Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 23


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 22
22 STATE HIGHWAY COST ALLOCATION STUDY TABLE 8 SELF-ASSESSMENTS AND ADDITIONAL WHAT STATES INDICATED WOULD MOST SUPPORT HCAS GUIDANCE AND ASSISTANCE DESIRED EFFORTS BY STATES Most Helpful Responses Ten respondents prepared self-evaluations of the HCASs Copies of Previous State HCASs 18 conducted in their state. In some cases, the state transporta- Improved HCAS Guidelines 14 tion officials were grading the performance of a contractor, HCAS Software 15 whereas in others they were grading their own agency's abil- Conferences, Networking, and/or Federal Workshops 14 ity to conduct the study, or some combination of the two. The self-evaluation covered the following elements: Other 11 Total 72 Technical issues relating to methods used and data collected; Accuracy of the methods; 15 selected "software," 14 selected "conferences, networking, Credibility of the work among stakeholders; and/or federal workshops" and 11 selected "other." These re- Coverage of vehicle classes; sults are presented in Table 8. Coverage of all relevant funding sources, fees, and taxes; and As noted in Table 8, ten respondents selected "other." Handling of special revenue factors. Other responses included the following The technical methods and data used in these studies were The California respondent indicated that AASHTO generally well reviewed, with seven of ten states rating these should consider recommendations to guide states con- elements as good or excellent. The credibility of the work sidering future HCAS and related studies. among the stakeholders was cited as a problem in some The Michigan respondent indicated that engineering states, as was the limited coverage of vehicle classes. The knowledge about the effect of trucks with Michigan's ability of these HCASs to handle special revenue factors, weight limits would be useful. such as public-private partnerships (PPPs) and tolls, was The Nevada respondent argued for legislative action viewed as average or weak in four of the ten surveyed states consistent with the study results to motivate the state to (see Table 7). These issues were explored in greater detail conduct additional studies. earlier in this chapter and are studied in chapter five as well. The Ohio respondent noted that Ohio would just refer to national studies or studies from other states. In terms of what would be most helpful to states consider- The Wyoming respondent requested improved docu- ing conducting HCASs, a total of 72 individual responses mentation from the FHWA for the FHWA State HCAS were offered by 29 of the 33 states that returned a survey. Model and also noted the need for more extensive vehi- Respondents were encouraged to select more than one re- cle class data for the entire highway system (detailed sponse as appropriate. The 72 responses are broken down as documentation for FHWA's 2001 State HCAS Model is follows: 18 states selected "copies of previous HCAS reports available on the FHWA's website at http://www. from other states," 14 selected "improved HCAS guidelines," fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/costallocation.htm. TABLE 7 STATE SELF-EVALUATION OF HCASs Elements Excellent Good Average Weak Poor Technical--Methods and Data 1 6 2 Accuracy of the Methods 2 5 2 Credibility of Work Am ong Stakeholders 2 4 1 2 Coverage of Vehicle Classes 2 4 2 1 Coverage of all Relevant Funding Sources, 3 4 2 Fees, and Taxes Handling of Special Revenue Factors 1 4 3 1 Total 11 27 12 4 0