Implementing Transportation Infrastructure Improvements to Support Development in Pennsylvania, United States

Transportation infrastructure is critical to economic and land development in industrialized and industrializing nations. However, dispute over the responsibility for funding and implementation of off-site transportation infrastructure improvements frequently occurs. While public agencies often desire development, they bear the responsibility of ensuring that it does not degrade the mobility and safety of the nearby surface transportation network for the traveling public. Private developers seek adequate access to their property, but at times feel there is unfair burden on the private sector to fund and implement off-site improvements. The purpose of this paper is to examine the process for the implementation of off-site transportation improvements associated with land development in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, United States, and compare it to best practices in the United States. Currently in Pennsylvania there are two regulatory means by which local and state agencies may require private developers to fund off-site improvements. At the state level, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), through their permitting process, may require developers to fund and construct improvements as determined from the preparation of a traffic impact study (TIS). At the local level, municipalities may adopt a traffic impact fee ordinance. This ordinance allows municipalities to assess developers a fee on a per vehicle trip basis to construct off-site improvements. However, few municipalities have enacted traffic impact fee ordinances due to its cumbersome, costly process. In addition, the PennDOT TIS / permitting process is not an exact science, in terms of determining an equitable distribution of improvement implementation responsibility. This paper describes the current process for implementing off-site transportation improvements associated with land development, examines their pros and cons, and compares it with best practices in the United States.