List of Figures
List of Tables
This chapter provides an overview of at-grade and above-grade joint development approaches that can be used to provide infrastructure or services at lower cost to the public.
Agencies may consider at-grade or above-grade joint development to fund transportation projects, as well as to address other challenges - particularly those of neighborhood connectivity and housing affordability.
At-grade and above-grade joint development can help increase the impact of key infrastructure and revitalize distressed areas, but agencies should take care to ensure these projects do not create or worsen equity issues.
Joint Development Definition: In a joint development project, a public agency or group of agencies partner with a private developer or developers to improve the use of land near, below, or above the infrastructure facility. An agency may solicit private developer involvement and then provide the private partner with access to land near transportation infrastructure. The agency can also alter zoning and other regulations - or at least advocate that with other public bodies - to incentivize the private partner to improve the land. A private developer may also propose a joint development project, in which case the private partner makes improvements, may share costs with the public sector, and may coordinate in a way to maximize the impact of the transportation improvement. Two types of joint development are discussed in this section:
In some locations such as Texas, joint development refers to design-build-operate-finance-maintain public-private partnership (P3) projects. This Manual does not refer to these arrangements in the following discussion of joint development.
Alternative Terms: Above- or below-grade joint development is also known as right-of-way (ROW) use agreement.
Highways and Roads: Joint development can be used extensively for highway and road projects. Traditional at-grade highway and road joint development projects include retail concessions and service stations. 204 There are also many above-grade joint development projects over highways and roads as well, and they are frequently used in areas where the past construction of major highways has divided neighborhoods and eliminated opportunities for development on premium urban land. 205 The Cap at Union Station and Capitol Crossing projects highlighted in Appendix Section IV and Section V, respectively, represent two such projects; Copley Place in Boston is another example. Air rights transfers are also very beneficial in projects above highway ROWs, as developers can access even more floor area ratio than in transit station projects. This is because highway ROWs are more extensive and less built up than transit stations and therefore tend to have more unused space available. 206
Transit: Transit stations in high density areas are good candidates for above-grade joint development projects, and many transit agencies throughout the country have engaged in them. Among U.S. cities, New York City first began heavily pursuing air rights transactions in the mid-20th century and is presently developing an extensive air rights project known as Hudson Yards that is located on the west side of Manhattan. 207
Structure and Timing of Funds: Joint development payments can be made one-time in a land sale or up-front lease payment, or they can be made over time in several installments.
Sources and Uses of Funds: Joint development contributions are paid by a developer, property owner, or the owner of a business located at the development site. Joint development projects are often pursued through a ground lease in which an agency offers a developer the right to construct a building on its property for a period of time, typically between 50 and 99 years. 208 While ground leases come close to ownership for a private developer, they do not convey full control of the land, sometimes creating financing challenges. 209 Land sales are another way in which at-grade joint development projects are pursued. While the projects associated with land sales do not necessarily differ from those associated with ground leases, there are key differences between the two transaction methods and different motivations for pursuing each. 210
Other options available in air rights transactions are the sale of both land and development rights by an agency to a developer that then provides an easement to the agency so as not to limit their access. An agency can also sell the development rights above a property, but not the land, in order to keep more control over the parcel. 211
Management of Funds: Many types of private entities can make joint development payments, including developers, retail stores, and property owners. The funds from joint development can be spent on capital expenses or O&M over time. Funds can be used up front in a pay-as-you-go fashion or to repay associated bonds.
Ease of Implementation: Simple at-grade joint development projects such as land sales or leases tend to be easy to implement. On the other hand, above-grade joint development projects are often complicated because of technical challenges, increased costs, more extensive negotiations, and significant alterations to property rights.
Enabling Legislation and Legal Basis: As is discussed in Section 12.1, municipalities can play a major role in enabling joint development through changes in key policies such as zoning. States also play an important role in enabling joint development. Many States interested in pursuing joint development projects have recently updated their laws in order to eliminate prohibitions that prevent State DOTs and other relevant agencies from participating in joint development. 212 Such joint development laws may greatly vary in their scope.
Joint development can mean different things in different States. For example, many jurisdictions differ in how they define such projects, with some using very specific definitions that limit the type of joint development project in which an agency can engage. Some have included distance limits as small as a quarter of a mile 213 from a given infrastructure facility for a project to qualify as joint development. Other jurisdictions have applied specific land use standards to joint development. 214 For example, in Maryland only "dense, mixed-use, deliberately planned" developments are considered transit-oriented development and they must also be "within one-half mile of transit stations." 215 As with all value capture techniques, practitioners are advised to consult with legal counsel familiar with the case law in their State.
Federal Requirements: Agencies utilizing these mechanisms, which wish to maintain Federal eligibility, must meet Federal requirements, including property management and Uniform Act requirements. These are discussed in Section 12.3.
Challenges: While air rights alone are sometimes inexpensive, in complex above-grade joint development projects developers often find that funding and financing the construction of cap infrastructure necessary to take advantage of air rights is prohibitive. For example, Akridge, a real estate development company, paid only 3.33 cents per square foot in 2002 for air rights for a development planned over Washington, DC's Union Station. Akridge has yet to begin construction on the project in part because it was unable to get bank financing for this cap, which was more accurately termed a "deck." A cap does not provide traditional collateral in the event of default, as would a building or actual land. 216 Akridge therefore has to finance cap construction internally.
There are very few projects that are in regions with high enough land value that the additional costs of a cap can be justified. For example, the developer responsible for Capitol Crossing noted that "there are only two cities where land value is high enough and they are New York and Washington, DC. There aren't just empty sites just sitting around." 217 While other cities have successfully constructed decks, the share of public versus private capital invested in these projects should be considered, and public agencies outside of high land-value regions may have to invest more to get these projects built if they view them as critical.
Air rights agreements are mostly only suitable for large cities with transit facilities nearby, due to the low value of air rights outside those areas. Air rights agreements are highly sensitive to the real estate market, as they often are large, somewhat risky investments and are therefore more impacted by a downturn. Additionally, air rights agreements may be dependent on the construction and/or renovation of key infrastructure and may therefore have several starts and stops as developers wait for an agency to complete the linked infrastructure project. Finally, if transportation infrastructure built as part of a joint development is significantly less desirable than expected, an air rights project may also be less successful than anticipated and private developers may lose out.
Opportunities: Air rights transactions create significant benefits for developers, namely the opportunity to have access to prime real estate near key transportation infrastructure in cities where land is expensive and developers do not have space for construction. As such, developers can also charge high rental rates or sell property at a high value. If a joint development project involves retail, location by critical infrastructure can also drive increased customer access and higher sales. Joint development projects can often also help revitalize a neighborhood. As such, the areas they occur in may experience higher levels of safety and lower crime rates, which make them more attractive. Finally, the transportation infrastructure built out of joint development can be aesthetically pleasing and fit urban planning best practices, making it even more valuable to developers and a good location in which to make an investment. A private company - whether a developer, retailer, or landowner - that is one of the first to locate in such a developing environment has the potential for significant investment upside.
Challenges: Joint development can create public resistance, especially those that involve air rights or lead to the creation of tall buildings. The construction of transportation and real estate assets makes the surrounding land more valuable, while also changing a neighborhood's aesthetics and creating traffic impacts. Because of myriad impacts, policies that facilitate joint development through dense zoning can unite two factions that are often in conflict, namely affordable housing advocates and landowners.
Opportunities: The politics of joint development are driven by market and equity considerations. Developers tend to prefer it because it allows them access to a highly coveted and high value piece of land. Advocates for transportation and urban planning often also like joint development because it helps support transportation funding, incentivizes use of transportation, and encourages density, efficiency, and more walking and biking and less driving. Affordable housing advocates sometimes like joint development, as long as it leads to the creation of affordable housing. However, they may oppose it if it leads to gentrification and drives existing residents away.
Challenges: The construction of transportation assets, their associated joint development projects, and joint development-friendly zoning policies are often linked to the growth of the real estate market. Transportation and joint development both drive housing demand in neighborhoods in accessible parts of town, where younger individuals with more disposable income increasingly seek to live. They are often attracted to joint development projects with a variety of amenities. This catalyzes a cycle of increased development, land value increases, and more municipal revenue from property taxes and other fees. However, these changes have potential negative side effects as well, most notably gentrification, where significant increases in property values also increase housing prices and rents for existing residents. These shifts can make a neighborhood unaffordable for low-income residents, forcing them to relocate. Joint development projects and policies should include strong affordable housing protections in order to limit this impact. If Federal money is involved in a project, it must also go through a National Environmental Policy Act process, and environmental justice would be a key component. 218
Opportunities: In addition to providing agencies with an alternate source of funding and developers with prime real estate, air rights projects can often be used to accomplish broader social and equity goals. Some of these projects are spurred by a desire to better integrate a city or neighborhood, and as such improve access to transportation as well as connectedness to other neighborhoods and walkability. For example, one of the central purposes of The Cap at Union Station joint development project (see Appendix Section IV) was to construct a platform for pedestrians and drivers to traverse two adjacent neighborhoods that had long been cut off from one another after the construction of a major highway. In addition to the Ohio cap, several other cap or deck projects have been completed or are in the planning phase. Currently, Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Minneapolis, Seattle, and Santa Monica have cap projects underway or are considering them. 219
While many of the cap projects constructed so far have been parks, there remain many opportunities for joint development partnerships, especially for those caps planned in areas with high-value land. For example, Atlanta's Stitch, which is presently in the feasibility phase, would cover the city's Downtown Connector highway and link the neighborhoods of central Atlanta. Its construction would unlock highly valuable property in the city's central business district. Early estimates have suggested that the Stitch would cost $300 million and have an economic impact of $3 billion. If these studies are accurate, joint development could be a sensible part of the funding mix for this project. 220
Additionally, in increasing floor area ratio for developers, agencies can reduce sprawl and sometimes improve affordability if the development includes the explicit requirement that residential developers construct a certain number of affordable housing units. Many of these projects also involve the construction of spaces that are well-designed central hubs including amenities such as retail outlets, areas to exercise, and green space. When designed well, these projects can also connect separated and distressed neighborhoods, often spurring rejuvenation.
Example 15 and Example 16 describe highway and transit air rights projects.
Example 15: Reno I-80 Air Rights Project 221 222 223
In the early 1970s, I-80 was constructed to replace U.S. Highway 40 through the city of Reno, NV. The construction created a large gap through the city. A private developer constructed a concrete and steel cap and secured an air rights lease from the Nevada DOT with plans to build a hotel-casino. Ultimately, the main lender for the developer backed out of the hotel-casino project, and the Nevada DOT took ownership of the deck. By 1998, the platform began to deteriorate, and the Nevada DOT expected to demolish the structure. However, a major drugstore chain expressed interest in upgrading, leasing, and constructing a store on top of the deck. The city and Nevada DOT were initially skeptical of this plan, hoping for a larger investment, but given the lack of interest from hotel or casino developers, the lack of drugstores or grocery stores in the area, and the cap's proximity to a major university, they warmed up to the idea. Given the cap's prominence, the drugstore and its architects also had to provide an aesthetically pleasing design in order to get the city's approval.
The architects hired by the drugstore chain rehabilitated the deck and constructed the store over the course of 4 years without needing to shut down the highway below. It ran into some permitting issues given that, at the time, Nevada law did not permit advertising on a freeway structure. The project stakeholders were ultimately able to get the Nevada Legislature to pass a statute to display the company's name. In total, the project cost $4 million in capital expenditures, including the costs of rehabilitating the cap. Meanwhile the drugstore agreed to pay about $25,000 per year to the Nevada DOT for 60 years. After the building was completed in 2002, it won an award for outstanding achievement in structural civil engineering from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Today, it is one of the drugstore chain's busiest locations in the country.
Example 16: Atlanta's MARTA Engages in Joint Development at Five Stations
Atlanta, GA's Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) began its joint development program in 2001, but despite a major transaction in the early 2000s, the program did not truly take off until 2013 when MARTA sought to enter into agreements to develop land near five of its rail stations. Currently, MARTA engages in air rights leases above its rail stations and ground leases for land adjacent to its stations. It was projected to receive $7.4 million from current lease obligations in 2018. MARTA engages in a wide range of joint development transactions, and one of its most common strategies is to replace underutilized parking lots near metro stations with mixed-use commercial and residential developments. In addition to the revenue and ridership benefits of MARTA's joint development projects, the agency is also seeking to increase density, create jobs, and ensure a supply of affordable housing with easy access to transit stations.
| Focus Area | Questions for Decision Makers | Possible Next Steps |
|---|---|---|
| Market |
|
|
| Legal |
|
|
| Economic and Equity |
|
|
| Political |
|
|
|
|
|
| Implementation |
|
|
|
|
Agencies may consider utility joint development to take advantage of the synergies of broadband and other utilities with highway ROW.
Utility joint development can reduce delivery costs for broadband, but comes with other costs. Agencies should consider how these arrangements are regulated and compensated to ensure they are beneficial for all parties.
Definition: The most common types of utility joint development opportunities involve fiber optics, gas pipelines, solar panels, and electrical utilities. Private companies and developers often seek to share an alignment with a roadway or rail line as the most cost-effective way to provide their service. Of note, some utility infrastructure described in this Manual is actually at-grade, as placing utilities below roadways (especially in brownfield projects) can be expensive. Additionally, this section focuses primarily on fiber optic and telecommunications, although other utility uses are also relevant.
Alternative Terms: N/A
Highways and Roads: Utility joint development can have synergies with roadway alignments. For example, highway rights-of-way connect key population centers and businesses and are therefore an efficient path for broadband utilities to follow. Additionally, given the historic investment in highways near rural areas, connecting outlying and rural areas is less prohibitive if following this existing ROW. Example 17 in Section 8.2.8 illustrates an example of utility joint development implementation for roadways in the State of Utah.
Transit: Publicly owned railway alignments can also host utility joint development projects, as they share many of the advantages of roadways. However, rail alignments do not, in general, have the geographic reach of roads.
Structure and Timing of Funds: Funds can be collected up front, over several years, or a combination of both, depending on the specific deal structure.
Source and Use of Funds: Broadband firms can cover the capital costs of broadband installation and operating costs or provide in-kind services to State DOTs. This means that broadband providers can give agencies access to their assets in exchange for free or low-cost access to ROW. 224
Payments for ROW access are not used for long-term financing and are typically used for the broadband project or the ROW under use. There are several arrangements for long-term ROW rental fees payments. They may be calculated on a cost recovery basis for the direct costs of ROW access. In some States cost recovery can also include permitting, application, inspection, infrastructure renovation, and infrastructure protection costs. Some State DOTs charge a ROW rental fee that exceeds cost recovery levels and is based on different calculation methods as described under "Ease of Implementation" (see examples in footnote). 225
Management of Funds: State DOTs manage the fees paid by private utilities for ROW rental.
Ease of Implementation: Coordination of utility joint development with highway construction can reduce the costs and complexity of completing such projects separately. This coordination reduces capital costs and costs related to State permits. 226
Enabling Legislation: Except in the case of Interstate highways, State DOTs typically have jurisdiction to determine if a utility joint development project is in line with State regulations. State legislatures often have to pass P3 laws before State DOTs can engage in fiber optic joint development projects. Utility joint development can be restricted by State laws that disallow utilities on certain transportation corridors, do not permit in-kind payments, or require that utilities get free access to ROW. 227
Other Considerations: Utility joint development projects involve a high level of regulatory complexity, especially because the regulatory environment is changing as the Federal Government and States seek to accommodate fiber optic technology. The key consideration of most State transportation regulations is safety and operations, with aesthetics a secondary consideration. These concerns are balanced with the goal of broadband expansion and implementation of cutting-edge innovations benefiting from broadband access.
Utility joint development projects must also address the Federal requirements for utility accommodation. These are in place to ensure the design, location, and manner in which utilities use and occupy the ROW conforms to the clear roadside policies for the highway involved and otherwise provides for a safe traveling environment. 228 Another legal consideration, particularly in western States, is simply whether the highway ROW is owned in fee or not. For example, where highways cross Federal land, typically the State DOT only has an easement. A highway easement may not provide sufficient rights for the State DOT to rent out space for utilities.
Challenges: The business case for joint development with utilities is heavily influenced by State regulations. The advantages of utility infrastructure are often limited by operational, safety, regulatory, and maintenance concerns. Therefore, it is not deployed as often as expected. Some public agencies have arrangements where utilities can place infrastructure along a ROW if they are willing to pay a fee or make a lease payment, while others allow in-kind payment. The latter is especially relevant for telecommunications utilities in which an agency is allowed to make use of ROW in exchange for usage of dark fiber, a communication service, or a combination of services. 229 Such in-kind payment arrangements can be especially valuable as transportation agencies pursue intelligent transportation systems.
For compensation that is not based on cost recovery, calculating the rental fees from a private utility to a public agency for ROW uses can be challenging since the land use differs between projects, and road corridor characteristics are not always comparable. Additionally, regulations which differ across States affect how utility ROW access can be valued. The simplest method is to assess the value of the land that the utility infrastructure passes through, based on appraisals involving nearby properties. An additional consideration when determining the maximum compensation to a State for ROW access is the cost of alternative routes to the user, as well as the breakeven points and projected internal rate of return under various scenarios. 230
Opportunities: Over time, State DOTs have been more open to allowing utility and telecommunications firms to access their ROW. Many projects with for-profit utilities have been implemented as shared resource agreements, under which an agency gives a company permission to build telecommunications infrastructure on its highway ROW. These agreements then allow the company to access its infrastructure as needed and the private company pays for ROW usage while also taking care of its construction and maintenance costs. 231
Because of the synergies between road rights-of-way and broadband networks, the Federal Government and many States are increasingly looking toward "dig once" policies, which require installation of fiber optic conduit during road construction. 232 This solution only increases roads costs by 1 percent while reducing fiber optic construction costs by 33 percent. 233 Providing a provision for utilities was also an aspect of the Ohio Cap at Union Station case, as discussed in Appendix Section IV.
Solar panels on DOT-owned ROW also provide opportunities to generate revenue or offset expenses. A dozen State DOTs have utilized their ROW for solar panels to generate power for and reduce their operating expenses. 234
Challenges: Political opposition may come from the following groups, among others: incumbent telephone companies, incumbent cable companies, transportation agencies, and public works departments. Opposition from incumbent cable and telephone providers is motivated by the fact that they invest in their own infrastructure and "dig once" lowers their competitors' barriers to enter the market. For transportation agencies and public works departments, these rules can make often complex road projects even more technically challenging, time-consuming, and expensive. Utilities may need to be relocated in the future if the road or utility is upgraded. Also, the utility will disrupt traffic if utilities are placed under the roadway and need future repair.
Opportunities: Federal and State agencies are extensively discussing "dig once" legislation, in large part because of the significant savings associated with implementing these policies. In addition to strong support from broadband advocates, particularly those seeking to expand rural broadband, many incumbent internet service providers have begun to support these policies. They view the cost savings and advantages of ROW access as outweighing the threat of increased competition. State DOTs also have incentives to support policies that promote utility joint development, since they are becoming increasingly reliant on technology requiring broadband. 235
Challenges: Utility joint development can be challenging where an existing ROW is renovated to accommodate underground utility cables.
Opportunities: ROW is easier to obtain in a negotiation than privately owned land, which has many stakeholders with different interests and varying willingness to compromise. Additionally, it is less expensive than obtaining easements on private property or even leasing on other rights-of-way, such as railroads. Other advantages of accessing highway and road networks over other alternatives are that they are extensive as compared to the rail system and have more open areas for construction than private land. This efficiency and lower cost of installation makes expanding broadband to low-income and low penetration areas, particularly in rural areas, more financially feasible.
Example 17: Utah Department of Transportation Broadband Program 236 237
The State of Utah has been a pioneer in implementation of utility fiber optic projects. In 1999, Utah passed S.B. 150, which permitted telecom providers to access interstate ROW. Through the Utah DOT (UDOT), the State has utilized P3s to install conduit and fiber to support Intelligent Transportation Systems, as well as to provide broadband to underserved areas. UDOT applies the following best practices:
204 AECOM and Federal Highway Administration Office of Policy and Governmental Affairs, Case Studies of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships in the United States, July 7, 2007.
205 Bonnie Cambell, "Creating Sustainable Air Rights Development Over Highway Corridors: Lessons from the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston," Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/35695/60250140-MIT.pdf;sequence=2.
206 "Right-of-Way Use Agreements," Federal Highway Administration, www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/value_capture/defined/row_use_agreements.aspx.
207 Daniel Goldstein, "Want to Buy Some Air? Some Cities Have Plenty to Sell," MarketWatch, August 4, 2014, www.marketwatch.com/story/want-to-buy-some-air-some-cities-have-plenty-to-sell-2014-08-01.
208 AECOM and Federal Highway Administration, Case Studies of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships in the United States.
209 AECOM and Federal Highway Administration, Case Studies of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships in the United States.
210 Metro Transit (Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota), "Ground Leases: A Guide for Developers, Public Officials, and Lenders," 2017, www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites/1/media/tod/groundleases.3.30.2017.pdf.
211 Federal Highway Administration, "Right-of-way Use Agreements."
212 John Renne et al., "Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development: Case Studies and Legal Issues," Transit Cooperative Research Program: Legal Research Digest 36, August 2011.
213 "Maryland Incentive Zones - Designated Transit Oriented Development (TOD Areas)," Maryland Department of Information Technology, accessed December 1, 2015, data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/c8b282aed4c84bb5a8c991e1a9b7b30e_11.
214 "Article XXXI, TD Transportation District," Township of Willistown, Chester County, Pennsylvania, www.ecode360.com/11716603.
215 Maryland Department of Information Technology, "Maryland Incentive Zones."
216 Goldstein, "Want to Buy Some Air?"
217 Jonathan O'Connell, "Developer: Capitol Crossing Is ‘Very Tough to Get,' but Will Be Worth It," The Washington Post, December 11, 2014, www.washingtonpost.com/news/digger/wp/2014/12/11/developer-capitol-crossing-is-very-tough-to-get-but-will-be-worth-it/?noredirect=on.
218 Casey Dawkins and R. Moeckel, "Transit-Induced Gentrification: Who Will Stay and Who Will Go," Presented at the Transit-Oriented Development and Urban Form Symposium, October 18, 2014, www.umdsmartgrowth.org/what-we-do/research/research/casey-dawkins/.
219 Martha Moore, "More Cities are Banishing Highways Underground - and Building Parks on Top," Stateline, an initiative of the Pew Charitable Trusts, April 2, 2018, www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/04/more-cities-are-banishing-highways-underground-and-building-parks-on-top.
220 Josh Green, "Where Downtown Atlanta's Highway-Capping Stitch Would Go, in Photos," Curbed Atlanta, February 27, 2018, atlanta.curbed.com/atlanta-photo-essays/2018/2/27/17059266/downtown-atlantas-stitch-highway-capping-park-photos.
221 Karl Breckenridge, "The Walgreens Atop the I-80 Freeway," Reno Gazette Journal, May 13, 2016, www.rgj.com/story/life/2016/05/13/breck-walgreens-atop--80-freeway/84345082/.
222 "State Owned Leased Property," Nevada Department of Transportation, May 2015, www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=1751.
223 "Spanning the Gap - the I-80 Walgreens," BJG Architecture & Engineering, www.bjginc.com/What-We-Do/I80-Walgreens/i80-walgreens.html.
224 Broadband Deployment on Federal Property Working Group, Implementing Executive Order 13616: Progress on Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment, August 2013, obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/broadband_eo_implementation.pdf.
225 "State and Local Rights of Way Success Stories," National Telecommunications and Information Administration, www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/staterow/ROWstatestories.htm.
226 Broadband Deployment on Federal Property Working Group, "Implementing Executive Order 13616."
227 Associate Administrator for Infrastructure Thomas D. Everett to Directors of Field Services, Division Administrators, and Federal Lands Highway Division Engineers, June 28, 2017, "Information: Utility Accommodation and Other Uses of Highway Right-of-Way," Federal Highway Administration, www.fhwa.dot.gov/utilities/170628.cfm.
228 Further information on this requirement can be found on the Federal Highway Administration website at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/utilities/170628.cfm.
229 Broadband Deployment on Federal Property Working Group, Implementing Executive Order 13616.
230 Broadband Deployment on Federal Property Working Group, Implementing Executive Order 13616.
231 Broadband Deployment on Federal Property Working Group, Implementing Executive Order 13616.
232 Sally Aman, "Dig Once: A Solution for Rural Broadband," USTelecom, April 12, 2017, www.ustelecom.org/dig-once-a-solution-for-rural-broadband/.
233 Aman, "Dig Once."
234 Gina Filosa and Carson Poe, "An Array of Possibilities," Public Roads, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/15sepoct/02.cfm.
235 Jon Brodkin, "‘Dig Once' Bill Could Bring Fiber Internet to Much of the US," Ars Technica, March 22, 2017, arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/03/nationwide-fiber-proposed-law-could-add-broadband-to-road-projects/.
236 Tara N. Thue and Kelleigh W. Cole, Utah Broadband Advisory Council Report, Utah Broadband Project, June 19, 2012, broadband.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/utah-broadband-advisory-council-report3.pdf.
237 Utah Department of Transportation, How a State Agency Can Drive Fiber Deployment, Nevada Governor's Office of Science, Innovation & Technology, 2016, http://osit.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/ositnvgov/Content/Meetings/Broadband/2016/UTAH%20FIBER%20EXPANSION%20MODEL%20-%20V-2.pdf.
