FROM USA TODAY

Drivers test paying by mile instead of gas tax

Beginning early next year, drivers in six states will begin testing a new way to pay for roads and transit: Commuters will be charged for the miles they drive rather than paying taxes on gasoline purchased.

Researchers from the University of Iowa Public Policy Center will install computers and satellite equipment in the vehicles of 2,700 volunteers - 450 each from Austin, Baltimore, Boise, San Diego, eastern Iowa and the Research Triangle region of North Carolina.

Over the next two years, the drivers will get sample monthly bills for the number of miles they've driven. They can compare what they now pay in gasoline taxes with what they would have paid in per-mile fees.

"We want to assess the public's attitudes and acceptance toward a system like this," says Jon Kuhl, principal investigator on the $16.5 million Road User Charge Study and chairman of the University of Iowa Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.

The nation is reassessing the way it pays for roads and transit. Since 1956, the Highway Trust Fund, financed by the federal tax on gasoline, has been a primary source of money for highway projects. But the National Governors Association and other groups and planners involved in road building have concluded that this method, supplemented by state gasoline taxes, no longer is adequate.

Americans are driving cars that get better mileage, and more are driving vehicles that use fuels taxed at lower rates than gasoline, such as ethanol, or making their own fuel and not being taxed. That means gas tax revenue isn't growing nearly as fast as the number of miles driven.

In addition, the costs of road construction materials have skyrocketed because of heavy demand from India and China. Congress and many state legislatures are reluctant to increase gas taxes, especially at a time of high prices at the pump. The federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon has not been increased since 1993; 24 states have not raised their gas taxes since 1997, according to the American Road & Transportation Builders Association.

That has made a mileage fee more attractive to some agencies. The University of Iowa study is funded by the Federal Highway Administration and 15 state departments of transportation.

Elsewhere:

·Oregon this year finished a year-long experiment that tested a "virtual tollway" system that could eventually replace the state gas tax with a road-user fee. Volunteers drove vehicles equipped with state-installed Global Positioning System (GPS) devices and odometers that kept track of the miles they drove. When they gassed up, the drivers paid for their gas as well as 1.2 cents for each mile driven since their last fill-up; they did not pay the 24-cents-a-gallon state gas tax.

·Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty says part of his state's plan for dealing with declining gas tax revenues is a mileage tax or fee. He wants a test project this year.

·Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter appointed a 32-member commission in March to explore long-term options, including mileage fees.

Some transportation experts believe that mileage fees will replace the gas tax within the next 15-20 years. "At some point, in some metro areas, market-based pricing using the latest technology will supplant the fuel tax revenues," says Joseph Giglio, a professor at NortheasternUniversity who has written extensively on transportation financing.

Privacy advocates worry about the use of satellite navigation technology to track drivers' movements. "Where you go is something that, for the most part, people consider private," says Lee Tien, an attorney who specializes in privacy issues for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The second point is, it's the sort of thing we do to the bad guys. Where do you hear a lot about GPS tracking? It's for prisoners or people who are out on probation."

James Whitty, who headed the Oregon experiment, says some of the 260 volunteers initially had privacy concerns, but those worries faded. He says that 91% of those surveyed said they would pay a mileage fee if the program were expanded statewide.

Leroy Younglove, a participant in the Oregon study, says he had no privacy concerns and that the mileage fee is fairer than the gas tax. "I thought it was an interesting alternative to the method we have now and one that might have ways of obtaining tax revenues as different types of fuel options become available," says Younglove, 63, who manages real estate.

"It's not a question of if this is viable," says Iowa's Kuhl. "It's a question of when it becomes politically and socially viable to make such a large-scale shift."

Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements

Considering Comfort and Convenience In Transport Project Evaluation

 

Found on the Web at:  http://www.vtpi.org/traveltime.pdf

 

Conclusions:

 

There are many possible ways to improve transit service quality, including reduced

crowding, increased service frequency, nicer waiting areas and better user information. Because discretionary passengers (people who have the option of driving) tend to be particularly sensitive to service quality, these strategies often increase transit ridership and reduce automobile traffic. Although few motorists want to give up driving altogether, many are willing to drive less and rely more on alternative modes, provided that those alternatives are comfortable, convenient and reliable. Improving transit service quality can therefore provide many benefits, as described in the box below.

 

Transit Service Quality Improvement Benefits 

                        1. Benefits existing transit passengers (who would use transit even without the improvements).

                        2. Benefits new transit passengers (who would only use transit if service is improved).

                        4. Benefits from economies of scale (increased ridership can create a positive feedback cycle of improved service, increased public support, more transit-oriented land use, and further ridership increases).

            5. Benefits transit agencies by increasing fare revenue.

 

Current transport evaluation methods tend to focus on quantitative factors such as speed and price, and undervalue qualitative factors such as comfort, convenience and reliability. This skews planning and investment decisions in the following ways:

            · Cost-effective transit improvement strategies are overlooked and undervalued, resulting in underinvestment in transit service quality improvements, making transit less attractive relative to automobile travel.

            · Automobile improvements are favored over transit improvements, contributing to a cycle of increased automobile dependency, reduced transit ridership and revenue, land use sprawl, stigmatization of transit, and reduced public support for transit improvements.

            · Opportunities for modal integration are overlooked, since many transit quality improvements involve improving walking and cycling conditions, or improving connections with other modes.

 

Techniques described in this report allow service quality to be incorporated into transport planning by adjusting travel time values to reflect factors such as comfort, convenience and reliability. This means, for example, that a quality improvement that reduces travel time unit costs (cents per minute or dollars per hour) by 20% provides benefits equivalent to an operational improvement that reduces travel time (minutes or hours) by 20%. The values recommended in this report are based on extensive research from various sources. They can be used as defaults, although they should be calibrated for specific conditions.

This analysis indicates that high quality transit service unit time costs are lower than driving. In other words, if service is comfortable and convenient, many people will choose transit rather than driving for some trips, even if it takes somewhat more time, since transit travel is less stressful and passengers can rest or work while traveling. However, transit is often uncomfortable, inconvenient and unreliable, resulting in unit travel time costs higher than driving, which dissuades people from using transit.

In a modern, affluent society consumers are accustomed to high quality goods and services. Most travelers place a high value on comfort, convenience and reliability. Motorists are able to express these values by paying extra for more luxurious vehicles, more convenient parking, and sometimes higher quality toll roads. In contrast, individual transit passengers are generally unable to purchase higher quality service. In theory it is possible to offer various classes of public transit service, ranging from inexpensive, basic service to premium priced, luxury service, as is common for some other modes such as air and rail, but in practice there is seldom sufficient demand or political willingness. Since transit service is subsidized and funds limited, and public officials may be criticized if their expenditures appear wasteful, transit agencies tend to provide basic service with minimal amenities. As a result, transit does not satisfy travelers who willing to pay extra for higher service quality - they must shift to driving. Failing to satisfy such demand is a market distortion which reduces economic efficiency and consumer welfare. Ultimately everybody loses, since consumer demand is unmet, transit ridership declines, transit becomes stigmatized, and traffic problems increase.

This is actually good news because it indicates that there are many cost-effective ways to improve transit service quality and increase ridership that tended to be overlooked. Many transit comfort and convenience improvements are relatively inexpensive and provide additional benefits such as improved walking conditions, improving mobility for non-drivers, and support for more compact, smart growth development.

With better evaluation techniques planners can identify policies and programs that more effectively respond to consumer needs and preferences, including transit service improvements.

 

 

FULL REPORT CAN BE  Found on the Web at:  http://www.vtpi.org/traveltime.pdf