Rural Arterial Program

Administered by:

The County Road Administration Board - CRAB

RCW 36.79

Origin of RAP

In 1983 the Washington State Legislature created the RAP to help finance the reconstruction of rural arterial roads facing high volumes of freight traffic in the wake of rail system abandonment.

(1970s ARAB Oil Embargo and dwindling federal revenues)

RAP funding helped Rock Lake Road out of a bind

Opening the sight distance and curves allows trucks and cars to share the road safely.

Rural Arterial Program “The Basics”

• Road System • Funding Source• Project Spending• Project Selection• Flexibility

Road System

By Federal Functional Class:

• 02 Rural Principle Arterials – 0 miles• 06 Rural Minor Arterials – 152 miles• 07 Rural Major Collectors – 6,376 miles• 08 Rural Minor Collectors – 6,077 miles• 09 Local Access Bridge Replacements

Road System – Collectors

Road System – Major and Minor Collectors

Road System – Some Projects Funded by RAP

Road System – Statewide total Centerline Miles

• State• Interstate 764• Rural 5,453 • Urban 820

• Total 7,037

• DNR Roads (fed) 11,893

• City• Rural Streets 2,273• Urban Collectors and Arterials 2,857• Urban Local Streets 7,520

• Total 12,650• County

• Rural Local Access Roads 22,144• Urban Collectors and Arterials 1,875• Urban Local Access Roads 4,193• Rural Collectors and Arterials 12,605

• Total 40,817

• Other roads not shown above include tribal, forest service and park roads.

System Emphasis:• Mobility, Safety

Structure(low ACC/MVM)

Recreation & Forest.(Geometry, structure)

Mobility & Safety(width, volume, structure)

Freight Haul and Safety(Geometry, Structure, Severe Accidents/MVM)

• Funding Source – From Statewide fuel tax – currently 37.5 cents

Funding Distribution FactorsTo the five RAP regions

Based on:• Eligible System Miles - 12,605 miles

• Rural Land Area 64,426 sq. mi.• As Per 2000 census and US Dept. of Commerce

• (Updated every ~ ten years)

Funding Source -Final Computation of Regional Factors:

1 part land area + 2 parts road miles Regional

[AREA % + (MILES % X2 )] / 3 = Factor

AREA % MILES MILES TOTAL % % of state FINALREGION SQ. MI. OF STATE 02, 06 07&08 C/L MILES OF STATE: x 2 %

NE 26,690 41.42 30 5,574 5,604 44.46 88.92 43.45

NW 7,888 12.24 13 1,321 1,334 10.58 21.17 11.14

PS 4,842 7.52 96 713 809 6.42 12.84 6.78

SE 14,675 22.78 0 3,037 3,038 24.10 48.20 23.66

SW 10,331 16.04 12 1,808 1,820 14.44 28.87 14.97

TOTALS 64,426 100.00 152 12,453 12,605 100.00 200.00 100.00

Funding SourceFor RAP Regions

NE43.45

NW11.14

PS6.78

SE23.66

SW14.97

PERCENT OF FUNDS

Biennial Dollars per Region: (typical $40 M distribution)

NE Region: 43.45% X 40 = $17.4 MSE Region: 23.66% X 40 = $ 9.4 MSW Region: 14.97% X 40 = $ 6.0 MNW Region: 11.14% X 40 = $ 4.5 MPS Region: 6.78% X 40 = $ 2.7 M

100.00% $40.0 M

Project Spending – The slow first decade

RATA ACCOUNT ACTIVITYas of December 31, 1992

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

YEAR

DO

LLA

RS

IN M

ILLI

ON

S

YEAR-END BALANCE

REVENUE

EXPENDITURES

Project Spending - Solutions to encourage spending

Eliminate partially funded projects• 1995 – carry forward of partially funded projects to succeeding biennia

Two biennium obligation• Adopted in 1995. Funded $72M, borrowed another $19M from the following

biennium to complete projects that were partially funded. 2R/3R Projects

• Summer 1996. Completed an additional $15M worth of projects within 2 yrs. Missing links.

• Closing the gaps of lower ranked road sections - NE Lapsing of projects not moving to design / construction Emergency funding and Increases to existing funding Regional routes (Multi biennium funding) – not pursued

• Larger projects would be selected over multi-biennia Direct allocation – not pursued concerns over legislative pot-stirring.

Project Spending – the aggressive second decade

As of October 2000

0

15

10

19

24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

est

2001

est

2002

est

2003

est

YEAR

DO

LLA

RS

IN M

ILLI

ON

S

YEAR-END BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES

Project Spending – Moderated third decade

Duration of RAP projects and Percent Complete

Project Spending- Regional comparisons23 years of project obligation and spending

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

NE NW PS SE SW

REGION

DOLL

ARS

IN M

ILLI

ONS REVENUE

RATA SPENT

BALANCE

Selection cycle for 2011 – 2013 Biennium WAC 136-161

Submit Preliminary Project List. ---- March 1, 2012

Complete Field Reviews ---- June 30, 2012 Done by CRAB Staff

Submit Project Prospectuses ---- September 01, 2012 Subject to Submittal Limit. (further scope and design)

CRABoard Review Project Arrays ---- October 21, 2012

CRAB budget proposal to OFM- ---- November 01, 2012

Submit Road Levy Report ---- February 01, 2013 Review Road levy and 6 Yr TIP

Approve Arrays & Fund Projects ---- April 2013 Brd Mtg

Funds Available to Projects ---- July 1, 2013

Project Selection

Project Selection – Competitive Factors

Projects ranked by factors listed in RCW 36.79.080. • Structural ability to carry loads;

• Rated by Extent of Failure

• Ability to move traffic at reasonable speeds;• Design Speed in City and County Design Standards

• Adequacy of alignment and related geometry;• City and County Design Standards

• Accident and fatal accident experience;• Documented accidents last 3 years, project length

AND:• Local Significance

• Not required by law, but reflects the project’s importance per the required 6 Yr Program.

Rural Arterial Program - Flexibility The CRABoard programs projects after determining availability

of future funding.

Adjust rating procedures to reflect regional road needs.

Update Freight and Goods Transportation System

• 70+ % of RATA funds spent on FGTS.

Account balance management, scheduling payout.

Provide Online RAP forms.

RAP Issues

Diversion Project Rating Project Increases Scope Changes Waiver of Payback Lapsing of RATA funding Emergent and Emergency Funding

RAP Issues - Diversion

Diversion - RCW 36.79.140, WAC 136-150• Annual comparison of traffic law enforcement and diverted amount (other).

• Annual Certification

• County sheriff also submits a certification of the actual expenditure for traffic law enforcement in the previous budget year.

• RAP Eligible Counties:• Those in which there has been no diversion of the county road levy;• Those in which the actual expenditures for traffic law enforcement have been equal to

or greater than the amount of the diverted road levy budgeted for traffic law enforcement;

• Those with a population of less than eight thousand; and• Those expending revenues collected for road purposes only on other governmental

services after authorization from the voters of that county under RCW 84.55.050.

• Constraint of Contract Execution: All Certifications must be in.• Reference to valid certification is included in each RAP contract• In case of improper certification - withdrawal or denial the certificate of good

practice and pay back of RATA funds received by the county.

RAP Issues – Project Rating and Project Development

WAC 136 – 161, 210

Final Prospectus proposals (due September 1, even years) are checked for accuracy of scoring, ranking and level of design.

Points are granted to the extent (%) the full improvement will be accomplished.

Reconstruction projects that will not achieve full design standards require WSDOT deviation approval. Alignment and Capacity

RAP Issues – Design Standards process RCW 36.79.060, WAC 136-210

• Follow the LAG manual and the City and County Design Standards.• These also cite AASHTO.

• Full Reconstruction Design Standards, unless a 3R application is made.• 3R scope requires a note (CRAB form) to the engineer’s project file.

• Deviations must be approved by WSDOT before advertising for construction.• Note on Final Prospectus whether or not a deviation will be needed. • Deviations are reviewed by CRABoard prior to allocation of funds to projects.

• If deviation is approved after funding, a scope change request is submitted to the CRABoard.

• Points will be reduced if full points were claimed in the prospectus.

• Projects built below standard or short of prospectus commitment will require pay back of RATA funds.

RAP Issues – Project Increases

WAC 136-165 Things to remember:

• The Final Prospectus estimate includes all anticipated costs – CRAB / County Contract.

• Request must be based on extraordinary, unforeseeable circumstances.• Limited to < 50% of original RATA funding. Or request a scope change.• The request shall demonstrate that:

• County considered WAC listed factors in the prospectus.• The request for an increased allocation is based on extraordinary and unforeseeable

circumstances. – of the type listed in WAC. • It is not feasible to reduce the scope and/or project limits so the project can be

substantially constructed within the initial RATA allocation; and• The request is not to pay for an expansion of the originally approved project .

• Increase requests can be submitted twice during project development.• After completion of preliminary (design) engineering.• No later than the date of advertising the project for construction bids.

• Requests < 25% and $100,000 can be acted upon by CRAB Director.• CRAB may approve all or part of the requested amount.• The county funding limit in the following biennium will be reduced accordingly.

RAP Issues – Project Increases, CRAB Consideration

CRAB will consider a project increase if the following have occurred:

• Technical data later found to be in error, caused a significant design change.

• Project permit requirements were substantially changed, or new permits were required;

• Supplementary funds, such as impact fees, developer contributions, grants, etc., which were forecasted to be available for the project, were withdrawn or otherwise became unavailable;

• Design or other standards applicable to the project were changed; and/or

• The start of construction will be significantly delayed or additional construction requirements will be added as a direct result of legal action; provided however, that the failure of a county to exercise its statutory powers, such as condemnation, will not be grounds for increasing RATA funds.

RAP Issues – Project Increases, CRAB Consideration

The CRABoard will ask the following:• Did the county, in preparing the prospectus consider the following.

• Matching funds; technical data; permits; right of way; available contractors; utilities; Historical and projected labor, material and equipment costs; project development timetable.

• Is the request based on extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances?

• Can the county reduce the scope and/or project limits so the project can be substantially constructed within the initial RATA allocation?

• Is the request an attempt to expand of the project (scope creep)?

• Will the increased allocation have an adverse effect on other approved or requested RATA funded projects?

RAP Issues – Scope Changes

• Changes are considered if they do not drop the ranking below the array cut off line.

• The main factors gaining the ranking of the project are assumed to remain in the modified project.

• Safety, geometric, right of way and environmental concerns must be addressed.

• RATA funding will likely be reduced unless the county can show the cost will stay at least equal to the original estimate.

• Payback of expended RATA funds on a terminated project is expected within 60 days after informing the CRABoard of a project withdrawal.

• The county may request some of the funds not be reimbursed, but must explain:

• Why the project won’t proceed to completion.• Amount the county wishes to retain.• Justification for retaining RATA payments.

• If the CRABoard approves the waiver, the CRAB / County Contract is amended to reflect what was constructed.

RAP Issues – Waiver of Payback

WAC 136-167

• Design must commence within 4 years of approval.• This is accomplished by:

• Expenditure of RATA funds, or• CRP resolution.

• Construction must commence within 6 years approval.• This is accomplished by

• Advertising for construction bids, or• Commencing day labor construction• Award of contract under small works roster award process.

• Time extensions will be:• Based on unforeseeable delays• Approved by the CRAB Director.• 2 Yrs maximum• Not grounds for an increase.

RAP Issues – Lapsing of funding

WAC 136 - 167

RAP Issues – Emergent and Emergency FundingRCW 36.79.040, WAC 136-163

• Emergent Projects:• These are projects the county would have submitted during the normal

cycle if it had known conditions would change, thus making the project a priority.

• Conditions such as: sudden and unanticipated growth, critical access needs, legal decisions, financial crisis.

• An emergent project must rate well enough to be funded on the current priority array in order for the CRABoard to consider funding.

• Emergency Projects:• County must declare an emergency, RAP will pay according regional match.• If State declares an emergency:

• County must submit copy of FEMA PW’s (Project Worksheets)• Major Collectors normally are 100% FEMA reimbursable.• RAP pays 12.5% of repair for FEMA eligible Minor Collectors.

RAP will be able to adapt

Few strings are attached to the funds.

Administrative rules recognize that a professional engineer is managing each project.

Local and regional needs and priorities are emphasized.

Continue to be simple, unique and responsive.