Com m unity Building w ith T Transportation Projects t ti P j t Making Connections Conference Boise November 13, 2008 Charles Hales, Senior Vice President HDR Engineering Community, Mobility, and Environment If you’d like a copy… charles.hales@hdrinc.com @ Community, Mobility, and Environment 1
Community, Mobility, and Environment What’s working…ballot measures What’s working…ballot measures Voters are saying “Yes” more often… Voters are saying “Yes” more often… Passed: • Albuquerque — Ongoing funding for RailRunner, other services via regional revenue district – two measures, both approved • California (statewide) — Intercity high-speed rail project, via bond funding • Honolulu — Rapid rail system referendum. H l l R id il t f d • Imperial County, CA – local sales tax for road projects • Los Angeles — Extensions to MetroRail rapid rail and light rail system and Metrolink regional passenger rail, via expanded sales tax funding • Sacramento — Streetcar project, funded by sales tax in West Sacramento • Sonoma-Marin Counties, CA — SMART regional passenger rail project, funded by sales tax • Santa Barbara County, CA – local sales tax for road projects Santa Barbara County, CA local sales tax for road projects • Seattle — Extensions to Link light rail system, new Streetcar line, new sales tax funding • Stanislaus County, CA – local sales tax for road projects • Ada County Highway District, ID – registration fee increase for roads • Ada County Highway District, ID – registration fee increase for roads Community, Mobility, and Environment 2
What’s working…ballot measures What’s working…ballot measures Voters are saying “Yes” more often… Voters are saying “Yes” more often… Failed: • Kansas City — Light rail project, funded by sales tax • Kansas City Light rail project funded by sales tax • St. Louis — Ongoing funding and extensions to MetroLink light rail and transit system, new sales tax funding • San Jose — Extension to BART rail system, via expanded sales tax funding • Monterey County, CA – local sales tax for road projects Community, Mobility, and Environment What’s working…development leverage What’s working…development leverage Transit Enabling Land Development Investment + + Use Policy Opportunities Densification Densification (TOD) (TOD) Agglomeration Agglomeration Economies Economies Community, Mobility, and Environment 3
Geographic Framework for Evaluation of Geographic Framework for Evaluation of Development Potential Development Potential � 3 Zones Zone A Zone A � 3 Levels of Proximity � 1 Preferred Alignment Zone B Zone C Community, Mobility, and Environment Net New Cincinnati Residential Units Compared Net New Cincinnati Residential Units Compared to Baseline Development Projections to Baseline Development Projections Alternative - All Market Zones Baseline - All Market Zones 4,000 al Residential Property Units 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 Tota 1,500 1,000 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 Community, Mobility, and Environment 4
Net New Commercial Units Compared to Net New Commercial Units Compared to Baseline Development Projections Baseline Development Projections Alternative - All Market Zones Baseline - All Market Zones 3,450 3,400 s otal Commercial Property Unit 3,350 3,300 3,250 3,200 3,150 3,100 3,100 To 3,050 3,000 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 Community, Mobility, and Environment Parking Parking Total area of parking in project area ki i j t (Main/Walnut to Elm/Race Via Central Parkway): 4,235,935 square feet , , q or 97 acres Community, Mobility, and Environment 5
Economic Assessment Outcomes Economic Assessment Outcomes � Additional Residences - 1,200 - 3400 in ten years � Additional Property Taxes Available - $34,000,000 � Spending power of new residents – each $10 of S di f id t h $10 f spending yields $17,000,000 in retail activity each year Community, Mobility, and Environment What’s working… What’s working… Local Transit Funding Tools Local Transit Funding Tools � Local option sales or gas tax � Tax increment financing � Assessment districts � � Sale or joint development of public property Sale or joint development of public property � City general obligation bonds � Parking revenues (meters, garages, fines) � Surcharge on auto registrations � Ticket or event surcharges � Rental car taxes � Local or regional transit taxes � University fees (if a participant) � State capital contributions (lottery or general) Community, Mobility, and Environment 6
Case study: Sacramento Community, Mobility, and Environment $70.0 Capital Plan Capital Plan Sponsorships $2.0 $4.5 Sales Tax – West Sacramento $60.0 $7.0 $69.1 million TIF – West Sacramento projected cost $7.0 TIF – $50.0 Sacramento $40.0 $ Millions Parking $23.2 Revenues Sacramento $30.0 $6.0 Benefits Assessment $20.0 District: State Contribution Benefits Assessment $10.0 $19.4 District: Private Property Assessment $0.0 Community, Mobility, and Environment 7
Operations Plan Operations Plan $4.0 Discontinued $3.5 $0.20 Bus Service $3.55 million projected cost $0.31 Advertising $3.0 Hotel $0.40 A Assessment t $2.5 $0.46 Parking $ Millions Revenues W. Sac. $2.0 Sales Tax $1.19 $1.5 W. Sac. $1.0 $0.5 $1.00 Farebox $0.0 Community, Mobility, and Environment Benefits Assessment District Benefits Assessment District KEY Total Assessment Rate 0.0% – 0.3% 0.3% – 06% 0.6% – 0.9% 0.9% – 1.2% 1 2% 1.2% – 1.5% 1 5% > 1.5% Community, Mobility, and Environment 8
Benefits Assessment District Benefits Assessment District $70.0 State of California Contribution $2.0 $4.5 $60.0 $7.0 State ownership in district: $7.0 � Land area: 31 percent $50.0 � Precise property value unknown $40.0 $23.2 State has recently $30.0 participated in several assessment districts, including $6.0 $20.0 I 5 Subregional Mitigation Plan I-5 Subregional Mitigation Plan Assessment district statues $10.0 $19.4 require public contribution $0.0 Lump sum of $6.0 million assumed Community, Mobility, and Environment Case study: Seattle Community, Mobility, and Environment 9
Case study: Seattle Streetcar Route Community, Mobility, and Environment Seattle Funding Summary Seattle Funding Summary Source Federal F d l $ 14.9 M $ 14 9 M State $ 3.0 M Local Improvement District $ 25.7 M Surplus Property Proceeds $ 8.5 M Total Funding g $ $ 52.1 M Community, Mobility, and Environment 10
What’s working…Public/Private What’s working…Public/Private Partnerships Partnerships Community, Mobility, and Environment Community, Mobility, and Environment 11
Community, Mobility, and Environment Community, Mobility, and Environment 12
Overall Deal Structure Overall Deal Structure Regional partnership Public/public/public/private partnership - leverage real estate, regional interest No new revenue sources Locally directed and controlled Community, Mobility, and Environment Project Budget Community, Mobility, and Environment 13
Fast-track Construction Community, Mobility, and Environment Community, Mobility, and Environment 14
What’s working… What’s working… An idea to borrow from Oregon… Tri-Met Regional payroll tax • Enacted by the Legislature • .64% of payroll, paid by employers • Revenue: $167m per year • 50% of Tri-Met’s operating revenues • No complaints, no disinvestment, broad business and public support for transit Community, Mobility, and Environment What’s working… What’s working… � Tax revenues, if leaders will lead � Ballot measures, given good proposals, strong coalitions, and effectively marketing � Development-related revenue and locally controlled funds, bootstrapping projects � New mechanisms, like VMT charges � Public/private and public/public partnerships � TANSTAAFL! Community, Mobility, and Environment 15
Community, Mobility, and Environment 16
Recommend
More recommend
