Alternative funding for mobility in Florida

Karen E. Seggerman, Kristine M. Williams, Arthur Christian Nelson, James C. Nicholas, Pei Sung Lin, Aldo Fabregas

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

During Florida's 2008 legislative session, considerable interest was expressed in the concept of a mobility fee, yet varying interpretations surrounded the nature and composition of such a fee. In June 2009, the Florida Legislature enacted the Community Renewal Act, requiring the State of Florida to evaluate and consider implementation of a mobility fee to replace the transportation concurrency system and setting forth certain objectives for the fee. This paper reports on research conducted for the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Florida Department of Transportation in support of this legislative directive. It explores two approaches for a mobility fee that advanced the legislative criteria and discusses practical implications of implementing a mobility fee in Florida. One approach was the concept of a modified impact fee that is sensitive to vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and is based upon improvements in an adopted mobility plan that includes all modes of transportation. Florida has considerable experience with impact fees, making this approach a potentially viable enhancement to existing planning and growth management systems. A fee with increased sensitivity to VMT could discourage urban sprawl more effectively than existing growth management systems by rewarding mixed-use and other development near or within activity centers. Another approach, which could complement the modified impact fee, is an expanded transportation utility fee (TUF). The idea of TUFs is not new, but their design and application has heretofore been limited in terms of the categories of expenses covered, geographic scope, and comprehensiveness of assessment. The proposed model expands on these traditional applications so TUFs could serve as an ongoing revenue source for broader transportation system needs, including transit operating costs. Finally, the paper will present a conceptual mobility planning and implementation framework for a mobility fee.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publication53rd Annual Transportation Research Forum, TRF 2012
Pages812-837
Number of pages26
Volume2
StatePublished - 2012
Externally publishedYes
Event53rd Annual Transportation Research Forum, TRF 2012 - Tampa, FL, United States
Duration: Mar 15 2012Mar 17 2012

Other

Other53rd Annual Transportation Research Forum, TRF 2012
CountryUnited States
CityTampa, FL
Period3/15/123/17/12

Fingerprint

fee
funding
Planning
Operating costs
transportation system
Fees
Funding
travel
Chemical analysis
planning
urban sprawl
operating costs
management
community
revenue
act
interpretation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Science Applications
  • Management Science and Operations Research
  • Automotive Engineering
  • Transportation

Cite this

Seggerman, K. E., Williams, K. M., Nelson, A. C., Nicholas, J. C., Lin, P. S., & Fabregas, A. (2012). Alternative funding for mobility in Florida. In 53rd Annual Transportation Research Forum, TRF 2012 (Vol. 2, pp. 812-837)

Alternative funding for mobility in Florida. / Seggerman, Karen E.; Williams, Kristine M.; Nelson, Arthur Christian; Nicholas, James C.; Lin, Pei Sung; Fabregas, Aldo.

53rd Annual Transportation Research Forum, TRF 2012. Vol. 2 2012. p. 812-837.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Seggerman, KE, Williams, KM, Nelson, AC, Nicholas, JC, Lin, PS & Fabregas, A 2012, Alternative funding for mobility in Florida. in 53rd Annual Transportation Research Forum, TRF 2012. vol. 2, pp. 812-837, 53rd Annual Transportation Research Forum, TRF 2012, Tampa, FL, United States, 3/15/12.
Seggerman KE, Williams KM, Nelson AC, Nicholas JC, Lin PS, Fabregas A. Alternative funding for mobility in Florida. In 53rd Annual Transportation Research Forum, TRF 2012. Vol. 2. 2012. p. 812-837
Seggerman, Karen E. ; Williams, Kristine M. ; Nelson, Arthur Christian ; Nicholas, James C. ; Lin, Pei Sung ; Fabregas, Aldo. / Alternative funding for mobility in Florida. 53rd Annual Transportation Research Forum, TRF 2012. Vol. 2 2012. pp. 812-837
@inproceedings{d95f469632ab48f39db8a37c8e6f545d,
title = "Alternative funding for mobility in Florida",
abstract = "During Florida's 2008 legislative session, considerable interest was expressed in the concept of a mobility fee, yet varying interpretations surrounded the nature and composition of such a fee. In June 2009, the Florida Legislature enacted the Community Renewal Act, requiring the State of Florida to evaluate and consider implementation of a mobility fee to replace the transportation concurrency system and setting forth certain objectives for the fee. This paper reports on research conducted for the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Florida Department of Transportation in support of this legislative directive. It explores two approaches for a mobility fee that advanced the legislative criteria and discusses practical implications of implementing a mobility fee in Florida. One approach was the concept of a modified impact fee that is sensitive to vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and is based upon improvements in an adopted mobility plan that includes all modes of transportation. Florida has considerable experience with impact fees, making this approach a potentially viable enhancement to existing planning and growth management systems. A fee with increased sensitivity to VMT could discourage urban sprawl more effectively than existing growth management systems by rewarding mixed-use and other development near or within activity centers. Another approach, which could complement the modified impact fee, is an expanded transportation utility fee (TUF). The idea of TUFs is not new, but their design and application has heretofore been limited in terms of the categories of expenses covered, geographic scope, and comprehensiveness of assessment. The proposed model expands on these traditional applications so TUFs could serve as an ongoing revenue source for broader transportation system needs, including transit operating costs. Finally, the paper will present a conceptual mobility planning and implementation framework for a mobility fee.",
author = "Seggerman, {Karen E.} and Williams, {Kristine M.} and Nelson, {Arthur Christian} and Nicholas, {James C.} and Lin, {Pei Sung} and Aldo Fabregas",
year = "2012",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781622764037",
volume = "2",
pages = "812--837",
booktitle = "53rd Annual Transportation Research Forum, TRF 2012",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Alternative funding for mobility in Florida

AU - Seggerman, Karen E.

AU - Williams, Kristine M.

AU - Nelson, Arthur Christian

AU - Nicholas, James C.

AU - Lin, Pei Sung

AU - Fabregas, Aldo

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - During Florida's 2008 legislative session, considerable interest was expressed in the concept of a mobility fee, yet varying interpretations surrounded the nature and composition of such a fee. In June 2009, the Florida Legislature enacted the Community Renewal Act, requiring the State of Florida to evaluate and consider implementation of a mobility fee to replace the transportation concurrency system and setting forth certain objectives for the fee. This paper reports on research conducted for the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Florida Department of Transportation in support of this legislative directive. It explores two approaches for a mobility fee that advanced the legislative criteria and discusses practical implications of implementing a mobility fee in Florida. One approach was the concept of a modified impact fee that is sensitive to vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and is based upon improvements in an adopted mobility plan that includes all modes of transportation. Florida has considerable experience with impact fees, making this approach a potentially viable enhancement to existing planning and growth management systems. A fee with increased sensitivity to VMT could discourage urban sprawl more effectively than existing growth management systems by rewarding mixed-use and other development near or within activity centers. Another approach, which could complement the modified impact fee, is an expanded transportation utility fee (TUF). The idea of TUFs is not new, but their design and application has heretofore been limited in terms of the categories of expenses covered, geographic scope, and comprehensiveness of assessment. The proposed model expands on these traditional applications so TUFs could serve as an ongoing revenue source for broader transportation system needs, including transit operating costs. Finally, the paper will present a conceptual mobility planning and implementation framework for a mobility fee.

AB - During Florida's 2008 legislative session, considerable interest was expressed in the concept of a mobility fee, yet varying interpretations surrounded the nature and composition of such a fee. In June 2009, the Florida Legislature enacted the Community Renewal Act, requiring the State of Florida to evaluate and consider implementation of a mobility fee to replace the transportation concurrency system and setting forth certain objectives for the fee. This paper reports on research conducted for the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Florida Department of Transportation in support of this legislative directive. It explores two approaches for a mobility fee that advanced the legislative criteria and discusses practical implications of implementing a mobility fee in Florida. One approach was the concept of a modified impact fee that is sensitive to vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and is based upon improvements in an adopted mobility plan that includes all modes of transportation. Florida has considerable experience with impact fees, making this approach a potentially viable enhancement to existing planning and growth management systems. A fee with increased sensitivity to VMT could discourage urban sprawl more effectively than existing growth management systems by rewarding mixed-use and other development near or within activity centers. Another approach, which could complement the modified impact fee, is an expanded transportation utility fee (TUF). The idea of TUFs is not new, but their design and application has heretofore been limited in terms of the categories of expenses covered, geographic scope, and comprehensiveness of assessment. The proposed model expands on these traditional applications so TUFs could serve as an ongoing revenue source for broader transportation system needs, including transit operating costs. Finally, the paper will present a conceptual mobility planning and implementation framework for a mobility fee.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885111872&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885111872&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:84885111872

SN - 9781622764037

VL - 2

SP - 812

EP - 837

BT - 53rd Annual Transportation Research Forum, TRF 2012

ER -