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.
