Uses of Fees or Alternatives to Fund Transit (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 13-21
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 13... ...
13 The following table shows an example of the calculation of cost per person per trip end using Seattle, Washington's, Northgate revitalization area: Travel Mode Mitigation Cost of Local Trips Other Funding Available Unfunded Cost of Local Trips Growth Trip Ends Bicycle $ 854,850 $0 $ 854,850 1,054 Pedestrian 4,318,367 0 4,318,367 2,894 Transit 78,300 0 78,300 1,660 Roadway 4,919,446 0 4,919,446 9,302 Totals $10,170,963 $0 $10,170,963 14,910 Cost per growth trip end $10,170,963 ÷ 14,910 = $682.16 The cost per growth trip end must then be translated into each development type by cost per square foot or residential unit. The two methodologies discussed above have also been referred to as "inductive" (consumption driven)
|
From page 14... ...
14 for which land development causes a need. Courts will uniformly strike down, usually as an unauthorized tax, land conditions that are not so connected.73 A
|
From page 15... ...
15 without the necessity of specific enabling legislation.87 The public enterprise statute provides that "a city shall have full authority to finance the cost of any public enterprise by levying taxes, borrowing money, and appropriating any other revenues therefor…."88 "Public enterprise" is defined to expressly include public transportation systems.89 Other states with general authorizing language that arguably would support the enactment of impact fees or other exactions for transit capital purposes include the following: • Maine90 ("infrastructure facilities include, but are not limited to" an enumerated list of public infrastructure facilities)
|
From page 16... ...
16 the Ohio and United States Constitutions if 1) there is a reasonable connection between the city's need for constructing new roadways and the increase in traffic generated by new developments; and 2)
|
From page 17... ...
17 for which impact fees may be imposed but omits transit capital purposes. Statutory authority in Illinois and Pennsylvania authorizes the adoption of impact fees by ordinance for roads only.113 Other states that arguably prohibit the use of impact fees for transit purposes by exclusion include Alabama (applicable only in Baldwin County)
|
From page 18... ...
18 B Nexus and Proportionality The U.S.
|
From page 19... ...
19 city's requirement for a dedication of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway easement. The city simply found that the creation of the pathway "could offset some of the traffic demand…and lessen the increase in traffic congestion…." No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some effort to quantify its findings…beyond the conclusory statement that it could offset some of the traffic demand generated.147 Likewise, the Court found the city's demand for a public easement for its greenway system had not clearly established proportionality and thus amounted to eminent domain.148 The constitutional problem in both instances was "the loss of [Dolan's]
|
From page 20... ...
20 This language of reasonable relationship and proportionality directly addresses the concerns relating to eminent domain issues.
|
From page 21... ...
21 number of contexts, regardless of whether inflation and other unknown factors affect the accuracy of such projections. The city presented data to support the conclusion that "the imposition of a lump sum fee representing increased transit costs over a 45-year period was not arbitrary or unreasonable and was not an unconstitutional taking of plaintiff's property."167 d.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.