<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Research in Progress (RIP)</title>
    <link>https://rip.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://rip.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Understanding Electric Vehicle Impacts on Arizona Fuel-Tax Revenue</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2353352</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) would like to understand how the increasing use of electric vehicles (EVs) on Arizona’s roadways will affect fuel-tax revenue in the state. State taxes on gasoline and diesel sales are a major source of funding for maintaining and expanding Arizona’s transportation network, but fuel tax receipts are expected to decline on a per-vehicle basis as more and more people choose to drive EVs on Arizona roadways. For instance, new fast-charging stations under development as part of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program are expected to increase the use of EVs both in Arizona and nationally. Because Arizona does not assess a fee equivalent to lost fuel taxes, EVs do not contribute to road-maintenance costs in the same way that internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles currently do.

This study will explore where, when, and how much EVs are driven in Arizona and project changes to this baseline in the future. The study also will develop future scenarios of varying levels of EV use on Arizona’s roadways that will facilitate FMS’s analysis of how EV adoption and use could affect fuel-tax receipts. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:13:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2353352</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Modernizing Fuel Tax Revenue Forecasting</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2307248</link>
      <description><![CDATA[State departments of transportation (DOTs) are facing funding challenges because state and federal fuel tax revenues are changing and becoming harder to accurately forecast. One of the factors responsible for changes is improvements in vehicle fuel economy. For example, there are increases to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, fleet economy changes, electric and alternative fuel vehicles, and changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Some state legislation has inadvertently decreased fuel revenues as a side effect. For instance, more than a dozen states have adopted regulations through legislation or other government actions to rapidly scale down emissions of light-duty passenger cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles and require an increased number of zero-emission vehicles to meet air quality and climate change emissions goals.

Six separate excise taxes are imposed to finance the federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) program. Three of these taxes are imposed on highway motor fuels (gasoline, diesel fuel and kerosene, and alternative fuels) and generate the majority of the revenues dedicated to the HTF. The FHWA’s Highway Revenue Forecasting Model (HRFM) provides projections for a 20-year time horizon for HTF and new revenue sources. The model uses VMT and fuel economy projections, as well as changes in composition of vehicles over the forecasting period. The fuel efficiency projection incorporates anticipated penetration of fuel-efficient vehicles, including electric vehicles (EVs). The model provides revenue projections, contribution of the 21 different vehicle classes to revenues, and costs (tax burdens) to households by income group and other demographics. Outputs from this model are primarily used for conducting highway cost allocation (HCA) studies (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/).

Research is needed to help state DOTs develop improved models to accurately forecast motor fuel transportation revenue in the near and long term for operational and planning needs. Further, these forecasts are necessary to quantify and understand potential shortfalls in revenue that need to be replaced by alternative sources of revenue.

The objective of this research is to develop a method and model(s) to help states forecast motor fuel transportation revenues in light of increased fuel efficiency and alternative fuels.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:33:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2307248</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SPR-4861: Updating Cost Allocation and Revenue Attribution</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2306933</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Indiana’s road expenditures are financed primarily by highway user fees. The basic principles of highway financing are user-fee equity and statewide revenue adequacy. It is only through analysis of past costs and revenues that Indiana can develop an equitable pricing structure for its road users and an efficient revenue generation system to cover expenditures. Such studies are needed periodically to ensure user equity and revenue efficiency keep pace with changing travel demand and distributions, construction technology and materials, and above all, new/emerging vehicle technologies including electrification. This proposal is based on a request made to Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) by Indiana’s Legislature, to update Indiana’s 2016 Cost Allocation Study. The goal is to measure/predict/address the impacts of alternative-fuel technology (particularly, electric vehicles) on Indiana’s highway revenue adequacy and equity.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:37:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2306933</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Future of Transportation Funding in Montana</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2219439</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Motor fuel taxes and GVW fees are the primary revenue source for 
Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) state transportation funding. Over time, however, the amount of user-fee funding for highways has dropped due to rising fuel efficiency, shifting federal-state cost share on infrastructure investments, and inflation. The increasing popularity of electric vehicles (EVs) and alternative fuels adds to worries about future transportation funding. In response to this concern, more than half of states have introduced an annual registration fee on EVs. States continue to explore various methods to best reflect the user pays principle. These include: increasing existing motor fuel tax rates; indexing motor fuel taxes to inflation; implementing mileage-based user fees; and studying fuel-neutral fees, based on energy consumption. Multiple research projects have explored a variety of funding methods and identified best practices from around the country. This research topic would explore the same ideas, but be specific to Montana in order to help MDT plan for future transportation revenue.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:36:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2219439</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Equity Impacts of Transportation Revenue Mechanisms and Changing Trends</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1953257</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This project was canceled on January 29, 2025, as a result of two Presidential Executive Orders: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (January 20, 2025) and Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (January 21, 2025). 
 ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2022 10:49:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1953257</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Transitioning Fuel Tax Assessments to a Road Usage Charge</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1707230</link>
      <description><![CDATA[State departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies are interested in determining a viable alternative to motor fuel taxes as the primary funding source for transportation. While motor fuel taxes served as an effective and efficient revenue source during much of the 20th century, automobile and truck fuel efficiency is improving and electric and hybrid vehicle registrations are growing rapidly, thus eroding the funding base.
Many possible paths for implementation exist for implementing road usage charging.  Some implementation strategies will require new and emerging technologies to administer road usage charge programs for passenger and commercial vehicles. These technologies, which in some cases are still evolving, have implications for revenue collection, revenue distribution across jurisdictions, enforcement, administrative efficiency, equity, privacy, and data security. Implementation of appropriate technologies and administrative protocols necessitates many considerations and presents challenges.   
Challenges related to political and public acceptance of road usage charging cannot be overstated. Implementation will require effective communication and education at many levels. The public and policy makers must see proposed changes in transportation funding as fair, transparent, and equitable because the charges will be borne across all social and economic parts of society. 
The objective of this research is to evaluate and present viable paths and strategies for implementing road usage charging at the state, multi-state, and regional levels that generate revenues that could supplement, and/or may ultimately replace, motor fuel taxes as the primary funding source for surface transportation. The research should consider the differences among states and the near- and longer-term considerations and challenges to changes in transportation funding. 

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2020 16:42:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1707230</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Equity Impacts of California's County Transportation Sales Taxes</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1459152</link>
      <description><![CDATA[As state and federal fuel tax revenues for transportation continue to decline in real dollar terms, financial responsibility has increasingly shifted to local governments. In California, 19 “self-help” counties have Local Option Sales Taxes (LOSTs) to fund transportation projects. While both fuel and sales taxes are considered “regressive” because lower income households tend to pay larger shares of their incomes on such taxes than higher income households, sales tax finance for transportation also means that light users of transportation systems tend to pay more per mile travelled than do heavy users of the system. The ultimate regressivity of LOSTs depends not only on who pays them, but also on how the revenues are spent. When projects and services are funded which benefit lower income households, LOSTs effectively become more progressive. Accordingly, this research will analyze both the collection of LOSTs in California as well as the expenditure of funds to determine how they affect low-income and minority travelers and communities. This project will also examine the processes by which the LOST expenditure plans were developed to analyze whether low income and minority groups participated in the formulation of the measures and low income and minority households voted for them.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2017 16:13:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1459152</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Regional Financing Options Study</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1378072</link>
      <description><![CDATA[New York City and the surrounding counties of the metro region has arguably the most extensive and complex transportation system in the United States. This region has almost every type of transport system and mode of travel, with massive passenger and freight movement across and into the region. Further, this region continues to grow and change while retaining a core base of infrastructure and economic activity that is based on historical development patterns and land use. With that said, the region struggles to find the financial resources to maintain this infrastructure and improve it to meet the needs of the region for the next century.

The authors will explore various alternative traveler-based fees that can supplement the exiting revenue sources that currently provide the core financing for transportation infrastructure and operations. The New York Metro region already leads the country in terms of alternative financing mechanism for transport including significant use of road pricing (tolls) to fund mass transit services. Yet with a high level of mass transit use, the New York State has the lowest annual per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of any state. Therefore, the fuel tax revenue which forms the core of transportation funding sources around the Nation produces far less revenue on a per person basis in New York State and as such our fuel tax funding sources fall far short of transportation system needs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2015 12:22:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1378072</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Supply Chain-Based Solution to Prevent Fuel Tax Evasion</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1364762</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The proposed research is a unique concept for targeting fuel tax evasion that could result in two important breakthroughs. The first is in-line sensors to authenticate nanoscale markers in the fuel. The second is integration of exterior sensors to detect the volume of fuel in a tank truck and determine the open or closed position of the valve and global positioning system (GPS) communication. The research addresses preventing three types of fuel tax evasion: (1) non-taxable or low-taxable petrochemical products from being "blended" with taxable fuel products; (2) taxable fuel products from cross-jurisdictional evasion (i.e. paying State tax in a low tax State but selling in a high tax State); (3) selling "exported" fuel domestically.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:01:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1364762</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Investigating the Network System Effects of Mileage Fee</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1363395</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Fuel taxes have been the main source of transportation funding in the United States (US) for the last nearly six decades. Recently, there have been increasing concerns regarding this funding mechanism because the revenue from fuel taxes cannot keep up with the increasing needs for transportation infrastructure repair and rebuild. To address the critical needs in transportation finance, the concept of mileage fee (MF) has received much attention lately as an alternative way to generate transportation revenue. Under this concept, drivers are charged based on the total number of miles traveled and where the travel took place. Compared with fuel taxes, MF can generate stable revenue regardless of fuel efficiency or alternative fuels which are one of the major reasons for decreasing or steady revenue from fuel taxes. While the current research on MF mainly focuses on the technologies, public acceptance (such as privacy issues), and other financial considerations, few studies looked at the system effects of such a concept. MF, similar to other major transportation policies (such as congestion pricing), is expected to have significant impacts on driver behaviors. Since drivers make their decisions individually who are however connected by the traffic network, MF policy may generate complicated network effects as a result of driver' (potentially heterogeneous) responses. The implication is that, if not thoroughly investigated and properly designed, MF may produce unintended consequences that is not desirable from either the system manger's or the public's perspective.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2015 01:00:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1363395</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Future Transportation Financing Options: Challenges and Opportunities</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1359757</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The funding of America's transportation system is a complex process that includes a number of stakeholders, both private and public. Financing options for rural states have not been at the forefront of the national debate. This project aims to understand all the financing options under consideration and to assess their viability in rural states. The cost to maintain, or preserve, the current national transportation system is well documented and has eclipsed the amount of funds available under the current financing structure. In short, our transportation system is failing and so is the national system of funding it. Much of the current literature on transportation funding warns that failure to fund transportation infrastructure can lead to major consequences, as transportation plays a significant role in the national, state, and local economies for access to jobs, recreation, education, healthcare, and shipping goods. This situation is also true in Vermont where the challenges of small population, small tax base, rural setting and aging infrastructure have exacerbated the problem. The federal gas tax (and most state gas taxes) is a fixed amount per gallon, not indexed for inflation. This has been long known as a weak revenue structure to transportation professionals. New environmental, economic and transportation policies are seeking to increase fuel efficiency for vehicles and are encouraging alternative fuels. The success of these policies will cause revenues from the gas tax to decrease. This paradox of conflicting policies is not widely observed in the public discourse. As the public becomes increasingly engaged in the debate over how the post-gas tax transportation system will be funded there is a need to construct a better framework so that the current financing structure and options can be readily displayed and made accessible to the public and to policy makers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2015 01:01:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1359757</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Gasoline Taxes: An Examination of News Media Discourse Related to Gas Tax Funding Debates in Six States</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1359749</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This project investigates the discourse around gasoline taxes in six U.S. states to contribute understanding to sustainable transportation funding policy. Gasoline taxes have provided direct funding to the transportation system since they were first instituted in 1932. Today the average state gasoline tax is 23.8 cents per gallon and 18.4 cents at the Federal level (ARTBA). Despite several attempts at the federal level, policy-makers have been unable to increase gasoline taxes for 17 years. As a result the purchasing power has steadily eroded and the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is expected to be bankrupt (AASHTO). One solution to the funding shortfall is to increase gas taxes and use the money to fund transportation infrastructure. However this has proven to be extremely difficult. Gas taxes at the national level have been increased four times in the last 50 years: in 1956 to build the interstate highway system, in 1981 and twice during the Clinton years in 1991 and 1993. Why is it that the U.S. has lower gasoline prices than most of its peer group of 23 industrial nations? Why has it been so difficult at the state and federal level to raise gas taxes? Why has an outcome of federal and state energy policy been to maintain lower gasoline prices at low levels? This Phase 1 study examines the media discourse around gas tax hikes in six states: Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Idaho and Oregon.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2015 01:01:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1359749</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Research for the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning. Task 49. Synthesis of Metropilitan-Level Transportation Funding Sources</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1346900</link>
      <description><![CDATA[One of the most important constraints on future transportation investment is inadequate funding, especially in metropolitan areas. Some metropolitan areas have developed specific regional funding programs (e.g., regional sales tax or gas tax) dedicated to transportation needs in their area. Such examples could act as models for other metropolitan areas struggling with similar issues. Thus, there is a need to describe the different types of metropolitan-level funding sources that exist in the United States, explain how they came about, and assess the pros and cons of their current form of implementation.  The objective of this study is to identify different funding programs for metropolitan-level funding in the United States. Not only will this study describe such programs, but it will also assess the advantages and disadvantages of each type of funding arrangement.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 01:01:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1346900</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Implications of Alternate Revenue Sources for Transportation Planning</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1245918</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Current funding sources are proving to be inadequate to fund needed transportation projects and operations. As a consequence, alternative revenue sources, such as the vehicle miles of travel (VMT) tax, sales tax, energy tax, parking tax, tolls, and others, are being used or discussed around the United States in order to provide financing of transportation (both improvements and operations). In addition, some of these revenue sources are also designed in part to affect travel behaviors through the internalizing of travel costs. The proposed research project has four primary objectives. 1) Develop a list of alternative revenue sources for financing transportation, both at the state and local level, 2) Present the pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages of each option.(The first two objectives will be based on a review of existing literature), 3) Determine the extent of public support and attitudes regarding the various options. (This will be accomplished by conducting a scientific survey of a large random sample of Georgia adults. The survey results will be supplemented by a review of the results of opinion surveys conducted in other states), and 4) determine how the various alternative revenue sources might alter transportation behaviors such as mode choice, number of trips, and vehicle miles traveled. (This will be accomplished in two ways: by conducting a scientific survey of a large random sample of Georgia adults and by conducting a laboratory experiment.)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:56:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1245918</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Effectiveness and Equity of Future Transportation Financing Options at the Federal and State Levels</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1230020</link>
      <description><![CDATA[It has become evident both at the federal and state levels, that without a significant tax rate increase the gasoline tax - the Highway Trust Fund's primary revenue source - will no longer be a viable method of generating sufficient revenue. According to a report prepared by Cambridge Systematics Inc. (2005), maintaining the nation's current highways and transit systems required approximately $222 billion in 2005, and that amount will increase to $295 billion for 2015. In order to improve the current highways and transit systems, those numbers increase to $271 billion for 2005 and $356 billion for 2015. However, 2005 annual resources only amounted to approximately $180 billion from all levels of government, well short of covering even the maintenance costs. The federal gasoline tax has not increased since 1993. Increased inflation and greater vehicle fuel efficiency have eroded the purchasing power of the gasoline tax revenues. Alternative fuels and fuel efficiency improvement have not completely disrupted tax collection, but it has become clear that an alternative to the gasoline tax is necessary. Recent sharp increases in gasoline prices have resulted in a reduction in total vehicle travel, further hurting the gasoline tax revenue at all levels. A series of revenue studies have been conducted in recent years with leadership from the National Revenue Commission created under SAFETEA-LU, AASHTO, TRB, and state agencies (McMullen and Zhang 2008, National Revenue Commission 2007, Cambridge Systematics Inc. et. al. 2006, TRB 2006). These studies have all confirmed the revenue gap, and proposed future financing options to close the gap. The following list summarizes the proposed revenue-generating alternatives: (1) Increase gas tax steadily in the next several years and then index it to inflation; (2) Implement a federal transit ticket surcharge on a per-trip basis; (3) Increase vehicle registration and other vehicle-related fees; (4) Replace or supplement fuel tax with a mileage-based user fee system; (5) Tolling freeways for revenue generation and congestion management; (6) Encourage public-private partnerships and leverage private-sector resources; (7) Expand specific revenue sources for freight-related transportation needs. While the nation as a whole and many states engage in the debate of sustainable transportation financing options, answers to the following questions will provide critically important input to this debate and help decision-makers forge effective and equitable financing policies: (a) What is the true revenue-generating potential of alternative policy portfolios?  (b) How can revenue goals for maintaining and improving systems be achieved (e.g. how much higher the gas tax needs to be; what should be the rate of vehicle mileage fee)? (c) What are the impact of alternative policies on different population segments (e.g. low and high income, urban and rural, different regions, transit users)? (d) How will the general public react to the policy scenarios and how to gain their support? This project will integrate existing datasets (national and regional travel surveys, Highway Performance Monitoring System, etc.) and develop statistical models to answer these important questions. The statistical models estimate how individual households or user groups by geographic location make vehicle ownership (quantity and type) and use (miles driven on each vehicle) adjustments in response to proposed policy scenarios respectively. The overall effectiveness and equity of each financing option will then be evaluated based on model outputs. Similar models have been developed by the P.I. for Oregon, and successfully applied to evaluate the revenue and equity impact of vehicle mileage fees. This proposed project will extend the previous research by considering gas taxes, transit ticket surcharge, vehicle registration fee, distance-based user fee, and tolling at both federal and state levels. Maryland (due to availability of recent surveys and detailed network information) and California (early adoption of fuel-efficient and low-emission vehicles) will be used for state-level case studies. Since there are no clear quantifiable policy proposals regarding public-private partnerships (Zhang 2009) or freight-specific transportation revenue sources, the evaluation of these two financing options are left for future research after the national agenda on these policies is established. Compared to previous analyses of future transportation financing options, this project is unique and more advanced in several ways. First, demand responses to proposed financing options will be considered in impact analysis. This will be a significant methodological contribution, because a previous study has shown that revenue changes under new funding policies can be overestimated by 11~28% if short-run demand responses are ignored, and by an additional 3~5% if long-run responses are also ignored (Zhang and McMullen 2009). Second, in addition to revenue total estimates, this project will also examine the distributional effects of future financing options on different population groups. A thorough understanding of the equity issue is necessary for political debates, and for gaining public support. Finally, this project will explore environmentally-friendly (or green) versions of proposed financing options. For instance, a fixed vehicle mileage fee rate for all vehicles has a greener counterpart that incorporates a variable fee structure favoring more fuel-efficient vehicles. A green financing option will not only help reduce energy consumption and pollution emissions, but also improve public support as shown by a recent survey in California (Agrawal 2009).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:52:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1230020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>