Gosling, Wei and Freeman 1 FUNDING MAJOR AIRPORT GROUND ACCESS PROJECTS: SEVEN CASE STUDIES

Transcription

1 Gosling, Wei and Freeman FUNDING MAJOR AIRPORT GROUND ACCESS PROJECTS: SEVEN CASE STUDIES 0 0 Geoffrey D. Gosling, Ph.D. (Corresponding author) Principal Aviation System Consulting, LLC 0 Colusa Avenue Berkeley, CA 0- Phone: (0) - Fax: (0) - Gdgosling@aol.com Wenbin Wei, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Aviation and Technology San Jose State University San Jose, CA -00 Phone: (0) -0 Wenbin.Wei@sjsu.edu Dennis Freeman Research Associate Urban Strategies Council 0 Broadway, nd Floor Oakland, CA - Phone: (0) -0 suherman@gmail.com Paper submitted: August, 0 Revised: November, 0 0 Word Count Abstract Text,0 table 0,

2 Gosling, Wei and Freeman 0 0 ABSTRACT Funding projects to improve the intermodal connectivity between the surface transportation system and airports is often complicated by the need to draw on a range of different funding programs and sources, each with their own project eligibility requirements and regulations. This paper presents seven case studies of the funding sources used for a range of major intermodal airport ground access projects in the United States that were completed in the past twelve years or are currently under construction. The case studies were undertaken as part of a recently completed research study that investigated collaborative funding strategies to facilitate airport ground access. The projects comprise a major intermodal center, two automated people mover links between airports and nearby rail stations, two airport access highway projects, and two extensions of rail transit systems to airports. The funding sources for the seven projects varied widely with the nature and location of the project. All seven projects involved some collaboration between local, state and federal agencies in developing the funding plan for each project, although the number of agencies involved varied, with the larger projects generally having more agencies involved in providing funding. This experience suggests that developing a funding plan for such projects requires the involvement of a broad range of stakeholder agencies in planning and implementing the project.

3 Gosling, Wei and Freeman INTRODUCTION Airports are major interchange nodes in the passenger and freight transportation system where local and regional transportation systems interface with those for national and international air travel and airfreight. However, funding projects to improve the intermodal connectivity between the surface transportation system and airports is often complicated by the need to draw on a range of funding programs and sources, each with their own project eligibility requirements and regulations that limit the type and location of projects that can be funded. In order to gain a better understanding of the potential role that collaborative funding strategies can play in facilitating airport ground access projects, a recently completed research study for the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) at San José State University () examined the range of funding sources that have been used for intermodal airport ground access projects and identified a recommended approach to develop collaborative funding strategies for such projects. In addition, the research developed guidance material targeted at planners developing airport ground access projects, as well as recommendations for changes to policies and funding allocation procedures at the federal and state levels. More information on the research project and study recommendations is presented in a companion paper (). As a major component of the research study, a number of case studies were undertaken to document the funding arrangements for selected airport ground access projects. The case studies were chosen to provide examples of collaborative funding by multiple agencies, as well as how the limitations of specific funding programs were overcome. Information on potential case studies was assembled from several prior studies on intermodal access to airports (,, ), supplemented by case-specific information gathered from a review of relevant literature, an Internet search, and discussions with planning staff at federal, state and local transportation agencies. Initially, potential case studies were identified and preliminary information was assembled on each. This information was reviewed with staff at the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, the research sponsor, and the following seven projects were selected for more detailed study:. Miami International Airport Intermodal Center;. New York John F. Kennedy International Airport AirTrain people mover;. Oakland International Airport people mover connector from the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system;. Oakland International Airport Roadway Project;. Richmond Airport Connector roadway link between the Pocahontas Parkway and Richmond International Airport, Virginia;. Portland Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) light rail extension to Portland International Airport, Oregon;. BART extension to San Francisco International Airport. Additional information on each of the selected projects was assembled from reports and other documents, including information on relevant websites. Extensive use was made of an Internet archive ( to identify information that had been posted on agency websites at the time the projects were being planned or implemented, but has since been removed. This paper presents the principal findings and conclusions of these case studies. The next section describes the seven projects. The following section discusses the funding sources used

4 Gosling, Wei and Freeman for each project. Finally the fourth section presents conclusions that were drawn from the case studies. THE CASE STUDY PROJECTS The seven case studies cover a range of project types, including a major intermodal facility, automated people mover links between airports and nearby rail stations, extensions of rail transit systems to airports, and airport access roadways, as well as a range of funding strategies and mechanisms. The case studies also include a range of geographic locations and a variety of institutional arrangements, including private-sector participation, that represent examples of collaborative funding for airport ground access projects. Three of the case study projects are located in the San Francisco Bay Area, with two of those serving the same airport, although the two projects address different access modes and have different institutional arrangements. More extensive descriptions of each project, including maps, route diagrams, and other illustrations, are provided in the final report of the research project () and the case study working papers referenced in each of the following sections. The final report and working papers are available on the MTI website at transweb.sjsu.edu/project/0.html. Miami Intermodal Center The Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) is a major transportation hub located adjacent to Miami International Airport (MIA) and linked to the airport passenger terminals by an automated people mover, termed the MIA Mover (, ). The MIC is being developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in cooperation with the Miami-Dade Aviation Department (MDAD), Miami-Dade Transit, and a number of other stakeholders. The MIC brings together urban, regional and intercity rail services, as well as local and intercity bus services, and facilitates connections between those services as well as improving airport access for users of those services. In addition, a consolidated airport Rental Car Center (RCC) forms a major element of the MIC, allowing the people mover to serve both rental car patrons and users of the public transportation services at the MIC who are making trips to and from the airport. The RCC accommodates the operations of all on-airport rental car companies, as well as serving as the pickup and drop-off location for all off-airport rental car companies. The MIC project also includes parking facilities for airport users and a number of road and highway improvements that will provide access to the MIC and improve access to MIA. An intermodal facility termed the Miami Central Station (MCS) will provide a major regional intermodal hub for rail and bus services, including the regional Metrorail transit system, Tri-Rail commuter trains operated by the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, and Amtrak. The.-mile AirportLink Metrorail extension from the existing Earlington Heights Station to the MIC forms a key element of the overall project. This extension terminates at the MCS, from where passengers access the airport via the MIA Mover. The MIC and associated infrastructure, including the AirportLink Metrorail extension to the MIC, is projected to cost over $ billion when completed. The project provides a major expansion of landside capacity at MIA as well as offering the prospect of greatly improved airport access by a wide range of public transportation services. The RCC became operational in July 00, the MIA Mover became operational in September 0, and the AirportLink extension began service in July 0. The MCS is planned to be completed in 0. The Miami Intermodal Center is not only a major transportation project in its own right, it also represents what is easily the most ambitious attempt to date to create a major regional intermodal hub adjacent to a large U.S. airport. By the time development of the MIC and

5 Gosling, Wei and Freeman associated infrastructure is completed, construction will have been underway for at least twelve years. As might be expected for a project of this scale and scope, the details of the project have evolved over time and the funding plans have also had to evolve to accommodate changes both in the cost and scope of the project, as well as to take advantage of new funding opportunities that have arisen. Fundamental to the successful completion of the project has been the strong commitment and financial support of FDOT, as well as consistent support from the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners and other regional stakeholders. JFK International Airport AirTrain For many years inter-terminal transfers at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in New York, as well as connections to the nearby Howard Beach station of the New York City Transit (NYCT) subway system and long-term and employee parking lots adjacent to the station, were provided by shuttle buses. In order to reduce congestion on the central terminal area (CTA) roadways and improve service to passengers, in the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), the operator of the airport, decided to construct an automated people mover system that would replace the shuttle buses and connect the CTA with the two parking lots, Howard Beach station, and the Jamaica station of the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) in Queens. This system eventually came to be called AirTrain (, ). The AirTrain system comprises an.-mile guideway that includes a.-mile loop within the CTA connecting the passenger terminals and two spur routes, one linking the passenger terminals with the airport long-term and employee parking lots, rental car facilities, and Howard Beach station, and the other connecting with the LIRR commuter trains at Jamaica station. The Jamaica station also provides connections to the NYCT subway E, J, and Z lines at the adjacent Sutphin Boulevard/Archer Avenue station, as well as connections to a large number of NYCT and Long Island bus routes. Six stations within the CTA serve the passenger terminals and four stations outside the CTA serve the LIRR and subway stations, long-term parking, rental car facilities, and an airport hotel. AirTrain is free for trips within the airport but currently costs $.00 to enter or exit at the Howard Beach or Jamaica stations. Children under five ride free. The system operates hours a day. From Jamaica station, the AirTrain ride to the CTA stations takes approximately minutes. In February the FAA approved partial funding of the project from Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenues with some restrictions, and in May the PANYNJ awarded a design-build-operate-maintain (DOBM) contract to a consortium of four firms operating as the Air Rail Transit Consortium (ARTC). The contract made ARTC responsible for the project s preliminary engineering, design completion, construction, installation, testing, demonstration, and operation and maintenance for a -year period, with optional -year contract extensions for up to 0 years. Construction of the AirTrain system began in and the system opened for service on December, 00. As the project evolved, the costs increased from the initial estimate of $ million to a final cost of $. billion. Part of the cost escalation resulted from the decision to add the segment between the airport and Jamaica station, which increased the DOBM contract award to $. billion. In addition, the PANYNJ established a contingency fund of $ million to cover uncertain or unanticipated costs arising during construction and reduce the provision for contingencies in the negotiated contract amount. The project budget also included $00 million for direct PANYNJ expenses, including land acquisition, some mitigation expenses, and a part of the design work. By the end of the construction phase of the project, some $ million of the contingency fund had been used. In early 00, the PANYNJ increased the budget for the

6 Gosling, Wei and Freeman project to $. billion reflecting an agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to finance improvements at the Jamaica LIRR station and to enhance the AirTrain station and the link between the two stations in order to create a gateway to JFK and facilitate intermodal connections. Oakland Airport Connector The Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) is a more recent project involving the construction of an automated people mover between the Oakland International Airport (OAK) and the nearby Coliseum/Oakland Airport station of the BART system, located about. miles north of the airport (0, ). The project sponsor is the BART District, working in collaboration with the Port of Oakland (the airport operator) and other local and regional agencies. The OAC alignment from the Coliseum BART station toward the airport follows the median of Hegenberger Road, one of the two major access arterials between Interstate 0 (I-0) and the airport, on an elevated guideway. Approaching the airport, the route swings east, descends into a tunnel under Doolittle Drive, a major arterial that runs along the north boundary of the airport, and emerges between Airport Drive, the main access road to the airport terminal, and an adjacent golf course. The OAC alignment continues at grade between Airport Drive and the golf course, returns to an elevated guideway as it approaches the airport terminal area, crosses the airport parking lot, and ends in front of the airport passenger terminal. The OAC will have two end stations. The current project does not include intermediate stations, but the design allows for additional future stations. The cost of the OAC has steadily increased over the history of the project. In, the proposed system had an estimated cost of $0 million. By 00, the estimated cost had increased to $0 million and the most recent projected total cost for the project is $ million. In December 00, BART announced its decision to award a design-build contract to a consortium of three firms, operating as the Flatiron/Parsons Joint Venture, and a separate contract to Doppelmayr Cable Car, one of the three firms, to operate and maintain the system for 0 years. The people mover technology proposed by the joint venture and currently being implemented uses cable-drawn cars. Following delays in finalizing the funding for the project, BART re-affirmed the awards in September 00. Site clearance work began in December 00, with construction starting in May 0 and revenue operation expected to commence in spring 0. Oakland Airport Roadway Project An earlier project at OAK, the Oakland Airport Roadway Project (ARP) expanded existing access roads serving the airport and constructed an entirely new road that improved access to a major cargo area on the airport and access from communities to the west of the airport (, ). The ARP widened Airport Drive from two lanes to six lanes, widened th Avenue, the second major access arterial between I-0 and the airport, and constructed the new road, subsequently named Ron Cowan Parkway, linking Bay Farm Island to the west of the airport with Airport Drive. The ARP was developed as part of a larger Airport Development Program to increase airport capacity and enhance airport ground access. In addition to providing improved access between Bay Farm Island and Airport Drive, Ron Cowan Parkway serves the FedEx air cargo complex located to the west of the passenger terminal area. The project included an underpass to take Ron Cowan Parkway under a taxiway that links the airfield facilities on the north and south sides of the airport. Prior to the construction of the underpass, vehicles accessing the FedEx complex had to enter the aircraft

7 Gosling, Wei and Freeman movement area and cross the taxiway at a controlled crossing. The project was undertaken as a partnership between the Port of Oakland, the City of Alameda, the City of Oakland, and the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA), formerly the Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA). The ARP had an original project cost estimate of $. million in with the majority of the funding coming from ACTA. By September 000, the estimated cost had increased to $ million. The project was divided into three contracts that were completed between December 00 and March 00. Richmond Airport Connector Another airport access roadway project, the Richmond Airport Connector (RAC) serving Richmond International Airport in Virginia, was developed through a public-private partnership (PPP) between the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and a private operator of a toll road located to the south of the airport (, ). The RAC is a divided four-lane highway that connects the existing Pocahontas Parkway Route toll road in Henrico County, Virginia, to the airport and has been developed to improve airport access and reduce congestion on access roadways serving the airport. The project provides one of the first examples of the use of a PPP for an airport access highway The Pocahontas Parkway was originally developed by the Pocahontas Parkway Association (PPA), a nonprofit organization established in to issue tax-exempt bonds to fund the construction of the toll road under a PPP with VDOT. The Parkway opened in 00. In June 00, Transurban (USA) Development, Inc., an Australian toll road developer and operator, entered into an agreement with the PPA and VDOT to buy the rights to operate and maintain the Parkway and develop the RAC under a new PPP. Transurban upgraded the toll system on the Parkway and constructed the RAC, which opened in January 0. In 00, the RAC was projected by Transurban to have a total cost of about $0 million. Construction costs were projected to be just under $0 million, with land acquisition and right-of-way costs a little over $0 million. While the RAC is reported to have reduced highway travel times to Richmond International Airport, it is located on the south side of the airport while much of the urban area in the region, including downtown Richmond, is located to the north and west of the airport. Thus using the RAC involves a greater driving distance for most airport trips compared to a more direct route, as well as using the Pocahontas Parkway toll road to access the RAC. Portland MAX Airport Extension A public-private partnership was also a major aspect of the extension of the Portland MAX light rail system to Portland International Airport (PDX) in Oregon (, ). The MAX system is operated by TriMet, the regional transit operator in the three-county metropolitan region. In, Bechtel Enterprises approached regional officials with a proposal to construct a.-mile extension of the MAX Red Line to PDX as a PPP. This extension was already included in regional transportation plans, but it was not expected that funding for the extension would be available until the 00 time frame. Bechtel proposed to provide private-sector funding for about a quarter of the project s cost in return for a sole-source contract to design and build the extension and development rights to a 0-acre site located near the airport on the planned alignment of the MAX airport extension. This site, which came to be called Cascade Station, was owned by the Port of Portland, the operator of the airport, and lay within the Airport Way Urban Renewal Area (URA) established by the Portland Development Commission of the City of Portland. The URA covered, acres along the shore of the Columbia River immediately

8 Gosling, Wei and Freeman to the east of the airport. A major factor in pursuing the project through the PPP was the expectation that this would allow the project to proceed many years earlier than it otherwise would have. The MAX airport extension has improved transit access to PDX by providing light rail service to a station adjacent to the airport terminal and encouraged greater use of transit for airport trips. The MAX extension cost $ million, with funding provided by TriMet, the Port of Portland, the City of Portland, and Bechtel Enterprises. No federal funds were used in the project, which simplified approvals and allowed more rapid decision making. Preliminary engineering cost $ million and construction cost $ million. The extension opened in September 00. San Francisco International Airport BART Extension The final case study, the extension of the BART system to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) provides a good illustration of the challenges that can be involved in extending rapid transit systems to airports (, ). Prior to opening the first stage of the BART extension into San Mateo County in, the system operated within three Bay Area counties, Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco, with the line through San Francisco terminating at Daly City on the southwest boundary of San Francisco. An extension of the system to the town of Colma in San Mateo County opened in July, and a longer extension further south into San Mateo County opened in June 00, with a station at SFO and a terminating station just south of SFO in the city of Millbrae. In addition to the stations in Colma, Millbrae and the airport, the extension includes stations in the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The Millbrae station provides cross-platform connections between BART and the Caltrain commuter rail service that connects San Francisco to San José and other communities in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, as well as connections with local buses. Between the San Bruno and Millbrae stations the BART line separates into a Y-shaped spur that serves a stub-end station at SFO, located adjacent to the departure level of the International Terminal. This requires trains to reverse direction at the airport station. Currently most trains from San Francisco go either to SFO or Millbrae, except at night and weekends when all trains between San Francisco and Millbrae stop at SFO. Trains serve the airport every to 0 minutes and the travel time to SFO from downtown San Francisco is about 0 minutes. When BART passengers reach SFO, they can either walk to their terminal or ride the free AirTrain people mover system that links the BART station with the four airport terminals. The BART extension from Daly City to SFO and Millbrae was originally envisaged as a single project. In October, the BART District decided to construct the.-mile section to Colma in advance of the rest of the extension. Work on the extension began in February and the Colma station opened in February. The extension from Daly City to Colma cost $0 million to construct, including the Colma station and a,00-space parking structure. The San Mateo County Transit District provided about percent of the costs to develop the Colma station. The majority of the balance of the costs was funded with grants from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as part of the overall funding authorized for the BART extension to SFO. While construction of the Colma extension was underway, planning continued for the -mile extension from Colma to SFO and Millbrae. During the planning a local political controversy arose over whether the airport BART station should be located in the passenger terminal complex, so that passengers could walk to their terminal from the station, or to the west of the U.S. Highway 0 freeway that runs past the airport, across the freeway from the airport, and link the station to the terminals with the automated people mover that the airport was

9 Gosling, Wei and Freeman planning to construct to provide inter-terminal transportation and connect to a planned rental car facility some distance away. Locating the station to the west of Highway 0 would have been considerably less expensive. However, there was strong local sentiment that the airport station should be in the passenger terminal complex, and two competing San Francisco ballot measures in June gave voters an opportunity to express their views. The ballot measure supporting the station in the passenger terminal complex received the most votes. Although the vote was not binding, the BART District developed a plan to tunnel under the freeway, with an underground station located adjacent to the International Terminal, then tunnel back under the freeway and continue further south at grade to terminate at the Millbrae station. It was quickly recognized that this plan would be extremely costly and would preclude using airport funds for the project, so an alternative plan was developed to construct a spur line into the airport, crossing the freeway on an aerial structure and ending at a stub-end station next to the International Terminal. This was the option that was eventually built. While this design reduced the cost compared to tunneling under the airport and allowed the airport to provide funding for the airport station, the spur line has created significant operational problems for the BART system. The cost for the extension from Colma to SFO and Millbrae increased throughout the life of the project for a variety of reasons, including higher construction costs, increased costs for right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation, unanticipated mitigation costs, and third party contracts for engineering and construction purposes. The estimated project cost in June, when the FTA committed $0 million toward the project under a New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreement, was $. billion to connect BART to the airport with a tunnel under Highway 0. This plan subsequently evolved to include the Millbrae station and the Y-spur into the airport. Construction of the extension formally started in November with a groundbreaking ceremony. The project was selected by the FTA to be one of the turnkey projects under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act that would potentially save time and cost on construction and development through the use of fewer contractors. In February, BART awarded two design-build contracts for the majority of the work on the SFO extension and the Millbrae intermodal station. By early 000 the estimated construction cost of the project had increased to $. billion. PROJECT FUNDING In addition to covering a range of different types of project, the seven case studies include a range of funding strategies and mechanisms. Table provides a summary of the funding sources and amounts for each of the case study projects. Direct federal grants provided a major component of only one project, the SFO BART extension. State transportation program funds formed a significant component of three projects, varying from 0 to percent of total project costs, and a smaller component of a fourth project. A diverse range of local funding sources formed a significant proportion of the funding for all but one of the projects, varying from to 00 percent of total project costs and accounting for more than half the funding for four of the projects. Private sector funding formed an important component of one project, the Portland MAX airport extension, and a smaller component of the funding for the Miami Intermodal Center. Loans or local bond debt provided part of the funding for four projects, with federal loans under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) supporting two projects. This program managed by the Federal Highway Administration provides federal loans for transportation projects on a revolving fund basis.

10 TABLE Case Study Project Funding Funding Source Miami Intermodal Center ($ million) JFK Airtrain ($ million) Oakland Airport Connector ($ million) Oakland Airport Roadway ($ million) Richmond Airport Connector ($ million) Portland MAX Airport Extension ($ million) SFO BART Extension ($ million) Federal TIP/LRTP b. na na na na na na FTA New Starts/Small Starts na na.0 na na na 0.0 State TIP/LRTP b,0. na na na na na na State grant programs na na.. na na.0 Local Airport capital funds c. 0 na. na na 00.0 PFC revenue na,. na na. na Transit agency funds na 0.0 na na.0. Toll revenue. na. na na na. Sales tax revenue na na.. na na na Contributed property na na na. na na na Other. na na. na na.0 Private sector funding Dedicated user revenue. na na na na na na Private partner funding na na na na.. na Loans or bond debt TIFIA. na na na.0 na na State transportation funds. na na na na na na State Infrastructure Bank. na na na na na na Local bonds na na 0. na na. na TOTAL,0.,00....,. Notes: a. Total may not sum due to rounding. na = not applicable. b. Surface transportation funds programmed through the Transportation Improvement Plan/Long Range Transportation Plan (TIP/LRTP). c. Including contributed services. Gosling, Wei and Freeman 0

11 Gosling, Wei and Freeman Miami Intermodal Center The most recent funding plan for the MIC project envisages that percent of the cost will be met from state funding, with percent covered by federal funding, principally a $ million TIFIA loan. The major component of state funding consists of $.0 billion in grants programmed through the state Transportation Improvement Plan and Long Range Transportation Plan, together with a $ million loan from the State Transportation Trust Fund and $0 million in loans from the State Infrastructure Bank. Local funding comprises $ million from MDAD as part of the Airport Capital Improvement Plan, $ million in dedicated revenue from the RCC, and $ million in Miami-Dade Expressway toll revenue. It is planned that the federal and state loans and capitalized interest will eventually be repaid from RCC revenue. JFK International Airport AirTrain In contrast to the MIC, the JFK AirTrain system is a project that was conceived, planned, and developed entirely within the airport authority and largely funded through traditional sources for airport capital development. The FAA approved the use of $. billion in PFC funds, or about 0 percent of the final $. billion project cost. This project represented the first use of PFC revenue by an airport to fund an automated people mover link to nearby rail stations. To meet the requirement that PFC revenue be used only for projects on airport property, the airport acquired the right-of-way for the people mover along the median of the Van Wyck Expressway, a state highway running between the airport and the Jamaica commuter railroad and subway station, making the right-of-way part of the airport. Although this approach was challenged by the airlines in a lawsuit against the FAA, the court upheld the FAA decision to approve the use of PFC revenue for that aspect of the project. The use of PANYNJ capital funds for the majority of the elements of the project not funded by PFC revenues demonstrates the importance assigned to improved intermodal connections to regional rail systems by the PANYNJ in planning to meet future airport access needs at JFK. The development of an integrated system serving inter-terminal connections and providing links to car rental facilities, parking and other on-airport facilities, as well as regional rail systems allowed the costs of developing and operating the AirTrain system to be spread across the greatest number of riders. The MTA contributed $ million toward the cost of the additional improvements at Jamaica station. Oakland Airport Connector In the case of the Oakland Airport Connector, the BART District s latest funding plan for the project includes a total of twelve different funding sources: five local, six state, and one federal, supplemented by borrowing. The largest component of the planned funding comprises $ million from funds generated by regional transportation measures that allocated bridge toll revenues to supporting investments in public transportation, followed by $ million from ACTIA using funds from a local sales tax measure for transportation projects in Alameda County. The six state programs will contribute $ million in total. The FTA has agreed to provide a $ million grant under the Small Starts program.. The Port of Oakland will provide $ million from PFC revenues and BART will provide $0 million from its own funds. Therefore the two agencies most directly involved in the motivation for the project are contributing a relatively small amount of the total funding. As of July 00, BART had anticipated that about % of the capital cost of the project would be covered by a $0 million

12 Gosling, Wei and Freeman TIFIA loan, which of course would eventually have to be repaid from fare revenue or other sources. However, in November 00 BART learned that its request for a TIFIA loan was not selected for funding and began exploring alternate debt financing options, which would incur higher interest costs. Oakland Airport Roadway Project The Oakland Airport Roadway Project was funded almost entirely by local funds, without any direct federal aid and with only a small amount of state funding. The largest component of the local funds consisted of $ million from ACTIA, largely derived from a local sales tax measure for transportation projects within Alameda County, with the second largest component of $ million provided by the Port of Oakland. The City of Alameda and the City of Oakland also contributed about $ million in local funds. Richmond Airport Connector The Richmond Airport Connector provides a completely different funding model from the Oakland ARP, which was possible because of the presence of the toll road to which the RAC is linked. This allows all traffic using the RAC to be charged a toll, which in turn provides the revenue stream to service the loans and provide the private toll road operator with a return on its equity investment in the project. The RAC was primarily funded with a federal TIFIA loan, although the Pocahontas Parkway toll road to which it is connected was funded with a combination of private loans from a consortium of banks, equity investment by the toll road operator, and part of the TIFIA loan. VDOT applied for the TIFIA loan on behalf of Transurban as part of the financial agreement to have Transurban take over operation of the Pocahontas Parkway and construct the RAC. Portland MAX Airport Extension The Portland MAX Airport extension funding made use of a PPP to allow the project to be implemented many years earlier than it would have been otherwise. By providing Bechtel Enterprises with development rights to land adjacent to the airport in return for covering some of the costs of constructing the light rail extension, the public costs involved in developing the airport link were reduced by about percent. However, local and regional agencies contributed a significant share of the project funding. The City of Portland contributed $ million toward the construction cost of the.-mile segment from the start of the extension at the Gateway Transit Center along the median of Interstate 0 to Cascade Station. Since the segment is within the Airport Way URA, the City was able to issue tax increment bonds to finance its contribution. TriMet provided $ million from its general funds to cover the balance of the construction cost of the. mile segment. The Port of Portland contributed $ million from PFC revenues for the segment on airport property, approximately the same as the assessment of the value of Bechtel s contribution. San Francisco International Airport BART Extension About half of the project cost was funded from a federal grant under the New Starts program for major transit capital investments. The balance came from a combination of local and state funds, including $00 million contributed by SFO from airport capital funds, $ million from BART s own funds, $ million from the San Mateo County Transit District, $ million in state funds, and $ million in regional bridge toll funds from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

13 Gosling, Wei and Freeman CONCLUSIONS The projects documented in the seven case studies show that funding sources for major intermodal airport ground access projects vary widely with the nature and location of the project. All the projects involved some collaboration between several local, state and federal agencies in developing the funding plan for each project, although the number of agencies involved varied across the projects. In general, the larger projects tended to have more agencies involved in providing funding, with the notable exception of the JFK AirTrain, which was almost entirely funded from just two sources, PFC revenue and PANYNJ capital funds. Therefore, developing a funding package for such a project requires the involvement of a broad range of stakeholder agencies as well as a detailed knowledge of potential funding sources. Although the extent to which this has influenced funding decisions is often unclear after the fact, active support for a project by elected federal, state, and local government representatives serving the area can play an important role in obtaining funding, as discussed in some of the case study working papers. The use of TIFIA or other loans was part of the funding plan for several of the projects. While this reduced the level of funding required from other sources, potentially allowing the project to proceed earlier than it otherwise would have, these loans eventually have to be repaid. In cases where a project will generate a net revenue stream once it is completed, consideration can be given to the use of loans or other debt as part of the funding package, along with opportunities for a PPP. In some cases, private-sector participants may be able to obtain a return on their investments in a project through the award of development rights that are tied in some way to the project, as occurred with the Portland MAX airport extension. Furthermore, by configuring the resulting Cascade Station development around a station on the MAX airport extension, the operating costs of the extension are partly offset by the fare revenue from transit trips generated by the development. The extent to which the case study projects were able to take advantage of synergies between different transportation services and between airport and non-airport trips also varied widely across the projects. The MIC represents the most integrated approach, combining a consolidated rental car facility for MIA with the primary station in the Miami region for longdistance rail and bus services. Regional rail lines and bus routes that also serve the station provide access to both the airport and the long-distance rail and bus services. Thus, the MIC will serve a much broader function than just improving airport ground access and will enable the airport to evolve into the primary intermodal hub for the region. This provides a promising model for the development of a major airport as a regional intermodal hub that leverages investments in airport landside facilities and airport access services to both enhance airport access and serve a broader range of regional surface travel. Key to the implementation of this approach is the participation of a wide range of regional stakeholder agencies in the planning and funding of the facility, as well as the use of a broad range of different funding sources, some typically associated with airport infrastructure development and others generally used for surface transportation projects. In the case of the MIC, these funding sources include a mix of direct funding, loans, and fees from commercial operations and eventually joint land use development opportunities. The MIC also provides a good illustration of the potential role of state Departments of Transportation in working with local agencies to develop major intermodal facilities and enhancing airport access by public transportation. In addition to improving access to the airport, the SFO BART extension extended BART service into San Mateo County and provided a direct link at the Millbrae station between the

14 Gosling, Wei and Freeman Caltrain service and the BART system, creating a significant improvement in transit connectivity in the region. Previously, the connection between Caltrain and BART required riders to take a bus between the San Francisco Caltrain station and the closest BART station. Key to being able to take advantage of similar opportunities for improved connectivity at other airports is the ability to combine airport development funds with funding sources for surface transportation intermodal facilities in a way that benefits both airport users and those making other types of trips. None of the other case study projects offer similar synergies, although they all result in enhanced access to the respective airports. Of the five other projects, the OAC will simply replace an existing shuttle bus service. In contrast, the AirTrain connection between JFK and Jamaica station provided a significant improvement in the connectivity between the airport and rail services into Manhattan, as well as acting as a stimulus to the modernization of Jamaica station. The Portland MAX airport extension also provided a significant improvement in airport access by providing a one-seat ride by light rail between the airport and central Portland and communities on the Red Line, with easy connections to the other MAX lines. The two airport roadway projects provide enhanced highway access to the respective airports, although with very different funding arrangements. The Oakland ARP improvements provided a significant increment in roadway capacity and a more direct route for many vehicle trips to and from the airport. In contrast, the travel time benefits for many potential users of the RAC are somewhat offset by the greater driving distance required and the cost of the toll to use the Pocahontas Parkway. Underlying several of the case study projects is the dilemma that, in many cases, the approach to improving airport accessibility that offers the most benefit in travel time and convenience is also the most expensive. Although the case studies focused on the way the various projects were funded and have not attempted to assess whether the costs were justified by the project benefits, this is a critical question in planning such projects, since changes in project scope change the amount of funding required to implement the project. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The research described in this paper was undertaken for the Mineta Transportation Institute at San José State University under the project Collaborative Funding to Facilitate Airport Ground Access, sponsored by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. The authors acknowledge the contribution of MTI staff members who provided administrative support and assisted with editing and production of project reports, as well as the helpful comments that were received from the anonymous reviewers of the final report of the project and the initial version of this paper. REFERENCES. Gosling, G. D., W. Wei, and D. Freeman. Collaborative Funding to Facilitate Airport Ground Access. Report -. Mineta Transportation Institute, San José State University, San José, California, June 0.. Wei, W., G. D. Gosling, and D. Freeman. Strategies for Collaborative Funding of Intermodal Airport Ground Access Projects. Presented at nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 0.. Landrum & Brown (with Booz Allen & Hamilton, Planning Company Associates, and Nelson/Nygaard). Ground Access to Airport Study. Prepared for the California

15 Gosling, Wei and Freeman Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, Sacramento, California, August 00.. Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities. Report GAO-0-. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C., July 00.. Lu, X-Y, G. D. Gosling, and J. Xiong. Opportunities for Improved Intermodal Connectivity at California Airports. California PATH Working Paper UCB-ITS-PWP Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, March 00.. Florida Department of Transportation. Miami Intermodal Center. Accessed May, 0.. Gosling, G. D., and D. Freeman. Case Study Report: Miami Intermodal Center. Working Paper. Mineta Transportation Institute, San José State University, San José, California, May 0.. Omega Centre: Centre for Mega Projects in Transport and Development. Project Profile: New York Airtrain. Bartlett School of Planning, University College, London, England, September, 0. Accessed March, 0.. Gosling, G. D., and D. Freeman. Case Study Report: John F. Kennedy International Airport AirTrain. Working Paper. Mineta Transportation Institute, San José State University, San José, California, May Bay Area Rapid Transit District. Oakland Airport Connector. Accessed August, 00.. Freeman, D., W. Wei, and G.D. Gosling. Case Study Report: Oakland International Airport BART Connector. Working Paper. Mineta Transportation Institute, San José State University, San José, California, May 0.. Port of Oakland. Project Update The Airport Roadway Project. Web page status as of June, 00. web.archive.org/web/0000/ proj_0.asp. Accessed April 0, 0.. Freeman, D., W. Wei, and G.D. Gosling. Case Study Report: Oakland International Airport Roadway Project. Working Paper. Mineta Transportation Institute, San José State University, San José, California, May 0.. Transurban Pocahontas. Development Airport Connector. Accessed December, 00.. Freeman, D., W. Wei, and G.D. Gosling. Case Study Report: Richmond Airport Connector. Working Paper. Mineta Transportation Institute, San José State University, San José, California, May 0.. PB Consult. Airport Max A Case Study. Prepared for the AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance, Washington, D.C., April funding_financing/funding/local_funding/airport_max_case_study.pdf. Accessed August, 00.. Gosling, G. D., and D. Freeman. Case Study Report: Portland MAX Airport Extension. Working Paper. Mineta Transportation Institute, San José State University, San José, California, May 0.. Federal Transit Administration. San Francisco, California/BART Extension to San Francisco International Airport. November congress/planning_environment_00.html. Accessed June 0, 00.

16 Gosling, Wei and Freeman. Freeman, D., W. Wei, and G.D. Gosling. Case Study Report: San Francisco International Airport BART Extension. Working Paper. Mineta Transportation Institute, San José State University, San José, California, May 0.