Appendix C: Alternative Solutions
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Northeast Ohio Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Phase II Appendix C: Alternative Solutions 1. Alternative Solutions Report 2. Study Area Employment Exhibits 3. Study Area Population Exhibits 4. MWRRI and 3C Corridor Map 5. Rail Improvement Studies Map and Cleveland Enlargement Map PARSONS Final Report BRINCKERHOFF December 2001 Northeast Ohio Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Phase II APPENDIX C - ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Introduction The NEORail study has focused on assessing the feasibility of commuter rail as a viable transportation option for the Cleveland area. The study has compared the large number of potential rail corridors in the region to one another and against regional and national thresholds for viability, and developed a prioritization and phasing strategy that provides the best opportunity for a commuter rail network to be developed in the region. However, in order to secure the Federal funding that would be necessary to develop commuter rail service in the region, commuter rail must be compared with other alternatives that address regional and corridor-specific transportation deficiencies, and be selected as a preferred alternative. The next step in the Federally-prescribed planning process would be a Major Investment Study (MIS) or Alternatives Analysis (AA) to evaluate the relative costs, benefits and impacts of mode and general location options. This memorandum will discuss, in general terms, a variety of transportation options in each of the NEORail commuter rail corridors included in the near-term and mid-term recommendations -- Corridor 1 (Lake West/I-90), Corridor 6 (Solon-Aurora-Mantua) and Corridor 7 (Lake East/I- 90). Corridors 4 and 5, the Canton-Akron-Cleveland corridors, are the subject of an on-going MIS, will not be considered here. Corridors 2 (Elyria) and 3 (Medina) are in the NEORail II third tier, or long-term, and, presumably, will not be developed for a number of years. Issues in those corridors will be considered best closer to the time of their development. Transportation issues in those corridors and throughout the region will be impacted by the operation of commuter rail in several other corridors, and the transportation issues should be considered in light of the pre-existence of commuter rail. Finally, the travel markets served by Corridor 2 (Elyria) substantially overlap with those served by Corridor 1 (Lakewood-Lorain), and therefore many of the issues applicable to Corridor 1 are the same as those that would be identified for Corridor 2. Current and Future Transportation Problems and Opportunities in the Corridors The major trends that are potentially impacting transportation policy in the Cleveland region over the coming decades present differing and often conflicting points of view: Trends that could make efficient development of new public transportation services difficult: − population and employment that is growing very slowly but dispersing rapidly; PARSONS Final Report BRINCKERHOFF December 2001 Northeast Ohio Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Phase II Page 2 − Downtown Cleveland, while still the region’s largest employment concentration, is projected to diminish in its relative importance as an employment center over the next 25 years. − suburban development patterns that are scattered, self-contained and of low density − increasing numbers of suburb-to-suburb and reverse commute trips that are difficult to serve with public transit. Trends that potentially favor future investment in new regional public transportation: − an aging population that will require and demand public transportation in some form, most likely at levels above what exists today − increasing recognition of the environmental and social consequences of dependency on the private auto − increasing awareness of the effect of transportation convenience and connectivity on the region’s economic vitality and ability to achieve economic growth. − increasing scarcity of fossil fuel, with growing uncertainty as to sources and stability of price. Population Trends projected by NOACA generally show a dispersion of population and employment, the continuation of a process of suburbanization that began more than 50 years ago. Unless steps are taken to reverse, these trends, particularly the increasing suburbanization of employment, as well as the growth in employment participation, will continue to show dispersion which could point to increased auto use and possible decrease in transit effectiveness. Table 1, below, shows the population in 1990 and a population projection for 2025 for the five counties in the NOACA region. The regional population is expected to increase by 60,000 persons over this 35 year period, an increase over the period of less than 3% and a rate of annual increase of less than 0.1%. However, this small change in population, effectively a projection of no regional growth over a 35-year period, masks anticipated migration within the region—continued dispersion of population from Cleveland and Cuyahoga County to the surrounding counties. As the table shows, Cuyahoga County is projected to lose more than 90,000 persons over the 35 year period, while all of the surrounding counties in the NOACA region (as well as the bordering counties of Portage and Summit in the AMATS region, information for which is not shown) are posting population increases. As a result, Cuyahoga County’s proportion of the region’s population drops over the period from more than two thirds to 61%. The least developed counties in the region—Medina and Geauga—are those projected to have the highest rates of population growth over the 35-year period. Given the low-density development pattern characteristic of current, auto-oriented residential development, this dispersion of the population presents the region with conditions that makes operation of public transportation—whether bus or rail—more difficult. Another population trend likely to have a significant impact on transportation in the region is the shift in growth from east side to west side suburbs. For many years, outward migration in the Cleveland area has been more pronounced on the east side than on the west side, but NOACA projections indicate that population growth will shift significantly to the west side suburbs over the next 25 years. Lorain and Medina Counties are projected to grow by 118,000 people by 2025, while Lake and Geauga are projected to grow by only 22,000. Almost 85 percent of the PARSONS Final Report /RINCKERHOFF December 2001 Northeast Ohio Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Phase II Page 3 residential growth in the NOACA region, therefore, is projected to occur to the west and southwest of Cleveland. Thus, the center of gravity of population in the region is forecast to move westward. Table 1: Change in NOACA Region Population by County, 1990 to 2025 1990 2025 Change County Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Lorain 265,163 12.8% 319,143 15.0% 53,980 20.4% Cuyahoga 1,387,937 67.1% 1,297,427 61.0% -90,510 -6.5% Lake 213,309 10.3% 223,741 10.5% 10,432 4.9% Geauga 80,285 3.9% 102,155 4.8% 21,870 27.2% Medina 121,073 5.9% 185,320 8.7% 64,247 53.1% Total 2,067,767 100.0% 2,127,786 100.0% 60,019 2.9% Employment The projected loss of more than 100,000 jobs in Cuyahoga County over the 35 year period is even more pronounced than its loss of population. While Cuyahoga County will remain the region’s greatest concentration of employment, the county’s proportion of the NOACA region’s total employment will decline from just over three-fourths to less than two-thirds. These projected losses are more than made up by anticipated employment gains in surrounding counties. Two less-developed counties, Geauga and Medina, will gain the most proportionally, with employment more than doubling in Geauga and nearly doubling in Medina. Lake County is projected to gain the most, in raw numbers, with more than 66,000 additional jobs in that county over the 35-year period. Continued employment dispersion could result in fewer dense employment nodes that are attractive as a public transit destinations. The population growth west of the Cuyahoga River is not matched by employment growth, which is projected to be far greater in the eastern suburban counties than in the west. Employment in Lorain and Medina Counties is projected to grow by only 48,000 by 2025, while Lake and Geauga Counties are projected to grow in employment by more than 101,000 jobs. Thus, the center of gravity of employment in the region is forecast to move eastward. The projected spatial disconnect between population and employment growth, coupled with the dispersion of employment and population over a larger area, is likely to lead to a pronounced cross-regional daily commuting movement against a background of more dispersed trips that are difficult to serve with public transit service. PARSONS Final Report /RINCKERHOFF December 2001 Northeast Ohio Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Phase II Page 4 Table 2: Change in NOACA Region Employment by County, 1990 to 2025 1990 2025 Change County Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Lorain 118,065 9.8% 124,816 10.0% 6,751 5.7% Cuyahoga 903,465 75.3% 803,121 64.2% -100,344 -11.1% Lake 103,425 8.6% 169,609 13.6% 66,184 64.0% Geauga 28,390 2.4% 63,332 5.1% 34,942 123.1% Medina 47,164 3.9% 89,174 7.1% 42,010 89.1% Total 1,200,509 100.0% 1,250,052 100.0% 49,543 4.1% GIS analysis of 1990 Census Data and 2002 projections of population, employment and other demographic data about the region, which is found in the Appendix A to this report, further document the outward movement of population and employment from Cleveland; falling population density and shifts in income distribution in the region.