Legal Considerations in the Funding and Development of Intermodal Facilities at Airports (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 10-17
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 10... ...
10 (FTA) .76 FTA then undertakes a national review process and makes awards of CIG grants on a national competitive basis.
|
From page 11... ...
11 airport visitors and employees."91 In a reference to its earlier approval of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
|
From page 12... ...
12 Regarding the Eligibility of Ground Access Transportation Projects for Funding Under the Passenger Facility Charge Program.99 With this notice the agency grew more expansive, detailed and disclosed its experience with some of the projects in which it had issued RODs and FADs. The agency restated its analytical preference for treating all airport ground access projects the same whether they be road, rail, or water.100 Although the 2004 Notice follows the rules contained in the 2001 Order, it provides several examples from the written materials (FADs, RODs, and letters of guidance)
|
From page 13... ...
13 (just as with the PFC objective test) a case may be made that increasing ground access capacity may increase competition among air carriers by increasing the airport's catchment area and by decreasing travel time to the airport.
|
From page 14... ...
14 7. Miscellaneous PFC Funding Issues The 2004 Notice addresses several other issues that, while not controlling, nevertheless enter into the calculus of an airport intermodal project.
|
From page 15... ...
15 cost of on-airport facilities used exclusively by airport patrons; 5) the use of airport revenue for an intermodal facility that is not for the exclusive use of airport passengers is permitted but is limited by two rules: a)
|
From page 16... ...
16 than if it were constructed as a spur off the main line or an off-airport facility that required a shuttle system or APM transfer to an airport station. In this context the AIP eligibility requirement for "exclusive use" by airport patrons becomes problematic.
|
From page 17... ...
17 further by suggesting that airports should have the prerogative to propose a new methodology, if it chose to do so.144 Comments by airlines and their trade organizations opposed the relaxation of the exclusivity requirement and feared most that airport revenue would be more easily diverted to fund regional transit projects that had little or no relationship to airport users.145 Airlines for America (A4A) , nevertheless, agreed with the observation made in the 2016 Notice that there exist fundamental differences between roads and rails that support the agency treating them differently.146 A4A argued, however, that the 2016 Notice ought to make clear that any relaxation of the exclusivity requirement for rails would not apply to roadways.
|
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.