1. The Challenge of Financing Oregon’s Highways
Portland State University
EMPA Capstone Presentation
Lynn Averbeck
2011 Cohort
June 15, 2013

2. Highway Trust Fund Projection

3. Doing Nothing is Mission Failure

4. 12 Years of ODOT Policy Work

5. 24 Alternatives Explored by ODOT
Battery tax Bicycle fees
Drive-through service fee Electricity generated by vehicle tax
Emissions fee Indexing fuel tax for inflation
New vehicle tax Parking fees
Property taxes Registration fees
Rental car tax Road utility fees
Safety violation fee System development charges
Tire tax Title fees
Transportation impact fee Use-fuel taxes increase
Vehicle impact fee Vehicle ownership tax
Weight-mile truck tax increase
Indexing fuel tax for fuel-efficiency improvements
Temporary visitor access fee General Fund

6. June 13, 2013 Oregonian

7. HB 2453 RUC System Features
55+ MPG vehicles purchased after July 1, 2015
5,000 vehicle voluntary program
A non-GPS option is mandated
Provide 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

8. Some of the Risks Projected revenues not met
Private market doesn’t see ROI
Legalities of data commodity and privacy
Technology not quite ready for electric vehicles
Public rejection
Auto dealers reject participation

9. 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

10. 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

11. Literature Review Other States Multi-State International
Electric vehicles, smart grid, connected vehicles
Public Awareness and Perception
Oregon’s Choice: Road Usage Charging (RUC)

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 8 Recommendations for Moving Forward
Develop a complete phasing plan
Organizational framework
Long term public education plan
Internal training for ODOT employees
Transparent and frequent reporting
Performance criteria “report cards”
Budget support for assistance to other states
Local jurisdiction outreach

15. 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”)

16. Kingdon’s Streams Policy Model