PASADENA STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY

Executive Summary

Project Background

Sponsors:

Pasadena Center Operating Company

City of Pasadena

Old Pasadena Management District

Playhouse District Association

South Lake Avenue Business District

Paseo Colorado Holdings, Ltd.

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

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 SeattleMiddle: Vintage streetcar in San Francisco

Bottom: Vintage replica streetcar in CharlotteSource: 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 car-free 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 $28.5LID $9.6TIF $7.5Federal $5.0Parking Revenue $2.0ST Railcar Procurement $0.2Tax Breaks Agreement $0.9HUD $0.5Interest $0.4

Total $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 New 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, immediately-

available 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 infrastructureBottom: Passenger loading in PortlandSource: Center for Transit-Oriented Development

Capital Costs

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES

Modern Low Floor Cars

Vintage Replica Cars

Main Alignment(10 minute headways, 6 vehicles)

~$88 m ~$70 m

Green Street Extension +$18 m + $18 m

California Boulevard Extension +$11.5 m +$11.5 m

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

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

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

Bonding Amount $20,000,000 $30,000,000Assessment per SF With Growth Cap $0.0529 $0.0794

Assessment per SF Without Growth Cap $0.0445 $0.0667

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

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

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