This paper describes the potential use of the financing strategy of value capture or benefit assessment for an urban mass transportation project. The paper describes the legal background to the use of benefit assessment, and the process of implementation for the first construction phase of the Los Angeles Metro Rail project. The process of developing the benefit assessment structure was a consultative one, utilizing technical inputs from a team of specialist consultants, a task force consisting of major developers and property owners in the affected area, and politicians representing many of the interests in the region. The initial benefit assessment districts were set up to raise $130 million of the cost of the first 4.4 miles of the rail project, and are based on the benefits accruing to certain categories of property in the vicinity of stations. The assessment would be collected for about 18 years and bonding would be used to provide the capital at the time of construction.
The paper describes the procedure for setting boundaries, the structuring of the assessment rates, the definition of benefiting properties, and the uses and tenure of the assessment. In almost all cases, the theory of value capture indicated a different result than was achieved from a consensus of the task force, and the nature of these differences is explored in the paper. The establishment of the benefit assessment districts withstood early court challenges, but has subsequently been appealed and was overturned on appeal. Action is pending with the Supreme Court currently, and efforts are also underway to pass new legislation to deal with some of the issues raised in the court proceedings.
Key wordsbenefit assessment financing public involvement rapid transit value capture
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Ando A & Kakimoto R (1989) On Capitalization of Transportation Improvements through Land Market: The Case of Subways in Fukuoka City.Proceedings of the Fifth World Conference on Transport Research, Vol 1 (pp 287–301). Western Periodicals Co.; Ventura, CA, 1989.Google Scholar
- California Government Code (1915) The Improvement Bond Act of 1915, Sections 85000 and following.Google Scholar
- California State Legislature (1983) Senate Bill No 1238, Chapter 1322, Sacramento, California, October 1983.Google Scholar
- California Street and Highway Code (1911) The Improvement Act of 1911, Sections 10000 and following.Google Scholar
- California Street and Highway Code (1913) The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Sections 10000 and following.Google Scholar
- Cater Joe (1978)Program-Wide Case Studies. BART Impact Program, Land Use and Urban Development Project, July 1978.Google Scholar
- Department of Property Appraisal (1983)Transit Property Value Study. Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, 1983.Google Scholar
- General Planning Consultant (1984)Impact/Real Estate Benefits Position Paper. Position Paper 4.3, prepared for the Southern California Rapid Transit District, Los Angeles, California, August 1984.Google Scholar
- Hayashi Yoshitsugu (1989) Issues in financing urban rail transit projects and value capture.Transportation Research A 23A(1): January 1989.Google Scholar
- Rybeck Walter (1981) Metrorail Impacts on Washington Area Land Values. Prepared for the Subcommittee on the City, Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, January 1981.Google Scholar
- Southern California Rapid Transit District (1985)Benefit Assessment Summary Report. SCRTD, Los Angeles, California, August 1985.Google Scholar
- Toronto Transit Commission (1983)Metropolitan Toronto: The Transit/Development Connection. TTC, Toronto, Ontario, December 1983.Google Scholar