A Core Computer Services, Ltd. Company

1

• A Core Computer Services, Ltd. Company
• Efficient Vehicle Assessor
• EVA
  

2
Efficient Vehicle Assessor (EVA)(Patent pending)

• EVA is a point-of-sale (POS) software/scanning
  system to assess individual vehicles
• variable fuel excise tax based on
  variables/criteria specified by the federal
  and/or state.
• EVA surpasses the vehicle mileage tax (VMT) as
  best option, using same criteria used by
• National Surface Transportation Infrastructure
  Finance Commission (see Section 1, page
• 64 of report http//financecommission.dot.gov/Do
  cuments/NSTIF_Commission_Final_Report_Advance20Co
  py_Feb09.pdf)

3
Efficient Vehicle Assessor EVA

• EVA is a system installed at the pump to capture
  individual vehicle information to assess a tax on
  individual vehicles.
• Instead of (or in addition to) mileage, EVA can
  base gas tax on vehicle type, or other variables.
  For example
• Vehicle make and model
• Manufacturer
• Model
• Type of vehicle (motorcycle, truck, gasoline,
  diesel, hybrid, etc.)
• Vehicle performance data
• Location where vehicle was manufactured.
• Type of registration (commercial vehicle,
  passenger vehicle, motor cycle)

4
EVA Advantages over Mileage tax (VMT)

• EVA provides many more options for using
  variables in addition to or instead of mileage
• Vehicle Make/model, which will promote transition
  to more efficient vehicles. Mileage alone does
  not.
• Individual vehicle performance data (MPG since
  last refueling, etc.), not available with VMT.
• Geographic variables (rural, urban, etc.) as
  opposed to mileage-only calculations.
• Mileage-only variable may not be equitable to
  rural drivers, drivers with long commutes, etc.
  EVA can accommodate this.
• Ability to use vehicle weight (SUV versus compact
  versus motorcycle).
• Capturing mileage data is more complicated to
  start. EVA starts with VIN Decal data, much
  easier to capture than mileage. All vehicle
  variables (other than mileage and performance)
  can be captured via a simple windshield VIN-type
  decal. Mileage requires digital odometer
  readings, a more complicated data capture task.

5
EVA Promotes Fuel Efficiency

• EVA promotes more efficient driving behavior,
  creates daily incentive to drive fuel-efficient
  vehicles.
• The mileage tax does not promote fuel efficiency.
  (For example, the Hummer pays the same tax per
  gallon as the Escort.)

6
Better Research

• EVA data will provide researchers and public a
  huge amount of aggregate (not individual)
  transportation data for research. Some examples
  of EVA reports on revenue and fuel use (by
  innumerable data sets)
• Aggregate gallons/revenue per vehicle model or
  vehicle class, weight, etc.
• Revenues based on any variable
• Year-to-year changes in revenues received by all
  variables
• Geographic analysis (urban versus rural usage or
  year-to-year changes within region(s)
• Fuel Usage Trend forecasts based on past data.
• Ability, over time, to replace Estimated MPG
  data on new vehicles with actual MPG data based
  on real-world aggregate data

7
EVA matches or exceeds VMT(Compared to mileage
tax strengths as identified by NSTIF Commission)

• VMT Strengths/EVA Comparison (1)
• VMT can be implemented at national level and
  could raise significant revenue streams. EVA is
  identical.
• VMT revenue stream highly sustainable as it would
  not be influenced by efficiency. EVA mileage
  criteria is identical.
• VMT revenues appropriate for dedication to
  surface transportation but can be used flexibly
  to meet investment needs. EVA is identical.
• VMT opportunity to set prices to cover full costs
  of using system, leading to more efficient use of
  system. EVA is identical.
• VMT alignment of user benefits with payments by
  users of the road network are paying the mileage
  charge. EVA is superior in that variables other
  than mileage more closely target actual use (for
  example, vehicle make and model allow SUVs to
  pay a higher per mileage rate than a compact
  car).
• (1)VMT strengths quoted from Commission Report.
  EVA comments added by CCG.

8
Evaluation CriteriaConsistent and Objective
consideration of alternative revenue mechanisms

• 1. Funding Stream Considerations, including
  the overall revenue-raising potential,
• sustainability, and flexibility of the funding
  approach Revenue potential, sustainability,
  flexibility, justification for dedicating revenue
  to surface transportation.
• 2. Implementation and Administration
  Considerations, including the political and
• legal viability of a particular approach as well
  as the ease and relative cost of initial
• implementation, ongoing administration, and
  enforcement Public acceptance/political
  viability, appropriateness for federal use,
  ease/cost of administration and compliance.
• 3. Economic Efficiency and Impact
  Considerations, such as the ability of the
  mechanism
• to promote efficient use of the system and
  internalize any adverse side effects Promotion
  of efficient fuel use and production, adverse
  side effects and ability to facilitate
  appropriate mitigating charges for the effect
• 4. Equity Considerations, including application
  of the user/beneficiary pays principle
• and consideration of equity across income groups
  and geography Charge those who use/benefit from
  the funded investment, and equity across income
  groups.
• 5. Applicability to Other Levels of Government,
  focusing on the potential applicability
• of various funding approaches beyond the federal
  level to state and local government

9
NSTIFC Principles

• Guiding Principles for evaluating from the Final
  Report to Congress and the Department
• of Transportation
• The funding and finance framework must support
  the overall goal of enhancing mobility of all
  users of the transportation system.
• The funding and finance framework must generate
  sufficient funding to meet national investment
  needs on a sustainable basis,
• The funding and finance framework should cause
  users and direct beneficiaries to bear the full
  cost of using the transportation system to the
  greatest extent possible
• The funding and finance framework should
  encourage efficient investment in the
  transportation system recognizing inherent
  differencesbetween and within individual states
• The funding and finance framework should
  incorporate equity considerationsfor example,
  generational equity, equity across income groups,
  and geographic equity
• The funding and finance framework should support
  the broad public policy objectives of energy
  independence and environmental protection.

10
Alternative Financing Options Evaluated

• Motor Fuel Tax (current system)
• Truck and Trailer Sales Tax
• Heavy Vehicle User Tax
• Indexing Existing Sources (tire, fuel and heavy
  vehicle use taxes), index to inflation
• Vehicle-related Sources (not current federal
  sources) Vehicle sales tax, inspection fees,
  violation surcharges, property tax, registration
  fees.
• Production/distribution fuel taxes (carbon
  tax/cap and trade, import tariff, federal sales
  tax, dedicated income tax.
• Freight taxes
• Targeted tolling
• Cordon Pricing (travelling between designated or
  cordoned areas)
• Vehicle Mileage Tax (VMT) Universal flat charge
  per mile of travel.
• All options scored lower than VMT (mileage) and
• EVA exceeds VMT.

11
Conclusion and Recommendation National Surface
Transportation Infrastructure Commission

• The Commission recommends that the nation
  transition by 2020 to a Vehicle Mileage Tax (VMT)
  and
• that it will strengthen state local governments
  ability to better assess charges based
• on different variables (time of day, location,
  etc.) that better capture the actual costs.
• Efficient Vehicle Assessor (EVA) is a better
  choice than Vehicle Mileage Tax (VMT).
• More doable, more equitable for all drivers,
  better for promoting fuel efficiency.

12
Efficient Vehicle Assessor(patent pending)For
more information email kcondon_at_corecomputergroup.c
omor call 617.884.6255 ext. 103