Uses of Fees or Alternatives to Fund Transit (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 4-8
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 4... ...
4 have enacted impact fee legislation that, by virtue of broad authorizing language, would permit the use of impact fees for transit purposes, but authorizing legislation that expressly includes transit or public transportation as a public facility or capital purpose eligible for impact fee expenditures is relatively rare. Arguably, municipalities in about 20 states have the necessary legislative authority or case law support for the enactment of impact fees for transit purposes.
|
From page 5... ...
5 sit impractical or impossible. The reasons most often cited for the lack of the use of impact fees for transit are that 1)
|
From page 6... ...
6 mental Policy Act. (See "Case Studies -- Seattle, Washington: Multimodal Approaches to Impact Mitigation," Section VI.A.
|
From page 7... ...
7 County is how to justify providing greater capital and operating funding through impact fees for heavily traveled corridors. Jonathan Roberson of Broward County cautions governmental entities seeking to use impact fees for transit to establish close connections among planners, development managers, and transit operators to avoid miscalculation of service demands and possibly underestimating other long-term costs.
|
From page 8... ...
8 among multiple cities and three counties to collect a single fee. In the State of New Jersey, municipalities regulate land use, but the state, through NJ Transit, operates the transit system.
|
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.