Many questions surround the nearly $616 million streetcar line proposed in Riverside.
Can people be convinced to ride it? Will federal money be available to build it?
One thing is certain, though.
The city will continue to grow, and more people will mean more cars and more traffic congestion.
Inland officials predict another 60,000 people will live in Riverside by 2040, increasing the population to about 400,000. The city projects that long-term growth could lead to 50 percent more cars on Highway 91 and several minutes’ delay at some intersections, said Ron Golem, a consultant the city hired to study the streetcar.
Such statistics can make anything that gets cars off the road sound attractive. But supporters of the streetcar face other challenging facts.
Experts say competition for federal transit dollars is increasing as the amount of money available shrinks. And Riverside residents use public transit less than people in other major metropolitan areas.
RIDERS WANTED
Riverside Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey pitched the project in 2012. Last year, the city began a study that was largely paid for by a state grant. The study is expected to wrap up in late September or early October and will be discussed at city meetings and available to the public.
The study looks at a 12-mile route that would start near UC Riverside, head west for several blocks on West Linden Street and jog to University Avenue before continuing into downtown. It would turn southwest at Market Street/Magnolia Avenue and have endpoints near La Sierra University and the La Sierra Metrolink station.
Consultants and city planners have cautioned that a more detailed study would be needed if the City Council OKs the project. That means the route and estimates of riders and costs could change.
Proponents say a streetcar could give Riverside an economic lift by spurring the building of new homes, shops and offices along the route. But skeptics question the streetcar’s expense – now estimated at $615.8 million to build and $9.5 million a year to operate – and its advantage over existing buses, some of which use the same route.
One potential obstacle is low ridership expectations.
Bill Delo, of transportation consultant IBI Group, told an ad hoc committee participating in Riverside’s study that if bus service in the streetcar corridor were retooled to reduce overlap, streetcar riders would account for about 2.3 percent of all trips along that route by 2035. Cars would still make up nearly all of the trips.
At a Wednesday, Aug. 26, meeting, resident and committee member Richard Olquin called use of Riverside Transit Agency buses today “ridiculously pathetic” and said that the streetcar projections hardly improve on that.
“After half a billion dollars and 20 years later, we’re going to capture like 2 percent more people riding the bus or using the streetcar?” he said.
FUNDING CONCERNS
The low ridership highlights another possible hurdle: winning federal money to build the streetcar.
Streetcar projects around the country have used a mix of federal, state and local funds, Golem said, noting that on average, federal dollars covered 45 percent of construction costs.
But more communities are seeking those dollars, the gas tax fund that’s tapped for grants has nearly run dry, and Congress has failed to approve a transportation bill that would provide more money, he said.
“From my perspective the federal funding is a big issue,” Interim City Planner Jay Eastman told the committee.
Golem’s ballpark calculations showed that grants and other outside funds may only cover about 69 percent of construction, leaving the city to find the other 31 percent – nearly $192 million. The city could close the gap by changing the project to cut costs, he said.
To cover operating costs, Golem suggested the city could create a special district that would tax the owners of commercial and multifamily properties near the streetcar line. Those properties could benefit from the rising property values and potential customers the streetcar would bring.
Golem’s estimates didn’t assume money would be taken from the city’s general fund or regular capital improvement program.
Those challenges don’t mean the idea should be thrown out, Golem said. A streetcar’s benefits – providing another transit choice, helping deal with the city’s growth and encouraging economic development – are clear, he said.
But right now, “the costs are a little bit out of line with that,” Golem said.
“This is not the kind of result that says you should build a streetcar next year, but the benefits do argue for the streetcar being part of the city’s long-term plans,” he said.
Contact the writer: 951-368-9461 or arobinson@pressenterprise.com