IBTTA 79th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, September 11-14, 2011, Berlin, Germany
2011 AASHTO Annual Meeting October 13-17, 2011 Detroit, MI
18th World Congress on Intelligent Transportation Systems, October 16-20, 2011, Orlando FL
2012 TRB 91st Annual Meeting January 22-26 2012 Washington, D.C.
IBTTA Symposium on Mileage-Based User Fees and Transportation Finance, April 17-20 2012, Washington, DC
Public Sector Members
Oregon Department of Transportation
Nevada Department of Transportation
Minnesota Department of Transportation
California Department of Transportation
New York City Department of Transportation
Private Sector Members
International Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Association
Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS
SRF Consulting Group
Wilbur Smith Associates
Include strong call-to action links to drive traffic and increase the likelihood of converting browsers into buyers. This promotion is optional. You can simply delete all default text and the promotion will disappear.
What action, if any, do you want your members to take? Add a "Find out more" link to additional information that you may have hosted on your website.
Welcome to the Summer Issue of MBUFA's Quarterly Newsletter. Please use the "In this Issue" links (left) to jump directly to articles and departments of interest. We welcome any comments and suggestions as well as contributions --news, features or links to recent research -- for upcoming issues. -- The Editor.
|Jack Basso, Chairman of MBUFA|
Letter from Chairman Jack Basso
The progress we have made as an organization in less than a year has been impressive. We now have more than a dozen members with many more in the process of joining. We have become an information resource to members, to state transportation departments and to Congress who are all looking to better understand VMT technology and applications.
During the last few months, there has been a flurry of action on Capitol Hill as the committees went to work in earnest drafting new surface transportation legislation. As we discuss in a separate article in the newsletter, that process is unlikely to advance until larger budget issues are resolved. We will continue to advance understanding of the issue as this process evolves.
I want to thank all of the MBUFA members who have been so instrumental in the launch of this organization. The need remains for new systems to collect the revenues needed to meet our infrastructure demands and this situation is likely to become more acute before solutions are put in place. The need for MBUFA will grow.
Executive Director's Report
by Barbara Rohde
The Mileage Based User Fee is almost ready to celebrate its first birthday-and we are very excited and proud of the many accomplishments of this startup organization in the past year. We thank the many members and individuals who have joined this effort over the past twelve months and provided many hours of assistance to us.
We continue to strive toward the goal of the Mission Statement of MBUFA-"to advance the state of the practice of mileage based user fees". In the past several months, we have responded to many questions on this subject from policy makers at the local, state, and federal level. In addition, we continue to provide information to academia, news agencies, and interested individuals and organizations on the potential to explore this idea as a tool in providing financial alternatives for transportation financing in the future. At the present time, we continue to work with the staff of the House and Senate committees on this important issue. It appears the Senate is close to markup on their proposed bill in September and the House is still waiting to determine the next steps for their legislative proposals. Both chambers have asked MBUFA for information on the issue, which we have provided.
We thank all of our members and supporters for helping launch this effort at such a critical time for transportation finance. Thanks again and we look forward to Year Two.
The New CAFE Standards: a Two-for-One Hit on Transportation Infrastructure?
by Kevin Condon, Editor
Call it the Collision of The Sustainables. Two large national needs - a sustainable environment and sustainable transportation infrastructure - are at direct odds with each other.
- Adequate transportation funding requires increasing gas consumption.
- Reducing our reliance on oil so that we can reduce carbon emissions requires reducing gas consumption.
Failure to achieve sustainable transportation funding means the accelerated rotting of our infrastructure, the loss of thousands upon thousands of jobs that could stimulate the economy, and, finally, further deterioration in our economic competitiveness.
Just consider the recently announced CAFE standards and it's clear the outlook for transportation funding just got even bleaker than before (was that possible?) In the unlikely event you missed it, the Obama administration and auto makers have agreed to increase CAFE standards from the current 25 MPG to 54.5 MPG by 2025, nearly doubling current fuel economy standards. (See related articles in news section.)
Eliminating Two Full Years of Trust Fund Receipts?
While this development is welcomed in many quarters, the devastating impact on future transportation funding dramatically highlights the urgent need for a new funding mechanism. will be devastating in one direct way - dramatically less gas tax revenue per mile traveled. If the current revenues in the Highway Trust Fund only provide roughly 40% of the money required to simply maintain the federal highway infrastructure, imagine cutting another estimated $75 billion from the Fund as efficiency improves. That's the estimate of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association.
That's about the same as eliminating two full years of federal tax receipts (at the current levels). And this doesn't include the crippling blow to states' transportation funding. (In New Jersey, at some point this year ever penny of the state gas tax will go to servicing debt on completed projects. In New York, about 60% of current state gas tax revenues go to paying for prior projects.)
Add to all this the fact that the infrastructure will, of course, continue to age, accelerating the need for repairs (not to mention rebuilding and expansion). The result? We let our road, tunnels and bridges slip to dangerously decrepit, third-world levels in the coming decades. There couldn't be a more compelling time to make the case for a new user fee that is not at odds with our nation's other priorities in energy, environment and foreign policy.
The transportation funding crisis just got bigger. By a lot.
The state of the SAFETEA-LU reauthorization is truly "up in the air". The current extension expires on September 30, 2011 which is the end of the federal fiscal year. There are only eleven legislative days in September giving Congress a very limited amount of time to either pass a long term authorization bill or enact another extension. Complicating things further, the federal excise tax on gasoline also expires on the same date.
It will be virtually impossible for Congress to reach agreement on a long term bill within that tight time frame, especially because the House and Senate are so far apart in their thinking-the House is advancing a 6 year bill at greatly reduced spending levels and the Senate has announced plans for a 2 year bill at current spending levels. Further, a plan for long term financing has yet to be announced by either the House or the Senate.
We are expecting an extension will be written to extend beyond September 30, 2011 and it is not clear at this time how Congress will respond to a vote on a tax provision-even if it is merely continuing a tax that is already in place. (Editor's note:
Bloomberg News reported on 8/17 that anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist has said he won't oppose an extension of the fuel taxes, and that voting to extend a current tax is not a violation of the pledge not to raise taxes that many in Congress have signed. (Bloomberg story) )
The Senate, we are told, is interested in providing some dollars to examining alternative financing models for transportation funding. However, since the bill has not been released, we cannot provide any specific language at this point. Senator Boxer continues to talk about wanting to mark up a bill this year, but her timetable has been bumped almost every month this summer and barring a breakthrough on financing, it is hard to envision a scenario that would lead to successful enactment of reauthorization legislation this year.
The House is even less clear on research exploring financing alternatives. In July, the Chairman provided an "outline" of the bill. However, currently there is no mark up scheduled and there was no information in the "outline" on any research related to financing alternatives.
Congress will return in early September. The attention will be on the Senate to see whether they are committed to marking up a long term bill and beginning the process and whether agreement can be reach on an extension that will include continuing the gas tax.
Oregon's VMT Tax Bill Fails to Pass Following Significant Progress.
by James M. Whitty, MBUFA
A strong effort to start collection of a VMT tax in Oregon stopped short of success during a recently concluded five month legislative session.
The state's longstanding Road User Fee Task Force sponsored HB 2328 this year to impose a distance based charge on electric vehicles and plug in hybrid electric vehicles beginning after a multi-year ramp up period.
Doubling the difficulty of passage of VMT tax legislation was a split House of Representatives.With 30 Republicans and 30 Democrats elected to the House, each authoritative position doubled: two co-speakers and two co-chairs for each legislative committee.This meant the House of Representatives had twice the usual number of members who could individually stop advancement of any bill through the process.
Notwithstanding this unusual impediment, the mileage tax bill easily passed through the first committee, the House Transportation and Economic Development Committee, on a 6 to 2 bipartisan vote and through the second committee, the House Revenue Committee, on an 8 to 0 bipartisan vote.HB 2328 appeared ready for a vote on floor of the House of Representatives when the bill unexpectedly veered to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means Committee, a joint House and Senate budget committee, where it ultimately died.
The Road User Fee Task Force designed HB 2328 so that it could pass without enduring the usual arguments opponents use against VMT taxes which are essentially invasion of privacy, complexity and a large and costly bureaucracy.To this end, the bill required the Oregon Department of Transportation to develop the methods for collection of mileage data under an open system platform that explicitly eliminated any mandate for GPS.The bill gave ODOT the authority to require electronic collection of mileage data directly from the odometer system and implicitly offered motorists the option of using "their own GPS device" should they want to differentiate their mileage by vehicle location to avoid paying on miles driven out-of-state and on private property.Because motorists would choose their manner of compliance and not be forced to use GPS, the issues of privacy and complexity paled in hearings before legislative committees.
The bill also allowed the use of public private partnerships for third party entities to step into roles of providing on-board units, data collection and payment management in lieu of the government.This allowed projection of much fewer government employees in ultimate system operations.This "smaller government approach" intrigued many legislators.
The bill changed twice following introduction, largely as a nod to objections of the electric vehicle advocates and owners.The bill that passed form the House Revenue Committee provided a transitional rate of 0.85 cents per mile for 2016 model years and beyond through June 30, 2018.All EV owners would pay a full rate of 1.56 cents per mile beginning July 1, 2018.Further, during the transitional period, motorists could opt to pay the alternative of a flat fee of $300 per year.The flat fee option was not available after June 30, 2018.
The House Revenue Committee's version of the bill also protected personally identifiable information from disclosure.This provision plus the bill's lack of a GPS mandate eliminated the privacy issue from the debate.
The electric vehicle advocates appeared to begrudgingly accept the VMT tax bill as redesigned by the House Revenue Committee.General Motors and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, however, worked in active opposition to the bill.
Despite being "designed to pass," proponents for HB 2328 had difficulty obtaining votes from both rural and tax sensitive legislators.At one point, the bill appeared to have the necessary votes for passage but proponents never got the opportunity to prove the bill had sufficient support to become law.
Proponents of the 2011 VMT tax bill certainly will make another attempt to pass a mileage tax during the 2013 Oregon Legislative Assembly.There are also rumblings from some disappointed legislators that they will push for passage in the 2012 short budget session that begins next February.The effort to pass mileage tax legislation in Oregon has truly only begun. (Editor's note: Oregon Public Broadcasting reported on August 16 that Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber "told members of the Oregon Transportation Commission Wednesday that he wants them to keep the issue alive." (OPB story) )
|IBTTA Event: Rebuild Interstate Highways (Submitted by Patrick Jones, Executive Director, IBTTA)|
(Washington, DC) - Speaking to an audience of federal and state transportation officials at an event organized by the IBTTA, policy experts, financial analysts, and representatives from engineering firms, technology companies, and transportation facility operators a clear case for giving states flexibility to toll existing interstate highways.
"The interstate highway system is now more than 50 years old," Regan said. "Built with 90 percent federal funds at a cost of $130 billion, parts of the system are crumbling. Over the next 50 years, we will need to spend $2.5 trillion to rebuild the system and the bulk of that cost will fall to the states. If the states are expected to bear that burden to rebuild the interstate highway system, Congress should eliminate current federal restrictions on tolling of existing and new interstate highways. In short, if the federal government can no longer help solve the problem, it should at least get out of the way."
Regan's presentation was based on a paper titled "Building the Case for Tolling the Interstates" that he co-authored with his colleague, Steven Brown. (Full article click here)
Seven other transportation experts participated in the event titled "Rebuilding America's Interstate Highway System." Excerpts from four from state DOTs are below. (Full comments and those of other experts can be found seen in a video of the event by clicking here: IBTTA event )
Mark Foster, Chief Financial Officer, North Carolina Department of Transportation
"Like all states we have an aging system, one that is rapidly becoming functionally obsolete. The price tag even today is staggering and is just going to grow."
"We are one of the few states that has one of the federal highway value pricing slots for I-95. We've been spending the last two years studying that corridor and the key element of that study has been public involvement. Over the last two years we've had close to 40 public involvement meetings up and down the corridor."
"Why all this interest in public involvement? As we all know, without public involvement there is no road and there is no transportation system. It's true for pay as you go and it's doubly true for tolling. Without local support, you don't have legislative support. You need that input to plan the design and operation of that system. And most importantly, that local support is your customer for 40 to 50 years or longer."
George Campbell, Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Transportation
"The facts are stark and compelling if you care about America's future. It's about infrastructure; it's about making our country competitive and being able to move our goods and people safely. That's what Ed is talking about. We need flexibility at the federal level. If you think about toll roadways, they're not cul de sacs; they are tied into the system."
Geoff Yarema, Partner, Nossaman LLP and Chair, Nossaman's Infrastructure Practice Group
"The gas tax is fatally flawed long term. While we will probably have to rely on it for the rest of this decade, increasingly we have had to rely on general fund injections to make up for the shortcomings of revenues going into the highway trust fund. The gas tax is no longer an adequate proxy for user fees and we need to replace it with a vehicle miles traveled fee, what I call a user charge."
"The federal role in connection with state and local funding mechanisms needs to change. Whereas historically the federal role was to provide a substantial percentage of the total share and then regulate how those funds were used; the new federal role needs to permit enormous flexibility at the state and local level where the real action is and to incentivize states and localities to put nontraditional revenues into transportation."
"We are under no illusion that allowing states to toll in these ways is going to make it happen. We are completely aware of the degree of courage it takes for a local or state elected official to stand up and tell the voters who elected him or her that they should be tolling these facilities."
Greg Whirley, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation
"There is [a] tool that our governor wants us to look at: the flexibility to toll the interstate. We have submitted an expression of interest to FHWA to toll I-95 from the North Carolina border to the Maryland state line. We believe that's needed because we have a tremendous need for reconstruction, rehabilitation and maintenance. We have over a billion dollars of needs just on I-95. That does not even include the work that is needed on the bridges on I-95. We need long term sustainable revenue. That's why the flexibility to toll I-95 is important."
Frank McCartney, Executive Director, Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission and President, IBTTA
"How do we get the Congress to have the courage to allow tolling of existing interstates? We heard from Secretary LaHood at our Legislative Conference that he's in favor of tolling new capacity but not existing capacity. He said he doesn't hear support for tolling from Congress, the governors or the states. Therefore, we need to get a message before the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures. We need to make it an issue that they understand because their DOTs are strapped for options."
Pete Ruane, President and CEO, American Road and Transportation Builders Association
"We ... are strong supporters of maximum flexibility of the states to toll as they see fit. We still support user fee increases, greater use of P3s, the infrastructure bank concept, and anything that will work and will pass muster with the politicians."
"It is the worst environment for the passage of surface transportation legislation in the past 30 years. The sentiment in the House is not very favorable to additional tolling unless it's new capacity. So there's a big job ahead convincing members of the House that this is one of the tools that has to be expanded to help solve the nation's problem. We will fight vigorously throughout this entire process to ensure that the tolling approach and model is part of the solution. I think it has to be or we're not going to see the kind of investment that is needed especially on the interstate system. Inaction and inertia is only hurting our economy."
Event Explores Mileage Based User Fees
by Adrian Moore, Vice President of Policy, Reason Foundation
On August 10th in Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Forum, Young Professionals in Transportation, and Women's Transportation Seminar (WTS) sponsored a reception at Reason Foundation's offices. The focus of the event was mileage-based user fees, with myself and Johanna Zmud, Rand Corporation's Director of Transportation, Space and Technology giving remarks and answering questions from the audience. About 80 people attended and the questions were lively.
You can watch a video of the remarks and Q&A here. It is about 45 minutes long. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrh8W2IFQ04
User fees provide good incentives to both users and owner/operators of infrastructure, tend to be more transparent than taxes, and are less subject to political whim and diversion than taxes. While the gas tax seemed like a fairly good indirect user fee for many years, it is increasingly failing and unsustainable. You can't fund long term investments in infrastructure by taxing something you want people to use less of. Mileage based user fees would be direct user prices for transportation infrastructure. They should be, and are conceived of, as a replacement for gas taxes, not an addition. People would pay for the infrastructure they use, according to how much they use it. They would know how much they pay (which is not true of the gas tax) and probably would pay more attention to how it is used and hold the government more accountable for it.
Johanna's remarks focused on Rand's great report Implementable Strategies for Shifting to Direct Usage-Based Charges for Transportation Funding. She emphasized a few things from the report:
- A broad array of metering mechanisms are feasible. Options range from simple odometer readings to sophisticated in-vehicle equipment featuring GPS to determine the time and location of travel. All of the options have been demonstrated as feasible, either in existing programs or trial tests.
- Metering capabilities vary considerably across the options. Simpler metering mechanisms are only capable of metering total miles, while more sophisticated options can determine the time of travel, the jurisdiction in which travel occurs, and even the specific route of travel.
- Desired policy goals influence technology choice. Intended policy goals imply a minimal set of metering capabilities (e.g., to levy congestion tolls, it is necessary to meter the time and location of travel). The choice of technology, therefore, will inevitably be based, at least in part, by the policy goals that underlie the program.
- Concerns over privacy remain a significant barrier to the use of GPS equipment to support general-purpose VMT fees. Existing proposals and trials have taken significant steps to ensure that the privacy of travel data can be protected. However, the perception that GPS will be used to track and monitor travel remains a potent public concern despite the fact that technical approaches to the protection of privacy have already been developed and demonstrated. Beyond education and outreach, factors that may help overcome privacy concerns include (a) providing the opportunity to save money through use of the equipment (e.g., with pay-as-you-drive insurance), and (b) using the GPS technology to provide additional user features (e.g., navigation, real-time route-specific traveler information).
Our remarks covered more than that, but those are the highlights. The questions covered a lot of ground as well, including whether mileage based user fees should begin nationally or as state and local programs, how will privacy be protected, what can we learn from overseas, how will effect transit, etc., etc. Watch the video to hear it all.
Transportation Funding News
Former Gov. Rendell and Arizona mayor Scott Smith argue transportation spending is 'right stimulus' in Wall Street Journal Op-ed The Hill
Transportation Spending is the Right Spending: Ed Rendell and Scott Smith Wall Street Journal
Senate Committee Poised to Introduce Transportation Bill: The Journal of Commerce
NEW CAFE STANDARDS AGREEMENT ANNOUNCED
Obama Unveils New Fuel-Economy Standards Wall Street Journal
Obama unveils landmark fuel-economy standards Los Angeles Times
Obama Unveils Sharp Increase in Auto Fuel Economy Reuters
New Fuel Efficiency Standards = $65+ Billion in Lost Revenue for Highway & Transit Improvements Between 2017-2025 American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)
(Additional Stories on CAFE Standards Announcement Google News)
MILEAGE TAX NEWS
In Auto Test in Europe, Meter Ticks Off Miles, and Fee to Driver New York Times (front page August 9, 2011)
(MBUFA Editor's note: Jim Whitty, Manager of Oregon DOT's Office of Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding, offered the following correction to the NY Times article:
"The NYT reporter did not get the Oregon proposal quite right. Surely, the basic requirement was for the "dumb" approach of requiring motorists to electronically report mileage from the odometer subsystem but the reporter neglected to report that motorists would also have the option of using a certified device that could report mielage by vehicle location (read: GPS). As many motorists would want to pay on mileage only accumulated within state rather than every mile driven, many would choose the GPS option. This is what we refered to as offering "motorist choice.
Through motorist choice, there would be no requirement for a government mandated GPS box in any driver's car. Instead, motorists would have the opportunity to select 'their own GPS' from a list of certified devices meeting standards under an open system. During the recently concluded Oregon legislative session, this technology structure greatly reduced 'technology angst' and as a result, the mileage tax legislation advanced several important steps but ultimately did not pass.
The privacy issue was never the problem; the fact that the charge was ruled a 'tax' hampered the bill enough to kill it this year."
Our View: Singapore's system keeps traffic moving USA Today
Oregon Governor Continues to Push for EV Mileage Tax Oregon Public Broadcasting
Can taxing trucks by the mile help save transportation funding? Stateline
Mileage-Based User Fees A Better Long-Term Option Than Gas Tax, University Finds. AASHTO Journal
Survey Shows Americans Support Gas Tax Under Certain Conditions Truckinginfo.com
Mineta Survey: Will Americans Support Mileage Tax? PR Newswire
Rhode Island: Commission Pushes for Sustainable Transportation Funding Newport Now
Senator McCaskill Opposes Mileage Tax Associated Press
Taxing Your Car's Mileage: A Tax System for the Future Motorshout.com
Pennsylvania drivers could be taxed on miles traveled, not gas usage Pittsburgh Tribune
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Announces $417.3 Million in Grants for State Highway Projects US DOT press release
Editor's note: Among the grants awarded were several value pricing projects.:
- Evaluation of cordon pricing in downtown Los Angeles
- Conducting a study on pricing strategies for the I-95 corridor from New Haven to New York $1,120,000
- Study on pricing strategies and environmental issues on I-84 in Hartford $644,000
- Developing phases 1 and 2 for an integrated congestion pricing plan for South Florida $600,000
- Research into the application of differential pricing on existing toll roads and integrate transit options into toll lanes. $528,000
- Studying travel behavior on I-30 to evaluate pricing and environmental improvements $588,301
- Implementing and integrating of transit and HOV incentives for Dallas Area Rapid Transit and studying effects on driver behavior. $160,000
- Introducing peak-pricing on the 183A Turnpike in Austin and studying the influence on driving patterns, including dynamic ride-sharing and HOV $1,220,424
Singapore plans trial run of new road pricing system
Singapore will conduct trial runs of a new generation of electronic road pricing (ERP), which may eventually replace the country's gantries with satellite-based systems.
Four project teams have been selected for the trial run:
1) the Kapsch TrafficCom from Austria
2) ST Electronics and IBM Singapore
3) MHI Engine System Asia and NCS from Japan
4) Watchdata Technologies and Beijing Watchdata System from China. The Singapore Land Transport Authority is providing each team with one million Singapore dollars ($800 thousand U.S. dollars) in seed funding "to design, develop and demonstrate technological solutions."
The trial runs were scheduled to start in June 2011 and will last 18 months, including on-the-road testing to prove the robustness of the new system. The new system will likely charge drivers not only according to where they go, but also for the distances they travel.
In 1974 Singapore was the first country to introduce congestion pricing to reduce congestion in the city center through a window sticker system, Singapore later conducted competitive trials for an electronic road pricing system and implemented the ERP system in 1998.
Related Singapore News:
"Trial run soon for new ERP system" Straits Times
"The drive towards satellite-based ERP" TODAYonline|Singapore
"Singapore plans trial run of new road pricing system soon" People's Daily Online http://nfl.msg.com/article/0gylh2VdVr9jD?q=IBM
Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance Mechanisms: Transportation Research Board August, 2011
Alternative Approaches to Funding Highways
Congressional Budget Office
The Intersection of Urban Form and Mileage Fees: Findings from the Oregon Road User Fee Pilot Program, 2011
Mineta Transportation Institute
Guidelines for Shaping Perceptions of Fairness of Transportation Infrastructure
Policies: The Case of a Vehicle Mileage Tax
University of Nevada Las Vegas
Well Within Reach - America's New Transportation Agenda
Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia
A Forum on the Future of Highway Transportation in America
International Bridge and Tunnel Tolls Association
Transitioning to a Performance-Based Federal Surface Transportation Policy
Bipartisan Policy Center
Paying Our Way
Report of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study
System Trials to Demonstrate Mileage-Based Road Use Charges
The RAND Corporation for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Surface Transportation Funding: Options for States
National Conference of State Legislatures
Idaho Governor's Task Force on Modernizing Transportation Funding in Idaho: Final Recommendations
NCHRP 08-36: "Road Pricing Communication Practices"
Transportation Reseasrch Board
Vehicle Mileage Fee Primer
Texas Department of Transportation
Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system
Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (Transportation Research Board)
Mileage-Based User Fees: Defining a Path toward Implementation
University Transportation Center for Mobility
Implementable Strategies for Shifting to Direct Usage-Based Charges for Transportation Funding
The RAND Corporation, University of Minnesota and National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Multi-State VMT-Based Road-User Fee Initiative
National Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge
University of Iowa Public Policy Center
The Fuel Tax and Alternatives for Transportation Funding
Transportation Research Board
Are We There Yet? Creating America's Future Transportation System -2009
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Congressional Budget Office
How Fair is Road Pricing? Evaluating Equity in Transportation Pricing and Finance
Bipartisan Policy Center