|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. other finance practices. Finally, Chapter 7 presents the committee’s conclusions and recommendations. REFERENCESAbbreviationsCRC Citizens Research Council of Michigan CTI Commission on Transportation Investment (California) TRB Transportation Research Board AAA Mid-Atlantic. 2005. Maryland’s Transportation Network. CRC. 1996. Michigan Highway Finance and Governance: In Brief. Nov. CRC. 1997. Michigan Highway Finance and Governance. May. CRC. 1998. Michigan Highway Finance and Governance: A One-Year Report Card. CTI. 1996. Final Report. Jan. Forkenbrock, D.J., and J.G. Kuhl. 2002. A New Approach to Assessing Road User Charges. Public Policy Center, University of Iowa. Orski, C.K. 2004. Two Senior Federal Transportation Officials Share Their Views on the Future Federal Role in Transportation Financing. Innovation Briefs, Vol. 15, No. 5, July–Aug. Reno, A.T., and J.R. Stowers. 1995. NCHRP Report 377: Alternatives to Motor Fuel Taxes for FinancingSurface Transportation Improvements. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Road User Fee Task Force. 2003. Report to the 72nd Oregon Legislative Assembly on the PossibleAlternatives to the Current System of Taxing Highway Use Through Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes. March. TRB. 1996. Special Report 246: Paying Our Way: Estimating Marginal Social Costs of FreightTransportation. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
|
|
|||||||||||||||
