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 G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-3 Transit Agency Principal Joint Development Policy Document(s) Salt Lake City: UTA TOD: Living Connected (TOD Policy)(2018) http://rideuta.com/-/media/Files/Doing- Business/TOD/TOD_Policy_Procedures_Final.ashx?la=en TOD Standard Operating Procedures (2018) https://www.rideuta.com/Doing-Business/Transit-Oriented-Development/Standard- Operating-Procedures TOD Design Guidelines (2014) https://www.rideuta.com/Doing-Business/Transit-Oriented-Development/Standard- Operating-Procedures San Francisco Bay Area: BART BART TOD Guidelines (2017) https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART_TODGuidelinesFinal2017_compressed_0.pdf Appendix A: 2016 TOD Policy https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/A- %20BART%20TOD%20Policy%20Adopted%206-9-16_0.pdf Appendices B-K (see Endnote) * Unsolicited Proposal Policy (2019) https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/unsolicited_proposal_review_procedure_2019 0822_0.pdf Seattle: Sound Transit Sound Transit TOD Program: A Strategic Plan Update (2014) https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/20140423_RPT_TOD.pdf Equitable TOD Policy (2018) https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/Resolution% 20R2018-10.pdf Washington, DC: WMATA WMATA Joint Development Policy (2018; high-level policy statement) https://www.wmata.com/about/board/meetings/board-pdfs/upload/3A-Joint-Development- Policies.pdf Joint Development Program Guidelines (2020; detailed procedural standards, consistent with and mandated by the 2018 Policy) https://wmata.com/business/real-estate/upload/Joint-Development-Program-Guidelines- 1.pdf Station Area Planning Guide (2017) https://www.wmata.com/business/real-estate/upload/Station-Area-Planning-Guide-October- 2017.pdf * The full BART joint development policy includes the master policy document referenced here (the 2017 BART TOD Guidelines); a series of appendices linked to it (and listed in the endnote to this memorandum); and the 2019 Unsolicited Proposal Policy.
Appendix G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-4 2.0 Summary and Comparison These policies are summarized and compared across 11 characteristics that the research team, based on its experience, considers particularly salient. These characteristics are described, and the comparisons among agency policies outlined in narrative form, in Table G-2. A matrix comparing the 10 policies across all of the characteristics at a glance is provided in Table G-3. The first characteristic is whether the agencyâs joint development policy actually uses the term âjoint developmentâ or not. Several agencies title their primary document a âJoint Development Policyâ. Others call their primary document a âTOD Policyâ or âTOD Guidelinesâ, but within the document they explicitly distinguish between joint development in particular and TOD in general. Others do not use the term joint development at all, but the content of their âTOD Policyâ is plainly focused on joint development. Since an underlying purpose of the Joint Development Guide to be produced by this study is to help the transit community recognize a commonly understood definition of joint development, the choice of vocabulary is important. The remaining characteristics on which the agency joint development policies are compared include: â¢ Does the policy document spell out an explicit set of procedures for developer solicitation, selection, and negotiation? â¢ Does the joint development policy (or a separate, closely linked policy) provide an explicit procedure for addressing unsolicited joint development proposalsâa common issue that is difficult to address without a published policy? â¢ How does the policy describe the criteria for evaluating competing joint development proposals and selecting winners? â¢ As part of its published policy, does the transit agency assert a stakeholder, advocacy, or technical assistance role in station-area TOD overall, rather than limiting its interests to joint development projects in which it is directly involved? â¢ Does the policy include normative TOD standards with regard to use, density, public realm, and parking, and does the agency explicitly apply these standards to its joint development projects? â¢ Does the agency assert its own affordable or inclusionary housing requirement for joint development projects, rather than relying on applicable zoning requirements (if any)? This is a core issue in âequitable TODâ and an increasingly common, high-profile policy question for transit agencies with robust joint development programs. â¢ Does the policy address the replacement of park & ride capacity when surface park & ride lots are to be converted to joint development sites? The trade-off between more parking and more development (and specifically whether park & ride is to be replaced on a 1:1 basis or more flexibly) may involve both the Federal Transit Administration and internal operations. â¢ Has the transit agency adopted an access planning policy or âaccess hierarchyâ for transit and joint development that generally prioritizes pedestrians, transit, shuttles, and cyclists over single-occupancy private cars? â¢ Does the joint development policy contemplate partnering with other public land owners to create additional or expanded joint development opportunities?
Appendix G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-5 â¢ With respect to the planning of new corridors and extensions, does the agencyâs joint development policy explicitly recognize future joint development opportunities as a consideration in station location and right-of-way assembly? Does the policy address the choice of âstrategic acquisitionsâ versus the traditional âminimal takingâ standard?
Appendix G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-6 Table G-2: Key Characteristics of Agency Joint Development Policies Characteristic Examples A. Joint Development Terminology The transit agency either: (a) titles its primary document as a Joint Development Policy, or (b) titles the document as a TOD Policy but the document explicitly distinguishes joint development from TOD in general and explains the agencyâs different role in each. â¢ LA Metro and WMATA call their primary joint development document a Joint Development Policy. â¢ MARTA, the MBTA, BART, DART, Denver RTD, and Sound Transit call their primary document a TOD Policy. However, the structure and narrative clearly distinguish between joint development and TOD in general. â¢ KCATA and UTA title their primary document a TOD Policy; in each case, the content refers primarily to joint development. â¢ Sound Transit, in addition to using the term joint development, introduces the terms âAgency TODâ and âCommunity TODâ to distinguish between joint development and TOD other than Joint Development, respectively. B. Explicit Procedure for Developer Procurement and Negotiation The primary joint development policy document, or a closely linked document, includes an explicit set of procedures for joint development solicitation, selection, and negotiation. â¢ All 10 of the agency policies include such procedures to one extent or anotherâsome spelled out in detail, others more briefly (with or without a reference to an underlying set of agency procurement rules). â¢ The MARTA and MBTA policies outline the procedures clearly from beginning to end. â¢ UTA provides an interactive section of its webpage devoted entirely to its newly adopted Standard Operating Procedures. C. Explicit Policy for Unsolicited Proposals The primary joint development policy, or a closely linked policy document, includes an explicit set of procedures describing how the agency treats unsolicited joint development proposals. â¢ Nine of the agency policies address unsolicited proposals to one degree or another, seven of them in some detail. â¢ LA Metro provides a particularly detailed Unsolicited Proposal Appendix as part of its Joint Development Policy (Process). The policy states that Metro does not encourage unsolicited proposals. â¢ WMATAâs policy is concise and explicit: unsolicited proposals from three types of proponentsâexisting ground lease holders, sister jurisdictions, and uniquely situated abutting ownersâmay be considered for direct negotiation, at WMATAâs discretion. Any other unsolicited proposal may be considered or not at WMATAâs discretion, and if considered must be subjected to a competitive solicitation. â¢ BART, Denver RTD, and KCATA have detailed, stand-alone Unsolicited Proposal Policies accessible on the joint development- related webpage. KCATAâs policy encourages such proposals.
Appendix G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-7 D. States the Criteria for Evaluation and Selection of Competing Proposals The joint development policy states whether, by law or by policy, the agency bases its competitive developer selections on the highest responsive bid price; on a set of multiple âbest valueâ or âmost advantageousâ criteria, or which price is only one; or on some hybrid of these approaches. â¢ Seven of the agencies describe or imply a multi-criterion selection process: MARTA, Denver RTD, BART, KCATA, UTA, Sound Transit, and WMATA. â¢ Sound Transit, due to recent Enabling Act changes, must offer most of its Joint Development parcels at values written down to support a statutory inclusionary housing policy (see below). â¢ BARTâs TOD Guidelines include a âWhat BART Expectsâ section setting forth a range of policy goals and embracing land value flexibility to help achieve them. â¢ Denver RTD has an adopted set of Evaluation Guidelines that set forth âPrinciplesâ (âmust-havesâ) and Factors (two tiers; it is understood that not every project will address every Factor). â¢ The MBTA policy states that it is required by law to select the highest responsible bid. Factors affecting land value (e.g., inclusionary housing, site conditions, required replacement or improvement of MBTA facilities) are stated in RFPs so as to be taken into account by all bidders. Bids may include in-cash and in- kind elements and are compared by all-in net present values. â¢ UTAâs Standard Operating Procedures reflect 2018 Enabling Act changes requiring a multi-factor cost-benefit analysis in evaluating and selecting development bids. The Standard Operating Procedures also include an annually updated TOD System Analysis, in which the prioritization of station areas for the coming yearâs procurements is based on a multi-factor TOD readiness score. Other systems use similar TOD readiness metrics, but UTA is unique in basing project selection on such an analysis. E. Asserts a TOD Role Beyond Joint Development The transit agencyâs TOD or joint development policy asserts a role in station area development overall (as a stakeholder, advocate, or provider of technical assistance), beyond its own joint development footprint. â¢ All 10 agencies assert a TOD role wider than joint development. â¢ The MARTA and MBTA policies expressly assert roles as âTOD sponsorâ (joint development), âTOD stakeholderâ (all station-area development), and âTOD advocateâ (regional TOD policies). â¢ BARTâs TOD Guidelines and appendices include station-area planning guidance as well as performance targets for on- and off- site development. (Under AB 2923, enacted in 2018, BART will be directly involved in station-area zoning.) â¢ The BART and MBTA policies advocate for station-area district value capture as a way to help finance transit. â¢ LA Metroâs Transit-Oriented Communities Program (separate from the Joint Development Policy) combines joint development with station area-wide TOD planning and implementation. â¢ Sound Transitâs âcommunity TODâ strategy addresses entire corridors and station areas.
Appendix G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-8 F. Published TOD Standards Applicable to Joint Development Either within its joint development policy or in a linked document, the agency has adopted standards for density, use, public realm, and/or parking. These norms apply to joint development projects and are made known to proponents. â¢ Eight of the 10 agencies have published TOD standards and apply them, with appropriate flexibility, to Joint Development projects. â¢ The MARTA and MBTA TOD Guidelines include standards in all four areas (density, use, public realm, parking). â¢ The BART standards include aggressive targets for higher density and less parking, especially at Regional Center and Urban Neighborhood/City Center stations. G. Inclusionary Housing Requirement or Policy The transit agency has adopted an affordable housing policy for joint development projects, as opposed to relying on applicable zoning requirements (if any). â¢ All of the agencies encourage affordable housing. Six of the 10 have adopted their own inclusionary policies. â¢ MARTA: a goal, on average, of 20% workforce or affordable in joint development projects (workforce defined as 60-80% Area Median Income (AMI) rental, 80-100% AMI ownership; affordable up to 60% AMI). The actual goal is set on a project-specific basis. Land discount and zoning-compatible density bonuses offered to support feasibility. â¢ BART: a goal of 20% affordable across all BART property at each station, with a goal of 35% across the agency portfolio. Priority on very low (less than 50% AMI) and low (51-80% AMI). â¢ MBTA: in general, a 20% requirement for affordable (60% AMI) or workforce (100% AMI). If 20% is determined non-feasible, the MBTA may set a lower threshold, of at least 10% of the units at 80% AMI. In Boston or other cities with their own inclusionary requirements, the MBTA will generally follow the local rule. â¢ Denver RTD: a specific target is established for each joint development project. â¢ LA Metro: as of 2015, a 35% affordable goal portfolio-wide, defined as 60% AMI. Land discount offered to support feasibility. â¢ Sound Transit: 2017 Enabling Act amendment requires the â80- 80-80â policy. Unless certain exceptions apply, ST must offer 80% of its sites suitable for housing to public or non-profit developers who commit to making 80% of the units affordable at 80% AMI. Land discount, including to zero, required by law. â¢ WMATA has no affordable requirement of its own, explicitly deferring to local requirements and requiring proponents to abide by them. Montgomery County and the District of Columbia have significant inclusionary requirements.
Appendix G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-9 H. Park & ride Replacement Flexibility The joint development policy states that park & ride replacement for joint development is evaluated case-by- case and not assumed to be 1:1. â¢ Four of the 10 transit agencies have adopted this policy: BART, WMATA, MARTA, and MBTA. The goal is to optimize overall ridership and revenue rather than parking capacity and revenue. â¢ BARTâs TOD Guidelines include an evaluative Parking and Access Policy Model developed by Professor Richard Willson, which recognizes âTOD as an access strategyâ and compares different park & ride versus incremental development scenarios. I. Station Area Access Hierarchy The transit agency has adopted an access planning policy for transit and joint development that prioritizes pedestrians, transit, and cyclists over single-occupancy cars. â¢ This policy has been adopted by the four agencies listed in âHâ above (BART, WMATA, MARTA, MBTA) and by DART. â¢ The BART policy, first adopted in 2003, is further elaborated in the 2017 BART TOD Guidelines to reflect differences among BARTâs five Station Access Typology categories. This is closely tied to the park & ride replacement policy described above. J. Policy Contemplates Multi- Agency Land Transactions The joint development policy expresses interest in partnering with other public land owners to create additional or expanded joint development opportunities â¢ BART, Sound Transit, and KCATA contemplate such creative âoff- siteâ partnerships. â¢ Sound Transit mentions, for example, âacquisition of a transit asset owned by a partner agency that lacks the resources to implement TOD or development partnerships.â â¢ The KCATA policy envisions KCATA participation in projects located on land not currently owned by the agency, through future land assembly or financial participation. â¢ The MARTA and MBTA policies anticipate land consolidation proposals from adjacent public or private land owners. (Beyond the policy language, the MBTA has undertaken several major projects in collaboration with Boston and other host cities.) K. Joint Development Considered in Planning for New Corridors or Stations The joint development policy addresses not only existing corridors and stations, but the opportunity to plan new ones with a joint development-focused land assembly strategy. â¢ Five of the 10 agencies address this strategic principle to some degree: DART, Denver RTD, KCATA, LA Metro, and Sound Transit. â¢ LA Metro envisions location and orientation of new stations, as well as strategic acquisition of properties, to facilitate future Joint Development in new corridors. The Joint Development Program (Process) notes that the Metro Enabling Act allows acquisition, including by eminent domain, of land for Joint Development. â¢ Sound Transitâs 2014 TOD Strategic Plan Update places major emphasis on new corridor planning, including land assembly and facilitating future Joint Development on construction staging parcels. This is identified as a principal reason for the 2014 update.
Appendix G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-10 Using the comparative criteria described above, Table G-3 summarizes the 10 transit agency joint development policies in matrix form. Table G-3: Summary of Transit Agency Joint Development Policies A B C D E F G H I J K Transit Agency U se T er m â Jo in t De ve lo pm en tâ Ex pl ic it Pr oc ed ur es fo r Pr oc ur em en t/ N eg ot ia tio n Ex pl ic it Po lic y fo r U ns ol ic ite d Pr op os al s St at es B as is o f S el ec tio n (P ric e or M ul tip le C rit er ia ) As se rt s T O D Ro le B ey on d Jo in t D ev el op m en t TO D St an da rd s A pp lic ab le to Jo in t D ev el op m en t In cl us io na ry H ou si ng Re qu ire m en t o r P ol ic y Pa rk & ri de F le xi bl e Re pl ac em en t St at io n/ TO D Ac ce ss Hi er ar ch y Co nt em pl at es M ul ti- Ag en cy L an d De al s JD P la nn in g fo r N ew Co rr id or s o r S ta tio ns Atlanta: MARTA â â â M 1 â â â â â Boston: MBTA â â â P 1 â â â â â Dallas: DART â ï ï â â â â Denver: RTD â â â â â ï â Kansas City: KCATA â â M â â â Los Angeles: LA Metro â â â M/P â ï â â Salt Lake City: UTA â M â â ï San Francisco Bay Area: BART ï â â M â â â â â â Seattle: Sound Transit â ï ï M â â â â â Washington, DC: WMATA â â â M ï ï â â 1 M = multiple criteria; P = price is principal or sole criterion ï = partially true
Appendix G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-11 3.0 Recent Policy Modifications Transit agencies adopt joint development policies because they recognize that it is difficult to manage a joint development program without one. The overarching benefit of a joint development policy is to have, on record, a consistent approach readily available to multiple stakeholder audiences: the development community, local land use authorities, community groups, the Federal Transit Administration, and the transit agencyâs own internal departments. A formal policy can provide consistent guidance across a number of common joint development issues: the structure of the developer solicitation process; the basis for evaluating and selecting proposals (âbest priceâ versus multiple âbest valueâ criteria); the preferred method of land disposition; a framework for addressing affordable housing, sustainable design, parking reduction, and other development outcomes; the partiesâ roles and responsibilities for station enhancement and maintenance; the agencyâs posture toward unsolicited proposals; and others. In some cases, an agency that has an established joint development policy in place may recognize that conditions have changed, and modifications are in order. The reasons for a policy update, particularly if the agency has been in the joint development business for a while, may be especially illustrative. Of the 10 agencies represented in this comparative analysis, several have adopted modified or updated their policies since 2016. BART BARTâs primary joint development policy document, the 2017 BART TOD Guidelines, spells out several reasons for an updated policy in general, and for some of the key changes in particular. These reasons involve shifting environmental and economic conditions in the Bay Area, including:124 â¢ Californiaâs statutory framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the integration of regional transportation and land use policies, including the nine-county Plan Bay Area framework. â¢ The Bay Areaâs intensifying crisis of housing affordability. â¢ The elimination in 2012 of Californiaâs âRedevelopmentâ mechanism, a tax increment platform widely used to finance infrastructure and affordable housing (and only partly replaced by subsequent legislation). â¢ A market shift toward walking, cycling, and transit use on the part of those who live or work within BART station areas, and a consequent ability to use joint development policies (such as density and parking reduction) to promote these forms of mobility. â¢ Major long-term growth in BARTâs ridership, primarily in a traditional rush-hour, peak-flow, radial pattern. This points to a TOD strategy that aims, at least in part, to locate new development in places where BART has untapped geographic or counter-peak capacity. 124 San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, BART TOD Guidelines (2017), esp. pp. 8-9. (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART_TODGuidelinesFinal2017_compressed_0.pdf)
Appendix G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-12 â¢ More broadly, a perceived need for greater consistency and transparency in describing roles, responsibilities, expectations, and process. BARTâs response to these changing conditions is reflected in the overall structure of the 2017 BART TOD Guidelines, as well as in specific policies on affordable housing, station-area TOD planning and advocacy, reduced parking for residential and commercial joint development, a flexible approach to land value, performance criteria reflecting a multiple criteria definition of return on investment, and a proactive approach to identifying joint development opportunities in places where market conditions and institutional support are aligned.125 BART also adopted a detailed policy for unsolicited proposals in 2019, undoubtedly reflecting the real estate market in the Bay Area at its peak of intensity prior to the COVID pandemic. WMATA WMATAâs 2018 Joint Development Policy is the most recent of a series of modifications and updates, from the agencyâs original 1980 Joint Development Policy to the most recent update in 2014. In its memorandum to the Board of Directors recommending adoption of the 2018 policy, WMATA staff spelled out the proposed modifications and the changing conditions, both internal and external, that gave rise to them. These changes can be summarized as follows:126 â¢ Make the joint development policy more user-friendly, transparent, and streamlined. To this end, the 2018 update splits WMATAâs policy into two documents: Joint Development Policies (adopted and amended by the Board) and externally-facing Joint Development Program Guidelines (delegated to, and modified by, the General Manager). The 2018 update also reduces the number of Board approvals required for each project, while maintaining Board control at key junctures. â¢ Recalibrate the balance between transit and joint development uses. The 2018 update introduces two key changes in this regard. First is an asset management policy, in which the primary purpose for WMATAâs ownership of property is stated to be transit use, access, and operations. However, âif [WMATA] determines that its property is best used for both transit and private real estate development, then [WMATA] should seek to maximize revenue and reduce risk for itself.127 Second is an explicit right-sizing policy for the replacement of transit facilities affected by joint development projects, such as park & ride lots, busways, drop-offs, and so forth. The aim is to ensure that these facilities can accommodate projected ridership, taking into account historic use as well as new riders from the joint development project and other foreseeable TOD within the station area. 125 Ibid., passim. Several of these ideas are reflected in the 2016 BART TOD Policy, a two-page document setting forth BARTâs over-arching goals and strategies for its next generation of joint development (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/A-%20BART%20TOD%20Policy%20Adopted%206-9-16_0.pdf). 126 Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA), Joint Development Policy (2018) (https://www.wmata.com/about/board/meetings/board-pdfs/upload/3A-Joint-Development-Policies.pdf). The summary headings and narrative are in the words of the TCRP H-57 research team. 127 Ibid., p. 6. Emphasis added.
Appendix G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-13 â¢ Accommodate local public policy initiatives in WMATAâs written joint development policy. Such policies include Transportation Demand Management, green building, and affordable housing. In the case of affordable housing, while WMATA has no inclusionary requirement of its own and defers to the local land use jurisdiction, the 2018 policy anticipates that WMATA staff will work with local officials to secure financial support or pursue upzoning so that the project can support this and other local policies. Sound Transit In 2018, Sound Transit adopted a new Equitable TOD Policy, as a supplement to its recent (2014) overall TOD Program.128 The centerpiece is a requirement that, in undertaking joint development, the agency pursue an â80-80-80â policyâthat Sound Transit will âoffer a minimum of 80 percent of its surplus property that is suitable for development as housing for either transfer at no cost, sale, or long-term lease first to qualified entities that agree to develop affordable housing on the property, consistent with local land use and zoning laws. Qualified entities include local governments, housing authorities and non-profit developers. If a qualified entity accepts the property through the offer, at least 80 percent of the housing units constructed must be affordable to those earning 80 percent of the area median income for the county in which the property is located.129 The reasons for this major policy were two-fold: the affordability crisis widely perceived to be affecting the Greater Seattle region, and a specific amendment to Sound Transitâs enabling act requiring this and other changes to the agencyâs joint development program. The enabling act amendments were included in the legislation authorizing the âST3â referendum of 2016, which authorized a major system expansion and the bond financing to support it; approval of the referendum automatically triggered the enabling act amendments, resulting in Sound Transitâs adoption of the Equitable TOD Policy in 2018. While this specific set of circumstances was unique to Sound Transit, other transit agencies are responding to housing affordability issues in their respective markets and the recognition that their joint development activities could impact the nexus of affordability, gentrification, and labor market connectivity. The series of inclusionary housing policies summarized in Table G-2, Line G reflect this broader trend. Nor is Sound Transit the only instance of legislative initiatives in this area. In California, Assembly Bill 2923, enacted in 2018, gives the BART Board of Directors actual zoning powers, applicable to BART- owned parcels within a half-mile of a station, largely to ensure that both market-rate and affordable housing, with reduced parking requirements, are concentrated at BART stations.130 As of 2020, BART is beginning the process of implementing this new enablement. 128 https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/Resolution%20R2018-10.pdf. 129 https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/board-adopts-policy-promoting- equitable-development-near 130 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2923
Appendix G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-14 Endnotes: Related Policy Documents Atlanta: MARTA TOD website (implementation, project, and site information): https://www.itsmarta.com/tod-overview.aspx Boston: MBTA 2018 Design/Construction Review for Projects within the MBTAâs Zone of Influence A Guide for Owners, Developers, and Contractors (ODCs). https://www.mbtarealty.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/MBTA-TOD-GUIDLINES-FOR- ODCs-April-2018.pdf Joint development website; program and case study materials. https://www.mbtarealty.com/transit-oriented- development/ Dallas: DART DART TOD Property Inventory 2018 (https://www.dart.org/economicdevelopment/2018TODPropertyInventory.pdf) DART TOD website: https://www.dart.org/about/tod.asp Denver: RTD RTD Joint Development website: http://www.rtd-denver.com/jointDev-TOD.shtml Los Angeles: LA Metro LA Metro Joint Development website, including policies and portfolio of projects https://www.metro.net/projects/joint_dev_pgm/ Salt Lake City: UTA UTA TOD website: https://www.rideuta.com/Doing-Business/Transit-Oriented-Development San Francisco Bay Area: BART Appendices to BART TOD Guidelines (2017) A. BART TOD Policy (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/A- %20BART%20TOD%20Policy%20Adopted%206-9-16_0.pdf) B. TOD Performance Targets (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/B- %20TOD%20Performance%20Targets%202040%20Adopted%2012-1-16_0.pdf) C. BART Affordable Housing Policy (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/C- %20Affordable%20Housing%20Policy%20Adopted%201-28-16_0.pdf) D. Internal BART TOD Approvals Process (forthcoming as of March 2019)) E. BART Station Access Policy (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/E- %20BART%20Access%20Policy%20-%20Adopted%206-9-16_0.pdf) F. BART Multimodal Access Design Guidelines (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20Multimodal%20Access%20Design%20Guidelines.pdf)
Appendix G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-15 G. BART Facilities Standards: Architecture: Passenger Station Sites Chapter (as of Jan. 2016; https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/G-%20BFS%20Criteria%20-%20Architecture%20- %20Passenger%20Station%20Site_0.pdf) H. BART Customer Parking: Overview (https://www.bart.gov/guide/parking); 2013 Pricing Resolution (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/H-%20Paid%20Parking%20Program%20Adopted%202-28- 13_0.pdf); 2017 Board Presentation (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/H- %20Board%20Workshop%202017_9G_Parking%20Policy_Print%20Version_1.pdf) I. Project Stabilization Resolution (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/J- %20TOD%20Project%20Stabilization%20Policy%20Adopted%2011-17-2011_0.pdf) J. BART Strategic Plan: Connect & Create Great Places 4-Year Work Plan (2016-2020) (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/Connect- Create%20Great%20Places%20WP%20second%20version%20to%20Board%202016-11-23_0.pdf) K. Station Renaming Application Overview Memo (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/02-08- 17%20Station%20%20Renaming_APPLICATION%20PROCESS%20MEMO%20-%20Final.pdf) Prior Policies TOD Policy, adopted 2005; includes Land Use, Process, and Financial Strategies; shift in emphasis from joint development to station area-wide TOD (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/TOD_Policy_Adopted_07- 14-05.pdf) BART TOD Guidelines, adopted 1993. Addressed to all TOD stakeholders; TOD narrative with suggested minimum density targets. High-level concept of three concentric zones: Hectic, In-Between, and Home Free (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/TOD_Guidlines.pdf) Seattle: Sound Transit Sound Transit TOD website: https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/creating-vibrant-stations/transit- oriented-development Washington, DC: WMATA WMATA Joint Development website: https://www.wmata.com/business/real-estate/about-joint-development.cfm Joint Development Policy Update (2013) (https://www.wmata.com/about/board/upload/Joint-Development- Policies-2013-07-25.pdf) Original WMATA Joint Development Policies and Guidelines 2002: http://www.amlegal.com/pdffiles/WMATA/2002/02-08.pdf
Appendix G Transit Agency Joint Development Policies G-16 Additional Transit Agencies In addition to the 10 transit agencies discussed in this appendix, joint development policies were obtained from an additional five agencies in the course of this study. Their joint development policy documents may be found at the following links: Table G-4: Additional Transit Agency Joint Development Policies Transit Agency Primary Joint Development Policy Documents Austin: Capital Metro Transit Authority TOD Policy: https://www.capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/Capmetroorg/Future_Plans/Transit- Oriented_Development/TOD_Policy.pdf TOD Guide: https://capmetro.org/uploadedfiles/New2016/Plans_and_Development/Transit- Oriented_Development/tod-guide.pdf TOD Priority Tool: https://capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/New2016/Plans_and_Development/Transit- Oriented_Development/TOD%20160915%20Priority%20Tool_v4a.pdf Cleveland: Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Agency (GCRTA) TOD Guidelines Resolution 2007-054: http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/tod/GCRTA_TOD_Guidelines.pdf Transit 2025 TOD/JD Policy: http://www.riderta.com/sites/default/files/pdf/transit2025/TRANSIT_2025_Mar ch_2006_Final_ch5.pdf Minneapolis-St. Paul: Metro Transit TOD Guide (interactive): https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Services/Transit-Oriented-Development- (TOD)/Transit-Oriented-Development-Policy-(pdf).aspx TOD Policy (overarching goals): https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/TOD/Files/TOD-Policy.aspx Pittsburgh: Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC) Joint development policies and procedures * TOD Guidelines, applicable to joint development: https://beta.portauthority.org/contentassets/d1e84d83d7d9471dbd5c11daddd2 5e56/todguidelines.pdf Toronto: Metrolinx Joint Development Strategy: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20181206/20181206_Bo ardMtg_TOD_Strategy.pdf http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20190410/20190410_Bo ardMtg_TOD_Implementation_EN.pdf
APPENDIX H INDEX TO PRACTITIONER CASE STUDIES
Appendix H Index to Practitioner Case Studies i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... H-1 2.0 Current TOD Newsletters .................................................................................................................. H-2 3.0 On-Line Case Study Archives ......................................................................................................... H-3 3.1 Federal Transit Administration Joint Development Brochure .................................................... H-3 3.2 Federal Highway Administration Center for Innovative Finance Support .................................. H-4 3.3 Urban Land Institute On-Line Case Study Library ....................................................................... H-5 3.4 American Public Transportation Association Annual Meeting and Rail Conference ................. H-6 3.5 Rail~Volution Annual Conference ............................................................................................... H-8 3.6 Composite Index of Case Studies ................................................................................................ H-8 LIST OF TABLES Table H-1: FTA Joint Development Case Studies .................................................................................. H-3 Table H-2: FHWA Innovative Finance Case Studies .............................................................................. H-4 Table H-3: ULI Case Studies ................................................................................................................... H-5 Table H-4: APTA Case Studies ............................................................................................................... H-6 Table H-5: Rail~Volution Case Studies .................................................................................................. H-8 Table H-6: Composite Index of Case Studies ...................................................................................... H-11
Appendix H Index to Practitioner Case Studies H-1 INDEX OF PRACTITIONER CASE STUDIES 1.0 Introduction Case studies based on practical experience are an important tool for explaining and understanding any complex subject matter. Joint development is no exception. In the main literature review prepared for the Guide (Appendix E), several of the academic and professional sources provide case studies, treated in some analytic depth. Numerous additional case studies are available on various on-line platforms; this appendix provides a representation of these resources and some guidance on where to locate them. Prepared in 2019, this index represents a snapshot of a continually growing body of work. Section 2.0 identifies two on-line newsletters devoted exclusively to transit-oriented development issues and projects. Most of the content is in the form of real-time case study material, and a substantial subset is related either to specific joint development projects or to policy issues with joint development implications, such as parking policy, affordable housing, or supra-local TOD zoning initiatives affecting transit agency property. Section 3.0 presents a listing of selected case studies from five on-line platforms. The selected case studies either describe joint development projects or illuminate issues affecting joint development. â¢ The Federal Transit Administrationâs on-line joint development brochure (Partnering to Build Complete Communities, 2017), which includes four instructive case studies; â¢ the Federal Highway Administrationâs Center for Innovative Finance Support, which covers transit projects as well as highway and bridge projects; â¢ the Urban Land Instituteâs on-line Case Study Library; â¢ archived presentations from the Annual Meeting and Annual Rail Transit Conference of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA); â¢ archived presentations from the annual conference of Rail~Volution. The case studies selected from the Federal Transit Administration website go back to 2001. The cutoff date for the other four platforms was 2013. The APTA and Rail~Volution case studies are PowerPoint presentations, mostly by agency leaders, developers, and consultants. While of varying depth, they were selected by peer panels for inclusion in the program and represent the direct experience of their practitioner authors. The memorandum concludes with an index of all the listed case studies, sorted alphabetically by city. 2.0 Current TOD Newsletters As of 2019, there are two regularly published on-line TOD newsletters: TOD Resources (https://todresources.org/category/blog/), which identifies itself as a blog, is part of the National Public Transportation/Transit-Oriented Development Technical Assistance Initiative. The latter is a project of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), administered by the non-profit Smart Growth
Appendix H Index to Practitioner Case Studies H-2 America (SGA).131 This multi-year initiative also includes on-site, year-long technical support for a group of cities selected competitively by FTA and SGA; a short-term technical assistance resource for cities with specific questions; and a searchable library of TOD research and case study literature (which was one of the source platforms consulted in preparing the Literature Review bibliography for TCRP H-57). TOD Resources is a weekly compilation of TOD stories from a variety of sources, including newspapers and their affiliated websites; other blogs, including the regionalized Curbed and Streetsblog franchises; agency and developer press releases; regional real estate, business, and professional journals; advocacy newsletters; and academic research. While the compiled materials are not academically curated or of uniform quality, the overall resource provides joint development practitioners with a timely and important summary of events and with links to the original and related sources. The Transit-Friendly Development Newsletter is an on-line journal published through funding by NJ TRANSIT. This newsletter is produced by the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center (VTC), part of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.132 The newsletter content can be accessed at three levels, the first two of which are generally researched and written by the newsletter staff: â¢ feature articles (http://www.njtod.org/newsletter/features/), typically involving case study material from US cities outside of New Jersey; â¢ articles on TOD in New Jersey (http://www.njtod.org/newsletter/nj-tod-transit-village-news/), including projects involving NJ Transit, the State of New Jerseyâs Transit Village Program, or both; â¢ TOD News Briefs (http://www.njtod.org/newsletter/tod-news-briefs/), a weekly compilation of national and international TOD news stories. 131 https://todresources.org/help/contact-us/ 132 http://www.njt od.org/newsletter/newsletter-board/