Financing Options

Options For Funding Transportation Programs

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated 23 July 2008

---

This chapter describes various ways to fund transportation programs and evaluates the degree to which they support TDM objectives.

Description

To be successful, transportation programs and projects require adequate funding. There are many possible funding sources, some of which also support transportation planning objectives, including efforts to reduce traffic and parking congestion problems, encourage more accessible land use patterns, or achieve equity objectives. Because they are new, TDM programs often require new funding sources. For example, a reliable new funding source may be needed to create a Transportation Management Association or implement Nonmotorized Transportation Plans. Below are examples of funding options:

· Parking Pricing. Some jurisdictions and campuses dedicate public parking revenues to transportation programs.

· Special Parking Taxes. Some jurisdictions impose special taxes on commercial parking transactions or on parking facilities (Litman, 2006).

· Road Pricing. Some communities use road tolls and congestion fees to fund transportation programs, including roadway facilities, transit improvements and TDM programs.

· Fuel Tax Increases and Surcharges. Some jurisdictions dedicate a portion of fuel tax revenues to special transportation programs (such as dedicating 1% of fuel tax revenues to nonmotorized facilities), or impose an optional, additional fuel tax for local transportation programs.

· Carbon Taxes. These are special taxes based on fossil fuel carbon content, and therefore a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.

· Dedicated local or regional sales taxes. This may require a public referendum.

· Transportation Impact Fees. These are fees paid by developers based on the transportation costs imposed by their projects. For example, a developer may be required to pay for roadway improvements, public parking facilities (called in lieu fees), to help fund a Transportation Management Association, to pay for walking and cycling improvement, or to fund other programs that mitigate local traffic impacts.

· Special Property Taxes. Some jurisdictions impose special property taxes in areas served by transportation programs and services, sometimes called a Local Improvement District or Land Value Capture (Smith and Gihring, 2003; Wetzel, 2006).

· Vehicle impact mitigation fees. This is a fee on each vehicle registered in the region to pay for programs and projects that serve motorists and mitigate the negative impacts caused by vehicle traffic.

· Business or Employee Assessments. Some Transportation Management Associations and Commute Trip Reduction programs are funded by a special assessment on businesses in an area, based on floor area, revenues or number of employees.

· Grants, such as foundation or government grants to help fund programs and facilities, such as school transportation safety education, and transit stations.

· Special Funding For Transportation Problem Solving. Various federal, state, provincial and private funds may be available for transportation programs that address specific problems. For example, TDM programs may qualify for U.S. federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding, and Canadian sustainable infrastructure grants. Other funding programs support energy conservation and emission reduction activities, nonmotorized facilities (public trails and streetscapes) and encouragement projects, school trip pedestrian safety, Smart Growth and urban redevelopment activities, mobility services for transportation disadvantaged people (low income, people with disabilities, children, elderly people, etc.), and various other planning objectives that TDM strategies often support.

The best funding options reflect these attributes:

· Stable and predictable.

· Considered Equitable.

· Supports TDM objectives (reduces peak-period vehicle travel, encourages shifts to more efficient modes, supports Smart Growth, etc.).

· Relatively easy to administrate.

Fees and taxes support TDM objectives if they are based on the amount of automobile travel that occurs, particularly variable fees that are higher for peak periods and locations, and lower for off-peak. This type of Pricing encourages motorists to reduce their peak-period driving, reducing traffic and parking congestion problems.

Table 1 How Well Different Fees Support TDM Objectives

Rank	General Category	Examples
Best	Time- and location-specific road and parking pricing	Variable Road Pricing, Parking Pricing (higher rates for peak periods and locations, lower rates for off-peak)
Second Best	Mileage-pricing	Weight-Distance Fees, Mileage-based Emission Fees
Third Best	Fuel charges	Fuel Tax Increases and Surcharges
Fourth Best	Fixed vehicle fees	Motor vehicle fees, vehicle purchase taxes
Worst	Not charged specifically to motorists	General sales taxes, general property taxes, business taxes, employee fees and taxes.

This table compares the degree to which various transport funding options support TDM objectives. Fees that are higher under urban-peak conditions are best. General taxes and fees are worst.

In other words, if there is agreement that some new source of revenue is needed, it makes sense to structure the funding system to support other strategic planning objectives, such as encouraging more efficient travel patterns and land use development. If property taxes are used to fund transportation services, they can be structured to support Smart Growth land use planning objectives, for example, by having fees that reflect the higher cost of providing public services in dispersed locations (Smart Growth Planning Reforms), and by providing property tax discounts for households that do not own an automobile.

Some people may consider it unfair to charge motorists for programs that benefit users of other modes, such as Transit Improvements and Walking and Cycling Encouragement Programs, but this criticism is generally inappropriate since motorists benefit from reduced congestion and increased safety when other travelers shift to alternative modes, and because motor vehicle use imposes various External Costs. Such funding can therefore be considered part of traffic impact mitigation and compensation.

Public Versus Private Ownership

There is sometimes a choice between public or private ownership of transportation facilities and services, which affect their funding and other planning factors. Public owned facilities and services tend to rely on tax funding, while privately owned facilities and services tends to rely more on user fees, but there are many variations; private facilities and services often receive public resources in the form of free or underpriced land, direct financial subsidies, and tax exemptions, while public facilities and services can have user fees.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both public and private ownership and operation of transportation infrastructure and services (Gomez-Ibanez and Meyer, 1994). Public ownership often allows cheaper financing through public bonds, and tends to increase public accountability and integration with other planning decisions, leading to facilities and services that better support overall community objectives. Privatization (private ownership) and contracting of services can allow more focused planning decisions (public facilities and services are often expected to address broader community goals, which adds costs and constraints), and may avoid restrictive planning and labor rules. Proponents of privatization argue that it increases service efficiency, but experience indicates mixed results (Morris, 2006). For example, public transit service privatization often reduces costs per transit vehicle-mile or passenger-mile, providing fiscal savings to governments, but this often result from reduced service quality which leads to reduced ridership, increasing other economic costs such as traffic congestion and road and parking facility costs (Grayling, 2001; Scholl, 2006). Private highways funded by tolls frequently require public subsidy and restrictions on competition (GAO, 2004), and toll rates have sometimes increased faster than originally promised in order to provide sufficient return on investment (for example, tolls increased substantially after Highway 407 in Ontario was sold to a private firm). In the past, many toll road planners exaggerated demand and potential revenues, resulting in financial failure, which has made toll road financing difficult (Vassallo and Sánchez-Soliño (2007).

Effective privatization and contracting therefore require that public agencies retain control over key planning decisions, and that service quality be a primary performance feature. For example, if transit services are privatized or contracted out to private firms, it is important that such services be integrated and comprehensive, rather than allowing private service providers to only provide services where it is most profitable. It is helpful to arrange bidding so private service providers compete on service quality and ridership goals, not simply on minimum cost.

Best Practices

Below are recommendations for effective implementation of new transportation taxes, based on interviews with various parking officials:

· The tax base should be broad and well defined. A broad tax base spreads the financial burden and does not give certain groups a competitive advantage. It is considered most equitable if it applies to publicly-owned as well as private agencies and facilities.

· Exemptions must be well defined and understood by all affected parties. For example, if a parking tax does not apply to churches and hospitals, these must be carefully defined.

· Enforcement must be effective, practical and given sufficient priority.

· Taxes and fees should be structured for efficient compliance and auditing.

· Work with stakeholders to develop efficient and fair regulations, administrative procedures and enforcement policies.

· Carefully assess the travel and economic impacts of a tax. Establish an evaluation program, with before-and-after analysis, to determine the impacts a tax has on local business activity, vehicle traffic, etc.

Examples and Case Studies

London Congestion Pricing (www.vtpi.org/london.pdf)

Since 17 February 2003 the city of London has charged a £5 daily fee for driving private vehicles in an eight square mile central area during weekdays as a way to reduce traffic congestion and raise revenues for transport improvements. An automated system checks vehicles entering the charging zone against a database of motorists who have paid the fee. Despite considerable controversy the program was implemented without major problems, and has substantially reduced traffic congestion, improved bus and taxi service, and is generating revenues. Vehicle traffic speeds have increased, bus transit service has improved, while accidents and air pollution have declined in the city center. Public acceptance has grown and there is now support to expand the program to other parts of London. In 2004 Mayor Livingstone was reelected, largely due to the success of the congestion pricing program. This is the first congestion pricing program in a major European city, and its success suggests that congestion pricing may become more politically feasible elsewhere.

Parking Levies (www.vtpi.org/parking_tax.pdf)

Three Australian cities have levies on non-residential urban parking, intended to encourage use of alternative modes and fund transport facilities and services:

· In Sydney, a Parking Space Levy of AU$800 annual per stall is currently applied to parking in the central business district (CBD), and AU$400 per stall at other business districts. The levy applies to all privately owned, non-residential, off-street parking. It is prorated for parking facilities that are only used occasionally, such as church parking lots; property owners must maintain daily records indicating how often such space is used. The levy raises more than AU$40 million annually, which is dedicated to transportation projects and cannot be used for operating expenses.

· In Perth, parking suppliers within the CBD and surrounding area must pay a Parking Licence Fee, which has different rates for short-term and long-term use facilities (DPI, 2002). Owners only pay for the number of parking spaces that are actually in use, and may shift a space from one category to another (from “in use” to “out of use”) and pay a prorated amount if appropriate for part of a year. When first introduced in 1999, the levy was set at $AU70 per space, and has been raised to AU$155 for short-stay parking and AU$180 for commuter-orientated parking. Businesses with five parking stalls or less are exempted from the charge. The levy raises about AU$8.2 million annually.

· In Melbourne, a Long Stay Car Park Levy will be charged to designated long-stay and permanently leased parking spaces in CBD commercial car parks. The levy is intended to encourage car park owners to convert long-stay spaces into short-stay spaces, creating more parking options for shoppers and visitors. Planners estimate that the levy will apply to about 48,000 of 70,000 total CBC off-street parking spaces.

Perth and Sydney have similar tax collection procedures. The state government’s revenue collection agency sends a parking license application to all non-residential property owners within the designated area. Property owners are required to return the completed application indicating all parking spaces on their property, including land used for motor vehicle parking even if parking spaces are not marked out. In Sydney, for example, where an unmarked area is used for parking, the number of spaces is determined by dividing the total area, by 25.2 square meters, which takes into account parking spaces and access lanes. Owners are sent an annual assessment based on this application. In Perth, the parking license holder is responsible for ensuring that the number of vehicles parked anywhere within the boundary of their property is within the number licensed. The licensing and payment of the levy for on-street parking is the responsibility of local government which meets this requirement from the revenue generated from their on-street parking operations. Table 2 compares features of Sydney and Perth levies.

Table 2 Parking Levy Comparison (Enoch, 2001 and other sources)

	Sydney	Perth	Melbourne
Name	Parking Space Levy	Parking Licence Fee	Long Stay Car Park Levy
First Implemented	1992	1999	2006
Annual Levy	Central CBC: $800 Other business districts: $400	Short stay: $155 Long stay/commuter: $180	$400 annually in 2006 $800 annually in 2007
Annual revenues generated	AU$40 million	AU$8.2 million	$19 million first year $39 million second year
Use of revenues	Transport facilities	Downtown transit services	CBD transport improvements
Exceptions
On-street	Exempt	Not exempt	Exempt
Residential use	Exempt	Exempt	Exempt
Casual Parking (part time use)	Pro-rated by use	No reduction	Exempt
Publicly-owned parking facilities	Exempt	Not exempt	Exempt
Potential parking spaces, not currently used	Not exempt	Exempt	Exempt
Small businesses (5 parking stalls or less)	Not exempt	Exempt
Disabled persons parking	Exempt	Exempt	Exempt
Loading zones – including taxi and bus bays	Exempt	Exempt	Exempt
Community service/ emergency service spaces	Exempt	Exempt	Exempt
Spaces for service vehicles (e.g., repairs)	Exempt	Exempt	Exempt
Car sales and service spaces	Exempt.	Exempt	Exempt

This table compares the per-space parking levies in Sydney, Perth and Melbourne Australia.

Perth officials consulted extensively with stakeholders prior to the levy’s introduction. As a result, there was an approximately 98% compliance rate the first year. When first applied in 1999, there were about 58,000 stalls, of which about 4,000 were exempt on usage grounds and 2,000 because they are owned by small businesses. This was about 10% fewer than recorded in a 1998 survey, indicating that the levy reduced downtown parking supply. Most of the eliminated spaces were situated near the edge of the levy area and remote from the areas of high parking demand (Enoch, 2001). Some businesses decommissioned spaces to meet the five stalls or less exemption, and some long-stay parking was converted to short-stay use, increasing parking availability and turnover.

Vancouver, British Columbia (www.translink.bc.ca/ParkingTax/default.asp)

TransLink, the Vancouver, British Columbia regional transportation authority which builds and operates roads, transit facilities, bicycle facilities and other transport services, implemented a Parking Site Tax in 2006. The initial rate is $1.02 annually per square meter of non-residential parking facility, which is typically $25-$40 per space. Assessment, collection and enforcement of the tax will utilize the existing property tax framework, operated by BC Assessment, a provincial agency. The agency developed an inventory of non-residential parking facilities in the region using aerial photos, digital mapping, municipal records and site visits. Exemptions include:

· On-street parking facilities.

· Most buildings exempt from general property taxes (schools, churches, synagogues, etc.).

· The portion of parking facilities used for vehicle retail and rental business inventory storage, impounded vehicles, trailers of tractor-trailer units, vehicle servicing and fueling.

· Parking facilities owned by TransLink (including Park & Ride lots).

· Ferry loading queuing areas.

· Campgrounds.

Stormwater Fees

Stormwater fees are special charges applied to impervious surfaces (pavement and buildings) to fund stormwater management systems (drain systems, treatment facilities, etc.). Such fees range from about $5 to $20 per 1,000 square feet, or about $1-7 annually per off-street parking space, as indicated in the table below.

Table 3 Stormwater Fees (PCW, 2002)

Jurisdiction	Fee	Per 1000 Sq. ft. (Annual)	Per Parking Space (Annual)
Chaple Hill, NC	$39 annual 2,000 sq. ft.	$19.50	$6.50
City of Oviedo Stormwater Utility, FL	$4.00 per month per ERU	$15.00	$5.00
Columbia Country Stormwater Utility, GA	$1.75 monthly per 2,000 sq. ft.	$10.50	$3.50
Kitsap County, WA	$47.50 per 4,200 sq. ft.	$11.30	$4.00
Raleigh, NC	$4 monthly per 2,260 sq. ft.	$18.46	$6.00
Spokane Country Stormwater Utility, WA	$10 annual fee per ERU.	$3.13	$1.00
Wilmington, NC	$4.75 monthly per 2,500 sq. ft.	$22.80	$7.50
Yakima, WA	$50 annual per 3,600 sq. ft.	$13.88	$6.50

“Equivalent Run-off Unit” or ERU = 3,200 square foot impervious surface.

Road Tax Discount for Car-Free Households (www.ci.austin.tx.us)

The City of Austin, Texas has an innovative way of financing transportation infrastructure which rewards households that reduce their vehicle ownership (Austin City Code Chapter 14-10). City utility bills include a “Transportation User Fee” (TUF) which averages $30 to $40 (US) annually for a typical household. This charge is based on the average number of daily motor vehicle trips made per property, reflecting its size and use. For example, single-family development is estimated to generate 40 motor vehicle trips per acre per day, condominium residential use and townhouse residential use generate approximately 60 motor vehicle trips per acre per day, and offices generate approximately 180 motor vehicle trips per acre per day. The city provides exemptions to residential properties with occupants that do not own or regularly use a private motor vehicle for transportation, or if they are 65 years of age or older.

Land Value Capture (Smith and Gihring, 2003)

Value capture refers to special property taxes and public private partnerships that recover some or all public investment costs that increase property values, such as transportation facilities and other infrastructure improvements, and programs that improve local security and environmental quality. This allows highway projects and transit services to be funded in part by the additional value they provide. For example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Association has purchased vacant land near planned rail stations, and has mounted 66 joint development projects since 1976 which had generated $129 million in revenue by 2002, an amount expected to double by 2007. Stations had attracted $30 billion in private investment by 2000: Between 1980 and 1990 40% of the region’s office and retail space was built within walking distance, and between 1990 and 2000, another 20% was constructed. As a result, the transit agency and local governments have received a return on their investments.

TMA Funding (www.northnatomastma.org/resource_library.html)

The North Natomas Transportation Management Association (NNTMA) is funded through a special tax provided by residents, businesses and developers, called a Community Facilities District (CFD). An annual report is prepared each year that includes the tax roll for the CFD. The Public Works Special Districts Office produces an annual report which provides a background of the CFD, current status of land uses within the district, maximum special taxes for each CFD parcel, and the calculation of that fiscal year’s special tax levy. The current levy is $18 per year per single-family unit, $14 per year per multi-family unit, $0.03 per square foot for industrial, $0.06 per square foot for office, $0.10 per square foot for retail, and $200 per acre for sports complex uses. The North Natomas Transit Fee, a development impact fee that pays for transit services, including the formation costs of the TMA, will cover the administration costs of the CFD for the first five years of the TMA’s operation.

Old Pasadena Parking Revenue (Kolozsvari and Shoup, 2003)

To help address downtown parking problems the city of Pasadena, California proposed pricing on-street spaces to increase parking turnover and make parking available to customers. Many local merchants initially opposed the idea. As a compromise, city officials agreed to dedicate all revenues to improving downtown public facilities and services. In 1993 a Parking Meter Zone (PMZ) was established within which parking was priced and revenues were invested. With this proviso, the merchants agreed to the proposal. They began to see parking meters in a new way: as a way to fund projects and services that directly benefit their customers and businesses. Because parking had previously been unpriced, the city lost no general fund revenue. In fact, the city gained overtime fine revenue.

The city formed a PMZ advisory board consisting of business and property owners, which recommended parking policies and set spending priorities for the meter revenues. This approach of connecting parking revenues directly to added public services and keeping it under local control help guarantee the program’s success. Investments included new street furniture and trees, more police patrols, better street lighting, more street and sidewalk cleaning, pedestrian facility improvements and marketing (including production of area maps showing local attractions and parking facilities). To highlight these benefits to motorists, each parking meter has a small sticker which reads, Your Meter Money Will Make A Difference: Signage, Lighting, Benches, Paving.

This created a “virtuous cycle” in which parking revenue funded community improvements that attracted more visitors which increased the parking revenue, allowing further improvements. This resulted in extensive redevelopment of buildings, new businesses and residential development. Parking is no longer a problem for customers, who can almost always find a convenient space. Local sales tax revenues have increased far faster than in other shopping districts with lower parking rates, and nearby malls that offer free customer parking. This indicates that charging market rate parking (i.e., prices that result in 85-90% peak-period utilization rates) with revenues dedicated to local improvements can be an effective ways to support urban redevelopment.

Norwegian Cordon Tolls (www.progress-project.org/Progress/tron.html)

Norway has Road Pricing in three of its urban centers: Trondheim, Oslo, and Bergen. In 1991, Trondheim—Norway’s third largest city with a population of 140,000—implemented a “toll ring” that surrounds the city’s downtown area. The toll ring has 12 toll stations and uses a total of 35 lanes. Each tollbooth operates with an electronic card system, used by 80% of drivers entering the city. The other 20% use coin machines or magnetic strip cards, which exist at all twelve booths. Rates range from U.S. $0.62 to $1.56, with a peak charge between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. As a result of this pricing, inbound traffic has declined by 10% during toll periods while non-toll period traffic has increased by 9%. Weekday bus travel has increased by 7%. Revenues are being used for road infrastructure, public transit, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

German Government Approves Tolls for Trucks

In August 2001 the German cabinet has approved plans drawn up by transport minister Kurt Bodewig that will introduce tolls on trucks using roadways beginning in 2003. Vehicles over 12 tons would be required to pay euros 0.14-0.19 (0.12-0.16 US dollars) per kilometer, with variation depending on exhaust emissions and axles. The intent of the plan is to shift the financing of road use away from the general taxpayer and onto heavy road users. The toll rate was established by computing the costs of the extra wear and tear on roads and maintenance costs incurred by trucks. Revenue from the tolls will be used for further transport investment, including an anti-congestion program. Nature conservation group Nabu applauded the plan but urged the government to consider putting the revenue into something other than road building. (ENDS Environment Daily, August 16, 2001) For more information see the German transport ministry website at www.bmvbw.de.

References And Resources For More Information

Phineas Baxandall, (2007), Finding Solutions To Fund Transit Combining Accountability & New Resources For World-Class Public Transportation, U.S. PIRG (www.uspirg.org).

Brian S. Bochner, Josias Zietsman, and Juan Carlos Villa (2006), Methods Of Increasing Transportation Funding, ITE Annual Meeting (www.ite.org).

Cambridge Systematics (2006), Future Financing Options to Meet Highway and Transit Needs, NCHRP Document 102, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w102.pdf.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program Website (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs) provides information on special funding for transportation improvements that reduce traffic congestion and air pollution.

DfT (2002), Road User Charging And Workplace Parking Levy Regulations, Dept. for Transport, (www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft_localtrans_503967.hcsp).

DPI (2002), Licensed Parking in Perth: A Guide for Commercial Property Owners, Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Government of Western Australia (www.dpi.wa.gov.au).

Marcus Enoch (2001), “Workplace Parking Charges Down Under,” Traffic Engineering & Control, Vol. 42, No. 10, (http://eeru.open.ac.uk/staff/marcus/Workplace%20parking.PDF), November 2001, pp. 357-360.

Marcus Enoch and Stephen Ison (2006), “Levying Charges On Private Parking: Lessons From Existing Practice,” World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol. 12, No. 1 (http://ecoplan.org/wtpp/general/vol-12-1.pdf), pp. 5-14.

GAO (2004), Highways and Transit: Private Sector Sponsorship Of And Investment In Major Projects Has Been Limited, General Accounting Office, GAO-04-419 (www.gao.gov).

Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez and John R. Meyer (1994), Going Private: The International Experience with Transport Privatization, John Wiley and Sons.

Tony Grayling (2001), Any More Fares? Delivering Better Bus Services, Institute for Public Policy Research (www.ippr.org).

European Transport Pricing Initiatives (www.transport-pricing.ne) includes various efforts to develop more fair and efficient pricing. Specific European transportation pricing projects are described below:

CAPRI (www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/capri) is disseminating research on transportation pricing.

CUPID (Co-ordinating Urban Pricing Integrated Demonstrations), European Transport Pricing Initiative, Project No. GRD1-1999-10958, European Commission, Competitive and Sustainable Growth Programme (www.transport-pricing.net/reports22.html), November, 2001.

IMPRINT (www.imprint-eu.org) is an effort to promote implementation of fair and efficient transport pricing.

IBI (2000), Transit-Supportive Parking Policies: North American Experience and Model Policies for Municipalities, Canadian Urban Transit Association (www.cutaactu.on.ca).

Independent Evaluation Group (2007), Evaluation of Bank Support for Road Funds: For Evaluation of World Bank Assistance to the Transport Sector, 1995 – 2005, World Bank (http://go.worldbank.org/4I07UH5XH0).

Innovative Finance for Surface Transportation (www.innovativefinance.org) is an Internet based clearinghouse providing information on innovations in road pricing and user fees.

IPIRG (2007), Finding Solutions To Fund Transit: Combining Accountability & New Resources For World-Class Public Transportation, Illinois Public Interest Research Group (http://illinoispirg.org).

Douglas Kolozsvari and Donald Shoup (2003), “Turning Small Change Into Big Changes,” Access 23, University of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net), Fall 2003, pp. 2-7; www.sppsr.ucla.edu/up/webfiles/SmallChange.pdf.

Charles Komanoff and Brian Ketchem (2003), The Hours: Time Savings from Tolling The East River Bridges, Bridge Tolls Advocacy Project (www.bridgetolls.org).

Todd Litman (1996), “Using Road Pricing Revenue: Economic Efficiency and Equity Considerations,” Transportation Research Record 1558, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 24-28, also available at www.vtpi.org.

Todd Litman (2003), London Congestion Pricing: Implications for Other Cities, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org).

Todd Litman (2006), Parking Taxes: Evaluating Options and Impacts, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org/parking_tax.pdf).

Eric Morris (2006), “How Privitization Became a Train Wreck,” ACCESS 28, (www.uctc.net), Spring 2006, pp. 18-25.

NSTIFC (2008), The Path Forward: Funding and Financing Our Surface Transportation System: Interim Report of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure

Financing Commission, National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission (http://financecommission.dot.gov).

OSR (2000), Parking Space Levy, Office of State Revenue, NSW Treasury (www.osr.nsw.gov.au).

PCW (2002), Some Existing Water District Funding Sources, Legislative and Regulatory Issues Technical Advisory Committee, Project Clean Water (www.projectcleanwater.org).

SACG (1999), Transportation Funding Handbook, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (www.sacog.org/projectdelivery/funding.pdf).

Lynn Scholl (2006), “Privatization of Public Transit: A Review of the Research on Contracting of Bus Services in the United States,” Berkeley Planning Journal, Volume 19 (www-dcrp.ced.berkeley.edu/bpj), pp. 143-161.

Elliott D. Sclar and Richard C. Leone (2000), You Don't Always Get What You Pay for: The Economics of Privatization, Century Foundation Books (www.tcf.org).

Jeffery J. Smith and Thomas A. Gihring (2003), Financing Transit Systems Through Value Capture: An Annotated Bibliography, Geonomy Society (www.progress.org/geonomy); also available at www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf.

TransLink (2006), Parking Site Tax and How It Will Be Applied, TransLink, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (www.translink.bc.ca/ParkingTax/default.asp).

TRB (2006), The Fuel Tax And Alternatives For Transportation Funding, Special Report 285, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr285.pdf.

José M. Vassallo and Antonio Sánchez-Soliño (2007), “Subordinated Public Participation Loans for Financing Toll Highway Concessions in Spain,” Transportation Research Record 1996, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 1-8.

Martin Wachs (2003), Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu/es/urban).

Asha Weinstein and Jennifer Dill (2007), How to Pay for Transportation? A Survey of Public Preferences, Transport Policy (www.elsevier.com/locate/transpol), Vol. 14, No. 4, July 2007, pp. 346-356;

Dave Wetzel (2006), “Innovative Ways of Financing Public Transport,” World Transport Policy & Practices, Vol. 12, No. 1 (www.ecoplan.org/wtpp), pp. 40-46.

---

This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.

VTPI Homepage

Encyclopedia Homepage

Send Comments

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org

1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA

Phone & Fax 250-360-1560

“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”

#119