Final Report Part 2 – Union Station

NW Corridor Transit Planning Project Part 2 – Union Station Planning Final Report

Capitol Region Council of Governments

April, 2010

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation (including its participating agencies) and the Connecticut Department of Transportation. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the Capitol Region Council of Governments and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Connecticut Department of Transportation and/or the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ...... 1-1 1.1 Existing Conditions ...... 1-1 1.2 Future Scenarios and Alternatives ...... 1-1 1.3 Recommended Alternatives...... 1-2 1.4 Next Steps ...... 1-3 2.0 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.1 Goals and Objectives of the Union Station Plan ...... 2-1 2.2 Report Contents ...... 2-2 3.0 History and Existing Conditions ...... 3-1 3.1 Brief History ...... 3-1 3.2 Existing Site Environment ...... 3-1 3.3 General Building Composition ...... 3-4 3.4 Existing Occupation/Leasing Arrangements ...... 3-5 4.0 Operations Assessment ...... 4-1 4.1 Intercity Bus Traffic ...... 4-1 4.2 Local Bus Traffic ...... 4-1 4.3 Amtrak Service ...... 4-1 4.4 Taxi and Private Auto Traffic ...... 4-1 4.5 Bicycle Accommodations ...... 4-2 4.6 Pedestrian Accommodations and Accessible Paths of Travel ...... 4-2 4.7 Other Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Issues ...... 4-5 4.8 Safety and Security ...... 4-5 4.9 Historical Preservation Requirements ...... 4-6 4.10 Summary of Operational Analysis ...... 4-9 5.0 Economic Conditions for Union Station ...... 5-1 5.1 Economic Background ...... 5-1 5.2 Union Station Leasing ...... 5-1 5.3 Optimal Tenant Mix ...... 5-1 5.4 Development Concept ...... 5-3 5.5 Market Factors (External) ...... 5-3 5.6 Secondary/Tertiary Market Factors ...... 5-5 5.7 Internal Constraints ...... 5-5 5.8 Tenants and Leasing ...... 5-6 5.9 Revenues ...... 5-6 5.10 Expenses ...... 5-7 5.11 Summary Economic Conditions for Union Station ...... 5-8 6.0 Circulation Conditions Near Union Station ...... 6-1 6.1 Traffic Conditions ...... 6-1 6.2 Pedestrian Assessment ...... 6-9 7.0 Parking Conditions at and Near Union Station ...... 7-1 8.0 Future Scenarios ...... 8-1 8.1 Future Population, Employment, Development, Traffic and Parking Near Union Station ...... 8-1 8.2 Scenario A: New Britain Busway and Commuter Rail ...... 8-7 8.3 Circulation for Scenario A (No Build) ...... 8-10 8.4 Scenario B: Local Bus Transfer Facility at Union Station ...... 8-19 8.5 Development Options for Union Station ...... 8-20

Union Station Plan Final Report Page i April, 2010

9.0 Union Station Alternatives ...... 9-1 9.1 Union Station Alternative Evaluation Criteria ...... 9-1 9.2 Union Station Design Charrette ...... 9-4 9.3 Union Station Alternatives ...... 9-4 9.4 Transit Center Alternatives ...... 9-8 9.5 Comparison of Transit Center Alternatives ...... 9-21 10.0 Recommended Operating Plan for Union Station ...... 10-1 10.1 Union Station with Enhanced Ground Transportation Center ...... 10-1 10.2 Local Bus Transit Center ...... 10-7 11.0 Capital Costs for Union Station ...... 11-1 11.1 Capital Cost for Improvements to Union Station ...... 11-1 11.2 Capital Costs for the Transit Center ...... 11-2 12.0 Plan for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Other Improvements Near Union Station ...... 12-1 12.1 TOD Opportunities ...... 12-1 12.2 Pedestrian and Aesthetic Improvements around Union Station ...... 12-4 13.0 Parking...... 13-1 13.1 Assumptions for the Scenario B or “Build” Scenario ...... 13-1 13.2 Future Parking Supply ...... 13-3 13.3 Summary ...... 13-3 14.0 Circulation ...... 14-1 14.1 Traffic Analysis ...... 14-1 14.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation ...... 14-9 14.3 Summary of Circulation Issues ...... 14-10 15.0 Summary and Next Steps ...... 15-1 Appendix A: Public Outreach Efforts ...... A-1

Union Station Plan Final Report Page ii April, 2010

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Operating Plan for Union Station ...... 1-5 Figure 1-2: Union Station Campus Including Union Station Improvements, a Transit Center and TOD ...... 1-6 Figure 1-3: Transit Oriented Development ...... 1-7 Figure 3-1: Historic Photo of Union Station after 1914 Fire...... 3-1 Figure 3-2: Union Station Existing Site Map ...... 3-2 Figure 3-3: Front Elevation Union Station (facing west) ...... 3-3 Figure 3-4: Intercity Bus Bays (facing south) ...... 3-3 Figure 3-5:Intercity Bus Bays & Passenger Drop-off Along Spruce Street (facing north) ...... 3-3 Figure 3-6: Spruce Street Parking Lot (facing west) ...... 3-3 Figure 3-7: Amtrak Train Entering Station (facing south) ...... 3-4 Figure 3-8: Amtrak Passenger Platform & View of Elevator Vestibule (facing south) ...... 3-4 Figure 3-9: Usage Plan for Union Station (August 2007) ...... 3-6 Figure 3-10: Great Hall with Storefront Offices (facing north) ...... 3-7 Figure 3-11: Great Hall with Entrance Vestibule (facing east) ...... 3-7 Figure 3-12: Stairs between Great Hall & Ground Transportation ...... 3-8 Figure 3-13: Ground Transportation Center Lobby (facing east) ...... 3-8 Figure 4-1: Access Plan for Union Station ...... 4-3 Figure 5-1: Walksheds of ¼ and ½ Mile around Union Station ...... 5-3 Figure 6-1: Daily Traffic Volumes, September 2007 ...... 6-1 Figure 6-2: Study Area Intersections ...... 6-2 Figure 6-3: 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes AM [Mid Day] (PM) Peak Hour ...... 6-3 Figure 6-4: 2007 Existing Overall Intersection Level-of-Service ...... 6-8 Figure 6-5: Pedestrian Activity (Overall) ...... 6-9 Figure 6-6: Pedestrian Activity (Highest Hourly) ...... 6-10 Figure 7-1: Surveyed Parking Facilities Near Union Station ...... 7-3 Figure 7-2: Utilization of Parking Lots Near Union Station ...... 7-4 Figure 8-1: Downtown Population Density ...... 8-2 Figure 8-2: Downtown Hartford Population Projections ...... 8-3 Figure 8-3: Downtown Employment Density ...... 8-3 Figure 8-4: Downtown Employment Makeup ...... 8-4 Figure 8-5: Downtown Non-Retail Employment ...... 8-5 Figure 8-6: Downtown Retail Employment ...... 8-5 Figure 8-7: Union Station Area Land Use (July 2007) ...... 8-6 Figure 8-8: New Britain Busway Terminus ...... 8-7 Figure 8-9: BRT Traffic Flow ...... 8-11 Figure 8-10: Commuter Rail Site Generated Trips ...... 8-13 Figure 8-11: 2017 No-Build Traffic Volumes ...... 8-14 Figure 8-12: Level of Service Issues (No-Build 2017) ...... 8-15 Figure 8-13: Overall Intersection Level of Service Existing (2007) and No Build (2017) ...... 8-18 Figure 8-14: Spruce Street Triangle Parcel ...... 8-20 Figure 8-15: Cross Section of Potential Spruce Street Development Looking North ...... 8-21 Figure 8-16: Capitol West Parcel ...... 8-22 Figure 8-17: Cross Section of Potential Capitol West Parcel Looking North ...... 8-22 Figure 9-1: Alternative 1—Modified Union Station ...... 9-5 Figure 9-2: Intercity Bus Driveway Separating Buses from Taxis ...... 9-6 Figure 9-3: Alternative 2—Relocated Spruce Street ...... 9-8 Figure 9-4: General Site Locations for Downtown Transit Center ...... 9-10 Figure 9-5: Site Area Option A—Transit Center Level ...... 9-11

Union Station Plan Final Report Page iii April, 2010

Figure 9-6: Site Area Option A—First Level of Parking Above Transit Center ...... 9-11 Figure 9-7: Site Option Area B1—Union Place (Saw-toothed) ...... 9-13 Figure 9-8: Site Option Area B2—Union Place (Straight Curb) ...... 9-14 Figure 9-9: Site Area Option C—Cul-de-Sac ...... 9-15 Figure 9-10: Site Area Option C—Parking Garage on top of Transit Center ...... 9-16 Figure 9-11: Site Area Option D1—Spruce Street—Off-Street ...... 9-17 Figure 9-12: Site Area Option D2—Spruce Street—On-Street (Saw-toothed) ...... 9-18 Figure 9-13: Site Area Option D3—Spruce Street—On-Street (Straight Curb) ...... 9-18 Figure 9-14: Site Area Option E— Transit Center Level ...... 9-20 Figure 9-15: Site Area Option E— First Level of Parking Above Transit Center ...... 9-21 Figure 10-1: Union Station Masterplan ...... 10-3 Figure 10-2: Existing and New Area Plan ...... 10-4 Figure 10-3: Station Operating Plan ...... 10-5 Figure 10-4: Circulation and Platform Level Improvements ...... 10-6 Figure 12-1: TOD Opportunities Near Union Station ...... 12-3 Figure 14-1: Peak Hour Local and Commuter Bus Volumes ...... 14-3 Figure 14-2: 2017 Build Traffic Volumes Transit Center Option ...... 14-4 Figure 14-3: Overall Intersection Level of Service Future 2017 No-Build and Build Conditions...... 14-8 Figure 14-4: Level of Service Issues Transit Center Option (2017) ...... 14-9

Union Station Plan Final Report Page iv April, 2010

List of Tables

Table 5-1: Demographics within Walksheds ...... 5-5 Table 6-1: Level-of-Service Summary Existing Conditions (2007) ...... 6-6 Table 6-2: Pedestrian Activity Summary Existing Conditions (2007) ...... 6-10 Table 7-1: Observed Parking Occupancy ...... 7-5 Table 8-1: Status of Surface Parking Spaces within Two Blocks of Union Station (2007) ...... 8-10 Table 8-2: Level of Service Summary ...... 8-16 Table 9-1: Summary of Alternatives Comparison...... 9-23 Table 11-1: Capital Costs for Union Station Improvements ...... 11-1 Table 11-2: Transit Center Costs ...... 11-3 Table 13-1: Parking Demand Summary Existing (2007) and Future Build Condition (2017) ...... 13-4 Table 13-2: Future Parking Demand/Supply Summary (2017) ...... 13-5 Table 14-1: Trip Generation Summary: Transit Center and BRT Peak Hour Generated Trips ...... 14-3 Table 14-2: Level-of-Service Summary No-Build Condition and Transit Center Option (2017) ...... 14-6 Table A-1: List of All Public Outreach Meetings

Union Station Plan Final Report Page v April, 2010

Union Station Plan Final Report Page vi April, 2010

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Union Station in Hartford is a historic center for intermodal transportation for the state capital. It promises to become more important as the New Britain Busway and the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail are implemented in the near future. In view of these improvements and the potential for a transit center being located near Union Station, this study was undertaken to evaluate the existing conditions at the station, and ways the station could be improved in concert with its future role.

1.1 Existing Conditions The evaluation of the existing conditions at the station determined that much is going well. While there were minor issues with station structure, it was in good shape. There were concerns about the Amtrak train platforms connected with the station, and some of these issues were corrected during the course of this study. Further improvements can be expected along with the implementation of the new commuter rail. Union Station is almost fully leased, which is an excellent situation in the current market conditions. One concern is the dated appearance of the Ground Transportation Center and the underutilization of the beautiful Great Hall. Analysis of circulation and parking near the station found that overall, the roadway and intersection performance was adequate and there was sufficient parking to meet current needs. Two intersections (Spruce and Asylum, High and Allyn) exhibited problems during the afternoon peak hour.

1.2 Future Scenarios and Alternatives Future conditions for the station were assessed for two different scenarios: Scenario A which assumes that the New Britain Busway and the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail are implemented, and Scenario B which also adds a Transit Center in the vicinity of Union Station.

Assuming that the proposed transportation services are implemented, there is new potential for development in the vicinity of Union Station. One of the goals of this study was to insure that its recommendations were compatible with and encouraged Transit Oriented Development, also called TOD. Thus, early in this study effort developments were suggested for the Spruce Street Lot and also for the site now occupied by the Capitol West Building. Options for either a residential mixed used development or office development were shown for the Spruce Street Lot site and for residential development at the Capitol West site.

An analysis of traffic circulation for Scenario A was done to assess this “no build” condition—“no-build” because only the most certain improvements are assumed to exist. This study found that while the roadways could continue to function satisfactorily overall, the level of service for the two problem intersections did deteriorate further from the current situation, with more movements affected, and the AM peak being a problem in addition to the PM peak hour. Also, there will be a need for additional parking to accommodate commuter rail passengers, even under demand conditions that are constrained by parking limitations.

Two alternative designs were suggested for Union Station, one contemplating an enlarged and more distinctive entrance to the Ground Transportation Center and rearrangement of the transportation functions outside, and another contemplating movement of Spruce Street to allow for a park-like space which would replace the Spruce Street parking facility. Of these designs, the clear winner was the alternative which added a more grand entrance to Union Station.

Several alternative locations and designs were suggested for a new local bus transfer center (the Transit Center) near Union Station. These included using nearby streets, two locations at Church and High Street, the Spruce Street Lot and the North Parking Lot where Hartford Insurance Group employees currently park. Based on conclusions from the Downtown Circulation portion of the NW Corridor Study, the Transit Center needs to house 20 buses during peak

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 1-1 April, 2010

periods. Based on information from CTTRANSIT and assumptions about New Britain Busway buses, 8 of those 20 bus bays need to handle articulated buses.

The various options for location/design of a Transit Center were evaluated considering evaluation criteria including 1) safety of operations and passengers, 2) convenience, 3) operational functionality, 4) flexibility and expandability of design, 5) supporting Union Station and the area as a “great place”, and 6) feasibility including cost and political acceptance of the option. Given these criteria, the on-street options were eliminated as not providing any advantages and having many disadvantages. There were issues with traffic and reducing on-street parking. Customer convenience would be compromised due to the spread out location of the buses. The bus traffic along the streets would not enhance Union Station as a “great place.”

The alternative of a Transit Center at the Spruce Street Lot was also rejected. It had a number of disadvantages including lacking the space required to accommodate the 20 buses. Fewer than 16 spaces could be accommodated if some of these were articulated buses. Using the lot for a Transit Center would also eliminate the most promising space for TOD, since this location provides excellent views of Bushnell Park, and is very convenient to Union Station.

An alternative location on the southwest corner of Church and High Streets was found to have some advantages, but due to more constrained space and problem grades it was found to be inferior to the site on the southeast corner of Church and High Streets.

The site on the southeast corner of Church and High streets has the advantage of being closer to Main Street, thus requiring fewer detours to transit routes which are ultimately destined to Main Street where many passengers will alight. It also has the advantage of being in an active area which should increase passengers perception of personal safety. On the other hand, the site is constrained, so that fitting more than 16 buses in the center may be difficult. There is likely to be significant impact on adjacent roadways due to multiple driveways being required for bus entries and exits. Also there is likely to be more opposition to this site from local businesses.

The site at the North Parking Lot has the advantage of having lots of room, so could accommodate a larger transit center. It could fit nicely with joint development options which could increase liveliness in the area. It would cause fewer vehicle conflicts with local roadways, and opposition is likely to be less to a transit center located here. Its disadvantages, however, include being more isolated and being far from Main Street and the center of downtown, thus requiring more extensive and more costly re-routing of major north-south bus routes. Security for passengers here is likely to be more of an issue than for the Church and High location.

Since only one site was to be developed for this project, the North Parking Lot location was selected. Subsequent to the completion of the technical work for this study, the City of Hartford has concluded that the more desirable location for a transit center from the City’s point of view would be on the southeast corner of Church and High Streets. As a further site selection process is undertaken, other possible sites that were not considered may also be identified and sites previously considered unavailable may become available as conditions change. There may be ways to develop the two sites at Church and High Street together to provide increased space.

1.3 Recommended Alternatives Once a choice was made for a future design/operating plan for Union Station and a site was selected for a Transit Center, more detailed plans for these improvements were developed. The design for Union Station calls for increasing the Ground Transportation Center by around 10,750 square feet. This enlarged center would be designed with a grand entrance, and more passenger waiting space and table space for passengers purchasing food.

The intercity buses would be located to the north of the entrance, with ticketing and passenger waiting space with a view to the buses. There would be space for a rental car facility and two new retail stores. The recommendations also

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 1-2 April, 2010

include plans for increasing the use of the Great Hall, by including a bar/restaurant facility, a newsstand, and encouraging passengers to wait there with better information on train arrivals.

Improvements would be made to all facilities to bring them into full compliance with ADA. An elevator and escalator to the commuter rail tracks would be added. Figure 1-1 shows the operating plan for the Union Station improvements.

The concept of a Transit Center at the North Parking Lot was also developed in concert with a new Air Rights Garage to help provide additional parking for future commuter rail passengers as well as adjacent TOD. The Transit Center is designed to accommodate 20 buses, including 8 articulated vehicles. The center would include a small climate controlled facility for waiting passengers. The Air Rights Garage would hold up to 660 parking spaces (220 per floor for 3 floors). The garage should be sized to accommodate commuter rail parking needs as well as adjacent TOD. The Transit Center would be connected with Union Station with improved pedestrian walkways with enhanced lighting, paving, wayfinding and a partial canopy cover at the pedestrian level. Figure 1-2 shows the Master Plan for the Union Station campus including the Transit Center.

TOD recommendations include development of a residential high-rise building of 12-15 floors at the Spruce Street Lot, and other residential developments at the Capitol West site and on Myrtle Street with its back to the Air Rights Garage. Residential mixed use development is recommended for the Spruce Street Lot rather than office space since the view of Bushnell park would seem especially attractive for residential units and since the parking requirement for residential is less than for office. Commuter rail is expected to greatly increase the demand for parking in the vicinity, so development with a lower parking demand next to Union Station is preferred to a development with higher demand. Also, adding residential units would increase the liveliness of the station area in the evening.

Other recommendations focused on improving the pedestrian conditions near the station. Figure 1-3 illustrates how TOD would be integrated with the transportation plans at Union Station.

An analysis of the circulation implications of Scenario B (including the New Britain Busway, the New Haven-Hartford- Springfield Commuter Rail and the Transit Center) with all of the TOD options showed more deterioration in the level of service of intersections around Union Station. In addition to further deterioration in the level of service at Spruce and Asylum, there the Spruce, Myrtle and Church Street intersection shows very poor level of service in the afternoon peak hour. However, detailed planning for circulation improvements will need to await more definitive plans for the location of the Transit Center. If Scenario B is fully implemented with the TOD and parking plans described in the report, there should be adequate parking to meet the commuter rail demand as well as TOD.

1.4 Next Steps In keeping with the growing importance of Union Station as a transportation center for the State Capital of Connecticut, it is only fitting that improvements be made in the physical facility to match the coming transportation improvements. The Ground Transportation Center is a somewhat dated facility that would benefit from modernization to increase space for waiting passengers and to meet current ADA requirements. The Great Hall is underutilized—so changes to make the Great Hall function better as a waiting area for passengers as well as other visitors would be a welcome improvement. The suggested plan for Union Station would modernize the Ground Transportation Center with better space meeting ADA requirements, add a very visible entrance to the station, add retail space, and provide for better use of the Great Hall. It would also provide capacity for increased passenger traffic to the train level by adding an elevator and escalator.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 1-3 April, 2010

happen once plans for the viaduct become more firm. Some suggested changes which would not be affected by changes in the viaduct—such as addition of a bar inside the Great Hall or certain accessibility improvements could be made immediately. If the viaduct is to remain as is, a plan such as suggested here could move forward to the design phase immediately.

This report also carries forth a recommendation from the Downtown Circulation portion of the NW Corridor Study that there be a Transit Center in the vicinity of Union Station. While this report has selected a particular location for the transit center, the key recommendation is that the site be north of Asylum and south and west of Main Street. This portion of the recommendation requires more study because there were two sites judged about equal for placement of the Transit Center. Also and other sites that were not considered or unavailable at the time of this study may become available. Thus a follow-up effort from this current work is another more detailed study to determine the best location for the Transit Center.

This report recommends a number of TOD options to go along with the recommended master plan for Union Station and a Transit Center. While the current economic environment is not conducive to such types of development, the objective of this analysis was to show how such development could be paired with Union Station improvements, and to insure that the improvements did not inhibit such TOD. Since partnerships between the public and private entities could help to make such developments financially feasible, the City of Hartford and the Greater Hartford Transit District should remain alert to these opportunities as the economy improves. For example, there could be a shared investment in the parking facilities that are described as part of the TOD. Certainly Union Station will become a more important location for residential development once the New Britain BRT and the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail have been implemented.

The circulation analysis for the various scenarios shows that there is room with the current roadways for many of these improvements, but that traffic at certain intersections will deteriorate. Even if only Scenario A takes place (implementation of the planned New Britain busway and the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail), intersection level of service near Union Station in peak periods does deteriorate. A Transit Center at the North Parking Lot and implementation of all the TOD causes more deterioration in the level of service. However, detailed planning for circulation improvements will need to await more definitive plans for the location of the Transit Center. Parking for commuter rail will be an issue at Union Station, since available spaces in lots near Union Station are not sufficient to handle the forecast need for parking even when demand forecasts consider parking constraints. The “full-build” scenario (which includes an Air-Rights garage over the Transit Center) does anticipate development of new parking spaces for commuter rail which should be sufficient to allow for new transportation demand as well as parking associated with recommended TOD. If a future Transit Center is located close to Union Station—say either at the North Parking Lot or the corner of High and Church, increased parking for commuter rail should certainly be part of the plan. The sizing of a parking lot to accompany a new Transit Center will depend on the need for commuter rail parking as well as any adjacent TOD.

In summary, the future for Union Station is anticipated to be good as the planned transportation developments are implemented. Improvements to the station should be made to make it fit with its increased importance as a transportation center for Hartford.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 1-4 April, 2010

Figure 1-1: Operating Plan for Union Station

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 1-5 April, 2010

Figure 1-2: Union Station Campus Including Union Station Improvements, a Transit Center and TOD

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 1-6 April, 2010

Figure 1-3: Transit Oriented Development

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 1-7 April, 2010

2.0 INTRODUCTION

This is the Final Report for Part 2 of the Northwest Corridor Study being conducted on behalf of the Capitol Region Council of Governments by TranSystems Corporation. Part 1 examined options for improving transit in the Northwest Corridor of greater Hartford, with particular focus on the Day Hill Road area (Final Report dated June 16, 2009). Part 2 focuses on improving Union Station—the southern point of the NW Corridor and transportation center for intercity bus services, Amtrak service, the New Britain Busway and future commuter rail service. Part 3 focused on downtown circulation improvements for bus service, and made recommendations which included developing a transit center in the vicinity of Union Station (Final Report dated August 31, 2009).

This report describes the use and condition of Union Station and its environs. It examines options for improving the operations of the facility, and makes recommendations for future investment. Such investment will become even more desirable with the initiation of future New Haven to Springfield commuter rail service and the New Britain Busway. Given the recommendation from Part 3 of the study for a future inner city transit center near Union Station, this report examines potential sites for that transit center and proposes development options for one of the locations. To increase the activity and livability of the area around Union Station, this report makes recommendations for future additional development adjacent to the facility. This report also examines the potential future traffic conditions and parking situation with the planned improvements and development.

2.1 Goals and Objectives of the Union Station Plan The overarching goal for Part 2 is to provide a plan to maximize the potential of Union Station as a key transportation terminal and architectural/social resource for the City of Hartford. To do this there are several goals:

■ Determine the current state of Union Station as a physical building and as an intermodal transportation terminal. ■ Develop operating and development scenarios for Union Station to serve planned new services (New Britain Busway and commuter rail) and to also serve as a Downtown Transit Center for bus services. ■ Develop a comprehensive plan for Union Station including an operating plan, transportation circulation plan, capital plan, and TOD recommendations.

Aligned with these goals, Part 2 has a number of specific objectives:

■ Goal 1: Determine the current state of Union Station as a physical building and as an intermodal transportation terminal.

• Assess the physical condition of Union Station to insure it is being maintained in good condition. • Assess Union Station layout in connecting people and transportation modes. • Determine current and future (year 2017) parking limitations to see if both present and future needs are being met. • Assess the adequacy of vehicular and pedestrian access to Union Station.

■ Goal 2: Develop operating and development scenarios for Union Station to serve planned new services (New Britain Busway and commuter rail) and to also serve as a Downtown Transit Center for bus services.

• Develop sketch plans for two potential operating/ development scenarios for Union Station—one to serve anticipated new transit services (i.e., the New Britain Busway and New Haven/Hartford/Springfield Commuter Rail) and the other to serve as a Downtown Transit Center for local bus service.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 2-1 April, 2010

• Develop a method to evaluate the viability of the two scenarios for Union Station. • Develop alternative operating plans and circulation plans for Union station. • Recommend a preferred operating/development scenario, operating plan, and circulation alternative.

■ Goal 3: Develop a comprehensive plan for Union Station including an operating plan, transportation circulation plan, capital plan, and TOD recommendations.

• Develop a conceptual plan for Union Station which includes pedestrian and vehicular circulation as well as capital improvements. • Explore elements that encourage Transit Orientated Development (TOD) in the plan.

2.2 Report Contents This report is organized in three parts: 1) a discussion of existing conditions at Union Station, 2) a discussion of alternative future scenarios, and 3) a recommended plan for the station and the surrounding area. The first part includes Chapters 3 through 6. Chapter 3 describes the existing conditions at Union Station, including the building condition and function and its leasing situation. Chapter 4 describes and assesses the current transportation functions of the building. Chapter 5 describes the current leasing situation and compares it with national averages. Chapter 6 describes existing traffic and pedestrian conditions, and Chapter 7 describes the existing parking situation around Union Station.

Part 2 of the report starts with a discussion of demographics expected in the near future for the Union Station area in Chapter 8. Then Chapter 8 describes the future scenarios. These include the implementation of currently planned transportation improvements for Hartford (Scenario A), and a second Scenario B which adds a transit center to the Union Station area. Chapter 8 also describes the expected traffic conditions in Scenario A (the “no-build” situation). Finally, Chapter 8 suggests certain Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) for the nearby area. Chapter 9 describes a number of different plans for Union Station and also for a nearby Transit Center. Chapter 9 also contains an evaluation of these alternatives and recommendation for an alternative for Union Station and for a transit center location to be developed in Part 3 of the report.

Part 3 of the report includes a description of a detailed improvement plan for Union Station with a transit center in Chapter 10, with very preliminary capital cost estimates in Chapter 11. Chapter 12 describes TOD opportunities near the station. Chapter 13 analyzes the parking situation under the “full-build” situation. Chapter 14 provides an analysis of circulation issues given the implementation of the Union Station improvements and the transit center (Scenario B), along with all of the suggested TOD (the “full-build” situation). Finally, Chapter 15 closes the report with a discussion of implementation staging and next steps for the Union Station area.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 2-2 April, 2010

Phase 1: Existing Conditions at and around Union Station

Union Station Plan Final Report April, 2010

3.0 HISTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

As part of this project, a detailed report was prepared of the existing conditions of Union Station. Findings from that report are summarized here.

3.1 Brief History The original Hartford Union Station building was constructed in 1889. There is a discrepancy between the information provided in the National Register and the Connecticut Trust as to the architect. The National Register lists the architect, builder, or engineer as George Keller, an influential architect from Hartford. The Bushnell Park website notes that George Keller was the impetus for the grade-separated design for the station, unique at its conception. The Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation cites Shepley, Rutan, and Coolidge – the firm formed out of the practice of H.H. Richardson – as the architect. In design and style, the building harkens to both architects and in either manner is a significant building based on the architect and style. 1

In 1914, a fire destroyed the interior structure of the building. From historical photographs, it appears that the building was rebuilt immediately after the fire, although the original front gables were eliminated. It appears from photographs and visual inspections that the exterior Brownstone walls of the building were salvaged and used again in the rebuild. Figure 3-1: Historic Photo of Union Station after 1914 Fire.

Union Station is on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, significant modifications to the exterior appearance and Great Hall should be avoided. The Ground Transportation Center and any storefront additions are not historic and can be modified as required.

3.2 Existing Site Environment The current 300 foot long station is owned by the Greater Hartford Transit District (GHTD) and oriented longitudinally in the north/south direction. It is bounded by Union Place on the east, Spruce Street on the west, Church Street on the north and Asylum Street on the south. The primary façade for the original Union Station is facing Union Place at the intersection of Allyn Street (see Figure 3.2 – Existing Site Map).

The station features intercity bus service on the west side of the building, immediately adjacent to and west of the Ground Transportation Center, a 1987 addition to the western portion of the building to facilitate train and intercity bus service. There are currently 15 diagonal bus bays along the west side of the building. The intercity bus coaches enter from Spruce Street and exit onto Church Street. A canopy covered passenger drop-off area separates the bus bays from Spruce Street. Taxis also queue on Spruce Street at the southern end of the canopy. Located across Spruce Street to the west is a surface parking lot of 215 spaces leased (from the State of Connecticut) by the GHTD. Auto traffic patterns are bi-directional around the facility with the exception of Union Place, which has north-bound traffic only.

1 National Register of Historic Places, Building #75001932; www.bushnellpark.org/content/george_keller.asp; Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, Union Station Project Detail.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 3-1 April, 2010

Figure 3-2: Union Station Existing Site Map

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 3-2 April, 2010

The original station was served by four railroad tracks located on the west side of the building. There is currently one active track (second line west of the station) which is used primarily by Amtrak and occasionally by Class 1 freight railroads. The rail lines are elevated approximately 25 feet above street level to avoid at-grade crossings at adjacent streets.

Currently, CTTRANSIT buses do not directly serve the facility through the Ground Transportation Center. Four routes pass along Asylum Street with bus stops at the intersection of Asylum and Union Place. The Star Shuttle currently turns north down Union Place from westbound Asylum Street and stops at the intersection of Union Place and Allyn Street.

Figures 3.3 through 3.8 provide views of Union Station.

Figure 3-3: Front Elevation Union Station (facing west) Figure 3-4: Intercity Bus Bays (facing south)

Figure 3-5:Intercity Bus Bays & Passenger Drop-off Along Figure 3-6: Spruce Street Parking Lot (facing west) Spruce Street (facing north)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 3-3 April, 2010

Figure 3-7: Amtrak Train Entering Station (facing south) Figure 3-8: Amtrak Passenger Platform & View of Elevator Vestibule (facing south)

3.3 General Building Composition The original Union Station structure is comprised of four elements: a central three-story, flat-roofed portion containing a two- story lobby area known as the Great Hall; and two narrower three-story wings on the north and south featuring steeply sloping roofs clad in roof tiles. Trains and bus transit services are primarily accessed through the Ground Transportation Center on the west side of the Station.

All rail lines are supported by a steel-framed platform or “trestle” structure. In addition to supporting the rails, the framing supports the wood-framed passenger platform adjacent to the station and a wood-framed/concrete central platform. The framing extends to the north and south for the length of the station and terminates at the stone piers of bridges crossing Asylum and Church streets. Amtrak owns and maintains the steel trestle structure and has air rights above this structure. The GHTD has ownership rights below the trestle structure.

There have been several additions and modifications made to the station since it was reconstructed in the early 1900’s. Some of the major additions or modifications are listed below:

■ Construction of a 16,000 square foot building addition, the Ground Transportation Center, under the rail line. This building was constructed on grade and is located approximately 5 feet below the elevation of the main level of the station. The steel columns of the rail trestle structure penetrate the roof of the addition. This addition was constructed and is maintained by the GHTD. ■ Construction of a new steel-framed platform canopy structure on the central platform. This structure, which extends the entire length of the station, provides a cover for the access stairs to the Amtrak area below and the main station building. This canopy was constructed in 1985 and is owned and maintained by Amtrak. ■ A general interior renovation in 1965 after the building changed ownership. The renovation included non-structural items such as cleaning and painting. ■ Construction of a steel-framed storefront extension, located on the south end of the building. ■ Construction of a steel-framed storefront expansion along the north wing on the east side of the building. Originally retail space, it is now occupied by the GHTD.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 3-4 April, 2010

■ Construction of new glass-walled office space on the north and south ends of the Great Hall. The new space is at both the first and second floor levels. The steel-framed space is free-standing with limited connections to the original station structure. ■ Installation of a steel-framed corrugated roof system north and south of the Ground Transportation Center to allow for protected parking, passenger access to buses, and certain service operations under the trestle.

3.4 Existing Occupation/Leasing Arrangements The following Figure 3.9 – Existing Usage Plan schematically diagrams the existing leaseholders within Union Station, including the Ground Transportation Center.

3.4.1. First Floor – Union Station

The first floor of Union Station has two main tenants as well as the Great Hall public space. Hot Tomatos, an established and popular local restaurant occupies the entire south wing, steel-framed south extension, and both first floor levels of the office space constructed within the Great Hall. In addition, they host large functions within the Great Hall. Hot Tomatos has been a long-time occupant and have made significant tenant improvements and renovations to their space.

GHTD, the building owner, occupies the entire north wing including the steel-framed storefront extension towards Union Place. The space is typical for most interior tenant improvements with drywall partitions and drop ceilings. There are some grade differentials within the tenant space which have accessible ramps within the corridors. A conference / board room is located in the storefront addition and is used for public events as well as GHTD functions.

Between the two tenants is located the Great Hall, which was the original lobby and ticketing area for Union Station. As indicated previously, past renovations included the installation of a two-story glass-walled office structure at either end. Functionally, the space serves as general circulation for all tenants and the primary passage way between Union Place and the Ground Transportation Center. On occasion, the area is blocked off to general public access for special events or benefits.

3.4.2. First Floor – Ground Transportation Center

The first floor of the Ground Transportation Center is centered on the main waiting lobby for intercity bus and Amtrak passengers. This public area includes ticketing counters, food and newspaper vendors, security, an ATM machine, and access to the bathrooms and pay phones. The space includes benches for waiting and stairs / elevator to the train platform level.

On the south side of the public area, several tenants are incorporated. Both Peter Pan, which handles all intercity bus ticketing, and Dunkin Donuts have open counter access to the lobby. Additional space is provided within the area for Sign Wizard, Greyhound office, Great American Donut office and storage.

On the north side of the public area, the primary leaseholder is Amtrak. They have an open ticket window to the lobby. In addition, they have several storage and employee welfare areas located in non-public spaces. Subway Restaurant also has space on the north side and a counter area to the public lobby.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 3-5 April, 2010

Figure 3-9: Usage Plan for Union Station (August 2007)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 3-6 April, 2010

3.4.3. Second Floor – Union Station

The second floor of Union Station is comprised of two wing areas as the Great Hall is open through this level. The entire south wing, including the mezzanine level storefronts in the Great Hall, is leased by Propark America, a provider of parking lot management services.

The north wing is divided into two spaces. Adjacent to the Great Hall and with access from the Great Hall is Capital Workforce Partners, a private, non-profit organization that coordinates programs to develop a skilled and vital workforce within the area. The second floor space is primarily executive offices with a small conference room.

At the extreme northern portion of the second floor is an area that is not leased. Up until recently, portions of it were part of Amtrak’s lease as storage. Access to this area is only from the exterior platform level, restricting its ability to be leased for general business or other commerce.

3.4.4. Platform Level – Ground Transportation Center

As discussed previously, the platform level of the Ground Transportation Center is owned by Amtrak via air rights. It is accessed either via a stairwell or elevator from the first floor lobby of the Ground Transportation Center. Loading is performed on the east side of the center platform. The platform adjacent to Union Station is unused except for emergency egress from Union Station.

3.4.5. Third Floor – Union Station

The third floor of Union Station includes both wings and the center area over the Great Hall. Both third floor wing areas have exposed structure and skylights.

Capital Workforce Partners has their main area in the center of the third floor. On the south side are two non-profit agencies, the Hispanic Professional Network and the Greater Hartford Literacy Council. All of these tenants use the south elevator as primary access.

Crosskey Architects has offices on the north side of the third floor. They use the north elevator for access.

Figure 3-10: Great Hall with Storefront Offices (facing north) Figure 3-11: Great Hall with Entrance Vestibule (facing east)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 3-7 April, 2010

Figure 3-12: Stairs between Great Hall & Ground Transportation Figure 3-13: Ground Transportation Center Lobby (facing east) Center Lobby (facing east)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 3-8 April, 2010

4.0 OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT

The current operation of Union Station was evaluated including its physical arrangement and limitations, current usage, operational capacity, safety and security, and historical preservation requirements.

The following analysis is based on observations of the area and previously documented capacity information.2

4.1 Intercity Bus Traffic Currently 15 bus bays are provided on the west side of the building for the private carriers that lease space in the facility. Lessees are Peter Pan and Greyhound. Connecticut Limousine ceased operations from Union Station on August 16, 2009. The bus bays were designed for smaller vehicles than standard 45 foot over-the-road coaches used today. The bays are pull- in / back-out style. An analysis of the bus schedules at Union Station indicates that the peak period appears to be between 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM. on Friday and Sunday, requiring a maximum of 6 bays during that period. More than 6 bays may be required at the busiest times of the year.

4.2 Local Bus Traffic Currently, CTTRANSIT buses do not directly serve the facility through the Ground Transportation Center. Four routes pass along Asylum Street with bus stops at the intersection of Asylum and Union Place. There appear to be few transfers from local buses to Union Station. CTTRANSIT counts in 2007 showed 38 passengers getting on buses from the stop at Asylum and Union Place in the eastbound direction and 192 getting off. In the westbound direction there were 182 boarding at Asylum and Union Place and 48 getting off.

The Star Shuttle serves Union Station. It turns north on Union Place from westbound Asylum Street and stops at the intersection of Union Place and Allyn Street.

4.3 Amtrak Service Amtrak rail service currently serves Union Station with 6 southbound trips and 6 northbound trips per day. Four of these trips in each direction are shuttle service between Springfield MA and New Haven. One trip in each direction is the Vermonter service running between Washington DC and St. Albans, VT, and one trip is the NE Regional Service from Washington DC (branch to Springfield, MA via Hartford). Annual boardings are 75,000, or roughly 250 per weekday.

4.4 Taxi and Private Auto Traffic At the time of the observational field visit, taxi service was provided along the Spruce Street canopy, south of the crosswalk between parking and the Transportation Center lobby. This area appears capable of accommodating around 7 taxis. There is also a taxi queuing area which is part of a small parking lot at the southwest corner of Union Station located under the train tracks. While no capacity problems were observed with the taxis, peak period situations were not observed and may be more congested. With increased traffic at Union Station alternative methods of allocating space to taxis may be warranted.

For drop-off from private autos, a short-term waiting zone is provided along the north end of the Spruce Street canopy. There is a charge for parking through a city provided parking station which is located near the canopy. There is room for 10 autos, providing that they park efficiently. During the site visit, it was observed to be at capacity some of the time. The GHTD reports that there is double parking by automobiles awaiting passengers during busy times.

2 Occupancy levels were based on the Building Code information shown on Sheet A-1 of the Phase Three Union Station Transportation Center plans dated 10/25/1985. General areas and occupancy assumptions were confirmed by visual inspection and review of the current Connecticut Building Code.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 4-1 April, 2010

There is also a parking station on Union Place. This is another location where passenger pick up and drop off could occur.

4.5 Bicycle Accommodations Bike racks are available at Union Station. There are two racks along the building at Union Place and another one on the west side of the building.

4.6 Pedestrian Accommodations and Accessible Paths of Travel The existing Ground Transportation Center lobby has a permitted capacity of 400 persons assuming a standing arrangement. Practical capacity is approximately one-half of that number to avoid an overcrowded situation. While no direct observations were made during the peak times, it is expected that area does have some minor congestion during the heaviest times of usage, but not enough to cause an overcapacity problem.

The Great Hall is under-utilized and thus could provide greatly expanded capacity for the transportation function if properly designed. With a total maximum occupancy of approximately 950 persons in a standing arrangement, it could easily accommodate another 400 – 500 waiting passengers without congestion. To utilize this space better for passenger waiting, it would be necessary to connect the announcement and other notification systems. Furthermore, improvements could be made to the current accessible path between the Ground Transportation Center and the Great Hall. More discussion of accessible paths is covered next.

Union Station was re-constructed in 1914 and the Ground Transportation Center built in 1985. Both areas were completed prior to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. The Ground Transportation Center would have been required to be compliant with the 1968 Architectural Barriers Act and therefore had elements in the original construction that are mostly, if not completely, compliant with the more extensive ADA requirements. Accessibility elements, such as push-to- open devices, have been provided with sensitivity to the historic nature of the structure. Figure 4-1 following shows pathways through the facility which are ADA accessible.

Access to the existing structure may be considered in three ways:

■ public access to transportation areas ■ public access to tenant spaces ■ Emergency egress and non-accessible routes

4.6.1. Accessible Public Access to Transportation Areas

The following sections describe the primary accessible routes to and through the facility.

Ingress / Egress from Private Transportation (Taxi, Auto, Pedestrian)

Pedestrian access to Union Station can be made from either via the Spruce Street side or the Union Place side. Predominantly taxi and auto access is from the Spruce Street side. Some auto parking is available in the Spruce Street Lot. A passenger drop-off area is located along the northern side of the Spruce Street canopy. There is an accessible path from the Spruce Street canopy to the main transportation center entrance.

Parking is also available at lots on the Union Place side of Union Station. Along Union Place, an accessible pathway is available from the street to the Ground Transportation Center. The route is quite indirect requiring passengers to enter the building from a side entrance. . The entrance, with ramps to the Great Hall level, is at the north wing of the building. From the Great Hall there is an elevator to the Ground Transportation Center lobby. An recommended improvement would be to develop a more direct accessible passageway between the Ground Transportation Center lobby and the Great Hall.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 4-2 April, 2010

Figure 4-1: Access Plan for Union Station

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 4-3 April, 2010

Ingress / Egress from Public Transportation (CTTRANSIT / Private Bus, Train)

CTTRANSIT bus routes currently service the facility through a stop at the intersection of Union Place and Asylum Street. Additionally, the Star Shuttle has a stop directly across from the main entrance to the Great Hall at the intersection of Union Place and Allyn Street. For these services, the primary access to the building would be from the east, or Union Place, side of the building. From that point, access is the same as for pedestrians from Union Place as described previously. Both stop areas connect to the building via public sidewalks with curb ramps. The GHTD has completed a sidewalk improvement project on Union Place and a small portion of Church and Asylum Streets to enhance access.

Private bus services (Peter Pan / Bonanza, Greyhound) utilize the bus bays along the west side of the building between the Ground Transportation Center and Spruce Street. The pathway from the bus bays to the Ground Transportation Center is accessible.

Train loading / unloading is performed at the second level platform area. An elevator is provided from the Ground Transportation Center lobby to the platform level. A tactile warning strip is provided along a portion of the platform that was renovated. A portable platform lift is located nearby to facilitate wheelchair access to the trains.

Overall, ADA compliant access is provided throughout the public transportation areas with the exception of some elevator components. However, more signage could be provided, especially in the Ground Transportation Center, to indicate the accessible path between the Ground Transportation Center level and Great Hall level.

4.6.2. Accessible Public Access to Tenant Spaces

With the exception of the first floor north and south tenants (GHTD and Hot Tomato’s Restaurant), public accessible access is provided to all the tenant spaces either through the Great Hall or the Ground Transportation Center lobby. The unleased portion of the 2 nd floor (north end) does not have accessible access.

Hot Tomato’s Restaurant, the 1 st floor south tenant, has accessible access to their facility via a street entrance into the southern storefront addition that is a portion of their restaurant. The GHTD provides accessible access at the northernmost entrance to the storefront addition on the north wing of the building. Inside the building, an accessible ramp connects up to the main level of the building.

For the 2 nd floor tenants, accessible access is provided through either the main south or north elevators off of the Great Hall. Once on the 2 nd floor, the area is level between the wings and glass enclosed office additions within the Great Hall. Non-accessible access is provided by the main stairs on the west side of the Great Hall.

For the 3 rd floor tenants, the only access is by the main south or north elevator. Upon reaching the 3 rd floor, the portion above the Great Hall is at grade. The tenant areas in the north and south wing are located down a small flight of stairs. Accessible access has been accommodated by the installation of personal platform lifts in a former utility closet area. Third floor tenants can also access their space by using the stairs from the Great Hall to the platform, and then they can unlock a door on the platform level that connects with stairs to the third floor.

The tenant spaces on either side of the Ground Transportation Center lobby are primarily at grade with the lobby and access is primarily from the lobby. The extreme northern portion of the tenant area does have a grade differential with an internal ramp; however the public is not allowed access to this area.

Overall, the entire structure has been adequately retrofitted for ADA accessible access to all areas with the exception of the portion not leased on the 2 nd floor. All main access points have push-to-open buttons. With any major

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 4-4 April, 2010

renovations, there would need to be retrofits to the elevator cabs and vestibules to ensure all visual and auditory annunciators are compliant to current codes.

4.6.3. Emergency Egress and Non-Accessible Routes

Figure 4-1 also provides information relative to the non-accessible access into and thru the structure for both emergency and general purposes.

Overall, access is excellent to the first and second floors. Both can be reached either via the main stairs in the Great Hall along the western wall or the north / south main elevator. Emergency egress can be directly out to the Amtrak platform, if required.

For the third floor, public access is only provided by either the north or south elevator. Emergency egress from the third floor is through main stairwells on the east side of the building, which exit onto the Amtrak platform. At either end of the platform are a set of stairs down to ground level.

4.7 Other Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Issues In general, many areas of Union Station are compliant with the ADA. All toilet rooms inspected are accessible. The ticketing counters are not compliant; however it is possible for a wheelchair customer to receive services. The waiting area does not provide specific handicapped seating. There are a bank of public phones, with one mounted at accessible height. The bank of phones lacks the required accessible shelf and outlet for portable text telephone device. 3 Some of the required distances from door jamb to adjacent wall were insufficient, but this is common in all structures completed before the more comprehensive ADA act of 1990. One area of concern is the loading platform for Amtrak. While a tactile warning strip is present for a portion of the platform, loading and unloading operations were observed to occur in an area without the tactile strip. The platform edge with tactile warning strip should be enlarged to cover the full platform length used for loading and unloading of passengers.

4.8 Safety and Security The GHTD has installed a modern security camera system that provides coverage throughout all public areas and their tenant space. 4 The entire space is protected by a sprinkler system and fire detection system.

There are safety concerns connected with the central platform used by Amtrak. Amtrak has recently repaired the steel-framed stairs on the north and south ends of the central platform that are used for emergency egress from the second and third floors of Union Station. However, there are still areas of deterioration where better fencing is needed to prevent public access .

3 Connecticut State Building Code, Section 1109.16 4 GHTD also monitors cameras installed by Capital Workforce Partners as a specific side arrangement. No other monitoring of interior tenant spaces is provided.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 4-5 April, 2010

4.9 Historical Preservation Requirements Union Station was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1975 as Building #75001932. The Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation (CT Trust), which is the state historic preservation office (SHPO), provided information on the building’s significance. According to CT Trust, no nomination file is available for this structure. 5 While not definitively documented, it would be safe to assume that the exterior architectural façade of the original Union Station, principal public interior space of the Great Hall, and functionality of the elevated train platforms all contribute to the historical significance of the structure. This is confirmed in general by the National Register noting that the two areas of significance are architecture and transportation.

4.9.1. General National Standards

All rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, or reconstruction activities are governed by the local SHPO agency in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The GHTD has been interacting with CT Trust for general building improvements, such as the planned boiler replacement. In general, most activities that would be required for enhancement of the transportation functions within Union Station would be considered “rehabilitation” which is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. 6 The following bullets summarize the basic precepts with commentary in brackets [ ] on how it may apply to Union Station:

■ A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. [Further utilization of the space as a transportation terminal is the historic use.] ■ The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alternation of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided . [This requires the maintenance of the overall exterior façades and the form and function of the Great Hall.] ■ Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. [This is not foreseen as an issue.] ■ Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved . [It is not perceived that either the Union Place storefront additions or the Ground Transportation Center would be considered to have acquired any historic significance. Therefore, while it is not anticipated, the storefront additions could be removed. The Ground Transportation Center may be reconstructed in any manner befitting the needs of the terminal as long as the platforms above are maintained within their function and historic context.] ■ Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved . [This would primarily relate to any efforts to clean or repair the exterior brownstone masonry, which is currently in good condition. Any future repairs must not alter the material appearance nor affect the hand-carved cornice and other detailed moldings. This would apply to a lesser degree for the Great Hall.] ■ Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and

5 Primary contact for Union Station at CT Trust is David Poirier: [email protected] or 860-566-3005 6 From the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 4-6 April, 2010

physical evidence. [No major historic features were found to be deteriorated to the need of repair or replacement with the exception of the train trestles and Amtrak platforms. The stairs from the platform to the ground level at the north and south ends were identified as needing repair. Old photos showed that the original stairs had been removed and replaced with the existing ones. Replacement of the original stairs would impact the south storefront addition, thus it was suggested that these stairs be replaced in kind to their current configuration to correct the unsafe situation in the most expedient manner. The needed repairs were made to the existing stairways during the course of this study.] ■ Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. [Care would need to be exercised in the cleaning of the exterior masonry or interior granite.] ■ Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. [Not applicable.] ■ New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. [An illustrative example would be if it was determined to be necessary to add another handicap accessible egress point to the Great Hall at the southern entrance. Rather than something similar to the storefront addition on the north end, which would not be allowable under current regulations and designations, the installation of an exterior ramp with a brownstone screening wall may be acceptable.] ■ New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. [Following the example of a new southern Great Hall ADA entrance, the ramp and wall must be installed to not impact the existing construction. Preference would be to isolate the new construction from the existing structure and leave the steps remaining under the ramp structure.] 4.9.2. National Accessibility Guidelines

The Department of the Interior recognizes one of the most difficult situations with historic properties is to make them fully accessible for people with disabilities. The National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Brief 32: Making Historic Properties Accessible provides an excellent overview of the general requirements for accessibility. In summary:

■ Modifications can usually be made to non-significant spaces, secondary pathways, later additions, previously altered areas, utilitarian spaces, and service areas. ■ If possible, access should be through a primary public entrance. If that cannot be achieved, at least one entrance shall be accessible. ■ Historic steps should be buried, and not removed, when making a path accessible. ■ Wheelchair platform lifts, if acceptable by state building code, may be used; however they do have limited capacity and require frequent maintenance. ■ Historic doors should not be replaced nor should door frames be widened.

In reviewing the access modifications to date, it is seen that they have been compliant with the above recommendations. The ramp was placed in a later addition and the accessible path was developed using secondary pathways. While not at the main central entrance to the Great Hall, the accessible entrance is at the northern end and along the front main Union Place façade. Wheelchair platform lifts were only utilized on the third floor where no other solution would have been feasible and in an area of more limited public usage. The historic doors on the

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 4-7 April, 2010

accessible path were modified using push-to-open and other unobtrusive mechanical devices, rather than replacement.

4.9.3. State Building Code

Section 3407 and 3409 of the Connecticut State Building Code refers to historic buildings.

Section 3407.1: Historic Buildings. The provisions of this code relating to the construction, repair, alteration, addition, restoration and movement of structures, and change of occupancy shall not be mandatory for historic buildings where such buildings are judged by the building official to not constitute a distinct life safety hazard.

Section 3409.8: Historic Buildings. These provisions shall apply to buildings and facilities designated as historic structures that undergo alterations or a change of occupancy, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with the requirements for accessible routes, ramps, entrances, or toilet facilities would threaten or destroy the historic significance of the building or facility, as determined by the authority having jurisdiction, the alternative requirements of Sections 3409.8.1 through 3409.8.5 for that element shall be permitted.

Section 3409.8.1: Site arrival points. At least one accessible route from a site arrival point to an accessible entrance shall be provided.

Section 3409.8.2: Multilevel buildings and facilities. An accessible route from an accessible entrance to public spaces on the level of the accessible entrance shall be provided.

Section 3409.8.3: Entrances. At least one main entrance shall be accessible.

Section 3409.8.4: Toilet and bathing facilities. Where toilet rooms are provided, at least one accessible toilet room… shall be provided.

Section 3409.8.5: Ramps. The slope of a ramp run of 24 inches maximum shall not be steeper than one unit vertical in eight units horizontal.

As discussed previously, the current building is compliant based on the historic regulations above by providing an accessible route to each accessible entrance both on the exterior and interior. Each main area has one accessible entrance.

The above regulations, in particular Section 3407.1, are reinforced in Chapter 541, Section 29-259 of the General Statutes of Connecticut.

4.9.4. Historical Summary

Some general thoughts and considerations are given below based on a review of the historical regulations.

■ Significant modifications should be avoided to the main Union Station, in particular the exterior appearance and the Great Hall. ■ If the opportunity arises, it would be desirable to increase accessible access between the Great Hall and Ground Transportation Center lobby particularly as commuter rail service is implemented. This may be

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 4-8 April, 2010

accomplished within the Ground Transportation Center footprint to minimize impacts to the Union Station and Great Hall. ■ Any planned improvements should be discussed at the conceptual level with the CT Trust to confirm that they would be acceptable.

4.10 Summary of Operational Analysis Union Station has the capacity to handle increased flows of passengers, but some re-arrangement and updating of the facility would enhance the passenger experience and make operations easier. This assessment found that:

■ Intercity bus bays could be reduced from the 15 currently available. More room to allow angled parking would be desirable.

■ Additional space for short-term parking and taxi waiting would be desirable.

■ Updating and modernization of the Ground Transportation Center could make that area more attractive. Functions could be rearranged to provide more space for customers and tenants.

■ The Great Hall could be better utilized—and might be a pleasant waiting area for passengers if connected with electronic boards providing current schedule information.

■ Facilities should be updated to meet ADA requirements during a renovation. This would include providing better signage to show accessible paths of travel and improving the accessible path between the Ground Transportation Center and the Great Hall.

■ It would be desirable to make the second floor tenant space accessible—and thus enable it to be leased.

■ Care will need to be taken to insure that any renovation meets requirements for historical preservation.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 4-9 April, 2010

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 4-10 April, 2010

5.0 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS FOR UNION STATION

5.1 Economic Background Hartford, the capitol city of Connecticut, is located nearly midway between Boston and New York City. Once home to most of the nation’s large insurance companies, the city has experienced a downward population trend beginning with the middle-class flight of the 1960s and ending with the insurance company consolidations in the 1990s; since 1950, Hartford’s population decreased from approximately 177,000 to 125,000.

Union Station, a graceful brownstone in the center of downtown, was built in 1889, and as the transit hub for the area was the lifeblood of the city. But, by 1980, only a single train stopped at the station daily. In 1985, a group of investors arranged for $17.3 million in financing to rehabilitate the Station and transform it into a transit hub incorporating retail and office space. One of the first successful rehabilitations of an historic train station, the train service quadrupled, and was soon supplemented by bus, taxi, and limousine service, as well as two restaurants.

Before the economic downturn in 2008, Hartford experienced a real estate construction boom, spurred on by a $2 billion dollar investment from both the public and private sectors resulting in complexes such as Adriaen’s Landing that incorporates the new 550,000 square foot Connecticut Convention Center; a $77 million, 22 story, 409 room Marriott Hotel; and several luxury apartment and condominium developments downtown. A key goal of the city’s redevelopment plan is to reconnect the downtown to the rest of the city and to the Waterfront, which are separated by Interstates 84 and 91.

5.2 Union Station Leasing In addition to the rail facilities, the building has 40,067 square feet available for lease. Its tenant list includes transit service providers, workforce development, and service companies and restaurants. The “Great Hall” is available for rent for events, and seats up to 500 people. There is on-site parking available.

Overall building utilization was very good in the fall of 2007 with a few exceptions. The only tenant space not leased out was the inaccessible portion of the 2 nd floor. With some reorganization of the Capital Workforce Partners lease, a corridor could be provided from the Great Hall / elevator area to allow for this space to be leased.

In addition, the original build-out for the Ground Transportation Center is obsolete based on the current functions. On the south side, a majority of the area is utilized; however operational efficiencies and some additional capacity could be found through restructuring the area. For example, the office for Dunkin Donuts is located distant from their vending and operational area. On the north side, which is primarily Amtrak with the exception of the recent lease to Subway, even more space can be potentially gained for another tenant or increased passenger area and amenities. Amtrak’s area includes a significant amount of underutilized area; however it would require a restructuring of their lease and construction improvements to access the area.

5.3 Optimal Tenant Mix A desirable tenant is one that meets project objectives, generates reasonable lease income, and pays rent on time. A good tenant mix , however, is a collection of tenants that together, maximize the center’s aggregate sales and thus have the ability to pay higher rents.

Leasing for transit centers within urban areas are analogous to leasing for urban shopping centers in that there is a collection of goods and services that serve varying market sectors: area residents, businesses, visitors, with a

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 5-1 April, 2010

specialized focus on transit users. The center’s overall investment potential is critical to a successful leasing plan, which should incorporate 7:

■ Macroeconomic overview; ■ Market segment definition and analysis; ■ Strengths and weaknesses of the subject property; ■ Characteristics of transit riders utilization ■ Competitive outlook; ■ Tenant mix strategy; ■ Site issues and expansion potential; ■ Space-by-space analysis; and ■ Overall goals and strategy

The most desirable tenant mix for Union Station is determined by a variety of factors, including 8:

■ Needs of transit users ■ Revenue requirements of transit operators ■ Compatibility of overall transit generated demand with sub area generalized tenants and use ■ Transit user services in the urban context, including residential and employment walkshed and the competitive environment ■ The development concept; ■ Internal constraints (size and type of center); ■ External factors (competition in the area, target market and demographics, and consumer trends); and ■ The ability of management to attract and negotiate with desired prospective tenants.

Imagine, for example, Store A, which sells women’s clothing, and is patronized by women. Then suppose next door someone opens White Tablecloth Restaurant. Based on the patrons of Store A, the Restaurant will likely not do much business, as women generally don’t eat alone at restaurants. However, then imagine that next to Store A, an electronics store, Store B, opens, which pays a slightly lower rent than Store A. Now, the husband or boyfriend of the Store A patron has a reason to shop at this location as well, and both will eat at the restaurant after a long day shopping. Together, Store A, Store B, and Restaurant do more business as a whole, rather than the sum of each store as separate entities. This is the rationale behind comparable and complementary retail uses, and the empirically proven law of “Retail Compatibility.” In Union Station, planning for “Retail Compatibility” must also take into account the likely demand of transit riders (e.g., readily accessible food, convenience items, dry cleaners, etc.) and the adjacent pedestrian flow from the residential and employers in the area.

7 Peiser, Richard B. and Anne B. Frej. Professional Real Estate Development: The ULI Guide to the Business, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2005. p. 337. 8 Ibid.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 5-2 April, 2010

5.4 Development Concept Every retail center needs an identity. Transit facilities in urban areas have the potential to serve multiple markets— the transit riders, and the residents/employees in the vicinity. At present, in terms of size, Union Station is best represented as a neighborhood center, which ranges from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet and built around convenience services. Union Station, with relatively limited ridership, could serve not only the transit riders and other station tenants, but a segment of the area walkshed, as well. 9 In order to become a more effective retail center that services the surrounding residential and businesses, Union Station should be identified as a neighborhood center, and the leasing program should be designed to meet the needs of the community.

5.5 Market Factors (External) An understanding of the demographics and target market(s) in the geographical area is essential to a successful tenant mix. Generally, there are three markets associated with center-city intermodal transit centers:

Primary— The primary market for Union Station consists of the commuters who travel through the station on a daily basis, and the service firms and their clients who lease space in the station.

Secondary—The secondary market is defined as the residents and employers located with a ¼ to ½ mile (walking) radius (see Figure 5-1). Walking customers are limited by distance and geographical barriers (in this case, the two highways that pass by Union Station to the west and south, and the presence (or not) of adequate sidewalks, as well as the location of competitive facilities.

Tertiary— The tertiary market is the people who come to Downtown Hartford as tourists or conventioneers. The ability of Union Station to capture this population as a market depends upon the attractiveness as a station and its vision and development as a destination.

Figure 5-1: Walksheds of ¼ and ½ Mile around Union Station

Since transit users spend minimal time in the station (particularly bus users), there is a limited opportunity to capture retail spending from this sector. Therefore, many other transit stations have branched out and supplemented their

9 Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers/The SCORE . Washington, DC: ULI-the Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers, 2006. p. 5.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 5-3 April, 2010

primary market with those residents and employers within a walkshed (e.g., Union Station in Washington, DC and Grand Central Station in New York City).

An optimized tenant mix depends heavily on understanding the above markets. Some questions to consider are:

■ How many people pass through Union Station daily? On the weekends? ■ How many employees and customers are served by the service companies? ■ What sort of goods or services would the above groups prefer, and would they pay (and how much) to use them? Dry-cleaning? Gym? Concierge to make hotel and restaurant reservations? A tax preparation service? ■ What are the employment and residential characteristics of the secondary market area? ■ What are the expenditures and competitive retail opportunities in the secondary market? ■ What is the level of tourism activity in the area, and is Union Station positioned to meet this demand? ■ Can the Station capitalize on the shuttle that connects the station to the waterfront and convention center to attract additional visitors? ■ What goods or services does the primary and secondary market demand or prefer? Is there a shortage of necessities? Prior work by BBPC 10 for an intermodal transit center in Massachusetts found that commuters primarily patronize the following services associated with the station:Dry cleaner

■ Fast foods ■ Convenience goods (candy, newspapers, soft drinks, etc.) ■ Car maintenance shop ■ Postal office ■ Gym ■ Masseuse/Beauty Parlor/Barber Shop ■ A table-cloth restaurant ■ Concierge service—maps, taxi stand, Downtown events, etc. ■ Drugstore ■ Pet/day/elder care ■ Grocery store ■ Business center

There have been requests by customers of Union Station for a car rental facility. If there is an increase in residential development within walking distance of the station, there may be sufficient demand (together with future tourist or business travelers arriving at the station) to justify a car rental facility.

10 BBPC is Basille Baumann Prost Cole and Associates, the author of Chapter 5.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 5-4 April, 2010

In short, the majority of commuters would welcome services that would make their commutes easier, either by attending to the necessities of life, or by dropping off services that could be attended to while at work. It may also be worthwhile to consider bringing complimentary wi-fi to Union Station.

5.6 Secondary/Tertiary Market Factors Other external factors include the overall real estate market in the area which was healthy prior to the economic recession starting in 2008. These include the resurgence of residential occupancy in the downtown, as well as the recent $2 billion investment in convention and tourism infrastructure along Adriaen’s Landing. Within the last few years, Hartford has added over 1,600 hotel rooms, 1,200 housing units, a 140,000 square foot Connecticut Science Center and 550,000 square foot convention center, and over 1 million square feet of office and retail space. All these factors could contribute to additional development opportunities when the economy recovers from the recession that began in 2008.

Walksheds can be defined as a ¼ to ½ mile radius around the site (see Figure 5-1). Within this area are the following as shown in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Demographics within Walksheds 2007 1/4 mile 1/2 mile Population 625 3,509 Households 479 1,453 Median Age 35 32 HH Earning > $35,000 304 589 Median HH Income $42,095 $42,095 Total Businesses 121 1,049 Total Employees 5,745 31,159

Source: ESRI Business Systems, 2007

5.7 Internal Constraints Union Station is hindered by the physical layout of the building, and the lack of access/egress from the far ends of the building. As discussed previously, there is a portion of unleased space on the second floor of the building with no accessible access. This space could be rented to any one of the tenants that surround it. A decision to make the space more accessible could be made after considering the gross rent lost by not renting out the space, the amount of money needed to construct access/egress for a new tenant, and the advantage of leasing the space to one of the surrounding tenants after fit-out modifications.

In the case of Union Station, the second and third floor wings would probably not be ideal for a business that depends upon commuters, but perfect for service firms. One possibility would be to relocate a portion of the GHTD to the vacant space on the second floor to make more space available for commuter-reliant goods and services on the first floor (such as a concierge).

The space that overlooks the Great Hall might be ideal for a tablecloth restaurant, to capitalize on the views. In addition, the Great Hall would benefit from finding businesses or other means to attract rail or bus passengers to the area.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 5-5 April, 2010

5.8 Tenants and Leasing The leases in Union Station were compared to industry averages for local conditions on a macro level to account for the fact that in many ways, the tenants compete with the other retail establishments located on the fringe of downtown. The average rent in Union Station is $24.60 per square foot, 11 which compares favorably to U.S. Neighborhood Shopping Centers in the East’s average and mean, which is $12.04 and $11.19, respectively. Average commercial lease rates for the fringe area of Downtown Hartford are $20.09 per square foot.12 Based on this analysis, Union Station is doing a good job with its leasing program.

On a national level, the transit and system related retail lease rates range from $9 to $264 per square foot 13 . The highest lease rates occur from the businesses located right at the platform (such as a newspaper and coffee stand). Rates at the higher end are dependent on high levels of demand, and are not currently relevant for Union Station with its limited rail service. Higher rates can be expected with the planned commuter rail improvements, however.

Based on a review of tenants in other transit stations (Grand Central in New York City, 30 th Street Station in Philadelphia, Union Station in Denver and Washington, DC), there is a precedence of “standard” services offered, predominately dry cleaners, coffee stands, and gift shops. Dunkin Donuts is now part of Union Station, providing the coffee stand. There may be opportunity for a dry cleaners and gift shop particularly after the start of commuter rail service.

Based on experience elsewhere, a gift shop using a seasonally-operated kiosk could have high sales and support higher occupancy costs. The diminutive size of the kiosk allows the operators to respond to micro-economic demands, such as candy and flowers in February, wedding and graduation cards in June, gift cards in December, and so forth.

Other suggestions for improving the leases at Union Station include:

■ In addition to currently required insurance, the intercity bus companies should provide a supplement for maintenance costs as incurred by the movement of their vehicles.

■ Leases could require the payment of a percentage of transactions. This is the case at other rail stations in the state of Connecticut which are owned by the State. The Bank of America ATM is currently the only tenant that pays a percentage of their transactions (performance rent).

■ Leases should allow for rate increases in a timely manner. For example, the 10 year lease of Union Station News & Gift prevents Union Station from capitalizing on higher rents as the market improves.

5.9 Revenues 5.9.1. Rents

The amount of rent for a given space depends on the tenant’s size, classification, location in the project, and the structure of the development’s cost recovery (CAM). In addition to fixed rents, many retailers employ a form of percentage leases, where the tenant agrees to pay a specified minimum rent plus a percentage of gross sales over a certain amount.

11 The average rent and vacancy rate for Union Station is estimated from the leases provided by GHTD which covered most, but not all tenants. No lease was provided for Hot Tomatoes or for the space leased by The New Connecticut Limo. 12 2006 CB Richard Ellis 13 2004. Transit Retail Concessions. Parsons Corporation: Atlanta, GA.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 5-6 April, 2010

Percentage leases balance the tenants’ and landlord’s interests. This permits the landlord to offer low base rents to tenants in order to give them sufficient time to build their customer base and sales revenue. Tenants are benefited by the knowledge that the landlord has an added incentive to market the center to generate sales, as well as provide maintenance, management, and security to keep the center fully leased, operating, and attractive to customers.

Percentage leases, however, are not always possible. National chains do not always negotiate lease terms, and small businesses do not always fully report sales. The landlord needs to determine whether percentage rates will be acceptable to tenants and whether they will be a useful tool in negotiating lease terms. Nevertheless, percentage leases can be quite powerful if used appropriately, particularly in the case in acquiring first-time tenants who provide a needed special character, such as would be found in a train station or marketplace 14 .

In addition, the primary market—the commuter transit riders—is greatly affected by “lightening rods.” Lightening rods are outside, unplanned and unanticipated events that can dramatically affect the volume of ridership, such as the addition of a new rail line. In Maryland, for example, when MARC (Maryland Rail Commuter) doubled the number of cars from Baltimore to Washington, DC a few years ago, ridership also doubled nearly instantaneously. In order for stations to benefit from the increase in ridership, they need to be able to capture a proportionate share of increased business generated by the tenants.

A standard benchmark for rents is the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, published by the Urban Land Institute, was used as a comparison source, as no such studies exist for transit centers. For U.S. Neighborhood Shopping Centers, performance rents range from 2% and 7% for food services, while dollar/novelty stores average 3% 15 .

5.9.2. Other Revenue

Opportunities for additional revenue streams include:

■ Advertising revenue (billboards, etc.); ■ Corporate sponsorship/naming rights; ■ External lease income (such as a hot dog vendor outside the station); and ■ FTA Grants—The FTA has several grant programs available to modernize transit systems, make capital improvements, or offset operating expenses. Sections 5307 and 5309 make funds available for preventive maintenance, security, and operational support. 16

5.10 Expenses Controlling, or managing, the expenses associate with operating the station is critical to its economic viability. In addition to being responsible for the overall condition of the building, GHTD needs to hire staff and security personnel; pay for janitorial supplies, tools, and equipment; the maintenance of the outdoor parking, asphalt, and loading docks; a reserve fund; and care of the common areas, also known as CAM (common area maintenance). Some landlords break the CAM out separately and charge it to the tenant as additional rent, while others include the

14 Peiser, Richard B. and Anne B. Frej. Professional Real Estate Development: The ULI Guide to the Business, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2005. p. 341-343. 15 Peiser, Richard B. and Anne B. Frej. Professional Real Estate Development: The ULI Guide to the Business, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2005. p. 256-261. 16 See http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants . Note that Joint development opportunities with the FTA are available to develop additional land or air rights; but are not used for tenant fit-outs or improvements. For example, the City of McAllen in Texas currently receives reimbursement of up to 50 percent of the cost of operating and maintaining the McAllen Central Station terminal, as long as Section 5307 formula funds are available.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 5-7 April, 2010

charges in the base rent. Whichever method Union Station elects to use, GHTD should have a clear understanding of the actual costs in order to determine whether or not the tenants are paying their fair share (percentage of square footage occupied multiplied by the local share capital cost.)

Because maintenance of the outdoor areas can be high as transit represents considerable wear and tear on the pavement, GHTD may want to consider charging tenants a percentage of their sales as additional rent to pay for increased maintenance associated with additional car/truck/bus movement on the facilities. GHTD will have to balance the pros and cons of having the transit companies alone pay additional rent, as they are the primary cause of maintenance, or having it distributed among all the tenants who benefit from transit ridership.

5.11 Summary Economic Conditions for Union Station Real estate development and urban revitalization provides opportunities for all residents and businesses in an area. More residential and retail options, additional employment, and the movement of real estate prices to state averages are all positive effects of the recent $2 billion investment in Downtown Hartford. While the current downturn has slowed real estate investment in Hartford, it is hoped that progress will resume in the near future.

In order to capture a portion the overall improvement of Downtown Hartford, Union Station should have a rental structure that provides the opportunity to collect additional monies as transit ridership increases. A form of performance-base rent, such as the Bank of America ATM pays, would permit Union Station to share in the Downtown’s success. (Bank of America pays both a base rent plus a percentage of transactions; hence, the more people who use their services, the more rent they pay.) In addition, the establishment of a maintenance fund for all the transportation tenants would offset the cost of capital improvements or wear-and-tear on the surface docking stations, without burdening the retail tenants the maintenance costs that they didn’t incur.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 5-8 April, 2010

6.0 CIRCULATION CONDITIONS NEAR UNION STATION

This chapter presents information about traffic conditions at and around Union Station. It summarizes findings from traffic counts and analysis of that data.

6.1 Traffic Conditions 6.1.1. Traffic Counts

Automated traffic recorder (ATR) and turning movement count data were collected during the period from Tuesday, September 18 th through Thursday, September 20 th 2007 to better understand current traffic flow and operations within the area surrounding Union Station.

Figure 6-1: Daily Traffic Volumes, September 2007

Source: Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.

The ATR count data were collected at the following two locations; results, as shown in Figure 6-1, indicate the following:

■ Spruce Street (north of Asylum Street): 6,200 vehicles per day (vpd) ■ Union Place (south of Allyn Street): 2,300 vpd

Turning movement count data were collected for the weekday morning (7:00 AM - 9:00 AM), mid day (11:00 AM – 1:00 PM), and afternoon (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) peak travel periods at nine (9) study area intersections listed below, also shown in Figure 6-2.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 6-1 April, 2010

■ Asylum Street & Spring Street (signalized) ■ Asylum Street & Spruce Street (signalized) ■ Asylum Street & Union Place (signalized) ■ Asylum Street & High Street (signalized) ■ Church Street/Myrtle Street & Spruce Street (signalized) ■ Church Street & High Street (signalized) ■ Allyn Street & High Street (signalized) ■ Allyn Street & Union Place (stop-controlled) ■ Church Street & Union Place/Hoadley Place (stop-controlled)

Figure 6-2: Study Area Intersections

Source: Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.

Peak hour traffic volumes are provided in Figure 6-3 and illustrate that Asylum Street carries the highest traffic volumes in the study area ranging from 1,000 to 2,000 vehicles per hour. Asylum Street is one of the City’s major east-west principal arterials and it interconnects with Interstate 84 (I-84). It is a major thoroughfare that merges with another principal arterial, Farmington Avenue, just west of the I-84 interchange, such that traffic from both arterials is combined by the time Asylum Street reaches Union Station. The lowest traffic volumes are on Union Place which carries approximately 200 vehicles per hour.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 6-2 April, 2010

Spruce Street Hoadley Place High Street

(36)(98)(56) (9) (3) (42) (165) (27)

72 [3] (0) 52 [8] (11) [19][20][8] [7] [4] 2 [8] (6) [17] [131] [22] Myrtle 61 [35] (94) 114 [52] (83) Church 21 2 0 6 2 138 [62] (133) 22 191 62 (6) [3] 6 51 [66] (99) Street (26) [16] 161 43 [32] (36) Street 118 228 157 60 1 4 112 O (466) [128] 208 N (218) [38] 70 E O W N (13) (249) (16) [124][5][71] E [23] [6] [170] W (188) [60] 84 [15] [155] [17] (157)(2)(184) (56) (12) (78) 18 [23] (31) Allyn Spring Street/ 8 [18] (21) Union Station 15 227 38 (45) [34] 64 6 [12] (66) Street I-84 WB Off- 158 89 O O N Ramp (32) [22] 23 N E E W (70)(146)(119) W (466) (122) [84] [67] (120) (265) A 66 [33] (44) [55] [81] [34] 220 [245] (285) [375] [129] (121)(70) [55] [119] 226 [78] (83) 497 [269] (425) 99 [77] (53) ONE 37 46 47 19 [27] (36) Asylum 825 63 33 228 590 [377] (482) (128) [68] 220 105 [121] (259) 697 [445] (820) (857) [425] 904 (712) [498] 720 (97) [112] 183 Street 228 198 458 534 (528) [323] 594 (718) [448] 933

[144] [103] [150] [353] (137) [116] 65

(60) (138) (204) (564)

I-84 Exit 48 Ford Street WB On-Ramps/ EB Off-Ramps

2007 Existing Traffic Volumes AM [Mid Day] (PM) Peak Hour Figure 6-3 Not to Scale

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 6-3 April, 2010

6.1.2. Level-of-Service Analysis

A level-of-service (LOS) analysis was conducted for all of the intersections using procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board. Synchro 6.0, a computer-based intersection operations model, which implements these procedures, was used to perform the analyses. LOS is a qualitative measure of intersection operational quality and takes into effect a number of factors such as intersection geometry, travel speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Six levels of service are defined with letter designations from A to F with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst. LOS C describes a condition of stable traffic flow and is generally considered the minimum desirable level for peak traffic flow in rural and suburban areas. LOS D, with greater vehicle queues and delay, is generally considered acceptable for urban areas because of the increasing cost and difficulty in making improvements necessary to provide LOS C in areas with dense development. In other words, LOS D is considered an acceptable fact of life in an urban situation.

Level-of-service designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections. For signalized intersections, LOS is defined in terms of delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort and frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of average stopped delay per vehicle for the peak 15-minute period of the peak hour for the entire intersection and by approach. For unsignalized intersections, the analysis assumes that the traffic on the mainline is not affected by traffic on the side street. The LOS for each movement is calculated by determining the number of gaps that are available in the conflicting traffic stream. Based on the number of gaps, the capacity of the movement can be calculated. The demand of the movement is then compared to the capacity and utilized to determine the average delay for the movement. For unsignalized intersections, LOS by approach is determined, but an overall intersection LOS is not determined.

Signal timing plans were obtained from the City of Hartford and were used to evaluate traffic operations. Field observations of traffic flow and results from the level-of-service analysis, as shown in Table 6-1, indicate the following:

■ All study area intersections operate with an acceptable overall intersection LOS C or better during the weekday AM, mid day, and PM peak periods.

■ Two critical movements operate at a failing LOS (LOS E or F). These movements are:

• Asylum Street & Spruce Street: The southbound (Spruce Street) left-turn movement operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour.

• Allyn Street & High Street: The westbound (Allyn Street) left-through movement operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour.

■ Queue spillback (stacking of cars) is anticipated to exceed beyond the available storage at only one location within the study area. The southbound (Spring Street) right-turn movement at the intersection of Asylum Street and Spring Street will exceed the available storage by five vehicles during the AM peak hour.

■ Traffic operations will slightly decline from what is indicated in Table 6-1 if an exclusive pedestrian phase is activated. (NOTE: All of the signalized intersections except for the intersection of Asylum Street with High Street/Ford Street have exclusive pedestrian phases. For an intersection with high pedestrian activity, it is anticipated that an exclusive pedestrian phase will not be called more than 23 times per hour (1 pedestrian call every other cycle). Standard methodology evaluates pedestrian activity at intersections where there is

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 6-4 April, 2010

consistent heavy activity of pedestrians. While we recognize that the City of Hartford has a vibrant activity of pedestrians, it is not enough to trigger significant effects to the overall intersection LOS .)17

6.1.3. Conclusions from Circulation Analysis

In general, the traffic flow in the study area is good. There is capacity in the network to accommodate economic growth. Field observations confirm the findings from the analysis. Generally speaking, traffic flow in the vicinity of Union Station is good, with the few exceptions noted in the analysis. The one-way patterns help reduce traffic conflicts and the coordinated signal system benefits the progression of traffic.

17 Note that the City of Hartford might also consider the use of concurrent walk signals to eliminate some traffic as well as pedestrian delay, in keeping with current practice in major cities such as New York City, Chicago, and most other cities around the country. Concurrent signals allow both traffic and pedestrians to advance on green, and turning vehicles must give the right of way to pedestrians in the crosswalk. Such signals reduce pedestrian delays at intersections but pedestrians have to be alert to vehicles which can be turning through the crosswalk. Union Station Plan Final Report Page 6-5 April, 2010

Table 6-1: Level-of-Service Summary Existing Conditions (2007) AM Peak HourMid day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Intersections Asylum Street & Spring Street Eastbound Thru 11.9 B 5.3 A 5.9 A Westbound Thru 8.6 A 1.6 A 4.7 A Westbound Right 2.6 A 0.1 A 2.2 A Southbound Left 31.3 C 28.0 C 35.0 D Southbound Right 27.0 C 6.7 A 15.3 B Intersection 16.6 B 8.2 A 11.6 B Asylum Street & Spruce Street Eastbound Left 30.2 C 17.4 B 27.0 C Eastbound Thru-right 13.8 B 14.4 B 19.6 B Westbound Left-thru-right 5.5 A 8.7 A 20.5 C Northbound Left 53.5 D 48.8 D 46.6 D Northbound Thru-right 32.9 C 30.3 C 41.4 D Northbound Rigth 8.3 A 8.1 A 7.6 A Southbound Left 28.3 C 27.5 C 57.1 E Southbound Thru-right 16.4 B 23.5 C 48.7 D Intersection 17.4 B 17.8 B 26.0 C Asylum Street & Union Place Eastbound Thru-left 0.7 A 0.3 A 0.5 A Westbound Thru-right 1.1 A 15.2 B 14.8 B Intersection 0.9 A 7.5 A 7.9 A Asylum Street & High Street Eastbound Right 0.6 A 0.1 A 1.4 A Westbound Left 35.4 D 33.2 C 39.1 D Westbound Thru 43.1 D 40.7 D 48.7 D Northbound Left 9.3 A 6.7 A 10.7 B Southbound Thru-right 28.2 C 32.5 D 41.6 D Intersection 11.9 B 15.8 B 18.1 B Church Street/Myrtle Street & Spruce Street Eastbound Left-thru-right 10.7 B 2.5 A 7.2 A Westbound Left-thru-right 7.1 A 4.2 A 7.4 A Northbound Thru-left 35.2 D 30.9 C 46.4 D Northbound Right 4.5 A 6.7 A 6.1 A Southbound Left-thru-right 7.8 A 13.4 B 30.4 C Intersection 17.3 B 12.5 B 16.3 B

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 6-6 April, 2010

Table 6-1: Level-of-Service Summary (continued)

AM Peak HourMid day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Intersections Church Street & High Street Eastbound Left-thru 41.8 D 29.5 C 48.3 D Westbound Left-thru 17.8 B 20.7 C 19.2 B Southbound Left-thru-right 7.6 A 6.1 A 10.0 B Intersection 23.5 C 19.7 B 34.3 C Allyn Street & High Street Eastbound Thru-right 28.6 C 19.4 B 24.4 C Westbound Left-thru 36.7 D 37.3 D 59.6 E Southbound Thru 4.5 A 1.0 A 1.4 A Intersection 11.2 B 8.8 A 16.9 B Stop-Controlled Intersections Church Street & Union Place/Hoadley Place Eastbound Thru-left 0.3 A 0.2 A 0.1 A Northbound Left-thru-right 12.4 B 10.5 B 17.4 C Southbound Left-thru-right 14.4 B 13.3 B 18.8 C Allyn Street & Union Place Westbound Right 9.5 A 9.0 A 9.3 A Source: Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.

Highlighted Text: Unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 6-7 April, 2010

AM - LOS B AM - LOS C Mid - LOS B Spruce Street Hoadley Place High Street Mid - LOS B

Myrtle Church

Street Street AM - LOS B

O O N N E E W W A A Mid - LOS A AM - LOS B Allyn Spring Street/ Union Station Street I-84 WB Off- Mid - LOS B O Ramp N O E N W E A W A

ONE WAY Asylum

Street

AM - LOS B AM - LOS A AM - LOS B

Mid - LOS A Mid - LOS A Mid - LOS B Ford Street I-84 Exit 48

WB On-Ramps/ EB Off-Ramps

NOTE: An overall LOS for unsignalized intersections cannot be determined .

2007 Existing Overall Intersection Level -of -Service Figure 6-4 Not to Scale

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 6-8 April, 2010

6.2 Pedestrian Assessment Pedestrian activity was observed and counts were also collected at the study area intersections during the weekday morning (7:00 AM - 9:00 AM), mid day (11:00 AM – 1:00 PM), and afternoon (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) peak travel periods in September 2007. Results, as shown in Table 6-2, indicate the following:

■ Pedestrian activity was observed to be generally moderate to high at intersections adjacent to parking facilities in the Downtown area, as shown in Figure 6-5.

■ The intersection of Asylum Street with Spruce Street generates moderate pedestrian activity during the mid day peak hour as it provides connectivity to Bushnell Park.

The highest observed pedestrian activity occurred at the intersection of Asylum Street with High Street during the AM peak hour, at the intersection of Asylum Street with Spruce Street during the mid day peak hour, and at the intersection of Asylum Street and Spring Street during the PM peak hour, as shown in Figure 6-6.

The lowest pedestrian activity occurred at the intersection of Union Place with Allyn Street and Union Place with Asylum Street.

Figure 6-5: Pedestrian Activity (Overall)

Source: Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 6-9 April, 2010

Figure 6-6: Pedestrian Activity (Highest Hourly)

Table 6-2: Pedestrian Activity Summary Existing Conditions (2007) Number of Pedestrians AM Peak Mid Day PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Hour Asylum Street & Spring Street 71 29 132 Asylum Street & Spruce Street 103 230 101 Asylum Street & Union Place 0 12 17 Asylum Street & High Street 124 67 70 Church Street/Myrtle Street & Spruce Street 35 48 52 Church Street & High Street 105 177 122 Allyn Street & High Street 70 228 93 Allyn Street & Union Place 0 12 17 Church Street & Union Place/Hoadley Place 71 150 76

Source: Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 6-10 April, 2010

7.0 PARKING CONDITIONS AT AND NEAR UNION STATION

A parking survey and analysis was carried out as part of the Union Station study. The purpose of this analysis was to assess the current parking capacity as well as the future parking needs near Union Station for the various development scenarios for a 10-year horizon. This chapter covers current parking conditions.

Figure 7-1 identifies all of the parking facilities within 1/3-mile radius of Union Station. To gain an understanding of the availability of parking spaces near Union Station under existing conditions, a survey was conducted at the eight parking facilities and on-street spaces listed below and also shown in Figure 7-1. These facilities were selected in coordination with the Capitol Regional Council of Governments and were selected for the survey because they are closest to Union Station and are parking facilities used by the general public, not by a particular employer, except for the North Transportation Lot.

■ Spruce Street Lot (Transportation Lot, Union Station) ■ North Transportation Lot ■ Church Street and High Street ■ Union Place and Allyn Street ■ Saints Lot (corner of Church Street and Ann Street) ■ Allyn Street ■ Parkview Hilton (Asylum Street and Ford Street) ■ Union Place South

As the figure shows, there are eight lots, with a total of 1,484 spaces and 137 on-street spaces that are most likely to be used by patrons of Union Station. Of these eight lots, all are privately owned and are available to the general public for parking with the exception of the North Transportation Lot which is used for private parking by employees of the Hartford Insurance Group.

The survey was conducted at each facility on either November 1 st or 12 th of 2007 between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. to capture the weekday morning peak parking demand and from 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. to capture the weekday midday peak parking demand. The survey was also conducted on November 8, 2007 between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to capture the weekday afternoon peak parking demand. The survey and subsequent analysis was conducted with the following typically accepted parking assumptions:

■ People prefer to walk no more than 500 feet from parking to their destination, but will walk up to 1,000 feet under ideal conditions. Those conditions include safe, comfortable sidewalks and paths with amenities such as trash cans, benches, and shelter from inclement weather. However, people may be encouraged to walk more than 1000 feet if parking is provided by their employer at no cost (this occurs in the project area, with employees of the Hartford Insurance Group walking more than 1000 feet from their paid parking location— however the Hartford employees have employer provided shuttles available).

■ A parking facility is generally considered to be at capacity when it is 90% full (as some space use is lost to turnover activity, snow, obstructions, handicap spaces, special use parking, and poorly parked or oversized vehicles).

Results of the survey are shown in Table 7-1 and Figure 7-2. Field observations and the results from the survey in Table 7-1 indicate the following:

■ In general, the parking facilities near Union Station are moderately utilized between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. with approximately 72% utilization of the total facilities inventoried during the morning peak period and 71%

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 7-1 April, 2010

utilization during the mid day peak period. During the afternoon peak period from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., the parking utilization reduces significantly to 50%.

■ The most utilized facility during the morning and mid-day period is the North Transportation Lot. This facility is leased by The Hartford Insurance Group and used for its employees only.

■ The Spruce Street Lot immediately adjacent to Union Station (indicated as Transportation Lot, Union Station in Figures 7-1 and 7-2) is the most underutilized surface lot during the morning and mid day peak periods. Note that at the time of the survey, the capacity of the lot was 190 spaces. Late in 2009 the lot was restriped to provide 215 spaces.

■ On-street parking spaces are provided only on the east side of Spruce Street. However, it is noted that illegal parking and frequent kiss-n-ride drop-offs occur on the west side of Spruce Street. On-street spaces between Asylum Avenue and the pedestrian crossing are designated for the taxi cab services. The remaining on-street spaces are metered and available to the public for short-term parking.

■ Asylum Street from Ann Street to Ford Street has the most utilized on-street parking spaces during the morning, mid day, and afternoon peak periods.

■ Church Street from Union Place to Ann Street has the least utilized on-street spaces during the morning peak period; while High Street from Church Street to Allyn Street has the least utilized on-street spaces during the mid day peak period.

■ Evening activity is significantly reduced from daytime levels in downtown Hartford during the week. Surface parking lots have a significant number of spaces available during the evening hours. However, patrons of the downtown restaurants and bars in the vicinity of Union Station typically utilize the on-street parking spaces during the weekday evening hours as well as during the weekend evenings. This is particularly noted on Union Place and Allyn Street, where the on-street spaces are heavily utilized in the evenings by patrons of the restaurants in the area.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 7-2 April, 2010

Figure 7-1: Surveyed Parking Facilities Near Union Station

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 7-3 April, 2010

Figure 7-2: Utilization of Parking Lots Near Union Station

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 7-4 April, 2010

Table 7-1: Observed Parking Occupancy AM Peak Hour Mid Day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total Spaces Utilization Spaces Utilization Spaces Utilization Parking Location Spaces Occupied Percent ( %) Occupied Percent ( %) Occupied Percent ( %) Surface Parking Lots 1- Transportation Lot - Union Station 190 101 53% 120 63% 99 52% 2- North Parking Lot 325 319 98% 268 82% 113 35% 3- Church Street and High Street 80 49 61% 52 65% 21 26% 4- Union Place and Allyn St 75 60 80% 56 75% 36 48% 5- Saints Lot 267 192 72% 202 76% 128 48% 6- 180 Allyn Street 297 212 71% 225 76% 193 65% 7- Parkview Hilton 200 155 78% 138 69% 129 65% 8- Union Place South 50 34 68% 30 60% 25 50% On-Street Parking Union Place (Asylum Street to Church Street) 42 15 36% 15 36% 26 62% Spruce Street (Church Street to Asylum Street) 10 5 50% 5 50% 3 30% Church Street (Union Place to Ann Street) 5 0 0% 1 20% 1 20% High Street (Church Street to Allyn Street) 12 1 8% 0 0% 0 0% Allyn Street (Union Place to Ann Street) 55 15 27% 22 40% 33 60% Asylum Street (Ann Street to Ford Street) 13 11 85% 9 69% 13 100% TOTAL 1,621 1,169 72% 1,143 71% 820 51%

Source: Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.

Bold : Indicates a facility with more than 90% utilization

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 7-5 April, 2010

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 7-6 April, 2010

Phase 2: Future Scenarios and Alternatives

Union Station Plan Final Report April, 2010

8.0 FUTURE SCENARIOS

This project considered two different future scenarios for Union Station. In Scenario A, Union Station is the center of new commuter rail service, and is at the termination point for the New Britain Busway. In Scenario B, Union Station also becomes the location for a transit center serving local buses in Hartford. Before discussing these scenarios, however, a brief description of demographic forecasts for the area is in order.

8.1 Future Population, Employment, Development, Traffic and Parking Near Union Station In both Scenario A (Union Station plus commuter rail and New Britain Busway) and Scenario B (Union Station plus commuter rail, New Britain Busway and a local bus transit center), there will be impacts on traffic, pedestrian use and parking. In addition, development scenarios to be discussed in this report will also affect these things. But before looking at these impacts, it is important to assess what is projected for the area without considering Scenarios A and B for Union Station. As will be seen, the growth of population and employment is expected to be very slow. However, the City of Hartford has redevelopment plans which could improve the environment near Union Station.

8.1.1. Population Overall, the downtown area of Hartford has a very low population, especially as compared to the surrounding area. According to the 2000 census, ninety-six of 188 downtown blocks have no residents, including the areas surrounding the Convention Center, Old State House, Traveler’s Towers, and the State Capitol. Another ten census blocks had ten or fewer total residents, and none of the census blocks within the downtown study area had greater than 1,000 total residents. 18 Along Asylum Avenue, Summer Streets, along Fraser Street, and between Cogswell to the western side of I-84 were pockets of population. There was a pocket of population between Union Station and Ann Street.

As shown previously the population within ½ mile of Union Station was 3,509 in 2007 according to ESRI data. Figure 8-1 which shows population density in 2000 helps to show how the population is situated near Union Station, located in the middle of the figure.

Population projections used as inputs to the CRCOG Regional Travel Demand Model were examined. CRCOG assembles data at the Traffic Analysis Zone or “TAZ” level, which can be significantly larger, geographically, than a census block. Figure 8-2 depicts the population projections in the downtown area geographically. In the year 2000, total population for the eleven populated TAZs all or partially within the downtown area ranged from 37 people in the TAZ surrounding the XL Center, to 2,322 individuals residing in the TAZ along Asylum Hill. Projections are that by the year 2010 the population of each of the eleven downtown study area TAZs will grow by less than one percent.

CRCOG projections, which are based on information on planned residential developments within the study area, show a varied growth rate among the TAZs from 2010 to 2030. It should be noted that these reflect planned developments at the time the projections were made. The planned projects may or may not be completed in this time frame and additional projects not included in the projections have since been proposed and some have even been completed. According to the projections, some of the TAZs are expected to grow by as much as 275 percent, while others are expected to grow only by about 7 percent of their population. The three TAZs where population is expected to grow up to 275 percent between 2010 and 2030 are clustered together around Union Station and the XL Center, bordered by I-84 on the north and west, Main Street in the east, and parts of Ford, Jewell, and Elm streets in the south.

18 The study area for Part 3 of this project consists of downtown Hartford plus the commercial portion of the Asylum Hill neighborhood. It is bounded by the Connecticut River on the east, I-84 and Walnut Street to the north, Garden and Collins Streets in the northwest, Sigourney Street on the west, and Capitol Avenue on the south. See NW Corridor Transit Planning Project Part 3 – Downtown Hartford Transit Circulation Study Final Report , August 2009.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-1 April, 2010

Achieving the population growth shown near Union Station will be challenging given the current economic environment. The new transportation services coming to Union Station can help provide the catalyst for this growth.

Figure 8-1: Downtown Population Density

Source: US Census 2000

Four additional TAZs are expected to see an increase in population, though the growth is projected to be significantly less than those areas discussed above. The population in three TAZs along the southern edge of the downtown area (as shown in Figure 8-2) is projected to grow by between 20 and 45 percent and the current most populated TAZ, in the northwest corner of the figure, is expected to grow by about six percent between 2010 and 2030.

The remaining four TAZs, those projected by model data to lose population between 2010 and 2030, are grouped together in the Asylum Hill portion of the study area, around I-84 and the intersection of Asylum and Farmington Avenues. None of those TAZs are expected to lose more than seven percent of their population, although overall population will remain low, with no single TAZ having more than 1,350 inhabitants.

8.1.2. Employment Employees per square mile, as of the year 2000, were mapped using TAZ data from the CRCOG Regional Travel Demand Model, and are shown in Figure 8-3. The heavy concentration of employment is along Main Street with densities equivalent to over 100,000 employees per square mile. Employment near Union Station is more moderate, or between 16,000 and 50,000 per square mile. To the west of Union Station, the area between Asylum and Farmingham has between 50,000 and 100,000 employees per square mile due to the presence of the insurance companies. Referring back to Table 5-1 employment within ½ mile of Union Station in 2007 was 31,159.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-2 April, 2010

Figure 8-2: Downtown Hartford Population Projections

Source: CRCOG Travel Demand Model

Figure 8-3: Downtown Employment Density

Source: CRCOG Travel Demand Model

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-3 April, 2010

Figure 8-4 demonstrates the share of retail and non- retail employment in the downtown study area for the year 2000. Non- retail employment makes up most of the industry within the downtown study area. In eight of 15 TAZs, retail employment made up less than one percent of total employment in 2000. This includes the areas around the Convention Center, Pulaski Circle, the State Capitol, and Farmington Avenue. In addition, another six TAZs, those within the vicinity of the XL Center, Capital Community College, and the southern corners of the downtown study area showed no more than six percent of all employment as retail. The TAZ including Union Station shows a higher percentage of retail than most of the surrounding TAZs.

Figure 8-4: Downtown Employment Makeup

Source: CRCOG Travel Demand Model

Future employment projections used in the CRCOG Regional Travel Demand Model assume that the downtown area will maintain a constant share of regional employment. Projections for non-retail and retail growth are shown in Figures 8-5 and 8-6, respectively. These projections indicate that no significant growth in employment is projected by 2010. The non- retail sector is projected to experience growth after 2010. Between 2010 and 2030, non- retail employment is projected to rise by a minimum of four percent in the southwest corner of the study area, to a maximum of 55 percent in the northwest corner of the study area, below I-84. Other areas of high non- retail employment growth, those expected to gain by more than 25 percent, lie within the center of the study area, in those TAZs surrounding Union Station, the XL Center, and close to Traveler’s Towers.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-4 April, 2010

Figure 8-5: Downtown Non-Retail Employment

Source: CRCOG Travel Demand Model

Figure 8-6: Downtown Retail Employment

Source: CRCOG Travel Demand Model

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-5 April, 2010

8.1.3. Land Use Figure 8-7 shows current land use in the downtown area. The areas in red are vacant commercial land—primarily being used as parking areas. As can be seen, there are many such areas around Union Station (which is shown in purple in Figure 8-7). On one hand these large areas of vacant commercial land detract from the activity level of pedestrians around Union Station—on the other hand, they do provide opportunity areas for development given the right circumstances.

Over the past decade the City of Hartford has had a number of development initiatives. These have primarily been near the waterfront and in the center of downtown. These include the Hartford Convention Center, the Marriott Hotel, the Science Center, Mortensen Riverfront Plaza, and the Northland downtown housing projects, including the new tower at the XL Center (Hartford 21). Recently, there have been a series of initiatives that shift some of the focus toward the west and the Union Station neighborhood: Hartford 2010 (2007), The Urban Land Institute Advisory Services Report (2007) and Redevelopment Plan for The Downtown West Section 1 Project (2006). These studies have identified key development sites, "target sites" and proposed public improvements for the Asylum/Farmington and Downtown West sections and recommended mixed use development on vacant and underutilized parcels. The area between the XL Center and Union Station is targeted for an expansion and reinforcement of the existing entertainment uses.

The Union Station area is on the edge of Bushnell Park; it is an entertainment area with many of the city's nightspots, restaurants and the existing XL Center, and it is near many of the City's cultural attractions; it has an inviting historic character; there are many available parcels for development; and, the availability of transit and proximity of Union Station (as well as access to I-84) make it one of the most accessible areas of the city.

Figure 8-7: Union Station Area Land Use (July 2007)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-6 April, 2010

8.2 Scenario A: New Britain Busway and Commuter Rail Planned new transportation services that will be arriving at Union Station include the New Britain Busway and the New Haven Hartford Springfield commuter rail. The Scenario A future for Union Station considers what should happen when these services are implemented. Scenario A is the “no build” alternative for Union Station.

8.2.1. New Britain Busway The New Britain Busway is currently being designed as a bi-directional grade-separated busway from New Britain to Hartford. There will be ten on-line stations with at least three mid-line entry points. Most stations are located in areas where park-and-ride will be an important mode of access. In Hartford, the busway will terminate adjacent to the I-84 ramps at the south side of Asylum Avenue opposite Spruce Street at Union Station. In addition to the Asylum Avenue terminus, a station and busway exit is planned at Sigourney Street in the Asylum Hill neighborhood.

All busway services will circulate in downtown Hartford. CTDOT expects that some percentage of them would exit at Sigourney and use Sigourney and Farmington Avenue to reach Union Station where they would re-join buses that remain on the busway until the Asylum Avenue terminus. This is shown in Figure 8-8.

Figure 8-8: New Britain Busway Terminus

CTDOT has not yet developed a final service plan for the busway. However, a preliminary service plan developed in 2007 indicated that busway service would consist of twelve different routes. These routes can be divided into three categories:

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-7 April, 2010

■ Busway “Shuttle” – One route would provide regular frequent service only to busway stations and the two downtowns. This would most likely be CTTRANSIT operated route. ■ Local Bus Routes – Four routes would provide local service in New Britain and continue to Hartford along the busway making all busway station stops. Three additional routes would provide local service and enter the busway way at one of the intermediate entry points before continuing to Hartford along the busway making all busway station stops. Six of these seven routes would originate in New Britain. The seventh would originate along the outer end of Route Q in West Hartford. These routes would most likely be operated by a combination of the CTTRANSIT Hartford and New Britain Divisions. ■ Express Service – Four routes would begin at more distant locations (from Bristol, Cheshire, Meriden and Waterbury), enter the busway in New Britain, and operate non-stop on the busway to Sigourney Street. Three of the four routes would be existing contracted commuter routes (Routes 19, 23, and 24) that would be operated using the busway with enhanced frequency.

Development of a final service plan is ongoing for this initial phase of busway implementation in the Hartford area. Additional busways have also been proposed as well as expansion of busway-like services into other corridors. The development of a downtown circulation pattern for New Britain busway services will need to consider the possibility of future busway service through-routed to points east of the river, or possibly even north of downtown.

The four express routes can be expected to carry long distance commuters to downtown Hartford. These routes are expected to carry an estimated 1,800 riders in the near term in both directions to and from downtown. In developing the downtown circulation alternatives, these routes were treated as commuter routes and were assumed to be the services that would use the Sigourney entrance/exit of the busway. Few express riders are expected to transfer to other routes in downtown Hartford.

The shuttle and seven local routes are expected to carry approximately 7,300 daily riders in the near term in both directions into downtown Hartford through the point at which the busway ends at Union Station. These riders are expected to make 3,981 transfers (1,990 in each direction in the near term) in downtown Hartford. With this large number of transfers to and from these routes, these routes will need to make convenient transfer connections in the downtown much like what is needed for the local bus routes.

Currently, Union Station is not a major stop for either CTTRANSIT or express routes. CTTRANSIT counts in 2007 showed 38 passengers getting on buses from the stop at Asylum and Union Place in the eastbound direction and 192 getting off. In the westbound direction there were 182 boarding at Asylum and Union Place and 48 getting off. Although bus passengers boarding near Union Station can be expected to increase proportionately as the New Britain Busway increases bus passengers into Hartford, Union Station will remain a much smaller stop for CTTRANSIT bus passengers than the stops along Main Street.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-8 April, 2010

8.2.2. New Haven - Hartford - Springfield Commuter Rail Project The Implementation Study for the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail was completed in June 2005 19 . The study assessed alternative scenarios, ridership, capital and operating costs, environmental resources, financing needs and next steps. It recommended a start-up service with bi-directional service (oriented toward both New Haven and Springfield) with weekday peak period service every 30 minutes. The study also recommended supplementing existing Amtrak service with eight new round trips. A total of twelve start-up stations were proposed, including Hartford Union Station. This initial study projected system-wide ridership of 2,428 new weekday boardings in 2025, including 515 weekday boardings in Hartford. The Connecticut Department of Transportation is currently conducting an environmental assessment of the project which has not yet been published. Updated weekday ridership projections from the new study indicate that system-wide ridership is now projected to reach 3,844 by 2015 and 5,426 by 2030. Hartford Union Station daily ridership is projected at 699 in 2015 and 1,144 in 2030 20 .

The new study indicates potential parking and access issues for Union Station. The main requirement for accommodation of the future New Haven/Hartford/Springfield commuter rail service would be to accommodate parking needs. Current forecasts indicate a 200 (parking constrained) to 343 (parking unconstrained) auto arrivals at Union Station during the AM peak and midday for the commuter rail, resulting in a need for 180 to 309 parking spaces. 21 Counts of the Spruce Street lot at midday found that there were 120 spaces taken which would leave a capacity of 95 spaces. 22

As presented in Chapter 7, additional parking is presently available near Union Station. Table 7-1 together with Figure 7-1 showed that in addition to the Spruce Street Lot there are four other surface parking lots within two blocks from Union Station. 23 Table 8-1 shows these other lots have a total of 502 spaces, so together with the Spruce Street Lot there are 717 parking spaces in lots located close to Union Station. However, as pointed out in Chapter 7, full utilization of these lots would be at 90 percent capacity which would occur when there are 645 parkers. Adding the 120 parkers currently using the Spruce Street Lot to the 363 parkers at the other lots gives a 2007 demand of 483 parkers. Allowing for growth in demand of 1 percent per year yields 523 parkers by 2015. Then adding a range of 180 to 309 parkers from commuter rail yields a need for 703 to 832 spaces in the midday period. Thus even with existing capacity at nearby lots, between 58 and 187 additional parking spaces (the difference between demand and capacity of 645) would be required to serve commuter rail patrons at Union Station.

Parking will be discussed more in Chapter 13, but the bottom line from this analysis is that there will be a need for additional parking near Union Station when commuter rail is implemented.

19 Wilbur Smith Associates, New Haven – Hartford – Springfield Commuter Rail Implementation Study, Final Report, June 2005. 20 Presentation to New Haven Hartford, Springfield Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Steering Committee, April 16, 2009 21 Wilbur Smith, White Paper for Task 6E Parking and 9J – Station Parking Improvements, June 5, 2009. Page 1 notes a forecast for 344 auto arrivals at Hartford Union Station with unconstrained demand, 200 when constrained due to limited parking. Of the auto arrivals, 90 percent require parking and 10 percent are kiss and ride. 22 The Spruce Street lot was restriped in late 2009, providing 215 spaces. This has increased the capacity by 25 spaces. 23 According to typical industry norms, transit patrons will walk two to four blocks to access service. Two blocks is used here to be conservative. As the blocks are relatively short near Union Station, the distances to commuter rail would likely perceive to be shorter than two blocks.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-9 April, 2010

Table 8-1: Status of Surface Parking Spaces within Two Blocks of Union Station (2007) Surface Parking Lot Total Spaces Occupied During Spaces Unoccupied During (numbers refer to Spaces numbers in Figure 7- AM Peak Midday PM Peak AM Peak Midday PM Peak 1)

3-Church Street and 80 49 52 21 31 28 59 High Street

4-Union Place and 75 60 56 36 15 19 39 Allyn Street

6-180 Allyn Street 297 212 225 193 85 72 104

8-Union Place South 50 34 30 24 16 20 25

Totals 502 355 363 274 147 139 227

Derived from Table 7-1 from data compiled by Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.

The commuter rail service would generate 20 to 34 drop off auto trips during the morning and midday period. Additional short-term parking might be needed at Union Station for automobiles waiting to pick up commuter rail passengers alighting in the afternoon, particularly if there are any service delays.

The Wilbur Smith White paper also forecasts that with the 2015 start-up there would be119 commuter rail passengers would arrive by bus at Hartford Union Station, with 110 arriving in the AM peak period.24 CTTRANSIT counts in 2007 showed 38 passengers getting on buses from the stop at Asylum and Union Place in the eastbound direction and 192 getting off. In the westbound direction there were 182 boarding at Asylum and Union Place and 48 getting off. The Wilbur Smith White Paper forecast would indicate that these numbers would increase, but the stop at Asylum and Union Place would still accommodate many fewer passengers than the large downtown stops which accommodate over a thousand passengers a day. The current transit capacity at Union Station including the Farmington Route, the Asylum Avenue Routes, the commuter routes and the Star Shuttle should be able to accommodate the increase in bus traffic due to the commuter rail.

8.3 Circulation for Scenario A (No Build) In order to understand the traffic impacts of changes to Union Station, a traffic analysis was conducted for the year 2017. An analysis was done for Scenario A, assuming the implementation of the two planned projects underway by the Connecticut Department of Transportation: the New Britain-Hartford Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project and the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail project. Using available information from those on-going studies and reasonable assumptions, site generated traffic was estimated for the planned projects. No allowance was made for TOD or joint development—thus this is the “No-Build” analysis.

24 Wilbur Smith, White Paper for Task 6E Parking and 9J – Station Parking Improvements, June 5, 2009, Appendix A.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-10 April, 2010

Background growth, planned and programmed developments, and roadway improvements were considered when determining future traffic volumes for the year 2017. Though the trend in traffic volumes in downtown Hartford has not shown a steady increase over the past few years, a conservative (i.e. worst case) analysis was used and a one percent (1%) growth rate per year was assumed to account for background traffic growth which is typical for most urban environments similar to Hartford.

Estimates for the number of New Britain busway buses and their route patterns were developed as part of the Downtown Circulation task of the Northwest Corridor Study. Forty-two (42) buses will use the busway during the morning peak hour , with 29 going in the peak direction. During the mid day peak there will be 13 buses using the busway and 40 buses during the afternoon peak hour. During the morning and afternoon peak hours 19 buses (and 13 buses during the mid day peak hour) will exit the busway at the I-84 eastbound off-ramp to Asylum Street and will travel downtown via Spruce Street and Church Street. Buses will return via Church Street to Spruce Street to the busway at the I-84 eastbound off-ramp. The remaining buses will approach downtown on Farmington Avenue eastbound to Asylum Street turning right onto Ford Street to access downtown. These buses will return via Asylum Street then to Farmington Avenue back to the Sigourney BRT Station. Figure 8-9 illustrates the BRT busway routing patterns during the morning, afternoon, and mid day peak hours.

Figure 8-9: BRT Traffic Flow Daily Traffic Volumes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Traffic Flow

Spruce Street 6,200 vehicles per day Union Place 2,300 vehicles per day Union Station

BRT coming into Downtown BRT leaving Downtown Union/BRT Station

Intersection improvements (lane use changes) associated with the BRT design at the intersection of Asylum Street with Spruce Street were obtained from CTDOT and utilized in this traffic analysis.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-11 April, 2010

The New Haven – Hartford – Springfield Commuter Rail project will serve commuters traveling between the towns and cities along the corridor and will providel provide multiple connections to Amtrak Intercity service and a direct link to the existing Metro North and Shore Line East Commuter Rail services in New Haven.

Based on information obtained from the White Paper for Parking and Station Parking Improvements, CTDOT New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Service, Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Evaluation, June 5, 2009 , Union Station is projected to have 463 boardings on the new commuter rail service by the year 2015 (312 boardings during the morning peak and 151 boardings during the mid day peak). Of the total projected boardings, 343 passengers will arrive by automobile (202 passengers during the morning peak and 141 passengers during the mid day peak).

CTDOT’s white paper assumed auto parking at Union Station would be constrained by the existing parking capacity. No new parking was proposed. Excess demand which might have used Union Station was assigned to the Newington station. To estimate the number of vehicles generated by the new commuter rail service for this study, the following assumptions were made:

■ A factor of 0.58 (constrained arrivals by automobile divided by unconstrained arrivals by automobile) was applied to estimate the constrained demand of passengers arriving by automobile.

■ Ninety percent (90%) arrive at the station and park their vehicle; ten percent (10%) will be dropped off.

■ All passengers that arrive at the station and park their vehicle arrive alone. In other words, the auto occupancy of arriving passengers is 1.0.

■ Morning boarders disembark during the afternoon peak hour in their reverse trip.

■ Mid day boarders disembark after the afternoon peak hour.

■ 2017 projections will be the same as the 2015 scenario (i.e. no new increase was assumed for that 2-year period).

Therefore, 106 passengers are projected to drive to the station and park their vehicle while 12 passengers will be dropped-off during the morning peak hour. During the mid day peak hour, 74 passengers will drive to the station and park their vehicle and 8 passengers will be dropped-off.

An arrival/departure trip distribution pattern was developed for traffic expected to be generated by the commuter rail project based on census journey-to-work data. Figure 8-10 shows the site-generated trips estimated for the commuter rail project.

The site-generated volumes for the busway and the commuter rail projects were added to the increased background volumes to determine the future 2017 No-Build condition. The resulting total 2017 No-Build traffic volumes are provided in Figure 8-11.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-12 April, 2010

Figure 8-10: Commuter Rail Site Generated Trips

Spruce Street Hoadley Place High Street (1) [7] 11

11 [7] (1) Myrtle 11 [7] (1) Church Street Street (1) [4] 6 (44) [3] 5 (44) [3] 5

0 5 (0) (2) [0] [3] [8] [3] (6) (44) WAY ONE 12 5 ONE WAY ONE

5 [3] (2) 7 [5] (10) Allyn Spring Street/ Union Street I-84 WB Off- (48) [0] 0 Station Ramp (57) [0] 0

(3) 93 7 [66] [5] ONE WAY ONE [24] (30) (37) WAY ONE 34 [2] [3] (0) (10) 3 4

ONE WAY 3 [2] (30) Asylum Street (3) [21] 30 (6) [45] 64 35 [26] (4)

I-84 Exit 48 WB On-Ramps/ EB Off-Ramps Ford And Busway Street

Commuter Rail Site Generated Trips Not to Scale AM [Mid Day] (PM)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-13 April, 2010

Figure 8-11: 2017 No-Build Traffic Volumes

Spruce Street Hoadley Place High Street

(40) (108) (62) (10) (3) (47) (182) (30) [21] [22] [9] [8] [4] [26] [144] [24] 79 [3] (0) 23 2 0 7 2 35 210 68 57 [9] (12) 67 [39] (103) 2 [9] (7) 144 [70] (110) 86 [73] (129) 47 [35] (40) Myrtle 182 [88] (166) Church Street Street (7) [3] 7 (52) [18] 37 (29) [18] 177 (576) [157] 253 (553) [174] 266 (240) [42] 77 (61) [73] 55 (208) [70] 98 130 251 197 66 15 123 [136] [6] [94] [25] [7] [187] ONE WAY WAY ONE ONE (179) (2) (265) (62) (13) (86) (14) (274) (18)

ONE WAY WAY ONE ONE [17] [171] [19] 17 250 42 9 [20] (23) 7 [13] (73) Allyn Spring Street/ Union 20 [25] (34) Street I-84 WB Off- Station Ramp (50) [37] 70 (35) [24] 25 174 98 [92] [74] ONE WAY WAY ONE ONE (107) (217) (131) WAY WAY ONE ONE (133)(77) (292) (513) (137) [63] [105] [37] (132) [131] [413] [166] 44 74 52 73 [36] (48) [61] 908 103 570 [296] (489) 36 251 265 [270] (335) 116 [133] (285) 21 [30] (40) ONE WAY 249 [86] (91) 109 [85] (58) 675 [417] (581) 790 [490] (923) Asylum (141) [120] 306 (964) [468] 1017 Street (807) [569] 845 (602) [355] 676 (107) [123] 201 251 273 504 (811) [493] 1049 (151) [128] 72 587 [158] [152] [165] [388] (66) (175) (224) (620)

I-84 Exit 48 WB On-Ramps/ EB Off-Ramps Ford Street

2017 No-Build Traffic Volumes - AM [Mid Day] (PM) Peak Hour Not to Scale

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-14 April, 2010

In general, an intersection having a poor level-of-service under existing conditions will continue to function poorly or an intersection will deteriorate further if additional demand is added and no improvements are made to the roadway. Results from the No-Build analysis, as shown in Table 8-2, indicate that overall traffic operations will be similar to existing conditions at most intersections in the study area near Union Station while operations will decline slightly at critical movements at the intersection of Asylum Street and Spruce Street. With the increased demand of the busway and commuter rail trips at this intersection, the eastbound left-turn, westbound left-turn, the northbound left-turn, and the southbound left-turn movements will operate at LOS E during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Additionally, the westbound left-thru movement at the intersection of Allyn Street with High Street will operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. Figure 8-12 shows the failing critical movements under the No-Build 2017 condition. However, all intersections will operate with an acceptable overall intersection LOS (LOS D or better), as shown in Figure 8-13.

Though a detailed generation and distribution of pedestrian trips was not undertaken as part of this analysis, it is safe to anticipate that pedestrian activity in the vicinity of Union Station will increase above current levels. Pedestrian crossings on Spruce Street will undoubtedly increase as a result of the initiation of commuter rail service. Additionally, pedestrian crossings from new BRT stops on Asylum across from Union Station will create new pedestrian trips, many of which may need to cross Asylum either at that location or at the end of the block.

Figure 8-12: Level of Service Issues (No-Build 2017) Level of Service Issues (No-Build 2017)

Asylum Street Allyn Street Eastbound left-turn ( LOS E – AM peak hour) Westbound left-thru Westbound left-turn ( LOS E – PM peak hour) (LOS E – PM peak hour) Spruce Street Southbound left-turn (LOS E – PM peak hour)

I-84 Westbound Ramps (Exit 48) Northbound left-turn ( LOS E – AM & PM peak hours)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-15 April, 2010

Table 8-2: Level of Service Summary Existing (2007) and No-Build Conditions (2017)

Existing Existing Existing No-Build No-Build No-Build AM Peak HourMid day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Mid day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Intersections Asylum Street & Spring Street Eastbound Thru 14.0 B 5.4 A 6.7 A 18.8 B 6.6 A 9.0 A Westbound Thru 10.6 B 1.3 A 3.3 A 15.7 B 1.9 A 7.9 A Westbound Right 11.2 B 1.3 A 3.8 A 15.6 B 2.1 A 8.8 A Southbound Left 15.1 B 29.3 C 32.1 C 12.6 B 28.8 C 29.0 C Southbound Right 30.1 C 34.3 C 43.1 D 26.8 C 33.6 C 40.3 D Intersection 18.4 B 13.7 B 16.4 B 20.2 C 14.7 B 17.8 B Asylum Street & Spruce Street Eastbound Left-thru 31.4 C 18.7 B 21.5 C 78.0 E 23.9 C 28.0 C Eastbound Right 0.7 A 7.0 A 8.0 A 11.0 B 15.5 B 17.0 B Westbound Left 7.6 A 13.5 B 54.3 D 10.2 B 18.6 B 63.4 E Westbound Thru-right 5.4 A 7.9 A 16.6 B 7.8 A 10.2 B 21.5 C Northbound Left 53.5 D 48.8 D 46.6 D 63.1 E 54.4 D 75.8 E Northbound Thru 32.9 C 30.3 C 41.4 D 32.7 C 30.6 C 37.8 D Northbound Right 7.9 A 8.1 A 7.6 A 14.4 B 8.0 A 7.6 A Southbound Left 28.3 C 27.5 C 57.1 E 29.3 C 26.3 C 61.2 E Southbound Thru-right 16.4 B 23.5 C 48.7 D 18.6 B 24.6 C 54.1 D Intersection 21.3 C 18.5 B 28.5 C 24.4 C 20.7 C 32.3 C Asylum Street & Union Place Eastbound Thru-left 1.2 A 0.3 A 0.5 A 2.1 A 0.4 A 0.7 A Westbound Thru-right 1.1 A 15.1 B 14.7 B 1.2 A 15.1 B 14.6 B Intersection 1.1 A 7.4 A 7.8 A 1.7 A 7.7 A 8.2 A Asylum Street & High Street Eastbound Right 2.1 A 0.2 A 1.8 A 1.5 A 0.2 A 3.5 A Westbound Left 35.4 D 33.2 C 39.1 D 33.5 C 32.2 C 36.4 D Westbound Thru 43.1 D 40.7 D 48.7 D 43.1 D 40.6 D 47.5 D Northbound Left 9.5 A 7.0 A 11.0 B 11.7 B 8.0 A 14.9 B Southbound Thru-right 26.9 C 34.0 C 38.3 D 27.7 C 34.7 C 39.3 D Intersection 12.5 B 15.8 B 17.7 B 13.6 B 16.7 B 20.2 C Church Street/Myrtle Street & Spruce Street Eastbound Left-thru-right 10.7 B 2.5 A 7.2 A 16.9 B 2.9 A 10.4 B Westbound Left-thru-right 7.1 A 4.2 A 7.4 A 11.1 B 5.1 A 11.7 B Northbound Thru-left 35.2 D 30.9 C 46.4 D 36.4 D 32.5 C 49.3 D Northbound Right 4.5 A 6.7 A 6.1 A 3.8 A 6.0 A 5.4 A Southbound Left-thru-right 7.8 A 13.4 B 30.4 C 6.6 A 13.0 B6 30. C Intersection 17.3 B 12.5 B 16.3 B 19.7 B 12.9 B 17.8 B

* The eastbound approach on Asylum Street becomes an exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared thru-right turn lane under future conditions based on the BRT design.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-16 April, 2010

Table 8-2: Level of Service Summary (continued) Existing (2007) and No-Build Conditions (2017)

Source: Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.

Highlighted Text: Unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-17 April, 2010

Figure 8-13: Overall Intersection Level of Service Existing (2007) and No Build (2017)

AM - LOS B (B) Mid - LOS B (B) AM - LOS C (C) Spruce Street Hoadley Place High Street PM - LOS B (B) Mid - LOS C (C) PM - LOS C (C)

Myrtle Church Street Street

AM - LOS B (B) Mid - LOS A (A) ONE WAY WAY ONE ONE ONE WAY WAY ONE ONE PM - LOS B (B) Allyn Spring Street/ AM - LOS C (C) Union Street I-84 WB Off- Station Ramp Mid - LOS B (C) PM - LOS C (C) ONE WAY WAY ONE ONE ONE WAY WAY ONE ONE

ONE WAY Asylum Street

AM - LOS B (C) AM - LOS A (A) AM - LOS B (B) Mid - LOS B (B) Mid - LOS A (A) Mid - LOS B (B) Ford PM - LOS A (A) PM - LOS B (B) I-84 Exit 48 PM - LOS B (C) Street WB On-Ramps/ EB Off-Ramps And Busway

LOS Existing (LOS No-Build)

Overall Intersection Level-of-Service

Not to Scale Existing (2007) and No-Build (2017) Conditions

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-18 April, 2010

8.4 Scenario B: Local Bus Transfer Facility at Union Station The second scenario to be developed includes the implementation of the New Britain Busway services as described above, the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail, and in addition, the development of a local bus transfer center near Union Station. Following work done as part of this project on downtown circulation, a transit center was found to be a good option for serving Hartford transit passengers. In addition, a conclusion from the downtown circulation task was that the area near Union Station would be a good location for a transit center. Following is a discussion of that finding.

The Downtown Circulation portion of the Northwest Corridor Study (see Part 3—Downtown Circulation Study Final Report) examined the transfer rate of bus passengers in downtown Hartford and determined that an estimated 69% of local bus boardings at the nine major stops along Main Street and Market Street are transfer boardings. This led to an effort to identify a downtown circulation pattern that included a new off-street downtown transit center that would better serve transferring riders while maintaining service to Main Street for the 31% of riders with downtown destinations.

A preliminary search for possible transit center sites led to a conclusion that a feasible available site of adequate size does not exist adjacent to the existing transfer point at the primary downtown bus stops on Main Street. A new transit center would have to be located several blocks from the current transfer point and a bus circulation pattern would have to be identified that would allow all routes to serve the new transit center while continuing to serve the major stops on Main Street. A review of ridership and transfer patterns led to the development of a proposed circulation pattern that continues the current through-routing of north-south routes and establishes a new pattern connecting routes from the west of downtown with routes from east of the Connecticut River to form a new east-west through-routing pattern. North-south routes and east-west routes would then meet at the transit center and also serve stops on or near Main Street.

A review of existing transfer patterns and an estimate of new downtown transfers that could result from the New Britain Busway local bus routes indicated that a transit center located north and west of the center of downtown would maximize the number of riders who would choose to transfer at the new transit center, minimize the travel time for transferring riders, and minimize delays to non-transferring riders destined for Main Street. Routes from the north and west would meet at the transit center before continuing downtown and on to the south and east. A transit center in this location would also allow easy connections between the busway and other routes and would allow the new east-west through-routes to create an enhanced east-west bus service across the downtown. It was found that a transit center located south and west of the center of downtown, with routes from the south and west meeting at the transit center before continuing north and east, would not attract as many transfer riders. It would also require extensive rerouting of service around Bushnell Park creating a longer trip for many riders. A transit center east of Main Street would also attract fewer transfers.

The sector of the downtown where a transit center is recommended is essentially the area west and southwest of Main Street and north of Asylum Avenue. The area is crisscrossed by several streets providing multiple opportunities for bus routings and facility locations. There are numerous surface parking, vacant and underutilized parcels that could house a new transit center. The area also includes Union Station, an intercity transit hub and future commuter rail station that could possibly be connected to a new local bus transit center. The optimal location to balance the convenience of both transferring and downtown riders would be a site in this sector equidistant from Main Street and Asylum Avenue. Some transferring riders would benefit from a site further from the center of downtown, while increases in bus operating costs would be minimized by a site closer to the center.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-19 April, 2010

While exact site selection will take place at a future date, preliminary site investigations identified possible available sites in the parking lots at the intersection of High and Church streets, across Spruce Street from Union Station and north of Myrtle Street to the northwest of Union Station. 25

8.5 Development Options for Union Station As part of this project, two initial development options were developed to show the potential for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) near Union Station. These options, developed by Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge (CSS), showed the potential for development on the Spruce Street parking lot west of Union Station and on the site of the Capitol West Building along Myrtle Street. As will be seen, the proposed Spruce Street development is a mixed use development with residential above retail/restaurant complex below. The Capital West building is residential in keeping with its neighborhood. Both of these proposals are in keeping with City of Hartford development plans for the area.

These initial concepts were focused on residential development rather than office development, although office development would also be an option for the Spruce Street Lot. Part of the reason for favoring residential for the Spruce Street lot was the hot residential market at the time that these initial proposals were developed by CSS. However, another reason for favoring residential over office development is that the residential use requires less parking than office use, and with the upcoming commuter rail service, parking will be at a premium near Union Station. Still another reason for favoring residential development is because Hartford has such a small residential community. Bringing new residents to the area will add to the liveliness of the Union Station area, particularly at night. The excellent view towards Bushnell park from the Spruce Street location also adds to the appeal of this site as a residential development.

8.5.1. Initial Concept Spruce Street Lot A prime spot for residential development in the vicinity of Union Station is the Spruce Street parking lot. Providing that some of the parking on this parcel could be replaced nearby and that the site is not required for a bus transfer center, it provides an opportunity for a high rise residential building. It’s vicinity to Union Station with its future as a center of greatly enhanced transportation connections and its view across Bushnell Park makes it an attractive location. Figure 8-9 shows the site.

Figure 8-14: Spruce Street Triangle Parcel

25 Additional promising sites were located after two sites were selected and developed by this study—thus indicating the need for further study of an appropriate site for a transit center near Union Station.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-20 April, 2010

In the initial CSS development plan, this 1.5 acre site could house the following:

1. Three levels of structured parking totaling 258 spaces: • 103 parking spaces for Union Station/restaurant and retail • 155 Parking Spaces for Residential Development 2. Eight Levels of Residential Development with 124 units total at 1,200 square feet per dwelling unit (12/16 units per floor).

3. 21,000 square feet on the ground floor for restaurant or retail.

Figure 8-10 below provides a depiction of what such a development might look like. Implementation of a development like this would increase residential housing within ¼ mile of Union Station by 26% and increase housing within ½ mile of Union Station by 9 percent—and thus certainly add to the liveliness of the vicinity.

Figure 8-15: Cross Section of Potential Spruce Street Development Looking North

The potential for development of this parcel would be enhanced with a public/private partnership for joint development which could lower the cost of financing.

8.5.2. Initial Concept for Capitol West Parcel Another nearby parcel that could be attractive for TOD near Union Station is the site of the Capitol West Building, an abandoned building north of Union Station between Myrtle and Spring Street. Figure 8-11 shows the site. This could be the site of a low rise residential development which would be in keeping residential buildings across Spring Street.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-21 April, 2010

Figure 8-16: Capitol West Parcel

The Capitol West parcel is a 1.2 acre parcel. A potential development for the site could include:

1. Three levels of structured parking with 276 spaces total • 186 parking spaces for transportation center • 90 parking spaces for residential development

2. Four levels of residential development with 72 units total (18 units per level, 1,200 square feet/dwelling unit) Adding 72 residential units would increase the housing units within ¼ mile of Union Station by 15 percent and within ½ mile by 5 percent. Figure 8-12 shows a cross section of what a Capitol West development could look like.

Figure 8-17: Cross Section of Potential Capitol West Parcel Looking North

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-22 April, 2010

8.5.3. City of Hartford Plans The City of Hartford released a development plan for the Union Station area which are in line with the Capitol West development scenario discussed above. Entitled Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown West Section II, Union Station—Walnut Street Project (Released September 11, 2008), this project proposes a redevelopment plan for the area bounded by Spring Street to the west, Walnut Street on the north, and I-84 running from southwest to northeast. The area is approximately 16.7 acres. The description of the vision for this area is described as follows:

In terms of future land use, it is envisioned that the Capitol West office building be redeveloped as a transit- oriented development for residential, retail and/or office use, possibly including structured parking and a pedestrian connection with the corporate campus across Spring Street to support Union Station’s transition to a commuter rail and bus station. The large surface parking lot currently utilized by The Hartford has the potential to be developed as transit operation support space including parking that would serve nearby uses (page 4).

The redevelopment plan also discusses the need to have an integrated project that recognizes Union Station’s role as an important future destination for commuter rail and bus service.

The interrelationship between the three distinct sections of the Project Area, particularly in terms of the topography change that occurs between Spring Street and Union Station, and means of cohesively integrating these distinct sections should be high priorities for the overall design of this Project Area. In accordance with the provisions of the B-2 Downtown Development Perimeter Zoning District, building design will be subject to the Design Review Board approval process as established in the Municipal Code (Page 8).

The redevelopment plan discusses the potential of purchasing the Capitol West property or acquiring by eminent domain for $700,000 to $900,000.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-23 April, 2010

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 8-24 April, 2010

9.0 UNION STATION ALTERNATIVES

Given the future transportation scenarios and development options described in Chapter 8, the next step was to develop alternatives for improving Union Station. There were two parts to this process: 1) Develop plans for Union Station given the upcoming implementation of the New Britain Busway and the New Haven/Hartford/Springfield Commuter Rail (future Scenario A), and 2) Develop plans for the Union Station vicinity that also include a local bus transit center (future Scenario B).

9.1 Union Station Alternative Evaluation Criteria One of the first steps undertaken in the development of improvement plans for Union Station was to establish criteria for distinguishing among designs. Design criteria that are applicable to intermodal passenger centers fall within six categories:

■ Safety ■ Convenience ■ Operational Functionality ■ Flexibility/Expandability ■ Support as a “Great Place” ■ Feasibility

In applying these criteria, it should be recognized that trade-offs among the criteria will be necessary and that one solution that optimizes all criteria may not be feasible. A more detailed discussion of these criteria follows:

Safety involves the preservation and protection of people and property. Safety is a crucial factor for both financial and public image reasons. Financially, the cost of injuries and property damage can be substantial. Personal injury, for example, can often involve litigation of claims increasing the cost of settlement beyond direct medical related expenses. In addition, the image of a transit system can be damaged if that system is perceived to be unsafe. Crime or serious accidents draw unfavorable publicity and, typically, a wide-audience. These criteria help measure the safety of a given concept design:

■ Avoid vehicle and pedestrian conflicts Refers to keeping pedestrians out of the path of moving vehicles. There are two main opportunities for pedestrian movements. They are: movements for transferring between transit modes/routes and movements from the facility to surrounding land uses. ■ Avoid vehicle/automobile/bicycle conflicts Refers to vehicle movements of vehicles, private automobiles, and bicycles in and out of the area. ■ Increase the perception of personal security Personal security (as well as the sense of personal safety) is enhanced when people are with other people. Design concepts that isolate patrons from other patrons and the general public may give the perception of personal risk.

Convenience relates to how easily the system can be used by patrons. Patrons typically have some degree of choice in selecting a mode of travel. The convenience of a given mode can be a decisive factor in the selection of that mode. While convenience can mean different things for different people, these factors are seen as key for the design of the transportation hub:

■ Make the walking distance for patrons who are making transfer connections as short as possible The transfer of patrons from route to route or from mode to mode is enhanced when the effort is easy and quick.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-1 April, 2010

■ Make the walking distance for park and ride / kiss and ride patrons as short as possible Similar to the previous criterion, the park and ride and kiss and ride facilities should allow quick and easy movement from private automobile/bicycle/taxi to bus/train. ■ Ensure patron waiting areas are convenient and comfortable This refers to the location and physical amenities that comprise patron waiting areas. The waiting areas should allow easy access to the transportation modes as well as be climate-controlled and otherwise comfortable.

Operational Functionality is a general description of elements necessary to effectively support services and bus operations. These include:

■ Ensure efficient transit operations both on- and off-site Bus movements to and from the site as well as on and off the site should consume the least amount of time and make sense for both bus operators and patrons. Conservation of time impacts the operating cost for transportation operations. Operational efficiency is aided by locating a transit center as close to the desired center of transfer activity as possible. On a more minute scale, a design concept that adds operational efficiency is a saw-tooth design for bus parking. A saw-tooth design permits buses to arrive and depart independently. This provides for flexible operations and also allows for bus bays to be designated for specific routes, enabling riders to wait at a predetermined bay for their bus. This design is contrasted with a “straight curb” design where buses queue as they arrive. Even with the best operated services where on time performance is nearly flawless, there is some randomness in bus arrival times as the timeliness of service is influenced by traffic and other factors beyond the bus’s control. Even a minute deviation from schedules will cause buses to line up in differing order depending on conditions. With a straight curb operation, the first buses to arrive is first in the queue, those arriving later are farther down the queue. The ability for riders to predict the location of bus arrivals is therefore less certain as would be with the saw-toothed design. This could be mitigated to some degree by a real time bus stop arrive information system. Further, with the straight curb design, buses are less likely to depart independently as a leading bus may be held up for a variety of reasons including waiting on connecting riders. Thus a saw-tooth design is favored over a straight-curb design where it is feasible.

■ Ensure that general automobile and bicycle access to the site is as efficient as possible This addresses the need to incorporate parking as part of the development and how automobile and bicycle access would work to/from the site. ■ Make the location easy for patrons to locate This criterion refers to the ability of people to see the site and to intuitively understand how to get to and from the site and to be encouraged to use the facility. Visibility is also a part of the sense of personal security referenced earlier. Visibility will also support the site as a “great place” as discussed below. ■ Ensure harmonious impact on adjacent roadways This recognizes that the terminal is part of a larger transportation system. The goal of the terminal and for transit in general is to enhance this system. As such, the design of the facility can be in harmony or in conflict with roadway operations and traffic flows.

Flexibility/Expandability refers to the potential of the facility both in the future and as a community asset. These criteria will be used for evaluating the vision of a given design:

■ Ensure a design that is flexible to accommodate future growth or changes in the transportation operations

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-2 April, 2010

A key concern is the anticipated growth of the transit system. Accommodating growth efficiently would ideally allow new construction to occur without significantly interfering with existing operations. The initial design of the terminal can be crucial in this regard. ■ Ensure that the design provides an opportunity to develop open space Recognizes that the terminal can, potentially, enhance the livability of the area. The development of a community resource, such as a plaza, accomplishes a broader objective including making the station a “great place.”

Support as a “Great Place” refers to how well the layout promotes the Union Station area as a desirable destination. As a desirable destination, people will want to go to the site and businesses in and around the station will thrive. While many of the above criteria will help in this regard, the following factors also contribute to this end:

■ Enhance commercial activity One way to create a “great place” is to have vibrant commercial activity that not only makes Union Station a destination but also generates a revenue stream to off-set the operating costs of the building itself. The transportation aspects of Union Station should not diminish or “crowd out” current and future commercial potential but actually enhance that potential. ■ Promote joint development opportunities Encourage public/private development in and around Union Station. ■ Allow for a variety of transportation access, including non-motorized transportation The more modes of access to the location, the better access the place has. For the case of Union Station, ensuring that access by pedestrians and bicyclists would serve to further diversify the modes of access. ■ Promote socialization Activity at the site will promote the gathering of people. Enabling the site to accommodate street activities such as concerts and fairs will create a reason for people to go the site other than to access transportation. Such activities should attract a diversified crowd (e.g., young, old, men and women). ■ Make Union Station a connection between Asylum Hill and the rest of downtown Union Station should be a kind pedestrian/transportation bridge between the Asylum Hill area and the rest of Downtown Hartford.

Feasibility: Both capital and operating cost of alternatives need to be considered. Operating costs (including maintenance costs) for Union Station need to be in balance with revenues for Union Station. Political acceptability also should be considered as the transit center will need to fit in with the neighborhood.

■ Minimize capital cost The cost for renovating Union Station as well as providing supporting infrastructure such as roadways and parking should be affordable to GHTD and other Union Station stakeholders. ■ Balance operating cost and revenues The cost for the operation and maintenance of Union Station needs to be in balance with the revenues generated by Union Station. ■ Political Acceptability The transit center will need to be acceptable to the surrounding neighborhood.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-3 April, 2010

9.2 Union Station Design Charrette In early 2008, the TranSystems team conducted a charrette for the purpose of developing alternatives for downtown circulation and operating scenarios for Union Station. 26 The charrette took place at the Greater Hartford Transit District (GHTD) offices in Union Station. At the time of the charrette, no recommendation had been made about the location of a transit center to accommodate transferring passengers on local bus routes, so the charrette developed bus circulation patterns for transit centers in the north Main Street area, south Main Street, and near Union Station.

For the Union Station operating scenarios, the charrette involved two teams of study consultants (Team “A” and Team “B”) preparing layout scenarios with the most preferred ones being developed into working concepts. In considering different operating plans for Union Station itself, the teams were given these issues/constraints with which to develop scenarios:

1. Accommodate eight intercity buses (later modified to eleven) 2. Accommodate Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stops 3. Accommodate commuter rail service 4. Address on-site taxi issues (U-turns on Spruce by taxis and double parking) 5. Allow for joint development and TOD.

Each team was asked to prepare two to three options each and to keep in mind the design criteria developed in concert with the project steering committee. Initial options were shared with the project Steering Committee twice over the two day period and modified after feedback from the committee.

From the charrette, two alternatives for operating plans for Union Station were considered for further evaluation: These were:

■ Alternative 1: Modify existing Union Station to provide a more impressive entrance and passenger accommodations on the Spruce Street side. ■ Alternative 2: Relocate Spruce Street to allow for more room for intercity buses and a park.

9.3 Union Station Alternatives The alternatives resulting from the charrette were further developed and are presented below.

9.3.1. Alternative 1: Modify Union Station to Provide a More Impressive Entrance (the Glass Box) Figure 9-1 illustrates Alternative 1 which shows a renovated Union Station ground transportation center and other changes in the vicinity of Union Station. 27 As seen in the Figure 9-1, the west side of Union Station containing the intercity bus bays is redesigned. The west side is divided by an atrium (the “Glass Box”) which serves as the entrance into the ground transportation center. The new entrance divides the outside transportation operations into north and south areas. Alternative 1 locates all intercity bus bays to the north of the new entryway to Union Station. Ten bus bays would be provided. Ten drop-off /short term parking spaces along Spruce are also shown. A taxi stand as part of the drop-off/ short term parking area is located on the south side which is currently occupied by intercity bus bays and other vehicular parking. About ten spaces are shown which can be a combination of taxi and general parking. The Union Station passenger waiting area is expanded with the atrium/entrance which provides a much

26 See technical memorandum dated April 2, 2008 for a complete summary of the charrette process. 27 “Placeholder” locations refer to conceptual siting of key design components.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-4 April, 2010

more open and natural lighted area, and provides waiting passengers views of the arriving buses, taxis and personal vehicles. Opportunities for retail could be provided in the atrium.

Figure 9-1 also shows two different concepts for a nearby local bus transit center that were explored at the charrette and afterwards. One option for a transit center is shown at High and Church Streets. The other is shown along a proposed Spruce Street extension. These concepts are independent of the operating design for Union Station and are not the focus of Alternative 1.

Figure 9-1 shows potential joint development along the west side of Spruce (labeled office building and parking garage), just north of Asylum as well as northwest of Union Station straddling both sides of Myrtle Street (identified by cross hatch). The cross hatch area north of Union Station is “existing parking.” The joint development, realigned Spruce Street and existing parking areas are shown to illustrate potential land uses.

Figure 9-1: Alternative 1—Modified Union Station

Applying the design criteria to the “glass box” concept for Union Station shown in Alternative 1, the advantages of this layout are:

■ Safety: It increases safety by separating taxis from intercity buses, also minimizing conflicts between pedestrians and intercity buses and eliminate taxi U turns. This separation prevents patrons from walking across an active drive way for intercity buses. Currently, intercity patrons need to cross the driveway to

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-5 April, 2010

access the cabs which are queued along Spruce (see Figure 9-2). The new location of the cabs also curtails their “u-turns” which occur when taxi facing north on Spruce need to reverse direction to enter I-84 from southbound Spruce at Asylum. With the new location, taxis will need to make a legal left turn to head south on Spruce. ■ Convenience. The atrium provides additional waiting space for patrons. It also allows patrons to have a clear view of the taxi and intercity bus area while indoors. This could be a positive amenity as patrons can wait inside during inclement weather for their arriving trip. ■ Operational Functionality : The “glass box” provides a more prominent “front door” to the station and enhances visibility in and outside the station.

A possible disadvantage of this layout is:

■ Flexibility/Expandability: The layout uses all the space in the intercity bus area with little or no room for adding intercity bus bays. Access to refuse disposal areas on the south and north may be tight and further analysis will be needed.

Figure 9-2: Intercity Bus Driveway Separating Buses from Taxis

Bus Bays Taxi area

Driveway

9.3.2. Alternative 2: Relocation of Spruce Street As shown in Figure 9-3, this alternative would re-align Spruce Street in a northwesterly direction as well as redesign the intercity bus bays and the taxi waiting area. The option would eliminate the off-street parking that is currently along the west side of Spruce Street. No improvements to the Union Station building itself are a part of this alternative.

Alternative 2 would provide space for a greater number of intercity buses than is shown for option 1. Thirteen bays would be provided in this option while ten were provided in Alternative 1. The intercity bus area would continue to occupy space along the west side of Union Station. However, the bus bays would no longer be along the Union Station building. Instead the bays would occupy a series of passenger platforms separated from the main building by a vehicle drive path. This design would avoid the backing up of buses as is currently the case. Buses would move forward to exit the platform.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-6 April, 2010

Taxis would have space along the northwest edge of the bus bay area. Buses and taxis would share the same entrance and exit points. About 8 taxi parking spaces are shown in Figure 9-3.

To compensate for the loss of off-street parking on the west side of Spruce, the Capitol West site could be converted into parking. That area is labeled in Figure 9-3 and is along Myrtle Street, northwest of Union Station. Further, short term parking along the re-aligned Spruce Street would be provided. Twenty short term parking spaces are shown. Existing parking (just north of Union Station and represented by cross hatch) would be maintained.

No changes to the Union Station building itself are contemplated. In addition, park space could be provided along the west side of the newly aligned Spruce Street with public art such as a fountain.

The advantage of Alternative 2 is:

■ Flexibility/expandability : More bus bays are provided than under Alternative 1. Also, the design provides an opportunity to develop open space.

The disadvantages are:

■ Support as a “Great Place:” The relocated Spruce Street eliminates the opportunity for joint development at the Spruce Street Lot. ■ Feasibility : Requires significant roadway work in relocating Spruce. More study will be needed to confirm whether the relocation is feasible. The elevated highway and the topography could present challenges.

Other comments:

■ Safety: Alternative 2 allows intercity buses to move into bays and leave without backing up. This is considered safer than the backing movement now required for buses leaving Union Station. However, the design also introduces more pedestrian/vehicle conflicts from patrons crossing the driveway to get to and from the intercity bus bays as well as patrons accessing the taxis. Representatives of intercity bus companies preferred backing to the additional conflicts with the pull-through design.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-7 April, 2010

Figure 9-3: Alternative 2—Relocated Spruce Street

9.3.3. Evaluation of Union Station Alternatives Based on the above analysis, the preferred operating alternative for Union Station is Alternative 1 which provides an expanded waiting area and bifurcates the intercity bus driveway into bus and taxi areas. This design preserves space for potential joint development at what is now a surface parking lot. The main advantage of Alternative 2 is that it remakes the front of the Ground Transportation Center into a park with room for a fountain or public art, and it allows more room for intercity buses. But it eliminates parking and increases pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. It will be costly to relocate Spruce Street. Representatives of the intercity operators did not like the pull-through configuration of Alternative 2.

Alternative 1 would appear to work well for Union Station whether or not there is a transit center located close by.

9.4 Transit Center Alternatives Following the charrette and after the Downtown Circulation study determined that the Union Center area should be the location for a local bus transfer center, an effort was undertaken to determine where such a center could be located (see Section 8.4 for a discussion of the rationale for locating the center near Union Station). The Downtown Circulation study also developed a list of potential sites for the transit center and screened those sites. 28

An initial list of possible transit center sites was first developed through use of aerial photos of downtown. Undeveloped parcels of significant size in or near downtown were identified. Suggestions were also solicited from the Steering Committee. Most of the potential sites are currently surface parking lots. The sites were screened first

28 See NW Corridor Transit Planning Project Part 3 – Downtown Hartford Transit Circulation Study, Final Report, pg. 71-74.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-8 April, 2010

considering feasibility as a transit center site and then availability of the parcel. Field observations were made at each site and a preliminary bus circulation pattern was considered for each site taking into account existing bus routes, site topography, and the adjacent street network.

The sites identified for the Union Station area were:

■ High Street east side between Church and Allyn ■ High Street west side between Church and Allyn ■ Spruce Street parking lot at Union Station ■ The North Parking Lot used by Hartford Insurance Group for parking

In addition to these locations, several on-street transit center configurations were considered. Overall, five general locations around Union Station were identified and evaluated as potential sites for a downtown transit center. The sites were initially chosen if they could accommodate at least 16 standard transit vehicles with an accommodation of 22 vehicles as desirable. The five general locations (labeled Site Area Option A through E) are shown in Figure 9-4 In two cases, each area had more than one transit center configuration. The locations were tested to determine if they met the minimum 16 vehicle capacity threshold.

Some of the transit center options below contemplate integrating a parking garage as part of the development. The illustrations of these examples are conceptual and were not analyzed to determine precise engineering feasibility. However, the combination of transit centers with parking garages is common enough so that their presentation here is deemed worthy of consideration.

Most of the transit center options show a saw-tooth design for bus parking. As described earlier, a saw-tooth design permits buses to arrive and depart independently. This provides for flexible operations and also allows for bus bays to be designated for specific routes, enabling riders to wait at a predetermined bay for their bus. This design is contrasted with a “straight curb” design where buses queue as they arrive. A saw-tooth design is favored over a straight-curb design where it is feasible.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-9 April, 2010

Figure 9-4: General Site Locations for Downtown Transit Center

9.4.1. Site Area Option A—Southeast High and Church This option would have 16 bus bays and occupy space now used as surface parking. A saw-tooth design is used for bus parking. The concept could either be a stand-alone transit center or be part of a parking garage. The parking facility would be intended to replace surface parking as it is assumed that nearby businesses would be concerned about losing parking to the transit center. Figure 9-5 shows the transit center with bus bays, transit center building and parking just to the east of the bays, and, moving further east, up and down ramps for a garage over the center.

Also in Figure 9-5, just to the east of the bus bays would be a climate controlled space that could house a waiting area for riders as well as fare media and customer information services. Onsite parking for people associated with the transit center is also shown.

As mentioned, this alternative contemplates a parking garage being built on top of the facility with an up and down ramp shown on the east side of the transit center. If no garage is to be built the ramp space would not be needed, perhaps freeing up the site space for more vehicle circulation space. Figure 9-6 shows one of two levels of the parking garage. Two levels of parking should be sufficient to replace the parking eliminated on the ground level. Currently, there are 297 parking spaces on the site. Each level of parking would accommodate about 170 cars each. Two levels would offset the loss in parking plus provide additional parking for growth in commuter rail and other transit services.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-10 April, 2010

Figure 9-5: Site Area Option A—Transit Center Level

Figure 9-6: Site Area Option A—First Level of Parking Above Transit Center

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-11 April, 2010

The advantages of this site and design are:

■ Operational Functionality : While not on Main Street, this location is closer to Main Street than other locations near Union Station. Thus operating costs for bus diversions to the station would be minimized as well as customer inconvenience for those traveling through the station to Main Street. ■ Support as a Great Place : The transit center with the garage could be designed to resemble the building facades in the area, possibly creating a sense of activity in the immediate area. Depending on the climate for investment, it may even be an area for joint mixed development above the garage. ■ Convenience : The site is relatively close to Union Station. It is centralized between Union Station and the rest of downtown with many surrounding land uses including restaurants, hotels, a church, and the XL Center. One slight disadvantage is that while relatively close to Union Station, luggage toting patrons wishing to move between the intercity bus and commuter rail modes to local bus would need to traverse the interior of Union Station which involves either going up and down stairs or a circuitous route using ramps. 29

The disadvantages of the site include:

■ Flexibility/Expandability : While the site works for 16 vehicles, the desired 20 vehicles would be a challenge perhaps requiring the elimination of the garage element or the use of on-street stops. ■ Feasibility: Resistance from local business owners to the development of a transit center who may fear the loss of parking and noise from buses.

Some results are mixed:

■ Safety : The location close to the XL Center and activity on High and Church would increase the perception of safety. However, multiple driveways would enter/exit off of Church. With High Street nearby, bus and general traffic conflicts would result. 9.4.2. Site Area Option B—Union Place Option B utilizes Union Place (as well as Allyn Street and sometimes High Street) as an on-street transit facility. General automobile traffic would be restricted from using the transit portions of the street (except on High Street which is too important of a roadway to close it off from general traffic). Union Place would be reversed from a northbound one way street to a southbound one-way street.

For either of these options, passengers waiting for buses could take shelter in Union Station as long as there were some electronic means to keep track of bus arrivals. Shelters would also be placed alongside bus bays on each street.

There are two basic variations for this option which are shown in Figure 9-7 and Figure 9-8. Figure 9-7 (identified as option B1) presents bus bays as saw-toothed. This configuration would require the use of High Street in order to get the minimum number of 16 bus bays. Figure 9-8 uses the straight curb design. The straight curb in this configuration would condense the amount of street space needed, thus avoiding the use of High Street.

While these options are relatively low cost, they have many disadvantages and were rejected early by the project Steering Committee.

Disadvantages for both B1 and B2 are:

29 Historic preservation regulations would limit options to place ramps where stairs are now.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-12 April, 2010

■ Operational Functionality : Both close Union Place to general traffic which may have some impact on traffic circulation. It would leave Spruce Street as the main and probably only general traffic access to Union Station.

■ Support as a “Great Place :” So much bus traffic on Union Place as well as nearby streets would not enhance the attractiveness of Union Station.

■ Flexibility/Expandability : B1 takes most of the curb space on Union Place, Allyn Street and the block on High between Allyn and Church—expansion would be difficult beyond this level. B2 takes less space so could expand some.

Results are mixed in the following areas:

■ Safety: This design could cause conflicts for intercity buses that now exit onto Union Place near the Church Street intersection. The conflict entails either making the intercity buses share the transit road or go against southbound traffic by maintaining the current egress pattern. On the other hand, the location near Union Station and on active streets would increase a feeling of safety.

■ Convenience : Location is very close to Union Station, so that the interior of Union Station could be utilized for waiting local bus patrons. However, both spread out the area for riders to board buses. While B1 would provide predictability for riders as to where to find their buses, the walking distances would be potentially long. B2 shortens those walking distances but locating a bus would be challenging as buses would arrive in almost random order. This could be mitigated by a real time bus arrival information system. ■ Feasibility: These are relatively low cost options in that minimal land acquisition would be needed. However, they require removal of on street parking, probably heightening the resistance to a transit center from local businesses.

Figure 9-7: Site Option Area B1—Union Place (Saw-toothed)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-13 April, 2010

Figure 9-8: Site Option Area B2—Union Place (Straight Curb)

9.4.3. Site Area Option C—Cul de Sac The “cul-de-sac” option would use a surface parking lot located to the north of Union Station. This option could involve either a transit center as a standalone development (as seen Figure 9-9) or be built with a parking facility and/or other development on top. Currently, there are 325 parking spaces on the parcel, which are currently leased to Hartford Insurance Group. The Hartford Insurance Group employees are scheduled to park at a new location, leaving this site available.. Parking could be replaced with one or two levels of parking above the center. Access to parking would be separated from buses by a ramp from Myrtle Street. See Figure 9-10 which shows a one level parking garage with almost 300 spaces and access from Myrtle Street.

The transit center portion of the option, as shown earlier in Figure 9-9, could have a large central island around which 8 of the 16 bays would be located. The island could contain a climate controlled building (as described for option A above) for passenger waiting and customer service functions. Buses would circulate the area in two directions. Buses would enter and exit the transit center at the intersection of Spruce and Church Streets.

While the site is relatively close to Union Station, an elevated interstate (I-84) crosses at about Myrtle and Church, effectively bisecting the site from Union Station. Pedestrians moving between Union Station and the transit center would go under the highway.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-14 April, 2010

Figure 9-9: Site Area Option C—Cul-de-Sac

The advantages of this option are:

■ Flexibility/Expandability : This location has space which could easily accommodate 16 vehicles with space for many more vehicles possible. ■ Support as a “Great Place:” Unlike options A and B, this site is less in the heart of the “action” of the rest of downtown. But this location could promote joint development done in coordination with a redevelopment of Capitol West or between Myrtle and Spring Street.

■ Feasibility : Because this site is located away from businesses, there should be less opposition by abutters to its being the location of a transit center.

The disadvantages of this option are:

■ Safety : This site is isolated as I-84 causes a perceptual barrier. The isolation could heighten a sense of personal insecurity for people at the transit center. A slight offset is the fact that pedestrian/vehicular conflicts would be less than other less isolated places. ■ Operational Functionality : Transit routes have a longer detour since this site is furthest from Main Street of the sites reviewed. On the other hand, there is likely to be less impact on nearby roadways.

There are mixed results with this option as well:

■ Convenience : The site is further from downtown destinations and the XL Center than other sites. But it is closer to the Ground Transportation Center.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-15 April, 2010

Figure 9-10: Site Area Option C—Parking Garage on top of Transit Center

9.4.4. Site Area Option D—Spruce Street This option would use the west side of Spruce Street in two basic ways. First, Spruce would be used as an off-street center occupying what is now a surface parking lot. This is option D1 and is shown in Figure 9-11. Second, Spruce would be used as an on-street transit center. Two variations of the on-street version are considered: saw-toothed bus bays and straight curb bus bays. Figure 9-12 shows the saw-toothed and is labeled option D2. Figure 9-13 illustrates the straight curb option and is designated D3.

The off-street variation (D1) would contain up to 16 bays. Buses would enter the site by moving southbound on Spruce.

The advantage of this site is:

■ Safety : The proximity to the Union Station Ground Transportation Center is likely to increase passengers perceptions of safety. The disadvantages of D1 are:

■ Flexibility/Expandability : The space at the Spruce Street Lot is very constrained. Although 16 buses are shown in Figure 9-11, fewer than 16 would fit if any were articulated buses. There would be no room for expansion. ■ Support as a “Great Place :” Use of the Spruce Street Lot for a transit center eliminates a site which is a good candidate for joint development or TOD. With 16 buses on the site, there would be no room for ramps for parking or development above. Additional parking for the commuter rail would be very desirable, but a transit center on the site eliminates that possibility. ■ Operational Functionality : Increases turning movements from buses entering and exiting the center on Spruce Street. Negative impact due to buses turning left and right onto Asylum from Spruce Street.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-16 April, 2010

■ Feasibility : A transit center at this location would eliminate the Spruce Street parking facility which is a revenue source for the Greater Hartford Transit District.

One factor has a mixed result:

■ Convenience : It is close to Union Station and people could wait indoors at Union Station for their buses. However, convenient parking for commuter rail and intercity bus passengers would be eliminated.

Figure 9-11: Site Area Option D1—Spruce Street—Off-Street

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-17 April, 2010

The two on-street variations (D2 and D3) would function in a similar way as Site Area Option B described above. Vehicles would need a cul-de-sac to permit buses, as needed, to turn around and enter the bus bays heading south along Spruce. The cul-de-sac turnaround would probably eliminate the remaining parcel (which is now surface parking) for further use at the ground level since it would block access. Sharing access with general traffic and buses would be discouraged at general traffic drivers might be confused by buses making a “u-turn.” The prime differences between D2 and D3 are the configuration of the bays as either straight curbs or saw-toothed.

Figure 9-12: Site Area Option D2—Spruce Street—On-Street (Saw-toothed)

Figure 9-13: Site Area Option D3—Spruce Street—On-Street (Straight Curb)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-18 April, 2010

The advantage for both D2 and D3 is:

■ Feasibility: This design would be relatively inexpensive .

■ Flexibility: Additional space could be obtained by expanding along Spruce north of Church.

The disadvantages for both D2 and D3 are:

■ Safety : The portions of D2 and D3 located under the highway and more distant from Union Station would be perceived by bus passengers as being unsafe. Local buses along Spruce Street would increase passenger and vehicle conflicts and vehicle/vehicle conflicts as pedestrians are likely to cross Spruce Street at multiple places rather than at a crosswalk. ■ Operational Functionality : The addition of 16-20 buses at a time is likely to have a negative impact on Spruce Street which also has intercity buses, taxis and general traffic. A negative traffic impact is expected to occur with buses leaving Spruce and turning left or right on Asylum. ■ Support as a “Great Place :” This design does nothing to promote joint development and TOD and may discourage it at the Spruce Street Lot and at the North Parking Lot. It also eliminates street parking on Spruce. It does not help to connect Union Station and downtown.

Results are mixed in the following area:

■ Convenience : The location is very close to Union Station, so that the interior of Union Station could be utilized for waiting local bus patrons. However, both spread out the area for riders to board buses. While D2 would provide predictability for riders as to where to find their buses, the walking distances would be potentially long. D3 shortens the walking distances but it will be more difficult for a passenger to find their bus. This problem could be mitigated by a real time bus arrival information system.

9.4.5. Site Area Option E—Southwest High and Church This option is located on the site of two current surface parking lots which have a sum total of 155 spaces (shown in Figure 9-14). It is across the street from Site Area Option A described earlier. As with some of the prior options, this option could include a parking facility above the actual transit center. Figure 9-15 illustrates this concept. For the parking levels to have enough space for circulation and entrance and exit ramps, the garage portion would actually extend from southwest quadrant of High and Church to be over High Street with entrance/exit ramps on the southeast quadrant of High and Church (the Site Area Option A location). The parking level illustrated would contain 196 spaces.

The advantages of this option are:

■ Operational Functionality : While not on Main Street, this location is closer to Main Street than other locations near Union Station. Thus operating costs for bus diversions to the station would be minimized as well as customer inconvenience for those traveling through the station to Main Street. ■ Support as a Great Place : The transit center with the garage could be designed to resemble the building facades in the area, possibly creating a sense of activity in the immediate area. Depending on the climate for investment, it may even be an area for joint mixed development above the garage. ■ Convenience : The site is reasonably close to Union Station and to the XL Center and to active streets. A slight disadvantage is that the entrance to Union Station from Union Place is less accessible than from Spruce Street due to the need to use circuitous ramps or steps at the main entrance.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-19 April, 2010

The disadvantages of this option are:

■ Flexibility/Expandability : This is a very constrained site, so that getting more than 16 bus bays would be difficult, especially if some of the buses were articulated. ■ Feasibility : The site has significant grade changes which could add to the construction cost. Also, in order to make this site feasible, the site across High Street (the site associated with option A) would be needed to make a garage work on the site, thus increasing the costs. There might be opposition from surrounding businesses due to the loss of parking and perceived disruptive nature of bus operations at a transit center.

One result is mixed:

■ Safety : There are likely to be traffic conflicts between other traffic and buses accessing and leaving the transit center through multiple driveways. On the other hand, the path to Union Station via Allyn Street is short and could increase passenger perception of personal security.

Figure 9-14: Site Area Option E— Transit Center Level

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-20 April, 2010

Figure 9-15: Site Area Option E— First Level of Parking Above Transit Center

9.5 Comparison of Transit Center Alternatives A summary of the criteria discussed above for the eight transit center options is provided in Table 9-1. Table 9-1 provides an indication of whether the impact is very positive (++), positive (+), neutral (0), negative (-), or very negative (--). Table 9-1 also provides an overall score for each alternative arrived by giving a point for each (+) and subtracting a point for each (-).

As can be seen in Table 9-1, the on-street transit center locations do not score well. They present difficult operations issues and do not support joint development. The Spruce Street parking lot location (D1) does not score well due to the lack of space on the site and because a facility there would eliminate a prime parcel for joint development.

Table 9-1 shows that the top two choices are the site at the southeast corner of High and Church Streets (A) and at the North Parking Lot location cul-de-sac (C). The Steering Committee also confirmed these two locations as the top choices, but did not agree on which should be developed as the preferred location. The site at High and Church has the advantage of being closer to Main Street, thus requiring fewer detours to transit routes. It also has the advantage of being in an active area which should increase passengers perception of personal safety. On the other hand, the site is constrained, so that fitting more than 16 buses in the center may be difficult. There is likely to be significant impact on adjacent roadways due to multiple driveways being required for bus entries and exits. Also there is likely to be more opposition to this site from local businesses.

Since only one site is to be developed for this project, the North Parking Lot location was selected. As a further site selection process is undertaken, other possible sites that were not considered may also be identified and sites

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-21 April, 2010

previously considered unavailable may become available as conditions change. There may be ways to develop sites A and E together to provide increased space. With an attractive enough design, there might be support for a transit center at Church and High, thus gaining political support. Note that subsequent to the completion of technical work for this study, the City of Hartford has concluded that the more desirable location for a transit center would be on the southeast corner of Church and High Streets.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-22 April, 2010

Table 9-1: Summary of Alternatives Comparison Category A B1 B2 C D1 D2 D3 E 0 0 0 -- + - - 0 Vehicle/ped Conflicts between Conflicts between Perception of Passenger The portions The portions Vehicle/ped conflicts with exiting intercity exiting intercity Safety a problem perception of located under the located under the conflicts with multiple buses and local buses and local due to isolated safety is likely to highway would be highway would be multiple driveways. buses going south buses going south area and passage be good due to perceived as perceived as driveways. Safety Perception of on Union Place. on Union Place. under highway. the proximity to unsafe. Increases unsafe. Increases Perception of Safety improved Active area might Active area might the Ground passenger/vehicle passenger/vehicle Safety improved due to active area. increase increase Transportation conflicts if conflicts if due to active area passenger passenger Center. pedestrians cross pedestrians cross perception of perception of Spruce at multiple Spruce at multiple safety. safety. points. points. + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Close to XL Union Station Union Station Further from key Close to Ground Close to Ground Close to Ground Close to XL Center and active could serve as could serve as destinations other Transportation Transportation Transportation Center and active streets. Would inside waiting inside waiting than Union Center where Center which Center which streets. Short walk have to walk space but buses space but buses Station. Closer to passengers could could serve as could serve as on Allyn to Union Convenience through Great Hall are spread out so are spread out so Ground Transport wait for their inside waiting inside waiting Station. Would to reach the most passengers most passengers Center buses. But would space but buses space but buses have to walk Ground Transport would wait on would wait on eliminate are spread out so are spread out so through Great Hall Center. street. street. convenient most passengers most passengers to reach the parking at Spruce would wait on would wait on Ground Transport Street Lot. street. street. Center. + ------+ Closer to Main Closes Union Closes Union Further from Main Negative impact Negative impact Negative impact Closer to Main Street so lower Place to general Place to general Street so higher on Spruce due to on Spruce and at on Spruce and at Street so lower operating cost for traffic, leaving traffic, leaving operating cost for increased bus the the operating cost for Operational CTTRANSIT. Spruce the only Spruce the only CTTRANSIT. traffic. Problem Spruce/Asylum Spruce/Asylum CTTRANSIT. Impact on access to Union access to Union from buses turning intersection due to intersection due to Impact on Functionality adjacent Station. Station. from Spruce to addition of local addition of local adjacent roadways due to Asylum. buses. buses. roadways due to multiple multiple driveways. driveways.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-23 April, 2010

Category A B1 B2 C D1 D2 D3 E - - 0 ++ - + + - Constrained site. Constrained site. Could expand to Fairly Constrained site. Could add space Could add space Constrained site. May not be able to May not be able to same area as B1. unconstrained site May not be able to to the area to the area May not be able to Flexibility/ expand beyond 16 expand beyond 16 with ability to expand beyond 16 available for bus available for bus expand beyond 16 Expandability bus bays. bus bays. expand. bus bays. parking by parking by bus bays. increasing the increasing the Spruce Street Spruce Street extension extension. ++ -- -- ++ -- - - ++ Could develop a So many buses on So many buses on Site could support Eliminates the Does not promote Does not promote Could develop a parking garage to the street would the street would parking for Spruce Street Lot, joint development joint development parking garage to Support as a serve other uses not support Union not support Union commuter rail and the site with the as it eliminates as it eliminates serve other uses “Great Place” as well as Station as a Station as a joint development most joint parking on Spruce parking on Spruce as well as replacement “Great Place” “Great Place” on Myrtle and development and creates more and creates more replacement parking. Spring Street. potential around bus traffic. bus traffic parking. Union Station. - 0 0 ++ - ++ ++ -- Likely to be strong Reasonably low Lower cost than Less opposition to Eliminates Reasonably low Reasonably low Likely to be strong opposition by cost option but B1 but likely to be transit center parking, an cost option cost option opposition by Feasibility nearby likely to be opposed by since the site is important source nearby businesses. strongly opposed nearby isolated. of GHTD revenue. businesses. Also by nearby businesses (less the site is difficult businesses. so than with B1). due to grades. +2 -4 -3 +2 -4 0 0 +1 Good location for Option has little to Option has little to Site has space Option has many Option has many Option has many Good location for transit operation recommend it. recommend it. and is unlikely to drawbacks, but is drawbacks, but is drawbacks, but is transit operation Overall Points and perception of face opposition. close to the Union inexpensive and inexpensive and and perception of personal safety. Buses will have Station Ground close to the Union close to the Union personal safety. Problems of traffic longer detours. Transportation Station Ground Station Ground Problems of traffic conflicts and Isolation may Center. Transportation Transportation conflicts and opposition by local increase security Center. Center. opposition by local businesses. concerns. businesses.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 9-24 April, 2010

Phase 3: Recommendations

Union Station Plan Final Report April, 2010

10.0 RECOMMENDED OPERATING PLAN FOR UNION STATION

As discussed in Chapter 9, the preferred plan for Union Station is to enhance and enlarge the Ground Transportation Center portion of the station by adding a “glass box” entryway which would separate the intercity bus loading area from the taxi and auto pick up and drop off area. In addition a transit center could be located nearby. While additional study is required to determine the best location for the transit center, for purposes of this study, a center is assumed to be located at the North Parking Lot between an extension of Spruce Street and Myrtle Street. The recommended master plan for the Union Station campus is shown in Figure 10-1.

10.1 Union Station with Enhanced Ground Transportation Center As discussed in Chapter 4 on operating conditions at Union Station, the Ground Transportation Center provides adequate space, but is dated in appearance. Summarizing the findings in Chapter 4, Union Station has the capacity to handle increased flows of passengers, but some re-arrangement and updating of the facility would enhance the passenger experience and make operations easier. This assessment found that:

■ Intercity bus bays could be reduced from the 15 currently available. More room to allow angled parking would be desirable.

■ Additional space for short-term parking and taxi waiting would be desirable.

■ Accommodations for bicycles would be desirable.

■ Updating and modernization of the Ground Transportation Center could make that area more attractive. Functions could be rearranged to provide more space for customers and tenants.

■ The Great Hall could be better utilized—and might be a pleasant waiting area for passengers if connected with electronic boards providing current schedule information.

■ Care will need to be taken to insure that any renovation meets requirements for historical preservation.

Particularly with the expected increase in passengers due to the New Haven/Hartford/Springfield commuter rail, modernization of the Ground Transportation Center seems an appropriate improvement. The number of rail passengers is forecasted to quadruple by 2015 due to the new commuter rail. Although the Ground Transportation Center is adequate today, it is likely to be crowded with the additional patronage.

Figure 10-2 shows the existing area of Union Station and recommended expansion to the Ground Transportation Center. The current Ground Transportation Center would be expanded to the north and to the west, and a grander entryway would be added to the Spruce Street side of the building. In addition, changes to the Great Hall will allow that facility to become part of the waiting area for passengers—further expanding the available space.

Short term parking for seven vehicles would be provided along the curb on the east side of Spruce Street, north of the station entrance. Additional short-term parking for six vehicles would be provided along the curb on the east side of Spruce Street south of the station entrance, and in the south parking lot, which also serves as additional waiting space for taxis. A drop off area is provided for five automobiles adjacent to the Ground Transportation Center south of the entrance. Because commuter rail ridership will quadruple rail passengers at Union Station, additional short term parking may be required,

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 10-1 April, 2010

particularly in the afternoon. One option for increasing it is to use space along the curb on the Union Place side of Union Station.

Taxi waiting areas would be provided south of the Spruce Street Entrance on the west side of Spruce Street and in a taxi stand. Taxis in the taxi stand would pull three at a time to the entrance of the station to pick up passengers. Taxis queuing on the west side of Spruce Street would pull left into the taxi stand. These two locations plus three places near the door will provide space for around 13 taxis. Additional taxis could queue in the South Parking Lot. The South Parking Lot would have space for 18 vehicles (taxis and short term parkers) or if the sidewalk were to be widened, there would be room for 15 vehicles.

The enlarged Ground Transportation Center provides room for many more amenities than currently. Figure 10-3 shows the way that the center would be organized. Amtrak’s space is moved to the south side of the public lobby. Amtrak ticketing (1) is moved near escalators to the train level. Amtrak ticketing kiosks (2) are also provided. Commuter rail ticketing (3) is also provided near the escalators/stairs to the train level. Amtrak office space (4) is located south of the ticketing area and escalator.

Seating areas for passengers are expanded in this plan. Seating/waiting areas (5) are located just inside the new “glass box” entrance, towards the center of the Ground Transportation Center, and in the Great Hall. Information displays (6) are also located just inside the entrance. Intercity bus ticketing (7) is located near intercity bus bays. There is additional seating for bus passengers near the intercity bus bays (8).

While there are no rental car facilities at Union Station, there may be a need for such with the increased traffic due to commuter rail. The need will be further increased if the residential population in the area can be expanded. Thus this plan provides for a rental car office (9) next to the intercity bus ticketing area.

Food vendors (10) would be located near the intercity bus area and also near a new area of café seating (11). Additional café seating would be provided outside south of the entrance. Restrooms (12) are located near the inside café seating area.

The Great Hall would be enlivened by moving some of the train waiting/seating area there (5), and adding a newsstand (13) and a restaurant/pub (14). This new restaurant/pub might be operated by the existing restaurant/operator or by an independent operator. Space is provided for a kitchen for the new restaurant/pub (15) and for miscellaneous storage and other “back of house” needs (17). Also, a security office is provided central to the Ground Transportation Center near the escalators. Additional tenant spaces (16) facing the auto drop-off area could be retail with their own entrances.

Figure 10-4 shows circulation and platform level improvements for Union Station. The new circulation facilities are shown in pink in Figure 10-4. These include an elevator (2) to serve the new commuter train track, a new escalator or stair (3) to the existing track and a new accessible ramp (4) to connect the Ground Transportation Center with the Great Hall. Figure 10-4 also shows new train platform slabs. A skylight (7) is shown to provide natural light to the intercity bus waiting area.

The enlarged Union Station will provide an attractive space for the additional passengers expected due to commuter rail, particularly because the Great Hall will become an important waiting area in addition to the Ground Transportation Center. There will be additional operating cost due to the expanded facility (expansion is estimated as 10,750 square feet), additional elevator and escalators. However, there will be additional income from the new rental spaces in the expanded facility. In addition, the increased commuter rail passenger traffic should improve business conditions for existing food services which should allow their rents to increase.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 10-2 April, 2010

Figure 10-1: Union Station Masterplan

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 10-3 April, 2010

Figure 10-2: Existing and New Area Plan

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 10-4 April, 2010

Figure 10-3: Station Operating Plan

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 10-5 April, 2010

Figure 10-4: Circulation and Platform Level Improvements

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 10-6 April, 2010

10.2 Local Bus Transit Center Figure 10-1 showed the local bus transit center at the North Parking Lot area currently used by the Hartford for parking. This site is expected to become available and replacement of the current surface parking is not necessary. Therefore, the entire site is available for use as a transit center.

The Downtown Circulation Study provided an analysis of the capacity required by the Transit Center. 30 The number of bays that are needed will depend on how long buses are typically expected to layover, or hold, in the transit center for the purpose of maintaining schedule adherence. It is estimated that up to 16 bays will be needed for local buses, exclusive of those needed for busway vehicles. Busway vehicles would need up to four additional bays. While busway services would terminate downtown, busway vehicles would be continuing on to Main Street and would not be laying over in the transit center. Therefore, a single bay for unloading inbound passengers would be sufficient. With many different busway routes sharing the facility, outbound busway service could require up to three bays for loading passengers due to the need to sort the heavy passenger volumes by route before boarding. Busway bays could be in the transit center (to facilitate transfers between routes), for a total requirement of 20 transit center bus bays, or outside on the street (to speed operations and provide quick access to Main Street).

The proposed Transit Center is therefore designed to accommodate 20 buses with 12 coach bus bays and 8 articulated bus bays. Busway vehicles are expected to be articulated buses, and CTTRANSIT indicated the need for four additional articulated bus bays to serve heavier routes. The three-level parking structure, which would serve potential new residential uses and new commuters as well as provide replacement parking for the Spruce Street parking lot, could be developed above the bus facility and accommodate approximately 220 parking spaces per level. A raised platform could be built to link the new housing with the parking structure, with vertical circulation provided at the rear of the housing for access to the bus station from Myrtle and Edwards Streets. Cut outs in the platform could be provided to allow natural light to reach the ground level Transit Center. A vehicular access ramp to the garage could be provided on Myrtle Street. The garage as shown would have 60-foot bay spacing, which will allow for adequate structural support to accommodate the proposed parking facilities above.

The transit center alternative shown in Figure 10-1 has a single entrance/exit at the Myrtle/Church/Spruce intersection opposite Spruce Street. Buses would enter and exit from all three directions. Pedestrian access between Union Station and the Transit Center could be enhanced with enhanced lighting, paving, wayfinding and a partial canopy cover at the pedestrian level. More discussion of this is provided in Chapter 12.

30 NW Corridor Transit Planning Project Part 3 – Downtown Hartford Transit Circulation Study, Final Report, August 2009, pp. 107-108.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 10-7 April, 2010

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 10-8 April, 2010

11.0 CAPITAL COSTS FOR UNION STATION

11.1 Capital Cost for Improvements to Union Station The total estimated cost for the Union Station improvements is 12.2 million dollars without escalation. These costs can be broken down into the costs for renovating inside the center, the railroad platform, the drop off and entry area, and the bus bays. The costs include an allowance for moving the large mural on the outside of the Ground Transportation Center. A 15% contingency is used for this estimate. Table 11-1 shows the cost build-up for the different parts of the project.

Table 11-1: Capital Costs for Union Station Improvements Cost Cost Item Basis Unit Cost No. of Units Line Item Total Transportation Center Demolition, Site SF $0.90 33,500 $30,150 Demolition, Interior SF $6.00 20,150 $120,900 Demolition, Exterior Walls SF $4.00 3,125 $12,500 Cleaning & Painting Exposed Track Structure LS $100,000 Site Improvements (Benches, Bike Racks, Etc.) LS $80,000 Landscaping LS $150,000 Site Work LS 13,700 $70,000 Foundation CY $250.00 380 $95,000 Slab On Grade SF $25.50 10,750 $274,125 Roof Slab SF $25.50 10,750 $274,125 Structure SF $30.00 10,750 $322,500 Walls, Exterior (Storefront) SF $117.00 6,450 $754,650 Lighting, Site EA $4,500.00 40 $180,000 Accessible Ramp, Exterior SF $150.00 240 $36,000 Glass Roof SF $120.00 1,160 $139,200 Roofing SF $5.30 29,740 $157,622 Walls, Interior LF $140.00 1,700 $238,000 Ceilings (Public) SF $11.00 15,820 $174,020 Ceilings (BOH & Tenant) SF $5.00 15,200 $76,000 Flooring (Public) SF $35.00 15,820 $553,700 Flooring (BOH & Tenant) SF $6.00 15,200 $91,200 Lighting, Interior SF $15.00 30,900 $463,500 Accessible Ramp, Interior SF $50.00 480 $24,000 Toilet Rooms SF $150.00 900 $135,000 Elevator EA $400,000.00 1 $400,000 Escalator EA $500,000.00 1 $500,000 Plumbing SF $4.00 30,900 $123,600 Fire Protection SF $4.50 30,900 $139,050 HVAC SF $15.00 30,900 $463,500 Electrical SF $12.00 30,900 $370,800 Signage & Wayfinding LS $100,000 Graphic Art Fascia SF $20.00 4,800 $96,000 Seating LS $60,000 Sub Total $6,805,142

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 11-1 April, 2010

Cost No. of Cost Item Basis Unit Cost Units Line Item Total Train Platforms Demolition SF $2.00 22,460 $44,9 20 Platform Slab (Precast) SF $70.00 22,460 $1,572,200 Guardrail LF $90.00 720 $64,800 Walls, Skylight (Storefront) SF $117.00 1,050 $122,850 Lighting EA $4,500.00 50 $225,000 Sub Total $2,029,770 Station TOTAL $8,834,912

Drop -Off & Entry Area Site Demolition & Excavation SF $1.20 19,040 $22,848 Concrete drive path SY $38.00 782 $29,716 Reinforcement for concrete drive path SY $4.21 782 $3,292 Curb and gutter LF $26.00 900 $23,400 Sidewalk & Hardscaping SF $25.00 12,040 $301,000 Sub Total $380,256 Bus Bay Concrete waiting area SF $3.64 8,700 $31,668 Concrete drive path SY $50.00 1,883 $94,150 Reinforcement for concrete drive path SY $8.20 1,883 $15,441 Demo of overhang LS $20,000.00 1 $20,000 Ne w overhang EA $95,200.00 1 $95,200 Sub Total $256,459

Station & Site TOTAL $9,47 1,627 GC Mark-Up, Taxes, Bond 6% $568,298 Contingency 15% $1,420,744 Design 8% $757,730 TOTAL* $12, 218,399 *Escalation costs excluded

Key: BOH is Back of House CY is cubic yard EA is each GC is general contractor LF is linear foot LS is lump sum SF is square foot SY is square yards

11.2 Capital Costs for the Transit Center The capital cost estimates for the bus transfer center include the cost for improved pedestrian walkways between Union Station and the Transit Center, for the bus transfer area, for a small climate controlled waiting area at the center with bathrooms, and for a three level parking facility overhead. The total cost for the Transit Center comes to around 27 million dollars, excluding escalation. Table 11-2 provides a breakdown of the costs. A 20 percent contingency is used for the Transit Center, since this is a very early stage estimate and less is known about the design than in the case of the Union Station renovation.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 11-2 April, 2010

Table 11-2: Transit Center Costs Cost Cost Item Basis Unit Cost No. of Units Line Item Total Pedestrian Walkway Struc ture Both Sides of Spruce (@10’ by 250’) Metal Roof SF $50.00 2,800 $140,000 Columns 8" x 8" Steel Tubes 8' Tall EA $825.00 19 $15,675 2" X 8" Steel Tubes 10' Long EA $300.00 38 $11,400 12" x 3" Channels LF $12.10 750 $9,075 2" x 2" Steel Tube LF $25.00 2,750 $68,750 Sconce Lights EA $200.00 18 $3,600 Concrete w/ base - 4" thick SF $5.12 2,800 $14,336 Concrete Footing For Pedestrian Walkway CY $248.00 46 $11,408 Sub Total $274,244 X2 $548,488 Transfer Bus Station Building and Paving Survey and staking Allow $10,000.00 1 $10,000 Utilities including sewer, hydrant, electric, phone Allow $150,000.00 1 $150,000 Environmental remediation Allow $1,050,000.00 1 $1,500,000 Fascia LF $9.30 240 $2,232 Footings CY $248.00 50 $12,400 Water proofing SF $0.70 1,232 $862 12"x18" Concrete Beams CFT $1,175.00 60 $70,500 Steel Columns (8" x 8" steel tube) EA $825.00 8 $6,600 16" Joists, 30' Long LF $11.15 360 $4,014 20 GA. 1 1/2 " Type B Metal Deck (insulated) SF $2.77 2,700 $7,479 9' Foot High Smooth Face Block LF $12.10 1,800 $21,780 Tile Floor 56'x22 SF $6.00 1,232 $7,392 9' Tall x 112' wide Glass Storefront SF $117.00 1,008 $117,936 Handicap Plastic Laminate Clad Toilet Compartment EA $1,800.00 2 $3,600 Plastic Laminate Clad Toilet Compartment EA $1,100.00 3 $3,300 Toilet EA $330.00 5 $1,650 Urinal EA $750.00 1 $750 Sink EA $340.00 4 $1,360 Light Fixtures 2'Wx4'L EA $193.00 20 $3,860 Wall Mounted Lights EA $440.00 6 $2,640 Exit Lights and Battery Back Up EA $261.00 2 $522 Site Lighting - Light poles/anchor base 8' high EA $835.00 18 $15,030 Ceiling Tile - 2'x4'x5.8" tile - w/ suspension EA $2.41 1,760 $4,242 6 Diffusers - 12"x12" EA $135.00 6 $810 Thermal & Moisture SF $3.44 1,232 $4,238 Sprinklers EA $1,140.00 1 $1,140 Demo existing Asphalt SF $7.60 156,657 $1,190,593 Perimeter Curb LF $13.70 2,672 $36,606 Concrete for Pedestrians Dropoff/waiting - 4" Thick SF $5.12 35,475 $181,632 Steel Benches EA. $1,175.00 15 $17,625 Pavement For Transfer Bus Station (12” thick) SY $62.80 7,520 $472,256

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 11-3 April, 2010

Cost Cost Item Basis Unit Cost No. of Units Line Item Total Sub Total $3,486,683

Parking Garage Bus Transfer station Footing SF $10.21 14,847 $151,653 32'X32" conc. columns 24 ft. tall EA $13,905.95 70 $973,416 Floor Construction - 3 floors (@ 108,000 sq. ft.) SF $40.69 324,000 $13,182,532 Exterior Walls - Face brick w/ conc. Block back up SF $47.05 17,895 $841,961 General lights for 3 floors EA $319.20 600 $191,520 Stairs EA $31,920.00 3 $95,760 Elevators EA $212,906.40 2 $425,813 Sub Total $15,862,656

Station & Site TOTAL $19,897,827 GC Mark -Up, Taxes, Bond 6% $1,193,870 Contingency 20% $3,979,565 Design 8% $1,591,826 TOTAL* $26,663,088

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 11-4 April, 2010

12.0 PLAN FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS NEAR UNION STATION

Building on the TOD concepts initially proposed in Chapter 8 which helped inform thinking about compatible Union Station improvements and bus transfer facilities, Chapter 12 discusses a plan for maximizing TOD development in the area. In this recommended plan, there are three sites with potential for TOD development.

Along with TOD is the potential for considerable pedestrian improvements along the streets that serve the Union Station area. Together, these improvements will provide transformative change to the station area and strengthen connections between transportation modes, increase transit visibility on Spruce Street, and improve quality and safety of the pedestrian environment on Asylum and Myrtle Streets.

12.1 TOD Opportunities Figure 12-1 provides a schematic of the TOD opportunities, discussed in more detail below.

12.1.1. Spruce Street Parking Lot The Spruce Street parking lot is composed of two parcels, totaling approximately two acres. Together, the parcels form a triangular site and have considerable frontage on Asylum and Spruce Streets. The site is highly visible, easily accessible from I-84 and located directly west of Union Station. Noteworthy drawbacks are dimensional constraints created by the triangular geometry of the site, constant noise from the adjacent viaducts of westbound I-84 and rail noise from Union Station.

A potential TOD opportunity is to develop a tall residential or office building (between 12 and 15 stories) on the site. A taller building will maximize views to downtown, Bushnell Park and the Capitol, create a landmark “point” tower that draws positive attention to the station area and establish a sense of place. An “L-shaped” residential or office building would maximize building frontage on Asylum and Spruce Streets and would establish an active, pedestrian-friendly environment immediately outside of the station. Below the residential or office floors would be a two or three level parking structure, and incorporated ground floor retail on Asylum Street. A garage access ramp could be provided along the site’s rear with access from Asylum Street and Spruce Street.

The three or four story building “base,” composed of ground floor retail and two or three levels of parking, would set the first residential or office floor at approximately the same elevation of the I-84 viaduct, which will maximize views for east and west-facing units. Assuming 1,000 gross square feet (GSF) per residential unit, the site could accommodate between 300 units (12 story building) and 400 units (15 story building). That translates to approximately 345 to 460 parking spaces on two to three levels, respectively (assuming a parking ratio of 1.15 space per residential unit). 31 If developed as office with a 20,000 GSF floor plate, the site can accommodate between 180,000 GSF (at 12 stories) and 240,000 GSF (at 15 stories). That translates to approximately 540 to 720 parking spaces on four to five levels (assuming a parking ratio of three spaces per 1,000 GSF of office space.

This potential TOD opportunity is the most promising due in part to its proximate location to Union Station and Downtown Hartford, opportunity to integrate transportation funding with private investment, visibility from Interstate 84 and potential for a direct pedestrian bridge connection to Union Station.

31 The proposed parking spaces for the developments are based on parking rates provided in the Parking Generation ITE, 3 rd Edition.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 12-1 April, 2010

12.1.2. Capitol West Parcel The Capitol West parcel is a 1.2 acre site bound by Myrtle Street to the north and east, I-84 to the south and Spring Street to the west and is located across the street from the North Parking Lot. The site is in a predominately residential neighborhood with clear views to downtown, is highly visible from I-84, and within an eighth of a mile walk of Union Station. Noteworthy site constraints are steep slopes (slopes vary from about 3 percent up to 20 percent), awkward parcel geometry, and close proximity to I-84 westbound viaduct and Exit 48 off-ramp. The site is currently developed and contains a vacant six-story office building.

Despite the clear drawbacks, the Capitol West parcel provides a significant TOD opportunity to develop mid-rise housing that takes advantage of its location advantage and views to downtown, fills in the gaps in the street wall and helps reinforce the residential character of the Myrtle Street and Spring Street corridors. If it is found that the site is too small to accommodate required off-street parking, it could be provided across the street in the proposed air rights parking garage on the North Parking Lot parcel (as discussed below). In addition, new housing on this prominent parcel would help to increase pedestrian activity on Myrtle Street and under the I-84 viaducts and will provide needed “eyes on the street.”

12.1.3. North Parking Lot/Myrtle & Edwards Streets The North Parking Lot is on a 5 acre parcel and bound by railroads to the north and east and Myrtle and Edwards Streets to the south and west. A significant percentage of the site is relatively flat, except for the western edge of the parcel that slopes up to Myrtle and Edwards Streets. The site is highly visible and proximate to Union Station; however site access is limited to one two-way road that enters the site below the I-84 westbound and eastbound viaducts.

There is a TOD opportunity to line the Myrtle Street and Edwards Street frontage with residential development in conjunction with the development of the proposed bus berthing facility and air rights parking garage. A raised platform could be built to link the new housing with the parking structure, with vertical circulation provided at the rear of the housing for access to the bus station from Myrtle and Edwards Streets. Cut outs in the platform could be provided to allow natural light to reach the ground level bus station. A vehicular access ramp to the garage could be provided on Myrtle Street.

To remain consistent with the low-to-moderate development density found within the surrounding residential neighborhood, mid-rise housing (four-to-six stories) is recommended for the Myrtle and Edwards Street frontage. This would provide enough height to take advantage of the great views to Downtown from the site, while acknowledging the neighborhood’s prevailing average building height. At this height, the site can accommodate between 125 residential units (at four stories) and 185 residential units (at six stories). That translates to approximately 144 to 213 parking spaces (assuming a parking ratio of 1.15 space per residential unit). There is the potential for as much as 550 linear feet of virtually continuous housing frontage between the I-84 viaducts and the rail bridge on Edwards Street at the northern edge of the parcel, with intermittent breaks in the street wall to allow pedestrian views to Downtown, and pedestrian access to the building rear. Developing housing along the Myrtle and Edwards Street frontage in conjunction with the development of the proposed bus berthing facility and parking structure will provide

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 12-2 April, 2010

Figure 12-1: TOD Opportunities Near Union Station

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 12-3 April, 2010

needed surveillance and aesthetic improvements along the pedestrian approach to the under bridge area of Interstate 84 and Union Station.

12.1.4. Assumptions about TOD Opportunities

The TOD opportunities discussed above show ranges and options for development of more space for living and working in the vicinity of Union Station. Chapters 13 and 14 of this report make more definitive assumptions about the number of units and type of development (residential versus retail) in order to estimate the effect of assumed development on parking and traffic.

One key assumption is that the Spruce Street parking lot should be residential rather than office for the following reasons:

■ The site is constrained, so minimizing the parking requirement from development on the site would leave more room for whatever activity is contemplated. The parking requirement for residential is less than for office, so residential is attractive from the point of view of minimizing parking for the site. Also, commuter rail is expected to greatly increase the demand for parking in the vicinity, so development with a lower parking demand next to Union Station is preferred to a development with higher demand.

■ The view of Bushnell Park would seem especially attractive for residential units.

■ Adding residential units would increase the liveliness of the station area in the evening.

12.2 Pedestrian and Aesthetic Improvements around Union Station 12.2.1. Asylum Street Along with the development of the Spruce Street parking lot is the opportunity to improve the pedestrian realm on Asylum Street, particularly along the north sidewalk. For instance, providing an active ground floor use along the Asylum Street frontage such as retail, as described above, can significantly improve the station area image, and increase pedestrian security and comfort. Examples of specific improvements envisioned are wider pedestrian zone along the Spruce Street Parking Lot frontage, street trees, seating areas, and pedestrian scaled lighting.

Another opportunity for improving the pedestrian environment immediately outside Union Station is on the north sidewalk on Asylum Street under the existing rail bridge. This section of sidewalk is approximately eight or nine feet and aligned between the bridge’s stone pier and a tall fence that separates the pedestrian from an under-bridge parking area. It is a dark, narrow, and seemingly insecure pedestrian environment. One opportunity is to remove/relocate the east platform stairway that is adjacent to the sidewalk. While this stairway is currently needed for emergency egress from the train platform, removal of the stairway could be considered as part of the project to improve the viaduct for the new commuter rail service. However, in the meantime, improvements such as removing the fence, widening the sidewalks, and adding special paving and better lighting, could enhance the pedestrian environment. Such improvements would reduce parking in the South Parking Lot by 3 spaces.

12.2.2. Spruce Street The proposed immediate station area improvements, including the proposed Ground Transportation Center expansion and addition of short term parking, taxi stands, and pick up and drop off areas along Spruce Street, would improve station area circulation and help increase transit visibility. These improvements would complement the mixed-use development envisioned for the Spruce Street parking lot, and significantly improve the quality of the pedestrian environment around Union Station.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 12-4 April, 2010

12.2.3. Under the I-84 Viaducts (Church/Myrtle/Spruce Streets) There are two important pedestrian paths northwest of Union Station that are in need of improvement. One path is between Union Station and the proposed bus berthing facility on the North Parking Lot. The other is between Union Station and the potential housing development along Myrtle Street. The paths must pass underneath the I-84 viaducts. The under-viaduct area is an insecure, noisy and generally uncomfortable pedestrian environment.

There is the potential to develop two new sidewalk connections on the east and west side of the existing North Parking Lot access road. The potential alignment of these new pedestrian paths hinges largely on the existing placement of the I-84 viaduct pier columns. The column placement removes the possibility of developing wide, unobstructed sidewalks adjacent to the east and west curbs of the access road. However, there is room to offset the sidewalks from the curbs and skew the paths northeast to connect with the future bus station. Along the new sidewalks could be new pedestrian scaled lighting, steel post fencing, special paving materials, and a wayfinding sign system.

The pedestrian path between Union Station and the potential Myrtle Street housing development could be also be improved with wider sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian scaled lighting, steel post fencing, and a wayfinding sign system. These pedestrian path improvements will strengthen and secure pedestrian connections between Union Station, the proposed bus berthing facility, and the residential neighborhood on the other side of I-84.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 12-5 April, 2010

13.0 PARKING

13.1 Assumptions for the Scenario B or “Build” Scenario This chapter considers the parking requirements associated with the recommended plan for Union Station. This plan includes the transportation options of Scenario B (New Britain Busway, New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail, and a Transit Center) plus the three proposed Transit Oriented Developments discussed in Chapter 12. In order to undertake the parking analysis, specific assumptions about the number of development units and parking spaces are made. Thus this parking analysis assumes the following:

■ Spruce Street Triangle Parcel Site Development, consisting of:

• 400 space parking garage with a pedestrian footbridge connection to Union Station • 300 residential units above the parking garage.32 • 16,000 square feet of retail on the ground floor

■ Capital West Parcel Site Development, consisting of:

• 120 mid-rise residential units • 140 parking spaces would be provided across the street in the proposed Air Rights Garage on the North Parking Lot parcel

■ Myrtle & Edwards Streets Site Development, consisting of:

• 155 mid-rise residential units • 180 parking spaces would be provided in the proposed Air Rights Garage on the North Parking Lot parcel

■ Implementation of the New Britain-Hartford Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project (currently under design by CTDOT), and

■ Implementation of New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail (currently being planned by CTDOT). The Air Rights Garage would provide replacement parking for the existing parking spaces at the Spruce Street lot (also designated as the Transportation Lot) and will also provide additional spaces to accommodate the new commuter rail service.

This analysis of future parking needs includes estimation of the parking demand anticipated by the increase in employment over time as well as parking needs generated by each proposed/assumed development. These future parking needs are then compared to the projected number of parking spaces available in the year 2017.

32 As explained in Chapter 12, residential use rather than office use is recommended for the Spruce Street lot.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 13-1 April, 2010

It is assumed that the BRT component of this scenario will not require parking in the study area for patrons or employees, as this project provides local transit service connections in the Union Station area. It is further assumed that the newly proposed Transit Center will have a very low parking need that will be met on-site. Therefore, this analysis primarily considers the additional parking demand anticipated by the increase in employment over time in the vicinity and the parking demand generated by the Spruce Street Triangle, Capital West, and Myrtle and Edwards Streets parcel site developments and the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail project as well as any increase in parking required by Union Station.

The project team reviewed employment trends in the City of Hartford over the last ten years. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that employment has increased at an average rate of one percent (1%) per year. It is assumed that the parking occupancy will grow at the same rate that employment grows; therefore, this growth rate was applied to the existing parking occupancy to estimate the future background parking demand.

Next, the parking demand for the site developments (Spruce Street Triangle, Capital West, and Myrtle and Edwards Streets) was accounted for. As shown in Table 13-1, the parking demand for the site developments is assumed to be the same as for the parking supply (it is assumed that parking for the residential units and retail areas are reserved and not generally available for other parkers).

The New Haven – Hartford – Springfield Commuter Rail project is a planned initiative to implement commuter rail service in the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield (NHHS) rail corridor. In addition to serving commuters traveling between the towns and cities along the corridor, the service will provide multiple connections to Amtrak Intercity service and a direct link to the existing Metro North and Shore Line East Commuter Rail services in New Haven.

Based on information obtained from the White Paper for Parking and Station Parking Improvements, CTDOT New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Service, Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Evaluation, June 5, 2009, Union Station is projected to have 463 boardings on the new commuter rail service by the year 2015 (312 boardings during the morning peak and 151 boardings during the mid day peak). Of the total projected boardings, 343 passengers will arrive by automobile (202 passengers during the morning peak and 141 passengers during the mid day peak).

■ A factor of 0.58 (constrained arrivals by automobile divided by unconstrained arrivals by automobile) was applied to estimate the constrained demand of passengers arriving by automobile.

■ Ninety percent (90%) arrive at the station and park their vehicle; ten percent (10%) will be dropped off.

■ All passengers that arrive at the station and park their vehicle arrive alone. In other words, the auto occupancy of arriving passengers is 1.0.

■ Morning boarders disembark during the afternoon peak hour in their reverse trip.

■ Mid day boarders disembark after the afternoon peak hour.

■ 2017 projections will be the same as the 2015 scenario (i.e. no new increase was assumed for that 2-year period).

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 13-2 April, 2010

Table 13-1 shows the 2007 existing parking demand and the 2017 parking demand which includes demand due to assumptions about background employment growth, constrained parking conditions for commuter rail, loss of Hartford employees parking at the North Parking Lot, the Transit Center at the North Lot, and demand due to development. The left column shows existing conditions, the second column shows background growth in parking demand due to employment growth only, the third column shows parking demand due to the developments and commuter rail, and the right-most column shows the total parking demand.

13.2 Future Parking Supply Currently, there are 1,621 parking spaces in the eight facilities evaluated in this parking assessment. Under the planning scenario, a total of 2,166 parking spaces would be provided, resulting in a total net gain of 545 parking spaces (of which 150 spaces are new spaces for Union Station).

The proposed multi-level parking structure above the Transit Center (Air Rights Garage) would provide replacement parking for the existing 190 spaces for the Spruce Street Lot (also designated as the Transportation Lot ) and will also provide an additional 150 spaces to accommodate the new commuter rail service. The proposed Air Rights Garage would also accommodate spaces for the proposed residential developments (140 spaces for the Capital West Parcel and 180 spaces for the Myrtle & Edwards Streets Developments). Altogether, 660 parking spaces would be provided above the Transit Center. Four-hundred (400) spaces would be provided for the Spruce Street Triangle development on Spruce Street. It is assumed that the 325 parking spaces associated with the Hartford Insurance Group would be replaced northwest of the study area.

13.3 Summary Based on the estimated future parking demand and supply as shown in Table 13-2, the proposed parking supply at the facilities evaluated in this study will meet the estimated future parking demand. The total future parking supply under the “Build” conditions would be 2166 spaces, and the maximum demand forecast is 1867 spaces needed in the midday period under constrained commuter rail parking assumptions. The proposed parking supply would also allow for growth of commuter rail parking beyond the constrained parking assumptions.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 13-3 April, 2010

Table 13-1: Parking Demand Summary Existing (2007) and Future Build Condition (2017)

2007 Parking Demand Existing 2017 Parking Demand (based on 2017 New Parking Demand (from 2017 Parking Demand Total Condition employment growth only) commuter rail and development)

AM Peak Mid Day PM Peak AM Peak Mid Day PM Peak AM Peak Mid Day Peak PM Peak Am Peak Mid day Peak PM Peak Parking Location Hour Peak Hour Hour Hour Peak Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Surface Parking Lots 1- Transportation Lot 1 101 120 99 112 133 109 400 400 400 400 400 400 2-North Parking Lot 2 319 258 113 ------3-Church Street and High Street 49 52 21 54 57 23 0 0 0 54 57 23 4-Union Place and Allyn St 60 56 36 66 62 40 0 0 0 66 62 40 5-Saints Lot 192 202 128 212 223 141 0 0 0 212 223 141 6-180 Allyn Street 212 225 192 234 249 213 0 0 0 234 249 213 7-Parkview Hilton 155 138 129 171 152 143 0 0 0 171 152 143 8-Union Place South 34 30 25 38 33 28 0 0 0 38 33 28 Proposed Air Rights Garage Replacement Parking for Union Station n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 112 133 109 112 133 109 Additional Parking for Commuter Rail n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 106 180 74 106 180 74 Capital West Parcel n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 140 140 140 140 140 140 Myrtle Street/Edwards Street Parcel n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 180 180 180 180 180 180 On-Street Parking Union Place (Asylum Street to Church Street) 15 15 26 17 17 29 0 0 0 17 17 29 Spruce Street (Church Street to Asylum Street) 553663000663 Church Street (Union Place to Ann Street) 011011000011 High Street (Church Street to Allyn Street) 100100000100 Allyn Street (Union Place to Ann Street) 15 22 33 17 24 36 0 0 0 17 24 36 Asylum Street (Ann Street to Ford Street) 11 9 13 12 10 14 0 0 0 12 10 14 Total 1169 1133 819 940 967 780 938 1033 903 1766 1867 1574

1 Under the 2017 future planning scenario, the Transportation Lot will be the site for the proposed Spruce Street Triangle development. Replacement parking will be provided in the proposed Air Rights Garage at the North Parking Lot. 2 Under the 2017 future planning scenario, the North Parking Lot will be the site for the new Transit Center near Union Station. It is assumed that replacement parking for the Harford will be provided northwest of our study area.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 13-4 April, 2010

Table 13-2: Future Parking Demand/Supply Summary (2017) Future Parking Future Parking Demand Supply Parking Am Peak Mid day PM Peak Parking Location Spaces Hour Peak Hour Hour Surface Parking Lots 1- Transportation Lot 400 400 400 400 2-North Parking Lot n/a - - - 3-Church Street and High Street 80 54 57 23 4-Union Place and Allyn St 75 66 62 40 5-Saints Lot 267 212 223 141 6-180 Allyn Street 297 234 249 213 7-Parkview Hilton 200 171 152 143 8-Union Place South 50 38 33 28 Proposed Air Rights Garage Replacement Parking for Union Station 190 112 133 109 Additional Parking for Commuter Rail 150 106 180 74 Capital West Parcel 140 140 140 140 Myrtle Street/Edwards Street Parcel 180 180 180 180 On-Street Parking Union Place (Asylum Street to Church Street) 42 17 17 29 Spruce Street (Church Street to Asylum Street) 10 6 6 3 Church Street (Union Place to Ann Street) 5 0 1 1 High Street (Church Street to Allyn Street) 12 1 0 0 Allyn Street (Union Place to Ann Street) 55 17 24 36 Asylum Street (Ann Street to Ford Street) 13 12 10 14 Total 2166 1766 1867 1574

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 13-5 April, 2010

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 13-6 April, 2010

14.0 CIRCULATION

14.1 Traffic Analysis An analysis was conducted of the traffic and parking implications of the recommended improvements for the Union Station area. The capacity of the existing roadway and signal system to accommodate all the improvements, including the implementation of the New Britain Busway, the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail and a Transit Center was evaluated (Scenario B). The assessment considers the effects on the local roadway network of future traffic patterns resulting not only from the transportation improvements, but also from the development improvements that are assumed to be part of the full “Build” scenario. This allows the evaluation of a “maximum traffic scenario” from a traffic perspective for this transit center option. The Build traffic scenario is then compared to the No-Build traffic scenario, which includes the New Britain Busway, the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail and background traffic growth (See Chapter 8 for more description of the No-Build results).

14.1.1. Assumptions for the Traffic Analysis The proposed/assumed new developments, as shown in Figure 12-1, and the currently planned projects that were considered in this traffic analysis are the same as those considered for the parking analysis and are repeated below:

■ Development of a Transit Center in a cul-de-sac at the North Parking Lot off Spruce Street. The transit center would accommodate 20 buses (12 coach bus bays and 8 articulated bus bays) with a multi-level parking structure above the center. A total of 660 spaces would be provided in the Air Rights Garage. ■ Spruce Street Triangle Parcel Site Development, consisting of: • 400 space parking garage with a pedestrian footbridge connection to Union Station • 300 residential units above the parking garage • 16,000 square feet of retail ■ Capital West Parcel Site Development, consisting of: • 120 mid-rise residential units • 140 parking spaces would be provided across the street in the proposed Air Rights Garage on the North Parking Lot parcel ■ Myrtle & Edwards Streets Site Development, consisting of: • 155 mid-rise residential units • 180 parking spaces would be provided in the proposed Air Rights Garage on the North Parking Lot parcel ■ Implementation of the New Britain-Hartford Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project (currently under design by CTDOT), and ■ Implementation of New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail (currently being planned by CTDOT). The Air Rights Garage would provide replacement parking for the existing parking spaces at the Spruce Street lot and will also provide additional spaces to accommodate the new commuter rail service.

This analysis includes estimation of the amount of new (additional) traffic to be generated by each development (committed and proposed/assumed) and determination as to how this traffic will be distributed on the roadway network. A series of assumptions, described below, were formulated to identify the generated and distributed traffic during the morning, mid day, and afternoon peak hours. Trips generated by each development were then added to the background traffic (2017 No-Build traffic volumes discussed in Chapter 8) to yield the 2017 Build traffic volumes

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 14-1 April, 2010

for the Transit Center scenario. The 2017 Build traffic volumes were used in the capacity analysis to determine potential traffic issues resulting from the proposed development scenario.

The 2017 No-Build traffic volumes include background traffic growth at 1% per year and implementation of two planned projects underway by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, the New Britain-Hartford Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project and New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail service. Since the transit center option will impact traffic currently generated by The Hartford’s employee parking facility on Spruce Street, CTTransit services, and BRT operations, the following additional considerations and assumptions were made to develop the adjusted background traffic volumes for the 2017 No-Build condition for input to the Build analysis:

■ Trips associated with The Hartford that are utilizing the parking lot proposed for the transit center were rerouted. It is assumed that replacement parking will be provided and that all vehicles that currently access the lot will be rerouted northwest of the study area to access their replaced parking facility.

■ Existing local CTTransit buses in the background network were not readjusted as these volumes are low and considered to be negligible to overall traffic operations.

Next, an estimate of trips to be generated by the components of the Build scenario for Union Station was made as follows:

■ The Transit Center Option involves the rerouting of some CTTransit buses that serve Downtown Hartford through the proposed transit center off Spruce Street. The estimates for the number of CTTransit buses for the morning, mid day, and afternoon peak hours and their route patterns to the proposed transit center were developed as part of the Downtown Circulation task of the Northwest Corridor Study and are shown in Table 14-1 and Figure 14-1. Both inbound and outbound CTTransit trips will be routed through the transit center throughout the day.

■ Estimates for the number of Bus Rapid Transit buses for the morning, mid day, and afternoon peak hours and their route patterns to the proposed transit center were also developed as part of the Downtown Circulation task of the Northwest Corridor Study and are shown in Table 14-1.

■ Standard practices were used to estimate the volume of traffic projected to be generated by the Spruce Street Triangle, Capital West Parcel, and Myrtle & Edwards Streets Developments. Data provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in a publication titled, Trip Generation, 7th Edition was used to estimate trips generated by the residential and retail components. Trip rates for the mid day peak hour are not available; therefore, it is assumed that mid day peak hour trips will be equivalent to the afternoon peak hour for a conservative analysis. Additionally, though downtown Hartford is an environment where people tend to walk more and share rides, for a conservative analysis, it is assumed no transit credits were applied. Altogether, it is estimated that the developments will generate 237 trips during the morning peak hour and 336 trips during the midday peak hour and also during the afternoon peak hour. An arrival/departure trip distribution pattern was subsequently developed for traffic expected to be generated by the proposed developments. Trip distribution for the residential developments was derived based on journey to work data for the City of Hartford.

■ As described under the No-Build analysis in Chapter 8, it is estimated that 106 passengers are projected to drive to the station and park their vehicle while 12 passengers will be dropped-off during the morning peak hour as a result of the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail service. During the mid day peak hour, 74 passengers will drive to the station and park their vehicle and 8 passengers will be dropped-off. Under the build condition, parking for rail passengers is provided at the proposed Air Rights Garage at the Transit Center.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 14-2 April, 2010

The site generated trips from CTTransit, BRT, and the Spruce Street Triangle, Capital West, and Myrtle/Edwards Streets Parcel Developments, as well as trips generated by the New Haven – Hartford – Springfield Commuter Rail project were then added to the adjusted 2017 No-Build traffic volumes to yield the 2017 Build traffic volumes for the Transit Center Option, as shown in Figure 14-2.

Table 14-1: Trip Generation Summary: Transit Center and BRT Peak Hour Generated Trips

AM & PM Peak Mid Day Peak Hour

Entering Exiting Entering Exiting (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) CTTransit East -West Routes Asylum Street to Church Street 53 53 33 33 North -South Routes Myrtle Avenue to Church Street 57 57 36 36 North of High Street 6 6 6 6 New Britain -Hartford Bus Rapid Transit BRT Buses 38 38 26 26 Total 154 154 101 101

Figure 14-1: Peak Hour Local and Commuter Bus Volumes

6 20

North-South Routes

0 / 13 31 East-West Routes Busway Local Routes 59 53 PM Commuter Routes 64 0 / 19 53 / 47 (including busway express) 21 37 50 0 39 52 0 / 40 38 65 34 19 29 52 PM Peak Hour Bus Volumes 82 / 72 00 29 00 49 50 (for each side of the street) 36 21 12/ 0 11 13 / 19 49 / 47 11

16 14 4 0 / 10 0 10

2 30

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 14-3 April, 2010

Figure 14-2: 2017 Build Traffic Volumes Transit Center Option

Proposed Transit Myrtle Development Center Hoadley Place High Street Street (36)(122)(101) (10) (3) (90) (182) (30) [8] [4] [68] [145] [24] [18][41][42] 46 [33] (40) 7 2 38 223 68 57 [9] (12) 30 65 59 72 [51] (115) 2 [9] (7) 112 [93] (146) 86 [115] (155) 113 [37] (40) 153 [152] (244) Church Proposed

Development Street (7) [3] 7 (58) [24] 43 (30) [23] 36 (657) [227] 362 (630) [245] 361 (255) [57] 97 (62) [74] 55 (243) [101] 130 150 158 220 66 15 123 [193][106][109] [25] [7] [187] ONE WAY WAY ONEONE (230)(65)(295) (62) (13) (86) (14) (275) (18)

ONE WAY WAY ONE ONE [17] [175] [19] 17 329 42 9 [20] (23) 7 [13] (73) Allyn Spring Street/ Proposed Union 20 [25] (34) Development Street I-84 WB Off- Station Ramp (50) [37] 70 (35) [24] 25 174 98 [92] [74] ONE WAY WAY ONE ONE (139) (199) (140) WAY WAY ONE ONE (133)(77) (292) (513) (156) [104] [123] [68] (132) 32[12] [413] [185] 120 113 101 45 [50] (63) [64] 908 108 690 [326] (515) 115 251 278 [311] (376) 116 [133] (285) 21 [30] (40) ONE WAY 249 [86] (91) 109 [85] (58) 967 [465] (613) 912 [553] (995) Asylum (233) [188] 290 (1011) [503] 1067 Street (107) [123] 201 (999) [660] 942 (640) [359] 677 384 201 534 (858) [528] 1099 (198) [139] 73 617 [161] [193] [165] [407] (67) (219) (224) (651)

I-84 Exit 48 WB On-Ramps/ EB Off-Ramps Ford Street

2017 Build Traffic Volumes - AM [Mid Day] (PM) Peak Hour Not to Scale

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 14-4 April, 2010

14.1.2. Capacity Analysis: Using the traffic volumes developed for the 2017 Build condition for Transit Center Option, an intersection operational analysis was conducted. Results of the Build analysis, as shown in Table 14-2, indicate that there will be a slight increase in traffic delay as a result of the increased bus circulation in the study area near Union Station. Traffic operations at all of the study area intersections will operate at an overall acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) except for the intersection of Asylum Street and Spruce Street which will operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour, as shown in Figure 14-3. Operations will decline for the following critical movements (two more critical movements than is projected for the No-Build condition) listed below. Figure 14-4 illustrates the critical movements with an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or LOS F).

■ Asylum Street & Spruce Street

• Eastbound left-turn: LOS E or LOS F (No-Build and Build condition) • Westbound left-turn: LOS E (No-Build and Build condition) • Northbound left-turn: LOS E or LOS F (No-Build and Build condition) • Southbound left-turn: LOS E (No-Build and Build condition) • Southbound thru-right: LOS E (Build condition) ■ Church Street/Myrtle Street & Spruce Street

• Southbound left-thru-right: LOS E (Build condition) ■ Allyn Street & High Street

• Westbound left-thru: LOS E (No-Build and Build)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 14-5 April, 2010

Table 14-2: Level-of-Service Summary No-Build Condition and Transit Center Option (2017)

No-Build No-Build No-Build Transit Center Option Transit Center Option Transit Center Option AM Peak Hour Mid day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Mid day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Intersections Asylum Street & Spring Street Eastbound Thru 18.8 B 6.6 A 9.0 A 17.6 B 6.2 A 8.4 A Westbound Thru 15.7 B 1.9 A 7.9 A 15.7 B 2.1 A 8.5 A Westbound Right 15.6 B 2.1 A 8.8 A 12.0 B 2.3 A 8.9 A Southbound Left 12.6 B 28.8 C 29.0 C 14.1 B 30.6 C 31.5 C Southbound Right 26.8 C 33.6 C 40.3 D 27.8 C 33.8 C 41.5 D Intersection 20.2 C 14.7 B 17.8 B 19.4 B 13.8 B 17.1 B Asylum Street & Spruce Street Eastbound Left-thru 78.0 E 23.9 C 28.0 C 82.4 F 30.3 C 38.7 D Eastbound Right 11.0 B 15.5 B 17.0 B 12.1 B 16.0 B 18.7 B Westbound Left 10.2 B 18.6 B 63.4 E 10.9 B 19.0 B 61.4 E Westbound Thru-right 7.8 A 10.2 B 21.5 C 12.1 B 11.4 B 23.8 C Northbound Left 63.1 E 54.4 D 75.8 E 320.8 F 61.8 E 69.2 E Northbound Thru 32.7 C 30.6 C 37.8 D 28.0 C 31.8 C 38.6 D Northbound Right 14.4 B 8.0 A 7.6 A 28.5 C 8.0 A 7.6 A Southbound Left 29.3 C 26.3 C 61.2 E 29.7 C 28.5 C 60.3 E Southbound Thru-right 18.6 B 24.6 C 54.1 D 23.4 C 28.6 C 61.7 E Intersection 24.4 C 20.7 C 32.3 C 58.5 E 23.1 C 34.2 C Asylum Street & Union Place Eastbound Thru-left 2.1 A 0.4 A 0.7 A 2.0 A 0.4 A 0.7 A Westbound Thru-right 1.2 A 15.1 B 14.6 B 1.2 A 15.9 B 14.9 B Intersection 1.7 A 7.7 A 8.2 A 1.6 A 8.0 A 8.1 A Asylum Street & High Street Eastbound Right 1.5 A 0.2 A 3.5 A 1.6 A 0.2 A 3.9 A Westbound Left 33.5 C 32.2 C 36.4 D 32.6 C 31.5 C 34.6 C Westbound Thru 43.1 D 40.6 D 47.5 D 43.8 D 40.6 D 47.9 D Northbound Left 11.7 B 8.0 A 14.9 B 14.0 B 8.2 A 14.7 B Southbound Thru-right 27.7 C 34.7 C 39.3 D 22.8 C 30.9 C 37.9 D Intersection 13.6 B 16.7 B 20.2 C 13.4 B 16.0 B 19.6 B Church Street/Myrtle Street & Spruce Street Eastbound Left-thru-right 16.9 B 2.9 A 10.4 B 11.0 B 7.6 A 20.2 C Westbound Left-thru-right 11.1 B 5.1 A 11.7 B 14.5 B 13.6 B 35.8 D Northbound Thru-left 36.4 D 32.5 C 49.3 D 53.7 D 43.5 D 52.7 D Northbound Right 3.8 A 6.0 A 5.4 A 3.4 A 3.6 A 3.6 A Southbound Left-thru-right 6.6 A 13.0 B 30.6 C 26.0 C 17.9 B 108.9 F Intersection 19.7 B 12.9 B 17.8 B 23.6 C 21.7 C 39.5 D * The eastbound approach on Asylum Street becomes an exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared thru-right turn lane during future conditions based on the BRT design.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 14-6 April, 2010

Table 14-2: Level-of-Service Summary No-Build Condition and Transit Center Option (2017) (continued)

Highlighted Text : Unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 14-7 April, 2010

Figure 14-3: Overall Intersection Level of Service Future 2017 No-Build and Build Conditions

AM - LOS B (C) Mid - LOS B (C) AM - LOS C (C) Spruce Street Hoadley Place High Street PM - LOS B (D) Mid - LOS C (C) PM - LOS C (C)

Myrtle Church Street Street

AM - LOS B (A) Mid - LOS A (A) ONE WAY WAY ONE ONE ONEONEWAY WAY PM - LOS B (B) Allyn Spring Street/ AM - LOS C (E) Union Street I-84 WB Off- Station Ramp Mid - LOS C (C) PM - LOS C (C) ONE WAY WAY ONEONE ONE WAY WAY ONE ONE

ONE WAY Asylum Street

AM - LOS C (B) AM - LOS A (A) AM - LOS B (B) Mid - LOS B (B) Mid - LOS A (A) Mid - LOS B (B) Ford PM - LOS A (A) PM - LOS B (B) I-84 Exit 48 PM - LOS C (B) Street WB On-Ramps/ EB Off-Ramps And Busway

LOS No-Build (LOS Build)

Overall Intersection Level-of-Service Future 2017 No-Build and Build Conditions Not to Scale

Bold Text : Identifies change in LOS from No-Build to Build (Transit Center Option) Condition

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 14-8 April, 2010

Figure 14-4: Level of Service Issues Transit Center Option (2017) Level of Service Issues Transit Center Option (2017)

Spruce Street & Church Street Southbound left-thru-right (LOS F – PM peak hour)

Allyn Street & High Street Westbound left-thru (LOS E – PM peak hour)

Asylum Street & Spruce Street Eastbound left-turn ( LOS F – AM peak hour) Westbound left-turn ( LOS E – PM peak hour) Northbound left-turn ( LOS E or F – AM, Mid day & PM peak hours) Southbound left-turn ( LOS E – PM peak hour) Southbound thru-right ( LOS E – PM peak hour)

14.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Pedestrian activity is expected to increase in the study area as employment activity and the demand for parking increases. Additionally, under the build scenario, pedestrian activity in the vicinity of Union Station is anticipated to increase as a result of implementation of new commuter rail and BRT service and location of a new transit center near Union Station. Though a detailed generation and distribution of pedestrian trips was not undertaken as part of this analysis, it is safe to anticipate that pedestrian activity in the vicinity of Union Station will increase substantially from a moderate to a high level under this build (Transit Center Option) scenario.

The Union Station study area is generally served by sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals to aid pedestrians in safe travel to/from existing and potential transit services and parking locations, and destinations such as businesses, employers, parks, and public facilities. However, there are a variety of locations where such facilities could be improved to better serve pedestrians and bicyclists. This is particularly true for the Build scenario which will have more pedestrian activity and which, depends on strong wayfinding and good pedestrian accommodations for successful operation of a transit center.

Pedestrian patterns in the vicinity of Union Station will both increase and change substantially for a variety of reasons:

■ the relocation of existing parking from the west side of Spruce Street to the new Transit Center ■ the addition of commuter rail service, resulting in more arrivals to the station and station-area parking

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 14-9 April, 2010

■ institution of BRT service with more buses on Asylum and more pedestrians crossing Asylum ■ rerouting of CTTransit routes to the new transit center ■ implementation of three large, new residential developments in the vicinity, generating many more pedestrian trips in and around the station.

There are no defined bicycle routings or bike paths in the study area so bicyclists currently use the roadway and must share the travel lane with vehicles. For a safe bicycling experience in downtown Hartford, the bicyclist must know the rules of the road, be comfortable on high volume roads of mixed traffic, and be aware of vehicles maneuvering in and out of on-street parking spaces and side streets. As plans for the station area and the BRT operation become more certain, additional planning focus should be put on defining bicycle routings and bicycle facilities that make sense for the study area to create a truly intermodal place.

14.3 Summary of Circulation Issues This assessment was conducted to ascertain the existing vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the vicinity of Union Station and identify traffic issues resulting from both No-Build and Build conditions in 2017. The assessment addresses intersection operations at specific intersections in the study area based on a set of assumptions described in this chapter for the currently planned projects and proposed new developments. Since the City of Hartford is doing a detailed traffic study, this project did not try to develop detailed intersections and circulation improvements. This effort does show that there are traffic issues that would need to be addressed if the Full-Build development options and the Transit Center are built. As the plan evolves and become better defined, intersection and circulation improvements can be developed.

The issues summarized below will need to be addressed in the next planning phases:

■ There will be an increase in vehicular (automobiles, CTTransit, BRT, and inter-city buses, and taxis) and pedestrian traffic resulting from the increased bus circulation and transit service (BRT, commuter rail, transit center) and proposed developments near Union Station. Operations at signalized intersections are likely to decline further to accommodate the anticipated increase in pedestrian crossings.

■ Intersection improvements or other circulation changes may be needed to address critical movements at some intersections. The following intersections are anticipated to operate at an undesirable LOS in 2017 under the assumptions of this “maximum traffic scenario” build analysis.

• Asylum Street & Spruce Street • Church Street/Myrtle Street & Spruce Street • Allyn Street & High Street ■ Pedestrian safety is a concern as pedestrian activity is anticipated to increase, particularly on Spruce Street in the vicinity of Union Station and on Asylum Avenue from new BRT stops.

■ Vehicular volumes on Spruce Street are anticipated to increase as a result of the proposed conceptual layout of short-term parking and taxi staging for the Union Station improvements, and from the proposed BRT operations.

■ Wayfinding and other accommodation for pedestrians will be a key factor for the success of the Transit Center and Union Station as an intermodal place.

■ The City of Hartford is currently carrying out an evaluation of Downtown Hartford circulation patterns (including the Union Station area). Recommendations from this study should also be considered as planning for Union Station moves forward.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 14-10 April, 2010

Though this planning effort did not consider specific mitigation measures to address the transportation issues identified, the transportation enhancements suggested below would improve the overall transportation network:

■ Consider the following amenities at and near Union Station to further enhance the pedestrian network:

• A sidewalk maintenance and repair management plan to ensure that sidewalks are in good condition and free of debris, • Appropriate lighting of pathways to/from Union Station for enhanced nighttime visibility and safety, • Appropriate crosswalk treatment(s) on Spruce Street and Myrtle Street to further raise awareness of the crossing to/from Union Station and increase pedestrian visibility, and • Streetscape elements along Spruce Street, Union Place, and Allyn Street to enhance the pedestrian experience near Union Station. • A good program of pedestrian wayfinding.

■ Consider the following amenities at and near Union Station to further enhance bicycle accommodations:

• Bike racks and lockers at Union Station and at other strategic locations in the study area • Designated bicycle routes • Signage to direct bicyclists to routes that lead into and out of the City.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 14-11 April, 2010

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 14-12 April, 2010

15.0 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS

Union Station in Hartford is a historic center for intermodal transportation that is doing remarkably well. The building structure is in very good shape for the most part. The building is almost fully leased, a remarkable achievement compared to many counterpart Union Stations in other cities. With the implementation of the New Britain busway (2013) and the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail in the near future (2016), Union Station is poised to play an increasingly important role as a transportation center for Hartford.

In keeping with the new importance of the station, it is only fitting that improvements be made. The Ground Transportation Center is a somewhat dated facility that would benefit from modernization to increase space for waiting passengers and to meet current ADA requirements. The Great Hall is underutilized—so changes to make the Great Hall function better as a waiting area for passengers as well as other visitors would be a welcome improvement. The suggested plan for Union Station would modernize the Ground Transportation Center with better space meeting ADA requirements, add a very visible entrance to the station, add retail space, and provide for better use of the Great Hall. It would also provide for increased passenger traffic to the train level by adding an elevator and escalator.

Because the improvements to the Ground Transportation Center are so connected with improvements that might be made in the railroad viaduct, it will be important that those plans be coordinated. Changes in the support structure for the viaduct or height of the viaduct will affect the design of the Ground Transportation Center—for example, fewer columns might allow for more flexibility and increased viaduct height would allow for a higher ceiling for the Center. Thus final design for the major improvements to the Ground Transportation Center suggested in this report should happen once plans for the viaduct become more firm. Some suggested changes which would not be affected by changes in the viaduct—such as addition of a bar inside the Great Hall or certain accessibility improvements—could be made immediately. If the viaduct is to remain as is, a plan such as suggested here could move forward to the design phase immediately.

This report also carries forth a recommendation from the Downtown Circulation portion of the NW Corridor Study that there be a Transit Center in the vicinity of Union Station. This portion of the recommendation does require more study because there were two sites judged about equal for placement of the Transit Center, and other sites that had been removed from consideration may become available. Thus a follow-up effort from this current work is the need for a feasibility study of the best location for the Transit Center.

The circulation analysis for the various scenarios shows that there is room with the current roadways for many of these improvements, but that traffic at certain intersections will certainly get worse. Even if only Scenario A takes place (implementation of the planned New Britain busway and the Commuter Rail), intersection level of service near Union Station in peak periods does deteriorate. With a Transit Center at the North Parking Lot and implementation of all the TOD suggested causes more deterioration in the level of service. However, detailed planning for circulation improvements will need to await more definitive plans for the location of the Transit Center. Parking for commuter rail will be an issue at Union Station, since available spaces in lots near Union Station are not sufficient to handle the forecast need for parking even when demand forecasts consider parking constraints. The “full-build” scenario which does anticipate development of new parking spaces for commuter rail should be sufficient to allow for new transportation demand as well as parking associated with recommended TOD. If a future Transit Center is located close to Union Station—say either at the North Parking Lot or

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 15-1 April, 2010

the corner of High and Church, increased parking for commuter rail should certainly be part of the plan. The sizing of a parking lot to accompany a new Transit Center will depend on the need for commuter rail parking as well as any adjacent TOD.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page 15-2 April, 2010

APPENDIX A: PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS

The public outreach process for the Northwest Corridor Study was undertaken jointly by the consulting team and CRCOG. A variety of outreach tools have been utilized to provide for a robust outreach program:

■ Meetings with key stakeholders, including business groups, large employers, and transit users. ■ Meetings with neighborhood groups ■ Formal project committees: a steering committee was created for each element of the study: Day Hill Road Transit Improvements, Downtown Circulation, and Union Station. These committees included representatives from CRCOG, CTDOT, GHTD, CTTRANSIT, Windsor, Bloomfield, Hartford, and business representatives. ■ Presentations to community groups: the project worked especially closely with the Windsor Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee. ■ Two public information meetings were held in June 2008 and May 2009.

The project team was very open to all the input received, even evaluating a transit center proposal submitted by a citizen.

Summary of Input Received: Stakeholders meetings:

Day Hill Portion of the Study: participants stressed the importance of transit to enable employers to hire individuals without cars and to limit traffic growth generated by future development. They noted that some companies are not interested in the topic of alternative transportation, but they are very interested in “going green” and could be encouraged to consider alternate transportation as part of that effort. The Chamber of Commerce agreed to encourage participation in the employer survey and they helped to develop the survey. For companies that relocated from downtown Hartford to Day Hill Road, their employees who use transit find it difficult to reach the new location via transit.

Downtown Circulation and Union Station Portions of the Study: meetings with regular transit users revealed the following: even regular transit riders find it difficult to understand the system – they want more schedule and map information at bus stops. They would like to understand how bus routes are interlined, so they can use that information to their advantage. Bus users noted that shelters are sometimes inaccessible at school dismissal times when students crowd the shelters and there are not enough seats at downtown bus stops. Transit users said they would like more hours of service, more crosstown routes, and more Sunday service. Riders expressed concerns for their safety when they have to cross streets to transfer from one route to another and when they wait for buses downtown at night. Regular riders had little knowledge of the Star Shuttle – how to access it, where it goes, and did not know it is free. Downtown residents noted the difficulty of using transit to get to near in shopping opportunities(hardware store, West Hartford center, Cabella’s), or restaurants outside of downtown. They would like quicker service along Farmington Avenue. They are concerned with the large number of buses that stop on Main Street. They think that the state offices on Capitol Avenue could be more effectively linked via transit to downtown. Downtown business groups expressed their interest in Union station becoming the transportation hub for downtown Hartford. They also noted the importance of improving the pedestrian environment at Union station, since this provides the link from Asylum Hill to downtown.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page A-1 April, 2010

Public Meetings:

First Public Information Meeting : this meeting was held June 18, 2008 at the Hartford Public Library with 45 people in attendance. Attendees were generally favorable to the idea of locating a bus transfer center somewhere in the downtown area. Some attendees liked the idea of locating such a center near Union Station, some preferred a location closer to Main street. Many individuals expressed a concern with the current level of bus service, expressing dissatisfaction with the hours and routes. Many commented that there is a need for more information on the bus system, that transfers should be made more convenient, and that more shelters should be provided.

Final Project Public Meeting: this meeting was held May 26, 2009 at the Hartford Public Library with 26 people in attendance. Project recommendations were presented. Attendees were given the opportunity to comment during the meeting and to fill out comment cards. The questions and comments are summarized below (each item represents the feedback of a single individual).

1. Where will the money come from to pay for these improvements or build the new transit center? The existing system is not the best in the world but it’s ok the way that it is now, why change it? 2. The location that you present in your plan (the parking lot north of Church/Myrtle) has been the worst bottle neck in the city, it seems that this planning should look at the entire city of Hartford because planning in the past has not tied the city together it has separated it. The north and south ends are separated, there is no real connection to the airport except for the highway. 3. There is a potential for positive income and benefits to be generated by a transit center. More people would be encouraged to take the bus, that would mean less pollution from cars and people will spend money to eat at restaurants and shopping if they aren’t spending so much on transportation. 4. This plan sounds interesting but the bottom line is efficiency. As a commuter on the bus, I want to get to suburban job locations (like Vernon and Rocky Hill) efficiently, but I can’t get to these places to be at work for early in the morning or get home in the later evening. Sandy noted that efficiency for the operator and efficiency for the rider can be very different. It is very difficult for the transit operator to efficiently serve suburban locations, transit works best serving a main hub, like downtown. But the proposal for the northwest corridor may point us to the kind of service that will work well for commuters to other suburban job locations. 5. Is funding in place for the New Britain Busway(NBB)? Sandy replied that ConnDOT has designated some funding for this project and this should be solidified next year. 6. The existing design at Union Station does not allow for disabled access, it is difficult to get around Union Station. 7. This plan is a good idea, other businesses and companies would be attracted to come to Hartford if there is better transit. I often have to wait in the rain or snow for the bus and would like a transit center. 8. Is the NBB planning on feeder routes to bring people from the suburbs into the city? 9. What are the dates for the NBB and Commuter Rail? Answer – 2013 for busway, 2016 for commuter rail. 10. Will the bus stops on Main St downtown, change as a result of the transit center? Yes, bus stops will be redesignated, all bus stops will have much lower volumes of boarding passengers on Main Street. 11. Why didn’t this planning effort look at the empty lot across the street from the Building that is known as the Butt Ugly Building? Sandy answered that the Consultants did look at the lots available in this area. The lot with the building on it was most desirable for a transit center, the other lots did not provide suitable access for buses in and out of the site. The City of Hartford has development plans for the site with the building and asked the consultants to keep this option out of the planning. However, this location is covered in the plan’s general recommendation that a transit center be located north of Asylum St. and south and west of Main Street.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page A-2 April, 2010

Other Comments on Plan Recommendations

Comments Received via Email (each bullet represents the feedback of a single individual):

■ Bus ridership from Granby and East Granby would be improved if the travel time were more competitive with the car and if service were more frequent. A new park n ride lot at Griffin Office Park, with service along Day Hill to I-91 would be helpful.

Comments Received via Phone (each bullet represents the feedback of a single individual):

■ A bus transfer center is a good idea – the Isle of Safety should have never been eliminated. A little concerned about a transfer center near Union Station, unsure how well it would work, though I like the transfer center in Springfield where local buses come together near the intercity bus terminal. A Union Station location might work. Likes the addition of more through routing. Wherever the transfer center ends up, it would be good to have a grocery/convenience store right there for bus patrons.

Comment Forms (either mailed in or filled out at the public meeting or community group meeting, each bullet represents the feedback of a single individual):

■ Would occasionally use improved transit service to the airport; like the idea of a bus transfer center – I already access the train station via local bus, so the location makes sense to me; the DATTCO schedule to New Haven in the morning works well, but the schedule from New Haven to Hartford in the afternoon is terrible – 4:40 is too early for most, 6:40 is too late. Amtrak’s schedule is very convenient for southbound commuters, but is expensive. Amtrak has no northbound trains during the morning commuter times, so northbound commuting via rail (New Haven to Hartford) is very difficult. ■ The proposals to improve transit service to the northwest suburban areas is very important for individuals to access jobs; the transfer center is a good idea; like the location of the transfer center near Union Station. ■ New suburban service is a good idea; the idea for a transfer center is grandiose and impractical; you should ask bus riders for their ideas for improving service. ■ Make sure that public transportation remains affordable to the low income population; would use the proposed transfer center; right now it is expensive for me to get to Union station, I have to take a cab, so putting all local buses here is helpful to me. ■ The bus transfer center is a very good idea. Connections to NYC and Boston are also important.

Comments received at Meetings with Community Groups:

■ Hub Of Hartford Committee (10 in attendance, the following represents the consensus of the group): The committee expressed great interest in the proposals for improvements to Union station and the location of a bus transfer center in the vicinity of the station. Concerns expressed: you need to consider what will happen to these proposals if major improvements and changes are made to the Aetna Viaduct (I-84). The pedestrian environment under the rr viaduct needs to be improved as part of your plans for Union station. ■ Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice (8 in attendance, the following represents the consensus of the group): General enthusiasm for the proposals with a request that the improvements to Day Hill service

Union Station Plan Final Report Page A-3 April, 2010

include express service between Hartford and the Poquonnock park n ride lot (in both directions, am and pm.). ■ Asylum Hill Neighborhood Association (the presentation to this group focused upon the transfer center proposal, October 5, 17 in attendance, the following represents the consensus of the group): A bus transfer center is a good idea to strengthen mass transit and is in a good location, however, why should we be providing transit improvements to suburban locations? We should not support sprawl. Like putting all transportation – local bus, city bus, and rail – in one location. Some concern regarding pollution from buses at the transfer center. Would housing be a reasonable development near a bus center, given the emissions from the buses? Emphasis on the need for pedestrian improvements to connect Asylum Hill and the Union station area. You need to evaluate Myrtle Street and whether traffic improvements will be needed with additional bus traffic. ■ South Downtown Neighborhood Revitalization Zone (October 21, 2009, 32 in attendance) General support and interest was expressed. Attendees suggested that the environment around Union Station needs to be improved for people to want to use a bus transfer facility there. ■ Frog Hollow Neighborhood Revitalization Zone (November 12, 2009, 14 in attendance): concerns were raised with regard to traffic on Allen street on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, from 4 PM on and how this would affect the bus transfer center. It was suggested that the H.B. Davis building (sometimes called the butt ugly building) site be considered for the bus transfer center. Some attendees noted that they liked the Griffin light rail proposal.

Comments received from City of Hartford

■ The City, in the development of its application for TIGER funds, examined the vicinity of Union Station, with the assistance of a planning consultant. The City currently (Fall 2009) prefers that the transfer center be located on the parking lots on the Southeast corner of Church and High Streets.

Summary of Public Outreach Meetings

Table A-1 lists the public outreach meetings held during the course of this project. All meetings were attended by staff of CRCOG which had overall responsibility for the outreach effort. The consultant team attended meetings of the steering committees for each part of the study, the public meeting for Day Hill Road, the public meeting for Downtown Circulation and Union Station, the Charrette, and a meeting of the Metro Hartford Alliance.

Union Station Plan Final Report Page A-4 April, 2010

Table A-1: List of All Public Outreach Meetings

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM DATE ACTIVITY October 2 006 Meeting with Asylum Hill NRZ Transportation Committee to introduce the project (10/17) July 2007 Meeting with The Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice (CCEJ) to discuss how best to involve their members in the project (7/27) August 2007 Me eting with the Windsor Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee to discuss how they can assist with the employer survey (8/23) September 2007 Meeting with the CCEJ board to plan an outreach to their members (9/6) Workshop for CCEJ members (9/15) Gave a brief presentation on the project to Hartford 2000, this group includes representatives of all city neighborhood organizations. Offered to attend neighborhood meetings (9/20) Gave an overview of the project to the Metro Hartford Alliance's Hospitality Task Force (9/26) Discussed the project with the transportation director of Travelers (9/27) October 2007 Met with representatives of the South Downtown neighborhood organization to introduce the study and to learn about transit use of downtown residents. (10/4) Provided an introduction to the program at a meeting of Business for Downtown Hartford (10/10) Gave an overview of the project to 3 staff members of the Metro Hartford Alliance (10/19) December 2007 Meeting of Union Station Steeri ng Committee (12/4) Presented an overview of the study and sought input from major employers in the downtown area. The meeting was facilitated by the Metro Hartford Alliance. Discussion focused upon land use in the vicinity of Union Station.(12/7)

Jan uary 2008 Attended public meeting in Windsor on the update to their Plan of Conservation and development for the Day Hill road area, to understand how this affects the Day Hill segment of our study (1/22)

Downtown Steering Committee Meeting (1/23) Febr uary 2008 Char rette conducted by the consultant with Steering Committee members advising the group periodically (2/28 to 29) Union Station Plan Final Report Page A-5 April, 2010

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM DATE ACTIVITY April 2008 Attended public meeting for CRCOG Route 305 study in Windsor to keep abreast of concerns in that corridor that affect the Northwest Corridor study. (4/3) May 2008 Downtown Steering Committee Meeting (5/1) Presentation to Windsor T ransportation Summit and Day Hill Steering Committee Distribute d information and flyers for June 18th Public meeting at Hartford 2000 (the umbrella organization for City neighborhood groups) (5/15) Post ed notices on all CTTRANSIT buses in the Hartford division notifying riders of the June 18th public meeting. June 2008 Attend Asylum Hill neighborhood meeting and describe project and upcoming public meeting (6/2) Press release issued in advance of public meeting and meeting advertised in Hartford Courant and Hartford News Public meeting (6/18) Meeting with City Pl anning Staff on Northwest Corridor project and specifically what a transportation center might look like (6/23) July 2008 Present ed summary of project to date to the CRCOG Transportation Committee (7/28) August 2008 Present ed summary of project to date to the Downtown Convergence Trident Committee (8/27) October 2008 Gi ve presentation on study findings to date to the Asylum Farmington Trident Committee (10/3) Downtown Circulation Steering Committee Meeting (10/20) November 2008 Update to CRCOG Transportation Committee December 2008 Union Station Steering Committee Meeting (12/15) Distribute d information and flyers for May 26th Public meeting at Hartford 2000 (the umbrella organization for City neighborhood groups) Post ed notices on all CTTRANSIT buses in the Hartford division notifying riders of the June 18th public meeting. May 2009 Presentation of project findings to a Transportation Summit hosted by the Windsor Chamber of Commerce (5/7) Press release issued in advance of public meeting and meeting advertised in Hartford Courant and Hartford News Combi ned meeting of Union Station and Downtown Circulation Steering Committees(5/12)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page A-6 April, 2010

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM DATE ACTIVITY Presentation of project recommendations to the Hub of Hartford committee (5/19) Final Public Meeting for Project (5/26) June 2009 Provide update for City Staff on final plan (6/4) Present plan recommendations to Windsor Town Council (6/15) July 2009 Presentation of project recommendations to CT Coalition for Environmental Justice (7/25) August 2009 Presentation of project recommendations to the CT Public Transportation Commission (8/6) October 2009 Presentation of project recommendations to the Asylum Hill neighborhood revitalization Zone (10/5) Presentation of project recommendations to South Downtown neighborhood group (10/21) November 2009 Presentation of proj ect recommendations to Frog H ollow neighborhood group (11/12)

Union Station Plan Final Report Page A-7 April, 2010

Union Station Plan Final Report Page A-8 April, 2010