Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley

231

Published on

MATC 2012 Fall Lecture Series

MATC 2012 Fall Lecture Series

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
231
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  1. Current & Future AlternativeFunding for Surface TransportationPaul F HanleyAssociate Professor, Civil & EnvironmentalEngineeringDirector of Transportation Policy ResearchMid-America Transportation Center Fall 2012 Lecture Series Sponsored in part by Union PacificSeptember 7, 2012
  2. How do we pay for roads and masstransit in our nation?
  3. Video Clipped from Winning MATC sponsored Student Video Competition: Allie Reiter, “Road Scholars”
  4. Taxes Excise Sales Tolls PropertyFuel Tires Registration Title/License Real Estate
  5. FundingRevenue Finance
  6. Taxes Excise Sales Tolls PropertyFuel Tires Registration Title/License Real Estate
  7. Federal Fuel Excise Tires Tolls State Registration Property Title/License General Funds SalesLocal Property Real Estate
  8. Federal Fuel Strong tie to Excise system usage Tires Tolls State Registration Property Title/License General Funds Weak tie to SalesLocal system Property Real Estate usage
  9. IowaRevenue
  10. Video Clipped from Winning MATC sponsored Student Video Competition: Allie Reiter, “Road Scholars”
  11. • Audience question 1Would you be in favor of raising thefuel tax?
  12. Video Clipped from Winning MATC sponsored Student Video Competition: Allie Reiter, “Road Scholars”
  13. • Audience question 2What if you knew you paid $250 peryear ($25 per month)?
  14. • Audience question 3What if the money by law couldonly bespent on roads?
  15. • Audience question 4What if some money was spent ontransit?
  16. Total % in favor Fuel Tax Yes No YesIncrease Fuel Tax? 60% 29% 29% n= 1,659What if you knew you paid Yes No Yes$250 per year ($25 per 15% 72% 38%month)? What if the money by law could Yes No Yes only be spent on roads? 47% 41% 49% What if some money was spent on Yes No Yes transit? 10% 73% 51%
  17. Changing Emphasis onexisting taxes
  18. Alternatives Taxes Excise Sales Tolls PropertyFuel Tires Registration Title/License Real Estate
  19. States with Local Option Sales Taxes
  20. • Audience question 5Increase Sales Tax?
  21. California’s Experience25 year history Voters in 20 counties approved Generate $2.5 billion per yearFour features Specify the improvements to be financed Require direct voter approval Spent within the counties that enact them Automatically expire
  22. Sales Tax Total % in favorIncrease Sales Tax? Yes No Yes n= 1,614 18% 78% 18% Yes No YesWhat if the money by law could only be 20% 72% 34%spent on roads?
  23. • Audience question 6Create New Tolls?
  24. • Audience question 7Increase existing tolls where theyexist?
  25. Interstate Bridge/Tunnel Tolls
  26. Non-Interstate Bridge & Tunnel Tolls
  27. Interstate Road Tolls
  28. Non-Interstate Road Tolls
  29. Proposed/Financed/Constructing Tolls
  30. Tolling Interstates• Yesterday...• Long standing prohibition on new tolls for existing Interstate Highways• Today....• MAP-21 opens the door for tolling both Interstate and Non-Interstate Highways • Section 129 general toll program • Section 166 high occupancy toll program
  31. Tolling Interstates & Non-InterstateHighways• Section 129 general toll program• Allows toll on all new capacity added to the National Highway System • Revenue used for • Debt service, • Private invest return, • Operations and maintenance, • P3 payments, • Other 23 programs • Needs annual audits • No toll agreements between USDOT and State & Local Gov
  32. Tolling Interstates & Non-InterstateHighways• Section 166 high occupancy toll program• Allows toll on all new capacity added to the National Highway System • Revenue used for • Same as Section 129 • Must include • Enforcement, • automatic tolling, • tolls vary by congestion, • Interoperable between systems • Needs annual audits • No toll agreements between USDOT and State & Local Gov
  33. I-394 in Minneapolis, Minnesota (HOT lanes)
  34. Total % in Tolls favorIncrease ExistingTolls? Yes No Yes n= 965 31% 63% 31% Yes No YesWhat if the money by law could only be 30% 62% 50%spent on roads? Total % in favorCreate New Tolls? Yes No Yes n= 638 32% 61% 32%
  35. Property Taxes
  36. • Audience question 8Increase Registration Fees?
  37. Registration Fees Total % in favorIncrease Fees? Yes No Yes n= 1,623 31% 63% 31% Yes No YesWhat if the money by law could only be 34% 57% 53%spent on roads?
  38. Introduce New Taxes
  39. New Taxes/Fees
  40. Mileage Based Charging
  41. • Audience question 9Adopt a mileage based user charge?
  42. Cellular Data Network $ Billing & DispersalVehicle w/ OBU Center Participants
  43. ParticipantsOver 81,000 eligible candidates volunteeredEnrolled 2,653Completed 2,511Dropped out 5.4%Matched National Demographics Gender, Age, Education, Income, CommuteTravel Time, Self-identified Political Affiliation
  44. Vehicle Miles Traveled• Total 22,000,000 miles (8,400 mi/veh)
  45. GPS Accuracy GPS Outage Percent of Total VMT Miles Total 21,566,000 1,626,000 7.54%
  46. Findings: Technology
  47. Technically feasible using currentlymature technologies.• Reliably assigned VMT to federal, state, and localjurisdictions– 99.4% accountability– No detectable urban or natural canyon effects– No significant data loss using commercial cellular data– Mature Technology used o designed and manufactured in the 2005-06 timeframe
  48. Installation equipment into existingvehicles posed a daunting challenge.• Complex processTrained, professional installers, required an average of 90 minutes tocomplete25% required a follow-up visit 8% directly related to installation1.3% had vehicle incompatibility issues*OBU connected into electrical system and on-board diagnostic bus
  49. Findings: Participant Acceptance
  50. Perception was positively impactedby experience and exposure• Initial perception – 42% favorable– 17% negative• Final perception (10 month exposure) – 70% favorable– 19% negative
  51. Privacy was a significant issue butis not an insurmountable barrier• 60% believe – Government will track their travel• 34% want – Minimal travel detail collected• Still, > 70% stated – The system was reliable, accurate, and fair – Viable replacement of the fuel tax
  52. The ability to audit the accuracy ofcharges outweighed privacy concerns.• 66% favored – Summary of VMT by jurisdiction, and – Indifferent to o Daily summary, or o Monthly summary• Strong desire to audit the system for accuracy
  53. VMT Fee In favor of a VMT fee? Yes No 32% 68% n= 1,589 Total % in favor What if the vmt fee was tied Yes No Yes to your mpg? 19% 81% 45% Yes 45% Total % in favorWould you still be in Yes No Yesfavor if GPS was used ? 57% 43% 26% n= 715
  54. • Thank you for your attention!

×