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