1. Based on its modeling and its life-cycle estimateswhich assume a reduced need for crack sealing and overlays and patching of concrete decks with 

corrosion-resistant rebar-VTRC recommended that VDOT undertake follow-up validation studies of 

newer bridge decks built with low-chromium and stainless steel rebar. 1 

Another life-cycle cost comparison of low-chromium steel rebar was conducted by the Michigan 

Depar1ment of Transportation (Kahl 2007). The investigator concluded that low-chromium steel rebar 

exhibits corrosion resistance. higher yield strength. and a lower life-cycle cost than epoxy-coated rebar. 

The low-chromium steel rebar was estimated to provide an additional 12 years of service life over epoxycoated rebar. which could justify its higher initial investment under some applications. The investigator 

concluded that low-chromium steel rebar may be justitied on a life-cycle basis when applied on highvolume bridges where service disruptions from deck repairs can be very costly. 

'Table 4.1 shows undiscounted future expenditures. If future expenditures are discounted at a rate of 3 

percent per year. the present values of the 100-year life cost including patching and user costs are $560 

per yd 2 for epoxy coated. S426 for low-chromium. and $483 for stainless steel. If expenditures are 

discounted at 0.6 percent, the 2018 rate spccitied by the Oftice of Management and Budget for 

discounting constant-dollar expenditures over periods of 30 years or longer in evaluations of federal 

government programs (OMB 20 18). the presem values are $915 per yd 2 for epoxy coated. $631 for lo\Vchromium. and $483 for stainless steel. 

PRFPl-BLJCATIO': COPY-l 'ncorrcctcd Proof" 
125 


35959.190

T \BLE 4 I Life Cvcle Cost Analvsis of Epoxv Coated and Corrosion-Resistant Rebar ' - -

I Rebar Type I Epoxy- . ASTM A1035 ASTM A955 

I Coated (low-chromium (stainless steel) 

' I steel) 

Rebar cost, $/lb i 1.20 1.65 3.50 

i Rebar constructi~n cost, $/yd2 --- -·--

! 72 99 210 

Deck construction cost. $/yd2 345 372 483 

Seal cracks in deck with ECR, $/yd2 '45 - i Polvmer overlav (a) 20 years. $/vd2 60 i 

' Concrete overlay Ji; 40 years, $/yd2 150 '- I 

Polymer overlay(({) 50 years. $/yd2 I 60 J, Concrete overla)i !jv 70 vears. $/yd2 150 150 

100 vear life cost, $/vel' I 750 

Patch overlay @ 60 years, $/yd2 I 30 

Patch overlay (iiJ 90 years, $/yd2 i 30 

I 00 year life cost including patching 810 

concrete overlavs, Slvd2 

User cost for concrete overlay @ 40 150 

year. $/yd2 

User cost for concrete overlay@ 70 150 

r-Y~ars, $/yd2

_ 

I 

, 100 year hfe cost mcludmg patching 1,110 

I

' concrete overlays and user costs for 

~rlays, S/vd2 

Assumptions: 

60 lb of reinforcement per yd' of deck. 

Costs based on 2009 and 2010 (through August) bid tabs. 

i\4 concrete@ 5852.24 per cubic yard 213.06 per yd.' 

Mobililation for deck construction $50.00 per yd.' 

Saw cut grooves @D $10.00 per 

--

I 582 

30 

612 

1-

i 

150 

1762 

I 

Cracks are linear and 9-ft apart~ I ft of crack per yd' of deck cii) $45.36 per ft. 

483 

I -

I483 

-

! 483 

AST'vl I 035 reinforcement time to corrosion is four times that of epoxy-coated rebar (ECR). 

Solid stainless and stainless last more than I 00 years. 

User cost for polymer overlay and patching concrete overla) after :20 years is zero. 

User cost for concrete overlay equals cost of overlay. 

SOURCE: provided to the committee by Michael Sprinkel. Associate Director. VTRC. 

Corrosion Control Technologies: Coating and Anodes 

The main IBRC corrosion control technologies used in bridge repair are metallizing (coatings) and 

galvanic protection (sacrificial anodes). The usc of metallizing and sacrificial anodes as forms of 

j 

I 

I 

i 

corrosion control for highway structures was pioneered in Florida in the 1980s to protect bridges in saltladen marine environments prone to concrete deterioration from corroded reinforcement. Florida's 

applications and follow-on research have focused primarily on thermally-applied zinc coatings 

I'REI'l'BLIC\TION COI'Y-{incorrccted Proofs 
126 


35959.191

(metallizing) and anode systems (jacketed and point-specific) using zinc and aluminum (Larson 2018: 

Troconis de Reincon et al. 2018). Florida's high environmental humidity and saltwater-exposed bridges 

made the anode technologies more effective. The reduced resistivity due to moisture in the concrete and 

the high rate of oxygen diffusion in the splash zone resulted in higher passivating effects of the cathodic 

currents. Florida also evaluated bridges that have metallizing systems and humectants. \\·hich are 

substances that assist in the retention of humidity at the interface of the concrete. Various types of 

humectants were studied. Lithium-salt-based ones were found to perform pat1icularly well by keeping 

humidity high at the interface to enable a higher current in the zinc and more effective corrosion 

protection as a result. 

Likewise, a study conducted in Australia evaluated sacrificial anodic protection systems as a 

corrosion control measure for bridge decks in coastal environments (Moore et al. 20 12). As in Florida. the 

study indicated good success with sacrilicial anodic systems. especially zinc strip anodes. It was noted 

that sacrificial anode systems were particularly cost-effective on smaller structures or application areas. 

Florida's and Australia's metallizing and anodic technologies were essentially the same ones 

investigated in the Il3RC program: however. their experience is primarily applicable to bridges in marine 

environments under high humidity conditions. Most of the applications in the Il3RC program did not 

involve bridges in marine environments or bridges exposed to high levels of humidity. The literature 

contains few studies of these technologies when used outside marine environments. Because the principal 

application of coatings and anodes has been for the repair of concrete. the literature is also deplete of lifecycle studies of' these technologies when building a new bridge or installing a new bridge deck over an 

existing superstructure. 

HPS 

El'idence oj'Field f'erjimnance 

HPS has gained general acceptance. Approximately 500 HPS bridges have been constructed in 47 states 

since the first bridge project in 1997. Bridge owners are specifying HPS to build cost-effective structures 

PREPrBUC\TIO\ ('OPY-t 1ncorrectcd Proors 
127 


35959.192

with improved strength, weldability, toughness, and corrosion resistance. The HPS-70W grade is 

classitied as a weathering steel that is suitable for use in the unpainted condition. Assessments have been 

made to investigate the protective rust patina that forms to provide the corrosion resistance of the 

material. The assessments have included visual inspection and laboratory testing of physical samples. 

HPS girders that arc designed, fabricated, and constructed according to state standards and national 

specifications have been performing very well (Barth and McConnell 20 I 0; Wilson and Raff 20 12; Wiss, 

Janney, Elstner Associates 2013). 

L!ji:-C)'Cie Cost Comparisons 

A HPS bridge cost comparison was prepared by HDR Engineering and the University of Nebraska, 

Lincoln. and presented at the HPS Bridge Workshop on October 22, 2007. The study compared weight, 

girder depth. and cost of 49 girder configurations for a range of span lengths, girder spacing, and steel 

types. The weight savings for a typical bridge using the HPS 70W instead of the lower strength HPS 50W 

were in the range ofS to 14 percent. The cost savings for a typical HPS 70W bridge were in the range of2 

to 9 percent factoring in the slightly higher cost of the HPS 70W material. The hybrid designs were the 

most economical when using HPS 70W on the most highly stressed plates in the girders and HPS SOW on 

the other plates (Power 2007). Additional cost savings can be realized when using HPS 70W in shipping 

and erection, foundations, and reduced approach fill heights. 

ABC 

Evidence ol Field Performance 

Although the use of ABC is recent relative to the anticipated design life of bridges, indications to date are 

that tield performance is typically at least as good as conventional construction. A state with significant 

experience with and implementation of ABC is Utah. Although Utah did not have ABC projects funded 

by the IBRC program, the Utah Depat1ment of Transportation (UDOT) made ABC a common practice 

during the past decade and was the first state to do so. The state has built the largest population of bridges 

I'REPl'BLICAT!OI\ COP\'-l'ncorrcctc~ Proofs 
128 


35959.193

constructed with ABC technologies in the country. The department published an extensive evaluation of 

the performance of Utah ABC projects through 2016 (UDOT 20 16). The investigators visited 44 Utah 

bridges constructed with ABC components between 2003 and 2012. completed a cursory inspection of 

each. and determined general performance. A l3C technologies evaluated included full-depth and partialdepth precast concrete deck panels. precast abutment elements. and prefabricated superstructure spans 

installed using selt:propelled modular transpm1crs or moved into place with lateral or longitudinal slides. 

Summary findings were that bridges built with ABC details similar to current UDOT standards were 

generally performing very well and that bridges that did not adhere to the standards were generally 

performing fairly. 

A 2012 report ofthe National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Domestic Scan 

program Best Practices Regarding Perjimnance of ABC Connections in Bridges Subjected to Multi hazard 

and Extreme Events described investigations of t\BC projects in eight states (Kapur et al. 20 12). Findings 

included that ABC connections were generally perceived to perform the same as conventional 

connections over time. 

Li/e-c:vcle Cost Comparisons 

The states vary in their approaches to evaluating life~cycle costs of ABC relative to conventional 

construction. Utah, the first state to move to t\BC as a standard practice. does not compare costs of ABC 

with conventional bridge construction. Instead. the state prioritizes traffic mobility and estimates project 

costs based on project limitations. The state also focuses on reducing construction schedules. thereby 

lessening impacts to the traveling public, and minimizing total project costs. It uses ABC in all projects 

for which a reduction in total project cost (price plus time) can be achieved. For total project costs, Utah 

includes both direct construction costs and indirect costs such as maintenance and delay-related user 

costs. The state evaluates impacts to the public by considering maintenance oftraftlc. construction 

schedule. and project-specific critical features such as environmental and railroad constraints. The state 

uses its own ABC decision-making process (UDOT 2017. 20-3). 

PREPl 'BLIC.\TIO\' COPY-l'ncorrectcd Proofs 
129 


35959.194

The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) has also developed its own ABC 

decision process methodology (CTDOT 20 17) to assess the viability of ABC technologies during the 

preliminary design phase of projects involving the replacement of bridge decks. superstructure spans. or 

entire bridges. The state's ABC Decision Matrix has been adopted as a bridge design standard practice in 

Connecticut. A User Guide explains the use of the ABC Decision Matrix worksheet and definitions of the 

input variables. The methodology determines the effect of ABC on the overall cost of the bridge. with 

overall cost including bid price. the cost of managing the project (construction engineering and inspection 

costs). and road user impacts. Preliminary road user impacts are assessed by estimating and comparing 

the road user delay time for conventional construction to a proposed ABC construction methodology. The 

ABC design methodology is strongly considered when the results of the worksheet analysis are favorable 

for ABC. Values of other parameters in the matrix may still lead to a favorable ABC rating and possible 

decision to use ABC in a project regardless of the level of road user impact. CTDOT has implemented 

this ABC evaluation process in more than 30 projects to date. 

Table 4.2 shows an example of an application of the construction cost and user delay comparisons 

that are components of the Connecticut DOT methodology. The example is a comparison of ABC and 

conventional construction for replacement of a bridge on a state highway. In this case, it was estimated 

that ABC would have a lower construction cost than the conventional method and would save road users 

delay by reducing the duration of road closure from 90 days with conventional construction to 49 days 

with ABC. 

I'IU:Pt'BI.IC-ITIO:'< ('01'\'-lnrorrected Proofs 
130 


35959.195

TABLE 4.2 Example of a Comparison of ABC and Conventional Construction Cost (Fields and 

Heredia 2018, 19) 

Project: Replacement of a bridge over a stream on a state highway 

Project alternatives 

Conventional construction method: 

ABC method: 

User Delay Impact Comparison 

Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 

Delay time per vehicle during construction: 

Construction impact duration: 

Conventional construction 

ABC 

Aggregate delay: 

(= ADT x [delay per vehicle] x duration): 

Conventional construction 

ABC 

User impact change with ABC: 

(negative indicates delay reduction 

with ABC) 

Construction Cost Comparison 

Estimated conventional construction project 

cost: 

Estimated premium for ABC: 

(negative indicates ABC estimated to be 

less than conventional construction cost) 

Construction cost change with ABC: 

Estimated construction engineering and 

inspection (CE&l) costs per month: 

Time difference with ABC: 

CE&l cost change with .ABC: 

Summary 

Construction cost change with ABC: 

CE&I cost change with ABC: 

Net cost change with ABC: 

User impact change with ABC: 

Integral bridge with precast abutments. wingwalls and 

beams: cast-in-place deck and parapets 

Precast rigid frame. footings, and wingwalls 

4, I 00 vehicles per day 

20.98 minutes 

90 days 

49 days 

5.376 person-days 

2.927 person-days 

-2.449 person-days 

$2.624.000 

-10% 

-$262,400 

$23.563 

-1 month 

-$23.563 

-$262.400 

23.56} 

-$285.96} 

-2.449 person-days 

PREPl'BLIC.\TIOI\' COPY-t:ncorrcctcd Proofs 
131 


35959.196

A set of decision making tools for use by highway agencies to quantitatively determine whether 

ABC would be beneficial for a specific project. compared with conventional construction, was developed 

in a 201 I project sponsored by FHWA and 8 state departments of transportation through the 

Transportation Pooled Fund Program (Doolen ct a!. 20 II), The project included development of software 

and a user manual. 

Other studies have documented the life-cycle cost advantages that ABC provides over 

conventional construction. For example. a 20 I 7 case study of the M-1 00 over CN Railroad Bridge 

replacement project in Michigan showed that the economic impact of conventional construction on 

surrounding businesses was 16 times greater than the economic impact of ABC (YaVLrz eta!. 20 17). 

DATA FROM THE STATES ON PERFORMANCE OF THE IBRC BRIDGES 

The I 0 state highway agencies that were interviewed for this study provided information on the 

performance of bridges inn their systems that were the sites of I BRC projects, including records of the 

most recent results of routine inspections of the bridges. as well as observations on performance in 

response to interview questions. 

Historical inspection results were analyzed to determine if bridges that were the sites of IBRC 

projects exhibited accelerated or reduced rates of deterioration. as compared with experience and other 

analyses ofNBI data (Nasrollahi and Washer 20 15). NBI data from past inspections for the IBRC projects 

identified for each oft he I 0 interview states were obtained !rom the FHWA Long-Term Bridge 

Performance (LTBP) Program bridge portal. These data provide a component-level rating for the deck, 

superstructure. and substructure of the bridge on a rating scale that varies from 0 (Failed condition) to 9 

(Excellent condition). The data include the most recent inspection results and historical inspection 

records. The period for which historical records were available varied by state and by bridge, from 35 

years ( 1983 to 20 17) to 7 years (20 II to 20 17). 

The data provided by the bridge portal were compared with the project descriptions in the FHWA 

IBRC database and inspection results provided by the interviewed states to identity inconsistencies. There 

I'REPl'IJLICATION COI'Y-L:ncorrectctl Proofs 
132 


35959.197

were a total of 121 IBRC projects in the interview states identified in the FHWA ll3RC database. From 

these 121 projects, inspection records for 73 bridges were examined. 

The data indicate that the deterioration pattern for these 73 bridges is typical of deterioration for 

all highway bridges. The average condition rating for the deck, superstructure. and substructure 

components of the bridges was 7.1. 7.3, and 7.1, respectively. A condition rating of7 is considered 

"Good" condition. 

The average condition rating for the deck components included in the study was 7.1, while the 

lowest condition rating for the deck components was 5 (Fair) for two bridges. However. examination of 

the historical record l(lr one of the bridges showed that the rating was unchanged from 1998, indicating 

that the deck was not part of the IBRC project completed on that bridge. The FllWA IBRC database 

indicated that the IBRC -funded project consisted of FRP repairs to superstructure elements. The second 

bridge was an FRP glulam repair. according to the FHW A IBRC database. There were insufficient data 

available to determine if the IBRC technology was related to the low condition rating, and it was notable 

that the superstructure and substructure components were rated 5 (Fair) and 4 (Poor), respectively. These 

data indicate that the bridge overall had a high level of deterioration. The FRP glulam repair was likely 

applied to a deteriorated bridge to extend its service life. and therefore these data do not reflect the 

performance of the IBRC technology. 

Several H3RC projects involved the simultaneous construction ol' a bridge deck using corrosionresistant reinforcing paired with the construction of a bridge deck using conventional reinforcing. The two 

bridge decks were located on adjacent bridges, such that the structures \\ere exposed to similar traffic 

levels and environmental conditions. For example. Missouri project MO 2000-0 I included the 

construction of two decks on adjacent bridges. One deck was constructed using solid stainless steel rebar 

and the second was constructed using epoxy-coated rebar. The current condition rating for each bridge is 

7 (Good). New Hampshire project NH-2002-0 I featured a pair of bridge deck replacements for bridges 

carrying 1-93 over a railway. One deck was constructed with low-chromium steel rebar and the second 

'A as constructed with epoxy-coated rebar. Both decks arc currently rated an 8 (Very Good). A second 

PREPl 'BLIC.\TIO\ COPY-l 1ncorrcrtcd Proof\ 
133 


35959.198

I BRC project in New Hampshire (NH-2002-02) consisted of twin bridge deck replacements with 

galvanized rebar in one deck and epoxy-coated rebar in the second deck. Both decks have current ratings 

of 8 (Very Good). These data illustrate that the lllRC technologies arc performing in a similar manner to 

conventional technologies. It is not possible to predict future performance based on the available 

information. 

To evaluate the overall performance of bridge decks constructed with IBRC technologies. the 

condition ratings were analyzed for 43 projects that included renovation or construction of decks. The 

historical condition ratings for the 43 decks starting from 2005. when the IBRC program ended. through 

the most recent available inspection year (20 17) were tabulated and the average condition rating versus 

years elapsed since IBRC project construction was calculated. For comparison, average deck condition 

ratings were tabulated for a sample of I 0 bridges in each of the same states that are less than 150 ft in 

length and were constructed in 1999. As shown in Figure 4.1, the average condition rating of the IE3RC 

bridges was slightly over 8 (Very Good). 6 years after the IBRC project. and had diminished to 7 (Good) 

by 17 years after the project. In the figure. deterioration rates of the IBRC and non-1BRC bridges appear 

closely similar. A 17-year period is too short, compared with the intended service lives of the decks. to 

fully judge comparative performance of alternative technologies. However, the graph indicates that the 

available bridge rating data provide no indication of inferior or superior performance for the IBRC decks. 

compared with conventional construction. 

PREI'UIJLIC\TIO:\ COPY-l.nco•·rectcd !'roots 
134 


35959.199

OJ: 

·E 

:2 

" 

excellent 9 

very good 8 

~ :; good 7 

" 0 

r.,.; 

.. " 

t: 

~ " satisfactory 6 

10 

......... iBRC Bndgcs Deck 

-- ~()11 !HRC RnJg\:s Deck 

II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 

Years Since Construction 

FIGURE 4.1 Average condition rating for bridge decks in IBRC bridge deck projects in interview 

states, compared with condition of decks in a sample of non-IBRC bridges in the states constructed 

in 1999. Sources: State highway agency bridge inspection reports. FHW A NBl database 

The average condition rating for the superstructure. for the 73 !BRC bridges in the intervie\\ 

states for which inspection records \Vhere examined, was found to be 7 .3. Six projects had a 

superstructure condition rating of 5 (Fair). These included the previously identified glularn project and 

two FRP deck projects in which the IBRC technology was not implemented on the superstructure 

component. Therefore, the relatively low superstructure condition rating for these three bridges cannot be 

ascribed to the IBRC technology. 

Two of the bridges with superstructure condition rating 5 (Fair) were HPC projects involving 

bulb tee girders in Virginia. According to the interview with Virginia Department of Transportation staff, 

construction- and design-related problems with the bulb-tee girders resulted in the relatively low 

condition rating for the two bridges. The design of the bulb tee girders included a narrow web with 

inadequate space for longitudinal tendon ducts. The inadequate space resulted in longitudinal cracking 

PREP\ 'BLICATIO'\' ('(H'"'·-t ·ncorrcctcd !}roof~; 
135 


35959.200

and spalling in the girder webs at the time of construction (Sprinkel and Balakumaran 2017). The state is 

no longer using that design today based on the experience from the IBRC program. 

Finally. one project on a bridge with a present superstructure condition rating of 5 (Fair) was an 

externally bonded FRP reinforcement project to repair a superstructure that was deteriorated at the time of 

the project. Based on the historical inspection records, the superstructure component was also rated a 5 at 

the time of the !BRC program. and the rating was increased to a 6 during the time interval of2006-2011. 

In other words. the externally bonded FRP reinforcement was used as a repair that improved the condition 

of the member. In summary, the inspection results for the superstructure component did not show any 

unusually rapid deterioration of bridges that appeared to be related to IBRC technologies or the IBRC 

program. 

The substructure component had an average rating of 7.1. The lowest component ratings for the 

substructure were two bridges with a rating of 4 (Poor). This includes the previously mentioned glulam 

project and one other bridge in which the IBRC technology was an FRP deck and therefore the 

substructure condition is not related to any IBRC technology. There were four substructure components 

with a rating of 5 (Fair), two of which were externally bonded FRP reinforcement repair projects and two 

of which were projects involving superstructure elements. There was no evidence found that !BRC 

technologies involved in these projects \Vere subject to accelerated deterioration. 

Data were analyzed to determine the overall performance of corrosion-control technologies for 

reinforcing steel. This analysis considered solid and clad stainless steel rebar and low-chromium steel 

rebar used in the construction of decks. Ten projects \Vcre identified. and the average deck condition 

rating was found to be 7.2. with three decks rated an 8 (Very Good), six rated 7 (Good). and a single deck 

rated as a 6 (Satisfactory). The data were also analyzed to determine the current condition of elements 

formed from HPC. There were a total of 16 projects that used HPC. The average ratings for the 

superstructure. substructure. and deck were 7. 7.25, and 7.:1 I. respectively. 

Overall, the analysis indicated that based on the available data, bridges that were part of the IBRC 

program had typical deterioration patterns. It should be noted that the IBRC program was completed in 

PREI'l'llLIC..\TIO~ COPY-l'ncorrecte~ Proors 
136 


35959.201

the time period of 1998-2005. and therefore components constructed or repaired during the program have 

been subjected to 13 to 20 years of service. which is a relatively short period of time for a bridge to 

deteriorate significantly. considering the minimum 75-year design life of bridges built today. Therefore. it 

is diftlcult to determine at this time if the use of the IBRC technologies is effectively extending the 

service life of bridges as compared with conventional technologies. 

PREPt'llLICATIO:" COI'\'-t'ncorrcctcd Proofs 
137 


35959.202

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM:v!ENDAT!ONS 

The conclusions and recommendations in this chapter respond to the four tasks in the committee's 

Statement of Task: 

Analysis of the performance of bridges that received IBRC funding in meeting the goals of the 

program. 

Analysis of the utility of the innovative materials and technologies used inlBRC projects in meeting 

needs for a sustainable and low life-cycle cost transportation system. 

Recommendations to Congress on how the installed and life-cycle costs of bridges could be reduced 

through the use of innovative materials and technologies. including. as appropriate, any changes in 

the design and construction of bridges needed to maximize the cost reductions. 

A summary of any additional research that may be needed to fut1her evaluate innovative approaches 

to reducing the installed and life-cycle costs of highway bridges. 

The tirst three sections in this chapter present the committee's conclusions on the extent to whicl• 

the IBRC projects met the goals of the program, the utility of the technologies, and opportunities to 

reduce life-cycle costs of bridges through programs to foster innovation and through development and 

evaluation of specific technologies. The final section presents recommendations for federal and state 

actions to promote cost-saving innovation through an incentive grant program and through research. 

PERFORMANCE OF THE !BRC PROJECTS IN MEETING THE GOALS OF THE PROGRAM 

The legislatively defined goals of the !BRC program were: 

I. Development of new. cost-effective. innovative materials for highway bridge applications. 

2. Reduction of maintenance costs and life-cycle costs ot' bridges. including the costs of new 

construction. replacement, or rehabilitation of deticient bridges. 

3. Development of construction techniques to increase safety and reduce construction time and traffic 

congestion. 

I'REP!'llLICATION COI'Y-CncoOTected Proof• 
138 


35959.203

4. Development of engineering design criteria for innovative products and materials for use in highway 

bridges and structures. 

5. Development of cost-effective and innovative techniques to separate vehicle and pedestrian traffic 

from railroad traffic. 

6. Development of highway bridges and structures that will withstand natural disasters. including 

alternative processes for the seismic retrotlt of bridges. 

7. Development of new nondestructive bridge evaluation technologies and techniques. 

As described in the following section. the committee identified projects that were successful in advancing 

most of these goals, as well as projects that attempted to fulfill the goals but fell short. Some of the goals 

received little attention in the program. 

L Development of new, cost-effective, innovative materials for highway bridge applications 

IBRC contributed most significantly to promoting the application for highway bridges of four innovative 

materials: advanced concrete materials. FRP composites. corrosion-resistant steel rebar. and llPS. These 

materials were available and in use in other applications before the IBRC program. but had been used 

rarely or not at all in highway bridges. Usc of these materials probably would have grown in the absence 

of the program. but it is likely that the experience that the state highway agencies gained from IBRC 

projects substantially accelerated their adoption. 

Advanced Concrete .~falf:!rials 

!-!PC for usc in all bridge elements was developed under the first SHRP in the early 1990s (Halladay 

1998). FHW A undcl1ook a program in 1993 to promote use of HPC in highway bridges. which included a 

series of"showcasc" workshops for bridge design and construction professionals and construction of 

demonstration bridges (Russell et al. 2006. 1). At the time of the first HPC showcase in Texas in 1996. six 

I!PC bridges were under construction in the United States (FIIWA 1996). 

PREPl 'BIJC,\TI()~ ('OP,'-l'ncorrc-ctctl Proof'\ 
139 


35959.204

The IBRC program provided funding to approximately 81 HPC projects. 12 SCC projects. and 4 

UHPC projects, located in 37 states. The program thus was instrumental in introducing states to the 

material and significantly advanced HPC implementation. 

Use of HPC has become standard practice in most states today. Two-thirds of the states that 

responded to the AASHTO Committee on Bridges and Structures survey reported using HPC and sec_ 

with most following state-developed specifications. Nearly half of the states that responded reported using 

UHPC (see Table 3.3). The AASHTO survey did not determine the extent or characteristics of use of 

UHPC by these states. 

FRP Composites 

The feasibility of the use of FRP composites in construction of new bridges and rehabilitation of existing 

bridges was demonstrated in the 1980s and early 1990s in projects outside of the United States. By the 

1990s, a few U.S. states were experimenting with this technology in bridge projects. 

To compare U.S. polymer composite bridge technology with the state of the technology abroad. 

FHWA organized a tour of23 project sites in Europe and Japan for U.S. government and industry 

representatives and researchers. The tour report concluded that U.S. composite bridge technology was not 

lagging behind the technology implemented in the visited countries, but that all countries lacked 

comprehensive design standards and specifications as well as rrograms for detailed long-term monitoring 

and evaluation (FHWA 1997). Also in response to the interest in FRP composite materials in the 1990s. 

AASHTO established Technical Committee T-6. Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites, to develop 

specifications. standards. and guidance for bridge owners. The other lBRC technologies were advanced 

by existing AASHTO technical committees. 

The initiation of the IBRC program in 1998 coincided with the growing interest in the 

technology. Trials of FRP materials were a major interest of IBRC participants. Approximately 161 

projects in 30 states involving use of FRP materials received funding. These included 41 projects in 23 

PREPl'BLIC:\TION COPY-1 1

ncorrectcd Proofs 
140 


35959.205

states that used externally bonded FRP reinforcement. More than 40 percent of IBRC grant funds went to 

projects that used FRP materials (see Table 2.2). 

Today most state highway agencies use externally bonded FRP reinforcement and nearly half of 

those that responded to the 2018 AASHTO survey use FRP rebar. However. few of the states that 

responded to the survey use or have specillcations for FRP deck elements. FRP superstructure elements. 

or FRP prestressing tendons (strand or bar) (see Table 3.3). Most states had little or no prior experience 

with these materials and IBRC helped fund large numbers ofFRP applications in the majority of states. 

Therefore it is likely that the experience of the IBRC program influenced state practices today. including 

the popularity of externally bonded FRP reinforcement as well as the hesitance of many states to use the 

other FRP technologies. 

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Rehor 

To protect bridge deck reinforcement from corrosion. the standard practice for bridge deck construction 

for many years was to provide two levels of corrosion protection by using sufllcient concrete cover and 

the use of epoxy-coated rebar. In the early 1990s. several state depa11ments of transportation began 

research on alternative reinforcement materials to increase the service life of bridge decks. IBRC grants 

provided opportunities for states to evaluate alternative rebar materials. 

Altcmative metallic reinforcement materials used in IBRC projects were solid stainless steel and 

stainless steel clad rebar, low chromium steel rebar. and galvanized rebar. The IFlRC program included 

approximately 51 projects that used these materials in 30 states. IFlRC projects also used FRP rebar. 

According to the AASHTO Committee on Bridges and Structures cO 18 survey of state highway 

agencies, 22 states currently use stainless steel rebar in projects. with 9 states also indicating that they use 

both galvanized and low-chromium steel. Although standards and specifications are available f(Jr these 

materials. there may be some concerns about product availability in certain areas of the country and the 

initial cost of the products. 

PREPl'BLICATIO!\ COPY-l'ncorrcctcd Proof< 
141 


35959.206

flPS 

HPS for highway bridges was developed through a cooperative research program formed in 1994 by 

FHWA, the Office of Naval Research (ONR). and the American Iron and Steel Institute (A IS!). The HPS 

Steering Committee was formed to guide the research and support adoption ofHPS (Lwin 2002. 4). The 

first U.S. HPS highway bridge opened in December 1997 (FHWA 2002). By 2002.30 HPS bridges were 

in service in I 0 states (FHW A 2002); by 2003, 46 bridges in 14 states were in service and 65 were under 

construction in 17 states (Mistry 2003. 6). In 2018, about 500 HPS bridges are in service in 47 states 

(i\IS120!8; SMDI2017). 

The creation of the IBRC program in 1998 was a timely complement to the FHWA--ONR-AISI 

initiative. The first five grants for Ill'S projects were awarded in 1999. From 1999 to 2005.47 IBRC 

projects in 29 states demonstrated use of HPS in bridges. IBRC funding reinforced the governmentindustry initiative by providing an incentive for states to build HPS bridges. probably earlier than many 

would have done so without the program. 

2. Reduction of maintenance costs and life-cycle costs of bridges, including the costs of new 

construction, replacement, or rehabilitation of deficient bridges 

New technologies can reduce life-cycle costs in several ways: through reduced initial construction cost 

(provided the reduction is not offset by lost service life or higher maintenance costs). longer service life. 

lower maintenance costs. or lower user costs. As described in Chapter 4, the data available to the 

committee on the IBRC projects does not contain the information needed to compare life-cycle costs of 

alternative technologies. Direct comparison of life-cycle costs of two alternative technologies woulu 

require data on construction costs, maintenance and rehabilitation costs over a period of decades. and 

expected service lives, for bridges that use the alternative technologies and that are similar with respect to 

traffic and climate. 

Examples of life-cycle cost comparisons from sources other than the IBRC projects are cited in 

Chapter 4. The available comparisons are projections that depend on assumptions about performance of 

PREPl'BLIC\TlON COPY-lincorrectetl Proofs 
142 


35959.207

materials over long periods. rather than empirical observations of cost differences. Published studies cited 

in Chapter 4 provide evidence that HPC bridge decks. low-chromium and stainless steel rebar. HPS 

girders. and ABC reduce bridge life-cycle costs when used in appropriate applications. In most of these 

comparisons. cost savings from improved performance (or !rom reduced user costs in the case of ABC) 

arc projected to offset some" hat higher highway agency initial construction costs. although initial cost 

savings in some applications are also reported. The evidence available from published studies is 

incomplete. and economic comparisons are especially scarce. 

In spite of these limitations of the documented evidence on cost and field performance. the 

physical prope11ies of certain of the ll:l RC technologies provide grounds for expecting that their usc can 

provide life-cycle cost savings. In addition, the extent of acceptance that some of these technologies have 

gained with the state highway agencies in recent decades is evidence that the agencies are c'periencing 

performance that provides savings or that they expect savings. 

On the basis of these kinds of evidence--the physical properties of materials. published cost 

comparisons. and growing acceptance in state highway programs--the committee concludes that it is 

likely that the IBRC program contributed to the reduction of costs through promotion of use of the 

following materials: 

HPC: Usc of HPC in bridge construction can reduce life-cycle cost because the durability of the 

material extends bridge service life and because of savings attainable in construction cost. Properties 

of HPC allow bridges to be constructed more quickly and with less material. compared with 

conventional concrete. For example. use of high-strength HPC allows for shallower girder cross 

sections. reducing the required height of approach spans and also reducing earthwork requirements. 

Alternatively. longer girders can be constructed with high-strength HPC. reducing the number of 

supports required. 

HPS: Use ofHPS can reduce bridge construction costs because its greater strength allows the bridge 

to he constructed "ith less material. compared "ith construction that uses conventional materials. 

PREPl 'BLIC\TIO\' COP\'-l.nc01·rcctcd Proofs 
143 


35959.208

Additional savings can be realized in transporting materiaL erection, constructing foundations, and 

earthwork. 

Corrosion-resistant steel rebar: Use of this material in bridge decks can reduce life-cycle cost b} 

delaying rebar corrosion, thus extending service life. Avoiding deck repairs also avoids the user cost 

of delay during repair work. 

Externally bonded FRP reinforcement: This lightweight material is used for repairing bridges that 

have experienced deterioration or for strengthening bridges to increase their load-carrying capacity. 

Repairs can be carried out faster and at lower initial cost than with alternative technologies. 

Use of new technologies other than materials can also reduce initial and maintenance costs and 

extend service life. Such technologies demonstrated in IBRC projects include ABC cathodic protection 

systems to control corrosion, and monitoring and instrumentation. 

ABC reduces life-cycle costs primarily by reducing user costs during construction (motorist 

delays at construction sites), and also reduces initial construction costs for some projects, although 

currently ABC projects typically have somewhat higher initial construction costs. In addition, the oft~site 

or near-site fabrication of elements and systems away from traftic (and if elements are constructed in 

fabrication plants. also away from weather constraints), allows enhanced quality control that can improve 

material quality and product durability, thereby producing longer-lasting performance with reduced 

maintenance cost. Other benefits include reduced environmental impacts and improved site 

constructability. These multiple benefits result in reduced life-cycle costs for ABC projects. 

Corrosion control reduces maintenance and rehabilitation needs and extends the service life of' the 

bridge. 

A properly designed monitoring program can reduce costs by alerting the highway agency to 

incipient problems, allowing more efficient planning of' maintenance and rehabilitation. Long-term 

monitoring of performance is needed to verify cost savings from the IBRC technologies in highway 

bridge applications and to identify the applications in which the technologies are most beneficial. The 

bridge innovation program proposed below would provide an opportunity for monitoring and evaluation. 

PREPl!BLJCATIO~ COPY-l'ncnrrected !'rout\ 
144 


35959.209

3. Development of construction techniques to increase safety and reduce construction time and 

traffic congestion 

ABC is the most significant l8RC technology for reducing the duration oftrafftc disruptions necessitated 

by bridge construction. The motivation for most ABC projects is to reduce on-site construction time and 

traffic congestion. In addition, because ABC reduces the duration of highway work zones. it increases 

safety for construction crews and travelers. These time savings arc achieved in large part through off-site 

or near-site fabrication of bridge elements (such as pier caps) and systems (such as superstructure spans). 

with quick on-site installation. 

Use of materials demonstrated in 113RC projects can also reduce construction time and increase 

safety. Use ofSCC in place of conventional concrete in appropriate applications (primarily for the 

purpose of improving consolidation and quality) can reduce concrete placement labor requirements. 

leading to improved work site safety and reduced construction time. Use of prefabricated FRP decks can 

reduce construction time. Use of more durable materials such as HPC reduces traffic delay over the life of 

the bridge by reducing the frequency of maintenance and extending the life of the deck and substructure. 

IBRC materials (in particular HPC and FRP) were used in the pref'abricated clements of' approximately 

three-quarters of the ABC IBRC projects for \vhich details \\ere available to the committee. With 

materials that reduce the cost of bridge strengthening and rehabilitation. such as externally bonded FRP 

reinforcement. states can afford to upgrade more load-restricted bridges. eliminating the user delay costs 

of load restrictions. 

4. Development of engineering design criteria for innovative products and materials for usc in 

highway bridges and structures 

The majority of the states that responded to the AASHTO survey on li3RC technologies today have 

special provisions or specifications established for HPC. SCC. UHPC. e>;ternally bonded FRP 

reinforcement. stainless steel rebar. metallizing. cathodic protection. liPS. and ABC (see l;able 3.3). The 

PREPt 'BU('.\TIO'\' COPY-l 1

ncon·cctcd Proofs 
145 


35959.210

timing of the IBRC program was a stimulus for developing standards. specifications. and other forms of 

guidance for the new bridge materials and technologies that were coming into use beginning in the 1990s. 

New Hampshire's Mill Street Bridge in the town of Epping is an example of how IBRC projects 

supported the development of standards and specifications. The bridge was replaced in 2004 with an ABC 

bridge that included HPC elements. following a 2002 IBRC award. The abutment footing. abutment stem. 

and mechanical connector details developed in this project were the origin of the precast concrete 

cantilever abutment details included in the first edition of the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute 

NoJ1heast's (PCINE's) PCINE Guide/inesjiJr ABC Using Precast/Prestressed Concrete Components. 

These guidelines were subsequently updated with additional research and have been implemented in the 

northeast region ofthe country (PCINE 2014). The updated details are a[so included in the FHWA ABC 

manual (Culmo 20 II). Similarly. certain of the guidelines are included in the AASHTO Guide 

SpecificationsfiJr ABC Design and Construction (AASHTO 20 18). 

[n a similar case. IBRC program funding motivated the development of new welding procedures 

for HPS. The Pennsylvania Depal1ment ofTranspol1ation constructed two HPS bridges with IBRC 

funding. Welding procedures developed during the research for these projects have been adopted 

nationwide. 

As previously described, IBRC was the catalyst that stimulated state interest in use of FRP for 

bridge construction. In response to that interest, AASHTO established a standing technical committee (T6. Technical Committee on Fiber-Reinforced Composites) to develop specifications. standards. and 

guidance. AASHTO has adopted tive guide specifications (AASHTO 2008. 2009. 20 12a. 20 12b. 

AASHTO 20 18a) and a standard specification (AASHTO 20 13) for design of bridges and bridge elements 

using FRP materials. The AASHTO Committee on Bridges and Structures continues to develop standards 

and specitications to suppol1 use of FRP. Inspection and evaluation of structures that use FRP is an area 

that remains in need of standards or guidance. 

I'REI'l'llLICATION CO!'Y-l'ncorrccted Proofs 
146 


35959.211

5. Development of cost-effective and innovative techniques to separate vehicle and pedestrian 

traffic from railroad traffic 

No IBRC project for which the committee had information appears to have had development of 

innovative techniques for separation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic from railroad traffic as a primary 

objective. 

Seven IBRC projects were identified in the project documentation available to the committee as 

involving construction or strengthening of highway overpasses over railroads. The technologies applied 

were FRP decks. FRP rebar. externally bonded FRP reinforcement. SCC girders. HPC in a deck and 

girders. and hybrid steel girders. 

6. Development of highway bridges and structures that will withstand natural disasters, including 

alternative processes for the seismic retrofit of bridges 

IBRC technologies valuable for the construction or retrofit of bridges to resist earthquakes and floods 

include HPC, externally bonded FRP reinforcement. and HPS. In one IBRC project, usc ofHPC allowed 

construction of a longer span. eliminating the need for a pier in a stream bed and reducing the risk of 

scour damage. Externally bonded FRP reinforcement is commonly used to strengthen existing bridges to 

reduce risk of disaster damage. 

Six IBRC projects involved seismic retrofit or seismic protection on new bridges. according to 

the project documentation available to the committee. The technologies involved were installation of 

monitoring instrumentation for evaluation of the performance of seismic bearings. replacement of seismic 

bearings on an existing bridge. installation of" seismic hearings on a new bridge. installation of 

instrumentation to monitor response to seismic loads on a ne\\ bridge, construction of an HPC deck slab 

on a new bridge to reduce dead load and thus ease design of the substructure to meet seismic load 

requirements. and replacement of a bridge using ABC in a high seismic area. 

PREPt:HLJC\TI():"j ('OPY-t 'ncorrcctcd Proofs 
147 


35959.212

7. Development of new nondestructive bridge evaluation technologies and techniques 

No IBRC project for which the committee had information appears to have had development of 

nondestructive evaluation techniques as a primary objective. The records available to the committee 

indicate eight projects that included installation of sensors on bridges for monitoring of stress. 

deformation. rate of rebar corrosion. scour. or chloride ingress. As was the case with ABC. the FHW A 

instructions to the states encouraged applications demonstrating monitoring only in the later years of the 

program. Costs of monitoring technologies have declined substantially in recent years. limiting the 

relevance of the IBRC experience. 

Summary: Performance of the IBRC Projects in Meeting the Goals of the Program 

The projects completed under the IBRC program contributed substantially to fultillment of at least live of 

the program·s goals. The program was primarily valuable for motivating state higlmay agencies 

nationwide to gain experience with several technologies that had reached an advanced stage of 

development but had not yet been adopted for highway bridge construction in the United States. 

However. the program·s contributions could have been greater if it had stronger provisions for in-service 

evaluation of the technologies demonstrated and for dissemination of project results. Grant recipients 

were not required to systematically monitor the performance in service of the innovative components of 

their projects. Records of projects were not systematically maintained and cost implications ofnev, 

technologies were not documented. Consequently, performance over time of the projects cannot readily 

be evaluated and opportunities are reduced for agencies to learn from the IBRC experiences of others. 

UTILITY OF THE IBRC TECHNOLOGIES 

The committee·s Statement of Task asks it to analyze the utility. compared with conventional materials 

and technologies. of each of the innovative materials and technologies used in the IBRC projects in 

meeting the need for a sustainable and low life-cycle cost transportation system. The committee 

I'REI'l'BLICATION COI'\'-lncorrcctcd Proof' 
148 


35959.213

considered that the materials and technologies that have greatest utility are those that provide substantial 

cost savings, are widely applicable, and are readily available to highway agencies. 

Conclusions about the utility of the IBRC technologies are presented in the following section lor 

three groups of technologies: technologies that have been proven to be highly useful for reducing lifecycle costs and are of broad applicability; promising technologies that are at an advanced stage of 

development and have been applied but arc not yet generally accepted and may require additional 

research, evaluation, or standards and specifications development; and technologies at a less advanced 

stage of development or those for which the utility is still uncertain. 

Technologies of Proven High Utility and Wide Applicahility 

The IBRC technologies in this group arc II PC and other advanced concrete materials (SCC and UHPC), 

externally bonded FRP reinforcement HPS, and ABC. The technologies in this group share the following 

characteristics: 

The life-cycle cost reductions achievable with the technology, compared with older alternative 

materials or methods, are generally recognized and have been demonstrated in a large number of 

projects. The forms of cost reduction are: 

reduced initial construction costs (attainable with HPC. externally bonded fRP reinforcement, 

HPS, and ABC). 

increased durability that extends service life and reduces maintenance and rehabilitation needs 

(HPC). 

reduced user costs through 1:1ster construction or reduced maintenance li·equency (ABC). 

The technology is readily accessible to highway agencies. Materials suppliers and experienced 

contractors are available. Standards, specilications, and guidelines are established; most states that 

responded to the AASHTO 2018 state bridge engineers survey have developed specifications or 

standards for their use (see Table 3.3). 

PREPl 'BIJC,\TIO'\' COPY-l :nl'orrertc-d Proof\ 
149 


35959.214

The technology has become fundamental to highway bridge construction (or is becoming so). with 

applicability in many kinds of projects throughout the United States. Each of the technologies is used 

today by the large majority of states that responded to the AASHTO state bridge engineers survey. 

with the exception of LJHPC, a relatively new material (see Table 3.3). 

Contributing to the application of these important technologies was a major accomplishment of 

the IBRC program. Effoi1S to apply the technologies to highway bridges v.ere under way before the IBRC 

program began: however. the program accelerated their development and adoption. Applications of these 

technologies made up a large portion of the program in terms of funding. numbers of projects. and 

numbers of states with projects (see Table 2.2). 

Promising Technologies at an Advanced Stage But Requiring Further Development or 

Demonstration 

The IBRC technologies in this group are FRP (other than externally bonded FRP reinforcement) and 

corrosion-resistant concrete reinforcement (low-carbon chromium steel, galvanized steel. and stainless 

steel rebar). These technologies have demonstrated potential for reducing the life-cycle costs of bridges. 

but their application has been more limited than for the technologies in the first group. 

Solid or clad stainless steel rebar was used in approximately 29 IBRC projects. and a majority of 

states that responded to the AASHTO bridge engineers survey reported that the material is in use and that 

they have specifications for the material today (sec Tables 2.2 and 3.3). However. galvanized and lowchromium steel rebar were used in few projects and few states report using these materials today. Lifecycle cost estimates cited in Chapter 3 suggest that usc of these materials in place of conventional 

materials would result in savings. Obstacles to their greater use may be initial cost. lack of availability. 

and lack of awareness of the potential benefits of these rebar materials. Promotion activities would 

increase awareness and could lead to increased use and increased availability. 

Projects featuring use of FRP materials for a variety of applications made up a major portion of 

the IBRC program (see Table 2.2). Today. externally bonded FRP reinforcement is used by nearly all the 

PllEPl'BLIC\TIO\ C'OPY-lncorrcctc~ Proofs 
150 


35959.215

states that responded to the ;\;\Sf-ITO 2018 bridge engineers survey. and FRP rebar is used by nearly half 

of them (see Table 3.3). llowever. FRP deck elements. used in approximately 65 IBRC projects in 23 

states. are used in construction today in less than one-quarter of states that responded to the AASHTO 

survey. Similarly. FRP prestressing tendons (strand or bar) and FRP superstructure elements. both 

demonstrated in multiple !BRC projects, are little used today (see Table 3.3). 

Obstacles to fully realizing the potential benefits of these FRP technologies have included lack of 

standards or specifications. higher cost or limited availability of materials. lack of evaluations that 

document benefits. highway agency and contractor inexperience, negative impressions formed by 

unsuccessful results in early trials, and unresolved technical problems. /\ program of research, evaluation. 

standards and specifications development. and technology transfer to determine appropriate applications 

and attain greater benefit !rom the usc ofFRP in bridge applications is outlined later in Chapter 5. 

Promising Technologies at a Less Advanced Stage 

The IBRC technologies in this group include monitoring and instrumentation and corrosion control 

technologies other than the corrosion-resistant concrete reinforcement materials (including cathodic 

protection anodes, galvanic protection, electrochemical chloride extraction, metallizing, paint systems. 

and deck coatings). These technologies are promising as means of reducing life-cycle costs and some of 

them may become increasingly important in the future. However. at the time of IBRC, they attracted little 

attention from the states, and few projects that used them were funded (see Table 2.2). 

The utility of cathodic protection systems. electrochemical chloride extraction, galvanic 

protection, and metallizing is to extend the service life of existing structures. These techniques \Verc not 

new at the time of IBRC. SHRP had developed and evaluated cathodic protection and electrochemical 

chloride extraction methods for steel-reinforced concrete bridges. Presumably. these technologies were 

not among the highest priorities of bridge engineers at the time of the IBRC program. Research to 

demonstrate performance over time may be necessary to gain greater acceptance for these technologies. 

PREPl:HLIC\TIO!\ COPY-l'nrorrcctcd Proofs 
151 


35959.216

Metallizing technology has advanced since ll3RC. AASHTO and the National Steel Bridge 

Alliance (NSBA) collaborated with industry to develop a specification for thermal spray coating for steel 

beams that was adopted in 2017 (AASIITOINSBA 20 17). The use of this specification will help 

standardize metallizing methods across the nation. thus helping to achieve quality and value in the 

application of metallic thermal sprayed coating systems. 

Monitoring technology costs have declined and capabilities have increased since the time of the 

!BRC program. Opportunities for reducing bridge life-cycle costs through improvement and application 

of monitoring are identified later in this chapter. 

Summary: Utility of the IBRC Technologies 

Certain applications in every category of IBRC technologies (HPC and other advanced concrete materials. 

FRP composites. corrosion control technologies, HPS. and ABC) showed high utility in the IBRC 

program for reducing bridge life-cycle costs. Several have achieved general acceptance in state highway 

bridge programs (including HPC. HPS. stainless steel rebar. and externally bonded FRP reinforcement). 

Others (including ABC and monitoring technology) could produce much greater savings if used more 

widely. Certain of the IBRC technologies (for example. f'RP deck and superstructure elements) remain 

promising but will require further development or more systematic evaluation before their optimum use 

and full potential can be determined. 

OPPORTUN!TIES TO REDUCE INSTALLED AND Llf'E-CYCLE COSTS OF BRIDGES THROUGH 

INNOVATION 

Conclusions are presented in the following section on three topics: the imponance of federal incentives 

for innovation. the importance of highway agency asset management and evaluation practices in fostering 

cost-saving innovation. and specific technological opportunities to reduce the installed and life-cycle 

costs of highway bridges. 

PREPl'BLICATIO,\' COI'\'-l!ncorrected I' roofs 
152 


35959.217

Importance of Federal incentives as Stimulus for Innovation in Highway Bridges 

As described in Chapter 3. the evidence is strong that the IBRC program increased the use of innovative 

technology in highway bridges nationwide. The funds provided by the program mitigated the risk of 

innovation and motivated the use of new technologies. The greatest impact was through providing 

incentives for highway agencies to apply technologies that were already well developed and of proven 

benct!t hut had not become standard practice (for example. HPC and !·IPS). The program was less 

successful at increasing the application of technologies that were at earlier stages of development (for 

example. nondestructive evaluation and FRI) deck and superstructure clements). The structure of the 

JBRC program did not have the features that would be required to advance such technologies toward 

implementation: planning to define specific objectives. a process to allocate funds consistent with 

objectives. coordination across multiple projects. and provision for systematic monitoring and evaluation. 

A new federal incentive grant program for innovative bridge technology could continue the 

success of IBRC in accelerating the adoption of proven technologies that have not yet gained wide 

acceptance and also contribute to advancing less-developed technologies. by supporting state highway 

agency bridge projects that were coordinated as elements of research and evaluation studies. Long-term 

monitoring of the performance and costs of new materials is an urgent evaluation research need that could 

be organized through a new federal grant program. The recommendations in this chapter include a 

proposal for the structure of such a program. 

Importance of Management and Evaluation Practices That Support Innovation 

The methods that a highway agency uses to design its bridges and manage its bridge system are the 

primary factors that determine the agency's success in controlling costs and maximizing the public 

benet!ts of hridge investments. A bridge management system that identifies maintenance and 

rehabilitation needs and helps optimize maintenance spending will highlight the value of cost-saving 

innovations for carrying out repairs or avoiding the need for repairs. 1\gencies that use life-cycle costing 

to compare hridge design alternatives and have bridge management systems to help guide maintenance 

I'REI'l.I!LIL\T!O:-; ('()I'Y-t'ntOI-rcctcd Proofs 
153 


35959.218

and rehabilitation decisions are more likely to recognize the benefits of innovative materials and 

technologies. Life-cycle cost analysis is necessary to evaluate technology that extends the service life of a 

structure or reduces the frequency of maintenance or rehabilitation, but has a higher initial cost than 

alternatives. Life-cycle costing that takes user costs into account is also necessary to assess the full value 

of technologies that reduce travel delays from construction and maintenance. 

FHWA provides training courses. software. case studies. and an introductory guide for life-cycle 

cost analysis of highway projects. including bridges (HJWA 20 17). NCHRP has produced a manual for 

bridge life-cycle cost analysis (Hawk 2003). 

A new federal innovation incentive grant program could contribute in two ways to advancing 

highway agency management practices. First. the program could support projects that would provide data 

on the performance of alternative materials and technologies. Life-cycle costing is useful for guiding 

decisions only if reliable data on long term performance are available. Second. highway agency trials of 

state-of-the-art management systems and evaluation methods, or upgrades of existing systems, could be 

designated eligible projects to receive grants. Eligible practices would include asset management. lifecycle costing. and service life design. As with all projects in the innovation incentive grant program. 

projects involving management systems and evaluation methods would be required to include periodic 

reporting in a standard format of experience, costs. and benefits. 

Specific Technology Opportunities to Reduce Installed and Life-Cycle Costs 

The committee reviewed the status of the technologies demonstrated in the IBRC projects and innovations 

that have emerged since the program to identify opportunities to reduce installed and life-cycle costs and 

thereby improve bridge performance. These are described in the following section. The technologies arc 

at various stages of development. Well-developed technologies may be in need of promotion to expand 

awareness and application. For less-developed technologies, the need may be research to fully develop the 

technology. standards and specifications development, or evaluation research to verify and demonstrate 

benefits. 

PREI'l BLIC\TIO~ COPY-l 1ncorrcctcd Proofs 
154 


35959.219

The interviews with state highway agencies conducted for the committee identified a variety of 

obstacles that may slow or block highway agency adoption of a potentially cost-saving new technology: 

The technology may not yet be fully developed and technical problems remain to be resolved. 

The technology may have high cost because economies of scale have not yet been attained. 

Cost savings may not be sufficiently documented to justify a trial of the technology. 

Standards and specifications necessary for guiding usc of the technology may be lacking. 

Agency or contractor staff' may lack experience or training in the use of the technology. 

The agency does not regularly apply life-cycle cost as the basis for design decisions. and so a 

technology with higher initial cost than alternatives. offset by long-term savings. will not he accepted. 

Technology emphasis areas in a new federal innovation incentive grant program could be chosen from the 

following technology opportunities. Such a program would select projects targeting the specific obstacles 

!'acing each technology to advance the technology toward full development and application. 

Concrete 

HPC was one of the most trequently used innovative materials in IBRC projects; 34 states received lBRC 

grants for projects featuring Hf'C. U! !PC. or SCC. Hf'C is today in general use for highway bridges 

throughout the United States. 

Opportunities exist to increase the benefits of these advanced concrete materials by developing 

designs and applications that take f'ull advantage of their special properties: 

UHf'C is being used for deck closure connections and is a promising material for use as an overlay. 

The material has essentially zero permeability and therefore prevents penetration of materials that 

cause corrosion of steel reinforcement. 

Adoption of design standards that optimize use of advanced concrete materials could allow lower-cost 

construction and lead to greater use of the innovative materials. Design standards in some cases do 

not take into account the improved performance characteristics of these materials. The consequence 

may be that structures designed according to the standards do not make the most economical use of 

PREPt 1

BLICAT10."\ COPY-{ 'ncorrectcd Proof!! 
155 


35959.220

the material, or that the innovative material is not used because the cost of a design according to the 

standard would not be justifiable. 

Similarly. adoption of bridge rating standards that give proper credit for the properties of innovative 

materials would encourage appropriate use of the materials. 

sec has not been used for bridge decks because of its high Jlowability property. although the 

material could be useful for decks on high capacity bridges. SCC has lower permeability than 

conventional concrete (Trezos et al. 201 0) and thus could provide extended service life. 

Technologies that have become of interest since the end of the !13RC program also hold promise f(Jr costsaving applications. These include: 

Alternative cementitious materials to reduce the carbon footprint of cement manufacture .. 

(Environmental costs may be regarded as components of life-cycle costs.) 

Fiber reinforcement in concrete decks to control cracking and increase durability. 

Use of high-strength steel reinforcement, particularly in ear1hquake-resistant concrete structures. and 

to reduce rebar congestion. 

Concrete-filled steel tubes. in which structural concrete is placed inside a structural steel shell. 

Properly designed concrete-filled steel tubes are inherently stronger and stiffer than their conventional 

reinforced concrete counterparts; these arc valuable qualities for bridges in seismically active regions 

on sites with soft liquefiable soils (Washington State Depmtment of Transportation 2018. 7-10 I). 

Steel 

As with HPC. l-IPS was a frequently used material in li3RC projects and today is in general use by most 

state highway agencies for bridge applications. Current opportunities for achieving life-cycle cost savings 

through improved steel materials include the following: 

Development and adoption of design standards and practices that take full advantage of the properties 

of HPS. 

l'REPl!BLIC\TJO\' COI'Y-lincorrrrte~ Proofs 
156 


35959.221

Evaluation of the performance of innovative applications of steel such as corrugated webs and folded 

plate girders. 

Development of design criteria and material specifications for tubular member design. 

Advancement of improved grades of stainless and conventional steel for bridge construction. 

Evaluation of shape memory alloys for use as prestressing materials in reinforced concrete structures 

and for strengthening existing structures (Shahverdi et al. 20 18). 

Development of appropriate applications of weathering steel. A method for determining corrosion 

rate would aid in design of bridges with this material. 

FRP and Other Compos ire Marerials 

FRP materials were the most common category of innovative material in the IBRC projects, with 161 

projects in 30 states. Today, externally bonded FRP reintorcement is used by most state highway agencies 

and the use of FRP rebar in concrete bridge decks is growing. However. there is infrequent usc of several 

other FRP applications demonstrated in IBRC projects. including FRP deck elements. FRP superstructure 

elements. and FRP prestressing tendons (strand or bar). The obstacles to greater use of FRP include initial 

cost. perceptions gained in early unsuccessful projects. lack of standards or guidance for inspection and 

evaluation of the materials. possible lack or awareness or existing AASHTO bridge specifications and 

guidelines for FRP. present limited availability of experienced fabricators (concomitant with the limited 

market for bridge elements). and incompleteness or inconsistency of available design and construction 

standards and specifications for cet1ain applications. 

Needs for advancing FRP applications include the following: 

Data on durability and service life. 

Filling gaps in existing standards. specifications. and guidelines for design, use. and inspection. 

Accumulation of more field experience in projects with systematic follow-up evaluation. 

I'REI'l.lll.IC\TIO.\ ('OI'Y-l'ncorrccted !'roofs 
157 


35959.222

Properly designed projects in a new federal innovation incentive grant program could meet some of these 

needs. 

Significant advancement has occurred in the standardization of glass fiber-reinforced polymer 

(GFRP) rcbar, including development of a standard specification (ASTM International 20 17). The 

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide SpecificationsjiJr GFRP Reinfi"-ced Concrete, Second Edition 

(AASHTO 20 !Sa) expands the use ofGFRP rebar from the limitation to decks and rails imposed by the 

lirst Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) guide edition to all appropriate elements of the bridge. A 

program of bridge deck construction with GFRP rebar is needed to determine whether the composites 

industry can consistently supply quality material to multiple projects. 

A current NCHRP project'' is developing a GFRP tendon made up of one or more strands. 

Substructure applications for GFRP prestressing strands in foundation piling should be explored. 

Bridge applications that use advanced materials such as engineered cementitious composites are 

under development. These advanced materials have properties that could potentially allow fundamental 

change, such as three-dimensional (3-D) printing. to current fabrication methods. 

Corrosion Control 

Projects that use corrosion-resistant concrete reinforcement materials were popular in IBRC, and two of 

the materials demonstrated in the program, stainless steel rebar and FRP rcbar, arc used in many states 

today. However, few 113RC projects featured cathodic protection. galvanic protection. or coatings for 

corrosion controL and the program appears to have had little impact on advancing these technologies. 

These latter technologies may hold great promise for extending the service life of existing bridges, but 

there is a lack of rigorous research documenting their benefits. 

Galvanized steel for bridge superstructures is an existing technology that is not widely used but 

that may merit evaluation and trials to assess its potential. 

'NCHRP IDEA 20-30, Project 207, M!LDGLASS: GFRP Strand for Resilient Mild Prestressed Concrete, 

http:/ /apps. trb .o rg/c ms feed/TRB NetP roj ectDisp I ay. asp ?P roj ectl D~46 54. 

l'REI'l'BLICATION COPY-t:ncorrccted Proofs 
158 


35959.223

ABC 

As FHWA encouraged applications for ABC projects late in the IBRC: program, only about a dozen states 

received funding for projects that highlighted ABC: as a primary innovation. Other projects included ABC 

practices, for example. FRP bridge deck projects in which the deck was fabricated offsite. Today. most 

states conduct ABC projects, but int!·cquently. and ABC generally is not regarded as a standard practice 

or considered as an option in most bridge projects. 

Opportunities to increase cost savings from ABC include the following: 

Expanding use of ABC to all bridges for which the practice would be cost effective. If ABC were 

routinely evaluated as an option for all bridge projects on the basis of life-cycle cost. it is likely that it 

would be found to be beneficial in many more projects than those for which it is now used. 

Expanding use of life-cycle cost analysis. with inclusion of direct and indirect agency costs and with 

realistic accounting for user costs of construction delays, as the basis fix comparing bridge design and 

construction alternatives. 

Developing bridge designs that take full advantage of the time-saving potential of prefabricated 

elements. Designs of prefabricated elements today are often based on designs of conventional cast-inplace structures. 

Expanding use in bridge construction of bridge move equipment (sell~propelled modular transporters 

or lateral slides). Usc of these technologies to move prefabricated systems minimizes traffic 

disruption. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Methods and applications for monitoring and evaluation of bridges did not receive emphasis in the IBRC 

program. Important opportunities exist to reduce bridge life-cycle costs by improving evaluation and 

monitoring. The following are examples: 

PREPt 'BLIC\TJO\' COPY-l'ncorrc-ctcd Proof~ 
159 


35959.224

Advancement of building information modeling (BIM) for bridges and structures as a framework for 

maintaining and sharing data during design and construction and throughout the service life of the 

bridge. 

Integration of data from weight-in-motion installations with the CJBI data system to measure the 

relationship of tranic to deterioration and to support improved estimates of service life and 

replacement needs. 

Artificial intelligence applications to make full use of bridge monitoring and evaluation data in bridge 

management systems to guide maintenance and rehabilitation decisions. 

Application of low-cost, low-maintenance sensors for detecting the initiation of reinforcing steel 

corrosion. 

Use of unmanned aerial vehicles to increase the efficiency of bridge inspections. 

Development and application of improved nondestructive bridge evaluation technologies and 

techniques to allow for more precise and reliable assessment of bridge performance. 

Use of visualization, 3-D modeling. and virtual reality technologies in ABC and conventional 

projects. 

Methods for maintaining and updating current infrastructure to be more effectively used with 

upcoming new transportation technologies. such as autonomous vehicle, web base sensing, and 

communication technologies. and real-time traffic data. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Recommendations of the committee are presented in the following section on three topics: a new federal 

program to provide incentives for innovation in bridge construction, research needs to develop and 

evaluate innovative approaches to reducing the installed and life-cycle costs of highway bridges, and 

other actions to encourage innovation to reduce life-cycle costs of bridges. 

PREPl'IlLICATION COPY-l'ncorrected Proofs 
160 


35959.225

New Federal Program to Provide Incentives for Innovation in Bridge Construction 

The preceding section described numerous technologies. at various stages of development that hold 

promise for improving bridge performance and reducing life-cycle cost. However, most require further 

development, evaluation. or promotion to increase awareness of their potential among bridge owners. 

Congress should create a new federal bridge innovation incentive program, administered by FHWA. to 

advance such technologies and to promote their use in U,S. highways. 

As was stated at the beginning of this chapter. the IBRC program increased use of cost-saving 

innovative technology in U.S. highway bridges. but had limited impact in advancing technologies at 

earlier stages of development toward application. The new federal program can be modeled on IBRC. but 

with features to improve on the results of the earlier program. The new program should incorporate the 

provisions described in the following paragraphs. 

Program Plan 

The program should be guided by a plan that de tines the objectives, allocates funds in accordance with 

the objectives, and specilies procedures that f'I-IW A will follow for selecting projects that contribute to 

the objectives. The plan should specify the division of funds between projects for which the primary 

objective is to gain \vidcspread use of proven technologies and projects for development and evaluation of 

earlier-stage technologies. 

The terms of grants in the program should allow states adequate time for project development and 

flexibility in implementing technologies (for example, the possibility of substituting sites for a project). 

This flexibility was an important feature of the IBRC program. The grant program should award tlmds 

early in the project process. so that the availability of funds is known when decisions on the scope of 

work are being made and there is sullicicnt time to provide information and preparation to the project 

team and contractors. 

FHW A should develop the plan in consultation with the state highway agencies. Advice should 

be solicited from industry and from researchers. 

PREPl"BLIC\TIO:\ COPY-\ incorrcctcd Proofs 
161 


35959.226

Definition of Objectives 

Objectives for the program should be specifically defined with respect to (I) the technologies to be 

developed. demonstrated. or evaluated; (2) the specific improvements in bridge performance to be 

obtained with each technology: and (3) the contribution of the projects funded in the program to 

advancing each technology. The objective for a particular technology will depend on its state of 

development. For technologies of proven value that are not yet generally adopted, the objective may be to 

expand use by providing incentives for states to gain experience with them. For technologies at earlier 

stages, the objective may be to conduct trials to develop or evaluate the technology or to support 

standards and specifications development. 

Recordkeeping 

FI-!WA should have in place at the beginning of the program a project recordkeeping system that 

maintains comprehensive. current and accurate information on each grant awarded. The record should 

include the location and NBinumber of each involved bridge, a detailed description of the full scope of 

the project of which the grant-funded activities or features are a pari. data on funds awarded and expended 

and total project costs, and a description of monitoring and evaluation provisions. The record system 

should track projects through completion and through follow-up evaluation activities. The record system 

should record any changes in the location, scope. or technologies involved in a project made after award 

of a grant. 

Dissemination 

FHWA should establish. at the initiation of the program. arrangements to disseminate to highway 

agencies, researchers, and the public information on projects under way, assessments of completed 

projects, and data and results from long-term monitoring. 

PREPliBLJCATIO:\ COPY-l 1ncorrcctcd Proof11 
162 


35959.227

Afoniroring Pe1/ormance c!fTechnologies 

For all technologies that require long-term monitoring t(Jr evaluation. the program should include funding 

and specific standard requirements for monitoring. FHW A should maintain a repository of monitoring 

data from projects in the program. Monitoring should follow two tracks: 

Every project that receives a grant (including projects for which the primary objective is to promote 

wider use of proven technologies) should be subject to a minimum standardized monitoring and 

reporting requirement. appropriiltc for the specific technology demonstrated in the project. for a 

period of years after the completion of the construction phase of the project. Required data collection 

would be simple and practical. 

Projects for which the objective is development, testing, or evaluation of a technology should have 

additional requirements, including an evaluation research design that specilies data collection. These 

projects may involve installation of monitoring technology. Requirements may include monitoring 

the performance of control bridges for comparison purposes. Grant amounts for projects with primary 

research or evaluation objectives would cover data collection costs. 

Evaluations conducted in conjunction with bridge projects funded by the program would be 

complementary to FHWA ·s L TGP Program. The two programs would not duplicate efforts. because the 

proposed program would concentrate on evaluating a spccilic group of innovative materials and 

technologies that would be unlikely to receive focused attention in the L TGP Program. 

Emphasis Areas 

Emphasis areas for project selection should be determined by the federal-state consultative process 

previously recommended. The committee recommends that consideration be given to the following areas: 

Projects that contribute to development and evaluation of designs, standards. and specifications that 

take full advantage of the performance qualities of advanced materials. 

I'REI'l'llLICITIO'\ COI'Y-l'ncorrcctcd !'roofs 
163 


35959.228

ABC projects that allow highway agencies to gain experience with technologies for bridge system 

moves in addition to bridge element installations such as prefabricated substructures. 

FRP projects that are coordinated with a program ofFRP evaluation research, such as the research 

program recommended in the following section. 

Projects with provision for systematic long-term monitoring of the performance of materials and 

technologies. 

Projects to develop and evaluate corrosion control methods for existing structures. 

Projects to determine the circumstances that warrant installation of structural health monitoring 

instrumentation in new and existing bridges. 

Projects to develop. demonstrate, or evaluate management systems and decision tools that support 

cost-saving innovation. including bridge management systems, life-cycle cost assessment, and service 

life design 

Research Needs 

US DOT and the state departments of transportation should consider sponsoring research with the 

objectives identified in the following section. which address the development and evaluation of 

innovative approaches to reducing the installed and life-cycle costs of highway bridges. Research projects 

on these topics should have sharply defined problem statements and objectives and valid research designs. 

These research projects could be carried out in conjunction with projects funded by the federal innovation 

incentive grant program previously recommended; that is, construction. rehabilitation. or monitoring 

projects that receive grants could he planned as experiments or as data sources for purposes of the 

research. Research on these topics could also be conducted independently of the incentive grant program. 

The recommended research objectives are: 

Development and validation of models for projecting service life and deterioration rates for use in 

bridge management and life-cycle cost analysis. 

I'REP!'BLIC'ATIO~ C'OI'Y-l ncorrerted Proofs 
164 


35959.229

Long-term monitoring of the durability. perf(lrlnance, and costs of materials and technologies. 

Highway agencies will hesitate to adopt unfamiliar but potentially cost-saving technologies without 

strong evidence of performance over time. If bridge owners waited i(Jr results of long-term 

monitoring evaluations before deciding whether to adopt a technology. innovation would be greatly 

slm>ed. Evidence from laboratory measurements and accelerated testing. the experience of 

construction of early projects. and short-term monitoring (e.g .. 4 to 10 years) of the performance of 

early projects can identity technologies that are likely to provide long-term cost savings. Data from 

long-term monitoring me necessary to validate expectations and to determine the practices that 

maximize the benclits ofthe new technology. Evidence of long-term performance is especially 

important to justify a technology with higher initial cost than alternatives in a life-cycle costs 

comparison. Systematic long-term pert(Jrmance data are lacking or inadequate for the materials 

demonstrated in the IBRC program. Standard procedures for inspecting the materials could be 

developed in conjunction with monitoring studies. 

1\ew nondestructive bridge evaluation technologies and techniques: Improved capability for 

quantitative measurement of bridge condition and for efficient inspection of bridges will allow 

highway agencies to choose maintenance, rehabilitation. and replacement strategies that reduce the 

life-cycle costs of their bridges. The information ii·om evaluations will also lead to design 

improvements that reduce life-cycle cost. 

Optimized designs and standardization for materials: Development is needed of designs and design 

standards that maximize the cost savings attained from advanced materials and that specify use of 

these materials in applications for which their properties are most valuable. Bridge rating standards 

are needed that properly account for the performance of these materials. 

Development of advanced materials such as engineered cementitious composites for bridge elements 

and optimization of their use in bridge applications. 

PREI'l.lli.IC\TIO'> COPY-l'ncorrcctcd Proofs 
165 


35959.230

Optimized design for ABC: Design methods are needed that take full advantage of the economies 

attainable from prefabrication of bridge elements and systems. A NCHRP report on research to 

develop the ABC design and construction guide specifications that were subsequently adopted by 

AASHTO lists more than 30 ABC knowledge gaps and identities research needed to fill certain gaps 

(Culmo eta!. 2017, 25--48). 

Methods of maintaining and updating existing infrastructure to accommodate truck platooning 

(operstion of two or more trucks in a convoy with close spacing maintained by an advanced driver 

assistance system) and other upcoming transportation technologies. 

These research objectives parallel certain of the objectives previously suggested for the proposed new 

federal innovation incentive grant program. Problem statements for specific research projects could be 

developed as part of the planning for the grant program. 

FRP Bridge Applications Evaluation 

Use ofFRP composites in bridges was a major emphasis area of the IBRC program. Externally bonded 

FRP reinforcement and FRP rebar, two applications demonstrated in IBRC projects. have gained 

substantial use by highway agencies. However, FRP deck elements. superstructure elements. and 

prestressing tendons (strand or bar), which together were demonstrated in more than I 00 IBRC projects. 

are used by few states today, according to the 2018 AASHTO state bridge engineers survey. Apparently. 

the experience of the IBRC program either did not resolve uncertainties about the performance and 

appropriate applications of these technologies or did not overcome highway agencies· resistance to 

change. 

f'HWA, in cooperation with the state highway agencies, could determine the potential for greater 

use and bene lit from f'RP materials in bridge construction through a research and technology transfer 

program that includes the activities listed in the following section. FH W A and the states should consider 

under1aking such a program in light of their overall innovation objectives and available resources. 

PIUO:I'l'BLIC\TIO:"< COPY-l'ncorrected Proofs 
166 


35959.231

Develop a material qualification and certification program that identities suitable FRP materials for 

bridge construction. 

Conduct material durability studies and create a materials database that is accessible to highway 

agencies and engineering professionals to enable improved quality and sate designs and construction. 

Conduct demonstration projects to collect cost and long-term performance data for cost-benefit and 

life-cycle cost analysis, and develop a material cost database to support analyses. 

Harmonize and refine the currently available i\ASHTO FRP specifications and guides to ensure their 

consistency and unitcm11ity among each other. 

Conduct trial design and construction projects to test case of use and reasonableness of the standards 

and specifications. Projects should take place in several states and involve several bridge engineering 

firms. 

Develop inspection, repair, and rating procedures for bridge components and systems that use FRP 

materials consistent with standard practice for concrete, steeL and timber bridges. 

Conduct education and training programs that provide bridge structural design, bridge maintenance 

and inspection, and bridge materials research and test engineers in the federal and state governments 

and the private sector with knowledge, tools, and techniques for the effective use of these materials. 

These activities could be organized as an emphasis area within the innovation incentive grant program 

previously recommended. 

Other Actions to Encourage Innovation 

Professional interchange 

In the interviews conducted for this study, state highway agency staff emphasized that interaction with 

engineers in other states is a key source of information about innovations and commonly inJluences 

decisions to try new technology. Interactions occur at professional events organized by AASHTO and 

others as well as informally. Interactions in regional working groups established to promote technical 

I'REP!.BLICATIO:\ COPY-l.ncorrcctcd Proof< 
167 


35959.232

interchange can lead to cooperation in developing standards and specifications. State engineers identified 

the Bridge Preservation Partnerships. supported by the AASHTO Transp011ation System Preservation 

Technical Services Program. as an etlcctivc resource for technical interchange. Opportunities for highway 

agency engineers to interact with researchers and with industry representatives are also valuable. 

Virtual meetings via the Internet are becoming increasingly e!Tective tools for technology transfer 

of innovative products. However. person-to-person events continue to be the most effective means for 

streamlining the successful implementation of innovation. Project demonstration showcases allow 

potential users to come together to witness firsthand a new product being built in the field. Showcases 

include presentations by the experts who designed, fabricated. and constructed a bridge that incorporates 

the focus innovation. followed by a tour of the bridge, preferably during its construction. Potential users 

not only hear about the new technology, but also talk vvith the experts and see it being implemented in the 

field. 

The state highway agencies should recognize the essential role of professional interactions among 

engineers for the dissemination of technical advances. supp011 the establishment of activities that provide 

opportunities for technical exchange, and support participation of their engineers in these activities. 

Etisting Federal Highwar Innovation Programs 

Congress should continue to provide funding and direction in future federal aid program authorizations 

for the existing innovation programs administered by the FHW 1\ Center for Accelerating Innovation. 

These programs are important in encouraging state highway agencies to use innovative technologies and 

methods and have accelerated the process of adoption. The new bridge innovation incentive program 

previously recommended is not intended as a substitute for the existing programs. 

Dis,semination and Implementation q(Rt!search Results 

All federal highway research and innovation programs should incorporate formal provisions and 

sufficient resources for implementation. dissemination, and long-term monitoring of in-service 

I'REPl'IlLIC:ATIO'i C:OPY-l'ncorrected Proofs 
168 


35959.233

performance of new technologies. Strengthening federal implementation activities will greatly magnify 

the value of research. State highway agencies hesitate to implement new technologies without evidence of 

performance. 

PREPl 'BLIC:\TIO.\ COPY-l 'ncorrcctcd Proofs 
169 


35959.234

REFERENCES 

AASI-ITO 

AASHTO/ 

NSElA 

CTDOT 

FHWA 

OMB 

UDOT 

WSDOT 

American Association of State Highway and Transpor1ation Officials 

American Association of State Highway and Transpor1ation Officials/National Steel 

Bridge Alliance 

Connecticut Department ofTranspor1ation 

Fcderall!ighway Administration 

Office of Management and Budget 

Utah Department of Transportation 

Washington State Department of Transportation 

A ASH TO. 2008. Guide Speci/icolionsfor Design ofFRP Pedestrian Bridxes. First Edition. 

AASHTO. 2009. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide Specificatirmsfi;r GFRP-Reinfi;rced Concrete 

Bridxe Decks and Traffic Railings, First Edition. 

AASHTO. 20 12a. Guide Specifications fi;r Design of/Jonded FRI' Srstemsfi;r Repair ond Strengthening 

o(Concrt!le Bridge Elements. First Edition. 

AAS!ITO. 20 !2b. AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications fi;r Design of Concrete-Filled FRP Tubes, First 

Edition. 

AASHTO. 2013. Standard Specification for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Materials for Highway 

and Bridge Structures. MP22-13. 

AASHTO. 20 !8. AASHTO Guide Specificationsfi!l' ABC Design and Construction. First Edition. 

h tt ps :/I store. transportation. o rg. 

AASI !TO. 20!8a. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide Specljicatiom (i1r GFRP-Rein(i!rced Concrete. 

2nd Edition. https:/istore.transportation.org. 

AASHTO/NSBA. 20 !7. Specificationfi!r Application of Thermal Spray Cooling Systems to Steel Bridges. 

AASHTOiVSBA Co/laborarion Document S8.2-2017!SSPC-PA I 8. AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge 

Collaboration. https:/lwww.aisc.org/nsba/nsba-publications/aashto-nsba-collaboration/aashto-nsbacollaboration2. 

Abu-Hawash. A., J. Nelson, and D. Bierwagen. 2009. ABC-achieving the need for speed. Research 

News. Iowa Department of Transportation: Ames. lA. 

Alampalli. S .. J. O'Connor. and A. Yannotti. 2002. Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites for the 

Superstructure of a Short-Span Rural Bridge. Composite Structures, 58,21-27. 

American Iron and Steel Institute. 2018. Steel Bridges Offer Practical Design. https://www.steel.org/steelmarkets/bridges. 

ASTM International. 2017. ASTM D"957i!T95 7M-!7. Standard Specijiculionjhr Solid Round Glass 

Fiber Reinfi;rcerl Polvmer Bars/or Concrete Reinj(;rcement ASTM International. www.astm.org. 

Bailey. J.. K. Schindler, and D. Brown. 2005. An Evaluation oft he Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete 

ISCC!for Drilled Shafi Applications. Highway Research Center, Auburn University, Auburn, AL. 

October. 

Balakumaran. S .. R. Weyers. and M. Brown. 2018. Linear Cracking in Bridge Decks. VTRC. March. 

http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/onlinc _reports/pdf/] 8-r !3. pdf. 

Barth. K .• and J. McConnell. 20 I 0. An Assessment of Weathering Steel Bridges in West Virginia. 

Proceedings oft he 8th Internotional Conference on Short and lvfedium Span Bridges, pp. 36!.!-

361.! 0. Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. https:i/www.shortspansteelbridges.org/-

/medialfiles/sssba!learning/csce _paper_ barth_ weatheringsteel.ashx'?la=en&hash=E !A352308C 126390234Bfl4C96A I CA E78653 B80FD. 

Bell. E. S., and M. Bowman. 2007. Structural Health Monitoring of a Bridge Deck Reinforced with 

Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymeric Grids in Rollinsford, New Hampshire. In New Horizons and 

Bt!f!er Practices, 1-8. 

I'REI'l'BLICAT!ON COI'Y-l'ncorrectcd Proot:, 
170 


35959.235

Bell, E. S., and J. Sipple. 20 I 0. 1!1-Service f'e1jormance Moniloring '!{a CFRI' Rein/breed HI'C Bridge 

Deck. 

Bicrwagen. D., and A. Abu-Hawash. 2005. Ultra High Performance Concrete Highway Bridge. In 

Proceedings of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium. Ames. Iowa. 

Caldarone. M .. P. Taylor. R. Detwiler. and S. Bhide. 2005. Guide Specification for High-Performance 

Concrete/i>r Bridges. Portland Cement Association. https:l/w\\w.cement.org/docs/defaultso urce/fc _concrete_ technology /d urabi I ity /eb23 3 -guide-specification-for-high-performance-concretefor-bridges.pd f 

CTDOT. 2017. Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) Decision Process. 

https ://www .ct. gov/dot/ cwp/view .asp?a=J 89 3 &q~588844. 

Culmo. M. 2011. Accelerated Bridge Construction E'perience in Design, Fabrication and Erection of 

Prefabricated Bridge Elements and S)'stems. FHW A. November I. 

https:i/www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/abc/docs/abcmanual.pdf. 

Culmo, M., L. Marsh . .1. Stanton. and D. Mer1z. 20 I 7. Recommended AASHTO Guide SpecificationsfiJr 

ABC Desi[!.n and Construction. NCI IRP Web-Only Document 2·12. November. 

http://www.trb.org/NCHRP/Biurbsl177251.aspx. 

Daigle. L .. and Z. Lounis. 2006. Uje-Cvcl<' Cost Analysis of High l'erfimnance Concrete Bridges 

Considering Envirmnnmtul Impacts. Institute for Research in Construction. National Research 

Council of Canada. January. https ://www.researchgate .net/publication/·\4093324. 

Doolen. T .. A. Saeedi. and S. Emami. 20 II . . lccelerated Bridge Construction (ABC; Decision Making 

one! Economic Modfling Tool. Oregon Depa11mcnt of Transportation and FHWA. 

https:i/www.pooledfund.org/DctailsiStudy/449 

Eamon. C., E. Jensen, N. Grace. and X. Shi. 2012. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis or Alternative 

Reinforcement Materials for Bridge Superstructures Considering Cost and Maintenance Uncertainties. 

Journal ofMateriols in Civil Engineering, 2~(4). April. 373-380. 

Ehlen. M .. and H. Marshall. I 996. The Economics of New-Technology Materials: A Case Stud\' oj'FRI' 

Bridge Decks. National Institute or Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg. Maryland. 

Fl !WA. I 996. Workshop Showcases High-Pert'ormance Concrete Bridges. Focus. May. 

https :/ /www. fhwa.dot.gov/publ i cati ons/foc us/96mayl5 6hpc.cfm. 

FHWA. 2002. A High-Performance Steel Scorecard. Focus. April. 

https ://www. tl1wa.dot.gov/pu b I icationslfocus/02apr/stee l.ct!n. 

FHWA. 2005. lflRC Program Information. March. 

FHWA. 2008. S"wmnaiJ' Reporr: !nnovurive Bridf!.e Re:-;earch unci Construction Program. December. 

FHWA. 2017. Life-Cycle Cost .Analysis. updated July 25. 

https:i /www. fl1wa.dot.gov/i n frastruct urciasstrngmt/1 cca.c fm 

FHWA. n.d.a. IBRC Project Database: Results by Bridge f'lement: FHWA Project Database: Results by 

Material: FHWA Project Database: Results by State. 

FHWA. n.d.b. IBRC-BO report. 

Fields. T. and A. Heredia. 2018. Connecticut DOT's ABC Decision Process Methodology. presentation 

at Florida International University Accelerated Bridge Construction University Transportation Center 

Monthly Webinar. Dec. 13. https:l/abc-utc.fiu.edulwebinars/webinar-archivesi 

Grace, N. F .. F. C. Navarre. R. B. Naccy. W. Bonus. and L. Col!avino. 2002. Design-Construction of 

Bridge Street Bridge-First CFRI' Bridge in the United States. I'C!Joumal . .J7(5). 

Grace. N. F .. and S. Singh. 2003. Design Approach for Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Prestressed 

Concrete Bridge Beams. ACI Structural Journal, 100(3), 365-376. 

Grace, N. F .. F. Navarre. R. Nacey. and W. Bonus. 2002. Design-Construction of Bridge Street Bridge--

First CFRP Bridge in the United States. PC! Journal, .//(5). 

Grace. N .. T. Enomoto, G. Abdei-Sayed. K. Yagi. and L. Collavino. 2003. F.xperimcntal Study and 

Analysis of a Full-Scale CFRP/CFCC Double-Tee Bridge Beam. PC/ Journal . .Ji!( 4 ). 

Graybeal. B. 20 I I. Techno/e.· Ultra-High l'erfimnance Concrete. FHW A. March. 

https ://www. flma.dot.gov/publ ications/researchiinfrastructure/structures/ I I 038/11 038. pdf. 

PREPl :BLICXI'IO:"J COPY-{ 'ncorrcctcd Proofs 
171 


35959.236

Haber, Z., I. De Ia Varga. B. Graybeal. B. Nakashoji, and R. EI-Helou. 2018. Properries and Behavior of 

UHPC-Cioss Materials. Federal Highway Administration. March. 

https ://www. lhwa.dot.gov/publ icationslresearch/i nfrastructure/structures/bridge/1 803 6/1 803 6. pdf 

Halladay. M. 1998. The Strategic Highway Research Program: An Investment That Has Paid Off. Public 

Roods, 61 ( 5 ). March/ A pri I. https ://www. tl1wa.dot.gov/publ ic ationslpu bl icroads/98marapr/shrp.cfm. 

Harichandran. R .. and M. Baiyasi. 2000. Repair of Corrosion-Damaged Columns Using FRP /Yraps. 

Michigan DOT Research Report RCI386_3245207. 

W\V>V .michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_Research _Report_ RC 1386 _324520 _7.pdf. 

Hastak. M .. D. Halpin, and T. Hong. 2004. Constructahility. Maintainability, and Operability of'FiherReinfr~rced Polymer (FRP) Bridge Deck Panels. Joint Transportation Research Program, Purdue 

University. November. https://docs.lib.purdue.edulcgilviewcontent.cgi?artic lc=ISII &context=jtrp. 

lla\Vk, H. 2003. Bridge Life-C)'C/e Cost Anal)•sis. NCHRP Report 483. TRB. 

http://onl i nepu bs. trb.org/onl i nepu bslnchrp/nchrp _rpt_ 483 .pdf. 

f!DR Engineering. Inc. 2013. Report on Project Summaries and Case Studies: Projects Funded hy 

Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Pro[;ram (199/i-2005) and Innovative Bridge Research 

and Deployment Program (2006-2009). August. 

II DR Engineering. Inc. 2012. Sell-Consolidating Concrete Cme Study: Girders: Project: M-50 Bridge 

over Grand RiPer, Jackson. Michigan In 1-IDR Engineering (20 13). 801-809. January. 

lienau It, J. 2014. Sell-Consolidating Concrete: A Synthesis of'Research Findings and Best Practices. 

Connecticut Department of Transportation, Bureau of Engineering and Construction. AEC 

Applications and Research Section. Research Unit. 

Hooks. J .. eta!. 1997. FHWA Study Tour/iN· Advanced Composites in Bridges in Eumpe and Japan. 

FHW A. December. https://rosap.ntl.bts.govlview/doti15544. 

Kahl. S. 2007. Corrosion Resistant Alloy Steel (M.MF~\) ReinjiJrcin[; Bar in Brid[;e Decks. Michigan 

Department of Transportation. September. 

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/M DOT __ Research_ Rcp011_ R 1499 _ 209781_7 .pdf. 

Kapur. J., II. Bardow, W. Dekelbab. M. Keever, M. Saiid Saiidi. J. Sletten, D. Tobias. and W. Yen. 20!2. 

Best Practices Regarding Per(imnance ojABC Connections in Bridges Subjected lo Mullihazard and 

Evtreme Events: Scan Team Report. NCHRP Project20-68A, Scan 11-02. October. 

http://onlinepubs.trb.orglonlinepubs/nchrpldocs/nchrp20-68a _I 1-02.pdf. 

Kaufmann, E .. and A. Pense. 2000. Innovative HPS-70W Ford City Bridge Demonstration Project: 

Improved Weldability Using Optimized Weld Metal Strength. 

Larsen. K. 2018. Using Sacrificial Anodes in Reinforced Concrete Structures. Materials Perj(mnance. 

~(3). 17-19. March. http://www.materialspcrformance.com/articleslcathodicp rotecti o n/20 I 8/06/us i ng -sac ri fr cia 1-anod es-i n-rc in forced -concrete-structures. 

Lau, K .. A. SagGes. and R. Powers. 2007. Long-Term Corrosion Behavior o/Epoxy Coated Rebar in 

Florida Bridges. Paper presented at Corrosion/2007, NACE International, Houston. 

http://sagues.myweb.usf.edu/Documents/Nace07%20306%20ECR%20Cit.pdf. 

Lwin. M. 2002. High Perlormance Steel Designers' Guide. Second Edirion. FHWA. April. 

https:/1\Vww.ihwa.dot.gov/downloadlhpsguide.pdf. 

Mistry, V. 2003. High Performance Steel for Highway Bridges. Proceedings: Advanced Materials(i;r 

Construction of' Bridges, Buildings, and Other Structures Ill. Engineering Conferences International. 

http:lldc.engconfi ntl.org/ cgi/vicwcontent.cgi ?artie I c= I OOO&context=advanced _materials. 

Moore, M .. F. Jesmin. S. Taso. and A. Beedles. 2012. The Application of Sacrificial Cathodic Protection 

as a Corrosion Control Protection of Reinforced Concrete Bridges. In A. Strauss. D. Frangopol. and K. 

Bergmeister. eds. 2012. Life-Cvcle and Sustainahi/in· of' Civil In/i'astructure S\•s/ems. Proceedings of 

the Third International Symposium on Lile-(rcle Civil E11[;ineerin,; (IALCCE '12). Vienna. Austria, 

October 3-6, 2012. 

Nasrollahi. M .. and G. Washer. 2015. Estimating Inspection Intervals for Bridges Based on Statistical 

Analysis of National Bridge Inventory Data. Journal of'Eridge Engineering, 20(9). September. 

PREJ>l:BLJ('ATION COP\'-l'ncorrected Proofs 
172 


35959.237

O'Connor, J. 200 I. New York's Experience with FRP Bridge Decks. in R. Creese and H. GangaRao. eds. 

200 I. Polymer Composites II: Composites Applicatiom in lnfrastruc/ure Renewal and Economic 

Developmenl. CRC Press, pp. 21-32. 

OMB. 2018. Discount Rates for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Federal Programs. 

htt ps://www .federal register.gov /documents/20 I 8/02/08120 I 8-025201 discount -rates-for-costeffectiveness -a naly s i s-o I~ fed era !-programs 

Ozyildirim. C. 2008. Bulh-T Beams H'ilh Self:C'onsolida!ing Concrele on !he Route 33 Bridge Over !he 

Pamunkey River in Virginia. VTRC 09-R5. Virginia Transportation Research Council. November. 

Ozyildirim, H. C., and J. Gomez. 2005. First Bridge S!ruclure with Lightweight High-Per/imncmce 

Concre!e Beams and Deck in Virginia. Virginia Transportation Research Council. 

Piotrowski. S .. and M. Schmidt. 2012. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of a UHPC-Bridge on Example of Two 

Bridge Refurbishment Designs. In M. Schmidt. E. Fehling, C. Glotzbach. S. Frohlich. and S. 

Piotrowski. eds .. Pmceedings oj'Hipermal 2012 Third ln!emalional S1·mposium on U!JPC and 

Nanotechnologyfi!r High Perjimnance Conslruclion Materials. Kassel University Press, Kassel. 

Germany, 957-964. 

Power. E., R. Horton. G. Krupicka. and A. Azizinamini. 2007. High Per/imnance S!ee/ Cost Comparison. 

l-IPS Bridge Workshop, October 22. 

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Structures/Structures%20Seminars/02%20-

%20 1-1 igh%20Perf ormance%20Steel %20Cost%20Com parisi on%20Study. pdf 

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute Northeast 20 !4. !'CINE Guidelines fbr Accelerated Bridge 

Construction lisinR Preca:·:t/Pres·tressed Concrete ('mnponenl.\' Including Guideline Delai!s, Second 

Edilion. December. htt p://pci ne.orgiindex.c lin/resources/bridge/ A ccel crated_ Bridge _Construction. 

Russell. H., and B. Graybeal. 2013. C'l!ra-High Performance Concrete: A S!a/e-of-ihe-Arl ReportjiJr the 

Bridge Communitv. FI-!WA-HRT-13-060. Fl IWA. June. 

Russell. H. 2004. Concrete Bridge Deck l'erjimnance. NCHRP Synthesis 333. TRB. 

http://www.trb.org/PublicationsiBiurbs/155177.aspx. 

Russell. H .. R. Miller, H. Ozyildirim. and M. Tadros. 2006. Compilation and Evaluolion o/Resultsfi'om 

High-Per(brmance Concrete Bridge Projec/s, Volume 1: Final ReJJOr!. FHWA. October, 

h ttps :/ /www. fl1wa.dot.gov/pu b I icat ions/researc h/i nfrastructure/bridge/05056. 

Shahverdi, M .. J. Michels. C. Czadcrski. and M. Motavalli. 2018. Iron-Based Shape :Vlemory Alloy Strips 

for Strengthening RC Members: ,\1ateriall3ehavior and Characterization. Cons/rue/ion and Building 

Jfaterials. /73(June 10). 586-599. 

Soroushian. P., S. Ravanbakhsh. and L, Drzal. 2001. Nmr-i\1f.!lu!lic Reh~forccmellf (?lConcrt.:te Bridgl! 

Decks. Michigan DOT Research Report RC I 392. 

Sprinkel, M. and S. Balakumaran. 2017. Problems "ith Continuous Spliced Posttensioned-Prestressed 

Concrete Bulb-Tee Girder Center Spans at West Point. Virginia. Transportation Research Record. No. 

2642. 46-54. http://dx.doi.org/l O.J 141/2642-06 

Steel Marketing Development Institute. 2017. Building the Fu!ure wilh Sled 

https :/ /www .smd isteel.org/construction. 

Trezos, K., I. Sfikas. and D .. Pavlou. 20 I 0. Water Permeability of Self Compacting Concrete. in Third 

Jnternationalfi/J Congress Jncorporaling !he PC! Amlllol Convention and Bridge ConFerence 2010. 

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. 

http://www.gennann.org/TestS ystems/G WT IW ATER %20 PERM EAB I L ITY%200F%20S E LF%20C 

OM PACTING%20CONC R ETE.pd f 

Troconis de Rincon. 0 .. A. Ton·es-Acosta. A. SagUes. and M. Martinez-Madrid. 2018. Galvanic Anodes 

for Reinforced Concrete Structures: A Revicv~. Corrosion, "~(6). 715-723. 

UDOT. 2016. Perjimncmce of Accelerated Bridge Cons/rue/ion l'rojec/s in Utah as o(Augusl 2016: 

Lessons Learned Reprm. https:l/www.udot.utah.gov/main/flp" I OO:pg:O::: I :T. V:4430. 

UDOT. 2017. S!ructures Design and De/ailing Hanual. September. 

https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f'p=J OO:pg:O::: I :T. V:2707. 

PREPl;liLIC.\TIO:\ COPY-l'ncorrccte~ Proof:< 
173 


35959.238

Whipp. R. 2001. Constructing the Market Street Bridge. In R. Creese and H. GangaRao, eds .. Polymer 

Composites II. Composites Applications in Infi·astructure. CRC Press. 

Williamson, G., R. Weyers, M. Brown. and M. Sprinkel. 2007. Bridge Deck Service Life Prediction and 

Cost. VTRC. December. https://vtechworks.!ib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/1 0919/4667li08-

cr4.pdf:sequence=J. 

Wilson. A. and B. Rafl201 2. Weathering Steel for Highway Bridges. Modern Steel Com/ruction. 

March., 22-24. 

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates. 2013. Assessment of' Weathering Steel Bridge Perfbrmance in Iowa and 

Development of'Jnspection and Afaintenance Techniques Iowa Department of Transportation. 

February 21. http://publications.iowa.gov/14956. 

WSDOT. 2018. Bridge Design Manual (LRFD) June. 

https :/ /www. wsdot. wa.gov/publ i cations/man uals/fulltext/M 23 -5 0/B DM. pdf. 

Yang, D .. and K. Jahedkar. 2003. Strengthening Existing Structures with CFRP. Presentation. Texas 

Department ofTranspm1ation Bridge Division Meeting. October 8. 

Yavuz, F., U. Attanayake, and H. Aktan. 2017. Economic Impact on Surrounding Businesses due to 

Bridge Construction. Procedia Compuzer Science. 1 09C. I 08-1 IS. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3 17546306 _Economic_ Impact_ on_ Surrounding_ Businesses 

_due _to_ Bridge_ Construction. 

PREPl'IILIC.-\TIO!'i COPY-l'ncorrcctcd P•·oofs 
174 


35959.239

APPENDIX A 

TEA-21 SECTION 5103 (PART) (JUNE 9, 1998): 1;-./NOVATIVE BRIDGE RESEARCH AND 

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 

Public Law I 05-178 

I OSth Congress 

An Act 

To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway satety programs, 

and transit programs, and for other purposes. 

SECTION I. SHORT TrTLE; TARLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) Short Title.-This Act may be cited 

as the "Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century." 

SEC. 5103. TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYME0:T. 

Chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code (as added by section 510 I 

of this title), is amended by adding at the end the following: 

"(b) Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program.-

"( I) In general.-The Secretary shall establish and carry 

out a program to demonstrate the application of innovative 

material technology in the construction of bridges and other 

structures. 

"(2) Goals.-The goals of the program shall include-

"( A) the development of new, cost-effective 

innovative material highway bridge applications: 

"(R) the reduction of maintenance costs and lifecycle costs of bridges, including the costs ofne\\1 

construction, replacement, or rehabilitation of 

deficient bridges; 

·'(C) the development of construction techniques to 

increase safety and reduce construction time and traffic 

congestion; 

"(D) the development of engineering design criteria 

for innovative products and materials for use in highway 

bridges and structures: 

"(E) the development of cost-effective and 

innovative techniques to separate vehicle and pedestrian 

traffic from railroad traffic; 

"(F) the development of highway bridges and 

structures that will withstand natural disasters. 

including alternative processes for the seismic retrofit 

of bridges; and 

I'REI'l'BLIC.\TIO'> COI'Y-llneorrcetcd Proofs 
175 


35959.240

··(G) the development of new nondestructive bridge 

evaluation technologies and techniques. 

''(3) Grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.~ 

"(A) In genera I.-Under the program, the Secretary 

shall make grants to, and enter into cooperative 

agreements and contracts with-

"(i) States, other Federal agencies. 

universities and colleges, private sector 

entities. and nonprofit organizations to pay the 

federal share of the cost of research. 

development. and technology transfer concerning 

innovative materials; and 

"(ii) States to pay the Federal share of the 

cost of repair. rehabilitation. replacement. and 

new construction of bridges or structures that 

demonstrate the application of innovative 

materials. 

"(B) Applications.--To receive a grant under this 

subsection, an entity described in subparagraph (A) 

shall submit an application to the Secretary. The 

application shall be in such form and contain such 

information as the Secretary may require. The Secretary 

shall select and approve the applications based on 

whether the project that is the subject of the grant 

meets the goals of the program described in paragraph 

(2). 

"(4) Technology and information transfer.~The Secretary 

shall take such action as is necessary to ensure that the 

information and technology resulting from research conducted 

under paragraph (3) is made available to State and local 

transportation departments and other interested parties as 

specified by the Secretary. 

"(5) Federal share.--Thc Federal share ofthe cost of a 

project under this section shall be determined by the 

Secretary." 

I'REI'l'BLIC..\TION ('()1'\-l'ncorrectcd Proofs 
176 


35959.241

APPENDIX B 

DEFINITIONS AND INTENDED BENEFITS OF IBRC TECHNOLOGIES 

The Committee classified the innovative materials and other technologies used in the Innovative Bridge 

Research and Construction (IBRC) projects in 17 categories (see Box B. I). Definitions of each 

technology are presented in the foliO\ving section. along with explanations of the intended benefits of 

applying the technologies in bridge construction and examples of IBRC projects that demonstrated the 

technology. 

Box B.l 

IBRC Technology Categories 

Concrete: 

I. High-performance concrete (l!PC) 

2. Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) 

3. Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) 

Fiber reinforced polymers (FRP): 

4. Externally bonded FRP reinforcement 

5. FRP deck elements 

6. FRP superstructure elements 

7. FRP rcbar 

8. FRP prestressing tendons (strand or bar) 

Corrosion control technologies: concrete reinforcement: 

9. Low-chromium steel (ASTM A I 03511 035M steel) rebar 

I 0. Galvanized rebar 

II. Stainless steel rebar (solid or clad) 

Corrosion control technologies: coating and anodes: 

12. Metallizing 

13. Cathodic protection anodes and electrochemical chloride extraction 

14. Galvanic protection and other corrosion control technologies 

Other IBRC technologies: 

15. High-performance steel (HPS gr 50, 70) 

16. Accelerated bridge construction (ABC) technologies. methods. or procedures 

17. Monitoring and instrumentation technology 

I'REI'l'l!I.IC\TIO~ ('01'\'-lncorrectcd Proofs 
177 


35959.242

CONCRETE 

I. High-Performance Concrete (HPC) 

Definition 

HPC is designed to add strength and durability to bridge elements. The mix design includes 

supplementary cementitious materials (for example, fly ash. silica fume. ground-granulated blast furnace 

slag) for a concrete with low permeability that slows or stops the ingress of chlorides that can corrode 

steel reinforcement. HPC may include the use of high-range water-reducing admixtures for a low waterto-ccmentitious materials ratio to achieve higher strength while maintaining workability and tinishability. 

Higher-strength HPC is typically used in bridge girders. Normal-strength I-I PC is typically used in bridge 

decks and substructures because of its enhanced durability. 

lnlcndt!d Benejils 

The use of HPC is intended to extend the service life of the bridge by reducing cracking and permeability. 

Use of the material also promises benefits during bridge construction and element fabrication. The use of 

I-I PC for precast prestressed girders is typically associated with high early concrete compressive strength. 

The ability of HPC to achieve high strengths at early ages can lead to faster turnover of precasting beds. 

and thus allow for increased production. High final concrete compressive strengths in conjunction with 

additional reinforcement in precast prestressed girders can also enable wider girder spacings and longer 

span lengths. potentially eliminating or reducing the number of piers and reducing the number of girders 

per span. These capabilities can lead to savings in construction costs and time. f!PC can also allow for 

shallower girder cross sections that reduce the required height of approach spans or increase underpass 

clearances with savings in earthwork. By replacing a percentage of the cement. the supplementary 

cementitious materials used in HPC can lower the cost of the concrete mix and reduce the project's 

carbon footprint. 

I'REPl'BLIC\TIO.'i COI'Y-l'ncorrcctcd Proo[' 
178 


35959.243

Example Projec/s 

In the IBRC program. HPC was used in girders. decks. superstructure spans. abutments. piers. and 

overlays. Two examples are: 

The Church Street South Extension Bridge in New !Iaven. Connecticut (CT-2000-1). The bridge. 

which provides a direct link between downtown New !Iaven and the Long Wharf and watcrfi·ont 

areas, was constructed with an 8.25-in.-thick cast-in-place HPC deck. which was also reinforced with 

low-chromium steel rcbar. 

The Mackey Bridge, also known as the Marsh Rainbow Arch Bridge, on !20th Street over Squaw 

Creek in Boone County. Iowa. outside Des Moines (IA-2004-01). HPC was used for all of the precast 

concrete on the job. including the prestressed !-beams. full-depth deck panels. pile caps. and integral 

abutment footings supported on steel piles. 

2. Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC) 

Defini!ion 

SCC. sometimes referred to as selt~compacting concrete. is typically produced by adjusting traditional 

mix designs with the use of supcrplasticizers and viscosity modifiers. These admixtures create a flowing 

concrete that can till in complex structural shapes and around congested steel reinforcing while resisting 

separation and maintaining uniform suspension of solids, eliminating the need for mechanical vibration. 

Amounts of these admixtures can be balanced to meet shrinkage and other standard performance 

requirements and to control undesirable effects like bleeding and segregation based on project needs. 

In/ended Benefits 

SCCs benefits derive from its flowability and consolidation. Structural concrete elements that have 

restricted worker access need highly workable concrete to ensure consolidation around congested rebar 

and posttensioning. The long-term performance of these elements using traditional low-slump concrete 

mixes is affected in part by the qualit) of the mechanical vibration process during placement. sec is 

I'H.EPl 'HLIC.\Tl(f\ COPY-( 'ncorrcctet.l Proofs 
179 


35959.244

formulated to selt~consolidate during placement. thus eliminating the human factor to ensure complete 

consolidation. 

Compared to conventional concrete mixtures. SCC will have a small increase in material-related 

costs due to some of the ingredients and the need for more and higher dosages of chemical admixtures. 

llowever, the material's t1owability and consolidation can result in reduced placement labor and increased 

speed of construction. The reduction in labor requirements can also have the added benefit of enhancing 

worksite safety. These savings during construction can offset the increased material cost ofSCC. Further, 

the improved consolidation of sec mixes is expected 10 improve surface appearance. strength. and 

durability. 

Erample Projects 

Applications of SCC in IBRC projects can be found in drilled shafts. foundations. girders. decks. and 

overlays. Examples are: 

Route 1-280/Garden State Parkway Interchange 145 project in New Jersey. SCC was used in four 6-

ft-diameter drilled shafts. 

TheM-50 Bridge over the Grand River, Jackson. Michigan (MI-2004-01). The project used SCC to 

construct bridge beams. 

3. Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) 

Definition 

UHPC has mechanical and durability properties that exceed that of conventional concrete (Graybeal 20 II. 

Haber eta!. 2018). By using an optimized particle size distribution. a low water to cementitious material 

ratio. and a high percentage of discontinuous internal fiber reinforcement, UHPC exhibits significantly 

higher compressive and tensile strengths as compared to conventional concrete. Conventional concrete is 

weak in tension, with the tensile strength on the order of one-tenth of the compressive strength. Because 

PREI'I!BLICATIO"' COPY-I!ncorrectcd Proofs 
180 


35959.245

of its discontinuous pore structure, UHPC reduces water ingress, which enhances durability as compared 

to conventional concrete or HPC. 

Intended Benefits 

In the FHWA state-oi~the-art rcpon on UHPC. Russell and Graybeal (2013) identified four primary 

characteristics that distinguish UHPC from conventional concrete: higher compressive strength. higher 

tensile strength with ductility. increased durability. and higher initial unit cost. Based on these 

characteristics, they indicated that UHPC is well-suited for applications in which compressive strength is 

the predominant design factor or for use in outdoor or severe exposure environments due to its durability. 

In addition. the high tensile strength of UJ IPC can be advantageous for both service and strength design 

for tlexure, shear. and torsion. 

The addition of the fibers in UHPC enables the concrete to exhibit ductile behavior even atler 

initial cracking without the addition of traditional rebar. Elimination of the reinforcing steel can greatly 

simplify construction. In addition. LiHPC exhibits superior durability due its dense matrix created by a 

combination affine powders (that is, grain size maximum of600 micrometer as reported by PCA) and 

chemical reactivity. This results in the small disconnected pores that prevent deleterious solutions from 

penetrating into the matrix, which can cause conventional concrete to deteriorate (Russell and Graybeal 

20 I J). Enhanced durability stems from increased resistance to ti'eez.ing and thawing. alkali-silica reaction 

(ASR). scaling, and abrasion: and decreased permeability and carbonation depth. 

The higher initial unit cost of UHPC requires consideration oft he life-cycle costs of the 

applications to be considered viable. The reduced labor and material costs associated with the elimination 

of mild reinforcement in UHPC systems is also a potential bene lit. 

Examp/~ Projects 

In the IBRC program. UHPC projects are mixed among some of the other categories and in some cases 

classified as HPC. Example projects are: 

PREPl 'HUCATIO"\' COP\'-l 'ncorrcctcd Proofs 
181 


35959.246

The single-span Mars Hill bridge in Wapello County. Iowa (over Little Soap Creek on I OOth Avenue. 

Keokuk Township). which contains UHPC bridge girders. The UHPC girders were smaller and 

eliminated the need for transverse shear reinforcement. 

Virginia Route 58 Business over Route 58 Bypass (Route 624 over Cat Point Creek). In this new 

construction. the superstructure consisted of prestressed bulb tee girders that used UHPC. 

FIBER-REINFORCED POLYMER (FRP) COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGY 

4. Externally bonded FRP reinforcement 

5. FRP deck elements 

6. FRI' superstructure elements 

7. FRP rehar 

8. FRP prestressing tendons (strand or bar) 

Definition 

FRP composites consist of polymeric material systems (for example. epoxy. vinylester, polyester. and 

phenolic) reinforced with fibers such as carbon. glass. and aramid. State transportation agencies have 

integrated FRP composites into a wide range of bridge applications. Externally bonded FRP technology is 

used to repair and strengthen concrete. steel. and timber bridges. FRP materials are also used for modular 

bridge decks. prefabricated superstructure elements. concrete reinforcement, and prestressing tendons. 

Intended Benefits 

In general. FRP materials are intended to provide durable solutions for the construction of new bridges 

and for the rehabilitation and strengthening of existing bridges. Because of its light weight, FRP 

composites can lead to reduced material transportation costs and faster erection times. In the case of 

externally bonded FRP composite materials. their light weight. high tensile strength. and case of 

installation have the potential to reduce the cost and expedite the repair and strengthening of bridges that 

have suffered deterioration or that do not meet current load requirements. Modular FRP bridge decks have 

PREPtiBLICATIO:\ COPY-Cncorrected Proot:~ 
182 


35959.247

the potential to be rapidly installed in the field with less labor and lighter weight construction equipment 

than conventional deck replacements. These attributes facilitate accelerated bridge construction with 

reduced impact on the traveling public. The reduced weight of the deck may allow the bridge to carry 

additional vehicle loads, thereby allowing for an upgraded classification of the bridge. 

Prefabricated FRP decks and superstructures offer the potential for accelerated bridge 

construction and lower maintenance. FRP rebar and prestressing tendons have the advantage of not being 

susceptible to corrosion. which is a primary source f(lr the deterioration of reinforced concrete bridge 

members. For precast prestressed concrete members such as precast girders. and posttensioned members 

such as bridge box-girders that use internal or external tendons, corrosion of the prestressing is a source of 

premature deterioration. Again. the light weight of the FRP materials promises to accelerate bridge 

construction and reduce the weight of the structure. 

Example Projects 

The following are examples of the use ofFRP in IBRC projects: 

West Virginia Market Street Bridge in Wheeling, West Virginia (WV -1999-02), was originally 

constructed in 1930 as a two-span riveted steel structure. A bridge condition assessment by the West 

Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT) during the late 1990s revealed that the existing 

bridge deck was in poor condition. In addition, one of the bridge sidewalks had been closed (Whipp 

200 I). Due to its economic importance to local businesses. the WVDOT decided to replace the bridge 

with one in which the deck was made of FRP composites manufactured by the pultrusion process. As 

a result of reducing the weight of the bridge superstructure, it was possible to eliminate the 

construction of the middle pier from the original bridge and, thus, to replace the two78.66-ft-span 

bridges with a single 177-ft-span bridge. As of2015, the WVDOT inspection record showed that the 

bridge was in good condition. 

New York Route 418 Bridge over Schroon River (NY -1999-07) is located in the town of 

Warrensburg of Warren County, New York. The bridge was built in 1933, and its original deck was 

PREl't 'BLIC\TJO:" ('()J>Y-l 'ncorrcctcd Proof'\. 
183 


35959.248

constructed from steel gratings filled with concrete. In 2000, the New York State Department of 

Transportation restored the roadway to unrestricted traffic by replacing the original concrete-in fill 

steel grate deck with a lightweight FRP deck that had a high initial installed cost of $75/ft2• 

According to state personnel, the periodic inspection report of August 2018 indicated that the FRP 

deck was still in service and had a Fair rating. 

The Bridge Street Bridge spanning the Rouge River in Southfield, Michigan (Ml-1999-02), was the 

first U.S. vehicular concrete bridge constructed with objectives of (I) demonstrating the use of 

noncorrosive FRP prestressed tendons. (2) extending the service life of highway bridges, and (3) 

reducing construction-related safety concerns and maintenance costs (Grace et al. 2002). In the state's 

most recent inspection report, several full-length reflective cracks in the deck were observed. 

However. the bridge was reported to be in "rair" condition. The information available to the 

committee does not indicate whether the cracks reported are related to the use of FRP prestressed 

tendons or are from other sources. 

Texas FM 1362 over Sue Creek in Burleson County (TX-2001-01) is a two-span bridge that carries 

I he highway over water. The bridge had a low load rating and was in need of strengthening, which 

was accomplished by using externally bonded FRP reinforcement. The Texas Department of 

Transportation was able to reduce design and construction time while avoiding road closure (Yang 

and Jahedkar 2003). 

CORROSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES: CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT 

9. Low-chromium steel rebar 

10. Galvanized rebar 

II. Stainless steel rebar (solid or clad) 

General Definition 

Low-chromium steel (also known as ASTM A I 035/l 035M steel) is a low-carbon, chromium. 

microcomposite steel. Galvanized steel is a type of steel that has been coated with a layer of zinc coating. 

I'!HcPl'llLIC\TION COPY-l'ncorrected Proofs 
184 


35959.249

Stainless steel (solid or clad) is an alloy that contains chromium and other elements. All three materials 

can be used as rebar in concrete bridges. 

!mended Benefits 

The main benefits of all three materials when used as rebar is to reduce susceptibility to corrosion that 

leads to higher bridge maintenance and repair costs from spalling and surface damage to concrete 

elements. 

Emmp/e Projects 

The following are examples of IBRC projects that used corrosion-resistant rebar materials: 

Iowa used !ow-chromium steel rebar on a bridge constructed in 200 I. The structure. eastbound !A 

520 over South Beaver Creek, contains a ~74-ft-long. 39 f\-\\ide deck on prestressed concrete!-

beams. Low-chromium steel was used for deck reinforcement. The westbound structure was built 

with conventional epoxy-coated rebar. Electrodes were installed at various locations to monitor for 

corrosion activity in each direction. 

ln Missouri, two bridges were constructed to evaluate the performance of stainless steel rebar (M0-

2000-0 I. Route 6 in Galt. and M0-200 1-02, Route 86 over Hickory Creek). The control bridge was 

constructed with epoxy-coated rebar. Performance was documented using nondestructive fiber optic 

chloride sensors. permeability testing, half-cell potential readings. and visual inspection. 

A project in lllinois (IL- J 999-07. City of Quincy. 18th Street over Cedar Creek) incorporated 

galvanized rebar in the substructure and deck. Galvanized steel was also used for other applications 

on the bridge. including as structural steel in girders. 

CORROSION-CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES: COATING AND ANODES 

12, Metallizing 

13. Cathodic protection anodes and electrochemical chloride extraction 

14. Galvanic protection and other corrosion-control technologies 

PREPl 1BLI('ATIO.\' COP\'-l 'ncorrectcd Proofs 
185 


35959.250

Definition 

Metallizing is the application of a sprayed-on galvanic cathodic system as a means of extending the life of 

embedded reinforcement in structural concrete, The system is typically composed of a zinc-rich thermally 

applied spray. It also acts to some degree as a coating as it can assist in mitigating the ingress of 

aggressive elements, Another means of providing galvanic protection to mitigate the spread of corrosion 

is by connecting sacrificial anodes to the exposed reinforcement steeL Deteriorated areas of concrete are 

removed and discrete sacrificial anodes. usually zinc, are connected to the exposed reinforcement. The 

anodes cathodically protect the surrounding concrete area that may be chloride contaminated. 

Chloride extraction removes chloride ions t!·om contaminated concrete and reestablishes the 

passivity of steel reinforcement. The extraction is carried out by temporarily applying an electric field 

between the concrete reinforcing and an externally mounted anode mesh, During the process. chloride 

ions are transported back through the concrete toward the surface, 

Intended Benefits 

The long-term intended benefit of coatings and anode technologies is a reduction in the deteriorating 

effects of corrosion of steel reinforcement in concrete to enable longer service life, Coatings are also 

primarily used for existing construction to provide a physical barrier on the surface of repaired concrete to 

mitigate the further intrusion of moisture, oxygen. and chloride ions into concrete, Coatings can also be 

used in new construction. but there has not been widespread use for this category. The anode technologies 

primarily benefit existing concrete construction and are used where corrosion of reinforcing steel has 

reached the initiation phase, 

Ewmple Projects 

Examples of IBRC projects that used coating and anode technologies are the following: 

PREPl'IJLICATION COPY-t'ncorrccted Proofs 
186 


35959.251

In a project in Illinois (11-2000-02. 1-474 FR 174 to Illinois River). three types of zinc-based metals 

were tested in a cathodic protection application to protect against corrosion. Evaluation results 

indicated that the systems did not perform as intended. 

Electrochemical chloride extraction was used by Minnesota (MN-1999-02. 1-94 and Glen"ood 

Avenue) to protect against corrosion in concrete bridge piers. Evaluation found that the process 

reduced average chloride levels in the treated structures by approximately 50 percent. but that 

chloride concentrations remained above the acceptable level at some locations. 

OTHER TECHNOLOGIES 

15. High-Performance Steel 

Definition 

High-performance steel (HPS) is higher in strength than conventional steel and can improve the costeffectiveness of steel bridges that take advantage of the superior properties of the material. The three most 

common types of HPS are: HPS I OOW. llPS70W. and HPSSOW. The number following HPS designates 

the strength of the material in ksi units. HPS is produced by two different processes: thermo-mechanical 

control process and quenched and tempered plates. The selected method of manufacture may limit the 

overall length and thickness of the HPS plates. 

Intended Ben~/its 

The high strength of liPS may allow longer spans without increasing the depth of the beams. eliminating 

or reducing the number of piers and increasing horizontal clearance while maintaining vertical clearance. 

Alternatively. the strength of HPS may allow reducing the depth of beams. increasing vertical clearance 

while maintaining the existing approach roadway pro tile. 

Applications for HPS found in the IBRC projects include folded plates. beams and girders. 

corrugated webs. and an investigation regarding bracing requirements for HPS girders. Advantages of 

PREPl.BLIC\T10:'\ COPY-l 'ncorrcctcd I) roofs 
187 


35959.252

HPS in lBRC projects, as reported by the states that conducted the projects in the HDR report (HDR 

2013). were the following: 

Higher yield strength. 

Less material needed to provide required strength. 

Expected service life as high as 75 years. 

Ability to accommodate tight vertical clearances. 

Improved toughness (ability to resist cracking). 

Exwnplc Projects 

California's (CA-200 I -05) White's Hill Sidehill Viaduct project used f-!PS in plate girders of the new 

bridge for high strength; longer spans allowed for eliminating piers in an active landslide area. 

Nebraska's (NE-2002-0 I) Highway N-79 over Wagon Tongue Creek project demonstrated the 

use of folded plate technology in which the bridge girders are fabricated by bending tlat plates into an 

inverted steel box shape. The new shape reduces the cost of girder fabrication and provides an alternative 

for short span bridges. 

16. Accelerated Bridge Construction 

Dt:finition 

Accelerated bridge construction (ABC) uses innovative planning, design. materials. and construction 

methods to reduce the on-site construction time when building new bridges or replacing and rehabilitating 

existing bridges. ABC technologies can be divided into the categories of project planning, geotechnical 

solutions, and structural solutions. Examples of technologies in the project planning category include 

early environmental clearance and permitting, alternative technical concepts, and A plus 13 bidding. 'vhere 

"A" is the traditional bid for the contract items and "8'' is the time estimated by the bidder to complete 

the work. E.\amples in the geotechnical solutions category include micropiles and lightweight fill. 

PI!LI'l'BLICATIO:\ COPY-l.ncorrcctcd Proofs 
188 


35959.253

Examples in the structural solutions category include prefabricated bridge elements such as modular 

decked beams and precast substructures and prefabricated bridge systems such as superstructure spans 

moved into place using selt~propelled modular transporters or lateral slides. 

Intended Benefits 

Bridge owners use ABC in their projects for a number of reasons. These include reduced traffic impacts. 

reduced on-site construction time. improved work zone safety. improved site constructability, improved 

material quality and product durability, and minimized environmental impacts. Other reasons include 

contractor-initiated change. maintenance ol' existing alignment. limitation of right-ot:way take, 

emergency replacement. ability to use local contractor or county workforce to construct. need to minimize 

business and other commercial impacts. and maintenance of essential services such as emergency 

response. police, mail delivery, transit, and garbage collection. 

Direct construction costs of A FlC using prefabricated bridge elements and systems arc expected 

to be more economical than conventional cast-in-place construction after the usc of ABC becomes 

standard practice. A historical example of such cost savings for prefabrication versus cast-in-place 

construction is the usc of pretensioned concrete !-shaped beams, which became standard practice more 

than haifa century ago because of their econom::: and quality control relative to cast-in-place beams. 

During the current transition stage of moving standard practice from conventional to ABC. the 

construction cost of ABC projects is frequently higher. 

Construction contractors' bid prices I(Jr ABC projects are frequently higher due to the increased 

risk perceived by the contractor when using unfamiliar means and methods. Also, additional mobilization 

costs are incurred with system moves such as when using self-propelled modular transpm1ers to quickly 

install superstructure spans. Even so. construction contractors are field-changing ABC technologies into 

conventionally bid projects because of the various advantages offered by ABC. including cost savings for 

fabricating repetitive precast concrete clements. reduced environmental impacts that can speed a project 

PREPt:HI,iCXrJO~ COP\'-tlnrorrcctcd Proofs 
189 


35959.254

and thereby save costs, and increased safety because of the reduced time in the work zone, which can also 

cut costs. 

Although a number of reasons may drive the use of ABC. the original and primary reason for the 

use of ABC is reduced traffic disruption. This is because bridge construction in the United States has 

changed from the capacity-building focus needed in the mid-1900s when the Interstate was being built to 

the preservation and maintenance focus required today as the average bridge is reaching its design life and 

requiring upgrade while still maintaining trafJic flow. When user costs are included for high-trafficvolume locations. ABC is usually the least costly solution due to the reduced onsite construction time that 

reduces tratlk delay. 

Ewmple Projects 

Two examples of ABC projects in the IBRC program are as follows: 

Mill Street Bridge over the Lamprey River Epping. New Hampshire. ABC elements for this project 

are the adjacent pretensioned concrete box beams and the precast concrete abutment walls. wingwalis. 

and spread footings .. 

The Live Oak Creek Bridge on Texas State Highway 290 over Live Oak Creek in Crockett County. 

ABC elements on this project are the full-depth precast concrete deck panels. The superstructure 

consists of !-shaped pretensioned concrete beams with an 8-in.-thick full-depth precast concrete deck. 

17. Monitoring and Instrumentation Technology 

Definition 

Monitoring and instrumentation technology includes advanced sensors and data acquisition systems to 

monitor the performance of new and existing bridges. Data from these systems are used to evaluate the 

safety and integrity of bridges and to evaluate the progression of deterioration and damage. Data from the 

in-place sensors are typically stored on site and downloaded at regular intervals over an Internet 

connection or by wireless transmission for engineering analysis of performance. 

PREP\'BLICATION COI'Y-l'ncorrected Proors 
190 


35959.255

Typically. sensors are used to monitor integrity by observing changes in strain. deformation. 

acceleration, and vibration as affected by vehicular tranic. temperature. and other load effects. Sensors 

can also be used to assess the fatigue damage that occurs at critical details in structural steel bridge 

elements. Sensors are also available to monitor changes in corrosion activity of reinforcing steel in 

concrete and embedded steel piles in soiL 

In/ended Benefils 

The intended benefit of monitoring and instrumentation of bridges is to establish ongoing performance 

and safety. Changes in structural behavior can be associated with deterioration or other risk factors that 

can be evaluated to assess remaining service life and to ensure ongoing safety of a bridge. In recent years. 

instrumentation and monitoring has evolved to discussion of"smart bridges" in which measured field 

data is fed into analytical models of anticipated behavior to determine real-time assessment of ongoing 

safety and integrity. 

Etample Projects 

Examples of monitoring and instrumentation technology in IBRC projects include the following: 

New single-span precast prestressed concrete bulb tee bridge on State Route 36 in California (CA200 1-03) in which passive sensors were cast into the concrete to monitor the ingress of chloride ions 

into the concrete. The devices consisted of a chloride sensor and a radio-frequency identification tag 

that could be interrogated remotely. 

In the replacement of a bridge over Kealakaha Stream on Route 19 inllawaii (lll-2000-01). a threespan posttensioned concrete segmental bridge, liber optic sensor technology was installed for 

dynamic monitoring of deformations and strains during earthquake shaking and traffic vibrations. 

PREPt:BI,J(.:\.l'IO:'\ ('OP,·-t·ncot-rl•ctcd Proof\ 
191 


35959.256

STUDY COMMITTEE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 

Mary Lou Ralls (Chair) is Principal of Ralls Newman. LLC, a structural engineering consulting firm in 

Austin. Texas, and Director of Technology Transfer for the Accelerated Bridge Construction University 

Transpm1ation Center at Florida International University. Ms. Ralls joined the Texas Department of 

Transportation (TxDOT) in 1984. From !999 to 2004, she was TxDOT's State Bridge Engineer and 

Director of the Bridge Division. She was chair of the TRB F-SI-IRP Renewal Panel. In TRB's SHRP2 

program, Ms. Ralls was a member of the Renewal Technical Coordinating Committee, a member or chair 

of several of the Expert Task Groups, and a member of the Committee for the Strategic Highway 

Research Program 2: Implementation. She holds an MS in structures engineering and a BS in civil 

engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. She is a registered Professional Engineer in Texas. 

Ross B, Corotis, NAE, is Denver Business Challenge Professor in the Department of Civil, 

Environmental and Architectural Engineering at the University of Colorado. From 1994 to 200 I. he 

served as Dean of the College of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Colorado at 

Boulder. He was formerly a member of the faculties of Johns Hopkins University and Northwestern 

University. Dr. C01·otis's primary research interests are in the application of probabilistic concepts to civil 

engineering problems, including stochastic modeling of loads on structures and structural system 

reliability. He is a past [ditor-in-Chief of the ASCE Journal o/Engineering Mechanics and of Srructural 

Safely. He was awarded the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Walter L. Huber Civil 

Engineering Research Prize in 1984 for his work on stochastic modeling of structural loads. Dr. Corotis is 

a registered professional engineer in Colorado, Maryland, and Illinois and a registered structural engineer 

in Illinois. He received the PhD. MS, and BS degrees in civil engineering from Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology. 

Rebecca L. Curtis is Bridge Management Engineer for the Michigan Depat1ment of Transportation. In 

this position she oversees operation of the depmiment's annual bridge inspection program, development 

of bridge management systems, and development of bridge strategy and performance measures. Before 

joining the Department of Transportation in 2006, she was an engineer with Orchard, Hiltz, and 

McCliment. Inc., an architectural. engineering, and planning tirm. She is a member of the Technical 

Review Team for the American Association of State Highway and Transpo!1ation Officials' 

BRIDGEWare bridge management software and a former member ofthe TRB Long-Term Bridge 

Performance Committee Expert Task Group for Bridge Evaluation and Monitoring. She is a registered 

professional engineer in Michigan. She received an MS in civil engineering from The lJniversity of 

Michigan and a BS in civil engineering from Michigan State University. 

Catherine French is College of Science and Engineering Distinguished Professor in the Department of 

CiviL Environmental, and Geo- Engineering at the University of Minnesota. She has been a member of 

the faculty since 1984. Her research involves the experimental investigation of reinforced and prestressed 

concrete structural systems. tield monitoring of structures. numerical and experimental investigations of 

structural systems including time-dependent and environmental effects, evaluation and repair of damaged 

structures, and development and application of new material. She was elected a Distinguished member of 

ASCE and Honorary member ofACI in 2018. She is a recipient of the ACl Joe Kelly Award, ACl Henry 

L. Kennedy Award, ACI Reinforced Concrete Research Council Arthur .1. Boase Award. and ASCE 

Raymond C. Reese Research Prize. She is a past member of the ACI Board of Directors and numerous 

other ACl committees. She currently serves on ACI 318. Structural Concrete Building Code, of which she 

has been a member since 1995. She received the PhD and MS degrees from the University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign and a BSCE hom the University of Minnesota. 

Raymond Paul Giroux is a Senior Engineer with Kiewit Flridge and Marine, Kiewit Infrastructure West 

Co .. Vancouver, Washington. He has been with Kiewit since 1980 and has contributed to major 

I'REI'l'llLIC\TlO:\ COI'Y-l'ncorrcl'tcd Proofs 
192 


35959.257

infrastructure construction projects throughout the United States. He was elected as a Distinguished 

Member of ASCE in 20 !6. J le is a recipient of ASCE's Roebling, G. Brooks Earnest, and History and 

Heritage Awards and the Augustine A \\ard oft he American Association of' Engineering Societies. Mr. 

Giroux lectures widely on civil engineering history at universities and proCessional conferences. He 

received a BS in construction engineering !'rom Iowa State University. 

Yidong (Eddie) He is a Technical Director with Parsons Corporation in Chicago, Illinois. He has 

extensive experience in the design, analysis, and construction of bridges and buildings. He has been 

involved in the design and construction of more than 30 complex bridges. including posttensioned 

concrete, steel box girder. segmental concrete. arch. truss. cable-stayed, and suspension bridges and 

transit structures. He is an expel1 in accelerated bridge construction. mass-produced prefabricated bridge 

elements, erection equipment. and concrete formwork. Before joining Parsons in 1987, Dr. He held 

engineering positions at HNTB. Inc .. and at J. Muller International. He is a registered professional 

engineer in lllinois, Indiana. and Wisconsin. He received a PhD in structural engineering and Master of 

Engineering in structural engineering from West Virginia University and a BS in civil engineering hom 

South China University of Technology. 

Malcolm T. Kerley is President ofNXL Construction Services. Inc .. a transportation engineering firm in 

Richmond, Virginia. From 2002 until 20 I 2. he was Chief Engineer of' the Virginia Department of 

Transportation, where he was responsible for all engineering aspects of the department. From 1992 to 

2002. he served as State Structure and Bridge [nginccr. He is a former chair of the American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures. Mr. Kerley is a 

registered professional engineer in Virginia. He received a Master of Engineering in civil engineering 

from the University of Virginia and BS in civil engineering from Virginia Military Institute. 

Bijan Khaleghi is State Bridge Design Engineer in the Washington State Depa11ment of Transportation. 

He has been with the department since 1991. He is experienced in the design of prestressed and 

posttensioned concrete bridges. tunnel construction and rehabilitation projects. and bridge preservation 

projects. He is an adjunct professor at Saint Martin University, Olympia, Washington. teaching courses in 

advanced concrete. earthquake engineering. and bridge design. and has served as a member or chair of 

numerous National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project panels. Dr. Khaleghi 

received the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute's Martin P. Korn Award in 2005 and the American 

Society of Civil Engineers' T.Y. Lin Award in 2006 for outstanding research papers. He is a Registered 

Professional Civil and Structural Engineer in Washington State. He received the degrees of Doctor of 

Engineering-Concrete Structures and Master of Sciences-Structural Engineering from the National 

Institute of Applied Sciences in Lyon. France, and a MS in civil engineering from Tabriz Technical 

University, Tabriz. Iran. 

Norman McDonald retired in 2017 as State Bridge Engineer with the Iowa Depa11ment of 

Transpo11ation. The State Bridge Engineer is responsible for developing structure plans for all Interstate 

and primary highways in Iowa and is also responsible for inspection and coordination of bridge 

improvement plans for over 4. I 00 bridges. The Iowa Depal1ment of Transpo11ation Bridge Office is 

recognized as a leading transp011ation agency in bridge research. Mr. McDonald was with the Bridge 

Oftlce for 32 years, including 17 as State Bridge Fngincer. Whik with the Iowa Depa11ment of 

Transportation. he served on various technical committees of the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials. including recently as Chair of the Structural Steel Design Technical 

Committee. He has also served as a member or chair of numerous NCI-IRP project panels on research 

topics related to steel structures. 

R Shankar Nair, NAE. is Senior Vice President exp US Services, Inc. He has more than 45 years of 

experience in structural engineering. His work has focused on structural engineering for large 

PREPl 'BUC.\TJO'\' COPY-l.ncorn·rtcd Proof~ 
193 


35959.258

architectural and civil engineering projects, including the longest tied-arch bridge span in the world and 

many high-rise buildings, Dr. Nair has worked for Teng and Associates and its successor firm exp since 

1995 in Chicago, and before that was a principal at RTKL Associates in Baltimore and Alfred Benesch 

and Company in Chicago, His work has received numerous awards, including four American Institute of 

Steel Construction (AISC) Prize Bridge awards and six annual Most Innovative Structure awards from the 

Structural Engineers Association of Illinois, Dr. Nair chairs the AISC Committee on Specifications and is 

a past chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. He was elected to membership in the 

National Academy of Engineering in 2005. Dr. Nair has a PhD in civil engineering from the University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is licensed to practice engineering in44 states, 

Randall W, Poston, NAE. is Senior Principal with Pivot Engineers in Austin, Texas, The focus of his 

work has been forensic structural engineering and the rehabilitation and strengthening of civil 

infrastructure. This work has included the investigation of numerous structural collapses and in-service 

performance and durability problems with concrete structures. lle is a past Chair of the AC! Structural 

Building Code Committee and received the ACII-Ienry L Kennedy Award for his leadership in the 

reorganization of the AC! Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Several of his projects 

have received the International Concrete Repair Institute Award of Excellence. Dr. Poston received a PhD 

in structural engineering, a MS in structural engineering. and a BS in civil engineering from the 

University of Texas at Austin, 

Abdul-Hamid Zureick is Professor of Structural Engineering. Mechanics, and Materials at the School of 

Civil and Environmental Engineering at Georgia Tech. He is an authority on the use of innovative 

materials in civil engineering applications. His research has been to develop criteria and specifications for 

the design, testing, and construction of polymer composite structural systems, Professor Zureick serves on 

the editorial boards of the Journal o(CompositesfiJr Construe/ion and of Structural Engineering and 

Afechanics and was the founder and first chair of the ASTM International Technical Subcommittee on 

Composites for Civil Engineering and Marine Applications. He received the 1989 ASCE Norman MedaL 

awarded for a technical paper that makes a definitive contribution to engineering science, He received the 

PhD and MS degrees in civil engineering ti·om the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a BS 

in civil engineering from Tichreen University, Lattakia, Syria. 

PREPt:llLICATION COI'V-lincorrected Proofs 
194 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It points out that one of the problems is 

we lack comprehensive design standards and specifications, as well 

as programs for detailed long-term monitoring. A better composite 

solution might actually be harder to get to because the engineers 

never bothered to write down the specs for composite. 

What is in the book is rebar, steel, concrete or whatever, so the 

engineers automatically go to the old and perhaps less effective and 

efficient technology. Trials of composite materials were a major interest of participants in the study but ‘‘Few of the States that responded to the survey use or have specifications for FRP deck elements, super structure elements, and pre-stressing tendons. Most 

States had little or no prior experience with these materials.’’ I 

think we need to continue to press forward to make sure these new 

and potentially better, lighter, smarter, more durable materials 

have a fair chance to compete against the traditional materials. 

In my State, we see more and more of a priority on bicycling and 

walking as an alternative. Obviously, as our roads get more and 

more use, if people were willing to ride a bike, many actually prefer 

to, we shouldn’t be foreclosing that option. Pedestrian and bike infrastructure, to me, is very important in this conversation. 

I will echo our Ranking Member’s remarks about the charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. I am not a serious car person but 

I like cars and I like driving. When you look at the electric vehicles 

coming into the marketplace, these aren’t golf carts. This is Jaguar. 

This is Audi. This is Mercedes. 

I have a Chevy Volt, so I have a GM electric vehicle already but 

they are moving it to their top line, to their Cadillac division because they see this as a really huge opportunity. The performance 

specs of these things are, to use Elon Musk’s words, ludicrous. That 

is actually what he describes as one of the performance options in 

the Tesla. You can blow the doors off a Lamborghini with your electric Tesla for about one-fifth the price of the vehicle. 

I think we have to be prepared for a larger and more rapid adoption of electric vehicles as the market sees how incredibly cool they 

are and what fun they are to drive. It is like basic human characteristics here. 

Senator BARRASSO. The question is, do they need a $7,500 tax 

credit for people who do buy it? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. They are easily worth $7,500 compared to the $7,500-plus worth of damage that emissions from automobiles 

do. I am eager to support that. 

I have two last comments. As far as environmental streamlining 

goes, I am all for it. I actually led the environmental streamlining 

for offshore wind that actually got offshore wind built. 

Once we showed that it could be done, there have been literally 

multiple hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in offshore 

wind that have come immediately into the market because we 

showed the permitting did not have to be fatal to the project. I am 

all for that as long as it is not a pretext for crummy environmental 

protection and rolling local communities. 

I do think we, in Congress, need to find ways to reassert our priorities through these bills, whether it is highway bills or Army 

Corps water bills. The idea that we just shovel enormous amounts 

of money into these executive agencies and then beg and plead for 

195 

their consideration as to what might get funded and get lost in 

their priorities and their bureaucracy, I think we need to revisit 

that and create a stronger system of regard for congressional priorities. 

With all of that, I would be happy if anyone wants to comment 

on that, please do so as a question for the record. However, my 

time has expired so I have to go on. Take that as a question for 

the record and put your answers in writing if you would like to respond to any of those thoughts. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator CAPITO. Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here today. 

Mr. McKenna and Mr. Demetriou, you both cited several statistics on the return of investment for infrastructure as being as high 

as maybe one to four. There is another side of the ledger, I think, 

that you all are aware of. 

A study was released in 2017 for our State of West Virginia that said drivers in West Virginia spent $1.4 billion, including an average of $647 per vehicle, increased operating expenses due to potholes and poor conditions of the roads. We also have rural bridges 

and you mentioned Missouri with the same kind of issues with 

your bridges that are in poor condition. We have quite a few 

bridges in our State. I want to bring that up and my colleague from 

Indiana brought up what they are doing. 

Driving the message in our State probably two-and-a-half to 3 

years ago was more the negative effects of not doing anything, not 

improving your infrastructure and the negative effects it was having on the lifestyle and ability to do business in our State, the opposite side of the ledger. We actually passed a $1.6 billion road bond in the State of West 

Virginia which has difficulty on our economics much like my colleague said. It raised the gas tax with people willing to pay to have 

better and improved infrastructure in their lives. You can follow 

the progress we are making in West Virginia on the website. It is 

very transparent at the DOT website. 

I guess my question is, do you think the better driving of the 

message from here is on the negative? We are obviously good at 

driving negative messages from time to time. Is it a message that 

needs to be obviously both a positive benefit through the business? 

Mr. Demetriou, you outlined that quite well. 

From a State perspective, I am sure in Missouri you can drive 

a negative message and drive more voter satisfaction on that. Do 

you have any comments on that? 

Mr. MCKENNA. I do, Senator. That is a wonderful point. I think 

we do, as an industry, and all States need to drive a lot of the messaging forward, the costs and benefits and also really what the cost 

of doing nothing is. 

We put together a citizen’s guide for transportation funding in 

Missouri and put it on a website. We have determined the price 

people pay is about $30 a month for access and use of the transportation network but the cost of doing nothing exceeds $180 a month. 

Those higher maintenance costs, the cost for insurance for increased damage to vehicles and for, unfortunately, incidents that 

196 

rise up as much as to fatalities all over the Nation, those costs are 

very important. You can see very clearly, I think, the path for solutions in policy when you understand that you are exceeding your 

costs by $150 a month. 

Senator CAPITO. Mr. Demetriou, do you have a response to that? 

Mr. DEMETRIOU. I think at the end of the day, you stated it very 

nicely, if people understand what the purpose is and buy into that 

purpose, they are going to support it. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. DEMETRIOU. Whether it is to overcome the negative or it is 

to enhance lifestyle and make things more efficient. 

I will also talk from a business standpoint that as infrastructure 

is improved, it is going to accelerate business investment because 

businesses are going to be more confident in expanding their business facility, whatever it is, knowing there is going to be more efficient infrastructure and transportation adjacent to their facility. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. Thank you. 

One of the things we talked about in the President’s proposed infrastructure package last year and over the last 2 years was to try 

to look at what infrastructure really means. For me in a rural 

State, enhanced broadband deployment is an exceedingly important 

part of an infrastructure package that we would put together, realizing that the highway bill is different. 

I am thinking if we are looking for efficiencies, we have a lot of 

dig once provisions to be able to enhance not just what is going in 

surface transportation. There might be some economic benefits to 

doing that too. In other words, working with internet service providers, we will dig once for you, but it is going to cost you maybe 

not that much, but it is a better efficient way to move about. 

Do you have any thoughts on that? 

Mr. DEMETRIOU. You just touched on what is a tremendous opportunity for the United States, smart infrastructure, and connected infrastructure. I think the more we can look at it holistically, connecting buildings, highways, airports, the whole infrastructure community and create smarter cities, smarter buildings, 

smarter infrastructure, it will accelerate the improvement we are 

all talking about. 

Senator CAPITO. And make our dollars go further, I think. 

Mr. DEMETRIOU. Exactly. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you so much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to all of you for your testimony today. 

We all know we have a huge infrastructure gap in our Country, 

the gap between the need to modernize our infrastructure and the 

resources we are dedicating to it. I hope, as a Congress, we can figure out a way to significantly increase our investment in that area. 

We talked about some of the proposals today. That is true whether we are talking about broadband, highways or transit. This is one 

little sample of what is happening every day around our Country. 

This is from yesterday’s Baltimore Sun. The potholes are so bad 

on a stretch of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway that the speed 

limit was lowered to 40 miles an hour because the potholes were 

197 

so bad. Senator Cardin, my colleague from Maryland, may even 

come that way. It is just one more example of what we are seeing 

every day. We cannot just keep fiddling here while our infrastructure crumbles away. I want to thank all of you for being here. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Replogle, and thank you for your prior service in the State of Maryland, I think in Montgomery County with 

the Park and Planning Commission, is that right? 

Mr. REPLOGLE. Yes. 

Senator Van Hollen. Our loss is New York’s gain. 

You have a statement from your testimony saying you ‘‘urge Congress to increase public transportation capital investment grants 

and take steps to ensure that competitive grants like BUILD are 

not largely directed away from urban areas. Rather than allocating 

funding solely to existing formula programs, we urge new support 

and flexible funding for State and local traffic safety initiatives for 

the redesign of our streets to accommodate multiple travel options 

and for efforts to safeguard transportation assets against extreme 

weather.’’ 

Can you just elaborate a little bit on that? I am wondering if that 

sentiment is shared by our other witnesses here as well. 

Mr. REPLOGLE. We are at a place where we can direct our transportation dollars in a way that does more to advance our national 

and community goals or we can direct it as we have directed it in 

the past where it does not always deliver the most performance. 

We have 37,000 people a year killed on our highways. Those 

numbers are moving in the wrong direction nationally. If you look 

across the Country, there are a few communities like New York 

City that have been able to significantly push those numbers down 

with some concerted action. 

We call our initiative Vision Zero. It involves lowering the speed 

limit on city streets, enforcing traffic laws that provide for better 

traffic safety, doing reengineering on our streets and our intersections to make it safer to walk, bike and move about, and making 

sure we have multimodal street designs that accommodate bus 

traffic more efficiently so that buses are not stuck in traffic but can 

move more quickly. 

These helps the whole transportation system be more productive 

at getting people to jobs and opportunities with less taxpayer 

spending. 

Senator Van Hollen. That would require directing some formula 

funds outside the current formula or additional funds? 

Mr. REPLOGLE. The challenge we have now is a lot of the formula 

funding goes to the States and yet a lot of these kinds of initiatives 

that I described are done at the local government level. The money 

is not getting to the local level. 

Senator Van Hollen. It has been a major frustration, I know, 

with a lot of counties in the State of Maryland. 

Mr. REPLOGLE. We are calling for direct funding to larger jurisdictions following the model of the Federal Transit Administration 

which directly allocates funding and allows for design processes 

and effective delegation of authority for project reviews and permitting so that we do not have to go through an extra layer at the 

State level which makes for inefficiency and often, in fact, filters 

out the funding so it does not get to the local level at all. 

198 

Senator Van Hollen. I look forward to following up with you on 

that. 

I know the time is limited. You talked about the transit programs. Within the FTA programs, there is the capital investment 

grant program. I am interested in adapting that idea to help create 

a fund of money for bridges. 

When I talk to folks across our State and hear about the crumbling bridges, it is a huge safety issue. They do not seem to rank 

very high on the list of priorities when it comes to the funds. 

I am also interested in whether all of you would support the establishment of the equivalent to the Capital Investment Grant 

Fund at FTA within the Transportation Fund for bridge purposes? 

Mr. REPLOGLE. As a city with 789 bridges, I think we would support that kind of initiative, especially if the funding enabled some 

direct allocation to larger jurisdictions below the State level. 

Mr. MCKENNA. If I might, I do not disagree with any of the comments about the need. I do think if we look at this as a single pie 

that is not growing and we carve it up differently, the asset management needs of State DOTs, with the backlogs and numbers we 

have talked about, the difficulty and the reason why some of those 

funds are not moving through into those other priorities is simply 

there are not enough dollars going into the pie. 

That is a critical issue for all of us. As a State with 24,000 

bridges, bridge funding is an absolute priority but if you reduce 

flexibility for the States to address the most important priorities in 

their asset management plans without a concurrent rise in the resources available to do so, you will not have the desired effect. 

Senator Van Hollen. Back to the bridge program, I am talking 

about additional funding source. 

Thank you all very much. 

Senator CAPITO. 

[Presiding.] Thank you. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. 

I think through the discussion we have heard, there are a lot of 

ideas out there. We all need to make sure there is smart investment in our infrastructure. I think we could all agree, we do need 

to control waste and do need to encourage greater efficiencies in 

what we do as well. 

Mr. McKenna, one of the streamlining ideas you touched on in 

your testimony relates to the categorical exemptions or the CEs. 

You recommend allowing any Federal agency to use the CE if it is 

already in place at another agency. 

This does seem to make sense to me. It would provide that greater efficiency. If one agency has a CE for a certain action, then another agency should also have a CE for that same action. 

Do you have any examples of how the lack of a CE or CE interchangeability between agencies has actually slowed projects? 

Mr. MCKENNA. We can certainly draw in several examples from 

all over the Country. I will submit those for the record. 

What we do know is that in our own dealings, in many cases 

when we are working on our bridge work, when we are crossing 

major rivers, even if there are slight replacements, we can have circumstances where we have what we need from one agency and anVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:29 Aug 05, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\35959.TXT VERNE
199 

other does not have that authority, so they have to go through a 

more substantial environmental assessment. 

That is where we find the slow-down. When that does happen, 

in fact, it is a very similar process within each agency. USDOT has 

some ability to do that across modes, but not across to other agencies of the government. 

Senator ERNST. It would be helpful in your estimation? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Yes, it would. 

Senator ERNST. Between agencies. 

Is this recommendation something that most folks you have 

worked with would agree on? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Yes. We do believe that the work done by one 

agency versus another is quite similar, so it is a matter of speeding 

up the process, not short shifting the environmental regulations. 

Senator ERNST. Certainly, but if one agency has done it? 

Mr. MCKENNA. That is right. 

Senator ERNST. Right. Where would you receive pushback on this 

idea? 

Mr. MCKENNA. As we have made progress with the FAST Act 

and MAP–21, I think we have made progress there. I believe we 

are gaining momentum to continue with that forward. It is when 

we come across statutory limitations between the programs and between different agencies with different congressional mandates, 

that is where we see some of the issues. 

It is not so much that people do not wish to do it. It is that they 

may not have the statutory authority to do so. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. I appreciate that. 

Mr. McKenna, can you go into some detail on what you think are 

the benefits of States participating in the NEPA assignment program? I think there are only a few States right now that do participate in that. If you could, what do you think is keeping other 

States from getting onboard with that? 

Mr. MCKENNA. I think we have seven States now that are participating in that assignment. We do have some resource issues at 

the State level, being able to receive that responsibility and coordinate that. 

Some work to further streamline the application and approval 

process I think would be beneficial to help encourage others. In 

other cases, it is really a matter of working on a programmatic 

basis to set agreements that benefit both the State and the Federal 

Government. Being able to coordinate those efforts more could encourage that. 

Certainly in the States that have much more significant and 

complicated projects, it is a higher priority. In States like Missouri, 

our average project delivery timeframe is under a year. We have 

wonderful partners with Federal Highway, our division office is a 

terrific partner with us, and we work with our locals, our cities and 

our communities to try to quickly make commonsense investments. 

Senator ERNST. I appreciate that. I have very little time left. I 

will stop there but I do think as long as we are taking a look at 

this, we need to understand our dollars need to go a little bit further. The less we spend on the bureaucracy, the more we can actually spend on our infrastructure. 

Thank you. I appreciate that. 

200 

I will yield back. 

Senator BARRASSO. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this 

hearing. 

The economic impact of modernizing our infrastructure I think is 

obvious. It is good to be able to establish the record here. 

I want to cover a couple of points, if I might, as we deal with 

the economic returns of the infrastructure. Senator Van Hollen 

mentioned the fact that the B-W Parkway, I do take that road, the 

highway speed has been reduced to 40 miles an hour because of 

potholes. I admit that is under the Park Service, not under these 

programs, but it does point out the fact that we are not maintaining our transportation infrastructure. 

One of the things that concerns me is we all look at the opportunities to modernize our infrastructure and we always look for the 

glamorous new opportunities, as we should because it does provide 

economic growth. 

However, we do not invest in maintaining our infrastructure at 

a level that we need to. That is why we have bridges that are falling down, roads that are not really safe and we do not really invest 

in resiliency recognizing the realities of the changing climate conditions. 

We invest for the purposes of getting a good return. In reality, 

we are not investing in maintaining or dealing with resiliency. As 

we look at the reauthorization of surface transportation, I am wondering if any of you have thoughts as to how we can have a better 

decisionmaking process at both the Federal and local levels so that 

we do not just throw money at new projects and see existing essential transportation programs sort of crumble. 

I could also mention not only in this committee’s jurisdiction but 

our transit systems are in horrible condition. We have seen loss of 

life in the transit system here. How do we make sure that we deal 

with maintenance and resiliency? 

Mr. DEMETRIOU. Let me start and tell you what I am seeing it 

takes with regard to our clients across the United States. More and 

more everyone is seeing what you are talking about. 

Every project we are working now has not only the corrective action for the infrastructure or the expansion, but it is putting sustainable solutions in place, putting in new technology and innovation to make it more efficient, both to operate and maintain as well 

as the construction side of it. I think as we go forward, we need 

to put policy in place that ensures everything is addressed not just 

the short-term solution. 

Mr. REPLOGLE. In New York City, we are increasingly taking a 

triple bottom line approach to asset management. We have stepped 

up the amount we are investing in repaving our asphalt roadways. 

We are taking strong action on behalf of our $15 billion, 10-year 

capital program from my agency goes to keeping our bridges in a 

State of good repair and trying to improve that. 

We are looking increasingly at where we need to replace or modify old bridges. The average age of our bridges in New York City 

is over 75 years. As the city has evolved and grown around those, 

201 

it commands us to take a fresh look at how we manage and redevelop those assets over time. 

I think the Federal Government could take those kinds of models 

and embed them in new legislation to encourage a triple bottom 

line asset management program for the United States as part of a 

performance-based transportation initiative. 

Mr. MCKENNA. I would agree with what Michael said. Asset 

management is really the key. I think you are seeing that across 

the Country. Some of the requirements on performance management and metrics were put first in MAP–21 and then in the FAST 

Act. 

Some of the State DOTs are really waking up to that and doing 

a very good job of asset management. Simply put, asset management alone cannot do it. We need steady funding, need to know 

that it is coming, and need to know what amount it will be in so 

long-term reauthorization and steady funding is vital. 

You are planning, in a budgetary sense, on a one Fiscal Year 

basis in a budget sense. State DOTs and asset management plans 

are 10 years long. We are projecting out 20 and 30 years. Without 

knowing the amount we can invest, all of those plans are for 

naught. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me respond to the point from Senator Van 

Hollen on local input without having to go through the States. We 

do have a model under the Transportation Alternative Program so 

we might be able to build on that type of model on some of the 

issues you refer to because that has been a successful model for 

local governments being able to have more control over projects in 

their own communities without having to go through the State 

funds. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Braun, you had a question or two you wanted to followup with? 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you. 

This is for Mr. McKenna. I am asking you this because it was 

stated early on that it has been a long time since we have adjusted 

the fuel tax. We are in the worse shape possible doing things out 

of our general fund in the current context. I want to put you on 

the hot seat but I think I know what the answer would be in Indiana. 

Do you think in Missouri, if the formula was changed from the 

20–80 to where it would ask States to do more, or whether there 

was a separate grant process or funding say on a 50–50 basis like 

we did in Indiana with cities and counties, do you think that is 

something Missouri would interested in, in terms of not relying on 

something that is not currently working because I think roads 

across the Country are getting in worse and worse shape. Where 

do you think Missouri would be? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Frankly, we have challenges with funding across 

the board. States across the Country and in Missouri, we do count 

on Federal partnership and we do not rely solely on that Federal 

partnership. 

As I said, we have a cost share program where we are encouraging local participation, but we do need, as I mentioned in the example and what you can see in my testimony, a single bridge, the 

202 

Rocheport Bridge needs to be replaced. Within 72 hours, the commercial vehicles that travel on that touch every single State in the 

continental U.S. 

Even local projects require that. There is a purpose for the national program to be able to invest in those. 

I am hesitant to think we would go off or move away, from in 

its entirety, the Federal-State partnership that exists today. However, we just dropped two discretionary grant applications for 

INFRA into the hopper where the State is assuming a 70 percent 

share. 

On a case-by-case basis, one of them is to solve that Rocheport 

Bridge problem, but on a case-by-case, project-by-project basis, yes. 

On a programmatic basis, I think we are a little hesitant. 

Senator BRAUN. You would still be interested in keeping it on the 

20–80 formula? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Yes. 

Senator BRAUN. I think that would be the reaction from most 

States. I just think it is going to be shortsighted because I think 

if we want to get those things done within our States, we are going 

to have to start being willing to do more because if you look at 

what is happening here, we are in the least capable shape of doing 

what needs to be done across the Country. 

I am glad you are at least taking advantage of the INFRA 

grants. I think I would think about maybe doing more as a State. 

I know in Indiana, we would definitely think about it. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Braun. 

Senator CARPER. 

Senator CARPER. I just want to follow-up. 

As a former Governor, one who has thought a lot about StateFederal partnership on this front, I just jotted down five or six 

ideas on trying to pay for this hole, how to fill this hole for infrastructure and surface transportation. 

One would be to restore the purchasing power of the traditional 

user fees that we have had for many, many years. Two is a toll. 

I talked about tolling, a four-lane highway we just opened in Delaware a month or so ago. 

Public-private partnerships, a lot of people say that is the key, 

that is the magic. It is probably not. I think there were about 40 

public-private partnerships in the Country in the last decade or so. 

It is not a lot but it is part of the answer. 

We talked about streamlining. We have done a fair amount of 

that already. There may be other ways to do some more. I am not 

interested in degrading the environment but exploring technology 

to be able to build more durable structures as we go forward in 

time. 

This is your point, somehow figure out how to leverage more 

State and local funding and craft our Federal funding in a way that 

does that. I think eventually, for the folks driving vehicles that do 

not use any gas or diesel they have to start paying something as 

well. 

Eventually, what I would like to do is ramp us up to some kind 

of vehicle miles traveled. I think a dozen or so States have been 

203 

involved a bit in these pilot programs. I think there are seven active right now. I think that is part of the future. 

Thank you very much for mentioning that. 

Mr. Replogle, in your testimony, you urged Congress to increase 

Federal funding for transportation infrastructure. You also State 

not all transportation investments yield similar benefits. Could you 

elaborate for us how Congress should ensure that increased spending is directed to supporting productive long-term investments? 

Mr. REPLOGLE. I think there are a number of studies that have 

been done over the years showing if you invest $1 in a new highway, it creates little over a dollar’s worth of economic activity. 

If you invest that dollar in public transportation, you play this 

through economic multiplier models, 80 percent of that dollar in 

public transportation goes into transportation into wages for the 

people who are providing the public transportation services. That 

multiplies to about $2.80 in the local economic activity. 

You can look at this from an economic multiplier. The economic 

multipliers are heavier for transit investment than they are for 

highway investment. Those vary somewhat from region to region. 

You can also look at this from the standpoint of capital investment dollars. If you put those dollars into expanding a highway, an 

interState highway, it is going to certainly create jobs in the construction industry and provide for long term mobility. 

If you put that same money into building sidewalks and bike 

paths in communities, it is actually more labor intensive and creates more local jobs that are somewhat less skilled, so it helps support the local base of the economy while also helping traffic safety 

and saving lives in ways that we have not been paying sufficient 

attention to in America. 

That is one of the reasons why pedestrian deaths keep going up 

at a much sharper rate than overall highway deaths which are still 

going up. We need to address both of those. We need to think about 

those things together, again, triple bottom line, economic, social 

and environmental. 

Senator CARPER. I have a follow-up question for you. 

Later today, I am going to be introducing legislation entitled The 

Clean Corridors Act of 2019 which expands opportunities for electric vehicle charging. I would ask, how critical is EV charging infrastructure build out as a tool to address the global emergency of 

climate change? 

Mr. REPLOGLE. It is quite urgent that we rapidly invest in electric vehicle charging opportunities so that you can take a trip, most 

trips across America, without having to have range anxiety that 

you are going to have trouble finding a place to recharge your vehicle in a convenient way. 

We have that ability with the gasoline and diesel-powered fleet, 

but we do not have that quite yet for electric. We will need to electrify our surface transportation if we are to decarbonize it and to 

address the climate change challenge that is an existential crisis 

for our society and our civilization. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

You mentioned a trip across America. My wife and I went to see 

a movie last weekend that won the Academy Award for Best Motion Picture, Green Book, which is a trip across wide parts of 

204 

America by a talented African American pianist, Don Shirley, I 

think was his name, he was actually quite a concert musician as 

well, and a guy from the Bronx who was Italian-American. The two 

of them could not have been more different. 

The story is set in 1962 and going through the South. If you were 

African-American, you had to use this Green Book to find a place 

where you could stay and eat. It was a wonderful, wonderful film. 

It reminded me a bit of Hidden Figures, the NASA stuff with John 

Glenn which was also inspiring. 

It is nice to know they still make movies like that. It is nice to 

know we still have hearings like this. 

Thank you all. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

Mr. McKenna, earlier Senator Carper cited the Government Accountability Office statistic that about 96 percent of environmental 

reviews are completed through categorical exclusions. 

Does this figure mean there are no more or other meaningful 

ways we could further accelerate project delivery? 

Mr. MCKENNA. No, I think actually that citation shows that even 

within the process for categorical exclusion that might be one of the 

areas that moves the needle even further. If we make a 50 percent 

gain in efficiency on 95 percent of the projects in this Country, that 

is a significant gain on process, not on projects that would impact 

the environment. 

I think even when we shave a week, a month, 2 months or 3 

months off that, in a lot of States in this Country that is the whole 

construction season. It is really impactful. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Demetriou, do you have any examples or 

thoughts on that specific question as well? 

Mr. DEMETRIOU. I want to use three projects I want to highlight 

and how it can be done in today’s environment. 

The 11th Street Bridge is a project I mentioned earlier and the 

Anacostia River. Average infrastructure projects of an equivalent 

type nature were six-plus years. That project was 27 months to get 

a record of decision. 

I already mentioned the Colorado project, 2 years. Then the 

Elgin-O’Hare West Bypass is another great example, 6 months 

ahead of schedule to get the record of decision. 

All three of these projects basically had the four key elements 

needed in addition to policy. It had up-front funding that was committed. A lot of times that is the major driver. Two, it had upfront 

commitment by the political environment, the regulatory and the 

business purpose was clear whether it was a need to respond to a 

disaster or need for improvement. 

I think the biggest piece was the collaboration and communication people committed to. The regulatory agencies, the owners and 

the contractors altogether made sure that upfront everyone knew 

what had to get done. 

It is already happening. I think the more we can codify and put 

this into law, we will further accelerate all of that. 

Senator BARRASSO. I appreciate that. 

I do have AASHTO’s FAST Act reauthorization proposals from 

November 2018 which include a number of the recommendations 

205 

for streamlining these environmental reviews for transportation 

projects. 

If there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent to enter this 

into the record. It is so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

206 


35959.058

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 

O' STATE HiGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION 0FFlC!Al5 CARLOS 8RAC£RA5, P.E., PR£SID£NT 

A As HI 0 __________ E_X<_C-UT_"_'_D_'"_·_:_T:_:_·_:_T:_~_GD_~_:_~·_:_:_'E"_~_:_:_.:_:_AN_;_~R-0~-:_·:_:_:_ 444 "'tJRfH GA.P!TOL STREET NW. SUiTE 2.49, WASHINGTON, DC 2:::!001 

[202) 624·580::; t FAX: :'2:J2) 624·5606 • 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 

Compilation of 11 White Papers from Committees 

Final Version: November 5, io18 

INTRODUCTION 

The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act enacted in December 2015 represented the first 

comprehensive, long-term surface transportation legislation since 2005's SAFETEA-LU. The FAST Act 

continues to fulfill the Constitutional directive that investment in transportation is a core federal 

responsibility. Its authorization of $305 billion for federal highway, highway safety, transit, and 

passenger rail programs from 2016 to 2020 could not have been timelier in supporting our economic 

growth and maintaining our multimodal transportation infrastructure. 

Yet at the same time, the FAST Act provides only a one-time and near-term-though absolutely 

necessary-reprieve when it comes to federal surface transportation funding. By not enacting a longterm funding source, the Highway Trust Fund {HTF) continues to remain at a crossroads. The HTF has 

provided stable, reliable, ond substantial highway and transit funding for decades since its inception in 

1956, but this is no longer the case. Since 2008, the HTF has been sustained through a series of General 

Fund transfers now amounting to $140 billion. Without a solution to this crisis, AASHTO estimates that 

states will see about a 40 percent drop in highway funding from FY 2020 to the following year-$46.2 

billion to $27.7 billion in FY 2021. In the past, such similar shortfall situations have led to the possibility 

of a reduction in federal reimbursements to states on existing obligations, leading to serious cash flow 

problems for states and resulting in project delays. More alarmingly, due to a steeper projected shortfall 

in the Mass Transit Account, new federal transit obligations are expected to be zeroed out between FY 

2021 and FY 2023, excluding any "flex" of highway dollars to transit. Simply put, this is a devastating 

scenario that we must do all we can to avoid. Beyond maintaining program levels, there has been broad 

consensus among states that additional Federal funding and investment is warranted. 

Beyond funding stability, after decades of adding layers of regulatory requirements on state 

transportation agencies, some aspects of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP21) and the FAST Act provided helpful policy reforms. Through the proposed infrastructure package and 

the next surface transportation reauthorization, AASHTO recognizes that we need to continue the 

momentum of MAP-21 and the FAST Act by making further efficiency gains on transportation policies 

and project delivery and provide increased flexibility for states. State DOTs strive to maintain 

responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources and both human and natural environments, all the while 

improving both mobility and accessibility for all residents and businesses. 

ljPage 
207 


35959.059

POLICY WHITE PAPERS FROM ELEVEN AASHTO WORKING GROUPS 

Resulting from the first phase of the 18-month reauthorization policy development process, this 

document comprises in-depth policy white papers from the eleven Working Groups listed below. 

1. Connected and Automated Vehicles 

2. Data Management and Analytics 

3. Funding and Finance 

4. Operations 

5. Performance-based Management 

6. Planning 

7. Project Delivery: Engineering 

8. Project Delivery: Environmental Protection 

9. Research and Innovation 

10. Safety 

11. Transportation System Security and Resilience 

After the meeting of the AASHTO Transportation Policy Forum in Atlanta on September 22, 2018, 

recommendations from TPF will be provided to each of the Working Groups for their consideration 

before finalizing each of these white papers. Upon completion, this package of papers will be updated 

for review by each of AASHTO's Modal Councils and the Special Committee on Freight for their 

respective white papers to be completed in early 2019. 

TIM ELINE 

C_QMPLETED 

May 2018: Formally kick off the FAST Act reauthorization effort at the TPF meeting; 2018 AASHTO 

Spring Meeting, Franklin, TN 

May 2018 to September 2018: Committees to develop and approve their five-page white paper. 

CURRENT 

September to November 2018: TPF, Modal Councils, and Special Committee on Freight to receive 

briefings on each white paper; 2018 AASHTO Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA 

FUTURE 

November 2018 to February 2019: Modal Councils and Special Committee on Freight to develop 

and approve their five-page white paper. 

February 2019: TPF to receive briefings on each Modal and Special Committee white paper; 2019 

AASHTO Washington Briefing, Washington, DC 

February 2019 to May 2019: TPF to develop draft policy resolutions based on each white paper. 

May 2019: TPF to deliberate on draft policy resolutions developed to date; 2019 AASHTO Spring 

Meeting, Park City, UT 

Summer 2019: TPF to hold an in-person reauthorization meeting to finalize and adopt draft policy 

resolutions for Board consideration, amend white papers as necessary, and develop legislative 

outreach strategy; 2019 AASHTO Joint Policy Conference, Location TBD 

October 2019: AASHTO Board of Directors to consider and formally adopt TPF policy resolutions, 

and amend white papers as necessary; 2019 AASHTOAnnua/ Meeting, St. Louis, MO 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 2jPage 
208 


35959.060

October to November 2019: AASHTO staff to develop a comprehensive suite of reauthorization 

policy information composed of policy. resolutions, white papers, and visual complements intended 

to serve different audiences in the transportation stakeholder community. 

November 2019 to September 2020: AASHTO members and staff to communicate and explain 

AASHTO's formal policy position. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 3IPage 
209 


35959.061

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1: Connected and Automated Vehicles ........................................................................................................ 8 

ISSUE 1·1: Deploying CAV Technologies in the Safest Manner Possible is Paramount. ........................... B 

ISSUE 1-2: The Future of Transportation Includes Connected and Automated Vehicles ......................... 9 

ISSUE 1·3: Any New Laws or Regulations Must M<intain the Current Federal-State Regulatory 

Paradigm and Any Changes Should be Done Collaboratively with the States ....................................... 10 

ISSUE 1·4: State Laws Concerning the Operation of Conn-ected and Automated Vehicles Need to be 

Uniform and Consistent .......................................................................................................................... 10 

ISSUE 1-5: State DOTs Need Additional Funding and Flexibility in Order to Deploy CAV Technologies 

and Accommodate CAV Vehicles ............................................................................................................ ll 

ISSUE 1-6: CAVs Will Produce Significant Amounts of Data and There is a Data Governance Gap ....... 12 

ISSUE 1-7: The Deployment of CAVs Will Continue to Require <l Collaborative Approach .................... 13 

2: Data Management and Analytics ............................................................................................................ 15 

ISSUE 2·1: Unfunded Mondates ............................................................................................................. 1S 

ISSUE 2-2: Privacy, Security, Cyber Security ........................................................................................... 15 

3: Funding and Finance ............................................................................................................................... 17 

ISSUE 3-1: Increase Federal Funding ...................................................................................................... 17 

ISSUE 3·2: Fix the Federal Highway Trust Fund and Strengthen Federal Transportation Funding ........ 18 

ISSUE 3-3: Prioritize Formula-based Federal Funding ............................................................................ l8 

ISSUE 3-4: Eliminate Rescissions of Contract Authority ......................................................................... 19 

ISSUE 3·5: Preserve the Current Federal/State Matching Ratio Requirements ..................................... 19 

ISSUE 3-6: Increase Flexibility and Transferability of Funding ................................................................ l9 

ISSUE 3·7: Maintain the Current Balance of Funding Among Highways, Transit, and Highway Safety .20 

ISSUE 3-8: Provide Flexibility to Toll Federal-aid Highways .................................................................... 20 

ISSUE 3-9: Support for Financing Tools .................................................................................................. 20 

ISSUE 3-10: Reduce and Simplify Regulations, Requirements, Data Collections, and Process to 

Expedite the Process .............................................................................................................................. 21 

4: Operations .............................................................................................................................................. 31 

ISSUE 4-1: Strengthen Eligibility for Investments in Transportation System Management and 

Operations (TSMO] and Related Technology ......................................................................................... 31 

ISSUE 4-2: Communications Technology for Highway Operations ......................................................... 31 

ISSUE 4-3: Establish a Permanent Transportation Operations Program Budget Line Item within USDOT 

Funding to help Ensure Better Sharing of Quality Practices and Accelerate Development of Solutions 

for Consideration by the States .............................................................................................................. 32 

ISSUE 4-4: Expand Eligible Activities Though National Highway Freight Program ................................. 32 

ISSUE 4-5: Improve Buy America Requirements .................................................................................... 33 

ISSUE 4-6; Update National ITS Architecture Rule 940 .......................................................................... 33 

AASHTO fAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 41Page 
210 


35959.062

ISSUE 4-7: Public Safety Radio Communication Spectrum ..................................................................... 33 

5: Performance-based Management .......................................................................................................... 35 

ISSUE 5·1: Federal Funding Apportionment Should Not Be Tied to Target Achievement ..................... 35 

ISSUE 5-2: Continue to Focus on Implementation of the Performance Management Regulations ...... 36 

ISSUE 5·3: Performance Management Regulations Should Be Improved to Reduce the Burden on State 

DOTs ....................................................................................................................................................... 35 

ISSUE 5-4: Make Consistent the Financial Planning Requirements among the Required PerformanceBased Planning Documents .......... ; ......................................................................................................... 37 

ISSUE 5-5: Minimum Condition Levels for National Highway System (NHS) Bridges and Pavements 

Could Encourage a Worst-First Asset Management Approach .............................................................. 38 

ISSUE 5-6: Help Advance Progress Towards a More Flexible Transportation Program ......................... 38 

6: Planning .................................................................................................................................................. 40 

ISSUE 6-1: Do Not Increase Any Regulatory Burdens Related to Planning but Rather Look for 

Opportunities to Reduce Burdens and Unnecessary Requirements While Maintaining a Thorough 

Planning Process ..................................................................................................................................... 40 

ISSUE 5-2: Enhance Flexibility and Avoid Imposing New Administrative Burdens, whether through 

statute, Rulemaklngs, or Guidance ............................................................. , ........................................... 41 

ISSUE 6-3: Maintain the Existing Balance of Authority among State DOTs, MPOs, and Rural Planning 

Organizatlons .......................................................................................................................................... 41 

ISSUE 6-4: Fiscal Constraint .................................................................................................................... 42 

ISSUE 6-5: Make State DOTs and MPOs Eligible Recipients under the Set Aside from the Surface 

Transportation Block Grant Program (aka transportation alternatives program) ................................. 43 

ISSUE 6-6: Make More Flexible the Projects that can be Funded through the Congestion Mitigation 

and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program .................................................................................... 43 

ISSUE 6-7: Mitigate the Burden of Data Collection Related to the Performance-Based Planning and 

Performance Management Regulations ................................................................................................. 44 

ISSUE 6-8: Expand the Extent of both the Primary Highway Freight System and National Multimodal 

Freight Network ...................................................................................................................................... 44 

ISSUE 6-9: Streamline and Simplify the Development and Updating of the Multitude of Transportation 

Plan Documents Currently Required ofStates ....................................................................................... 45 

7: Project Delivery-Engineering .......................................................................... , ..................................... 47 

ISSUE 7-1: Adoption of PROWAG ........................................................................................................... 47 

ISSUE 7-2: Right of Way Acquisition from Federal Agencies .................................................................. 4S 

ISSUE 7-3: Right of Way Acquisition Processes ...................................................................................... 48 

ISSUE 7-4: Federal Bridge Inspection Program Audit ............................................................................. 48 

ISSUE 7-5: Emergency Relief {ER) Program ............................................................................................. 49 

ISSUE 7-6: Emergency and Tow Vehicles ................................................................................................ 49 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 5I Page 
211 


35959.063

ISSUE 7-7: Reduce Federal Regulation of State Policies and Procedures Through Reduction of 

Requirements, Less Frequent Reviews, and Delegation ........................................................................ 50 

ISSUE 7-8: Buy America ............................................ ~ ............................................................................. 50 

ISSUE 7-9: Roadside Hardware ............................................................................................................... 51 

ISSUE 7-10; Outdoor Advertising: Elimination ofTracking the Federal-Aid Primary Route System ...... 51 

ISSUE 7-11: Outdoor Advertising: Nonconforming Signs ...................................................... , ................ 52 

ISSUE 7·12: Outdoor Advertising: Bonus Act Program ........................................................................... S2 

ISSUE 7-13: Preventive Maintenance ............................................................................................ , ........ 53 

ISSUE 7-14: Small/Local Projects and Transportation Alternatives Projects .......................................... 53 

ISSUE 7-15: Coordination with Railroads ................................................................................................ 54 

ISSUE 7-16: Drones/Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) .......................................... , ............................. 54 

ISSUE 7·17: Relocation of Utilities ........ ; .................................................................... , ............................ 54 

ISSUE 7-18: Delegation of ITS Architecture ............................................. , .............................................. 55 

ISSUE 7·19: Delegation of Preventive Maintenance Projects ................. ., ............................................. 55 

ISSUE 7·20: Delegation of Authorization for Right-of-Way Acquisition ................................................. 55 

ISSUE 7-21: Delegation of Federal Funds Obligation Management ....................................................... ss 

ISSUE 7-22: Delegation of Project Agreements ......................................................................... , ............ 55 

8: Project Delivery-Environmental Protection ................................................................. , ........................ 57 

ISSUE 8-1: Enhance Role of Lead Agency in Managing the NEPA Process ............................................. 57 

ISSUE 8-2: Provide a Consistent Legal framework for Linking Planning and NEPA ............................... 57 

ISSUE 8-3: Make All Categorical Exclusions Available for Use by Any Federal Agency .......................... 58 

ISSUE 8·4: Maximize Use of CEs, Including Clarification that Programmatic Agreements Can be Used to 

Authorize Additional CEs ........................................................................................................................ 58 

ISSUE 8-5: Clarify and Expand NEPA Assignment Authorities ................................................................ 59 

ISSUE 8-6: Allow Increased Use of Programmatic Agreements to Balance FHWA and State DOT Roles 

....................................................................................... , ....................................................... , ................ 59 

ISSUE 8-7: Establish Project Delivery Innovation Pilot Program ............................................................ 60 

ISSUE 8·8: Allow Utility Relocations to Start Earlier ...................... , .................. , ..................................... 60 

ISSUE 8-9; Allow Conformity and Fisr;al Constraint to be Determined Post-NEPA, Prior to Construction 

................................................................................................................................................................ 61 

ISSUE 8-10: Provide Greater Flexibility for Early Acquisition of Right·of-Way ....................................... 61 

ISSUE 8-11: Require Air Quality Conformity Only for the Current Air Quality Standards ...................... 62 

ISSUE 8-12: Allow Programmatic Air Quality Conformity Determinations ............................................ 62 

ISSUE 8·13: Adjust Timing ofTransportation Conformity Requirements to Align with SIP ApprovaL ... 62 

ISSUE 8·14: Streamline Section 106 Requirements for Post-WWI! Properties ...................................... 63 

ISSUE 8-lS: Streamllne Agency Involvement in Section 4(f) Decisions ................................................. 63 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 6jPage 
212 


35959.064

ISSUE 8·16: Allow Alternatives to Providing "Replacement Parkland" under Section 6(f) ................... 63 

ISSUE 8-l7: Streamline Section 404 Compliance for Routine Road Maintenance Activities ................ 64 

ISSUE 8-18: Allow Programmatic Approach to Compliance with Section 404(b)(1] Guidelines ............ 64 

ISSUE 8-19: Allow Delegation of Section 404 Permitting Authority for Transportation Projects .......... 65 

ISSUE 8-20: Require Interim Guidance to Be Issued at Time of Species Listing, and then a Full Recovery 

Plan ......................................................................................................................................................... 65 

ISSUE 8·21: Provide a Framework for Exempting Projects with Minor Effects ...................................... 55 

ISSUE 8-22: Allow Project Sponsors to Serve as "Non-Federal Representatives" in Formal Consultation 

................................................................................................................................................................ 66 

9: Research and Innovation ................................................................................................................ , ....... 67 

ISSUE 9-1: Increase Research, Technology & Education Program Funding Levels ................................. 57 

ISSUE 9-2: Allow Highway Safety Improvement Program Funds to be liSe(! for Safety Related Research 

Activities ................................................................................................................................................. 68-. 

ISSU£ 9·3: Allow States to Use Non-SP&R Federal Funding when Contributing to Multi-State Pooled 

f'und Research Studies ............................................................................................................................ 69 

ISSUE 9-4: Support for Associated National Research Programs ........................................................... 69 

ISSUE 9-5: Recommend Third Strategic Highway Program .................................................................... 70 

ISSU£'9-6: Redefine "Manufactured Products" Requirement within Buy America Law ........................ 70 

10: Safety .................................................................................................................................................... 72 

ISSUE 10-1: Non-infrastructure Eligibilities under the Highway Safety Improvement Program ............ 72. 

ISSUE 10·2: DATA PROTECTION .............................................................................................................. 72 

ISSUE 10-3: Opportunity to Take Corrective Action ............................................................................... 73 

11: Transportation System Security and Resilience .................................................................................... 74 

ISSUE 11-1: National Transportation System Security and Resilience Plan ........................................... 75 

ISSUE 11·2: Promote All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis for Critical Facilities ............................. 75 

ISSUE 11·3: Modify Emergency Relief {ER) Program to be More Flexible and More Responsive to 

System Resilience Needs ........................................................................................................................ 76 

ISSUE 11-4: Provide More Flexibility in Use of Federal Funds for Preventive and Response Actions to 

System Disruptions ................................................................................................................................. 77 

ISSUE 11-5: Foster Collaboration in Preparing for System Disruptions .................................................. 77 

ISSUE 11-6: Reaffirm Security and Resilience as Factors in Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation 

Planning Processes ................................................................................................................................. 77 

ISSUE 11-7: Promote Cyber Security Strategies ..................................................................................... 78 

AASHTO FAST Acr REAUTHORIZATION 7jPage 
213 


35959.065

1: Connected and Automated Vehicles 

The potential of Connected and Automated Vehicle {CAV) technologies to save Jives, enhance mobility, 

and serve as the platform of a new generation of transportation management systems is vast. While 

there is tremendous potential in significantly improving transportation mobility and accessibility for 

people with CAVs, the top priority for AASHTO and the state DOTs is the safety associated with the 

implementation of the technologies. Safety has been, and will remain, at the forefront of AASHTO's 

policy goals as. state DOTs have the primary responsibility for the safe and efficient movement of people 

and goods on our nation's highways and streets. 

Ultimately, it is in the best interest of society that vehicles equipped with CAV technologies be 

introduced as quickly under appropriate regulatory oversight to realize the saving of lives and to 

improve the quality of life, and a collaborative approach on the challenges will help avoid pitfalls on a 

much-needed deployment pathway. The traditional division of responsibilities for vehicle safety, under 

purview of the federal government, and safe operation of vehicles through licensing and registration 

under purview of the state government has worked well and needs to be maintained in the future. 

However, the advent of automated vehicles is blurring the role of the vehicle and the operator subject 

to traditional jurisdictional lines and requires a new collllborative approach to what lies ahead. 

The transformative nature of CAVs is just now coming into focus. There are still many questions to be 

answered from both a policy and technological perspective. While current media attention appears to 

tows on automated vehicles, AASHTO believes the future includes both connected and automated 

vehicles. AASHTO's member DOTs believe that establishing a strong foundation for CAVs requires robust 

connectivity using vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V21) communication. 

SPEd lire 'i!ol.lcV' 1ssu.i:.s ~No RECOMMENDA noNs . 

ISSUE 1-1: Deploying CAVTechnologies In the Safest Manner Possible is Paramount 

Current Federal Policy; None 

lnue: The safety of all users of the transportation system is the most important consideration for 

AASHTO and state DOTs with respect to transportation infrastructure and the emerging deployment 

of CAVs. It is estimated that over 90 percent of fatal vehicle crashes are a result of human error, 

some of which could be significantly mitigated through CAV technologies occurring an the 

transportation system. CAVs have the potential to positively influence the safety of not only vehicle 

occupants, but also highway maintenance and construction workers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 

While the prospect for safety improvement is exciting, we are also acutely aware that this is truly 

innovative technology and there are still uncertainties surrounding it. However, any slowdown in 

the deployment of CAV technologies will result in a substantial setback in our nation's efforts to 

reduce the number of crashes that result in death or injury, 

Recommendations: 

o AASHTO continues its commitment to safety as a top priority for the transportation industry and 

strongly believes that connected and automated vehicles have the potential to further reduce 

motor vehicle crashes and traffic related fatalities. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION SIPage 
214 


35959.066

o The development and demonstration of connected and automated vehicles must continue and 

provide the data and examples necessary to establish the safety benefits of this technology. 

Initial, non-proprietary data generated by automobile manufacturers, technology developers, 

research organizations, and public agencies that may improve overall safety outcomes should 

be shared and the results made transparent to the public and decision makers. 

o Government regulators and lawmakers should revise or remove outdated safety related laws, 

regulations and guidance as data demonstrates a technology's ability to provide an equivalent 

or higher level of safety than current regulations support or incorporate. 

ISSUE 1-2: The Future of Transportation Includes Connected and Automated Vehicles 

Current Federal Policy: None 

Issue: While there has been significant focus on automated vehicles (AV) and the benefitS they may 

bring, there has been less attention on a future that includes connected vehicles (CV). As 

infrastructure owners and operators, state DOTs agree that establishing a strong foundation for AVs 

requires ensuring robust connectivity for V2V and V21 communication, The overwhelming support 

for the development and deployment of CAV systems is evident in the significant commitment that 

state and local agencies have already made in leading, supporting, and fostering the testing and 

deployment of these new technologies. To date, 33 locations in the US are deploying CV 

technologies under sponsorship of US DOT and seventeen locations are deploying the technologies 

without sponsorship from US DOT. Combined, this represents 72,000 vehicles on the road and 

65,000 devices installed on the infrastructure. 

Many of these CV deployments involve state transportation agencies and AASHTO is working and 

supporting the states in many different ways. For example, AASHTO is supporting a national traffic 

signal phasing and timing (SPaT) challenge, which is challenging state and local public sector 

transportation infrastructure owners and operators to achieve deployment of dedicated short-range 

communications (DSRC) 5.9 GHz infrastructure with SPoT broadcasts in at least one corridor or 

network (approximately 20 signalized intersections) in each ofthe SO states by January 2020. As of 

August 30,2018, at least 26 states have committed to the challenge. More than 200 signals are 

broadcasting SPaT and more than 2,000 additional signals are planned. States and local 

transportation agencies have invested millions of dollars in DSRC, and they do not want that 

investment to be wasted. However, the lack of further federal direction regarding communications 

between V2V and V21 communication standards is creating uncertainty among state and local 

agencies. Absent clear direction, states and local agencies will likely make no significant 

implementation of OJ technology since many states are unsure if they should invest in DSRC, SG, or 

both for V21 communications. This uncertainty slows the advancement of this technology and future 

integration into our sleet and facilities. 

Recommendations: 

o AASHTO supports integrating Connected Vehicle technologies with the development and 

deployment of Autonomous Vehicles to maximize public safety: 

o AASHTO urges US DOT to ensure that its effort to establish a nationwide standard for V2V safety 

communications continues unimpeded such that other connected vehicle applications can be 

developed and deployed. 

o AASHTO believes the transportation industry must use every tool available, including DSRC, to 

make our vehicles, highways and roads safer. The DSRC spectrum is the only viable technology 

available now and US DOT should support its use for connected vehicle applications. Also, DSRC 

should be protected solely for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) uses and the spectrum should not be 

shared for other uses. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 91Page 
215 


35959.067

o AASHTO also recognizes the future is uncertain with regard to technological innovation. The 

i~dustry must remain flexible with r~gard to technical approaches and standards development. 

While DSRC is the only viable technology available now to support V2X applications, any 

standards developed that occurs now should not impede technological innovation and 

implementation in the future. 

o A universal, seamless approach to security management and CV communication is essential for 

the widespread deployment of connected vehicles. The Federal government should quickly lead 

this development through standardization and appropriate research and technology 

demonstration programs. This will enable states to better understand when and how to make 

appropriate investment decisions. 

ISSUE 1-3: Any New Laws or Regulations Must Maintain the Current Federal-State Regulatory 

Paradigm and Any Changes Should be Done Collaboratively with the States 

Current Federal Policy: 49 CFR Part 571: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

Issue: Historically, the regulatio~ concerning the design, construction, and performance of a motor 

vehicle is a Federal obligation that has been under the oversight of the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration through the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The licensing of 

motor vehicle operators, registration of vehicles, and enforcement of traffic laws have been the 

domain of states. In other words, the federal role Is focused on what can be sold through the 

establishme~t of safety standards, emissions standards and co11sumer protection. The state and 

local role Is focused on who can operate and where, when and haw vehicles are used. 

The development of automated vehicles (AVs) has the potential to disrupt this separation of 

desig~ versus operation whereby motor vehicles are no longer drive11 by a person but by the AV 

systems (i.e., artificial intelligence) and important questions about design, regulation, and 

certification of complex computer systems must be addressed. Already, there are bills in both the 

House and Senate that would potentially preempt state law by focusing, i11 part, on the performance 

of AV systems and affecting the how aspect of vehicles which is currently under the domain of 

states. 

Recommendation: 

o AASHTO recommends that the current federal-state regulatory paradigm remain intact when it 

comes to developing any new federal law, regulation or guidance. In addressing this and many 

other questions, states should be able to maintain their traditional oversight of vehicle 

operations and enforcement of traffic laws. 

o As technical and policy developments occur and lessons are gained, any regulations and laws 

needed to rebalance this separation of roles should be done collaboratively with the states 

(through the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators [AAMVA] and AASHTO) to 

assure the safe, efficient and effective deployment of CAVs. 

ISSUE 1-4: State Laws Concerning the Operation of Connected and Automated Vehicles Need to be 

Uniform and Consistent 

Current Federal Policy: None 

Issue: Each state enacts laws and creates regulations for the licensing, registration and insuring of 

vehicles, and states have honored registrations and licenses from other states through 

harmonization of minimum requirements. As states begin to grapple with how to approach AVs, 

some are instituting restrictions on their operation, requiring special license plates or limiting their 

operation to specific areas, while others are treating AVs as a standard motor vehicle, allowing 

operation anywhere under any safe condition. As the technology advances faster than the ability of 

state regulatory agencies or legislatures to respond, those laws and regulations may end up 

MSHTO "AST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 10 I Page 
216 


35959.068

hindering technological advancements or encouraging companies to operate in states that offer 

friendlier regulatory environments. Thus, a patchwork system for the operation of AVs could slow 

nationwide deployment, leading to the uneven accrual of benefits across the states. 

For example, New York garnered attention with a debate over a state law that requires drivers to 

keep one hand on the steering wheel, which could limit the use of AVs based on the definition of 

"driver." Also, many states have regulations prohibiting video screens from being visible to drivers 

as well as prohibitions against the consumption of alcohol by drivers and, in most states, passengers. 

These regulations are being questioned by the anticipated deployment of LevelS (fully automated) 

AVs. Another example of a regulation that could hamstring future technology is the common 

requirement that drivers remain a reasonable distance behind other vehicles to allow for safe 

braking, also known as "following too closely" laws. Pennsylvania statutes include language 

requiring vehicles being driven in a caravan or motorcade to "allow sufficient space between each 

vehicle or combination of vehicles so as to enable any other vehicle to enter and occupy space 

without danger." Even before Level 5 AVs are common on the roads, connected vehicle technology 

will allow for the safe platooning of vehicles; strictly applied, "following too closely" laws could 

prohibit the use of platooning on public roads, eliminating anticipated benefits to fuel efficiency and 

congestion. 

AASHTO recognizes the need to foster innovation and the development of CAV technologies and 

to not penalize states or stifle innovation. In the current CAV development environment, state laws 

allowing the on-road testing of CAVs are an important aspect to the research and development of 

the CAV technology and their eventual wide-scale deployment. In addition, AASHTO recognizes the 

need of states working together to harmonize state-level traffic and vehicle rules to ensure CAVs can 

legally operate and ensure interstate commerce is not adversely affected. 

Recommendation: 

o State DOTs should commit to working with their sister agencies at the state level to ensure a 

unified national framework to facilitate the development, testing, and deployment of CAV 

technologies, including further harmonization of state-level traffic and vehicle rules affecting the 

safe operation of such technologies. 

o State DOTs should continue to work through the Autonomous Vehicle Best Prilctices Working 

Group, hosted by the AAMVA thilt is providing states and other stakeholders with a venue in 

which to gather, organize and share information about the testing, operation and regulation of 

AVs. 

ISSUE 1-5: State DOTs Need Additional Funding and Flexibility in Order to Deploy CAV Technologies 

and Accommodate CAV Vehicles 

Current Federal Policy: None 

Issue: States are struggling to find the fiscal resources to maintain their current infrastructure, so 

having to invest In new technology to retrofit existing roads, bridges and other infrastructure to 

accommodate CAVs will be difficult with current funding. Consequently, benefits will not accrue 

unless states can afford to make the necessary investments. There are a number oftest bed and 

pilot connected vehicle programs taking place where there is much learning about CV hardware 

deployment. As with all technology, costs can change rapidly as the new developments occur. 

State DOTs know considerably less about the cost of ensuring automated vehicles are able to 

operate on the roadways. Currently, state DOTs (and other infrastructure owners) are ur~certain, at 

least at a detailed level, which roadway characteristics are critically important to the safe and 

efficient operation of AVs: pavement condition, sign age, detailed GPS base maps, or striping. We 

know some of the developers' needs in a general way as industry has filed comments at USDOT 

Identifying the importance of signage, lane marking, and striping. In fact, one state has respondt>d to 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 111Page 
217 


35959.069

this concern by gdlng from 4-inch to 6"inch stripes to help the technology developers with their 

sensors and lane departure warning systems. Other states, however, are not as willing to modify 

their lane striping widths because this is seen as a major investment, Further, there is uncertainty 

whether or under what circumstances replacing pavement marking for purpose of AV deployment is 

a capital investment (eligible under FHWA programs) or a maintenance activity and not eligible for 

reimbursement. 

Recommendation: 

o Congress is urged to grow federal surface transportation funding significantly above the current 

FAST Act funding levels and to make the deployment of connected and automated vehicle 

infrastructure needs eligible for funding beyond the historical aspect of funding only capital 

expenses to include maintenance activities necessary to the proper and safe operation of CAVs. 

o Flexibility is needed in the federal-aid procurement rules as they relate to both the purchase, 

installation, and maintenance of CAV technologies by a state DOT. The procurement and 

maintenance of CAV equipment is not the same as procurement for a more traditional civil 

infrastructure project and that other considerations need to be made. States need flexibility in 

procuring the services and equipment needed to install and maintain the computer technology 

assets. 

o State DOTs are committed to maintaining their assets in good a condition based on resource 

availability. At this point, state DOTs do not know what, or if, minimum conditions are needed 

for ADS to operate effectively or what the minimum condition levels should be. The state DOTs 

look forward to working with other public and private sector partners in updating the practical 

meaning of state of good repair in a world of deployed CAVs. 

o AASHTO recommends additional federal funding for building new testbeds and maintaining 

existing ones to allow industry and technology developers to test their hardware and 

applications on such testbeds. This will enable infrastructure owners and technology developers 

to better understand each other's reql.lirements, resulting in better standards and better 

infrastructure. 

ISSUE 1-6: CAVs Will Produce Significant Amounts of Data and There is a Data Governance Gap 

Current Federoi Policy: None 

lssr.Je: The data concerns of CAVs are complex and the needed laws, regulations, and guidance are 

simply not well known at this time. It is very likely that CAVs will collect and transmit massive 

amounts of data from an array of sensors and cameras. These data elements will become extremely 

valuable to many different stakeholders. For example, AV data could include origin-destination and 

ridership data (for better planning) or the condition of pavements, signs, and road markings (for 

better asset management). Should such information become available to state and local 

transportation officials through AVs, the improved data quality would likely facilitate improved 

planning and decision making. The availability of such information from AVs also could reduce 

some state data collection costs, freeing up personnel and funds for other important uses. However, 

this data would likely be valuable and useful to others as well. The private sector would likely 

monetize it in some way and may also collect it. Law enforcement could use the information as 

evidence of a crime that was committed near a vehicle. 

Further, AASHTO has a number of concerns about the data being generated by CAVs specifically 

in a testing environment, which we are currently in: 

o Who is this information intended to be shared with? 

o Will state and local law enforcement agencies, state DOTs, and insurance companies have 

access to It? 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 12 I Page 
218 


35959.070

o Will data sharing be the prerogative of the individual manufacturers, or will there be regulation 

governing access? 

o Who owns and controls this data: the vehicle owner, the manufacturer, or a government 

agency? 

Without controls in place to regulate or monitor use of the data that CAVs collect, there needs to 

be clarification over who "owns" the data that AVs generate; otherwise fears over invasions of 

privacy will likely increase. To complicate matters, most state agencies are subject to operl 

government records requests, which can become very burdensome. Data sharing should be 

evaluated carefully to determine which data is able to be shared with all entities. 

Recommendation: 

o Contirlue to collaborate with industry to better understand data issues and develop consensus 

on future paths forward related to the collection, sharirlg, and use of data related to CAYs. This 

would include a discussiorl on: 

What data and Information are Important to collect; 

What is the purpose of using the collected data and information purpose; and 

Who and why should the data and information be shared with. 

o Due to the industry's preliminary testing phase of AV operation Orl public roadways, AASHTO 

strongly recommends: 

The broad sharing of information associated with crashes and rlear-miss occurrences so that 

collective leaming can take place while still protecting proprietary information of the 

technology developers. 

The data for which events are shared includes non-crash data such as "near miss" and 

disengagement everlts which can be as important as crash scenarios when assessing road 

conditions. Currently, the data recording is suggested to be limited to fatal crashes, personal 

irljury crashes, and crashes involving. towed vehicles. 

Ensure that no personally identifiable information can be included in any of the data that 

are shared to protect the privacy of the individuals. 

ISSUE 1·7: The Deployment of CAVs Will Continue to Require a Collaborative Approach 

Current Federal Policy: US DOT Automated Vehicles 3.0: Preparing for the Future of Transportation 

(published October 2018) 

Issue: In NHTSA's Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety they specifically state that 

"Collaboration is essential as our Nation embraces the many technological developments affecting 

our public roadways." AASHTO agrees with this statement and looks forward to working 

collaboratively with NHTSA, local governments, and the private sector on the testing and 

deployment of connected and automated vehicles. For e<ample, infrastructure owners and 

operators want more information from the automakers about what infrastructure elements they 

need irl order to successfully deploy the technology. The advent of ADS and connected technology 

represents a new paradigm irl the relationship between these two segments of the transportation 

community. We recogrlize that automakers work in a very competitive environment arld may be 

challenged to reach consensus on their needs. Similarly, road agencies range in size, capability and 

perspective. However, if we are to provide Infrastructure that supports these new technologies, 

both physical (roadways, bridges, traffic signals, signs, etc.) and digital (software applications, 

algorithms, business intelligence, mobile communications, etc.) clearer guidance from the 

automaker industry would be helpful. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION BIPage 
219 


35959.071

Recommendation: 

o Greatly expanded overall industry collaboration to include broader and active participation from 

both public and private sectors, Leverage existing structures in place such as the Cooperative 

Automated Transportation {CAT) Coalition, the Connected Vehicle Pooled Fund Study, and the 

Collision Avoidance Metrics Partnership that bring together state and local DOT representatives, 

research partners, USDOT, auto industry, original equipment manufacturers, and technology 

vendors, There should be more engagement from non-traditional original equipment 

manufacturers, 

o Establish a structured advisory and deployment coordination progrom between auto makers, 

original equipment monufacturers and government to support the development and 

deployment of vehicle and infrastructure Innovation for enhanced mobility, goods movement 

and safety, 

ISSUE 2-1: Unfunded Mandates 

ISSUE 2-2: Privacy, Security, Cyber Security 

ISSUE 3-1: Increase Federal Funding 

ISSUE 3-2: Fix the Federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and Strengthen Federal Transportation Funding 

ISSUE 3-3; Prioritize Formula-based Federal Funding 

• ISSUE 3-4: Eliminate Rescissions of Contract Authority 

ISSUE 3-6: Increase flexibility and transferability of funding 

ISSUE 4-2: Communications Technology for Highway Operations 

ISSUE 4-7: Public Safety Radio Communication Spectrum 

ISSUE 6-2: Enhance Flexibility End Avoid Imposing New Administrative Burdens, whether through 

statute, Rulemakings, or Guidance 

ISSUE 6-6: Moke More Flexible the Projects that can be funded through the Congestion Mitigation 

and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program 

ISSUE 9-1: Increase Research, Technology & Education Program Funding Levels 

!SSUE.9-2: Allow Highway Safety Improvement Funds to be used for Safety Related Research 

Activities 

ISSUE 9-3: Allow States to Use Non-SP&R Federal Funding when Contributing to Multi-State Pooled 

Fund Reseorch Studies 

ISSUE 9-5: Recommend Tllird Strategic Highway Research Program 

ISSUE 10-1: Non-infrastructure Eligibilities under the Highway Safety Improvement Plan 

ISSUE 11-7: Promote Cyber Security Strategies 

MSHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 14 I Page 
220 


35959.072

2: Data Management and Analytics 

The Committee on Data Management and Analytics addresses data issues that are inherently cross 

disciplinary and multi modal. Policy and legislation on data tends to be limited to specific purposes, such 

as safety or performance measures; there are no explicit policy resolutions or legislative language that 

addresses Data as a whole, or as a practice. Therefore, the Committee on Data recommends AASHTO's 

policy and legislative agenda to disseminate and promote the AASHTO Core Data Principles and focus 

strategically on a few important policy issues including unfunded mandates, specifically dictated data 

sources and data security. The Core Data Principles are developed to help AASHTO members and data 

practitioners maintain good data practices for all data uses. 

AASHTO Core Data Principles are as follows: 

Principle 1-VALUABLE: Data is an asset-Data is a core business asset having value and should be 

managed accordingly. 

Principle 2- AVAILABLE: Data is open, accessible, transparent and shared -Access to data is critical 

to performing duties and functions, data must be open and usable for diverse applications and open 

to aiL 

Principle 3- RELIABLE: Data quality and extent Is fit for a variety of applications-Data quality is 

acceptable and meets the needs for which it Is Intended. 

Principle 4- AUTHORIZED: Data is secure and compliant with regulations-Data is trustworthy and 

is safeguarded from unauthorized access, whether malicious, fraudulent or erroneous 

Principle 5 CLEAR: There is a common vocabulary and data definition -Data dictionaries are 

developed and metadata established to maximize consistency and transparency of data across 

systems. 

Principle 6- EFFICIENT: Data is not duplicated -Data is collected once and used many times for 

many purposes. 

Principle 7- ACCOUNTABLE: Decisions maximize the benefit of data Timely, relevaflt, high quality 

data are essential to maximize the utility of data for decisiafl making. 

ISSUE 2-1: Unfunded Mandates 

Current Federal Policy: None. 

Issue: It is of great concern to the Committee on Data Management and Analytics that policies and 

legislation may be proposed or enacted that create unfunded/underfunded mandates regarding 

data collection and management. Instead, a focus on the ~;ore data priflciples at a broad level allows 

for the unique needs of each state to be met within a data driven approach to address management 

and operation of the transportation system. 

Recommendations: The data committee recommends that, if a data requirement is proposed or 

enacted, that sufficient resources be made available beyond simply providing for federal eligibility or 

flexibility to use funds for the purposes as that may require a diversion of resources from 

transportation services, to manage the required data in accordance with the sever~ AASHTO Core 

Data Principles detailed above. 

AASHTO FAST ACf REAUTHORIZATION 15 I Page 
221 


35959.073

ISSUE 2-2: Privacy, Security, Cyber Security 

Current Federal Policy: None. 

Issue: Transportation initiatives are subject to privacy and security rulings made both within and 

outside of transportation's purview. The focus and resources associated with data security need to 

be integrated with any elements in the rapidly evolving world of transportation data. From vehicles 

themselves and the associated intelligent infrastructure, to probes, crowdsourcing and any other 

sources and uses of data and operations that are dependent on the flow of data, data security 

becomes a greater operational concern. 

Recommendation: Data privacy and data security must be considered in any recommendations 

regarding data as it relates to transportation and transportation issues. In the era of big data, probe 

data, commercially collected, bought and sold data, any legislation regarding data privacy and 

security must be gravely and thoughtfully considered. 

ISSUE 1-1: Deploying CAV Technologies in the Safest Manner Possible is Paramount 

ISSUE 1·6: CAVs Will Produce Significant Amounts of Data and There is a Data Governance Gap 

ISSUE 3-1: Increase Federal Funding 

ISSUE 3-6: Increase flexibility and transferability of funding 

ISSUE 3-10: Reduce and Simplify Regulations, Requirements, Data Collections, and Process to 

Expedite the Process 

ISSUE 5-3: Performance Management Regulations Should Be Improved to Reduce the Burden on 

State DOTs 

• ISSUE 6-7: Mitigate the Burden of Data Collection Related to the Performance-Based Planning and 

Performance Management Regulations 

ISSUE 10-2: Data Protection 

ISSUE 11-7: Promote Cyber security Strategies 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 16 I Page 
222 


35959.074

3: Funding and Finance 

INTROD\JqioN .• ~N[)'.Bf<C.~Gil.O.l!~o•··.·.··· 

The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was signed into law on December 4, 2015. The 

FAST Act authorizes Federal highway, highway safety, transit, and rail programs for five years from 

Federal fiscal years (FY) 2016 through 2020. The FAST Act authorized $305 billion from both the Highway 

Trust Fund (HTF) and the General Fund (GF) of the United States Treasury. The bill preserved HTF 

solvency with general fund transfers totaling $70 billion through 2020. 

The nation needs a significant increase in federal transportation formula funding, beyond FAST Act 

funding levels, along with timely, sustainable, long-term funding to meet national needs for economic 

competitiveness, connectivity, safety and security. New transportation revenue options should be 

considered to supplement or replace the deteriorating federal revenue stream. As investment needs 

grow, HTF revenues derived from fuel taxes will continue to decline due mainly to increased vehicle fuel 

efficiency. 

Additionally, the FAST Act includes a $7.6 billion rescission of unobligated contract authority scheduled 

for July 2020. Congress should avoid using rescissions of highway contract authority because they 

impede state DOT flexibility in programming Federal dollars and can result in cuts to highway funding 

and services, reducing transportation system performance. 

The Committee on Funding and Finance Is charged with identifying specific policy issues and 

recommendations related to funding and finance. This white paper presents recommended policies for 

consideration by MSHTO and the Transportation Policy Forum. 

ISSUE 3·1: Increase Federal Funding 

Cvrrent Federal Policy: The FAST Act authorized $305 billion from both the HTF and the GF of the 

United States Treasury. It provided $225 billion in HTF contract authority over five years for the 

Federal-Aid Highway Program and $51 billion over five years for Federal transit programs. It also 

includes funding for highway safety, authorized general funding for rail, and increased emphasis on 

freight investments through new highway program elements supported by the HTF. 

Issue: Our nation is currently faced with aging infrastructure, a growing national population, and a 

major transportation funding shortfall. The American Society of Civil engineers has identified a $1.1 

trillion funding gap for surface transportation between 2016 and 2025. It is essential to increase 

federal funding for surface transportation to sustain national and regional connectivity and mobility 

for people and business. The federal government must connect the nation. Reducing that role or 

proposing turn back of the system is not appropriate. The states cannot fund a dynamic and efficient 

national transportation system alone. 

Recommendation: Congress is urged to increase federal surface transportation funding significantly 

above the current FAST Act funding levels. Enhanced federal funding is required for both rural and 

urban areas of the country to improve the quality of life and to increase the nation's economic 

vitality, well-being, and competitiveness. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 17JPage 
223 


35959.075

ISSUE 3-2: Fix the Federal Highway Trust Fund and Strengthen Federal Transportation Funding 

Current Federal Policy: The HTF serves as the backbone of Federal highway and transit programs and 

was once supported solely by user fees. Since 2008, the HTF has been sustained by supplementing 

user fees through a series of General Fund transfers now amounting to $140 billion. According to 

the Congressional Budget Office, annual HTF spending at current levels pius inflation is estimated to 

exceed receipts by $16 billion in FY 2020, growing to $23 billion by FY 2027. 

Issue: HTF revenues, mainly derived from fuel taxes, will continue to decline due to increased 

vehicle fuel efficiency and growing use of alternative fuel vehicles. Absent legislation, in FY 2021, the 

HTF is expected to experience a significant cash shortfall leading to an estimated 40 percent drop in 

highway obligations from the year before, or from $46.2 billion to $27.7 billion, and a near zeroing 

out of the Mass Transit Account. 

Recommendation: Congress must provide sustainable, certain, long-term funding to the HTF to 

support multi-year legislation. There is no shortage of technically feasible tax and user fee options 

that Congress and the Administration can consider. See the Matrix of Illustrative Surface 

Transportation Revenue Options appendix for a menu of options to fix the HTF and strengthen 

Federal surface transportation funding, including funding from sources currently dedicated to the 

General Fund. Congress should continue to fund the development and implementation of revenue 

alternatives to the motor fuel tax, such as the Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives 

Program, which was established under the FAST Act and provides $95 million in federal share (for up 

to 50 percent of project cost) over five years to states to demonstrate alternative revenue methods 

that incorporate a user fee structure to maintain the long-term solvency of the HTF. If Congress does 

not provide money needed to increase federal surface transportation funding through options 

included in AASHTO's Matrix of Illustrative Surface Transportation Revenue Options, Congress 

should provide the funds through other means. 

ISSUE 3-3: Prioritize Formula-based Federal Funding 

Current Federal Policy: The Federal-aid Highway Program is a Federally-assisted state program that is 

rooted in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and confirmed by 23 U.S.C 145. 

Currently, approximately 90 percent of the Federal highway program funds are distributed to the 

states by formula. This approach of emphasizing formula funds has a decades long track record of 

success in supporting long-term capital improvements across the United States. This enables funds 

to be distributed to states In a stable and predictable manner and allows the Federal program to 

efficiently deliver projects that have been identified and prioritized through the statewide and 

metropolitan planning processes. 

• Issue: Recently proposals have been advanced that would greatly increase the discretionary funding 

programs, with projects chosen by the Federal Government. These proposals combine the 

discretionary programs with requirements that states and others greatly increase their contributions 

or greatly leverage Federal dollars. For a variety of reasons, many states cannot leverage funding 

beyond the current matching requirements. This makes it critical that Congress continue to 

recognize the importance of continuing the current prioritization of formula funding over 

discretionary funding. Using discretionary programs, the Federal government must solicit 

applications and review them before awarding funds which delays the deployment of funds. In 

addition, not only are grant applications costly both in time and dollars, such grant dollars are 

uncertain by nature preventing states from properly planning. This results in lost efficiency and 

added complexity to processes and project delivery. More funding for discretionary programs will 

likely result in an even lengthier processing timeframe making them an inefficient way to increase 

investments in transportation Infrastructure. 

AASHTO Fi\ST ACT REAUrnORIZA TION 18 I Page 
224 


35959.076

Recommendation: Congress should continue to prioritize formula funding over discretionary 

funding. State and local governments have existing plans and processes in place and can put new 

Federal formula funds to work promptly. 

ISSUE 3-4: Eliminate Rescissions of Contract Authority 

Current Federal Policy: Congress has used rescissions of highway contract authority as budgetary 

offsets. An $856 million rescission in unoblig<Jted contract authority was enacted in June 2017 and a 

$7.6 billion rescission is scheduled for July 2020 under the FAST Act. The $7.6 billion rescission ' 

would be derived from Federal-aid Highway Program categories other than those that are exempt 

including: Highway Safety Improvement Program, Railway-Highway Crossing Program, and suballocated portions of the Surfoce Tronsportation Block Grant Progr<Jm (STBGP). Non-exempt 

program dollars are required to be rescinded from unobligated balances remaining on that date on a 

proportional basis. 

Issue: Rescinding previously-authorized highway contract authority greatly Impedes the flexibility of 

state departments of transportation to program Federal dollars and could result in hard cuts to 

highway funding snd seriously delay project construction. 

Recommendation: Congress is urged to repeal the scheduled FY 2020 rescission and avoid using 

rescissions of highwsy contract suthority. However, if a rescission is imposed, no funding categories 

should be exempt. States should have the flexibility to choose among all the funding categories to 

rescind so they can reduce the negative impact of the rescission on transportation service and 

performance. 

ISSUE 3-5: Preserve the Current Federal/State Matching Ratio Requirements 

Current Federal Policy: While there are exceptions, 23 U.S.C. 120 generally requires most federal-aid 

transportation projects to have an 80 percent federal share and a 20 percent state matching share. 

This 80/20 Federal/Non-Federal funding share means Federal support is focused on larger capital 

projects and leverages state and local dollars to be used for a much broader array of projects. 

Issue: This 80/20 Federal/Non-Federal funding match has a proven track record of success. Many 

states have recently raised highway revenues. However, some states remain challenged to meet the 

20 percent non-Federal match requirements. States and local governments already provide 

approximately 75 percent of transportation funding for highways and transit. Achieving national 

goals require our federal partners to contribute an equitable share. There are significant needs for 

state and other non-federal transportation funding to operate and maintain the federal system as 

well as provide capital, operating, and maintensnce funding for non-federal, state and local 

transportation systems. The current matching requirements allow state and local dollars to be used 

to match federal funds and also to be used for non·federal transportation. 

Recommendation: Maintain the current federal/state matching ratio requirements for projects and 

explore innovative match strategies (e.g., the sale of toll credits). 

ISSUE 3-6: Increase Flexibility and Transferability of Funding 

Current Federal Policy: The total amount of Federal highway funding apportioned to a state is 

divided among the individual apportioned programs. Each program has rules that are not always 

flexible regarding how the funds may be used, Each program is governed by transferability 

provisions that are established in statute. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 19 I Page 
225 


35959.077

Issue: AASHTO supports increased flexibility in programs and in transferring funding among the 

programs. Such reform would enable states to direct funding to better meet their needs, whether 

for preservation, capacity, safety or other needs. This flexibility in directing funds is especially 

important when overall funding is insufficient. 

Recommendation: AASHTO recommends increased flexibility and transferability between highway 

program funds. 

ISSUE 3-7: Maintain the Current Balance of Funding Among Highways, Transit, and Highway Safety 

Current Federal Policy: The Highway Trust Fund supports highway, transit, and highway safety 

programs. The FAST Act also added a new National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) and a new 

discretionary program entitled the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Programs (now known 

as Infrastructure for Rebuilding America or INFRA) within the highway program. Additionally, the 

general fund supports rail programs. 

Issue: The current funding balance along with transferability and flexibility allows states to direct 

available funding to meet highway, safety, and transit needs. The most recent FHWA Conditions and 

Performance report estimated the highway backlog at $836 billion and a transit backlog of $90 

billion. States need all the tools to address such a high level of need. 

Recommendation: 

o Maintain the current balance of funding among highways, transit and highway safety from the 

HTF and continue General Fund support for rail programs. 

o FJ.Jrther increase flexibility within the STBG Program by expanding the state departments of 

transportations' share offunding (which will be reduced to 45 percent by FY 2020 under the 

FAST Act) which can be used in any area within a slate. This flexibility includes each state's 

ability to direct more of its own STBG program funding to their local partners, over and above 

suballocated STBG Program funds, if they so wish. 

ISSUE 3·8: Provide Flexibility to Toll Federal-aid Highways 

Current Federal Polley: In most cases, federal law (23 USC 301) restricts states from tolling Federalaid Highways, which eliminates a potential source of revenue. The Interstate System Reconstruction 

and Rehabilitation Pilot Program (ISRRPP) was authorized under Section 1216(b) ofTEA-21 to permit 

up to three existing Interstate fa,illties to be tolled to fund needed reconstruction on Interstate 

corridors that could not otherwise be adequately maintained or functionally improved without the 

collection of tolls. 

Issue: In some states, a portion of the transportation facilities cannot be adequately maintained or 

functionally hnproved without tal! collection; however, federal law imposes restrictions on states 

from tolling Interstate routes. 

Recommendation: Provide increased tolling flexibility to states to maximize revenue-raising 

opportunities in light of federal funding challenges. 

ISSUE 3-9: Support for Finan,ing Tools 

Current Federal Policy: Title 23 authorizes a number of beneficial transportation financing tools, 

including the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), Grant Anticipation 

Revenue Vehicles (GARVEEs), State Infrastructure 13anks (SIBs), and Private Activity Bonds (PABs). 

Issue; While not a substitute for adequate funding, states need access to financing tools to help 

maximize the value of existing resources, particularly when federal funding is insufficient. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 20 I Page 
226 


35959.078

Recommendation: While most projects require Federal support in the form of direct funding rather 

than financing incentives, Congress should continue to support the financing tools currently 

provided and support new innovative financing tools. 

ISSUE 3·10: Reduce and Simplify Regulations, Requirements, Data Collections, and Process to Expedite 

the Process 

Current Federal Policy: Preserve useful program and policy reforms and support additional 

opportunities to streamline and simplify the federal surface transportation programs. 

Issue: Notwithstanding efforts by AASHTO, current Federal surface transportation programs are 

subject to significant requirements and processes. Appropriate reduction of such requirements will 

save money, increase efficiency, and allow more funding to be used to improve transportation 

services. Some requirements are particularly tied to finance and funding. Under the current 

uncertain federal funding conditions, performance management, asset management, and financial 

planning requirements have far less value for decision making and risk is multiplied. If federal 

transportation appropriations are not known at the beginning of the federal fiscal year, financial 

planning, financial forecasting, programming, performance, and asset management are adversely 

affected. This is further accentuated if these decision systems use financial optimization methods 

over long-time frames. Many of the financial planning and forecasting requirements are associated 

with the statutory language "reasonably expected to be available." For such purposes it is critical to 

know both 'how much funding and when the funding will reasonably be available.' 

Recommendation: There are financial process difficulties caused by federal funding uncertainty in 

the fiscal constraint and financial planning provisions related to the State Long Range Plan, the 

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, the Asset Management Plan, and Performance 

Management. Defining "reasonably expected to be available" is important. Fiscal constraint and 

other financial requirements in planning and programming are excessive and should be reduced. At 

most, they should be imposed for no more than the SliP timeframe. States should have the option 

to do financial estimates for longer periods if desired. 

Other AASHTO committees' white papers will identify additional Title 23 statutory and 

regulatory recommendations to improve project delivery to supplement these financial and funding 

recommendations. Because any ineHicient process requirements reduce funding available to 

improve transportation services, other inefficiencies need to be addressed. They directly affect the 

ultimate result we all seek-a better transportation system. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 21 I Page 
227 


35959.079

Exhibit 1: Estimated Highway Trust Fund Receipts and Outlays 

Highway Trust Fund: Receipts and Outlays 90 

.. ~.-Total HTF Outlays 

SO -Total HTF Receipts Minus GF Transf12rs 

c 

~ 70 '" c 

g 60 

0 " 

'g 50 

1[ 

~ 

0 40 

!_ 

30 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 22 I P a g e 
228 


35959.080

<l4.0 

so.o 

45.0 44.0 

40.0 

3$0 

! 

9: 300 

·~ 

:S 250 j £0.0 

150 

4'.U 

Exhibit 2: Estimated Highway Trust Fund a11d General Fund Obligations 

49.1 

~s.s 

Federal Highway and Transit 

-1P 9 (Indudlng Major Gene-ra! 

Federnl HTF Highway end Transit Obligations 

*Total Transit Al;toorrt Obligation~ (ilK!. Hex) 

46.9 

33.3 3)8 

AASHTO fAST ACT REAUTHOM:ZATlON 231 g 
229 


35959.081

AASHTO FAST ACT HtAUTHOHiu\ riON g 
230 


35959.082

Tmck and 

T raHer Sales 

Tax 

between tax and usar benefiUimpsct: easy and 

administer 

o Cons ~ Does not raise a lot of revenue 

AASKTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 

$25.4 $in billions 

$l1 $ in billions 

$0.5 Sin billions 

$1.2 Sin billions 

25 p g 
231 


35959.083

i Minerals 

Related 

Receipts 

The federal government receives various income from 

extraction natural gas, and minerals from federal lands and offshore 

activities, Aside from a portion designated for !he states, !he 

amount of these revenues currently goes to the federal General 

Fund could be redirected for transportation purposes. 

o Pros- Sustainable: can promote US energy mdependence 

o Cons- Diverts funds from General Fund: link to transportation is not 

as user fees: revenues could be volatile ~-~~--- ~-=c-~~~~---·-cc·---

Maintenance 

Tax 

Customs 

Revenues 

revenue 

that supports the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund through an ad 

valorem tax on the value tickets and declaring commerc:al 

cargo loaded onto or from vessels using federally maintained 

harbors. The current tax is largely used to pay for harbor dredging and thus 

primarily benefits deep-draft O('eango,ng vessels carrying cargo on transoceanic routes 

o Pros would not require maJor adrn,nistratlve effort or 

are 

various imported goods passing through 

currently go to the General Fund of the US Treasury. A 

groups, as well as the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue 

Study Commission, the role transportation 

infrastructure plays m of current 

customs duties should be allocated to 

o Pros- Srnall 

tax or by an acroS!Hne-ooar·a 

corporate income tax rates, 

o Pros Small percentage tax yields 

sustainability; innation·neutral: easy to 

progresstve 

revenuer strong 

and enforce: relaiively 

o Cons Support for dedicating revenues to ''"'"'crnrt.e!irrn needed 

good transportation aids income grov.1h: strong 

linK to economic efficiency and equ1ty; negative 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 

$2 5 S in billions 

$1.4 $in brllions 

S37 5 $ in billions 

$1,018.0 $in billions 

$162.0 $in billions 

26 I Page 
232 


35959.084

Drivers 

License 

Surcharge 

Transit 

Passenger 

Miles r raveled 

Fee 

drivers' licenses. In same cases, the fee 

simply recovers licensing programs. In many 

states, however, license fees also are used as a source of funding lor 

transportation or other purposes. 

o Pros- Significant revenue yield: well-established in each state with 

minimal additional administrative cost 

o Cons- Strong public and political opposition: different licensing practices 

in each state; infringes on slates' reliance on this fee; poor social equity 

All states impose annual vehicle registration and related fees, and at least 

half the states raise more than a quarter of their dedicated transportation 

revenues through this mechanism. The structure of registration fees varies 

widely, from a flat per vehicle fee to a schedule of rates based on factors 

such as vehicle type, weight, age, horsepower, and value. 

o Pros- Small federal fee: sustainable; well-established; little additional 

administrative cost; could charge for indirect impacts such as carbon 

emissions 

o Cons No relation to system use; could be viewed as double laxation at 

the federal level due to the existing heavy vehicle use tax; infringes on 

states' reliance on this fee 

Ton or Ton-Mile- Freight-related taxes could be imposed on a pure tonnage 

or ton-mile basis. A ton-based tax would charge shippers a flat fee for every 

ton of freight moved. Variations of these taxes have been imposed by a few 

states in the past, but there has not been an equivalent tax imposed at the 

federal leveL 

o Pros .. Decent revenue yield potential; justifiable as a transponation user 

fee; potential positive impact on efficient systam use 

o Cons- Strong trucker/rail opposition; impact of tax heaviest on low-value 

bulk items: significant implementation, administration, and compliance 

issues: not a viable short-term option 

Distance based fee on 

o Pros- Could provide direct user infrastructure 

o Cons- Does not raise signiflcant revenues; potentially significant 

administrative and compliance issues social equity issues 

MSHTO FAST ACT REi\UTHORIZATION 

221.711,918 Licenses 

294.595 Vehicles 

4.828,481 

24?644,931 

11.498.561 

259J4J542 

11 

13 

1,984 

4,243 

58 3 

Vehicles 

Registrations 

Registrat;ons 

Registrations 

billions of 

tons 

b•llions ol tons 

billions of 

ton-miles 

passenger· 

miles 

27 I P a e 
233 


35959.085

BillOnly 

mvenue; highly s;Jstafnable, 

revenues from fuel vehicle users: coulc likely be 

imr,IAn1AntArl through either existing state lax mechanisms or imposed 

vehicle manufacturers 

o Cons"' Could cannibalize a traditionally impcrtanl stale/local 

lrBi'""'nrto!ic>n and genem! fund revenue source: limited user -benefit 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 

2.849.7 billions of 

vehic!e-mlles 

287.9 billions of 

vehicle-miles 

3.137.6 billions of 

vehicle-miles 

SI264 S in billions 

$8913 Sin billions 

$273 4 S !n billions 

$409.8 $in billions 

$264.2 $in billions 

28 I a e 
234 


35959.086
235 


35959.087

ISSUE 4-3: Establish a Permanent Transportation Operations Program Budget line Item within 

US DOT Funding to help Ensure Better Sharing of Quality Practices and Accelerate Development of 

Solutions for Consideration by the States 

, ISSUE 4-4: Expand Eligible Activities Through National Highway Freight Program 

ISSUE 4-6: Update National ITS Architecture Rule 940 

ISSUE S-1: Federal Funding Apportionment Should Not be Tied to Target Achievement 

ISSUE S-3: Performance Regulations Should Be Improved to Reduce the Burden on State DOTs 

• ISSUE S-6: Help Advance Towards a More Flexible Transportation Program 

ISSUE 6-2: Enhance Flexibility and Avoid Imposing New Administrative Burdens, whether through 

statute, Rulemakings, or Guidance 

ISSUE 6-4: Fiscal Constraint 

ISSUE 6-5: Make State DOTs and MPOs Eligible Recipients under the Set Aside from the Surface 

Transportation Block Grant Program (aka transportation alternatives program) 

ISSUE 6-6: Make More Flexible the projects that can be Funded through the Congestion Mitigation 

and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program 

ISSUE 6-7: Mitigate the Burden of Data Collection Related to the Performance-Based Planning and 

Performance Management Regulations 

ISSUE 7-19: Delegation of Preventive Maintenance Projects 

ISSUE 7-Zl: Delegation of Federal Funds Obligation Management 

ISSUE 9-1: Increase Research, Technology & Education Program Funding Levels 

ISSUE 9-2: Allow Highway S<Jfety Improvement Program Funds to be used for Safety Related 

Research Activities 

ISSUE 9-3: Allow States to Use Non-SP&R Federal Funding when Contributing to Multi-State Pooled 

Fund Research Studies 

ISSUE 9-4: Support for Associated National Research Programs 

ISSUE 10-1: Non-infrastructure Eligibilities under the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

ISSUE 10-2: DATA PROTECTION 

ISSUE 11-3: Modify Emergency Relief (ER) Program to be More Flexible and More Responsive to 

System Resilience Needs 

ISSUE 11-4: Provide More Flexibility in Use of Federal Funds for Preventive and Response Actions to 

System Disruptions 

ISSUE 11-7: Promote All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis for Critical Facilities 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 30 I Page 
236 


35959.088

4: Operations 

In recent years, state DOTs have increasingly focused on ways of Improving highway and transportation 

system operations. The demand for effective transportation operations solutions is increasing rapidly 

due to volume increases and technology development. Building and maintaining capacity is nat always 

enough to ensure optimum or even satisfactory throughput. This is the case not only in congested 

metropolitan areas but also in other areas that face seasonal traffic peaks or in cases of vehicle crashes, 

disasters or other incidents that result in traffic jams and require a response. 

Recognizing the importance of operations, for years the Federal program has embraced eligibility for 

capital investments that have a particular focus on improving highway operations. These include 

investments in improved traffic signalization and message signs and, more recently, such items as capital 

technology investments to facilitote vehicle-to-infrastructure (V21) communications, such as dedicated 

short-range communications (DSRC) equipment. AASIHO also strongly supports flexibility for state 

DOTs in using Federal funds for eligible purposes, including capital expenditures to assist highway 

operations. AASHTO Is also strongly committed to research and demonstration programs to help 

advance the practice of improving highway and transportation system operations. 

Below are some specific proposals to improve the Federal transportation programs and assist states in 

providing an excellent operating environment on the highways and transportation systems that they 

build and maintain. 

ISSUE 4·1: Strengthen Eligibility for Investments in Transportation System Management and 

Operations (TSMOI and Related Technology 

Current Federal Policy: Eligibility for funding TSMO and related technology from National Highway 

Performance Program (NHPP), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Surface Transportation Block Grant 

{STBG) Program, Congestion Mitigation ar>d Air Quality Improvement {CMAQ) Program, and Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

Issue: The use of TSMO strategies and technologies is expanding. The states have dramatically 

increased the use ofTSMO and it is difficult to continue to increase investment in TSMO due to 

overall budgetary constraints. Additionally, funding is sometimes split by plannir>g partner region 

(e.g., controlled by a Metropolitan Planning Organization, or MPO) when the states would like to use 

it statewide. 

Recommendation: States should have broader control to use existing fundir>g sources on TSM&O 

activities, and overall transportation funding should be increased. 

ISSUE 4·2: Communications Technology for Highway Operations 

Current Federal Policy: None 

Issue: 

o There is little federal guidance regarding interaction between vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and V21 

communication. Some states are unsure if they should invest in DSRC, SG, or both for V21 

communications, which slows the advancement of this technology. Nationwide interoperability, 

including further deployment of DSRC, is essential. 

MSHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZA'riON 311 Page 
237 


35959.089

o The Security Credential Management System (SCMS) Is currently a proof-of-concept message 

security solution for V2V and V21 communication. SCMS involves significant cost, which can 

discourage state investment into CAV technologies. 

Recommendation: A universal, seamless approach to security management and CAV communication 

is essential for the widespread deployment of connected vehicles. The Federal government should 

quickly lead this development through standardization and appropriate research and technology 

demonstration programs. This will enable states to make informed decisions for investing resources 

toward these technologies. 

ISSUE 4-3: Establish a Permanent Transportation Operations Program Budget line Item within USDOT 

Funding to help Ensure Better Sharing of Quality Practices and Accelerate Development of Solutions 

for Consideration by the States 

Current Federal Policy; None 

Issue: States need help determining when to apply their scarce apportioned funds to investments 

that facilitate effective, efficient, and safe operations on the highways and transportation system. 

Recommendation: 

o Congress should appropriate additional money to fund such a permanent transportation 

operations discipline and program at US DOT to assist states in determining when to apply their 

scarce apportioned funds to investments that facilitate effective, efficient, and safe operations 

on the highways and transportation system. Such a program could focus on supporting private 

and public sector integration of operations technologies, interstate operations management 

solutions, and a leadership forum and clearinghouse for operations best practices. It could also 

continue funding for the National Operations Center bf Excellence and provide research funding 

for operations technology development and data utilization, including the Cooperative 

Automated Transportation (CAT) Coalition 

o Establish a structured advisory and deployment coordination program between automakers, 

original equipment manufacturers and government that would support the development and 

deployment of vehicle and infrastructure innovation to support mobility, goods movement and 

safety. 

ISSUE 4-4: Expand Eligible Activities Though National Highway Freight Program 

Current Federal Polley: 

o FAST Act Section 1116; 23 U.S.C. 167 establishes a National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) 

that funds activities that "must contribute to the efficient movement of freight on the [NHFN] 

and be identified in a freight investment plan included in {the state's freight plan.]" 

o FAST Act Section 1105; 23 U.S.C. 117 establishes the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway 

Projects (NSFHP) program to provide financial assistance-competitive grants, known as INFRA 

grants, or credit assistance- "for nationally or regionally significant freight and highway 

projects." 

Issue: The use of the nation's highway system for freight is increasing, and the need for integrated 

solutions to better move freight throughout the country is increasing. Integrated freight 

management solutions and freight safety programs do not currently qualify as eligible activities for 

NHFP or INFRA funds. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 32 Page 
238 


35959.090

Recommendation: Reform the National Highway Freight Program, both formula program to states 

and the discretionary program (INFRA), to mare clearly include eligibility for investment in 

integrated freight management solutions (e.g., intermodal systems, freight lanes on interstates, and 

parking and staging areas) and freight safety programs (platooning, remote sensing technology, 

etc.), including for emergency responders. Eligibility should include multi-state proposals, such as 

for regions and corridors. 

ISSUE 4·5: Improve Buy America Requirements 

Current Federal Policy: 23 U.S.C. Section 313: Buy America states "The Secretary of 

Transportation shall not obligate any funds ... unless steel, iron, and manufactured 

products used in such project are produced in the United States." The provision is 

subject to certain waivers. 

Issue: AASHTO supports investment in America and use of American-made products. However, at 

times U.S, made products are difficult to find, whether due to scarcity or notable cost differential. 

Buy America was originally intended for products made primarily of steel (like steel poles). It is 

extremely difficult to try to apply this law to signal controllers, utility equipment, vehicles, etc. 

Recommendation: US DOT should improve the Buy America waiver application, policies, and 

processes to ensure timely consideration and determinations that reduce schedule and cost 

burdens to state transportation agencies. 

ISSUE 4-6: Update National ITS Architecture Rule 940 

Current Federal Palicy: Under the 17-year old N<tionaiiTS Architecture Rule, 23 CFR 940: "ITS 

projects shall conform to the National ITS Architecture and standards in accordance with the 

requirements contained in this part. Conformance with the National ITS Architecture is interpreted 

to mean the use of the National ITS Architecture to develop a regional ITS architecture, and the 

subsequent adherence of a lilTS projects to that regional ITS architecture. Development of the 

regional ITS architecture should be consistent with the transportation planning process for 

Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning." 

Issue: States have mainstreamed systems engineering into their ITS project process, and they will 

continue to use good systems engineering processes in ITS projects. However, keepiog up with the 

National ITS Architecture requirements unnecessarily increases the costs of projects and in some 

cases can delay or add time to our projects. 

Recommendation: This policy should be reformed to modernile It, and provide more deference to 

the states. 

ISSUE 4·7: Public Safety Radio Communication Spectrum 

Current Federal Policy: 47 CFR 90, Private Land Mobile Radio Services "states the conditions under 

which rodio communications systems may be licensed and used in the Public Safety, 

Industrial/Business Radio Pool, and Radiolocation Radio Services." 

Issue: Specific radio frequency bandwidths are reserved tor public safety use through §90.16 Public 

Safety National Plan, §90.19 Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, and §90.20 Public Safety 

Pool. However, there are interested parties who want to reassign portions of these bandwidths for 

commercial wireless purposes. DOTs use the low band to UHF radio spectrum (42 MHl through 800 

MHl Bands) and microwave systems (lGHz through 23 GHl) for their normal daily activities and for 

Incident and emergency response. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 33 I Page 
239 


35959.091

Recommendarion: These frequencies should remain dedicated to public safety. More than half of 

the state DOTs utilize FCC §90 regulated wireless services for last-mile ITS device communicationsincluding variable message signs (VMS), closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras, road weather 

information systems (RWIS), and highway advisory radios (HAR)- all of which are critical parts of 

traveler information and traffic incident management systems. Furthermore, as connec;ted and 

automated vehicles (CAVs) become more prevalent, the need for vehicle-to-infrastructure (V21) 

communications increases. AASHTO, as well as several member states, have previously filed 

comments supporting this position in FCC dockets. 

ISSUE 1-1: Deploying CAVTechnologies in the Safest Manner Possible is Paramount 

ISSUE 3-1: Increase Federal Funding 

ISSUE 3-6: Increase flexibility and transferability of funding 

ISSUE 6-5: Make State DOTs and MPOs Eligible Recipients under the Set Aside from the Surface 

Transportation Block Grant Program (aka transportation alternatives program) 

ISSUE 6-6: Make More Flexible the Projects that can be Funded through the Congestion Mitigation 

and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program 

ISSUE 7-8: Buy America 

ISSUE 7-18: Delegation of ITS Architecture 

ISSUE 8-8: Allow Utility Relocations to Start Earlier 

ISSUE 9-6: Redefine "Manufactured Products" Requirement within Buy America law 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 34 I Page 
240 


35959.092

5: Performance-based Management 

MAP-21 and the FAST Act required USDOT to develop federal performance management rules governing 

State DOTs and others. In May 2018, USDOT completed the development of the new regulations 

pertaining to the federal performance management requirements as part of 23 CFR Section 490, 

National Performance Management Measures and 23 CFR Section 515, Asset Management Plans. These 

regulations require state DOTs to establish and report on making progress towards achieving targets for 

a set of federal performance measures related to safety, asset wndition, and system operations. In 

addition, US DOT updated existing regulations related to the transportation planning proces.s (23 U.S.C. 

Section 135, Statewide a!Jd Nonmetropoliton Planning and 23 U.S.C. Section 134, Metropolitan 

Transportation Planning} to make them consistent with federal law. These updates modified existing 

transportation planning to a performance-based approach to support the national goals specified in 23 

USC lSO(b) which relate to safety, infrastructure condition, congestion reduction, system reliability, 

freight movement and economic vitality, environmental sustainability, and reduced project delivery 

delays. 

State DOTs are at the early stages of implementing the new and updated Federal performance 

management regulations. The first four-year reporting cyde started on January 1, 2018 and will go 

through December 31, 2021. State DOTs will first report their targets for the federal performance 

measures on October 1, 2018 and the first indication of making progress to achieving those targets will 

not come until the beginning of CY2020. During the time that first regulation was published (May 2015) 

and the last one was finalized (July 2018), state DOTs have gained significant experience and 

understanding related to the complexities of collecting, analyzing, managing and reporting on the data; 

the significant cost (time and money) in addressing the regulations; and the unexpected consequences 

oftrying to address a set of national performance measures alongside state-based performance 

measures. 

ISSUE 5·1: Federal funding Apportionment Should Not Be Tied to Target Achievement 

Current Federal Policy: The Federal-aid Highway Program is a Federally-assisted state program that is 

rooted in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and confirmed by 23 U.S.C 145. 

Currently, approximately 90 percent of the Federal highway program funds are distributed to the 

states by formula. This approach of emphasizing formula funds has a decades-long track record of 

success in supporting long-term capital improvements across the United States. This approach 

enables funds to be distributed to states in a stable and predictable manner and allows the Federal 

program to efficiently deliver projects that have been identified and prioritized through the 

statewide and metropolitan planning processes. 

Issue: 23 CFR 490 implemented the new performance management statute so that state DOTs are 

required to establish performance targets for federal performance measures and report on how 

they have made progress on achieving those targets. Current performance management 

regulations-correctly-do not require making substantial progress towards meeting the federal 

performance management targets to federal funding apportionment. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REALJTHORI2ATION 3S!Pilge 
241 


35959.093

Recommendations: 

o While AASHTO member states support the use of performance management to improve the 

transportation system, we remain opposed to using performance measures and the 

achievement of federal perforin<mce management targets as the basis for apportioning or 

allocating federal funds among the state DOTs. 

o AASHTO recommends the federal performance management regulations be clarified to make 

clear that a principal purpose of the requirements is to provide an authoritative source to 

communicate with decision-makers and the public on the condition of the national highway 

system as a whole and be part of a larger story to communicate the unmet transportation 

needs. 

ISSUE 5·2: Continue to Focus on Implementation of tl\e Performance Management Regulations 

Current Federal Policy: 

o 23 USC Section 134, Metropolitan Transportation Planning 

o 23 USC Section 135, Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Planning 

o 23 CFR Section 490, National Performance Management Measures 

o 23 CFR Section 515, Asset Management Plan'i 

• /S'ille: The new and updated performance management regulations were developed and published 

over a six-year time period beginning in 2013 and ending in 2018 with the publication of the final 

rule regarding 23 CFR Section 490, National Performance Management Measures, Subpart Hand 

FTA Safety final rule in July 2018. State DOTs are currently working to implement the first required 

aspect of these provisions; which is to establish targets for the federal performance measures, 

incorporate those targets into the planning process, and report on progress towards achieving 

targets. The first comprehensive report document for the first reporting cycle will not be developed 

and published until C¥2022 at the earliest AASHTO has recommended that no consideration be 

given to changes to existing regulations that would increase requirements until after at least two full 

reporting cycles in order to give the state DOTs tiine and experience in addressing the regulations. 

Recommendations: 

o AASHTO opposes additional federal performance measures; associated performance 

management requirements; and any other new complexities regarding federal performance 

measures. 

o To the extent a state or an MPO wants to pursue any additional steps in performance 

management, it is free to do so without additional federal rules or statutes. 

o AASHTO recommends that no consideration be given to making changes to existing 

performance management regulations that would increase burdens until multiple reporting 

cycles by states have occurred. 

o AASHTO supports selected reforms to existing performance management requirements to 

reduce the burden of performance measurement and management on state DOTs and looks 

forward to working with US DOT on these reforms. 

ISSUE 5·3: Performance Management Regulations Should Be Improved to Reduce the Burden on State 

DOTs 

Current Federal Policy: 23 CFR Section 490, National Performance Management Meawres 

Issue: State DOTs have only recently begun to understand and appreciate the resources required of 

them to implement the Federal performance management regulations. First there is the direct and 

indirect cost of setting performance targets for the federal performance measures. In some cases, 

like the safety measures, State DOTs were already collecting and analyzing the required data ond it 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORlZATION 36 I Page 
242 


35959.094

was not a heavy lift to address the new federol safety performance management regulations. 

However, for other performance measures, specifically system performance, the state DOTs are 

now required to collect, manage, and analyze a significantly larger data set; calculate performance 

measures that are new to the industry; and establish targets having little or no historical trend data. 

While the NPMRDS data from FHWA may be free, the resources required to analyze it requires real 

effort and specialized expertise. 

Second, there is the burden placed upon state DOTs to be held accountable for assets they do not 

own or manage but must set targets for. For example, state DOTs are responsible for meeting 

targets for all NHS bridges and pavement condition regardless of who owns and maintains the asset. 

In some cases, the state DOT has no control over establishing the targets for these assets arid must 

incorporate them into the state-based targets. However, the state DOT is held accountable for 

target achievement and not the asset owner. Also, rural states are now required to report on 

congestion on rural highways, including very low volume routes that could become congested only 

due extreme weather, unusual accidents or other non-routine events. In this case, the resources 

required to conduct the analysis are a misdirection of planning effort. 

Finally, the performance management provisions place a lot more burden on the state DOTs to 

coordinate with many other transportation agencies regarding the development of planning 

documents, establishing targets and assessing performance, While the incremental changes 

required by the various performance manogement provisions may seem small, taken all together 

the amount of additional work is significant and costly. 

Recommendations: 

o Identify and implement ways to reduce the burden associated with the development of 

performance measures (including collecting and setting targets) for current performance 

measures: 

Additional financial resources could be given to state DOTs to analyze data. 

Decisions could be made to collect less data or not to have to report targets on certain less 

critical roadways such as low volume roads. 

Assessment of data collection requirements could be conducted and recommendations on 

the elimination of non-useful data could be made. 

o Ensure state DOTs are held accountable for only those assets within their c.ontrol. 

ISSUE S-4: Make Consistent the Financial Planning Requirements among the Required Performance· 

Based Planning Documents 

Current Federal Policy: 

o 49 USC Section 70202, State Freight Plans 

o 23 USC Section 119, National Highway Performance Program 

o 23 U.S.C. Section 135, Statewide and Non metropolitan Planning 

o 23 CFR Section 515, Asset Management Plans 

Issue: Certain Federal surface transportation programs are subject to significant planning 

requirements and processes. In particular, certain planning documents require a financial plan tied 

to a certain number of years in the future. For example, the Statewide Transportation Improvement 

Program {STIP} under 23 USC Section 135 requires a fiscally constrained four-year program of 

projects. The State Freight Plan under49 USC Section 70202 requires a five-year financial pian for the 

projects listed in it. The asset management plan regulations impose a non-statutory ten-year 

financial plan requirement for the projects listed in it. Currently, the significant uncertainty 

associated with federal funding conditions result in the financial planning requirements associated 

with the STIP, State Freight Plan, and asset management plan have far less value for decision making 

with risk and uncertainty being multiplied. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 37 I Page 
243 


35959.095

Recommendation: 

o AASHTO recommends all financial plan requirements associated with any federally-required 

plan be consistent with the four-year duration that has been historically required of the STJP. 

Any longer duratior~ would be at the election of a state DOT. 

ISSUE 5·5: Minimum Cor~dition Levels for Natior~al Highway System {NHS) Bridges and Pavements 

Could Encourage a Worst-First Asset Management Approach 

Current Federal Policy: 

o 23 usc Section 119, National Highway Performance Program 

o 23 CFR Section 515, Asset Management Plans 

Issue: Current federal law requires states utilize and document an asset management plan for the 

NHS. State DOTs must also manage the transportation system well beyond the designated NHS. One 

of the principles of asset management is to focus on reducing life-cycle costs, not on addressing the 

"worst first" for the transportation network. FHWA's current guidance states that a successful asset 

management program "must have moved away from a 'worst first' investment strategy, and instead 

have adopted investment principles that are based on life cycle costing and incorporate life-cycle 

planning principles." Current federal law set minimum condition levels for NHS bridges in poor 

condition and also requires USOOTto establish a minimum condition level for Interstate System 

pavement. If the minimum conditions are not met, the State would be required to redirect certain 

funds to improve those conditions until the minimum conditions are met. 

A core principle of transportation asset management is to provide the right treatment at the right 

time in the life cyde of the asset. This may mean the option not to treat the worst item or segment 

first may be the most cost effective fort he system. State DOTs are concerned that the minimum 

condition requirements for NHS bridges and Interstate System pavement may force state DOTs into 

adopting a worst-first approach to asset management. 

Recommendation: 

o Eliminate the minimum condition requirements written into law for both NHS bridges and 

Interstate System pavement. 

o If the minimum condition requirements are not eliminated, do not use the achievement of 

meeting the minimum .;ondition requirements for NHS bridges or Interstate System pavement 

as the basis for apportioning or allocating federal funds among state DOTs. 

o Ensure that the minimum condition requirements for NHS bridges and Interstate System 

pavement do not force a state DOT to adopt a worst first approach to asset management. 

ISSUE 5·6: Help Advance Progress Towards a More Fle~ible Transportation Program 

• Current Federal Policy: None. 

Issue: Congress has, correctly, provided states with increased flexibility to transfer funds among 

categories to better align funding with state priority needs. Many states have a long history with 

incorporating performance goals Into their plar~ning processes to guide state programming 

decisions. Concurrently, Congress has established national performance goals and the states are 

implementing the performance management regulations established by FHWA. However, even 

with increased transferability among fund categories, states still face constraints to align 

available funding with priority needs. 

• Recommendation: Authorize a pilot program that allows a limited number of states the option 

to treat all federal funds they receive during the pilot program years as having been apportioned 

to that state under the most flexible oft he existing federal funding categories. The purpose of 

the pilot program is to demonstrate how states produce results toward state goals and needs 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 38 I Page 
244 


35959.096

using a flexible needs-based and outcome-oriented project prioritization and programming 

process. States that use performance indicators in their programming or project selection 

processes would be eligible to apply for the pilot program. The program would not eliminate 

statutory set-asides for geographic areas within such states or eliminate the applicability of 

federal performance requirements. Such a pilot would enable USDOTto considerthe impact of 

the increased flexibility- positive, negative, or neutral- on results, including under the federal 

transportation performance management process. The proposed pilot program will provide 

practical, real-world experience that will help inform future policy making. 

ISSUE 2-1: Unfunded Mandates 

ISSUE 2-2: Privacy, Security, Cyber Security 

ISSUE 3-1: Increase Federal Funding 

ISSUE 3-3: Prioritize Formula-based Federal Funding 

ISSUE 3-6: Increase flexibility and transferability of funding 

ISSUE 6·3: Maintain the Existing Balance of Authority among State DOTs, MPOs, and Rural Planning 

Organizations 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 39 I Page 
245 


35959.097

6: Planning 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21" Century Act (MAP-21) and the FAST Act modified planning 

statutes governing state DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to, among other things, 

ensure that planning is performance-based. Implementation of the statute has resulted in updated 

planning regulations (23 CFR Part 450; 49 CFR 613) as we!l as new regulations pertaining to the federal 

performance management requirements as part of 23 CFR Section 490, National Performance 

Management Measures and 23 CFR Section 515, Asset Management Plans. The updated Statewide and 

Nonmetropoliton Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning rule updates modified 

the then-existing transportation planning requirements to a performa nee-based approach to support 

the national goals specified in 23 USC 150(b): goals related to safety, infrastructure condition, 

congestion reduction, system reliability, freight movement and economic vitality, environmental 

sustainability, and reduced project delivery delays. The performance and asset management regulations 

require state DOTs to establish and report on making progress towards achieving targets for a set of 

federal performance measures related to safety, asset condition, and system operations. 

State DOTs are at the early stages of implementing the new and updated federal performance 

management and performance-based planning regulations. Now, all updated long range transportation 

plans must be performance-based and incorporate the performance targets set by each state DOT. 

Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs) must now include references to how a set of 

projects will enable a state DOT to reach its targets. The first four-year reporting cycle started on 

January 1, 2018 and will go through December 31, 2021. During the time since the first regulation was 

published (May 2015) and the last one was effective (May 2018). state DOTs have gained significant 

experience and understanding related to the complexities associated with implementing the 

performance·based planning regulations. State DOTs have found that the analysis cost associated with 

the regulations was underestimated by federal estimates and that it would be beneficial for US DOT and 

Congress, working with the state DOTs, to find ways of reducing the overall financial and personnel time 

burden associated with the new regulations and requirements. This would still leave a thorough 

planning process but enable states to deliver programs and projects more efficiently and at less cost. 

ISSUE 6-1; Do Not Increase Any Regulatory Burdens Related to Planning b1.1t Rather Look for 

Opportunities to Reduce Burdens and Unnecessary Requirements White Maintaining a Thorough 

Planning Process 

Current Federal Policy: 

o 23 USC Section 134, Metropolitan Transportation Planning 

o 23 USC Section 135, Statewide and Non metropolitan Planning 

o 23 CFR Section 490, National Performance Management Measures 

o 23 CFR Section 515, Asset Management Plans 

Issue: The new and updated performance management and performance-based planning 

regulations were developed and published over a six year time period beginning in 2013 and ending 

in 2018 with the publication of the final rule regarding 23 CFR Section 490, National Performance 

Management Measures, Subpart H. As of May 2018, state DOTs are now required to implement the 

performance-based planning process articulated in the updated 23 CFR Section 450, Subpart B, 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 40[Page 
246 


35959.098

Statewide and Non metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming. Further,.state DOTs are 

currently in the middle of completing the first aspect of performance management provisions 

requiring them to establish targets for the federal performance measures, Incorporate those targets 

into the planning process {Statewide Transportation Improvement Program [STIP] and long range 

transportation plan [LRTP]), and report on making progress towards achieving targets. The first 

comprehensive report documenting the first reporting cycle will not be developed and published 

until CY2022 at the earliest. AASHTO has long cautioned against complicating changes to these 

regulations until after at least two reporting cycles to give the state DOTs time and experience in 

addressing the regulations. As set forth more fully In this paper, AASHTO opposes any complicating 

changes or additions to the updated performance-based planning regulations and would welcome 

opportunities to simplify or eliminate processes and requirements, reduce administrative and 

regulatory burdens, expedite project and program delivery, and increase state flexibility. This can be 

done while leaving in place a thorough plilnning process. 

Recommendations: 

o AASHTO opposes any complicating changes or additions to the updated performance-based 

plonning regulations included in 23 CFR Section 450, Subpart B. There should be time to 

implement and evaluate recent changes. 

o Within that framework, AASHTO would welcome opportunities to simplify processes and 

requirements, reduce administrative and regulatory burdens, expedite project delivery, and 

increase state flexibility. 

o To the extent a state wants to pursue any additional steps related to improving its perform<Jncebased planning process, it Is free to do so without additional federal rules or statutes. 

ISSUE 6-2: Enhance Flexibility and Avoid Imposing New Administrative Burdens, whether through 

statute, Rulemakings, or Guidance 

Current Federal Policy: None 

Issue: AASHTO urges federal decision makers to continue to look for ways to reduce regulatory 

burdens and improve agency effectiveness consistent with the national goal of ''reduced project 

delivery delays". In addition, states and metropolitan planning organizations need flexibility to 

accelerate implementation of projects to meet national and state goals. 

Recommendation5: 

o AASHTO opposes new program mandates in general, ranging from new program process 

requirements, to required Investment levels in certain activities {e.g., sub allocation of 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvements, or CMAQ funds), to design related 

mandates (e.g., practical design}. 

o AASHTO supports the following: 

Additional flexibility in state's ability to expeditiously complete planning and 

project delivery processes 

States' ability to make the best investment decisions for the state without siloed 

programs 

Any program growth should be in the most flexible categories. 

ISSUE 6·3: Maintain the Existing Balance of Authority among State DOTs, MPOs, and Rural Planning 

Organizations 

Current Federal Policy: 

o 23 USC Section 134, Metropolitan Transportation Planning 

o 23 USC Section 135, Statewide and Non metropolitan Planning 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 41 I Page 
247 


35959.099

Issue; The FAST Act generally maintained the balance of authority as updated in MAP-21 with the 

option of State DOTs to establish Rural Planning Organilations and to maintain the existing 

relationships between State DOTs and MPOs. The performance management regulations 

implemented In 23 CFR Section 490 added some additional requirements for state DOTs and MPOs 

to work more closely together in terms of establishing performance targets and Incorporating those 

targets into the various short and long range plans. However, the performance management 

regulations did not make any significant changes to the balance of authority between the state DOTs 

and MPOs. 

Recommendation: 

o AASHTO recommends the balance of authority that currently exists among state DOTs, MPOs, 

and rural planning organilations remain and not changed through new legislation, rule makings, 

or guidance. 

iSSUE 6-4: Fiscal Constraint 

Current Federal Policy: 

o 23 USC Section 134, Metropolitan Transportation Planning 

o 23 USC Section 135, Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Planning 

o Various FHWA Guidance 

Issue #4a: Update Laws, regulations and/or guidance so that "fiscal constraint" requirements do not 

impede the ability of state DOTs to develop and deliver transportation projects. Programming of 

federal transportation dollars is based on the four-year window through the STIP. FHWA has 

decided, by interpretation, to impose a duplicative fiscal constraint requirement, not included in 

statute or rule, on completing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA} process for a project. 

Specifically, FHWA has Interpreted that, to receive NEPA approval a project must come from a 

fiscally constrained STIP or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). See FHWA website, 

"Transportation Planning Requirements and Their Relationship to NEPA Process Completion," Yet It 

is impractical to estimate cost and include a project, or even a phase of a project (such as 

preliminary engineering), in a fiscally constrained SliP or TIP until the NEPA process is complete, as 

that process helps define the final project (and in some cases the NEPA process results in a no build 

decision}. So, the fiscal constraint requirement for projects undergoing NEPA review creates 

instability In the STIP or TIP, as an overestimate of costs keeps other projects out of the STIP or TIP 

and an underestimate results in excess projects being included in the fiscally constrained STIP or TIP: 

at least until the NEPA process is completed and any adjustment made. US DOT should revise its 

current practice and allow the completion of the NEFA process for a project regardless of whether 

the project or a phase of it is included in a fiscally constrained STIP or TIP. This will expedite 

environmental review. It will not violate the principle of fiscal constraint because, even with this 

recommended change, the project cannot advance to construction unless it is in a fiscally 

constrained STIP or TIP. 

Recommendation: AASHTO recommends decoupling fiscal constraint from NEPA so fiscal constraint 

does not have to be met prior to a NEPA decision. 

Issue 114b: Reconsider more broadly the extent of "fiscal constraint" requirements. 

In addition to the recommendation made above (#4a), the entire concept of "fiscal constraint" 

regulation in planning warrants reconsideration. Simply, a state cannot spend or obligate more 

funds than it has. Programming of federally funded transportation projects is subject to "fiscal 

constraint" rules which are a complex set of rules measuring projects against budget resources at 

multiple points in the planning process. Fiscal constraint of TIPs and STIPs by year is not required in 

statute but is required by USDOT rules. States, MPOs and transit agencies should be allowed to 

MSHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 42 I Page 
248 


35959.100

develop and implement STIP plans based on realistic financial assumptions. The complex technical 

"fiscal constraint" rules are not what prevent excessive spending, rather it is the limited resources 

that keep spending in check. The rules, however, limit flexibility and impose excessive 

requirements, especially when they must be applied in the context of unpredictable rescissions and 

delayed appropriations. Federal decision makers need to reduce the inflated workload for US DOT 

as well as for regulatory-burdened states. 

Recommendation: 

o Reexamine fiscal constraint requirements and reducing them, such as by applying them to fewer 

decision points and shortening the applicable time frames. 

o Remove fiscal constraint regulatory requirements that are not compelled by statute and by 

reconsidering statutory requirements, such as by shortening the applicable time period to one 

where resources can reasonably be anticipated, such as the four year STIP cycle. 

ISSUE 6-5: Make State DOTs and MPOs Eligible Recipients under the Set Aside from tne Surface 

Transportation Block Grant Program (aka transportation alternatives program) 

Current Federal Policy: 23 U.S.C. 133(h)(4)(B) 

Issue: State DOTs and MPOs are not eligible recipients of project funding under a set aside of the 

Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) (either iiS a project sponsor or to administer the 

program). However, it does take resources (time and money) to administer the program for those 

funds, set aside by 23 U.S.C. 133(h) and sometimes referred to as "trilnsportation alternatives" or 

''transportation enhancements". In addition, a number of state DOTs have been project sponsors 

and implemented a number of programs that are now combined under this element of the STBG Set 

Aside program. Thus, it is important states and MPOs be allowed to use a portion of the STBG 

program funds for administrative expenses associated with the subsection (h) set aside and that 

they be allowed to receive grants to carry out projects. 

Recommendation: 

o New legislation should ensure state agencies (including state DOTs) and MPOs are included in 

the list of eligible entities to receive STBG Set Aside funds (subsection {h), such that state DOTs 

and MPOs have the ability to implement projects and designate a limited amount of 

discretionary funding to allow for flexibility in sound program and project management and 

oversight. 

o Should an MPO fail to spend their obligation authority in a fiscal year, a state DOT should be 

able to flex MPO STP set aside funding. 

ISSUE 6·6: Make More Flexible the Projects that can be Funded through the Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program 

Current Federal Policy: 23 U.S.C. 149 

Issue: The projects eligible for CMAQ funding are limited by a variety of conditions. For example, 

prior to MAP-21, FHWA guidance set a three-year cap on the use of CMAQ funds for operating 

assistance. Updated guidance allows new transportation service5 (e.g., transit and passenger rail 

services, traffic operation centers, etc.) to "taper down" the last year of operating assistance over 

two additional years (i.e., to spend 3 years of operating assistance over a 5-year period). Beyond five 

years, operating costs are not eligible for CMAQ funding. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 43 I Page 
249 


35959.101

Recommendation5: AASHTO recommends increasing the flexibility in the use of CMAQ funds, 

including but not limited to by: 

o Increase flexibility and decrease restrictions on the use of CMAQ funds for ITS. and Transit 

operations. States shollld be able to continue to use CMAQ for these projects as long as they 

continue to demonstrate net air quality benefits. 

o Requiring obligation of the CMAQ funds in PM 2.5 non-attainment and maintenance areas only 

when it is determined that the non-attainment issue results from transportation activities. 

o Making explicit that technology deployments such as Connected and Automated Vehicles are 

eligible for funding under CMAQ. 

ISSUE 6-7: Mitigate the Burden of Data Collection Related to the Performance-Based Planning and 

Performance Management Regulations 

Current Federal Policy: 

o 23 USC Section 134, Metropolitan Transportation Planning 

o 23 USC Section 135, Statewide and Non metropolitan Planning 

o 23 CFR Section 490, National Performance Management Measures 

o 23 CFR Section 515, Asset Management Plans 

Issue: The new performance-based planning regulations and performance management regulations 

create a data intensive environment where state DOTs are having to collect, store, analyze, and 

report significantly more data and information. Implementation of the national-level performance 

measures has been dependent on the availability of quality data and many state DOTs and MPOs 

have determined that the cost associated with the data collection is significantly more than 

estimated by FHWA. 

Recommendotion5: 

o Consistent with recommendation Issue 6-1, look for opportunities to reduce the scope and/or 

amount of data required to be collected and handled by state DOTs, including but not limited to: 

Use a collaborative approach to develop more copsistent and/or streamlined or simplified 

data collection, analysis, and management practices. FHWA should work collaboratively with 

state DOTs to establish less burdensome methodologies for collecting data related to 

implementation of the planning and performance management requirements in MAP-21. 

Allocate additional funding (from accounts other than apportionments for programs) to 

state DOTs spe,ifically to mitigate the cost of data collection, analysis and management. 

Create legal safe havens as appropriate to facilitate sharing of data across safety 

organizations without concerns for the legal and litigation concerns associated with 23 USC 

409 and 23 USC 148(h)(4). 

ISSUE 6·8: Expand the Extent of both the Primary Highway Freight System and National Multimodal 

Freight Network 

Current Federal Policy: 

o 23 U.S.C. 167, National Freight Policy 

o 49 U.S.C. 70103, Interim National Multimodal Freight Network 

Issue: The definition and limitations of the Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS) and National 

Multimodal Freight Network (NMFN) will not allow the states to attain the comprehensive goals in 

MAP-21 and FAST and do not take Into account the challenges of rural, large, land based states and 

other concerns of states. The PHFS network currently consists of 41,518 centerlines miles, including 

37,436 centerline miles of Interstate anci 4,082 centerline miles of non-Interstate roads. The 

designation of PHFS roads in various states has resulted in a limited and disconnected network. The 

MSHTD FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 44 I Page 
250 


35959.102

ability of a state to designate some additional mileage to the PHFS as critical urban and rural 

corridors still leaves an unduly limited and disconnected network, For the NMFN, the current draft 

network Is limited and does not include all of the NHS road nor critical rural and urban 

transportation links. 

Recommendations: 

o Expand the PHFS to Include all Interstate System roadways regardless of how much freight 

funding a state receives, Freight program eligibility should include all Interstates by default. 

o Remove restrictions on state authority to add mileage to the PHFS and NMFN, Including but not 

limited to mileage caps on critical urban and critical rural corridors. 

o Add eligibility to use funds on any portion of a state's multimodal freight network as defined in a 

state's freight plan. 

ISSUE 6-9: Streamline and Simplify the Development and Updating of the Multitude of Transportation 

Plan Documents Currently Required of States 

Current Federal Policy: Various 

Issue: The new performance management provisions and updated performance-based planning 

provisions have required state DOTs to develop, update, and modify a host of transportation 

planning documents, What began with the lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) 

in 1991 simply as a short range plan (STIP) and long range plan (LRTP} has mushroomed into a family 

of plans that focus on different topics, durations, update cycles, arld level of detaiL It appears many 

of these planning documents have now conflated long-term visionary planning documents with 

short-term implementation plans. For example, several federal plar1s mandating states must 

complete are required to be updated every 4 or 5 years. These include Freight, Rail, and Safety. In 

the case of Freight and Rail, the requirements also call for a list of planned investments over the 

next 4 or S·year period. Freight, for example, required the inclusion of a project list-the same list as 

a programming document of the STIP. It makes little sense that states. are required to list 

programmed projects in two different places and requires valuable resources {time and morley) to 

develop to different plans with similar informatlorl. 

Recommendations: 

o Make consistent the duration, updating cycle, and content of numerous planning documents 

required of state DOTs and eliminate redundancy among these documents. 

o All financial plan requirements associated with any federally-required plan should be no longer 

than the four year duration as has been historically required of the STIP and, if possible, shorter. 

o Allow states to consolidate these and other plans as needed and appropriate to reduce the 

burden. 

ISSUE 1-1: Deploying CAV Technologies in the Safest Manner Possible is Paramount 

ISSUE 2-1: Unfunded Mandates 

ISSUE 3-1: Increase Federal Funding 

ISSUE 3-4: Eliminate Rescissions of Contract Authority 

ISSUE 3·6: Increase flexibility and transferability offunding 

ISSUE 3-10: Reduce and Simplify Regulations, Requirements, Data Collections, and Process to 

Expedite the Process 

Issue 4-1: Strengthen Eligibility for Investments in Transportation System Management and 

Operations (TSMO} and Related Technology 

MSHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 45 I Page 
251 


35959.103

ISSUE S-3: Performance Management Regulations Should Be Improved to Reduce the Burden on 

State DOTs 

ISSUE 7-13: Preventative Maintenance 

ISSUE 7-14: Small/Local Projects and Transportation Alternatives Projects 

ISSUE 8-15: Streamline Agency Involvement in Section 4(f) Decisions 

ISSUE 8-16: Allow Alternatives to Providing "Replacement Parkland" under Section 6(f) 

ISSUE 8-17: Streamline Section 404 Compliance for Routine Road Maintenance Activities 

ISSUE 7-17: Delegation of Modifications to State Policies and Procedures 

ISSUE 7-18: Delegation of ITS Infrastructure 

ISSUE 7·19: Delegotion of Preventive Maintenance Projects 

• ISSUE 7-20: Delegation of Authorization for Right-of-Way Acquisition 

ISSUE 7-21: Delegation of Federal Funds Obligation Management 

ISSUE 7-22: Delegation of Project Agreements 

ISSUE 8·1: Enhance Role of Lead Agency in Managing the NEPA Process 

ISSUE 8-2: Provide a Consistent legal Framework for Linking Planning and NEPA 

ISSUE 8-3: Make All Categorical Exclusions Available for Use by Any Federal Agency 

ISSUE 8-5: Clarify and Expand NEPA Assignment Authorities 

ISSUE 8-6: Allow Increased Use of Programmatic Agreements to Balance FHWA and State DOT Roles 

ISSUE 8·9: Allow Conformity and Fiscal Constraint to be Determined Post-NEPA, Prior to 

Construction 

ISSUE 8-14: Streamline Section 106 Requirements for Post-WWII Properties 

ISSUE 8-15: Streamline Agency Involvement In Section 4(f) Decisions 

ISSUE 8-16: Allow Alternatives to Providing "Replacement Parkland" under Section 6(f) 

ISSUE 8-17: Streamline Section 404 Compliance for Routine Road Maintenance Activities 

• ISSUE 8-19: Allow Delegation of Section 404 Permitting Authority for Transportation Projects 

ISSUE 8-20: Require Interim Guidance to Be Issued at Time of Species Listing 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 46IPage 
252 


35959.104

7: Project Delivery-Engineering 

AASHTO believes that the state DOTs and the Federal government can continue the momentum of MAP21 and the FAST Act by making further efficiency and effectiveness gains on transportation program and 

project delivery while continuing the state DOTs' responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources and 

both the human and natural environments. Streamlining processes and delegating authorities to the 

state DOTs will reduce costs, reduce delays, and provide more bang-for-the-buck to citizens for their 

transportation dollars. 

As part of this effort, a survey was distributed to various AASHTO committees asking what causes delay, 

what drive• costs up, and what changes would they propose at the federal level to improve these 

situations. over 600 comments were received, and an ad-hoc task force reviewed the issues and 

proposed solutions in a wide range of areas including design, construction, right-of-way, utilities, 

maintenance, materials, and traffic engineering. The following are the iosues considered to be the 

highest priority. 

ISSUE 7·1: Adoption of PRO WAG 

Current Federal Policy: 28 CFR 36, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public 

Accommodations and in commercial Facilities 

f~ue: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) strives to ensure access to the built environment 

for people with disabilities. To facilitate this access, the US Access Board is responsible for 

developing and updating design guidelines knol'{n as the ADA Accessibility Guidelines {ADAAG), 

which focus primarily on facilities on sites. These guidelines are currently used by the US 

Department of Justice and the US Department of Transportation in setting enforceable standards 

that the public must follow. However, sidewalks, street crossings, and other elements in the public 

right-of-way can pose different challenges to accessibility. While the current ADAAG addresse• 

certain features common to public sidewalks, such as curb ramps, the Access Board determined 

more than a decade ago that additional guidance was necessary to address conditions and 

constraints unique to public rights-of-way. 

Thus, the Access Board has been collaboratively developing guidelines for facilities within the 

public rights-of-way- the Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)- which address 

transportation-specific iosues, including access for blind pedestrians at street crossings, wheelchair 

access to on-street parking, and various constraints posed by space limitations, roadway design 

practices, slope, and terrain. Once these guidelines are adopted by the US Department of Justice, 

they will become enforceable standards under Title II of the ADA. Unfortunately, since the current 

"officially adopted" guidance is still the ADAAG, which is intended more for vertical than horizontal 

construction, there has been uncertainty in transportation agencies regarding what is or is not 

acceptable. In addition, several agencies are being required, as the result of litigation, to implement 

suboptimal accessibility solutions that were truly intended for buildings, not transportation facilities. 

Adoption of the PROWAG would provide transportation agencies with solid, researched solutions for 

accessibility within their transportation corridors. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 47 I Page 
253 


35959.105

Recommendation: Official adoption of the Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) is 

needed to ensure consistency across the country in the application of accessibility features within 

the streetscape. Adoption would also ensure that the horizontal construction guidelines are used by 

transportation agencies instead of the vertical construction guidelines, 

ISSUE 7-2: Right of Way Acquisition from Federal Agen~ies 

Current Federal Policy: No specific Jaw or regulation identified 

Issue: The acquisition of rights of way from federal agencies continues to delay and increase the cost 

of transportation projects. For example, much-needed projects in rural Alaska have been held up 

due to lengthy processes through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which have delayed projects for more 

than a decade including Kwigilliflgok Airport, Angoon Airport, and Haines Highway. Other ageflcies 

mentioned by states iflcludc the Bureau of land Management, US Postal Service, USDA-Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, and others. US DOT and FHWA should be advocates for the states 

with its sister departments and agencies to help speed right-of-way acquisition with their sister 

departments and agencies. 

Recommendation: Establish a set process and timeline, to include templates or model agreements, 

for acquiring right-of-way from federal agencies to promote fairness and speed up project delivery. 

ISSUE 7-3: Right of Way Acquisition Processes 

Current Federal Policy: Various right of way laws and regulations 

Issue: Right of way procurement is consistently one of the tap reasons for delay in transportation 

project delivery, While many changes to laws and regulations as part of MAP-21 and the FAST Act 

have improved and streamlined the acquisition process, additional flexibilities could still provide 

benefit, including cost savings and delay reductions. 

Recommendations: Streamline the right of way acquisition process in numerous areas to simplify the 

process and speed acquisition without compromising the rights of the property-holder. Potential 

suggestions for further review include the following: allowing state procurement procedures to be 

used on federal-aid projects; allowing protective purchases with preliminary engineering funding (to 

be returned if not utilized in final design); increasing the waiver valuation threshold, or removing the 

threshold with the only qualifier being whether the assignment is complex or not; removing the 4(f) 

restriction on the Early Acquisition process (23 CFR 710.501) as it will better align Itself with the 

Advance Acquisition process and a 4(f] review will still be conducted through the required 

acquisition-specific NEPA review; allowing states the option to use the "short form" for appraisals, 

which is quicker and less expensive. 

ISSUE 7-4: Federal Bridge Inspection Program Audit 

Current Federal Policy: FHWA Bridge Inspection Program Audit Cycle 

Issue: Currently, FHWA performs a formal audit of each state's Bridge lnspe~;tion Program on an 

annual basis. The state DOTs receive FHWA's assessment, including compliance ratings for each of 

the 23 Federal metrics, at the end ofthe calendar year in which the audit was performed. The state 

DOT response, including Plans of Corrective Action and Improvement Plans, are due back to FHWA 

in February or March of the following year, meaning the iflspection cycle for that year could be as 

much as a quarter of the way completed by the time corrections are put into place. Such a schedule 

does not allow sufficient time to implement corrective action before the following year's audit 

period commences. If FHWA moved to a two-year audit cycle, state DOTs would have sufficient time 

to implement Plans of Corrective Action and Improvement Plans before the next audit cycle begins. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 481Page 
254 


35959.106

Recommendation: Modify FHWA's audit cycle of states' bridge inspection programs to two yeors (or 

more) to allow time for the meaningful implementation of improvements and corrections 

recommended in the previous cycle. 

ISSUE 7·5: Emergency Relief (ER) Program 

Current Federal Policy: 23 USC 125, Emergency Relief; 23 CFR 668, Emergency Relief Program 

Issue: Certain federal requirements slow the delivery of projects using Emergency Relief funds in 

declared emergencies. More flexibility is needed with regard to contract requirements as well as 

with environmental and right of way reviews, as damage is often limited to repair of existing 

facilities to pre-damage condition, which in essence is repladng a previously-approved project In 

addition, requiring a new letting for emergency projects often delays emergency repairs while 

expecting states to include federal requirements in state funded projects. Thus, for ER projects, 

state DOTs should be allowed to change-order all federal requirements into a previously-let, statefunded project that did not contain the federal provisions. Finally, reimbursement of ER funds can 

be onerous and lengthy, 

Recommendation: Streamline federal requirements for transportation projects related to declared 

emergencies. Estab.lish a panel to review current procedures and recommend changes to streamline 

projects consistent with the goals of the Emergency Relief Program. 

ISSUE 7-6: Emergency and Tow Venlcles 

Current Federal Policy: FAST Act, Sec. 1410, Interstate Weight limits; 23 USC 127, Vehicle Weight 

Limitations-Interstate System, subsections (m) and (r) 

Issue: The FAST Act increased the maximum gross vehicle weight allowance of an emergency vehicle 

on the Interstate System (and routes that provide reasonable access to the Interstate System) to 

86,000 pounds and exempted heavy-duty tow and recovery vehicles (regardless of weight) from 

Federal Interstate weight limits. These vehicles can create greater load effects in certain bridges 

than the previous legal loads. If not appropriately rated and posted (I.e., restricted), bridge safety, 

serviceability, and durability may be compromised by these vehicles. States recognize the safety 

and mobility benefits of facilitating prompt movement of emergency and tow vehicles, However, 

these two new weight-limit e~emptions are not subject to state permit authority and are considered 

"unrestricted" exceptions; thus, every state is now required to re-evaluate the load rating for all 

Interstate bridges {and those that provide access to the Interstate) and post restrictions on those 

bridges that cannot safely carry these new maximum unrestricted vehicle loads, 

An unintended consequence of the FAST Act is that hundreds-or potentially thousands-of 

bridges in each stat[! now must be load-rated for the higher limits and "posted" with any applicable 

load restrictions. Furthermore, while the provision for emergency vehicles includes a stated 

maximum gross vehicle weight of 86,000 pounds and requirements as to axle limits, the heavy-duty 

tow and recovery vehicle provision does not state a weight limit and allows for the unspecified 

weight of a towing and towed vehicle combined, making it impossible for states to determine how 

to load rate the bridges and determine which ones must be posted. The unexpected additional 

costs associated with load-rating and posting thousands of bridges will cause financial burdens on 

state and local transportation agencies, Additionally, posting load restrictions on thousands of 

bridges on the nation's Interstate System {and reasonable access roads) wlllllkely create confusion 

among drivers that could affect the safety of the traveling public and operators of said emergency 

and heavy-duty tow and recovery vehicles, If these vehicles were to be subject to state permit 

authority, states would be able to designate appropriate routes, reducing the number of posted 

bridges, reducing costs for state and local governments, protecting bridges, and continuing to 

AASHTO FAST Ac:T REAUTHORIZATION 49 I Page 
255 


35959.107

facilitate prompt movement of emergency vehicles to the scenes of emergencies and prompt 

clearance of disabled vehicles from roads. 

Recommendation:· Rescind the FAST Act provisions concerning emergency vehicles and heavy-duty 

tow vehicles (23 USC 127(m) and (r)) and allow states to accommodate these vehicles as they have 

done successfully prior to the FAST Act, through real-time permitting or other methods. Another 

option is to modify 23 U.S.C. 127 (m) and (r) to allow states to apply for FHWA authority to use a 

permit system for subsection (m) and subsection (r) vehicles over 80,000 lbs gross vehicle weight 

ISSUE 7-7: Reduce Federal Regulation of State Policies and Procedures Through Reduction of 

Requirements, Less Frequent Reviews, and Delegation 

Current Federal Policy: Stewardship and Oversight Agreements 

Issue: Attachment B to the standard Stewardship and Oversight Agreement requires FHWA review 

and approval for many state policies and procedures, such as a state's standard specifications; 

pavement design policy; value engineering policy and procedures; liquidated damage rates; quality 

assurance program; and other matters. Attachment B also requires, ih some cases, pre-approval of 

changes in such state policies and procedures even though statue does not call for pre-approval. 

Many of these FHWA reviews of state policies are annual and many of these requirements, including 

pre-approval of changes, are not specified by statute. These requirements should be reduced and 

made less frequent than annually. 

Recommendation: States should be authorized to approve modifications to these procedures 

without preapproval by FHWA, subject to FHWA's ongoing oversight of the state's compliance with 

federal requirements. Attachment B's requirements should be reduced by authorizing states to 

modify their policies and procedures without preapproval, with review of those changes conducted 

no more frequently than every two years. 

ISSUE 7-8: Buy America 

Current Federal Polley: 23 USC 313, Buy America; 23 CFR 635.410, Buy America Requirements 

Issue: The Buy America provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, 23 USC 313, 

state that the Secretary of Transportation "shall not obligate any funds authorized to be 

appropriated to carry out the Surface Transportation Assistance Act ... unless steel, iron, and 

manufactured products used in such project are produced in the United States." While state DOTs 

support the tenets of the Buy America Act, they need a more common-sense application of the 

provisions in law and regulation to ensure project delivery is not delayed. Currently, there is no 

consistent guidance from FHWA at a national level, which leaves states and FHWA Division Offices to 

interpret the rules, often varying widely from state to state. In addition, without specific guidance, 

states can be left with a strict interpretation, meaning that every single nut, bolt, washer, tie wire, 

etc., has to meet BUy America: and in many cases, the documentation does not exist to track the 

origins of those items, so states end up spending vast amounts of time on very small items. 

In addition, components of specialty equipment used on movable bridges, crones, ferries, bridge 

inspection equipment, bridge preservation work, research, etc., often contain parts not produced in 

the United States, and transportation agencies are not a large enough market to compel the 

companies producing this equipment to comply with Buy America. In one state, the inability to find 

American producers combined with the extreme delay in receiving waiver responses has resulted in 

a shift in focus away from extremely beneficial projects, such as purchasing sweeping and flushing 

equipment (CMAQ), to ather types of work. The effectiveness of the nation's surface transportation 

program is dependent on the availability of construction materials and equipment, some of which is 

sourced through global supply chains; thus, the Administration's approach to reauthorization needs 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION SO I Page 
256 


35959.108

to address the competing needs of supporting American producers and the impact of increased 

delays in project delivery and the associated costs in terms of the safety and efficiency of the 

transportation system. 

Another problematic issue Is related to the application of Buy America to utility relocations. Buy 

America should not apply to compensable utility relocations, as relocations are an entitlement 

provided by CFR. Forcing utility companies to comply with Buy America delays relocations for 

highway projects because transportation work is a small portion of their business, and many utility 

companies have existing contracts with national and international suppliers that do not allow them 

to purchase materials elsewhere. 

Recommendations: 

o Implement the exceptions to Buy America proposed previously by FHWA in Federal rule making, 

and reinstate the waiver process to ensure transportation projects are progressing without 

significant delays. 

o Develop clear guidelines on exceptions at the Federal level to create a consistent nationwide 

application of rules and reduce the burden, delays, and resources expended over small 

percentages of material. 

o Implement an exemption from Buy America for utility companies that are required to relocate 

their facilities as part of a transportation project. 

ISSUE 7-9: Roadside Hardware 

Current Federal Policy: FHWA procedures for reviewing crash tests and issuing federal-aid eligibility 

letters. 

Issue: FHWA has proposed to cease issuing federal-aid eligibility letters for roadside hardware as of 

December 31, 2019. The potential termination of these letters greatly impacts how the state DOTs 

will approach the certification process going forward. State DOTs are committed to upgrading 

roadside hardware systems to the latest, safest standards in the Manual for Assessing Safety 

Hardware (MASH), and to providing a safe environment for errant vehicles on our roadsides. 

However, as the states and AASHTO have worked to implement a joint agreement made with FHWA 

in 2015 and meet the deadlines for transitioning to MASH-compliant devices, FHWA has announced 

that it is stepping back from its traditional role of reviewing crash tests and providing "eligibility 

letters" for roadside safety hardware. This is a concern far most states, as they have relied on these 

letters to certify compliance with the crash-test standards. In addition, if individual states took on 

this role of reviewing and certifying crash worthy devices for use on the nation's roadways, the result 

could be as many as 50+ individual interpretations, leading to inconsistencies from state to state and 

increased costs from manufacturers who must now seek approvals from multiple entities. 

Recommendation: Ensure that FHWA continues to oversee the review and approval process for 

crash testing roadside safety hardware for use on the nation's road and highway system. 

ISSUE 7-10: Outdoor Advertising: Elimination of Tracking the Federal-Aid Primary Route System 

Current Federal Policy: 23 USC 131, Control of Outdoor Advertising 

Issue: Currently, states are tasked with the control of outdoor advertising (i.e., billboards) along the 

National Highway System (NHS) and the Federal-Aid Primary System (FAP) as it was designated on 

June 1, 1991. The FAP system has not been used in other areas ot regulation for decades (with the 

exception of the National Truck Network for policies governing truck size and weight) and it 

generally overlaps the NHS (as the NHS was, basically, a successor to the FAP system). in addition, 

some of the old FAP routes are now under city or county jurisdiction, so oversight of those 

billboards should be given to the local governments that control those routes. State and federal 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 51 I Page 
257 


35959.109

roadway and maintenance funds are not involved in these roads, so why should state and federal 

funding still be used to control and Inventory signs on these roads? Thus, it makes sense to remove 

the requirement forthe control of outdoor advertising on the FAP system from the federal 

requirements. 

Recommendation: Discontinue the regulatory oversight of billboards on the June 1, 1991, FederalAid Primary System (FAP) routes by eliminating this requirement from 23 usc 131(t). 

ISSUE 7-11: Outdoor Advertising: Nonconforming Signs 

Current Federal Policy: 23 CFR 750.707, Nonconforming Signs, subsections (d){3) and {d){5) 

• Issue: Typically, when a highway project necessitates the relocation of ar~ outdoor advertising sign 

(i.e,, billboard), the sign is allowed to be moved perpendicularly off the right of way using relocation 

assistance funds. This move does not require a new outdoor advertising permit, and the sign owner 

is "mil de whole." However, under current federal regulations, "nonconforming signs" (e.g., 

billboards greater than 825 sq. ft.) are treated differently and cannot be similarly moved. Rather, 

for nonconforming signs, a new conforming location has to be found or just compensation (i.e., 

paying for the "total loss" of the sign) must be paid to the permit holder. This is a time consuming, 

costly, and contentious process: and the cost of nonconforming sign removal can be in the hundreds 

of thousands of dollars. In addition, for signs on a Scenic Byway or All American road, the law 

doesn't allow for reconstruction or relocation, only maintenance and upkeep. The unintended 

consequence is that federal law is protecting these nonconforming signs, which are persor~al 

property of private companies, essentially in perpetuity. Howev.er, case law indicates that outdoor 

advertising sign permits are a privilege, not a right, and there is no fundamental right for them to be 

seen from the interstate. Thus, the solution is to change the above-mentioned federal regulations to 

allow forth e movement of a nonconforming sign perpendicularly off the right of way by indicating 

that such movement is !1Q! considered a "new location" (since the mile marker does not change) and 

that the sign can only be moved in-kind, hence preserving their nonconforming structure status. 

This would allow highway projects to move forward at less cost. 

Recommendation: Revise federal law/regulation to allow the relocation of nonconforming billboards 

to essentially the same "location" perpendicular to the right of way, with permission from the 

landowner, when impacted by a highway project. 

ISSUE 7·12: Outdoor Advertising: Bonus Act Program 

Current Federal Policy: 23 USC 131, Control of Outdoor Advertising, subsection ij); 2.3 CFR 750.713, 

Bonus Provisions 

Issue: There are 23 state DOTs that must still comply with the antiquated outdoor advertising 

control regulations of the Bonus Act of 1958. The Bonus Act is incongruent with the Highway 

Beautification Act (HBA) in many aspects and disrupts national uniformity in the erection and 

maintenance of outdoor advertising of signs/displays in areas adjacent to the Interstate: a basic 

program objective of the HBA. Applying the tenets of the Bonus Act often requires a state DOT to 

regulate outdoor advertising on sections of roadway that are no longer state highways. 

Additionally, the relocation of outdoor advertising signs as a result of highway projects within those 

sections of roadway that have been transferred to the local jurisdictions cost Federal dollars to 

relocate and compensate for loss. States that voluntarily participated In the Bonus Act (for an 

additional~ of 1 percent of funding) are currently afforded only one avenue of exit from the 

program: the repayment of federal funds received during the early years of the program, as is stated 

In Bonus Act agreements signed between state DOTs and FHWA. It Is understood that an FHWA 

Division Office administrative waiver could nullify the Bonus Act stipulations on a case-by-case basis 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORizATION 52 I Page 
258 


35959.110

(unless a nationwide blanket waiver was issued]. However, it is recommended that federal law and 

regulations be amended so that the remedy would apply to all states seeking an exit from the Bonus 

Act agreement, which is outdated and causes problems for state DOTs in their regulation and 

control of outdoor signs along the Interstate. 

Recommendation: Allow States to exit the Bonus Act Program without penalty. The following 

sections should be amended: 

o Section 131(j) ofTitle 23, United State Codes, should be amended by striking "shall be entitled 

to receive the bonus payments" and all that follows through "provided in this section" and by 

inserting "shall no longer be bound by such agreement." 

o 23 CFR 750.713 should be amended by striking Section (j) and by inserting, "Specifically provides 

that any state which had entered into a bonus agreement before June 30, 1965, will no longer 

be bound by such agreement." 

ISSUE 7·13: Preventive Maintenance 

Current Federal Policy: 23 USC 135, Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning, 

subsection (f)(S) 

Issue: Including preventive maintenance projects in the STIP and State Transportation Plan slows 

down the application of maintenance techniques to the road system. Delays caused by the STIP 

process can lead to pavements deteriorating past the point at which a given maintenance process is 

a viable improvement. 

Recommendation: Allow preventive maintenance projects to be conducted outside the STIP process. 

Alternately, allow for a general statement of preventive maintenance work in the STIP to promote 

needed flexibility in applying the most appropriate treatments at the best time and in the best 

locations. 

ISSUE 7·14: Small/Local Projects and Transportation Alternatives Projects 

Current Federal Policy: 23 USC 133, Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, subsection (h); 

FAST Act, Sec, 1109, Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside of the Surface Transportation Block Grant 

Program 

Issue: Applying the full range of federal requirements to small projects inhibits the efficient delivery 

of those projects, which is further exacerbated by the sub-allocation of federal funds into small 

funding categories. For example, the sub-allocation of the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside as 

mandated by federal requirements creates funding levels that are inefficient in delivering some 

projects. As much as SO percent or more ofT A funding can be spent on preliminary engineering 

activities when following the federal process, leaving less than half for project construction, In 

addition, local public agencies (LPAs) are typically unfamiliar with federal processes, which also 

slows down the delivery of such projects. Small projects are difficult for DOTs and local governments 

to manage because of the red tape surrounding them, despite their small nature. Simplifying 

federally-funded projects for local agencies would expedite project delivery and better match the 

amount of work ar\d regulation to the simple nature of the projects. Alternatively, flexibility for local 

governments to use their own approved procurement processes could be beneficial: while there 

may be a need for a certification process for the LPAs, the certification could be in place for multiple 

years and save time in the long run. 

In addition, there are many reasons to restore the authority for state DOTs to sponsor TAP 

projects. The current prohibition of state DOT sponsorship hinders fund obligation since local 

government sponsors are often reluctant to use federal funding for small projects. Instead, to 

maximize available dollars, one state has developed a process to convert TA funds to STP funds, 

MSHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 53 I Page 
259 


35959.111

which .are then converted with state highways dollars. The state highway dollars are then used for 

local TAP projects, more than doubling the amount of funding to TA projects because local entities 

are willing to partner with the state funding, but not with federal dollars. Another example is an 

important project that is located within a small town that is not experienced enough to administer 

the contract for a larger project. If a town elects to have the state DOT administer contract for a 

larger project, then it should be allowable. 

Recommendations: 

o Streamline federal processes for smaller transportation projects. 

o Restore the authority for states to sponsor Transportation Alternatives projects. 

ISSUE 7·15: Coordination with Railroads 

Current Federal Policy: 23 CFR Part 646, Subpart B, Railroad-Highway Projects 

• Issue: Restrictions and delays impose<l on transportation agencies by railroad owners, either 

intentionally or unintentionally, significantly affect the timely delivery of public works projects, 

including pedestrian, bicycle, road and.highway projects. Obtaining fair and equitable railroad 

agreements as well as ensuring the commitments are made in a timely manner are often a struggle 

and adds time and cost to these projects. 

• Recommendation: Establish, or authorize USDOT to establish, consistent requirements, 

commitments, and time frames across all public and private railroad owners to facilitate 

transportation work within and across railroad rights of way, and provide USDOT the authority to 

enforce those provisions with the railroads Require US DOT to establish template/model agreements 

for standard activities conducte<l by the state DOTs in railroad right-of-way (and vice versa), and 

provide guidance on the estoblishment of agreements for special or more complex activities. 

ISSUE 7·16: Drones/Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 

Current Federal Policy: 14 CFR 107, Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Issue: Current restrictions on the use of drones are impeding the development of significant 

potential beneficial uses In such areas as preliminary design, right of way, bridge inspection, safety, 

and operations. The full potential of this continually evolving technology is not being realized, in 

part because regulation is unable to keep pace with the developing technology. Current restrictions 

include where and when drones can be flown, the amount of pre-planning needed, and the inability 

to fly over traffic. An example of a currently restricted use is the documentation of a crash site, 

which would allow for quicker clearing of the incident and potentially reduce secondary crashes. 

Recommendation: Expand flexlbllities for transportation agencies to use drones in broader 

applications and with fewer restrictions when reasonable safety measures can be accommodated to 

help realize the full potential of this continually evolving technology. 

ISSUE 7·17: Relocation of Utilities 

Current Federal Polley: 2.3 USC 123, Relocation of Utility Facilities 

Issue: 23 USC 123 provides that states may be reimbursed with federal funds when the state pays 

for utility relocations for project construction. 

Recommendation: Amend 23 USC 123 to allow utility relocation to take place after a preferred 

alternative is identified but prior to NEPA completion with appropriate limitations to ensure the 

integrity of the NEPA process, and allow federal funds to be used for the relocation. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 54 I Page 
260 


35959.112

ISSUE 7·18: Delegation of ITS Architecture 

Current Federal Policy: 23 CFR 940, Intelligent Transportation System Architecture and Standards 

Issue: Implemented as part of TEA-21 in 2001 (Sec. 5206(e)), requirements were established for ITS 

architecture at a time when the technology was in its initial development. Almost two decades later, 

with the maturation of ITS systems and architecture, reporting to the federal level on every project 

is time consuming and excessive. States can take on this responsibility. 

Recommendation: Eliminate the requirements for production of project-level, regional, and 

statewide ITS Architectures. States can be delegated this responsibility. 

ISSUE 7-19: Delegation of Preventive Maintenance Projects 

Current Federal Policy: 23 USC 116, Maintenance, subsection {e) 

Issue: Under 23 USC116(e), a state may use Federal-aid highway funds for a preventive 

maintenance project "if the state demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the activity 

is a cost-effective means of extending the useful life of a Federal-aid highway." Because this is a 

statutory requirement, FHWA cannot currently assign to states the authority to determine that a 

preventive maintenance project qualifies for federal reimbursement. 

Recommendation: This provision should be amended to allow states to determine that a preventive 

maintenance project meets the applicable criteria for federal reimbursement. This change would 

require an amendment to 23 USC 116(e). 

ISSUE 7·20: Delegation of Authorization for Right-of-Way Acquisition 

Current Federal Policv: 23 USC 106, Project Approval and Oversight 

Issue: Currently, there is no specific authorization in 23 USC 106 (or elsewhere in Title 23) for states 

to assume FHWA's responsibilities for authorizing federally funded right-of-way acquisitions. In 

addition, FHWA's right-of-way regulations state that "as a condition of Federal funding under Title 

23, the grantee shall obtain FHWA authorization in writing or electronically before proceeding with 

any real property acquisition using Title 23 funds, including early acquisitions under §710.501(e) and 

hardship acquisition and protective buying under §710.503." 

Recommendation: New legislative authority should be established. for states to voluntarily assume 

some or all of FHWA's responsibilities for approval of right-of-way acquisitions, subject to the same 

legal protections that currently apply to the right-of-way acquisition process. This would require an 

amendment to 23 USC 106. 

ISSUE 7-21: Delegation of Federal Funds Obligation Management 

Current Federal Policy: 23 USC 106, Project Approval and Oversight 

Issue: Currently, a state must obtain FHWA's approval to obligate funds for a specific project. This is 

required to allow states to actually draw down specific Federal funds so that the·state can seek 

reimbursement from FHWA for actual costs Incurred. This approval is provided for a project after 

FHWA determines that all applicable Federal requirements have been met. 

Recommendation: A new legislative authority should be provided to allow states to assume FHWA's 

responsibilities for determining that all federal requirements have been met, without the need for 

an individual project-level obligation approval by FHWA. 

ISSUE 7-22: Delegation of Project Agreements 

Current Federal Policy: 23 CFR 630.106, Authorization to Proceed 

Issue: Currently, a state must obtain FHWA's authorization to proceed before beginning work on 

any Federal-aid project, including an advance construction project. This authorization can be 

AA.SHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 55 I Page 
261 


35959.113

provided by FHWA for a project or a group of projects through or after the execution of a formal 

project agreement with the state, only after FHWA determines that all app!ic<ible Federal 

requirements have been met. 

Recommendation: States should be provided new legislative authority to assume FHWA's 

responsibilities for determining that all federal requirements have been met prior to 

commencement of construction. 

ISSUE 3-3: Prioritize Formula-bas~;d Federal Funding 

ISSUE 3-6: Increase flexibility and transferability of funding 

ISSUE 4-5: Improve Eluy America Requirements 

ISSUE 4-6: Update NaJionaliTS Architecture Rule 940 

ISSUE 6-1: Do Not Increase Any Regulatory Burdens Related to Planning but Rather look for 

Opportunities to Reduce Burdens ond Unnecessary Requirements While Maintaining a Thorough 

Planning Process 

ISSUE 6-5: Make State DOTs and MPOs Eligible Recipients under the Set Aside from the Surface 

Transportation Block Grant Program (aka transportation alternatives program) 

ISSUE 6-9: Streamline and Simplify the Development and Updating of the Multitude of 

Transportation Plan Documents Currently Required of States 

ISSUE 8-8: Allow Utility Relocations to Start Earlier 

ISSUE 8-10: Provide Greater Flexibility for Early Acquisition of Right-of-Way 

ISSUE 9-6: Redefine "Manufactured Products" Requirement within Buy America Law 

ISSUE 11-1: National Transportation System Security and Resilience Plan 

ISSUE 11-3; Modify Emergency Relief (ER) Program to be More Flexible and More Responsive to 

System Resilience Needs 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 56 I Page 
262 


35959.114

8: Project Delivery-Environmental Protection 

Over the past decade, significant progress has been made toward the goal of streamlining 

environmental reviews for transportation projects. Average review times are faster, programmatic 

approaches are used more widely, and environmental documents are becoming more reader-friendly. 

This progress has been spurred by streamlining measures enacted in SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21, and the 

FAST Act, including the environmental review process in 23 USC 139. But even with this great progress, 

the environmental process still takes too long and is unduly costly and delay-prone. Some of the most 

persistent difficulties arise from the interaction among NEPA and other federal environmental laws, 

each with its own distinct procedures and requirements. Our recommendations focus on making 

continued improvement in the NEPA process itself, and In making the NEPA process work more 

smoothly with other federal requirements. 

NEPA I Environmental Review Process 

ISSUE 8-1: Enhance Role of Lead Agency in Managing the NEPA Process 

Issue: Section 139 requires lead agencies to prepare a "coordination plan" when an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared and requires the plan to 

include a "schedule for completion of the environmental review process for the project." Section 

139 requires both the initial schedule and any changes that "shorten" the schedule to beadopted by 

the lead agency with "concurrence" of all participating agencies and the project sponsor. As 

amended by the FAST Act, Section 139 now also requires the "status and progress" of all projects 

requiring an EA or EIS to be posted on the Permitting Dashboard; this requirement ensures that a 

current schedule showing key project milestones is posted on the Dashboard. 

Recommendation: Eliminate the requirement to obtain "concurrence" from other agencies in 

project schedules, and clarify that posting on the Dashboard satisfies the requirement to maintain 

and update the project schedule under Section 139. Retain the existing requirement for lead 

agencies to consult with participating agencies and project sponsor in setting the schedule, for 

project schedules to be consistent with applicable legal requirements, and far schedules to be 

posted on the Dashboard. If disagreements arise about schedules, they can be resolved through 

elevation to the Council an Environmental Quality {CEQ) and/or the Permitting Council. These 

changes will help to ensure efficiency, flexibility, and transparency in setting project schedules, 

while minimizing the risk of bogging down the process over scheduling issues. 

ISSUE 8-2: Provide a Consistent Legal Framework for linking Planning and NEPA 

Issue: In its planning' regulations, FHWA has recognized twa distinct processes for linking 

transportation planning with the NEPA process, known as planning-environmental linkage (PEL): (1) 

a flexible process that was established in the regulations before MAP-21; and (2) a more restrictive 

process that was enacted in MAP-21 and is codified at 23 USC 168. The main difference between the 

two is that Section 168 requires the lead agency to obtain concurrence of cooperating agencies with 

approval roles. It is confusing to states to have two different PEL authorities with two different 

processes and requirements. Moreover, the inflexibility of the Section 168 process means that it Is 

rarely if ever used. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 57 I P a g e 
263 


35959.115

Recommendation: Amend 23 USC 168 to conform the statutory process to the more flexible 

preexisting process that existed in FHWA's regulations (23 CFR Pan 450) before Section 168 was 

enacted in MAP-21. The amendments to Section 158 should, at a minimum, eliminate the 

uconcurrence" requirement. 

ISSUE 8-3: Make All Categorical Exclusions Available for Use by Any Federal Agency 

Issue: Under current NEPA regulations, each federal agency adopts its own list of categorical 

exclusions (CEs) applicable to actions that the agency carries out. If multiple federal agency 

approvals are needed for the same project, and only one agency has an applicable CE, then that 

agency can Issue as CE, but the other federal agencies must prepare an EA- slowing down the 

process unnecessarily. An existing law-49 USC 304-allows any USDOT agency to use any other 

US DOT's agency's CE, but this authority has two important limitations: (1) applies only to 

"multimodal projects," which are defined as projects that require approval from two or more USDOT 

agencies, and (2) it does not apply to agencies outside the USDOT. These restrictions are unduly 

limiting. 

Recommendation: Amend 49 USC 304 or enact new legislation authorizing any federal agency to 

apply aCE that had been adopted by any other federal ogency; this authority would make CEs 

interchangeable among all federal agencies. For example, the Corps could apply aCE from FHWA's 

CE list. If this change is not made, Congress should at least amend 49 USC 304 to allow any US DOT 

agency to use any other USDOT agency's CE, regardless of whether the project is "multimodal." 

ISSUE 8·4: Maximize Use of CEs, Including Clarification tnat Programmatic Agreements Can be Used to 

Autnorize Additional CEs 

Issue: Most states have entered into Programmatic Agreements under which FHWA authorizes the 

State to make CE determinations on FHWA's behalf. In Section 1318 of MAP-21, Congress 

specifically authorized these types of Programmatic Agreements to include CEs for additional 

activities beyond those specifically listed as CEs in FHWA's NEPA regulations, as long as the 

additional CEsare "consistent with section 1508.4" of the CEQ's NEPA regulations. However, in 

rulemaking, FHWA has interpreted that statutory language in a way that effectively prevents that 

flexibility from being used: under fHWA's Interpretation, additional activities can be included as CEs 

in a Programmatic Agreement only if the CEsare adopted through the >ame federal rule making 

process that FHWA would need to use in order to establish new CEs In its regulations. (See 78 Fed. 

Reg. 57587, 57581 (Sept. 19, 2013) ("The FHWA interprets section l318(d)(3) as limiting this 

expanded authority to actions listed in regulation (i.e., all (c)-list CEs and the examples provided in 

the (d)-list) and any other CE that is added through a process consistent with the requirements of 40 

CFR 1508.4.")) FHWA's interpretation is inconsistent with the statutory language, which only 

reqUires the additional CEs to be "consistent with section 1508.4" of the CEQ's regulations- a 

provision that defines aCE, but does not include any process requirements. FHWA's interpretation 

negates the flexibility that Congress intended to provide in Section 1318 of MAP-21, 

Recommendation: 

o Clarify that additional CEs may be included in Programmatic Agreements between a state DOT 

and FHWA, without needing to undertake a federal rulemaking process. This clarification can be 

provided by amending Section 1318 of MAP-21 to provide that such CEs must be "consistent 

with the criteria for a Categorical Exclusion in section 1508.4 of title 40 ... " 

o Direct US DOT to solicit public comment suggesting additional CEs and, promptly after the close 

of the comment process to publish an NRPM with any additional proposed CEs, with final action 

to follow promptly. 

AASHTO FAST ACT RF.AUTHORizATION 58 I P a g e 
264 


35959.116

ISSUE 8·5: Clarify and Expand NEPA Assignment Authorities 

Issue: Under 23 USC 327, states may assume, by written agreement, responsibilities of the US DOT 

under NEPA and related federal environmental laws for hi&hway, transit, rail, and multimodal 

projects. To assume federal NEPA responsibilities for transit, rail and multimodal projects, a state 

must first assume federal responsibilities fo'r highways: To date,six states have successfully 

completed the application process, and several more are in the application process to assume 

federal responsibilities for highways. Experience in assignment states has shown that assignment 

greatly reduces average completion times. But the application process currently takes 1 to 2 years to 

complete, and once states obtain assignment, they remain subject to a burdensome and 

complicated audit and renewal process. In addition, the assignment statute prohibits assignment of 

project-level air quality conformity determinations, which are an essential part of the NEPA process 

for many projects, and FHWA has Interpreted the statute to further limit the range of 

responsibilities that can be assigned. Further clarification, simplification, and expansion of this 

program are all needed. In addition, this program should be added to Title 49 to allow states to 

assume the federal N EPA responsibilities of any US DOT modal administration. 

Recommendation: Clarify, simplify and expand streamlining authorities under 23 USC 327 as follows: 

o Standardize the information that states need to meet to apply for the NEPA assignment 

program; a checklist approach where states certify to meet certain requirements. 

o Require that the term of NEPA Assignment MOUs be a minimum of ten years, while maintaining 

the current four-year audit period. 

o Clarify and simplify the assignment audit process to focus on compliance with the substantive 

areas of the assignment MOU. 

o Clarify that, at their option, states may be assigned project-level air quality conformity 

determinations, as well as floodplain determinations, which FHWA has interpreted to be 

excluded from assignment 

o Clarify that state attorneys' fees may be paid with federal funding, including tourt ordered 

payments of opposing counsel. 

o Remove the pre-condition for a state to have taken on NEPA assignment for highways prior to 

being able to take on NEPA assignment for rail and transit projects. 

o Add NEPA assignment authority to Title 49 to allow states to assume the federal NEPA 

responsibHities of any US DOT modal administration. 

ISSUE S-6: Allow Increased Use of Programmatic Agreements to Balance FHWA and State DOT Roles 

Issue: In states without NEPA assignment, the FHWA and state DOT carry out the environmental 

review process in partnership with one another. Much of the subject-matter expertise on 

environmental issues resides within the state DOT on issues ranging from endangered species to 

historic preservation to traffic forecasting. But because FHWA is the lead agency, many routine 

functions must be c~rried out by FHWA staff, even when the substantive work has been done by the 

state DOT. It is wasteful and inefficient for a state DOT to prepare a report, draft a transmittal letter, 

and then wait for FHWA to sign the letter. It would be far more efficient to allow the state DOT to 

carry out routine inter-agency coordination tasks, while maintaining regular communication with 

FHWA. This Increased efficiency would also free up FHWA's limited staff resources to focus on 

issves such a program oversight and major project decisions. 

Recommendation: Authorize FHWA to enter into programmatic agreements under which state DOTs 

(without NEPA assignment) could take on increased responsibility for carrying out routine FHWA 

responsibilities during the NEPA process, including but not limited to: requesting concurrence in 

findings of de minimis impact under Section 4(f) of the US DOT Act; submitting Biological 

Assessments under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; preparing and circulating air quality 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 59 I Page 
265 


35959.117

conformity determinations under the Clean Air Act; initiating and csrrying out Section 106 

consultation activities under the Nstioncl Historic Preservation Act, including submittal of historic 

preservation reports to consulting parties (but not including government-to-government 

con~u!tstion with tribes). FHWA would retain responsibility for all final decisions, while maximizing 

the opportunity for state DOTs acting under FHWA oversight to carry out the procedures leading up 

to those fins I decisions. In addition, direc.t FHWA to amend its regulations to remove the 

requirement for FHWA approval of state DOT procedures and policies for routine activities such as 

public involvement and noise mitigation. 

ISSUE 8•7: EStablish Project Delivery Innovation Pilot Program 

Issue: The NEPA process requires compliance with a host of other federal environmental laws, each 

of which is implemented by separate regulations, under the jurisdiction of different agencies. 

Streamlining the NEPA process alone will not be successful without also streamlining complionce 

with the other federal laws that also must be addressed as part of the same process. Yet efforts to 

amend or improve those other laws have not been successful, at least to date. Because other 

federal environmental laws are subject to complex and prescriptive regulations, agencies are highly 

restricted in their ability even to consider innovative practices that could yield "win-win" solutions 

for infrastructure development and the environment. One possible solution is to borrow from the 

"SEP-15" model used by FHWA- an experimental program that allows the agency to waive certain 

requirements on a project-specific basis as a way to test innovative approaches, which can inform 

future changes to the agencies regulations. This same flexibility should be provided to other 

agencies. 

Recommendation: Establish a pilot program, modeled on SEP-15, that would .JIIow USDOT modal 

administrations and federal environmental agencies to waive or otherwise modify their own 

requirements to develop innovative practices to streamline project delivery and achieve positive 

environmental outcomes. The flexibility provided under this framework would include appropriate 

safeguards-including interagency consultation and public notice and involvement-to ensure 

adherence to federal environmental laws, regulations, and pollcies. For example, all federal 

agencies required to consult on a project would need to agree to the inclusion of the project in the 

pilot program, consulting resource agencies would need to determine that equal or improved 

environmental outcomes would be achieved, and no agency would be allowed to override or modify 

requirements that fall within another agency's authority. 

ISSUE 8-8: Allow Utility Relocations to Start Earlier 

Issue: Utility relocations are a common source of delay in project schedules. Utility relocations tend 

to be time-consuming because they often require other reglllatory approvals and involve property 

acquisition outside the transportation right-of-way. Utility relocations required for FHWA-approved 

projects also become subject to Buy America requirements, which may create further delays if 

compliant products are not readily available. In addition, utility relocations require extensive 

coordination and agreement with the utility companies, which generally are responsible for carrying 

out the relocations. To avoid project delays, it would be highly beneficial to allow utilities to begin 

relocating utilities before the NEPA process for the transportation project is complete, However, 

under FHWA's NEPA regulations, construction work on the project-including the utitrty relocations, 

generally is not allowed to begin until after the NEPA process is completed. 23 CFR 771.113{a).) 

Recommendation: Direct FHWA to amend its NEPA regulations to allow utility relocations to begin 

prior to NEPA completion, with appropriate limitations to ensure the integrity of the NEPA process, 

and allow federal funds to be used for such relocation. Appropriate limitations would include (1) 

treating the utility relocation as a separate federal action, so that it's subject to its own NEPA review 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 60 I ? age 
266 


35959.118

before the utility relocation occurs; (Z) allowing the utility relocation to occur only after a preferred 

alternative has bee I'\ identified in the NEPA process for the transportation project, and prohibiting 

the utility relocation itself to be considered as a factor in approving an alternative; and (3) if federal 

funds are used for the utility relocation, requiring the state to reimburse those funds to FHWA if the 

transportation project is not approved and implemented within a defined time period (e.g., 20 

years). This flexibility would apply to a utility relocation using an Environmental Impact Statement, 

Environmental Assessment, or Categorical Exclusion. 

ISSUE 8·9: Allow Conformity and Fiscal Constraint to be Determined Post-NEPA, Prior to Construction 

Issue: For projects located in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas, FHWA must make 

an air quality conformity determination (i.e., a finding that the project conforms to the state's plan 

for achieving federal air quality standards per 42 USC 7506(c)). The conformity determination, in 

turn, requires a finding that the project is include in a "fiscally constrained" metropolitan 

transportation plan and transportation improvement program (TIP}. 40 CFR 93.108. These findings 

are required prior to completion of the NEPA process under current EPA and FHWA regulations and 

guidance. This requirement creates a Catch-22 for many large projects: without NEPA approval, it is 

difficult to confirm fu11ding sources, but the NEPA process cannot be completed until funding 

sources are identified. The timing of the fiscal constraint determination can be especially challenging 

for large P3 projects and other innovative-finance projects, where fu11ding and financing plans are 

not (and cannot be} resolved until after the NEPA process is complete. 

Recommendation: Allow flexibility to complete the NEPA process with approval conditioned on 

making an air quality conformity and fiscal constraint determination before proceeding to 

construction. This approach would not change any substantive requirements related to fiscal 

constraint and project level conformity, it merely changes the timing of making these 

determinations. This change would be implemel'lted with legislation directing FHWA and FTA to 

update their joint environmental and planning regulations (23 CFR Part 771 and Part 450), and 

directing EPA to make a corresponding change to its conformity regulations. 

ISSUE 8·10: Provide Greater Flexibility for Early Acquisition of Right-of-Way 

Issue: Section 108 of Title 23 allows right-of-way to be acquired for a transportation project, under 

certain conditions, prior to completion of the NEPA process for the project itself. FHWA's right-ofway regulations (23 CFR Part 710) impose restrictions that are not required by the statute, in 

particular an absolute prohibition on early acquisition of property protected by Section 4(f)-i.e., 

any historic property, and publicly owned land within a park, recreation area, or wildlife or 

waterfowl refuge. This prohibition applies regardless of whether the Section 4(f) status of the 

property (e.g., its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places) was known at the time the 

property was acquired; and the regulations allow no flexibility for FHWA to make exceptions. As a 

result, inadvertent acquisition of Section 4(f)-protected properties can permanently deprive a 

project of eligibility for federal funding. 

Recommendations: Direct FHWA to amend its regulations governing early right-of-way acquisition 

carried out with non-federal funds (23 CFR 710.501(b)) to remove the prohibition on acquiring 

Section 4(f) properties. All conditions specified in the statute would still need to be met. This change 

would ensure that the regulations provide the full degree of flexibility allowed under 23 USC 108. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 61 I Page 
267 


35959.119

Air Quality Conformity 

ISSUE 8-11: Require Air Quality Conformity Only for the Current Air Quality Standards 

Issue: As required by the Clean Air Act, the EPA periodically reviews and updates the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), typically by replacing an old standard with a new, more 

stringent standard. When a new NAAQS is adopted, EPA issues rules for transitioning to the new 

standard. In a recent court decision, South Coost v. EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down an 

EPA rule that provided for the transition from the 1997 ozone standard to the stricter 2008 

standard. The court held that even though the 1997 standard had been revoked and replaced by a 

stricter standard, states and MPOs still were required to continue making conformity 

determinations for the revoked 1997 standard. This decision will result in wasteful effort of 

demonstrating conformity to plans for achieving an air quality standard that has already been met. 

Recommendation: Require that when a new standard is established for a pollutant, transportation 

agencies only need to conform to the most recent standard for that pollutant. This would require an 

amendment to 42 USC 7505. 

ISSUE 8·1Z: Allow Programmatic Air Quality Conformity Determinations 

Issue: Currently, air quality conformity determinations must be made when an MPO updates or 

amends its plan or TIP-regardless of whether the changes being made are likely to have any 

material effect on air quality. In addition, conformity determinations are required for every project 

(with the exemption of certain 'exempt' projects), even when there Is no realistic chance that the 

project will cause the region to violate applicable air quality standards. 

Recommendations: Direct EPA to amend the transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR Part 93) 

to allow the US DOT, in consultation with EPA, to make programmatic conformity determinations 

that can be relied upon as the basis for demonstrating conformity for individual plans, programs, 

and projects. The programmatic conformity determinations could be made at a national, state or 

local level. Conditions could be specified in the regulations so that the programmatic determinations 

can be Lised only for plans, programs, and projects that meet specified criteria. If emissions budgets 

are exceeded, the state and MPO would need to resume making individualized conformity 

determinations. 

ISSUE 8·13: Adjust Timing of Transportation Conformity Requirements to Align with SIP Approval 

Issue: After a NAAQS is established by EPA, nonattalnment areas for that standard are designated. 

One year after this designation, transportation conformity applies. In concept, a conformitY 

determination is a ftnding that a transportation plan, program, or project "conforms to" the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) adopted by the state for achieving 

the NMQS. But under the Clean Air Act, the SIP is not submitted until three years after 

non attainment areas are designated. As a result, there is a two-year period in which conformity 

determinations are required but the SIP is not yet established, and this time period may become 

much longer if there are delays In EPA's approval of the SIP. DLiring this time, conformity 

determinations can only be made by proving that "build" emissions are no worse than "no build" 

emissions. It is paradoxicol to require "conformity" to a SIP before the SIP has even been adopted. 

Recommendation: Amend the Clean Air Act {42 USC 7506(c)) to provide that transportation 

conformity requirements for a newly adopted NAAQS do not come into effect until six months after 

EPA approves the SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets fnr that NAAQS. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 62. I Page 
268 


35959.120

Section 106, 4(f). and 6lf) 

ISSUE 8-14: Streamline Se~ion 106 Requirements for Post-WWII Properties 

Issue: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to 

identify all historic properties listed in or "eligible for" the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP), assess effects on those properties, and consult on ways to mitigate adverse effects. In 

addition, Section 4(f) of the US DOT Act imposed on USDOT agencies additional, stringent 

requirements to protect all historic properties listed in or eligible for the NRHP. Under National Park 

Service standards, properties under 50 years of age generally are not eligible unless they hove 

"extraordinary" significance. But in practice, this "50-year rule" has commonly been interpreted to 

mean that all structures older than 50 years of age must be evaluated for eligibility, and in many 

states, the SO-year threshold is measured from the anticipated date of construction- so the surveys 

include properties in the 40- to 50-year age range atthe time the surveys are conducted. This means 

entire suburban subdivisions built in the 1970s must now be evaluated for National Register 

eligibility, and soon 1980s-era developments will need to be evaluated as well. 

Recommendation: Direct the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to issue program comments 

or other exemption to streamline Section 106 reviews for common, post-World War II buildings, 

districts, neighborhoods and commercial development from Section 106 review, and establish a 

statutory Section 4{f] exemption for the same properties covered by that Section 106 exemption. 

Direct the National Park Service to reassess the 50-year age threshold used in determining eligibility 

for the N.ational Register of Historic Places, particularly in related to post-WWII residential 

properties, and submit a report to Congress on whether the 50-year threshold should be modified. 

ISSUE 8·15: Streamline Agency Involvement in Section 4{f) Decisions 

Issue: Section 4(f) of the Department ofTronsportatlon Act establishes requirements and 

considerations for US DOT to use land from a historic site, publicly owned park, recreation area, or 

wildlife and water fowl refuge. Implementing regulations require US DOT to coordinate and seek 

comments from "officials of jurisdiction" prior to making a 4(f) determination. Depending upon the 

resource, this could include the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Tribal Historic 

Preservation Office (THPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the National Parks 

Service, and/or the Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS}. After coordination with these entities and 

publi~ review, the evaluation is then required to be reviewed by the Department of the Interior 

(DOl), and sometimes the Department of Agriculture (DOA) and/or Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD). This last level of review slows down project delivery and adds little value 

to the 4(f) determinations. 

Recommendation: Remove the requirement for DOl, DOA and/or HUD review for indivldual4(f) 

evaluations. These agencies would still have the opportunity to comment as part of the NEPA 

process and/or as officials with jurisdiction, and could use that comment opportunity to raise any 

issues or con~erns regarding potential impacts to Section 4(f) resources. This change would require 

amending 49 USC 303 and 23 CFR 774.5{a). 

ISSUE ·8-16: Allow Alternatives to Providing "Replacement Parkland" under Section 6(f) 

Issue: Section 6(f) and Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWFCA) prohibits the conversion of 

property acquired or developed with LWCF grants to a non-recreational purpose without the 

approval of the National Park Service. Section 6(f) further directs NPS to approve such conversion 

only if the converted area is replaced with parkland of equal fair market value, location, and 

usefulness. These Section 6(f) requirements apply to the entire park for which an LWCF grant was 

received, even if the grant was used only for a small portion of the p·ark. Consequently, where 

MSHTO FAST ACT REAUTH01\IZATION 53 I Page 
269 


35959.121

conversions of Section 6(f) lands are proposed for highway projects, no matter how small the 

conversion, replocement lands ore necessary. Often, local officials would prefer for the state to 

make improvements to the existing property rother than finding replacement property, which could 

be at a different site; however, Section 6(f) specifically requires replacement parkland. 

Recommendation: Amend Section 6(f) of the LWCFA to allow flexibility for a public agency acquiring 

Section 6(f)-protected parkland to compensate for those impacts through enhancements to the 

existing park or other enhancements acceptable to the parkland owner. This mitigation method 

would still require approval of the National Park Service; but would simply allow broader flexibility 

as to the method used to compensate for impacts to parkland. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

ISSUE 8-17: Streamline Section 404 Compliance for Routine Road Maintenance Activities 

Issue: Many transportation projects require permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for 

the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States." Section 404 permitting 

requirements can be a significant burden on transportation project development, especially for 

minor maintenance and construction activities that only impact man-made wetlands located 

adjacent to roads. 

Recommendation: Expand exemptions from Section 404 permitting for routine maintenance 

projects with minor impacts and streamline the use of Nationwide Permits for projects that remain 

subject to Section 404 as follows: 

o Clarify and expand exemptions in the Corps' regulations (33 CFR Part325) for activities involving 

maintenance and/or construction of roadside ditches, emergency activities, and impacts on 

wetlands within the highway median or operational right of way. 

o Expand opportunities for using non-reporting national and regional permits to greatly reduce 

timeframes for obtaining Section 404 permits. 

o Modify permitting requirements so that projects that require a relocation of a roadside ditch 

that also carries a Water of the US, will not require mitigation above and beyond the 

replacement of the roadside ditch, assuming no loss of channel occurs. 

ISSUE 8~18: Allow Programmatic Approach to Compliance with Section 404(b}(l) Gui!lelines 

Issue: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to comply with 

EPA regulations-the "Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines"-when issuing Section 404 permits authorizing 

projects that impact wetlands and other waters under the Corps' jurisdiction. The Guidelines 

require, among other things, that the Corps only issue a permit for the practicable alternative that 

causes the least impact to aquatic resources; this is the so-called 'LEDPA' requirement. in practice, 

inter-agency disagreements over interpretations ofthe LEDPA requirement are a frequent source of 

project delays. When applied rigidly, this requirement can effectively force the choice among 

alternatives to be based solely on small differences in wetland impacts, rather than a 

comprehensive and balanced comparison of impacts on all types of natural resources and 

communities. 

Recommendation: Create alternative process allowing approval of Section 404 permit for a surface 

transportation project to be approved pursuant to programmatic agreement with a state that 

ensures no-net-loss at watershed level, in lieu of making a LEDPA determination at the project level. 

AASHTO FAST ACT RFAUTHORIZATION 64 I Page 
270 


35959.122

ISSUE 8·19: Allow Delegation of Section 404 Permitting Authority for Transportation Projects 

Issue: Under existing law, the Corps is responsible for issuing Section 404 permits, subject to EPA's 

oversight and veto authority, The Corps has authority to delegate its permitting responsibilities to a 

state, but this is an all·dr·nothing proposition; the state's only option is to take on the entire 

program, a major burden. As a result, most states are reluctant to take on this responsibility (to 

date, only New Jersey and Michigan have done so). By contrast, the NEPA assignment program 

established under 23 USC 327 allows FHWA to assign all or a portion of its environmental 

responsibilities within a state; the scope of assignment under that program is determined by 

negotiation between FHWA and the state. To date, six states are participating in the NEPA 

assignment program and several more are considering it. The flexibility allowed under the NEPA 

assignment program should be extended to the Section 404 program. 

Recommendation: Allow delegation of Corps permitting responsibility to a state department of 

transportation for a subset of projects or activities as agreed by the Corps and the state, e.g., just for 

transportation projects. Providing this flexibility would encourage states to take o_ver Section 404 

permitting for at least a portion of the projects currently handled by the Corps, reducing the burden 

on the Corps' staff, while also promoting greater efficiency in the processing of permits for major 

public projects. 

Endangered Species Act 

ISSUE 8·20: Require Interim Guidance to Be Issued at Time of Species Usting, and then a Full Recovery 

Plan 

Issue: The ESA requires recovery plans for all species listed as threatened or endangered. However, 

for most listed species recovery plans are out of date or have not been developed. This creates 

numerous challenges for project sponsors in addressing threatened or endangered species as there 

is no guidance regarding species recovery goals or acceptable mitigation tools. 

Recommendation: Amend 16 USC 1533 to require Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) and National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to, issue interim guidance at the time of listing of a threatened or 

endangered species, and then to issue a full recovery plan within 12 months of listing. The interim 

guidance would include general species recovery goals and acceptable species survey protocols and 

mitigation. The Services, federal action agencies, and project sponsors would be required to use the 

interim guidance in making effect determinations and in determining appropriate measures to 

avoid, minimize, and mitigate for impacts to the species. The interim guidance would remain in 

effect until the full recovery plan is developed and approved. 

ISSUE 8·21: Provide a Framework for Exempting Projects with Minor Effects 

Issue: Section 7 of the ESA requires consultation for all federal actions with the potential to affect 

threatened and endangered species, and Section 10oft he ESA prohibits the taking (including 

incidental taking) of endangered species without a· permit or incidental take authorization provided 

through Section 7 consultation. The existing statute and regulations do allow for exemptions or 

categorl<;al determinations to be made for routine projects with minor impacts. By contrast, such 

flexibility is provided under other environmental laws· for example, Categorical Exclusions under 

NEPA and findings of de minimis impact under Section 4{f). Similar flexibility can be achieved 

through Programmatic Agreements under the ESA, but the negotiation of PAS is a lengthy process 

and where PAs exist, they often do not cover all of the species affected by a particular project. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 65 I Page 
271 


35959.123

Recommendation: Amend 16 USC 1536 to require the Services to establish activities-based 

exemptions from the ESA, which would avoid the need for Section 7 consultation and Incidentaltake permits for specific types of routine activities, such as road maintenance projects. The 

availability of such exemptions could be limited to projects carried out by public agencies, such as 

state DOTs, where the state has committed to participate in ecosystem-scale efforts to protect and 

promote recovery of listed and other sensitive species. 

ISSUE 8·22: Allow Project Sponsors to Serve as "Non-Federal Representatives" in Formal Consultation 

Issue: Section 7 of the ESA allows a "designated non-federal representative," typically the project 

applicant, to "conduct informal consultation and/or to prepare any biological assessment" on behalf 

of the federal action agency. See 50 CFR 203.02 and 402.08. This designation allows a project 

applicant, such as a state DOT, to initiate the Section 7 consultation process and perform much of 

the work that would otherwise need to be conducted iJy the federal action agency, such as FHWA. 

Under current regulations, the designated non-federal representative's role is limited-to informal 

consultation. This constraint creates inefficiencies with no offsetting benefits. Federal agencies 

should have the flexibility to designate a non-federal representative to serve during both informal 

and formal consultation. 

Recommendation: Direct the Services to amend the Section 7 regulations to allow 0 "designated 

non-federal representative" to act on behalf of the federal action agency during both informal and 

formal consultation. This change would promote streamlining by ensuring continuity in agency 

relationships throughout the consultation process rather than forcing a mid-course change when 

the process transitions from informal to formal consultation. It would also avoid bottlenecks that 

can occur when the federal agency's staff resources are limited, or where officials with necessary 

expertise are not located In the project area. This change would not alter the Services' role; it would 

simply allow a project applicant to cons Lilt directly with the Service in all stages of consultation 

rather than force the federal action agency to serve as an intermediary. 

ISSUE 3-1: Increase Federal Funding 

ISSUE 4-5: Improve Buy America Requirements 

ISSUE 6-1: Do Not Increase Any Regulatory Burdens Related to Planning but Rather Look for 

Opportunities to Reduce Burdens an Unnecessary Requirements While Maintaining a Thorough 

Planning Process 

ISSUE 6-2: Enhance Flexibility and Avoid Imposing New Administrative Burdens, whether through 

statute, Rulemakings, or Guidance 

ISSUE 6-4: Fiscal Constraint 

ISSUE 7-2: Right of Way Acquisition from Federal Agencies 

ISSUE 7-3: Right of Way Acquisition Processes 

ISSUE 7-8: Buy America 

ISSUE 7-17: Relocation of Utilities 

ISSUE 7-20: Delegation of Authorization for Right-of-Way Acquisition 

ISSUE 9-6: Redefine "Manufactured Products" Requirement within Buy America Law 

MSHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 66 I Page 
272 


35959.124

9: Research and Innovation 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

Continuous improvement, fueled by research and innovation, is critical for state Departments of 

Transportation (DOTs) to provide safe, world-class transportation services to their customers. In October 

2013, AASHTO published policy recommendations and passed resolutions specific to the reauthorization 

effort at that time. Many of those efforts related to research and innovation still apply and are restated 

in this paper. In addition, the Special Committee on Research and Innovation, with input from the 

Research Advisory Committee, has approved additional policy recommendations to capture new 

opportunities for Congress to consider related to research and innovation. 

State Planning and Research (SP&R) funding, which is set at two percent of the core Federal 

Transportation programs allocated to each state by formula, helps states conduct research, disseminate 

results and encourage implementation of research findings. State DOT Research programs rely on a 

required 25 percent minimum of SP&R funds to administer their Research, Development, and 

Technology Transfer {RD& T) activities. SP&R funds support a variety of transportation research needs 

that improve all modes and enable the transportation community to build safer, longer lasting 

infrastructure, in less time and for less money. RD& T projects directly contribute to innovative or 

improved 1) safety, 2) standards, 3) methods, 4) materials, 5) products, 6) programs and 7) services. 

The state DOTs need well-managed research programs to make informed decisions and ensure a strong 

future for the transportation network. This FAST Act reauthorization should provide the funding and 

institutional framework to support the success of these programs. 

SPEOFIC POLICY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

ISSUE 9-1: Increase Research, Technology & Education Program Funding Levels 

Current Federal Policy: FY 2018 funding request for the Federal Research, Technology & Education 

Program (RT&E) was $418 million which is the same amount requested for FY 2017 and is a slight 

increase from FFY16's $415 million. The program is anticipated to remain constant for FY 2019 as 

well, essentially representing a reduction in overall program funding due inflation and other cost 

increases. 23 U.S.C 505(b){l) Minimum Expenditures on Research, Development, and Technology 

Transfer Activities establishes funding for state research programs, separately from the above 

mentioned federally managed RT&E funded programs, by mandating a minimum of 25 percent of 

each state's SP&R funding be dedicated to their respective research programs. 

Issue: The FAST Act reduced the flexibility of MAP-21 funding by designating three new efforts to be 

funded from several federal research funding sources, including Highway Research and 

Development (R&D) funds, the Technology and Innovation Deployment Program (TIDP), and/or the 

Intelligent Transportation Systems Research program. These efforts include; 

o A competitive grant program to deploy advanced transportation and congestion management 

technologies ($50 million per year) which is a competitive grant program open to local agencies 

and research institutions; 

o Competitive grants to states to demonstrate user-fee-based alternative revenue mechanisms to 

ensure the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund (STSFA $15 million in FY 2016,$20 

million per year thereafter); and 

MSHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 67 I Page 
273 


35959.125

o A study by the Transportation Research Board on needed upgrades and repairs to the Interstate 

Highway System to meet the demands of the next SO years (up to $5 million for FY2016). 

In addition, USDOT is authorized to use up to $10 million per year to develop, use, and maintain 

data sets and data analysis tools to assist state and Metropolitan Planning Organization 

performance management activities. (This was requested in the GROW AMERICA legislative 

proposal from the Obama Administration, but was !!.Q! intended to be funded from R&D.) 

Because these new activities are mandated in the research title of the FAST Act without a 

commensurate increase in the overall funding, funding for existing federal research programs have 

effectively been reduced. Aher accounting for the three research funding emphasis areas newly 

specified by Congress, the FAST Act reduces the level of discretionary funding in the R&D, TIDP, and 

ITS programs by approximately 25 percent, or from about $292.5 million per year to about $232.5 

million per year. 

Assuming the project on advanced transportation and congestion management technologies, 

$678 million per year (including inflation projected) is necessary for state DDTs to participate in 

research and advancing technology solutions to support and improve the transportation system at 

state and local levels. This assumes only ATCMTD listed above is continued. If the other two suballocated programs are reauthorized, then additional funding would be needed to administer these 

programs. 

If the national formula funding were to change in the future, the impacted SP&R funds would 

need to be accounted for in another way in order to maintain the overall minimum amount of $678 

million necessary for the RT&E program. 

Recommendations: 

o Maintain the State Planning and Research program in its current, formula-based configuration 

and continue the 25 percent set-aside for research, development, and technology transfer 

activities in order for state DOTs to continue their commitments to research and 

implementation of innovative transportation technologies and processes in across the country. 

o To maintain the current level of effort for federal RT&E programs, a budget level consistent with 

the current proportioning of funding is requested. Specifically, to account for inflation, reduced 

program flexibility, and increased project delivery costs since FY2016, a minimum budget of 

$678 million per year for RT&E is requested. 

ISSVE 9·Z: Allow Highway Safety Improvement Program ~unds to be used for Safety Related Research 

Activities 

Current Federal Policy: 23 U.S.C Section 148 Highway Safety Improvement Program (a)(4)(B)-

Inclusions 

Issue: During the FAST Act authorization process, the previous terminology in the above mentioned 

section was changed from "The term "highway safety improvement project" includes but is not 

limited to the following ... " to "The term "highway safety improvement project" only includes a 

project for 1 or more of the following:" This has limited state DOTs from carrying out noninfrastructure projects that are within their state's Strategic Highway Safety Plan such as education, 

enforcement, and evaluation. 

Recommendations: Reinstate the MAP-211anguage for the sub section above to again allow 

Highway Safety Improvement Program funded safety projects to include education, enforcement, 

and research activities. This will better allow DOTs to carry out state Strategic Highway Safety Plans 

with their respective safety offices and local and state enforcement agencies. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 68 I Page 
274 


35959.126

ISSUE 9·3: Allow States to Use Non·SP&R Federal Funding when Contributing to Multi-State Pooled 

Fund Research Studies 

Current Federal Policy: The FAST Act authorizes a single amount for each year for all apportioned 

highway programs combined. That amount is apportioned among the states, and each state's 

apportionment is then divided among the individual apportioned programs. Each program has 

transferability provisions that are statutorily set and the majority of them require state funding 

matches. 

Issue: AASHTO supports fle~ibility for states to transfer federal program funding among the different 

highway programs as it allows states to best meet their needs, which is especially important when 

overall funding is insufficient. Currently state DOTs can use SP&R funds (100 percent federal with no 

state match) for pooled fund studies which are a quarter of each state's 2 percent SP&R funding 

allocation. For smaller states, increased flexibility to use other federal fund source~ at 100 percent 

for pooled funds would strengthen the program and allow more states to participate in pooled fund 

studies. 

Several examples include: 1) Transfer construction funding for an innovative pavement 

construction pooled fund study and 2) Use Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding to 

contribute to a pooled fund study on connected and autonomous vehicles. 

Recommendation: AASHTO recommends legislation that allows states to use non-SPR apportioned 

federal highway funds for multi-state pooled fund studies (research) without requiring state match. 

This modest incentive could strengthen research on topics that are important to the nation's 

infrastructure needs, as evidenced by multi-state support. 

ISSUE 9·4; Support for Associated National Research Programs 

Current Federal Policy: To maximize the effectiveness of state DOTs' R& T activities, the FHWA carries 

out or funds a host of activities necessary to support a vibrant nationwide R&T program including 

research administration, communication, coordination, conferences, and partnerships with other 

national and international organizations. 

Issue: Throughout its history, a core element ofthe FHWA RD&T's mission has been to promote 

innovation and improvement in the American highway system. Over the last decades, this critical 

mission element has developed into a broad array of research and technology activities covering the 

spectrum of advanced research, applied research, technology transfer, and implementation. 

Recommendations: AASHTO recommends US DOT has sufficient, fle~ible funding to carry out its core 

support programs beyond the amount prescribed for the federally managed RT&E programs and 

state SP&R funding. Currently these programs include: 1) Exploratory Advanced Research Program, 

2) Every Day Counts, 3) University Transportation Centers, 4) U.S. Secretary of Transportation's 

Office of Research and Technology, and 5) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In 

addition, AASHTO supports reinstating the National Cooperative Freight Research Program, and 

continuation of the Transit cooperative Research Program and the Behavioral Traffic Safety 

Cooperative Research program with funding beyond the amount prescribed for the federally 

managed RT&E programs and state SP&R funded programs. Lastly, AASHTO supports federal 

training, data, and knowledge management programs including local/Rural Transportation 

Assistance Programs, National Highway Institute, and the National Transportation library that 

should all be funded a levels adequate to meet the needs of state DOTs. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 69 I Page 
275 


35959.127

ISSUE 9·5: Recommend Third Strategic Transportation Research Program 

Current Federal Policy; The Strategic Highway Research Program {SHRP) and SHRP2 were widely 

supported national research efforts with no future Strategic Transportation Research program 

mandated going forward. 

Issue: Since the early 1980s, Congress has mandated two national studies of strategic highway 

transportation research needs. The original SHRP was initiated in response to a 1986 TRB Special 

Report titled America's Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation. This five-year $150 million 

program focused on highway infrastructure needs for better materials and asphalt mixes, longer life 

pavements, cost-effective maintenance procedures, and chemical control of snow and ice on 

highways. This program has a major positive impact on our ability to construct and preserve the 

nation's roadway infrastructure. 

In 2001, TRB once again responded to a Congressional mandate and published Strategic 

Highway Research -Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, and Improving Quality of Life. The resulting 

SHRP2 looked at cost-effective ways to preserve infrastructure but ventured more into operational 

changes that would provide safer roads with adequate capacity and reliable travel times. Resulting 

products from SHRP2 included: cost-effective bridge designs for faster, longer lasting replacement; 

pavement preservation techniques for high-traffic roadways; methods to improve operations and 

extend highway capacity; innovative strategies for managing large, complex projects; behavioral 

studies for safer transportation facilities; and training for fast, multi-agency incident response. A 

large-scale implementation effort ensured that the state DOTs would benefit from these research 

results. 

In 2018, as technology is rapidly changing and impacting transportation more than ever, it Is 

time to take the next step forward and address the major issued that are affecting the 

transportation system today in order to adapt and fully integrate technology and innovation into the 

transportation network. Potential focus areas include: advancing connected and autonomous 

technologies; incorporating safety related technologies; addressing infrastructure resiliency; and 

meeting the needs of multi-modal connectivity. 

Recommendations: AASHTO recommends Congress allocate $1 million for seeping a third Strategic 

Transportation Research Program. 

ISSUE 9-6: Redefine "Manufactured Products" Requirement within Buy America Law 

Current Federal Policy: 23 USC Section 313 Buy America (1/1/2014); 23 CFR Section 635.410 

(4/1/2013) 

Issue: The intent of the Buy America Act is to support and encourage the nation's materials and 

manufacturing industries, to promote quality materials being used in construction of public 

infrastructure, and to allow for consistent review of associated materials and costs nationwide. 

However, the requirement has had the unforeseen consequence of limiting DOTs' abilities to carry 

out innovative research and testing of preassembled products or equipment not readily available 

within the United States. The waiver process outlined in the above law and regulation is an 

impractical burden for the DOTs to carry out and has resulted in less innovative product testing and 

research. 

On April17, 2018 FHWA granted a Buy America Waiver for 955 vehicles and equipment for 151 

state DOT projects requested in 2016. In that waiver, the Agency acknowledged that " ... FHWA is 

aware that in today's global industry, vehicles are assembled with iron and steel components 

manufactured all over the world. The Agency also understands the difficulty of identifying vehicles 

that have 100 percent components made In the U.S." This same finding could be said for assembled 

specialty items in the research and laboratory equipment industry. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 70 I Page 
276 


35959.128

Recommendations: 

o USDOT should improve the Buy America definition, waiver application, exceptions, policies, and 

processes to ensure timely consideration and consistent application of the law across the 

country to reduce costs to state transportation projects. 

o Implement the exceptions to Buy America previously proposed by FHWA in Federal rule making, 

and streamlin·e the waiver process to ensure transportation projects are progressing without 

significant delays. 

o Implement an exemption from Buy America requirement for research related equipment and 

materials for transportation research projects. 

ISSUE 1·1: Deploying CAV Technologies in the Safest Manner Possible is Paramount 

ISSUE 1·2: The Future ofTransportation Includes Connected and Automated Vehicles 

ISSUE 3·1: Increase Federal funding 

ISSUE 3·2: Fix the Federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and Strengthen Federal Transportation Funding 

ISSUE 3-6: Increase flexibility and transferability of funding 

ISSUE 4-5: Improve Buy America Requirements 

ISSUE 7-8: Buy America 

ISSUE 8-8: Allow Utility Relocations to Start Earlier 

ISSUE 10·1: Non-infrastructure Eligibilities under the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 71 I Page 
277 


35959.129

10: Safety 

To make the most significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries, states combine efforts 

from multiple safety disciplines to implement the most effective countermeasure in the most efficient 

manner. This involves combining resources {such as funding and data) from various agencies with a role 

in traffic safety, including infrastructure, law enforcement, public education, emergency medical 

services, and publlc health. Reauthorization of the FAST Act should allow for sharing and combining 

resources to allow states the flexibility to address their safety. 

ISSUE 10·1: Non-infrastructure Eligibilities under the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Current Federal Policy: Highway Safety Improvement Program funds are restricted to use on specific 

activities and cannot be used for education, enforcement, safety research, or emergency medical 

service safety programs. 

Issue: The FAST Act (section 1113) amended 23 USC 148 to revise the definitions of what is a 

Highway Safety Improvement Project. The change effectively restricts HSIP eligibility to only 28 

strategies, activities or projects listed in the legislation, eliminating the ability to use fiSIP funds for 

public awareness and education efforts, infrastructure and infrastructure-related equipment to 

support emergency services, and enforcement of traffic safety laws that are identified in the states' 

Strategic Highway Safety Plans. SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 had provided the flexibility to deploy 

additional enforcement to problem areas and help reverse a trend of increasing crashes on specific 

highway segments. The changes are inconsistent with the intent of a state's Strategic fiighway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) which is a multidisciplinary approach to reducing highway fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. The lack of flexibility in safety project selection In the HSIP program, 

particularly non-infrastructure related activities, stifles innovative safety improvements that lead to 

crash reductions and reduced highway fatalities. 

Recommendations: Restore flexibility for states to use a portior1 of HSIP funds for non-infrastructure 

safety programs and for safety research. 

ISSUE 10-2: DATA PROTECTION 

Current Federal Policy: 2.3 USC 409 does not explicitly protect safety partner agencies from discovery 

when coordinating with the state DOT to analyze and report safety data. 

Issue: Under changes outlined by MAP-21 and FAST Act for US 23 148, state highway agencies are 

required to work with other state and regional safety agencies and organizations in the 

development of the Strategic Highway Safety Plans, Highway Safety Improvement Programs, and 

safety performance targets. This differs from the past. The entities include, but are not limited to 

Highway Safety Offices, transit agencies, partner safety organizations (e.g., health data and safety 

data linkages) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations. To adequately perform analyses and 

identify and prioritize safety improvements, data from multiple disciplines, including public heath, 

must be incorporated. 23 USC 409 does not currently provide protection from discovery for the 

agencies that state DOTs will collaborate with. It is assumed the privilege does already exist, but 

without specific language in the code or guidance from FHWA, state DOTs' ability to collaborate on 

AASHTO FAST ACT R€AUTI10RIZATION 721 Page 
278 


35959.130

analyzing and reporting safety data as openly as possible among the numerous safety partners will 

be limited. Similarly, this issue exists with data used for public transportation agency safety plans. 

Recommendations: Explicitly protect partner agencies' data from discovery when used far safety 

analysis, reporting, and implementation of safety programs. The intent of this proposed clarification 

is not to limit availability of data to the general public. Suggested wording: 

Notwithstanding any other provision of low, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or 

collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, planning the safety 

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway- highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title ar for the purpose of 

developing any Strotcgfc Highway Sa[<:.!I)l S:Jjety Improvement Progrom or highway 

safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway 

funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court 

proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any 

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. 

tf .).tJch in/ormath:;n ~vas originally 

or treid bv an entity for sorne 

ISSUE 10-3: Opportunity to Take Corrective Action 

Current Federal Policy: financial penalties for noncompliance with federal requirements are imposed 

without an opportunity for states to enact legislation that corrects the issue. 

Issue: Injuries and fatalities associated with driving under the influence continues to be a serious 

concern, which is why states continue to strengthen state laws and policies to effectively address 

impaired driving. Failure to adhere to those specific federal requirements can result in a significant 

financial penalty against the state highway program. Due to the complexity of federal laws and 

regulations, coupled with the nuances associated with state laws, states can inadvertently fall out of 

compliance with federal requirements. Administration of current federal regulations neither 

provides states with informed advanced notification, nor an opportunity to take corrective action 

prior to imposition of financial penalties. As a result, states may not be aware of compliance issues 

and are unable to take corrective action before penalties are applied. 

Recommendations: Provide states with a reasonable opportunity to take corrective action to bring 

themselves back in compliance with federal impaired driving requirements prior to the imposition of 

financial penalties to the state highway program, 

CROSs-REFERENCE OF RELATED ISSUES IN OTHER WHITE PAPERS 

ISSUE 1-1: Deploying CAV Technologies in the Safest Manner Possible is Paramount 

ISSUE 2-2: Privacy, Security, Cyber Security 

ISSUE 3-1: Increase federal Funding 

ISSUE 3-6: Increase flexibility and transferability of funding 

ISSUE 9-2: Allow Highway Safety Improvement Program Funds to be used for Safety Related 

Research Activities 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 73 I P a g e 
279 


35959.131

11: Transportation System Security and Resilience 

Many >tate Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have faced significant diswptions to transportation 

system performance over the past five years for a variety of reasons. Flooding, extreme heat, wildfires, 

cyberattacks, critical infrastructure failure, coastal erosion, and storm surge are just some of the hazards 

state DOTs have had to respond to along with many of their partners. A focus on system disruptions, 

the ability of the transportation system to anticipate and respond to such disruptions, and the 

subsequent consequences to transportation system performance and to a state and its communities are 

primarily perceived as system resilience and security concerns. Many different components of a 

resilience and security strategy can influence overall effectiveness and success, including 1) anticipating 

potential threats through a data-based a no lysis process <S part of a planning process, 2) analyzing 

different mitigation and response strategies, 3) establishing collaborative partnerships with many 

different stakeholders, 4) implementing infrastructure design, construction and other actions selected 

for mitigation/response, and S) implementing communications strategies to support resilience planning 

and design and to convey information to system users before and during a disruption. Viewing system 

security and resilience from a broad perspective, that is, from how system disruptions can be considered 

and prepared for in all state DOT functions, is a critical foundation for making the transportation system 

more resilient. 

The Committee on Transportation System Security and Resilience (TSSR) is charged with identifying 

specific policy issues and recommendations related to security and resilience. This white paper 

recommends policies for consideration by AASHTO and the Transportation Policy Forum. 

The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, signed into law on December 4, 2015, included 

several requirements that reflected this concern for resilience and security: 

New requirements were created for the statewide and metropolitan transportation planning 

processes to consider projects/strategies to improve the resilience and reliability of the 

transportation system (security had been added in previous legislation). 

The Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects {NSFHP) program was estahlished to support 

nationally and regionally significant freight and highway projects that achieve a range of program 

goals including improving the reliability of the movement of freight and people; and enhancing the 

resiliency of critical highway infrastructure. 

Section 1432 placed limitations on the reconstruction of damaged facilities in the same loc<tion, and 

with the same tapacity (as measured in anticipated traffic volumes), dimensions, and design, as it 

had before a declared emergency (Section 1432 applies to the reconstruction of roads, highways, 

railways, bridges and transit facilities that are either operational or under construction and are 

damaged by an incident resulting in one oft he following: 1) an emergency declaration by the 

Governor oft he State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Homeland Security, or 2) an 

emergency or major disaster declaration by the President). Reconstruction activities covered by 

Section 1432 may not change the function or character, or extend beyond the footprint of the 

damaged facility. However, the reconstruction may include resiliency or hazard mitigation measures, 

as well as upgrades to codes and standards, as long as the reconstruction occurs within the existing 

right-of-way and in a manner that substantiallyconforms to the preexisting design, function and 

location. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 74 I Page 
280 


35959.132

With respect to asset management, 

o MAP-21 codified in 23 U.S.C. 119 a requirement for state DOTs to develop and implement a risk· 

based Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP), Risks were considered anything that 

affects the condition of National Highway System (NHS) pavements and bridges and the 

performance of the NHS, including risks associated with current and future environmental 

conditions {such as extreme weather events, climate change, and seismic activity), financial risks 

{such as budget uncertainty], operational risks {such as asset failure), and strategic risks (such as 

environmental compliance) (23 CFR Part 515). 

o TAMP investment strategies were to collectively make or support progress toward, among other 

issues, achieving and sustaining a desired State of Good Repair over the life cycle of the assets. 

o "Critical infrastructure" was added to the considerations. that a state may include in its asset 

management plan. 

o State DOTs were required to conduct periodic evaluations to determine if reasonable 

alternatives existed to roads, highways, or bridges that repeatedly require repair and 

reconstruction activities 

All prior National flighway Performance Program (NHPP) eligibilities were continued, and four new 

eligible categories were added, including one for projects that reduce the risk offailure of critical 

N flS infrastructure (defined as a facility where an incapacity or failure would have a debilitating 

impact in certain specified areas). 

ISSUE 11·1: National Transportation System Security and Resilience Plan 

Current Federal Policy: None 

Issue: Federal legislation has required the development of a National Freight Plan, a National 

Aviation Plan and 0 Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan, but no national plan exists for 

transportation system security or resilience. The intent of such a plan would be to identify the risks 

to the nation's transportation system from a range of sources, the types of physical, operational, 

institutional and technology strategies that might be considered by national and state 

transportation agencies, the effect of those strategies on improving the efficiency and effectiveness 

of the transportation system, and recommendations on how such strategies can be funded. Note 

that the Cyber Security Stratf!gy described in Issue 117 below could be subsumed in this effort. Of 

interest, such an effort was conducted prior to 9/11 where a National Academies panel was 

empowered to examine potential terrorist attacks against the nation's surface transportation 

system. This effort needs to be updated with a publicly available plan (it is assumed that such plans 

exist but are not available for public consumption), 

Recommendations: USDOT, DflS and other relevant agencies should be directed, in collaboration 

with states, transportation system operators, local jurisdictions and users of the transportation 

system, to develop a National Transportation System Security and Resilience Plan. This plan should 

identify the major natural and human-caused threats to transportation system performance; the 

limit<Jtions current laws and rules impose on addressing security and resilience; the institutional 

structure for planning and designing for, responding to and recovering from disruptions; proposed 

analysis methods that could be used by transportation agencies to assess vulnerabilities and risks; 

and the types of strategies to enhance system resilience The Plan would not impose requirements 

upon states or authorize any federal official to impose requirements upon states, but would be 

available to state DOTs for their consideration as they implement federal transportation planning 

statutes and rules. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 75 [ Page 
281 


35959.133

ISSUE 11-2: Promote All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis for Critical Facilities 

Current Federal Policy: There is no current law, regulation or policy relating to the use of an allhazards risk and resilience analysis approach for critical assets. 

Issue: FAST required states to examine whether feasible alternatives exist for those locations where 

repeat reconstruction and repairs often occur, but no action was required to improve those 

locations where problems exist. FHWA and FTA pilot studies over the past five years has illustrated 

different approaches that can be used for examining the vulnerability of transportation assets to 

extreme weather hazards. The frequency of major system disruptions due to a variety of reasons 

has increased in recent years, and it seems likely that states will face increasing pressures in 

anticipating and responding effectively to such disruptions in the future. 

Recommendations: States should be encouraged to conduCt all-hazards risk and resilience analysis 

on critical transportation systems and networks (to be defined with criteria), which should include 

discrete assets and facilities such as communications networks and ITS systems. This analysis should 

incorporate considerations of risk and consequences within the federal approach of supporting 

transportation infrastructure, service continuity, and efficiency. Pilot studies should be funded that 

illustrate this approach as part of a state DOT's asset management program. 

ISSUE 11-3: Modify Emergency Relief (ER) Program to be More Flexible and More Responsive to 

System Resilience Needs 

Current Federal Policy: Current law and regulations provide ER funds for declared emergencies; 

states take action and federal monies are used to reimburse the costs. 

Issue: Responding to and recovering from a major disruption is a critical component of an effective 

system resilience strategy. Current procedures require unnecessarily lengthy and inefficient 

administrative burdens on states, with reimbursement of ER funds typically taking two to three 

years. System disruptions are increasing and it is important for the ER program to be structured and 

administered as efficiently as possible. 

Recommendations: 

o Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the ER program to identify where improvements can 

be made to; 1) allow advance planning for ER project implementation to Include of a range of 

project strategies, 2) efficiently administer program funds, and 3) return the system to 

fvnctional operetion as quickly as possible and provide opportunities to incorporate resilience 

strategies into project design. 

o Allow ER projects to include actions that increase the resilience of the replacement project to 

future hazards, Allow ER funds to be used for actions outside of the right-of-way and/or for 

other strategies that improve the resilience of the damaged asset and/or facility. 

o Allow more flexibility with contract requirements and NEPA review as part of the ER program. 

For example, emergency projects should receive expedited clearances or waivers for 

environmental, right-of-way, and railroad certifications in order to recover from a disruption. 

o Allow DOTs to change order all required federal requirements into a previously-let, state-funded 

project that did not contain the federal provisions. Requiring a new letting for emergency 

projects often delays emergency repairs, while expecting states to include federal requirements 

in.state-funded projects is unrealistic. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 76 I Page 
282 


35959.134

ISSUE 11-4: Provide More Flexibility in Use of Federal Funds for Preventive and Response Actions to 

System Disruptions 

Current Federal Policy: Currer1t law and USDOT regulations have very specific eligibility requirements 

for different federal funding programs. In some cases, these requirements inhibit states from taking 

preventive actions with these funds that provide benefits to the states of reducing the risks of future 

disruptions. for example, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds are constrained in 

terms of what they can be used for. 

Issue: This issue can be considered a general concern for many federal transportation programs. In 

particular, there is a need to streamline the use of HSIP funds to allow for enhanced resilience 

actions. 

Recommendations: Expand eligibility of HSIP projects to include actions to improve system resilience 

while also enhancing safety. 

ISSUE 11-5: Foster Collaboration In Preparing for System Disruptions 

Current Federal Policy: There is no. current law or regulation that requires collaboration and 

coordination in preparing for, responding to and recovering from system disruptions. 

Issue: E~perience with system disruptions has shown that the most effective preparation for, 

response to and recovery from includes very high levels of collaboration and coordination among 

many different agencies and groups: This coordination can be very challenging, especially when 

multiple states are involved in responding to a widespread disruption. Although emergency 

response agencies have an established collaboration and coordination framework for responding to 

major disruptions, nothing similar exists for collaborative planning efforts on the part of 

transportation system providers. 

Recommendations: The federal government should conduct a study and support pilot studies of 

collaborative system security and resilience planning efforts. The intent is to recommend 

alternative institutional structures for anticipating 'ystem disruptions that can then be linked to 

emergency response efforts. 

ISSUE 11-6: Reaffirm Security and Resilience as Factors in Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation 

Planning Processes 

Current Federal Policy: Current law and US DOT regulations require the consideration of both 

security and resilience as part of the transportation planning process. 

Issue: System resilience and security will continue to be an important influence on transportation 

system performance, most likely increasing in importance. Although most concern in transportation 

has been in efficient response to disruptions, there is an important opportunity for considering 

resilience and security issues in the planning process (e.g., conducting systematic risk assessments) 

Recommendations: 

o The secuiity and resilience planning factors should be retained as part of federal law. While 

states are fulfilling their obligations under the planning statutes, US DOT is encouraged to hold 

webinars or other activities to facilitate sharing of information by states of how they consider 

these two factors in the planning process. 

o US DOT should be instructed to fund pilot studies on how security and resilience-related 

performance measures can be used to support performance-based transportation decision 

making. 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 771Page 
283 


35959.135

ISSUE 11·7: Promote Cyber Security Strategies 

Current Federal Policy: There is no current law or regulation targeting the protection of vital 

transportation command and control information technology systems. 

Issue: Transportation systems are increasingly relying on sophisticated information technology 

systems to control operatlons and provide information to system users. Over the past 10 years, 

transportation systems have been the #1 target of terrorists worldwide, with increasingly more 

attacks occurring on system operations capabilities. Cyberattacks will likely be one of the major 

means of disrupting transportation systems in the nation In future years, but there is no consistent 

approach, institutional infrastructure or standards directing effective protection of system 

operations control assets. 

Recommendations 

o USDOT should be directed in collaboration with DHS and other relevant agencies to develop a 

National Transportation Cyber Security Strategy, building on the September 2018 National Cyber 

Strategy, which establishes suggested practices for protecting the nation's transportation cyber 

assets. Oversight might take the form of a National Commission or a National Academy of 

Sciences Committee. 

o Targeted federal funding should be provided from the General Fund of the Treasury of the 

Department of Homeland Security or, failing that, from the Department ofTransportation, to 

protect vital national transportation command and control information technology resources. 

These important security needs should be supported by security agencies, not from 

transportation accounts that do not have funding sufficient to meet needs. 

ISSUE 1-1: Deploying CAVTechnologies in the Safest Manner Possible Is Paramount 

ISSUE 2-2: Privacy, Security, Cyber Security 

ISSUE 3-1: Increase Federal Funding 

ISSUE 3-3: Increase flexibility and transferability of funding 

ISSUE 3-10: Reduce and Simplify Regulations, Requirements, Data Collections, <Jnd Process to 

Expedite the Process 

ISSUE 7-5: Emergency Relief (ER) Program 

ISSUE 7-15: Coordiniltion with Railroads 

AASHTO FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION 78 I Page 
284 

Senator BARRASSO. Director McKenna, in the last Congress we 

heard from a number of State Departments of Transportation that 

the Department of Transportation’s non-environmental requirements could be reduced in ways that would give States more flexibility, empower States to focus on priority tasks, and accelerate 

projects. 

One idea is to make stewardship and oversight agreements more 

standardized and less proscriptive, and more efficient. These agreements are often too complex and can add burdensome requirements 

in Federal approvals that are not required by statute. 

Do you see opportunities for these agreements to be simplified 

and for the Federal Government to be more flexible? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. 

Yes, we do, particularly in those areas where some of the requirements when we talk about the State standard specifications, 

when we talk about pavement design policy, value engineering policy and a number of those other areas, there are, in many of the 

stewardship and oversight agreements, requirements that those be 

preapproved, those State policies be preapproved although that is 

not a statutory requirement. 

We do think there are some good commonsense areas to further 

that discussion, to narrow it and make more programmatic the 

agreements. 

Senator BARRASSO. As you also know, Congress often has difficulty reauthorizing Federal transportation legislation on time, 

often requiring repeated short-term extensions to the program. 

Could you talk a bit about what happens to your projects if we do 

not enact a long-term reauthorization bill before it expires next 

year and instead just do short extensions? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Very specifically, when I joined the Missouri Department of Transportation, it was just at passage of the FAST 

Act. Prior to that, there had literally been a halt on new projects. 

Because of that short-term funding scenario, the State stopped taking financial risk, risk on reimbursement of the Federal program. 

It very much narrowed the types of projects we were working on. 

That was a great harm, I think, to the State. As it stands for what 

we are projecting right now, we very specifically already seeing in 

2021 $330 million of project risk in our current capital plan we 

have already committed to. Our communities are getting really concerned about that. 

Further, we try to do a 5-year capital program. When we do not 

have the Federal certainty, we cannot commit to those projects. We 

are running with our metropolitan planning organizations and our 

regional planning commissions throughout the State. We are actually running two capital programs in the event that the Federal 

Government, that Congress does not act to bolster that Highway 

Trust Fund and provide funding certainty. That will literally take 

35 to 40 percent of our capital program right off the books. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Demetriou, a final question. Could you 

give us your thoughts on how the lack of certainty caused by the 

absence of long-term Federal highway funding impacts the private 

sector? 

Mr. DEMETRIOU. I think it is a major issue if we do not get the 

long term, six-plus year type funding. At the end of the day, busiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:29 Aug 05, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00288 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\35959.TXT VERNE
285 

nesses all have a long-term strategy. We all have our funding that 

is laid out for the next several years. Unless we have long term certainty around infrastructure improvement, enhancements and innovation, then we are not going to make decisions to invest in expansion or growth in our own businesses. 

I think it is critical and I think it is a global competitive situation for the United States because most of us are global companies. 

We are trying to figure out where to put our assets. Everything is 

set up here to do it in the United States except for the infrastructure equation that needs to get solved. 

Senator BARRASSO. I appreciate the three of you being here and 

for your excellent testimony. There are some members who might 

want to submit some written questions so I ask that you respond. 

We will keep the record open for 2 weeks. 

I think all the members want to thank you and I want to thank 

all members who attended today. I think our esteemed guests really did an excellent job bringing home the points, Senator Carper, 

that we have been looking at, the time and crucial discussions regarding our Nation’s surface transportation needs. 

Thank you so very much. 

Senator CARPER. Before we adjourn, I have one question I wanted to ask Mr. McKenna about a freight enhancement program you 

all have in Missouri that my staff tells me has been quite successful in making meaningful and targeted investments in transfer 

points within the supply chain. 

Can you take a minute and tell us about that? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Thank you, Senator. 

Yes, we have small general revenue that comes through our legislature. We put it in freight enhancement. It enables us to target 

very specific work. In many cases, we have been able to do rail 

spurs at our ports. Those are very important considerations when 

we consider the multimodal, the trans-loading needs for the agricultural economy in the State of Missouri. 

We work with our regional partners and our freight advisory 

committees to determine what those project priorities are and how 

to apply those funds. It has been very successful. We are really 

pleased with it and hope to be able to continue it. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks for sharing that. 

Thank you all. It has been delightful and informative. I would 

like to bring you back next week but we probably could not do that. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to submit a letter 

to the record from nine environmental organizations strongly opposing any tax and integrity of environmental laws and any attempts to limit the ability of ordinary citizens access to the courts 

or limit consideration of environmental, economic and social justice 

impacts on public projects in any infrastructure bill considered by 

this Congress. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

286 


35959.136

March 6, 2019 

Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Letter for the Record for the Hearing on "The Economic Benefits of Highway Infrastructure 

Development and Accelerated Project Delivery" 

Dear Senator: 

On behalf of our millions of supporters, we ask that you strongly oppose any attacks on the 

integrity of our environmental laws, any attempts to limit the ability of ordinary citizens' access to 

the courts, or limit consideration of environmental, economic and social justice impacts of public 

projects in any infrastructure bill considered by this Congress. 

The American Society of Civil Engineer's most recent report card currently rates the U.S. 

infrastructure overall at aD+ level. 1 Our drinking water systems, mass transit, and public parks all 

receive inadequate funding and arc in need of urgent repair. More broadly. our infrastructure needs 

to be greened and modernized to insure it is sustainable and resilient to address the threat of climate 

change. Undermining public safeguards will not help the United States make the right choices 

about what infrastructure projects to invest in, but weakening our environmental laws will make it 

harder to ensure that taxpayers and citizens benefit fully and arc not harmed from the infrastructure 

that is built. 

Efforts to rollback the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). environmental justice, and citizen access to the courts are cynical, counterproductive and 

harmful. These critical safeguards provide crucial government oversight and help to produce better 

project outcomes, ensure that taxpayers' money are used wisely, avoid conf1iet and corruption, and 

prevent significant harms and injustices that occur when federal agencies cut comers in approving 

large projects. The situation of massive lead contamination of public drinking water in Flint, 

Michigan is emblematic of the infrastructure challenges our nation faces. And as with most 

infrastructure concerns the issue is lack of funding. The city needs funding to address its leadcontaminated water system. Attacking regulatory safeguards is a harmful distraction that does not 

help the people of Flint. If anything, such rollbacks arc likely to lead to more situations like the 

one in Flint in the future. Undermining our safeguards is akin to putting our "head in the sand." 

And it puts at risk the well-being of ordinary people across the country. In short, we need to oppose 

these attacks because our safeguards matter. 

The ;'1/ational Environmental Policy Act Saves Lives and Taxpayer Funds 

Large scale infrastructure projects approved without adequate review and oversight often lead to 

the waste of millions of dollars, undermine entire communities, and harn1 the public health and 

environment. The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, acknowledges that while 

industry may profit from a federal project, it is the public that must live with its consequences. 

1 American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017. Infrastructure Report Card, available at: 

h ttps: /' www. in frastructurcrcportcard .org/wp-contcnt/up\oads/20 16/\ 0/20 1 7 -I ntJ-astn1cturc-Repoti -Card. pdf. 
287 


35959.137

NEPA is the backstop that provides the public with the information, the analysis, and the forum 

to address projects that may not represent wise investments. 

Without NEPA, for example, no one would have discovered that a vehicle battery manufacturing 

facility construction project in Michigan was going to contaminate the air at a nearby day-care. 

The project would have disturbed soil that had already been contaminated with dioxin, a highly 

toxic carcinogen that also causes developmental problems in children. Fortunately, the NEPA 

review process uncovered the problem and provided the opportunity for simple adjustments to 

the project that protected the children's health while allowing the factory to go forward. 2 

In 20 I I, the City of Los Angeles was going to force construction of a rai I way through a 

community, upending homes and businesses at an enormous cost to the public. The NEPA 

review, however, identified an alternative route for the project over derelict pre-existing tracks. 

The NEPA alternative alleviated significant community opposition to the project and saved 

taxpayers millions. 

Short-cutting the NEPA review process increases the risk of disasters. For example, in 20 I 0 the 

government approved BP's drilling plan for the Deepwater Horizon project without any 

environmental review by categorically excluding it from a NEPA analysis 3 This categorical 

exclusion was premised on an inadequate environmental review that simply ignored the 

possibility of a catastrophic blowout. The Deepwater Horizon disaster killed eleven people, 

spilled 4. 9 million barrels of oil, bankrupted businesses and sickened clean-up worker exposed to 

the spill, resulting in billions of dollars in damage that will take decades to restore. 

Proposals that weaken NEPA review or curtail public input and certainly those that waive 

NEPA outright would render infrastructure projects more susceptible to waste, fraud and abuse 

and open the door to shoddy, ill-considered projects that put people at risk and harm the 

environment. 

The Endangered Species Act Saves Wildlife and Facilitates Smarter Infrastructure 

Poorly designed infrastructure can cause significant harm to endangered wildlife and plants that 

Americans overwhelmingly want to protect. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is our nation's 

most c!Tcctivc means of protecting wildlife and other species in danger of extinction. The 

consultation provisions and tlcxibilities already built into the ESA provide the information, forum, 

and opportunity to advance smart development projects that include plans for protecting 

endangered species and the habitats on which they depend. 

For example, between 2008 and 2015, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted over 88,000 

consultations under Section 7 of the ESA. In every single case, the Service worked with project 

proponents and used the ESA 's tlexibility to provide a pathway for the projects to move forward. 

In addition, the overwhelming majority of these reviews arc completed well within the I 35 day 

deadline required under the Jaw4 And, by ensuring that an infrastructure project is properly 

designed at the outset, we can prevent projects from causing unintended harm to wildlife and 

:See, Department of Energy, Examples of Benefits from the NEPA Process for ARRA Funded Activities (Ylay lOll) at 

Section D.~:/lcncrgy.gov/sitcs/prodfftlcs<~O JJ!09:f2/ A RRA NEPA Benefits List !v1ay 1221 OO.pdf 

~See, Natwna! Commission on HP Deepwater Hori;Dn Oil Spill & Offshore Drilling, Report to the President. Deep 

Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling 82 (20 II). 4 Malcom J, Li Y-\V (20 !5) Data conrradicl common perceptions ahout a,·ontron-:r:·>tal provision (?/the {}S 

Endangered Speci!!s Act. Proceedings of the National Acadcn1y of Sciences USA 1 ! 2(52): 15844- I 5849 
288 


35959.138

protect taxpayer's conservation investment at the same time. 

Infrastructure legislation that undem1incs the ESA ~by exempting projects from compliance, 

undermining consultations, or otherwise- would increase the threats to already imperiled 

species. It also would undermine conservation investments already made and make future efforts 

more expensive. 

Public Access to the Courts is Critical to Ensuring Safe Infrastructure 

All of our environmental safeguards are put at risk if they cannot be enforced by the public. 

Federal agencies arc not immune from mistakes and sometimes make rushed decisions that they, 

and the public, will later regret Allowing citizens and organizations from across the political 

spectrum to challenge poorly conceived projects and violations of the law is squarely in the 

public interest and can prevent waste of taxpayers' funds. Facts show that lawsuits challenging 

projects are rare, but those that have been filed have exposed boondoggles and blatant violations 

of the law. They also ensure that the government complies with the law and is accountable the 

people. 

The prospect ofjudicial scrutiny also serves as a disincentive to project proponents who might 

otherwise attempt to defraud agencies or steamroll communities with unsavory projects. Instead, 

a project's proponents arc encouraged to engage communities to resolve conflict before anyone 

thinks of going to court 

Punitive bonding requirements, forced arbitration, and other efforts to undermine public access 

to the courts tip the scales and arc squarely intended to favor wealthy special interests. Such 

proposed changes would block or severely undermine the ability of citizens seeking to protect 

their communities. Barring the courtroom door undetmincs our system of checks and balances. 

And, making the courts the exclusive province of wealthy special interests is antithetical to our 

country's tradition of justice. 

Undermining our Safeguards Leads to Greater Social Injustice 

The issue of public safeguard rollbacks is a problem for all Americans but acutely so for people of 

color and other disenfranchised communities. These communities continue to disproportionately 

suffer from the adverse human health and environmental impacts of infrastructurc 5 They arc 

consistently exposed to higher levels of air pollution, arc more likely to drink from unsafe water 

systems, and arc more likely to be exposed to toxic chemicals. Removing lead from water lines, 

fi·om cities like Flint and many others, funding lead-paint remediation and cleaning up toxic waste 

sites arc just a few of the infrastructure-related issues that must be addressed to deal with current 

environmental justice issues." 

An intl'astructure package needs to enhance, not undermine, environmental jttsticc. It must 

preserve the responsibility of agencies to disclose project impacts and the public's ability to 

~ See, e g., lJ.S. Department of Justice, 2016 Implementation Progress Report on Environmental Justice at 6, 

ffitp~:l/www. j usticc_._gg_v/filc/9296!61download 

r, Sec, e.g., Pennsylvania Dept. ofHcaith, 2014. Childhood Lead Surveillance Annual Report, available at: 

http:/t\vww.health.p~v/~ ;020Heahh/Infant%20and%20Childrcnsn;020Hca!th!Lcad Al20Poisoning%20Prevention 

~~/Q20and%20Control/Documents/20 l4%20Lead%J20Surveillancc%20Annuai%20Report%20r2.pdf(finding l 7 cities in 

Pennsylvania had a higher percentage of children with blood lead levels(': 5 ~g/dL) above those in Flint, MI.) 
289 


35959.139

influence those projects; and ensure the right of citizens to full access to the courts to 

remedy injustices. It must fund projects that meet critical needs. And it must empower 

people of color and other disenfranchised communities to fight past injustices and prevent 

future ones caused by taxpayer-funded infrastructure. 

Undermining Our Safeguards Can Cause Delay and is Unnecessary 

More attacks on safeguards could exacerbate delays while contributing to the safety 

problems chronic undcrfunding has already caused. In fact, the misguided obsession with 

undermining time- tested safeguards has already led to a bottleneck that has contributed to 

delay. The Department of Transportation's Inspector General has found that numerous 

delays under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) are the 

result of the additional -and conflicting safeguard rollbacks mandated in the Fixing 

America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). 7 Indeed, the Department of Treasury 

identified 40 economically significant infl·astructurc projects and found that "a lack of public 

funding is by far the most common factor hindering the completion of transportation and 

water infrastructure projccts.'·H 

Furthermore, the success of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

illustrates that with adequate funding and environmental review, projects arc completed that 

stimulate the economy without compromising our core laws and environmental principles. 

All projects went through environmental review under the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), allowed for judicial review of each project, and nearly all projects were 

completed on time, helping the U.S. economy recover from the Great Recession. 

We urge you to pass legislation that funds the infrastructure we need while preserving 

critical public safeguards and access to the courts access so that we protect taxpayers, 

communities, social justice and our environment. 

Sincerely, 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Earth justice 

Environmental Protection Network 

Green Latinos 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Sierra Club 

The Wilderness Society 

Western Environmental Law Center 

Department of Transportation. Office of Inspector General Audit Report. Vulnerabilities Exist In Implementing 

Initiatives Under Map-21 Subtitle C To Accelerate Project Deliven'. March 6, 2017 
290 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you all very much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ