Eds and Meds: Leveraging Anchor Institutions to Create Community AICP CM 1.5 Educational institutions and medical facilities are engaging in regional transformation. Traditionally, these organizations have been rather inward looking, examining growth through the prism of available real estate. That approach is changing, with new collaborative relationships geared towards potential growth in the organizations and the region. Already dominant employers in their regions, these organizations are anchored to and invested in their surrounding neighborhoods. Learn how the meds and eds are stretching outside their comfort zones to transform their neighborhoods through collaboration. Hear how they are engaged in planning high-quality, direct and attractive public transit services to connect institutions, job centers and adjacent neighborhoods. Finally, see how recent collaborations spanned sectors -- what strategies worked and what didn’t. Moderator: Ian Druce, Director, Head of Canadian Business, Steer Davies Gleave, Vancouver, British Columbia Brett Wallace, Senior Supervising Planner, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Charlotte, North Carolina Ellen Watters, Co-Leader, Central Corridor Anchor Partnership, St. Paul, Minnesota Jamie M. Kendrick, Project Planner, Maryland Transit Administration, Baltimore, Maryland

1. Jamie Kendrick
Deputy Executive Director
MTA Office of Transit Development & Delivery
Railvolution! 2014

2. •
37,000 students
•
13,700 employees
•
Big Ten athletics
•
Professional schools not located here
•
Continuing education campus adjacent
•
State agency

5. 
Effectively a local government of its own with all of the usual constituencies

Bureaucratic

Worried about impacts on its own services, costs, and ability to control future.

History and culture

“City Fathers”

6. 
Alumni
◦
often resistant to physical changes to the campus

Athletics
◦
Revenue generation

Department Heads, Faculty and Researchers
◦
“College of Cardinals”
◦
Need research environment and facilities
◦
Grants, prestige and enrollment

Students
◦
Safe and happy
◦
Transient

Staff
◦
Often transit dependent

7. 
March 2007 University opposes surface alignment

April 2007 Student orgs endorse Purple Line

Early 2008 University pushes new surface alignment

Nov. 2010 Wallace Loh inaugurated as President

April 2011 Board of Regents endorses Purple Line/Term Sheet

March 2013 MOA negotiations begin

Nov. 2014 MOA approved by Board of Regents

10. 
Pedestrian safety

Impacts to traffic congestion

Vibration

Noise

Security

EMI

11. 
ADT ~ 7000 vehicles, 750 are buses

17% is cut-through traffic

25,000 ped crossings

Peak periods are 10 minutes at top of hour

Peak of peak is lunch time

13. Term Sheet
Final Agreement

$20m escrow account

Standards established

MTA pays all monitoring

30 years before University would have to plan facilities to accommodate Purple Line.

Standards established relative to ambient 90 days prior to testing

Joint monitoring activities

All buildings in design beginning in FY15 are at University’s risk.

$2m reserve fund

14. 
Research Facilities Working Group
◦
3 University
◦
3 Agency
◦
3 Independent experts jointly selected

Research Facilities Working Group roles
◦Develop Research Facilities Management Plan
◦Approve baseline measurements
◦Approve monitoring plan and review data
◦Review maintenance plan
◦Approve requests for mitigation reimbursement
$2m reserve fund
◦Last resort for University step-in
◦may be extinguished five years after start of operations.

15. Term Sheet
Final Agreement

No pedestrian barriers

MTA to reimburse UMD for incremental operations/maintenance costs

UMD to discontinue certain bus routes and apply savings to fare reduction

MTA to reimburse for lost parking revenue

Maintains focus on pedestrian safety

UMD to perform all maintenance activities to achieve the campus standard.

Bus routes to continue through campus spine

No reimbursement for lost parking revenue

16. 30 year land amortization
+ 3 year rolling average of O/M costs
Eligible Costs
Right-of-
Way/Staging
Areas
Maintenance
Costs
Security Costs
Other

Need to show value in exchange for fare free policy

MTA to create a fare free zone if total of all UMD contributions exceeds anticipated fare revenue on campus.

3 stations

Must show valid UMD; UMD to make upgrades to its ID system.

Up to 33% fare reduction for entirety of Purple Line

17. 
UMD participation in technical evaluation.

UMD pays its own planning, design review, and legal costs.

Project Execution Plan with Concessionaire as condition precedent to start of construction

Mandatory construction restrictions

Time limits on design reviews or “deemed approved”

Separate O&M and Traffic Management Plans

Joint policing authority

18. 
Acknowledge the university’s right to be cautious

Do the research necessary to make them comfortable

Focus on performance and process

Don’t let them off the hook

We have our alumni, too!

19. For more information contact:
Jamie Kendrick
Deputy Executive Director
MTA Office of Transit Development & Delivery
jkendrick@mtatdd.com
443-451-3724