Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms for Public Transportation (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

64 1. American Public Transportation Association, Letter to IRS re: tax- ation of lease revenues, August 11, 2006. 2. American Public Transportation Association, Passenger Transport, Vol. 64, No. 46, November 13, 2006, Vol. 64, No. 46, November 20, 2006, Vol. 64, No. 50, December 18, 2006, Vol. 65, No. 1, January 1, 2007, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC. 3. American Public Transportation Association, A Survey of Local Mechanisms for Financing Transit Operating Costs, August 1979, June 1982. 4. Antos, Justin, Financial Devolution in Transport: How Others Do It, and Does It Work? Case Studies from Western Europe and North America, Paper prepared for Transport for London by the Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology 2006. 5. Antos, Justin, Subsidy Structures of Transit Agencies in North America, Paper prepared for the Chicago Transit Authority and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August 2006. 6. Bellon, Philippe. Compétivité et Financement du Transport Collectif au Canada, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Urban and Periurban Transport, Paris, 9–10 September 2004. 7. Berger, Louis. Review of French Experience with Respect to Public Sector Financing of Urban Transport, Draft Final Report, World Bank Urban Transport Strategy Review, July 2000. 8. Berry, Jim and Lee Sims, “North American Examples of Innovative Funding For Public Transport,” Proceedings, UITP Seminar on Urban Public Transport Funding, Paris, October 1999. 9. Brown, Jeffery, “Paying for Transit in an Era of Federal Policy Change,” Journal of Public Transportation, Volume 8, Number 3, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 2005. 10. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Future Financing Options to Meet Highway and Transit Needs, NCHRP Project 20-24(49), Interim Report, May 2006. 11. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Funding and Finance: Advancing from Good to Great Practice in State DOTs, Briefing Paper, NCHRP Project 20-24(51) CEO Leadership Forum, Minneapolis, Minnesota, September 2006. 12. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., New Ways to Implement New Trans- portation Revenue Sources, for the Washington Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, 2002. 13. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Scan of Innovative Finance Tech- niques for Pennsylvania, Final Report to PennDOT, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, January 2006. 14. Canadian Urban Transit Association, Provincial and Territorial Funding of Urban Transit in Canada, March 2005. 15. Canzi, Michael, Innovations in Transit Funding, Canadian Urban Transit Association, STRP Report 20, November 2003. 16. Cappe, Marni, Congestion Charging Helps London Get a Move On, Plan, spring 2004. 17. Cappe, Marni, Congestion Charging: A Look at London, England, Prepared for Infrastructure Canada, September 2003. 18. Cappaert, Sylvie, “The Finance Dilemma,” Public Transport Inter- national, No. 2, 2005. 19. Cascetta, Ennio, Who Should Pay for Public Transport? Pro- ceedings, 2nd UITP International Conference on Public Transport Financing—The Finance Dilemma: Growing Requirements versus Declining Funds, Barcelona, Spain, 2005. 20. Center for Transportation Excellence, Transportation Finance at the Ballot Box: Voter’s Support Increased Investment and Choice, at www.cfte.org. 21. Central Broward East-West Transit Analysis Feasibility Report, Appendix A: Summary of National Experience in Funding Transit Capital and Operations, 2004. 22. Cervero, Robert, et al., TCRP Research Results Digest Number 52: Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: a Literature Review, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, October 2002. 23. Cervero, Robert et al., TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Develop- ment in the United States: Experiences, Challenges and Prospects, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2004. 24. Chaigneau, Elisabeth, SYSTRA, Urban Public Transport in France: Institutional Organization, CERTU, Ministère de l’Equipement, des Transports, du Logement, du Tourisme et de la Mer, Paris, France, January 2003. 25. Chong, Gordon, Financing Public Transit in Canada: Ontario Perspective, Presentation, Proceedings, Canadian Urban Transit Association, Fall Conference, Montreal, Canada, November 2004. 26. Citizens Budget Commission of New York, How to Balance the MTA’s Budget: A Report of the Citizens Budget Commission, New York, NY, June 27, 2006. 27. City of Lynwood, CA, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lynnwood Adding a New Section 11-19 to Chapter 11 of the Lynnwood Municipal Code for the Purpose of Establishing a Develop- ment Impact Fee Program at www.lynwood.ca.us/documents/pdf/ legislation/if_res_draft_041106.pdf. A P P E N D I X E Selected Bibliography

65 28. City of Seattle, Transit Oriented Development Case Studies at www. ci.seattle.wa.us/transportation/SAP/TOD_Case_Studies/summary. pdf. 29. Corbett, Sam, Goldman, Todd, and Wachs, Martin, Local Option Transportation Taxes in the United States, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, March 2001 and http://repositories.cdlib.org/its/reports/UCB-ITS- RR-2001-3/. 30. Crabbe, Amber et al., Local Transportation Sales Taxes: California’s Experiment in Transportation Finance, University of California Transportation Center Research Paper No. 552, 2002. 31. Crabbe, Amber et al., Local Transportation Sales Taxes: California’s Experiment in Transportation Finance—Detailed Research Findings, University of California Transportation Center Research Paper No. 737, February 2005. 32. Delcan, Study of Alternative Revenue Sources for Ontario Transit Systems, Ontario Urban Transit Association, September 1994. 33. Development Planning and Financing Group, Inc., Comparison of Improvement Districts and Community Facility Districts, November 2, 2004 at www.dpfg.com/news/view_news.php?newsID=25. 34. Dowell, David E., California’s Infrastructure Policy for the 21st Century: Issues and Opportunities, Public Policy Institute of Califor- nia, San Francisco, CA, 2000. 35. Doherty, Matthew, Funding Public Transport Development through Land Value Capture Programs, Eco Transit at http://www.ecotransit. or.au, 2004. 36. Federal Transit Administration, Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning: Chapter 8, Financial Planning for Transit, Section 8.5, Forecasting Revenue, Washington, DC at www.fta.dot. gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_2425.html. 37. “FasTrak Value Pricing Fact Sheet,” San Diego Association of Governments at http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/ publicationid_831_4185.pdf. 38. Furzer, Catherine, “Congestion Charging,” Public Transport Inter- national, No. 5, 2006. 39. Gerau, Jurgen, Apports du Financement Privé dans des Structures de PPP—Exigences et Experiences, Presentation, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Urban and Periurban Transport, Paris, 9–10 September 2004. 40. Gwilliam, Ken, Financing Public Transport, Proceedings, UITP Seminar on Urban Public Transport Funding, Paris, October 1999. 41. Goldman, T. Corbett, S. Wachs, M., Local Option Transportation Taxes in the United States, Part One: Issues and Trends, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2001. 42. Goldman, T. Corbett, S. Wachs, M., Local Option Transportation Taxes in the United States, Part Two: State-by-State Findings, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2001. 43. Goldman, T., Wachs, M., “A Quiet Revolution in Transportation Finance: The Rise of Local Option Transportation Taxes,” Trans- portation Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 1, Winter 2003, pp. 19–32, Eno Foundation, Inc. Washington, DC 44. Hager, Wolfgang, Financial Innovation in Rail-Based Mass Transit, Report Prepared for A UITP/Unife Working Group with the Support of the European Commission Dg III. Main Report and Case Studies, UITP—UNIFE, 1999. 45. Hamideh, A., Oh, J. E., Labi, S., Mannering, F., An Econometric Analysis of Post-Election Opinion Surveys: Understanding Public Acceptance of Local Transportation Sales Taxes, Presentation to the Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting, Purdue University, Lafayette, ID, January 2006. 46. Hanak, E., Rueben, K., Funding Innovations for California Infrastructure: Promises and Pitfalls, Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Research Paper 06-01, March 2006. 47. Henkin, Tamar, Financing Capital Investment: What are the Options and, as Transit Agency Managers, How Do You Decide What’s Right for You? Presentation to the 3rd National Transportation Finance Conference, Chicago, Illinois, October 27, 2002. 48. Hess, D. B. and Lombardi, P. A., “Government Subsidies for Public Transit: History, Current Issues and Recent Evidence,” Public Works Management and Policy, Vol. 10, October 1, 2005, American Society for Public Administration, Sage Publications, Inc., Washington, DC 49. Higginson, Martin, UITP Position Statement: Public Transport Finance, UITP, September 2002. 50. Hikichi, Lynda, Beimborn, E., Innovation at Transit Systems: Survey Results Draft Report, Center for Urban Transportation Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, August 2004. 51. HOT Lane Concept and Rationale, Federal Highway Administration at http://www.its.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/13668_files/chapter_1. htm. 52. ICF Consulting and Institute of Transportation Studies, Berkeley, Metropolitan-Level Transportation Funding Sources, for AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning, Washington, DC, December 2005. 53. Infrastructure Canada, Infrastructure Financing: A Literature Review of Financing Mechanisms, Ottawa, Ontario, CA, January 2004. 54. International Association of Public Transport (UITP), Survey on Public Transport Organization and Financing; Synthesis of Answers to Questionnaires, Prepared by Mohamed Mezghani, Director Programmes and Studies, UITP, Brussels, October 2002. 55. KFH Group, Inc., Chittenden County Transit Funding Report, Washington, DC, December 18, 2002. 56. KFH Group, Inc., “Employee Compensation Guidelines for Transit Providers in Rural and Small Urban Areas,” TCRP Project F-12 survey results, Washington, DC, 2007. 57. Knight, Paul, Unconventional Charging and Taxation to Support Public Transport and Taxation Disincentives in Commuter Tran- sport, Proceedings of the International Congress of the International Association of Public Transport (UITP), London, U.K., 2001. 58. Kyte, Cheryl, Selected Options for Innovative Transit Financing, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Richmond, VA, 1997. 59. McCormick Rankin Corporation, How Should the User Pay? Opportunities for Financing the Region of Ottawa-Carleton Trans- portation System, Prepared for the Region of Ottawa-Carleton December 1998. 60. McWilliams, Douglas, The Macroeconomic Framework, Proceedings, UITP Seminar on Urban Public Transport Funding, Paris, FR, October 1999. 61. Meads, Richard, Use of Private Finance in London and the Prospects for Using Parking and Congestion Charging to Fund Public Transport Investment, Proceedings, UITP Seminar on Urban Public Transport Funding, Paris, FR, October 1999. 62. Mineta Transportation Institute, San José State University, Lessons Learned: A Conference on Transit Referenda and Why They Succeed or Fail, June 29–July 31, 2001. San Jose, California. 63. Mullen, Clancy, Road Impact Fee Study, Lee County, FL, Duncan Associates, Austin, TX, October 2006.

64. Multisystems, Inc. et al., TCRP Research Results Digest 14: Coordi- nated Intermodal Transportation Pricing and Funding Strategies, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, October 1997. 65. National Conference of State Legislatures, Surface Transportation Funding: Options for States, Washington, DC, May 2006. 66. Nicholas, James, et al., Impact Fees in Florida: Their Evolution, Methodology, Current Issues and Comparisons with Other States, White Paper prepared for the Florida City and County Managers Association, October 2005. 67. Northern Virginia Transit Funding Resource Guide, October 2001. 68. Oh, J. E., Labi, S., Sinha, K. C., Implementation and Evaluation of Self-Financing Highway Pricing Schemes: A Case Study, Paper Prepared for the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2007, No. 07-2258, Washington, DC, January 2007. 69. Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Municipal Office, Municipal Transit Funding; Jurisdictional Review, Ontario MTO, June 1999. 70. Oregon Department of Revenue, Transit District Self-Employment Taxes, www.oregon.gov/DOR/BUS/IC-102-406.shtml. 71. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Innovative Finance In-Depth: Local Revenue- Enhancing Options, PennDOT Work Order 13, August 2006. 72. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., Enhanced Scan of Innovative Finance Techniques for Public Transportation in Penn- sylvania, Work Order No. 16, Draft Report to PennDOT, Harris- burg, Pennsylvania, August 31, 2006. 73. Pennsylvania Transportation Funding and Reform Commission, Investing in Our Future: Addressing Pennsylvania’s Transportation Funding Crisis, Initial Findings, Harrisburg, PA, August 2006. 74. Philip, Christian et Nicolas Gauthier, Le Financement des Déplace- ments Urbains, Ministère de l’Equipement, des Transports, du Logement, du Tourisme et de la Mer, France. Décembre 2003. 75. Philip, Christian, Quelles Nouvelles Sources de Financement pour les Déplacements Urbains? Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Urban and Periurban Transport, Paris, FR, 9–10 September 2004. 76. TCRP Project B-33, “Practical Measures to Increase Transit Industry Advertising Revenues,” Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, http://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=11725. 77. Price Waterhouse LLP with Multisystems, Inc. and Mundle and Associates, Inc., TCRP Report 31: Funding Strategies for Public Transportation, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1998. 78. Public Policy Center, Project Overview: National Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, November 1, 2007, ppc.uiowa.edu/dnn4/Default.aspx?tabid=65. 79. Public Technology, Inc., Show Me the Money: A Decision-Maker’s Funding Compendium for Transportation Systems Management and Operations, Washington, DC, December 2005. 80. Puentes, Robert and Prince, Ryan, Fueling Transportation Finance: A Primer on the Gas Tax, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Transportation Reform Series, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, March 2003. 81. Puentes, Robert and Warren, David, Today’s Roads and Tomorrow’s Dollars: Using GARVEE Bonds to Finance Transportation Projects, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, March 2005. 82. Retirement Living Information Center, Taxes by State, www. retirementliving.com/RLtaxaes.html. 83. A Review of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Financial Outlook and Options for Closing the Gaps, City of New York, Independent Budget Office, New York, New York, June 1, 2007. 84. Rybeck, Rick, “Using Value Capture To Finance Infrastructure And Encourage Compact Development,” Public Works Management & Policy, Washington, DC, April 2004, pp. 249–260, http://pwm. sagepub.com. 85. SFGov, San Francisco, Chapter 38: Transit Impact Development Fee, www.municode.com/content/4201/14131/HTML/ch038.html. 86. SYSTRA, Review of French Experience in Private Financing of Public Urban Transport, World Bank Urban Transport Strategy Review, December 2000. 87. San Francisco Planning + Urban Research Association, Planning for Growth: A Proposal to Expand San Francisco’s Transit Impact Development Fee, Recommendations of the SPUR Transportation Committee, June 20, 2001. 88. Schaller Bruce, TCRP Synthesis 51: Transit Advertising Sales Agreements, Transportation Research Board of the National Acade- mies, Washington, DC, 2004. 89. Schneck, D. C., Laver, R; Darido, G. B.; Diaz, R. B., Capital Funding Sources for Transit Projects, Prepared for U.S. Federal Transit Administration, Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innova- tion, Washington, DC, 2003. 90. Silverberg, Beverly R., TCRP Synthesis 32: Transit Advertising Revenue: Traditional and New Sources and Structures, Transpor- tation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1998. 91. Smith, Lauren, Benko, Marika, Services and Technologies: Conges- tion Pricing, 2003/2007 at www.calccit.org/itsdecision/service_and_ technology/Congestion_pricing/Congestion_pricing_summary. html. 92. Spock, Linda, Facts and Myths About Tolls: A Compilation of Reference Materials, Prepared by Linda Spock Consulting, Inc. for the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association, Washington, DC, May 2001. 93. Stocker II, Robert W., State Lotteries–The New Casinos? at www. gaminglawmasters.com/articles/2004/stocker_newcasinos.htm. 94. Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) at www.transact.org. 95. Simmonds, Keith C., Innovative Transit Financing in Florida, Florida Department of Transportation, Transit Office, Tallahassee, FL, 2003. 96. Sorenson, Paul, Cheaper Gas and More Expensive Shoes: California’s Recent Transportation Finance Reform Proposal, Presentation to the TRB 85th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 25, 2006. 97. Szentgyörgyi, Tama, Overview of Public Transport Financing Issues and Approaches, Proceedings, 2nd UITP International Conference on Public Transport Financing—The Finance Dilemma: Growing Requirements Versus Declining Funds, Barcelona, Spain, 2005. 98. Texas Senate Research Center, Research Spotlight: Oregon’s Road User Fee Pilot Program, Austin, TX, April 2006. 99. Tischler and Associates, Inc., Transit Impact Fees, Teton County, Wyoming, Bethesda, MD, July 2002. 100. “Innovative Techniques in the Planning and Financing of Public Transportation Projects,” TCRP Research Results Digest 77, Trans- portation Research Board, Washington, D.C., May 2006. 101. Transportation Association of Canada, “Innovations in Financing Urban Transportation,” Briefing Paper, Ottawa, ON, June 2002. 102. Transportation Association of Canada, “Financing Urban Trans- portation; Briefing Paper,” Ottawa, ON, February 1997. 103. “Report on Innovative Financing Techniques for Transit Agencies,” TCRP Legal Research Digest No. 13, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., August 1999. 66

67 104. “Transit Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review,” TCRP Research Results Digest, Number 52, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., October 2002. 105. TransTech Management, Inc., “Financing Capital Investment: A Primer for the Transit Practitioner,” TCRP Report 89, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003. 106. Turner, Derek, “Central London Congestion Charging Scheme: Has it Achieved its Objectives,” Presentation, Proceedings, Canadian Urban Transit Association, Fall Conference, Toronto, Canada, November 2003. 107. Ubbels, B., et al., “Alternative Ways of Funding Public Transport,” European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 73–89, Technische Universiteit Delft, Netherlands, 2001. 108. U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Fact Sheets: State and Local Taxes,” at http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/state- local.shtml. 109. U.S. DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation, 2005,” Washington, D.C., May 2006. 110. U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, “Show Me the Money: A Decision-Makers Funding Compendium for Transportation Systems Management and Operations,” Washington, D.C., December 2005. 111. U.S. DOT, Federal Transit Administration, “Annual Report on New Starts: Proposed Allocations of Funds for Fiscal Year 2007,” Washington, D.C., 2006. 112. U.S. DOT, Federal Transit Administration, “Innovative Financing Techniques for America’s Transit Systems,” Washington, D.C., September 1998. 113. U.S. DOT, Federal Transit Administration, “Transit at the Table: A Guide to Participation in Metropolitan Decision-Making,” Washing- ton, D.C. 114. U.S. DOT, TRIS Online, “Value Pricing Homepage” at http://www. hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/conpric. 115. U.S. GAO, “Mass Transit: Issues Related to Providing Dedicated Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,” GAO-06-516, Washington, D.C., May 2006. 116. U.S. GAO, “Highways and Transit: Private Sector Sponsorship of and Investment in Major Projects Has Been Limited,” GAO-04-419, Washington, D.C., March 2004. 117. Vaca, Erin and Kuzmyak, Richard, “Traveler Response to Trans- portation System Changes: Chapter 13—Parking Pricing and Fees,” TCRP Report 95: Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005. 118. Volinsky, Joel, “Lessons Learned in Transit Efficiencies, Revenue Generation, and Cost Reductions,” National Center for Transit Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 2003. 119. Wachs, Martin, “A Quiet Crisis in Transportation Finance Options for Texas,” Testimony before the Texas Study Commission on Transportation Finance, Austin, TX, April 19, 2006. 120. Wachs, Martin, “Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance,” Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Transportation Reform Series, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., April 2003. 121. Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority, “Dedi- cated Revenue Sources for Major U.S. Transit Agencies,” October 15, 2004. 122. Werner, Jan, “The Current State of Organization and Finance of Public Transport in Europe,” Working Group on Competition Issues of the Committee of Organizing Authorities in the International Association of Public Transport (UITP), 2001. 123. Wetzel, Dave, “Innovative Ways of Financing the Backbone of an Integrated Mobility Policy,” Proceedings, 2nd UITP Inter- national Conference on Public Transport Financing—The Finance Dilemma: Growing Requirements Versus Declining Funds, Barcelona, Spain, 2005. 124. Whitty, J., Svadlenak, J., and Capps, D., “Public Involvement and Road User Charge Development: Oregon’s Experience,” Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, OR, March 2006. 125. Wolman, Harold and Reigeluth, George, Financing Urban Public Transportation: The U.S. and Europe. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1980. 126. http://www.lightrailnow.org. 127. Eno Transportation Foundation, TCRP Research Results Digest 77: Innovative Techniques in the Planning and Financing of Public Transportation Projects, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, May 2006. 128. Transportation Association of Canada, Innovations in Financing Urban Transportation, Briefing Paper, Ottawa, ON, June 2002. 129. Transportation Association of Canada, Financing Urban Transpor- tation; Briefing Paper, Ottawa, ON, February 1997. 130. TCRP Legal Research Digest 13: Report on Innovative Financing Techniques for Transit Agencies, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, August 1999. 131. TransTech Management, Inc., and PA Consulting, Inc., TCRP Report 89: Financing Capital Investment: A Primer for the Transit Practitioner, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2003. 132. Turner, Derek, Central London Congestion Charging Scheme: Has it Achieved its Objectives, Presentation, Proceedings, Canadian Urban Transit Association, Fall Conference, Toronto, Canada, November 2003. 133. Ubbels, B., et al., “Alternative Ways of Funding Public Transport,” European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 73–89, Technische Universiteit Delft, Netherlands, 2001. 134. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Fact Sheets: State and Local Taxes, http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/state- local.shtml. 135. U.S. DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation, 2005, Washington, DC, May 2006. 136. U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Show Me the Money: A Decision-Makers Funding Compendium for Transportation Systems Management and Operations, Washington, DC, December 2005. 137. U.S. DOT, Federal Transit Administration, Annual Report on New Starts: Proposed Allocations of Funds for Fiscal Year 2007, Washing- ton, DC, 2006. 138. U.S. DOT, Federal Transit Administration, Innovative Financing Techniques for America’s Transit Systems, Washington, DC, September 1998. 139. U.S. DOT, Federal Transit Administration, Transit at the Table: A Guide to Participation in Metropolitan Decision-Making, Washing- ton, DC. 140. U.S. DOT, TRIS Online, “Value Pricing Homepage” at http:// www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/conpric. 141. U.S. GAO, Mass Transit: Issues Related to Providing Dedicated Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, GAO-06-516, Washington, DC, May 2006. 142. U.S. GAO, Highways and Transit: Private Sector Sponsorship of and Investment in Major Projects Has Been Limited, GAO-04-419, Washington, DC, March 2004. 143. Vaca, Erin and Kuzmyak, Richard, TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes—Chapter 13: Parking

Pricing and Fees, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2005. 144. Volinsky, Joel, Lessons Learned in Transit Efficiencies, Revenue Generation, and Cost Reductions, National Center for Transit Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 2003. 145. Wachs, Martin, A Quiet Crisis in Transportation Finance” Options for Texas, Testimony before the Texas Study Com- mission on Transportation Finance, Austin, TX, April 19, 2006. 146. Wachs, Martin, Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Transportation Reform Series, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, April 2003. 147. Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority, Dedi- cated Revenue Sources for Major U.S. Transit Agencies, October 15, 2004. 148. Werner, Jan, The Current State of Organization and Finance of Public Transport in Europe, Working Group on Competition Issues of the Committee of Organizing Authorities in the Inter- national Association of Public Transport (UITP), 2001. 149. Wetzel, Dave, Innovative Ways of Financing the Backbone of an Integrated Mobility Policy, Proceedings, 2nd UITP International Conference on Public Transport Financing—The Finance Dilemma: Growing Requirements Versus Declining Funds, Barcelona, Spain, 2005. 150. Whitty, J., Svadlenak, J., and Capps, D., Public Involvement and Road User Charge Development: Oregon’s Experience, Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, OR, March 2006. 151. Wolman, Harold and Reigeluth, George, Financing Urban Public Transportation: The U.S. and Europe. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1980. 152. http://www.lightrailnow.org. 68