Filling the Gap: Funding Transit Infill Stations in the United States

Transcription

1 Filling the Gap: Funding Transit Infill Stations in the United States Amanda Wall Vandegrift Parsons Brinckerhoff Nathan M. Macek, AICP Parsons Brinckerhoff INTRODUCTION Many fixed guideway transit systems have long gaps in service between stations sometimes reaching up to 10 miles in length in areas that are experiencing significant population growth and redevelopment. Constructing infill stations in these areas can be a cost-effective way to improve transit access within a transit agency s service area. However, there is limited agency funding available to support the capital and/or operating and maintenance (O&M) costs of infill station projects. Even so, a few fixed guideway transit systems in the United States have successfully delivered new transit infill stations, with several delivering multiple infill stations over the past decade. This paper summarizes the success factors in obtaining funding and financing to support the capital and O&M costs of nine infill station projects in the United States. The results of this research provide value to transit agencies and project stakeholders seeking to deliver transit infill station projects. Results may also be helpful to transit agencies interested in delivering transit projects using innovative funding and financing techniques or improving conditions for private sector participation. The research shows that infill stations have been funded with a creative mixture of private, federal, state, and local funding sources. The capital costs of infill stations are frequently funded without traditional transit agency funding. O&M costs are generally the responsibility of the existing operator of the service. In many instances, project partners independently identified the need for the station and led the initiative to pursue funding and transit agency cooperation. The private sector has recognized the development potential surrounding infill stations, serving as strong project champions and funding partners. The same development potential has attracted the support of state and local governments and created favorable conditions for implementing value capture mechanisms such as tax increment financing (TIF) and special assessment districts. Transit agencies have generally taken a hands-off approach to planning, funding, and delivering potential infill station projects. Transit agencies that take a more advantageous approach to these opportunities may be able to better leverage the redevelopment potential by negotiating for increased stakeholder involvement in funding, financing, and project delivery. In doing so, transit agencies can simultaneously address two of the most significant gaps in existing transit service funding and access. APPROACH Nine national transit infill station projects, summarized in Table 1, are profiled in this paper. Five systems are represented, including heavy rail, light rail, and commuter rail modes. Each infill station project is summarized according to the following criteria: Sponsor(s): project sponsor(s) and funding partners Technology: heavy rail, light rail, or commuter rail technology Opening Year: year station opened to revenue service Project Cost: project capital cost in year of expenditure dollars Source of Funds: summary of project capital and O&M sources Financing: financing methods used to leverage funds Discussion: background, best practices, and lessons learned for funding, financing, project delivery, stakeholder involvement, and/or public support CASE STUDIES Case studies for each of the infill station projects summarized in Table 1 are profiled on the following page. 1

2 Transit Infill Station Case Studies Transit Infill Station/Location Technology Opening Year Capital Cost Funding Utah Transit Authority (UTA) 900 South Station Salt Lake City, Utah UTA Sandy Expo Station Sandy, Utah Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Assembly Square Station Somerville, Massachusetts MBTA Boston Landing Station Allston-Brighton, Massachusetts Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) NoMa Gallaudet Station Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Cermak-McCormick Place Station Chicago, Illinois CTA Morgan Station Chicago, Illinois CTA Oakton Skokie Station Skokie, Illinois Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) West Dublin/Pleasanton Station Dublin, California Light Rail 2005 $1.2 million Tax increment financing (TIF) Light Rail 2006 $2.1 million Federal earmark, county hotel tax revenues Heavy Rail 2014 $56.0 million Developer contributions, federal funding, state MassWorks grant, and TIF Commuter Rail 2016 $20.0 million Developer contributions Heavy Rail 2004 $104.0 million Land donations, federal earmark, District of Columbia capital budget, and special assessment Heavy Rail 2015 $50.0 million TIF Heavy Rail 2012 $38.0 million Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds, TIF Heavy Rail 2012 $20.0 million CMAQ funds, TIF Heavy Rail 2011 $106.0 million Long-term ground leases, developer contributions, regional and local grants, local funding, net fare and parking revenue Table 1. Transit Infill Station Project Profiled 900 South Station Salt Lake City, Utah Sponsor(s): UTA, Salt Lake City Technology: Light Rail Opening Year: 2005 Project Cost: $1.2 million Source of Funds: 100 percent of the station s capital costs were funded using Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City TIF revenues from the West Temple Gateway project area, one of seven TIF project areas throughout Salt Lake City. Financing: TIF Discussion: Originally identified as part of the Sandy/Salt Lake TRAX light rail plan in 1999, the infill station was promised by UTA once development in the area occurred to justify a station. Developers invested in high-density housing and retail in anticipation of the promised infill station. Following this investment, UTA led the initiative to construct the infill station, and received a grant for full funding using West Temple Gateway project area TIF revenues. In return, UTA managed construction and agreed to operate and maintain the station. The station has since spurred additional development in the area, which is known for its transit oriented development (TOD). 2

3 Sandy Expo Station Sandy, Utah Sponsor(s): UTA, Salt Lake County Technology: Light Rail Opening Year: 2006 Project Cost: $2.1 million Source of Fund: 80 percent of the station s capital costs was secured through a federal earmark as part of the 2005 federal transportation authorization bill, the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Salt Lake County reallocated county hotel tax revenue for the remaining 20 percent. Financing: None Discussion: The station was built to accommodate over 5 million annual visitors to the Expo Center, Jordan Commons, and the Rio Tinto Stadium (opened in 2008). The stadium is home to the major league soccer club Real Salt Lake. The Sandy Expo Station is twice the size of the 900 South Station. UTA was willing to deliver, operate, and maintain the Sandy Expo Station if capital funding was secured from other sources, citing the need to balance improved access at the infill station with the resulting travel time increases for its existing passengers. Strong project partners, including a Utah congressman and the local county benefiting from the investment, were able to engage the transit agency and secure full funding for the construction of the station. Assembly Square Station Somerville, Massachusetts Sponsor(s): MBTA, City of Somerville, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRIT) Opening Year: 2014 Project Cost: $56.0 million Source of Funds: The station s capital costs were originally estimated at $50 million to be funded by a mix of public and private funding. Half of the estimated cost was secured through a $25 million federal earmark in However, only $1 million of the original earmark was appropriated to the project, creating a $24 million project deficit at the time. In response, the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) approved the reallocation of a $6.3 million multi-modal federal earmark to the station in 2010 that was originally designated for the adjacent Assembly Square development. The Commonwealth, City, and FRIT (owner and developer of the Assembly Square development) entered into an agreement on March 2011, which included a state commitment to fill in the remaining $18 million funding gap contingent upon the City of Somerville making a $25 million contribution toward public infrastructure in Assembly Square. In addition, developer contributions of $15 million was committed to the station by FRIT and IKEA (though IKEA later backed out of the deal). Much of this funding was flexed to other development costs after a MassWorks grant of $25 million was secured through the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development. The remaining construction costs were covered by $16 million in reallocated federal funds and $15 million in originally committed developer contributions. Financing: The City of Somerville approved a $25 million bond issuance, backed by 11.9 percent of ultimate growth potential in property taxes through District Improvement Financing (DIF), a form of TIF, in Assembly Square. The district was created in 2010 as the first TIF district in the City of Somerville. This was later used for road work and utility upgrades when other state and federal funds were secured for station construction costs. Discussion: Created to accommodate a $1.5 billion mixeduse development of retail, apartments, and restaurants along the Orange Line, the station is the first heavy rail MBTA station to be built in the last 27 years. It will fill a 1.3 mile gap on the MBTA s Orange Line. The state, city, and developers recognized the importance of the station to the area and agreed to fund the entire cost of the proposed infill station. Even when the original funding plan was not realized, the funding partners pursued innovative ways to fund and financing the station, including TIF and reallocation of state and federal funding. In the end, much of this funding was flexed to fund development costs after additional state and federal funding was secured for the station through state grants and reallocation of federal funds. Boston Landing Station Allston-Brighton, Massachusetts Sponsor(s): New Balance, MBTA, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Technology: Commuter Rail Opening Year: 2016 (under construction) Project Cost: $20.0 million Source of Funds: New Balance agreed to pay for all capital costs of the infill station and all maintenance costs for the first 10 years of operations. Financing: New Boston Landing, LLC (New Balance s development company) 3

4 Discussion: New Balance submitted initial plans in 2012 to transform the industrial area near the existing right-ofway into a $500 million, 14-acre development with a 250,000 square-foot headquarters building. The planned development, which broke ground in 2013, will also include hotel, office, and restaurant and retail space. The initial plan also included the possibility of a commuter rail station. As an integral part of the success of the development, New Balance pursued the potential station by offering to design, construct, and contribute to funding for the station. In 2013, New Boston Landing LLC signed an agreement with MBTA to design, build, and finance the station, covering 100 percent of the construction costs. New Balance sweetened the deal for MBTA by agreeing to fund operating and maintenance costs of the station for the first decade of operations. Afterward, New Balance and MBTA will reassess O&M cost payments. The station will open two years after originally agreed upon by New Boston Landing LLC. There were no financial penalties imposed for the late opening date. The station will be the first commuter rail station in the area in more than 50 years since the 1962 demolition of three stations in the area. Construction on the station began in May 2015 with an estimated completion date of fall New Balance did not purchase naming rights for the station and it will not be exclusively used by New Balance employees. However, New Balance identified a benefit to building the commuter rail station that met or exceeded providing $20 million in capital costs and additional operating costs for a period of 10 years. This is the third time in MBTA s recent history that private companies have made a significant contribution to help build and renovate public transit stations, one being the Assembly Square Station profiled above. NoMa Gallaudet Station Sponsor(s): WMATA, District of Columbia, Action 29 Corporation Opening Year: 2004 Project Cost: $104.0 million Source of Funds: Prior to construction, property in the vicinity of the station consisted of vacant land, railroad yards, warehouses, and other industrial properties. Redevelopment in the area including construction of an infill station was proposed by the private sector, but required outside funding due to WMATA s funding constraints. The private sector, corporate business leaders, community leaders, and local property owners formed a task force known as Action 29-New York Avenue Metro Station Corporation (Action 29 Corporation). The task force contributed the following to the project: Land in the amount of $10 million amortized over 30 years was donated to the project, reducing property acquisition costs. Other landowners of land adjacent to the proposed station temporarily donated property for construction storage and staging purposes. Property owners within 2,500 feet of the future station s entrance (excluding properties within 1,250 feet of the existing Metrorail station at Union Station) agreed to increase property taxes through the creation of a special assessment district. Through detailed negations, property owners agreed to pay an annual amount of 1/30th of a $25 million contribution over 30 years. Additional project costs were funded through a $25 million federal earmark (24 percent) and $44 million contribution from the District of Columbia s capital budget (42 percent). Financing: Revenue collected by the special assessment district is being used to repay a $25 million general obligation bond issued by the District of Columbia, which funded 24 percent of project costs. Discussion: In addition to providing $44 million for project costs, the District of Columbia formed the 35-block NoMa Business Improvement District (BID) in 2007 to generate additional economic improvements. The BID levies property taxes on commercial, multi-unit residential, and hotel properties to support the continued development of the NoMa neighborhood. The project exceeded its initial estimates of 5,000 new jobs and $1 billion in area investments. According to a case study by the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships (NCPPP), assessed valuation of the 35-block area increased to four times its initial amount from 2001 to In addition, over 15,000 jobs were created between 1998 and 2007, with $1.1 billion in private investments. The project was delivered using design-build, which reduced the project schedule by half. Private sector land donations significantly reduced overall project costs. In total, the private sector funded over 34 percent of total project costs. In retrospect, those close to the project felt that the private sector contribution should have been larger given the private sector s return on investment from the extensive growth that has occurred in the area as a result of the station. 4

5 Cermak-McCormick Place Station Chicago, Illinois Sponsor(s): CTA, City of Chicago, Chicago Department of Transportation (DOT) Opening Year: 2015 Project Cost: $50.0 million Source of Funds: The Mayor of Chicago fully funded a plan for $92 million in transportation improvements, which included the $50 million infill station, using TIF revenues from the Michigan Cermak TIF district. Financing: TIF Discussion: The station replaced a station removed by CTA in 1978, filling a 2.5-mile gap in service and better serving Motor Row entertainment center, the new DePaul basketball arena, and McCormick Place, a convention center south of Downtown Chicago. The $50 million station is part of a $92 million investment, which includes rehabilitation of other CTA stations and other transportation improvements. These investments were pushed by the mayor, who acted as a strong public advocate for increasing transit access to the area. The project, managed by the Chicago DOT, was delayed from its scheduled opening date in 2014 due to construction delays caused by two harsh winters. Morgan Station Chicago, Illinois Sponsor(s): CTA, Chicago DOT Opening Year: 2012 Project Cost: $38.0 million Source of Funds: Local TIF revenues from the Kinzie Industrial TIF district were originally dedicated for all station capital costs. Chicago DOT secured $8 million in federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding for the station, freeing up $8 million in TIF revenues for other needs. The remaining $30 million in project costs was funded by TIF. Financing: TIF Discussion: The station replaced stations removed from service by CTA in 1948 and 1994, filling a 1.3-mile gap in service on the Green and Pink lines. There was strong neighborhood support for an infill station following the removal of the second station in CTA decided to pursue funding citing substantial redevelopment in the area over the past decade. CTA did not provide capital funds for the station project. Oakton Skokie Station Skokie, Illinois Sponsor(s): CTA, Village of Skokie Opening Year: 2012 Project Cost: $20.0 million Source of Funds: The Village of Skokie secured $14 million in CMAQ funds and the remaining $6 million was funded using the Village s TIF revenues. Financing: TIF Discussion: Similar to the two CTA infill stations profiled above, this station replaced a station removed from service by CTA in the 1940s. In 2001, Village officials received a grant to conduct an infill station feasibility study, which concluded that a station was viable and needed. Village officials led the initiative to deliver and fully fund the station with the strong support from surrounding property owners and businesses. The Village received roughly $14 million in CMAQ funds for the station and dedicated $6 million in TIF revenues. Like many of the stations profiled in this study, existing riders expressed concern over the new station s impact on travel times. West Dublin/Pleasanton Station Dublin, California Sponsor(s): BART, Developers, Alameda County, Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton Opening Year: 2011 Project Cost: $106.0 million Source of Funds: The following funding sources were applied to fill the longest distance between stations on the BART system, a 10-mile gap between Castro Valley and Dublin/Pleasanton stations: Ground lease in the amount of $15.5 million to redevelop BART land. Developers also agreed to pay BART a fee for every sale of residential units within the development. Estimates of total private funding are unknown. Public grants totaling $14 million, including $4.0 million from the Tri-valley Transportation Council and $6.9 million programmed by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. Financing: BART issued $58.5 million in bonds for constructing the station and ancillary facilities, including BART parking garages. Repayment of the bonds will come from a combination of private funds, including a long-term 5

6 lease of BART s property, contributions from the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton from tax revenues generated by private development on BART land, and BART fare and parking revenues generated by the station. Up to $8 million from the cities and county will cover ramp-up fare revenue risk. Discussion: The station was originally included in the Dublin/Pleasanton extension in 1990, but was not included in the final construction. The BART Board of Directors approved the public/private venture in November 1999 between BART and Orix Real estate Equities, Inc. and Jones Lang LaSalle to leverage private development on BART land to build the infill station. The unique publicprivate partnership included risk sharing by both of BART s partners. The developer funded a portion of the project in exchange for the right to develop near the new station and the cities and county agreed to backstop the risk associated with less-than projected initial ridership. The project was delivered as a design-build project by Jones Lang LaSalle/Ampelon Development. It was delivered $20 million over budget and one year behind schedule as a result of design issues with the accompanying pedestrian bridge. FINDINGS The nine infill stations profiled in this study share the following overarching trends in funding, financing, and delivery: Capital Funding The capital costs for all transit infill stations profiled in this study were fully funded with non-traditional sources, without any capital assistance from the sponsoring transit agency. These capital sources are profiled below: Private Support: The private sector was a major funding partner and champion for the majority of infill stations profiled in this study. Developers often provide land donations and in-kind or monetary contributions to facilitate construction of infrastructure assets that have a positive impact on property values. Existing institutions, such as universities or hospitals that are close to a project, may also make in-kind or monetary contributions. Private contributions may be negotiated as part of a long-term lease agreement as was the case for the Boston Landing Station in Allston-Brighton, Massachusetts. Often these contributions are negotiated to reflect the benefit the private sponsor derives from the project. If funding is negotiated, project sponsors often request the money during the early portion of the debt service period. This enables the project sponsor to better leverage other funding sources. In addition, developers may offer to deliver and/or finance the station, which often occurs if the station is contingent upon the success of the planned development. Half of the infill stations documented in this study were funded in part through private contributions: 27 percent of capital costs for MBTA Assembly Square Station in Somerville, Massachusetts 100 percent of capital costs and 10 years of O&M costs for MBTA Boston Landing Station in Allston-Brighton, Massachusetts Land donations by developers and property owners covered 10 percent of the capital costs of the WMATA NoMa Gallaudet U Station in Developer contributions, long-term ground lease, and per sale payment pledge of BART land for capital costs for the BART West Dublin/Pleasanton Station in Dublin, California Federal Support: Federal funding for infill stations is limited. Infill station projects in general do not qualify for federal funding from the New Starts transit capital discretionary grant program. Congress effectively ended earmarks for transportation projects in 2011, which eliminated a major source of funding for infill station projects. One remaining potential funding source is the TIGER grant program, but there is significant competition for available funding. Uncertainty in federal funding and strict program requirements (strong competition, complicated planning processes, and local match requirements) reduces the likelihood of many infill station projects receiving federal funding, deterring many project partners from pursuing this source. The two most common federal sources used for infill stations have been CMAQ funds and federal earmarks: CMAQ funds are designated for transportation projects that will contribute to attainment or maintenance of the national air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. Maintenance projects such as road resurfacing/reconstruction and projects that add new capacity for single-occupant vehicles are not eligible. Eligible activities include bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit vehicles and facilities, as well as operating assistance for new transit service for up to five years. Two CTA infill stations were partially funded using CMAQ funds: 21 percent of capital costs for the CTA Morgan Station in Chicago, Illinois. 70 percent of capital costs for the CTA Oakton- Skokie Station in Skokie, Illinois. Federal earmarks legislative provisions that directed approved funds for specific projects were commonly used for a variety of transportation projects 6

7 across the United States. However, Congress ended the practice of earmarking funds for particular projects in Four infill stations were funded through federal earmarks: A SAFETEA-LU earmark covered 80 percent of the capital costs of the UTA Sandy Expo Station in Sandy, Utah Reallocation of multi-modal federal earmark and other federal funds totaled to 29 percent of the capital costs of the MBTA Assembly Square Station in Somerville, Massachusetts A federal earmark covered 24 percent of the capital costs of the WMATA NoMa Gallaudet U Station in Local and State Support: Cities, counties, and states that benefit from an infill station should be engaged in station planning and funding discussions as early as possible. Depending on the situation, local and state governments may effectively provide the majority of funding for a potential infill station. Three infill stations documented in this study were funded in part through state and local contributions: Salt Lake County reallocation of hotel tax revenues covered 20 percent of capital costs for the UTA Sandy Expo Station in Sandy, Utah The District of Columbia capital budget funded 42 percent of capital costs of the WMATA NoMa Gallaudet U Station in A $25 million MassWorks grant covered 45 percent of capital costs for the MBTA Assembly Square Station in Somerville, Massachusetts Value Capture: Infill stations have accompanied significant redevelopment in blighted areas across the United States. The value of this redevelopment can be captured using innovative mechanisms such as special assessments and TIF: Special assessments are additional property taxes applied to parcels of land that benefit from one or more public improvement. As part of a special assessment, a special tax district is created around a proposed public improvement such as an infill station. Commercial and residential properties are often taxed at different rates. Special assessments are typically applied for a 20 to 30 year period and generate fairly constant revenues for the entire period. One infill station documented in this study was funded in part through special assessments: Special assessment district revenues covered 24 percent of the capital costs of the WMATA NoMa Gallaudet U Station in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) allows jurisdictions to create special districts (tax increment areas) and to make public improvements such as infill stations that generate private-sector development. TIF freezes the tax base at predevelopment levels and dedicates all or a portion of property tax revenues derived from the increase in assessed values (the tax increment) to a special fund. The fund is used to retire bonds originally issued for the development or to leverage future growth in the district. Some states only permit TIF districts in blighted areas. Initial TIF revenue yield is relatively low. However, revenue generally increases over time as redevelopment and escalation leads to increased property values. TIFs are often applied for 20 to 30 years. Four infill stations documented in this study were financed in part through TIF: 100 percent of capital costs for the UTA 900 South Station in Salt Lake City, Utah 100 percent of capital costs for the CTA Cermak- McCormick Place Station in Chicago, Illinois. 79 percent of capital costs for the CTA Morgan Station in Chicago, Illinois. 30 percent of capital costs for the CTA Oakton- Skokie Station in Skokie, Illinois. Financing and Delivery Many of the infill stations profiled in this study used some type of financing mechanism to leverage available funding. TIF was the most common financing technique observed, as profiled above. In addition, other project partners, including states and local governments, issued bonds for infill station projects. $25 million bond issuance by the City of Somerville for MBTA Assembly Square Station in Somerville, Massachusetts backed by TIF revenues $25 million bond issuance by the District of Columbia for the WMATA NoMa Gallaudet U Station in backed by special assessment revenues $58.5 million bond issuance by BART for the BART West Dublin/Pleasanton Station in Dublin, California backed by cities and county, private funds, and net fare/parking revenues Private financing by New Boston Landing, LLC for MBTA Boston Landing Station in Allston- Brighton, Massachusetts backed by private sources 7

8 Project partners also looked for innovative ways to deliver the project, including three stations that were delivered using a variation of design-build delivery: Design-build for the BART West Dublin/Pleasanton Station in Dublin, California by Jones Lang LaSalle/Ampelon Development Design-build for the WMATA NoMa Gallaudet U Station in by Lane Construction/Slattery/Skanska Design-build-finance for MBTA Boston Landing Station in Allston-Brighton, Massachusetts by New Boston Landing, LLC Project Cost The majority of infill stations were situated along the existing right-of-way, above ground, and near blighted or industrial areas, which substantially reduced the project cost. Many project sponsors reduced costs by employing innovative delivery methods and other cost saving measures such as private financing or temporary land donations. Many infill station projects presented opportunities for a limited-risk, high-reward investment. This strong formula has attracted private sector interest in funding, financing, and/or delivery. In many cases, these scenarios generated significant cost and time savings over traditional methods. O&M Responsibility Generally, infill station O&M costs are the responsibility of the operator of existing service. Boston Landing Station in Allston-Brighton, Massachusetts was the only station profiled that included an O&M costs agreement with an outside partner. It is important to consider both capital and long-term costs of the station during project planning and funding discussions. Even so, the incremental increase in O&M cost for the transit agency generally outweighs the benefit of receiving an additional station with outside funding sources. into project delays or unexpectedly lost significant funding sources. In these circumstances, the project sponsor and stakeholders worked together to find an additional and/or alternative funding source to keep the project moving forward. It is important to engage all potential project stakeholders as early as possible during the planning process. Project sponsors should continue project engagement throughout the process in order to keep all funding, financing, and project delivery options open. CONCLUSIONS In an era of limited funding, many agencies have adopted a hands-off approach to planning, funding, and delivering potential infill stations. Some transit agencies have expressed concerns that infill stations would increase travel times for existing customers on the line. However, the increased transit access and ridership spurred from an infill station generally outweighed those concerns, especially when the station is fully funded with outside sources. Transit agencies looking to improve service with limited resources should seek opportunities to fill existing gaps in service, focusing on gaps with significant redevelopment potential. Transit agencies that take a more advantageous approach to these opportunities may be able to better leverage the redevelopment potential by negotiating for increased stakeholder involvement in funding, financing, and project delivery. In doing so, transit agencies can simultaneously address two of the most significant gaps in existing transit service funding and access. Risk Transfer Risk should be a primary consideration during the project planning process. BART was able to transfer risks associated with ridership and fare revenue to cities and counties. MBTA negotiated an agreement with the private sector that transferred risk for all financing and delivery of the Boston Landing Station in Allston-Brighton, Massachusetts. Inter-agency Coordination Many of the stations profiled in this study had a number of funding partners and stakeholders. Some ran 8