I-66 Multimodal Study Final Report - Virginia Department of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Potential Funding Approacheslong-term sustainable revenue source for the Federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF). 2 Some of theideas that have been discussed include the consolidation of existing Federal-aid programs, theconsideration of performance measurements for funding distribution, a multimodal approachto transportation investment in place of the current “funding silos,” and potential of nationalfreight fees (e.g., container fees; customs revenues) that could support investment in infrastructureto improve freight mobility and connectivity.The next section discusses a set of criteria developed to rank the feasibility of various revenueoptions for funding the I-66 Multimodal Study recommendations.Evaluating Potential OptionsIt is important to have a clear understanding of the rational policy basis for each potentialfunding strategy. Ideally, there should be a clear relationship between the value received (orthe impacts created) and the amount paid.When considering potential revenue sources for transportation, there are common criteria thatmay be employed when evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of potential sources ofrevenues. These criteria may be used as a guide when determining the feasibility of thesesources for application in Virginia:• Yield – This criterion refers to the overall magnitude of revenues a funding source is capableof generating. Strategies are given a “high” rating if they are capable of producing largeamounts of revenue. In particular, fuel taxes have been the mainstay of transportation revenuesfor decades, receiving generally a “high” rating related to yield. Sources or strategiesare given a “low” rating if they are inherently short term or low yield. A revenue sourcelike an impact fee would have a “low” yield, given its narrow tax base and the fact that it isa onetime charge.• Predictability/Reliability – This criterion refers to how reliable or predictable is the yield ofa revenue source over time. A funding strategy with a “high” rating produces revenuesthat are predictably sustained over time, whereas a “low” rating refers to funding sourceswhose revenue generation potential over time is more uncertain. For example, motor fueltaxes may not be reliable over time because, if not indexed, their contribution degrades withboth inflation and lower consumption as vehicles become more fuel efficient. If they areindexed, the inflation impact is removed, and revenues are only impacted by lowerdemand.• Stability – This criterion refers to whether a revenue source is subject to uncertain revenuefluctuations that may impact an agency or project sponsor to manage resources. Most2 The Federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was created in 1956, and is funded through deposit of theFederal motor fuel taxes (18.4 cpg excise tax on gasoline and 24.4 cpg on diesel) and other vehicle userfees. It is the primary source of funding for the Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP) and FTAprograms.5-8 I-66 Multimodal Study
Potential Funding Approachesrevenue sources, in general, are impacted during economic slowdowns and recessionaryperiods, and they recover as the economic conditions improve.• Synergy with Growth and Demand – This criterion refers to the extent that a strategy providesclear pricing signals that encourage users and providers to minimize unproductivetravel and maximize economic growth. Therefore, strategies with “high” synergy are thosethat help to make the marginal prices of goods and services reflect their true costs. Strategieswith “low” synergy are those that distort the market by collecting fees that are unrelatedto the services they help fund.• Flexibility – Because the proposed I-66 corridor improvements will be multimodal, thefunding strategies under consideration should be flexible in that they can be applied to differenttypes of improvements and modes.Table 5.5 summarizes the scoring of the revenue options for the I-66 Multimodal Study recommendations.Revenue mechanisms with high yields and high stability/predictability are generallyappropriate for capital spending and could potentially be leveraged through bonding orused as a repayment source for other financing tools. Revenue sources with lower yields, highto medium predictability, and that can be collected annually may be used to support ongoingexpenses such as operations and maintenance. Revenue sources with sunset provisions (e.g.,five years for local income taxes) or one-time payments (e.g., impact fees) are not appropriatefor ongoing operating and maintenances expenses, but can provide funding for capitalimprovements. Note that financing tools are not being evaluated against these criteria, and thatthe key to implementation is to have a revenue source in place for repayment.As shown in Table 5.6, which defines the ratings for each criterion, revenue options are provideda rating of low, medium, or high. The ratings are intended to provide a qualitativeassessment of the revenue options to inform decision-makers about the pros and cons ofimplementation. The ratings are subjective, and not intended to support or dismiss any of therevenue options without further analysis.I-66 Multimodal Study 5-9
Page 2 and 3:
20120618
Page 4 and 5:
Table of ContentsTable of Contents(
Page 6 and 7:
List of TablesList of Tables(contin
Page 8 and 9:
List of TablesThis page intentional
Page 10 and 11:
List of FiguresList of Figures(cont
Page 12 and 13:
List of FiguresList of Figures(cont
Page 14 and 15:
AcknowledgementsThis page intention
Page 16 and 17:
Executive Summarymobility options a
Page 18 and 19:
Executive SummaryTable ES.1 Mobilit
Page 20 and 21:
Executive SummaryRecommendations fo
Page 22 and 23:
Executive SummaryThis page intentio
Page 24 and 25:
Introduction(HOV) policies, high-oc
Page 26 and 27:
Introduction1.3 Overview of Work Pr
Page 28 and 29:
IntroductionStudy WebpageThe I-66 M
Page 30 and 31:
IntroductionThis page intentionally
Page 32 and 33:
Mobility OptionsFigure 2.1Issues an
Page 34 and 35:
Mobility OptionsKeeps mobility opti
Page 36 and 37:
Mobility Optionsanticipated to have
Page 38 and 39:
Mobility OptionsTable 2.2 Mobility
Page 40 and 41:
Mobility OptionsFigure 2.2Abbreviat
Page 42 and 43:
Mobility OptionsFigure 2.3Cutline L
Page 44 and 45:
Mobility OptionsFigure 2.4Peak-Hour
Page 46 and 47:
Mobility OptionsTotal VMT in the st
Page 48 and 49:
Mobility OptionsThere is some shift
Page 50 and 51:
Mobility OptionsThe percentage of t
Page 52 and 53:
Mobility OptionsMode share shows no
Page 54 and 55:
Mobility OptionsFigure 2.15 Morning
Page 56 and 57:
Mobility OptionsKey FindingsThis op
Page 58 and 59:
Mobility OptionsFigure 2.17 Interli
Page 60 and 61:
Mobility Options2. Orange Line Bypa
Page 62 and 63:
Mobility OptionsAs travelers make u
Page 64 and 65:
Mobility OptionsTable 2.3 Mobility
Page 66 and 67:
Mobility OptionsThis page intention
Page 68 and 69:
Multimodal PackagesReducing the pro
Page 70 and 71:
Multimodal PackagesTable 3.2 Recomm
Page 72 and 73:
Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.1Travel
Page 74 and 75:
Multimodal PackagesTransit Accessib
Page 76 and 77:
Multimodal PackagesTransportation R
Page 78 and 79:
Multimodal PackagesTable 3.4 CLRP a
Page 80 and 81:
Multimodal PackagesMeasures of Effe
Page 82 and 83:
Multimodal PackagesLevel of Service
Page 84 and 85:
Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.6 CLRP+
Page 86 and 87:
Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.8 CLRP+
Page 88 and 89:
Multimodal Packages3.4 Package 1 -
Page 90 and 91:
Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.12 Pack
Page 92 and 93:
Multimodal PackagesTable 3.5 Packag
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Multimodal PackagesThe tolls would
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Multimodal PackagesCost EstimatesPa
Page 108 and 109:
Multimodal PackagesThis package sho
Page 110 and 111:
Multimodal PackagesLevel of Service
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Multimodal Packagesminute limit was
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Multimodal PackagesTable 3.12Packag
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Multimodal PackagesMultimodal Trave
Page 128 and 129:
Multimodal Packagesemerging focus a
Page 130 and 131:
Multimodal PackagesDynamic Merge (J
Page 132 and 133:
Multimodal PackagesImproved network
Page 134 and 135:
Multimodal PackagesMarketing and Ou
Page 136 and 137:
Multimodal Packagesround trip usage
Page 138 and 139:
Multimodal PackagesTable 3.16 Annua
Page 140 and 141:
Multimodal PackagesTable 3.19 TDM 2
Page 142 and 143:
Multimodal PackagesTable 3.20 Map K
Page 144 and 145:
Multimodal PackagesTable 3.20 Map K
Page 146 and 147:
Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.43 Bicy
Page 148 and 149:
Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.44 2040
Page 150 and 151: Multimodal PackagesPrioritization o
Page 152 and 153: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.21 2040
Page 154 and 155: Multimodal PackagesCost EstimatesPl
Page 156 and 157: Multimodal PackagesProject lengths
Page 158 and 159: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.24Priori
Page 160 and 161: Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.46 Map
Page 162 and 163: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.25 Bicyc
Page 164 and 165: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.26Measur
Page 166 and 167: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.26Measur
Page 168 and 169: Multimodal Packagessensitivity test
Page 170 and 171: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.27 Sensi
Page 172 and 173: Recommendationswill be prudent to p
Page 174 and 175: Recommendationscapacity expansion w
Page 176 and 177: Recommendations(ROW) acquisition, w
Page 178 and 179: Recommendationsachieve the objectiv
Page 180 and 181: Recommendationsto improve mobility
Page 182 and 183: RecommendationsTable 4.1 Multimodal
Page 188 and 189: RecommendationsFigure 4.1 Map of Bi
Page 190 and 191: RecommendationsTable 4.3 Bicycle Pr
Page 192 and 193: Recommendationsand TDM. ICM brings
Page 194 and 195: Potential Funding ApproachesFigure
Page 196 and 197: Potential Funding ApproachesTable 5
Page 204: Potential Funding ApproachesThis pa
show all

I-66 Multimodal Study Final Report - Virginia Department of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?