portion of which assessed the 1997 changes; and
WHEREAS, At the time, LBFC found the new formula resulted in
a fairer allocation of maintenance money; and
WHEREAS, A contemporary review comparing the conditions from
1997 to present and projections for the foreseeable future is
both appropriate and vital as a valuable tool to assess our
State highway maintenance funding program; and
WHEREAS, The study should consist of the following:
(1) A review of the funding formula for each of
PennDOT's county maintenance offices (CMOs), including
maintenance needs versus maintenance allocation.
(2) An analysis of the data under paragraph (1) to
determine whether CMOs may have been overfunded or
underfunded.
(3) A comparison by CMOs of the condition of highways,
bridges and other major assets to ascertain efficacy of
management, funding provided and results achieved.
(4) PennDOT's lane miles and bridges in each CMO,
including the number and percentage that are three-digit and
four-digit highways.
(5) Vehicle miles traveled in each CMO. This includes
larger truck vehicle miles, the percentage of vehicle miles
that is from residents versus out-of-State vehicles and
vehicle miles on bonded roads.
(6) State emergency funding totals by CMOs for acts of
nature, such as flooding and landslides.
(7) A comparison among the 12 PennDOT districts on the
effects of winter maintenance, such as freeze/thaw cycles,
snowfall averages and number, type and duration of winter
events.
20210SR0053PN0472 - 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30