There are some good answers to this week's question already. New financing including greater collaboration with the private sector is a hot topic, justifiably so. There are a variety of options for bringing more resources and creativity to bear in transportation, and the new book Collaborative Governance offers a conceptual framework for development of new arrangements and partnerships in this vein. However, this is just one tool available to policy makers, and it will require government to climb a learning curve since shared discretion means that purposes need to be well-aligned, especially since such joint work often entails a mismatch of information and incentives that could lead to damaging outcomes. It also requires iterative learning and adjustments in the relationship over time; agreements are likely to be amended repeatedly.

Still there's lot of promise here, which is why I praise new initiatives likely to move both sectors along with collaboration on infrastructure such as the West Coast Infrastructure Exchange launched this week by California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. However, I have heard from one national expert, with nods around the table from others similarly knowledgeable when he asserted it, that private financing can realistically only cover a modest fraction of the gap between public funding and infrastructure investment needs.

However, I am suspicious of two things that underpin the assessment of what's needed: The multi-trillion-dollar price tag (which tends to come from industry sources who stand to receive much of that funding) and the assumption that the program as currently run is the best way to funnel money to projects.

On the former, it would be more comforting if there were ranges given for what's needed. No one disputes that deferred maintenance and outdated infrastructure (including cheap ITS enhancements, as Rob rightly calls for) are a problem, but what is the least that's needed? What might we buy if we had some more? And what does a really premium infrastructure investment plan look like? I fear the chasm between what we have and what we're scolded about needing repeatedly makes it harder to grow this program.

I love the suggestion on this page about auditing existing state and federal programs. I find it very strange that this huge program is not more accountable and transparent to taxpayers. I should be able to get onto a one-stop-shopping web site and get a good idea of revenue flows into the program, investment outflows, where projects are located, what stage of design or delivery they are in and whether or not they are on-schedule, what their effects are projected to be to the economy, the community and the environment. Right now I can do that with select programs, but mostly the smaller ones. Why is there an inverse relationship in transportation programs whereby the larger the program the more opaque it is? There should be benchmarking scorecards for agencies and even an app for transportation investment info, as I quipped to streetsblog.

Having said all this, I endorse higher revenues for the program if it is reformed so the new funding is invested in ways that "fit" our 21st century economy. New financing tools enough; new funding is necessary. That is especially the case given environmental considerations, especially climatic stability. And at this point, we need to both reduce heat-trapping pollution AND prepare for climate change. Thankfully, some agencies are already planning for the future. And it's clear preparedness will require still more investment. This adds an exclamation point to the inescapable conclusion: Yes, transportation needs more revenue from users!

While it is good to see the press focus on the key issue of future transportation funding that was unresolved in MAP-21, let's not get hung-up on only one method to solve the problem. All methods deserve consideration.

In fact, ARTBA and the coalitions we help lead have never been "Johnny One Note" when it comes to pushing for infrastructure financing solutions.

Fixating on a single solution with little or no context limits good policymaking. We are focusing on all user-based means to strengthen the Highway Trust Fund, as well as ensuring that Congress and the President fully understand the dire consequences of inaction.

It still seems highly unlikely that an increase in federal motor fuels taxes will be enacted either in the lame-duck session of this Congress or in the new Congress, unless such an increase is part of a "grand bargain" that addresses entitlements, spending reductions in domestic discretionary and defense spending, and comprehensive tax reform. Inclusion of an increase in the federal gasoline tax, as part of such a broad program of deficit reduction, seems unlikely, although it was recommended by Simpson-Bowles and almost certainly represents the only possible way that it might occur.

As the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) and the Eno Center for Transportation (Eno) noted in their recent report, "The Consequences of Reduced Federal Transportation Investment," we face the very real possibility of stagnating, if not declining, federal funding of transportation over the next several years. Increasingly, states and localities are recognizing that they will bear a heavier burden of investing in transportation infrastructure in coming years. In the absence of increased user-based revenues, as Rob Atkinson suggested in his response to this question and as BPC has recommended, federal policy should be reformed, so as to incentivize and reward states and metropolitan regions that innovate, in developing new funding streams (such as tolling or mileage-based user fees) for investment in transportation and new financing tools to deliver projects.

Such incentives, along with federal transportation planning reforms that would lead to comprehensive strategic capital investment programs at the state and metropolitan levels and to targeting investments on those projecxts and operations that offer the greatest economic benefits, should be pursued. Over time, I believe that we will see the adoption of mileage-based user fees and greater use of tolling, as the principal sources of transportation capital investment, but this is likely to happen first, and primarily, at the state and metropolitan, rather than at the federal, levels. For now, we should look to better and wiser investment of scarce resources and seek opportunities to expand those resources at the federal level, by increasing and indexing the federal gasoline tax, as part of a grand bargain over deficit reduction.

In a November 2011 letter to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “Supercommittee”) AAA underscored the role that sound transportation funding policies can play in improving the nation’s fiscal and long-term economic situation. When we wrote the Supercommittee, the Highway Trust Fund was facing near-term insolvency. Thankfully, MAP-21 helped save the program from falling off its own imminent fiscal cliff. But two years from now we will be facing a similar situation. While MAP-21 helped ease the pain, it did not provide an ultimate cure.

So again the countdown clock ticks. Equally imperative now, as it was last November, is the need to put the trust fund back on firm footing and end the need for future General Fund bailouts. Returning the federal program to a user-paid system should be the stated goal. We know that three federal commissions, including Simpson/Bowles, have concluded that at least for the next decade, the federal gas tax remains the best way to generate significant amounts of transportation revenue.

AAA is on record in support of a gas tax increase and MAP-21 went a long way towards restructuring the federal program, making it more performance-based and ensuring greater accountability and transparency. We are undeniably at a crossroads with the nation’s infrastructure and cannot put off the tough decisions any longer. To continue to do so compromises our economic vitality, fiscal solvency and, most importantly, the safety of motorists and system users.

Over the last few weeks, AAA staff has been meeting with key House and Senate offices. In these conversations, AAA has reminded Congress that transportation is a bipartisan issue that has been part of prior successful efforts that improved the nation’s fiscal situation. It will take leadership and a realistic appraisal of the benefits of Highway Trust Fund solvency for lawmakers to seize this opportunity and improve our nation’s transportation system.

As one senior congressional aide confided to us, "I don't see our constituents lobbying to raise the gas tax. The only people we hear from on that score are the special interest groups." I suspect most lawmakers on Capitiol Hill share this view. Given this perception, it is almost certain that a federal gas tax increase will remain off the table in the next session of Congress.

Instead, look for the states to assume a larger share of responsibility for funding their transportation needs. An early harbinger may be the state of Arkansas whose voters just approved a sales tax increase to back a $1.3 billion bond issue to fund highway construction over the next ten years.

Also, look for for a shift from funding to financing of large infrastructure projects. The shift will be fueled by a vastly expanded TIFIA lending authority ---by more than 600 percent, from $122 million in FY 2012 to $750 million in FY 2013---and by a large reservoir of equity in pension funds and private infrastructure investment funds, reportedly numbering over 100 at the latest count.

The likely prospect of public and private financing replacing dwindling federal funding dominated discussion among financial practitioners at ARTBA's Public-Private Partnership Conference in Washington on October 10-11. Participanta were encouraged to hear that 19 projects worth $27.5 billion have already submitted letters of interest for TIFIA loans in the past three months. More applications are certain to follow as it becomes clear that the Highway Trust Fund no longer can continue to be a source of capital for transportation infrastructure.

In sum, rather than hoping for an increase in the gas tax, expect greater financial participation by state and local taxpayers and a shift from funding to private and public financing as the most likely response to inadequate federal infrastructure funding in the 113th Congress and perhaps beyond.

A new gas tax is regressive and especially harmful during a slow economy. Before instituting this burden on taxpayers, Congress should first insist that the $120 billion being spent in conjunction with this past summer’s transportation act be spent as sensibly as possible.

A national benchmarking system for transportation agencies would transparently scrutinize how funds are being used and reward the best performers.

With the benchmarking system, agencies would be placed in groups with similar organizations in terms of the size of the service population and geographic location. An independent auditor would determine how efficiently each agency is performing and using funds and rank them against peers.

Such a practice would be a wake-up call for more efficient spending – and better transportation service.

The Simpson-Bowles report already supports this approach. It says, “Before asking taxpayers to pay more for roads, bridges, and infrastructure, we must ensure existing funds are not wasted. The Commission recommends significant reforms to control federal highway spending.”

Now we need to follow through and implement them.

Is it time to talk about a gas tax increase? Given the massive underinvestment in our nations surface transportation infrastructure, it's always the time to talk about a gas tax increase, even when the economy is not fully recovered. Raising the gas tax now would have no negative impact on a fragile economy as long as the money goes into the Highway Trust Fund and is invested in infrastructure. Consumers would be spending a little less, but the nation would be investing a little more, with no net impact on jobs.

So how do get a gas tax increase on the table? How about convincing American voters to start being concerned about the next generation? We are the only generation of Americans that will leave a degraded infrastructure to our children. Not only are we borrowing from the future generation to pay for federal spending, we are borrowing from the future by wearing down infrastructure. We not only have a budget deficit, but an investment deficit.

But since this won’t happen, how about creating a “Race to the Top” for roads? While both parties are reluctant to raise the gas tax for political reasons, Republican opposition is grounded in both politics and policy (many Republicans believe in a smaller federal government). But virtually all Republicans are pro-market and many would like to see market forces play a bigger role in transportation. Okay, so here’s the deal. Congress should increase the gas tax by 10 cents a gallon for 6 years and permanently index it to inflation, and ensure that the monies go to the highway trust fund. But for states to qualify for these added monies, they would have to embrace road pricing, privatization and intelligent transportation systems. States that did a good job of building toll roads (or adding toll lanes to existing roads), implementing congestion (or other road) pricing programs, removing regulatory barriers to tolling and private road operation, and embracing ITS, would receive funding from the additional gas tax revenues. After 6 years, the gas tax increase would sunset (except for the automatic indexation to inflation), but states would have much more revenues from tolling and drivers would be much more accepting of tolling as a normal part of driving. Win-win.

Some will argue that it's none of the federal governmnet's business to tell states to do these kind of things. But as we have learned in education policy states often don't act in their own interest because of politics and bureuacracy. It's no different in transportation. This kind of smart federal policy would nudge the states to do what is in their long term transportation interests, while at the same time advancing national transportation interests.