1 / 31

Proportionate Fair Share Mitigation

Learn about the intent and options of Proportionate Fair Share Mitigation in transportation development, including funding requirements, mitigation strategies, potential shortfalls, and successful implementation keys.

taniaj
Download Presentation

Proportionate Fair Share Mitigation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Proportionate Fair Share Mitigation David Hutchinson Office of Policy Planning Department of Transportation

  2. Legislative History • Key provision of 2005 Growth Management Legislation* *Chapter Law 2005-290 amendments tos.163.3180(16) F.S.

  3. Intent of Proportionate Fair Share Mitigation • Development impacts can be mitigated by cooperative efforts of public and private sectors $ Improve a transportation facility that will mitigate the impact of their development

  4. Projects identified for funding: in the 5-year schedule of capital improvements, in the next update of the capital improvement element, or; in a long-term concurrency management system construct improvements that provide significant benefit to the impacted transportation system Proportionate Fair Share Mitigation Options

  5. When Does Proportionate Fair Share Apply? • Planned Improvements must be funded • in the 5-year schedule of CIE, • in the next update of the CIE, or; • in a long-term CMS A Roadway Fails Concurrency Small-Scale Developments (Non-DRI)

  6. Note: Note: If not fully funded in a 5-year capital improvement program, the development can move forward if full funding can be "reasonably anticipated" within 10 years

  7. Cease issuing development orders, or Identify other revenue sources, or Otherwise amend the comprehensive plan to ensure financial feasibility For federal or state funding in the first 3 years: document the circumstances Vested development may proceed What Happens if a Shortfall in Funding Occurs? LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY For improvements outside the first 3 years

  8. PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE MITIGATION: How is it working?

  9. Keys to Successful Implementation Planning Programming Coordination

  10. Concurrency management systems Linked to future land use plans Linked to the issuance of development orders by local government Linked to long-range transportation plans of MPOs Keys to Successful Implementation Planning

  11. Capital improvement programs should reflect future land use plans Consistent with MPO priority lists/transportation improvement programs (5-year) or priorities in counties in non-MPO areas Project cost-increases should be monitored and updated Keys to Successful Implementation Programming

  12. Intergovernmental (especially extra-jurisdictional impacts), common methodologies and consistent Level of Service standards Early and continuous involvement of all affected public and private parties (developers, DOT, and local governments) Keys to Successful Implementation Coordination

  13. IMPEDIMENTS TO IMPLEMENTATION Planning Programming Coordination • Silo Syndrome

  14. IMPEDIMENTS TO IMPLEMENTATION Planning Programming Coordination • Silo Syndrome • Worry About Today • Program Rather Than Plan Emphasize Short Term • Disjoint Between Permitting and Fiscal Policy Tomorrow

  15. Examples of Proportionate Fair Share Mitigation • Proactive Developer Partnerships • Interlocal and Regional Cooperation • Tallahassee/Pipelining Proportionate Fair Share Funds • Gainesville/Dealing with Smaller Developments • Broward/Transit Options Rather than Roadway

  16. US 301 Fair-Share Mitigation • Proactive developer partnership • Agreement to address impacts of several developments • Widening project • State ($10.7m), • County ($5.7m), • 11 Developers ($35m) Costs estimated using FDOT’s Long Range Estimating (LRE) model for cross section based on new average daily trips from development and inflated to 2008 values From: Developer Contributions for transportation facilities CUTR - Kristine Williams 2006

  17. SR 82 – Interlocal and Regional Cooperation • Designated an Emerging SIS facility • Old study – widen to 4 lanes • Currrent need – widen to 6 lanes • Funding • Property owners land for ROW • Property owners $15 million • the City $10 million • Lee MPO (XU) funds. $15 million • FDOT (TRIP funds) $10 million • FDOT (SIS funds) $10 million $60 Million • Construction of the project to begin in FY 2008-09. • FDOT will execute a State Infrastructure Bank loan for $15 million to be paid back from the future MPO funding.

  18. City of Tallahassee – Pipelining • “Significant Benefit” project for each quadrant. • Capacity improvement • Transit Master Plan • Parallel corridors • Divert existing traffic

  19. City of Tallahassee • Proportionate Fair Share contributions pipelined

  20. City of Tallahassee • Transit planning • Second generation “Significant Benefit” projects will be transit oriented

  21. Gainesville/Dealing with Smaller Developments • Alternate capital transportation project • Contribute their proportionate fair share based on the ITS capital cost a system-wide Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) program to link traffic signals and provide traffic management capabilities. Map that shows Gainesville Plan – Phase 1

  22. Broward/Transit Options One encourages Transit at the station One separates the station from the community

  23. Broward/Transit Options

  24. What happens if you don’t plan and run out of money

  25. For More Information http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/gm/pfso/default.htm

More Related