Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Legal Research Digest 28 TRansiT CoopeRaTive ReseaRCh pRogRam sponsored by the Federal Transit administration December 2008 Subject Areas: IA Planning and Administration; IC Transportation Law; VI Public Transit TRanspoRTaTion ReseaRCh BoaRD OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES USES OF FEES OR ALTERNATIVES TO FUND TRANSIT This report was prepared under TCRp project J-5, âLegal aspects of Transit and intermodal Transportation programs,â for which the Transportation Research Board is the agency coordinating the research. The report was prepared by Jaye pershing Johnson, esq. James B. mcDaniel, TRB Counsel for Legal Research projects, was the principal investigator and content editor. The Problem and Its Solution The nationâs transit agencies need to have access to a program that can provide authorita- tively researched, specific, limited-scope stud- ies of legal issues and problems having national significance and application to their businesses. The TCRP Project J-5 is designed to provide this insight. The intermodal approach to surface transpor- tation requires a partnership between transit and other transportation modes. Transit attorneys have noted that they par- ticularly need information in several areas of transportation law, including environmental re- quirements; construction and procurement con- tract procedures and administration; civil rights and labor standards; and tort liability, risk man- agement, and system safety. In other areas of the law, transit programs may involve legal problems and issues that are not shared with other modes; as, for example, compliance with transit equipment and opera- tions guidelines, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) financing initiatives, and labor or envi- ronmental standards. Applications This report addresses the use of impact fees and other developer exactions for transit in the United States; the various circumstances that have contributed to the development, or lack thereof, of transit impact fees in this country; and the various strategies used by states, munic- ipalities, and transit systems to develop impact fees or other development exactions to fund transit related to growth. The report is presented in two partsâthe first, a discussion of the use of impact fees and other development exactions for transit and the various policies and struc- tural and legal considerations; and the second, a series of case studies detailing impact fees and other exactions either enacted or considered in various jurisdictions. The objectives of this report are to assess the use of impact fees for transit in the United States, discuss policy and legal considerations relating to the use of impact fees and developer exactions for transit, discuss various method- ologies currently in use, and identify cases that exemplify strategies transit agencies may pur- sue when considering impact fees as an alterna- tive funding source for transit. The report will be of interest to state and lo- cal transportation officials, planners, and policy makers, and professionals who may consider this potentially valuable alternative funding source. xxxxxx Responsible Senior Program Officer: Gwen Chisholm Smith CONTENTS I. Introduction 3 A. Impact Fees Defined 3 B. Financing Alternatives 4 II. Use of Impact Fees for Transit 4 A. Impact of Federal Subsidy for Capital 5 B. Statutory Limits 5 C. Nexus Between Impact Fees and System Improvements 6 D. Coordination of Land Use and Development With Operating System Needs 6 E. Developer Response to Impact Fee Programs 7 F. Structural Considerations 7 G. The New Jersey Experience 8 III. Methodologies 9 A. Consumption Driven 10 B. Improvement Driven 12 IV. Legal Issues 13 A. State Impact Fee Enabling Acts 14 B. Nexus and Proportionality 18
V. Alternatives 22 A. Tax Increment Financing 22 B. Special Taxing Districts 23 C. Transportation Assessment Districtsâ Bostonâs Northpoint Development Project 24 VI. Transit Impact Fee Case Studies 24 A. Seattle, Washington: Multimodal Approaches to Impact Mitigation 25 B. San Francisco Transit Impact Development Fee (1981) 25 C. San Francisco Transit Impact Development Fee (2004) 26 D. Broward County, FloridaâTransit Concurrency Fees 27 E. Portland, Oregonâ System Development Charge 28 VII. Conclusion 29 Appendix A 30 Appendix B 32 Appendix C 33 ConTenTs (contâd)