Innovation Park by Institute of Urban Studies

DALLAS LOVE FIELD

HIGHEST AND BEST USE STUDY AND MARKET ANALYSIS

Cover Image from https://gotoairportparking.com/love-connection-remote-parking-pk

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT SCOPE

The City of Dallas Department of Aviation is considering constructing an entrance off of Loop 12/Northwest Highway into Dallas Love Field Airport and requested an evaluation of the highest and best uses for property neighboring the new access road. The Institute of Urban Studies (IUS) was engaged to provide recommendations for potential uses for acquired properties within the study area and to identify preferred phasing for redevelopment. In addition, the IUS study will provide recommendations for enhancing the value of the redevelopment through focused branding and innovation district approaches with regard to the contemporary â&#x20AC;&#x153;knowledge-basedâ&#x20AC;? economy.

Services, Financial Services, Aerospace and Aviation, Industrial Manufacturing, and Logistics and Transportation. The needs for these industries and anticipated growth patterns were considered in the development mixes with uses that include commercial, retail, office, hospitality, education, and health, along with alternative transportation network recommendations facilitating a more resilient development paradigm. Ultimately this study will offer the City of Dallas Department of Aviation a thoughtful approach to development for the study area that synchronizes development innovation and resilience.

The IUS research and design team utilized a number of datasets and methodologies in order to converge critical project components for the development of potential land use scenarios within the study area. This process involved the evaluation of the legal uses for which the study area properties could be adapted or constructed to produce the highest net returns over an established period of time, using a net present value approach. Each scenario was designed with respect to innovative place and destination branding so as to brand Dallas Love Field as an innovative flight transit center as well as a hub for tourism and traveler investment. These branding strategies fold into the narrative of the Dallas Love Field Airport Innovation District, as it holds the capacity for increased business travel relative to the growing industries of the region including: Biotechnology and Life Sciences, Information and Electronics, Professional

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

PROJECT TEAM

MANAGEMENT & DIRECTION

SHIMA HAMIDI PhD

DIRECTOR

Director Institute of Urban Studies College of Architecture, Planning, & Public Affairs University of Texas at Arlington shima.hamidi@uta.edu

AMANDA KRONK

LEED AP BD+C Project Manager Institute of Urban Studies College of Architecture, Planning, & Public Affairs University of Texas at Arlington amanda.kronk@uta.edu

PROJECT TEA M

PROJECT MANAGER

RESEARCH ASSISTANTS

BEHNOUD AGHAPOUR

DESIGN ANALYSIS

M.LA Student

Research Assistant Institute of Urban Studies College of Architecture, Planning, & Public Affairs University of Texas at Arlington behnoud.aghapour@uta.edu

ALI KHOSHKAR PhD Student

GIS MAPPING

Research Assistant Institute of Urban Studies College of Architecture, Planning, & Public Affairs University of Texas at Arlington Aliasghar.Rahimioun@uta.edu

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

RESEARCH ASSISTANTS

KUKHYOUNG KIM PhD Student

Research Assistant Institute of Urban Studies

DATA VISUALIZATION ANALYSIS

College of Architecture, Planning, & Public Affairs University of Texas at Arlington kukhyoun@uta.edu

ANN MAI

M.LA Student Research Assistant Institute of Urban Studies College of Architecture, Planning, & Public Affairs University of Texas at Arlington ann.mai@mavs.uta.edu

PROJECT TEA M

DESIGN ANALYSIS

RESEARCH ASSISTANTS

REZA PAZIRESH

DESIGN ANALYSIS

M.LA Student Research Assistant Institute of Urban Studies College of Architecture, Planning, & Public Affairs University of Texas at Arlington Reza.Paziresh@uta.edu

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

MARKET ANALYSIS RESEARCHERS

MARAL RAHMANI

M.RED Student

MARKET ANALYSIS

Department of City Planning and Real Estate Development Clemson University maralr@g.clemson.edu

CARLYLE GILLIS

M.RED Student

Department of City Planning and Real Estate Development Clemson University jcgilli@clemson.edu

PROJECT COMMITTEE

MARKET ANALYSIS

PROJECT COMMITTEE DALLAS LOVE FIELD AIRPORT • Mark Duebner, Director City of Dallas - Department of Aviation • Dawn M. Blair, Manager Department of Aviation - Property Management & Real Estate • Anthony Chandler, Sr. Real Estate Specialist Department of Aviation - Property Management & Real Estate • Jamie Johnson, Chief Real Estate Specialist Department of Aviation - Property Management & Real Estate • Alan Mathew, Sr. Real Estate Specialist Department of Aviation - Property Management & Real Estate

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

CONTENTS

CONTEN TS

BASELINE ANALYSIS

AIRPORT STUDY

SITE ANALYSIS

BEST PRACTICES

Zoning Accessibility Market Analysis

Flight Patterns of Passengers Airport Customers Study FAA Guideline Study

Locational Analysis Socioeconomic Patterns

Peer Airports Case Study Transit Alternatives Study

SCENARIOS

106

RECOMMENDATIONS

136

APPENDIX

140

REFERENCES

200

Alternative Scenarios Bridge Precedent Images Market Analysis of Scenarios

Highest and Best Land Use

Checklist for Noise Compatibility Site Analysis Maps Market Analysis

Works Cited

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

MARKET ANALYSIS

ACCESSIBILITY

ZONING AND LAND USE

1 B A S E L I N E A N A L Y S I S

BASELINE ANALYSIS ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning is the division of land into districts. These districts have uniform zoning regulations including those on land use, height, setbacks, lot size, density, coverage, and floor area ratio (FAR). Regarding the zoning ordinance, the site is classified as Planned Developed (PD), Community Retail (CR), and Multifamily (MF-2) (Figure 1.1). From the City of Dallas Code of Ordinances, a PD District is a special purpose district that seeks to provide flexibility and variety in the physical development pattern of the city, to encourage a more efficient use of open space, and to encourage the appropriate use of land. Due to its variety of use categories, standards of PD Districts, such as yards, coverage, and building space, are determined by the design. CR and MF Districts need to follow their own regulations as shown in Table 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Zoning of the Site

District CR

MF-2

Setbacks Front

Side/Rear

15’

20’ adjacent to residential Other: No Min

15’

Density 0.75 FAR overall 0.5 office Min lot 1,000 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. -E 1,000 sq.ft.-1BR 1,200 sq.ft.-2BR +150 sq.ft. each add BR

Table 1.1: Zoning District Standards (source: City of Dallas)

BASELINE ANALYSIS

Height

Lot Coverage

Special Standards

54’ 4 stories

60%

Proximity Slope Retail & personal Visual Intrusion service, office

36’

60%

Proximity slope

Primary Uses

Multifamily, duplex, single family

ACCESSIBILITY Efficient and safe roadway operations are critical to an airportâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s success. The safe and efficient movement of people and goods depend on traffic flow, which is generated by various elements, such as airline passengers and accompanying visitors, employees working at the airport and other airport tenants, air cargo and airmail services, vehicles used for the delivery of goods and services, maintenance to support airport operations or construction, and other purposes. Figure 1.3 shows the traffic volume surrounding the airport and the site (shown in the green hatched area). The highest traffic counts are represented by blue dots, with daily traffic counts over 70,000, and are located along Stemmons Freeway (I-35E). People can access the airport via Lemmon Avenue, W. Mockingbird Lane, and Denton Drive. Traffic volumes on Denton Drive are relatively low; most of these points indicate daily traffic counts between 10,000 and 29,999. Lemmon Avenue, however, has relatively heavy traffic as compared to other airport roadways. Figure 1.2: Existing Land Use of the Site

The current land uses of the site are shown in Figure 1.2. The PD District currently contains a mixture of multifamily, commercial, retail, parking, and vacant land uses. The MF District is used as a single family and multifamily residential area, while current land uses of the CR District are commercial and retail.

The surrounding roadways appear much busier than airport roadways. For example, W. Northwest Highway, one of the primary access roads into the site, has heavy traffic volumes (daily traffic counts between 50,000 and 69,999).

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

Figure 1.3: Daily Traffic Counts around DAL and the Site (source: NCTCOG Historical Traffic Counts)

BA SELIN E A N A LYSIS

MARKET ANALYSIS DALLAS INDUSTRY CONCENTRATIONS There are key industry sectors that lead to the creation and maintenance of a trained labor force. The Texas Economic Development Corporation and the Governor’s Office of Economic Development and Tourism identified the industries most highly concentrated in Texas by examining more than 40 advanced business sectors, such as life sciences, IT, and aerospace. From their report “Texas Industry Concentration”, the IUS team studied the advanced business sectors in Dallas County, which can continue to attract new expansion and relocation of the professional labor pool. The following industries show greater portions of Dallas County’s workforce employed in these business sectors as compared to the portion of the entire U.S. workforce employed in that sector. “Above Average (AA)” indicates that the regional concentration is 20% to 99% above the national average for that industry, when “High (H)” means that the regional concentration is double or more than the national average for that industry.

Biotech & Life Science Medical and Diagnostic Laboratories (AA) • Diagnostic Imaging • Blood, Pathology & Other Labs

Information & Electronics Semiconductors and Electronic Components (H) • Semiconductors/Related Devices • Bare Printed Circuit Boards Communications Equipment Manufacturing (H) • Telecommunications Equipment • Alarm and Security Systems Data Management, Hosting, and Related Services (H) • Data Management Software Publishing (AA) • Software Publishing Computer Systems Design and Related Services (AA) • Computer Facilities Management • Computer Systems Design

Logistics & Transportation Rail Transportation Support Services (AA) • Rail Cargo Transfer

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

Professional Services Architectural and Engineering Services (AA) • Architecture and Drafting • Testing Laboratories Legal Services (AA) • Offices of Lawyers • Title Abstract and Settlement

Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles (AA) • Insurance Funds • Trusts, Estates, etc. Insurance Carriers(AA) • Property Insurance • Life Insurance • Health Insurance Accounting Services(AA) • Certified Public Accountants • Payroll Services

Financial Services Credit and Consumer Lending (H) • Real Estate Credit • Consumer Lending • Sales Financing • Credit Card Issuing Security and Commodity Dealing (AA) • Investment Banking • Securities Brokerage • Commodity Contracts Other Financial Investment Services (AA) • Portfolio Management • Investment Advice • Specialized Investors

BA SELIN E A N A LYSIS

Aerospace & Aviation Aerospace and Parts Manufacturing (AA) • Aerocraft Parts Scheduled Air Transportation (AA) • Passenger Air Transportation

DALLAS BUSINESS INCUBATORS Industrial Manufacturing HVAC and Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing (AA) • Air Conditioning Equipment • Air Purification Equipment • Industrial Fans and Blowers Architectural and Structural Metals Manufacturing (AA) • Windows, Doors, and Sheet Metal • Plate Work and Structural Metals

Petroleum & Chemical Products Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturing (H) • Painting and Coating • Adhesives

Business incubators provide a shared facility for start-ups and young firms with an inexpensive entrepreneurial environment and a range of administrative consulting and networking services. The local economy where business incubators are placed receives a collective impact of direct employment, salary, and sales tax (Markley and McNamara, 1995). Research (Markley and McNamara, 1995) on impacts of a business incubator shows that a total of 46% of business owners are located in the incubator to minimize cost and 20% are located there because of the supportive environment and business services offered. Approximately 93% of business owners were very satisfied or satisfied with their experience operating in the business incubator. Research finds that the average employment for all firms increased more than 18 times, and salaries and wages increased by around 5 times during a seven-year observation. In this context, the IUS team studied fourteen business incubators that can coordinate, cooperate, and help new start-ups and entrepreneurs near the Dallas Love Field Airport. The following list includes high technology and specialized business incubators located in Dallas (the Governor’s Office of Economic Development and Tourism, 2017).

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

The Alliance for Higher Education (AHE)

The Business Incubation Center (BIC) at the Bill J. Priest Campus of El Centro College

• Specialization: High Technology

• Specialization: Multiple Industries

• Website: www.ntxrcic.org • Mentoring, coaching, and introductions to capital, research, academic resources, and business connections • Sponsors/partners with area incubators • Offers conference rooms, class rooms, and open offices for day use

• Website: www.elcentrocollege.edu/bjp/businessincubation-center • Provides business counseling in a wide range of topics including business expansion, government contracting, IP protection, loan requirements, management, marketing, and technological and manufacturing assistance • Offers conference rooms, office rentals, and weekly cleaning services

Bootstrap Dallas (BSD) • Specialization: High Technology • Website: http://bootstrapdallas.com/

Catalyst Startup Program, from SoftLayer Technologies

• Provides resources, training, and introductions into the Dallas startup community

• Specialization: High Technology

• Offers advisory service to entrepreneurs

• Provides IT cloud infrastructure credits, executive mentoring, and engineering resources

• Offers guidance for funding, marketing, sales, and partnership to existing businesses

• Website: www.softlayer,com/catalyst

• Free SoftLayer servers or service up to $1,000/month, mentoring from the company’s industry veterans and marketing resources to members • Offers some co-working spaces for a fee

BASELINE ANALYSIS

The Dallas Entrepreneur Center (DEC)

Greater Dallas Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Incubator Program

• Specialization: Multiple Industries

• Website: http://thedec.co/

• Website: www.gdhcc.com/programs_and_resources/ business_assistance_center.aspx

• Access to experts and thought leaders from major corporations, investment groups, academic institutions, and government entities • Access to the DEC online member platform and all DEC coordinated events, dedicated incubation programming and mentors, and financial assistance programs

• Operates within Business Assistance Centers (BACs) in the City of Dallas • Provides counseling, tools and resources, training, seminars, and workshops

• Offers some co-working spaces, office space, and incubator assistance to members

Health Wildcatters DFW Excellerator • Specialization: Multiple Industries • Website: www.dfwexcellerator.com/ • Provide access to millions of dollars in acceleration funds • Access to experts to deal with the hassle of navigating complex laws and regulation surrounding import and export • provides in-house team of experienced designers, marketers, and strategists for product/service for new market

• Specialization: Biotechnology • Website: http://healthwildcatters.com/ • Provides mentorship and a strong network of early stage investors in Dallas • Each company receives $30,000 and may receive up to $250,000 in follow-up funding; in exchange, participating companies provide 8% of their common founding stock • Addresses the specific challenges of selling into the healthcare market, dealing with regulatory constraints, and the slower pace of adoption

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

IBM PartnerWorld - Austin & Dallas

Mountain View College (MVC) Business Incubator Program

• Specialization: High Technology

• Specialization: Multiple Industries

• Website: www.ibm.com/partnerworld

• Website: www.mountainviewcollege.edu/business/ econdev/Pages/businessincubator.aspx

• Offers online, remote, and face-to-face training, marketing, technical, and other assistance • Exclusive local networking and mentoring events, free software, and technical support • Collaborates with IBM and other Business Partners through its worldwide centers

MentorVault at The Garage

• Offer individual offices, meeting/conference space, computer labs, and training classrooms

REVTECH (FKA VentureSpur Dallas) • Specialization: High Technology

• Specialization: Multiple Industries

• Website: www.revtechaccelerator.com

• Website: http://workthegarage.com/

• Provides participating startups a seed investment of $40,000, while accepting 6% of the startup’s equity in the form of founders’ shares

• An annual 90 day bootcamp for startups • The bootcamp’s primary focus is on product development, sales, and revenues; not investor pitching • Mentors are available and committed to 18 months of work with a startup, not just 90 days

• Access to Credit Courses and Continuation Education Training

BA SELIN E A N A LYSIS

• Offers a 16 week accelerator program

Startup Weekend • Specialization: Multiple Industries • Website: http://startupweekend.org/ • Over a weekend, participating teams pitch their business ideas, then selected teams receive advice from professional mentors, build proof-of-concept or even products, and present/demo on the last day before judges • Provides professional mentors and coaches

Tech Wildcatters • Specialization: High Technology • Website: www.techwildcatters.com • 3 month accelerator program in which each company receives seed funding, high quality mentoring, and the opportunity to pitch to potential investors at the end of program • Offers Emerge, a 3 month seed accelerator for consumer wearable technology with first responder applications, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Center for Innovative Technology Figure 1.4: Dallas Business Incubators’ Location Note: there is no location information of MentorVault at The Garage

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

FAA GUIDELINE STUDY

AIRPORT CUSTOMERS STUDY

FLIGHT PATTERNS OF PASSENGERS

2 AIRPORT STUDY

AIRPORT STUDY

FLIGHT PATTERNS OF PASSENGERS DAL is ranked the 31st largest airport and the fastest growing airport among the top 100 airports in the U.S. With regard to enplanements, according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 7,040,950 passengers enplaned in DAL in 2015 with a 55% increase from 2014. USDOT estimated 7,551,483 enplanements in the airport in 2016. Enplaned passengers are originating or connecting passengers who board flights at the airport; the number of total passengers who use the airport facilities is therefore much larger than the number of enplanements.

As of 2016, DAL was served both passenger boarding and cargo with 25 airlines. Three major airlines served the airport; Southwest Airlines, Virgin America, and Delta Airlines (Figure 2.1). Southwest Airlines was the busiest carrier at DAL in serving 91.4 percent of passengers in 2016. Virgin America was the second and transported 6.3 percent of total enplaned passengers at the airport, then Delta Airlines at 2.1 percent, and finally other airlines at 0.2 percent.

Figure 2.1: DAL Carrier Shares for 2016 (source: USDOT, 2016)

A IRPORT STU D Y

DAL serves as a convenient and efficient gateway for passengers who use the facilities to access business, recreational, and other travel opportunities in the U.S. Figure 2.2 shows the top 30 major destinations of DAL customers. The first destination through DAL was Houston, TX (596,402 passengers) followed by Atlanta, GA (367,909 passengers), Chicago, IL (325,475 passengers), San Antonio, TX (325,180 passengers), and Los Angeles, CA (321,631 passengers). A detailed table for this data is available in the Appendix. Research regarding air connectivity and economic growth of the region the airport serves revealed that there is a strong relationship between the two. For example, air connectivity and accessibility have positive impacts on GDP and investment growth (Seller and Nagl, 2010). An airport has the opportunity to be the most Rank

Market

Texas

California

functional hub airport in the region when the airport offers better direct and indirect connectivity for business travelers in particular (Usami et al., 2017). In the case of Europe, the availability of direct non-stop flights is a major determinant in the location choices of large European firm headquarters (Bel and Fageda, 2008). The major domestic markets for DAL (Figure 2.3) were determined based on the airport customersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; direct destinations. The largest market is Texas where 24% of DAL customers traveled. DAL provides direct connections to 9 cities in Texas; Amarillo, Austin, Corpus Christi, El Paso, Houston, Lubbock, Midland/Odessa, Harlingen/ San Benito, and San Antonio (Table 2.1). DAL also offers direct connections to 9 cities in the second and fourth largest markets, California and Florida.

Direct connection

Number of Passengers

Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Lubbock, El Paso, Midland/Odessa, Amarillo, Harlingen/San Benito, Corpus Christi

1,781,322

Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Oakland, Santa Ana, San Jose, Sacramento, Burbank, Ontario

940,793

Missouri

Kansas City, St. Louis

445,023

Florida

Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, Panama City, Fort Myer, Pensacola, West Palm Beach/Palm Beach, Jacksonville

418,657

Georgia

Atlanta

367,909

Illinois

Chicago

325,561

Colorado

Denver

313,073

Nevada

Las Vegas, Reno

309,387

New York

New York, Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Islip

308,530

Louisiana

New Orleans

262,436

Table 2.1: Major Domestic Markets and Cities with Direct Connection from DAL in 2016 (source: USDOT, 2016)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

Figure 2.2: Top 30 Domestic Destinations (source: USDOT, 2016)

A IRPORT STU D Y

Figure 2.3: Top 10 Domestic Markets (source: USDOT, 2016)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

AIRPORT STUDY AIRPORT CUSTOMERS STUDY

WHERE DAL CUSTOMERS LIVE AND TRAVEL

To gain a better understanding about passenger demand, travel patterns, and transportation modes of choice, DAL customer data was analyzed based on a sample of over 2,100 customers (total 2,138) collected by NCTGOG, called 2015 Dallas Love Field Airport Originating Passenger Survey, in the fall 2015. This sample size is statistically significant with a 99% confidence level and a 3% margin of error based on the 2015 DAL enplanements population (7,040,950 estimated by USDOT).

Fifty seven percent of DAL customers were Texas residents (Figure 2.4). Forty three percent were directly coming from their own home to the airport for travel; 22 percent from hotels/motels; 17 percent from their work place; and 15 percent from someone elseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s house. Only 1 percent of DAL customers said they live outside the U.S., while 42 percent of travelers live in other U.S. States. Texas is the most popular final destination of DAL survey respondents; 23 percent of respondents were heading to a city in Texas. Thirteen percent of travelers reported California as their final destination, and others were traveling to Missouri (6%), Georgia (5%), Florida (5%), Nevada (4%), New York (4%), Louisiana (4%), Arizona (4%), and other states in the U.S. Only eight respondents reported going abroad.

Figure 2.4: Where DAL Customers Live (source: 2015 Dallas Love Field Airport Passenger Survey, NCTCOG)

AIRPORT STUD Y

PURPOSE OF TRIP Figure 2.5 displays the primary purpose of travel for DAL passengers. Approximately half visited the airport for business trips. Twenty five percent and 22 percent were traveling for vacation and visiting friends and family. One percent of passengers were traveling for educational purposes (to/from college), and .5 percent for military purposes. About 2 percent were traveling with other purposes, such as for medical treatment, legal services, sporting events, religious events, long distance moving, etc.

Figure 2.5: Purpose of Travel (source: 2015 Dallas Love Field Airport Passenger Survey, NCTCOG)

TRANSPORTATION MODE TO DAL AND REASONS OF MODE CHOICE Figure 2.6 displays the DAL passengerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transportation modes of choice to the airport. Over half of passengers used a private vehicle, such as a car, van, or motorcycle, as their mode of transportation to DAL. The second popular transportation mode was a rental vehicle (23%) followed by a taxi/limousine service (8%). Approximately 6.6 percent of passengers used ridesharing services (Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, etc.), while 3 percent used a hotel/ motel shuttle, and 2.1 percent used an airport shuttle. Only a small share of passengers used a charter bus, DART light rail/bus, or other transportation mode.

Figure 2.6: DAL Passenger Transportation Mode to the Airport (source: 2015 Dallas Love Field Airport Passenger Survey, NCTCOG)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

Figure 2.7: Transportation Mode Choices (source: 2015 Dallas Love Field Airport Passenger Survey, NCTCOG)

AIRPORT STUD Y

PARKING LOCATION AND REASON FOR PARKING CHOICE Among the 1,193 passengers who used a private vehicle as their transportation mode, 59 percent dropped off at DAL and did not park. The remaining 49 percent parked in the airport or near the airport. DAL provides various options of parking choices including remote parking (Figure 2.9). Figure 2.8 shows passengersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; parking preference and the reason for their choice; multiple answers were available for the reason for parking choice. The most utilized parking lot is Parking Spot because of comfort and convenience (53.4%), cost (28.4%), and covered parking (12%). Both long term and short term airport garages, Garage B and Garage A, are also well utilized. The users of the long term parking garage indicated that they prefer this parking garage due to comfort and convenience (48.6%), cost (38.4%), covered parking (6.8%), lack of time (3.4%), and travel time (2.7%). The primary reason for short term parking garage preference is comfort and continence (78%) (Figure 2.8).

Figure 2.8: Parking Location Preference and the Reason (source: 2015 Dallas Love Field Airport Passenger Survey, NCTCOG)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

Figure 2.9: Parking Lots in DAL (source: DAL website)

AIRPORT STUD Y

DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PASSENGERS There were slightly more females (51%) than males (49%) among DAL customers who participated in the survey. Figure 2.10 displays DAL customers’ gender and age distribution. Large subgroups of passengers were between the ages of 35 to 64, with more males than females in these age groups. Sixty four percent of total male passengers and 55 percent of total female passengers were in these age groups. Ninety four percent of male passengers and 67 percent of female passengers who were between the ages of 35 and 64 traveled for business related purposes.

Figure 2.10: DAL Passengers’ Gender and Age Distribution (source: 2015 Dallas Love Field Airport Passenger Survey, NCTCOG)

The majority of DAL passengers were White (66%) followed by African American (16.7%). Approximately 9.4 percent of passengers indicated that they were Hispanic/Latino. Other subgroups identified as Asian (3.3%), American Indian/Alaska Native (1.6%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (0.7%), and other (2.3%).

Figure 2.11: DAL Passengers’ Race and Ethnicity (source; 2015 Dallas Love Field Airport Passenger Survey, NCTCOG)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

DAL passengers are affluent. Over half of the passengers reported that their household incomes were $100,000 or more; 24 percent reported incomes between $100,000 and $149,999, and 28 percent reported incomes of $150,000 or more (Figure 2.12). According to U.S. Census, 27 percent of Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan residents had household incomes of $100,000 or more while the median household income was $59,946 in 2015. Fifteen percent of passengers reported incomes of $75,000 to $99,999, 17 percent reported incomes of $50,000 to $74,999, 12 percent reported incomes of $25,000 to $49,999, and 5 percent reported incomes of under $24,999. Figure 2.13 displays passenger responses to the question of â&#x20AC;&#x153;Did you purchase food, beverages, gifts, or any other goods and/or services in DAL and if yes, how many total dollars did you spend?â&#x20AC;? Approximately 64 percent of passengers made a purchase in DAL while they were traveling. A majority of them (97%) who purchased goods or services in the airport spent $50 or less; 82 percent spent less than $25 and 15 percent spent between $25 and $50. Less than 1% spent more than $100 in DAL. Figure 2.12: DAL Passengersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Annual Income before Tax (source: 2015 Dallas Love Field Airport Passenger Survey, NCTCOG)

AIRPORT STUD Y

Figure 2.13: Passengersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Spending in DAL (source: 2015 Dallas Love Field Airport Passenger Survey, NCTCOG)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

AIRPORT STUDY FAA GUIDELINE STUDY NOISE CONTROL AND COMPATIBILITY PLANNING FOR AIRPORTS The following text is written based on the Advisory Circular of “Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports”, prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. It provides instruction for Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for airports under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 and the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (ASNA) as amended (FAA 1988, 3). Airport noise compatibility planning aims to decrease the present incompatible land uses surrounding an airport and to prevent the introduction of additional incompatible land uses through the collaborative endeavors of all stakeholders involved. FAR Part 150 creates an individual system for measuring airport (and background) noise, an individual system for specifying the exposure of individuals to airport noise, and “a standardized airport noise compatibility planning program” (FAA 1988, 3). Many airports in the United States share the challenge of noise/land use compatibility. Subsequent to the growth of urban areas and use of air travel, the challenge of noise can potentially get worse. However, restricting the challenge of growth and distribution of noise compatibility has been accomplished through local and national collaborative actions such as an “environmental

AIRPORT STUD Y

review process for airport development projects”. In addition, the accomplishment of successful noise compatibility programs still requires resolving such major challenges as recognizing land uses that are normally compatible with different levels of noise around airports, as well as a procedure for “safety and economic evaluation” of any other proposed actions (FAA 1988, 3). The goal of providing a Noise Compatibility Program is “to seek optimal accommodation of both airport operations and community activities within acceptable safety, economic and environmental parameters”. It could be achieved through reducing incompatible land uses in proximity of the airport and prohibiting new incompatible land uses to be introduced in the future. There is a wide range of feasible alternatives of noise control actions and land use patterns that must be taken into account by airport proprietors and other responsible officials (FAA 1988, 3). A checklist for noise compatibility programs is illustrated in APPENDIX (FAA 2008).

DALLAS BUILDING CODE According to the City of Dallas Building Code, Chapter 42, under the title of Utility Agreements and the Dissolution of Common Boundary Lines for Building, under Section 4201, Authorization and Requirements for Unity Agreements, “the building official may

authorize the dissolution of common boundary lines between two or more lots for purposes of this code if a written agreement is executed in accordance with this section on a form provided by the City” (City of Dallas 2013, 206).

1. “Contain legal descriptions of the properties sharing the common boundary lines”.

The code explains an exception regarding the execution of a written unity agreement. According to the code, “the building official may authorize the dissolution of common boundary lines for purposes of this code without the execution of a written unity agreement when the City is an owner or lessee of all of the property involved” (City of Dallas 2013, 206).

3. “State that all parties agree that the properties sharing the common boundary lines may be collectively treated as one lot for the limited purpose of meeting the requirements of this code”.

As required by the code, the agreement cannot be utilized to create a building site nor as a substitute for platting or re-platting. In addition, “property lines cannot be created unless the structures are compliant or will be made compliant with the requirements of this code following the permit requirements of Administrative Procedures for the Construction Codes of the Dallas City Code”. According to the code, it is required for a property line proposed through an existing building to result in “functionally independent structures on each side of the property line” (City of Dallas 2013, 206). A unity agreement shall meet all of the following requirements (City of Dallas 2013, 206 & 207).

2. “Set forth adequate consideration between the parties”.

4. “State that the dissolution of the common boundary lines described in the agreement is only for the limited purpose of meeting requirements of this code, and that actual lines of property ownership are not affected”. 5. “State that the agreement constitutes a covenant running with the land with respect to all properties sharing the common boundary lines. A maximum of two lots may be used per agreement”. 6. “State that all parties agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dallas from and against all claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the agreement”. 7. “State that the agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of Texas”.

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

“State that the agreement may only be amended or terminated in accordance with Section 4202”.

“Be approved by the building official and be approved as to form by the city attorney”.

10. “Be signed by all owners of the properties sharing the common boundary lines. 11. “Be signed by all lienholders, other than taxing entities, which have either an interest in the properties sharing the common boundary lines or an improvement on those properties”. 12. “Be filed and made a part of the deed records of the county or counties in which the properties are located”.

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND AIRPORT

• “Establishment of a single system of measuring noise, for which there is a highly reliable relationship between projected noise exposure and surveyed reactions of people to noise, to be uniformly applied in measuring the noise at airports and the areas surrounding airports” • “Establishment of a single system for determining exposure of individuals to noise which results from the operations of an airport and which includes, but is not limited to, noise intensity, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence” • “Identification of land uses which are normally compatible with various exposures of individuals to noise”. According to the ASNA, a noise compatibility program recognizes measures that an airport owner has taken or has proposed in order to diminish existing incompatible land uses, and inhibiting additional incompatible land uses through the area covered by noise exposure maps” (FAA 2015, III-2).

Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement (ASNA) Act of 1979 This act helps airport owners to prepare and perform noise compatibility programs in order to ensure “continued safety in aviation”, and for other aims. The act required the following actions be taken (FAA 2015, III-2).

AIRPORT STUD Y

Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program This program provides airport owners financial assistance to assess noise impacts and to recognize and perform measures in order to reduce noise. It establishes requirements for airport owners who opt to submit “noise compatibility planning programs” to the FAA for “review and approval” (FAA 2015, III-3).

Revisions to Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning established “a single system of measuring aircraft noise” and a single system for specifying the exposure of individuals to noise in the proximity of airports. The revised regulation also established a standardized airport noise compatibility program including the following: (FAA 2015, III-3). • “Voluntary development and submission to the FAA of noise exposure maps (NEMs) and noise compatibility programs (NCPs) by airport owners” • “Standard noise measurement methodologies and units” • “Recognition of land uses that are normally compatible (or incompatible) with different levels of aircraft noise around airports” • “The procedures and criteria for preparation and submission of NEMs and NCPs”

There is still an ongoing cooperation between the FAA, airport owners, and airport communities in developing and updating FAR Part 150 NCPs. More than 200 airports across the U.S. take part in the FAA’s airport noise compatibility planning program (FAA 2015, III-4).

Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (National Noise Policy) This act was passed on November 5, 1990, and required “the establishment of a National Noise Policy”. One of the major barriers toward increase and expansion of capacity at the nation’s airport is the public’s objection to aircraft noise. Due to the importance of “noise complaints from the public”, the act underscores on establishing National Noise Policy. Conflict between airport owners, the communities they serve, and the airlines had been a consequence of the lack of this policy (FAA 2015, III-6). There are two classifications of airports in terms of the level of noise they emit while taking off and landing. The loudest, such as the original Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8, are classified under Stage 1 aircraft. Stage 2 aircraft comprises the older Boeing 727, 737, 747 and the McDonnell-Douglas DC-9 and DC-10. The quietest aircraft are classified under Stage 3 aircraft, which comprises the new Boeing 737, 747, 757, and 767, McDonnellDouglas MD-80 and MD-11, and the European Airbus. A critical section of the National Noise Policy was the requirement to remove Stage 2 aircraft operating in “the contiguous United States” (FAA 2015, III-6). According to the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, no person after December 31, 1999 “may operate a civil turbojet airplane weighing more than 75,000 pounds in the contiguous United States unless that airplane meets Stage 3 noise levels”.

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

The act also necessitates establishing “a schedule of phasedin compliance”. As of September 1998, Stage 3 aircraft incorporated approximately 80 percent of the composed national and international fleets of large turbojet airplanes operating to and from U.S. airports (FAA 2015, III-6).

AIRPORT-RELATED REGULATIONS RELATING TO COMPATIBLE LAND USE PLANNING FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports It is crucial to avoid the undesirable interaction between aircraft and wildlife. There are certain land uses having the capacity to attract hazardous wildlife to or in the vicinity of public-use airports such as “sanitary landfills and wetland mitigation areas”. AC provides a guidance regarding the location of these particular land uses. AC recognizes “land uses of concern” in adjacency to the airport. Wetlands, ponds, and storm water retention facilities are examples of “land uses of concern” specifically recognized by the AC (FAA 2015, III-13).

AIRPORT STUD Y

Federal Aviation Regulation Part (FAR) 77 It can be dangerous to the navigation of aircraft if tall structures are constructed in adjacency to an airport. Tall structures include cell towers, buildings, and construction cranes. In addition, there must be sufficient airspace around airports. In order to maintain this airspace, the FAA, through FAR Part 77, created a method of recognizing surfaces that should be “free from penetration by obstruction” (FAA 2015, III-14). FAR Part 77 identifies “the maximum height at which a structure would be considered an obstacle at any given point around an airport”. The extension of miles from an airport facility can be in accordance with “the extent of the off-airport coverage”. The off-airport coverage needs to be assessed for “tall structure impact” (FAA 2015, III-14). Figure 2.14 illustrates the basic concept.

FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 70/7460-2J, Proposed Construction or Alteration of Objects that May Affect the Navigable Airspace Any Federally Obligated Airport or the FAA Traffic Division for any construction off an airport must report via FAA Form 7460-1 at least 30 days before proposed construction or application for building permit, in any of the following situations (FAA 2015, III-16):

Figure 2.14: FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces (source: National Geodetic Survey)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

• Construction/alteration including construction cranes of greater height than 200 feet above the ground level • Construction/alteration including construction cranes of greater height than an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at one of the following slopes: –– 100-to-1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, excluding heliport –– 5 0-to-1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, excluding heliport –– 2 5-to-1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest landing and take-off area of each heliport • Highways, railroads, or other transportation infrastructure for mobile objects of a height which, if adjusted upward 17 feet for interstate highways, 15 feet for public roadways, 10 feet (or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater) for private roads, 23 feet for a railroad, and for a waterway or any other

AIRPORT STUD Y

traverseway not previously mentioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it, would exceed a standard of the previous paragraphs.

This page intentionally left blank.

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

SITE

SOCIOECONOMIC PATTERNS

LOCATIONAL ANALYSIS

3 ANALYSIS

SITE ANALYSIS LOCATIONAL ANALYSIS The subject-area is located north of Dallas Love Field Airport, just across Bachman Lake. The site can be accessed via W Northwest Highway, Webb Chapel Extension, and Webb Chapel Road.

It is in close proximity to Crown Hill Memorial Park, Bachman Lake Park, Pine Creek Medical Center, and several K-12 schools within a 1.5 mile radius (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Location of the Site and Influential Nodes

SITE A N A LYSIS

NOISE CONTOUR

NOTE for TABLE 3.1 •

Noise contour maps are a collection of lines that represent equal levels of noise exposure (FAA, 2015). These lines represent various DNL (Day-Night Sound Level) levels, typically 65, 70, 75 dBA. DNL is based on sound levels measured in relative intensity of sound, or decibels (dB), on “A” weighted scale (dBA). This scale most closely approximates the response characteristics of the human ear to sound; the higher the number, the louder the sound. Figure 3.2 displays the noise contour around the subject-site. According to the FAA, the following information must be considered for the area’s land usage. • The FAA has established 65 DNL as the threshold. The area of DNL 65 dB or greater is incompatible with residential-related uses (e.g. schools, hospitals, parks, recreation areas) • The area between DNL 70 dB and 75 dB can be used for public use, commercial use, manufacturing, and recreation with some restrictions (Table3. 1). • The area of DNL 75 dB or greater can be used for transportation, parking, whole sale and retail, utilities, and some manufacturing (Table 3. 1).

25 or 30 = Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve Noise Level Reduction of 25 or 30 dBA (i.e. a weighted sound level) must be incorporated into design and construction of structure.

(1) Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor noise level reduction of at least 25 dBA and 30 dBA should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a noise level reduction of 20 dBA, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10 or 15 dBA over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. However, the use of noise level reduction criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. (2) Measures to achieve noise level reduction of 25 dBA must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. (3) Measures to achieve noise level reduction of 30 dBA must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. (4) Measures to achieve noise level reduction of 35 dBA must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. (5) Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. (6) Residential buildings require noise level reduction of 25 dBA. (7) Residential buildings require noise level reduction of 30 dBA. (8) Residential buildings not permitted.

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

Yearly DNL Sound Level (decibels)

Land Use

Less than 65

65-70

70-75

75-80

80-85

Over 80

Residential Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings

N (1)

Mobile home parks

N (1)

Schools

N (1)

Hospitals and nursing homes

Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls

Governmental services

Transportation

Y (2)

Y (3)

Y (4)

Y (2)

Y (3)

Y (4)

Transient lodgings Public Use

Parking

Commercial Use Offices, business and professional

Wholesale and retail â&#x20AC;&#x201C; building materials, hardware, and farm equipment

Y (2)

Y (3)

Y (4)

Retail trade, general

Utilities

Y (2)

Y (3)

Y (4)

Y (2)

Y (3)

Y (4)

Communication

Manufacturing and Production Manufacturing, general

Photographic and optical

Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry

Y (6)

Y (7)

Y (8)

Livestock farming and breeding

Y (6)

Y (7)

Mining and fishing, resource production and extraction

Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports

Y (5)

Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters

Nature exhibits and zoos

Amusements, parks, resorts, and camps

Golf courses, riding stables, and water recreation

Recreational

Table 3.1: Land Use Compatibility with DNL levels (source: 1050. 1F Desk Reference, FAA)

SITE A N A LYSIS

Figure 3.2: Noise Contour on the Site

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

FLOOD PLAIN The subject-site is not in a flood hazard zone (Figure 3.3). The closest flood hazard zone shows a 0.2% annual chance of flooding, located southwest of the site.

Figure 3.3: Flood Plain

SITE A N A LYSIS

GROUND ACCESS SCENARIOS BY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION The IUS team studied current trip scenarios from the site to the airport via public transportation (Figure 3.5). There are three DART stations, Bachman, Burbank, and Inwood/Love Field, where people can transfer from the Green Line and Orange Line of the DART rail to the DART bus system, or vice versa. DART bus routes 528, 529, 524, 428, and 29 serve this area. In both scenarios, it takes around 38 minutes from the study site to the airport during weekday off-peak hours. However, it takes between 10 and 15 minutes if travelers use private vehicles (Figure 3.4). Travelers expect safe and efficient methods of movement and transportation despite the traffic volume and/ or the travel mode they use; the IUS team therefore suggests transportation alternatives with case studies to link DAL to the site (See Chapter 5).

Figure 3.4: Current Trip Scenarios by Private Vehicle (source: Google Transit)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

Figure 3.5: Current Trip Scenarios by Private Vehicle (source: DART and Google Transit)

SITE ANALYSIS

SITE ANALYSIS SOCIOECONOMIC PATTERNS The IUS team studied demographic and economic characteristics of the population within a 1.5 mile buffer area of the subject site to understand the capacity for the area.

Figure 3.6: Age-Gender Distribution in 1.5 Mile Buffer Area of the Site (source: 2016 ESRI Business Analyst)

POPULATION The population total was 39,072 within the 1.5 mile buffer area of the site in 2016 (ESRI Business Analyst, 2016). In age-gender breakdown, the largest groups of the population were age 0 to 4, age 5 to 9, age 25 to 29, and age 30 to 34 in both male and female (Figure 3.6). Compared to Dallas Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s age-gender distribution, the population of the subject area has a larger portion of relatively young residents. These large sub-groups of the population include millennials. There are no precise dates regarding the parameters of this cohort of millennials, however most demographers and researchers define millennials as those born in the early 1980s to the early 2000s. Millennials are one of the largest generations in history and they are about to move into their prime spending year. Unique millennial experiences and patterns are reshaping the economy. Borrowing from the Goldman Sachesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; research on the millennial effect (2016), millennial spending is predicted to increase by 17% over the next 5 years and their purchasing power will likely overtake that of baby boomers by 2018. The IUS team studied the millennial population in the buffer area (Figure 3.7). In this report, the team considered the population born between 1981 and 2005 (age 10 to 34 in 2015) as millennials. The buffer area has a larger portion of millennials than Dallas County; 40% of the population are millennials in the buffer area, while millennials make up 37% of the entire Dallas County population.

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

Figure 3.7: Millennial Population Comparison between 1.5 Mile Buffer Area and Dallas County (source: 2015 U.S. Census)

SITE A N A LYSIS

RACE AND ETHNICITY The buffer area is racially and ethnically diverse. Figures 3.8 and 3.9 show the racial and ethnic breakdown in 2015. The majority of the population was White (75%), followed by a combination of other races (15.6%) including American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, followed by Black or African American (6.5%), two or more races (1.9%), and Asian (1.1%). In terms of ethnicity, Hispanic and Latino residents represented approximately 59% of the population, while nonHispanic and Latino residents represented approximately 41%.

Figure 3.8: Ethnicity in the Buffer Area (source: 2015 U.S. Census)

Figure 3.9: Race Breakdown in the Buffer Area (source: 2015 U.S. Census)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

EDUCATION ATTAINMENT

LABOR FORCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

Educational attainment is often a determining factor for the income an individual may receive. It also may be a factor in the various businesses a city attracts. The population of adults over the age of 25 is used, as opposed to ages 18-24, in order to capture the trend of a comparably less transient population (e.g. currently enrolled students). The majority of the population (55%) in the buffer area had a high school diploma or equivalency, and 19% of the population had an associateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree or higher in 2015 (Figure 3.10).

The buffer area is home to a total of 1,637 businesses. With a population of 53,633, the eligible labor force (over 16 years of age) totals 28,991. Approximately 92% of the eligible working age population was employed in 2015 (Figure 3.11). The unemployment rate of this area is at 8%, and it is slightly higher than the City of Dallas (7.8%) and Dallas County (7.6%).

Figure 3.10: Education attainment of the population in the buffer area (source: 2015 U.S. Census)

SITE ANALYSIS

Figure 3.11: Unemployment Rate (source: 2015 U.S. Census)

HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ANNUAL SPENDING In 2016, the median household income was $31,663 and the average per capita income was $23,138 in the buffer area (2016 ESRI Business Analyst). It is noticeably lower than median household income of Dallas County at $51,824 and the City of Dallas at $50,270 (2016 Small Area Income & Poverty Esitimates from U.S. Census).

The residents in this area spent money on groceries ($3,526), health care ($2,973), and eating out ($2,191). In the life style expenditure categories, people surpassingly spent on travel over other recreational/entertainment activities such as movies, museums, concerts, online games, and/or sport events (Figure 3.12).

Figure 3.12: Median Household Income and Annual Household Spending (source: 2016 ESRI Business Analyst)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

HOUSING A housing inventory description consists of the total number of housing units (occupied and vacant), owner or rental occupied status, and median rent. Regarding the buffer area, the 2015 U.S. Census cited the following: • The total number of housing units was 19,178. Of these, 17,390 were occupied (90.7%) and 1,788 (9.3%) were vacant.

• The median housing value of this area was $120,800 with a total of 5,969 housing units with value. Around half of those units were valued between $50,000 and 199,999; 21.3% between $50,000 and 99,999, 20.2% between $100,000 and 149,999, and 13% between $150,000 and 199,999 (Figure 3.15).

• Of the occupied housing, 34.4% (5,969 units) were owneroccupied and 65.7% (11,421 units) were renter-occupied (Figure 3.13). • The median gross rent of this area was $799 with a total of 11,298 housing units with cash rent. The majority of rented units were between $500 and $899; 15.6% between $500 and $599, 22.3% between $600 and $699, 17.3% between $700 and 799; and 14.3% between $800 and $899 (Figure 3.14).

Figure 3.13: Housing Occupancy (source: 2015 U.S. Census)

SITE A N A LYSIS

Figure 3.14: Rent Gross (source: 2015 U.S. Census)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

Figure 3.15: Housing Value (source: 2015 U.S. Census)

SITE A N A LYSIS

LAND VALUE Land has value as it may give rise to a stream of future income consisting of a volume of goods, services and satisfactions to the owners. In other words, the material value of land depends upon the goods and services emanating from it. These earnings will stem from the property as a whole, including land and buildings/ improvements. The value and price of land are determined by seven factors as listed below (FAO, 2013). • • • • • • •

The land values within the subject-site vary from under $100,000 to around $3,400,000 (Figure 3.16). The highest values of land are located along major access roads into the site: Larga Drive and Shelia Lane. These parcels are zoned for community retail and planned development.

Productive land capability Security of land Agriculture policy Land use options Land taxation Land policy and zoning Land speculation

Figure 3.16: Land Value

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

The highest improvement value, which is the market value of buildings and other structures on the property, are shown in similarity with the highest land value. Parcels along Larga Drive have the highest market value of improvement ($ 5,000,001 to $9,400,000) followed by parcels near Timberline Drive with improvement values between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000 (Figure 3.17).

Figure 3.17: Improvement Value

SITE ANALYSIS

This page intentionally left blank.

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES STUDY

PEER AIRPORTS CASE STUDY

4 BEST PRACTICES

BEST PRACTICES PEER AIRPORTS CASE STUDY Power Circle Scoring Legend: Enplanements (2015)

J.D. Power Rank (2016)

7,040,950

14th in Medium

Enplanements (2015)

J.D. Power Rank (2016)

11,242,375

9th in Large

Portland (OR) International Airport

8,340,252

1st in Large

Indianapolis International Airport

3,889,567

1st in Medium

Tampa International Airport

9,150,458

2nd in Large

San Diego International Airport

9,985,763

6th in Large

Salt Lake City International Airport

10,634,538

7th in Large

Nashville International Airport

5,715,205

12th in Medium

Dallas Love Field Airport

Peer Airport Washington DC Reagan National Airport

AMONG THE BEST

BETTER THAN MOST

ABOUT AVERAGE

Overall Satisfaction

Airport Accessibility

Check-In/ Baggage Check Process

Security Check

Terminal Facilities

Baggage Claim

Terminal Shopping

Overall Satisfaction

Airport Accessibility

Check-In/ Baggage Check Process

Security Check

Terminal Facilities

Baggage Claim

Terminal Shopping

Table 4.1: Overview of DAL and Peer Airports by Passenger Size and Service Satisfaction (source: J.D. Power and Associates rankings for US airports and FAA)

BEST PRACTICES

Ground Transportation and Parking

WASHINGTON DC REAGAN NATIONAL AIRPORT (DCA)

Summary for DCA Metropolitan Population (2015)

Airport Satisfaction Rank

Enplanements (2015)

Ground Transportation

Notable Project

5,949,403

9 in Large

11,242,375

Metrorail, rental car, taxi, airport shuttle, bicycle

Crystal City Sector Plan

Individuals can access DCA via vehicle including airport shuttles, Metrorail operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), or by walking and biking on the Mt. Vernon Trail. Figure 5.1 shows a map of the Mt. Vernon Trail connection to DCA. Reagan National Airport shuttles operate 24 hours a day to help passengers and employees navigate all terminals, parking lots, and rental car facilities in the airport.

Context of Airport and Region Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) is located in Arlington County, Virginia and is approximately 4 miles from downtown Washington, D.C. The airport is located between the Potomac River to the east and George Washington Memorial Parkway to the west. Compared to many airports around the country, DCA is in a fairly urban area, and is surrounded by dense developed land uses. DCA contains two terminals and 44 gates. The airport served 344,257 passengers the year it opened in 1941, and reached the 1 million annual passenger mark in 1946. As of 2015, over 11 million people traveled through DCA according to FAA.

Figure 4.1: Mt. Vernon Trail Connection to DCA and Bicycle Parking Locations (source: DCA website)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

The airport also provides several parking options as below.

Notable Projects: Crystal City Sector Plan, 2010

• Parking garages - Terminal A: 1,080 available in $6/hour to $25/day - Terminal B/C: 5,223 available in $6/hour to $25/day

Crystal City is west of DCA within walking distance. The redevelopment of Crystal City (260 acres) is one of the important components of Arlington County’s 50 year plan. It calls for the replacement of approximately 30 existing buildings with more than 55 new buildings, adding over 15.5 million square feet of net density to the 24 million square feet already in existence near DCA (Figure 5.2).

• Economy parking lot: 2,597 available in $17/day • Cell phone Waiting Area: free • Electric Vehicle Charging Station : free • Self-service Bicycle Storage Racks :48 available The parking garage and lot can be reserved using “ePark reservation” on their website, and visitors can pay using their own smart phone app.

Acting as a blue print for redevelopment, the plan envisions a lively, complete, urban community with richer transit options, better streets, more functional public open spaces, and numerous community and neighborhood-oriented services (Figure 5.3). Several significant highlights of the plan include:

Figure 4.2: Aerial View of DCA Area and Proposed Redevelopment near DCA in Crystal City (source: Lams, 2010)

BEST PRACTICES

• Accommodation of 65 new or redeveloped buildings by 2050 • 7,500 new residential units providing a more appropriate jobhousing balance • New Crystal City Skyline with buildings topping out at around 300 feet (FAA approval already established) • Landmark “Center Park” open space (Number 4 in Figure 5.4) Keys to Success • Developed a conceptual plan for the long-term future of Crystal City with enough detail to know where buildings will be located and how tall they will be • Completed economic analysis to determine when buildings are likely to be built • Nurtured a mutual understanding of county goals and FAA goals by sharing information • Developed a good working relationship between DCA officials and the National Park Services allowing the Mt. Vernon trail to remain functional and keeping the trail open for non-motorized use • Provided wayfinding signage throughout the airport area to direct bicyclists to Crystal City and the various terminals Figure 4.3: Concept Plan of Crystal City Sector Plan (source: Crystal City Sector Plan, 2010)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (PDX)

Summary for PDX Metropolitan Population (2015)

2,320,323

Airport Satisfaction Rank

1st in Large

Enplanements (2015)

Ground Transportation

Notable Project

8,340,252

TriMet MAX train, charter bus, courtesy shuttle, door to door shuttle, exclusive car, hotel shuttle, rental car, scheduled bus and van, taxi, bicycle

2014 Portland International Airport bicycle and pedestrian mater plan

Context of Airport and Region Portland International Airport (PDX) is located northeast of downtown Portland, Oregon and is operated by the Port of Portland. PDX has seen steady growth for many decades, becoming the nation’s fastest growing airport in the late1990s. The 2015 and 2016 J.D. Power and Associates rankings for US “Large Passenger Airports” lists PDX at the #1 slot and overall highest amongst passenger satisfaction criteria.

BEST PRA CTICES

Air passenger traffic at PDX more than doubled from six million in 1990 to more than 14 million in 2008, with 2020 projections for 22 million trips. PDX has two terminals, five concourses, 75 gates, and approximately 12,000 employees. There are 30 airlines that operate out of PDX, with approximately 600 daily operations (Port of Portland). In 2015, over 8 million passengers traveled through PDX (FAA).

Ground Transportation and Parking PDX provides various options of ground transportation to access including light rail, shuttle, bicycle, and walking. Light rail access to PDX, so called Airport MAX or MAX Red Line, had been part of the regional and airport master planning since the mid-1980s. When it was designed and built, a portion of Interstate 205 (I205) included a future transit way in the median, with a tunnel beneath the northbound lanes to access the median (TriMet, 2012). MAX Red Line opened to serve passengers in late 2001. The distance between the gateway and airport is 5.5 miles with 4 stations, and it takes around 15 minutes for travel (Figure 5.4). Figure 5.5 shows parking locations at PDX. Details of each parking facility are as follows: • Short-term parking garage: over 3,300 available, $3/hour to $27/day

• Long-term parking garage: over 3,000 available, $3/ hour to $21/day • Economy parking lot: 7,900 available, $3/hour to $10/day, drop-off and pick-up passenger services by parking shuttle • Valet parking: 24 hours open, $10/hour to $30/day • Cell phone waiting area: 30 available, free for maximum of 30 minutes • Motorcycle/bicycle parking: Free Figure 4.4: Route of Airport MAX from Downtown Portland to PDX (source: TriMet, 2012)

Notable Projects: 2014 Portland International Airport Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan This plan updates the 2003 PDX Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and follows a decade of investments by the Port of Portland (Port) in bicycle and pedestrian facilities at PDX. It is intended to address bicycle and pedestrian facilities and circulation needs on the landside of airport property.

Figure 4.5: Parking Locations in PDX (source: PDX website)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

In support of the PDX Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan update, the Port conducted outreach to gather input about existing bike and pedestrian facilities by hosting an open house for airport employees and users of the systems. The following themes emerged from this outreach. • A clear desire for safe crossing at intersections to increase cyclists and remove barriers for new riders • Safety improvements needed due to the narrow shoulder along the roadway • Better wayfinding signage on airport property along the bike path leading to the airport

PDX has two locations with complimentary bicycle parking. There are a number of short-term bicycle racks near the terminal and some in the Port of Portland offices. There are no locker rooms or showers in the airport; however, there are indoor bicycle parking areas and locker room facilities with showers in the Port of Portland headquarters. The headquarters building is within the airport boundary, and is connected to the airport terminal through attached parking garage structures. A bicycle assembly and repair station is located near the light rail platform, and is adjacent to the terminal baggage claim area. It is available 24 hours a day, with a bicycle rack, tools, and an air pump.

• Pedestrians and cyclists identified difficulties crossing intersections due to timing of traffic signals, segmented crossings, and sharp angles of the sidewalks Figures 5.7 and 5.8 show the proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities based on input. There are a variety of ways for bicyclists and pedestrians to access PDX, including multi-use paths, shared roadways, and sidewalks. A paved shared-use path connects the terminal area to the Marine Drive Bike Path outside of the airport (Figure 5.6). This path, and all other bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure at PDX, are maintained by the Port of Portland. Figure 4.6: Terminal Multi-Use Path (source: PDX website)

BEST PRA CTICES

Figure 4.7: Proposed Bicycle Facilities (source: Port of Portland, 2014)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

Figure 4.8: Proposed Pedestrian Facilities (source: Port of Portland, 2014)

BEST PRA CTICES

Keys to Success • Observed and listened to airport employees about their interest in bicycle commuting, and how bicycle commuting improvement would make a difference • Noted a desire to improve wayfinding signage around the airport to raise bicycling awareness for cyclists and to help identify bike route crossing areas near potentially dangerous intersections • Encouraged employees and travelers to bike to the airport through bicycle-specific events

INDIANAPOLIS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (IND)

Summary for IND Metropolitan Population (2015)

1,950,674

Airport Satisfaction Rank

1st in Medium

Enplanements (2015)

3,889,567

Ground Transportation Public bus, rental car, taxi, Bluelndy (electric car-sharing), limousine service, hotel shuttle

Notable Project

Compatible land use plan (LandINSight Project)

Context of Airport and Region Indianapolis International Airport (IND) is a public airport located 7 miles southwest of the central business district of Indianapolis. The airport is the largest in Indiana, occupying approximately 7,700 acres of land in Wayne and Decatur Townships of Marion County, all within the city of Indianapolis. The airport ranked #1 in the 2016 J.D. Power’s “Medium Passenger Airports” list overall as highest amongst passenger satisfaction criteria. IND has one terminal, two concourses, and 39 gates.

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

Around 10 airlines are operating out of IND with 143 daily departures to 46 nonstop destinations for business and leisure travel (Indianapolis Airport Authority). In 2015, around 4 million passengers traveled through IND (FAA).

Indianapolis limit. Travelers can access a BlueIndy vehicle at the terminal garage and return it to any station among 200 stations (Figure 5.9).

FedEx Express opened their Indianapolis hub in 1988. Three expansions since opening have made IND home to the second largest hub in the world for FedEx behind only the world hub at Memphis International Airport. IND is the eighth largest cargo center in the U.S. and the 22nd busiest airport in the world by cargo traffic. More than 2.2 billion pounds of cargo were managed at IND in 2010 (Indianapolis Airport Authority).

Ground Transportation and Parking Employees and travelers can access IND with various transportation modes; public bus, scheduled bus, rental car, taxi, electric car-sharing (BlueIndy), limousine service, and hotel shuttle. Public bus (IndyGo) and scheduled bus services from IND to the greater Indianapolis area, Ball State University, Indiana University, and Perdu University areas are available. BlueIndy, one of the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first municipally supported one-way EV ridesharing services, is a distinctive transportation option. It connects people from the airport to their destination within the City of

BEST PRA CTICES

Figure 4.9: Blueindy service let users pick the car up at one location and drop off at another. (Photo by Taylor Kelly from ballstatedaily.com)

Around 12,000 parking spaces are available at several locations in the airport. Each location’s details are as follows: • Terminal garage: 3405 available, $2/ half hour to$18/day • Economy lot: 8011 available, $9/day • Park and walk lot: 538 available, $14/day, approximately an 8-9 minute walk to terminal • Valet parking: $25 /day For frequent travelers, IND designed the “parkIND Plus” program, which provides convenient ticketless entry and exit from the terminal garage and economy lot, in addition to opportunities for earning free parking with membership points.

Notable Projects: LandINSight Project, 2010 In 2010, the Indianapolis Airport Authority (IAA) undertook an initiative to determine a 30-year vision for land use around Indianapolis International Airport (IND) and five reliever airports the authority owns. The Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) is a group of leaders from business, civic organizations, local government, education, infrastructure and land planning, and

other groups from throughout Central Indiana. A series of focus groups were held to collect input from a broad range of Central Indiana constituencies, including public information sessions. Landrum and Brown (L&B) conducted a comprehensive study to guide future land use and development of the Airport Authority’s airport system. This plan was adopted in 2010 by the IAA Board of Directors and called LandINSight (IAA, 2013). LandINSight was an IAA initiative designed to explore innovative ways for maximizing the potential of airport land for aviation and non-aviation-related activities since 2010. The “LandINSight” project was to focus on making a positive contribution to employment, development, urban revitalization, and other public needs, providing maximum economic return to both IAA and local communities (IAA, 2011). Underlying these plans was the requirement that the airport’s aviation infrastructure and resources must be preserved to service future long-term industry and regional needs. The airport facilities, functions, planning constraints, regional geography, environmental considerations, engineering issues, and roadway infrastructure led to the creation of seven development zones: • Zone 1: The International Gateway and Commerce Center • Zone 2: The Future Growth of Aviation Activities

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

• Zone 3: The Future Runway Expansion

Keys to Success

• Zone 4: The Regional Logistics and Business Complex

• A consistent management approach and the consistent support of the Airport Authority’s board of directors throughout the period.

• Zone 5: The Education and Technology Park • Zone 6: The Multi-Modal Transport Park • Zone 7: The Indianapolis Conservation and Recreation Complex Overall, the seven zones encompassed 12,005 acres that can be developed over the 30 year planning period. (LandINSight, 2013).

• Strict zoning controls to protect airport approach airspace and to promote compatible land use in the airport environs, especially off the ends of the planned parallel runways • An extensive land-acquisition program that provided the Airport Authority with the land needed for future facilities far in advance of construction • The creation of a multi-modal connection that can link some or all of the zones to one another, and to the airport terminal

Figure 4.10: The Logistic and Business Complex and the Education and Technology Park (source: LandINSight, 2013)

BEST PRA CTICES

TAMPA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (TPA)

Summary for IND Metropolitan Population (2015)

2,888,458

Airport Satisfaction Rank

2nd in Large

Enplanements (2015)

Ground Transportation

9,150,458

Public Bus, Greyhound bus, chartered bus, Airport limos, shared passenger van, rental car, taxi

Notable Project

It has a single passenger terminal and four active airsides (A, C, E, and F) with 62 gates. The airport serves 85 non-stop destinations throughout North America, Central America, the Caribbean, and Europe by over 20 major air carrier airlines, 4 regional airlines, and 2 air cargo carriers. The airport is one of the airports in the United States to host regularly scheduled charters to Cuba. Over 9.1 million passengers traveled through TPA in 2015 (FAA).

Ground Transportation and Parking 2012 Airport Master Plan Update

Context of Airport and Region Tampa International Airport (TPA) is located 6 miles west of downtown Tampa, in Hillsborough County, Florida. TPA‘s Landside/Airside terminal was the first of its type in the world; the central terminal (“landside”) is connected by automated people movers to satellite air terminals and gates (“airside”). The north end of the Transfer Level is connected to the Marriott Hotel, while the airsides radiate outward.

Travelers can access the airport by various modes of ground transportation, such as public bus (HART), greyhound bus, chartered bus, taxis, rental cars, and shared van services. TPA does not provide bike access to the terminal. One of the interesting features of TPA transportation options is the monorail service. The monorail was installed in 1991 and runs only in the airport; it connects parking garages to four additional airsides (Figure 5.11). The airport has several parking options with over 20,000 parking spaces. All parking locations have free electric vehicle charging stations. • Long term parking garage: adjacent to main terminal via monorail, $4/80 min. to $18/day

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

• Short term parking garage: elevator access to main terminal, $4/80 min. to $22/day • Economy garage and lot: 24 hour shuttle service to main terminal, $1/20 min. to $10/day

area (Figure 5.12). The studies included the assessment of aviation-related and non-aviation market conditions with the goal of identifying potential development opportunities to diversify and enhance potential revenue streams for the airport.

• Green parking: available at all parking facilities, refer to parking facility for rates • Valet parking: walking distance to main terminal, $2/30 min. to $30/day • Cell phone waiting lot: 5 minute drive to main terminal, free

Notable Projects: 2012 Tampa International Airport Master Plan Update The 2012 Tampa International Airport Master Plan Update effort was undertaken to take a refocused look at the airport with emphasis on maximizing the capacity and longevity of the existing main terminal facilities while maintaining the high level of service. To support this plan for TPA, studies on the airport market assessment and land use planning were included. The analysis focused on development opportunities for airport land assets located within the airport’s east side and south development areas as well as interim opportunities within the North terminal Figure 4.11: Tampa International Airport and the Monorail Connection (source: TPA website)

BEST PRACTICES

• Evaluate the potential benefits of Shared Use Passenger Processing technologies and their ability to enhance the operational efficiency and capacity of the existing Main Terminal. • Evaluate highest and best aviation and/or terminal support use of real estate in the south development area, eastside development area, north terminal expansion area, and perimeter parcels. • Conduct a detailed assessment of the Main Terminal Complex to identify reasonable and viable actions to extend the capacity of terminal facilities and delay the need to initiate the development of the North Terminal. • Identify options for connecting to regional transportation systems in the near and long term. Figure 4.12: Tampa International Airport Land Use Study (source: TPA website)

The emphasis of the overall 2012 Master Plan Update was on the following elements. • Prepare new airport activity projections and use projections to evaluate facility capacity with a specific focus on terminal and passenger processing.

A distinctive recommendation for multiple issues within the existing terminal complex while deferring the need to construct a new North Terminal Complex is an Automated People Mover (APM) Train Station. The proposed APM station (Figure 5.13) would be located on the east side of the terminal and would connect passengers to the economy parking garage, new consolidated rental car facility, and commercial development

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

such as hotels and offices that may be constructed in the South South Terminal Support Area. The APM can be extended both north and south. In the south it could be extended to the proposed regional multimodal transportation center located in the adjacent business district to the airport. In the north it could be extended to connect to a future North Terminal Complex (2012 TPA Master Plan Update).

Keys to Success â&#x20AC;˘ Started from re-evaluation of alternatives prepared under the previous master plan (2005 TPA Master Plan). â&#x20AC;˘ Conducted intensive forecast studies on projected future aviation activity levels to establish current facility requirements, identify future capacity shortfalls, estimate timing and cost of future improvement, assess potential supply shortfalls, calculate future costs and revenue, and measure the overall benefit of aviation to the local economy.

Figure 4.13: Proposed Automated People Mover (APM) station east of the Main Terminal (source: 2012 TPA Master Plan Update)

BEST PRA CTICES

SAN DIEGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SAN)

Summary for SAN Metropolitan Population (2015)

3,223,096

Airport Satisfaction Rank

6th in Large

Enplanements (2015)

Ground Transportation

Notable Project

9,985,763

Amtrack and coaster commuter train, city bus, trolley service, airport limo, rental car, taxi, shuttels, biking and walking

2014 San Diego International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

Context of Airport and Region San Diego International Airport (SAN) is located northwest of downtown San Diego, California next to the San Diego Bay. It takes around 10 minutes by automobile from downtown to the airport. SAN is the major commercial airport for business, personal, and cargo transportation servicing the San Diego region and is operated by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. SAN is the smallest major airport in the U.S. with only 661 acres of land and a single easy-west runway and two terminals with 51 gates. Approximately 10 million passengers traveled through SAN in 2015 (FAA).

Ground Transportation and Parking Travelers headed to and from the airport can connect with various transportation modes: Amtrak and COASTER, city bus, trolley, shuttles, rental cars, taxis, and biking and walking. Many travelers take Amtrack’s Pacific Surfliner and the COASTER at Amtrack’s Santa Fe Depot train stations downtown by using Metropolitan Transit system Route 992 to reach SAN. Bicycling to the airport is quite popular and many employees bicycle to the airport via Harbor Drive. Adjacent to the airport, Harbor Drive has an off-road shared-use path. Figure 5.14 highlights bicycle infrastructure surrounding the airport. There are several locations for bicycle parking for employees and passengers, and airport employees have access to a shower and locker room. For passengers using personal vehicles, several parking options are available. • Terminal lots 1 and 2: parking right in front of terminals, $6/ hour to $32/day • Long term parking lot: a 3-5 minute distance to the terminal via lot shuttle, $20/day • Economy Lot: a 5-10 minute distance to the terminal via lot shuttle, $13/day • Valet parking: $40/day

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

• Cellphone Lot: 97 parking spaces available, free for one hour

Notable Projects: 2014 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for SAN is the fundamental tool to promote airport land use compatibility in the airport environments. This ALUCP is distinct from the Airport Master Plan. ALUCP focused on policies guiding future development and redevelopment in the area surrounding the airport, while the Airport Master Plan describes plans for development on airport property. ALUCP seeks to promote compatibility between the airport and surrounding future land uses in order to • Provide for the orderly development of the airport and the area surrounding the airport • Protect public health, safety, and welfare in areas around the airport This ALUCP provides airport land use compatibility policies and standards related to four airport-related factors: noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight (Table 5.2). The noise-compatibility program clarified the need for revision in airport-compatible overlay land use for dealing with noiseaffected properties (Figure 5.15). Land uses described as incompatible with noise above 65 dB CNEL are residences (all types), schools (public and private), hospitals and convalescence homes, and places of worship.

Figure 4.14: Bike Path surrounding the San Diego International Airport (http://www.icommutesd.com/Bike/BikeMap.aspx)

BEST PRA CTICES

Keys to Success • Studied comprehensive noise-compatibility program that established flight procedures to reduce noise exposure over airport neighborhoods and provided for the mitigation of the effects of noise through relocation projects

Compatibility Factor

Noise

Safety

Goals Ensures that new development within the noise contours is compatible with aircraft noise by: • Limiting new noise-sensitive development within noise compatibility boundary • Ensuring that any new noise-sensitive development includes sound attenuation • Obtaining avigation easements for new noise-sensitive development Protects the public health, safety, and welfare by: • Prohibiting certain sensitive land uses within the safety zones • Limiting the number of people in areas subject to the highest risk of aircraft accidents

Airspace Protection

Ensures that new development is consistent with: • Assuring flight safety by limiting the height of new structures and objects • Preserving the operational capability of the Airport • Preventing future reduction of available runway landing distance

Overflight

Ensures that prospective buyers of new housing within areas subject to aircraft overflights are informed about the potential effects of overflights by: • Ensuring that owners and developers of new residential projects provide notice of the presence of aircraft overflight to prospective buyers

Table 4.2: Compatibility Factors and Goals (source: 2014 ALUCP)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

Figure 4.15: 2030 Noise Exposure, Existing and General Plan Land Use in Westside of the Airport (source: 2014 ALUCP)

BEST PRA CTICES

SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SLC)

Summary for SLC Metropolitan Population (2015)

1,139,851

Airport Satisfaction Rank

7th in Large

Enplanements (2015)

Ground Transportation

Notable Project

10,634,538

TRAX/light rail, airport limo, hotel shuttle, rental car, biking

The New SLC Airport Redevelopment Program

Context of Airport and Region Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC) is located about 5 miles northwest of downtown Salt Lake City, Utah. There are two terminals, five concourses, and 71 aircraft gates. The airfield consists of three air carrier runways and a general aviation runway. SLC is the fourth largest hub for Delta Air Lines, as well as a hub for Delta Connection carrier SkyWest Airlines with nearly 300 daily departures, accounting for a 72.4% market share between October 2014 and September 2015. According to FAA, the airport is the 25th busiest airport in the United States by passenger count. Over 10.6 million passengers boarded at SLC in 2015, representing a 4.9% increase from 2014.

Ground Transportation and Parking SLC offers ground transportation options for all types of passengers. Public transit (TRAX/light rail, bus), hotel shuttles, limousines, rental cars, and biking provide access to the airport. TRAX/light rail service is provided every 15 minutes on weekdays and every 20 minutes on weekends, and public buses (UTA) provide limited service to the airport on weekdays and no bus service on weekends and holidays. A 2.8 mile trail provides bicycle/pedestrian connection along the south side of the airport (Figure 5.15). The trail is open to the public 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. from February to October and 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. from November to January. Individuals who want to use the south perimeter path that crosses airport property during periods when the gates are locked for security purposes need issued access cards. The access cards cost $15 each. SLC has multiple parking options for travelers using personal vehicles. • Premium reserved parking: garage level 1, $50/day • Daily garage parking: garage level 2 and 3, $32/day • Hourly garage parking: garage level 1, $2/half hour to $32/ day

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

• Long-term economy parking: free shuttle service to the terminals, $9/day • Park N’ Wait lot: free

Notable Projects: The New SLC Airport Redevelopment Program A lot has changed since the airport (SLC) serves nearly 23 million passengers a year in facilities constructed over 50 years ago to handle half that many travelers (SLC airport, 2017). Though the existing facilities have served the airport well, SLC has grown into a hub airport with growing number of flights and needs to meet updated earthquake-safety standard. There are some opportunities to enhance service by rebuilding airport facilities. The New SLC Redevelopment Program will completely rebuild the outdated passenger terminal complex and related facilities at the airport. The effort will replace three aging terminals built 30-50 years ago into a large, modern building with ample capacity for both the local needs and the airport’s role as a national major hub (Figure 15.6). Construction on the $3.1 billion program began in July of 2014 and will continue in phases through 2023/2024. The parking garage, terminal building, and west portions of the north and south concourses will be completed in 2020. Construction is Figure 4.16: Salt Lake City International Airport Bike Path Map (source: SLC website)

BEST PRA CTICES

being funded by several sources including federal grants, user fees, general airport revenue bonds, and airport reserves. No local tax dollars will be used. Keys to Success

region’s needs for decades with adaptability toward the constantly changing aviation industry. • Sustainable design to high environmental standards aiming for a LEED Gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council.

• Designated flexible and right-sized design to meet the

Figure 4.17: The New SLC Redevelopment Plan Map (source: SLC website)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

NASHVILLE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BNA)

Summary for BNA Metropolitan Population (2015)

1,761,848

Airport Satisfaction Rank 12th in Medium

Enplanements (2015)

Ground Transportation

Notable Project

5,715,205

Public bus, airport shuttle, hotel shuttle, limo, taxi, rental car

BNA Vision Project

Context of Airport and Region Nashville International Airport (BNA) is located about six miles southeast of downtown Nashville on approximately 4,500 acres. The City of Nashville is the capital of Tennessee, a center for the healthcare, publishing, banking, and transportation industries, and home to a large number of colleges and universities. It also known as “Music City”, a center of the music industry. The 2015 population of the entire Nashville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was 1,761,848 including a 634,512 population in the City of Nashville.

BNA has four runways and more than 1 million square feet of passenger terminal space with 47 gates. The airport was ranked the 35th busiest airport in the U.S. in terms of passenger count in 2015. A total of 5,715,205 passengers boarded at BNA in 2015, a 6% increase from 2014 (FAA). The airport is currently served by 12 airlines and offers 440 daily arriving and departing flights with nonstop flights to more than 50 destinations in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Bahamas, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, and Cuba (BNA airport, 2017).

Ground Transportation and Parking Travelers can access the airport through various transportation modes: public bus (MTA), airport shuttle, hotel shuttle, limousine, taxi, rental car, etc. BNA currently does not have proper bike access roads. The primary mode of public transit is Nashville MTA Airport Service. MTA Airport Service is provided every 1 hour on weekdays and on weekends to the downtown Music City. For passengers using personal vehicles, several parking options are available. • Long term A lot: Shuttle service available every 5 minutes, $3/ hour to $16/day • Long term B lot: Shuttle service available every 5 minutes, $3/ hour to $9/day

BEST PRA CTICES

• Short term lot: Short walk to the terminal, first 20 minutes free, $3/hour to $21/day • Economy lot: Shuttle service available, first 20 minutes free, $3/hour to $9/day • BNA Express park: 24/7 shuttle service on- demand, $9/day • Valet: $12/4 hours to $24/day • Cell phone waiting lot: free

Precise details of BNA Vision will evolve as individual projects take shape, but the preliminary plan (Figure 5.18) includes the following: • Parking and Transportation Center (Figure 5.17) –– Six-story structure to the south of the existing short term garage –– 2,000 parking spaces –– Center to open summer 2018 –– Roadway completion by early 2019 • Multi-modal transit

Notable Projects: BNA Vision Project

–– Potential for a multi-modal connector to link BNA to future Nashville transit system

BNA Airport expects their passenger traffic will grow from 13 million today to more than 20 million, and the population of the region is expected to surpass 2.5 million by 2035 (BNA Vision, 2017). The Metro Nashville Airport Authority (MNNA) announced a $1.2 billion renovation of the entire airport, also known as BNA Vision, in 2016. BNA Vision is a comprehensive plan designed to accommodate the region’s booming population growth and meet the needs of the airport’s rapid passenger increase. BNA Vision is an acceleration and expansion of MNNA’s Master Plan, a comprehensive strategy last updated in 2013 that provides planning and development guidance to address landside and airside facilities and land development consideration. Figure 4.18: Rendering Image of Parking and Transportation Center (source: BNA Vision, 2016)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

Figure 4.19: Preliminary Projects of BNA Vision (source: BNA Vision, 2016)

BEST PRA CTICES

• International arrivals building –– State-of-the-art expansion to accommodate the increase of international travelers and set the stage for attracting new nonstop flights –– Estimated completion by 2018 • Ticketing and baggage claim expansions • Concourse B and D expansion –– Additional gates to increase capacity –– New retail and dining options and amenities • Grand Ole lobby

BNA Vision’s funding will come from bonds, federal and state aviation grants, Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) and other airport funding sources. No local tax dollars will be used.

Keys to Success • Reviewed and developed the airport’s previous master plan • Detailed research on forecast of aviation demand • Well prepared financial plan for long-term renovation of the airport

–– Spacious central entrance hall for welcoming travelers –– Comfortably accommodate airline ticketing, baggage check-in, and federal security screening –– Additional lanes to minimize wait times and expedite the process • On-site hotel –– Potential for a 200-300-room hotel to provide travelers easy and convenient lodging • The relocation of Donelson Pike to improve traffic circulation and terminal access

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

BEST PRACTICES TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES STUDY 1

AUTOMATED PEOPLE MOVER (APM)

An Automated People Mover (APM) is a type of gradeseparated mass transit system. The term is generally used only to describe systems serving relatively small areas such as airports, downtown districts, or theme parks. An airport APM typically consists of driverless trains with up to four cars, each capable of carrying 20 to 100 passengers who are mostly standing (Muller, 2007). The role of APMs is different for the airside and landside uses. On the airside of an airport, an APM typically connects aircraft gates with airport processing functions (ticketing, baggage claim, etc.) or with other aircraft gates. On the landside, an APM typically connects the airport processing functions with other landside facilities such as parking, car rental, or regional transit (LEA+Elliott et al., 2010). In summary, the airside and landside roles of APMs are as follows:

• Enabling more gates in individual remote concourses through greater inter-facility transport capacity and faster gate-togate connection times • Enabling gate expansion on the opposite side of a runway(s) without having to add roadways, parking, and terminal processing facilities to the side of the airport

Landside APM Roles • Reducing airport roadway congestion and emissions by eliminating airport bus traffic allowing the airport to increase its origin/destination annual passengers for a given roadway system • More efficient connections between separate processing terminals to allow hubbing operations between facilities

Airside APM Roles

• Helping to consolidate rental car facilities by better accommodating their high volume demands

• Allowing remote concourses to be located further from main terminal processing functions by providing faster passenger connection times and reducing walk distances

• Providing a nearly seamless connection to airport facilities from regional transit, helping to promote transit modal access to the airport, and reducing auto congestion and emissions

BEST PRA CTICES

A Case of Landside APM: MIA Mover (Source: MIC website)

Name

Location

Line Length

MIA Mover

Miami International Airport (MIA)

1.27 miles

Operation Speed

Number of Station

Number of Vehicles

43miles/hr

Total Cost

• Service every two minutes between 5 a.m. and midnight daily & an on-demand call-button service between midnight and 5 a.m.

(in 2017 dollar)

$282 million

• Light-rail automated People Mover between Miami International Airport (MIA) and the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) • Has operated since 2011 • Benefits air travelers as well as employees commuting into MIA • Intermodal connector which is connected to Metrorail and Metrobus and will link the airport to Amtrak and Tri-Rail • Eases passenger traffic at terminal curb-fronts and on roads in and out of MIA

Main Vehicle Features

Rolling Stock

Train Configuration

Capacity (passengers)

Maximum Speed

Mitsubishi Crystal Mover vehicle

Fixed married-pair vehicle

93 (including 8 seated)/car

80 km/hr (50 mph)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

A Case of Airside APM: AeroTrain (Source: MWAA website)

Name

Location

Washington Dulles AeroTrain International Airport (IAD)

Line Length

Operation Speed

Number of Station

Number of Vehicles

3.78 miles

42 miles/ hr

Total Cost

(in 2017 dollar)

$1,612 million

• Automated People Mover between the terminal and the midfield gates for domestic and international departing flights and domestic arriving flights • Has operated since 2010 • Less than two minute travel time between stations • Train speeds up to 42 miles per hour • Express, underground transit between stations • The system is expandable to two full AeroTrain loops as the airport grows

BEST PRACTICES

Main Vehicle Features

Rolling Stock

Train Configuration

Capacity (Passengers)

Maximum Speed

Mitsubishi Crystal Mover vehicle

3-Car Trains (Initial) 4-Car Trains (Maximum)

72 (including 8 seated)/ car

80 km/hr (50 mph)

PERSONAL RAPID TRANSIT (PRT)

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is a new category of automated people movers, also referred to as podcars. PRT is an emerging premium transit concept for local areas. It employs automated, four-person vehicles traveling at a maximum speed of approximately 25 MPH on dedicated, narrow, one-way, elevated guideways that go over or under streets. PRT offers the promise of on-demand, express, nonstop, point-to-point travel. PRT excels where short walks to transit - and short waits for transit – are desirable (ATRA, 2011). PRT focuses on personal trips for passengers. With the vast majority of passengers traveling alone, this necessitates many small vehicles. The smallness of the vehicle size fits four passengers plus their luggage. Hourly volume at three-second intervals, ranging from 1,200 single passengers/hr to around 1,700 passengers/hr is below the capacity of a motorway lane (Chapman et al., 2011).

• Personal service: share a vehicle only if passenger want to • Congestion free • Silent, lightweight vehicles • Much less expensive ($10-$25 million per mile for “all-in:” stations, vehicles, guideway, control system, commissioning) than other rail transit technology, but serves a complementary purpose • Low operating cost (no driver) • Much smaller turn radius allows vehicles to enter areas that rail cannot • Narrow guideway: 7’ wide

The Advanced Transit Association (ATRA) provides advantages of PRT as follows: • No schedules and no waiting: vehicles run only to service actual demand

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

A Case of PRT: Heathrow Pods (Source: utlraglobalprt website)

Name

Location

Line Length

Heathrow Pods

Heathrow International Airport, UK

3.8 Kilometers (2.36 miles)

Operation Speed

42 miles/hr

Number of Station

Number of Vehicles

Total Cost

(in 2017 dollar)

£30 million ($50.2 million)

• First commercially operated pod system connects the T5 Business Car Park and the Terminal 5 in Heathrow Airport in London, UK • Has provided full passenger service 22 hours/day since 2011 • Total of 3.8 kilometers of one-way guideway, and three stations (two in the T5 Business Car Park and one at Terminal 5) • A non-stop journey time of 5 minutes • Average waiting time of 10-15 seconds with 80% of passengers having no wait at all

100

BEST PRA CTICES

Main Vehicle Features

Rolling Stock

Vehicle Configuration

Capacity (Passengers)

Maximum Speed

Ultra Global PRT vehicle

Electric pod with doubleside doors

4 people/car

40 km/hr (25 mph)

BIKE SHARING SYSTEM

Bike-sharing, or public bicycle programs, have received increasing attention in recent years with initiatives to increase cycle usage, improve the first mile/last mile connection to other modes of transit, and lessen the environmental impacts of our transport activities. The bike-sharing concept is providing sustainable transportation with several components being outlined as follows:

The latest systems operate with smart technologies and provide users with real-time bike availability information on the internet or smart phone apps. The major issues with the previous bikesharing systems were people keeping bikes longer than the allowed period, theft, and vandalism. The use of smart technology and credit cards has reduced these risks (Midgley, 2009).

A Case of an Airport Bike Sharing System: BWI Bike Share

• Are often designed as part of the public transport system

Baltimore Washington International Marshall Airport (BWI) in Maryland launched a new bicycle sharing system with the Boston-based company Zagster. The 12.5-mile airport loop (Figure 5.19) is a regular route for area cyclists, and it has beautiful natural scenery comparing to the surroundings of many big airports. The BWI Trail, which was completed in 1994, is an outstanding recreational resource for visitors and the local community. BWI Marshall was the first major U.S. airport to offer a dedicated hiker-biker trail. The trail connects hikers, bicyclists, walkers, and joggers to the airport, community resources, public transportation, and other area recreation facilities.

Rental charges are time-based pay-per-ride fees. Bike “pickup” and “return” stations are strategically placed at regular intervals throughout the city, making them easily accessible from public transport stations as well as offices and shopping areas.

To expand cycling opportunities to travelers, employees, and members of the public, BWI has joined with Zagster, which provides turnkey bike sharing, and launched a pilot bike share program in 2014. A total of 10 self-serve, bikes are available

• Can be “rented” at one location and either returned there or at another location • Provide fast and easy access • Have diverse business models • Make use of applied technology (smart cards and/or mobile phones)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

101

for reservation outside the airportâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s international terminal, near the BWI Marshall Airport Light Rail stop (Figure 5.18). This pilot bike share program was funded by Maryland to promote cycling in Maryland. Riders can use the bicycles by downloading the Zagster mobile app, available for iPhone and Android, or online at www.zagster.com. To use the mobile app, riders simply enter the bikeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unique ID number they wish to use, and an access code for the lock box is provided. Riders may use the code throughout the duration of their rental to lock and unlock the bike anywhere along their trip. Once the bike is returned to the Zagster location at BWI Marshall, the touch of a button ends the rental and releases the bike for the next rider. Users pay a daily rate of $2/hour and up to $24 (free under 3 hours). Customers may also purchase an annual pass for $20.

Figure 4.20: Bike Sharing Station in BWI (source: BWI website)

102

BEST PRA CTICES

Bike Sharing Station

Figure 4.21: BWI Trail Map and the Airport Bike Sharing Station (source: BWI website)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

103

MARKET ANALYSIS OF SCENARIOS

BRIDGE PRECEDENT IMAGES

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS

5 S C E N A R I O S

SCENARIOS

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS

BUSINESS PARK AVENUE WORK + LIVE + HEAL

The Business Park Avenue proposal is a new community located on the north side of the Dallas Love Field airport; a place to live, work and heal. The Business Park Avenue proposal aims to activate the community by re-activating Lakefield Boulevard, making a strong connection to Webb Chapel Ext, improving the connection to Crown Hill Memorial Park, and improving walkability throughout the site making it accessible for a large range of users. Along Lakefield Boulevard, we are proposing several types of office uses, residential apartments, a healthy food market, retail, and restaurants with outdoor dining areas with several parking structures. The boulevard terminates with a green promenade that can be used for gathering and community events. We are proposing a hotel with a park and water plaza in the corner of the site along Loop 12/Northwest Highway to accommodate the business travelers and visitors utilizing Dallas Love Field airport. Lakefield Boulevard connects to the airport via a suspended multifunctional bridge that leads cars, pedestrians, and cyclists to the south side of Bachman Lake and into the airport.

106

SCEN A RIOS

Based on an initial industry analysis, medical research startups are becoming more prevalent in the Dallas market and with the site being located within a mile from UT Southwestern, one of the best medical hubs in the nation, the site becomes a prime location for health-related research start-up centers. Along with research start-ups, the team is proposing a health and community center that consists of a library, activity center, learning center, amphitheater, and community garden to produce fresh products for farm to table restaurants. A green infrastructure trail connects the community center and community garden users to Bachman Lake and its associated trails. In total, we are proposing more than two million square feet of conventional office space, 300,000 square feet of retail, 400,000 square feet of medical research startups, 280,000 square feet of community buildings and a community garden, 415,000 square feet of hotel space, and 380,000 square feet of multi-family residential along with more than 1,500,000 square feet of structured parking to accommodate the needs of the Business Park Avenue.

Figure 5.1: Business Park Avenue (Scenario 1) Plan

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

107

Figure 5.2: Business Park Avenue (Scenario 1) Land Use Plan

108

SCEN A RIOS

Figure 5.3: Business Park Avenue (Scenario 1) 3D Plan

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

109

Figure 5.4: Business Park Avenue (Scenario 1) Phasing Diagram

110

SCEN A RIOS

INNOVATION OFFICE PARK WORK + SHOP + HEAL

The Innovation Office Park proposal illustrates a new vision for an area north of Dallas Love Field Airport; a place to work, shop and heal. The Innovation Office Park proposal aims to activate the community by creating an active green infrastructure corridor to improve the connection to Crown Hill Memorial Park, and to improve walkability throughout the site making it accessible to a large range of users. This concept is proposing several types of office uses, retail, and restaurants with outdoor dining areas with several parking structures. An iconic hotel with a park and plaza is located on the southwestern corner of the site along Loop 12/Northwest Highway to accommodate business travelers and visitors utilizing Dallas Love Field Airport; the plaza terminates with a green promenade that can be used for gathering and community events. This plaza connects to the airport via a suspended multifunctional bridge that leads pedestrians and cyclists to the south side of Bachman Lake and into the airport. Based on an initial industry analysis, medical research start-ups are becoming more prevalent in the Dallas market with the site being located within a mile from UT Southwestern, one of the best medical hubs in the nation. The Innovation Office employs a range of office

building typologies aiming to support this industry as the site is a prime location for health-related research and start-up centers. Along with research start-ups, the team is proposing a health center in the northern part of the site. A large amount of office space was created in order to bring a lot of job opportunities to the area. As the concept is largely centered on health, a focus was placed on the outdoor space. Uses are connected physically, visually, and culturally through an interlinked system of parks, open spaces, and trails. These elements connect to the trails of Bachman Lake and preserve view corridors and places where people can access and enjoy the lake and its active shoreline. Through the use of the multi-functional bridge, the opposite shoreline can also become activated with pedestrian activity. In total, we are proposing more than two million square feet of conventional office space, 900,000 square feet of retail, 400,000 square feet of medical research startups, 900,000 square feet of hotel space, along with more than 1,600,000 square feet of structured parking to accommodate the needs of the Innovation Office Park.

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

111

Figure 5.5: Innovation Office Park (Scenario 2) Plan

112

SCEN A RIOS

Figure 5.6: Innovation Office Park (Scenario 2) Land Use Plan

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

113

Figure 5.7: Innovation Office Park (Scenario 2) 3D Plan

114

SCEN A RIOS

Figure 5.8: Innovation Office Park (Scenario 2) Phasing Diagram

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

115

MIXED USE PARK WORK + SHOP + GATHER

The Mixed Use Park proposal envisions a new community located on the north side of Bachman Lake, across from the Dallas Love Field Airport. Stemming from the central axis of the development, there would be a connection to the airport via a multi-functional bridge across Bachman Lake-this bridge will serve both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The development proposal is defined by a network of public plazas and mini parks, surrounded by the development of mixed use and office buildings, including parking structures for residents, visitors, and employees. A place to work, shop and gather, the Mixed Use Park development aims to become a retail and professional destination for both locals and visitors. The mixed use development will consist of retail, office, startup spaces, and restaurants and cafes with outdoor seating and gathering areas to connect a variety of users to the public plazas. With enhanced streetscapes throughout and plenty of outdoor plazas and pocket parks surrounding offices and retail development, the proposal aims to create a cohesive walkable experience for users. The proposal will establish a stronger connection with Webb Chapel Extension through the development of residential apartments and

116

SCEN A RIOS

community resource buildings to link the development with the existing community. At the heart of this development, the Central Plaza will be the sought-after site for numerous community and professional gatherings. This plaza, along with other flexible plazas, has the potential to host a variety of events for a variety of users, including festivals, concerts, outdoor business expos, pop up markets, and local community events. Planning for spaces to host such events will energize the district, complementing the knowledge-based economy trending in the area. This development will become a hub for professional leaders in technology, information, and other up-and-coming industry sectors. Additionally, the proposal calls for investment in community resource buildings, including a local library, gym, community centers and gardens, and technology and service learning centers to facilitate the growth of citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; professional endeavors that will ultimately give back to the area. The team also is proposing a hub of local markets next to the community garden area, to empower local businesses and contribute to the identity of the community. In total, we are proposing 600,000 square feet of conventional office space, one million square feet of retail, 200,000 square feet of technology research start-ups, almost 300,000 square feet of community buildings and a community garden, 300,000 square feet of multi-family residential, along with just over one million square feet of structured parking to accommodate the needs of Mixed Use Park users.

Figure 5.9: Mixed Use Park (Scenario 3) Plan

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

117

Figure 5.10: Mixed Use Park (Scenario 3) Land Use Plan

118

SCEN A RIOS

Figure 5.11: Mixed Use Park (Scenario 3) 3D Plan

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

119

Figure 5.12: Mixed Use Park (Scenario 3) Phasing Diagram

120

SCEN A RIOS

SCENARIOS

BRIDGE PRECEDENT IMAGES

Figure 5.13: Overview of Bridge Precedent Images

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

121

Friedrich Bayer Bridge

(source: Archdaily)

• Location

: São Paulo, Brazil

• Length

: 90.0 m (295.28 ft)

• Project Year

: 2013

• Architects

: LoebCapote Arquitetura e Urbanismo

• Bicycle and pedestrian bridge • Connects the two sides of the canal • Two metallic islands covered by vegetation • Movable central span to maintain the canal navigability

Figure 5.14: Friedrich Bayer Bridge (Photos by Paulo Pereira (top) and Leonardo Finotti (bottoms))

122

SCEN A RIOS

Melkweg Bridge

(source: Archdaily)

• Location

: Purmerend, The Netherlands

• Area

: 66.0 m² (710.42 ft²)

• Project Year

: 2006

• Architects

: NEXT Architects

• Bicycle and pedestrian bridge • Connects the Weidevenne district to the historical city center • Separates bicycle and wheelchair traffic from pedestrian traffic • Pedestrians cross the canal by 12 meter-high arch • The Bicycle path coils over the water to generate sufficient length

Figure 5.15: Melkweg Bridge (Photos by NEXT Architects)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

123

Simone de Beauvoir Footbridge (source: Archilovers)

• Location

: Paris, France

• Length

: 304 m (997.4 ft)

• Project Year

: 2006

• Architects

: Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes

• Pedestrian bridge • Connects the new districts of Paris-Bercy and the new national library with the Park Tolbiac • Gives an unique space to pause in the center of the bridge

Figure 5.16: Simone de Beauvoir Footbridge (Photos by David Boureau (top and left bottom) and Dietmar Feichtinger (right bottom))

124

SCEN A RIOS

Helix Bridge

(source: Archdaily)

• Location

: Singapore

• Area

: 1379.08 m² (14844.3 ft²)

• Project Year

: 2010

• Architects

: Cox Architecture with Architects 61

• Pedestrian bridge • Total length of 280 meter (918.64 ft) • Connects the city’s existing CBD and its new Bayfront district • A double helix structure canopy is made of glass and perforated steel panels

Figure 5.17: Helix Bridge (Photos by Christopher Fredrick Jones (tops) and Angus Martin (bottom))

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

125

Pedestrian Bridge in Aranzadi Park (source: Archdaily)

• Location

: Pamplona, Spain

• Area

: 274.0 m² (2949.3 ft²)

• Project Year

: 2015

• Architects

: Peralta Ayesa Arquitectos with Opera ingeniería

• Bicycle and pedestrian bridge • Connects the city and the park’s fruit and vegetable garden area • An L-shaped layout with two orthogonal and opposing branches

Figure 5.18: Pedestrian Bridge in Aranzadi Park (Photos by Eduardo Berian)

126

SCEN A RIOS

Living Bridge

(source: WilkinsonEyre)

• Location

: Limerick, Ireland

• Length

: 350 m (1148.3 ft)

• Project Year

: 2007

• Architects

: Wilkinson Eyre Architects

• Pedestrian bridge • Forms part of the University of Limerick’s plans for expansion to the north of the River Shannon • Two underslung catenary cables support the deck

Figure 5.19: Living Bridge (Photos by WilkinsonEyre)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

127

SCENARIOS

MARKET ANALYSIS OF SCENARIOS

128

BUSINESS PARK AVENUE WORK + LIVE + HEAL

SCEN A RIOS

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

129

130

INNOVATION OFFICE PARK WORK + SHOP + HEAL

SCEN A RIOS

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

131

132

MIXED USE PARK WORK + SHOP + GATHER

SCEN A RIOS

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

133

HIGHEST AND BEST LAND USE

6 RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS HIGHEST AND BEST LAND USE

The results of the financial feasibility analysis for the Mixed Use Park, Business Park Avenue, and Innovation Office Park proposals show that the Innovation Office Park generates the highest revenue after 8 years. With a total anticipated development cost of $847,293,386 comprising three phases of development, the site will generate $1,493,651,161 by 2024. Development costs include land acquisition and demolition costs for each phase. After the disposition in year 8, the shareholder will realize an unleveraged Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 44%. Parking shows the highest unleveraged IRR of 369% in all three proposed options. The development of office buildings and hotels will generate a positive cash flow for both the Business Park Avenue and Innovation Office Park. Even though the Innovation Office Park proposal is the most costly from a development perspective, the revenue will recoup development costs after the completion of Phase 3. In the Business Park Avenue and Mixed Use Park proposals, revenue-generating building types are either excluded or have less square footage which leads to a lower revenue for the Business Park Avenue option and negative cash flow for the Mixed Use Park option. The total development cost for the Business Park Avenue proposal is $873,047,424 and the proposal will generate $1,144,714,477

136

RECOMMEN D A TION S

after 8 years. This development shows an unleveraged IRR of 24% after 8 years. The Mixed Use Park proposal will generate less revenue due to the absence of a hotel and a lower square footage of office space. Additionally, after 8 years, the Mixed Use Park proposal will show an unleveraged IRR of -2%. â&#x20AC;˘ Please note: This analysis does not take into account information regarding loans, equity, or indirect costs.

This page intentionally left blank.

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

137

MARKET ANALYSIS

SITE ANALYSIS MAPS

CHECKLIST FOR NOISE COMPATIBILITY

7 A P P E N D I X

APPENDIX

CHECKLIST FOR NOISE COMPATIBILITY

140

A PPEN D IX

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

141

142

APPEND IX

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

143

(Source: FAA, 2007)

144

A PPEN D IX

SITE ANALYSIS MAPS

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

145

146

APPEND IX

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

147

148

APPEND IX

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

149

150

A PPEN D IX

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

151

MARKET ANALYSIS

S 1

BUSINESS PARK AVENUE INFRASTRUCTURE COST

Year 0 factors 2016-2017 3.10%

Inflation Factor Commercial Infrastructure

Other Infrastructure

Park/Landscaping Rate Cost Subtotal Demolition Area Demolition Rate Demolition Cost Land Acquisition Cost

Total Infrastructure Costs Net Present Value of Costs

152

APPEND IX

Rental Housing Community Building Hotel Reasearch-Health Office/Commercial Retail Structured Parking Other Subtotal

Total Costs

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

3.55

SF 3.55

1.5

r0 6-2017

2018

Phase I

1,145,414.48 217,919.38 32,109.39

1,395,443.24 $

1,437,706.59 $

48396 3.66 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 746782.00 1.55 0.00 $ 96,586,431.63

48396 3.77 182,622.86 $ 182,622.86 $ 746782.00 1.59 1,190,700.21 $ $

97,981,874.87 $

2,811,029.67 $ 102,578,813.49 $

1.5

1,180,922.33 224,674.88 32,109.39

2020

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

SF 3.55

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

2019

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Phase II

746,118.25 807,817.54 2,368,771.77 239,681.44 23,631.59

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

4,186,020.59 $ 148760 3.89 578,749.35 578,749.35 746782.00 1.64 1,227,611.92 96,586,431.63

$ $ $ $

2021

769,247.92 1,665,719.76 2,442,203.70 247,111.57 23,631.59

2022

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

5,147,914.53 $ 148760 4.01 596,690.58 596,690.58 746782.00 1.69 1,265,667.89 -

$ $ $ $

7,010,273.00 $

Phase III

598,784.77 834,490.35 829,924.83 188,741.46 41,580.50

2023

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

617,347.10 860,359.55 855,652.50 194,592.45 41,580.50

2,493,521.91 $

2,569,532.10

282748 4.14 1,169,287.27 1,169,287.27 746782.00 1.75 1,304,903.59 96,586,431.63

$ $ $ $

101,554,144.41 $

282748 4.26 1,205,535.17 1,205,535.17 746782.00 1.80 1,345,355.60 5,120,422.88 $16,184,554.04

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

153

S 1

BUSINESS PARK AVENUE OFFICE

Year 0 factors 2016-2017 Assumptions

Inflation Factor 3.1% GLA Absorbed (s.f.) Net Rentable Area 100% Vacancy Factor 18.50% Net Lease Revenue per s.f. 27.5

Net Operating Income Leasing Revenues Operations and Maintenance Expenser per Net Operating Income

27.5

$8 15%

Development Costs S.f Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $ 85.00 Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account 6.00% Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ 3.55 Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs

$ 85.00 $ 3.55

$ $ $

27 1

Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Asset Value 6.00% Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow Net Present Value 5.25% Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

154

APPEND IX

$ (30 ($22

Year 0 16-2017

2018

Phase I

312950.50 312950.5 57895.8425 $28.35

27.5

$8,872,929.05

85.00

$ 3.55

Phase II

2019

2020

625901.00 625901 115791.685 $29.23

1234763.00 1234763 228431.155 $30.14

$27,443,969.56

$56,075,950.63

Phase III

2021

2022

1843625.00 1843625 341070.625 $31.07

2044311.00 2044311 378197.535 $32.04

$95,651,263.76

2023

2024

2244997.00 2244997 415324.445 $33.03

$124,550,400.27

$141,668,050.64

$1,330,939.36 $7,541,990

$4,116,595.43 $23,327,374

$8,411,392.59 $47,664,558

$14,347,689.56 $81,303,574

$18,682,560.04 $105,867,840

$21,250,207.60 $120,417,843

312950.5 87.64 27,425,417.07 1,645,525.02 3.66 1,145,414.48

312950.5 90.35 28,275,605.00 1,696,536.30 3.77 1,180,922.33

608862 93.15 56,717,070.57 3,403,024.23 3.89 2,368,771.77

608862 96.04 58,475,299.76 3,508,517.99 4.01 2,442,203.70

200686 99.02 19,871,439.51 1,192,286.37 4.14 829,924.83

200686 102.09 20,487,454.13 1,229,247.25 4.26 855,652.50

30,216,356.57

31,153,063.62

62,488,866.57

64,426,021.44

21,893,650.70

22,572,353.88

$ $ $

$7,541,990

$ $ $

$23,327,374

$ $ $

$47,664,558

$ $ $

$81,303,574

$ $ $

$105,867,840

2244997.00 2244997 415324.445 $34.05

$ $ $

$152,893,531.31 $22,934,029.70 $129,959,502

$120,417,843

$ (30,216,356.57) $ (31,153,063.62) $ (62,488,866.57) $ (64,426,021.44) $ (21,893,650.70) $ (22,572,353.88) ($22,674,366.88) ($7,825,689.50) ($14,824,308.54) $16,877,552.76 $83,974,189.52 $97,845,489.17

$129,959,502 $2,165,991,693.55 $

$2,295,951,195.17 1,714,180,824.37 117%

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

155

S 1

BUSINESS PARK AVENUE RENTAL HOUSING

Type

Year 2016-2

factors Revenue Assumptions

Inflation Factor Projected Unit Absorption Average Unit Size Net Rentable Area Monthly Rent per s.f. Occupancy Factor

3% 520 100% 1.48

0 0 1.48

Net Operating Income Studio

Gross Lease Revenues Annual Operating Expenses per s.f. Net Operating Income

32.00%

Development Costs

Percent Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $ Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs

Revenue Assumptions

170.00

6% 3.55 $

Inflation Factor Projected Unit Absorption Average Unit Size Net Rentable Area

3% 750 100%

0 0

Monthly Rent per s.f.

1.48

Occupancy Factor 1 Bedroom

156

APPEND IX

Net Operating Income Gross Lease Revenues Annual Operating Expenses per s.f. 32% Net Operating Income Development Costs Percent Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $ 155.00 Building Costs

Year 0 2016-2017

ctors

520 00% .48

0 0 1.48

.00%

170.00

6% 3.55 $

0% 170.00 $ $ $ 3.55 $ $ $

750 00%

0 0

.48

1.48

155.00

0% 155.00 $ $

2018

Phase I

2019

2020

Phase II

2021

2022

Phase III

2023

2024

0 0 0 1.53 75%

0 0 0 1.57 75%

74 38480 38480 1.62 80%

74 38480 38480 1.67 80%

146 75920 75920 1.72 85%

146 75920 75920 1.78 85%

146 75920 75920 1.83 90%

0 0 0

599162 19972 579,189.59

617736 20591 597144

1335093 41885 1293207

1376481 43184 1333297

1502631 44522 1458109

0% 175.27 3.66 -

$ $ $ $ $ $

0% 180.70 3.77 -

$ $ $ $ $ $

50% 186.31 7,169,023.11 430,141.39 3.89 149,706.07 7,748,870.57

$ $ $ $ $ $

50% 192.08 7,391,262.83 443,475.77 4.01 154,346.96 7,989,085.56

0 0 0

102 76500 76500

204 153000 153000

1.53

1.57

1.62

1.67

1.72

1.78

1.83

75%

80%

85%

90%

0 0 0

1191161 39705 1151455

1228087 40936 1187151

2690585 84410 2606174

2773993 87027 2686965

3028221 89725 2938496

0% 159.81 $ $

0% 164.76 $ $

50% 169.87 $ 12,994,785.92 $

50% 175.13 13,397,624.28

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

157

Average Unit Size Net Rentable Area

750 100%

0 0

Monthly Rent per s.f.

1.48

Occupancy Factor 1 Bedroom

S 1

158

BUSINESS PARK AVENUE RENTAL HOUSING (cont.)

A PPEN D IX

Net Operating Income

Gross Lease Revenues Annual Operating Expenses per s.f. Net Operating Income Development Costs Percent Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account Infrastructure Costs per s.f. Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs Revenue Assumptions Inflation Factor Projected Unit Absorption Average Unit Size Net Rentable Area Monthly Rent per s.f. Occupancy Factor Net Operating Income Gross Lease Revenues 2 Annual Operating Expenses per s.f. Bedroom Net Operating Income Development Costs Percent Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account Infrastructure Costs per s.f. Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs ` Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Asset Value Costs of Sale Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes Leveraged IRR Before Taxes

32%

155.00

6% 3.55 $

3% 1200 100% 1.48

0 0 1.48

32.00%

148.00

6% 3.55 $

5.25%

$ $

750 100%

0 0

1.48

0 0

76500 76500

153000 153000

1.53

1.57

1.62

1.67

1.72

1.78

1.83

75%

80%

85%

90%

0 0 0

1191161 39705 1151455

1228087 40936 1187151

2690585 84410 2606174

2773993 87027 2686965

3028221 89725 2938496

32%

155.00

6% 3.55 $

0% 155.00 $ $ $ 3.55 $ $ $

1200 100% 1.48

0 0 1.48

0% 159.81 3.66 -

6% 3.55 $

0% 148.00 $ $ $ 3.55 $ $ $

5.25%

$ $

50% 169.87 12,994,785.92 779,687.16 3.89 297,622.52 14,072,095.59

$ $ $ $ $ $

50% 175.13 13,397,624.28 803,857.46 4.01 306,848.81 14,508,330.55

64 76800 76800 1.62 80%

64 76800 76800 1.67 80%

128 153600 153600 1.72 85%

128 153600 153600 1.78 85%

128 153600 153600 1.83 90%

0 0 0

1195832 39861 1155971

1232903 41097 1191806

2701136 84742 2616394

2784871 87369 2697503

3040096 90077 2950019

6515776

6717765

7346624 122,443,730.20 129,790,354.02 45,629,515.16 26%

0% 152.59 3.66 -

$ $ $ $ $ $

0% 157.32 3.77 -

0 $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

0 0 0 1.57 75%

0% 164.76 3.77 -

0 0 0 1.53 75%

2.00%

148.00

$ $ $ $ $ $

0 $ $

50% 162.20 12,456,583.15 747,394.99 3.89 298,789.66 13,502,767.80

$ $ $ $ $ $

2886616 $ $

(35,323,733.96) $ (32,437,118.05) $

50% 167.22 12,842,737.23 770,564.23 4.01 308,052.14 13,921,353.60 2976101 (36,418,769.71) $ (33,442,668.71) $

6,515,775.82

$ $

$ $ $ 6,717,764.87 $ $

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

159

S 1

BUSINESS PARK AVENUE RETAIL

Year 0 factors 2016-2017 Assumptions

Inflation Factor GLA Absorbed Net Rentable Area Vacancy Factor Net Lease Revenue per s.f.

Net Operating Income Leasing Revenues Operations and Maintenance Expenses per s.f. Net Operating Income

3.10% (s.f.) 100% 7% 19.5

19.5

$1, 15%

Development Costs s.f. Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $ 79.00 $ 79.00 $ Building Costs $ Budgeted Overage Account 6% $ Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ 3.55 $ 3.55 Infrastructure Costs

Total Development Costs

(5, (

Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Asset Value Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes Leveraged IRR Before Taxes 160

APPEND IX

6.30%

Year 0 16-2017

2018

19.5

79.00 3.55

Phase I

2019

2020

Phase II

2021

2022

Phase III

2023

2024

59540 59540 4167.8 $20.10

119080 119080 8335.6 $20.73

180687.00 180687 12648.09 $21.37

242294.00 242294 16960.58 $22.03

287934.00 287934 20155.38 $22.72

333575.00 333575 23350.25 $23.42

333575.00 333575 23350.25 $24.15

$1,197,021.93

$3,702,388.83

$6,406,110.55

$9,319,446.77

$12,044,550.47

$14,555,731.14

$16,109,006.57

$179,553.29 $1,017,469

$555,358.32 $3,147,031

$960,916.58 $5,445,194

$1,397,917.02 $7,921,530

$1,806,682.57 $10,237,868

$2,183,359.67 $12,372,371

$2,416,350.99 $13,692,656

$ $ $

59540 81.45 $ 4,849,473.46 $ 290,968.41 $ 3.66

59540 83.97 $ 4,999,807.14 $ 299,988.43 $ 3.77

61607 86.58 $ 5,333,756.05 $ 320,025.36 $ 3.89

61607 89.26 $ 5,499,102.48 $ 329,946.15 $ 4.01

45640 92.03 $ 4,200,162.12 $ 252,009.73 $ 4.14

45640 94.88 4,330,367.14 259,822.03 4.26

217,919.38 $

224,674.88 $

239,681.44 $

247,111.57 $

188,741.46 $

194,592.45

5,358,361.24 $

5,524,470.44 $

5,893,462.85 $

6,076,160.20 $

4,640,913.31 $

4,784,781.62

$10,237,868

$12,372,371

$1,017,469

$3,147,031

$5,445,194

$7,921,530

(5,358,361.24) $ ($4,340,893) 5.25%

(5,524,470.44) $ ($2,377,440)

(5,893,462.85) $ ($448,269)

(6,076,160.20) $ $1,845,370

(4,640,913.31) $ $5,596,955

(4,784,781.62) $7,587,590

$13,692,656 $0.00 $

$13,692,656 14,334,546.96 35%

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

161

Rent

S 1

Year 0 factors 2015-2016

BUSINESS PARK AVENUE HOTEL

Revenue Assumptions Inflation Factor Projected Unit Absorption Average Unit Size Net Rentable Area Net revenue per s.f. Occupancy Factor Net Operating Income Gross Lease Revenues Annual Operating Expenses per s.f. Net Operating Income

3.10% 500 100% 140

0 140

162

APPEND IX

40%

Development Costs Percent Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $ 165.00 $ 165.00 Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account 6% Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ 3.55 $ 3.55 Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Asset Value 7.80% Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes Leveraged IRR Before Taxes

201

$ 170 $ $ $ 3 $ $ $ $ $

Rent

0 140

3.55

Build Cost

Phase I 2017 2018

ear 0 15-2016

165.00

140

2019

165 Phase II

2020

2021

Phase III

2022

2023

415

830

0 144.34 0%

0 148.81 0%

207639 153.43 50%

415278 158.18 50%

415278 163.09 73%

415278 168.14 73%

415278 173.36 73%

0 0 0

15,928,796.52 12743037 3,185,759.30

32,845,178.43 26276143 6,569,035.69

49,440,533.28 27090703 22349830

50,973,189.81 27930515 23042675

52,553,358.69 28796361 23756998

207639 180.83 37,546,448.94 2,252,786.94 3.89 807,817.54 40,607,053.42

207639 186.43 38,710,388.86 2,322,623.33 4.01 1,665,719.76 42,698,731.95

$ 170.12 $ 175.39 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3.66 $ 3.77 $ $ $ $ $ $ $

3,185,759.30

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ 6,569,035.69

415278

$ 22,349,830.11

$ $

$ (40,607,053.42) $ (42,698,731.95) $ $ $ (37,421,294.11) $ (36,129,696.27) $ 22,349,830.11 $

23,042,674.85

$ 23,756,997.77 $ 304,576,894.43

$ 23,042,674.85 $ 328,333,892.19 $202,205,709.20 64% DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

163

S 1

Year factors 2015-2

BUSINESS PARK AVENUE RESEARCH AND HEALTH STARTUPS

Assumptions

Inflation Factor Net Usable Area Net Revenue per s.f.

3.10% 100% 24

Net Operating Income

Leasing Revenues Operations and Maintenance Expenses per s.f. Net Operating Income

Development Costs

Annual Cash Flow

s.f. Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $ 140.00 $ 140. Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account 6% Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ 3.55 $ 3. Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs Net Operating Income Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow

Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

164

APPEND IX

20%

rent

Year 0 actors 2015-2016

3.10% 100% 24

2017

Phase I

$ $ $

2018

2019

140

Phase II

2020

2021

Phase III

2022

2023

0 24.744

0 25.511064

201790 26.30190698

403580 26.30190698

403580 27.1172661

0 0 0

5307461.81 1061492.362 4245969.448

10614923.62 2122984.724 8491938.896

10943986.25 2188797.251 8755189.002

201790 163.09 32,909,478.66 1,974,568.72 4.14 834,490.35 35,718,537.73

201790 168.14 33,929,672.50 2,035,780.35 4.26 860,359.55 36,825,812.40

20%

140.00 $ 140.00 $ $ 6% $ 3.55 $ 3.55 $ $

Build Cost

144.34 3.66 -

$ $ $

$ $

148.81 3.77 -

$ $ $

$ $

153.43 3.89 -

$ $

158.18 4.01 -

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ 4,245,969.45 $ 8,491,938.90 $ 8,755,189.00 $ (35,718,537.73) $ (36,825,812.40) $ $ (31,472,568.28) $ (28,333,873.51) $ 8,755,189.00

$ (39,092,300.62)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

165

Sales

S 1

BUSINESS PARK AVENUE COMMUNITY HOUSING

Year 0 factors 2015-2016 Assumptions Inflation Factor Net Usable Area Net Revenue per s.f.

3.1% 100% 230

230

Net Operating Income Leasing Revenues Operations and Maintenance36.00% Expenses per s.f. Net Operating Income Development Costs s.f. Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $ 220.00 Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account 6% Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ 3.55 Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow Net Present Value

APPEND IX

$ 220.00 $

3.55

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

5.25%

Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

166

Sales

ear 0 5-2016

220.00 3.55

Phase I

2017

230

er s.f.

230

$ $ $

Build Cost

2018

2019

155.2

Phase II

2020

2021

0 237.13

0 244.48103

0 252.0599419

0 259.8738001

0 0

$ $ $

$ $

226.82 3.66 -

$ $ $

$ $

233.85 3.77 -

$ $ $

$ $

241.10 3.89 -

$ $

248.57 4.01 -

$ $ $

Phase III

144793.5 267.9298879

2022

2023

289587 276.2357145

289587 284.7990216

38794506.23 79994271.84 82474094.27 13966022.24 28797937.86 29690673.94 $ 24,828,483.99 $ 51,196,333.98 $ 52,783,420.33

$ $ $ $ $

144793.5 256.28 37,107,788.57 2,226,467.31 4.14 598,784.77 39,933,040.65

$ $ $ $ $

144793.5 264.23 38,258,130.01 2,295,487.80 4.26 617,347.10 41,170,964.91

$ 24,828,483.99 $ 51,196,333.98 $ 52,783,420.33 $ (39,933,040.65) $ (41,170,964.91) $ $ (15,104,556.66) $ 10,025,369.07 $ 52,783,420.33 $ 32,573,071.80 ($1,273.94) 123% DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

167

factors factors

S 1

BUSINESS PARK AVENUE PARKING

Assumptions Assumptions Inflation Factor 3.10% Inflation Factor 3.10% Structured Parking Spaces Built Structured Parking Spaces Built Monthly Fees Monthly Fees Monthly Parking Fee 120 Monthly Parking Fee 120 Allocation toto Monthly Use 60% Allocation Monthly Use 60% Percent Occupancy byby Monthly Contracts Percent Occupancy Monthly Contracts Hourly Fees Hourly Fees Number ofof Spaces 80% Number Spaces 80% Nonwork Days 104 Nonwork Days 104 Daily Parking Hours 1212 Daily Parking Hours Percent Utilization 25% Percent Utilization 25% Work Days 260 Work Days 260 Daily Parking Hours 2020 Daily Parking Hours Percent Utilization 15% Percent Utilization 15% Hourly Parking Rate 2.20 Hourly Parking Rate$ $ 2.20 $ Expenses 12% Expenses 12% Operating Expenses (Percent ofof Gross Revenue) Operating Expenses (Percent Gross Revenue) Net Operating Income Net Operating Income Parking Revenue Parking Revenue Total Parking Revenue Total Parking Revenue Expenses Expenses Net Operating Income Net Operating Income

Monthly Parking Monthly Parking Hourly Parking Hourly Parking

Development Costs Development Costs Spaces Built byby Year Spaces Built Year Development Costs Development Costs Budgeted Overage Account Budgeted Overage Account Infrastructure Costs Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs Total Development Costs Annual Cash Flow Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Net Operating Income Asset Value Asset Value Costs ofof Sale Costs Sale Total Development Costs Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Net Present Value Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

168

APPEND IX

Year 00 Year 2016-2017 2016-2017

339.71 339.71 6%6% 6.80% 6.80%

6%6%

2018 2018

Phase I I Phase

1390 1390 120 120

27 123.72 123.72 834 834 50% 50% 1112 1112

25% 25%

35.0% 35.0%

15% 15% $ 2.20 2.20

25.0% 25.0% 2.27 2.27

$ $ $ $ $

619,094.88 619,094.88 $ $ 4,380,623.65 4,380,623.65 $ $ 4,999,718.53 4,999,718.53 $ $ 599,966.22 599,966.22 $ $ 4,399,752.31 4,399,752.31 $ $

$ $ $ $

1390 1390 472,196.90 472,196.90 $ 28,331.81 28,331.81 $ 32,109.39 32,109.39 $ 532,638.10 532,638.10 $

1 121 131 1 121

$ $ $ $

4,399,752.31 4,399,752.31 $ $

121

$$ $$

(532,638.10) (532,638.10)$ $ 3,867,114.21 3,867,114.21 $ $ 5.25% 5.25%

111

Phase PhaseI I

2019 2019

2020 2020

2780 2780

Phase PhaseII II

2021 2021

2022 2022

Phase PhaseIIIIII

2023 2023

2024 2024

3803 3803

4826 4826

6626 6626

8426 8426

123.72 123.72 834 834 50% 50%

127.55532 127.55532 1668 1668 55% 55%

131.5095349 131.5095349 2281 2281 60% 60%

135.5863305 135.5863305 2895 2895 65% 65%

139.7895067 139.7895067 3975 3975 65% 65%

144.1229815 144.1229815 5055 5055 65% 65%

148.5907939 148.5907939 5055 5055 65% 65%

1112 1112

2224 2224

3042 3042

3860 3860

5300 5300

6740 6740

35.0% 35.0%

45.0% 45.0%

55.0% 55.0%

65.0% 65.0%

75.0% 75.0%

85.0% 85.0%

100.0% 100.0%

25.0% 25.0% 2.27 2.27

35.0% 35.0% 2.34 2.34

45.0% 45.0% 2.41 2.41

55.0% 55.0% 2.49 2.49

65.0% 65.0% 2.56 2.56

75.0% 75.0% 2.64 2.64

100.0% 100.0% 2.72 2.72

94.88 $ $ ,094.88 23.65 $ $ ,623.65 18.53 $ $ ,718.53 66.22 $ $ ,966.22 52.31 $ $ ,752.31

1,404,231.01 1,404,231.01 $ $ 12,386,357.65 12,386,357.65 $ $ 13,790,588.66 13,790,588.66 $ $ 1,654,870.64 1,654,870.64 $ $ 12,135,718.02 12,135,718.02 $ $

2,159,807.39 2,159,807.39 $ $ 22,196,485.46 22,196,485.46 $ $ 24,356,292.85 24,356,292.85 $ $ 2,922,755.14 2,922,755.14 $ $ 21,433,537.71 21,433,537.71 $ $

3,061,674.93 3,061,674.93 $ $ 35,225,137.04 35,225,137.04 $ $ 38,286,811.96 38,286,811.96 $ $ 4,594,417.44 4,594,417.44 $ $ 33,692,394.53 33,692,394.53 $ $

4,334,173.66 4,334,173.66 $ $ 58,623,711.83 58,623,711.83 $ $ 62,957,885.49 62,957,885.49 $ $ 7,554,946.26 7,554,946.26 $ $ 55,402,939.23 55,402,939.23 $ $

5,682,625.04 5,682,625.04 $ $ 88,345,877.22 88,345,877.22 $ $ 94,028,502.26 94,028,502.26 $ $ 11,283,420.27 11,283,420.27 $ $ 82,745,081.99 82,745,081.99 $ $

5,858,786.41 5,858,786.41 118,390,883.94 118,390,883.94 124,249,670.35 124,249,670.35 14,909,960.44 14,909,960.44 109,339,709.91 109,339,709.91

1390 1390 96.90 $ $ ,196.90 31.81 $ $ ,331.81 09.39 $ $ ,109.39 38.10 $ $ ,638.10

1390 1390 472,196.90 472,196.90 $ $ 28,331.81 28,331.81 $ $ 32,109.39 32,109.39 $ $ 532,638.10 532,638.10 $ $

1023 1023 347,523.33 347,523.33 $ $ 20,851.40 20,851.40 $ $ 23,631.59 23,631.59 $ $ 392,006.32 392,006.32 $ $

1800 1800 611,478.00 611,478.00 $ $ 36,688.68 36,688.68 $ $ 41,580.50 41,580.50 $ $ 689,747.18 689,747.18 $ $

52.31 $ $ ,752.31

12,135,718.02 12,135,718.02 $ $

21,433,537.71 21,433,537.71 $ $

33,692,394.53 33,692,394.53 $ $

55,402,939.23 55,402,939.23 $ $

82,745,081.99 82,745,081.99 $ $

109,339,709.91 109,339,709.91

38.10) $ $ ,638.10) 14.21 $ $ ,114.21 5.25% 5.25%

(532,638.10) (532,638.10)$ $ 11,603,079.92 11,603,079.92 $ $

(392,006.32) (392,006.32)$ $ 21,041,531.39 21,041,531.39 $ $

(392,006.32) (392,006.32)$ $ 33,300,388.21 33,300,388.21 $ $

(689,747.18) (689,747.18)$ $ 54,713,192.05 54,713,192.05 $ $

(689,747.18) (689,747.18)$ $ 82,055,334.81 82,055,334.81 $ $

- 109,339,709.91 109,339,709.91 $238,481,612.86 $238,481,612.86

1800 1800 611,478.00 611,478.00 36,688.68 36,688.68 41,580.50 41,580.50 689,747.18 689,747.18

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

169

S 2

INNOVATION OFFICE PARK INFRASTRUCTURE COST

Year 0 factors 2016-2017 3.10%

Inflation Factor Commercial Infrastructure

Other Infrastructure

Park/Landscaping Rate Cost Subtotal Demolition Area Demolition Rate Demolition Cost Land Acquisition Cost

Total Infrastructure Costs Net Present Value of Costs

170

APPEND IX

Rental Housing Community Building Hotel Reasearch-Health Office/Commercial Retail Structured Parking Other Subtotal

Total Costs

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

3.55

SF 3.55

1.5

1.5 $ $

ar 0 16-2017

2018

Phase I

2019

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

3,875,070.62 351,167.16 53,661.95

4,279,899.73 $

4,410,913.10 $

91967 3.66 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 746782.00 1.55 0.00 $ 96,586,431.63

91967 3.77 347,038.54 $ 347,038.54 $ 746782.00 1.59 1,190,700.21 $ $

100,866,331.36 $

5,948,651.85 $

SF 3.55

1.5

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

3,995,197.81 362,053.34 53,661.95

2020

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Phase II

622,803.96 155,331.72 2,764,679.75 309,041.11 18,272.32

2021

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

3,870,128.86 $ 275901 3.89 1,073,390.19 1,073,390.19 746782.00 1.64 1,227,611.92 96,586,431.63

$ $ $ $

102,757,562.60 $

642,110.89 160,147.00 2,850,384.82 318,621.38 18,272.32

2022

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

3,989,536.41 $ 275901 4.01 1,106,665.29 1,106,665.29 746782.00 1.69 1,265,667.89 -

$ $ $ $

6,361,869.59 $

Phase III

678,041.17 180,193.51 288,546.16 -

2023

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

699,060.45 185,779.51 297,491.09 -

1,146,780.84 $

1,182,331.05

182934 4.14 756,512.50 756,512.50 746782.00 1.75 1,304,903.59 96,586,431.63

$ $ $ $

99,794,628.57 $

182934 4.26 779,964.39 779,964.39 746782.00 1.80 1,345,355.60 3,307,651.04 $16,726,482.51

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

171

S 2

172

INNOVATION OFFICE PARK OFFICE

APPEND IX

Year 0Year 0 factors factors 2016-2017 2016-2017

20182018

Phase Phase I I

Assumptions Assumptions Inflation Factor Inflation 3.10% Factor 3.1% Structured Parking Spaces Built 13901058748.00 2 GLA Absorbed (s.f.) Monthly Fees Net Rentable Area 100% 1058748 Monthly Parking Fee 120 120 123.72 Vacancy Factor 18.50% 195868.38 Allocation toNet Monthly Use 60% 834 Lease Revenue per s.f. 27.5 27.5 $28.35 Percent Occupancy by Monthly Contracts 50% Net Operating Income Hourly Fees Leasing Revenues $30,018,152.67 $92 Number of Spaces 80% 1112 Operations and Maintenance Nonwork Days 104 Expenser per $4,502,722.90 $13 Daily Parking Hours 12s.f. 15% Operating Income $25,515,430 $ Percent Net Utilization 25% 25% 35.0% Work Days 260 Development Costs Daily Parking Hours S.f. Built by 20 Year 1058748 Percent Utilization 15% 15% 25.0% Building Cost per s.f. $ 85.00 $ 85.00 $ 87.64 $ Hourly Parking Rate $ 2.20 $ 2.20 2.27 Building Costs $ 92,783,380.98 $ 95 Expenses 12% Budgeted Overage Account 6.00% $ 5,567,002.86 $ 5 Operating Expenses (Percent of Gross Revenue) Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ 3.55 $ 3.55 3.66 Net Operating Income Infrastructure Costs $ 3,875,070.62 $ 3 Parking Revenue Total Development Costs $ 102,225,454.46 $ 105 Monthly Parking $ 619,094.88 $ 1 Annual Cash Flow Hourly Parking $ 4,380,623.65 $ 12 Total Parking Revenue $ 4,999,718.53 $ 13 Net Operating Income $25,515,430 $ Expenses $ 599,966.22 $ 1 Asset Value 6.00% Net Operating Income $ 4,399,752.31 $ $ (105 12 Total Development Costs $ (102,225,454.46) Net Cash Flow ($76,710,024.69) ($26 Development Costs Spaces Built by Year 1390 Net Present Value 5.25% Development Costs $ 339.71 $ 472,196.90 $ Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes Budgeted Overage Account 6% $ 28,331.81 $ Infrastructure Costs 6.80% $ 32,109.39 $ Total Development Costs $ 532,638.10 $ Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income

4,399,752.31 $

Phase I I Phase

8748.00 058748 23.72 5868.38 834 $28.35 50%

Phase Phase II II

2019 2019

2020 2020

2780 2117496.00 2117496 127.55532 391736.76 1668 $29.23 55%

2828121.003803 2828121 131.5095349 523202.385 $30.142281 60%

2021 2021

2022

Phase III Phase III 2022 2023

2023

66263625892.00 8426 3538746.00 4826 3582319.00 3538746 3582319 3625892 135.5863305 139.7895067 654668.01 662729.015 670790.02 144.1229815 2895 3975 5055 $31.07 $32.04 $33.03 65% 65% 65%

152.67 1112

$92,846,146.21 2224

,722.90 15,430 35.0%

$13,926,921.93 $78,919,224 45.0%

$22,357,355.33 $29,674,567.08 $34,218,599.38 $126,691,680 55.0% $168,155,880 65.0%$193,905,397

$35,711,117.07 $202,362,997 75.0%

058748 25.0% 87.64 2.27 380.98 002.86 3.66 070.62

1058748 35.0% 90.35 2.34 95,659,665.79 5,739,579.95 3.77 3,995,197.81

710625 710625 45.0% 93.15 $ 96.04 2.41 66,196,557.30 $ 68,248,650.58 3,971,793.44 $ 4,094,919.03 3.89 4.01 2,764,679.75 $ 2,850,384.82

43573 65.0% 102.09 2.56 4,448,241.73 266,894.50 4.26 185,779.51

$ $ $ $

454.46 $ 105,394,443.54 94.88 $ 1,404,231.01 23.65 $ 12,386,357.65 18.53 13,790,588.66 15,430$ $78,919,224 66.22 $ 1,654,870.64 52.31 12,135,718.02 454.46)$ $ (105,394,443.54) 024.69) ($26,475,219.27) 1390 1390 96.90 $ 472,196.90 31.81 $ 28,331.81 09.39 $ 32,109.39 38.10 $ 532,638.10

52.31 $

$149,049,035.573042$197,830,447.22

$ $ $ $

2024

$228,123,995.89 3860

43573 55.0% $ 99.02 2.49 $ 4,314,492.46 $ 258,869.55 4.14 $ 180,193.51

$238,074,113.82 5300

$ $ $ $

2024

8426 3625892.00 3625892 148.5907939 670790.02 5055 $34.05 65%

$246,938,161.62 6740

6740

$37,040,724.24 85.0% $209,897,437 100.0% 75.0% 2.64

100.0% 2.72

$ 72,933,030.49 $ 75,193,954.43 $ 4,753,555.52 $ 4,900,915.74 $ 2,159,807.39 $ 3,061,674.93 $ 4,334,173.66 $ 5,682,625.04 $ 5,858,786.41 $ 22,196,485.46 $ 35,225,137.04 $ 58,623,711.83 $ 88,345,877.22 $ 118,390,883.94 $ $126,691,680 24,356,292.85 $$168,155,880 38,286,811.96 $193,905,397 $ 62,957,885.49 $ 94,028,502.26 $209,897,437 $ 124,249,670.35 $202,362,997 $ 2,922,755.14 $ 4,594,417.44 $ 7,554,946.26 $ 11,283,420.27 $ 14,909,960.44 $3,498,290,622.98 21,433,537.71$ (75,193,954.43) $ 33,692,394.53 $ 55,402,939.23 $ 82,745,081.99 $ 109,339,709.91 $$ (72,933,030.49) $ (4,753,555.52) $ (4,900,915.74) $53,758,649.74 $92,961,925.70 $189,151,840.99 $197,462,081.01 $3,708,188,060.36 1023 1023 1800 1800 $ 2,908,629,370.63 $ 347,523.33 $ 347,523.33 $ 611,478.00 $ 611,478.00 105% $ 20,851.40 $ 20,851.40 $ 36,688.68 $ 36,688.68 $ 23,631.59 $ 23,631.59 $ 41,580.50 $ 41,580.50 $ 392,006.32 $ 392,006.32 $ 689,747.18 $ 689,747.18 DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

12,135,718.02 $

21,433,537.71 $

33,692,394.53 $

55,402,939.23 $

AND

82,745,081.99 $

BEST

US E

109,339,709.91

173

S 2

Year 0 factors 2016-2017

INNOVATION OFFICE PARK RETAIL

Assumptions

Inflation Factor GLA Absorbed Net Rentable Area Vacancy Factor Net Lease Revenue per s.f.

Net Operating Income Leasing Revenues Operations and Maintenance Expenses per s.f. Net Operating Income

3.10% (s.f.) 100% 7% 19.5

19.5

$1, 15%

Development Costs S.f. Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $ 79.00 $ 79.00 $ Building Costs $ Budgeted Overage Account 6% $ Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ 3.55 $ 3.55 Infrastructure Costs

Total Development Costs

(8, (

Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Asset Value Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

174

APPEND IX

6.30%

ear 0 16-2017

2018

19.5

79.00 3.55

Phase I

2019

2020

Phase II

2021

2022

Phase III

2023

2024

95946 95946 6716.22 $20.10

191892 191892 13432.44 $20.73

271327.00 271327 18992.89 $21.37

350762.00 350762 24553.34 $22.03

420536.00 420536 29437.52 $22.72

490310.00 490312 34321.84 $23.42

490310.00 490310 34321.7 $24.15

$1,928,946.36

$5,966,231.08

$9,899,128.73

$13,706,349.27

$17,520,647.13

$21,332,046.03

$23,678,102.74

$289,341.95 $1,639,604

$894,934.66 $5,071,296

$1,484,869.31 $8,414,259

$2,055,952.39 $11,650,397

$2,628,097.07 $14,892,550

$3,199,806.90 $18,132,239

$3,551,715.41 $20,126,387

$ $ $

95946 81.45 $ 7,814,705.75 $ 468,882.35 $ 3.66

95946 83.97 $ 8,056,961.63 $ 483,417.70 $ 3.77

79435 86.58 $ 6,877,252.77 $ 412,635.17 $ 3.89

79435 89.26 $ 7,090,447.61 $ 425,426.86 $ 4.01

69774 92.03 $ 6,421,168.09 $ 385,270.09 $ 4.14

69774 94.88 6,620,224.30 397,213.46 4.26

351,167.16 $

362,053.34 $

309,041.11 $

318,621.38 $

288,546.16 $

297,491.09

8,634,755.26 $

8,902,432.67 $

7,598,929.04 $

7,834,495.84 $

7,094,984.33 $

7,314,928.85

$11,650,397

$14,892,550

$18,132,239

$1,639,604

$5,071,296

$8,414,259

(8,634,755.26) $ ($6,995,151) 5.25%

(8,902,432.67) $ ($3,831,136)

(7,598,929.04) $ $815,330

(7,834,495.84) $ $3,815,901

(7,094,984.33) $ $7,797,566

(7,314,928.85) $10,817,310

$20,126,387 $0.00 $

$20,126,387 21,766,621.53

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

175

Rent

S 2

INNOVATION OFFICE PARK HOTEL

factors Revenue Assumptions

Inflation Factor Projected Unit Absorption Average Unit Size Net Rentable Area Net revenue per s.f. Occupancy Factor

Net Operating Income Gross Lease Revenues Annual Operating Expenses per s.f. Net Operating Income

Year 0 2015-2016

2017

0 140

3.10% 500 100% 140

35%

Development Costs

S.f. Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $ 165.00 Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account 6% Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ 3.55 Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Asset Value 7.80% Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes Leveraged IRR Before Taxes

176

APPEND IX

5.25%

$ 165.00 $

$ 170 $ $ 3.55 $ 3 $ $ $ $ $

Rent

Year 0 15-2016

140

2017

0 140

Phase I

Build Cost

2018

2019

165 Phase II

2020

2021

Phase III

2022

2023

320

640

0 144.34 0%

0 148.81 0%

160083.665 153.43 73%

320167.33 158.18 73%

320167.33 163.09 73%

320167.33 168.14 73%

320167.33 173.36 73%

0 0 0

17929737 8596449 9333288

36971117 17725878 19245239

38117222 18275380 19841841

39298855 18841917 20456938

40517120 19426016 21091104

165.00

$ 170.12 $ $ 3.55 $ 3.66 $ $ -

$ $ $ $ $ $

175.39 3.77 -

$ $ $ $ $ $

160083.665 180.83 28,947,226.46 1,736,833.59 3.89 622,803.96 31,306,864.01

$ $ $ $ $ $

160083.665 186.43 29,844,590.48 1,790,675.43 4.01 642,110.89 32,277,376.79

9,333,287.56

19,245,238.95

$ $

(31,306,864.01) $ (21,973,576.45) $

19,841,841.36

20,456,938.44

$ 21,091,103.53 $ 270,398,763.22

(32,277,376.79) $ (13,032,137.84) $

19,841,841.36

$ $

$ 20,456,938.44 $ 291,489,866.75 $204,681,570.23 94%

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

177

rent

S 2

INNOVATION OFFICE PARK RESEARCH AND HEALTH STARTUPS

Year 0 factors 2015-2016 Assumptions

Inflation Factor Net Usable Area Net Revenue per s.f.

3.10% 100% 24

Net Operating Income

Leasing Revenues Operations and Maintenance Expenses per s.f. Net Operating Income

Development Costs

Annual Cash Flow

S.f. Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $ 140.00 Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account 6% Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ 3.55 Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs Net Operating Income Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow

Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

178

APPEND IX

20%

$ 140.00 $ $ $ $ 3.55 $ $ $ $ $

5.25%

rent

Year 0 15-2016

Phase I

2017

140.00 $ $ $ 3.55 $ $ $ $ $

Build Cost

2018

2019

140

Phase II

2020

2021

Phase III

2022

2023

0 24.744

39926 25.511064

79852 25.511064

243810.67 26.30190698

407769.34 26.30190698

407769.34 27.1172661

0 0 0

1018554.741 203710.9483 814843.793

2037109.483 407421.8965 1629687.586

6412685.564 1282537.113 5130148.451

10725111.25 2145022.25 8580089.001

11057589.7 2211517.94 8846071.76

$ $ $

39926 153.43 6,125,757.97 367,545.48 3.89 155,331.72 6,648,635.17

39926 158.18 6,315,656.47 378,939.39 4.01 160,147.00 6,854,742.86

163958.67 163.09 26,739,651.87 1,604,379.11 4.14 678,041.17 29,022,072.16

163958.67 168.14 27,568,581.08 1,654,114.86 4.26 699,060.45 29,921,756.40

$ $ $

144.34 3.66 -

$ $ $ $ $

148.81 3.77 -

$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

814,843.79 $ (6,648,635.17) $ (5,833,791.38) $

$ $ $ $ $

1,629,687.59 $ (6,854,742.86) $ (5,225,055.28) $

$ $ $ $ $

5,130,148.45 $ 8,580,089.00 $ (29,022,072.16) $ (29,921,756.40) $ (23,891,923.71) $ (21,341,667.39) $

8,846,071.76 8,846,071.76

$ (37,277,173.64)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

179

factors

S 2

INNOVATION OFFICE PARK PARKING

Assumptions Inflation Factor 3.10% Structured Parking Spaces Built Monthly Fees Monthly Parking Fee 120 Allocation to Monthly Use 60% Percent Occupancy by Monthly Contracts Hourly Fees Number of Spaces 80% Nonwork Days 104 Daily Parking Hours 12 Percent Utilization 25% Work Days 260 Daily Parking Hours 20 Percent Utilization 15% Hourly Parking Rate $ 2.20 Expenses 12% Operating Expenses (Percent of Gross Revenue) Net Operating Income Parking Revenue Total Parking Revenue Expenses Net Operating Income

Monthly Parking Hourly Parking

Development Costs spaces Built by Year Development Costs Budgeted Overage Account Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Asset Value Costs of Sale Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow Net Present Value

Year 0 2016-2017

120

25%

15% 2.20

$ $ $ $ $

339.71 6% 6.80%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes $

180

APPEND IX

Year 0 016-2017

2018

Phase I

2323 120

2019

2020

4646

Phase II

2021

2022

Phase III

2023

2024

5437

6228

123.72 1393 50%

127.55532 2787 55%

131.5095349 3262 60%

135.5863305 3736 65%

139.7895067 3736 65%

144.1229815 3736 65%

148.5907939 3736 65%

1858

3716

4349

4982

25%

35.0%

45.0%

55.0%

65.0%

75.0%

85.0%

100.0%

15% 2.20

25.0% 2.27

35.0% 2.34

45.0% 2.41

55.0% 2.49

65.0% 2.56

75.0% 2.64

100.0% 2.72

$ $ $ $ $

172,341.96 7,319,423.33 7,491,765.29 899,011.84 6,592,753.46

$ $ $ $ $

355,496.68 20,695,910.54 21,051,407.21 2,526,168.87 18,525,238.35

3,088,685.54 31,733,239.73 34,821,925.27 4,178,631.03 30,643,294.24

3,951,094.14 45,464,153.55 49,415,247.69 5,929,829.72 43,485,417.97

$ $ $ $ $

4,073,578.06 55,106,289.12 59,179,867.18 7,101,584.06 52,078,283.12

$ $ $ $ $

4,199,858.98 65,302,546.04 69,502,405.02 8,340,288.60 61,162,116.42

$ $ $ $ $

4,330,054.61 87,510,887.80 91,840,942.41 11,020,913.09 80,820,029.32

2323 789,146.33 47,348.78 53,661.95 890,157.06

6,592,753.46 $

18,525,238.35 $

30,643,294.24 $

43,485,417.97 $

52,078,283.12 $

61,162,116.42 $

80,820,029.32

$ $

(890,157.06) $ 5,702,596.40 $ 5.25%

(890,157.06) $ 17,635,081.29 $

(303,105.57) $ 30,340,188.67 $

(303,105.57) $ 43,182,312.40 $

$ 52,078,283.12 $

$ 61,162,116.42 $

80,820,029.32 $224,355,254.32

$ $ $ $

791 268,710.61 16,122.64 18,272.32 303,105.57

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

2323 789,146.33 47,348.78 53,661.95 890,157.06

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

791 268,710.61 16,122.64 18,272.32 303,105.57

369% $

(5,702,596.40) $

17,635,081.29 $

30,340,188.67 $

43,182,312.40 $

52,078,283.12 $

61,162,116.42 $

80,820,029.32

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

181

S 3

MIXED USE PARK INFRASTRUCTURE COST

Year 0 factors 2016-2017 Assumptions

Inflation Factor 3.1% GLA Absorbed (s.f.) Net Rentable Area 100% Vacancy Factor 18.50% Net Lease Revenue per s.f. 27.5

27.5

Net Operating Income

Leasing Revenues Operations and Maintenance Expenser per s.f. Net Operating Income

$3 15%

Development Costs S.f. Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $ 85.00 Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account 6.00% Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ 3.55 Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs

$ 85.00 $ 3.55

$ $ $

$ $

Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Asset Value Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow

Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

182

APPEND IX

6.00% 5.25%

$ (10 ($7

Year 0 16-2017

2018

Phase I

106239.00 106239 19654.215 $28.35

27.5

3.55

$ $

106239.00 87.64 9,310,254.77 558,615.29 3.66 388,840.05 10,257,710.10 $2,560,320

$ $

106239.00 90.35 9,598,872.66 575,932.36 3.77 400,894.09 10,575,699.12

91165.00 93.15 8,492,255.62 509,535.34 3.89 354,676.56

9,356,467.51

$7,919,070

$ (10,257,710.10) $ (10,575,699.12) $ ($7,697,390.04) ($2,656,629.17)

2022

$28,702,612.47

$3,255,326.53 $18,446,850

91165.00 96.04 8,755,515.54 525,330.93 4.01 365,671.53

9,646,518.00

$ $ $

$13,221,452 (9,356,467.51) $ $3,864,984.27

$18,446,850

Phase III

501166.00 501166 92715.71 $32.04

$21,702,176.86

$2,333,197.37 $13,221,452

$ $ $

2021

394808.00 394808 73039.48 $31.07

$15,554,649.15

$1,397,482.93 $7,919,070

$ $ $

Phase II

303643.00 303643 56173.955 $30.14

$9,316,552.88

$451,821.19 $2,560,320

$ $ $

2020

212478.00 212478 39308.43 $29.23

$3,012,141.25

85.00

2019

106358 99.02 10,531,310.42 631,878.63 4.14 439,837.08

11,603,026.13 $24,397,221

2024

607527.00 607527 112392.495 $33.03

607527.00 607527 112392.495 $34.05

$36,618,115.57

$4,305,391.87 $24,397,221

$ $ $

2023

$41,375,087.98

$5,492,717.34 $31,125,398

106358 102.09 10,857,781.04 651,466.86 4.26 453,472.03

11,962,719.94

$ $ $

$6,206,263.20 $35,168,825

$31,125,398

(9,646,518.00) $ (11,603,026.13) $ (11,962,719.94) $8,800,332.33 $12,794,194.47 $19,162,678.30

$35,168,825 $586,147,079.76 $621,315,904.54 $ 459,045,755.66 115%

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

183

S 3

MIXED USE PARK OFFICE

Year 0 factors 2016-2017 Assumptions

Inflation Factor 3.1% GLA Absorbed (s.f.) Net Rentable Area 100% Vacancy Factor 18.50% Net Lease Revenue per s.f. 27.5

27.5

Net Operating Income

Leasing Revenues Operations and Maintenance Expenser per s.f. Net Operating Income

$3, 15%

Development Costs S.f. Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $ 85.00 Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account 6.00% Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ 3.55 Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs

$ 85.00 $ 3.55

$ $ $

$ $

10,

Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Asset Value Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow

Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

184

APPEND IX

6.00% 5.25%

$ (10, ($7,

Year 0 16-2017

2018

Phase I

106239.00 106239 19654.215 $28.35

27.5

3.55

$ $

106239.00 87.64 9,310,254.77 558,615.29 3.66 388,840.05 10,257,710.10 $2,560,320

$ $

106239.00 90.35 9,598,872.66 575,932.36 3.77 400,894.09 10,575,699.12

91165.00 93.15 8,492,255.62 509,535.34 3.89 354,676.56

9,356,467.51

$7,919,070

$ (10,257,710.10) $ (10,575,699.12) $ ($7,697,390.04) ($2,656,629.17)

2022

$28,702,612.47

$3,255,326.53 $18,446,850

91165.00 96.04 8,755,515.54 525,330.93 4.01 365,671.53

9,646,518.00

$ $ $

$13,221,452 (9,356,467.51) $ $3,864,984.27

$18,446,850

Phase III

501166.00 501166 92715.71 $32.04

$21,702,176.86

$2,333,197.37 $13,221,452

$ $ $

2021

394808.00 394808 73039.48 $31.07

$15,554,649.15

$1,397,482.93 $7,919,070

$ $ $

Phase II

303643.00 303643 56173.955 $30.14

$9,316,552.88

$451,821.19 $2,560,320

$ $ $

2020

212478.00 212478 39308.43 $29.23

$3,012,141.25

85.00

2019

106358 99.02 10,531,310.42 631,878.63 4.14 439,837.08

11,603,026.13 $24,397,221

2024

607527.00 607527 112392.495 $33.03

607527.00 607527 112392.495 $34.05

$36,618,115.57

$4,305,391.87 $24,397,221

$ $ $

2023

$41,375,087.98

$5,492,717.34 $31,125,398

106358 102.09 10,857,781.04 651,466.86 4.26 453,472.03

11,962,719.94

$ $ $

$31,125,398

(9,646,518.00) $ (11,603,026.13) $ (11,962,719.94) $8,800,332.33 $12,794,194.47 $19,162,678.30

$6,206,263.20 $35,168,825

$35,168,825 $586,147,079.76 $621,315,904.54 $ 459,045,755.66 115%

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

185

Type

S 3

Revenue Assumptions

MIXED USE PARK

Year 0 2016-2017

factors

RENTAL HOUSING

Inflation Factor Projected Unit Absorption Average Unit Size Net Rentable Area Monthly Rent per s.f. Occupancy Factor

3% 520 100% 1.48

0 0 1.48

Net Operating Income Studio

Gross Lease Revenues Annual Operating Expenses per s.f. 32.00% Net Operating Income

Development Costs Projected Unit Absorption Percent Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $170.00 Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account 6% Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ 3.55 Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs Revenue Assumptions

$ $

0% 170.00 $ $ $ 3.55 $ $ $

Inflation Factor Projected Unit Absorption Average Unit Size Net Rentable Area

3% 750 100%

0 0

Monthly Rent per s.f.

1.48

Occupancy Factor Net Operating Income 1 Bedroom

186

APPEND IX

Gross Lease Revenues Annual Operating Expenses per s.f. 32% Net Operating Income Development Costs Projected Unit Absorption Percent Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $155.00

0% 155.00 $

ar 0 -2017

0 0 48

0% 170.00 $ $ $ 3.55 $ $ $

0 0

0% 155.00 $

2018

Phase I

2019

2020

Phase II

2021

2022

Phase III

2023

2024

0 0 0 1.53 75%

0 0 0 1.57 75%

123 63960 63960 1.62 80%

246 127920 127920 1.67 80%

246 127920 127920 1.72 85%

246 127920 127920 1.78 85%

246 127920 127920 1.83 90%

0 0 0

995904 33197 962707

2053554 68452 1985102

2249540 70574 2178966

2319275 72762 2246514

2531830 75017 2456813

0 0% 175.27 3.66 -

0 0% 180.70 3.77 -

123 50% 186.31 11,916,078.96 714,964.74 3.89 248,835.77 12,879,879.46

123 50% 192.08 12,285,477.41 737,128.64 4.01 513,099.35 13,535,705.40

$ $ $ $ $ $

0 0 0

102 76500 76500

204 153000 153000

1.53

1.57

1.62

1.67

1.72

1.78

1.83

75%

80%

85%

90%

0 0 0

1191161 39705 1151455

2456173 81872 2374301

2690585 84410 2606174

2773993 87027 2686965

3028221 89725 2938496

0 0% 159.81 $

0 0% 164.76 $

102 0% 169.87 $

102 9% 175.13

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

187

Net Operating Income Gross Lease Revenues Annual Operating Expenses per s.f. Net Operating Income Development Costs Projected Unit Absorption Percent Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account Infrastructure Costs per s.f. Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs Revenue Assumptions Inflation Factor Projected Unit Absorption Average Unit Size Net Rentable Area Monthly Rent per s.f. Occupancy Factor Net Operating Income Gross Lease Revenues 2 Annual Operating Expenses per s.f. Net Operating Income Bedroom Development Costs Projected Unit Absorption Percent Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. Building Costs Budgeted Overage Account Infrastructure Costs per s.f. Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs ` Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Asset Value Costs of Sale Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes Leveraged IRR Before Taxes 1 Bedroom

S 3

188

MIXED USE PARK RENTAL HOUSING (cont.)

APPEND IX

32%

$155.00

6% $ 3.55

0% 155.00 $ $ $ 3.55 $ $ $

3% 1200 100% 1.48

0 0 1.48

32.00%

$148.00

6% $ 3.55

0% 148.00 $ $ $ 3.55 $ $ $ 0

5.25%

$ $

0% 155.00 $ $ $ 3.55 $ $ $

0 0 48

0% 148.00 $ $ $ 3.55 $ $ $

0 0 0

1191161 39705 1151455

2456173 81872 2374301

0 0% 159.81 3.66 -

0 0% 164.76 3.77 -

102 0% 169.87 12,994,785.92 779,687.16 3.89 297,622.52 14,072,095.59

102 9% 175.13 13,397,624.28 803,857.46 4.01 306,848.81 14,508,330.55

$ $ $ $ $ $

3028221 89725 2938496

0 0 0 1.57 75%

26 31200 31200 1.62 80%

53 63600 63600 1.67 80%

53 63600 63600 1.72 85%

53 63600 63600 1.78 85%

53 63600 63600 1.83 90%

0 0 0

485807 16194 469613

1020998 34033 986964

1118439 35088 1083351

1153111 36176 1116935

1258790 37297 1221492

0 0% 152.59 3.66 -

0 0% 157.32 3.77 -

26 0% 162.20 5,060,486.90 303,629.21 3.89 121,383.30 5,485,499.42

26 2% 167.22 5,217,362.00 313,041.72 4.01 125,146.18 5,655,549.90 5868491

6050414

6616801 110,280,021.78 116,896,823.08 41,988,748.99 27%

$ $ $ $ $ $

0 $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

2773993 87027 2686965

0 0 0 1.53 75%

0 -

$ $ $ $ $ $

2690585 84410 2606174

$ $ $ $ $ $

0 $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

2583776 $ $

(32,437,474.47) $ (29,853,698.85) $

5346367 (33,699,585.86) $ (28,353,218.56) $

$ 5,868,490.76 $

$ $ $ 6,050,413.97 $ $

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

189

S 3

Year 0 factors 2016-2017

MIXED USE PARK RETAIL

Assumptions

Inflation Factor GLA Absorbed Net Rentable Area Vacancy Factor Net Lease Revenue per s.f.

Net Operating Income Leasing Revenues Operations and Maintenance Expenses per s.f. Net Operating Income

3.10% (s.f.) 100% 7% 19.5

19.5

$6, 15%

Development Costs

S.f. Built by Year Building Cost per s.f. $ 79.00 $ 79.00 $ Building Costs $ 24, Budgeted Overage Account 6% $ 1, Infrastructure Costs per s.f. $ 3.55 $ 3.55 Infrastructure Costs

Total Development Costs Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Asset Value Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

190

APPEND IX

$ 27,

6.30%

$ (27, ($

Year 0 16-2017

2018

19.5

Phase I

2019

2020

Phase II

2021

2022

2023

2024

300053 300053 21003.71 $20.10

600106 600106 42007.42 $20.73

880734.00 880734 61651.38 $21.37

1161362.00 1161362 81295.34 $22.03

1210621.00 1210621 84743.47 $22.72

1259882.59 1259882.59 88191.7813 $23.42

1259882.59 1259882.59 88191.7813 $24.15

$6,032,415.54

$18,658,261.26

$31,645,994.20

$44,993,049.27

$53,881,479.21

$57,859,155.75

$60,842,260.13

$904,862.33 $5,127,553

$2,798,739.19 $15,859,522

$4,746,899.13 $26,899,095

$6,748,957.39 $38,244,092

$8,082,221.88 $45,799,257

$8,678,873.36 $49,180,282

$9,126,339.02 $51,715,921

49259.00 92.03 $ 4,533,211.78 $ 271,992.71 $ 4.14

49259.00 1259880.00 94.88 $ 97.82 4,673,741.35 $ 123,244,324.85 280,424.48 $ 7,394,659.49 4.26 4.40

300053 300053 280628.00 280628.00 $ 81.45 $ 83.97 $ 86.58 $ 89.26 $ $ 24,439,016.80 $ 25,196,626.32 $ 24,295,961.36 $ 25,049,136.16 $ $ 1,466,341.01 $ 1,511,797.58 $ 1,457,757.68 $ 1,502,948.17 $ 3.55 3.66 3.77 3.89 4.01

79.00

Phase III

1,098,208.98 $

1,132,253.46 $

1,091,780.54 $

$ 27,003,566.79

$ 27,840,677.36

$ 26,845,499.59

$5,127,553

$15,859,522

$26,899,095

1,125,625.74 $

203,707.62 $

$ 27,677,710.07 $

5,008,912.11 $

5,164,188.38

$ 136,177,178.69

$45,799,257

$49,180,282

$51,715,921 $0.00

$38,244,092

$ (27,003,566.79) $ (27,840,677.36) $ (26,845,499.59) $ (27,677,710.07) $ ($21,876,014) ($11,981,155) $53,595 $10,566,382 10%

(5,008,912.11) $ $40,790,345

210,022.55 $

(5,164,188.38) $44,016,094

5,538,194.34

$51,715,921 54,180,159.18 39%

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

191

rent

S 3

MIXED USE PARK RESEARCH AND HEALTH STARTUPS

Year 0 factors 2015-2016 Assumptions

Inflation Factor Net Usable Area Net Revenue per s.f.

3.10% 100% 24

Net Operating Income

Leasing Revenues Operations and Maintenance Expenses per s.f. Net Operating Income

Development Costs

Annual Cash Flow

Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

192

APPEND IX

20%

$ 140.00 $

3.55

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

rent

Year 0 15-2016

3.55

Phase I

2017

140.00

$ $ $

Build Cost

2018

2019

140

Phase II

2020

2021

Phase III

2022

2023

0 24.744

0 25.511064

101823 26.30190698

203646 26.30190698

203646 27.1172661

0 0 0

2678139.075 535627.815 2142511.26

5356278.15 1071255.63 4285022.52

5522322.772 1104464.554 4417858.218

101823 163.09 16,606,084.77 996,365.09 4.14 421,082.86 18,023,532.72

101823 168.14 17,120,873.40 1,027,252.40 4.26 434,136.43 18,582,262.23

$ $ $

$ $

144.34 3.66 -

$ $ $

$ $

148.81 3.77 -

$ $ $

$ $

153.43 3.89 -

$ $

158.18 4.01 -

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ 2,142,511.26 $ $ (18,023,532.72) $ $ (15,881,021.46) $

4,285,022.52 $ (18,582,262.23) $ (14,297,239.71) $

4,417,858.22 4,417,858.22

(19,725,929.56)

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

193

Sales

S 3

MIXED USE PARK COMMUNITY HOUSING

Year 0 factors 2015-2016 Year 0 Assumptions

Inflation Factor Net UsableFactor Area Inflation Net Net Revenue perArea s.f. Usable

Assumptions

Net Revenue per s.f. 230 Leasing Revenues Net Operating Income Operations and MaintenanceLeasing Expenses per s.f. 36.00% Revenues Net Operating Operations and Maintenance ExpensesIncome per s.f. 36.00% Net Operating Income Development Costs

Annual Cash Flow Annual Cash Flow

S.f. Built by Year Building Costby perYear s.f. S.f. Built Building Costs Building Cost per s.f. Budgeted Overage Account Building Costs Infrastructure CostsAccount per s.f. Budgeted Overage Infrastructure Costs Infrastructure Costs per s.f. Total Development Infrastructure Costs Costs Total Development Costs Net Operating Income Total Costs NetDevelopment Operating Income Net Cash Flow Total Development Costs

Net Present Value Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

194

APPEND IX

Net Cash Flow

factors 2015-2016 3.1% 100% 3.1% 230 230 100%

Net Operating Income

Development Costs

Sales

230

$ $

$ 220.00 $ 220.00

$ $ 220.00 $ 220.00 $$ 6% $$ $ 6% 3.55 $ 3.55 $ $ 3.55 $ 3.55 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

5.25% 5.25%

ear 0 15-2016 ear 0

Sales Sales

Phase I

2017

15-2016

Phase I

2017

0 237.13 0

230

230 $ $

220.00

$ 220.00 $$ $$ 3.55 $ 3.55 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

237.13 0 0 0 - 0 $ -

226.82 226.82 -3.66 3.66 ----

$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

230

Build Cost

230

Build Cost 155.2 Phase II 2019 Phase II 2020

2021

0 252.0599419 0

149585 267.9298879 149585

2018 2018

155.2

2019

0 244.48103 0

2020

2021

0 259.8738001 0

244.48103 252.0599419 259.8738001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ $ $ $ 233.85 233.85 -3.77 3.77 ----

$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

241.10 241.10 -3.89 3.89 ----

$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

248.57 248.57 -4.01 4.01 ----

$ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $

Phase III Phase III

2022

2023

2022

2023

299171.95 276.2357145 299171.95

267.9298879 40078292.29 14428185.22 40078292.29 25,650,107.06 14428185.22 $

276.2357145 82641977.35 29751111.85 82641977.35 52,890,865.51 29751111.85 $

149585 256.28 149585 38,335,757.84 256.28 2,300,145.47 38,335,757.84 4.14 2,300,145.47 618,599.73 4.14 41,254,503.04 618,599.73

149585 264.23 149585 39,524,166.33 264.23 2,371,449.98 39,524,166.33 4.26 2,371,449.98 637,776.32 4.26 42,533,392.63 637,776.32

25,650,107.06 $

41,254,503.04 25,650,107.06 (41,254,503.04) 25,650,107.06 (15,604,395.98) (41,254,503.04)

$ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$

(15,604,395.98) $

52,890,865.51

42,533,392.63 52,890,865.51 (42,533,392.63) 52,890,865.51 10,357,472.87 (42,533,392.63) 10,357,472.87

299171.95 284.7990216 299171.95

284.7990216 85203878.65 30673396.31 85203878.65 54,530,482.34 30673396.31 54,530,482.34

$ $$ $$

54,530,482.34 54,530,482.34 54,530,482.34 -

33,651,480.46 123%

54,530,482.34 33,651,480.46 123%

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

195

factors factors

S 3

MIXED USE PARK PARKING

Assumptions Assumptions Inflation Factor 3.10% Inflation Factor 3.10% Structured Parking Spaces Built Structured Parking Spaces Built Monthly Fees Monthly Fees Monthly Parking FeeFee 120 Monthly Parking 120 Allocation to to Monthly Use 60% Allocation Monthly Use 60% Percent Occupancy by by Monthly Contracts Percent Occupancy Monthly Contracts Hourly Fees Hourly Fees Number Spaces 80% Number of of Spaces 80% Nonwork Days 104 Nonwork Days 104 Daily Parking Hours Daily Parking Hours 1212 Percent Utilization 25% Percent Utilization 25% Work Days 260 Work Days 260 Daily Parking Hours Daily Parking Hours 2020 Percent Utilization 15% Percent Utilization 15% Hourly Parking Rate$ $ 2.20 $ Hourly Parking Rate 2.20 Expenses 12% Expenses 12% Operating Expenses (Percent Gross Revenue) Operating Expenses (Percent of of Gross Revenue) Operating Income NetNet Operating Income Parking Revenue Parking Revenue Total Parking Revenue Total Parking Revenue Expenses Expenses Operating Income NetNet Operating Income

Monthly Parking Monthly Parking Hourly Parking Hourly Parking

Development Costs Development Costs Spaces Built Year Spaces Built by by Year Development Costs Development Costs Budgeted Overage Account Budgeted Overage Account Infrastructure Costs Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs Total Development Costs Annual Cash Flow Annual Cash Flow Operating Income NetNet Operating Income Asset Value Asset Value Costs Sale Costs of of Sale Total Development Costs Total Development Costs Net Cash Flow Net Cash Flow Present Value NetNet Present Value Unleveraged Before Taxes Unleveraged IRRIRR Before Taxes

196

APPEND IX

Year 0 0 Year 2016-2017 2016-2017

$ $

339.71 339.71 6%6% 6.80% 6.80%

6%6%

2018 2018

Phase I I Phase

1390 263 120 120

27 123.72 123.72 834 157 50% 50% 210 1112

25% 25%

35.0% 35.0%

15% 15% $ 2.20 2.20

25.0% 25.0% 2.27 2.27

$ $ $ $ $

116,544.24$ 619,094.88 827,276.05 $ 4,380,623.65 943,820.29$ 4,999,718.53 113,258.43$ 599,966.22 830,561.85$ 4,399,752.31

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

263 1390 89,343.73$ 472,196.90 5,360.62$ 28,331.81 6,075.37$ 32,109.39 100,779.73$ 532,638.10

$ $ $ $

1 12 13 1 12

$ $

830,561.85$ $ 4,399,752.31

$ $ $ $

(100,779.73)$ $ (532,638.10) 729,782.13$ $ 3,867,114.21 5.25% 5.25%

( 11

Phase Phase I I

2019 2019

2020 2020

526 2780

PhaseII II Phase

2021 2021

2022 2022

PhaseIIIIII Phase

2023 2023

2024 2024

1111 3803

1696 4826

2340 6626

2984 8426

123.72 123.72 157 834 50% 50%

127.55532 127.55532 315 1668 55% 55%

131.5095349 131.5095349 666 2281 60% 60%

135.5863305 135.5863305 1017 2895 65% 65%

139.7895067 139.7895067 1404 3975 65% 65%

144.1229815 144.1229815 1790 5055 65% 65%

148.5907939 148.5907939 1790 5055 65% 65%

210 1112

420 2224

888 3042

1356 3860

1872 5300

2387 6740

35.0% 35.0%

45.0% 45.0%

55.0% 55.0%

65.0% 65.0%

75.0% 75.0%

85.0% 85.0%

100.0% 100.0%

25.0% 25.0% 2.27 2.27

35.0% 35.0% 2.34 2.34

45.0% 45.0% 2.41 2.41

55.0% 55.0% 2.49 2.49

65.0% 65.0% 2.56 2.56

75.0% 75.0% 2.64 2.64

100.0% 100.0% 2.72 2.72

,544.24 $ $ 94.88 ,276.05 $ $ 23.65 ,820.29 $ $ 18.53 ,258.43 $ $ 66.22 ,561.85 $ $ 52.31

265,187.51 $ $ 1,404,231.01 2,339,150.28 $ $ 12,386,357.65 2,604,337.79 $ $ 13,790,588.66 312,520.53 $ $ 1,654,870.64 2,291,817.25 $ $ 12,135,718.02

630,614.52 $ $ 2,159,807.39 6,479,447.43 $ $ 22,196,485.46 7,110,061.95 $ $ 24,356,292.85 853,207.43 $ $ 2,922,755.14 6,256,854.52 $ $ 21,433,537.71

1,075,552.13 $ $ 3,061,674.93 12,374,426.38 $ $ 35,225,137.04 13,449,978.50 $ $ 38,286,811.96 1,613,997.42 $ $ 4,594,417.44 11,835,981.08 $ $ 33,692,394.53

1,530,862.85 $ $ 4,334,173.66 20,706,337.46 $ $ 58,623,711.83 22,237,200.31 $ $ 62,957,885.49 2,668,464.04 $ $ 7,554,946.26 19,568,736.27 $ $ 55,402,939.23

1390 ,343.73 $ $ 96.90 ,360.62 $ $ 31.81 ,075.37 $ $ 09.39 ,779.73 $ $ 38.10

263 1390 89,343.73 $ $ 472,196.90 5,360.62 $ $ 28,331.81 6,075.37 $ $ 32,109.39 100,779.73 $ $ 532,638.10

585 1023 198,730.35 $ $ 347,523.33 11,923.82 $ $ 20,851.40 13,513.66 $ $ 23,631.59 224,167.83 $ $ 392,006.32

644 1800 218,773.24 $ $ 611,478.00 13,126.39 $ $ 36,688.68 14,876.58 $ $ 41,580.50 246,776.21 $ $ 689,747.18

,561.85 $ $ 52.31

2,291,817.25 $ $ 12,135,718.02

6,256,854.52 $ $ 21,433,537.71

11,835,981.08 $ $ 33,692,394.53

,779.73)$ $ 38.10) ,782.13 $ $ 14.21 5.25% 5.25%

(100,779.73)$ $ (532,638.10) 2,191,037.52 11,603,079.92 $ $

(224,167.83)$ $ (392,006.32) 6,032,686.68 21,041,531.39 $ $

(224,167.83)$ $ (392,006.32) 11,611,813.25 33,300,388.21 $ $

2,012,245.07 5,682,625.04 31,288,072.54 88,345,877.22 33,300,317.61 94,028,502.26 3,996,038.11 11,283,420.27 29,304,279.50 82,745,081.99

$$ $$ $$ $$ $$

2,074,624.66 5,858,786.41 41,928,640.94 118,390,883.94 44,003,265.61 124,249,670.35 5,280,391.87 14,909,960.44 38,722,873.74 109,339,709.91

19,568,736.27 $ $ 55,402,939.23

29,304,279.50 $ $ 82,745,081.99

38,722,873.74 109,339,709.91

(246,776.21)$ $ (689,747.18) 19,321,960.06 54,713,192.05 $ $

(246,776.21)$ $ (689,747.18) 29,057,503.28 82,055,334.81 $ $

-38,722,873.74 109,339,709.91 $80,709,699.64 $238,481,612.86

644 1800 218,773.24 611,478.00 13,126.39 36,688.68 14,876.58 41,580.50 246,776.21 689,747.18

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

197

REFERENCES

REFERENCES WORKS CITED

• Chapman, H., Chapman, M., & Ceder, A. (2011). A new architectural design of elevated small group automated rapid transit. Journal of Public Transportation, 14(4), 4. • City of Dallas. Chapter 51A Zoning District Standards. Retrieved August, 2017, from http://dallascityhall.com/ departments/sustainabledevelopment/planning/DCH%20Documents/ZoningDistrictStandards.pdf • City of Dallas. (2013). Ordinance 29161 Ibc. Retrieved November 14, 2016, from http://dallascityhall.com/ departments/sustainabledevelopment/buildinginspection/DCH%20documents/pdf/Ordinance_29161_IBC.pdf. • Crystal City. (2010). Crystal City Sector Plan. Retrieved June, 2017, from https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wpcontent/uploads/sites/5/2014/03/sprc_Jul3012_SectorPlan_CrystalCityPO.pdf • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016). Passenger Boarding and All-Cargo Data for U.S. Airports. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/ • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015). Land Use Compatibility and Airports. Retrieved November 15, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/noise_emissions/planning_toolkit/media/III.B.pdf. • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015). 1050.1F Desk Reference. Chapter 11. Retrieved August, 2017, from https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/environ_policy_guidance/policy/faa_nepa_order/ desk_ref/media/11-noise.pdf • Federal Aviation Administration (2007). Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program Checklist. Retrieved from://www.faa.gov/ airports/environmental/airport_noise/part_150/checklists/media/noise_comp_cklist_parti.pdf • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (1996). Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-2J: Proposed Construction or Alteration of Objects that May Affect the Navigable Airspace. Retrieved August, 2017, from https://www.faa.gov/about/ office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/safety_ops_support/spec_management/library/view/ documents/forms/AC70B.pdf

200

REFEREN CES

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (1983). Advisory Circular on Noise Control and Compatibility Planning (Part150). Retrieved November 14, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_ circular/150-5020-1/150_5020_1.pdf. • Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unites Nations (FAO). (2003). Overview of land value conditions. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/misc35e.pdf • The Governor’s Office of Economic Development and Tourism. (2017). Texas Business Incubators. Retrieved from https://businessintexas.com/sites/default/files/07/14/17/business_incubators_directory.pdf • The Governor’s Office of Economic Development and Tourism. (2017). Texas Industry Concentrations. Retrieved from https://businessintexas.com/sites/default/files/07/14/17/concentrations.pdf • J.D. Power. (2016). North America Airport Satisfaction Study. Retrieved from http://www.jdpower.com/ratings/study/ North-America-Airport-Satisfaction-Study/1742ENG/Large-Airports/1617 • icommute. Retrieved from http://www.icommutesd.com/Bike/BikeMap.aspx • Indianapolis Airport Authority (IAA). (2011). Indianapolis Airport Authority approves 30-year strategic development plan. Retrieved from https://www.ind.com/about/media/media-releases/indianapolis-airport-authority-approves-30year-strategic-development-plan • Indianapolis International Airport (IND). Retrieved from https://www.indianapolisairport.com/ • Kelly, Taylor. (2016). Elecetric car sharing service help environment, cut down costs. Retrieved from http://www. ballstatedaily.com/article/2016/03/news-blue-indy

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

201

• Lams, Alex. (2010). Crystal City Plan Feasibility Study Arlington, Virginia. American planning Association. Retrieved from https://www.arlingtoneconomicdevelopment.com/index.cfm?LinkServID=E4107C4C-9123-40C4B766462E7F8B7AB2&showMeta=0 • LEA+Elliott et al. (2010). (2010). Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/read/22926/chapter/5#11 • Markley, D. M., & McNamara, K. T. (1995). Economic and fiscal impacts of a business incubator. Economic Development Quarterly, 9(3), 273-278. • Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). Retrieved from http://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/files/ archive/mwaa.com/file/aerotrainsystem.pdf • Miami International Airport (MIA). Retrieved from http://www.miami-airport.com/public-transportation.asp • Miami Intermodal Center (MIC), Retrieved from http://www.micdot.com/mcs_mia_mover.html • Midgley, P. (2009). The role of smart bike-sharing systems in urban mobility. Journeys, 2(1), 23-31. • Muller, P. J. (2007). A Personal Rapid Transit/Airport Automated People Mover Comparison. In Aviation: A World of Growth (pp. 14-22). • Nashville International Airport (BNA). Retrieved from https://www.flynashville.com/Pages/default.aspx • Nashville International Airport. BNA Vision. Retrieved from http://bnavisionnashville.com/ • National Geodetic Survey. Imaginary Surfaces for Obstruction Evaluation. Retrieved August, 2017, from https://www. ngs.noaa.gov/AERO/oisspec.htm

202

REFERENCES

• NCTCOG. Historical Traffic Counts. Retrieved July, 2017, from http://www.nctcog.org/trans/data/trafficcounts/ indexcdp.asp • Portland International Airport (PDX). Retrieved from http://www.flypdx.com/PDX • Port of Portland. (2014). 2014 Portland International Airport Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Retrieved form https:// cdn.portofportland.com/pdfs/Trade_Trans_Studies_PDX_Bike_Plan.pdf • Salt Lake City International Airport. Retrieved from https://www.slcairport.com/ • San Diego county Regional Airport Authority. (2014). San Diego International Airport: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Retrieved from http://www.san.org/Portals/0/Documents/Land%20Use%20Compatibility/SDIA/SDIA%20ALUCP%20 Ch%201-6%20(May%202014).pdf • San Diego International Airport (SAN). Retrieved from http://www.san.org/ • Tampa International Airport(TPA). Retrieved from http://www.tampaairport.com/ • Tampa International Airport. (2012). 2012 Airport Master Plan Update. Retrieved from http://www.tampaairport.com/ sites/default/master/files/Master%20Plan%20Executive%20Summary%20%2811-22-13%29%2023.05MB_0.pdf • TriMet. (2012). Airport MAX: Red Line. Retrieved from https://trimet.org/pdfs/history/railfactsheetairport.pdf • Ultra Global PRT. Retrieved from http://www.ultraglobalprt.com • United States Department of Transportation (2016). T-100 Domestic Market (All Carriers). Retrieved from https://www. transtats.bts.gov/Fields.asp • Washington DC Reagan National Airport (DCA). Retrieved from http://flyreagan.com/dca/reagan-national-airport

DA L L A S L O VE F IE L D HIGHE S T

AND

BEST

US E

203