Multimodal Transportation Terminal Feasibility Study, Columbus, OH




Click HERE for graphic.



Multimodal Transportation
Terminal Feasibility Study
Columbus, OH

Prepared for
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission

Central Ohio Transit Authority

Ohio Department of Transportation, 
Division of Rail

Ohio High Speed Rail Authority 

City of Columbus

Prepared by.
Wallace, Floyd, Associates Inc.  
Boston, MA
Architecture, Planning, Urban Design

In  association  with:
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA
Transportation and Economic Development
Planning

URS Consultants, Inc.
Cleveland, OH
Transportation Engineering

Moody/Nolan Ltd.
Columbus, OH
Engineering

HKI Associates, Inc.
Columbus, OH
Planning

Imai/Keller, Inc.
Boston, MA
Rendering

D.G. Jones & Partners, Inc.
Cambridge, MA
Cost Estimating

Preparation of this document was financed by appropriations from the
Ohio Department of Transportation Division of Rail, Ohio High Speed
Rail Authority, Central Ohio Transit Authority, and the city of
Columbus therein, together with planning funds from the Federal
Highway Administration and the Ohio Department of Transportation.



Columbus Multimodal Transportation Terminal Oversight Committee

Bill Habig                         William Hutchinson
Executive Director                 Ohio Association of 
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning          Rail Passengers
Commission                         Lou Jannazo
                                   Ohio Department of Transportation
MO Ismail                          Division of Rail Transportation
Director of Transportation
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning         Steve McClary
Commission                         City of Columbus
                                   Department of Development
Jim Betts
Ohio High Speed Rail Authority     Jim Musick
                                   City of Columbus
Barbara Brown                      Division of Traffic Engineering
Ohio Department of Transportation
Division of Rail Transportation    Nancy Duncan Porter
                                   North Market Development
Pete Cass                          Authority
Columbus City Council    
                                   Jay Sant
Carla Cefaratti                    Parsons Brinckerhoff Ohio Inc.
Ohio Department of Transportation
                                   Claire Sawaya
Div. of Public Transportation      Convention  Facilities Authority

Don Damron                         Ralph Smithers
Ohio High Speed Rail Authority     Development Commission for
                                   Central Ohio
Richard Davis                      Columbus Chamber of Commerce
Columbus Southern Power

Richard Geyer                      Ty Stroh, Director
Columbus Convention Center         Greater Columbus Convention
                                   Bureau
Charles Glander
Central Ohio Transit Authority     Glenna Watson, General Manager
Board                              Central Ohio Transit Authority

Patrick Grady, Administrator       Roger Wheeler
City of Columbus                   American Electric Power

Honorable Marc Guthrie             Phil Whitaker
Ohio House of Representatives      Associate General Counsel/
                                   Nationwide Insurance
Ray Hanley                         Central Ohio Transit Authority
Columbus Arts Council Inc.         Board

Jeff Honefanger
Ohio Department of Transportation
Division of Rail Transportation



TABLE OF CONTENTS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION                                                       1
        Context                                                    1
        Study Purpose                                              3
SITE SELECTION                                                     5
        Three Zones                                                5
        Three Priority Sites                                       6
        Travel Demand                                              6
        Site Evaluation                                           13
THE PREFERRED SITE                                                15
        Planning Context                                          15
        Opportunities and Constraints                             15
        Joint Development                                         16
        Traffic Considerations                                    17
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION
TERMINAL PROGRAM                                                  18
        Building Program                                          18
        Site Program                                              20
FUNCTIONAL DESIGN CONCEPT                                         21
        MMTT Internal Circulation                                 21
        Site Circulation and Access                               21
        MMTT Terminal Design                                      22
        Functional Design Concepts                                23
        Intercity Passenger Rail Platform Concepts                23
        Preliminary Cost Estimate                                 24
        Models for Operations and Maintenance                     24
IMPLEMENTATION AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT                              27
        The Players                                               27
        Components of the Project                                 31
        Development Strategies                                    32
        Funding                                                   37
        Conclusion                                                39


MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994



LIST OF FIGURES

                                                          After Page
1.   View of Proposed MMTT                               Exec. Summ.
2.   Cutaway View of MMTT                                Exec. Summ.
3.   View of MM TT Looking North on High Street          Exec. Summ.
4.   Interior View of MMTT                               Exec. Summ.
5.   Priority MMTT Sites                                           6
6.   Access to Priority Sites                                      8
7.   Urban Design Opportunities                                   15
8.   Site Components                                              16
9.   Basic MMTT Street Level Components                           18
10. MMTT Program by Level                                         19
11. Full Build Terminal Street Level Plan                         19
12. MMTT Internal Circulation Core                                21
13. MMTT Site Circulation and Access                              21
14. Sub-grade Plans                                               22
15. Street Level Plans                                            22
16. Levels 2 & 3:  Full Build Terminal                            22
17. MMTT Sections                                                 22
18. MMTT Section                                                  22
19. Flexible Concept Diagrams                                     23
20. Urban Design Plan                                             23

APPENDICES (published under separate cover)

A.   List of Meetings Held

B.   Technical Memorandum on Demand Estimation

C.   Technical Memorandum on Platform Evaluation

D.   Preliminary Cost Estimate



                                                   Executive Summary


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


     The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) commissioned
a feasibility and preliminary cost estimate study for a downtown
Columbus Multimodal Transportation Terminal (MMTT).  In this
facility, various transportation modes would converge and passengers
would be able to transfer from one mode to another easily and safely. 
Recent developments, including the development of the High Street
corridor as a transit mail, potential introduction of light rail
service to downtown, renovation of the Short North/North Market, the
redesign of the Nationwide Connector, the new Convention Center, the
opening of I-670 and proposed intercity rail service linking
Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland, had led to the conclusion that
such a facility might be warranted and should be examined closely.

     The site selected for the Columbus MMTT at High Street and
Nationwide Boulevard is extraordinary in three respects:

1.   The convergence of the intercity rail line (3-C Corridor), the
preferred North Corridor Light Rail Transit Corridor on High Street,
the existing High Street Transit Mall serving local COTA bus routes,
and the close proximity of regional highway access all within this
centrally located site creates the opportunity for an extremely
efficient multimodal transportation terminal (see Figure 1). Rarely
in any city do so many transportation modes converge in one location
so close to downtown.

2.   The site dimensions and configuration allow for efficiency in
both the layout of bus and rail platforms and pedestrian
interconnections between transportation modes. The walking distance
between intercity rail, light rail, express bus/local bus, taxi, drop
and ride, parking, and the proposed downtown bikeway connector are
minimal (see Figure 2); it is literally possible to transfer from any
one mode to another within a one minute walk.

3.   The MMTT site location within downtown offers two opportunities
to link existing and proposed activities in adjacent districts: on a
north/south axis, the terminal links the North Market/Short North
District to the Central Business District, and on an east/west axis,
the terminal links the Convention Center with the large potential
development zone west of Front Street (see Figure 3).

Thus, the Columbus MMTT serves two major civic  functions. It
provides access to the CBD by multiple transportation modes, with
convenient, safe, and pleasant interconnections between modes; and,
it places a major civic building - an active people place - at the
crossroads of the burgeoning northern end of the CBD, near the
Convention Center and North Market/ Short North (see Figure 4).

MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994


                                                       Executive
                                                       Summary



The study conclusions, summarized below, were developed in
consultation with the MMTT Oversight Committee, adjacent property
owners, and other interested parties.

Summary of Conclusions

 Site Selection/Ridership Forecasts: A number of downtown parcels
along the rail corridor were evaluated.  Among them, three
demonstrated the highest potential for development.  One parcel was
located at the corner of Nationwide Boulevard and High Street (Site
A), one east of the old Penitentiary site (Site B), and one east of
the Convention Center (Site C).  Site accessibility, terminal
configuration, environmental constraints and property ownership were
among the factors considered in the selection of the preferred site. 
The High Street and Nationwide Boulevard site has demonstrated the
highest potential, with significantly higher ridership demand and
better proximity to major destinations.  The ability of this site to
blend easily with the adjacent neighborhood development and land uses
was an additional positive factor in the selection of Site A as the
Preferred Site.

2010 Average Daily Terminal Users  2010 Average Daily Transit Riders

Site A    Site B    Site C    Site A    Site B    Site C

19,950    9,250     9,550     14,450    6,650     6,450

 Building Program: The following program elements were established:

Transportation Uses                Non- Transportation Uses
 Intercity rail                    Convention-oriented hotel
 COTA express bus                  Parking for hotel, offices
 Proposed light rail               Ancillary retail uses
 High Street bus only lanes
 Airport shuttle bus
 Taxi/limo drop-off
 Private auto drop-off & parking
 Pedestrian/bicycle
 COTA administrative offices

 Urban Design: Once it was determined that the High
Street/Nationwide Boulevard site was the preferred location for the
MMTT, a series of meetings was initiated with a number of neighbors,
abutting property owners, and business concerns in the area (see
Appendix A).  From the outset, it has been a guiding principle of the
Feasibility and Cost Analysis Study for a MultiModal Transportation
Terminal in Downtown Columbus that the terminal should not only fit
into its environment, but that it should be designed to be supportive
of the existing and potential future activities in the area.  To that
end:


MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994


                                                      Executive
                                                       Summary



     - Allowance was made for a potential Convention Center Hotel and
     parking at the north end of the site.

     - The "active" MMTT High Street frontage is designed to fill the
     gap on the west side of High Street between the Short
     North/North Market District and the Central Business District.

     - An elevated pedestrian walkway system has been incorporated
     into the MMTT to link the terminal to the Convention Center and
     to the large potential development zone to the west of the
     terminal stretching to the penitentiary site.

 Functional Design Concept: Integration of transportation and joint
development components has been a major goal of the functional design
of the facility.  Special attention was devoted to maintaining the
cultural character of the North Market/Short North area and the high
quality architectural standards in the surrounding area and nearby
development opportunities, and to allowing maximum flexibility in the
sequence of construction.  The transportation elements of the
facility are planned to be constructed on land owned by Conrail and
the State of Ohio, and the joint development components to be
constructed on land owned by private entities.

 Operations and Maintenance: The Central Ohio Transit Authority
(COTA) and the newly formed Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC)
are two of the top candidates to operate and maintain the facility. 
They both have the expertise and the ability to secure funding for
the construction of the facility and maintain the high standards
established on the High Street corridor.  The facility will be open
to the public most of the day; it will only be closed for security
reasons during late-night hours.  Without a decision on who will own
and operate the terminal, it is premature to specify a preference for
maintenance, operations, and security functions.  However, experience
at other MMTTs has shown the importance of operating and maintaining
the MMTT at an "airport level" quality standard.  Either COTA or ORDC
could operate the facility themselves or subcontract to private
contractors who have the resources and experience to provide
maintenance and security.

 Implementation: COTA and ORDC should maintain frequent contacts
with abutting property owners and business operators so that all of
their considerations are incorporated in the design and operation of
the terminal.  Certain actions should be pursued in the immediate
future:
     1.   COTA and ORDC should immediately initiate discussions with 
     Conrail regarding acquisition of (at a minimum) an option to
     purchase that portion of the joint development site presently
     owned by Conrail.

     2.   COTA should augment expertise and capacity to handle real
     estate acquisitions, financing, design, and construction for
     future use of the proposed transportation terminal.






MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994



                                                  Executive Summary

     3.   COTA and ORDC should remain in contact with adjacent
     property owners and other interested parties to collectively
     plan and pursue long-term development opportunities of the site.

     4.   COTA should consider combining the multimodal terminal and
     the north corridor projects into a single package in all
     discussions with the railroads, ORDC, the city of Columbus, and
     other parties.

     5.   COTA and ORDC should initiate discussions regarding the
     timetable and next steps to develop a funding package and to
     advance the building program and design to the next level of
     detail.



MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.


Click HERE for graphic.



                                                       Introduction

INTRODUCTION

Context

     The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) commissioned
this 'Feasibility and Cost Analysis Study for a Multimodal
Transportation Terminal (MMTT in Downtown Columbus" in 1992 to
examine the feasibility of siting and developing a multimodal
transportation terminal in the central business district of Columbus,
Ohio.  The concept of a multimodal transportation terminal was
initially explored by MORPC in 1976.  It was also addressed in a
study of CBD transit stations done by Parsons Brinckerhoff in 198 1.
Both studies concluded that the concept was indeed a good one, but
both indicated that such a facility was predicated on the development
of the convention/hotel complex, future rail development, and the
need for public transportation facilities.

     Recent developments in both transportation and economic
development of the Central Business District (CBD) had led to the
conclusion that such a facility might be warranted and should be
reexamined closely.

Transportation

     In 1992 the Ohio High Speed Rail Authority announced its
intentions to work with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT)
and the Ohio General Assembly to establish a conventional passenger
rail service linking Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.  It
was thought at the time that this might serve as a precursor to the
intercity rail service being developed by The Ohio Railway
Organization.  Currently, no rail passenger facilities exist in
Columbus.



The Ohio 3-C Corridor

Click HERE for graphic.



MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                         1



                                                        Introduction

     In addition, the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) operates
two express terminals in downtown Columbus.  COTA is approaching
capacity at the existing northern terminal with six bays serving
nearly 1,000 passengers daily, and needs a new site.  The development
of the north terminal would be an integral part of the COTA Long
Range Plan under study at the time.  The completion of the High
Street corridor transit mall, with its public transit amenities,
would further enhance COTA operations in the downtown.

     In 1992, MORPC and COTA embarked on the development of a new
2010 Long Range Transit Plan.  This plan recommended further
consideration of a light rail transit (LRT) route serving the North
Corridor, as well as expanded bus service throughout the region. 
Because the Central Business District (CBD) is the market hub of the
transit system, any future rapid transit would require a CBD
station(s).


North Corridor Transit Line 

Click HERE for graphic.

     Also in 1992, the new Interstate, I-670, opened, providing the
CBD with a 10-minute direct connection to Port Columbus International
Airport.  The 1-670 facility includes ramps linking the freeway
directly with the convention/ hotel facilities.  The proposed rail
link is also adjacent to these facilities.  The proposed Nationwide
Boulevard connector west of High Street will improve access to this
area of downtown.

     For a long time, officials from Newark in Licking County have
expressed interest in linking Newark with downtown Columbus via a
transit line.  COTA currently operates a very successful interconnect
express bus service.  When demand for this service further increases
in the future to justify transit connection via rail service, the
Panhandle rail line recently acquired by ODOT may be the long-term
solution.  Such a service, if feasible, would require station
facilities in the downtown.



MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                           2



                                                       Introduction
Economic Development

     Downtown Columbus leads the region in economic development.  The
CBD represents a 2.5 square mile area and accommodates close to
86,000 workers.  The employment forecast for the year 2010 is
101,463.  Three million square feet of office space and 1.3 million
square feet of retail space (Columbus City Center) has been
constructed in the past five years.  In the decade of the 80s, over
$2.3 billion was spent in public and private permanent improvements
within the downtown district.

     Projections call for the continuing development of the CBD, with
special focus on the northern terminus which is anchored by the new
convention center facilities.  Completed in 1993, the new Greater
Columbus Convention Center now offers approximately 300,000 square
feet of exhibition space, as well as ballroom and meeting room space,
and incorporates the former Ohio Center Complex.  The facility can
accommodate up to 50,000 customers.  The development of the new
convention facilities is spurring additional retail and hotel
development in this area.

     The upgrading and renovation of the Short North/North Market
will increase after-hours activities in that area.  The city of
Columbus has had plans for the redevelopment of the riverfront just
a few blocks away, for a long time.  This development would also
enliven the area.  All of these activity centers attract large
numbers of visitors.  A Multimodal Transportation Terminal in the
immediate vicinity of downtown will be able to serve these
attractions, and improve the economic development potential of
surrounding parcels.

Study Purpose

     The purpose of the study was to analyze the design parameters
and address the issues of integration of the terminal into all
aspects of regional transportation, land use, and economic
development.  This included planning for linkages to future
transportation systems which are currently under discussion, and the
current long range plan for COTA which is examining regional fixed
guideway transit.  An important goal for the terminal design was that
it be a facility which was a "good fit" with the surrounding downtown
environment, supportive of ongoing development. 

The study was to:

    Analyze all facets of the necessary modal interfaces and
     recommend a preliminary design upon which locational decisions
     could be based.

    Estimate passenger usage for all modes utilizing the terminal,
     including potential intermodal transfers.

    Provide an environmental assessment, including an historical 
     survey, potential air and water quality impacts, toxic
     waste/landfill problems, and  aesthetic considerations.


MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                       3



                                                       Introduction

    Analyze the beneficial economic impacts of this facility as well
     as examine the joint development opportunities with other
     public, private, and not-for-profit entities.
  
    Examine the long range cost and feasibility of a temporary
     station to serve the immediate need for intercity conventional
     rail passenger facilities.

    Estimate the terminal's construction cost and identify financing
     options.

    Determine maintenance and operations requirements.

     The Multimodal Transportation Terminal Oversight Committee,
     which had already been formed, participated in the process.
     Agencies represented included: MORPC, ODOT (Division of Rail and
     Public Transportation, Ohio High Speed Rail Authority), Franklin
     County Convention Facilities Authority, Columbus Convention
     Center, Greater Columbus Convention and Visitors Bureau, city of
     Columbus (Traffic and Development Departments, and City
     Council), North Market Development Authority, Central Ohio
     Transit Authority (COTA), Nationwide Insurance, Ohio Association
     of Rail Passengers, American Electric Power, and the Greater
     Columbus Chamber of Commerce. (See Appendix A for a list of
     meetings held with the Oversight Committee, adjacent property
     owners and other business entities.)


MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                    4



                                                     Site Selection

SITE SELECTION

Three Zones

     The MMTT requires a site located in downtown, along the 3-C rail
corridor, large enough to accommodate the envisioned building program
(transportation and joint development), accessible by different modes
from more than one street, relatively easy and available to assemble,
and environmentally clean.  Three general geographic zones were
initially identified as potentially suitable zones for the downtown
multimodal transportation terminal.

     The first zone (Zone 1) was located across the Scioto River, on
the north shore of the Scioto Peninsula, in the vicinity of the
Veterans Memorial Auditorium.  The relative location of Zone 1 with
respect to the central business district is shown below.

     The second zone (Zone 2) was located to the northeast of the
newly expanded Convention Center, between Fourth Street and State
Route 3, north of I-670.  The relative location of Zone 2 with
respect to the central business district is shown below.

     The third zone (Zone 3) encompassed the area within a three
block radius of the comer of Nationwide Boulevard and High Street. 
This Preferred Zone is within the Central Business District, adjacent
to the preferred downtown light rail corridor alignment on High
Street, already well served by COTA conventional bus service, and
well situated with respect to major vehicular access from the
regional highway system.


The Three Potential MMTT Site Zones  

Click HERE for graphic.


MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                     5



                                                      Site Selection
     Although there were available parcels in all zones which met
some of the criteria, discussions with COTA, MORPC, ODOT, and the
MMTT Oversight Committee resulted in the elimination of both Zones 1
and 2 from further consideration.  Primary considerations were remote
location with respect to the central business district, the preferred
downtown light rail corridor alignment, and COTA's local bus service
network structure.  Restricted vehicular access was also a problem
with Zones 1 and 2. As a result, Zone 3 was selected as the Preferred
Zone and more detailed parcel identification efforts were initiated.

Three Priority Sites

     Within the Preferred Zone, three sites were identified (see
Figure 5) and evaluated.  Site A is bounded by High Street,
Nationwide Boulevard, and Front Street.  Owned by Nationwide
Insurance, Conrail, and the State of Ohio, the site is currently used
for parking.  This site, with frontage along High Street, is adjacent
to the new Convention Center to the east, and to the Nationwide
Insurance Campus to the south.

     Site B, bounded by Spring Street, Marconi Boulevard, West
Street, and Nationwide Boulevard, is owned by the Columbus and
Southern Ohio Electric Company.  It is currently predominantly
vacant, and partially used for parking.

     Site C, bounded by Nationwide Boulevard, Third Street, and
Fourth Street, is owned by the Franklin County Convention Facilities
Authority and is currently used for Convention Center parking.  The
site has frontage along Mount Vernon Avenue (Nationwide Boulevard)
and the 3-C Corridor, and is adjacent to the Greater Columbus
Convention Center to the west.

Travel Demand

     For each site, COTA envisioned that the multimodal terminal
would serve the following transportation modes:

    Adjacent light rail lines (as defined for each light rail
     alternative below),

    Adjacent local bus routes,

    All feasible express bus routes as defined by the Central Ohio
     Transit Authority (COTA), and

    Intercity passenger rail service in the "3-C" corridor between
     Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus.

     It was also envisioned that taxis, "drop & ride", and bicycles
     would serve the terminal, and implied that parking sufficient
     for intercity rail passengers would be available at or near each
     site. Since the intercity rail service is still in a study
     phase, the precise parking requirements are unknown. For
     purposes of estimating travel demand, 300-500 spaces were
     assumed. COTA has assumed that local buses would not stop inside
     the terminal but would stop on High Street outside. This
     assumption did not significantly affect the demand estimates.

MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                       6



Click HERE for graphic.



                                                      Site Selection

     COTA also defined the 2010 bus system, which in many ways is
significantly different from the present bus route system; the new
system will employ a series of suburban "hubs" with multiple peak
periods.  The consultant team and MORPC have coordinated closely with
COTA to estimate peak period travel demand to the MMTT based on the
projected year 2010 volumes.  Based on this analysis, it has been
determined that ten express bus bays will be adequate to accommodate
the peak a.m. and p.m. demand periods.  The MMTT Express Bus Terminal
will function much as the existing COTA North and South Express Bus
Terminals operate, with extensive a.m. and p.m. peak period service;
the only mid-day service would be the airport shuttle bus operating
on  30 minute headways.

     Detailed demand estimates for the proposed multimodal
transportation terminal were developed for both intercity and
intracity trips to the terminal for four different light rail
alternatives and three alternative terminal sites.  The demand
estimates, in addition to being used as a criterion in evaluating
sites, were helpful in determining MMTT facility size and design
requirements and cost estimates.  A summary of this analysis follows.
(See Appendix B for a more detailed description of the methodology
and results.)

     The study design initially envisioned that intercity bus service
would be a component of the MMTT.  A detailed field survey was
conducted of the Columbus Greyhound bus terminal to collect data
sufficient to understand the volume and nature of their operations. 
The analysis revealed that Columbus is a major transfer point,
operating as a hub, with approximately 73% of the Greyhound
passengers in the Columbus station transferring from one Greyhound
bus to another.  Based on that information, the conclusion that a low
number of people would be transferring to other modes, and the large
number of bus bays required to accommodate the buses for long
layovers, it was not deemed advisable to place the Greyhound
intercity bus facilities within the MMTT.

Descriptions of Light Rail Alternatives

The "COTA 1993 Long Range System Plan" determined that

     ...  between 1986 and the year 2010, the region will continue to
     have radial travel patterns to and from the CBD.  Most of COTA's
     current routes are also radial and all of them share the highway
     network with other vehicles.  Enhancing COTA's bus system and
     adding fixed guideway rapid transit operating on a separate
     right of way will increase efficiency, relieve highway
     congestion, and improve the region's air quality.  The north
     corridor presents the best opportunity for this.  Of the eight
     travel corridors, it contains the most key traffic generators. 
     It also has the Largest number of person and work trips going to
     and from the CBD.  More person and work trips from all districts
     are attracted to and from the north corridor than any other.  As
     documented the future highway network
     corridor will not be sufficient to accommodate growth...


MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                            7



                                                      Site Selection

Since Columbus presently has no light rail service and no final
decisions about light rail service have yet been made, the
locations of future lines had to be defined.  A total of four
different alternatives were examined (see Figure 6):

1.   Alternative I comprises a line from the north, along the
current railroad right of way, from the Crosswoods commercial
center north of I-270 on High Street, joining High Street at
Goodale Street and continuing south along High Street to downtown
(ending at Mound Street). This line would be two-way and would pass
through site A; sites B and C would not be directly served.

2.   Alternative 2 follows the same line from the north as in
Alternative 1, but instead of proceeding south along High Street,
it would proceed south from Goodale Street to downtown along Third
Street, then west along Mound Street, and north along Front Street
to Goodale and back to the rail corridor. Site C would be served
directly; sites A and B would not.

3. Alternative 3 includes the light rail line from Alternative 1,
but also includes a rail line from the northwest (Hilliard Line),
along the CSX Railroad right of way to the Penitentiary site.  As
in Alternative 1, Site A would be directly served by the High
Street Light Rail Alignment; Sites B and C would not be directly
served.  The Northwest (Hilliard Line) Alignment would pass
directly through Sites A and C; Site B would not be directly
served.

4.   Alternative 4, similar to Alternative 3, includes the
northwest light rail line as far as Ohio State University. The line
then proceeds east to join the other light rail line (as in
Alternative 1). Thus site A would be served directly; sites B and C
would not.

Since this analysis was completed, the Multimodal Transportation
Corridor Study Task Force has assessed the potential for passenger
rail service in the Northwest, Northeast, and East Corridors.

Scenarios for Demand Estimation

Demand estimates were prepared for a total of eight scenarios,
defined by a terminal site (A, B, or C) and a light rail
alternative:

I -  Site A, light  rail  alternative  1
II - Site B, light  rail  alternative  1
III- Site C, light  rail  alternative  1
IV - Site A, light  rail  alternative  2
V -  Site B, light  rail  alternative  2
VI - Site C, light  rail  alternative  2
VII- Site B, light  rail  alternative  3
VIII-     Site A, light  rail  alternative  4

MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                8



Click HERE for graphic.



                                                      Site Selection

The terminal sites which were not analyzed with light rail
alternatives 3 and 4 would not be served by the additional light
rail service.  The demand estimates for these terminal sites with
Alternatives 3 and 4 can be assumed to be the same as with Light
Rail Alternative 1.

(A separate study, the Multimodal Transportation Corridor
Study/MIS, subsequently evaluated the four light rail alternatives. 
That analysis resulted in the decision to pursue Alternative I as
the preferred alternative, dropping Alternatives 2-4.)

Methodology for Intracity Demand Estimates

For each scenario, demand estimates included both intracity and
intercity demand.  The intracity demand estimates were computed in
1993 using MORPC's travel demand model.  The information provided
by MORPC included a transit network for 2010 which included light
rail alternative I and the 2010 COTA bus system, but no multimodal
terminal.  Since it was felt that one of the major advantages of
the proposed terminal would be to facilitate transfers among the
various modes, it was necessary to code each terminal site into the
transit network.  For each scenario, the appropriate light rail
lines and express bus routes were coded.  The mode choice and
transit assignment modules were then run for each scenario.

Methodology for Intercity Demand Estimates

Intercity demand estimates consisted of two components: intercity
rail service and bus.  Rail ridership estimates were obtained from
the 1992 report "Implementation Plan for High Speed Rail in Ohio"
prepared by the Ohio Rail Organization (ORO).  This report provided
sufficient information to determine annual rail ridership for the
downtown Columbus terminal for the business and non-business modes. 
The service assumptions were sixteen round trips per day between
Cincinnati and Cleveland at headways of approximately one hour. 
The annual number was converted to an average weekday number based
on information from the 1989 report "High Speed Rail Ridership
Study" prepared by Peat Marwick Main and Co.

Bus estimates were obtained using a count taken by MORPC in March
1993.  A total of 514 two-way riders boarded or disembarked in
Columbus. (It should be noted that both the rail and bus ridership
estimates were independent of the terminal location; the same
number of riders was assumed for each terminal site.) The Columbus
area destinations and modes of transfer for intercity travelers
were determined using MORPC's travel model.  Some information was
obtained from the 1988 survey of air passengers reported in the
"High Speed Rail Ridership Study." It was assumed that the
percentage of travelers parking, being dropped off, or being picked
up at the airport had autos available.  Because it is likely that
the percentage of travelers renting cars would be much lower for
rail/bus passengers than for air passengers (given the distance
from the airport to downtown and the fact that those needing autos
in Columbus would be more likely to simply drive all the


MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                      9




                                                      Site Selection


way to Columbus), it was assumed that half of the percentage of
travelers renting cars at the airport would rent for the rail/bus
modes.  It was assumed that transit and taxi passengers had no auto
available.  This totaled 54.3% of intercity passengers having no
auto available and 45.7% having an auto available (mostly Columbus
area residents).

There are four distinct groups of intercity travelers for which
trip distribution and mode choice had to be performed: business -
auto available, business auto unavailable, non-business - auto
available, and non-business - auto unavailable.

Peak Period Demand Estimation

The major source of data was information provided by COTA on the
breakdown of daily passenger boardings into different time periods,
including early morning, a.m. peak, midday, p.m. peak, night, and
late night.  The breakdowns were available by route and in the
aggregate for both express and local bus service.  These figures
show that 21% of local bus passengers and 50% of express passengers
board during the a.m. peak period (6:30-9:30 a.m.). The p.m. peak
(3:00-6:00 p.m.) figures are 29% and 44% for local and express
passengers, respectively.  In the absence of other information, it
was assumed that the passenger loads would be spread evenly over
each peak period so that the a.m. peak hour contain 7% of local
passengers and 17% of express passengers.  For the p.m. peak hour,
the figures are 10% and 15% for local and express bus service,
respectively.  These figures were applied to the daily local and
express bus ridership estimates to obtain peak hour estimates. 
Since express buses do not operate in the midday and nighttime, and
it was assumed that the light rail system would operate all day,
the local percentages were used for light rail.

No information was provided in the ORO report concerning peaking of
travel during the day.  If each of the sixteen hourly trains
carried the same number of passengers (thus assuming no peaking at
all), 6.25% of the daily demand would occur during each peak hour. 
Since it is likely that some peaking would occur, the local bus
peak percentages from COTA (7% for a.m., 10% for p.m.) seemed
reasonable estimates.  These percentages were applied to average
daily intercity rail and bus demand estimates to obtain peak hour
estimates.

Summary of Assumptions

The methodologies reflect a number of assumptions which affect the
demand estimates discussed below.  These assumptions are:

    Local buses would stop outside the terminal, and include only
     those bus routes that would otherwise pass directly adjacent
     to the terminal site.

    Light rail would not be diverted to the terminal unless it would
     otherwise have passed adjacent to it.

    Sufficient parking to satisfy the estimated demand (300-500
     spaces) would exist.



MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                     10


                                                      Site Selection

    Travelers using the multimodal terminal would behave as
     predicted by MORPC's travel model, which is based on a variety
     of data sources.
  
    Transfer penalties for the transit assignment model would be
     two minutes, as assumed in MORPC's model, between each pair of
     modes at the proposed terminal.  No transfer costs are
     assumed.

    The ORO rail estimates are assumed, implying the service
     characteristics as assumed in the ORO report.

    Intercity destinations within Columbus  would  be  distributed 
     in  the same manner as intracity destinations for similar trip
     purposes (assumption mandated by the inability to conduct an
     airport survey).

    1993 Greyhound ridership would remain constant to 2010.

    Auto access would be available to 47% of intercity passengers;
     among the others the auto mode represents taxi.

    Taxi fares are assumed to be $1.50/mile in present dollars.

    Peaking characteristics would be similar to those on current
     COTA service.

    Peak period transit ridership would be relatively uniform.

Demand Estimates

In general, demand at the multimodal terminal can be considered as
consisting of three components:

1.   Those walking or using auto to arrive at the terminal to take 
     transit,

2.   Those taking transit to the terminal and transferring to
     another transit line, and

3.   Those taking transit to the terminal and walking or using auto
     to continue to their destination.

     The total number of transit riders leaving the terminal is the 
     sum of components 1 and 2 (i.e., everyone arriving at the
     terminal for the purpose of taking transit). The number
     arriving at the  terminal by transit is the sum of components
     2 and 3. For average daily conditions, these two numbers are
     approximately the same.

     As Table 1 shows, Year 2010  demand estimates for the
     multimodal terminal would range from approximately 6,500 to
     15,000 transit passengers per day. Of this total, 3,900 would
     be intercity  travelers (3,400 rail, 500 bus). The major
     reasons for the variations among different scenarios are
     terminal location, which affects the availability of local bus
     service, and the existence of light rail service at the
     terminal.


MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            11


                                                      Site Selection

Click HERE for graphic.


Table 1 clearly shows that terminal Site A would serve more
passengers than the other two sites under the entire range of
assumptions.  Even without light rail service (alternative 2), the
terminal would serve more riders than Site C with light rail.  The
main reason appears to be the extensive local bus service provided
along High Street.  Not only would the local buses carry between
2,000 and 3,000 passengers a day to and from the terminal, but they
might also serve as downtown distributors for passengers arriving
by other modes such as express bus and light rail.  Average Daily
Terminal Users would range from 9,200 to 20,900, with Site A
serving significantly more passengers.

Demand at Multimodal Terminals in Other Cities

In order to put these demand estimations into perspective,
information was collected on ridership from terminals similar to
that proposed for Columbus.  The focus was placed on terminals that
served downtown-oriented express buses, and where possible, rail
and local buses.  Intercity rail was considered less important
since demand levels depend more on the service provided and demand
for the destinations served.  It should be noted that there are no
two terminals in the country which share precisely the same modes
and operating characteristics.  Therefore none of the terminals
described below is a perfect match for the proposed Columbus
terminal.

Boston - Haymarket Station is a transfer point between
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) express buses and
subways (both heavy and light rail lines) located on the north side
of downtown Boston.  Haymarket generally serves express buses
oriented to northern suburbs.  There is also some private express
bus activity adjacent to the site.  The ridership figures include
only MBTA express bus and subway boardings at Haymarket Station.

     Demand estimate: 9,100
     City population: 600,000
     Metro area population: 2,800,000


MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            12


                                                      Site Selection

Denver - Market Street Station is a downtown bus terminal serving
both express and local buses in Denver.  As is proposed for
Columbus, only express buses enter the (underground) facility, with
local buses stopping on the surrounding streets.  The volume
estimates include only express bus boardings.

     Demand estimate: 7,600
     City population: 500,000
     Metro area population: 1,600,000

Miami - Government Center Station is a multimodal station serving
Miami's people mover, rail rapid transit, and bus operations.  The
bus terminal is located approximately a block and a half away,
however, so only rail and people mover boardings (less transfers)
are counted.

     Demand estimate: 11,300
     City population: 400,000
     Metro area population: 1,800,000

Phoenix - Phoenix's downtown bus terminal is similar to that
proposed for Columbus, in that downtown oriented buses pass through
the terminal before or after passing through the downtown.  The
estimate given predates the revising of the downtown street
pattern, which requires circuitous routing to enter and exit the
terminal; a number of buses now avoid the terminal.

     Demand estimate: 10,000
     City population: 900,000
     Metro area population: 1,900,000

For comparison, Columbus has an estimated population of 600,000 and
a metro area population of about 1,300,000.  The demand estimates
(excluding intercity) for Site A are in the 10,000-11,000 range,
which compares well to the estimates described above.  For sites B
and C, the demand estimates are in the 3,000-4,000 range.

Site Evaluation

A set of criteria was developed to evaluate the three sites.  The
rating of each of the three sites on the criteria below is shown in
the following matrix.

    Accessibility

     -    Ridership Demand
     -    Modes Served
     -    Proximity to Freeway Interchanges (1-670/Nationwide
          Corridor)
     -    Access from Adjacent Streets
     -    Proximity to Other Major Destinations
     -    Quality of Pedestrian Environment and Access

    Site Configuration/Issues

     -    Ability to Accommodate Transportation Program
     -    Ability to Phase Construction Over Time
     -    Opportunity for Creation of Important Civic Structure


MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            13



                                                      Site Selection

    Environmental Constraints

     -    Presence of Hazardous Materials
     -    Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
     -    Impact on/Compatibility with Historic Buildings/Districts
     -    Other Environmental Considerations

    Development Issues

     -    Ownership
     -    Ease of Acquisition
     -    Cost of Acquisition
     -    Potential for Joint Development/Economic Development

A detailed review of the criteria indicated that they could be
divided into groups of primary and secondary importance.  In
several of the categories all three sites had similar ratings,
eliminating their usefulness in distinguishing between sites.  The
criteria which eventually were recognized as having critical
importance were those in the accessibility category; ridership,
access and proximity to other destinations and the freeway
interchanges were clearly of major importance in selecting a site. 
Site A had the highest rating on all but one of these criteria
(direct access from 3 adjacent streets versus 4 for Site B), with
significantly higher ridership demand and better proximity to other
major destinations.

Based on this analysis, Site A was adopted as the preferred
location by a unanimous vote of the Oversight Committee for the
Multimodal Transportation Terminal Study at their meeting on 28
March 1994.

MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                            14



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.



                                                  The Preferred Site

THE PREFERRED SITE

Planning Context

The center of gravity of downtown transportation activities is
gradually shifting north to Nationwide Boulevard and High Street. 
A new interchange (Spring/Sandusky) will provide access to the
proposed Nationwide Connector, which is planned for the area just a
few blocks west of the MMTT site.  The 1-670 Connector was just
recently completed, linking downtown with the airport and with the
proposed North Corridor light rail service planned for High Street
(currently under study).

This shift in transportation activities corresponds to the
development of the northern end of the Central Business District as
a second major activity center within downtown Columbus.  The
Preferred Site is located close to a number of planning and
development initiatives.  The newly expanded Greater Columbus
Convention Center opened in 1993, to the east of the site.  The
Short North, a developing area of restaurants, art galleries, and
shops located just north of the site, is expected to generate a
great deal of nighttime activity.  Plans for The North Market
include a relocation from its present location to an expanded
facility on an adjacent property located between Park, Vine,
Spruce, and High Streets.  This relocation is planned for October
1995.  North Market, in its new location, will have 20,000 square
feet of leasable space on the ground floor which can accommodate 43
vendors, North Market office space, and 4,000 leasable square feet
on a second floor for a potential restaurant tenant.  The existing
facility has 9,300 square feet of leasable space which can
accommodate 29 vendors.  The parking capacity will increase from
the existing 48 spaces to 130 spaces after the existing building is
demolished.

Nationwide Insurance has recently built two new office towers and
two new parks on its High Street campus to the south of the site. 
Other planning and development activities include the Franklin
County Convention Facilities Authority's desire for a hotel and
parking garage to support Convention Center activity, the Scioto
River Corridor Planning Study, and the Downtown Bikeway Connector.

Opportunities and Constraints

Placing the MMTT at the preferred site at High Street and
Nationwide Boulevard supports the following urban design and
economic development objectives (see Figure 7):

    Closing the existing gap on the west side of High Street,
     between the Short North/North Market area and the Central
     Business District, with the creation of an active building
     frontage on High Street.
    Development of an elevated pedestrian walkway to tie together
     the Convention Center on the east side of High Street with the
     major new development zone to the west.



MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                            15



Click HERE for graphic.


                                                  The Preferred Site



    Creation of an active transportation/retail/office environment
     for people walking along the west side of High Street or
     through the pedestrian bridge.

     At the same time, because of the site's central location,
     there are a number of interests with expectations for the
     integrated use of the site, along with existing site
     conditions which constrain or complicate design options for
     the site:

    The City and the Convention Facilities Authority are
     interested in the development of a hotel on the portion of the
     site just north of the Hilliard Line railroad tracks to
     support the newly expanded Convention Center.  Because of
     these interests, the MMTT has been designed in an L-shaped
     configuration to fit almost entirely within railroad property.

    Nationwide Insurance wants to preserve a portion of the site
     located across from its existing campus and on the southwest
     side of the parcel (near the Front Street/Nationwide Boulevard
     intersection) for future development.

    The North Market Historic District, with its historic
     character, has expansion plans which will maintain the
     ambiance of the area; North Market, however, has needs for
     service vehicle access, parking availability, and internal
     traffic circulation.  North Market would like the MMTT to
     "blend" well with its expanded facilities in terms of style,
     building height, and building orientation, to complement the
     North Market plans.

    The geometry of the existing rail lines and criteria for
     passenger facilities limit opportunities for the placement of
     rail platforms.  The location of the existing structural
     supports for the walkway between the Convention and Ohio
     Centers, the High Street Viaduct, and the walkway/pick-up and
     drop-off zone further limits the placement options for the
     passenger rail platform.

    The topography and multi-level nature of the site resulting
     from the depressed railroad alignment complicates circulation
     and restricts placement of various program components.

    High Street is a state route and may have curbcut or width
     restrictions.

    The site is owned by a combination of public and private
     entities having diverse long-term goals and objectives.  The
     MMTT and joint development components create access demands
     and requirements for frontage and curb cuts along High Street,
     Front Street, and Nationwide Boulevard.  Alternative access
     schemes (including pick-up/drop-off locations) were examined
     during the course of the study.  This analysis should be
     carried further in subsequent planning and design phases.


Joint Development

There are three major site components which had to be incorporated
Into the conceptual site plan:

    The L-shaped Multimodal Transportation Center (A), located
     between Front and High Streets, is specifically designed to
     accommodate components B and C (see Figure 8).


MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                            16



Click HERE for graphic.


                                                  The Preferred Site

    The large parcel on the southwest corner of the site at
     Nationwide Boulevard and High Street (C) is currently a
     parking lot in private ownership.  There are no definite plans
     for the site, but the integrity of the site for future
     development has been preserved.

    The northern end of the site, between Front and High Streets
     (B), has been preserved to accommodate the future development
     of a hotel and related parking structure to accommodate
     Convention Center visitors.



Click HERE for graphic.

Traffic Considerations

The MMTT will generate considerable vehicular and bus traffic
daily.  Existing bus activity at the present North Terminal will be
relocated to the MMTT facility, and transit operations will be
somewhat increased due to expanded COTA transit service.  A
detailed traffic impact study/assessment at intersection level of
detail will be an integral part of a later phase of this project,
when the conceptual designs and phasing of implementation are more
defined.  Specific items which might be addressed in such a study
include the following:

    Traffic concentration on Vine Street (service vehicles)
     supporting a potential hotel and garage,

    Vehicular traffic to the garages,

    Impacts on North Market,

    Determination of the exact location of the LRT island on High
     Street and its impact on bus access from High Street, and

    Front Street multiple curbcuts.



MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            17



                          Multimodal Transportation Terminal Program

MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL PROGRAM

The street level of the L-shaped MMTT is composed of four major
components (see Figure 9):

A.   Concourse, ticketing and waiting area, retail and concessions
B.   Vertical circulation core providing access to the passenger
     rail platforms one level below and to the elevated pedestrian
     bridges, garage, and potential hotel one level above
C.   Taxi stand, pick-up/drop-off area
D.   COTA express bus station

The program was developed in close consultation with COTA and other
participants on the Oversight Committee, and it reflects the
possible need to establish an interim intercity rail terminal prior
to building the full-build multimodal terminal.  Two basic
assumptions regarding rail passenger platforms and service were key
in the development of the program: (1) for initial conventional
rail service, platforms will be located on the Cincinnati Line; (2)
when there is sufficient passenger volume and therefore rail
passenger service to justify longer platforms and the development
of the Hilliard Line for intercity service, it is assumed that the
passenger rail platforms will be relocated to the Hilliard Line.

The interim terminal is designed to accommodate service on the
Cincinnati Line and can be built independent of any other
components in the MMTT.  The interim terminal is designed as the
first phase of the full-build MMTT and can be efficiently and
economically incorporated into the full-build terminal design.  The
full-build MMTT is designed to accommodate either passenger rail
platform alternative (Cincinnati or Hilliard Line).

There are considerable efficiencies and cost savings in
constructing the full-build terminal at the outset, but the program
and the design concept have been developed to permit maximum
flexibility.  Any of the major transportation components of the
program can be built independently or in any combination.  The
following preliminary program was developed to determine site
feasibility and rough cost estimates.

Building Program

The basic building program includes some combination of the
following four components:

1    Interim Intercity Rail Terminal: This program was developed to
     provide conventional intercity passenger rail service with a
     small terminal for the minimum services required, in the event
     that conventional intercity passenger rail service is
     established prior to the need for a full-build multimodal
     terminal. The program includes a rail passenger platform on
     the Cincinnati Line, a minimum build rail passenger terminal
     at street level on High Street, a taxi stand/pick-up and drop-
     off area, and a parking garage for rail passengers.




MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            18



Click HERE for graphic.



                          Multimodal Transportation Terminal Program

                                                       Square Feet
Temporary Railroad Station                                   38,975
Intercity rail platform (600') along Cincinnati Line         18,000
Covered walkway                                               7,800
Core @ grade                                                 13,175
Temporary head house                                         13,175
4 escalators, 1 elevator
Parking Garage (332 spaces) on 3 1/2 levels*                127,000
     2 staircases, 1 elevator

*The parking garage would also be a component of the full-build
Multimodal Terminal.

2  Full-Build Multimodal Terminal: This terminal provides
conventional intercity passenger rail service with a large terminal
providing space for increased passenger amenities and COTA
administrative offices (see Figures 10 and 11). The program for the
terminal has been developed not only to provide all of the
requisite transportation services, but also to create an active
public space with offices, food services and newsstands, and other
retail concessions. These amenities serve the convenience needs of
passengers and, by generating additional pedestrian activity,
create a heightened sense of security within the terminal.

                                                       Square Feet
Railroad Station                                            72,000
     (Intercity rail platform (1200')
     along Hilliard Line & concourse)
Permanent Head House                                        47,000
     Concourse                                              33,000
     Ticketing/baggage/office                                6,500
     Food stalls (4)                                         4,200
     Free standing kiosks (4)                                2,500
     Toilets                                                   900
     10 escalators, 1 grand stair, 2 elevators
Mezzanine & 3rd Level Office Space                          31,200
     Open office area (x2) (COTA and leasable)              13,000
     Toilets (x2)                                              600
     Lobby and core (x2)                                     2,000
     2 elevators, 2 staircases

3  COTA Express Bus Terminal: The bus terminal could be built by
itself or in conjunction with either the Interim Rail or Full-Build
Multimodal Terminals. The program for the express bus terminal is
based on the existing South COTA Express Bus Terminal on the street
level of the City Center Garage. The center platform, saw-toothed
bus bay configuration allows access to and from both High and Front
Streets, providing maximum operational flexibility.

                                                     Square  Feet
Bus Terminal                                           40,850
MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                            19



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.



                          Multimodal Transportation Terminal Program

4  Pedestrian Walkway: A second-level pedestrian walkway to the
Convention Center and High Street, light rail center platform, and
the new development zone west of Front Street could be added to any
of the above combinations.  This pedestrian walkway system would be
an extension of the existing system at the northern end of the
Central Business District and could integrate all of the office
buildings, hotels, and garages currently linked into these second-
level bridges. Thus, anyone working in this area, as well as anyone
going to or from the Convention Center, could enter or depart from
any of the modes at the Multimodal Terminal and walk through this
elevated, all-weather, enclosed bridge system. 

                                                  Square  Feet
  Public Walkway                                       21,750
          Within Head House                            10,500
          Skywalk                                      11,250
          4 escalators, 2 elevators

Site Program

The site program includes parking, taxi and pick-up/drop-off area,
and bus circulation.  The program for the remainder of the site
will be site-specific, depending upon joint development
opportunities.

MMTT Feasibility Study: December                                  20

 

   Functional Design Concept



FUNCTIONAL DESIGN CONCEPT

The program and conceptual design reflect the desire to develop an
active "people place." The high-ceilinged, spacious concourse is
active and inviting to passengers; adjacent to the concourse is the
"circulation core" that facilitates pedestrian movement between all
of the terminal's functions.  The space was designed to provide
easy pedestrian circulation and interconnections between all
transportation and non-transportation uses.  The heavily used areas
are close together to minimize transfer distances and to enhance
ridership.  One-minute transfers are possible between any
combination of express bus, light rail, intercity rail, shuttle
bus, local bus, park and ride, taxis, and pick-up/drop-off uses. 
The terminal is designed to be flexible while promoting efficient
interconnections.

From an urban design perspective, the terminal will contribute to
the High Street development corridor.  The building facade on High
Street will be low, consistent with the height of the adjoining
North Market District and the new Convention Center.  Most of the
High Street facade at street level will be glass, opening into the
active environment within the terminal, thereby contributing life
and vitality to this stretch of the west side of High Street which
is currently a "dead zone".  In effect, the terminal will fill the
gap between the Short North/North Market areas and the CBD by
creating a continuous and active building frontage along the High
Street corridor.  It is premature to consider exactly what the
predominant building materials should be, but the MMTT interior
should be flooded with natural light and the street level facade
should be as transparent as possible, as befits an important
downtown retail street.

MMTT Internal Circulation

Figure 12 illustrates the MMTT internal core - a three-storey, sky-
lit, vertical space (see Figure 4) which provides access between
all transportation modes and to High Street, the Convention Center,
and other destinations.  This design concept not only increases the
proximity of the building components and access points, but also
does so in such a way as to allow clear sight lines between
destinations.  The core is designed as a large open space - much
like the great railroad terminals of the last century - in which
passengers can see their destination from any point within the
terminal.  This assists the MMTT users in finding their way between
modes and to other building uses.  By visually connecting all of
the transportation modes, office space, and retail concessions,
surveillance is also increased, thereby enhancing the user's sense
of security.

Site Circulation and Access
The functional components of the MMTT are organized on the site to
facilitate both pedestrian and vehicular access.  It is, in fact,
easy to enter the building from every direction (see Figure 13). 
Pedestrian entrances at the three corners of the


MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            21



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.


                                           Functional Design Concept


L-shaped building allow visible and convenient access from the
south (CBD) at the corner of Nationwide Boulevard and High Street,
from the main entrance and Convention Center pedestrian bridge at
the northern end, and from the taxi and pick-up/drop-off area and
the Front Street pedestrian bridge at the west end of the building. 
The Express Bus Terminal layout, with access from both High and
Front Streets, provides COTA with a visible presence on High
Street, increasing passengers' sense of orientation and assisting
them in locating their mode of choice.

Vehicular entrances are clustered on Front Street (COTA Express Bus
Terminal; MMTT Garage; and the taxi and pick-up/drop-off area) and
on High Street (COTA Express Bus Terminal), thus minimizing the
impact of curb cuts on pedestrian circulation and on the continuous
active building frontage on High Street.  The North Market and CBD
are linked with each other and the MMTT along the handsome,
landscaped High Street sidewalk (see Figure 3).

MMTT Terminal Design

The building comprises the following four levels:

Sub-Grade: Figure 14 illustrates that the vertical circulation
core, including elevators and escalators, is the same for both the
interim and full-build passenger rail terminals, providing cost
savings when the interim terminal is converted to full-build. 
Because the terminals are designed around the same vertical
circulation core, both the Cincinnati Line and Hilliard Line
passenger rail platforms can be built to operate with either the
interim or full-build terminal at street level.  Both terminals are
a short walking distance from either platform (Hilliard or
Cincinnati Line).

Street Level: As with the sub-grade level, both the interim and
full-build terminals utilize the same vertical circulation core and
the interim terminal is designed to be converted to full-build at a
minimum cost.  The two terminals have the same relationship to the
taxi and pick-up/drop-off area, express bus terminal and pedestrian
access.  However, the interim terminal is designed as a minimum
functional facility, while the full-build terminal is designed as a
major civic building with a lively food, retail, and office area,
active from early morning until late evening.  The full-build
terminal's architectural presence on High Street, and potential for
a major new plaza at Nationwide Boulevard and High Street,
contribute to the active frontage and street life along High Street
(see Figures 3 and 15).

Levels 2 and 3: COTA administrative space on level two, and
leasable office space on level three, are located on mezzanines
overlooking the large, active concourse below (see Figure 16).  The
mezzanine on level two, directly and visibly accessible from the
concourse, links to the two pedestrian bridges across High and
Front Streets and into the second level of the potential hotel. 
The mezzanine is designed as an extension of the concourse below
and could accommodate cafes and seating areas (see Figure 4).

Figures 17 and 18 illustrate the relationship between the four
levels.



MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994                             22



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.



                                           Functional Design Concept



Functional Design Concepts

Two functional design concepts were developed.  The Flexible
Concept is designed to allow building components to be constructed
in any order (see Figure 19).  The program components, while
designed to work together efficiently, are designed as a series of
individual elements.  Flexibility is a key issue because of the
unpredictable sequencing of both transit modes and private
components within a multimodal center.  The public components must
be built in response to funding and policy initiatives, while the
private components are driven by market forces.  For example,
because of federal funding priorities, funding for the rail portion
of the MMTT might be available earlier than that for the bus
component; the converse could also be true.  This concept is
designed to allow for the phased introduction of new modes and
services, while maintaining service on existing modes, and allowing
for the future addition of private development components. 
Depending on the sequencing, incremental construction phasing could
add to construction cost by eliminating cost savings which could be
achieved by constructing the entire facility at one time.

The Integrated Concept represents a more efficient station which
could be achieved if funding availability is such that all of the
transportation components can be built at same time, allowing
sharing of support spaces and ancillary activities.  This concept
allows more integration of the various transportation program
elements, eliminating redundancy, preserving more space for other
uses, and resulting in a more cost effective design.
Figure 20 illustrates the MMTT within its urban design context.

Intercity Passenger Rail Platform Concepts

With initial passenger rail service, a 600-foot platform on the 3-C
corridor southbound track would be sufficient, and would allow use
of the existing railroad bridge over the Scioto River.  This
alternative would accommodate two round-trip trains each day, and
would entail minimum expense.

As the volume of passengers and frequency of service increase, a
center platform will be required for both the northbound and
southbound tracks.  The design for this platform allows room for
the addition of tracks and platforms for commuter rail or light
rail service to the northwest.  The geometry, vertical circulation,
and structural design for this platform is very efficient.  This
platform would use the same escalators as the platform described
above for conventional rail service, and could therefore be built
at a later date to replace that platform, with minimum impact to
the terminal.  This service would utilize the Buckeye or Hilliard
Line and would require a new railroad bridge over the Scioto River,
as well as significant track work; the cost for this platform would
be substantially higher than that entailed for the platform
described above.
(See Appendix C for a more detailed discussion.)


MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            23




Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.


                                           Functional Design Concept

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Because the MMTT is designed so that components can be constructed
independently, and in any sequence, to respond to funding and
policy decisions and market conditions as they evolve, costs will
vary considerably depending on which components are constructed,
and in what sequence.  This preliminary cost estimate is based upon
the assumption that a minimum facility would include:

    interim railroad station on the Cincinnati Line with
     ticketing, baggage, and waiting areas

    COTA express bus station

    parking garage to serve intercity rail passengers

    taxi and pick-up/drop-off area

The maximum facility assumes the full-build program described
earlier in this report, which includes the following additions to
the minimum facility:

    expanded railroad station with rail service on the Hilliard
     Line (although the maximum facility can also operate with
     passenger rail service on the Cincinnati Line)

    retail/concessions area and leasable office space COTA office
     space

Preliminary Cost Estimate.-

Minimum Facility*

       Interim Railroad Terminal                  $3.3 million
       COTA Bus Station                           $2.5 million
       Parking Garage                             $3.8 million
       Site utilities, general requirements       $3.5 million
       special conditions, design and
       construction contingencies
       Total Minimum Facility                     $13.1 million

Maximum Facility*                                 $25 million

*  Does not include costs for rail alignment and passenger rail
platforms.  Cincinnati Line estimate for platforms, canopies,
lighting, and public address system is $600,000 (see Appendix C).

See Appendix D for the more detailed cost estimate.

Models for Operations and Maintenance

There are a number of models in effect at multimodal transportation
centers around the country.  Without a decision on who will own and
operate the Columbus Multimodal Transportation Terminal, it is
premature to specify an operations and maintenance plan at this
time.  For example, if a private entity were to own and operate the
facility, they might handle everything except


MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            24



                                           Functional Design Concept



actual rail operations.  If the Transit Authority were to own the
terminal, they may or may not be interested in providing
maintenance and/or security for non-transit areas.  The plan should
be tailored to suit the entity (or entities) who will own and
operate the terminal.

Results of discussions with two transit authorities operating
similar terminals are summarized below:

     South Station, Boston, MA: The station is owned by the
     Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.  A private
     developer/real estate management firm was selected to develop
     the station and adjacent joint development components.  That
     private firm was given a 65-year lease on the station, and was
     responsible for managing the design and construction phases,
     as well as for ongoing maintenance and security at the
     station.  Vendors have leases with this management company,
     which contracts out maintenance and security operations. 
     Amtrak, with rail management expertise, is responsible for
     security on the tracks.  This system has been very successful,
     with day to day operations and maintenance running smoothly
     and efficiently.  The private developer is expert at managing
     the retail areas of the terminal and benefits from the captive
     market.  The successful retail areas help to provide an active
     environment and density of users which in turn promotes
     security.

In Columbus, the newly formed Ohio Rail Development Commission
(ORDC) or Amtrak could be responsible for rail operations, with
COTA managing the bus and COTA administrative operations.  A
private entity could then manage the retail and concession spaces. 
The precise arrangements should be developed when the details of
sequencing and involvement of the various parties are known.

    Union Station, Hartford, MA: The station is currently owned by
     the Greater Hartford Transit District (GHTD).  It was
     originally developed through a partnership between the GHTD
     and a private developer who invested $4 million in exchange
     for a leasehold on all non-transportation areas.  At that
     time, maintenance and security were handled by the private
     developer, and all private tenants had leases with the
     developer.  The transit providers had leases with GHTD.  Since
     that time, GHTD has taken over ownership and management of the
     entire facility (approximately one year ago).  GHTD was not
     satisfied with the developer's management of the facility and
     felt that their own more rigorous procurement procedures would
     result in a more efficiently run facility.

The mix of non-transportation uses has recently been changed, with
the food court area being leased to a night club.  In order to
maintain daytime activity, the 10,000 square foot Great Hall will
be developed as a Visitors Center with arts and crafts and similar
type booths.  The space is also rented for banquets and other
events.  The program for the station, which has remained constant,
includes an 18,000 square foot transit space, a 10,000 square foot
waiting room, and a 40,000 square foot commercial space.  GHTD felt
that this breakdown could only be successful if they could realize
financial benefit from the 10,000 square foot waiting area.  GHTD
also stressed the importance of



MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                            25



                                           Functional Design Concept

adequate paid parking as a key financial factor, and recommended
limiting waiting and other non-revenue producing areas.

Maintenance

Two alternative maintenance models are outlined below:

    COTA and/or ORDC develops and owns the facility, leasing space
     to retail and food enterprises, Amtrak, and others, with COTA
     retaining responsibility for all maintenance.  Lessees would
     contract with COTA for maintenance of their areas.

    A private developer builds, owns and maintains the facility,
     leasing space to COTA, as well as retail and food enterprises,
     Amtrak or other intercity rail operator, and others.  The
     developer assumes responsibility for all maintenance.

Security

The MMTT should be designed so that all elements (express bus
station, concourse, COTA office space, access to pedestrian bridges
and hotel lobby) can be cut off from one another and secured
independently.  AR transportation facilities would be closed at
night.  Two alternative security models are outlined below:

    COTA develops and owns the facility, and is responsible for
     all security.

    A private developer develops and owns the facility, and
     contracts with a private security service for all security.

The Central Ohio Transit Authority and ORDC are two of the top
candidates to operate and maintain the facility.  They both have
the expertise and the ability to secure funding for the
construction of the facility, and maintain the high standards
established on the High Street corridor.  The facility will be open
to the public most of the day.  It will only be closed for security
reasons during late-night hours.  Experience at other MMTTs has
shown the importance of operating and maintaining the MMTT at an
"airport level" quality standard.  Either COTA or ORDC could
subcontract to private contractors who have the resources and
experience to provide maintenance and security.


MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                26            



                                Implementation and Joint Development


IMPLEMENTATION AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT

This section identifies alternative development strategies for the
acquisition, parcelization, and financing of a multimillion dollar
joint development project which includes construction of a new
Multimodal Transportation Terminal in downtown Columbus, Ohio.

The questions addressed here are not those related to the basic
desirability of such a project, its likely design appearance, or
the process for obtaining public review, input, and comment.  The
issues are, rather, which parties have the capabilities and
resources needed for implementation of the project, and what
implementation role is appropriate for each in light of the
resources it "brings to the table."

Two strategies are identified below - one of which is primarily an
effort led by the public sector, and the other of which is largely
a private sector initiative.  At the present stage in the project's
evolution, many of the opportunities and constraints to
implementation can not yet be known.  Numerous combinations and
variations of these basic strategies are possible and will no doubt
be employed as the process unfolds, and those opportunities and
constraints, as well as the objectives, of each of the players
become more clear.

The Players

It is important at the outset to understand which players will have
an authoritative voice in decision making regarding the design,
financing, and construction of the project, and which will be
important supporters but not decision makers.

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission

The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission plays a key role in the
Columbus region in identifying transportation and other
infrastructure projects which are required, and in exploring their
feasibility.  MORPC and its MMTT Oversight Committee are directing
the consultant analyses and planning work on the Multimodal
Terminal and the joint development project of which it is a part.

MORPC works cooperatively with the Central Ohio Transit Authority
on a range of issues, and conducts studies for COTA such as the
present studies of the MMTT and the Multimodal Transportation
Corridor.  As the Columbus area's designated Metropolitan Planning
Organization, MORPC is also a major 'pipeline" to state and federal
agencies, preparing grant applications and (in the case of ISTEA
applications, for instance) making formal findings regarding
regional transportation project priorities.

MORPC can play several important roles in the joint development
project, including the mobilization of public support, liaison with
the Ohio Rail

MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                            27



                                Implementation and joint Development


Development Commission and other appropriate state and federal
agencies, and securing of funding for specific studies.

Central Ohio Transit Authority

The Central Ohio Transit Authority operates an extensive bus
transit operation throughout its service region.  COTA's farebox
revenues cover a portion of operating costs, but the primary
funding for COTAs budget is derived from a 0.25 percent sales tax. 
If COTA is to expand its services to keep up with growth in the
region, it will be necessary to increase its local sales tax
support.

COTA will be a key participant in the joint development project. 
One of the Multimodal Terminal's components is a new express bus
terminal to replace the current COTA express bus terminal on the
north side of downtown.  Sale of the present facility can be used
either exclusively for the purchase of the land option or the land
itself, or it could be leveraged by using federal money in order to
increase the amount of funding.

If the North Multimodal Transportation Corridor light rail service
currently under study by COTA and MORPC is constructed, a new
station is proposed to be located within the High Street right-of-
way immediately adjacent to the MMTT and the Convention Center
across the street.  In the Northwest Corridor, also under study by
COTA and MORPC, commuter rail service is proposed which would
utilize the Conrail Hilliard Line tracks which pass through the
proposed MMTT site.  Another component of the terminal would be a
rail station to accommodate these commuter rail trains.  The
ability to accommodate this service was part of the rationale for
the selection of the High Street site for the MMTT.  Capital cost
financing for COTA's Northwest Corridor commuter rail service, if
constructed, could provide additional funding for appropriate
portions of the MMTT.

Ohio Rail Development Commission

The recently formed Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) has
both a clear mandate and sweeping powers to support all types of
rail service and facilities in the state, including intercity rail,
commuter, and freight service.

Among other powers, ORDC can provide technical and consulting
services and funding for studies, design, and other analyses.  ORDC
has broad powers to acquire (and appropriate), sell, and swap land
and facilities.  The Commission can give grants and loans, and can
finance the capital costs for all kinds of facilities using federal
and state funds, direct sale of bonds and other sources.

ORDC has a very clear mandate to support and work closely with the
private sector at every step, and can be involved in cooperative
design and engineering, land assembly, project financing, real
estate development, construction, and operation of facilities.


MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            28



                                Implementation and joint Development


ORDC should be a major player in the development and implementation
of the entire joint development project, and the MMTT component in
particular.  The ORDC role could include work with Conrail to
acquire Conrail's portion of the site (land and/or air rights), and
teaming with COTA for negotiations with state and federal agencies
on many other aspects of the project, including financing.

City of Columbus

The city of Columbus will be an important player in the planning
process for the joint development project, particularly as it may
relate to a potential arena site, the Penitentiary site, or other
development projects in the downtown area.  It is also possible
that because of the project's unique attributes and the likely
requirement for a high density of development to offset the costs
of the public amenities, the project may require relief from
zoning, environmental, or other regulatory controls.

The city's role in finance and construction of the project may be
limited to ensuring the timely provision of public infrastructure
improvements (street modifications, signalization, pedestrian area
improvements, etc.) supportive of the project, and lending strong
public political support to all applications for public funding
related to the project.

Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority

Because the MMTT will provide transportation access by all modes to
the Convention Center, and because the joint development project
may also be the site of a major new convention-oriented hotel, the
Convention Facilities Authority should participate in the public
planning process for the project.  The Authority, with its intimate
ties to the statewide business community, can also play an
important role in disseminating positive information about the
project as it unfolds, and in developing and maintaining support
for the project within the business community.

It is unlikely that the Authority would be a direct participant in
the actual financing or construction of the project.  Two
exceptions are possible, however.  One would be possible
involvement in provision of a grade separated pedestrian access way
across High Street from the MMTT facility to the Convention Center
and adjacent sites.  This would likely require the Authority to
assume a share of the capital cost and ongoing maintenance costs. 
The second possible involvement would be via some role in the hotel
and parking garage portion of the development.  No need for any
such involvement is clear at this time.


Conrail
Conrail will clearly be a key player throughout the process of
acquisition, finance, development, and operation of the facility. 
Conrail presently owns the central portion of the site, and
operates frequent freight service on two different branches which
pass through the site.


MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            29



                                Implementation and Joint Development



Provisions must be incorporated in the project to maintain this
service, including difficult issues which will continue to exist
during operation of the project, such as the transportation of
hazardous and toxic cargoes on tracks beneath the new development. 
Operation of passenger and freight service on the same tracks
raises liability issues (similar to those on most tracks in the
country) which must be addressed.  For these reasons, Conrail
should be formally involved in the next phase of design
investigations for the project.

Assuming that Conrail will not wish to be a financial participant
in the project, acquisition of Conrail land and/or air rights will
also be required.  Although this will likely be agreed to by a
willing buyer and willing seller, the ORDC has clear authority to
appropriate property from railroads and other owners when necessary
for "... public convenience and welfare" and COTA has powers of
eminent domain.

A final role which Conrail can hopefully play will be to remain
"neutral' during public debate regarding the project.  Conrail has
no reason to publicly support any such project other than the
revenues anticipated from sale of air rights and excess land, but
simple indications that the joint development project and the MMTT
will not negatively affect freight rail operations in the area will
be important.

Nationwide Insurance Company

Nationwide Insurance will clearly lead the private sector
involvement in the project.  As current owner of a major portion of
the site, and also as a leading Columbus business which has
invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Columbus real estate
development in recent decades, Nationwide brings valuable resources
to the table.  These include site ownership, vast financial
resources, political "clout," extensive experience in real estate
development in the city, and a strong and respected position within
the business community of Columbus and the state.

In addition to these resources, Nationwide also has a legitimate
interest in protecting (and enhancing) the value of its other real
estate holdings in the immediate vicinity of the site, which range
from its newly constructed corporate headquarters facility to
surface parking lots which are attractive locations for future
development.

Depending upon the implementation strategy pursued by the public
sector actors, Nationwide's role could range from being a key
supporter and participant in the implementation process to being
the leader of the process with resultant ownership of most if not
all of the project.  The shaping of Nationwide's role will
obviously require thoughtful and frank discussions throughout the
process.  Without a relationship of cooperation and trust between
Nationwide and the public participants, the project is unlikely to
be consummated.

Private Interests

There has been interest expressed by a private entity regarding the
existing COTA North Express Bus Terminal.  Revenues from the sale
or lease of the


MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            30



                                Implementation and Joint Development

existing terminal could be applied to the construction and
operation of the new North Express Bus Terminal.

Others

Numerous other participants will have involvement in public
discussion and review of the project, but not in the financing and
implementation process described here.  These will likely include
other railroads, other hotel operators, supporters and detractors
of the Arena, the Columbus Dispatch and television media, elected
representatives at the city, regional and state level, and a host
of others.

Components of the Project

The components of the overall joint development project have been
extensively described elsewhere and are briefly summarized below.

Nationwide Site

The southernmost portion of the site, with frontage on both
Nationwide Boulevard and Front Street, is owned by Nationwide
Insurance.  Nationwide currently has no plans for the site.

Convention-Oriented Hotel

The Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority and others
perceive a need for construction of a convention-oriented hotel
near the Convention Center.  The northernmost portion of the joint
development project, which is owned partially by Nationwide
Insurance and partially by Conrail, appears to be an excellent
location.  Estimates of size have ranged from 200 to 700 rooms.

Parking for Hotel, Offices

Separate parking facilities are contemplated on the joint
development site for the Convention Center hotel, for Convention
Center events, and for the MMTT.

Multimodal Terminal

The Multimodal Terminal (MMTT) portion of the joint development
project has several components:

    A light rail station for the proposed COTA North Multimodal
     Transportation Corridor light rail service, which would be
     located in the center of High Street between the MMTT facility
     and the Convention Center.
    Provision for future passenger platforms for potential future
     commuter rail service on the tracks of the existing Conrail
     Hilliard Line.
    Provision for future platforms to accommodate the proposed
     Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati intercity passenger rail
     service.



MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                            31



                                Implementation and Joint Development

-    A COTA express bus terminal to replace the existing facility.
-    A taxi stand.
-    "Drop-ride" and other short-term stopping areas.
-    A limited amount of ancillary retail uses (coffee shop, news
     stand, etc.) to serve transit patrons.
-    New administrative office space for COTA.

Interior and Exterior Public Open Space and amenities

As a major public facility, the MMTT will incorporate generous
interior and exterior public spaces.  Interior and exterior spaces
in all portions of the joint development project should be
interwoven to enhance both the design unity and the efficiency of
the entire project.

Development Strategies

Immediate Actions

There are four steps which COTA should undertake immediately
regardless of which longer-range strategy is pursued for the joint
development project and the MMTT.  These are:

1.   COTA and ORDC should immediately initiate discussions with
     Conrail regarding acquisition of (at a minimum) an option to
     purchase the air rights over the portion of the joint
     development site presently owned by Conrail.  There are
     several reasons behind this recommendation.

The first reason is the need to Firmly secure the future ability to
use the site for transportation purposes, and to ensure that some
other party does not acquire the air rights for an unrelated or
inappropriate use.  It is extremely important that the option of
creating a station at the High Street location be secured, not only
for COTA's immediate needs but also because it is the best downtown
location for a station for the proposed Cleveland-Columbus--
Cincinnati intercity passenger rail service.  Ownership of the air
rights over the Conrail parcel is the key to preserving that option
for both the short run and long run.

The second reason is to ensure that COTA has actual legal control
of that portion of the site required for the L-shaped MMTT design.

The third reason is to discuss the option with Conrail now, while
Conrail can see the additional potential for a much larger and
financially advantageous deal (purchase of its entire North
Multimodal Transportation Corridor right-of-way) still on the
horizon, rather than viewing this purchase in isolation as a small
"one-shot" deal which offers little real reward for Conrail.

2.   COTA should augment its internal staff capacity for handling
     real estate acquisitions, financing, and construction. Both
     the MMTT and the North Multimodal Transportation Corridor, as
     well as subsequent commuter rail and light rail corridors,
     will require such capacity. Professional expertise in these
     fields is as important during the feasibility analysis and EIS
     phases of a project as during implementation.


MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994                             32



                                Implementation and joint Development

The preferable option for augmenting this professional capacity
would be to hire seasoned staff members who have gained relevant
experience and have demonstrated capability at another transit
agency.  In addition to the usual process of advertising widely for
candidates, Rick Simonetta (former COTA General Manager) and others
familiar with COTA's organization, may also be helpful in
identifying candidates.  Another, less effective, option for
building this capability at COTA would be to contract with a real
estate development company which has direct experience in public
sector joint development.  This option would likely be more costly
and less satisfactory to COTA in the long run.

3.   COTA should consider combining the Multimodal Terminal and
     North Multimodal Transportation Corridor projects into a
     single package in all discussions with the railroads, the Ohio
     Rail Development Commission, the city of Columbus, and others. 
     Conducting separate negotiations with Conrail, for example,
     for acquisition of the MMTT site and acquisition of the North
     Corridor right-of-way would reduce COTA's ability to make
     advantageous negotiating tradeoffs between the projects. 
     However, if combining the projects would delay either project,
     the two should proceed independently.

A long range development and financing strategy can only be
sketched in broad outline at this early stage of the project.  Two
fundamentally different approaches are possible, however, and each
presents unique opportunities and constraints.  One approach is for
the project to be guided primarily by the public sector
participants, acting together as a team.  The other approach is to
designate the private sector participants as the primary driver of
the process.

Public Sector Leadership Strategy

An implementation process led by the public sector players will
require an aggressive and confident stance on their part (not
unlike that of the best urban renewal agencies a few decades ago). 
Hesitation, indecision, and delay will erode the confidence of
private sector participants, investors, and the general public.

The following steps outline a scenario for implementation of the
project using this approach:

1.   COTA and ORDC immediately acquire a multi-year option to
     purchase  the air rights over Conrail's tracks and any Conrail
     land within the site other than freight track right-of-way.
     The purpose of the acquisition is to preserve the ability to
     use the site for future transportation purposes including bus,
     commuter rail, and/or intercity passenger rail service.
     Potential funding sources for the purchase include state funds
     (possible via ORDC) and ISTEA funds.
2.   After passage of the COTA Sales Tax increase, preliminary
     design and engineering of the MMTT component of the project
     are undertaken by COTA and its consultants, building upon the
     present  study. The  purpose is to refine the design,
     establish realistic costs, and define the relationship of the



MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            33



                                Implementation and Joint Development


MMTT to abutting uses within the overall joint development project. 
COTA establishes a working Task Force for this process including
COTA, ORDC, the city of Columbus, the Franklin County Convention
Facilities Authority, Nationwide Insurance, and Conrail to ensure
input and coordination.  Meetings are private project working
sessions, not public meetings.

3.   Abutting sites or portions of sites which may need to be
     acquired by COTA (or possibly appropriated by ORDC) to
     maximize the efficiency of the site are identified.  The
     potential increase in property values of abutting sites is
     estimated for later use in accordance with the ORDC
     legislation, which provides for a special assessment of up to
     20 percent of the increase in value of sites which are
     abutting, adjacent, or would other-wise increase in value due
     to the existence of the new rail facility.

4.   COTA and Nationwide, in bilateral discussions, determine
     whether the entire joint development site will be developed as
     a combined and physically integrated development or not.
     Future allocation  of responsibility for operation,
     management, liability, and costs among the parties to such a
     combined project will also be discussed and resolved, prior to
     proceeding  with a combined project.

5.   If it is determined instead that the components of the joint
     development site should be implemented separately, COTA
     proceeds with preparation of full design, engineering,
     construction documents, bidding, and construction of the
     project as it would with any other construction project. The
     working Task Force established earlier remains active as  a
     mechanism for  coordination and problem solving among the
     parties, but is not a substitute for direct COTA relationships
     with Conrail and  Nationwide Insurance, who are abutting
     property owners.

A variety of potential sources will be tapped for funding of 
components of the MMTT facility.  These could include ISTEA and
other federal sources. COTA and ORDC work cooperatively to secure
funding, and perhaps file joint applications for the funding.

Construction of COTA's portion of the facility may be financed in
part by revenues from the sale of COTA's existing bus facility, as
well as by revenue bonds issued by ORDC and backed by pledged COTA
revenues from parking facilities located on the COTA portion of the
joint development site. The revenues could be from parking owned by
COTA, or revenues from leasing the air rights for parking
constructed and operated by others (such as the developer of the
hotel or the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority).

Additional ORDC funds will be required to fund the intercity
passenger rail service components of the project (including a
portion of the site acquisition and project administrative and
consultant costs) since these would not be legitimate COTA
expenses.

If necessary, funding for construction of the rail service (and
possibly commuter rail) portions of the project by ORDC is raised
by implementing

MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            34



                                Implementation and Joint Development

the special assessment (as provided for in the ORDC legislation) of
up to 20 percent of the increase in value of nearby real estate due
to the construction and operation of the new rail facility.

If such a special assessment is not feasible, COTA discusses with
the City implementation of a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district
for the joint development project and surrounding sites, with the
increment in tax revenues being dedicated wholly or in large part
to COTA.  These annual revenues could be used by COTA to cover part
of the annual operating and maintenance costs for the facility.

6.   COTA begins operation and management of the MMTT facility, and
     establishes an Operations Advisory Committee which includes
     all of the participants and tenants of the facility (COTA,
     ORDC, Amtrak, Conrail, and private bus and taxi operators) to
     solve problems and ensure high quality operation and
     maintenance over time.

Private Sector Leadership Strategy

Implementation of the project via a process led by the private
sector players is a fundamentally different approach.  It will
require professionalism and a high degree of cooperation between
the public and private sectors.  It seems clear that Nationwide
Insurance should have the leadership role in this scenario. 
Nationwide is the owner of a major portion of the site, is a
business which has successfully completed hundreds of millions of
dollars worth of real estate development in recent decades, and is
a power within the business community of Columbus and the state. 
Nationwide also has a legitimate interest in protecting the value
of its other nearby real estate holdings.

The following outline describes one scenario for implementation of
the project using this approach:

l.   As in the other strategy, COTA and ORDC immediately acquire a
     multi-year option to purchase the air rights over Conrail
     tracks and any excess Conrail land adjacent to the right-of-
     way.  The purpose of the acquisition is for eventual transfer
     to Nationwide Insurance to allow use of the site for
     transportation purposes including bus, commuter rail, and/or
     intercity passenger rail.  The reasons for public acquisition,
     rather than acquisition by Nationwide directly, are the public
     purpose and the ability to use potential funding sources such
     as state funds (possible via ORDC) and ISTEA funds.

2.   Nationwide, COTA, the city, Conrail, and the Convention
     Facilities Authority establish a Design Task Force for
     coordination and decision making during design and
     construction. Meetings are private working sessions, not
     public meetings.
3.   Nationwide Insurance undertakes preliminary design and
     engineering for the entire joint development project, working
     closely with the Design Task Force and building upon the
     present study. The objective is  to  refine  the  design,
     establish realistic costs, and define the relationships among
     individual components of the project. The costs of the design
     process are pro-rated


MMTT Feasibility Study:  December 1994                            35



                                Implementation and Joint Development

between Nationwide Insurance and COTA based upon percentage of site
controlled, percentage of estimated project construction cost, or
other mutually agreed criteria.  Potential funding sources for the
COTA share of design and engineering costs include an ORDC grant,
other state sources, or ISTEA funds via ORDC or directly to COTA.

4.   COTA and Nationwide determine whether the entire joint
     development site will be operated and maintained as a combined
     and physically integrated development or not. Future
     allocation of responsibility for operation, management,
     liability, and costs among the parties of such a combined
     project is also resolved.

5.   As in the other development strategy, a variety of potential
     sources will be tapped for funding the MMTT facility within
     the combined joint development project funding program. These
     could include ISTEA and other federal sources, secured by COTA
     and ORDC working cooperatively and perhaps jointly applying
     for the funding.

     Additional ORDC funds will be required to fund the Cleveland-
     Columbus-Cincinnati intercity passenger rail components of the
     project (including a portion of the site acquisition and
     project administrative and consultant costs), since these
     would not be legitimate COTA expenses. ORDC legislation
     explicitly provides for transfer of public funds to private
     entities for construction, operation, and maintenance of
     public rail facilities.

     Construction of the facility may also be financed in part by
     revenues from the sale of COTA's existing bus facility. In the
     public development scenario, revenues from parking facilities
     located on the Conrail portion of the joint development site,
     whether owned by COTA or derived from leasing the air rights
     for parking constructed and operated by others, may be pledged
     to back revenue bonds. In the private sector strategy these
     revenues would become revenues to the private development
     team, which will raise revenues in the private market.

     In the public sector strategy, funding for construction of
     intercity passenger rail (and possibly commuter rail) portions
     of the project by ORDC could be funded by implementing the
     special assessment (as provided for in the ORDC legislation)
     of up to 20 percent of the increase in value of nearby real
     estate due to the construction and operation of the new rail
     facility. In the private sector strategy, however, this would
     amount to taxing the project owners in order to support them.
     Implementation of a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district
     surrounding the location, however, with the increment in tax
     revenue being dedicated wholly or in part to COTA, could prove
     effective. These annual revenues could be used by COTA to
     cover part of the annual operating and maintenance costs for
     the MMTT facility and the North Multimodal Transportation
     Corridor light rail service.

MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                            36



                                Implementation and Joint Development



Funding

The financing program for the MMTT will depend to a great degree on
which entities will construct and operate the facility and the time
frame in which the MMTT is designed and constructed.  Potential
funding strategies for both the Public Sector Leadership
Development Strategy and the Private Sector Leadership Development
Strategy are included above in those respective sections of the
Implementation Chapter.  Financing of a Multimodal Terminal of this
scope and complexity will require a combination of funding sources,
as has been the case for numerous multimodal transportation
facilities around the country.  And, just as the programs and
operations plans of these multimodal centers have varied
considerably, so too have the funding packages.  No two are exactly
alike.

For the Columbus Multimodal Transportation Terminal the following
potential sources arc available:

Ohio Rail Development Commission

As mentioned earlier in this section, the ORDC has the authority to
acquire (and appropriate) land, provide funding for studies and
design, and finance a portion of the capital costs for construction
using federal and state funds and through the direct sale of bonds. 
In addition, as discussed previously, the ORDC legislation gives
the Commission the authority to implement a special assessment of
up to 20 percent of the increase in value of nearby real estate due
to the construction and operation of a new rail facility.

Elements for which ORDC could take the lead in funding include the
following intercity rail components:

    Rail passenger platforms

    Stairs, escalators and handicapped elevators from the sub-
     grade platform level to the street level concourse

    The major portion of the waiting area, ticketing and baggage 
     handling area and the MMTT garage

    Pick-up and drop-off area

Federal Transportation Sources

ISTEA (The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991) provides a number of avenues for the financing of multimodal
terminals, and cities all around the country have been taking
advantage of these provisions since the legislation took effect. 
STP, the Surface Transportation "Flexible Funds" Program is the
principal source available for the MMTT; funds for some multimodal
centers have been made available by conference earmarks through the
FTA Bus Allocation Program.  However, FTA Construction Funds for
the Columbus MMTT will come from the successor legislation to ISTEA
as it expires in 1996.  A commitment to proceed with the MMTT,
however, should spark an effort to obtain a congressional earmark
for both design and construction funding through FTA.



MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                            37



                                Implementation and Joint Development

COTA

In addition to funds available in the COTA capital budget and
through FTA programs, COTA has the opportunity to apply money
toward the MMTT which can be realized through the sale or lease of
the property currently in use for the downtown North Express Bus
Terminal.

Elements for which COTA could take the lead in funding include the
following regional transit components:

    Express bus terminal

    Airport shuttle bus

    COTA administrative office space

    A portion of the concourse - waiting and ticketing areas

Joint Development (Private Sector)

Integrating the MMTT with private sector developments and building
all of the terminal components at the same time creates cost
savings opportunities for all parties (including, for example,
those related to shared site preparation and foundation costs). 
For this reason, it would be ideal to construct the fullbuild
terminal in conjunction with a full private sector development (for
example, a Convention Center hotel and parking garage).  This
public/private joint development scenario has been followed at a
number of transportation terminals around the country, including
Cleveland, Boston, Hartford, and Miami.  The exact building
components and funding split are different for each terminal, but
the common theme is that the public and private interests worked
together to maximize their ability to leverage federal funding. 
Joint Development revenues can be generated from three sources:

1.   Retail and concession areas within the Multimodal Terminal
     concourse (for example, food services, magazine stand, book
     stand, flower stand, shoe repair, dry cleaning).

2.   Leasable office space on the third floor of the terminal above
     the COTA administrative offices.

3.   Air-rights over the express bus terminal for potential
     Convention Center hotel and parking.

Other possible private sector participation includes the pedestrian
bridges linking the MMTT to the Convention Center across High
Street and the potential development area to the west across Front
Street.

MMTT Feasibility Study: December 1994                             38



                                Implementation and Joint Development

Conclusion

The funding strategy for this project cannot be developed in
isolation.  It is important that the strategy be coordinated with
planning for other transportation projects over the next ten years
to ensure that other transportation priorities are considered in
negotiations with specific funding sources.  Funding is one
component in realizing this extraordinary opportunity of linking
multiple transportation modes.  Implementation will require many
players working together to coordinate multiple funding sources
through design and construction.

The MMTT project is a key link in the ongoing development-
revitalization of this exciting area on the north side of downtown
Columbus.  This unique site presents an unparalleled opportunity to
create a vital, active transportation center that not only provides
access to downtown Columbus, but also links together the old and
new - the North Market, the Convention Center, the Central Business
District, and the major new development sites to the west.


MMTT Feasibility Study.  December 1994                            39

(mtf.html)
Jump To Top