It looks like RIPTA will be in decent financial shape this year, after the General Assembly approved a 2 cent increase in the gas tax.  Of course, things can change quickly.  The agency is at the whim of an energy market that can wreak havoc with its bottom line, as well as the service its customers need.

     Raising the gas tax was the right thing to do this year, but in the future, there needs to be a change.  When gas prices increase, consumers are likely to purchase less gas, which decreases the amount of money RIPTA receives.  At the same time gas prices are increasing, more people are turning to public transportation.  Unfortunately, funding is reduced at the very time when bus service is at its greatest demand. 

     The big question is how to provide funding for public transportation in a way that is fair, but keeps the burden to a minimum.  A report by the Sierra Club offered several options.    Some of the options include tolls on heavily traveled roads, employer taxes, or increases in the sales tax.  They would all raise revenue for public transportation, but each would have a negative economic impact.  Public transportation can have an enormously positive economic impact, so taxes which might curtail economic activity and put an unfair burden on businesses and consumers should be avoided.  However, the study did provide two excellent options.

     The first options is sponsorship by private companies.  This could involve selling naming rights for a particular route, advertising for businesses on transit maps (including their location on a map), or recognition of the businesses during a trip.  The main benefit of this approach is that it is voluntarily paid by businesses, instead of being a tax that is imposed on them.  It would also help raise the profile of businesses along commercial corridors.

     The second option would be a fee added to fines for parking and moving violations.  The fee could be collected by the appropriate municipality, and sent to RIPTA.  One possibility is an additional fee of a few dollars for a parking ticket, with escalating fees for more serious infractions, such as speeding or reckless driving.  Like the sponsorship option, this wouldn't involve imposing a tax on anyone.  In a way, it would also be voluntary: Motorists would only pay it if they act irresponsibly.  If they don't want to pay it, then all they have to do is act responsibly.

     The problem with both of these funding mechanisms is that it will be hard to measure just how much revenue each could raise.  They certainly wouldn't cover  all of RIPTA's expenses, but it would provide an infusion of cash that didn't require additional taxation, while maintaining current fares.