PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITYEMPA CAPSTONE PRESENTATION
LYNN AVERBECK2011 COHORT
JUNE 15 , 2013
The Challenge of Financing Oregon’s Highways
Highway Trust Fund Projection
Doing Nothing is Mission Failure
12 Years of ODOT Policy Work
24 Alternatives Explored by ODOT
Battery tax Bicycle feesDrive-through service fee Electricity generated by vehicle
taxEmissions fee Indexing fuel tax for inflation
New vehicle tax Parking feesProperty taxes Registration feesRental car tax Road utility feesSafety violation fee System development chargesTire tax Title feesTransportation impact fee Use-fuel taxes increaseVehicle impact fee Vehicle ownership tax Weight-mile truck tax increaseIndexing fuel tax for fuel-efficiency improvementsTemporary visitor access fee General Fund
June 13, 2013 Oregonian
HB 2453 RUC System Features
55+ MPG vehicles purchased after July 1, 20155,000 vehicle voluntary programA non-GPS option is mandatedProvide choices for motorists Use open market for technologies Use private sector and PPPs for mileage
reporting and tax processing High flat annual rate opt out Protects and destroys personally identifiable
information
Some of the Risks
Projected revenues not metPrivate market doesn’t see ROI Legalities of data commodity and privacyTechnology not quite ready for electric
vehiclesPublic rejectionAuto dealers reject participation
Capstone Purpose and Significance
Document ODOT policy evolution
Analyze current alternatives
Develop recommendations to ensure high performance
ODOT will be the first in the world
Historic documentation doesn’t yet exist
Leadership opportunity
Capstone Process
Collect and Review 12 years of documentation
Literature Review to compare ODOT to others
Consider the Context
Develop performance criteria
Determine current alternatives
Provide Recommendations for moving forward
Literature Review
Other States
Multi-State
International
Electric vehicles, smart grid, connected vehicles
Public Awareness and Perception
Oregon’s Choice: Road Usage Charging (RUC)
10 Performance Criteria for RUC
1. Acceptable to the public
2. Full implementation plan in sight
3. Revenue sufficiency
4. Safest administrative rule-making context
5. Lowest cost for ODOT to administer
6. High accuracy, reliability and security
7. Highly adaptable to local jurisdiction and interstate coordination
8. Highly adaptable to future technological changes
9. Low risk of private sector “soaking” the public
10. System designed for high compliance rate
Policy Analysis Findings
Neither alternative is a clear winner
ODOT’s policy process has been thorough but complicated
The public doesn’t know this is coming
Big and numerous risks on the table
The current bill is the best policy choice at this time, but high risk of failure (backlash) if certain things are not addressed during implementation preparation phase.
8 Recommendations for Moving Forward
1. Develop a complete phasing plan
2. Organizational framework
3. Long term public education plan
4. Internal training for ODOT employees
5. Transparent and frequent reporting
6. Performance criteria “report cards”
7. Budget support for assistance to other states
8. Local jurisdiction outreach
Thank you
“The instrument of leadership is the self, and mastery of the art of leadership comes from mastery of the self.”
(Kouzes and Posner, “The Leadership Challenge”)
Kingdon’s Streams Policy Model