Policymaker Working Group Meeting

Peninsula Rail Program July 15, 2010

1 PWG Agenda (1.5 hours) • Statewide/Caltrain/Regional updates - handouts • Property Values and Rail – Dena Belzer, Strategic Economics • Group Activity • Other Business

2 Statewide/Caltrain Update

• Status on AA Comments • Next CHSRA Board meeting – August 5 Regional Update

• TWG Office Hours • Recap • Upcoming • HST Station workshops - September June 2010 Office Hours

• Feedback on Design • Typical Section Widths • Caltrain Stations – footprint/location • Use of Public ROW • Roadway Separations footprint beyond the rail corridor • Stacked Transitions footprint – no ideal locations

5 August 2010 Office Hours

• Input on Design Refinements • Typical Section Widths - narrow/customize • Caltrain Stations – modify footprint/location • ROW – minimize property impacts • Roadway Separations – minimize roadway modifications • Transitions – modify locations • Discussion of Supplemental AA

6 RAIL AND PROPERTY VALUES

July 15, 2010

Dena Belzer Presentation Outline

ƒ Empirical Evidence Regarding Rail and Property Values ƒ General Factors That Create Property Value Related to Rail ƒ Financing “Additional” Improvements to Rail Projects ƒ Questions and Discussion Defining the Terms:

ƒ All of the property value impacts discussed in this presentation are based on a variety of rail system types ƒ No relevant HSR analogs in the US ƒ Value creation – increase in property values directly attributable to transit ƒ Value capture – mechanism used to “capture” some of this value increase by government Empirical Evidence on Rail and Property Values Summary of the “Value Creation” Literature - Residential

Land Use - Range of Property Value Premium Residential +2% w/in 200 ft of station +32% w/in 100 ft of station Single Family Residential to (San Diego Trolley, 1992) (San Diego Trolley, 1992)

+2% to 18% w/in 2,640 ft of station Condominium (San Diego Trolley, 2001)

+0% to 4% w/in 2,640 ft of +45% w/in 1,320 ft of station Apartment station to (VTA Light Rail, 2004) (San Diego Trolley, 2001)

Source: Capturing the Value of Transit, Center for TOD, 2008 Summary of the “Value Creation” Literature - Commercial

Land Use - Commercial Range of Property Value Premium

+9% w/in 300 ft of station +120% w/in 1,320 ft of station Office (Washington Metrorail, to (VTA Light Rail, 2004) 1981)

+1% w/in 500 ft of station +167% w/in 200 ft of station Retail to (Bart, 1978) (San Diego Trolley, 2004)

Source: Capturing the Value of Transit, Center for TOD, 2008 But, the Evidence on Transit and PropertyValue ValuesCapture is Uneven

WHY?

Many factors influence the impact of transit on property values: • Frequency of Transit Service • Transit Connectivity • Real Estate Market Conditions • Land Uses in the Station Area • Ease of Access to the Station (Pedestrian Connectivity, Parking) • Disincentives to Driving (Congestion, High Gas Prices) Additional Limitations of the Literature on Property Impacts

ƒ Single snapshot in time – no “before and after” effect ƒ Covers a wide time-span ƒ Does not account for other market factors that could influence price differentials, despite using “control” neighborhoods ƒ Does not consider transit “quality” defined as frequency and connectivity Recent U. of Minn. Center for Transportation Studies (CTS) Report Addresses Many Limitations

ƒ Published in 2010 ƒ Addresses many of the limitations of other “value creation” studies ƒ Two key components of the research: ƒ Considered “before and after” impacts ƒ Accounted for other variables that could impact property values (Highway 55, Industrial areas)

Source: The Hiawatha Line: Impacts on Land Use and Residential Housing Value, University of Minnesota, Center for Transportation Studies, 2010 CTS Study Findings

1. The transit did have positive price impacts, as predicted by the literature. 2. Generally, the negative impacts of proximity to station areas were smaller than the positive impacts 3. Other factors, i.e. the highway and industrial areas outweigh the positive price impacts on the line’s east side 4. The pattern of price impacts reflects pre-existing conditions (lower property values on the east side), i.e., prices already structured to reflect negative values General Factors that Create Property Value Increases From Rail Proximity to Employment Drives Development Activity

New Development by Line Seg. Total Emp. by Line Seg.

Residential Commercial 160,000 7,000,000 140,000 6,000,000 120,000 Hiawatha Line 5,000,000 100,000 4,000,000 80,000 (Minneapolis) 3,000,000 60,000 2,000,000 (2008) Jobs 40,000 1,000,000 20,000 0 0 Development (in (in Feet) Square Development

30,000

1,800,000 25,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 20,000 1,200,000 15,000 Southeast Corridor 1,000,000 800,000 10,000 (Denver Region) 600,000 (2008) Jobs 400,000 5,000 200,000

Development (in Square Feet) - 0

Residential Commercial 80,000 8,000,000 70,000 7,000,000 60,000 6,000,000 50,000 5,000,000 Blue Line 4,000,000 40,000 3,000,000 30,000 Jobs (2008) Jobs (Charlotte) 2,000,000 20,000 1,000,000 10,000 Development (in Square Feet) 0 0

Station Area StationStation Area Station Area Rail Access Allows for Greater Density and Use Mix Due to Fewer Auto Trips – Agglomeration Benefit, Which Increases Property Values

ƒ Rents and sales prices are higher for walkable urban places. ƒ These places hold their value during economic downturns ƒ Use mix contributes to economic resilience Public Policy and Public Investment Can Affect Development Value and Feasibility

4 Stories Townhome over Podium “Dallas Donut” 6 Stories + Financing Additional Rail Improvements at the Local Level Undergrounding BART Through Berkeley

ƒ In 1960, Berkeley was concerned that an elevated structure would contribute to ongoing racial segregation.

ƒ The BARTD’s rejected this request based on high cost.

ƒ In 1964, Berkeley agreed to pay the additional cost of undergrounding.

ƒ In 1966 Berkeley passed a bond measure with the capacity to raise $11.5 million to pay for the subway.

ƒ HUD also provided a grant of $4.7 million. Wadsworth Station Bridge, Lakewood CO.

ƒ The Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) would only pay for a “bare- bones” bridge and station crossing Wadsworth Avenue at 13th Street including stairs. elevators, bus shelters, and the station platform. ƒ The City of Lakewood wants the bridge and station to be an “iconic city gateway” and will contribute $2.6 million from its General Fund for these improvements. Transit Art Enhancements – Valley Transportation Authority Transit Stations

• County sales tax, through Measure B, fund the design and construction for VTA transit stations.

• VTA allocates funds to each VTA member city according to the number of stations each city holds.

• Each city allocates 2% of its funds towards public art and design enhancements.

• Private contributions have included city funds for design enhancements and property donations from nearby businesses. Transit Art Enhancements – Valley Metro (Phoenix) Transit Stations

• Of its $1.4 billion fund for a 20-mile light rail system, Valley Metro allocated $6.4 million towards its public art commissions.

•Each METRO member city contributed funds through its capital improvement "percent for arts" program.

•The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) matched local funds dollar-to-dollar through its “Design and Art in Public Transportation Projects” program of1995. Streetcar Funding – many different sources

Portland Seattle Tampa Denver Union Station (DUS)

ƒ Multimodal hub of national and regional significance ƒ Hub of the entire FasTracks system, RTD’s multi-year multibillion dollar mass transit expansion ƒ Brings together commuter rail, light rail, regional/express/local bus service, Amtrak, Mall Shuttle, Downtown Circulator, taxis ƒ Supports regional and statewide transportation plans adopted by four public partner agencies ƒ Urban design and neighborhood integration ƒ Pedestrian friendly ƒ Creation of public space ƒ Facilitates future development in downtown Denver

ƒ Historic preservation ƒ Preservation and re-use of the historic building ƒ Incorporate historic station into the multimodal hub

Source: Chad Fuller, City of Denver Transit Facilities Complex

Source: Chad Fuller, City of Denver Denver Union Station Project Authority

ƒ The Denver Union Station Project Authority (DUSPA) was created pursuant to an ordinance adopted by the City and County of Denver in June 2008 ƒ DUSPA is a multi-agency entity created to fulfill the goals of each member agency ƒ City and County of Denver (Denver) - To fund and implement the Master Plan approved by the four partner agencies ƒ Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) - Complement and manage the core facilities required for transit services and operations at Denver Union Station ƒ Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) - Implement State approved transportation plans for the DUS Project ƒ Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) – Improve mobility and air quality plans approved as the area MPO through the project ƒ Stated purpose is to further the development in and around the Denver Union Station (DUS) to maximize the benefits of integrated transit facilities, public improvements and private development as part of FasTracks ƒ Ordinance followed an intergovernmental agreement among the four partner agencies that was adopted in June 2001 ƒ Organized as a not-for-profit corporation pursuant to Colorado statutes ƒ DUSPA has no independent taxing authority

Source: Chad Fuller, City of Denver Downtown Development Authority & DUS Met Districts

ƒ In addition to DUSPA, Denver and the Master Developer created two additional entities to assist with the financing of the Project ƒ Denver Downtown Development Authority ƒ Created by Denver, pursuant to Title 31 of Colorado State Statute for the purpose of collecting property and sales tax increment ƒ Allows for the collection of tax-increment for 30 years ƒ Independent Board made up of property owners and/or lessees within the area but is managed through Denver’s Department of Finance & City Attorney’s Office ƒ DUS Metropolitan Districts ƒ Created pursuant to Title 32 of Colorado State Statute ƒ Commonly used mechanism for developers to use tax-exempt financing for public improvements ƒ DUS Districts will pledge a portion of their property tax mill levy to assist in financing the Project

Source: Chad Fuller, City of Denver Questions and Discussion Group Activity – Prioritizing Part 2

• As requested, Connectivity was added as a goal • Revise priorities Defining the Project

Expand Alternatives Clarify the Project • Additional criteria (community & other stakeholders, Caltrain shared use, safety, etc.) • Cost/Benefit Analysis No. of Alternatives

TIME

2005 4/2010 12/2010 9/2011 Program EIR/S Prelim Alts Analysis Draft EIR/S Final EIR/S Aerial/At grade 6 vertical options 15% design Conceptual 4% design 2009 8/2010 Initial Alternatives Supplemental 3 vertical options: Alternatives Analysis Aerial/At grade/Below Conceptual 33 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

Regulatory Corridor equity DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS approvals Connectivity of urban fabric across Rail corridor Right of way operations, width – Length of future property construction Rail and public period operator acquisition safety

Caltrain Visual / Noise operations & Vibration during impacts construction Natural Project cost systems Fundability

34 Other Business

• Next Meeting • August 19, 7 p.m. • Mountain View Library, 585 Franklin St.