United States: States Take More Active Role In Surface Transportation Funding

Fiscal constraints on state budgets coupled with continued uncertainty with respect to future levels of federal surface transportation funding have led states to diversify the funding sources for their transportation projects. We summarize below the recent legislative proposals made by states to address this funding gap, as well as the current status of federal support for infrastructure projects, including those structured as public-private partnerships (P3s).

I. Introduction

In the United States, the responsibility for surface transportation expenditures is divided among the federal, state and local governments. State and local governments are each responsible for approximately 50% of the investments in the nation's transportation system. Federal funding support is a critical component of such expenditures, although the degree of reliance on federal funds varies by state. Based on information provided by the Federal Highway Administration compiled between 2001 and 2012, the range of federal funding as a percentage of state transportation budgets is between 35% and 98% depending on the state.1

Such reliance demonstrates the importance to states of the continued availability of federal transportation dollars provided through the Highway Trust Fund (the "HTF"). In previous client publications, we have focused on the funding shortfall in the HTF and possible short and long-term fixes proposed at the federal level, including proposed Congressional legislation, to fill the gap.2 In this client alert, our focus is on states and, in particular, their efforts to mitigate the risks posed by the prospect of more limited federal transportation funding. We begin with an update on the status of the federal efforts and then turn to states' efforts.

II. Federal Surface Transportation Funding Status

The most recent reauthorization bill authorizing federal funding for US surface transportation is the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act ("MAP-21"). MAP-21 was signed into law by President Obama in July 2012 and was extended until May 31, 2015 by the passage in July 2014 of the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 (the "HTFA").

The passage of the HTFA was important because it extended, on a pro rata basis, until the end of May 2015, the federal transportation funding programs established (or continued) by MAP-21. It also avoided the insolvency of the HTF, which was due to run dry by the end of August of last year. The HTF suffers from an ever-increasing shortfall, stemming principally from the fact that it is funded with federal motor vehicle fuel taxes that have been fixed at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. The funding gap has been compounded by continued declines in gas and diesel consumption as a result of greater fuel efficiency and the increased viability of alternative fuels.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that HTF revenues will be insufficient to cover its outlays by an average of approximately $16 billion per year between 2015 and 2024.3 Neither of the long term transportation bills that were introduced last year (i.e. the GROW America Act and the MAP-21 Reauthorization Act) addressed the systemic underfunding of the HTF,4 and such underfunding was not addressed at all by the HTFA, which maintained funding at current levels. It is possible that Congress will attempt to tackle the issue this year in connection with a long-term transportation bill or a further extension of MAP-21, but doing so will require a fundamental change in federal surface transportation funding methodology.

Given the current political environment in Washington, it seems unlikely that legislation enacted during the current session of Congress will implement any major structural change with respect to the HTF. Certain House Democrats have proposed an increase in the federal gas tax, but despite the current low cost of fuel, there is far from a Congressional consensus on such plan, which also lacks support from the White House, which would prefer to fill the gap with tax payments on repatriated corporate earnings.5 At least for now, Congressional consensus is likely to be reached only with an agreement to continue funding the HTF with fuel taxes at current levels, with any additional funds coming from other sources.

III. Recent Federal Initiatives Supporting P3s

The Obama Administration has acknowledged the importance of closing the funding gap in the HTF and, over the last few years, has been focused on preserving the HTF's health and increasing the certainty states need to include infrastructure procurements in their long-term planning programs. The Administration's proposed FY 2016 budget, released on February 3rd (the "Proposed Budget") contains legislative proposals and other initiatives intended to increase transportation infrastructure investment and, in particular, private investment in public infrastructure through public-private partnerships ("P3s").6 The following elements are notable: 

  • Long-Term Transportation Reauthorization. Building on the GROW America Act (which set forth a $302 billion, four-year funding plan), the Proposed Budget includes a $478 billion, six-year transportation reauthorization proposal. This proposal would increase federal surface transportation funding from the current level of approximately $55 billion per year to nearly $80 billion per year. Like GROW America, such proposal is designed to maintain the solvency of the HTF with increases in funding over current levels, with the increases being funded by corporate tax payments on accumulated overseas earnings.7
  • National Infrastructure Bank. The President first indicated his support for a National Infrastructure Bank (the "NIB") during his 2008 campaign and has continued to press for the creation of the bank during his presidency.8 The NIB would be a federal agency that, similar to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act ("TIFIA") program, would provide low-cost, long-term loans on flexible terms. However, unlike TIFIA, the NIB would have an independent board comprised of infrastructure sector stakeholders and would have a mandate that extends to sectors other than transportation, such as energy, water, education or telecommunications. By providing such loans to private borrowers, the NIB would lower the cost of capital for developers of P3 projects, which could incentivize private investment in projects, such as those in the water sector, that to date have not frequently been procured on a P3 basis.
  • Qualified Public Infrastructure Bonds. Similar to the existing Private Activity Bonds ("PABs") program, the Qualified Public Infrastructure Bond ("QPIBs") program would enable states to issue tax exempt bonds, the proceeds of which could be on-lent to private entities and applied to project costs. According to the Administration's fact sheet, QPIBs would expand the scope of the "private activities" funded with tax exempt bonds beyond highway and surface freight transfer facilities to include, among others, airports, ports, mass transit, solid waste disposal, sewer, and water facilities. In addition, unlike PABs, QPIBs would have no expiration date or issuance caps, and interest payable thereon would not be subject to the alternative minimum tax. If the QPIB program were established, the broader scope and increased flexibility of these instruments (particularly given their tax exempt nature) would likely increase the interest of private sector sponsors in tax-exempt municipal bond debt as a funding source for P3 projects.
  • AFF Bonds. The AFF Bond program, which, like the NIB, was included in previous Obama Administration budgets, would offer tax credits to state and local government issuers issuing taxable bonds equal to 28% of their interest costs.9
  • Efficiency in Permitting. The Proposed Budget would expand the Federal Infrastructure Project Permitting Dashboard (the "Dashboard"), which was established by Executive Order in 2012 and has been accompanied by efforts to streamline the federal permitting and environmental review processes. The Dashboard is a publicly available source of schedules and metrics for major infrastructure projects, which makes it possible for agencies and interested stakeholders to track permitting processes online.
  • Water Finance Center and Rural Opportunity Investment Initiative. These two initiatives, which will be established within the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture, respectively, would support P3s by identifying opportunities for private investment (and for provision of technical assistance) in water projects generally and in rural projects in the water, energy, and broadband sectors. A similar office established last year within the US Department of Transportation, the Build America Transportation Investment Center (the "BATIC"), provides technical assistance to state and local governments regarding transportation P3 matters.10

IV. States' Parallel Efforts

By contributing approximately 40% of all surface transportation expenditures, states shoulder a significant burden in funding US highway and transit infrastructure. This arrangement has proved problematic in recent years as the recession weakened state budgets, federal funding levels remained flat and uncertainty persisted with respect to future federal allocations. As a result, states' traditional revenue sources have been unable to support their transportation investment needs. In response, states are pursuing a variety of measures to raise revenues to fund infrastructure investments. Such efforts have multiplied over the last two years as states' fiscal health has worsened.

A. Traditional Revenue Sources

Traditionally, states, like the federal government, have relied on a motor vehicle fuel tax (the "State Gas Tax") to fund transportation investments. This tax is typically an excise tax, that is, a fixed sum per gallon, rather than a percentage of the price of the fuel sold. In recent years, like federal gas tax revenues, State Gas Tax revenues have decreased dramatically due to reduced driving habits, increased fuel economy standards and the fact that many states have neither indexed their State Gas Tax to inflation nor sufficiently raised the State Gas Tax rate to offset inflation. Nationwide, State Gas Tax revenue fell by $10 billion, or 19%, during the period from 2002 to 2012.11

Another staple of states' transportation funding toolkit is the motor vehicle tax, which is applied at the point of sale for automobiles (the "State Motor Vehicle Tax"). Like the State Gas Tax, the effectiveness of this tax as a revenue source has declined in recent years. Nationwide, State Motor Vehicle Tax revenues dropped by $8 billion, or 21%, from 2002 to 2012. A significant factor in the decline is reduced rates of car ownership due to the rise of car-sharing services, increased utilization of telecommuting and renewed interest in public transit options, coupled with the uneven economic recovery.12

In addition, states have long relied on access to low-cost borrowing to fund transportation infrastructure projects in the form of municipal bonds. Typically these instruments are either general obligation bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the relevant state, or revenue bonds, which are backed by the revenue from one or more projects. Income from such municipal bonds is also frequently tax-exempt.

B. New Revenue Sources

In order to make up for the shortfall in federal transportation revenues, states have taken various actions to increase their own transportation revenues. In addition to new issuances of municipal bonds, several states have implemented or are currently considering legislative measures, in particular increases to the State Gas Tax or the State Motor Vehicle Tax, and indexing the State Gas Tax to inflation.13 According to a recent report of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, as of February 2015, 90 transportation funding bills are pending in 23 states (with two such bills having been passed in 2015, in North Dakota and Iowa).14

In addition to those mentioned above, the following other measures have been implemented or are being considered by multiple states:

  • Increasing the state general sales tax and dedicating a portion of the revenues to transportation projects, or adding a new sales tax on purchases of specific services (e.g., oil changes and auto repairs) to fund such projects.
  • In particular for transit projects, increasing the income tax in the relevant geographic area and dedicating the new revenues to transit system construction costs (a measure referred to "value capture financing").
  • Increasing other taxes, such as those on rental cars, cigarettes and hotels, and dedicating the new revenues to transportation projects.
  • Imposing a "lockbox" on funds in the state's transportation fund so that they cannot be allocated elsewhere, or reallocating amounts in other state funds (e.g., general fund) or from other sources (e.g., lottery proceeds or Internet sales tax revenues) to fund transportation projects.
  • Increasing user fees, including fees relating to vehicle ownership (e.g., registration, licensing, vehicle inspection or emission inspection) and increasing and/or indexing transit fares or existing tolls.
  • Imposing a road user fee for drivers of alternative fuel vehicles or a sales tax on the purchase of such fuels.
  • Structuring alternative revenue sources related to road use (e.g., highway billboard leases, cell tower construction contracts or advertisements at other facilities, including toll plazas and rest areas).

C. Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax

As an alternate policy response to declining revenues from traditional sources, several states are considering a fee that attempts to capture the cost of each motorist's individual use of the roads: a vehicle miles traveled tax ("VMT"). As the name suggests, a VMT charges drivers a fixed amount per mile driven, thus unlinking transportation revenues from fuel consumption. A VMT is designed to produce a steady stream of revenues while avoiding a conflict with the state's other policy priorities, such as reducing fossil fuel consumption through heightened vehicle fuel economy standards. In addition, a VMT provides states with greater flexibility than a State Gas Tax by permitting them to tailor the assessment of taxes to address additional policy goals, such as congestion pricing and variation in rates based on vehicle or user characteristics.15

While at least 13 states have considered legislative measures that proposed the establishment or study of a VMT (see Table 1 below), only Oregon has moved forward with implementation. Below is a summary of significant state efforts in this area.

  • Oregon. In 2006, Oregon initiated its road user fee pilot program to test the viability of a VMT. The program collected mileage data and user fees from approximately 300 volunteers at the gas pump (where they were also refunded any State Gas Taxes that may have otherwise applied). The program raised concerns, typical among VMT efforts17 , with respect to implementation costs, compliance complexity and impositions on privacy. However, a second pilot program in 2013 was deemed to have adequately addressed these issues by designing an open system to allow evolution of technologies, providing public and private sector choices for mileage reporting and protecting personally identifiable information by law.18 Oregon's VMT is expected to go live as an opt-in alternative to its State Gas Tax on July 1, 2015. The initial program will be limited to 5,000 cars and light-duty commercial vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds. At an initial rate of 1.5 cents per mile, revenues are expected to approximate what would otherwise be collected under Oregon's 30 cents per gallon State Gas Tax. Such rate may be adjusted upward in the future.19
  • Washington. In 2012, the Washington state legislature enacted a measure that authorized funding for a steering committee to study the feasibility of transitioning from the State Gas Tax to a VMT. The results of the study were positive and the steering committee is expected to develop a pilot program for submission to the legislature in 2015. The pilot program will likely involve approximately 2,000 participants and test several different payment options, including (i) an annual permit, (ii) odometer readings, (iii) retrofitting existing vehicles with onboard GPS units and (iv) a smartphone app.20
  • California. In September 2014, California passed legislation ordering the California Transportation Commission to create a Road Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee. The committee has been tasked with developing a VMT pilot program that could potentially replace the current State Gas Tax. The legislation requires that the state transportation agency implement the pilot program by January 2017.21

D. P3 Procurements

Many states recognize the value of P3s as a viable option for project delivery and as an alternate source of funding. Depending on the particular arrangements between the state and the private sector participants, which are reflected in the applicable public-private partnership agreement, risks relating to the development, financing, construction, operation and maintenance of the relevant project may be transferred to the private sector. For appropriate projects, the risk transfer to the private sector can, in addition to capital access, result in accelerated project delivery, lifecycle cost reductions and revenue increases, among other benefits.

Approximately 35 states and Puerto Rico have passed laws authorizing P3s for transportation purposes. The legislative map is dynamic, with certain states considering new P3 legislation and others discussing the expansion of existing legislation to cover additional project sectors and to provide greater discretion to procurement authorities.22

Over the past few years, some of the more noteworthy P3 procurements have been implemented by states that have recently enacted or expanded their P3 legislation, in particular the following:

  • Ohio, which enacted P3 legislation in 2011, reached commercial close in December 2014 on the approximately $430 million Portsmouth ByPass Project, a 16-mile, four-lane, limited-access highway around the City of Portsmouth, which is expected to eliminate congestion and improve travel times. An investor consortium comprised of ACS Infrastructure Development, Infrared Capital Partners, Star America Fund and Dragados USA, among others, have partnered with the state to design, build, finance, operate and maintain the highway over a 35-year concession term. Financial close is expected during Q1 2015. Ohio is considering several other projects for delivery as P3s, in particular the replacement of the Brent Spence Bridge, which connects Ohio and Kentucky.
  • Pennsylvania, which enacted P3 legislation in 2012, recently reached commercial and financial close on an approximately $900 million contract with an investor consortium comprising Plenary Group, The Walsh Group and Granite Construction Company, to design, replace and maintain 558 bridges in the state for the next 25 years. This project, the Rapid Bridge Replacement Project, is particularly notable because it bundled multiple projects together in a single procurement, which created economies of scale that the state believes will reduce taxpayer costs by approximately 30 percent.23 By increasing scale, the state also made the project more attractive to private investors. The state expects the project to be completed in one quarter of the time it would have taken for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to complete it.24 Pennsylvania also recently initiated a P3 procurement for the development of compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling stations, used principally by transit buses, at more than 35 public transit facilities around the state.25
  • Maryland, which expressly authorized P3s in legislation enacted in 2013, has solicited bids for the procurement the Purple Line project, a proposed 16-mile light rail line connecting destinations, including the University of Maryland, College Park, across two counties adjacent to Washington, DC that are served by separate DC Metro subway lines. Bids for the Purple Line project are currently due in mid-August 2015. Maryland is also considering a light rail line, the Red Line, which would run east-west through the center of Baltimore City, and other road and transit projects for procurement as P3s.

States frequently utilize federal credit assistance programs in connection with P3 projects, in particular long-term financing from the US Department of Transportation through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program and authorization of tax-exempt PABs. To facilitate the financing of P3 projects by private sector entities, states have recently taken the lead in arranging these funding sources by filing letters of interest and/or initial applications and managing the initial stages of the process with USDOT until a preferred bidder is selected. TIFIA and PABs are frequently utilized concurrently, although certain recent projects, including the Rapid Bridge Replacement Project and the I-69 and East End Crossing Projects in Indiana, were debt financed with PABs alone.

E. Congestion Pricing and Demand Management

In addition to closing the funding gap, another critical issue for states is managing demand on their highways. Despite the overall decrease in nationwide vehicle-miles traveled over the past decade26, many urban and sub-urban areas have seen an increase in motor vehicle traffic.27 This has led states to seek better ways to manage traffic in congested areas while concurrently making investments to increasing capacity.

Tolling is a mechanism that can be used to accomplish both objectives. By imposing fees on users, in particular during peak travel periods, tolls can encourage users to use alternate routes, reduce their overall miles travelled (through carpooling or otherwise) and shift to alternate modes of travel such as light rail or bus rapid transit. While, as noted above, some states have proposed increases to existing tolls in order to generate revenue, others have approved projects involving the implementation of new tolls. Because federal regulations limit the ability of states to toll existing interstate highways28, new tolls have been added to interstates as "managed lanes," involving either the conversion of existing High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes into High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes or the expansion of a highway to include HOT lanes. In addition, in order to better manage demand, the tolls are frequently priced dynamically such that they vary based on location, type of roadway, time of day or other criteria established by the relevant governmental authority.

Because of the revenue source that tolls provide, states have frequently elected to procure managed lanes projects as P3s. There are several recent examples of such successful procurements, including (i) the I-77 project in North Carolina, which reached commercial close in 2014, (ii) the I-4 Ultimate project in Florida, which closed in 2014, (iii) the US-36 project in Colorado, which closed in 2014, (iv) the North Tarrant Express 3A/3B project in Texas, which closed in 2013 and (v) the I-95 Express Lanes project in Virginia, which closed in 2012.

V. Conclusion

The Obama Administration envisions the federal government playing a more active role in US surface transportation, by increasing federal funding support to states through the HTF and in fostering partnerships between states and private investors through P3s. Currently, however, there is no Congressional consensus on such an increase, let alone how it would be funded.29

Given the continued uncertainty regarding federal transportation funding, what we may see, at least for the duration of this Administration, is an increase in technical support to states and other stakeholders provided by federal agencies, but without an increase in federal funding. Under those circumstances, states seem likely to continue their development of new revenue-raising tools and to increase private sector involvement in transportation projects through P3s, in addition to relying on their traditional funding sources.

We intend to provide updates to this client alert with respect to (i) the reauthorization or further extension of federal surface transportation funding and (ii) the efforts of states to develop and implement the alternate financing methods described above.

Special thanks to Shearman & Sterling Associate Justin Glick for his contributions to this client publication.

Footnotes

1 See Transportation for America, The End of the Road? The Looming Fiscal Disaster for Transportation, at 8 (2014), http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Fiscal-Cliff-Report.pdf . Other estimates suggest that the federal contributions to states may be a somewhat smaller, but still significant, percentage of their transportation expenditures. The Pew Charitable Trusts, Intergovernmental Challenges in Surface Transportation Funding (Sept. 24, 2014), http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/09/SurfaceTransportationIntergovernmentalChallengesFunding.pdf?la=en (calculating own-source revenue applied to US surface transportation funding between 2007 and 2011, with federal revenues in the range of 15% to 55%).

2 See Shearman & Sterling LLP, Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization: The Road Ahead (May 12, 2014),

http://www.shearman.com/~/media/Files/NewsInsights/Publications/2014/05/Federal-Surface-Transportation-Reauthorization-The-Road-Ahead--PDF-051214.pdf (hereinafter S&S May 2014 Client Alert); Shearman & Sterling LLP, Federal Surface Transportation Funding: A Temporary Detour (Aug. 4, 2014), http://www.shearman.com/~/media/Files/NewsInsights/Publications/2014/08/Federal-Surface-Transportation-Reauthorization-A-Temporary-Detour-PDF-080414.pdf .

3 CONG. BUDGET OFF., THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND AND THE TREATMENT OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET at 1, Table 1 (June 2014), http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45416-TransportationScoring.pdf .

4 For more information concerning the GROW America Act and the MAP-21 Reauthorization Act, see S&S May 2014 Client Alert, supra note 2.

5 See Keith Laing, GOP chairman, Foxx to hold Twitter town hall on transport funding, THE HILL (Feb. 9, 2015, 12:47 p.m.), http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/232171-gop-chairman-foxx-to-hold-twitter-town-hall-on-transport-funding (noting opposition of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx to federal gas tax increase and view of House Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster that Congress is unlikely to pass such an increase in 2015); Keith Laing, House Dem would nearly double gas tax, THE HILL (Feb. 5, 2015, 2:01 p.m.), http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/231740-house-dem-moves-to-double-gas-tax (describing proposed bill to increase federal gas tax by 15 cents per gallon over three years and opposition to such proposal); Keith Laing, Obama proposes $478B transportation bill, THE HILL (Feb. 2, 2015, 12:10 p.m.), http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/231448-obama-proposes-478b-transportation-bill (describing Administration's proposal for repatriation of overseas corporate earnings and opposition thereto); Timothy Cama, Drill and drive? GOP seeks solution for highway cash, THE HILL (Feb. 1, 2015, 7:30 a.m.) (describing Republican opposition to gas tax increase and proposal to use oil and gas drilling revenue to fund the HTF shortfall); Jim Watts, Boxer, Paul to Introduce Bill to Use Tax Repatriation For HTF, BOND BUYER (Jan. 29, 2015, 2:47 p.m.), http://www.bondbuyer.com/news/washington-infrastructure/boxer-rand-to-introduce-bill-to-use-tax-repatriation-for-htf-1069976-1.html (describing bipartisan proposal to apply a portion of voluntarily repatriated foreign earnings to fund the HTF).

6 See OFF. OF MGMT. & BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET OF THE US GOVERNMENT (Feb. 2, 2015), http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/budget.pdf ; The White House, Middle Class Economics: The President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/overview .

7 Nick Timiraos & John D. McKinnon, Obama Proposes One-Time 14% Tax on Overseas Earnings Links It to Boosting Infrastructure Spending to Improve Highways, Transit, WALL ST. J. (Feb. 2, 2015, 3:41 a.m.), http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-proposes-one-time-14-tax-on-overseas-earnings-1422802103 .

8 See, e.g., Rob Feinberg, Road bank didn't get much traction, POLITIFACT.COM (May 7, 2012, 5:47 p.m.), http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/31/create-a-60-billion-bank-to-fund-roads-and-bridge/ ; OFF. OF MGMT. & BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET OF THE US GOVERNMENT, at 21 (Mar. 4, 2014), http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf?n=31597 .

9 See Naomi Jagoda & Jim Watts, Obama Budget Adds Muni Programs, Contains 28% Cap, BOND BUYER (Feb. 2, 2015, 5:18 p.m.), http://bondcasebriefs.com/2015/02/03/finance-and-accounting/obama-budget-adds-muni-programs-contains-28-cap/ .

10 For more information on the BATIC, see http://www.dot.gov/buildamerica .

11 Pew Charitable Trusts, supra note 1.

12 Id.

13 For example, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming have all raised their respective State Gas Taxes since January 2013. Beyond simply raising rates, states such as California, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Carolina and Pennsylvania have tied their respective State Gas Taxes, at least in part, to wholesale or retail motor vehicle fuel prices, which tend to track inflation (in addition to any market-based price fluctuations). Urban Institute, Reforming State Gas Taxes: How States Are (and Are Not) Addressing an Eroding Tax Base (Nov. 2014), http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/413286-reforming-state-gas-tax.pdf ; AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance, State Transportation Funding Proposals Since the Start of 2013 (Jan. 2013), http://www.transportation-finance.org/pdf/featured_documents/state%20transportation%20funding%20proposals%202015-1-19.pdf ; Pew Charitable Trusts, supra note 1.

14 American Road & Transportation Builders Association, Transportation Investment Advocacy Center, State Funding Initiatives Report (Feb. 2015), http://www.transportationinvestment.org .

15 National Conference of State Legislatures, On the Move: State Strategies for 21st Century Transportation Solutions (July 2012), http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/on-the-move.pdf .

16 National Conference of State Legislatures, supra note 15; AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance, supra note 13.

17 National Conference of State Legislatures, supra note 15, at 13-14 (noting also other public policy concerns, such as public acceptance and equity across income classes, and regulatory considerations, including whether a VMT would comply with federal laws limiting tolling on interstate highways).

18 Oregon Department of Transportation, Road Usage Charging in Oregon (Aug. 2014), http://www.catc.ca.gov/meetings/Joint%20Meetings/Ore_Road_Usage_Charge.pdf .

19 Frequently Asked Questions, OREGO, http://www.myorego.org/frequently-asked-questions/ (last visited March 6, 2015).

20 Washington State Department of Transportation Steering Committee, Just the Facts on Road Usage Charges (Dec. 2014), https://waroadusagecharge.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/just-the-facts-on-ruc-dec-2014.pdf .

21 VC Section 3090 Road Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, http://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d2/c7/3090 (last visited March 6, 2015).

22 See Jaime Rall, James B. Reed, Nicholas J. Farber, at the direction of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation: A Toolkit for Legislators (Oct. 2010), http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/PPPTOOLKIT.pdf ; Jaime Rall, Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation: A Toolkit for Legislators, February 2014 Updates and Corrections, http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/NCSL-PPPTOOLKIT-update-Feb2014.pdf ; American Subcontractors Association, Public-Private Partnership Laws in the States, Including Surety Bond Requirements (Nov. 1, 2014), http://www.asaonline.com/eweb/upload/Public-Private%20Partnerships%20in%20the%20States%20with%20an%20Evaluation%20of%20Surety%20Bond%20Requirements%202014.pdf .

23 Peter Jackson, PennDOT to award bulk bridge-building contracts, WASH. TIMES (Sept. 22, 2014), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/22/private-team-to-replace-558-state-bridges/# ! (citing statement of Pennsylvania secretary of transportation); Jan Murphy, PennDOT awards three-year, $899 million contract to take care of bridges, PENNLIVE.COM (Oct. 24, 2014, 2:28 p.m.), http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/10/team_awarded_multi-year_contra.html .

24 Murphy, supra note 23.

25 Pa. P3 board approves CNG project for public transit fueling, METRO MAGAZINE (Oct. 2, 2014), http://www.metro-magazine.com/accessibility/news/292533/pa-p3-board-approves-cng-project-for-public-transit-fueling .

26 State Smart Transportation Initiative, Per Capita VMT Drops for Ninth Straight Year; DOTs Taking Notice (Feb. 2014), http://www.ssti.us/2014/02/vmt-drops-ninth-year-dots-taking-notice/.

27 Texas A&M Transportation Institute, TTI's 2012 Urban Mobility Report (Dec. 2012), http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2012.pdf.

28 Under current federal law, tolling of existing toll-free Interstates has been prohibited except the following: (i) a pilot program that permits up to three Interstates to be tolled for reconstruction purposes; and (ii) MAP-21, which permits tolling of new lanes (on Interstates and other highways) if the number of non-tolled lanes is not reduced.

29 While certain lawmakers have suggested increasing the federal gas tax, others have proposed eliminating the tax entirely and shifting responsibility for infrastructure funding to state and local governments. Keith Laing, GOP senator: Gas tax hike must be offset, THE HILL (Feb. 25, 2015, 11:25 a.m.), http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/233794-gop-senator-gas-tax-hike-must-be-offset .

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions