Multimodal Transportation Terminal Feasibility Study, Columbus, OH
Click HERE for graphic. Multimodal Transportation Terminal Feasibility Study Columbus, OH Prepared for Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Central Ohio Transit Authority Ohio Department of Transportation, Division of Rail Ohio High Speed Rail Authority City of Columbus Prepared by. Wallace, Floyd, Associates Inc. Boston, MA Architecture, Planning, Urban Design In association with: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Cambridge, MA Transportation and Economic Development Planning URS Consultants, Inc. Cleveland, OH Transportation Engineering Moody/Nolan Ltd. Columbus, OH Engineering HKI Associates, Inc. Columbus, OH Planning Imai/Keller, Inc. Boston, MA Rendering D.G. Jones & Partners, Inc. Cambridge, MA Cost Estimating Preparation of this document was financed by appropriations from the Ohio Department of Transportation Division of Rail, Ohio High Speed Rail Authority, Central Ohio Transit Authority, and the city of Columbus therein, together with planning funds from the Federal Highway Administration and the Ohio Department of Transportation. Columbus Multimodal Transportation Terminal Oversight Committee Bill Habig William Hutchinson Executive Director Ohio Association of Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Rail Passengers Commission Lou Jannazo Ohio Department of Transportation MO Ismail Division of Rail Transportation Director of Transportation Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Steve McClary Commission City of Columbus Department of Development Jim Betts Ohio High Speed Rail Authority Jim Musick City of Columbus Barbara Brown Division of Traffic Engineering Ohio Department of Transportation Division of Rail Transportation Nancy Duncan Porter North Market Development Pete Cass Authority Columbus City Council Jay Sant Carla Cefaratti Parsons Brinckerhoff Ohio Inc. Ohio Department of Transportation Claire Sawaya Div. of Public Transportation Convention Facilities Authority Don Damron Ralph Smithers Ohio High Speed Rail Authority Development Commission for Central Ohio Richard Davis Columbus Chamber of Commerce Columbus Southern Power Richard Geyer Ty Stroh, Director Columbus Convention Center Greater Columbus Convention Bureau Charles Glander Central Ohio Transit Authority Glenna Watson, General Manager Board Central Ohio Transit Authority Patrick Grady, Administrator Roger Wheeler City of Columbus American Electric Power Honorable Marc Guthrie Phil Whitaker Ohio House of Representatives Associate General Counsel/ Nationwide Insurance Ray Hanley Central Ohio Transit Authority Columbus Arts Council Inc. Board Jeff Honefanger Ohio Department of Transportation Division of Rail Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1 Context 1 Study Purpose 3 SITE SELECTION 5 Three Zones 5 Three Priority Sites 6 Travel Demand 6 Site Evaluation 13 THE PREFERRED SITE 15 Planning Context 15 Opportunities and Constraints 15 Joint Development 16 Traffic Considerations 17 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL PROGRAM 18 Building Program 18 Site Program 20 FUNCTIONAL DESIGN CONCEPT 21 MMTT Internal Circulation 21 Site Circulation and Access 21 MMTT Terminal Design 22 Functional Design Concepts 23 Intercity Passenger Rail Platform Concepts 23 Preliminary Cost Estimate 24 Models for Operations and Maintenance 24 IMPLEMENTATION AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT 27 The Players 27 Components of the Project 31 Development Strategies 32 Funding 37 Conclusion 39 MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 LIST OF FIGURES After Page 1. View of Proposed MMTT Exec. Summ. 2. Cutaway View of MMTT Exec. Summ. 3. View of MM TT Looking North on High Street Exec. Summ. 4. Interior View of MMTT Exec. Summ. 5. Priority MMTT Sites 6 6. Access to Priority Sites 8 7. Urban Design Opportunities 15 8. Site Components 16 9. Basic MMTT Street Level Components 18 10. MMTT Program by Level 19 11. Full Build Terminal Street Level Plan 19 12. MMTT Internal Circulation Core 21 13. MMTT Site Circulation and Access 21 14. Sub-grade Plans 22 15. Street Level Plans 22 16. Levels 2 & 3: Full Build Terminal 22 17. MMTT Sections 22 18. MMTT Section 22 19. Flexible Concept Diagrams 23 20. Urban Design Plan 23 APPENDICES (published under separate cover) A. List of Meetings Held B. Technical Memorandum on Demand Estimation C. Technical Memorandum on Platform Evaluation D. Preliminary Cost Estimate Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) commissioned a feasibility and preliminary cost estimate study for a downtown Columbus Multimodal Transportation Terminal (MMTT). In this facility, various transportation modes would converge and passengers would be able to transfer from one mode to another easily and safely. Recent developments, including the development of the High Street corridor as a transit mail, potential introduction of light rail service to downtown, renovation of the Short North/North Market, the redesign of the Nationwide Connector, the new Convention Center, the opening of I-670 and proposed intercity rail service linking Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland, had led to the conclusion that such a facility might be warranted and should be examined closely. The site selected for the Columbus MMTT at High Street and Nationwide Boulevard is extraordinary in three respects: 1. The convergence of the intercity rail line (3-C Corridor), the preferred North Corridor Light Rail Transit Corridor on High Street, the existing High Street Transit Mall serving local COTA bus routes, and the close proximity of regional highway access all within this centrally located site creates the opportunity for an extremely efficient multimodal transportation terminal (see Figure 1). Rarely in any city do so many transportation modes converge in one location so close to downtown. 2. The site dimensions and configuration allow for efficiency in both the layout of bus and rail platforms and pedestrian interconnections between transportation modes. The walking distance between intercity rail, light rail, express bus/local bus, taxi, drop and ride, parking, and the proposed downtown bikeway connector are minimal (see Figure 2); it is literally possible to transfer from any one mode to another within a one minute walk. 3. The MMTT site location within downtown offers two opportunities to link existing and proposed activities in adjacent districts: on a north/south axis, the terminal links the North Market/Short North District to the Central Business District, and on an east/west axis, the terminal links the Convention Center with the large potential development zone west of Front Street (see Figure 3). Thus, the Columbus MMTT serves two major civic functions. It provides access to the CBD by multiple transportation modes, with convenient, safe, and pleasant interconnections between modes; and, it places a major civic building - an active people place - at the crossroads of the burgeoning northern end of the CBD, near the Convention Center and North Market/ Short North (see Figure 4). MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 Executive Summary The study conclusions, summarized below, were developed in consultation with the MMTT Oversight Committee, adjacent property owners, and other interested parties. Summary of Conclusions Site Selection/Ridership Forecasts: A number of downtown parcels along the rail corridor were evaluated. Among them, three demonstrated the highest potential for development. One parcel was located at the corner of Nationwide Boulevard and High Street (Site A), one east of the old Penitentiary site (Site B), and one east of the Convention Center (Site C). Site accessibility, terminal configuration, environmental constraints and property ownership were among the factors considered in the selection of the preferred site. The High Street and Nationwide Boulevard site has demonstrated the highest potential, with significantly higher ridership demand and better proximity to major destinations. The ability of this site to blend easily with the adjacent neighborhood development and land uses was an additional positive factor in the selection of Site A as the Preferred Site. 2010 Average Daily Terminal Users 2010 Average Daily Transit Riders Site A Site B Site C Site A Site B Site C 19,950 9,250 9,550 14,450 6,650 6,450 Building Program: The following program elements were established: Transportation Uses Non- Transportation Uses Intercity rail Convention-oriented hotel COTA express bus Parking for hotel, offices Proposed light rail Ancillary retail uses High Street bus only lanes Airport shuttle bus Taxi/limo drop-off Private auto drop-off & parking Pedestrian/bicycle COTA administrative offices Urban Design: Once it was determined that the High Street/Nationwide Boulevard site was the preferred location for the MMTT, a series of meetings was initiated with a number of neighbors, abutting property owners, and business concerns in the area (see Appendix A). From the outset, it has been a guiding principle of the Feasibility and Cost Analysis Study for a MultiModal Transportation Terminal in Downtown Columbus that the terminal should not only fit into its environment, but that it should be designed to be supportive of the existing and potential future activities in the area. To that end: MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 Executive Summary - Allowance was made for a potential Convention Center Hotel and parking at the north end of the site. - The "active" MMTT High Street frontage is designed to fill the gap on the west side of High Street between the Short North/North Market District and the Central Business District. - An elevated pedestrian walkway system has been incorporated into the MMTT to link the terminal to the Convention Center and to the large potential development zone to the west of the terminal stretching to the penitentiary site. Functional Design Concept: Integration of transportation and joint development components has been a major goal of the functional design of the facility. Special attention was devoted to maintaining the cultural character of the North Market/Short North area and the high quality architectural standards in the surrounding area and nearby development opportunities, and to allowing maximum flexibility in the sequence of construction. The transportation elements of the facility are planned to be constructed on land owned by Conrail and the State of Ohio, and the joint development components to be constructed on land owned by private entities. Operations and Maintenance: The Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) and the newly formed Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) are two of the top candidates to operate and maintain the facility. They both have the expertise and the ability to secure funding for the construction of the facility and maintain the high standards established on the High Street corridor. The facility will be open to the public most of the day; it will only be closed for security reasons during late-night hours. Without a decision on who will own and operate the terminal, it is premature to specify a preference for maintenance, operations, and security functions. However, experience at other MMTTs has shown the importance of operating and maintaining the MMTT at an "airport level" quality standard. Either COTA or ORDC could operate the facility themselves or subcontract to private contractors who have the resources and experience to provide maintenance and security. Implementation: COTA and ORDC should maintain frequent contacts with abutting property owners and business operators so that all of their considerations are incorporated in the design and operation of the terminal. Certain actions should be pursued in the immediate future: 1. COTA and ORDC should immediately initiate discussions with Conrail regarding acquisition of (at a minimum) an option to purchase that portion of the joint development site presently owned by Conrail. 2. COTA should augment expertise and capacity to handle real estate acquisitions, financing, design, and construction for future use of the proposed transportation terminal. MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 Executive Summary 3. COTA and ORDC should remain in contact with adjacent property owners and other interested parties to collectively plan and pursue long-term development opportunities of the site. 4. COTA should consider combining the multimodal terminal and the north corridor projects into a single package in all discussions with the railroads, ORDC, the city of Columbus, and other parties. 5. COTA and ORDC should initiate discussions regarding the timetable and next steps to develop a funding package and to advance the building program and design to the next level of detail. MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Introduction INTRODUCTION Context The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) commissioned this 'Feasibility and Cost Analysis Study for a Multimodal Transportation Terminal (MMTT in Downtown Columbus" in 1992 to examine the feasibility of siting and developing a multimodal transportation terminal in the central business district of Columbus, Ohio. The concept of a multimodal transportation terminal was initially explored by MORPC in 1976. It was also addressed in a study of CBD transit stations done by Parsons Brinckerhoff in 198 1. Both studies concluded that the concept was indeed a good one, but both indicated that such a facility was predicated on the development of the convention/hotel complex, future rail development, and the need for public transportation facilities. Recent developments in both transportation and economic development of the Central Business District (CBD) had led to the conclusion that such a facility might be warranted and should be reexamined closely. Transportation In 1992 the Ohio High Speed Rail Authority announced its intentions to work with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Ohio General Assembly to establish a conventional passenger rail service linking Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. It was thought at the time that this might serve as a precursor to the intercity rail service being developed by The Ohio Railway Organization. Currently, no rail passenger facilities exist in Columbus. The Ohio 3-C Corridor Click HERE for graphic. MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 1 Introduction In addition, the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) operates two express terminals in downtown Columbus. COTA is approaching capacity at the existing northern terminal with six bays serving nearly 1,000 passengers daily, and needs a new site. The development of the north terminal would be an integral part of the COTA Long Range Plan under study at the time. The completion of the High Street corridor transit mall, with its public transit amenities, would further enhance COTA operations in the downtown. In 1992, MORPC and COTA embarked on the development of a new 2010 Long Range Transit Plan. This plan recommended further consideration of a light rail transit (LRT) route serving the North Corridor, as well as expanded bus service throughout the region. Because the Central Business District (CBD) is the market hub of the transit system, any future rapid transit would require a CBD station(s). North Corridor Transit Line Click HERE for graphic. Also in 1992, the new Interstate, I-670, opened, providing the CBD with a 10-minute direct connection to Port Columbus International Airport. The 1-670 facility includes ramps linking the freeway directly with the convention/ hotel facilities. The proposed rail link is also adjacent to these facilities. The proposed Nationwide Boulevard connector west of High Street will improve access to this area of downtown. For a long time, officials from Newark in Licking County have expressed interest in linking Newark with downtown Columbus via a transit line. COTA currently operates a very successful interconnect express bus service. When demand for this service further increases in the future to justify transit connection via rail service, the Panhandle rail line recently acquired by ODOT may be the long-term solution. Such a service, if feasible, would require station facilities in the downtown. MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 2 Introduction Economic Development Downtown Columbus leads the region in economic development. The CBD represents a 2.5 square mile area and accommodates close to 86,000 workers. The employment forecast for the year 2010 is 101,463. Three million square feet of office space and 1.3 million square feet of retail space (Columbus City Center) has been constructed in the past five years. In the decade of the 80s, over $2.3 billion was spent in public and private permanent improvements within the downtown district. Projections call for the continuing development of the CBD, with special focus on the northern terminus which is anchored by the new convention center facilities. Completed in 1993, the new Greater Columbus Convention Center now offers approximately 300,000 square feet of exhibition space, as well as ballroom and meeting room space, and incorporates the former Ohio Center Complex. The facility can accommodate up to 50,000 customers. The development of the new convention facilities is spurring additional retail and hotel development in this area. The upgrading and renovation of the Short North/North Market will increase after-hours activities in that area. The city of Columbus has had plans for the redevelopment of the riverfront just a few blocks away, for a long time. This development would also enliven the area. All of these activity centers attract large numbers of visitors. A Multimodal Transportation Terminal in the immediate vicinity of downtown will be able to serve these attractions, and improve the economic development potential of surrounding parcels. Study Purpose The purpose of the study was to analyze the design parameters and address the issues of integration of the terminal into all aspects of regional transportation, land use, and economic development. This included planning for linkages to future transportation systems which are currently under discussion, and the current long range plan for COTA which is examining regional fixed guideway transit. An important goal for the terminal design was that it be a facility which was a "good fit" with the surrounding downtown environment, supportive of ongoing development. The study was to: Analyze all facets of the necessary modal interfaces and recommend a preliminary design upon which locational decisions could be based. Estimate passenger usage for all modes utilizing the terminal, including potential intermodal transfers. Provide an environmental assessment, including an historical survey, potential air and water quality impacts, toxic waste/landfill problems, and aesthetic considerations. MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 3 Introduction Analyze the beneficial economic impacts of this facility as well as examine the joint development opportunities with other public, private, and not-for-profit entities. Examine the long range cost and feasibility of a temporary station to serve the immediate need for intercity conventional rail passenger facilities. Estimate the terminal's construction cost and identify financing options. Determine maintenance and operations requirements. The Multimodal Transportation Terminal Oversight Committee, which had already been formed, participated in the process. Agencies represented included: MORPC, ODOT (Division of Rail and Public Transportation, Ohio High Speed Rail Authority), Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority, Columbus Convention Center, Greater Columbus Convention and Visitors Bureau, city of Columbus (Traffic and Development Departments, and City Council), North Market Development Authority, Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA), Nationwide Insurance, Ohio Association of Rail Passengers, American Electric Power, and the Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce. (See Appendix A for a list of meetings held with the Oversight Committee, adjacent property owners and other business entities.) MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 4 Site Selection SITE SELECTION Three Zones The MMTT requires a site located in downtown, along the 3-C rail corridor, large enough to accommodate the envisioned building program (transportation and joint development), accessible by different modes from more than one street, relatively easy and available to assemble, and environmentally clean. Three general geographic zones were initially identified as potentially suitable zones for the downtown multimodal transportation terminal. The first zone (Zone 1) was located across the Scioto River, on the north shore of the Scioto Peninsula, in the vicinity of the Veterans Memorial Auditorium. The relative location of Zone 1 with respect to the central business district is shown below. The second zone (Zone 2) was located to the northeast of the newly expanded Convention Center, between Fourth Street and State Route 3, north of I-670. The relative location of Zone 2 with respect to the central business district is shown below. The third zone (Zone 3) encompassed the area within a three block radius of the comer of Nationwide Boulevard and High Street. This Preferred Zone is within the Central Business District, adjacent to the preferred downtown light rail corridor alignment on High Street, already well served by COTA conventional bus service, and well situated with respect to major vehicular access from the regional highway system. The Three Potential MMTT Site Zones Click HERE for graphic. MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 5 Site Selection Although there were available parcels in all zones which met some of the criteria, discussions with COTA, MORPC, ODOT, and the MMTT Oversight Committee resulted in the elimination of both Zones 1 and 2 from further consideration. Primary considerations were remote location with respect to the central business district, the preferred downtown light rail corridor alignment, and COTA's local bus service network structure. Restricted vehicular access was also a problem with Zones 1 and 2. As a result, Zone 3 was selected as the Preferred Zone and more detailed parcel identification efforts were initiated. Three Priority Sites Within the Preferred Zone, three sites were identified (see Figure 5) and evaluated. Site A is bounded by High Street, Nationwide Boulevard, and Front Street. Owned by Nationwide Insurance, Conrail, and the State of Ohio, the site is currently used for parking. This site, with frontage along High Street, is adjacent to the new Convention Center to the east, and to the Nationwide Insurance Campus to the south. Site B, bounded by Spring Street, Marconi Boulevard, West Street, and Nationwide Boulevard, is owned by the Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company. It is currently predominantly vacant, and partially used for parking. Site C, bounded by Nationwide Boulevard, Third Street, and Fourth Street, is owned by the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority and is currently used for Convention Center parking. The site has frontage along Mount Vernon Avenue (Nationwide Boulevard) and the 3-C Corridor, and is adjacent to the Greater Columbus Convention Center to the west. Travel Demand For each site, COTA envisioned that the multimodal terminal would serve the following transportation modes: Adjacent light rail lines (as defined for each light rail alternative below), Adjacent local bus routes, All feasible express bus routes as defined by the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA), and Intercity passenger rail service in the "3-C" corridor between Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus. It was also envisioned that taxis, "drop & ride", and bicycles would serve the terminal, and implied that parking sufficient for intercity rail passengers would be available at or near each site. Since the intercity rail service is still in a study phase, the precise parking requirements are unknown. For purposes of estimating travel demand, 300-500 spaces were assumed. COTA has assumed that local buses would not stop inside the terminal but would stop on High Street outside. This assumption did not significantly affect the demand estimates. MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 6 Click HERE for graphic. Site Selection COTA also defined the 2010 bus system, which in many ways is significantly different from the present bus route system; the new system will employ a series of suburban "hubs" with multiple peak periods. The consultant team and MORPC have coordinated closely with COTA to estimate peak period travel demand to the MMTT based on the projected year 2010 volumes. Based on this analysis, it has been determined that ten express bus bays will be adequate to accommodate the peak a.m. and p.m. demand periods. The MMTT Express Bus Terminal will function much as the existing COTA North and South Express Bus Terminals operate, with extensive a.m. and p.m. peak period service; the only mid-day service would be the airport shuttle bus operating on ñ 30 minute headways. Detailed demand estimates for the proposed multimodal transportation terminal were developed for both intercity and intracity trips to the terminal for four different light rail alternatives and three alternative terminal sites. The demand estimates, in addition to being used as a criterion in evaluating sites, were helpful in determining MMTT facility size and design requirements and cost estimates. A summary of this analysis follows. (See Appendix B for a more detailed description of the methodology and results.) The study design initially envisioned that intercity bus service would be a component of the MMTT. A detailed field survey was conducted of the Columbus Greyhound bus terminal to collect data sufficient to understand the volume and nature of their operations. The analysis revealed that Columbus is a major transfer point, operating as a hub, with approximately 73% of the Greyhound passengers in the Columbus station transferring from one Greyhound bus to another. Based on that information, the conclusion that a low number of people would be transferring to other modes, and the large number of bus bays required to accommodate the buses for long layovers, it was not deemed advisable to place the Greyhound intercity bus facilities within the MMTT. Descriptions of Light Rail Alternatives The "COTA 1993 Long Range System Plan" determined that ... between 1986 and the year 2010, the region will continue to have radial travel patterns to and from the CBD. Most of COTA's current routes are also radial and all of them share the highway network with other vehicles. Enhancing COTA's bus system and adding fixed guideway rapid transit operating on a separate right of way will increase efficiency, relieve highway congestion, and improve the region's air quality. The north corridor presents the best opportunity for this. Of the eight travel corridors, it contains the most key traffic generators. It also has the Largest number of person and work trips going to and from the CBD. More person and work trips from all districts are attracted to and from the north corridor than any other. As documented the future highway network corridor will not be sufficient to accommodate growth... MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 7 Site Selection Since Columbus presently has no light rail service and no final decisions about light rail service have yet been made, the locations of future lines had to be defined. A total of four different alternatives were examined (see Figure 6): 1. Alternative I comprises a line from the north, along the current railroad right of way, from the Crosswoods commercial center north of I-270 on High Street, joining High Street at Goodale Street and continuing south along High Street to downtown (ending at Mound Street). This line would be two-way and would pass through site A; sites B and C would not be directly served. 2. Alternative 2 follows the same line from the north as in Alternative 1, but instead of proceeding south along High Street, it would proceed south from Goodale Street to downtown along Third Street, then west along Mound Street, and north along Front Street to Goodale and back to the rail corridor. Site C would be served directly; sites A and B would not. 3. Alternative 3 includes the light rail line from Alternative 1, but also includes a rail line from the northwest (Hilliard Line), along the CSX Railroad right of way to the Penitentiary site. As in Alternative 1, Site A would be directly served by the High Street Light Rail Alignment; Sites B and C would not be directly served. The Northwest (Hilliard Line) Alignment would pass directly through Sites A and C; Site B would not be directly served. 4. Alternative 4, similar to Alternative 3, includes the northwest light rail line as far as Ohio State University. The line then proceeds east to join the other light rail line (as in Alternative 1). Thus site A would be served directly; sites B and C would not. Since this analysis was completed, the Multimodal Transportation Corridor Study Task Force has assessed the potential for passenger rail service in the Northwest, Northeast, and East Corridors. Scenarios for Demand Estimation Demand estimates were prepared for a total of eight scenarios, defined by a terminal site (A, B, or C) and a light rail alternative: I - Site A, light rail alternative 1 II - Site B, light rail alternative 1 III- Site C, light rail alternative 1 IV - Site A, light rail alternative 2 V - Site B, light rail alternative 2 VI - Site C, light rail alternative 2 VII- Site B, light rail alternative 3 VIII- Site A, light rail alternative 4 MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 8 Click HERE for graphic. Site Selection The terminal sites which were not analyzed with light rail alternatives 3 and 4 would not be served by the additional light rail service. The demand estimates for these terminal sites with Alternatives 3 and 4 can be assumed to be the same as with Light Rail Alternative 1. (A separate study, the Multimodal Transportation Corridor Study/MIS, subsequently evaluated the four light rail alternatives. That analysis resulted in the decision to pursue Alternative I as the preferred alternative, dropping Alternatives 2-4.) Methodology for Intracity Demand Estimates For each scenario, demand estimates included both intracity and intercity demand. The intracity demand estimates were computed in 1993 using MORPC's travel demand model. The information provided by MORPC included a transit network for 2010 which included light rail alternative I and the 2010 COTA bus system, but no multimodal terminal. Since it was felt that one of the major advantages of the proposed terminal would be to facilitate transfers among the various modes, it was necessary to code each terminal site into the transit network. For each scenario, the appropriate light rail lines and express bus routes were coded. The mode choice and transit assignment modules were then run for each scenario. Methodology for Intercity Demand Estimates Intercity demand estimates consisted of two components: intercity rail service and bus. Rail ridership estimates were obtained from the 1992 report "Implementation Plan for High Speed Rail in Ohio" prepared by the Ohio Rail Organization (ORO). This report provided sufficient information to determine annual rail ridership for the downtown Columbus terminal for the business and non-business modes. The service assumptions were sixteen round trips per day between Cincinnati and Cleveland at headways of approximately one hour. The annual number was converted to an average weekday number based on information from the 1989 report "High Speed Rail Ridership Study" prepared by Peat Marwick Main and Co. Bus estimates were obtained using a count taken by MORPC in March 1993. A total of 514 two-way riders boarded or disembarked in Columbus. (It should be noted that both the rail and bus ridership estimates were independent of the terminal location; the same number of riders was assumed for each terminal site.) The Columbus area destinations and modes of transfer for intercity travelers were determined using MORPC's travel model. Some information was obtained from the 1988 survey of air passengers reported in the "High Speed Rail Ridership Study." It was assumed that the percentage of travelers parking, being dropped off, or being picked up at the airport had autos available. Because it is likely that the percentage of travelers renting cars would be much lower for rail/bus passengers than for air passengers (given the distance from the airport to downtown and the fact that those needing autos in Columbus would be more likely to simply drive all the MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 9 Site Selection way to Columbus), it was assumed that half of the percentage of travelers renting cars at the airport would rent for the rail/bus modes. It was assumed that transit and taxi passengers had no auto available. This totaled 54.3% of intercity passengers having no auto available and 45.7% having an auto available (mostly Columbus area residents). There are four distinct groups of intercity travelers for which trip distribution and mode choice had to be performed: business - auto available, business auto unavailable, non-business - auto available, and non-business - auto unavailable. Peak Period Demand Estimation The major source of data was information provided by COTA on the breakdown of daily passenger boardings into different time periods, including early morning, a.m. peak, midday, p.m. peak, night, and late night. The breakdowns were available by route and in the aggregate for both express and local bus service. These figures show that 21% of local bus passengers and 50% of express passengers board during the a.m. peak period (6:30-9:30 a.m.). The p.m. peak (3:00-6:00 p.m.) figures are 29% and 44% for local and express passengers, respectively. In the absence of other information, it was assumed that the passenger loads would be spread evenly over each peak period so that the a.m. peak hour contain 7% of local passengers and 17% of express passengers. For the p.m. peak hour, the figures are 10% and 15% for local and express bus service, respectively. These figures were applied to the daily local and express bus ridership estimates to obtain peak hour estimates. Since express buses do not operate in the midday and nighttime, and it was assumed that the light rail system would operate all day, the local percentages were used for light rail. No information was provided in the ORO report concerning peaking of travel during the day. If each of the sixteen hourly trains carried the same number of passengers (thus assuming no peaking at all), 6.25% of the daily demand would occur during each peak hour. Since it is likely that some peaking would occur, the local bus peak percentages from COTA (7% for a.m., 10% for p.m.) seemed reasonable estimates. These percentages were applied to average daily intercity rail and bus demand estimates to obtain peak hour estimates. Summary of Assumptions The methodologies reflect a number of assumptions which affect the demand estimates discussed below. These assumptions are: Local buses would stop outside the terminal, and include only those bus routes that would otherwise pass directly adjacent to the terminal site. Light rail would not be diverted to the terminal unless it would otherwise have passed adjacent to it. Sufficient parking to satisfy the estimated demand (300-500 spaces) would exist. MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 10 Site Selection Travelers using the multimodal terminal would behave as predicted by MORPC's travel model, which is based on a variety of data sources. Transfer penalties for the transit assignment model would be two minutes, as assumed in MORPC's model, between each pair of modes at the proposed terminal. No transfer costs are assumed. The ORO rail estimates are assumed, implying the service characteristics as assumed in the ORO report. Intercity destinations within Columbus would be distributed in the same manner as intracity destinations for similar trip purposes (assumption mandated by the inability to conduct an airport survey). 1993 Greyhound ridership would remain constant to 2010. Auto access would be available to 47% of intercity passengers; among the others the auto mode represents taxi. Taxi fares are assumed to be $1.50/mile in present dollars. Peaking characteristics would be similar to those on current COTA service. Peak period transit ridership would be relatively uniform. Demand Estimates In general, demand at the multimodal terminal can be considered as consisting of three components: 1. Those walking or using auto to arrive at the terminal to take transit, 2. Those taking transit to the terminal and transferring to another transit line, and 3. Those taking transit to the terminal and walking or using auto to continue to their destination. The total number of transit riders leaving the terminal is the sum of components 1 and 2 (i.e., everyone arriving at the terminal for the purpose of taking transit). The number arriving at the terminal by transit is the sum of components 2 and 3. For average daily conditions, these two numbers are approximately the same. As Table 1 shows, Year 2010 demand estimates for the multimodal terminal would range from approximately 6,500 to 15,000 transit passengers per day. Of this total, 3,900 would be intercity travelers (3,400 rail, 500 bus). The major reasons for the variations among different scenarios are terminal location, which affects the availability of local bus service, and the existence of light rail service at the terminal. MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 11 Site Selection Click HERE for graphic. Table 1 clearly shows that terminal Site A would serve more passengers than the other two sites under the entire range of assumptions. Even without light rail service (alternative 2), the terminal would serve more riders than Site C with light rail. The main reason appears to be the extensive local bus service provided along High Street. Not only would the local buses carry between 2,000 and 3,000 passengers a day to and from the terminal, but they might also serve as downtown distributors for passengers arriving by other modes such as express bus and light rail. Average Daily Terminal Users would range from 9,200 to 20,900, with Site A serving significantly more passengers. Demand at Multimodal Terminals in Other Cities In order to put these demand estimations into perspective, information was collected on ridership from terminals similar to that proposed for Columbus. The focus was placed on terminals that served downtown-oriented express buses, and where possible, rail and local buses. Intercity rail was considered less important since demand levels depend more on the service provided and demand for the destinations served. It should be noted that there are no two terminals in the country which share precisely the same modes and operating characteristics. Therefore none of the terminals described below is a perfect match for the proposed Columbus terminal. Boston - Haymarket Station is a transfer point between Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) express buses and subways (both heavy and light rail lines) located on the north side of downtown Boston. Haymarket generally serves express buses oriented to northern suburbs. There is also some private express bus activity adjacent to the site. The ridership figures include only MBTA express bus and subway boardings at Haymarket Station. Demand estimate: 9,100 City population: 600,000 Metro area population: 2,800,000 MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 12 Site Selection Denver - Market Street Station is a downtown bus terminal serving both express and local buses in Denver. As is proposed for Columbus, only express buses enter the (underground) facility, with local buses stopping on the surrounding streets. The volume estimates include only express bus boardings. Demand estimate: 7,600 City population: 500,000 Metro area population: 1,600,000 Miami - Government Center Station is a multimodal station serving Miami's people mover, rail rapid transit, and bus operations. The bus terminal is located approximately a block and a half away, however, so only rail and people mover boardings (less transfers) are counted. Demand estimate: 11,300 City population: 400,000 Metro area population: 1,800,000 Phoenix - Phoenix's downtown bus terminal is similar to that proposed for Columbus, in that downtown oriented buses pass through the terminal before or after passing through the downtown. The estimate given predates the revising of the downtown street pattern, which requires circuitous routing to enter and exit the terminal; a number of buses now avoid the terminal. Demand estimate: 10,000 City population: 900,000 Metro area population: 1,900,000 For comparison, Columbus has an estimated population of 600,000 and a metro area population of about 1,300,000. The demand estimates (excluding intercity) for Site A are in the 10,000-11,000 range, which compares well to the estimates described above. For sites B and C, the demand estimates are in the 3,000-4,000 range. Site Evaluation A set of criteria was developed to evaluate the three sites. The rating of each of the three sites on the criteria below is shown in the following matrix. Accessibility - Ridership Demand - Modes Served - Proximity to Freeway Interchanges (1-670/Nationwide Corridor) - Access from Adjacent Streets - Proximity to Other Major Destinations - Quality of Pedestrian Environment and Access Site Configuration/Issues - Ability to Accommodate Transportation Program - Ability to Phase Construction Over Time - Opportunity for Creation of Important Civic Structure MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 13 Site Selection Environmental Constraints - Presence of Hazardous Materials - Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses - Impact on/Compatibility with Historic Buildings/Districts - Other Environmental Considerations Development Issues - Ownership - Ease of Acquisition - Cost of Acquisition - Potential for Joint Development/Economic Development A detailed review of the criteria indicated that they could be divided into groups of primary and secondary importance. In several of the categories all three sites had similar ratings, eliminating their usefulness in distinguishing between sites. The criteria which eventually were recognized as having critical importance were those in the accessibility category; ridership, access and proximity to other destinations and the freeway interchanges were clearly of major importance in selecting a site. Site A had the highest rating on all but one of these criteria (direct access from 3 adjacent streets versus 4 for Site B), with significantly higher ridership demand and better proximity to other major destinations. Based on this analysis, Site A was adopted as the preferred location by a unanimous vote of the Oversight Committee for the Multimodal Transportation Terminal Study at their meeting on 28 March 1994. MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 14 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. The Preferred Site THE PREFERRED SITE Planning Context The center of gravity of downtown transportation activities is gradually shifting north to Nationwide Boulevard and High Street. A new interchange (Spring/Sandusky) will provide access to the proposed Nationwide Connector, which is planned for the area just a few blocks west of the MMTT site. The 1-670 Connector was just recently completed, linking downtown with the airport and with the proposed North Corridor light rail service planned for High Street (currently under study). This shift in transportation activities corresponds to the development of the northern end of the Central Business District as a second major activity center within downtown Columbus. The Preferred Site is located close to a number of planning and development initiatives. The newly expanded Greater Columbus Convention Center opened in 1993, to the east of the site. The Short North, a developing area of restaurants, art galleries, and shops located just north of the site, is expected to generate a great deal of nighttime activity. Plans for The North Market include a relocation from its present location to an expanded facility on an adjacent property located between Park, Vine, Spruce, and High Streets. This relocation is planned for October 1995. North Market, in its new location, will have 20,000 square feet of leasable space on the ground floor which can accommodate 43 vendors, North Market office space, and 4,000 leasable square feet on a second floor for a potential restaurant tenant. The existing facility has 9,300 square feet of leasable space which can accommodate 29 vendors. The parking capacity will increase from the existing 48 spaces to 130 spaces after the existing building is demolished. Nationwide Insurance has recently built two new office towers and two new parks on its High Street campus to the south of the site. Other planning and development activities include the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority's desire for a hotel and parking garage to support Convention Center activity, the Scioto River Corridor Planning Study, and the Downtown Bikeway Connector. Opportunities and Constraints Placing the MMTT at the preferred site at High Street and Nationwide Boulevard supports the following urban design and economic development objectives (see Figure 7): Closing the existing gap on the west side of High Street, between the Short North/North Market area and the Central Business District, with the creation of an active building frontage on High Street. Development of an elevated pedestrian walkway to tie together the Convention Center on the east side of High Street with the major new development zone to the west. MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 15 Click HERE for graphic. The Preferred Site Creation of an active transportation/retail/office environment for people walking along the west side of High Street or through the pedestrian bridge. At the same time, because of the site's central location, there are a number of interests with expectations for the integrated use of the site, along with existing site conditions which constrain or complicate design options for the site: The City and the Convention Facilities Authority are interested in the development of a hotel on the portion of the site just north of the Hilliard Line railroad tracks to support the newly expanded Convention Center. Because of these interests, the MMTT has been designed in an L-shaped configuration to fit almost entirely within railroad property. Nationwide Insurance wants to preserve a portion of the site located across from its existing campus and on the southwest side of the parcel (near the Front Street/Nationwide Boulevard intersection) for future development. The North Market Historic District, with its historic character, has expansion plans which will maintain the ambiance of the area; North Market, however, has needs for service vehicle access, parking availability, and internal traffic circulation. North Market would like the MMTT to "blend" well with its expanded facilities in terms of style, building height, and building orientation, to complement the North Market plans. The geometry of the existing rail lines and criteria for passenger facilities limit opportunities for the placement of rail platforms. The location of the existing structural supports for the walkway between the Convention and Ohio Centers, the High Street Viaduct, and the walkway/pick-up and drop-off zone further limits the placement options for the passenger rail platform. The topography and multi-level nature of the site resulting from the depressed railroad alignment complicates circulation and restricts placement of various program components. High Street is a state route and may have curbcut or width restrictions. The site is owned by a combination of public and private entities having diverse long-term goals and objectives. The MMTT and joint development components create access demands and requirements for frontage and curb cuts along High Street, Front Street, and Nationwide Boulevard. Alternative access schemes (including pick-up/drop-off locations) were examined during the course of the study. This analysis should be carried further in subsequent planning and design phases. Joint Development There are three major site components which had to be incorporated Into the conceptual site plan: The L-shaped Multimodal Transportation Center (A), located between Front and High Streets, is specifically designed to accommodate components B and C (see Figure 8). MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 16 Click HERE for graphic. The Preferred Site The large parcel on the southwest corner of the site at Nationwide Boulevard and High Street (C) is currently a parking lot in private ownership. There are no definite plans for the site, but the integrity of the site for future development has been preserved. The northern end of the site, between Front and High Streets (B), has been preserved to accommodate the future development of a hotel and related parking structure to accommodate Convention Center visitors. Click HERE for graphic. Traffic Considerations The MMTT will generate considerable vehicular and bus traffic daily. Existing bus activity at the present North Terminal will be relocated to the MMTT facility, and transit operations will be somewhat increased due to expanded COTA transit service. A detailed traffic impact study/assessment at intersection level of detail will be an integral part of a later phase of this project, when the conceptual designs and phasing of implementation are more defined. Specific items which might be addressed in such a study include the following: Traffic concentration on Vine Street (service vehicles) supporting a potential hotel and garage, Vehicular traffic to the garages, Impacts on North Market, Determination of the exact location of the LRT island on High Street and its impact on bus access from High Street, and Front Street multiple curbcuts. MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 17 Multimodal Transportation Terminal Program MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL PROGRAM The street level of the L-shaped MMTT is composed of four major components (see Figure 9): A. Concourse, ticketing and waiting area, retail and concessions B. Vertical circulation core providing access to the passenger rail platforms one level below and to the elevated pedestrian bridges, garage, and potential hotel one level above C. Taxi stand, pick-up/drop-off area D. COTA express bus station The program was developed in close consultation with COTA and other participants on the Oversight Committee, and it reflects the possible need to establish an interim intercity rail terminal prior to building the full-build multimodal terminal. Two basic assumptions regarding rail passenger platforms and service were key in the development of the program: (1) for initial conventional rail service, platforms will be located on the Cincinnati Line; (2) when there is sufficient passenger volume and therefore rail passenger service to justify longer platforms and the development of the Hilliard Line for intercity service, it is assumed that the passenger rail platforms will be relocated to the Hilliard Line. The interim terminal is designed to accommodate service on the Cincinnati Line and can be built independent of any other components in the MMTT. The interim terminal is designed as the first phase of the full-build MMTT and can be efficiently and economically incorporated into the full-build terminal design. The full-build MMTT is designed to accommodate either passenger rail platform alternative (Cincinnati or Hilliard Line). There are considerable efficiencies and cost savings in constructing the full-build terminal at the outset, but the program and the design concept have been developed to permit maximum flexibility. Any of the major transportation components of the program can be built independently or in any combination. The following preliminary program was developed to determine site feasibility and rough cost estimates. Building Program The basic building program includes some combination of the following four components: 1 Interim Intercity Rail Terminal: This program was developed to provide conventional intercity passenger rail service with a small terminal for the minimum services required, in the event that conventional intercity passenger rail service is established prior to the need for a full-build multimodal terminal. The program includes a rail passenger platform on the Cincinnati Line, a minimum build rail passenger terminal at street level on High Street, a taxi stand/pick-up and drop- off area, and a parking garage for rail passengers. MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 18 Click HERE for graphic. Multimodal Transportation Terminal Program Square Feet Temporary Railroad Station 38,975 Intercity rail platform (600') along Cincinnati Line 18,000 Covered walkway 7,800 Core @ grade 13,175 Temporary head house 13,175 4 escalators, 1 elevator Parking Garage (332 spaces) on 3 1/2 levels* 127,000 2 staircases, 1 elevator *The parking garage would also be a component of the full-build Multimodal Terminal. 2 Full-Build Multimodal Terminal: This terminal provides conventional intercity passenger rail service with a large terminal providing space for increased passenger amenities and COTA administrative offices (see Figures 10 and 11). The program for the terminal has been developed not only to provide all of the requisite transportation services, but also to create an active public space with offices, food services and newsstands, and other retail concessions. These amenities serve the convenience needs of passengers and, by generating additional pedestrian activity, create a heightened sense of security within the terminal. Square Feet Railroad Station 72,000 (Intercity rail platform (1200') along Hilliard Line & concourse) Permanent Head House 47,000 Concourse 33,000 Ticketing/baggage/office 6,500 Food stalls (4) 4,200 Free standing kiosks (4) 2,500 Toilets 900 10 escalators, 1 grand stair, 2 elevators Mezzanine & 3rd Level Office Space 31,200 Open office area (x2) (COTA and leasable) 13,000 Toilets (x2) 600 Lobby and core (x2) 2,000 2 elevators, 2 staircases 3 COTA Express Bus Terminal: The bus terminal could be built by itself or in conjunction with either the Interim Rail or Full-Build Multimodal Terminals. The program for the express bus terminal is based on the existing South COTA Express Bus Terminal on the street level of the City Center Garage. The center platform, saw-toothed bus bay configuration allows access to and from both High and Front Streets, providing maximum operational flexibility. Square Feet Bus Terminal 40,850 MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 19 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Multimodal Transportation Terminal Program 4 Pedestrian Walkway: A second-level pedestrian walkway to the Convention Center and High Street, light rail center platform, and the new development zone west of Front Street could be added to any of the above combinations. This pedestrian walkway system would be an extension of the existing system at the northern end of the Central Business District and could integrate all of the office buildings, hotels, and garages currently linked into these second- level bridges. Thus, anyone working in this area, as well as anyone going to or from the Convention Center, could enter or depart from any of the modes at the Multimodal Terminal and walk through this elevated, all-weather, enclosed bridge system. Square Feet Public Walkway 21,750 Within Head House 10,500 Skywalk 11,250 4 escalators, 2 elevators Site Program The site program includes parking, taxi and pick-up/drop-off area, and bus circulation. The program for the remainder of the site will be site-specific, depending upon joint development opportunities. MMTT Feasibility Study: December 20 Functional Design Concept FUNCTIONAL DESIGN CONCEPT The program and conceptual design reflect the desire to develop an active "people place." The high-ceilinged, spacious concourse is active and inviting to passengers; adjacent to the concourse is the "circulation core" that facilitates pedestrian movement between all of the terminal's functions. The space was designed to provide easy pedestrian circulation and interconnections between all transportation and non-transportation uses. The heavily used areas are close together to minimize transfer distances and to enhance ridership. One-minute transfers are possible between any combination of express bus, light rail, intercity rail, shuttle bus, local bus, park and ride, taxis, and pick-up/drop-off uses. The terminal is designed to be flexible while promoting efficient interconnections. From an urban design perspective, the terminal will contribute to the High Street development corridor. The building facade on High Street will be low, consistent with the height of the adjoining North Market District and the new Convention Center. Most of the High Street facade at street level will be glass, opening into the active environment within the terminal, thereby contributing life and vitality to this stretch of the west side of High Street which is currently a "dead zone". In effect, the terminal will fill the gap between the Short North/North Market areas and the CBD by creating a continuous and active building frontage along the High Street corridor. It is premature to consider exactly what the predominant building materials should be, but the MMTT interior should be flooded with natural light and the street level facade should be as transparent as possible, as befits an important downtown retail street. MMTT Internal Circulation Figure 12 illustrates the MMTT internal core - a three-storey, sky- lit, vertical space (see Figure 4) which provides access between all transportation modes and to High Street, the Convention Center, and other destinations. This design concept not only increases the proximity of the building components and access points, but also does so in such a way as to allow clear sight lines between destinations. The core is designed as a large open space - much like the great railroad terminals of the last century - in which passengers can see their destination from any point within the terminal. This assists the MMTT users in finding their way between modes and to other building uses. By visually connecting all of the transportation modes, office space, and retail concessions, surveillance is also increased, thereby enhancing the user's sense of security. Site Circulation and Access The functional components of the MMTT are organized on the site to facilitate both pedestrian and vehicular access. It is, in fact, easy to enter the building from every direction (see Figure 13). Pedestrian entrances at the three corners of the MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 21 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Functional Design Concept L-shaped building allow visible and convenient access from the south (CBD) at the corner of Nationwide Boulevard and High Street, from the main entrance and Convention Center pedestrian bridge at the northern end, and from the taxi and pick-up/drop-off area and the Front Street pedestrian bridge at the west end of the building. The Express Bus Terminal layout, with access from both High and Front Streets, provides COTA with a visible presence on High Street, increasing passengers' sense of orientation and assisting them in locating their mode of choice. Vehicular entrances are clustered on Front Street (COTA Express Bus Terminal; MMTT Garage; and the taxi and pick-up/drop-off area) and on High Street (COTA Express Bus Terminal), thus minimizing the impact of curb cuts on pedestrian circulation and on the continuous active building frontage on High Street. The North Market and CBD are linked with each other and the MMTT along the handsome, landscaped High Street sidewalk (see Figure 3). MMTT Terminal Design The building comprises the following four levels: Sub-Grade: Figure 14 illustrates that the vertical circulation core, including elevators and escalators, is the same for both the interim and full-build passenger rail terminals, providing cost savings when the interim terminal is converted to full-build. Because the terminals are designed around the same vertical circulation core, both the Cincinnati Line and Hilliard Line passenger rail platforms can be built to operate with either the interim or full-build terminal at street level. Both terminals are a short walking distance from either platform (Hilliard or Cincinnati Line). Street Level: As with the sub-grade level, both the interim and full-build terminals utilize the same vertical circulation core and the interim terminal is designed to be converted to full-build at a minimum cost. The two terminals have the same relationship to the taxi and pick-up/drop-off area, express bus terminal and pedestrian access. However, the interim terminal is designed as a minimum functional facility, while the full-build terminal is designed as a major civic building with a lively food, retail, and office area, active from early morning until late evening. The full-build terminal's architectural presence on High Street, and potential for a major new plaza at Nationwide Boulevard and High Street, contribute to the active frontage and street life along High Street (see Figures 3 and 15). Levels 2 and 3: COTA administrative space on level two, and leasable office space on level three, are located on mezzanines overlooking the large, active concourse below (see Figure 16). The mezzanine on level two, directly and visibly accessible from the concourse, links to the two pedestrian bridges across High and Front Streets and into the second level of the potential hotel. The mezzanine is designed as an extension of the concourse below and could accommodate cafes and seating areas (see Figure 4). Figures 17 and 18 illustrate the relationship between the four levels. MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 22 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Functional Design Concept Functional Design Concepts Two functional design concepts were developed. The Flexible Concept is designed to allow building components to be constructed in any order (see Figure 19). The program components, while designed to work together efficiently, are designed as a series of individual elements. Flexibility is a key issue because of the unpredictable sequencing of both transit modes and private components within a multimodal center. The public components must be built in response to funding and policy initiatives, while the private components are driven by market forces. For example, because of federal funding priorities, funding for the rail portion of the MMTT might be available earlier than that for the bus component; the converse could also be true. This concept is designed to allow for the phased introduction of new modes and services, while maintaining service on existing modes, and allowing for the future addition of private development components. Depending on the sequencing, incremental construction phasing could add to construction cost by eliminating cost savings which could be achieved by constructing the entire facility at one time. The Integrated Concept represents a more efficient station which could be achieved if funding availability is such that all of the transportation components can be built at same time, allowing sharing of support spaces and ancillary activities. This concept allows more integration of the various transportation program elements, eliminating redundancy, preserving more space for other uses, and resulting in a more cost effective design. Figure 20 illustrates the MMTT within its urban design context. Intercity Passenger Rail Platform Concepts With initial passenger rail service, a 600-foot platform on the 3-C corridor southbound track would be sufficient, and would allow use of the existing railroad bridge over the Scioto River. This alternative would accommodate two round-trip trains each day, and would entail minimum expense. As the volume of passengers and frequency of service increase, a center platform will be required for both the northbound and southbound tracks. The design for this platform allows room for the addition of tracks and platforms for commuter rail or light rail service to the northwest. The geometry, vertical circulation, and structural design for this platform is very efficient. This platform would use the same escalators as the platform described above for conventional rail service, and could therefore be built at a later date to replace that platform, with minimum impact to the terminal. This service would utilize the Buckeye or Hilliard Line and would require a new railroad bridge over the Scioto River, as well as significant track work; the cost for this platform would be substantially higher than that entailed for the platform described above. (See Appendix C for a more detailed discussion.) MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 23 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Functional Design Concept Preliminary Cost Estimate Because the MMTT is designed so that components can be constructed independently, and in any sequence, to respond to funding and policy decisions and market conditions as they evolve, costs will vary considerably depending on which components are constructed, and in what sequence. This preliminary cost estimate is based upon the assumption that a minimum facility would include: interim railroad station on the Cincinnati Line with ticketing, baggage, and waiting areas COTA express bus station parking garage to serve intercity rail passengers taxi and pick-up/drop-off area The maximum facility assumes the full-build program described earlier in this report, which includes the following additions to the minimum facility: expanded railroad station with rail service on the Hilliard Line (although the maximum facility can also operate with passenger rail service on the Cincinnati Line) retail/concessions area and leasable office space COTA office space Preliminary Cost Estimate.- Minimum Facility* Interim Railroad Terminal $3.3 million COTA Bus Station $2.5 million Parking Garage $3.8 million Site utilities, general requirements $3.5 million special conditions, design and construction contingencies Total Minimum Facility $13.1 million Maximum Facility* $25 million * Does not include costs for rail alignment and passenger rail platforms. Cincinnati Line estimate for platforms, canopies, lighting, and public address system is $600,000 (see Appendix C). See Appendix D for the more detailed cost estimate. Models for Operations and Maintenance There are a number of models in effect at multimodal transportation centers around the country. Without a decision on who will own and operate the Columbus Multimodal Transportation Terminal, it is premature to specify an operations and maintenance plan at this time. For example, if a private entity were to own and operate the facility, they might handle everything except MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 24 Functional Design Concept actual rail operations. If the Transit Authority were to own the terminal, they may or may not be interested in providing maintenance and/or security for non-transit areas. The plan should be tailored to suit the entity (or entities) who will own and operate the terminal. Results of discussions with two transit authorities operating similar terminals are summarized below: South Station, Boston, MA: The station is owned by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. A private developer/real estate management firm was selected to develop the station and adjacent joint development components. That private firm was given a 65-year lease on the station, and was responsible for managing the design and construction phases, as well as for ongoing maintenance and security at the station. Vendors have leases with this management company, which contracts out maintenance and security operations. Amtrak, with rail management expertise, is responsible for security on the tracks. This system has been very successful, with day to day operations and maintenance running smoothly and efficiently. The private developer is expert at managing the retail areas of the terminal and benefits from the captive market. The successful retail areas help to provide an active environment and density of users which in turn promotes security. In Columbus, the newly formed Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) or Amtrak could be responsible for rail operations, with COTA managing the bus and COTA administrative operations. A private entity could then manage the retail and concession spaces. The precise arrangements should be developed when the details of sequencing and involvement of the various parties are known. Union Station, Hartford, MA: The station is currently owned by the Greater Hartford Transit District (GHTD). It was originally developed through a partnership between the GHTD and a private developer who invested $4 million in exchange for a leasehold on all non-transportation areas. At that time, maintenance and security were handled by the private developer, and all private tenants had leases with the developer. The transit providers had leases with GHTD. Since that time, GHTD has taken over ownership and management of the entire facility (approximately one year ago). GHTD was not satisfied with the developer's management of the facility and felt that their own more rigorous procurement procedures would result in a more efficiently run facility. The mix of non-transportation uses has recently been changed, with the food court area being leased to a night club. In order to maintain daytime activity, the 10,000 square foot Great Hall will be developed as a Visitors Center with arts and crafts and similar type booths. The space is also rented for banquets and other events. The program for the station, which has remained constant, includes an 18,000 square foot transit space, a 10,000 square foot waiting room, and a 40,000 square foot commercial space. GHTD felt that this breakdown could only be successful if they could realize financial benefit from the 10,000 square foot waiting area. GHTD also stressed the importance of MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 25 Functional Design Concept adequate paid parking as a key financial factor, and recommended limiting waiting and other non-revenue producing areas. Maintenance Two alternative maintenance models are outlined below: COTA and/or ORDC develops and owns the facility, leasing space to retail and food enterprises, Amtrak, and others, with COTA retaining responsibility for all maintenance. Lessees would contract with COTA for maintenance of their areas. A private developer builds, owns and maintains the facility, leasing space to COTA, as well as retail and food enterprises, Amtrak or other intercity rail operator, and others. The developer assumes responsibility for all maintenance. Security The MMTT should be designed so that all elements (express bus station, concourse, COTA office space, access to pedestrian bridges and hotel lobby) can be cut off from one another and secured independently. AR transportation facilities would be closed at night. Two alternative security models are outlined below: COTA develops and owns the facility, and is responsible for all security. A private developer develops and owns the facility, and contracts with a private security service for all security. The Central Ohio Transit Authority and ORDC are two of the top candidates to operate and maintain the facility. They both have the expertise and the ability to secure funding for the construction of the facility, and maintain the high standards established on the High Street corridor. The facility will be open to the public most of the day. It will only be closed for security reasons during late-night hours. Experience at other MMTTs has shown the importance of operating and maintaining the MMTT at an "airport level" quality standard. Either COTA or ORDC could subcontract to private contractors who have the resources and experience to provide maintenance and security. MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 26 Implementation and Joint Development IMPLEMENTATION AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT This section identifies alternative development strategies for the acquisition, parcelization, and financing of a multimillion dollar joint development project which includes construction of a new Multimodal Transportation Terminal in downtown Columbus, Ohio. The questions addressed here are not those related to the basic desirability of such a project, its likely design appearance, or the process for obtaining public review, input, and comment. The issues are, rather, which parties have the capabilities and resources needed for implementation of the project, and what implementation role is appropriate for each in light of the resources it "brings to the table." Two strategies are identified below - one of which is primarily an effort led by the public sector, and the other of which is largely a private sector initiative. At the present stage in the project's evolution, many of the opportunities and constraints to implementation can not yet be known. Numerous combinations and variations of these basic strategies are possible and will no doubt be employed as the process unfolds, and those opportunities and constraints, as well as the objectives, of each of the players become more clear. The Players It is important at the outset to understand which players will have an authoritative voice in decision making regarding the design, financing, and construction of the project, and which will be important supporters but not decision makers. Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission plays a key role in the Columbus region in identifying transportation and other infrastructure projects which are required, and in exploring their feasibility. MORPC and its MMTT Oversight Committee are directing the consultant analyses and planning work on the Multimodal Terminal and the joint development project of which it is a part. MORPC works cooperatively with the Central Ohio Transit Authority on a range of issues, and conducts studies for COTA such as the present studies of the MMTT and the Multimodal Transportation Corridor. As the Columbus area's designated Metropolitan Planning Organization, MORPC is also a major 'pipeline" to state and federal agencies, preparing grant applications and (in the case of ISTEA applications, for instance) making formal findings regarding regional transportation project priorities. MORPC can play several important roles in the joint development project, including the mobilization of public support, liaison with the Ohio Rail MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 27 Implementation and joint Development Development Commission and other appropriate state and federal agencies, and securing of funding for specific studies. Central Ohio Transit Authority The Central Ohio Transit Authority operates an extensive bus transit operation throughout its service region. COTA's farebox revenues cover a portion of operating costs, but the primary funding for COTAs budget is derived from a 0.25 percent sales tax. If COTA is to expand its services to keep up with growth in the region, it will be necessary to increase its local sales tax support. COTA will be a key participant in the joint development project. One of the Multimodal Terminal's components is a new express bus terminal to replace the current COTA express bus terminal on the north side of downtown. Sale of the present facility can be used either exclusively for the purchase of the land option or the land itself, or it could be leveraged by using federal money in order to increase the amount of funding. If the North Multimodal Transportation Corridor light rail service currently under study by COTA and MORPC is constructed, a new station is proposed to be located within the High Street right-of- way immediately adjacent to the MMTT and the Convention Center across the street. In the Northwest Corridor, also under study by COTA and MORPC, commuter rail service is proposed which would utilize the Conrail Hilliard Line tracks which pass through the proposed MMTT site. Another component of the terminal would be a rail station to accommodate these commuter rail trains. The ability to accommodate this service was part of the rationale for the selection of the High Street site for the MMTT. Capital cost financing for COTA's Northwest Corridor commuter rail service, if constructed, could provide additional funding for appropriate portions of the MMTT. Ohio Rail Development Commission The recently formed Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) has both a clear mandate and sweeping powers to support all types of rail service and facilities in the state, including intercity rail, commuter, and freight service. Among other powers, ORDC can provide technical and consulting services and funding for studies, design, and other analyses. ORDC has broad powers to acquire (and appropriate), sell, and swap land and facilities. The Commission can give grants and loans, and can finance the capital costs for all kinds of facilities using federal and state funds, direct sale of bonds and other sources. ORDC has a very clear mandate to support and work closely with the private sector at every step, and can be involved in cooperative design and engineering, land assembly, project financing, real estate development, construction, and operation of facilities. MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 28 Implementation and joint Development ORDC should be a major player in the development and implementation of the entire joint development project, and the MMTT component in particular. The ORDC role could include work with Conrail to acquire Conrail's portion of the site (land and/or air rights), and teaming with COTA for negotiations with state and federal agencies on many other aspects of the project, including financing. City of Columbus The city of Columbus will be an important player in the planning process for the joint development project, particularly as it may relate to a potential arena site, the Penitentiary site, or other development projects in the downtown area. It is also possible that because of the project's unique attributes and the likely requirement for a high density of development to offset the costs of the public amenities, the project may require relief from zoning, environmental, or other regulatory controls. The city's role in finance and construction of the project may be limited to ensuring the timely provision of public infrastructure improvements (street modifications, signalization, pedestrian area improvements, etc.) supportive of the project, and lending strong public political support to all applications for public funding related to the project. Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority Because the MMTT will provide transportation access by all modes to the Convention Center, and because the joint development project may also be the site of a major new convention-oriented hotel, the Convention Facilities Authority should participate in the public planning process for the project. The Authority, with its intimate ties to the statewide business community, can also play an important role in disseminating positive information about the project as it unfolds, and in developing and maintaining support for the project within the business community. It is unlikely that the Authority would be a direct participant in the actual financing or construction of the project. Two exceptions are possible, however. One would be possible involvement in provision of a grade separated pedestrian access way across High Street from the MMTT facility to the Convention Center and adjacent sites. This would likely require the Authority to assume a share of the capital cost and ongoing maintenance costs. The second possible involvement would be via some role in the hotel and parking garage portion of the development. No need for any such involvement is clear at this time. Conrail Conrail will clearly be a key player throughout the process of acquisition, finance, development, and operation of the facility. Conrail presently owns the central portion of the site, and operates frequent freight service on two different branches which pass through the site. MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 29 Implementation and Joint Development Provisions must be incorporated in the project to maintain this service, including difficult issues which will continue to exist during operation of the project, such as the transportation of hazardous and toxic cargoes on tracks beneath the new development. Operation of passenger and freight service on the same tracks raises liability issues (similar to those on most tracks in the country) which must be addressed. For these reasons, Conrail should be formally involved in the next phase of design investigations for the project. Assuming that Conrail will not wish to be a financial participant in the project, acquisition of Conrail land and/or air rights will also be required. Although this will likely be agreed to by a willing buyer and willing seller, the ORDC has clear authority to appropriate property from railroads and other owners when necessary for "... public convenience and welfare" and COTA has powers of eminent domain. A final role which Conrail can hopefully play will be to remain "neutral' during public debate regarding the project. Conrail has no reason to publicly support any such project other than the revenues anticipated from sale of air rights and excess land, but simple indications that the joint development project and the MMTT will not negatively affect freight rail operations in the area will be important. Nationwide Insurance Company Nationwide Insurance will clearly lead the private sector involvement in the project. As current owner of a major portion of the site, and also as a leading Columbus business which has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Columbus real estate development in recent decades, Nationwide brings valuable resources to the table. These include site ownership, vast financial resources, political "clout," extensive experience in real estate development in the city, and a strong and respected position within the business community of Columbus and the state. In addition to these resources, Nationwide also has a legitimate interest in protecting (and enhancing) the value of its other real estate holdings in the immediate vicinity of the site, which range from its newly constructed corporate headquarters facility to surface parking lots which are attractive locations for future development. Depending upon the implementation strategy pursued by the public sector actors, Nationwide's role could range from being a key supporter and participant in the implementation process to being the leader of the process with resultant ownership of most if not all of the project. The shaping of Nationwide's role will obviously require thoughtful and frank discussions throughout the process. Without a relationship of cooperation and trust between Nationwide and the public participants, the project is unlikely to be consummated. Private Interests There has been interest expressed by a private entity regarding the existing COTA North Express Bus Terminal. Revenues from the sale or lease of the MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 30 Implementation and Joint Development existing terminal could be applied to the construction and operation of the new North Express Bus Terminal. Others Numerous other participants will have involvement in public discussion and review of the project, but not in the financing and implementation process described here. These will likely include other railroads, other hotel operators, supporters and detractors of the Arena, the Columbus Dispatch and television media, elected representatives at the city, regional and state level, and a host of others. Components of the Project The components of the overall joint development project have been extensively described elsewhere and are briefly summarized below. Nationwide Site The southernmost portion of the site, with frontage on both Nationwide Boulevard and Front Street, is owned by Nationwide Insurance. Nationwide currently has no plans for the site. Convention-Oriented Hotel The Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority and others perceive a need for construction of a convention-oriented hotel near the Convention Center. The northernmost portion of the joint development project, which is owned partially by Nationwide Insurance and partially by Conrail, appears to be an excellent location. Estimates of size have ranged from 200 to 700 rooms. Parking for Hotel, Offices Separate parking facilities are contemplated on the joint development site for the Convention Center hotel, for Convention Center events, and for the MMTT. Multimodal Terminal The Multimodal Terminal (MMTT) portion of the joint development project has several components: A light rail station for the proposed COTA North Multimodal Transportation Corridor light rail service, which would be located in the center of High Street between the MMTT facility and the Convention Center. Provision for future passenger platforms for potential future commuter rail service on the tracks of the existing Conrail Hilliard Line. Provision for future platforms to accommodate the proposed Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati intercity passenger rail service. MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 31 Implementation and Joint Development - A COTA express bus terminal to replace the existing facility. - A taxi stand. - "Drop-ride" and other short-term stopping areas. - A limited amount of ancillary retail uses (coffee shop, news stand, etc.) to serve transit patrons. - New administrative office space for COTA. Interior and Exterior Public Open Space and amenities As a major public facility, the MMTT will incorporate generous interior and exterior public spaces. Interior and exterior spaces in all portions of the joint development project should be interwoven to enhance both the design unity and the efficiency of the entire project. Development Strategies Immediate Actions There are four steps which COTA should undertake immediately regardless of which longer-range strategy is pursued for the joint development project and the MMTT. These are: 1. COTA and ORDC should immediately initiate discussions with Conrail regarding acquisition of (at a minimum) an option to purchase the air rights over the portion of the joint development site presently owned by Conrail. There are several reasons behind this recommendation. The first reason is the need to Firmly secure the future ability to use the site for transportation purposes, and to ensure that some other party does not acquire the air rights for an unrelated or inappropriate use. It is extremely important that the option of creating a station at the High Street location be secured, not only for COTA's immediate needs but also because it is the best downtown location for a station for the proposed Cleveland-Columbus-- Cincinnati intercity passenger rail service. Ownership of the air rights over the Conrail parcel is the key to preserving that option for both the short run and long run. The second reason is to ensure that COTA has actual legal control of that portion of the site required for the L-shaped MMTT design. The third reason is to discuss the option with Conrail now, while Conrail can see the additional potential for a much larger and financially advantageous deal (purchase of its entire North Multimodal Transportation Corridor right-of-way) still on the horizon, rather than viewing this purchase in isolation as a small "one-shot" deal which offers little real reward for Conrail. 2. COTA should augment its internal staff capacity for handling real estate acquisitions, financing, and construction. Both the MMTT and the North Multimodal Transportation Corridor, as well as subsequent commuter rail and light rail corridors, will require such capacity. Professional expertise in these fields is as important during the feasibility analysis and EIS phases of a project as during implementation. MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 32 Implementation and joint Development The preferable option for augmenting this professional capacity would be to hire seasoned staff members who have gained relevant experience and have demonstrated capability at another transit agency. In addition to the usual process of advertising widely for candidates, Rick Simonetta (former COTA General Manager) and others familiar with COTA's organization, may also be helpful in identifying candidates. Another, less effective, option for building this capability at COTA would be to contract with a real estate development company which has direct experience in public sector joint development. This option would likely be more costly and less satisfactory to COTA in the long run. 3. COTA should consider combining the Multimodal Terminal and North Multimodal Transportation Corridor projects into a single package in all discussions with the railroads, the Ohio Rail Development Commission, the city of Columbus, and others. Conducting separate negotiations with Conrail, for example, for acquisition of the MMTT site and acquisition of the North Corridor right-of-way would reduce COTA's ability to make advantageous negotiating tradeoffs between the projects. However, if combining the projects would delay either project, the two should proceed independently. A long range development and financing strategy can only be sketched in broad outline at this early stage of the project. Two fundamentally different approaches are possible, however, and each presents unique opportunities and constraints. One approach is for the project to be guided primarily by the public sector participants, acting together as a team. The other approach is to designate the private sector participants as the primary driver of the process. Public Sector Leadership Strategy An implementation process led by the public sector players will require an aggressive and confident stance on their part (not unlike that of the best urban renewal agencies a few decades ago). Hesitation, indecision, and delay will erode the confidence of private sector participants, investors, and the general public. The following steps outline a scenario for implementation of the project using this approach: 1. COTA and ORDC immediately acquire a multi-year option to purchase the air rights over Conrail's tracks and any Conrail land within the site other than freight track right-of-way. The purpose of the acquisition is to preserve the ability to use the site for future transportation purposes including bus, commuter rail, and/or intercity passenger rail service. Potential funding sources for the purchase include state funds (possible via ORDC) and ISTEA funds. 2. After passage of the COTA Sales Tax increase, preliminary design and engineering of the MMTT component of the project are undertaken by COTA and its consultants, building upon the present study. The purpose is to refine the design, establish realistic costs, and define the relationship of the MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 33 Implementation and Joint Development MMTT to abutting uses within the overall joint development project. COTA establishes a working Task Force for this process including COTA, ORDC, the city of Columbus, the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority, Nationwide Insurance, and Conrail to ensure input and coordination. Meetings are private project working sessions, not public meetings. 3. Abutting sites or portions of sites which may need to be acquired by COTA (or possibly appropriated by ORDC) to maximize the efficiency of the site are identified. The potential increase in property values of abutting sites is estimated for later use in accordance with the ORDC legislation, which provides for a special assessment of up to 20 percent of the increase in value of sites which are abutting, adjacent, or would other-wise increase in value due to the existence of the new rail facility. 4. COTA and Nationwide, in bilateral discussions, determine whether the entire joint development site will be developed as a combined and physically integrated development or not. Future allocation of responsibility for operation, management, liability, and costs among the parties to such a combined project will also be discussed and resolved, prior to proceeding with a combined project. 5. If it is determined instead that the components of the joint development site should be implemented separately, COTA proceeds with preparation of full design, engineering, construction documents, bidding, and construction of the project as it would with any other construction project. The working Task Force established earlier remains active as a mechanism for coordination and problem solving among the parties, but is not a substitute for direct COTA relationships with Conrail and Nationwide Insurance, who are abutting property owners. A variety of potential sources will be tapped for funding of components of the MMTT facility. These could include ISTEA and other federal sources. COTA and ORDC work cooperatively to secure funding, and perhaps file joint applications for the funding. Construction of COTA's portion of the facility may be financed in part by revenues from the sale of COTA's existing bus facility, as well as by revenue bonds issued by ORDC and backed by pledged COTA revenues from parking facilities located on the COTA portion of the joint development site. The revenues could be from parking owned by COTA, or revenues from leasing the air rights for parking constructed and operated by others (such as the developer of the hotel or the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority). Additional ORDC funds will be required to fund the intercity passenger rail service components of the project (including a portion of the site acquisition and project administrative and consultant costs) since these would not be legitimate COTA expenses. If necessary, funding for construction of the rail service (and possibly commuter rail) portions of the project by ORDC is raised by implementing MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 34 Implementation and Joint Development the special assessment (as provided for in the ORDC legislation) of up to 20 percent of the increase in value of nearby real estate due to the construction and operation of the new rail facility. If such a special assessment is not feasible, COTA discusses with the City implementation of a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district for the joint development project and surrounding sites, with the increment in tax revenues being dedicated wholly or in large part to COTA. These annual revenues could be used by COTA to cover part of the annual operating and maintenance costs for the facility. 6. COTA begins operation and management of the MMTT facility, and establishes an Operations Advisory Committee which includes all of the participants and tenants of the facility (COTA, ORDC, Amtrak, Conrail, and private bus and taxi operators) to solve problems and ensure high quality operation and maintenance over time. Private Sector Leadership Strategy Implementation of the project via a process led by the private sector players is a fundamentally different approach. It will require professionalism and a high degree of cooperation between the public and private sectors. It seems clear that Nationwide Insurance should have the leadership role in this scenario. Nationwide is the owner of a major portion of the site, is a business which has successfully completed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate development in recent decades, and is a power within the business community of Columbus and the state. Nationwide also has a legitimate interest in protecting the value of its other nearby real estate holdings. The following outline describes one scenario for implementation of the project using this approach: l. As in the other strategy, COTA and ORDC immediately acquire a multi-year option to purchase the air rights over Conrail tracks and any excess Conrail land adjacent to the right-of- way. The purpose of the acquisition is for eventual transfer to Nationwide Insurance to allow use of the site for transportation purposes including bus, commuter rail, and/or intercity passenger rail. The reasons for public acquisition, rather than acquisition by Nationwide directly, are the public purpose and the ability to use potential funding sources such as state funds (possible via ORDC) and ISTEA funds. 2. Nationwide, COTA, the city, Conrail, and the Convention Facilities Authority establish a Design Task Force for coordination and decision making during design and construction. Meetings are private working sessions, not public meetings. 3. Nationwide Insurance undertakes preliminary design and engineering for the entire joint development project, working closely with the Design Task Force and building upon the present study. The objective is to refine the design, establish realistic costs, and define the relationships among individual components of the project. The costs of the design process are pro-rated MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 35 Implementation and Joint Development between Nationwide Insurance and COTA based upon percentage of site controlled, percentage of estimated project construction cost, or other mutually agreed criteria. Potential funding sources for the COTA share of design and engineering costs include an ORDC grant, other state sources, or ISTEA funds via ORDC or directly to COTA. 4. COTA and Nationwide determine whether the entire joint development site will be operated and maintained as a combined and physically integrated development or not. Future allocation of responsibility for operation, management, liability, and costs among the parties of such a combined project is also resolved. 5. As in the other development strategy, a variety of potential sources will be tapped for funding the MMTT facility within the combined joint development project funding program. These could include ISTEA and other federal sources, secured by COTA and ORDC working cooperatively and perhaps jointly applying for the funding. Additional ORDC funds will be required to fund the Cleveland- Columbus-Cincinnati intercity passenger rail components of the project (including a portion of the site acquisition and project administrative and consultant costs), since these would not be legitimate COTA expenses. ORDC legislation explicitly provides for transfer of public funds to private entities for construction, operation, and maintenance of public rail facilities. Construction of the facility may also be financed in part by revenues from the sale of COTA's existing bus facility. In the public development scenario, revenues from parking facilities located on the Conrail portion of the joint development site, whether owned by COTA or derived from leasing the air rights for parking constructed and operated by others, may be pledged to back revenue bonds. In the private sector strategy these revenues would become revenues to the private development team, which will raise revenues in the private market. In the public sector strategy, funding for construction of intercity passenger rail (and possibly commuter rail) portions of the project by ORDC could be funded by implementing the special assessment (as provided for in the ORDC legislation) of up to 20 percent of the increase in value of nearby real estate due to the construction and operation of the new rail facility. In the private sector strategy, however, this would amount to taxing the project owners in order to support them. Implementation of a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district surrounding the location, however, with the increment in tax revenue being dedicated wholly or in part to COTA, could prove effective. These annual revenues could be used by COTA to cover part of the annual operating and maintenance costs for the MMTT facility and the North Multimodal Transportation Corridor light rail service. MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 36 Implementation and Joint Development Funding The financing program for the MMTT will depend to a great degree on which entities will construct and operate the facility and the time frame in which the MMTT is designed and constructed. Potential funding strategies for both the Public Sector Leadership Development Strategy and the Private Sector Leadership Development Strategy are included above in those respective sections of the Implementation Chapter. Financing of a Multimodal Terminal of this scope and complexity will require a combination of funding sources, as has been the case for numerous multimodal transportation facilities around the country. And, just as the programs and operations plans of these multimodal centers have varied considerably, so too have the funding packages. No two are exactly alike. For the Columbus Multimodal Transportation Terminal the following potential sources arc available: Ohio Rail Development Commission As mentioned earlier in this section, the ORDC has the authority to acquire (and appropriate) land, provide funding for studies and design, and finance a portion of the capital costs for construction using federal and state funds and through the direct sale of bonds. In addition, as discussed previously, the ORDC legislation gives the Commission the authority to implement a special assessment of up to 20 percent of the increase in value of nearby real estate due to the construction and operation of a new rail facility. Elements for which ORDC could take the lead in funding include the following intercity rail components: Rail passenger platforms Stairs, escalators and handicapped elevators from the sub- grade platform level to the street level concourse The major portion of the waiting area, ticketing and baggage handling area and the MMTT garage Pick-up and drop-off area Federal Transportation Sources ISTEA (The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991) provides a number of avenues for the financing of multimodal terminals, and cities all around the country have been taking advantage of these provisions since the legislation took effect. STP, the Surface Transportation "Flexible Funds" Program is the principal source available for the MMTT; funds for some multimodal centers have been made available by conference earmarks through the FTA Bus Allocation Program. However, FTA Construction Funds for the Columbus MMTT will come from the successor legislation to ISTEA as it expires in 1996. A commitment to proceed with the MMTT, however, should spark an effort to obtain a congressional earmark for both design and construction funding through FTA. MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 37 Implementation and Joint Development COTA In addition to funds available in the COTA capital budget and through FTA programs, COTA has the opportunity to apply money toward the MMTT which can be realized through the sale or lease of the property currently in use for the downtown North Express Bus Terminal. Elements for which COTA could take the lead in funding include the following regional transit components: Express bus terminal Airport shuttle bus COTA administrative office space A portion of the concourse - waiting and ticketing areas Joint Development (Private Sector) Integrating the MMTT with private sector developments and building all of the terminal components at the same time creates cost savings opportunities for all parties (including, for example, those related to shared site preparation and foundation costs). For this reason, it would be ideal to construct the fullbuild terminal in conjunction with a full private sector development (for example, a Convention Center hotel and parking garage). This public/private joint development scenario has been followed at a number of transportation terminals around the country, including Cleveland, Boston, Hartford, and Miami. The exact building components and funding split are different for each terminal, but the common theme is that the public and private interests worked together to maximize their ability to leverage federal funding. Joint Development revenues can be generated from three sources: 1. Retail and concession areas within the Multimodal Terminal concourse (for example, food services, magazine stand, book stand, flower stand, shoe repair, dry cleaning). 2. Leasable office space on the third floor of the terminal above the COTA administrative offices. 3. Air-rights over the express bus terminal for potential Convention Center hotel and parking. Other possible private sector participation includes the pedestrian bridges linking the MMTT to the Convention Center across High Street and the potential development area to the west across Front Street. MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994 38 Implementation and Joint Development Conclusion The funding strategy for this project cannot be developed in isolation. It is important that the strategy be coordinated with planning for other transportation projects over the next ten years to ensure that other transportation priorities are considered in negotiations with specific funding sources. Funding is one component in realizing this extraordinary opportunity of linking multiple transportation modes. Implementation will require many players working together to coordinate multiple funding sources through design and construction. The MMTT project is a key link in the ongoing development- revitalization of this exciting area on the north side of downtown Columbus. This unique site presents an unparalleled opportunity to create a vital, active transportation center that not only provides access to downtown Columbus, but also links together the old and new - the North Market, the Convention Center, the Central Business District, and the major new development sites to the west. MMTT Feasibility Study. December 1994 39