Arch6440 2015 spring ryan hp2

Urban Development and Transportation Planning What are the reciprocal relationships between planning and construction of new urban infrastructure and new building developments?

SCADS: S. Clark, C. Cutry, A. Lockwood, D. Potter, & S. Al­Otaibi Assignment 3: The Final Dossier April 17, 2015

Introduction to Research Topic Our research focuses on the intersection of urban design and large­scale construction projects, particularly the planning of major public transportation routes, and the drivers behind public and private urban development. Utilizing the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center (BCEC) and the greater South Boston Waterfront (SBW) area as a case study for understanding the linkages between private development of open parcels and infrastructural development, we will explore whether transportation infrastructure is planned in­response­to or in­advance­of private and public development. This study investigates development that has been initiated by three different types of entities ­ private developers, public agencies, and public transportation agencies. These types of projects are exemplified by the Fan Pier Development, the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (MCCA) Expansion Project, and the MBTA’s Vision Plan, respectively. In an effort to better understand the relationships between building development and transportation infrastructure projects in urban areas, this study specifically investigates the development of the SBW and its transportation infrastructure around the construction of the BCEC as a primary case study.

In order to undergird the findings of our case study which addresses a city in flux and a development and expansion in progress, we have chosen three additional urban development and transportation projects outside of Boston to juxtapose, compare, and inform our understanding of the continued planning, design, construction and development of South Boston’s Waterfront. These projects include the redevelopment of the Hudson River Pier 57 in New York; the Atlanta, Georgia Olympic Games fit­out; and the expansion of the public transportation system in Charlotte, North Carolina. By understanding the planning efforts of these different cities, this project will explore how public transportation agencies catalyze development through their infrastructural projects and reciprocally, how public and private development can create the impetus for the design and construction of new transportation infrastructure. This research aims to highlight the way in which planning decisions are made, instigated, funded, and have lasting consequences at both the scale of city, and of individual development. In addition, we aim to probe the question to what extent private development is influential in terms of stimulating additional public infrastructural development projects.

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

2

South Boston Waterfront Transportation History of Public Transit Connectivity and Introduction to Track 61 In juxtaposition to the supporting urban case studies, the BCEC sits on man­made land as South Boston is the second most “filled­land” neighborhood after East Boston. 1 ​ The Old Colony Railroad, Boston Hartford and Erie Railroad, and the New York Central Railroad had laid tracks and multiple bridges extending beyond the original shoreline (Figure 1). Part of this endeavor included the construction of Track 61 in 1920, which connected to the Massport Marine Terminal along what is now Summer Street, as part of the 191­acre Boston Marine Industrial Park (BMIP) creation; later transferred to the Economic Development and Industrial Corporation in the late 1970s.2 Track 61 ran as part of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad until the time it was turned over to Conrail and CSX Transportation for continued freight usage. This practice was discontinued in the mid 1980’s.3 Passenger service provided by the Boston Elevated Railway Lines (BERy) had been discontinued to the South Boston Waterfront earlier in the 1940’s at the request of the Department of Defense (Figure 2). Track 61 ­ the Boston Terminal Running Track, most recently owned by CSX, had been temporarily abandoned.

Approved by the Federal Surface Transportation Board on December 29, 2004, the Discontinuance Exemption provided an additional year exemption to the discontinuance which had been originally granted on November 17, 1997 to Conrail: This limited term exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 allowed Conrail to temporarily discontinue service over a line of railroad known as the Boston Terminal Running Track (also referred to as “Track 61"), lying between the west side of Summer Street...and the end of the track at Boston Harbor Pier, a distance of approximately 2,635 feet, in the City of Boston. According to CSXT, construction of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, is not complete. This construction was the reason for granting the exemption to Conrail.4 (Appendix A)

1

Seasholes, Nancy S. 2003. ​ Gaining ground: a history of landmaking in Boston​ . Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 287.

2 “Boston Marine Industrial Park: History of the Park”, Boston Redevelopment Authority, accessed February 23, 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20120309122425/http://www.bostonmarineindustrialpark.com/about/history­of­th e­park/ 3 DeMasi, Frank S. (November 2009). "Intermodal Corridor To the Port of Boston: The South Boston Haul Road – RAIL CORRIDOR". Boston Regional Metropolitan Planning Organization: Central Transportation Planning Staff.

4 ​ Surface Transportation Board (30 December 2004). ​ "STB Docket No. AB­167 (Sub­No. 1179X)"​ . ​ Surface Transportation Board Decision Document​ . Retrieved 22 December 2013.

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

3

While perhaps not directly impactful to the current operation of the BCEC, it is important to note historic land­ownership and the land­making efforts executed in this area, enabling regional connections to Downtown Boston proper via the South Boston Waterfront.

This was a direct result of the Big Dig Project constructed in 1991. The Big Dig essentially took the elevated highway, then termed the “Green Monster”, and collapsed the infrastructure below grade to reconnect Boston to it’s waterfront, and thus South Boston to Boston.

On ​ July 20, 2002, the first phase of the Bus Rapid Transit System (BRT) was implemented as part of the Silver Line running along Washington Street, replacing an elevated portion of the Orange Line extending to Forest Hills (SL5).5 Following the opening of the BCEC in June of 2004, the MBTA added two Silver Line ​ routes (SL2 and SL3) in December of 2004, connecting South Station to the BCEC at the World Trade Center stop through the new South Boston Waterfront Transitway Tunnel.6

Boston’s Infrastructure and Development Time Line Diagram

Document Research Following our baseline understanding of the intersection of transportation planning and development within the South Boston Waterfront as outlined in the previous section, we have identified two overarching categories for research into the topic: governmental and legal documents and news articles; and personal interviews with MCCA project managers, and 5 6

MBTA Ridership and Service Statistics, Fourteenth Edition, 2014: Revised July 2014, page 42.

Ibid.

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

4

BRA transportation planners. These two types of data will enable us to explore both the empirical evidence as stated by court decisions, funding policies, and transfer of ownership, as well as the personal narratives and insights of individuals working in the transportation and planning sector involved in the development of the South Boston Waterfront.

Government, Legal Documents and News Articles In addition to the documents pertaining to the ​ Federal Surface Transportation Board decision to grant a discontinuance exemption to CSX in 1997, we have identified a number of government plans including the MassDOT Fiscal Year 2014­2018 Transportation Capital Investment Plan and news articles pertaining to the potential reuse of Track 61 for Diesel Motor Units (DMU). These articles acknowledge the growing district and potential re­use of Track 61 for Convention Center participants staying in Copley Square: “We own the line. We control our own destiny. It’s not that complicated, as a transportation project goes”, said ex­transportation secretary Richard A. Davey.7 In 2002, pending the construction of the initial build­out of the MBTA Silver Line project, the Menino administration in conjunction with the BRA, published “Boston’s Strong Economy 2002: Resisting the Recession.” Identifying the slowing economy of Boston in 2001, this document serves not only as an outline of the economic agenda of the city, but also outlines the capital investment program of the MBTA. Over the course of five years, (FY2002­FY2007), $3.2 billion was outlaid for “four major programmatic areas: 1) reinvestment in the infrastructure, 2) accessibility improvements, 3) enhancement of existing service, and 4) system expansion efforts. Of this $3.2 billion capital plan program, $307.1 million, 40% of the system’s expansion effort, was allotted for the Silver Line expansion project.8 In 2013, multiple agencies including the city of Boston, MassDOT, Massport, and the MCCA came together to sponsor ​ The South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan​ : Infrastructure planning and investment set in motion more than three decades ago have spurred a steady pace of private sector investment and redevelopment in the Waterfront...These increases in transportation demands 7

​ Shirley Leung​ , Rail Link Coming to Fast­Growing Seaport, September 6, 2013. http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/09/05/state­begin­innovative­rail­service­between­seaport­distri ct­and­back­bay/oHUinYj30lzOV6KNCQUMEJ/story.html 8 City of Boston: Thomas M. Menino and Mark Maloney, “Boston Strong Economy 2002: Resisting the Recession”, accessed February 23, 2015. http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/6c25f855­4b48­4641­adc9­4ee5f1d755c2

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

5

and congestion can have a spillover effect on the adjoining South Boston neighborhood and on adjacent roads in the Financial District. Furthermore, transit access to the South Boston Waterfront is approaching its capacity.9 (Appendix B) Noting the development sparked by transit improvements in the area, this plan outlines a series of seven goals surrounding the potential of the Waterfront District: 1) Improve Access and Mobility for All, 2) Support Economic Growth and Vitality, 3) Reinforce Sustainability, 4) Policies and Programs, 5) Enhance the Public Realm, 6) Contribute Environmental and Health Benefits, and 7) Invest Smartly for the Future.

Boston’s Catalytic Events and Consequent Development Flow Diagram

Interviews Interviews serve as our second main avenue of research inquiry. We have laid the groundwork for these interviews through the documents outlined above and the interviewees we chose provided additional insight into these planning processes.

9

VHB, “South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan”, accessed February 23, 2015. http://www.sbwaterfrontmobility.org/documents/SBoston_ExecSumm_ONLY_PB.pdf

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

6

Interview with the MCCA As our interests surround the infrastructure necessary to operate the BCEC, we met with Howard Davis (MCCA) who brought with him Ali Butler (MCCA), and Geoffrey Lewis (MCCA) to discuss the interagency collaboration between the MCCA and the MBTA. In this interview, Howard first introduced Geoffrey Lewis, a transportation planner, and a senior project manager at the MCCA. Geoffrey’s comments in the interview were helpful in further understanding the background provided by Howard; since he worked at the BRA in the transportation planning department with Jim Fitzgerald of the BRA, before joining the MCCA. In answering the question of what instigated the development of the South Boston Waterfront, Howard Davis pointed largely to the Big Dig ­ the Central Artery relocation of 1991. Supported by our analysis of the Haul Road and the connections servicing the downtown area, Howard suggested that construction of the Silver Line was enabled by the Big Dig, and was a value engineered version of the initial plan which would have created a light­rail system connecting South Station, the BCEC, and the Industrial Waterfront.

Moreover, Howard pointed to additional infrastructural development that was initially included as part of the Convention Center and MBTA planning efforts. Instead of the Bus Rapid Transit service that currently serves the South Boston Waterfront, a light rail station was scheduled to serve the BCEC directly, and the planning of this station at the front of the BCEC was conducted directly between the MCCA and the MBTA. Not only did the MBTA and MCCA plan a light rail system to serve the attendees of the Convention Center, ticketing machines were installed into the BCEC in advance of the transit access as the BCEC was under construction.

As part of an effort to curb cost­overruns and minimize the political backlash of the Big Dig, the budget for this rail connection was slashed. Haul road, which would have served as the rail connection, was abandoned in favor of a BRT system serving the South Boston Waterfront. This BRT, the Silver Line, was planned to eventually be converted to rail, however, there are no current plans to do so, as this transit system is now too expensive to retrofit. The Charlie ticket machines initially located at the BCEC still remain, even though no service is provided at this location.

Another investment accelerating development of the SBW was the Harbor Clean Up: It was only a little over 20 years ago that Boston Harbor was known as the “dirtiest harbor in America.” Today, it’s a" Great American Jewel". The $3.8 billion invested in the treatment facilities at Deer Island have proven to be a great success and the harbor cleanup is widely recognized as one of the

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

7

nation’s greatest environmental achievements. For over one hundred years, the disposal of the daily waste of Boston and its surrounding communities got only limited treatment before being dumped right into the harbor.10

While the MCCA has collaborated with the MBTA in order to plan public transportation options, the Convention Center attendees do not largely utilize public transportation to attend meetings or events at the BCEC. Based on survey polls, Howard estimates that 10% of all attendees utilize the services provided by the MBTA. With the exception of local shows, attendees take private shuttles to and from conventions to hotels and restaurants in the Back Bay. Jim Fitzgerald raised a similar issue with the increase of private shuttle buses used to transport employees from Downtown Boston, and more specifically North Station, to the SBW businesses. This represents a disconnect in the market; the lack of supply of infrastructure for convention participants and employees of businesses on the SBW, and the increased demand for transportation due to the rapid development of the SBW. Thus, the MCCA mitigated this lack of infrastructural supply by bypassing the need for transportation for their guests and developing hotels, restaurants, and amenities for convention participants within walking­distance of the BCEC. In addition to mitigating the need for shuttle buses through development of the South Boston Waterfront, Howard and Geoff focused our attention on the future service planned to access the front of the BCEC in an adaptive reuse of existing industrial tracks ­ Track 61. As introduced earlier, this track would relink the South Boston Waterfront to Copley Square and the Back Bay. Much like the planning process undertaken by MBTA and MCCA officials over the course of the Big Dig, the MCCA has followed the vision plan outlined by the MBTA and has provided funding for a Diesel Motor Unit (DMU) station as part of the BCEC expansion planning. A preliminary presentation has been put together illustrating a schematic design for the station and precedents of DMUs currently in service in other cities such as Austin, TX (see figure 10,11). According to Howard, two of the existing four tracks along the side of the BCEC will be purchased by the MCCA for a truck marshalling area, which currently occupies a piece of the parking lot to the rear of the Convention Center. The MCCA has dedicated $50 million to this venture. MassDOT will receive $35 million upfront for the sale of the two tracks adjacent to the convention center, and $15 million is allocated for the new the station serving the BCEC. While DMUs are slated for purchase by 2018, if the station is not built by 2024

10

​ "MWRA ­ Boston Harbor Project: An Environmental Success Story." ​ MWRA ­ Boston Harbor Project: An Environmental Success Story​ . N.p., 16 Dec. 2014. Web.

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

8

(vision plan year), the $15 million dollar incentive will be forfeited back to the MCCA. This funding is also posed as an incentive by the MCCA for MassDOT to move from their current building located near the BCEC, so as to not hinder the continued development along D Street.

Ultimately, the MCCA has been an essential player in the development of the SBW, and continues to be heavily involved in it’s further development through the South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan for 2024.

Interview with the BRA Given the transportation planning interests of our case study, we met with Jim Fitzgerald, Senior Manager of Transportation & Infrastructure at the Boston Redevelopment Authority to discuss how the MBTA projects are funded and implemented, as well as to better understand the implications of the South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan (SBWSTP).

Fitzgerald, who has a handle on the history of the South Boston Waterfront (SBW), cited the 1980s as the start of the BRA influence to revitalize the South Boston Waterfront area. Just as Howard Davis suggested, the Big Dig played into the reconnection and revitalization of the SBW, as it was only then visually connected and easily accessible for a motorist. Fitzgerald, in contrast to Davis, highlighted the cleaning of the Boston Harbor as the real unlocking of the development potential of the SBW, claiming that clients were incredibly disinterested in this area based on its unpleasant odor and proximity to the shore before the passage of the Federal Clean Water Act in 1972. This Act was not implemented until 1989 and was finalized with the expansion of the Deer Island sewage treatment plant, completed in 1991, when the MWRA stopped discharging sewage into the Harbor.11 Fitzgerald strongly advocated for the planning of the Boston Marine Industrial Park, claiming that while the revitalization of the SBW was necessary, the BRA needed to balance the desires of developers looking to construct new office and residential buildings with the established and growing industrial sector of the SBW. Even after the creation of the SBWSTP, this is still contentious. Fitzgerald stated that they are [still] working to determine where to draw in the line in [their] master plans to ensure that the industrial activity does not get replaced by the residential and commercial developments creeping further south­east (toward the​ BMIP​ ).

11

​ Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay Massachusetts Water Resources Authority The Boston Harbor Project Timeline: 1986­2001 ​ http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/harbor/html/soh_bhp.htm

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

9

In addition to the broad focus of the BRA on the SBW and its adjacency to the BMIP, BRA officials are interested in the new transportation connections that might be able to address the unknown future of Widett Circle (currently slated for the Olympic soccer stadium) through the reuse of Track 61, along the connection between the Convention Center and Copley Square. In addition, Fitzgerald highlighted the options for station locations, indicating that in addition to a stop serving the BCEC, one might be necessary to serve State Street at the Channel Center. While there has been much interest in the reuse of this transportation connection, Fitzgerald noted that the change in political leadership, the secretary of transportation, along with the recent tribulations of the MBTA may delay the implementation of the DMU lines as they require an entirely new type of train car which requires additional maintenance knowledge. Moreover, as indicated by the financial plan for the MBTA, the Fairmount Line will be rolled­out well before the connection of Track 61 is exploited.

MassDOT has currently budgeted $190 Million to 2018 to invest in DMU operations. $74 million of that will go to the Fairmount Line and ~$116 Million to other DMU development. In addition to the right of way maintained to the BCEC, the BRA has made sure that rail connectivity, which once extended to the Design Center at Dry Dock Avenue, has been maintained and could still serve industrial uses beyond the SBW to BMIP. Before the start of construction of the Big Dig in 1989, Chairman and President of the Beacon Company (owners of Rowe’s Wharf), Norman Leventhal and his son­in­law Edwin Sidman, created a non­profit entity: the Artery Business Committee ­ made up of a number of real­estate, construction and banking officials.12 This group, now known as A Better City (ABC), worked on The Big Dig, “ensuring that the downtown would be accessible during construction; ensuring that the finished project would adequately serve downtown; and ensuring that political and legal controversies did not threaten the project.” Following the Big Dig, A Better City worked to organize the public agencies involved in the creation of the SBWSTP. 13 ABC is now involved in a myriad of transportation, land development, and environmental projects around the city: ​ “ABC continues to partner with public, private, and community partners to meet the challenges the city of Boston is facing and will continue to do so long into the future.”14

12

ABC, "Updated List, Board of Directors," April 22, 1989, in ABC, "Executive Committee Briefing Book," June 8, 1989, 13 A Better City, History. Accessed April 3, 2015. ​ http://www.abettercity.org/about/history.html 14 A Better City, 2015 Work Plan. Accessed April 3, 205. http://www.abettercity.org/about/workplan.html

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

10

In addition to the legacy connections of the South Boston rail system, the BRA has been significantly involved in the private developments of the SBW. Following the 100 Acres Masterplan, the Fort Point District planning initiative, several private developers including Fan Pier, Pier 4, and Seaport Square have radically built­out the open parcels of the master­plan.

As part of this effort, Fitzgerald noted that the BRA has required these developers to build­out secondary and tertiary roads of the SBW, returning them upon completion to Boston ownership. To enable this public infrastructure to be built by private developers, the BRA utilizes Planned Development Area (PDA) review which serves as “an overlay zoning district that establishes special zoning controls for large or complex projects.”15 This BRA review process coupled with the high­value of SBW land, and the density at which these developers build, affords the possibility of developers to pay for public amenities including roads, transit connections, and green spaces, written into the PDA by BRA planners.

In an effort to lessen the impact of development on transportation infrastructure, the BRA is looking to create connections to North Station to address the Commuter Rail connection to the SBW. Whereas private developers and clients currently contract with private shuttle companies to provide service between North Station and the SBW, the BRA is seeking to create a Bus Rapid Transit System (BRT) along Congress Street to address this missing connection and free­up the city streets from a multiplicity of privately contracted shuttle services. The MCCA has a similar contract for convention attendees. These shuttles are proposed to be replaced in time with the implementation of DMUs on track 61.

Boston Financing The MassDOT funding strategies undergird the SBWSTP and showcase the plans for expansion of the infrastructural network. The MassDOT FY 2014­2018 Capital Investment Plan provides an understanding of short­term investment in the system: Over the next five years, MassDOT anticipates spending $12.4 billion for highway, bridge, rail, transit, pedestrian/bicycle and aeronautics projects across the Commonwealth. This includes funding drawn from existing sources – federal reimbursements and grants, state borrowings and an expansive toll funded capital plan, as well as funding for new projects and initiatives made possible by recent revenue increases included in the 2013 transportation finance legislation.16 15

Boston Redevelopment Authority Planned Development Areas. Accessed April 3, 2015. http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/projects/development­review/planned­development­areas 16 ​ MassDOT. "Massachusetts Department of Transportation FY2014­2018 Capital Investment Plan." (n.d.): n. pag. 2015. Web. http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/0/docs/infoCenter/docs_materials/cip_FY14_FY18.pdf

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

11

As outlined in the report, MassDOT will spend approximately $12.4 billion for highway, bridge, rail, transit, pedestrian/bicycle and aeronautics projects across the Commonwealth in the coming five years.17 All of these projects will be funded by Commonwealth Borrowings, Accelerated Bridge Program, Federal Highway Funding, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Metropolitan Highway System Toll Revenue, Western Turnpike Toll Revenue, Transportation Investment Fund, and third parties.(See Appendix D) Out of all this funding, the improvements to the South Boston transportation infrastructure will come from the introduction of the Indigo Line (Figure 7), “DMU Service & Silver Line to Chelsea ($252 million), implementation of Diesel Multiple Unit vehicles (independently powered subway vehicles running on commuter rail lines) and expansion of the Silver Line. Service will provide reliable public transit to underserved communities in the Fairmount Corridor of Boston, Chelsea and the North Shore. The DMU funding will help to establish the new Indigo Line, using the Fairmount commuter rail corridor to provide faster, more reliable service to that region of Boston.”18 (Figure 8) The MassDOT Capital Investment Plan coincides with the previously mentioned South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan, and together will support the large­scale development and growth of the SBW.

Hudson River Development, Pier 57 The private redevelopment proposal of Pier 57, also known as the ‘Super Pier’, is being conducted by the winning competition entry of 2009 by Youngwoo & Associates, who recently brought in a co­Developer, RXR, as of September 2014.19 Awarded by the Hudson River Park Trust (HRPT), other organizations developing the proposed project include the New York City Planning Commission, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and potentially the New York State Department of Transportation. The proposed Pier 57 project is subject to environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review regulations and guidelines and will also be subject to federal approvals to permit in­water work, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act. In addition to Youngwoo & Associates and RXR, the project team consists of Executive Architect Handel

17

Ibid.

Ibid.

19 ​ Cilento, Karen. "Pier 57 / LOT­EK + Young Woo & Associates" 07 Aug 2009. ​ ArchDaily​ . Accessed 24 Feb 2015.​ <​ http://www.archdaily.com/?p=31479​ > 18

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

12

Architects, Design Architect LOT­EK, Landscape Architect Melk, Concept Designer Rockwell Group, Historical Preservation group Higgins Quasebarth & Partners, Branding Pandiscio Co., Incubox Fabrication SG Blocks, and Public Relations Camron PR.20 An iteration of the initial proposal is currently under construction at a cost of $330 million, in contrast with the initial budget of $190 million for the proposal.21 The client, Hudson River Park Trust, is governed by a 13­member Board of Directors with a 50­member advisory council ­ composed of elected officials and professionals in business, environmental and civic communities.22 Under the required environmental review process, Pier 57 is projected to open in 2015.23 With the completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement on February 22, 2013, HRPT issued a Notice of Completion. The Final Environmental Impact Statement focusing on Chapter 14: Transportation, was composed of an evaluation of the potential traffic, parking, transit, pedestrian, and safety impacts of the development proposed for Pier 57 in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan. ​ Improvements to the area ​ would create a safe environment for a functional frontage, including construction of an access road, construction of an overwater platform walkway, installation of a wide sidewalk along the frontage, and the enforcement of an off­site parking policy; in order to limit the number of vehicles on the site and crossing the bikeway and sidewalk; Other improvements proposed include traffic signals for all movement into and out of the site, construction of an additional lay­by lane on the east side of Route 9A, construction of a protected pedestrian pathway within the median on Route 9A, and widening of crosswalks across Route 9A24 (Refer to Figure 3 for the Detailed Access Plan).

A comparison of “No Action and With Action Conditions” was evaluated to generate the projected improvements coinciding with the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, New York City Transit (NYCT) guidelines and Ride­Check Survey for the ACE/L Subway Lines and the M14 bus route evaluations as well as Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 to evaluate pedestrian unit flow on the existing sidewalks. In addition, a Traffic 20

Pier 57 Website Accessed 24 Feb 2015. ​ <​ http://pier­57.com/​ > Cilento, Karen​ . ​ "Pier 57 / LOT­EK + Young Woo & Associates" 07 Aug 2009. ​ ArchDaily​ . Accessed 24 Feb 2015.​ <​ http://www.archdaily.com/?p=31479​ > 22 ​ ​ News for Immediate Release. Hudson River Park Trust Designates Youngwoo as Developer of Historic Pier 57. New York, NY. July 30, 2009.

23 Hudson River Park Website Accessed 24 Feb 2015. <http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/vision­and­progress/planning­and­construction/meatpacking­district/pier­57 ­review­process/​ > 24 Pier 57 Review Process. ​ Final Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter 14: Transportation. Pg. 75 of 100.

21

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

13

Management Plan is proposed to be implemented during the time of construction in order to ensure operational efficiency and pedestrian and traffic safety. Furthermore, there is also the possibility of adding an additional stop to the NYCT M14 bus route to improve transit access to the project site and the waterfront.25

Atlanta, Georgia ­ Olympic Build Out th​ From July 19th to August 4​ 1996, Atlanta, Georgia hosted the Centennial Summer Olympic Games, conceived by real­estate lawyer William Payne in 1987.26 Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young, an acquaintance of Payne, saw the potential in the 1996 Olympic games to 10 revitalize Atlanta economically and as a solution to Atlanta’s concentrated poverty issues.​

Benefits of hosting the games, including positive media attention, construction of facilities and infrastructure, and employment increases were expected to outweigh the estimated $4.5 billion* price tag.27 The civic leaders compiled a two­volume bid document, outlining the city’s plans for sporting events and accommodation for athletes and visitors, in addition to a financial plan for setting up the games. The organizers managed to sell the proposal, first to local business leaders, then to the US Olympic Committee and finally to the International 10 Olympics Committee (IOC) to win the bid in 1990 to host the 1996 games.​

In preparation for the games, Atlanta’s infrastructure required vast improvements and

expansion, including renovations to Hartsfield International Atlanta Airport, the metro transit system, existing sports venues, and also non­existent facilities requiring conception and construction. Atlanta’s organizers realized their only chance at rousing public support was to promise to fund the games privately. The Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG), a private non­profit corporation led by Payne, managed to privately raise $2.5 billion in funds, including approximately $600 million for construction.28 The majority of funds were garnered 11​ from broadcast rights, ticket sales and corporate sponsorships.​ Additionally, ACOG would

relinquish certain buildings to local universities after the games, in return for substantial

25

Pier 57 Review Process. ​ Final Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter 14 :Transportation. Pg. 1 of 100.

Mark Curriden. “Going for Gold: With Olympics Set to Begin, Atlanta Lawyers Racing into Final Deals.”

ABA Journal​ . Vol. 82 No. 7 (July 1996) pp.26­27. *All monetary values concerning the Atlanta Olympic Games have the cumulative rate of inflation of 50.5% included in the value to equate 1996 monetary values in terms of 2015 monetary values. Source: US Inflation Calculator. Website accessed April 08 2015. <http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/> 27 Julie Hotchkiss, Roger Moore and Stephanie Zobay. “Impact of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games on Employment and Wages in Georgia.” ​ Southern Economic Journal​ . Vol. 69 No. 3. (Jan 2003) pp 691­704.

28 Michelle Lacoss. “The Olympic Class: The Politics Behind the 1996 Atlanta Centennial Olympic Games.”

Georgia State University. Spring 2010 26

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

14

upfront fiscal contributions. The federal government advanced transportation and housing grants and provided security, while the city issued bonds to pay for new infrastructure.29

The Olympic Games development consisted of new and rehabilitated infrastructure.

New infrastructure built for the games included an Olympic stadium, a cycling velodrome, an 21 ​ Aquatic center, and an Olympic Village to house the athletes and trainers.​ ACOG raised

$300 million from private donors to build the main attraction, the 85,000­seat stadium. In contrast, the Georgia World Congress Center, a pre­existing convention facility was used to host smaller Olympic events such as fencing and wrestling, without a great deal of 20 ​ investment.​ In addition, the Georgia Technology Institute campus also underwent an

overhaul, to become the Olympic Village for 16,000 athletes and trainers. The Olympic Village was planned to later transform into student dormitories.The $360 million cost for building new accommodation was shared by ACOG, which privately raised $70 million for its contribution, 20 and the University System of Georgia, which issued bonds to pay for the remainder.​

Centennial Olympic Park was also refurbished and is revered as the most influential development of the 1996 games. Payne conceived of the idea to convert blocks of downtown warehouses into a town square, as a gathering space and a place for entertainment. Since the games, tourist attractions have appeared across the park, such as the Coca­Cola 20 museum, the Georgia Aquarium, and a civil rights museum.​

In preparation for the influx of international visitors, Hartsfield International Atlanta Airport was expanded at a cost of $300 million to provide more parking­decks, baggage carousels, shops and way­finding systems.30 Atlanta’s transportation system also received an overhaul. Park and ride lots were constructed off major highways in an effort to reduce the amount of downtown traffic. An Olympic shuttle bus system was put in place, including a fleet 23​ of 2,000 buses borrowed temporarily from various transit agencies across the US.​ Notably,

the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) typical weekday ridership prior to the games was approximately 475,000 riders. During the games MARTA anticipated more than 800,000 patrons a day. In order to cope with this substantial influx of riders, 12 seats were removed from every train car to increase standing and overall capacity. $45 million was allotted to cover the transit improvements, also aided by a fare increase of $0.25 per ride,

29

Mark Arsenault. “Atlanta Games Venues Left Some Lessons for Boston.”

The Boston Globe​ . Aug 03 2014.

30 “The Official Report of the Centennial Olympic Games.” Vol. 11 ​ The Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games.

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

15

taking the cost of a ride to $1.50**, compared to Boston’s $0.90 a ride for the MBTA at the time. Other improvements to the transit system included the use of alternative fuel buses, using natural gas. Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs) have lower emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates than diesel fueled buses. Six months before the games, eighty NGV buses were put into operation, in a bid to improve Atlanta’s notoriously poor air quality in advance of the influx of visitors.31

After the games, ACOG produced a three­volume book, “The Official Report of the

Centennial Olympic Games,” detailing all the planning, successes and failures of the games, 21​ in order to provide assistance to future host cities.​ The Official Report provides a breakdown

of all decisions, funding, budget allocations, and required infrastructure improvements to host the games (see Figures 4 and 5). According to the Official Report for the Centennial Olympic 21 Games, the estimated economic impact on the city was thought to be at least $7.6 billion.​

Beyond this, the games were a catalyst for development, fostering the construction and improvement of infrastructure, that helped to reverse Atlanta’s decades of decline.

Charlotte, North Carolina Lynx is a light rail system that was created under the guidance of the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS). It is a direct response to a growing city in need of multiple options of transportation. The Lynx light rail system provides a successful example for transportation expansion within an existing infrastructural system. Not only is Charlotte planning an extension of the transportation system, the city is also exploring the possibility of improving areas directly affected, related, and surrounding what currently exists, such as widening roads and creating bike paths.

The original light rail was proposed in the mid­1980s and was the first light rail system ever proposed in Charlotte. The Lynx Blue Line is part of a comprehensive transportation system that includes roads, buses, rapid transit and commuter rails, managed by the Public Transit department within the city of Charlotte. CATS was created in 2000 after a public referendum to fund future transit initiatives. The funding for this system was raised through passenger fares as well as local, state and federal funds.32 Other funds have been received through several state and federal grant awards; these funds have been allocated to further improve the transport system and enhance the ridership experience.

31

nd​ Associated Press. “Atlanta is Stumbling Out of the Blocks.” ​ Los Angeles Times​ , July 22​ 1996.

"LYNX HOME." ​ LYNX HOME​ . City of Charlotte, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2015. <http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/lynx/Pages/default.aspx>.

32

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

16

In 1998 The North Carolina General Assembly passed a bill enabling legislation to allow the citizens of Mecklenburg County to enact a local sales tax dedicated to public transit; consequently the citizens of Mecklenburg County voted by a margin of 58 percent to 42 percent to enact a half­cent sales tax. The citizens reaffirmed this dedicated tax in November 2007 by a 70 percent to a 30 percent margin.33 (See figure 6 for Historical Sales Tax Revenue.) CATS also provides a public breakdown of the management of the whole department and system. Transportation decision­making is done by the CATS governing board, Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC), and CATS management. They determine, under the guidelines, how financial resources are to be utilized to fulfill the mission of the transit system, meet obligations, and protect the public interest.34 A new extension of the Lynx light rail system is currently under construction, projected to be completed in 2017. The possibility for the extension came about when Charlotte bid for a federal transportation grant to extend the existing Lynx Line and was awarded $18 million to help begin the process.35 The construction is estimated to cost $1.2 billion. The justification behind this extension is to provide a connection uptown to the University of North Carolina campus. The project’s construction costs will be divided between the federal government ($580 million), the state ($299 million) and the city ($281 million).36 The existing half­cent tax will pay for the majority of the city’s portion. The current portion of the Lynx system carries around 15,000 passengers daily; comparatively the extension is estimated to carry 50,000 passengers daily along the entire route.37 Along with the Lynx Blue Line extension are multiple other future plans for Charlotte’s transportation vision. These plans consist of documents which lay out projections for each project. (See Appendix C for a list of future transportation plans for the City of Charlotte.)

33

Ibid.

Ibid.

35 Spanberg, Erik. "Charlotte Transit Execs Detail Light­rail Construction Plans ­ Charlotte Business Journal."

Charlotte Business Journal​ . N.p., 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.

36 Spanberg, Erik. "Charlotte Transit Execs Detail Light­rail Construction Plans ­ Charlotte Business Journal."

Charlotte Business Journal​ . N.p., 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.

37 "LYNX Light Rail: Five Years Later." ​ LYNX Light Rail: Five Years Later​ . N.p., 23 July 2012. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.

34

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

17

Comparison of Case Studies Through a series of topics, we have outlined the key comparisons between the development of the South Boston Waterfront, and Pier 57, Atlanta, and Charlotte. These key topics address the way in which each city has enabled a radical transformation in infrastructure in an area in need of revitalization. Through our comparisons, we have found many pertinent similarities to the South Boston Waterfront, including federal legislative initiatives and funding, as well as catalytic events that sparked a conversation around the potential of an area or a particular urban development.

Catalyst Events and Area Revitalization

In researching these four city transportation revitalization projects, we have identified

the early influences of their development. Our focus on the revitalization of an area demonstrates how each city leverages public and private investment in an area to promote growth, and how these projects are stewarded through planning and construction.

While the development of the South Boston Waterfront hinged on the submersion of the Central Artery to reconnect the financial downtown district with South Boston, and the Harbor Cleanup to make viable development parcels adjacent to Boston Harbor; Atlanta, Georgia utilized the Olympic Games as a single catalytic tool to initiate radical infrastructural development. Whereas long­term federally and state funded programs provided slowly fulfilled large­scale urban infrastructure change in Boston, private funding was leveraged by the Atlanta Olympic Bid Committee to initiate fast­paced infrastructure improvements and expansion.

Before hosting the Olympics, Atlanta was suffering from a flailing economy, concentrated poverty issues and a lack of identity as a city. Hosting the games enabled Atlanta to distinguish itself as a city in the midst of progression. Atlanta underwent a series of infrastructural improvements in order to host the games, including improvements to sidewalks, construction of parks, and modifications to the metro transit system. These improvements completely revitalized once impoverished areas into flourishing downtown public squares, shopping complexes, tourist attractions, hotels, and housing.

Not only has hosting the Olympic Games been a catalyst in instigating infrastructural improvements and expansion, but its catalytic effects have benefitted the city in terms of invigorating the city’s economy and population growth. Hosting the Olympic Games provided Atlanta with unprecedented media attention, effectively enabling its “placement on the map”

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

18

and continuing its legacy even today, as tourist attractions continue to appear around Olympic facilities, not only stimulating the city’s economy but also fostering further downtown development.

Unlike the private funding leveraged by Atlanta’s Olympics to revitalize downtown development, public funding was critical at Pier 57 and the SBW. The Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 led to the cleanup of Boston Harbor and the desirability of the Boston shoreline; Pier 57 also merited from legislative intervention. Guided by the Hudson River Park Act, which declared the area of Pier 57 as a park in June of 199838 , the area of Pier 57 was designated as parkland which required planning, construction management, and operation services. The Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 prompted Boston to address the issues of sewage treatment and effluent which had, until that time, been discharged to the Boston Harbor. In contrast, this New York legislation essentially re­zoned the area and established an imperative to secure funding and address a series of issues regarding marine habitat and wildlife conservation.

The development and improvement of infrastructure in Charlotte, NC was a direct reflection of a rapidly growing city population. The city believed that the key to supporting the economic growth was a rapid transit system, and after a public referendum in 1998 a department within the City of Charlotte was created to help fund future transit initiatives. The Charlotte Area Transit System department (CATS) receives funding for the operating and capital program and manages all transportation within the city. Creating this transit department dedicated to aiding transit and infrastructure improvements was a direct response to people recognizing and reacting to the demand for transit options.

Following these catalytic events of legislature, population growth, and an Olympic bid, development guidelines in all three of these cities were seemingly necessary in order to monitor, encourage, and control development projects. As part of the South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan, A Better City worked to ground the development through a goal­oriented process in order to “realize the full transformation of the South Boston Waterfront to a distinct and vibrant neighborhood.” 39 Short­term and long­term planning has been achieved through this process, as well as delineating growth­based economics of new residential units, office space, and maritime uses. Much like the South Boston Waterfront,

38

Hudson River Park Website Accessed 08 April 2015. <http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/about­us/hrpt/hrp­act> 39 VHB, South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan, January 2015.

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

19

which benefits from long­term stewardship, the Hudson River Park Act sparked similar long­term interest and necessitated the establishment of the Hudson River Park Trust to monitor this park area.

Expansion of Existing Infrastructure

As Boston explores the re­use of Track 61 to connect the SBW and Copley Square, as

well as BRT connections to North Station through the SBWSTP, we have addressed our other three case studies to better inform our understanding of how cities go about expanding their existing transportation infrastructure. Much like the SBW, which currently relies entirely on BRT service, the city of Charlotte wished to improve and increase an existing transit system to provide users with additional transit service options as well as better and safer service.

In Charlotte, future plans to expand and improve the current light rail, streetcars and bus transit systems are currently in place. Proposed Red, Silver, and Gold Lynx rail­lines are slated to be constructed by 2034. Charlotte is currently expanding their Lynx Blue Line utilizing a federal transportation grant (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) of $18 million from the US Department of Transportation. Charlotte has undertaken the Lynx Blue Line Capacity Expansion Project as a direct result of the federal grant. In contrast to the small connection made by DMU from Copley to the SBW, these improvements would connect Downtown Charlotte more directly to the Charlotte International Airport, north along the main highway I­77, east along Central Avenue, and west Independence Boulevard to connect suburban areas of Mecklenburg county to the urban core (see figure 9).40 The expansion project’s goal is to upgrade the capacity of the light rail system to meet current and future ridership demands. Through the improvements of the platforms, this project will provide the light rail with the ability to operate with three­car trains at increased frequencies. Existing platforms will be lengthened to accept the longer trains, and additional power supply will allow the trains to operate more frequently for longer periods of time. In addition to the Capacity Expansion Project, CATS is currently undergoing a Lynx Blue Line Extension project.

Connection to University of North Carolina’s main campus is the driving force behind this extension project. The train service will operate along the existing railroad and then extend Northeast towards the campus. New rails will be laid for the extension and once in operation

40

“Charlotte: the official travel resource” Website accessed 10 April 2015. <http://www.charlottesgotalot.com/getting­around>

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

20

trains will operate seven days a week, with an increased frequency in trains during peak hours during the weekdays.41 Much in line with the broad needs of Charlotte to expand and create new rail­lines to serve suburbs and exurbs, Atlanta had similar expansion needs to accommodate the number of Olympic attendees. To host the games ACOG privately raised $2.5 billion,42 however, this budget could not afford to construct all the necessary infrastructure from scratch. Due to time constraints it was clear that the best route forward in preparing for the games was to expand and improve on the existing infrastructure. Hartsfield International Atlanta Airport required a huge $300 million expansion in order to receive a global influx of flights for the games.43 The expansion included additional parking decks, baggage carousels, shops and way­finding systems. Additionally,​ ​ park and ride lots were constructed off major highways in an effort to reduce the amount of downtown traffic for the games, and Atlanta’s existing transit system also received necessary modifications. In order to cope with the substantial population influx of riders during the games, existing Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) train cars were adapted to increase standing and overall capacity.44 While not directly a transportation project, the revitalization of Pier 57 shares much with the SBW, Charlotte, and Atlanta as it must be accessible for New York residents. After review of the Final Scope of Work established in October of 2010, it was determined that an analysis would be conducted ​ to create a comparison of “No Action and With Action Conditions” at the site of Pier 57.45 The information was then evaluated to generate the projected improvements coinciding with the CEQR Technical Manual, New York City Transit (NYCT) guidelines and Ride­Check Survey for the ACE/L Subway Lines and the M14 bus route evaluations, as well as HCM 2000 to evaluate pedestrian unit flow on the existing sidewalks. Furthermore, an additional stop to be added to the NYCT M14 bus route to improve transit access to the project site and the waterfront is currently in deliberation.46

41

​ "LYNX Light Rail: Five Years Later." ​ LYNX Light Rail: Five Years Later​ . N.p., 23 July 2012. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 Pier 57: Final Scope of Work for an Environmental Impact Statement 46 Pier 57 Review Process. ​ Final Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter 14 :Transportation. Pg. 1 of 100.

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

21

Future Plans

Regardless of funding sources for the projects surveyed in this report, all of the studies

have shown to be part of a larger city vision, whether it is transportation­centric or more broadly concerned with the growth of an area.

Boston, which has outlined an extensive development vision through the SBWSTP, operates within a more broad vision for the city, the Boston 2030 plan, which was outlined by Mayor Walsh to provide new housing units in­keeping with the population increase of the area. Likewise, the public transportation connections to the SBW are facilitated by the MBTA vision plan and FY 2014­2018 fiscal plan. In the short­term, Boston will benefit from the transit connections to North Station, the added Ferry Service, and additional BRT lines. In the long­term, these initiatives complement the housing initiative for Boston.

Similar to Boston, Charlotte has also created broad vision plans for the city. While many of the plans tend to be geared towards transportation, the city has put efforts towards future land use plans as well. The city understands that building an integrated land use and transit system is key to the success of managing rapid population growth occurring in the Charlotte area. The main goals of Charlotte’s future planning are to invigorate existing communities by encouraging people to use transit, as well as providing transit users with a vibrant, active and safe environment.47 After a careful study and extensive public input, Charlotte proposed its first long­term future plan in 1998, The 2025 Integrated Transit/ Land Use Plan. The cornerstone is an integrated land use planning and Transit Oriented Development (TOD).48 The main objective of the plan is to create choices for transit users, focusing on improvements and growth along five primary transportation corridors within the greater Charlotte area. The transit portion of the plan includes bus rapid transit, bus, streetcar and facility improvements with initiatives to improve and further link the area’s key centers of economic activity. The Land Use Plan aims to create a sense of community through construction of pedestrian friendly environments, in addition to creating better connections to rapid transit stations. Creating friendly environments will include improving existing stations, bike paths, widening streets, and overall improvements along the streets which directly interact with public transportation.

47

"LYNX HOME." ​ LYNX HOME​ . City of Charlotte, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2015. <http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/lynx/Pages/default.aspx>.

48 “Charlotte Area Transit System”. Website Accessed 10 April 2015. <http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/Pages/default.aspx>

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

22

Charlotte’s Countywide Transit Service Plan (CTSP) provides CATS with a five­year bus service plan. This plan began in 2013 and will continue through 2017. The proposal intends to add additional service, including bus­rail integration so that buses can connect directly to Lynx Blue Line Stations; improved bus stops/shelters, and an additional express bus service. CTSP will help to improve existing infrastructure city and countywide as it requires the improvement of bus stations and their surroundings.49 In 2002, and again in 2006 the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) adopted the 2030 Transit Corridor System Plan. This plan focuses exclusively on transit improvements in the five transportation corridors identified for future development. Along with the transit improvements there are visions for Center City and facility improvements, with hopes that these improvements will in turn help stimulate better transit opportunities. Upon completion this plan will consist of 25 miles for commuter rails, 21 miles for light rail, 16 miles for streetcars, and 14 miles of bus transit. 50 In juxtaposition to the population­growth­based plans of Boston and Charlotte, New York is most concerned with reconnecting existing residents to their waterfront, currently divided by industrial program and infrastructure. New York City’s Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan was released in March 2011, with a strategy outlining improvements for the City’s 520 miles of shoreline, following previous successes of reconnecting miles of shoreline which had been inaccessible for decades, in addition to supporting expansion of the maritime industry.51 The strategy included seven objectives, and were each divided into a “Three­year Action Agenda” and a “Vision 2020 Strategy”.52 New York’s five boroughs engaged in a year­long public process inviting local recommendations for the plan to develop a strategy that would unite the neighborhoods with the waterfront, acting as the connective tissue. A sense of communal pride, and societal investment has manifested from the city’s decision to involve the citizens of the five boroughs in designing the reconnection of the city’s waterfront. The reconnection of the waterfront to the city not only creates immediate job opportunities but also reconnects the post­industrial waterfront as a recreational amenity. Specifically for Pier 57, the proposed redevelopment in 2010 was to

49

“Charlotte Area Transit System”. Website Accessed 10 April 2015. <http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/Pages/default.aspx> 50 “Charlotte Area Transit System”. Website Accessed 10 April 2015. <http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/Pages/default.aspx> 51 Department of City Planning City of New York, Vision 2020 New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan website Accessed 08 April 2015. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/cwp/index.shtml> 52 Press Release: Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Quinn Unveil Comprehensive Plan for New York City’s Waterfront and Waterways. March 14, 2011.

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

23

“advance plans made by Hudson River Park Trust and its private partner for a multi­use pier including public market, art gallery, rooftop park, and small marina” which did in fact become a reality.53 Unlike the other case studies, which have future­growth components, Atlanta needed to devise a plan for the adaptive reuse and legacy modes of its Olympic amenities. Since the games, much of the infrastructure built for the event has been converted for other uses. For example, the Olympic Athletes Village has been converted into university dormitories, the Olympic stadium has transformed into the Atlanta Braves baseball field, and the aquatic center into athletic facilities for Georgia Tech University.54 The initial stimulus of hosting the games has consequently enabled Atlanta’s downtown population to explode. Today, the Atlanta Regional Committee has implemented a 2040 Plan to “sustain metro Atlanta’s livability and prosperity”, including a $59 million Regional Transportation Plan.55 The 2040 Plan includes expansion to the existing metro transit network, highway expansion, and new routes for bicycles and pedestrians to improve connectivity and mobility within the Atlanta metro region. Notably, the 2040 Plan specifically states the 1996 Atlanta Olympics Games as an instigator for unprecedented population growth and prosperity within the region, which has enabled the realization of the 2040 Plan today.

Funding These large scale development and revitalization projects are extraordinarily complex as there are typically multiple funding sources of varying types, with varying degrees of oversight. In an effort to distil this information, this report attempts to contrast these case studies to better understand the main agencies and sources of funding to uncover the financial partnerships that have led to successful development.

The South Boston Waterfront is perhaps the most complex amalgam of funding sources of our four case studies. In addition to the federal and state funding provided for the Big Dig and Harbor Cleanup (funded by the FHWA), as well as grants issued to the City of Boston, City agencies including Massport, the MCCA, MassDOT, and the BRA all have their 53

Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, Appendix C: Waterfront Redevelopment Sites, pg 176.

54 Stump. S & E.K. Kim. “What happens to Olympic venues after the torch goes out?” Today News. February 22 2014. Website accessed 08 April 2015. <http://www.today.com/news/what­happens­olympic­venues­after­torch­goes­out­2D12152101> 55 Atlanta Regional Commission Plan 2040. “Plan 2040.” Website accessed 08 April 2015. <http://www.atlantaregional.com/plan2040>

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

24

own funding streams. Moreover, as the Boston­centric interviews have shown, private developers funded by an array of anonymous global investors and bank loans sophisticate the development sponsorship. With the implementation of the SBWSTP it is notable that public funding and legislation has progressed the development of infrastructure in the SBW, particularly in the construction of secondary roads and headhouses by private developers.

This financial arrangement is similar to the BCEC’s current Track 61 station development project, and existing ghost station MBTA kiosks ­ a legacy of the planned station value­engineered out of the Big Dig. Sales tax combined with the use of passenger fares are the two driving forces behind the financing of Charlotte’s transportation systems. Spurred by the original proposal for a light rail system in the 80’s, Mecklenburg County voters approved a one­half cent sales tax to finance this specific transit construction in 1998. This was a result of The North Carolina General Assembly enabling legislation in 1998 to allow the citizens of the County to enact a local sales tax dedicated to public transit.56 In 2007 an additional vote within the County reaffirmed this dedicated tax. While the city mostly relies on passenger purchases and the sales tax, CATS is constantly seeking grants and other revenue sources to help leverage financial investment of transportation systems. CATS has received several state and federal grants which have helped to leverage system enhancements, such as the federal grant awarded to the extension of the Lynx Blue Line.

Finance decisions for all transit systems within Charlotte and Mecklenburg County are made by the CATS governing board and management as well as the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC). CATS has Financial Policies which are designed to provide a comprehensive framework for the management of financial resources of the transit system.57 This management uses set guidelines to figure out how financial resources are to be utilized to fulfill the mission of the transit system, meet obligations and protect the public interest.

Just as the governing board of the MTC oversees finance decisions within Charlotte, the Hudson River Park Trust manages the development at Pier 57. ​ ​ Managed by the HRPT, private investors funded Pier 57’s redevelopment which was awarded to Youngwoo & Associates,along with ​ Co­Developer RXR. The project is currently nearing its completion​ .58

56

"LYNX HOME." ​ LYNX HOME​ . City of Charlotte, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2015. <http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/lynx/Pages/default.aspx>.

57 lbid.

58 ​ Cilento, Karen. "Pier 57 / LOT­EK + Young Woo & Associates" 07 Aug 2009. ​ ArchDaily​ . Accessed 24 Feb 2015.​ <​ http://www.archdaily.com/?p=31479​ >

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

25

Compared to the other case studies the Atlanta Olympic Games are unusual in the

fact that the games came to fruition due to the efforts of the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG) privately raising $2.5 billion to host the games. Funds were garnered through broadcast rights, commercial sponsorship and ticket sales. Some facilities were realized by sharing costs of construction with local universities, enabling facilities to be owned by universities after the games.59

Conclusion of Comparative Study Analysis of these four cities has rendered a comprehensive understanding of the development tactics, initial catalysts, and continued planning efforts of urban revitalization areas supporting the growth of both private development and public infrastructure projects.

Rather than a cause and effect relationship between public and private development, we have recognized a co­dependant and cyclical relationship between public agencies, public transportation agencies, and private developers. Complex and intricate city­centric collaborations between public agencies and private developers are apparent in all the case studies.

We have found that each case study has a unique set of circumstances and arrangement of agencies, companies, and investors. In all cases it has taken large­scale initiatives to catalyze each city’s infrastructural developments; the Big Dig, ​ the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972, the Olympics of 1996, Charlotte’s rapid population growth, and the Hudson River Park Act. While each development has leveraged resources from diverse agencies and investors, each process is dependent on the political milieu of a certain place and time, in addition to the market­driven feasibility surrounding the economics latent in private developer building and public infrastructural projects.

59

Ibid.

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

26

Bibliography

ABC, "Updated List, Board of Directors," April 22, 1989, in ABC, "Executive Committee Briefing Book," June 8, 1989.

A Better City, History. Accessed April 3, 2015. ​ http://www.abettercity.org/about/history.html

A Better City, 2015 Work Plan. Accessed April 3, 2015. http://www.abettercity.org/about/workplan.html

nd Associated Press. “Atlanta is Stumbling Out of the Blocks.” ​ Los Angeles Times​ , July 22​

1996.

Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay Massachusetts Water Resources Authority The Boston Harbor Project Timeline: 1986­2001. Accessed April 3, 2015. http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/harbor/html/soh_bhp.htm

“Boston Marine Industrial Park: History of the Park”, Boston Redevelopment Authority, accessed February 23, 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20120309122425/http://www.bostonmarineindustrialpark.com/abo ut/history­of­the­park/

Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay Massachusetts Water Resources Authority The Boston Harbor Project Timeline: 1986­2001 http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/harbor/html/soh_bhp.htm

Boston Redevelopment Authority Planned Development Areas. Accessed April 3, 2015. http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/projects/development­review/planned­develop ment­areas

Cilento, Karen. "Pier 57 / LOT­EK + Young Woo & Associates" 07 Aug 2009. ​ ArchDaily​ .

Accessed 24 Feb 2015.​ <​ http://www.archdaily.com/?p=31479​ >

City of Boston: Thomas M. Menino and Mark Maloney, “Boston Strong Economy 2002: Resisting the Recession”, accessed February 23, 2015. http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/6c25f855­4b48­4641­adc9­4ee5f 1d755c2

DeMasi, Frank S. (November 2009). "Intermodal Corridor To the Port of Boston: The South Boston Haul Road – RAIL CORRIDOR". Boston Regional Metropolitan Planning Organization: Central Transportation Planning Staff.

Department of City Planning City of New York, Vision 2020 New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan website Accessed 08 April 2015. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/cwp/index.shtml>

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

27

Hudson River Park Website Accessed 24 Feb 2015. <http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/vision­and­progress/planning­and­construction/meatpacking­ district/pier­57­review­process/​ >

Hudson River Park Website Accessed 08 April 2015. <http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/about­us/hrpt/hrp­act>

Julie Hotchkiss, Roger Moore and Stephanie Zobay. “Impact of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games on Employment and Wages in Georgia.” ​ Southern Economic Journal​ . Vol. 69 No. 3.

(Jan 2003) pp 691­704.

"LYNX HOME." ​ LYNX HOME​ . City of Charlotte, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2015. <http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/lynx/Pages/default.aspx>.

"LYNX Light Rail: Five Years Later." ​ LYNX Light Rail: Five Years Later​ . N.p., 23 July 2012.

Web. 01 Mar. 2015.

Mark Arsenault. “Atlanta Games Venues Left Some Lessons for Boston.”

The Boston Globe​ . Aug 03 2014.

Mark Curriden. “Going for Gold: With Olympics Set to Begin, Atlanta Lawyers Racing into Final Deals.” ​ ABA Journal​ . Vol. 82 No. 7 (July 1996) pp.26­27.

MassDOT. "Massachusetts Department of Transportation FY2014­2018 Capital Investment Plan." (n.d.): n. pag. 2015. Web. http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/0/docs/infoCenter/docs_materials/cip_FY14_FY18.pd f

MBTA Ridership and Service Statistics, Fourteenth Edition, 2014: Revised July 2014, page 42.

Michelle Lacoss. “The Olympic Class: The Politics Behind the 1996 Atlanta Centennial Olympic Games.” Georgia State University. Spring 2010

"MWRA ­ Boston Harbor Project: An Environmental Success Story." ​ MWRA ­ Boston Harbor Project: An Environmental Success Story​ . N.p., 16 Dec. 2014. Web.

News for Immediate Release. Hudson River Park Trust Designates Youngwoo as Developer of Historic Pier 57. New York, NY. July 30, 2009.

Pier 57 Website Accessed 24 Feb 2015. ​ <​ http://pier­57.com/​ >

Pier 57 Review Process. ​ Final Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter 14: Transportation.

Pg. 1 of 100.

Press Release: Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Quinn Unveil Comprehensive Plan for New York City’s Waterfront and Waterways. March 14, 2011.

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

28

Seasholes, Nancy S. 2003. ​ Gaining ground: a history of landmaking in Boston​ . Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 287.

Shirley Leung​ , Rail Link Coming to Fast­Growing Seaport, September 6, 2013. http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/09/05/state­begin­innovative­rail­service­between ­seaport­district­and­back­bay/oHUinYj30lzOV6KNCQUMEJ/story.html

Spanberg, Erik. "Charlotte Transit Execs Detail Light­rail Construction Plans ­ Charlotte Business Journal." ​ Charlotte Business Journal​ . N.p., 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.

Stump. S & E.K. Kim. “What happens to Olympic venues after the torch goes out?” Today News. February 22 2014. Website accessed 08 April 2015. <http://www.today.com/news/what­happens­olympic­venues­after­torch­goes­out­2D1215210 1>

Surface Transportation Board (30 December 2004). ​ "STB Docket No. AB­167 (Sub­No. 1179X)"​ . ​ Surface Transportation Board Decision Document​ . Retrieved 22 December 2013.

“The Official Report of the Centennial Olympic Games.” Vol. 11 ​ The Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games.

Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, Appendix C: Waterfront Redevelopment Sites, pg 176.

VHB, “South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan”, accessed February 23, 2015. http://www.sbwaterfrontmobility.org/documents/SBoston_ExecSumm_ONLY_PB.pdf

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

29

Figures

(Figure 1: 1855 Engraving of Old Colony Railroad and Cut for Boston Hartford and Erie Railroad)

(Figure 2: 1925 Map of Elevated Public Transportation: Precursor to MTA)

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

30

(Figure 3: Pier 57)

(Figure 4­ Left: Atlanta Official Report of the Centennial Olympic Games: Breakdown of Required Bus Fleet for the Games.

Figure 5­ Right: Allocation of Expenditures for the Games)

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

31

(Figure 6: CATS Historical Sales Tax Revenue)

(Figure 7: Proposed Map of MBTA)

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

32

(Figure 8: Proposed Map of MBTA)

(Figure 9: Proposed Map of Lynx ­ Cats Charlotte NC)

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

33

(Figure 10: Proposed Plan Track 61 DMU Station Adjacent to BCEC)

(Figure 11: Proposed Section Track 61 DMU Station Adjacent to BCEC)

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

34

Appendix Table of Contents A. Exemption of Discontinuance ­ Conrail Corp.

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

35

B. Working Members of The South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan

C. Charlotte, North Carolina future transportation plans: Countywide Transit Service Plan (CTSP): This provides CATS with a five year bus service improvement plan for Mecklenburg County and the region.

2030 Transit Corridor System Plan: In 2006 the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) adopted the 2030 Transit Corridor System Plan. This plan consists of multiple rapid transit improvements in five corridors, a series of Center City improvements, and bus service and facility improvements throughout the region.

Lynx Blue Line Capacity Expansion Project: In 2011 CATS was awarded an $18 million Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery III grant from the US Department of Transportation for capacity enhancements along the LYNX Blue Line light rail. There is an application that takes place for this. (document of the application and actual grant available) 2025 Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan: Created in 1998 after a study and public input. This plan focuses on choices and the future growth along the five primary transportation corridors. It also focuses on linking the area’s key centers of economic activity. The cornerstone of the plan is an integrated land use planning and transit­oriented development (TOD).

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

36

D. Fiscal Years 2014­2018: MassDOT

Expenditures: $2.7 billion on MBTA service $280 million on Rail and Transit $144 million on Bike and Pedestrian Pathways $140 million on the Registry of Motor Vehicles $4 billion on Highway Division improvements

Funding: Commonwealth Borrowings $6.3 billion Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) $1.6 billion Federal Highway (FHWA) Funding $2.5 billion Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Funding $187 million Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Funding $629 million Metropolitan Highway System (MHS) Toll Revenue $833 million Western Turnpike (WT) Toll Revenue $234 million Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) 3rd Party $48 million.

FY2014­FY2018 Transportation Capital Investment Plan http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/0/docs/infoCenter/docs_materials/cip_FY14_FY18.pd f

E. Interview with Howard Davis (MCCA), Geoffrey Lewis (MCCA, Past BRA), and Ali Butler (MCCA) (Sara and David met with Howard Davis, 10 AM on March 3rd ­ this account paraphrased from notes)

Howard Davis: Howard first introduced Geoffrey Lewis, a transportation planner, and a senior project manager at ​ the MCCA. Before joining the MCCA, he worked at the BRA in the transportation planning department with Jim Fitzgerald of the BRA.

Sara and David: We began by outlining the research focus of SCAD’s project this semester to Howard, Ali, and Geoff. We started by utilizing our initial project slideshow, and highlighted the information we had found out about the history of Boston landmaking, transportation infrastructure, and building development in Boston.

In addition to the history of the Silverline of the MBTA, we outlined our preliminary understanding of the access to the Convention Center more broadly for conventions, and the future of the DMU as highlighted by the 2024 MBTA vision plan. Upon completing the brief introduction of our Boston case study, we mentioned to the MCCA team our interest in comparing Boston’s creation, funding, and planning of infrastructural projects to other key cities that had in different ways completed infrastructural development projects in conjunction, following, or in advance of private development.

Finally, we showed the MCCA team our diagrams showing the overlap and influence of different public and private development and they were very interested in these ideas and immediately had much information to share on tangential development around the BCEC, and especially were interested in the future of Track 61 as it pertains to the entry to the BCEC and the connection to the hotels located in the Back Bay.

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

37

Sara and David: How did the decision to create the silverline come about, and how well does it serve the BCEC? ​ How was the decision made to make this line BRT rather than subway train cars?

Howard: The Silverline was enabled by the Big Dig, and was initially part of the budget which would have created a light­rail system connecting South Station, the BCEC, and the Industrial Waterfront. As part of the Convention Center and MBTA planning efforts, a station was scheduled to serve the BCEC directly and planning was conducted between the MCCA and the MBTA to plan a station at the front of the BCEC. At the time of construction of the BCEC, ticketing machines were put into the BCEC in advance of the train access. This anticipated the future connection of a direct rail route from South Station to the BCEC. Private stops were identified for future private developers as well.

Later, as part of an effort to curb cost­overruns and deal with the political backlash of the Big Dig, the budget for this rail connection was slashed, and Haul road, which would have served as a rail connection was abandoned in favor of a BRT system serving the South Boston Waterfront. This BRT, the Silver Line, was planned to be eventually converted to rail, however, there are no plans for this at this time as this transit system is now expensive to retrofit. The charlie machines initially located at the BCEC still remain, even though no service is provided to this location.

Sara and David: Has the MCCA been involved in the plans for building Track 61 and associated station to serve the BCEC?

Howard: Richard Davies, the past secretary of transportation, pushed strongly for implementing this new DMU system, and the MBTA has money set aside for this system. In planning the BCEC expansion project, the MCCA has discussed with the MBTA the Track 61 potential and has guaranteed funding for this project as part of the expansion efforts. Stephanie Pollack, the new transportation secretary is not as avidly pushing the implementation of the DMU system, as Richard Davies now pursues the olympic bid for Boston as part of the 2024 Olympic Bid. In order for the DMU service to be successful at the BCEC, the MBTA must add yet another train system to the mix, and they are having much difficulty currently even managing the cars and tracks that they currently maintain. Frank Depaula, now the Interim General Manager of the MBTA, will have to manage these concerns and determine the implementation schedule for multiplicity of DMU lines shown on the 2024 vision plan.

Sara and David: How important to the MCCA is public transportation? How many of your visitors and attendees actually use these connections?

Howard: The public transportation options are not largely used by convention attendees. Perhaps 10% of all attendees utilize the services provided by the MBTA. As a majority of hotel rooms in Boston are located in the Back Bay, and multiple transfers are required in taking the T, attendees are reluctant to take this mode of transportation as they don’t know it well enough to make these necessary connections. Instead, they rely on convention shuttle busses which run through the heart of the city to connect the Back Bay Hotels to the BCEC. This is the norm, with the exception of shows that target a more local audience, such as the boat and car shows.

This practice of shuttling attendees between the Back Bay and the BCEC, should be lessened as the hotels are built adjacent to the BCEC. In addition, the MCCA would like to see the walk from South Station to the BCEC made more pleasant through street design as it is not a far distance but is currently unappealing to visitors.

Sara and David:

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

38

Has the MCCA been financially engaged in the creation of DMU service from the Back Bay to the ​ BCEC?

Howard: Out of the 4 tracks, 2 tracks along the side of the BCEC will be purchased by the MCCA for a truck marshalling area which currently occupies a piece of the parking lot to the rear of the Convention Center. As part of the BCEC expansion project, the MCCA has dedicated 50 million to this endeavor. MassDOT will receive 35 million up front for the sale of the 2 tracks adjacent to the convention center, and 15 million is allocated for the creation of the station serving the BCEC. If the station is not built by 2024 (vision plan year), the 15 million will return to the MCCA. In working closely with the MBTA, the MCCA would like significant input into the design and construction of the station ­ currently Yawkey station serves as a developer­driven model.

Sara and David: In your experience, how has development come about in the South Boston Waterfront? In a way, this is a chicken vs. egg question ­ does the public infrastructural investment generally come before the private development or vica versa?

Howard: Several large­scale public projects spurred the ability to redevelop the South Boston Waterfront.

Before the Big Dig, the waterfront area was so disconnected from the rest of Downtown, that you would not go there. In fact, the parking facilities under the Central Artery were so sketchy, it was hard to be sure your car would be there upon returning. It was not a walkable atmosphere, and developers were not enticed to take on projects outside of the main Downtown area.

In addition to this, the Boston Harbor Cleanup project suddenly made the waterfront property valuable.

Geoff: In line with this effort, the creation of the Sewage Treatment plant at Deer Island meant that the Harbor water no longer was inundated with sewage emptied directly from the City ­ instead it was treated.

This instantly created a shift in the public perception of the cleanliness of the waterfront, and also diminished the horrid Boston Harbor smell prior to its clean­up. Dimitri Theodossiou, project executive of Tishman Construction, worked on this project before joining the Tishman project managers at the MCCA.

F. Interview with Jim Fitzgerald (BRA): (David met with Jim Fitzgerald, 11 AM on March 10th ­ this account paraphrased from notes) I started by introducing our project to Jim, and telling him a bit about our focus on the South Boston Waterfront Development in conjunction with the focus on the BCEC. In addition, I outlined what we had learned from Howard at the MCCA, particularly about the reuse of Track 61, and what we had learned about the funding and design for the station. (I got the feeling that Jim was interested in probing to find out what we had found out of Howard although he says that they have been working together on the plans for Track 61.)

David: Can you explain the planning efforts of the BRA leading up to the creation of the South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan?

Jim: In the late 80s, the BRA held additional influence in the transportation infrastructure development of the city as the Boston Transportation Department was held within the BRA structure. Of course, much of the planning for the Big Dig, played into the reconnection of the SBW, as it was now connected to the mainland visually. In addition, the waterfront was incredibly undesirable and commercial and residential buildings were not thought of to be desirable by the waters­edge for pollution reasons. Following the ​ Passage of the Federal Clear Water Act in 1972, discussion of cleaning Boston Harbor begun, but was not implemented

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

39

until 1989, and finalized with the expansion of the Deer Island sewage treatment plant, completed in 1991 when the MWRA stopped discharging sewage into the Harbor. Following this effort to aid in the cleanup of Boston Harbor, the SBW became more desirable beyond simply the industrial sectors employed there prior to 1980. This is still a struggle ­ we are working to determine where to draw in the line in our master plans to ensure that the industrial activity does not get replaced by the residential and commercial developments creeping further south­east (toward the BMIP).

David: How did the SBWSTP come about? Who coordinated it?

Jim: A Better City, a neutral party (also a non­profit), worked to organize the parties (City of Boston, MCCA, BRA) to create the SBWSTP following the last transportation plan which was from 2000. A Better City, which used to be called the Artery Business Committee, helped organize the relocation and submersion of the Central Artery in the Big Dig.

David: What is the timeframe for developing Track 61 connections from the SBW to Copley square?

Jim: If you recall, past secretary of transportation Richard Davey spoke about the connection of Track 61 quite highly and was very interested in making this connection sooner rather than later. In addition to the use of the DMUs on this line, there are several other lines, like the ones to service Beacon Yards, or the Fairmount line in addition to the ones projected north of the city, connecting to North Station. Since Davey’s departure as secretary of Transportation, and the malfunction of the MBTA this winter, the plans for the roll­out of DMU service have been less advertised than before. The first branch that is likely to be rolled­out is the Fairmount portion of the indigo. While the MCCA has been doing studies for the design of a station for the BCEC on Track 61, the placement of these stations and service to the SBW has not been solidified with the MBTA, MCCA, or BRA. Track 61 also posses a broader­scale long­term opportunity to revisit the design of Widett circle, currently slated as the soccer stadium of the Boston 2024 olympics. The redevelopment of this area could be sparked by the introduction of the Indigo Line.

MassDOT currently has outlaid $190 Million to 2018 to invest in DMU operations. 74$ million of that will go to the Fairmont Line and ~$116 Million to other DMU development.

David: More broadly, how is the SBW affected by the introduction of Track 61. Also, are there any opportunities to improve Silverline service?

Jim: The Boston Marine Industrial Park still serves as the industrial port of Boston. It is very important to consider connectivity beyond the SBWSTP for residential and commercial facilities to incorporate the sectors active in the BMIP. This means that the DMU track 61 could be extended beyond the BCEC to service people working in the design center area, and could also be used for freight service. Tracks are still in existence along the design center loading dock, and could be reconnected as part of the Indigo expansion. This would also enable the Indigo line to service the State Street corporation located at the rear of the BCEC, and provide for a designated BCEC stop at the front of the Convention Center in addition to Drydock Avenue.

Silverline service is not expanding, but Private development is funding a new Courthouse station headhouse as part of the development of a parcel (parcel D) along Seaport Boulevard.

David: As the statistics show, the public transportation options are nearing full capacity. How are private developers and public agencies dealing with this problem?

Jim: As part of lease deals signed between private developers and private companies, shuttle buses are arranged to shuttle people particularly between the SBW and North Station. Each company runs these individually and this creates a plethora of overlapping shuttles. The desired connection is North Station to the SBW particularly so that individuals taking the commuter rail do not have to switch to the red and orange and silver lines to get to and from the SBW. Studies have suggested the implementation of BRT service

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

40

from North Station down Congress St. to the SBW. Meanwhile, Fred Peterson (MCCA) has been attempting to consolidate shuttle busses with neighboring institutions.

David: Has private development spurred infrastructural development in the SBW? Does transportation infrastructure always predate development or vica­versa.

Jim: The SBW development has occurred to date as part of 3 major developer­based projects, Seaport Square, Pier 4, and Fan Pier. These developers have been required, as part of the individual PDA development plans to build roads open to public travel as part of the development. This has been a quick way to get secondary and tertiary roads built that are all open to public travel and create a more regularized block structure. While the MCCA is doing this with the development of the hotels, they are retaining ownership of the land of the private way open to public travel. In contrast, many of the roads in the Seaport Square, Fan Pier, and Pier 4 developments have the land under the streets return to Boston ownership for maintenance after completion. These roads follow the complete street guidelines, and serve as one component of the development mitigation efforts required of the development.

David: What kind of development has been taking place in the SBW?

Jim: Before the recession, it was mostly office projects. Programs are now being converted to residential to meet the growing housing demand for Boston and as people are getting funding for mortgages and are able to afford these new housing units.

Urban Development and Transportation Planning ­ SCADS

41