Tax Increment Financing for Transit Projects (2020)

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.

TCRP LRD 55 5 C. Digest Organization Section II of this digest provides context for the study in sev- eral ways. It first describes TIF and how it works. Next it dis- cusses the role of operational expenditures in supporting transit system services. Finally, it considers the available evidence de- scribing whether, how, and under what circumstances invest- ments in transit, particularly in transit operations, might be anticipated to enhance property values, a prerequisite for TIF. Section III of the digest provides the legal review of TIF enabling legislation and of TIF case law. The review illuminates how key elements of the TIF legal framework influence the likelihood that TIF can be used to support public transit investment, and it includes discusses general observations about the use of TIFs broadly. It highlights common themes in how state laws circum- scribe the use of TIFs and summarizes key requirements in a state-by-state table. Subsequently, the report reflects on the key issue areas around which TIFs have been litigated. This mate- rial highlights key considerations for local jurisdictions or agen- cies wondering whether and how TIF might be used to support transit investment and operations locally. Section IV reflects on the dimensions in which TIF legal frameworks present specific demands and potential challenges in general and more specifi- cally, for TIF applications organized around transit investments, particularly operating investments. Key issues include restric- tions on TIF expenditures, sensitivities around revenue sharing, and gentrification concerns. Finally, the Appendix discusses the individual cases encountered in the course of this research. For three case studies, the text discusses what problems the TIF was implemented to solve, what enabling legislation and political issues allowed its creation, and what takeaways can be applied to other cases. Relevant counter-examples are also explored to illustrate why and how a certain usage of TIF might not be pos- sible elsewhere. II. USING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING FOR TRANSIT OPERATIONS A. What Is Tax Increment Financing? Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is an economic develop- ment tool that relies on value capture. First used in California in the early 1950s, TIF began as a means to spur urban renewal in inner-city neighborhoods or other areas where real estate market conditions were deemed unfavorable. It was politically popular because it did not require raising new taxes.5 State leg- islation enabling TIFs typically justifies the establishment of a TIF district on the presence of blight. TIF legislation commonly assumes that where blighted conditions exist, economic devel- opment will not occur “but for” some public investment in capi- tal improvements. 5 George Lefcoe & Charles W. Swenson, The Demise of TIF-Funded Redevelopment in California (2014), https://www. planningreport.com/2014/07/24/demise-tif-funded-redevelopment- california. strategies whereby agencies leverage the value created by spe- cific transit facilities or services in order to pay for them. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is one kind of value capture attracting growing interest among U.S. transit agencies. TIF is one of the most widely-used mechanisms for financing eco- nomic development among U.S. local governments. All states— except Arizona—have enabling legislation allowing local gov- ernments and independent authorities (e.g., redevelopment agencies) to define a geographically-bounded TIF district and to steer increments of increased tax value, typically property tax, generated within that district to fund public improvements and other district-based economic development initiatives. For transit operators, however, considerable uncertainty sur- rounds whether and how public transportation agencies might use TIF, particularly for non-capital expenditures. As used by local governments, TIFs have traditionally supported capital improvements and infrastructure investments in redevelopment areas. For transit agencies, it is unclear which of their traditional expenditures for systems and services are eligible for TIF-based funds. Further, TIFs are often structured around local tax rev- enues that support more than one beneficiary or claimant; for instance, cities, school districts, and transit agencies may all share a portion of local property tax revenues on which a TIF is based. Transit agencies considering a TIF must therefore also understand which overlapping jurisdictions may share a claim in the TIF program and examine complex issues surrounding the control and allocation of any incremental revenues linked to transit investments. B. Digest Purpose and Methodology This digest provides a review of the legal and institutional framework governing TIFs viewed through the particular lens of transit operators. Written for transit agency officials and counselors, the report aims to be a resource for understanding the opportunities for and limitations on using TIFs, particularly for supporting transit operations. To do so, it reports on TIF statutes, case law, and TIF-funded projects as well as the plan- ning literature surrounding TIFs. This digest also explores the relationship between the transit service itself—its presence, level, and quality—and the value of adjacent land. To generate revenue, a TIF program depends on capturing increased property value produced by some underly- ing investment. While planners, policy makers, and scholars ac- knowledge that transit capital facilities can enhance land value under certain conditions, what about transit service? How does existing empirical evidence support the notion that—separate from capital facilities like stations or rail lines—transit service could enhance adjacent land values? Many scholarly studies have examined whether investment in new rail lines and transit stations enhance property values. If transit operations enhance land value, investments in transit service, not just facilities, could be a legitimate use of TIF or other value capture strategies.

6 TCRP LRD 55 Funding for system operations comes largely from local sources. Whereas transit agencies may tap various federal grant programs to support investments in new buses, rolling stock, or fixed guideway systems, the federal government plays an espe- cially small role in operational funding for transit. Indeed, “[t]he federal role is more significant for the capital program, provid- ing 37% of capital funds, compared with only 9% of operating funds.”11 Further, American Public Transportation Association data show that total federal and state funding for operations fell by 6.2% from 2016 to 2017, leaving local and agency-generated funds to meet resulting shortfalls.12 These indicators of limited and even declining operational support from non-local sources increase the pressure on local revenues to fund transit opera- tions and maintenance. While it is not uncommon for transit systems in North America to draw on property taxes as a source of funding, it is far less common for transit agencies to draw on property taxes through a TIF district. In 2012, property taxes and as- sessments accounted for 1.89% of all local funds for transit.13 Transit systems that include property taxes in their mix of direct local funding include Minneapolis/St. Paul’s Metro Transit, Ann Arbor, Michigan’s The Ride, and Lafayette, Indiana’s CityBus.14 In such cases, the transit system typically receives a percentage share of the overall property tax rate. Other systems that do not receive property taxes directly as a regular revenue source may receive property taxes indirectly through a TIF district; the TIF program diverts a portion of property taxes from the general fund to participants in the TIF district. Miami Metrorail, largely funded locally through sales taxes and general fund appropria- tions, is one example of a system that receives property taxes indirectly through a TIF.15 Where local transit officials and policymakers wish to con- sider using TIF as an innovative local tool specifically to fund transit operations, few examples or information about such ap- plications exist to guide them. It is uncommon for transit agen- cies to use a TIF program—or other value capture method—to pay for providing service.16 17 Instead, where transit agencies have used TIF programs, they have typically support one-time capital improvements like building new transit lines, extending 11 2019 Public Transportation Fact Book, (2019), https:// www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA_Fact-Book-2019_FINAL. pdf. 12 Id. 13 Funding, Build American Transportation Investment Center (BATIC) (2019), http://www.financingtransportation.org/ funding_financing/funding/ (last visited Sep 30, 2019). 14 A Guide to Transportation Funding Options, (1997), https://utcm.tti.tamu.edu/tfo/transit/summary.stm. 15 The SMART Plan, Miami-Dade TPO, http://www. miamidadetpo. org/smartplan.asp (last visited Sep 30, 2019). 16 Shishir Mathur & Adam Smith, A Decision-support Framework for Using Value Capture to Fund Public Transit: Lessons from Project-specific Analyses (2012). 17 Shishir Mathur, Using Tax Increment Financing to Fund Public Transportation: Enabling Environment and Equity Impacts, 22 Public Works Manage. Policy 201–225 (2017). Legal in every state except Arizona, TIF allows local govern- ments to monetize the additional property tax revenues that a redevelopment project is expected to generate within a defined area, and it allows local governments to use that monetized value to fund a public or private development project up front.6 The increments of increased property tax collected through a TIF result from growth in underlying property values, not from any increase in the tax rate. The increments can be expended gradually over the lifespan of the TIF district, in increments as the tax revenues are collected. Alternatively, using bonds, a local government entity can borrow against those expected in- cremental revenues to make a lump sum available up front, and can then expend those TIF revenues as they accrue to pay off the bond.7 B. The Costs of Operating and Maintaining Transit Systems and Service This digest specifically examines the potential for using TIF to support transit operations, as transit agencies devote a signifi- cant share of their expenditures to the routine activities required to keep transit services running. The majority of transit expen- ditures—about 70% in 20158—relate to the cost of operating and maintaining transit systems. These may account for inputs associated with vehicle operations and maintenance, non- vehicle maintenance, general administration, and transporta- tion services that an agency may purchase from private provid- ers or other agencies. Embedded in these categories are expenses for labor, material, supplies, utilities, and insurance. Capital ex- penditures, in contrast, include the purchase of new buses or rehabilitation of existing buses, the overhaul of rail rolling stock, preventive maintenance, leasing of equipment or facilities, joint development projects, and technology improvements. Operating expenditures are fundamental for a transit sys- tem’s day-to-day success. Boisjoly, Grisé, and El-Geneidy com- pared 25 North American transit agencies and observed a strong positive correlation between operational spending (espe- cially on buses) and system-wide ridership, controlling for vari- ous confounding factors.9 Furthermore, surveys of transit riders by Iseki and Taylor found that operational characteristics like frequency, reliability, and safety played a larger role in rider sat- isfaction than the attractiveness of stations and rolling stock.10 6 Rachel Weber & Laura Goddeeris, Tax Increment Financ- ing: Process and Planning Issues (2007). 7 Thay N. Bishop & Stefan Natzke, FHWA - Center for Innova- tive Finance Support - Value Capture, Federal Highway Administra- tion Center for Innovative Finance Support (2019), https://www. fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/value_capture/ (last visited Sep 30, 2019). 8 Neff & Dickens, supra note 1. 9 Geneviève Boisjoly, Emily Grisé & Ahmed El-Geneidy, Ser- vice Matters: Examining Ridership Trends in 25 North American Cities Over Time, TransitCenter (2018), https://transitcenter.org/service- matters/ (last visited Sep 30, 2019). 10 Hiroyuki Iseki & Brian Taylor, Style versus Service? An Analysis of User Perceptions of Transit Stops and Stations. 13 J. Public Transp, (2010).

TCRP LRD 55 7 Do Transit Capital and Operating Investments Affect Land Values? Given TIF’s reliance on the ad valorem property tax, evi- dence of transit’s contribution specifically to land values is needed. Existing literature reviews acknowledge some general consensus that basic proximity to rapid transit increases resi- dential and commercial property values (at least, assuming that access to the amenities provided by transit is available21), and provide tables of various studies for an overview of published works relating to transit and real estate. 22 23 24 25 This consensus serves as a rationale for using value capture methods to fund transit: if the transit will increase property values and therefore property taxes, it can be funded by capturing that increase in tax revenue.26 Many studies conclude that land value is enhanced by the adjacency of various types of transit, including com muter rail, heavy rail, light rail, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).27 28 29 Such works studies generally measure property value using data on rents, point-of-sale prices, and assessed taxable value, and they typically compare changes in land values for properties situated at different distances from transit stations. To use two examples, both Perk and Catalá as well as Cervero and Duncan measured the point-of-sale prices of real estate properties cor- related with their distance from local transit stops (Perk and Catalá in Eugene, Oregon, and Cervero and Duncan in San Diego, California), controlling for various characteristics of the homes such as square footage and year built. Perk and Catalá used a simple network distance as a continuous variable, where- as Cervero and Duncan grouped properties into discrete zones based on their straight-line distance to transit—one buffer for properties within a quarter-mile and another for those within a half-mile, as compared against all further-away properties. Perk and Catalá, studying single-family homes specifically, found 21 John A. Kilpatrick et al., The Impact of Transit Corridors on Resi- dential Property Values, 29 J. Real Estate Res. (2007), https://papers. ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1030006. 22 Roderick B. Diaz, Impacts of Rail Transit on Property Values (1999). 23 John Landis, Subhrajit Guhathakurta & Ming Zhang, Capitalization of Transit Investments into Single-Family Home Prices: A Comparative Analysis of Five California Rail Transit Systems (1994). 24 Victoria A. Perk & M. Catala, Land Use Impacts of Bus Rapid Transit: Effects of BRT Station Proximity on Property Values along the Pittsburgh Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway (2009). 25 Keith Wardrip, Public Transit’s Impact on Housing Costs: A Review of the Literature (2011). 26 Sasha Page et al., Guide to Value Capture Financing for Public Transportation Projects (2016), https://www.nap.edu/ c atalog/23682 (last visited Sep 30, 2019). 27 Robert Cervero, Journal Report: Light Rail Transit and Urban Development, 50 J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 133–147 (1984). 28 Perk and Catala, supra note 19. 29 Walter Hook, Stephanie Lotshaw & Annie Weinstock, More Development for Your Transit Dollar: An Analysis of 21 North American Transit Corridors (2013). existing rapid transit service to new areas, and constructing new stations and facilities. C. Transit’s Contributions to Land Value Tax increment financing depends on the ability of invest- ments made in the present to enhance underlying property values and, thereby, to increase future property tax revenues. Most TIF legislation includes a “but-for” clause, requiring that any improvement or amenity funded by TIF dollars be linked definitively to the increased land value captured in the prop- erty tax that feeds TIF. In other words, TIF requires that the ap- preciation in land value, and hence the increment of increased property tax revenues, would not have occurred “but for” the improvement or amenity. Where TIF revenues might be used to fund improvements in transit service and operations, it is thus necessary to consider how the quality of transit operations or service impacts property values. Empirical work examining the contribution of operational investments to general economic growth offers a good starting place. Studies of the economic impact of transit capital invest- ments, such as new rail lines, are more abundant; this likely re- flects the “capital bias” observed in transit investment towards new capital projects over operations and maintenance, as capital projects afford greater visibility and glamour.18 Still, a small but important set of studies suggest that transit operations have vis- ible positive economic impacts, providing an initial basis from which to consider potential TIF applications for transit operat- ing expenditures. Such studies typically rely on economic input-output models to estimate across various sectors of the economy the amount of up- and downstream activity generated by a given amount of operational expenditure. For instance, Cambridge Systematics studied public transit’s impact on the American economy, dif- ferentiating between transit capital and operations spending, and concluded that “a $32 million increase in business sales for each $10 million in transit operations spending” through mul- tiplier effects, benefiting local suppliers and manufacturers.19 Similarly, a more recent study by Econsult Solutions Inc. quanti- fied the impact of operational spending by the Port Authority of Allegheny County, based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Spending on operations was “a significant driver of economic activity in the region and Commonwealth through…[its] direct, indirect and induced effects,” generating $726 million in economic im- pact and supporting over 5,000 jobs in Pennsylvania each year.20 18 Brian D. Taylor & Kelly Samples, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Political Percep- tions, Economic Reality, and Capital Bias in U.S. Transit Subsidy Policy, 6 Public Works Manag. Policy 250–263 (2002). 19 Public Transportation and the Nation’s Economy: A Quantitative Analysis of Public Transportation’s Economic Impact, E-1 (1999), https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/ Resources/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/vary.pdf. 20 The Economic Impact of the Port Authority of Allegheny County, 14 (2018).

8 TCRP LRD 55 value.36 In Canada, Dubé compared seven different BRT lines in Quebec City and found higher value uplift in places serviced by a greater number of bus services,37 suggesting that greater tran- sit connectivity and frequency increases the value of a property. Much of the literature on transit and real estate, however, is indirect and speculative about the impact of service quality on property values. Landis, Guhathakurta, and Zhang studied five different rail transit systems in California and inferred from their results that the systems with the most “reliable, frequent, and speedy service” caused the greatest real estate price in creases; however, they were unable to rigorously measure the impor- tance of the various service quality metrics.38 Similarly, Wardrip argues that heavy rail and commuter rail often cause higher real estate value uplift than light rail, and that the change is probably, though not conclusively, due to their “greater frequency, speed, and scope of service.”39 Litman evaluates American metropoli- tan areas based on whether they have “high-quality” or “basic” transit service. While the granular details of service quality are undifferentiated, areas offering “high-quality” transit service have far greater economic and real estate impacts from their transit investments, with average household savings (resulting from direct vehicle, parking, and travel cost savings, plus in- direct benefits including congestion and pollution reduction) triple that of household costs.40 D. How Do Different Transit Technologies Impact Land Value? Existing studies provide more definitive support to the notion that the specific transit technology is a mediating fac- tor in whether service improvements enhance property values. The presence of a fixed-guideway or dedicated right-of-way may be necessary in order for service improvements to be re- flected in land values. For instance, Cervero finds that “acces- sibility/ agglomeration benefits, as reflected by land values, are generally only conferred by fixed-guideway systems.” Because bus services “are flexible (meaning services can be re-routed) and generally perceived to be of a lower quality (slower speeds, more random stopping),” their impact on land use and prop- erty values are “diffuse and in cases even inconsequential.”41 Likewise, Page, Bishop, and Wong find that infrastructure per- manence is a necessary component to successful value capture, based on surveyed perceptions of landowners, investors, and developers.42 For these reasons, it may be unrealistic to expect 36 Robert Cervero, Economic Impact Analysis of Transit Investments: Guidebook for Practitioners (TCRP Research Report 35, 1998). 37 Jean Dubé et al., Exploring difference in value uplift resulting from new bus rapid transit routes within a medium size metropolitan area, 72 J. Transp. Geogr. 258–269, 267 (2018). 38 Landis, Guhathakurta, and Zhang, supra note 18 at 31. 39 Wardrip, supra note 20. 40 Todd Litman, Raise my taxes please! Evaluating house- hold savings from high quality public transit service (2010). 41 Cervero, supra note 31 at 9–31. 42 Page et al., supra note 26 at 43. that sale prices increased by $823 for every 100 meters closer to a station. Cervero and Duncan compared various types of prop- erties and found the highest premiums for condominiums and multi-family properties (as high as 46% and 17% respectively) compared to similar properties outside the half-mile buffer zones.30 31 For TIF applications that would support operational im- provements to transit, however, one must ask how transit service enhancements—such as increases in service speed, frequency, or reliability, for instance—could increase land values. However, whereas a clear body of evidence demonstrates that proximity to rapid transit stations increases property values, fewer studies have differentiated transit by its quality and quantified the im- pact of quality metrics on property values. Some of the best empirical grounding for connecting service improvements to property values comes from outside North America, in the Netherlands. Debrezion, Pels, and Rietveld compared home sale prices in the vicinities of different train sta- tions with different levels of service frequency. They found that a doubling of frequency for a given station was associated with a 2.5% rise in home prices in the vicinity, with other factors such as neighborhood income, home size, and construction materials held constant.32 Other papers examined the positive impacts on land value of shorter travel times33 or higher network connectiv- ity (measured as the number of stations accessible within one transfer)34 for the train station nearest to a given property. In the United States, a paper by Allen and Mudge directly addressed the travel time improvements added by transit by comparing properties located both near to and far from the new PATCO Speedline train to Philadelphia. Crucially, properties were com- pared based on equal potential time savings due to transit, con- trasting those that did receive the new line against those that did not receive the new line. In so doing, Allen and Mudge directly measured how much the transit improvements shortened travel time from a given place to downtown Philadelphia, and dem- onstrated how these travel time improvements were capitalized into higher lease rates and sale prices for properties.35 Cervero also finds that shorter travel times afforded by transit service are capitalized into higher lease rates and sale prices, indicating that operational improvements that reduce travel time add property 30 Perk and Catala, supra note 19. 31 Robert Cervero & Michael Duncan, Land Value Impacts of Rail Transit Services in San Diego County (2002). 32 Ghebreegziabiher Debrezion, Eric Pels & Piet Rietveld, The Impact of Railway Stations on Residential and Commercial Property Value: A Meta Analysis, 35 J. Real Estate Finance Econ. (2006). 33 Ghebreegziabiher Debrezion, Eric Pels & Piet Rietveld, Modelling the Joint Access Mode and Railway Station Choice (2007). 34 Ghebreegziabiher Debrezion, Eric Pels & Piet Rietveld, The Impact of Rail Transport on Real Estate Prices: An Empirical Analysis of the Dutch Housing Market, 48 997–1015 (2011). 35 W. Bruce Allen & Richard R. Mudge, The Impact of Rapid Transit on Urban Development: The Case of the Philadelphia- Lindenwold High- Speed Line, P-5246 Rand Corp. (1974).

TCRP LRD 55 9 Loudoun Counties in Virginia both have established Special Assessment Districts (SADs), a related type of value capture, to fund the new Metro Silver Line, but the enabling legislations for these districts, specifically the Transportation Improvements sections, explicitly prohibit spending on operations and main- tenance for the new service,47 48 even though the relevant state- level enabling legislation does not prohibit such spending.49 This case suggests that the use of TIFs to support operational spend- ing may face hurdles. One case in which it may be relatively easy to demonstrate the value of service upgrades is when ordinary bus lines are upgraded to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) standards. BRT certainly does require capital improvements in addition to operational upgrades, but operational upgrades over existing bus service are usually a crucial component of BRT, as BRT usually follows ex- isting bus routes. To illustrate this point, Hess, Taylor, and Yoh examined North American BRT and BRT-lite corridors based on how much they improved on prior bus service, and found that operational improvements such as reduced stops and signal prioritization were associated with the most cost-effective bus systems.50 Similarly, in Eugene, Oregon, the Emerald Express (EmX) BRT route traces the path of the old Route 11 bus, offering 10- to 20-minute headways instead of 15 to 30 minutes. The new EmX service also improved on-time performance and perceptions of safety, as well reduced average end-to-end travel time by 4%.51 These operational improvements, combined with the capital expenditures that helped make them possible, were associated with increased property values near EmX stations. By 2010, three years after the BRT line opened, single-family homes were selling at about $1000 more for every 100 meters closer to a sta- tion.52 A similar study in Boston followed the Silver Line BRT along Washington Street. Even though the Silver Line has been criticized for having relatively few capital improvements to jus- tify its BRT label, earning a “below basic” epithet on the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy’s BRT Scorecard,53 the line created a 7.6% premium for nearby condominium sales 47 Petition Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-431 For the Creation of the Phase I Dulles Rail Transportation Improvement District, 10 (2003). 48 Petition Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-431 For the Creation of the Phase II Dulles Rail Transportation Improvement District, 16 (2009). 49 Transportation Districts Within Certain Counties, Sec- tion 33.1-431 - Creation of district, (2013), https://law.justia.com/ codes/virginia/2013/title-33.1/chapter-15/section-33.1-431/. 50 Daniel Hess, Brian Taylor & Allison Yoh, Light Rail Lite or Cost- Effective Improvements to Bus Service? Evaluating Costs of Implementing Bus Rapid Transit, 1927 Transp. Res. Rec. 22–30 (2005). 51 Helen M. Tann, The EmX Franklin Corridor – BRT Project Evaluation (2009). 52 Victoria Perk et al., Impacts of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Surrounding Residential Property Values (2017). 53 Hook, Lotshaw, and Weinstock, supra note 24 at 10. that operational investments in bus service running without dedicated rights-of-way will enhance property values. Even though they resulted in noticeable operational im- provements, a number of transit projects have had no associa- tion with growth in property values; this may help to explain why few observers see value capture as a funding tool. Success- ful operational improvements include Houston’s 2015 Transit System Reimagining, which accomplished major travel time savings by switching from a hub-and-spoke system to a grid- based, polycentric model focused on high-ridership areas, as well as avoiding route branching and at-grade rail crossings.43 The resulting increases in frequency and destination accessibil- ity, accomplished with only a 4% operational spending increase, led to an 8% increase in ridership over the first year, during a time when national bus ridership was in decline.44 Similarly, Los Angeles Metro’s Metro Rapid demonstration program used op- erating service changes on two routes, such as changing from time point-based to headway-based schedules and making fewer stops, to increase travel times by about 25%, leading to as high as 10% ridership increases within a week.45 E. Isolating the Value of Operational and Capital Investments Interdependencies between capital investments and opera- tional improvements create additional nuance. Many operational improvements to transit service result from capital investments that make it difficult to isolate the marginal increase in property values that results from operations expenditures. Consider the contributions to service reliability on an existing bus route when new vehicles replace an older fleet prone to service disruptions. Similarly, increasing the speed or reliability of a rail line may not only require increasing operations and maintenance expendi- tures but also capital expenditures such as track renovations or signal upgrades. Whereas capital and operations expenditures are clearly di- vided by accounting practice and federal transit law,46 the eco- nomic benefits deriving from capital and operations spending are inextricably linked to each other. Determining the relative contributions of each type of expenditure to economic impacts is difficult. Potentially, it could be possible to use a TIF to pay for both, especially when constructing new lines to service new areas, in which case the new infrastructure and the new op- erations clearly combine to create value to the area. However, our research has found no examples of such a TIF. Fairfax and 43 Hanna Kite, Houston, we have a solution, Smart Growth America (2015), https://smartgrowthamerica.org/houston-we-have- a-solution/. 44 Ethan Goffman, Houston bucks national trend of transit bus sys- tem decline, Mobility Lab (2018), https://mobilitylab.org/2018/03/21/ houston-bucks-national-trend-transit-bus- system-decline/. 45 Metro Rapid Demonstration Program Evaluation Report - Operating Speed, LADOT Transit Priority System, Service Quality, Fed- eral Transit Administration (2015), https://www.transit.dot.gov/ research-innovation/metro-rapid-demonstration-program- evaluation- report-operating-speed-ladot (last visited Sep 30, 2019). 46 Neff and Dickens, supra note 4.