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