6 Response to Comments · 6.2 Alternate Phasing Strategy 6.2.1 Introduction Working Paper 10...

City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation FacilityTR #11

Proposed SITF Project

SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants

October 8, 200438

6 Response to Comments

6.1 Summary

The Sacramento Northern Alternative was refined and presented to project stakeholders, public officials, and citizens in a series of public meetings including ‘open house’ presentations, as well as publication on the City’s website. The public input and comments generally reflect a few consistent themes that are the basis for the potential modifications presented below in Section 6 of this report. The comments on Working Paper #10 can be grouped in six general categories:

• Alternative Phasing Strategies

• Scope and Cost Reductions

• Funding

• Additional Design Refinements

• Accommodation of Additional Transportation Modes

• Operational Scenarios

6.2 Alternate Phasing Strategy

6.2.1 Introduction Working Paper 10 included a proposed phasing plan, as shown in Section 5.2 of this document. An alternative construction phasing scheme was developed to provide numerous benefits to the project and to respond to comments received by elected officials, stakeholders and the general public. Generally there were concerns that the overall construction duration was too long and that the start date was too late. In addition, several responses indicated that it would be desirable to move the Historic Depot sooner. It would also be desirable to include construction of the Terminal Extension in a later phase of the project, which would allow the existing relocated and renovated building to be used as the station until increases in demand warrant the construction of the Terminal Extension.

The alternative phasing plan does not assume changes from the site plan shown in Figure 3.2.2, with the exception of the related I-5 ramp reconfiguration project. An alternative proposal to improve west side access to the SITF with limited impacts to the I-5 ramps has been developed and incorporated into the phasing plan. This conceptual design would reduce construction costs, simplify environmental clearances, shorten construction duration and provide increased flexibility for the other phases of the SITF project. Reducing the scope and costs of this component allows the construction costs to be incorporated into the future revisions of the SITF cost model with specific funding sources.

The alternative phasing strategy also seeks to address the concerns of the Federal Building by shifting the construction of the final LRT alignment and west side access improvements to an earlier phase.

6.2.2 Objectives and Assumptions The principal changes in phasing objectives and assumptions are summarized below.

Changes to Phasing Objectives

• Begin construction sooner and minimize construction duration.

• Move the Historic Depot as early as possible.




October 8, 2004Page 139

• Postpone construction of the Terminal Extension to a later phase.

• The objectives to minimize passenger disruption and avoid the use of temporary facilities were assumed to be secondary to these revised assumptions.

• Reduce Phase 1 costs and dependence on public funds

Changes to Phasing Assumptions

• Start dates were moved forward. Heavy rail track relocation (by others) was assumed to begin in early 2006, based on Millennia’s proposed schedule. Construction of a temporary terminal, I-5 ramp reconfiguration and LRT platform relocation would begin early 2007, assuming environmental clearance and funding for these tasks are expedited. Work on the Historic Depot was assumed to begin in early 2008 after remaining environmental approvals and funding is obtained.

• Funding and approvals were assumed to be in place as required to meet the revised schedule. It should be noted that funding for this accelerated schedule is not consistent with the plan presented in section 5.4 of this report. An alternative funding plan would need to be developed and additional funding sources may need to be identified, particularly in the short term. The phasing strategy and schedule should also be flexible if early funding cannot be obtained.

• Millennia will proceed as a private project, requiring its own environmental clearance separate from the SITF. The two projects may share required technical studies. Light rail improvements in the vicinity of the SITF will be completed by RT with separate environmental clearance. Improvements to the REA will proceed as a private project with separate environmental clearance. The SITF environmental process will examine other components including moving and renovating the Depot, the Terminal Extension, the H Street extension, the transit-way and the drop-off curb. Shared parking facilities would undergo program-level environmental review for both the SITF and joint development projects, although specific project-level review would be completed with the appropriate development project.

• Concurrent work is possible for components that are physically adjacent (or even overlapping in some cases). For example, removal and remediation of the existing heavy rail tracks is assumed to be completed concurrently with the retrofit and preparations to move the Historic Depot. It is assumed that work can be coordinated within the major construction phase with sub-phasing to avoid conflicts, facilitate funding, approvals and an earlier start date.

• The related project to improve west side access to the site would be reduced in scope from what has been shown previously in this document. Modifications to the existing ramps would be significantly reduced, although an at-grade intersection at I Street and 4th Street would still be achieved, as well as the extension of 3rd Street north to H Street. This would eliminate physical conflicts with the SITF project, effectively making the two projects independent with respect to construction phasing. The reduced scale and cost of the ramp project would also facilitate an earlier start date.

• Relocation of the LRT Amtrak extension platform and storage could be completed earlier than other components of the DNA extension project.

• A temporary terminal could be constructed to serve passengers while the Historic Depot is closed for relocation and renovation. The underground concourse connection to the tracks would be constructed with the new heavy rail alignment and would available to serve the temporary terminal.

6.2.3 Summary of Alternative Phasing Plan Figures 6.2.1-6.2.6 illustrate the alternative phasing plan. Activities during each phase are described below.

REA

Park

ing

(60

Spac

es)

Pass

eng

er /

Taxi

Dro

p O

ff

Au

toA

cces

s

Ap

pro

x 30

0 Sp

aces

LRT

Plat

form

Bu

s A

cces

s

Am

trak

Bu

sG

reyh

ou

ndH

eavy

Rai

l

RT

Bu

s

H S

TREE

T

INTERSTATE 5

INTERSTATE 5

G S

TREE

T

F ST

REE

T

E ST

REE

T

I STR

EET

7th STREET

6th STREET

5th STREET

3rd STREET

2nd STREET

8th STREET

OLD

SA

CR

AM

ENTO

CH

INA

TOW

N

RA

ILR

OA

D T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y M

USE

UM

No

tes

This

ph

ase

incl

ud

es t

he

follo

win

g P

roje

ct D

evel

op

men

t /

com

po

nen

ts:

En

viro

nm

enta

l ap

pro

val

Fu

nd

ing

pro

cure

men

t

R

igh

t-o

f-w

ay d

edic

atio

n /

rig

ht-

of-

way

co

ntr

ol

Fi

nal

des

ign

U

PRR

an

d P

UC

co

ord

inat

ion

U

tilit

y co

ord

inat

ion

Dep

ot

op

erat

es a

s ex

isti

ng

exc

ept:

Fun

ctio

nal

ity

Hea

vy R

ail o

per

ates

as

exis

tin

g

LRT

op

erat

es a

s A

mtr

ak e

xten

sio

n a

lon

g H

Str

eet

Bu

ses

op

erat

e in

a c

lock

wis

e m

ann

er e

nte

rin

g t

he

faci

lity

usi

ng

I St

reet

an

d e

xiti

ng

th

e fa

cilit

y u

sin

gH

an

d 5

th S

tree

ts (

No

te: B

us

circ

ula

tio

n p

atte

rns

curr

entl

y u

nd

er d

issc

uss

ion

)

Am

trak

Th

ruw

ay a

nd

RT

bu

ses

use

th

eir

exis

tin

gb

us

faci

lity

Gre

yho

un

d r

elo

cate

d t

o a

n in

teri

m f

acili

ty o

n t

he

wes

t si

de

of

the

site

(b

y o

ther

s)

Pass

eng

er v

ehic

les

op

erat

e as

exi

stin

g

Ped

estr

ian

an

d b

icyc

lists

op

erat

e as

exi

stin

g

Are

a o

per

atio

nal

Leg

end

Are

a u

nd

er c

on

stru

ctio

nM

illen

nia

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Bu

s / a

uto

cir

cula

tio

n

Stat

ion

par

kin

g a

rea

Tem

po

rary

Bu

s A

cces

s

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

Clie

nt

City

of

Sacr

amen

to

Co

nsu

ltan

t Te

am

SMW

M/A

rup

Aca

nthu

s

CH

S C

onsu

lting

Gro

up

CH

2MH

ill

Han

scom

b Fa

ithfu

l & G

ould

The

Hoy

t C

ompa

ny

Jone

s La

ng L

asal

le

LTK

Eng

inee

ring

Serv

ices

Nel

son/

Nyg

aard

Sim

pson

Gum

pert

z &

Heg

er, I

nc.

SACRAMENTO INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY

Alternative Phasing Approach - Pre Construction Staging Condition

Figure 6.2.1

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

8 October 2004

0’

50’

100’

150’

200’

No

rth

Op

tio

nal

Ped

estr

ian

and

Bic

ycle

Un

der

pas

s

Pass

eng

er /

Taxi

Dro

p O

ff

LRT

Plat

form

Inte

rcit

y B

us

Hea

vy R

ail

RT

Bu

s

Park

ing

H S

TREE

T

INTERSTATE 5

INTERSTATE 5

G S

TREE

T

F ST

REE

T

E ST

REE

T

I STR

EET

7th STREET

6th STREET

5th STREET

3rd STREET

2nd STREET

8th STREET

OLD

SA

CR

AM

ENTO

CH

INA

TOW

N

RA

ILR

OA

D T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y M

USE

UM

No

tes

Are

a o

per

atio

nal

Leg

end

Are

a u

nd

er c

on

stru

ctio

nM

illen

nia

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Bu

s / a

uto

cir

cula

tio

nSt

atio

n p

arki

ng

are

a

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

I

H

No

tes

A )

Hea

vy r

ail t

rack

, pla

tfo

rms,

ped

estr

ian

tu

nn

els

(b

y o

ther

s)

B )

In

terc

ity

bu

s b

oar

din

g a

rea

and

tra

nsi

t w

ay

C )

Co

nst

ruct

co

nco

urs

e an

d t

emp

ora

ry t

erm

inal

(b

y

o

ther

s) w

ith

acc

ess

fro

m t

he

wes

t

D )

Tem

po

rary

pas

sen

ger

car

an

d R

T b

us

pic

k u

p /

d

rop

off

E )

Wes

t si

de

acce

ss im

pro

vem

ents

F )

Co

nst

ruct

LR

T tr

ack

on

gra

de

and

pla

tfo

rm o

n

D

NA

alig

nm

ent,

co

mp

lete

d a

nd

tie

d in

aft

er e

xist

ing

hea

vy r

ail t

rack

s ar

e cl

ose

d

G )

Co

nst

ruct

7th

Str

eet

un

der

pas

s w

iden

ing

su

bst

ruct

ure

H )

Co

nst

ruct

ped

estr

ian

/ b

icyc

le u

nd

erp

ass

I )

Mill

enn

ia D

evel

op

men

t (b

y o

ther

s) -

Po

sssi

ble

to

b

egin

co

nst

ruct

ion

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

Clie

nt

City

of

Sacr

amen

to

Co

nsu

ltan

t Te

am

SMW

M/A

rup

Aca

nthu

s

CH

S C

onsu

lting

Gro

up

CH

2MH

ill

Han

scom

b Fa

ithfu

l & G

ould

The

Hoy

t C

ompa

ny

Jone

s La

ng L

asal

le

LTK

Eng

inee

ring

Serv

ices

Nel

son/

Nyg

aard

Sim

pson

Gum

pert

z &

Heg

er, I

nc.


Alternate Phasing Approach - Phase 1

Figure 6.2.2

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

8 October 2004

0’

50’

100’

150’

200’

No

rth

Op

tio

nal

Ped

estr

ian

and

Bic

ycle

Un

der

pas

s

Tem

po

rary

RT

Bu

s B

oar

din

g a

nd

Pass

eng

er /

Taxi

Dro

p O

ffInte

rcity

Bus

Tem

pora

ry

Term

inal

Hea

vy R

ail

H S

TREE

T

INTERSTATE 5

INTERSTATE 5

G S

TREE

T

F ST

REE

T

E ST

REE

T

I STR

EET

7th STREET

6th STREET

5th STREET

3rd STREET

2nd STREET

8th STREET

OLD

SA

CR

AM

ENTO

CH

INA

TOW

N

RA

ILR

OA

D T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y M

USE

UM

No

tes

AB

C

D

DE

F

No

tes

A )

Rem

ove

hea

vy r

ail t

rack

s an

d r

emed

iate

so

il

(

by

oth

ers)

B )

Rem

ove

LR

T A

mtr

ak H

Str

eet

exte

nsi

on

C )

Pre

par

e fo

un

dat

ion

fo

r n

ew D

epo

t

D )

Ret

rofi

t ex

isti

ng

Dep

ot

and

mo

ve t

o n

ew lo

cati

on

E )

Co

nst

ruct

pas

sen

ger

/ ta

xi d

rop

off

are

a an

d

H

Str

eet

exte

nsi

on

aft

er t

he

Dep

ot

has

bee

n

re

loca

ted

F )

Mill

enia

co

nst

ruct

ion

(b

y o

ther

s)

Are

a o

per

atio

nal

Leg

end

Are

a u

nd

er c

on

stru

ctio

nM

illen

nia

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Bu

s / a

uto

cir

cula

tio

nSt

atio

n p

arki

ng

are

a

Park

ing

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

Clie

nt

City

of

Sacr

amen

to

Co

nsu

ltan

t Te

am

SMW

M/A

rup

Aca

nthu

s

CH

S C

onsu

lting

Gro

up

CH

2MH

ill

Han

scom

b Fa

ithfu

l & G

ould

The

Hoy

t C

ompa

ny

Jone

s La

ng L

asal

le

LTK

Eng

inee

ring

Serv

ices

Nel

son/

Nyg

aard

Sim

pson

Gum

pert

z &

Heg

er, I

nc.



Figure 6.2.3

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

8 October 2004

0’

50’

100’

150’

200’

No

rth

Op

tio

nal

Ped

estr

ian

and

Bic

ycle

Un

der

pas

s

H S

TREE

T

INTERSTATE 5

INTERSTATE 5

G S

TREE

T

F ST

REE

T

E ST

REE

T

I STR

EET

7th STREET

6th STREET

5th STREET

3rd STREET

2nd STREET

8th STREET

OLD

SA

CR

AM

ENTO

CH

INA

TOW

N

RA

ILR

OA

D T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y M

USE

UM

No

tes

A

B

C

No

tes

A )

Rem

ove

tem

po

rary

ter

min

al

B )

Rem

ove

tem

po

rary

dro

p o

ff a

rea

and

co

nst

ruct

ult

imat

e R

T lo

cal b

us

faci

lty

C )

Co

mp

lete

co

nst

ruct

ion

on

4th

Str

eet

exte

nsi

on

Are

a o

per

atio

nal

Leg

end

Are

a u

nd

er c

on

stru

ctio

nM

illen

nia

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Bu

s / a

uto

cir

cula

tio

nSt

atio

n p

arki

ng

are

a

Pass

eng

er /

Taxi

Dro

p O

ff

RT

Bu

s

Park

ing

Park

ing

Park

ing

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

Clie

nt

City

of

Sacr

amen

to

Co

nsu

ltan

t Te

am

SMW

M/A

rup

Aca

nthu

s

CH

S C

onsu

lting

Gro

up

CH

2MH

ill

Han

scom

b Fa

ithfu

l & G

ould

The

Hoy

t C

ompa

ny

Jone

s La

ng L

asal

le

LTK

Eng

inee

ring

Serv

ices

Nel

son/

Nyg

aard

Sim

pson

Gum

pert

z &

Heg

er, I

nc.



Figure 6.2.4

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

8 October 2004

0’

50’

100’

150’

200’

No

rth

Op

tio

nal

Ped

estr

ian

and

Bic

ycle

Un

der

pas

s

Park

ing

H S

TREE

T

INTERSTATE 5

INTERSTATE 5

G S

TREE

T

F ST

REE

T

E ST

REE

T

I STR

EET

7th STREET

6th STREET

5th STREET

3rd STREET

2nd STREET

8th STREET

OLD

SA

CR

AM

ENTO

CH

INA

TOW

N

RA

ILR

OA

D T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y M

USE

UM

No

tes

A

No

tes

A )

Co

nst

ruct

new

ter

min

al e

xten

sio

nA

rea

op

erat

ion

al

Leg

end

Are

a u

nd

er c

on

stru

ctio

nM

illen

nia

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Bu

s / a

uto

cir

cula

tio

nSt

atio

n p

arki

ng

are

a

Pass

eng

er /

Taxi

Dro

p O

ff

RT

Bu

s

Park

ing

Park

ing

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

Clie

nt

City

of

Sacr

amen

to

Co

nsu

ltan

t Te

am

SMW

M/A

rup

Aca

nthu

s

CH

S C

onsu

lting

Gro

up

CH

2MH

ill

Han

scom

b Fa

ithfu

l & G

ould

The

Hoy

t C

ompa

ny

Jone

s La

ng L

asal

le

LTK

Eng

inee

ring

Serv

ices

Nel

son/

Nyg

aard

Sim

pson

Gum

pert

z &

Heg

er, I

nc.



Figure 6.2.5

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

8 October 2004

0’

50’

100’

150’

200’

No

rth

Op

tio

nal

Ped

estr

ian

and

Bic

ycle

Un

der

pas

s

Park

ing

H S

TREE

T

INTERSTATE 5

INTERSTATE 5

G S

TREE

T

F ST

REE

T

E ST

REE

T

I STR

EET

7th STREET

6th STREET

5th STREET

3rd STREET

2nd STREET

8th STREET

OLD

SA

CR

AM

ENTO

CH

INA

TOW

N

RA

ILR

OA

D T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y M

USE

UM

No

tes

AA

No

tes

A )

Jo

int

dev

elo

pm

ent

con

stru

ctio

nA

rea

op

erat

ion

al

Leg

end

Are

a u

nd

er c

on

stru

ctio

nM

illen

nia

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Bu

s / a

uto

cir

cula

tio

nSt

atio

n p

arki

ng

are

a

Pass

eng

er /

Taxi

Dro

p O

ffR

T B

us

Gre

yhou

nd

Am

trak

Bus

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

Clie

nt

City

of

Sacr

amen

to

Co

nsu

ltan

t Te

am

SMW

M/A

rup

Aca

nthu

s

CH

S C

onsu

lting

Gro

up

CH

2MH

ill

Han

scom

b Fa

ithfu

l & G

ould

The

Hoy

t C

ompa

ny

Jone

s La

ng L

asal

le

LTK

Eng

inee

ring

Serv

ices

Nel

son/

Nyg

aard

Sim

pson

Gum

pert

z &

Heg

er, I

nc.



Figure 6.2.6

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

8 October 2004

0’

50’

100’

150’

200’

No

rth





Pre-Construction Starting Condition

This is considered to be the existing condition for development of the subsequent SITF phasing. This phase includes the following major components of project development:

• Environmental Approval

• Funding Procurement

• Right-of-way dedication / Right-of-way control

• Final Design for Phase 1

• UPRR and PUC coordination

• Utility coordination

During this phase the Depot, heavy rail, pedestrians, and bicyclists operate and access the facility as existing. The LRT operates as the Amtrak Extension along H Street (assumed to be operational in the Third Quarter 2005). Amtrak Thruway and RT buses would be located north of the Historic Depot and separated from private vehicles. Access would be provided to and from 5th Street at H Street and a new bus cul-de-sac would be provided on the west side of the site. Private vehicles would enter and exit the parking area from 5th Street south of the REA building. Fifth Street would be converted to two-way between H and I Streets. Greyhound could potentially be relocated from L Street to the existing Depot site prior to SITF Phase 1. \

Phase 1

Phase 1 begins with construction of the realigned heavy rail tracks and associated projects including the underground concourse, pedestrian/bicycle tunnel and the substructure for the widening of 7th Street under the heavy rail tracks. Phase 1 also includes construction of a temporary terminal and access to be used when the Historic Depot is taken of service in the next phase. Vertical circulation will be required to the concourse, which may necessitate changes in the design of the Terminal Extension and/or construction of a portion of the Terminal Extension in this phase.

Relocation of the LRT Amtrak extension could also be completed at this phase. This includes shifting the track north of H Street between 5th and 6th Street, as well as construction of the new platforms and storage tracks on the east side of the SITF site. The connection to the tracks on H Street could not be completed until the heavy rail tracks are taken out of service. It would also be desirable to construct the extension of 3rd Street and I-5 ramp reconfiguration in the first phase, with benefits to local traffic circulation and better coordination with Millennia’s construction schedule.

Major Work Elements

• Construct new heavy rail alignment and underground concourse (by others)

• Construct substructure under new heavy rail alignment for the eventual widening of 7th Street

• Construct temporary terminal south of new heavy rail tracks (by others)

• Construct a portion of the future transit way and temporary passenger drop-off

• Construct new LRT platforms and storage platform

• West side access improvements including construction of the 3rd Street extension, the intersection of 4th Street and I Street, and I-5 ramp modifications

SITF Operation





• As in pre-construction phase (Figure 6.2.1)

If heavy rail tracks are completed prior to the temporary terminal, it will be necessary to operate out of the existing Depot, with passengers walking to the concourse. This would complicate station operations and would be an inconvenience for passengers and would require some additional physical improvements and passenger services. These may include a physical walkway and/or shuttle services.

Phase 2

Phase 2 begins with removal and remediation the existing heavy rail alignment. At the same time, the Historic Depot would be closed and seismic upgrades would be completed. The Depot would then be relocated to its new location and renovated. Once the Depot has been moved, the passenger drop-off and H Street extensions would be completed.

Major Work Elements

• Remove existing heavy rail tracks and remediate soil

• Construct Depot foundation at new location

• Retrofit, move and renovate Historic Depot

• Construct new passenger drop-off and H Street Extension (may be desirable to construct portions of H Street extension previously with LRT Amtrak Extension)

• Remove Amtrak Extension LRT tracks, station and single track within the H Street right-of way

SITF Operation

• Heavy rail services use northerly alignment, new passenger platforms and underground pedestrian concourse

• Rail and intercity bus passengers use temporary terminal

• Access to temporary terminal for buses and passenger cars from the west side of the site, with circulation via the 3rd Street extension, with optional access though the existing parking lot

• Portions of existing parking lot would remain in operation

• LRT uses the new platform on the east side of the SITF site

• New pedestrian/bicycle tunnel provides access to areas north of the realigned tracks

Phase 3

The renovated Depot reopens at the beginning of this Phase, allowing for removal of the temporary terminal and temporary passenger drop-off. The ultimate local bus boarding area would be completed. If construction of the Terminal Extension (phase 4) is delayed it may be worthwhile to relocate the intercity bus boarding area from the rear of the temporary terminal to a location closer to the north side of the Historic Depot. This would improve passenger convenience but the buses would need to be relocated again when the Terminal Extension is constructed. The 4th Street connection between I and H Streets could also be constructed in this phase (or at the end of the previous phase).

Major Work Elements





• Remove temporary terminal

• Construct local bus boarding area

• Option to relocate intercity buses immediately behind new depot location

• Construct 4th Street connection between I and H Streets

SITF Operation

• Heavy rail services use northerly alignment, new passenger platforms and underground pedestrian concourse

• Relocated and renovated Depot open with connection to the concourse

• H Street extension, passenger drop-off and transit way in operation

• Parking within Millennia development assumed to be open, although dependent on Millennia schedule

• Options for parking on temporary lots south of H Street or west of the SITF site

• LRT uses the new platform on the east side of the SITF site

• Local buses use boarding areas on H Street

• New pedestrian/bicycle tunnel provides access to areas north of the realigned tracks

Phase 4

Phase 4 consists of the construction of the Terminal Extension. This could be completed immediately after Phase 3 if funding is available. This phase could be postponed if funding is delayed, or if demand conditions do not warrant construction of the Terminal Extension.

Major Work Element

• Construct Terminal Extension

SITF Operation

• As in previous Phase 3, except intercity buses would need to be relocated to the local bus area or operate behind the Terminal Extension with pedestrian access around the construction site

Phase 5

Phase 5 includes construction of the open space and joint development blocks south of the Depot. This phase is not on the critical path to complete the SITF. However, several components would need to be completed before this phase could be undertaken. Specifically, the full parcels would not be available until after the freeway ramps have been relocated (Phase 1) and the Historic Depot has been relocated (Phase 2).

Major Work Element

• Completion of joint development and open spaces south of H Street

SITF Operation

• Independent of this phase, with the possible exception of impacts to parking





6.2.4 Alternative Phasing Schedule Table 6.2.1 summarizes the project schedule with the alternative phasing strategy. As described above, the alternative strategy assumes earlier start dates for project components than the phasing plan that was previously presented in Section 5.2. Funding and approvals would need to be obtained sooner than previously envisioned. The phasing strategy and schedule presented here was based on physical and operational considerations. The feasibility of these earlier start dates has not been evaluated in detail with respect to project funding and approvals, although at this time they are considered to be achievable.

It is reasonable to consider that this alternative schedule provides a relatively optimistic completion date (late 2012) while the previous phasing plan provides a relatively conservative completion date (mid 2019).

If identified funding or alternative finding sources cannot be obtained to meet the proposed start dates, it would be necessary to delay portions of Phase 1 and subsequent phases. It is assumed that the heavy rail track relocation, the pedestrian concourse and potentially the temporary terminal would still be completed on schedule as part of the private Millennia project. However, the new LRT alignment and the west side access improvements would need to be postponed. After the new heavy rail track alignment is completed, passengers would use either a temporary terminal or the existing Depot, with passengers walking to the concourse.

Table 6.2.1. Alternative Phasing Strategy Schedule

Pre-Construction Activities Construction

Begin End Begin End Phase Controlling Item Estimated Duration (months) Quarter Year Quarter Year

Estimated Duration (months) Quarter Year Quarter Year

Project Development 24 First 2005 First 2007 NA NA NA NA NA

1 Relocate Heavy Rail (by others)

24 First 2005 First 2007 24 First 2006 First 2008

2 Move and Finish Depot

24 First 2006 First 2008 18 First 2008 Third 2009

3 RT local bus facility 12 Third 2008 Third 2009 6 Third 2009 First 2010

4 Terminal Extension 24 First 2008 First 2010 24 First 2010 First 2012

5 Joint Development 24 First 2008 First 2010 24 First 2010 First 2012

6.2.5 Operations and User Impacts In comparison to previous phasing plan, this alternative strategy has the following impacts on SITF operations and users:

• Shorter overall construction duration, but more disruption to transit operators and passengers during the construction period

• Requires use of a temporary terminal facility while the Historic Depot is relocated and renovated





• The Terminal Extension must be constructed while connected to the operating Depot building, increasing the likelihood of conflicts and disruption for operators and passengers

• Requires additional moves for both operators and passengers, particularly for intercity bus operations

• Completing the relocation of the LRT and the west side access improvements at an earlier phase helps to address Federal Building concerns

• The Terminal Extension would not need to be constructed until warranted by growth in transit services

6.2.6 Design Impacts The alternative phasing strategy is contingent on several modifications to the conceptual plan for the proposed project as presented in this document:

Terminal Extension

In the previous phasing plan the Terminal Extension was proposed to be constructed in the initial phase of the project. This would allow the building to be constructed on land north of the existing heavy rail tracks that is essentially vacant. However, moving the Terminal Extension to a later phase complicates construction and would require design changes to eliminate conflicts with previously constructed components, minimize disruption to passengers and operators, and maintain operations. The concourse connections to the platforms, for example, would need to be constructed with the new heavy rail tracks and platforms. Vertical circulation will also be required to the concourse prior to implementation of the Terminal Extension. The conceptual design for the Terminal Extension shows the concourse and vertical circulation integrated into the ultimate design. It may not be possible to construct this portion of the Terminal Extension independently from the rest of the building. Additional investigation would be required to determine if the Terminal design could accommodate phased or modular construction or if temporary vertical circulation could be utilized that provides adequate access and maintains operation throughout construction.

Shifting construction of the Terminal Extension to a later phase would allows it be built only when additional capacity is required. In addition, the design of the Terminal Extension could be refined to reflect future demand patterns, operational conditions and technology.

Interstate 5 Ramps

The alternative phasing strategy assumes a ramp reconfiguration project that has been modified from the concept shown in previous sections of the document. The proposed change would simplify the construction of project while providing many of the benefits of the original concept, such as the extension of 3rd and 4th Streets north to H Street. Modifications to the existing ramps would be significantly reduced. This option could likely be implemented sooner, which would provide improved bus circulation on the SITF site and address Federal Building concerns. This revised design is currently under development by the City of Sacramento as part of the North CBD Access Study.

Joint Development

As a result of the revised west side access project, the joint development parcel bounded by H Street, 4th Street, I Street and the I-5 northbound on ramp would be reduced in size from the concept plan previously presented in this document. This would impact the concept plan for this parcel shown in this document, which includes the shared parking facility and public open space.

Shifting construction of the Terminal Extension to a later phase would result in less joint development space within the SITF in early phases of the project.





6.2.7 Summary of Benefits Benefits of the alternative phasing strategy to the project (in comparison to the Phasing Strategy presented in Section 5.2) include:

• Reduces overall project costs

• Reduces construction duration

• Lowers Phase 1 costs

• Potentially reduces the dependence on debt financing

• Moves and reopens the Depot earlier

• Improved coordination with SITF and Millennia schedules

• Shifting construction of the Terminal Extension to a later phase allows the SITF facilities to better match expected growth in passenger demand. That is, the additional capacity provided by the Terminal Extension is not provided until it is needed at a future date.

• Increases the design flexibility for the Terminal Extension to be modified to reflect future demand patterns, operational conditions and technology.

Table 6.2.2 provides a comparison of the previous phasing strategy (see Section 5.2) and the alternative phasing strategy.




October 8, 20042

Table 6.2.2 Comparison of Phasing Strategies

Major Work Components

Phase Base Strategy Alternative Strategy

1 • Heavy rail realignment and concourse (by others)

• Passenger platforms and canopies • Terminal Extension • Additional pedestrian/bicycle tunnel under

heavy rail tracks • Intercity bus boarding area • Temporary passenger vehicle and RT bus

pick-up/drop off

• Heavy rail realignment and concourse (by others)

• Passenger platforms and canopies • Temporary terminal • Additional pedestrian/bicycle tunnel under

heavy rail tracks • Intercity bus boarding area • Temporary passenger vehicle and RT bus

pick-up/drop off • New LRT alignment on east side of SITF (by

others) • West side access improvements • 3rd Street extension

2 • Existing heavy rail removal and soil remediation (by others)

• Existing heavy rail removal and soil remediation (by others)

• Foundation for new Depot location • Depot seismic retrofit and preparation to move • Move and finish Depot • H Street Extension • Passenger pick-up/drop-off area • Local bus on-street bays • Landscape and hardscape in front of Depot

650 parking spaces in Millennia structure 3 • New LRT alignment on east side of SITF (by

others) • Foundation for new Depot location • Depot seismic retrofit and preparation to move • 650 parking spaces in Millennia structure

• Local bus boarding area

4 • Move and finish Depot • Terminal Extension

5 • H Street Extension • Passenger pick-up/drop-off area • Local bus on-street bays • Landscape and hardscape in front of Depot

• Joint development south of H Street (by others)

• Plaza south of H Street (by others) • Shared parking structure south of H Street

6 • I-5 Ramp reconfiguration (by others) • 3rd Street extension

7 • Local bus boarding area

8 • Joint development south of H Street (by others)

• Plaza south of H Street (by others) • Shared parking structure south of H Street





6.3 Scope and Cost Reductions

A number of project stakeholders, elected officials, and members of the public have raised concerns about the overall costs of the project. In response, the project team has identified a number of strategies that could be pursued to reduce the overall project costs. These strategies include:

• Moving the start date forward and accelerating the construction schedule as shown in the alternate phasing plan in Section 6.2. This would reduce the escalation factor of the project. A preliminary rough estimate based on the proposed alternate phasing plan shows a reduction in construction costs of approximately 11%, to a total of approximately $200.4 million dollars. Some savings attributable to the accelerated schedule will be lost due to a number of factors, including the complications of concurrent construction scheduling, additional costs associated with constructing the Terminal Extension in the midst of an operating transit facility, and other factors that may arise from a more detailed study. It is very important to note that currently identified project funding would not be available to support an earlier start date, so alternate funding sources and strategies would need to be identified. See Section 6.4 below for additional information.

• Reducing first phase costs. The alternative phasing plan would reduce the costs of the first phase, which may reduce debt financing and associated financing costs.

• Reducing the size of the Terminal Extension. The current design of the Terminal Extension includes approximately 7000 SF of public areas above the requested program amounts. The extra space is the result of inherent inefficiencies to the existing Depot, and of optimizing the building shape to conform to the site geometry. This area could be reduced, but it should be noted that the space is “banked” to accommodate future ridership increases, and is programmed with income-generating joint development for the early years of the project. Eliminating this income generating area could negatively impact the overall funding picture by reducing funds for debt service.

• Delaying or eliminating the Terminal Extension. The operator requested program assumes significant passenger growth above current levels. Until these increases have occurred, it could be argued that the extension could be delayed or eliminated and the Depot be used to accommodate current passenger demands. By delaying the Extension to later phases of the project, the first phase costs can be reduced. However, delaying the Extension beyond the current proposed date will increase the costs due to escalation.

• Eliminate design features and downgrade the materials and finish levels of new construction. The Terminal Extension in particular is designed with materials and features appropriate to the project vision of a regional transportation hub and gateway to the Sacramento Region. A high-quality facility will help raise the image of public transit and encourage ridership by creating an attractive and pleasant environment that will support existing riders and attract new users to the Facility. Savings could be realized by the elimination of certain features, such as the vegetated roof, double height spaces at the concourse level, concourse level people movers, and redundant vertical circulation. The overall height of the Terminal Extension could also be reduced to yield savings in structural systems and wall systems, and the concourse level could be simplified and reduced in size to meet basic circulation requirements. Eliminating clearspan spaces and changing the roof to a flat system supported on columns would also yield savings at the expense of less flexibility in the plan and additional visual and functional obstructions in the waiting, ticketing, and baggage areas. Care needs to be taken so that capital cost reductions from the elimination of structural and sustainable features such as the roof and shading devices do not result in increased energy consumption and higher maintenance and operating costs. Changes to building materials, including the elimination of copper





cladding, standing seam metal roofs, custom curtain wall systems, terrazzo flooring, custom wainscoting, and low-iron ultra-flat glazing could also yield cost savings, but substitutions should be carefully chosen so as not to increase maintenance and operations costs.

• Reduce SITF parking. Providing the requested 1000 parking spaces is one of the largest single cost items of the current project: construction costs for parking is over $45 million including soft costs. The parking program was based on current mode choice patterns. Increased transit availability, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and local development patterns may increase the use of SITF by alternative modes and moderate the need to provide the full parking program.

• Simplify changes to the I-5 on-ramp. While costs for the I-5 on-ramp modifications are not included in the SITF project costs, some ramp reconfiguration may be necessary to achieve the circulation, access, and development goals of the SITF. Simplified proposals are being prepared as part of the City’s CBD Access Study. Current preliminary estimates for the proposed ramp reconfiguration range between $35 to $50 million; simplified ramp reconstruction proposals being prepared by David Evans Associates and the city would cost an estimated $4 to $8 million while achieving the majority of the SITF project goals. These alternatives result in some reduction to the Depot site joint development parcels and a less pedestrian- and development- friendly environment, particularly along I Street between 3rd and 4th Streets.

• Reduce contributions for open space construction at adjacent joint development. The current SITF implementation plan assumes that construction of all public open spaces surrounding the Terminal Building, including the plazas on the current Depot site in front of the new development, is paid for with funds from the SITF project. Costs for these spaces are over $5 million dollars. It may be reasonable to assume that some or all of these spaces are privately financed as a condition of development.

• Project stakeholders have suggested that the REA building could be used as part of an interim transit facility. The REA Building would not be available for use as an interim transit facility, since the Redevelopment Agency and the building owner are committed an existing project that includes ground floor retail and second story office uses. This proposal to refurbish the building for retail and commercial activities will contribute to the vitality and development of the SITF and the surrounding development.

In summary, accelerating the construction schedule and reducing the project scope has the potential to reduce the overall project costs. Reducing project costs may make it possible to reduce capital costs and the need to rely on debt and bond financing, with associated savings to debt service payments over the life of the project. Care must be taken to appropriately define the proposed changes in the context of the overall project, and will require early commitment to design to ensure consistency with long term plans.

6.4 Funding

Comments on the Funding Plan were generally concerned with reducing the dependency on debt financing used in the project, and the constrained ability of some operators to meet the proposed lease obligations through their annual operating budgets. In addition, the response to comments on the phasing plan and construction schedule has major impacts to the funding plan as currently proposed. In particular, the proposed alternative phasing strategy is predicated on an earlier start date that requires that alternate funding sources and strategies be identified, since the federal and state grant programs currently identified are already allocated to other projects through the year 2010.

Alternate strategies could include an aggressive effort by the project sponsors to secure earlier additional state and federal grants, and pursuing public/private partnership financing arrangements with the Railyards





developersAny alternative that envisions private funding of the Another funding alternatives include funding initial project expenditures from a joint powers authority with contributions from various agencies with vested interests in seeing the project proceed at an accelerated pace.

Under both the current and proposed phasing plans, the project sponsors should aggressively pursue additional capital funds that can be used to offset facility rents that cannot be paid for through Transit agency operating budgets.

6.4.1 Operator Contributions The current funding plans assume that transit operators will lease space in the Facility at near market rates, with the lease payments used to cover debt service over the life of the Facility. CCJPA has indicated that this assumption will cause an extreme hardship for the agency due to their limited annual operating budget. CCJPA has suggested that, in lieu of rent, the CCJPA join with the City in aggressively seeking state and federal grant funding beyond the amounts already identified. A preliminary estimate shows that an additional capital contribution of $8.5 million by the CCJPA would offset rents paid by Amtrak/CCJPA for their public areas, including Amtrak/CCJPA passenger waiting areas and amenities, and transit operations areas, including ticketing, baggage, office and administrative spaces, and passenger loading areas.. Amtrak/CCJPA payments would still be required to fund payments for general and common area maintenance on an on-going basis.

6.4.2 Availability of Funding The alternate phasing plan described above advances the construction schedule and reduces overall project costs as a result of lowered escalation. However, currently identified federal and state funding sources (STIP) are not expected to be available until 2010. Advancing the construction schedule is therefore dependent on identifying additional funding sources, pursuing a public/private partnership agreement with the Railyards developers, or accelerating previously identified grant funding sources. At the State level it may be possible to secure some accelerated grant funding if the project sponsors coordinate efforts with the transit operators and aggressively pursue STIP funding in the 2006-2011 funding cycle. Since many projects previously funded through the STIP program have been delayed by state budget problems, competition for these funds will be extreme, and obtaining them will require a concerted effort by the project sponsors to make the project a very high regional priority.

The project sponsors have the option of advancing local funds with a guarantee of repayment through ITIP funds. This requires an allocation from the 2006 STIP, even if programmed for later years. This scenario carries some financial and political risk, as there remains much doubt about the future of transportation funding in California.

Funding a project as large and complex as the SITF requires a full range of funding sources from local, state and federal sources. The funding scenario outlined in this report assumes that the SITF would have access to many of the funding sources that other projects of this type use to reach completion. While smaller projects might rely on conventional formula grants, it can be expected that a project like the SITF will require specific federal earmarks and substantial project specific dedication of state transportation funds as well. Obtaining these funds is highly dependent on regional prioritization of the SITF and requires coordinated and persistent work of local officials, in concert with agency partners, and state and federal delegations.

Because so much of the potential funding for the SITF depends on positioning the project as a high priority at the local, regional, state and federal levels, the estimated schedule is realistic, with the bulk of funding coming after 2010. Both the timing and the total amounts received depend very largely on how aggressively and successfully local sponsors position the project. It will be difficult to advance the project faster given the time required to work through state and federal funding queues.





The local project sponsors need to continue to press for a high priority for SITF through the following actions:

• Aggressively campaign for extension of Measure A, which will provide critical local match for state and federal grants

• Work with SACOG to include the project in the 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), thus positioning the project for a full range of state and federal grants.

• Work with Caltrans and the Capitol Corridor JPA to justify the project as a high regional priority in the Inter-regional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) (25% of State funding dedicated to the RTIP).

• Work with RTD, Amtrak, and other project partners to identify other federal funding opportunities.

• Work with the local congressional delegation to obtain discretionary funds for the project over the next several years, and a major federal earmark for the project in the next re-authorization of the federal transportation-funding bill in 2009/10.

• Work with other jurisdictions and agencies to identify the project as a regional transportation priority.

6.4.3 Additional Funding Sources In addition to the local, state and federal sources projected in the funding plan, the project sponsors should continue to investigate other potential funding sources to augment those discussed above, as the final funding package will inevitably evolve during the next several years. In addition to capital sources, these include a variety of dedicated sources for operating funds. Additional sources could include the following:

Regional Parcel Tax

A regional parcel tax has been discussed as a potential funding source for a downtown arena; it could also include funding for the SITF using the same arguments of regional benefits provided by the facility. It would require a 2/3 vote of property owners.

Property Based Improvement District

A Business Improvement District incorporating Sacramento’s downtown area could help provide funds for the operation of the SITF. Business Improvement Districts have been used around the nation to provide an extra degree of maintenance and security in downtown areas.

Downtown Parking Fees

A surcharge on downtown parking could be targeted to provide operating support to the SITF, on the theory that a parking surcharge would provide a rational cross-subsidy for transit projects to mitigate the impact of congestion caused by autos.

Ticket surcharge

Similar to Passenger Facility Fees at airports, a small surcharge could be added to each train ticket with an origin or destination at the SITF. These funds could be dedicated to both capital projects and ongoing operation. This would require cooperation with the operators, who would collect these fees.

Naming Rights, Advertising

As with stadiums and arenas, there may be the potential for sale of naming rights to all or a portion of the SITF. This is highly prospective, as there are not yet any concrete examples this occurring in the US for train stations. Use of transit stations and vehicles for advertising, however, is much more familiar. In addition to conventional billboard ads, changing technology has created an increasing potential for whole station saturation advertising campaigns.

Events





Events contribute to operating income at many historic facilities such as Union Station (Washington DC) and the Ferry Building (San Francisco). A renovated terminal could provide a valuable amenity attractive for corporate, social, and convention related events.

Non-Profit Sponsorship

A non-profit organized around renovating and maintaining the historic train station could allow the project access to funds not normally available to public works projects. A non-profit could approach foundations and individuals to provide funding for preservation studies and implementation. Such a campaign could yield donation-linked naming opportunities for portions of the facility (similar to universities and museums, for instance). A non-profit could also have a continuing role in interpreting and managing the facility, including event related space rental.

Additional Development Rights

The current SITF plan could be amended to include additional private development on or adjacent to the SITF. Sale or lease of these rights to private developers could provide additional funding to the project. Potential uses include public or private office space and hotels.

6.5 Additional Design Refinements

The proposed project design illustrated in this report is a preliminary Conceptual Design intended to establish the basic design concept for the Facility as well as test program fit, functionality, and establish a preliminary order of magnitude cost estimate. As with any project of this size, complexity, and duration, the design will naturally evolve over the course of the time in response to evolving program requirements, detailed operational studies, and changes in the financial situation and the project vision. Additional design studies can be expected as part of the environmental review process, and again after environmental clearance has been obtained. Design refinements to address stakeholder and public concerns should include:

• Continuing study of the Depot site joint development to address concerns about the scale, position, and proposed uses of joint development.

• Study of the primary open space to permit large civic events.

• Refinements to the Terminal Building design to address security and operational concerns, including the refinement of the pedestrian concourse to eliminate blind corners and improve sight lines; refinements to circulation elements to improve passenger flow and reduce bottlenecks, particularly at the concourse vertical circulation and ticketing areas; and design refinements that address the integration of the new Terminal Extension with the Depot. Additional studies will need to be conducted to address the life safety issues that arise when a historic facility is extensively renovated and expanded, particularly with respect to occupancy separation, fire containment and exiting requirements.

6.6 Accommodation of Additional Transportation Modes

Comments were received requesting that the project accommodate the future addition of more transportation modes at the facility. Specific topics included High Speed Rail, a potential historic trolley and additional pedestrian and bicycle connections.

6.6.1 High Speed Rail The California High Speed Rail Authority is responsible for planning a future high speed passenger rail network in the state. As currently envisioned, Sacramento would be the northern terminus for one of the rail corridors. The SITF site has been identified a likely location for a Sacramento passenger terminal. While plans for this network are highly preliminary, the expectation is that the high speed tracks would be elevated over the





existing UP rail corridor, entering the SITF site from the east and terminating with six platform tracks (and three platforms) above the proposed conventional rail passenger platforms. The proposed SITF project does not preclude the future implementation of high speed rail in this configuration. However, if implemented high speed rail would have impacts on the SITF, the conventional heavy rail tracks and adjacent properties that have not been studied in detail to date.

A preliminary investigation has indicated that the right-of-way width required to accommodate the elevated high speed rail tracks, platforms, and supporting structures would be approximately 24 feet wider than the right-of-way proposed by UPRR for the northerly alignment. This additional width has been reserved along the north edge of the SITF site in the proposed plan. This reserved land could be landscaped or potentially used for a pedestrian/bicycle path.

6.6.2 Historic Trolley A historic trolley has been suggested to provide a transit connection from the California State Railroad Museum and Old Sacramento to the Railroad Technology Museum and the Railyards. One possible alignment would be to utilize H Street in front of the SITF and turn north on 5th Street to cross over the heavy rail tracks. With the incorporation of the H Street extension the proposed SITF project provides an opportunity make this connection. However, numerous issues would need to be investigated before the feasibility of such a proposal could be determined. These include traffic operations, security issues with the Federal Courthouse, the physical crossing of the LRT tracks, and integration into the Millennia development.

6.6.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections Comments have been received that encourage the inclusion of additional pedestrian and bicycle routes, including additional heavy rail crossings. The proposed SITF project includes numerous pedestrian and bicycle connections. These include new pedestrian crossings, sidewalks and pathways as well as bicycle lanes and an off-street path connection to the Sacramento River Trail. One new pedestrian and bicycle tunnel crossing of the heavy rail tracks (west of the SITF site) has been included in the project, and an additional pedestrian crossing may be possible by extending the SITF concourse north of the platforms. Additional grade-separated rail crossings would add significant expense to the project.

A multi-use path could also be considered to run parallel to the heavy rail tracks south of the alignment. This would be located north of the proposed SITF transit way and provide a connection from Old Sacramento and the SITF to the east. The alignment for such a path would need to be studied, particularly east of the SITF site where it would need to traverse the Millennia development. Figure 6.6.1 illustrates this path as well as additional potential pedestrian and bicycle improvements that should be considered with the SITF and related projects. These potential improvements include an alternative or additional location for a pedestrian/bicycle tunnel under the heavy rail tracks, new bikeways and intersection portals (sidewalk bulb-outs).

Consideration should also be given to creating design guidelines for the project area to ensure pedestrian orientation of building frontages and the provision of quality pedestrian facilities.

REA

BU

ILD

ING

FED

ERA

L B

UIL

DIN

G

SITF

DEP

OT

POTE

NTI

AL

PED

ESTR

IAN

/B

ICY

CLE

TU

NN

EL

POTE

NTI

AL

TUN

NEL

EXTE

NSI

ON

H S

TREE

T

INTERSTATE 5

INTERSTATE 5

G S

TREE

T

F ST

REE

T

E ST

REE

T

I STR

EET

7th STREET

6th STREET

5th STREET

3rd STREET

2nd STREET

8th STREET

OLD

SA

CR

AM

ENTO

CH

INA

TOW

N

RA

ILR

OA

D T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y M

USE

UM

Leg

end

Cla

ss I

Bik

e Tr

ail

Cla

ss II

/ III

On

-str

eet

Bik

eway

Co

nsi

der

Sid

ewal

k B

ulb

-ou

ts

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

Clie

nt

City

of

Sacr

amen

to

Co

nsu

ltan

t Te

am

SMW

M/A

rup

Aca

nthu

s

CH

S C

onsu

lting

Gro

up

CH

2MH

ill

Han

scom

b Fa

ithfu

l & G

ould

The

Hoy

t C

ompa

ny

Jone

s La

ng L

asal

le

LTK

Eng

inee

ring

Serv

ices

Nel

son/

Nyg

aard

Sim

pson

Gum

pert

z &

Heg

er, I

nc.


Additional Potential Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements

Figure 6.6.1

arch

itec

ture

inte

rio

rsp

lan

nin

gg

rap

hic

des

ign

8 October 2004

0’

50’

100’

150’

200’

No

rth





6.7 Operational Scenarios

6.7.1 Issues to be resolved Every major project involving transit infrastructure raises a number of issues of project delivery, ownership and governance. For example, at the outset, the sponsors of the project must identify:

• Who are or should be the owner(s) of the project?

• Who are the principal stakeholders in the project (which may be in addition to the owners) and to what extent are their interests aligned or divergent?

• What are the potential sources of capital and financing for the project?

• What is the implementation strategy, in terms of legislative authority, consultant and contractor selection process, stakeholder oversight, project management, required staffing, etc.?

• Who will be the long-term operator of the project (which may be different than the owner), and what operational issues must be considered (transit operations, public amenities, retail leasing, etc.)?

• What are the opportunities for utilizing joint development as a source of capital and revenue?

Every project also presents a number of challenges that must be addressed in order to insure a successful project. Examples of these include:

• How to involve the stakeholders in the planning and implementation of the project, including how to reconcile any divergent interests or disagreements that may arise among the stakeholders?

• How to segregate policy level decisions which require stakeholder input from day to day design and construction decisions that should be handled by the implementation team?

• How to manage the project so that project milestones are met and cost and schedule goals are achieved?

• How to assemble the necessary staff and expertise to implement a major project that is outside the normal scope of stakeholder activities?

• How to minimize the capital cost of the project and yet maximize the revenue sources that can offset operating expenses and debt service on project financing?

Typically these issues are resolved as the result of consultation and negotiations among the stakeholders, with input from staff and specialized consultants. The result is an ownership, governance and project delivery strategy that is unique to the particular project, but which includes elements that are common to many other comparable projects. Typically these elements provide:

• A forum for stakeholder input and decisions

• A reservation of key decisions to the stakeholders and a delegation of project decisions to the implementation team

• A provision for appropriate oversight by the stakeholders

• Mechanisms for cost and schedule control

• Incentives to minimize cost and maximize revenues

In order to identify these elements, and to understand how they have been used in a variety of recent projects, Jones Lang LaSalle has undertaken a review of eight recent projects, which involve the development of a major transit facility. From these eight projects, we have abstracted the common elements and techniques that





have been utilized to address the issues outlined above. Key lessons that can be drawn from these case studies are also identified.

Reaching a decision on the ownership, project delivery, and governance models for the SITF is ultimately a political decision for the project sponsors, and will require careful negotiation and deliberations, with input from the City and other local and regional governing agencies, transit operators, property owners, project stakeholders, and the public. These deliberations and negotiations should be resolved at the beginning of the next phase of the project, so that project funding can be aggressively pursued at the earliest opportunity.

6.7.2 Case Studies To explore potential structures for ownership, governance and project delivery of the project, eight recent transit-related projects in North America were researched and included in Working Paper 8. The eight case studies are as follows:

• Grand Central Terminal, New York

• JFK International Airport, Terminal 4, New York

• Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Ontario

• Penn Station-Farley Post Office, New York

• San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco

• South Station, Boston

• Union Station, Los Angeles

• Union Station, Washington, D.C.

While each of these projects was structured to respond to specific locational, political and financial requirements, there are identifiable models common among them. Some of these models relate to the manner in which the projects are owned and governed by the various public and private stakeholders in the project. Other models relate to the manner in which the ownership group related to the project delivery team consisting of developers, designers and contractors. From the eight case studies, three ownership and governance models and four project-delivery models were identified. These models are presented below.

6.7.3 Ownership and Governance Models These models represent the ownership structure of the primary stakeholder(s), as well as the relationship between the project’s owner and the project’s tenants, both transit operators and non-transit tenants.

The models reviewed illustrate varied approaches to ownership and governance of a major terminal project. Most projects have multiple stakeholders, who often have interests that are not totally in alignment, and therefore these various interests must be reconciled in the management of the project. One means of reconciling interests is to provide the principal stakeholders with representation on a board of directors of the entity that owns the terminal, or alternatively, on the board of a special purpose entity created to implement or manage the project. Alternatively, instead of board representation, interim memoranda of understanding (“MOU’s”) can be executed to define the relationship between stakeholders, including roles and responsibilities, especially during the design and construction phase. In addition, one ownership and governance structure could be established for a certain element or phase of the project (e.g. terminal design) and a different structure could be established for a different or subsequent element of the project (e.g. terminal construction, leasing and operations).

Many of the projects studied utilized the resources and expertise of the private sector in both project ownership and project delivery. Typically, the goal has been to draw upon private sector expertise in the areas of finance,





project management, facility management and joint development. This expertise is particularly important when joint development revenues are considered a major source of project capital or operating revenues. Other goals of private sector involvement may include providing professional staff resources on a short-term basis, access to particular relationships with adjacent property owners or key tenants, and creating incentives for maximizing revenues and controlling cost and schedule. Private sector participants are typically selected by means of a competitive process, although the nature of that process varies depending on local legal and regulatory environments. The structure of these public/private relationships is of equal importance to the relationship among public stakeholders, and it must be determined how a developer is included in the ownership structure of the terminal, if at all. Various techniques have been utilized to accomplish this, including joint ventures, ground leases and operating agreements between the public sector project sponsors and the private sector developers or managers of the project. Typically, the greater role that joint development plays in the overall scope of the project, the more central the role of the private developer in the management of the project.

Direct Ownership Model

The first ownership model is the simplest one in which the owner has direct leases with the transit operators and any non-transit tenants. This direct ownership model is used at Grand Central Terminal, Lester B. Pearson International Airport and San Francisco International Airport. To illustrate, at Grand Central Terminal the Metropolitan Transit Authority (“MTA”) owns the terminal. An MTA agency, Metro North Railroad, operates the transit, which utilizes the terminal. Non-transit leases are with both MTA and Metro North and are managed with the assistance of a private sector management entity, currently Jones Lang LaSalle. A variation on this first model is the use of a MOU between the terminal owner and one or more of the transit operators. The MOU can document certain agreements (e.g. agreements regarding terminal design), which have applicability only during the early phases of the project. Once that phase is completed, the MOU's expire since the long-term relationship between the terminal owner and the transit operator is governed by the lease. This approach is being used successfully at Penn Station – Farley Post Office in New York.

Indirect Ownership Model

The second ownership model is an indirect ownership model in which either a developer or a single purpose authority (typically a nonprofit corporation) has a master lease with the terminal owner. The developer or authority then subleases space or use rights to the non-transit tenants. The developer or authority may or may not sublease space or use rights to the transit operators. This indirect ownership model is used at both JFK International Airport and South Station. To illustrate, at South Station the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (“MBTA”) owns the station. MBTA has a long-term ground lease with the developer, Beacon Properties. Beacon Properties leases directly with the non-transit tenants. The transit operators have operating agreements with MBTA.

Tiered Ownership

The third ownership model is a tiered ownership structure. This is the model at Penn Station-Farley Post Office, Union Station in Los Angeles, and Union Station in Washington, D.C. The terminal owner has a master lease with a single purpose authority (a nonprofit corporation), which has a sublease with a private sector developer. The non-profit corporation provides a forum for the resolution of issues among the stakeholders. The developer implements these policy decisions and subleases space or use rights to the transit operators and non-transit tenants.

At Union Station in Washington, D.C., the station is owned by the Department of Transportation (“DOT”). The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (“USRC”) was created as a nonprofit authority to manage the redevelopment of the station. Representatives of the various stakeholders are represented on the board of





directors of USRC, including the Secretary of the DOT, the President of Amtrak, the Mayor of D.C., the President of Federal City Council, and the Federal Railroad Administrator. USRC has a long-term lease for the station from DOT, the owner of the terminal. USRC has a long-term sublease relationship with the developer, who in turn has a long-term sublease with Amtrak (the primary transit operator) and the non-transit tenants.

6.7.4 Project Delivery Models Four project delivery models were identified in the analysis of the transit-related case studies. They are the arrangement by which each of the projects was designed, constructed, operated and managed. In discussion of these models, the ownership structure in each can be any one of the three ownership models discussed above.

Fee Developer/Contractor

The first project delivery model is the fee developer/contractor model. In this model the terminal owner retains the most control. The owner oversees both the design and the ongoing operation and management of the station but hires a fee developer or contractor to complete the construction, often on a design-build basis. This model is used at San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”), Lester B. Pearson International Airport, and Grand Central Terminal. At SFO, the airport authority has in-house architects and engineers in their Building Design and Construction Department. They oversee the design and construction but hire outside contractors to complete the work on a fee basis. Ongoing operation and management of the airport are the responsibility of the airport authority.

Contractor/Operator

The second project delivery model is the contractor-operator model. In this model the terminal owner is responsible for managing the design and the contractor-operator is responsible for completing construction and the managing the ongoing operations. This model is used at South Station in Boston where MBTA, as owner, selected the design team and oversaw the design of the project. Beacon Properties was hired to develop the retail fit-out of the project and to manage the retail leasing and the non-transit station operations and maintenance.

Developer/Operator

The third project delivery model is the developer-operator model. This model is distinguished from the contractor-operator model by the design process becoming the responsibility of the developer. The terminal owner hires the developer-operator, who through a long-term agreement is responsible for the design, construction and ongoing operation of the project. This model is used at JFK International Airport, Penn Station-Farley Post Office, and Union Station in Washington, D.C. At JFK International Airport (Terminal 4), the Port Authority, which owns the facility, awarded the contract for construction, management and operation to JFK-IAT. JFK-IAT is a private, for-profit consortium, which was responsible for design, construction, financing, terminal operations, retail leasing and management.

Joint Venture

The final project delivery model is the joint venture model in which the owner and developer form a joint venture partnership, which oversees the entire development process. This model was used at Union Station in Los Angeles. The owner, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”) and the developer, Catellus Development Corporation, formed a new nonprofit joint venture for the development of the transit center and new headquarters building for LACMTA. LACMTA and Catellus have equal representation on the board of the joint venture. The joint venture hired Catellus with a fixed fee contract as the design-build-operate team





Appendix A Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate





Appendix B Economic Model

6 Response to Comments · 6.2 Alternate Phasing Strategy 6.2.1 Introduction Working Paper 10...

Documents

Transcript of 6 Response to Comments · 6.2 Alternate Phasing Strategy 6.2.1 Introduction Working Paper 10...