Line Station Alternatives Feasibility Study Executive Summary

South Bend South Shore Line Station Alternatives Feasibility Study Executive Summary

April 2018

FINAL DRAFT

South Bend South Shore Line Station Alternatives Feasibility Study

Prepared for the City of South Bend by:

SOUTH BEND SOUTH SHORE LINE STATION ALTERNATIVES FEASIBILITY STUDY

Final Draft Executive Summary | April 2018 | i

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Summary of the Study ............................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Summary of Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................... 4

2.0 Task 1 Summary: Construction Feasibility .................................................................................. 8

2.1 Physical and Socio‐Economic Site and Station Area Characteristics ........................................ 8

2.1.1 Capacity for a station facility and parking ............................................................................ 8

2.1.2 Land Needs ...................................................................................................................... 8

2.1.3 Commuter Access ................................................................................................................ 8

2.1.4 Rail Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 8

2.1.5 Socio‐Economic and Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 8

2.1.6 Businesses ....................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.7 Crime ................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Capital Cost Estimation ........................................................................................................... 9

2.2.1 Range in Capital Station Site Costs ................................................................................ 10

2.3 Operating & Maintenance Costs ............................................................................................ 12

3.0 Task 2 Summary: Rail Operations Impacts ................................................................................ 14

3.1 Travel Times and Schedules ................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Ridership Forecasts................................................................................................................ 15

4.0 Task 3 Summary: Potential Economic Development Impacts ................................................... 17

4.1 Development Potential .......................................................................................................... 17

4.1.1 Developable Parcels ........................................................................................................... 17

4.1.2 Market Demand ............................................................................................................. 18

4.1.3 Demand and Development Program ................................................................................. 20

4.2 Economic Development Summary ........................................................................................ 21

4.3 Economic and Fiscal Impacts ................................................................................................. 21

4.3.1 Economic Impacts.............................................................................................................. 21

4.3.2 Fiscal Impacts ................................................................................................................ 22

4.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 23

4.5 Notes on this Economic Development and Impact Analysis Research ................................... 24

5.0 Summary of Alternative Site 1: Chocolate Factory Station ........................................................ 25

5.1 Physical and Socio‐Economic Site and Station Area Characteristics ...................................... 25

5.1.1 Capacity for Station Facility and Parking ........................................................................... 25


Final Draft Executive Summary | April 2018 | ii

5.1.2 Land Needs ........................................................................................................................ 25

5.1.3 Commuter Access .............................................................................................................. 25

5.1.4 Rail Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 25

5.1.5 Socio‐Economic and Environmental Impacts ..................................................................... 25

5.1.6 Businesses ......................................................................................................................... 25

5.1.7 Crime ................................................................................................................................. 25

5.2 Capital Costs .......................................................................................................................... 25

5.3 Operating and Maintenance Costs ......................................................................................... 26

5.4 Rail Operations ...................................................................................................................... 26

5.4.1 Travel Times and Schedule ................................................................................................ 26

5.4.1 Ridership ............................................................................................................................ 27

5.5 Economic Impacts ................................................................................................................. 27

5.5.1 Land Available for Development ........................................................................................ 27

5.5.2 Development Program and Associated Impacts ............................................................ 28

6.0 Summary of Alternative Site 2: Honeywell Station .................................................................... 30



6.1.2 Land Needs .................................................................................................................... 30

6.1.3 Commuter Access .............................................................................................................. 30

6.1.4 Rail Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 30


6.1.6 Businesses ..................................................................................................................... 31

6.1.7 Crime ................................................................................................................................. 31

6.2 Capital Costs .......................................................................................................................... 31


6.4 Rail Operations ...................................................................................................................... 32

6.4.1 Travel Times and Schedule ............................................................................................ 32

6.4.2 Ridership ........................................................................................................................ 33

6.5 Economic Development ........................................................................................................ 33


6.5.1 Development Program and Associated Impacts ................................................................ 34

7.0 Summary of Alternative Site 3: Amtrak Station ......................................................................... 37



7.1.2 Land Needs ........................................................................................................................ 37


Final Draft Executive Summary | April 2018 | iii

7.1.3 Commuter Access .............................................................................................................. 37

7.1.4 Rail Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 37


7.1.6 Businesses ......................................................................................................................... 38

7.1.7 Crime ................................................................................................................................. 38

7.2 Capital Costs .......................................................................................................................... 38


7.4 Rail Operations ...................................................................................................................... 38

7.4.1 Travel Times and Schedule ................................................................................................ 39

7.4.2 Ridership ............................................................................................................................ 39

7.5 Economic Impacts ................................................................................................................. 40



8.0 Summary of Alternative Site 4: Downtown South Bend Station ................................................ 42



8.1.2 Land Needs .................................................................................................................... 42

8.1.3 Commuter Access .............................................................................................................. 42

8.1.4 Rail Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 42


8.1.6 Businesses ..................................................................................................................... 43

8.1.7 Crime ................................................................................................................................. 43

8.2 Capital Costs .......................................................................................................................... 44


8.4 Rail Operations ...................................................................................................................... 44


8.4.2 Ridership ........................................................................................................................ 45




9.0 Summary of Realigned South Bend Airport Station .................................................................. 48


9.2 Capital Costs .......................................................................................................................... 48


9.4 Rail Operations ...................................................................................................................... 48


Final Draft Executive Summary | April 2018 | iv


9.4.2 Ridership ........................................................................................................................ 49




10.0 Summary of Current South Bend Airport Station ...................................................................... 52


10.2 Capital Costs .......................................................................................................................... 52

10.3 Rail Operations ...................................................................................................................... 52


10.3.2 Ridership ........................................................................................................................ 53


10.4.1 Land Available for Development .................................................................................... 53

10.4.2 Development Program and Associated Impacts ............................................................ 54

Table of Figures Figure 1‐1: Alternative Potential Station Sites ......................................................................................... 2 Figure 5‐1. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Schedule .......................................................................... 27 Figure 5‐2. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Area Half‐Mile Zoning ...................................................... 28 Figure 5‐3. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Area Developable Parcels ................................................. 28 Figure 6‐1. Site 2 Honeywell Station Proposed Schedule ...................................................................... 32 Figure 6‐2. Site 2 Honeywell Station Proposed Schedule, w/ Service to Current Airport Station (2A) ... 33 Figure 6‐3. Site 2 Honeywell Station Area Half‐Mile Zoning .................................................................. 34 Figure 6‐4. Site 2 Honeywell Station Area Developable Parcels ............................................................ 34 Figure 7‐1. Site 3 Amtrak Station Proposed Schedule ............................................................................ 39 Figure 7‐2. Site 3 Amtrak Station Area Half‐Mile Zoning ....................................................................... 40 Figure 7‐3. Site 3 Amtrak Station Area Developable Parcels .................................................................. 41 Figure 8‐1. Site 4 Downtown Station Proposed Schedule ..................................................................... 45 Figure 8‐2. Site 4 Downtown Station Area Half‐Mile Zoning ................................................................. 46 Figure 8‐3. Site 4 Downtown Station Area Developable Parcels ............................................................ 46 Figure 9‐1. SSL Proposed Future Schedule w/Double Track, West Lake and Airport Re‐route .............. 49 Figure 9‐2. Realigned Airport Station Area Half‐Mile Area Zoning ....................................................... 50 Figure 9‐3. Realigned Airport Station Area Developable Parcels ........................................................... 51 Figure 10‐1. Current SSL Schedule (Effective July 2017) ........................................................................ 53 Figure 10‐2. Current Airport Station Area Half‐Mile Area Zoning .......................................................... 54 Figure 10‐3. Current Airport Station Area Developable Parcels ............................................................. 54


Final Draft Executive Summary | April 2018 | v

Table of Tables Table 1‐1: Summary of Proposed Station Metrics ................................................................................... 5 Table 2‐1. FTA Standard Cost Categories (SCC) ..................................................................................... 9 Table 2‐2. Summary of Estimated Capital Costs by FTA SCC Category ................................................. 10 Table 2‐3. Range of Estimated Capital Costs ......................................................................................... 11 Table 2‐4. Summary of Estimated Annual O&M Costs by Category ...................................................... 13 Table 3‐1. Summary of Time and Distance from Pine Road by Alternative ............................................ 14 Table 3‐2. Westbound Travel Time to Millennium Station ..................................................................... 14 Table 3‐3. Eastbound Travel Time to South Bend .................................................................................. 15 Table 3‐4. South Bend Alternative Station Sites – 2015 Weekday Boardings ........................................ 16 Table 3‐5. South Bend Alternative Station Sites – 2040 Weekday Boardings ........................................ 16 Table 4‐1. Developable Acres within a Half‐Mile by Zoning Classification ............................................. 17 Table 4‐2. Programmed Use in Developable Acres within a Half‐Mile ................................................... 20 Table 4‐3. Estimated New Development Value within a Half‐Mile ........................................................ 21 Table 4‐4.Full Time Equivalent Jobs, 10 Year Development Program ................................................... 22 Table 4‐5.Economic Output, 10 Year Development Program ................................................................ 22 Table 4‐6. Property Tax Impacts, 10 Year Development Program ......................................................... 22 Table 4‐7. Summary of 10 Year Development Program and Associated Economic and Fiscal Impacts .. 23 Table 4‐8. Return on Investment Metrics .............................................................................................. 24 Table 5‐1. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Estimated Capital Costs by Category ................................. 26 Table 5‐2. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Operations Characteristics ................................................ 26 Table 5‐3. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Weekday Boardings ........................................................... 27 Table 5‐4. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Area Development Program and Associated Impacts ....... 29 Table 6‐1. Site 2 Honeywell Station Estimated Capital Costs by Category ............................................ 31 Table 6‐2. Site 2 Honeywell Station Operations Characteristics ............................................................ 32 Table 6‐3. Site 2 Honeywell Station Weekday Boardings ...................................................................... 33 Table 6‐4. Site 2 Honeywell Station Area Mixed‐Use Development Program and Associated Impacts . 35 Table 6‐5. Site 2 Honeywell Station Area Industrial Development Program and Associated Impacts ... 36 Table 7‐1. Site 3 Amtrak Station Estimated Capital Costs by Category .................................................. 38 Table 7‐2. Site 3 Amtrak Station Operations Characteristics ................................................................. 39 Table 7‐3. Site 3 Amtrak Station Weekday Boardings ........................................................................... 39 Table 7‐4. Site 3 Amtrak Station Area Development Program and Associated Impacts ........................ 41 Table 8‐1. Site 4 Downtown Station Alignment Segment Improvements ............................................. 43 Table 8‐2. Site 4 Downtown Station Estimated Capital Costs by Category ........................................... 44 Table 8‐3. Site 4 Downtown Station Operations Characteristics ........................................................... 44 Table 8‐4. Site 4 Downtown Station Weekday Boardings ..................................................................... 45 Table 8‐5. Site 4 Downtown Station Area Development Program and Associated Impacts .................. 47 Table 9‐1. Realigned Airport Station (Alternative G) Estimated Capital Costs by Category ................... 48 Table 9‐1. Realigned Airport Station Operations Characteristics .......................................................... 49 Table 9‐2. Realigned Airport Station Weekday Boardings..................................................................... 49 Table 9‐3. Realigned Airport Station Area Development Program and Associated Impacts .................. 51


Final Draft Executive Summary | April 2018 | vi

Table 10‐1. Current Airport Station Operations Characteristics ............................................................. 52 Table 10‐2. Current Airport Station Weekday Boardings ....................................................................... 53 Table 10‐3. Current Airport Station Area Development Program and Associated Impacts .................... 55


Final Draft Executive Summary | April 2018 | 1

1.0 Introduction This study has evaluated alternative station locations in South Bend, Indiana for the South Shore Line (SSL) operated by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD). NICTD is currently studying alternative routing options into the South Bend Airport, for the purpose of enhancing operating flexibility, improving safety, and decreasing travel times for travel to and from downtown Chicago. Based on feedback from the City of South Bend, NICTD paused its current study to allow the City the opportunity to study alternative station locations and routings that might offer economic development benefits to the City, while still allowing NICTD to fulfill its service and operational improvement plans.

This study reviewed four primary alternative locations in South Bend, including:

1. Site 1: Chocolate Factory. A new station near the site of a proposed tourist destination southwest of US 31 and US 20.

2. Site 2: Honeywell. A new station using the current tracks at Westmoor Street, west of Bendix Drive.

3. Site 3: Amtrak. A joint Amtrak/SSL station at Washington and Meade Streets. 4. Site 4: Downtown South Bend. A new station in downtown South Bend near the Union Station

Technology Center, along the existing CN and NS freight tracks.

Figure 1‐1 illustrates the locations of alternative station sites on an overview map of the area.


Final Draft Executive Summary | April 2018 | 2

Figure 1‐1: Alternative Potential Station Sites


Final Draft Executive Summary | April 2018 |3

1.1 Background The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) currently operates five South Shore Line (SSL) trains in each direction between the South Bend International Airport and Millennium Station in downtown Chicago. Travel times vary from just under two hours to two hours and 40 minutes. This level of service attracts about 190 boardings a day based on counts from November 2015. NICTD’s Double‐Track Northwest Indiana project, involving the addition of a second track between Gary and Michigan City, will enable the operation of more and faster trains. This project is currently in final design, and is anticipated to be completed in 2020. These improvements will benefit all users of SSL east of Gary, including South Bend. The proposed service will involve seven trains in each direction between South Bend and Millennium Station. Travel times will be reduced to between one hour and 24 minutes and one hour and 40 minutes. These significant savings are expected to make the service a more attractive option for commuters as well as non‐work travelers.

The existing SSL station at the South Bend Airport was moved to this location in 1992, having previously been located at Meade Street and Washington Street (site of the current Amtrak Station). Part of the reason for the move was several incidents that raised concerns for personal safety by riders. The South Bend Airport site afforded a secure location with abundant parking. However, the routing to the Airport from the SSL Mainline track east of Grandview Avenue involves three miles of track, eighteen vehicle grade crossings, multiple curves, and a backtracking alignment that adds two miles to approach the Airport from the east side. Slow speeds and roundabout alignment on the single track Airport approach track adds more than ten minutes in travel time.

1.2 Summary of the Study The study included the following four phases:

1. Construction Feasibility: This task developed conceptual layouts for each of the sites, covering issues such as placement of platform(s), station building, parking, and access. For station sites that require new track, specifics on alignment, right‐of‐way ownership, grade crossings, etc. were identified. In addition, capital and operating & maintenance costs were estimated at a planning level of specificity for the alternative station as well as for a realigned station at the airport. An analysis of current socio‐economic data for the half‐mile station area was prepared.

2. Potential Rail Operations Impacts: Based on distance and travel times for each site, proposed SSL schedules were developed. This service information was used to forecast ridership for each of the alternative sites. Comparisons to forecasts for the NICTD proposed realignment to the South Bend Airport were made.

3. Potential Economic Development Impacts: An estimate of economic development that may be possible in the ½ mile radius areas around the proposed station locations and around the proposed and current airport stations was prepared. This included potential redevelopment capacity based on an understanding of permissible uses, as well as market trends and physical and contextual features of sites. This task also included an economic impact analysis.

4. Final Report: A synthesis of the preceding tasks was compiled in memorandum (this document) and presentation format.

This final report provides an overview of each of the phases, synthesized in an evaluation matrix to aid the City in reviewing the alternatives. The technical analysis is summarized here, with the detailed technical memoranda from each of the first three phases of this project included as Appendices.



1.3 Summary of Evaluation Criteria This study analyzed several different variables and metrics for each of the proposed station areas. The results of the analysis show that each of the proposed sites has different advantages and disadvantages. The top priorities and goals of the City and NICTD will be the primary factor in choosing sites that should move forward or no longer be considered. Table 1‐1 presents a summary of each of the criteria that were analyzed in this study.



Table 1‐1: Summary of Proposed Station Metrics

Criteria Site 1: Chocolate Factory Site 2 : Honeywell Site 3: Amtrak Site 4: Downtown Proposed Realigned Airport Station (Alt G)

Current Airport Station (No‐Build)

Capital Costs ($ 2017) $44,274,000 $23,870,000 $31,727,000 $102,302,000 $29,480,000 N/A

Potential Range Capital Costs ($ 2017)

$40.7 mm ‐ $44.3 mm $14.3 mm ‐ $23.9 mm $28.3 mm ‐ $31.7 mm $98.4 mm ‐ $102.3 mm $29.5 mm N/A

Summary of Construction Complexity

Predicated on private owner’s development plans

Property acquisition for approach alignment

CSS storage tracks

Properties owned by Honeywell Corporation

Access near Honeywell operations

Impacts to CSS yard tracks

Compatibility with CSS and NS operations

Limited ROW for rail and station between Walnut

and downtown

Compatibility with NS and CN operations

Property acquisition for approach alignment

N/A

Travel Times WB: 82‐98 min.

EB: 90‐97 min.

WB: 82‐98 min.

EB: 90‐97 min.

WB: 82‐98 min.

EB: 90‐97 min.

WB: 84‐100 min.

EB: 92‐99 min.

WB: 84‐100 min.

EB: 92‐99 min.

WB: 115‐160 min. *

EB: 118‐155 min. *

O&M Costs (Annual) $247,430 $577,430 $577,430 $577,430 $247,430 N/A

Forecast Weekday Ridership (2040) 698 729 731 735 727 N/A

Station Area Acres Available for Development within Half‐Mile

221 86 64 83 34 63

Potential New Construction Value within Half‐Mile $40,230,000

$73,070,000 (mixed‐use scenario)

$47,320,000 (industrial use scenario)

$23,250,000 $147,810,000 $17,820,000 $24,590,000

Potential Economic Impact (10 yr) $144,400,000

$171,500,000

(mixed‐use scenario)

$132,000,000

(industrial use scenario)

$139,700,000 $415,300,000 $83,800,000 $39,000,000

Potential Fiscal Impact (10 yr) $5,921,000 (property)

$15,400,000 (all taxes)

$8,563,000 (property)

$19,410,000 (all taxes)

(mixed‐use scenario)

$5,640,000 (property)

$14,110,000 (all taxes)

(industrial scenario)

$2,556,000 (property)

$11,444,000 (all taxes)

$18,639,000 (property)

$45,150,000 (all taxes)

$3,251,000 (property)$8,800,000 (all

taxes)

$4,486,000 (property)

$7,210,000 (all taxes)

Likely Environmental Action Required Environmental Impact

Statement Environmental Assessment or Categorical Exclusion

Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact

Statement Environmental Assessment N/A

Station Area Typology Special Destination Neighborhood TOD or

Industrial Neighborhood TOD Downtown Industrial Industrial

* Travel times reflect current operating schedule without any Double Track improvements or realignment in / near South Bend





Influence of Transit on Development Program

Moderate – attraction development plans enhanced but not

dependent

High – purposeful TOD redevelopment (mixed‐use

scenario)

Moderate – purposeful TOD redevelopment but weaker link between transit and industrial development (industrial scenario)

Moderate – purposeful TOD redevelopment but weak

market conditions

Moderate – development momentum already positive absent rail; will enhance or

accelerate program

Low – limited current correlation unlikely to alter

much with current infrastructure

Low – limited current correlation unlikely to alter

much with current infrastructure

Space Available for Station, Platform & Parking Good Good Good Adequate Good Good

Displaced / Shared Property Ownership

South Bend Chocolate Factory

Various private properties

Freight railroads

Honeywell Corporation

NICTD

Curtis Products Inc.

Chicago South Shore

Freight railroads

Freight railroads

Union Station properties

Rail‐adjacent segments of various private properties, potentially: Kroc/Salvation Army; Housing Authority; private residential; Claey’s

44 property owners impacted (1 commercial; 1 airport; 42 residential)

25 property displacements (1 commercial, 24

residential)

N /A

Connectivity Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair

Roads Good Good Fair Good Good Good

Bike Lanes Poor Good Good Good Poor Poor

Sidewalks Poor Good Fair Good Poor Poor

Total Number of Crossings 2 1 0 3 6 (approx.) 22

Non‐Motorized 0 0 0 3 1 (approx.) 3

Motorized 2 1 0 2 5 (approx.) 19

Wetlands Impacted 0 0 0 0 1 0





Current ½ Mile Station Area Characteristics

Population (2015) 179 1,347 1,957 2,403 378 429

% Minority (2015) 21% 54% 63% 62% 25% 27%

% Below Poverty (2015) 17% 37% 35% 53% 17% 17%

% Zero‐Car Households (2015) 1% 22% 21% 62% 4% 6%

# of Low‐Income Housing Units (2015) 0 174 0 771 0 0

# of Schools 0 4 0 2 0 0

# of Parks 0 1 2 2 0 0

# of Businesses 11 28 80 683 64 68

Crime Incidents (3Q and 4Q 2017) 4

(22 per 1000 capita)

101


202


291


118


175




2.0 Task 1 Summary: Construction Feasibility Each of the four potential station sites was evaluated for construction feasibility. The following variables were evaluated to determine whether it could be feasible to build a station at the proposed location.

Physical and Socio‐Economic Site and Station Area Characteristics o Capacity for a station facility and parking o Land needs o Commuter access o Rail infrastructure o Socio‐economic impacts o Businesses o Crime

Capital Costs Operating & Maintenance Costs

An analysis of operational characteristics of serving the four proposed station sites was prepared, including development of travel times and schedules, and forecasts of potential ridership. Detailed findings are presented in the South Bend Station Alternatives Feasibility Study Tech Memo 1: Construction Feasibility technical memorandum.

2.1 Physical and Socio‐Economic Site and Station Area Characteristics

2.1.1 Capacity for a station facility and parking

This review considered the context of the potential site location and whether there is sufficient land capacity for the station facilities and parking for commuters.

2.1.2 Land Needs

This review considered the access needs of the potential station and whether here is enough land for the alignment to be constructed.

2.1.3 Commuter Access

This review evaluated the ease of access to the station by non‐motorized, motorized and transit users. It also evaluated the number of new at‐grade crossings that would be created.

2.1.4 Rail Infrastructure

This evaluation presents the new rail infrastructure that would be needed to connect the proposed station to the current South Shore main line. The required infrastructure includes rail, catenary system, railroad signalizing, crossing protection at proposed crossings, and turnouts at each of the track connection points. Where needed, requirements for additional required sidings, passing tracks, and storage tracks are also described. All of these infrastructure elements are accounted for in the capital costs section of the analysis.

2.1.5 Socio‐Economic and Environmental Impacts

This review assessed the socio‐economic and environmental context of the proposed station site in the half‐mile radius around the site, i.e., the potential station area. Current population and households in the station area were calculated, along with the shares that are low income, minority, or without access



to a car. Maps were reviewed to determine if there are any schools, parks or other sensitive uses in the station area, along with the presence of low‐income housing units.

2.1.6 Businesses

This metric counted the number of businesses within a half‐mile of the proposed station site.

2.1.7 Crime

This evaluation addressed concerns about public safety in the vicinity of the proposed stations. Real and perceived safety often factors into the mode choice of potential rail passengers. To assess the current risk associated for each of the station areas, data was collected from the website CrimeReports for a 1.3 square mile area centered on each potential station. Statistics covered the six month period July‐December 2017. Incidents were classified as Violent, Property, and Quality of Life (e.g., disorderly conduct, vagrancy, or loitering). It is important to note that this is a short‐period snapshot of incidents but may provide insight into local safety trends.

2.2 Capital Cost Estimation An important metric in evaluating the candidate SSL station sites will be the required level of capital investment. Planning‐level capital cost estimates were developed using the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Standard Cost Categories (SCC) structure, which provides a consistent format for estimating costs for Capital Investment Grants Program projects. The SCC system uses nine cost categories, as shown on Table 2‐1. Subcategories further break down cost elements under each of the nine major categories. A detailed description of the capital cost categories can be found in South Bend Station Alternatives Feasibility Study Tech Memo 1: Construction Feasibility.

Table 2‐1. FTA Standard Cost Categories (SCC)

FTA Cost Category

10 Guideway & Track Elements 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. Bldgs. 40 Sitework & Special Conditions 50 Systems 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements 70 Vehicles 80 Professional Services (Applies to Categories 10‐50) 90 Unallocated Contingency

The SCC provides two areas where estimated costs can be adjusted for project uncertainty. An allocated contingency is applied to each subcategory’s unit cost that relates to the degree of unknowns that can affect costs. For example, constructing track for a given length (e.g., per foot or per mile) can be estimated with a relatively high level of certainty; whereas, addressing the need to relocate utilities without specific information has a higher level of unknown. In these two instances, the Allocated Contingency for track was assumed at 10 percent and utilities at 40 percent.

The other area to address unknown factors is to apply an Unallocated Contingency. This percentage is applied to all estimated costs, and should relate to the level of planning (i.e., higher unallocated contingency) versus engineering (i.e., lower unallocated contingency).



The cost estimates prepared in this study are planning‐level estimates, which means that they have been developed as an initial review of the proposed station sites, without the benefit of (and corresponding cost for conducting) additional technical data collection through preliminary engineering design work, land and geotechnical surveys, or deep analysis of socio‐economic and environmental characteristics. This level of cost estimation is appropriate in the early stages of project evaluation to provide directionally‐correct, order of magnitude cost estimates that can assist determination whether further study of a project is merited.

Table 2‐2. Summary of Estimated Capital Costs by FTA SCC Category

FTA Cost Category

Site 1 ‐ Chocolate Factory

Site 2 ‐ Honeywell

Site 3 ‐ Amtrak

Site 4 ‐ Downtown

Proposed Realigned Airport Station (Alt G)

10 Guideway & Track Elements $7,537 $3,434 $3,552 $27,579 $4,424 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal $7,040 $7,040 $7,040 $7,040 $2,640 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. $776 $0 $3,559 $3,785 $0 40 Sitework & Special Conditions $5,324 $3,056 $4,115 $10,213 $3,854 50 Systems $7,636 $4,358 $5,759 $11,928 $7,949 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10‐50) $28,312 $17,888 $24,024 $60,544 $18,866 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $91 $200 $225 $5,400 $3,000 70 Vehicles $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,769 80 Professional Srvs.

(Applies to Cat. 10‐50) $10,096 $3,612 $4,594 $15,898

$25,635

SUBTOTAL $38,499 $21,700 $28,843 $81,842 $25,635 90 Unallocated Contingency $5,775

15% $2,170 10%

$2,884 10%

$20,460 25%

$3,845 15%

TOTAL $44,274 $23,870 $31,727 $102,302 $29,480

Costs are presented in thousands of 2017 dollars.

2.2.1 Range in Capital Station Site Costs

The estimated capital costs assumed a standard set of infrastructure elements, which were patterned after the NICTD Airport Reroute project, and from input from NICTD on their requirements to support the anticipated level of service. At the City’s request, certain elements were identified that could be deferred or scaled back, which would impact the near‐term capital investment for the station’s development. This was intended to provide the lower end of a range of possible station facility costs. Three areas were identified, including:

a. Reduced Opening Day Parking ‐ Demand modeling analysis estimated passengers using park‐n‐ride for the base year 2015 and the forecast year 2040. Assuming straight‐line growth over this 25 year period, a forecast for the year 2030 was made, which could serve as the basis for estimating an opening day capacity. A design capacity of 85% was assumed in estimating the number of spaces needed to accommodate the forecasted demand. The 2030 demand for each of the sites varied slightly, but to maintain consistency in the costs, the average of 2030 park‐n‐ride demand (285) and spaces (335) were used as the basis for estimating capital costs for all sites. This change represented a one‐third reduction from the 500‐space parking facility assumed in the base capital costs.



b. Station Depot Size ‐ Costs of the station building were based on a 5,000 square foot building, which was assumed to cost $4 million. At this level of planning, a smaller facility could potentially meet the needs of the City and NICTD, but would need to be verified in the next phase of the project. Therefore, a simplifying assumption was made that the investment in the station building could instead be $2 million.

c. Honeywell Rail Access Options – Of the four study sites and the relocated Airport Station, four require new track connections to the SSL mainline. The Honeywell Station site, however, is on the SSL Airport Branch, which currently connects to the mainline near Grandview Avenue. NICTD has argued that this track should be realigned to increase train speed. An option to this investment would be to continue to use this railroad infrastructure without realigning or replacing, affecting costs associated with land acquisition, establishing the new rail roadbed/sub‐ballast, installing new track, signals, catenary, and a turnout at the mainline connection. Potentials costs related to drainage, utilities, and environmental remediation would also be reduced. Remaining rail infrastructure costs would involve the second station terminal track and a storage track. This approach would reduce rail infrastructure costs for the Honeywell Site 2 by an estimated $6.2 million. An intermediate variation of this scenario would be to replace the Airport Branch track, but use the existing alignment, which would save on land costs, roadbed preparation, drainage and utilities work. This would result in $1.4 million in reduced costs, versus the $6.2 million savings to not replace current infrastructure.

Table 2‐3 presents estimates of potential cost reduction for each of the three elements. For parking and stations, Sites 1‐4 are impacted, with variations due to the different assumptions in Unallocated Contingency. The Relocated Airport Station would not be affected, since commuter parking would share existing Airport parking as is the case currently and the station platform would lead directly to the Airport terminal, which would serve as the station’s waiting area.

The total reduction in costs would vary between zero at the Relocated Airport alternative to $9.6 million at Site 2 Honeywell.

Table 2‐3. Range of Estimated Capital Costs

Site 1 ‐ Chocolate Factory

Site 2 ‐ Honeywell

Site 3 ‐ Amtrak

Site 4 ‐ Downtown

Proposed Realigned Airport Station (Alt G)

Base Capital Cost Estimate $44,274 $23,870 $31,727 $102,302 $29,480

a. Parking for 2030 $43,659 $23,290 $31,149 $101,634 $29,480 Change ‐$616 ‐$579 ‐$578 ‐$668 0 b. Reduce Depot Size by 50% $41,288 $21,063 $28,920 $99,057 $29,480 Change ‐$2,986 ‐$2,807 ‐$2,807 ‐$3,245 0 c. Add Terminal/Storage Track only $44,274 $17,698 $31,727 $102,302 $29,480 Change 0 ‐$6,171 0 0 0 Lower‐End Capital Cost Option $40,673 $14,312 $28,342 $98,389 $29,480 Change ‐$3,602 ‐$9,557 ‐$3,385 ‐$3,913 0



2.3 Operating & Maintenance Costs In addition to the capital costs estimated for each station alternative, City staff requested that an additional factor, annual costs for operating and maintaining (O&M) station facilities, be added to the site evaluation. Data were obtained from NICTD on typical station costs to maintain, serve with utilities, sell tickets, and secure.

While costs will likely be similar for each site, the parties responsible will vary. The following discusses the entities, and their likely respective roles and responsibilities. It should be noted that these assigned responsibilities are based on the circumstances at each station site as defined in this study, and will require input and ultimately negotiations between the affected parties.

City of South Bend – commuter rail agencies are increasingly partnering with local governments (usually municipalities) to take on the responsibility for maintaining and operating station and parking facilities. This has proven beneficial elsewhere, with local governments treating these facilities as another community asset, giving them the incentive and capability to maintain them at a higher standard than the railroad would be able. Often, municipal costs are offset by station vendor revenues and parking fees. Municipalities can also be supplement security that the railroad provides.

NICTD – would be responsible for ticket selling. Depending on perceived safety risk at a station site, NICTD would assign officers from their police department.

South Bend Airport – currently, the SSL Station is part of the physical plant of the Airport, and the issues associated with maintenance, parking operation and security are part of the Airport’s daily operations. Currently, the Airport charges commuters for parking, otherwise all other activities performed by the Airport in support of the SSL are absorbed into the Airport’s operation. The possibility exists that the Airport would assess an operating fee on the SSL operation in the future.

Chocolate Factory – it is understood that this proposed attraction is willing to incorporate a SSL station into their development plans. It would seem possible that the development could also take on the responsibility for all station operating and maintenance functions other than ticket‐selling.

The table that follows shows the estimated cost by element, and which entity would likely be responsible for the activity and the cost. The responsible entity for each cost element and station site is color coded, with costs rolled‐up for each at the bottom. One exception to estimated costs that NICTD provided was Local Security (11) for Sites 2‐4, which represent double the estimated security costs NICTD would incur. This would clearly be a point of discussion between the City and NICTD, and is intended to provide 24/7 coverage with City police personnel. This could also include a satellite police department within the station depot.

Costs related to Local Security (11) were not estimated for Site 1 ‐ Chocolate Factory and the Relocated Airport Station, in part because the level of security attributed to the station is likely to be less than the free‐standing stations. While there is undoubtedly some incremental cost for security attributable to the station and commuter rail passengers, there was insufficient information available to estimate this cost. It is also possible that this cost would be incorporated into a service fee assessed to NICTD and/or SSL passengers.



Table 2‐4. Summary of Estimated Annual O&M Costs by Category

Site 1 ‐

Chocolate Factory

Sites 2 ‐ Honeywell

Sites 3 ‐ Amtrak

Sites 4 ‐ Downtown

Proposed Realigned Airport

Station (Alt G)

O&M Cost Elements 1. Janitorial $12,958 $12,958 $12,958 $12,958 $12,958 2. Routine Maintenance 3,993 3,993 3,993 3,993 3,993 3. Pest Control 600 600 600 600 600 4. Snow Removal ‐ Parking 4,312 4,312 4,312 4,312 4,312 5. Electricity 19,092 19,092 19,092 19,092 19,092 6. Other Utilities 4,885 4,885 4,885 4,885 4,885 7. Ticket Agent ‐ part time 26,532 26,532 26,532 26,532 26,532 8. Security‐Armored Car 8,064 8,064 8,064 8,064 8,064 9. Ticket Vending Mgmt. 1,099 1,099 1,099 1,099 1,099 10. Security‐Police Patrol 165,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 11. Local Security TBD 330,000 330,000 330,000 TBD 12. Refuse Pick‐up 895 895 895 895 895

Total $247,430 $577,430 $577,430 $577,430 $247,430

Costs borne by:

City of South Bend $0 $376,735 $376,735 $376,735 $0 NICTD $200,695 $200,695 $200,695 $200,695 $35,695 South Bend Airport $0 $0 $0 $0 $211,735 Chocolate Factory Development

$46,735 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total $247,430 $577,430 $577,430 $577,430 $247,430 TBD: to be determined; costs in 2017 dollars



3.0 Task 2 Summary: Rail Operations Impacts An analysis of operational characteristics of serving the four proposed station sites was prepared, including development of travel times and schedules, and forecasts of potential ridership. Detailed findings are presented in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Tech Memo 2: Potential Rail Operations Impacts technical memorandum.

3.1 Travel Times and Schedules Travel times were estimated for each of the proposed South Bend station sites to Pine Road, which is a common location on the South Shore main line 2.2 miles west of the SSL main line/Airport Branch Junction. Times were estimated by segmenting the route from Pine Road east to each proposed station location. Segments were assigned an estimated speed based on the degree of track tangency or curvature. Note that these estimates were based on judgement, without the benefit of detailed engineering data. Assumed segment speeds ranged from 30 to 65mph. Table 3‐1 summarizes the distances and estimated travel times from alternative station sites to the Pine Road crossing of the SSL.

Table 3‐1. Summary of Time and Distance from Pine Road by Alternative

Route Length (miles)

Travel Time (mins)

Scheduled Speed (mph)

Site 1 ‐ Chocolate Factory 1.8 2.7 40.8 Site 2 – Honeywell 2.6 2.9 54.7 Site 2A ‐ Honeywell + SB Airport 5.2 15.0 20.9 Site 3 ‐ Amtrak 3.4 3.5 59.2 Site 4 ‐ Downtown 5.2 5.1 61.1 Realigned Airport Station 2.8 5.4 31.2 Current Airport Station * 5.2 15.1 20.7

Based on distance and travel times for each site, proposed SSL schedules were developed. This service information was used to forecast ridership for each of the alternative sites. Comparisons to forecasts for the NICTD proposed realignment to the South Bend Airport was made.

Travel times for trains traveling west from South Bend, terminating at Millennium Station in Chicago range from approximately 84 minutes to 100 minutes (Table 3‐2).

Table 3‐2. Westbound Travel Time to Millennium Station

Minimum Maximum

Site 1: Chocolate Factory 82 min. 98 min. Site 2: Honeywell 82 min. 98 min. Site 3: Amtrak 82 min. 98 min. Site 4: Downtown 84 min. 100 min. Realigned Airport Station 84 min. 100 min. Current Airport Station * 115 min. 160 min.



Travel times for trains traveling east from Millennium Station and terminating in South Bend range from approximately 92 minutes to 99 minutes (Table 3‐3).

Table 3‐3. Eastbound Travel Time to South Bend

Minimum Maximum

Site 1: Chocolate Factory 90 min. 97 min. Site 2: Honeywell 90 min. 97 min. Site 3: Amtrak 90 min. 97 min. Site 4: Downtown 92 min. 99 min. Realigned Airport Station 92 min. 99 min Current Airport Station * 118 min. 155 min.

* Note that travel times and schedules for the Current Airport Station reflect the current 2017 operating schedule for the present South Bend Airport station. A “no build” schedule for service to the current South Bend Airport station that includes improvements include other South Shore Line improvements (e.g., Double‐Track NWI) is not available for this report.

3.2 Ridership Forecasts The City of South Bend and NICTD have the common objective of maximizing the number of people using the SSL service and a South Bend station. The technical tool to estimate use for each of the alternative sites is the Simplified Trips‐on‐Project Software (STOPS). The STOPS model application was developed by various NICTD consultants over the last five years to develop forecasts for the West Lake and Double Track initiatives. These forecasts included realigned access to the South Bend Airport.

Results were modeled for the 2015 base year and 2040 forecast year. Alternatives included:

No‐Build (current service to Airport Station) Baseline Alternative (reroute to new Airport Station) Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Site Site 2 Honeywell Station Site (without service to current Airport station) Site 2A Honeywell Station Site (with service to current Airport station) Site 3 Amtrak Station Site Site 4 Downtown Station Site

In addition, each model run provided the number of weekday boardings by access mode, including:

Walk Kiss‐n‐Ride (i.e., drop‐off) Park‐n‐Ride Transfer (i.e., from another mode)

Results were generated for each of the study stations sites, as well as all other existing and proposed SSL Stations. These provided the opportunity to measure impacts to SSL ridership overall. In addition, the detailed results provide current station boarding counts.

Table 3‐4 and Table 3‐5 show 2015 and 2040 weekday boardings by access mode and station site.



Table 3‐4. South Bend Alternative Station Sites – 2015 Weekday Boardings

Alternative Walk Kiss‐n‐Ride

Park‐n‐Ride Transfer Total

All SSL Station

Boardings

Site 1 Chocolate Factory 4 133 231 1 369 21,549

Site 2 Honeywell 70 96 191 26 383 21,579

Site 2A Honeywell Site 2A Current Airport

71 7

89 3

185 5

0 22

345 37

21,577

Site 3 Amtrak 48 76 175 85 384 21,582

Site 4 Downtown 54 69 163 100 386 21,584

Realigned Airport Station 24 60 151 148 383 21,583

Current Airport Station * 38 101 146 2 287 12,291

Table 3‐5. South Bend Alternative Station Sites – 2040 Weekday Boardings

Alternative Walk Kiss‐n‐Ride


All SSL Station

Boardings

Site 1 Chocolate Factory 4 245 449 0 698 26,663

Site 2 Honeywell 131 172 371 55 729 26,730

Site 2A Honeywell Site 2A Current Airport

132 9

160 5

357 7

13 47

662 68

26,729

Site 3 Amtrak 79 139 344 169 731 26,736

Site 4 Downtown 112 122 313 188 735 26,737

Realigned Airport Station 47 108 295 277 727 26,733

Current Airport Station * Not available

The Chocolate Factory station generated the lowest level of boardings, although within four percent of the average 2040 boardings of all sites. The other alternative sites show very little variation, all within one percent of the average of 725 boardings.

* Note that 2015 ridership for the Current Airport Station reflect the current operating schedule for the present South Bend Airport station. Ridership forecasts for a “no build” alternative with service to the current South Bend Airport station location that includes other South Shore Line improvements (e.g., Double‐Track NWI) is not available for this report.



4.0 Task 3 Summary: Potential Economic Development Impacts An analysis of the current market conditions was conducted to understand the city’s strengths and potential areas for growth, particularly in the areas around the potential station sites. The approach for assessing development potential was as follows:

Identify the amount of developable land, existing values and compatible land uses in each station area;

Determine the potential market demand per station based on a share of the city’s capture rate, calibrated to each station’s value premium/discount to market;

Develop program for each station based on market trends, estimated market demand, developable land, and zoning/density constraints;

Estimate future property tax revenues of new development using 10‐year assessed values from each scenario; and

Estimate each alternative’s total economic impact and other tax revenues using construction costs and station capital costs.

Detailed documentation of this task’s findings is contained in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Task 3: TOD and Economic Analysis technical presentation.

4.1 Development Potential

4.1.1 Developable Parcels

Within the half‐mile station area (measuring 502 acres), vacant and underutilized properties were identified as candidates for development. Properties separated by the proposed station site by a major physical barrier that would impede non‐motorized connections and therefore would not form part of cohesive transit‐oriented development neighborhood, were excluded from consideration. These barriers include active railroad rights of way (SSL and NS/CP) and limited access highways (US 31).

Table 4‐1. Developable Acres within a Half‐Mile by Zoning Classification

Total Ag Bus Com Ind Off MU PUD Res

(SF/2) Res (MF)

Site 1: Chocolate Factory

220.5 (44%)

38.0 ‐ ‐ 150.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ 32.0 ‐

Site 2: Honeywell

86.5 (17%)

‐ 7.4 4.9 63.0 3.7 ‐ ‐ 7.5 ‐

Site 3: Amtrak 64.4

(13%) ‐ 2.3 ‐ 29.4 2.5 0.5 ‐ 27.6 2.1

Site 4: Downtown

83 (17%)

‐ 4.9 ‐ 18.0 0.3 9.6 36.2 4.3 2.4

Realigned Airport Station

34.4 (7%)

1.4 5.3 15.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ 12.2 ‐

Current Airport Station

62.5 (13%)

3.1 10.3 24.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ 24.4 ‐



4.1.2 Market Demand

4.1.2.1 Context ‐ Demographics

A survey of economic and demographic conditions in South Bend, the surrounding geographies, and its peer cities was conducted. The City of South Bend’s population of approximately 100,000 has been growing modestly, but more slowly than its peers, at 0.1% annually between 2010 and 2016. It has a large higher education student population, with about 7% of its population composed of undergraduate and graduate students. There is a small (17.5%) and fairly stable segment of retiree population over age 60; other peer cities in Indiana and many university towns have larger and growing shares of retirees.

South Bend’s household composition includes about 38,500 households, whose makeup is younger and smaller than US averages, with a larger proportion than peers composed of single‐person households. Median household income in 2016 was $35,800, with individuals’ median earnings at $23,600. About 57% of South Bend’s employed population work full‐time, year‐round. Its labor force participation rate is approximately 47% of people of working age; this is lower than peer cities but has been consistent over the last two decades so is probably due to the university student population. The City’s unemployment rate in 2017 was slightly above peer cities but still low at 4.1%, down from a high of 13% in 2009.

4.1.2.2 Context – Economic Base

In the South Bend metropolitan area, employment is likewise growing more slowly than the US and state averages, just over 1% annually. The region’s economy shows concentrations as measured by location quotient in the Education, Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, and Health Care sectors. There is a net inflow of workers from Illinois to jobs in Indiana, with recent trends in Manufacturing, Administrative & Support Services, and Retail Trade.

4.1.2.3 Context – Travel Behaviors

Among the working population of South Bend over age 16, 79% drive to work alone, 11% carpool, and 3% take transit. The current travel profile for South Shore Line riders who use the South Bend station is skewed more to weekend / leisure ridership, in contrast to other stations on the South Shore Line which primarily serve Chicago‐bound work trips. Approximately 400 people who work in downtown Chicago live in the market area for the South Bend station for the South Shore Line. Based on comparable service patterns and travel times on Illinois’ Metra commuter rail serving exurbs such as Harvard, Ingleside, Kenosha, and Fox Lake, as NICTD implements planned service improvements on the South Shore Line, there is expected to be growth in work trip commuters to Chicago as well as shifts in travel mode from car to train.

4.1.2.4 Real Estate Market Conditions ‐ Residential Sector

South Bend’s residential market is improving. Single family residential sales rose by 25 percent in the last five years. Another positive indicator is that permitted building activity has quintupled in the last five years. Multi‐family residential inventory is growing twice as fast as the overall market rate; one thousand units were delivered since 2012. Rent and occupancy has also been growing steadily.

Historically, downtown South Bend has relatively low levels of housing; four percent of housing units in a 10‐mile inventory are within one mile of downtown. However, downtown inventory has been growing recently. This has included redevelopment of historic structures and new development such as The Ivy at Berlin Place and East Bank developments. There is potential to add more housing to be more on par with typical levels of downtown housing found in peer cities.



The student population presents a stable market segment, limited only by current university policies governing when students may live off‐campus. There are typically rent premiums of 25%+ when students rent by the room instead of by unit.

Key points related to value and performance in the residential sector include:

Residential sales volumes are relatively stable in the South Bend area. Sales prices are rising; the value of permitted building activity has grown significantly in the last

five years. St. Joseph County assessor data indicates generally lower residential values west of the river. A substantial amount of demolition of derelict housing has occurred in the station areas, with

new construction activity less common. Lowest single‐family residential per‐square‐foot housing values located in the Amtrak station

area; a limited number of comparable sales have occurred in the Chocolate Factory and Downtown station areas.

Newest current housing stock is located in the Chocolate Factory station area, reflected in average per‐square‐foot values.

Lot Coverage is correlated to distance from downtown. Residential values are fairly stable in the Honeywell station area, but show fluctuations in other

station areas due to limited data points; values are rising across St. Joseph County.

4.1.2.5 Real Estate Market Conditions ‐ Office Sector

South Bend’s office market is stable. Key points related to value and performance in the office sector include:

The office inventory is about 6.5 million square feet, with average building size of 12,000 square feet.

Occupancy is strong, with 92% in 2017. Rents are highest among peer city markets. 20‐30% of new office space in the region is delivered in the City of South Bend, including 90,000

square feet since 2010. Since 2012, there has been negative net absorption (i.e., a surplus) of space, with a current surplus of 311,000 square feet in 2017.

4.1.2.6 Real Estate Market Conditions ‐ Industrial Sector

With historic economic concentrations in Manufacturing, South Bend’s industrial space base is large. Key points related to value and performance in the industrial sector include:

The industrial inventory is about 25 million square feet, with average building size of 47,000 square feet, differentiated from peers’ smaller average facilities.

Occupancy is strong, with 93% in 2017. Rents are highest among peer city markets. Over half of new industrial space in the region is delivered in the City of South Bend, including

1.2 million square feet since 2012, or approximately 200,000 square feet annually. There is positive net absorption of 200,000 to 400,000 square feet of space annually, a

promising outlook.



This correlates to consumption of approximately 15 acres of land annually for industrial purposes. There are approximately 450‐520 acres of developable industrial land remaining in the City, about a 30 year supply.

The Honeywell station area is the 5th largest contiguous site suitable for industrial development in the City.

4.1.2.7 Real Estate Market Conditions ‐ Retail Sector

South Bend’s retail market is stable. Key points related to value and performance in the retail sector include:

The office inventory is about 11 million square feet, with average building size of 9,500 square feet.

Occupancy is strong, with 98% in 2017. 30% of new retail space in the region is delivered in the City of South Bend (although 7‐8% more

recently), including 50,000 square feet since 2010. There is positive net absorption of annually, a promising outlook.

4.1.2.8 Real Estate Market Conditions ‐ Hotel Sector

While recent hotel construction in South Bend has slowed, trends across the larger South Bend / Elkhart, IN market point to significant construction. South Bend represents about 35% of the market. Between 2016 and 2017, hotel occupancy softened slightly from 60.4% to 59.1%, due to slower fall performance in 2017 and an increase in supply (4.2% annualized growth) relative to demand (1.3% annualized growth rate).

4.1.3 Demand and Development Program

The development program balances the amount of developable land with the feasible market capture. The programs were development with consideration for building density and parking requirements.

Table 4‐2. Programmed Use in Developable Acres within a Half‐Mile

Residential Industrial Retail Office Open/Storm Water

Site 1: Chocolate Factory 50% 15% 5% 0% 30% Site 2: Honeywell (Mixed‐Use) 57% 5% 8% 0% 30% Site 2: Honeywell (Industrial) 40% 15% 5% 0% 40% Site 3: Amtrak 60% 5% 5% 0% 30% Site 4: Downtown 45% 12% 8% 5% 30% Realigned Airport Station 0% 50% 20% 0% 30% Current Airport Station 0% 50% 20% 0% 30%

The potential development program was quantified by the approximate value associated with the proposed development. By estimating demand and determining the value per square foot of each type of development (residential, office, industrial, or retail) an overall estimated value of the potential development at each station area was determined. Table 4‐3 lists the potential new development value in each station area, delivered over a ten‐year period.



Table 4‐3. Estimated New Development Value within a Half‐Mile

Total Value

Site 1: Chocolate Factory $40,230,000 Site 2: Honeywell (Mixed‐Use) $73,070,000 Site 2: Honeywell (Industrial) $47,320,000 Site 3: Amtrak $23,250,000 Site 4: Downtown $147,810,000 Realigned Airport Station $17,280,000 Current Airport Station $24,590,000

4.2 Economic Development Summary The economic development and TOD analysis concluded several points:

The City of South Bend has captured large shares of tri‐county South Bend market deliveries. There is no shortage of vacant land near each site, though conflicts with airport operations

constrain airport alternatives near the airport. To estimate reasonable caps on demand within a ten‐year horizon, we extrapolate occupancy

trends and assign appropriate shares of market growth to each station area based on value, and assume no demolition of existing structures.

1.5 acres allotted to station and related parking (except airport stations). Two scenarios developed for Honeywell due to site’s unique scale of contiguous parcels and rail

access. In the Downtown station area, the City would need to convert surface parking to structure, and

think about consent decree impacts to development potential.

4.3 Economic and Fiscal Impacts

4.3.1 Economic Impacts

AECOM used the input‐output model developed by IMPLAN to trace how the initial investment would circulate throughout the Indiana economy. The impact analysis is for the construction period only and does not consider operating period impacts.

Economic impacts can be described as the sum of economic activity within a defined geographic region resulting from an initial change in the economy. This initial change, also referred to as the direct impact, spurs a series of subsequent indirect and induced activities.

Direct Impact results from an initial change in the economy such as construction costs, the operating revenues from a new business, or jobs created.

Indirect Impacts result when the suppliers to the companies initiating the direct impacts purchase local goods and services.

Induced Impacts result from the employees purchasing goods and services for their households from the wages they earn.

Total Impact is the sum of the direct, indirect, and induced impacts.



The indirect and induced impacts are often referred to as the multiplier effect. The size of this depends on the region in which the impacts occur and the nature of the economy within the region. Larger regions that have most of their needs met locally have larger multiplier effects.

When comparing alternatives, note that it is the nature of an impact analysis that the higher the input, the higher the output—i.e., the more you spend, the greater the impact.

Table 4‐4.Full Time Equivalent Jobs, 10 Year Development Program

Direct Indirect Induced Total

Site 1: Chocolate Factory 530 170 230 930 Site 2: Honeywell (Mixed‐Use) 580 280 270 1,140 Site 2: Honeywell (Industrial) 470 190 210 870 Site 3: Amtrak 470 210 220 910 Site 4: Downtown 1,420 610 660 2,680 Realigned Airport Station 320 90 140 540 Current Airport Station 180 30 70 290

Table 4‐5.Economic Output, 10 Year Development Program

Direct Indirect Induced Total

Site 1: Chocolate Factory $82,200,000 $31,300,000 $30,900,000 $144,400,000 Site 2: Honeywell (Mixed‐Use) $94,100,000 $41,200,000 $36,200,000 $171,500,000 Site 2: Honeywell (Industrial) $73,400,000 $30,400,000 $28,100,000 $132,000,000 Site 3: Amtrak $77,100,000 $33,400,000 $29,200,000 $139,700,000 Site 4: Downtown $229,900,000 $98,500,000 $87,000,000 $415,300,000 Realigned Airport Station $48,100,000 $17,700,000 $18,000,000 $83,800,000 Current Airport Station $23,600,000 $6,000,000 $9,400,000 $39,000,000

4.3.2 Fiscal Impacts

Fiscal impacts are the measure of change in tax revenues. In the analysis for this study, the property tax revenue impact is not an incremental revenue assessment of new revenues from development minus previous revenues at prior use. It is exclusively the estimated property tax revenue generated from new development. The revenue from (primarily vacant) existing parcels would need to be subtracted to estimate a net fiscal impact. The analysis also does not include the potential uplift to existing developed properties due to investment in the station area.

Table 4‐6. Property Tax Impacts, 10 Year Development Program

Property Tax Revenues All Tax Revenues Annual Cumulative Annual Cumulative

Site 1: Chocolate Factory $592,000 $5,921,000 $1,540,000 $15,400,000 Site 2: Honeywell (Mixed‐Use) $856,000 $8,563,000 $1,941,000 $19,410,000 Site 2: Honeywell (Industrial) $564,000 $5,640,000 $1,411,000 $14,110,000 Site 3: Amtrak $256,000 $2,556,000 $1,145,000 $11,440,000 Site 4: Downtown $1,864,000 $18,639,000 $4,515,000 $45,150,000



Property Tax Revenues All Tax Revenues Annual Cumulative Annual Cumulative

Realigned Airport Station $325,000 $3,251,000 $847,000 $8,798,000 Current Airport Station $449,000 $4,486,000 $721,000 $7,210,000

4.4 Summary Table 4‐7 summarizes the potential redevelopment programs in each of the station areas along with the associated economic and fiscal impacts. Key points of note include:

• Station areas featuring large residential programs (Downtown, Honeywell Mixed‐Use) show greatest potential impact due to the higher values and densities entailed.

• The highest estimated development values are in Downtown, along with highest capital and construction costs.

• The Amtrak station area’s modest home values are a challenge for new construction.

• There is limited land available near the existing and the proposed Airport Station due to airport/terminal operations and runway protection zones.

• Airport land use compatibility proximity would tend to dictate non‐residential/industrial uses in Chocolate Factory, Existing Airport Station, and Proposed Airport Station areas.

• Real estate growth programs identified by AECOM for the Chocolate Factory and Airport station areas are above identified long‐term growth trajectories. Airport Authority interest in cargo‐oriented development could support this growth during this 10‐year horizon.

Table 4‐7. Summary of 10 Year Development Program and Associated Economic and Fiscal Impacts

New Construction

(sq. ft.)

Assessed Value

(2017 $)

Construction Cost

(2017 $)

Station Capital Cost

(2017 $)

Economic Output (Year of

Occurrence $)

Tax Revenue (Year of

Occurrence $)

Site 1: Chocolate Factory

580,000 $40,230,000 $31,300,000 $44,274,000 $144,400,000 $15,400,000

Site 2: Honeywell (Mixed‐Use)

740,000 $73,070,000 $60,580,000 $23,870,000 $171,500,000 $19,410,000

Site 2: Honeywell (Industrial)

600,000 $47,320,000 $42,460,000 $23,870,000 $132,000,000 $14,110,000

Site 3: Amtrak 490,000 $23,250,000 $38,400,000 $31,727,000 $139,700,000 $11,440,000 Site 4: Downtown 1,280,000 $147,810,000 $107,440,000 $102,302,000 $415,300,000 $45,150,000

Realigned Airport Station 330,000 $17,820,000 $15,040,000 $29,480,000 $83,800,000 $8,800,000

Current Airport Station 460,000 $24,590,000 $20,710,000 N/A $39,000,000 $7,210,000



Table 4‐8 interprets development potential relative to potential investment in station‐related capital costs.

Table 4‐8. Return on Investment Metrics

% Station Capital Cost Recovered in

Est. Tax Revenue

Economic Impact as % of Station

Capital Cost

Site 1: Chocolate Factory 33% 310% Site 2: Honeywell (Mixed‐Use) 77% 684% Site 2: Honeywell (Industrial) 56% 526% Site 3: Amtrak 34% 419% Site 4: Downtown 42% 386% Realigned Airport Station 28% 271% Current Airport Station N/A N/A

4.5 Notes on this Economic Development and Impact Analysis Research This report is based on estimates, assumptions, information developed by AECOM from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by third parties. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in data provided by third‐party data source used in preparing or presenting the report. AECOM assumes no duty to update the information contained in the report unless such additional services are separately retained pursuant to a written agreement signed by AECOM and the City of South Bend.

AECOM’s findings represent its professional judgment. Neither AECOM nor its parent corporations, nor their respective affiliates or subsidiaries make any warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, with respect to any information or methods contained in or used to produce this report. It shall not be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, or equity, or instruments of a similar nature where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the City of South Bend and shall not be used for purposes other than those for which they were prepared or for which prior written consent has been obtained from AECOM.

This report was prepared solely for the use by the City of South Bend. No third party may rely on the report unless the third party has executed a reliance letter in which case, this report must be used in their entirety and not on any abstract, excerpt or summary.

This report may include “forward‐looking statements”. These statements relate to AECOM’s expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. These statements may be identified by the use of words like “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “will,” “should,” “seek,” and similar expressions. The forward‐looking statements reflect AECOM’s views and assumptions with respect to future events as of the date of the report and are subject to future economic conditions, and other risks and uncertainties. Actual and future results and trends could differ materially from those set forth in such statements due to various factors, including, without limitation, those discussed in the report. These factors are beyond AECOM’s ability to control or predict. Accordingly, AECOM makes no warranty or representation that any of the projected values or results contained in the report will actually occur or be achieved. The report is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations.



5.0 Summary of Alternative Site 1: Chocolate Factory Station


5.1.1 Capacity for Station Facility and Parking

This station would be integrated into the site plan for the proposed South Bend Chocolate Factory and Dinosaur Museum attraction. It is currently largely a greenfield site and there is sufficient capacity for the station facilities and parking for commuters.

5.1.2 Land Needs

In order to locate a station at the Chocolate Factory attraction, a rail spur would need to be constructed, running north of the current alignment. There is enough land for the alignment to be constructed, though acquisition would be required.


Personal vehicles would likely be the predominant means of access this site. The site is not very accessible for non‐motorized users, with limited sidewalks and bike paths in the area. Currently, there are no bus routes that serve this site. Access to the airport would need to be provided with a shuttle or scheduled bus service, which should be coordinated with the SSL schedule.

Two new at‐grade crossings would be added with the construction of the rail spur north.


Approximately 9,000 feet of new track would be constructed from the main line to the proposed station. A second terminal track would also be constructed at the station; it would be approximately 1,000 feet long. Additionally, a 1,600 foot siding would be added south of the station to handle major events that would be serviced by the SSL (such as Notre Dame football games). Additional infrastructure would be required such as a catenary system, railroad signalizing, crossing protection at the two proposed street crossings and turnouts at each of the track connection points. All of these infrastructure elements have been accounted for in the capital costs section.


There are no schools or parks within a half‐mile of the proposed site. The population that currently lives within a half‐mile of the proposed station is approximately 180 people. Of this population, 21 percent are minority, 17 percent of these households are below poverty and only one percent of these households do not have a car. There are no low‐income housing units within a half‐mile of this station.

5.1.6 Businesses

There are 11 businesses within a half‐mile of the proposed station site. The business with the largest number of employees is Forward Air, Inc., with 300 employees. Total number of employees at all 11 businesses is approximately 440.

5.1.7 Crime

During the six month period from July‐December 2017, four incidents were reported in the station area: one Violent crime and three Property crimes. All occurred along the US 20 right‐of‐way.

5.2 Capital Costs Base capital costs for Site 1: Chocolate Factory are estimated at $44.3 million. Cost controls for reduced parking and station facilities could lower costs to $40.7 million. The detailed estimate of cost



components is presented in South Bend Station Alternatives Feasibility Study Tech Memo 1: Construction Feasibility.

Table 5‐1. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Estimated Capital Costs by Category

FTA Cost Category

Cost, thousands

of 2017 dollars

10 Guideway & Track Elements $7,537 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal $7,040 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. $776 40 Sitework & Special Conditions $5,324 50 Systems $7,636 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10‐50) $28,312 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $91 70 Vehicles $0 80 Professional Srvs. (Applies to Cat. 10‐50) $10,096 90 Unallocated Contingency $5,775 Total $44,274

5.3 Operating and Maintenance Costs Annual O&M costs for Site 1: Chocolate Factory are estimated at $247,430, which would be shared between NICTD and the Chocolate Factory attraction.

5.4 Rail Operations This section summarizes the operational characteristics of serving the Chocolate Factory station. Detailed analysis is provided in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Tech Memo 2: Potential Rail Operations Impacts technical memorandum.

5.4.1 Travel Times and Schedule

Table 5‐2 summarizes travel distance and time characteristics to serve the Chocolate Factory station.

Table 5‐2. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Operations Characteristics

Attribute Metric Route Length to Pine Road 1.8 miles Travel Time to Pine Road 2.7 min Scheduled Speed to Pine Road 40.8 mph Total Westbound Travel Times to Millennium Station 82 min.‐ 98 min. Total Eastbound Travel Times from Millennium Station 90 min.‐ 97 min.

Figure 5‐1 presents the proposed schedule to terminate SSL South Bend service at the Chocolate Factory development site. The site is one mile closer to Millennium Station than NICTD’s proposed Airport re‐route, which resulted in approximately two minutes of travel time savings.



Figure 5‐1. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Schedule

5.4.1 Ridership

Table 5‐3 summarizes forecasted ridership at the Chocolate Factory station.

Table 5‐3. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Weekday Boardings

Model Year Walk Kiss‐n‐Ride


All SSL Station

Boardings

2015 4 133 231 1 369 21,549

2040 4 245 449 0 698 26,663

5.5 Economic Impacts This section presents the analysis of development potential in the Chocolate Factory station area, along with an estimation of economic and fiscal impacts. Detailed documentation of this task’s findings is contained in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Task 3: TOD and Economic Analysis technical presentation.

5.5.1 Land Available for Development

There are 221 acres within a half‐mile that are available for development, as shown in Figure 5‐3. The cloverleaf interchange for US 20 and US 31 consumes a significant portion of the ½ mile radius, and limits redevelopment potential relative to the train station as a physical barrier. The total includes the land of the proposed Chocolate Factory and Dinosaur Museum. It is assumed that the sparsely developed land can be acquired and developed. There are 71 acres available for development within a quarter‐mile of the proposed site.

The majority of the land available for development is zoned for industrial (150 acres). Thirty‐eight acres are zoned for agriculture and 32 acres are zoned for single family residential (Figure 5‐2).

WESTBOUND

mp Train 6 8 10 12 18 20 422 424 22 426

1.0 Chocolate Factory* 5:26 AM 6:18 AM 7:07 AM 8:57 AM 11:57 AM 4:07 PM 5:47 PM 6:41 PM 7:49 PM 9:12 PM

32.2 Carroll Av (M.City) 6:27 PM 7:22 PM 9:50 PM

89.7 Millennium 6:51 AM 7:40 AM 8:39 AM 10:35 AM 1:35 PM 5:45 PM 9:27 PM

Elapsed T ime (mins) 85 82 92 98 98 98 40 41 98 38

Number of Stops 8 6 11 15 15 15 2 2 14 2

EASTBOUND

mp Train 401 403 405 5 7 9 11 13 15 19

89.7 Millennium 6:50 AM 8:45 AM 1:45 PM 4:02 PM 4:50 PM 5:25 PM 7:15 PM

32.2 Carroll Av (M.City) 4:35 AM 5:24 AM 6:16 AM

1.0 Chocolate Factory* 5:02 AM 5:57 AM 6:49 AM 8:23 AM 10:19 AM 3:20 PM 5:32 PM 6:20 PM 7:02 PM 8:52 PM


Number of Stops 2 2 2 10 14 15 10 11 15 15

*Eastern Time expressed as Central.



Figure 5‐2. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Area Half‐Mile Zoning

Source: City of South Bend

Figure 5‐3. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Area Developable Parcels


5.5.2 Development Program and Associated Impacts

The potential 10 year development program for the Chocolate Factory station area and the associated costs and impacts are presented in Table 5‐4. The program anticipates a mix of production and flex industrial uses to leverage proximity to the South Bend Airport and highway access. The retail component is associated with existing Chocolate Factory property redevelopment plans as presented in

38.0

150.5

32.0

Agricultural Industrial Single-family



Fall 2017, and is entertainment/destination oriented. In outlying areas, low‐density single‐family residential is envisioned.

Table 5‐4. Site 1 Chocolate Factory Station Area Development Program and Associated Impacts

Program Units Value Return

Residential Development 50% 50 DU $11,660,000

Industrial Development 15% 398,000 sf $19,970,000

Retail Development 5% 85,000 sf $8,600,000

Office Development 0% ‐ ‐

Open Space 30% ‐ ‐

Total Value (Assessed Value, 2017) 580,000 sf $40,230,000

Development Construction Cost (2017) $31,300,000

Jobs Generated (FTE: direct, indirect, induced) 930 FTE

Economic Output (10 year, year of occurrence) $144,400,000

310% of station capital cost

Fiscal Impacts (10 year, year of occurrence) $15,400,000

33% station cost recovered



6.0 Summary of Alternative Site 2: Honeywell Station This site is located at Westmoor Street and between Bendix Drive and Sheridan Street, just north of the Honeywell Corporation plant.



The NICTD South Bend Airport park‐n‐ride is projected to need approximately 500 parking spaces, based on ridership modeling that assumed improved travel times. The land requirement for this amount of parking is estimated at approximately five acres. The Honeywell site could accommodate this number of parking spaces.

It is assumed that the station would be a similar size to other NICTD stations, approximately 100’ x 50’. The covered platform, which would be a separate NICTD facility, would be approximately 700’ long to accommodate an eight car train, the maximum that would run on this line. An ADA compliant ramp to access the platform would be included on both ends of the platform.

There is adequate space for these facilities at this location.

6.1.2 Land Needs

The parcels where the proposed parking, station and new rail track would be located are all owned by the Honeywell Corporation. Approximately five parcels from Honeywell and some of these would also be partial acquisitions. It is anticipated that no businesses would be displaced and there are no wetlands on the immediate station sites.


Currently, this site is accessible for non‐motorized users. There is a bike lane and sidewalks surrounding the proposed site. Appropriate paths and safety features should be designed to allow for safe crossing to the station. Personal vehicles would likely be the predominant means of access this site. There are three Transpo bus routes that serve this site.

There are no new at‐grade crossings that would be added to this location.

This site is approximately 2.5 miles from the airport via the current SSL alignment. There is discussion about keeping the existing tracks east and north of the proposed station site in place for continued service to the airport, with the Honeywell site representing a new infill station. Opportunities to expand the frequency of service to the Airport are also being considered, striving to achieve a consistent hourly schedule to serve airport‐bound customers. Alternately, some type of shuttle service to the airport that is timed to coordinate with SSL trains could be implemented to provide a non‐rail connection.


This station would use the existing track alignment along Westmoor and add a second track at the proposed station to the north. This second station track would extend 1,600 feet east from the station to near Bendix Drive, to provide additional equipment storage to handle major events served by the SSL. The existing track between the proposed station and the connection to the SSL main line would be replaced, smoothing the existing alignment. Other infrastructure improvements are proposed to include catenary, railroad signaling, and turnouts at track connections. It was assumed that the existing Sheridan Street grade crossing would closed.




There are approximately 1,350 people that live within a half‐mile of the proposed station area. Of that population, 54 percent are minorities, 37 percent of households are living below the poverty line and 22 percent of households do not have a car. There are also 174 low‐income housing units within a half‐mile of this proposed station.

There are four schools and one park within a half‐mile of the proposed station. The park is LaSalle Park. The four schools are Success Academy, St. John the Baptist Catholic School, Dickenson Immediate Center and Coquillard Primary Center.

6.1.6 Businesses

There are 28 businesses within a half‐mile of the proposed station site. Most of these businesses have less than 10 employees. The largest employers are Honeywell, with approximately 1,500 employees and Coquillard Elementary School with 65 employees.

6.1.7 Crime

During the six month period from July‐December 2017, a total of 101 incidents were reported, including 46 Violent, 52 Property and 3 Quality of Life incidents.

6.2 Capital Costs The capital costs for serving the Honeywell station are estimated at $23.9 million. Cost controls for reduced parking and station facilities, and reduced or eliminated track realignment and replacement costs could lower costs to $14.3 million to $19.1 million. Table 6‐1 summarizes the site costs by major category. The detailed estimate of cost components is presented in South Bend Station Alternatives Feasibility Study Tech Memo 1: Construction Feasibility.

Table 6‐1. Site 2 Honeywell Station Estimated Capital Costs by Category

FTA Cost Category

Cost, thousands

of 2017 dollars

10 Guideway & Track Elements $3,434 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal $7,040 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. $0 40 Sitework & Special Conditions $3,056 50 Systems $4,358 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10‐50) $17,888 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $200 70 Vehicles $0 80 Professional Srvs. (Applies to Cat. 10‐50) $3,612 90 Unallocated Contingency $2,170 Total $23,870

6.3 Operating and Maintenance Costs Annual O&M costs for the Honeywell station are estimated at $577,430, which would be shared between NICTD and the City.



6.4 Rail Operations This section summarizes the operational characteristics of serving the Honeywell station. Detailed analysis is provided in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Tech Memo 2: Potential Rail Operations Impacts technical memorandum.


Table 6‐2 summarizes travel distance and time characteristics to serve the Honeywell station.

Table 6‐2. Site 2 Honeywell Station Operations Characteristics


Travel times to the proposed Honeywell site on Westmoor Street would result in the schedule shown in Figure 6‐1.

Figure 6‐1. Site 2 Honeywell Station Proposed Schedule

A variant to the Honeywell station site scenario involved continued use of the current Airport Station. In this case, the alternative Honeywell station would be a new intermediate station, and the existing station would remain as the South Bend terminal. Track and alignment changes west of the Honeywell Station site would be implemented, resulting in travel time improvements. Infrastructure between the proposed Honeywell Station and the Airport Station would remain unchanged and travel times would be the same as is currently provided. The proposed schedule for this scenario is provided on Figure 6‐2.

mp Train 6 8 10 12 18 20 422 424 22 426

-2.4 Current Airport Station* 5:14 AM 6:06 AM 6:55 AM 8:45 AM 11:45 AM 3:55 PM 5:35 PM 6:29 PM 7:37 PM 9:00 PM

0.2 Honeywell* 5:25 AM 6:17 AM 7:06 AM 8:56 AM 11:56 AM 4:06 PM 5:46 PM 6:40 PM 7:48 PM 9:11 PM



86 83 93 99 99 99 41 42 99 39

Number of Stops 9 7 12 16 16 16 3 3 15 3

EASTBOUND

mp Train 401 403 405 5 7 9 11 13 15 19





28 34 34 94 95 96 91 91 98 98

Number of Stops 3 3 3 11 14 15 10 11 15 15


Elapsed T ime (mins) from Honeywell

Elapsed T ime (mins) to Honeywell



Figure 6‐2. Site 2 Honeywell Station Proposed Schedule, w/ Service to Current Airport Station (2A)

6.4.2 Ridership

Table 6‐3 summarizes forecasted ridership at the Honeywell station.

Table 6‐3. Site 2 Honeywell Station Weekday Boardings



All SSL Station

Boardings

2015 (2) 70 96 191 26 383 21,579

2040 (2) 131 172 371 55 729 26,730

2015 (2A) 71 7

89 3

185 5

0 22

345 37

21,577

2040 (2A) 132 9

160 5

357 7

13 47

662 68

26,729

6.5 Economic Development This section presents the analysis of development potential in the Honeywell station area, along with an estimation of economic and fiscal impacts. Detailed documentation of this task’s findings is contained in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Task 3: TOD and Economic Analysis technical presentation.


There are 86 acres within a half‐mile that are available for development, see Figure 6‐4. It is assumed that the parcels that Honeywell currently owns that are undeveloped can be acquired and developed for TOD. There are 48 acres available for development within a quarter‐mile of the proposed site.

The majority of the land available for development is zoned for industrial (63 acres). While this land could be acquired and redeveloped as commercial or residential, the City needs to determine whether converting industrially zoned land to commercial or residential is a policy decision that they would like to pursue.

mp Train 6 8 10 12 18 20 422 424 22 426





86 83 93 99 99 99 41 42 99 39

Number of Stops 9 7 12 16 16 16 3 3 15 3

EASTBOUND

mp Train 401 403 405 5 7 9 11 13 15 19





28 34 34 94 95 96 91 91 98 98

Number of Stops 3 3 3 11 14 15 10 11 15 15


Elapsed T ime (mins) from Honeywell

Elapsed T ime (mins) to Honeywell



Figure 6‐3. Site 2 Honeywell Station Area Half‐Mile Zoning


Figure 6‐4. Site 2 Honeywell Station Area Developable Parcels



The potential 10 year development program (mixed‐use scenario) for the Honeywell station area and the associated costs and impacts are presented in Table 6‐4. The development program includes industrial flex uses, shopping center format retail and a mix of residential types: dense single‐family homes, duplexes, townhomes, and low‐rise apartments. This redevelopment program represents a significant change in land uses from the current profile, shifting from the current industrial orientation to a renovation biased more towards a more traditional residential neighborhood. In addition to private sector investment, this redevelopment would need to be supported with City investment in local

7.4 4.9

63.0

3.7 6.7 0.8



infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, streetscaping, bicycle amenities, water/utilities), maintaining security and community cohesion, and supporting through administrative and planning actions (rezoning and creating neighborhood plans.)

Table 6‐4. Site 2 Honeywell Station Area Mixed‐Use Development Program and Associated Impacts









Jobs Generated (FTE: direct, indirect, induced) 1,440 FTE





The potential 10 year development program (Industrial scenario) for the Honeywell station area and the associated costs and impacts are presented in Table 6‐5. The development program includes industrial flex uses, shopping center format retail and a mix of residential types: dense single‐family homes, duplexes, townhomes, and low‐rise apartments. This redevelopment program represents a modest change in land uses from the current profile, still allowing important employment‐generating industrial uses but encouraging more traditional residential neighborhood infill. In addition to private sector investment, this redevelopment would need to be supported with City investment in local infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, streetscaping, bicycle amenities, water/utilities), maintaining security and community cohesion, and supporting through administrative and planning actions (rezoning and creating neighborhood plans.)



Table 6‐5. Site 2 Honeywell Station Area Industrial Development Program and Associated Impacts
















7.0 Summary of Alternative Site 3: Amtrak Station This site is located at the existing South Bend Amtrak station at 2702 West Washington near the intersection of Meade and Washington Streets.



The NICTD South Bend Airport Station is projected to require 500 parking spaces, based on ridership modeling assuming travel time improvements. The land requirement for this amount of parking is estimated at five acres. The proposed parking at the Amtrak site is six acres, more than enough to meet the demand for parking at the South Bend Airport station.

The covered platform, which would be a separate NICTD facility, would be approximately 700’ long to accommodate an eight car train, the maximum that would run on this line. ADA compliant ramps to access the platform at both ends would be included. The width of the platform would be 15’, following NICTD practice.

The station would include two terminal tracks on either side of the center platform.

7.1.2 Land Needs

The parcels that would be used for this site are owned by NICTD, Curtis Products Inc., and Chicago South Shore. It is anticipated that no businesses would be displaced. There are no wetlands are on the immediate station site.


Personal vehicles would likely be the predominant means of access this site. However, this site is accessible for non‐motorized users, with a bike lane and sidewalks surrounding the proposed station site and through the station area. Nevertheless, the railroad tracks and complex intersections of several roads (Meade, Washington, Orange and Bendix on the north side of the tracks, and Meade and Colfax on the south side of the tracks) do not present an inviting non‐motorized access environment. Appropriate paths and safety features should be designed to allow for safe crossing to the station.

There are three Transpo bus routes that serve this site. This site is approximately three miles from the airport. Unlike Site 2, which has the potential to continue to provide direct rail service, this site would require a bus shuttle.

No new at‐grade crossings would be added to this location.


The existing NICTD/CSSSB tracks serving the site are used to store CSSSB freight cars. The three tracks of varying lengths would need to be shifted to the west a distance of between 1,000 and 1,500 feet. In addition, a new SSL track would be constructed from the Main Line/Airport Branch Junction, near Grandview Avenue, involving an estimated 6,400 feet. A second 1,000‐foot station terminal track would be added, which would extend another 1,600 feet westward to store equipment for special event service. Other infrastructure improvements are proposed to include catenary, railroad signaling, and turnouts at track connections. In addition, a 1,000‐foot siding would be added west of the station to service major events.


There are nearly 2,000 people who live within a half‐mile of the proposed station area. Of that population, 63 percent are minorities, 35 percent of households are living below the poverty line and 21



percent of households do not have a car. There are no low‐income housing units within a half‐mile of this proposed station.

There are two parks within a half‐mile of the proposed station, Kennedy Park and LaSalle Park. There are no schools within a half‐mile of the proposed station area.

7.1.6 Businesses

There are 80 businesses within a half‐mile of the Amtrak site. Most of these businesses have less than 10 employees. The largest employer is Curtis Products Inc., with 250 employees, followed by Kennedy Elementary School with 85 employees.

7.1.7 Crime


7.2 Capital Costs The capital costs for Site 3: Amtrak are estimated at nearly $31.7 million. Cost controls for reduced parking and station facilities could lower costs to $28.3 million. Table 7‐1 summarizes the site costs by major category. The detailed estimate of cost components is presented in South Bend Station Alternatives Feasibility Study Tech Memo 1: Construction Feasibility.

Table 7‐1. Site 3 Amtrak Station Estimated Capital Costs by Category

FTA Cost Category

Cost, thousands

of 2017 dollars

10 Guideway & Track Elements $3,552 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal $7,040 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. $3,559 40 Sitework & Special Conditions $4,115 50 Systems $5,759 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10‐50) $24,024 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $225 70 Vehicles $0 80 Professional Srvs. (Applies to Cat. 10‐50) $4,594 90 Unallocated Contingency $2,884 Total $31,727

7.3 Operating and Maintenance Costs Annual O&M costs for the Amtrak station are estimated at $577,430, which would be shared between NICTD and the City.

7.4 Rail Operations This section summarizes the operational characteristics of serving the Amtrak station. Detailed analysis is provided in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Tech Memo 2: Potential Rail Operations Impacts technical memorandum.




Table 7‐2 summarizes travel distance and time characteristics to serve the Amtrak station.

Table 7‐2. Site 3 Amtrak Station Operations Characteristics


The schedule for Site 3: Amtrak Station at Washington and Meade Streets is presented in Figure 7‐1.

Figure 7‐1. Site 3 Amtrak Station Proposed Schedule

7.4.2 Ridership

Table 7‐3 summarizes forecasted ridership at the Amtrak station.

Table 7‐3. Site 3 Amtrak Station Weekday Boardings



All SSL Station

Boardings

2015 48 76 175 85 384 21,582

2040 79 139 344 169 731 26,736

WESTBOUND

mp Train 6 8 10 12 18 20 422 424 22 426

-0.6 Amtrak* 5:26 AM 6:18 AM 7:07 AM 8:57 AM 11:57 AM 4:07 PM 5:47 PM 6:41 PM 7:49 PM 9:12 PM




Number of Stops 8 6 11 15 15 15 2 2 14 2

EASTBOUND

mp Train 401 403 405 5 7 9 11 13 15 19



-0.6 Amtrak* 5:00 AM 5:55 AM 6:47 AM 8:23 AM 10:19 AM 3:20 PM 5:32 PM 6:20 PM 7:02 PM 8:52 PM


Number of Stops 2 2 2 10 14 15 10 11 15 15




7.5 Economic Impacts This section presents the analysis of development potential in the Amtrak station area, along with an estimation of economic and fiscal impacts. Detailed documentation of this task’s findings is contained in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Task 3: TOD and Economic Analysis technical presentation.


There are 64 acres within a half‐mile that are available for development, see Figure 7‐3. It is assumed that the unimproved parcels currently zoned for industrial can be acquired and developed. There are 22 acres available for development within a quarter‐mile of the proposed site. The parcels at this site are generally not contiguous, making assembly of land for larger developments more difficult.

Figure 7‐2. Site 3 Amtrak Station Area Half‐Mile Zoning



The potential 10 year development program for the Amtrak station area and the associated costs and impacts are presented in Table 7‐4. The development program includes a mix of residential types: dense single‐family homes, duplexes, townhomes, and low‐rise apartments, along with shopping center format retail and a modest amount of employment‐generating industrial development compatible with nearby anchor uses. This redevelopment program represents an ambitious change in land uses from the current profile, but is small in scale due to depressed current values that may challenge attraction of investors. In addition to private sector investment, this redevelopment would need to be supported with City development incentives to encourage solvent projects. The City would also need to make investment in local infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, streetscaping, bicycle amenities, water/utilities) to aid in conversion from the area’s industrial history, maintain security and community cohesion, and support administrative and planning actions (rezoning and creating neighborhood plans).

2.3

29.4

0.5 2.5 2.1

27.6

Business Industrial Mixed Use Office Multifamily SF &Duplex



Figure 7‐3. Site 3 Amtrak Station Area Developable Parcels


Table 7‐4. Site 3 Amtrak Station Area Development Program and Associated Impacts
















8.0 Summary of Alternative Site 4: Downtown South Bend Station This site is at the former South Bend Union Station, which is located at the south end of the city’s downtown, in a rapidly evolving tech industry area.



The proposed station would have the tracks and station running at‐grade on South Street, between the Union Station Technology Center building and the Four Winds Field ballpark.

Additionally, there is not enough space for five acres of surface parking on the blocks immediately adjacent to the proposed station site options, south of South Street and west to Main Street. Additional surface parking might be provided on the block bounded by Lafayette Boulevard, South Street, Main Street, and Monroe Street, which is currently vacant although appears to be well situated for redevelopment. Additional underutilized lots and existing surface parking are present in the downtown within a three to ten minute walk of the station site options. Shared parking with Four Winds Field might also be an option outside of baseball season but not likely year round or for weekday commuters during baseball season. Alternatively, a structured parking garage could be constructed nearby to accommodate the approximately 500 spaces that would be needed to meet the estimated demand of the ridership at the station, consuming a smaller footprint of downtown land than five acres.

8.1.2 Land Needs

Parcel acquisition would be required. These parcels are owned by the Salvation Army of Illinois, Housing Authority of South Bend and Claey’s Candy Factory. The Salvation Army and Housing Authority parcels would likely be partial acquisitions.


This station is accessible by bike lanes and marked bike routes on South Street and Lafayette Boulevard. The station area also has a dense network of sidewalks making it accessible to pedestrians. However, personal vehicles will still likely be the primary means of accessing this station. It is assumed that parking would be available adjacent to the station. Nearly all Transpo bus routes run within a half‐mile of the proposed station. This site is approximately five miles from the airport. Some type of shuttle service to the airport that is timed to coordinate with SSL trains is recommended.

Two at‐grade crossings would be required, at Meade Street and Olive Street. Crossing protection would need to be configured to function with the NS existing crossing systems at these two locations. Crossing protection for Amtrak passengers crossing the extended SSL line to reach platforms on the NS is included in the estimated costs.


Service to this site would involve a new SSL main line track from the SSL Main Line/Airport Branch Junction near Grandview Avenue, a distance of about three miles. A segment‐by‐segment listing of likely improvements is presented in Table 8‐1.



Table 8‐1. Site 4 Downtown Station Alignment Segment Improvements

From To Dist. Improvements

Airport Branch Jct.

Olive Street 7,600' This would be the same as for Site 3, building one new track and extending another 1100' east from the Amtrak Station on NICTD or CSSSB‐owned land

Olive Street abandoned ROW west of Cherry St.

3,100' Acquire a strip of land from property owners adjacent to the NS, and build one track at grade. Add 2,000’ siding for use by SSL trains serving special events.

Abandoned ROW west of Cherry St.

west approach to Western / Walnut Bridge

700' Acquire strip of land and construct ramp (approx. 2.5% grade) to join elevation of NS to span Western/Walnut intersection. Build one track.

Western / Walnut Bridge 450' A separate bridge would be constructed on the north side of

the existing NS structure.

East approach to Western / Walnut Bridge

West approach to Chapin St. Bridge

2,300' Acquire ROW to build one track on embankment that would extend east to Chapin. Some retaining wall may be needed. The Soccer field at the Kroc Complex would be moved to the north, and parking relocated.

Chapin Bridge 100’ A separate bridge would be constructed on the north side of

the existing NS structure.

East approach to Chapin Bridge

South St. Site 1,300’ Track would ramp down to grade on land to be acquired. Scott Street viaduct proposed for closure; the alignment would follow and replace South Street. The platform and two station tracks would extend east to the north side of Union Station.


There are approximately 2,400 people that live within a half‐mile of this proposed site. Of that population, 62 percent are minorities, 53 percent of households are below the poverty level and 62 percent of households do not own a car. Additionally, there are 771 low‐income housing units within a half‐mile of the proposed station.

The Four Winds Field is within a half‐mile of the proposed site and is technically a park, though it is privately owned. The Kroc Center recreational facility is also within a half‐mile and is also privately owned. There are no public parks within a half‐mile of the proposed site. There are two day care facilities within a half‐mile.

8.1.6 Businesses

There are 683 businesses within a half‐mile of the proposed station. Approximately 500 of these businesses have less than 10 employees. The largest businesses are the St. Joseph County of Insurance, U.S. Post Office and the South Bend Police Department. The area just south of Sample Street, east of Prairie Avenue, is Ignition Park. This is the site of the former Studebaker manufacturing auto plant. Since 2000, the state has aggressively reclaimed this former brownfield site to allow for the development of high‐tech manufacturing, commercial and office buildings throughout this business park. Employment at Ignition Park is forecasted to grow, based on conversations with the city.

8.1.7 Crime




8.2 Capital Costs The capital costs for Site 4: Downtown are estimated at approximately $102.3 million. Cost controls for reduced parking and station facilities could lower costs to $98.4 million. Table 8‐2 summarizes the site costs by major category. The detailed estimate of cost components is presented in South Bend Station Alternatives Feasibility Study Tech Memo 1: Construction Feasibility.

Table 8‐2. Site 4 Downtown Station Estimated Capital Costs by Category

FTA Cost Category

Cost, thousands

of 2017 dollars

10 Guideway & Track Elements $27,579 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal $7,040 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. $3,785 40 Sitework & Special Conditions $10,213 50 Systems $11,928 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10‐50) $60,544 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $5,400 70 Vehicles $0 80 Professional Srvs. (Applies to Cat. 10‐50) $15,898 90 Unallocated Contingency $20,460 Total $102,302

8.3 Operating and Maintenance Costs Annual O&M costs for the Downtown station are estimated at $577,430, which would be shared between NICTD and the City.

8.4 Rail Operations This section summarizes the operational characteristics of serving the Downtown station. Detailed analysis is provided in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Tech Memo 2: Potential Rail Operations Impacts technical memorandum.


Table 8‐3 summarizes travel distance and time characteristics to serve the Downtown station.

Table 8‐3. Site 4 Downtown Station Operations Characteristics


Figure 8‐1 presents the schedule for Site 4.



Figure 8‐1. Site 4 Downtown Station Proposed Schedule

8.4.2 Ridership

Table 8‐4 summarizes forecasted ridership at the Downtown station.

Table 8‐4. Site 4 Downtown Station Weekday Boardings



All SSL Station

Boardings 2015 54 69 163 100 386 21,584

2040 112 122 313 188 735 26,737

8.5 Economic Development This section presents the analysis of development potential in the Downtown station area, along with an estimation of economic and fiscal impacts. Detailed documentation of this task’s findings is contained in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Task 3: TOD and Economic Analysis technical presentation.


There are 83 acres within a half‐mile that are available for development, see Figure 8‐3. It is assumed that the large surface parking and unimproved exempt parcels can be acquired and developed. There are 16 acres available for development within a quarter‐mile of the proposed site.

WESTBOUND

mp Train 6 8 10 12 18 20 422 424 22 426

-2.4 Downtown* 5:24 AM 6:16 AM 7:05 AM 8:55 AM 11:55 AM 4:05 PM 5:45 PM 6:39 PM 7:47 PM 9:10 PM




Number of Stops 8 6 11 15 15 15 2 2 14 2

EASTBOUND

mp Train 401 403 405 5 7 9 11 13 15 19



-2.4 Downtown* 5:02 AM 5:57 AM 6:49 AM 8:25 AM 10:21 AM 3:22 PM 5:34 PM 6:22 PM 7:04 PM 8:54 PM


Number of Stops 2 2 2 10 14 15 10 11 15 15




Figure 8‐2. Site 4 Downtown Station Area Half‐Mile Zoning


Figure 8‐3. Site 4 Downtown Station Area Developable Parcels



The potential 10 year development program for the Downtown station area and the associated costs and impacts are presented in Table 8‐4. The development program includes a mix of residential types: higher density duplexes, townhomes, and apartments, retail provided as ground‐floor uses in mixed‐use multi‐family residential projects, and some office space. The program also envisions employment‐generating industrial and flex uses south of the railroad tracks building upon the recent transformation of the high‐tech incubator and business‐park style industrial developments. This program is large in

4.9 18.0

9.6 0.3 2.4 4.3

36.2



scale due to attractive development values and positive current trends. In addition to private sector investment, the City would also need to continue its investments in greater downtown infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, streetscaping, bicycle amenities, water/utilities), maintain security and community cohesion, and support administrative and planning actions.

Table 8‐5. Site 4 Downtown Station Area Development Program and Associated Impacts





Office Development 5% 52,000 sf $6,090,000


Total Value (Assessed Value, 2017) 1,280,000 sf $147,810,000


Jobs Generated (FTE: direct, indirect, induced) 2,680 FTE







9.0 Summary of Realigned South Bend Airport Station A station located at the South Bend Airport but relocated to the west side of the airport is currently under study by NICTD and an independent consultant team led by DLZ. This section summarizes the AECOM team’s understanding of designs and service feature for that station alternative. This section also contains an analysis of development potential in the area around a relocated station in order for all station locations to be compared fully.

9.1 Physical and Socio‐Economic Site and Station Area Characteristics This analysis assumes implementation of access Alternative G.

9.2 Capital Costs Estimated capital costs for Alternative G are $29,480,000.

Table 9‐1. Realigned Airport Station (Alternative G) Estimated Capital Costs by Category

FTA Cost Category

Cost, thousands of 2017 dollars

10 Guideway & Track Elements $4,424 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal $2,640 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. $0 40 Sitework & Special Conditions $3,854 50 Systems $7,949 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (10‐50) $18,866 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $3,000 70 Vehicles $3,769 80 Professional Srvs.

(Applies to Cat. 10‐50) $25,635

SUBTOTAL $25,635 90 Unallocated Contingency $3,845

15% TOTAL $29,480

No variations in capital costs were identified because the station platform is minimal and parking is not separate from general airport facilities.

9.3 Operating and Maintenance Costs Annual O&M costs for a Realigned Airport Station are estimated at $247,430, which would be shared between NICTD and the South Bend Airport.

9.4 Rail Operations This section summarizes the operational characteristics of serving the realigned Airport station. Detailed analysis is provided in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Tech Memo 2: Potential Rail Operations Impacts technical memorandum.


Table 9‐1 summarizes travel distance and time characteristics to serve the realigned Airport station.



Table 9‐2. Realigned Airport Station Operations Characteristics

Attribute Metric Route Length to Pine Road 2.8 miles Travel Time to Pine Road 5.4 min Scheduled Speed to Pine Road 31.2 mph Total Westbound Travel Times to Millennium Station 84 to 100 minutes Total Eastbound Travel Times from Millennium Station 92 to 99 minutes

Figure 9‐1 presents the schedule for the realigned Airport station.

Figure 9‐1. SSL Proposed Future Schedule w/Double Track, West Lake and Airport Re‐route

9.4.2 Ridership

Table 9‐2 summarizes forecasted ridership at the realigned Airport station.

Table 9‐3. Realigned Airport Station Weekday Boardings



All SSL Station

Boardings 2015 24 60 151 148 383 21,583

2040 47 108 295 277 727 26,733

WESTBOUND

mp Train 6 8 10 12 18 20 422 424 22 426

89.7 So. Bend Airport (west terminal)* 5:24 AM 6:16 AM 7:05 AM 8:55 AM 11:55 AM 4:05 PM 5:45 PM 6:39 PM 7:47 PM 9:10 PM




Number of Stops 8 6 11 15 15 15 2 2 14 2

EASTBOUND

mp Train 401 403 405 5 7 9 11 13 15 19



0.0 So. Bend Airport (west terminal)* 5:04 AM 5:59 AM 6:51 AM 8:25 AM 10:21 AM 3:22 PM 5:34 PM 6:22 PM 7:04 PM 8:54 PM


Number of Stops 2 2 2 10 14 15 10 11 15 15




9.5 Economic Development This section presents the analysis of development potential in the realigned Airport station area, along with an estimation of economic and fiscal impacts. Detailed documentation of this task’s findings is contained in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Task 3: TOD and Economic Analysis technical presentation.


There are 34 acres within a half‐mile that are available for development, as shown in Figures 9‐2 and 9‐3. It is assumed that unimproved exempt land can be developed consistent with airport operations. Parcels slated for the new rail alignment are excluded, as is land identified in airport runway protection zone and/or designated for airport operations in 2010 land use plan. There are 7 acres available for development within a quarter‐mile of the proposed station.

Figure 9‐2. Realigned Airport Station Area Half‐Mile Area Zoning



The potential 10 year development program for the realigned Airport station area and the associated costs and impacts are presented in Table 9‐3. The development program for the realigned Airport station area is small due to limited amounts of developable land due to constraints from Airport operations and protection. Industrial uses reflect a mixture of flex and production facilities capitalizing on airport and highway access. Some shopping center format retail could be situated on Lincolnway.

1.4

5.3

15.5

12.2

Business Commercial Industrial SF & Duplex



Figure 9‐3. Realigned Airport Station Area Developable Parcels


Table 9‐4. Realigned Airport Station Area Development Program and Associated Impacts


Residential Development 0% ‐ ‐














10.0 Summary of Current South Bend Airport Station The South Bend South Shore Line station is currently located at the South Bend Airport on the east side of the terminal. This section also contains an analysis of ridership, travel times, and development potential in the area around the current station in order for all station locations to be compared fully.

10.1 Physical and Socio‐Economic Site and Station Area Characteristics This analysis assumes the station remains at the existing location, with no improvements (the “No Build” alternative).

10.2 Capital Costs No capital costs are planned for the “No Build” alternative.

10.3 Rail Operations This section summarizes the operational characteristics of serving the realigned Airport station. Detailed analysis is provided in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Tech Memo 2: Potential Rail Operations Impacts technical memorandum.


Table 10‐1 summarizes travel distance and time characteristics to serve the current Airport station.

Table 10‐1. Current Airport Station Operations Characteristics

Attribute Metric Route Length to Pine Road 5.2 miles Travel Time to Pine Road 15.1 min Scheduled Speed to Pine Road 20.7 mph Total Westbound Travel Times to Millennium Station 115 to 160 minutes Total Eastbound Travel Times from Millennium Station 118 to 155 minutes

Figure 10‐1 presents the current 2017 schedule for the present South Bend Airport station. A schedule for service to the current South Bend Airport station that does include other South Shore Line improvements (e.g., Double‐Track NWI) is not available.



Figure 10‐1. Current SSL Schedule (Effective July 2017)

10.3.2 Ridership

Table 10‐2 summarizes current estimated ridership at the present Airport station. Forecast ridership for 2040 including other planned South Shore Line improvements and implementation of the West Lake Extension service, but excluding the South Bend station realignment, is not available.

Table 10‐2. Current Airport Station Weekday Boardings



All SSL Station

Boardings 2015 38 101 146 2 287 12,291

2040 Not available

10.4 Economic Development This section presents the analysis of development potential in the current Airport station area, along with an estimation of economic and fiscal impacts. Detailed documentation of this task’s findings is contained in the South Shore Line Alternative Stations Feasibility Study: Task 3: TOD and Economic Analysis technical presentation.


There are 63 acres within a half‐mile that are available for development, as shown in Figures 10‐2 and 10‐3. It is assumed that unimproved exempt land can be developed consistent with airport operations. Land identified in airport runway protection zone and/or designated for airport operations in 2010 land use plan has been excluded from consideration. There are 15 acres available for development within a quarter‐mile of the proposed station.

WESTBOUND

mp Train 6 14 18 20 22 422 424

0.0 South Bend Airport* 5:00 AM 7:48 AM 11:49 AM 3:45 PM 7:05 PM 8:40 PM 10:30 PM

32.6 Carroll Av (M.City) 8:37 AM 12:33 PM 4:27 PM 7:57 PM 9:35 PM 11:11 PM

90.1 Millennium 6:55 AM 10:28 AM 2:14 PM 6:13 PM 9:36 PM

Elapsed T ime (mins) 115 160 145 148 151 55 41

Number of Stops 6 17 17 17 17 3 3

EASTBOUND

mp Train 401 403 7 9 11 17 19

90.1 Millennium 8:45 AM 12:35 PM 3:57 PM 5:28 PM 7:10 PM

32.6 Carroll Av (M.City) 3:30 AM 6:30 AM 10:27 AM 2:22 PM 7:15 AM 9:04 AM

0.0 South Bend Airport* 4:11 AM 7:11 AM 11:08 AM 3:03 PM 5:55 PM 8:03 PM 9:45 PM

Elapsed T ime (mins) 41 41 143 148 118 155 155

Number of Stops 3 3 17 17 7 16 17




Figure 10‐2. Current Airport Station Area Half‐Mile Area Zoning


Figure 10‐3. Current Airport Station Area Developable Parcels



The potential 10 year development program for the Airport station area and the associated costs and impacts are presented in Table 10‐3. The development program for the realigned Airport station area is small due to limited amounts of developable land due to constraints from Airport operations and

3.1

10.3

24.7

12.2

Business Commercial Industrial SF & Duplex



protection. Industrial uses reflect a mixture of flex and production facilities capitalizing on airport and highway access. Some shopping center format retail could be situated on Lincolnway.

Table 10‐3. Current Airport Station Area Development Program and Associated Impacts


Residential Development 0% ‐ ‐








Economic Output (10 year, year of occurrence) $39,000,000 N/A

Fiscal Impacts (10 year, year of occurrence) $7,210,000 N/A

Line Station Alternatives Feasibility Study Executive Summary

Documents

Transcript of Line Station Alternatives Feasibility Study Executive Summary