The potential for and limitations to the use of impact fees to finance urban transport infrastructure in developing country cities are assessed, drawing from the specific case of Santiago de Chile. The current state of urban transport infrastructure financing and its inherent complications are first presented. Principles of appropriate impact fee use are then derived from the U.S. experience. These principles are then applied to the recent use of transportation impact fees in Santiago, leading to preliminary recommendations for improvement, including the following: establishing proper overarching legal guidance for their use; taking a uniform approach to their application; clarifying the relationship of impact fees to other user fees and other forms of development exactions; answering the question of who bears the ultimate burden of impact fee costs; and improving the understanding of the effects of transportation impact fees on other public policy goals. From this assessment of the Santiago experience, lessons for other developing country cities are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ZegrasC.Mecanismos Financieros Aplicados al Desarrollo Urbano como Consecuencia de sus Impactos en los Sistemas de Transporte: El Caso de Santiago de Chile. Tranvia: Revista de Transporte, No. 13, Oct.17, 2001. www.revistatranvia.cl. Accessed Oct. 19, 2001.
2.
Cities on the Move: A World Bank Urban Transport Strategy Review. Draft. World Bank, Washington, D.C., Oct.17, 2001.
GillenD.Efficient Use and Provision of Transportation Infrastructure with Imperfect Pricing: Second Best Rules. In The Full Costs and Benefits of Transportation: Contributions to Theory, Method, and Measurement (GreeneD. L., JonesD. W., and DelucchiM. A., eds.), Springer, Berlin, 1997.
5.
BruecknerJ. K.Infrastructure Financing and Urban Development: The Economics of Impact Fees. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 66, 1997, pp. 383–407.
6.
AltshulerA., and Gómez-IbáñezJ. A.. Regulation for Revenue: The Political Economy of Land Use Exactions. Brookings Institution, Washington D.C.; and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, Mass., 1993.
7.
NelsonA. C.Development Impact Fees: Introduction. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 54, No. 1, Winter1988, pp. 3–6.
8.
LillydahlJ., NelsonA. C., RamisT., RivasplataA., and SchellS.. The Need for a Standard State Impact Fee Enabling Act. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 54, No. 1, Winter1988, pp. 7–17.
9.
SmolkaM., and AmborskiD.. Value Capture for Urban Development: An Inter-American Comparison. Working Paper. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, Mass., 2000.
10.
CerveroR., and SusantonoB.. Rent Capitalization and Transportation Infrastructure Development in Jakarta. Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, March1999, pp. 11–23.
11.
SmolkaM., and FurtadoF.. Lessons from the Latin American Experience with Value Capture. Land Lines. Newsletter of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, Mass., July2001.
12.
BahlR. W., and LinnJ. F.. Urban Public Finance in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, New York, 1992.
13.
AuerhahnE.Implementing an Impact Fee System: Ten Years of Experience in Broward County, Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 54, No. 1, Winter1988, pp. 67–70.
14.
NicholasJ. C., and NelsonA. C.. Determining the Appropriate Development Impact Fee Using the Rational Nexus Test. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 54, No. 1, Winter1988, pp. 56–66.
15.
Applicability of Vehicle Miles of Travel to Transportation Planning. Transportation Planning Bureau, City of Orlando, Fla., 1998.
16.
Manual de Procedimientos y Metodologia de los Estudios de Impacto sobre el Sistema de Transporte Urbano EISTU-Región Metropolitana. Secretaria Regional Ministerial de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones-Región Metropolitana, Santiago, Chile, 2001.
YoungmanJ., and MalmeJ.. An International Survey of Taxes on Land and Buildings. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer, Netherlands, 1994.
19.
Democracia Regional y Local. Subsecretaria de Desarrollo Regional y Administrative, Ministerio del Interior, Santiago, Chile, July2000.
20.
BarraP., and JorrattM.. An Analysis of the Chilean Tax System. Division de Estudios, Servicio de Impuestos Internos, Santiago, Chile, Oct.1998.
21.
ZegrasC., and LitmanT.. An Analysis of the Full Costs and Impacts of Transportation in Santiago de Chile. International Institute for Energy Conservation-Latin America, Santiago, Chile, 1997.
22.
ZegrasC., and LitmanT.. Cost Estimates of Transport Air Pollution in Santiago, Chile. In Transportation Research Record 1587, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 106–112.
23.
Anuario de Cuentas Nacionales de Chile. Banco Central de Chile, Santiago, May1999.
24.
Acuerdo Marco que Establece las Bases y Principios sobre Mitigación de Impacto Vial en la Provincia de Chacabuco, de la Región Metropolitana. Secretaria Regional Ministerial de Obras Públicas-Región Metropolitana, Santiago, Chile, Sept.7, 2001.
25.
SingellL., and LillydahlJ.. An Empirical Examination of the Effect of Impact Fees on the Housing Market. Land Economics, Vol. 66, No. 1, Feb.1990, pp. 82–92.
26.
NicholasJ. C., NelsonA. C., and JuergensmeyerJ. C.. A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees. Planners Press, American Planning Association, Chicago, Ill., 1991.
