The Long-Term Pavement Performance Program

PART I. BUILDING AND MANAGING THE LTPP PROGRAM

© muratart/Shutterstock.com.

The ultimate return on investment from the LTPP program is the economic benefit realized from better design, construction, and management of the Nation's pavements.

 

CHAPTER 4. FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN THE LTPP PROGRAM

The Federal investment in the LTPP program through fiscal year 2014 (over a period of 27 years) is $311.56 million. This investment includes funding allocated over five highway authorizations. In addition to the Federal investment, the program has benefited from significant direct and indirect support from AASHTO, C-SHRP, and individual States and Provinces.

LTPP Under Five Highway Legislations

Since 1987, the LTPP program has been fortunate to have dedicated funding to carry out its goal and objectives (chapter 1) through five Federal transportation statutes: Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA), which implemented the program; Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA); Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21); Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); and continues now under Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). Table 4.1 shows Federal funding for the program from 1987 through 2014.  

Funding Variations

LTPP funding levels have varied over the life of the program and have relied on Federal and other sources. Although this section focuses primarily on the Federal investment that has been dedicated to the program through authorizing legislation, other funds have been used to perform program activities. Table 4.2 details annual LTPP funding and funding sources from the program’s beginning through 2014. Figure 4.1 illustrates the variation in funding received from the highway bills and compensatory contributions received to support LTPP activities after dedicated Federal funding was reduced in 1999. Added to these contributions are resources that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has supplied, which are not included in the summaries of Federal expenditures in tables 4.1 and 4.2. These contributions include the cost of engineering and clerical staff salaries, travel funds, equipment, supplies, and routine overhead.

TABLE 4.1. LTPP program Federal funding (fiscal years 1987–2014).

Fiscal Years	Authorizing Highway Legislation	Funding (in millions of dollars)
1987–1991	Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (Public Law 100-17, April 2, 1987)	$50.00
1992–1997	Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (Public Law 102-240, December 18, 1991)	87.29
1998–2003	Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178, June 9, 1998)	75.52
2004–2009	TEA-21 Extension + Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005)	53.44
2010–2014	SAFETEA-LU Extensions + Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (Public Law 112-141, July 6, 2012)	45.31
TOTAL		$311.56

 

Initially, in 1987, the LTPP program received $50 million of the $150 million provided to the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) by STURAA. In 1992, the administration of the program was transferred to FHWA, and ISTEA provided $37.52 million through 1997, with FHWA contributing an additional $49.77 million from its research and technology funds. The combined funds averaged $14.55 million per year, approximately the amount that was estimated would be needed to sustain the LTPP studies when the program was transferred from SHRP to FHWA. From 1998 through 2003, funding from TEA-21 and the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) of TEA-21 plus contributions to the program from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) provided on average $12.59 million per year for the LTPP program. From 2004 through 2009, funding through extensions of TEA-21, SAFETEA-LU and its associated technical corrections bill, and the FHWA Innovative Pavement Research and Deployment Program (IPRD) provided approximately $8.91 million per year for the LTPP program. Finally, from 2010 through 2014, funding through extensions of SAFETEA-LU, the passage of MAP-21, and FHWA’s IPRD funds is estimated to provide $7.47 million per year to continue the LTPP mission.

States and Provinces have contributed resources estimated to be in excess of $500 million to LTPP in services and direct expenditures. Their contributions to pooled-fund studies have sustained critical LTPP activities, and their support through AASHTO has been critical to the program.

States and Provinces have contributed resources estimated to be in excess of $500 million to the program in services and direct expenditures. Their highway agencies have provided construction of the test sections, materials testing, traffic control, traffic data collection, management, loaned staff, and equipment supporting the broad array of LTPP activities. During periods of reduced Federal funding, their contributions to pooled-fund studies have sustained critical LTPP activities.

Canada’s Strategic Highway Research Program, known as C-SHRP, also contributed to the program during funding shortfalls. Between 1999 and 2001, C-SHRP funded the data interpretation of film images collected during the automated distress surveys, contracting with the survey vendor to interpret about 490 LTPP test sections in the United States and Canada at a cost of $120,000. C-SHRP also funded the publication of Preserving and Maximizing the Utility of the Pavement Performance Database. In this document addressed to the highway community, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) LTPP Committee stated its view of what would be needed beyond 2009 (the anticipated end of the program) to complete LTPP data collection, data analysis, and product development and to preserve and make accessible LTPP data for future researchers.¹

The distribution of LTPP program expenditures by cost element can only be roughly estimated. Expenditures have varied from year to year in response to program priorities set in consultation with the advisory committees, the maturing of the program, and varying levels of Federal investment. Some costs are difficult to quantify, for example, the activities supported financially by the States and Provinces (estimated at more than $500 million), product development covered by non-LTPP funds, and overhead costs and staffing supported by FHWA. Excluding expenditures such as these, the distribution of the Federal investment by cost element, averaged over the years, is estimated as follows: program management, outreach, and coordination, 8 percent; data collection (equipment, personnel, data processing and quality assurance, laboratory testing, and training), 52 percent; database management (information management systems, data storage and distribution, and customer service), 30 percent; data analysis and product development, 10 percent.

TABLE 4.2. LTPP Timeline—Highway legislated and other funding sources (in millions of dollars).

Highway Legislation	FY	Legislated Funding	AASHTO Funding1	RABA Funding2	IPRD Funding3	Total Funding per Year	Total Funding
SHRP Management
STURAA	1987	$10.00				$10.00
	1988	10.00				10.00
	1989	10.00				10.00
	1990	10.00				10.00
	1991	10.00				10.00	$50.00
FHWA Management
ISTEA	1992	13.78				13.78
	1993	12.14				12.14
	1994	14.94				14.94
	1995	14.80				14.80
	1996	15.83				15.83
	1997	15.80				15.80	87.29
TEA-21	1998	10.00				10.00
	1999	8.83	$4.70			13.53
	2000	8.71	5.03			13.74
	2001	8.77	3.55			12.32
	2001	9.04	0.55	$3.10		12.69
	2003	8.94		4.30		13.24	75.52
TEA-21 Extension	2004	9.40				9.40	9.40
SAFETEA-LU	2005	8.23				8.23
	2006	7.14			$0.16	7.30
	2007	7.45			1.23	8.68
	2008	8.70			0.90	9.60
	2009	8.82			1.41	10.23	44.04
SAFETEA-LU Extension	2010	8.81			0.61	9.42
	2011	8.72			1.60	10.32
	2012	8.53				8.53	28.27
MAP-21	2013	8.32				8.32
	2014	8.72				8.72	17.04
Total		$284.42	$13.83	$7.40	$5.91	$311.56	$311.56
(1) A significant portion of the LTPP funding during the TEA-21 highway legislation years came from AASHTO. AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Research passed a resolution to use National Cooperative Highway Research Program project funds to support LTPP program activities from 1999 to 2002. (2) Significant funding was also provided by RABA, a provision of TEA-21 that adjusted transportation funding to match actual revenue from gas and vehicle taxes. (3) The FHWA IPRD provided non-LTPP funds to the program during the SAFETEA-LU years for product development.

 

FIGURE 4.1. LTPP funding in fiscal years 1987–2014.

 

The following sections, and tables 4.3 through 4.7, provide more detailed information about funding during the STURAA, ISTEA, TEA-21, SAFETEA-LU, and MAP-21 highway legislation periods associated with the LTPP program, including period covered, funding, legislation requirements, impact on operations, and, where applicable, delays in legislation passage.

Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act

STURAA, which was enacted April 2, 1987, as Public Law 100-17, authorized SHRP and provided $30 million per year or a total of $150 million for carrying out the program, which the States paid for by contributing 0.25 percent of their Federal-Aid Highway Program funds.² The STURAA legislation covered LTPP operations for a period of 4 years and 8 months, from April 2, 1987, to December 18, 1991, when the next highway legislation was enacted (see the sidebar for excerpts from the legislation).

Of the funding provided to SHRP, $10 million per year or a total of $50 million was dedicated to the LTPP program (table 4.3). This projection matched the funding called for in the preliminary LTPP plans contained in the Strategic Highway Research Program Research Plans, Final Report, May 1986 or “Brown Book.”³ However, once implementation of the program commenced, it became apparent fairly quickly that the funding level provided was not sufficient to carry out all of the planned activities. The budget realities had an impact on a number of program issues, such as reductions in the types and numbers of pavement layer materials tests that could be performed, but perhaps no impacts were as significant and long lasting as the following two:

• Under the General Pavement Study (GPS) suite of experiments, the materials testing activities were centralized through sampling and testing contractors under the direct control of the program. Because of budget limitations, however, the pavement layer materials testing program was decentralized for the Specific Pavement Study (SPS) experiments. Thereby the responsibility for sampling and testing many of these projects was handed over to the participating agencies. However, as the LTPP program began to review the materials data from the SPS test sections, considerable variation was discovered among the States and Provinces in their sampling and testing procedures, and the SPS materials test results were found to be inconsistent and incomplete relative to the program’s standards.
  
  
• Responsibility for traffic data collection for the GPS and SPS test sites was assigned to the individual participating highway agencies. However, traffic-monitoring technology never fulfilled early expectations that it would be economically and technically feasible to install reliable weigh-in-motion equipment at every LTPP test site. The lack of appropriate equipment, coupled with problems that arose regarding data quality and timely monitoring, led to large gaps in traffic data in the LTPP database.

 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1987 SEC. 128. Strategic Highway Research Program. Section 307 of title 23, United States Code (relating to research and planning), is amended by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) (and any references thereto) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection: “(d) STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM.— “(1) ESTABLISHMENT. —The Secretary, in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, shall carry out such research, development, and technology transfer activities as the Secretary determines to be strategically important to the national highway transportation system. “(2) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary may make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the National Academy of Sciences to carry out such activities under this subsection as the Secretary determines are appropriate. Advance payments may be made as necessary to carry out the program under this subsection. “(3) PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY.—Funds set aside to carry out this subsection shall remain available for the fiscal year in which such funds are made available and the three succeeding fiscal years. . . . . “(5) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Secretary shall transmit a report annually beginning on January 1, 1988, to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives which provides information on the progress and research findings the program conducted under this subsection.”

 

TABLE 4.3. LTPP program funding under STURAA (fiscal years 1987–91)

Funding Source	Funding by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars)					Total Funding
	1987	1988	1989	1990	1991
STURAA	$10	$10	$10	$10	$10	$50
Total	$10	$10	$10	$10	$10	$50

 

The impact of the materials and traffic data issues on LTPP operations became quite evident in the mid-1990s and led to the development and implementation of important materials testing and traffic monitoring action plans to address data deficiencies. These remedial actions, discussed in chapter 7, required a significant level of additional funding.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

ISTEA was enacted December 18, 1991, as Public Law 102-240.⁴ The legislation provided funding for implementation of SHRP products as well as continuation of the LTPP program (see sidebar).

Enactment of the ISTEA legislation defined the end of SHRP and the beginning of LTPP under FHWA management, and the legislation covered LTPP operations for a period of 5 years and 8 months, from December 18, 1992, to June 9, 1998. ISTEA provided $37.52 million for continuation of the LTPP program, and FHWA assigned an additional $49.77 million from its research and technology funds; together these resources averaged $14.55 million per year (table 4.4). This budget represented a 45 percent increase compared to STURAA funding during the 1987 through 1991 SHRP years. More importantly, this budget increase permitted the LTPP program to make important adjustments as well as to implement new initiatives that would later prove to have a positive impact on the program. These adjustments and initiatives included:

• Increased monitoring frequencies on LTPP test sections, particularly for falling weight deflectometer (FWD) deflection testing and longitudinal profile surveys.
  
  
• Formal introduction of manual pavement surface distress surveys (in addition to the photographic distress surveys).
  
  
• Implementation of the Seasonal Monitoring Program to study the impact of seasonal climate variations on pavement performance.
  
  
• Planning and initial implementation of the Dynamic Load Response Program at select SPS-1 and -2 projects (structural factors for flexible and rigid pavements, respectively).

INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991 SEC. 6001. Research and Technology Program. Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 307 of title 23, United States Code, are amended to read as follows: . . . . “(b) MANDATORY CONTENTS OF RESEARCH PROGRAM. — . . . . “(2) SHRP RESULTS.— “ (A) IMPLEMENTATION.—The highway research program under subsection (a) shall include a program to implement results of the strategic highway research program carried out under subsection (d) (including results relating to automatic intrusion alarms for street and highway construction work zones) and to continue the long-term pavement performance tests being carried out under such program. “(B) MINIMUM FUNDING.—Of amounts deducted under section 104(a) of this title, the Secretary shall expend not less than $12,000,000 in fiscal year 1992, $16,000,000 in fiscal year 1993, and $20,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 to carry out this paragraph.”

 

TABLE 4.4. LTPP program funding under ISTEA (fiscal years 1992–97).

Funding Source	Funding by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars)						Total Funding
	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997
ISTEA § 60011	$4.00	$6.00	$8.00	$6.00	$7.52	$6.00	$37.52
FHWA GOE2,3	9.78	6.14	6.94	8.80	8.31	9.80	49.77
Total	$13.78	$12.14	$14.94	$14.80	$15.83	$15.80	$87.29
(1) Section 6001 provided $108 million to FHWA for SHRP implementation and the continuation of LTPP ($12 million in FY 1992, $16 million in FY 1993, and $20 million per fiscal years 1994 through 1997). (2) FHWA GOE = General Operating Expenses. These amounts do not include staff salaries for eight engineers, one clerk, travel, equipment, and supplies at an approximate cost of $750,000 per year or $3.75 million for fiscal years 1992 to 1997. Routine overhead costs were also provided by FHWA. (3) Over the 5-year period, $5.4 million was deducted from this total for management and coordination activities.

 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TEA-21 was enacted June 9, 1998, as Public Law 105-178.⁵ The legislation provided funding for continuation of the LTPP program and, unlike ISTEA, also required that the LTPP program “prepare products to fulfill program objectives and meet future pavement technology needs” (see sidebar).

TEA-21 covered LTPP operations for a period of 7 years and 2 months, from June 9, 1998, to August 10, 2005. The LTPP program operated under the TEA-21 legislation for the longest period of any legislation, which had impacts on operations due to its reduced funding level. In contrast to ISTEA, which increased the LTPP budget by 45 percent from that provided under STURAA, TEA-21 reduced LTPP funding more than 30 percent, from $14.50 million per year to approximately $9.00 million per year after the yearly appropriations takedown (or rescission), which varied each year, was applied to the authorized funding for the program (table 4.5). There was no takedown in 1998.

From October 1, 2003 (anticipated end of TEA-21 legislation), until August 10, 2005 (actual passing of the next highway legislation), the LTPP program operated under a series of extensions to TEA-21 and continuing resolutions. These extensions incrementally provided funding in the amount of $9.40 million per year.

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY TITLE V—TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Subtitle A—Funding SEC. 5001. Authorization Of Appropriations. . . . (c) ALLOCATIONS.— (1) SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH.—Of the amounts made available under subsection (a)(1)— (A) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 shall be available to carry out section 502(e) of title 23, United States Code (relating to long-term pavement performance); . . . . Subtitle B—Research and Technology . . . . SEC. 5102. Surface Transportation Research. Chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code (as added by section 5101 of this title), is amended by adding at the end the following: “§ 502. Surface transportation research . . . . “(e) LONG-TERM PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE PROGRAM.— “(1) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary shall complete the long-term pavement performance program tests initiated under the strategic highway research program established under section 307(d) (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this section) and continued by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1914 et seq.) through the midpoint of a planned 20-year life of the long-term pavement performance program. “(2) GRANTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, AND CONTRACTS.—Under the program, the secretary shall make grants and enter into cooperative agreements and contracts to— “(A) monitor, material-test, and evaluate highway test sections in existence as of the date of the grant, agreement, or contract; “(B) analyze the data obtained in carrying out subparagraph (A); and “(C) prepare products to fulfill program objectives and meet future pavement technology needs.”

 

TABLE 4.5. LTPP program funding under TEA-21 (fiscal years 1998–2003).

Funding Source	Funding by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars)						Total Funding
	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003
TEA-21	$10.00	$8.83	$8.71	$8.77	$9.04	$8.94	$54.29
AASHTO		4.70	5.03	3.55	0.55	–	13.83
RABA	–	–	–	–	3.10	4.30	7.40
Total	$10.00	$13.53	$13.74	$12.32	$12.69	$13.24	$75.52

 

Perhaps the most critical impact of the TEA-21 extensions to achievement of the program’s objectives was the program’s inability to monitor aging pavement test sections at the needed intervals.

Program Adjustments Due to Funding Constraints Under TEA-21

The budget cuts had an impact on the LTPP program’s ability to effectively plan and execute key activities required to complete the program’s mission. While many of the core activities continued, the decreased level of funding required that LTPP make some significant program adjustments, taking into consideration contractual obligations and programmatic issues. Those adjustments included the following:

• Basic data collection (manual distress and profile surveys, deflection testing, and other field evaluations) and processing activities were reduced to levels below those under the ISTEA legislation.
  
  
• Important data collection activities were either postponed or delayed, including drainage surveys, forensic investigations, within-test-section thickness surveys (using ground penetrating radar) and some quality assurance review activities such as the profiler and FWD comparisons. The purchase of much-needed replacement equipment also had to be postponed.
  
  
• The Seasonal Monitoring Program was terminated.
  
  
• Development and population of key computed parameters for storage in the database were postponed. The most important of these parameters was the dynamic modulus of hot-mix asphalt concrete mixtures (often referred to as |E*|), which was considered essential in the calibration of AASHTO’s Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide at the regional and local level. Other affected computed parameters included the moisture content of unbound layers from time-domain reflectivity readings, frost/thaw depth determinations from resistivity measurements, and elastic layer moduli backcalculation from deflection data.
  
  
• The ability to plan for future procurements stopped due to budget uncertainties. In addition, two major planned contract procurements ready for advertisement were put on hold—the photographic distress survey contract and a centralized materials testing contract.
  
  
• Minimal task order work assignments were made to the data analysis contracts awarded during the original TEA-21 legislation.
  
  
• No new product development activities were started.
  
  
• Key activities in support of the Ancillary Information Management System were either cut back or postponed, including work on the LTPP library and on information not contained in the database (e.g., raw profile and deflection data and distress photographs and images).
  
  
• Vital communication and coordination activities were hampered due to limited funds, especially those involving the TRB LTPP Committee and expert task groups (ETGs). A number of important meetings could not be held, and attendance at others was limited. Visits with State partners for coordination activities had to rely more on teleconferences rather than face-to-face meetings.

The TEA-21 adjustments were clearly painful cuts for a long-term program to endure and still deliver the products it was designed to produce. Perhaps the most critical impact of the TEA-21 extensions on achievement of the program’s objectives was the program’s inability to monitor aging pavement test sections at the needed intervals. Cutbacks in monitoring frequency resulted in sections being dropped from the study without the final round of condition measurements being recorded.

Were it not for the contributions made to the program by AASHTO, which provided $13.80 million during fiscal years 1999 through 2002, and funding derived from RABA, which amounted to $7.40 million during fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the adverse impact of TEA-21 on LTPP operations would have been much more severe.

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

SAFETEA-LU was enacted August 10, 2005, as Public Law 109-59 (see sidebar).⁶ This legislation was to take the LTPP program to its formal conclusion at the end of fiscal year 2009—the end of the 20-year period considered to be the minimum period required to realize the benefits of long-term monitoring. At the time of SAFETEA-LU’s enactment, however, much additional work remained to be done to fulfill the LTPP mission.

LTPP program funding under the SAFETEA-LU legislation was set at $10.12 million per year. However, after a reduction was applied to correct for the Title V—Surface Transportation Research Development and Deployment overdesignation, the program received the amounts shown in table 4.6. Moreover, as was the case under the previous TEA-21 legislation, SAFETEA-LU required that the program “prepare products to fulfill program objectives and meet future pavement technology needs.”⁷ Additional funds were provided to the LTPP program in fiscal years 2006–2009 from FHWA IPRD Program funds and from the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-244) in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 (table 4.6). These additional funds brought the average annual LTPP budget under this legislation to around $8.8 million per year.

To put these numbers into perspective, in 2001 the TRB LTPP Committee had projected that the funding required to fulfill the LTPP mission from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2009 was $120 to $125 million, or approximately $20 million per year.⁸ This figure included activities that FHWA had planned to accomplish by the end of the legislation and those designed to address some of the program’s high-priority needs. With the budget provided by SAFETEA-LU, however, it was not possible to perform many of the actions proposed by the TRB LTPP Committee. Furthermore, whether LTPP operations would be extended past 2009 was uncertain. Like previous legislation, SAFETEA-LU extended authority for the program’s operation only for the 5 years the act covered. Since the future of the LTPP program was not clear, FHWA decided that the most responsible course of action for use of program funds was to prepare simultaneously for both a transition of LTPP activities past 2009 and possible program termination in 2009.⁹

SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS (PUBLIC LAW 109-59) (i) Long-Term Pavement Performance Program.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 502(f) of such title (as redesignated by subsection (b) of this section) is amended to read as follows: “(f) LONG-TERM PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE PROGRAM.— “(1) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary shall continue to carry out, through September 30, 2009, tests, monitoring, and data analysis under the long-term pavement performance program. “(2) GRANTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, AND CONTRACTS.—Under the program, the Secretary shall make grants and enter into cooperative agreements and contracts to— “(A) monitor, material-test, and evaluate highway test sections in existence as of the date of the grant, agreement, or contract; “(B) analyze the data obtained under subparagraph (A); and “(C) prepare products to fulfill program objectives and meet future pavement technology needs.” (2) FUNDING.—Of the amounts made available by section 5101(a)(1) of this Act, $10,120,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 502(f) of such title.

 

TABLE 4.6. LTPP program funding under SAFETEA-LU (fiscal years 2004–2009).

Funding Source	Funding by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars)						Total Funding
	2004	2005	2006	2007	20081	20091
TEA-21 Extension	$9.40	–	–	–	–	–	$9.40
SAFETEA-LU	–	$8.23	$7.14	$7.45	$8.70	$8.82	40.34
FHWA IPRD Program	–	–	0.16	1.23	0.90	1.41	3.70
Total	$9.40	$8.23	$7.30	$8.68	$9.60	$10.23	$53.44
(1) Includes the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-244, June 6, 2008)

 

Program Adjustments Due to Funding Constraints Under SAFETEA-LU

As the LTPP program prepared for the unknown outcomes of the delayed legislation, the uncertainties led to the adoption of the following statement to describe the primary program deliverable come September 2009: “a quality pavement performance database and supporting ancillary information and document warehouse that enables researchers to better fulfill the goals of understanding pavement performance on which the program was founded.”¹⁰ Five specific attributes of the database were defined as necessary to achieving the primary programmatic goal by 2009:

• A database containing complete data sets (i.e., inventory, materials, traffic, climate, maintenance and rehabilitation, and pavement performance data) for most LTPP test sections.
  
  
• A database whose contents have been reviewed and checked through quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) processes and data studies and that is as error-free as time and the program budget will allow.
  
  
• A database that is documented not only in terms of its content but also in how those data were collected and their quality.
  
  
• A database that is accessible to the public.
  
  
• A database that conforms to Federal Government information dissemination quality guidelines.

Working towards this deliverable, it was decided that LTPP program funds provided by the SAFETEA-LU legislation would be used for the following high-priority program needs:

• Completing data sets:
  
  
  • Continue implementation of the Traffic Data Action Plan at SPS project sites to collect missing traffic volume and load data (chapter 7).
    
    
  • Continue implementation of the Materials Data Action Plan at SPS project sites to collect missing materials property data (chapter 7).
    
    
  • Perform one more round of pavement performance measurements on selected LTPP test sections.
    
    
• Refining database and ancillary information:
  
  
  • Continue the database QC/QA activities and investigation of discrepancies.
    
    
  • Complete the database and program documentation.
    
    
  • Improve direct user access to the database and ancillary information.
    
    
  • Provide annual data releases.
    
    
• Coordinating program activities:
  
  
  • Continue program coordination with TRB, highway agencies, AASHTO, and other FHWA offices.
    
    
  • Continue internal program coordination.
    
    
• Developing and publishing a post-2009 plan to secure the legacy of the LTPP program. This plan would provide for the continuation of essential LTPP activities:
  
  
  • Storage, maintenance, and user support for the LTPP database and associated information.
    
    
  • Storage and user support for the LTPP Materials Reference Library.
    
    
  • Collection of missing data and monitoring of LTPP test sections that had not reached the end of their performance life.
    
    
  • Implementation of the LTPP Strategic Data Analysis Plan (chapter 10).
    
    
  • Implementation of the LTPP Product Development Plan (chapter 10).

The decision to make use of available LTPP resources for the designated high-priority needs, listed above, required significant adjustments to other program activities. Similar to adjustments made under TEA-21, activities were either reduced or eliminated in data collection, database development, data analysis, product development, and coordination as follows:

• Data collection activities:
  
  
  • Frequency of pavement condition data collection was reduced.
    
    
  • More than 300 active test sections were placed in the out-of-study category (i.e., no future monitoring would be performed). These sections were in the SPS-3 (preventive maintenance of flexible pavement), -4 (preventive maintenance of rigid pavement), and -7 (bonded Portland cement concrete (PCC) overlay) experiments and the GPS-4 (jointed reinforced concrete), -5 (continuously reinforced concrete), and -9 (unbonded PCC overlay on PCC) experiments.
    
    
  • On the remaining active test sections, monitoring would only be performed on a subset of priority test sections.
    
    
  • Quantitative pavement surface images (photographic images) for distress interpretation would not be obtained.
    
    
  • Structural response measurements with the FWD were suspended.
    
    
  • LTPP program funds were not used to support the regional FWD calibration centers.
    
    
  • Aging materials tests previously planned for inclusion in the SPS Materials Action Plan were eliminated.
    
    
  • Planned activities to characterize test section drainage features were eliminated.
    
    
  • Additional ground penetrating radar measurements to obtain layer thickness measurements within the monitoring portion of the test section were eliminated.
    
    
  • Activities planned to address deficiencies in traffic volume and load data at GPS project sites were eliminated.
    
    
  • No program funds were used to replace or update field data collection equipment.
    
    
• Database development activities:
  
  
  • Development of an analysis database was suspended.
    
    
  • Overhaul of the LTPP database automated quality checks was suspended.
    
    
  • Development of a complete metadata database for all offline LTPP ancillary information was suspended.
    
    
  • LTPP data releases were reduced to an annual cycle.
    
    
  • Conversion of LTPP data element units to a common standard was suspended.
    
    
  • LTPP funding was not provided to support DataPave Online (user-friendly software for working with the LTPP database) and database user training.
    
    
• Data analysis activities:
  
  
  • Limited LTPP program funds were dedicated to formal data analysis projects through 2009.
    
    
• Product development activities:
  
  
  • No LTPP program funds were allocated to product development from 2006 to 2009.
    
    
• Coordination activities:
  
  
  • LTPP-sponsored national and regional meetings were eliminated.
    
    
  • National coordination meetings with LTPP data collection contractor staff and meetings between the data analysis contractors and operations staff were reduced.
    
    
  • TRB ETGs were reduced in number and membership size.

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

On July 6, 2012, MAP-21 (Public Law 112-141) was signed into law (see sidebar).¹¹ MAP-21 emphasizes performance measurement and evaluation and sets the stage for a more long-term, nationally coordinated approach to investing in the Nation’s transportation needs. With the removal of most earmarks and the consolidation of Federal transportation programs from about 90 to fewer than 30, the act is designed to focus resources on key goals, reduce duplication of effort, and provide more flexibility in managing infrastructure investment.¹²

The first long-term highway authorization to be en-acted since 2005, MAP-21 included an additional extension of SAFETEA-LU to the end of fiscal year 2012. Thus, new provisions of the law took effect October 1, 2012. For fiscal years 2013 and 2014, MAP-21 reauthorized the Federal-Aid Highway Program at $40.40 billion and $41.00 billion, respectively, equal to current funding levels plus inflation.

Under Sections 52003 and 52013 of the act, related to Transportation Research and Development Strategic Planning, the Secretary of Transportation is directed to develop a 5-year strategic research and development plan to address the following purposes: promoting safety, reducing congestion and improving mobility, preserving the environment, preserving the existing transportation system, improving the durability and extending the life of transportation infrastructure, and improving goods movement.¹³

MAP-21 continues authorization for LTPP program activities under Title 23, Section 503(b), Highway Research and Development Program, of the United States Code. The act provides $115 million per year for the Highway Research and Development program, emphasizing research and development activities that maintain infrastructure integrity, meet user needs, and “link Federal transportation investments to improvements in system performance.”¹⁴ Research areas include highway safety, infrastructure integrity, planning and environment, highway operations, exploratory advanced research, and support for the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center. “Long-term infrastructure performance programs addressing pavements, bridges, tunnels, and other structures” are among the activities to be carried out under the program. With the exception of adding two new LTPP experiments, the program continues to perform the same activities as it did during the SAFETEA-LU period. LTPP’s resources under SAFETEA-LU extensions and MAP-21 are detailed in table 4.7.

MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ACT SEC. 52003. Research and Technology Development and Deployment. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 503 of title 23, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: “§ 503. Research and technology development and deployment “(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— “(1) carry out research, development, and deployment activities that encompass the entire innovation lifecycle; and “(2) ensure that all research carried out under this section aligns with the transportation research and development strategic plan of the Secretary under section 508. “(b) HIGHWAY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.— . . . . “(3) IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE INTEGRITY.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out and facilitate highway and bridge infrastructure research and development activities— “(i) to maintain infrastructure integrity; “(ii) to meet user needs; and “(iii) to link Federal transportation investments to improvements in system performance. . . . . “(B) OBJECTIVES.—In carrying out this paragraph, the Secretary shall carry out research and development activities— . . . . “(iii) to increase the reliability of lifecycle performance predictions used in infrastructure design, construction, and management; “(iv) to improve the ability of transportation agencies to deliver projects that meet expectations for timeliness, quality, and cost; “(v) to reduce user delay attributable to infrastructure system performance, maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction; “(vi) to improve highway condition and performance through increased use of design, materials, construction, and maintenance innovations; . . . . “(C) CONTENTS.—Research and technology activities carried out under this paragraph may include— “(i) long-term infrastructure performance programs addressing pavements, bridges, tunnels, and other structures; . . . . ”

 

TABLE 4.7.LTPP program funding under MAP-21 (fiscal years 2010–2014).

Funding Source	Funding by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars)					Total Funding
	2010	2011	20121	2013	2014
SAFETEA-LU Extension	$8.81	$8.72	$6.45	–	–	$23.98
FHWA IPRD Program	0.61	1.60	–	–	–	2.21
MAP-21	–	–	2.08	8.32	8.72	19.12
Total	$9.42	$10.32	$8.53	$8.32	$8.72	$45.31
(1) Fiscal year 2012 was funded by extensions of SAFETEA-LU and, for the last 3 months, by MAP-21.

Summary

Although FHWA management submits a budget to Congress, the final decision on funding is made by the Congress. With a Federal investment of more than $300 million, the LTPP program has had some years of generous funding that led to advances in pavement research, while in the leaner years, the program has had to make some tough decisions on what could and could not be accomplished and what had to be postponed. Even though funding levels for the program have declined over the years, the program’s goal and objectives have not changed.

FHWA’s commitment to support the LTPP program is still strong today. The LTPP program is helping to answer the questions of how and why pavements perform as they do. With an aging highway infrastructure facing the Nation, the need continues for a robust research pavement program to help current and future transportation officials in their decision making. As shown throughout this report, the LTPP program has created standard practices that are commonly used by highway agencies and has developed a pavement performance database that is renowned worldwide. Although there have been significant returns on this Federal investment in the program, many dividends are still to be gained in the years ahead.

The next section in this report describes how the studies were developed, and the manner in which the data are collected, stored, and checked for quality. The section begins with the design and recruitment of the research experiments.

“LTPP research is significantly advancing the pavement engineering process nationwide. The better the process, the better the product. That’s why the LTPP investment is so essential——it yields the kind of substantive, long-lasting improvements the public expects for its transportation dollars.” ——Mary E. Peters, Federal Highway Administrator 2001–200515

References

1. Long-Term Pavement Performance Committee, Transportation Research Board. Preserving and Maximizing the Utility of the Pavement Performance Database. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2009. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sp/ltpp_report_2009.pdf.
   
   
2. U.S. Statutes at Large 101 (1987): 132–261. Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987.
   
   
3. Strategic Highway Research Program, Research Plans, Final Report. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Cooperative Research Program, Washington, DC, May 1986, pp. 2, A-3.
   
   
4. U.S. Statutes at Large 105 (1991): 1914–2207. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
   
   
5. U.S. Statutes at Large 112 (1998): 107–509. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
   
   
6. U.S. Statutes at Large 119 (2005): 1144–1978. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.
   
   
7. U.S. Statutes at Large 119 (2005): 1784. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.
   
   
8. Fulfilling the Promise of Better Roads: A Report of the TRB Long-Term Pavement Performance Committee. Transportation Research Board, The National Academies. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001, pp. 4, 21–29. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sp/ltpp_report_2001.pdf.
   
   
9. LTPP Beyond FY 2009: What Needs To Be Done? Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, August 2009. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/09052/09052.pdf.
   
   
10. Long-Term Pavement Performance Program: Year in Review 2005. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, January 2006, p. 2. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/06086/ltpp2005yir.pdf.
    
    
11. U.S. Statutes at Large 126 (2012): 405–988. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.
    
    
12. “Summary of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21).” http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=6d1e2690-6bc7-4e13-9169-0e7bc2ca0098.
    
    
13. “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21): A Summary of Highway Provisions.” Web page. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Policy and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2012. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/summaryinfo.cfm.
    
    
14. U.S. Statutes at Large 126 (2012): 873. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.
    
    
15. “FHWA Pavement Performance Research Saves $50 Million Annually in Highway Construction Costs.” Press Release. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs, Oct. 31, 2001. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa0135.cfm.