A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings are broadcast live on Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T U- verse, channel 99. Meetings are also streamed live in high definition (HD) on the city's webpage, glendaleca.gov/live , on YouTube.com/myglendale , and on Apple TV, Roku, and Amazon Fire devices using a free app called Screenweave and choosing “Glendale TV” from the menu. Meetings are also archived on the City Website for viewing anytime at glendaleca.gov/agendas . Call (818) 548-4013 for program schedules. DVDs of the proceedings are available for purchase in the City Clerk's Office.
For public comments and questions during the meeting, call (818) 937-8100. Public comments on a specific agenda item will be taken when that agenda item is discussed. If you have any question about matters on the agenda, or requests for assistance, please contact the City Clerk at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.
PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, auxiliary hearing aids, sign language translation, and Braille transcripts are available upon request. Assisted listening devices are available same-day upon request. At least 48 hours (or two business days) notice is required for requests regarding sign language translation and Braille transcription services. All documents related to open session items on this agenda that are received less than 72 hours prior to this meeting, and are public records, will be available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.
Translation services are provided for meetings through the use of bilingual staff for speakers who wish to utilize the service as available. Speakers should state their request by contacting the City Clerk’s office at (818) 548-2090, at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please specify the language for which you require translation. The exclusive use of City provided interpreters is not required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language.
JUNE 7, 2022
ROLL CALL
- 3:00 PM
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, June 7, 2022 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on June 1, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.
1 TYPED 6/1/2022 2:17:24 PM
06 07 22
SP CC
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, June 7, 2022 , in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor , Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;
1. Community Development, re: Three-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan a. Resolution to adopt and file the City of Glendale’s Three Year Economic Development Strategic Plan (2022 – 2025)
2. Community Development, re: Streetcar Feasibility Final Report a. Motion to Note and File Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study Final Report b. Motion Providing Direction Regarding Next Steps To Advance Streetcar Feasibility Study
ADJOURNMENT
2 TYPED 6/1/2022 2:17:24 PM
06 07 22
SP CC
1 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Three-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan
1. Resolution to adopt and file the City of Glendale’s Three Year Economic Development Strategic Plan (2022 – 2025)
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for June 7, 2022 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Economic Development staff has developed a Three-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan (“Plan”)(Exhibit “1”) which will serve as a roadmap for building upon the city’s strengths and leveraging partnerships and local assets to address business challenges and enhance economic opportunities throughout Glendale. The Plan is intended to support the growth and diversity of local and new businesses and to ensure a vibrant, equitable, and sustainable future. To determine the efficacy of the Plan, measurable goals and key performance indicators were identified. The Council will be provided with annual updates on the Plan which is intended to be adjusted annually as business and market conditions change; the Plan will be fully re-evaluated every three years.
Since 2020 staff has collaborated with the COVID Business Recovery Taskforce (“Taskforce”) and other business partners. The Taskforce is comprised of multiple community stakeholders from various industries and background. This collaboration resulting in meaningful conversation and which spurred innovative ideas, proposed action plans, and identification of focus areas and opportunities to ensure a sustainable and long-term healthy economy in Glendale. In February 2022 Staff presented an economic development status report to the City Council which contained economic development findings and recommendations, and included a business and economic analysis of the city, best practices from other municipalities as well as feedback and recommendations provided by the Taskforce. The Council provided feedback on priorities and initiatives which, along with the Taskforce recommendation, are integrated into the Plan presented to the Council for adoption.
3 of 234
2 1
3 2
8 9
COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Economic Vibrancy: The Three-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan contains strategic goals and implementation strategies to ensure an inclusive, vibrant, and sustainable economy for years to come.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt and file the Three-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan (2022 – 2025).
BACKGROUND
Over the past two years, Economic Development staff’s collaboration with the Taskforce has been instrumental in making a collective impact in the business community. The Taskforce was originally formed in May of 2020 to assist with business support and recovery efforts during the pandemic, and staff has continued to collaborate and nurture these partnerships to identify key findings, areas of focus and opportunity as well as recommendations that will help guide the development of an effective Economic Development Strategic Plan. Staff conducted a series of taskforce and focused meetings to create this framework.
On February 8, 2022, staff presented key findings and recommendations and sought City Council’s input on additional considerations to include as part of the Plan. City Council subsequently approved an action item to note and file the report on the Draft Plan and provided feedback on priorities and initiatives.
Following the Council presentation, staff has facilitated multiple stakeholder meetings to further refine priorities and implementation strategies to achieve the development of a robust Plan. The stakeholders that participated in the discussions are as follows:
Americana at Brand Brand Blvd. of Cars Cerrell
Cushman &
Wakefield
Employers Group Glendale Community
College / PDC
Glen Arden Glendale Chamber of
Commerce
Glendale Galleria
Glendale YWCA Greater Downtown
Glendale Association
Hero House Glendale
Hyatt Hotel Keck USC Verdugo
Hills
Kenneth Village
Montrose Shopping
Park Association
Montrose Verdugo
Chamber
New City America –
GDGA
Valley Economic
Alliance
Verdugo Workforce
Investment Board
4 of 234
3 1
3 2
8 9
There were four (4) major areas identified as greatest opportunity such as: 1) Brand Identity, 2) Business Culture, 3) Innovation Ecosystem and 4) Entertainment and Lifestyle. These components were the catalyst in developing the strategic goals and objectives in the Plan.
The Plan includes consolidated background information in conjunction with primary goals and implementation strategies to strengthen and develop the city’s economic ecosystem to support a growing, equitable, and healthy economy. The Taskforce also revisited discussions and reinforced the need for the Plan to include measurable goals leading to the identification of several quantifiable metrics to determine the efficacy of the Plan.
The Three-Year Plan is intended to be flexible, allowing for new or modified strategies to be integrated as business and market conditions evolve. It will be adjusted annually, as needed, and re-evaluated every three years, through annual updates to City Council.
The primary goals and objectives of the Plan proposes the following:
Objective 1 (Brand Identity): Strengthen brand Identity and enhance awareness of Glendale on a local, national, and global scale.
Some of the major implementation strategies to achieve the brand identity objective is as follows:
Feature business successes, new openings and entrepreneurs on a monthly basis oSmall Business Month, Entrepreneurship Month, International Trade Month, etc.
Strengthen Regional Marketing Collaborations
oUpstart Valley Initiative – Collaboration with the city of Burbank to establish a brand identity and marketing strategy to represent joint assets, resources and opportunities to position the region as an innovation hub oTech Valley Development Strategy – Collaboration with the Valley Economic Alliance, economic development peers and members to position the Valley region as an innovation and tech hub
Enhance travel and tourism visibility on Economic Development’s website and develop a theme that resonates with visitors (Destination Glendale / Discover Glendale)
Objective 2 (Business Culture): Develop a business-friendly ecosystem that supports business attraction, retention and expansion efforts to ensure a diverse, equitable, inclusive, and resilient economy.
Some of the major implementation strategies to achieve the business culture objective is as follows:
Develop a business attraction plan focused on priority industry sectors that provide substantial economic impacts and value to the community oTech & Entrepreneurship (Bio-technology, medical technology, gaming, IT 5 of 234
4 1
3 2
8 9
and cybersecurity)
oRetail & Restaurants (Breweries, lounges and new/emerging concepts) oArts, Culture & Entertainment (Comedy club, family-friendly amenities, etc.) Develop a strategic foreign direct investment plan to attract investment and assist local companies to expand its market share and presence oExplore city-led outbound trade mission
oEstablish strong connections with Consulate Generals and domestic business partners to facilitate trade and relations between the city and targeted countries of greatest opportunity
Broker lunch presentations to build strategic and strong relationships to be at the forefront of new business leads, trends, challenges and opportunities Seek inclusiveness and form partnerships, programs and strategies that create opportunities for all businesses with a targeted approach on small businesses such as minority-owned, women-owned and other underserved and unrepresented groups
Monthly/Quarterly certificate and recognition for businesses/projects
Objective 3 (Innovation Ecosystem): Grow the innovation and tech industry sector to attract and retain talent and support the growth and success of entrepreneurs.
Some of the major implementation strategies to achieve the innovation ecosystem objective is as follows:
Support and expand the high-tech business community and create niche markets for further support and programming
oTarget industries of highest potential such as biotechnology, medical technology, gaming, IT and cybersecurity
Tech Tour Program – Strengthen partnership with Hero House to engage with local and nearby education institutions/colleges to tour students at accelerators and co- working spaces and share information on city business resources to attract, retain and motivate talent
Provide letters of support to businesses/education partners seeking grant funding to develop training, innovation and entrepreneurship programs Implement and/or partner to establish an online tool that connects resources available to small business owners and entrepreneurs
Objective 4 (Entertainment & Lifestyle): Grow the arts, culture, and entertainment sector to position Glendale as a destination city.
Some of the major implementation strategies to achieve the entertainment and lifestyle objective is as follows:
Continue collaboration with Library, Arts & Culture to expand the Storefront Art Program to utilize vacant retail units to showcase an array of art forms Launch VIP / Day Pass Pilot Program in Downtown & Montrose to offer perks such as:
6 of 234
5 1
3 2
8 9
oFree custom carwash at Americana
oFree valet parking pass at Americana
oFree transit/beeline pass
oDiscounts from local restaurants and shops
Partner with local hotels to market VIP card and local destinations Explore development of a scavenger hunt program with Library, Arts & Culture that encourages locals and tourists to visit iconic places, restaurants, cultural venues among other destinations along the BEE-line or throughout the city with an incentive to receive a free city-branded promo item or other prizes upon completion of the scavenger hunt
Explore the feasibility of a Tourism Marketing/Business Improvement District with local hotels and stakeholders
To monitor and measure progress of the Plan, the following are key performance indicators (KPIs) that will be utilized by the Economic Development division:
1. Number of jobs created or retained as a result of Economic Development’s business attraction, retention, and expansion efforts
2. Number of new businesses attracted to the city within each of the desired industry clusters
3. Number of tech tours & student placements
4. Number of VIP/Day passes purchased
5. Sales tax growth
6. Vacancy rate for office
7. Vacancy rate for retail
8. Number of media impressions (digital engagement)
9. Number of attracted, retained or assisted businesses that are small, women, minority-owned or any other underserved or unrepresented groups Annual updates on the Plan and progress will be presented to City Council for comment and further direction.
ANALYSIS
The focus of the Economic Development Report presented to City Council in February of 2022 provided background information for Council on the work and analysis completed by staff and the taskforce. It highlighted the current business and economic climate of the city; including demographic, workforce and business data. The information also highlighted the existing strengths of the city and identified areas of enhancements to increase economic competitiveness. A series of comparable cities in Southern California, across the state and country were also analyzed as case studies for best practices. This included Pasadena, Burbank, and Los Angeles as well as Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and Worcester, Massachusetts. Given its success in the medical technology space, Winston-Salem was identified as a comparable city as it was able to carve out a 7 of 234
6 1
3 2
8 9
niche market in the bio-tech fields, amongst a broader technology economy. Similarly, Worcester was selected for its efforts as a leading city for entrepreneurs within Boston’s technology corridor. Several elements such as demographic information, employment data and location affordability were all metrics used to compare the cities. Location affordability was utilized to mitigate the disparity in housing cost and pay from cities in other regions.
Following input from Council on key findings and background information, staff proceeded with consolidating data points and sources in an effort to ensure a consistent and methodical approach to showcasing concise city information and intentional strategies followed by specific goals, tactics, and metrics to measure, manage, and communicate results and progress.
The consolidated analysis on Glendale’s economic and business climate includes:
Demographic Overview
ITEM FIGURE SOURCE
Population 201,000+ ESRI 2021
Foreign Born Population 53 % U.S. Census Bureau and
ACS 5 Year Estimate 2019
Median Age 42.6 Years ESRI & Bureau of Labor
Statistics 2021
Median Property Value $877,139 U.S. Census, April 1, 2020 Median Household Income $71,000+ ESRI & Bureau of Labor Statistics 2021
Number of Households 75,000+ ESRI & Bureau of Labor
Statistics 2021
4-Year Degree or Higher 42 % U.S. Census, April 1, 2020 Workforce 76% White Collar Workers ESRI 2021
Retail Market - Strength
City Vacancy Rate Monthly Rent / SF Total SF of Retail
Space
Glendale 2.4% $2.99 16 million
Burbank 5.3% $3.28 8.3 million
Pasadena 6.5% $3.32 14.6 million
Source: Costar 2022
8 of 234
7 1
3 2
8 9
Glendale’s high occupancy rates in the retail market and competitive retail per square foot rental rates that are lower than neighboring cities, place Glendale in a strong position to retain and attract retailers.
Office Market - Opportunity
City Vacancy Rate Monthly Rent / SF Total SF of Office
Space
Glendale 13.7% $3.15 6 million
Burbank 6.4% $3.56 18.9 million
Pasadena 12.7% $3.15 15.2 million
Source: Costar 2022
With a vacancy rate of 13.7% in 2022, the Glendale office market vacancies is highest among the neighboring cities of Burbank and Pasadena.
With over 6-million square feet of office space and no gross receipts or business license taxes, Glendale offers a more pro-business environment than many other communities in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The Glendale office market attracts traditional tenant types; insurance companies, banks, and law firms and corporate headquarters dominate the tenancies.
Downtown Glendale forms the core of the office market, with nearly all of the Class A office space inventory located north of the Americana at Brand, adjacent to Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue. The downtown appeals to numerous firms due to its central location near much of Los Angeles' employment base and offers a variety of residential options.
The combined vacancy rate and low real estate rental rates present an opportunity for Glendale to explore the potential of attracting high profile tenants and possibly identify innovative ways to repurpose office space as more businesses and corporations shift to work-from-home models in today’s post-pandemic landscape.
Industrial Market
Industrial Market Vacancy Rate 1.0% Costar (2022)
Monthly Rate SF $1.72
Glendale is usually a tight, generally stable industrial market with a current vacancy rate of about 1.0%. There are very few large buildings and transaction activity is generally limited.
Hospitality Market - Opportunity
9 of 234
8 1
3 2
8 9
Glendale offers over 13 hotels and lodging properties to choose from, with nearly 1,688 keys combined and an additional 537 keys are projected for pipeline projects. In 2019, Glendale generated $5,877,940 in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues, while the neighboring cities of Burbank and Pasadena generated $9,343,816 and $16,948,000, respectively. Burbank’s TOT revenues were nearly double those of Glendale’s, and Pasadena, nearly tripled. It is important to note that the TOT rate in Glendale is 12%, Pasadena 12.11%, and Burbank 10% and Glendale has a lower number of hotels, with ratings of four stars or above.
When compared to Burbank and Pasadena, Glendale has the lowest key count 1,688 total rooms, compared to Burbank and Pasadena’s 1,813 and 2,329 rooms, respectively.
Glendale's lower key count results in the lower transient occupancy tax generation.
This presents an opportunity for Glendale to enhance its travel and tourism strategy and to tap a revenue stream that has a promising potential for growth that supports Glendale business and governmental services.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Since the presentation to Council in February of 2022, a series of meetings with the Taskforce have continued and additional prompts were provided to the Taskforce group to stimulate thoughts and ideas with a concentrated effort on developing primary goals and objectives that will move the city forward in achieving a sustainable, equitable and inclusive economy.
Staff’s intent was to refine recommendations previously discussed with the Taskforce and solidify innovative ideas and implementation strategies that will pave the way towards the development of the three-year Plan for economic vitality and long-term success. The business-related key findings and recommendations were as follows:
Brand identity and robust marketing strategy to raise Glendale’s profile More entertainment options attractive to tech-oriented workforce Reduce the length in time for entitlement process
Emphasize the proximity to universities while strengthening partnerships Meetings with the taskforce group included discussions as a whole, smaller focus group discussions, and individual briefings since January of 2022.
As a result of the various meetings and feedback, staff compiled an outline of the strategic Plan and asked for the Taskforce to review and provide final comments and input to ensure the proposed objectives and strategies have been fully evaluated and relevant to the interest of the business community.
The intent is to continue conversations with the working group and to nurture partnerships with key stakeholders to implement and execute on the primary goals and implementation 10 of 234
9 1
3 2
8 9
strategies identified in the Plan.
Staff is requesting the Council adopt the Three-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan so proposed programs and initiatives can be implemented in the next several years to ensure the long-term health and economic vitality of our local economy.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Adoption of the Economic Development Strategic Plan is exempt from California Environmental Act Review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because there is no possibility that the activity (adoption of an Economic Development Strategic Plan whose objectives include: strengthening brand Identity and enhance awareness of Glendale on a local, national, and global scale; developing a business- friendly ecosystem that supports business attraction, retention and expansion efforts to ensure a diverse, equitable, inclusive, and resilient economy; growing the innovation and tech industry sector to attract and retain talent and support the growth and success of entrepreneurs; and growing the arts, culture, and entertainment sector to position Glendale as a destination city are strategies which will not have significant impact on the environment because the Plan does not authorize any known or reasonably foreseeable activities that may have a direct or indirect physical impact on the environment.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt and file the Three-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan. This will allow staff to continue collaborations, program development and implement strategies with business and community stakeholders to ensure the economic vitality of the city’s economy.
Alternative 2: Decline to adopt the Three-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan.
This will result in delays in developing programs and implementing strategies already discussed with the taskforce. This will also have an impact on the delivery of new programs and resources to support the business community as well as achieving the goals and objectives of the Plan.
Alternative 3: Council may consider any other alternative not presented by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
11 of 234
10 1
3 2
8 9
Prepared by:
Bradley Calvert, Assistant Director of Community Development Soua Vang, Deputy Director of Community Development
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1. Three-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan
12 of 234
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE CITY’S THREE-YEAR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN (2022-2025)
WHEREAS, since 2020 staff has collaborated with the COVID Business Recovery Taskforce (“Taskforce”) and other business partners, comprised of multiple community stakeholders from various industries and background, which collaboration resulted in the development of innovative ideas, proposed action plans, and identification of focus areas and opportunities to ensure a sustainable and long-term healthy economy in Glendale; and
WHEREAS, in February 2022 Staff presented an economic development status report to the City Council which contained economic development findings and recommendations, and included a business and economic analysis of the City, best practices from other municipalities as well as feedback and recommendations provided by the Taskforce; and
WHEREAS, based on Council feedback on priorities and initiatives which, along with the Taskforce recommendation, staff developed the City’s three-year Economic Development Strategic Plan (the “Plan”), as a roadmap for building upon the City’s strengths and leveraging partnerships and local assets to address business challenges and enhance economic opportunities throughout Glendale; and WHEREAS, the Plan is intended to support the growth and diversity of local and new businesses and to ensure a vibrant, equitable, and sustainable future; and WHEREAS, the Plan is intended to be adjusted annually as business and market conditions change and is intended to be fully re-evaluated every three years; and WHEREAS, the measurable goals and key performance indicators identified in the Plan are intended to be used to as a means for determining the Plan’s efficacy overall which will be evaluated on an annual basis when the Economic Development staff brings the Plan before the City Council for review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA THAT:
1. The recitals herein above are findings incorporated herein and are relied upon as factual support for the proposed adoption of the City’s Three Year Economic Development Strategic Plan (2022 – 2025).
13 of 234
2. Based on these findings, The City Council hereby adopts the City’s Three Year Economic Development Strategic Plan (2022 – 2025) and authorizes it to be filed.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ________________, 2022. _________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Aram Adjemian, Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ________________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _______ day of ____________________, 2022, and that same was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
________________________________
City Clerk
14 of 234
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
CITY OF
GLENDALE
Economic Development 3-Year
Strategic Plan
2022 - 2025
15 of 234
16 of 234
Acknowledgements 4
Foundation 5
Executive Summary 6
Data Highlights 8
Strengths and Opportunities 10
Primary Goals & Objectives 14
Key Performance Indicators 24
Appendix 25
Table of Contents
17 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 4
Acknowledgements
GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Ardy Kassakhian
Councilmember Vrej Agajanian
Councilmember Daniel Brotman
Councilmember Paula Devine
Councilmember Ara Najarian
We would like to give a special recognition and express our gratitude to all participating stakeholders for their partnership, contributions, and commitment to developing this Three- Year Economic Development Strategic Plan. Significant input was solicited in drafting the Plan to ensure an inclusive, sustainable, and prosperous economy in Glendale.
CITY TEAM
Economic Development Division
Community Development Department
Library, Arts, & Culture Department
PARTICIPATING BUSINESS AND
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS
Americana at Brand
Brand Blvd. of Cars
Cerrell
Cushman & Wakefield
Employers Group
Glendale Community College /PDC
Glen Arden
Glendale Chamber of Commerce
Glendale Galleria
Glendale YWCA
Greater Downtown Glendale Association
Hero House Glendale
Hyatt Hotel
Keck USC Verdugo Hills Hospital
Kenneth Village
Montrose Shopping Park Association
Montrose - Verdugo Chamber
New City America - GDGA
Valley Economic Alliance
Verdugo Workforce Investment Board
18 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 5
Foundation
MISSION: The City of Glendale delivers exceptional customer service through precision execution and innovation leadership.
As a premier City anchored
in pride of civic ownership,
Glendale’s success is realized
through a community that is
safe, prosperous, and rich in
cultural offerings.
Create cohesive CDD through branding,
knowledge sharing, and interdepartmental
problem solving.
Implement new Land Management System
including electronic plan submission to better
serve the community for their permit needs.
Support business and Glendale’s economic
vibrancy through business-friendly policy,
placemaking, and marketing.
Entitle and submit financing applications for
three affordable housing projects at Broadway
and Pioneer.
Adopt and Implement Title 5 of the GMC
relating to Permits and Licenses to remove
barriers and increase speed of issuance and
enforcement to gain efficiencies
Complete significant planning exercises
including Verdugo Wash Visioning Study,
Housing Element, and Bicycle Transportation
Plan. Begin to identify and implement
improvements from Citywide Pedestrian Plan.
Community Development
Department Strategic Goals
Our Vision
Glendale was rated amongst the
Top 5 Safest Cities in the US – 2022
Source: smartasset.com/data-studies/safest-cities-in-america-2022 This vision is accomplished
with emphasis on:
Fiscal Responsibility
Exceptional Customer Service
Economic Vibrancy
Informed & Engaged Community
Safe & Healthy Community
Balanced, Quality Housing
Community Services & Facilities
Infrastructure & Mobility
Arts & Culture
Sustainability
Did You Know?
19 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 6
As the fourth largest city in Los Angeles County, Glendale is a thriving cosmopolitan city that is rich in history, culturally diverse, and offers limitless economic opportunities. Glendale’s bustling downtown is home to a number of corporate headquarters and tech giants, two first-class regional shopping malls, and a walkable Arts & Entertainment District with endless fine dining, amenities and shopping for residents and visitors alike to experience and enjoy.
Recognized as one of the top safest cities in the United States and located strategically near major airports, major freeways and educational & research institutions, Glendale boasts more than 12,000 businesses, a diverse and growing population of 201,000+ and a white-collar workforce of over 76%.
Using the city’s mission and vision as a driver, the city of Glendale’s Three- Year Economic Plan is designed to focus on measurable strategic goals and objectives to increase the city’s economic competitiveness, and create a vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable economy.
The strategy will serve as a roadmap aim to build upon the city’s strengths and leverage partnerships and local assets to address challenges and enhance economic opportunities. It is intended as a call to action for additional research, community engagement and collaboration to implement additional relevant programs and policies as we work together to advance the civic mission and vision. It is a living document that will be adjusted annually as market and business conditions evolve and re-evaluated fully every three years.
The City of Glendale will continue to foster an ecosystem in which all stakeholders are committed to the diversity, economic vitality and sustainability of our City’s future. The Economic Development Division collaborated with business and community stakeholders to identify core areas of priorities to achieve the city vision.
Executive Summary
20 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 7
As a result, the Plan calls for a concerted effort to
focus on the following major goals and objectives:
1 2
3 4
BRAND IDENTITY:
Strengthen brand identity and enhance awareness of
Glendale on a local, national, and global scale
BUSINESS CULTURE:
Develop a business-friendly ecosystem that supports
business attraction, retention & expansion efforts to
ensure a diverse, inclusive, and resilient economy
INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM:
Grow the innovation and tech industry sector to
attract and retain talent and support the growth
and success of entrepreneurs
ENTERTAINMENT & LIFESTYLE:
Grow the arts, culture & entertainment sector
to position Glendale as a destination city
To determine the efficacy of the Plan, the following
quantifiable metrics will be utilized to measure,
manage, and communicate results and progress:
Number of jobs created or retained as a result
of Economic Development’s business attraction,
retention and expansion efforts
Number of new businesses attracted to the city
within each of the desired industry clusters
Number of tech tours & student placements
Number of VIP/Day passes purchased
Sales tax growth
Vacancy rate for office
Vacancy rate for retail
Number of media impressions
(digital engagement)
Number of attracted, retained, or assisted
businesses that are small, women or minority
owned, or any other underserved or
unrepresented groups
21 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 8
Data Highlights
MEDIAN AGE
42.6 years
U.S. Census, April 1, 2020
MEDIAN PROPERTY VALUE
$877,139
U.S. Census, April 1, 2020
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
$71K
75,000+ Households
U.S. Census, April 1, 2020
POPULATION
201,000+
U.S. Census, April 1, 2020
4-YEAR DEGREE OR HIGHER
42%
U.S. Census, April 1, 2020
22 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 9
RETAIL MARKET
Vacancy Rate 2.4%
Monthly Rent / SF $2.99
CoStar (2022)
INDUSTRIAL MARKET
Vacancy Rate 1%
Monthly Rent / SF $1.72
CoStar (2022)
UNEMPLOYMENT
4.9%
Employment Development Department
April 15, 2022
OFFICE MARKET
Vacancy Rate 13.7%
Monthly Rent / SF $3.15
CoStar (2022)
23 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 10
Strengths
2.4%
$2.99
Vacancy Rate
Monthly Rent SF
CoStar (2022)
CoStar (2022)
Glendale’s high occupancy rates in the retail market and competitive retail per square foot rental rates that are lower than neighboring cities, place Glendale in a strong position to be one of Southern California’s most desirable retail markets.
Fueled by a diverse and affluent population and workforce, impressive annual household spending of over $1.4 billion, and access to a population of over 2.5 million people within a 10 mile radius, Glendale attracts high-end and first-of-their-kind innovative retailers.
The Americana at Brand, Glendale Galleria and Brand Boulevard of Cars, are home to 18 of the City’s top 25 sales tax revenue generators. Sales tax revenues in Glendale increased by 21% at the end of the 4th quarter in 2021, compared to the same quarter in 2020. This is significantly higher than the County and State percentages of 16.9% and 15.6% respectively.
RETAIL MARKET
VACANCY RATE
MONTHLY RENT
RETAIL SPACE / SF
City of Firsts:
Amazon Style at the Americana
- First-Ever Fashion Store
Disney Store Apple StoreBaskin-Robbins Panda Express
inside the Galleria
20221945 1983 1987 2001
Burbank Pasadena Glendale
Burbank Pasadena Glendale
Burbank Pasadena Glendale
5.3% 6.5% 2.4%
$3.28 $3.32 $2.99
8.3M SF 14.6M 16M
By Comparison
Top 25 Sales Tax
Producers
Did You Know?
Glendale is home to 2 of the top 10
shopping malls and outlets in California.
Source: trip101.com/article/shopping-malls-in-california Source: bestthingsca.com/shopping-outlets/
Allen Gwynn Chevrolet
Apple
Bhindi Jewelers
Bloomingdale’s
Calstar Mercedes
Car Pros Kia Glendale
CDW Direct
CDW Government
Financial Services Vehicle Trust
Glendale Dodge
Chrysler Jeep
Glendale Nissan
Glendale Subaru/Mitsubishi
Home Depot
Hyundai Lease Titling Trust
Lexus of Glendale
Macys
Nordstrom
Pacific BMW
Star Auto Group
Target
Tesla Motors
Toyota Lease Trust
Toyota of Glendale Scion
United Oil
Vons
24 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 11
POPULATION & DIVERSITY
LOCATION AFFORDABILITY
WORKFORCE
Glendale Population
by Generation
Boomer: 23%
Gen X: 22%
Millennial: 26%
Gen Z: 18%
Location Affordability
Housing Cost 35%
Transportation Cost 21%
Total: 56% of household
income spent on housing
and transportation costs
Center for Neighborhood
Technology (2022)
Cultural Diversity
53% foreign born population
In Glendale the average cost of housing + transportation is 56% of a household’s income, on par with the 57% average for Los Angeles County. Glendale’s location affordability is 4% lower than Pasadena and 11% lower than Santa Clarita. This is based on the Regional Typical Household Income: $60,705, Household Size 3.03 for Los Angeles - Long Beach - Anaheim.
This lower cost of living makes Glendale a more desirable location for a young professional labor force looking to settle in a centralized yet affordable urban environment.
53% of Glendale residents were
born outside the United States.
This is significantly higher than
neighboring cities of Burbank and
Pasadena, whose foreign born
population is around 30% each.
Over 60 different languages
are spoken in the City’s schools,
reflecting the City’s fascinating
and diverse population, including
the largest Armenian-American
population in the U.S. Glendale’s
rich cultural and ethnic diversity is
one of the city’s greatest strengths.
201,000+ Total Population
ACS, ESRI and BLS, 2015-2019, 2021-2026
U.S. Census, ACS 5-year Estimate (2020)
214,000+
Daytime Population
$1.4 Billion+
Annual Household Spending
Approximately 37%
of households earned
$100,000+ in 2021
Workforce is comprised of
76% white collar workers
– spending power76%
Glendale businesses have access to an
endless supply of highly skilled talent due
to the city’s close proximity to a number
of prestigious educational and research
institutions including JPL, CalTech, USC,
and Occidental College.
Generational Diversity
25 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 12
Opportunities
With a vacancy rate of 13.7% in 2021,
Glendale office market vacancies
continue to rise significantly,
comparable to the county. This rate is
highest among the neighboring cities
of Burbank and Pasadena, whose
office vacancy rates are at 6.4%
and 12.7%, respectively. Glendale’s
monthly rate per square foot,
however, continues to stay below Los
Angeles County’s rate by 1.5%.
In 2022, Glendale’s rent per square
foot in the office market was at a
low $3.15. Pasadena follows this rate
at $3.15/SF, and Burbank with the
highest rate among the three cities,
at $3.56/SF.
With over 6-million square feet
of office space and no gross
receipts or business license taxes,
Glendale offers a more pro-business
environment than many other
communities in the Los Angeles
metropolitan area. The Glendale
office market attracts traditional
tenant types; insurance companies,
banks, and law firms.
OFFICE MARKET
Downtown Glendale forms the core of the office
market, with nearly all of the Class A office space
inventory located north of the Americana at Brand,
adjacent to Brand Boulevard Central Avenue.
The downtown appeals to numerous firms due
to its central location near much of Los Angeles’
employment base. Glendale is centrally located and
accessible to both the San Fernando and San Gabriel
Valleys as well as neighborhoods in Northeast Los
Angeles, making it attractive to many who live in
these areas.
The combined vacancy rate and low rental rates
present an opportunity for Glendale to attract high
profile tenants and possibly identify innovative ways
to repurpose office space as more businesses and
corporations shift to work-from-home models in
today’s post-pandemic landscape.
13.7%
$3.15
$3.72 Projected 2026
Vacancy Rate
Monthly Rent SF
CoStar (2022)
CoStar (2022)
VACANCY RATE
MONTHLY RENT / SF
OFFICE SPACE / SF
Burbank Pasadena Glendale
Burbank Pasadena Glendale
Burbank Pasadena Glendale
6.4% 12.7% 13.7%
$3.56 $3.15 $3.15
15.2M 18.9M 6M
By Comparison
26 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 13
1,688
13 $5,877,940
HOSPITALITY MARKET
Glendale offers 13 hotels and lodging properties
(rated 2-4 stars) to choose from with 1,688 keys
combined and an additional 537 keys are projected
for pipeline projects.
In 2019, Glendale generated $5,877,940 in
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues, while
the neighboring cities of Burbank and Pasadena
generated $9,343,816 and $16,948,000, respectively.
Burbank’s TOT revenues were nearly double those
of Glendale’s, and Pasadena, nearly tripled. It is
important to note that the TOT rate in Glendale
is 12%, Pasadena 12.11%, and Burbank 10% and
Glendale has a lower number of hotels, with ratings
of four stars or above.
When compared to Burbank and Pasadena,
Glendale has the lowest key count 1,688 total
rooms, compared to Burbank and Pasadena’s 1,813
and 2,329 rooms, respectively. Glendale’s lower key
count results in the lower transient occupancy tax
generation.
This presents an opportunity for Glendale to
enhance its travel and tourism strategy and to tap a
revenue stream that has a promising potential
for growth.
Number of rooms in Glendale
CoStar (2022)
Number of properties
CoStar (2022)
Transient Occupancy
Tax Glendale (2019)
(EDD Strategy)
NUMBER OF ROOMS
NUMBER OF PROPERTIES
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
Burbank Pasadena Glendale
Burbank Pasadena Glendale
Burbank Pasadena Glendale
1,813 2,329 1,688
29 39 13
$9,343,816 $16,948,000 $5,877,940
By Comparison
27 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 14
Primary Goals
& Objectives
1 | Brand Identity
Glendale has long been a top shopping
destination, serving as a testing ground for
a number of “first-of-their-kind” retail and
business concepts. Glendale’s combination
of a diverse population and affluent shoppers
is the ideal location for many corporations
and businesses. Marketing Glendale’s value
proposition and showcasing the success
and innovation throughout the city will be
important to receive brand recognition on a
local, national, and global scale. To maximize
the city’s full potential to tell our story as an
incredible city to live, work, play and invest
leading to greater growth opportunities and
diversification of a thriving local economy will
also involve continuous collaboration with
internal and external partners.
To re-position Glendale and elevate the city
brand, the Plan identifies the importance
to strategically market the competitive
advantages and successes, the need to
develop a business-friendly ecosystem and
diverse economy, and the attraction and
nurturing of high growth industries, talent,
and desirable amenities.
Strengthen Brand Identity & Enhance
Awareness Of Glendale On A Local,
National And Global Scale
28 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 15
Develop a robust marketing campaign and media
strategy to showcase the city’s strong market
fundamentals, competitive advantages, business
successes, business programs, events,
and destinations
Strengthen social media presence with active postings
Enhance Economic Development Division
e-newsletter, press releases and website
- Feature business successes, new openings,
and entrepreneurs on a monthly basis
- Align stories & recognize businesses/projects
with respective monthly themes (i.e. Women’s
International Month, Entrepreneurship Month,
International Trade Month, etc.)
Develop targeted short videos to help tell our story
based on initiative/industry
Develop and launch targeted marketing and public
relations campaigns to increase city visibility
Explore major ad placements in publications and
other media outlets
Strengthen Regional Marketing Collaborations
- Upstart Valley Initiative – Collaboration with
Burbank to establish a brand identity and
marketing strategy to represent joint assets,
resources and opportunities that will position both
cities/region as an innovation hub for technology,
engineering, start-up opportunities, capital
investments, entrepreneurship, and
media capabilities
- Tech Valley Development Strategy – Collaboration
with the Valley Economic Alliance, economic
development peers to position the Valley region as
an innovation and tech hub
Enhance travel and tourism visibility on Economic
Development (ED) website and develop a theme
that resonates with visitors (Destination Glendale /
Discover Glendale)
- Exhibit and integrate information on ED’s website
on iconic places, destinations, places to eat, things
to do to position Glendale as a destination City
Implementation Strategies:
29 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 16
2 | Business Culture
Maintaining a thriving business community
is a top priority for the city of Glendale.
In an effort to achieve a business-friendly
reputation, Economic Development is
committed to developing an ecosystem that
supports business attraction, growth and
retention efforts while also diversifying the
city’s portfolio of industries to ensure a
healthy and resilient economy.
The city has fully embraced the desire for
an inclusive and more equitable economy
and committed to working collectively
with community and business partners to
provide business support and resources to
all businesses including minority-owned,
women-owned, and other small business
owners.
To achieve this goal, the city’s Economic
Development Division offers a variety of
programs and resources to assist with
business success and growth in the city.
Develop A Business-Frendly Ecosystem
That Supports Business Attraction,
Retention And Expansion Efforts To
Ensure A Diverse, Equitable, Inclusive
And Resilent Economy
Implementation Strategies:
BUSINESS ATTRACTION
Develop a Business Attraction Plan focused
on priority industry sectors that provide
substantial economic impacts and value to
the community.
Economic contributors include:
- Tech & Entrepreneurship (Bio-tech, Med-
tech, Gaming, IT & Cybersecurity)
- Retail & Restaurants (breweries, distilleries,
lounges, new/emerging concepts, etc.)
- Arts, Culture & Entertainment (includes
Tourism and Hospitality Development)
- Comedy Club, Family-friendly amenities
Develop a toolkit for businesses such as
a “Comprehensive Business Programs &
Incentives Pamphlet” outlining various
programs and incentives (digital and print)
Develop a Welcome / Investment Packet
and industry-specific infographics for
targeted audiences
Conduct an aggressive, targeted outreach
program at various tradeshows and
conferences that align with division
initiatives and priorities
Actively participate in industry
organizations and community engagement
to cultivate relationships with tenants,
brokers, property owners and other real
estate decision makers
Develop a strategic foreign direct
investment plan to attract investment and
assist local companies to expand its market
share and presence
Explore city-led outbound trade mission
Explore city-led inbound foreign
investment mission
30 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 17
Implementation Strategies:
Establish rapport and connections with Consulate Generals and domestic business partners to facilitate trade and relations between the city and targeted countries Broker lunch presentations – build strategic and strong relationships with local brokerage firms and property owners to be at the forefront of new business leads, trends, challenges, and opportunities that will impact the community Strengthen collaboration with city divisions and departments to seek efficient databases and procedures and align priorities to enhance business service experience
In partnership with Planning, host external roundtables with business and development stakeholders to garner input and seek opportunities to improve services
Support legislation that promotes business and economic opportunities
BUSINESS RETENTION & EXPANSION
Implement strategies to identify businesses in need of assistance, conduct outreach and engagement to deploy resources accordingly
- The Glendale Relationship Initiation Team (GRIT) Program – continue with GRIT to nurture relationships with local businesses, provide support and resources, and address concerns and challenges accordingly
- Establishment of an 18-hour City – enhance efforts to attract interesting operators that appeal to Glendale’s worker population and expand the day in the city from breakfast time until late at night
- Update and enhance the Tech Cluster Strategic Plan
- Strengthen neighborhood districts
- Achieve the highest or best use of city assets through an effective management strategy
• Artsakh Creative Program – Placemaking – Re-imagine Artsakh Avenue and create more pedestrian-friendly spaces and passages within the Arts & Entertainment District and short-term retail pop-up opportunity • Alex Theatre – World-Class Performing Arts & Entertainment Center • Rockhaven Sanitarium
• Explore potential business “one-stop” shop
31 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 18
Did You Know?
Over 60 languages are spoken
in the city’s schools.
Source: GUSD
- Strengthen partnerships with core partners
to address the needs of struggling and new
businesses to provide the necessary support
and resources, such as but not limited to:
• Glendale Chamber of Commerce
• Glendale Community College – Professional
Development Center (Provides state-funded
training for CA employers to train and upskill
employees)
• Verdugo Workforce Development Board
• Local brokerage firms, tenant reps and
property owners
• Small Business Development Center (SBDC)
• Montrose Shopping Park Association
• Downtown Glendale Association
• Kenneth Village
- Seek inclusiveness and form partnerships,
programs and strategies that create
opportunities for all businesses with a targeted
approach on small businesses such as minority-
owned, women-owned, and other underserved
and unrepresented groups.
- Nurture relationships with businesses that were
successfully attracted and/or retained in the city
with regular follow-up
- Monthly/Quarterly Certificate of Recognition for
Businesses or Projects
- Launch “Support, Shop and Promote Local
Marketing Campaign” to encourage business
support and local spend
Implementation Strategies (Continued):
32 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 19
CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS & ASSISTANCE:
Site Selection AssistanceSite Selection Assistance – Economic Development provides free customized site selection
assistance to new and existing businesses within
the City of Glendale. This assistance consists of
a confidential site search for available properties
based on specific, client-provided site criteria,
as well as coordinating site tours with real estate
brokers, developers, and property owners.
Marketing Analysis AssistanceMarketing Analysis Assistance – Economic Development offers free market analysis and
demographic information to assist with the
decision-making process for businesses looking
to locate or expand in Glendale.
Business Concierge ServiceBusiness Concierge Service – Businesses receive one-on-one assistance to navigate through the
city’s permitting, entitlement and development
process. Generally, this leads to the expeditious
permitting review of projects in the city.
Facilitation of Business ResourcesFacilitation of Business Resources - Economic Development can help facilitate contacts and
resources to a variety of federal, state, and local
programs and incentives.
Marketing & Social Media Support Marketing & Social Media Support – Economic Development helps promote local business
through multiple digital channels including
social media and e-mail newsletters. Connect
on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook on
@ChooseGlendale and @Glendale_Tech.
33 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 20
Grow The Innovation And Tech Industry Sector To
Attract & Retain Talent And Support The Growth And
Success Of Entrepreneurs
3 | Innovation Ecosystem
In today’s marketplace, high growth companies are choosing to locate and expand in locations where talent is accessible, and amenities are plentiful. To remain competitive, it is incredibly important for the city to continue to attract appealing amenities, create more vibrant urban centers to include pedestrian-friendly and walkable areas as well as offer a variety of housing options, robust public infrastructure, and connectivity.
Glendale is home to many technology-based companies including LegalZoom, Age of Learning, ServiceTitan, Beyond Limits and many more and is quickly emerging as the next hub of innovation in the region. Home to two (2) start-up tech accelerators and countless co-working spaces, coupled with a growing arts and entertainment district, Glendale’s entrepreneurial ecosystem continues to thrive.
In Glendale’s innovation-led economy, the retention and growth of prominent technology firms is critical especially in the sub- sectors of biotechnology, medical technology, gaming, IT and cybersecurity. To further support these emerging businesses and innovators, economic gardening is a major goal to grow our own and sustain an environment that supports entrepreneurship and start-ups where collaboration and innovative ideas can be brought to the marketplace.
34 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 21
Support and expand the high-tech
business community and create niche
markets for further support
and programming
- Target industries of highest potential
include biotechnology, medical
technology, gaming, IT & Cybersecurity
Strengthen partnerships with community
and business partners to attract and
retain talent and align priorities to include
a renewed focus on high value use of
existing space to reinforce successful
models and reimagine others
Implementation Strategies:
- Tech Tour Program – Strengthen partnership with Hero House to engage with local and nearby education institutions/colleges to tour students at accelerators and co-working spaces and share information on city business resources to attract, retain and motivate talent as well as grow entrepreneurship in Glendale - LA Clean Tech Incubator (LACI)- Explore partnership to replicate a similar model to accelerate growth of promising emerging industries and entrepreneurs to plant seeds in Glendale
- Biotech LA – explore collaboration to bring academia and the biotech industry together to drive innovation forward
- LARTA Institute – Fostering science & technology innovation for a sustainable planet
- U.S. Small Business Development Administration / Small Business Development Center – to provide resources and support to entrepreneurs and small businesses - UCLA Biodesign – Training the next generation of healthcare transformers Showcase the city’s support of growing the entrepreneurial ecosystem by providing letters of support to businesses/education partners seeking grant funding to develop training, innovation, and entrepreneurship programs
Build upon collaboration with the Verdugo Workforce Development Board, education, and industry partners to fill the critical skills gap to meet the needs of tech businesses, create equity-centered life-long learning pathways across the city to address workforce needs and train the next workforce generation Implement and/or partner to establish an online tool that connects resources available to small business owners and entrepreneurs
Support legislation that nurtures an entrepreneurial ecosystem Foster relationships with microlenders, local banking institutions, private and institutional investors to ensure access to capital for the city’s small business community
Develop and support programs and events that provide mentorship and partnership connections for businesses
35 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 22
Glendale has a growing arts, culture and entertainment
district that includes places such as the Museum
of Neon Art, the Brand Library and Art Center, the
Alex Theatre and will also be the future home of the
Armenian American Museum & Culture Center. Other
amenities and remarkable offerings include luxury
retail shopping centers, unique specialty stores and
vibrant business districts. Growing the arts, culture, and entertainment sector as well as the business districts to provide additional amenities will be crucial to position Glendale as a destination city.
Grow The Arts, Culture & Entertainment Sector To
Position Glendale As A Destination City
4 | Entertainment & Lifestyle
Did You Know?
Glendale was named amongst the
Top 20 happiest places in America - 2022
Source: wallethub.com/edu/happiest-places-to-live/32619 36 of 234
Implementation Strategies:
Develop a robust Travel and Tourism Strategy including the development of marketing materials and collateral to tell our story and establish Glendale as a Southern CA destination of choice Position Glendale as an arts and culture destination featuring world-class public art and entertainment
Work with Library, Arts & Culture to expand the Storefront Art Program which partners building owners/managers and artists to utilize vacant retail units to showcase an array of art forms Continue collaboration with Library, Arts & Culture to cultivate partnerships with touring arts and cultural exhibitions.
Matchmaking opportunities – Attract and facilitate entertainment uses that will appeal to the community and visitors alike - Proactively seek fast growing retail and entertainment concepts such as immersive art experiences, food halls, breweries, gaming, distilleries, live and digital experiences Strengthen collaboration efforts with community and business partners to market and entice visitors to experience Glendale - VIP / Day Pass Pilot Program to launch in Downtown Glendale & Montrose to test success
• Explore partnership with DGA and Montrose Shopping Park Association (MSPA) to offer perks such as:
º Free custom car wash at Americana
º Free valet parking pass at Americana
º Free transit/beeline pass
º Discounts from restaurants and shops
- Partner with local hotels to market VIP card and local destinations - Work in collaboration with Library, Arts and Culture to cross promote and develop a scavenger hunt program
• Identify iconic places, restaurants, cultural venues among other destinations along BEE-line or throughout the city with an incentive to receive a free city-branded promo item, or other prizes, upon completion of scavenger hunt
Explore the feasibility of a tourism marketing/business improvement district with local hotels and stakeholders 37 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 24
KPI:
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:
The recommended key metrics for the Economic
Development Strategic Plan have been identified below to measure quantifiable outcomes and the efficacy of the plan.
Number of jobs created or retained as a result of
Economic Development’s business attraction, retention
and expansion efforts
Number of new businesses attracted to the city within
each of the desired industry clusters
Number of Tech Tours & Student Placements
Number of VIP/Day passes purchased
Sales Tax Growth
Vacancy Rate (Office)
Vacancy Rate (Retail)
Number of Media Impressions (Digital engagement)
Number of attracted, retained, or assisted businesses that are small, women or minority-owned
38 of 234
Appendix
39 of 234
40 of 234
C I T Y O F G L E N D A L E
Economic Development
3-Year Strategic Plan
CLICK OR SCAN FOR:
Initial Research Document
https://adobe.ly/3sWPWfF
41 of 234
Demographic and Income Profile
Glendale City, CA 2 Prepared by Esri
Glendale City, CA (0630000)
Geography: Place
Summary Census 2010 2021 2026
Population 191,765 201,691 203,807
Households 72,287 75,740 76,285
Families 50,102 52,531 53,072
Average Household Size 2.63 2.64 2.65
Owner Occupied Housing Units 27,551 26,911 27,081
Renter Occupied Housing Units 44,736 48,829 49,205
Median Age 41.1 42.6 43.8
Trends: 2021-2026 Annual Rate Area State National
Population 0.21% 0.52% 0.71%
Households 0.14% 0.50% 0.71%
Families 0.21% 0.49% 0.64%
Owner HHs 0.13% 0.51% 0.91%
Median Household Income 2.43% 2.52% 2.41%
2021 2026
Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent
<$15,000 8,350 11.0% 7,077 9.3%
$15,000 - $24,999 7,502 9.9% 6,034 7.9%
$25,000 - $34,999 5,134 6.8% 4,650 6.1%
$35,000 - $49,999 6,928 9.1% 6,452 8.5%
$50,000 - $74,999 11,311 14.9% 11,580 15.2%
$75,000 - $99,999 8,876 11.7% 9,347 12.3%
$100,000 - $149,999 12,803 16.9% 14,090 18.5%
$150,000 - $199,999 6,106 8.1% 7,081 9.3%
$200,000+ 8,730 11.5% 9,975 13.1%
Median Household Income $71,004 $80,080
Average Household Income $103,001 $115,960
Per Capita Income $38,699 $43,424
Census 2010 2021 2026
Population by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 - 4 9,175 4.8% 8,716 4.3% 8,797 4.3%
5 - 9 9,065 4.7% 9,257 4.6% 9,098 4.5%
10 - 14 10,465 5.5% 10,294 5.1% 9,630 4.7%
15 - 19 11,635 6.1% 10,155 5.0% 9,683 4.8%
20 - 24 12,013 6.3% 11,114 5.5% 10,072 4.9%
25 - 34 27,240 14.2% 28,687 14.2% 27,468 13.5%
35 - 44 27,294 14.2% 29,020 14.4% 30,901 15.2%
45 - 54 30,623 16.0% 26,844 13.3% 26,748 13.1%
55 - 64 24,327 12.7% 28,409 14.1% 27,732 13.6%
65 - 74 15,378 8.0% 21,719 10.8% 23,619 11.6%
75 - 84 10,265 5.4% 12,191 6.0% 14,128 6.9%
85+ 4,285 2.2% 5,286 2.6% 5,932 2.9%
Census 2010 2021 2026
Race and Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White Alone 136,269 71.1% 134,760 66.8% 132,537 65.0%
Black Alone 2,573 1.3% 2,685 1.3% 2,654 1.3%
American Indian Alone 531 0.3% 554 0.3% 553 0.3%
Asian Alone 31,437 16.4% 38,374 19.0% 41,483 20.4%
Pacific Islander Alone 122 0.1% 130 0.1% 131 0.1%
Some Other Race Alone 12,146 6.3% 14,263 7.1% 14,864 7.3% Two or More Races 8,687 4.5% 10,924 5.4% 11,585 5.7%
Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 33,419 17.4% 38,814 19.2% 41,094 20.2% Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2021 and 2026.
April 29, 2022
©2022 Esri Page 1 of 2
42 of 234
Demographic and Income Profile
Glendale City, CA 2 Prepared by Esri
Glendale City, CA (0630000)
Geography: Place
Area
State
USA
Trends 2021-2026Trends 2021-2026
Annual Rate (in percent)
2.5 2
1.5 1
0.5 0
Population Households Families Owner HHs Median HH Income 2021
2026
Population by AgePopulation by Age
Percent
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ 2021 Household Income 2021 Household Income
<$15K
11.0%
$15K - $24K
9.9%
$25K - $34K
6.8%
$35K - $49K
9.1%
$50K - $74K
14.9%
$75K - $99K
11.7%
$100K - $149K
16.9%
$150K - $199K
8.1%
$200K+
11.5%
2021 Population by Race2021 Population by Race
Percent
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
White Black Am. Ind. Asian Pacific Other Two+
2021 Percent Hispanic Origin: 19.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2021 and 2026.
April 29, 2022
©2022 Esri Page 2 of 2
43 of 234
Population Trends
Glendale City, CA Prepared by Esri
Glendale City, CA (0630000)
Geography: Place
POPULATION TRENDS AND KEY INDICATORS
Glendale City, CA
201,691
Population
75,740
Households
2.64 Avg Size
Household
42.6 Median
Age
$71,004
Median
Household Income
$877,139
Median
Home Value
103
Wealth
Index
47 Housing
Affordability
67 Diversity
Index
MORTGAGE INDICATORS
$11,288
Avg Spent on Mortgage &
Basics
51.9%
Percent of Income for
Mortgage
POPULATION BY GENERATION
21.5%
Generation X:
Born 1965 to 1980
22.8%
Baby Boomer:
Born 1946 to 1964
7.9%
Greatest Gen:
Born 1945/Earlier
4.3%
Alpha: Born
2017 to Present
17.9%
Generation Z:
Born 1999 to 2016
25.6%
Millennial:
Born 1981 to 1998
192,000
196,000
200,000
Historical Trends: Population
Home Value
<$50,000 $150,000 $250,000 $400,000 $750,000 $1,000,000+ 0%
10%
20%
30%
Housing: Year Built
<1939 1950-59 1970-79 1990-99 2010-2013
0%
10%
20%
POPULATION BY AGE
Under 18 (17%) Ages 18 to 64 (64%) Aged 65+ (19%)
This infographic contains data provided by American Community Survey (ACS), Esri, Esri and Bureau of Labor Statistics. The vintage of the data is 2015-2019, 2021, 2026. © 2022 Esri
Source: This infographic contains data provided by Esri, Esri and Bureau of Labor Statistics, American Community Survey (ACS). The vintage of the data is 2021, 2026, 2015-2019. ©2022 Esri Page 1 of 1 May 25, 2022
44 of 234
C I T Y O F G L E N D A L E
Glendale Office Tenants
and Building Managers -
COVID-19 Update Survey
July 2020
45 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 1 / 19
27.59% 8
41.38% 12
27.59% 8
3.45% 1
0.00% 0
Q3 Total Employees
Answered: 29 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 29
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0-5
6-25
26-100
101-500
More than 500
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
0-5
6-25
26-100
101-500
More than 500
46 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 1 / 19
27.59% 8
41.38% 12
27.59% 8
3.45% 1
0.00% 0
Q3 Total Employees
Answered: 29 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 29
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0-5
6-25
26-100
101-500
More than 500
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
0-5
6-25
26-100
101-500
More than 500
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 2 / 19
3.57% 1
25.00% 7
21.43% 6
7.14% 2
42.86% 12
Q4 How many years has your business been located in Glendale? Answered: 28 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 28
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0-1
1-5
6-10
11-15
More than 16
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
0-1
1-5
6-10
11-15
More than 16
47 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 3 / 19
39.29% 11
17.86% 5
28.57% 8
14.29% 4
Q5 What percentage of your employees are working at the office now? Answered: 28 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 28
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% - All
employees ar...
25%
50%
100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
0% - All employees are still working from home
25%
50%
100%
48 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 4 / 19
33.33% 9
0.00% 0
3.70% 1
0.00% 0
14.81% 4
48.15% 13
Q6 When are you (or your tenants) returning to the office? Answered: 27 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 27
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
They have
already...
July or August
September or
October
November or
December
After January 1
Not sure
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
They have already returned
July or August
September or October
November or December
After January 1
Not sure
49 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 5 / 19
Q7 Recently, the Governor ordered the closures of certain businesses that had previously been allowed to reopen. Has this affected your business in any way? If so, how can the City of Glendale help you?
Answered: 22 Skipped: 7
# RESPONSES DATE
1 No 7/28/2020 11:06 AM
2 If every office tenant returns....with their employees ..... How can you monitor the required BUSINESS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE that I paid for? comeback buisnesses will once again abuse it !!!! so WHY have one anyway.... if it is NOT enforced ? 7/26/2020 10:17 AM
3 The recent measures scaling back the reopening of certain businesses and activities had an immediate impact on bookings that were in progress at the Alex Theatre for the month of July, including 7-9 days of high-profile filming activity which were postponed due to the domino effect of challenges the shift presented for these productions, which ultimately impeded their ability to proceed with their planned activities at the Alex. What would be helpful to an organization such as ours is the ability to qualify to apply for and receive funding from all sources whether or not we have also received federal funding. The example above illustrates the complexities of what reopening looks like in reality, in particular for a business such as ours that is dependent upon planning in the present for future income that is not guaranteed and can be wiped out overnight based on rapidly-evolving guidelines driving the ability to operate indoors and at what capacity. An expanded array of funding options would make it possible for us to weather these shifts in income potential brought on by these external forces.
Given that our work is largely powered by our human resources, funding that would allow us to bring back our staff that has been laid off, furloughed or placed on reduced hours would be instrumental to our ability to operate with the utmost safety; secure income in the present and for the future by pursuing opportunities for bookings, sponsorships, donations, and other means of support; and continue to represent the Alex Theatre, Glendale Arts, and the City of Glendale as leaders of industry and innovation at a time when the challenges of doing business are also accompanied by a wealth of new opportunities and means for success. 7/24/2020 7:30 PM
4 no 7/24/2020 5:17 PM
5 Yes, some clients that had opened are now closed again. 7/22/2020 9:15 AM 6 No, as we are considered essentials for health care operations. 7/21/2020 1:31 PM 7 Increased cases has decreased usage of childcare but increased the need for it; quite a paradox. Our primary service now is to employers wishing to provide options to employees. 7/21/2020 10:34 AM
8 Not yet - we prefer to close but are essental business. have too many deliveries, or we would close. Rather not have an office - but lease wont go away :-( 7/21/2020 9:53 AM
9 Employees are rejecting to work from office or on site 7/21/2020 9:42 AM 10 YES - malls are closed. We are unable to work on existing business or generate new business. 7/21/2020 9:39 AM 11 Yes, We have no clarification of what can be open or closed. 7/20/2020 10:30 AM 12 No 7/19/2020 3:58 PM
13 Yes. I am not sure. 7/18/2020 3:51 PM
14 provide capital for operations 7/18/2020 3:02 PM
15 We just can’t get our clients to come to the office. 7/18/2020 7:09 AM 16 No 7/17/2020 4:54 PM
17 Help with rent and overhead expenses 7/17/2020 4:22 PM 50 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 6 / 19
18 No 7/17/2020 4:14 PM
19 GLENDALE 7/17/2020 4:07 PM
20 Glendale 7/17/2020 4:00 PM
21 Glendale Yes however we have been affected since March so no new material changes 7/17/2020 3:53 PM 22 Yes, we re-closed. 7/17/2020 3:50 PM
51 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 7 / 19
70.00% 14
65.00% 13
45.00% 9
Q8 The City obtained hand sanitizer from FEMA in gallon and 8 oz sizes.
Do you need free hand sanitizer? If yes, please mark the size and the amount. Staff will coordinate delivery directly with you, based upon availability:
Answered: 20 Skipped: 9
# GALLONS DATE
1 5 7/28/2020 11:06 AM
2 1 7/26/2020 10:17 AM
3 8 7/24/2020 7:30 PM
4 6 7/21/2020 1:31 PM
5 none 7/21/2020 11:00 AM
6 3 7/21/2020 9:42 AM
7 0 7/21/2020 9:39 AM
8 2 7/20/2020 10:30 AM
9 1 7/18/2020 3:02 PM
10 0 7/18/2020 7:09 AM
11 2 7/17/2020 4:54 PM
12 3 7/17/2020 4:22 PM
13 1` 7/17/2020 3:53 PM
14 1 or 2 7/17/2020 3:50 PM
# 8-OUNCE HAND SANITIZER DATE
1 100 7/28/2020 11:06 AM
2 12 7/26/2020 10:17 AM
3 6 7/24/2020 7:30 PM
4 15 7/21/2020 4:02 PM
5 10 7/21/2020 11:40 AM
6 none 7/21/2020 11:00 AM
7 0 7/21/2020 9:39 AM
8 3 7/20/2020 10:30 AM
9 6 7/18/2020 3:02 PM
10 12 7/18/2020 7:09 AM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Gallons
8-ounce hand sanitizer
I don’t need hand sanitizer but need other safety equipment:
52 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 8 / 19
11 30 7/17/2020 4:54 PM
12 20 7/17/2020 4:07 PM
13 2 7/17/2020 4:00 PM
# I DON’T NEED HAND SANITIZER BUT NEED OTHER SAFETY EQUIPMENT: DATE 1 I'm not sure if this is asking for too much, if so, any amount will help. 7/28/2020 11:06 AM 2 face shields 7/21/2020 4:02 PM
3 none 7/21/2020 11:00 AM
4 I don't need sanitizer 7/21/2020 9:39 AM
5 None 7/19/2020 3:58 PM
6 Hand soap. We bought a bunch of hand sanitizer but are also going through soap quickly. I appreciate this question because it has taken a lot of extra time and money to coordinate safety plans and changing issues with employees during the pandemic. 7/18/2020 3:51 PM
7 Masks 7/18/2020 7:09 AM
8 Face masks 7/17/2020 4:22 PM
9 air filter for the air flow; the owner said they won't do it or even help pay for it 7/17/2020 4:00 PM 53 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 9 / 19
27.59% 8
10.34% 3
6.90% 2
17.24% 5
37.93% 11
Q9 How has COVID-19 permanently impacted the working behavior of your employees?
Answered: 29 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 29
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 by appointments only !!!! 7/26/2020 10:17 AM
2 Each of the above answers is applicable to the Glendale Arts staff. We are currently working remotely unless there is a specific occasion that requires physical presence on-site at the Glendale Arts Administrative Office or the Alex Theatre. We are maximizing use of digital tools that allow us to achieve a significant portion of our work, including virtual 3D models and tours of the venue that provide alternate means to showcase the Theatre to clients and make it possible for production teams to plan while limiting the need for in-person access. When there is on-site activity, there are specific protocols that every employee and visitor is required to adhere to, including undergoing health screenings and limiting working in close proximity to others as much as is possible. These critical safety measures present increases in the time and cost involved in doing everything from the most routine tasks, from hosting in-person meetings and pairing up to move heavy equipment, to complex projects such as full-scale productions that we are able to host within the limited scope of activities that are permitted at this time.
7/24/2020 7:30 PM
3 Increased Telecommunicating, Limited Business Travel & Encouraged Use of Virtual Meetings 7/21/2020 3:27 PM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Increased
Telecommunic...
Limited
business travel
Staggered
shifts/breaks
Encouraged use
of virtual...
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Increased Telecommunicating
Limited business travel
Staggered shifts/breaks
Encouraged use of virtual meetings
Other (please specify)
54 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 10 / 19
(All 3)
4 All of the above 7/21/2020 2:53 PM
5 In office Telecommunicating and Virtual meetings, Physical Barriers purchased and installed, Staggered shifts/breaks
7/21/2020 1:31 PM
6 All! 7/21/2020 10:34 AM
7 Employees are blaming my company for closure and trying to sue me and my company out of business
7/21/2020 9:39 AM
8 All the above 7/21/2020 9:34 AM
9 Increased telecommunicating, encouraged use of virtual meetings, increased tasks with a decreased work force (i.e. cleaning more often)
7/18/2020 3:51 PM
10 All of the above 7/17/2020 3:53 PM
11 All of the above, but limited by the Courts' technology 7/17/2020 3:50 PM 55 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 11 / 19
32.14% 9
0.00% 0
3.57% 1
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
17.86% 5
0.00% 0
46.43% 13
Q10 Which safety measures do you have in place for additional guidance on Los Angeles County requirements for office building visits:
Answered: 28 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 28
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Required masks
Face shields
Employers
provided masks
Clear signage
Shoe Covers
Disposable
gloves
Physical
distancing...
Employer
testing
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Required masks
Face shields
Employers provided masks
Clear signage
Shoe Covers
Disposable gloves
Physical distancing protocols
Employer testing
Other (please specify)
56 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 12 / 19
1 Each of the above items is applicable to Glendale Arts, with specific use and enforcement varying depending on various factors. Glendale Arts has established a multi-phase safety planning and execution team which is tasked with discussing, formalizing, documenting, and enforcing safety procedures and protocols for all types and levels of activities that the organization’s employees, in addition to booking clients, vendors, guests, and other groups that might have occasion to be on-site at the Glendale Arts Administrative Office or the Alex Theatre itself, might engage in. In order to do business, in addition to federal, state, county, and city guidelines, Glendale Arts must also adhere to guidelines established by various unions, including IATSE and SAG-AFTRA.
7/24/2020 7:30 PM
2 Required Masks, Employers Provided Masks, Clear Signage, Physical Distancing Protocols, Regular Cleanings of Environment
7/21/2020 3:27 PM
3 We have all of the above with the exception of shoe covers and face shields 7/21/2020 2:53 PM 4 Required FaceMask, Clear Signage, Physical Distancing protocols, Physical Barriers, Employer testing, Temperature Checks and face shields distributed. 7/21/2020 1:31 PM
5 employer provided masks, signage, gloves, distancing, employer testing 7/21/2020 11:00 AM 6 Everyone is work from home, but we would do all of these things if we are in an office 7/21/2020 10:34 AM 7 masks, gloves, distancing - your selections are not checkbox 7/21/2020 9:53 AM 8 mask, distance and sensitization all time 7/21/2020 9:42 AM 9 All the above but no shoe covers, face shields, testing 7/21/2020 9:34 AM 10 Required masks; face shields; employers provided masks; signs; disposable gloves; physical distancing protocols; new procedures for packages, visitors, handling telephones/message slips; barrier at reception; hand sanitizer throughout office 7/18/2020 3:51 PM
11 I want to fill out more than one of the above but it gets erased when I try 7/17/2020 4:00 PM 12 Front entry restrictive signage, Face masks, physical distancing, masks and gloves available for employee use
7/17/2020 3:53 PM
13 Require masks, employer provided masks, clear signage, disposable gloves, physical distancing, daily heath screening
7/17/2020 3:50 PM
57 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 13 / 19
Q11 Corporate hotel stays accounts for 60 percent of the local hotel demand. Do you foresee your use of local hotels returning to pre-COVID levels by the following months and the following rates?:
Answered: 25 Skipped: 4
84.00%
21 16.00%
4 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 25
1.16 72.00%
18 20.00%
5 8.00%
2 0.00%
0 25
1.36 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 25% 50% 100%
September
December
0% 25% 50% 100% TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE
September
December
58 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 14 / 19
41.38% 12
31.03% 9
27.59% 8
Q12 In the next two years, do you foresee reducing the size of space you lease as a result of COVID-19?
Answered: 29 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 29
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Not Sure
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not Sure
59 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 15 / 19
42.86% 12
46.43% 13
10.71% 3
Q13 Did you receive an EIDL or PPP grant?
Answered: 28 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 28
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
I submitted an
application,...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
I submitted an application, but haven’t received the funds yet 60 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 16 / 19
55.17% 16
44.83% 13
Q14 Glendale Tech Week has been an annual event intended to celebrate technology and innovation in the City. Have you attended or sponsored Glendale Tech Week in the past?
Answered: 29 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 29
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
61 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 17 / 19
13.79% 4
31.03% 9
17.24% 5
31.03% 9
6.90% 2
Q15 The City is considering altering the delivery of Glendale Tech Week due to COVID-19. List your preference:
Answered: 29 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 29
# OTHER OPTIONS? DATE
1 We'd love to sponsor and be a part of Glendale Tech Week whether it's virtual or in person. 7/21/2020 3:27 PM 2 Do not postpone. Require masks but don't get in the way of business any longer! 7/21/2020 9:39 AM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Postpone
Glendale Tec...
Continue some
elements of...
Cancel
Glendale Tec...
No opinion.
Other options?
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Postpone Glendale Tech Week until a future date. I enjoy the face to face networking aspect of the events.
Continue some elements of Glendale Tech Week programming – but virtually. Supporting the start-up ecosystem during this time is more important than ever.
Cancel Glendale Tech Week until funding and physical distancing stabilizes.
No opinion.
Other options?
62 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 18 / 19
15.79% 3
10.53% 2
42.11% 8
31.58% 6
Q16 If you sponsored Glendale Tech Week in the past, has COVID-19 changed your financial resources available to sponsor this year? Answered: 19 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 19
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes, at the
same level
Yes, but at a
reduced amount
No, I don’t
have availab...
Not sure yet.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes, at the same level
Yes, but at a reduced amount
No, I don’t have available funds this year for sponsorship Not sure yet.
63 of 234
Glendale Office Tenants and Building Managers - COVID-19 Update 19 / 19
Q17 Do you have additional comments/concerns you would like to share? Answered: 11 Skipped: 18
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Every business should have a license.... with the lease attached ! Thats what the BUSINESS REGISTRATION CERTICATES on your website call for !!..... This also include the Number of employees located in the premisis per the landlord's lease !~! OF COURSE, THE CITY DOES
NOT ENFORCE, OR FOLLOW UP ON THE ABERRATIONS OF THE BRC CODE REQUIREMENTS ! In these times, you should have at least the fire department or the building inspectors, update the BRCs & enforce them !
7/26/2020 10:17 AM
2 Thank you Economic Development team! 7/21/2020 11:00 AM 3 I would love to see a virtual Glendale Tech Week! On the other hand, we are over-stretched for time and funds due to covid and will struggle to participate on the same level as previous years. We are finding similar situations with many of our partners. If this is the case for many businesses, maybe postponing is warranted. But in pure philosophy and idealism, I'd love to see it stay right on track and persevere!
7/21/2020 10:34 AM
4 none at the moment 7/21/2020 9:42 AM
5 The shutdown has devastated my company, our customer's projects, and the financial well being of my employees and myself.
7/21/2020 9:39 AM
6 You called the PPP money a "grant." It was a loan that MIGHT be forgiven. I think that is an important distinction that should be corrected and considered as you continue to put limits on who can apply for your city "grants."
7/18/2020 3:51 PM
7 Enforce wearing masks for everyone and penalize who don’t. 7/18/2020 7:09 AM 8 I have reduced my office space, so might increase in the future if things get better. 7/17/2020 4:54 PM 9 Landlords should offer reduced rent/lease payments and tenants should be permitted to enter into lease modifications and/or be able to terminate the lease due to reduced income 7/17/2020 4:22 PM
10 Stevenson Real Estate owns my building and has refused to help and ignored my last email, which was re: how I do not have access to make the changes needed for help. They have not checked in or offered assistance in any way. I am planning on moving out of my suite in the near future, and I will work from home. This means that 2 of 4 suites in our bldg will be empty due to COVID.
7/17/2020 4:00 PM
11 Allow businesses to open as soon as practical. Losses to both business and City tax coffers continue to increase. Consider approving more "on the street" - open air business activities 7/17/2020 3:53 PM
64 of 234
C I T Y O F G L E N D A L E
Al-Fresco Survey
September-October 2020
65 of 234
Al Fresco Survey
1 / 10
30.00% 3
60.00% 6
30.00% 3
Q1 1. Are you a business that is participating in the Al Fresco Glendale Program? If yes, how
Answered: 10 Skipped: 8
Total Respondents: 10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Parklet
Sidewalk Dining
Using my
private park...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Parklet
Sidewalk Dining
Using my private parking lot
66 of 234
Al Fresco Survey
1 / 10
30.00% 3
60.00% 6
30.00% 3
Q1 1. Are you a business that is participating in the Al Fresco Glendale Program? If yes, how
Answered: 10 Skipped: 8
Total Respondents: 10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Parklet
Sidewalk Dining
Using my
private park...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Parklet
Sidewalk Dining
Using my private parking lot
Al Fresco Survey
2 / 10
0.00% 0
90.91% 10
0.00% 0
9.09% 1
Q2 2. What type of business are you?
Answered: 11 Skipped: 7
TOTAL 11
# OTHER, PLEASE SPECIFY DATE
1 Just a customer! 9/14/2020 9:21 AM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Salon
Restaurant
Retail
Other, please
specify
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Salon
Restaurant
Retail
Other, please specify
67 of 234
Al Fresco Survey
3 / 10
11.11% 1
66.67% 6
11.11% 1
11.11% 1
Q3 3. Has the Al Fresco program resulted in increased revenues since the start of the Safer at Home orders?
Answered: 9 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes,
significantly
Yes, slight
increase
Yes, breaking
even
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes, significantly
Yes, slight increase
Yes, breaking even
No
68 of 234
Al Fresco Survey
3 / 10
11.11% 1
66.67% 6
11.11% 1
11.11% 1
Q3 3. Has the Al Fresco program resulted in increased revenues since the start of the Safer at Home orders?
Answered: 9 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes,
significantly
Yes, slight
increase
Yes, breaking
even
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes, significantly
Yes, slight increase
Yes, breaking even
No
Al Fresco Survey
4 / 10
88.89% 8
11.11% 1
Q4 4. Did the Al Fresco program enable you to retain or hire employees? Answered: 9 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
69 of 234
Al Fresco Survey
5 / 10
Q5 How many employees were you able to retain?
Answered: 9 Skipped: 9
# RESPONSES DATE
1 3 9/25/2020 9:24 AM
2 2 9/18/2020 4:53 PM
3 5 9/14/2020 12:05 PM
4 18 9/11/2020 2:44 PM
5 10 9/11/2020 1:31 PM
6 32 9/11/2020 12:30 PM
7 not sure 9/11/2020 12:16 PM
8 32 9/11/2020 12:12 PM
9 9 9/11/2020 12:12 PM
70 of 234
Al Fresco Survey
6 / 10
Q6 How many employees were you able to hire?
Answered: 9 Skipped: 9
# RESPONSES DATE
1 0 9/25/2020 9:24 AM
2 2 9/18/2020 4:53 PM
3 3 9/14/2020 12:05 PM
4 3 9/11/2020 2:44 PM
5 None 9/11/2020 1:31 PM
6 32 9/11/2020 12:30 PM
7 not sure 9/11/2020 12:16 PM
8 2 9/11/2020 12:12 PM
9 5 9/11/2020 12:12 PM
71 of 234
Al Fresco Survey
7 / 10
Q7 5. What do you like the best about Al Fresco Glendale? Answered: 13 Skipped: 5
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Out door fresh air and it definitely help keep my business open and able to survive. 9/25/2020 9:24 AM 2 good for dining peoples who want to have the table at outside from home 9/18/2020 4:53 PM 3 its great how restaurants can seat people outside. 9/14/2020 12:05 PM 4 Great to take advantage of outdoor and fresh air. It has a very European experience. 9/14/2020 10:17 AM 5 I love it. Outside is lovely. 9/14/2020 10:03 AM
6 I love being able to eat a meal outdoors, it’s so refreshing vs inside a dark restaurant 9/14/2020 9:21 AM 7 It gives our clientele a nice outdoor dining option that was not available before. 9/11/2020 2:44 PM 8 Great idea, work great for us . 9/11/2020 1:31 PM
9 The flexibility to seat people on the sidewalk 9/11/2020 12:30 PM 10 Partnership. 9/11/2020 12:16 PM
11 Jennifer Hiramoto and team along with the City have been so helpful. 9/11/2020 12:12 PM 12 The program was great for people who had the space to do outside dining. Hopefully we will survive this situation. All city government should be on the governor back to reopen businesses
9/11/2020 12:12 PM
13 I am not a business that is using Al Fresco Glendale, but have been a patron at some of the businesses that are. I really like it!
9/11/2020 10:16 AM
72 of 234
Al Fresco Survey
7 / 10
Q7 5. What do you like the best about Al Fresco Glendale? Answered: 13 Skipped: 5
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Out door fresh air and it definitely help keep my business open and able to survive. 9/25/2020 9:24 AM 2 good for dining peoples who want to have the table at outside from home 9/18/2020 4:53 PM 3 its great how restaurants can seat people outside. 9/14/2020 12:05 PM 4 Great to take advantage of outdoor and fresh air. It has a very European experience. 9/14/2020 10:17 AM 5 I love it. Outside is lovely. 9/14/2020 10:03 AM
6 I love being able to eat a meal outdoors, it’s so refreshing vs inside a dark restaurant 9/14/2020 9:21 AM 7 It gives our clientele a nice outdoor dining option that was not available before. 9/11/2020 2:44 PM 8 Great idea, work great for us . 9/11/2020 1:31 PM
9 The flexibility to seat people on the sidewalk 9/11/2020 12:30 PM 10 Partnership. 9/11/2020 12:16 PM
11 Jennifer Hiramoto and team along with the City have been so helpful. 9/11/2020 12:12 PM 12 The program was great for people who had the space to do outside dining. Hopefully we will survive this situation. All city government should be on the governor back to reopen businesses
9/11/2020 12:12 PM
13 I am not a business that is using Al Fresco Glendale, but have been a patron at some of the businesses that are. I really like it!
9/11/2020 10:16 AM
Al Fresco Survey
8 / 10
46.67% 7
6.67% 1
13.33% 2
13.33% 2
20.00% 3
Q8 6. How the Al Fresco Glendale Program be improved?
Answered: 15 Skipped: 3
TOTAL 15
# OTHER IDEAS DATE
1 Portable heaters so we can sit out when it’s cold! 9/14/2020 9:21 AM 2 Quicker turn around time on approval. 9/11/2020 12:16 PM 3 We had to do all that ourselves. We had to buy all the stuff to make it so people would enjoy outside dining
9/11/2020 12:12 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
More shade
More trash cans
More greenery
Nothing! This
is a perfect...
Other ideas
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
More shade
More trash cans
More greenery
Nothing! This is a perfect solution for COVID19.
Other ideas
73 of 234
Al Fresco Survey
9 / 10
87.50% 14
12.50% 2
0.00% 0
Q9 7. Would you be interested in having this as a permanent feature? Answered: 16 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 16
# MAYBE, IF DATE
There are no responses.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes, I love it.
No. This is a
good tempora...
Maybe, if
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes, I love it.
No. This is a good temporary solution but I value my parking.
Maybe, if
74 of 234
Al Fresco Survey
9 / 10
87.50% 14
12.50% 2
0.00% 0
Q9 7. Would you be interested in having this as a permanent feature? Answered: 16 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 16
# MAYBE, IF DATE
There are no responses.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes, I love it.
No. This is a
good tempora...
Maybe, if
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes, I love it.
No. This is a good temporary solution but I value my parking.
Maybe, if
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 61Al Fresco Survey 10 / 10
Q10 8. Is there anything else you would like to add or comment on about the program?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 8
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Not a business owner, just a resident who is forced to walk through valley's of non-mask wearers with not nearly enough allowable distance to get to my destination. I'm so angry at this, and that the supposed fines in place in general for not masking up mean nothing. 10/9/2020 4:16 PM
2 Continue to wave the charge. 9/25/2020 9:24 AM
3 More beautiful Lighting 9/18/2020 4:53 PM
4 People out in Glendale are not wearing masks. I feel unsafe being in Glendale. 9/15/2020 7:14 AM 5 Continue to maintain outdoor dining, but ensure that the streets and sidewalks are clean because there can be issues with bugs.
9/14/2020 10:17 AM
6 We should’ve always been eating outside. It’s southern a California for Pete’s sake! People in Europe run the tables and chairs back and forth just to be able to dine outside while they get the chance. I love it!
9/14/2020 10:03 AM
7 I’m only a customer, don’t own a business but I LOVE it! My family and I have been going out for dinner every Friday night since the outdoor seating started. We just wish more restaurants were able to offer this type of arrangement (those not on brand) but I understand not all of them have the area/space to do it. Really hope this al fresco stuff can be permanent to some capacity. Thanks Glendale!
9/14/2020 9:21 AM
8 We appreciate the prompt action to supply tables, shade and greenery compared to other cities.
9/11/2020 2:44 PM
9 this has been a great help, thank you 9/11/2020 12:30 PM 10 Yes thank you to all the glendale staff that help to make this possible 9/11/2020 12:12 PM 75 of 234
22002211 CCiittyy ooff GGlleennddaallee
FFllaasshh PPoollll RReessuullttss
JJuullyy 2200,, 22002211 –– AAuugguusstt 2233,, 22002211 76 of 234
SURVEY REPONDENTS
561
Respondents 20
Industries
2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale. 2 100%
Business Leaders
77 of 234
3 RETAIL & WHOLESALE – 14%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12%
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE/TRADE ASSOCIATIONS – 7%
TOP 10 INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED
2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale.
ENTERTAINMENT & TRAVEL – 5%
HOSPITALITY & RESTAURANTS - 6%
HEALTH - 4%
TECHNOLOGY – 5%
REAL ESTATE – 5%
EDUCATION– 7%
CONSTRUCTION– 5%
78 of 234
APPROXIMATE EMPLOYEE COUNT
1-10 11-50 51-100 101-500 500+ 0 4 5%
19%
33%
4%
2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale. 35%
3%
Employee Count
79 of 234
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE SURVEY?
INSTAGRAM,
FACEBOOK, LINKEDIN,
TWITTER
CHOOSEGLENDALECA.COM
NEWSLETTER
EMAIL
WORD OF MOUTH
40%
18%
15%
3%22%
1%
5 • GLENDALE CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE
• CITY EMPLOYEE
• CITY OF GLENDALE
WEBSITE
2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale. 80 of 234
OPTIMISTIC
Uncertain 15%
BUSINESS OUTLOOK FOR NEXT YEAR
Pessimistic 14%
6 Very Pessimistic 7%
Very Optimistic 16%
2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale. 48%
Optimism is an
overriding theme for
Glendale business
leaders as they look at
the next year
81 of 234
Moderately
41%
Significantly
32%
Completely
15%
Not at all
7%
Uncertain
5%
7 2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale. 88%
acknowledge that their
level of optimism or
pessimism depends to
some extent on how the
City addresses business
issues
Glendale business leaders are
very attuned to the role of the
City of Glendale in addressing
business issues
82 of 234
8 Risks to
commercial
real estate
continue
2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale. • Renew the lease with no significant
modifications 31%
• Renew the lease, and move to a smaller and/or
less expensive space 14%
• Expand your space 11%
• Relocate out of the City of Glendale 7%
• Not renew the lease and move to a smaller
and/or less expensive space 4%
• Not renew the lease and no longer lease space
for your business 1%
• Unsure 16%
• N/A 15%
LEASING OFFICE SPACE
83 of 234
WORKFORCE CHANGES IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS
More business leaders expect
their workforce will increase
over the next 12 months.
9 Expect a
DECREASE
in their workforce
19%
39%
2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale.
Decrease by up to 10%
Decrease by more than 10%
Increase by more than 10%
Increase by up to 10%
Stay pretty much the same
8%
11%
20%
21%
Expect an
INCREASE
in their workforce
41%
84 of 234
CHANGES IN THE WORKPLACE
REMOTE WORK IS
NOT GOING AWAY
10 Pre- Post-
Pandemic Pandemic
Expect some or all their
employees to be working
remotely
Say no employees will be
working remotely
2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale.
We will have employees working
remote more than in the past 48%
We will have the same level of remote
work post-pandemic as we did pre-
pandemic
28%
We will have employees working
remote less than in the past 24%
85% 95%
15% 4%
85 of 234
11 28% 72%
Estimated that
50% or less
of their
employees
reside in
Glendale
2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale.
Estimated that
over 50%
of their
employees
reside in
Glendale
EMPLOYEE RESIDENCY
86 of 234
12 EMPLOYEE OBSTACLES
Numerous obstacles remain to getting workers re-integrated into the workforce and bringing employees back to the workplace
Childcare challenges are
preventing applicants from
accepting jobs and
preventing employees from
returning to the workplace
Childcare Transportation Pay rate Location Inability to telecommute
Other
56%
36%
48% 48% 51%
38%
44%
64%
52% 52%
49%
62%
Applicant Employee
2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale. 87 of 234
TOP 12 BUSINESS CONCERNS
13 2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale.
Housing & land use
Homelessness
Taxes and Fees
Other
Workforce development
(training and education)
Energy/fuel costs
Business-related expenses (rent,
salaries, utilities, etc.
Attracting and retaining
customers/clients
Crime
Hiring & Staffing
Debt
E-commerce
56%
11%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
10%
4%
4% 2%
1%
Over 80%
of Glendale
business
leaders
identify
inward-
focused
issues as
their top
business
concern.
56%
88 of 234
CITY OF GLENDALE
PERFORMANCE SCORECARDGlendale
business
leaders
express
overwhelming
satisfaction
with the City’s
performance in
key areas
14 2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale. 54%
56%
59%
60%
60%
60%
63%
63%
65%
66%
68%
69%
73%
78%
29%
25%
19%
28%
33%
23%
26%
26%
26%
23%
27%
27%
23%
19%
18%
19%
22%
12%
7%
16%
12%
11%
9%
12%
5%
3%
4%
3%
Providing rent/mortgage relief for businesses
Housing affordability
Improving traffic
Streamlining business permits
Expanding broadband accessibility
Imposing reasonable fees and regulations
Other
Reducing homelessness
Attracting new business
Marketing and promoting Glendale businesses
Ability to adapt to virtual formats
Emergency preparedness
Reducing crime
Public safety & emergency response time
Favorable Uncertain Unfavorable
89 of 234
15 CITY OF GLENDALE SHOULD
PRIORITIZE
2021 City of Glendale. This document is strictly private and confidential to its recipients and should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any third party without the written permission of City of Glendale.
Glendale business leaders want the
City of Glendale to prioritize
childcare support to help their
long-term recovery from the impact
of the pandemic
Additional placemaking
Increased tourism
Other
Broadband access
Incentives for hiring
Marketing initiative
Landlord / building owner support
Worker training programs
Ease of permit process
Grant programs
Childcare support
1%
2%
2%
3%
5%
7%
9%
9%
9%
18%
33%
90 of 234
For questions or comments,
please contact us:
Ani Pogossian,
Economic Development Coordinator
City of Glendale
Economic Development Division
633 East Broadway, Suite 201
Glendale, CA 91206
(818) 937-8278
[email protected]
Mark Wilbur
Employers Group, President & CEO
400 Continental Blvd, Ste. 300
EL Segundo, CA 90245
310-849-9066
[email protected]
91 of 234
City of Glendale Poll 2021
Flash Poll Narrative
INTRODUCTORY NOTES
This narrative addresses all questions and corresponding aggregated responses included in the 2021 City of Glendale Flash Poll conducted from July 20, 2021 through August 23, 2021.
The Poll generated 561 responses. Poll respondents were Glendale business leaders representing a wide range of industries including Retail and Wholesale (13.9%), Professional Services (11.9%), Education (6.7%), Chambers of Commerce/Trade Associations (6.7%), Hospitality and Restaurants (5.8%), Entertainment and Travel (5.3%), Construction (5.3%), Real Estate Management (5.3%) and Technology (5%). Thirty other industries with under 5% representation also participated.
The Poll Respondents represented the full spectrum of company size, with 35% referencing an employee count of 1 – 10; 33.2% with an employee count of 11 – 50; 19.2% with an employee count of 51 – 100;
5.4% with an employee count of 101 – 500; and 4% with an employee count of over 500.
Participation in the Poll was driven most successfully by social media, with Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter being identified by 39.7% of respondents as the means by which they were made aware of the Poll. Other successful outreach efforts included newsletter (22.1%), Chooseglendaleca.com (18.2%) and email (15.4%).
Poll questions were answered based on the respondents’ personal business outlook and their understanding of their workforce. Over 72% of Poll Respondents estimated that 50% or less of their employees actually reside in Glendale and just under 28% estimated that over 50% of their employees reside in Glendale.
In reviewing the full report and this analysis, note that responses to some questions do not add up to 100% due to several factors including rounding, some questions for which respondents were invited to select more than one answer and sometimes exclusion of “unsure” or “uncertain” responses in order to keep the narrative more focused on actionable input.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
1. The City of Glendale is looked to with high regard by local business leaders, who are generally satisfied with the City’s performance and overwhelmingly optimistic about the future of their businesses.
2. Glendale business leaders would like to see the City prioritize childcare to help their long-term recovery from the impact of the pandemic, and have a wide range of suggestions for possible legislation.
3. Glendale business leaders focus inward in terms of their top business concerns.
4. The post-pandemic Glendale workforce is growing and, simultaneously, evolving into a more remote workforce with new challenges, (particularly childcare and transportation), which are already impacting staffing and may impact commercial real estate in the near future.
92 of 234
OUTLOOK FOR THE NEXT YEAR
Headline: Optimism is an overriding theme for Glendale business leaders as they look at the next year.
Headline: Glendale business leaders are very attuned to the role of the City of Glendale in addressing business issues.
Q3 - Which one of the following words best describes your outlook for businesses in Glendale over the next year?
64.5% of Glendale business leaders express that they have an “Optimistic” (48%) or “Very Optimistic” (16.5%) outlook for businesses in the city over the next year.
Only 20.4% of Glendale business leaders express that they have a “Pessimistic” (13.6%) or “Very Pessimistic (6.9%) outlook for businesses in the city over the next year.
The optimism comes with a caution though, as another 15% express that they are currently “Uncertain” about the outlook for business over the next year.
Q4 - To what extent does your level of optimism or pessimism depend on how the City of Glendale is addressing business issues?
Almost all business leaders (88.3%) acknowledge that their level of optimism or pessimism depends to some extent on how the City addresses business issues, with over 15% stating that it “Completely” depends on the City; 32.5% stating their outlook “Significantly” depends on the City; and 40.8% stating their outlook “Moderately” depends on the City.
Only 6.9% stated that their optimism or pessimism is “Not as all” based on the City.
LEASING OFFICE SPACE
Headline: Risks to commercial real estate continue.
Q5 - Based on what you know today, what are your plans for lease renewal of your business space? Close to 29% of Glendale business leaders report that they could potentially not be renewing the lease on their business space. This includes 7.3% planning to relocate out of Glendale, 4% planning not to renew and to move to a smaller/less expensive space, 1.3% that no longer plan to lease space for their business and 16.3% that are unsure.
Of the 56% reporting that they do plan on renewing their lease, 31.2% expect to do so with no significant modifications; 13.6% expect to renew, but move to a smaller/less expensive space and 11.2% expect to actually increase their space.
WORKFORCE LEVELS AND THE WORKPLACE
Headline: More business leaders expect their workforce will increase over the next 12 months.
Headline: Remote work is not going away.
93 of 234
Q6 - Over the next 12 months, do you expect your local workforce will:
An impressive 41.6% of Glendale business leaders anticipate their workforce will increase over the next year with 21.5% expecting the increase to be up to 10%, and 20.1% anticipating an increase of more than 10%.
Only 19% expect a decrease, with 8% anticipating a decrease of up to 10% and 11% anticipating a decrease of more than 10%.
Q7 - As a result of the pandemic:
Close to half of Glendale business leaders (47.9%) expect to have employees working remote more than in the past. Curiously, 24.1% report that they will have employees working remote less than in the past, and 28% expect the level of remote work will stay pretty much the same.
NOTE: Q8 and Q9 are follow-ups to Q7. The 28% of respondents that selected “We will have the same level of remote work post-pandemic as we did pre-pandemic” were not directed to answer Q8 or Q9.
Q8 - Pre-pandemic, what percentage of your employees worked remote some or all of the time? Q9 - Post-pandemic, what percentage of your employees do you expect to continue to work remote some or all of the time?
Only 4.3% of Glendale business leaders expect to have no remote workers post pandemic. This is down from 14.8% that had no remote workers pre-pandemic.
The most significant increases are with businesses expecting to have more than half of their employees working remote some or all of the time, which is projecting an increase from under 4% pre-pandemic to
19.2% post-pandemic.
Headline: Numerous obstacles remain to getting workers re-integrated into the workforce and bringing employees back to the workplace.
Headline: Childcare challenges are preventing applicants from accepting jobs and preventing employees from returning to the workplace
Headline: Logistical issues, including transportation, location and ability to telecommute are significant barriers to getting employees back to the workplace.
Q12 - An applicant / employee cited the following as a reason to not accept a job offer/return to work:
Over 56% of Glendale business leaders report that an applicant has cited childcare as a reason for not accepting a job and 43.9% report that a current employee has cited childcare as a reason for potentially not being able to return to the workplace.
Glendale business leaders report that applicants have offered up a broad range of reasons for not being able to accept a job. Among the top reasons given, 51.1% report that an applicant has cited “Inability to telecommute,” 47.9% report an applicant citing “pay rate,” and 35.9% report that an applicant has cited “transportation.”
Glendale business leaders also report that they have received pushback from employees who have cited a number of reasons as to why they may not be able to return to the physical workplace if called upon 94 of 234
to do so. The number one reason cited was “transportation,” which has been brought up to 64.1% of employers, followed by the related concern of “location” at 52.4%, “pay rate” at 52.1%, inability to telecommute” at 48% and “childcare” at 43.9%.
BUSINESS CONCERNS
Headline: Business-related expenses including rent, salaries and utilities was cited as the top concern by more than five times as many Glendale business leaders as the number two concern (attracting and retaining customers/clients).
Headline: Over 80% of Glendale business leaders identify inward-focused issues as their top business concern.
Business-related expenses, including rent, salaries and utilities was cited as the top concern by 56.4% of Glendale business leaders as they recover from the impact of the pandemic.
Three of the 11 choices for top business concern Glendale business leaders are facing as they recover from the impact of the pandemic accounted for 76.8% of the responses. Specifically, business-related expenses, including rent, salaries and utilities accounted for 56.4%, attracting and retaining customers/clients accounted for 10.6% and crime accounted for 9.8%.
The traditional top business concern, taxes and fees, was only identified by 2.2% as their top concern.
Although Glendale business leaders report that applicants have often turned down jobs for a variety of reasons, only 4.4% identified hiring and staffing as the top concern.
GOVERNMENT – CITY OF GLENDALE
Headline: Glendale business leaders express overwhelming satisfaction with the City’s performance in key areas.
Headline: Glendale business leaders give exceptionally high marks to City for public safety, response time, reducing crime and emergency preparedness.
Q14 – How satisfied are you with the City of Glendale's performance in the following areas?
77.8% of Glendale business leaders have a satisfactory opinion of the City’s performance on public safety and emergency response time (21.9% “very satisfied,” 13.9% “moderately satisfied,” and 41.9% “satisfied”), Only 3.3% stated that they were “not satisfied.” Related to public safety, the City also scored high with business leaders on reducing crime, 73.1% expressing they are satisfied with the City’s performance (21.1% “very satisfied,” 16.1% “moderately satisfied,” and 35.8% “satisfied”) and received high marks (69.3%) on emergency preparedness (16% “very satisfied,” 11.3% “moderately satisfied,” and 42% “satisfied”).
Glendale business leaders also had a generally favorable opinion of the City’s performance on business- related matters including marketing and promoting Glendale businesses (65.7% satisfied), attracting new business (65.5% satisfied) and streamlining business permits (59.6% satisfied).
The highest “not satisfied” response was for improving traffic at 21.6%. 95 of 234
The lowest satisfied response was for providing rent/mortgage relief for businesses at 53.6%.
Headline: Glendale business leaders want the City of Glendale to prioritize childcare support to help their long-term recovery from the impact of the pandemic.
Q15 - What initiatives should the City of Glendale prioritize to help your business’s long-term recovery from the impact of the pandemic?
Almost twice as many Glendale business leaders ranked childcare support as the top initiative the City should prioritize to help them recover from the impact of the pandemic. Childcare support was ranked number one by 33.1% of the respondents and second highest, grant programs, was ranked number one by 17.6%.
Other initiatives ranked number one by 5% or more of business leaders were: worker training programs (9.4%), ease of permit access (9.4%), landlord/building owner support (8.8%), marketing initiative to increase regional awareness (7.3%) and incentives for hiring (5%).
Initiatives not significantly moving the needle were: broadband access (2.9%), increased tourism (2.1%) and additional placemaking (1.5%). Only .6% responded “none.”
OPEN-ENDED FEEDBACK
Headline: Glendale business leaders have a wide range of suggestions for legislation the City should consider in order to help them succeed post-pandemic.
Q16 - What single piece of legislation could the City of Glendale pass that would help your business succeed most post-pandemic?
Asked for open-ended suggestions on a single piece of legislation the City of Glendale could pass that would be most helpful for them, business leaders provided over 200 responses. The suggestions mostly fell under the categories of grants and funding, taxes, COVID and public health, transit, traffic and parking, business processes and incentives, landlords, renters and rent control, employment-related, marketing and promotions and other.
Following is a sample of suggestions received grouped by these categories:
Grants and Funding
Use ARPA funds to help small businesses stay in business The city of Glendale should have clearly outlined the conditions for grants and Pandemic help to businesses as well as performed exactly as per their mandated eligibility. If a Legislative Grant is approved, all the details should be worked out I suppose? Federal government funding
Funding to develop underused and derelict spaces for youth sports groups Provide a one time $5,000 working capital grant for small businesses making less than $100,000 annually for the past three year. These are the businesses that have suffered immensely in this pandemic.
Ongoing grant programs.
We need more grant
96 of 234
The most important action the City can take is to grant businesses sitting area permits and sign permits quickly and without going through the long process. This will solve the problem for many small
Make financial grants and assistance easier and more readily available without red tape and extensive paperwork and follow up discouraging such assistance not pleasant. Incentives to consumers to spend money in Glendale
Enterprise Assistance Act
I don't believe other than "free money" or buying directly from us that the city of Glendale can do anything to help our business during the pandemic.
I would like the city to pay the businesses who are impacted by the filming industry.
Taxes
Tax incentives
Reduce sales tax by 3%
Tax relief to increase employment
COVID and Public Health
To have mandatory vaccination!
Get rid of masks and vaccine requirements.
Help with tax incentives and PPE
Public health policies that will help businesses stay open during the pandemic and surges of Covid-19, Delta Variants and other viruses that may impact the economy and recovery for businesses. Local government needs to make mandates (vaccinations and mask requirements) that will help the region deal with the public health issues and hospitalization rates.
Transit, Traffic and Parking
Transit initiatives, clean energy initiatives
No parking meters in Montrose shopping park or credit card machines Change the bus stop locations that are interfering with the local businesses and creating nuisance.
Change the coin meters which are outdated. The parking enforcement hours are a disaster and the parking situation is a mess.
Severe lack of inexpensive parking for part time employees. The Orange Street garage is $70 a month for fulltime. There is no PT option. Parking enforcement has been ruthless even when Lot 6 is half empty.
Have ADA STREET parking for those business locations that CANNOT offer or it is not feasible to have ADA PARKING because of street level to parking area Business Processes and Incentives
Streamline Building Permit application process
Lift all development restrictions and create more density along the Brand corridor, incentivize hotels
Public health, innovation and. Global strategy for Intellectual Property... Legislation or procurement agreement) already exists and is considered by many agencies to have succeeded in achieving its aims.
97 of 234
PLEASE SET LIMITATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF THE SAME TYPE OF BUSINESSES OPENING IN THE CITY. GLENDALE HAS BECOME ONLY A NAIL SHOP, PHARMACY, BAKERY, & GROCERY Requiring City Contracted services to be provided by businesses located in the City of Glendale Provide Flexibility in the permitting process including BRC's particularly to those citizens who work to play by the rules vs the citizens who look to scam and stay under the radar and do whatever they want without recourse from the City
Streamline and simplify all permit processes by using more customer online access and promote property ownership rights instead of continuing to chip away at those fundamental rights.
Landlords, Renters and Rent Control
I like to help lo income renters and hopefully open waiting list of section 8 programs Rental control for business leasing
Reduce all the landlord tenant laws that have made the situation worse for not only the landlords, but the tenants as well.
Remove rent control ordinances. Roll back sales tax to 7-1/4% and utilities rates 25%. Rent control for commercial establishments particularly restaurants Reject passing tenant registry and relax rent control initiatives already passed Employment-Related
More benefits for companies hiring work at home employees. Work from home jobs improve traffic and rental space costs.
Mandate family support benefits for companies of a certain size, like childcare. Even better if the City subsidizes it to also help the businesses.
EMPLOYMENT INCENTIVES
Marketing and Promotions
A marketing campaign to raise awareness of the region Network programs for" brain storm." We need to have Helping Hand projects. (one business owner help another one, give discounts in case of referral) Other
Prevent Homeless from invading the city like they did in LA and all the bad consequence that related to that including restlessness, Crime, dirty streets ... etc. Increase support for police department to get a handle on the rising crime get rid of the parklets for outdoor dining
Allowing Parklets to remain to businesses that want them Term limits on city council to ensure new and fresh ideas are always being generated, thereby helping with creative ways to improve the business climate in Glendale.
Headline: Glendale business leaders have a lot on their minds and are not reserved about sharing their comments and suggestions.
Q17 - Any additional comments or suggestions?
98 of 234
Asked for any general open-ended comments or suggestions business leaders provided over 100 responses addressing a wide range of topics – both business-related and personal. Many of the responses fell in line with the suggestions from Q16.
Following is a sample of these comments and suggestions:
MSPA needs oversight / audit. Montrose businesses deserve better leaders and ability to hold them accountable
Glendale casued a minor housing boom with the additon of the "granny units". Please read this article and the book it directs you as to why that was probably a bad idea. The gist is that you made housing in Glendale more unaffordabe by allowing the units. The unintended consequence is the increased value of the property, Which means fewer people can afford to own property in Glendale.https://www.planningreport.com/2021/02/18/patrick-condon- density-affordability-hungry-dogs-land-price-speculation Interest rates on corporate loans will be lowered and taxes paid by enterprises will be reduced. Good job on outdoor dining. Please do not pass vaccine passports. This will hurt business and unethical while not FDA approved.
There were no safeguards in place to protect individuals I would love to see some sort of economic stimulus for businesses that have opened in the last year.
Try to improve traffic
The parking situation and the bus stops near our business is a disaster. We have problems with the business because of parking. We have problems with delivery and pick up because of the bus stops. The city has done nothing to help us despite our repeated requests. More for the people and the development of enterprises Simplify the licensing process as soon as possible
Give employees more encouragement and benefits
rent is too high and landlords are taking advantage
Ideally, some of these problems will be resolved by electing more "pro business" City Council members.
Permit process must be improved in order for projects to be completed in a timely manner and not deter homeowners from building or improving their properties. It is too slow and communication is very poor.
PLEASE HELP THE SMALL GOOD AND HONEST LANDLORDS TO SURVIVE , SO THEY DO NOT HAVE TO SELL THEIR PROPERTIES AT A CHEAPER PRICE .(AS THEY ARE FED UP WITH UN- NECESSARY STRESS FROM DIS HONEST TENANTS IN THE NAME OF COVID ETC... ETC... AND NO REAL HELP
FROM CITY OF GLENDALE, WHO MAKE IT HARD TO CONTACT SOMEBODY WHO REALYYYY KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON!!!!! instead of PASSING THE BUCKET SO THAT SMALL LANDLORDS GET TIRED AND FEDDDD UPPPP AND GIVVVVVVVE UPPPPP.
YES== every website, every survery, every city page ref business..... should inform all about the BUSINESS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES ... process..... and landlord responsibility. as there are 2 /3/ 4 or more businesses within the Leased premisis. making it a problem for adjacent businesses. BRC's used to be transparent on the city website...by HDL.com..... now it is gone.....
WHY??? No code enforcement=no CITY revenues...... OR STATE Revenues to the FTB. !!!! The City must Operate a balanced budget. Cut the top City Leaders wages 50%, eliminate costly perks, reduce benefits and retirement packages by 50%., and rein in corrupt cronyism. Do not spend more annual than the City collects. Pass legislation that removes immunity and allow citizens of Glendale to prosecute those City leaders that fail to live up to their oath of office. 99 of 234
Thank you for reaching out and taking our views into consideration. As a final comment, not all businesses are the same. Some places are recently established and mom and pop owned. And even though the may not currently employ, they are still supporting the livelihood of a family.
This being mentioned as occasionally really small businesses are unable to afford or meet requirements.
Thank you in helping us get PPE supplies. It helped to keep our school open by keeping our expenses lower. We are a pre-school and have space if childcare is needed. I think in general the city is actually doing a pretty good job. It's been tough. The city has done what it can, we really can't ask for much more. In Montrose where my retail store is located the needs are simple. We need the place cleaned up. The planters need to be refreshed. The sidewalks need to be powerwashed on a regular basis. Illegal parking needs to be resolved.
Customers constantly complain about coin meters. And it is inexcusable that the MSPA wanted to remove the outside diner program. Our business is doing much better and staying open later.
So dumb. Those people gotta go.
Please consider the impact on mothers in society. As business owners and as consumers we have been inordinately burdened during the pandemic. Forced masking and restrictions related to vaccines are making it extra hard for us to manage our first job which is our children. We handle this every day before we can consider anything else and all of our work and consumer behavior is adapted to this.
The city should focus more on youth activities, public schools, and overall safety/traffic. Reduce the cost of doing business in Glendale. Sales tax rate is the highest it can be by State Law. People can drive to Tujunga or Sunland and pay a sales tax of 9.50% instead of the 10.25% we have to charge. That matters to people.
Glendale PD does an outstanding job in our area and I would buy them ALL donuts as a reward..
Glendale PD is friendly and approachable and I greatly appreciate their presence. They do a great job and help keep an eye out for things that happen in our Foothill Blvd area. Please remove all of the cement center divider announcements of "La Crescenta" placed along Foothill blvd. They are needless and cause accidents.
We need parking! Many of our customers do not come to the village (Kenneth Village) as often as they used to because they can't find a parking space. Glendale is a wonderful city and a great place to do business - please help us keep our business in business and our employees as well as our selves employed healthy and happy! Thank you! Glendale
100 of 234
City of Glendale ED Strategic Plan | 87
Thank you for reaching out and taking our views into consideration. As a final comment, not all businesses are the same. Some places are recently established and mom and pop owned. And even though the may not currently employ, they are still supporting the livelihood of a family.
This being mentioned as occasionally really small businesses are unable to afford or meet requirements.
Thank you in helping us get PPE supplies. It helped to keep our school open by keeping our expenses lower. We are a pre-school and have space if childcare is needed. I think in general the city is actually doing a pretty good job. It's been tough. The city has done what it can, we really can't ask for much more. In Montrose where my retail store is located the needs are simple. We need the place cleaned up. The planters need to be refreshed. The sidewalks need to be powerwashed on a regular basis. Illegal parking needs to be resolved.
Customers constantly complain about coin meters. And it is inexcusable that the MSPA wanted to remove the outside diner program. Our business is doing much better and staying open later.
So dumb. Those people gotta go.
Please consider the impact on mothers in society. As business owners and as consumers we have been inordinately burdened during the pandemic. Forced masking and restrictions related to vaccines are making it extra hard for us to manage our first job which is our children. We handle this every day before we can consider anything else and all of our work and consumer behavior is adapted to this.
The city should focus more on youth activities, public schools, and overall safety/traffic. Reduce the cost of doing business in Glendale. Sales tax rate is the highest it can be by State Law. People can drive to Tujunga or Sunland and pay a sales tax of 9.50% instead of the 10.25% we have to charge. That matters to people.
Glendale PD does an outstanding job in our area and I would buy them ALL donuts as a reward..
Glendale PD is friendly and approachable and I greatly appreciate their presence. They do a great job and help keep an eye out for things that happen in our Foothill Blvd area. Please remove all of the cement center divider announcements of "La Crescenta" placed along Foothill blvd. They are needless and cause accidents.
We need parking! Many of our customers do not come to the village (Kenneth Village) as often as they used to because they can't find a parking space. Glendale is a wonderful city and a great place to do business - please help us keep our business in business and our employees as well as our selves employed healthy and happy! Thank you! Glendale
Thank You
101 of 234
CITY OF GLENDALE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
633 E. Broadway, Suite 201
Glendale, CA 91206
Assistant Director, Bradley Calvert | [email protected] Deputy Director, Soua Vang | [email protected]
ChooseGlendaleCA.com | (818) 548-2005
@ChooseGlendale
102 of 234
2 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Streetcar Feasibility Final Report
1. Motion to Note and File Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study Final Report;
2. Motion Providing Direction Regarding Next Steps To Advance Streetcar Feasibility Study.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for June 7, 2022 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On October 25, 2107, City Council authorized staff to hire HNTB consultant to conduct the Glendale–Burbank Regional Streetcar Feasibility Study. The purpose of the study was to evaluate a modern streetcar system that will serve as a high-capacity transit corridor linking the Glendale Transportation Center (GTC) with downtown Glendale, adjacent neighborhoods, and business districts to the north and south of downtown.
The feasibility study of the project was to analyze recommended alternatives to understand how each would operate; the locations where stops could be placed; how many riders each alternative could generate; how much each alternative best serves adjacent properties, neighborhoods, and destinations; construction and operation costs; and the impacts to traffic, parking, and utilities. Staff periodically presented the project to the City Council and Transportation and Parking Commission (TPC) and received input during the completion of the Streetcar Feasibility Study. The study is completed and contains a thorough evaluation of two proposed alignments. Alternative 1: Central/Brand Loop and Alternative 2: Central/Brand Two Way. Alternative 2 was identified as a likely preferred alignment for implementation. The final draft of the Streetcar Feasibility Study consists of two separate reports: Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study and Design Report (Exhibit 1).
103 of 234
2 2
3 3
3 8
COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Economic Vibrancy – The project will increase mobility and accessibility to local business centers and facilitate economic development.
Community Services & Facilities – The project will create a significant new multi-modal mobility option and help to re-balance existing road infrastructure to better serve riders in Glendale and to encourage economic development, climate resilience, and equity.
Sustainability – The project could improve air quality, while reducing vehicle mile travel (VMT) and enhance the multi-modal transportation network.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends the City Council provide feedback, note and file the report regarding the Streetcar Feasibility Study, and direct staff regarding next steps on advancing the study.
BACKGROUND
For decades, the City of Glendale has discussed re-establishing a streetcar system in Downtown Glendale. Streetcar concepts were discussed or evaluated by the Greater Downtown Strategic Plan (1996), the Downtown Mobility Study (2007), and as part of workshops for the draft South Glendale Community Plan in July and August of 2016. On October 24, 2016 the streetcar concept was presented to the Transportation & Parking Commission (TPC). The Commission was supportive of conducting a new streetcar study.
On July 25, 2017 the City Council authorized staff to conduct the Glendale–Burbank Regional Streetcar Feasibility Study to study and evaluate alignment and design alternatives, various technologies, potential ridership, cost estimates, funding sources, and preliminary impacts. However, the completion of the Streetcar Feasibility Study was slowed due to Covid-19, in addition to the development of studies such as the NoHo- Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit, West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study, Space 134, and adoption of the Citywide Pedestrian Plan. The advancement of these initiatives has been important to informing and shaping the Streetcar Feasibility Study to ensure that compatibility and operability between all modes and systems will create a cohesive multi-modal network. The final result is a highly comprehensive Streetcar Feasibility Study. There are two alternatives that were analyzed under this feasibility study, Alternative 1: Central/Brand Loop and Alternative 2: Central/Brand Two Way Central / Brand Bi-Directional. Alternative 2 was received by the City Council as a preferred alternative as it is the most direct streetcar route making it more intuitive for transit users. This alternative has built in ridership potential as it serves many existing transit users already accustomed to using transit. In addition, this alternative avoids conflicts with the Metro’s proposed BRT service on Central Avenue and would solidify Brand Blvd as a multi-modal transportation corridor with pedestrian activity interacting with local bus and streetcar service. Ridership estimates for Alternative 2 range between 1,500 and 4,000 riders per day, depending on the development patterns and operating characteristics of the streetcar.
104 of 234
3 2
3 3
3 8
While conducting the feasibility study, project staff launched a streetcar website (www.glendalestreetcar.com) to obtain feedback from stakeholders and the public.
Overall, nearly 88% of respondents supported the streetcar feasibility study.
ANALYSIS
Analysis of Downtown Glendale Streetcar System and Alternatives Alternative 1 ‐ Central/Brand Loop: Beginning at the GTC, this alternative runs bidirectional (two tracks) along Central Avenue north to Lomita Avenue. North of Lomita Avenue, the alternative creates a single‐track loop by running northbound on Central Avenue, then heading eastbound on Stocker Street, and then running southbound on Brand Boulevard until the route turns west on Lomita Avenue and continues south on Central Avenue.
Alternative 2 – Central/Brand Two‐Way: Beginning at the GTC, this alternative runs bidirectional (two tracks) along Central Avenue north to Lomita Avenue, utilizes Lomita Avenue (or another nearby cross street) to transition to Brand Boulevard, then runs bidirectional on Brand Boulevard to Stocker Street.
Alternative 1: Central/Brand Loop: Alignment and Operational Characteristics Along Central Avenue, between San Fernando Road and Colorado Street, the roadway has two lanes in the northbound and southbound direction, a center turn lane, and parallel parking along the curb. This segment of Central Avenue is a blend of residential and commercial properties fronting the sidewalks, creating a corridor of walkable destinations that would attract streetcar ridership. Streetcars would use the right lane in both the northbound and southbound direction, adjacent to parallel parking.
The Central/Brand Loop configuration would begin at Colorado Street. Northbound streetcars would use the right lane of Central Avenue north to Stocker Street, continuing east on Stocker Street, and then southbound in the right lane of Brand Blvd returning to Colorado Street.
Central Avenue, between Colorado Street and Stocker Street, has two through lanes northbound with right turn lanes and some parallel parking. An overhead pedestrian bridge is located north of Galleria Way; streetcars would traverse under this bridge without impact to the structure. Northbound Central Avenue has some commercial properties fronting the sidewalks; and several multi-family developments.
The loop would continue around Stocker Street and head southbound on Brand Blvd in the right lane. Brand Blvd has a mix of two and three through lanes southbound, right turn lanes, and a mix of angled parking, parallel parking, valet parking lanes, and loading zones. Brand Blvd has commercial and residential properties fronting both sides of the street with good pedestrian activity and connectivity. 105 of 234
4 2
3 3
3 8
Alternative 1 Cross‐Section on Brand Boulevard, Colorado Street to Broadway, Looking North
Station Locations
Station locations are ideally spaced 3 to 5 blocks apart, located on or adjacent to sidewalks so streetcar customers can board the right side of the streetcar, similar to a bus. Each station contains a concrete platform at equal height with the floor of the streetcar vehicle to facilitate level boarding for ADA access. Each station is approximately 8 to 10 feet wide, and 80 to 95 feet long. Potential station locations for alternative 1 include –
Glendale Transportation Center (terminus)
Central/San Fernando (northbound and southbound)
Central/Chevy Chase (northbound and southbound)
Central/Maple (northbound and southbound)
Central/Americana (northbound) and Brand/Americana (southbound), between Americana and Broadway on each street
Central/California (northbound) and Brand/California (southbound) Central/Doran (northbound) and Brand/Doran (southbound) Central/Arden (northbound) and Brand/Arden (southbound) Stocker (Eastbound)
Alternative 2: Central/Brand Bi-Directional: Alignment and Operational Characteristics
Alternative 2 would follow the same route on Central Avenue as Alternative 1 between the Glendale Transportation Center and Colorado Street with identical features and considerations along this section. Streetcars would use the right lane in both the northbound and southbound direction, adjacent to parallel parking.
The streetcar tracks would transition from Central Avenue to Brand Boulevard in the area between Maple Street and Colorado Street. If this alternative is selected, during future project study phases, the design for the streetcar will consider a variety of cross 106 of 234
5 2
3 3
3 8
streets to connect from Central Avenue to Brand Boulevard, including Maple Street, Chestnut Street, Lomita Street, and Elk Avenue. The northbound and southbound tracks could also be split between two cross streets (e.g., northbound could use Maple Street to cross from Central Avenue to Brand Boulevard, and southbound could use Lomita Street to cross from Brand Boulevard to Central Avenue).
Once on Brand Boulevard, streetcars would use the right lane in both the northbound and southbound directions. This section of Brand Boulevard has a mix of two and three through lanes in each direction, left and right‐turn lanes, and a mix of angled parking, parallel parking, valet parking lanes, and loading zones. The travel lanes and parking/loading/valet lanes will be configured to maintain two lanes of traffic adjacent to the streetcar. Along Brand Boulevard, signalized pedestrian crosswalks occur mid‐block between signalized intersections. The route would be evaluated for the potential to add additional traffic signals to control cross traffic safely across the tracks in the next phase of design.
The streetcar tracks would cross SR‐134 and continue north to a terminus just south of Stocker Street. Northbound streetcars would unload customers at a station platform, the operator would switch cab ends, and the streetcar would pick up customers from the platform to begin its southbound trip.
Alternative 2 Cross‐Section on Brand Boulevard, Colorado Street to Broadway, Looking North
Potential station locations for Alternative 2 include:
Glendale Transportation Center (terminus)
Central/San Fernando (northbound and southbound)
Central/Chevy Chase (northbound and southbound)
Central/Maple (northbound and southbound)
Brand/Americana (northbound and southbound), between Americana and Broadway
Brand/California (northbound and southbound)
Brand/Doran (northbound and southbound)
107 of 234
6 2
3 3
3 8
Brand/Arden (northbound and southbound)
Brand/Stocker (terminus)
Station Design
The Design Report of the Streetcar Feasibility Study provides the basic design, best lane configuration, station layout and the location and general layout of the operation and maintenance facility (OMF).
Bump-Out Station: A typical station layout for a curbside “bump out” station, where the roadway width is sufficient to place the boarding platform adjacent to the existing sidewalk. Bump‐outs also shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians who are crossing the street. In areas where a bump‐out is not feasible, station platforms will be integrated into the sidewalk.
Sidewalk Station: A typical station layout integrated into the sidewalk at locations where a Bump-Out station is not feasible.
Bump-Out Station – Typical Layout
Sidewalk Station – Typical Layout
108 of 234
7 2
3 3
3 8
Parking and Traffic Impacts
Potential impacts to traffic and parking along the proposed corridors were assessed for both alternatives. Based on the alignments of the alternatives, the movements (i.e., left turn, right turn, or through) that the streetcar would make at each intersection along the route were identified. In addition, intersections that would be located near stations were identified. Existing weekday AM and PM peak period traffic volumes were obtained for 16 key intersections.
In general, traffic operations would not be substantially affected at intersections at which the streetcar makes a through movement, as it would cross the intersection at the same time as other vehicles traveling in the same direction. Opportunities to improve and potentially mitigate any mobility impacts can be addressed through signal timing modifications and the addition of transit‐preferential treatments. Both strategies can provide improved mobility for through vehicles along the corridor.
In addition, the northbound and southbound directions along Central Avenue and Brand Avenue are the primary traffic movements. Signal timing strategies can include progression for these vehicular movements, minimizing stops along the corridor and between transit stops, and increasing overall green time for the roadway along which the streetcar operates. Transit preferential treatments, including transit signal priority, may be easier to implement for Alternative 1, as the streetcar would operate in a one‐way loop for the northern half of the alignment. With two‐way operations, there could be situations when both northbound and southbound trains arrive at an intersection simultaneously; at these times, the signalization plans can only prioritize one movement at a time.
At intersections where the streetcar makes a turn, there is a greater potential for impact on traffic intersection operations due to the need for separation of time (signal timing) and space (turning geometry) between the streetcar and vehicles. Because of their larger turning radius, the streetcar vehicle may require additional space to complete a turning maneuver, which can impact adjacent travel lanes and create potential conflicts.
Therefore, dedicated signal phases are provided to allow a transit vehicle to initiate and complete a turning maneuver without any conflicts. This exclusive time would require a transit vehicle to be in position at the front of a vehicle queue and to have all conflicting movements (vehicle and non‐motorized) stopped. As a result of the exclusive time, traffic operations could be impacted.
The relative scale of the impacts can vary depending on existing intersection operations, available capacity, upstream and downstream configurations, and the signal timing and phasing. Based on these factors, there is the potential for impacts to traffic operations at the following intersections, and further analysis will be required in future phases of design:
Central Avenue and Lomita Avenue (both Alternatives)
Central Avenue and Stocker Street (Alternative 1 only) 109 of 234
8 2
3 3
3 8
Brand Avenue and Stocker Street (Alternative 1 only)
Brand Avenue and Lomita Avenue (both Alternatives)
In addition to potential traffic impacts due to turning movements, additional operational issues could occur at intersections adjacent to planned stations. An important consideration is whether each station will be nearside (before the intersection) or farside (after the intersection). These issues would be studied further in forthcoming refined design stages.
The focus of the parking analysis is to document on‐street parking inventory within the study area along the proposed alignments and to identify potential impacts due to the guideway and station locations. Parking types within the study area include a range of parking management strategies such as unpaid time limited, paid time limited, loading zones, and valet spaces. There are a total of 350 total parking spaces along Central Avenue between Railroad Street and Stocker Street (166 on the west side of the street and 184 on the east side). All parking spaces along Central Avenue are parallel to the curb with a mixture of unpaid timed and paid/metered time spaces.
There are a total of 417 parking spaces along Brand Boulevard between Lomita Avenue and Stocker Street (194 on the west side of the street and 223 on the east side) with a mixture of angled and parallel parking spaces.
The guideway would not result in the loss of parking where the adjacent parking is parallel to the curb. Since all parking on Central Avenue is parallel, the guideway would not result in the loss of parking on Central Avenue under either alternative.
At locations where there is angled parking, the parking would need to be reconfigured as parallel parking to eliminate conflicts with the streetcar, resulting in a loss of parking in these areas. Table 1 shows the potential loss of parking spaces on Brand Boulevard resulting from each alternative, based on the conceptual designs conducted for this feasibility study. During future design efforts, it may be possible to optimize the design to reduce the loss of parking.
Because Alternative 1 travels in only the SB direction on Brand Boulevard, it has approximately half the parking impact as Alternative 2 along Brand Boulevard: the total number of parking spaces that would be eliminated under Alternative 1 is 60 spaces, all along the west side of Brand Boulevard. Alternative 2 would eliminate another 63 spaces on the east side of the street, for a total of 123 spaces. 110 of 234
9 2
3 3
3 8
Table 1: Parking Alternatives Analysis
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY (OMF)
The OMF would handle inspection, servicing, maintenance, and repair activities to keep the streetcar vehicles in service. It is assumed the OMF would be designed to accommodate at least six streetcar vehicles for the opening of the system. Since the type of streetcar vehicle is unknown at this early study stage, the OMF concept 111 of 234
10 2
3 3
3 8
assumes a maximum vehicle length of 82 feet and a maximum vehicle width of 8 feet‐8 inches.
The OMF will include an enclosed building that contains maintenance bays and a single wash bay. It will also contain an office area for administration and operations staff and maintenance support areas with shop/storage space. The yard for the OMF will contain track to access the site and storage tracks. An employee/visitor parking lot will be part of the design.
OMF Concept Plan
Following figure shows an OMF concept at a potential site located next to the GTC, adjacent to the recently constructed Beeline OMF. The site is on an existing city‐owned surface parking Lot and private property that may need to be acquired. This site is conceptual at this time, and more detailed design phases for the project will examine this and other potential sites in greater detail. The conceptual OMF layout at this potential site shows four indoor bays and two outside storage tracks along with associated offices and other operations uses. This site and other potential sites will be reviewed in more detail during subsequent project phases.
COMPARISON OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
Based on conceptual engineering and operational analysis, both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are feasible and functional; however, the two alternatives each have advantages and disadvantages.
Table 2 summarizes the key characteristics of the route alternatives. The two alternatives have similar lengths, number of stations, end‐to‐end travel times, and capital costs.
Alternative 2 has slightly higher forecast ridership, as well as lower operating costs, because it serves a single, more established commercial corridor in downtown Glendale. However, Alternative 2 would also focus potential construction and parking impacts on that corridor, Brand Boulevard.
Alternative 1 would serve a larger geographic area, supporting recent and ongoing mixed‐use development on Central Avenue, but the one‐way loop is less intuitive for riders and causes indirect travel for some trips. The alignment on Central Avenue north of Broadway also would potentially conflict with Metro’s planned BRT and the existing bike lanes in that area.
Alternative 2 would reinforce Brand Boulevard as a multi‐modal corridor in accord with local plans with the most direct and easy to understand route that serves the heart of downtown Glendale. It would concentrate potential economic development benefits on Brand Boulevard, but since Brand Boulevard is already a highly built environment, there may be fewer redevelopment opportunities.
Because Alternative 2 has higher forecast ridership, has the most intuitive route for riders, best serves the established commercial corridor along Brand Boulevard, and 112 of 234
11 2
3 3
3 8
would not conflict with Metro’s planned BRT alignment, it is recommended that Alternative 2 be considered for further planning, engineering, and environmental evaluation. Alternative 2 has also been identified by the City Council as a likely preferred alignment.
Table 2: Alternatives Summary
Category Alternative 1
Central/Brand
Loop
Alternative 2
Central /Brand Two-Way
Route length 2.9 miles
end‐to‐end
(5.8 miles of
track)
2.9 miles end‐to‐end (5.8 miles
of track)
Number of
stations/station pairs
9 9
Ridership 1,400 to 3,800 per
weekday
1,500 to 4,000 per weekday
End‐to‐end travel
time
(AM/PM/Off‐peak),
minutes
44/50/38 44/51/35
Major shopping
destinations, hotels,
and cultural
attractions along
alignment
9 10
Residential units along
alignment
579 281
Commercial
uses along
alignment
(square feet)
6.2 million 8.15 million
Existing daily
transit riders along
route
3,537 3,921
Traffic impacts from
operations
Potentially greater
impacts due to
additional turning
movements
Potentially fewer impacts due to fewer
turning movements
Parking impacts
(on‐street spaces
removed)
90 to 94 153 to 157
Construction impacts Greater
flexibility within
each street
More streets
impacted
Greater impact on each street
Fewer streets impacted
113 of 234
12 2
3 3
3 8
Capital Cost $200 - 300
Million
$250 -300 Million
Operating Cost $7.4 Million
/year
$6.6 Million /year
Capital Cost
The methodology used to generate the capital cost estimates is consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines. The basis of FTA guidance on cost estimating is its Standard Cost Categories (SCC), which enables all FTA-funded projects to develop budget baselines in a uniform manner and enables projects to develop budget baselines that summarize to the SCC.
The capital cost estimate includes guideway and track, stations, ancillary facilities such as the OMF, system, right-of-way, vehicles, design, and other professional services.
The estimate also includes potential utility relocation, impacts to surface structures, temporary construction impacts, environmental consideration, various maintenance facilities locations, and right-of way requirements. The capital cost estimates of the recommended alternative in 2020 dollars (no escalation) by SCC is estimated $495.391 Million.
Operating Costs
Operating costs were derived from National Transit Database annual operating costs for similar streetcar systems on a per-route mile basis including, Tucson Sun Link, Q— Line Detroit, Seattle Streetcar, Kansas City Streetcar, Portland Streetcar, and Cincinnati Bell Connector and estimate annual vehicle hours based on the operating schedule. This analysis utilizes a planning level revenue cost of $250/hour. Although there is potential for the Glendale Streetcar to operate at a lower cost per hour, $250/hour is appropriate for this early stage of project development. Based on the following schedule developed in this study:
Total Annual Revenue Hours 26,558
Cost Per Hour 250
Annual Operating Cost: $6.6 million
PROJECT SEQUENCES
Construction and operation of the project is not funded at this time. The Feasibility Study has explored methods of project financing, and offers a comparison of similar 114 of 234
13 2
3 3
3 8
streetcar projects around the U.S. A proposed project sequences is below:
Feasibility Study
Early Design and
Enviromental
Clearance
Final Design and
Secure Funding Construction Operation
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Outreach was conducted through a project website (www.glendalestreetcar.com), as well as key stakeholder and business groups within the city. Updates and presentations were also provided to City Council as well as the Transportation and Parking Commission.
Feedback from the Transportation and Parking Commission was largely centered on the impacts to the Beeline and better understanding whether this would take away ridership, or if it would complement the system. This is information that would need to be better investigated in future phases of the study. The TPC did support the streetcar’s ability to better support cyclists, particularly how it can connect to the transit center, but also didn’t want the streetcar to preclude any future transit expansion opportunities to the south. The TPC also emphasized the importance of connections to future projects such as the NoHo to Pasadena BRT. Feedback also considered the ability to fund the project through creative resources such as district taxing and learning from other projects and their funding sources. The TPC expressed their support for their bi-directional alternative to avoid conflicts with the BRT and for user intuitiveness.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with noting and filing this report and providing direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Staff has determined that the actions of noting and filing the subject report and providing direction are exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines") for all of the following reasons: 1) the activity is not subject to CEQA because the noting and filing and direction provided will not result in direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2); 2) the activity is not a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) and 15378(b)(4) because it constitutes the creation of government funding mechanisms or other governmental fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; and 3) the activity is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 because it funds only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the City has not yet approved, adopted, or funded. Moreover, the activity is exempt and not subject to further CEQA review under the common sense exemption because it can be seen with certainty 115 of 234
14 2
3 3
3 8
that the activity, consisting of receiving the subject report and noting and filing it, as well as providing direction as to next steps, would not have a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Environmental review of any future streetcar project will be conducted at the time the project receives authorization to proceed.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Note and file and provide comments on the final Draft Streetcar Feasibility Study, and direct staff to pursue further opportunities for the project and/or provide other direction.
Alternative 2: Note and file and provide comments on the final Draft Streetcar Feasibility Study, but direct staff not to pursue any further opportunities for the project and/or provide other direction.
Alternative 3: Any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Bradley Calvert, Assistant Director of Community Development Fred Zohrehvand, Principal Mobility Planner
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1. Final Streetcar Feasibility Report
116 of 234
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________________, that the City Council has reviewed the June 7, 2022 staff report from the Assistant Director of Community Development regarding Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study Final Report, and hereby notes and files the same.
Vote as Follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
117 of 234
MOTION
Moved by Council Member __________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________, that the City Council has reviewed the June 7, 2022 staff report from the Assistant Director of Community Development regarding Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study Final Report, and hereby directs staff as follows:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
118 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
FINAL REPORT
March 2022
Task No. C5
In Association with:
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Studio-MLA
Arellano Associates
119 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY COUNCIL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
• Paula Devine, Mayor
• Ara Najarian
• Vrej Agajanian
• Ardy Kassakhian
• Daniel Brotman
• Roubik Golanian, PE. City Manager
• Philip S. Lanzafame, Director Community
Development
• Bradley Calvert, Assistant Director
Community Development
• Fred Zohrehvand, Principal Mobility
Planner, Project Manager
• Edward Hitti, Former Deputy Director and
City Engineer, Public Works
• Sarkis Oganesyan, Principal Civil Engineer
• Pastor Casanova, Principal Traffic
Engineer, Public Works
• Arezoo Kamali, Associate Planner,
Community Development
CONSULTANT TEAM
HNTB
• Steven Greene, PhD, Project Manager
• Carolyn Seboe, AICP, Lead Planner
• Michael Hammond, Project Planner
• Elenna Salcido, AICP, Project Planner
• Shireen Mahdavi, EIT, Project Engineer
• Amjad Hussain, Cost Estimating
Studio-MLA
• Jan Dyer, PLA, ASLA, Urban Design Lead
• Manuel Merino, Urban Designer
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Tim A. Erney, AICP/PTP/CTP, Traffic
Analysis Lead
120 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ i Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. ii Abbreviations/Acronyms ...................................................................................................... vii
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1. Study Background .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2. Project Purpose and Function ....................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. Streetcar Overview ........................................................................................................ 1-2
1.4. Report Purpose and Structure ....................................................................................... 1-2
2. Streetcar Study Area ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1. Demographic Context .................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2. Land Use and Development Trends .............................................................................. 2-5
2.3. Transportation Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 2-8
2.3.1. Freeways and Arterials ..................................................................................... 2-8
2.3.2. Transit and Rail ................................................................................................. 2-8
2.3.3. Active Transportation ..................................................................................... 2-12
2.4. Relevant Local Plans .................................................................................................... 2-17
2.4.1. South Glendale Community Plan ................................................................... 2-17
2.4.2. Tropico Center Plan ........................................................................................ 2-19
2.4.3. Downtown Specific Plan ................................................................................. 2-19
3. Preliminary Alternatives ............................................................................................... 3-1
3.1. Route Development ...................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2. Route Alignments and Station Locations ...................................................................... 3-3
3.3. Station Design ................................................................................................................ 3-7
3.4. Ancillary Facilities ........................................................................................................ 3-10
3.4.1. Operations and Maintenance Facility ............................................................ 3-10
3.4.2. Traction Electrification System....................................................................... 3-12
3.5. Vehicles and Technology ............................................................................................. 3-13
3.6. Preliminary Operations Plan ........................................................................................ 3-13
3.6.1. Travel Times ................................................................................................... 3-13
3.6.2. Service Assumptions....................................................................................... 3-15
3.7. Fare Policy .................................................................................................................... 3-15 121 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
iii
4. Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives .......................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1. Activity Generators ........................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2. Ridership ........................................................................................................... 4-6
4.1.3. Economic Development ................................................................................... 4-7
4.1.4. Transportation Connectivity ............................................................................ 4-8
4.1.5. User Experience ................................................................................................ 4-8
4.1.6. Utilities ............................................................................................................. 4-9
4.1.7. Traffic Impacts .................................................................................................. 4-9
4.1.8. Parking Impacts .............................................................................................. 4-11
4.1.9. Construction Considerations .......................................................................... 4-13
4.2. Comparison of Preliminary Alternatives ..................................................................... 4-14
5. Recommended Alternative Integration ......................................................................... 5-1
5.1. Transit Interface ............................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.1. Planned Transit System Interface Locations .................................................... 5-1
5.1.2. Conceptual Transit Service Modifications ........................................................ 5-3
5.2. First/Last Mile Connections ........................................................................................... 5-4
6. Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1. Capital Costs .................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2. Operating Costs ............................................................................................................. 6-2
7. Implementation strategy .............................................................................................. 7-1
7.1. Funding Strategies ......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1. Case Studies ...................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.2. Key Funding Sources Inventory ........................................................................ 7-4
7.2. Capital Investment Grant Readiness Assessment ......................................................... 7-9
7.2.1. Capital Investment Grant Ratings .................................................................. 7-10
7.2.2. Preliminary Ratings Assessment .................................................................... 7-11
7.2.3. CIG Preliminary Ratings Assessment .............................................................. 7-20
7.3. Approvals and Actions Required ................................................................................. 7-21
7.3.1. Permits and Approvals ................................................................................... 7-21
7.3.2. Actions to Implement ..................................................................................... 7-22
7.4. Implementation Timeline ............................................................................................ 7-23
8. References .................................................................................................................... 8-1 122 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
iv
FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Study Area Overview ................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2-2. Population Density..................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3. Job Density ................................................................................................................. 2-4 Figure 2-4. Existing Land Use ....................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-5. Developments Between 2008 and 2018 ................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-6. Existing Transit Routes in the Study Area .................................................................. 2-9 Figure 2-7. North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor ...................................................... 2-10 Figure 2-8. Metrolink Antelope Valley and Ventura County Lines ............................................ 2-12 Figure 2-9. Existing Bike Facilities .............................................................................................. 2-14 Figure 2-10. Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan Project Corridors ........................................... 2-16 Figure 2-11. South Glendale Community Plan Vision Areas ...................................................... 2-18 Figure 2-12. Downtown Specific Plan Districts .......................................................................... 2-20 Figure 3-1. Route Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2. Existing Cross-Section on Central Avenue, San Fernando Road to Colorado Street, Looking North .............................................................................................................................. 3-3 Figure 3-3. Alternative 1 Cross-Section on Central Avenue, San Fernando Road to Colorado Street, Looking North ................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-4. Existing Cross-Section on Central Avenue, Colorado Street to Stocker Street, Looking North .............................................................................................................................. 3-4 Figure 3-5. Alternative 1 Cross-Section on Central Avenue, Colorado Street to Stocker Street, Looking North .............................................................................................................................. 3-4 Figure 3-6. Existing Cross-Section on Brand Boulevard, Colorado Street to Broadway, Looking North ............................................................................................................................................ 3-5 Figure 3-7. Alternative 1 Cross-Section on Brand Boulevard, Colorado Street to Broadway, Looking North .............................................................................................................................. 3-5 Figure 3-8. Alternative 2 Cross-Section on Brand Boulevard, Colorado Street to Broadway, Looking North .............................................................................................................................. 3-6 Figure 3-9. Bump-Out Station – Typical Layout ........................................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-10. Sidewalk Station – Typical Layout ........................................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-11. Rendering of Potential Station on Central Avenue near Laurel Street ................... 3-9 Figure 3-12. Rendering of Potential Station on Brand Boulevard near Broadway ...................... 3-9 Figure 3-13. Rendering of Potential Station on Brand Boulevard near California Avenue ....... 3-10 123 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
v
Figure 3-14. Seattle First Hill Streetcar Operations and Maintenance Facility ......................... 3-11 Figure 3-15. Conceptual OMF Layout at Glendale Transportation Center ................................ 3-12 Figure 4-1. Districts and Destinations .......................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-2. Housing Units ............................................................................................................. 4-3 Figure 4-3. Commercial Square Feet............................................................................................ 4-4 Figure 4-4. Transit Users .............................................................................................................. 4-5 Figure 5-1. Proposed Brand Boulevard/SR-134 First/Last Mile Improvements .......................... 5-5 Figure 7-1. Capital Investment Grant Weighting Factors .......................................................... 7-11 Figure 7-2. Implementation Schedule ....................................................................................... 7-24
TABLES
Table 2-1. Existing Land Uses within Study Area (2018) .............................................................. 2-5 Table 2-2. Metro Transit Lines through the Study Area .............................................................. 2-8 Table 2-3. Glendale Beeline Routes ........................................................................................... 2-10 Table 2-4. Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan Recommendations in the Study Area ............... 2-16 Table 3-1. Streetcar Vehicles and their Key Characteristic ........................................................ 3-13 Table 3-2. Estimated Travel Times ............................................................................................. 3-14 Table 3-3. Travel Scenarios - GTC to California Avenue/Brand Boulevard ................................ 3-14 Table 3-4. Operating Schedule ................................................................................................... 3-15 Table 3-5. Example Fare Systems .............................................................................................. 3-16 Table 4-1. Activity Generators ..................................................................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2. Parking Impacts due to Guideway on Brand Boulevard ........................................... 4-12 Table 4-3. Route Alternatives Summary .................................................................................... 4-14 Table 5-1. Metro and Glendale Beeline Interface with Proposed Streetcar Stations ................. 5-1 Table 6-1. Summary of Capital Cost Estimates (2020 Dollars, x000) ........................................... 6-2 Table 6-2. Total Allocated and Unallocated Contingency (2020 Dollars, x000) .......................... 6-2 Table 6-3. Case Study Operating Costs ........................................................................................ 6-3 Table 6-4. Conceptual Operating Plan and Costs ........................................................................ 6-3 Table 7-1. KC Streetcar Funding Sources ..................................................................................... 7-2 Table 7-2. QLINE Funding Sources ............................................................................................... 7-3 Table 7-3. The Hop Funding Sources ........................................................................................... 7-4 124 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
vi
Table 7-4. Potential Funding Sources .......................................................................................... 7-4 Table 7-5. Land Use Criteria Summary ...................................................................................... 7-15 Table 7-6. Commitment of Funds Ratings ................................................................................. 7-19 Table 7-7. Financial Plan Criteria ............................................................................................... 7-19 Table 7-8. Preliminary CIG Ratings ............................................................................................. 7-20 Table 7-9. Implementation Actions ........................................................................................... 7-22
125 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
vii
ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS
AACE Association of Cost Engineers
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
a.m. ante meridiem (before midday)
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
BUILD Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development CalSTA California State Transportation Agency
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CBD Central Business District
CIG Capital Investment Grant
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
DOT Department of Transportation
EFID Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts
ESS energy storage system
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
FFGA Full Funding Grant Agreement
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GTC Glendale Transportation Center
KC Kansas City
KCSA Kansas City Streetcar Authority
LA Los Angeles
LAX Los Angeles International Airport
LCTOP Low Carbon Transit Operations Program
LPA Locally Preferred Alternative
LRT Light Rail Transit
LTF Local Transportation Fund
MARTA Metropolitans Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMTC New Market Tax Credit
OC Orange County
OCS overhead contact system
OMF operations and maintenance facility
PM post meridiem (after midday)
RAISE Rebuilding American Infrastructure with sustainability and Equity SCC Standard Cost Categories
126 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
viii
SGCP South Glendale Community Plan
SR State Route
STA State Transit Assistance
STIP State Transportation Improvement
STOPS Simplified Trips on Project Software
TBD To be determined
TC Tropico Center
TDA Transportation Development Act
TDD Transportation Development District
TES Traction Electrification System
TID Tax Incremental Districts
TIF tax increment financing
TIFIA Transportation Infrastructure and Finance Innovation Act TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery TOD Transit-oriented Development
TPSS traction power substations
TRB Transportation Research Board
U.S. United States
U.S. DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WPF Wisconsin Policy Forum
127 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. STUDY BACKGROUND
The City of Glendale commissioned the Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study to develop and analyze options to improve mobility through the Central Avenue/Brand Boulevard Corridor with a focus on modern streetcar technologies. The purpose of the study is to provide the necessary information to enable the City of Glendale to advance the project further through subsequent public engagement, alternative selection, environmental review, and design.
Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard serve as major north/south arterials through Downtown Glendale where existing local and regional transit services operate. Several transit projects are concurrently being developed by the City of Glendale and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) near Downtown Glendale that will enhance connectivity with the proposed streetcar along this north-south corridor. Additionally, the City of Burbank has expressed an interest in having connectivity with a streetcar corridor with potential hubs in Downtown Burbank, Burbank Airport, and Media District.
1.2. PROJECT PURPOSE AND FUNCTION
The purpose of the project is to reintroduce streetcar service using modern, highly visible and efficient streetcar vehicles along a route that will serve as a high-capacity transit corridor linking the Glendale Transportation Center (GTC), served by Metrolink and Amtrak, with downtown Glendale and adjacent neighborhoods/business districts to the north and south of downtown.
The route, historically served by the Pacific Electric streetcar system, will also serve as a potential first phase of a future system extending towards Burbank. The streetcar will address congestion and growing travel demand by increasing multimodal transportation connectivity, enhancing local trip circulation and providing a direct connection to regional rail and transit services. The streetcar’s fixed guideway will facilitate local land use and economic development goals and become a catalyst for positive change and placemaking in Glendale’s City Center.
The streetcar will help Glendale achieve its land use, economic and mobility goals by:
• Providing a transportation alternative to serve a dense and expanding residential and employment base.
• Facilitating transit-oriented, walkable, and mixed-use neighborhoods. • Improving local circulation to enhance connectivity between neighborhoods and business districts.
• Increasing access to regional transit modes by providing first/last mile transport for workers, residents, and visitors.
128 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
1-2
1.3. STREETCAR OVERVIEW
Streetcars are public transit vehicles that provide local circulation in urban areas. Streetcars run along tracks embedded in concrete in the roadway and are
powered by overhead electric wires or onboard energy
storage (batteries). Streetcars are particularly
adaptable to city streets since they operate in mixed
traffic at street speeds and negotiate tighter curves like a bus. Traffic signal priority or pre-emption at specific locations such as intersections may be used to facilitate smooth operations.
Streetcar lines are typically 2 to 5 miles long with
frequent stops that are several blocks apart. Streetcar stations are built into the sidewalk or a median island.
They are similar in scale to bus shelters, and have level boarding platforms, shelters, seating, fare collection
and passenger information displays that are designed
to fit the urban context.
Streetcars are meant for relatively short intraurban
trips that circulate people throughout downtown and
between neighborhood districts and destinations.
Streetcars serve some shorter work-related trips but
tend to be used most heavily throughout the day and
during the weekends for shopping, dining,
entertainment, and other personal travel needs.
Streetcars are known as pedestrian accelerators since
they are typically used for trips that are too far to walk to and inconvenient to drive to.
Streetcars are an important component of a
multimodal transportation system since they typically
intersect with other transit, pedestrian, and bicycle
modes. They also provide a high-quality, last-mile
connection to and from regional rail and bus
transportation centers.
1.4. REPORT PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE
This report presents the methodology and conclusions
of the Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study. Chapter 2
provides an overview of the study area, including
existing demographic, land use, and transportation
conditions. Chapter 3 describes two conceptual route
alignments, including their physical and operational
characteristics.
STREETCAR BENEFITS
• Provide direct connectivity
between neighborhoods and
destinations, reducing barriers
to mobility.
• Draw economic development
because the route is
permanent.
• Attract transit users with
superior ride quality,
accessibility, and easy-to-
understand operations.
• Promote environmental
sustainability since streetcars
are electric and reduce auto
reliance.
STREETCAR FEATURES
• Provide local circulation in
urban areas via modern public
transit vehicles.
• Use tracks embedded in
concrete, flush with the
pavement surface.
• Run on overhead electric
power or onboard energy
storage (batteries).
• Operate in mixed traffic at
street speeds and navigate
roadway lanes like a bus.
• Serve routes that are typically
two to five miles long with
frequent stops.
• Integrate into the built
environment with level-
boarding platforms at
stations.
129 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
1-3
Chapter 4 evaluates the two alternatives based on factors such as ridership, economic development potential, transportation benefits and impacts, and cost. It also recommends a preferred alternative for further design and analysis. Chapter 5 provides recommendation for integrating the preferred alternative into the surrounding transportation network. Chapter 6 presents estimates of capital and operating costs for the preferred alternative. Finally, Chapter 7 identifies preliminary implementation steps for the project. 130 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-1
2. STREETCAR STUDY AREA
The study area designated for the Glendale Streetcar
Feasibility Study, shown in Figure 2-1, extends from the existing Glendale Metrolink/Amtrak Station (Glendale
Transportation Center) through downtown Glendale along
Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard. The study area
includes areas of up to 0.5 mile west and east of Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard, respectively, and includes the following neighborhoods: Tropico, Pacific Edison, Mariposa, City Center, Vineyard, Fremont Park, and Verdugo Viejo.
These areas could be subject to impacts and benefits from one or more of the streetcar alternatives.
2.1. DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The study area has nearly 62,000 residents with a population density of 16,522 people per square mile. The study area’s population increased by 7 percent (%) between 2010 and 2015.
Population growth in the study area is attributed to new development of higher-density residential uses particularly in the downtown Glendale area, where hundreds of new units have been added in recent years. The most current population density data within the study area can be seen in Figure 2-2.
The study area has close to 43,000 jobs with a job density of over 11,400 jobs per square mile.
Employment density in the study area is over three times that of Glendale and more than ten times that of Los Angeles County. Employment is primarily concentrated in the northern half of the study area, with the greatest concentrations of employment located to the west of Brand Boulevard and surrounding Glendale Galleria. Existing job density within the study area is shown in Figure 2-3.
STUDY AREA STATISTICS
• Population: 62,000
• Population density: 16,500
• Population growth: 7%
• Jobs: 43,000
• Job density: 11,400
131 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-2
Figure 2-1. Study Area Overview
132 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-3
Figure 2-2. Population Density
133 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-4
Figure 2-3. Job Density
134 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-5
2.2. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Table 2-1 summarizes the land uses within the study area and Figure 2-4 shows the existing land uses on a map. Nearly half (48%) of the land uses within the study area are residential.
Commercial land use comprises more than a quarter (26%) of the study area. Commercial uses are concentrated along Central Avenue, Brand Boulevard, and Glendale Avenue. Institutional and government land uses make up approximately 15% of the study area. Industrial land uses comprise 9% of the study area, and are concentrated in the southern portion of the study area.
Table 2-1. Existing Land Uses within Study Area (2018)
Use Acres Percent of Total
Residential 810 48
Commercial 445 26
Institutional & Government 241 15
Industrial 151 9
Recreational 23 1
Miscellaneous 23 1
Total 1,693 100
Source: City of Glendale Assessor, 2018
Brand Boulevard, in the downtown area, contains major retail and shopping centers and multi- story high-rise office uses north of Lexington Drive. Brand Boulevard, south of Colorado Street, is dominated by car dealership buildings and surface parking lots.
Central Avenue in the downtown area consists of several multi-story residential and mixed-use buildings intermixed with small-scale, single-story retail and service uses. Central Avenue, south of Colorado Street, is predominantly single-story retail and service uses that line the street with some surface parking lots.
Recent major developments in the study area, as shown in Figure 2-5, are concentrated in areas north of Colorado Street in the downtown area. Most developments within
the past 5 years have been along Central Avenue as the
corridor has seen several relatively new multi-story
residential buildings, including the Modera, Altana, Next on Lex, Onyx, Lex on Orange, Legendary, and The Harrison.
Brand Boulevard is experiencing similar development as
the conceptual design of Lucia Park, a proposed 35-story, 348-unit residential apartment project at 610 North Brand Boulevard, was approved by the Glendale City Council in January 2020.
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS
• Glendale Galleria
• The Americana at Brand
• Glendale Memorial
Hospital
• Nestle USA headquarters
135 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-6
Figure 2-4. Existing Land Use
136 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-7
Figure 2-5. Developments Between 2008 and 2018
137 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-8
2.3. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
This section provides an overview of the existing transportation infrastructure in the study area.
2.3.1. Freeways and Arterials
The study area is served by a comprehensive freeway and arterial system. Most arterial roadways through the study area are oriented in a grid pattern, with major streets approximately a quarter to 0.5 mile apart. Major freeways and arterial roadways serving the study area and its vicinity include:
• North/South Freeways: I-5 (Golden State Freeway), State Route (SR)-2 (Glendale Freeway) • East/West Freeway: SR-134 (Ventura Freeway)
• East/West Arterials: Glenoaks Boulevard, Wilson Avenue, Colorado Street, Broadway, Chevy Chase Drive
• North/South Arterials: Pacific Avenue, Central Avenue, Brand Boulevard, and Glendale Avenue
2.3.2. Transit and Rail
Figure 2-6 shows the transit routes in the study area, which is served by several Metro and Glendale Beeline routes, as well as Metrolink rail service. The Glendale Beeline operates fixed route buses that circulate on nine routes providing service to commercial, educational, and medical destinations within the study area. Metro also provides local, express, and shuttle bus service throughout the study area. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (DOT) operates a Commuter Express line through the northern part of the study area.
Metro
Metro operates an extensive network of bus lines through the study area, including local, shuttle, and express services. Table 2-2 summarizes the frequency and span of service of Metro routes in the Study Area.
Table 2-2. Metro Transit Lines through the Study Area
Line Description Peak Period
Headway Span of Service
Metro Local 92 Downtown Los Angeles to
Sylmar/San Fernando Station 25 minutes 24 hours
Metro Local 94 Downtown Los Angeles to
North Hollywood Station 15 minutes M-Su: 4:37 a.m. to 2:46 a.m.
Metro Local 180 Hollywood to Pasadena 10-12 minutes 24 hours Metro Shuttle 603 Downtown Los Angeles to
Glendale Galleria 12 minutes M-F: 5:03 a.m. to 11:15 p.m.
S-Su: 5:28 a.m. to 11:15 p.m.
Metro Express 501 North Hollywood Station to
Del Mar Station 20 minutes M-F: 5:00 a.m. to 10:15 p.m.
S-Su: 6:01 a.m. to 10:11 p.m.
Source: Metro, 2022
138 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-9
Figure 2-6. Existing Transit Routes in the Study Area
Source: HNTB, City of Glendale, 2022; Metro, 2022
139 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-10
Metro is also in the planning stages of the North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT project, which is proposed to run through the study area. In May 2021, the Metro Board of Directors approved a proposed alignment for the project (shown in Figure 2-7) that would operate on Central Avenue between Glenoaks Boulevard and Broadway, and on Broadway between Central Avenue and Colorado Boulevard in Eagle Rock, with stops at the Central Avenue/Lexington Drive and Brand Boulevard/Broadway intersections.
Figure 2-7. North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor
Source: Metro, 2021
Glendale Beeline
The City of Glendale’s Beeline circulates along ten routes through the study area that provide service to commercial, educational, and medical destinations. Table 2-3 summarizes the Beeline routes.
Table 2-3. Glendale Beeline Routes
Line Description Peak Headway Span of Service
Route 1
Connects Verdugo Viejo neighborhood
to Tropico neighborhood along Central
Avenue, through Downtown Glendale
10 minutes
M-F: 6:00 a.m. to 7:45 p.m.
S-Su: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Route
3/31
Service from Downtown Glendale to
North Glendale with additional service to
the adjacent communities of Montrose,
La Crescenta, and La Cañada-Flintridge
(LCF) terminating at the NASA Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL); Route 31
20-30 minutes
M-F (3): 5:15 a.m. to 9:00
p.m.
S (31): 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
140 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-11
Line Description Peak Headway Span of Service
operates on Saturday only and
terminates service at La Crescenta
Route 4
Connects Downtown Glendale to the
Mariposa and Tropico neighborhoods
along Broadway, Harvard Street, Chevy
Chase Drive, and S Central Avenue
10 minutes
M-F: 6:00 a.m. to 6:45 p.m.
S-Su: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Route 5
Connects the Pacific Edison, Vineyard,
Fremont Park, North Glendale, and
Verdugo Viejo, and Glenwood
neighborhoods primarily along Pacific
Avenue
18 minutes
M-F: 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
S-Su: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Route 6
Connects the Pacific Edison, Mariposa,
Citrus Grove, and Somerset
neighborhoods primarily along Colorado
Street through Downtown Glendale
20 minutes
M-F: 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
S: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Route 7
Connects Grand Central, Grandview,
Glenwood, Verdugo Viejo, Fremont Park,
North Glendale, Rossmoyne, Woodbury
and College Hills neighborhoods
primarily along Glenoaks Boulevard
25-40 minutes
M-F: 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
S: 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Route 8
Connects the Tropico, Atwater,
Mariposa, Citrus Grove, Woodbury, and
College Hill neighborhoods through
Downtown Glendale primarily along
Glendale Avenue
Scheduled to meet
trains
M-F: 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
S: 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Route
11 Metrolink express route service intended
to coordinate with scheduled train
arrivals. Connects the GTC to the
Fremont Park, North Glendale, Mariposa,
Pacific Edison, and Tropico
neighborhoods through Downtown
Glendale primarily along Brand
Boulevard
Scheduled to meet
trains
M-F: 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
and 2:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Route
12 Metrolink express route service intended
to coordinate with scheduled train
arrivals. Connects the GTC to the
Burbank Transportation Center, through
Tropico, Pacific Edison, Moorpark,
Vineyard, Pelanconi, Grand Central
neighborhoods primarily along Flower
Street and San Fernando Rd
30 minutes M-F: 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
and 3:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Source: City of Glendale, 2022
141 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-12
Metrolink
The Southern California Regional Rail Authority operates Metrolink commuter rail service through the study area. The Antelope Valley Line and the Ventura County Line connect the Antelope Valley, Ventura County, and Downtown Los Angeles to the GTC. The two Metrolink lines are illustrated in Figure 2-8.
Figure 2-8. Metrolink Antelope Valley and Ventura County Lines
Source: Metrolink, 2019
2.3.3. Active Transportation
Active transportation facilities in the study area includes pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Existing bicycle facilities within the study area include Class II bicycle lanes (on-street striped and signed bicycle lane) and Class III bike routes (on-street shared lane bicycle routes), as shown in
142 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-13
Figure 2-9.
Bike facilities along north-south routes include:
• Central Avenue (Wilson Avenue to Doran Street) – Class II • Glendale Boulevard (Metrolink Corridor to San Fernando Road) – Class II • Glendale Avenue (Cerritos Avenue to Los Feliz Road) – Class III
Bike facilities along east-west routes include:
• Glenoaks Boulevard (Alameda Avenue to Geneva Street) – Class II/Class III • Broadway (San Fernando Road to Wilson Avenue) – Class III • Maple Street (Central Avenue to Verdugo Road) – Class III • Riverside Drive (San Fernando Road to Central Avenue) – Class II • Cerritos Avenue (Gardena Avenue to Glendale Avenue) – Class III
143 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-14
Figure 2-9. Existing Bike Facilities
Source: HNTB, 2019
144 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-15
The City of Glendale will soon be updating its bicycle plan (City of Glendale, 2012) and completing the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study (City of Glendale, 2021). The study area for the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study overlaps the Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study Area in a small area north of SR-134 and west of Brand Boulevard. In this overlap area, the draft West Glendale plan recommends a protected bike lane on Glenoaks Boulevard.
In March 2021, the City of Glendale approved the Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan (City of Glendale, 2021), a long-term plan to establish a comprehensive approach to improving pedestrian infrastructure to make Glendale a safer, more pleasant, and more convenient place for walking. The plan identifies 16 corridors for near-term improvements, shown on Figure 2-10. Table 2-4 shows the recommended improvements proposed to the 11 corridors within the Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study.
145 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-16
Figure 2-10. Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan Project Corridors
Source: City of Glendale, 2021
Table 2-4. Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan Recommendations in the Study Area Corridor
Number Project Location Recommendations
2 Pacific Ave from California Ave to
Ivy St
Add zebra crosswalks on California
Consider removing left-turn lane and add curb extensions or add protected left-turn phase off Pacific
Add high visibility crosswalks and pedestrian head starts on Wilson; consider curb extensions
3 Glendale Ave from Maple St to
Cypress St
Upgrade zebra crossing at Palmer to median refuge island; move to north leg to maintain left turns
Add curb extensions across Glendale at Chevy Chase
Upgrade zebra crossing at Raleigh to median refuge island Upgrade zebra crossing at Garfield to median refuge island; move to north leg to maintain left turns
Add curb extensions across Glendale at Windsor
5 Colorado St from Brand Blvd to
Kenwood St
Upgrade zebra crossing at Kenwood to a median refuge
island
Add high visibility crosswalks and curb extensions across Colorado at signalized intersections
146 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-17
Corridor
Number Project Location Recommendations
7 Wilson Ave from Central Ave to
Adams St
Install zebra crosswalks and curb extensions on all cross streets
11 San Fernando Rd from Garfield
Ave to Los Feliz Rd
Add median refuge island crossing at Garfield (north leg to maintain left turns)
Add curb extensions across all feasible legs on Chevy Chase; add zebra crosswalks
Add curb extensions across San Fernando at Los Feliz
12 Brand Blvd from Doran St to
Colorado St
Add zebra crosswalks at all mid-block crossings; add curb extensions throughout
Add protected left-turn phase at Caruso Ave
13 Brand Blvd from Maple St to
Garfield Ave Add curb extensions across Brand at Garfield 13 Pacific Ave from Stocker St to
Burchett St
Add median refuge island, flashing beacon, and zebra
crosswalk at Arden
Close right-turn lane on southwest corner of Glenoaks and add curb extensions
Add zebra crosswalks to all legs of Glenoaks
Upgrade zebra crossing at Palm to median refuge island and flashing beacons
Eliminate left-turn lanes on Stocker; add curb extension on southeast and northwest corners and zebra crosswalks on all legs
15 Central Ave from Glenoaks Blvd to
Wilson Ave
Add zebra crosswalk at all legs at all signalized intersections Consider curb extensions at cross streets with on-street parking
Add pedestrian head starts at intersections with high
pedestrian volumes
16 Doran St from Central Ave to
Glendale Ave
Eliminate southbound right-turn lane on Jackson St and add curb extensions
Eliminate left-turn lanes on all approaches of all cross streets Add speed humps from Louise to Glendale to minimize cut- through traffic and to slow speeds
Source: City of Glendale, 2021
2.4. RELEVANT LOCAL PLANS
This section reviews relevant plans and policies for the streetcar study area.
2.4.1. South Glendale Community Plan
The South Glendale Community Plan (SGCP), published in 2018, is the development guide for areas south of SR-134. The plan uses Vision Areas to highlight the anticipated level of change in various neighborhoods and corridors (see Figure 2-11). The SGCP highlights downtown Glendale (including Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue corridors), Central Avenue, and the Tropico Station Transit-oriented Development (TOD) as “Areas to Transform.” This indicates support for significant change in the project study area. 147 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-18
Figure 2-11. South Glendale Community Plan Vision Areas
148 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-19
2.4.2. Tropico Center Plan
The Tropico Station TOD area surrounding the Glendale Transportation Center is included in the Tropico Center (TC) Plan, a component of the SGCP. The TC Plan envisions the area surrounding the train station as “a vibrant, walkable transit-oriented district.” The TC Plan proposes a transition from industrial uses near the station to a mixed-use, mostly residential neighborhood. Additionally, the plan recommends “increases in allowable height in certain areas within TOD zones, with the greatest intensity centered around Glendale Memorial Hospital and Health Center and along transit corridors." Zoning and development standards consistent with the TC Plan are currently being developed and are anticipated to be adopted in early 2022.
2.4.3. Downtown Specific Plan
The Downtown Specific Plan (City of Glendale, 2019), adopted in 2014 and amended in 2019, details the expected character and development within each downtown district (see Figure 2-12).
The area east of Central Avenue, between Doran Street and Wilson Street, is envisioned as a new, urban housing development comprised of mixed-use or free-standing residential buildings. This development has been underway since the plan’s release in 2014. Maximum height in the district is 95 feet by right, with up to 245 feet allowed with community benefits.
The area to the west of Central Avenue, which is currently a mix of single-family and small apartments, is noted as Transitional. The plan envisions this area will transition into mid-rise mixed-use development, with an emphasis on ground floor commercial uses along Central Avenue and a maximum height of 65 feet by right and 95 feet with community benefits.
Near SR-134, the Gateway District has the highest maximum height allowable in Glendale, with a maximum height of 275 feet by right and 380 feet with community benefits. Areas surrounding the Alex Theatre on Brand Boulevard are expected to remain the same style and scale with height limits of 35 feet to 95 feet. The Broadway Center District (southwest of Brand Boulevard and Wilson Avenue) is highlighted as possible redevelopment, with the opportunity for high-rise residential, office, or mixed-use development. The Downtown “Art & Entertainment” District (southeast of Brand Boulevard and Wilson Avenue) is home to Downtown’s two more recent mixed-use commercial developments (The Exchange and The Marketplace). The district aims to encourage the concentration of arts, cultural, and entertainment venues and associated uses. Height limits in the Downtown “Art & Entertainment” District range from 65 feet by right to 95 feet with community benefits.
149 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
2-20
Figure 2-12. Downtown Specific Plan Districts
Source: City of Glendale, 2019
150 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-1
3. PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
3.1. ROUTE DEVELOPMENT
The vision for the Glendale Streetcar was originally identified in the SGCP (City of Glendale, 2018). The Plan envisioned a streetcar along Brand Boulevard linking the Glendale Transportation Center with downtown’s retail core and then continuing west on Glenoaks Boulevard towards Burbank.
Since the primary purpose of this feasibility study is to identify and evaluate options for serving downtown Glendale, two preliminary route concepts were developed along Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue, both linking the Glendale Transportation Center (GTC) with downtown Glendale and adjacent neighborhood/business districts. These route concepts were informed by the SGCP and the demographic, land use, and transportation data reviewed in Chapter 2.
The northern terminus of the streetcar route will require further study and community input, including consideration of a possible future extension to Burbank along Glenoaks Boulevard.
For sake of clarity and comparison, this study utilizes Stocker Street as the northern terminus of the routes.
The two route alternatives connect major activity centers and transportation facilities in and near downtown Glendale. Both alternatives are approximately 3 miles long and serve nine station locations (or paired locations on Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard for Alternative 1).
As illustrated in Figure 3-1, the two alternatives are as follows:
• Alternative 1 - Central/Brand Loop: Beginning at the GTC, this alternative runs bi- directionally (two tracks) along Central Avenue north to Lomita Avenue. North of Lomita Avenue, the alternative creates a single-track loop by running northbound on Central Avenue, then heading eastbound on Stocker Street, and then running southbound on Brand Boulevard until the route turns west on Lomita Avenue and continues south on Central Avenue.
• Alternative 2 – Central/Brand Two-Way: Beginning at the GTC, this alternative runs bi- directionally (two tracks) along Central Avenue north to Lomita Avenue, utilizes Lomita Avenue (or another nearby cross street) to transition to Brand Boulevard, then runs bi- directionally on Brand Boulevard to Stocker Street.
For the preliminary evaluation of both alternatives, it was assumed that the streetcars would generally operate in the right-most through travel lane, adjacent to parking lanes and other curbside uses. Stations would be placed about four to five blocks apart along the sidewalk to facilitate right-hand side boarding from the streetcar. A detailed “best-lane analysis” of the lane configuration of the recommended alternative is included in the Glendale Streetcar Design Report (City of Glendale, 2021).
151 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-2
Figure 3-1. Route Alternatives
Source: HNTB, 2018
152 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-3
3.2. ROUTE ALIGNMENTS AND STATION LOCATIONS
This section describes the configuration of the proposed streetcar alignments in relation to existing roadway characteristics. Conceptual plans and proposed cross-sections for each alignment can be found in Appendix A.
Alternative 1 – Central/Brand Loop
Along Central Avenue, between San Fernando Road and Colorado Street, the existing roadway has two lanes in the northbound and southbound directions, a center turn lane, and parallel parking along the curb, as shown in Figure 3-2. Streetcars would use the right lane in both the northbound and southbound direction, adjacent to parallel parking. Figure 3-3 illustrates a proposed cross-section of this section of Central Avenue.
Figure 3-2. Existing Cross-Section on Central Avenue, San Fernando Road to Colorado Street, Looking North
Figure 3-3. Alternative 1 Cross-Section on Central Avenue, San Fernando Road to Colorado Street, Looking North
153 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-4
The loop configuration begins at Colorado Street, with northbound running along Central Avenue and southbound along Brand Boulevard.
Central Avenue, between Colorado Street and Stocker Street, has two through lanes northbound with right-turn lanes and some parallel parking, as shown in Figure 3-4. The streetcar would use the right lane in the northbound direction adjacent to the parking lane. An overhead pedestrian bridge is located north of Galleria Way; streetcars would travel under this bridge without impact to the structure.
Figure 3-5 illustrates a cross-section of this proposed section of Central Avenue.
Figure 3-4. Existing Cross-Section on Central Avenue, Colorado Street to Stocker Street, Looking North
Figure 3-5. Alternative 1 Cross-Section on Central Avenue, Colorado Street to Stocker Street, Looking North
The loop would continue east on Stocker Street and head southbound on Brand Boulevard in the right lane. This section of Brand Boulevard has a mix of two and three through lanes in the southbound direction, with right turn lanes, and a mix of angled parking, parallel parking, valet parking lanes, and loading zones. A typical cross-section is shown in Figure 3-6. Signalized pedestrian crosswalks occur mid-block between signalized intersections.
Figure 3-7 illustrates this proposed section of Brand Boulevard. 154 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-5
Figure 3-6. Existing Cross-Section on Brand Boulevard, Colorado Street to Broadway, Looking North
Figure 3-7. Alternative 1 Cross-Section on Brand Boulevard, Colorado Street to Broadway, Looking North
A school crossing with flashers is located at Fairview Avenue. This location would be evaluated for a traffic or warning signal. The route would be evaluated for the potential to add additional traffic signals to control cross traffic safely across the tracks in the next phase of design.
As shown on Figure 3-1, potential station locations for Alternative 1 include:
1. Glendale Transportation Center (terminus)
2. Central/San Fernando (northbound and southbound)
3. Central/Chevy Chase (northbound and southbound)
4. Central/Maple (northbound and southbound)
5. Central/Americana (northbound) and Brand/Americana (southbound), between Americana and Broadway on each street
6. Central/California (northbound) and Brand/California (southbound)
7. Central/Doran (northbound) and Brand/Doran (southbound)
8. Central/Arden (northbound) and Brand/Arden (southbound)
9. Stocker (Eastbound)
155 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-6
Station design and locations are discussed in Section 3.3. Both the design and locations of stations will be refined in future phases of design.
Alternative 2 – Central/Brand Two-Way
Alternative 2 would follow the same route on Central Avenue as Alternative 1 between the Glendale Transportation Center and Colorado Street with identical features and considerations along this section. Streetcars would use the right lane in both the northbound and southbound direction, adjacent to parallel parking. Figure 3-2 illustrates a cross-section of this segment of Central Avenue.
The streetcar tracks would transition from Central Avenue to Brand Boulevard in the area between Maple Street and Colorado Street. If this alternative is selected, during future project study phases, the design for the streetcar will consider a variety of cross streets to connect from Central Avenue to Brand Boulevard, including Maple Street, Chestnut Street, Lomita Street, and Elk Avenue. The northbound and southbound tracks could also be split between two cross streets (e.g., northbound could use Maple Street to cross from Central Avenue to Brand Boulevard, and southbound could use Lomita Street to cross from Brand Boulevard to Central Avenue).
Once on Brand Boulevard, streetcars would use the right lane in both the northbound and southbound directions. This section of Brand Boulevard has a mix of two and three through lanes in each direction, left- and right-turn lanes, and a mix of angled parking, parallel parking, valet parking lanes, and loading zones. The travel lanes and parking/loading/valet lanes will be configured to maintain two lanes of traffic adjacent to the streetcar. Along Brand Boulevard, signalized pedestrian crosswalks occur mid-block between signalized intersections. The route would be evaluated for the potential to add additional traffic signals to control cross traffic safely across the tracks in the next phase of design. Figure 3-8 illustrates a proposed cross- section of this segment of Brand Boulevard.
Figure 3-8. Alternative 2 Cross-Section on Brand Boulevard, Colorado Street to Broadway, Looking North
Source: HNTB, 2018
The streetcar tracks would cross SR-134 and continue north to a terminus just south of Stocker Street. Northbound streetcars would unload customers at a station platform, the operator 156 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-7
would switch cab ends, and the streetcar would pick up customers from the platform to begin its southbound trip.
As shown on Figure 3-1, potential station locations for Alternative 2 include:
1. Glendale Transportation Center (terminus)
2. Central/San Fernando (northbound and southbound)
3. Central/Chevy Chase (northbound and southbound)
4. Central/Maple (northbound and southbound)
5. Brand/Americana (northbound and southbound), between Americana and Broadway
6. Brand/California (northbound and southbound)
7. Brand/Doran (northbound and southbound)
8. Brand/Arden (northbound and southbound)
9. Brand/Stocker (terminus)
Station design and locations are discussed in Section 3.3. Both the design and locations of stations will be refined in future phases of design.
3.3. STATION DESIGN
This section provides an overview of streetcar stations, including station program elements, station placement criteria, and typical station layout. More detail about station design and placement is provided in the Glendale Streetcar Design Report.
Streetcar stations would be approximately 110 feet long with 70-foot level-boarding platforms with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible ramps. Stations would provide shelters, seating, and real-time vehicle arrival displays. Depending on fare policy, stations could also include ticket vending machines or off-vehicle fare collection technology.
Station locations are generally spaced three to five blocks apart. Preliminary station locations were developed based on proximity to activity generators, convenience of transfers to connecting routes, and availability of right-of-way.
In areas where a bump-out is not feasible, station platforms will be integrated into the sidewalk as shown in Figure 3-10. The layouts will be refined for each station location during the next phase of design.
Figure 3-11, Figure 3-12, and Figure 3-13 illustrate potential stations on Central Avenue near Laurel Street, on Brand Boulevard near Broadway, and on Brand Boulevard near California Avenue, respectively.
Figure 3-9 shows a typical station layout for a curbside “bump out” station, where the roadway width is sufficient to place the boarding platform adjacent to the existing sidewalk. Bump-outs also shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians who are crossing the street.
In areas where a bump-out is not feasible, station platforms will be integrated into the sidewalk as shown in Figure 3-10. The layouts will be refined for each station location during the next phase of design.
157 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-8
Figure 3-11, Figure 3-12, and Figure 3-13 illustrate potential stations on Central Avenue near Laurel Street, on Brand Boulevard near Broadway, and on Brand Boulevard near California Avenue, respectively.
Figure 3-9. Bump-Out Station – Typical Layout
Source: Studio MLA, 2020
Figure 3-10. Sidewalk Station – Typical Layout
Source: Studio MLA, 2020
158 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-9
Figure 3-11. Rendering of Potential Station on Central Avenue near Laurel Street
Source: Studio MLA, 2020
Figure 3-12. Rendering of Potential Station on Brand Boulevard near Broadway
Source: Studio MLA, 2020
159 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-10
Figure 3-13. Rendering of Potential Station on Brand Boulevard near California Avenue
Source: Studio MLA, 2020
3.4. ANCILLARY FACILITIES
3.4.1. Operations and Maintenance Facility
An operations and maintenance facility (OMF) will be required to provide overnight storage, maintenance, and operational control of the streetcars. This section details the basic elements of the OMF, discusses site selection criteria, and shows an OMF concept plan. More detail about OMF requirements is provided in the Glendale Streetcar Design Report (City of Glendale, 2021).
The OMF will handle inspection, servicing, maintenance, and repair activities to keep the streetcar vehicles in service. The OMF will include an enclosed building that contains maintenance bays and a vehicle wash bay. It will also contain an office area for administration and operations staff and maintenance support areas with shop/storage space. The yard for the OMF will contain track to access the site and storage tracks. Figure 3-14 shows an examples of a streetcar OMFs in Seattle.
160 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-11
Figure 3-14. Seattle First Hill Streetcar Operations and Maintenance Facility
Source: HNTB, 2017
This study considered an OMF location near the Glendale Transportation Center at the southern terminus of the route, adjacent to the recently constructed Beeline OMF. Subsequent project phases may consider other site options when the site requirements can be established with greater specificity after more detailed project design phases. A site near the streetcar route is required to accommodate the OMF program elements. The following factors are important to the site identification and evaluation process:
• Non-revenue track: The OMF should be near the streetcar route to minimize the amount of non-revenue track that would need to be constructed. Ideally the OMF site should be within one block of the route and no more than four blocks from the route. • Access: The site needs to be accessible to the streetcar and other potential users. • Size: The site should be approximately two acres to accommodate the OMF program elements.
• Use compatibility: The OMF should be compatible with surrounding land use and development patterns. Sites located on publicly owned property and/or private property that is underutilized should be given preference for OMF siting.
Figure 3-15 shows an OMF concept at a potential site located next to the GTC. The site is on an existing city-owned surface parking lot and private property that may need to be acquired. This site is conceptual at this time and more detailed design phases for the project will examine this 161 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-12
and other potential sites in greater detail. The conceptual OMF layout at this potential site shows four indoor bays and two outside storage tracks along with associated offices and other operations uses.
Figure 3-15. Conceptual OMF Layout at Glendale Transportation Center
Source: HNTB, 2021
3.4.2. Traction Electrification System
A Traction Electrification System (TES) is required to provide power to the streetcar vehicle. The main components of the TES are traction power substations (TPSSs) and the overhead contact system (OCS). The function of the TPSSs is to convert the alternating current provided by the electric utility company to the correct voltage of direct current required by the streetcar vehicle. Each TPSS typically has a footprint of about 5,000 square feet, including space for maintenance and vehicular access. Multiple TPSS locations would be required, spaced roughly evenly over the length of the streetcar alignment. The location and spacing of the TPSSs will be determined during a future phase of design.
The OCS consists of overhead wires along the length of the streetcar alignment and related support structures. The purpose of the OCS is to transmit electrical power from the TPSSs to the streetcar vehicle.
Technology is advancing to support partial or complete “off-wire” operations of streetcar vehicles. In areas where the streetcar operates off-wire, the OCS is eliminated, and power is provided instead from an on-board storage energy storage system (ESS), either lithium-ion batteries or supercapacitors. Streetcar systems in Milwaukee, Detroit, and Oklahoma City are examples of off-wire operations using a lithium-ion battery ESS.
Bee Line OMF
OMF
162 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-13
3.5. VEHICLES AND TECHNOLOGY
A range of streetcar vehicle designs are available from manufacturers in the United States and around the world. Table 3-1 presents a comparison of the characteristics of several of the vehicles commonly used in the United States, and as shown, the primary differences among the vehicles from the perspective of the rider are the length of the vehicle and the resulting passenger capacity. All of the vehicles support off-wire operations.
Table 3-1. Streetcar Vehicles and their Key Characteristic Characteristic CAF Urbos 70 Siemens S-70 Brookville Liberty Width 8 feet, 8 inches 8 feet, 8 inches 8 feet, 8 inches Length 59 feet, 1 inch 85 feet, 3 inches 66 feet, 5 inches Capacity (passengers) 162 195 113
Minimum turn radius 59 feet 59 feet 59 feet
Low floor carriage 70% -100% 70% 70%
Low floor doors All All All
Weight 76,850 pounds 96,500 pounds 83,200 pounds
Max Speed 42 miles per hour 35 miles per hour 48 miles per hour Height 13 feet 12.6 feet 11 feet
Source: Vehicle Manufacturers, 2020
3.6. PRELIMINARY OPERATIONS PLAN
This section presents a preliminary operations plan for the streetcar that was developed to understand travel times, operating hours, and operating costs for each of the route alternatives. The analysis utilizes planning-level estimates to develop operating assumptions for this feasibility study phase. Future project phases will examine travel times and streetcar operating schedules in more detail to confirm the operating plan for the streetcar.
3.6.1. Travel Times
A planning-level travel time model was developed to determine the approximate round-trip travel times for the streetcar and its route alternatives. Data inputs for the model include the roadway speed limits, traffic signal locations, streetcar turning movements, stop locations, and existing traffic patterns. The travel speed, signal data, and stops were input into the model to determine the travel time.
Then, the estimated travel time was compared to actual drive times using Google Traffic as a means of grounding the estimates. Travel speeds for both the streetcar and autos were reduced when necessary and signal delay increased where significant delays were present to adjust for actual conditions.
The travel times developed for the streetcar route alternatives are summarized in Table 3-2 for three different scenarios: AM Peak, PM Peak, and Off-Peak. The AM and PM peak periods 163 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-14
represent times when Google Maps indicated the most congestion was present during these peak periods in the project area.
Table 3-2. Estimated Travel Times
Route Alternative
Round Trip Travel Time (mins.)
AM Peak PM Peak Off-peak
Alternative 1: Central/Brand Loop 44 50 38
Alternative 2: Brand Two-Way 44 51 35
The travel times analysis in Table 3-2 shows both route alternatives have similar round-trip travel times during the AM Peak (44 minutes) and PM Peak (50 and 51 minutes) periods. The slightly faster travel time for Alternative 1 is primarily driven by faster speeds and less congestion on Central Avenue north of Lomita Avenue compared to the same section of Brand Boulevard. The off-peak travel times show a slight difference between the alternatives.
Alternative 2 has the faster off-peak round-trip travel time at 35 minutes versus 38 minutes for Alternative 1. This is likely due to the directness of the Alternative 2 route because it has fewer turning movements. Also, Brand Boulevard has less congestion during the off-peak periods. The potential differences in travel times at this phase of study are within the margin of error and future study phases will analyze travel times in more detail.
The loop configuration of Alternative 1 may result in longer passenger travel times for some trips that are not quantified in the model. For example, a passenger boarding at the GTC and traveling to California Avenue/Brand Boulevard can either travel on the streetcar to California Avenue/Central Avenue station, disembark and walk east to Brand Boulevard; or travel on the streetcar north to Stocker Street and travel south back down to California Avenue/Brand Boulevard. Table 3-3 details the different travel scenarios for that trip, highlighting the inefficiency of the loop in some circumstances. A passenger unfamiliar with the system would likely ride the streetcar loop until it directly serves California Avenue/Brand Boulevard, which would add 13-15 minutes onto their trip.
Table 3-3. Travel Scenarios - GTC to California Avenue/Brand Boulevard Travel Sequence Travel Time (minutes)
Alternative 1: Central/Brand Loop – Board at GTC and ride to California/Brand stop taking the loop 30
Alternative 1: Central/Brand Loop – Board at GTC, ride to California/Central stop, and walk to California/Brand avoiding the loop
16 Alternative 2: Brand Two-Way – Board at GTC and ride directly to California/Brand 14
164 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-15
3.6.2. Service Assumptions
As discussed in Section 1.3. Streetcar Overview, streetcars are meant for relatively short intraurban trips that circulate people throughout downtown and between neighborhood districts and destinations. Streetcars serve some work-related trips but are most popular throughout the day and during the weekends for shopping, dining, entertainment, and other personal travel needs. As a result, streetcars require high-frequency service throughout most of the day and into the early evening. High-frequency service has the added benefit that it allows passenger to use the system without the need to consult a time schedule.
Table 3-4 shows the preliminary operating schedule. The schedule is based on the anticipated travel patterns in the Glendale Streetcar study area and best practices from other streetcar systems operating in the United States. The schedule assumes operating hours are 6:00 a.m. to midnight during weekdays with slightly shortened operating hours on Sundays. Peak headways of 10 minutes are recommended during weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and for most of Saturday and Sunday. Outside of peak periods, 20-minute headways should be maintained to provide adequate service for less typical trips.
Table 3-4. Operating Schedule
Days Period Start End Headway
(minutes)
Weekdays (Monday – Friday)
Early AM 6:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 20
Peak 7:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. 10
Night 7:00 p.m. 12:00 a.m. 20
Saturday
Early AM 7:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 20
Peak 10:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. 10
Night 7:00 p.m. 12:00 a.m. 20
Sunday
Early AM 8:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. 20
Peak 12:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. 10
Night 6:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 20
3.7. FARE POLICY
Transit fares are an important source of operating funds for streetcars and other transit systems in the United States. Determining a fare policy is an important component of the Glendale Streetcar system that must balance revenue needs with ridership to best fit the goals of the system. Fare policies can be designed to maximize farebox recovery, maximize ridership, or to find a balance between the two.
To maximize ridership, some systems have implemented “no fare” policies and forego passenger farebox revenue entirely. “No fare” policies decrease barriers to ride since no purchase is necessary. This makes the system easier to use and encourages people to use the system more frequently. Also, “no fare” systems can save money on infrastructure and 165 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-16
maintenance since they do not need to install ticket vending machines. In addition, administrative costs may be lower since “no fare” systems do not have to conduct ticket enforcement. However, “no fare” systems do not collect farebox revenue, which is often an important source of revenue for transit systems. “No fare” systems must have another stable source of funds that can accommodate annual operating costs such as tax revenue, advertising, naming rights, and other funding mechanisms.
As shown in Table 3-5, some streetcar systems currently have “no fare” policies including Milwaukee, WI; Tacoma, WA; Kansas City, MO; Dallas, TX; and Washington D.C. Three of these “no fare” systems (Milwaukee, Tacoma, and Dallas) have indicated they have plans to begin charging in the next 1 to 2 years. Many other systems have determined that fares in the $1 to $2 range provide an adequate balance between revenue and ridership including Seattle, WA; Tucson, AZ; Atlanta, GA; Portland, OR; Cincinnati, OH; and Detroit, MI. Both the Atlanta Streetcar and QLINE in Detroit started with a free introductory period before transitioning to their current fares.
Table 3-5. Example Fare Systems
System Name Current Fare Fare Collection
Mechanism
Integration with
Regional Transit
The Hop Free N/A N/A
Tacoma Link Free N/A N/A
KC Streetcar Free N/A N/A
Dallas Streetcar Free N/A N/A
Washington D.C. Streetcar Free N/A N/A
Seattle Streetcar $2.25
Off-board purchase;
random proof of payment
required on board
Regional transit card
accepted for payment at
platforms. Transfers
accepted.
Tucson Sun Link $1.50
Off-board purchase;
validate on-board at
machine
Part of regional Sun Tran
fare system
Atlanta Streetcar $1.00
Off-board purchase;
present receipt when
boarding
Operated by MARTA, no
free/reduced transfers
from MARTA
Portland Streetcar $2.00
Off-board and on-board
purchase; random proof of
payment required on
board
Free transfers from Tri-
County Metropolitan
Transportation District
of Oregon (TriMet)
services
Cincinnati Bell Connector $1.00
Off-board purchase;
random proof of payment
required on board
Free transfers from
Metro services
166 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
3-17
System Name Current Fare Fare Collection
Mechanism
Integration with
Regional Transit
QLINE Detroit $1.50
Off-board purchase;
random proof of payment
required on board
$0.25 transfer to Detroit
DOT and SMART bus
services
KC Streetcar = Kansas City
MARTA = Metropolitans Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
The Hop = Milwaukee Streetcar
In addition to farebox revenue, streetcar systems use several other sources to help fund operations, including sponsorship, federal funding, regional funding, and grants. During future phases, fare policies and operating funding sources for the Glendale Streetcar will be further developed and refined. No decisions have been made on fare policy for the Glendale Streetcar, but a fare-free system should be considered, especially in the early operating periods to help encourage habit formation and allow potential riders to discover the service. 167 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-1
4. EVALUATION OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
The following sections evaluate the two route alternatives based on a range of factors to test the feasibility and functionality of the routes and to identify the advantages and disadvantages of each of the route alternatives.
4.1.1. Activity Generators
Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 through Figure 4-4 provide a summary of activity generators adjacent to the streetcar route alternatives including major destinations, residential units, commercial square feet, and transit users.
Table 4-1. Activity Generators
Activity Generator* Alternative 1 –
Central/Brand Loop
Alternative 2 –
Central/Brand Two-Way
Major Destinations** 9 10
Residential Units 579 281
Commercial Square Feet 6,211,682 8,158,044
Daily Transit Users 3,537 3,921
Sources: Google Maps, 2018. Glendale Parcel Data, 2018. Metro Transit Ridership, 2018. Glendale Beeline Ridership, 2014.
* The data only reflects locations that are directly adjacent to the streetcar route. This means if the streetcar is only traveling northbound, only data points on the east side of the street were inventoried. **Major destinations include cultural and entertainment attractions, shopping destinations, and hotels Alternative 1 – Central/Brand Loop
Alternative 1 is directly adjacent to several activity generators on the east side of Central Avenue and the west side of Brand Boulevard in the downtown area and along Central Avenue to the south of downtown. Alternative 1 is adjacent to nine major destinations including Glendale Galleria, Americana at Brand, several hotels, and the Glendale Memorial Hospital. The loop alternative is adjacent to a relatively high number of residential units (579), which is driven by several new multi-story residential developments along the east side of Central Avenue in the downtown area. The southbound route along the west side of Brand Boulevard is adjacent to a dense commercial district in downtown and adjacent to commercial uses along Central Avenue to the south of downtown totaling over 6.2 million square feet of commercial space.
Alternative 1 is adjacent to transit stops used by more than 3,500 current daily transit users.
Alternative 2 – Central/Brand Two-Way
Alternative 2 directly serves both sides of Brand Boulevard, downtown’s major thoroughfare, and both sides of Central Avenue to the south of downtown. Alternative 2 is adjacent to 10 major destinations including the Americana at Brand, Alex Theatre, several hotels, and the Glendale Memorial Hospital. Alternative 2 serves Glendale’s premier downtown office district and is adjacent to nearly 8.2 million square feet of commercial space. Alternative 2 is adjacent to only 281 residential units since the current mix of uses along this corridor is primarily retail and office uses. Alternative 2 is adjacent to transit stops used by more than 3,900 current daily transit users.
168 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-2
Figure 4-1. Districts and Destinations
169 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-3
Figure 4-2. Housing Units
170 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-4
Figure 4-3. Commercial Square Feet
171 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-5
Figure 4-4. Transit Users
172 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-6
4.1.2. Ridership
A preliminary planning-level ridership estimate was developed for the Glendale Streetcar route alternatives to assist in the decision-making process for the feasibility study phase. For this phase, the estimates are conservative and do not represent a final ridership estimate. The models and estimates have difficulty between the two route alternatives in downtown due to their similarity and proximity. Alternative 1 may potentially see lower ridership as a factor of rider confusion of the loop route concept as noted above. As the project progresses, a more detailed ridership estimate will be prepared to narrow the range of daily riders and determine differences between the alternatives.
The planning level estimate described below was developed using the following two models to obtain a range of potential ridership estimates.
Corridor Growth Model
This model represents a conservative estimate based on the current project planning and design progress. This approach utilizes bus ridership elasticities for travel time, frequency, and increased visibility of a streetcar system to grow the existing Beeline bus ridership in the corridor based on streetcar service improvements. The elasticities are the results of peer- reviewed transit ridership research. This model does not account for growth in existing Metro trips or walk-trips that could utilize the streetcar service. Utilizing this model, a reasonable and conservative estimate for ridership on the proposed Glendale Streetcar is 1,400 to 1,800 riders daily for Alternative 1 and 1,500 to 2,000 riders daily for Alternative 2.
Case Study Model
This represents a high-end estimate based on other streetcar cities to help illustrate ridership potential based on future design and operations decisions such as dedicated-lanes, headways, fares, and hours of operations. To better understand the ridership potential of a streetcar system, this approach examines other streetcar systems in the United States that provide a similar service circulating people through a dense downtown environment. Case study cities include Tacoma, WA; Kansas City, KS; Milwaukee, WI; Cincinnati, OH; Detroit, MI; and Atlanta, GA. These systems all provide downtown circulators and represent a mix of different fares and operational characteristics. Data utilized from these case studies includes current ridership data from each city, including a comparison of free and transit fare systems. Each city’s ridership data was compared to the route mileage to create an average ridership per route mile that was then applied to Glendale’s potential route. The case study model indicates that both alternatives have the potential for up to 4,000 daily riders if features and operations were designed to maximize ridership, including free riders/no fares. 173 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-7
4.1.3. Economic Development
Based on the experiences of other streetcar cities, the increased mobility and accessibility from fixed-rail transit can help local communities facilitate economic development and achieve TOD goals. Like other cities, the Glendale Streetcar has the potential to spur economic development along its route since several complementary
factors are present in the study area including
Glendale’s land use and development policies that
support mixed-use and walkable environments,
favorable market conditions based on recent
development trends, and land that could be
redeveloped with higher density uses per
development regulations.
The following sections discuss the economic
development potential of the route alternatives in
more detail.
Alternative 1 – Central/Brand Loop
A benefit of the loop alternative is how it can
spread economic development opportunities to more than one corridor since it serves a larger geographic area, although the benefit is somewhat diminished since the station pairs are split between two different corridors. This may help facilitate additional higher density mixed-use development along Central Avenue in the downtown area consistent with the SGCP (City of Glendale, 2018). The presence of the streetcar along Central Avenue could help sustain many new developments that have occurred since 2013 and encourage additional investment along this corridor (see Figure 2-5). Based on land use plans and analysis, Central Avenue appears to have additional redevelopment capacity. Further study would be needed to explore specific economic opportunities.
Alternative 2 – Central/Brand Two-Way
Alternative 2 would concentrate the streetcar’s economic development potential along Brand Boulevard and help the City of Glendale achieve its land use and transportation goals for the downtown area in accordance with the SGCP and the Downtown Specific Plan (City of Glendale, 2019). This alternative has numerous built-in assets because it serves as the heart of the downtown activity zone; is adjacent to various cultural and entertainment uses; and has a high concentration of commercial square footage. Local plans promote the continuation of corporate headquarters and the development of mixed-use and residential buildings and street-level service and retail businesses to enhance the current character of the Brand Boulevard corridor. Redevelopment and/or a change in character along Brand Boulevard should be consistent with local plans. Brand Boulevard is a thriving, active commercial corridor with a unique character. By improving transit service with the addition of a streetcar, it will support the existing uses and help facilitate new higher density uses in accordance with local plans and development regulations.
Development Impacts within 0.25
mile of the Portland Streetcar (1998-
2015)
• $4.5 billion in new development
• Increase in market value of $11.6
billion
• 7.7 million SF of commercial space
• 17,888 multi-family housing units
Source: Streetcar Real Estate Development
Effects for Portland Streetcar, ECONorthwest
174 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-8
4.1.4. Transportation Connectivity
Linking the streetcar with other transportation modes improves mobility and decreases reliance on automobiles. Both alternatives would connect Beeline and Metro bus routes with Glendale’s existing pedestrian and bicycle network. In addition, both route alternatives connect to the GTC where several public transportation systems including Amtrak, Metrolink, Greyhound, Metro, and Beeline have transfer points.
The following sections discuss the transportation linkages for each route alternative in greater detail.
Alternative 1 – Central/Brand Loop
Alternative 1 would connect to other transportation modes along both Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue. The alternative route is along existing Beeline bus routes and it would connect to Metro bus routes 180 along Central Avenue south of Broadway and Metro route 92 along the entirety of Brand Boulevard. Also, the loop alternative would overlap with the planned Metro North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT project, which could travel along Central Avenue in Glendale. The streetcar and BRT could potentially share the same lane and station locations along Central Avenue. However, the streetcar alignment may interfere with the proposed BRT route on Central Avenue as streetcar service, which has shorter trips and stops more frequently, may slow down BRT. Additionally, the existing on-street bike lanes along Central Avenue may conflict with the streetcar and may need to be relocated to an adjacent corridor for safety purposes. Pedestrian connectivity is available along both Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue through the existing sidewalk network.
Alternative 2 – Central/Brand Two-Way
Alternative 2 would connect to other transportation modes along Brand Boulevard. The alternative route is along an existing Beeline bus route and it would connect with Metro bus routes 180 at the intersection of Broadway and Brand Boulevard. Also, Metro local route 92 follows the alternative along Brand Boulevard to Glenoaks Boulevard. This alternative avoids conflict with the proposed BRT service on Central Avenue, while providing connection to BRT at Broadway and Brand Boulevard. Alternative 2, with both northbound and southbound tracks, would strongly reinforce Brand Boulevard’s role as a multimodal and transit-focused corridor in accordance with the SGCP. The streetcar would complement this active pedestrian corridor that has an extensive sidewalk network.
4.1.5. User Experience
User experience can be a key determinant in the success of a new transit project and attracting riders.
Alternative 1 – Central/Brand Loop
Alternative 1 would run in a loop configuration in the downtown area and have the greatest geographical coverage. The loop configuration tends to be less intuitive to unfamiliar transit users because service is spread over a larger area with the streetcar only travelling in one direction and station pairs are split between two different streets, thus not immediately visible.
The two-block spread between the northbound and southbound alignments is relatively 175 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-9
manageable, but this spread could cause confusion for users trying to determine where to get on and off the streetcar route. In addition, the loop configuration would require out of direction travel or a longer walking distance to board and alight at the same location. This could result in longer passenger travel times for some trips and lead to customer dissatisfaction with the system in general, which could result in the potential loss of riders. See Section 3.6.1 for more information.
Alternative 2 – Central/Brand Two-Way
Alternative 2 would operate in a two-way configuration on Brand Boulevard in the downtown area and in a two-way configuration along Central Avenue to the south of downtown.
Alternative 2 is the most direct route making it the easiest to understand for transit users with all station pairs on the same street. This allows riders and new users to get on and off in the same general area creating fewer barriers to ride, making it more predictable, and less out of direction travel.
4.1.6. Utilities
A preliminary review of below-ground utilities was conducted to identify any major conflicts with the streetcar alternatives. Some utilities would interfere with excavation work required for the construction of the streetcar, including installation of the track bed, potential overhead pole foundations, and station platforms. Depending on their locations and depth of cover, utilities that cross and run parallel to streetcar project elements may need to be relocated or otherwise protected in place (e.g., casing, or cathodic protection).
Above-ground utilities include some overhead electric and communications lines crossing Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard at intersections and along the north side of Stocker Street.
No above-ground utilities present difficulty to streetcar implementation.
Alternative 1 – Central/Brand Loop
Two very large storm drains (81” and 114” diameter) lie beneath Central Avenue between San Fernando Road and Colorado Street. Subsequent project phases will study the effects of the streetcar’s weight and vibrations on these pipes. The system would be designed to minimize disruption to these pipes. Other utilities are minor in nature and will be studied in the next phase of engineering design.
Alternative 2 – Central/Brand Two-Way
Other than the two large storm drains described above, an initial scan of utility records indicates no large or significant utilities within the proposed streetcar track envelope on Brand Boulevard. Other utilities are minor in nature and will be studied in the next phase of engineering design.
The streetcar design will maintain access to the storm drains and all other utilities along the corridor for both alternatives.
4.1.7. Traffic Impacts
Potential impacts to traffic and parking along the proposed corridors were assessed for both alternatives. Based on the alignments of the alternatives, the movements (i.e., left turn, right 176 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-10
turn, or through) that the streetcar would make at each intersection along the route were identified. In addition, intersections that would be located near stations were identified.
Existing weekday AM and PM peak period traffic volumes were obtained from the South Glendale Community Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Glendale, 2018) for 16 key intersections.
In general, traffic operations would not be substantially affected at intersections at which the streetcar makes a through movement, as it would cross the intersection at the same time as other vehicles traveling in the same direction. Opportunities to improve and potentially mitigate any mobility impacts can be addressed through signal timing modifications and the addition of transit-preferential treatments. Both strategies can provide improved mobility for through vehicles along the corridor.
The northbound and southbound directions along Central Avenue and Brand Avenue are the primary traffic movements. Signal timing strategies can include progression for these vehicular movements, minimizing stops along the corridor and between transit stops, and increasing overall green time for the roadway along which the streetcar operates.
Transit preferential treatments, including transit signal priority, may be easier to implement for Alternative 1, as the streetcar would operate in a one-way loop for the northern half of the alignment. With two-way operations, there could be situations when both northbound and southbound trains arrive at an intersection simultaneously; at these times, the signalization plans can only prioritize one movement at a time.
At intersections where the streetcar makes a turn, there is a greater potential for an impact on traffic intersection operations due to the need for separation of time (signal timing) and space (turning geometry) between the streetcar and other vehicles. Because of their larger turning radius, the streetcar vehicle may require additional space for to complete a turning maneuver, which can impact adjacent travel lanes and create the potential for conflicts. Therefore, , dedicated signal phases are provided to allow a transit vehicle to initiate and complete a turning maneuver without any conflicts. This exclusive time would require a transit vehicle to be in position at the front of a vehicle queue and to have all conflicting movements (vehicle and non-motorized) stopped. As a result of the exclusive time, traffic operations could be impacted.
The relative scale of the impacts can vary depending on existing intersection operations, available capacity, upstream and downstream configurations, and the signal timing and phasing. Based on these factors, there is the potential for impacts to traffic operations at the following intersections, and further analysis will be required in future phases of design:
• Central Avenue and Lomita Avenue (both Alternatives)
• Central Avenue and Stocker Street (Alternative 1 only) • Brand Avenue and Stocker Street (Alternative 1 only)
• Brand Avenue and Lomita Avenue (both Alternatives)
In addition to potential traffic impacts due to turning movements, additional operational issues could occur at intersections adjacent to planned stations. An important consideration is whether each station will be nearside (before the intersection) or farside (after the intersection).
177 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-11
In general, nearside stops provide opportunities for transit vehicles to board/alight passengers during the red phases of the signal operations. Another advantage of nearside stops is the opportunity to facilitate a transit movement that requires exclusivity, such as a queue jump.
With a queue jump, a transit vehicle can be the first in a vehicle queue and utilize an exclusive transit phase without conflict.
While nearside stops can provide benefits to transit vehicles in certain conditions, there are potential impacts to intersection operations particularly at intersections with higher right- turning movements. At these locations, this conflict may cause increased vehicle queues and delays. In addition, although transit vehicles can take advantage of stopped conditions for boarding, there is the potential for incurring additional delay to both the streetcar and traffic flow, such as due to train deceleration, if the train arrives during the green phase, or if the boarding process extends past the red phase.
Compared to nearside stops, farside stops provide benefits for more reliable transit service by removing any additional intersection control delay compared to nearside stops if transit signal priority treatments are implemented (because the signal can hold the green phase to allow the streetcar to travel through the intersection without stopping). However, farside stops can result in impacts to intersection and roadway operations if vehicular queues extend into the intersection behind a stopped transit vehicle.
4.1.8. Parking Impacts
The focus of the parking analysis is to document on-street parking inventory within the study area along the proposed alignments and to identify potential impacts due to the guideway and station locations. Parking types within the study area include a range of parking management strategies such as unpaid time limited, paid time limited, loading zones, and valet spaces.
There are a total of 350 total parking spaces along Central Avenue between Railroad Street and Stocker Street (166 on the west side of the street and 184 on the east side). All parking spaces along Central Avenue are parallel to the curb with a mixture of unpaid timed and paid/metered time spaces.
There are a total of 417 parking spaces along Brand Boulevard between Lomita Avenue and Stocker Street (194 on the west side of the street and 223 on the east side with a mixture of angled and parallel parking spaces.
The guideway would not result in the loss of parking where the adjacent parking is parallel to the curb. Since all parking on Central Avenue is parallel, the guideway would not result in the loss of parking on Central Avenue under either alternative.
At locations where there is angled parking, the parking would need to be reconfigured as parallel parking to eliminate conflicts with the streetcar, resulting in a loss of parking in these areas. Table 4-2 shows the potential loss of parking spaces on Brand Boulevard resulting from each alternative, based on the conceptual designs conducted for this feasibility study. During future design efforts, it may be possible to optimize the design to reduce the loss of parking.
Because Alternative 1 travels in only the SB direction on Brand Boulevard, it has approximately half the parking impact as Alternative 2: the total number of parking spaces that would be 178 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-12
eliminated under Alternative 1 is 60 spaces, all along the west side of Brand Boulevard.
Alternative 2 would eliminate another 63 spaces on the east side of the street, for a total of 123 spaces.
In addition to the loss of parking resulting from the guideway, the stations required for each alternative would result in an additional loss of parking. Based on an analysis of the number of existing parking spaces at proposed station locations, it is estimated that the stations would result in the loss of an additional 30 to 34 parking spaces under either alternative.
Table 4-2. Parking Impacts due to Guideway on Brand Boulevard Parking Spaces Eliminated
Existing Parking
Spaces Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Segment West Side East Side West Side West Side East Side Stocker Street - Dryden Street 39 36 0 0 0
Dryden Street - Fairview Avenue 14 19 0 0 0
Fairview Avenue - Glenoaks
Boulevard 11 9 0 0 0
Glenoaks Boulevard - Arden
Avenue 0 0 0 0 0
Arden Avenue - Monterey Road 3 0 - 3 - 3 0
Monterey Road - Goode Avenue 0 0 0 0 0
Goode Avenue - Sanchez Drive 0 0 0 0 0
Sanchez Drive - Doran Street 4 0 - 4 - 4 0
Doran Street - Milford Street 7 0 - 7 - 7 0
Milford Street - Lexington Drive 19 11 - 8* - 8* 0
Lexington Drive - California
Avenue 33 33 - 15* - 15* - 14*
California Avenue - Wilson
Avenue 31 26 - 8* - 8* - 12*
Wilson Avenue - Broadway 0 29 0 0 - 11*
Broadway - Harvard Street 4 15 0 0 - 10*
Harvard Street - Caruso Avenue 0 8 0 0 0
Caruso Avenue - Colorado Street 7 9 0 0 - 4*
Colorado Street - Elk Avenue 8 12 - 3* - 3* - 4*
Elk Avenue - Lomita Avenue 14 16 - 12* - 12* - 8*
Total 194 223 -60 -60 -63
Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2020
* - assumes conversion from angled parking to parallel parking 179 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-13
4.1.9. Construction Considerations
Constructing a streetcar project will create temporary disruptions to traffic, utilities, and affect businesses and people who work and live along the route. These temporary construction impacts can be minimized through traffic control, construction phasing, and placing phasing requirements on the contractor during the construction period. A traffic management plan will be developed to address these items in future phases of project engineering and design.
The contractor will need secure space to store materials and vehicles and have a trailer for daily construction operations. These are typically vacant lots, unused parking areas, or other spaces that would cause minimal disruption during construction. They will be identified in future phases of project engineering.
Specific construction considerations along the corridor are described below.
Glendale Transportation Center (Both Alternatives)
The construction of streetcar tracks, platform and station amenities, electrical systems, utility relocations, and associated roadway improvements must accommodate the GTC's daily operations, including train and bus operations, traffic movement, pedestrians, bicyclists, GTC employees, and nearby properties. A construction phasing plan will be developed for this area during future phases of project engineering.
Central Avenue (Both Alternatives)
The construction of streetcar tracks, platform and station amenities, electrical systems, utility relocations, and associated roadway improvements must accommodate access to adjacent properties, pedestrians and bicyclists, and traffic movement.
Alternative 1 – Central/Brand Loop
The construction of streetcar tracks, platform and station amenities, electrical systems, utility relocations, and associated roadway improvements must accommodate access to adjacent properties, pedestrians and bicyclists, and traffic movement. Under this alternative, these impacts will be confined to the northbound lanes of Central Avenue and the southbound lanes of Brand Boulevard within downtown Glendale.
An advantage of this alternative is that it provides greater flexibility for utility relocation within downtown, because tracks will be laid on only one side of the street. This flexibility could simplify construction staging and traffic management. A disadvantage, however, is that construction activity will be spread across a larger portion of downtown.
A construction challenge will be the existing overpass at the Galleria, south of Broadway.
Engineering design must not modify or alter the existing overpass with streetcar tracks, electrical systems, or other features.
The traffic management plan will have to accommodate seasonal traffic patterns, including access to and from Galleria and Americana during the holiday period. 180 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-14
Alternative 2 – Central/Brand Two-Way
Construction of streetcar tracks, platform and station amenities, electrical systems, utility relocations and associated roadway improvements must accommodate access to adjacent properties, pedestrians and bicyclists, and traffic movement. These impacts will be confined to Brand Boulevard withing downtown under this alternative.
The traffic management plan will have to accommodate seasonal traffic patterns, including access to and from Galleria and Americana during the December/January holiday period.
4.2. COMPARISON OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
Based on conceptual engineering and operational analysis, both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are feasible and functional; however, the two alternatives each have advantages and disadvantages.
Table 4-3 summarizes the key characteristics of the route alternatives. The two alternatives have similar lengths, number of stations, end-to-end travel times, and capital costs.
Alternative 2 has slightly higher forecast ridership, as well as lower operating costs, because it serves a single, more established commercial corridor in downtown Glendale. However, Alternative 2 would also focus potential construction and parking impacts on that corridor, Brand Boulevard.
Table 4-3. Route Alternatives Summary
Category Alternative 1
Central/Brand Loop
Alternative 2
Central/Brand Two-Way
Route length 2.9 miles end-to-end
(5.8 miles of track)
2.9 miles end-to-end
(5.8 miles of track)
Number of stations/station pairs 9 9
Ridership (weekday) 1,400 to 1,800 (growth model)
4,000 (case study model)
1,500 to 2,000 (growth model)
4,000 (case study model)
End-to-end travel time
(AM/PM/Off-peak), minutes 44/50/38 44/51/35
Major shopping destinations,
hotels, and cultural attractions
along alignment
9 10
Residential units along alignment 579 281
Commercial uses along
alignment (square feet) 6.2 million 8.15 million
Existing daily transit riders along
route 3,537 3,921
Traffic impacts from operations
Potentially greater impacts
due to additional turning
movements
Potentially fewer impacts due
to fewer turning movements
181 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
4-15
Category Alternative 1
Central/Brand Loop
Alternative 2
Central/Brand Two-Way
Parking impacts (on-street spaces
removed) 90 to 94 153 to 157
Construction impacts
Greater flexibility within
each street
More streets impacted
Greater impact on each
street
Fewer streets impacted
Alternative 1 would serve a larger geographic area, supporting recent and ongoing mixed-use development on Central Avenue, but the one-way loop is less intuitive for riders and causes indirect travel for some trips. The alignment on Central Avenue north of Broadway also would potentially conflict with Metro’s planned BRT and the existing bike lanes in that area.
Alternative 2 would reinforce Brand Boulevard as a multi-modal corridor in accord with local plans with the most direct and easy to understand route that serves the heart of downtown Glendale. It would concentrate potential economic development benefits on Brand Boulevard, but since Brand Boulevard is already a highly built environment, it may promote fewer redevelopment opportunities.
Because Alternative 2 has higher forecast ridership, has the most intuitive route for riders, best serves the established commercial corridor along Brand Boulevard, and would not conflict with Metro’s planned BRT alignment, it is recommended that Alternative 2 be considered for further planning, engineering, and environmental evaluation. Future planning and engineering efforts should seek to minimize parking impacts through techniques such as the promotion of shared parking among land uses in the downtown area.
182 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
5-1
5. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE INTEGRATION
Based on its higher forecast ridership and other factors, Alternative 2 is recommended for further planning, engineering, and environmental evaluation. This chapter identifies opportunities to integrate the recommended alternative into the transit and active transportation network in the surrounding area to achieve the greatest potential benefits of the streetcar.
5.1. TRANSIT INTERFACE
The purpose of reviewing transit interface with the proposed Glendale Streetcar is to maximize the connectivity benefits of the streetcar by integrating it into the local and regional transit network in such a way that it complements existing services and creates a network where all routes reinforce one another and increase overall transit use in Glendale.
This section reviews existing and planned bus transit routes in the study area, identifies bus interface points with the recommended alternative, and proposes potential modifications to the bus network to provide a seamless and complementary transit system in south Glendale.
5.1.1. Planned Transit System Interface Locations
To optimize the connections between multiple transit lines for the ideal transit user experience, the potential location of these connections must be identified. Only then can improvements needed to build a stronger transit network incorporating the Glendale Streetcar be determined.
Bus service and streetcar service should bolster, not hinder one another. For example, because bus lines have more stops than the recommended streetcar alternative, bus service with frequent stops on the same route as the streetcar could slow down the streetcar service. Such a situation should be avoided and, instead, routes and stops should complement one another to create transit system that is intuitive and easy to use.
The recommended alternative route is partially along existing Beeline Routes 1 and 11, and it would overlap with parts of Metro Routes 92, 94, 180, and Metro Express Route 501. The other bus routes identified in Table 5-1 would intersect with this alternative, also allowing a transit connection. The Metro NextGen Bus Plan will increase bus frequency along some routes and will briefly re-route Metro Shuttle Route 603 to the Glendale Metrolink Station prior to continuing the route along San Fernando Road. The Metro NextGen Bus Plan does not include any additional route changes within the study area. The recommended alternative would also provide a connection to the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT at Broadway and Brand Boulevard. The stop-to-station interface points of each bus route are described in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Metro and Glendale Beeline Interface with Proposed Streetcar Stations Station Direct Interface
(On same street)
Indirect Interface
(On cross street)
Indirect Interface
(At nearby
intersection)
Glendale
Transportation Center
None None
Beeline Routes
1/11/12
183 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
5-2
Station Direct Interface
(On same street)
Indirect Interface
(On cross street)
Indirect Interface
(At nearby
intersection)
Central Avenue/Los Feliz
Road Beeline Route 1* Metro Route 603 Metro Routes 92/94/180
Central Avenue/Chevy
Chase Drive Beeline Route 1 None None
Central Avenue/Maple
Street (southbound)
None None
Metro Routes
92/94/180
Beeline Route 1
Central Avenue/Lomita
Avenue (northbound) Beeline Route 1 None
Metro Routes
92/94/180
Beeline Route 5
Brand Boulevard/Lomita
Avenue (southbound)
Metro Route 180
Beeline Route 1*
Metro Routes
92/94
None
Brand
Boulevard/Americana Wy
Metro Routes 92/94*
Beeline Routes 3/4*
None None
Brand
Boulevard/Broadway
(southbound)
Metro Routes
92/94/180/501
Beeline Route 1/4*
Metro Route 180
Beeline Routes
3/11
Metro Line 180
Beeline Routes
1/3/11
Brand Boulevard/California
Avenue
Metro Route 92*
Beeline Route 1*
None
Metro Route 92
Beeline Routes
1/11
Brand Boulevard/Doran
Street
Metro Route 501*
Beeline Routes 1/11* None
Metro Routes
92/501
Beeline Route 11
Brand Boulevard/Monterey
Road
Metro Route 92*
Beeline Routes 1* Beeline Route 11 Metro Route 92 Beeline Route 1
Brand Boulevard/Stocker
Street (southbound)
None Beeline Routes 1
Beeline Route 7 None
Source: Metro, 2021
*Stop overlaps with proposed platform or platform option Analysis of Transit Connectivity
Stations on the southern half of the recommended alternative’s alignment are better connected to the existing bus network than are stations on the northern half, with multiple Metro and Beeline connections on San Fernando Road, Chevy Chase Drive, Colorado Boulevard, and Broadway. Metro Route Line 92, 94 and 180, Metro Express Line 501, and Beeline Routes 3, 5, 11, and 12 enter the study area from the north, but only Metro Line 92, 94, and 180, Metro Express Line 501 and Beeline Route 7 and 11 connect to either alternative in the northern part of the study area.
184 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
5-3
The recommended alternative duplicates service of parts of Beeline Route 1 on Central Avenue.
Route 1 operates at a 10-minute headway from 6 a.m. to 7:45 p.m., while the proposed operating hours of the streetcar are 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. on weekdays with a headway of 10 minutes during the peak. Because the bus line has more stops than the proposed alternatives, their service with more frequent stops could slow down the streetcar service.
The Beeline Route 11, which provides express service for the South Glendale communities to the Glendale Transportation Center during peak hours, would also significantly overlap with the streetcar alternative, also traveling north and south on Brand Boulevard. Unlike Route 1, Route 11 has fewer stops than the proposed streetcar; as a result, the streetcar could slow down Route 11’s express service to and from the Glendale Transportation Center.
5.1.2. Conceptual Transit Service Modifications
As demonstrated by their operating patterns, Metro transit service in Glendale primarily serves those traveling in and out of Glendale to the neighboring cities within the Los Angeles region. In contrast, the Glendale Beeline primarily to serve local travel within Glendale and to adjacent communities, a similar function as the proposed streetcar. Therefore, opportunities for transit service modifications are focused on the Glendale Beeline bus service in order to create a comprehensive transit system within the city, where bus transit and streetcar service complement one another and improve the transit system as a whole.
The Glendale Beeline network will provide a critical link from nearby communities to the Glendale Streetcar. To best serve transit riders, modifications to Beeline routes should be considered to provide complimentary service and enhance connectivity.
All Beeline routes will interface with the proposed streetcar at some point in the system. Some routes have significant overlap with part or all the proposed streetcar alternative, which will result in redundant service if maintained at the same hours and headways. The following proposed modifications would optimize Beeline service to support the streetcar:
• Routes 1 –Route 1 provides service from North Glendale to the Glendale Metrolink Station in the northbound and southbound directions along Central Avenue. Since the proposed streetcar provides service from the Glendale Metrolink Station to the intersection of Colorado Street and Central Avenue, the proposed streetcar is more likely to slow Route 1’s service than the bus is to slow the streetcar. Therefore, Route 1 should be modified to terminate at the Colorado Street and Central Avenue intersection where it will connect to the proposed streetcar.
• Route 5 – To facilitate convenient connection to the streetcar in the Fremont Park neighborhood, reroute Route 5 to continue east on Stocker Street to Brand Boulevard (with a stop on Stocker Street and Brand Boulevard), south on Brand Boulevard to Glen Oaks Boulevard, and west on Glen Oaks Boulevard where it will return to its current route on Pacific Avenue. Route 5 will connect to the streetcar in the Pacific-Edison neighborhood between Colorado Street and Chevy Chase Drive.
• Route 11 – Unlike the local service provided by Route 1 and the proposed streetcar, Route 11 provides an express commuter service to link Glendale residents and workers to the Glendale Metrolink Station. As Route 11 has fewer stops within the same geographic area 185 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
5-4
than the proposed streetcar, the streetcar is more likely to slow Route 11’s express service than the bus is to slow the streetcar. Therefore, Route 11 should be modified to run on Central Avenue from Glen Oaks Boulevard to Colorado Street, and on Brand Boulevard from Colorado Street to Los Feliz Road.
5.2. FIRST/LAST MILE CONNECTIONS
As planning and design continues for the proposed streetcar, opportunities to facilitate connections with adjacent districts and neighborhoods should be incorporated into project design. Good “first/last mile” connections support the ridership of the streetcar line and help activate and enhance these adjacent areas.
The Citywide Pedestrian Plan (City of Glendale, 2021) selected the transit stop at Brand Boulevard and SR-134, which is along the proposed streetcar route, as one of its first/last mile study areas. Figure 5-1 shows the recommended improvements, including traffic calming, crosswalk enhancements, wayfinding, and improved bicycle and pedestrian connections over SR-134. These recommended improvements can serve as a model for first/last mile improvements along the rest of the streetcar alignment, which should focus on enhancing mobility to and from the transit stops along the alignment, including wayfinding improvements. 186 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
5-5
Figure 5-1. Proposed Brand Boulevard/SR-134 First/Last Mile Improvements
Source: City of Glendale, 2021
First/last mile improvements along the streetcar alignment should incorporate the following considerations related to bicycle access:
• Bicycles should not be restricted from the streetcar route or prohibited from passing through station locations. In a multimodal integrated transportation system, the provision of on-street bicycle facilities helps provide critical first/last mile connections between the transit stops and local employment and commercial centers. Separated and/or dedicated bicycle facilities should be incorporated to minimize operational conflicts. 187 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
5-6
• Locations to provide safe and secure bicycle parking at station locations should be identified to further enhance multimodal travel options.
• Multiple bicycle facility types serving the same corridor could be implemented to provide for a range of cycling abilities and styles (such as an on-street bike lane and a parallel low- traffic route). A redundant bicycle network can assist with the provision of a complete multimodal system.
• Wayfinding signs and markings should be created for bicyclists, particularly to indicate turning opportunities and routes to the streetcar stops and key destinations. • Advanced stop bars are recommended at all intersections to increase the awareness and separation of modes around conflict zones. Pavement markings and signing at tracks indicating that bicyclists should yield to streetcars also assist in user awareness. • Bicycle facilities should facilitate right-angle turns by bicyclists as they cross the streetcar tracks. Specifically, there is a high risk for bicycle wheels to get stuck or caught in in-street rail when crossing at an angle or parallel to the tracks. Transit agencies have explored using flange filler material that is typically used for heavy rail, which can reduce danger for riders.
However, research on these installations indicate that flange filler is not appropriate for streetcar and light rail tracks.
188 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
6-1
6. COST ESTIMATES
6.1. CAPITAL COSTS
This section presents capital cost estimates prepared for the recommended Central/Brand Two- Way alternative. Since the project is at the early conceptual engineering design stage, the capital cost estimate is a 1 to 2% level design estimate within the requirements of the American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) International Class 5 estimate as defined in AACE Recommended Practice No. 17R-97. The estimate uses probable construction cost based on unit prices from similar projects.
The methodology used to generate the capital cost estimates is consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines. The basis of FTA guidance on cost estimating is its Standard Cost Categories (SCC), which enables all FTA-funded projects to develop budget baselines in a uniform manner and enables projects to develop budget baselines that summarize to the SCC.
A unit cost library was developed to current year dollars (First Quarter 2020) and the quantities were estimated and used to prepare this cost estimate. No escalation beyond 2020 was included.
Parametric estimating techniques were used where the level of design does not support quantity measurements. These parametric estimates are based upon the previously bid OC (Orange County) Streetcar, Downtown LA (Los Angeles) Streetcar, Crenshaw/LAX Light Rail Transit (LRT), East Side Phase 2 LRT, Exposition Line LRT projects and other similar projects, with unit prices escalated to the present day. Some streetcar system parametric cost elements were also derived from the current FTA database.
The cost estimate includes guideway and track, stations, ancillary facilities such as the OMF, system, right-of-way, vehicles, and design and other professional services. The estimate also includes potential utility relocation, impacts to surface structures, temporary construction impacts, environmental consideration, various maintenance facilities locations, and right-of- way requirements.
Additionally, the cost estimate includes appropriate design allowances, allocated contingency and unallocated contingency. In the SCC, allocated contingencies are included to address lack of scope and quantity definition during the design stages. The size of the allocated contingency depends on the complexity of each SCC category and the stage of engineering completion.
Unallocated contingency is intended to address “unknown unknowns,” or to simply reflect a prudent amount to cover unanticipated events, such as political events, labor strife, weather, unexpected site conditions, mercurial commodity pricing, unfavorable market conditions, bid risk, and change orders.
Table 6-1. presents a summary of the capital cost estimates of the recommended alternative in 2020 dollars by SCC. The range of probable capital cost estimate could be 5% higher or 15% lower than these estimates. The SCC worksheet is included in Appendix B.
189 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
6-2
Table 6-1. Summary of Capital Cost Estimates (2020 Dollars, x000) Cost Category Estimate
Guideway and track elements $61,359
Stations, stops, terminals, intermodal $11,628
Support facilities—yards, shops, administration
buildings $58,841
Sitework and special conditions $63,088
Systems $73,998
Construction Sub Total $268,912
Right-of-way, land, existing improvements $24,544
Vehicles $35,200
Professional services $84,169
Unallocated contingency $82,565
Finance charges Not included
Total cost (2020 dollars) $495,391
As previously discussed, each cost category includes an allocated contingency, in addition to the unallocated contingency shown in Table 6-1 Together, the allocated and unallocated contingencies represent 41.5% of the total cost estimate, as shown in Table 6-2..
Table 6-2. Total Allocated and Unallocated Contingency (2020 Dollars, x000) Cost Categories Estimate
Allocated Contingency $62,646
Unallocated Contingency $82,565
Total Contingency $145,211
Contingency as Percent of Capital Cost 41.5%
6.2. OPERATING COSTS
Operating costs were derived from National Transit Database annual operating costs for similar streetcar systems on a per-route mile basis. To estimate potential streetcar annual operating costs, vehicle requirements and annual vehicle hours were determined based on the operating schedule outlined in Table 3-4. Operating costs on streetcar systems vary depending on local circumstances, as shown in Table 6-3. This analysis utilizes a planning level revenue cost of $250/hour. Although there is potential for the Glendale Streetcar to operate at a lower cost per hour, $250/hour is appropriate for this early stage of project development. Vehicle requirements and operating characteristics were developed from the travel times, headways, and operating hours outlined above.
190 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
6-3
Table 6-3. Case Study Operating Costs
System Cost per Revenue Hour
Streetcar System
Tucson Sun Link $176
Q-Line (Detroit) $210
Seattle Streetcar $217
Kansas City Streetcar $218
The Hop $220
Portland Streetcar $236
Cincinnati Bell Connector $244
Average $217
Local System
Beeline $83
Metro - Bus $171
Metro - BRT $262
Metro - LRT $464
Sources: National Transit Database, 2017 Transit Agency Profiles
Table 6-4 summarizes the conceptual operating costs for the recommended alternative. The alternative would require up to six streetcar vehicles running at the same time to maintain desired headways during weekday peak periods.
Based on its operating characteristics, the recommended alternative would have 26,558 annual revenue operating hours. Using a $250/hour cost results in a total estimated annual operating cost of $6.6 million.
Table 6-4. Conceptual Operating Plan and Costs
Days Period Start End Vehicles
Required Hours Vehicle
Hours
Days in
Year
Annual
Revenue
Hours
Weekdays
(Monday
– Friday)
Early AM 6:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 2 1 2 260 520
Peak 7:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. 6 12 72 260 18,720
Night 7:00 p.m. 12:00 a.m. 2 5 10 260 2,600
Total hours 21,840
Saturday
Early AM 7:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 2 3 6 52 312
Peak 10:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. 4 9 36 52 1,872
Night 7:00 p.m. 12:00 a.m. 2 5 10 52 520
Total Hours 2,704
191 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
6-4
Days Period Start End Vehicles
Required Hours Vehicle
Hours
Days in
Year
Annual
Revenue
Hours
Sunday
Early AM 8:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. 2 4 8 53 424
Peak 12:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. 4 6 24 53 1,272
Night 6:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 2 3 6 53 318
Total Hours 2,014
Total Annual Revenue Hours 26,558
Cost Per Hour $250
Annual Operating Cost $6.6
million
192 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-1
7. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
This chapter discusses the required steps to fund and implement the Glendale Streetcar project. It begins with a review of successful funding strategies employed by comparable projects and an inventory of available funding sources. It then reviews the potential ratings of the project on the major criteria used by the federal government’s primary transit funding source, the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program. It concludes with an overview of the approvals and actions that will be required to implement the project, along with a typical timeframe for completion of each step in the process.
7.1. FUNDING STRATEGIES
7.1.1. Case Studies
This section describes three successful streetcar funding case studies from across the country to highlight how different cities were able to implement similar streetcar systems.
KC Streetcar – Kansas City, MO
The KC Streetcar opened in 2016, connecting districts within Kansas City’s central city, traveling
2.2 miles along the city’s north-south Main Street corridor. Operations for the KC Streetcar are managed by the not-for-profit Kansas City Streetcar Authority (KCSA). Funded by the local tax base, the KCSA was incorporated in 2012 following the creation of the Kansas City Transportation Development District (TDD). The total capital cost of the initial Main Street route was approximately $102 million.
Capital Costs
The KC Streetcar leveraged multiple federal funding opportunities to fund the construction of the initial route. Most sizable, was a $20 million Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant. An additional $16 million was procured through the Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program. Both programs are administered by the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and were established by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, signed into law in December 2015. The KC Streetcar also received $1.1 million in the form of a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program grant, a federal funding program aimed at improving air quality and congestion (TRB, 2016).
The City of Kansas City acted as the local sponsor for the project providing funding match for federal grants. A Special Obligation Bond made up over half of the project’s total capital funding, a sum of $62.9 million. To repay this bond, Kansas City formed a TDD, with approval from downtown residents through official vote, that functions as a special taxing district. Within the TDD there is a special sales tax, not to exceed 1%, and a special assessment on real estate within its boundaries. As of April 2016, Kansas City’s TDD had experienced over $1.7 billion in completed, in progress, or publicly announced development projects. See Table 7-1 for a funding summary.
193 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-2
Table 7-1. KC Streetcar Funding Sources
Federal Sources Funding Level Local Sources Funding Level TIGER grant $20M TDD $62.9M
Surface Transportation Program $16M Other City
Commitment $2.0M
CMAQ $1.1M
Total Federal Sources $37.1M Total Local Sources $64.9M Source: Transportation Research Board (TRB). Guide to Value Capture Financing for Public Transportation Projects. 2016.
M = million
Operating Costs
The KC Streetcar operations are funded from a variety of sources outside of fare box revenue and sponsorships, including:
• Federal grants
• Voter-approved sales tax increase
• Special property and parking assessments
QLINE – Detroit, MI
This 6.6-mile streetcar loop serves the Midtown, New Center, and North End districts of downtown Detroit, connecting many of the city’s cultural and civic institutions. Opened to the public in 2017, the system recorded more than 1.3 million riders in its first year of operation.
Detroit’s streetcar system is owned and operated by M-1 Rail, a not-for-profit formed in 2007 to spearhead the design, construction, and operation of the system. The QLINE runs along the heavily populated Woodward Avenue corridor, which is home to 40 % of Detroit’s jobs. The total capital cost of the initial route was $182.2 million.
Capital Costs
The QLINE received two TIGER grants to fund Detroit’s downtown streetcar system. The initial TIGER grant awarded to the project was for $25 million. The second TIGER Grant—a $12.2 million grant—was critical in leveraging funding from private and philanthropic sources.
The New Market Tax Credit program (NMTC) was created to help economically distressed areas attract private investment by providing investors with a Federal tax credit. This program generated $9.4 million for the QLINE. Through NMTC, the U.S. Department of the Treasury gives tax credit authority to Community Development Entities through an application process.
The NMTC program was useful in Detroit as the city had experienced economic hardship with low private investment in the city. NMTC credit allowed M-1 Rail access to funds with more reasonable terms (Detroit Free Press, 2017).
Detroit’s system is unique in that a majority of capital funding for the project came from private sector and philanthropic sources. Private donors include The Kresge Foundation ($49.8M), 194 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-3
Quicken Loans ($11.4M), Ford Motor Company ($7M), and Penske Truck Leasing ($7M). An additional nine private donors combined for $27 million in large-sum private donations.
Local public sector investment for the QLINE came from the city’s Downtown Development Authority ($9M), the Michigan Economic Development Corporation ($7M), the State of Michigan ($10M), and Wayne County, MI ($3M). See Table 7-2. for a funding summary.
Table 7-2. QLINE Funding Sources
Federal Sources Funding Level Local Sources Funding Level TIGER grants
(two awards) $37.2M Private/philanthropic
funding $113.6M
NMTC $9.4M Michigan DOT $10.0M
Wayne County $3.0M
Detroit Downtown
Development Auth. $9.0M
Total Federal Sources $46.6M Total Local Sources $135.6M Source: Detroit Free Press. “Ready for the QLINE? Detroit's streetcar gets ready to debut.” May, 2017 Operating Costs
QLINE operations are funded from a variety of sources outside of fare box revenue and sponsorships, including:
• Private and philanthropic funding
• Regional Transit Authority funding - planned (after 10 years of service) The Hop
The initial route for Milwaukee’s streetcar, The Hop, travels 2.1 miles through downtown connecting the city’s Intermodal Station with near downtown neighborhoods. The project received approval from the Milwaukee Common Council in 2015, and construction on the starter route, the M-Line, began in 2016. Twenty-seven years afterward, a federal grant was awarded to the city, and operation began on The Hop in late 2018. The initial route had a capital cost of $98.8 million.
Capital Costs
In 1991, a federal grant worth $289 million was allocated to construct a mass transit system connecting Milwaukee to nearby Waukesha, WI. Such a system never materialized in the Milwaukee region, with the federal dollars diverted to other programming, including The Hop.
The amount diverted from this federal grant to the Milwaukee streetcar project totaled $54.9 million.
The local funding for the project came from three Tax Incremental Districts (TID) near the streetcar route. TIDs are a form of tax increment financing (TIF) that utilizes new investment in areas surrounding the streetcar extension by capturing the increment property tax value from new development and using that for streetcar capital costs. 195 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-4
Two TIDs were amended to allow for incremental value to flow into the streetcar project, and an additional District was created for the purpose of funding the system. Combining for $59 million, TIF funding accounted for 47.6% of the project’s construction costs. Of ten streetcar projects studied by the Wisconsin Policy Forum (WPF), only two others utilized TIF to cover construction costs (Cincinnati 12.4%, Portland 8.2%). According to the WPF report (September 2019), Milwaukee’s dependence on TIF is largely a result of limited funding mechanisms allowed under Wisconsin state law. Local funding sources relied upon for other similar streetcar projects that were not available to Milwaukee’s system include local sales taxes and state transit capital programs1. See Table 7-3. for a funding summary.
Table 7-3. The Hop Funding Sources
Federal Sources Funding Level Local Sources Funding Level Interstate Cost Estimate $54.9M TIF $43.9M
Source: www.thehopmke.com
Operating Costs
Operations of The Hop are funded from a variety of sources outside of fare box revenue and sponsorships, including:
• FTA Urbanized Area Formula and State of Good Repair Grants • CMAQ Program funding
• Parking revenue
7.1.2. Key Funding Sources Inventory
This section inventories key potential funding sources available to the Glendale Streetcar Project and the various considerations and next steps of the sources.
Table 7-4. provides a summary of key potential sources identified through project experience along with local and national expertise. Future project phases will investigate these potential sources more to help identify likely sources to be pursued for the project.
Table 7-4. Potential Funding Sources
Level Department/Agency Funding Source Eligible
Costs Considerations
Federal
U.S. DOT, FTA CIG Program (Section
5309) Capital See Detailed Evaluation
in Section 7.2
U.S. DOT RAISE (formerly BUILD,
TIGER) Capital
Highly competitive
discretionary grant
program.
U.S. DOT, FTA CMAQ Program Capital and
operating
Focused on high level of
effectiveness in
reducing air pollution.
1 The Hop Streetcar: About. https://thehopmke.com/about/#faq 196 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-5
Level Department/Agency Funding Source Eligible
Costs Considerations
U.S. DOT, FTA
Urbanized Area Formula
Grant Program (Section
5307)
Capital Formula allocation from
LA Metro.
U.S. DOT TIFIA Capital
Provides project
sponsors credit
assistance for surface
transportation projects.
State
State Controller’s
Office
Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund (Various
programs/allocations)
Capital and
operating
Competitive
applications process for
state Cap-and-Trade
dollars.
State Controller’s
Office State Transit Assistance Capital and
operating
Funding distributed to
regional planning
agencies based on a
population and
operations formula.
Strategic Growth
Council
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities Capital
Supports projects
designed to reduce
greenhouse gas
emissions, including
transit capital projects.
Local
Local Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing District
Capital and
operating
Requires voter approval
and sufficient values.
Metro
Sales Tax (Prop A, Prop C,
Measure R, Measure M,
TDA)
Capital and
operating
Potential funding
dependent taxes
generated.
Fare Collection Operating
Collection of fare
requires fare system
(tickets, enforcement).
Private System Sponsorship
Typically,
operating
costs
System, stops and
vehicle sponsorships
provide private funding
opportunity.
Note:
BUILD = Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development RAISE = Rebuilding American Infrastructure with sustainability and Equity STA = State Transit Assistance
TDA = Transportation Development Act
TIFIA = Transportation Infrastructure and Finance Innovation Act
197 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-6
Federal Funding
Capital Investment Grant Program
This FTA discretionary program provides capital cost funding for fixed guideway projects as well as corridor-based bus rapid transit that emulate rail projects. Eligible systems include rapid, commuter, and light rail systems and streetcar projects. State and local governments, including transit agencies, are eligible recipients of funding via this program. Construction grants are awarded to qualified projects that adhere to statutory requirements as outlined in the FAST Act. These include a multi-step, multi-year process and attainment of at least a “Medium” overall rating.
The program has four qualifying categories: New Starts, Small Starts, Core Capacity, and Programs of Interrelated Projects. Depending on the final capital costs and desired federal match, the Glendale Streetcar project is most closely aligned with the intentions of the Small Starts and New Starts programs.
The competitive Small Starts and New Starts funding programs are dedicated to new or expanding fixed guideway transit systems across the United States. The FTA limits discretionary Small Starts funds for projects with a total estimated capital cost of less than $300 million and a maximum program funding request of less than $100 million. The FTA limits discretionary New Starts funds for projects with a total estimated capital cost of greater than $300 million or a program funding request of greater than $100 million. (The Senate version of the bipartisan infrastructure bill currently pending before Congress would increase these numbers to $400 million and $150 million, respectively.) A local match of at least 20% is required for these programs (FTA, 2020).
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with sustainability and Equity The RAISE program, formerly the BUILD and TIGER Discretionary Grant programs, receives hundreds of applications per competition to build and repair crucial elements of the nation’s freight and passenger networks. Annual funding for this already competitive program depends on Congressional appropriations and is heavily dependent upon current and future legislative processes. Capital projects may be awarded between $5 million and $25 million and require a 20% local match as specified in the Fiscal Year 2021 Appropriations Act.2 BUILD grant awarded streetcar projects in recent years include:
• Kansas City Streetcar Riverfront Extension (2020): $14.2 million BUILD grant, $20.2 million total project cost.
• Better Market Street Phase I (2018): $15 million BUILD grant, $80.7 million total project cost.
• Milwaukee Streetcar – extension (2016): $14.2 million TIGER grant, $28.4 million project cost.
2 U.S. DOT. RAISE Discretionary Grants. https://www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants 198 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-7
Projects are evaluated based on criteria including safety, environmental stewardship, quality of life, economic competitiveness, state of good repair, innovation, and partnership. The RAISE program diverges from prior iterations (BUILD, TIGER) as U.S. DOT will have an increased prioritization of projects that demonstrate improvements to racial equity, reduction of climate- related impacts, and creation of quality jobs.
CMAQ
Glendale is within the Los Angeles—South Coast Air Basin. This geography, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is classified as non-attainment regarding particulate matter that have a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers of particles in the air. This qualifies the Glendale Streetcar project for funding under the CMAQ program. Funds from this program may be used for transportation capital or operating projects or programs that are likely to contribute to the attainment or maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard. For operations funding, CMAQ funds can only be utilized within the first 3 years of service. In 2020, LA County was allocated $157.7 million in CMAQ funding (Metro, 2020).
Urbanized Area Formula Program
As Glendale is within the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area it qualifies for funding from the formula-based Urbanized Area Program (5307) offered by the FTA. In LA County, LA Metro allocates 15% of funding on a discretionary basis and 85% by formula to itself and the non- Metro operators. Any funds utilized must provide a local match of 20% and funding can only be utilized for capital funding. In 2020, LA County received $245.9 million in 5307 Program funding (Metro, 2020).
Eligible activities under this program include planning, engineering, design and evaluation of transit projects and other technical transportation-related studies; construction of maintenance and passenger facilities; and capital investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems including rolling stock, overhaul and rebuilding of vehicles, track, signals, communications, and computer hardware and software.
State Funding
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
The Green House Gas Reduction Fund provides funding for transit that aligns with the Glendale Streetcar project under a variety of different allocations and programs, summarized below:
• The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) provides operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emission and improve mobility.
Priority for this program is serving disadvantaged communities. The LCTOP is administered by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in cooperation with the state’s Air Resource Board and Controller's Office. LCTOP funds are allocated to LA Metro and distributed to local operators.
• Administered by Caltrans in collaboration with the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program funds capital improvements that modernize intercity, commuter, and urban rail and bus systems. The program aims to significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and 199 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-8
congestion. In four cycles of funding, $5.8 billion have been awarded to 73 projects throughout the state (CalSTA, 2021).
State Transit Assistance
This statewide program distributes funding through a formula to Regional Transportation Planning Agencies 50% by population and 50% by transit operations. The program is funded through diesel fuel sales taxes and SB1 funds. The State Transit Assistance funding can be used to fund both capital and operating costs. LA County’s allocation from this program was $167.2 million in 2020 (Metro, 2020).
State and Regional Improvement Program
The State Transportation Improvement (STIP) is the 5-year program of capital improvements on and off the State Highway System that increase the capacity of the transportation system/ The projects in the STIP are proposed by regional agencies and Caltrans.
Projects proposed by regional agencies are included the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, LA Metro proposes regional projects for itself, Caltrans and local agencies.
Sales Tax Funding
LA County and California have a variety of sales tax levies that fund transit improvements.
Existing Sales Tax Measures already in place are detailed below.
Caltrans Transportation Development Act
This legislation established two funding sources administered by Caltrans; the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), and the STA fund (previously discussed). The LTF returns funds from a ¼ cent general sales tax to counties. The funds are apportioned to each county by the State Board of Equalization according to the amount of tax collected in the county.
Article 4 of the TDA awards funding to public transportation systems for capital and operating assistance. The funding is available only to LA Metro and eligible municipal operators (as determined by farebox recovery ratio requirements) subject to the Formula Allocation Procedure based on vehicle service miles and fare revenue. In 2019, Article 4 allocated $420.8 million to LA County for public transportation systems (Metro, 2020).
Los Angeles County Sales Taxes
LA County has four separate sales taxes that support transportation could partially be available to help fund portion of the Glendale Streetcar:
• Proposition A: A voter-enacted (1980) 0.5-cent sales tax in Los Angeles County. Twenty-five % of these funds are returned to local cities on a per capita basis through the Local Return Program and another 40% is for the Discretionary program, which is available to municipal operators. The primary current use of Prop A Discretionary funds is bond debt service for already-funded projects (Metro, 2021).
• Proposition C: A voter-enacted (1990) 0.5-cent sales tax for public transit purposes. Prop C returns 20% of funds to local municipalities through the Local Return Program. In addition 200 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-9
to the Local Return, LA Metro allocates additional Prop C funding through its Call for Projects process, a biennial competitive process that distributes funds to regionally significant transportation projects.
• Measure R: A voter-enacted (2008) 0.5-cent sales tax for public transit purposes. Measure R returns 15% of collections to local municipalities through Local Return. Other than Local Return, no other Measure R funding would be available to the Glendale Streetcar. • Measure M: A voter-enacted (2016) 0.5-cent sales tax for transportation purposes (increasing to one cent in July 2039 at the expiration of Measure R). Measure M returns 16% of collections local municipalities. Other than Local Return, no other Measure M funding would be available to the Glendale Streetcar.
Local & Private Sources
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
This relatively new financing tool allows cities, counties, and special districts to form Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts (EIFDs) and issue TIF bonds. The implementation of EIFDs returns the ability to TIF for local communities that were no longer able to use tax increment to repay bonds financing infrastructure and other needed improvements in 2012.
As described in earlier case studies, TIF utilizes new investment in areas/districts by capturing the incremental growth in property or other tax value from new development. Under the EFID, new property tax growth can only be diverted if a taxing jurisdiction agrees to the diversion.
Unlike TIF funding in some communities, the EFID requires no public vote to establish the authority, imposes no geographic limitations on where it can be used, and no blight findings are required. These EFIDs can be created by the legislative body of a city or a county with a specific district boundary. If the district will issue bonds, a 55% voter approval is required.
System Sponsorship
Sponsorship by local businesses is widely practiced by modern streetcar systems across the country. In exchange for naming rights and/or trainset advertisements, community partners provide funding for individual systems operational costs. Typical sponsorships come from entities with strong ties to the given city, much like naming rights for professional sports facilities. Such sponsorships include:
• The Hop – Milwaukee, WI: A 12-year, $10-million sponsorship with Potawatomi Hotel & Casino
• Cincinnati Bell Collector – Cincinnati, OH: 10-year, $3.4-million naming rights and station branding with Cincinnati Bell
• QLINE – Detroit, MI: A 10-year, $5 million sponsorship with Quicken Loans
7.2. CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANT READINESS ASSESSMENT
As detailed in Section 7.1, many communities and transit agencies across the country are pursuing CIG funding to fund their transit capital projects. This section provides a preliminary, planning-level assessment of the Glendale Streetcar’s readiness for the CIG program. CIG Rating Criteria.
201 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-10
7.2.1. Capital Investment Grant Ratings
As part of the CIG process, project must submit project and community details to FTA for the calculation of ratings. CIG projects are evaluated and rated according to CIG criteria set forth in law. The criteria are summarized below:
• Project Justification Criteria
○ Mobility Improvements: Ridership on the project
○ Environmental Benefits: Emission benefits from VMT reduction ○ Congestion Relief: New transit trips resulting from the project ○ Cost-Effectiveness: Capital cost compared to ridership ○ Land Use: Existing population, employment, high trip generators, land use mix, pedestrian facilities, parking spaces, parking pricing strategies/costs, and legally binding affordable housing units
○ Economic Development: Qualitative criteria relating to plans and policies in place and past performance of those plans, including:
– Plans and policies to increase corridor development; enhance the transit-friendly character; develop the pedestrian facilities, allowances for reductions in parking – Zoning ordinances that support increased density, transit-oriented character and reduced parking allowances
– Tools to implement transit supportive policies
– Performance of TOD plans and policies
• Local Financial Commitments Criteria
○ Current Condition: Existing condition of agency fleet, bond ratings, service history, etc. ○ Commitment of Funds: Level of local funding committed, budgeted, or planned ○ Reliability/capacity: Capacity to withstand shortfalls and reasonableness of financial plan
• Rating Calculation
○ The overall project is rated as a combination of the above detailed criteria using the weighting factors shown in Figure 7-1
202 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-11
Figure 7-1. Capital Investment Grant Weighting Factors
Source: FTA
FTA rates all of the individual criteria detailed above on 5-point scale: High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-Low, and Low. Those individual criteria are then combined to arrive at Summary Ratings for both Project Justification and Local Financial Commitment. Those Summary Ratings are then combined into an Overall Project Rating. For a project to be eligible to receive CIG funding, the Overall Project Rating must be at least Medium.
Annual Submission
The program requires an annual report submission that is used by FTA to develop project ratings. Prior to submission of an annual report, the project must be accepted into project development and coordinate with FTA to prepare the project for an annual report submission.
FTA typically accepts annual reports around late August or early September of each year.
7.2.2. Preliminary Ratings Assessment
This section evaluates Glendale Streetcar’s current position on the rating criteria detailed in Section 7.2.1. The ratings are preliminary assessments of how the Glendale Streetcar project would perform and future changes to project costs, funding or travel forecasts could change the ultimate rating received by the project. The preliminary ratings were developed utilizing 203 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-12
FTA guidance for the Small Starts program. The criteria for New Starts differ slightly but the general principles still apply.
Many rating criteria are dependent upon ridership forecasts. Given that streetcar projects typically focus on other outcomes such as economic development, in addition to ridership, it is often difficult for streetcar projects to achieve high ratings on criteria dependent upon ridership. However, recent streetcar projects such as the KC Streetcar Main Street Extension and the OC Streetcar all received sufficient CIG ratings for funding.
Mobility Improvements
Mobility improvements are represented by the total linked transit trips with a weight of two given to trips made by transit dependent persons. When using a current year and horizon year forecast the forecasts are reduced by 50% and added together to create the value used in the rating. This rating criteria is heavily dependent on ridership projections for the corridor.
While the Glendale Streetcar project has not completed an official Simplified Trips on Project Software (STOPS) Model for the corridor, the project would likely receive a LOW rating for Mobility Improvements. In order to achieve a rating greater than LOW, the project would likely need a forecast ridership of greater than 6,000 daily riders, depending on the number of trips made by transit dependent populations.
Preliminary Assessment of Mobility Improvements Rating: LOW The preliminary rating of LOW is unlikely to change due to the ridership levels required for a MEDIUM-LOW.
Environmental Benefits
Environmental benefits are driven by VMT reduction from the project. The environmental benefits are monetized based on emission and safety values affected by the change in VMT.
Those benefits are then compared to federal share of the project’s costs. Project’s that have a positive percentage (reduction in VMT) are rated as MEDIUM or higher. In order for any project to receive a rating below a MEDIUM, the project would need to lead to an increase in VMT. Due to a likely increase in transit trips, the Glendale Streetcar will reduce regional VMT. Based on available information, the project will likely receive a MEDIUM rating under the environmental benefits criterion.
Preliminary Assessment of Environmental Benefits Rating: MEDIUM The project is unlikely to achieve a rating higher than MEDIUM, as it would require dramatic reductions in VMT.
Congestion Relief
Congestion relief is driven by new transit trips from the ridership forecasts, this rating utilizes 50% of the current and horizon year forecasts. The rating compares the new transit trips to the estimated federal match, meaning future decisions around funding could impact the rating choice. Given the rating breakpoints, the Glendale Streetcar project is likely to receive a rating of MEDIUM-LOW or MEDIUM.
204 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-13
Preliminary Assessment of Congestion Relief Rating: MEDIUM-LOW or MEDIUM If the project ultimately requests limited federal funding, the congestion relief criterion could improve to MEDIUM or MEDIUM-HIGH.
Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness is a measure that is primarily based on project cost (federal share) and partially on the project ridership. This rating utilizes 50% of both the current year and horizon year forecast. Based on initial assumptions, the cost effectiveness criterion will likely be a LOW or MEDIUM-LOW.
Preliminary Assessment of Cost Effectiveness Rating: LOW or MEDIUM-LOW If the project ultimately requests limited federal funding, the congestion relief criterion could improve to MEDIUM.
Land Use
Land use is both a qualitative and quantitative criterion in the Small Starts submission. The primary quantitative measures used in the land use assessment are affordable housing share, population density, parking supply and corridor employment. It also considers station area development character and accessibility.
Land Use Quantitative Criteria
The Land Use criterion relies primarily on quantitative criteria for the ultimate rating. This section provides a preliminary assessment of quantitative criteria using readily available data.
The data below was collected for a 0.5-mile study area around the project.
Station Area Development: The station area development criterion examines employment total and population density surrounding the project. The population density for the corridor is 16,673 people per square mile, which corresponds with HIGH rating (U.S. Census, 2015). While there is potential for the data to change if a Small Starts submission was completed in the future, it is likely the rating would remain HIGH.
Parking Supply: The parking supply criterion examines the cost and supply of parking in the project area Central Business District (CBD). The most recent available data on parking supply in the CBD is the Downtown Parking Analysis completed in April 2019 (City of Glendale). According to that analysis parking in the CBD costs on average $13 per day, which is rated as MEDIUM- HIGH by FTA guidance.
While the downtown parking study area covers a smaller area than the entire downtown, the data is the best approximation for parking supply criteria at this time. Utilizing that smaller downtown study area and U.S. Census data on jobs from 2006-2010 already collected for the project, the number of parking spaces per employee is estimated at 0.51, a LOW rating. Future analysis should reexamine parking to ensure the most accurate representation of parking supply.
205 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-14
Affordable Housing Share: The final quantitative criterion of Land Use examines the proportion of legally binding affordability restricted housing in the project corridor compared to the proportion in LA County. Readily available data for the study area corridor was collected from the National Housing Preservation Database, which identified 1,011 legally binding affordable housing units in the study area out of 24,820 housing units. For Los Angeles County, data was collected from the Los Angeles County Annual Affordable Housing Outcomes Report (2019), which found 111,220 affordable housing units compared to a total of 3.5 million housing units.
Comparing the proportions of affordable housing, the study area corridor has a ratio of 1.32 compared to the county, for a rating of MEDIUM-LOW.
Land Use Qualitative Criteria
In addition to the quantitative criteria analyzed above, the Land Use Criterion also relies partially on qualitative discussion of various topics, as summarized below.
High Trip Generators: The Glendale Streetcar project serves numerous high trip generators.
The project is adjacent to 10 major destinations including the Americana at Brand, Alex Theatre, several hotels, and the Glendale Memorial Hospital. The project serves Glendale’s premier downtown office district and is adjacent to nearly 8.2 million square feet of commercial space. The project is adjacent to only 281 residential units since the current mix of uses along this corridor is primarily retail and office uses.
Land Use of Corridor: Brand Boulevard, in the downtown area, contains major retail and shopping centers and multi-story high-rise office uses north of Lexington Drive. Brand Boulevard, south of Colorado Street, is dominated by car dealership buildings and surface parking lots.
Central Avenue in the downtown area consists of several multi-story residential and mixed-use buildings intermixed with small-scale, single-story retail and service uses. Central Avenue, south of Colorado Street, is predominately single-story retail and service uses that line the street with some surface parking lots.
Recent major developments in the study area are concentrated in areas north of Colorado Street in the downtown area. Most developments within the past 5 years have been along Central Avenue as the corridor has seen several relatively new multi-story residential buildings, including the Modera, Altana, NEXT, Onyx, Lex on Orange, Legendary, and The Harrison. Brand Boulevard is experiencing similar development as 610 North Brand Boulevard was recently announced, a proposed 20-story, 240-unit residential apartment project replacing a parking structure.
Pedestrian Accommodations: Downtown Glendale and the study area corridor exhibit a robust pedestrian network. According to the Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan (City of Glendale, 2017), the study area corridor streets all contain sidewalks with numerous high-visibility crosswalks. The plan also details numerous policies and recommendations to improve the pedestrian experience in the study area and throughout Glendale.
206 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-15
Land Use Criteria Summary
Table 7-5. provides a summary of the quantitative land use criteria preliminary ratings.
Table 7-5. Land Use Criteria Summary
Criteria Rating
Population Density HIGH
Employment HIGH
Parking Cost MEDIUM-HIGH
Parking Supply LOW
Affordable Housing MEDIUM-LOW
Based on the quantitative ratings above, combined with the summary of qualitative information, the preliminary rating assigned to Land Use is MEDIUM.
In future analysis with updated and more precise data, the rating could change or be evaluated differently by FTA staff.
Economic Development
The economic development criterion requires a detailed assessment of various plans and policies. For the purposes of identifying a preliminary rating for economic development, a high- level qualitative examination of local plans, policies, and tools as well as their demonstrated performance was completed. A more robust assessment would be required for submittal of a New Starts or Small Starts application.
The Glendale Streetcar is fully integrated with the Glendale planning ecosystem. Coordinated land use and transportation planning is ongoing, and it is being carried out at multiple levels.
Originating as a featured project in the SGCP (City of Glendale, 2018), the project features prominently in plans for improving mobility, connectivity, economic development in Glendale.
Transit Supportive Corridor Policies (Transit, TOD Friendly, Ped Facilities, Parking Policies) • South Glendale Community Plan (2018): The plan involves transforming corridors like Central Avenue, Colorado Street, Broadway and Glendale Avenue to be higher-density, mixed-use buildings. The plan envisions these higher-density areas will be able to utilize the proposed transit routes. The growth (predicted as 7,000 – 9,000 units) of South Glendale is dependent on expanding public transportation systems. As such, the plan promotes the Brand Boulevard streetcar line and Metro Light Rail extension to provide transportation options throughout South Glendale.
• Downtown Specific Plan (2006): The plan has 10 goals that revolve around making Downtown Glendale a vibrant urban center with shopping, dining, working, living, entertainment and cultural opportunities all in walking distance. The plan aims to enhance the regional transit system, improve guidance like cross walks, signage, lighting; integrate pedestrian and vehicular areas and orientation of those areas; and promotes new residential development in areas that have high walkability to many destinations. 207 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-16
• Downtown Mobility Study (2007): The goal of the study is to enhance downtown development while ensuring the mobility and accessibility demands are met and not infringing on the livability of Glendale. The plan places great emphasis on promoting downtown access via regional transit systems. The study recognizes a lack in regional transportation for downtown Glendale and if to expect increases in downtown development and attraction the transportation and downtown accessibility issues need to be addressed. Streetcars were identified by the study as viable transit system for Downtown Glendale to adopt.
• Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan (2017): The plan focuses on the actions needed to make walking in Glendale safer and more comfortable. The plan identifies a list of high-priority initiatives on critical programs, policies, and procedures.
Supportive Zoning
Primary zoning categories within the corridor outside of the Downtown Specific Plan include:
• High-density residential
• Medium-high density residential
• Commercial service
All of the above zoning categories align with transit supportive land uses and the goals and policies detailed in the city’s plans and policies.
Within the downtown area, the Downtown Specific Plan governs the zoning categories. The area east of Central Avenue, between Doran Street and Broadway, is envisioned as a new, urban housing development comprised of mixed-use or free-standing residential buildings.
Maximum height in the district is between six (existing) and 12 stories (with proposed incentive bonuses). The area to the west of Central Avenue, which is currently a mix of single-family and small apartments, is noted as Transitional. The plan envisions this area will transition into mid- rise mixed-use development, with an emphasis on ground floor commercial uses along Central Avenue and a maximum height of four to six stories.
Near SR-134, the Gateway District has the highest maximum height allowable in Glendale with an existing maximum height of 18 stories and up to 25 stories with proposed incentives. Areas surrounding the Alex Theatre on Brand Boulevard are expected to remain the same style and scale with height limits at four to six stories. The Broadway Center District (southwest of Brand Boulevard and Wilson Avenue) is highlighted as possible redevelopment, with the opportunity for high-rise residential, office, or mixed-use development. The Maryland District (southeast of Brand Boulevard and Wilson Avenue) is home to Downtown’s two more recent mixed-use commercial developments (The Exchange and The Marketplace). The district aims to encourage the concentration of arts, cultural, and entertainment venues and associated uses. Proposed height limits in the Maryland District range from four to six stories.
Implementation Tools
Glendale has a variety of tool to help implement transit-supportive policies, including:
• General Outreach: The City of Glendale has actively engaged stakeholders, agencies and the public through a number of planning efforts outside of this feasibility study, including the 208 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-17
SGCP, Downtown Specific Plan and the General Plan. In general, the community has shown support for transit supportive policies.
• Incentives: Several development incentives are available in the streetcar corridor to spur new development in accordance with the city’s transit-supportive plans, including development density bonuses.
• Streetcar Public Input: As a part of the feasibility study, the city of Glendale established a web site and conducted a survey to engage the public for feedback and support of the Glendale Streetcar.
• Other: Other tools to implement transit-supportive policies should be identified and developed in future phases to support implementation and improve the economic development ratings assessment.
Performance of Plans/Policies
Glendale has a variety of demonstrated cases of development affected by transit supportive policies. Downtown development is guided by local plans including the Downtown Specific Plan and SGCP. These plans provide the policy basis for higher density, mixed-use and walkable developments that can support transit investments.
A few examples of recent transit-supportive developments include:
• NEXT on Lex: a mixed-use, multifamily, transit-oriented development with 494 units and along the streetcar study corridor.
• Onyx: a mixed-use development with 84 rental apartments directly along the streetcar corridor.
• Lex on Orange: 307-unit mixed-use apartment development • Legendary: 80-unit condominium development with a focus on walkability • 610 North Brand Boulevard: 35-story, 348-unit residential apartment project replacing a parking structure. Five percent of the unit mix will be low-income Impact of Transit Investment on Development
The presence of the streetcar along and near Central Avenue could help sustain many new developments that have occurred in the past 5 to 10 years and encourage additional investment along this corridor. Based on land use plans and analysis, Central Avenue appears to have additional redevelopment capacity.
Local plans promote the continuation of corporate headquarters and the development of mixed-use and residential buildings and street-level service and retail businesses to enhance the current character of the Brand Boulevard corridor. Redevelopment and/or a change in character along Brand Boulevard should be consistent with local plans. Brand Boulevard is a thriving, active commercial corridor with a unique character. By improving transit service with the addition of a streetcar, it will support the existing uses and help facilitate new higher density uses in accordance with local plans and development regulations. Future analyses should examine specific opportunities for development along the streetcar corridor. 209 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-18
Affordable Housing Policies
Glendale has access to a variety of different programs to support affordable housing, a few examples are noted below:
• Affordable Housing Commercial Development Impact Fee: Applies a fee of $4 per square foot of gross floor area for all citywide commercial projects 1,250 square feet or greater.
The funds from this fee are designated for affordable housing. • Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance: Fifteen percent (15%) of the total units in an otherwise market-rate rental project must be affordable to lower income (60% Area Median Income) individuals or families.
• Local Sales Tax: Glendale has recently Committed over $24 million in newly approved local Measure S sales tax proceeds towards future affordable housing projects and programs Given the qualitative nature of the economic development criterion and other community ratings, economic development is assigned a MEDIUM in this preliminary assessment.
Future phases should examine the pieces of the economic development criterion and identify policies and plans to highlight in addition to identifying new policies and plans that could further increase the potential rating.
Local Financial Commitment
FTA evaluates projects applying for New Starts and Small Starts grant funding based on two sets of criteria:
1. Project justification
2. Local financial commitment
The local financial commitment is based on the following three components:
1. The current financial condition of the project sponsor (25% of the local financial commitment)
2. The commitment of non-federal funds (25% of the local financial commitment)
3. The project sponsor’s reliability and capacity to operate and maintain the project, or the “reasonableness of the financial plan.” an acceptable degree of local financial commitment (the remaining 50%).
At this early stage of project development, some of these criteria are unknown. This section provides a high-level overview of the three criteria that make up the local financial commitment.
Current Capital and Operating Condition (25% of Local Financial Commitment Rating) The current financial condition is assessed via five measures:
• Average bus fleet age
• Ratio of current assets to current liabilities
• Recent bond ratings
• Historic cash flow
• Recent service cutbacks
210 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-19
Based on readily available data via the National Transit Database and Glendale Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, the current financial condition is likely to be assessed as a MEDIUM or MEDIUM-HIGH.
Commitment of Funds (25% of Local Financial Commitment Rating) This rating criterion measures the amount of non-federal funding committed at the time of submission. At this early stage of development, this rating is unable to be assessed. Table 7-6. provides a summary as to how FTA currently evaluates the commitment of funding criterion.
Table 7-6. Commitment of Funds Ratings
Rating Criterion Description
High
At least 75% of the Non-Section 5309 capital funds are committed or budgeted.
At least 75% of the funds needed to operate and maintain the proposed transit system in the opening year of the project are committed or budgeted.
Medium-High
At least 50% of the Non-Section 5309 capital funds are committed or budgeted.
At least 50% of the funds needed to operate and maintain the proposed transit system in the opening year of the project are committed or budgeted.
Medium
At least 30% of the Non-Section 5309 capital funds are committed or budgeted.
At least 30% of the funds needed to operate and maintain the proposed transit system in the opening year of the project are committed or budgeted.
Medium-Low
At least 10% of the Non-Section 5309 capital funds are committed or budgeted.
While no additional operating and maintenance funding has been committed, a reasonable plan to secure funding commitments has been presented Low
Less than 10% of the Non-Section 5309 capital funds are committed or budgeted.
The applicant does not have a reasonable plan to secure operating and maintenance funding.
Source: Final Interim Policy Guidance. Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant Program. June 2016 Reasonableness of the Financial Plan (50% of Local Financial Commitment Rating) Similar to the Commitment of Funds criterion developed above, this criterion is largely dependent on the ultimate financial plan that is developed to fund the Glendale Streetcar.
Table 7-7. provides a summary as to how FTA currently evaluates the Reasonableness of the Financial Plan criterion.
Table 7-7. Financial Plan Criteria
Rating Criterion Description
High The financial plan contains very conservative planning assumptions and cost estimates when compared with recent historical experience. 211 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-20
Rating Criterion Description
The applicant has access to funds via additional debt capacity, cash reserves, or other committed funds to cover cost increases or funding shortfalls equal to at least 50% of estimated project cost and 50% (6 months) of annual system wide operating expenses.
Medium-High
The financial plan contains conservative planning assumptions and cost estimates when compared with recent historical experience. The applicant has access to funds via additional debt capacity, cash reserves, or other committed funds to cover cost increases or funding shortfalls equal to at least 25% of estimated project cost and 25% (3 months) of annual system wide operating expenses.
Medium
The financial plan contains planning assumptions and cost estimates The applicant has access to funds via additional debt capacity, cash reserves, or other committed funds to cover cost increases or funding shortfalls equal to at least 15% of estimated project cost and 12% (1.5 months) of annual system wide operating expenses.
Medium-Low
The financial plan contains optimistic planning assumptions and cost estimates when compared to recent historical experience.
The applicant has access to funds via additional debt capacity, cash reserves, or other committed funds to cover cost increases or funding shortfalls equal to at least 10% of estimated project cost and 8% (1 month) of annual system wide operating expenses.
Low
Financial plan contains planning assumptions and cost estimates that are far more optimistic than recent history suggests.
The applicant has a reasonable plan to cover only minor (less than 10%) capital cost increases or funding shortfalls.
Projected operating cash balances are insufficient to maintain balanced budgets,
Source: Final Interim Policy Guidance. Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant Program. June 2016
7.2.3. CIG Preliminary Ratings Assessment
The sections above present a preliminary assessment of the ratings if the Glendale Streetcar project pursued a Small Starts Grant. Table 7-8 summarizes the preliminary assessment of each criteria.
Table 7-8. Preliminary CIG Ratings
Criteria Preliminary
Rating Potential for change
Project Justification Medium-Low Could rise depending on factors below Mobility Improvements Low Unlikely, largely based on project ridership Environmental Benefits Medium Unlikely, largely based on reduction in VMT 212 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-21
Congestion Relief Medium-Low Could rise to Medium depending on results of future analyses
Cost Effectiveness Low Could rise depending on ultimate federal share
Land Use Medium Could rise with updated data
Economic Development Medium Could rise with adoption of new policies Local Financial
Commitment Unknown/TBD Could rise depending on factors below Current Financial Condition Medium Could rise based on strong financial performance in future years
Commitment of Funds Unknown/TBD Dependent on commitment at time of ratings submission.
Reasonableness of Financial
Plan Unknown/TBD Dependent on commitment at time of
ratings submission
TBD = to be determined
The preliminary assessment projects a Medium-Low rating for the Project Justification criteria, which would not allow the project to advance into funding. As the project continues to advance, there will be many additional opportunities to improve the ratings. As the project progresses, opportunities to reduce project costs without sacrificing ridership should be pursued, which would improve the cost effectiveness ratings. Additionally, decisions around funding and the federal share could have a great impact on the ratings.
The City of Glendale has some transit-supportive policies regarding parking, affordable housing and land use. As the project progresses, if more of these policies are enacted and implemented, the economic development rating would likely be improved. However, to achieve an improved rating the city would need to demonstrate additional examples of adopted and implemented transit supportive plans and policies.
The ratings provided at this phase of the project should not be considered final. It will be important to continually re-evaluate as the project progresses.
7.3. APPROVALS AND ACTIONS REQUIRED
While a full assessment of approvals required will be completed during the environmental and construction preparation phases of the project, the following section presents a preliminary summary of approvals and actions required to implement the project.
7.3.1. Permits and Approvals
• Federal Transit Administration: Review and approval will be required if the project uses any federal funding.
• California Public Utilities Commission: Approval regarding safety of rail crossings; along with design and operational oversight
213 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-22
• City of Glendale Public Works Department: Approval of all engineering drawings and work within the public right-of-way and any traffic signal changes • City of Glendale City Council: Approvals related to Locally Preferred Alternative, Contracts and funding
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Coordination and potential permitting for crossing of Verdugo Wash
• California DOT (Caltrans): Permits or approvals for traffic operations at SR 134 ramps and potential impacts to structures
• Metrolink: Coordination and potential approval of work near Metrolink Station
7.3.2. Actions to Implement
This feasibility study has developed a bold and transformative project for downtown Glendale and implementing the streetcar project will be a complex endeavor that will require a strong lead local agency that is supported by strong local stakeholders.
It is recommended that the City Council create a committee or organization that will meet regularly to discuss plan implementation progress. The committee should assist the City Council with key decisions at project milestones and help identify funding sources. Public and stakeholder input should also be an integral part of the ongoing planning and design efforts for the project.
Table 7-9 summarizes the project development milestones for the project through construction. It also identifies key action steps that must be implemented for each milestone.
Table 7-9. Implementation Actions
Project Milestone Key Steps
Initial Study, supported by
conceptual engineering
Select and contract with a consultant to prepare an Initial Study under the CEQA, including 5% engineering design to establish project footprint
LPA Approval Finalize details of preferred alignment (e.g., stations, guideway design, OMF location). City council approves LPA.
CIG Decision
Determine if the project will seek federal funding through the CIG program. If the project will, submit a project development entry letter to FTA that identifies funding for initial project development, an overall project cost estimate, and a schedule.
CEQA and NEPA Documentation,
supported by advanced
conceptual engineering
Select and contract with a consultant to conduct environmental study of the project in accordance with CEQA and the NEPA, including 15% engineering plans for track, OCS, OMF, utilities and all other streetcar improvements.
Identify and approve local
construction funding
Work with local, regional and state partners to identify local funds. Most federal applications require a minimum of 20% local funds that are committed at the time of application. Federal applications with at least a 50% committed local match are more competitive.
214 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-23
Project Milestone Key Steps
Identify non-CIG federal
construction funding
If the project pursues federal funding other than or an addition to CIG funding, other smaller funding sources could be pursued such as RAISE grants.
Apply for entry into Engineering
Requires Project Management Plan, cost estimate, schedule, financial plan, project delivery method, and FTA CIG rating.
Federal funding amount is locked in at this time.
Prepare final design plans
Select and contract with a consultant to develop final design plans for track, OCS, OMF, utilities and all other streetcar improvements.
Apply for FFGA Need final FTA rating, final financial plan with sufficient local funding.
Construct project infrastructure Select contractor to construct the streetcar project. Cannot execute contract until FFGA is signed.
Operate the project Select and contract with an operator for testing, start-up and revenue services.
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
FFGA = Full Funding Grant Agreement
LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative
NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act
The actions above reference major milestones in the development of the project. Throughout the course of the project, various smaller milestones, approvals and actions will be required to advance the project.
7.4. IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
Given the current progress and pace of the feasibility study, the schedule, shown in Figure 7-2, shows a timeline for the implementation milestones to operation. Although no timeline for the project has been established, the schedule incorporates typical durations based on similar projects and timeframes. The schedule should be continually updated throughout the project.
215 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
7-24
Figure 7-2. Implementation Schedule
Project Milestone Duration
Initial Study/Conceptual Engineering 6 months
LPA Approval 2 months
CIG Decision 3 months
CEQA/NEPA Documentation/ACE 14 months
Identify Local Construction funding 8 months
Identify Federal Construction Funding 6 months
Prepare Final Design Plans 24 months
FFGA 12 months
Construction 30 months
Operations (Testing, Start-up, Revenue Service) 6 months 20282022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
216 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
8-1
8. REFERENCES
California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA). 2021. Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. https://calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/transit-intercity-rail-capital-prog. Accessed October.
City of Glendale. 2012. City of Glendale Bicycle Transportation Plan. September.
City of Glendale. 2019. Downtown Specific Plan. March.
City of Glendale. 2017. Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan. September.
City of Glendale. 2021. Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan. March.
City of Glendale. 2021. Glendale Streetcar Design Report. Anticipated submission date:
November.)
City of Glendale. 2018. South Glendale Community Plan. January.
City of Glendale. 2018. South Glendale Community Plan Environmental Impact Report. January.
City of Glendale. 2019. Downtown Parking Analysis. April.
City of Glendale. 2021. West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study. westglendalestudy.com. Accessed October 2021.
Detroit Free Press. 2017. “Ready for the QLINE? Detroit's streetcar gets ready to debut.” May.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2020. Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants Fact Sheet. February.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/5309_Capital_Investment_Grant_Fact _Sheet.pdf
Los Angeles County. 2019. Los Angeles County Annual Affordable Housing Outcomes Report.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2014. First Last Mile Strategic Plan. March.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2020 Metro Funding Source Guide.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Proposition A & C and Measure R Sales Taxes. https://www.metro.net/about/financebudget/taxes/ Potawatomi Hotel & Casino. 2021. The Hop Streetcar: About. https://thehopmke.com/about/#faq. Accessed October.
Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2016. Guide to Value Capture Financing for Public Transportation Projects.
U.S. Census. 2015. American Community Survey 2015 5-Year Estimates.
U.S. DOT. 2021. RAISE Discretionary Grants. https://www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants.
Accessed October.
Wisconsin Policy Forum (WPF). 2019. On the Right Track? September. 217 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Appendix A
Conceptual Plans
218 of 234
GARDENA AVE
RAILROAD ST
GLENDALETRANSPORATION CENTER
SEE SHEET 2
MATCH LINE
40' 0 40' 80'
Scale 1" = 40'-0"
OMF
OTHER DEVELOPMENT
OR PARKING OTHER DEVELOPMENT
OR PARKING
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
GTC / Maintenance Facility
LEGEND
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
Sheet 1
219 of 234
102+00
104+00
106+00
108+00
110+00 112+00 114+00 116+00 118+00 120+00 122+00 124+00 502+00
504+00
506+00
508+00
510+00 512+00 514+00 516+00 518+00 520+00 522+00 524+00
CENTRAL / LOS FELIZ
STATION
MAGNOLIA AVE
W CYPRESS ST
W LOS FELIZ RD
W LAUREL ST
SAN FERNANDO RD
EL BONITO AVE
GARDENA AVE
GARDENA AVE
RAILROAD ST
S CENTRAL AVE
DIGNITY HEALTH
GLENDALE
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
80' 0 80' 160'
Scale 1" = 80'-0"
CENTRAL AVE SB
CENTRAL AVE NB
CENTRAL AVE ALIGNMENT
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Central Ave between San Fernando Rd to Magnolia Ave
LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR
STREETCAR OPERATIONS
MTA
STOP
BEE LINE
STOP
MTA/BEE
STOP
MTA/LADOT
STOP
Sheet 2
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
SEE SHEET 1
SEE SHEET 3
220 of 234
122+00 124+00 126+00 128+00 130+00 132+00 134+00 136+00 138+00 140+00 142+00 522+00 524+00 526+00 528+00 530+00 532+00 534+00 536+00 538+00 540+00 542+00
CENTRAL / CHEVY CHASE
STATION
W GARFIELD AVEW GARFIELD AVE
W ACACIA AVE
W ACACIA AVE
W CHEVY CHASE DR
W PLAMER AVE W PALMER AVE
MAGNOLIA AVE MAGNOLIA AVE
S BRAND BLVD
S CENTRAL AVE
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
80' 0 80' 160'
Scale 1" = 80'-0"
CENTRAL AVE SB
CENTRAL AVE NB
CENTRAL AVE ALIGNMENT
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Central Ave between San Fernando Rd to Magnolia Ave
LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR
STREETCAR OPERATIONS
Sheet 3
MTA
STOP
BEE LINE
STOP
MTA/BEE
STOP
MTA/LADOT
STOP
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
SEE SHEET 2
SEE SHEET 4
221 of 234
140+00 142+00 144+00 146+00 148+00 150+00 152+00 154+00 156+00 158+00 160+00 540+00 542+00 544+00 546+00 548+00 550+00 552+00 554+00 556+00 558+00 560+00 12+82
3+02
4+00
6+00
8+00
10+00
12+00
4+73
6+00
8+00
10+00
12+00
14+00
16+00 18+00 20+00 22+00
CENTRAL / MAPLE
STATION
CENTRAL / LOMITA
STATION
W LOMITA AVE
W LOMITA AVE
VINE ST
W LOMITA AVE
W CHESTNUT ST
W CHESTNUT ST
W MAPLE ST
W MAPLE ST
W MAPLE ST
W WINDSOR RD
W WINDSOR RD
W GARFIELD AVEW GARFIELD AVE
S CENTRAL AVE
S BRAND BLVD
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
80' 0 80' 160'
Scale 1" = 80'-0"
OPTION
MAPLE CROSSOVER (SB)
OPTION
LOMITA CROSSOVER (SB)
CENTRAL AVE SB
CENTRAL AVE NB
CENTRAL AVE / BRAND BLVD
LOOP ALTERNATIVE
CENTRAL AVE ALIGNMENT
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Central Ave between W Garfield Ave to W Lomita Ave
LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION
LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR
STREETCAR OPERATIONS
Sheet 4
MTA
STOP
BEE LINE
STOP
MTA/BEE
STOP
MTA/LADOT
STOP
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
SEE SHEET 3
SEE SHEET 5 - ALTERNATIVE 1
SEE SHEET 10 - ALTERNATIVE 2
222 of 234
156+00 158+00 160+00 162+00 164+00 166+00
168+00
170+00
172+00
174+00
176+00 178+00 180+00 182+00 184+00
556+00 558+00 560+00 562+00 564+00 566+00
568+00 570+00 572+00
574+00 576+00
12+82
3+02
4+00
6+00
8+00
10+00
12+00
20+00 22+00 24+00 26+00 28+00
30+00
BRAND / AMERICANA
STATION
CENTRAL / AMERICANA
STATION
AMERICANA
WAYHARVARD AMERICANA
WAY
E COLORADO ST
E COLORADO ST
W ELK AVE
W LOMITA AVE
W LOMITA AVE
W ELK AVE
W ELK AVE
VINE ST
W LOMITA AVE
CARUSO AVE
S CENTRAL AVE
S BRAND BLVD
THE AMERICANA
GLENDALE GALLERIA
THE AMERICANA
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
80' 0 80' 160'
Scale 1" = 80'-0"
COLORADO CROSSOVER SB
OPTION
LOMITA CROSSOVER SB
OPTION
MAPLE CROSSOVER SB
BRAND BLVD SB
CENTRAL AVE SB
CENTRAL AVE NB
CENTRAL AVE / BRAND BLVD LOOP ALTERNATIVE
CENTRAL AVE / BRAND BLVD LOOP ALTERNATIVE
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Alternative 1 "Central / Brand Loop" between W Lomita Ave to Americana Way LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR
STREETCAR OPERATIONS
Sheet 5
MTA
STOP
BEE LINE
STOP
MTA/BEE
STOP
MTA/LADOT
STOP
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
SEE SHEET 4
SEE SHEET 6
223 of 234
182+00 184+00 186+00 188+00 190+00 192+00 194+00
196+00 198+00 200+00 202+00
574+00 576+00 578+00 580+00 582+00 584+00 586+00 588+00 590+00 592+00 594+00
BRAND / AMERICANA
STATION
BRAND / CALIFORNIA
STATION
CENTRAL / AMERICANA
STATION
CENTRAL / CALIFORNIA
STATION
W CALIFORNIA
AVE
SALEM ST
W CALIFORNIA
AVE
W WILSON AVE
W BROADWAY
W BROADWAY
AMERICANA
WAYHARVARD AMERICANA
WAY
S CENTRAL AVE
S BRAND BLVD
GLENDALE GALLERIA
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
80' 0 80' 160'
Scale 1" = 80'-0"
BRAND BLVD SB
CENTRAL AVE NB
CENTRAL AVE / BRAND BLVD LOOP ALTERNATIVE
CENTRAL AVE / BRAND BLVD LOOP ALTERNATIVE
NO MODIFICATIONS
TO EXISTING
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Alternative 1 "Central / Brand Loop" between Americana Way to W California Ave LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR
STREETCAR OPERATIONS
Sheet 6
MTA
STOP
BEE LINE
STOP
MTA/BEE
STOP
MTA/LADOT
STOP
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
SEE SHEET 5
SEE SHEET 7
224 of 234
200+00 202+00 204+00 206+00 208+00 210+00 212+00 214+00 216+00 218+00 220+00 592+00 594+00 596+00 598+00 600+00 602+00 604+00 606+00 608+00 610+00 612+00
BRAND / CALIFORNIA
STATION
BRAND / DORAN
STATION
CENTRAL / CALIFORNIA
STATION
CENTRAL / CALIFORNIA
STATION
W DORAN ST
W DORAN ST
W DORAN ST
W MILFORD ST
W MILFORD ST
W LEXINGTON DRW LEXINGTON DR
W MYRTLE ST
W CALIFORNIA
AVEW CALIFORNIA
AVE
S CENTRAL AVE
S BRAND BLVD
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
80' 0 80' 160'
Scale 1" = 80'-0"
BRAND BLVD SB
CENTRAL AVE NB
CENTRAL AVE / BRAND BLVD LOOP ALTERNATIVE
CENTRAL AVE / BRAND BLVD LOOP ALTERNATIVE
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Alternative 1 "Central / Brand Loop" between W California Ave to W Doran St LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR
STREETCAR OPERATIONS
Sheet 7
MTA
STOP
BEE LINE
STOP
MTA/BEE
STOP
MTA/LADOT
STOP
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
SEE SHEET 6
SEE SHEET 8
225 of 234
216+00 218+00 220+00 222+00 224+00 226+00 228+00 230+00 232+00 234+00 236+00 610+00 612+00 614+00 616+00 618+00 620+00 622+00 624+00 626+00 628+00
630+00
BRAND / DORAN
STATION
BRAND / MONTEREY
STATION
CENTRAL / CALIFORNIA
STATION
CENTRAL / BURCHETT
STATION
W GLENOAKS
BLVD
ARDEN AVE
BURCHETT ST
GOODE AVE
(WB ONLY)
GOODE AVE
(WB ONLY)
SANCHEZ DR(EB ONLY)
SANCHEZ DR
(EB ONLY)
W DORAN ST
W DORAN ST
S CENTRAL AVE
S BRAND BLVD
VERDUGO
WASH
VERDUGO
WASH
W GLENOAKS BLVD
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
80' 0 80' 160'
Scale 1" = 80'-0"
BRAND BLVD SB
CENTRAL AVE NB
CENTRAL AVE / BRAND BLVD LOOP ALTERNATIVE
CENTRAL AVE / BRAND BLVD LOOP ALTERNATIVE
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Alternative 1 "Central / Brand Loop" between W Doran St to Arden Ave LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR
STREETCAR OPERATIONS
Sheet 8
MTA
STOP
BEE LINE
STOP
MTA/BEE
STOP
MTA/LADOT
STOP
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
SEE SHEET 7
SEE SHEET 9
226 of 234
232+00 234+00 236+00 238+00 240+00 242+00242+16
624+00 626+00
628+00
630+00
632+00
634+00 635+10800+00
802+00
804+00
806+00806+04
900+00 902+00 904+00 906+00 908+00
910+00
912+00
914+00916+00918+00920+00922+00922+41
BRAND / MONTEREY
BRAND / STOCKER
STATION
W GLENOAKS
BLVD
ARDEN AVE
S BRAND BLVD
VERDUGO
WASH
VERDUGO
WASH
S CENTRAL AVE
S BRAND BLVD
W DRYDEN ST
W STOCKER ST
W GLENOAKS BLVD
MATCH LINE
80' 0 80' 160'
Scale 1" = 80'-0"
BRAND BLVD SB
CENTRAL AVE NB
OPTION
DRYDEN CROSSOVER OPTION
STOCKER CROSSOVER
CENTRAL AVE / BRAND BLVD LOOP ALTERNATIVE
CENTRAL AVE / BRAND BLVD LOOP ALTERNATIVE
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Alternative 1 "Central / Brand Loop" between Arden Ave to W Stocker St LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR
STREETCAR OPERATIONS
Sheet 9
MTA
STOP
BEE LINE
STOP
MTA/BEE
STOP
MTA/LADOT
STOP
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
SEE SHEET 8
227 of 234
700+00
702+00
704+00
706+00
708+00
709+67116+00 118+00 120+00 122+00 124+00 126+00 126+33
554+00 556+00 558+00 560+00 562+00
564+00
566+00
568+00
570+00
572+00
574+00 576+00 578+00 580+00 582+00
854+00 856+00 858+00 860+00 862+00
864+00
866+00
868+00
870+00
872+00
874+00 876+00 878+00 880+00 882+00
BRAND / AMERICANA
STATION
BRAND / AMERICANA
STATION
AMERICANA
WAYHARVARD AMERICANA
WAY
E COLORADO ST
E COLORADO ST
W ELK AVE
W LOMITA AVE
W LOMITA AVE
W ELK AVE
W ELK AVE
VINE ST
W LOMITA AVE
CARUSO AVE
S CENTRAL AVE
S BRAND BLVD
THE AMERICANA
GLENDALE GALLERIA
THE AMERICANA
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
80' 0 80' 160'
Scale 1" = 80'-0"
COLORADO CROSSOVER SB
OPTION
LOMITA CROSSOVER NB
OPTION
MAPLE CROSSOVER NB BRAND BLVD SB
CENTRAL AVE SB
CENTRAL AVE NB
BRAND BLVD NB
OPTION
COLORADO CROSSOVER NB
BRAND BLVD ALTERNATIVE
CENTRAL AVE ALIGNMENT
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR
STREETCAR OPERATIONS
Alternative 2 "Two Way on Brand" between W Lomita Ave to Americana Way Sheet 10
MTA
STOP
BEE LINE
STOP
MTA/BEE
STOP
MTA/LADOT
STOP
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
SEE SHEET 11
SEE SHEET 4
228 of 234
580+00 582+00 584+00 586+00 588+00 590+00 592+00 594+00 596+00 598+00 600+00 880+00 882+00 884+00 886+00 888+00 890+00 892+00 894+00 896+00 898+00 900+00
BRAND / AMERICANA
STATION
BRAND / CALIFORNIA
STATION
BRAND / CALIFORNIA
STATION
BRAND / AMERICANA
STATION
W CALIFORNIA
AVE
SALEM ST
W CALIFORNIA
AVE
W WILSON AVE
W BROADWAY
W BROADWAY
AMERICANA
WAYHARVARD AMERICANA
WAY
S CENTRAL AVE
S BRAND BLVD
GLENDALE GALLERIA
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
80' 0 80' 160'
Scale 1" = 80'-0"
BRAND BLVD SB
BRAND BLVD NB
BRAND BLVD ALTERNATIVE
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Alternative 2 "Two Way on Brand" between Americana Way to W California Ave LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR
STREETCAR OPERATIONS
Sheet 11
MTA
STOP
BEE LINE
STOP
MTA/BEE
STOP
MTA/LADOT
STOP
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
SEE SHEET 10
SEE SHEET 12
229 of 234
598+00 600+00 602+00 604+00 606+00 608+00 610+00 612+00 614+00 616+00 618+00 898+00 900+00 902+00 904+00 906+00 908+00 910+00 912+00 914+00 916+00
BRAND / CALIFORNIA
STATION
BRAND / DORAN
STATION
BRAND / DORAN
STATION
W DORAN ST
W DORAN ST
W DORAN ST
W MILFORD ST
W MILFORD ST
W LEXINGTON DRW LEXINGTON DR
W MYRTLE ST
W CALIFORNIA
AVEW CALIFORNIA
AVE
S CENTRAL AVE
S BRAND BLVD
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
80' 0 80' 160'
Scale 1" = 80'-0"
BRAND BLVD SB
BRAND BLVD NB
BRAND BLVD ALTERNATIVE
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Alternative 2 "Two Way on Brand" between W California Ave to W Doran St LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR
STREETCAR OPERATIONS
Sheet 12
MTA
STOP
BEE LINE
STOP
MTA/BEE
STOP
MTA/LADOT
STOP
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
SEE SHEET 11
SEE SHEET 13
230 of 234
616+00 618+00 620+00 622+00 624+00 626+00
628+00 630+00
632+00 634+00
914+00 916+00 918+00 920+00 922+00 924+00 926+00 928+00 930+00 932+00 934+00
BRAND / DORAN
STATION
BRAND / DORAN
STATION
BRAND / MONTEREY
STATION
BRAND / MONTEREY
STATION
W GLENOAKS
BLVD
ARDEN AVE
BURCHETT ST
GOODE AVE
(WB ONLY)
GOODE AVE
(WB ONLY)
SANCHEZ DR(EB ONLY)
SANCHEZ DR
(EB ONLY)
W DORAN ST
W DORAN ST
S CENTRAL AVE
S BRAND BLVD
VERDUGO
WASH
VERDUGO
WASH
W GLENOAKS BLVD
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
80' 0 80' 160'
Scale 1" = 80'-0"
BRAND BLVD SB
BRAND BLVD NB
BRAND BLVD ALTERNATIVE
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Alternative 2 "Two Way on Brand" between W Doran St to Arden Ave LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR
STREETCAR OPERATIONS
Sheet 13
MTA
STOP
BEE LINE
STOP
MTA/BEE
STOP
MTA/LADOT
STOP
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
SEE SHEET 12
SEE SHEET 14
231 of 234
630+00
632+00 634+00 636+00 638+00 640+00
930+00 932+00 934+00 936+00 938+00 940+00
700+00
702+00 704+00 706+00 708+00708+011006+681000+00 1002+00 1004+00 1006+00
BRAND / MONTEREY
BRAND / STOCKER
STATION
W GLENOAKS
BLVD
ARDEN AVE
S BRAND BLVD
VERDUGO
WASH
VERDUGO
WASH
S CENTRAL AVE
S BRAND BLVD
W DRYDEN ST
W STOCKER ST
W GLENOAKS BLVD
MATCH LINE
80' 0 80' 160'
Scale 1" = 80'-0"
BRAND BLVD SB
BRAND BLVD NB
BRAND BLVD ALTERNATIVE
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Alternative 2 "Two Way on Brand" between Arden Ave to W Stocker St LEGEND
PREFERRED STATION LOCATION
OPTIONAL STATION LOCATION MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR
STREETCAR OPERATIONS
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
Sheet 14
MTA
STOP
BEE LINE
STOP
MTA/BEE
STOP
MTA/LADOT
STOP
SEE SHEET 13
232 of 234
City of Glendale Final Report
Glendale Streetcar Feasibility Study
Appendix B
Standard Cost Categories Worksheet
233 of 234
M A I N W O R K S H E E T - B U I L D A L T E R N A T I V E (Rev.19, June, 2017) Glendale Streetcar Cost Estimate 6/9/20
1-5% Conceptual Engineering (Class C Cost Estimate) 2020 Alternative 2 - Brand Two-Way 2028
Quantity Base Year
Dollars w/o
Contingency
(X000)
Base Year
Dollars
Allocated
Contingency
(X000)
Base Year
Dollars
TOTAL
(X000)
Base Year
Dollars Unit
Cost
(X000)
Base Year
Dollars
Percentage
of
Construction
Cost
Base Year
Dollars
Percentage
of
Total
Project Cost
YOE Dollars
Total
(X000)
10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 4.00 49,087 12,272 61,359 $15,357 23% 12% 0
10.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way 0.00 0 0 0 0
10.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic) 0.00 0 0 0 0
10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic 4.00 25,315 6,329 31,644 $7,920 0
10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure 0.00 0 0 0 0
10.05 Guideway: Built-up fill 0.00 0 0 0 0
10.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover 0.00 0 0 0 0
10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel 0.00 0 0 0 0
10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill 0.00 0 0 0 0
10.09 Track: Direct fixation 0.00 0 0 0 0
10.10 Track: Embedded 4.00 20,042 5,011 25,053 0
10.11 Track: Ballasted 0.27 1,686 422 2,108 0
10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) 2,044 511 2,555 0
10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening 0 0 0 0
20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 1 6 9,302 2,326 11,628 $727 4% 2% 0
20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 16 8,266 2,067 10,333 $646 0
20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 0 0 0 0
20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 0 0 0 0
20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. 0 0 0 0 0
20.05 Joint development 0 0 0 0 0
20.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure 0 1,036 259 1,295 0
20.07 Elevators, escalators 0 0 0 0 0
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 4.00 47,073 11,768 58,841 $14,727 22% 12% 0
30.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting 11,787 2,947 14,734 0
30.02 Light Maintenance Facility 35,286 8,822 44,108 0
30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility 0 0 0 0
30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building 0 0 0 0
30.05 Yard and Yard Track 0 0 0 0
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 4.00 50,470 12,618 63,088 $15,790 23% 13% 0
40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 6,584 1,646 8,230 0
40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 15,901 3,975 19,876 0
40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments 2,532 633 3,165 0
40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks 1,688 422 2,110 0
40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 657 164 821 0
40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping 8,882 2,221 11,103 0
40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots 3,680 920 4,600 0
40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction 10,546 2,637 13,183 0 50 SYSTEMS 4.00 59,198 14,800 73,998 $18,520 28% 15% 0
50.01 Train control and signals 4,008 1,002 5,010 0
50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 18,690 4,673 23,363 0
50.03 Traction power supply: substations 7,200 1,800 9,000 0
50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail 17,932 4,483 22,415 0
50.05 Communications 8,016 2,004 10,020 0
50.06 Fare collection system and equipment 2,352 588 2,940 0
50.07 Central Control 1,000 250 1,250 0
4.00 215,130 53,782 268,912 $67,305 100% 54% 0
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 4.00 18,880 5,664 24,544 $6,143 5% 0
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 18,880 5,664 24,544 0
60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses 0 0 70 VEHICLES (number) 8 32,000 3,200 35,200 $4,400 7% 0
70.01 Light Rail 8 32,000 3,200 35,200 $4,400 0
70.02 Heavy Rail 0 0 0 0 0
70.03 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 0 0
70.04 Bus 0 0 0 0 0
70.05 Other 0 0
70.06 Non-revenue vehicles 0 0
70.07 Spare parts 0 0
80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 4.00 84,169 0 84,169 $21,066 31% 17% 0
80.01 Project Development 10,756 0 10,756 0
80.02 Engineering 18,824 0 18,824 0
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 24,202 0 24,202 0
80.04 Construction Administration & Management 18,824 0 18,824 0
80.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 538 0 538 0
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. 6,454 0 6,454 0
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 1,882 0 1,882 0
80.08 Start up 2,689 0 2,689 0
Subtotal (10 - 80) 4.00 350,179 62,646 412,825 $103,324 83% 0 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 82,565 17% 0
Subtotal (10 - 90) 4.00 495,391 $123,989 100% 0
100 FINANCE CHARGES 0 0% 0
Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 4.00 495,391 $123,989 100% 0 Allocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 17.89% Unallocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 23.58% Total Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 41.47% Unallocated Contingency as % of Subtotal (10 - 80) 20.00% YOE Construction Cost per Mile (X000) $0
YOE Total Project Cost per Mile Not Including Vehicles (X000) $0 YOE Total Project Cost per Mile (X000) $0
Construction Subtotal (10 - 50)
Today's Date
Yr of Base Year $
Yr of Revenue Ops
234 of 234