This section provides the Commission's assessment of potential surface transportation funding options. For each option, the section includes a brief description of the revenue mechanism, identifies specific pros and cons, and then presents the raw and weighted scores in a summary evaluation table at the end of each section. (Chapters 4, 5, and 6 provide further details on mechanisms that were selected for more in-depth analysis.)
A few general observations can be made from this assessment process:
• The existing HTF revenue sources score relatively well.
• Several options could raise significant revenues with rates or fees that would appear to be feasible.
• There is strong justification for several new and existing options to provide a flexible, dedicated source of federal funding for surface transportation.
• Options vary widely with respect to both their level of sustainability and their scoring for the various equity considerations.
• Few options score well with respect to economic efficiency considerations.
EXHIBIT 3-1: CRITERIA WEIGHTING FACTORS | |||
Criteria | Weighting | Criteria | Weighting |
Revenue Stream Considerations |
| Implementation & Administration Considerations |
|
Revenue potential | 0.14 | Public acceptance/political viability | 0.09 |
Sustainability | 0.08 | Appropriateness for Federal use | 0.07 |
Flexibility | 0.045 | Ease/cost of implementation & administration | 0.07 |
Justification for dedication | 0.045 | Ease/cost of compliance | 0.045 |
Economic Efficiency/Impact Considerations |
| Equity Considerations |
|
Promotion of efficient investment | 0.07 | User/beneficiary equity | 0.10 |
Promotion of efficient use | 0.14 | Equity across income groups | 0.035 |
Enables charges for adverse side effects | 0.035 | Geographic equity | 0.035 |
Total |
|
| 1.00 |