|
Memo: November 16, 2005
At TALC’s 2005 Annual Summit, a
variety of transportation funding mechanisms at the local and
regional level were discussed. Since the, TALC’s Transportation
Funding Working Group, open to all, then took these results and
considered these options in depth.
At our most recent meeting, we decided to isolate our efforts on
three options:
- Regional Gas User Fee
- Regional Vehicle
Registration Fee (VRF)
- Gas Tax Spillover Funding
These
options are discussed in detail here. The
other
options we considered can be found here. Click here
to see an
extended matrix.
As we looked at all these
sources, we considered 5 key policy goals:
- Generate revenue for
transit operations:
This would be fulfilled through Spillover funds.
- Generate revenue for
pedestrian and bike infrastructure and safety:
This would be met by both the Gas User Fee and the Regional
Vehicle
Registration Fee, which both aim to generate revenue for
pedestrian and bike infrastructure in safety.
- Discourage auto use,
especially at peak periods:
This would be met by the Regional Gas User Fee.
- Discourage auto
ownership:
This would be fulfilled by the VRF.
- Maximizing benefits for,
and minimizing impacts on, low-income communities:
This would be met by the Spillover fund.
We focused on these three
options because they are politically viable (relatively
uncomplicated to pursue) and equitable. Equitability concerns
focused on whether a tax or other source of funding is
“regressive” or “progressive” (the former impacting low-income
families disproportionately). While some of the fees are
considered “regressive” in incidence. The net effect on those
households was unclear, however, and probably highly variable.
Households that rely heavily on public transit—as many
low-income households do—would potentially have a net gain
because the transit improvements would outweigh the increased
expenditure on gasoline. |
