Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 47
47 Economic Efficiency Technical Feasibility Economic efficiency in transportation is intended to reflect Technical feasibility reflects how advancements, including whether the marginal cost to all travelers and society as a whole geographic information systems (GIS), global positioning sys- of an additional trip taken is captured in the price paid by the tems (GPS), and electronic transfer mechanisms, may reduce trip maker. The concept is most familiar in congestion pricing, the cost of administration and compliance in a broad array of sometimes referred to as "value pricing." The underlying issue areas, including taxation generally and transportation-related in this research project is to what degree potential additional taxation and revenue handling, specifically. These technologies revenue sources enhance this balance or economic efficiency. enable a more simple, straightforward, and accurate allocation of costs, but they can also pose difficulties for traditional methods of funding. Political and Popular Acceptability Political and popular acceptability is on the one hand a com- 4.5 Performance of Tax bination of all the other criteria and, on the other hand, a stand- and Fee Mechanisms alone factor in the decision process to employ new revenue schemes. Generally, a revenue source is acceptable when it is The extent to which alternative tax and fee mechanisms sat- politically palatable on the key, or most salient, criteria. This isfy the criteria described above will vary from one jurisdiction implies that the revenue source is adequate, fair, simple, effec- to another. Broad qualitative observations can be made, how- tive, efficient, and easy to administer. While meeting the most ever, about the degree to which each of the potential sources important criteria is a necessary step, it may not be sufficient to of local or regional funding satisfies the criteria. These general obtain political acceptability, i.e., garner sufficient popular or observations are presented in Table 4.3, in which H indicates legislative support to be implemented. The nature of the action strong performance, M indicates modest performance, L in- required to implement new sources is also a key factor in polit- dicates marginal performance, and V indicates variable per- ical and popular acceptability, e.g., pursuing legislative action formance. As before, both motor fuel taxes and "sin" taxes or passage of a binding public referenda at the state or local have been included in Table 4.3 because of the widespread use level is frequently more challenging politically than achieving of these taxes as state, regional, and/or local revenue sources, changes in regulatory, administrative, or budgetary practices. although not typically for public transportation.
OCR for page 48
48 Table 4.3. Performance of alternative local and regional public transportation funding sources. Political, Revenue Cost- Economic Popular Technical Source Yield Efficiency Equity Efficiency Acceptance Feasibility Adequacy, Administrative, Stability Compliance Cost Evasion Traditional Revenue Sources General Revenues H H L M M H Sales Taxes H H L M M H Property Taxes H H L M M H Contract/ L L L L H H Purchase-of- Service Revenue Lease Revenue L L L L H H Vehicle Fees H H M M L H Advertising L L L L H H Revenues Concession L L L L H H Revenues Common Business, Activity, and Related Sources Employer/ H H M H L H Payroll Taxes Car Rental Fees M H L M M H Vehicle Lease Fees M H L M M H Parking Fees M H L M L H Realty Transfer M H L L M H Taxes/Mortgage Recording Fees Corporate Franchise Taxes Oil H H M M M H Long lines M H L M M H taxes Room/ L M L L H H Occupancy Taxes Business License L M M M L M Fees Utility Taxes/Fees M H L L L H Income Taxes H H H L L H Donations L L L L H H Revenue Streams from Projects Joint Development L L L L H H Value Capture L L L L M H Beneficiary L L M L M H Charges Special Assessment L L M L M H Districts
OCR for page 49
49 Table 4.3. (Continued). Political, Revenue Cost- Economic Popular Technical Source Yield Efficiency Equity Efficiency Acceptance Feasibility Adequacy, Administrative, Stability Compliance Cost Evasion Community L L L L M H Facility Districts/TDDs Impact Fees M M M M M H Tax Increment M L L L M H Financing ROW Leases L H L L H H Airport Passenger M H L L M H Facility Charges "User" or "Market- Based" Sources Tolling V H L M L H Congestion Pricing V M L H L H Emission Fees V V L H L L VMT fees V V L H L M Financing Mechanisms GO Bonds Ha H L L H H PABs Ha H L L L H Tax Credit Bonds Ma H L L L H GANs Ha H L L M H GARVEEs Ha H L L M H RANs Ha H L L M H COPs Ma H L L M H SIB Loans Ha H L L M H Other, Less-Frequently Used Taxes and Fees Motor Fuel Taxes H H M M L H "Sin Taxes" M H L L M H (Cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling) Battery Taxes L L L L L M Road Utility Fees M M L L L M (Access charges) Airport Passenger M M L L M H Facility Charges Key: H Strong Performance M Modest Performance L Marginal Performance V Variable a Net revenues may be negative but projects are delivered more quickly.