city council presentation
Download
Report
Transcript city council presentation
PASADENA STREETCAR
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Executive Summary
Project Background
Study initiated August 2009
Addresses streetcar alignment
concepts and financial feasibility
Streetcar hoped to address
challenges:
Improving non-auto circulation
between districts
Increasing retail competitiveness
Reducing parking needs
Sponsors:
Pasadena Center
Operating Company
City of Pasadena
Old Pasadena
Management District
Playhouse District
Association
South Lake Avenue
Business District
Paseo Colorado
Holdings, Ltd.
Consultant Team
Firm
Expertise
Strategic Economics
Urban economic analysis
Shiels Obletz Johnsen
Streetcar construction,
funding, and operations
Reconnecting America
Transit-oriented
development research and
technical assistance
Moule & Polyzoides
Urban design/planning and
local context
Iteris
Transportation
analysis/engineering and
local context
Study Components
An evaluation of current and future demographics in the Central
District
Evaluation of retail market conditions, hotel/conference/tourism
conditions, employment in the Central District, and development
opportunities
Summaries of potential funding mechanisms
Case studies of other streetcar cities
A preliminary evaluation of system construction and operating
costs and design issues that included parking and transportation
An assessment of potential economic benefits of the streetcar
An economic value analysis of the cost to properties proximate
to the route
Recommendations for financial strategies to fund the streetcar
Study Area and Alignment Concept
Streetcar Basics
System
Local circulator only…a “walk
extender”
Short distances, closely spaced
stops, slower speeds
Permanence and convenience drive
development and investment along
route
“Development-oriented transit”
Vehicles
Electric rail vehicles
Smaller than light rail
Modern, vintage, or vintage replica
Top: Modern streetcar in Seattle
Middle: Vintage streetcar in San Francisco
Bottom: Vintage replica streetcar in Charlotte
Source: Center for Transit-Oriented Development
Potential Benefits for Pasadena:
Linking Downtown Districts
Potential Benefits for Pasadena
Improved Parking Performance
Diminishes desire to drive between
districts
Reduces congestion from inter-district
trips
Increased Tourism Competitiveness
“Brands” the area
Widens access to dining and
entertainment options, especially for carfree convention visitors
Easier Commuting
Provides additional alternative to
walking/driving for downtown residents
Improves access to some destinations far
from Gold Line stations
Potential Benefits for Pasadena
Increased Retail Competitiveness
Unifies Downtown shopping and entertainment
districts, encourages cross-shopping
Creates larger mass of retail to compete against
regional competitors
Lends iconic branding to Downtown
Enhances access to lunchtime shopping/dining
for workers in Downtown
Proposed alignment creates additional visibility
and foot traffic on relatively underperforming
blocks north and south of Colorado Boulevard
Potential Benefits for Pasadena
Potential Benefits for Pasadena
Boosts Development Potential
Streetcar proximity increases sales, rents, and
property sales prices
Higher attainable prices/rents increase
development potential
Reduced parking need allows higher density
Frees space and expensive construction costs
Case Study: Portland, Oregon
First leg constructed
2001 in Pearl District
Part of major
redevelopment project
including high-density
up-zoning of former
industrial area
Linked employment,
education, residential
2.4 miles, $54.5 million
Significant parking bond
financing
Portland Streetcar Funding
Sources
Total Funding (in
Millions of Dollars)
Parking Garage Bonds
LID
TIF
Federal
Parking Revenue
ST Railcar Procurement
Tax Breaks Agreement
HUD
Interest
Total
$28.5
$9.6
$7.5
$5.0
$2.0
$0.2
$0.9
$0.5
$0.4
$54.5
Case Study: Portland, Oregon
Outcomes:
Ridership: Double projected
Retail: Significant foot traffic;
included in marketing as a
major amenity
Parking reduction: average
.95 spaces per residential
unit
Development: Developers
built to 90% of regulated
maximum density near line,
versus 43% 3 blocks away
Main Lesson: Streetcar
provided a major boost to
redevelopment by linking it
internally and to other
districts
Source: Center for Transit-Oriented Development
Case Study: Tampa, Florida
Opened 2002 as a tourist
amenity connector
Cruise ship docks, Channelside
District, Ybor City nightlife area
2.3 miles, $57.6 million
Outcomes:
Retailers report increased sales
313% median value increase
along line 2002-2008
Functions primarily as a tool for
tourist movement and tourism
branding
Main Lesson: Funding was only
possible with many sources
(see at right)
Tampa Streetcar Funding
Sources
Total Funding (in
Millions of Dollars)
Federal CMAQ
$14.3
Tampa Direct Contribution
(Gas Taxes)
$13.8
Federal 5307 Urbanized Area
Formula
$6.8
Federal 5309 N ew Starts
$4.9
State Intermodal Funds
$4.3
Local Land Sale Proceeds
$4.2
Other State Funding
$2.0
Federal TSCP
$1.9
State DDR
$1.2
State CMAQ
$1.1
Federal STP
$1.0
State Urban Transit Funds
$1.0
HART (Local Transit Agency)
$0.8
Other Local Funding
$0.3
Total
$57.6
Case Study: Seattle, Washington
South Lake Union – redevelopment
area
1.3 miles in first phase, $52 million
Billionaire Paul Allen and the mayor
strongly advocated for line
Local assessment passed more
easily due to presence of two large
landowners
Outcomes:
Ridership exceeded expectations
40%
Property values increased 50-85%
Main Lesson: Local advocacy was
key to implementation
Portland Streetcar
Funding Sources
Total Funding (in
Millions of Dollars)
LID
$25.7
Federal
$14.9
Surplus Property Sales
$8.5
State
$3.0
Total
$52.1
Case Study Lessons Learned
Implementation requires powerful, interested
advocates and property owner enthusiasm
In most instances local funding came from
multiple sources
Value boosts – and local funding capture – are
easiest to achieve when opportunity exists for new
development
Streetcar benefits are strongest within 2-3 blocks
of line
Positive but uneven impacts occurred in all cities
for ridership, retail, tourism, parking needs, and
real estate development
Costs and Funding/Financing
Capital Costs
Costs for construction and
vehicle purchase
Requires large, immediatelyavailable funds
Obtain funds via grants or
bonding against future
revenues
Operating Costs
Costs for system operations
and maintenance
Requires ongoing funding
streams
Top: Portland streetcar infrastructure
Bottom: Passenger loading in Portland
Source: Center for Transit-Oriented Development
Capital Costs
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
Main Alignment
Modern Low Floor
Cars
Vintage Replica
Cars
~$88 m
~$70 m
+$18 m
+ $18 m
+$11.5 m
+$11.5 m
(10 minute headways, 6 vehicles)
Green Street Extension
California Boulevard Extension
Assumes one-way couplet on Union and Green Streets, two-way service on
Lake Avenue
Numbers and types of vehicles are most easily-flexible cost centers
Minimum of 5 vehicles are needed for ten-minute service frequency (4 in
regular service and 1 spare)
However, 6 vehicles are recommended due to 24-30 month acquisition time
and the risk of having no spares if a vehicle is in a collision
Financing and Funding:
Capital Cost Funding Sources
•Memoranda provide detailed information on 36 potential
sources for capital and operating costs
•Most promising sources are listed below
• RDA tax increment
financing (TIF) bonds
• Pasadena Water and
Power
• Parking District
bonds
• Local sales tax share
• Regional sales tax
(Measure R)
• RDA TIF
• Local Sales tax
share
• Regional sales tax
• Federal Transit
Administration
• Benefit assessment
district (on existing
and new
development)
• Naming
rights/sponsorship
• Institutional
participation
Financing and Funding:
Capital Cost Funding Sources
Federal Sources:
Reasonable expectation of $25 million to $40
million for a competitive project
Various funding programs come and go
For example, latest round of $25 million “Urban
Circulator Grants” are now exhausted
General increase in “livability” project funding
Significant local match required
Case study cities assembled 10% - 50% of project
costs from a variety of sources
Must apply for Federal funds through Metro
Financing and Funding:
Capital Cost Funding Sources
Local Sources: Value Capture
“Value capture” sources derive revenue from value
boosts occurring near the streetcar
Can bond against future revenues
Most typical mechanism is a local “benefit
assessment district”
Voted by affected property owners
Community Facilities District or Special Assessment District
Captures a portion of streetcar-driven value boosts
Property values reflect increased rents/sales prices, which
reflect increased business sales or residential demand
Financing and Funding:
Capital Cost Funding Sources
Hypothetical Value Capture Scenario
Bon d i ng A mo u nt
$ 2 0 , 0 0 0 ,0 0 0
$ 3 0 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0
Assessmen t p er SF W i th G ro w th C a p
$ 0 .0 5 2 9
$ 0.0 79 4
Assessmen t p er SF W i th o ut G ro w th C a p
$ 0 .0 4 4 5
$ 0.0 66 7
Shows assessment per square foot required to raise
$20m to $30m
Includes value of existing and likely future
development
“Growth Cap” reflects future development with/without
current housing unit restrictions
At highest rate:
Mid-sized commercial space pays $400 annually
Typical condominium pays $125 annually
Financing and Funding:
Capital Cost Funding Sources
Other Potential Local Sources:
Redevelopment TIF: If prioritized and approved,
$10m to $15m potential
Parking revenue
Measure R funds
Advertising and naming rights
Pasadena Water and Power
Operator, power subsidy, and/or ridership rebates on
utility fees
Institutional cooperation/contributions
Etc.
Financing and Funding:
Capital Cost Scenarios
Hypothetical Capital Cost Funding Scenarios
Federal Contribution
TIF Bonding Capacity
Pasadena Water and Power
Parking District Bonding Capacity
CFD / Assessment District Bonding
Capacity
Regional Sales Tax (Measure R)
Naming Rights
Institutional Participation
Total Capital
Gap Between Funds and $79m Cost
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Hypothetical
Less Federal $ More Federal $ Gap Coverage
$25,000,000
$40,000,000
$25,000,000
0
0
10,000,000
0
0
3,500,000
0
0
10,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
0
0
0
$50,000,000
$29,000,000
0
0
0
$70,000,000
$9,000,000
5,000,000
500,000
0
$79,000,000
$0
Operating Costs
10 minute frequency: ~$4,000,000 annually
Costs vary based on:
Travel speed, frequency, number of stops, length of line,
hours of service, annual operating hours, and assumed
cost per hour of revenue service ($140-$170 is
reasonable)
Financing and Funding:
Operating Cost Funding Sources
Some operating cost sources overlap with capital cost
sources – cannot overload these sources
Must provide ongoing revenue
Most promising sample sources listed below
• Business Improvement
District
• Transient-Occupancy
Tax
• Farebox collection
• Pasadena Water and
Power (PWP)
• Parking District Revenue
• Advertising Revenue
• Institutional participation
Recommended Next Steps
Determine whether to pursue
Form a structure for moving project forward…
…others have used a non-profit corporation
Comprehensively gauge property and
business owner support
Identify highest-potential local funding sources
Confirm availability of funding
Apply for Federal funding as available
PASADENA STREETCAR
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Executive Summary