Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 5: Preparing State Transportation Agencies for an Uncertain Energy Future (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

78 With a clear understanding of how the plausible transpor- tation energy scenarios could affect state DOTs (as described in the previous chapter), it becomes possible to consider dif- ferent strategies that could assist states in preparing for or responding to potential changes in transportation energy use. The main goals in this chapter are to enumerate a set of poten- tially helpful state strategies and summarize their strengths and weaknesses in addressing transportation energy con- cerns. (Detailed assessments of the strategies are presented in Appendices I, J, K, L, and M.) This information provides the basis for developing, in the next chapter, a framework to help states craft robust long-range plans to address an uncertain energy future. The chapter begins by introducing the concept of a strategic direction, which is used to group policies with broadly simi- lar aims and approaches. The second section then enumer- ates, describes, and categorizes the set of strategic directions included in the analysis. The third section introduces an eval- uation framework for assessing the potential benefits, risks, barriers, and costs associated with a given strategic direction, while the final section presents a series of tables that summa- rize the assessments for all of the strategic directions. 7.1 Defining Strategic Directions If one were to enumerate all of the individual policies that states might consider to either (a) mitigate potential impacts on state DOTs that could arise with certain energy futures, or (b) seek to influence evolving energy sources and technologies with the aim of promoting a more sustainable energy future, the list would number in the hundreds. To make the analysis more manageable and to focus on higher-level strategies (as opposed to specific tactics) in the context of a study intended to support effective long-range planning across states facing different con- textual challenges, the researchers took the approach of group- ing discrete policy options (e.g., support for telecommuting) into broader strategic directions, which are also referred to as strategies (e.g., implementing more comprehensive transpor- tation demand management programs). Each strategic direc- tion includes a set of policies that share generally similar aims and approaches, and states interested in pursuing a given stra- tegic direction could choose from the component policies to match their own context-specific needs. 7.1.1 Approach to Developing Strategic Directions The first step in developing the strategic directions was to assemble the larger set of policies that states might consider. The set of potential policies included suggestions and ideas offered during the interviews with state DOT staff along with additional options identified by the research team based on its review of the relevant literature. Note that the researchers have included both policies that could be implemented directly by a state DOT (e.g., practices to foster greater cost-efficiency in DOT operations) and policies that could require enabling state legislation or the support of multiple state agencies (e.g., pric- ing carbon emissions to encourage a shift to lower-carbon alternative fuels). The next step was to group the policies into broader stra- tegic directions. In making the transition from a larger set of potential policies to a smaller set of strategic directions, the researchers sought to group policies that are broadly similar in terms of (a) the objectives that they seek to address (e.g., raising revenue) and (b) the approaches employed to support those objectives (e.g., charging system users, charging other sys- tem beneficiaries, or relying on general revenue mechanisms). The goal of applying these criteria in the process of grouping policies into strategic directions was to make it easier to evalu- ate the anticipated strengths and limitations of each strategic direction, with its component policies, in a more consistent fashion. That is, policies aimed at the same objectives that rely on generally similar approaches are likely to present roughly comparable strengths and limitations. C H A P T E R 7 Potential Strategic Directions for State DOTs

79 7.1.2 Assumptions for Evaluating Strategic Directions While the policies grouped under each strategic direction were selected based on broad similarities, they are not expected to perform identically in terms of effectiveness, cost, and other criteria. Given the potential for variation in the expected perfor- mance of different policies within each strategic direction, the researchers found it helpful to establish a clear set of assump- tions about the specific combination of policies that a state would choose to implement if it wished to pursue the strate- gic direction. For the strategic direction involving congestion pricing, for example, the analysis assumes that a state would endeavor to implement one or two priced lanes on all congested freeways and highways, in some cases requiring the conversion of general-purpose lanes to priced lanes. By laying out such assumptions, it then became possible to evaluate the expected strengths and limitations of each strategic direction in less ambiguous terms. In establishing the assumed policies for assessing each of the strategic directions, the research team sought to integrate three considerations: 1. Policies falling within state purview. In determining the assumed combination of policies that a state would imple- ment for a particular strategic direction, the team first focused on policies that could logically be implemented at the state level, or at least be strongly influenced through state funding decisions or collaborative planning efforts. For example, in the strategic direction related to land use, it was not assumed that a state would implement specific zoning policies since that falls within the general purview of local government. Rather, the assumption was that the DOT would seek a greater degree of collaboration with local agencies in achieving more integrated transporta- tion and land use decisions, and the state would further create a system of incentives to encourage local jurisdic- tions to make zoning decisions consistent with regionally integrated transportation and land use plans. 2. Cost-effective policies. In selecting from a larger set of potential policies within each strategic direction, the research team also sought to focus on those that, based on available evidence, could be expected to provide benefits that exceed costs and would thus be viewed as worthwhile. 3. Ambitious policies. Finally, in cases where different poli- cies within a strategic direction would likely vary consid- erably in the magnitude of their effects, it was assumed that a state would pursue a relatively ambitious subset of policies likely to offer the greatest benefits—even in cases where those policies might cost more to implement, for example, or entail greater public acceptance challenges. In other words, the assumed policies were chosen in part to help illustrate the best possible results that could be attained by a state choosing to aggressively pursue a given strategic direction. 7.1.3 Categories of Strategic Directions After defining the strategic directions to be evaluated, they are grouped into several broader categories. The categoriza- tion has no bearing on the underlying analysis but is simply intended to help organize the presentation of the material. (Detailed discussion of the strategies is presented in Appen- dices I, J, K, L, and M; each of these appendices corresponds to a different category.) The five categories under which the strategic directions have been grouped are: 1. Strategies to sustain or increase revenue, 2. Strategies to reduce costs, 3. Strategies to improve automobile and truck travel, 4. Strategies to improve alternative modes of travel, and 5. Strategies to shape future energy use and technology adoption. 7.2 Strategies Considered The strategic directions and their component policy ele- ments for each of the five categories listed are now briefly discussed. 7.2.1 Strategies to Sustain or Increase Revenue The first group of strategies, focused on sustaining or increasing transportation revenue, includes direct user fees, indirect marginal-cost user fees, indirect fixed-cost user fees, beneficiary fees, general revenue sources, and private capital. (The first three of these are sometimes referred to as tolls or mileage-based user fees, fuel taxes, and registration fees in the remainder of this report.) Although all of these could be effec- tive in increasing available revenue, they differ considerably in terms of their respective advantages and disadvantages. Direct user fees (tolls or mileage-based user fees). This strategy involves raising revenue by charging drivers for their actual use of the roadways, for example via tolls. In assess- ing this strategy, it is assumed that a state would implement either electronic tolling on all major routes or mileage-based user fees for passenger vehicles and would in addition estab- lish weight-distance truck fees to collect revenue from heavy- duty commercial vehicles. Indirect marginal-cost user fees (fuel taxes). Current excise taxes on gasoline and diesel represent the main option for collecting indirect road-use fees that vary in proportion to travel. The assumed approach under this strategy would be to

80 implement a significant increase in per-gallon tax rates (e.g., roughly doubling the current rates). States with major port facilities might also consider levying container fees to help fund goods movement projects in the surrounding region. Indirect fixed-cost user fees (registration fees). This approach also involves charging the users of the transporta- tion system, but in this case the fee is a fixed amount levied on an annual basis or with the purchase of a new vehicle. The assumption under this strategy is that a state would increase existing annual vehicle registration fees. To better align the fees with anticipated system use characteristics, the fees would be structured to account for vehicle age, weight (or axle weight for trucks), and value. Beneficiary fees. This strategic direction involves raising transportation revenue through taxes or fees levied on develop- ers or property owners who benefit, through improved access, from investments in the transportation network. In assessing this option, it is assumed that states would seek to expand the use of tax increment financing, special assessment districts, developer impact fees, and utility fees to expand the pool of available transportation funding. General revenue. This strategy entails raising additional transportation funds via general revenue mechanisms not directly linked to use of the transportation system. Here it is assumed that a state, depending on the general revenue mechanisms that it already employs, would seek to increase income taxes, sales taxes, or property taxes, with the incre- mental amount dedicated for transportation investments. Private capital. The final revenue strategy includes options for greater reliance on private capital in funding the trans- portation system, with private investment to be repaid over time through the collection of tolls. The evaluation assumes the use of public–private partnerships in developing new capacity, along with the potential for privatizing existing public facilities. In the latter case, private firms would pay an up-front fee to the public sector for the right to manage and collect tolls for use of the facility over some specified period of time. It is not assumed that a state would seek to privatize the entire network of state highways, although that would also be possible in theory. Note that public–private partnerships likely have a greater role to play in financing— as opposed to funding—transportation investments, but in some cases they can be structured to bring additional revenue into the system. 7.2.2 Strategies to Reduce Costs This grouping of strategic directions focuses on ways that state DOTs could reduce costs. The two main approaches are striving for greater efficiency and reducing the scope of DOT responsibilities. While the first of these is a laudable goal under any circumstance, the second could become essential if a state fails to find other sources of funding to offset declin- ing fuel-tax revenue. Greater efficiency. This strategic direction encompasses a variety of approaches that state DOTs could pursue to increase the efficiency of their investments and operations— that is, to focus on investments that will yield the greatest ben- efits and to reduce the life-cycle costs associated with certain construction, maintenance, and administrative activities. The assessment assumes that a state would adopt materials (e.g., synthetic building products with longer service lives) and technologies (e.g., infrastructure management systems) to lower operating costs, would contract out services to the private sector in cases where that would provide savings, and would employ such approaches as performance-based plan- ning and performance-based budgeting to ensure that invest- ments are achieving maximum results. Reduced scope of responsibility. This strategy considers the possibility of a state DOT reducing its role or scope in response to a diminishing budget. It was assumed that state legislators, if faced with this requirement, would direct DOT staff to pare back programmatic responsibilities to focus mainly on high- way maintenance and operations and to devolve ownership of lesser-used state routes to local jurisdictions. Very little invest- ment in new capacity, even where justified by demand patterns, would be possible. 7.2.3 Strategies to Improve Automobile and Truck Travel The next set of strategic directions centers on approaches to improving auto and truck travel. All of the strategies in this category aim to mitigate traffic congestion or improve safety, and many offer additional benefits related to air quality, GHG emissions, and revenue generation. By virtue of relieving traf- fic congestion, some of these strategies could help improve bus transit as well. The strategic directions in this category are road building, goods movement investments, congestion pricing, ITSs, transportation system management and opera- tions (TSM&O), and traffic safety measures. Road building. Under this strategy, a state would seek to provide new capacity as a core strategy in mitigating traffic congestion. To pursue such a strategy, most states would need to first increase available revenue. In assessing this approach, it is assumed that a state would construct additional lanes on existing routes in congested urban and suburban areas and might also construct new routes in rapidly growing exurban areas. In either case, however, the investments would only be pursued in cases where analysis indicated a favorable benefit– cost ratio. Goods movement investments. This strategic direction includes road investments to relieve bottlenecks and increase connectivity to multimodal terminals and industrial areas, public–private investments in increased rail capacity and grade

81 efforts to support the national goal of moving toward zero crash-related deaths, states already prioritize such improve- ments within the constraints of available revenue. In assess- ing this strategy, the possibility that a state would increase its current level of investment in such strategies to further accel- erate deployment was considered, although this would likely require that the state first augment transportation revenue sources. It is also assumed that states would continue to imple- ment programs to reduce distracted or impaired driving. 7.2.4 Strategies to Improve Alternative Modes of Travel The focus of this category is on strategies to improve pub- lic transportation and other non-automotive modes of travel. Options are transportation demand management (TDM), public transportation improvements, and integrated trans- portation and land use. Transportation demand management. TDM policies focus on reducing solo driving, especially for commuting, typically through support for alternatives. Policies often discussed under the category of TDM include support for ridesharing and vanpools, 4-day workweeks, telecommuting programs, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and pay-as-you-drive insurance. In assessing this strategy, the researchers assumed that states would work with local governments and large employers to subsidize or incentivize all of these, and would also pass any needed legislation to allow insurers to offer pay-as-you-drive products. Public transportation improvements. This strategy involves a number of policies and investments to improve the quality and quantity of both intra- and inter-urban public transportation, including revised fare structures and regional integration of payment systems, bus transit improvements, fixed-guideway (e.g., rail) transit improvements, intercity transit improvements (including high-speed rail), and greater state DOT involvement in transit planning. The assessment assumes that a state would provide technical and financial support for all of these, as appropriate and where warranted by demand, but would not generally be involved in the direct operation of transit systems (except for states in which this is already the case). Integrated transportation and land use. This strategy aims to better align land use patterns with transportation systems. Options include prioritizing transportation funding for existing communities, creating more flexible guidelines for state roads, building infrastructure for walking and bik- ing (encompassing the concept of complete streets), and seek- ing to partner with local governments in land use planning. The assessment assumes that a state would work with local jurisdictions to promote all of these options, with the gen- eral intent of achieving more compact development patterns amenable to a wider array of travel options. separation to facilitate an increased freight mode shift, public support for technology systems to better monitor and man- age goods movement, and policies such as idle-free zones to reduce the environmental impacts of goods movement. In assessing this strategy, the researchers assumed that a state would expand its role in freight planning, engage in new part- nerships and institutional arrangements, and place greater priority on freight funding. As with the previous strategy, a state would likely need to increase transportation revenue in order to pursue this strategy in a significant way. Congestion pricing. Congestion pricing options, in which vehicles are charged higher fees during peak-hour periods to help reduce congestion, include HOT or express lanes, full- facility congestion tolls, cordon congestion tolls, network-wide congestion pricing, and variable parking pricing. The assess- ment assumes that states would continue the trend toward developing HOT or express lanes in the near term but ulti- mately would work toward the goal of providing one or two priced lanes on all congested highways, even in cases where this would require the conversion of general-purpose lanes to priced lanes. States would also provide technical assistance to local governments, as requested, in setting up other forms of con- gestion pricing, such as cordon tolls or variable parking prices. Intelligent transportation systems. This strategy encom- passes advanced technology applications involving vehicle- to-vehicle (V-V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V-I) com- munications to improve safety, mobility, and efficiency, as envisioned under the Research and Innovative Technology Administration’s (RITA) IntelliDrive and Connected Vehicle programs. The assessment for this strategy assumes that a state would take an active role (e.g., by investing in more intel- ligent embedded infrastructure technologies) in promoting the emergence of V-V and V-I applications. Note that rapid private-sector innovations in autonomous vehicle technology could, with little input from the public sector beyond estab- lishing appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks, achieve a substantial portion of the benefits envisioned for ITSs (spe- cifically, any that would not rely on V-I communications). This creates significant uncertainty around the utility of major public investments in this area. Transportation system management and operations. This strategy involves technical applications as well, but in this case the focus is on proven technologies such as ramp metering, signal synchronization, real-time travel information systems, variable speed limits, and incident management systems. The assessment assumes that a state would invest in upgrading older versions of these technologies where they are already being used and would invest in deploying such systems where they are not yet in use. Traffic safety. This strategy focuses on safety improvements for vehicle travel as well as biking and walking. It encompasses roadway departure reduction measures, intersection improve- ments, and pedestrian and cyclist protections. Under their

82 materials and practices, and setting up programs to reduce travel for state employees. The assessment assumes that a state interested in this strategy would adopt all of these policies across all state agencies, as applicable. 7.3 Framework for Assessing Strategies After defining the strategic directions, it was necessary to construct a framework for evaluating their strengths and limi- tations. To support robust decision making in a study intended to inform long-range planning across diverse states, the frame- work needed to provide insight on how effectively the strategy could address its core aims, which might be to mitigate the negative impacts on state DOTs that could result from certain plausible energy futures or to enhance the prospects for tran- sitioning to a more sustainable energy future. The framework also needed to provide insights on the potential advantages or disadvantages of pursuing a strategy if it proved to not be needed, on the amount of lead time required to implement a strategy and realize its benefits, and on the applicability of the strategy across states within differing contexts. To address such questions, the research team organized a specific set of criteria using six categories: the effects on miti- gating specific impacts associated with certain transportation energy futures; the effects on promoting a more sustainable transportation energy future; broader effects on the econ- omy, on the environment and public health, and on equity; potential implementation barriers; required lead time; and qualifications relating to the applicability of strategies in dif- ferent states. The research team also constructed a qualitative rating system to characterize the expected performance of a given strategy for each of the relevant criteria. For example, a strategy might be rated as highly effective at reducing DOT costs or as moderately negative in terms of expected effects on equity concerns. While the ratings for each of the strategies draw upon avail- able evidence from the research literature, they are ultimately subjective in nature and in some cases must rely on princi- pled reasoning. Therefore, multiple members of the research team reviewed all of the ratings for all of the strategies with the intent of ensuring that the rating system was being rea- sonably and consistently applied by the individual authors who drafted each strategy assessment. In cases where there was insufficient or conflicting evidence in the literature, or if the expected results could vary by implementation choices or local context, the ratings have been characterized as uncertain. The remainder of this section discusses the specific crite- ria included within each of the groupings in the evaluation framework, the motivation for including the criteria, and the possible ratings applied to the criteria within each grouping. Mitigation effects. The first grouping of performance crite- ria focuses on the ability of strategies to mitigate the potential 7.2.5 Strategies to Shape Future Energy Use and Technology Adoption This final category contains five strategies that states might employ with the aim of promoting greater energy efficiency and the adoption of alternative fuels within the transportation sector: pricing vehicles, pricing fuel or emissions, alternative- fuel mandates and programs, state involvement in the pro- duction and distribution of alternative fuels, and efforts to improve energy efficiency and increase the use of alternative fuels within agencies. Pricing vehicles (vehicle feebates). Potential policy options under this strategy include offering subsidies for the purchase of high fuel-economy or alternative-fuel vehicles, assessing fees on the purchase of low fuel-economy vehicles, and imple- menting feebate programs under which fees on less environ- mentally desirable vehicles are used to fund rebates on more environmentally desirable vehicles. It was assumed that states pursuing this strategy would implement feebates that are both effective and revenue neutral. Pricing fuel or emissions (carbon pricing). This strategy includes the options of offering subsidies for alternative fuels or charging fees on carbon emissions to create a strong finan- cial incentive to adopt lower-carbon alternatives. It is also possible that states could adopt a feebate structure to price fuels for carbon content, although this concept has received less attention in the academic literature and policy debates. In assessing this strategy, it was assumed that a state would price carbon emissions based on either a carbon tax or a carbon cap-and-trade system. Alternative-fuel mandates and programs. This strategy includes RFSs, LCFSs, renewable portfolio standards (RPSs) for electric power, and voluntary promotion and information campaigns. The assessment assumes that a state pursuing this strategy would implement either an RFS or an LCFS, comple- mented by an RPS if electric vehicles begin to gain significant market share. Voluntary campaigns to promote alternative- fuel use would also be included. State involvement in the production and distribution of alternative fuels. Options under this strategy include the production of renewable electricity or fuels on state rights-of- way (growing biomass or installing solar photovoltaic panels along highways, for example) and the provision of financial incentives for private-sector investment in alternative refuel- ing infrastructure. The assessment assumes that a state would pursue both of these options, preceded by a statewide renew- able energy feasibility study to determine the most promising alternative energy sources on which to focus. Improve energy efficiency and increase alternative-fuel use within agencies. Potential policies under this strategy include building or retrofitting facilities for greater energy efficiency, adopting alternative-fuel vehicles in state fleets, making use of less energy- and carbon-intensive construction

83 that these criteria (with the possible exception of financial cost and technical risk) do not necessarily represent strong policy reasons for not pursuing a strategy; rather, as a group they are mainly intended to reflect the degree of difficulty in successfully implementing the strategy. There are three possible ratings for these criteria: significant barrier, mod- erate barrier, and not applicable. Note that with respect to the question of enabling legislation, any strategy likely to require federal legislative action is rated as facing a signifi- cant barrier. If state legislation would be sufficient, then the barrier is simply rated as moderate. (There may still be sig- nificant public acceptance barriers to overcome before state legislation would be possible, but that is reflected separately in the public acceptance criterion.) Required lead time. This criterion indicates the expected time required, once political agreement has been achieved, to implement the strategy and realize intended benefits. Estimat- ing the lead time is useful in determining whether a strategy might be deployed adaptively in later years on an as-needed basis (i.e., whether it would be possible to wait until there is clearer information about how the future is unfolding and then trigger the strategy only when it becomes clear that it will indeed be helpful). Possible ratings for lead time are “immediate” (interpreted as within a single year), 1 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 20 years, and more than 20 years. Qualifications. This last criterion simply offers the oppor- tunity to note whether the strategy in question would be more applicable in some states than in others. Congestion pricing, for example, would not be particularly helpful in largely rural states in which traffic congestion is not expected to be a major issue of concern any time soon. Some of the more common differentiations considered for this criterion include largely rural states versus states with major metropolitan areas, states with rapidly growing populations versus states with stagnant population growth, and states with major ports or trade cor- ridors versus states with comparatively less goods-movement activity. As indicated in the preceding discussion, the criteria included in the evaluation framework can serve several different roles in the analysis. These include characterizing the potential advantages of pursuing a strategy, highlighting the drawbacks or hurdles associated with a strategy, understanding whether a strategy might be deferred until there is better evidence that it will be useful, and clarifying the potential applicability of a strategy in different state contexts. These are summarized in Table 7.1. 7.4 Summary of Strategy Assessments Tables 7.2 through 7.7 summarize the ratings for all of the strategies and evaluation criteria considered. Mitigation effects are presented in Tables 7.2 and 7.3; shaping effects challenges for state DOTs associated with certain energy futures. Following the discussion of potential impacts presented in Chapter 6, the specific mitigation goals were stabilizing or increasing transportation revenue, reducing state DOT costs, reducing traffic congestion, improving safety, improving air quality, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving alternative travel modes. Possible ratings were “highly effec- tive,” “moderately effective,” and “not applicable.” (Note that in the detailed assessments presented in Appendices I, J, K, L, and M as well as in the summary tables at the end of this chap- ter, the absence of a rating for a given strategy and criterion implies a rating of not applicable.) Shaping effects. The next grouping focuses on the poten- tial effects of a strategy in shaping or promoting a more sus- tainable energy future for states interested in this aim. Three criteria are considered: reducing oil consumption, promoting the adoption of lower-carbon alternative fuels, and reducing the energy cost of travel. These align, roughly, with the policy goals of enhancing energy security, mitigating climate change, and ensuring affordable travel options. For each of these crite- ria, strategies can again be rated as highly effective, moderately effective, or not applicable. Effects on the economy, the environment and public health, and equity. To gain a richer understanding of the poten- tial benefits and liabilities of each strategy, the research team also considered their expected performance in the context of broader social goals, including effects on promoting economic efficiency and growth, improving the environment and public health, and supporting greater equity. Note that environment and public health were grouped as a single criterion given the significant overlap in mutually relevant outcomes. For exam- ple, air quality improvements are beneficial to public health and to a healthier environment; likewise, strategies that reduce vehicle travel and promote an increase in biking and walking should have benefits for both the environment (reduced GHG emissions) and public health (more exercise, and assuming that appropriate care is devoted to ensuring safe conditions for walking and biking). In contrast to the ratings for shaping and mitigation effects, which are either positive in nature or not applicable, the ratings for the criteria in this grouping can be either positive or negative. In other words, they could repre- sent additional benefits of pursuing a given strategy beyond the intended mitigation or shaping effects, or they could represent potential reasons not to pursue a strategy despite the potential shaping or mitigation effects. The specific ratings are “highly positive,” “moderately positive,” “neutral,” “moderately nega- tive,” and “highly negative.” Potential barriers. The next grouping of criteria focuses on potential impediments that might deter states from pursu- ing a given strategy. These include public acceptance, financial cost, technical risk, the possible need for enabling legislation, and the possible need for institutional restructuring. Note

84 Table 7.1. Elements of the framework for evaluating strategies. Evaluation Criteria Reasons to Pursue Strategy Reasons Not to Pursue Strategy Possible to Defer Decision Applicability of Strategy Across States Mitigation effects Shaping effects Effects on the economy, the environment and public health, and equity Potential barriers Required lead time Qualifications Table 7.2. Assessment of strategic directions: possible mitigation effects (part 1). Strategic Direction Providing More Revenue Reducing DOT Costs Reducing Traffic Congestion Improving Safety Outcomes Strategies to Sustain or Increase Revenue Tolls or mileage-based user fees Fuel taxes Registration fees Beneficiary fees General revenue sources Increased use of private capital Strategies to Reduce Costs Greater efficiency Reduced scope of responsibility Strategies to Improve Auto and Truck Travel Road expansion Goods movement Congestion pricing ITSs TSM&O Traffic safety Strategies to Improve Alternative Travel Modes TDM Public transportation Land use Strategies to Promote Energy Efficiency and Alternative Fuels Vehicle feebates Carbon pricing Fuel mandates and programs Fuel production and distribution Agency energy use Key: = Highly Effective = Moderately Effective Blank = Not Applicable Shaded = Uncertain

85 Strategic Direction Improving Air Quality Reducing GHG Emissions Enhancing Non- Automotive Travel Options Strategies to Sustain or Increase Revenue Tolls or mileage-based user fees Fuel taxes Registration fees Beneficiary fees General revenue sources Increased use of private capital Strategies to Reduce Costs Greater efficiency Reduced scope of responsibility Strategies to Improve Auto and Truck Travel Road expansion Goods movement Congestion pricing ITSs TSM&O Traffic safety Strategies to Improve Alternative Travel Modes TDM Public transportation Land use Strategies to Promote Energy Efficiency and Alternative Fuels Vehicle feebates Carbon pricing Fuel mandates and programs Fuel production and distribution Agency energy use Key: = Highly Effective = Moderately Effective Blank = Not Applicable Shaded = Uncertain Table 7.3. Assessment of strategic directions: possible mitigation effects (part 2).

86 Strategic Direction Reducing Oil Consumption Increasing Use of Lower-Carbon Alternative Fuels Reducing Energy Cost of Travel Strategies to Sustain or Increase Revenue Tolls or mileage-based user fees Fuel taxes Registration fees Beneficiary fees General revenue sources Increased use of private capital Strategies to Reduce Costs Greater efficiency Reduced scope of responsibility Strategies to Improve Auto and Truck Travel Road expansion Goods movement Congestion pricing ITSs TSM&O Traffic safety Strategies to Improve Alternative Travel Modes TDM Public transportation Land use Strategies to Promote Energy Efficiency and Alternative Fuels Vehicle feebates Carbon pricing Fuel mandates and programs Fuel production and distribution Agency energy use Key: = Highly Effective = Moderately Effective Blank = Not Applicable Shaded = Uncertain Table 7.4. Assessment of strategic directions: possible shaping effects.

87 Key: = Highly Positive = Moderately Positive = Neutral = Highly Negative = Moderately Negative Shaded = Uncertain Strategic Direction Economy Environment and Public Health Equity Strategies to Sustain or Increase Revenue Tolls or mileage-based user fees Fuel taxes Registration fees Beneficiary fees General revenue sources Increased use of private capital Strategies to Reduce Costs Greater efficiency Reduced scope of responsibility Strategies to Improve Auto and Truck Travel Road expansion Goods movement Congestion pricing ITSs TSM&O Traffic safety Strategies to Improve Alternative Travel Modes TDM Public transportation Land use Strategies to Promote Energy Efficiency and Alternative Fuels Vehicle feebates Carbon pricing Fuel mandates and programs Fuel production and distribution Agency energy use Table 7.5. Assessment of strategic directions: other general effects.

88 Key: = Significant Barrier = Moderate Barrier Blank = Not Applicable Shaded = Uncertain Strategic Direction Public Support Financial Cost Technical Risk Enabling Legislation Institutional Restructuring Strategies to Sustain or Increase Revenue Tolls or mileage-based user fees Fuel taxes Registration fees Beneficiary fees General revenue sources Increased use of private capital Strategies to Reduce Costs Greater efficiency Reduced scope of responsibility Strategies to Improve Auto and Truck Travel Road expansion Goods movement Congestion pricing ITSs TSM&O Traffic safety Strategies to Improve Alternative Travel Modes TDM Public transportation Land use Strategies to Promote Energy Efficiency and Alternative Fuels Vehicle feebates Carbon pricing Fuel mandates and programs Fuel production and distribution Agency energy use Table 7.6. Assessment of strategic directions: potential barriers.

89 downward arrows indicate a liability or obstacle, a hollow circle indicates a neutral rating, the absence of an entry indicates not applicable, and light gray shading in the back- ground indicates some uncertainty regarding the rating. Discussions of the analysis supporting the strategy ratings are presented in Appendices I, J, K, L, and M. are presented in Table 7.4; anticipated effects on economy, environment and public health, and equity are presented in Table 7.5; barriers are summarized in Table 7.6; and required lead time and any caveats are presented in Table 7.7. In the tables, black upward arrows indicate a strength or benefit (with a double arrow indicating a stronger effect), gray Strategic Direction Lead Time Qualifications Strategies to Sustain or Increase Revenue Tolls or mileage-based user fees 5–10 years Fuel taxes Immediate Registration fees Immediate Beneficiary fees 5–10 years Best in states with strong growth General revenue sources Immediate Increased use of private capital 5–10 years Best in states with strong growth Strategies to Reduce Costs Greater efficiency 5–10 years Reduced scope of responsibility 5–10 years Strategies to Improve Auto and Truck Travel Road expansion 10–20 years Best in states with strong growth Goods movement 10–20 years Best in states with large ports or trade corridors Congestion pricing 1–5 years Best in states with large urban areas ITSs >20 years TSM&O 1–5 years Best in states with large urban areas Traffic safety 1–5 years Strategies to Improve Alternative Travel Modes TDM 1–5 years Public transportation 5–10 years Best in states with large urban areas Land use >20 years Best in states with strong growth Strategies to Promote Energy Efficiency and Alternative Fuels Vehicle feebates 1–5 years Carbon pricing 1–5 years Fuel mandates and programs 1–5 years Form of mandate varies by state Fuel production and distribution 5–10 years Best fuel choice could vary by state Agency energy use 5–10 years Table 7.7. Assessment of strategic directions: lead time and qualifications.