This paper presents the major findings from a study conducted for AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons) on the implications of various transportation financing strategies for older and retired people. The study found that almost all current and proposed financing mechanisms are or would be regressive and that many would have a limited relationship to the costs that users impose on the system or the benefits that travelers receive from the system. The most important study finding is that there are more substantial equity concerns for older and retired people when less traditional definitions of equity are applied. The study concludes that to offset inequities in the current system or a potential system of financing, particularly in how those funds are spent to deliver transportation services, it is crucial that all levels of government structure and deliver transportation services that respond to the specific needs of older and retired people.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Special Report 285: The Fuel Tax and Alternatives for Transportation Funding.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr285.pdf.
LucyW.Equity and Planning for Local Services. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 44, No. 1, 1981, pp. 447–457.
5.
BeatleyT.Equity and Distributional Issues in Infrastructure Planning. In Public Infrastructure Planning and Management (SteinJ. M., ed.), Urban Affairs Annual Reviews, Vol. 33, 1988, pp. 208–226.
6.
DillJ., GoldmanT., and WachsM.California Vehicle License Fees: Incidence and Equity. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1999, pp. 133–147.
7.
LitmanT.Evaluating Transportation Equity: Methods for Incorporating Distributional Impacts in Transportation.Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 2005. www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf.
8.
LevinsonD.Paying for the Fixed Costs of Roads. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2005, pp. 279–294.
9.
DuthieJ., CervenkaK., and WallerS. T.Environmental Justice Analysis: Challenges for Metropolitan Transportation Planning. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2013, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 8–12.
10.
LevinsonD.Equity Effects of Road Pricing. Transport Reviews, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2010, pp. 33–57.
11.
WachsM.Financing Transportation Infrastructure in California. CT-322. Testimony presented to the California Little Hoover Commission. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., 2009.
12.
WachsM.A Quiet Crisis in Transportation Finance: Options for Texas. CT-260. Testimony presented to the Texas Study Commission on Transportation Finance. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., 2009.
13.
PuentesR., and PriceR.Fueling Transportation Finance: A Primer on the Gas Tax.Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 2003.
14.
BullardR. D.Addressing Urban Transportation Equity in the United States. Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5, 2004, pp. 1183–1209.
15.
KatzB., and PuentesR. (eds.). Taking the High Road: A Metropolitan Agenda for Transportation Reform.Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 2007.
16.
Income-Based Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing: A Primer. Report FHWA-HO-08-040. Office of Innovative Program Delivery, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008.
NCHRP Web Document 102: Future Financing Options to Meet Highway and Transit Needs.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006.
20.
RufoloA. M., and BertiniR. L.Designing Alternatives to State Motor Fuel Taxes. Transportation, Vol. 57, No. 1, 2003, pp. 33–46.
21.
Federal Taxation of Tobacco, Alcoholic Beverages, and Motor Fuel Taxes: A CBO Study.Congressional Budget Office, Washington, D.C., 1990.
22.
PoterbaJ. M.Is the Gasoline Tax Regressive?Tax Policy and the Economy, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1991, pp. 145–164.
23.
ChernickH., and ReschovskyA.Who Pays the Gasoline Tax?National Tax Journal, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1997, pp. 233–241.
24.
GoldmanT., and WachsM.A Quiet Revolution in Transportation Finance: The Rise of Local Option Transportation Taxes. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 1, 2003, pp. 19–32.
25.
HannayR., and WachsM.Factors Influencing Support for Local Transportation Sales Tax Measures. Transportation: Planning, Policy, Research, Practice, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2007, pp. 17–35.
26.
RosenbloomS.Meeting Transportation Needs in an Aging-Friendly Community. Generations, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2009, pp. 33–43.
NCHRP Web Document 143: Implementable Strategies for Shifting to Direct Usage-Based Charges for Transportation Funding.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009.
29.
Transportation Technical Innovation and Demonstration Program.Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008.
30.
VisserC.Public–Private Partnerships for Urban Road Networks: A Way out of the Urban Deficit. Journal of Public Works and Infrastructure, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2008-2009, pp. 43–54.
31.
BakerR. T., UngemahD. H., GoodinG. D., and GeiselbrechtT. C.Moving Beyond Lexus Lanes: Equity Considerations for Managed Lanes. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
32.
SchweitzerL., and TaylorB. D.Just Pricing: The Distributional Effects of Congestion Pricing and Sales Taxes. Transportation, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2008, pp. 797–812.
33.
EliassonJ., and MattssonL.-G.Equity Effects of Congestion Pricing: Quantitative Methodology and a Case for Stockholm. Transportation Research, Part A, Vol. 40, No. 7, 2006, pp. 602–620.
34.
BonsallP., and KellyC.Road User Charging and Social Exclusion: The Impact of Congestion Charges on At-Risk Users. Transport Policy, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2005, pp. 406–418.
35.
KrigerD., ShiuS., and NaylorS.NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 364: Estimating Toll Road Demand and Revenue.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006
36.
PucherJ.Discrimination in Mass Transit. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 48, No. 3, 1982, pp. 315–326.
37.
PucherJ.Equity in Transit Financing. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 47, No. 4, 1981, pp. 387–407.
38.
PucherJ., and HirschmanI.Distribution of Transit Tax Burden in Five U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1982, pp. 3–28.
39.
TCRP Report 28: Transit Markets of the Future: The Challenge of Change.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.
40.
RosenbloomS., and HerbelS.The Safety and Mobility Patterns of Older Women: Do Current Patterns Foretell the Future?Public Works Management and Policy, Vol. 13, No. 4, 2009, pp. 338–353.
41.
TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 2: Low-Floor Transit Buses.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.
42.
TCRP Report 24: Guidebook for Attracting Paratransit Patrons to Fixed-Route Services.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997.
43.
TCRP Report 41: New Designs and Operating Experience with Low-Floor Buses.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.
44.
TCRP Report 46: The Role of Transit Amenities and Vehicle Characteristics in Building Transit Ridership.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999.
45.
TCRP Report 45: Passenger Information Services: A Guidebook for Transit Systems.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999.
46.
TCRP Report 82: Improving Public Transit Options for Older Persons, Vol. 2. Final Report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002.
47.
TCRP Synthesis of Transit Service 41: The Use of Small Buses in Transit Service.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2002.
48.
TholeC., and HarveyF.Update Methodology for ADA Demand Estimates: Lessons Learned.Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 2005.
49.
RosenbloomS.The Transportation Patterns and Needs of People with Disabilities. In The Future of Disability in America (FieldM. J., and JetteA. M., eds.), National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2007.
50.
TCRP Report 91: Economic Benefits of Coordinating Human Service Transportation and Transit Services.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.
51.
TCRP Report 21: Strategies to Assist Local Transportation Agencies in Becoming Mobility Managers.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997.
52.
TCRP Report 99: Embracing Change in a Changing World.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.
53.
TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 53: Operational Experiences with Flexible Transit Services.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.
54.
TCRP Report 105: Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.
55.
TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 30: ADA Paratransit Eligibility Certification Practices.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.
