Symposium Summary documents
PDF, 587K, 26 pages
Session 1: Implementation Pathways
Findings from the Third National Symposium on Mileage-Based User Fees, by Nicholas Wood, Ginger Goodin and Richard T. Baker
Prepared for submission to the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 2012.
PDF, 188K, 11 pages
June 15th Workshop Proceedings:
Summary of Workshop on Integrating PAYD Insurance and Mileage-Based Road User Fees
PDF, 66K, 5 pages
Summary: Session 1
Monday, June 13, 2011
DICK MUDGE, Panelist (Bio)
The theme of the symposium was explored in the opening panel session on alternative transition pathways to MBUF implementation.
Paul SorensenConceptual Frameworks for System Trials
The key questions that were generated during the discussion were:
- How do we move from talking about MBUF to working toward implementation?
- How do we approach political feasibility?
- What is the sequence toward getting a nationwide system that is applicable to all drivers?
- How many participants should be involved in a system trial?
- Should different vehicle classes start with MBUF first or should all drivers be incorporated?
- Should mandatory or voluntary adoption be done?
- Should an effort toward MBUF start at the State or Federal level?
Many states are looking at mileage-based user fee system trials from widely divergent viewpoints.
The three frameworks for analysis for approaching MBUF implementation are:
- Federal: A top-down approach dictating policy and direction
- State: Experimentation can be readily done
- Market: Engage and encourage the private sector to provide additional services for drivers
[ Top ]
James WhittyPowerPoint Presentation: Oregon MBUF Electric Vehicle Implementation
A vision for implementing MBUF should include:
- Motorists should have the ability to choose the methods and technologies for reporting their mileage.
- Users should have options to wirelessly report undifferentiated mileage from the odometer and differentiated mileage using technologies with vehicle location capability.
- An open system for data collection is preferred that can allow technologies to evolve with motorist preference.
- Allow the public to choose through market forces either a government or private sector provision of on-vehicle technologies, data collection and payment services.
The most recent experience from Oregon demonstrated the difficultly in implementing mileage-based user fees on the State level.
- The public will not accept the placement of government-owned boxes in personal vehicles.
- The public fears that a large, new bureaucracy will be required to administer an MBUF system.
- Users want to be able to use their own GPS devices and to have the ability to choose between public and private sector technologies for providing service and collecting fees.
- Fairness was a significant principle in advancing mileage-based user fees. The fact that electric vehicle users do not directly pay a fuel tax is a salient point for implementing MBUF for electric vehicles.
- A bill to adopt an MBUF vehicle mileage fee on electric vehicles in Oregon failed to get past the House Ways and Means Committee, but the bill was believed to have enough votes to pass the full State House of Representatives.
- The perspectives from the attempt to pass the Oregon MBUF vehicle mileage bill were the following:
- The political players who cared about transportation were already on the transportation committee.
- Rural constituencies have difficulty in changing their mode of transportation due to lack of travel mode options and longer driving distances.
- Some lawmakers were opposed to any new taxes or an increase in taxes.
- A task force that was composed of 14-key individuals was instrumental toward getting bipartisan support.
- The local AAA chapter had supported the bill on a principle of equity – electric vehicles do not pay a fuel tax to use a road.
- No intense objections were raised to the bill from any constituent or political group or lawmaker.
- Getting automakers to accept mileage-based charges for electric vehicles will be difficult because an additional burden would be placed on a technical system that has not been widely adopted.
[ Top ]
Dick MudgePrinciples of Mileage-Based User Fee Implementation
The focus for an implementation trial should:
- Be able to raise revenue;
- Improve the status quo;
- Be simple to understand;
- Incorporate real money from participants;
- Be scalable to bridge the gap between pilot and implementation;
- Be controlled for costs;
- And provide tangible benefits for participation in the study.
[ Top ]
Bruce SchallerPowerPoint Presentation: Voluntary Adoption Approach
The conversation with the public about financing a transportation system has to begin with a discussion on the value proposition for drivers, not led with a proposal for pricing. A good approach would be to talk about the issues that users directly experience. Pricing should illustrate the benefits of a new program, how credibly it will address the problem, and should only be used as a last resort.
How transportation professionals see the problem is different from how the public sees the problem.
- How transportation professional view the problem:
- Complex, aging infrastructure
- Current funding inadequate
- Infrastructure and traffic are key policy concerns
- Public needs to be educated
- How the public sees the problem:
- Government has all the money
- Don't trust the government to spend the money
- Taxes and fees are the last resort
- It's the economy (and gas prices), stupid
The New York City DOT has recently posted a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) regarding the DriveSmart Program. The program concept for the Drive Smart Program is to provide money-saving and time-saving benefits for drivers through in-vehicle and communications technologies. The DriveSmart program will be a multi-jurisdictional, public-private program that will seek to integrate different components from the transportation system into integrated tools for users.
[ Top ]