MMPT DESIGN

CHARRETTE MEETING NOTES

A)  SHARON GAY, REPRESENTING THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM

B)  MICHAEL DOBBINS, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF ATLANTA

C)  RICHARD REINHARD, REPRESENTING CENTRAL ATLANTA PROGRESS

1

1

1

A)  PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TEAM (PMT) OF THE GEORGIA RAIL PASSENGER PROGRAM (GRPP)

B)  GEORGIA RAIL CONSULTANTS (GRC)

C)  CITY OF ATLANTA

D)  CENTRAL ATLANTA PROGRESS

E) METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY

1

1

1

1

1

1

A)  EMORY MCCLINTON - GDOT BOARD

B)  JOHN ISSAACSON - GREYHOUND

C)  JIM CROY - GRTA

D)  JOE PALLADI - GDOT

E)  TOM VENTULETT - TVS

F)  DOUG ALEXANDER - CITY COUNCIL

G)  JOHN ADERHOLD - ADERHOLD PROPERTIES

H)  STAN PANTEL - ATLANTA JOURNAL - CONSTITUTION

 I)  BRENT LACY - PARSONS TRANSPORTATION - MAGLEV PROJECT:

 J)  BRAD HUBBERT - GDOT:

 K)   OSCAR HARRIS - TURNER ARCHITECTS:

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

A)  JANET CAMPBELL-LORENC - GRC

A)  NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIONS

B)  BUSES AT THE MMPT

C)  DOWNTOWN STREET LIFE

D)  PEDESTRIANS AND ACCESSIBILITY

E)  TERMINAL DESIGN STYLE

F)  ROLE OF THE MMPT

G)  DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND OPPORTUNITIES

H)  VISION FOR THE MMPT

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

A)  ATLANTA JOURNAL - CONSTITUTION

B)  BUS TERMINAL

C)  GREYHOUND LINES, INC.

D)  COMMUTER BUS SERVICES

E)  EXCURSION BUS SERVICES

F)  TURNER BROADCASTING

G)  PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

H)  DOWNTOWN ROADWAY SYSTEM

5

6

7

7

7

7

7

7

A)  13 DISTINCT MODAL COMPONENTS

B)  13 DISTINCT PROPERTY STAKEHOLDERS

C)  8 POSSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDING PROGRAMS, WITH FEDERAL FUNDING REPRESENTING A SUBSTANTIAL SHARE OF THE PROJECT COST

D)  6 POSSIBLE REVENUE GENERATING TECHNIQUES

8

8

8

8

A)  BIG NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP REPORT

B)  TECHNICAL GROUP REPORT

C)  RESOURCES GROUP REPORT

9

10

11

A)  MMPT LAYOUT

B)  BUS TERMINAL OPTIONS

C)  OVERALL MMPT ITEMS

13

13

13

1)  CALL TO ORDER

A)  Jim Vaseff, meeting facilitator from Georgia Power

2)  WELCOME

A)  Sharon Gay, representing the Project Management Team

B)  Michael Dobbins, representing the City of Atlanta

C)  Richard Reinhard, representing Central Atlanta Progress

A)  Program Management Team (PMT) of the Georgia Rail Passenger Program  (GRPP)

i)     Georgia Rail Passenger Authority

ii)    Georgia Regional Transportation Authority

iii)   Georgia Department of Transportation

B)  Georgia Rail Consultants (GRC)

i)     Steve Roberts - GRPP Overview

ii)    Dennis Fordham and Lito Rivera - MMPT Concept

C)  City of Atlanta

i)     Michael Dobbins

D)  Central Atlanta Progress

i)     Richard Reinhard / Paul Kelman

E)  Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

i)     James Brown

A)  Emory McClinton - GDOT Board

i)     Needs assistance in generating support for long-term funding of intermodal plans and projects from any organization that can have influence on those decisions.

ii)     Encouraged dialogue with our legislators on the legislative process and type of legislation required for long-term intermodal funding.

iii)    Encouraged connectivity to all areas by all transportation modes, especially to the west side corridor to I-20 and I-75.

B)  John Issacson - Greyhound

i)     CEO of Greyhound committed to multimodal concept.  Greyhound is located in 88 multimodal terminals around the country, and is eager to be a part of the Atlanta MMPT.

ii)    Will assist in working with federal government in obtaining funding for this project and long-term intermodal funding outlined by GDOT.

iii)    40,000 trips per day out of current facility, including transfers.

iv)    Needs bus maintenance area.      

C)  Jim Croy - GRTA  

i)     Connectivity is an important element of the MMPT relating to satisfying the travel choice of pedestrian, regional bus, MARTA, bicycles, etc.

ii)    Providing "good customer service" is key to the success of the project.

D)  Joe Palladi - GDOT

i)     Funds available for Northside Drive study.

ii)    12 bridges in the Downtown area to be rebuilt - all are in the design phase.

iii)    Bridge designs for Forsyth and Peachtree Streets are completed.

iv)    Areas between bridges not being studied.

v)     Requesting input for "wish list" to be considered in the next update of the Regional Transportation Plan that will occur in about 3 years.

vi)    The environmental report for the Spring Street Bridge is at FHWA waiting approval.

vii)    The Nelson Street Bridge is not in the plan - owned by Railroad.

viii)   The Mitchell Street Bridge is one of the 12 in the design phase.

ix)     Peters Street Connector and Techwood Drive Extension:  Right of way is completed for the Peters Street project south of the Norfolk Southern building but it connects with the Techwood Drive Extension that has been removed from the TIP by the City of Atlanta.  A new study of these projects is underway.

E)  Tom Ventulett - TVS

i)     The block where "the Decks" are located is a super block and development of a street network within the block may be necessary.

ii)     Pedestrian access in the neighborhood is essential.

iii)    Functionality of the MMPT should be first priority.

iv)    Private sector development on MMPT site should be secondary.

v)    Questioning the role of parking related to this project site.

F)  Doug Alexander - City Council

i)     Discussed the history of the MMPT project.

ii)    Encouraged rethinking of the previous solution.

G)  John Aderhold - Aderhold Properties

i)     In process of developing 140 condos over Upper Alabama St.

ii)    Encourages residential development within ½ mile radius of MMPT.

iii)    Discussing air rights over buildings at Georgia State for development.

iv)    Demand for residential in downtown areas is increasing rapidly.

H)  Stan Pantel - Atlanta Journal-Constitution

i)     Biggest concern is with the development of the MMPT and the decks super block,      operations will become increasingly difficult for the newspaper because 50% of newspaper production occurs at the adjacent facility.

I)  Brent Lacy - Parsons Transportation - MAGLEV Project

i)     Environmental "fatal flaw analysis" studies were completed June 2000.

ii)    Northside Drive station is being reexamined based on public hearing and City of Atlanta comments.

iii)   Connection directly to MMPT was previously considered impractical but this option may be reconsidered.  May need tunnel to connect to MMPT.

iv)   The original operations target date was 2005 - design team now projects 2008.

v)    Minimum operable segment - Hartsfield to Kennesaw State University first section open.  Ultimate goal of Hartsfield to Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, one hour trip.

J)  Brad Hubbert - GDOT

i)     Economic benefits due to the MMPT need to be addressed.

ii)    Need to address the issue of affirmative action in areas of engineering and construction of the Georgia Rail Passenger Program and the MMPT.

iii)    Bring minority firms in early to allow them to learn the process and gain experience.

K)  Oscar Harris - Turner Architects

i)     Focus on how people feel when using the facility, "people friendly", in order to sell transportation as a positive experience.

ii)    Consider remote check-in and baggage handling to its ultimate destination (i.e. MMPT to Hartsfield Airport)

A)  Janet Campbell-Lorenc - GRC

i)     Profiled joint development at other multimodal passenger terminals including Arlington, Virginia;  Bethesda, Maryland;  Boston;  Cleveland;  Los Angeles;  Miami;  San Diego;  San Francisco;  Secaucus;  New Jersey, and Washington DC.

ii)    Noted lessons learned in terms of effective partnerships, coordination of development goals, use of public and private resources, market information studies.

iii)    Suggested a field trip to review joint development sites in other cities.

       Moderator:  Jim Vaseff

A)  Neighborhood Connections

In designing the MMPT and locating the various components of the terminal on the site, function of the terminal in the overall context of Downtown should be considered.  Easy connections should be available to points of interest including:

i)     Underground Atlanta

ii)     MARTA Five Points Station

iii)    Georgia Dome

iv)    CNN Center

v)     Georgia World Congress Center

vi)     Castleberry Hill neighborhood

vii)    Centennial Olympic Park

viii)   Federal buildings

B)  Buses at the MMPT

As buses become a major component of the MMPT, planning and infrastructure for buses needs more detail.

i)     Plan street routings for getting buses in and out of the MMPT.

ii)     Consider the need to change street directionality.

iii)    Consider the need for bus connections to / from interstate.

iv)    Potential need for changes in street design, such as perhaps connect Northside Dr. with Interstate 20.

v)    Congestion on Forsyth and Mitchell Streets.

C)  Downtown Street Life

The MMPT should contribute to a fun, exciting, and positive street life in Downtown Atlanta.

i)     Potential for improved streescaping Marietta Steet.

ii)     Need for MMPT connection with revitalizing Castleberry Hill neighborhood.

iii)    Pedestrian activity should be at street level, not underground and not elevated.  

D)  Pedestrians and Accessibility

Pedestrian movement between transit modes and points of interest should be highlighted.

i)     Can a pedestrian spine connecting adjacent points of interest be created, using the MMPT as a focal point?

ii)    Can the current concept for connection between MMPT bus and rail to MARTA Five Points be moved to street level?

iii)    Need bus terminal two years earlier than rail terminal.  Need for easy, short connections between commuter rail, MARTA rail, MARTA bus, regional bus, and intercity bus modes.

iv)    Need for outward-focused design - access to Georgia Dome, Georgia World Congress Center and Underground Atlanta.

v)    Focus of MMPT design on pedestrian-streetscape connectivity.

E)  Terminal Design Style

The overall design and layout of MMPT should reflect it's function as a major downtown rail station.

i)     The MMPT should look distintive.

ii)    The MMPT should be easy to describe and locate.  (Giving directions)

iii)    The MMPT should look like a train station.

iv)    Transition from "monumental" Heery design to current functional design.

F)  Role of the MMPT

There are two approaches to design of the MMPT, and the design should strive for highest complementary relationship.

i)     Moving between modes (function)

ii)    MMPT as a destination (activity center)

G)  Development Plans and Opportunities

A developer could build both the MMPT station and a commercial tower at the site. 

i)     The state will own the land, can lease to developer for minimal amount.

ii)    The MMPT site is in tax abatement district.

iii)    Cousins has air rights over desk, also touch down rights.  Only to limit of deck.

iv)    Development will occur when needed by market; MMPT cannot force development.

H)  Vision for the MMPT

i)     The MMPT should be the equivalent of this century's airport.

ii)    Need for master planning.  "Civic space" both inside and outside terminal.

iii)   Need to maximize opportunity for redevelopment on adjacent parcels.

iv)   Need for pedestrian plaza on top of station at street level.

v)    Opportunity to create a Rockefeller Center / urban plaza for Atlanta.

vi)    Need to change street directions?

Moderator:  Paul Kelman

The group primarily discussed technical concerns on the MMPT architectural concepts that had been presented during the morning session.  These concerns are grouped by the various stakeholders:

A)  Atlanta Journal - Constitution

 i)     AJC must maintain access for receiving materials to its printing plant (ink, paper, etc.) and distributing newspapers.

 ii)    Construction must be staged to ensure that AJC can continue its operations throughout.

B)  Bus Terminal

 i)     Concepts for the bus terminal will evolve from Greyhound and GRTA operations.

 ii)    A program document reconciling the various space and operational requirements must be developed.  This will serve as the conceptual design criteria for the MMPT Bus Terminal.

C)  Greyhound Lines, Inc.

 i)     In addition to the drop-off and boarding areas, Greyhound requests passenger waiting and departure facilities which should be secure and include restroom and vending amenities.

 ii)    Atlanta is a meal stop for Greyhound - food service must be within sight of the parked buses for passenger peace of mind.

 iii)   Greyhound provides meal service to passengers for delayed buses.  Greyhound needs operational control over meal service.  If necessary meal service could be separate from others in the terminal.

 iv)    For quick turn-around, buses need to be fueled, cleaned and holding tanks pumped out at the curbside stations rather than moved to separate locations for this servicing.

 v)     Greyhound package services requires convenient package drop-off and pick-up for users.

 vi)    Greyhound is currently researching the various modes from which its passengers connect with its bus service.  Modes include taxicab and MARTA.

 vii)    Greyhound needs 5,000 square foot driver dormitory with 26 rooms and driver lounge.

 viii)   The Port Authority Bus Terminal of New York City was set as a reference standard for developing the Conceptual Plan of the MMPT Bus Terminal.  Key features that were noted were the drive-thru bus-slips, bus staging area, passenger amenities and operational facilities.

D)  Commuter Bus Services

 i)     GRTA is planning a 200-vehicle commuter bus system.  There would likely be interchange between the commuter buses and Greyhound.

E)  Excursion Bus Services

 i)      Motorcoach operators provide transportation for special events and conventions in Atlanta.  These buses currently use city streets for layover.  The MMPT could provide a better facility for these buses.

F)  Turner Broadcasting

 i)     Reduction of the Decks parking area would be a major hardship given Turner's planned expansion in the area.

 ii)    Rail service underneath CNN Center poses a risk of serious damage with potential impact on CNN operations due to derailment.

G)  Property Ownership

 i)     The availability of the Decks for the proposed location of the Bus Terminal must be confirmed prior to further advancement of the MMPT Concept.

H)  Downtown Roadway System

 i)     It was suggested that Alabama Street should be extended west by passing below Spring Street to connect with Techwood Drive.  It was suggested that the superblock area between Spring Street and Techwood Drive was too large to be useful and that there was no east-to-west connectivity.  The addition of this cross street will result in new property frountages.

 ii)    The redesign of the remaining portions of the Spring Street Viaduct are nearly complete.  The conditions for final design were based on the track alignment of the Heery contract drawings.  Any changes to the track layout will result in delays to reconstructing Spring Street.

       Moderator:  Ken Bleakly

 The group discussed a wide array of possible funding sources and financial mechanisms that could be used to implement the MMPT.  The groups approach was to identify the multimodal players in the project, identify property stakeholders in the MMPT area, and describe the range of public and private funding sources and financing/revenue generating techniques.  Key points from the breakout group discussion are summarized below.

A)  13 distinct modal components

i)     Rail:  MARTA, commuter rail, Amtrak, freight

ii)    Bus:  MARTA, GRTA, Greyhound, downtown shuttle, excursion bus, regional bus

iii)    Pedestrian and bicycle

iv)    Cab and rental car

v)     Parking and kiss-and-ride

B)  13 distinct property stakeholders

C)  8 possible governmental funding programs, with federal funding representing a substantial share of the project cost.

D)  6 possible revenue generating techniques

A)  BIG NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP REPORT

i)     Greyhound 40k / day passengers (current location)

a.  How to get buses there?

b.  Northside / I-20?

c.  Forsyth & Mitchell - busy

ii)    Marietta Streetscape - animation of all streets for pedestrians.  Castleberry Hill, AU Center

a.  Keep activity on the streets

b.  Need to know where you are going

iii)    Bus / Train Interface - relate to modes

iv)    Visibility - Design - is it a station?

a.  Monument building?

b.  Low Rise Structure?

c.  Phase current Design

d.  (Buses First)

v)    Space split by Spring St.

a.  "The Hole" is not accessible

vi)    Destination of each mode

a.  Stimulate Development on adjacent properties

b.  Development Incentives?  State owned land

c.  Improve Sidewalks

vii)    Original Design - Internal Focus

a.  Now focus externally

b.  How do we get to it?

c.  CNN / Turner - Area Master Plan

d.  Civic Space

viii)   Is the entire gulch to be covered?

a.  Build a park

b.  "Rockefeller Center"

c.  More points of accessibility for station (infrastructure of access)

ix)    One-way streets "highways"

x)    Bus Foot print 3 times original

B)  TECHNICAL GROUP REPORT

i)     AJC Access

a.  ink, paper

b.  South property line

ii)    Spring Street viaduct reconstruction

a.  over AJC facilities & Lower Wall Street access

iii)    Ventilation thru gulch

a.  Diesel, Train, Bus

iv)   Greyhound

a.  Customer access to bus terminal

b.  Food service, baggage; also multiple service personnel, bus direction to terminal;

c.  24 hour operation

d.  SE stages @ 5-10% of Greyhound

e.  Fuel in Bays

f.  Package express, drop off

g.  Studying O & D

h.  Linkage between commuter bus to Greyhound - 200 commuter bus system anticipated (to be studied)

i.  Bus loading, Pedestrian issues + AM / PM

j.  Bus circulation in terminal - exits, entrances, direction, stacking

v)    NYC Port Authority, Seattle Model

vi)    MARTA service presumed on street - not MARTA pref.

a.  5000 SF driver dorm w/26 rm

vii)   Bus circulation in to / from terminal

a.  Other coach ops?  Now on street

b.  Additional street (eg. TV's)?

viii)   Lower Alabama in grid?

ix)    I.T.S. role in bus staging

a. Add another bus level?

x)     Alternate fuels - CNG option: GRTA, Gwinett

xi)    Intrusion into the Decks - disruption and replacement

xii)    Tracks to MMPT:  Reroute? Problems with bridges, MARTA cut, concern with derailments @ CNN center, crash walls

a.  Vibration effects, noise conflicts with residential

xiii)   Pedestrian link to Five Points

xiv)   Info - signage to Ticket sales are

a.  Dual bus ticket presence?

xv)    Bridge staging

xvi)   NEPA:  Rail network, MMPT

xvii)  Staging of development

C)  RESOURCES GROUP REPORT

i)     Multimodal players in the area

a.  Amtrak

b.  GRTA

c.  MARTA Bus / Rail+

d.  Intercity Bus (Greyhound)

e.  Freight Rail (NS / CSK)

f.  Regional Buses (CCT, Gwinett, Clayton)

g.  Parking

h.  Commuter rail

i.  Cabs

j.  Loop shuttle downtown

k.  Charter

l.  Pedestrians / Bike

m.  Rental cars

ii)    Property Stakeholders

a.  Turner Properties

b.  AJC

c.  Georgia Bar

d.  City - ADA

e.  Fulton Recreational Authority

f.  MARTA

g.  NS

h.  CSX

i.  State Proerties / GWCC

j.  Aderhold Properties

k.  Cousins Properties

l.  GA Power building

m.  Other Property owners

iii)    Federal / substantial share of funding

a.  CMAQ - Air quality mitigation

b.  New start - FTA - New rail

c.  FRA - new program

d.  Formula funds

e.  TIFIA loan based on revenue

f.  GRTA bonds

g.  ADA Tax allocation district

h.  GDOT / City match

iv)    Other Funding Resources

a.  Multimodal Land?

b.  $21 million GDOT / Federal $  Sunset?

c.  $2m State - (for $21)

d.  $80m short for Phase I Facility

e.  Amtrak

f.  Macon / Athens

g.  Greyhound

h.  Replacement Parking - 869 Parking Spaces lost from MMPT (35%)

i.  Maglev downtown station $25m

j.  Naming rights

k.  Identify early private development partner

v)     Private

a.  Technology providers

• Amtrak

• Suppliers

• Greyhound

b.  Revenue Generating Techniques

Air rights sales

• Rental car tax

• Airport Enterprise funds

• Parking revenues

• MMPT CID district

A)  MMPT Layout

i)     Arrange between GRC architects and Ventulett and Turner representatives to discuss possible MMPT layout configurartions, primarily for east of Spring Street.

a.  Timeframe:  Late October-early November

B)  Bus Terminal Options

i)    Based on discussions with major developers at the MMPT Charrete, GRC architects will sketch a number of options for the Bus Terminal location, in conjunction with possible east/west roads and/or pedestrian walkways.

a.  Timeframe:  Early November

ii)    GRC architects will consult with Greyhound staff regarding revised Bus Terminal layout and highway access options.

a.  Timeframe:  Early November

iii)   GRC architects and engineers will consult with GRTA regional bus planners regarding the Bus Terminal layout.

a.  Timeframe:  Early November

C)  Overall MMPT Items

i)     GRC meet with representatives from Atlanta Journal-Constitution to discuss MMPT impacts to their facilities on the north side of the site, both east and west of Spring Street.  Probable impacts and engineering constraints need to be clarified.

a.  Timeframe:  Early November

ii)    Secure final design drawings of the Spring Street viaduct for review by the GRC architects and engineers, as per discussion of CBD bridge work status by Georgia DOT at the charrette.

a.  Timeframe:  Early November

iii)    Consider potential air quality impacts generated by rolling stock at the MMPT, particularly diesel fumes generated by locomotives idling inside the terminal.

a.  Timeframe:  Consider staff assignment in December

iv)    Receive, quantify, and illustrate Amtrak's requirements at the MMPT.

a.  Timeframe:  November - December

v)     GRC engineers will sketch a conceptual track layout showing a revised alignment for freight tracks under the CNN building as per Turner comments, and provide brief narrative discussing the pros and cons of the concept.

a.  Timeframe:  November - December