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 55
55
APPENDIX B
Summary of Survey Results
Part I. Background Information
(a) What unit of your agency is responsible for HCASs and related work?
Responses
Planning & programming unit 13
Financial unit 4
1 & 2 combined 1
Policy unit 1
1 & 4 combined 1
Other unit 7
Multiple units 1
Total 28
Part II. Highway Cost Allocation Studies Completed or Planned
(e) Has your state performed an HCAS since 1982?
Responses
Yes 19
No 14
Total 33
(f) HCASs performed since 1982 (date of a major benchmark Federal HCAS report) in your state.
Responses States
Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Maryland,
States performing one study only 9 New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania,
Wyoming
6 California, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Virginia,
States performing two studies
Wisconsin
States performing three studies 0
States performing four studies 1 Vermont
States performing five studies 2 Kentucky, Arizona
OCR for page 56
56
States performing more than five studies 2 Oregon (15), Nevada (6)
Total states 20
Total studies 56
(h) Did your state complete any major benchmark HCASs or related work prior to 1982?
Responses States
New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia,
Yes 6
Washington, Wyoming
No 24
Total 30
(i) In your state's most recent HCAS, what levels of government were separately analyzed in terms of sources of funds
versus cost responsibility?
Responses
State funds and state highway only 5
State and federal funds combined only 8
State and federal funds analyzed separately 1
State, federal, and local funds analyzed separately 3
Other: state, federal, and local funds combined only 2
Total 19
(k) Have any of your HCASs included analyses of unmet needs, the long-term costs of deferred maintenance, etc.?
Responses
Yes 3
No 16
Total 19
Comments related to Question (k):
Nevada: Unmet needs, yes. Deferred maintenance, no. Our 10-year transportation plan was used to analyze future
construction needs. We assumed that all those projects would be funded, even though funding at the time was
1.
inadequate to do so. We also assumed that preservation work would be fully funded and based our future needs on our
biennial State Highway Preservations Reports.
OCR for page 57
57
2. North Carolina: North Carolina used it to justify a bond issue in the 1970s.
Oregon: The 1974 and 1980 studies analyzed alternative expenditure levels beyond the base (expected
3
expenditure level based on existing tax rates) budget.
(l) Have any of your HCASs involved consideration of costs to users versus costs to non-users?
Responses
Yes 0
No 18
Total 18
(m) Have any of your HCASs considered non-user taxes and fees?
Responses States
Yes 4 California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon
No 14
Total 18
(p) Please list any special surveys or major data collection efforts done as part of HCASs:
Responses
Special surveys of local governments' highway expenditures by type 5
Updated financial data and ran reports 1
Weigh-in-motion (WIM), vehicle configurations 1
Traffic, registered vehicles, weight-mile data 2
Local government expenditure allocation survey 1
Special truck weight studies 1
Studded tire damage studies 1
Flat fee studies 1
Pavement, bridge, and interchange cost responsibility studies 1
Total 14
Comments related to Question (p):
1. Arizona: Updated financial data and ran reports
2. California: Local government surveys for each HCAS
3. Idaho: WIM and vehicle configurations
OCR for page 58
58
4. Montana: Significant effort in compiling traffic data and compiling registered vehicle information
Nevada: Routine HPMS data collection for traffic; special analyses of miles traveled, ESAL-miles
5.
traveled, and ton-miles traveled by various vehicle classifications
Oregon: Local government survey; special truck weight survey; studded tire studies; flat fee study;
6.
pavement, bridge, and interchange cost responsibility studies
Virginia: A special survey was done to obtain (vehicle weight * VMT data); it was referred to as the
7.
"summer survey" in the 1991 study report
8. Wisconsin: Special study of axle weights by registered vehicle weight class
(q). Please estimate the approximate cost and/or level of staff effort required for these studies.
Responses
Under $100,000 3
$100,000$200,000 2
$200,000$350,000 1
$350,000$500,000 4
45 person-months 2
5-man task force, 3 years 1
A few days of in-house staff time 1
Total 14
Part III. Questions Related to Highway Cost Allocation Studies
(r) What entity initiated the demand for an HCAS?
Responses
HCASs done as an initiative of the state's DOT 14
As an initiative of other agencies 0
By mandate or request of the legislature of other officials 11
Total 25
OCR for page 59
59
(s) Why were the studies done?
Responses
To determine if taxes and fees were equitable 26
To adjust taxes and fee rates to be more equitable 12
To respond to questions raised by others: (13)
Legislature 11
Governor 0
Other (California: requirement of 1991 ISTEA) 2
Total 51
If none were done, why not?
Responses
Lack of technical expertise or experience 1
Too costly and time consuming 2
No issues have arisen calling for such studies 8
Other 1
Total 12
(t) What has been the impact of the HCASs?
Responses
Helpful in developing recommendations for changes in user fees or tax
13
rates
Effective in getting support for improvements in the equity of the tax
3
structure in the legislature and/or with other officials
Helpful in planning other related work 5
No impact 4
Other 4
Total 29
Comments related to the "other" response in Question (t):
1. Florida: Impact unknown at this time.
Kansas: The study was helpful during development of the Comprehensive Highway Program to
2.
verify the equity of user fees between vehicle classes.
OCR for page 60
60
Nevada: The studies provided detailed understanding of tax laws and tax collection to aid in
making substantive and effective changes in tax collection (e.g., reducing evasion, developing an
3.
on-line oversize/overweight permit system, and improved customer service by moving highway-
fund tax collections to a single agency).
Oregon: This was particularly important in the 1980s and early 1990s when a series of legislative
measures were successful in raising Oregon's fuels tax rate from 7 cents to 24 cents per gallon and
4.
increasing the truck tax rates proportionately to maintain the proper, cost-responsible balance of
payments from light and heavy vehicles.
Virginia: The 1991 HCAS promoted interest in development of more precise tools and data
collection/storage systems for use in periodic cases, as well as legislative action to increase user fees
5. on the motor carrier sector. A subsequent study (1992) was commissioned to evaluate pavement
deterioration methodologies, propose better data management, and examine tax equity proposals for
motor carriers. Interest declined between 1992 and the present.
(v) Are you aware of any work extending HCASs to deal with emerging new approaches?
Responses
Highway finance 2
Public-private partnerships 1
Toll systems 1
High-occupancy toll lane systems 0
Other: 3
Total 7
Comments related to the "other" response in Question (v):
Arizona: Any new revenue sources should be attributed to vehicle classes paying them, with costs
1.
attributed to vehicles that occasion them
Oregon: Monitoring a Road-User-Fee Task Force Pilot Program currently testing the feasibility of
2.
using a mileage-based fee to eventually replace the fuels tax in Oregon
Virginia: Distributions of truck operating weights for given registered weights might be available
3.
from WIM data
(w) Please rate the quality of your state's most recent HCAS.
Excellent Good Average Weak Poor
Technical; methods and data 1 6 3 0 0
Accuracy of the methods 2 6 2 0 0
OCR for page 61
61
Credibility of work among stakeholders 2 4 1 3 0
Coverage of vehicle classes 2 4 3 1 0
Coverage of all relevant funding sources,
3 4 3 0 0
fees, and taxes
Handling of special revenue factors 1 4 4 1 0
Total 11 28 16 5 0
(x) What would be most helpful to you in conducting future HCASs?
Responses
Improved guidelines 15
Copies of HCAS reports from other states 18
Software 15
Conference(s), networking, and/or federal workshops 14
Other 13
Total responses 75
Comments related to the "other" response in Question (x):
1. Arizona: If you cannot afford to conduct full-fledged HCASs on a frequent basis (at least once every five
years) you should consider using a simplified methodology. As time passes, older HCASs can be criticized
or dismissed as "obsolete" given new traffic and new construction.
2. California: AASHTO should consider recommendations to guide states considering future HCASs and
related studies.
3. Idaho: Before starting study, contact other states to establish guidelines for study and develop understand-
ing of the process, don't rely on consultants alone. The state must have a deep understanding of the process
and potential outcomes before beginning.
4. Michigan: Engineering knowledge about the effect of trucks with Michigan's weight limits.
5. Montana: Assure you have adequate staffing resources and access to the data you need before you start.
Not having good quality data can be extremely dangerous.
6. Nevada: Legislative action consistent with the study results to motivate us to conduct additional studies.
If the study results will be ignored, don't conduct one. It's too big an effort to satisfy your curiosity.
However, if you believe it will be a valuable tool for progress (whether in terms of developing equitable
tax policy, building better traffic information, or exposing significant data collection or analysis
weaknesses), then the rigors are worth it. you have adequate staffing resources and access to the data you
need before you start. Not having good quality data can be extremely dangerous.
7. Ohio: Ohio would just refer to national studies or studies from other states.
OCR for page 62
62
8. Oregon: Allow adequate time for completion of the study and any follow-up analyses requested by state
administrators, legislators, legislative staff, etc. Also ensure the staff resources and budget for the study
are adequate, particularly for a first-time effort that will tend to be more costly than a continuing effort.
Talk to/meet with staff in other states that have done such studies to get an informed idea of what will be
required, what data sources will be needed, problems likely to been encountered, potential ways to work
around these problems, how best to present the study results, and gain political acceptance for these
results, etc.
Devote a significant amount of up-front time to planning the study, including determining exactly what
issues the study is to address and what questions it will be designed to answer; deciding on the vehicle
classes to be analyzed and which expenditures and revenues to include; preparing a list(s) of the numerous
data elements that will be required and determining whether the data are available and, if so, from where
and how long it will take to be obtained; and deciding whether it will be more cost-effective to do the study
in-house or have it performed by consultants (although there are exceptions, as a general rule, a state
considering doing a first-time HCAS will often find it preferable to rely on consultants).
If the study is contracted out, require that the selected contractor provide a detailed work plan and
projected schedule before beginning any actual work on the study. These studies tend to be costly and it is
very important that the potential for any misunderstanding of what is expected of the contractor be
minimized right from the beginning by clear and effective communication.
If doing the study in-house, prior to the actual commencement of work on the study, form a technical
advisory team composed of internal, subject-matter experts (e.g., a pavement engineer, a bridge engineer,
a maintenance engineer, an agency budget officer, etc.) to provide guidance and technical expertise for the
study. This will pay great dividends when it comes time to ask these same individuals for data, analyses,
or other information required for the study.
Regardless of whether the study will be done in-house or by consultants, also form (again, prior to
commencement of work on the study) a study review or advisory group composed of external stakeholders
and other interested parties (e.g., a representative of the state trucking association, a representative of the
automobile association, a representative of local governments, one or two academics, subject-matter
experts from local universities, and a legislative staff person or even a couple of selected legislators such
as the chairs of the committees dealing with transportation and revenue matters). Forming such a group
and having them meet on a regular basis to advise on and provide guidance for the study will not guarantee
political acceptance of the study results and recommendations, but it will most certainly help in this
regard. If this type of group becomes too large, however, it can become cumbersome, dysfunctional, and
actually work to discourage rather than encourage political acceptance of the study results. It is therefore
recommended such a group be kept relatively small--10 to 15 members is in most cases the ideal size.
9. Utah: UDOT is interested in the results of this synthesis report.
OCR for page 63
63
10. Vermont: Assemble a team of people representing the areas of expertise required for a successful HCAS.
For VTrans, that included the Budget Office, DMV staff, Highway Research, and Traffic Research. The
effort had high level support from the Directors because it was required by the legislature for the 2006
session.
If possible, use existing software. VTrans found that the free FHWA HCAS software covered our needs.
Regarding the FHWA software:
- Review the Vermont recommendations that were submitted to the FHWA that outlines some of
the problems to watch out for.
- Run the software with the default data to make sure it works in your environment.
- Get a commitment from the IT staff for support.
- Run the system frequently as you add expenditure and revenue information. Make sure that all
input is accurately reflected in the output reports. Frequent execution of the system makes i
it easier to diagnose problems.
The legislature requested the HCAS study; however, it had little effect on the final fee bill. I testified about
the study at the House Ways & Means Committee, the House Transportation Committee, and the Senate
Transportation Committee. VTrans wanted fees that would hit trucks harder, but that is politically
sensitive. Several legislators commented that increases in truck fees would simply be passed on to
Vermont consumers. Additionally, they did not want Vermont to get out of line with the surrounding states
of New Hampshire, New York, and Massachusetts.
Several fee proposals were discussed. We ran HCAS with the increased revenue and reported on which
class of users would pay.
We were surprised at the differences in equity rations (1.27 for two-axle vehicles and 0.55 for trucks. Light
vehicles are over paying, and heavy vehicles are underpaying.) Our approach was reviewed by a consul-
tant, Joe Stowers of Sydec, and we feel the results are accurate.
One possible reason for the truck underpayment is that the VTrans' budget is heavily dependent on federal
funding (55%); therefore, the expenditure side of the equation is tilted toward truck corridors, NHS and
Interstate. Trucks get more benefit in the VTrans programs. Also, our rural state does not have expensive
congestion mitigation expenditures that would fall primarily on automobiles.
Someone representing the trucking industry was at each testimony session; however, I am not aware of
any behind-the-scenes trucking industry participation in the process.
We diligently tried to apply the correct allocation rules and fine-tune the tables so that we could defend
the system if necessary. The final results, however, were not very sensitive to many of the rules in the
FHWA HCAS. (Arizona's simplified HCAS approach is of interest to us if we conduct another study.)
There were no challenges to the HCAS results. Most of the legislative debate centered on the
VTrans/DMV proposal to reduce the amount of money transferred from the Transportation Fund to the
Education Fund. (The final bill reduced the Education Fund transfer and raised numerous DMV fees.) The
equity ratios moved only one percentage point towards equity for both light and heavy vehicles.
OCR for page 64
64
I estimate the study took about four to five person months of effort including working with the
software. Another study would be easier now that we know what to collect and what is important.
Although the project was completed by inhouse staff, we had a consultant review our approach, meet
with several agency staff, and fix a software problem.
11. Virginia: FHWA Office of Policy can provide a state highway cost allocation tool on CD-ROM that
was developed by consultants. Could be very useful if a state's data are compatible with the tool.
12. Washington: No future HCASs are planned.
13. Wyoming: Improved documentation from FHWA for the software they developed. More extensive
vehicle class data for the entire state highway system.
