Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies (2021)

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.

113   8.1 Introduction At the beginning of this guide, JD was defined as “real estate develop- ment that occurs on transit agency property or through some other type of development transaction to which the transit agency is a party.” In modern U.S. practice, the most common form of JD still occurs on transit-owned real property (land, air rights, or commercial space) at existing rail transit stations. However, there are other forms of JD as well. As suggested in the JD typology introduced in Chapter 1, JD can involve property owned by other public entities or by private devel opers; it can also utilize a transit agency’s non-station assets. Nor is the opportunity to pursue JD confined to existing corridors and station areas; it is applicable to new corridors, if those are planned with JD in mind. This chapter addresses ways to expand the geographic and insti- tutional horizon of how JD is understood and practiced in the U.S. transit community. It explores six broad models or concepts, iden- tifying best practices to the extent that these have emerged. The models outlined in this chapter, while innovative, have been used in a variety of projects from which agency leaders and practitioners can learn. Several have the added benefit of being applicable, in actual practice, to the street-running bus systems operated by most U.S. transit agencies and the streetcars and street-running light rail ser- vices operated by some. Making JD accessible to those systems is a key goal of this guide. 8.2 Hub Stations and Transit Centers Most transit systems have places where multiple routes or modes converge. Many are located in or near the downtown core, reflecting the radial pattern of their systems, but important convergence points may also be found on the periphery of larger systems. These nodes are often referred to as hub stations or transit centers. While many are associated with rail transit, hub stations and transit centers are also common among mid-sized and smaller transit agen- cies whose systems consist principally or entirely of bus routes. For these agencies, hub stations and transit centers are among the places C H A P T E R 8 Joint Development Horizon Hub stations Sister public agencies Adjacent owners JD and value capture New corridors Non-station assetsLand value Parking Affordable housing Economics of Joint Development Chapter 7 Chapter 6 Chapter 8 Joint Development Horizon Joint Development and FTA Hub Stations and Transit Centers 1. Opportunities for small and medium- sized bus agencies as well as larger rail/bus agencies. 2. Collaborate to solve the puzzle of ownerships, tenancies, roles, and responsibilities. 3. Create a “place” as well as a “node.” All transit modes do not necessarily go in one building. Nor should adjacency of parking to the station preempt TOD/JD. 4. Avoid excessive garage parking for transit functions. 5. In smaller projects or weak markets, consider government, service, or educational tenants.

114 Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies where they are most likely to own off-street real estate or to be able to otherwise participate in JD transactions. JD projects at hub stations and transit centers vary in scale, complexity, and types of service. At all scales, the deals tend to be innovative because of the multiplicity of interests, goals, resources, and design challenges involved. The largest, most iconic projects often involve historic downtown train stations that have evolved into multi-modal hubs. Some of these stations are owned by public transit agencies that serve as sponsors of the overall redevelopment initiative, while in other cases the transit agency is part of a more complex ownership structure or is simply a tenant. Examples Denver Union Station. Among the best-known projects is Denver Union Station, a five- mode hub where Amtrak, commuter rail, light rail, the regional bus system, and two downtown circulators converge (see Figure 40). The redevelopment, which opened in 2014–2015, actually consists of two distinct projects: • The redevelopment of the rail yard and grounds, resulting in the rail/bus transit hub, five surface parcels for vertical, mixed-use JD (now complete), and the public realm connecting all these elements to each other and the surrounding streets; and • The adaptive reuse of the historic station building as a hotel, retail, restaurant, and public space destination. The entire 19.5-acre property was owned by the Denver RTD, which partnered with the City of Denver and other stakeholders in planning the project and selecting the two master development teams. The surface JD parcels were sold to the rail yard master developer, while the historic station building was leased to the adaptive reuse master developer.1 Figure 40. Denver Union Station, Colorado.

Joint Development Horizon 115   The new vertical development on the rail yard includes roughly 1.35 million square feet, which became the catalyst for millions more on the adjacent blocks. An innovative value capture strategy was created, in which two U.S. DOT loans were negotiated in tandem. A Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan was backed by the property and sales tax increments from the larger TOD district and a related special assessment; a TIFIA loan was backed by a stream of pledged sales tax revenues. The JD and the surrounding TOD induced by it materialized so rapidly that the federal loans could be refinanced and retired early in their terms. Along with the sales proceeds of the five surface parcels, these loans covered a substantial portion of the nearly half-billion dollar cost of the transit components.2 Although a complicated project, Denver Union Station had a simple ownership structure: RTD, while collaborating closely with sister agencies, owned the entire site. Other examples illustrate the more complex structures that emerge when multiple public agencies, railroad companies, and transit agencies have historic footholds in a train station. North and South Stations. Boston’s two historic hubs have been undergoing redevelopment for decades, re-emerging as anchors of their respective downtown districts. In both cases, MBTA owns the transit, commuter rail, and passenger rail facilities, but major development rights are or were owned by others: • At South Station, the interior retail and office uses are MBTA leasehold tenants. However, the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) owns the exterior air rights in which a large, mixed-use, multi-tower development project is to be built by a BPDA-designated developer. • North Station shares a footprint with TD Garden, the city’s basketball, hockey, and concert arena, which was built in the 1990s above the commuter rail concourse on air rights owned by the City of Boston. The rest of the property is owned by Delaware North Company (owners of TD Garden) which, in partnership with other developers, has built a market rate apartment tower and a mixed-use complex fronting TD Garden and the train concourse. At each station, the MBTA benefits from in-kind capital improvements and developer-funded O&M agreements and gains significant ridership from the on-site development and surround- ing TOD. Except for the interior commercial spaces at South Station, this development makes no direct payments to MBTA. Nonetheless, redevelopment of these two stations clearly fits this guide’s definition of JD—they are real estate transactions in which the MBTA is a party, a full partner in planning and design oversight, and the recipient of significant benefits. Amtrak legacy stations. In the 2010s, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) began an initiative to redevelop several iconic stations of which it is the owner. The first to be advanced were Chicago Union Station, Baltimore Penn Station, and Philadelphia 30th Street Station. Amtrak faced several interwoven challenges: • Addressing repairs and improvements needed for its own rail facilities, which are shared with the respective commuter rail operators who generate the majority of daily ridership; • Defining a set of roles, responsibilities, and development rights that would appeal to the real estate market and attract competitive JD proposals; and • Sorting out the roles of the public and quasi-public stakeholders at each station, which included the commuter rail operators, the public transit agencies, the city governments, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as well as FTA, the MPOs, and key institutional and neighborhood stakeholders in each station area. In addition to diverse regulatory, opera- tional, and funding roles, the jigsaw puzzle of “who owns what” is unique to each station. For each station, Amtrak created a JD framework that included a hybrid conveyance of interior commercial space, surface development parcels, and air rights. The eventual developer

116 Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies will be expected to build and/or operate and maintain a variety of public space, common areas, and even rail passenger facilities not involved in actual boarding, disembarking, and rail operations. Using a two-step RFQ/RFP process (as described in Chapter 4), Amtrak had, as of 2020, selected developers and entered negotiations for Chicago and Baltimore and had solicited proposals for Philadelphia. These Amtrak station projects constitute JD in two distinct ways. As owner of the stations and as issuing and awarding authority for the developer solicitations, Amtrak plays the same role that RTD played at Denver Union Station. For purposes of its Chicago, Baltimore, and Philadelphia projects, Amtrak can be thought of as the transit agency and the JD sponsor. At the same time, there are traditional public transit agencies serving each station: the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra (the Greater Chicago commuter rail agency), the Maryland Transit Administration, New Jersey Transit, and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). In some cases, these agencies are on-site tenants of Amtrak; in others, their passenger facilities are immediately adjacent to the Amtrak property and connected to it.3 To the extent that these public transit agencies are parties to transactions involving Amtrak or their JD partners, participate in the planning process and gain in-kind benefits and increased rider- ship, the station projects can be seen as JD from their perspective as well, albeit at a level secondary to Amtrak’s.4 As for mid-sized and smaller agencies operating street-running transit services, several examples convey the value of the hub station/transit center model. Memphis Central Station. In 2020, the Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) and its JD partners completed the second redevelopment of the historic Central Station. The first had occurred in the late 1990s, after MATA acquired the 17-acre property. The second, led by a new, competitively selected master developer, resulted in adaptive reuse of the historic station as a hotel and of the adjacent powerhouse as a movie complex; new construction of 200 apartments; an improved farmers’ market; and an enhanced public realm tying these components together. The recent project is suggestive in some respects of Denver Union Station, albeit at a smaller scale of development. The transit agency owns the entire property and solicited a master devel- oper for both the historic buildings and the surface parcels. (MATA sought a single master developer, while Denver RTD split the rail yard and the historic station building into two sepa- rate solicitations.) Memphis Central Station is the convergence point for multiple bus routes, the MATA-operated Memphis Trolley, and the Amtrak route serving the city. The entire site was ground-leased to the master developer for 99 years. MATA’s lease payment includes a share of net revenues and an in-kind obligation by the developer to operate and main- tain the buildings and grounds, a valuable cost avoidance for MATA. The lease was processed as an FTA-assisted JD project.5 Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) multi-modal hubs. PVTA runs an extensive regional bus network in the Pioneer Valley of Massachusetts. Two projects illustrate the versatility of the hub station/transit center concept for smaller and mid-sized transit agencies. Springfield, with a population of 155,000, is the Valley’s central city. Union Station was built in 1926, closed and effectively abandoned in 1973, and reopened in 2017. It serves a handful of daily Amtrak trains and a new regional rail service to Hartford and New Haven. Union Station is owned and was redeveloped by the Springfield Redevelopment Authority (SRA). PVTA was SRA’s partner in the project, delivering over $43 million in FTA funds as grantee and participating in all phases of project planning. The $103 million project consists of a

Joint Development Horizon 117   27-berth, at-grade bus terminal; a small parking structure; and the restoration of the historic station building with waiting rooms, public space, retail and food concessions on the ground floor and two floors of office space above. PVTA is a tenant in the completed project, leasing the primary use of the bus terminal and a share of the ground floor interior for 95 years. Peter Pan Bus Lines, the Northeast’s primary intercity bus carrier, and Greyhound lease the remaining bus terminal capacity. Peter Pan has moved its corporate offices into the station building, as has a local architecture firm. SRA acted as its own developer, eliminating the cost of a private partner and retaining the ability to turn to the City of Springfield to cover early shortfalls. The city envisions Union Station as a revitaliza- tion catalyst for the surrounding blocks.6 Holyoke, a short distance away, is a city of 40,000, and its downtown hosts another PVTA hub. In 2010, PVTA opened the Holyoke Transportation Center (see Figure 41). This $9 million project includes an off-street, seven-berth bus terminal and the adaptive reuse of a historic and previously vacant fire station. The building houses passenger waiting, ticketing, amenities, and convenience retail on the ground floor and a cluster of social services, daycare, and adult educa- tion on the upper floors. Holyoke Community College and other public or non-profit agencies are tenants. The real estate arm of Peter Pan Bus Lines (a tenant of the bus terminal) served as the developer. As in Springfield, the city sees this project as a downtown catalyst, albeit at a smaller scale. The city donated the vacant firehouse to PVTA for the project and is a party, with PVTA and the developer, in the FTA-approved JDA. Both the Springfield and Holyoke projects required brownfield remediation, which was funded by state and federal environmental agencies.7 Kansas City, Third Street and Grand Boulevard. KCATA operates a large metropolitan bus system, including two street-running bus rapid transit corridors as well as the city-owned streetcar. These services intersect at several points in central Kansas City, Missouri, which KCATA designates as transit centers. KCATA and the city are promoting TOD in these locations, and KCATA itself owns off-street parcels in several locations. Figure 41. Holyoke Transportation Center, Massachusetts.

118 Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies A priority is a KCATA park & ride lot at Third Street and Grand Boulevard in the River Market District on the northern edge of downtown. Several regular bus routes, the MAX bus rapid transit route, and the streetcar all converge at this location. In this case, the transit components of the center will not necessarily be located inside the off-street development; these services run in the street and will likely continue to stop at the curbside. However, a mixed-use development with bus and streetcar service at the doorstep would provide a bustling, transit-rich environment.8 Lessons Learned For JD practitioners, a number of lessons, principles, and strategies emerge from this series of hub station and transit center examples: 1. A transit agency must work with the other public agencies involved in the site to solve the jigsaw puzzle of ownership, tenancies, and the alignment of funding sources, roles, and responsibilities. In many cases, the transit agency is the facility owner and the logical JD sponsor. In other cases, however, the agency may be essential as a transit operator and FTA grantee without owning the full bundle of transportation facilities and development rights. The key is to negotiate a fair balance of contributions and benefits. 2. In planning a multi-modal hub, there is a tension between the concepts of node and place. The former seeks to minimize walking distances between transportation components— for example, by placing a park & ride structure immediately next to the station entrance, preempting a prime JD site, or by assuming that all interconnecting transit modes must be housed in a single building. The place concept, while valuing the convenience of intermodal passengers, is attentive to urban design and the interplay of uses. Depending on program needs, spatial constraints, and district setting, the best solution may be a multi-modal district, in which transit services and urban placemaking are integrated, but not under one roof. At Denver Union Station, for example, the decision to place the light rail platform a short walk from the rest of the complex allowed 17th Street, lined by mixed-use development and an active streetscape, to become the retail spine of the station district and an amenity for passengers and the general public alike. The place-versus-node tension can arise at peripheral hubs as well, especially regional end-of-line stations on metro or light rail lines. The JD planning underway as of 2020 at two future hubs in Greater Seattle—Northgate Mall and Federal Way Station—illustrates the possibilities for genuine TOD. So does New Carrollton Station, where a large-scale park & ride lot conversion is occurring at a multi-modal hub in suburban Maryland. 3. Avoid building excessive structured parking for transit use, particularly in a developed downtown with interconnecting rail and transit services. The belief that central hub stations per se are major park & ride generators is outmoded. Few daily commuters drive downtown to catch a bus or train, and while people leaving on an intercity trip may opt for park & ride, this market is being visibly changed by TNCs and other phone-based applications. Denver Union Station, a major metropolitan transit hub but a minor intercity rail location, has no dedicated rail/transit parking. South Station, although a major Amtrak and intercity bus embarkation point, has a single floor of parking that is consistently underutilized. 4. Hub stations and transit centers represent an opportunity for small and medium-sized transit agencies to own or participate in off-street real estate. In planning new or expanded centers, these agencies should assess whether there is an opportunity for JD. The inclusion of convenience retail or community services is a common feature of such projects; among many examples are the Holyoke Transit Center; the downtown bus hubs opened in recent years by IndyGO in Indianapolis, the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) in Columbus, and the Portage Area Regional Transit Authority (PARTA) in Kent, Ohio; and MATA’s Airways

Joint Development Horizon 119   Transit Center, which houses MATA’s own bus terminal, Greyhound’s Memphis terminal, and a food court.9 But the JD opportunity may be more substantial, as demonstrated by Memphis Central Station and Springfield Union Station. 5. To make a modest JD project work in a weak or emerging market, transit agencies and their partners should consider the long-established strategy of recruiting government agencies, educational institutions, and community services as tenants. 6. The immediate environs of a hub station or transit center should be mixed-use. Hub stations enhance the opportunity to bring housing downtown, attracting choice riders with one or no private automobiles and optimizing the market for reverse commuting and two-way peak flow on radial transit corridors. Hub stations and transit centers with sufficient land can include housing in their on-site JD programs. Where that is not feasible, the ability to stimu- late residential development in the immediate walkshed is important, requiring coordinated planning with the city and the station’s surrounding stakeholders. 8.3 Sister Land Owning Agencies The discussion of hub stations and transit centers shows the value of collaborating with other public land owners to assemble workable JD sites. In the Boston, Springfield, and Holyoke examples, the projects depended on real property collaborations with local government. This concept has a much wider application, as shown in the examples that follow. In every case, the real estate transaction between the transit agency and a sister jurisdiction was part of a longer planning colla- boration involving the same site or district. The agencies’ roles and responsibilities should reflect the facts, make the most efficient use of each agency’s time and resources, and present a clear, seamless face to potential developers. Combining adjacent land holdings. A transit agency can expand its JD footprint by partnering with a land-owning jurisdiction, com- bining their adjacent holdings into a developable site. (These combi- nations do not necessarily involve the public landowners merging their holdings into a single new parcel; depending on legal circum- stances, the parcels might be merged or might be kept separate under a combined developer solicitation.) The transit agency and local govern- ment surveys conducted for this guide identified numerous examples, among them: • In Carrollton, Texas, at Trinity Mills Station on the DART Green Line, DART and the city owned adjacent parcels totaling 9.5 and 16.5 acres, respectively. They issued a joint RFP and worked together to select the master developer and negotiate a joint term sheet and master developer agreement. The two holdings will be conveyed separately (the DART land by long-term ground lease, the city land by sale). This public collaboration increased the value of the land and the cohesiveness of TOD/JD planning.10 • Denver RTD undertook real estate collaborations with two local governments in order to enable substantial JD projects. In Arvada, RTD and the city jointly assembled the JD site and co-issued a two-step RFQ/RFP developer solicitation. They then built a garage and transit center, freeing up nine acres for the mixed-use JD. In Boulder, RTD and the city jointly bought the 11-acre Boulder Junction site and then divided it—one parcel to RTD for an underground bus station with affordable housing and multi-use garage above, the remainder to the city for mixed-use TOD (see Figure 42).11 Sister Land Owning Agencies 1. Work flexibly and opportunistically with city, county, or other jurisdiction: combine adjacent holdings, issue joint RFPs, share the benefits. 2. Obtain right-of-way donations from public agencies whose land is enhanced by new transit, including redevelopment agencies and port authorities. 3. If the transit agency is a division of the city, county, or region, work expansively with sister departments to involve their station-area land in JD.

120 Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies • LA Metro’s Expo/Crenshaw JD project, described in Section 3.4, involves a Metro parcel and an LA County parcel, which the two entities agreed to jointly market.12 The City as ground lease developer. Allianz Field in St. Paul is a new Major League Soccer stadium, built with private funds on a site owned mostly by Metro Transit (see Figure 43). The stadium is the centerpiece of a comprehensive TOD strategy for a 34.5-acre superblock that Figure 42. Depot Square at Boulder Junction, Colorado. Figure 43. Allianz Field joint development and transit-oriented development master plan, Minnesota.

Joint Development Horizon 121   Metro Transit, its parent the Metropolitan Council, and the city envision as a TOD/JD oppor- tunity. Metro Transit owns 9.9 acres of the block, site of an old streetcar repair yard and bus barn acquired with FTA assistance in 1970. While those facilities are long gone, Metro Transit used the site for construction staging when the Green Line light rail and Snelling Avenue “A Line” BRT were being built. Those two street-running services intersect at the northwest corner of the superblock. (Had Metro Transit not already owned this parcel, it would be a prime example of the strategic acquisition of construction staging sites with subsequent JD in mind; see Section 8.6.) In 2015, the city made what was, in effect, an unsolicited proposal to develop the soccer stadium on the Metro Transit land.13 To exempt the stadium from local taxes, the city would lease the site from Metro Transit and accept ownership of the finished stadium from the soccer organization, which would also reimburse the city for their lease payments. The result is an approved FTA-Assisted Joint Development project, highlighted in FTA’s 2017 JD brochure.14 Under the 50-year ground lease, the city is paying Metro Transit at least $29 million, all of it retained for transit purposes. At the end of the lease, the stadium reverts to Metro Transit. The city is leasing the entire Metro Transit parcel, including the portion not used for the stadium. This land is key to the TOD master plan adopted by the city for the superblock, illustrated in the rendering in Figure 43.15 Donated right-of-way. A land-owning agency whose property will be traversed by a new transit alignment may donate the land required for the affected stations and related guideway. As a result of the donation, the affected stations are surrounded by developable land under public control. While this development is off-site from the transit agency’s perspective and does not make cash payments to it, the transit agency gains the up-front benefit of donated right-of-way in an appreciating submarket and the downstream benefit of increased ridership and revenue. If the transit agency is a planning partner, this three-way set of transactions takes on the char- acteristics of JD, as illustrated in Figure 44. (As noted in Section 8.4, a private landowner could make a similar donation, with a similar exchange of benefits.) MBTA has been involved in two such transactions: • In the South Boston Seaport District, the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), a prin- cipal land owner, donated right-of-way for two stations on the Silver Line bus rapid transit corridor and the connecting alignment. Since the Silver Line opened in 2005, these stations Figure 44. Right-of-way donated by land-owning public agency.

122 Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies have been the foundation for dense, mixed-use TOD on Massport-owned land and air rights at and above the stations. • In Somerville, to facilitate the Green Line light rail extension, the Somerville Redevelopment Authority assembled a large TOD site encompassing the future Union Square Station. The Redevelopment Authority donated the station site to MBTA and chose a master developer for dense, mixed-use development on the public land. A pioneering application of this concept involved TriMet’s Airport MAX light rail exten- sion, which opened in 2001. This project includes a segment adjoining Portland International Airport, where two stations were built to serve a 117-acre development site. Airport MAX was delivered through an exceptionally complex four-way transaction involving TriMet (the transit agency), the Port of Portland (owner/operator of the airport and owner of the development site), the Portland Development Commission (the city’s urban renewal agency), and a private partner, Bechtel Enterprises: • The transaction had the effect of donating the right-of-way for the two stations and the connecting corridor segment, unlocking the value of the surrounding land. • Bechtel, which delivered the transit project for TriMet through a design-build contract, also contributed 23% of project costs in exchange for the development rights to the 117-acre site, which they and their real estate partner, Trammel Crow, developed as Cascade Station. (This somewhat resembles the model of adjacent developers funding and building a station, as described below). • The city’s 19% share was financed through a tax increment finance district that covered the development site and other land near the airport, a precedent noted in Section 8.5.16 Land owned by a parent jurisdiction. Some transit agencies are divisions or close affiliates of their municipal, county, or regional government. For example, the agencies surveyed for this guide include: • Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), in most respects a department of the City of Charlotte; • King County Metro and Miami-Dade Transit, each a division of its county government; • Metro Transit, a division of the Metropolitan Council, a state-enabled regional government entity; • IndyGO, a municipal corporation of Indianapolis-Marion County whose board is appointed by the Mayor and Council; • LA Metro, an affiliate of LA County, all five of whose commissioners are ex officio members of the 14-member Metro board; and • Caltrain, a Joint Powers Authority comprising three constituent counties, one of which (San Mateo County) manages Caltrain. For these transit agencies, land owned by the parent jurisdiction or any of its departments may be available for inclusion in a JD initiative. In the transit agency survey, most of those to whom this discussion applies expressed interest in working more proactively with their parent jurisdiction and sister departments to broaden TOD/JD opportunities. 8.4 Adjacent Private Land Owners It is a long-standing practice for developers of real estate next to transit stations to build direct connections to those stations or new station entrances. Generally, the transit agency would charge a fee for the former type of improvement (which principally benefits the off-site developer), while accepting the latter type (which benefits the riding public) at the developer’s cost but no additional fee. WMATA and the Toronto Transit Commission are among the transit

Joint Development Horizon 123   agencies that have long recognized these developer-funded connec- tions and improvements as a type of JD.17 An emerging business model that builds on this older one is for an adjacent land owner to fund a new station, in whole or in significant part. The station could be at an infill location where none had existed; it could improve or replace an existing station; or it could be one of the stations on a new or extended corridor. The developer may, by agreement with the transit agency, design or build the station as well as pay for it. A new transit station is normally the responsibility of a transit agency. A developer would agree to take on the cost and the unusual effort for one reason: because the real estate submarket in question is hot, and the land the developer owns is favorably situated relative to the transportation corridor and surrounding real estate activity. The miss- ing ingredient—the “but for” in site readiness and feasibility terms—is high-quality transit. Particularly if the metropolitan market is gravitating toward TOD, these circumstances create value and urgency. Stations funded and built by abutting land owners are exceptional events, but those that have been implemented, or have advanced to the planning stage, are instructive. • Assembly Station. MBTA has been the beneficiary of two completed projects. Assembly is an infill station on the Orange Line rapid transit corridor. It is located in Somerville, Massachusetts, on the Mystic River waterfront 2 miles north of downtown Boston. Prior to the project, the Orange Line passed through this site but did not stop there. Despite over 100 acres of developable land and excellent highway access, the area languished; the market saw Assembly (the site of an old automobile assembly plant converted to a shopping center in the 1970s) as a secondary location, and a coalition of community groups insisted that only dense, TOD would be appropriate. In 2006, a new master developer (Federal Realty Investment Trust), which controlled the key 65 acres, came to agreement with the city and the community on a high-density, mixed-use TOD program anchored by an infill station. Although the plan was championed by the state and its congressional delegation, MBTA could not afford to fund the station. The developer committed the first $15 million, which covered all of the station’s planning, entitlement, and design costs and a portion of construction; this allowed the project to progress all the way to bid drawings while the remaining funds were secured. In the end, a $56 million station was created at no capital cost to MBTA, the balance of the funds coming from a mix of federal and state sources. Assembly Station opened in 2014, along with Phase 1 of the mixed-use TOD district known as Assembly Row (see Figure 45). The full program, approaching completion as of 2020, includes nearly 5 million square feet of multi-family housing, retail, office, entertainment, and hotel development, at built value of over $2 billion. Additional mixed-use projects are advancing on the adjoining properties. Assembly Station has about 5,000 average daily board- ings and alightings.18 • Boston Landing. Boston Landing is an infill station on MBTA’s Framingham-Worcester commuter rail line. It is located in the Brighton section of Boston. Opened in 2017, the station cost approximately $20 million and was funded entirely by the development affiliate of the New Balance Corporation, the shoe and clothing company. New Balance’s corporate head- quarters was the driving force for a 15-acre, $2.15 billion mixed-use TOD program that also includes housing, retail, a hotel, and the practice facilities of the Boston Celtics and Boston Bruins.19 Adjacent Private Land Owners 1. Exploit opportunities for infill, replacement, or extension stations to be funded by adjacent owner/ developer(s). 2. If the developer contribution is partial, make it the first money in, covering planning, design, and other pre-construction costs. 3. If advantageous, negotiate for the developer to design or design-build the station, but to agency specifications and under agency supervision.

124 Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies • Austin Red Line. In Austin, Capital Metro’s Red Line commuter rail corridor includes a station (Kramer) in the general vicinity of The Domain, a large, mixed-use edge city district often referred to as “Austin’s second downtown.” However, the station is too far from The Domain to generate much ridership. A second large mixed-use complex, The Broadmoor, is moving forward, increasing the need for high-quality rapid transit within walking and shuttle distance. At the same time, a Major League Soccer stadium is being built on city-owned land at McKalla Place. This site is a half-mile from Kramer Station. To address the growing transit needs in this area, the city and Capital Metro are planning to replace Kramer with two new Red Line stations—one at The Broadmoor, the other at McKalla Place. The Broadmoor developers and the soccer organization have made commitments to fund a portion of their respective stations; a variety of funding and finance mechanisms are being considered for the balance. As in the case of Assembly and Boston Landing, the developments are occurring next to but not on transit agency property; the transit agency is a planning partner and a party to the transaction.20 A land owner-funded station may result from the transit agency approaching the land owner or vice versa. In the latter case, the approach is in the nature of an unsolicited proposal. Since the proposer is a uniquely situated abutting owner (and all the more so because the project does not involve development on transit agency land), it is generally appropriate for the agency to evaluate such proposals and, if timely and potentially advantageous, to enter direct negotiations. The key business issues include: • The extent and the timing of the developer contribution. If the developer is offering to pay only a portion of the cost, it is important that this be the first money in and that it be sufficient, Figure 45. Assembly Row mixed-use transit-oriented development, Massachusetts.

Joint Development Horizon 125   as in the case of Assembly, to cover all preconstruction activities. Otherwise, while the contri- bution may be welcome, it is unlikely to be pivotal. If the proposed developer contribution is small in percentage terms and does not cover all preconstruction costs, and if other sources are not credibly available, then the proposal may not be worth pursuing. • Roles and responsibilities. As discussed in Chapter 3, the questions of who pays for a facility, who designs and builds it, and who maintains it can have different answers. MBTA made different arrangements in its two projects. At Assembly, the developer’s engineering team designed the station and oversaw design compliance during construction; they were under contract to the developer but worked to MBTA specifications and supervision. MBTA pro- cured and managed the construction and assumed full operating responsibility going forward. Under the Boston Landing agreement, the developer designed and built the station and also agreed to fund the first 10 years of maintenance costs going forward. The appropriate breakdown of roles and responsibilities will reflect the complexity of the project, as well as any third-party agreements (such as labor contracts or railroad agreements) affecting the operation of the station. (Depending on the roles and responsibilities agreed to, a station funded and delivered by an adjacent developer might be referred to not only as a JD project, but as a form of P3 as well.) It should be noted that an adjacent private owner could donate the land required for the station if it is not already owned by the transit agency. If the right-of-way donation is the extent of the land owner contribution, then this transaction resembles the donated right-of-way model discussed previously with respect to public agencies. If the land owner is also funding some or all of the cost of designing and building the station, then the land donation is part of that larger transaction. 8.5 Joint Development and District Value Capture The relationship between JD and value capture is a blurry one, due to the varying definitions of both terms. Some researchers and practitio- ners treat JD, by definition, as one form of value capture—an appropriate categorization, since JD derives value from its relationship to a transit facility and some of that value is captured by the transit owner through the JD transaction. This section is about the other broad category of value capture: district value capture. A district is drawn around an infrastructure investment; new revenues are captured, in whole or in part, by the taxing jurisdiction and dedicated to a specific purpose—the long-term financ- ing of the infrastructure facility itself, its operation and maintenance, or other activities related to it. There are endless varieties of district value capture, but most fall into two broad families: • Tax increment financing (TIF), in which the revenue stream consists not of new taxes but of the incremental yield from existing taxes once the infrastructure in question is built; and • Special assessment districts, in which new taxes or fees are levied to finance the infrastructure investment. In general, district value capture and JD are not the same thing. Even if a TIF or special assessment district supports TOD infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, and utilities and thereby helps grow ridership, unless there is a transactional link to the transit agency, it is not JD, even under this guide’s broad definition. JD and District Value Capture 1. Transit agencies should seek ways to participate directly in district value capture (i.e., TIF or special assessments, however known locally). 2. This is generally achieved by inter- governmental agreement with the taxing jurisdiction, dedicating value capture revenues or bond proceeds to specific transit projects.

126 Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies Sometimes, however, a transactional link does exist. For one thing, the value capture district may include a JD project in the traditional sense—as in the case of the TIF and special assessment districts encompassing Denver Union Station; the large TIF district surrounding San Francisco’s Transbay/Salesforce Center; or the early example of the TIF used by the City of Portland to fund its share of the Airport MAX light rail extension two decades ago. There is also a case to be made that if a value capture district is closely tied to station area development, and the transit agency is a partner in the associated planning, and the revenue flows contractually into transit improvements, then the value capture district is a transaction involving the transit agency and closely resembles JD as defined in this guide.21 This paradigm is illustrated in Figure 46. The point is not merely taxonomic. If transit agencies have the opportunity to participate actively and beneficially in district value capture, the necessary skills and capacities should be included in their TOD/JD staffing and consultant plans. For transit agencies that operate street- running services, with little or no real estate of their own, district value capture that ties new development directly to transit financing is a way to participate economically in TOD. An early example was WMATA’s NoMa-Gallaudet Station, an infill station on the Red Line that opened in 2004. It cost $103 million, $25 million of which was raised by a special assess- ment district extending out a half-mile from the station. The plan emerged from a coordinated planning process among WMATA, the District of Columbia, and a coalition of willing land owners. The District of Columbia, as the taxing jurisdiction, directed the 30-year revenue stream to pay debt service on the WMATA bond issued for the project.22 The station’s immediate abutters also donated land worth $10 million for the station right-of-way. The NoMa-Gallaudet project resembles Assembly Station in some ways, but rather than a single abutting land owner participating in the cost up-front, there were multiple owners ready to provide a stream of annual payments—hence the need for a district mechanism to allocate shares and collect the funds. The coordinated planning among the transit agency, local govern- ment, and land owners was similar, as were the motivation of the developers and the benefits to the transit system. Figure 46. District value capture as a form of joint development.

Joint Development Horizon 127   There are other examples of district value capture involving multiple land owners, a coordi- nated planning process in which the transit agency is a partner, value generated by transit investments, and a contractual flow of value capture revenues to the underlying transit project: • The value capture mechanism used by the City of New York to fund the extension of the Number 7 Subway—funded by the city and operated by the Metropolitan Transit Authority;23 • Miami-Dade County’s Transportation Infrastructure Improvement District, a TIF enacted by the county (the parent jurisdiction of Miami-Dade Transit) within a half-mile radius of all existing metro rail stations and all future rail or BRT stations on the six planned expansion corridors (these revenues are dedicated to transit and other transportation improvements within the district);24 • MARTA stations improved through Community Improvement Districts;25 • Pittsburgh’s East Liberty Transit Revitalization Investment District, a TIF mechanism administered by the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority in partnership with the transit agency (the Port Authority of Allegheny County); the program funds transit improve- ments as well as other TOD infrastructure;26 • The use of local TIF districts to fund development-contingent DART stations, and the creation of a TIF in Plano, Texas, to help fund the Plano portion of the Cotton Belt rail line and its two Plano stations;27 and • The use of a TIF district and a special assessment Local Improvement District to fund over 20% of the cost of the Portland Streetcar, a model since replicated in part by other cities building new streetcar lines.28 8.6 New and Extended Corridors JD need not be confined to existing corridors and stations. For agen- cies planning system expansion, a new or extended corridor should be understood as an opportunity to anticipate and accommodate contem- poraneous and future JD from the outset of the planning process. This philosophy should be made clear to the project’s planning, engineering, and right-of-way team from day one. This has not always been the case. Some rail transit corridors were planned to follow a highway or freight rail alignment so closely that one side of the corridor was hard to cross, let alone develop, even at the stations. Some corridors emphasize park & ride (and appropriately so at stations with regional highway access) but otherwise de-emphasize the visibility of the stations and their integration with the surrounding real estate fabric. Moreover, traditional right-of-way philosophy often dictates minimized takings, beyond any legal limitations. The result can be a corridor where TOD in general is very challenging and JD is all but foreclosed. Many transit agencies recognize these issues, either from their own prior experience or from that of other systems, and have turned to proactive TOD/JD strategies that can be embedded in new corridor planning: • Stations should be located so as to optimize their TOD potential. Traditional transit planning considerations are still important— proper spacing between stations for a given mode, or optimal placement to capture intersecting bus and automobile access. But these should be balanced with TOD/JD potential. Often, traditional New and Extended Corridors 1. Agency policy should include a “day one” focus on integrating JD opportunities into corridor planning. 2. Station location, orientation, and access should anticipate JD; this priority should be made clear to project engineering team. 3. Consistent with enabling act, acquire land for park & ride lots and construction staging sites with future JD and shared facilities in mind. 4. Park & ride garages should be located so as to avoid conflict with future JD, or left for future JD site planning. 5. Evaluate partial versus full takings strategically; minimal taking is not always most advantageous.

128 Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies spacing and intersection criteria may be suitable for choosing a macro location, but TOD/JD potential should then govern the micro location. • Orientation and access routes can be as important as location. How many “front doors” the station has, how pedestrians and cyclists get there, what land uses they traverse on the way, and whether their route can support retail in the immediate station zone are TOD/JD questions best addressed before the fact. • Parcels acquired for construction staging can be prime opportunities for JD on transit agency land. Wherever circumstances allow, these parcels should be chosen and their future relation- ship to the station’s pedestrian ecosystem anticipated with JD in mind. • As discussed in Chapter 7, park & ride strategies are integrally related to JD. In planning a new or extended corridor, a threshold question is which stations are appropriate park & ride locations in the first place and which are not. For those that are appropriate, there is a further choice—to deploy the parking on surface lots until the station is ready for JD (thus land-banking the affected parcels and deferring the cost of garage construction) or to build a park & ride garage as part of the initial transit project. This choice should consider site- specific circumstances, particularly the availability and cost of land and the anticipated length of time necessary for JD to materialize. If a garage is to be built as part of the transit project, it is critical that its location, orientation, and access routes be planned so as to support, and not conflict with, future JD. • There are often situations in which project planners and engineers must decide whether to divide or sever a large parcel in the path of a project or acquire it in its entirety. If the parcel is already developed with transit-supportive uses, or if acquisition and relocation would be costly, or if a partial taking would not leave an uneconomic remnant, then it is appropriate to consider a partial taking solution. Absent those conditions, it is appropriate to consider a full taking, especially if the land in question is close to the station. • New or extended corridors often require maintenance and storage facilities. If such a facility is to be sited near residential or commercial development, the property acquisition should con- sider how to accommodate master-planned JD to screen the facility from view and integrate it visually and functionally into the community. With few exceptions, transit agency enabling acts do not allow land assembly expressly for development, but agencies can and do acquire property for construction staging, surface park & ride, or other transit needs that are understood not to be permanent. As discussed in Chapter 6, FTA policy generally allows such acquisitions, and if the project qualifies as an FTA-assisted JD project, then FTA capital grant funds and their local matching funds can be applied to the JD components. It should also be understood that FTA’s Capital Investment Grants program, which supports new starts and small starts projects, uses six project justification criteria, two of which relate to TOD/JD. The land use criterion measures existing transit-supportive development, while the economic development criterion measures the potential for future transit-supportive develop- ment, including JD. In the survey of transit agencies undertaken for this guide, respondents were asked whether, in planning new or extended corridors, they always seek to minimize right-of-way acquisitions or are open to strategic acquisitions to facilitate JD. Ten transit agencies—a third of the pool— said they do have a JD land assembly strategy. Among them: • Sound Transit’s 2014 TOD Strategic Plan Update emphasizes the integrated delivery of new corridors, including land assembly (subject to their enabling act) and facilitation of future JD on construction staging parcels.29 • LA Metro envisions location and orientation of new stations, as well as strategic acquisition of properties, to facilitate future JD in new corridors. Their JD program notes that the Metro Enabling Act allows land acquisition, including by eminent domain, for JD.30

Joint Development Horizon 129   • In 2017, KCATA and Jackson County, Missouri, issued an RFQ for a master developer to help plan future transit services and related TOD in the Rock Island Rail Corridor, which they jointly own. The RFQ stated a broad interest in determining how TOD/JD can be planned along the corridor from the outset. In 2019, KCATA received an FTA TOD Planning Grant to advance this process.31 • Miami-Dade Transit is undertaking a long-term, six-corridor system expansion program known as the SMART Plan. The planning process emphasizes TOD, including value capture districts and special TOD zoning. In addition to considering how county-owned land along the corridors could be used, the county will consider acquisitions for surface parking and future JD.32 An example of this proactive, intentional approach to JD in new or extended corridors is found in Figure 47. This is an illustration of Sound Transit’s plan for the new Federal Way Figure 47. Sound Transit’s proposed Federal Way Station, with future joint development sites.

130 Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies Station, one of three on the planned Federal Way Link Extension projects. The construction staging area necessary to build the station and light rail line was assembled in a way that supports the necessary traffic circulation improvements for the station area and future TOD. As a result, the construction staging area will likely yield multiple JD parcels framed by a TOD-friendly street grid. This station is located near an interstate highway interchange and is an important park & ride point; the existing park & ride garage is to be expanded, and its location does not conflict with the planned JD. While the alignment of this extension corridor generally runs alongside I-5, its stations are sufficiently distant from the highway that both sides are developable. 8.7 Non-Station Assets The JD typology includes a category of transactions involving transit agency property not directly connected to a station. These may be yard and shop or other “back of house” facilities; express bus or carpool lots at highway collector points; or headquarters buildings in locations that have become valuable in the real estate market. In some cases, the facilities in question can be relocated, freeing up an emerging develop- ment site. In others, new facilities are needed to serve system expansion or fleet modernization, and the option of having them delivered as part of a JD project or a P3 with a JD component, may be advantageous. A new maintenance facility, or the upgrade of an existing one, may require screening or “wrapping” to gain community support, and that may involve JD. Some facilities of this type happen to be located near stations or high-frequency bus stops; developing them is therefore a TOD oppor- tunity. In other cases, there is less of a transit connection. Either way, as development transactions that benefit the transit agency—through the sale or lease proceeds and, in cases with nearby transit service, the ridership generated by the projects themselves—these non-station asset projects are examples of JD. (An exception to this categorization would be the simple high-bid sale of a remnant property with no development or transit significance. Similarly, the leasing of subsurface or air rights for utility or broadband conduit, or the sale of advertising space on transit property, is not JD for purposes of this discussion. These transactions are worthwhile and may be managed by real estate staff working closely with the TOD/JD office, but they fall outside the JD definition used here.) The transit agency survey identified several current JD projects involving non-station assets, and other transit agencies are undertaking such initiatives as well. These illustrate the variety of non-station facilities that can be offered for JD and the diversity of their technical requirements. These examples also show that some non-station JD opportunities are located near high-capacity transit, while others are not. • East Link Operation and Maintenance Facility. Sound Transit’s East Link light rail corridor includes a fleet operation and maintenance facility in the city of Bellevue. The choice of this site was negotiated with the city, premised on the inclusion of substantial mixed-use JD to wrap the operation and maintenance facility. In this case, the development will be transit- oriented, part of a larger planned TOD district centered on Spring Boulevard and 120th Street Station, a short walk away. In planning and designing the operation and maintenance facility, the TOD parcel was identified as future surplus property that eventually was released for a separate developer solicitation. Non-Station Assets 1. Evaluate new non-station facilities, or facility upgrades, relocations, or replacements, as potential JD opportunities. 2. Such JD projects may or may not represent TOD, depending on use and location relative to transit, but they achieve other JD goals, including asset monetization. 3. Consider the full range of public- private and intergovernmental partnerships.

Joint Development Horizon 131   In 2019, the Sound Transit board declared the TOD parcel surplus and authorized an RFP. This solicitation exemplifies several best practices discussed elsewhere in this guide. It provides TOD project guidelines consistent with the master plan negotiated with the city of Bellevue. It identifies minimum requirements for affordable housing and a set of third-party gap financ- ing sources pre-committed to the project. And it explains in precise terms Sound Transit’s intent with respect to land price, including the appraised value and a board-approved commitment to discount that value in exchange for specified levels of affordable housing.33 • The Muni Potrero Yard. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA, or “the Muni”) runs the city’s bus and light rail systems. The Potrero Yard, a 4.4-acre facility serving several high-volume Muni bus routes, was built in 1915 and must be completely modernized. Muni, a division of the city and county of San Francisco, began a planning and predevelopment process in 2018, in concert with the city’s planning, housing, and economic development departments, as well as a committee of community stakeholders and internal departments, including frontline bus operations. The resulting plan calls for a modern, three-level bus maintenance and parking structure integrated with JD: active uses at street level and a multi-family residential development of approximately 560 units above, on up to seven levels of air rights. Subject to the availability of municipal and other subsidy programs, the affordability target is 50% of the units. The Potrero Yard is served by regular on-street bus stops, but, unlike Sound Transit’s East Link operation and maintenance facility, it is not located near a light rail station (see Figure 48). As of 2020, the project is in environmental review, with an eye toward launching developer solicitation in the coming year.34 Given the complex integration of the transit and develop- ment components, the city and Muni are contemplating delivery and future maintenance by a single infrastructure and development consortium, thus blending the P3 and JD concepts. • WMATA Non-Station Projects. In 2014, WMATA solicited a developer for its chiller plant in the Navy Yard, which provides chilled air for the Navy Yard-Ballpark and Waterfront subway stations. A JDA was reached in 2015 for a project comprising 126 condominiums Figure 48. San Francisco Muni: Potrero Yard modernization and joint development plan.

132 Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies and 6,000 square feet of street floor retail. The project, under construction as of 2020, will incorporate the chiller equipment into the development, concealing it from the street.35 In 2019, WMATA initiated a larger non-station project, the 99-year ground lease of its existing headquarters site. Built in 1974, the Jackson Graham Building occupies a 1.1-acre site in downtown Washington, directly between the Gallery Place and Judiciary Square Metrorail stations. The existing zoning allows nearly a half-million square feet of office, residential, or mixed-use development. WMATA will occupy the building until 2022, when it is scheduled to relocate to a new headquarters site. As of 2020, an RFP solicitation has been conducted and a ground lease developer selected.36 These are both TOD projects, located within immediate walking distance of WMATA stations and offering density, an animated streetscape, and the opportunity to minimize parking. At the same time, both projects illustrate the added complexity of redeveloping transit agency properties that contain non-passenger facilities. The chiller project requires the incorporation and continued operation of a complex mechanical facility, while the headquarters site, to be fully exploited, will require the gutting and expansion of the existing building. • Metro Transit Police Headquarters. In 2019, Metro Transit solicited bids for the sale of its police headquarters building, located in a light industrial district in Minneapolis. This opportunity was created by the construction of a new and larger transit police headquarters elsewhere in the city. The existing building was sold to a food manufacturer whose own headquarters was already located next door. While not a typical TOD project, the site is served by a Metro Transit bus route and is a half-mile walk from the Franklin Avenue light rail station.37 • Central Ohio Transit Authority. In 2018, the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) and the city of Columbus opened a new compressed natural gas filling station for COTA and city vehicles. Located next to an existing compressed natural gas station, the new facility shares its compressing infrastructure, greatly reducing the cost, which was funded mostly by the city. The facility is also open to the public, and the fee paid each time a vehicle is refueled is collected by COTA. This is not a TOD project, but it supports the clean energy programs of both COTA and the city while generating a front-end capital cost savings and an on-going revenue stream for COTA.38 Endnotes 1. The surface parcels illustrate the distinction between joint development on FTA-assisted property (which this was) and an official FTA-assisted JD project (which it was not). For a variety of reasons, RTD worked with FTA to declare the parcels excess property and dispose of them by sale (see Chapter 6). 2. See https://railvolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Bill-Sirois-Denver-Union-Station.pdf. Also, this study’s Principal Investigator and Associate Investigator were involved in Denver Union Station. 3. Amtrak interview; Amtrak media center, search by project (https://media.amtrak.com/). 4. An interesting joint development structure, similar to the Amtrak legacy stations but with an even stronger integration of ownership, operation, and development, is that of Virgin Trains USA, also known as Brightline/All Aboard Florida. This private passenger railroad is an affiliate of Florida East Coast Industries (FECI), the Flagler railroad and land development enterprise that was deeply involved in the planning and development of South Florida a century ago. The passenger service connecting the downtowns of Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach was undertaken privately, using the existing FECI trackage and right-of-way. The stations, including a major new hub in Miami, are integrated with joint development. A close affiliate of the railroad is the master developer and, for much of the program, the individual building developer as well (Brightline interview, May 17, 2017). 5. Memphis Central Station: MATA survey and: https://www.downtownmemphiscommission.complans- resources/current-projects/test-/; http://archive.commercialappeal.com/news/government/city/central- station-redevelopment-good-for-mata-but-wont-ease-its-money-problems-26f4133e-130b-78a0-e053- 362719291.html.

Joint Development Horizon 133   6. https://www.springfield-ma.gov/planning/index.php?id=union_station; https://www.masslive.com/ business-news/2017/06/springfield_union_station_where_did_the.html. 7. https://archive.epa.gov/region1/brownfields/web/pdf/holyoke.pdf; https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/ fta.dot.gov/files/docs/macinnes_0909.pdf. 8. https://cityscenekc.com/new-development-proposal-surfaces-for-third-and-grand-in-river-market/. A prior selected developer was unable to advance a mixed-use project at this site, in part because of the cost of structured parking. The new proposal selected by KCATA in 2019 includes modest parking ratios consistent with the transit services converging at the site. 9. For MATA Airways Transit Center, see: https://www.masstransitmag.com/home/press-release/10456010/ memphis-areas-transit-authority-mata-memphis-new-transit-center-celebrates-grand-opening. The facility is so named because it is located on Airways Boulevard. 10. DART and City of Carrollton interviews; https://www.cityofcarrollton.com/home/showdocument?id=18424. 11. RTD interview; https://www.rtd-denver.com/projects/tod/olde-town-arvada-station; https://www.rtd- denver.com/projects/tod/boulder-junction. 12. https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/joint_development/images/report TOClessonsLearned.pdf. 13. The unsolicited proposal policy recommended in this guide (see Section 4.4) treats a proposal by a sister public jurisdiction or a uniquely situated abutting land owner as a potentially appropriate basis for direct negotiation. Prior to the City’s proposal of the soccer stadium, the City and the owner of the bulk of the superblock had been in a joint planning process with Metro Transit/Metropolitan Council to explore a negotiated development agreement. 14. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/funding/funding-finance-resources/joint-development/ 64731/joint-development-brochure.pdf. 15. Metro Transit interview; https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/planning-economic-development/planning/ snelling-midway-redevelopment-site. 16. See https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/or_airport_max.aspx and https://transweb.sjsu.edu/ sites/default/files/pdfs/research/2503-cs6-Portland-MAX-Airport-Extension.pdf. 17. See, for example, WMATA’s current policy for station connections at: http://www.amlegal.com/pdffiles/ WMATA/2011/11-31.pdf. 18. Federal Realty and MBTA interviews. Also, this study’s Principal Investigator was involved in the Assembly Station project. 19. HYM Investment Group and MBTA interviews; https://www.mass.gov/news/baker-polito-administration- celebrates-opening-of-boston-landing-station; https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/ new-balance-bought-its-own-commuter-rail-station/392711/. 20. Capital Metro Interview, http://www.austintexas.gov/mckalla; https://communityimpact.com/austin/ central-austin/transportation/2019/11/14/city-to-work-with-capmetro-on-financing-new-broadmoor-and- mckalla-place-rail-stations-as-development-boom-looms/. 21. Value capture revenues can flow into transit either because the transit agency or its parent jurisdiction is authorized to create a value capture district, or because the general taxing jurisdiction enters into an intergovernmental agreement with the transit agency for this purpose. 22. Schlickman, 2015 (see Appendix E); and https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/dc_noma.aspx. 23. Among the most recent analyses of this project, see https://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/images/docs/ research/political_economy/Cost_of_Hudson_Yards_WP_11.5.18.pdf. 24. Miami-Dade Transit interview and https://library.municode.com/fl/miami_-_dade_county/codes/code_ of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIICOOR_CH2AD_ARTCLIXMIDECOTRINIMDI. 25. MARTA and Atlanta Regional Commission interviews. 26. Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority interview. 27. DART interview and https://www.plano.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37925/2019-03-07-Project-Plan-and- Financing-Plan-Plano-TIF-Zone-3?bidId=. 28. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/or_portland_streetcar.aspx. 29. Sound Transit interview and 2014 TOD Strategic Plan Update (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/ files/20140423_RPT_TOD.pdf). 30. LA Metro JD Policy: https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/joint_development/images/jdpolicy_ 2016-1201.pdf. 31. KCATA interview; KCATA Development Policy (http://ridekc.org/assets/uploads/documents/development policy.pdf); Rock Island Corridor RFQ (https://www.kcata.org/documents/procurement/RFQ_17-7049-39_ Master_Developer_for_Rock_Island_9-22-17.pdf). 32. Miami-Dade Transit interview and http://www.miamidadetpo.org/smartplan.asp. 33. Sound Transit interview and: https://www.theurbanist.org/2019/12/31/sound-transit-seeking-bids- for-large-tod-site-in-bellevues-spring-district/; https://www.scribd.com/document/440732167/Sound- Transit-Resolution-R2019-21-Bellevue-TOD; https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/ 120th-station-tod-opportunity-flyer.pdf.

134 Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies 34. Potrero Yard: https://www.sfmta.com/projects/potrero-yard-modernization-project; https://www.sfmta.com/ sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2020/02/potrero_yard_modernization_project_working_ group_meeting_presentation_10.pdf. 35. WMATA interview and https://www.wmata.com/about/board/meetings/upload/070915_5BNavyYard ChillerJDA.pdf. 36. https://my.rcm1.com/handler/brochure.aspx?pv=Z-I9J549zUFsSziezRAUlMH0TIQOZo50tAAZ6c7GUP8; https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/metro-headquarters-to-transform-into-a- modern-commercial-office-building/2020/02/09/48f3a902-4924-11ea-9164-d3154ad8a5cd_story.html. 37. Metro Transit interview and https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2019/04/25/soup-maker-taking- over-south-minneapolis-transit.html. 38. COTA interview and: https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/blog/2014/07/city-cota-poised-to-partner- on-third-cng-station.html; https://www.cota.com/news/cng-station/.