You are on page 1of 14


Chicago Central Area Committee Alliance for Regional Development

Submitted 10/3/2016


Provide a brief summary description of the problem that you are committed to solving and the
solution that you are proposing. Your Executive Summary should be contained in a single paragraph.
Focus on delivering a compelling overview so that the Evaluation Panel members assigned to score
your application will want to read more. Your Executive Summary, along with other portions of your
application, may be extracted and revealed to the public. Therefore, the paragraph should not require
any other context to explain clearly the problem and your proposed solution. This is your opportunity
to make a strong first impression.
The information economy has become increasingly concentrated in dense, vibrant urban centers
attracting the best and brightest from the surrounding region in Chicagos case, the Great Lakes and
upper Midwest. An essential ingredient in building and sustaining these centers is efficient rail
transportation carrying workers to, from and within the urban core. Upgrading Chicagos overburdened
rail system is urgent and offers a chance to improve the lives of all. Lines serving the revitalizing parts of
the city are crowded and need relief; meanwhile, low-income neighborhoods with underutilized rail
infrastructure require new investment. We propose to create a Chicago Transit Redevelopment Trust
that will leverage new and existing rail assets to revive neglected communities while promoting city and
regional growth. We believe this trust will be a model for cities seeking an effective way to adapt to the
new economy, rebuild their centers, and improve access to opportunities.


The following information is required to capture a basic understanding of the structure, leadership,
and capabilities of your team.
TEAM PURPOSE (150 words)
Please explain how the problem and your proposed solution align with the primary purpose of your
organization or collaboration of two or more organizations. If there is a loose or indirect alignment,
please explain why youve decided to solve this problem.
The Chicago Central Area Committee (CCAC), the lead partner, is a coalition of leading businesses,
institutions and not-for-profits that advocates strategic planning and development to strengthen the
citys competitiveness and improve its quality of life. CCAC has been involved with all major planning
efforts in Chicago's core since its founding in 1955. Among other efforts, CCAC sponsored the Dearborn
Park residential development, which sparked revitalization of the near south side. CCACs partner, the
Alliance for Regional Development, is an organization of business, government and academic leaders
dedicated to economic development in the 21-county tristate region spanning Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Indiana. The proposed Chicago Transit Redevelopment Trust closely aligns with both organizations
missions. Optimization of rail transit infrastructure will facilitate growth in the city and region,
strengthen communities, and enable everyone to benefit from revitalization of the core.

The principal organization and point of contact for receiving and taking accountability for any grant
funds may be different from the organization and user name identified during registration. Is the
principal organization responsible for receiving and taking accountability for any grant funds different
from the registered organization?
Select Yes/No No
TEAM STRUCTURE (200 words)
Please indicate in a narrative format how your team is organized. Explain how your team is managed
on a day-to-day basis and by whom. Teams may consist of one or more organizations (refer to the
Eligibility Guidelines in the Rules). However, if two or more team member organizations are named,
each must offer a specific role to support the proposed solution. A team consisting of more than one
organization must describe its structured collaboration with both legal and governing control over the
implementation and/or expansion of the solution.
The team consists of credentialed professionals from world renowned firms working collaboratively with
support from CCAC/ARD staff. The Trust will be managed as a division of CCAC and will be incorporated
as a 501(c)(3). A Board of Advisors will include positions to be filled by the City of Chicago, the CTA,
Metra and businesses and community groups in areas served by the proposed initiative. CCAC will lead
Chicago-specific planning while ARD will oversee the proposal's regional component. Both organizations
are led by Kelly OBrien, Esq., who will preside over the Trust. Team member responsibilities include:
Skidmore Owings and Merrill (Doug Voigt) will provide planning and design services for transitoriented development.
Bryan Cave (Greg Hummel) will serve as general counsel.
Price Waterhouse Cooper will provide accounting services.
Mott McDonald (Mark Walbrun) will provide engineering consultation and related activities.
Ed Zotti will be project manager and will be responsible for report preparation.
S.B. Friedman Development Advisors will provide financial consultation.
Lothan Van Hook DeStefano Architecture (Avi Lothan) will provide site and land-use planning.
Schlickman & Associates (Stephen Schlickman) will provide strategic project delivery advice.
PORT Urbanism (Andrew Moddrell) will contribute urban design and landscape architecture
Please upload a document that names each team member and their organizational affiliation, and the
names of members of any Board of Directors or Advisory Board for the proposed solution.
You are only allowed to upload one file. The file types that are allowed to be uploaded have an
extension of .PDF, .DOC, .DOCX, .XLS or .XLSX
CCAC ARD Steering Committee Names.pdf
Is the team a collaboration between two or more organizations?
Select Yes/No Yes
(150 words)

Present a clear case as to why this will be an effective collaboration. Have the organizations
successfully collaborated in the past? Explain how the collaboration is positioned to deliver the
proposed solution as an integrated team with clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
The Chicago Central Area Committee and the Alliance for Regional Development are closely related
organizations that share personnel. CCAC chair Greg Hummel was a founder of ARD and is on the ARD
board. Team member Stephen Schlickman manages ARDs transportation and logistics team. Kelly
OBrien is the executive director of both organizations. It was agreed sharing management would be
beneficial to both groups, facilitating information exchange and providing opportunities for
collaboration, and this has proven to be the case. ARD was founded to implement the recommendations
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which among other things focused on
improved transportation and logistics including regional rail. The rail initiative we propose is thus a
natural fit for both groups. We have had conversations with Chicago Trend, the Center for
Neighborhood Technology, the Urban Land Institute, and the Obama Library Foundation, who may join
the Team later.
It is required that all parties execute a Memorandum of Understanding between/among the parties.
The fully executed Memorandum of Understanding or other legal agreement that controls the
relationship among the parties must be uploaded. For guidance, please read the Requirements
Regarding Any Proposed Collaboration.
You are only allowed to upload one file. The file types that are allowed to be uploaded have an
extension of .PDF, .DOC, .DOCX, .XLS or .XLSX
Memorandum of Understanding between CCAC and ARD for MacArthur.pdf


Please provide a broad description of the specific problem that your team is committed to solving.
Identify who or what is impacted by this problem. Offer an explanation of the current resources that
are available to address the problem. Focus on why those resources are insufficient to support
meaningful progress toward one or more aspects of a solution. Explain any previous attempts to solve
the problem, if there were any, and/or why the problem persists within the current environment.
Later, you will be asked to explain in detail your proposed solution; here, focus on defining the
problem and setting the stage for your proposed solution
Central Chicago boasts record employment and the fastest-growing downtown population in the U.S.
But the shortcomings of its existing rail system threaten further growth and perpetuate unequal access
to jobs and opportunity. Problems:
Overloaded north side trains. Crowding on the busiest L lines often reaches crush levels and is
steadily worsening. Driven by rising downtown employment, weekday ridership is expected to
increase ~150K per decade. Even if planned improvements are made, all lines serving the north and
northwest sides will reach capacity within 10 years.
Inadequate south side service. The south lakefront, a growing, mostly-minority area with rising
economic indicators, is critical to Chicagos future. Good rail service would help anchor it.
Meanwhile, residents of the far south side must ride buses long distances to the nearest L station.

Extending the L to 130th St. would cost $2.3 billion. The Metra Electric commuter line could help
revitalize both areas, but few south siders use it due to high fares, infrequent trains and lack of
integration with CTA.
Looming gridlock in core. The expanded central area has outgrown existing rail. Major destinations
cannot be reached from the L, Metra, or both. Because of poor connectivity between the two
systems, downtown development is concentrated in the small rail hub accessible from both, which
will reach full buildout in ~15 years. Meanwhile, large tracts on the cores periphery remain vacant
for lack of rail.
No regional rail planning. Regional rail initiatives will use existing assets for which there is currently
no comprehensive plan.
YOUR SOLUTION (250 words)
Describe your proposed solution in general terms, using laymans language, and explain how it will
make meaningful progress toward a solution to the problem youve identified. What will be the direct
benefits (outcomes) of this proposed solution? Who are the direct beneficiaries? Explain how and for
how long these benefits will be sustained once the solution has been implemented. Why have you
chosen this particular solution, and what is the best argument for this approach, as compared to
potential alternatives? Focus here on the broad goals that you seek to achieve. Describe any tactical
or operational plans that you will employ in answering the next two questions.
We propose to create the Chicago Transit Redevelopment Trust (the Trust), similar to the Trust for
Public Land. The Trust will not construct transit facilities; rather, it will work with the public and private
sectors to plan and create consensus for transit improvements and leverage those improvements for
maximum public benefit. In particular, the Trust will lay the groundwork for:
a new central area rail line (the Connector) to accommodate accelerating employment and
population growth in the urban core;
redevelopment of communities served by underutilized rail infrastructure, including but not limited
to the Metra Electric corridor on Chicagos south side; and
regional rail initiatives.
In pursuit of these goals, the Trust will:
Work with stakeholders to develop consensus to proceed with the Connector, described below.
Work with stakeholders to prepare master plans for transit-oriented redevelopment of selected
communities served by existing, new or upgraded rail transit infrastructure for approval by the city.
Acquire property, right of way, and other necessities for future rail facilities for eventual conveyance
to public agencies.
Acquire property for transit-oriented redevelopment near new or improved rail facilities, to be sold
to private entities for development in accordance with approved master plans, which may include
provision for affordable housing, neighborhood retail including grocery stores, and other amenities.
Investigate regional initiatives such as high-speed rail and airport express service and take
preparatory steps as appropriate.

Where do you expect the greatest impact of your project is going to take place? You must choose at
least one location, and you may select up to four. If you do not see your location, you may enter it in
the Other text box.
United States: Illinois
You have explained generally WHAT your team is offering; now, offer specific details of your proposed
solution, describing your technical approach and/or related technology. Explain exactly HOW you will
implement the proposed solution and the circumstances under which you will you achieve optimal
If your plan or proposed solution involves the creation or use of any technology or other products,
ideas, or processes on which copyright will be asserted or patents claimed, or if your proposed
solution relies on existing specific technology, products, ideas, or processes on which there are
existing claims of copyright or patent rights, please review the Intellectual Property Policy, which
describes the treatment of Grant Work Product (as defined therein) funded by the MacArthur
Consensus building, inclusive planning, and strategic property acquisition are key to the Trusts success.
Much work has already been done:
We have assembled a team with expertise in transit and land-use planning and design, engineering,
law, finance, real estate, public education and outreach, and other relevant disciplines (the Team).
Team members have been previously described.
The Team has prepared a detailed report, The Case for Rail Transit Expansion in the Chicago Central
Area (the White Paper available on request). The White Paper argues for the Connector, a grade
separated, automated rail transit line in the core that would add capacity and facilitate continued
economic growth.
The Team has conducted scoping meetings with property owners, public agencies and other
stakeholders regarding an important segment of the proposed Connector alignment, an unused rail
right of way on Chicagos near north side, and established its feasibility for transit use.
The Team is engaged in preliminary outreach to stakeholders in the Metra Electric rail corridor. Although
much work remains, the south lakefront clearly holds great promise. The community is predominantly
minority with strong economic indicators. Much vacant property is available at low cost. Redevelopment
of this corridor would be transformative.
In chronological order, identify key milestones in the implementation process and the timing of when
they will be reached. Your proposed solution must be implemented over a period of between three
and six years.
Tasks to be accomplished:
Year 1
Legal creation of Trust.
Publicity campaign via Chicago news outlets, Web and social media to enlist public support.

Public sector outreach focusing on Mayors Office, Department of Planning and Development,
affected aldermen, and business and community groups en route to Obama Library site.
Preparation of 15% design documents for Connector first phase (minimum operable segment or
MOS) from Union Station to Streeterville.
Buy-in/signoff from relevant public and private sector actors on MOS design and construction
including use of transit TIF and other revenue sources.
Scoping meetings and 5% design documents for balance of project.
Year 2
30% design documents for MOS.
15% design documents for balance of Connector; stakeholder buy-in/signoff.
Land assembly along Metra Electric to Obama Library; outreach to Metra and other stakeholders
regarding upgrade of Metra Electric to rapid transit operation.
Master planning for assembled property with community input (South Side Redevelopment
Year 3
Continuing land assembly and planning for South Side Redevelopment Strategy
Financial close on MOS
30% design documents for balance of Connector.
Years 4, 5 and 6
Financial close on balance of Connector.
Sale of land assembled for South Side Redevelopment Strategy to developers subject to terms of
community-approved master plan requiring mix of uses and amenities
Replication of South Side Redevelopment Strategy elsewhere in city and region by reinvesting land
sale proceeds, with possible participation of Urban Land Institute, OECD and Obama Library
At end of six years, conveyance of Trust assets to successor entity.


Present the results of any external evaluations that your proposed solution has undergone. Reference
any literature or scientific consensus to verify that any actions you describe will lead to the outcomes
that you predict. Explain the results of any pilot project or cases studies that have been completed
using your proposed solution, if applicable.
The use of private trusts to accomplish public purposes is well established. For example, the Trust for
Public Land, established in 1972, has played a role in 5,300 U.S. park and conservation projects,
including parks, trails, waterfronts, and other public areas, many in urban settings. Like the proposed
Trust, TPLs work involves both land-use planning and property or rights acquisition; typically it conveys
acquired property to a public agency. Also like the Trust, its effectiveness arises from its ability to build
productive professional relationships with a diverse array of public and private actors.

In Chicago, private sector involvement in the planning of public works has a long history witness the
1909 Burnham Plan, sponsored by the Commercial Club. CCAC, which has partnered in central area
planning for >60 years, follows in this tradition.
Much work has already been done. The Team has spent 18 months reaching out to property owners and
other stakeholders to assess the feasibility of proposed rail alignments for the Connector. The progress
we have made testifies to our effectiveness in getting people to the table, identifying issues, and arriving
at solutions.
A central component of our proposal, transit-oriented development (TOD), is a proven concept rail
historically has spurred development. The Chicago zoning code was amended several years ago to
encourage TOD, stimulating numerous projects, mostly on the north and northwest sides. We believe a
coordinated program of transit improvements, strategic property acquisition and transit-oriented
redevelopment can spur similar success elsewhere in the city.
Please describe the principal risks or threats to the short- and long-term success of the proposed
solution and your plans to address them. Include a consideration of whether your solution might
trigger a response from policymakers and/or any public officials that might pose a risk. Persuade the
judges that your team understands any specific operational or tactical hurdles.
The Trusts principal challenge will be generating consensus among stakeholders, both initially and going
forward. Specific concerns:
Private sector buy-in. Delays in obtaining support from property owners and residents contributed
to the demise of a previous downtown rail proposal, the Circulator light rail initiative of the 1990s.
We believe the Connectors design resolves earlier concerns. Scoping meetings with representatives
of affected properties and railroads have elicited no major objections and much support, and many
technical problems have been solved.
Public sector buy-in. We have met with the CTA, the Dept. of Planning and Development, and other
agencies, and have kept the mayors office apprised of our plans. However, the project has not
received the full attention of city hall due to other pressing matters. Further conversations are
needed to confirm our proposal satisfactorily addresses equity considerations.
Governance. The composition of the board of directors is of critical importance. The public sector
must be represented; at the same time, politicization of decision making must be avoided. We
believe the makeup of the board proposed herein will address these concerns but this is subject to
EVALUATION (250 words)
If you are selected as a Semifinalist, you will be asked to submit a monitoring, evaluation, and learning
plan. For an example, please review the Guidance for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning. For now,
briefly describe how you plan to evaluate that your solution will have worked. How will you
demonstrate what is working, why, under what conditions, and for whom?
The Trust will provide a work plan and schedule at the commencement of the project and update it as
work advances. The plan will enumerate all tasks, dependencies and deliverables and identify the critical
path. The Team will provide periodic progress reports to the Trusts board and, if desired, to the

The Teams analytical resources and technical knowledge regarding Chicago land use and demographics
are substantial and will greatly facilitate whatever monitoring and evaluation regimen is agreed on. We
maintain or have access to geographic information system (GIS) databases with detailed information on
all real property within the city of Chicago, including but not limited to physical dimensions of land and
improvements, current use, assessed value, zoning, special conditions, ownership to the extent publicly
available, and other characteristics.
As evident in the White Paper, we have worked extensively with U.S. census data, in particular the 5Year American Community Survey, which permits year-to-year tracking of socioeconomic trends at the
census-tract level, with breakdowns by race/ethnicity, income, age, sex and other demographic
characteristics. This makes it possible to determine the beneficiaries of the proposed program with
considerable precision.
To be clear, the grants six-year horizon is too short a time to rebuild entire communities, but we are
confident we will make demonstrable progress. We look forward to discussing an appropriate
monitoring, evaluation and learning plan with the Foundation.


Now that you have established the potential effectiveness of your proposed solution, please explain
how your team is uniquely positioned to deliver results based on your track record. On what basis of
your teams experience and previous performance should any claims be warranted? Judges are
looking for indicators that you have the capacity for executing your plan. Emphasize your knowledge
of the core disciplines, practices, and technology required to succeed.
The Team includes many of the leading figures in transit and public infrastructure implementation in
Chicago, including:
Stephen Friedman, S.B. Friedman Development Advisors. Mr. Friedman, a leading authority on value
capture, has served as consultant to many public infrastructure initiatives, including the transit TIF
legislation recently enacted by the Illinois General Assembly.
Greg Hummel, Bryan Cave LLP, attorneys, specializes in public-private partnerships and tax
increment finance and has served as counsel to numerous public infrastructure projects throughout
the U.S.
Avi Lothan, Lothan Van Hook DeStefano Architecture. LVHD served as design manager for all new
construction programs for Chicago Public Schools between 1994 and 2000, administering 40+ new
schools and additions, including land acquisition, zoning and legal entitlements and design
templates and standards. Total program cost exceeded $1B.
Doug Voigt, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. SOM, one of the worlds pre-eminent architectural and
planning firms, has spearheaded many Chicago planning projects.
Stephen Schlickman has served as executive director, Urban Transportation Center University of
Illinois at Chicago; executive director, Regional Transportation Authority; director, Central Area
Circulator Project (proposed Chicago light rail system).
Mark Walbrun of Mott MacDonald, engineers, has served as project director for rail projects
throughout the U.S., including the $100M redevelopment of Union Station in Chicago.
Transit consultant Ed Zotti, project manager, was principal author of the White Paper; a major
contributor to Chicago's Central Area Plan (2003); and principal author of Chicago River Urban

Design Guidelines Downtown Corridor (1990), which laid the policy groundwork for the Chicago
Please describe your organizations current capacity to undertake the proposed solution. What are the
gaps in knowledge or expertise, if any, that you need to address? Do you anticipate changes in
personnel, facilities, or organization? What are the strategic relationships, if any, required to bring
about the intended results?
Explain any infrastructure, systems, or previously measured successes that have been put into place
and/or tested to illustrate that you have the capacity to meet your standards of measured results.
Your previous performance is a theme that may be represented in other responses. Here, focus on
your teams capacity to repeat, measure, and/or scale any claims made as Evidence of Effectiveness.
The most pertinent demonstration of the Teams capabilities is the White Paper, a 189-page report
produced over an 18-month period with the help of a USDOT grant obtained through the Urban
Transportation Center of the University of Illinois at Chicago, financial support from the Chicago
business community, and in-kind contributions from Team members and their firms valued at >$250K.
The White Paper examines demographic, employment and ridership trends, concludes that the existing
rail system is nearing capacity, and recommends a new line and other improvements to add capacity
and steer growth to neglected communities with underutilized transit infrastructure. The report
estimates costs, explores funding mechanisms, and establishes that the existing tax base is sufficient to
support the project. Finally, it analyzes the past impact of rail transit and shows the proposed
improvement would unlock substantial development potential. In conjunction with the White Paper, the
Team conducted scoping meetings with stakeholders to establish project feasibility and found wide
public support.
The White Paper shows that the Team is well equipped to prepare plans, conduct outreach and build
consensus. We have reached the limit of what we can do on a minimal budget. The proposed Trust
would provide the resources to continue.
We require information necessary for our judges to understand your financial health and
Please provide audited financial reports from the past three years for the principal organization. If
your organization does not have them or cannot provide them, please upload a letter from the most
senior executive at the principal organization, explaining your inability to provide them.
You are only allowed to upload one file. If you have multiple documents, please zip them into a single
file first. The file types that are allowed to be uploaded have an extension of .ZIP, .PDF, .DOC, .DOCX,



We are asking you to offer a narrative description of your proposed budget, explaining all of your
teams resource requirements. Later, you will be provided a specific format for indicating projected
costs. Take time to consider all three of the next sections, so that they can read coherently as one
interrelated explanation.
The budget for the proposed Trust has two major components: (1) staff and contract expenses
associated with research, planning, engineering, real estate services, legal work and outreach; and (2) a
revolving property acquisition fund, which will be used to acquire control of land for transit facilities or
transit-oriented redevelopment. The fund will be periodically replenished as assets are sold, and will
account for the bulk of the Trusts outlays. If shrewdly managed, the funds capital could last many
Expenditures by the Trust represent only a fraction of the total cost of Chicago rail transit improvements
and related community investments, which ultimately will run to the billions of dollars spent in multiple
phases over many years. Most of this work will be undertaken by public agencies and the private sector
using traditional funding sources. The Trust nonetheless will play a central role in facilitating this
investment. To reiterate, the purpose of the Trust is to lay essential groundwork, including preliminary
planning and design of the Connector, securing of right of way, and master planning and property
acquisition in selected communities in new and existing rail corridors. Final engineering and construction
would be the responsibility of others, although some Team members and/or their firms may participate
individually. The Trust will sunset in six years and any net assets will be conveyed in such manner and to
such parties as may be agreed. However, see further discussion in Other Considerations.
What is the total cost to implement the solution within the specified duration revealed in your
timeline and key milestones? This includes capital expenditures; operational expenditures; and
monitoring, evaluation, and learning expenditures. In MacArthurs experience, monitoring, learning,
and evaluation costs will run 5-15% of the total projected costs. Please review the Indirect Cost Policy.
If you are selected as a Semifinalist, you will be asked to provide a detailed budget. For now, please
complete the following table:
NOTE: A minimum of three years is required. You may add additional years, up to a maximum of six.
6 years
[omitted see PDF EZ]
TOTAL $ 0.00
If the total projected cost exceeds $100,000,000, explain how you plan to secure the balance of any
necessary funds. Once your solution has been implemented, what will be the cost, if any, to sustain
the benefits over time? Identify the source of funding for those costs.
As indicated, the ultimate cost of rail transit expansion in Chicago will run to the billions of dollars, most
paid by taxpayer funds obtained through local and federal sources, as reviewed in the White Paper. The

public sector is well equipped to carry out this work once the need has been recognized and the
necessary commitments have been made.
Redevelopment of areas such as the Metra Electric rail corridor will likewise require extended
investment over many years. We have little doubt private investment will be forthcoming and in fact it
has already begun to occur. The south lakefront has many well-known cultural assets and research
conducted for the White Paper shows that economic indicators are strong and trending upward.
A question for discussion is the disposition of the Trusts assets after six years. Property for transitoriented redevelopment can and should be acquired relatively quickly, but resale to private parties will
depend on market conditions and is unlikely to be complete within the six-year horizon. The revolving
nature of the fund, with sale proceeds used to fund further acquisitions, argues for an indefinite term.
See further discussion in Other Considerations.
The implementation of your solution may require other resources or partnerships, and you are
welcome to explain them here. You can offer any contingency planning, based on specific issues raised
in other sections of your proposal. This is your opportunity to describe (more completely) outstanding
issues that you could not explain in any other sections.
Life of trust. The proposed Trust will sunset after six years as specified. However, an argument can be
made for (a) a longer term or (b) making provision to transfer the Trusts assets after six years to a
similar entity without a fixed lifespan. Implementing a new or upgraded rail line is inherently slow;
concomitant appreciation in adjacent property values may take time. An advantage of a public land trust
is that it can take the long view property can be held until the time is right. We respectfully suggest the
question of sunset warrants discussion.
Replicability. We believe a public land trust predicated on use of existing rail infrastructure for transit
coupled with planned redevelopment of adjoining property will become a national model. Use of rail
right of way for commuter or light rail is well established. Simultaneous acquisition of adjacent land for
transit-oriented development is rare, even though such land often is derelict, inexpensive industrial
property that, left undeveloped, discourages transit use. If acquired, planned, and resold to private
developers with appropriate stipulations, the land can be used to create transit-friendly neighborhoods,
thereby building ridership, creating opportunity, and generating the wherewithal for further public
You are required to submit a video presentation that captures your own pitch for why your solution
should be funded. You will upload a short digital film using YouTube. Set the Privacy Settings on your
video to Public or Unlisted; do not set them to Private. Your video may be extracted from your
submissions and made available to the public. Please appeal to a broad audience. Video submissions
should follow these guidelines:
A length of 30-90 seconds (no more than 1.5 minutes).
One person (two maximum) should present himself or herself during the video.
Focus on providing a personal connection; it is not necessary to produce a sophisticated video.
Your pitch must be in English.

Video submissions that do not follow these guidelines may be removed from the application. Here are
some logistical and technical suggestions:
Video cameras, digital cameras, phones, or laptops are easy-to-use devices for recording video.
If possible, set to low resolution to reduce file size. This enables easier video uploading.
If you are having difficulty uploading the video file, try logging out of the application and logging
back in using another Internet browser (Googles Chrome browser is preferred).
Here are general suggestions for delivering a high-quality video pitch:
Introduce yourself and your organization and/or team.
What is the problem that you are committed to solving?
What is your proposed solution?
What is unique about your proposed solution?
How would you measure success and achieve broad but meaningful impact?
Hone your content:
Keep your description and language simple.
Demonstrate passion through your words and enthusiasm.
Practice numerous times before recording your video pitch.
Take time to edit your video and seek feedback from others.
Do not submit your video pitch if you see room for improvement.
Please go to and upload your video. After uploading your video, copy the YouTube
Video ID into the box below and click the Update button. Your video will display below the box once
you have successfully updated the YouTube Video ID. Please be sure everyone can view your
application video by setting it to Public or Unlisted in the video's settings on YouTube. If you need
help locating your YouTube Video ID, please watch this video.
YouTube Video ID: [link provided previously EZ]
Can you achieve your objectives consistent with the MacArthur Foundations policies and applicable
law governing the MacArthur Foundation? The following sections of the application are for internal
review and will not be made available to the Judges. Your responses to these questions may be
reviewed in order to determine if your organization qualifies, based on whether you can satisfy the
policies and standards of the MacArthur Foundation and the law applicable to it.
What is the charitable purpose of your solution? Describe how the public or a subset, which is a
charitable class, will benefit from your solution. A charitable class must generally be an indefinite
number of individuals who are the subject of the charitable purpose and not a limited number of
specified individuals. For example, the class can be needy persons within a disadvantaged community
but not a specified person in the community, even if the person is disadvantaged. There can be a
comparatively small number of individuals, if the individuals are not identified and the class is open

The proposed Trust will make timely preparations for enhanced rail transit in Chicago and environs,
which ultimately will increase access to jobs and opportunities, promote neighborhood revitalization,
strengthen the economy of the city and region, and improve the quality of life for all citizens.
Will private interests (such as shareholders, for-profit companies, contractors, consultants, or other
individuals) benefit more than incidentally from the solution as compared to the public or charitable
benefit? If your solution will trigger any private benefit to one or more individuals, provide an
explanation of how the public benefit cannot be achieved without necessarily benefiting those
individuals and to what degree any private benefit compares to public benefit. You may refer to our
Private Benefit Policy for clarification.
Members of the Team will be reasonably compensated for their work, consisting largely of professional
services requiring substantial effort, timely performance, and a high degree of experience and skill.
Compensation will be consistent with market rates for the type of work performed. Professional services
will account for a relatively small percentage of total expenditures. The public benefit will substantially
exceed the compensation paid.
Does your proposed solution involve any efforts to effect policy changes through changes in existing
legislation, or the enactment of new legislation, and require lobbying activities with respect to a
specific legislative proposal?
Does your proposed solution require any research that would involve human subjects?
TEAM STORY (150 words)
Lastly, we want to understand your motives for participating in this Competition. Tell us how your
team came to work on this problem and arrived at this solution.
The initial advocate for rail expansion was Ed Zotti, a transit/planning consultant, journalist and author
who had conducted extensive research on Chicago transit. Hoping to interest the business community in
rail expansion, Mr. Zotti approached Greg Hummel, chairman of the Chicago Central Area Committee.
Mr. Hummel invited Mr. Zotti to present his ideas at a CCAC retreat and later at a transportation
workshop sponsored by CCAC in July 2014. The favorable response led CCAC to sponsor a White Paper
making the case for rail expansion. A project team and steering committee were formed, a federal grant
was secured through the Urban Transportation Center at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and
matching funds were raised in the Chicago business community. Following an 18-month effort, the
White Paper was completed in August 2016.

If your organization or collaboration is named as a Semifinalist, you will be required to provide

additional information during the next stage of the Competition (please refer to the Rules and the
Timeline), including but not limited to:
Tax Determination Letter, if applicable
Articles of Incorporation, Charter, or similar documentation
An organizational chart showing the roles and responsibilities of the key persons associated with
the project
Biographies of projects key staff, detailing their relevant experience to the proposed project
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan for the proposed solution (refer to the Guidance for
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning)
Existing policies, if any, addressing conflicts of interest, whistleblower, internal controls, antimoney laundering, intellectual property, human subjects research, code of conduct, ethics, gifts,
and any similar policies governing the organization
If you are not a public charity, a statement that any MacArthur Foundation grant funds will not be
used for lobbying purposes, or if you are a public charity under the Internal Revenue Code, a
lobbying budget in which you specify the amount of lobbying expenses and non-lobbying

You might also like