National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices (2021)

Chapter: Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies

« Previous: Appendix G: Review of Transit Agency Joint Development Policies
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 156
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 157
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 158
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 159
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Index to Practitioner Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26194.
×
Page 161

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.

Appendix H Index to Practitioner Case Studies H-3 3.0 On-Line Case Study Archives 3.1 Federal Transit Administration: Joint Development Brochure The following four case studies are available on the FTA website, as part of the agency’s 2017 joint development brochure.133 Table H-1: FTA Joint Development Case Studies Ref. No. Year City and Title Description and URL Address FT1 2017 Seattle, WA Capitol Hill TOD Sound Transit: FTA-assisted multi-parcel joint development project on long- term ground lease https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/funding-finance-resources/joint- development/joint-development-partnering-build-complete FT2 2017 St. Paul, MN Allianz Field and TOD Metro Transit: FTA-assisted site; soccer field on long-term ground lease and surrounding mixed-use TOD Same url FT3 2017 Tyler, TX Innovation Pipeline City transit department: FTA-assisted site; bus waiting room and Innovation Lab Same url FT4 2017 New Carrollton, MD Mixed-Use TOD WMATA: FTA-assisted site; large-scale, mixed-use, multi-phase joint development on long-term ground lease Same url 133 https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/funding-finance-resources/joint-development/joint-development- partnering-build-complete

Appendix H Index to Practitioner Case Studies H-4 3.2 Federal Highway Administration Center for Innovative Finance Support The following 10 case studies were selected from FHWA’s on-line Center for Innovative Finance Support. They represent a subset of projects listed under the “Value Capture” category. Each project profile includes web links to more detailed case study treatments. 134 Table H-2: FHWA Innovative Finance Case Studies Ref. No. Year City and Title Description and URL Address FH1 2019 Chicago, IL Blue Line Improvements Municipal TIF used to fund Chicago Transit Authority improvements https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/il_cta_blue_line.aspx FH2 2018 Bellevue, WA Sound Transit O&M Facility East Joint development parcels designed into new O&M facility delivered by P3 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/wa_sound_transit_om.aspx FH3 2017 New York, NY Moynihan Train Hall Joint development of Amtrak and LIRR train hall and large-scale on- and off- site mixed-use TOD, under Empire State Development ownership https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ny_moynihan_train_hall.asp x FH4 2017 San Francisco, CA Transbay Transit Center Joint development land sale and a TIFIA loan financed by station district TIF were major sources of funding https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ca_transbay_transit.aspx FH5 2015 Alexandria, VA Potomac Yard Station Multiple land owners fund new infill station via assessments https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/va_potomac_metrorail_stati on.aspx FH6 2014 Seattle, WA South Lake Union Streetcar Special assessment district tied to alignment; land swaps and sale https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/wa_slu_streetcar.aspx FH7 2012 Portland, OR Portland Streetcar TIF and other district value capture mechanisms directly tied to the streetcar corridor used to finance in part the multi-phase system https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/or_portland_streetcar.aspx FH8 2010 Denver, CO Denver Union Station Five joint development parcels plus reuse of historic station; $489 million station program financed in part through joint development land sales and associated TIF and special assessment https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/co_union_station.aspx FH9 2004 Washington, DC NOMA/Gallaudet Station Multiple land owners fund new infill station via assessments https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/dc_noma.aspx FH10 2001 Portland, OR Airport MAX Red Line Bundling of development rights at two stations as part of P3 delivery of light rail extension; developer contributed cash to the project funding https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/or_airport_max.aspx 134 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/

Appendix H Index to Practitioner Case Studies H-5 3.3 Urban Land Institute (ULI) On-Line Case Study Library The following three case studies, published since 2013, were selected from the Urban Land Institute’s on-line case study library.135 Table H-3: ULI Case Studies Ref. No. Year City and Title Description and URL Address U1 2018 Yonkers, NY Hudson Park Multi-phase multi-family at upgraded commuter rail station (city-owned site, co-planned with MTA investment) https://casestudies.uli.org/hudson-park/ U2 2017 Los Angeles, CA One Santa Fe Mixed-use on land leased from transit authority https://casestudies.uli.org/one-santa-fe/ U3 2016 Denver, CO Denver Union Station Five joint development parcels plus reuse of historic station; $489 million station program financed in part through joint development https://casestudies.uli.org/denver-union-station/ 135 https://casestudies.uli.org/all-case-studies/

Appendix H Index to Practitioner Case Studies H-6 3.4 American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Annual Meeting and Annual Rail Conference The following 18 case studies are presentations from 2013 or later that were selected from APTA’s Annual Meeting and Annual Rail Conference. Table H-4: APTA Case Studies Ref. No. Year City and Title Author, Description, and URL Address A1 2018 San Francisco Bay Area, CA Caltrain Station Planning Toolbox Scanlon, Elizabeth, and Conable, Nathan Analytic model for evaluating trade-off between park & ride replacement and TOD program density in joint development https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2018rail/presentations/Presentations /Scanlon,%20Liz_Conable,%20Nate.pdf A2 2018 Maryland (system- wide) Effective Tools for TOD Planning Chissell, Zachary Maryland Transit Administration’s TOD strategy, including on-site (joint development) https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2018rail/presentations/Presentations /Chissell,%20Zachary.pdf A3 2018 Hartford, CT, and Los Angeles, CA Land Use and Transit: Think Ahead Loughran, John Contrasting case studies of integrating TOD (including joint development) into new corridors and station areas https://www.apta.com/mc/annual/previous/2018annual/presentations/Prese ntations/Loughran,%20John.pdf A4 2018 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN Transit-Oriented Communities Galbraith, Lucy Interface of joint development and broader TOD https://www.apta.com/mc/annual/previous/2018annual/presentations/Prese ntations/Galbraith,%20Lucy.pdf A5 2017 Austin, TX TOD the Hard Way: Plaza Saltillo Hemingson, Todd Case study of complex joint development transaction at Cap Metro’s downtown commuter rail site https://www.apta.com/mc/annual/previous/2017annual/presentations/Prese ntations/Hemingson,%20Todd.pdf A6 2017 Atlanta, GA TOD Means… Rhein, Amanda Capsule descriptions of three MARTA joint development projects https://www.apta.com/mc/annual/previous/2017annual/presentations/Prese ntations/Rhein,%20Amanda.pdf A7 2017 San Diego Co., CA Transit Parking: Too Much or Too Little Kilcoyne, Ron Overview of the park & ride versus joint development trade-off https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2017rail/presentations/Presentations /Kilcoyne,%20Ron.pdf A8 2017 Washington, DC Metrorail Station Area Investment Study Kannan, Shyam Interface of station access choices and joint development https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2017rail/presentations/Presentations /Kannan,%20Shyam.pdf A9 2017 Martinsburg, WV Overview of NorthPort Station Feasibility Study Frazier, Jim Proposed new commuter rail station integrated with a large development site; includes joint development on station grounds https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2017rail/presentations/Presentations /Frazier,%20Jim.pdf

Appendix H Index to Practitioner Case Studies H-7 Table H-4: APTA Case Studies (continued) Ref. No. Year City and Title Author, Description, and URL Address A10 2017 Philadelphia- Harrisburg, PA Keystone Corridor: Funding Intercity Passenger Rail Station Development Fauver, Toby A hybrid P3/Joint Development model to bring TOD and private management to several intercity/commuter rail stations https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2017rail/presentations/Presentations /Fauver,%20Toby.pdf A11 2017 Boston, MA Avoiding TOD Pitfalls DiMaggio, Charles Examples of joint development projects with insufficient value to be feasible, or missed opportunities to capitalize on transactional opportunities https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2017rail/presentations/Presentations /Di%20Maggio,%20Charles.pdf A12 2016 Los Angeles, CA LA Union Station Master Plan Carvajal, Elizabeth Overview of comprehensive transit and joint development plan https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2016rail/presentations/Presentations/Elizabeth%20Carv ajal%20Great%20Stations%20Great%20Places%20Session%20calibri%20final.pdf A13 2016 Miami, FL Miami Central Ogelsby, C. Mikel Overview of P3 hub, combining private intercity rail, regional commuter rail, and large-scale mixed-use joint development https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2016rail/presentations/Presentations/Mikel% 20Oglesby%20-%202016%20APTA%20Rail%20MiamiCentral%20FINAL-MO.pdf A14 2016 Burnham Place TOD Tuchmann. David Overview of opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned in Union Station’s large-scale air rights overbuild https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2016rail/presentations/Presentations /David%20Tuchmann%2016-0615%20Burnham%20Place%20- %20APTA%202016.pdf A15 2016 Denver, CO Denver Union Station Sirois, Bill Detailed account of institutional and financial strategies https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2016rail/presentations/Presentations /B%20%20Sirois%20APTA%20Rail%20DUS.pdf A16 2016 Miami, FL P3’s, a Win-Win: Miami López, Jaime Overview of P3 hub, combining private intercity rail, regional commuter rail, and large-scale mixed-use joint development https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2016rail/presentations/Presentations /Jaime%20Lopez%20%20Slides%20June%2019,%202016%20Rev%201.pdf A17 2015 Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Salt Lake City, UT; Washington, DC Filling the Gap: Funding Transit Infill Stations in the US Vandegrift, Amanda, and Macek, Nathan Multiple case studies of infill stations funded directly by developer or indirectly through new TOD value capture (White Paper) https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2015rail/presentations/Presentations /Amanda%20Wall%20Vandegrift%20and%20Nathan%20M.%20MacekVandegri ft%20Macek%202015%20APTA%20Rail%20Paper%20Filling%20the%20Gap%2 06-17-2015.pdf A18 2014 Linking Transit and Land Use: the Houston Perspective Flippo, Steve Overview of TOD strategy and challenges, including joint development https://www.apta.com/mc/annual/previous/2014/presentations/Presentation s/Flippo%20S.pdf

Appendix H Index to Practitioner Case Studies H-8 3.5 Rail~Volution Annual Conference The following 33 case studies are presentations from 2013 or later that were selected from Rail~Volution’s Annual Conference. Table H-5: Rail~Volution Case Studies Ref. No. Year City and Title Author, Description, and URL Address R1 2018 Kansas City, MO Kansas City Streetcar Gerend, Tom Value capture district to fund streetcar; new TOD on adjacent parking lots https://railvolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/KCSA_RV_Federal- Session-Value-Capture-Today-and-Tomorrow_10-21-2018.pdf R2 2018 Minneapolis, MN Value Capture: Metro Transit Galbraith, Lucy, and Krantz, Michael Light rail joint development projects https://railvolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Metro-Transit_RV_ Federal-Session-Value-Capture-Today-and-Tomorrow_10-21-2018.pdf R3 2018 San Francisco Bay Area, CA Caltrain Station Management Toolbox Jones, Melissa Analytic model for evaluating trade-off between park & ride replacement and TOD program density in joint development https://railvolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Melissa-Jones-TOD- Parking.pdf R4 2018 Fridley, MN Fridley Station Case Study Canser, Pierce Commuter rail; three-way joint development deal on city-owned parking lot https://railvolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pierce-Canser-TOD- Parking-RVPGH.pdf R5 2017 Denver, CO Denver Union Station Sirois, Bill Detailed account of institutional and financial strategies https://railvolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Bill-Sirois-Denver- Union-Station.pdf R6 2017 Boston, MA Boston Landing Station Craig, Keith Commuter rail infill station funded and built by adjacent developer https://railvolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Keith-Craig-Developer- Driven-Infill.pdf R7 2016 San Francisco, CA Local Tools for Financing Transit and TOD Smith, Darin Transit Benefit Assessment Districts at BART Stations https://railvolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/1010-10- TODFinance_Smith.pdf R8 2016 Philadelphia, PA TOD Financing: the World of Today Rothman, Eric 30th Street Station; comprehensive joint development strategy https://railvolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/1010-10-TOD-Finance- Rothman-.pdf R9 2015 Boston, MA Real Estate Asset Management for Public Agencies Moritz, Lorna MBTA real estate asset management, relationship to joint development https://www.slideshare.net/railvolution/rv-2015-leftover-land-making-the- most-of-surplus-assets-by-lorna-moritz?ref=https://railvolution.org/the- conference/past-conferences/2015-2/

Appendix H Index to Practitioner Case Studies H-9 Table H-5: Rail~Volution Case Studies (continued) Ref. No. Year City and Title Author, Description, and URL Address R10 2015 San Francisco, CA TOD and Parking: Matching Requirements to Neighborhood Kang, Meea Examples of empirical demand versus high zoning ratios at close-in TOD sites https://www.slideshare.net/railvolution/tod-and-parking-matching-the- requirements-to-the-neighborhood-by-meea- kang?ref=https://railvolution.org/the-conference/past-conferences/2015-2/ R11 2015 Miami, FL Finding the Value, Capturing It, and Putting It to Work Hernández, Albert Miami Dade joint development program http://www.transitvaluecapture.com/blog/archives/11-2015 R12 2015 Boston, MA Employment TOD in the Metro Core Raine, Alden Multiple examples involving joint development https://www.slideshare.net/railvolution/employment-tod-the-other-e-in-etod- by-alden-s-raine-phd?ref=https://railvolution.org/the-conference/past- conferences/2015-2/ R13 2015 Dallas, Carrollton, Austin, TX Catalyst-Scale TOD Keith, Bryan District-scale TOD including elements of joint development https://railvolution.org/the-conference/past-conferences/2015-2/ R14 2014 Oakland and San Diego, CA Great Expectations for Large-Scale TOD Parker, Cynthia Large-scale Bridge Housing joint development projects https://www.slideshare.net/railvolution/922-10-parkergreat-expectations R15 2014 Denver and Boulder, CO Great Expectations for Large-Scale TOD Sirois, Bill Three Regional Transit District joint development projects https://www.slideshare.net/railvolution/rv-2014-great-expectations-for- largescale-tod-by-bill-sirois R16 2014 Minneapolis, MN Value Capture: Myth and Reality Levinson, David Includes discussion of different dimensions of “jointness” in joint development, air rights development https://www.slideshare.net/railvolution/rv-2014-value-capture-myth-or- reality-by-david-levinson R17 2014 Pittsburgh, PA Equitable Develop- ment: TOD in a Distressed Economy Hogan, Ernie Pittsburgh case study of East Liberty TOD with redesigned BRT station https://www.slideshare.net/railvolution/923-10-hogantod-in-distressed R18 2014 San Francisco and Bay Area, CA GreenTRIP Parking Database West, Jennifer Model for estimating real-world parking need for TOD uses; foundation for shared parking decisions https://www.slideshare.net/railvolution/rv-2014-space-exploration- innovative-parking-tools-strategies-by-jennifer-west R19 2014 Boston, MA Retail Concessions on Transit Properties Moritz, Lorna On-site retail economics and practical issues https://www.slideshare.net/railvolution/923-4-moritzriders-rubbish

Appendix H Index to Practitioner Case Studies H-10 Table H-5: Rail~Volution Case Studies (continued) Ref. No. Year City and Title Author, Description, and URL Address R20 2014 College Park, MD The Purple Line and University of MD Kendrick, Jamie ROW and operating agreement between MTA and University https://www.slideshare.net/railvolution/924-10-kendrickeds-and-meds R21 2014 Seattle, WA A Partnership for Equitable TOD Lovell, Sarah, and Curren, Ryan Sound Transit’s Capitol Hill and Othello joint development projects https://www.slideshare.net/railvolution/924-10-currenlovellstimulate-investment R22 2014 Boston, MA TOD versus Non- Utilized Parking DeCoste, Francis MBTA JD projects on underutilized park & ride lots https://www.slideshare.net/railvolution/924-10-decostestimulate-investment R23 2013 Moline, IL Moline Multi-Modal Station and TOD Anderson, Jeffrey Historic station revitalization plan https://railvolution.org/rv2013_pdfs/20132110_10a_HistoricPres_Anderson.pdf R24 2013 Denver, CO Filling the Financial Gap for Equitable TOD Bustos, Debra Urban Land Conservancy (one of the first TOD land trusts for affordable housing); six projects immediately next to RTD stations https://railvolution.org/rv2013_pdfs/20132110_2p_EquitableTOD_Bustos.pdf R25 2013 Arvada, CO Public Sector Role in TOD Phair, Maureen Multi-party joint development plan at Arvada RTD station https://railvolution.org/rv2013_pdfs/20132210_10a_FillYourDance_All.pdf R26 2013 Normal, IL Public Sector Role in TOD Koos, Chris Normal, IL, Amtrak station and connected mixed-use TOD https://railvolution.org/rv2013_pdfs/20132210_10a_FillYourDance_All.pdf R27 2013 San Francisco Bay Area, CA Financing TOD in a Down Market Hong, Nathan Avalon Bay Development perspective on joint development’s added risks, higher ROI expectations https://railvolution.org/rv2013_pdfs/20132210_10a_FinTODDownMkt_Hong.pdf R28 2013 Denver, CO Denver Alameda Station Iverson, Kate Complex mixed-use joint development on former bus turnaround https://railvolution.org/rv2013_pdfs/20132210_10a_RepurposeStat_All.pdf R29 2013 Seattle, WA Right Sized Parking Calculator Bertolet, Dan Estimating model similar to GreenTRIP https://railvolution.org/rv2013_pdfs/20132210_4p_RightSizedPark_Bertolet.pdf R30 2013 Santa Monica, CA Bergamot Station Plan James, Peter District TOD plan integrated with new light rail station, pedestrian grid https://railvolution.org/rv2013_pdfs/20132310_8a_OffShelf_James.pdf R31 2013 Portland, OR How to Choose a Developer Krygier, Kathryn TriMet’s experience with unsolicited proposals and planned solicitations https://railvolution.org/rv2013_pdfs/20132310_10a_JointDev_Krygier.pdf R32 2013 Cleveland, OH Development Response to Bus Rapid Transit Feke, Maribeth National example of development catalyzed by street-running transit (the HealthLine BRT), but no transactional joint development relationship https://railvolution.org/rv2013_pdfs/20132310_10a_BRTInvest_Feke.pdf R33 2013 San Francisco Bay Area, CA Connectivity Ordway, Jeffrey BART approach to station access hierarchy at stations with joint development projects, including Joint Powers agreem4ents with local government https://railvolution.org/rv2013_pdfs/20132310_2p_RealityShow_Ordway.pdf

Appendix H Index to Practitioner Case Studies H-11 3.6 Composite Index of Case Studies The following table provides an index of all of the selected case studies listed in Tables H-1 through H-5. This index is sorted alphabetically by city. The Reference Numbers appear in the left-hand column of each of the preceding tables. Table H-6: Composite Index of Case Studies City or Region Case Study Reference Number(s) Transit Agency Alexandria, VA FH5 WMATA Arvada, CO R25 RTD Atlanta, GA A6 MARTA Austin, TX A5, R13 Capital Metro Bellevue, WA FH2 Sound Transit Boston, MA A11, A17, R6, R9, R12, R19, R22 MBTA Boulder, CO R15 RTD, RFTA Carrollton, TX R13 DART Chicago, IL FH1, A17 CTA Cleveland, OH R32 GCRTA College Park, MD R20 Maryland Transit Admin. Dallas, TX R13 DART Denver, CO FH8, U3, A15, R5, R15, R24, R28 RTD Fridley, MN R4 Metro Transit Hartford, CT A3 Connecticut DOT Houston, TX A18 Metro Kansas City, MO R1 KCATA Los Angeles, CA U2, A3, A12 LA Metro Martinsburg, WV A9 MARC Maryland, system-wide A2 Maryland Transit Admin. Miami, FL A13, A16, R11 FECI, Miami Dade, SFRTA Minneapolis, MN A4, R2, R16 Metro Transit Moline, IL R23 City of Moline New Carrollton, MD FT4 WMATA New York, NY FH3 MTA (LIRR) Normal, IL R26 City of Normal Oakland, CA R14 BART

Appendix H Index to Practitioner Case Studies H-12 Table H-6: Composite Index of Case Studies (continued) City or Region Case Study Reference Number(s) Transit Agency PA Keystone Corridor A10 Penn DOT Philadelphia, PA R8 SEPTA Pittsburgh, PA R19 Port Authority (PAAC) Portland, OR FH7, FH10, R31 TriMet Salt Lake City, UT A17 UTA San Diego, CA A7, R14 MTS San Francisco Bay Area, CA A1, R3, R18, R27, R33 Caltrain JTPA San Francisco, CA FH4, R7, R10, R18 Transbay JTPA Santa Monica, CA R30 LA Metro Seattle, WA FT1, FH6, R21, R29 Sound Transit St. Paul, MN FT2, A4 Metro Transit Tyler, TX FT3 City of Tyler Washington, DC FH9, A8, A14, A17 WMATA Yonkers, NY U1 MTA (Metro North)

APPENDIX I REVIEW OF AGENCY JOINT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTATION ENABLING ACTS, SOLICITATIONS, AND AGREEMENTS

Appendix I i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction and Overview…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….I-2 2.0 Enabling Acts or Equivalent Charter Documents…………………………………………………………………………….I-4 3.0 Developer Solicitations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….I-9 3.1 Types of Solicitation ....................................................................................................................... I-10 3.2 Description of Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................. I-12 3.3 Technical Specifications: Prescriptiveness versus Flexibility ......................................................... I-15 4.0 Unsolicited Proposal Policies………………………………………………………………………………………………………..I-16 5.0 Development Agreements I-19 6.0 Summary of Findings……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………I-22 LIST OF TABLES Table I-1: Summary of Agencies and Documents ....................................................................................... I-3 Table I-2: Transit Agency Enabling Acts or Equivalent Charter Documents ............................................... I-5 Table I-3: Key Characteristics of Transit Agency Enabling Legislation ........................................................ I-7 Table I-4: Transit Agency Solicitation Documents ..................................................................................... I-9 Table I-5: Distribution of Solicitation Types in Transit Survey ................................................................. I-12 Table I-6: Joint Development Selection Criteria ....................................................................................... I-13 Table I-7: Primary Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................................... I-14 Table I-8: Unsolicited Proposal Policies .................................................................................................... I-17 Table I-9: Key Characteristics of Unsolicited Proposal Policies ................................................................. I-18 Table I-10: Development Agreements ...................................................................................................... I-21

Appendix I Agency Joint Development Documentation I-2 ENABLING ACTS, SOLICITATIONS, AND AGREEMENTS 1.0 Introduction and Overview As part of project TCRP H-57, the research team undertook a comparative review of official documents related to the joint development (JD) activities of US transit agencies. This review consists of two parts: This document (Appendix I) includes agency enabling acts, as well as several categories of documentation issued by the agencies themselves: • developer solicitation documents, such as Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) and Requests for Proposals (RFPs); • policies for dealing with unsolicited proposals, an important issue facing many transit agencies; • developer agreements, including, as applicable, both interim and final agreements undertaken in the course of negotiating a transaction with a selected developer. The review also includes Appendix G, the Review of Agency Joint Development Policies. This analysis covers the JD policies officially adopted and published on-line by 10 US transit agencies with joint development experience. These policies are a key component of the documentary structure of joint development. The documents reviewed here were obtained from transit agency staff or agency websites, as an extension of the outreach process conducted by the research team. Of the 32 transit agencies surveyed, the documentation review focused on a primary list of 18, of which 16 were interviewed at length by research team members. Two additional agencies—the Utah Transit Authority (“UTA”) and the Kansas City Area Transit Authority (“KCATA”)—were added, to create a primary list of 18 agencies for purposes of the documentation review.136 These are shown in Table I-1, along with the types of documents obtained from each. All told, the documents obtained consisted of the following: 136 The interview format was generally more conducive to requesting various types of documents and following up on those requests. The two additional agencies on the primary focus list were UTA, whose survey began as an interview and was then conducted in writing, and KCATA, which was one of the ten agencies whose joint development policies were reviewed in Appendix G; in the process the research team collected a number of other KCATA documents. In addition to the 18 agencies listed in Table I-1, several others that participated in the survey by written response also provided documents that were useful to this review and are cited as they appear in later sections: the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (“VTA”), Caltrain, Columbus’ Central Ohio Transit Authority (“COTA”), Pittsburgh’s Port Authority of Allegheny County (“PAAC”), the Memphis Area Transit Authority (“MATA”), Indianapolis’ IndyGo, the Maryland Mass Transit Administration (“MTA”), the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (“MTS”), and Greater Toronto’s Metrolinx. Note: agencies commonly known by their acronyms will be identified by their full names the first time they are referenced in the text or a footnote and by their acronyms thereafter.

Appendix I Agency Joint Development Documentation I-3 • enabling acts or equivalent charter documents from all 18 agencies; • joint development policies from 13 agencies; • 23 developer solicitation documents from 13 agencies; • unsolicited proposal policies from seven; • 10 developer agreements from six agencies. Table I-1: Summary of Agencies and Documents City/Region: Transit Agency En ab lin g Ac t Jo in t D ev el op m en t Po lic ie s Jo in t D ev el op m en t So lic ita tio ns U ns ol ic ite d Pr op os al P ol ic y In te rim /F in al Jo in t De vt . A gr ee m en ts Atlanta: MARTA ● ● ● ● Austin: Capital Metro ● ● Bay Area: BART ● ● ● ● ● Bay Area: Caltrain ● Boston: MBTA ● ● ● ● ● Cleveland: GCRTA ● ● ● ● Dallas: DART ● ● ● Denver: RTD ● ● ● ● Kansas City: KCATA ● ● ● ● Los Angeles: LA Metro ● ● ● ● ● Miami: Miami-Dade Transit ● ● Minneapolis-St. Paul: Metro Transit ● ● New Jersey: NJ Transit ● ● Salt Lake: UTA ● ● ● San Diego: MTS ● Seattle: King County Metro ● ● Seattle: Sound Transit ● ● Washington DC: WMATA ● ● ● ●

Next: Appendix I: Review of Agency Joint Development Documentation »
Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Joint development is a subset of transit‐oriented development. It consists of residential, commercial, civic, or mixed‐use development that is closely coordinated with a transit facility and in which the transit agency participates through the use of its property, funding, or some other form of real estate or business transaction.

The TRB Transit Cooperative Research Program's TCRP Web-Only Document 73: Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies: Appendices provides supplemental information to TCRP Research Report 224: Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!