AgdaPkt 2020-01-13 Joint - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.B. - Page 6 of 70 *Costs are in millions of dollars. The relative performance of each alternative is similar, with the exception that the urban circulator would be significantly (approximately 85-90%) less expensive and would likely have somewhat lower ridership (approximately 14%) than a streetcar. While no one alternative is identified as the preferred alternative, of the streetcar alignments, the Broadway — Marshall alignment was generally recommended because it avoids the regular street closures that occur by Courthouse Square. A downside of this alternative is that it passes by Fire Station 9 and would conflict with redevelopment plans that propose potentially closing Spring Street. A benefit of the urban circulator alignment is that it could provide the opportunity to test the ridership demand on the corridor and to showcase new technologies such as all -electric buses, autonomous vehicles features, and dynamic routing strategies. Since a streetcar would be a new transit system, key elements of project implementation are identifying the governing body, funding source(s), owner and operator of the system. Nationwide, most streetcar systems are owned by cities however, cities generally do not have the expertise to operate a streetcar. The study identified entities such as SamTrans, Caltrain, non-profit organizations (business or transportation management association), private sector and the City as the potential owner and/or operator of a streetcar. Implementation of an urban circulator would be simpler as there are multiple local entities that could operate the service (e.g. SamTrans, Commute.org). A business improvement district including properties that directly benefit from the project, like the Redwood City Improvement Association (RCIA), could be a source of private funding for both capital and operating costs. As new development occurs along the Broadway corridor, staff is mindful of how a future streetcar might interact with individual projects when reviewing off-site improvements and assessing their transportation demand management (TDM) plans. As part of its development agreement, Stanford University provided $75,000 towards the cost of the feasibility study. Stanford also has an extensive TDM program outlined in the Stanford in Redwood City Precise Plan. A key element of the TDM program is that they implement or participate in publically-accessible shuttle service between the Caltrain station and the campus. Should an urban circulator or streetcar be implemented, property owners such as Stanford or Sobrato (Broadway Plaza) might consider contributing to the cost of operating the new transit service rather than operating their own shuttles. Page 6 of 10 City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 Tel: 650-780-7000 www.redwoodcity.ore 549 Cost to serve Cost to serve a Annual Daily ridership One-way travel the existing new transit operating cost* time between transit center* center north of the transit Broadway* center and Broadway/2nd Ave (minutes) Streetcar on $152 M $156 M $1.9 M 2,200-3,900 13 Broadway Streetcar on $158 M $155 M $1.9 M 2,200-3,900 13 Broadway - Marshall Urban $14 M $22 M $1.2 M 1,900-3,400 18 Circulator (shuttle) *Costs are in millions of dollars. The relative performance of each alternative is similar, with the exception that the urban circulator would be significantly (approximately 85-90%) less expensive and would likely have somewhat lower ridership (approximately 14%) than a streetcar. While no one alternative is identified as the preferred alternative, of the streetcar alignments, the Broadway — Marshall alignment was generally recommended because it avoids the regular street closures that occur by Courthouse Square. A downside of this alternative is that it passes by Fire Station 9 and would conflict with redevelopment plans that propose potentially closing Spring Street. A benefit of the urban circulator alignment is that it could provide the opportunity to test the ridership demand on the corridor and to showcase new technologies such as all -electric buses, autonomous vehicles features, and dynamic routing strategies. Since a streetcar would be a new transit system, key elements of project implementation are identifying the governing body, funding source(s), owner and operator of the system. Nationwide, most streetcar systems are owned by cities however, cities generally do not have the expertise to operate a streetcar. The study identified entities such as SamTrans, Caltrain, non-profit organizations (business or transportation management association), private sector and the City as the potential owner and/or operator of a streetcar. Implementation of an urban circulator would be simpler as there are multiple local entities that could operate the service (e.g. SamTrans, Commute.org). A business improvement district including properties that directly benefit from the project, like the Redwood City Improvement Association (RCIA), could be a source of private funding for both capital and operating costs. As new development occurs along the Broadway corridor, staff is mindful of how a future streetcar might interact with individual projects when reviewing off-site improvements and assessing their transportation demand management (TDM) plans. As part of its development agreement, Stanford University provided $75,000 towards the cost of the feasibility study. Stanford also has an extensive TDM program outlined in the Stanford in Redwood City Precise Plan. A key element of the TDM program is that they implement or participate in publically-accessible shuttle service between the Caltrain station and the campus. Should an urban circulator or streetcar be implemented, property owners such as Stanford or Sobrato (Broadway Plaza) might consider contributing to the cost of operating the new transit service rather than operating their own shuttles. Page 6 of 10 City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 Tel: 650-780-7000 www.redwoodcity.ore 549