Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
15
of a multimodal approach, and presented recommendations built into the federal-aid program in recent years, many recent
related to the treatment of alternative modes in transportation studies have included federal, state, and local revenues in the
cost allocation (Wheeler 1996). attribution process (Arizona, California, Idaho, and Nevada),
and others have included state and federal revenues in the at-
The arguments in favor of a multimodel approach to cost tribution process (Delaware, Kentucky, Vermont, Virginia,
allocation identified in the study included: and Wisconsin). Maryland attributes state and local revenues
to highway-user classes. Oregon has established a unique ap-
· An application of transportation cost allocation in a proach. In recent Oregon studies, the numerator of the equity
multimodal environment would encourage the emer- ratios has included only state revenues, but the denominator
gence of a broader view of the transportation system. has included both state and federal expenditures. The result-
· Multimodal cost allocation would enhance uniformity ing imbalance is corrected by converting the equity ratios to
and coordination when spending decisions are made. adjusted equity ratios by expressing the ratio as shares of
· Highway users generate external costs (air pollution, total revenue divided by shares of total expenditures, as is
congestion, noise) that are typically not addressed commonly done in state HCASs (see further discussion in the
in HCASs, but impact society and other modes of levels of government section of chapter five).
transportation.
· Highway users benefit from the multimodal transporta- The 1997 Federal HCAS and virtually all state HCASs
tion systems that support the road network. allocate expenditures and attribute revenues to the various
user classes for a future time period based on adopted pro-
Arguments against the multimodal approach cited by the grams and short-term program and revenue forecasts. Most
author were tied to the uncertainty associated with the multi- states focus on programmed state transportation improve-
modal approach and its inability to be used to directly set ment program (STIP) expenditures projected over a future
highway-user charges. The author also noted the complica- time period. Traffic and other data are also projected forward
tions associated with the inability of most other modes (e.g., for the same future years.
rail and public transit systems) to recover operating costs
through user charges. The logic behind this approach is that forecast data pro-
vide a more accurate description of the changing characteris-
The author concluded that there is a need to move toward tics of demand for travel and expenditures based on changing
a broader application of transportation cost allocation; how- conditions. For example, constrained budgets and the normal
ever, more research is needed to implement such a strategy. deterioration of a state's roads and bridges could signal a
Required research proposed by the author included: shift in public investment from capacity expansion to opera-
tion and maintenance of existing highways. Historical data
· A detailed review of multimodal economics; would not adequately reflect this trend. To get a better picture
· The development of a mode-by-mode approach to of expenditures, a state may choose to consider past expen-
transportation cost allocation; and ditures (e.g., 2 to 4 years) as well as future program costs,
· Examination of the feasibility of extending transporta- while being cautious in the treatment of one-time large
tion cost allocation to all levels of government, including expenditures. The time periods considered in a number of
federal, state, and local government. recent studies are presented in Table 4.
Similar to the 1997 Federal HCAS, state HCASs gener-
METHODOLOGIES FOR REVENUE ATTRIBUTION ally attribute motor fuel tax revenues based on estimates of
travel in the state being examined and motor fuel economy.
The process of attributing revenues to highway-user classes
is an essential step in any HCAS. The equity ratios created
TABLE 4
for each vehicle class serve as the principal findings of state RECENT HCAS STUDY TIME PERIODS
HCASs. Although most attention in the literature focuses on
cost allocation, revenue attribution has an equal weight in de- Study Study Time Period
termining the outcome of an HCAS. Revenue attribution Arizona (1999) 19992003
results in producing the numerator over the cost allocation Idaho (2002) 20012005
denominator in any equity ratio. Guidelines for performing
Federal (1997) 2000
revenue attribution are contained in a section of chapter five.
Nevada (1999) 19981999, program expenditures
States have historically focused on state revenue sources. based on 19992008 STIP
Reasons cited for focusing on state revenue sources include Oregon (1999) SFY 2000--SFY 2001
the historic inflexibility with respect to how federal funds Oregon (2007) SFY 2008--SFY 2009
could be used and the inability of states to make adjustments
Vermont (2005) 2005
to the federal tax structure. However, because of the flexibility
OCR for page 16
16
Miles-per-gallon estimates are generally obtained through The principal issue that must be addressed is how to convert
industry surveys, including the Vehicle Inventory and Use payments by user classes that are defined by registration fee
Survey (VIUS), or through the default values contained in schedules to user classes examined in the HCAS. For exam-
the State HCAS Model prepared for the U.S.DOT. For states ple, the revenue attribution process may require conversion
with weight-distance taxes (Kentucky, New Mexico, New of registration fees based on registered gross weight to data
York, and Oregon), the revenue attribution process is more based on vehicle body type and axle configuration. Some
transparent as distance-based taxes are graduated to reflect states have constructed complex matrices to perform this
the declared vehicle weights typically examined in state conversion. For example, a matrix prepared for the state of
HCASs. Pennsylvania relied on data provided through VIUS, the In-
ternational Registration Plan, and special studies conducted
Attribution of registration fees, particularly those of In- at the state level (Jacoby 1990).
ternational Registration Plan apportioned vehicles, can be
extremely complicated at the state level, depending on the Table 5 presents guidelines used to conduct a detailed rev-
quality of the state's registration fee and related database. enue attribution process in Kentucky (Osborne et al. 2000). In
TABLE 5
GUIDELINES FOR THE ALLOCATION OF HIGHWAY-USER REVENUE TO VEHICLE CLASSES
IN KENTUCKY
Element Vehicle Class Basis
Fuel Tax
Heavy vehicle surtax Trucks over 59,999 lb Revenue estimates from VMT, rates of fuel
consumption, and tax rates
Carrier surtax Trucks over 26,000 lb See above
Normal use All See above
Federal Excise Tax All See above
Vehicle Registration & License
Cars Cars 100%
Buses Buses 100%
Motorcycles Motorcycles 100%
Trucks Trucks Revenue estimates from number of registered
trucks and registration fees (with adjustments for
farm, exempt, and 6,000-lb trucks)
Apportioned trucks Trucks Number of ID cards
Truck ID cards Trucks Number of ID cards
Truck permits Trucks Number of ID cards
Other All Vehicle-miles
Miscellaneous All Vehicle-miles
Operatorís License All Vehicle-miles
Commercial Driver's License Trucks over 22,000 lb Vehicle-miles
Usage Tax
Buses Buses 100%
Other vehicles All excluding buses As reported
Federal trucks and trailers Trucks over 33,000 lb Vehicle-miles
Road Tolls All Toll collection receipts
Other Motor Carrier Taxes
Weight distance Trucks over 59,999 lb Vehicle-miles
Extended weight 80,000-lb trucks 100%
Federal use Trucks over 54,999 lb Vehicle-miles
Other Federal Taxes All Vehicle-miles
