CLEARWATER BLUFF TO BEACH GUIDEWAY ACTION PLAN - IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS TECH MEMO
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
.
.
.
.
e
e
.
e
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway
Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
Prepared for:
~ Clearwater
t-
-
u
Prepared by:
~GRIMAIL
~ CRAWFORDlnc.
March, 2006
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table of Contents
1.0 Purpose and Background ............................................................... 1
1.1 Study Purpose........................... ................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Background................................................................................... 1
1.3 Prior Studies............................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 The Pinellas Mobility Major Investment Study....................................... 3
1.3.2 The Pinellas Mobility Initiative ............................................................... 3
1.3.3 The Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach Guideway Reconnaissance Study......... 9
2.0 System Costs ................................................................................. 10
2.1 Pre-Construction Costs ............................................................................ 10
2.1.1 Environmental Studies ........................................................................... 10
2.1.2 Design .................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Right-of-Way Acquisition .............................. ......................................... 12
2.3 Construction............................................................................................. 12
2.4 Operations and Maintenance................................................................... 13
3.0 Funding Source Options ............................................................... 18
3.1 Public Revenue Sources ..........................................................................18
3.1.1 Existing Revenue Sources..................................................................... 18
3.1.1.1 Penny for Pinellas .............................................................................. 18
3.1.1.2 Community Redevelopment Authority.............................................. 18
3.1.1.3 Pinellas Mobility Initiative Federal Earmark..................................... 19
3.1.1.4 City General Fund.............................................................................. 19
3.1.2 Potential New Revenue Sources ........................................................... 19
3.1.2.1 New Penny for Pinellas.. ......... ................ ... ......... ................. .............. 19
3.1.2.2 New Local Transit Sales Surtax......................................................... 20
3.1.2.3 Gas Taxes .................. ............................. ...... ............... ....................... 20
3.1.2.4 Federal Transit Administration New Starts Program......................... 21
3.1.2.5 Ridership Revenues. ..................... ................ ............... .................... .212
3.2 Private Revenue Sources ......................................................................... 23
3.2.1 Rights-of-Way Donations ....................... ................................. .............. 23
3.2.2 Joint Parking Facilities..... ......... ................ ........................... .................. 23
3.2.3 Direct Cash Contributions.... .... ...... ..................... .................. ..... ............ 23
3.2.4 Ride Subsidies............... ........ .......... ..................... ............. ..................... 23
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
.
e
e
e
e
Table of Contents (cont'd)
3.2.5 Merchandising and Advertising. ..... ..... ......... ......... ............ ................ .... 24
3.2.6 Joint Retail Development.. ..... ....... ......................... ...... .... ...... ................ 24
3.2.7 Private Sector Funding Opportunities Summary ...................................25
4.0 Implementation Options Overview and Analysis........................ 26
4.1 Implementation Options Overview........ ........... ........................ ........ .......26
4.1.1 Option 1 - Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA)....................... 26
4.1.1.1 Definition of Public Transit ...............................................................26
4.1.1.2 Definition of Transit Operator under PST A Special Act.................. 27
4.1.1.3 PST A's Authority under Special Act................................................. 27
4.1.1.4 Effect of PST A Special Act on Bluff to Beach Project Development27
4.1.2 Option 2 - Private Sector Implementation Options................................ 28
4.1.3 Option 3 - Non-PSTA Public Sector Implementation Options............ 29
4.1.4 Option 4 - Public-Private Partnership Option....................................... 29
4.2 Implementation Options Analysis ...........................................................30
4.2.1 Option 1 - PST A.................................................................................... 30
4.2.2 Option 2 - Private Sector Implementation Options................................ 31
4.2.3 Option 3 - Non-PSTA Public Sector Implementation.......................... 31
4.2.4 Option 4 - Public-Private Partnership Option....................................... 33
5.0 Feasibility Analysis ....................................................................... 38
5.1 Ridership Analysis ...................................................... .............................38
5.2 Feasibility Summary................................................................................ 39
6.0 Recommendations .......... ............. .............. .............. ..................... 41
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Location Concept................................................................... 2
Figure 1-2 Policy Plan Network - Pinellas Mobility Initiative ................................4
Figure 1-3 Locally Preferred Alternative - Pinellas Mobility Initiative................... 5
Figure 1-4 Station Rendering - Pinellas Mobility Initiative ................................... 7
Figure 1-5 Station Rendering - Pinellas Mobility Initiative ................................... 8
Figu re 2-1 Memorial Bridge Typical Section..................................................... 16
Figu re 2-2 Memorial Bridge Typical Section..................................................... 17
Figure 3-1 New Starts Analysis Process.......................................................... 21
Figure 4-1 Sample Operating Structure for Public-Private Partnership ............ 35
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Capital Cost Estimates - Bluff to Beach Segment............................ 14
Table 2-2 Operating & Maintenance Costs
Estimated by Pinellas Mobility Initiative (2003 Dollars).................... 15
Table 4-1 Option 2 - Private Sector Implementation Summary........................ 32
Table 4-2 Option 4 - Public - Private Implementation Summary ..................... 36
Table 4-3 Implementation Options Summary .................................................. 37
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1.0 Purpose and Background
1.1 Study Purpose
The purpose of this tech memo is to provide analyses of alternative implementation
scenarios and to identify potential privatization options for the development of a
guideway system between downtown Clearwater and Clearwater Beach. Key
conclusions of previously completed studies will also be summarized. This people mover
connector system has been called the Bluff to Beach Guideway System. The project
location concept is shown in Figure 1-1.
1.2 Project Background
Over the past several years, there have been ongoing discussions and initiatives relative
to the analysis of a Downtown Clearwater to Clearwater Beach fixed guideway system.
These initiatives have mostly related to the development of a monorail-type system, to be
grade separated from existing traffic to avoid vehicular and pedestrian conflicts.
Historically, many outside the community have viewed this system as an alternative
means of moving people from downtown to the beach to help alleviate parking
congestion problems on the beach. However, over the past few years, the beach and
downtown areas have been experiencing tremendous growth in redevelopment projects.
These projects have included many new residential units on the beach, and the
development of residential and commercial projects in downtown.
With the redevelopment activities that are underway, the guideway connector system has
the potential to become much more than simply a beach parking reliever. It has the
potential to serve the following functions:
. Allow beach residents quick and efficient access to the shopping, dining, and
recreational activities existing, planned or under development in downtown.
· Allow downtown residents the same quick and convenient access to beach areas
and activities.
· Allow for employees of beach businesses to take the guideway system to the
beach for work. These employees could arrive in downtown via the Pinellas
Suncoast Transit Authority (PST A) bus system or by private automobile.
· Allow for increased economic interaction between visitors to the beach and the
downtown areas. Tourists who stay at the beach could come to downtown for
shopping, movies, dining, or other activities through a quick and convenient
people mover system.
. Allow for remote parking of beach patrons in the downtown area, alleviating
parking congestion on the beach.
· Serve as the 'starter system' for a larger, countywide monorail or guideway
initiative as contemplated by the Pinellas Mobility Initiative.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
1
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....
Q.,
~
~
=
o
~u
. =
~ 0
~:c
= e
.2fl 0
~~
....
~
~
.~
e
~
I
... -'-, "'~'-:;- -_. .
........~
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NO
oS
"E
o
~
!!!
u
Oiij
oS
<!i
e:
al
a:
e:
.Q
'0
<(
>.0
alE
:= Ol
~::2:
05 -5
c.!JOl
.t:1-
(Jill
ale:
Olo
CC:.;::o
oa.
-0
==e:
.20
co+=-
QiJ9
caai
1: E
al~
Ola.
-E
U_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
· Further and/or support economic redevelopment initiatives in the downtown and
beach areas.
Within the current development framework of downtown and beach redevelopment, it is
important to remember that the guideway system should be viewed as a viable two-way
operation, rather than just a remote beach parking opportunity. Its potential usage and
function has grown beyond this initial remote parking concept to encompass the uses
identified above.
1.3 Prior Studies
This section of a potential guideway system has been previously studied several times.
However, the economic development dynamic on the beach and in the downtown areas is
substantially different now than it was at the time that these previous studies were
completed. Still, it is useful to review the results of these previous studies for
background understanding.
1.3.1 The Pinellas Mobility Major Investment Study
The MPO began a study in 1997 of major multi-modal transportation improvement
alternatives beyond those in the then current Cost Feasible Long Range Transportation
Plan (LRTP). The MPO conducted a three-stage screening analysis under the umbrella of
the Pinellas Mobility Major Investment Study (MIS).
A Transit Policy Plan Network was adopted by the MPO as a result of the MIS process.
This plan, which is not financially constrained, indicates the corridors that were identified
as part of a full implementation of guideway transit in the county. The Transit Policy
Plan Network is shown on the following page as Figure 1-2.
Priority segments of the Transit Policy Plan Network were identified through the
adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Report by the MPO at its October
2000 meeting. This report represented the culmination of the Pinellas Mobility MIS.
The LP A Report defined a corridor for development of elevated guideway transit,
technology parameters, and follow-on activities needed to further build community
consensus regarding a guideway project. The priority corridors adopted by the MPO are
shown on the following page as Figure 1-3.
The Bluff to Beach Guideway System segment was included as a part of the overall
concept approved in the LP A.
1.3.2 The Pinellas Mobility Initiative
The follow-on study resulting from direction by the MPO at the time of their adoption of
the LPA was entitled the Pinellas Mobility Initiative (PM I). The PMI was oriented
toward refinement of technology options, capital costs, operating and maintenance costs,
financing, land use compatibility and livable communities initiatives, and stations.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
3
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
e
e
e
.
.
e
e
e
.
.
e
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
e
e
.
Figure 1-2
Policy Plan Network
Pinellas Mobility Initiative
.
.
jl
..
i.
SI
.
.
I
II
.
. '. t,', "I .....
,~ >.
~lJ ,.,
'-il-.
,i-~..:
....! r{
I j' ~,-'"
i'''r(w''' S.R~.~
___ ~J._"'~-"'~1C;~ c....--v
'10,
fi,
;.
!
'I
I
Gulf of Mexico
Old Tampa Bay
....,r;'
~<
...... ......
October, 2000
Policy Plan Guideway
Transit Network
Legend
-Generalized Guideway Corridor
. . I Potential Extension
~ Bus Connections to
Hillsborough County
~ if I ,.-/ r
- -rl~:f~:C"111
l' : i. i !
b',;}:;!" ~. :.
... _#"",--"'L_+ ,_
~.
.Cl.__ -
~l
Tampa Bay
I
\.
o 0.5 1
5_
+N
j';
.
l'
\
Notl!I: G . COIY"idorloc8ioneare end
,
,
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
4
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Figure 1-3
Locally Preferred Alternative
Pinellas Mobility Initiative
Pinellas Mobility Initiative 2025
Transit Operations Concept
Legend:
- ......-
CountJysiIe lO au.-
~lOSl"""
~ lO St. Polo
~--Covorogt
· - 'Trd..,C_
,,- ,
CemrBI Ave. ConIcIar 0
Enhanced ~ Buo SeNioo TrdIoyConlclar
o
6
Milel
S
2
4
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
5
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
.
e
e
e
.
.
.
e
e
.
Furthermore, the PMI involved the public in the planning and decision-making regarding
the potential for a premium transit system in the county.
The refinement analysis provides information important to reaching planning-level
consensus on the feasibility of fixed guideway transit and/or enhanced bus in the corridor.
Benchmark alternatives such as the LRTP and TSM were defined as a base upon which
to frame order of magnitude comparisons. The final action of the MPO was to adopt a
refined LP A consisting of a system of elevated monorail technology supplemented with
express bus, local bus, and small rubber-tired trolleys for circulation.
In the Pinellas Mobility Initiative, the Bluff to Beach segment was identified as an
early implementation priority of the entire system. As such, it was viewed as in the
Mobility Initiative as a first-stage implementation of a larger countywide system.
The PMI project, though thoroughly researched and completed, has potential issues
related to an interim solution to the Bluff to Beach project. Chief among these is the fact
that the PMI has been completed in strict adherence to the requirements and analysis
procedures dictated by the Federal Transit Administration through its New Starts
program. This New Starts program is the vehicle by which discretionary funding is
allocated to transit system projects by the federal government on a national basis.
Competition for this funding source is intense, and a defined set of analysis criteria are
required to be completed to assist FT A and Congress in evaluating a wide range of
projects proposed in diverse local circumstances. There are several issues for ClearWater
in the application of these criteria to the Bluff to Beach project:
. The criteria are best at analyzing extensions to existing systems as opposed to
implementation of new systems.
. The criteria are better applied to longer system projects, rather than shorter
starter-type projects such as the Bluff to Beach project.
. The criteria, through application of the regional modeling and ridership estimating
process, do not adequately address tourist-related system ridership and capture
potential.
. The criteria do not allow recognition of significant redevelopment programs. It is
based more on existing land development, with some new activities included, but
not the full scale of activities contemplated by Clearwater for its downtown and
beach station areas.
Despite these shortcomings, the criteria have been well established through practice over
a number of years. Therefore, if federal funding is to be sought for the Beach to Bluff
fixed guideway system, these criteria will have to be followed.
Renderings prepared for the PMI study applicable to the Bluff to Beach study are shown
in Figures 1-4 and 1-5.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
6
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Q,j
i>-
....
-
~ .s
=-
.- .....
~ '"' =
I Q,j ~
1""'1 "Cl ....
Q,j~::
~~ :E
.... = ~
~.s ~
-
s [I.l
~~
Q,j
=
~
.
~
t--
~
.1
~
.1
4~
~
l~
.. ~
}~~
;~ .<t
.." .4r-
.~~
.~ ~
f
~
.1
"-0
E
"E
~
!!!
u
Oiij
05
<5
c:
as
a::
c:
o
~
~o
~E
Cll Cll
"O~
05.r:
,,0
Cll
.r:~
~Ul
CllC:
COoQ
.98-
:l::c:
ffi,g
..as
Cll-
_c:
asCll
~E
as.!!!
CllQ.
(3..5
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
It
~
.....
..-
~.!
C"-
..... ....
II) ... C
I ~ ~
~ "l:l ....
C"-
~ ~.....
S~:E
.2fl. C .g
~.s ~
-
s ~
00=
~
C
s::
~
t--
~
1
~
1
.~
~
jl
'-\
~
~
M
~
~
~
:(
~
~
~
ex> .
~
"E
i
u
'iij
,s;
c!i
fa
a::
t:
.Q
'0
<(
>.0
lllE
;: Q)
~:2
'5.s:::
<!l~
.s:::1-
:il ~
~.Q
015..
-0
ll::t:
.20
co""
~.s
~t:
III Q)
~E
lll.!!!
Q)Q.
-E
u_
e
e
.
e
e
e
e
e
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
e
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
1.3.3 The Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach Guideway Reconnaissance Study
The Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach Guideway Reconnaissance Study (The Reconnaissance
Study), September 2001, prepared by Wade-Trim and Jakes Associates, assessed the
feasibility of developing a guideway to connect downtown Clearwater to the beach area.
The Reconnaissance Study considered various system technologies and alignments, and
developed ridership forecasts.
In the Reconnaissance Study, the Bluff-to-Beach system was envisioned as a stand-alone
people mover type system that would be largely implemented through private means.
This implementation scenario was possible due to aggressive ridership projections that
were based upon general order-of-magnitude assumptions. The assumptions used
presented a best-case analysis of ridership and patronage forecasts that would not likely
hold up under federal funding scrutiny.
It should be noted that the Reconnaissance Study presented much good information, and
was not intended for use in justifying federal funding consideration. Rather, its purpose
was to give order of magnitude information, which it accomplished successfully.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
9
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.0 System Costs
A key element of the implementation options analysis is the cost to design, build, and
operate the system. This section provides a summary of cost data developed previously,
and updates these data to current year estimates.
The costs to implement the system can be segregated into four areas:
. Pre-construction activities, which include environmental studies, design, and
permitting,
. Right-of-Way acquisition,
. Construction activities, which include the costs to build the system, including
construction management fees,' and
. Operations and maintenance costs, which include the costs required to provide
ongoing maintenance and operations.
Each of these cost elements is described in further detail in the following sections. Each
of these cost elements has been previously estimated. Where appropriate, they have been
adjusted to reflect current year pricing to update the previously developed estimates.
. Supporting information on how these costs were developed is included in the Appendix.
Cost estimates developed for the Pinellas Mobility Initiative are the latest costs available,
and the basis for this report.
2.1 Pre-Construction Costs
Pre-construction costs include the cost required to complete environmental studies,
design, and permitting sufficient to begin the right-of-way acquisition process.
2.1.1 Environmental Studies
Environmental studies will be required for this project to gain clearance from state,
regional, and federal regulatory authorities in order to build the project. To be qualified
for state or federal funding participation, environmental studies consistent with the
Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT) Project Development and Environment
(PD&E) study process are required. The PD&E process provides a framework for
determining location, design concept, and environmental mitigation requirements for
major projects to be completed with state or federal funds.
The PD&E process is mandated by state law, and embodies the requirements of the
Preliminary Engineering studies mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEP A), in addition to other state and federal laws. Issues analyzed and steps followed
in a PD&E Study include:
. Social and Economic Impacts. .
. Air Quality - assessing existing/future conditions and determining if the project
conforms with the Clean Air Act.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
10
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
e
e
e
.
.
.
e
e
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
e
.
.
· Noise - quantifying the project's noise levels and if they meet criteria, investigate
reasonable and feasible noise abatement.
· Wetlands - finding the best way to avoid, minimize and mitigate long-term and
short-term impacts.
. Water Quality - measures to prevent, reduce and/or eliminate pollution of ground
and surface water.
. WildlifelHabitat hnpacts - efforts are made to identify the presence of and to
protect/ensure the continued existence of threatened and/or endangered species
and their habitat.
. Contamination - identifying and evaluating potential contamination problems
within and/or adjacent to a project.
. Floodplains - efforts are evaluated to avoid, minimize, and mitigate encroachment
within the floodplain.
. ParksIHistoric Sites - significance of the sites and avoidance methods are
evaluated when recreation lands or historic/archeological sites are impacted by the
project.
. Conceptual Design - engineering design concepts are developed and evaluated for
environmental compatibility and satisfaction of the transportation need.
. Public Involvement - a Public Involvement Program is carried out for every
PD&E study, to inform/involve all interested parties in the development of the
planned transportation project.
At the conclusion of the PD&E process, formal Location and Design Approval is granted,
along with approval of environmental impact and mitigation information pertinent to the
project.
For the Bluff-to-Beach project, the PD&E phase is anticipated to cost approximately $1-
$1.5 million dollars, and to take roughly 12-18 months to complete.
2.1.2 Design
The design phase can begin once the PD&E study has been completed. The design phase
will refine the previously developed engineering concepts and will conclude with the
development of final engineering plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) packages.
The documents developed in the PS&E package will allow for construction bids to be
taken, and for rights-of-way acquisition to begin.
For the Bluff-to-Beach project, the design phase is anticipated to cost approximately $3
million dollars, and to take roughly 12-18 months to complete, assuming use of the
Memorial Causeway bridge. If a new bridge is required, then the cost may be higher for
a new bridge design, and permitting time would likely lengthen the schedule for
completion. The design cost and timeframe will be highly dependent upon the method
used to complete the crossing of the Intracoastal Waterway. Use of the existing
Memorial Causeway bridge will be less costly and take less time to design, whereas use
of a new structure will take more time to design, and considerably more time to permit.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
11
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.2 Right-of-Way Acquisition
This phase includes the acquisition of rights-of-way necessary to implement the
guideway system. The conceptual location of the proposed Bluff to Beach guideway
system was shown on Figure 1-1.
In developing the location shown in Figure 1-1, maximum use of publicly owned land
was a key consideration in the locational analysis. Use of such lands helps to minimize
the overall implementation cost, thereby increasing the viability of the project.
Of note in the right-of-way costs is the fact that the alignment has been previously
developed to best suit the needs of a regional system by aligning with Court Street to the
south of downtown. However, much of the redevelopment activity occurring in
downtown is located to the north of Cleveland Street, which could necessitate rethinking
the location of the guideway system. If the alignment is moved, the right-of-way costs
could vary significantly.
Right-of-way costs for the Bluff-to-Beach project have been previously estimated to be
approximately $2 million in year 2003 costs.
2.3 Construction
Construction cost estimates have been developed for this segment based upon two
scenarIOS:
. Use of the median of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge to accommodate the
guideway system, with associated costs of building barrier walls, lane restriping,
and lighting to accommodate the guideway, and
. Building a new bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway parallel to the existing
bridge. This scenario is viewed as less favorable due to its cost, and due to the
complexity of permitting a new crossing.
The previously estimated cost of this segment is $50 million - $60 million, depending
upon whether the existing bridge is used or a new bridge is built. It should be cautioned
that the prices for concrete and steel have fluctuated considerably over the past few years
with demand for these products. Further fluctuations could have a substantial impact on
actual costs for this segment, and these costs will be reestimated as part of the PD&E
study process.
For the costs presented in Table 2-1, a cost of $5 million was used to retrofit the new
Memorial Causeway bridge to accommodate the guideway, as opposed to building a new
bridge. Typical sections for how this arrangement could look are' shown in Figures 2-1
and 2-2.
The cost estimate includes allocations to build 250 surface parking spaces, but does not
include the cost of building new parking garages. If new parking garages will be required
on either end off the project, these costs will be subject to revision.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
12
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.4 Operations and Maintenance
Operations and maintenance costs include staff salaries, vehicle cleaning and upkeep,
electricity and other utilities, fare collection, insurance, station and guideway cleaning
and upkeep, and other costs associated with the longer term operations of the system.
Operations and maintenance costs for this system are estimated to be approximately $2
million per year as reported in Table 2-2.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
13
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 2-1
Capital Cost Estimates
Bluff to Beach Segment
ITEM. UNITS QUANTITY UNIT TOT AL COST COMMENTS
Guideway - Standard LF 11,936.00 $285 $3,401,760
Substructure - Standard EA 60 $85,000 $5,100,000
Guideway - Soecial LF 1,310.00 $3,750 $4,912,500
Bridge Modifications to accommodate
auideway LS 1 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Walkway LF 10,218.00 $60 $613,080
Track Shieldino LF 10,218.00 $50 $510,900
Switches EA 2 $500,000 $1,000,000
Electrification MILE 1.94 $1,500,000 $2,910,000
Transformer Substations EA 2 $250,000 $500,000 One oer mile
Control System MILE 1.94 $1,500,000 $2,910,000
Communication System MILE 1.94 $500,000 $970,000
SUBTOTAL $27,828,240
Utilitv Relocation LS 1 3.00% $834,847
Roadway Reconstruction LS 1 2.00% . $556,565
Sianina & Strioina LS 1 1.00% $278,282
Traffic Control LS 1 2.00% $556,565
LINE TOTAL $30,054,499
Neiahborhood EA 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Community EA 1 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Reaional EA $2,000,000 $0
Bus Bays EA $40,000 $0
Parkina (400 SF/Soacel SP 250 $4,000 $1,000,000
SUBTOTAL $3,500,000
Drainaae LS 1 5.00% $175,000
Urban Desian/Landscaping LS 1 3.00% $105,000
STATION TOTAL $0
SEGMENT SUBTOTAL $3,780,000
Mobilization LS 1 3.00% $1,015,035
Continoencies LS 1 20.00% $6,766,900
Desion LS 1 12.00% $4,060,140
Construction Manaaement LS 1 10.00% $3,383,450
Insurance and Leaal LS 1 2.00% $676,690
Subtotal $15,902,215
Note: The above estimates are based upon costs developed for the Pinellas Mobility Initiative.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
14
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
Table 2-2
Operating & Maintenance Costs
Estimated by Pinellas Mobility Initiative
(2003 Dollars)
CATEGORY ANNUAL
. COSTS
Staff Salaries - Management, Maintenance,
Sales, Operators, Security. $885,000
Staff Benefits and Overhead - Taxes,
Insurance, Retirement, Office Supplies. $440,000
Power Consumption and Parts - Trains,
Offices, Stations, Maintenance $375,000
Contingency @ 10%
$170,000
TOTAL $1,870,000
Note: The above costs are planning level estimates based upon numerous assumptions. Refined
estimates will be developed as decisions are made concerning technologies, stations and
amenities.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
15
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
C
Q
.....
..-
CJ
Q,j
\I).
-
=
CJ
~.a
'~
N~
Q,j Q,j
"" ell
~~
ez .C
=
'i
.....
""
e
Q,j
~
:1
%
,.
~)
OIl
"'",
~'it"
:1
~ ,
J..
..
,
J..
-~
~-
I
II
II
II
I'
I' (00
I , -r-.s
I , "E
I , 0
~
I l....... e
I ... ....... U
I r-.... .... 'a;
I ..., I E
I J I I (3
I ' I I
I '
I I ,
II I ,
I, I I
II I I
'I I I
1\ I ,
I , I I
: \ J I
, .J
1.- .,.
I .,. .,.
,
r-
-, ('
I I
I I
I ,
J I:
"
I
---------a
: I
I ~
I I
I ,
I ,
_.J l..
L _ .... "'-
....
r_.... ....
I '"
I , I I
, , I I
I I I
I' I I
I' , I
II I I
,I I
I ,
, \ , I
I \ , I
, \ J I
I .,. I
I l_' ,'"
,
I '
I r'
I I
I ,
I I
I ,
II
I'
"
II
I
r_- ..LJ
e:
al
a::
e:
.Q
t5
<(
>.0
alE
==CD
~:E
'5 {i
<.!lCD
.s::.1-
o<f)
ale:
CDO
CD:.;::::;
00.
-0
:t:e:
20
co:.;::::;
(i),!g
Cijai
~ E
al~
CD 0.
-E
U_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
=
Q
.....
-
Cj
~
\I.)
-
=
Cj
N'a
,>>
N~
~ ~
::I =tl
=tl"C
~ 'C
=:l
-
=
.....
s..
e
~
~
=
Q
.....
..-
Cj
~
\I.)
rI.l
rI.l
Q
s..
U
~
=tl
"C
.....
s..
=:l
=tl
=
.....
..-
rI.l
.....
~
~
,.....
,...~
"E
o
~
!!!
u
.a;
E
.~
Cl
-
.....
=
s..
Q
=
Q
~
=
=
.....
"C
~
~
..c
-
.....
~
=
Q
.....
..-
Cj
~
\I.)
rI.l
rI.l
Q
s..
U
~
=tl
"C
.....
s..
=:l
~
al
Cl:
I::
.2
~
>>0
alE
== (I)
~::?!
.5.s:::
Clal
.s:::1-
000
al .1::
(1)0
CD+::
oc..
-0
:1:1::
.20
cc=
~ al
~'E
al(l)
~E
al..!!1
(l)c..
-E
u_
.
e
.
.
e
.
e
e
e
.
e
e
.
e
.
.
.
e
.
e
e
.
.
.
.
e
e
.
e
e
.
e
3.0 Funding Source Options
An essential part of selecting an implementation strategy will be to identify how the Bluff
to Beach guideway system will be funded. This section will present several public and
private funding source options to be considered as part of the implementation strategy.
3.1 Public Revenue Sources
There are several potential existing and new public revenue sources that could be used to
finance all or part of the Bluff to Beach project. Many of these revenue resources have
been previously programmed for use.on other projects, and would require amendments to
the City's Capital Improvements Program to access. However, they are still discussed
here for reference. There are many other potential public sector funding pools, however
those presented in the following sections represent the most likely sources for a fixed
guideway transit facility.
3.1.1 Existing Revenue Sources
There are several existing potential revenue sources that could be used to assist in the
development of a Bluff to Beach guideway system, as discussed in the following
paragraphs.
3.1.1.1
Penny for Pinellas
The Penny for Pinellas is a 1 ft local option sales tax program administered by Pinellas
County. Income derived from this source can only be used to fund capital improvements.
No operations and maintenance activities may be funded out of this revenue stream. As
part of the program, the City receives approximately 8% of the total revenues generated,
which will equal approximately $80 million over the period from the Year 2000 to the
Year 2010.
3.1.1.2
Community Redevelopment Authority
The City has in place a Community Redevelopment Authority (CRA) that operates with
money generated through an ad valorem property tax. For the Clearwater CRA, a Tax
Increment Finance District (TIP) was established that fixed tax rates in 1981. The
increment in ad valorem taxes on increases in property values since that time form the
basis for the TIP funding.
The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan provides estimates on the increases in
taxable valuations and the resulting funding to be generated by these increases. The Plan
provides an estimate of almost $72 million in ad valorem taxes being generated in the
CRA district over a 30 year period from 2003-2033. These funds can be pledged as
collateral to repay revenue bonds issued by the CRA to implement projects identified in
its plan.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
18
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
e
.
.
e
.
e
e
e
e
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Implementation of a Bluff to Beach guideway system is not currently included in the
CRA plan. However, were it to be included, leveraging the CRA ad valorem revenues as
a funding source for local funding needs could represent a significant funding opportunity
for such a system.
3.1.1.3
Pinellas Mobility Initiative Federal Earmark
In 2005, the Pinellas MPO received an earmark of Federal funds for the Pinellas Mobility
Initiative in the amount of approximately $2.85 million. At present, a program of how to
use this money is being developed through the MPO and its planning partners. One
option being considered is to use a portion of this money to complete the PD&E study
necessary for the Bluff to Beach guideway project. Use of the earmarked funds for such
a purpose represents an opportunity for the City, in cooperation with the MPO, to
complete the PD&E for this segment, which would then potentially qualify the project for
additional state and federal funding assistance.
3.1.1.4
City General Fund
Like most local governments, the City's needs likely exceed its current general fund
revenue stream. However, the City operates with a $111 million annual budget.
Depending upon the implementation method selected, and the size of the City's required
local funding share, it might be possible for the City to allocate small amounts from its
general fund revenues over a finite period of time to help fund capital or operations and
maintenance costs for the system. Such allocation would represent a major policy action
on behalf of the City, and could help to instigate attracting funds from other state, federal,
and private sources.
3.1.2 Potential New Revenue Sources
There are several potential new revenue sources that could be used to assist in the
development of a Bluff to Beach guideway system, as discussed in the following
paragraphs. These sources are available by law, and in some cases would require
countywide referendum to enact. However, since they do not currently exist, these
sources have not been pledged to other projects, and could represent significant funding
opportunities.
3.1.2.1
New Penny for Pinellas
The current Penny for Pinellas expires in the Year 2010. If deemed desirable by the
County and the Cities, a new Penny for Pinellas program could be put forward to voters
to extend the program from 2011-2020. Funds for part or all of the Bluff to Beach
system could be included as a part of the package of improvements to be developed with
proceeds from the tax. Based upon previous Penny for Pinellas programs, this source
could be expected to generate $100 million or more per year on a countywide basis, with
the City's funding share to be determined through negotiation with the County. This
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
19
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
e
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
e
e
.
.
e
e
e
.
.
.
.
e
.
e
e
e
.
.
.
.
revenue resource in bondable, meaning that some annual portion of the proceeds could be
pledged to repay bonds used to build the system.
3.1.2.2
New Local Transit Sales Surtax
This revenue source is a 1 (/, local option sales tax available to counties in Florida who had
adopted Home Rule Charters prior to June 1, 1984, which qualified Pinellas County to
enact this tax. The tax can be enacted through a referendum having been called by a
supermajority vote of the County Commission. The proceeds from the tax can be used
for capital purpose and for operations or maintenance of a county transit system. Bylaw
provision, up to 25% of the proceeds can be used for non-transit items, such as roads,
trails, or other transportation improvements. The remaining 75% must be used for transit
expenditures, such as buses and guideway construction and operation.
The County's budget office estimates that this tax could generate at least $116 million per
year over a ten year period, for a lO-year total of nearly $1.2 billion. With this tax in
place, the minimum to be dedicated to transit uses would then be $900 million over the
ten year period, with the other $300 million being available for other transportation
improvements, including transit.
By law, this revenue resource is controlled by the County Commission, and there is no
revenue sharing requirement with local governments. However, if such a tax were
passed, it is likely that some of the proceeds would or could go towards the development
of the Bluff to Beach project.
Currently, there are no plans at the County level to call a referendum for this tax resource.
The City's participation on the MPO, however, will insure that the City is informed if
such a movement develops.
3.1.2.3
Gas Taxes
The County is currently authorized by state law to levy an additional 5(/, per gallon of
gasoline tax for sales within the County. This gas tax requires voter approval by
referendum, or by a supermajority vote of the County Commission. By law, these
additional taxes must be spent on capacity-adding transportation improvements contained
in the Capital Improvements Elements of the local government Comprehensive Plans.
The County must split this revenue with the municipalities, at approximately a 75/25
County/municipal split. If enacted, this tax would generate approximately $18 million
per year in additional revenues, with the County receiving about $13.5 million, and the
Cities splitting the remaining $4.5 million per year. Since the tax is not in place
currently, all of this money could be used to finance guideway transit development.
Additionally, bonds could be issued against this revenue stream in ten year increments to
generate significant capital monies for early use.
Similar to the above, the County is also currently authorized to levy a ninth cent local
option gas tax. This tax would need to be approved either by voter referendum or by a
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
20
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
supermajonty vote of the County Commission. It is estimated that this tax would
generate an additional $3.5 million per year, without a requirement for sharing with the
municipalities. Over a 20-year period, this tax could generate $70 million. This could
also be bonded against in order to raise capital for advanced improvements, or could be
utilized for recurring operating and maintenance expenses.
The County Commission discussed the option of implementing all or part of these gas tax
options through series of public workshops and forums. Initially, general support was
lacking, and consideration of this source was postponed. Currently, there is momentum
now building towards implementing the 9th cent only, with the tax to be used for signal
system upgrades and intelligent transportation system installations. If dedicated to these
uses, this one cent would not then be available for transit system uses.
3.1.2.4
Federal Transit Administration New Starts Program
The most significant potential new funding source possibility would be to obtain funds
through the Federal Transit Administration (FT A), as prescribed through its New Starts
Program. The New Starts program is the funding mechanism by which the FT A provides
capital grants to local transit systems. Accessing these funds requires completion of a
New Starts evaluation process. A chart of the required analysis elements under the New
Starts program is provided in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1
New Starts Analysis Process
Project Recommendation
Financial Rating
Project Justification
Rating
Minimum Project Development Requirements which must be met:
NEPA Process Approvals
Other
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
21
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
By law, non-federal share of capital costs is required to equal or exceed 20%. However,
competition for the New Starts funding pool has increased sharply, and it has become
practice for the non-federal share to be in the 40%-50% range. It is important to note that
non-federal matching funds can take many forms, including parking facilities, rights-of-
way donations, and cash contributions from local, state, and private sources.
In the recent passage of the new 6 year Transportation Bill, called SAFETEA-LU, a new
abbreviated New Starts program for smaller projects, called Small Starts, was authorized.
The Small Starts program was designed by Congress to streamline the analysis and
approval requirements for smaller projects fixed guideway and bus rapid transit projects.
It is anticipated that a reduced version of the New Starts analyses will be required to
make a project eligible for funding under the program. As a stand-alone project, the
Bluff to Beach project would qualify for the Small Starts funding program.
Under the Small Starts program, Ff A will fund up to $75 million of projects with
construction costs less than $250 million. This translates to only a 30% federal funding
share at the maximum project cost of $250 million. Rules and regulations under this new
program are currently being developed, however, and are expected to be released by FfA
in 2006.
Funding for the Small Starts program is anticipated to be available in Fiscal Year 2007,
which begins at the end of 2006. Since these rules this program are still being developed,
it is not yet known how much non-federal project cost will be required. However, it is
anticipated that due to limited resources in the program, the federal match will be in the
30%-50% range.
3.1.2.5
Ridership Revenues
A detailed analysis of ridership forecasts for the system is provided in section 5 of this
report. Ridership estimates have ranged from approximately 1,500 riders to 20,000 riders
per day, depending upon the methods used and the assumptions made related to
redevelopment levels. With these ridership levels, revenue from farebox recovery could
range from $720,000 per year to over $9,000,000 per year.
Later in this report, a break-even analysis is presented, which estimates the amount of
ridership required to fully cover annual operations and maintenance costs, contingent
upon other revenue sources as described in Section 5. The results of this analysis indicate
. that approximately 2,800 riders per day, with corresponding farebox revenue of
approximately $1,300,000, would be the break-even point for the system. Given that this
ridership and revenue is on the low end of the range defined above, this level seems
reasonable at this point. Further, more detailed analysis will likely result in revised
riders~p estimates.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
22
GrimailCrawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.2 Private Revenue Sources
Private revenue sources can take many forms. Some of the most common ones are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
3.2.1 Rights-of-Way Donations
One common private sector contribution opportunity is rights-of-way donations, most
typically for station locations. By assisting in the development of the system through
donation of the land required to build a station, a private sector interest can help to
influence the location of the station. In many cases, it is advantageous to have station
access immediately adjacent to or integrated within a major redevelopment project. In
order to get such immediate access, the City can work with developers to secure rights-
of-way for stations or parking facilities through donations.
3.2.2 Joint Parking Facilities
Another method of capital cost contribution by the private sector would be the
development of joint use parking facilities. In joint use development, a developer would
allow use of a project's parking areas or decks for transit system patrons, or would allow
the transit agency to share the cost of building a larger parking facility, with space
allocated accordingly between the developer and the station. Additionally, a
development project could allow peak time parking, such as holidays or weekends, in
their facilities to accommodate peak demands for the transit facility.
3.2.3 Direct Cash Contributions
Developers could also participate in the development of the facility through direct cash
contributions. If deemed appropriate by the City, such contributions could be used to
offset transportation impact fees.
3.2.4 Ride Subsidies
A potentially significant way to help offset operations and maintenance costs would be
for businesses to subsidize patron fares through a system similar to validation of a valet
check. A restaurant, for example, located in proximity to the station could stamp the
guideway fare receipt, and credit the amount of the ride towards the patron's restaurant
bill. Such a system would help to promote ridership, which would help to offset
operations and maintenance costs.
Another subsidized ride example would be for beach hotels to automatically include a
weekday, weekend, or weeklong ride pass in the price of lodging for guests. While this
option would only add a few dollars a day to the price of the lodging, it would provide a
tangible amenity to the guest, and would help to promote ridership on the system.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
23
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As automated fare collection systems advance, it may soon be possible even to have hotel
room keys be readable by fare collection equipment, so that ride fares are billed back to
guest rooms at hotels. In this way, the convenience of riding the system and having it
billed back to a guest room would help to promote ridership.
3.2.5 Merchandising and Advertising
Another way for the private sector to assist in deferral of system operations and
maintenance cost would be to stock and sell guideway system merchandise in their stores.
As part of the system development, logos, brands, and other marketing items will be
developed, and these brands and items will be marketing to the public for purchase either
directly through retail agreements with merchants. A portion of sales proceeds would go
directly to the agency or entity operating the system. Scale monorail models, train sets,
or other similar items can also be sold, with proceeds returned to the agency.
Another common method of private sector contributions is naming rights and advertising
fees. The Tampa Trolley system has sold naming rights for its system, and is officially
called the TECO Line Streetcar System. Each trolley station has a signature space
available for sale, from anywhere $40,000 to $100,000 annually, depending upon the
annual number of patrons accessing each station. In addition, there are interior
advertisement placards, exterior advertisement sign boards, bench advertisements, and
other advertising opportunities. Similar opportunities could be developed to help defray
annual operating and maintenance costs.
3.2.6 Joint Retail Development
Each station for the proposed guideway system is elevated. One station is located near
the marina at the beach, and the other one is located in downtown. There is an optional
intermediate station at Island Estates.
Each of these stations has a platform size of approximately 5,000 square feet in size.
Underneath the platform, we estimate that approximately 2,500 - 3,000 square feet of
convenience retail uses could be created. At a conservative rental rate of $20 per square
foot, each station could generate approximately $60,000 per year in rental rates, for a
total of $120,000 annually for two stations. In addition to the lower level space, another
space could be created above, for use as a restaurant, similar to the pier in downtown St.
Petersburg. Creation of this space, in addition to providing a neighborhood amenity,
could double the numbers above for lease space.
Development of these joint retail facilities above and below the stations serves several
important functions:
· Helps to generate ridership by providing a retail destination.. For example,
downtown residents could ride the guideway system to the beach to have dinner at
the station restaurant, and vice versa
· Helps to build ridership by orienting people to the station
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
24
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Provides neighborhood amenities to soften the potential intrusion of a guideway
station
. Provides increased merchandising opportunities
. Generates sales tax revenue
. Generates lease space recurring revenue for the guideway operating entity.
3.2.7 Private Sector Funding Opportunities Summary
Short of completely financing and building the system for profit, there are ample ways
for private sector interests, who have direct benefit from implementation of a Bluff to
Beach guideway system, to help fund its annual operations and maintenance cost. No
one method alone is likely to completely fund these costs, but the combination of several
methods could fund a substantial portion of these costs.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
25
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
e
e
e
e
.
.
e
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
e
e
e
e
.
4.0 Implementation Options Overview and Analysis
In previous studies evaluating the implementation of a guideway system in the Bluff to
Beach corridor, several 'general implementation options have been considered:
. implementation by the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority
. implementation by private sector interests, and
. implementation by local government interests.
This section will present an overview of these strategies, and will develop a third public-
private hybrid option. Later in the section, each of the options, and its suitability to this
project, are discussed.
4.1 Implementation Options Overview
The following paragraphs describe each of the options under review for implementation
of the Bluff to Beach guideway system.
4.1.1 Option 1 - Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PST A)
One option for consideration is to task the PST A with the PD&E, design, construction,
operations and maintenance, and funding of the Bluff to Beach guideway system. Before
evaluating this option, the following sections review the legal framework that created
PST A, followed by a summary of the option of tasking PST A with its implementation.
The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PST A) was created by special act of the Florida
Legislature (Chapter 2000-424, Florida Law). This act specified the PSTA's taxing
authority, jurisdictional boundaries, board membership, and rights and responsibilities as
the county's authorized transit system operator. '
Key areas of the act that pertain to the development of the Bluff to Beach project are
summarized in the following sections.
4.1.1.1
Definition of Public Transit
Public Transit is defined in the act as:
transportation for hire by means, without limitation, of a street railway, elevated
railway, subway, motor vehicle, bus, or other means of conveyance operating as a
common carrier within the public transit area as provided, and charter service
originating therein.
Under this definition, the proposed Bluff to Beach system would be an element of public
transit. This fact seems self-evident, but is important to remember when reviewing the
authorities granted to PST A by the act.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
26
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
.
.
e
e
.
e
e
e
e
.
e
.
e
e
.
.
.
.
.
4.1.1.2
Definition of Transit Operator under PST A Special Act
A transit 'operator's is defined as follows:
Any person engaged in or seeking to engage in the business of providing public
transit, but does not include persons engaged primarily in the transportation of
children to or from school, in operating taxicabs, buses, limousines, or other
means for the transportation of passengers between a common carrier terminal
station and a hotel or motel, in operating a common carrier railroad, or a person
furnishing transportation solely for his or her or its employees or customers.
Again, this definition is self-evident, but is important to the potential development of a
Bluff to Beach guideway system.
4.1.1.3
PSTA's Authority under Special Act
Under the act, PST A is granted specific authorities, as follows:
. .. to purchase, own, and/or operate transit facilities, to contract for transit
services, to exercise power of eminent domain, to conduct studies, and to contract
with other governmental agencies, private companies, and individuals.
Also,
To regulate other operators of public transit in the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Area
as to franchises, permits, fares, and other charges to establish rules and
regulations pertaining to these matters for distribution to the operators and public
transit facilities in said area.
4.1.1.4
Effect of PST A Special Act on Bluff to Beach Project Development
Public transit operations are the domain of PST A per the special act of the Florida
Legislature that created the authority. To the City, this means that development or
operation of a public transit facility between the downtown Clearwater and the Beach is
subject to regulation by PST A.
By law, PSTA is the only entity currently authorized to develop and construct transit
facilities. However, PST A is also authorized to execute franchise agreements to provide
such services. Therefore, if PST A itself is not to be the implementing agency, a franchise
agreement will need to be developed and executed with PST A to cover the details of the
system. A franchise agreement would cover, at a minimum, the following topics:
· Length of the franchise agreement - specify the length of time for which the
franchise agreement is valid; establish end dates, sunsetting provisions, or
franchise in perpetuity options.
· Financial obligations - specify the financial obligations that PST A and the
franchisee have unto each other, and for how long.
· Insurance and legal - specify the types and amounts of insurance to be provided;
the responsibilities of the parties; and the severability of the franchise agreement.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
27
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What actions can be taken to sever the agreement by either or both parties would
be identified.
· Project limits and future expansion - where exactly would the system be, and
what would be required of the franchisee to expand the system beyond the
identified limits.
· Ownership of transit facility assets - specify who owns the assets - now, in the
future, and at the expiration of the agreement.
· Funding sources - identify the sources of system capital, operations, and
maintenance funds.
· Operating parameters and limits - identify what ancillary, if any, services the
franchisee could operate, such as shuttle buses to major employers, hotels, etc.
· Other items as necessary - such as standards of care, royalties, if any, etc.
4.1.2 Option 2 - Private Sector Implementation Options
Private sector implementation options generally assume that a guideway system can be
designed and constructed with private sector funds, and can be operated for profit. In
this scenario, the system would be expected to recover its initial capital costs as well as
its annual operations and maintenance costs, while making a profit either on a year-by-
year basis, or over a longer term.
To accomplish a fully privatized system, a franchise agreement would need to be granted
by PST A. Then, a private entity could begin with the development of the system.
Since private developers do not hold the power of eminent domain, it is possible that
assistance would be required from the CRA or from the City to acquire necessary rights-
of-way to build the system. For right-of-way already under public control, use of the
rights-of-way by the private entity will need to be granted. The right-of-way will also
need to be certified free of encumbrances, environmental hazards, or contamination that
would render system development unreasonably costly.
There are many forms of a purely privatized system. Often, it is envisioned that an
investor group would form for the purposes of financing the system. It is also suggested
that developers will build the system as a part of redevelopment projects to offset impact
fees, to provide better access, or as a form of competitive amenity for their projects.
Full privatization will offer the least public cost, but also offer the least amount of public
control over design, location, aesthetics, operations, advertising and merchandising,
station design, and fare policies. An investor group with the resources to privately fund
and build the system would likely require final authority in most of these areas.
Employees of a private enterprise would be governed by Florida's at-will employment
laws. Employees would not be subject to pensions, public employee labor unions, or
other public sector employment benefits.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
28
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
e
e
.
.
.
.
e
.
e
.
.
e
.
e
.
.
e
e
e
e
.
.
e
.
4.1.3 Option 3 - Non-PSTA Public Sector Implementation Options
Another option to development of a system would be a public entity other than PST A to
take the lead in its development and implementation.
Until now, the MPO has been the lead agency through the overall PMI planning and
development phases. Consistent with the terms and conditions of the federal earmark, the
MPO may also maintain lead agency status through the PD&E phase. It is likely that, at
the completion of the PD&E phase, the MPO would cede control of the project to the
potential implementing agency or entity.
A public agency would require franchisee status from PST A as described previously.
Upon completion of the PD&E, the local government could then move forward into
design and implementation.
There are several different routes that a public agency could follow in the implementation
phase. They could treat each phase of the project separately, with in-house staff acting
overall project management staff, design review staff, financing staff, and legal staff.
Any of these functions could also be contracted out to private firms.
Upon completion of construction, the public agency would require the development of a
transit operations and maintenance capability. Most likely, this function would be
developed as a new Department under Public Works or under the City Manager. Collier
County, for example, operates transit services as a Departmental function under County
government. We are not aware of any city-owned transit services in Florida.
Transit operations and maintenance capabilities could be developed in-house, contracted
out to other public agencies, or contracted out to private entities. In the Metropolitan
Atlanta area, the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRT A) operates a
commuter bus system in Clayton County, and contracts out the maintenance and
operations functions to the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). In
this way, GRTA did not have to hire and develop operational and maintenance capability
from scratch. It is able to contract these capabilities through an already capable local
public organization. Similarly, the TECO Line Streetcar contracts its operations and
maintenance functions to the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART). A
similar situation could be developed locally for the Bluff to Beach system with. PST A or
other providers.
4.1.4 Option 4 - Public-Private Partnership Option
The last implementation option considered in this report would involve the development
of a public-private partnership. This partnership would borrow from, but would not be
exactly like, similar ventures implemented in Las Vegas for its monorail system, and in
Tampa for the Streetcar system. The details of how this option could be develop follow.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
29
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The first step in this process would be to create a non-profit, private company would be
created. The Board of Directors for this company could be appointed as agreed upon
under the franchise agreement; could be appointed by the City Council; or its
membership could be prescribed in its articles of incorporation. The Board of Directors
could be passive or active, exercising more or less direct control of the operation. It
would be preferable for the Board to be established as a policy making body, with direct
management and operations of the system under the direction of the President of the
company. Creation of this operating company as a non-profit is important because it
creates a tax -exempt status. This status is critical so that public funding and grants are
not taxed as income to the company.
The next step in this process would be to secure a franchise agreement from PST A as
previously described.
After the franchise agreement is placed, funding would be secured. After funding is
secured, then a design-build contract would likely be executed with a design-build team.
An operations and maintenance contract would also likely be executed with a private
provider, to avoid employment issues. That way, the non-profit organization stays lean in
terms of overhead and personnel.
Key to his structure is the fact that the operating company is a non-profit. There are a
couple of items for consideration implicit in this scenario:
. Obviously, the company will not be operating on a for-profit basis.
. Commitments as to shortfalls in operations and maintenance costs will need to be
pledged, as the operating company is not likely to have large cash surpluses due
to its structure.
. If operating profits are realized, a method for returning those profits will need to
be developed. Options for this return could include returning them back to
patrons in the form of reduced fares or 'fare free customer appreciation' types of
events; returning them to the capital partners in proportion to the amount of
capital funding supplied to the project; sponsorship of community events, like the
Jazz Festival; returning them to the agency who guarantees to cover shortfalls;
others as developed as a part of the franchise agreement.
4.2 Implementation Options Analysis
Each of the options described above has potential advantages and disadvantages to the
City in terms of its development of the Bluff to Beach guideway project. This section
will address these. Recommendations as to the implementation option that best fits the
City at this point in time follow in Section 4.3
4.2.1 Option 1 - PST A
The Board of Directors of PSTA has not been directly approached about becoming the
owner and developer of the Bluff to Beach guideway system. However, PST A has been
very involved in the development of the Pinellas Mobility Initiative (PMI) over the past
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
30
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
few years, and should be aware that the Bluff to Beach segment is being considered as a
first stage implementation of the overall system.
To date, the PST A Board has shown little or no interest in the development,
ownership, or operation of fixed guideway transit facilities anywhere in Pinellas
County. Over the past few years, PSTA's emphasis has been on efficiently managing
and operating the existing bus network within the county, and on developing premium
bus rapid transit services. Fixed guideway transit services are generally viewed by the
Board as a long-term option, with little immediate relevance to their mission.
Due to PSTA's disinterest in owning and developing a system such as the Bluff to Beach
system, it is recommended that PST A not be pursued as the implementing agency.
Rather, a franchise agreement should be pursued with PST A to allow the design,
construction, and operation of the Bluff to Beach system under one of the other operating
scenarios.
4.2.2 Option 2 - Private Sector Implementation Options
Private sector implementation options are always favored due to the potential for
significant private sector contributions to public sector infrastructure projects. In the case
of the Bluff to Beach project, however, it is difficult to see where the private sector could
earn a substantial return in reward for its substantial investment.
Table 4-2 presents an analysis of the costs and potential revenue sources that could be
expected to contribute to the capital and operations and maintenance costs for the project.
By comparing the amount of total cost outlays to the anticipated non-ridership related
revenues, it can be seen that there is a shortfall in the amount of approximately $9 million
per year over a 10 year period, and $7 million per year over a 20 year period. To recover
this revenue shortfall over a 10 year period would require approximately 19,400 one-way
trips per day. To recover it over a 20 year period would require approximately 14,200
riders per day. These numbers are reported in Table 4-1.
By comparison, the ridership projections developed for this segment under the PMI
program are in the range of 2,000 riders per day, and the Las Vegas Monorail system
along the Las Vegas strip is averaging approximately 30,000 riders per day over its four
mile length.
Given the high amount of ridership required to recover revenue shortfalls, it is unlikely at
this time that a private sector investment group would fully fund capital costs in addition
to ongoing operations and maintenance costs.
4.2.3 Option 3 - Non-PST A Public Sector Implementation
This Bluff to Beach system could be successfully implemented by a non-PST A local
government entity such as Pinellas County or the City of Clearwater. However, doing so
would require the development of operations and maintenance staff, sales and marketing
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
31
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 4-1
Option 2 - Private Sector Implementation Summary
Item
Recovery Period
10 years 20 years
Estimated Cost
System Costs
Guideway Structure and Civil Works
Stations, Parking, and Landscaping
Mobilization, Contingencies, Other
Total System Costs
Annual Debt Service @ 6%
Capital Cost Recovery
$30,054,500
$3,780,000
$15,902,200
$49,736,700
$2,984,202
$4,973,670
$2,486,835
Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
$1,900,000
Total Annual Costs
$9,857,872
$7,371,037
Annual Revenues
Ridership required to recover shortfalls
Number of riders per day
Fare charge per ride
Discount % (to account for passes and
discounts)
Ridership revenue (daily)
Annualized ridership revenue
19,400 14,200
$2.00 $2.00
20% 20%
$31,040 $22,720
$9,312,000 $6,816,000
$120,000
$120,000
$60,000
$150,000
$108,000
$9,870,000 $7,374,000
$12,128 $2,963
Lease space
Retail under stations - 2 @ 3,000 sf @$20/sf
Retail over stations - 2 @ 3,000 sf @$20/sf
Merchandising and Naming Rights
Merchandising
Station Naming Rights - 2 @ $75,000 each
General Advertisements
30 placards @ $300/month
Total Annual Revenues
Revenues minus cost
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
32
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
staff, and would require hiring a Fixed Guideway Transit Department Head. The basic
difference between this option and Option 4 is that the City or operating entity would
need to create some in-house positions to provide oversight and management of the
system. This implementation scenario could be viable.
4.2.4 Option 4 - Public-Private Partnership Option
This implementation scenario would take some work to accomplish, but in the long run,
could consume the least amount of City staff time and effort.
A key assumption in this implementation option is that a combination of private, local,
state, and federal funds would be utilized to pay all of the capital costs associated with
system implementation. If this occurs, then the system need only recover ongoing
operations and maintenance costs to have a net zero impact of the deficit guarantor.
Since this project is wholly contained within the City, it is presumed that the City would
be the deficit guarantor for the project. Conversely, should the system turn a profit, the
City could be the beneficiary of such to repay past deficits or to reward the risk
associated with the deficit guarantee.
Under the scenario where capital costs are not required to be recovered, the system then
needs to only recover its annual operations and maintenance costs of approximately $1.9
million per year. With non-ridership revenues estimated to be a little more than $0.5
million per year, the system would then need to recover approximately $1.4 million each
year through ridership. This level of revenue generation equates to approximately 2,800
riders per day, which compares favorably, and is slightly more than, the ridership
predicted through the PMI modeling process. These numbers are reported in Table 4'-2.
To accomplish this implementation scenario, the following steps would need to be taken:
· First, incorporate a non-profit corporation and establish its articles of
incorporation. This could be completed by City staff, by a willing private sector
partner, or the City could contract it out.
. Second, secure a franchise agreement from PST A.
. Next, secure final funding sources.
· Next, establish a Board of Directors. This Board could be made up of key staff
from the design-build team, elected officials, community leaders, or some
combination thereof.
· Next, hire a President of the company, and authorize them to enter into design-
build and operations and maintenance contracts.
· Hire a design-build project team, and implement the system.
· Operations and maintenance forces could be in-house or could be contract
employees.
Figure 4-1 illustrates how this public-private partnership could be structured, and the
responsibilities of each entity.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
33
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This option is a viable option in addition to Option 3. The main difference between the
two is whether the City (or County or other implementing agency) would want to build
an internal transit operations department. If the internal department is desired, then
Option 3 would be preferred. If not, then Option 4 would be preferred.
Implementation using Option 4 would provide better separation from the other internal
implementing agency staff, and would provide for greater flexibility in personnel
decisions and procedures.
For the above reasons, Option 4 is the recommended option.
For the recommended Option 4 to be successful, it is necessary to develop a partnership
with the MPO, the County, and PST A to complete the PD&E study, secure operating
agreements, and to secure capital funding sources. Therefore, the most immediate task to
be accomplished in this recommendation is to solidify this working relationship, and then
to begin jointly pursuing the funds to completed the PD&E study. Cooperation between
these agencies will be essential in moving this project forward to implementation.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
34
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cl.
:a
fI.l
'"
~
=
-
'"
=
~
~
-
=
....
.....
'"
~
.
CJ
.....
-
.c
~~
~ '"
~r.S
= ~
.~ '"
~.E!
CJ
2
-
00.
~
=
.....
-
e
~
Cl.
o
~
'a
5
=
00.
~
=
..
Co!
CIl
'"
S
...
=
-=
'"
=
=
==
-
..c
.~
'"
....
Cl)
..
o
'"
Cl)
"0
'S:
8
0.
;>.
.~
'0
0.
'"
-
Cl)
IZl
~
en
Cl)
'u Q.)
~ ~ Cl)
~ e ~
] g '8,
'Uu 8
~'O g;
<<:I.... <<:I
E] ~
..g~<tl
..c~..c
~uuo
Cl)
= I I I
'0
0.
0. ;>,
<<:I < c
..... Eo-< ;>, ;::l
o 1Zl.<;::: 0
ZJ~uu
.~
CJ) I I I
=
o
U
~
=
=
S'
=
u
~
=
-.c
e
CIl
Cl.
o
..
a=
=
'"
=-
.
=
=
z
E
. E =
~ B CIl
.9 ~ Eo-<
e~ ~
Cl) 0 ;
go ~ =
>..- ~
<<:I Q) =
'9..lol: .;
.9 a,-:.?1
>.E -=
<<:1"0 =
~ a =
:S.~ ~
.. .... -.c
o ;::l =
"'.... U '"
- Cl) CIl
'" Cl.
o
r!'1
.9
<- "0
Eo-< g Cl)
IZl tl 'U
~ ~ ~
-So "c;j
.~ ~ "0
c<B a
e ~ ~
Cl);::l 0
Cl) ~ t:l:l
~~ .9
~ "0 .Q
:.E = ";j
u~ U
~~g]
(/) b.O'';::: Q.)
B '" <<:I 0.
<<:I Cl) tl '" ~
'':: .. 0. t:: .-
o 'Q) 0 0 g
bIl U "0 0. Cl)
z~a~~
.. .
/
E
=
CIl
Eo-;
~
.5
..
J
'"
=
:.?1
-=
=
=
~
-;
CI.l
....
..... B ~
.~ ~ 6 ~
..... C1.) '';: "0
6 ~ ~ B
._ .. Cl) U
E'c ~ ~
'" o.bIlc
bIl "0 Cl) 0
C C ;::l U
.- <<:I C ....
~oiJCl)O
Cl) C .. Cl)
:: 'C;; ~ :g
<B~-g]
,.S:! a <<:I C:
.J:J ..c ..c ,_
.~ ~ u Q.)
CCl)~.J:J
oEtl"O
0. . ;::l "3
~ ~ 0 0
!:l::~ U
'-
/
..... 1t:
o <<:I
]fr .;
<<:I J;! Cl)
'" 0. -
6;::l ~
.~ -g E
.... <<:I 0
&;>.E~
o.~ B 0
.... !:l '" Cl)
<B U ;>, '"
,.S:! ~ '" g
:9.u -9
~ g .S
o <<:I
o.c
'" Cl)
~.5
<<:I
E
'-
r
E
a1
Eo-;
:s
.S
==
=
.~
<Il
CIl
Q
. bIl.....
cc.....
0,- <<:I
'';:: t;; t;;
gB"O
tl "0 B
'" c U
C <<:I <<:I
o . tl
U c c
. Cl) 0
Sb E ~
'Vi Cl) 0
Cl) bIl Cl)
"0 ~ '"
.... <<:I ;::l
<BE]
~ c C:
.J:J 0,-
.- '';:: Q.)
"'U.J:J
62"0
0.--
'" '" ;::l
Cl) c 0
!:l::8u
\.
E
CIl
..
<Il
~
<Il
Cl.
:a
~
CIl
-=
'C CIl
. =
= =
= CIl
= ..
Cl.t
=
'il
..
CIl
-=
=
..
<Il
Cl.
'il
=
Cl)
.J:J
"0
"3
o
u
~
=
'c
=
e
E
CIl
..
<Il
~
<Il
<Il
Cl.
CIl
CIl
~
CIl
<Il
;:J
'"
oS
~
1
CIl
~
E
CIl
..
<Il
~
CI.l
~
CIl
.::
'il
Q
~
,
..J
'\
..J
Q.)
..
'Q)
u
~
a
2
Vl
>-.
Vl
rIl
~
....
....
....
-
:s
....
rIl
C
~
rIl
~
t
c
~
-<
~
....
:c
=
C-i
'"
-
:E
t::
o
..s::: Q.)
Vl 0
-g a
.E e
'-' a 0..
Vl ~ 0
Q.) 2.....
Q.) ..... 0..
a ~ Q)
: .~.c
~ o.
Sn .... Vl
0..0..
o .-
Q.) .....-5]
u ~ ~
~ ~ c
~ ~ 'g
'= 80..
.~ Q.) 0I.l
s::; C c::
......... rJj ;;
~ ~ c::
.9 .~ .E
'ii:i t:: Q.)
1-0 Q.)-
8. 0.. :9
o ~ ~ .~
Q.) Cd 8. ~ .....
:g ~ u OI.l'u u2
.. .- c:: c::
o ..E'- Q.) t;;
aU u] 0I.lC::
.Q.)2-<R
>-...s::: u..... '"
u ..... Q.) c:: C 0I.l
c:: Vl "'0'- Q.) c::
Q.) ~';> d' S '0
OI.ll-oooo..;::l
~ 0 I-o';:l 0-0
u >-. 0..._ _ .....
;.:::::..... ....2Q.)...c
.0'- >-. .. 0I.l
;::l U c..... Q.)._
o..Q.)[.8Q~
"g-5a~a~
Q.) Vl 0 s::; Vl 0
- ~ u 0'0 .....
Vl 1-0 Vl U ;::l U
~] c::..... o.~
..... .<:::.9 ~ E-< e
~ Q.) 'ii:i '0' "'0 0..
~~&a~]
~VlOo..c::~
~Vloa3~OI.l
Q.)........cs::;c::
o u..... ",,_
J, Q.) c:: 0 0--0
..... c:: Q.)..... _ c
-::"...... d >-. Q.) ,;::S
'\AJ'~ ,:::; ~ >-
'0 '" ~ i:J Q.) Cd
Q.) ~ 6h.c 0 .<:::
:g ~ ~.<:::.g ~
~ 0 Q.) ~ t:: U
1-0 o..,~..I<i 0 Q.)
0.. ..... .c 1-0 c:: "'0
I ~ g ~ 0';>
...C::~;>~O
.2:l '8 <l:: I Vl a
eu Q.) Q.) ;;.... 0t~ "'O....c >-......
... ~.- '= 0..
~;::l~gsa3
U ~ au u 1
eo... ~ I ~...cEo-<
=..s<= ~o
.e- fr Eo-< ~ 0
.... ;::l rI:J ::'" ...cl-o Q
UVl=-~.....~
.
. .
LCl
('1)0
c:
"E
o
~
!!!
o
'1ij
E
'I::
C)
.
I::
al
ii:
c:
o
~
>.0
alE
:s: (])
~:i:
'513
C)(])
.s:::1-
~f/l
(]) g
aJ':.;::;
oc.
-0
ll=1::
.:!o
[O:;:::l
~.l!l
(])c:
~(])
~E
al~
(])c.
-E
0-
.
e
e
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
e
e
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
e
e
.
e
e
e
.
.
.
.
Table 4-2
Option 4 - Public - Private Implementation Summary
Item
Recovery Period
Estimated Cost 10 years 20 years
System Costs
Guideway Structure and Civil Works
Stations, Parking, and Landscaping
Mobilization, Contingencies, Other
Total System Costs
$30,054,500
$3,780,000
$15,902,200
$49,736,700
Right-of-Way Donations
Capital Cost Contributions
$1,500,000
$48,236,700
Annual Debt Service @ 6%
Capital Cost Recovery
$0
$0
$0
Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
$1,900,000
Total Annual Costs
$1,900,000
$1,900,000
Annual Revenues
Ridership required to recover shortfalls
Number of riders per day
Fare charge per ride
Discount % (to account for passes and discounts)
Ridership revenue (daily)
Annualized ridership revenue
2,800
$2.00
20%
$4,480
$1,344,000
2,800
$2.00
20%
$4,480
$1,344,000
Lease space
Retail under stations - 2 @ 3,000 sf @$20/sf
Retail over stations - 2 @ 3,000 sf @$20/sf
Merchandising and Naming Rights
Merchandising
Station Naming Rights - 2 @ $75,000 each
General Advertisements
30 placards @ $300/month
$120,000
$120,000
$60,000
$150,000
$108,000
Total Annual Revenues
$1,902,000
$1,902,000
Revenues minus cost
$2,000
$2,000
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
36
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
.
.
.
Table 4-3
Implementation Options Summary
Implementation Option Comments Ratin~
1 - PST A Implement PST A Board has not shown interest in fixed Less
guideway implementation, having chosen to favorable
focus on bus rapid transit initiatives instead
2 - Private Sector Ridership is not likely to support recoup of Less
capital imorovement costs favorable
3 - Public Sector (non-PST A) Potential viable - required creation of internal Favorable
transit ooerations department
4 - Public-Private Partnership Viable - reqUires creation of non-profit Most
company to execute design, build and operate favorable
contracts
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
37
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
e
e
e
e
.
e
e
e
.
.
e
e
.
.
e
e
e
.
e
e
e
e
e
.
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
.
5.0 Feasibility Analysis
The definition of Feasibility for transit systems varies widely. Often, feasibility is biased
either for or against transit, depending upon the perspective of the entity or person
performing the analysis. However, there are common elements of such an analysis that
used to develop these interpretations. Such elements include:
. How many people will ride the system?
· How much of the system operations and maintenance cost can be recovered
through fare-related revenues?
· What other sources of funding are available to assist with operations and
maintenance, and how stable are they?
· How much of the capital cost can be recovered through total system revenues, and
over what period of time can they be recovered?
· Is provision of alternative transportation modes a key goal in the development of
the system?
· Are there economic development goals or interests that compel investments in
public transit?
· What sorts of development may be induced by the provision of higher transit
services, and how much general tax revenue would that development generate?
· Does the project relieve automobile-related traffic congestion?
Generally, all analyses include some estimates of ridership, capital costs, operations and
maintenance costs, and recurring revenue generation. All of these main items have been
addressed in this report.
Within the context of this study, it was not possible to develop complete analyses for
each of the items described above. However, information has been developed that can
lead towards an assessment of whether it is feasible to pursue development of a Bluff-to-
Beach Guideway System. These elements, and a summary of a general feasibility
assessment, are provided in the following sections.
5.1 Ridership Analysis
As has been discussed, there have been varying ridership forecasts developed for this
guideway segment. A previous study, authored by Wade-Trim and Jakes & Associates,
estimated ridership of nearly 20,000 riders per day for the system. This estimate was
developed by evaluating the near-term development potential in Downtown and on
Clearwater Beach, estimating total person trips generated by this development, applying a
mode-split assumption to the trips (% of transit ridership vs. auto ridership), then
summing the total trips across all of the developments to arrive at a total aggregate
ridership estimate for the system. This analysis was thoughtful and well-prepared, but
used a technique that is normally outside the scope of what the Federal Transit
Administration (FT A) allows. In addition, this analysis presented a very micro-level
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
38
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
analysis of the Downtown Clearwater area, but did not incorporate macro-level
behavioral analysis of Tampa Bay area residents in general.
Another ridership estimate was developed for the Pinellas Mobility Initiative (PMI)
program, which involved use of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM).
The TBRPM is the tool that is most widely accepted by Ff A for use in ridership
forecasting. Using this tool, ridership was estimated at approximately 1,300 riders per
day.
Though the TBRPM is the accepted regional forecasting tool, there are problems inherent
in its use for a project like the Bluff-to-Beach Guideway system. First and foremost, the
model is a regional forecasting tool, designed for estimating automobile trips on a
regional basis related to road and highway improvements. The TBRPM includes land use
and traffic pattern history data for the following counties:
. Pinellas County
. , Hillsborough County
. Pasco County
. Hernando County
. Citrus County
A tool such as TBRPM is useful in evaluating large-scale transportation improvements.
However, as a macro-level tool, it is misapplied to micro-level projects. Implementation
of a Bluff-to-Beach Guideway System is a micro-level improvement in the context of the
regional modeling and forecasting tool.
Differing forecasting methods have resulted in widely varying ridership estimates thus far
for this project. The methods developed previously utilized very micro-level or very
macro-level tools to develop ridership estimates, which explains the wide variation in the
results.
It is likely that the actual ridership estimate for this Bluff-to-Beach system would lie
somewhere in the range of estimates developed using the methods described above. To
develop ridership forecasts, more work needs to be accomplished to develop an
intermediate forecasting process to solidify the framework. It is expected that such an
analysis framework would be a key component of the PD&E level analysis that would be
completed as part of the Next Steps for this project.
5.2 Feasibility Summary
Since development of a forecasting procedure was beyond the scope of this report, a
different view was taken, which was to answer the question:
· How many daily riders are needed on the system to break even on operations and
maintenance costs?
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
39
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The answers to this question can be found in Table 4-2. Assuming a fare of $2 each way;
current PST A percentages of reduced and free rides; and minimal revenue generation
from non-ridership means, it is estimated that ridership of approximately 2,800 people
per day will provide enough fare box revenue to offset annual operations and
maintenance costs. Given the intensity of development underway on the Beach and in
Downtown, the limited availability of parking on the Beach, the tourist nature of the
setting in which the Guideway would operate, and the conservative estimates of non-fare
revenue, it seems reasonable that ridership at these levels could be achieved by the
system.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
40
Grimail Crawford, Inc.
e
e
e
.
e
e
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
6.0 Recommendations
Implementation of the Bluff to Beach guideway represents a milestone opportunity in the
evolution of downtown Clearwater and its beach. When previous studies were
conducted, much of the redevelopment activity now taking place on both the beach and in
the downtown was not quite underway. With the momentum now being experienced, the
timing may be right for the City to carefully consider this option, and to incorporate the
guideway into its strategic planning processes.
Based upon the foregoing analyses, the following recommendations are made.
1. Continue to work through the MPO to complete the PD&E study effort on this
segment with the federal earmarked money. Completing this process will qualify
the project for state and federal money that can be used for construction and
implementation.
2. Incorporate the system into the downtown CRA's Downtown Master Plan and
planning processes. So doing will qualify at least some portions of the project,
such as a parking deck adjacent to the downtown station, for TIP financing. This
could also allow the CRA to assist in right-of-way acquisition for station sites,
should they require opportunity purchases or eminent domain proceedings.
3. Begin discussions with the major redevelopment interests in downtown and on the
beach to gage their potential involvement in the project.
4. Begin working with PST A on the framework for a franchise agreement to an
operator to complete and to operate the project. The City would take the lead in
the development of the agreement, and in other matters related to project
development.
5. Begin the process of decision making related to Implementation Option 4. This
would include the development of the legal framework necessary for
incorporating a non-profit company to design, build, and operate the system,
working the PST A as described above, and working with the County and FDOT
related to funding considerations.
It should be noted that the PD&E study would provide more recent and updated cost and
ridership estimates. As these estimates are developed, and as items in the list above
begin to occur, these recommendations can be revisited to insure that this path towards
implementation is still viable.
Clearwater Bluff to Beach Guideway Action Plan
Implementation Options Tech Memo
41
Grimail Crawford, Inc.