04-19-18 Community Investment - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

®CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK the best tool to develop these forecasts through the year 2040 for each of the sites. One (1) of the other inputs beside the actual running time was the socioeconomic forecast that we received from the MPO. We also got transit information which was also one (1) of the inputs as well as traffic volumes. Again, comparable to what I just said about the travel times, there was not a significant difference in ridership. The Chocolate Factory, as we've been calling it, had the lowest but really given the estimation tool, these are all within a fairly close range of ridership. That is not a distinguishing factor in recommending a site. Mr. Foyle went on, Onto the cost, we also fell back on another tool the FTA encourages to use. It is just a way to organize and format capital costs.This is actually a summary. Within each of those nine (9) categories is a detailed subset of identified elements that would be required for each of the four(4) sites. Actually,there were five (5) sites because we also did the exercise for the South Shore proposed station at the airport. The one (1)thing I would point to is that the challenge with an exercise like this of estimated capital costs, before you've done any engineering design work, it is somewhat difficult. We are basically at the planning level and it is very conceptual. We hope to identify what the requirements would be. Some of the sites, as Earl mentioned the Honeywell site, are straightforward. Unallocated contingency is basically to address the unknown factors. Committee Chair Ferlic left the meeting at 5:14 p.m. Council President Tim Scott presided over the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Foyle continued, In the case of the Downtown, that is probably the most challenging and is the most unknown. We carried a much higher contingency factor for that alternative compared to the others. The bottom row portrayed in the graph are the respective contingency values. Downtown was the most expensive as the infrastructure would be more involved and there would be many more unknowns in how you would deal with it. We definitely did come away with the conclusion,however,that it was feasible,but it would be the most costly. The Honeywell site was identified as being the least costly. Again, the track is already in place. We did assume that the track connecting the Airport line to the Honeywell site would be replaced. But we also did an estimate coming up with a range so there was one (1) option to not upgrade the track. We also looked at other ways of developing a low range of capital costs and that included smaller parking. We developed the ridership forecasts through 2040 and we developed an interim forecast year of 2030 and what the parking requirements would be at that point. That would allow you to start with a smaller footprint of parking capacity. Mr. Foyle went on, We also factored in the smallest station building. We assumed the cost of the station depot itself to be approximately $4 million and it was built into the original estimates. In terms of coming up with the range, we assumed half of that at $2 million. So in the case of the airport, there would not be a station building itself and there would not be parking added. That is why there is not a low-end range to that.The parking and the indoor waiting area is already created. I'll finish up with the O&M costs. This is associated with the operation and maintenance of the building itself as well as parking, snow removal, janitorial services and security. What we concluded is that the cost for the three(3)standalone station sites,those being Honeywell,Amtrak and Downtown,wouldn't vary much between each other. But in the case of the Chocolate Factory and the airport station where the commuter rail operation would be embedded into the other facility,there would be some savings and that is primarily in the security area. EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld I South Bend,Indiana 466011 p 574.235.9221 f 574.235.9173I1TD574.235.55671www.southbendin.gov 4