The evaluation of existing and potential new revenue options reinforces the fact that there is no "silver bullet" for addressing the federal surface transportation funding challenge; all approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. Nonetheless, the assessment does provide insight into the relative attractiveness of various options. Based on the Commission's initial screening, weighting of criteria, and consensus scoring of different funding approaches, the options fall into four categories of viability:
| • Strong-Options with a weighted total score of 3.24 to 4.21. These mechanisms are viewed as the most likely ones for raising future federal surface transportation revenues or for federal actions to help enable states to raise state-level revenues. • Moderate-Options with a weighted score of 3.0 to 3.23. These mechanisms are considered potential sources, but they present major concerns in one or more areas. | The evaluation of existing and potential new revenue options reinforces the fact that there is no "silver bullet" for addressing the federal surface transportation funding challenge. |
| EXHIBIT 3-8: REVENUE OPTION EVALUATION SUMMARY* | |||
| Strong | Moderate | Weak | Not Applicable/ Seriously Flawed** |
| Federal Options |
|
|
|
| • Vehicle miles traveled fee • Automobile tire tax • Motor fuel tax • Carbon tax/cap and trade • Customs duties • Truck/trailer sales tax • Vehicle registration fee • Heavy Vehicle Use Tax • Container fee • Tariff on imported oil • Sales tax on motor fuels • Truck tire tax | • Freight waybill tax • Vehicle sales tax • Harbor maintenance tax • General fund transfer | • Freight ton-mile tax • Driver's license surcharge • Bicycle tire tax • Dedicated income tax • Auto-related sales tax • Freight ton-based tax • General sales tax | • Vehicle inspection and traffic citation surcharge • Vehicle personal property tax • Windfall profits tax • Petroleum franchise tax • Minerals severance tax • Federal tax on local transit fares • Federal tax on local parking fees |
| State and Local Options Benefiting from Federal Action |
|
| |
| • Facility level tolling and pricing | • Proceeds of asset sales, leases, and concessions | • Cordon area pricing • Passenger facility charges | • Development and impact fees • Tourism-related taxes • Tobacco, alcohol, and gambling taxes |
*For revenue options that are dependent upon utilization of a targeted investment fund as a basic premise for feasibility, such a fund is assumed for evaluation purposes (e. g., for all freight-related funding mechanisms and more specifically those more narrowly targeted to intermodal port and harbor-related investment). ** State and local options in this category may have applicability but there is no relevant federal action or role.
• Weak-Options with a weighted score below 3.0. These mechanisms are considered to have low potential or present major concerns in multiple areas.
• Not Applicable-Options that were considered by the Commission but deemed to either have serious flaws or be inappropriate as a federal mechanism or not suited for federal encouragement of state and local action and thus not considered further.
The results of applying these categories to the various options are summarized in Exhibit 3-8, which lists both federal options (by viability category) as well as state and local options that federal action could help facilitate. The summary chart also lists those options that may be viable at the state or local level but for which there is no federal applicability or role. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 discuss relevant revenue options that further, and Chapter 8 offers specific related recommendations.