MATC Fall Lecture Series: Paul Hanley

  • 158 views
Uploaded on

MATC 2012 Fall Lecture Series

MATC 2012 Fall Lecture Series

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
158
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
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!