Laserfiche WebLink
of projects or outcomes in all parts of region and should be responsive to outcomes <br /> that maximize the potential of their particular location, while also helping to achieve <br /> regional goals. However, the allocations for any geographic subarea should not be <br /> capped artificially. <br /> C.4) Target funds toward the most cost - effective locations. As described earlier, there are <br /> a range of market contexts in the Bay Area, from emerging to strong. This relative <br /> market strength conditions the effectiveness of financing for TOD and infill. At the <br /> low end of the scale, there may be so much subsidy required that even a large outlay <br /> by MTC will fail to catalyze the market. At the high end of the scale, the provision <br /> of community benefits may be so costly to MTC that the benefits associated with <br /> funding are minimal. Figure 5 shows this in diagrammatic form to identify the target <br /> range for MTC funding. <br /> Figure 4. Target Funding Areas <br /> TODMfiII <br /> Propel Revenues <br /> TLC Pvgrm Target Areas <br /> is <br /> Emerging TO] Strceg T00 <br /> Market Areas Market Areas <br /> C.5) Continue to implement a regular funding cycle that allows for flexibility to respond <br /> to project needs. The TLC Program already has a regular biennial funding cycle. A <br /> TOD financing program will be best served by a similar regular cycle for allocating <br /> funding. However, the development cycle would benefit from more frequent funding <br /> allocations, ideally annually or even semi - annually. Certainty about when funding will <br /> be available will make the program more attractive to the development community. <br /> The program should retain some flexibility, whether in the funding cycle or in the <br /> evaluation criteria to continue to respond to changing regional needs. <br /> 28 FINANCING TRANSIT ORE IED DEv'ELOFft1ENT N THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA <br />