New Search
11 1 1 1 <br /> ~ ~ 11 1 ~ I ~ 1 <br /> report should provide a good <br /> understanding of the revenue needs <br /> for maintenance, preservation and <br /> modernization by jurisdiction. <br /> 3. A conceptual framework for a rate <br /> design. This framework would <br /> show how to pay for transportation <br /> services in the future. This rate <br /> design would broadly address <br /> two questions: 1) What should be <br /> the weighting of responsibility for <br /> raising funds between local and <br /> state jurisdictions? 2) How should <br /> revenue be collected, looking at a <br /> combination of fixed and variable <br /> charges, as well as peak and off- <br /> eak ricin ? <br /> p p 9 <br /> 4. A framework for least cost planning. <br /> 5. Alternative rates for immediate <br /> adoption. Drawing on the research <br /> on rate design, the Commission <br /> would be responsible for adopting <br /> alternative rates (including <br /> congestion pricing pilots) for <br /> consumers to choose as an option to <br /> the gasoline tax. <br /> Future work would include analyses of i <br /> opportunities to merge responsibilities <br /> among city, county and state roads to <br /> improve the effectiveness of delivery. <br /> <br /> The Commission would report to the <br /> legislature a plan and budget for how it <br /> would assume greater responsibility for <br /> setting rates for transportation services <br /> that meet the state's objectives for <br /> efficiency, safety, reliability and envi- <br /> ronmentally responsible transportation <br /> services. As Oregon moves away from <br /> the gas tax to a system of sophisticated <br /> mileage fees, the Commission will es- <br /> tablish the appropriate level for funding <br /> and set the rates. <br /> Oregon ranks 38th <br /> in title fees <br /> (2007) <br /> 5 <br /> <br />