Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 10

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 9
9 EQUITY FINDINGS IN STATE HIGHWAY COST class. Resolution at this level, however, often fails to capture ALLOCATION STUDIES the full picture as it relates to equity within the state trans- portation tax structure. For example, the 1999 Arizona HCAS From 1982 to 2007, 26 states are known to have conducted when applying the base HCAS model generated equity ratios HCASs. Table 2 presents the results of 22 of these studies with ranging from 0.90% to 0.93% for buses, single-unit trucks, respect to the equity ratios for the heavy-truck class. The and combination trucks when examining the tax structure heavy-truck class is defined differently among states, but gen- from a prospective view (1999 to 2003), but found that when erally includes all vehicles weighing in excess of a certain historic data (1988 to 1998) were added to the calculation weight threshold (e.g., 10,000 lb) and includes trucks, buses, the equity ratios for buses fell to 0.67, single-unit trucks fell and single-unit and combination trucks. The equity ratio is to 0.78, and the combination truck equity ratio was calculated measured as the total tax payments attributable to a user class at 0.89 (Carey 1999). divided by its cost responsibility. To the extent that payments fall short of cost responsibility as measured through the HCAS, The 2000 Kentucky HCASs presents equity ratios for six the equity ratio would be below 1.0. In 19 of the 22 studies highway-user classes (cars, buses, pickups and vans, light referenced in Table 2, payments from the heavy-truck class trucks, medium trucks, and heavy trucks) with equity ratios fell short of cost responsibility. In three states (Delaware, within the truck classes ranging from 0.90 for heavy trucks Montana, and Oregon), heavy-truck payments were equal to (registered vehicle weights in excess of 60,000 lb) to 1.52 for or greater than their cost responsibilities (Stowers et al. 1999). light trucks (Osborne et al. 2000). Oregon HCASs examine A large part of the explanation of the results is tied to the dif- equity in a detailed manner with both cost responsibility and ferences in the state tax structures. Note for example that one revenue attribution assigned in 2,000-lb increments above of the three states (Oregon) in the over 1.0 equity ratio cate- 8,000-lb registered gross weight. The most recent Oregon gory had weight-distance taxes at the time of the study, and HCAS found that although the heavy-truck class as a whole another (Delaware) collected a high proportion of its heavy- met its cost responsibility, the equity ratio for the light truck truck revenue fees from out-of-state based trailers. class with declared weights between 10,001 and 26,000 lb was 1.26, whereas payments from operators of heavy trucks Most state HCASs focus on equity between basic and with declared weights of between 80,001 and 105,500 lb fell heavy vehicles calculating equity ratios for each highway-user short of cost responsibility by 16.4% (ECONorthwest 2007). TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF STATE HIGHWAY COST ALLOCATION STUDIES (19822007): EQUITY OF TAX STRUCTURE FOR HEAVY VEHICLES Equity Ratio for Heavy Vehicles State and Year of Study <0.60 Maryland (1982), Colorado (1988), Georgia (1991), Texas (1994), Nevada (1999), Vermont (2006) 0.600.80 Connecticut (1982), Missouri (1984), Indiana (1988), Minnesota (1990) 0.801.00 Wisconsin (1982), North Carolina (1983), Kansas (1985), California (1987), Maine (1989), Pennsylvania (1990), Arizona (1999), Kentucky (2000), Idaho (2002) >1.00 Delaware (1992), Montana (1992), Oregon (2007) Adapted from Stowers et al. (1999).