Guidebook to Funding Transportation Through Land Value Return and Recycling (2018)

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.

B-1 Appendix B provides additional information about each case example that appears in the Guidebook, including references for readers interested in additional details. Each case example is identified by the land value return and recycling method it illustrates and the name and location of the project. The case examples are numbered in the order in which they are presented in the text of the Guidebook, as follows: Case Example 1: Split Rate Tax (General-purpose infrastructure and other governmental services, Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area) Case Example 2: Betterment Levy (Road and bridge improvements, Bogotá, Colombia) Case Example 3: Special Assessment District Fee (State Route 28 improvements, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia) Case Example 4: Sale of Air Rights (Washington Bridge Apartments, New York City, New York) Case Example 5: Sale of Air Rights (Interstate 395 Capitol Crossing, Washington, D.C.) Case Example 6: Joint Development and Air Rights Lease (Copley Place Development over the Massachusetts Turnpike, Boston, Massachusetts) Case Example 7: Joint Development and Air Rights Lease (High Street Cap development, Columbus, Ohio) Case Example 8: Transportation Utility Fee (Pavement maintenance, Oregon City, Oregon) Case Example 9: Tax Increment Financing (Roadway improvements, El Paso, Texas) Case Example 10: Development Impact Fee (Transportation system development charge, Portland, Oregon) Case Example 11: Proffer (Specific infrastructure needs, Loudoun County and City of Chesapeake, Virginia) Case Example 12: Project Benefits (Reno Rail Transportation Access Corridor, Reno, Nevada) Case Example 13: Variety of Beneficiaries (Crossrail, London) Case Example 14: Creation of Special Taxing District by a Locality (Authority for locality levy of special assessments, State of Michigan) Case Example 15: Private-Sector Advocacy for Land Value Return (NoMa–Gallaudet Metrorail Station, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C.) Case Example 16: Land Leasing (Hong Kong Rail System) Case Example 17: Special Assessment District (Potomac Yard Metrorail Station, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Alexandria, Virginia) Case Example 18: Tax Increment Financing (Denver Union Station, Denver, Colorado) Case Example 19: Tax Increment Financing (Illinois Route 53/120, Lake County, Illinois) A P P E N D I X B Summary of Case Examples

B-2 Guidebook to Funding Transportation Through Land Value Return and Recycling Case Example 20: Joint Development (Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C.) Case Example 21: Special Assessment Debt Financing (Silver Line Metrorail Extension, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia) Case Example 22: Stakeholder Support (Elgin–O’Hare Western Access Project, Chicago Metropolitan Area, Illinois) Case Example 23: Integration of Land Value Return with Transportation and Land Use Planning (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Chicago, Illinois) Case Example 24: Integration of Land Value Return with Transportation and Land Use Planning (Southern California Association of Governments) The case example summaries in this appendix are organized by the method they exemplify: land value return and recycling or land value return–like, as listed below. The electronic version of the Guidebook provides hyperlinks between the case example summaries in this appendix and the case examples presented in the body of the Guidebook. Land Value Return and Recycling Methods Land Value Tax or Split Rate Tax Case Example 1: Split Rate Tax (General-purpose infrastructure and other governmental services, Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area) ...........................B-4 Betterment Levy Case Example 2: Betterment Levy (Road and bridge improvements, Bogotá, Colombia) .....................................................................................B-4 Case Example 13: Variety of Beneficiaries (Crossrail, London) ............................................B-5 Special Assessment District Case Example 3: Special Assessment District Fee (State Route 28 improvements, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia) .................................................B-6 Case Example 22: Stakeholder Support (Elgin–O’Hare Western Access Project, Chicago Metropolitan Area, Illinois) ........................................................B-6 Case Example 21: Special Assessment Debt Financing (Silver Line Metrorail Extension, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia) ....................................................................B-7 Case Example 14: Creation of Special Taxing District by a Locality (Authority for locality levy of special assessments, State of Michigan) ............................B-8 Case Example 13: Variety of Beneficiaries (Crossrail, London) ............................................B-8 Case Example 12: Project Benefits (Reno Rail Transportation Access Corridor, Reno, Nevada) ............................................................................................B-8 Case Example 15: Private-Sector Advocacy for Land Value Return (NoMa–Gallaudet Metrorail Station, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C.) ......................B-9 Case Example 17: Special Assessment District (Potomac Yard Metrorail Station, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Alexandria, Virginia)................................................................................B-10 Sale or Lease of Public Land or Air Rights, Including Joint Development Case Example 4: Sale of Air Rights (Washington Bridge Apartments, New York City, New York) ......................................................................B-10

Summary of Case Examples B-3 Case Example 6: Joint Development and Air Rights Lease (Copley Place Development over the Massachusetts Turnpike, Boston, Massachusetts) .........................................................................................B-10 Case Example 20: Joint Development (Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C.) ....................................................B-11 Case Example 7: Joint Development and Air Rights Lease (High Street Cap development, Columbus, Ohio) .................................B-12 Case Example 5: Sale of Air Rights (Interstate 395 Capitol Crossing, Washington, D.C.) ...................................................................................B-13 Case Example 16: Land Leasing (Hong Kong Rail System) .................................................B-13 Case Example 13: Variety of Beneficiaries (Crossrail, London) ..........................................B-14 Land Value Return–Like Methods Transportation Utility Fee Case Example 8: Transportation Utility Fee (Pavement maintenance, Oregon City, Oregon) ..............................................................................B-14 Tax Increment Financing Case Example 9: Tax Increment Financing (Roadway improvements, El Paso, Texas) ..........................................................................................B-15 Case Example 18: Tax Increment Financing (Denver Union Station, Denver, Colorado) ...................................................................................B-16 Case Example 19: Tax Increment Financing (Illinois Route 53/120, Lake County, Illinois) ..............................................................................B-17 Development Impact Fee Case Example 10: Development Impact Fee (Transportation system development charge, Portland, Oregon) .......................................................................B-17 Case Example 17: Special Assessment District (Potomac Yard Metrorail Station, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Alexandria, Virginia) ....................................................................................................B-19 Exaction or Proffer Case Example 11: Proffer (Specific infrastructure needs, Loudoun County and City of Chesapeake, Virginia) ...........................................................B-19 Case Example 13: Variety of Beneficiaries (Crossrail, London) ..........................................B-20 Land Value Return Integration with Transportation and Land Use Planning Case Example 23: Integration of Land Value Return with Transportation and Land Use Planning (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Chicago, Illinois) ...............................................................B-20 Case Example 24: Integration of Land Value Return with Transportation and Land Use Planning (Southern California Association of Governments) ......................................................................................B-21

B-4 Guidebook to Funding Transportation Through Land Value Return and Recycling Case Example Summaries Land Value Return and Recycling Methods Land Value Tax or Split Rate Tax Case example 1: Split Rate Tax Project: General-purpose infrastructure and other governmental services Location: Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area Summary • By taxing buildings at a fraction (one-half to one-sixteenth) of the land value rate from 1913 to 2000, Pittsburgh was able to attract steel manufacturers and other businesses, which allowed the city to overcome budget shortfalls, outpace suburban development, and stave off the worse effects of national economic crises. • Pittsburgh suburbs of similar demographics and socioeconomics attempted different tax policies in the early 1980s. McKeesport was the first to implement the split rate tax resulting in a 38% increase in building permits, while Duquesne and Clairton experienced a decrease of 20% and 28%, respectively. Thereafter, Duquesne and Clairton also enacted a split rate tax, and all three jurisdictions saw a rise in building permits. Sources • Banzhaf, H. S., and N. Lavery. “Can the Land Tax Help Curb Urban Sprawl? Evidence from Growth Patterns in Pennsylvania.” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 67, No. 2, March 2010, pp. 169–179. • Building Permit Graphic: Incentive Taxation, Vol. 21, No. 9, Bulletin of the Center for the Study of Economics, Oct. 1995. http://www.urbantoolsconsult.org/upload/LVT%20 Jurisdictions%202013.pdf. • Interview with Mayor Tom Murphy. • Oates, W., and R. M. Schwab. “The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh Experience,” National Tax Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1 (March 1997), pp. 1–21. Appendix, Table 5, p 11. • Williams, P. R. “Pittsburgh’s Pioneering in Scientific Taxation,” fn. 59. Republished as The Pittsburgh Graded Tax Plan: Its History and Experience, Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, 1963. Betterment Levy Case example 2: Betterment Levy Project: Road and bridge improvements Location: Bogotá, Colombia Summary • Nearly $1 billion worth of investment in public works has been funded by Bogotá’s betterment levy being applied to more than 1.5 million properties. Key Findings • Tax reform, by itself, cannot reverse the impacts of an economic dislocation. A split rate tax can, however, encourage economic development. • Split rate property taxes can create more jobs, lead to more affordable housing, and incentivize more compact development than a tradi- tional property tax. • Local agencies can pursue projects of importance, which sometimes can include state projects.

Summary of Case Examples B-5 • Levy distribution takes into account the type of land use, density, degree of benefit allo- cated to each parcel, and the payment capac- ity of the property owners; per Colombian law, the levy cannot exceed property con- struction costs. • Project benefits are evaluated within an area of influence based on reduction in travel time, lower operating costs, higher quality of life, changes in land use, economic development, higher property values, integration into the urban structure of the city, optimized circu- lation and mobility, and recovery of deterio- rated or depressed areas. Sources • Ochoa, O. B. Betterment Levy in Colombia: Relevance, Procedures, and Social Acceptabil- ity. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2011. Case example 13: Variety of Beneficiaries Project: Crossrail Location: London Summary • The £14.8 billion Crossrail railway is expected to serve 200 million annual passengers while expanding the number of people within 45 minutes of central London by 1.5 million when opened in 2018. • Nearly 3 million square feet of residential, commercial, and retail space has been devel- oped within a kilometer of a Crossrail station. • The project is jointly funded by the National Government and the City of London with approximately 30% of the total costs covered by land value return and land value return–like methods, including joint development, special assessment districts, a betterment levy, and exactions. Sources • Business Rate Supplements Act, 2009. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/7/pdfs/ ukpga_20090007_en.pdf. • Crossrail. http://www.crossrail.co.uk. • Crossrail Act 2008. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/18/contents. • Crossrail Business Rates Supplement—Approval of Policies for 2016–17. https://www. london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/md1590_crossrailbrs_policies2016-17_signed.pdf. • Crossrail Business Rate Supplement. https://www.london.gov.uk/decisions/md1590-2016- 17-crossrail-business-rate-supplement. • Greater London Authority. Crossrail Funding, Use of Planning Obligations, and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy. Supplementary Planning Guidance updated March 2016. Key Findings • Use of indirect benefits when assessing and distributing charges can create controversy among property owners. • Having a high-quality, com- prehensive database with citizen participation and over- sight along with relatively low default rates—as compared with the property tax rate— can ease acceptance of the levy among taxpayers. Key Findings • Mixing and matching value return methods is more typical for large-scale projects that have a regional economic impact. • Proximity-based pricing has been a largely accepted practice for cost and benefit allocations.

B-6 Guidebook to Funding Transportation Through Land Value Return and Recycling https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/crossrail_funding_spg_updated_march_ 2016v2.pdf. • GVA. Crossrail Development Pipeline Study. Report, March 2014. http://74f85f59f39b887b 696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com/assets/library/document/c/ original/crossrail_development_pipeline_study.pdf. • Mayor of London. Community Infrastructure Levy. https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/ planning/implementing-london-plan/mayoral-community-infrastructure-levy. • Mayor of London. Community Infrastructure Levy: Charging Schedule. Feb. 29, 2012. http:// content.tfl.gov.uk/cil-charging-schedule-april-2012.pdf. Special Assessment District Case example 3: Special Assessment District Fee Project: State Route 28 improvements Location: Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia Summary • Fairfax and Loudoun counties formed Vir- ginia’s first transportation improvement district (TID) in 1987 to avoid reliance on traditional pay-as-you-go funding. • The multiphase widening and interchange improvements project received 75% of its funding from the TID. • TID revenues were collected over 14,800 con- tiguous acres (∼14 miles in length). • A nine-member commission with equal rep- resentation from the two counties plus the Virginia Secretary of Transportation governs the TID. Sources • Fairfax County Economic Development Authority. Official Statement, Transporta- tion Contract Revenue Bonds (Route 28 Project). $51,505,000. Series 2008. July 9, 2008. • Route 28 Tax District Commission and Advisory Board. https://www.loudoun.gov/index. aspx?nid=2292&PREVIEW=YES. • Interviews with Virginia Department of Transportation, Finance Division. Case example 22: Stakeholder Support Project: Elgin–O’Hare Western Access Project Location: Chicago Metropolitan Area, Illinois Summary • Although the project ultimately was not implemented, the Governor of Illinois established an advisory council to review land value return options. • A special service area was considered and found to have the potential of raising from $80 million to $150 million, depending on the corridor buffer. Key Findings • Special assessment districts can accelerate project development. • Such districts are particularly advantageous in corridors where a local match is needed to leverage federal funds. • Having a backup guarantor can help bridge the gap resulting from declining property values. Key Findings • Revenues can be sensitive to the contiguous buffer area around the project location. • When selecting a special assessment district, special care must be given to evalu- ating and communicating a fair distribution of project costs and benefits.

Summary of Case Examples B-7 • A majority of electors and owners ultimately filed a blocking petition over concerns about an inequitable share of project costs and benefits across the special service area. Sources • Attorneys’ Title Guarantee Fund. Special Area Financing: The Basics. Case Notes Underwriters’ Basics. https://www.atgf.com/tools-publications/pubs/special-service-area-financing-basics. • Elgin–O’Hare West Bypass Advisory Council. Final Report to Governor Pat Quinn. June 2011. Case example 21: Special Assessment Debt Financing Project: Silver Line Metrorail Extension, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Location: Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia Summary • The Silver Line is a 23-mile, multiphase exten- sion to the Washington, D.C., Metrorail system that will ultimately provide access to Dulles International Airport. The Silver Line is cur- rently operating through Reston, Virginia, and the second phase is expected to open in 2020. • The estimated $5.8 billion project is being paid for by the Federal Government, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, and aviation funds and toll revenues from the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). • Both Fairfax and Loudoun counties have established special assessment districts to cover their share of costs, with those revenues then leveraged with debt issuance and Transporta- tion Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans. • Adjacent commercial and industrial properties were levied a supplemental tax of $0.22 to $0.40 per $100 of assessed value, and countywide commercial and industrial properties were levied a $0.11 tax per $100 of assessed value in Fairfax County to cover their $918 million share of project costs. In Loudoun County, adjacent properties were taxed at the rate of $0.20 per $100 of assessed value. • A memorandum of agreement was established between U.S. Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Fairfax and Loudoun Counties. Sources • Dulles Metrorail. http://www.dullesmetro.com/. • Fairfax County, Virginia. Dulles Metrorail Project. Briefing to Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Transportation Subcommittee, March 6, 2009. • Loudoun County, Virginia. Metrorail Financial Obligations. Board of Supervisors Meeting, Feb. 14, 2017. https://lfportal.loudoun.gov/LFPortalinternet/0/doc/213393/Electronic.aspx. • Loudoun County, Virginia. Overview of Loudoun’s Metrorail Service Districts. Presentation to the Dulles Corridor Rail Association, 2013. http://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenter/View/83834. • Memorandum of Agreement Among United States Department of Transportation, Com- monwealth of Virginia, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. https://www. transportation.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/FTADulles.pdf. Key Findings • Tax shares can be scaled by proximity to the project when a benefit can be broadly attributed to the greater region. • High-quality credit ratings (earned in part with strong property values and collection rates) are invaluable when issuing debt.

B-8 Guidebook to Funding Transportation Through Land Value Return and Recycling • Reconnecting America’s Center for Transit-Oriented Development. Capturing the Value of Transit. Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008. http:// www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/ctodvalcapture110508v2.pdf. • TIFIA Letter of Interest. http://metwashairports.com/sites/default/files/archive/mwaa.com/ file/TIFIA_Letter_of_Interest(1).pdf • TIFIA Project Database. https://www.transportation.gov/tifia/financed-projects/dulles- corridor-metrorail-project. Case example 14: Creation of Special Taxing District by a Locality Project: Authority for locality levy of special assessments Location: State of Michigan Summary • Since Public Act 188 passed in 1954, Michigan localities have had the power to levy special assessments to pay for infrastructure improve- ments, including roads, bicycle and pedestrian pathways, and existing sanitary and storm sewers. • In Michigan, localities are authorized to issue bonds and then repay the debt with special assessments. • Extra communications and guidelines are in place when improved roads are under state jurisdiction. Sources • Public Act 188 of 1954. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(3oxtrawdwpsznggx5xtwm0vi))/ mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-act-188-of-1954. • Wayne Domine, Director, Bloomfield Township Engineering & Environmental Services De- partment. wdomine@bloomfieldtwp.org; EES_dept@bloomfieldtwp.org; phone 248/594.2800. Case example 13: Variety of Beneficiaries Project: Crossrail Location: London See summary in the section of case examples of betterment levies. Case example 12: Project Benefits Project: Reno Rail Transportation Access Corridor Location: Reno, Nevada Summary • Trenching a 2.25-mile freight corridor in downtown Reno eliminated 10 at-grade crossings, which prevented roadway-related crashes, improved traffic flow, decreased emergency response times, increased prop- erty values, spurred new economic devel- opment, and led to various environmental benefits. Key Findings Separating railways from com- mercial development traffic can have a wide range of benefits, including the encouragement of more dense land uses in urban areas. Key Findings Financing projects with bonds can accelerate project develop- ment and, depending on the terms and conditions, allow for a more gradual collection of special assessments to repay the debt.

Summary of Case Examples B-9 • A 175.24-acre special assessment district was set up to fund the project and encourage more hotel and casino activity and other dense commercial land use. Sources • Center for Innovative Finance Support. Project Profile: Reno Rail Transportation Access Corridor (RETRAC). Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nv_retrac.aspx. • Chisel, R. Staff Report: Staff Report (For Possible Action): Ordinance Adoption—Bill No. 6980 Ordinance Refinancing the City of Reno, Nevada, 1999 Special Assessment Dis- trict No. 2; authorizing the issuance of Local Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 (ReTRAC Project). http://renocitynv.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=30&ID=20653 &MeetingID=1315. • Citizens for Public Train Trench Vote v. City of Reno SDA LLC. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ nv-supreme-court/1291278.html. • City of Reno. About ReTRAC. http://www.reno.gov/government/departments/public-works/ past-projects/retrac/about-retrac. • City of Reno. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. http://www.reno.gov/home/showdocument?id=28208. • City of Reno. Request for Preliminary Proposals for Design–Build of the Proposed Reno Transportation Rail Access Corridor. July 27, 2001. http://www.reno.gov/home/ showdocument?id=5418. • Minutes, Joint Regular Meeting, Reno City Council & Redevelopment Agency Board, Wednes- day, Aug. 24, 2016, 10:00 a.m. http://www.reno.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=63572. • Official Statement—City of Reno, Nevada, 1999 Special Assessment District No. 2 Local Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 (ReTRAC Project). Case example 15: Private-Sector Advocacy for Land Value Return Project: NoMa–Gallaudet Metrorail Station, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Location: Washington, D.C. Summary • Infill Metrorail station. • Because of nearby street congestion, building permits were denied. • A Metrorail station would enable granting of permits. • Understanding that a new station would likely substantially increase land value, the govern- ment required a landowner contribution. • Commercial landowners agreed to contrib- ute $25 million. • A special assessment district was established on commercial land near the station, and the revenue was dedicated to repay a $25 million city bond. Sources • RKG Associates. 2004–2014, 10 Years and Growing. Success Built on Transit. Nov. 2014. http:// www.nomabid.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/MetroAnniversaryReport_RKG.pdf. • Rybeck, R. Using Value Capture to Finance Infrastructure and Encourage Compact Develop- ment. Public Works Management & Policy Journal, 2004. https://www.mwcog.org/uploads/ committee-documents/k15fVl1f20080424150651.pdf. Key Findings In strong real estate markets, land owners demonstrate willing- ness to contribute to infrastruc- ture investment that will benefit (or enable) development.

B-10 Guidebook to Funding Transportation Through Land Value Return and Recycling Case example 17: Special Assessment District Project: Potomac Yard Metrorail Station, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Location: Alexandria, Virginia Summary • Infill Metrorail station planned for Potomac Yard development. • Developer contributions; revenues from two special assessment districts; regional, state, and federal grants; and net new tax revenues from development in the area will fund the station. Sources • City of Alexandria, Virginia. Potomac Yard Metrorail Station Project. https://www.alex- andriava.gov/PotomacYard. • Final Environmental Impact Statement. June 2016. https://www.alexandriava.gov/ potomacyard/default.aspx?id=56902#FinalEnvironmentalImpactStatementEIS. Sale or Lease of Public Land or Air Rights, Including Joint Development Case example 4: Sale of Air Rights Project: Washington Bridge Apartments Location: New York City, New York Summary • Air rights above Interstate 95 sold to a devel- oper to build apartments. • Enabled generation of property tax revenue again from land utilized for Interstate 95. • Sale of air rights removed the ability of New York City to benefit from future increases in land value. Sources • Gissen, D. Exhaust and Territorialisation at the Washington Bridge Apartments, New York City, 1963–1973. Journal of Architec- ture, Vol. 21, 2016, pp. 734–746. • TRData. TRD Topics: George Washington. https://therealdeal.com/new-research/topics/ property/george-washington/. • White, N., E. Willensky, and F. Leadon. AIA Guide to NYC, 5th ed. Oxford University Press, 2010. Case example 6: Joint Development and Air Rights Lease Project: Copley Place Development over the Massachusetts Turnpike Location: Boston, Massachusetts Summary • Construction of the Massachusetts Turnpike helped provide access to and supported revital- ization efforts in downtown Boston; however, the turnpike introduced breaks in the urban fabric and limited the amount of land available for development. Key Findings Value return methods can be used together to raise revenues for transportation investments. Key Findings • Long-standing project built in 1964. • New York real estate market and density facilitated success. • Brought back property tax revenue to the city eliminated by the construction of I-95.

Summary of Case Examples B-11 • Through a 99-year lease of an air rights parcel over the turnpike, the Copley Place mixed- use development ($500 million, 9.5 acres) generated new revenue for the city. • A memorandum of understanding between the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the City of Boston outlines procedures and policies for future air rights developments. Sources • Amended Restated Lease. Massachusetts Turn- pike Authority to Urban Investment and Development Co. of Copley Place, Boston, Massachusetts. 1980. https://archive.org/ details/amendedrestatedl00mass. • City of Boston. A Civic Vision for Turnpike Air Rights in Boston. 2000. http://www.nabbon- line.com/files/Turnpike_Air_Rights_Civic_ Vision.pdf. • Economic Development Research Group, Inc. Real Estate Impacts of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project. 2006. http://www. edrgroup.com/pdf/mta-economic-v2.pdf. • Horak, M. M. The Role of the Boston Redevelopment Authority in the Planning and Implementa- tion of Copley Place, Boston, Massachusetts. MS thesis, University of Rhode Island, 1982. http:// digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses/644. • Logan, T. Developers are Showing New Interest in Mass. Pike Air Rights Project. Boston Globe, Oct. 24, 2016. https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/10/24/columbus-center-project- resurfaces/MqAwjORYSUQWJCzSWconkK/story.html. • Schulte, A. The Development of Roadway Air Rights: Boston’s Future, A Slave to its Past. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2009. http://lawdigital commons.bc.edu/ealr/vol36/iss2/12 Case example 20: Joint Development Project: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Location: Washington, D.C. Summary • The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) has been funding proj- ects through joint development since the 1970s. • By establishing specific goals, criteria, and requirements for a development that will occur adjacent to or above a station, WMATA has been able to successfully fund dozens of projects by selecting the most attractive offer— inclusive of connection fees as applicable— when a satisfactory one exists. • WMATA has set a goal of promoting transit- oriented developments through smart growth Key Findings • Significant potential exists for large-scale projects on “found” urban land when land scarcity impedes economic growth. • Risks associated with project cost, complexity, timeline uncertainty, and multiactor regulatory complexity should be properly assessed, moni- tored, and managed. • Real estate market conditions can help determine the feasi- bility of leasing air rights. Key Findings • Joint developments can create a bidding environ- ment for development around agency goals and objectives. • Having the flexibility to accept or reject proposals gives more control to the agency and the assurance that proper benefits will be obtained for stakeholders.

B-12 Guidebook to Funding Transportation Through Land Value Return and Recycling principles including: reducing automobile dependency, increasing pedestrian/bicycle- originated transit trips, fostering safe station areas, enhancing surrounding area connec- tions to transit stations, including bus access, promoting mixed-use development with housing, offering the opportunity to obtain goods and services and enjoy active public spaces near transit stations, attracting new riders to the transit system, creating ongoing sources of revenue for WMATA’s long-term financial sustainability, and assisting local jurisdictions in achieving their goals for economic development. Sources • Joint Development Policies and Guidelines: FY2018 Proposed Budget. http://www.wmata.com. Case example 7: Joint Development and Air Rights Lease Project: High Street Cap development Location: Columbus, Ohio Summary • The High Street Cap (also known as the Cap at Union Station) is a $7.8 million, 25,496 square foot pedestrian-oriented retail development that reconnects downtown Columbus with the Short North neighbor- hood by building over the I-670 inner-belt highway. • The City of Columbus, Continental Real Estate Companies (the developer), the Ohio Department of Transportation (DOT), and FHWA collaborated to lease 13 air-rights parcels in coordination with the I-670 wid- ening project. • The FHWA sought assurance that the devel- opment would not interfere with highway operations, maintenance, or safety. • After the developer expressed concern over economic viability, FHWA made an exception to fair market value requirements for leases of highway air rights and agreed to the City entering into a risk-return agreement along with a 10-year full property tax abatement in exchange for profit-return (10% of ongoing profits from the leased retail space and of sale price) while giving the Ohio DOT the ability to impose design constraints and maintain the right to close down the Cap in case of emergencies. • The developer ultimately secured tenants who were willing to pay up to a 30% premium for retail space. Sources • The Cap at Union Station. ULI Development Case Studies. http://casestudies.uli.org/ wp-content/uploads/sites/98/2015/12/C035010.pdf. • Decking over Freeways Isn’t as Lucrative as You Might Think—But There Are Alterna- tives. West North, Oct. 8, 2015. https://westnorth.com/2015/10/08/decking-over-freeways- isnt-as-lucrative-as-you-might-think-but-there-are-alternatives/. • The High Street Cap: Bridging the Gap: TE Funds Repair a Tear in the Urban Fabric of Columbus, Ohio. Connections, Vol. 8, No. 2 Spring 2005. http://trade.railstotrails.org/action/ document/download?document_id=64. Key Findings • Coordinating air rights devel- opments with widening proj- ects can reduce complexity and cost of construction. • Fair market value for air rights can be difficult to quantify, even with nearby property values. • Profit-return agreements in exchange for risk return can help accelerate deals.

Summary of Case Examples B-13 • Kamin, B. Ohio Highway Cap at Forefront of Urban Design Trend: Retail Complex Atop Columbus Expressway Offers Model for Chicago. Chicago Tribune, Oct. 27, 2011. http:// articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-27/news/ct-met-kamin-highway-caps-20111027_ 1_cap-union-station-interstate-highway. Case example 5: Sale of Air Rights Project: Interstate 395 Capitol Crossing Location: Washington, D.C. Summary • The Capitol Crossing deck and development, which covers three blocks between Massa- chusetts Avenue and E Street NW, will close a freeway-created gap that separates the cen- tral business district from the East End in Washington, D.C. Capitol Crossing involves 6.8 acres and 2.2 million square feet of mixed- use development soaring over Interstate 395. Capitol Crossing will establish a con- crete deck over the highway stretching from E Street on the south to Massachusetts Ave- nue on the north. It is the largest air rights project in the District of Columbia involving decking. It will also be known as the nation’s first ecodistrict. The project began in 2015. • The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the project on March 26, 2012, after a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). • The project is projected to create 4,000 construction jobs, 8,000 permanent jobs, and $40 million in annual property tax revenue. • Approximately $120 million was made in payments to the District for the air rights by Property Group Partners. Sources • Capitol Crossing Project. http://www.capitolcrossingdc.com/#location. • DC Air Rights Project Restores City Traffic Grid. https://www.enr.com/articles/41120-dc- air-rights-project-restores-city-traffic-grid. • Property Group Partners Acquires Air Rights for Capitol Crossing. http://www.pgp.us.com/ 2016/04/19/pgp-acquires-air-rights-for-capitol-crossing/. Case example 16: Land Leasing Project: Hong Kong Rail System Location: Hong Kong Summary • MTR, the operator, generated $1.5 billion in 2014 profit and paid $590 million in dividends to the Hong Kong government for operating 221 kilometers of rail for more than 5 million daily (weekday) riders. • The land lease approach helped MTR realize such profits by purchasing development rights at “pre-rail” value from the government and then reselling development rights at increased “with rail” prices given added value (estimated at a 39 percent increase between 1970 and 1991) from improved accessibility. Key Findings • Joint developments can create a bidding environment for development around agency goals and objectives. • Fair market value of air rights is difficult to establish. • Coordinating air rights proj- ects with highway-related construction is a more efficient way of managing costs.

B-14 Guidebook to Funding Transportation Through Land Value Return and Recycling • This strategy helps pay for railway station development; in total, the model and other land-related revenues accounted for 79 per- cent of infrastructure investments. Sources • Cervero, R., and J. Murakami. Rail + Property Development: A Model of Sustainable Transit Finance and Urbanism, 2008. http://www.its. berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/publications/ UCB/2008/VWP/UCB-ITS-VWP-2008-5.pdf. • Hong, Y.-H., and A. H. S. Lam. Opportuni- ties and Risks of Capturing Land Values Under Hong Kong’s Leasehold System. Technical report. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1998. http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/download. asp?doc_id=24&pub_id=65. • Leong, L. The ‘Rail Plus Property’ Model: Hong Kong’s Successful Self-Financing Formula. McKinsey and Company, 2016. http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and- infrastructure/our-insights/the-rail-plus-property-model. • MTR Corporation. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation. • Padukone, N. The Unique Genius of Hong Kong’s Public Transportation System. The Atlantic, Sept. 10, 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/09/the-unique- genius-of-hong-kongs-public-transportation-system/279528/. • Zhao, Z. J., K. V. Das, and K. Larson. Joint Development as a Value Capture Strategy for Pub- lic Transit Finance. Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 5–17, 2012. https:// www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/viewFile/142/208. Case example 13: Variety of Beneficiaries Project: Crossrail Location: London See summary in the section of case examples of betterment levies. Land Value Return–Like Methods Transportation Utility Fee Case example 8: Transportation Utility Fee Project: Pavement maintenance Location: Oregon City, Oregon Summary • In 2008, Oregon City adopted a monthly pavement maintenance utility fee based on the number of trips expected to be gener- ated by certain land use types and collected via utility bills. • This fee applies to local maintenance and repairs; with residential customers charged to maintain local roads and nonresidential Key Findings • The rail + property model can be highly lucrative but requires a dense population center with an active transit system. • Hong Kong market condi- tions are fairly unique, and so would require further study to assess how transferable this strategy is to other regions. Key Findings • Phased implementation of fees can ease the initial bur- den on tax payers. • Splitting costs by functional classification can ease fee acceptance among stakehold- ers by allowing them to more clearly see how their invest- ment is serving them.

Summary of Case Examples B-15 customers charged to maintain arterial roads, both share the maintenance costs for col- lector streets. • Land use trip rates were developed by using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Report. • Fees were phased over several years to ease the immediate cost burden, with residential customers charged $4.50 per month in Year 1 and ultimately $11 per month in Year 5; commercial customers were charged $0.154 to $7.70 per square foot of gross floor area in Year 1 and ultimately $0.384 to $19.20 per square foot of gross floor by the end of the 5 years. Sources • Carlson, D., B. Duckwitz, K. Kurowski, and L. Smith. Transportation Utility Fees: Possibilities for the City of Milwaukee. Prepared for Division of Budget and Management, Department of Administration, City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Workshop in Public Affairs, Domestic Affairs, Public Affairs 869, Spring 2007. Robert M. Follete School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin–Madison. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 2007. http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.433.4806&rep=rep1&type=pdf. • Ewing, R. Transportation Utility Fees, ITE Journal, pp. 34–38, 1993. • Oregon City, Public Works Department. www.orcity.org/publicworks/transporation-utility- fee (obtained 3/12/17). • Transportation Utility Fees, Oregon City, Oregon. http://www.orcity.org/publicworks/ transporation-utility-fee. Accessed 2017. • Transportation Utility Fees. Hillsboro. https://www.hillsboro-oregon.gov/departments/ public-works/transportation/transportation-utility-fee. Tax Increment Financing Case example 9: Tax Increment Financing Project: Roadway improvements Location: El Paso, Texas Summary • The City of El Paso established transporta- tion reinvestment zones (TRZs) to generate funds for $403 million worth of I-10 proj- ects identified in its 2008 Comprehensive Management Plan. The TRZs operate in a manner similar to tax increment finance. However, they are different in that they sup- port only transportation projects. • Texas localities are empowered to create TRZs to support underdeveloped areas by promoting public safety, facilitating property improvement, facilitating the movement of traffic, and enhancing the local entity’s abil- ity to sponsor transportation projects. • State challenges have arisen, however, given a Texas Constitution requirement for “equal and uniform” taxation. Sources • Aldrete, R. M., S. Vadali, D. Sagaldo, S. Chandra, L. Cornejo, and A. Bujanda. Transportation Key Findings • Counties cannot consider reinvestment zones, but cities are authorized. Some caution should be taken when develop- ing reinvestment zones, given possible issues about “equal and uniform taxation” clauses. • Local agencies can use re investment zones to gain more control over what projects get funded in their municipality with close col- laboration with their state department of transportation and planning partners.

B-16 Guidebook to Funding Transportation Through Land Value Return and Recycling Reinvestment Zones: Texas Legislative History and Implementation. Final Report PRC 15-36F. Texas Transportation Institute, Policy Research Center, College Station, 2016. • Letter from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to The Honorable Joseph C. Pickett, Chair, Committee on Transportation, Texas House of Representatives, Feb. 26, 2015. • Reeves, K. Texas AG Opinion Barring Use of Transportation Reinvestment Zones to Fund Roads Draws Flak. Austin Business Journal, Feb. 27, 2015. http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ blog/abj-at-the-capitol/2015/02/texas-ag-opinion-barring-use-of-reinvestment-zones.html. Accessed March 21, 2017. • Saginor, J., E. Dumbaugh, D. Ellis, and M. Xu. Leveraging Land Development Returns to Finance Transportation Infrastructure Improvements. UTCM Project 09-13-12. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 2011. • Texas Attorney General Opinion GA-1076. Aug. 14, 2014. • Texas Department of Transportation. Transportation Reinvestment Zones. http://www. txdot.gov/government/programs/trz.html. Accessed March 21, 2017. • Vadali, S. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 459: Using the Economic Value Created by Transportation to Fund Transportation. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014. • Vadali, S. R., R. M Aldrete., and A. Bujanda. Financial Model to Assess Value Capture Potential of a Roadway Project. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2115, pp. 1–11, 2009. • Vadali, S., R. Aldrete, A. Bujanda, S. Swapni, B. Kuhn, T. Geiselbrecht, Y. Li, S. Lyle, M. Zhang, K. Dalton, and S. Tooley. Transportation Reinvestment Zone Handbook. FHWA/TX-11/ 0-6538-2. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 2010. Case example 18: Tax Increment Financing Project: Denver Union Station Location: Denver, Colorado Summary • Redevelopment of a historic train station and construction of commuter rail, light rail, and bus facilities to serve as a major node in Denver. • Funding and financing sources included sales tax revenues, tax increment financing, and an appropriation backstop from the City and County of Denver to improve the credit qual- ity of debt. • Loans were received from both the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan program and the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program. • Tax increment financing revenues and property taxes were expected to cover debt service, but sales taxes and the city-contingent commitment provided a backstop in the event that these revenues were insufficient. Sources • BATIC Institute Webinar. http://www.financingtransportation.org/capacity_building/event_ details/webinar_dus.aspx. Key Findings • Tax increment financing can require backstop support to improve credit quality. • Tax increment financing can work in tandem with tradi- tional sources of funding such as sales tax revenues.

Summary of Case Examples B-17 • Denver Union Station Project Authority. Plan of Finance Prepared for Federal Highway Administration. TIFIA Joint Program Office, Feb. 1, 2011. • Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/co_union_ station.aspx. • Regional Transportation District. http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/dus_1. Case example 19: Tax Increment Financing Project: Illinois Route 53/120 Location: Lake County, Illinois Summary • The project is currently in the planning phases. Tax increment financing is being considered to partially fund Illinois Route 53/120. • A 2015 feasibility study was tasked with determining a financially viable, fiscally sus- tainable, and equitable approach to funding the project. • The 2015 study proposed a “Sustainable Transportation Fund” that would collect 25 percent of increased property taxes from nonresidential parcels near the roadway. • Revenue from the fund would pay for envi- ronmental restoration and stewardship. This connection secured local support and met the need to protect and enhance natural resources surrounding the roadway. Further, these types of improvements are not eligible for funding through toll revenues per state statutes. Sources • Illinois Route 53/120 Feasibility Analysis. March 2015. https://www.illinoistollway.com/ documents/20184/96146/201503+53-120+Finance+Committee_Final+Report/9173fbe2- 173a-47ee-85b5-1639f9221997?version=1.0. • Illinois Route 53/120 Project Blue Ribbon Advisory Council Resolution and Summary Report. 2012. https://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/20184/96209/2012-06_FinalCouncil SummaryReport_web.pdf/4a6426bf-a46b-476e-bdee-bdc4b2d26d21. • Illinois Tax Increment Association. About TIF. http://www.illinois-tif.com/about-tif/. • Move Illinois. Illinois Route 53/120 Project Overview. https://www.illinoistollway.com/ documents/20184/96146/IL_Route53_120_FactSheet_FINAL_081613.pdf/d704f34b-bdb2- 4532-bb47-ec94c80f272c. Development Impact Fee Case example 10: Development Impact Fee Project: Transportation system development charge Location: Portland, Oregon Summary • Portland, Oregon, began imposing transportation system development charges (TSDCs) in 1997 to help accommodate the costs of new capacity improvements necessitated by economic growth. Key Findings • Stakeholder and community interests may lend themselves to use of land value return– like funding to cover costs outside of traditional infra- structure investments. • Feasibility studies and public involvement can ensure proj- ects meet community needs and obtain support for land value return–like funding.

B-18 Guidebook to Funding Transportation Through Land Value Return and Recycling • Each development in Portland pays a one- time TSDC based on the expected num- ber of vehicle- and person-trips generated, as determined by the Portland Bureau of Transportation. • The pool of TSDC funds is expected to cover approximately 25% of growth-oriented, multimodal transportation improvement projects over the next 10 to 20 years. • The city oversees a capital improvement plan with an accompanying methodology that details the calculation of fees for reimburse- ment (when projects that would supply sufficient capacity have been or already are under construction) and improvement (transportation, water, sewer, drainage, or parks and rec- reation projects yet to be constructed). Sources • Chapter 457: Urban Renewal. OregonLaws.org. https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/ chapter/457. • City of Portland Rate Study, 2007. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/242994. • City of Portland, Office of Transportation. Update of Transportation System Develop- ment Charges (TSDC) report. July 3, 2007. http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/ article/313028. • Interview with Barbara Fraser, Oregon Department of Transportation. • League of Oregon Cities. SDC Survey Report. Summary Data and Tables. 2013http://www. orcities.org/Portals/17/Premium/SDC_Survey_Report_2013.pdf. Accessed 2017. • Legislative Policy and Research Office. Funding Transportation: Background Brief. Sept. 2016. • Murphy, N. Methods for Financing Transportation. Transportation Development Division, Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, 2010. • Portland Bureau of Transportation. Portland 2008–2017 Project List. https://www.portland oregon.gov/transportation/article/627303?. Accessed 2017. • Portland Development Commission. North Macadam Urban Renewal Area. https://prosper portland.us/what-we-do/urban-renewal/. • Portland Development Commission. North Macadam Urban Renewal. City of Portland, Bureau of Transportation. • Portland’s Streets. City Club of Portland. End the Funding Gridlock. http://members. pdxcityclub.com/library/reportarchive/viewreportresolution?DocumentKey=eb70b88a- 2b8f-4a0c-9603-e631421b68cd. • South Waterfront District. Street Plan: Criteria and Standards, 2009. • Strathman, J. G., and E. Simmons. Financing Mechanisms for Capital Improvements: Interchanges. SPR 687 OTRECRR-10-07. Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, 2010. • System Development Charges. City of Portland, Oregon, Development Services Center. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/166412 • Urban Renewal FAQs. https://www.downtowndevelopment.com/pdf/Hills_UrbanRenewal- FAQHandout.pdf. Accessed 2017. • Vadali, S. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 459: Using the Economic Value Created by Transportation to Fund Transportation. Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- emies, Washington, D.C., 2014. Key Findings Establishing a sustainable pool of funds from developments to cover infrastructure projects and taking a long-term view of potential projects can help agencies stay ahead of new growth.

Summary of Case Examples B-19 Case example 17: Special Assessment District Project: Potomac Yard Metrorail Station, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Location: Alexandria, Virginia See summary in the section on case examples of special assessment districts. Exaction or Proffer Case example 11: Proffer Project: Specific infrastructure needs Location: Loudoun County and City of Chesapeake, Virginia Summary • In 2016, the Virginia General Assembly adopted new legislation that would pro- hibit localities from requesting or accepting any “unreasonable” proffer from residential rezonings. • A reasonable proffer is considered one that is specifically attributable to the proposed use. • Proffers pertaining to offsite improvements (including cash proffers) must further be proved to have a “direct and material benefit” and create a need or portion of a need for public facility improvement beyond existing public facility capacity. Sources • Commission on Local Government, Commonwealth of Virginia. Nov. 2016. http://www. dhcd.virginia.gov/index.php/commission-on-local-government/cash-proffer-reporting. html. • Interviews with Audrey Moruza and others, Virginia Department of Transportation. • Harrigan, L., and A. von Hoffman. Happy to Grow: Development and Planning in Fairfax County, Virginia. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass, 2004. • ITE Technical Council Committee. Private Financing of Transportation Improvements. ITE Journal, Vol. 58, No. 6, 1988. https://trid.trb.org/view/282624. • O’Leary, A. Beyond the Byrd Act: VDOT’s Relationship with Virginia’s Urban Counties. Final Report. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, 1998. • Ohlms, P. B. Local Government Funding and Financing of Roads: Virginia Case Studies and Examples from Other States. Virginia Center for Transportation, Innovation, and Research, 2014. http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/15-r2.pdf. Accessed 2017. • Prince William County Department of Planning. http://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/ planning/pages/proffer-administration.aspx. • Public–Private Transportation Act of 1995, Virginia. http://www.virginiadot.org/business/ resources/ppta-overview.pdf. Accessed 2017. • Route 28 (Linton Hall Road to Fitzwater Drive). Prince William County FY 2013–2018 Capi- tal Improvement Program. http://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/budget/Documents/ 13CIP—03—Transportation—Rt%2028.pdf. Accessed 2017. • Senate Bill 549; Virginia Code § 15.2-2303.4 • Virginia Acts of Assembly. https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+ful+CHAP0322+pdf. Accessed 2017. Key Findings Having a clearer linkage between proposed use and conditions proffered to mitigate impacts can streamline residential rezonings.

B-20 Guidebook to Funding Transportation Through Land Value Return and Recycling • Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Report on Proffered Cash Payments and Expenditures by Virginia’s Counties, Cities, and Towns, 2015–2016. http:// www.dhcd.virginia.gov. • Zoning Evaluation Division, Fairfax County, Virginia. The Proffer System in Land use Regu- lation in Fairfax County, 2009. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/resources/proffer_system_ paper-revised.pdf. Accessed 2009. Case example 13: Variety of Beneficiaries Project: Crossrail Location: London See summary in the section of case examples of betterment levies. Land Value Return Integration with Transportation and Land Use Planning Case example 23: Integration of Land Value Return with Transportation and Land Use Planning Project: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Location: Chicago, Illinois Summary • The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Plan- ning (CMAP) began evaluating land value return for major capital projects as part of its Go To 2040 long-range plan after it realized the potential number of additional projects that could be funded while keeping within the same financial constraints. • CMAP has begun developing implementation plans for major projects that include land value return considerations. Initial analy- ses have been completed as part of the Blue Ribbon Advisory Council for Route 53/120 and the Chicago Transit Authority Red and Purple Line Modernization Program. • The most common land value return tech- niques discussed have been special assess- ment districts and tax increment financing. Sources • CMAP. Go To 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan. Full Version, Oct. 2010. http:// www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/17842/long_plan_FINAL_100610_web. pdf/1e1ff482-7013-4f5f-90d5-90d395087a53. • CMAP. Transportation System Funding Concepts. 2016. http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/ documents/10180/570463/Transportation+System+Funding+Concepts/a40cfa4a-4743-4cfb- 83c3-44f1d1d0ef02. • Interview with Elizabeth Schuh, Principal, Policy & Programming, CMAP, March 2017. Key Findings • Starting the financing discus- sion at the long-range phase has helped the Metropolitan Planning Organization move more quickly into implemen- tation phases. • Being able to answer “How much is this going to cost me?” is crucial for stakeholder communications; having examples prepared for how much various types of people would pay is an effective public outreach tool.

Summary of Case Examples B-21 Case example 24: Integration of Land Value Return with Transportation and Land Use Planning Project: Southern California Association of Governments Location: Southern California Countries of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Summary • The Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG’s) Regional Trans- portation Plan (RTP) considers land value return sources of funding in the identifica- tion of “reasonably available” funding. It considers infrastructure financing districts and other local tools. • The RTP also integrates the consideration of transportation and land use strategies through broadened regional goals that incorporate sustainability and improved quality of life. Sources • Southern California Association of Govern- ments. Assessing Sustain able Planning in Southern California: Evaluating the 2012 RTP/ SCS with INVEST. Los Angeles, Ca., 2012. https://www.sustainable highways.org/779/ 69/scag-assessing-sustainable-planning-in- southern-california.html. • Southern California Association of Governments. Paying for the Plan. Los Angeles, Ca., 2016. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/proposed/pf2016RTPSCS_06_PayingForThePlan.pdf. • Southern California Association of Governments. The 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability and a High Quality of Life. Los Angeles, Ca., 2016. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/ f2016RTPSCS.pdf. Key Findings • Integrated transportation and land use planning can facilitate the consideration of value return funding methods. • Metropolitan planning orga- nizations are beginning to explore strategies to integrate value return funding methods and land use planning into their regional transportation plans.