DTA Downtown Multi-Modal Transportation Terminal Analysis

Transcription

May 21, 2009
FINAL REPORT
DTA Downtown Multi-Modal
Transportation Terminal Analysis
LHB, Inc.
LSA Design, Inc.
Together with:
Marco Consulting
Kimley-Horn
HDR
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Table of Contents
Introduction ...........................................................................................................1
Part I: Selection of Potential Sites.........................................................................2
Part II: Selection of Priority Site ..........................................................................21
Part III: Conclusion..............................................................................................31
Appendix.............................................................................................................34
• Stakeholder Meeting Minutes December 19, 2008
• Stakeholder Meeting Minutes January 16, 2009
• Stakeholder Meeting Minutes February 17, 2009
• Stakeholder Meeting Minutes March 13, 2009
LHB, Inc. | LSA Design, Inc.
0
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Introduction
The Duluth Transit Authority (DTA) performed this Downtown Duluth Multimodal
Transportation Terminal Analysis to make a final determination on the location
and type of transit facility that will meet the both the DTA’s and the regional
goals. A previous study for a similar project was performed in 2004 (Downtown
Transportation Terminal Analysis), but the recommended location and facility did
not garner needed support of downtown businesses that were closest to the
recommended site. In addition, a new study was required to evaluate a site and
facility that takes into account changes that have occurred since 2004:
• The DECC Expansion has become an approved project and is under
construction which will increase visitors to the downtown and study area,
• The rail project from the Twin Cities to Duluth has progressed and is
proceeding into design phase that will increase visitors to the downtown
nearby the study area,
• Increased housing, hotels, and economic opportunity in the downtown
area,
• Significant additional conceptual planning for the downtown vicinity has
been performed that included many stakeholders and a broader vision for
how nearby business and other entities may better leverage and support
this facility,
• The broader vision includes needed improvements that will enhance
intermodal connectivity to not only this transportation terminal but also
within the greater downtown area,
• The conceptual planning has considered other projects that are targeting
other types of federal, state and local funds that will significantly support
the success of the DTA Downtown Duluth Multimodal Transportation
Terminal,
• Support for transit oriented development opportunities, and increasing
vibrancy and diversity of use in the downtown setting, and
• Coordinating and pursuing multimodal opportunities such as passenger
rail, fixed guideway, pedestrian and bicycle.
The Downtown Duluth Multimodal Transportation Terminal Analysis was
developed with the support of a broad group of stakeholders. A Stakeholder
Committee was formed to direct the study and make recommendations on a
selected site and program components. The Stakeholder Committee consisted of
a wide representation of interests and included the following:
Dennis Jensen
Jim Heilig
Mayor Don Ness
Tom Cotruvo
Cindy Voigt
Tony Cuneo
Duluth Transit Authority
Duluth Transit Authority
City of Duluth
City of Duluth
City of Duluth
City of Duluth
1
FINAL REPORT
Cari Pedersen
Ron Chicka
Holly Butcher
Kristi Stokes
Abbot Apter
Aaron Bransky
John Brostrom
Harvey Anderson
Tony Boen
Dan Russell
Barbara Hayden
Eric Stoller
Pam Kraemer
Roger Wedin
Ken Buehler
Ryan Boman
Don Mohawk
Sandy Hoff
05-21-2009
City of Duluth
MIC
MIC
Greater Downtown Council
Greater Downtown Council (private business owner)
DTA Board
Transit User
SMDC
Canal Park Business Assoc. (private business owner)
DECC
St. Louis County Planning
St. Louis County Planning
LISC
Duluth PC (private business owner)
Lake Superior Railroad Museum
MnDOT
Consultants
Bill Bennett
Steve McNeill
Michael Schroeder
Jim Lasher
Jo Ann Olsen
Len Simich
JoNette Kuhnau
Mona Elabbady
LHB
LHB
LHB
LSA Design
LSA Design
Marco Consulting
Kimley Horn
HDR
The Stakeholder Committee met four times and also held a Public Open house.
Minutes from these meetings are provided in Appendix A.
Part I: Selection of Potential Sites
Step 1: Define Goal, Vision and Program
There are numerous stakeholders involved with this study. A clear understanding
and acceptance of the direction and outcome is critical in staying on course and
making a recommendation that can be supported by all. Therefore, the first
meeting of the Stakeholder Committee (December 19, 2008) was a formal
Kickoff Meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and agree on the
following study parameters:
1. Study Goal: Identify a Site and Type of Facility for the DTA Multimodal
Transportation Terminal.
2
FINAL REPORT
2.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
05-21-2009
Project Vision: Improve Modal Connectivity
Create a stronger DTA presence and image
Improve downtown circulation
Provide opportunities for new/additional transit service
Accommodate efficient transit routing options
Concentrate effective multi-modal opportunities
Create economic development opportunities along the waterfront and
within the downtown area
Improve connectivity (vehicular and pedestrian) between downtown and
the waterfront – resolve the “great divide” of I-35.
Intercept traffic and provide passengers with multimodal choices to
enhance connections to and reduce traffic in Canal Park and the
Downtown
Program Elements:
Eight (8) Bus bay interior passenger platform
Four (4) Bus bay interior layover area
Electronic camera security and access control systems
Safe and convenient passenger circulation
Bicycle station/trailhead
DTA office space
DTA parking – 250 stalls
Passenger Waiting Station (lobby, seating area and restrooms)
Information Center
Pedestrian connection to Depot and Superior Street
Northwest Passage pedestrian/bike connection over I -35
DTA express bus stop on west bound I-35 ramp
Rental car center
Taxi waiting area
Jefferson Lines/Commuter Coach station and layover
Package express storage and service counter
Potential future fixed guideway connection
Joint Development/Mixed Use integrated into facility
Step 2: Initial Screening of Parcels
This study reviewed the sites previously evaluated in the Downtown
Transportation Terminal Analysis 2004 study, re-introduced some that had been
eliminated and introduced new sites that are near the existing downtown DTA
facility and the Depot. Prior to a full evaluation, an initial screening of parcels was
performed to focus the full evaluation on truly potential sites. The following
screening criteria were used to define a list of potential sites:
1. Availability: If the site was not available for development or
redevelopment it was eliminated from further study.
3
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
2. Size: The DTA Transportation Terminal will require over one acre of
property to adequately meet the space requirements for the program
elements. If the site was not larger than 1 acre, or could not feasibly be
combined with an adjacent site to provide 1 or more acres, this site was
eliminated from further consideration.
3. Location: Proximity to the Depot, existing transit service on Superior
Street and Canal Park/DECC/waterfront was a priority factor for the
Stakeholder Committee. If the site was not located near, or could not be
connected to, these elements it was eliminated from further consideration.
This process narrowed the number of Potential Sites to seven (7) which are
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Potential Sites
4
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Site A is located directly to the west of the Depot site. The site is currently a
parking ramp and vacant land. The site has frontage on Michigan Street.
Site B is located across 5th Avenue West directly to the east of the Depot. The
site is currently a privately owned parking structure. The site has frontage on
Michigan Street, 4th Avenue West, the frontage road to the south, and 5th Avenue
West. The site has access to the 5th Avenue West vehicular/pedestrian crossing
of I-35. The site also has potential to have a pedestrian connection to Superior
Street.
Site C is a privately owned building and parking lot. The site has frontage on
Superior Street and 5th Avenue West, and potentially 4th Avenue WEst if
expanded to the east. There is also an alley on the north side of the site.
Site D is on the south side of I-35 and located on the DECC property. The site
has frontage along 5th Avenue West and Railroad Street.
Site E is privately owned buildings and parking lot. The site has frontage on
Michigan Street, 4th and 3rd Avenues West and along the frontage road to the
south.
Site F is a privately owned parking structure. The site has frontage on Michigan
Street, 3rd Avenue West and along the frontage road to the south. The site has
access to the Northwest Passage pedestrian crossing of I-35. The site also has
the ability to connect to the existing downtown DTA facility through a skywalk
connection.
Site G is a privately owned building and parking lot. The site has frontage on
Superior Street, 1st Street and 6th Avenue West.
Step 3: Development of Site Evaluation Criteria
Using the Goal, Vision and Program Elements listed in Step 1, a set of evaluation
criteria were developed. In addition, a weighting system was applied to the
evaluation criteria because some criteria are more significant than others. The
weighting system assigned points to each criterion. The weight for each criterion
ranged from 10, 8 or 6. The scoring for each criterion was at three levels. For
example a weighted score of 10 would be 10, 0 or -10. The criteria were divided
into four sections: Site Access and Location, Site Characteristics, Cost
Effectiveness and Future Potential. The evaluation criteria were presented to the
Stakeholder Committee for their review and comments. The evaluation criteria
were finalized with the comments received. Note: the only comment was to
increase the weight of the Pedestrian/Bicycle Access criterion. This criterion was
changed from a weight of 6 to 8.
The evaluation criteria and weighting system are shown Figure 2.
5
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 2 – Evaluation Criteria
Criteria and Description
Site Access and Location
Transit/Vehicle Circulation on Site. Assesses the area and shape of site for on site bus and vehicle
circulation
Proximity to mainline transit on Superior. Assesses site location in relation to Superior Street. Sites
adjacent to or with pedestrian access to Superior are preferred.
Transit/Vehicle Access. Assesses access into and out of the site for bus and automobile vehicles. A site
with signalization, full movements and secondary access point potential are preferred.
Connectivity. Assesses connectivity potential of site to surrounding areas. Sites with ability to provide
primary connections to Superior, skywalk, and 35 crossing are preferred .
Pedestrian/Bicycle Access. Assesses potential for safe pedestrian access to and from the site, and between
the Depot, Downtown, and Canal Park. Sites with sidewalks, signalized crosswalk and potential skyway are
preferred.
Location. Assesses if the site is at or near the Depot and multimodal activity. Sites that are closer to the
Depot and multimodal activity are preferred.
Area Access. Evaluates the capacity and average daily traffic volumes (AADT) on the roadways surrounding
the site. A site with adequate capacity on the adjacent roadway network, appropriate turn lanes, and little or no
congestion on the roadway network is preferred to minimize delay and provide consistent travel times for
buses.
Measure and Points
[+10] Adequate area and shape for circulation options
[ 0 ] Limited area and shape for circulation options
[-10] Difficult area and shape for circulation options
[+10] Site directly adjacent to Superior St
[ 0 ] Site with pedestrian access to Superior St
[-10] Site with no direct access to Superior St.
[+10] Signalized, full access, secondary access
[ 0 ] Non-signalized, full access, secondary access
[-10] Non-signalized, no full access, no secondary access
[+10] Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Connections
[ 0 ] Secondary and Tertiary
[-10] Tertiary
[+8] Sidewalk, signalized crosswalk, skyway
[ 0 ] Sidewalk, signalized crosswalk
[-8] Sidewalk
[+8] Site at or within 1 block of the Depot
[ 0 ] Site between 1 and 2 blocks from Depot
[-8] Site 3+ blocks from Depot
[+6] AADT <5,000 on two-lane, two-way signalized roadway.
[ 0 ] AADT 5,000-10,000 on two-lane, two-way signalized
roadway. AADT 3,000-6,000 on one-lane, one-way signalized
roadway.
[-6] AADT >10,000 for two-lane, two-way signalized roadway.
AADT >6,000 AADT on one-lane, one-way signalized roadway.
Site Characteristics
Existing Conditions. Evaluates extent and condition of any existing development on the site. Vacant sites or
ones with minimal, older improvements are preferred
Availability. Evaluates potential ownership of the site. Sites currently available for acquisition are preferred.
[+10] Vacant
[ 0 ] Underutilized use or in poor condition
[-10] Active use or in good condition
[+6] Actively available
[ 0 ] Moderate availability
[-6] Difficult availability
Cost Effectiveness
Operating cost impacts. Estimates the length of deviation from current DTA routes each site would create.
Sites with the least amount of deviation are preferred.
Site Preparation Costs. Estimates the cost to demo existing improvements. Vacant sites or ones with minor
structures are preferred.
Assessed Value. City assessed value per square foot compared to other identified sites. Sites with lower
cost per square foot are preferred.
[+10] Shortest route deviation
[ 0 ] Moderate route deviation
[-10] Longest route deviation
[+8] Lowest improvement costs
[ 0 ] Moderate improvement costs
[-8] Highest improvement costs
[+8] Under $20/sf
[ 0 ] $21 to $30/sf
[-8] +$30/sf
Future Potential
Intercepter Parking. Assesses sites that can serve as interceptor parking for traffic traveling north on 35.
Future Fixed Guideway. Assesses sites in relation to potential future fixed guideway routes.
[+10] Good visibility, easy access
[ 0 ] Good visibility or easy access
[-10] Poor visibility and poor access
[+10] Direct access to FFG (5th Ave and Superior)
[ 0 ] Direct access to FFG (Superior only)
[-10] No direct access to FFG (5th or Superior)
6
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Step 4: Site Concepts
A final step that was performed prior to the Full Evaluation was to produce
Massing Models, Circulation and Connectivity Concepts for each of the seven (7)
potential sites. The facility massing was based on the site program and current
conditions. For example, Site B will be required to replace the existing parking in
addition to the DTA multimodal program elements. The circulation was based on
DTA transit continuing to run on Superior Street*. The connectivity plans focused
on existing and potential connections. These concepts provided a means to
evaluate the sites against the criteria and allowed the Stakeholder Committee to
visually see the potential of each site, along with any constraints. Figures 3 - 9
present the concepts for each site. As the project moves forward into the design
and funding submittal phase the concepts for the selected site will be refined to
include space planning of the facility, including supportive retail/commercial uses,
detailed circulation design, including access/egress for transit, cars, taxis,
pedestrians, bikes, etc.
*Note: Moving DTA transit service from Superior to 1st Street was reviewed to
determine the potential and support. One goal of moving transit service to 1st
Street would be to allow Superior Street to become a fixed guideway route that
would connect the downtown with the waterfront. It was determined by the
Stakeholders to maintain transit on Superior Street and have the site selection be
based on this condition.
7
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 3 – Site A
8
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 4 – Site B
9
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 5 – Site C
10
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 6 – Site D
11
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 7 – Site E
12
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 8 – Site F
13
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 9 – Site G
14
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Step 5: Full Evaluation and Ranking of Potential Sites
A full evaluation of the seven (7) potential sites was performed. The potential
sites were evaluated based on the evaluation criteria developed in Step 3 and
the site concepts developed in Step 4. The evaluation process included both
qualitative and quantitative assessment of each potential property. Once the
evaluation was complete, each property was scored using the weighting system
assigned to each criterion. A total score was then calculated for each site. The
results of this evaluation process are presented in Figure #24.
The following is a list of the seven sites in order of ranking as a result of the
evaluation:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Site B
Site D
Site F
Site G
Site C
Site A
Site E
Score: 40
Score: 16
Score: 6
Score: 4
Score: 2
Score: -10
Score: -14
Site B scored well due to its proximity to existing and future transit, proximity and
connectivity to the Depot and waterfront, and site access and circulation. Site B
will require the acquisition and demolition of a functional parking structure.
Site D was the second site in order of ranking due to site access and circulation,
existing conditions and site costs. Site D is located away from existing transit
service and will result in higher operating costs.
Site F has good connectivity, area access and proximity to downtown,
passengers and existing DTA facility. Site F has limited on site circulation and
potential for future transit (fixed guideway). The site will require acquisition and
demolition of an older structure that is not highly functional and is in need of
repair. It is also not in close proximity to the Depot.
Site G is adjacent to existing transit service and has good transit/vehicular on site
circulation. Site G will require acquisition and demolition of a functional structure.
The site location is removed from the transit/multimodal and waterfront activity.
Site C is adjacent to existing transit service and has good vehicular access. The
size and shape of the site limits the onsite circulation and the location removed
from the waterfront activity. The site will require acquisition and demolition of
structures.
Site A is directly adjacent to the Depot and can provide adequate
transit/vehicular on site circulation. The site is located away from existing and
future transit and has limited vehicular access. The site has limited connectivity.
15
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Site E has good area access and connectivity. Site E is limited in size, shape and
ability for good on site circulation, and proximity to existing or future transit. Site
E will require the demolition of an existing structure that is not highly functional
and is in need of repair.
16
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 24 – Evaluation Results
Parcel ID
PIN
A
Various
B
Various
C
Various
D
Various
E
Various
F
Various
G
Various
Adequate size and shape for
circulation options
Adequate size and
shape for circulation
options
Limited size and shape for
circulation options
Adequate size and shape for
circulation options
Difficult size and shape for
circulation options
circulation options
circulation options
Direct access to Superior
Evaluation Summary
Transit/Vehicular On Site
Circulation
Proximity to Transit on
Superior
Transit/Vehicle Access
Connectivity
Pedestrian/Bicycle Access
Location
Area Access
1 block from existing transit route.
No direct access
Full access at intersection, which is
4 way stop control. No signal, no
secondary access. Would be
possible to add secondary access
on Michigan St (if changed to 2
way) and signal at Michigan St/ 6th
Ave W.
Pedestrian access to
Superior if include
Ordean Plaza
1 block from existing transit route
1 block from existing transit
route/Pedestrian access with
connection through DTA bldg
Signal at Michigan St/
5th Ave W, full access
on Michigan St and 4th
Ave.
Signals at Superior St/ 5th Ave W
and Superior St/4th Ave W. One
way (east) access to the site from
the alley parallel to Superior St that
extends between 5th Ave W and
4th Ave W.
Not near existing regular
transit route
Full access on 5th Ave
W/Harbor Drive, secondary
access on Railroad St. No
signals adjacent at site,
probably not warranted at
this time, but could be
added.
Direct access to Superior
Full access on 3rd Ave W and 4th
Ave W. No signals at Michigan
St/4th Ave W or Michigan St/3rd
Ave W, but could be added.
Full access on 3rd Ave W and
Michigan St. No signal at
Michigan/3rd Ave, but could be
added if necessary.
Full access on 6th Ave W . Signal
at Superior St/6th Ave W. No
signal at 6th Ave W/ 1st St, but
would be possible to signalize 6th
Ave/1st St W.
At edge of workplace, no skywalk
connection, skywalk at library
Skywalk, near Depot,
edge workplace, 35
crossing
Skywalk, 1 block to Depot, edge of
workplace
Far from workplace, no
skywalk, 35 crossing
Skywalk, center of workplace, 35
pedestrian crossing
Skywalk, center of workplace,
35 pedestrian crossing
At edge of workplace, no skywalk
Sidewalk and trail on Michigan and
6th. No signalized crosswalk and
no skyway.
Sidewalk, signalized
crosswalks at
Michigan/5th,
connection to skyway at
Michigan/4th.
Sidewalk, signalized crosswalks at
intersections surrounding site,
multiple skyway connections
Sidewalk on 5th Ave, trail on
Railroad. No signalized
crosswalks. No opportunity
to connect directly to
skyway.
No signalized crosswalks. Sidewalk
is incomplete, but could be added
on 4th Ave south of Michigan St.
Existing skyway connection, and
filling in missing skyway connection
would create loop.
Sidewalk on 3rd Ave and
Michigan St, multiple skyway
connections. No signalized
crosswalks.
Sidewalk on 1st St, 6th Ave W, and
Superior St. Signalized crosswalk
at Superior St/6th Ave W. No
opportunity to connect to skyway.
Adjacent to Depot site
Across 5th Avenue from
Depot site
2 blocks to Depot
3+ blocks to Depot, across
35
1 block to Depot
2 blocks to Depot
2 blocks to Depot
AADT Michigan St = 4350. AADT
6th Ave W = 3050. Both one-lane,
one-way.
AADT Michigan St =
4350, one-way. AADT
5th Ave W = 5200, twoway.
AADT 5th Ave W = 5200. AADT
4th Ave W = 4800. AADT Both twoway.
AADT 5th Ave W = 5000.
AADT Railroad St = 3650.
Both two-way.
AADT 4th Ave W = 4800, two-way.
AADT 3rd Ave W = 1050, one-way.
AADT Michigan St = 4100.
AADT 3rd Ave W = 1050. Both
one-way.
AADT 6th Ave W = 3050. AADT 1st
St = 1450-3900, changes from oneway to two-way at 6th Ave. AADT
Superior St = 8300.
Ramp is near end of life. Other is
vacant area.
Ramp is mostly new
and in full use.
1960's concrete structure KDLH
building mostly vacant.
Parking spaces, will be
needed by DECC
M.A. Annex poor condition DPS
building poor condition.
Ramp is @ end of life, poor
layout.
Parking lot. Incline Station Bowling
Alley recent construction and in
good condition.
City/county/rr
Must replace 460
spaces, questionable
availability
KDLH available, Palladio potential
interest- bank issue
Active parking use, must
replace
Parking need to be replaced,
Duluth Plumbing potential interest
Need replacement parking,
potential interest
Potential interest, bowling alley part
of the deal, be built back into
project
2 block deviation, +1 signal
2 block deviation, 0
signal
1 block deviation, 0 signal
2 block deviation 0 signal
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
$1,993,200
$40.24
$2,546,600
$31.25
$2,506,200
$44.75
$204,700
$3.99
$2,574,900
$30.74
$1,608,600
$53.07
$1,273,600
$16.99
Demo ramp, caissons to rock for
foundation
Demo ramp and
acquisition costs, mixed
soil conditions.
Acquisition, demo costs
Pilings and contaminated
soils
Acquire DPS building and annex,
but vacant land available.
Acquire ramp, but vacant land
available.
Vacant lot, likely rock foundations.
Incline building demolition.
Site Characteristics
Existing Conditions
Availability
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Cost Impacts
Land Acquisition Cost
Assessed Value
(cost / sq. foot)
Site Preparation Costs
17
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Future Potential
Interceptor Parking
Connection to Future Fixed
Guideway
West side, good visibility from 35,
intercept cars prior to entering
downtown/Canal Park, easy
access from 5th Ave exit
West side, good
visibility from 35,
intercept cars prior to
entering
downtown/Canal Park,
easy access from 5th
Ave exit
Close, not direct, access to future
fixed guideway (ffg)on 5th Ave
West side, poor visibility from 35,
not as direct access from 35
West side, good visibility
from 35, intercept cars prior
to entering downtown/Canal
Park, easy access from 5th
Ave exit
Downtown, good visibility from 35,
difficult access from 35
Downtown, good visibility from
35, difficult access from 35
West side, poor visibility from 35,
not as direct access from 35
Direct access to future
fixed guideway (ffg) on
5th Ave and Superior
Direct access to future fixed
guideway on Superior, close to ffg
on 5th Ave
Direct access to future fixed
guideway on 5th Ave
No direct access to future fixed
guideway on Superior or 5th Ave
guideway on Superior or 5th
Ave
guideway on Superior or 5th Ave
10
10
0
10
-10
0
0
0
0
10
-10
-10
0
10
-10
0
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
10
-10
0
8
0
8
8
8
0
46
8
0
0
28
-8
-8
6
-10
8
0
6
4
8
0
6
24
0
8
6
24
0
0
-10
0
-10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
-10
0
0
-10
-10
10
0
0
-10
0
-8
0
-8
10
-8
-10
8
0
-8
0
-8
10
8
0
-8
0
-8
-16
20
-8
-6
12
8
6
6
0
-8
-4
0
-8
16
-8
10
24
0
10
-10
10
0
0
-10
-10
-10
-10
10
20
40
0
-10
2
0
10
16
-10
-10
-14
-10
-10
6
-10
-20
4
Evaluation Score
60 points
Transit/Vehicle circulation on
site (+10, 0, -10)
Proximity to Transit on
Superior (+10,0,-10)
Transit/Vehicle Access (+10,
0, -10)
Connectivity (+10, 0, -10)
Pedestrian/Bicycle Access
(+8, 0, -8)
Location (+8,0,-8)
Area Access (+6, 0, -6)
Sub-Total
Site Characteristics 16
points
Existing Conditions (+10, 0, 10)
Availability (+6, 0, -6)
Sub-Total
Cost Effectiveness 26
points
Operating Cost Impacts (+10,
0, -10)
Assessed Value (+8, 0, -8)
Site Preparation Costs (+8, 0,
-8)
Sub-Total
Total Score
Future Potential 20 points
Interceptor Parking (+10, 0, 10)
Connection to Future Fixed
Guideway (+10, 0, -10)
Sub-Total
Total Score
18
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 25 – Site Scoring and Comments
19
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Step 6: Selection of Priority Sites
The Stakeholder Committee reviewed the Full Evaluation of the Potential Sites,
along with the Site Concepts. Both Sites B and F were the preferred sites and
each had support from various stakeholders for the following reasons:
1. Location:
a. Site B was preferred by some for its close proximity to the Depot
and its influence on future development (waterfront, Depot, west
end of town)
b. Site F was preferred by others for its close proximity to the central
downtown and existing businesses.
2. Multimodal Connectivity:
a. Site B was preferred by some for its close proximity to the Depot
and potential future passenger rail. Site B also could support a
future fixed guideway route.
b. Site F was preferred by others for its proximity to where transit
riders board and alight. Site B was seen as less convenient to the
transit rider.
c. Site F could utilize the existing DTA facility
d. Site F is adjacent to the NW Passage pedestrian crossing of I-35.
e. Site B is adjacent to the 5th Avenue West crossing of I-35.
f. Both crossings will need to be improved to provide safe, accessible
bike/pedestrian access.
The Stakeholder Committee noted the importance of maintaining a view corridor
in the downtown Duluth area, especially toward Lake Superior from downtown
buildings. This led to the discussion of a combination of the sites that would
reduce the massing on just one site. Site E is located between Sites B and F and
provides an opportunity for additional parking (surface and structured),
connectivity, access options and allows the massing and height of the structures
to be reduced by spreading it out over a larger land mass. Site E does not
function well on its own, but is useful as a combination with the adjacent sites (B
or F).
The Stakeholder Committee recommended the following:
1. Proceed with the following combination of sites as the priority sites:
a. Sites B and E: with Site B being the location of the DTA facility and
Site E being used for additional parking and connectivity.
b. Sites F and E: With Site F being the location of the DTA facility and
Site E being used for additional parking and connectivity.
These findings and recommendations were presented at a public open house to
receive public feedback. The comments from the public open house were similar
to those from the Stakeholder Committee, in support of both Sites B and F.
20
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Part II: Selection of Priority Site
Step 1: Concepts
After selection of the two Priority Sites (B/E and F/E), concepts were developed
for each site. The concepts provided the following information:
• Circulation
• Massing
• Cross Section
These concepts were used to further evaluate the sites and compare them
against each other in order to select a final site.
Figures 26 - 29 present the concepts for each Priority Site.
21
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 26 – Concept BE
22
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 27 – Concept BE Massing Model
23
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 28 – Concept EF
24
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 29 – Concept EF Massing Model
25
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Cost Estimate
Acquisition and Demolition
In addition to the above concepts, a cost estimate was prepared for both Sites.
The following is a summary of method and results of the cost estimate.
Sites B/E and F/E have been analyzed for taxable value and demolition/ site
preparation. For the purpose of this study public taxable value as described on
the St. Louis County Parcel Data was used for the cost estimate. Note: It is
understood by all parties that in the event this project moves forward, DTA will
follow FTA 5010.C and Uniform Relocation Act requirements for the acquisition
processes as required by the FTA. An estimate for demolition costs based on
total square footage and reasonable historic demolition costs was also prepared.
The concepts were overlaid on parcel information to determine the affected
parcels that will need to be acquired. Concepts that used either land or airspace
over existing rights-of-way are assumed to be provided by the current owner
(city, county, MnDOT…) at no cost to the project for the purpose of this analysis.
As the project develops, these parcels will be appraised and included in the total
project budget.
Note: Under certain circumstances, the FTA will allow the value of a land contribution to a capital
facility project to offset “local match” requirements. Additionally, in the event that the right-of-way
surface is not required for the project but the air-space over the right of way is required for the
project, this also has value and should be appraised and included in the project budget. This is of
particular concern to the 5th Avenue access ramp which runs parallel to south-bound I-35W. In
the event the project includes parking improvements over this access ramp, these air-rights will
need to be acquired for the project and if donated, would possibly be available for “local match”.
Option #1 (Site B/E)
Parcels included in this option are as follows:
010-1230-00260
010-1230-00085
010-1230-00083
010-1230-00220
010-0410-01990
Subtotal Taxable Value
Taxable Value
Demolition Costs
Total
$ 100,000
$ 2,359,000
$
88,000
$ 1,163,000
$ 300,000
$ 4,010,000
w/ 1.5 multiplier
$ 6,015,000
$ 1,091,000
$ 7,106,000*
*Note: It is assumed that there will be a Public/Private Partnership that will result in the
Private sector re-purchasing parking stalls that will effectively reduce this amount.
26
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Option #2 (Site F/E)
Parcels included in this option are as follows:
010-1230-00220
010-0410-00990
010-0410-01090
010-0410-01110
010-0140-01130
010-0410-01150
010-0410-01170
010-0410-01200
010-0410-01210
010-1230-00087
010-1230-00088
010-1230-00089
Subtotal
Taxable Value
Demolition Costs
Total
$ 1,163,000
$ 300,000
$ 238,000
$
71,000
$ 831,000
$
76,000
$
77,000
$ 316,000
$ 319,000
$
27,000
$
7,000
$
52,000
$ 3,477,000 w/ 1.5 multiplier
$ 5,216,000
$ 629,000
$ 5,845,000*
*Note: It is assumed that there will be a Public/Private Partnership that will result in the
Private sector re-purchasing parking stalls that will effectively reduce this amount.
Construction Costs
Multi-Modal Transit Center
The proposed multimodal transit center includes the following program elements:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Passenger Waiting Station (lobby, seating area and restrooms)
Passenger/Transit/Transportation Information Center
8-Bus Bay Interior Passenger Platform
3 or 4-Bus Bay Interior Layover area
Bicycle Station (Bike Storage, restroom facilities, bike maintenance area)
DTA Express Bus Stop on west-bound I-35W ramp
Pedestrian Connection to Depot Building
Taxi Waiting area
Rental Car Center (storage and pick-up center)
DTA Office Space
Jefferson Lines Transit Stop
Package Express Storage and Service Counter
Electronic Camera Security and Access Control Systems
Commuter Coach Station and Layover
Skywalk Connection to Superior Street
Northwest Passage Pedestrian/Bike Bridge
Potential future fixed guide way connection/bays
27
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Pricing Methodology
Each of the concepts was analyzed using a “square foot” construction pricing
methodology. Localized standards were applied to the various types of
construction and systems (prestressed “post-tension” concrete, elevated
skywalks and interior skyway, typical brick veneer/masonry back-up wall
systems, vertical circulation, interior finishes, and typical HVAC). In addition to
these costs, a 30% Soft Cost allocation to cover typical administrative costs, predesign activities, a NEPA process, design, engineering, testing and inspections
costs were included.
533 Parking Stalls on Site B*
237 Parking Stalls on Site E**
Express Bus Slip lane
NW Passage Ped/Bike Bridge
Temporary Parking/Transit Shuttle***
Subtotal
Soft Costs (30%)
Subtotal
Contingency (15%)
Total
$ 10,500,000
$ 11,726,000
$ 5,214,000
$ 3,000,000
$ 5,118,000
$ 2,351,000
$37,909,000
$ 11,373,000
$49,282,000 $ 7,392,000
$56,674,000 *The parking stall total represents a replacement of 460 existing structured stalls plus an
additional 73 new stalls for DTA use on Site B. A rearrangement of private/public parking stalls
between sites B and E is assumed.
** The parking stall total represents 100 surface stalls and 137 structured stalls on Site E (for use
by DTA and private to be determined).
*** Temporary parking is to replace the 460 stalls in a surface parking lot throughout the 24 month
construction period. Also included in this number is a DTA shuttle service from this replacement
parking area to Downtown Duluth over the construction period.
Option #2 (Site F/E)
353 Parking Stalls on Site F*
237 Parking Stalls on Site E**
Express Bus Slip lane
NW Ped/Bike Bridge
Temporary Parking/Transit Shuttle***
Subtotal
Soft Costs (30%)
Subtotal
Contingency (15%)
Total
$ 10,500,000
$ 7,7660,000
$ 5,214,000
$
300,000
$ 5,118,000
$ 1,511,000
$ 30,409,000 $ 9,123,000 $ 39,532,000
$ 5,930,000 $ 45,462,000 28
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
*The parking stall total represents a replacement of 280 existing stalls (180 structured stalls and
100 surface stalls) plus an additional 73 new stalls for DTA use. A rearrangement of private/public
parking stalls between sites B and E is assumed.
** The parking stall total represents 100 surface stalls and 137 structured stalls on Site E (for use
by DTA and private to be determined).
*** Temporary parking is to replace the 180 stalls in a surface parking lot throughout the 24 month
construction period. Also included in this number is a DTA shuttle service from this replacement
parking area to Downtown Duluth over the construction period.
SUMMARY COST PROJECT PROJECTIONS
We have summarized the costs for Sites B/E and F/E for both
demolition/acquisition and construction. As the project goes through subsequent
phases, the contingency will be brought in line with typical FTA budgeting
methodology.
Acquisition/Demo
Construction
Total
$ 7,106,000
$ 56,674,000
$ 63,780,000
Option #2 (Site E & F)
Acquisition/Demo
Construction
Total
$ 5,845,000
$ 45,462,000
$ 51,307,000
Step 2: Evaluation of Priority Sites
Throughout the evaluation of the sites it was clear that either Site B/E or F/E
would be successful as the new DTA multimodal facility. Both sites can function
operationally for existing and future DTA transit service, and other modes of
travel. Both sites can provide interior space for passengers and vehicles. Both
sites can provide connectivity between the Depot, Downtown and Waterfront.
Both sites can improve the DTA identity and support adjacent redevelopment.
Site F/E is centrally located in the downtown. It is near the existing DTA facility
and current boarding/alighting conditions. Site F/E can connect to and utilize the
existing DTA facility and has direct access to the NW Passage. Site F/E has
existing structures that are in need of being replaced or improved.
Site B/E is located on the westerly edge of the core Downtown Duluth. It is
directly across the street from the Depot, which has potential to become a
transportation focal point if passenger rail arrives at this location. Site B/E has a
prominent location at an intersection with good site lines and the ability to
showcase the DTA facility. Site B/E is also in a location where it can support new
29
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
growth to the west and along the waterfront. Site B/E is located directly adjacent
to where a future fixed guideway system could be located and where it can easily
intercept travelers arriving to the Duluth area.
Since both sites could succeed, the final evaluation was used to compare the two
sites against each other. Instead of using a numerical scoring system, the
evaluation simplified the scoring with a plus and minus system to rank the sites
against each other. See Figure 30 – Priority Site Evaluation.
Site B/E received a total of twelve (12) pluses and three (3) negatives, and Site
F/E received a total of ten (10) pluses and five (5) negatives. The main factor for
Site B/E scoring better against Site F/E was the future conditions. Site B/E is the
better location for a future fixed guideway system and to serve as an interceptor
for vehicles arriving to the Duluth area.
30
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 30 – Priority Site Evaluation
Criteria and Description
Site Conditions
Site B/E
Site F/E
Transit/Vehicle Circulation on Site. Assesses the area and shape of site for on site bus and vehicle
circulation
+
+
Location. Assesses if the site is at or near the Depot and multimodal activity. Sites that are closer to the
Depot and multimodal activity are preferred.
+
-
Proximity to mainline transit on Superior. Assesses site location in relation to Superior Street. Sites
adjacent to or with pedestrian access to Superior are preferred.
+
+
Transit/Vehicle Access. Assesses access into and out of the site for bus and automobile vehicles. A site
with signalization, full movements and secondary access point potential are preferred.
+
-
Area Access. Evaluates the capacity and average daily traffic volumes (AADT) on the roadways surrounding
the site. A site with adequate capacity on the adjacent roadway network, appropriate turn lanes, and little or no
congestion on the roadway network is preferred to minimize delay and provide consistent travel times for
buses.
-
+
Pedestrian/Bicycle Access. Assesses potential for safe pedestrian access to and from the site, and between
the Depot, Downtown, and Canal Park. Sites with sidewalks, signalized crosswalk and potential skyway are
preferred.
+
+
Connectivity. Assesses connectivity potential of site to surrounding areas. Sites with ability to provide
primary connections to Superior, skywalk, and 35 crossing are preferred .
+
+
Transit Image. Assesses the prominance and visibility of site to pedestrians/vehicles and ability to advance
the image of transit. Site with prominent street frontage/intersections are preferred.
+
-
Support Redevelopment. Assesses the positive impact to exisiting uses and future potential.
+
+
Viewshed Impact. Assesses the height of the structure and impact to existing structures. Sites that result in
less height and mass are preferred.
+
+
Availability. Evaluates potential ownership of the site. Sites currently available for acquisition are preferred.
+
+
Operating cost impacts. Estimates the length of deviation from current DTA routes each site would create.
Sites with the least amount of deviation are preferred.
-
+
Project Costs. Assesses the cost for acquisition, demolition and construction
-
+
Intercepter Parking. Assesses sites that can serve as interceptor parking for traffic traveling north on 35.
+
-
Future Fixed Guideway. Assesses sites in relation to potential future fixed guideway routes.
+
-
+
-
Cost Effectiveness
Future Potential
Part III: Conclusion
The Stakeholder Committee recommended that Site B/E be moved forward as
the preferred site, with Site F/E being maintained as the secondary alternative
site. As part of this recommendation, Site B/E was amended as follows:
• Add single level of structured parking to Site E.
• Maintain the Northwest Passage as part of the site improvements.
• Reduce the mass of the pedestrian connection to Superior Street.
This study will be presented to the DTA Board for their review and approval.
31
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
The project provides an excellent opportunity for the DTA to pursue a PublicPrivate Partnership (PPPs) arrangement.
Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are a form of procurement. The term PPP
does not denote innovative finances, but innovative procurements of major
capital projects in which private capital is invested. PPPs are mechanisms to
provide private capital to transit projects. Many transit agencies are partnering
with the private sector in order to promote real estate development in and around
transit facilities, which is often referred to as joint development. These
partnerships provide access to additional capital and operating revenues for
transit agencies through the receipt of lease payments, access fees, and
increased fare revenues.
The traditional approach to project delivery is design-bid-build (DBB), in which
the design and construction of the facility are awarded separately to private
sector firms. One type of Public-Private Partnerships in transit is design-build
(DB). The design-build (DB) delivery approach combines the design and
construction phases into one, fixed-fee contract. The following lists the major
types of PPPs in order of greater private sector role to least private sector role:
• Build-Own-Operate (BOO)
• Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM)
• Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO)
• Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT)
• Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM)
• Design-Build (DB)
The primary advantages associated with the PPP approach when compared to
the traditional DBB delivery include:
• Time savings
• Cost savings
• Shared risks
• Improved quality
Transit agency project sponsors interested in a potential PPP arrangement
should seek private sector partners with mutually complementary project
interests and a willingness to accommodate changing conditions and
opportunities consistent with the desired project outcomes and performance.
Figure 31 shows the revised B/E Massing and components.
32
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Figure 31 - B/E Massing and Components.
33
FINAL REPORT
05-21-2009
Appendix
•
•
•
•
Stakeholder Meeting Minutes December 19, 2008
Stakeholder Meeting Minutes January 16, 2009
Stakeholder Meeting Minutes February 17, 2009
Stakeholder Meeting Minutes March 13, 2009
34
Meeting Minutes
To:
DTA Downtown Intermodal Study Stakeholders
From:
Jo Ann Olsen
Project: 08-13
Subject: DTA Downtown Intermodal Study – December 19, 2008
Date:
December 22, 2008
In attendance:
Tom Cotruvo, City of Duluth
Mayor Don Ness, City of Duluth
Cindy Voigt, City of Duluth
Ron Chika, MIC
Holly Butcher, ADRC
Kristi Stokes, Greater Downtown Council
Abbot Apter, Greater Downtown Council
Aaron Bransky, DTA Board
John Brostrom, Transit User
Tony Boen, Canal Park Business Association
Dan Russell, DECC
Eric Stoller; St. Louis County Planning
Pam Kraemer, LISC
Jim Heilig, DTA
Dennis Jensen, DTA
Bill Bennett, LHB
Steve McNeill, LHB
Michael Schroeder, LHB
Jim Lasher, LSA Design
Jo Ann Olsen, LSA Design
Purpose of Meeting: To review what has changed since the 2004 study and to receive feedback
from the stakeholders on the goals/objectives of this study.
1. Bill Bennett introduced the consultant team and the stakeholders. He then reviewed
the background of the study, work to date and the overall objectives of the study.
2. Jim Lasher described the different types of transit ridership: transit dependent and
those with a choice. He described the potential to address both needs with this
project.
3. Jim Lasher asked the stakeholders what has changed since 2004. The following were
responses from the stakeholders:
a. Increase in housing downtown.
b. More environmental and economic concerns.
c. Developed more public transit.1 seat ride.
d. DECC study 2005.
e. New Mayor.
f. SMDC – largest employer connection with skyway.
g. Eastern side developed more.
h. Economy, spike in gas. People making a conscious decision to use transit.
December 19, 2008
Meeting Minutes
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
Explosion of U pass.
Red Plan – public schools. Action: LHB provide LSA a copy of this.
Economic opportunity, more hotels.
Tourism
DECC: parking ramp expansion – 500 new spaces, 1100 total. Mega shelter
– need a way to get people down there. Options for Omni Theater. If people
get off at Depot, can’t easily get to DECC.
n. Airport traffic is taken care of by private entities.
o. SMDC provides shuttle for employees from DECC.
p. LISC performed a charette for connectivity to hillside.
4. Jim Lasher asked for comments on the goals/objectives of this study. The following
were responses from the stakeholders:
a. MIC – improve bike/pedestrian attraction. Site has potential as a bike trail
head.
b. Resolve the “Great Divide” – Highway 35. Improve connection between
Canal Park/DECC and Downtown.
c. Fixed Guideway.
i. Current DTA routes lack circulation between districts.
ii. Trolley only does it in the summer and is service is infrequent (30/40
minute).
d. Connection to core business is most important and spanning the freeway is
key.
e. Canal Park too congested in the summer.
i. Would help to have transit service the area.
ii. Land use: auto oriented.
iii. Connection between downtown and Canal Park
iv. Need for parking on Canal Park – for people passing through.
v. Need for auto on Canal Park – for residents.
f. Would like more than vehicular bridge connection across 35 – pedestrian and
trolley bridge desired.
g. Accommodate west into downtown – especially with major reconstruction
planned for the near future.
h. Site location/design/function must tie into Depot.
5. Next Steps:
a. Create the Site Program and Evaluation Criteria
b. Review Fixed Guideway Potential
c. Select Potential sites for evaluation
6. Next Meeting:
a. January 16th 2009.
2 of 2
Meeting Minutes
To:
From:
Jo Ann Olsen
Project: 08-13
Subject: DTA Downtown Intermodal Study – January 16, 2009
Date:
January 22, 2009
In attendance:
Tom Cotruvo, City of Duluth
Tony Cuneo, City of Duluth
Mayor Don Ness, City of Duluth
Ron Chika, MIC
Holly Butcher, ADRC
Aaron Bransky, DTA Board
Eric Stoller; St. Louis County Planning
Pam Kraemer, LISC
Roger Wedin, Duluth PC
Ken Buehler, Depot Museum
Mark Melhus, Greater Downtown Council
Jim Heilig, DTA
Dennis Jensen, DTA
Don Mohawk, MnDOT
Bill Bennett, LHB
Steve McNeill, LHB
Michael Schroeder, LHB
Len Simich, Marco Consulting
Purpose of Meeting: To review Project Vision, Overall and Project Goals, Project Objectives and
Evaluation Criteria. To review the preliminary analysis of seven (7) potential sites in terms of
transit service, massing and connectivity.
1. Jo Ann Olsen reviewed the Project Vision of the project, the project goals/objectives
and the evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria and scoring will be used to rank the
potential sites and identify 2 to 3 priority sites.
2. Jim Lasher described the seven (7) potential sites. Each site had a preliminary
analysis of transit service, massing and connectivity (presented by Steve McNeill).
The sites were analyzed using transit service moving to 1st Street and maintaining
transit service on Superior Street, and a loop system.
3. General Stakeholders Comments:
• Option A – not near density of population.
• Option A, the project could span over Michigan and reach up to Superior
Street, impacting some parking, green space and concrete sculptural
element along the way.
January 16, 2009
Meeting Minutes
•
•
Like Concept F – utilize existing DTA site for connection to Superior.
It was asked what the profile of the massing was. 4 to 5 stories which is a big
impact.
•
Option E, could include the westerly building as part of the site for the study.
i. It was noted that there would be challenges to demolition or reuse
from Historic Preservation and the school.
• Option G (Incline site). Current use not highest and best use. Include bowling
facility.
• DTA site must be in line of Depot site.
• Trains will not go east of Depot
• Like Option B.
• Concept A impacts older parking structure. Concept B impacts newer parking
structure. Could you recycle materials form Concept B?
• Like Concept A – bike and pedestrian connection right there.
• How important is it to be in center of users. Prefer site to be towards
downtown.
• Consider the impact to people who use the system. Keep it in the center.
• DECC site is too valuable.
• Circulation is key. Site must work for future service/circulation not just today.
• Combine crossing of 35 with trolley/skywalk/blue bridge.
• Terminal is number 1 priority. Connectivity is 2nd.
• Like A and B
• Look at Concept C with the whole block (take the building on the east side)
and with a connection over Superior to the Ordean plaza.
• If transit is on 1st street (W direction), and on Superior (east direction) then
the Incline station site works best.
4. Next Steps:
• Apply Evaluation Criteria to the eight (8) sites (add the revision to Concept C)
• Select 2 to 3 Priority Sites
5. Next Meeting:
• Week of February 9th or 16th, 2009.
2 of 2
Meeting Minutes
To:
From:
Jo Ann Olsen
Project: 08-13
Subject: DTA Downtown Intermodal Study – February 17, 2009
Date:
February 19, 2009
In attendance:
Harvey Anderson, SMDC
Tony Boen, GRC Corp
Ron Chika, MIC
Kristi Stokes, Downtown Duluth
Pam Kramer, LISC
Roger Wedin, Duluth PC
Barbara Hayden, St. Louis Cnty
Jim Heilig, DTA
Dennis Jensen, DTA
Don Mohawk, MnDOT
Bill Bennett, LHB
Steve McNeill, LHB
Michael Schroeder, LHB (via video)
JoNette Kuhnau, KH (via video)
Purpose of Meeting: To review Project Vision, Overall and Project Goals, and evaluation of the
seven (7) potential DTA multimodal sites.
1. Jo Ann Olsen reviewed the Evaluation Criteria and Weighted Scores. She stated that
criteria that support the primary DTA transit goals were weighted the highest with ten
(10) points. The other criteria was weighted either eight (8) or six (6) points. The
evaluation had two levels. The first evaluation existing conditions. The second level
added scoring with two future conditions: Interceptor parking and Fixed Guideway
System. The fixed guideway concept assumes the route will be along Superior Street
a n d
c r o s s
H i g h w a y
3 5
a t
5 t h
A v e n u e .
2. Jim Lasher/ Jo Ann Olsen described the seven (7) potential sites and the evaluation
scores. Each site had an analysis of transit service, massing and connectivity.
•
•
•
Site A: Score 0/-10
Comments:
i. Advantages: adjacent to Depot, on site circulation.
ii. Disadvantages: Proximity to transit, access.
Site B: Score 18/38
February 17, 2009
Meeting Minutes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comments:
i. Advantages: Proximity to transit, on site circulation.
ii. Disadvantages: Existing conditions/site preparation.
Site C: Score 10/0
Comments:
i. Advantages: Proximity to transit, vehicular access.
ii. Disadvantages: Existing conditions, on site circulation.
Site D: Score 8/18
Comments:
i. Advantages: On site circulation, existing conditions.
ii. Disadvantages: Proximity to transit, transit operation costs.
Site E: Score -6/-16
Comments:
i. Advantages: Connectivity, area access
ii. Disadvantages: On site circulation, proximity to transit
Site F: Score 14/4
Comments:
i. Advantages: Connectivity, area access
ii. Disadvantages: On site circulation, cost
Site G: Score 24/4
Comments:
i. Advantages: Proximity to transit, vehicular access
ii. Disadvantages: Existing conditions, site preparation
3. General Stakeholders Comments:
• Pedestrian access should be weighted more the six (6) points.
• Site B: Don’t have the proposed connection to Superior be so massive. Keep
is more pedestrian level/lighter scale.
• Site B: Look at mid block connection to Superior as an alternative option.
• Site B: East bound buses (Greyhound) could take Michigan exit right to the
site and West bound express could have ramp directly into site.
• Could Sites B and E be combined to meet the program and lessen
height/mass of the building?
i. Use B for transit and E for parking
ii. Have continuous building for aesthetics
• Site F: one lane parking along Michigan under 5th Avenue
• Site F: combine Site F and E
• Site F: expand to east to take off westerly ramp entrance/exit
• Site B: Existing use as a parking facility is critical and serves multiple
purposes. Must maintain existing number of stalls (460)
• Site B will be challenged to combine 500 additional parking stalls and transit
facility.
• Site G: is this site too removed from where the people are?
• Site G: if you assume the Depot is going to have expanded service, this site
has potential. But still feels like it is too far removed and would prefer a more
centrally located site.
• Site G does not have skywalk connection.
• Sites B and E combined provide a clean edge and opportunities for economic
development. Could bridge to both 5th Avenue crossing and NW Passage.
• Several stakeholders liked Site B
2 of 3
February 17, 2009
Meeting Minutes
•
•
•
A combination of E and F was also suggested and preferred over just Site B
or Site F.
Spreading the facility over two sites reduces the massing.
There was discussion back and forth over whether to include or remove Site
G.
i. Don’t concentrate transit in density area – move to edge where there
will be fewer conflicts with traffic/parking/loading.
ii. Need to cross 35 at 5th Avenue – connectivity – Site G supports this
connectivity.
iii. Site G will just be a place to park the buses. People will still get off at
the activity center on Superior.
4. Conclusion and Next Steps:
• Move forward with a preliminary cost estimate for Site B, Site B/E and Site
E/F.
• Move forward with concept site plan for a B/E and E/F combination.
• Do not move forward with Site G.
• Submit preliminary cost estimate to DTA by March 6th.
5. Written Comments from Public Open House:
• Like Site B for: Visibility, ease of access to train, access to 35
(tourists/residents), library, Depot, Canal Park.
3 of 3
Meeting Minutes
To:
From:
Jo Ann Olsen
Project: 08-13
Subject: DTA Downtown Intermodal Study – February 17, 2009
Date:
February 19, 2009
In attendance:
Don Ness, City of Duluth
Aaron Bransky, DTA
Ron Chika, MIC
Ken Buehler, Lk Superior RR Museum
Pam Kramer, LISC
Barbara Hayden, St. Louis Cnty
Roger Wedin, Oneida
Ryan Boman, Melhus Mgt
Sandy Hoff, F.I. Salter
Dan Green, F.I.Salter
Jim Heilig, DTA
Dennis Jensen, DTA
Steve McNeill, LHB
Joellyn Gum, LHB
Michael Schroeder, LHB (via video)
JoNette Kuhnau, KH (via video)
Purpose of Meeting: To review Priority Sites and Evaluation. Select a Final Site..
1. Jim Lasher/ Jo Ann Olsen reviewed the two priority sites: Sites B/E and Sites F/E.
They reviewed the circulation, massing, cross section and cost estimate concepts for
each site.
2. Jim Lasher/Jo Ann Olsen reviewed the cost estimate for each Site.
3. Comments:
• AB said F/E bus circulation should be on 3rd
• DN asked what contingencies for federal funding are.
i. 80/20% split. 80% federal, 20% local share.
ii. JH said a Public Private Partnership could reduce up front costs.
• PK said there area pros/cons to both sites:
i. F/E is not close to Depot
ii. F/E is close to NW passage
iii. F/E services office passengers
iv. B/E services tourists
February 17, 2009
Meeting Minutes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DN said B/E is better for connectivity, Site E provides connection to NW
Passage
DN asked about parking demand if Depot happens, what will be true parking
demand
i. JL said we can add a structure to Site E for additional parking.
DN asked how rail plays into parking.
i. KB said Site b is better for Depot, potential FRA funding.
DN asked how parking is needed for the Depot.
i. BH said they are studying that now and don’t have the answer yet.
ii. KB said rail parking is longer term and transit parking is more in/out.
KB said we have to get rail people to DECC.
DN said that is the advantage of including Site E because it connects sites
and uses.
JL asked if Depot is looking at combining Depot with DTA facility
i. BH said the current study is looking at accommodating passengers
at the Depot and if this is not possible will look at DTA facility.
KB said there is room under 5th Avenue for connection between Site B and
Depot, but that the people need to see where they are going.
General – Keep Medical Annex as part of Site B, but don’t include the DPS
building.
JH said the bus operation is easier with Site B/E.
CV asked if we can be general in the application to take into account if the
Depot project drops out.
RC said connectivity is a clearly defined need for the 5th Avenue connection.
Federal highway STP/TE funds.
DJ said to look at buses coming off Michigan and have Michigan be part of
the platform. Priority is to not add time to the ride.
i. JL said we can do that. The program was for interior
station/circulation.
SH said Site B/E makes most sense, but if train doesn’t happen then the site
is not in a location for core transit.
DN said the 5th Avenue connection over 35 is on the City tab and NW
Passage should be part of DTA project.
RW said they need to maintain control of 465 parking spaces that are
convenient and attractive. They could go higher. Have looked at Annex to
redevelop.
SH said Wells Fargo parking ramp is an end of life and building owners are
willing to coop invest funds into new parking. Need at least one level of
parking and drive thru for Wells Fargo.
4. Conclusion and Next Steps:
• Site B/E is the priority site with Site F/E as the secondary site if B/E does not
work.
• Make the Federal application as flexible and inclusive as possible.
2 of 2

DTA Downtown Multi-Modal Transportation Terminal Analysis

Transcription

Similar documents

F6A + POWERHAWK

Froggy Drawing handout2 - Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority

Talent Urban Renewal Agency West Valley View 2015

mix connect public transport densify cycle walk transit

grandin mall redevelopment beautification

Fastfrate Roadfrate SS.indd

Save on Parking Expenses with TransitChek

15 Monumental things you MUST do in Downtown Indy

june 4 : fado irish pub