This document discusses transportation funding options for Centre County, Pennsylvania. It provides an overview of the County's Liquid Fuels Program from 2008-2017, noting that average annual funding was $185,000-205,000 while average annual requests were $937,993, leaving a funding gap of $735,006. It outlines how Act 89 of 2013 provides additional transportation funding and allows counties to increase vehicle registration fees by $5. This could provide Centre County with $482,148-$602,685 annually. The document analyzes the condition of the county's 58 locally-owned bridges over 20 feet, noting many are structurally deficient, borderline, or functionally obsolete. It highlights success in repairing one bridge through local

1. County Funding Option for
Transportation Projects
Chairman Michael Pipe
Centre County Board of Commissioners
Centre County MPO – Coordinating Cmte
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
act89funding@centrecountypa.gov

2. Where are we now…
County Liquid Fuels Program 2008-2017
• Annual application cycle
• Typical requests include:
– Repaving
– Bridges/Culverts/Pipes
– Stormwater (Inlets/Ditches)
– Signage & Guide Rails
– Equipment
• Typical Available Funding:
– $185,000 to $205,000
• Average Annual Amount Requested:
– $937,993

3. County Liquid Fuels Program
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Unfunded
Funded

4. County Liquid Fuels Program
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Requested Funded
AVERAGE FUNDING GAP = $735,006

5. Mountaintop Region
Requested: $1,004,343
Awarded: $257,575
25.6%
Liquid Fuel Requests & Awards By Region: 2008-2017
Lower Bald Eagle
Valley Region
Requested: $2,112,590
Awarded: $408,383
19.3%
Moshannon Valley
Region
Requested: $567,589
Awarded: $103,088
18.2%
Upper Bald Eagle
Valley Region
Requested: $2,171,565
Awarded: $362,551
16.7%

6. Centre Region
Requested: $2,798,370
Awarded: $332,125
11.9%
Liquid Fuel Requests & Awards By Region: 2008-2017
Nittany Valley Region
Requested: $441,672
Awarded: $199,697
45.2%
Penns Valley Region
Requested: $1,194,633
Awarded: $396,453
33.2%

7. Transportation Bill (Act 89 of 2013)
• Signed by Governor
Corbett in 2013
• By 2020, $2.3-$2.4
billion in new
revenue for
transportation
funding1
• Gives Counties
option to increase
registration fees by
$5 starting in 2015 1 - ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/TRANSPLAN/FINAL_Trans_Funding_Plan_Summary.pdf
7

8. How Would Centre County Benefit?
• As of December 4, 2016, 120,537
non-exempt vehicles registered in
Centre County
• Potential funding to be used for
transportation projects:
–$5 Fee annual yield at 100% - $602,685
–$5 Fee annual yield at 80% - $482,148

9. Important Points
• 100% spent in Centre County
• 0% for administration at PennDOT &
County (per the law)
• Can only be used for transportation
projects (per the law)
• Can be used to leverage State and
Federal Transportation Funds
9

10. $5 Fee Survey Response
As of 2/28
• 17 of 35 municipalities have responded:
– 10 are in favor of enacting fee
– 6 are not in favor of enacting fee
– 1 will support county decision, either way
Responses To Date
In Favor
Not In Favor
Support County
Decision

11. $5 Fee Survey Response
As of 2/28
• US Census ACS 2011-2015 Population
Estimates for Centre County: 157,823
• 17 - Responding Municipalities: 109,233
(69.21%)
–10 - In Favor: 73,978 (67.72%)
–6 - Not In Favor: 18,700 (17.12%)
–1 - Will Support County Decision: 18,238
(16.70%)

12. MPO Local Bridge Funding
• 1 local bridge (over 20’) programmed on Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP)
– T-348 Ardery Hollow Run Road (Worth Twp) bridge replacement
– Programmed Amount: $1,218,380
– Local Share: $60,912 ($50,000 County Act 13)
• New local bridge start proposed 2017-20 TIP
– $356,000 for preliminary engineering
• Local Bridge Retroactive Reimbursement Line Item
– $161,117

13. County Funding Available
• County Liquid Fuels Program
– Covers a number of project types
– $185,000 to $205,000 estimated annually
• Act 13 “At Risk Local Bridge Funding”
– Can only be used on locally owned SD bridges
– Repairs must remove SD designation
– $992,036 available
– $155,000 allocated

14. Local Bridges: Age
• 58 municipally
owned bridges with
20’ or greater spans
– 24 (41.4%) are 50+
years old
– 9 (15.5 %) are 40-49
years old
– 18 (31%) are 25-39
years old
– 7 (12.1%) are 0-24
years old
0
5
10
15
20
25
50 or
older
40-49
25-39
0-24
Bridge Age

15. Local Bridges: Condition Rating
• Assigns a single-digit number that describes the physical
condition of the structures major components compared to
its original as-built condition
• Number is assigned by state-certified bridge inspectors
during each inspection of the bridge, which occurs at least
every two years
• Number range is 9 (best) to 0 (worst)
• A rating of 4 or below indicates poor conditions that result
in a structural deficient classification

16. Rating Condition
N Not applicable
9 Excellent
8 Very Good
7 Good, some minor problems noted
6 Satisfactory, structural elements showing minor deterioration
5 Fair, primary structural elements are sound but showing minor cracks and signs
of deterioration
4 Poor, deterioration of primary structural elements has advanced
3 Serious, deterioration has seriously affected the primary structural components
2 Critical, deterioration of primary structural components has advanced and
bridge will be closely monitored, or closed, until corrective action can be taken.
1 Imminent failure, major deterioration in critical structural components. Bridge is
closed but corrective action may put the bridge back into light service.
0 Failed, bridge is out of service and beyond corrective action.
Local Bridges: Condition Rating

17. Local Bridges: Structurally Deficient
• Indication of bridge’s overall status in terms of structural soundness
and ability to service traveling public
• An “SD” designation indicates that the bridge has deterioration to
one or more of its major components
T-419 Lower Georges Valley Road Bridge
Gregg Twp
If you’ve
passed a sign
like this…
Then you’ve
likely crossed
an SD bridge.

18. T-419 Lower Georges Valley Road Bridge
Gregg Twp
• 23’ span
Abutment and wall
• Severe scour
• Mortar cracking/loss
• Abutments need
removed from stream
Superstructure
• Heavy corrosion & pitting
Superstructure
• Deck pans in poor
condition
• Crumbling asphalt

19. T-942 Lower Coleville Road Bridge
Spring Twp
• 52’ span Cracks with
displacement on
Beams 1 & 12
Rust stains under Beam 2…precursor to cracking

20. T-489 Front Street Bridge
Curtin Twp
• 90’ span
Cracking under joints on Beam 1

21. Mill Street Bridge
Howard Borough
• 28’ span
Deterioration of several
substructure components

22. T-519 Fiedler Road Bridge
Haines Twp
• 26’ span
Section Loss & Severe Corrosion
on Exposed Beam

23. T-305 East Hannah Road Bridge
Taylor Twp
• 33’ span
Section loss & exposed rebar
Hole exposing beam
Missing stone in abutment

24. Cracking and rust staining
T-312 Shady Dell Road Bridge
Worth Twp
• 25’ span

25. T-467 Hoy Road Bridge
Walker Twp
• 25’ span
Hole & depression in deck
Crack with displacementCracked wing wall

26. Local Bridges: “Borderline”
• “Borderline” is an Centre County MPO staff term for
bridges that have a 5 rating in one or more structural
areas
• While these bridges are still in “fair” condition, they
are nearing SD designation
T-525 Wolves Gap
Road Bridge
Miles Twp

27. Local Bridges: Functionally Obsolete
• An “FO” designation indicates that the bridge has
older features (for example, road widths and weight
limits) compared to more recently built bridges.
T-524 Brown Road Bridge
Miles Twp
If you’ve
crossed a one
lane bridge
Then you’ve
crossed an
FO bridge.

28. Local Bridges: Condition Analysis
• 58 municipally owned bridges
– 13 (22.4%) are Structurally Deficient
– 18 (31%) are “Borderline” or nearing SD designation
(5 rating) in 1 or more areas
– 10 (17.2%) are Functionally Obsolete
Bridge Conditions
No Designation
Structurally Deficient
Functionally Obsolete
"Borderline"

29. 58 Municipally Owned Bridges
20’ or greater length

30. 13Structurally Deficient

31. 18“Borderline” Bridges

32. 10Functionally Obsolete

33. 41 of 58Municipally Owned Bridges
fall into those 3 categories

34. Small Local Structure Inventory
• Locally owned structures under 20’ are not
inspected under PennDOT contract
• Centre County MPO inventoried locations
several years ago
• Focused on 8’-20’ spans (bridges, pipes)

35. Around 100Locations with bridges or
pipes that are 8’ to 20’ in length

36. Sizeable holes & severe rust on at least 5 beams

37. Jersey barrier (no railing)
Concrete deterioration
Vertical crack across entire structure

38. Structure in fair condition…but maintenance needed

39. Hole in roadway above concrete slab…
…because the slab and abutment had collapsed

40. A typical cross pipe
second pipe to accommodate
heavier storm events

41. Success Story
T-710 Kato Road Bridge
• Snow Shoe Twp
• 103’ span
Bridge was closed due to condition
Funding source was difficult to find

42. Success Story
• Township & PennDOT 2-0 Municipal Services
developed a repair solution
• Locally bid project
Rebuilt abutments
Repaired pier

43. Success Story
Total Project Cost: $300,000
• Local Share: $270,000
• County Act 13: $30,000
New beams & deck

44. Thank you!
Questions?
44