Economic Impact Case Study Tool for Transit (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

48 A P P E N D I X C Red/North Line Extension in Metropolitan Atlanta, GA Synopsis MARTA’s heavy rail extension—with the addition of Sandy Springs and North stations—through the heart of Perimeter Center, the Atlanta region’s largest single employment center, accelerated a growth trajectory that has been ongoing for several years. This case study documents 750 new office jobs in 2013 in walking distance of the Sandy Spring station. It should be noted that since 2000, when the two new stations became operational, broader development in the locale has been observed, but not necessarily within walking distance of either station. During the 1990s, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) extended its heavy rail transit line 2.3 miles north of the existing Dunwoody station, opening the Sandy Springs and North Springs stations in December 2000. Together, these two stations comprise the North Line (now referred to as the Red Line) extension, a project that allows travelers from Atlanta and its northern suburbs to access Perimeter Cen- ter, the region’s largest single employment center. MARTA’s extension has helped attract large employers to the area sur- rounding the Sandy Springs station, spurring the creation of a vibrant retail and restaurant scene. According to Katy McNulty, who was quoted by Perimeter Community Improvement Dis- tricts, “There are a lot of urban advantages to living in Perim- eter [Center]—upscale shopping, multi-cultural dining and being able to live close to work. With MARTA nearby, I can easily get to . . . entertainment locations.” Background Location and Transportation Connections MARTA’s Red Line extension is located in north Fulton County, approximately halfway between Atlanta and Alpharetta, a suburb at the northern edge of the metropolitan region. At the intersection of Georgia 400 (a tolled state highway) and Interstate 285 (referred to as the “Perimeter”), the exten- sion provides easy access to and from the city via park-and- ride lots directly off the highways. According to one person interviewed for this case study, for companies, the MARTA stations are centrally located between a young workforce in Atlanta and executives living in Alpharetta and other north- ern suburbs. In addition, this same person interviewed for this case study describes MARTA’s connection to Hartsfield- Jackson Atlanta International Airport, currently the world’s busiest airport by passengers enplaned and deplaned, as “a very easy transfer,” particularly because the Red Line trav- els directly to the airport’s domestic terminal. According to Google Maps, the travel time (via transit) from North Springs, the Red Line’s northernmost station, to Hartsfield-Jackson (a distance of 30 miles) is approximately 45 minutes during the peak morning period. Community Character and Project Context From 1995 to 2012, the population of Sandy Springs station neighborhood (zip-code based) grew by 29.8 percent, from approximately 54,400 to 69,400. From 1998 to 2012—the earli- est and latest years for which data are available—the number of jobs in the neighborhood contracted by 7.9 percent, from 103,670 to 95,445. In extending the Red Line, MARTA intentionally shifted the route less than one mile east of Georgia 400 so that it would pass through Perimeter Center, a large commercial area anchored by the Perimeter Mall. This real estate “submarket”— which straddles two counties and is roughly bounded by the Perimeter, Chattahoochee River, and City of Dunwoody—has more square footage of tenant-occupied office space (22.6 mil- lion square feet) than downtown Atlanta. Perimeter Center is also the third-largest retail market in the Atlanta metro, with nearly 11 million square feet of tracked inventory in the second quarter of 2015. Case Study Material

49 of riders entering at North Springs and over 40 percent at Sandy Springs walked to catch their train. Demographic, Economic, and Land Use Impacts Although neither ridership growth nor real estate devel- opment occurred as fast as expected, following the economic recovery, MARTA’s presence in Perimeter Center and Sandy Springs seems to be an important factor in attracting new jobs to the metro area. In 2013, AirWatch, a mobile technol- ogy company, announced that it would relocate to the area, bringing with it an estimated 1,000 jobs. Today, AirWatch occupies a building within walking distance of the Sandy Springs station where, according to the Hoovers business database, 750 employees work. In February 2015, Mercedes-Benz USA announced that it will build its new headquarters—which is being relocated from New Jersey—on a 12-acre site directly across Georgia 400 (and less than one mile) from the Sandy Springs station. According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, CEO Joe Cannon cited the company’s desire to tap into “Millennial talent who want to live in-town, while also being close to executive-level housing in Buckhead and the northern Atlanta suburbs” as one reason for the site location decision. As part of the move, Mercedes plans to relocate or create 800 to 1,000 jobs. One person inter- viewed believes the presence of the nearby MARTA station had a strong influence on the company’s decision to locate in Sandy Springs instead of other locations in the Atlanta metro that are less accessible by transit. State Farm is also expanding its already significant pres- ence in the Atlanta region. In 2014, the insurance company announced that it would lease over half a million square feet of office space directly across from the Dunwoody station in Perimeter Center. Although this station was not part of the extension and the building is not new development, this provides a strong example of the growing priority placed on locations near transit. Dubbed the “Park Center Hub,” the new development will provide a direct connection to MARTA trains, helping realize State Farm’s goal of creat- ing a “workplace of the future” with “. . . housing, public transportation, shopping and entertainment all within easy access.” State Farm plans to add 3,000 jobs to the Perimeter Center campus over the next ten years. One person inter- viewed believes owners of existing buildings in this area are “looking to redevelop in order to better orient” their prop- erties toward the Sandy Springs station, in particular, which follows Dunwoody when traveling north. Non-Transportation Factors According to some, Perimeter Center’s growth can be attributed to both an increase in population throughout Project Description and Motives As a way to combat highway congestion during the 1990s, MARTA focused on its “link to community development,” partnering in 1999 with BellSouth (now AT&T) to develop a large transit-anchored town center in Atlanta’s Lindbergh neighborhood. During this time, MARTA continued to extend north, opening the Sandy Springs and North Springs stations in late 2000, which together comprise the Red Line extension. The extension, which is slightly over two miles long, con- nects the cities of Dunwoody (DeKalb County) and Sandy Springs (Fulton County). According to the U.S. Federal Tran- sit Administration, the project cost slightly over $463 million, $370.5 million of which was funded by its New Starts pro- gram with the remainder funded by a regional sales tax (year of expenditure dollars). Project Impacts Transportation Impacts In 2013, an average of 2,322 riders entered the Sandy Springs station on any given weekday. The North Springs station average weekday entries were 6,436 in 2013. Only 6 stations have significantly higher entrance counts than North Springs, which serves as an important park and ride station on the north side. Sandy Springs performs well for being an outlying station. Parking facilities had usage rates of 43 percent and 65 percent, with North Springs among the highest usage across all MARTA stations. For riders boarding somewhere along the rail extension, Table 10 below summarizes the travel mode used to reach their station in 2010. According to these data, close to half of all riders entering at the North Springs reached their sta- tion by driving alone in 2010, while one-third did so at Sandy Springs. An additional 13.9 percent of riders entering at the North Springs station were dropped off by a car; at Sandy Springs, this figure is close to 20 percent. In a measure of the walkability of areas surrounding each station, over one-third Travel Mode North Springs SandySprings Ride and Walk or Bike 0.40% 2.10% Kiss & Ride 13.90% 19.50% Carpool/Vanpool 1.20% 2.80% Drive Alone 46.90% 33.10% Walk 34.20% 42.20% Bike 0.40% 0.30% Source: 2010 MARTA On-Board Transit Survey Table 10. Travel mode used to reach MARTA Red Line station.

50 “Newell Rubbermaid Locations,” Newell Rubbermaid, accessed Octo- ber 9, 2015, http://www.newellrubbermaid.com/Pages/Contact Us.aspx. Joe Earle, February 21, 2014, “Perimeter market becoming ‘economic hub’ of metro Atlanta region,” Reporter Newspapers, accessed Octo- ber 10, 2015, http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2014/02/21/ perimeter-market-becoming-economic-hub-metro-atlanta- region/. “RFPs,” Perimeter Community Development Districts, accessed October 15, 2015, http://www.perimetercid.org/rfps.html. “Select Recent Major Corporate Decisions,” Metro Atlanta Chamber, accessed October 9, 2015, http://www.metroatlantachamber.com/ business/relocation/companies. J. Scott Trubey, January 29, 2015, “New boom revives traffic issues for Perimeter area,” The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, accessed October 15, 2015, http://www.myajc.com/news/business/new- boom-also-brings-issues-for-perimeter-area/njzQ8/. “UPS Corporate and Regional Headquarters,” United Parcel Service of America, Inc., accessed October 9, 2015, http://www.ups.com/ content/us/en/contact/corporate.html. Douglas Sams, February 14, 2014, “State Farm, KDC, announce mas- sive project,” Atlanta Business Chronicle, accessed October 10, 2015, http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/real_talk/2014/02/ state-farm-kdc-announce-massive.html?page=all. U.S. Federal Transit Administration (a), 2003, “North Springs (North Line Extension): Atlanta, Georgia,” accessed October 21, 2015, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Atlanta1AA.doc. U.S. Federal Transit Administration (b), 2013, FTA National Tran- sit Database, accessed October 21, 2015 via the American Public Transportation Association, http://www.apta.com/resources/ statistics/Pages/ridershipreport.aspx and http://www.ntdprogram. gov/ntdprogram/pubs/MonthlyData/April%202015%20Raw% 20Database.xls. Interviews Jared Lombard (Principal Planner, Atlanta Regional Commission), interview with author, October 9, 2015. Amanda Rhein (Senior Director of Transit Oriented Development, MARTA), interview with author, October 13, 2015. Database Tables the Atlanta region and “permissive” zoning that has enabled and incentivized developers to build millions of square feet of retail and office space. In addition, people interviewed for this case study emphasize Perimeter Center’s advantageous location at the intersection of Georgia 400 and Interstate 285, and halfway between Atlanta and Alpharetta, as an impor- tant growth factor. Resources Citations “ACI Annual World Airport Traffic Report,” Airports Council Inter- national, accessed October 15, 2015, http://www.aci.aero/Data- Centre/Monthly-Traffic-Data/Passenger-Summary/Year-to-date. American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. “Atlanta Office,” State Farm, accessed October 10, 2015, https://www. statefarm.com/careers/become-an-employee/office-locations/ atlanta-office. Atlanta Regional Commission, 2014 Transportation Fact Book (Atlanta, GA: Atlanta Regional Commission, 2014), accessed October 21, 2015, http://documents.atlantaregional.com/transportation/TFB_2014_ v17.pdf. Cushman & Wakefield (a), MarketBeat Office Snapshot: Atlanta, GA (Atlanta, GA: Cushman & Wakefield, 2015), accessed October 15, 2015, http://www.cushmanwakefield.com/~/media/marketbeat/2015/07/ Atlanta_Americas_MarketBeat_Office_Q22015.pdf. Cushman & Wakefield (b), MarketBeat Retail Snapshot: Atlanta, GA, accessed October 15, 2015, http://www.cushmanwakefield.com/~/ media/marketbeat/2015/08/Atlanta_Americas_MarketBeat_ Retail_Q22015.pdf. John Bell, July 19, 2015, “Atlanta, Georgia: Opening of the North Line Extension,” personal website, accessed October 21, 2015, http:// www.jtbell.net/transit/Atlanta/MARTA/trip-report-200012/. Greg Bluestein and J. Scott Trubey, February 3, 2015, “Mercedes unveils Sandy Springs HQ location,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, accessed October 9, 2015, http://www.ajc.com/news/business/ mercedes-unveils-sandy-springs-hq-location/nj32y/. “MARTA’s Past and Future,” Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Author- ity (MARTA), accessed October 9, 2015, http://www.itsmarta.com/ marta-past-and-future.aspx. Characteristics Region Southeast Project Mode Heavy Rail State GA Project Type Extension City Atlanta Initial Study Date 1995 Impact Area Dunwoody & Sandy Springs, GA Constr. Start Date 1996 Latitude 33.934592 Constr. End Date 2000 Longitude –84.35208 Post Constr. Study Date 2012 Planned Cost (YOE$) $381,300,000 Months Duration 48 Actual Cost (YOE$) $463,180,000 Length (mi.) 2 Actual Cost (2015$) $662,347,400 Avg. Annual Weekday Riders* 17,500 Table 11. Case study characteristics—MARTA Red Line extension.

51 Setting Urban/Class Level Suburban Economic Distress 0.96 Population Density (ppl/sq.mi.) 632 Population Growth (CAGR) 2.24% Employment Growth (CAGR) 3.70% Market Size 2,812,469 Airport Travel Distance (mi.) 24 Topography (1-Flat to 21-Mountainous) 5 Table 12. Case study setting—MARTA Red Line extension. Measure Direct Number of Jobs 750 Income/Wages ($M) 74 Output ($M) 135 Building Development (1000s of Sq. Ft.) 250 Direct Private Investment ($M) Not Avail. Property Value Increase ($M) Not Avail. Property Tax Revenue ($M) Not Avail. Table 13. Project impacts identified by case study—MARTA Red Line extension. Pre/Post Conditions - Local (Zip 30328, 30338 & 30346) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Economic Distress Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Total Num. of Jobs 1998, 2012 103,669 95,445 -8,224 -8% Population 1995, 2012 53,430 69,362 15,932 30% Property Value Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Business Sales ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Tax Revenue ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Density (ppl/sq mi) 1995, 2012 2,250 2,921 671 30% Table 14. Local pre- and post-study conditions—MARTA Red Line extension. Pre/Post Conditions - County (Fulton) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income 1995, 2012 $32,524 $63,134 $30,610 94% Economic Distress 1995, 2012 0.96 1.12 0.16 17% Total Num. of Jobs 1995, 2012 762,225 967,050 204,825 27% Population 1995, 2012 733,066 977,950 244,884 33% Property Value 2000, 2012 $113,800 $229,900 $116,100 102% Business Sales ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Tax Revenue ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Density (ppl/sq mi) 1995, 2012 1,391 1,856 465 33% Table 15. County pre- and post-study conditions—MARTA Red Line extension. Pre/Post Conditions - State (GA) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income 1995, 2012 $22,136 $37,254 $15,118 68% Economic Distress 1995, 2012 0.86 1.14 0.28 33% Total Num. of Jobs 1995, 2012 4,188,040 5,404,411 1,216,371 29% Population 1995, 2012 7,328,413 9,919,000 2,590,587 35% Property Value 2000, 2012 $111,200 $142,300 $31,100 28% Business Sales ($M's) 1997, 2012 $578,080 $933,922 $355,842 62% Tax Revenue ($M's) 1995, 2012 $9,487 $16,715 $7,228 76% Density (ppl/sq mi) 1995, 2012 127 171 45 35% Table 16. Statewide pre- and post-study conditions—MARTA Red Line extension.

52 Pre/Post Conditions - Project Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Project Ridership FY1995, 2012 Not Appl. 5,130,000 Not Appl. Not Appl. Travel Time (minutes) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Table 17. Project pre- and post-study transportation conditions—MARTA Red Line extension. Pre/Post Conditions - System (Metropolitan Atlanta Region Transit Authority - MARTA) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Ridership - Local FY1995, 2012 73,253,000 61,596,727 –11,656,273 –15.91% Ridership - Rapid FY1995, 2012 70,351,000 72,711,487 2,360,487 3.36% Table 18. Transit system pre- and post-study conditions—MARTA Red Line extension. Figure 12. Project location imagery—MARTA Red Line extension.

53 Community Character and Project Context South Boston’s waterfront in the 1990s was physically and socially cut-off from downtown Boston by the elevated central artery which carried I-93 and I-90 through Boston. A majority of the area was surface parking and light industrial sites. Consid- ering its close proximity to Boston’s core neighborhoods, South Boston offered some of the least utilized land in the metro area. The Central Artery project removed the physical barrier between the Financial District and South Boston and replaced it with the Rose Kennedy Greenway. The I-90 extension significantly increased highway access in South Boston. These infrastructure changes along with the new transit access provided by the Silver Line accelerated a transformation of the area which began dur- ing the early planning stages of the transportation projects. Project Description and Motives Planning for the Silver Line Waterfront service began around the time that the Big Dig was approved for federal funding in 1987. The transit improvements would become considered part of the suite of projects to untangle transpor- tation in downtown Boston. Many developers and planners considered South Boston ripe for growth given it’s adjacency to the relatively built-out downtown, but improved access was sorely needed. Improved transit connections would be just as important to development as improved highway capac- ity given regional commuting patterns. Parking is capped in South Boston by a parking freeze and commuters continued to deal with peak period congestion in Boston even after the Big Dig solved some of the most significant problems. The Silver Line project operates in a tunnel bored from South Station under the Fort Point Channel and onto the Courthouse and World Trade Center stations. From the World Trade Cen- ter station to the Silver Line Way station, the Silver Line uses dedicated aboveground right-of-way, after which point it splits into two routes. The SL1 route to the airport shares the Ted Williams Tunnel under the Boston Harbor with I-90 traffic to reach its five airport stops, while the SL2 continues on surface roads through the Boston Marine Industrial Park. The Silver Line Waterfront project included significant ren- ovations to South Station, as well as the construction of two new belowground stations at the Courthouse and World Trade Center stops. These new stations are generally considered to be more elaborate than most of the subways stations on MBTA’s heavy rail lines. These station locations were sited to be centrally located with respect to anticipated future development projects. The necessity for construction of tunnels and underground stations raised construction costs of the Silver Line. The final project cost was around $625 million in 2001 dollars, including professional services, construction, rolling stock, and a mainte- nance facility for the dual-mode buses required for the service. Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit Line in Boston, MA Synopsis Boston’s Silver Line Waterfront BRT was developed as part of the suite of projects to improve transportation capacity and access in the core of Boston. Silver Line construction began in 1995 and by its completion in 2005 growth was already accel- erating. These projects were collectively known as the Central Artery project or the “Big Dig.” Boston has one other rapid tran- sit line that is also marketed as Silver Line BRT, which opened two years earlier and runs along Washington Street in another part of the city. The Silver Line provided the first rapid transit access to South Boston’s waterfront, using specialized dual-mode diesel/electric trolleybuses that operate mostly in dedicated right-of-way. Along with other infrastructure components of the “Big Dig” and supportive land use planning, the Silver Line has helped to drive rapid development and growth in South Boston. The Silver Line brings about half as many new commuters to the Waterfront every morning as the highway access added on I-90. Assuming a significant development impact of supportive land use and regional revitalization efforts, the Silver Line seems likely to be directly responsible for about 3,350 jobs. Background Location and Transportation Connections The Silver Line Waterfront BRT connects South Boston with downtown Boston’s South Station as well as Logan International Airport. South Boston lies to the southeast of the core neighbor- hoods of Boston across the Fort Point Channel. The airport is northeast of South Boston, across the main harbor. Silver Line Waterfront service is currently made up of two routes with four shared stops. These four stops use a dedicated transitway in order to cross below the Fort Point Channel between South Station and waterfront. The routes diverge at the fourth station to head toward the airport or Boston Marine Industrial Park. The South Station stop provides connections to MBTA’s Red Line, numerous commuter rail lines, and Amtrak service to the Northeast Corridor. Original plans were to connect the Silver Line to the Orange Line and Green Line subways west of South Station, as well as the Washington Street Silver Line BRT. Budgetary concerns have put this connection project on hold indefinitely. Work is proceeding to extend a Silver Line route past the airport where it will connect to the Blue Line subway and then enter downtown Chelsea and an additional commuter rail line. The Silver Line’s many connections create a link between the South Boston Waterfront and significant portions of the metro region with a 2-seat ride on public transportation.

54 Other limiting factors on the Silver Lines transportation impact include the need to switch from overhead electric to die- sel power and the 25 mph speed limit in the tunnels. The MBTA and other agencies have been working together since the line’s completion to continue to improve its effectiveness. Improve- ments have been made on signal prioritization, and additional efforts are underway to smooth some of the Silver Line’s opera- tions in traffic. Free fares on the return trip from Logan Airport have also significantly improved station dwell times. Demographic, Economic, and Land Use Impacts The earliest growth in the Seaport District was anchored by several large public buildings. The $170 million Moakley U.S. Courthouse opened just several years after construction began on the Silver Line. The year before the Silver Line’s completion, in 2004, the $800 million Boston Convention and Exhibition Center (BCEC) welcomed its first guests. In 2006 the $75 million Institute of Contemporary Art offered another cultural attraction. The BCEC and World Trade Center convention space have helped to attract hotels, retail, restaurants, and entertain- ment to the waterfront. Hotels supporting these destinations were some of the first major additions to the area with about 1,350,000 square feet of hotel space being added between 2000 and 2013. Plans for additional hotels may eventually provide the city with over $1 billion annual in new hotel tax revenue. In 2013, 1.8 million more people visited South Boston’s key attractions than in 2000. Many of these visitors brought new spending to the local economy. As hotel and meeting space has expanded, so have retail, office, and residential spaces. From 2000 to 2013, retail square footage increased by 70 percent as new restaurants and stores opened. Future planned development will include significant street-level retail offerings in many of the new buildings, and sometimes additional floors of retail. The residential population in the Seaport District has increased over 60 percent from 2000 to 2013, by 4,100 people. Future construction plans approved by the Boston Redevelop- ment Authority would potentially allow another 16,000 peo- ple to move into the neighborhood, with a final population of 4 times the pre-“Big Dig,” pre-Silver Line area. Job growth is expected to follow a similar trajectory. Already around 15,000 new jobs have been created in South Boston, and some of the largest developments are now under construction. A full build-out of the area could add 52,000 jobs to the 20,000 that the U.S. Census Bureau identified in the 2000 County Business Patterns survey, partway through the Silver Line’s 10-year construction. A significant portion of these jobs are in high-tech industries and professional services, including computer technology, medical research, pharma- ceuticals, finance, and other high paying professions. This exceeds the cost estimate from the 1993 Full Funding Grant Agreement with FTA by about 25% after adjusting for inflation. Part of this cost increase was due to several construction delays that stretched the construction period out over 10 years. Project Impacts Transportation Impacts Before the Silver Line’s opening, the transit mode share in South Boston stood at roughly 15%. Today 27% of trips to, from, and within the area are on transit, mostly the Silver Line. FTA estimates that transit trips to the waterfront doubled in the first two years of operation, partially due to mode shift and partially due to new riders—reflecting the rapid growth in local employment. Average daily ridership in 2014 stood at 16,000 on weekdays and 10,000 on weekends. This is around three times the pre- vious transit ridership, or nearly 10,000 new weekday transit trips to/from South Boston. Around 20 percent of riders are traveling to the airport on weekdays and not stopping in South Boston. Weekend ridership continues to grow year-over-year as people use the Silver Line to reach the area’s expanding retail and cultural destinations. On weekdays, the Silver Line is nearly at capacity, due to limited rolling stock availability, which prevents increasing the frequency of service on the line. This limits additional ridership growth. Automobile use continues to be higher in South Boston than other parts of the urban core, which significantly more travelers can reach by transit without a transfer between lines. However, the Silver Line has significantly improved multi- modal access to the waterfront and the airport. South Boston’s residential population is growing, but Silver Line ridership remains highly skewed toward a single direction in during morning peak and out with the evening peak as commuters arrive or depart from jobs in the district. Currently morning peak-hour ridership from South Station to the Waterfront is around 1,400, while evening ridership back to downtown and its connections with commuter rail and the Red Line is nearly 1,200 passengers per hour. In com- parison about 2,800 vehicles per hour use the new I-90 inter- changes in South Boston in the morning, and 2,200 during the evening peak. The Silver Line has not significantly improved travel times to the waterfront relative to previous local bus routes, but it offers significant increases in reliability and service frequency. Under the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy’s BRT Standard, the Silver Line does not qualify as bus rapid transit. The major areas of deficiency relative to the standard are that it requires on-board fare collection (at the Silver Line Way sta- tion), does not offer level boarding, and operates in dedicated right-of-way for the minority of the route.

55 state agencies in supporting land use change in South Boston. Much of South Boston is governed by state tideland regula- tions as well as being made up of designated port areas and other regulations affecting development. Most of the projects completed and planned for South Boston are governed as indi- vidual “planned development areas,” which provide zoning overlays and provide the public sector input into projects’ spe- cific implementation without placing all projects into a single category. There are also area-wide planning efforts such as the 1999 Public Realm Plan, 2000 Transportation Plan, and 2015 Sustainable Transportation Plan that support the area’s growth as a whole. Assuming these efforts have supported about one-third of total growth to date and at final build-out of the waterfront area, leaves about 3,350 current jobs attributable to the Silver Line and 12,000 jobs in the long run. Resources Citations A Better City. 2015. South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transporta- tion Plan. City of Boston. 2002. Access Boston 2000–2010. Federal Transit Administration. 2007. Silver Line Waterfront BRT Project 2007 Evaluation. Economic Development Research Group. 2006. Real Estate Impacts of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the Central Artery/ Third Harbor Tunnel Project. Breakthrough Technologies Institute. 2008. Bus Rapid Transit and Transit Oriented Development: Case Studies on TOD Around BRT Systems in North America and Australia. Interviews MBTA A Better City Boston Redevelopment Authority Database Tables Because of the large scale of many of the development projects in the Seaport District, as well as the effect of the 2008 recession in suppressing growth, some of the most sig- nificant changes in the area are only beginning to take place now, ten years after the Silver Line first opened. Rapid transit access to the region and the efficiency of buses operating in dedicated right away removed from the curbside, has been an important factor during the planning of many of the regions developments. With only the addition of highway capacity, many of the higher density land uses that have been devel- oped or are planned would not be possible. Based on the peak period split between the I-90 ramps and Silver Line, a conservative estimate of the impact of the new transit access on employment could claim 5,000 jobs to date. The long-term employment impact of the Silver Line if only major transportation infrastructure improvements are con- sidered could reach 18,000 jobs. Non-Transportation Factors There are two other important factors which have influ- enced South Boston Waterfront and especially the slightly smaller Seaport District sub-area to develop, and which should be considered in the attribution of economic impacts. The first is largely an aesthetic and community dimension, while the second is the application of proactive and supportive planning efforts. Boston’s harbor resources have been under- going a long-term revitalization as the city works to clean up the main harbor and channels. Improving the quality of the harbor and beginning to think of it as part of the space rather than peripheral to it has increased the value of water- front property for residents, businesses, and visitors. Besides transportation improvements from the I-90 ramps and Silver Line, the Central Artery also removed a physical and visual bar- rier between downtown and South Boston that makes the two areas more cohesive and thus facilitates travel between them. The second major factor has been the involvement of the Boston Redevelopment Authority and other city, regional, and Characteristics Region New England/Mid-Atlantic Project Mode Bus Rapid Transit State MA Project Type New Line City Boston Initial Study Date 1997 Impact Area South Boston Constr. Start Date 1995 Latitude 42.355912 Constr. End Date 2005 Longitude -71.038729 Post Constr. Study Date 2012 Planned Cost (YOE$) $508,000,000 Months Duration 120 Actual Cost (YOE$) $625,000,000 Length (mi.) 8.9 Actual Cost (2015$) $843,750,000 Avg. Annual Weekday Riders* 16,056 Table 19. Case study characteristics—MBTA Silver Line.

56 Setting Urban/Class Level Urban Core Economic Distress 1.02 Population Density (ppl/sq.mi.) 11,678 Population Growth (CAGR) 0.61% Employment Growth (CAGR) 6.70% Market Size 5,819,100 Airport Travel Distance (mi.) 3 Topography (1-Flat to 21-Mountainous) 4 Table 20. Case study setting—MBTA Silver Line. Measure Direct Number of Jobs 3,350 Income/Wages ($M) 410 Output ($M) 726 Building Development (1000s of Sq. Ft.) 1,100 Direct Private Investment ($M) Not Avail. Property Value Increase ($M) Not Avail. Property Tax Revenue ($M) Not Avail. Table 21. Project impacts identified by case study—MBTA Silver Line. Pre/Post Conditions - Local (Zip 02210) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Economic Distress Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Total Num. of Jobs 2000, 2013 20,369 35,232 14,863 73% Population 2000, 2013 592 1,894 1,302 220% Property Value Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Business Sales ($M’s) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Tax Revenue ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Density (ppl/sq mi) 2000, 2013 639 2,045 1,406 220% Table 22. Local pre- and post-study conditions—MBTA Silver Line. Pre/Post Conditions - County (Suffolk) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income 1997, 2012 $32,180 $61,612 $29,432 91% Economic Distress 1997, 2012 0.86 0.77 -0.09 -11% Total Num. of Jobs 1997, 2012 654,039 717,577 63,538 10% Population 1997, 2012 677,311 746,039 68,728 10% Property Value 2000, 2012 $187,300 $350,100 $162,800 87% Business Sales ($M’s) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Tax Revenue ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Density (ppl/sq mi) 1997, 2012 11,678 12,863 1,185 10% Table 23. County pre- and post-study conditions—MBTA Silver Line. Pre/Post Conditions - State (MA) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income 1997, 2012 $31,152 $56,752 $25,600 82% Economic Distress 1997, 2012 0.8 0.83 0.03 4% Total Num. of Jobs 1997, 2012 3,802,454 4,249,899 447,445 12% Population 1997, 2012 6,226,058 6,645,303 419,245 7% Property Value 2000, 2012 $185,700 $370,400 $184,700 99% Business Sales ($M's) 1997, 2012 $506,428 $826,523 $320,095 63% Tax Revenue ($M's) 1997, 2012 $13,305 $22,821 $9,516 72% Density (ppl/sq mi) 1997, 2012 796 849 54 7% Table 24. Statewide pre- and post-study conditions—MBTA Silver Line.

57 since 2007, with another $1.2 billion of investments in build- ings that are currently under construction and $168.5 million in proposed investments. Background The centerpiece of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority’s (RTA) Euclid Corridor Transportation Project is the HealthLine. The HealthLine is a bus rapid transit (BRT) system extending from Public Square in downtown Cleveland to East Cleveland, a neighboring suburb, via dedicated lanes along the majority of its route. Opened in 2008 after three years of construction, the BRT line connects the Cleveland metro- politan area’s two largest employment centers: downtown Cleveland and University Circle. University Circle—which covers an area of just one square mile—is home to Univer- sity Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, the Cleveland Museum of Art, and several other cultural attractions. After passing through University Circle, the HealthLine continues approximately two miles into East Cleveland, a largely resi- dential suburb. Cultural, academic, and healthcare institutions alike have leveraged the momentum generated by the project: a website for the HealthLine lists significant Euclid Avenue corridor investments made by Cleveland State University, the Cleveland Museum of Art, and Cleveland Clinic, for example. Location and Transportation Connections The HealthLine stretches 7.1 miles along Euclid Avenue in Cleveland, stopping at 36 stations spaced at approximately quarter-mile intervals; the larger Euclid Corridor Transpor- tation Project represents 9.2 miles of roadway improvements along and adjacent to the corridor. At a total cost of $200 mil- lion, the project allowed Cleveland to construct its first bus- only lanes along downtown streets, and make existing bus stations ADA accessible. Of the $200 million, approximately $50 million represents investments in transit infrastructure HealthLine/Euclid Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Line in Cleveland, OH Synopsis With help from the HealthLine, a bus rapid transit system, Cleveland’s Euclid Avenue corridor has experienced a resur- gence during the last several years. This case study documents the attraction of an estimated 1,120–1,600 office jobs, with the development of nearly 380,000 square feet of commercial real estate, along the corridor since 2008, when the HealthLine bus service commenced. Some of these jobs were relocated from other locations in the metro area, although the exact number is difficult to ascertain given available data. While its methodol- ogy is uncertain, a Cleveland RTA fact sheet on the HealthLine documents 13,000 new jobs and $7.9 million in commercial real estate development along the corridor. Similarly, one per- son interviewed for this case study cites $3.9 billion invested in development along the corridor and several adjacent streets Pre/Post Conditions - Project Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Project Ridership FY1997 ,2014 Not Appl. 4,800,000 Not Appl. Not Appl. Travel Time (minutes) Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Table 25. Project pre- and post-study transportation conditions—MBTA Silver Line. Pre/Post Conditions - System (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority - MBTA) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Ridership - Local FY1997, 2012 109,298,856 119,746,692 10,447,836 9.56% Ridership - Rapid FY1997, 2012 180,714,552 241,777,112 61,062,560 33.79% Table 26. Transit system pre- and post-study conditions—MBTA Silver Line. Source: naiopmablog.org/tag/innovation-district/ Figure 13. Project location imagery—MBTA Silver Line.

58 Cleveland’s University Circle neighborhood encompasses numerous cultural, academic, and healthcare institutions, including Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals, the Cleveland Botanical Garden and Children’s Museum of Cleveland, as well as the Cleveland museums of Art, Contemporary Art, and Natural History. The neighbor- hood is the second largest employment center in Northeast Ohio, followed only by downtown Cleveland. Project Description and Motives Before the genesis of the HealthLine, planners proposed a “dual-hub” transit system that would connect downtown Cleveland with University Circle via an underground train, but at a significant cost. One person interviewed describes the experience in Cleveland as a “50-year history of considering alternatives and ‘making great plans that [couldn’t be funded].’” Eventually, RTA adopted a less expensive BRT option, ultimately becoming the HealthLine, a name born out of a partnership between Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals. For the majority of its route, the HealthLine travels in a designated lane. Project Impacts Transportation Impacts After replacing a bus line with an average weekday rider- ship of 9,000, the HealthLine experienced a 40 percent spike in ridership during its first year; currently, the line serves 16,000 riders on an average weekday. As a point of compari- son, average weekday ridership on the Red Line is 20,000. Ridership on the HealthLine peaks in the mornings and evenings, but also reaches a steady plateau at midday as stu- dents and healthcare workers with staggered shifts use the service. During peak periods, a HealthLine bus arrives every five minutes, on average; at midday, buses arrive every seven to eight minutes. The HealthLine’s dedicated lanes support this high service frequency. Demographic, Economic, and Land Use Impacts Several people interviewed believe the HealthLine has had a significant positive economic impact on the Euclid Corridor by inducing private investment in new commercial real estate projects. Doing so has provided an option for companies that want to be located in the inner city but may be unable or unwilling to pay a premium for downtown office space. Con- versely, other companies have moved to the corridor to have access to University Circle and its mix of academic and health- care institutions. Among existing businesses along Euclid Ave., one person interviewed believes that workforce recruitment has also become easier due to the ease with which employees can commute into and out of the corridor. alone (i.e., stations, vehicles, and related equipment). During weekday rush hours, the HealthLine arrives every five min- utes; traveling from Public Square in downtown Cleveland to the heart of University Circle takes approximately 24 minutes, according to Google Maps, while traveling all the way from downtown Cleveland to East Cleveland takes 38 minutes. Several HealthLine stops are within walking distance of RTA’s Red Line, a train line that extends from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport on the west side of the city to the eastern suburb of East Cleveland. Travelers can now make HealthLine-Red Line connections at a new station immediately east of Euclid Ave. in University Circle. According to one person interviewed, ridership surveys indicate that up to 13 percent of HealthLine riders transfer to the Red Line—a data point that suggests the HealthLine serves corridor travelers more so than regional travelers. In addition, bike lanes running four miles in both directions serve part of the Euclid Ave. corridor. Ridership surveys have also revealed that up to 18 percent of HealthLine riders were attracted from private automobiles. Community Character and Project Context From 2000 to 2010, the population of the neighborhood (using zip code data) declined by 13.8 percent, from approxi- mately 92,000 to 79,600 reflecting the influence of the reces- sion. During 2005–2013 employment in the neighborhood also declined by 12.8 percent from over 150,000 to 131,000 reflect- ing that the economic recovery had been slow. This interval includes the Great Recession, which affected some Midwest cities the hardest, coupled with a slow recovery. For decades, the Euclid Avenue corridor had been trending downward in employment, real estate values, and visual qual- ity. The Euclid Corridor Transportation Project, which helped reverse this trend by connecting downtown Cleveland with University Circle, was described by one person interviewed as “. . . not just a transit project”; indeed, rights-of-way were widened, bike lanes were added, aesthetic improvements were made, and vacant buildings were demolished to complement the addition of the HealthLine. While stretches of Euclid Avenue remain underdeveloped, neighborhoods stretching from Playhouse Square, Cleveland’s theater district, to Univer- sity Circle’s Uptown District have seen increased pedestrian and business activity. Euclid Avenue forms the spine of MidTown Cleveland, a neighborhood bounded by Interstate 90 to the west and East 79th Street to the east—a stretch of just under two miles. According to MidTown Cleveland, Inc., a nonprofit economic development organization, the neighborhood is home to over 2,000 residents and approximately 18,000 jobs. In 2008, MidTown was designated as one of four Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Innovation Zones, and in 2010, an Ohio Hub of Innovation and Opportunity.

59 At the end of 2014, the Tech Park was 76 percent leased with 344 jobs. Several blocks west of the Tech Park, University Hospitals intends to open a health clinic in late 2017 or early 2018 that could eventually occupy 11 acres. According to news coverage, University Hospital’s planned expansion site, together with land purchased by Hemingway Development for a mixed-use devel- opment project, could support over 250 jobs and 150,000 square feet of space. According to one person interviewed, of this total, an estimated 44 jobs and 30,000–40,000 square feet will be asso- ciated with the clinic alone. In early October 2015, the site mas- ter plan won approval from two City of Cleveland boards, and construction is expected to begin in the spring 2016. Regarding the hospital’s plan to shift the clinic from its main campus, The Plain Dealer remarks that “Access to buses, including the Euclid Avenue HealthLine, is key for [an existing] facility that sees 45,000 annual visitors, with more than 70 percent of them arriving by public transportation.” Anticipating continued reliance on transit among patients, University Hospitals plans to locate a HealthLine stop directly outside its new clinic. Non-Transportation Factors An overall trend of economic resurgence throughout the Cleveland metro (inclusive of Cuyahoga County plus four surrounding counties) has buoyed Euclid Avenue’s success. From 2010–2013, total employment in the region grew from 1.24 million to 1.29 million (3.9%) after declining from 2007–2010 (during and immediately following the Great Recession). Noting economic drivers such as LeBron James’s return to the Cavaliers and the anticipated 2016 Republican National Convention, Mark Schweitzer of the Cleveland Fed- eral Reserve Bank said in January 2015 that the city is “enjoy- ing a genuine turnaround.” Downtown Cleveland, especially, has also benefitted from a “brain gain”; from 2000–2013, close to 2,000 college-educated residents between the ages of 18–34 moved downtown, rep- resenting an increase of over 100 percent. This demographic trend has been attributed in part to the city’s improved quality-of-life (e.g., walkability, access to retail) and employ- ment opportunities in industries requiring advanced degrees, such as healthcare and education. In the Euclid Corridor, strong support from city officials and the local community development corporations have helped to market the Downtown, MidTown, and University Circle neighborhoods. A zoning overlay in MidTown attempts to ensure compatibility between new land use in the corridor and the BRT line. In general, land use planning is relatively hands off, with no specific density bonuses or other features to encourage redevelopment. The city, however, does offer a number of financial incentives to encourage revitalization throughout Cleveland that are available to developers in the Neighborhoods along the corridor have also experienced a wave of mixed housing and retail development within walk- ing distance of HealthLine stops. While residential and retail projects create a limited number of permanent and well-paying jobs, their ability to create places where young, highly skilled workers want to live can in turn attract companies that export high-value goods and services. The relocation of Rosetta, a mar- keting agency based in New Jersey with offices in the Cleveland region, offers proof of this. In 2010, the company announced plans to bring 400 jobs from its suburban Cleveland offices into a vacant building on Euclid Ave. in downtown Cleveland. According to the company’s president, Kurt Holstein, “Most of our staff are under the age of 40 . . . We’re hiring college gradu- ates who are interested in a dynamic, urban environment, which Cleveland offers, particularly in the East Fourth Street area that we’re relocating to.” In downtown Cleveland, at the beginning of the Health- Line’s route, several large apartment buildings have recently opened, including The Residences at 668, with 236 units and first-floor retail, and The 9, with 184 units. In the Uptown Dis- trict, which extends along Euclid Ave. from Mayfield Road to East 117th Street (roughly), developers have started on Intesa, a five-building complex slated to open in 2016 that will include 100,000 square feet of office space, 96 apartments, and desig- nated student housing. If Intesa achieves 85.7 percent office occupancy—the current average in the eastern portion of the Cleveland metro—the development could host between 190–380 jobs, a value based on average square feet to employee ratios for office space. The Intesa site is adjacent to a new RTA Red Line station, and less than a five-minute walk from the HealthLine. Other planned developments that would take advantage of University Circle’s proximity to the HealthLine include One University Circle, a 20-story, 280-unit luxury apartment building, and University Circle City Center (UC3), a cluster of buildings covering five acres that could include over 700 apart- ments plus townhouses, retail, offices, and open space. Impor- tantly, one interviewee believes the HealthLine has helped send a message to large employers in University Circle, especially, that Euclid Ave. is their “front door.” The HealthLine has also accelerated the growth of the “Health-Tech Corridor”—the marketing name for Euclid Avenue and several adjacent streets between downtown and the Uptown District—an area targeted for the attraction and expansion of health- and technology-oriented businesses. In 2011, the MidTown Tech Park opened approximately halfway between downtown Cleveland and University Circle. A third building was added as of 2013, bringing the total office space to 240,000 square feet. JumpStart, Inc., an organization provid- ing support to entrepreneurs, currently occupies the Tech Park, as well as the Cleveland HealthLab, Chamberlain College of Nursing, Cleveland Eye Bank, and several other organizations.

60 opment,” The Plain Dealer, accessed October 13, 2015, http://www. cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/04/university_hospitals_ plans_mid.html. Michelle Jarboe McFee (e), August 28, 2015, “First look: One Univer- sity Circle high-rise apartments to start rising in January,” The Plain Dealer, accessed October 13, 2015, http://www.cleveland. com/business/index.ssf/2015/08/first_look_luxury_apartment_ hi.html. Michelle Jarboe McFee (f), September 10, 2015, “University Circle proposal could add 700-plus apartments near Chester and East 107th,” The Plain Dealer, accessed October 13, 2015, http://www. cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/09/university_circle_ proposal_cou.html. Michelle Jarboe McFee (g), October 2, 2015, “Hemingway Development expects to break ground in spring at 12-acre Cleveland office park,” The Plain Dealer, accessed October 20, 2015, http://www.cleveland. com/business/index.ssf/2015/10/hemingway_development_expects. html. Teresa Dixon Murray, January 14, 2015, “Cleveland is enjoying eco- nomic revival, Fed official says, while nation overall continues to rebound,” The Plain Dealer, accessed October 14, 2015, http:// www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/01/cleveland_is_ enjoying_economic.html. Richey Piparinen, Jim Russell, and Eamon Johnson, Mapping Adult Migration in Cleveland, Ohio (Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University, 2015). “RTA HealthLine Fact Sheet,” Cleveland Clinic and University Hospi- tals, accessed September 14, 2015, http://www.rtahealthline.com/ project-overview.asp. Interviews Vince Adamus (Vice President of Real Estate & Business Development, Greater Cleveland Partnership), interviewed by author, October 12, 2015. Christopher Bongorno (Transportation Consultant, University Circle, Inc.), interviewed by author, October 12, 2015. Robert Brown (Interim Executive Director, MidTown Cleveland, Inc.), interviewed by author, October 12, 2015. Jeff Epstein (Director, Health-Tech Corridor), interviewed by author, October 12, 2015. Michael Schipper (Deputy General Manager, Engineering & Project Development, Greater Cleveland RTA), interviewed by author, October 13, 2015. Database Tables corridor. In addition, Cleveland Regional Transit Authority runs an active transit-oriented development program that interfaces with developers, property owners, and community development corporations. Resources Citations “30 Years of Reinventing MidTown,” MidTown Cleveland, Incorporated (a), accessed October 13, 2015, http://www.midtowncleveland.org/ media/documents/mtc-timeline.pdf. “About: Geographic Area,” University Circle, Inc., accessed October 14, 2015, http://www.universitycircle.org/about/geographic-area. American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. “Area Map/Directions,” MidTown Cleveland, Incorporated (b), accessed October 13, 2015, http://www.MidTowncleveland.org/area-map- directions.aspx. CBRE, Outside Investment in Cleveland Continues as Prime Assets Trans- fer Ownership (Cleveland, OH: CBRE, 2015), accessed October 21, 2015, http://www.cbre.us/o/cleveland/Pages/market-reports.aspx. “History,” Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, accessed October 14, 2015, http://www.riderta.com/history. “Intesa,” The Coral Company, accessed October 13, 2015, http://www. thecoralcompany.com/properties/intesa/#. Eric Jaffe, June 23, 2015, “How Millennials are reviving Cleveland,” CityLab, accessed October 14, 2015, http://www.citylab.com/work/ 2015/06/how-millennials-are-reviving-cleveland/396572/. “MidTown Tech Park,” MidTown Cleveland, Incorporated (c), accessed October 13, 2015, http://www.midtowncleveland.org/midtown- tech-park.aspx. Michelle Jarboe McFee (a), January 25, 2010, “Digital agency Rosetta plans to bring nearly 400 jobs to new downtown Cleveland offices,” The Plain Dealer, accessed October 13, 2015, http://www.cleveland.com/ business/index.ssf/2010/01/digital_agency_rosetta_plans_t.html. Michelle Jarboe McFee (b), April 10, 2014, “Developers plan high-rise apartment tower in University Circle, on children’s museum site,” The Plain Dealer, accessed October 20, 2015, http://www.cleveland.com/ business/index.ssf/2014/04/developers_plan_high-rise_apar.html. Michelle Jarboe McFee (c), May 1, 2014, “Intesa project in University Circle aims for fall groundbreaking, with apartments up first,” The Plain Dealer, accessed October 13, 2015, http://www.cleveland.com/ business/index.ssf/2014/05/intesa_project_in_university_c.html. Michelle Jarboe McFee (d), April 9, 2015, “University Hospitals plans MidTown’s women’s and children’s clinic, anchoring 11-acre devel- Characteristics Region Great Lakes/Plains Project Mode Bus Rapid Transit State OH Project Type New Line City Cleveland Initial Study Date 2005 Impact Area East of Cleveland CBD Constr. Start Date 2006 Latitude 41.503662 Constr. End Date 2007 Longitude -81.633331 Post Constr. Study Date 2013 Planned Cost (YOE$) $200,000,000 Months Duration 18 Actual Cost (YOE$) $200,000,000 Length (mi.) 7 Actual Cost (2015$) $236,056,550 Avg. Annual Weekday Riders* 16,000 Table 27. Case study characteristics—GCRTA HealthLine.

61 Setting Urban/Class Level Urban Core Economic Distress 1.06 Population Density (ppl/sq.mi.) 1,040 Population Growth (CAGR) -2.17% Employment Growth (CAGR) -0.40% Market Size 1,315,012 Airport Travel Distance (mi.) 14 Topography (1-Flat to 21-Mountainous) 5 Table 28. Case study setting–GCRTA HealthLine. Measure Direct Number of Jobs 1,360 Income/Wages ($M) 90 Output ($M) 212 Building Development (1000s of Sq. Ft.) 380 Direct Private Investment ($M) Not Avail. Property Value Increase ($M) Not Avail. Property Tax Revenue ($M) Not Avail. Table 29. Project impacts identified by case study— GCRTA HealthLine. Pre/Post Conditions – Local (Zip 44103, 44106, 44112, 44114 & 44115) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Economic Distress Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Total Num. of Jobs 2005, 2013 149,933 130,760 -19,173 -13% Population 2005, 2013 92,344 79,588 -12,756 -14% Property Value Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Business Sales ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Tax Revenue ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Density (ppl/sq mi) 2005, 2013 5,210 4,490 -720 -14% Table 30. Local pre- and post-study conditions—GCRTA HealthLine. Pre/Post Conditions - County (Cuyahoga) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income 2005, 2013 $37,096 $46,694 $9,598 26% Economic Distress 2005, 2013 1.06 0.96 -0.10 -9% Total Num. of Jobs 2005, 2013 910,819 901,933 -8,886 -1% Population 2005, 2013 1,330,612 1,263,837 -66,775 -5% Property Value 2005, 2013 $136,500 $118,800 -$17,700 -13% Business Sales ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Tax Revenue ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Density (ppl/sq mi) 2005, 2013 2,912 2,766 -146 -5% Table 31. County pre- and post-study conditions—GCRTA HealthLine. Pre/Post Conditions - State (OH) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income 2005, 2013 $32,687 $40,749 $8,062 25% Economic Distress 2005, 2013 1.16 1.01 -0.14 -12% Total Num. of Jobs 2005, 2013 6,706,652 6,658,437 -48,215 -1% Population 2005, 2013 11,463,320 11,572,005 108,685 1% Property Value 2005, 2013 $129,600 $127,000 -$2,600 -2% Business Sales ($M's) 2002, 2012 $878,611 $1,172,264 $293,653 33% Tax Revenue ($M's) 2005, 2013 $24,011 $27,517 $3,506 15% Density (ppl/sq mi) 2005, 2013 233 32 -201 -86% Table 32. Statewide pre- and post-study conditions—GCRTA HealthLine.

62 80 hotel rooms with an estimated combined total 1,601 employ- ees have been constructed within ¾ miles of the station. An additional 626,000 square feet of office space and a 203-room hotel are under construction or planned, with some complet- ing in 2016. These new developments will employ an estimated 1,424 people. A total of 1,744 jobs at these developments can be attributed (100 percent on recent developments, 20 percent projects from 2001 to 2015) to the transit station. Millions of dollar of investment have been made to existing properties within the transit center. Property values (in terms of both sale value and rents) have a premium of between 5 and 20 percent within walking distance to stations along the T-Rex corridor. Project Narrative Location and Transportation Connections The Arapahoe at Village Center Station is located in Green- wood Village, 14.5 miles from downtown Denver, along the E and F lines of Denver’s light rail system. The station serves the Denver Technological Center (DTC) and the city of Arapahoe at Village Center Station in Metropolitan Denver, CO Synopsis Arapahoe at Village Center light rail station opened in November 2006 as part of the Denver Regional Transit District’s T-Rex (for transportation expansion) project. The T-Rex proj- ect, which was built to alleviate congestion along the I-25 and I-225 corridors, included both highway and light rail compo- nents. The project comprised the addition of two lanes in each direction along I-25 between downtown and Douglas County, the addition of two lanes in each direction on I-225 near the intersection with I-25, interchange improvements, and the con- struction of 19 miles of double tracked light rail and 13 stations along the I-25 corridor. This case study focuses on Arapahoe at Village Center transit station, located in Greenwood Vil- lage, Arapahoe County, Colorado in the Denver metropolitan area, which serves the Denver Technological Center (DTC) and Greenwood Village. Since the T-Rex project was announced in 2001, 749,323 square feet of office space, 28,000 square feet of retail, and Pre/Post Conditions - Project Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Project Ridership FY2005, 2013 2,700,000 4,800,000 2,100,000 77.78% Travel Time (minutes) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Table 33. Project pre- and post-study transportation conditions—GCRTA HealthLine. Pre/Post Conditions - System Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Ridership - Local FY2005, 2013 54,533,491 34,325,962 -20,207,529 -37.06% Ridership - Rapid FY2005, 2013 10,562,615 14,175,825 3,613,210 34.21% Table 34. Transit system pre- and post-study conditions—GCRTA HealthLine. Figure 14. Project location imagery—GCRTA HealthLine.

63 total MSA employment. Many of the jobs are in technology and finance and located at the Denver Technological Center (DTC). The per capita income of Greenwood Village in 2013 was $76,989, 148% higher than the median income of the Den- ver MSA. In 2000, the median income of Greenwood Village was 180% greater than the MSA. This decrease in the difference between the 2000 and 2014 income levels reflects that the Den- ver region as a whole is experiencing a renaissance in response to a growing tech sector that had been concentrated in the area of the Denver Technological Center. There is limited land avail- able in the area of the station to support any additional growth. The DTC, which straddles the border of Denver and Green- wood Village, is one of the Denver region’s premier employ- ment centers. A reported 162 companies are located in the DTC area, with approximately 60,000 employees. Employers span most sectors. Major employers include United Cable Vision, AT&T Broadband, and United Artists Cable, all of which have been here since the 1970s when the center first opened. More recent tenants include Sprint, Echo Star Communications, Nextel, Dow Jones and Company, Merrick and Company, Regis College, Nissan Motor Corporation, and DirecTV. The DTC is at the northern edge of an 11-mile-long corridor along I-25 that has 11 office/business parks. Greenwood Village is also home to several large office buildings, including the Plaza Tower One, a 22-story office tower adjacent to the transit sta- tion that is recognized as a signature address throughout the Denver metropolitan region. Project Description and Motives In 1995, the Colorado Department of Transportation, the RTD, and the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) commissioned the Southeast Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS) to investigate alternatives for address- ing current and projected congestion along the I-25 and I-225 corridors southeast of the Denver city center. Both downtown Denver and the Denver Technology Center, located in the vicinity of the I-25/I-225 interchange, were projected to grow as major employment centers over the next several decades. The transportation agencies sought congestion solutions that would change travel patterns in the corridor by incorporating viable transit options. The result of the MIS was the $1.67 billion T-Rex project. The transit portion of the project cost $879 million, while the highway portion of the project totaled $795 million. The light rail expansion included 13 stations, of which the Arapahoe at Village Center Station is one of three serving the Denver Technological Center. The station platform and garage cost $18,000,000 in 2005 dollars. The Arapahoe at Village Center Transit Plaza, built in 2009 and not part of the original tran- sit station, cost $3,667,248, of which T-Rex paid $1.8 million. The remainder of the plaza was paid by the City of Greenwood Village. Greenwood Village. It is one of 18 transit stations along the E Line of Denver’s light rail system. The station opened along with 12 other stops on an LRT extension that began service from downtown along I-25 in November 2006. The expansion of LRT to the area was part of what is known as the $1.67 billion T-Rex (for Transportation Expansion) Proj- ect, which included the addition of two lanes in each direction along I-25 between downtown and Douglas County, the addi- tion of two lanes in each direction on I-225 near the intersection with I-25, interchange improvements, and the construction of 19 miles of double tracked light rail along the I-25 corridor. The transit portion of the project cost $879 million, while the highway portion of the project totaled $795 million. Arapahoe at Village Center station platform and garage rep- resented approximately $18 million (2005 dollars) of the total transit expenditure. The station is 2.5 miles south of the I-25/I-225 interchange along I-25, about 17 minutes from downtown Denver and 30–40 minutes from the Denver International Airport (DIA). The station can be accessed via C-470 (west from I-25 to the foothills) and the E-470 (private toll road that runs east from I-25, then north to DIA, then back west north of Denver.) The LRT connects to existing LRT that provides service to the Central Platte Valley, downtown, and Denver’s south- west suburbs. Trains run at 10-minute headways during peak periods and every 15 minutes off-peak. There are 817 park- and-ride spaces at the station, as well as 10 bicycle lockers and 22 bicycle racks. It is served by five bus lines, including service to the Denver International Airport (DIA) and two RTD call-n-ride services. Limousine service is available to and from the Denver Inter- national Airport to the Denver Technology Center, area hotels provide shuttle services for their guests to businesses in the DTC, and local bus routes also serve the DTC. Denver Regional Transit District provides a Call-and-Ride service, which allows employees to call for transportation from their office to the transit station. Some businesses run private shuttles for their employees. In addition to DIA, Centennial International Air- port, a corporate airport with FAA clearance and a customs facility, is within 10 minutes of the DTC. By the end of 2019, the LRT E and F lines will be expanded 2.6 miles south to RidgeGate Park in Lone Tree, and a new line will connect these lines directly to DIA. Community Character and Project Context Greenwood Village is located in Arapahoe County and is immediately adjacent to the City/County of Denver. Histori- cally a farming community, the city has transformed into a residential and employment center. In 2000, the population of Greenwood Village was 11,035. In 2013, the estimated popu- lation of the city was 14,652, a 33% increase over 2000. In 2014, 38,055 people worked in Greenwood Village, 2% of the

64 adjacent to the Westin, received approvals from the City of Greenwood Village in January 2015, with completion expected in 2016. Assuming the current vacancy rate of 11.5% for Class A office space in the southeast submarket, this building will house approximately 570 workers. The 346,000 square feet of under-construction-office would support another 705 jobs. Granite Properties, the developers of Village Center DTC, purchased the 342,672 square foot Plaza Tower One in 2012 for $82.5 million, completed an interior renovation in 2013, and will complete a nearly $2 million renovation to the exte- rior plaza in 2015, making it more pedestrian friendly. Plaza Tower One, which was built in 1987, is immediately adjacent to the light rail station. At 22 stories, it is considered Denver’s best-known suburban office building. While the property was built well in advance of the planning for LRT to the corridor, Granite properties recent level of investment in the property is in part due to its location near the transit station. In June 2015, KBS Real Estate Investment Trust III Inc. pur- chased 234,915 square foot Village Center Station I for a record $326.50 per square foot ($76.7 million total). The buyer noted the building is “one of the premier light-rail served office proj- ects in the Denver metroplex.” The building is immediately adjacent to the Arapahoe at Village Center station. According to Capital Realty Group, “pre-existing property within a quarter- mile of light rail has increased [in value] substantially in the years following construction of the light-rail, anywhere between 5% and 20% annually.” According to a spokesman for the city, the area around the station is primarily commercial in character, with limited options for residential development. One apartment project with 304 units is under construction within ¾ miles of the station. The southeast Denver submarket has benefited from the opening of the southeast light rail line. The line serves a robust technology corridor that was suffering from substantial con- gestion prior to the T-Rex project, which both improved high- way capacity and introduced light rail service to the corridor. Not all development within the station area can be attributed solely to the transit station, but the station, combined with the highway improvements, were crucial to attracting reinvest- ment, new investment, and high-end tenants. An estimated 20%, or 320 of the jobs at already completed new develop- ment within ¾ miles of the LRT station can be attributed to the project. The Westin Hotel and Village Center DTC, both of which are directly connected to the transit center, will create approximately 685 jobs that can be credited to the transit sta- tion development. Other under-construction office and retail projects total 739 jobs, for a total of 1,744 jobs attracted to the area by the transit station. The influence of the station on attracting development to the area is expected to continue into the future. The station and the entire rail corridor also serve to support a denser, more pedestrian-friendly development Project Impacts Transportation Impacts In calendar year 2014, an estimated 20,372 passengers boarded trains at the Arapahoe at Village Center Station, an increase of 52% over 2007 totals (13,376). Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on I-25 at Greenwood Village just south of Belleview Avenue totaled 252,000 in 2014, compared to 158,900 in 2001 (+59%). Economic Impacts Since 2001, the RTD has kept track of all new development within ¾ miles of each transit station in its system, as well as under construction, proposed, and stalled projects. In that time period (through September 2015), 749,323 square feet of office, 28,000 square feet of retail, and 86 hotel rooms (in one hotel) have been constructed within ¾ miles of the Arapahoe at Village Center Station. An additional 346,000 square feet of office, 42,000 square feet of retail, and 304 apartments are under construction. A further 280,000 square feet of office and 203 additional hotel rooms have been approved. Over 880,000 additional square feet of development that was previously proposed has been tabled for the time being. Using the second quarter 2015 office vacancy rate for the southeast suburban market of 11.5%, completed office projects house approximately 1,530 office workers. Retail development over the period employs approximately 30 workers, based on the 3.3% second quarter 2015 vacancy rate for the south/southeast market. The hotel employs an estimated 50 people. Proposed and under construction projects will add 1,275 office, 34 retail, and 115 hotel workers to the study area using the most recent vacancy rates for the type of space. According to Colliers International, the Arapahoe at Village Center submarket was the “strongest office micro mar- ket in southeast Denver” in 2013. Major firms attracted to the area included Fidelity Investments, AngloGold Ashanti North America, Kaiser Permanente, DirecTV, and Merrill Lynch. Both Fidelity (which expects to have 880 employees at this location when fully staffed) and Kaiser Permanente (500 employees) specifically noted access to the light rail station as a reason for choosing this location. These two companies represent reloca- tions within the region, so while proximity near a rail station was instrumental in choosing their offices near Arapahoe at Village Center station, the LRT cannot be credited with attract- ing the firms to the region. By the end of 2015, the Westin Greenwood Village is expected to break ground on a 203-room five-star hotel with 6,000 square feet of conference space, a restaurant, a coffee shop, and a bar. The hotel will employ an estimated 115 people (mentioned above). The 280,000 square foot Village Center DTC 10-story office building, which will be immediately

65 Colorado Real Estate Journal http://www.crej.com/blog/village-center- station-sale-sets-record?category=office Confluent Development http://www.confluentdev.com/expertise/ office/village-center-at-dtc/ David Evans Associates, Arapahoe Road/I-25 Interchange Final System Level Feasibility Study, June 2008 https://www.codot.gov/library/ studies/I25-Arapahoe-EA_FONSI/finasystemlevelfeasibilitystudy- 20-20june-202008.pdf DTZ, Metro Denver Retail Market Snapshot, Second Quarter 2015 http://dtz.cassidyturley.com/DesktopModules/CassidyTurley/ Download/Download.ashx?contentId=4452&fileName=2Q+2015 +DTZ+Denver+RETAIL+Snapshot+_4-Page.pdf DTZ, Metro Denver Office Market Snapshot, Second Quarter 2015 http://dtz.cassidyturley.com/DesktopModules/CassidyTurley/ Download/Download.ashx?contentId=4454&fileName=2Q+2015 +DTZ+Denver+Office+Snapshot.pdf office space.com http://www.officespace.com/englewood-co/building/ 28235-6400-s-fiddlers-green-circle http://denversouthedp.org/5th_Anniversary_of_T_REX.aspx http://www.rtd-denver.com/FF-SoutheastCorridor.shtml http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/se_1 https://denvertechcenter.wordpress.com/dtc-area-employers/ http://denvertechcenter.wordpress.com/category/dtc-area-company- news/ http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tourism-business-portal/ toolstutorials/management/efficientstaffing/index_en.htm http://www.capcommercialrealestate.com/blog/boom-in-commercial- real-estate-near-denver-rtd/ http://www.metrodenver.org/research-reports/economic-forecasts/ 2015-economic-forecast/ http://www.greenwoodvillage.com/DocumentCenter/View/10973 http://www.southeastconnections.com/?n=transit&sm=rtd&sp=light http://www.metrodenver.org/files/documents/transportation- infrastructure/highways/Trans_HWY_T-REXFactBook.pdf Interviews City Manager’s Office, City of Greenwood Village Denver Regional Transportation District Granite Properties Denver South Economic Development Partnership Denver Area Council of Governments Database Tables pattern in the Denver region, which helps to relieve congestion on the highway system. Many of the technology jobs within the corridor attract millennials, many of whom wish to be located near transit where they can rely less on automobile travel. Non-Transportation Factors The Arapahoe at Village Center station directly serves the DTC, which has developed as one of the largest employment centers in the MSA since it was first conceived in the 1960s. The DTC is a magnet for the burgeoning tech sector in the region. Despite three transit stations serving the DTC, it remains auto- dependent, with a campus-style development pattern. The T-Rex investment in roadway improvements have been essen- tial to the growth of the DTC. Both the cities of Denver and Greenwood Village have adopted zoning to encourage denser development at the DTC and in the vicinity of the Arapahoe at Village Center station. Denver zoned the DTC area B-8, which allows intense com- mercial use and encourages high rises. Greenwood Village has created a special Town Center Zone to accommodate mixed uses with a range of allowable densities and building heights. In addition, the city has amended its parking code to allow adjustments in the number of required parking spaces for projects located close to transit stations. The overall economy of the Denver region has experienced a strong recovery from the 2008 recession. In 2014, Metro Denver’s job growth rate was 3.2 percent compared to the national rate of 1.9%. Resources Citations Arapahoe County Assessors Records http://parcelsearch.arapahoegov. com/PPINum=2075-21-4-13-005 Colorado DOT Online Transportation Information System http:// dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/trafficdata#ui/2/0/0/station/ 100993/criteria/100993/ Characteristics Region Rocky Mountain/Far West Project Mode Light Rail State CO Project Type Single Station City Greenwood Village Initial Study Date 2000 Impact Area Denver Tech Center Constr. Start Date 2001 Latitude 39.600446 Constr. End Date 2006 Longitude -104.890733 Post Constr. Study Date 2014 Planned Cost (YOE$) $18,000,000 Months Duration 66 Actual Cost (YOE$) $18,000,000 Length (mi.) Not Appl. Actual Cost (2015$) $21,738,914 Avg. Annual Weekday Riders* 3,423 Table 35. Case study characteristics—RTD Arapahoe at Village Center station.

66 Setting Urban/Class Level Suburban Economic Distress 0.6 Population Density (ppl/sq.mi.) 606 Population Growth (CAGR) 2.50% Employment Growth (CAGR) 6.70% Market Size 2,601,465 Airport Travel Distance (mi.) 28 Topography (1-Flat to 21-Mountainous) 5 Table 36. Case study setting—RTD Arapahoe at Village Center station. Measure Direct Number of Jobs 1,744 Income/Wages ($M) 119 Output ($M) 269 Building Development (1000s of Sq. Ft.) 906 Direct Private Investment ($M) Not Avail. Property Value Increase ($M) Not Avail. Property Tax Revenue ($M) Not Avail. Table 37. Project impacts identified by case study— RTD Arapahoe at Village Center station. Pre/Post Conditions - Local (Zip 80111) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Economic Distress Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Total Num. of Jobs 2000, 2013 65,445 57,122 -8,323 -13% Population 2000, 2013 26,015 29,815 3,800 15% Property Value Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Business Sales ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Tax Revenue ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Density (ppl/sq mi) 2000, 2013 3,171 2,768 -403 -13% Table 38. Local pre- and post-study conditions—RTD Arapahoe at Village Center station. Pre/Post Conditions - County (Arapahoe) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income 2000, 2014 $43,027 $56,294 $13,267 31% Economic Distress 2000, 2014 0.6 0.79 0.19 32% Total Num. of Jobs 2000, 2014 389,615 465,497 75,882 19% Population 2000, 2014 491,482 618,821 127,339 26% Property Value 2000, 2014 $171,700 $257,700 $86,000 50% Business Sales ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Tax Revenue ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Density (ppl/sq mi) 2000, 2014 611 769 158 26% Table 39. County pre- and post-study conditions—RTD Arapahoe at Village Center station. Pre/Post Conditions - State (CO) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income 2000, 2014 $34,234 $48,869 $14,635 43% Economic Distress 2000, 2014 0.7 0.81 0.11 15% Total Num. of Jobs 2000, 2014 2,924,168 3,452,307 528,139 18% Population 2000, 2014 4,236,921 5,355,866 1,118,945 26% Property Value 2000, 2014 $166,600 $255,200 $88,600 53% Business Sales ($M's) 2002, 2012 $373,573 $524,803 $151,230 40% Tax Revenue ($M's) 2000, 2013 $7,075 $11,246 $4,171 59% Density (ppl/sq mi) 2000, 2014 41 51 10 24% Table 40. Statewide pre- and post-study conditions—RTD Arapahoe at Village Center station.

67 Pre/Post Conditions - Project Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Project Ridership 2000, 2014 Not Appl. 1,027,025 Not Appl. Not Appl. Travel Time (minutes) Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Table 41. Project pre- and post-study transportation conditions—RTD Arapahoe at Village Center station. Pre/Post Conditions - System (RTD) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Ridership - Local FY2000, 2013 70,041,406 76,348,670 6,307,264 9.01% Ridership - Rapid FY2000, 2013 6,675,202 23,773,844 17,098,642 256.15% Table 42. Transit system pre- and post-study conditions—RTD Arapahoe at Village Center station. Figure 15. Project location imagery—RTD Arapahoe at Village Center station.

68 routes, or arriving by walking or biking, rather than driving to park-and-ride stations. Community Character and Project Context The Valley is northwest of downtown LA, home to more than 2.5 million people, and still largely considered a resi- dential suburb in comparison to the LA core. Original plans to construct the Orange Line as a light rail or subway facil- ity were blocked by the local communities, which lead to construction of a BRT line as the only way to provide rapid transit service to the Valley and utilize the railroad right-of- way that had been acquired several years earlier. The two original termini of the Orange Line—North Hollywood and Warner Center—account for the major- ity of employment along the corridor, with the stations in between largely passing through residential areas. Along the corridor, there are several colleges, medical facilities, and a regional center of government. Project Description and Motives Over the last decade following its construction, the Orange Line has remained one of the best examples of BRT in the United States. Of the many systems constructed over the last decade and marketed as BRT many lack crucial elements that were included in the Orange Line. The Orange Line operates in fully dedicated right of way, has off board fair collection, well-branded stations as well as rolling stock, level boarding, some signal prioritization, and operates at high frequency. The project included significant efforts to integrate the line with other travel options and integrate it in to the commu- nity with extensive landscaping and design components. The route includes 38 signalized intersections—mostly at-grade traffic crossings. The major driver of the Orange Line project was to improve public transit accessibility in the Valley. Before the Orange Line construction, LA Metro had invested consid- erably more resources into rapid transit lines elsewhere in the county, especially in the downtown core. Transit was also seen as a way to address congestion on highway 101 and throughout the Valley. Discussions regarding extending service to the Valley began as early as 1980 and LA Metro acquired the abandoned rail bed in 1991. Construction finally began for the BRT line in the fall of 2002 and was completed in 2005, on- or under- budget, at a final cost of $305 million. Project Impacts Transportation Impacts The Orange Line replaced a local bus route that took 72 minutes to travel from North Hollywood to Warner Orange Line Light Rail in Los Angeles, CA Synopsis In October 2005, LA Metro opened the Orange Line BRT, which runs entirely on dedicated right-of-way in former rail bed. The Orange Line was the first BRT line in the United States to run entirely in separated right-of-way and has the highest ridership of any U.S. BRT system. Commercial development attributable to the Orange Line has been limited by national and local economic conditions as well as local land use circum- stances. It remains one of the most successful rapid transit lines in the United States in terms of its transportation and plan- ning impacts, including connecting the San Fernando Valley to LA Metro’s rapid transit network for the first time and providing over 40 percent time savings relative to the pre- vious local bus route in a comparable corridor. The Orange Line seems likely to facilitate development going forward and also provide future travel improvements. New jobs along the station corridor are mostly concentrated around the east- ern terminus at North Hollywood and the western terminus at Warner Center and con sidering the wide variety of other factors involved, about 825 jobs can be associated with the transit improvements directly. Background Location and Transportation Connections The Orange Line runs, east to west, through the southern San Fernando Valley. The Orange Line was the first true rapid tran- sit line in the Valley. It originally ran 14.5 miles from the Red Line Subway station in North Hollywood to Warner Center, the third largest employment center in LA County. In 2012, a 3.5 mile extension to Chatsworth was completed, which added a connection to the regional rail network at the northwestern terminus of the Orange Line. There are currently nearly 4,000 park-and-ride spots avail- able along the Orange Line, but many lots are significantly underutilized. Metro has been working on joint development efforts to replace some of this parking capacity with housing or mixed use buildings. Bike connections with the Orange Line are highly utilized. During the construction process of the Orange Line, a shared use path or separate bike and pedestrian paths were added along the corridor for its entire length. Every Orange Line station has bike cages and other bike amenities. The Orange Line connects to several key north-south streets with high ridership local bus routes, notably: Van Nuys Blvd, Reseda Blvd, and Sepulveda Blvd. Overall, LA Metro has been surprised with how great a portion of ridership uses the Orange Line as only part of their trip, transferring from other transit

69 via the Red Line and additional policy levers to encourage development. Retail has seen somewhat greater growth. In 2007, the Topanga Plaza shopping mall in Warner center completed renovations and new construction in 2006 and 2008 that added nearly 900,000 square feet of retail. In 2015, The Village at Topanga opened, adding an additional 550,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space and linking The Promenade Mall with the Topanga Plaza (rebranded West- field Topanga) to create the 3rd largest shopping complex in the United States. North Hollywood has also added over 100,000 square feet of retail space as part of several mixed use developments near the Red Line and Orange Line station area. The next major project in Warner Center is likely to be a 47-acre, $3 billion development with over 4,000 residential units and 1.1 million square feet of office space, as well as significant retail and community space. This project will be directly across from an Orange Line station and will satisfy the goals of the Warner Center Specific Plan in creating a more walkable, transit-oriented community. The planned increase in densities would likely have been limited without strong transit access to the region, from the Orange Line and other Metro services. Metro is currently reviving joint development plans for some of the underutilized park-and-ride facilities along the Orange Line, after the first attempt at joint development efforts fell through during the recession. That first round of joint development discussions culminated in plan to build 1 million square feet of office space, 150,000 of retail, and 500 apartment units, and other community amenities. The new plan for North Hollywood as well as redevelop- ment of the 1,200 spot park-and-ride at the Orange Line’s Sepulveda Blvd stop are expected to have more significant residential components, of which 35 percent will be afford- able housing. The defunct Community Redevelopment Agency esti- mated that construction from 2006 to 2008 around the North Hollywood transit stations has created 1,150 jobs. Since then, new construction has been limited by the reces- sion and continued slack development market during the recovery. LA Metro’s joint development plans could create hundreds of new jobs depending on the mix of residential, retail/service, and office space in the final plan. It is esti- mated that The Village retail complex provides 1,500 jobs and that the Westfield Topanga has a similar impact. The addition of 1.1 billion square feet of office space across from The Village could add another 2,000 jobs in the future, as well as several hundred retail jobs. While not the main factor in most of these developments, transit access via the Orange Line has certainly been a con- tributing factor, which makes the areas more attractive as Center with a 50-minute scheduled trip that offers sig- nificantly higher reliability and more frequent trips. This improved transit trip takes roughly as long as driving between these locations but it is more reliable. Weekday ridership stands at nearly 30,000 boardings and weekend ridership continues to grow quickly, now standing at about 2/3rd the level of weekday ridership. During AM and PM peaks, Orange Line vehicles are frequently at or above capacity. A ridership survey 3 months after the line’s opening esti- mated that nearly 20 percent of riders had previously traveled by car and were now using the Orange Line for their trip. About 80 percent of those new riders had previously used Highway 101, which saw a decrease in congestion and delay in the months after the Orange Line’s opening, which more than likely was related. LA Metro is in the process of developing proposals for further improving both travel time and capacity, which will almost certainly require eliminating some at-grade crossings or negotiating much more aggressive signal prioritization with the City of LA. Additional capacity could also be added if the state of California grants LA Metro permission to use longer, higher-capacity buses. Demographic, Economic, and Land Use Impacts Most of the development associated with the Orange Line to date has been residential with several hundred units added near the North Hollywood station and several thousand new units in the Warner Center and Canoga station areas. The LA residential market is currently much more attractive for developers than the commercial market. The average renter in LA spends 48 percent of their income on rent, and only 187 units are being built for every 1,000 new residents of LA. This tight housing market has encouraged any development projects that move forward to be heavily skewed toward residential units. The recent update to the Warner Center Specific Plan that defines land use goals, design criteria, and zoning over- lays for the Warner Center area, sets requirements that, in a significant portion of the district, all multi-family devel- opments must include other land uses, including commer- cial components as well as retail. Developments containing primarily commercial or office space have been restrained by a double digit vacancy rate for office space in the LA metro region. Even several years before the recession in 2007–2008, vacancy rates in LA exceeded 15 percent. Sev- eral planned projects to add office space were scuttled when the recession hit. Some new office space has been built in North Hollywood, which has gained about 300,000 square feet of office space since the Orange Line opened. North Hollywood also benefits from a connection to downtown

70 transportation factors. The area previously contained many industrial sites that are ready for redevelopment given a proven demand for retail and commercial space in that portion of the Valley. It would be reasonable to attribute 20 percent of the retail and service jobs at Warner Center and 20 percent of North Hollywood’s job gain to the Orange Line. This represents over 825 jobs. The impact of the transportation improvement and better housing options may provide an even greater number to the LA region. Resources Citations Breakthrough Technologies Institute. 2007. A Preliminary Evaluation of the Metro Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit Project. Institute for Transport and Development Policy. 2013. More Develop- ment for Your Transit Dollar. Chatman, Daniel, Robert Noland, Nicolas Tulach, Bryan Grady, Kaan Ozbay, Lars Rognlein, Andrew Desautels, and Lauren Alexander. 2012. Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects. TCRP Project H-39, web-only docu- ment 35. Case Study. FTA Research. 2011. Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation. FTA Report No. 0004. la.curbed.com, patch.com/California, www.crala.org, developer web- sites, www.dailynews.com, www.metro.net Interviews LA Metro Planning LA Metro Operations Warner Center Association Database Tables locations for retail and businesses. The San Fernando Valley and Warner Center still rely heavily on personal automobile travel to provide mobility to residents and businesses, but most businesses and companies inquiring about locating in Warner Center are interested in the transit accessibility even if it isn’t their first question regarding the area. The significant improvements in transportation may also have a meaningful economic impacts elsewhere in the Valley that are not cap- tured in this investigation. Non-Transportation Factors Development in North Hollywood in the years immedi- ately following the Orange Line’s opening was supported by the active role of the Community Redevelopment Author- ity in forming public-private partnerships within a defined redevelopment zone. The Department of City Planning continues to administer a zoning overlay and policy pro- grams to support development in North Hollywood. The LA city-wide plan and many of the current community- level plans do not provide any special allowances for develop- ment around the Orange Line. Recent updates to the North Hollywood and Warner Center Specific Plans, however, do provide changes to zoning and planning guidance to encourage future development. In many ways, the highly local control of neighborhood zoning regulations and development is one of the factors that has so far limited the development impact of the Orange Line. Development of the North Hollywood site owned by Metro, which contains the Orange Line station, will benefit from zoning exemptions that allow buildings that open into Red Line stations to be 50 percent taller than other area build- ings. The rest of the Orange Line does not benefit from this type of land use policy. Much of the development in Warner Center is attrib- utable to economic and land use factors rather than pure Characteristics Region Rocky Mountain/Far West Project Mode Bus Rapid Transit State CA Project Type New Line City Los Angeles Initial Study Date 2002 Impact Area South San Fernando Valley Constr. Start Date 2002 Latitude 34.185765 Constr. End Date 2005 Longitude -118.476309 Post Constr. Study Date 2012 Planned Cost (YOE$) $320,000,000 Months Duration 36 Actual Cost (YOE$) $305,000,000 Length (mi.) 14.5 Actual Cost (2015$) $385,000,000 Avg. Annual Weekday Riders* 28,000 Table 43. Case study characteristics—LA Metro Orange Line.

71 Seng Urban/Class Level Suburban Economic Distress 1.06 Population Density (ppl/sq.mi.) 7,841 Population Growth (CAGR) 0.90% Employment Growth (CAGR) 1.80% Market Size 12,703,423 Airport Travel Distance (mi.) 21 Topography (1-Flat to 21-Mountainous) 21 Table 44. Case study setting—LA Metro Orange Line. Measure Direct Number of Jobs 825 Income/Wages ($M) 36 Output ($M) 86 Building Development (1000s of Sq. Ft.) 260 Direct Private Investment ($M) Not Avail. Property Value Increase ($M) Not Avail. Property Tax Revenue ($M) Not Avail. Table 45. Project impacts identified by case study— LA Metro Orange Line. Pre/Post Conditions - Local (Zip 91303, 91306, 91316, 91335, 91356, 91367, 91371, 91401, 91406, 91411, 91601 & 91607) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Economic Distress Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Total Num. of Jobs 2002, 2012 137,638 141,562 3,924 3% Population 2000, 2012 404,573 427,416 22,843 6% Property Value Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Business Sales ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Tax Revenue ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Density (ppl/sq mi) 2000, 2012 7,841 8,283 442 6% Table 46. Local pre- and post-study conditions—LA Metro Orange Line. Pre/Post Conditions - County (Los Angeles) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income 2002, 2012 $32,427 $47,713 $15,286 47% Economic Distress 2002, 2012 1.16 1.35 0.19 16% Total Num. of Jobs 2002, 2012 5,431,144 5,781,355 350,211 6% Population 2002, 2012 9,705,913 9,974,868 268,955 3% Property Value 2000, 2012 $209,300 $399,500 $190,200 91% Business Sales ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Tax Revenue ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Density (ppl/sq mi) 2002, 2012 2,392 2,458 66 3% Table 47. County pre- and post-study conditions—LA Metro Orange Line. Pre/Post Condions State (CA) Measure Years Pre Project Post Project Change % Change Personal Income 2002, 2012 $34,306 $47,614 $13,308 39% Economic Distress 2002, 2012 1.16 1.28 0.13 11% Total Num. of Jobs 2002, 2012 19,437,490 20,850,443 1,412,953 7% Population 2002, 2012 34,871,843 38,062,780 3,190,937 9% Property Value 2000, 2012 $211,500 $349,400 $137,900 65% Business Sales ($M's) 2002, 2012 $2,695,657 $3,749,506 $1,053,849 39% Tax Revenue ($M's) 2002, 2012 $77,755 $115,179 $37,424 48% Density (ppl/sq mi) 2002, 2012 213 233 19 9% Table 48. Statewide pre- and post-study conditions—LA Metro Orange Line.

72 Location and Transportation Connections The extension, which opened in June 2003, connects the Colma BART station, located in northern San Mateo County with SFO, after which it extends south to the Milbrae station. By extending to the Milbrae station, which is located less than one mile from SFO, BART provides an intermodal connection to the Caltrain commuter rail service. Both intermediate stations (South San Francisco and San Bruno) provide bus connections, and at SFO, a new airport station is located within walking distance of the international terminal—a feature that required con- structing a designated spur from the primary BART rail line. Using BART, the travel time from SFO to downtown San Francisco is approximately 30 minutes. In addition, for connections to Oakland and the East Bay, travelers origi- nating at or destined for SFO can use BART’s Pittsburg/ Bay Point line. Community Character and Project Context Until July 1996, when BART was extended to the Town of Colma, the system terminated in Daly City, which is located BART Extension to SFO Airport in San Mateo County, CA Synopsis Opened during summer 2003, BART’s extension through San Mateo County to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) has successfully served transit-dependent workers com- muting to the airport or downtown San Francisco, but has not reached its potential in terms of spurring long-term economic development. This case study documents how an operational reconfiguration of South Bay’s transportation network could enhance the impact the BART-SFO extension has on market access, travel times, and real estate development. Background In November 1997, work began on the construction of an 8-mile extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system to San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The federal New Starts program funded half of the $1.5 billion project, with other funders including BART, SFO, and San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans). Pre/Post Condions Project Measure Years Pre Project Post Project Change % Change Project Ridership FY2002, 2012 Not Avail. 7,560,000 Not Avail. Not Avail. Travel Time (minutes) FY2004, 2006 72 50 -22 -30.56% Table 49. Project pre- and post-study transportation conditions—LA Metro Orange Line. Pre/Post Conditions - System (LA Metro) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Ridership - Local FY2002, 2012 378,039,587 354,171,488 -23,868,099 -6.31% Ridership - Rapid FY2002, 2012 67,156,754 109,347,930 42,191,176 62.83% Table 50. Transit system pre- and post-study conditions—LA Metro Orange Line. Figure 16. Project location imagery—LA Metro Orange Line.

73 destined for SFO from points south must transfer to BART at Milbrae and continue north past SFO to the San Bruno station, where they cross the platform and board a train traveling in the opposite direction to SFO. While the BART- Caltrain connection is currently cumbersome, one person interviewed for this case study believes that if plans to elec- trify the commuter rail and provide more frequent service are implemented, the “network effect” could be significantly enhanced. Project Impacts Transportation Impacts During July 2003, the first full month after the BART- SFO extension opened, 3,545 riders boarded at SFO and 3,384 exited. During September 2015, the latest month for which data are available, a weekday average of 7,661 BART riders boarded at SFO and 7,313 riders exited. This figure shows a 116 percent increase in both entries and exits since its inception. Milbrae is the next busiest station followed by San Bruno and South San Francisco (ranked by both entries and exits). Total exits at the four extension stations total 21,000 per day. The South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Mil- brae stations have all experienced greater relative increases in traffic than SFO. Most travelers to the airport are boarding in the City of San Francisco (stations north of the extension). At downtown San Francisco’s Powell Street station, BART’s third-busiest in September 2015, a weekday average of 1,291 riders who boarded at the station exited at SFO. Conversely, during the same month, an average of 1,676 riders boarded at SFO and exited at Powell Street—the most popular station of exit for travelers leaving the airport. Demographic, Economic, and Land Use Impacts One person interviewed has observed that transit-oriented development (TOD) has so far failed to take hold along the BART extension, especially compared with the East Bay’s suc- cess in leveraging stations to attract development. This per- son cites successful TOD surrounding BART’s West Oakland and Fruitvale stations, in particular, attributing it in part to a larger [transit-using] commute shed [than in the South Bay] (i.e., more travelers entering and exiting stations). This is a “current phenomenon that is likely to grow,” this person says, “especially around Caltrain [in the South Bay] and the East Bay.” Long-term economic development impacts stemming from the BART extension are more related to tourism and labor market access—particularly access to service workers—than to business attraction. One person interviewed does not believe in San Mateo County just south of the San Francisco border. When work began on the extension, SFO could be accessed only by driving or taking a bus. BART not only provided a connection to SFO, but also to South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae—largely residential, auto-oriented com- munities in San Mateo County. In Millbrae, travelers can transfer to Caltrain. From 2000 to 2012, the surrounding area’s (ZIP-code-based) population grew by 4.3 percent, from 168,000 to 175,000. From 1998 to 2012, the employment in this area grew by 11 percent, from approximately 78,600 to 87,300. Project Description and Motives Planners first proposed the idea of extending BART to SFO in 1970, when the agency received a federal grant to study the feasibility of doing so. After working for two decades to identify sources of funding and reach an agreement with San Mateo County regarding its financial contribution, BART and SamTrans decided to complete the extension in two phases: an extension from Daly City to Colma, and a sub sequent extension from Colma to SFO. BART developed seven build scenarios and two no-build scenarios, and in 1994, ballot measures informed the decision of where to locate the SFO station. Proposition H directed the City of San Francisco to select a site on the side of Highway 101 opposite of the airport, requiring travelers to transfer to an airport shuttle in order to reach the terminals. A majority of voters sup- ported Proposition I, which would involve tunneling under Highway 101 and the airport in order to provide a station within SFO, an alternative that would have cost $300 mil- lion more (in 1994 dollars). Despite public support for the extension and a designated airport station, some opponents suggested that BART implement a more cost-effective solu- tion, such as providing free bus service from the Colma station to SFO. In April 1995, BART approved the alternative including a station at SFO (east of Highway 101), although the design was modified in order to prevent having to tunnel under the high- way and part of the airport. The approved design involved building a spur from the main rail line that crossed over Highway 101 on its approach from northern stations and then back again to extend south, along the west side of the highway, to the Milbrae station. Today, while the extension drops travelers within walking distance of SFO’s international terminal, the project has led to scheduling complications that affect the entire line. Because BART runs southbound trains that go to either SFO or Milbrae, service frequency at both stops is limited. In addition, because there is no direct service between SFO and Milbrae before 7:00 PM on weekdays, Caltrain travelers

74 “tried to reinvigorate the mainstay of the old economy: manufacturing.” Resources Citations “Airports,” Caltrain, accessed October 15, 2015, http://www.caltrain. com/riderinfo/destinations/Airports.html. American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Elizabeth Deakin et al., A State of Good Repair for BART: Regional Impacts Study (Bay Area Council Economic Institute, 2012). Dennis Freeman, Wenbin Wei, and Geoffrey D. Gosling, Case Study Report: San Francisco International Airport BART Extension (San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute, 2012). Michael Storper, October 23, 2015, “Why San Francisco’s way of doing business beat Los Angeles’,” Los Angeles Times, accessed October 27, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-storper-how- sf-beat-la-20151025-story.html. “Ridership Reports,” Bay Area Rapid Transit, accessed October 27, 2015, http://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership. “San Francisco Tourism: Volume, Spending & Characteristics (2013),” April 2014, San Francisco Center for Economic Development, accessed October 26, 2015, http://sfced.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/12/Data-Statistics-Toursim-Overview.pdf. San Francisco Travel Association, March 22, 2011, accessed October 26, 2015, http://www.sanfrancisco.travel/article/san-francisco-travel- association-releases-economic-impact-figures-2010-and-results- year-long. Stephen Levy, Trends Affecting Workforce Development in San Mateo County and the San Francisco Peninsula (San Jose, CA: Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies, 2014). Interviews Egon Terplan (Transportation Policy Director, SPUR), interview with author, October 13, 2015. Sean Randolph (Senior Director, Bay Area Council Economic Insti- tute), interview with author, October 9, 2015. Database Tables that corporate relocations can be attributed to the extension, nor that technology companies based in Silicon Valley depend on the line, in part because many provide private bus ser- vice to their employees. People interviewed also agree that for most existing companies, BART’s connection to SFO is not critical, mostly because driving is convenient and often much quicker than the train. Still, BART’s extension has expanded the number of options for reaching SFO, the region’s premier airport. The extension plays a different role among tourists because many visitors to the Bay Area are from Europe and Asia, where using public transportation is a common mode of travel. Because of this, BART is a popular way to reach San Francisco and other areas. Since 2003, when the BART-SFO extension opened, the number of annual visitors to San Francisco has exceeded 14 million. And while not segmented by route, the San Francisco Travel Association reports that more than one in four (26.7%) of visitors use BART while in San Francisco. Regarding labor market access, service workers at SFO and possibly retail stores surrounding the San Bruno station depend on BART for their commute. Non-Transportation Factors The technology and construction industries have led job growth in San Mateo County and the larger Silicon Valley, with a buoyant housing market supporting the construction industry. In a sign of the region’s dominance in the broadly defined “tech” sector, it received nearly 58 percent of total venture capital funding in the United States, nearly all of which flowed into the three San Francisco Peninsula counties: San Francisco, San Mateo, and San Clara. Michael Storper, an urban planning professor at UCLA who studies urban economies, attributes the Bay Area’s economic fortunes to a “. . . [concentration] on attract- ing and supporting new high-wage industries . . . ,” espe- cially in comparison to the Los Angeles region, which Characteristics Region Rocky Mountain/Far West Project Mode Heavy Rail State CA Project Type Extension City San Bruno Initial Study Date 1997 Impact Area SF Metro/N. San Mateo Co Constr. Start Date 1997 Latitude 37.648128 Constr. End Date 2003 Longitude -122.453218 Post Constr. Study Date 2012 Planned Cost (YOE$) $1,052,000,000 Months Duration 72 Actual Cost (YOE$) $1,552,230,000 Length (mi.) 9 Actual Cost (2015$) $2,142,077,400 Avg. Annual Weekday Riders* 42,000 Table 51. Case study characteristics—BART extension to SFO.

75 Table 52. Case study setting—BART extension to SFO. Setting Urban/Class Level Suburban Economic Distress 0.55 Population Density (ppl/sq.mi.) 1,755 Population Growth (CAGR) 0.86% Employment Growth (CAGR) 2.20% Market Size 2,668,106 Airport Travel Distance (mi.) 13 Topography (1-Flat to 21-Mountainous) 16 Table 53. Project impacts identified by case study— BART extension to SFO. Measure Direct Number of Jobs 0 Income/Wages ($M) 0 Output ($M) 0 Building Development (1000s of Sq. Ft.) 0 Direct Private Investment ($M) Not Avail. Property Value Increase ($M) Not Avail. Property Tax Revenue ($M) Not Avail. Table 54. Local pre- and post-study conditions—BART extension to SFO. Pre/Post Conditions - Local (Zip 94014, 94030, 94066, 94080 & 94128) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Economic Distress Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Total Num. of Jobs 1998, 2012 78,661 87,318 8,657 11% Population 2000, 2012 167,923 175,227 7,304 4% Property Value Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Business Sales ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Tax Revenue ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Density (ppl/sq mi) 2000, 2012 5,667 5,913 246 4% Table 55. County pre- and post-study conditions—BART extension to SFO. Pre/Post Conditions - County (San Mateo) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income 1997, 2012 $41,456 $85,798 $44,342 107% Economic Distress 1997, 2012 0.55 0.79 0.24 43% Total Num. of Jobs 1997, 2012 436,531 494,444 57,913 13% Population 1997, 2012 697,512 740,738 43,226 6% Property Value 2000, 2012 $469,200 $701,900 $232,700 50% Business Sales ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Tax Revenue ($M's) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Density (ppl/sq mi) 1997, 2012 1,557 1,653 96 6% Table 56. Statewide pre- and post-study conditions—BART extension to SFO. Pre/Post Conditions - State (CA) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income 1997, 2012 $27,147 $47,614 $20,467 75% Economic Distress 1997, 2012 1.31 1.28 -0.02 -2% Total Num. of Jobs 1997, 2012 17,667,115 20,850,443 3,183,328 18% Population 1997, 2012 32,486,010 38,062,780 5,576,770 17% Property Value 2000, 2012 $211,500 $349,400 $137,900 65% Business Sales ($M's) 1997, 2012 $2,120,524 $3,749,506 $1,628,982 77% Tax Revenue ($M's) 1997, 2012 $61,667 $115,179 $53,512 87% Density (ppl/sq mi) 1997, 2012 189 222 32 17%

76 Pre/Post Conditions - Project Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Project Ridership FY1999, 2012 3,780,000 13,140,000 9,360,000 247.62% Travel Time (minutes) Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Table 57. Project pre- and post-study transportation conditions— BART extension to SFO. Pre/Post Conditions - System Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Ridership - Local Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Ridership - Rapid FY1997, 2012 80,489,690 118,674,764 38,185,074 47.44% Table 58. Transit system pre- and post-study conditions—BART extension to SFO. Figure 17. Project location imagery.

77 maintain a reasonable level of congestion. There are plans in development to further improve the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in the neighborhood and around the station, as well as improving connectivity to some of the neighborhoods east of the station by providing pedestrian access underneath the Amtrak track embankments. Community Character and Project Context Before the station’s opening, the surrounding area was largely surface parking and industrial buildings. Both employment and population in this portion of DC were much lower than geo- graphically similar parts of the city in other locations. Today, the area has been rebuilt with modern office buildings, residen- tial space, and retail. A significant portion of the office space is occupied by federal agencies and non-profits. The residential market in NoMa quickly became one of the most popular in the city. Project Description and Motives Metro’s track at the NoMa station parallels the Amtrak lines from Union Station on elevated right-of-way. The station construction project built a new elevated platform in place while maintaining service to the already busy Red Line. When the station was completed, it filled in a 2-mile gap through a section of town, which was not originally provided transit access, since there was not demand for service at the time of the Red Line’s construction. When the station was first conceived in the late 1990s, development pressure was building to take advantage of the area’s prime location relative to the city’s core. However, without transit access it was unlikely that the road network would be able to provide the mobility necessary to maxi- mize the land’s potential value. The plan leveraged funding from several sources—private, city, and federal—to create the city’s first in-fill station and unlock the area’s development potential. The federal government viewed this transit improvement as a means to sustainable neighborhood development by adding much needed new locations for federal offices in the DC core near other agencies. Identifying sites with this type of potential for office development was a stated goal of the federal govern- ment at the time of station planning. The local government saw a great opportunity to increase property values and attract businesses and residents to grow the tax base. Construction funded by this public-private partnership began in 2002 and the station opened in November 2004. The final contribution of the District of Columbia was $54 mil- lion, the federal government contributed $31 million, and the private sector invested $35 million, for a total of $120 million in 2004 dollars. NoMa–Gallaudet Red Line Station in Washington, DC Synopsis The NoMa-Gallaudet Metro Station in Washington, DC, opened to riders in November 2004. It was the first in-fill sta- tion in the Metro subway system and unlocked the growth potential of an area that had been relatively neglected and undeveloped despite its proximity to downtown DC. In the 10 years following its opening, an estimated 12,270 new jobs were located in the neighborhood now known as NoMa. The transit improvement itself can account for about 10,000 of these jobs, with the balance explained by supportive land use policy and an active Business Improvement District. Only half of the planned development has been constructed, so this number could double again. There has also been an explosion of residential and retail development since the station’s open- ing. One of the major factors in the construction of the sta- tion occurring was a very supportive coalition of developers that helped to fund the station’s construction. Background Location and Transportation Connections The NoMa-Gallaudet Station is on Washington Metro- politan Area Transportation Authority’s (Metro) Red Line, which is the oldest in the system. It was built in the middle of a 2-mile stretch of track between Union Station and the Rhode Island Avenue Station. It was originally named the New York Ave–Florida Ave–Gallaudet U Station after the nearest major street crossings. The NoMa neighborhood, whose iden- tity really began developing after the station provided transit access to the surrounding land, is just over a one-mile walk from the U.S. Capitol building and neighbors several other growing neighborhoods. The NoMa-Gallaudet station may contribute directly to the future growth of the Florida Avenue Market neighborhood. The NoMa-Gallaudet station is very well connected to the rest of the metro area given its central location in the Metro system. It can be accessed from anywhere in the region where there is Metro access with a single transfer, since the Red Line connects to each of the other lines nearby in the core and with the Green Line and Yellow Line a second time farther north. DC Metro has identified this type of transit connectivity as a major factor in property development. High connectivity in a city with strong transit ridership has likely been a key component of the attractiveness of the NoMa neighborhood to developers. There is still a significant amount of parking on private property for commuters and residents for a core neighbor- hood, but the transit access has allowed the street network to

78 The total investment in the station area is estimated to be around $1.7 billion for residential, office, retail, and hotel developments. In total, construction in the ten years follow- ing the station’s opening has added over 8 million square feet of floor space to the neighborhood. This amount is still expected to double under the currently approved plans. Since estimates of the number of employees in the neigh- borhood exceed total daily ridership, people are clearly com- ing to the neighborhood by other means than the Red Line station at NoMa-Gallaudet. Without the station, however, developers would have been highly unlikely to invest in such high-intensity land uses and many of the jobs, residences, and retail locations, which are being accessed using the road network would not have existed. Non-Transportation Factors In addition to the new transit station, several other efforts and policy changes supported the growth unlocked by the infrastructure improvement. In 2007, the coalition of devel- opers and local organizations, which had worked with the public sector to make the station a reality, reformed their organization as the NoMa Business Improvement District (NoMaBID). NoMaBID has been integral in continuing to market and improve the neighborhood for businesses, resi- dents, and visitors. Both before construction and after the sta- tion’s opening, an interested group of developers was important in moving the project forward. Land use planning was also very supportive of development in the station area. A rezoning of the area shortly before the sta- tion opened allowed for a variety of moderate- to high-density mixed-use purposes. Development in NoMa could achieve maximum density levels higher than many parts of the city by utilizing the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) receiv- ing zone status of the area. By preserving lower densities in other portions of the metro area, TDR allows higher densities to be attained in receiving zones. Developers were also afforded relatively high flexibility by limiting the need for major plan review and approval and the area’s lack of inclusionary zoning set asides or aggressive residential share requirements. All of these land use policies allowed developers to quickly unlock the potential of the significant developable land in the location, which was also relatively easy to assemble into larger properties due to the previous land uses. Improved transit access, supportive land use, and coopera- tive marketing and provision of amenities have all combine to provide economic development that so far has resulted in over 12,000 jobs. Without the station access, much of the potential provided by the supportive land use would likely not have been realized. Developers would likely not have built to maximum density if provision of parking to car commuters would have been the only way for tenants’ employees to travel to the neigh- Project Impacts Transportation Impacts Today, there are over 9,000 exits on the average weekday at the NoMa station in an area that previously had no rapid transit access. Metro expects NoMa-Gallaudet to be the sys- tem’s fastest growing station moving into the future and projects that the continued build out of the neighborhood could more than double that figure. This ridership is driven by improved access to and from NoMa from elsewhere in the city as well as the local growth of employment and population. As development occurs around stations in other fast grow- ing neighborhoods and the system expands, the well-situated NoMa-Gallaudet station becomes an ever more important part of the value of living or locating a business or organization in the neighborhood. Demographic, Economic, and Land Use Impacts Since the completion of the station, more than 3,000 resi- dential units have been added in the station area and 3,000 more are planned to be built by 2019. Many of these units are targeted toward relatively small households of professionals. Prior to the station’s construction, very few people resided in the station area at all. If these households were attracted from addresses outside the District each of these units may provide as much as $5,000 dollars in income tax revenue to the city, as well as increased sales tax and other spending benefits. Local government revenues from property and sales tax also benefited enormously. Some of the development or sales that drive these revenues may have also occurred elsewhere in the city in a counterfactual scenario without the NoMa-Gallaudet station. Prior work identifies about $34 million more in prop- erty tax and $2.8 million more in hotel tax in 2014 relative to 2006 due to increased property value in the neighborhood. This is the mostly likely type of net new revenue. Sales tax receipts are also estimated to have increased by about $7.3 million. Fewer residential units have been completed in the region than the DC Office of Planning had original envision. It has been office and retail space that have expanded rapidly. Other parts of DC are governed by zoning overlays that require pri- vate developers to build a specific target mix of residential (including low-income units) compared to commercial devel- opment. These overlays have not governed development in NoMa, and developers have been able to build greater amounts of commercial property. From 2005 to 2015, over 2,300,000 square feet of mostly Class A office space was added in close proximity to the station. There are nearly 140,000 square feet of new retail locations, and over 600 hotel rooms. In total these develop ments support around 12,270 jobs. They also generate new property, sales, hotel, and other tax revenue for the District.

79 DC Office of Planning. NoMA Vision Plan and Development Strategy. http://planning.dc.gov/page/noma-vision-plan-and-development- strategy NoMa Parks. NoMa Today. April 2015. Interviews NoMA Business Improvement District WMATA District Department of Transportation Database Tables borhood. Consequently, it would be reasonable to attribute as many as 10,000 jobs to the station’s role in development. Resources Citations MacCleery, Rachel, and Jonathan Tarr. 2012. NoMa: The Neighborhood that Transit Built. Urbanland. January 29. http://urbanland.uli.org/ development-business/noma-the-neighborhood-that-transit-built/ RKG Associates Inc. NoMa-Gallaudet U Metro Station: Success Built on Transit. 2014. http://www.nomabid.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2011/02/MetroAnniversaryReport_RKG.pdf Table 59. Case study characteristics—WMATA NoMa-Gallaudet station. Characteristics Region New England/Mid-Atlantic Project Mode Heavy Rail State DC Project Type Single Station City Washington Initial Study Date 1999 Impact Area Northeast DC Core Constr. Start Date 2002 Latitude 38.907376 Constr. End Date 2004 Longitude -77.00303 Post Constr. Study Date 2014 Planned Cost (YOE$) $100,000,000 Months Duration 30 Actual Cost (YOE$) $120,000,000 Length (mi.) Not Appl. Actual Cost (2015$) $151,200,000 Avg. Annual Weekday Riders* 18,100 Table 60. Case study setting—WMATA NoMa-Gallaudet station. Setting Urban/Class Level Urban Core Economic Distress 1.42 Population Density (ppl/sq.mi.) 8,453 Population Growth (CAGR) -1.86% Employment Growth (CAGR) 0.90% Market Size 4,739,999 Airport Travel Distance (mi.) 15 Topography (1-Flat to 21-Mountainous) 4 Table 61. Project impacts identified by case study— WMATA NoMa-Gallaudet station. Measure Direct Number of Jobs 10,000 Income/Wages ($M) 1,246 Output ($M) 2,461 Building Development (1000s of Sq. Ft.) 2,035 Direct Private Investment ($M) 1,686 Property Value Increase ($M) Not Avail. Property Tax Revenue ($M) 34.4 Table 62. Local pre- and post-study conditions—WMATA NoMa-Gallaudet station. Pre/Post Conditions - Local (Zip 20002) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Economic Distress Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Total Num. of Jobs 1999, 2013 18,848 25,225 6,377 34% Population 2000, 2013 49,333 56,331 6,998 14% Property Value Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Business Sales ($M) Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Not Avail. Tax Revenue ($M) 2006, 2013 $5 $69 $64 1280% Density (ppl/sq mi) 2000, 2013 9,386 10,717 1,331 14%

80 Table 63. County pre- and post-study conditions—WMATA NoMa-Gallaudet station. Pre/Post Conditions - County (DC) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income 1999, 2014 $39,412 $69,838 $30,426 77% Economic Distress 1999, 2014 1.52 1.26 -0.26 -17% Total Num. of Jobs 1999, 2014 711,756 858,685 146,929 21% Population 1999, 2014 519,000 658,893 139,893 27% Property Value 2000, 2013 $157,200 $470,500 $313,300 199% Business Sales ($M) 2002, 2012 $117,939 $213,456 $95,517 81% Tax Revenue ($M) 1999, 2013 $2,974 $6,180 $3,206 108% Density (ppl/sq mi) 1999, 2014 8,453 10,731 2,278 27% Table 64. Statewide pre- and post-study conditions—WMATA NoMa-Gallaudet station. Pre/Post Conditions - State (DC) Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Personal Income 1999, 2014 $39,412 $69,838 $30,426 77% Economic Distress 1999, 2014 1.52 1.26 -0.26 -17% Total Num. of Jobs 1999, 2014 711,756 858,685 146,929 21% Population 1999, 2014 519,000 658,893 139,893 27% Median Home Value 2000, 2013 $157,200 $470,500 $313,300 199% Business Sales ($M) 2002, 2012 $117,939 $213,456 $95,517 81% Tax Revenue ($M) 1999, 2013 $2,974 $6,180 $3,206 108% Density (ppl/sq mi) 1999, 2014 8,453 10,731 2,278 27% Table 65. Project pre- and post-study transportation conditions—WMATA NoMa-Gallaudet station. Pre/Post Conditions - Project Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Project Ridership FY1999, 2014 Not Appl. 5,520,000 Not Appl. Not. Appl. Travel Time (minutes) Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Not Appl. Table 66. Transit system pre- and post-study conditions—WMATA NoMa-Gallaudet station. Pre/Post Conditions - System Measure Years Pre-Project Post-Project Change % Change Ridership - Local FY1999,2013 143,240,114 137,778,320 -5,461,794 -3.81% Ridership - Rapid FY1999,2013 212,620,976 273,828,461 61,207,485 28.79%

81 Figure 18. Project location imagery—WMATA NoMa-Gallaudet station.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED ISBN 978-0-309-37552-8 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 3 7 5 5 2 8 9 0 0 0 0